Tim Harding - Chess Cafe - The Kibitzer (Columns With FENs)

From the Archives...
Since it came online in 1996, ChessCafe.com has presented thousands of

articles, reviews, columns and the like for the enjoyment of its worldwide
readership. This high quality material remains available in the ChessCafe.
com Archives. However, we decided that the occasional selection from the
archives posted publicly online might be a welcomed addition to the regular
fare.
Purchases from our

chess shop help keep
ChessCafe.com freely
accessible:
Watch for an item to be posted online periodically throughout each month.

We will update the ChessCafe.com home page whenever there has been a
"new" item posted here. We hope you enjoy From the Archives...
From the
Archives
Hosted by
Mark Donlan
Translate this page
The Kibitzer by Tim Harding

The Kibitzer Goes To War
There are two annual weekend tournaments in Ireland that attract masters
from Britain. A few months ago I wrote about the Kilkenny tournament held
in early December each year; the other is Bunratty, played each February in
the small tourist-oriented village a few miles from Shannon International
Airport. Bunratty is often the first port of call for American tourists, with its
famous castle (where mediaeval-style banquets are held regularly) and its folk
village (where you can admire and buy Irish craft works and see how life
went on in the traditional Irish cottage before the days of electrification).
Kilkenny, being nearer to Dublin, attracts the larger entry but players have to
put up with fairly uncomfortable and surroundings; for many players that is its
charm and they enjoy the social occasion more than the chess. The calm and
fairly luxurious surroundings of Fitzpatrick's Bunratty Shamrock Hotel make
for a different style of tournament; the hotel rooms are better and there is a
swimming pool and fitness centre for families. With the stormy weather you
are liable to get in February in the west of Ireland it's very necessary!
Play through and download

the games from
ChessCafe.com in the
ChessBase Game Viewer.
Why You Lose at Chess

by Tim Harding
This year there were three six-round tournaments held over the weekend
February 14-16, with twenty players contesting the Bunratty Masters. A rating
of 1900 was required to get in the tournament and in fact the field included
three FIDE GMs (including Russian-born Alexander Baburin who now lives
here and played top board for Ireland in the 1996 Olympiad), two IMs and
two Irish National Masters plus one of the top players in the Irish Ladies
team, plus myself. So there were no easy games and it is not surprising that
the eventual joint winners could score only four and a half points.
The rate of play deserves a mention, since although it is standard in Ireland
(except for local leagues and the national championship), it may differ from
what readers are accustomed to. In the masters section, you have one hour,
forty-five minutes to complete all your moves in the game, with special blitz
rules coming into operation when you are down to under five minutes on the
clock, provided that you have made forty moves by then. I greatly dislike this
format, and Jonathan Speelman (one of the GMs at Bunratty this year) said
"It's like an axe hanging over your head."
I much prefer the old method of forty (or thirty-five) moves in ninety minutes
followed by a fifteen-minute blitz finish, but this was unpopular with
tournament controllers as it requires the clock to be wound back precisely
fifteen minutes when the players complete the first time control. However, it
is more like real chess to have a genuine time control before the blitz, and in
Counter Gambits
by Tim Harding
The Fighting Fajarowicz

by Tim Harding
fact that makes it more likely games will finish in under the full allotted time
for the session, since a good many games will be decided at the first control.
The new generation of digital clocks should make it possible to pre-program a
time control of this kind without requiring any wind-back so maybe in a few
years we shall see the superior time control reinstated. However, this year
there were just two Saitek digital clocks in use at Bunratty; unfortunately,
board three was the highest I got to so I didn't have the chance to try one. A
warning, however: the clock shows a countdown of time remaining in hours
and minutes until you get within your last five minutes. So when you have
320 or 340 seconds left it is showing "00.05" but then suddenly it will jump to
"04.59" and start counting you down to extinction.
In the first round the top half of the draw (on ratings) played the bottom half
so there were few surprises but Round Two proved a fairly successful round
for the Irish players against the visitors, except that I was squashed by the new
Scottish star, IM Jonathan Rowson. Speelman got into enormous trouble
against Mel O'Cinneide, who had played on the Irish team in the Moscow
olympiad. Speelman had about eight minutes to Mel's four but used up nearly
all his time advantage trying to find a way to save his weak pawns. By the
time Black broke through, he had only a minute left and rejected the best way
to win a pawn with a winning endgame. Instead he chose a simplifying line
that gave Speelman little alternative but to accept the accompanying draw
offer. Speelman's rivals were disgusted that Black hadn't gone for the win but
in Mel's place, against a former world championship candidate, a lot of us
would have done the same. Unfortunately the final stages of this game were
not in the bulletins. The problem is that these blitz finishes were not all
recorded on the scoresheets and if one was still playing (I was busy losing to
O'Cinneide) it wasn't possible to record the moves; the bulletin editor really
needs to take that responsibility on himself.
In the same round, Edinburgh-based Irish IM Dr. Mark Orr defeated the other
GM visitor.
Orr, Mark (2360) King, Daniel (2535)
Bunratty Masters op (2), 1997
French Defence [C02]
1 d4 e6 2 e4 d5 3 e5 c5 4 c3 Nc6 5 Nf3 Bd7 6 a3 f6 7 Bd3 Qc7 8 Bf4 0-0-0 9
0-0 c4 10 Bc2
[FEN "2kr1bnr/ppqb2pp/2n1pp2/3pP3/2pP1B2
/P1P2N2/1PB2PPP/RN1Q1RK1 b - - 0 10"]
Aiming to open the b-file when sparks can fly as usual with opposite-side
castled kings. Rather than try to hold up the advance with....Na5, Black gets
on with his own counterplay. 10...h6 11 b3 g5 12 Be3 f5 13 a4 cxb3 14 Bxb3
Na5 15 Na3 Bxa3 16 Rxa3 Ne7 17 Bc2 Nc4 18 Ra2 Be8 19 Ne1 f4 20 Bc1
Bg6 21 Bxg6 Nxg6 22 Nc2 h5 23 Na3 a6 24 Nxc4 dxc4 25 Ba3 Qc6 26 Re1
Nh4
[FEN "2kr3r/1p6/p1q1p3/4P1pp/P1pP1p1n/
B1P5/R4PPP/3QR1K1 w - - 0 27"]
Threatening mate on g2 and planning a sacrificial follow-up. 27 f3 g4? Black

thinks he is getting a strong attack but 27...Nf5 or 27...Rd7 look safer. 28 Be7!
Nxf3+ The point, but it's unsound. 29 gxf3 Rdg8 30 Kh1 gxf3 31 Rf2 Rg2 32
Rxg2 fxg2+ 33 Kg1 Qd5 34 Bh4 The blockade means that the bishop is
much better than the pawns and the one on g2 just protects White's king! 34...
Kd7 35 Qb1 f3 36 Qg6 Kc6 37 Qg7 Rb8? There is no active square for the
rook but 37...Rc8 was better. 38 Qe7 The start of a neat finishing manoeuvre.
38...Rc8 39 Rb1 Rc7 40 Qe8+ Qd7 Now comes the coup-de-grace. 41 d5+ 10
[FEN "4Q3/1prq4/p1k1p3/3PP2p/P1 p4B/

2P2p2/6pP/1R4K1 b - - 0 41"]
Black resigned, for if 41...Kc5 (41...exd5 42 Qg6+ mates: 42...Kc5 43 Qb6#;

or 41...Kxd5 42 Rd1+ wins the queen) 42 Qf8+ mates; e.g., 42...Kxd5 43 Qxf3
+ Kc5 (43...Kxe5 44 Bg3#) 44 Bf2+ Qd4 45 Bxd4#.
Then the visitors started to fight back. In Round Three King got on the
winning trail by beating Baburin and in Round Five Speelman beat Orr after
being held to a draw by Rowson..
Since I play correspondence chess almost exclusively these days, and am very
busy editing my new Chess Mail magazine, I found I was very rusty for overthe-board play. Having decided in advance to try some new openings instead
of my normal repertoire was probably a mistake, in retrospect. My own
moment of fun came in Round Four:
Connolly, Suzanne Harding, Tim (2225)
Bunratty Masters op (4), 1997
Ruy Lopez [C63]
1 e4 Nc6 2 Nf3 e5 3 Bb5 f5
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/pppp2pp/2n5/1B2pp2/4P3/
5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 4"]
A good psychological move for the Saturday night round, which meets with a
timid reaction. Unfortunately I know almost zero about the Jaenisch/
Schliemann and after 4 d3 (instead of the normal 4 Nc3), it was absolutely
zero. 4 d3 d6? Black should play 4...fxe4 5 dxe4 Nf6. 5 Bc4 Even after this
tempo sacrifice, which cannot be White's best, I am still worse but I
misjudged this and played an abominable pseudo-active move. 5...Qf6? 6 Nc3
Of course. Now after 6...Nge7 simply 7 Nb5 would force a groveling king
move. 6...Be6 7 Bxe6?! I was more worried about 7 Nd5. 7...Qxe6 8 exf5?
This throws away any last vestige of advantage for White. 8...Qxf5 9 Nd5 0-00 10 0-0 Nf6 11 Ne3 Qd7 12 c4
[FEN "2kr1b1r/pppq2pp/2np1n2/4p3/2P5/
3PNN2/PP3PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b - - 0 12"]
Black now plays a good move. My bishop looks bad and White appears to be
gathering a storm on the queenside but in three moves the whole picture
changes. 12...g6! 13 Qa4? This loses a tempo because Black is never obliged
to play....Kb8. 13...Bg7 14 Rb1 e4 15 dxe4 Nxe4 Now White saw that b4
cannot be played because of....Nc3. She said afterwards that she should have
developed her bishop at move thirteen. 16 Qc2 Rde8 17 b4 Rhf8 18 b5 Just
in time, as Black seriously intended to play....Rxf3 followed by ...Qh3 and....
Ng5 with a murderous attack. 18...Nd4 19 Nxd4 Bxd4 20 Rb3 Qe6 Among
other things, this provides a flight square for the K at d7, but the main point is
to guard the knight and so relieve the rook for other duties (see move twentytwo). 21 Rd3 Bb6 22 a4 Black must bring more pressure to bear before White
can organise a4-a5. The idea is to double or even treble on the f-file. 22...Rf7
23 Nd1?? Apparently protecting f2 still further (with a view to Be3) but
actually having the opposite effect. I was looking for a Nxf2 combination all
the time but it didn't work until now. It was virtually the first reply that
occurred to me but a horrible shock for White. 23 f3 was the least evil. Black
has no immediate winning plan then, although Ref8 is possible to maintain the
knight on e4 until the bishops are exchanged, after which c5 beckons.
[FEN "2k1r3/ppp2r1p/1b1pq1p1/1P6/P1P1n3/
3R4/2Q2PPP/2BN1RK1 b - - 0 23"]
23...Nxf2! 24 Be3 Nxd1! 0-1 Even stronger than Nxd3 which she expected;
that wins an exchange but Nxd1 wins a piece and/or mates. If 25 Bxb6 (25
Rxf7 Nxe3), 25...Rxf1+ 26 Kxf1 Qe1# so White resigned.
After Round Four, the leaders had there points and I was in a group half a
point behind. Round Five was played on the Sunday morning. Orr lost to
Speelman while King obtained two bishops against a rook against Rowson in
a simplified position. Finally King beat the Scot with about five seconds left
on his clock. I lost to O'Cinneide so that was the end of my challenge.
In the last round. King and Speelman agreed a GM draw to finish on 4/6
leaving O'Cinneide the chance to beat Baburin and finish as sole winner with
5, or Baburin to win and join them in a tie for first. The Novgorod-born Irish
GM tried hard but in the end he did not have enough advantage to win so the
professionals' cynical decision to sign peace after eighteen moves was
vindicated.
Returning to the OTB battlefield after a long break is tough for
correspondence players, especially those of us over forty. The problem is that
it's addictive and even if you do not do well, you feel that next time, with a bit
more practice and openings preparation, it will be different. For the time
being, however, it's back to kibitzing!
ChessCafe.com. All Rights Reserved.
This article first appeared at ChessCafe.com in March 1997.
[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]

[Endgame Study] [The Skittles Room] [ChessCafe Archives]
[ChessCafe Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe.com]
[Contact ChessCafe.com]
2011 BrainGamz, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
"ChessCafe.com" is a registered trademark of BrainGamz, Inc.

Since it came online in 1996, ChessCafe.com has published thousands of
articles, reviews, and columns. This high quality material remains available in
the ChessCafe.com Archives. However, we decided that the occasional
selection from the archives might be a welcome addition to the regular fare.
We hope you enjoy From the Archives...
Purchases from our

accessible:
From the
Archives
Hosted by
Kyler Donlan
Translate this page
The Kibitzer and the Even More Complete Najdorf

The recent arrival of a new book by grandmaster John Nunn (The Complete
Najdorf: 6 Bg5 from Batsford/ICE, 320 pages) inevitably prompts musings on
bygone days. In England they say that expertise at snooker (a game of the
billiards family, the grandaddy of pool) is a sure sign of a mis-spent youth; the
same could be said about the Najdorf Sicilian, 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4
Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6.
In the days when the Kibitzer was a schoolboy player, in the mid-1960s, the
Najdorf was all the rage. At our school, the chess club was run by an
enthusiastic young math teacher and thanks to him the school library took out
a subscription to Chess Archives, the English edition then published by Euwe
in the Netherlands. This was a good source of information about current
master practice, with lots of games and analysis you couldn't find anywhere
else in English at that time. It took the form of loose-leaf sheets with punched
holes that you fitted into a binder so that articles on the same opening could
be kept together.
For a few years I played the Poisoned Pawn but I kept an eye on
developments in other lines too. In the 1970s I gave up playing the Sicilian
with Black and with White 6 Bg5 became my weapon of choice. I especially
remember a few encounters in the London League where competition was
very keen. The Richmond club, led by their young star (later grandmaster)
Michael Stean, was a hotbed of Najdorf players and as Athenaeum team
captain I generally managed to ensure I had White against Richmond. I never
met Stean as I wasn't playing top board but my opponents were generally
around the 2100-2300 mark.

the games from
It's a curious thing but I usually found it easier to win against the higher-rated
Najdorf players, maybe because they went all out to win, whereas on the rarer
occasions that a player below my rating chose the Najdorf they might get a
draw. The higher-rated player may opt for a dangerous continuation, hoping
to induce an error or unleash a novelty, where the average player may stick to
the safer sub-variation.
The most memorable of these games came in the 1973 match against
Richmond. My opponent was one M.J. Lightfoot and the game was played a
few days after I had returned from competing in a Wijk aan Zee Reserve
Master Group, so I was on fairly good form.
I probably won't fully succeed in recreating my thoughts as I was then a much
stronger OTB player than I am now, but I did make a few notes at the time.
Before looking at the game, I want to digress by saying a little about Nunn's
book and its prehistory, although this isn't strictly speaking a book review.
The Batsford openings series began in the late 1960s after a couple of years of
Sicilian Najdorf 6.Bg5

by Alexei Shirov
Grandmaster Repertoire 6
The Sicilian Defence
by Lubomir Ftacnik
Sicilian Najdorf 6.Be3

by Milos Pavlovic
the publication Chessman Quarterly edited by International Master R.G.

Wade. Bob Wade used to lecture on chess from time to time at both Oxford
and Cambridge Universities and recruited many of the young masters and
experts there to write for first the magazine and then for Batsford; part of his
reasoning was that we had learned at university how to research and analyse
material and present it in an organised way.
For one of the first Batsford books, however, a "name" author was required
and Belgian grandmaster A. O'Kelly de Galway wrote the first Najdorf book.
It was a big success but Najdorf books date fast and in 1976 Batsford issued a
replacement, Sicilian Najdorf (126 pages), by Michael Stean. I still have my
copy in which the author has inscribed: "You'll never be able to find all the
mistakes."
The next generation came in 1982, Sicilian Defence: Najdorf Variation,
essentially an updating by Nunn of Stean's book, and sixty pages longer. In
1988, Nunn first flew solo with Najdorf for the Tournament Player (298
pages) and now we have a bigger book still, dealing with only 6 Bg5. A
second book on the rest of the Najdorf will follow. So by making a much
larger book (in two volumes) it is possible to make some claim to
'completeness' for the first time, and Nunn certainly aims to live up to his
title! This is a very thorough book and what follows should be read as an
addendum not criticism.
One of the problems, for a practical player, of investing much time in
studying a variation like the Najdorf, is you spend a lot of time on positions
arising at move fifteeen, twenty, or later; all this work can be rendered
irrelevant by an improvement (or just a fashionable alternative) a couple of
moves earlier on; for a correspondence player this is aggravated by the factor
that the novelty or fashion change may arise while the game is in progress,
after you are committed but before the line you are hoping for has been
reached.
One area where Nunn's book is very useful is indicating that, for example,
analysing line Y is a waste of time because three or four improvements in
various sub-variations would be required to resuscitate it, whereas line Z may
be a good bet as only one or two novelties are required. The example in this
column is of the line Y variety, I fear; if I thought it was a type-Z I might keep
it secret for as few years more!
Nevertheless, many type-Y byways in the Najdorf have intrinsic interest.
Indeed I told Stean about the following game (reminded him, I should say, as
he was present when it was played) after White's stunning twenty-first move
below failed to appear in his 1976 book, but space was tight and he (or Nunn)
evidently did not consider White's idea sound enough to be worth a mention
in the next edition. But I still wonder: The line has resurfaced because of the
far greater detail in Nunn's new book, thanks in part to taking into a
consideration a large number of correspondence games which CCgrandmaster Maurice Johnson made available to him.
The Harding-Lightfoot game began, as Najdorfs generally do, by rattling out
a stream of theory, interrupted by pauses as each player wonders which option
to take, so that by the time the diagrammed position was reached we had each
probably used up half our time, while still being in known territory.
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Bg5 e6 7 f4 Be7
I had given up the Poisoned Pawn in the late 1960s after one particularly bad
mangling in the line 7...Qb6 8 Qd2 Qxb2 9 Rb1 Qa3 10 f5. It was much more
fun when opponents chose 10 e5, naively thinking they were going to smash
you up. Sometimes I had played 7...h6 8 Bh4 Qb6 but objectively it's inferior
as Nunn's new magnum opus confirms. If Black doesn't want to play the main
line with 7...Be7 there's the Polugaevsky, 7...b5, which Nunn says is playable.
But in 1973 that had not really percolated down to the level where I was
playing.
8 Qf3 Qc7 9 0-0-0 Nbd7
Another main division occurs here. This game was played less than six
months after the Spassky-Fischer match in Reykjavik. Spassky had played 10
Bd3 here in Game Fifteen, sending theory off in a whole new direction, and I
reckoned that Richmond would have concentrated their recent attention on
that move. Also I had invested many hours in studying the old 10 g4 without
being able to put it into practice before so I stuck to the old ways.
10 g4 b5 11 Bxf6 Nxf6
Black has three ways to recapture but I never met 11...gxf6, on which Nunn
devotes eight pages to proving an advantage for White. It is interesting to note
that Stean's 1976 book says: "As always in these lines, 11...Bxf6? allowing 12
Bxb5 axb5 13 Ndxb5 followed by 14 Nxd6+ would be very good for White."
I won a game as White that went this way, against a man called van Dop at
the Amsterdam IBM Reserves Masters in 1973; this was never published and
Nunn quotes two 1990s examples instead. The two 1980s Nunn books just
give 11 Bxf6? 12 Bxb5 in parentheses, so an indication of just how more
complete the new book is that Nunn now admits that "This sacrifice does not
have the lethal effect once supposed." He gives a column of analysis to show
that 12...Rb8! is unclear, so that White might do better with 12 g5. So in the
Najdorf you can never be sure that a door has closed forever!
12 g5 Nd7
In this position Nunn says that the main winning try is the pawn offer 13 f5
which indeed I was aware of since those Archives articles, but I never
investigated it deeply. 13 a3 was the older move and I chose that.
13 a3 Rb8 14 Bh3
If 10 g4 was one step away from the prevailing fashion of 1973, and 13 a3 the
second, then with this move I took a third and even more definite step away
from the trendy path. 14 h4 had been introduced circa 1969 but I stuck with
the lines I had studied in my schooldays and which I then believed to be
superior to their theoretical reputation. In Nunn's book, 14 Bh3 receives just
under two pages. Since White threatens to sacrifice his bishop on e6, Black
has little choice and the play to move 17 is virtually forced.
14...Nc5 15 Rhg1 b4 16 axb4 Rxb4 17 f5
[FEN "2b1k2r/2q1bppp/p2pp3/2n2PP1/
1r1NP3/2N2Q1B/1PP4P/2KR2R1 b k - 0 17"]
17...Qb7
The 1982 book calls this "safest," a comment which has been carried forward
into the subsequent Nunn books but I wonder has he really looked closely at
the diagram position? The alternatives are 17...Qa5 (comparatively recently
introduced), 17...Bd7?! (analysed in the 1988 book only) and 17...Qb6 which
invites a fork on d5 (after 18 fxe6 fxe6 19 Nxe6) so that White can get rook
and pawn for two minor pieces. About two weeks after the present game I
reached the same position again in the League but my lower-rated opponent
preferred 17...Qb6 when the 1980s Nunn/Stean assessment "with perhaps an
edge for White, but most likely a draw" is a fairly accurate description of
what happened after two sessions of play. As Stean wrote, 17...Qb7 is less
forcing but avoids the combination and allows the queen to defend along the
second rank. Its advantage for White is that it gives White time to cook up
something:
18 f6 gxf6 19 gxf6 Bf8 20 b3 a5
This was an O'Kelly suggestion, threatening a4, and it's where Stean stopped
in his 1976 book. Instead 20 Bh6+ 21 Kb2 Bd7 22 Qh5 Be3 23 Qxh7! Rf8 24
Rg8! +- Buljovcic-Bertok, Yugoslav Championship 1965, a reference which
resurfaces in Nunn after 25 years forgotten. He also mentions 20...Qb6!?
[FEN "2b1kb1r/1q3p1p/3ppP2/p1n5/1r1NP3/
1PN2Q1B/2P4P/2KR2R1 w k - 0 21"]
21 Nd5!!?
I have waited twenty-one years to see this move in a theory book; presumably
Nunn found out about it in the CC database he received from Johnson. ECO B
gives only 21 Qe3 (unclear) and 21 Rge1? (plain bad). I found 21 Nd5 at the
board, by what mental process and at what expenditure of time I cannot recall,
but later I searched Bob Wade's library thoroughly for a precedent. Somewhat
to my disappointment, I found in the March 1970 issue of Fernschach that it
had twice been played in German CC tournaments of the late 1960s. KarlHeinz Maeder (later a World Correspondence Championship finalist) lost
both of them. After that, and the drawn game, mentioned above, I never again
tried to play this line but I would be interested to find out whether or not its
soundness (or otherwise) can be established. Naturally if you give the position
to a computer it will tell you White lacks compensation for the sacrificed
piece, but with the long-term exposure of Black's king it's not easy to come to
a final conclusion about it.
21...exd5
Black has to accept. Breum-Maeder, corr (BdF/M/176) 1967, went 21...a4 22
Qc3 Rxd4 23 Rxd4 exd5 24 Bxc8 Qxc8 25 Rxa4 d4 26 Rxd4 Bh6+ 27 Kb1
Bf4 28 Rd5 (clear White advantage says Nunn) 28 Qe6 29 Qc4 Be5 30 b4
Nb7 31 Qb5+ Qd7 32 Rxe5+ dxe5 33 Qxe5+ Qe6 34 Qxe6+ fxe6 35 Rg7 Nd8
36 b5 1-0.
22 exd5!?
This was actually the first new move of the game! Whether it's best I am not
sure but no doubt I gave it a lot of thought at the time. W.Frey - Maeder, 11th
West German CC Ch prelims 1968-71, went instead 22 Bxc8 Qxc8 23 exd5
Qb7? 24 Rde1+ Kd7? (Frey wrote in Fernschach that Black must play 24...
Kd8.) 25 Rg7 Kc8 26 Re8+ Kd7 27 Rb8!! (27 Qe2 Qxd5) 27 Qxb8 28 Rxf7+
Ke8 29 Qh5 1-0. The critical point here is Black's twenty-third move. Frey
wrote that 23 Rxd4 is the alternative and Nunn's new book then gives 24
Rxd4 Nd7 unclear. My notes show that when I demonstrated this game to
Stean, he suggested 23...a4 24 Rde1+ Kd7; e.g., 25 Qg4+ Kc7 26 Ne6+ Qxe6
27 Qxb4 Qxd5 unclear. My move avoids this line and, by postponing the
bishop exchange, gives Black more to think about, a good practical point
against the clock.
22...Bxh3
Nunn also cites another correspondence game Fechner-August (East German
Ch 1975) which went 22...Rxd4 23 Rxd4 Nd7 24 Qc3 Nb6 25 Re1+ Kd8 26
Bxc8 Bh6+ 27 Kb1 Qxc8 28 Qxa5 with an edge to White according to Nunn.
The remaining moves were 28 Qc5 29 Qa1 Bg5 30 Rd3 Re8 31 Rxe8+ Kxe8
32 Rg3 Qxd5 33 Qc3 Kd7 34 Rg1 Bd2 35 Qh3 + Kc7 36 Rd1 Qe4 37 Qh5
Bc3 38 Qxf7+ Nd7 39 Qd5 Qxd5 40 Rxd5 Nxf6 41 Rd3 Be5 42 Rf3 Kc6 43
c4 Kc5 44 Kc2 Kd4 45 h3 Nh5 46 Rf7 h6 47 Rc7 Nf4 48 Rh7 h5 49 Rh6 Kc5
50 Rh7 draw.
23 Qxh3 a4?
This is where Black finally goes wrong, overlooking the reply no doubt. He
doesn't have time to launch a queenside counter-attack but must look to the
defence of his king. I analysed this game with Wade later and he came up
with 23...Qd7 24 Rde1+ Kd8 25 Ne6+! Kc8 26 Qc3 unclear/White advantage
(Fritz4 disagrees); maybe 24 Qe3+ is better.
24 Nc6!
This takes away the d8 flight square and covers e7, so Re1+ becomes a deadly
threat. Black's reply is forced after which White regains his piece with a
winning position since Black's king's rook and bishop remain idle bystanders.
24...Re4 25 Rde1 Qd7 26 Rxe4+ Nxe4 27 Qe3 Qf5 28 Re1 Qxd5 29 Nb4
Qf5 30 Qxe4+ Qxe4 31 Rxe4+ Kd7 32 bxa4 Rg8 1-0
Here, as was the way with League games in those days (the time control was
at move thirty), the game was adjourned and Black resigned without
resuming.
This article first appeared at ChessCafe.com in April 1997.


Purchases from our

accessible:
From the
Archives
Translate this page
Chess Computers Aren't Really So Clever

It is time for The Kibitzer to take a look at the world of computer chess. This
article was written, to meet the deadline, after the first two games in the
Kasparov-Deep Blue 2 match. By the time most of you read this column the
match will be over, so I shall touch on it tangentially but not attempt to report
on it.
Many others are doing that, and my own report will appear in the 7/1997 issue
of my magazine Chess Mail.
I have been following chess and computing since the 1970s; prior to that
computer chess was largely the preserve of university research on mainframe
or minicomputers. The first Chess Challenger "dedicated" chess computer
appeared in European shops for the Christmas market in 1977, followed in the
next few years by various competitors; many of these were very crude but
some of the top-of-the-range models could set ordinary club players serious
problems by the mid-1980s. It was at least another decade before PCS became
fast and powerful enough to run a program that could rival the performance of
the dedicated computers that could do nothing except play chess.

the games from
Why You Lose at Chess

by Tim Harding
Rethinking the Chess Pieces

by Andy Soltis
Some of you may have read my two books on the subject, both long out of
print now, The Chess Computer Book (Pergamon 1981) and The New Chess
Computer Book (Pergamon 1985). These dealt with the early days of
commercial chess-playing computers; as part of the research for the first
book, in March 1981 I organised a two-day humans v computers tournament,
Computachess 81, at Dublin's ancient university, Trinity College with twentyfour human and sixteen computer opponents. Computer v computer pairings
were avoided whenever possible. This event was hardly a scientific test but
was amusing and some interesting results were generated.
Here is an example from the 1981 event in which the Sargon 2.5 program
(White) defeated a young player rated 1609: 1 Nf3 d6 2 Nc3!? e5 3 d4 exd4 4
Nxd4 Nf6 5 e4 Be7 (Suddenly it's a Philidor Defence.) 6 Bc4 Bd7 (Too
passive; 6...0-0 followed by ...c6 is better, striving for ...d5 and maybe even
threatening ...Nxe4.) 7 Bf4 0-0 8 0-0 Nc6 9 Nxc6 Bxc6 10 Qd4 Re8 11 Rfd1
Bf8. Even early computers tended to be good in such open classical positions.
12 e5! dxe5 13 Bxf7+! Kxf7.
Houdini 2 UCI
[FEN "r2qrb2/ppp2kpp/2b2n2/4p3/3Q1B2/
2N5/PPP2PPP/R2R2K1 w - - 0 14"]
Black should have tried 13...Kh8! since although 14 Qc4 wins the exchange
the computer would still have had opportunities to slip up afterwards. 14 Qc4
+ Bd5 15 Nxd5 Re6 16 Nxc7 Qc8 17 Bxe5 Ne8 18 Rd8! 1-0. I didn't run a
similar event for the second edition of the book because by then the
performance of computers against humans under match conditions was
becoming better known, with many people entering "their" computers in
weekend tournaments, but I did run a match between computers and players
from my local club.
In recent years the top computers have been good enough to give strong
human players a tough game as the series of AEGON man v machine
tournaments has shown, although it is encouraging that a human master won
the 1997 event with a score of 100%!
By the mid-1980s chess computers were becoming big business and it became
nearly impossible to keep up with the rate of development. I left the job of
testing new models and programs to others; nowadays Eric Hallsworth in
England and a team of testers in Sweden publish regular computer rating lists
and write about computer performance in Eric's bi-monthly magazine
Selective Search. You can also follow computer chess debates in the Usenet
newsgroup rec.games.chess.computer although you may find much of the
topics very technical.
Programming a computer to play chess is not easy and those who do it well
have usually made a career of it, improving their knowledge incrementally
and also benefitting from the rapid advances in hardware (especially faster
processors and cheaper RAM) to do things that were just impossible or too
expensive in the 1970s and 1980s. Undoubtedly many of the latest
programming ideas are trade secrets but you can get a fair idea of what's
going on behind the scenes from Selective Search.
The theoretical basis for programming computers to play chess goes back to
the paper Claude E. Shannon of Bell Telephone Labs wrote on the subject in
the late 1940s. The first computer world championship was held in 1974 and
computer championships became fairly regular events from the late 1970s,
with separate microcomputer events from which the programs running on big
hardware were excluded. The early days of 1970s computer chess competition
can still be read about in the collection Chess Skill In Man and Machine
edited Peter W. Frey (Springer-Verlag 1977) and The Machine Plays Chess?
by Alex G. Bell (Pergamon, 1978).
"Artificial intelligence" was a buzzword in the 1980s and several books were
published dealing with the academic research into chess programming, many
of these being papers read at conferences. Some of these topics may have
been blind alleys; others pointed the way towards Deep Blue 2. The first
Advances In Computer Chess conference book came out in 1977, followed by
others in 1980, 1982 and 1986. Most of these papers are very technical.
A selection of previously published material was collected and edited by
David Levy (chief organiser of the upcoming Mind Sports Olympiad) in
1988, under the title Computer Chess Compendium.
The trend through the 1980s and 1990s has been to eschew some of the
theoretical concepts seen in these papers, which aimed to try to make a

computer play chess more like a human master. Botvinnik's much-hailed
Pioneer project (which he described in the late 1960s) never came to anything
and that also seems to have been the case, for whatever reason, with other
university-based projects.
Pure "brute-force" programs, that just aimed to defeat opponents by outcalculating them, have the shortcoming that if positions cannot be reached in
which there are favourable continuations, the programs can only win by
exploiting opponents' blunders. Therefore some "intelligence" has to be built
into brute-force programs is required, but one short-cut to this now is to
provide the programs with ever-larger and more sophisticated openings
books. This means that the chances are that the opponent (human or machine)
will make a tactically exploitable error before the program has to start
thinking "strategically." The hardware advances of recent years have made it
ever-easier to concentrate on developing brute-force methods, backed up by
improving the computers' endgame play, which has usually been their
weakest point unless they can reach an endgame that has been completely
"solved".
Even today's very advanced PC programs are still capable of making
surprising mistakes, however. The following case even made me wonder if
today's commercially-oriented programmers were aware of all the academic
literature I mentioned above.
In the current (April-May) issue of Selective Search I read how the
programmers of Hiarcs, one of the stronger PC programs of recent years,
decided to rush out a new version 6 early this year, because of a bug found in
version 5. This bug was discovered by Swedish testers, who play games out to
a finish.
The official statement on the release of HIARCS6 included these sentences:
"After extensive post-release testing at tournament time controls it has been
observed that HAIRCS5 occasionally takes a draw by repetition in a totally
won position. Most users have never seen this, as they will have resigned long
beforehand! However occasionally HAIRCS5 will make a mate
announcement and then go round in circles, allowing the draw instead of
completing the mate!"
This sounded familiar to me, although Eric Hallsworth gave no examples in
his magazine. Then I remembered the COKO incident!
Turn the clock back a quarter of a century to the 1971 ACM tournament. The
program COKO III was White against GENIE in the following position.
[FEN "r3r3/pp6/2pk1p2/6p1/2P1Q3/4P3/
PP2KPPP/5B1R w - - 0 28"]
Here White has an overwhelming material advantage (despite having not

moved two of its pieces) and continued its king-hunt by: 28 c5+! Kxc5 29
Qd4+ Kb5 30 Kd1+ Ka5 31 b4+ Ka4 32 Qc3.
This is the kind of position that probably arose in the HIARCS5 case; its
programmers and testers had the programs set to stop and record a win when
one side had an advantage this big. No doubt if you give this precise position
to HIARCS5, it will win it, but something of this kind must have happened.
Now COKO threatens immediate mate by Qb3 so Black, being a computer,

did not resign but postponed the evil hour by a few checks. 32...Red8+ 33
Kc2 Rd2+ 34 Kxd2 Rd8+ 35 Kc2 Rd2+ 36 Qxd2 It is hard to understand
why COKO took with the queen this time instead of Kxd2 leaving the Qb3
mate in place. Confronted with every variation showing nearly an infinite plus
score, it must have become disorientated, and ywenty-five years later a similar
bug affected HIARCS; probably it gave perpetual check instead of mating.
But this is only the beginning; see what happened next to poor COKO:
36 Ka3 37 Qc3+ Kxa2
Now of course there is a mate in one but apparently nothing in COKO's code
told it mate in one is superior to mate in two or three or four Black does not
threaten to eliminate the mate so COKO continued: 38 Kc1????!
And the game went on: 38...f5 39 Kc2 f4 40 Kc1 g4 41 Kc2 f3 42 Kc1 fxg2
43 Kc2 gxh1=Q I think if HIARCS landed up in this position it would
definitely play Qb2 mate at last but COKO was stuck in a loop, and after 44
Kc1?? Qxf1+ it even lost in the end!
It is extremely improbable that anything like this could befall Deep Blue 2 but
you can never be sure. There could be bugs lurking inside Deep Blue 2 that a
handful of games are insufficient to discover and exploit, even in a six-game
match against the world champion.
The IBM programming team are reported as saying that they no longer find
that PC programs offer worthwhile opposition for Deep Blue 2 so we are
talking here about hardware many times more sophisticated and powerful than
that on which you or I may run a program like HIARCS, Genius, Fritz or
Rebel. It may be that the best of those programs is in no way inferior to Deep
Blue 2 if they were running on identical hardware but I guess we'll never
know.
Even the old rule of thumb that computers are strong in tactical situations, but
prone to error in positional games, is going out of the window now. With
Deep Blue 2 playing the first game against Kasparov like a maniac and the
second like Karpov, it's clear that both humans and computers have a lot to
learn about chess!
Israeli grandmaster Yona Kosashvili (rating 2560) was the winner of the 1997
AEGON human v computer tournament in the Netherlands recently. He won
all his games and here is the one from the last round.
Kosashvili CHESSICA The Hague, 1997
1 c4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 e4 This is a relatively unusual move, 3 g3 or 3 Nf3 being
normal. 3...c6 4 d4 According to the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (ECO)
this is an error because of the reply and White is supposed to play 4 Nf3 here.
4...Bb4 ECO says Black has some advantage now, citing the Bulgarian master
Malich as its authority. Perhaps, however, Kosashvili had investigated this
line for himself, or else he just recovered well in the next few moves? 5 dxe5
Many human players are afraid of tactical skirmishes against computers but
they can be won if the master calculates accurately the kind of end-position
which the computer will misjudge. 5...Nxe4 6 Qd4 Qa5 7 Nge2 Nc5 Black
threatens 8...Nb3 winning the exchange so White covers the b3-square. 8 Qd1
d5 Black has a lead in development and probably calculated principally the
variations resulting from captures on d5; now 9 cxd5 Bf5 would give Black a
strong initiative. However, castling would have been safer. 9 a3 White will
demonstrate that the computer's pieces are not so well placed after all. If
Black exchanges on c3 he will clearly stand badly, so... 9...d4
[FEN "rnb1k2r/pp3ppp/2p5/q1n1P3/1bPp4/
P1N5/1P2NPPP/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 0 10"]
White's next move is a deep strategic sacrifice, which will confuse the
computer's evaluation function. 10 axb4!! Not 10 Qxd4 Nb3 nor 10 Nxd4
Bxc3+. For a slight material disadvantage, White now achieves a fine
position. 10...Qxa1 11 Nxd4 Ne6 12 Nb3 Qa6 13 c5 b5 14 Qd6 Computers
have been taught to set a high value on castling so CHESSICA makes it a
priority to enable this. 14...Bd7 14...Qb7 seems better, trying to get the queen
to a useful square (d7 or e7) as soon as possible. 15 f4 Nd8 16 f5 Nb7 The
situation of Black's queen is comical. She has no moves at all. 17 Qd3 0-0 18
f6 Now the castled king position is vulnerable. 18...Re8 19 Qg3 Bg4 The
computer gives up a piece to postpone its doom. If 19...g6 20 Qf4 and mate
can only be postponed by 20...Nd8 21 Qh6 Rxe5+ 22 Be2 Ne6 23 Nd4 Qa1
24 Nxe6 Qxc1+ 25 Qxc1 with an easy win for White.
[FEN "rn2r1k1/pn3ppp/q1p2P2/1pP1P3/
1P4b1/1NN3Q1/1P4PP/2B1KB1R w K - 0 20"]
20 Qxg4 g6 21 Bf4 Nd8 22 Bd3 Ne6 23 0-0 Nd7 24 Bg3 Qb7 25 Ne4 Red8
26 Nd6 Qc7 27 Rc1 Rab8 28 Nd4 Nxd4 29 Qxd4 The machine, in a
completely lost position, now makes the kind of move that shows that
programming a chess computer is not an exact science: 29...Rb6?? 1-0
CHESSICA's operator pulled the plug since there is no reason not to play
cxb6.
The computers won the event overall, but since there were fifty of them and
fifty human players, I don't consider that as significant as the fact that humans
took the first three places.
Maybe the evolution of computer chess will one day even prove the old
Weaver Adams conjecture that White has a forced win at chess? Then we'll
all have to decide whether we are too old to take up the Japanese game of GO
instead.
This article first appeared at ChessCafe.com in May 1997.

[Contact ChessCafe.com] [Advertising]

Purchases from our

accessible:
From the
Archives
Anyone for the Franco-Benoni?

Why play a main line defence that your opponent may know well beyond
move twenty when you may be able to surprise him at move two with 1 e4 e6
2 d4 c5!?
Correspondence Chess
in Britain and Ireland
by Tim Harding
$43.95!
Translate this page
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pp1p1ppp/4p3/2p5/3PP3/
8/PPP2PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 3"]
Black's chief expectation is that White will reply 3 d5, leading to Benoni-like
central pawn structures, which is why if this defence has any accepted name,
it's the Franco-Benoni.
Eminent Victorian Chess

Players
by Tim Harding
$41.95
It was played against me in the preliminary round of the 5th European Team
Correspondence Championship, which obliged me to research it in depth.
the games from
I soon found that authors writing on the French Defence do not consider 2...c5
part of their brief; you won't find it, for example, in The Complete French by
Lev Psakhis. Benoni books do not bother with it either, for White need not
play c2-c4 and if the e-file is opened (which often happens) the central pawn
structure is quite different. The line can also arise via 1 e4 c5 2 d4 e6 but
again there is little help to be had. In his 1981 book The Morra (Smith)
Gambit, Hungarian IM Janos Flesch did give a brief discussion of the line,
pointing out the trap 3 c3 d5 4 exd5? Qxd5! and saying that 3 c3 d5 4 e5 is a
French Defence, Advanced Variation: that's true, but Black has alternatives at
move three, perhaps 3...cxd4.
This is uncharted territory, as is the possibility 3 c4 cxd4 4 Qxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3
Nc6 6 Qd1 Bb4 (Dluski-Drazic, Cattolica open 1993). White's main choice is
between 3 Nf3, consenting to an open Sicilian (although 3...a6, for example,
has been seen), or trying to take advantage by 3 d5. Flesch wrote: "3 d5! ...
ensures a healthy space advantage for White. Black cannot hope for a Benoni
type counterplay, for White puts a piece and not a pawn on c4." However, he
gave no concrete examples to support this argument and 3 d5 gives a kind of
middlegame that may be unwelcome to many 1 e4 players. In fact it is a form
Startling Correspondence
Chess Miniatures
by Tim Harding
of Old Benoni (also reachable 1 d4 c5 2 d5 e6 3 e4) and is considered briefly

under the heading A43 in ECO (the Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings).
Similar material is to be found in the second edition of Kasparov and Keene's
Batsford Chess Openings (BCO2). Such sources as do consider the variation
generally imply a slight edge to White with 3 d5. I amassed about thirty
games, the majority of which went 3...exd5 (3...Nf6, 3...d6 and even 3...e5?!
have also been played.) 4 exd5 d6 5 Nc3 Nf6 6 Nf3 or reached the same
position by a slightly different route, but in Informator 61 (published
December 1994) there was a game fragment with a new move.
G.Timoshchenko-Zelcic, Passau 1994, had gone 1 d4 c5 2 d5 e6 3 e4 a6 4
Nf3 d6 5 a4 Ne7 6 Be2 exd5 7 exd5 Ng6 8 0-0 (8 h4!? Timoshchenko) 8...
Be7 9 Na3 (9 Nc3!? Timoshchenko) 9...Bg4 10 Nd2 Bxe2 11 Qxe2 0-0 12
Nac4 Nd7 13 a5 Re8 14 Ra3 Bg5 15 Qd1 Nde5! with an unclear position.
[FEN "r2qr1k1/1p3ppp/p2p2n1/P1pPn1b1/
2N5/R7/1PPN1PPP/2BQ1RK1 w - - 0 16"]
The main discussion that I could find which did not sneer at the Franco
Benoni was by American masters Joel Benjamin and Eric Schiller in their
Unorthodox Openings book. They had found an improvement for Black in
one of the principal games cited by ECO. Subsequently I found a 120-page
Chess Digest booklet by Soltis entitled Franco-Benoni Defense, but it didn't
contain any games previously unknown to me in the 1 e4 e6 2 d4 c5 line; at
least half the monograph was devoted to lines like 1 d4 e6 2 c4 c5 which
normally won't transpose at all to the line that interests us here, that is the 1 e4
variety.
Move order in the Franco Benoni seems flexible, which makes its study even
harder, and after 1 e4 e6 2 d4 c5 3 d5 exd5 4 exd5 d6 it was not easy to find
grounds to choose between the different knight developments. If White wants
to retain the option of c2-c4 then of course he must choose Nf3.
Anyway, my game (against correspondence international master Xaver
Steiner) began 1 e4 e6 2 d4 c5 3 d5 exd5 4 exd5 d6 and now I actually chose
5 Nc3.
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pp3ppp/3p4/2pP4/8/2N5/
PPP2PPP/R1BQKBNR b KQkq - 0 5"]
However, the position after 5...Nf6 6 Nf3 Be7 7 Be2 0-0 8 0-0 is just as likely
to arise if White develops the king's knight first.
[FEN "rnbq1rk1/pp2bppp/3p1n2/2pP4/8/
2N2N2/PPP1BPPP/R1BQ1RK1 b - - 0 8"]
The main book line runs 8...Na6, intending Nc7 before....b6, but 8...Bg4 also
comes into consideration. Then 9 Re1 Nc7 10 a4 b6 11 Rb1 (surely not best?)
11...Re8 12 h3 h6 13 Bc4 and now "ECO" gives 13...Bf8 14 Rxe8 Qxe8 15
Be3 which is at least slightly in White's favour (Vaganian-L.Bronstein, Sao
Paulo 1977). However, Schiller and Benjamin reveal 13...a6! which they
consider, probably rightly, to be a very significant improvement for Black.
The game Bohm-Konikowski, Dortmund II 1981, continued 14 b4 Bd7 15
bxc5 bxc5 16 Qd3 (If 16 a5, with the idea N-a4-b6, then 16...Nb5!) 16...Qc8
17 Bf4 Bf5! 18 Qd2 Bf8= and Black even won in the end.
Quite a few games featured White playing Bb5+ instead of Be2. This check is
sometimes effective in the Modern Benoni, but that is usually because it
involves variations with e4 e5, not available here. The case for Bb5+ hardly
seemed compelling to me; the bishop was liable to be exchanged for a knight
or driven back with loss of time.
Danish super-GM Bent Larsen had played this line twice with Black with few
problems: 1 d4 e6 2 e4 c5 3 d5 exd5 4 exd5 d6 5 Nf3 Nf6 6 Nc3 Be7 7 Bb5
+!? Nbd7 8 a4 0-0 9 0-0 when O'Kelly-Larsen, Palma de Mallorca 1967
went 9...a6 10 Be2 b6 11 Re1 Re8 12 Bf4 Nf8 13 h3 Ng6= while 9...Re8 10
Re1 a6 11 Bf1 b6 12 b3 Nf8 13 Bb2 Bb7 14 Bc4 Ng6= was GligoricLarsen, Busum 1969.
A more recent grandmaster game Tseitlin-Kuzmin, Cappelle la Grande 1994,
had gone similarly until after 9 0-0 a6 10 Be2 Re8 11 Re1 b6 12 h3 Bf8
(instead of Nf8) but this game too was a draw in the end. BCO2 cites a game
going 5 Bb5+ Nd7 6 Nf3 Ngf6 7 0-0 Be7 8 Re1 a6 9 Bf1 0-0 10 a4 b6 11 c4
(Bohm-Johansen, Amsterdam 1983) but that light-squared bishop does not
seem to have much of a future here.
The most promising game for White that I could find was Van WelyMeulders, Brussels zonal 1993: 1 d4 e6 2 e4 c5 3 d5 exd5 4 exd5 d6 5 Nc3
Nf6 6 Nf3 Be7 7 Be2 0-0 8 0-0 Na6 9 h3 Nc7 10 a4 Rb8 (If 10...b6 11 Re1
Bb7 12 Bc4 a6 13 Nh4 Re8 14 Nf5 with advantage in D.Gurevich-Kavalek,
USA Champ 1984.) 11 Bf4 b6 12 Bb5! (Only now that c6 is available) 12...
a6 (If 12...Nxb5 White could choose between a-file play after 13 axb5 or
piece pressure by 13 Nxb5 Qd7 14 Re1.) 13 Bc6! Bd7 14 Re1 Re8 15 Qd2
Bxc6 16 dxc6 (Now we see why White wanted his bishop on f4.) 16...Ne6 17
Rad1 Rc8 18 Bxd6 Rxc6 19 Bg3 with persistent pressure despite the
symmetrical pawn structure and piece exchanges.
If Black prefers 8...b6 from the diagram, then I could take as my model the
Informator 48 game Chandler-Mik.Tseitlin, Palma de Mallorca 1989: 9 Re1
Na6 10 Bb5! (threatening Qe2) 10...Nb8 (Not 10...Nc7 11 Bc6 Rb8 12 Qe2
+ ) 11 Qe2!? (11 a4 Chandler) 11...a6 12 Qxe7 Qxe7 13 Rxe7 axb5 14 Bg5
Nbd7 15 Nxb5 Nxd5 16 Nxd6! and White won in forty-five moves.
However, a further surprise was in store for me. My very experienced Swiss
opponent met 5 Nc3 by 5...a6!?, a move I had never seen before. It seemed a
good idea to maintain White's space advantage by 6 a4 and postpone major
decisions until Black revealed his plans for his king's bishop.
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/1p3ppp/p2p4/2pP4/P7/
2N5/1PP2PPP/R1BQKBNR b KQkq - 0 6"]
The game then continued 6...Nd7 7 Nf3 g6 at which point I noticed that we
had transposed to a 1983 postal game, Wiedenhofer-Kerinnis, which went 8
Bf4 f6 (ugly but effective; 8...Ndf6!? also comes into consideration.) 9 Bd3
Nh6 10 0-0 (10 h4!?) 10...Nf7 11 Re1+ Nde5 12 Bf1 Bg7 13 a5 0-0 14 Nd2
b5 15 axb6 Qxb6 16 Ra2 Bf5 and Black even went on to win; his firm
control of e5 and the lack of an f2-f4 advance negated White's efforts to
exploit the weaknesses around e6 and f7. I decided on normal development by
8 Bd3 with a view to early occupation of the e-file by my rook.
I conclude by giving my game in full. Maybe a reader will discover an
improvement for White somewhere?
Tim Harding Xaver Steiner
corr 1995-6
1 e4 e6 2 d4 c5 3 d5 exd5 4 exd5 d6 5 Nc3 a6 6 a4 Nd7 7 Nf3 g6 8 Bd3 Bg7
Black could play 8...Qe7+ forcing 9 Be2 but after 10 0-0 and 11 Re1 it is
Black who ends up losing time.
9 0-0 Ne7!
[FEN "r1bqk2r/1p1nnpbp/p2p2p1/2pP4/
P7/2NB1N2/1PP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 w kq - 0 10"]
Not 9...Ne5 10 Nxe5 when 10...dxe5? 11 f4 Qb6 12 Kh1 exf4 13 Qe2+ Kf8
14 a5 Qd8 15 Qf2 Bd4 16 Qxf4 gives a good initiative and 10...Bxe5 11 Re1
Ne7 12 Bh6 is also fairly promising.
10 Ne4!?
Note that if 10 Bg5 0-0 11 Qd2 (11 Re1 f6!?) 11...Ne5!? 12 Nxe5 dxe5 White
must avoid the trap 13 Bxg6?? f6!
10...Ne5 11 Bg5 0-0!
Black is right to get his king into safety. Obviously 11...Bg4 12 Nf6+ favours
White and trying to prevent the knight check by 11...Ng4 12 h3 f5 (12...Bxb2
13 hxg4 Bxa1 14 Qxa1) allows 13 Nxc5!
12 Nxe5
My calculations showed that White is driven back after 12 Nf6+ Kh8 13 Nxe5
dxe5 14 c4 h6! 15 Bh4 Nf5! (but not 15...g5? 16 Bxg5 hxg5 17 Qh5+) while
12 Bf6 Bxf6 13 Nxf6+ Kg7 is also inconclusive.
12...Bxe5 13 Bf6
My idea was to liquidate Black's most dangerous piece and create weaknesses
in his King position.
13...Bxf6 14 Nxf6+ Kg7 15 Qd2!
This was the move I was counting on.
[FEN "r1bq1r2/1p2npkp/p2p1Np1/2pP4/
P7/3B4/1PPQ1PPP/R4RK1 b - - 0 15"]
15...Ng8!
Black finds the right answer. Unfortunately he is under no compulsion to go
in for 15...Kxf6? 16 Qc3+ Kg5 17 Qg7 when White has a very promising
king-hunt, e.g. 17...Nxd5 18 h4+! Kg4 (18...Kf4!?; 18...Kxh4 19 Qh6+ Kg4
20 f3+ Kg3 21 Qh2# mate) 19 Rae1! Nf4 20 Re4; I had expected instead 15...
Nf5 when I had hopes of some initiative with 16 Ne4 or 16 Ng4.
16 Nxg8 Rxg8 17 b4
I was trying to keep the initiative while his queenside was undeveloped and
maybe force a passed d-pawn or weakness on b-file, since there seemed
nothing doing on the kingside.
17...b6 18 Qc3+ f6 19 bxc5 bxc5 20 Rab1
Maybe 20 Rfe1!? could be preferred but my judgment by now was that Black
had conducted a successful defence and that I should be wary of drifting into
an inferior position.
20...Ra7! 21 Rfe1 Kf7 22 Qd2 Re8
[FEN "2bqr3/r4k1p/p2p1pp1/2pP4/P7/
3B4/2PQ1PPP/1R2R1K1 w - - 0 23"]
At this point I decided the prudent thing was to haul in the half point while
there could still be no doubt about it, so: 23 Qh6 Rxe1+ 24 Rxe1 Kg8 25
Bxg6! hxg6 26 Qxg6+ and I made my opponent an offer he couldn't refuse (a
draw). Anyway, whatever the merits of 5 a6!?, there would appear no obvious
way for White to achieve any substantial advantage by force against 2...c5 and
the line clearly deserves more attention from both theoreticians and practical
players than it has so far received.
This article first appeared at ChessCafe.com in June 1997.
[ChessCafe Home Page] [ChessCafe Shop] [ChessCafe Blog]

[Book Review] [Columnists] [Endgame Study] [The Skittles Room]
[ChessCafe Links] [ChessCafe Archives]
[About ChessCafe.com] [Contact ChessCafe.com] [Advertising]

Purchases from our

accessible:
From the
Archives
Translate this page
Chess Games Belong To The World

Some chess players may think they will benefit if the recent FIDE move
towards the copyrighting of chess games goes ahead, but I can assure you that
ninety-nine percent of the chess community will suffer and that means you,
dear reader. So I call on you all to put pressure on FIDE, directly or through
whatever national chess organisation to which you may belong, to call a halt
to this lunacy now. What should be protected is the "value added" of good
notes by the players and good writers and chess teachers, not the "bare" scores
(whether in print or on a web page or a computer database) that just give the
moves played in a game.
by Tim Harding
$43.95!
Just to give the background for those who don't know the issue, FIDE
announced a few weeks ago the rules for its forthcoming knockout world
championship contest and these included under Paragraph 10 Playing
Conditions (10.2 c): "The players' score sheets are the property of the players
and FIDE, and FIDE has exclusive rights to publication." Read those words
carefully; I shall return to them later.
I am not a lawyer so will not go into many legal technicalities here, but for
those who want to explore that aspect I recommend you read Mark Crowther's
lengthy article on the topic in The Week In Chess, No. 146, which includes a
legal opinion that sounds about right to me. You can easily find TWIC on the
Net and read it for yourself.

the games from

Players
by Tim Harding
$41.95
My arguments in this column are essentially layman's views but are based on
my thirty-plus years as an active chess player at a fairly high level, twentyfive years as a published chess author and journalist, and now with a
publisher's hat to wear too!
Actually I doubt if FIDE have a legal leg to stand on, given there is a century
of precedent of free publication of chess games worldwide while previous
legal attempts to copyright games (in a few countries) have failed, so I hope
that this is just a try-on and that they will back down. However, let us look at
the scenario if FIDE were to win a test case in a major jurisdiction such as the
USA, United Kingdom or Germany.
As a practical master-level correspondence player, I might find it beneficial to
my results in the short-run if my games were harder to get hold of, so that my
opponents could not so easily prepare for me, and it may be that FIDE hope
the majority of master level players will back their move for that reason.
Maybe by refusing permission for my losses to be published, I could even
spare myself some blushes. However, those gains would be more than
outweighed by my not easily being able to obtain the games of opponents and
of other players who are approximately at my level, as well as by having to
pay to see what the Kasparovs and Topalovs of this world are getting up to.
Chess Miniatures
by Tim Harding
Certainly the top grandmasters are the only players, if any, who will make any
money out of this. The games of major events will still be available, but
somebody will get paid for them. We'll come to that in a minute. The games
of ordinary Joe and Jill Soaps played in ordinary chess competitions could
become unpublishable, except where players themselves send them in for
publication.
In a worst case scenario, we could even see chess journalists and publishers
sued for articles and books already published but it is more likely that FIDE
would attempt to enforce their view on a "from now on" basis. If FIDE
succeeded in controlling the game scores in events under its own jurisdiction,
the world correspondence chess governing body ICCF might be tempted to try
and follow suit, and the same could go for other bodies that organise chess
events, such as national associations and even clubs and commercial
tournament organisers.
Curiously with correspondence games, there is a split. Traditional postal
games, unlike over-the-board games, are not played in public so usually only
the players and perhaps the tournament director ever sees the moves. On the
other hand, email games played under the auspices of ICCF and IECG cannot
at present be hidden from future opponents, as these organisations email
monthly reports (including the PGN game scores of all completed games) to
all those who compete in their events. Of course they could change that
policy.
Undoubtedly many chess organisers have doubts about the value of chess
databases, and particularly free games postings on the Net, because it hits at a
possible source of income for them and makes it harder, for example, to
produce a saleable tournament book when all games are already available
freely. However, if they were to back FIDE's move, they would in my opinion
undermine the popularity of the game. For example, newspaper columnists
would have to tell their editors they can only publish a game by a player who
is not fifty years dead if he or she has actually sent them the game; otherwise
a fee will be payable, just as radio stations have to pay a fee for every record
they spin. Speaking as somebody who wrote a national chess newspaper's
weekly chess column for almost two decades, the editor and his accountant
would say goodbye and run a column on Scrabble or knitting instead.
Now to put on my chess publisher hat, I would fear that Chess Mail (and
many other magazines) might have to cease publication if copyright was
enforceable on correspondence games. At the very least, we could only
publish games sent to us by either one of the players or the tournament
director and would require a written confirmation from them that we could
publish the game. We might even have to cut references to other players'
games from the notes! The chess publishing world would shrink dramatically.
You would probably be left, in each main language, with only two or three
giants who would swallow the cut in their profits and pay up in return for the
pleasure of seeing most of their competition vanish and maybe a few
minnows whose circulation and income would be too small to be worth suing.
With my chess author hat on, I can tell you that publishers would eagerly start
commissioning books on areas of the game that wouldn't easily fall under
FIDE's hammer (e.g. endgame books, books on nineteenth century chess,
chess variants and players' autobiographies) while the authors of openings
manuals would be told that it is no longer OK to include modern complete
games unless they are accompanied by a notarised letter of permission from
one of the players. In other words, forget openings books.
I always have written my own books and articles under the (up to now)
prevailing view that bare unannotated game scores are public events, like the
scorecard of a cricket or baseball game which could be compiled by anyone
who watched it. Quoting other people's annotations at length would normally
require permission, but short excerpts would fall under the accepted principle
in the academic world that free quotations for the purpose of comment and
criticism are normal practice essential for free debate. When I wrote notes to
one of my games for a particular magazine, as a favour to its editor, and then
saw it copied (without even a "may I?" request) in "Fernschach", I moaned
but I did not sue. Maybe next time!
At this point, I would just like to refer back to the FIDE rule above, which
really mixes up two different copyright issues. "The players' score sheets are
the property of the players " can only be taken to the individuals' handwritten
record of the game as it was in progress, and as such there is not really a
problem. Of course only the most famous players can expect to be able to
make any money out of selling their autographs (Kamsky tried it a few years
ago) but so long as the gamescores (i.e. the record of the moves) remain
available, I would not have any problem with this.
The second part of the rule is where the problems arise: "and FIDE, and FIDE
has exclusive rights to publication." The final clause is also clear enough,
albeit objectionable: FIDE is saying that it, as organiser of the event, and
NOT the players have the right of publishing the games. In other words, if
Karpov plays Kramnik in the event and one, other or both of the players want
to send the games for publication to, say, Informator or New In Chess they
cannot do this without FIDE's permission (or perhaps without those
publications buying some kind of licence from FIDE). Karpov can say but
these are my notes, but FIDE can retort that the right to publish the game is its
alone. If the readers can figure out from the notes alone what the moves were,
they must have a very high IQ.
The middle part of the sentence is most curious also. In the FIDE rule quoted
above, that first "and FIDE" means that FIDE intends to assert equal right
with the players to ownership of the intellectual copyright of the game played
between them. Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether a chess
game can be intellectual copyright, FIDE claims here that because a game is
played under its auspices, it owns the game (at least in part). Effectively FIDE
is stating that, in competing in one of its events the players are working for
FIDE on an indentured basis rather than as freelances. However, the
contestants are playing for prize money, not fixed salaries, so I think this one
is a non-starter, Mr Ilyuzhiminov.
Finally, are chess games copyrightable at all? As a chess author and publisher,
I am certainly interested in defending copyright where it genuinely exists,
especially as so many people on the Net are very casual about it. However, as
Mark Crowther put it so well in TWIC 149: "I have no problem obeying the
law, I do have a problem obeying laws that don't exist". Intellectual copyright
may exist where an author, or artist, working alone produces a text or other
identifiable piece of work (it could be sculpture or music but one-off
"performance art" would not qualify) which is reproduceable. It does not have
to be artistic work; a textbook or any other original writing also qualifies. In
that case the law says that the creator, or his/her heirs, own the rights to
reproducing it, normally until fifty years after their death. If there are joint
authors, they choose to create the work together and share in the rights
arising.
A chess game does not come about in this way, but rather by conflict between
the two players, as a football game arises from the interplay of two sides. It's
not possible for me to say "I have copyright in the white moves and you have
copyright in Black's moves"; neither is meaningful without the other and even
if we decide to share the rights to the game, it is debatable whether the record
of a public event is copyrightable.
So finally we have to ask the old question, "cui bono?", who would benefit?
Clearly apart from FIDE itself, one or two companies like ChessBase, who
would be able to increase the prices of their databases, and just a few top
grandmasters, who already cream off most of the money that's available to be
made in the chess world. Do you really want to support a move that will make
you, and chess literature poorer while these happy few get richer?
Finally, it would be ironic if a column devoted to defending the freedom to
publish chess games did not itself contain a game. There is no special
significance in my choice. It's just one of the best games that we published
this year in my magazine Chess Mail. The notes aren't great because they are
mine, and I know that nobody else can claim them because I received the bare
game score by fax just before going to press, scrapped a standing page to fit it
in, and analysed it as best I could in limited time.
CC-GM Gert Jan Timmerman (Netherlands) GM (ICCF and FIDE)

Ulf Andersson (Sweden)
NPSF-50 (Norwegian Jubilee) Correspondence
Sicilian Keres Attack [B81]
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 e6 6 g4 h6 7 h4 Nc6 8 Rg1 d5
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/pp3pp1/2n1pn1p/3p4/
3NP1PP/2N5/PPP2P2/R1BQKBR1 w Qkq - 0 9"]
The critical continuation for the fight in the centre. It forestalls White's threat
of g4-g5. Andersson's views on this game were expressed in an interview with
Lars Grahn, editor of SSKK Bulletinen republished with permission elsewhere
in the same issue. The game was still going on when they met and Ulf told
him: "Instead of replying h7-h5 as I normally do, I countered with d5. I
looked for something extraordinary."
9 Bb5 Bd7 10 exd5 Nxd5 11 Nxd5 exd5 12 Be3 Be7
Here in my notes I quoted ECO:12...Qxh4 13 Qe2 Nxd4 14 Bxd4+ Qe7 15
Bxd7+ Kxd7 16 Be3 (16 Qxe7+ Kxe7 17 0-0-0 f6=) 16...Rd8 17 0-0-0 Kc8=
(analysis by Makarichev).
13 Qd2
In his book Chess at the Top, Karpov mentioned the alternative 13 Qe2 0-0 14
0-0-0 (Instead of 14 Bxc6 bxc6 15 g5 c5 unclear according to Liberzon, ECO)
14...Qa5 15 Bxc6 bxc6 16 Kb1 with advantage to White, but he gave 13 Qa5+
14 c3 Nxd4 15 Bxd7+ Kxd7 16 Bxd4 Rhe8 17 Kf1 Bf6 18 Qf3 Re6 as a
possible improvement.
13...0-0!
This threatens....Nxd4. This move, not in ECO, was dismissed in analysis by
Karpov in 1980. Andersson's novelty is in showing it to be playable; instead
of capturing an h-pawn he will sacrifice his own for the initiative, based on
fantastically deep calculation. Not 13...Bxh4?! 14 0-0-0 Bf6 15 Nf5 (KarpovSpassky, Tilburg 1980; Informator 30/440) while 13...Nxd4 14 Bxd7+ Qxd7
unclear (Marjanovic-Cebalo, Yugoslav Ch 1962) may be found in Informator
33.
14 Nf5
[FEN "r2q1rk1/pp1bbpp1/2n4p/1B1p1N2/
6PP/4B3/PPPQ1P2/R3K1R1 b Q - 0 14"]
14...d4!
Karpov only considered 14...Bf6 15 Nxh6+ gxh6 16 g5 with a decisive attack
and 14...Bxf5 15 gxf5 Kh7 16 0-0-0 with clear advantage to White.
Andersson told Grahn: "This is a game I have analysed very carefully. It is
necessary to play very exactly with a pawn down, like in this game, and it is
very difficult to find the correct moves OTB. In the opening my judgment was
that this is OK for Black, I had positional compensation for the pawn and I
estimated that I have time enough for this game to find the right moves."
15 Bxh6!? Bb4 16 c3 dxc3 17 bxc3 Ne5
The threat of the family fork by the knight and the second threat to b5 give
White no time to capture on either g7 or b4.
18 Be2
Not 18 Nd4?? Bxb5 19 cxb4 Nd3+.
18 Re8
Renews the threat of Nf3+ and forces White's king to move.
19 Kf1 Bf8
The threat phase is over; everything is protected and, for the pawn, Andersson
has great piece activity.
20 Bf4 Qa5 21 Rg3 Rad8 22 Nd4 Ba4 23 h5
[FEN "3rrbk1/pp3pp1/8/q3n2P/b2N1BP1/
2P3R1/P2QBP2/R4K2 b - - 0 23"]
White tries to generate some attack but perhaps this tempo should have been
used to improve the position of one of the rooks.
23 Nc6 24 Be3 Nxd4 25 Bxd4 Re4 26 Qb2 Bc5 27 Rb1
If 27 Bxc5 Qxc5 28 Rd3 Rde8.
27 Bxd4 28 cxd4 Bc6 29 Rd1 Rf4 30 d5?!
White returns the extra pawn in the hope of simplification but Andersson
keeps the initiative.
30...Rxd5 31 Rgd3 Qc5 32 f3 Rxd3 33 Rxd3 Qg5 34 Ke1 Rc4
[FEN "6k1/pp3pp1/2b5/6qP/2r3P1/3R1P2/
PQ2B3/4K3 w - - 0 35"]
The start of the final assault.

35 Kf2 Qh4+ 36 Ke3 Rc5 37 Rd1 Qg3 38 Rd8+ Kh7 39 Bd3+ f5 40 Qd4
Qxf3+ 41 Kd2 Qg2+ 42 Ke3
If 42 Be2 Rd5 43 Rxd5 Bxd5 and White faces a lost pawn ending after Bf3.
42 Qg3+ 43 Kd2 Qh2+ 44 Be2 Re5 45 Qc4 Bf3 46 Qg8+ Kh6 47 Qh8+
Kg5 48 Qxg7+ Kh4 49 Qf6+ Kh3 0-1
This article first appeared at ChessCafe.com in October 1997.


Purchases from our

accessible:
From the
Archives
Hosted by
Kyler Donlan
Is the Urusov Gambit Sound?

Having dealt last month with preliminary digressions from the main move
order, it is time now to examine the position arising from 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3
d4 exd4 4 Nf3 (or 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 d4 exd4 4 Bc4) 4...Nxe4 5 Qxd4 Nf6 6 Nc3
Be7 7 Bg5
Gambit Busters
by Sam Collins
Translate this page
The Gambit Files

by Bill Harvey
[FEN "rnbqk2r/ppppbppp/5n2/6B1/2BQ4/
2N2N2/PPP2PPP/R3K2R b KQkq - 0 7"]
Black has two (very different) principal defenses to the gambit: 7...c6
followed by...d5 to occupy the centre and, in some cases, castle queenside; 7...
Nc6 followed by...d6, trying to catch up on development to neutralise the
white initiative.
Black can of course castle at once by 7...0-0 but this generally transposes to
lines below. By committing his king so early, Black loses flexibility and
makes it easier for White to decide on his plan.
the games from
The line 7...c6 8 0-0-0 d5 was introduced in last month's Kibitzer. Even at
move nine, castling may be premature for Black. Last month we saw the
consultation game Schlechter versus Neustadtl and Tietz, in which Black
defended by 9 Rhe1 0-0 10 Qh4 h6? overlooking a powerful combination, 11
Bxd5!. Black does have other tenth moves here, but they have been little
explored:
a) 10...Bf5 seems good for White; it is covered in the final game of this
article.
b) 10...Nbd7 is inferior as after 11 Bd3 Black cannot transpose back to main
lines because his queen's bishop is hemmed in. Now 11...h6?! is risky because
of 12 Bxh6 gxh6 (12...Ne4? 13 Qg4), a trick which would not be possible if
Black had not castled. After 13 Qxh6 Re8 14 Ng5 (14 Re3) 14...Nf8 15 Re3
White has a dangerous attack; even if it is not quite clear; I doubt if you
would like to be the defender here! So after 10...Nbd7 11 Bd3 the move 11...
The Alterman Gambit Guide

White Gambits
by Boris Alterman
g6 has been tried: 12 Ne5 Nc5! Mieses-von Holzhausen, Duisburg 1929. The
best reply seems to be 12 Re2! when White is clearly better, according to
Keres (12 Nd4!? was another Keres suggestion); e.g., 12...Re8 13 Rde1 Ne4
14 Nxe4 dxe4 15 Rxe4 was the end of my old notes, but ECO has a pretty line
credited to GM Larry Evans continuing 15...f6 (15...Bxg5+ 16 Nxg5+-) 16
Bc4+ Kg7 17 Qxh7+! Kxh7 18 Rh4+ Kg7 19 Bh6+ Kh7 20 Bf8 mate.
c) 10...Be6 11 Bd3 h6 (11...g6 12 Nd4) is a line which has now been refuted.
Virtually all the games in my database were played by computers, so
evidently this is a line that programmers have been putting into the openings
books of their creations, primarily trying to catch out other computers! White
has to decide where to put the queen. White is virtually forced to sacrifice the
bishop by 12 Bxh6 and since 12...gxh6 13 Qxh6 is hopeless for Black, the
critical reply is 12...Ne4. Old analysis (e.g., by Keres and the late David
Hooper) concentrated on 13 Qf4 but it now seems that 13 Qh5! does the
business for White. Then 13...Nxc3? would lose rapidly to the thematic 14
Bxg7! so there are two main lines:
c1) 13...gxh6 14 Bxe4 Nd7 15 Bf5 Nf6 16 Qh3 Bxf5 17 Qxf5 and White has a
favourable position (safer king, no weaknesses) without any material
disadvantage; and
c2) 13...g6 14 Qe5 Bf6 15 Qf4 with tremendous complications that readers
can enjoy analysing for themselves, e.g. 15...Nxc3 16 Rxe6 fxe6 17 Qg4 Nxa2
+ 18 Kb1 Rf7 19 Kxa2 Kh8 20 Qxg6 Qg8 (20...Qa5+ 21 Kb1 Qb4 22 Bg7+!
Rxg7 23 Qe8+ and wins) 21 Qh5 and White should soon regain the sacrificed
exchange with a very good game.
In view of lines like this, Black normally defers castling to keep White
guessing about where the king will go.
From the first diagram, play is more likely to continue 7...c6 8 0-0-0 d5 9
Rhe1 (9 Qh4 almost always transposes; e.g, 9...Be6 10 Bd3 Nbd7 11 Nd4
Nc5 12 Rhe1 reaching the next diagram position) 9...Be6 (Not 9...dxc4?? 10
Qxd8 mate!) 10 Qh4 (or 10 Bd3 Nbd7 transposing) 10...Nbd7 11 Bd3 Nc5 12
Nd4, which brings about another position for analysis.
[FEN "r2qk2r/pp2bppp/2p1bn2/2np2B1/
3N3Q/2NB4/PPP2PPP/2KRR3 b kq - 0 12"]
In my 1970s book on the Bishop's Opening, I quoted Keres as writing that

White now has a threatening position, but it is not clear whether he can force
more than the return of his pawn.
I gave this position to Chessbase 7.0 to try its new Opening Report feature.
It found thirty-three games with this position in my very large (approximately
1.5 million game) reference database and the program's analysis included the
following points:
White scores well (65%).

Short draws are rare (none under 20 moves).
Draws are of average length (circa 38 moves).
Wins by both sides are shorter than average.
Doing this kind of analysis, it is always important to remember that it is only
"lies, damned lies and statistics". What ChessBase is doing here is just a
modern version of Ulvestad's "Chess Charts" of the 1940s. The program can
only work reasonably well if it is analysing a large and representative
database, with games by strong players. If a game is duplicated in the
database, it distorts the results. Games by weak players or decided by
blunders (or on time against the run of play) are also highly misleading.
Even when your database is both large and clean so that the analysis can be at
its most revealing you have to remember that one strong move can be a
counter-example that blows a hole in any sample based on previous play.
What is most convenient about this Opening Report feature of Chessbase 7 is
that it gives access to the games in your database in a convenient way.
So far as moves from this position are concerned, there is little choice, since
12...h6 carries no threat and is powerfully answered by 13 Nf5!. Black must
try to relieve the pressure by exchanges and 12...Nfd7 is unreliable. As the
ChessBase report correctly informed me, Black "scores miserably".
Tartakower's move here was 13 f4 but Estrin's plan 13 Bxe7 Qxe7 14 Qxe7+
Kxe7 15 f4! is much stronger and after 15...Nxd3+ 16 Rxde3 (Larsen even
suggested 16 cxd3!? once.) Black has tried unsuccessfully:
a) 16...g6 in the well-known miniature Neishtadt-Volkovich, USSR 1958. 17
g4 Nc5 18 Rde3 Kd6 19 b4 Ne4 20 Nxe4+ dxe4 21 Nxe6 fxe6 22 Rxe4 1-0.
Black resigned as he cannot defend his e-pawn (22...Rae8 23 f5); and
b) 16...Nc5 was seen in Hausner-Weber, 1992, which went 17 Rde3 g6 18 b4
Na6 19 Nxe6 fxe6 20 Rxe6+ Kd8 21 Re7 with the better ending for White
21...d4 22 Na4 b6 23 a3 Nc7 24 Rg7 Ne8 25 Rge7 Nd6 26 R1e6 Re8 27 Rxe8
+ Nxe8 28 Rxc6 and the extra pawn was duly cashed in.
12...Kd7!? has been seen.
[FEN "r2q3r/pp1kbppp/2p1bn2/2np2B1/
3N3Q/2NB4/PPP2PPP/2KRR3 w - - 0 13"]
At first sight the move looks rather like desperation, even if there is no
immediate refutation. However, the point is that ...h6 next move will really
threaten...hxg5 because the h-pawn is not pinned (the rook being defended by
the queen) and this will force White to retreat his advanced pieces or enter
murky complications. If you are looking for a defence for Black this is worth
investigating further, to judge from this game which you should analyse for
yourself
L. Lepre U. Nyffenegger
Corr, 1992
1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nf3 Nxe4 5 Qxd4 Nf6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Nc3 c6 8
0-0-0 d5 9 Rhe1 Be6 10 Qh4 Nbd7 11 Bd3 Nc5 12 Nd4 Kd7!? 13 f4
(Maybe White should prefer 13 Nxe6 or 13 Bf5 h6 14 Bd2 but I see nothing
forcing.) 13...h6 14 Bxf6 Bxf6 15 Qf2 Nxd3+ 16 Rxd3 g6 17 Ne4 b6 (This
prevents Nc5+, after which the black king is surprisingly invulnerable in the
centre.) 18 f5 gxf5 19 Nxf5 Rg8 20 c4 Rg4 21 g3 Be5 22 h3 Rxe4 23 Rxe4
Qg5+ 24 Ne3 Bxg3 25 Qf3 Rd8 26 Kc2 Ke8 27 cxd5 cxd5 28 Nxd5 Rxd5
29 Qxg3 Rc5+ 30 Kd1 Qc1+ 31 Ke2 Rc2+ 32 Kf3 Qf1+ 33 Ke3 Re2+ 34
Kd4 Qf6+ 35 Qe5 Qd8+ 36 Kc3 Qc8+ 0-1
Generally 12...Ng8 is considered the critical defence.
[FEN "r2qk1nr/pp2bppp/2p1b3/2np2B1/
3N3Q/2NB4/PPP2PPP/2KRR3 w kq - 0 13"]
Now the double exchange on e7 is ineffective, because at move fourteen

Black takes with the knight. It is possible to exchange only the bishops and
then play (13 Bxe7 Qxe7) 14 Qg3 g6 15 Nce2 with compensation, but instead
13 f4 (not mentioned in ECO) is probably best, when:
a) 13...Kf8?! 14 b4 Nxd3+ 15 Rxd3 with advantage to White (C.TorreTholfsen, New York 1924) was a line from my 1970s book. An old MCO
continued 15...Qd6 here, which is not entirely clear.
b) In my book I said that Black can defend by 13...Bxg5 14 fxg5 Ne7 (as
suggested by Pachman and approved by Larsen. This remains untested. White
could then capture on h7 (intending to continue b4 and, when the knight
retreats, Rxe6 followed by huge complications) but the self-pin of the bishop
against the white queen is unattractive to say the least. Instead of 14...Ne7
Black may be able to get away with 14...h6 as 15 Nxe6 Nxe6 is unconvincing.
I saw 16 Nxd5 in an old game Giertz-Kornetzky but it looks highly unsound!
However, 15 Bg6!? is interesting with a long forced variation leading to a
position that is hard to assess 15...Kd7 16 Bxf7 Bxf7 17 Qg4+ Kc7 18 Qf4+
Kc8 (18...Kb6 19 Nf3!) 19 Qxf7 Qxg5+ 20 Kb1 with compensation for the
pawn, but is it just enough or can White stand better?
Even the young Karpov underestimated the dangers of the gambit. G.
Timoschenko-Karpov, USSR Junior Ch, Moscow 1969, went 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4
Nf6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nf3 Nxe4 5 Qxd4 Nf6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Nc3 c6 8 0-0-0 d5 9
Rhe1 Be6 10 Qh4 Nbd7 11 Bd3 and now 11...c5!? 12 Ne5 Nxe5 13 Rxe5 d4
14 f4 Nd7 15 Bb5 Bxg5 16 fxg5 Qc7 17 Bxd7+ Kxd7 18 Qe4 Qc6? 19 Rxc5
and White won in fifty-four moves. The Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings
gives this as its main line for the Urusov, saying that White has compensation
for the pawn after his eighteenth move; however, there seem to have been no
other willing takers for Karpov's eleventh move.
Going back to the beginning, the alternative defensive line 7...Nc6 leads to a
different kind of struggle. I would tend to prefer this move as Black because it
gets a piece into play whereas 7...c6 impedes development. After 8 Qh4 we
get to this position:
[FEN "r1bqk2r/ppppbppp/2n2n2/6B1/2B4Q/
2N2N2/PPP2PPP/R3K2R b KQkq - 0 8"]
The first thing to realise here is that while 8...d5 looks wrong (since the d-
pawn lacks protection) this has never actually been proved. After 9 0-0-0 Be6
10 Rhe1 there are these examples:
a) 10...h6 11 Bxf6 Bxf6 12 Qh5 Bxc3? (Black may only be a little worse if he
avoids this.) 13 Rxe6+ Kf8 14 Rxd5, etc. (Tereschenko- Rotlevi, St
Petersburg 1909);
b) 10...Qd7 11 Bb5 0-0 12 Bd3 h6 13 Bxh6 gxh6 14 Qxh6 Bf5 15 Ne5 Nxe5
16 Rxe5 Ng4 17 Bxf5 Qxf5 18 Qxf8+ Bxf8 19 Rxf5 Bh6+ 20 Kb1 1-0,
Zarske-Hoffmann, Zurich open, 1993.
c) 10...0-0! 11 Bd3 h6 is really far from clear. In my 1970s Bishop's Opening
book I incorrectly gave now 12 Rxe6 fxe6 (not 12...hxg5? 13 Nxg5 Nh5 17
Rxe7 and White does win) 13 Bxh6 "for if then 13...gxh6? 14 Qg3+ Kh8 15
Qg6 gives White a winning attack". Rubbish! as GM Bent Larsen soon
pointed out to me. The correct assessment is equal, probably an immediate
draw. In addition, Black can consider 13...Nb4.
Also 12 Bxh6 does not work because of 12...Ne4, so after 11...h6 the game
Hmelnitsky-Eventov, USSR 1956, went 12 Kb1 Qd7? 13 Bxh6 Ne4 14 Bg5
Bxg5 15 Nxg5 with a good game for White. However at move 12 Black has
various possible improvements such as 12...Ne8 (Euwe) and 12...Re8
(Wallinger-Beutel, corr 1991) which need proper testing.
Usually, however, Black has played 7...Nc6 with the idea of continuing 8 Qh4
d6 9 0-0-0 Be6 10 Bd3:
[FEN "r2qk2r/ppp1bppp/2npbn2/6B1/7Q/
2NB1N2/PPP2PPP/2KR3R b kq - 0 10"]
Now if 10...h6 Neishtadt won a game in a simultaneous by 11 Bxh6, but this

should only yield a draw after 11...gxh6 (11...Ng4 12 Bg5) 12 Qxh6 Ne5 13
Nxe5 dxe5 14 Qg5+ Kh8 15 Bf5 (threatening Rd3) 15...Qe8.
White should therefore play 11 Rhe1 Qd7 (Euwe) 12 Bb5 0-0-0 which, back
in the 1970s Larsen told me was unclear. However, Black can easily get
massacred in practice:
E. Svensson H. Tolksdorf
European master class corr. 1973
1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nf3 Nxe4 5 Qxd4 Nf6 6 Nc3 Be7 7 Bg5 Nc6
8 Qh4 d6 9 0-0-0 Be6 10 Bd3 h6 11 Rhe1 Qd7 12 Bb5 0-0-0 13 Qa4 Nd5?
14 Rxd5! Bxg5+ (Or 14...hxg5 15 Nd4 Bxd5 16 Nxd5 Bf6 17 Bxc6 1-0, J.
Uschold-M.Wallinger, West German corr 1985.) 15 Rxg5 hxg5 16 Nd4 Rdg8
17 Nxc6 bxc6 18 Bxc6 Qe7 19 Qxa7 1-0
From the diagram, the main line is 10...Qd7, which allows the pin 11 Bb5.
Now Black has to give up the idea of queenside castling because the white
queen can switch wings in a mirror of the kind of attacks that take place on
the kingside in other variations: 11...0-0-0? 12 Qa4 a6 13 Bxa6 bxa6 14 Qxa6
+ Kb8 but now not 15 Nb5 (Keres) 15...Nd5; however, 15 Be3! seems quite
promising.
So after 10...Qd7 11 Bb5 comes 11...0-0 and now 12 Ne5 (one of the points
of Bb5 in these lines) has been known since a 1924 British postal game
Griffith-MacDonald.
However 12...Qc8 13 Nxc6 bxc6 is an improvement. Then 14 Bxc6 (14
Bd3!?) when:
a) 14...Rb8 15 Ne4 Qd8 16 Rd3 Kh8 17 Nxf6 Bxf6 (17...gxf6?? 18 Be4+- 10, Matrisch-Ninkovic, corr 1973) 18 Bxf6 with a slight advantage to White;
b) 14...h6 15 Bd2 [15 f4 hxg5 16 fxg5 Nh7!] 15...Rb8 is reckoned to be equal,
following Neishtadt-Burlyaev, Candidate masters tournament, Moscow, 1958.
16 Qa4 Ng4 17 Be1 soon led to a draw. However, Estrin and Glazkov in their
book 3 Double King Pawn Openings (Chess Enterprises, 1982) suggested 17
Rdf1! Ne5 (17...Bf6 18 f4!) 18 Nd5 here.
In fact, they preferred 12 Nd4 to 12 Ne5, partly because against the Keres
suggestion 12...h6 they had prepared the sacrifice 13 Bxh6 gxh6 14 Qxh6 Ng4
15 Qh5. So Black should play 12...a6 following Mieses-Rubinstein, Breslau
1912, when after 13 Bd3 Black's safest course would have been 13...h6 14
Bxh6 (14 Ne4 Nd5! or 14 Nxc6 bxc6 15 Bxh6 Ng4) 14...gxh6 15 Qxh6 Nxd4
16 Qg5+ Kh8 17 Qh6+ Kg8 18 Qg5+ with perpetual check (Estrin and
Glazkov).
Summary
Whether we take the stem position after 7 Nc3 or major subvariations from a
later point, the attraction of the Urusov is clear:
White scores well (65% or better) whatever Black's seventh move.

White wins are shorter than average.
Draws are rare.
On top of this, consider that the gambit generally involves the kind of open
tactical play which doesn't require you to be a grandmaster. Positional
subtleties revolve around assessing whether White has sufficient dynamic
compensation, not on whether an endgame that could arise will be decisive.
The gambit can also confuse the judgment of programs like Fritz. All in all, it
is a good bet below master level but remember: Preparation pays!
Until you get into the details, it is really hard to believe that the Urusov
Gambit can be sound against correct defence. The first impression is that
Black has made no major structural concession and should be able to catch up
on development without falling into a trap. That may be true at the highest
level (where the gambit is never played!) but at the level where most mortal
chess players operate it has a good chance of success.
Against a computer, it is probably not a good bet as they tend to be ingenious
defenders, but private games against computers can help to prepare you for
games with human opponents.
Here is one last game, sent to me by the winner after he read the previous
Kibitzer column.
Juergen Zarske (Switzerland) H. Schneider
Corr. 1993
1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nf3 Nxe4 5 Qxd4 Nf6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Nc3 c6 8
0-0-0 d5 9 Rhe1 0-0 10 Qh4 Bf5
Unusual, but there is a precedent.
11 Nd4
Another correspondence game with the same player as Black went11 g4!?
Bd7 12 Bd3 h6 13 Bxh6 Ne4 14 g5 gxh6 15 Rg1 Nxc3 16 Bh7+ Kxh7 17
Qxh6+ Kg8 18 g6 1-0 R.Mercurio- H.Schneider, corr. 1996.
11...Bg6 12 Bd3 Qd7
12...h6 13 Bxg6 hxg5 14 Qxg5 fxg6 15 Ne6 Ne4 16 Qxg6 Bg5+ 17 f4 gave
interesting complications in Caro-Janowski, Berlin 1897 (drawn in eighty-one
moves).
13 f4 h6
Asking for trouble! Now we get a classic Urusov Gambit sacrificial attack.
14 Bxh6 gxh6
Not 14...Bxd3 15 Bxg7! Kxg7 16 Rxe7 and Black either gets a lost ending
(after 16...Qg4+) or is mated after 16...Qxe7 17 Rxd3.
15 Bxg6 fxg6 16 Qxh6 Kf7
[FEN "rn3r2/pp1qbk2/2p2npQ/3p4/3N1P2/
2N5/PPP3PP/2KRR3 w - - 0 17"]
It is hard for Black to choose among the many possibilities here, as all are at
least slightly worse for him. Now 17 Nf3 looks obvious but Zarske prefers
another approach.
17 Ne6!? Rg8 18 g4 Qd6 19 Ne4
Exploiting the pin on the d-file, and not for the last time in this game.
19...Nxe4 20 Rxe4 Bf8 21 Ng5+ Kf6 22 Qh4 Qd7 23 Ne6+ Kf7 24 Ng5+
Kf6 25 Re5!
After the repetition, White tries a new tack.
25...Na6 26 Ne4+ Kg7 27 Qf6+ Kh7 28 Ng5+ Kh6 29 Ne6 Kh7 30 Nxf8+ 10
Black resigned since 30...Rxf8 is met by 31 Re7+ with mate or win of the
queen.


Purchases from our

accessible:
From the
Archives
Hosted by
Mark Donlan
[Find us on Facebook.]
Translate this page
100 Years Ago: The Return of Lasker

As with my two previous January columns, I turn the clock back a century to
find the main event in the chess world of 1899. There is no doubt that it was
the return of Emanuel Lasker to competitive play after two years of
mathematical study at Heidelberg's famous university.
World Champion Lasker

by ChessBase
Lasker had taken this break soon after his successful title defence against
Steinitz in Moscow; the dissertation which he was working on was evidently
far enough advanced by the end of 1898 for him to think about playing chess
again. (He finally got his doctorate in 1900.)
January and February 1899 were spent by Lasker in Moscow. This holiday no
doubt served two purposes for Lasker: to raise funds and to get his chess brain
functioning again. Whether he intended already to play a tournament that year
is not clear, but he was persuaded to play in the London double-round master
event that summer, where, as we shall see, he made a triumphant return.
V. Zak's Russian book on Lasker records (page 57) that on this Moscow trip
Lasker played numerous simultaneous displays, including one blindfold in
which he defeated all six opponents, plus several consultation games. His
record overall in Moscow was as follows: played 133, won 102, lost nine,
drew nineteen, and three games with no results.

the games from
Laskers Chess Magazine

by Emanuel Lasker
Lasker's Manual of Chess

by Emanuel Lasker
Emanuel Lasker
It seems strange in the context of the chess world today, but Lasker had up to
this point taken first prize in only one grandmaster tournament with a large
field (Nuremberg 1896) although he had won two world title matches and the
St Petersburg match-tournament (1895/6). On that occasion he had taken first
prize thanks to his wins over Steinitz and Chigorin, though he was a narrow
loser in his mini-match to Pillsbury. Steinitz had beaten Pillsbury 5-1 and it
was that result which really padded out Lasker his two-point victory margin.
Lasker had a lot of match experience but his early tournaments were not GM
events and at Hastings 1895 he came "only" third. This was actually a good
result in such a grueling event, considering that he was convalescing after
serious illness (typhus).
London 1899 was Lasker's first tournament for three years but his path was
eased by the absence of Dr Tarrasch who had been the ultimate victor in
Vienna twelve months earlier (as described in Kibitzer 20). Tarrasch, who
liked to emphasise that he was a chess amateur, had also declined to play in
that St Petersburg match- tournament. This was probably the wrong time of
the year for him to take off six weeks for chess but perhaps if the event had
been played in Germany his answer would have been different.
Without Tarrasch, the "world top" of chess in 1899 was looking a bit thin.
Charousek was soon to die and the generation of Marshall, Rubinstein and
Capablanca were still a few years too young.
Therefore it seemed that the challenge to Lasker (who was not yet thirty-one)
must come from the "old guard" of Steinitz (sixty-three), Blackburne (fiftyeight) and Chigorin (forty-nine), and above all perhaps from Harry Nelson
Pillsbury. After all, Pillsbury had won in England four years earlier, troubled
Lasker in St Petersburg and then in 1898 had all but won Vienna in 1898 until
a crucial failure near the end condemned him to a tie-break match with
Tarrasch.
However, things did not turn out quite as expected. Like Vienna 1898,
London 1899 was a double-round event and so would be a grueling event if
several weeks duration ideal, of course, for Lasker to play himself into form
if he made a rusty start. With only fifteen participants there were not quite so
many games scheduled as at Vienna and the odd number of starters created a
bye in each round. There were to be thirty rounds in all.
The field was weakened, and a second bye created, when Teichmann
withdrew after four rounds due to eye trouble. He had scored a win, a loss and
two draws and these results stood, those players who had not met him
(including Lasker) being awarded a point; Teichmann's second cycle games
were annulled.
Of course, under the rules applying now, all Teichmann's games would have
been canceled since he had not played half the opponents. As you can see
from the crosstable, if that rule had been applied in 1899 Pillsbury would have
placed second outright in the field, confirming (in the absence of Tarrasch) his
true status in the chess world at the turn of the last century, because instead of
18/27 he would have had 17/26 whereas Janowski and Marczy would have
been on 17/26. Nevertheless, although Pillsbury wasn't playing badly in this
tournament, nor did he achieve anything special. Tarrasch had shown in the
Vienna 1898 play-off that real grandmasters could sometimes expose the
American's weaknesses; in London he lost games to Janowski and Chigorin
and suffered a 2-0 wipeout by Blackburne.
Nobody else was seriously affected by the decision to count Teichmann's
games. Blackburne had drawn with Teichmann but remained sixth despite
dropping the half-point while Chigorin (who had actually beaten him) was
seventh whether or not the game was counted. Teichmann had beaten the
English player Tinsley; if this game were left out, Tinsley would have tied for
thirteenth with Bird instead of being bottom on his own.
Looking at the field as a whole, we can see that there were no weak players
from overseas but the British contingent was not at full strength, including
two players who would not have been in master tournaments abroad. This
wasn't the organisers' intention. Amos Burn (who had done so well in 1898)
had withdrawn at the last moment; presumably Tinsley took his place. Frank
J. Lee, a professional chess master and teacher, substituted for Caro, but he
was probably a stronger player than Tinsley. In fact he had finished ahead of
Pillsbury in the 1893 New York tournament, but the statement in Golombek's
Encyclopaedia (1977) that he beat Lasker there is incorrect; Lasker won all
those games.
The field assembled for the official opening ceremony on May 30. There were
five survivors of the great 1883 tournament which Zukertort had won
Steinitz, Chigorin, Blackburne, James Mason (the Irish master who mostly
lived in America) and Henry Bird. At sixty-nine, Bird was the oldest man in
the field he had even played in London 1851, losing to Horwitz in the first
round! The previous year he had been stricken with a paralytic illness so his
appearance in the tournament was itself a surprise.
Lasker began cautiously. In the first round he had White against Steinitz who
played his own defence to the Ruy Lopez (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 d6).
After 4 d4 Bd7 5 Nc3, Steinitz developed his knight at f6 instead of e7 where
he had played it in some earlier games with Lasker. The world champion
appeared disinclined to take any risk and offered a draw after twenty-five
moves.
Next day, Lasker had White against Schlechter. He played the Exchange
Variation of the Ruy Lopez and, with an opposite-coloured bishop ending
about to arise, a draw was agreed after thirty moves. So he had two of the
most dangerous opponents (for a rusty master) out of the way, but two Whites
"wasted".
By the way, I am going by the round and date information given in the Lasker
volume in the Weltgeschichte des Schachs series, edited by Dr Eduard
Wildhagen; the colour sequences seem strange and don't accord with the
round information given in some databases today. Can anybody clarify this? It
seems that the standard pairing tables used nowadays by tournament
organisers didn't exist then and each tournament made its own rules. Perhaps
the players drew lots for colours when they first met and played the reversed
colours in the second half?
According to Dr Wildhagen there was no game on June 1 and in round three
on June 2 Lasker got a third White, this time against Lee. Apart from the New
York 1893 game, Lasker had beaten him in a mini-match in London in 1891.
This was the ideal opportunity to get some momentum going and entertain the
spectators.
This is the position after Black's twentieth move in Lasker-Lee.
[FEN "1kqr3r/pp3pp1/2pb1n1p/4p3/QPPP2nP/
2N2NP1/P2B1P2/2KR1R2 w - - 0 21"]
From a Caro-Kann, Lee has just played the premature "freeing move" 20...e6e5 presumably expecting a double exchange on e5. However, after 21 dxe5
Nxe5 Lasker played 22 Be3! which threatens Rxd6 if Black saves his a-pawn
while if 22...Nxf3 23 Bxa7+ Kc7 24 Bb6+! Kd7 25 c5 the curtain is rapidly
coming down. Instead of this, Lee played 22...Nxc4 23 Bxa7+ Kc7 24 Rd4
b5 whereupon Lasker sacrificed a piece by 25 Nxb5+! cxb5 26 Qxb5 Na3 27
Qa5+ Kb7 28 Bc5 (he must block the c-file) 28...Bxc5 29 bxc5 Rxd4 30
Nxd4 when, despite the simplification, Black's king is too exposed and he has
no good move. Probably Lee intended 30...Qa8 but after 31 c6+! Kb8 32 Qb6
+ Kc8 33 Nf5 the black king gets mated.
So Lee tried 30...Qd8 31 c6+ Kc8 32 Qa7+ Kd6 33 Qa7+ Kd6 and after 34
Qxa3+ Lasker has regained his piece, driving the black king over to a mating
net on the kingside.
Next day, however, British honour was restored and although white (again!)
Lasker was back on fifty percent.
Lasker-Blackburne
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 d6 4 d4 Bd7 5 d5
Lasker appears unwilling to try the line Steinitz had used against him in the
first round (they'd probably had some interesting post-mortem discussions
about 5...Nf6) so played 5 d5 instead of 5 Nc3. Blackburne's own explanation
is that Lasker wanted to avoid exchanges as in their Hastings 1895 game. This
move surely cannot be strong, from b8 the knight gets redeveloped via a6.
5...Nb8 6 Bd3 Be7 7 Nc3 Nf6 8 Ne2 c6 9 c4 Na6 10 Ng3 Nc5 11 Bc2 b5
In his book Mr Blackburne's Games At Chess (ed. Graham) published shortly
after this tournament, the winner observes, "White's pieces are well placed for
an attack on the king if Black castles; therefore he tries to break through on
the queen's flank."
12 b4 Nb7 13 dxc6 Bxc6 14 cxb5 Bxb5 15 a4 Bd7
"I might have prevented castling for a few moves but did not like his N on
f5".
16 0-0 g6 17 h3 h5 18 Be3 a5 19 b5 Rc8 20 Rc1 Nc5
So after twenty moves they got a position that looks more like a Kalashnikov
or Sveshnikov Sicilian. Blackburne, with his use of the d6/e5 pawn phalanx to
support a kingside attack, was ahead of his time here! Surely he was the
strongest British player of the nineteenth century, whatever claims may be
advanced on behalf of Staunton.
[FEN "2rqk2r/3bbp2/3p1np1/pPn1p2p/P3P3/
4BNNP/2B2PP1/2RQ1RK1 w k - 0 21"]
21 Nd2
To protect the e-pawn.
21...h4 22 Ne2 g5!
Blackburne sacrifices a pawn to get open lines for attack.
23 Bxg5 Rg8 24 Bxh4
"24 Bxf6 was safer," observes Blackburne.
24...Bxh3 25 Bg3 Be6
Rather impressive White's pieces are bunched passively and his extra pawn
is going nowhere.
26 Re1 Ng4 27 Nf1 Bg5 28 Rb1 Rh8 29 Nc3

Blackburne here observes, "White is now in a very dangerous position, and he
was perhaps also short of time. 29 f4? is no use as...Bxf4 would win; 29 f3 is
his best.
29...Bf4 30 Nd5 Qg5 31 f3 Rh1+!
"An unexpected move, but it wins in every case" - Blackburne.
32 Kxh1 Bxg3 33 Nxg3
The only move for if 33 Re2 Nf2+ 34 Rxf2 Qh4+ and mate next. Blackburne
now mopped up
33...Nf2+ 34 Kg1 Nxd1 35 Nf5 Bxf5 36 exf5 Qd2 37 Rexd1 Qxc2 38 Rbc1
Qxf5 39 Nb6 Rd8 40 Nc4 Nb7 41 Ne3 Qf4 42 Kf2 Qxa4 43 Rc7 Nc5 44
Rh1 Rd7 45 Rc8+ Ke7 46 Rhh8 Qd4 0-1
This game evidently had the right effect on Lasker it awoke his spirit of
struggle. He was undefeated for the remainder of the tournament. In the next
four rounds, he disposed of Mason, followed by a bye and further wins
against Cohn and Showalter with black. However, in round nine he arrived at
a crucial phase of the tournament where he had to meet in succession the three
younger masters who eventually shared second place. First Lasker had to face
Pillsbury with black. A balanced struggle ended in perpetual check after
Lasker avoided falling into nasty trap.
Then he beat Janowski before being held to a dour draw by Marczy who
didn't give an inch in a Symmetrical Tarrasch variation of the Queen's
Gambit. Then he polished off Tinsley before his second bye.
In round fourteen he had an important win where he despatched his old
adversary Chigorin who went wrong in a complicated Ruy Lopez
middlegame. Lasker finished the first half of the tournament by winning the
exchange against the veteran Bird to collect the full point. Half-way score:
Wins 8, Wins by Default 1, Draws 4, Losses 1. Total 11 point.
The strange organisation of the event meant that in the second half opponents
were met in a different order from the first half. Lasker began by getting his
revenge against Blackburne and then he had Black against Chigorin, never an
easy number. In reply to 1 e4 Lasker avoided 1...e5 which would undoubtedly
have led to a deep prepared variation by Chigorin in one of his favourite
openings, perhaps the Evans Gambit. The world champion preferred to meet
Chigorin's pet line against the French, 1 e4 e6 2 Qe2. After 2...Nc6 3 Nc3,
Lasker played 3...e5!?. The concept of sacrificing a tempo was probably
planned in advance of the game. After 4 g3 Nf6 5 Bg2 Bc5 6 d3 d6, the game
is like a 3 g3 Vienna Opening in which White's extra move (Qe2) is arguably
of no benefit. Lasker eventually won the game.
Then he extended his winning streak to six games by defeating Marczy with
Black in the same opening they had contested with the colours reversed. After
1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 c4 e6 4 e3 c5 5 Nc3 Nc6 6 a3 dxc4 7 Bxc4 a6 8 0-0 b5 9
Be2, Marczy had played the cautious 9...Bb7 but Lasker played more
ambitiously by 9...cxd4 10 exd4 Bb7 to play against the isolated d-pawn. This
must have made the Hungarian uncomfortable for in a few moves he
overlooked a neat sequence that won Lasker the exchange.
Round nineteen saw him held to a draw by Cohn; then he despatched Tinsley
and Bird before another draw with Mason.
In round twenty he won a long technical game against Pillsbury in which he
headed for a rook and bishop endgame right from the opening. Lasker
exploited small pawn weaknesses to win material and eventually the game.
Comfortable wins against Showalter and Lee were then followed by his final
game against Steinitz which won him the first brilliancy prize.
Steinitz-Lasker
1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 f4 d5 4 d3
A Steinitz special; 4 fxe5 Nxe4 is of course the main line.
4...Nc6
4...exf4 is playable but 4...dxe4 5 fxe5 Ng4 6 Nxe4 Nxe5 7 d4 Ng6 8 Nf3 had
given White some advantage in Steinitz-Neumann, Baden-Baden 1870.
5 fxe5 Nxe5 6 d4 Ng6
In view of the variation 7 e5 Ne4 8 Nxe4 dxe4 9 Bc4 (9 c3) 9...c5! 10 c3 cxd4
11 cxd4 Bb4+ 12 Bd2 Bxd2+ 13 Qxd2 0-0 14 Ne2 Be6! Black has solved his
opening problem.
7 exd5 Nxd5 8 Nxd5?
This helps Black's development; 8 Nf3 is correct.
8...Qxd5 9 Nf3 Bg4 10 Be2 0-0-0 11 c3 Bd6 12 0-0 Rhe8 13 h3 Bd7 14
Ng5?
The idea of this is not to fork two pawns but to kick the queen off the long
diagonal (e.g., 14...f6 15 Bf3 Qg8 16 Ne4) but the reply shows that this aim
cannot be achieved, so 14 Ng5 is actually a waste of time which White
(already behind on development) cannot afford.
14...Nh4! 15 Nf3
If instead 15 Bf3 Nxf3+ 16 Qxf3 (16 Nxf3 Bb5 17 Re1 Bg3) 16...Qxf3 17
Nxf3 Re2.
[FEN "2krr3/pppb1ppp/3b4/3q4/3P3n/
2P2N1P/PP2B1P1/R1BQ1RK1 b - - 0 15"]
15...Nxg2! 16 Kxg2 Bxh3 17 Kf2

White's king protection is utterly destroyed as his queenside pieces remain
spectators. If 17 Kxh3 Qf5+ 18 Kg2 Qg4+ 19 Kh1 (19 Kf2? Qg3#) 19...Qh3+
20 Kg1 Qg3+ 21 Kh1 Re4 22 Bg5 Rg4 or 22...f6.
17...f6! 18 Rg1 g5
This threatens g5-g4 so Steinitz tried returning material.
19 Bxg5 fxg5 20 Rxg5 Qe6 21 Qd3 Bf4 22 Rh1
Black also wins after 22 Rh5 Qg4 23 Nh4 Rxe2+ or 22 Rg7 Be3+ 23 Ke1 Bf5
intending...Qh6 or 22 Ra5 Be3+ 23 Ke1 Qg4-+.
22...Bxg5 23 Nxg5 Qf6+ 24 Bf3 Bf5 25 Nxh7 Qg6 26 Qb5 c6 27 Qa5 Re7
28 Rh5 Bg4 29 Rg5 Qc2+ 30 Kg3 Bxf3 0-1
This event was the end of Steinitz who was unable to achieve a plus score
against any of the nine players who finished with a higher score than him.
Even Lee won their mini-match.

Lasker had won the tournament by now irrespective of his final results, but he
concluded his event in glory on July 8, after drawing with Janowski, by
beating Schlechter with Black in twenty-two moves. Lasker thus finished four
and a half points clear of the field and made a plus score against everyone
except Blackburne.
Marco concluded in the Wiener Schachzeitung, "Lasker was there, Lasker the
First, Lasker the Unique!"
This article first appeared at ChessCafe.com in January 1999.


Since it came online many years ago, ChessCafe.com has presented literally
thousands of articles, reviews, columns and the like for the enjoyment of its
worldwide readership. The good news is that almost all of this high quality
material remains available in the Archives. The bad news is that this great
collection of chess literature is now so large and extensive and growing each
week that it is becoming increasingly difficult to navigate it effectively. We
decided that the occasional selection from the archives posted publicly online
might be a welcomed addition to the regular fare.
From the
Archives
Hosted by
Mark Donlan
Purchases from our shop help

keep ChessCafe.com freely
accessible:

new item posted here. We hope you enjoy From the Archives...
Khalifman: Life and Games
by Gennady Nesis

Is Khalifman the Real World Champion?
Occasionally, The Kibitzer (whose brief is deliberately left vague) departs
from opening theory and historical topics to write about current issues in the
chess scene. Last year's #23 (April 1998) examined the situation concerning
the World Championship(s). Now, after last month's events in Las Vegas, it is
time for an update, so expect some controversy!
In April 1998, I wrote that "nobody has the uncontestable right to be regarded
as World Chess Champion". Splendid as GM Alexander Khalifman's surprise
achievement was, in winning the FIDE Knockout World Championship
tournament in Vegas, I don't think that remark is any less true than it was
nineteen months ago.

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
My Life for Chess, Vol. 1

by Viktor Korchnoi
In fact, for the first time ever in chess history, we now have a "world
champion" who not only is not the world's best player but even accepts
publicly that this is the case! To see who is most widely regarded as the
world's strongest player, I refer you to FIDE's own July 1999 rating list where
one G. Kasparov sits at the top with 2851 compared with Khalifman who is in
forty-fifth place with 2628. (Other leading figures whose names have been
bandied about in the world championship context include Anand 2771,
Kramnik 2760, Karpov 2700, Morozevich 2758 and Shirov 2734.)
My Life for Chess, Vol. 2
by Viktor Korchnoi
Alexander Khalifman
Khalifman certainly proved very resourceful in this event. He lost his very
first game (to Barua of India) but equalised; then he lost the first quickplay
game, but still emerged the winner. In round two he lost the first game against
the seeded Kamsky, but again he won with white and came through the
quickplay. In round three he beat the teenager Asrian from Armenia.
The highest-rated player that Khalifman beat was Boris Gelfand (2713) in
round four. After two draws, this game was played at the rate of twenty-five
minutes each.
Khalifman - Gelfand
FIDE WCh KO Las Vegas, 11.08.1999
Sicilian Defence [B92]
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Be2 e5 7 Nb3 Be7 8 Be3
Be6 9 Nd5 Nbd7 10 Qd3 Bxd5 11 exd5 0-0 12 g4!
In a sharp opposite-side castling position, Khalifman gets his pawns moving.
This doesn't seem to be a very common or recommendable variation for
Black, but maybe Gelfand had found the following game in his database and
planned to improve12 Qd3 e4 13 Qd4 Nc5 14 h4 Nfd7 15 g5 f5 16 Qd2 Nxb3
17 axb3 Ne5 18 h5 Rc8 19 g6 hxg6 20 hxg6 Nxg6 21 Bh5 Nh4? (better 21...
Ne5) 22 0-0-0 Ng2 23 Rdg1 f4? 24 Rxg2 fxe3 25 Qxe3 Rc7 26 Bg4 g5 27
Qxe4 1-0, A. Van der Wall-S. Tengely, Kecskemet 1991.
12...Nc5 13 Nxc5 dxc5 14 0-0-0 e4
[FEN "r2q1rk1/1p2bppp/p4n2/2pP4/4p1P1/
3QB3/PPP1BP1P/2KR3R w - - 0 15"]
Gelfand tries to get counterplay by giving up two pawns, to get control of e5

and rupture the white king's pawn defences, and when this doesn't succeed he
also sacrifices the exchange. However, Khalifman repulses the initiative and
wins
15 Qd2 Bd6 16 g5 Nd7 17 h4 Ne5 18 h5 Rc8 19 Rh4 c4 20 Rxe4 c3 21 bxc3
Qa5 22 Kb1 Rxc3 23 Bd4 Rfc8 24 Bxc3 Rxc3 25 Qd4
The white queen is now perfectly placed for attack and defence.
25...f6 26 gxf6 gxf6 27 f4 Bc5 28 Qa4 Qb6+ 29 Ka1 Nf7 30 Qe8+ Kg7 31 h6
+ Nxh6 32 Qd7+ Nf7 33 Rb1 Qd8 34 Rxb7 Qxd7 35 Rxd7 Rxc2 36 Bh5
Ba3 37 Re1 Bb4 38 Rxf7+ Kh6 39 Rh1 1-0
Khalifman then drew the second play-off game to move into round five where
he comfortably despatched Judit Polgar, another player rated higher than
himself. He was proving very efficient with the white pieces.
In the semifinal he met the Romanian L. Nisipeanu, even more of a surprise
qualifier than Khalifman himself, and took an early lead. Nisipeanu equalised
the match in regular time, but once more the quickplay went to the Russian. In
the final against V. Akopian (only slightly higher-rated than himself)
Khalifman took the lead by winning at last with black. Then they each won
with white before Khalifman held a draw in the crucial game five. Now he
only needed a draw with white in the last game and he duly achieved this; in
the whole event he never lost when he had the first move. It was a
performance that Kasparov himself could have been proud of.
From the reports I have so far read, Khalifman is very modest about the whole
thing, referring to himself as an "amateur", and I wish him well. Of course the
circumstances and rules of play in Las Vegas were not ideal, but the players
got well paid. For FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov in particular, and the
chess world in general, the Vegas event has one great advantage it spelled the
end of Karpov's claims to be World Champion (or almost...). While Karpov
was still getting great tournament results and a high rating, FIDE could live
with him but his recent decline of form and rating has put him clearly behind
many players of the younger generation.
Of course it might have been better for FIDE, and chess in general, if one of
the very high-rated players such as Kramnik, Adams, or Shirov had won the
event, but the very structure of the knockout tournament (partly the brevity of
the mini-matches but especially the blitz tie-break) was always likely to
eliminate some of the main contenders. FIDE played its tournament in the
world centre of gambling, with casino rules, and so they cannot complain that
a surprise winner scooped the big pot.
Two players apart from Khalifman may have a claim to be regarded as World
Champion. Kasparov is one of them, of course; we will come to him later in
this article. At the time of writing, it is doubtful whether he will find
sponsorship money for his proposed match with Anand but maybe the
situation will change during the next few weeks.
Anatoly Karpov
Then there is Anatoly Karpov, the only other contender to have actually been
crowned world champion. It seems that Karpov does not accept that Vegas
was a legitimate championship and is considering legal action against FIDE.
This is because they changed the rule that applied in the previous FIDE world
knockout event, where he only had to defend his title against the winner of the
Groningen tournament, Anand. Karpov won then, by the skin of his teeth,
against an exhausted Anand, but chose not to participate in Vegas, where he
would have had to enter the event in the second knockout round.
Karpov first became World Champion way back in 1975 when Bobby Fischer
would not agree FIDE's terms to defend against him. Fischer then went into a
prolonged retirement, from which he emerged only once to win a
controversial re-match against Spassky in Serbia/Montenegro defiance of U.
N. sanctions against that country. Fischer, still regarding himself as
undefeated World Champion, now lives in Hungary.
Karpov had won the Candidates Final the previous year, by the margin of 3-2
(with nineteen draws) against Viktor Korchnoi. This match was a typical
Soviet state-sponsored affair, guaranteed to hold interest over several weeks
because of the slower pace of life in those days and the knowledgeable local
audience in Moscow. However, it was a war of attrition reminiscent of most
of Botvinnik and Petrosian's matches in the 1950s and 1960s fascinating to
the experts but unlikely to make headlines in the West.

Karpov's first defence of the title came in 1978 in Baguio City, Philippines,
with an open-ended match to be won by the first player to win six games; it
took thirty-two games to achieve this result. Once more his opponent was
Korchnoi, now a defector from the USSR. The rules, similar to those of the
Alekhine-Capablanca match of 1927, were fair as they gave no advantage to
the champion Botvinnik had twice retained his title in matches tied 12-12.
This Cold War clash attracted tremendous publicity as Korchnoi, put up a
tremendous fight after conceding an early lead. With numerous off-the-board
wrangles about parapsychologists influencing the players from the audience,
and secret messages allegedly being passed to Karpov in tubs of yogurt, the
champion started to feel the strain and the match went to sudden death at 5-5.
However, Karpov had the next white and clinched victory by 6-5 with twentyone draws.
Viktor Korchnoi
The same rules applied for the 1981 title match in Merano, Italy. This time
Korchnoi, who had fought his way through the qualifiers again, went down
tamely and Karpov notched up the required six victories in only eighteen
games.
You can see why FIDE wanted to change the system, especially in these days
when people want quick results. The head-to-head long-match system meant
that a contest could either be an anticlimax like Merano or an open-ended
endurance test like Baguio. Nobody involved (players, organisers, journalists,
sponsors) could estimate what they would be in for, in terms of duration,
expenses, etc. The pace of play in these matches - three games per week at
most (lengthened by time-outs) - was also not guaranteed to hold public
interest.
The nadir of the match system was the first Karpov-Kasparov match (198485), which was supposed to be for the first to six games, but went to fortyeight games without result. Karpov was four up after nine games, scored his
fifth win in game tenty-eight and twenty games later his lead was down to 53. FIDE President Campomanes stopped the match and people have been
arguing ever since whose idea that was, whether it was justified and who
benefitted. I don't want to get into that, but many people think the present
malaise in the world chess scene dates to that occasion.
Because of complicated rules about re-match entitlements and the outcome of
new Candidates cycles, Karpov and Kasparov contested four further matches.
Kasparov won the title 13-11 in 1985 (Moscow, Sept.-Nov.), successfully
defended in 1986 (London/Leningrad), dramatically won the last game to tie
and retain his title in 1987 (Seville), and beat Karpov again in 1990 (New
York/Lyons).
Nigel Short
The prospect of a sixth K-K match in 1993 was avoided when Nigel Short
broke the mold and earned the right to challenge Kasparov for the world chess
championship. At this point, disregarding Fischer's claims, there was still only
one World Chess Championship and one universally recognised World
Champion.
It was Nigel Short's fateful phone call to Kasparov proposing a breakaway
from FIDE which changed all that, and this is why I consider that Short rather than Campomanes or anyone else except Kasparov (who jumped at
Short's idea) - bears much of the responsibility for the mess we have today. I
find it amazing that FIDE allowed Short to play in Vegas; it is arguable that
he should be banned from all their championship events for life.
Most players in the past who have gone through a qualifying cycle and earned
a shot at the world title would have loved the package on offer to Short in
1993. He could have had a huge home-town advantage in Manchester, the
nearest large city to the Lancashire town of Bolton where he grew up, which
had submitted the highest bid to FIDE for hosting the match. This would have
earned him tremendous goodwill in British chess. He could have prepared for
the match calmly and maximised his chances of success.
Short himself may say differently, but to the outside observer he seems to
have taken the view that he had little chance of victory anyway and moreover
that this match (even as a loser) gave him his one chance of a big payday in
his lifetime. So he rejected the Manchester deal, telephoned his rival and
initiated the split with FIDE that maximised the big bucks and minimised his
chances of success. The strain told in the very first game, where (approaching
a winning endgame after stout defence) he turned down a draw and lost on
time. A few days later Short sacked his trainer, Czech-born US grandmaster
Lubosh Kavalek, without whom Short would never have got to play Kasparov
in the first place. After these two disastrous mistakes, Short was never in the
match, which was as one-sided as Merano 1981.
FIDE's reaction to the crisis was legalistic rather than sensible. Since the
World Chess Championship is a competition that pre-dates the foundation of
FIDE by four decades, a better effort should have been made to heal the
wounds in a way that would have commanded the acceptance of the informed
chess world.
It is understandable FIDE chose not to recognise Kasparov as world champion
any more, but their best practical continuation would probably to have been to
continue with their next qualification cycle, with Karpov seeded into the
Candidates matches in place of Short. In two more years this would produce a
new challenger (possibly Karpov, possibly Anand) and it would have been
hard for Kasparov not to play a reunification match against this person. This
would have meant FIDE regarding the world title as officially vacant for two
or three years, possibly slightly illogical, but much preferable in the eyes of
the chess world to what they actually did.
Jan Timman
FIDE decided they needed their own "world champion", but the ensuing title
match had no credibility. This is because it was played between two men
(Karpov and Timman) who had recently been defeated in matches by Nigel
Short! No wonder Campomanes could not get any serious sponsorship or
prize money for this match. I am surprised that Timman played it. Nothing
surprises me about Karpov. He is now down to tenth in the FIDE rankings,
but still thinks he should be regarded as World Champion.
As a result of beating Timman, Karpov was declared World Champion by
FIDE while the Intel-backed PCA recognised Kasparov. So we had two
World Champions in 1994. Both organisations proceeded to organise
elimination tournaments and a Candidates series to select their next
challengers. Some grandmasters even played in both series. So at this stage
both organisations followed the old model of qualifying competitions first a
tournament, then a series of matches (over about eight games). Kamsky
emerged from the FIDE series, while Anand got to challenge Kasparov.
The two "World Championship" matches of 1995 followed different paths
entirely, Karpov-Kamsky was played in Ilyumzhinov's remote home town of
Elista; Karpov took an early lead, but Kamsky fought creditably and there was
some decent chess played. The PCA match in New York got all the glitzy
publicity, but began slowly and ended in a terrible anti-climax as Anand's
match strategy was poor and his nerves went at the crisis.
The match began with several short draws and then Anand won game nine.
However, he lost the lead immediately because of bad openings preparation
and then he lost again in game eleven to go behind. He soon lost two more
games and then started offering short draws to end the match. Short and
Kamsky had both fought harder in a hopeless cause than Anand, who was a
terrible disappointment to his supporters; maybe he will do better if he gets
another chance this year or next. There was almost no interesting chess played
in this match at all, and since then Kasparov has not moved a pawn in defence
of his claims to be World Champion.
Last year he tried to set up a contest between Kramnik and Anand, the two
players with the best claim (on paper) to be his challenger, but Anand
declined because of contractual obligations to FIDE. Shirov was found to
replace Anand and he defeated Kramnik by exposing the favourite's
limitations in both openings preparation and endgame technique. However,
his subsequent tournament results were unimpressive and the sponsorship that
appeared to be in place for a Kasparov-Kramnik match evaporated when a
one-sided Kasparov-Shirov clash was in the offing. So this year Kasparov
tried again to arrange a match with the one player who would have some
chance of being widely regarded as his main rival for the top spot, namely
Anand. Both Kasparov and Anand chose to pass on Vegas to avoid being tied
by any FIDE contracts preventing them playing for other "championship"
titles (and to avoid being the victims of the casino effect) but even this new
match is in doubt.
Maybe there will never again be a traditional world championship match, and
if not the game will be the poorer for it. Chess is, after all, one of the greatest
intellectual challenges devised by Man and its supreme prize should be
decided by who can out-think his opponent, not by who can shift wood fastest
and punch the clock quickest in a blitz finish.
I cannot regard any event as a true chess world championship that (like Las
Vegas) involves rapid-play tie-break. The tradition of the world championship
has always been that the best player is decided by a lengthy head-to-head
contest under optimum conditions. The forty moves in 150 minutes time limit
(with adjournments for very long games) gives the players time to think and
find the best moves they can at all stages and (hopefully) give the world an
exhibition of how chess at its very best can be played. The duration of the
match should be a minimum of twelve games to give the players a chance to
test their opponents' opening repertoires and to give time to recover from an
early defeat.
The Las Vegas format is potentially attractive to spectators and sponsors
(though in fact FIDE seemed to find both in short supply) and it has one major
advantage. It is democratic, in that a much wider range of masters and
grandmasters get the opportunity to show what they can do on a big stage
with big prizes. It poses a welcome threat to the golden circle of highly rated
players to get invitations to all-play-all events and keep their high ratings by
averaging fifty percent in those events. It may in future lead to those players
who did surprisingly well at Vegas (e.g., Khalifman and Nisipeanu) gaining
invitations so they can show whether they really can match the Kramniks,
Kasparovs, and Anands. That cannot be bad.
With every year that goes by, Kasparov's claims to be World Champion
becomes more tenuous. However, he has kept it alive with a string of
excellent tournament wins in 1999 while nobody else can match his
consistency.
When Petrosian was World Champion from 1963-69 he did not win one
tournament outright. There was talk that a "tournament world championship"
should be instituted, but nobody questioned he was a great player very strong
in tactics (especially defensively) with positional sense and endgame
technique that had been able to surpass Botvinnik. His problem was partly a
lack of ambition once he became champion, and partly that his style led to a
lot of draws. He was a player more suited to match-play than tournaments,
especially ones which (unlike today's high-category events) were not
uniformly populated by grandmasters of the highest calibre.
So Khalifman might be regarded as the "tournament world champion", but not
the true world champion. The list of world champions stemming from Steinitz
is a kind of apostolic succession, broken only by the death of Alekhine before
he could defend his title that was not his fault but was due to World War Two.
On this champions' roll of honour, where only the names of eternal greats
should be inscribed, I see no place (yet) for Alexander Khalifman; to earn it,
he must beat Kasparov (or a true successor to Kasparov) in a traditional style
match. Maybe he can do it.
Perhaps the best comparison of all is with professional cycling. Events are
ridden over all kinds of distances and different conditions. The toughest event
of all is the multi-stage Tour de France which last three weeks with flat stages
suiting sprinters and high mountain finishes suiting a different type of rider
altogether. The winner gets to wear the coveted yellow jersey on the podium
in Paris.
However, professional cycling also has its "world champion" who is the
winner of a long road race on one single day. By that analogy, you can regard
Khalifman as world champion if you wish but I still think Kasparov wears the
yellow jersey of chess.
This article first appeared at ChessCafe.com in September 1999.

[Endgame Study] [The Skittles Room] [Archives]
[Links] [Online Bookstore] [About ChessCafe.com] [Contact Us]
2010 BrainGamz, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Since it came online in 1996, ChessCafe.com has presented thousands of
articles, reviews, columns and the like for the enjoyment of its worldwide
readership. This high quality material remains available in the ChessCafe.
com Archives. However, we decided that the occasional selection from the
archives posted publicly online might be a welcomed addition to the regular
fare.
Purchases from our

accessible:

"new" item posted here. We hope you enjoy From the Archives...
From the
Archives
Hosted by
Mark Donlan
Translate this page
Calculate Like a Grandmaster

by Daniel Gormally
A Royal March to Death or Glory

This month, The Kibitzer is looking at cases where kings go to extremes and
become polar explorers going to the far corners of the board. If a white king
reaches h8 (or a8), or His Black Majesty arrives on h1 (or a1), then the game
qualifies for consideration.
I set my database to work on a collection of more than 1.6 million games to
find suitable examples, especially short ones. Of course the majority of cases
where kings travelled the whole board turned out to be endgames, where the
kings were supporting passed pawns often trying to capture enemy infantry en
route.
Such cases are relatively uninteresting, both because they are plentiful and
because with material greatly diminished the king is normally not running
much risk. However, the following example from master play is a little out of
the ordinary. The final phase of the white king's journey is with the purpose of
forcing a winning king and pawn ending.
Counter Gambits
by Tim Harding
Luther, Thomas (2507) Ellers, Holger (2426)

Petermaennchen GM Schwerin (3), 10.08.1999
Sicilian Defense [B39]

the games from
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 g6 5 c4 Bg7 6 Be3 Nf6 7 Nc3 Ng4 8

Qxg4 Nxd4 9 Qd1 Ne6 10 Qd2 Qa5 11 Rc1 b6 12 b3 Bb7 13 Nd5 Qxd2+
14 Kxd2 g5 15 h4 h6 16 hxg5 hxg5 17 Rxh8+ Bxh8 18 Bd3 d6 19 Rh1 Kd7
20 Rh7 Rf8 21 Be2 Nf4 22 Bg4+ Kd8 23 g3 Nxd5 24 exd5 Bf6
[FEN "3k1r2/pb2pp1R/1p1p1b2/3P2p1/
2P3B1/1P2B1P1/P2K1P2/8 w - - 0 25"]
The King Hunt

by John Nunn
& William Cozens
Now White's king starts motoring.

25 Kd3 Bc8 26 Bxc8 Kxc8 27 Ke4 Kc7 28 Kf5 a6 29 Bxg5 Bxg5 30 Kxg5
Kd7 31 Kh6 e5 32 Kg7 Ke7 33 Rh8 Rxh8 34 Kxh8 1-0
Black resigned, as the white king can return down the h-file to support the
advance of his pawns, or if Black plays ...Kf6, the white king can move along
the eighth rank to attack d6.
The second most common category of such games is the King Hunt the
doomed king is driven by checks and threats of mate to the far corner, where
normally he will perish in a pool of blood. There are several well-known
examples; for instance, the very pretty Korolev Kopylov postal game which
can be found in the John Nunn edition of the book The King Hunt by W.H.
Cozens.
Here is a classic example where both kings take long walks but he who walks
last walks longest.
Schlechter, Carl Thirring, Julius
Wien, 1893
Vienna Game [C25]
1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nc6 3 f4 exf4 4 Nf3 g5 5 h4 g4 6 Ng5 h6 7 Nxf7 Kxf7 8 Bc4+
d5 9 Nxd5 Kg7 10 d4 Be6 11 Bxf4 Bd6 12 0-0 Qxh4 13 Bxd6 cxd6 14 Ne3
g3 15 Nf5+ Bxf5 16 Rxf5 Qh2+ 17 Kf1 Qh1+ 18 Ke2 Qxg2+ 19 Kd3 Nf6
20 Rxf6 Kxf6 21 Qg4 Nb4+ 22 Kc3 Qxc2+ 23 Kxb4 a5+ 24 Kb5 Qxb2+ 25
Bb3 Qf2
[FEN "r6r/1p6/3p1k1p/pK6/3PP1Q1/
1B4p1/P4q2/R7 w - - 0 26"]
Now White's king is safe (!) and he took the initiative.

26 e5+ dxe5 27 dxe5+ Kxe5 28 Qe6+ Kd4 29 Qd5+ Ke3 30 Qe6+ Kf3 31
Bd1+ Kg2 32 Qe4+ Kh2 33 Qh1+ Kxh1 34 Bf3+ Kh2 35 Rh1# 1-0
Canadian GM Laurence Day must have enjoyed the following finish (black
against Lod Prins at the 1968 Olympiad in Lugano) because his king hunt
culminated in giving checkmate by castling:
[FEN "r3k2r/1b1p1pp1/p1q1p3/8/2P3p1/
P3P3/1P2B1P1/R1RQNK2 b kq - 0 23"]
23...Rh1+ 24 Kf2 g3+ 25 Kxg3 Rxe1 26 Qxe1 Qxg2+ 27 Kf4 g5+ 28 Ke5
Qe4+ 29 Kf6 Qf5+ 30 Kg7 Qg6+ 31 Kh8 0-0-0# 0-1
Kasparov himself was involved in one such case early in his career
Romanishin, Oleg Kasparov, Garry
Romanishin-Junior sim Leningrad, 1975
[FEN "2kr2r1/pp1n1p2/2p5/2b5/
2P2pP1/5B2/PB4K1/R4R2 w - - 0 24"]
Now White starts his kamikaze flight:

24 Kh3 Nb6 25 Bf6 Rd3 26 Rac1 Nd7 27 Ba1 f5 28 Kh4 Be7+ 29 Kh5 Rg5
+ 30 Kh6 Rd6+ 31 Kh7 Nf8+ 32 Kh8 Rh6# 0-1
The main interest in such cases is to seek really short examples involving
human players. (I discount computer games and Internet blitz for these
purposes.)
The shortest one I have found from over-the-board play in the twentieth
century is the following:
Szukszta, Janusz Grzelak, Rafal
Ch Poland, Teams, 1971
Nimzo-Indian Defense [E40]
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 e3 Ne4 5 Qc2 Nxc3 6 bxc3 Bf8 7 Bd3 g6 8 h4
Bg7 9 h5 d6 10 Nf3 Nd7 11 hxg6 hxg6 12 Rxh8+ Bxh8 13 Bxg6 fxg6 14
Qxg6+ Kf8 15 Ng5 Qe8 16 Qh6+ Bg7 17 Nxe6+ Ke7 18 Qxg7+ Kxe6
[FEN "r1b1q3/pppn2Q1/3pk3/8/2PP4/
2P1P3/P4PP1/R1B1K3 w Q - 0 19"]
19 d5+ Kf5 20 g4+ Ke4 21 Qd4+ Kf3 22 Qf4+ Kg2 23 Qg3+ Kh1 24 Kf1 10
It is mate next move by Qh3 or Qg2.
However the next game is shorter still.
Alexander, Alexander Cordel, Oskar
Weissenfels, 1870
Ruy Lopez [C64]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Bc5 4 0-0 Nge7 5 c3 f5 6 Bxc6 dxc6 7 Nxe5 fxe4 8
Qh5+ g6 9 Nxg6 Nxg6 10 Qxc5 Qd3 11 f3 Bh3 12 Qe3 Rg8 13 Qxd3 exd3
14 gxh3 Nf4+ 15 Kf2 0-0-0
[FEN "2kr2r1/ppp4p/2p5/8/5n2/2Pp1P1P/
PP1P1K1P/RNB2R2 w - - 0 16"]
16 Ke3 Ng2+ 17 Ke4 Rge8+ 18 Kf5 Rd5+ 19 Kf6 Nf4 20 Rg1 Re6+ 21 Kg7
Rd7+ 22 Kh8 Re8+ 23 Rg8 Ng6# 0-1
In the following postal game, White's king even arrives at a8 on move twenty,
but the win takes a little longer.
Skvortsov, Boris Grodzensky, Sergey
Ryazan Oblast ch corr, 1971
King's Gambit [C33]
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nc3 Qh4+ 4 Ke2 d5 5 Nxd5 Bg4+ 6 Nf3 Nc6 7 Kd3? 0-00 8 Nxh4 Bxd1 9 Kc3 g5 10 Nf3 Bg7+ 11 Kd3 g4 12 Ng5 b5 13 a3 Nge7 14
c4 bxc4+ 15 Kxc4 Na5+ 16 Kb5 Nec6 17 Ka6
White should have tried 17 Nxf7!? Kb7 18 Nxd8+ Rxd8 19 Nb4! Nxb4 20
axb4 Nb3 21 Bc4 according to Grodzensky.
17...Nb7 18 a4 If 18 Nxf7 Ba4!. 18...Nb8+ 19 Kxa7 Bd4+ 20 Ka8
[FEN "Knkr3r/1np2p1p/8/3N2N1/
P2bPpp1/8/1P1P2PP/R1Bb1B1R b - - 0 20"]
20...Rxd5 21 exd5 Bb3 22 Be2 Bxd5 23 Bxg4+ Nd7 24 Bf3 c6

0-1
The winner of that game was recently awarded the Correspondence Chess
Grandmaster title.
The square a8 is also featured in the following game, perhaps the shortest
king hunt of its type. Emil Diemer and Gunderam played numerous games in
the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit so it is perhaps no surprise that a king came to
such an early bad end in one of these.
Diemer, Emil Josef Gunderam, H
corr, 1976
Blackmar-Diemer Gambit [D00]
1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 Bf5 6 Ne5 e6 7 g4 Ne4 8 gxf5

Qh4+ 9 Ke2 f6 10 Nf3 Qf2+ 11 Kd3 Nc5+ 12 dxc5 Na6 13 Ne4 Nxc5+ 14
Kc4 b5+ 15 Kxb5 Rb8+ 16 Ka5 Nxe4 17 Qd4
[FEN "1r2kb1r/p1p3pp/4pp2/K4P2/
3Qn3/5N2/PPP2q1P/R1B2B1R b k - 0 17"]
17...Bb4+ 18 Ka6 Nc5+ 19 Kxa7 Rb7+ 20 Ka8 Kf7+ 0-1

It is mate next move.
Can anyone find a shorter game in which this task of mating the king in the
far corner was accomplished?
An elegant checkmate also of interest.
Sturua, Zurab Chipashvili
Soviet Union, 1978
Philidor Defense [C41]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 Nd7 4 Nc3 Ngf6 5 Be2 g6 6 Bg5 Bg7 7 dxe5 dxe5 8
Nxe5 Nxe5 9 Qxd8+ Kxd8 10 Nd5 Ned7 11 0-0-0 Bh6 12 Bxh6 Nxe4 13
Bf3 Nxf2 14 Bg5+ f6 15 Nxf6 Nxh1 16 Nd5+ Ke8 17 Re1+ Ne5 18 Rxe5+
Kd7 19 Re7+ Kc6 20 Rxc7+ Kb5 21 Be2+ Ka4 22 b3+ Ka3 23 Be7+ Kxa2
24 Nc3+ Ka1
[FEN "r1b4r/ppR1B2p/6p1/8/8/
1PN5/2P1B1PP/k1K4n w - - 0 25"]
25 Ba3! 1-0
Next move Bb2 will complete the mate by bishop and knight.
The following game is curious for a different reason in under twenty-five
moves, two white pieces visit a8!
Qualtiere, R Grant, G
Ohio Class ch, 1988
King's Gambit [C33]
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nc3 Qh4+ 4 Ke2 d6 5 d4 g5 6 Nd5 Bd7 7 Nxc7+ Kd8 8
Nf3 Qh5 9 Nxa8
[FEN "Nn1k1bnr/pp1b1p1p/3p4/6pq/3PPp2/
5N2/PPP1K1PP/R1BQ1B1R b - - 0 9"]
How will the white king replace the knight on this square? Just watch!
9...g4 10 Ng1 Bh6 11 Kd3 Nf6 12 Ne2 Nxe4 13 Qe1 Qf5 14 c4 Nc5+ 15 Kc3
Qd3+ 16 Kb4 Nba6+ 17 Ka5 b6+ 18 Nxb6 axb6+ 19 Kxb6 Qxc4 20 Qa5
Ke7 21 Nxf4 Rb8+ 22 Ka7 Rb7+ 23 Ka8 Nc7+ 0-1
More interesting is the case where the king is driven (or runs) to the far corner
but the game is not lost.
Delanoy, A (2260) Ermenkov, E (2465)
Groningen op (2), 1990
[FEN "8/pp6/3p2k1/2pPb1p1/
4Pp1r/1PP2K1P/P7/2R4R w - - 0 29"]
White is ahead the exchange for a pawn but it is not obvious how he is to
break down Black's resistance.
29 Rcg1!? Bxc3 30 Rg4 Kh5 31 Rxh4+ Kxh4 32 Rg1 Bf6 33 Rg4+ Kxh3
34 Rg1 Kh2 35 Rg2+ Kh1
The black king is stalemated but cannot be checkmated. If White still hoped
to win, 36 e5 dxe5 37 Rd2 might have been worth a try (not 37 d6?? e4+) but
he settled for a draw.
36 Re2 Be5 37 Rg2 Bf6 38 Re2 Be5 39 Rg2 -
In the following game, some compulsion seemed to drive Black to put his
king in the corner when it wasn't necessary.
De Vries, Woop Schneider, T.
Thematic TT/5/97/2 corr, 1997
French Defense [C12]
[FEN "rn2q3/pb6/1p2N3/3pP3/5Q1P/
k7/P1P2PP1/3K4 w - - 0 33"]
33 Qf3+ Kxa2??
After 33...Ka4, White has only a draw.
34 Qb3+ Ka1 35 Kc1 Qb5 36 Qa3# 1-0
Better still, the king hunt fails altogether and (as in Luther Ellers) the player
whose king reaches the far corner is the winner. Here is an example from a
high-level event.
Kupreichik, Viktor (2580) Yudasin, Leonid (2365)
URS-ch49 Frunze (8), 12.1981
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 d6 6 Bg5 Bd7 7 Qd2 Rc8 8
f4 Nxd4 9 Qxd4 Qa5 10 e5 dxe5 11 fxe5 e6 12 0-0-0 Bc6 13 Nb5 Bxb5 14
exf6 Bc6 15 h4 Rg8 16 Bc4 gxf6 17 Rhe1 fxg5 18 Bxe6 fxe6 19 Rxe6+ Be7
[FEN "2r1k1r1/pp2b2p/2b1R3/q5p1/
3Q3P/8/PPP3P1/2KR4 w - - 0 20"]
White has to bank everything on an attack.

20 Rxe7+ Kxe7 21 Qe3+ Kf7 22 Rf1+ Kg7 23 Qe7+ Kh6 24 Rf7 Rcf8 25
Qd6+ Kh5 26 g4+ Kxg4 27 Qe6+ Kg3 28 Qe3+ Kh2 29 b4 Qxb4 30 Qe5+
Kh1 0-1
[FEN "5rr1/pp3R1p/2b5/4Q1p1/
1q5P/8/P1P5/2K4k w - - 0 31"]
The following recent example is from amateur play but is also interesting
because the result seems in doubt until nearly the end.
Moreno, W (2055) Fuentes, Mo (2305)
Regional ch-PER Lima PER (4), 27.02.1999
Schmid Benoni [A43]
1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 c5 3 d5 b5 4 Bg5 Ne4 5 Bh4 Bb7 6 a4 Qa5+ 7 c3 e6 8 dxe6
fxe6 9 Nbd2 b4 10 Nxe4 Bxe4 11 c4 Nc6 12 e3 b3+ 13 Ke2 Qb4 14 Nd2
Bc2 15 Qc1 Ne5 16 Ke1 d5 17 f4 Nxc4 18 Bxc4 dxc4 19 Kf2 c3 20 Nf3 c4
21 Nd4 cxb2 22 Qxb2 Qd2+ 23 Ne2 Bc5 24 Qe5 Qd5 25 Qxg7 Rf8 26 Bf6
Rb8 27 Bb2
[FEN "1r2kr2/p5Qp/4p3/2bq4/P1p2P2/
1p2P3/1Bb1NKPP/R6R b - - 0 27"]
Black should probably be winning this position (e.g. with 27...Rb7 or 27...
Qe4) but he plays an incorrect combination.
27...Rxf4+?!28 Nxf4 Qd2+ 29 Kf3 Qxe3+ 30 Kg4 Bf5+ 31 Kg5 Bf8 32 Qe5
Be7+
White's queen is in a dominant position but, a rook down, it is understandable
Black did not trust 32...Qxe5 33 Bxe5 Be7+ (or 33...Rb4) 34 Kh5 Rb4 35 g4.
Although this would have prolonged the game, White must be winning.
33 Kh5 Bg6+ 34 Nxg6 hxg6+ 35 Kxg6 Qd3+ 36 Kg7 Bf8+ 37 Kh8 Qg6? 38
Qxb8+ 1-0
To conclude, the following finish is definitely one of the more unusual
examples I found where a king made the long journey.
Novovsky, A Kalinin, Alexander
IX Soviet Army ch corr, 1993
King's Indian Defense [E81]
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 f3 0-0 6 Be3 Nbd7 7 Qd2 c5 8 Nge2
a6 9 a4 cxd4 10 Nxd4 Nc5 11 b4 e5 12 bxc5 exd4 13 Bxd4 dxc5 14 Bxc5
Nxe4 15 fxe4 Qa5 16 Bd4 Rd8 17 Nd5 Qxd2+ 18 Kxd2 Bxd4 19 Rb1 b6 20
Ne7+ Kf8 21 Nc6 Rd6 22 Nxd4 Rxd4+ 23 Ke3
[FEN "r1b2k2/5p1p/pp4p1/8/P1PrP3/
4K3/6PP/1R3B1R b - - 0 23"]
23...Rxe4+ 24 Kxe4 Bf5+ 25 Kd5 Bxb1 26 Kc6 Be4+ 27 Kxb6 Rb8+ 28

Kxa6 Rb1 29 Bd3 Bxd3 30 Rxb1 Bxb1 31 Kb6 Ke7 32 Kc7 Be4 33 a5
Bxg2 34 a6 f5 35 c5 Ba8 36 Kb8 Kd7 37 Kxa8 Kc8 0-1
Maybe there was an adjudication or conditional move offer, since in an overthe-board game one would expect at least one more move to be made. After
38 Ka7 f4??, Black would even lose 39 Kb6 f3 (39...Kb8 40 a7+) 40 a7 etc.
However, the neat 38...Kc7! leaves White helpless while Black advances his
kingside pawn majority.

Vasily Smyslov, The Career of a World

Champion
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding

accessible:
Vasily Vasilievich Smyslov, who was world chess champion from 27 April
1957 to 8 May 1958, died on 27 March 2010, aged 89. Although he played
three matches for the world championship in the 1950s, he is probably much
less remembered by the chess world than Mikhail Tal, who was also
champion for just one year, or David Bronstein, who tied the only
championship match he played. The younger generation of chess players is
perhaps not aware of Smyslov at all, or only because of the rook endgame
treatise he wrote with Grigory Levenfish, and perhaps because Smyslov had a
remarkably long career, reaching the 1984 Candidates final, which he lost to
the rising Kasparov.
I first heard of Smyslov when I was about thirteen and my parents brought me
to a bookshop in Oxford after Christmas to spend a book token I had received
as a present. There was no great selection of chess books on offer, and I had
already made the mistake of buying Hoffer's Chess the previous time, so I
went for the most advanced-looking book on offer. This was My Best Games
of Chess 1935-57, which Peter Clarke had translated for Routledge & Kegan
Paul after Smyslov became world champion. It was based on Smyslov's 1952
Russian collection Izbrannie Partii ("Best Games"), which had sixty games
played up to 1951, with some games dropped but more added. Clarke had
Smyslov's permission to do this book, and he made use of the champion's own
notes to the later games, as published in the magazine Chess in the USSR, and
also began the book with an article about Smyslov's career by P. A.
Romanovsky.
Smyslov's Best Games

Volume II: 1958-1995
by Vasily Smyslov
Vasily Smyslov:
Endgame Virtuoso
by Vasily Smyslov

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
Vasily Smyslov
So I gradually played through the games in this book, although most of it was
probably over my head. Smyslov's style and opening repertoire hardly
influenced me at all, except that I did sometimes, over many years, play the
Slav Defence with 5Na6, one of Smyslov's patent lines. That was not
because of the book but under the influence of a game I saw much later in a
magazine.
Julio Bolbochan - Vasily Smyslov
Mar del Plata 1966
Queen's Gambit, Slav Defence [D16]
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 a4 Na6
Botvinnik-Smyslov
by Mikhail Botvinnik
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/pp2pppp/n1p2n2/8/P1pP4/
2N2N2/1P2PPPP/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 0 6"]
6 e3 Bg4 7 Bxc4 e6 8 00
If 8 Bxa6 bxa6 Black obtains the b-file and the bishop pair.
8...Nb4 9 Qe2 Be7 10 Rd1 00 11 h3 Bh5 12 Bb3 c5!
Black's typical freeing move in the Slav.
13 dxc5 Qa5 14 e4 Bxc5 15 e5 Nfd5 16 Ne4
According to Smyslov, White should have played 16 Nxd5 Nxd5 17 Bxd5
exd5 18 Be3.
16...Be7 17 Bd2 Rfd8 18 Ng3 Bg6 19 h4 h6 20 h5 Bh7 21 Qc4 Rac8 22 Qg4
Kh8 23 Rac1 Rxc1 24 Rxc1 Qb6
[FEN "3r3k/pp2bppb/1q2p2p/3nP2P/Pn4Q1/
1B3NN1/1P1B1PP1/2R3K1 w - - 0 25"]
This threatens ...Nd3. White is obliged to give up the bishop-pair.

25 Bxd5 Nxd5 26 Qd4 Qb3 27 Qxa7 Qxb2 28 Qd4 Qxd4 29 Nxd4 Ba3!
Embarrassing for White, whose rook must leave the open file: if 30 Rc4 Bd3.
30 Re1 Nb4 31 Bc3 Nd3 32 Re2 Bc5 33 Nb5 b6 34 Rd2 Ra8 35 Ra2
[FEN "r6k/5ppb/1p2p2p/1Nb1P2P/
P7/2Bn2N1/R4PP1/6K1 b - - 0 35"]
35...Nxf2! 36 Rxf2 Rxa4 37 Nd6 Rf4 38 Be1 Bd3 39 Nf1 Kg8 40 g3 Ra4 41
Kg2 Bxf2 42 Kxf2
The outcome of the combination at move thirty-five is that Black has a rook
and two pawns (one of them passed) against two discoordinated knights. The
opposite coloured bishops are not drawish in this situation.
42...b5 43 Nd2 b4 44 Ke3 Ra3 45 Kd4 Bc2 46 N2c4
46 Kc4 fails to 46...Re3 47 Bf2 Re2 winning a piece.
46...Rd3+ 47 Kc5 b3 48 Kc6
48 Kb4 b2 49 Nxb2 Rb3+.
48...Re3!
Again the bishop is a target; if now 49 Bf2 Rxe5 50 Nxe5 b2.
49 Bd2
49 Bf2 Rxe5 50 Nxe5 b2.
49...Rxg3 0-1
White resigns as his pawns are all falling: 50 Kd7 Bd1 51 Ke7 Bxh5.
In 1979 a new book by Smyslov appeared in Russian, In Search of Harmony,
which included his personal memoir from which I have quoted in this article.
Ken Neat translated it, with a few extra games, as 125 Selected Games,
published by Pergamon Press in 1983. The decision to change the meaningful
title to one merely descriptive of the contents was not particularly inspired:
did it sell more books, or fewer? I doubt if it would have sold at all but for the
happy coincidence that it came out in the year of Smyslov's 'Indian summer',
or maybe they rapidly commissioned a translation when he reached the
Candidates?
Neither book has very detailed tactical annotations but the newer one is of
course more revealing of Smyslov's thoughts than the first.
Smyslov was fortunate in that he was born (in Moscow on 24 March 1921),
into a sector of the small but growing post-revolutionary Russian technocratic
middleclass that was probably not greatly affected by the revolution. From his
father, Vasily Osipovich Smyslov, who had once beaten Alekhine in a St.
Petersburg club tournament game in 1912, he inherited a strong musical and
chess culture, and a fine singing voice. His father had a chess library of at
least a hundred titles, so until he was fourteen he developed his chess skills
just by playing with his father, receiving odds until he reached level standing,
and then by studying all the classics from Morphy to Nimzowitsch.
Smyslov's obituary in The Times says that he was awarded the grandmaster
title in 1950 - but that was the first year of FIDE awards. He already reached
that standard a decade earlier and in his autobiography he wrote, "I am glad
that I became a grandmaster during my father's lifetime (he died in 1943) and
he could see that his efforts had not been in vain". The Soviet Chess
Encylopaedic Dictionary does not confirm this claim, but his top results (such
as Moscow champion 1942) during the difficult war years show that he could
have been consider a grandmaster had things been normal then. He had tied
first in the 1938 tournament for first category players and since there was no
Candidate Master grade then, he was certainly a master by 1939.
His first endgame compositions were also published before the war and in
1957 he was awarded the FIDE title of Arbiter for Chess Composition; i.e., a
judge of international endgame study competitions.
Study by V. V. Smyslov, 1938
Shakmaty v S.S.S.R. study competition, fourth prize
White to play and drawaw
[FEN "r7/4p3/7K/p4p1P/6pk/
5Pp1/PB4P1/8 w - - 0 1"]
1 Bf6+! exf6 2 f4 Rh8+

2...Rb8, playing to promote the a-pawn, does not work because of White's
own queening plan: 3 Kg6 Rb2 4 h6.
3 Kg7 Rxh5 4 a4 Rg5+
Of course the rook cannot be captured.
5 Kh8!
Not 5 Kh6 Rg8 and Black will win by promoting his a-pawn. But now the
black R cannot escape the box and without the assistance of the blockaded K,
it is impotent.
5...Rg6 6 Kh7 Kh5
The K tries to escape.
7 Kh8 Rh6+ 8 Kg7 Rg6+
[FEN "8/6K1/5pr1/p4p1k/P4Pp1/
6p1/6P1/8 w - - 0 9"]
9 Kh8!
Black can make no progress because 9 Kh7? would lose to 9...Rg5!, when
White has to play 10 Kh8 permitting 10...Kg6.
9...Kh6
Stalemate. If instead 9...Rg5, then 10 Kh7 Rg6 11 Kh8 repeats the position.
There were very few tournaments for four years following the Absolute
Championship of the USSR, in which Smyslov came third, because Nazi
Germany invaded the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941. Smyslov also won
the title of Moscow Champion for 1943-44, finishing second behind
Botvinnik who played hors concours.
After the war his opportunity for international play finally came and he was
one of the Soviet representatives in the great Groningen 1946 tournament and
the 1948 Hague-Moscow world championship. The problem was that
Smyslov was in effect understudy for Botvinnik and remained so throughout
the 1940s and 1950s. A search of ChessBase's Mega Database 2009 finds 103
games played between the two men from 1940 and 1969. (I am not sure why
ChessBase spell his first name "Vassily"; checking the Russian sources shows
that there should be only one 's'.)
The database search shows Smyslov won sixteen and lost eleven with white,
with twenty-six draws. When Botvinnik was white, there were twenty-six
draws again, Botvinnik won eighteen but Smyslov won only six. It was not so
much that Botvinnik was the greater player - his results were more uneven but his more dynamic style and opening repertoire and his greater drive for
success when he was really determined are probably what made the difference.
In the 1940s and in the 1950s the two Russian grandmasters also had to vie
with the great Paul Keres who was at a serious disadvantage: he was Estonian
and therefore less favoured by the Soviet establishment. He had a long run of
second places in Candidates tournaments but Smyslov won two of them: the
great Zurich tournament of 1953 and then again in 1956.
There is a bit of a mystery, however, about why Smyslov was eclipsed in the
period 1949-52 when Bronstein and Boleslavsky emerged as the top
challengers for the world title. Perhaps he put too much of his energies and
time into his singing lessons, which he began in 1948. In the 1950 Candidates,
Smyslov finished only third behind them; Bronstein won the play-off match
and then famously failed only by the narrowest margin to vanquish Botvinnik
in 1951. Smyslov would never have squandered the endgame opportunities as
Bronstein did on that occasion; endings were arguably the area in which he
was superior to Botvinnik.
The 1954 world championship match saw the younger man overawed at the
start. Botvinnik won the first two games and also the fourth, so it seemed all
over, but this was a match for the best of twenty-four games so there was time
to fight back. After three successive wins in games nine through eleven,
Smyslov was actually a point ahead but Botvinnik had white in game twelve
to square things up at the half-way stage. Twice more Botvinnik took the lead
and Smyslov clawed it back, with the fourteenth game being of particular
interest for the two players' differing approaches to opening preparation, as
Smyslov pointed out. Whereas Botvinnik studied his opponents' preferences
and prepared to play the man, Smyslov was more inclined to play the board.
Mikhail Botvinnik - Vasily Smyslov
World Championship (14), Moscow 1954
King's Indian Defence [E68]
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 g3 Bg7 4 Bg2 00 5 Nc3 d6 6 Nf3 Nbd7 7 00 e5 8 e4 c6
This position had occurred in games between Botvinnik and Bronstein so
Smyslov studied it. Usually 9 d5 or 9 h3 had been the reply.
9 Be3
This move was prepared by Botvinnik in training, but Smyslov had
anticipated it and found the refutation in advance.
9...Ng4 10 Bg5 Qb6 11 h3
[FEN "r1b2rk1/pp1n1pbp/1qpp2p1/4p1B1/
2PPP1n1/2N2NPP/PP3PB1/R2Q1RK1 b - - 0 11"]
11...exd4!
Smyslov improves upon 11...Ngf6, which had been played in a 1952 Soviet
master game.
12 Na4
The black N has no good retreat but Smyslov had found a tactical solution,
involving an exchange sacrifice.
12...Qa6 13 hxg4 b5! 14 Nxd4
If 14 Be7 Re8 15 Bxd6 bxa4 16 Nxd4 Ne5 or 14 cxb5 cxb5 15 Nxd4 bxa4 16
e5 Bb7.
14...bxa4 15 Nxc6
White has no time to consolidate so takes the material on offer.
15...Qxc6 16 e5 Qxc4 17 Bxa8 Nxe5
This central posting for the N was Black's key objective.
18 Rc1
18 Qxd6 was another possibility; in the Clarke book, 18...Be6 is given as the
reply, but in Smyslov's later book he gives 18...Qxg4 "with dangerous threats
on the kingside", while if; 18 Be7 Bxg4 19 Qd5 Re8 The Clarke book gave
19...Qc8. 20 Bxd6 Rd8 21 Qxc4 Nxc4 and one of White's bishops is lost.
18...Qb4 19 a3 Qxb2 20 Qxa4 Bb7!
[FEN "B4rk1/pb3pbp/3p2p1/4n1B1/
Q5P1/P5P1/1q3P2/2R2RK1 w - - 0 21"]
This eliminates White's main kingside defender, and in reply Botvinnik makes
a serious error.
21 Rb1?
21 Bxb7 Qxb7 22 Rc3! h6 23 Bf4 Nf3+ 24 Rxf3 Qxf3 25 Bxd6 Rd8 26 Bc5
and "the game is almost level" says Smyslov's book.

21...Nf3+ 22 Kh1 Bxa8!
Black now obtains three minor pieces for the queen - a winning advantage
here as the white king is exposed.
23 Rxb2 Nxg5+ 24 Kh2 Nf3+ 25 Kh3 Bxb2
[FEN "b4rk1/p4p1p/3p2p1/8/Q5P1/
P4nPK/1b3P2/5R2 w - - 0 26"]
26 Qxa7 Be4 27 a4 Kg7 28 Rd1 Be5 29 Qe7 Rc8! 30 a5

30 Rxd6 fails to 30...Rc1 and mates.
30...Rc2 31 Kg2 Nd4+ 32 Kf1 Bf3 33 Rb1 Nc6 01
However, it was only in Game Twenty-three that scores were restored to
level. Botvinnik had White in the last game, which was drawn in twenty-two
moves, Smyslov clearly deciding to settle for the honour of a tie with
Botvinnik retaining his title again. It was a disappointment after his great
fight-back but in his book Smyslov wrote: "this result convinced me that I
was capable of winning the chess crown".
In the 1956 Amsterdam Candidates tournament, there were ten players, to be
met once each with white and black. The only real threat to Smyslov would
come from his Soviet rivals. Szab (Hungary), Filip (Czechoslovakia), Panno
and Pilnik were there to make up numbers. Smyslov was able to beat the
dangerous tactician Geller twice; only Spassky won a game against him. With
Keres, Petrosian and Szab he made two draws each, while against Bronstein,
Filip and the Argentines he made one win and one draw. It was enough, but
only just. With three rounds to go he was level with Keres in the lead, with
Geller and Bronstein chasing while Spassky and Petrosian were a full point
behind. At this point Smyslov scored his crucial win against Bronstein, which
he followed with a draw against Spassky and then the win against Pilnik.
The following game was not included in Clarke's book but is Game 48 in the
later collection.
Vasily Smyslov David Bronstein
Candidates Tournament (16), Amsterdam 1956
English Opening [A34]
1 c4 Nf6 2 Nf3 c5 3 g3 d5 4 Bg2 Nc6 5 cxd5 Nxd5 6 Nc3 Nf6
Because of the decisive importance of the game, both players (Smyslov
wrote) aim for a complicated struggle from the very start.
7 00 e6 8 b3 Be7 9 Bb2 00 10 Rc1 Qa5 11 Na4 Rd8 12 Qc2 Nb4 13 Qb1
Nfd5 14 a3 Na6 15 e4 Nf6 16 Bc3 Qb5 17 Rfd1 c4
[FEN "r1br2k1/pp2bppp/n3pn2/1q6/N1p1P3/
PPB2NP1/3P1PBP/1QRR2K1 w - - 0 18"]
"An ingenious defence. Black sacrifices the pawn that has been causing him
trouble, and obtains counter-play. The retreat of the queen to e8 would have
been too passive."
18 Bxf6 Bxf6 19 Rxc4 Qa5 20 e5! Be7
20...Bxe5 21 Nxe5 Qxe5 22 Rxc8 Raxc8 23 Bxb7.
21 Nc3 Bd7
Smyslov analysed the alternatives:
a) 21...Qxa3 22 Ne4 Qa5 23 Neg5 g6 24 Rh4 Bxg5 25 Nxg5 Qxe5 26 Nxf7!
Kxf7 27 Rxh7+ Kf6 28 Re1 and Black has no defence.
b) 21...Bxa3 22 Ra4 Qc5 23 Ne4 Qe7 24 Nfg5 also with a very strong attack.
22 b4
Retaining the initiative is more important than the pawn.
22...Qxa3 23 b5 Nb4 24 Ng5 Bxg5 25 Qxb4 Qxb4 26 Rxb4
White has a superior ending, his spatial advantage and commanding bishop
being the key factors.
26...Be8 27 d4 Rac8 28 Rb3 b6 29 d5 exd5 30 Nxd5 Kf8 31 Ra1
[FEN "2rrbk2/p4ppp/1p6/1P1NP1b1/
8/1R4P1/5PBP/R5K1 b - - 0 31"]
31...Bd2?
31...Rc1+ 32 Rxc1 Bxc1 was the correct defence. The next few moves,
according to Smyslov, were played in a severe time scramble.
32 e6! Bg5
If 32...fxe6 33 Rf3+ Bf7 34 Rxa7 or 32...Rd6 33 e7+ Kg8 34 Rd3 Ba5 35 Nf6
+ Rxf6 36 Rd8 and wins.
33 h4 fxe6
33...Bf6 34 Rxa7 fxe6 35 Nxf6 gxf6 36 Rxh7.
34 Rf3+ Kg8 35 Bh3 Bd7 36 Rxa7 exd5 37 Rxd7 Bf6 38 Be6+ Kf8 39 Rf7+
Ke8 40 Rb7 Rc1+
Black has made the time control but 40...Rb8 might have given better drawing
chances: 41 Rxb8 Rxb8 42 Bxd5 when bishops of opposite colours give more
hope of salvation after the exchange of one pair of rooks.
41 Kg2
Smyslov wrapped up the point in the second session of play:
41...Rd6 42 Bf5 g6 43 Bd3
Black has weak pawns and cannot preserve material equality much longer.
43...Be7 44 Re3 Rd7 45 Rxb6 d4 46 Rf3 Bd6 47 Ra6 Ke7 48 Ra8 Bc5 49
Rh8 Kd6 50 Rc8 Kd5 51 h5
[FEN "2R5/3r3p/6p1/1Pbk3P/3p4/
3B1RP1/5PK1/2r5 b - - 0 51"]
51...Rc3
If 51...gxh5 52 Rf5+ Kd6 53 Rc6+ or 51...Rd6 52 Rc7.
52 hxg6 hxg6 53 Rc6 Rb7 54 Rxg6 Rxd3 55 Rxd3 Kc4 56 Rd1 d3 57 Rc1+
10
Smyslov - Botvinnik
In 1957, Smyslov took the lead with the first game and the only time in the
match he fell behind was after game five, after which he immediately restored
parity. In Game Eight, Smyslov took the lead and never relinquished it. There
were thirteen draws in this match of twenty-two games, with Smyslov
showing the depth of his endgame play in Game Seventeen, which restored
his two-point advantage.
Mikhail Botvinnik - Vasily Smyslov
World Championship (17), Moscow 1957
Grnfeld Defence [D73]

1 Nf3 Nf6 2 g3 g6 3 c4 c6 4 Bg2 Bg7 5 d4 00 6 Nc3 d5 7 cxd5 cxd5 8 Ne5
b6 9 Bg5 Bb7 10 Bxf6 Bxf6 11 00 e6 12 f4 Bg7 13 Rc1 f6 14 Nf3 Nc6 15
e3 Qd7 16 Qe2 Na5 17 h4 Nc4 18 Bh3 Nd6 19 Kh2 a5 20 Rfe1 b5 21 Nd1
b4 22 Nf2 Ba6 23 Qd1 Rfc8 24 Rxc8+ Rxc8 25 Bf1 Bxf1 26 Rxf1 Qc6 27
Nd3 Qc2+ 28 Qxc2 Rxc2+ 29 Rf2 Rxf2+ 30 Nxf2 Nc4 31 Nd1 Kf7 32 b3
Nd6 33 Kg2 h5 34 Kh3 Ne4 35 g4 hxg4+ 36 Kxg4 f5+ 37 Kh3 Bf6 38 Ne1
Kg7 39 Nd3 Nc3 40 Nxc3 bxc3 41 Ne1 Kh6 42 Nc2 Be7 43 Kg3 Kh5
[FEN "8/4b3/4p1p1/p2p1p1k/
3P1P1P/1Pp1P1K1/P1N5/8 w - - 0 44"]
In the introduction to his book, Smyslov writes that Black's chances are better
because he is winning the h-pawn and the passed c-pawn restricts the
defending knight. White must try to achieve a blockade.
44 Kf3 Kxh4 45 Ne1 g5 46 fxg5 Kxg5 47 Nc2 Bd6 48 Ne1
Waiting, but Smyslov was more worried about White creating his own passed
pawn by 48 a3 Kh4 49 b4 a4 50 b5 Bc7 51 Ne1 with fair drawing chances.
48...Kh4 49 Nc2 Kh3
[FEN "8/8/3bp3/p2p1p2/3P4/
1Pp1PK1k/P1N5/8 w - - 0 50"]
50 Na1
50 a3 Kh2 51 Kf2 Be7 52 b4 axb4 53 axb4 Bh4+ 54 Kf3 Kg1 55 Ke2 Kg2
and as in the game Black makes progress with his king, putting the defender
in a critical situation.
50...Kh2 51 Kf2 Bg3+ 52 Kf3 Bh4!
[FEN "8/8/4p3/p2p1p2/3P3b/
1Pp1PK2/P6k/N7 w - - 0 53"]
53 Nc2 Kg1 54 Ke2 Kg2 55 Na1 Be7 56 Nc2 Kg3 57 Ne1 Bd8 58 Nc2 Bf6
[FEN "8/8/4pb2/p2p1p2/3P4/
1Pp1P1k1/P1N1K3/8 w - - 0 59"]
White is in zugzwang, since if the knight retreats Black has ...f4 while if 59
Kd3 Kf2 60 Na1 Ke1 61 Nc2+ Kd1 62 Na1 Be7 63 Nc2 Bd6 64 Na1 Kc1 65
Kxc3 Bb4+ 66 Kd3 Kb2 67 Nc2 Kxa2 The king reaches the end of his
journey and forces the win, thanks to his a-pawn.
59 a3 Be7 60 b4
60 a4 Bd6 61 Ne1 e5 62 dxe5 Bxe5 63 Nc2 when Smyslov demonstrated the
elegant solution (or 63 Kd3 d4 also creating a very dangerous passed f-pawn.)
63...d4! 64 exd4 Bd6 65 Ne3 f4 66 Nf5+ Kg4 67 Nxd6 f3+ and one pawn or
the other must queen.
60...a4 61 Ne1 Bg5 62 Nc2 Bf6
[FEN "8/8/4pb2/3p1p2/pP1P4/
P1p1P1k1/2N1K3/8 w - - 0 63"]
63 Kd3
It was zugzwang again. If the N moved then ...f5 while if 63 b5 Smyslov's
book gives a very long winning variation beginning: 63...Bd8 64 Ne1 Ba5 65
Nc2 Kg4! 66 Ne1 Bc7 67 Nc2 Bb6 68 Nb4 f4 69 exf4 Bxd4.
63...Kf2 64 Na1 Bd8 65 Nc2 Bg5 66 b5 Bd8 67 Nb4 Bb6 68 Nc2 Ba5 69
Nb4 Ke1 01
White resigned, for if 70 Nc2+ Kd1 71 Na1 Kc1 while if 70 Kxc3 his N is in
a self-pin and Black wins by 70...Ke2.
Smyslov reached +3 after twenty games. Botvinnik effectively resigned the
match at that point. Two draws, of thirteen and eleven moves apiece, then led
to the crowning of the new champion; Smyslov had won by the convincing
margin of 12-9. Botvinnik, however, could look forward to a return match
under the rules.
In 1958 the bad start of 1954 was repeated. Despite having white in the oddnumbered games, Smyslov went 0-3 down against a determined opponent.
After that Smyslov could never get back to a better situation than 2, which
was partly due to illness during the contest but probably mostly due to the two
player's different motivation. Smyslov was content to have been world
champion; Botvinnik was not content - and keenly wanted to be champion
again.
A win in the eighteenth game put Botvinnik four ahead. This was an
irretrievable situation, but a tie would have retained the title so Smyslov
fought. As Botvinnik became cautious, the champion won the nineteenth and
twenty-second games but it wasn't enough. Botvinnik won by 12-10.
Few expected Smyslov to show any interest in competing for the world
championship in later years, but he tried. Tal, Petrosian, and Spassky came,
held the title awhile, and then departed the scene. Geller eliminated Smyslov
in 1965 with a 3-0 win (and five draws) in the new Candidates match-system.
Yet in 1983 he was back, meeting Robert Huebner and drawing 7-7, after
which a tie-break out Smyslov through. In the semi-final matches, played in
London, Smyslov convincingly defeated Zoltan Ribli of Hungary. That was
the second and last time I saw Smyslov play. Nobody expected him to
overcome Kasparov in the final, and he could not win a game, but for a man
who was almost sixty-three it was remarkable he had got so far.
The first time I saw Smyslov in action was in Monte Carlo in 1968, where he
made a steady +4 in the grandmaster section, a typical Smyslov result for his
later years. In the first round, played in a hotel because the Open events had
not yet begun, Botvinnik had white and they played a fifteen-move draw. It
seems the two champions only met seven times after their third match, and
Smyslov never beat Botvinnik again. Five of these occasions being Soviet
team events which were usually hard-fought; Botvinnik won two of them,
perhaps because the team required an effort. Palma de Mallorca 1967 was the
only other international tournament where they met, and that was a
grandmaster draw too.
Once the Monte Carlo tournament really got under way, Smyslov beat the two
French representatives (Zinser and Letzelter) who were far too weak for the
company, and towards the end he beat Padevsky and Forintos in successive
rounds. Few of the grandmasters made any real attempt to beat him (or vice
versa); even Larsen (who was usually guaranteed to play for a win with
White) agreed a draw in twenty-one moves. There was much respect, perhaps
too much. Energy was better expended against somebody else; why disturb
the sleeping lion?
Here is a game against a top grandmaster which the Russian encyclopaedia
chose to illustrate Smyslov's later career.
Vasily Smyslov Jan Timman
Moscow 1981
1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 g6 3 g3 c5 4 Bg2 cxd4 5 Nxd4 Bg7 6 c4 Nc6 7 Nc3 Nxd4 8
Qxd4 00 9 00 d6 10 Qd3 Bf5 11 e4 Be6 12 b3 a6 13 Bb2 Nd7 14 Qd2!
Nc5
14...Qa5 15 Rad1 Rfc8 would now lose a pawn after 16 Nd5! Qxd2 17 Nxe7+
Kf8 18 Bxg7+.
15 f4! Rc8?!
15...f5 16 exf5 Bxf5 was necessary, with an inferior but defensible position.
Timman evidently had not foreseen White's seventeenth move.
16 f5 Bd7
[FEN "2rq1rk1/1p1bppbp/p2p2p1/2n2P2/
2P1P3/1PN3P1/PB1Q2BP/R4RK1 w - - 0 17"]
17 f6! exf6
If 17...Bxf6 18 Rxf6! exf6 19 Nd5, and White seizes the key square f6 for his
attack.
18 Nd5 f5 19 exf5 Bxf5 20 Bxg7 Kxg7 21 Qd4+ f6 22 g4! Be6
If 22...Ne6, then 23 Qd1! wins the bishop.
23 Nxf6! Rxf6 24 g5+- Bf5 25 Rad1 b5 26 cxb5 axb5 27 gxf6+ Qxf6 28
Qxf6+ Kxf6 29 Rxd6+ Ne6 30 Rb6 Rc5 31 Re1 1-0
Black resigns as b3-b4 will win further material.
Vasily Smyslov
Nor was this the end of his career, as the database shows Smyslov still
winning rated games as late as 2001, and playing in several of the Veterans
versus Women matches.
Sofia Polgar - Vasily Smyslov
Schuhplattler Veterans vs Ladies, Munich 2000
Ruy Lopez [C60]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 g6 4 c3 a6 5 Bc4 d6 6 d4 Bg7 7 00 Qe7 8 dxe5
Nxe5 9 Nxe5 dxe5 10 b3 Nf6 11 Ba3 c5 12 Bd5 00 13 b4?!
This fails so 13 c4 would have been better.
13...Rd8! 14 bxc5 Nxe4
[FEN "r1br2k1/1p2qpbp/p5p1/2PBp3/
4n3/B1P5/P4PPP/RN1Q1RK1 w - - 0 15"]
15 c4
15 c6 looks strong at first sight but 15...Qc7 16 Qb3 Nf6! solves Black's
difficulty; e.g., 17 cxb7 Bxb7 18 Bxb7 (18 Qxb7 Nxd5 19 Qxc7 Nxc7) 18...
Rab8.
15...Qc7
Not 15...Nxc5? 16 Bxc5 Qxc5 17 Bxf7+ Kxf7 18 Qxd8 e4 19 Nd2 Bxa1 20
Nxe4.
16 Re1 Bf5!
[FEN "r2r2k1/1pq2pbp/p5p1/2PBpb2/
2P1n3/B7/P4PPP/RN1QR1K1 w - - 0 17"]
Now Black is ready to play ...Nxc5 so White tries for complications.

17 g4 Nxf2!
This well-judged piece sacrifice breaks open the centre and exposes the white
king.
18 Kxf2 e4 19 Kg2 Be6 20 Nd2 Bxd5 21 cxd5 Rxd5
[FEN "r5k1/1pq2pbp/p5p1/2Pr4/
4p1P1/B7/P2N2KP/R2QR3 w - - 0 22"]
22 Qe2
Or 22 Rc1 Qf4 followed by ...Rad8 and then ...e3 or ...Be5 according to the
reply.
22...Bxa1 23 Rxa1 Re8 24 Nc4
If 24 Nxe4 Rde5 25 Nf6+ Kh8 26 Qf3 Re2+ 27 Kf1 R8e3 and Black wins.
24...Rd3 25 Rb1 Qc6 26 Kg1
[FEN "4r1k1/1p3p1p/p1q3p1/2P5/
2N1p1P1/B2r4/P3Q2P/1R4K1 b - - 0 26"]
26...Rxa3! 27 Nxa3 Qxc5+ 28 Qf2 e3 01
2010 Tim Harding. All Rights Reserved.
Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses
will be posted below daily.

The Ratings Game: Meet Mr. Fifty Percent

I have recently been updating my correspondence game database, which is
now available as UltraCorr3a at www.chessmail.com. In the process of
collecting recent games, I made some curious discoveries. This article chiefly
deals with an anomaly I found concerning some recent games involving one
player.
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding

accessible:
During the search for unwanted duplicate games, one of the things I do is to
check identical games where player names differ. The ones of more than
trivial length are examined individually. One name figured prominently in this
"clip database".
Let us call him Mr. Fifty Percent, because of the effect of his practices, which
I shall shortly explain: they guarantee a fifty percent result in all games where
he does this. Of course you cannot win tournaments by scoring fifty percent
but you can increase your rating if the opponents are higher rated than you,
and that seems to be the main point of the exercise.
Smyslov's Best Games

Volume II: 1958-1995
by Vasily Smyslov
I leave it to you to decide whether what he did is cheating. It is actually

amusing in a way - though some of his opponents may well not agree.
I won't name the player here but I shall privately tell ICCF officials his name
and it will be up to them to decide whether any action is appropriate. What
this player has done is a matter of public record; the games are there for all to
see on the ICCF webserver, but to spot the pattern and then work out exactly
what happened has required considerable detective work.

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
It is unclear whether his stratagem is against the rules as presently framed.

Rule 10a says that "any matter not covered in these rules shall be decided by
the Tournament Director according to principle stated in ICCF Statutes and
Rules, Code of Conduct Guidelines." I doubt if there is anything there that
clearly covers this situation.
Vasily Smyslov:
Endgame Virtuoso
by Vasily Smyslov
Mr. Fifty Percent's stratagem would have been impossible in the postal days
when transmission times far exceeded the player's time allowance. Also, it
would have cost money for postcards and stamps, and even with email
correspondence chess it is fairly impracticable. The ICCF webserver makes it
easy to make moves, and transmission of moves to the opponent is instant. So
that is what has made this ploy possible, and explains why it was not done
before.
Here's how it's done
Say you are rated 2200 and in a tournament you have opponents A and B,
rated 2340 and 2350. Against one you have white and the other black. You
may be happy to score fifty percent against them. You could think that you
might well do worse and fifty percent guarantees a rating improvement.
So when A opens 1 d4, say, you open with that move against B. You don't
reply to A until you get B's move back. Say he replies 1...Nf6.
So you play 1...Nf6 against A and when he answers 2 c4 you play that against
B and wait for his reply, and so on.
By proceeding in this way, you effectively do not have to pit your brains
against either A or B. Instead, without knowing it, they play each other and
you end up with either two draws or a win and a loss.
Botvinnik-Smyslov
by Mikhail Botvinnik
Some readers may recollect the possibly apocryphal anecdote about two
friends who played Alekhine simultaneously, one with white and one with
black. In effect they made him play himself. Of course he noticed and so he
"composed" a special position. Having created a suitably complicated position
in which White had two options for a capture, he chose a move so
outrageously bad that the opponent's friend ceased to copy and made the other
capture. Now Alekhine had two lost positions but from now on he was
playing the amateurs not himself, and so he duly won both games.
Mr. Fifty Percent's webserver stratagem is the exact mirror of this case. He is
setting out to score fifty percent, so Alekhine's escape clause does not apply.
So long as he correctly repeats the moves and does not exceed the time limit,
he cannot fail to score fifty percent.
There is one risk. If B is a slow player, you could get into time trouble against
A, or vice versa. If the time gets really tight, or an opponent takes leave at an
inconvenient moment, you might have to take over the games yourself and
end up losing them, but that is only a slight risk probably, given ICCF's
generous time limits for server play. There is no way anybody except the
tournament director can see games that are still in progress.
It is true that after the games are over, the moves become visible, but only
somebody like me, who is collecting games and then searching for doubles,
will spot curiosities like the following. It is not so unusual to play the same
game with the same colour, especially in a sharp main line Sicilian, where
there is much theory and many moves are forced, but to play the same game
with both white and black suggests the "strategy" I have just outlined,
especially if a player does it more than once.
Mr. Fifty Percent is currently rated 2276 by ICCF. He has already improved
by his rating thanks to this system. If he is allowed to carry on doing it, and
others copied him, it could compromise the ratings.
He appears to have started doing this move-copying in 2008 in a semifinal of
the Correspondence World Championship. (That is not as grand as it sounds
because there is a Candidates stage between semifinals and final, but these are
still strong tournaments.)
In this tournament, he had six games with white and six with black. All the
games started in pairs; i.e., there was a white game and black game with the
same ECO code. That in itself was a little unusual but many players have
openings they play with both colours.
In half the games, play diverged in the late opening or early middlegame. In
the other half, they did not. Now for some examples.
Examples of the Fifty Percent Strategy
In the following game, Mr. Fifty Percent was white against a former ICCF
President, who outranked him by more than 200 rating points. He played the
same game with black against a former World CC Championship finalist, who
also outranked him by 200+ points. This was an ingenious and almost
effortless way to make a substantial rating gain - and to damage the
opponents' chances of qualifying for the next stage.
Mr. Fifty Percent (2272) Former President (2484)
World Ch semifinal, ICCF server, 2008
Ruy Lopez [C88]
1 e4 e5
In the same tournament, the Former President was also black against the
Former Finalist. Perhaps because he knew his opponent's repertoire, he chose
to answer 1 e4 by the Caro-Kann Defence, 1...c6, otherwise they might have
started to wonder why they had two similar games in the same tournament.
When that starts to happen in correspondence tournaments, players usually
decide to diverge to avoid "putting too many eggs in the same basket".
2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 00 Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 00 8 a4 b4 9 d3

d6 10 a5 Be6 11 Nbd2 Qc8 12 Nc4 Rb8 13 h3 h6 14 Be3 Rd8 15 Ba4 Qb7
16 Nfd2 Nd7 17 c3 Bf6 18 Qf3
[FEN "1r1r2k1/1qpn1pp1/p1npbb1p/P3p3/
BpN1P3/2PPBQ1P/1P1N1PP1/R3R1K1 b - - 0 18"]
18...Ne7!?
This is, I think, a deliberate pawn sacrifice, not a blunder. Anyway in the
game where he had black, Mr. Fifty Percent made the same choice.
19 Bxd7 Rxd7 20 Bxh6 Rdd8 21 Ne3 Ng6 22 Nd5 Bxd5 23 exd5 bxc3 24
bxc3 Nh4 25 Qg4 Ng6 26 Ne4 Be7 27 Bg5 Bxg5 28 Nxg5 Qxd5 29 Re4 Nf8
30 d4 f6 31 Nf3 Qe6 32 Qg3 Qd7 33 Nh4 Rb5 34 c4 Rb2 35 Rg4 Ne6 36
Nf5 g5 37 d5 Ng7 38 Nxg7 Qxg7 39 Rc1 Rdb8 40 c5 R2b3 41 Rc3 Rxc3 42
Qxc3 f5 43 Rc4 Rb1+ 44 Kh2 e4 45 Qg3 Qe5 46 Qxe5 dxe5
[FEN "6k1/2p5/p7/P1PPppp1/
2R1p3/7P/5PPK/1r6 w - - 0 47"]
47 g4 fxg4 48 Rxe4 gxh3 49 Rxe5 g4 50 Rg5+ Kf7 51 Rxg4 Rc1 52 d6

Rxc5 53 dxc7 Rxc7 54 Kxh3 Rc3+ 55 Rg3 Rc5 56 Ra3 Kf6
There was a second pair of identical drawn games in the same section. Here,
too, both the opponents were rated substantially higher than Mr. Fifty Percent
although not quite to the same degree as in the first pair. Still, in this way, he
guaranteed himself 2/4, whereas otherwise he might well have scored zero. Of
course he was never going to qualify for the Candidates this way, but his
rating did improve.
Player A (2429) Mr. Fifty Percent (2272)
World Ch semifinal, ICCF server, 2008
1 e4
Here, too, there was, as it turned out, no danger of a duplicate as in the "real"
game between Player A and Player B, although the colours were the same, the
opening move was 1 b4. Of course there was no way Mr. Fifty Percent could
know that.
1...c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 c3 Nf6 4 h3
Mr. Fifty Percent duly copied this unusual line as white in the paired game.
4...Nc6 5 Bd3 e5 6 00 Be7 7 Re1 Be6 8 Bc2 Rc8 9 a4 00 10 d3 h6 11
Nbd2 Qc7 12 Bb3 d5 13 exd5 Nxd5 14 Nc4 Bd6 15 Ne3 Nxe3 16 Bxe3
Rfe8 17 Bxe6 Rxe6 18 Nh4 Ne7 19 Qg4 Qc6 20 Qe4 Rd8 21 Qxc6 Nxc6 22
Nf5 Bf8 23 Red1 Kh7 24 g4 g6 25 Ng3 Na5
[FEN "3r1b2/pp3p1k/4r1pp/n1p1p3/P5P1/
2PPB1NP/1P3P2/R2R2K1 w - - 0 26"]
Now White sacrifices a pawn to make something happen but in the end a
drawish endgame is reached.
26 b4 cxb4 27 cxb4 Bxb4 28 Rab1 Nc6 29 Bxa7 Ra8 30 Bb6 Rxa4 31 Ne4
Ra2 32 Bc5 Bxc5 33 Nxc5 Re7 34 Rxb7 Rxb7 35 Nxb7 Kg7 36 Kg2 Ra7 37
Nc5 Ra5 38 Rc1 Nd4 39 Rc4 f5 40 gxf5 gxf5
[FEN "8/6k1/7p/r1N1pp2/2Rn4/
3P3P/5PK1/8 w - - 0 41"]
41 h4 Kf6 42 f4 Ra2+ 43 Kh3 Ne2 44 Nd7+ Ke6 45 Nxe5 Nxf4+ 46 Rxf4

Kxe5 47 Rf1 Rd2 48 Re1+ Kf6 49 Re3 Rd1
A little care is needed at the end of a game if you employ this morally dubious
stratagem. If you accept a draw offer too hastily, you could lose the
corresponding game if the opponent is not agreeable. Most of the doubles I
have identified have been draws. This is probably because when A offers you
a draw, you offer it to B first, and if he accepts, then you accept against A,
otherwise you play on. So the moves will usually be exactly the same and
ChessBase can find the double. (I did find one "double" by Mr. Fifty Percent
in a later event where one game ended after forty-two moves and the pair
went to move other forty-three. Perhaps he forgot to offer the draw on the
server software and had to make an additional move.)
I wondered at first why the ChessBase double kill function had not found
pairs of wins and losses. Then I realized that few decisive correspondence
games actually end in checkmate. If your opponent resigns, you do not
necessarily do the same in the other game. You might prefer to play on a bit in
the hope of a swindle. Then the final moves are not quite the same and maybe
ChessBase does not spot the double so easily. Or, in the case of games you are
certain of winning, you may diverge in the counterpart if you think you have
found a better defence. I had to hunt for such cases by looking for Mr. Fifty
Percent's losses and seeing if I could match wins to them.
There was one such case in the world championship semifinal, which was
identical until White's forty-ninth move.

Player Y (2543) Mr. Fifty Percent (2272)
WCCC32SF02 ICCF server, 20.04.2008
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5
In the "real" game between Player Y and Player Z, Black chose the King's
Indian.
4 cxd5 Nxd5 5 e4 Nxc3 6 bxc3 Bg7 7 Nf3 c5 8 Rb1 00 9 Be2 Nd7 10 00
Nf6 11 Bd3 b6 12 Re1 Qc7 13 e5
Black is already in trouble but bad moves must be copied as well as good ones
if the plan is to work.
13...Nd5 14 Qb3 e6 15 c4 Nb4 16 Be4 Bb7 17 Bxb7 Qxb7 18 dxc5 Na6 19
cxb6 Nc5 20 Qe3 Rfc8 21 Ba3 Bf8 22 Bb4 axb6 23 a3 Rd8 24 Red1 Rd7 25
Rd4 Rxd4 26 Qxd4 Qa6 27 h3 Ra7 28 Qd8 Ra8 29 Qh4 Qa4 30 Bxc5 Bxc5
31 Ng5 h5 32 Qf4 Qd7 33 Rb2 f5 34 Rd2 Qe7 35 h4 Rxa3
[FEN "6k1/4q3/1p2p1p1/2b1PpNp/
2P2Q1P/r7/3R1PP1/6K1 w - - 0 36"]
36 Rd6!?
White's advantage seemed to have been reduced but this is a clever way to
keep fighting for a win.
36...Bxd6 37 exd6 Qg7 38 c5 Qd7 39 Qb4 Ra5 40 cxb6 Rb5 41 Qd4 Rd5
42 Qf6 Rxd6 43 Qxg6+ Qg7 44 Qe8+ Qf8 45 Qxh5 Qg7 46 Qe8+ Qf8 47
Qg6+ Qg7 48 Qxg7+ Kxg7 49 b7
[FEN "8/1P4k1/3rp3/5pN1/7P/
8/5PP1/6K1 b - - 0 49"]
At this point, the two games diverged. Maybe Mr. Fifty Percent saw a better
chance to fight for a draw. Or perhaps the opponent in one game had taken a
month's leave and with his "clock ticking" he had to make a move. Time
pressure and asynchronous vacations are the only way the scheme can come
unstuck. Anyway. it did not matter as he scored a win and a loss.
49...Rd1+
The game Mr. Fifty Percent "won" ended 49...Rb6 50 Nxe6+ Kg6 51 Nc5
Rb2 52 g3 Rb4 53 Kg2 Kf7 54 f3 Rb2+ 55 Kg1 Kg6 56 g4 f4 57 Kf1 Kf7 58
h5 Ke7 59 g5 Kf7 60 Ke1 10. As the loser was rated 2500 and the player he
lost to was even higher, this pair represented a useful rating gain.
50 Kh2 Rb1 51 Nxe6+ Kg6 52 Nc5 Kh5 53 Kh3 Rb4 54 g3 Kg6 55 f4 Kh5
56 Kg2 Kg6 57 Kf3 Kh5 58 Ke3 Kg6 59 Kd3 Kh5 60 Kc3 Rb5 61 Kc4
Rb6 62 Kd5 Kh6 63 Ke5 Kg6 64 h5+ Kxh5 65 Kxf5 Kh6 66 g4 Kh7 67
Ke5 Kg6 68 f5+ Kg7 69 f6+ Kf7 70 g5 Kg6 71 Kd5 Kf7 72 Nd7 10 At last
he resigned.
This event was a learning experience for Mr. Fifty Percent. In one pair where
he chose to diverge he actually scored 1/2, but in another case he went his
own way at move eight, and only scored half a point. So overall he still scored
fifty percent. One third of his games were not played by him at all, and if you
include the decisive "games" that only diverged when they were effectively
over, he actually played only a half. I shall be asking the ICCF Ratings
Commissioner to calculate how many points he gained in this way.
And how many rating points did he gain by this fifty percent result?
Also in 2008, the same player entered the Third ICCF Webchess Open and
played four preliminary groups. He played a total of twenty-four games and
won one group. He did not employ this stratagem. As most of his opponents
were lower rated, there would have been little point in doing so.
And then he does it again in spades!
Had the story ended there, one could say maybe he just saw it all as a joke,
but no. In 2009 he repeated the whole ploy, much more systematically. Mr.
Fifty Percent entered four sections of the Second ICCF Veterans World Cup,
which is restricted to players of sixty years of age or older. The tournament
began last September on the ICCF webserver.
The opposition was very mixed but balanced so that each section had roughly
the same rating average. At that time his rating was 2245 so he was stronger
than most of the opponents but in each group there were a few higher rated
than him.
Playing four groups meant he had forty-eight games but he was able to reduce
his workload somewhat in this way, and improve his rating at the same time.
The fact that he had four groups meant that he could "improve" on the way he
had handled the semi-final. He could pair an opponent from one section with
an opponent from a different one. Then he could see how things were going
and start to concentrate his attention on a section or two where he was scoring
wins.
The first three players (at least) in each section will qualify, so a few draws
against higher-rated opponents are not damaging; indeed they make sense.
You are allowed to qualify for the semi-final round twice, so his aim would be
to get into the top three of two groups and if he slipped down the table a bit in
a couple of the others, it would not matter. He might even "waste" a
qualification.
At the end of January this year, our "friend" started player in a similar event:
competing in four of the fifty-two seven-player sections. However, no games
can be seen online until at least ten in a section have finished, so it will be a
while before we can be certain that he is playing the same "game" again. My
hypothesis, however, is that his policy is now even dictating the type of event
he chooses to enter: multiple group events with a wide range of opponent
strengths.
Here is one example.
Mr. H (2408) Mr. Fifty Percent
ICCF Veterans World Cup-2 prelims, 2009
Najdorf Sicilian [B92]
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 d4 cxd4 5 Nxd4 a6 6 Be2 e5 7 Nb3 Be7 8 00

00 9 Qd3 Be6 10 Bd2 Nc6 11 Nd5 a5 12 a4 Bxd5 13 exd5 e4 14 Qb5 Nb4
15 Bxb4 axb4 16 Qxb4 Qc7 17 Nd2 e3 18 fxe3 Nxd5 19 Qc4 Qc6 20 Rf3
Bd8 21 c3 Re8 22 Qxc6 bxc6 23 Nc4
[FEN "r2br1k1/5ppp/2pp4/3n4/P1N5/
2P1PR2/1P2B1PP/R5K1 b - - 0 23"]
23...Nxe3 24 Rxe3 Rxe3 25 Nxe3 Bb6 26 Kf2 Re8 27 Bf3 Rxe3 28 a5 Ba7
29 Re1 Re6+ 30 Kf1 d5 31 Rc1 g5 32 b4 Rf6 33 h3 Rf4 34 Ke2 Kf8 35 g3
Rf6 36 c4 Re6+ 37 Kf1 Re3 38 Kg2 Rb3
[FEN "5k2/b4p1p/2p5/P2p2p1/
1PP5/1r3BPP/6K1/2R5 w - - 0 39"]
39 b5 cxb5 40 c5 Bb8 41 c6 Bc7 42 Ra1 Re3 43 a6 Re8 44 Bxd5 Ra8 45

Rf1 Ke7 46 Rxf7+ Kd6 47 Bf3 Ra7 48 Rxh7 b4 49 Rd7+ Kc5 50 Rd5+
Kb6 51 Be2 Kxc6 52 Rxg5 b3 53 Bb5+ Kd6 54 Bd3 b2 55 h4 Bd8 56 Rg6+
Ke5 57 h5 Bf6 58 h6 Rxa6 59 h7 Ra8 60 g4 Kd4 61 Rxf6 Kxd3 62 Rb6
Ke4 63 Rb4+ Ke5 64 Rxb2 Rh8
[FEN "7r/7P/8/4k3/6P1/8/1R4K1/8 w - - 0 65"]
An exciting game - but Mr. Fifty Percent was not responsible for any of these
moves. The final position is a book draw, as analysed by Keres long ago.
The ICCF server shows that Mr. Fifty Percent played the identical sixty-four
move game with white versus the highest rated player (2390) in another
section. How likely is this to have occurred if it was not deliberate policy by
the player concerned from the start?
Here is another example from the Veterans World Cup.
In one Section, he has 8/11 with one game in progress. If he does not lose it,
he will win the group. He has certainly qualified anyway. The following is
one of "his" games from that section against the player who has already won
the group.
Mr. Fifty Percent Player C (2252)
Queen's Indian Defence [E12]
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 b6 4 a3 Bb7 5 Nc3 d5 6 cxd5 Nxd5 7 e4 Nxc3 8
bxc3 Bxe4 9 Ne5 a6 10 Qg4 Bf5 11 Qg3 f6 12 Nc4 b5 13 Ne3 Bg6 14 a4 b4
15 Bc4 Nc6 16 Bxe6 Qd6 17 Bd5 Rd8 18 00 Ne7
[FEN "3rkb1r/2p1n1pp/p2q1pb1/3B4/Pp1P4/
2P1N1Q1/5PPP/R1B2RK1 w k - 0 19"]
19 Qxd6 Rxd6 20 Bf3 bxc3 21 Ra3 c2 22 Rc3 c6 23 Nxc2 Nd5 24 Rc4 Bd3
25 Re1+ Kd7 26 Rc5 Re6 27 Bxd5 cxd5 28 Rxd5+ Rd6 29 Ne3 Be4 30
Rxd6+ Bxd6 31 Nc4 Re8 32 Nxd6 Kxd6 33 Ba3+ Kd5 34 f3 Bg6 35 Rxe8
This was identical with reversed colours to a game against a strong American
player in another section.
In that Section, three players had a higher rating than Mr. Fifty Percent and he
did this with all them. In one group he does not seem to have done it with a
high-rated opponent; maybe that man was on leave at the start of the event, so
escaped. However, there is also at least one still unfinished game with a highrated opponent.
Player A (2416) Mr. Fifty Percent
Two Knights Game [C59]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5 Na5 6 Bb5+ c6 7 dxc6 bxc6 8
Be2 h6 9 Nh3 Bd6 10 d3 00 11 Nc3 Rb8 12 00 Be6 13 b3 c5 14 Bf3 Qd7
15 Qe2 Rb6 16 Kh1 Nc6 17 Bxc6 Rxc6 18 Ng1 Re8 19 f3 Nh5 20 Qf2 f5 21
Nge2 Rc7 22 Bb2 Qc6 23 Rae1 Rf7 24 Qh4 Nf6 25 Nd1 Nd5 26 Nec3 Nf4
27 Ne3 Bc7 28 Qf2 Rfe7 29 Na4 a6 30 Ba3 Bd6 31 Rd1 a5 32 Rfe1 Rd7 33
Nc4 Bxc4 34 dxc4 Ne6 35 Nc3 Nd4 36 Nd5 Qa6 37 f4 e4 38 Bb2 Qa7 39
Bxd4 cxd4 40 Qxd4 Qxd4 41 Rxd4 Bb4 42 Re2 Kf7 43 Rd1 Bc5 44 g3 Rb8
45 Kg2 h5 46 c3 Rdd8 47 h3 g6 48 g4 Rd7 49 Rdd2 Rdd8 50 gxh5 gxh5 51
Kf1 h4 52 Rg2 Rg8 53 Rxg8 Rxg8 54 b4 Rg1+ 55 Ke2 axb4 56 cxb4 Bf8
57 c5 Rh1 58 c6 Bd6 59 b5 Rxh3 60 b6
[FEN "8/5k2/1PPb4/3N1p2/
4pP1p/7r/P2RK3/8 b - - 0 60"]
At this point, the opponent with black resigned against Mr. Fifty Percent.
60...Rh2+ 61 Kd1 Rxd2+ 62 Kxd2 Ke8 63 Ke1 h3 64 Kf2 Kd8 65 Kg3 Kc8
66 Kxh3 10
In another game he seems to have decided that he had found a better attacking
move than was played against him, but still ended up with fifty percent.
Mr. L (2285) Mr. Fifty Percent
Sveshnikov Sicilian [B33]
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 e5 6 Ndb5 d6 7 Bg5 a6 8
Na3 b5 9 Nd5 Be7 10 Bxf6 Bxf6 11 c4 b4 12 Nc2 a5 13 Qf3 Be6 14 Rd1
Bxd5 15 cxd5 Na7 16 Ne3 00 17 Bd3 Bg5 18 Nf5 Rc8 19 h4 Bc1 20 Qe2
g6 21 Ne3 Rc5 22 Nc4 Bh6 23 h5 Bg5 24 Nd2 Qb6 25 g3 Nb5 26 Nb3 Nd4
27 Nxd4 exd4 28 Kf1 b3 29 Qg4 Bf6 30 hxg6 hxg6
[FEN "5rk1/5p2/1q1p1bp1/p1rP4/3pP1Q1/
1p1B2P1/PP3P2/3R1K1R w - - 0 31"]
31 e5!? Bg7
Here 31...Bxe5 32 Qh4 Re8 (or Rfc8) 33 Qh7+ is not clear. The main point no
doubt was to activate the bishop on d3: 31...dxe5 is clearly bad because of 32
Bxg6.
32 e6 Qb7 33 Qh4 Re8 34 Qh7+ Kf8 35 exf7 Qxf7 36 Bxg6 Qf3 37 Rh4
Qxd1+ 38 Kg2 Qc1 39 Bxe8 bxa2
[FEN "4Bk2/6bQ/3p4/p1rP4/3p3R/
6P1/pP3PK1/2q5 w - - 0 40"]
40 Bd7
At this point, Mr. Fifty Percent apparently decided he could win the game
himself and varied with 40 Qf5+ Kxe8 41 Qg6+ Kf8 42 Qxd6+ Kf7 43 Qe6+
Kf8 44 Re4 Rc8 45 Rf4+ Qxf4 46 Qxc8+ Ke7 47 gxf4 a1Q 48 Qe6+ Kd8 49
d6 10. That game finished some weeks earlier than the parallel game that he
eventually lost. Strangely, this was a rare case where one of the players
concerned had a slightly lower rating (but did have a title).
40...a1Q 41 Rf4+ Qxf4 42 gxf4 Rxd5 43 Qe4 Bh8 44 Qe8+ Kg7 45 Be6
Qb1 46 Qg8+ Kh6 47 Qxh8+ 10
I found other examples. One of his losses was identical to the point where his
parallel opponent resigned. Another win/loss pair was similarly identical bar
the last couple of moves. I also found another pair of draws.
In all, I found nine pairs (eighteen games) that were in all essential aspects
identical; i.e., at least a third of his games were not played by him. A few
more pairs may be revealed when all his games are finished.
With lower-rated opponents, he also sometimes starts the games in pairs but
diverges when he sees a clear opportunity to play better. Thus, in one pair of
games with opponents rated around 2050, the games only diverged after
twenty-five moves. He then drew one and won the other.
In another case, he drew with black after twenty-five moves, but evidently he
either did not offer a draw with white in the corresponding game, or else
Black refused it. He played on and won in fifty-three moves.
Mr. Fifty Percent Mr. K (2109)
Veterans World Cup-2 prel-21 ICCF server, 01.09.2009
Dragon Sicilian [B76]
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 g6 6 Be3 Bg7 7 f3 00 8 Qd2
Nc6 9 000 d5 10 exd5 Nxd5 11 Nxc6 bxc6 12 Bd4 e5 13 Bc5 Re8 14 Ne4
Be6 15 h4 Nf4 16 Qe1 Bd5 17 c4 Qc7 18 Bd6 Qb6 19 cxd5 cxd5 20 g3 dxe4
21 gxf4 exf4 22 Qb4 Red8 23 Qxb6 axb6 24 Rh2 Rxa2 25 Kb1
[FEN "3r2k1/5pbp/1p1B2p1/8/
4pp1P/5P2/rP5R/1K1R1B2 b - - 0 25"]
Mr. Fifty Percent accepted a draw as black here. Evidently he either did not
offer a draw with white in this corresponding game, or else Black refused it.
He played on and won in fifty-three moves.
25...Rda8 26 Rhd2 Ra1+ 27 Kc2 Rxd1 28 Rxd1 exf3 29 Bxf4 Bf6 30 Rd3
f2 31 h5 Ra4 32 Rf3 Ra2 33 Bc1 Bd4 34 Rf4 Bc5 35 Bd2 Ra7 36 h6 b5 37
Bxb5 f5 38 Bd3 Rd7 39 Bf1 Kf7 40 Rc4 Bd6 41 Be3 Bg3 42 b4 Re7 43 Bf4
Bxf4 44 Rxf4 Kf6 45 Rxf2 Rb7 46 Kc3 Kg5 47 b5 Kxh6 48 Kc4 Kg5 49
Bg2 Rb8 50 Ra2 Kf6 51 Ra8 Rxa8 52 Bxa8 Ke6 53 Kc5 10
Another strange case
There is also another ICCF player with a rather strange rating history. The last
report of the ICCF Ratings Commissioner, without naming the player, states
that a rule change will be likely at the next Congress to stop some clever
mathematical manipulation of the rating rules. How exactly it is being done
and what loophole is being exploited, I am unsure.
For several years that player had a fairly normal fluctuation of rating around
the 2340 mark, but 2005-6 it soared and he peaked at 2566 in the second list
for 2006. In the first rating list of 2007 he was down slightly to 2499, and it
seems he withdrew from several tournaments. The consequent multiple losses
plunged him to 1916 and even as low as 1896 in 2008. He then started to take
on a large number of games and, his rating climbed to 2621 on the first of this
year's lists.
Seeing that it was about to go higher still on the second list, the
Commissioner decided to freeze the player's rating at this figure until the
ICCF Congress can discuss the matter in September.
It is also noteworthy that a few players now appear as "Anonymous" in the
ICCF rating list and database. Apparently they insisted on their names being
deleted and they threatened legal action. To maintain consistent data, they
could not be deleted and so they have been marked as anonymous. (Has
anybody tried this with FIDE yet?) Of course it is still possible to find out
who they really are by examining the published tournament records of their
opponents, but only if you have the necessary source data.
Some people certainly have strange ways!
Postscript One: Campomanes dies

Former FIDE President Florencio Campomanes died on 3 May, aged eightythree. To his credit, he attracted many more countries into FIDE than had
hitherto belonged so that it was no longer an American-European club. Less
creditable was his motive for doing so - to obtain and hold power - and the
effect of this change in FIDE politics. Because of the one nation, one vote
system, small states with relatively few players, little chess tradition and few
strong players could outvote the countries where the majority of serious
players live. It might be democratic but it is arguable whether this was good
for chess.
He was also controversial because of his association with the notorious
Filipino president Marcos, and because of his decision to stop the first KarpovKasparov title match after forty-eight games. Chess historians will probably
still argue about "Campo" for years to come.
Postscript Two: Title match

The World Championship match between Anand and Topalov was still in
progress at the deadline for this column, so I shall write about it next month.

Thoughts on the World Championship

Unfortunately, the deadline of my May column did not make it possible to
write last month about the Anand-Topalov match, which was still undecided,
but there has now been time to reflect on that extraordinary contest. In just
twelve games, the chess world saw play of the highest order and also a few
extraordinary blunders. Nevertheless, to my mind there is little doubt that the
right man won the match.
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding

accessible:
By now, readers will have seen all the games but I shall look at some of the
critical moments later in the article. First, I wish to re-examine the recent
history of the World Chess Championship itself.
I was very disappointed with the online coverage of the match, although it
was more or less possible to discover in real time what moves were played.
Despite trying broadband connections both at home and in college, I never
succeeded in connecting to the video coverage on the official site. Their web
coverage included the following announcement for much of the match:
My Career, Vol. 1
by Viswanathan Anand
"Warning! It is absolutely prohibited the live broadcast of the moves or

video during the game on other websites, media or software without the
explicit permission of the organizers of the match. This prohibition is
being violated by ChessBase."

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
Another Bulgarian website, Chessdom, had text comments, but firstly the
pages did not refresh automatically, and secondly the quality of the analysis
once the games reached their critical stages became increasingly slow and
superficial. Future organisers of world championship matches and other major
chess events must do better.
My Career, Vol. 2
Background to the match

Of course, I have written previously in this series about the world title. By
looking back at some of those former articles, it is clear that the situation has
improved considerably at what it had been ten or fifteen years ago. The world
chess championship has regained some, but not all, of its previous status. The
situation where there were rival world champions, one of them decided by the
winner of a knock-out tournament, was very damaging to the game.
The title of Kibitzer 23 (April 1998) was "Who is the real World Champion?"
Then I argued that "nobody has the uncontestable right to be regarded as
World Chess Champion". Besides Karpov (the FIDE champion) and
Kasparov, the IBM computer Deep Blue had defeated Kasparov in a short
non-title match and Fischer was still claiming to be champion.
Topalov-Kramnik 2006
by Veselin Topalov
& Zhivko Ginchev
Alexander Khalifman
In Kibitzer 40 (September 1999) I returned to the topic and asked "Is

Khalifman the real World Champion?", because we then had the absurd
situation that the FIDE world title had just been won by a player who was
forty-fifth on the rating list, 223 Elo points below Kasparov. The world
champion has nearly always been in the top three or four rated players, if not
the very top.
Ruslan Ponomariov
In the year 2000, FIDE held another knock-out world championship

tournament. There were fewer boycotts by top players that time and it did
produce a winner from the top echelon of the world elite none other than
Anand, who was thus crowned world champion for the first time. He had
maybe half a crown. It was a bit like holding the WBC world heavyweight
title, but not the WBA and other versions. However, he only held the title for
a year because there were two more knock-out championships, won by
Ponomariov (2001) and Kasimdzhanov (2004). This was something like the
Khalifman situation all over again.
Rustam Kasimdzhanov
By 2001, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, controversial ruler of the Russian autonomous

district of Kalmykia, had become FIDE president. The chess world was
wondering was this a good thing or not. At least it was generally believed then
that nobody could be worse or more corrupt than his predecessor,
Campomanes, but maybe we think about that differently now. So in February
2001 (Kibitzer 57) I wrote on "FIDE, the World Championship and the Art of
Boxing Promotion". That article was reprinted in the anthology book, Heroic
Tales: the Best of ChessCafe.com 1996-2001.
In December 2007 (Kibitzer 139) I asked how many world champions have
there been? At that date, Anand had won the unification tournament, the first
step to his current status. That article was chiefly prompted by the claim of
retired grandmaster Raymond Keene in The Times that there had been
nineteen world champions. My own count was fifteen as I refused to
recognise FIDE's post-Kasparov champions until the reunification, and
rejected Keene's inclusion of four unofficial world champions before Steinitz.
As is well known, Keene has consistently made grandiose claims on behalf of
Howard Staunton, but winning his Paris match against Saint-Amant in 1843
did not make Staunton world champion. Even Keene did not include SaintAmant in his list of unofficial title-holders! My most recent article on this
subject was in November 2008, "World Title Shenanigans" (Kibitzer 150),
which dealt with the Anand-Kramnik match.
The status of the world championship
When I was a young player, the championship was the preserve of the Soviet
Union, which held it in trust for FIDE. Before the Second World War,
successive world champions had guarded the title jealously like a personal
possession, but the death of Alekhine had given the world chess federation the
opportunity to increase its power by controlling access to the vacant throne.
The 1948 tournament at The Hague and Moscow, won by Botvinnik, began a
quarter century of Soviet domination.
A succession of grandmasters from the USSR played stately twenty-four
game matches at the rate of three games per week (and with a few
postponements), so that matches lasted a full two months, sometimes more.
Until Fischer broke through to become challenger, these matches were always
played in Moscow, and so they were again on a few subsequent occasions.
Fischer versus Spassky, Reykjavik 1972, was the first world title contest
played outside the USSR since the first half of the 1948 tournament and the
first title match played in the West since 1937. Karpov's match with Kamsky
played in Elista, after FIDE had stripped Kasparov of the official title, was
one of the last contests played under the old conditions.
The games during this era were played at the then standard pace of two and a
half hours each for forty moves, after which games were adjourned and
analysed overnight chiefly by the players' teams of seconds. This also
happened in many tournaments but not always, as sometimes there was only a
short meal-break and an evening resumption, but in matches the overnight
adjournment gave the players the chance to sleep or have a sleepless night.
The sealing of the move at the end of five hours play was a key ritual, usually
giving some advantage to the player whose turn it was when time was called
by the arbiter. White, at move forty-one, might sacrifice a few minutes until
the arbiter brought the envelope, rather than let the opponent seal or have an
easy guess at what the sealed move would be.
Adjournment analysis, in those pre-computer days, was an important part of
the duties of seconds and was a science in itself, half akin to correspondence
play. In extreme cases, usually endgames, it was possible to calculate in
advance, and repeat at the board, a long sequence of adjournment analysis.
Woe betide the opponent whose analysis had missed a resource early on and
who had to sit and calculate, conscious that the opponent had worked it all out
in his home or hotel.
(By the way, in that article from 2001, I asked whether the Leinster League in
Ireland was the last event where games were still adjourned after forty moves.
Happily that has now changed and games are completed by virtue of playing
the whole game in one session at the rate of two hours each albeit without
time increments.)
Resuming next day, the rate of play was the same as before, an average of
three and a half minutes per move, with time controls at moves fifty-six,
seventy-two, eighty-eight, etc. Occasionally games were adjourned a second
time. Sometimes results of adjourned games were agreed without resumption,
a player deciding his advantage was too small to give realistic chances of
winning and that the time was better spent in rest or preparation.
Alternatively, even with a draw almost certain, a player might decide to play
on and torture his opponent with an extra sessions, if his own moves were the
easier to find.
Before the current trend to short matches, they actually grew longer. They
went back to the old principle from the nineteenth century that a match was to
be decided by whoever could win a certain number of games, X, where X was
usually six, but might be as many as ten. Bobby Fischer was partly
responsible for this trend, first seen in the 1978 Baguio City match when
Karpov was successful in defending his title against Korchnoi by 6-5, finally
landing the decisive point after the score had reached 5-5. That match was
played under similar rules to the great 1927 struggle between Alekhine and
Capablanca. The unfinished forty-eight game match between Karpov and
Kasparov finally put an end to such marathons.
The speeding up of grandmaster chess has been caused chiefly by economic
factors and by the computer. The unwillingness of organisers and players to
see unfinished games decided by computer analysis has done away with
adjournments and enforced the completion of games in a single session. This,
putting a premium on physical endurance, has in turn caused time limits to be
speeded up, with forty moves in two hours being the normal rate for the first
phase of master play. Of course, in earlier times it was far from unknown for
tournaments to be played at that rate (except top grandmaster events), but the
half-minute per move difference does, I think, tilt the balance somewhat in
favour of the attacker in complicated positions and increases the premium on
good opening preparation. The second consequence of needing to finish in
one session is that the rate of play after move forty is also accelerated, which
has been facilitated by digital clocks into which all kinds of special rates can
be programmed. (Analogue clocks with flags could never be made so precise.)
In the case of the Anand-Topalov match, the players received an extra hour
after move forty, and if move sixty arrived, then they were given a further
fifteen minutes, plus a thirty-second increment every time they made a move.
The time-increment system was also an idea of Bobby Fischer's, though
perhaps it did not originate with him. The clock and time pressure played a
significant role in some of the Anand-Topalov games, especially the seventh
and the ninth.
Nigel Short
World Championship matches started to become shorter in the 1990s,

although the forty moves in two-and-a-half hours plus adjournments pace was
still usually in effect. When Nigel Short challenged Kasparov in the first PCA
breakaway match in London in 1993, the duration was set at twenty-four
games. To please the television company contracted for coverage, there was a
provision that in the event of one player winning the match within the
distance, exhibition games would be played. This was particularly unfortunate
as it was highly predictable that Short would not be able to spin out the match
to the full twenty-four games. He managed twenty and the subsequent
exhibitions were generally considered a farcical addition, so have never been
repeated.
Anand himself was Kasparov's opponent the next time. Now it came to be
reckoned that the best-of-twenty games would be a reasonable length for a
world title match. This was the second PCA match, played in New York in
1995, and was noteworthy for the rather soporific nature of the play. The
match began with eight draws, after which Anand took the lead! Only now
did Kasparov rise to the occasion, winning with white the very next game,
Game Ten.
The turning point of that match came in Game Ten when Kasparov played the
Dragon Sicilian with black for the first time in his career and offered a draw at
move nineteen. This was the first time in the match that a draw offer was
refused. Anand must have regretted it ever after, because a few moves later
he blundered and lost. Games Eleven, Thirteen, and Fourteen also went
Kasparov's way, after which he could play out four draws and win within the
distance, 10-7.
To decide the world title over twelve games instead of twenty or twenty-four
once seemed to the purists like a too-short contest. Yet the recent matches
have shown that there can be many twists and turns over that length, and that
a match of twelve games does provide the opportunity to come back from an
early disaster. Moreover, the Lasker-Schlechter match was even shorter.
The faster time-limit than of old also need not necessarily lead to a serious
deterioration of quality, since the time increment system in the later stages at
least ensures that a player can never have less than half a minute per move in
the endgame.
Both these compromises to today's requirements of commercial sponsorship
and shorter fan attention-span have in principle created more interest in title
matches than in the good (or bad?) old days. One "modernisation" of the rules
would be detrimental, but so far has not come into effect. The match rules
provided, not for the first time, for rapid game deciders had the match been
tied at 6-6. As it happened, they were not necessary, but it seems inevitable
that sooner or later the world title will be decided by five-minute games, and at
that point we shall definitely be able to say that the game has been dumbed
down and the traditional world championship format has gone forever.
Photo: Anand-Topalov.com
Some highlights of the match

Topalov Anand
First match game, 24 April 2010
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 4 cxd5 Nxd5 5 e4 Nxc3 6 bxc3 Bg7 7 Bc4 c5 8
Ne2 Nc6 9 Be3 00 10 00 Na5
In Game Ten, Anand returned to this defence and played 10...b6, drawing
with a reasonable margin of safety, but this match has probably not done the
reputation of the Grnfeld much good.
11 Bd3 b6 12 Qd2 e5 13 Bh6 cxd4 14 Bxg7 Kxg7 15 cxd4 exd4 16 Rac1
Qd6
The game starts to depart from known theory but it seems that both players
had examined the consequences of this move in their pre-match analyses.
17 f4 f6 18 f5 Qe5 19 Nf4 g5 20 Nh5+ Kg8 21 h4 h6 22 hxg5 hxg5 23 Rf3
[FEN "r1b2rk1/p7/1p3p2/n3qPpN/3pP3//
3B1R2/P2Q2P1/2R3K1 b - - 0 23"]
A tense situation; Black must probably play 23...Bd7 after which the sacrifice
on f6 is not sound. Then if 24 Rg3, Black plays 23...Kf7, but Anand played
the wrong move first.
23...Kf7??
Anand has admitted that this blunder was caused by forgetting his pre-match
analysis.
24 Nxf6!
Annihilation.
24...Kxf6 25 Rh3 Rg8 26 Rh6+ Kf7 27 Rh7+ Ke8 28 Rcc7 Kd8 29 Bb5
Qxe4 30 Rxc8+ 10
Although that failure was extraordinary, it must be pointed out that Anand
was put at a major disadvantage by the volcanic ash-cloud which forced him
to make a tedious and improvised overland journey to Sofia from Frankfurt
due to the halting of flights. He asked for three days postponement and was
only allowed one: a home-town decision in favour of Topalov.
Anand fans were in shock. How could he recover from this awful blow? Very
easily, as it turned out. He levelled the score at the first opportunity.
Anand Topalov
Second match game, 25 April 2010
Catalan Opening [E04]
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3
Black now has the option of playing the Queen's Indian (3...b6) or BogoIndian (3...Bb4+). However, if White plays the Catalan keynote fianchetto at
once, Black may answer 3 g3 by 3...c5 or 3...Bb4+, which can be awkward
because the knight is not yet defending the d-pawn.
3...d5 4 g3 dxc4
In recent years the trend for Catalan defenders seems to have been to take the
gambit pawn rather than shore up d5 by ...c6, followed eventually by ...b6
and ...Bb7. That line is fairly solid, but comparatively rare nowadays.
In Game Seven (see below), Topalov switched to the other critical line, 4...
Bb4+.
5 Bg2 a6
5...Bb4+ was played in Game Four, but Anand seemed to stand better
throughout that game, which he finished with a sparkling sacrificial kingside
attack.
6 Ne5
The alternative here is 6 0-0. Black needs to know both lines well if he is to
play 4...dxc4.
6...c5!
This was once thought bad but improvements for Black have been found in
recent years. White has more dynamic chances after 6...Bb4+.
7 Na3
I played 7 Be3 in a correspondence game some years ago and obtained only a
draw as Black played very solidly.
7...cxd4 8 Naxc4 Bc5
8...Ra7 is more usual.
9 00 00
[FEN "rnbq1rk1/1p3ppp/p3pn2/2b1N3/2Np4/
6P1/PP2PPBP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 0 10"]
10 Bd2
In Game Six, Anand switched to 10 Bg5, the game continuing 10...h6 11 Bxf6
Qxf6 12 Nd3 Ba7 13 Qa4 (since 13...b5? would cost material after 14 Qc2
bxc4 15 Qxc4). Within a few moves, a position arose in which Anand had two
knights against two bishops and he had some temporary pressure. In the long
run, he had to be careful to ensure the draw.
10...Nd5 11 Rc1 Nd7 12 Nd3 Ba7 13 Ba5!?
Apparently new.
13...Qe7 14 Qb3 Rb8
[FEN "1rb2rk1/bp1nqppp/p3p3/B2n4/2Np4/
1Q1N2P1/PP2PPBP/2R2RK1 w - - 0 15"]
15 Qa3
This offer of the queen exchange, allowing Black to double the pawns, was
criticised, with 15 Rfd1!? looking more natural. As matters turned out,
however, the move worked out well.
15...Qxa3 16 bxa3 N7f6?!
Anand's strategy would have been more questionable if Black had found 16...
Nc5!, because after the text move Black soon drifts into a position without
prospects where White can strengthen his position and choose his time to
force the pace later. The power of the Catalan bishop on the long diagonal
proves much more significant than the extra pawn which will inevitably be
regained.
17 Nce5! Re8! 18 Rc2 b6 19 Bd2 Bb7 20 Rfc1 Rbd8
Not 20...Rec8?? because 21 Rxc8+ Rxc8 22 Rxc8+ Bxc8 23 Nc6 wins a piece.
21 f4 Bb8 22 a4
Is this really threatening a4-a5?
22...a5 23 Nc6 Bxc6 24 Rxc6 h5?! 25 R1c4 Ne3?
After this move Black is close to lost. Commentators reckoned he should have
played 25...Ng4 (with the idea 26 Rxd4 Ba7) or immediately 25...Ba7!?.
26 Bxe3 dxe3
[FEN "1b1rr1k1/5pp1/1pR1pn2/p6p/P1R2P2/
3Np1P1/P3P1BP/6K1 w - - 0 27"]
27 Bf3
Anand does not want to change the structure by 27 Rxb6!? Rxd3 28 exd3 e2
29 Rb1 Ba7+ 30 d4.
27...g6
This, probably giving up the wrong pawn; is the consequence of move 24. 27...
Nd7 may be better.
28 Rxb6 Ba7 29 Rb3
Avoiding the trap 29 Rb7 Rxd3 30 Rxa7 Rd2.
29...Rd4
Here Topalov probably overlooked the point at move thirty-one, but it may be
too late to make a difference.
30 Rc7 Bb8 31 Rc5! Bd6
If 31...Rxa4? 32 Bc6.
32 Rxa5 Rc8 33 Kg2 Rc2 34 a3 Ra2 35 Nb4 Bxb4
If 35...Ra1 36 Nc2; or 35...Rad2 36 Ra8+ Kg7 37 a5; or 35...Rxa3 36 Rxa3
Bxb4 37 Ra8+.
36 axb4 Nd5
[FEN "6k1/5p2/4p1p1/R2n3p/PP1r1P2/
1R2pBP1/r3P1KP/8 w - - 0 37"]
37 b5! Raxa4 38 Rxa4 Rxa4 39 Bxd5 exd5 40 b6 Ra8 41 b7 Rb8 42 Kf3 d4

Or 42...Kf8 43 Kxe3 Ke7 44 Kd4 Kd6 45 Rb5 Kc6 46 Rc5+ Kb6 47 Rc1 to
win the d-pawn.
43 Ke4 10
In Game Three, Anand adopted the Slav, accepted a slightly inferior ending
and drew it quite comfortably. The champion was following the strategy used
by Kramnik in Game Six of his Topalov match.
Topalov Anand
Third match game, 27 April 2010
Queen's Gambit Slav Defence [D17]
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 a4 Bf5
This variation discusses one of the central issues in the defence of the Queen's
Gambit: what to do with this bishop? In the orthodox QG, the early ...e6
makes it hard to develop, except by a fianchetto; in the Slav the bishop goes
outside the pawn chain, but can become harassed by enemy pawns.
6 Ne5
This is much sharper than 6 e3, which gives Black more time to organise
himself.
6...e6
In the very old days, Black used to play 6...Nbd7 here, but it proved
unsatisfactory. 6...e6 was the subject of a major article by theoretician B.
Voronkov in Shakhmatny Byulleten in 1972 (issues two and three), and some
of his ideas were overlooked in later theory books on the Slav.
7 f3
White hopes to blot out the light-squared bishop. Instead, 7 Nxc4 is premature
and 7...c5! (despite the lost tempo) gives Black a good game. In the 1929
Alekhine-Bogoljubow match, White played 7 Bg5, but the correct reply to
that is 7...Bb4, not 7...Be7 as Bogo played.
7...c5
John Donaldson once called this piece sacrifice idea "very interesting" and
"bizarre", but it is just about playable if Black is content to draw. 7...Bb4 is
the main line, after which White has several options; 8 Nxc4, 8 e4 and 8 Bg5
being the main ones.
8 e4
[FEN "rn1qkb1r/pp3ppp/4pn2/2p1Nb2/P1pPP3/
2N2P2/1P4PP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq e3 0 8"]
8 dxc5 Qxd1+ 9 Kxd1 Bxc5 10 e4 Bg6 11 Bxc4 Nc6? 12 Nxc6 bxc6 13 Bf4
was much better for White in another Akehine-Bogoljubow game, but 11...
Nbd7 12 Nxd7 000 (first suggested by Pavel Kondratiev) solves Black's
problems.
8...Bg6
This move was introduced by Kramnik in the sixth game of his 2006 match
against Topalov.
8...cxd4 9 exf5 Bb4 was Voronkov's main idea. In a book on the Slav some
years ago, Matthew Sadler recommended this for complications. A few years
ago, I obtained two comfortable draws in this line against strong
correspondence opponents, one of them rated over 2600. Smyslov's 9...Nc6 is
possible, if Black is willing to defend a slightly inferior ending.
9 Be3
Until about ten years ago, White was thought to have a clear advantage here.
9 d5 is also possible.
9...cxd4 10 Qxd4 Qxd4 11 Bxd4 Nfd7
Introduced by Smyslov against Pia Cramling in 1999; this retreat to challenge
a white knight on e5 occurs in some other Slav lines.
12 Nxd7 Nxd7 13 Bxc4
[FEN "r3kb1r/pp1n1ppp/4p1b1/8/P1BBP3/
2N2P2/1P4PP/R3K2R b KQkq - 0 13"]
13...a6
13...Rc8 14 Bb5 a6 15 Bxd7+ Kxd7 16 Ke2 occurred in Game Eight, which
White won (see below). Presumably Anand did not repeat 13...a6 as he
wished to avoid preparation; the line is never quite equal for Black.
14 Rc1
Topalov varies at last from his play against Kramnik, where he chose 14 Ke2
Rg8 15 Rhd1. In his book on that match, Topalov wrote that he also
considered 14 h4 as Aronian played against Kramnik. Clearly, Topalov had
decided in the interim to avoid such lines which his opponent would be
certain to have prepared.
14...Rg8 15 h4 h6
15...h5 drew fairly comfortably in Game Five. This topped the bishop being
forced to h7. At the critical moment, tactics enabled Black to play ...f7-f6,
liberating the bishop.
16 Ke2 Bd6 17 h5 Bh7 18 a5 Ke7 19 Na4 f6 20 b4 Rgc8 21 Bc5 Bxc5 22
bxc5 Rc7 23 Nb6 Rd8 24 Nxd7 Rdxd7 25 Bd3 Bg8
[FEN "6b1/1prrk1p1/p3pp1p/P1P4P/
4P3/3B1P2/4K1P1/2R4R w - - 0 26"]
The bishop finds its way into the game (see moves twenty-eight through thirtythree) and a draw becomes pretty inevitable now.
26 c6!
This is the only way to try to make something happen, but Anand has
adequate resources.
26...Rd6! 27 cxb7 Rxb7 28 Rc3 Bf7 29 Ke3 Be8 30 g4 e5 31 Rhc1 Bd7 32
Rc5 Bb5 33 Bxb5 axb5 34 Rb1 b4 35 Rb3 Ra6 36 Kd3 Rba7 37 Rxb4
Rxa5 38 Rxa5 Rxa5
[FEN "8/4k1p1/5p1p/r3p2P/1R2P1P1/
3K1P2/8/8 w - - 0 39"]
39 Rb7+ Kf8
The remaining moves are pointless, but Topalov had said he would neither
make nor accept verbal draw offers, so the players had to find repetition
sequences to conclude hostilities.
40 Ke2 Ra2+ 41 Ke3 Ra3+ 42 Kf2 Ra2+ 43 Ke3 Ra3+ 44 Kf2 Ra2+ 45
Ke3 Ra3+ 46 Kf2
In Game Four, Topalov defended the Catalan Gambit again and was trounced
once more. Games Five and Six were then drawn as mentioned above. Anand
was in the lead at the half-way stage. As with his match against Kramnik, the
rules stipulated that the sequence of colours was reversed, giving him two
whites in a row at one point and black in the final game. Can anyone tell me
when this rule was first employed and whose idea it was? In the traditional
world championship matches from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, I
believe that there was always a strict alternation of colours from the beginning
to the end of matches.
In Game Seven, Anand survived an amazing sacrificial counter-attack by

Topalov, whose clock-handling was extraordinary. After Black's twentieth
move, Topalov had still only consumed three minutes compared with fiftynine for Anand. It seems clear that not only did Topalov predict Anand's early
response to his change of variation against the Catalan, but it was in this game
that the special computer Topalov had commissioned nearly won him a game.
Anand Topalov
Seventh match game, 3 May 2010
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 g3 Bb4+
Topalov did not wait to see where Anand would vary from Game Six.
5 Bd2 Be7
This variation is analogous to the lines in the Bogoljubow Indian and Queen's
Indian where the check is played as a probe, sacrificing a tempo to displace
the white queen's bishop.
6 Bg2 00 7 00 c6 8 Bf4 dxc4 9 Ne5 b5
This move was introduced by Ivanchuk against Gelfand at Monte Carlo
earlier this year.
10 Nxc6 Nxc6 11 Bxc6 Bd7
Ivanchuk had played 11...Ba6.
[FEN "r2q1rk1/p2bbppp/2B1pn2/1p6/2pP1B2/
6P1/PP2PP1P/RN1Q1RK1 w - - 0 12"]
12 Bxa8
White has nothing if he doesn't take exchange sacrifice.
12...Qxa8
Topalov used only two minutes so far; Anand twelve minutes.
13 f3 Nd5 14 Bd2
Was 14 Nc3 safer?
14...e5
An instant response by Topalov; it seems he out-prepared Anand this time.
Watching live, it seemed the world champion was in trouble.
15 e4 Bh3
Topalov makes it a pieces sacrifice and he had still only used three minutes!
This is now a piece sac.
[FEN "q4rk1/p3bppp/8/1p1np3/2pPP3/
5PPb/PP1B3P/RN1Q1RK1 w - - 0 16"]
16 exd5
16 Rf2 was an alternative.
16...Bxf1 17 Qxf1 exd4 18 a4 Qxd5
Anand, who by now had used forty-eight minutes, had little choice but to go
down what he had to assume was a line which Topalov presumably analysed
with a computer engine on the rest day. He dare not allow himself to think it
might be a bluff or that his opponent would be looking for a forced draw. In
such complicated situations, the golden rule is to try to find a safe line that
holds before speculating in whether playing for a win is possible.
19 axb5 Qxb5
Topalov continued to blitz, wasting no time on the alternative 19...Bc5.
20 Rxa7
Some commentators thought White should have given the preference to
development by 20 Na3!?.
20...Re8 21 Kh1!?
Anand took another six minutes here, finally choosing his move perhaps on
the basis that it might be a surprise and so end the computer sequence.
Alternatives were 21 Kg2 and 21 Rxe7 Rxe7 22 Na3 Qxb2 23 Qxc4 Re8.
[FEN "4r1k1/R3bppp/8/1q6/2pp4/
5PP1/1P1B3P/1N3Q1K b - - 0 21"]
Topalov can now capture take on b2, but perhaps Anand calculated he could
sacrifice his knight and draw? That also seemed to be Topalov's conclusion as
he spent seventeen minutes on this move and decided to play for a win. The
Chessdom commentator made the point that Black did not wish to "waste his
preparation".
21...Bf8!?
The main line perhaps was 21...Qxb2 (if 21...Bd6 22 Bc1) 22 Qxc4 (22 Qe1
also leads to a draw according to some analysts.) 22...Qxb1+ 23 Kg2
(threatening Rxe7) 23...h6 24 Rd7, to kill the d-pawn and leave the position
totally level.
22 Rc7
Anand now had forty minutes left. Topalov was an hour ahead on the clock
and spent ten minutes on his next.
22...d3 23 Bc3 Bd6 24 Ra7 h6
After Topalov's longest think, he had used a total of fifty-one minutes. 24...h6
ends back rank threats so Black can bring his rook to e2 in some lines.
25 Nd2
Probably this was not best? 25 Na3 and 25 Ra5 were possible, while 25 Qh3
(with the idea of penetrating to d7 and probably forcing a draw) was
suggested on Chessdom. Anand had twenty-nine minutes left and was perhaps
wondering whether playing for a win was possible after all. In fact, after his
chosen move it seems to be Black who forces the pace again.
25...Bb4 26 Ra1!
Anand had twenty minutes left. Topalov had only one pawn for the bishop.
26...Bxc3
26...Re2!? was also possible.
27 bxc3 Re2 28 Rd1 Qa4
Black thought a while on this.
29 Ne4 Qc2
Anand had sixteen minutes left. Topalov apparently settles for a draw
maybe assuming it is forced, which turns out not to be the case?
[FEN "6k1/5pp1/7p/8/2p1N3/2Pp1PP1/
2q1r2P/3R1Q1K w - - 0 30"]
30 Rc1 Rxh2+ 31 Kg1 Rg2+ 32 Qxg2

No perpetual check! A surprise for everyone watching; White is not playing
the repetition. Maybe he doesn't want to grovel, he wants to show he is
willing to fight on. Also now his best moves are maybe more obvious than
Black's?
32...Qxc1+ 33 Qf1 Qe3+
Topalov had to choose between this and 33...d2 34 Nxd2 Qxd2 35 Qxc4
where Anand would have a passed pawn in a Q+3P ending, but it must be a
draw. Vishy had thirteen minutes left so was not in time trouble.
34 Qf2 Qc1+ 35 Qf1 Qe3+ 36 Kg2
Anand again avoids the obvious draw by repetition.

36...f5 37 Nf2 Kh7 38 Qb1
To meet ...d2 by Qxf5+ and otherwise maybe infiltrate with Qb5.
38...Qe6
Vishy could force a draw by Nxd3 but prefers to continue manoeuvres.
39 Qb5
I began to wonder whether this was going to be a heartbreak for Topalov who
no longer has a clear draw?
39...g5 40 g4
Vishy makes the control with five minutes to spare and now gets an extra
hour. One plan was perhaps to force off queens and try to win N+P v 4 P with
his c-pawn?
40...fxg4 41 fxg4 Kg6
[FEN "8/8/4q1kp/1Q4p1/2p3P1/
2Pp4/5NK1/8 w - - 0 42"]
42 Qb7
Now Vishy has forty-nine minutes left and he threatens Qe4+. Black must
advance the d-pawn to prevent this, but then it is no longer guarded by the cpawn. However, after the game, computer engines tried to claim a win for
White commencing 42 Qa4.
I have not seen convincing analysis and we shall probably have to wait a
while before a consensus on what was really happening in this game emerges
among grandmasters.
From now on, Topalov managed to steer the game to a draw.
42...d2 43 Qb1+ Kg7 44 Kf1 Qe7
Anand started to think again, falling behind on the clock once more as he tried
to win.
45 Kg2 Qe6 46 Qd1 Qe3 47 Qf3 Qe6 48 Qb7+ Kg6 49 Qb1+ Kg7 50 Qd1
Qe3 51 Qc2 Qe2 52 Qa4 Kg8 53 Qd7 Kf8 54 Qd5
The queen position has been systematically improved but it is not enough.
54...Kg7 55 Kg3
White would like to move his king towards e2/ d1 and win the passed pawn,
but it cannot be done.
55...Qe3+ 56 Qf3 Qe5+ 57 Kg2 Qe6 58 Qd1
It was perhaps not surprising that after this titanic struggle, the players had a
reaction next day. It was easier for Topalov because he had first move. In
Game Eight, Anand's Slav did not do so well and made a serious error at
move twenty-two allowing White to plant a knight at d6, which eventually
had to be captured, creating a passed pawn. Anand was now forced to defend
a bishops of opposite colours ending a pawn down, where there was a danger
White could obtain split passed pawns. For several moves, the defence
seemed to hold until this position was reached.
[FEN "8/1p3k1p/p2Pp3/Pb2B1K1/
8/5P2/1P4P1/8 b - - 0 54"]
Here it is essential to rule out the possible penetration of the white king to the
queenside, for which reason the black king must watch the passed d-pawn and
the bishop must be used to protect h7. Therefore, 54Bd3 (or 54Ke8 5
Kh6 Bd3) is essential; e.g., 55 f4 Ke8 56 g4 Kd7 57 f5 exf5 58 gxf5 h6+ 59
Kf6 Bc2 and now Black just waits, according to, IM Malcolm Pein on TWIC,
republished at the ChessBase website.
Anand cracked under the pressure and after 54Bc6 55 Kh6 Kg8 56 g4
Anand resigned. At first sight this was premature, but Black cannot move his
king and the bishop must remain on the a4-e8 diagonal. White has a free hand
to continue but still there was much debate online about how exactly White
wins against best play. Chessdom provided no variations at all, only vague
generalities; their commentators apparently had no clue why the game ended
so abruptly.
Pein indicated the continuation 56 g4 Be8 57 g5 Bc6 58 f4!? Bd7 59 Bd4 Be8
60 Bg7 (zugzwang) 60...Bc6 61 g6 hxg6 62 Kxg6 Be8+ 63 Kf6 Bc6 64 Bh6
but why does Black have to put the bishop on e8?
The line on Susan Polgar's website is more convincing: 58 Bg7 Be8 59 f4 Bd7
60 g6 hxg6 61 Kxg6.
After a rest day, Anand came close to restoring his lead in Game Nine,
another complicated struggle in which he traded his queen for two rooks and
had a strong attack, balanced by Black's pair of passed pawns on the
queenside. Anand fell short of time more than once and as a consequence
probably missed numerous wins. Unfortunately, I was travelling that day and
could not look at the live coverage until a very late stage. I gather that
Anand's 40 Rh8 was probably wrong, letting Black's king escape the back
rank, whereas 40 Re4 would have been very hard to defend.
[FEN "8/8/kN2R3/p6R/1p1n4/5P2/
6PK/q7 w - - 0 53"]
This is about where I came in. Anand (White) had seven minutes against
twenty-three minutes (to reach move sixty), and he used about two and a half
minutes to play:
53 Rd6
White threatens mate in four starting Nc4, Rh7.
53Kb7!
After six minutes, a clever defence as White (psychologically speaking) is
likely to attempt the same mating pattern.
54 Nc4?!
In this case Nc4 seems inaccurate. White should have played 54 Nd5.
54Nxf3+ 55 gxf3 Qa2+
And eventually Topalov escaped with a draw.
The next two games ended in draws, Anand returning to the Grnfeld and
then playing the English Opening, reversed Dragon Sicilian. Game Twelve,
which Topalov fans expected him to win with White, took an unexpected
turn. The Bulgarian imploided suicidally in the middle-game.
Topalov Anand
Twelfth match game, 10 May 2010
Queen's Gambit Declined [D56]
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Nc3 Be7 5 Bg5 h6 6 Bh4 00 7 e3 Ne4 8 Bxe7
Qxe7 9 Rc1 c6 10 Be2 Nxc3 11 Rxc3 dxc4 12 Bxc4 Nd7 13 00 b6 14 Bd3
c5 15 Be4 Rb8 16 Qc2 Nf6 17 dxc5 Nxe4 18 Qxe4 bxc5 19 Qc2 Bb7 20
Nd2
During this phase, Anand defends his isolated c-pawn indirectly with tactics.
Here if 20 Rxc5? Bxf3 21 gxf3 (21 Rc7 Qg5) 21...Rxb2.
20...Rfd8 21 f3
Not 21 Rxc5?? Rxd2.
[FEN "1r1r2k1/pb2qpp1/4p2p/2p5/8/
2R1PP2/PPQN2PP/5RK1 b - - 0 21"]
This position had previously occurred in a 1998 German email

correspondence game Herbert Bellmann v Gnter Schulze, which had an
absurd conclusion. One commentator on the world championship match
noticed this precedent, but did not know why the loser soon blundered a rook.
21...Ba6
Bellmann forgot to include the move pair 20...Rfd8 21 f3 in his game record
and after 21...Qd6 22 Nb3 Ba6 White played 23 Rd1??, thinking he had the
advantage (since on his board the black rook was on f8), but Black of course
played 23...Qxd1+ and White resigned.
22 Rf2 Rd7 23 g3
Still not 23 Rxc5? Rxb2; White has no genuine threat. He seemed to suffer a
psychological collapse in the second half of this game.
23...Rbd8 24 Kg2 Bd3 25 Qc1 Ba6
White could repeat moves, but apparently he was more worried about the
prospect of a rapid-games play-off. Anand, who at the start of this game may
have been reconciled to that outcome, would probably have found some way
to continue anyway since he has a slight advantage.
26 Ra3 Bb7 27 Nb3 Rc7 28 Na5 Ba8
Of course Black wants to keep the magnificent bishop.
29 Nc4 e5! 30 e4
This only provokes, not prevents, the reply:
30...f5!
[FEN "b2r2k1/p1r1q1p1/7p/2p1pp2/2N1P3/
R4PP1/PP3RKP/2Q5 w - f6 0 31"]
31 exf5?
Topalov seems to think this is a helpmate problem composition tournament.
His challenge collapses dramatically.
31...e4 32 fxe4 Qxe4+ 33 Kh3 Rd4 34 Ne3 Qe8 35 g4 h5 36 Kh4 g5+ 37

fxg6 Qxg6 38 Qf1 Rxg4+ 39 Kh3 Re7
Black threatens 40...Rxe3+ 41 Rxce3 Rh4+, etc.
40 Rf8+ Kg7 41 Nf5+ Kh7
Now White has nothing.
42 Rg3
Not 42 Nxe7? Rh4+ 43 Kxh4 Qg4 mate. Anand plays the final phase to
perfection.
42...Rxg3+ 43 hxg3 Qg4+ 44 Kh2 Re2+
[FEN "b4R2/p6k/8/2p2N1p/6q1/6P1/
PP2r2K/5Q2 w - - 0 45"]
45 Kg1 Rg2+ 46 Qxg2 Bxg2 47 Kxg2 Qe2+ 48 Kh3 c4 49 a4 a5 50 Rf6

Kg8 51 Nh6+ Kg7 52 Rb6 Qe4 53 Kh2 Kh7 54 Rd6 Qe5 55 Nf7 Qxb2+ 56
Kh3 Qg7 01
Defending the now-unified title of World Chess Champion, the Spanishresident Indian grandmaster Viswanathan Anand overcame his dreadful start
and then withstood an extraordinarily determined fight-back from his
opponent, the highly talented Veselin Topalov, who seemed to hold the
initiative in the middle section of the match. Anand's mental resistance was
epitomised by the extraordinary seventh game and his play in the decisive
phase of Game Twelve. The Bulgarian finally broke his resistance in Game
Eight to level the scores, but in the remaining games Anand never seemed in
serious danger of losing. He missed numerous opportunities to win Game
Nine and then in Game Twelve, Topalov cracked under the pressure of the
occasion and Anand clinched the match with the only win achieved with the
black pieces.
In 1998, the leading French chess magazine called Anand the vice-champion
of the World: he was second under the PCA for losing to Kasparov and
second under FDIE for losing its world championship final to Karpov. It is
really only now that Anand can really put that double defeat behind him
forever. He finally gained (or regained, if you count 2000) the world
championship, albeit in a tournament, in 2007. Since then he has retained that
title twice in matches against two different dangerous contenders, Kramnik
and Topalov, one of whom was a previous champion. Of course, in
tournaments, he is only primus inter pares as the Romans said (first among
equal) and must face stiff challenges in future from rising starts like Magnus
Carlsen, but in 2010 he is undisputed world chess champion and this must be
a good thing for chess.
For the second time in succession, Topalov has shown himself to be a bad
loser by public criticism of his opponents. Many readers will recall his
"Toiletgate" criticisms of Kramnik, which he put into a book. Now he
criticises Anand for having high-level assistance and for not organising chess
in his homeland although it turns out that Topalov had a very powerful
custom computer made for his own preparations. To me, Topalov seems a
quite brilliant player on his day, but overall a rather unpleasant individual. I
am pleased he lost and hope he never plays for the world championship again.
It seems that I am not alone in that opinion since the chess world subsequently
found out that Carlsen, Kramnik, and Kasparov had all helped Anand in one
way or another with his preparations.
Postscript: the FIDE Presidency

If for no other reason than a man can spend too long in one job, I think it is
time for FIDE to elect a new President. I have never been a great fan of
Anatoly Karpov, as a person, but surely it is time for Kirsan Ilyumzhinov to
be replaced.

Chess Books for Summer

This column is devoted to reviews of a number of books that have come my
way in the past six months. All are published by Everyman Chess.
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
English grandmaster Nigel Davies has put together a

simple practical book under the title The Rules of
Winning Chess (Everyman Chess, ISBN 978-1857445961; $26.95; 15.99, 190pp. Softcover). Each
of its fifty short chapters follows a formula. Firstly the
rules: a quotation or two, sometimes from a chess
master but often from a work of oriental wisdom such
as The Art of War by Sun Tzu or from books on
martial arts. Then follows elucidating text and finally
a lightly-annotated game or two as illustration.
Davies's rules are divided into five categories, each of
which have ten chapters. The first concerns the Player
and mental preparation. The second part concerns practical advice such as
getting sleep and having breakfast, and not talking during games as it destroys
concentration. The remaining sections deal with opening, middle-game and
endgame respectively. This is quite an amusing book at times, with some
sound advice, but fundamentally it just a potboiler. The quotation I liked the
best, on page sixty-one, comes from The Book of Five Rings by Myamoto
Musashi and is applicable to any sport where two play head-to-head; e.g.,
match-play golf, tennis or pool just as much as fencing or chess:
In single combat you must put yourself in the enemy's position. If you
think "Here is a master of the Way, who knows the principles of
strategy," then you will surely lose.

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.

accessible:
Chess Endgames 5
by Karsten Mller
Beating 1 e4 e5
by John Emms
The title of a new book by grandmaster Simon

Williams claims to instruct readers in How to Win at
Chess Quickly!. This is the sort of urgent attentiongrabbing title that some publishers may love but
nowadays always make me suspicious. Again the
publisher is Everyman Chess (ISBN 978-1-85744446319; $26.95; 15.99, 192pp. Softcover). The book
is based around fifty illustrative master games but I
have some doubts about the level of advice on offer.
For example, Game One is a win by Nigel Short on
the white side of the Rubinstein Four Knights. The
game began 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Nc3 Nc6 4 Bb5 Nd4 5 Nxe5 and now Black
played 5Nxb5 instead of 5Qe7. Williams writes of 5 Nxe5 as if it was "a
new move" and a "trick" but the whole point of Rubinstein's 4Nd4 is that it
offers a gambit. True, it may be rare for White to accept but no player has any
business offering a gambit if he dos not know how to continue when it is
accepted. Williams fails to make that point. I think the level of advice offered
by Davies in his book is more specific and illuminating than the kind of
generic waffle Williams produces, such as "if you are surprised in the
opening, keep your cool".
Here is an example from the book of Williams winning quickly against
another English grandmaster.
Mark Hebden Simon Williams
Amersham, 2009
Queen's Gambit [D44]
Studying Chess Made Easy

by Andrew Soltis
1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 d5 3 c4 e6 4 Bg5 dxc4 5 Nc3

5 Qa4+ is safer.
5...c6
Black heads for the complications of the Botvinnik Semi-Slav.
6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 Bh4 g5 9 Nxg5 Nd5!?
[FEN "rnbqkb1r/p4p2/2p1p2p/1p1nP1N1/2pP3B//
2N5/PP3PPP/R2QKB1R w KQkq - 0 10"]
Black chooses a lesser-known move instead of the main line, 9...hxg5 10

Bxg5 Nbd7 11 exf6 Bb7.
10 Nxf7
Theoretically best but White is now out of his comfort zone. Hebden's
mistake in this game was playing to his opponent's strengths instead of his
own, a quiet positional game. 10 Nf3 is about equal says Williams.
10...Qxh4 11 Nxh8 Bb4 12 Qd2
'Hebden took a long time over this move, which was a sign that he was out of
his preparation and this gave me a good deal of confidence.' 12 Rc1 is the
main move, when Williams intended the unusual 12...Kd8!?, seeking escape
to the queenside, instead of 12...c5 which is supposedly favourable to White.
12...c5!
[FEN "rnb1k2N/p7/4p2p/1ppnP3/1bpP3q/
2N5/PP1Q1PPP/R3KB1R w KQq - 0 13"]
13 dxc5?
I found this game: 13 000 Nc6 14 Ng6 Bxc3 (14...Nxc3 15 Nxh4 Nxa2+ 16
Kb1 Bxd2 17 Rxd2 Nab4 18 Nf3) 15 bxc3 Qg5 16 Qxg5 hxg5 17 h4 Kf7 18
h5 Nxc3 19 Rd2 Nxd4 20 h6! Kxg6 21 h7 Ba6 22 h8Q Rxh8 23 Rxh8 Ne4 24
g4! Nxd2 25 Kxd2 c3+ 26 Kc1 c4 27 Bg2 b4 28 Be4+ Kf7 29 Ra8 Nb5 30
Bc6 b3 31 Be8+ Kg7 32 Bxb5 Bxb5 33 Rxa7+ Kg6 34 Ra3! bxa2 35 Rxa2
Bc6 36 Kc2 Bf3 37 Kxc3 Bxg4 38 Kxc4 Kf5 39 Kd4 Kf4 40 Ra8 Bf5 41 Rf8
g4 42 Rf6! 1-0, J. Corfield-A. Stoker, British Corr. Ch. candidates 1990.
13...Nd7 14 Be2
14 000 Nxc5 15 Qe1 was suggested in a note to the last-mentioned game in
British Chess Magazine, January 1993.
14...Nxe5 15 00?
Williams says 15 g3 Qf6 16 f4 Nd3+ 17 Bxd3 cxd3 18 Qxd3 Qxh8 'would
have been roughly equal'.
15...Bb7
Black threatens 16...Nf4 followed by 17...Qh3! when 18 gxh3 Nxh3 is
checkmate.
[FEN "r3k2N/pb6/4p2p/1pPnn3/1bp4q/
2N5/PP1QBPPP/R4RK1 w q - 0 16"]
16 f4 Bxc5+ 17 Kh1 Ne3 18 Bf3 N3g4 01

The author omits the following game from his book, I am not sure whether
out of modesty or because it went on too long. (White was rated 2014.) As
James Coleman remarked when posting it at the English Chess Forum, it
could set some kind of record as "Black made his first twelve moves with
pawns only, after which he had a won position."
Labash Tsaboshvili Simon Williams
Bunratty Open, Ireland, 2009
Basmaniac Defence [A40]
1.d4 h6 2.Nf3 g5 3.e4 a6
Showing grave disrespect for the opponent, which proves to be justified.
4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 h5 6.Bc4
Is this a Kieseritsky Gambit or what?
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/1ppppp2/p7/4N2p/2BPP1pP/
8/PPP2PP1/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 6"]
6...e6 7.Nc3? b5 8.Bb3

White is in a horrible muddle already.
8...d6 9.Nd3?
Losing a piece.
9...c5 10.dxc5 dxc5 11.a4 c4 12.axb5 cxb3 13.cxb3 Nd7
Time to get the bits out!
14.g3 Nc5 15.Nxc5 Qxd1+ 16.Kxd1 Bxc5
[FEN "r1b1k1nr/5p2/p3p3/1Pb4p/4P1pP/
1PN3P1/1P3P2/R1BK3R w kq - 0 17"]
If White had known his opponent was writing a book on winning quickly, he
might have had the decency to resign here.
17.Ke2 Bb7 18.Rd1 Nf6 19.Ra4 axb5 20.Nxb5 00 21.Be3 Nxe4 22.Rxe4
Bxe4 23.Bxc5 Bf3+ 24.Ke1 Rfc8 25.Rc1 Ra5 26.b4 Rxb5 27.Kd2 Ra8 01
I once wrote a book called Why You Lose At Chess. I
was surprised nobody had used the title before, as S.
J. Simon's Why You Lose at Bridge was a classic. In
his new book, English IM Colin Crouch has varied it
slightly and his is called Why We Lose at Chess
(Everyman Chess, ISBN 978-1-857446364; $26.95;
15.99, 187pp. Softcover). His book is actually quite
different from mine, being arranged around his own
games and a series of tests. This book seems to be a
voyage of rediscovery for Colin, an old opponent of
mine from our youth, who frankly admits that he had
a stroke a few years ago and playing chess again,
leading to writing this book, was part of his road to health. I wish him a full
recovery in time.
The new book by English grandmaster Danny
Gormally is called Play Chess Like the PROs
(Everyman Chess, ISBN 978-1-857446272; $26.95;
15.99, 208pp. Softcover). I am a bit puzzled by the
capitalisation of the final word in the title; he doesn't
want to say "professionals" (which is what he means)
and is his publisher worried some readers might think,
if the word is in lower-case, that he is advising them
to play like prostitutes? As the abbreviated word is all
in capitals, my initial reaction was to wonder why he
was telling me to play like a Public Relations Officer!
Disarmingly, the author admits in the very first paragraph a young Dutch
player said to him "you are pretty weak for a professional aren't you?" Time
was that a young GM would no sooner get the title than he would be hired by
some City or Wall Street finance firm at a ridiculous salary and bonus level
beyond the wildest dreams of Anand and Topalov, but the fall of Lehman
Brothers changed all that. So the pursuit of small prizes and book royalties
remains Gormally's lot.
The book is actually written in a good-humoured self-deprecating sort of way
which rather endears the reader to the author's self-inflicted miseries and
occasional joys, though I do wish he had proof-read better. For example, on
page 128 the text says that his Scottish colleague Rowson has "practised
mediation in the past" but clearly there is a letter missing and what Rowson
really tries to achieve a settled frame of mind must be meditation.
Chapter One consists of some of Gormally's own games in local competitions,
and then in Chapter Two he goes on to compare Paul Morphy with the player
rated number one in the world today, Magnus Carlsen. The first game in this
chapter is billed as Morphy v Barnes, first match game, but the two men never
played a formal match. Lwenthal's book on Morphy called it a "casual game"
and other sources concur. Morphy only played formal matches with
Lwenthal, Harrwitz (of which the fifth game is in Gormally's book),
Anderssen and Mongredien. A small point, but I am more troubled by his
statement on page forty-three that if Carlsen keeps up his rate of improvement
(which he has), then the Anand-Topalov match (now recent, but in the future
when Gormally was writing) "is likely to have about as much relevance to
finding the world's best chess player as is a contest between Lindsay Lohan
and Paris Hilton to find the world's greatest intellect". That sentence seems
deeply insulting to both women but even more so to the grandmasters.
It has never been the case that world champions were required to have the
highest rating and if Anand and Carlsen were to play a set match, I would
expect Anand to win and gain Elo points while applying a useful corrective to
Carlsen's own rating. In another couple of years, that might not be the case, of
course. At this point I thought: this is another superficial book. Actually I was
wrong; I just had not tuned into the author's sense of humour yet.
Here is an interesting position from one of the annotated games in the book,
Anand-Aronian, Linares 2009, which illustrates the theme of 'Major
mistakes in calculation'. White is a piece for a handful of pawns ahead and, at
move thirty-three, is looking for a safe simplifying continuation. The fact that
Anand had not beaten Aronian since 2007 and had lost to him in the 2008
Linares (and in one of the Melody Amber games that same year) may have
been a psychological factor here, which the author does not mention.
[FEN "4r1k1/1b1n1pp1/p1p3rp/1p3N2//
3pP2Q/P2R4/1PB1KBq1/R7 w - - 0 33"]
Gormally was following this game on the Internet, where most kibitzers were
expecting 33 Rg3. He was running Frizt 11 on his computer, which insisted
that 33 Rxd4 was correct and winning for White, and when he input 33 Rg3
the computer immediately rebuked him for making a blunder. So he posted
"33 Rg3 is a mistake" and then Anand played it. Can you see what is wrong
with the move? Even when you know there is a flaw, it is not immediately
obvious.
33 Rg3?? Rxg3 34 Qxg3 Rxe4+!
Now Black obtains a fifth pawn for the piece, undermining the previously
strong knight, for if 35 Bxe4 Qxe4+ and 36Qxf5. After a further mistake,
White soon lost.
Starting Out: Open Games (Everyman Chess, ISBN
978-1-85744-6302, $27.95, 16.99, 318pp. Softcover)
is the latest in the 'Starting Out' series from
Everyman. It is a heavyweight book by GM Glenn

Flear which I fear might appear rather too big for
those just 'starting out' but of course there is a lot of
ground to cover. However, grandmaster Flear has
provided a sound and up-to-date guide; for players
with the time to work through it, this could be a
useful book. Unlike "repertoire" type books, the
author gives a balanced presentation with
recommendations for both colours.
His book deals with all 1 e4 e5 openings except the Spanish (Ruy Lopez). It
begins with 'the quiet Italian', 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 lines with an
early d3 instead of d4 before examining sharper variations in later chapters.
In the Two Knights Defence, where Flear begins with 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3
Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5, it is noteworthy that he mentions 5Nxd5 as
being possibly playable. This is because the traditional 'refutation', the
Fegatello Attack, is far from clear: 6 Nxf7!? Kxf7 7 Qf3+ ke6 8 Nc3 Nb4 and
if 9 Qe4 c6. On the only occasion when I had to meet 5Nxd5 in
correspondence play, I chose 6 d4 which Leonard Barden recommended long
ago. My opponent replied 6exd4 (death wish) and after 7 0-0 Be6 8 Re1
Qd7 9 Nxf7! (very old theory, going back to Steinitz or earlier) I won quite
easily. The book move is 6Bb4+ but that should also favour White. The
new try for Black is 6Be6 7 Nxe6 fxe6 8 dxe5 Bc5!, which Flear credits to
Martin de Zeeuw, saying 9 Qg4 is critical. I can offer one game from my
database in this line.
Heikki Arppi Kari Eloranta
Finland Email ch-5 (WS) ICCF server, 20.11.2005
Two Knights Defence [C57]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5 Nxd5 6 d4 Be6!
[FEN "r2qkb1r/ppp2ppp/2n1b3/3np1N1/2BP4/
8/PPP2PPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 7"]
7 Nxe6
Flear thinks White should forget about winning a pawn and play for a
positional advantage by 7 00 Nxd4 8 Nxe6 fxe6 9 Qh5+ g6 10 Qxe5 Qf6 11
Qxf6 Nxf6 12 Bd3, as suggested by Karsten Mller.
7...fxe6 8 dxe5 Bc5 9 Qg4
[FEN "r2qk2r/ppp3pp/2n1p3/2bnP3/2B3Q1/
8/PPP2PPP/RNB1K2R b KQkq - 0 9"]
9...Qd7
9...Qe7 10 00 Nxe5 11 Qh5+ Nf7 and there is still a lot of play left in either
case. Now White has a choice:
a) Restoring the material advantage by 12 Bxd5 exd5 13 Qxd5; e.g., 13...c6
14 Qb3 000 15 Qh3+ Kb8 16 Bf4+ Bd6 17 Bxd6+ Nxd6 18 Nc3, or
b) 12 Bd2 000 13 Nc3 Nf6 14 Qe2 Rhe8 15 Rad1 with some positional
advantage to White: bishop-pair and a target in the isolated pawn at e6
although it is sufficiently defended for now.
10 Nc3 00 11 f4
Evidently not liking the king in the centre after 11 Bxd5 Bxf2+ 12 Kf1 Bb6+
13 Bf3.
11...Ncb4
[FEN "r4rk1/pppq2pp/4p3/2bnP3/1nB2PQ1/
2N5/PPP3PP/R1B1K2R w KQ - 0 12"]
12 Bb3!
Again White plays conservatively, avoiding the complications of 12 Nxd5
Nxc2+ 13 Ke2 Kh8 (13...Nxa1?? 14 Nf6+ Rxf6 15 exf6) 14 Rd1 Nxa1 15
Nc3 Qe7 when Black is the exchange up at present, although his situation is
precarious.
12...Kh8
12...Rae8 may be slightly better but the reply would be the same.
13 a3 Nxc3 14 axb4 Bxb4 15 00 Bc5+ 16 Kh1 Qb5
If the knight retreats, Black has clearly an inferior position.
[FEN "r4r1k/ppp3pp/4p3/1qb1P3/5PQ1/
1Bn5/1PP3PP/R1B2R1K w - - 0 17"]
17 Be3!?
An ambitious reply; White counts on the attacking propensity of opposite

coloured bishops in the middle-game. He will sacrifice the queenside and
build up against the black king with pieces and pawns.
17 Qf3 is simpler and preserves an edge, but in correspondence play, White
can calculate the tactics.
17...Bxe3 18 bxc3 Rad8 19 h4 Qc6 20 Rf3 Bd2
If 20...Qxc3 21 Raf1 Qd2 then 22 Qxe6 (or maybe 22 Bxe6) and White
retains winning chances.
21 Rd1
21 Bxe6!?.
21...Qe4 22 Rdf1 a5 23 Bxe6 Qxc2 24 h5
[FEN "3r1r1k/1pp3pp/4B3/p3P2P/5PQ1/
2P2R2/2qb2P1/5R1K b - - 0 24"]
24...Bxc3?
24...Rd3 would probably be met by 25 Bf7! Rxf3 26 gxf3! (threatening h5-h6)
26...h6 27 e6 Qb3 28 Qf5 (Renews the threat of e6-e7) 28...Qa3 29 Qe4 Qe7
30 Rd1 Bxc3 31 Kg2. This is played so that ...Qh4+ is no longer check, and
White's next move Rd7 will be very strong.
25 Kh2 Qe2?
Now Black is definitely lost. 25...Rde8 26 h6 gxh6 might save him in an overthe-board game but perhaps not in correspondence play.
26 h6! Bxe5 27 Bc4! Qxc4 28 fxe5 Qg8 29 e6 Rfe8 30 Rg3 Re7 31 Qf5 10
Neil McDonald's, Chess Secrets: The Giants of
Power Play (Everyman Chess, published in 2009;
ISBN 978-1-85744-5978, $24.95, 14.99, 239pp.
Softcover) is subtitled 'Learn from Topalov, Geller,
Bronstein, Alekhine and Morphy'. I should say at
once that McDonald is not using the term 'Power
Play' as it is generally understood in North America;
he is not talking ice hockey. Back in the early days of
The Kibitzer, I also got intro trouble with some
American readers because of this misunderstanding
when I used the phrase in one of my articles to mean
playing for a big advantage with White from the start.
McDonald is using it in a similar sense, dividing top players between
strategists and what he calls 'power players'.
Here is a game in which McDonald compares the winner's use of his queen to
Paul Morphy.
Veselin Topalov Arkadij Naiditsch
Dortmund Super GM 2005
1 Nf3 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 d5 4 d4 dxc4 5 e4 Bb4 6 Bg5 c5 7 e5 cxd4 8 Nxd4

Bxc3+ 9 bxc3 Qa5 10 exf6 Qxg5 11 fxg7 Qxg7 12 Qd2 00 13 Bxc4 a6 14
00
[FEN "rnb2rk1/1p3pqp/p3p3/8/2BN4/
2P5/P2Q1PPP/R4RK1 b - - 0 14"]
14...Rd8?
14...b5 was correct.
15 Qf4! b5 16 Qc7!
This prevents 16...Bb7, when Black would develop by ...Nc6 and equalise.
16...Qf8
A concession, because now an eventual ...Bb7 will not threaten mate on g2.
17 Bd3 Rd7 18 Qf4 Bb7
At last, but McDonald explains how White's preliminary queen sortie has
disrupted Black's co-ordination. The e6-pawn is no longer guarded by the
bishop while the rook has been lured off the back rank.
19 Rae1 Qg7 20 Be4 Kh8 21 Re3 Bxe4 22 Qxe4 Rd5
[FEN "rn5k/5pqp/p3p3/1p1r4/3NQ3/
2P1R3/P4PPP/5RK1 w - - 0 23"]
Now it is time for the final Morphy-like assault.

23 Nxe6! fxe6 24 Qxe6 Rd7 25 Rg3 Qf8 26 Re1 Raa7
This piece only moves when it's too late.
27 Qf6+! 1-0
[FEN "1n3q1k/r2r3p/p4Q2/1p6/8/
2P3R1/P4PPP/4R1K1 b - - 0 27"]
Timothy Taylor advocates 1Nf6 in his Alekhine

Alert!: A Repertoire for Black against 1 e4
(Everyman Chess, ISBN 978-1-85744-6234, $27.95,
16.99, 285pp. Softcover). For each variation that
White may adopt, the author (an American IM)
recommends following a "hero". He also starts his
consideration of each variation by dismissing lines he
doesn't like; e.g., in the Modern Variation 1 e4 Nf6 2
e5 Nd5 3 d4 d6 4 Nf3 (the line Taylor respects the
most) he rejects 4Bg4, 4g6 and 4dxe5 5 Nxe5
Nd7. He recommends that Black play 4dxe5 and
after 5 Nxe5 (if 5 dxe5 Bg4, not worrying about
losing castling rights by 6 c4 Nb4 7 Qxd8+) either 5g6 or 5c6 is playable.
If White plays the Four Pawns Attack, 1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Nd5 3 d4 d6 4 c4 Nb6 5
f4, then Taylor recommends 5g6 without exchanging pawns. He thinks the
Exchange Variation 5 exd6 (instead of 5 f4) is drawish when met precisely by
5exd6 6 Nc3 Nc6 7 Be3 Be7 8 Be2 0-0 9 Nf3 Bg4, and most other lines for
White he considers to be inferior. One noteworthy point is that if White plays
2 Nc3 instead of 2 e5, then Taylor does not like 2d5 and prefers to
transpose to the Vienna by 2e5. He does give some examples, but his
coverage of that (or of the Four Knights Game when White plays 3 Nf3) is by
no means comprehensive and must be supplemented from other books.
On the whole, however, this book is an excellent guide to the Alekhine for
anyone looking for a new defence to 1 e4.
Here is one of the author's illustrative games, with additional notes by me.
The winner is Ireland's top player, and only grandmaster, who came from
Russia to live here in the 1980s.
Pavel Blatny Alex Baburin
North American Open, Las Vegas, 2003
Alekhine's Defence [B04]
1 e4 Nf6 2 e5 Nd5 3 d4 d6 4 Nf3 dxe5 5 Nxe5 c6 6 c4?!
Taylor says that White's best chance for an advantage is 6 Be2, as played by
Kasparov and Anand.
6...Nb4!
[FEN "rnbqkb1r/pp2pppp/2p5/4N3/1nPP4/
8/PP3PPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 7"]
7 Be3
Black wins at least a pawn after 7 a3? Qxd4!, although there is one
correspondence game in my database where Black managed to mess up after
8 Qxd4 Nc2+ 9 Kd1 Nxd4 and lose in the end. If 8 axb4 Qxe5+, Black just
wins a pawn, while if 8 Nxf7 Taylor gives 9...Qe4+ 9 Be2 (9 Qe2 Nd3+) 9...
Qxg2 10 Bf3 Nc2+! 11 Ke2 Bg4.
7...Bf5 8 Nd3
8 Na3 Nd7.
8...e5 9 Nxb4 Bxb4+ 10 Nc3 Qa5
[FEN "rn2k2r/pp3ppp/2p5/q3pb2/1bPP4/
2N1B3/PP3PPP/R2QKB1R w KQkq - 0 11"]
11 Qb3
Not 11 Rc1? Qxa2.
A better defence is 11 Qc1!, not mentioned in Taylor's book. Of course the
fact that White, at move eleven, has to seek a way to draw is hardly a good
advertisement for 6 c4.
a) 11...00 enables White to recover: 12 a3 Be7 13 d5 with about equal
chances, although in B. Baroin-H. Buczinski, ICCF server correspondence
2006, White won in sixty-three moves.
b) 11...exd4 12 Bxd4 00 13 a3 Re8+ 14 Be2 Bxc3+ 15 Qxc3 Qxc3+ 16 bxc3
(Forced; if 16 Bxc3 Bd3, White can cover the e-file but has damaged pawns.)
16...Bd3 (16...Nd7 may be better.) 17 Be3 Bxe2 18 Kxe2 c5 (18...Nd7!?) 19
a4 Nc6 (19...f5!?) 20 a5 f5 21 g3 b6 22 axb6 axb6 23 Rxa8 Rxa8 24 Rb1
, H. Klapp-H. Packroff, Germany email 2003. Black still has a small edge
and might have played on by 24...Ra2+ 25 Kd1 Ra6 26 Kc2 though White can
probably hold.
11...00
11...exd4 12 Bxd4 00 was also good in a later Baburin game.
12 Be2 exd4 13 Bxd4 Na6 14 00 Bc5 15 Be5

15 Bxc5 Nxc5 and Black went on to win in Sam Collins-Baburin, Bunratty
2004.
15...Rae8 16 Bg3 Bb4 17 Qd1 Rd8
White can only grovel while Black has the initiative with no weaknesses.
18 Qc1 Rfe8 19 Re1 Nc5
[FEN "3rr1k1/pp3ppp/2p5/q1n2b2/1bP5/
2N3B1/PP2BPPP/R1Q1R1K1 w - - 0 20"]
20 Bh4
20 a3 Bxc3 21 Qxc3 Qxc3 22 bxc3 Ne4 23 Rac1 Nxc3 24 Rxc3 Rxe2! and
wins (Baburin).
20...f6 21 Bh5 Rxe1+ 22 Qxe1 Nd3 23 Qe2 Nxb2! 24 Re1 Nd3 25 Rd1
If 25 Qe8+ Rxe8 26 Rxe8+ Bf8.
25...Bxc3 26 Qe7 Rf8 27 g4 Nf4! 28 Bf7+
Or 28 gxf5 Nxh5.
28...Rxf7! 29 Rd8+ Qxd8 30 Qxd8+ Rf8 31 Qc7 Be5
[FEN "5rk1/ppQ3pp/2p2p2/4bb2/
2P2nPB/8/P4P1P/6K1 w - - 0 32"]
32 Qxb7?
32 Qe7 also loses in the end after 32...Bxg4.
32...Rb8 01
White resigns in view of 33 Qxc6 Rb1 mate.
Chess Duels: My Games with the World Champions
by Yasser Seirawan (Everyman Chess, ISBN 978-1857445879, $35 or 20, 426 pages) came hardback
and shrink-wrapped. The former means a premium
price and implies a book to keep. The latter usually

means booksellers don't want people thumbing
through it and not buying, and the converse of that is:
this is a special book and you'll have to take that on
trust. My first thought when it arrived was something
like this: 'Doubtless this is a premium book in
America but I would not expect much interest in it
from European readers.'
Yet again, first impressions were wrong. This is an excellent book, and
although it is likely that Americans will be the main buyers, it is of much
wider interest. Yasser Seirawan was born on 24 March 1960 in Damascus.
His father was a Syrian scientist who met his English mother while studying
at Nottingham university. The couple returned to Syria but after a few years
'escaped' back to England, just before his fourth birthday. When Yasser was
seven the family moved to America, when his father got a job with Boeing.
Within a year his parents had broken up and his mother married again (twice).
Yasser was about twelve before he really got into chess, which was around
the time Fischer became world champion. He tells many stories about Fischer
in an early chapter.
The young Seirawan made swift progress in his teenage years, and in 1979 he
won the World Junior Championship which led to him receiving invitations to
Hastings 1979-80 and then Wijk aan Zee 1980 which followed immediately
afterwards. There he had an important meeting with Viktor Korchnoi, whom
he beat in round two. Seirawan describes how the post-mortem to that game
led to a great friendship with Korchnoi inviting him to work with him in
preparing for his Candidates semi-final against Petrosian. Because all the
games in this book are against world champions, he does not include the
Korchnoi game so here it is to fill that gap.
Yasser Seirawan Victor Korchnoi
Wijk aan Zee 1980
1 c4 Nf6 2 Nc3 e6 3 e4 d5 4 e5 d4 5 exf6 dxc3 6 bxc3 Qxf6 7 d4 c5 8 Nf3 h6
9 Bd3 cxd4 10 cxd4 Bb4+ 11 Kf1
[FEN "rnb1k2r/pp3pp1/4pq1p/8/1bPP4/
3B1N2/P4PPP/R1BQ1K1R b kq - 0 11"]
This is probably the move Seirawan means when he wrote that Victor 'had
walked into one of my best opening surprises.' White retains his bishop to
participate in a later kingside attack and the black bishop has no clear role.
The downside is that the white rook is out of play for a while unless the h-file
is opened.
11 Bd2 was theory (e.g., Ree-Radulov, Wijk aan Zee 1974).
11...Nc6
11...00 was mostly played in later games but White seems to have the
initiative.
12 Bb2 Bc5
12...00 may be somewhat better; it scored 11 in two later games to be found

in ChessBase's MegaBase.
13 Bc2 00 14 Qd3 Rd8 15 Rd1!
Seirawan is not distracted by a check: 15 Qh7+ Kf8 16 Rd1 Nxd4!.
15...Kf8 16 Qe4 Bd6 17 h4! Qf5 18 Qe2 Qa5 19 Bb3 Ne7 20 h5 b6 21 Qe4
Ba6 22 d5!
[FEN "r2r1k2/p3npp1/bp1bp2p/q2P3P/
2P1Q3/1B3N2/PB3PP1/3R1K1R b - - 0 22"]
The attack gets under way, although computers may not be convinced.
22...exd5 23 Qh7 f6 24 Kg1 Bxc4
We shall probably have to wait for Seirawan's next book to discover whether
he thinks he was winning after 24...dxc4 25 Bc2 (25 Bxf6 is probably
unsound.) 25...Bb4 or 25...Bc5. If instead 25...c3 26 Bb3! or 25...Kf7? 26 Bg6
+ Nxg6 27 hxg6+ Ke8 28 Qxg7 White wins.
25 Rh4 Bxb3 26 axb3 Kf7 27 Rg4 Rg8 28 Re1 d4 29 Rxd4 Be5 30 Rd7
Qxe1+ 31 Nxe1 Bxb2 32 Nd3 Ba3 33 Nf4 Rgd8 34 Qg6+ Kg8 35 Qd3
Rxd7 36 Qxd7 Rc8
[FEN "2r3k1/p2Qn1p1/1p3p1p/7P/
5N2/bP6/5PP1/6K1 w - - 0 37"]
37 Kh2 Kf7 38 Ng6 Ra8?

Black collapses in time trouble, but was probably losing anyway.
39 Nxe7 10
Seirawan had an active career of about twenty-one years in top chess, and was
briefly in the world top ten, although during much of his internationally
playing career he was also editing the well-respected magazine Inside Chess,
which was published fortnightly. In 2001 he sold the business to Hanon W.
Russell, and he in turn to James & Mark Donlan in 2009, but Seirawan's
column of that title continues to run on the ChessCafe.com website. I think
he can be well proud of his achievements, and of this book.
I have left one book for coverage next time. That is Dave Taylor and Keith
Hayward's Play the Ponziani (Everyman Chess, ISBN 978-1-85744-620-3;

$27.95, 16.99, 300pp. Softcover). If any readers have interesting games or
analysis in this opening, they are welcome to submit them before the end of
July, via the ChessCafe.com Contact Page, for possible inclusion in my
review.
Postscript
I have decided to retire from the business side of my chess work and to
concentrate on research and writing. The intention is to continue my website
as a private website only, dealing with chess history and correspondence
chess. It may be some time before it is redesigned.
Now is the final opportunity to order copies of my UltraCorr3a database CD
or any other Chess Mail products. After Sunday 18 July, the last day on which
readers will be able to place orders through Chess Mail's PayPal shopping
cart, all sales pages will be taken down and orders through the post will not be
accepted either.

Can the Ponzi Fly Again?
The Kibitzer
Recently a new book on the Ponziani opening turned up in my mailbox. It was

written by two of America's leading correspondence players, Dave Taylor and
Keith Hayward. Play the Ponziani is published by Everyman Chess (ISBN
978-1-85744-620-3; US$27-95, UK 16-99, 300 pages softcover). In the year
2000, Dave Taylor had self-published Ponziani Power and now Hayward has
brought it up to date. The new work is very densely packed with information,
providing comprehensive coverage of the opening in the way that the old
Batsford monographs used to do, rather than the selective coverage through
illustrative games as usually seen in Everyman Chess books.
Purchases from our

accessible:
Tim Harding
ChessBase Magazine #124
by Rainer Knaak
Ponziani Opening

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
Although I never had much success with the opening, I did (twice) write short
books on it for Chess Digest. The first of these was in 1974, the second and
more substantial work was published ten years later. I note that Hayward and
Taylor do not include the 1984 work in their bibliography, but I think that is
just an oversight as they have clearly seen the book. Both of my old booklets
were in English descriptive notation because that is what the Chess Digest
publisher, Ken Smith, insisted upon.
Kaissiber 17
by Stefan Buecker
An image of the Ponzi as a large flightless bird somehow got into my mind.
Had the authors taught it to fly again? So I decided that this opening was
worth another look. The English name of the opening is really a misnomer. 3
c3 is much older, but Domenico Lorenzo Ponziani (1719-96) analysed 3f5
in his book The Incomparable Game of Chess and the name eventually stuck.
I first came across this opening (with black) as a young player when J. B.
Howson, a strong English civil service club player, came to my school to give
a simultaneous display in the early 1960s. I no longer have the game score,
but it probably was not worth preserving.
After 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 c3 (the characteristic move of the Ponziani) White
apparently intends to follow up with d2-d4 and then recapture on d4 with the
pawn, achieving a big pawn centre. However there is another point to 3 c3.
I probably thought, like so many others meeting it for the first time,
something along the following lines. "That's a silly move. Now I can play the
freeing move 3d5 because after 4 exd5 Qxd5 he cannot hit my queen by
Nc3 as he has stupidly blocked the knight with his pawn."
There followed 3d5 4 Qa4!
Kaissiber 21
by Stefan Buecker
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/ppp2ppp/2n5/3pp3/Q3P3/
2P2N2/PP1P1PPP/RNB1KB1R b KQkq - 0 4"]
"Ouch. I didn't see that. He didn't take my pawn or defend his e-pawn. My
knight is pinned. If I play 4dxe5, he plays 5 Nxe5 and I am in trouble on c6,
but if I play 4Bd7, then my d-pawn is no longer defended."
I probably did not even consider 4f6, or 4Qd6, both of which protect the
e-pawn, because the first is an ugly and apparently weakening move, while
the latter offends against the principle of moving the queen early although
that is what White has just done.
I cannot remember what I played, but I know I lost quickly. Afterwards
Howson showed me a few tricks of the trade.
3d5 is actually playable, but Black needs to know what he is doing. If he is
unprepared, White has excellent chances of achieving a significant opening
advantage. The details follow later in the article.
Every other reply for Black and a final assessment of the book will follow in
the September column.
Comments from a Loyal Reader
It seems that the Ponziani Opening does not attract a large following, but it
does attract extraordinary loyalty from the few who find it suits their style.
Last month I invited any readers who had played the Ponziani to send in
comments or analysis, and one did. Many thanks to 2103-rated Robert Taylor
from Preston in England (no relation of the co-author, I think), who will find
himself quoted several times in this article.
Robert Taylor comments, "The book is impressive in terms of its scope I
have previous books on the opening and no-one has been this thorough
previously, I think; however I do take issue with some of the 'preferred lines'
given by Hayward and in a small number of places I think he leaves things out
maybe for space reasons, or other considerations. Also I do disagree with
his assessments in a couple of places (he is stronger than me of course but I
stick to my guns!)."
On the opening itself, Robert Taylor writes, "The most optimistic assessment
I can make of 3 c3 is that it is fifth best in the position, but even so, I still
employ it several times a year. Entertainment value (added to which, so many
black players steer away from the critical positions, so my score with the
move is no worse than you'd expect quite the reverse)!"
The rest of this month's article is devoted to a detailed look at the 3d5
variation and the September column will deal with 3Nf6 and Black's other
possibilities, and any further reader feedback.
A Detailed Look at the 3d5 Line
It is now time to make a detailed examination of the critical positions arising
from 3d5. I look at these first because, frankly, if you do not like the type of
game you obtain with white here, then you should not be playing the
Ponziani. The play is sharp, but the opportunities of obtaining a clear, if not
decisive, advantage (or disadvantage) straight out of the opening are greater in
the 3d5 variation than in almost any other line arising from 3 c3.
An important position to note is the following, which commonly occurs after
White's fifth move when Black defends his e-pawn by 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 c3
d5 4 Qa4 f6, and now 5 Bb5.
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/ppp3pp/2n2p2/1B1pp3/Q3P3/
2P2N2/PP1P1PPP/RNB1K2R b KQkq - 0 5"]
The same position can come about if White adopts the move order 4 Bb5 f6 5
Qa4. So a major question facing White when learning and analysing this
opening is whether 4 Qa4 or 4 Bb5 is preferable, on the basis of which lines
does he wish to avoid, or encourage, in the event of Black playing something
other than 4f6.
If White plays the move recommended by Hayward and Taylor, namely 4
Qa4, then he chiefly needs to have lines ready against the counter-gambits 4
Bd7 (Caro) and 4Nf6 (Leonhardt). He does not need to fear 4dxe4. On
the other hand, if he chooses the sharper 4 Bb5, then 4dxe4 is the critical
alternative to 4f6.
When I wrote my first Ponziani booklet in 1974, I recommended 4 Qa4 on the
basis that the queen was better able than the bishop to look after herself on an
open board. Ten years later, in the 1984 booklet, I recommended 4 Bb5 in
order to avoid the Caro and Leonhardt and steer the game into less analysed
possibilities following 4 Bb5 dxe4. Subsequently, those possibilities have
received attention, and of course computers have greatly changed the way one
goes about preparing sharp opening variations. I have now been forced to
change my mind. In practice, I never had to play the critical line as virtually
all my opponents chose 3Nf6 and on the rare occasion I had black, I chose
3f5 as being the move White was probably least ready to meet.
Taylor also strongly recommended 4 Bb5 in his Ponziani Power but, like me,
has now changed his mind. In the opinion of Hayward and Taylor, 4 Bb5 has
been refuted and must be avoided. Here is a critical game that illustrates the
problem.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 c3 d5 4 Bb5?! dxe4! 5 Nxe5 Qg5!
At first sight, 5Qd5 might seem to be more problematic for White because
the queen then forks two unprotected minor pieces. On the other hand, 5
Qg5 "only" forks knight and g-pawn, but it is the latter which represents the
real danger to the first player because the because the black queen will come
to g2, attacking the king's rook with tempo, and then his king comes under
attack. Another option for Black is 5Bd7, but White simply plays 6 Nxd7
Qxd7 7 d4 with a small advantage.
After 5Qd5, White has a strong tactical solution to the fork, although it
yields only a minimal positional advantage. He plays 6 Qa4 Nge7 (not 6
Qxe5 7 Bxc6+ bxc6 8 Qxc6+ and Black loses the exchange for inadequate
compensation.) and now Howard Staunton's move 7 f4, when Black has to
choose between capturing en passant or to maintain his cramping e4-pawn at
the cost of letting White's knight become anchored on e5. Now
a) On page 212 of the book they discuss 7Be6!? and the only reply
considered is 8 Na3. Robert Taylor comments that he suggested an
improvement for White here to David Taylor which may not have been
relayed by his co-author:
"I don't believe 8 Na3 offers white anything. I do support 8 b3 and have
played it twice over the board. Black is virtually obliged to continue 8...e3 but
how is he going to untangle cleanly when White answers 9 0-0! I do feel this
option for white ought to be in the book as after 9 0-0 exd2 White has a good
position with either recapture."
b) Their main line continues 7exf3 8 Nxf3 reaching the point where their
coverage disagrees with my 1984 analysis.
b1) 8Be6 was the main line in my old book, following analysis by Steinitz
which had been updated by a Bulgarian called Filchev. However they have
refuted his line. White continues 9 0-0 0-0-0 10 d4 Qh5 and now rather than
11 Na3 (Steinitz) or 11 c4?! (from Filchev) the authors of the new book
suggest 11 Nbd2. It does seem that 8Be6 is fairly playable.
b2) 8a6 is the main line in Hayward and Taylor; it was a sub-line in my
second book. Then
b21) I recommended 9 Bc4, again following Bulgarian analysis, but they say
that Black is fine after either 9Qe4+ or 9Qh4, giving examples.
b22) Their recommendation is 9 Be2 Bd7 10 0-0 Ng6 11 Qb3 exchanging into
a somewhat superior queenless middlegame (Schakel-Cederquist, corr 2000).
c) Another possibility for Black is the solid 7Bd7, discussed on pages 2134. I have nothing to add here.
Now we return to Hayward and Taylor's critical line, 5Qg5.
[FEN "r1b1kbnr/ppp2ppp/2n5/1B2N1q1/4p3/
2P5/PP1P1PPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 6"]
In this position White has two possibilities: 6 Qa4 (which had been
recommended in Russian books prior to my 1984 booklet) and 6 d4, which I
tried to revive. Unfortunately both probably lose for White.
6 d4?!
Robert Taylor thinks that White must play 6 Qa4 Qxg2 7 Bxc6+ (7 Rf1 Bh3
transposes back to line a, after a few moves.) 7bxc6 8 Qxc6+ Kd8 and now
[FEN "r1bk1bnr/p1p2ppp/2Q5/4N3/4p3/
2P5/PP1P1PqP/RNB1K2R w KQ - 0 9"]
a) The book gives only 9 Rf1 Bh3 10 Qxa8+ Ke7 11 Kd1 Qxf1+ 12 Kc2,
when the key move for Black is 12Bf5! as given in both my booklet and the
new book. The key new discovery is that after 13 Na3 Black does not have to
be satisfied with the draw following 13e3+ but can play 13f6!, as shown
by GM John Emms in his book Play the Open Games as Black. As I pointed
out in my review at the time, 13f6! was a recent discovery then and was not
mentioned in Taylor's previous book, but that shortcoming has now been
rectified.
b) Robert Taylor is a bit annoyed that the authors do not state that 9 Kd1! is
an improvement here. His game against GM Mark Hebden at Aintree 1998
continued 9Qxh1+ 10 Kc2 Nh6! 11 Qxa8 Bd6 12 Nc6+ Kd7 and now
White lost quickly following 13 Nxa7??, whereas he should have played 13
Nd4, which Hebden had been expecting. Again, he says he sent his detailed
analysis to David Taylor some years ago and it appeared in Gary Lane's
August 2004 column after I wrote to him at ChessCafe.com, but the
improvement is not in the book.
Robert Taylor concludes that "9 Kd1 is not losing due to the improvement 13
Nd4 My conclusion is that the variation is good for black, but not winning
for Black and that 9 Kd1 is essential here, because otherwise I am afraid 4
Bb5 needs not a ?! but a straight red-card."
Deep Rybka on my computer does prefer this line after 5Qg5 but still
thinks Black is clearly better, so I tend to think 4 Bb5 gets the red card
anyway, for the purposes of serious correspondence games or play against
strong opponents. However it may be fun to play sometimes. 9 Kd1 has
worked for Robert Taylor in casual correspondence play on the Scheming
Mind server and over-the-board games against weaker opposition. Since I
wrongly believed in 1984 that 6 Qa4 led to a draw, I recommended the lesserknown 6 d4 instead, but here also improvements have been found for Black,
and if anything it is a disimprovement on 6 Qa4.
Now we return to the alternative line at 6 d4.
[FEN "r1b1kbnr/ppp2ppp/2n5/1B2N1q1/3Pp3/
2P5/PP3PPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq d3 0 6"]
6Qxg2 7 Rf1 Bd6!

In my 1984 work I had identified this move as possibly "the critical test"
because it prevents 8 d5, which is the answer to, for example, 7Nge7.
8 Nxc6
It was this move, first suggested in the 1980 Chess Player booklet The
Ponziani Opening by A. Smith and M. Ciamarra, which I recommended in
1984. Instead the tactics are all in Black's favour after 8 Qa4? Nge7! Also 8
Qh5, with which GM Velimirovic obtained a draw in a 1989 game, is not very
convincing.
8Bd7!
After this White cannot retain the extra piece. Other moves favour White, as
Taylor and Hayward show on page 223.
9 Qa4!?
This may be the best practical try. David Taylor has personal experience of 9
Nxa7 c6 10 Nxc6 (10 Bc4 Rxa7 11 d5 c5) 10bxc6 when Black has
excellent compensation for the pawn at this stage.
9a6!
Black keeps finding the "only" move. After 9bxc6 10 Bxc6 Rd8 1 Be3,
White starts to solve his development problem.
10 d5
Or 10 Na3 Rc8! as analysed in the book.
10Rd8!!
This is even better than 10Rc8 and much, much better than 10bxc6?! 11
Bxc6 Rd8 12 Be3 when "White escapes the worst", they say.
11 Bxa6 bxc6 12 dxc6 Bh3 13 Be3 Qg6! 14 Nd2
This is all analysis from the book, probably by Taylor. If 14 Rh1 Bg2 15 Rg1
Bxh2.
14Bxf1 15 Nxf1 Nf6 16 0-0-0 0-0
Now the authors say, "White has no compensation for the exchange".
The 4 Qa4 Lines
The conclusion that must be drawn from all the above is that 4 Bb5 is indeed
unsound, and so White must answer (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 c3) 3d5 by 4
Qa4.
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/ppp2ppp/2n5/3pp3/Q3P3/
2P2N2/PP1P1PPP/RNB1KB1R b KQkq - 0 4"]
4f6
This introduces what used to be the main line of the 3d5 variation. Black
accepts a slight weakening of his kingside to secure the important e-pawn.
The authors state that 4f6 has become a rare move in practice, perhaps
because modern players have forgotten Steinitz's idea or do not want to
weaken their kingside.
He can also try
a) 4...Bd7 (Caro Counter-Gambit) 5 exd5 Nd4 6 Qd1 Nxf3+ 7 Qxf3 and now
a1) 7Nf6 8 Bc4 Bd6?! 9 d3 Qe7?! 10 Bg5 led to a clinical White win in a
game Surtees-Hebden, 1999, which was apparently analysed on the Chess
Publishing website many years ago, although I have not seen it. The authors
omit the game from their coverage on page 148, probably because they
consider the critical line to be 8e4 9 Qe2 Bd6 10 d4! when they prefer
White although there is still a lot of play.
a2) 7Bd6 is the most flexible according to Hayward. For White he
recommends 8 Bc4 f5 9 d4 e4 and that now either 10 Qe2 or 10 Qh5+ g6 11
Qg5!? might be tried.
b) 4Nf6 (Leonhardt) is the alternative counter-gambit. The book gives 5
Nxe5 Bd6 6 Nxc6 bxc6 7 d3 0-0 8 Be2 Re8 and now their recipe to defuse the
complications is 9 Nd2. There have been a few successful recent games with
this and perhaps at last the refutation of 4Nf6 has been found.
c) 4Qd6 looks artificial but it sensibly protects e5 without weakening the
pawn structure. There is no clear main line for White. The authors point out
that 5 d3 has done very well in practice although theoretically it should not
lead to any opening advantage. It seems to me that if Black wishes to play 3
d5 then this is the line to investigate in more detail.
d) 4dxe4? is quite often played, and was even the choice of Karpov back in
1975, but it is definitely weak. The main line goes 5 Nxe5 Qd5 6 Nxc6! bxc6
(not 6Bd7?? 7 Nb4) 7 Bc4 and there is a big plus score for White in
practice here. Now
d1) 7Qd7 8 0-0 Nf6 (8Bd6 9 Re1! Nf6 10 d3 0-0 11 dxe4 Keres) 9 d3
exd3 10 Bg5! (S. Levitsky-A. Rabinovich, Russian ch, Vilnius 1912).
d2) 7Qd6 8 0-0 Bf5 9 f3! (A. Dckstein-Mitkov, Schellenberg 1991); for
details on these lines, see the book.
It seems to be accepted, however, that 4f6 is the best move. The next few
moves are virtually forced for both sides and then there are choices at move
seven.
5 Bb5 Nge7 6 exd5 Qxd5
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/ppp1n1pp/2n2p2/1B1qp3/
Q7/2P2N2/PP1P1PPP/RNB1K2R w KQkq - 0 7"]
7 d4
This is the more modern move, but the old 7 0-0 is the more promising option
in Hayward and Taylor's opinion. They rather hide this comment away at the
bottom of page 160 and the final comment to the chapter on page 189.
For 7 0-0 see the final section of this article: the illustrative games AlekhineIsakov and Showalter-Pillsbury.
7Bg4
This seems to be strongest although it deprives the black queen of the g4square.
a) 7e4 8 c4 and Black has three possible destinations for the queen. There
are some unclear and relatively untested possibilities now:
a1) 8Qd8 (or 8Qd7) 9 Nfd2!? Qxd4 10 Nb3 is a pawn sacrifice by White,
stemming from Von Popiel-Burn, Cologne 1898, which continued 10Qd6
11 Be3 Bd7 12 c5 (12 Nc3 was preferred in contemporary notes but the
authors like 12Nf5! in reply.) 12Qe6 13 Nc3 f5 14 0-0-0 a6 15 Rd2 Rc8
and now, as Hayward and Taylor say, 16 Bc4! would have been best. (See
Richard Forster's book on Amos Burn for details.) Instead of 10Qd6, Black
can also try 10Qd7 or 10Qe5 but the authors prefer White.
a2) 8Qd7!? 9 Nfd2 a6 was V. Zagorovsky's idea for Black to obtain
counterplay by sacrificing the exchange with a subsequent axb5. The
authors give some further analysis of my old suggestion 10 Nc3 but
Zagorovsky's line lacks practical tests.
a3) 8Qf5 9 Nh4 Qg4 is another almost untested possibility to which the
authors devote two inconclusive pages.
If it turns out that 7e4 is playable for Black, then White may have to reexamine the old 7 0-0, but for the time being the more aggressive 7 d4 still
looks to me like the move to play.
b) 7Bd7 8 Be3 exd4 9 cxd4 Ne5 10 Nc3 Nxf3+ 11 gxf3 Qf5 12 000 is a
very sharp line. Now
b1) According to the authors, Black should play 12Bxb5 13 Qxb5+ Kf7 but
there is a muddle in their note on page 181; the lines they give following that
are clearly based on having the knight not the queen on b5! Evidently 13 Qxb5
+ would be met by 13Qxb5 and so they mean 13 Nxb5; this does need
some investigation.
b2) In a famous postal chess brilliancy from a championship of the British
Correspondence Chess Association early in World War One, Rev. F. E.
Hamond-Rev. W. E. Evill (which will be annotated in my forthcoming history
of British correspondence chess), Black was crushed after 12c6. (The
authors wrongly give the loser the initial R.)
b3) Another game from the same tournament, Hamond-Baker, went 12...a6 13
d5! 000 14 Bxd7+ Rxd7 15 d6! cxd6 16 b4 Kb8 17 Kb2 Nc8 18 b5 axb5 19
Nxb5 b6 20 Nd4 Qh3 21 Rc1 Be7 22 Nc6+ Kb7 23 Bxb6! Kxb6 24 Qb4+
Ka6 25 Rc3 10. A curiosity is that Hayward and Taylor, despite having
access to my booklets, have repeated the garbled citation "Gemond-Iville &
Boicker" from the Bulgarian writer Khristov, although I pointed out that mixup in 1984! Subsequent games cited in the book have only disimproved from
the handling of this variation by Francis Hamond, a very strong player who
took holy orders in mid-life and was still playing postal and OTB chess to
national standard in the 1920s. He had made a special study of the 3...d5
Ponziani, improving on the way it was handled by the great masters of the late
nineteenth century.
8 c4
Clearly best. It is well known, says Robert Taylor, that 8 Bc4? here loses a
pawn and he complains that the authors do not make that clear by awarding
the move a question mark.
8Qe4+
The authors say 8Qd8 is playable and indeed it may be best.
9 Be3 Bxf3 10 Nd2 Qg6
10...Bd1!? comes into consideration.
11 gxf3 exd4 12 Bxd4 a6 13 000 000 14 Be3
Once more we are following Hamond, this time in a game against G. Barron
from board one of the Norwich-Hull postal match of 1915. They say recent
theory has preferred 14 Be3 but give it an !? They prefer 14 Nb3. After
White's next move, we return to their main line but Hamond played 14 Be3
first, according to British Chess Magazine, 1916, where he annotated it.

14Nb8
This retreat is the crucial test says Hayward. 14...axb5 was not analysed in
BCM, but a correspondence game Sample-Shannon from 1988 went 15 Qa8+
Nb8 16 Ne4 (following an old suggestion of my own) 16...Rxd1+ 17 Rxd1
Nec6 18 cxb5 f5 19 Nc3 b6 and now, instead of 20 bxc6, the authors give 20
Nd5! as "fine for White".
15 Nb3 Rxd1+ 16 Rxd1 axb5 17 Qa8 b6
Not 17...Nec6? 18 Na5! Nxa5 19 Qxb8+ Kxb8 20 Rd8 mate.
18 cxb5 Qf7 19 Kb1 Qc4 20 Bxb6
[FEN "Qnk2b1r/2p1n1pp/1B3p2/1P6/
2q5/1N3P2/PP3P1P/1K1R4 b - - 0 20"]
20...cxb6?
Perhaps the losing move. 20...Qxb5 21 Rd8+! Kxd8 22 Qxb8+ Kd7 23 Nc5+
seems about equal.
21 Rc1 Qxc1+ 22 Kxc1 Ng6 23 a4 Bd6 24 Qa7 Nd7 25 a5 Bb8 26 Qa8
bxa5 27 b6!
Preventing ...Kc7.
27...Nge5?
27...Kd8 was the last chance.
28 f4 Nf7
If 28...Nd3+, 29 Kb1 wins.
29 Nxa5 Nd6 30 Qa6+ Kd8 31 Nc6+ Ke8 32 Qe2+ 10
Three Classic Games with 3d5
Aleander Alekhine K. Isakov
Moscow Spring tournament, 1907
Ponziani Opening [C44]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 c3 d5 4 Qa4 f6 5 Bb5 Nge7 6 exd5 Qxd5 7 00
The move that Hayward and Taylor prefer here.
7...Bd7
The authors say that 7...e4 "is regarded as the critical test of 7 0-0." See the
next game.
8 d4 e4 9 Nfd2 f5
[FEN "r3kb1r/pppbn1pp/2n5/1B1q1p2/Q2Pp3/
2P5/PP1N1PPP/RNB2RK1 w kq - 0 10"]
10 Nb3
The authors (see page 169) say White may do better with 10 Na3 Qd6 11 f3.
10...Ne5
This is weak.
a) Afterwards the players agreed to play a correspondence game beginning at
move ten and this time Isakov tried 10...Ng6 11 c4 Qf7 12 Nc3 a6 13 c5 Na7
14 Bxd7+ Qxd7 15 Qc4 000 16 d5 Ne5 17 Qe2 Nb5 18 c6! Qd6 19 Nxb5
axb5 20 Qxb5 Qb4 and here the game was left unfinished.
b) 10...Nc8! is correct according to the authors, though Black must follow up
better than he did in an 1893 postal game Traxler-Stastny.
11 Nc5 c6 12 Be2 Bc8 13 Be3 b5 14 Qa5 Nc4 15 Bxc4 Qxc4 16 Nd2 Qd5
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/p3n1pp/2p5/QpNq1p2/3Pp3/
2P1B3/PP1N1PPP/R4RK1 w kq - 0 17"]
Black's weakened pawns and uncastled king are more serious disadvantages
that White's apparent bad bishop and offside queen.
17 a4
Alekhine showed afterwards that 17 f3! would have opened up the game to
White's decisive advantage. Hayward and Taylor do not mention that.
17...Ng6! 18 f3
18 axb5 f4 19 c4 Qd8 20 bxc6 is their suggested improvement.
18...Bxc5 19 dxc5 Qd3 20 Bg5 h6 21 Nxe4 hxg5 22 Nd6+ Kd7 23 Rad1 Qe3
+ 24 Kh1 Qf4 25 g3 Qxa4 26 Nxb5+ 10
Jackson Whipps Showalter Harry Nelson Pillsbury
USA Championship match (12), New York, 1897
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 c3 d5 4 Qa4 f6 5 Bb5 Nge7 6 exd5 Qxd5 7 00 e4 8 c4!?
Hayward and Taylor call this "a speculative move" that "needs further
testing". In 1894 Showalter beat Pillsbury with 8 Bxc6+ but the authors
consider all three recaptures to be playable. Although White won that game in
Buffalo, it was not because of the opening and Pillsbury switched to the text
move in a subsequent game against his great rival before trying 7...Bd7.
8 Nd4?! Bd7 is ineffective for White (see page 161), while after 8 Ne1 they
only consider Bogoljubow's suggestion 8...Bf5 9 f3, which is reckoned to be
about equal. The alternative 8...Bd7 has worked well for Black in some games.
8...Qd8
a) 8...Qd6 is best in the authors' opinion.
b) 8...Qc5 9 d4! exd3 10 Be3 Qh5 (10...Qd6?! 11 c5 Qd8 12 Rd1!) 11 Nc3
with a slight advantage to White say Hayward and Taylor.
c) 8...Qd7!? 9 Ne1 (9 Bxc6?! Nxc6! 10 Re1 f5 11 d3 Nb4!) 9...a6 10 Nc3 Rb8
is another possibility, forcing White to capture on c6, surrendering the bishoppair.
9 Bxc6+ bxc6
9...Nxc6 10 Re1 f5 11 d3 is good for White.
10 Ne1 Bf5 11 Nc3 Qd7 12 c5 Nd5 13 Nxe4 Be7 14 Ng3 Bg6 15 d4
[FEN "r3k2r/p1pqb1pp/2p2pb1/2Pn4/Q2P4/
6N1/PP3PPP/R1B1NRK1 b kq d3 0 15"]
In the long run, White's extra pawn decided the game.

15...h5 16 h4 00 17 Nf3 Rab8 18 Re1 Nb4 19 Re2 Rfe8 20 a3 Nd5 21 b4
Bd3 22 Re1 g6 23 Bd2 Kg7 24 Qb3 Bf5 25 Nxf5+ gxf5 26 Re2 Rg8 27
Rae1 Kh8 28 Re6 Qe8 29 g3 f4
[FEN "1r2q1rk/p1p1b3/2p1Rp2/2Pn3p/
1P1P1p1P/PQ3NP1/3B1P2/4R1K1 w - - 0 30"]
30 Bxf4! Nxf4 31 Rxe7 Qg6 32 Qf7 Qxf7 33 Rxf7 Nd5 34 Rd7 a5 35 bxa5
Rb3 36 Nh2 Rxa3 37 Re6 Ra1+ 38 Nf1 Rg7 39 Rd8+ Rg8 40 Rxg8+ Kxg8
41 Rxc6 Kf7 42 Kg2 Ra2 43 Kf3 Ke7 44 Ne3 Kd7 45 Ra6 Nb4 46 Rxf6
Nc6 47 d5 Nd4+ 48 Ke4 Nb3 49 c6+ Ke7 50 Ke5 Nxa5
[FEN "8/2p1k3/2P2R2/n2PK2p/7P/
4N1P1/r4P2/8 w - - 0 51"]
51 Nf5+ Ke8 52 Re6+ Kf8 53 f4 Nc4+ 54 Kf6 Rd2 55 Ng7 Kg8 56 Nf5 Kf8
57 d6 cxd6 58 Ng7 10
Rev F. E. Hamond Major E. Montague Jones
BCCA Trophies First Class corr. 191516
Notes by Hamond in the BCCA Magazine #21 (June 1916).
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 c3 d5 4 Qa4 dxe4 5 Nxe5 Qd5 6 Nxc6 bxc6 7 Bc4 Qd7
8 d4!?
8 0-0 is the move recommended in the Hayward book but I am unconvinced
that this is inferior. Of course it is true that they have studied the opening far
more deeply and passionately than me in recent years.
8...Nf6
"The Major did not wish to open the e-file by 8...exd3". According to the
authors (see page 191), he should have done so. Then 9 0-0 Bd6 10 Nd2 Ne7
transposes to Ljubojevic-Karpov, Portoroz/Ljubljana 1975.
9 00
"For if 9 Bg5 Nd5 would be a good reply, and the Bishop would be left hors
de combat."
9...Bd6 10 Nd2 00 11 f3 exf3
"For if 11...e3 12 Ne4 and the pawn falls" but some annotators gave 11...
exf3 a question mark.
12 Nxf3 Bb7
"This is not so good as it appears! Black seems to be a move behind until the
end of the game."
13 Ng5
"Commencing a frontal attack on His Majesty."
13...h6
"As expected."
14 Qc2
"Threatening Qg6 at the right moment, and if 13...hxg5 14 Rxf6."
14...Qg4? 15 Rxf6 Bxh2+
[FEN "r4rk1/pbp2pp1/2p2R1p/6N1/2BP2q1/
2P5/PPQ3Pb/R1B3K1 w - - 0 16"]
16 Kh1
"This is better than taking the Bishop, as 16 Kxh2 Qh4+ etc. would follow."
Actually 17 Kg1 then wins easily.
16...hxg5
"Forced!"
17 Rh6!!
"White relied upon this move. Perhaps ...Rfe8 is the best reply, but Black's
game is lost at this point."
17...gxh6 18 Qg6+ Kh8 19 Qxh6+ Kg8 20 Bxg5
"Black regretted his own generosity, and hoped I should treat the offer of the
Queen as I had done that of the Bishop. But alas! it was too good to refuse in
these hard times."
20...Qxg5
"White threatened 21 Qg6+ and 22 Bf6+, and if 20...Be5 simply 21 dxe5 and
if 21...Qxc4 22 Bf6 and mate follows."
21 Qxg5+ Kh7 22 Kxh2
"Now we take off everything!"
22...Rg8 23 Qh5+ Kg7 24 Rf1 10
"Resigns, as 24...Rh8 will not do: 25 Rxf7+ Kg8 26 Rh7+."
At this stage it is hard to say whether the Ponzi is flying or not after 3...d5 4
Qa4. There are too many lines that need more testing, but that would make it
interesting to play.
Postscript: Save Barden's Column!

Readers in England, especially in the London area, will be horrified to
discover that Leonard Barden's long-running chess column in the Evening
Standard, which has appeared every weekday for almost fifty years, has been
axed from the printed edition of the paper. As of Monday 2 August, it has
been relegated to the online edition only, probably as a prelude to dropping it
altogether.
The English Chess Federation are calling on everyone affected to write a
letter, in their own words, complaining and demanding reinstatement of the
column. The address to write to is: Geodie Greig (Editor), Evening Standard,
PO Box 2309, London W8 5EE, or email letters@standard.co.uk with a copy
to managingeditor@standard.co.uk.

Ponziani Opening: Other Critical Lines

In this second part of my two-part article about the Ponziani Opening, I look
at the main lines with 3Nf6 and 3f5. There are other possible third moves
for Black (such as 3d6 and 3Be7), but they don't give rise to critical
situations.
Purchases from our

accessible:
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 c3
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
ChessBase Magazine #124
by Rainer Knaak
Translate this page
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/pppp1ppp/2n5/4p3/4P3/2P2N2/
PP1P1PPP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 3"]
At the same time, I am reviewing the recent book by Dave Taylor and Keith
Hayward, Play the Ponziani, which is published by Everyman Chess (ISBN
978-1-85744-620-3; US$27-95, UK 16-99, 300 pages softcover). Again I am
including some comments from Robert Taylor of Preston, Lancashire, but his
criticisms of the book's coverage of the 3Nf6 lines is milder than of the
variations discussed last month.

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
Last month's column examined the ramifications of the old tactical main line
3d5. It concluded that the reply 4 Bb5 is not viable and that White must
reply 4 Qa4, after which there are still some unclear lines. It seems from his
comments that Keith Hayward is quite satisfied with my treatment, though I
was surprised to learn that he had not found a copy of my little 1984 Chess
Digest book on the opening.
If Black does not play 3d5, what are the other options? There are two other
ways of counter-attacking against the white e-pawn. The move that the Italian
chess writer Domenico Lorenzo Ponziani advocated was 3f5; his name
somehow became transferred later to the opening as a whole. The most solid
response to 3 c3 is 3Nf6, attacking the White e-pawn, and much of this
article will be devoted to that possibility.
The reply 3Nf6 is probably the greatest deterrent to players adopting the
Ponziani and it occurred in most of my games with the opening, some of
which are included in this article. This is because, after the more or less
obligatory 4 d4 (the only move consistent with 3 c3), Black only has to learn
one line but White needs to learn, and be comfortable with, several different
types of position ranging from the crazily wild to the almost unutterably
boring and drawish.
There are also some quiet moves that Black may adopt if he wants to avoid a
theory battle. Taylor and Hayward take 3d6 seriously enough to give it a
chapter to itself. They warn about 3a6!?, which cuts out some of White's
better lines by ruling out Bb5, e.g. 4 d4 exd4 5 cxd4 d5!, so White should
prefer 4 Bc4. They also briefly consider 3Be7 (the other reasonable try), 3
Nge7, and 3Bc5?! which only encourages White to carry out his d4 plan. A
final short chapter in the book surveys Black's second move alternatives, but
Kaissiber 17
by Stefan Buecker
Kaissiber 21
by Stefan Buecker
for the most important one (2Ng6, the Petroff Defence) you will need other
reference works too, of course.
The main line 3Nf6 4 d4 Nxe4
After 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 c3 Nf6 4 d4 Nxe4 (Alternatives will be considered
later in the article.) 5 d5 Black has two retreats for the knight, to b8 or to e7,
after which White will regain his pawn. He can also sacrifice a piece to
prevent White from castling, but that is unsound.
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/pppp1ppp/2n5/3Pp3/4n3/2P2N2/
PP3PPP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 5"]
5Ne7
In the book on page 40, this move is somewhat obscured because two lines of
type have somehow been superimposed. Who was proof-reading this book?
Black also sometimes plays
a) 5Nb8 when
a1) The main line goes 6 Nxe5 Bc5!? (for other moves see below) when
White has
a11) 7 Nd3 is the safer option, avoiding great complications but running the
risk that Black may just be able to equalize.
a12) 7 Qg4 00 8 Qxe4 d6 9 Bd3 f5 10 Qc4 b5 11 Qxb5 Qe7 12 00 and now
a121) 12...dxe5 13 Bg5 Qd6 (13...Qxg5 14 Qxc5 Na6 15 Qa5! is what White
wants, while if 13...Bxf2+ 14 Rxf2 Qxg5 15 d6 Qc1+ 16 Bf1 favoured White
in Zagorovsky-Bezzola, corr 1981 after the queens came off by 16...c6 17
Qxe5 Nd7 18 Qf4.) 14 Qb3 Kh8 (14...e4 and 14...f4 both lose to 15 Be7!) 15
Nd2 Nd7 16 Rad1 Qg6 17 Be3 Rb8 and now and the queen sacrifice for
assorted material by 18 Qxb8!? Nxb8 19 Bxc5 gives White some winning
chances; this is discussed on page 66 of the book.
a122) 12...Qxe5 13 Qa4 f4 (13...Kh8 14 Nd2) 14 Qe4 (14 Nd2!? "may be
stronger" Hayward says.) 14...Qh5 15 Be2 Bg4 16 Bxg4 Qxg4 17 Nd2 Nd7
18 h3 has worked out well for Swedish postal master Per Sderberg. If then
18...Qf5 19 Qxf5 Rxf5 20 Nf3 Re8, Hayward and Taylor recommend 21 c4
Ne5 22 Nxe5 Rexe5 23 Bd2 Bd4 24 Ba5 keeping the extra pawn.
a2) If you don't like the look of that, the authors consider that 6 Qe2!? "offers
White the chance of a safe edge in a queenless middlegame" following 6
Nf6 7 Qxe5+ Qe7 8 Qxe7+ Bxe7 9 Bc4.
b) After 5Nb8 6 Nxe5 Black has less active possibilities too, notably 6
Be7 7 Qg4 Nd6, analysed on pages 93-4 as Line A5 in Chapter 2. (For the
others, see the book; we cannot look at everything in this article.) Here my
English correspondent interjects that "we have 8 Bd3 and 8 Qxg7? and yet
the move which other texts recommend, 8 Be3, does not get a mention (must
be an oversight I think). Perhaps 8 Bd3 is the strongest, I concede."
c) 5Bc5?! (invented by Dundee wild man G. B. Fraser in the nineteenth
century) is considered in the first chapter under Illustrative Games Eight and
Nine and then in Chapter Four. Black's sacrifice should be refuted by 6 dxc6
Bxf2+ (6...Nxf2 should be refuted by 7 Qd5 Nxh1 8 Qxc5.) 7 Ke2 bxc6 8
Qa4! f5 9 Nbd2 when
c1) 9...0-0 10 Nxe4 fxe4 11 Qxe4 Bb6 12 Kd1! (Marczy-Brody, Hungarian
corr ch. 1893) which is the authors' Game 8.
c2) 9...Nxd2 10 Bxd2 Bc5 11 Qc4 is their Game 9, S. Kalygin-A. Logino,
Tula 2002.
c3) 900 10 Nxe4 is critical. After 10...fxe4 11 Qxe4 and now
c31) 11...d5?! 12 Qxe5 when the tricky 12...Bb6!? is not mentioned in the
book, only giving 12...Re8? 13 Qxe8+ Qxe8+ 14 Kxf2 which is nineteenth
century theory. I had to meet 12...Bb6 many years ago in a Dublin tournament
and the game continued 13 Bg5 Qd7 14 Kd2 Bb7 (14...Re8 15 Qg3 d4 16 Kc2
Qf5+ 17 Bd3 Qd5 18 Qh4+- Hulak) 15 Bd3 c5 16 Rhe1!? (Theory goes 16
Be7 Rae8 17 Rae1 Rf7 18 Bxh7+! Kxh7 19 Ng5+ Kg8 20 Nxf7 d4 21 Nh6+
gxh6 22 Kc1 Bd5 23 Rhf1 Kh7 24 c4 Bxc4 25 Qe4+ Kg7 26 Bf6+ Kf8 27
Qg6 10, Makarichev-Berkovich, USSR 1973.) 16...c4 17 Be7 cxd3 18 Bxf8
Rxf8 19 Qe6+ Qxe6 20 Rxe6 Bc8 21 Re5 Bf5 22 Rxd5 c6 23 Rxf5 Rxf5 24
Kxd3 and although I had a winning position here, I managed to let my
opponent wriggle out with a draw (Harding-Doyle, Leinster championship
1979).
c32) 11...Bb6 12 Kd1! (Maroczy) 12...d5 (12...d6!? 13 Qxc6 Bd7 14 Qc4+
Kh8 15 Bg5 followed by 16 Bd3 "should win with a measure of caution as
Black does not have enough for the piece" say Hayward and Taylor.) 13 Qxe5
Bf5 (Sax) 14 Bg5! Qd7 15 Qe7 (to here was my analysis.) and now if 15...
Qc8, the authors find 16 Ne5!h6 17 Bh4 Qb7 18 Qa3 (threatening Ba6) 18..a5
19 Be2 "and White is beginning to consolidate his extra piece."
6 Nxe5 Ng6 7 Qd4
In this position David Taylor has long been a great disbeliever in 7 Nxg6,
which doubles the g-pawn but opens the h-file for Black, and this judgment
carries over into the present work.
Robert Taylor disagrees, saying "I don't accept that variation F is inferior. 7
Nxg6 has turned up on Schemingmind and worked well and the exponent of
the move was very highly-rated." After 7hxg6, "we see Hayward underrate
the 8 Bd3 option for White. It isn't clear, either, why 7.Qd4 is awarded a ! Just
another option."
Other possibilities are 7 Nc4 and 7 Nd3 but Black need not fear them. For the
main 7 Qd4 variation, we follow a game of my own which is cited in the book.
Tim Harding Antonio Padros Simon
Second North Atlantic Team Tournament, Board 4, 1985
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 c3 Nf6 4 d4 Nxe4
For the important alternative 4...exd4 see the next game.
Another possibility is 4d5?! 5 Bb5! when the main line in the book, starting
on page 136, goes 5exd4 6 e5 Ne4 7 Nxd4 where White has an extra move
(c2-c3) compared with the Two Knights Defence line 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 d4 exd4 5
e5 d5 6 Bb5 Ne4. If Black avoids that with 5Nxe4 (note d on page 137), the
book only considers 6 Nxe5.
Robert Taylor comments: "The alternative to 6 Nxe5 is 6 dxe5 and it is not
mentioned, and since 6 dxe5 Be7 7 0-0 can develop into an Open Spanish, it
certainly needed noting. (I think he's overselling 6 Nxe5 here)."
5 d5 Ne7
This retreat was at one time considered to be the safest defence, but as
Hayward & Taylor demonstrate, Black will have to struggle to survive in a
cheerless and quite possibly lost endgame.
7Qf6 8 Qxe4 Qxe5 9 Qxe5+ Nxe5 10 Nd2 d6 11 Nc4 Nxc4 12 Bxc4
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/ppp2ppp/3p4/3P4/2B5/
2P5/PP3PPP/R1B1K2R b KQkq - 0 12"]
White had to eliminate the well-placed black knight. The resulting simplified
position, without queens or knights, and with symmetrical pawns, will not be
to everyone's taste, however. White is playing in a rarefied atmosphere,
seeking microscopic advantages. Most commentators call this position equal
but Hayward and Taylor believe White's space advantage on the queenside to
be significant.
12...Be7 13 00 00 14 Re1
14 Be3 can lead to the same position. Indeed the move order in the Hayward
& Taylor book is 14 Be3 Bf6 15 a4 a6 16 a5 Bd7 17 Rfe1 Rae8
and now
a) I was following the Velimirovic-Smejkal, Rio de Janeiro 1979 game, which
continued 18 f3 Re7, but Black missed a simple draw at move thirty-two
(given on page 47 of the book).
b) The improvement is 18 Kf1!? avoiding f3, as first suggested in Taylor's
earlier book Ponziani Power, 2000; see Hayward and Taylor p46.
14...Bf6 15 a4 Bf5
A more precise defence is 15...a6! 16 a5 and now instead of 16...Bf5 (the line
given in the book), which transposes back to the present game, Black can
prefer 16...Bd7! 17 Be3 instead transposing to the previous note.
16 Be3 a6 17 a5 Rfe8
17...Rae8 may be better, as Smejkal played in the analogous position.
18 f3 h5 19 Kf2 Re7 20 Bd2 Rae8 21 Rxe7 Rxe7 22 Ra4 Kf8 23 Rb4 Bc8
24 Bd3 Ke8
If 24...Re5 25 c4 Re7, I intended 26 Be3.
25 Be3 Kd8 26 Bd4 Bxd4+ 27 Rxd4 g5 28 h4 g4!
[FEN "2bk4/1pp1rp2/p2p4/P2P3p/
3R2pP/2PB1P2/1P3KP1/8 w - - 0 29"]
29 Be2?
A terrible oversight, overlooking the reply. White loses the fruits of his
previous subtle play.
Hayward and Taylor think I missed a win here and they are probably right
although it is hard to provide an exhaustive analysis of the possibilities. White
should play 29 Re4 when Black has four main options:
a) 29...Re5 (This perhaps loses a tempo, since White intends to play c3-c4
soon anyway, and so the main line may be to capture at once on e4; see note
d.) 30 c4 (30 Rxe5 dxe5 31 c4 also comes into consideration.) 30...Rxe4 31
Bxe4 and now
a1) Hayward's variation runs 31...Ke7 32 fxg4! Bxg4 33 Bf3 f5 34 Bxg4 fxg4
[FEN "8/1pp1k3/p2p4/P2P3p/
2P3pP/8/1P3KP1/8 w - - 0 35"]
Is this king and pawn ending really won for White? Hayward and Taylor
continue 35 b4! (setting up what Hans Kmoch called the "quart-grip" in his
book Pawn Power in Chess, although the authors do not say that.) 35...Kf6 36
g3 Ke5 37 Ke3 Kf5 38 Kd4 Kf6 39 Ke4 Kg6 (Else Black must lose a pawn,
but now White has the break...) 40 c5! dxc5 41 bxc5 Kf6 42 Kf4 Ke7 43 Ke5
Kd7 44 d6 "with an easy win".
a2) Deep Rybka 3 comes up with 31...b6! when White can choose between 32
b4, 32 Kg3 and 32 Ke3.
b) 29...Bd7 is another waiting move that does not improve Black's chances.
Deep Rybka 3 continues 30 fxg4 Bxg4 31 Ke3 Re5 32 Rxe5. This concedes
Black a protected passed pawn, so at first sight may not be best. However it
does also create a clear queenside pawn majority and Black must defend new
weaknesses. 32...dxe5 33 Ke4 f6 34 c4 Ke7 35 c5 Kd7 36 c6+ Kc8 37 cxb7+
Kxb7 38 b4 Ka7 39 b5 axb5 40 Bxb5 Kb7 41 Bf1 Ka7 42 Bd3 Kb7 43 Bb5
Ka7 and White is better, but it's not over yet.
c) 29...gxf3? only prevents the white bishop attacking h5 for a few moves, and
invites the white king to come forward. 30 Kxf3 f5 (30...Bg4+ 31 Kf4 f6 32
Rxe7 Kxe7 33 Bf5 Be2 34 g4 creating an outside passed pawn.) 31 Rxe7
Kxe7 32 Kf4 Kf6 33 Be2 Kg6 34 b4 b6 (Passive defence should result in
zugzwang after a few moves.) 35 b5 axb5 36 axb6 cxb6 37 Bxb5 (The h5-
pawn is now indefensible.) 37...Kf6 38 Be8 Bb7 39 Bxh5 Bxd5 40 g3 and

although White's bishop cannot control the queening square of the h-pawn, it
will be hard for Black to defend this position.
d) 29...Rxe4! 30 Bxe4 Ke7 31 fxg4 Bxg4 32 Kg3. Play continues much as in
Hayward's analysis. White will try to win a kingside pawn, and if Black
prevents this, he can force a probably winning king and pawn endgame:
d1) 32...f5 (Black is a tempo ahead of Hayward's line but probably still loses.)
33 Bd3 (33 Bf3 is premature as White's pawn is still on c3 and Black may be
able to hold after 33...Kf6 34 Kf4 b6.) continuing
d11) 33...Kf7 is brilliantly refuted. Black is trying to prevent a zugzwang
costing him the f-pawn, by maintaining his bishop on g4 and triangulating
with the king, but White has a queenside breakthrough: 34 Kf4 Kg6 35 b4
Kf6 36 Bxa6!! bxa6 37 b5 Be2 (or 37...axb5 38 a6) 38 b6 queening a pawn.
d12) 33...Kf6 34 Kf4 Bd1 35 Bxf5 b6 36 axb6 cxb6 37 g4 a5 38 g5+ Kg7 39
Bd3 Bb3 40 Ke4 Bd1 41 Kf5 Bg4+ 42 Kf4 and the extra pawn and superior
piece positions should decide.
d2) 32...b6 33 b4 Be2 34 Kf4 Kf6 35 Bf3 Bc4 36 Bxh5 Bxd5 This trade can
occur in several lines. Black avoids losing a pawn but White's one queenside
pawn holds Black's two and his passed h-pawn gives god winning chances
after 37 Be2 Bb7 38 g4 Kg7 39 h5 f6 40 g5 fxg5+ 41 Kxg5 Kg8 42 h6, etc.
d3) 32...Be2 33 Bf3 Bf1 34 Bxh5 winning a pawn.
d4) 32...Kf6 33 Bf3 Bxf3 34 Kxf3 Kf5 (34...Ke5? 35 g4!) 35 c4 and Black
must give way, allowing g2-g4.
To conclude, but I am not yet convinced that 29 Re4 wins by force, but
admittedly, I should have played it and it would be worth trying to get into
this line if you enjoy playing endgames. Black, on the other hand, would
hardly want to steer for this position from the opening!
29...g3+! 30 Kf1 Bf5 31 f4 Re3!
Now White must force a draw.
32 Rb4 Kc8 33 Rd4
3Nf6 4 d4 exd4 5 e5 (Goring Gambit Declined)
Many people would consider this to be the most important line of all in the
Ponziani, and one that must be studied by anyone who meets 1 e5 by 1e5 2
Nf3 Nc6 since White can force a line which also arises in the Goring Gambit
a gambit which is probably best not accepted. The following recent game of
mine came about through this move order, and unusually I was Black, but I
have had also some games with White.
Igor M. Dolgov Tim Harding
ICCF Seventh European Team Championship
Preliminary-3 Board 1, 2005
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 c3 Nf6
The Ponziani route to this position is 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 c3 Nf6 4 d4 exd4.
5 e5 Nd5
As recommended by grandmaster Nigel Davies in a book that came out
shortly before this game began. I have long been of the opinion that 5...Ne4 is
good for White.
As for 5...Qe7?! (stemming from Steinitz's Modern Chess Instructor) I met
this once in a local league game and although I did not continue accurately, it
left me in no doubt that White stands better after 6 cxd4 d6 7 Bb5 Bd7 (or 7...
dxe5 8 00! e4 9 Ne5 Bd7 10 Bxc6 Bxc6 11 Nxc6 bxc6 12 Nc3) 8 00 dxe5 9
dxe5!.
6 Bb5!?
This is perhaps the most critical line from a tactical point of view.
a) However, the authors recommend 6 Qb3, with which I have no experience.
They continue 6...Nb6 7 cxd4 d6 8 Bb5 leading to a position where they claim
an edge for White. Robert Taylor disagrees. He thinks it "odd that 7....d6 is
quoted as main line; I always believed that 7....d5 is fine (and I don't see how
Hayward disproves this). However, I do select 6 Qb3 when I get to this
variant, I admit, so I agree in general with his choice."
b) 6 Bc4 Nb6 leads to the same kind of play as the game, the only difference
being that Black has not advanced ...a7-a6.
c) The main alternative is 6 cxd4 which I have also played with White,
winning rather luckily against WIM Sheila Jackson many years ago. Then
c1) The authors observe that 6...d6 gives an Alekhine's Defence position!
c2) Since people who play 1e5 usually don't play the Alekhine's also, you
are more likely to encounter 6...Bb4+ 7 Bd2 Bxd2+ when 8 Nbxd2! (keeping
options with the queen) is the Hayward and Taylor recommendation. Instead I
played 8 Qxd2 which should not give much.
6...a6 7 Ba4
As I remarked in my booklet, it looks as if White is playing the Ruy Lopez
and Black is playing Alekhine's Defence!
Black need not fear 7 Bxc6 dxc6 8 Qxd4 (8 Bg5 Be7 9 Bxe7 Qxe7 Nigel
Davies) 8...Bf5 (This move, due to typesetting and proof-reading failings, is
missing from the book on page 122, left hand column.) 9 00 c5 10 Qd1 Qd7
11 Qb3 Qc6! (Sermek-Rogic, Dresden 1998) and now 12 Re1 is the least evil
(Davies).
7...Nb6
In one of my old postal games Black played 7...b5 8 Bb3 Nb6 9 cxd4 d5 with
an inferior kind of Open Spanish. I won as White in the end but not
convincingly.
8 Bb3 dxc3!?
This now looks unnecessarily risky to me.
Davies said 8...d5! and didn't give any other lines. Taylor's old book didn't
mention that move, but it is in his new book with Hayward and seems the
clearest route to equality; e.g., 9 exd6 Bxd6 10 00 00 11 Bg5 Be7=
(Velimirovic-Spassky, Reggio Emilia 1986), so if White wants to make
something happen he must choose 9 cxd4 when Black's possible replies are 9...
Be7 or 9...Bg4 (see page 123 in the book). There is scope for original
exploration here.
9 Nxc3
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/1ppp1ppp/pnn5/4P3/8/
1BN2N2/PP3PPP/R1BQK2R b KQkq - 0 9"]
If 9 Bxf7+ (not in the book) 9...Kxf7 10 Ng5+, Black has 10...Qxg5 11 Bxg5
cxb2 giving up the queen to bust the attack with big material advantage; e.g.,
12 Nd2 (12 Qf3+ Ke8 13 e6 Bb4+) 12...bxa1Q 13 Qxa1 when Black has rook,
bishop, knight, and pawn for queen.
9...d5!?
9...d6 is probably more accurate, say Hayward and Taylor, to induce the
capture on d6, and I tend to agree. Then if 10 Bg5 Be7 while 10 00 dxe5 is
also unclear. Not 10 Ng5? Nxe5 while 10 exd6 transposes to Taylor's line
below.
10 Be3!?
A computer move, not considered by Taylor previously, but they have found
my game in the database and it is cited up to move eighteen now.
Alternatives that I was considering before the game were
a) 10 exd6? is the main line, remaining from Taylor's earlier book, but it is
weak. Why sac a pawn? I was going to follow his analysis 10...Bxd6 11 00
00 12 Bg5 Be7 13 Bxe7 Qxe7 14 Re1 Be6 15 Bxe6 fxe6 16 Qb3 (Taylor
reckoned 16 Qe2 Rae8 17 Rad1 Qc5 18 Rd3 Nd5 19 Ne4 Qa5 is a bit better
for Black.) 16...Rxf3! 17 gxf3 Nd4 (I had detected that 17...Nd5 in Taylor's
2000 book was a misprint, and it's corrected in the new book.) 18 Qd1 Qf6
which is clearly better for Black.
b) 10 Nxd5 is mentioned as a possibility in new book but with no analysis.
Naturally I wondered about this early in the Dolgov game but decided that
10...Nxd5 11 Bxd5 (if 11 Qxd5 Be6.) 11...Bb4+ 12 Ke2 (12 Kf1 Be6) looked
about equal, but it's not clear really.
c) Hayward and Taylor also suggest 10 00 with no continuation. After 10...
Be6 White has to try to justify his gambit.
10...Bg4!?
[FEN "r2qkb1r/1pp2ppp/pnn5/3pP3/6b1/
1BN1BN2/PP3PPP/R2QK2R w KQkq - 0 11"]
10...Be6 is another possibility.
11 h3
Evidently 11 Nxd5 also came into consideration. My idea was 11...Nxd5 12
Bxd5 Bb4+ 13 Kf1 00 and if White captures on c6 then Black's bishop pair
should balance the damaged pawns.
11...Bxf3 12 Qxf3 Bb4 13 Qg3
13 Bxb6 leads to drawish simplification after 13...cxb6 14 00 Bxc3 15 bxc3
00 16 Qxd5 Qxd5 17 Bxd5 Nxe5.
13...Qe7 14 Qxg7
If 14 000 Bxc3 15 bxc3 00, and then if 16 Bh6 f6.
14...000 15 Bg5 Bxc3+
This must be played immediately to avoid the line 15...Qc5 16 Bxd8 Bxc3+
17 Kf1! which is a bit awkward.
16 bxc3
Now if 16 Kf1? Bxe5 17 Bxe7 Bxg7 18 Bxd8 Rxd8, Black obtains two pieces
for a rook.
16...Qc5 17 00
17 Bxd8?? doesn't work here 17...Qxc3+ and takes rook with check, because
if 18 Ke2 Nd4+.
17...Rhg8
17...Rdg8 18 Be3 Rxg7 is possible but White has two bishops against two
knights in an open position, with the option to play Bxb6 if he prefers.
18 Qf6
[FEN "2kr2r1/1pp2p1p/pnn2Q2/2qpP1B1/
8/1BP4P/P4PP1/R4RK1 b - - 0 18"]
Hayward stops here saying "with an unclear position".

18...Qxc3!?
18...Rde8 is safer, but this was a correspondence game.
19 Qf5+ Rd7 20 Bf6 Rg6 21 Qh5
If 21 e6 Qxf6 22 exd7+ Kd8 23 Qxf6+ (23 Qb1 Nd4 24 Bxd5 Nxd5 25 Qxb7
Rxg2+! forces a draw by perpetual check.) 23...Rxf6 24 Rad1 Rd6, and with
two connected passed pawns for the exchange, Black has the better winning
prospects.
21...Nd4 22 Qxh7 c5!?
Instead of playing ...Kb8, Black wants to cramp the white bishop as well as
giving the king a flight square.
23 Qh5 c4 24 e6 Rxf6 25 exd7+ Nxd7
[FEN "2k5/1p1n1p2/p4r2/3p3Q/2pn4/
1Bq4P/P4PP1/R4RK1 w - - 0 26"]
26 Rfd1
26 Ba4 b5 27 Qxd5 (27 Rfd1!?) 27...Ne2+ 28 Kh1 Qd4 29 Qa8+ Nb8 30 Bd1
Ng3+ 31 Kg1 Nxf1 32 Bg4+ Kc7 33 Rxf1 c3 is less clear, but a draw may
still be the likeliest result.
26...Re6 27 Kf1 Ne5 28 Rac1 Qb2 29 Rb1 Qc3 30 Rbc1
The 'Real' Ponziani, 3f5
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 c3
In the nineteenth century, German literature often referred to this opening as
the "Englische Springerspiel" (English Knight's Game) because English
players, especially Staunton, employed it.
3...f5!?
This and not White's third move was actually the suggestion of the eighteenth
century Italian writer, Ponziani. It's not an obviously bad move either; White
cannot afford to neglect it in preparing to play the opening.
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/pppp2pp/2n5/4pp2/4P3/2P2N2/
PP1P1PPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq f6 0 4"]
4 d4
In the Greco (or Latvian) Counter-Gambit, 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5, accepting the
pawn by the move 3 exf5 is certainly playable, albeit not very popular. In the
early days of computer chess, IM David Levy employed it to win a bet by
beating a program. Yet one would expect the extra move Black has played
here (the developing ...Nc6) should be more useful than White's c2-c3 which
if anything hinders his own development.
Yet Hayward and Taylor give 4 exf5!? an exclamation mark and devote
several pages to it. Strangely, they call it a reversed Vienna or Breyer King's
Gambit and don't seem to notice the comparison with the line I just mentioned.
It certainly has shock value, but is it good? They point out that after 4...e4
White has a choice between 5 Ng1 and 5 Nd4 (the pawn move proves useful
after all) 5...Nf6 (5...Nxd4? 6 Qh5+) 6 g4!? the tactics seems to work.
All this proves is that the Latvian Gambit is so terrible that, even when Black
has an extra tempo he still loses!
Of course it is far from clear that 4...e4 is best. Keres recommended 4...Qf6
which, as Hayward points out, books (including mine) have repeated, but it is
hardly ever been played. The critical line seems to go 5 d4 (also they suggest
5 Bb5!?) 5...e4 6 Ng5! d5 and now White can consider 7 Qh5+ and 7 g4 as
well as 7 f3 which occurred in the game they cite. Black met 7 f3 by 7...h6 but
instead there is 7...exf3 8 Qxf3 Bf5 9 Qxd5 h6 10 Nf3 Bd6 11 Be2 0-0-0 12
Qc4. The authors think it is unclear whether Black has compensation for the
pawn here, but Rybka finds 12...Nge7 13 0-0 Nd5! 14 Bd3 (14 Qxd5?? Bxh2
+) 14...Kb8 or 14...Rhf8 when it rates the position about equal. Black has a
well coordinated position and his development is far ahead of White's, whose
position hangs by a thread.
All these 4 exf5 lines are quite mad but since 4 d4 may not give White any
advantage, maybe there is method in it after all! Black can also play 4...d6,
which maybe best. It resembles the old Philidor line 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 f5
but in an improved form since ...Nc6 is more useful than c2-c3.
4...fxe4
Here Black can also play 4...d6 when White should probably play 5 exf5. The
alternative 5 Bb5 fxe4 6 Nxe5 dxe5 7 Qh5+ Ke7! "gives White no more than
a draw" they say.
Here Robert Taylor comments that Tomcsanyi in his earlier Ponziani book
quite properly notes that the dead-drawn 6 Nxe5 can be avoided by the
interesting 6 Ng5!?. "In view of this it's odd that Keith Hayward leaves it out
(White should try to avoid a draw after all?). I will go further: I think that a
subsequent move which Tomcsanyi omits is worth trying, as follows: 6 Ng5!?
exd4(!) now 7 0-0! which by my analysis gives black something to think
about, I believe it is a sensible way to enter a line with equal-chances, making
black do some hard thinking and denying him the early draw that results from
6 Nxe4."
I fed this suggestion into Deep Rybka 3 which considers that after 4d6 5
Bb5 fxe4 6 Ng5 exd4 7 0-0 Black continues 7...d5 8 f3 h6 forcing the piece
sacrifice 9 Nxe4 dxe4 10 fxe4 Be6 and after 11 cxd4 Qd6 (to meet 12 d5 by ...
Qc5+) 12 Kh1 0-0-0 13 d5 Black has two ways to keep the material, 13...Ne5
or 13...Qc5, but returning the piece by 13...Nf6 14 Qa4 Bxd5 looks stronger.
This is all certainly worth further investigation but I would not play it for
White in a correspondence game. Black seems to have tactical resources
whenever he needs them.
5 Nxe5
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/pppp2pp/2n5/4N3/3Pp3/
2P5/PP3PPP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 5"]
5...Nf6
This is the main move although 5...Qf6 is also possible.
6 Bg5
6 Bb5 a6? (6...Bd6 7 Nc4 Be7 is much better.) 7 Bxc6 bxc6 8 Bg5 Rb8 9 b4
Bb7 10 Qa4 d5 11 00 h6 12 Bh4 Qd6 13 Bg3 Rg8 14 Nd2 Rc8 15 Nb3 Nd7
16 Na5 Nb6 17 Qc2 Ba8 18 f3 exf3 19 Rxf3 Qe6 20 Re1 Be7 21 Nexc6 Qxe1
+ 22 Bxe1 Bxc6 23 Qg6+ Kd8 24 Nxc6+ 10, Staunton-Harrwitz, 2nd match
game 1846.
6d6 7 Nxc6 bxc6 8 Nd2!
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/p1p3pp/2pp1n2/6B1/3Pp3/
2P5/PP1N1PPP/R2QKB1R b KQkq - 0 8"]
I once had a tournament game in London as black with 8 d5 Be7!? which is

complicated, but seems all right.
The text move, however, yields White an edge because after 8d5 9 f3 exf3
(9Be7 10 Bxf6 Bxf6 11 fxe4) 10 Nxf3 Bd6 11 Qe2+! neither reply is
entirely satisfactory (page 247 in the book).
Although a lot more analysis could be done on 3f5, it may not be worth it
because the initial impression that it is a weakening move is likely to be borne
out in the long run.
As a sort of conclusion, it may be said that the Ponziani is not entirely played
out. Because it is relatively little-known, it could score you points against
people who are prepared for the better-known open games. If you are Black,
choose 3Nf6 4 d4 exd4 5 e5 Nd5, which also has the practical advantage
that you can use this as your defence to the Goring Gambit as well. Keith
Hayward admits (page 115) that this is his preferred line. So probably
anybody examining this opening from scratch should start by looking at that
line and White's reply 6 Qb3. If you are dissatisfied with the positions it gives,
then analyse my game with Dolgov. If you don't like that for White either,
then don't play the Ponziani.

Farewell to Bent Larsen

Late September and early October saw three significant events in the chess
world. The first was the death of grandmaster Bent Larsen, one of the West's
two leading players at the height of the Cold War. The second and third were
more or less simultaneous: the chess Olympiad, with its surprising outcome,
and the FIDE elections. The organisation's controversial president Kirsan
Ilyumzhinov succeeded in repulsing the best efforts of the Karpov campaign
to keep his hold on power in the world chess federation for another four years.
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Translate this page
Purchases from our

accessible:
Bent Larsen (1935-2010) R.I.P.

Grandmaster Larsen died in Buenos Aires on 9 September, aged seventy-five.
He was born in Jutland on 4 March 1935 and first came to prominence when
he played top board for Denmark at the 1956 Moscow Olympiad. At the peak
of his career, from the 1960s to the early 1980s, he and Bobby Fischer
presented a major challenge to the Soviet monopoly of top chess. They also
had an intense rivalry, partly because both men played almost every game
with a passionate desire for victory and Larsen was always willing to play out
long endgames in search of the extra half point.
My Great Predecessor, Part 4

by Garry Kasparov
Nimzo-Larsen Attack
by Byron Jacobs
& Jonathan Tait

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
Bent Larsen
In 1970, Larsen insisted on playing top board in the USSR versus the Rest of
the World, Match of the Century' at Belgrade, in view partly of Fischer's long
lay-off from play at that point. He wanted to play the world champion, Boris
Spassky, and drew their first game with white. Larsen was often willing to
explore long-forgotten opening systems, such as 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 and Bird's
Opening, or to strike out on new paths. In the second game, he chose to
surprise Spassky with 1 b3, but went down to a rapid defeat. However, he
later had some success with that move, which later became known as Larsen's
opening or the Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack.
Proving his resilience, Larsen bounced back to defeat Spassky with black in
the third game of the four-game Belgrade series. The Soviets then decided to
rest Spassky for the last round and Larsen won against the reserve, Leonid
Stein, who was a dangerous opponent. So Larsen made a plus score on top
board for the event.
In their fourteen meetings in top competition, Larsen and Fischer only played
one draw. Larsen won twice. The record was distorted by their final
encounter, the 1971 Candidates match that Fischer won 6-0. Larsen had gone
into that event with great confidence, having won their previous game, at the
Bird's Opening
by Timothy Taylor
1970 Palma de Mallorca interzonal, which had otherwise been dominated by

Fischer, but was broken in the epic first game. Nevertheless, Larsen continued
to be a top competitor for several more years.
Robert J. Fischer Bent Larsen
Palma de Mallorca Interzonal 1970
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 Nc6 6 Bc4 e6 7 Bb3 Be7 8
Be3 00 9 Qe2 a6 10 000
White's ninth and tenth moves typify the Velimirovic Attack in the Sozin
Variation, which was highly topical in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
10...Qc7 11 g4
[FEN "r1b2rk1/1pq1bppp/p1nppn2/8/3NP1P1/
1BN1B3/PPP1QP1P/2KR3R b - g3 0 11"]
11...Nd7
This move was the suggestion of Soviet theoretician Nikitin. The main line at
this time was 11...Nxd4 12 Rxd4 b5 13 g5 Nd7.
12 h4?!
Fischer had consulted Velimirovic before the game, who apparently
recommended 12 Rhg1, but Fischer went his own way and Larsen had
probably predicted this move would arrive on the board.
12...Nc5 13 g5 b5
[FEN"r1b2rk1/2q1bppp/p1npp3/1pn3P1/
3NP2P/1BN1B3/PPP1QP2/2KR3R w - b6 0 14"]
14 f3?
14 h5! was successful for Albin Planinc in a 1971 game, but Larsen had
probably prepared something against it.
14...Bd7
14...b4? 15 Na4 Bd7 16 Nxc6 Bxc6 17 Nxc5 dxc5 18 g6 hxg6 19 h5 with a
dangerous attack.
15 Qg2 b4 16 Nce2 Nxb3+

Larsen avoids another dangerous attacking chance for White: 16...a5 17 Nxc6
Qxc6 18 Nd4 Qc7 19 g6!.
17 axb3
17 Nxb3 a5 18 Kb1 a4 19 Nbc1 Ne5 (Larsen).
17...a5 18 g6 fxg6 19 h5 Nxd4 20 Nxd4 g5
Larsen negotiates his way through the complications impressively.
21 Bxg5 Bxg5+ 22 Qxg5 h6! 23 Qg4 Rf7! 24 Rhg1 a4 25 bxa4 e5! 26 Ne6
Qc4!
[FEN"r5k1/3b1rp1/3pN2p/4p2P/
Ppq1P1Q1/5P2/1PP5/2KR2R1 w - - 0 27"]
Now Black wins a piece and the rest is technique.

27 b3 Qxe6 28 Qxe6 Bxe6 29 Rxd6 Re8 30 Rb6 Rxf3 31 Rxb4 Rc8! 32
Kb2 Rf2 33 Rc1 Bf7 34 a5 Ra8
Black still has to be wary of that queenside pawn phalanx.
[FEN"r5k1/5bp1/7p/P3p2P/1R2P3/
1P6/1KP2r2/2R5 w - - 0 35"]
35 Rb5 Bxh5 36 Rxe5 Be2 37 Rc5 h5 38 e5 Bf3 39 Kc3 h4 40 Kd3

Black now drives the white king away from the decisive scene of action.
40...Re2 41 Rf1 Rd8+ 42 Kc3 Be4 43 Kb4 Rb8+ 44 Ka3 h3 45 e6 Bxc2 46
b4 Re3+ 47 Kb2 Bd3 48 Ra1 Ba6 49 Rc6 Rxb4+ 50 Kc2 Bb7 51 Rc3 Re2+
52 Kd1 Rg2 01
In the early 1970s, I met Larsen on several occasions at chess events in
England, beginning with the strong grandmaster tournament at Teesside 1972,
which he won. He often visited London for minor tournaments as part of the
junior squad training system organised by Leonard Barden and financed by
Jim Slater, at the Mary Ward centre in Bloomsbury. There I had a couple of
discussions with him about the Bishop's Opening, which was the subject of
my first book, and featured several of his games. I found him always amiable
and interested, and willing to make constructive suggestions.

In 1989-90 he helped the development of future British masters and
grandmasters again by participating in the Watson Farley Williams
tournaments, which he won. In the May 1989 event, for example, he exceeded
the grandmaster norm of 9/13 by half a point at the age of fifty-four, finishing
a point clear of runner-up Danny King. He lost only to Keith Arkell. Here is
his win against Nigel Davies in which Larsen employed one of the favourite
openings of his youth.
Bent Larsen Nigel Davies
London WFW 1989
Bishop's Opening [C28]
1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 d3 Nc6 4 Nc3 Bb4 5 Nf3
This was Larsen's preference over the older 5 Bg5 and 5 Nge2.
5...d6 6 00 Bxc3 7 bxc3
[FEN"r1bqk2r/ppp2ppp/2np1n2/4p3/2B1P3/
2PP1N2/P1P2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 7"]
7...Bg4
7...Na5 8 Bb3 Nxb3 9 axb3 00 10 c4 in Larsen-Gligoric, Amsterdam izt
1964 (drawn) and Larsen-Lengyel, same event (White won).
8 h3 Bh5 9 Bb3 Nd7 10 Be3 Qe7 11 Rb1 Nd8
Davies intends to use his bishop rather than this knight to swap for the bishop
on b3.
12 Kh2 f6 13 Qd2 Bf7 14 Nh4 g6 15 f4 Bxb3 16 axb3 Nf7 17 Nf3 00 18
Rf2 a6 19 Rbf1 Kh8 20 Kh1 Rae8 21 Nh2 exf4 22 Bxf4 Nfe5 23 c4
Larsen achieves the diamond formation that was effective in those games
from 1964.
[FEN"4rr1k/1ppnq2p/p2p1pp1/4n3/2P1PB2/
1P1P3P/2PQ1RPN/5R1K b - - 0 23"]
23...Rf7 24 Qa5 Rc8 25 Nf3 Nc6 26 Qc3 Kg8 27 Nh2 h5 28 Bc1 Qf8 29 Nf3
Qg7 30 b4 Nce5 31 Nd4 Re8 32 c5 dxc5 33 bxc5 c6 34 Nb3
Larsen apparently envisages N-a5-c4-d6 but changes tack after Black's

weakening reply.
[FEN"4r1k1/1p1n1rq1/p1p2pp1/2P1n2p/4P3/
1NQP3P/2P2RP1/2B2R1K b - - 0 34"]
34...g5 35 Nd4
This involves a pawn sacrifice as will soon be seen.
35...Qf8?!
If Black thought this would force a repetition of moves, he was soon shown
the truth.
36 Nf5 Nxc5?
Of course 36...Qxc5 would lose the exchange to 37 Qxc5 Nxc5 38 Nh6+ but
now a piece is lost instead
37 Ba3 Ned7 38 Qa1!
A necessary preliminary step, as if 38 d4 Nxe4.
38...b5 39 d4 Rxe4 40 Bxc5 10
Chess Olympiad in Khanty-Mansiysk
The Ukraine, as most readers probably heard already, proved surprise victors
in the Olympiad. When I played in the Olympiad in 1984, there were fourteen
rounds and teams had two reserve players. That has been cut back in recent
years to eleven rounds and one reserve, presumably to save money, and to
compensate for the fact that teams in the women's olympiad now also have
four boards. (Strictly speaking, the main competition is not the Men's but the
Open Olympiad and, apart from the Polgars, there have been other cases of
women playing along with the men.)
In the old days, it was game points that decided, but nowadays it is match
points: two for a win, one for a draw, not following the soccer system.
Ukraine won eight matches and drew three, giving them 19 to Russia-1's 18.
Game points are not even used as the principal tie-breaker any more.
If the primary scoring had still been by game points, Ukraine would have won
even more convincingly, having 31. Russia-2 (the junior team by age and
rating) would have been next with 29, but they lost three matches and were
placed much lower with 16 points. Russia-1 took the silver medals thanks to
narrow victories, but only had 28 game points, a total also exceeded by bronze
medallists Israel (17 match points, 29 game points). Furthermore, some other
teams out of the medals exceeded Russia-1's game total. Hungary, who placed
fourth, came behind Russia-1 on both indicators but China (16 MP, 29 GP) ,
Spain (16, 28), and Poland (15, 29) had better individual results. Even
Azerbaijan, placed twelfth, finished with the same number of game points as
Russia-1, but it's true that finishing with a heavy win does distort the finishing
position, which is probably why the scoring system was altered.
Vasily Ivanchuk
Their first victory in the event came thanks in good measure to a sensational
performance on top board by Vasily Ivanchuk. At one point his performance
rating for the tournament was over 3000, although ultimately it dipped to
2890 (8/10), the best result on top board. Emil Sutovsky, board two of Israel,
topped that with a 2895 performance, though only based on eight games (from
which he scored six and a half points). In a four-board team tournament,
success requires other good performances by team members. Pavel Eljanov
scored 7/10 on board 3 (2737 performance) and fourth board Zahar Efimenko
played every round, scoring 9/11 for a 2783 result.
Vassily Ivanchuk Alexander Beliavsky
Khanty-Mansiysk Olympiad 2010
Caro-Kann Defence [B13]
1 c4 c6 2 e4 d5 3 exd5 cxd5 4 d4 Nf6 5 Nc3 Nc6 6 Bg5 dxc4!?
A risky move but Beliavsky is not the sort of player to aim for a draw with
Black. It seems he did not know the theory of this line, however.
7 Bxc4
[FEN"r1bqkb1r/pp2pppp/2n2n2/6B1/2BP4/
2N5/PP3PPP/R2QK1NR b KQkq - 0 7"]
An old Alekhine gambit suggestion; I used to play 7 d5 here.

7...Nxd4?!
7...e6 8 Nf3 Be7 is safer, but it's an IQP position where White has perhaps
more chances than with the bishop on d3. ; 7...Qxd4?! 8 Qxd4 Nxd4 9 000
e5 10 f4 is an old trap, hard to defend.
8 Nf3! Nxf3+ 9 Qxf3 Qc7 10 Bb5+ Bd7 11 00 Bc6
Black is under severe pressure; this novelty seems the best defence. 11...Bxb5
12 Nxb5 has won for White in several games, and 11...a6 12 Bxd7+ Qxd7
(12...Nxd7 13 Nd5) 13 Bxf6 gxf6 14 Rad1 is worse.
12 Bxf6 gxf6 13 Rad1 e6 14 Nd5 000 15 Bxc6 exd5 16 Bxd5
[FEN"2kr1b1r/ppq2p1p/5p2/3B4/8/
5Q2/PP3PPP/3R1RK1 b - - 0 16"]
16...Kb8 17 Rc1 Qd7 18 Rcd1!?

It is strange than Ivanchuk does not play Rfd1 instead. Despite his obvious
initiative, he seems a little unsure whether to play for a win here. In the end, it
may not have made any difference which rook he played to d1.
18...Be7
Beliavsky could have repeated moves by 18...Qc7 but no doubt Ivanchuk
would then have varied, probably with 19 g3.
19 g3 Qc7 20 Rc1 Qd7 21 Rfd1
White stands clearly better. It is an example of the old rule that oppositecoloured bishops and opposite side castled kings both favour the player with
the initiative. Black's next move surprisingly allows a decisive combination
but it must have been hard to find anything to play here.
21...Rc8?
[FEN"1kr4r/pp1qbp1p/5p2/3B4/8/
5QP1/PP3P1P/2RR2K1 w - - 0 22"]
22 Bxb7! Rxc1
22...Qxb7 23 Qxb7+ Kxb7 24 Rd7+ Kb6 25 Rxc8 Rxc8 26 Rxe7 is a
comfortably won rook ending thanks to the extra pawn and Black's many
weaknesses.
23 Rxc1 Qxb7 24 Qf4+
The point.
24...Ka8 25 Rc7 10
Black resigns, because after, for example, 25...Qxb2 26 Rxe7 Rd8 27 Qf3+
Kb8 28 Rxf7 Black cannot defend both his king and his scattered pawns.
On the dark side, the world top-rated player Magnus Carlsen could only score
four and a half from eight games on top board for Norway, losing 15.3 of his
2826 rating points. He lost to Baadur Jobava of Georgia, Michael Adams of
England and Sana Sjugirov of Russia-4. All three are grandmasters but only
Adams is an experienced opponent of high class who should really have been
able to trouble him. Those who touted Carlsen as the "real" champion while
the Topalov-Anand match was in progress must think again. Team
tournaments, individual tournaments and high-level matches are all different
kinds of competition. Nevertheless, Carlsen's time will probably come.
Michael Adams Magnus Carlsen
Modern Defence [B06]
1 e4 g6 2 d4 Nf6 3 e5 Nh5
The so-called North Sea Defence, which has been analysed in Sweden and has
been seen in some high-level correspondence games from the 1990s. If now 4
Bc4 d5. However, eccentric positional play is not a good choice against the
common-sense Adams.
4 Be2 d6
[FEN"rnbqkb1r/ppp1pp1p/3p2p1/4P2n/3P4/
8/PPP1BPPP/RNBQK1NR w KQkq - 0 5"]
5 Nf3
Adams is not tempted to capture on h5.
5...Nc6 6 exd6 exd6
This seems to be a novelty, Black having captured with either the queen or cpawn in previous games. Now we have a sort of Alekhine Defence with the
black knight out on the rim.
7 d5 Ne7 8 c4 Bg7 9 Nc3 00 10 00 Bg4 11 Re1 Re8 12 h3 Bxf3 13 Bxf3
Nf6 14 Bf4 Nd7 15 Rc1 Ne5 16 b3 a6 17 g3 Nf5 18 Bg2
[FEN"r2qr1k1/1pp2pbp/p2p2p1/3Pnn2/
2P2B2/1PN3PP/P4PB1/2RQR1K1 b - - 0 18"]
18...g5
Black takes a further risk, dislodging the active bishop but weakening the
kingside.
19 Bxe5 Bxe5 20 Ne4 Ng7 21 Qd2 h6 22 f4 gxf4 23 gxf4 Bf6 24 Kh2 Nh5
Back "home"!
25 Rg1 Kh7 26 Rcf1 Rg8 27 Qe2 Ng7 28 Qd3 Kh8 29 Bf3 b5 30 Bd1 bxc4
31 bxc4 Bh4 32 Bc2
[FEN"r2q2rk/2p2pn1/p2p3p/3P4/
2P1NP1b/3Q3P/P1B4K/5RR1 b - - 0 32"]
Threatening Nf6 and Qh7 mate.

32...f5 33 Rg6 Kh7
Not 33...fxe4 34 Rxh6#.
34 Rfg1 Qe7 35 Ng3 Bxg3+
35...Kxg6? 36 Nxf5+.
36 Qxg3 Qf7?
[FEN"r5r1/2p2qnk/p2p2Rp/3P1p2/
2P2P2/6QP/P1B4K/6R1 w - - 0 37"]
This loses immediately. The only hope was put the knight back on h5 again!
However, after 36...Nh5 White should still win comfortably; e.g., 37 Qf3
Rxg6 38 Bxf5 Rag8 (38...Ng7 39 Bc2) 39 Rxg6 Rxg6 40 Qxh5 heading for a
won king and pawn endgame.
37 Bd1! Rae8
Ending the misery.
38 Rxh6+! 10
Mate is eventually forced after 38...Kxh6 39 Qg5+ Kh7 40 Qh4+ Nh5 41
Bxh5, etc.
Topalov also had a bad Olympiad, scoring 5/9 and losing 17 rating points.
Anand did not play. On top board for Russia-1, Kramnik gained two Elo
points by scoring seven draws and two wins. It is interesting that apart from
missing the first round game against Ireland, he also chose to duck a meeting
with the black pieces against Peter Leko. After the experience of their title
match a few years ago, the Hungarian would certainly have tried to beat
Kramnik and might well have succeeded; instead he had to be satisfied with
downing Grischuk. The other games were drawn, although Russia were
higher rated on every board, and Hungary deservedly won thanks to Leko's
top board victory. This lost match probably cost Russia the Olympiad.
In the last round, Russia still had a chance if they could beat Spain while
Ukraine failed to beat Israel. The Russians and Ukrainians both agreed quick
draws in two games; Ivanchuk being paired with his old rival Boris Gelfand
(formerly of Belarus) was doubtless a factor here.
The two leading teams then tried to win their white games, but Svidler lost to
Ivan Salgado Lopez, meaning that a 2-2 result was Russia's best hope and it
would leave them short unless Israel won their match. A drawn match was
sufficient for the Ukrainians and this was quickly settled although they would
probably have won 2-1 if the games had been played to a finish.
Eventually Kramnik did beat Shirov, which the Israelis had been counting on
to secure third place.
Lower down the table, I was following the Irish performances closely because
Sam Collins, who recently scored his second grandmaster norm, began with a
draw against Alexander Grischuk (the Russians rested' Kramnik in round
one).
Alexander Grischuk (2760) Sam Collins (2431)
Queen's Gambit, Slav Defence [D15]
1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 c4 c6 4 Nc3 a6
This has become a very reliable way of handling the Slav.
5 c5 Bf5 6 Bf4 Nbd7 7 e3 Nh5 8 Be5 Nhf6 9 Bg3 Ne4 10 Nxe4 Bxe4 11 Nd2
Bg6 12 b4 f6 13 Be2 e5 14 Nb3 Be7 15 a4 00 16 00 Kh8 17 Qd2 Re8 18
b5 Qc8 19 Qb2 Bd8 20 b6
[FEN"r1qbr2k/1p1n2pp/pPp2pb1/2Ppp3/
P2P4/1N2P1B1/1Q2BPPP/R4RK1 b - - 0 20"]
This is an admission that opening the queenside can only be to Black's

advantage. the concession will help Black to draw the game, but before he can
be confident of that, he must find a way to bring his queen's rook into play.
20...e4 21 Rae1 Nf8 22 Qc3 f5 23 f3
White has to do something to open lines but Black is not afraid to fight.
23...exf3 24 gxf3 Bf6 25 Bd3 Ne6 26 Bd6 Ng5 27 Kh1 Bh5 28 Nd2 Qd7 29
Bc2 Bg6 30 Re2 Re6 31 f4 Ne4 32 Nxe4 fxe4
[FEN"r6k/1p1q2pp/pPpBrbb1/2Pp4/P2PpP2/
2Q1P3/2B1R2P/5R1K w - - 0 33"]
If anything, Black may stand slightly better now but, like the Spartans at
Thermopylae, is determined to fight on a narrow front, making it very hard for
the stronger player to make significant progress.
33 Rg2 Bf5 34 Rfg1 Rg8 35 Bd1 Qf7 36 Be2 Ree8 37 Be5 Bh3
Black must never capture on e5 because that would give White a protected
passed pawn.
38 Rg3 Bf5 39 Qb3 Rd8 40 R1g2
White finds a little play on the g-file but Black's position is secure.
40...Rde8 41 Qd1 Re7 42 Bh5
Hoping for the weakening reply ...g7-g6.
42...Qe6 43 Qg1 Rd7 44 a5 Re7 45 h4
[FEN"6rk/1p2r1pp/pPp1qb2/P1PpBb1B/
3PpP1P/4P1R1/6R1/6QK b - h3 0 45"]
Of course Black cannot take this pawn because g7 would fall. The h-pawn
advance is White's last throw of the dice.
45...Rd7 46 Be2 Re7 47 h5 h6
An important defensive move.
48 Kh2 Qf7 49 Qd1 Qe6
Now it is a matter of care and patience. White cannot make progress with the
pieces on the board so will try to simplify and hope his IM opponent cracks.
50 Bg4 Bxg4 51 Rxg4 Qf5 52 Rg6 Rf7 53 Qg4 Qxg4 54 R2xg4 Kh7
The biggest danger for the defender in such positions is seeing ghosts. Black
just waits.
55 Kh3
55 Bxf6 gets nowhere, because after 55...Rxf6 56 Rxf6 gxf6 there are no entry
points for the king and pawn endgame: 57 Rxg8 Kxg8 58 Kg3 f5=.
55...Rff8 56 Rg2 Rf7 57 Kg4
Thinking about penetrating with the king, but it can only be a feint while there
are two pairs of rooks on the board.
57...Rgf8
Because with the g1rook veiled, Black can meet 58 Bxf6 by ...Rxf6.
58 Rg1 Kh8 59 Kh3 Rg8
Back to guard g7.
60 R1g3 Kh7 61 Rg2 Kh8 62 Kg4 Kh7
[FEN"6r1/1p3rpk/pPp2bRp/P1PpB2P/
3PpPK1/4P3/6R1/8 w - - 0 63"]
White will try his last available ploy: advancing the f-pawn.
63 Bd6 Re8 64 Rg1 Rg8 65 f5 Re8 66 Kf4 Ra8 67 Be5 Rc8 68 R1g4 Ra8
[FEN"r7/1p3rpk/pPp2bRp/P1PpBP1P/
3PpKR1/4P3/8/8 w - - 0 69"]
69 Rxf6!?
This seems to be a little joke, trying to confuse Black.
69 Bxf6 gxf6 leaves White in total control of the g-file but with no entry
points, whatever your computer may think about the position (which will be
somewhere between += and +- depending on your program and the time you
allow it to shuffle around.)
69...Rxf6
Presumably if 69...gxf6, Grischuk would have continued 70 Bd6 Rg8 71 Rg6
but this should also be a draw, so he was not risking anything. Collins sees no
reason to change the situation, which is obviously drawn, so he gives the
exchange back.
70 Bxf6 gxf6 71 Rg6 Rf8 72 Kg3 Rf7 73 Kf2

An instructive example of how to hold your nerve against an opponent who
outranks you by 329 Elo points!
For a long time it looked like Collins would make his final norm, but Ireland
played several teams that were rather weak, lowering his average. A few more
half points scored on the lower boards would have seen Ireland paired with
slightly higher-rated opposition and so made Collins's task easier. It is hard to
go for a grandmaster norm when in successive rounds you meet opposition
rated 2115, 2282, and 2254. Collins had to press for wins in later rounds, and
so lost to Sune Berg Hansen of Denmark in round nine. Then in the final
round when he needed a draw with Singapore grandmaster Zhang Zhong, he
lost. At least he increased his rating by 16 points so is moving closer to the
2500 required to qualify as a grandmaster (in addition to achieving three
norms).
Despite this disappointment, Irish men's chess is a definitely getting stronger
at the top, and with grandmaster and IM tournaments held in Dublin in
August, the opportunities for players are improving somewhat. However,
apart from Collins, our only other player to make a plus score was
experienced IM Mark Heidenfeld (son of chess writer Wolfgang Heidenfeld)
who made five and a half out of nine on board three.
Ireland tends to see-saw between wins against weak teams and losses to
strong teams, which could be seen by the fact that board two Alex Astaneh
Lopez from Cork, the new Irish champion (who scored 50%), and Colm Daly
on board four, only drew one game each. Unlike Heidenfeld, who was able
also to draw with some players rated higher than himself, Daly invariably was
beaten by them, perhaps because he refused to set himself the draw as a
target. As an experienced former champion, he should have done better. The
reserve player David Fitzsimons scored 50% from seven games and made a
par result for his rating. He and Lopez will benefit from the experience.
Our women's team, however, was arguably much stronger (certainly more
experienced) in 1984, and April Cronin, who was on that team, recently
regained the Irish ladies' title with a 100% score despite playing very little in
recent years. It is hoped that the young team (four of them with no previous
FIDE rating) who went to Siberia will benefit from the experience, and they
did all at least win two games. The risk was that some of them would be
deeply discouraged by the experience, where they scored 17 points from a
possible 43 (plus a walkover). Sarah-Jane Hearne finished with straight wins
to be the only player on the team with a plus score and a 1573 performance
rating. Teenager Emily Alfred achieved a performance rating of 1746, despite
only scoring 3/9, and she had a win against a 1905 opponent.
Also good news is that the next two Olympiads will be held in places that are
likely to be easier to reach and most interesting to see than Siberia. The 2012
event will be staged in Istanbul and now the FIDE Congress voted by 95-47 to
go in 2014 to Norway, a country I have long wanted to visit, and in particular
to the Arctic city of Troms. I am not sure of the dates, maybe not yet settled?
The only snag is that alcoholic drink is notoriously very expensive in Norway,
which may curb some of the socialising popular among the players on less
competitive teams, such as Bermuda.
Ilyumzhinov rides again
The incumbent President of FIDE, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, in the end
comfortably repulsed the challenge of Anatoly Karpov (backed by Garry
Kasparov, Nigel Short and most European nations) to change the guard at the
world chess federation. Compared with the 2006 election, when he was
opposed by a chess organiser and financier (Bessel Kok) rather than an
eminent player, Ilyumzhinov was expected by some (including me) to find it
much harder to win. As it turned out, he received only one less vote on this
occasion and Karpov received one more than Kok had done. The margin was
95-55 with a few abstentions; indeed already the President is claiming on the
Web that 102 nations support him.
Kirsan Ilyumzhinov
It is clear now that he cannot be replaced by any normal means. Already in

office since 1995, his reign now looks like being extended to 19 years and
perhaps far longer. Karpov has been criticised in retrospect for being so
negative in his campaigning, and not demonstrating what he stood for, but I
very much doubt that this election could have been won by any amount of
rational persuasion. Bribery, abuse of proxies (and worse) have been alleged
against the FIDE president but that is only hearsay. In this column previously,
I advocated that it was time for a change and I still think that, but how it will
be brought about, it is hard to see. The quality of the candidate put forward
against the current regime is probably irrelevant. The only way they can be
replaced is by somehow breaking up the bloc of nations that support the
leadership.
I sought in vain a clear roster of which country voted which way. Reports
emanating from the FIDE Congress however stated that the African zone
(which has 34 members) mostly supported Ilyumzhinov, and that almost all
the Asian zone. That zone has 47 members, of which we can perhaps safely
assume that Australia and New Zealand, and maybe two or three others where
English is a major language may have voted for Karpov.
Anatoly Karpov
FIDE has 170 member nations according to its website. So Africa plus Asia,
even if it were solidly voting one way, is not a majority. In fact if Europe and
America all vote done way, and Africa-Asia the other way, the former's
candidate would narrowly win. Some countries in the Europe zone (54
members) and America zone (34 members) must have supported Ilyumzhinov
also, and some must have abstained. It would be very interesting to know
which European and American countries did not support Karpov, and why not.
The analysis of zones is complicated by the fact that some former constituents
of the Soviet Union are in Europe and others in Asia. The precise composition
of the zones is as follows.
Africa zone
1. Algeria; 2. Angola; 3. Botswana; 4. Burundi; 5. Cameroon; 6. Central
African Republic; 7. Congo; 8. Egypt; 9. Ethiopia; 10. Gabon; 11. Ghana; 12.
Kenya; 13. Libya; 14. Madagascar; 15. Malawi; 16. Mali; 17. Mauritania; 18.
Mauritius; 19. Morocco; 20. Mozambique; 21. Namibia; 22. Nigeria; 23.
Rwanda; 24. Sao Tome and Principe; 25. Senegal; 26. Seychelles; 27. Sierra
Leone; 28. Somalia; 29. South Africa; 30. Sudan; 31. Tunisia; 32. Uganda;
33. Zambia; 34. Zimbabwe
Asia zone
1. Afghanistan; 2. Australia; 3. Bahrain; 4. Bangladesh; 5. Bhutan; 6. Brunei
Darussalam; 7. Cambodia; 8. China; 9. Chinese Taipei; 10. Fiji; 11. Hong
Kong; 12. India; 13. Indonesia; 14. Iran; 15. Iraq; 16. Japan; 17. Jordan; 18.
Kazakhstan; 19. Kuwait; 20. Kyrgyzstan; 21. Laos; 22. Lebanon; 23. Macau;
24. Malaysia; 25. Maldives; 26. Mongolia; 27. Myanmar; 28. Nepal; 29. New
Zealand; 30. Pakistan; 31. Palau; 32. Palestine; 33. Papua New Guinea; 34.
Philippines; 35. Qatar; 36. Singapore; 37. Solomon Islands; 38. South Korea;
39. Sri Lanka; 40. Syria; 41. Tajikistan; 42. Thailand; 43. Turkmenistan; 44.
United Arab Emirates; 45. Uzbekistan; 46. Vietnam; 47. Yemen
Europe zone
1. Albania; 2. Andorra; 3. Armenia; 4. Austria; 5. Azerbaijan; 6. Belarus; 7.
Belgium; 8. Bosnia & Herzegovina; 9. Bulgaria; 10. Croatia; 11. Cyprus; 12.
Czech Republic; 13. Denmark; 14. England; 15. Estonia; 16. Faroe Islands;
17. Finland; 18. Former YUG Rep of Macedonia; 19. France; 20. Georgia; 21.
Germany; 22. Greece; 23. Guernsey; 24. Hungary; 25. Iceland; 26. Ireland;
27. Israel; 28. Italy; 29. Jersey; 30. Latvia; 31. Liechtenstein; 32. Lithuania;
33. Luxembourg; 34. Malta; 35. Moldova; 36. Monaco; 37. Montenegro; 38.
Netherlands; 39. Norway; 40. Poland; 41. Portugal; 42. Romania; 43. Russia;
44. San Marino; 45. Scotland; 46. Serbia; 47. Slovakia; 48. Slovenia; 49.
Spain; 50. Sweden; 51. Switzerland; 52. Turkey; 53. Ukraine; 54. Wales;
America zone
1. Argentina ; 2. Aruba; 3. Bahamas; 4. Barbados; 5. Belize; 6. Bermuda; 7.
Bolivia; 8. Brazil; 9. British Virgin Islands; 10. Canada; 11. Chile; 12.
Colombia; 13. Costa Rica; 14. Cuba; 15. Dominican Republic; 16. Ecuador;
17. El Salvador; 18. Guatemala; 19. Guyana; 20. Haiti; 21. Honduras; 22.
Jamaica; 23. Mexico; 24. Netherlands Antilles; 25. Nicaragua; 26. Panama;
27. Paraguay; 28. Peru; 29. Puerto Rico; 30. Surinam; 31. Trinidad & Tobago;
32. United States of America; 33. Uruguay; 34. US Virgin Islands; 35.
Venezuela.
Certainly there are some very small countries in each zone, so that perhaps
balances out. However, it is surely undeniable that chess (at least not the
western variety that FIDE governs) is not played by any great number of
people in all but a few of the countries in the African and Asian zones. On the
other hand, it is evident that the level of chess activity, the number of players
and the vast majority of players rated above 2000 are to be found in the
European and American zones, with just a few Asian countries (and perhaps
none at all in Africa), on a similar level.
I am not calling for the FIDE leadership to be elected by 200+ players or
masters or professionals, but there should be some weighting in favour of the
principal chess-playing countries. The delegates who voted for Karpov may
have been in a clear minority of nations, but (if we disregard Russia, the
destination of whose vote is unclear to me), it is probable that they
represented of the vast majority of the world's chess players.
Of course if there were not grave suspicions about the character of the present
President, just as there were about his predecessor, the situation would be less
worrying. The fact that he was somehow recently persuaded not to stand for
re-election as president of Kalmykia (the autonomous republic in the Russian
Federation where Elista is situated) means he now has even more time to
devote to making mischief in the chess world. He is still only forty-eightyears old and held that position since 1993. Maybe that political change at
home may prove in the long run to weaken his hold on the international chess
organisation. Only time will tell.
For the record, here is the full ticket that was elected along with him.
Kirsan Ilyumzhinov (Russia), President.

Georgios Makropoulos (Greece), Deputy President.
Lewis Ncube (Zambia), Vice President.
Beatriz Marinello (Chile/Brazil), Vice President.
Ignatius Leong (Singapore), General Secretary.
Nigel Freeman (Bermuda), Treasurer.
For many readers, these political matters may not seem very important. For
me, the unsatisfactory state of the world chess federation and its leadership is
one major reason why I have not participated in international chess other than
by correspondence, for a very long time. Needless to say, perhaps, the
International Correspondence Chess Federation has a proper constitution and
rules about nominations and voting that FIDE should copy.
It is not possible in ICCF, for example, that two people from the same
federation could both stand for election as President because candidates for
any position must be nominated by the board of their own federation. If FIDE
had that rule, then the issue of whether Karpov or Ilyumzhinov was the
candidate of Russia would have had to be resolved in advance of the election.
It was the unclarity (virtual non-existence) of rules about this sort of thing that
meant Karpov's legal challenge to the international sporting arbitration court
failed.
If FIDE cannot be an honestly run institution, as it appears it is not, then it
should be dismantled and rebuilt but how?

The Myth of Celtic Chess

Last month, in my Olympiad report, I had some positive things to say about
present-day Irish chess. I cannot agree, however, with the author of an
Internet article and subsequent booklet that was recently published privately
with the title The Irish Invented Chess. Oh no, they didn't!
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Translate this page
Just after Christmas 2009, ChessCafe.com noted that an article with this title
was posted anonymously on a website called Infowars Ireland. This was a
summary of a full version, bylined Brian Nugent, with many reader comments
added subsequently. Nugent's privately published booklet has largely the
same text as this version, but with some sections rewritten.
The theory he puts forward actually has a long tradition and is by no means
original.
Chess Masterpieces
by George Dean
On 16 July 1887, one of the founders of the Gaelic Athletic Association,

Michael Cusack, wrote an editorial in his short-lived newspaper The Celtic
Times, urging his readers to take up chess. He saw it as a national pastime
with a pedigree as ancient as that of the stick-and-ball sport of hurling which
early texts also mention:
"We cannot hurl very well when night sets in, but we can then cultivate
our minds, and we know no game of skill better calculated to do this
than the peaceable warlike game of chess It ought to be played
because it was Irish and National, and especially because it was the
principal instrument of intellectual culture among the most glorious
people that ever lived in Ireland The Fenians of Ancient Erin."

the games from
DGT Game Viewer.
Purchases from our

accessible:
Olympiad United!
by Harold Fietz
When I began to research chess history at university six years ago, several
people reacted to hearing about my topic by telling me that chess had been
played in the Gaelic-speaking world of pre-Norman Ireland. Given that the
Asiatic origin of chess has been established with near certainty by several
scholars, and that there is evidence of chess being played in Europe only at
the very end of the tenth century AD, I found such assertions puzzling.
The name I have given, for convenience, to the theory propagated by Nugent
and others is "The Myth of Celtic Chess". Central to this myth is the belief
that various references in early Celtic-language manuscripts to board-games
especially to one called fidchell in Irish (modern spelling "ficheall",
pronounced roughly "fee-hill), gwyddbwyll in Welsh, and gwezbouell in
Breton constitute evidence that a game identifiable with chess was played in
those parts of the world in the earliest centuries AD, and perhaps at an even
earlier date.
Scholars agree that these early textual references imply that at least two
different board-games were played, but it is denied that any of these are
identifiable with chess, or for that matter with other games known first in the
Middle Ages, such as draughts or backgammon. Those are also games for
which there is no genuine evidence in pre-Norman Ireland, but that has not
stopped writers from using those names in translations.
Standish O'Grady (1846-1928) was the writer who perhaps, due to his
influence on Yeats, had the greatest popular impact in retelling the old Irish
tales in the late nineteenth century. His translations were unreliable but his
romanticisation of ancient Ireland provided good material for the chess mythmakers. Here is one of his versions, set in a mythical pre-Christian time:
"There then they tarried until day was come with its full light,
Marcel Duchamp:
The Art of Chess
by Naumann, Bailey,
& Shahade
whereupon the tatha d danann in general proceeded to look on at the

hurling: for every six [men?] was given them a chess-board; a
backgammon-board for every five; for every ten men a timpan, for every
hundred a harp" [Standish O'Grady, Silva Gadelica (I-XXXI.): a
collection of tales in Irish (London & Edinburgh 1892), volume 2, page.
250.]
I researched early Irish "chess", although this was tangential to my thesis
topic, because I wanted to get to the bottom of this question. After doing some
work on the subject, I consulted an expert on mediaeval Ireland, Dr. Angela
Gleason (who now lectures at Princeton), and then did further research,
leading to a paper I presented at graduate seminar in 2006. Aspects of that talk
developed into a recently published major article for an academic journal,
which was reviewed by several scholars before publication, from whom I
received further good advice on how to approach this topic, leading to further
amendments and changes of emphasis.
My revised article was being typeset when I learned of Nugent's booklet. It
was only possible to insert brief references to it at the proofs stage. Anyway
my article, while in fact refuting his argument, was only partially concerned
with what was the central issue to him. Historians, generally speaking, tend to
be more interested in how a myth has been used (e.g. by Cusack) than in its
truth-value, and that where the editors of Irish Historical Studies advised me
to place my emphasis.
Briefly, what my journal article sets out to do is explain how the Myth of
Celtic Chess emerged and was fashioned in the late eighteenth and early
nineteenth centuries at a time of reawakening interest in the Irish language.
Around that time, the first modern attempts were made to produce reliable
translations of the mediaeval Irish manuscripts which contain the raw material
from which Nugent derives many of his quotations. My journal article
discusses, in the context of cultural nationalism, how this "chess" myth was
used in the 1880s and then somewhat later by leading figures in the Gaelic
revival movement such as poet W. B. Yeats. For details of how to find my
printed article, see the first Postscript.
This Kibitzer article is more concerned with the truth-value of claims in
Nugent's web page and booklet. My printed article does cite some previous
scholarly writings that deal with this topic, more or less successfully, and it
also traces the misunderstandings and mistranslations which have led to the
confusion that afflicts Nugent's work.
Origin of chess and early Irish games
One fundamental trap that catches out many people is that "our" chess is
today called fidchell in Irish and gwyddbwyll in Welsh, but the names being
the same does not mean the games were the same. At some point the names of
old games, whose rules are now long-lost, was transferred to the modern
game by translators and editors who only knew the modern games of chess,
draughts, and backgammon. Nugent's mighty efforts in tracing numerous
references is marred by his failure to grasp this point.
The situation is complicated by the fact that fidchell is not the only boardgame to be mentioned in early Irish texts. Brandub, brannamh (or
brannaimh), and banbach are also mentioned. These games beginning with
"b" may or not have been the same as each other, or variants. The word
brandub (which means "raven-black") is the one most often seen. Some of
these references may be to games played by the Vikings who raided and
settled in Ireland centuries before the Anglo-Normans, but long after the first
manuscripts mentioning fidchell. At any rate, the texts usually make a clear
distinction between fidchell and other games.
Dr. Thomas Hyde's De Ludis Orientalibus (1694) includes some fragments of
information about early Irish games which he obtained from his friend,
Narcissus Marsh (1638-1713), an Englishman who became Anglican
Archbishop of Cashel and corresponded with other scholars all over Europe.
One striking quotation Hyde gave from the fifteenth century Yellow Book of
Lecan is the following concerning the testament of a second century Irish king:
"Cahir or Cathir the Great bequeathed to his son Falcius and certain
other nobles, among many other things, five game boards called Fichell
and five sets of chess pieces called Branndab. And he left his son
Crinthannus ten very ornate playing tables and two chess boards with
various different pieces." [Hyde, Syntagma Dissertationum (Collected
Works), volume 2, page 68; as translated by Dr. Victor Keats in, Chess:
Its Origin (Oxford 1994), p. 72. Keats's book is an annotated translation
of some portions of Hyde.]
The fifteenth century compilers of the Yellow Book of Lecan would have
known chess but it is impossible that the early Irish played chess in the second
century. It is highly unlikely that they did so before the eleventh or twelfth
centuries of the Christian era, or that chess came to Ireland before it came to
Britain. Readers who recall, or re-read in the ChessCafe.com Archives, my
earlier article about King Canute and chess (The Kibitzer 135, August 2007)
will know that the Vikings played board games, but it is doubtful whether
these bore any resemblance to chess. Most likely the Normans brought chess
with them to Ireland, which would mean at earliest the Irish elites learned
chess in 1169 AD, the date which The New History of Ireland accepts as the
transition from Early Ireland to Mediaeval Ireland.
The kind of chess played in the Muslim world in the eighth and ninth
centuries was beginning to reach southern Europe at the end of the ninth and
early tenth centuries this was chess with pawns moving one step at a time,
and the pieces that became the bishop and queen severely limited in power.
Therefore, the game developed slowly and there was no need for castling to
bring the king into safety in this peaceful era before ferocious attacking pieces
stalked an open centre. That came in the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.
Yet Arab chess of a thousand years ago and mediaeval European chess of 800900 years ago were recognisably chess in several respects. The board was the
same. Checkmate was the most important way to end a game. Significantly,
the rook and knight and king had their present moves. In many other games,
pieces move like the king (plodding one step at a time to any adjacent square)
or like the rook (straight-line movement, optionally until reaching the edge of
the board or an obstruction), but only games of the chess family have a
knight's move. The move of the knight is of oriental origin, probably
predating chess, as it is associated with divination and projection against evil
spirits.
The knight is probably not mentioned in European texts prior to the arrival of
chess, as I discussed in the Canute article. An Icelandic saga version of that
story does mention a knight, but that is almost certainly because chess was
known in mediaeval Iceland by the time Snorri Sturluson wrote the Canute
and Jarl Wolf story down in Heimskringla. The original oral versions of the
story that were handed down to him through the generations probably spoke
of hnefatafl not chess. Similar distortions have occurred in the handing down
and translation of the old Irish stories about board-games.
The king, a piece of infinite value, was also a distinctive feature of chess, but
at least one Viking game, hnefatafl, also had a king-piece, the hnefi, whose
capture ended the game. This has led some people to confuse early references
to games of that type with chess. But hnefatafl was a game in which the forces
and their initial placement were not symmetrical. One side had a King, and
only a king which started in the centre of the board; the opponent had a large
number of less powerful pieces that tried to surround and capture the king to
win the game. If they failed, the King reached its destination, the edge of the
board, and won. What follows from this is that references in ancient texts to a
board-game involving a King, whose capture ended the game, are not
necessarily references to chess.
Clearly references in old texts to board-games without such a piece, or
references to games with asymmetrical forces, are definitely not about chess.
Moreover, in games of this hunter-and-hunted type (such as fox and geese, an
old game known in various forms England and other countries), skilful play
usually results in victory for the more numerous, if weaker, hunted pieces.
With the loss of some of their number, they eventually should succeed in
depriving the hunter of movement, and so win.

Another factor that enables us to draw some conclusions about the nature of
old board-games from the limited information about them, is the method of
capture. Harold Murray, on pages ten and eleven of his A History of Boardgames other than Chess, distinguishes several principal types of capture (with
sub-variants) that are seen in board games. Since he expressed himself
somewhat confusingly, I prefer the terms over-leaping, displacement, and
surrounding.
Over-leaping is the method of capture seen in all forms of draughts (including
checkers). My piece A stands next to your piece B and the square, or cell, on
the far side, is vacant; I leap A over your B, landing on the vacant square
beyond, and remove B from the board. In some games, such as dammen (or
Polish draughts) "long leaps" occur, but the principle is the same. The
capturing piece, in its path of movement, crosses over a cell occupied by the
enemy piece and takes it off the board.
Displacement (or replacement as Murray calls it) is the type of capture seen in
chess and all race-games, such as ludo and backgammon. The en passant
capture in chess is slightly different, but should be interpreted as capturing the
doubly-advanced pawn as if it had only moved one square. So that too is
really a replacement capture.
The third type of capture is capture by surrounding, or 'strangulation' as
Murray called it. That has to be the way captures are made in Go since the
stones never move but are placed on empty interstices of the board lattice. If
the piece most recently placed completes the surrounding of an opponent's
man or group, then the surrounded stone or stones are removed from the
board. Surrounding capture can also occur in some games where the pieces
move. So, in a situation where an opponent's man is partly surrounded by
yours, the final move completing the encirclement means it is removed by
capture. Or, as in fox and geese, the game ends with the defeat of the side that
is surrounded and cannot make a move.
In games where one side has a distinct or even decisive advantage, rather than
the slight advantage of first move enjoyed in chess and draughts, it was
normal for two players to take sides alternately. If they were of equal skill, or
even if one was somewhat inferior, it would be expected that the player with
the fox, or the hnefi, would usually lose, and so each player would win fifty
percent of the games.
In the old Irish poem, the Tin ('the Cattle Hunt of Cooley'), there is a classic
statement of a case like this. The legendary, almost superhuman, Ulster hero
C Chulainn (of whom the poet W.B. Yeats often wrote) used to play a boardgame called banbach with his charioteer Leg:
"No one came into the plain unnoticed by Leg and yet he used to win
every second game of banbach from C Chulainn." [translation from
Cecile O'Rahilly, Tin Bo Cualgne from the Book of Leinster (Dublin
1970), page 182.]
In other words, although Leg could only give part of his attention to the
game (because he had to keep watch), and although the superhero was
successful at almost everything else he did, C Chulainn could not defeat his
colleague when he played the weaker side in this game. Again, the source
(The Book of Leinster) is a composite work dating from the middle ages (in
this case, twelfth century) drawing on much older materials and telling of a
mythical hero of centuries previously.
We have established certain tests to apply to descriptions of old board-games
to see whether they resemble chess.
1) Are the forces equal and symmetrical?
Unless they are, the game is not chess.
2) Does one player's task (the way that he wins the game) differ from the
opponent's task?
If the tasks differ, the game is not chess.
3) Does one side nearly always win if skilful players are involved?
If chances are not roughly equal, the game is not chess.
4) Is there a piece of supreme value?
If so, the game may be chess, but not necessarily.
If there is not, then chess can be ruled out.
5) Is there a piece that moves like a knight?
6) Is the method of capture by replacement/displacement or not?
A seventh, weaker test, may also be considered, but is omitted because it is
not decisive. That is, whether the board is symmetrical and whether it is
chequered and what its dimensions are. I do not use that test because the
chess-board (ashtapada) was probably not originally chequered and the board
in Chinese chess is only symmetrical on one axis, that is left and right.
Between the two players there is a river that some pieces cannot cross.
Moreover the play is on interstices of a 9x9 matrix not within an 8x8 square.
There is nothing essential to chess that says it is must be on a board of 8x8
squares, nor that the squares must be alternately black and white.
Accordingly, somewhat different boards may be seen in forms of chess and
other games can and do use boards that are chequered or which have some
white and some black areas. Therefore, references in old texts to a gameboard being partly white and partly black do not necessarily imply chess. Nor
can anything be inferred from the colour of the pieces.
Claims that this or that old game from various countries were chess or
precursors of chess have been made for a very long time and usually without
any historic foundation. This was recognised over a century ago by Dutch
chess historian Antonius van der Linde, who coined the term Pseudo-schach
("pseudo-chess") for such cases. He cautioned
"Es war das Schicksal fast aller unbekannten Brettspiele der Aegypter,
Inder, Chinesen, Perser, Araber, Juden, Griechen, Rmer, Kelten,
Skandinavier, ja sogar der Rothhute, mit dem Schach identificirt zu
warden." [Antonius van der Linde, Geschichte und Litteratur des
Schachspiels (2 volumes, Berlin 1874), volume 1. page 39].
This can be translated as follows:
"It has been the fate of almost all unknown board games whether of
the Egyptians, Indians, Chinese, Persians, Arabs, Jews, Greeks, Romans,
Celts, Scandinavians, yes even the Redskins to be identified with
chess."
In the Celtic languages, however, there is a difference. Almost all European
languages have words for "chess" and "checkmate" derived from Persian shah
mat, meaning "the king is dead", and shah is echoed in many European
languages. Even Hungarian, not an Indo-European language, has sakk;
Hungarian chess historian Ivan Bottlik tells me that the Magyar people
borrowed it from the Turks centuries ago. By borrowing the name along with
the game itself, these peoples minimised the potential for confusion between
the new game and any pre-existing board games of skill in their cultures, but
the Irish did not. The word fidchell combines the notions of "wood" (the
materials out of which chess sets were usually made) and "sense"; the Welsh
word gwyddbwyll is an exact translation of the Irish word.
In Ireland and Wales, the name of an old game, no longer played, was
remembered because it survived in old manuscripts and oral tradition. When a
new game came to Ireland, the old Irish name was applied to it, unlike what
happened in continental Europe. Scribes and scholars of the middle ages
(when chess had arrived in northern Europe) assumed the references were to
what they knew as chess in their own time. Nothing can be validly inferred
from these scholars translating fidchell as chess, but the modern Irish use of
the word fidchell for chess makes it difficult for anyone without specialist
knowledge to understand that old texts were not about chess.
Nugent's web article and booklet
Let us now look at Brian Nugent's work with the above points in mind.
Firstly, it can be noted that he doesn't cite the above passage about Leg and
C Cuchalainn, which shows that the game they played cannot have been
chess.
Nugent begins with a quotation from the tale of Mac da Cherda and
Cummaine Fota. One may suppose that he chose to begin with this illustrative
quotation (for both his Internet and printed versions) believing it to be the one
that highlighted the most striking similarity between the old Irish game and
chess. However, the example he chooses fails at least one of our tests.
Two bored monks called Cummaine Fota and Guaire spend an afternoon
together; one suggests an Irish game called fidchell to while away the time.
Happily for us, the other is a bit unsure about the rules and so he is given an
explanation of how to make a capture in this game. The translation comes
from J. G. O'Keeffe's article, "Mac da Cherda and Cummaine Fota", in riu v.
(1911), pp. 32-3.
"Good," says Guaire, "Let's play fidchell."
"How are the men slain?" says Cummaine.
"Not hard, a black pair of mine about one white man of yours on the
same line, disputing the approach on the far side (?)"
"My conscience, indeed!" said Cummaine, "I cannot do the other thing
(?), but I shall not slay (your men), you will not slay my men."
For a whole day Guaire was pursuing him and he could not slay one of
his men.
"That is champion-like, o cleric," said Guaire.
This is actually, although Nugent evidently does not realise it, one of the best
proofs that fidchell was not chess. From this quotation we can see firstly that
the pieces in fidchell moved in straight lines and secondly that the method of
capture was by surrounding or strangulation. Nothing is said about kings or
knights or equality of forces, but we cannot judge by omission.
Just one of our tests clearly applies to this passage, the sixth, and it is
decisive. So not only was fidchell not chess; it was a game of a different kind
because the method of capture was strangulation, not displacement.
This was already pointed out by Irish diplomat Ein MacWhite, in his key
paper Early Irish Board Games, published shortly after World War II in
igse: A Journal of Irish Studies, volume five. (The issue is nominally for
1945, but may not have been in print until 1948.) Somebody has posted the
article online at Unicorngarden.com.
It is unfortunate that when Murray wrote his History of Board-games he did
not know the igse article. After the book appeared, MacWhite wrote a
review in the journal Anthropos and sent it to Murray with his corrections.
Other writers on the subject appear to have overlooked this correspondence
which is in the Murray papers in the Bodleian Library. Nugent dos not
mention Murray's History of Board-games; he has just one reference to
Murray's History of Chess.
It does not help when dictionary compilers extract brief quotations out of
context that mislead modern readers. In an allegorical work entitled Three
Shafts of Death by seventeenth century Irish Catholic priest Geoffrey Keating,
there is a passage about a game he calls brannamh. The passage is based on
the well-known "Innocent Morality", whose meaning is very like the wellknown chequer-board stanza from Fitzgerald's version of the Rubaiyat of
Omar Khayyam, saying that however high or low men are in their station in
life (or as pieces on the game-board) they are all equal in death (when
captured and thrown back in the box).
MacWhite observes that the game as described in the Keating passage is
"clearly modern chess". The Irish Academy Dictionary, by quoting that phrase
in their entry for the game-name brandub, tend to suggest MacWhite was
saying that brannamh was modern chess, and Nugent makes the same claim.
This is, however, a mistake, which careful reading of MacWhite's paper
should make clear. Keating knew only modern chess so that is the game he
described; MacWhite was well aware that brannamh or brandub was a quite
different game and a careful reading of his paper unambiguously shows this.
Fortunately for me, I showed this quotation from the Irish Academy
Dictionary to Dr. Gleason at a very early stage of my investigations and she
immediately put me right on this point.
Nugent argues that brandub and brannaimh are the same game and I agree he
is likely to be correct on that point. I disagree when he says the following:
"Dr. Keating can be scribbled down as a witness that the game the old
Irish were playing was indeed our modern chess."
This is just a complete misrepresentation of MacWhite. Similarly, he quotes
the Hyde passage about the Testament of King Cahir to give the false
impression that Hyde's book on board-games is in some way evidence fidchell
and chess being the same. Nugent's paper is full of misunderstandings of this
kind.
Moreover, while he sometimes recognises that there was more than one game,
in one of his notes he goes too far and says:
"In general I think brannaimh and fidhchell are just two words with the
same meaning."
Here I think Nugent is demonstrably wrong and it shows again that he has
failed to understand MacWhite's paper. MacWhite was writing after the major
discovery of the Ballinderry game-board (which Nugent fails to mention) that
can be seen in the National Museum of Ireland in Kildare Street, Dublin.
Beyond a doubt, this is not a type of board on which a chess-like game could
be played, but it is exactly right for a simple form of hnefatafl or tablut. The
marked central square is where the king-piece starts and its object is to win
the game by reaching one of the marked corner squares. The opponent wins
by preventing this.
In the eighteenth century, Carl Linnaeus found tablut being played in

Lappland on a 9x9 board and it was his description of that game which gave
Murray the clue to how hnefatafl was played a puzzle whose solution had
eluded Daniel Willard Fiske in Chess In Iceland and in Icelandic Literature
(Florence, 1905)." H. O'Neill Hencken, the archaeologist who found the
Ballinderry board (in two pieces) in a bog in County Westmeath, Ireland, in
1932 thought the game played on it was fox and geese, but MacWhite shows
it was a game of the tablut family. See Murray's History of Board-games or
David Parlett's Oxford History of Board Games for more details on these
games.
Also in the 1940s, a Welshman called Dr. Frank Lewis worked out the rules
of a game called tawlbwrdd, which is mentioned in the ancient laws of Wales.
Proof that the game was still being played at a late date is a manuscript of
1587 by Robert ap Ifan, which corresponds to two descriptions of hnefatafl in
the Icelandic sagas and to Linnaeus. The Welsh manuscript includes a
drawing of a board similar to Ballinderry, but larger (11x11 instead of 7x7)
and the king-piece had twelve defenders while twenty-four enemy pieces seek
to trap him. The number of pieces on each side of course varies with the size
of board but the principle remains the same. The word branan in Irish
corresponds to the hnefi in the Nordic games of this type. Nugent is jumping
to conclusions when he identifies the branan and its defenders in brandubh
with the king and lesser pieces in chess. Lewis wrote the most important
article about Welsh board-games, "Gwerin Ffristial a Thawlbwrdd", in
Transactions of the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion, Session 1941
(London 1943), pp. 185-205. (This paper is mostly in English.) Lewis
plausibly argued that the board was enlarged to make the game longer and
more interesting. He wrote to Murray that "I have taught the game of
tawlbwrdd on the 11x11 board to many people."
Lewis, Murray, and MacWhite therefore independently came to much the
same conclusion about how this family of games was played, and clearly they
do not correspond to either chess or games of the draughts family. A
supposition, which I share with MacWhite and Murray, is that fidchell may
have been a version of ludus latrunculorum (the game of the little soldiers)
which was played at the outposts of the Roman Empire, including Britain.
The Romans never came to Ireland, but sailors and traders might have
introduced the game.
Another significant archaeological discovery for board-game history was
made at Stanway, near Colchester in Essex, a few years ago. A Roman
doctor's grave included a latrunculorum set laid out for play (the board had
perished but the pieces in their arrangement survived). You can read about
this in Philip Crummy, 'Colchester: The Stanway burials' in Current
Archaeology 153 (London, July 1997), pages 337-42.
Admittedly, Nugent is in good company with some of his fallacious
conclusions. Lewis, who knew less about Irish games than Welsh ones, also
made the mistake of concluding (in a letter to Murray) that "the game of
fidchell was that played upon the Ballinderry board, and that it was akin or
similar to tawlbwrdd and hnefatafl." Unfortunately, Murray's reply does not
survive, but I think he would have told Lewis that was probably incorrect.
Also, Belgian researcher, Claude Sterckx, wrote in 1970 on "Les Jeux de
damiers celtiques" in Annales de Bretagne, 77 (no. 4). There he wrongly
asserted that brandubh corresponds to the Welsh gwyddbwyll, despite the fact
that the passage from Robert ap Ifan, which he quotes, is about the other
Welsh game, tawlbwrdd, and of course he forgot (at that point in his article)
that gwyddbwyll has the same meaning as fidchell. Sterckx also seems to have
been misled, through following Lewis rather than MacWhite, into saying that
"Several details could lead one to believe that fidchell was a game of the same
kind as brandubh." One of the arguments he adduced is that one of the two
sides is stronger than the other, which is incorrect on MacWhite's analysis.
Moreover, there is no proof that the games played in ancient Ireland were
necessarily invented there. So Nugent makes an illegitimate move in his
argument. Even if he could show that the ancient Irish played chess, he would
not have any proof that the Irish actually invented those games. It is possible
they invented fidchell (whatever it was), but it is also equally possible that this
was the name they gave to ludus latrunculorum. In that case, did the Romans
learn it from the Celts or vice versa? The ancient Greeks and Egyptians are
known to have had board-games too.
The claim that chess was invented in Ireland is rather like the recent claim
that golf was invented in China. Even if the ancient Chinese had a game
involving a stick, a small ball and holes in the ground (which may be
doubted), there is ample proof that golf was invented in Scotland. Similarly,
people can and do argue about whether chess originated in India or China, but
it was certainly not the Irish who invented it.
Postscript
My academic article, entitled "A 'Fenian Pastime'?: early Irish board games
and their identification with chess," was recently published in issue 145
(nominally May 2010) of the journal Irish Historical Studies. The scope of
that article is much broader than Nugent's work, but does touch on some of
the same areas and cites some of the same sources in early Irish texts. The
final version is only available in print to the subscribers of Irish Historical
Studies, although I have deposited a copy of the offprint with the chess
collection at the Royal Dutch Library and will be sending another copy soon
to the John G. White Collection in Cleveland. An online version is freely
available in Trinity College Dublin's research publications archive, but this is
not quite the finished article as there was a subsequent round of revision with
the journal's editors which clarified and improved some paragraphs. Anyone
wishing to quote or cite my article should refer to the final printed version.
Post Postscript
A chess book in the Irish language, entitled "Ficheall" has just been published
probably the first ever to be written. The author, Una O Boyle from Duleek,
teaches chess in schools and her book is aimed at beginners and children. Una
was on the Irish women's team at the Olympiad in Khanty-Mansirsk last
September. You can easily find information about her and the book by
searching on the Internet. Nugent's book can also be purchased online.

Winter Reading Recommendations

Traditionally, I review new chess books coming up to Christmas, but
exceptionally this year I have a new book of my own coming out. I shall have
something to say about that in a postscript but the "main event" for most
readers is probably the second volume by Kasparov about his matches with
Karpov. Before discussing that, I briefly mention some other titles that have
come my way.
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Translate this page
Play the Dutch by British GM Neil McDonald

(Everyman Chess, 176 pages paperback, ISBN 978-185744-641-8; $26.95, 15.99) is based on the
Leningrad Variation, in which Black fianchettoes his
king's bishop. I wrote the first book in English (if not
in any language) about this defence in the 1970s but
theory has of course moved on considerably in the
past three decades.
Purchases from our

accessible:
Chess Masterpieces
by George Dean
Apart from the main line, the author also considers

sidelines in which White does not play 1 c4 and lines
such as the Staunton Gambit, 1 d4 f5 2 e4, in which
the defender must play for survival from the start but has the chance of at least
an equal game if he survives the opening. The important sidelines 2 Nc3 and 2
Bg5 are also discussed.
This book seems to me to be quite a good introduction to the Dutch Defence
and in particular to the Leningrad Variation. Black has great flexibility in his
move order. Usually only a small percentage of games, in amateur chess at
least, reach the standard position that can arise; for example, via 1 d4 f5 2 g3
Nf6 3 Bg2 g6 4 Nf3 (White can also develop this knight at h3, heading for f4,
in which case McDonald recommends lines for Black based on Nc6) 4
Bg7 5 c4 0-0 6 0-0 d6 7 Nc3.
Olympiad United!
by Harold Fietz

the games from
[FEN "rnbq1rk1/ppp1p1bp/3p1np1/5p2/2PP4/
2N2NP1/PP2PPBP/R1BQ1RK1 b - - 0 7"]
My book chiefly dealt with 7c6, which, at that time, was taking over from
7Nc6 as Black's principal way of handling the variation. (If8 d5, then the
black knight can go either to a5 or e5.) Now 7c6 seems to be the main line
again, but shortly after my book, players began trying 7Qe8. That move has
perhaps been refuted as McDonald does not discuss it.
How to Play Against 1 d4 by British IM Richard

Palliser (Everyman Chess, 256 pages paperback,
ISBN 978-1-85744-616-6; $26.95, 15.99) has a very
misleading title. It is principally a book about a little-
Marcel Duchamp:
The Art of Chess
by Naumann, Bailey,
& Shahade
known defence, the Czech Benoni: 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3

d5 e5. This defence used to be a favourite of William
Hartston and nowadays Romanian grandmaster
Nisipeanu seems to be its main practitioner.
The blocked-centre positions that arise, with Black
seriously in danger of having a bad king's bishop,
really only suit a certain type of player: one who likes
a slow positional build-up and who is well grounded in the teachings of
Nimzowitsch. Black is committed to very slow regrouping manoeuvres in
which, after castling, the king's knight usually retreats to e8 in order to
"threaten" f5 and obtain some scope for the poor bishop on e7. This
defence is not to be recommended to novices or people who like open tactical
play.
In its favour, for experienced players, is that there is no clear refutation and
the defence is likely to take many opponents out of their book knowledge very
rapidly and oblige them to think for themselves. Where does White's king's
bishop belong, for example: e2, d3 or g2? Should White play for an early f2f4 or not? On the other hand, Black's best formation and move order are not
quite clear either. Here is an example (not in the book) where the former
correspondence world champion (and FIDE IM) Umansky scythes through
Black's defences.
Mikhail Umansky (2439) Vladimir G. Kostic (2383)
Bavarian Regional League, 2006
Czech Benoni [A56]
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 e5 4 Nc3 d6 5 e4 Be7 6 g3 a6
6...00 7 Bg2 Nbd7 8 Nge2 a6 suggested by Palliser on page 125 transposes
to the present game after 9 a4. Also, 8...Ne8 is a main line.
The development ...Na6, here or slightly later, is also often seen in practice
but the author seems not so keen on that idea.
7 a4 Nbd7 8 Bg2 00 9 Nge2
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/1p1nbppp/p2p1n2/2pPp3/
P1P1P3/2N3P1/1P2NPBP/R1BQK2R b KQ - 0 9"]
9...Ne8
9...b5!? is a gambit idea that is mentioned; 9...b6 is a more solid possibility.
10 00 g6 11 Bh6
11 Qc2?! Ng7 12 Bd2 f5 transposes to Game Eighteen in the book (P.
Anderson-A. Ledger, Sheffield 2010).
11...Ng7 12 Qd2
The author admits White has a plus here, but does not quote the present game.
He also says 12 f4!? favours White.
12...Nf6 13 h3 Kh8 14 Be3
Since Black was preparing to drive the bishop back anyway.

14...Ng8 15 f4 f6 16 Nc1 Rb8 17 Nd3 Qc7 18 a5
[FEN "1rb2rnk/1pq1b1np/p2p1pp1/P1pPp3/
2P1PP2/2NNB1PP/1P1Q2B1/R4RK1 b - - 0 18"]
With a firm grip on the queenside and a space advantage on the kingside.
18...Bd7 19 Na4 f5?
Black cannot afford to open the game like this when he stands worse already.
20 fxe5 fxe4 21 Ndxc5!
This wins a pawn.
21...Rxf1+ 22 Rxf1 Be8
Not 22...dxc5 23 d6.
23 Nxe4
23 exd6 Bxd6 24 Bd4 may be even stronger.
23...Bxa4 24 Qb4 Qd7 25 exd6 Bf8 26 Bd4 Bc2 27 Ng5 Bf5 28 c5 Nh6 29
g4 Bd3?
A blunder in a lost position.
30 Rxf8+ Rxf8 31 Ne6
Maybe Black was too short of time to resign?
31...Rf7 32 Nxg7 Kg8 33 c6 Qd8 34 cxb7 Bb5 35 Ne6 Qb8 36 Qe1 Qxd6 37
Be5 10
Like several other defences against 1 d4 (the Nimzo-Indian, the Benko
Gambit, and the Budapest), Black faces a repertoire issue in that the defence
really only arises after 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 and White can side-step it by 2 Nf3 (a
very common choice among amateur players, I find) or by the Trompowsky, 2
Bg5. These lines are not covered in the book.
Palliser's book also covers White's alternatives at move three, and 1 d4 c5, the
Old Benoni, 1 d4 c5, which can transpose into the Czech Benoni. This move
order was played by grandmaster Lothar Schmid in his early years until he
had some accidents with it.
A major drawback of the Old Benoni is that it is only playable by people who
employ the Sicilian Defence, because White can simply reply 2 e4. Then after
2cxd4 3 c3 Black has to defend the Morra Gambit, or White can steer for
more normal Sicilian positions with 3 Nf3. Palliser does give some space to
these possibilities in his final chapter where he recommends that Black steer
for the O'Kelly variation if possible (3 Nf3 a6) but I am totally unconvinced
that his book represents a repertoire against 1 d4 and the book's title is
probably in contravention of the UK's Trades Descriptions Act. Maybe the

publisher rather than the author is largely to blame.
Mastering Chess Strategy by Swedish GM Johan

Hellsten (Everyman Chess, 488 pages paperback,
ISBN 978-1-85744-648-7; $29.95, 19.99) is based
on the author's work of many years as a chess
teacher. While primarily aimed at students, and
containing almost 400 exercise positions, it could
also be useful to coaches and trainers. It does seem to
be one of the better works on the middlegame from a
technical point of view, but for stronger players I
think the books published in recent years by Aagaard
and Rowson are more inspirational and more suited
to be Christmas presents than this door-stopper.
Checkmate Tactics by Garry Kasparov (Everyman

Chess, 96 landscape-format pages, hardback, ISBN
978-1-85744-626-5; $16.95, 9.99) is a graphic
book with child players apparently in mind, and
would make a Christmas present for the appropriate
class of reader from about age nine upwards. It
looks like a book idea that somebody designed and
then commissioned Kasparov (or a ghost writer) to
provide the examples and text. Some of the
examples and advice are elementary but it is not all for complete beginners.
The text throughout is printed in white on background paper of various
colours, so legibility varies: the designer was a bit too fond of orange paper.
Young eyes probably would not find this a problem.
Here is one of the less elementary positions from the book; SpraggettSpeelman, Hastings 1989.
[FEN "6rk/5rpp/1p4q1/1Pp5/4Np2/
3P2bR/1B5Q/5R1K w - - 0 38"]
White has a piece for three pawns but, short of time, played 38 Nxg3 and the
game ended in a draw, although perhaps Spraggett should still have won. The
Canadian grandmaster missed 38 Ng5!!, which forces mate in five moves at
most, because it threatens mate by 39 Rxh7+ Qxh7 40 Qxh7. The point that
White probably overlooked was that in reply to 38Bxh2 he can still play 39
Rxh7+ because after 39Qxh7 40 Nxf7 is mate.
The late Ken Whyld, in the preface to his Chess Columns: A List wrote that "it
could be the most error-strewn chess book ever published" but that did not
mean it was written carelessly. One of the problems he faced was the
primitive state of computers and computer database software at the time he
began the project. In his collaboration with Chris Ravilious, Chess Texts in
the English Language, printed before 1850, Whyld quoted D. W. Fiske as
saying that "He that has made no blunders in bibliography has never written
bibliography." One reason for the inaccuracies to be found in bibliographies,
they say (quoting Fiske again) is that no bibliographer "can see all the books
of which he is bound to speak"; he must rely on the authority of others for the
remainder. The aspiration of the bibliographer, according to the late Donald
Gallup (whom they also quote) is to establish the facts, "clearing away
confusion, and creating order." (Both those Whyld bibliographies, by the way,
were published by Moravian Chess.)
All this is by way of introduction to my comments on the next two books in
this article.
Chess Periodicals: An Annotated International
Bibliography, 1836-2008 by Gino Di Felice
(McFarland, 349 pages paperback, ISBN 978-07864-4643-8; $49.95) is a work that sets itself a
virtually impossible task. It contains 3,163 entries
and many cross-references, and covers chess
magazines, bulletins, annuals and yearbooks (not
columns) worldwide. A spin-off from the Italian
author's comprehensive research into his multivolume series Chess Results, for the same publisher,
this book will be an invaluable aid to future
researchers and chess historians. However, it will
also compete with Whyld's Chess Columns for being "the most error-strewn
chess book ever published" and, as such, a little modest disclaimer from the
author along the same lines as his predecessor would have made this reviewer
somewhat better disposed towards it.
I did not expect Chess Periodicals to be perfect. However, I was immediately
very disappointed by a couple of omissions. I did expect that the author would
not be able to find some of the obscure Irish periodicals, such as Irish Chess
(three issues in 1937). It is not to be found either in the Douglas Betts
standard work Chess Bibliography 1850-1968 (which covers English
language titles only). Bettes has been reprinted by Moravian Chess but is
badly in need of a corrected edition.
What I did not expect was that my own magazine Chess Mail would not be
mentioned at all, although eighty-two issues were published between August
1996 and January 2006! If De Felice had searched for chess in the online
British Library integrated catalogue, choosing the subset Serials and
periodicals (which currently gives 223 hits), he could not have missed it. Also
Chess Mail is complete in both the John G. White Collection (Cleveland
Public Library, Ohio) and the Royal Dutch Library, whose catalogues were
among Di Felice's most important sources.
My suspicion is that perhaps he did his British Library search at an early
stage, when the online catalogue was not nearly as good as it is now, and
perhaps he even did his principal English-language research before my
magazine commenced publication. I also suspect that Di Felice missed it
partly because it is a correspondence chess magazine and there are other
errors and omissions relating to that form of the game.
Also, The Four-Leaved Shamrock (more than fifty issues in the period 190514) is not in De Felice's book although it is in the British Library and in some
other libraries including Cleveland (albeit incomplete). Betts lists that title
also. Di Felice does include the two Irish magazines from the 1880s, The Irish
Chess Chronicle and The St. Patrick's Chess Club Pamphlet.
How could the compiler omit any periodical that is in Betts? They are all
grouped together. Betts and the British Library catalogue are listed among Di
Felice's sources but evidently they have not been checked systematically. I
don't see this as just two missed titles; it looks like two fundamental
methodological flaws in English language titles alone. Since the book is in
English, surely it was important to include all English-language titles?
Eventually when I have time (maybe over Christmas) I will produce on my
website a page listing complete list of the errors and omissions of which I am
aware and invite others to contribute. I have been meaning for some time to
do the same for Whyld's Chess Columns. The aim in both cases will be to
assist other researchers and hopefully to enable more accurate second editions
to be published in future. Of course for that to be possible, readers must first
be willing to buy the first edition and I am sure they will find it useful,
notwithstanding the small percentage of flaws.
I drew the publisher's attention to the above problems. Apparently a German
reader has pointed out that # 1477 Mein GartenMeine Welt "is by no means a
chess-related item." It was published by the firm Schacht KG but Schacht
means "Shaft" in English; it's not Schach!
Di Felice's book, however abstruse it may seem to some readers, is a
commercial publishing project, and for a new edition to be possible, the first
must at least break even. Going to the opposite extreme, a labour of love
aimed at a minority of specialists, is a new bibliography, printed in just 300
copies with the aid of the Ken Whyld Association, the international group of
chess collectors and historians. This is An Overview of Yugoslavian Chess
Literature (An Annotated Bibliography) compiled by Professor Duan Draji
of Belgrade University. It is a slim hardback, published in Belgrade by
Academic Mind; ISBN 978-86-7466-387-5; I am unsure of the purchase
price. Dealing with the period 1886-1952 this is the first volume of at least
two that are projected. It includes books and magazines but not newspaper
columns or other material that may require more research in future. The text is
in both English (pages 3-47) and Serbian, in the cyrillic alphabet (pages 49105), although a foreword explains that there are some differences between
the two versions. Geographically, all the nations that comprised the former
state of Yugoslavia seem to have been taken into account. As it is annotated
bibliography, far more is provided than a mere listing. In general, more
information is supplied in the Serbian version.
Several preliminary sections include discussions of the previous chess
bibliographies in various languages, the methodology to be employed, and the
types of sources available to the editor. The English section of the
bibliography proper begins on page thirteen. The earliest work include is the
playing rules of the Belgrade Chess Club, dating from 1886; this is the only
one prior to the twentieth century. Most of the listed works will be unfamiliar
to western readers, except for translations of such works as Capablanca's
Chess Fundamentals (in 1928, from the third Russian edition). Two of the
most prolific early authors were Izidor Gross and J. M. Ovadija (both new
names to me) but some Yugoslav authors were internationally known,
especially Dr. Milan Vidmar and V. Vukovi. All in all, this work will have
limited appeal but is a most worthwhile project and a model of its kind for
anyone contemplating a similar project to do with chess works in another
language that as yet lacks a bibliography.
How Kasparov saw off Karpov

Garry Kasparov on Modern Chess, Part 4:
Kasparov vs Karpov 1988-2009 (Everyman Chess,
432 pages hardback, ISBN 978-1-85744-652-4; $45,
30) is Part Four of the series Garry Kasparov on
Modern Chess, and the third volume dealing with
contests between the two greatest players of the late
twentieth century. Following on from the five
volumes of the My Great Predecessors series, this
now means Kasparov has produced nine major
volumes since 2003, of varying quality, but all have
no doubt been big commercial successes. Certainly
at least one more mega-book will follow, to deal
with Kasparov's matches with Short, Anand, Kramnik, and perhaps with
computers. After that, whether an encore is planned is unclear; "My Not-soGreat Successors" perhaps?
The centrepiece of this book, pages 81-282, deals with the fifth and last world
title match between the two Ks. The two previous volumes, having two
matches apiece, were therefore more meaty and inevitably this one includes
more dross, although at least the story of the rivalry is brought to a conclusion.
The first eighty pages of the book are devoted to contextual background in
which Kasparov tells his side of the story on some controversies. The rest of
the book consists of the games between him and Karpov between 1988 and
2009. There are sixty in all, so the world title match provides forty percent of
the game content; some of the other games are even from blitz events.
Kasparov is well known for putting on a "spin" on his accounts to justify his
own sometimes dubious choices. In particular, Chapter One is concerned with
two controversial issues. The first is explaining why no play-off match was
held for the 55th USSR Championship in 1988. The other is his account of the
rise and fall of the GMA (Grandmasters Association), where he seeks to take
credit for the rise and evade the blame (often placed on him) for the fall.
This illustration of a misprint in the book comes from page fifty-one, first
column, three lines up. It can be seen that something has gone badly wrong
with the printing of the paragraph in question. I noticed a similar misprint a
few months ago in one of Everyman Chess's openings books. This one is far
worse as it is impossible to work out how the text should read. Clearly this is
not Kasparov's fault, except in so far as he should have spotted it during proofreading perhaps he unwisely delegated that task. Fortunately the fault
appears to be a one-off.
This does show that Everyman have become sloppy in their production
values, which is particularly unforgivable in view of the gigantic quantity of
pounds, dollars, Euros, etc. that this vastly overblown Kasparov series has
extracted from the pockets of chess players since the first volume of My Great
Predecessors. One would think they might have ploughed back some of the
profits into decent editing and production.
As for the G.M.A., surely it was Kasparov himself who, in breaking with
FIDE and setting up the ill-fated P.C.A., sealed the fate of what was
potentially a brilliant idea? Kasparov however will never accept the blame for
anything. In his world it is always somebody else's fault whether the Soviet
Chess Federation, Karpov, FIDE, Campomanes or Ilyumzhinov, anyone but
him.
As I hinted already, much of the value of this book inevitably consists of
Kasparov's 200-page account of what happened in his final match with
Karpov, played in 1990.
Readers may recall that the first match in Moscow (1984-5) was left
unfinished after forty-eight games. The second match in Moscow, late in
1985, saw Kasparov dramatically seize the world title. He then defended it
with a win in the 1986 London-Leningrad contest, and then hung on in 1987
by winning the last game in Seville to retain the title in a 12-12 tie. After that,
Karpov had exhausted his rights to return matches and there was no world
title match in 1988. Karpov then came through yet another qualification cycle
(whose rules were weighted in his favour) to challenge Kasparov once more.
The first half of the 1990 match (twelve games) was played in New York; the
second half in Lyon, France. Kasparov explains how his usual lengthy and
calm preparations for matches were impossible on this occasion because of
the political situation in Azerbaijan on the even of the break-up of the Soviet
Union. The Armenian minority were in danger: on page seventy-seven
Kasparov refers to "pogroms". He managed to arrange for a plane to come to
Baku from Moscow to bring his family and friends to safety.

Kasparov decided on a "blitzkrieg" approach for New York, intending to play
1 e4 with white and hoping to take a decisive lead early in the match. When,
after a draw with black in the opener, he won the second game, it seemed his
plan would work but several factors intervened. Firstly, he had not taken into
account the late addition of grandmaster Lajos Portisch to Karpov's team of
seconds, which apparently led to some significant changes in Karpov's
opening repertoire. The former champion (who now preferred 1 d4 with
white) changed his approach to both the King's Indian and Grnfeld from
what Kasparov had expected. Moreover, all the work Kasparov did on the
Caro-Kann Defence with his seconds (chiefly Mikhail Gurevich and Sergey
Dolmatov) was wasted because Karpov avoided his favourite defence
throughout the match, and the Petroff Defence (which they expected to
encounter also) only arose once.
As back-up for the Ruy Lopez, Kasparov prepared the Scotch, which did
prove useful here and later. Despite the flaws, there were some games of
extraordinarily high quality in the 1990 match. This was especially the case
with Game Fourteen where both players fought to win and no serious errors
were made.
Garry Kasparov Anatoly Karpov
Game Fourteen, 1990
Scotch Game [C45]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nxc6 bxc6 6 e5 Qe7 7 Qe2 Nd5
8 c4 Ba6 9 b3 000 10 g3 Re8 11 Bb2 f6 12 Bg2
A novelty but now Kasparov prefers 12 Qd2.
12...fxe5 13 00 h5 14 Qd2 Nf6 15 Qa5 Bb7 16 Ba3 Qe6 17 Bxf8 Rhxf8 18
Qxa7
[FEN "2k1rr2/Qbpp2p1/2p1qn2/4p2p/2P5/
1P4P1/P4PBP/RN3RK1 b - - 0 18"]
18...Qg4! 19 Na3 h4! 20 Nc2 h3 21 Bh1 Ne4! 22 a4! Nc3 23 Rae1 Ne2+ 24
Rxe2 Qxe2 25 Nb4! d5!? 26 cxd5 cxd5 27 Bxd5 Bxd5 28 Nxd5 Qc2 29 Qa6
+ Kd7 30 Ne3 Qe4! 31 Rc1 Rb8!
[FEN "1r3r2/2pk2p1/Q7/4p3/P3q3/
1P2N1Pp/5P1P/2R3K1 w - - 0 32"]
Karpov, with three minutes left on his clock to reach move forty, continued to
play for a win.

32 Qf1!
To be safe, White must eliminate the h-pawn.
32...Rxb3 33 Qxh3+ Kd8 34 Qh5 Kc8 35 Qd1 Rxe3!
In view of the time trouble, Black finally decides to force a draw. Not 35...
Rb2? 36 Qd6 but both 35...Rd3 36 Qc2 and 35...Rb6 36 a5 would be unclear.
36 fxe3 Qxe3+ 37 Kh1 Qe4+ 38 Kg1 Qe3+ 39 Kh1 Qe4+ 40 Kg1 Rd8
The third game of the match saw Kasparov get into early difficulties from
which he extricated himself with a queen sacrifice that Karpov should have
declined. Further mistakes on both sides followed, with Kasparov spoiling
good winning chances, and the game ultimately was drawn. This set a pattern
for the New York half of the contest, with Kasparov brinkmanship being
balanced by Karpov errors and in the end ten of the twelve games played in
the United States were drawn. The other exception was the seventh game,
where Kasparov made a terrible blunder at move twenty-seven and lost his
lead. This was symptomatic of his state of mind throughout that phase of the
match but in the eighth game, Kasparov showed he could still fight. He
adjourned in an apparently lost position but on the resumption he played very
well, backed by excellent overnight analysis, and held the draw. Contrary to
his view at the time, he now thinks that Karpov perhaps did not miss a clear
win.
The match was now reduced to twelve games in Lyon, with Karpov needing
six and a half points to regain the title, and while six points would be
sufficient for Kasparov, he naturally did not want a second successive tied
match. Play resumed after a sixteen-day break which, together with the
change of scene, enabled Kasparov to find his footing again, as well as do
new preparatory work on the unexpected changes to Karpov's repertoire.
Kasparov eventually took the lead by winning the sixteenth game in 101
moves, the only game in his match series with Karpov to be adjourned twice.
However, he lost the very next game. Yet from that point to the end, he
mostly outplayed Karpov, except in the anticlimactic Game Twenty-three.
Having reached the 12-10 score that guaranteed retention of the title, he
inevitably found it hard to fight, but in Game Twenty-four, with a valuable
prize at stake, Kasparov decided to play safe and opened 1 Nf3. Despite some
inaccuracies, he managed to keep the draw in hand. Karpov was forced to take
risks and in the final position when a draw was agreed, Kasparov had a
winning position. In fact this was not the only time in the match when he
offered a draw when objectively he was winning. Curiously, no game was
won with the black pieces, although Kasparov should have won Game
Nineteen.
Overall, the standard of play by both the Ks in this match was below their
best, and Karpov probably made a serious mistake in his match strategy when
he decided to meet 1 e4 by 1e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 in most cases. As Kasparov says,
it was not that Karpov was outplayed in the opening (he succeeded in
introducing some important innovations) but when the dynamic struggle
began, he was often unable to match Kasparov's intuition for the correct
continuation.
This was to be the last time the two Ks met in a title match, because in the
1992 Candidates match cycle, Karpov was sensationally defeated by Nigel
Short in the semi-final. On page 326 and pages 333-5, Kasparov discusses the
consequence of Short winning through to be his new challenger, but only
briefly. We shall possibly see a detailed discussion of his breach with FIDE in
the next book.
The latter part of the present book deals with the games between Kasparov
and Karpov in subsequent years, beginning with the first Linares super-GM
tournament in 1991. He describes this series of tournaments as the "chess
Wimbledon". The two Ks in the later 1990s met only at Linares and in the
Palma de Mallorca 1996 tournament. The final chapter also deals to some
extent with chess politics up to 1996 but by this stage the fire has gone out.
Prospective purchasers will probably decide to buy this book if they want to
complete their set of Kasparov's final word on his Karpov matches. If not,
then their money is better spent elsewhere.
Garry Kasparov Anatoly Karpov
Game Twenty, 1990
Ruy Lopez [C92]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 00 Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 0
0 9 h3 Bb7 10 d4 Re8 11 Nbd2 Bf8 12 a4 h6 13 Bc2 exd4 14 cxd4 Nb4 15
Bb1 c5 16 d5 Nd7 17 Ra3 f5 18 Rae3 Nf6 19 Nh2!
[FEN "r2qrbk1/1b4p1/p2p1n1p/1ppP1p2/
Pn2P3/4R2P/1P1N1PPN/1BBQR1K1 b - - 0 19"]
A novelty in this game.

19...Kh8
Six months later Karpov preferred 19...Qd7 in another game to be found in
the book.
20 b3! bxa4 21 bxa4 c4?
Kasparov indicates that 21...fxe4 22 Nxe4 Bxd5 23 Nxf6 Rxe3 24 Rxe3 Qxf6
was critical.
22 Bb2! fxe4 23 Nxe4 Nfxd5 24 Rg3 Re6!
[FEN "r2q1b1k/1b4p1/p2pr2p/3n4/Pnp1N3/
6RP/1B3PPN/1B1QR1K1 w - - 0 25"]
25 Ng4?
This move could have cost Kasparov his advantage. As with the previous
books in the series, he has re-examined the critical situations in all the games
and written new annotations in which he is sometimes very critical of the
choices made by both players and previous annotations, including his own,
which he often quotes at length.
An indication of how the notes in this book are superior to those available
elsewhere comes at this point. ChessBase's MegaBase has notes by Harry
Schussler which claim that 25 Nf3 (the move that Kasparov says he should
have chosen) would be met by 25...Qe8 Schussler; however 26 Nxd6!
(Kasparov) wins. If instead 25...Qe7 (not mentioned in the book) then Deep
Rybka 3 finds 26 Nfg5!
25...Qe8
Black had to try 25...Nd3!? (Kasparov). Schussler's notes claim that White
would continue 26 Bxd3 cxd3 27 Nxh6? Rxh6 28 Ng5 Qd7 29 Re6!+(Gutman/Treppner) but then comes 29...Nf6! 30 Qxd3 Re8 with Black
probably winning (Kasparov). So 27 Nxg6 is unsound, but after 27 Qd2 the
position is unclear following 27...Qe7.
26 Nxh6! c3 27 Nf5 cxb2 28 Qg4!+/- Bc8?! 29 Qh4+ Rh6
If 29...Kg8 30 Kh2! Kasparov's favourite prophylactic move in this
variation.
30 Nxh6 gxh6 31 Kh2! Qe5 32 Ng5 Qf6 33 Re8! Bf5
[FEN "r3Rb1k/8/p2p1q1p/3n1bN1/
Pn5Q/6RP/1p3PPK/1B6 w - - 0 34"]
34 Qxh6+!?
34 Nf7+! mates but Kasparov preferred the elegant queen sacrifice.
34...Qxh6 35 Nf7+ Kh7 36 Bxf5+ Qg6 37 Bxg6+
A slight flaw: 37 Rxg6! Ne7 38 Rxe7! is quicker.
37...Kg7 38 Rxa8 Be7 39 Rb8 a5 40 Be4+ Kxf7 41 Bxd5+ 10
Postscript
I hope readers will forgive me for concluding by
saying a little about my own new book, the first I
have written in several years. Published in the
United States by McFarland & Co., it is entitled
Correspondence Chess in Britain and Ireland, 18241987 (ISBN 978-0-7864-4553-0). I chose them to be
my publisher because of their excellent reputation
for producing quality works in chess history and
biography and, despite my reservations about the Di
Felice book discussed above, I have not been
disappointed.
There is further information about the contents at my own website on the
pages Table of Contents and some photographs. I shall probably add some
supplementary pages when I get time over the Christmas holidays.
This is a deeply-researched history book, of which the first half is based on
parts of my doctoral thesis (which ended at the First World War) and the later
chapters on subsequent research and on the information about correspondence
chess history that I learned while editing the magazine Chess Mail between
1996 and 2005.
While the book has several sections which are largely text, it also includes
about 200 games (mostly annotated to varying degrees) and fifty-three
pictorial illustrations.
The opening chapter deals with the first important correspondence chess
match, London v. Edinburgh (1824-8), and the subsequent arguments about it.
The book then covers more than a century and a half, essentially the postal
chess era. Some of the early chapters cover the early development of play by
telegraph and telephone, the first correspondence tournaments, the first
international matches by post. The book divides roughly equally in length
between the pre- and post-First World War periods.
Developments in the twentieth century are covered up to the point where the
Great Britain team won the correspondence Olympiad in the 1980s and
computers were about to change the nature of the game.
The text includes numerous discoveries from original research and many
corrections to accounts previously published elsewhere. For the first time, a
definitive list of British Correspondence Champions is provided and the book
also indicates some inaccuracies and omissions in the official history of the
British Correspondence Chess Association.
The book is paperback with just over 400 pages including appendices and
reference notes, indexes, and bibliography. The most pertinent notes are given
as footnotes on the actual pages. Games are indexed by opponent names, ECO
code, and opening name. The main index has about 2,700 entries as it
includes, apart from entries on topics, just about everyone) who appears in the
text or in the numerous crosstables and match lists.
While the book is primarily about correspondence chess in the United
Kingdom, it also includes quite a lot on early developments in other countries
and international developments especially the relaunch of international
organisation in the period 1946-51.
The official publication date is February 2011, but copies are now becoming
available and if you move quickly you could still have one in your hands for
Christmas.

One Hundred Years Ago: Chess in the Year

1911
Purchases from our

accessible:
At the start of each new year, as usual, I present a survey of chess a century
ago.
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
With the benefit of hindsight, the chess highlight of 1911 was the first major
tournament victory of the future world champion, twenty-two-year old Jos
Ral Capablanca. The year's most important master tournament was played at
San Sebastian in Spain, in February and March. W. H. Cozens, in his review
of 1911 for British Chess Magazine, November 1961, compared San
Sebastian with a FIDE Candidates tournament of the period, a major event
from which the world champion was the only obvious absentee. Some
contemporaries complained that there were too many draws in the tournament.
Chess Results, 1901-1920
by Gino Di Felice
Translate this page
Laskers Chess Magazine

by Emanuel Lasker
James Mortimer

the games from
A sad event at the start was the death of journalist and chess veteran James
Mortimer at the age of seventy-nine. Mortimer was an American citizen but
lived for a time in the 1860s in Paris. The Franco-Prussian War caused him to
remove to England in 1870. Though not a master of the first rank, he had
played in London 1883 and other important events. Mortimer had gone to San
Sebastian to report on the tournament for his columns in the Daily Mail and
Evening News. Hoffer's obituary of Mortimer tells how they travelled together
via Paris, where his friend was taken ill but insisted on making the train
journey south to Spain. On arrival, he took to his bed and never left it. The
year also saw the death of American problemist Sam Loyd, aged seventy.
Counter-balancing the bad news, Mikhail Botvinnik and Sammy Reshevsky
were born in 1911, as was Alberic O'Kelly de Galway (the third
correspondence chess world champion), but the significance of these
occurrences would only become clear many years later.
San Sebastian was preceded by the American national tournament in New
York (22 January-3 February) which Frank Marshall won with half a point
ahead of ahead of Capablanca. Only a few minor masters played in what was
a mainly American field. Chajes, Jaffe, and Johner were runners-up with the
Cuban. Capablanca, having warmed up in New York, made his first visit to
Europe and scored 9 points from fourteen games in a high-class field. He
finished half a point ahead of Rubinstein and Vidmar. Although he could only
win six games, he had definitely arrived.
The Field 1907

by Leopold Hoffer
Jos Ral Capablanca
Capablanca had been invited to San Sebastian because of his match victory
against Marshall a few months previously. Dr. Bernstein had objected to
Capablanca's inclusion in the event because, unlike the others, he had not won
at least two third prizes (or better) in first class international tournaments, so
the win that gave Capablanca the most satisfaction was probably his first
round game against Bernstein, which earned him the Rothschild best game
prize. The Russian had to eat his words after succumbing to a deep
combination whose soundness is, however, doubtful.
Jos Ral Capablanca Osip Bernstein
San Sebastian 1911
Ruy Lopez [C65]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6 4 00 Be7 5 Nc3 d6 6 Bxc6+ bxc6 7 d4 exd4 8
Nxd4 Bd7 9 Bg5 00 10 Re1 h6 11 Bh4 Nh7 12 Bxe7 Qxe7 13 Qd3 Rab8
Overconfident against his relatively inexperienced opponent, Bernstein
prepares a counter-attack and underestimates White's chances of a kingside
breakthrough. 13...Rfe8 followed by ...Nf8 is best.
14 b3 Ng5 15 Rad1 Qe5 16 Qe3 Ne6 17 Nce2
[FEN "1r3rk1/p1pb1pp1/2ppn2p/4q3/3NP3/
1P2Q3/P1P1NPPP/3RR1K1 b - - 0 17"]
17...Qa5?
With a threat that Capablanca ignores; instead of this decentralisation, Black
should have played 17...Nxd4.
18 Nf5! Nc5
18...Rfe8 looks more solid. If 18...Qxa2 19 Qc3 (threatening Ra1) 19...Qa6 20
Nf4 (threatening 21 Nxe6 and 22 Qxg7 mate) when Capablanca indicated the
possible continuation 20...f6 21 Qg3 g5 22 Ng6 Rf7 23 Nxh6+ Kg7 24 Nxf7
Kxg6 (24...Kxf7 25 f4!) 25 Nxd6 cxd6 26 Rxd6 Rb7 27 e5 "and White should
win".
19 Ned4 Kh7
[FEN"1r3r2/p1pb1ppk/2pp3p/q1n2N2/3NP3/
1P2Q3/P1P2PPP/3RR1K1 w - - 0 20"]
20 g4!?
The value of this move depends on the improvement for Black, found quite
recently, in the note at move twenty-five. If the combination played by
Capablanca can be refuted, then he should have retained his edge with a quiet
move such as 20 c3 rather than sacrificing two pawns.
20...Rbe8 21 f3 Ne6 22 Ne2
Speculative! In his My Great Predecessors series, Kasparov awards this move
a question mark and opines that by 1925 Capablanca would no longer make
such a move.
22...Qxa2
Black decides he can safely capture this pawn but, according to Capablanca,
Bernstein admitted in the post-mortem that "he had not the slightest idea of
what was coming". Instead 22...Qb6 would avoid the fun that follows.
23 Neg3 Qxc2!?
This move is usually condemned, but computer analysis has forced a
reassessment. Most books recommend 23...f6 (Lasker), to meet 24 Nh5 by
24...Rf7.
24 Rc1
Kasparov suggests 24 Nh5 Qc5 25 e5! Qxe3+ 26 Rxe3 Nc5 27 Nfxg7!? as
unclear, but avoiding the defence that Bernstein overlooked.
24...Qb2 25 Nh5
[FEN"4rr2/p1pb1ppk/2ppn2p/5N1N/4P1P1/
1P2QP2/1q5P/2R1R1K1 b - - 0 25"]
25...Rh8?
This was the losing move. Not 25...g6 26 Qxh6+ Kg8 27 e5 gxh5 28 gxh5 and
White will soon deliver a fatal rook check on the g-file.
However, 25...g5! leads to unclear complications, since (as Kasparov points

out) Capablanca, in My Chess Career, did not publish the "very long and
complicated" variations by which, in his opinion, White wins after 26 e5 f6 27
Qd3. (Then 27...Kh8! is Kasparov's suggestion.) Moreover, 26 e5 could be
met more strongly by 26...Nf4!. This defence was published long ago in Harry
Golombek's book on the world champion, although some books giving the
game do not mention this line. If then 27 Nxf4 Rxe5 with clear advantage to
Black.
Golombek therefore wrote that White should go for perpetual check by 26
Rc3 Nf4 27 Nxf4 gxf4 28 Qxf34 Qxc3 29 Qxh6+ etc. As Nunn points out in
the algebraic edition of Golombek's book, this conclusion is incompatible
with the question marks Golombek awarded to some of Black's earlier moves.
Moreover, as Nunn says, White does not have a draw after 26 Rc3 because
26...f6! is a much better defence.
Instead 26 h4 is recommended in the Russian "Chess Stars" book on
Capablanca, edited by Khalifman and Yudasin. It seems the best chance.
White intends the manoeuvre R-e2-h2. Their analysis continues 26...Qe5 (26...
f6 may be even better.) 27 hxg5 hxg5 28 Re2 Kg6 29 Rh2 (Threatening Nf4
+!) 29...Rh8 when White may have nothing better than Qxa7. The position
remains highly unclear.
Kasparov also mentions 25...Rg8!? as a possible refutation of Capablanca's
"risky fantasy".
26 Re2 Qe5 27 f4 Qb5 28 Nfxg7!
[FEN"4r2r/p1pb1pNk/2ppn2p/1q5N/
4PPP1/1P2Q3/4R2P/2R3K1 b - - 0 28"]
28...Nc5?
The main line goes 28...Nxg7 29 Nf6+ Kg6 30 Nxd7 f6! 31 e5 Kf7 32 Nxf6
Re7 33 Ne4 "and Black's position is untenable" Capablanca.
The toughest defence is 28...Rd8 29 f5 Nf8 (29...Nxg7?? 30 Nf6#) 30 e5!,
which leads to a winning attack for White, although Kasparov has some
detailed corrections to the lines given in Panov's book on Capablanca.
29 Nxe8 Bxe8 30 Qc3 f6 31 Nxf6+ Kg6 32 Nh5 Rg8 33 f5+ Kg5 34 Qe3+ 1
0
Capablanca, after a clever swindle against Janowski, already had 8 points
with three rounds to go. The following famous loss to Rubinstein, his only
defeat in the event, reduced his lead, but he then agreed a very short draw
with Teichmann to recover, and in the last round played only twenty-one
moves before agreeing a draw with Vidmar to secure first prize. In My Chess
Career he wrote that he was unwell at the end of the tournament, which
perhaps explains his minimal effort in the final rounds. Harder to credit is his
claim that he played the endgames to the highest standard, as well as Lasker,
given the missed opportunity against Rubinstein.
Akiba Rubinstein Jos Ral Capablanca
San Sebastian 1911
Queen's Gambit, Tarrasch Defence [D33]
1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 c5 3 c4 e6 4 cxd5 exd5 5 Nc3 Nc6 6 g3 Be6 7 Bg2 Be7 8 00

Rc8 9 dxc5 Bxc5 10 Ng5 Nf6 11 Nxe6 fxe6 12 Bh3 Qe7 13 Bg5
Possibly 13 e4 is stronger.
13...00
13...Rd8 was necessary.
14 Bxf6
[FEN"2r2rk1/pp2q1pp/2n1pB2/2bp4/8/
2N3PB/PP2PP1P/R2Q1RK1 b - - 0 14"]
14...Qxf6?!
14...gxf6, although unpleasant to defend after 15 Nxd5 exd5 16 Qxd5+ Kh8
17 Bxc8 Rxc8, would avoid the coming combination. At this point
Capablanca had not seen White's seventeenth move.
15 Nxd5 Qh6
If 15...Bxf2+ 16 Kh1.
16 Kg2
Not 16 Bg2? Ne5!.
16...Rcd8
[FEN"3r1rk1/pp4pp/2n1p2q/2bN4/8/
6PB/PP2PPKP/R2Q1R2 w - - 0 17"]
17 Qc1!!
The only move, but it consolidates White's pawn advantage.
17...exd5
Not 17...Qxc1? 18 Bxe6+ and the other crucial point is 17...Rxd5? 18 Qxh6
gxh6 19 Bxe6+.
18 Qxc5 Qd2 19 Qb5 Nd4 20 Qd3 Qxd3 21 exd3
[FEN"3r1rk1/pp4pp/8/3p4/3n4/
3P2PB/PP3PKP/R4R2 b - - 0 21"]
White duly won the endgame, although there was one significant mutual slip,
as we shall see later.
21...Rfe8 22 Bg4 Rd6 23 Rfe1 Rxe1 24 Rxe1 Rb6 25 Re5 Rxb2 26 Rxd5
Nc6 27 Be6+ Kf8 28 Rf5+ Ke8 29 Bf7+ Kd7 30 Bc4 a6?!
Kasparov shows in the work already cited (Game Sixty-four, page 200) that
while 30...Kd6 would be an improvement, White could still win, starting 31
Rf7!.
31 Rf7+ Kd6 32 Rxg7 b5 33 Bg8 a5 34 Rxh7 a4 35 h4 b4 36 Rh6+ Kc5 37
Rh5+ Kb6 38 Bd5? b3? 39 axb3 a3 40 Bxc6 Rxb3 41 Bd5 a2 42 Rh6+ 10
Let us now go back to the position before White's inaccuracy at move thirtyeight.
[FEN"6B1/8/1kn5/7R/pp5P/3P2P1/
Pr3PK1/8 w - - 0 38"]
38 Bd5?
Rubinstein should have played instead 38 Bc4!, for a reason that will soon
become apparent. If then 38...b3 39 axb3 a3 40 Rb5+ Kc7 41 b4 (Kasparov).
38...Rxa2!!
This is the resource which Capablanca later pointed out. The connected
passed pawns are worth the rook. It cannot be captured because after 39
Bxa2?? b3 the white rook is unable to command the queening square of the bpawn in time.
So 38...Rxa2!! gives very good practical drawing chances, and perhaps even a
draw would be the objectively correct result. White could even lose if he was
careless or miscalculated as some annotators have done.
I have yet to see a detailed analysis of this position which exhausts all the
possibilities and comes to a definitely correct conclusion. Here are the main
possibilities.
a) Kasparov's book does not consider 39 Rh8, as analysed by Vukovic. This is
given as the way to win in Donaldson and Minev's book on Rubinstein
(Volume One, both editions of it), although they do admit that the position is
likely to be the subject of further examination.
Donaldson and Minev's main line continues 39...b3 40 h5 Ra1 (40...Nb4 41
h6 or 40...Rc2 41 h6 b2 42 Ba2) 41 Bxc6 Kc7 ("not 41...Kxc6? 42 Rb8 Kc7
43 Rb4 and wins") 42 Be4 b2 43 d4 a3 44 Rh7+ Kd6 45 Rb7 a2 46 Rxb2 Rg1
+ 47 Kxg1 a1=Q+ 48 Rb1 Qxd4 49 Bf3 "and White's position is winning".
There seem to be several oversights here. Firstly, in the parenthetical variation
41...Kxc6 42 Rb8 Black might also consider 41...Re1. White has anyway a
better move than 41 Bxc6, namely 41 Rc8!. Before that, Black can improve.
So the main line following 39 Rh8 b3 40 h5 probably should be 40...Rc2 41
h6 and not now 41...b2, but rather 41...Rc5!, gaining a tempo, so that after 42
Bf7 b2 43 Ba2 Rh5 Black has his rook placed to hinder the advance of the hpawn. Deep Rybka then comes up with an amusing line in which both sides
sacrifice their rooks to queen: 44 Bb1 a3 45 g4 a2 (45...Rh4 46 Ra8 leads to
interesting possibilities also.) 46 Bxa2 Ra5 47 Bb1 Ra1 48 h7 Rb1 49 Rb8+
Nxb8 50 h8Q Rg1+ 51 Kxg1 b1Q+ 52 Kg2 when White has queen and three
pawns against queen and knight. Is this a draw?
b) 39 Rh6!? (not mentioned by Donaldson and Minev) is given in the
Khalifman and Yudasin book as the way to win, but this analysis (attributed
to Razuvaev) is faulty too, as Kasparov has already pointed out and analysis
with Deep Rybka should show any reader who has that program. I give here
only the principal lines. Black has a choice of pawns to push after 39...Rc2 40
h5:
[FEN"8/8/1kn4R/3B3P/pp6/3P2P1/
2r2PK1/8 b - - 0 40"]
b1) 40a3 when:

b11) Yudasin and Khalifman give 41 Re6 and now they only mention 41a2
42 Re1 Nd4 43 h6 b3 44 h7 Rc8 45 Bg8 and White wins (Razuvaev).
However, there is a much better move in 41...Rc5!, when if White exchanges
on c6, then Black even wins because his new queen on a1 stops White
promoting! On the other hand, if 42 Ba2, then 42Rxh5 destroys White's
best pawn and Black probably wins although he only has two pawns against
three. It seems that human analysts (except Kasparov) have missed this Rc5
idea, which arises in several lines. However, Kasparov seems to go too far
when he implies that 40a3 gives Black the advantage. Instead White can
play as follows:
b12) 41 d4! (which I have not seen in any book) is stronger as it prevents the
rook retreat and enables the bishop to control the pawns. After 41Kc7 42
Rf6, Rybka's main line goes 42a2 43 Rxc6+! Rxc6 44 Bxa2 with White
having good winning chances thanks to his four passed pawns.
b2) 40b3!? therefore may be more reliable for Black. Play continues 41
Re6:
b21) The main line of the Razuvaev analysis continues 41b2 42 Ba2 Rc1 43
h6 Ra1 44 h7 Rxa2 45 h8Q b1Q 46 Qb8+ and wins.
b22) As Kasparov says, 41...Rc5! is a big improvement here also. It forces a

double exchange by 42 Bxc6 Rxc6 43 Rxc6+ Kxc6 and then after 44 h6 b2 45
h7 b1Q 48 h8Q Qxd3 a queen endgame arises. White has two pawns to one
but Black's a-pawn is more advanced and he probably draws.
Instead of 40 h5 in this variation, Deep Rybka seems to prefer 40 g4 (not
mentioned by Kasparov), leading after 40Rc5 ultimately to a probably
drawn queen endgame with White a pawn up.
c) 39 Bc4 may therefore be best after all.
[FEN"8/8/1kn5/7R/ppB4P/3P2P1/
r4PK1/8 b - - 0 39"]
Then comes 39...Rc2 (threatening ...Rxc4) 40 Rb5+ Kc7:

c1) Donaldson and Minev cite old analysis (by unnamed persons) going 41
Bg8 a3 42 h5 a2 43 Bxa2 Rxa2 44 h6 Ra8 45 g4 with White winning, on
which Capablanca improved by 44...Ra6. Donaldson and Minev gave further
continuations claiming that Black has good chances of a draw. Kasparov
agrees.
c2) Deep Rybka 3 here prefers 41 Bd5!, although it is uncertain without much
more analysis whether this leads to a win or a draw. For example, 41...a3 42
h5 a2 43 Bxa2 Rxa2 44 h6 Ra8 45 g4 b3 46 f4 Rb8 47 Rxb8 Nxb8 48 h7 b2
again leading to a pawns versus knight ending with queens.
Emanuel Lasker
1911 was one of those years when Emanuel Lasker chose to be inactive,
playing no matches or tournaments, but only some exhibitions. In the summer
he went to Berlin to marry Martha Cohn, an old friend who had been
widowed the previous year. Graham Burgess, in his 1999 book Chess
Highlights of the 20th Century wrote that, after San Sebastian, Capablanca
was "immediately seen as a potential world champion", but "Lasker offers
terms for a match that are generally seen as unfair, setting an unfortunate
precedent of World Champions appearing to avoid their most dangerous
rivals."
What do contemporary reports say? Hoffer, in The Field for 8 April reported
that Lasker had declined the Havana Chess Club's proposals for a Capablanca
match "as he could not stand the strain" of an extended contest in the tropics.
On 14 October, The Field reported that Lasker did not want to play in
Argentina either, as Capablanca would have the advantage which he, as
champion, is entitled to. Probably rightly, he assumed that in a Spanishspeaking country his opponent would be "at home" and have local support.
On 25 November the same paper reported that Lasker considered that in
principle he was willing to defend title versus Capablanca; in that event, he
expected a long match with many draws. One of Lasker's conditions that he
published at the end of the year was that there would be a thirty-game limit
and if the score at that stage stood at 1-0, 2-1 or 3-2, then the match would be
considered drawn and Lasker would retain the title. Capablanca naturally
objected to conditions that would give his opponent a one-game start. As it
turned out, it was only ten years later, after the First World War, that they
finally played their match and it was a big disappointment.
The thirteenth and last of the England-USA cable match series was played in
April. These matches, which had been played (with some years missed) since
1896, were for the Newnes Trophy and the English with their third successive
victory won it outright by a 6-4 score, Amos Burn defeating Frank Marshall.
Their game, as sometimes occurred in this series, was played over the board
on 21 April because Marshall was still in Europe. Burn competed in both the
main international tournaments of the year although his career as a player was
now drawing to a close. In August, Henry Atkins won the British
Championship for the eighth successive year, this time in Glasgow. Like
Lasker, he had declined an invitation to play at San Sebastian.
In the summer of 1911 the upcoming Alexander Alekhine (now eighteen
years old) paid his second visit to Germany and competed in his second
international tournament. He was present at the DSB Congress in Cologne in
July, during which Schlechter and Tarrasch played a match that was drawn 88, but he did not play in any of the formal competitions.
Alekhine did compete in the second major tournament of the year, played at
Karlsbad (now Karlovy Vary in the Czech Republic) during AugustSeptember. This was a marathon tournament including several young and
promising players in the field of twenty-six. Richard Teichmann achieved the
greatest success of his career by winning with 18/25 ahead of Rubinstein and
Schlechter (17), Rotlewi (16), Marshall and Nimzowitsch (15), Alekhine
sharing joint eighth place with 13, showing his steady improvement.
Rotlewi had a nervous breakdown afterwards and never competed in master
chess again.
Richard Teichmann
The following brilliancy in round eighteen put Teichmann into a two-point

lead and effectively decided the destination of first prize.
Richard Teichmann Carl Schlechter
Karlsbad 1911
Ruy Lopez [C90]

0 9 d3
Nowadays 9 h3 is normal, but White intends a slow build-up without an early
d2-d4 and so there is no need to prevent the pinning ...Bg4.
9...Na5 10 Bc2 c5 11 Nbd2 Qc7 12 Nf1 Nc6 13 Ne3
[FEN"r1b2rk1/2q1bppp/p1np1n2/1pp1p3/4P3/
2PPNN2/PPB2PPP/R1BQR1K1 b - - 0 13"]
13...Bb7?!
This is the wrong diagonal for the bishop. Black should be playing for ...d6d5. The moves usually tried here by masters have been 13...Be6, 13...Re8, and
13...h6.
14 Nf5 Rfe8 15 Bg5 Nd7 16 Bb3
This highlights the downside of Black's last move: the kingside is vulnerable.
16...Nf8?
16...Bf8 keeps Black in the game, although with a disadvantage.
17 Bd5!
Threatening Bxc6 followed by the gain of material.
17...Ng6?
17...Bd8 was necessary although White has a clear advantage after 18 Bxd8
Nxd8 19 a4.
18 Bxe7 Ngxe7
If 18...Ncxe7 19 Bxb7 Qxb7 20 Nxd6.
[FEN"r3r1k1/1bq1nppp/p1np4/1ppBpN2/4P3/
2PP1N2/PP3PPP/R2QR1K1 w - - 0 19"]
19 Bxf7+! Kxf7 20 Ng5+ Kg8

Black tries to pretend his position is defensible with normal moves. If 20...
Kg6 21 Qg4 and while 20...Kf6 is relatively best it will still lose after 21 Nxh7
+ Kf7 22 Ng5+ Kf6 23 Nxg7!.
21 Qh5 Nxf5 22 Qxh7+ Kf8 23 Qxf5+ Kg8
If 23...Ke7 24 Qe6+ Kd8 (24...Kf8 25 Nh7#) 25 Nf7+ wins the queen.
24 Qg6!
Threatening R-e3-f3.
24...Qd7 25 Re3 10
Correspondence chess continued to be popular worldwide. The final of the
British Chess Magazine tournament was in progress throughout the year, and
various tournaments were held on the European continent and in North
America. The following spectacular game, published in B.C.M. in 1913, was
played in a private postal match in Australia between Higgs, who lived in
Echuca, a remote part of New South Wales, and Gundersen, champion of
Victoria. At the time of his death, Higgs had won five games of nine finished
in an eighteen-game match with his opponent. The exact date of this game is
unknown, but, as Higgs died in November 1912, it was probably played at
least partly in 1911.
J. Higgs G. Gundersen
Correspondence match, Australia, circa 191112
Dutch Defence [A85]
1 d4 f5 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Nc3 b6 5 e3 Bb7 6 Be2 a6 7 00 Bd6 8 Ng5
[FEN"rn1qk2r/1bpp2pp/pp1bpn2/5pN1/2PP4/
2N1P3/PP2BPPP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 8"]
8...Ng4?!
Black should just castle. White can now play 9 f4 or 9 e4, but prefers a move
leading to huge complications. Many of the moves that were awarded
exclamation marks in contemporary notes are shown by computer analysis to
be errors, but in those days players had to rely on their own brains.
9 Bxg4?! Bxg2?!
A surprising shot, but it is neither necessary nor correct. Simply 9...Qxg5 is
playable.
10 f4!?
Not bad, although Deep Rybka prefers 10 Bh5+! g6 11 Bf3 Bxf1 12 Bxa8
Bxc4 13 e4.
10...Bxf1 11 Bh5+! g6 12 Kxf1 00 13 Bf3 c6 14 d5 Qe7 15 dxe6 dxe6
[FEN"rn3rk1/4q2p/pppbp1p1/5pN1/2P2P2/
2N1PB2/PP5P/R1BQ1K2 w - - 0 16"]
16 Nd5?
Gilding the lily and miscalculating. Simply 16 Qb3 would be strong.
16...exd5 17 Bxd5+ Kg7
Of course not 17...cxd5? 18 Qxd5+ and 19 Qxa8, but after 17...Kh8 18 Bd2
cxd5 19 Bc3+ Rf6 White should lose in the long run; e.g., 20 Qd4 Kg7 21
Qxd5 Ra7 22 Bxf6+ Qxf6 23 Ne6+ Kh6 24 Qxd6 Re7. The lesson from this,
and from the Capablanca-Bernstein game above, is that humans have more
imagination than computers but tend not to see defensive possibilities that the
programs find.
18 Ne6+ Kg8 19 Nxf8+ Kxf8 20 Bf3
A phase of normal play follows.
20...Bc5 21 Qd3 Ra7
[FEN"1n3k2/r3q2p/ppp3p1/2b2p2/2P2P2/
3QPB2/PP5P/R1B2K2 w - - 0 22"]
22 b4!
Renewing complications that should be advantageous to White.
22...Bxb4 23 Qd4 Qg7 24 Qxb6 Rb7 25 Qd8+ Kf7 26 Rb1 Qc3
There follows an extraordinary stream of tactics, but computer analysis
destroys some of the charm.
27 Bd5+!
The second piece offer on this square correct this time.
27...cxd5 28 Qxd5+ Kf8?
This should lose. 28...Ke8 is better.
[FEN"1n3k2/1r5p/p5p1/3Q1p2/1bP2P2/
2q1P3/P6P/1RB2K2 w - - 0 29"]
29 Bb2?
29 Bd2! Qxd2 30 Qxd2 Bxd2 31 Rxb7 Nc6 32 Rb6 should win comfortably
whereas if Black had his king on e8, then 31...Nd7 would fight on.
29...Qc2?
29...Qxe3 draws because if 30 Qxb7 Qd3+ 31 Kf2 Bc5+ 32 Kg2 Qc2+ 33
Kh3 Qd3+ etc.
30 Bg7+! Rxg7 31 Qd8+ Kf7 32 Rxb4 Qc1+ 33 Kf2 Qc2+ 34 Kg3 Qe4
[FEN"1n1Q4/5krp/p5p1/5p2/
1RP1qP2/4P1K1/P6P/8 w - - 0 35"]
35 Qxb8?
White misses his last chance to garner the full point: 35 Qc7+ Qe7 36 Qxe7+
Kxe7 37 Rxb8 Kd6 38 Kf3 Rc7 39 Rb6+ with winning chances in the rook
ending thanks to the extra pawn.
35...Qxe3+ 36 Kg2 Qe2+ 37 Kg3 Qe3+ 38 Kg2

On the Trail of a Forgotten Victorian Expert

Chess was very popular in Britain around the middle of the nineteenth
century, but of course they played the game very differently then. Although
the rules (other than for draws by repetition) have not changed since in any
essential respect, the following differences soon become apparent to anybody
who looks at the chess books and magazines of that era (say the 1840s to
1870s in particular).
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Translate this page
1. Play was primarily of a tactical nature, with relatively few games being
decided in the endgame. Also, except in set matches, play was, I think,
usually very rapid.
2. Many games were played between opponents of widely divergent
strengths, with the stronger playing giving material odds to the weaker.
3. There were many head-to-head matches, formal (for money stakes) or
informal, and a few team matches, but tournaments were rare until the
1870s.
4. When games were played "even", that is, without odds, the opening
moves were almost invariably 1 e4 e5, with a small percentage of
French Defences (usually met by the Exchange Variation), Sicilians
and other defences. Occasionally White opened 1 c4 or 1 d4.
Purchases from our

accessible:

by Gino Di Felice
Moreover, both gross positional errors and tactical miscalculations were

frequent, but today it is easy to judge the games of the early and midVictorians unkindly. The rapid play of course made miscalculations more
probable; as in blitz games now, players made a move that looked promising
or likely to cause difficulties for the opponent.
Computers detect all kinds of mistakes in old games that even quite strong
players of the 1970s would not necessarily have noticed. Victorian players,
for the most part, prized imagination and enjoyed finding sacrificial
combinations. They were much stronger in attack than in defence, although
this began to change in the 1880s with the growth of professional chess,
especially when the practice of drawn games being replayed in tournaments
was increasingly replaced by the awarding of a half point, a change that
rewarded soundness at the expense of enterprise.
the games from
Chess Periodicals
by Gino Di Felice
As for the positional niceties, Victorians did not, for example, have the benefit
of the kind of instructional manuals that abound today, warning of the
weakness of doubled and isolated pawns. The open files and diagonals that
flaws in the pawn structure created for rooks and bishops to exploit was often
of more interest to them.
Introducing Mr. Smith
All this is by way of introduction to a little investigation into the career of a
forgotten mid-Victorian expert from London, C. F. Smith. If any reader can
add to what this article contains, with sources, I shall be pleased to hear of it. I
have found over eighty of Smith's games, mostly played between 1848 and
1854. In some he plays very weakly, but several show sparks of real talent.
Like most young players of his day, he was a tactician and an exponent of
romantic chess openings.
From what was said about him when he first appeared on the London chess
scene, he was probably a teenager, probably around the same age as Henry
Bird who was soon to become one of England's top players. By 1860 Smith
may have been dead. Unfortunately his Christian names are unknown and
with a surname as common as Smith, it is hopeless trying to trace him in
censuses and genealogical websites.
The Field 1907

by Leopold Hoffer
The January 1879 issue of The Chess Player's Chronicle, reprinted two of
Smith's short wins when giving odds. The Rev. Charles Edward Ranken, then
its editor, wrote of him thus:
"Mr. C. F. Smith was a London player of rare promise, who,
unfortunately, died at a very early age. He was a frequent opponent of
Mr. Bird, who entered the Chess arena at about the same time; and his
published games in the Illustrated London News and Chess Player's
Chronicle contain many interesting examples of his two favourite
openings, the Evans and King's Knights Gambits, of which he
conducted the attack and defence with equal ability".
It is a little sad, despite that verbal tribute, that Smith was represented by two
miniatures in which he gave huge odds to beginners. He had, after all, won
games on level terms against Bird (quite often) and Elijah Williams, as well
as such prominent experts as G. B. Fraser, Silas Angas, G. W. Medley and
probably many others. He also encountered the historian Henry Thomas
Buckle at the height of his powers, and even Daniel Harrwitz, but there are no
games on record of his against Howard Staunton.
There were several players named Smith, of course, one of whom is quite
often mentioned: Cabel Smith. As he was a founding member of the
Liverpool Chess Club in 1837 and still active in the 1850s (he played in
matches against Manchester in 1855 and 1856), we can be sure this was
definitely somebody considerably older than the Londoner C. F. Smith, who
was young on first coming to notice in 1848. Their paths do not seem to cross.
Other references to players called C. Smith, albeit occasionally with a second
initial, I take it to refer to our man. (These can just be misprints, often an
effect of printers misreading unclear manuscripts.) For example, in Bird's
Chess History and Reminiscences, he says at one point: "About forty years
ago there were eight young and rising players nearly approaching first class,
they were S. S. Boden, the Rev. W. Audrey, Captain Cunningham, G. W.
Medley, J. Medley, C. T. Smith, A. Simons and H. E. Bird".
Clearly this "C. T. Smith" must be our C. F. Smith; the two were very well
acquainted. As for the other players mentioned, Audrey and Cunningham are
unfamiliar to me. Boden was a close friend of Bird and close to him in
playing strength at one point. There is a published game from 1850 where
John Medley receives pawn and move from Smith; he should have won but
the game was drawn. George Medley appears to have been about Smith's
strength at that time.
Arthur Simons, another player worth more research, scored 1-2 against Smith
in three games I found from 1850 but in 1853 Simons won 2-0. (I am
assuming that some references to "Simonds" are actually to the same person;
they were both members of the same club and probably played many more
games than have been preserved.)
In 1853, the first (and only complete) volume of The British Chess Review,
under the chief editorship of Harrwitz, was published. In the Preface, the
proprietors (who included Boden) wrote that their supporters included "many
of the most promising rising amateurs of the day, and shall gladly avail
ourselves of the skill of such players as Messrs. Medley, Bird, Greenaway,
Simons, Smith, and others whom we could mention".
I became interested in Smith when researching the history of correspondence
chess. Then I discovered that the first tournament ever played by post began
in 1853, continuing until 1856. As any readers of this column who have
already obtained my new book Correspondence Chess in Britain and Ireland,
1824-1987 will be aware, there were sixteen players in that tournament, many
of them amateurs who were already of some distinction, or were later to
achieve minor fame in the chess world. The tournament was organised by
Henry Cook Mott who began it in the chess column of a weekly paper called
The Home Circle, and when that closed he transferred the competition to his
new column in Cassell's Weekly Illustrated Paper.
Who was the winner of this tournament? None other than C. F. Smith. The
absence of any mention of Smith's postal tournament success in Ranken's

tribute shows that this, perhaps his finest achievement, was already forgotten.
Smith's chess career, brief as it was, falls into three periods. First comes the
period 1848-50, the formative years from which about two-thirds of his
known games come. Second, there is a re-emergence into competition in late
1852 and he is quite active in 1853. Now he is recognised as one of a group of
accomplished amateurs, but he appears to have fallen behind his old adversary
Bird, then approaching master strength. The third period is that of the postal
tournament, after which no game by Smith is known except the one published
in 1859, which may in fact have been played earlier.
The sources for Smith's games are chiefly chess magazines and columns, in
particular the Chronicle when Staunton was editing it. George Walker's
column in Bell's Life in London contains many games by Smith too. Also in
1850, the French magazine La Rgence, published one of his losses to Bird,
well played by the latter, with notes by Kieseritzky.
There is another important source for this period, the book Horae Divanianae
("Hours at the Divan") which was compiled by Elijah Williams and contains
150 games from Grand Divan "by first rates and never before published", to
quote George Walker's recommendation in Bell's Life on 14 March 1852. The
book cost six shillings and was, he said, only on sale at London's most famous
chess caf. Ries's Grand Divan in the Strand, had reopened just in time for
Christmas 1847; it was later renamed after its head waiter, Simpson, to make
it sound more English. The games in the book are not dated but therefore must
have been played between December 1847 and late 1851 (or early 1852). Ten
of Smith's games appear in that book, and I am grateful to Bert Corneth from
the Netherlands for sending them to me.
There also some of Smith's games in Staunton's Chess Praxis. None of them
are dated but all but one can be found earlier in magazines. The postal games
are all in Mott's columns. Six of Smith's later games are in The British Chess
Review for 1853.
Smith's playing career
The first mention of C. F. Smith in the chess press is probably the following
game against an anonymous victim, which Staunton published on page 146 of
The Chess Player's Chronicle for 1848. "This spirited little affair was recently
played by Mr. Smith, a very young and promising addition to the circle of
metropolitan players, and another young Amateur".
C. F. Smith Amateur
London, 1848
Evans Gambit [C52]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 b4 Bxb4 5 c3 Ba5 6 d4 exd4 7 00 d3
Black gets a bad game at this point if he takes the pawn.
8 e5 Bb6 9 Re1 Qe7
This is not good, but it is difficult in such a situation to find a move that is.
10 Nbd2 Nd8
Better surely to have played this to a5 and to have taken off the offensive
bishop.
11 Ne4 h6
[FEN "r1bnk1nr/ppppqpp1/1b5p/4P3/2B1N3/
2Pp1N2/P4PPP/R1BQR1K1 w kq - 0 12"]
It is very agreeable to play with an opponent so accommodating as the

defending player in the present game. If White made the moves himself, they
could not be more advantageous for the developing his attack.
12 Nd6+ Kf8 13 Ba3 Ne6 14 Qa4 c5 15 Rab1 Rb8
Complacently giving up a most valuable officer for nothing.
16 Rxb6 axb6 17 Qa7 Qd8 18 Qxb8 Ne7 19 Re3 g5 20 Rxd3 Kg7 21 Nxf7
Kxf7 22 Bxe6+ Kxe6 23 Nxg5+ hxg5 24 Qd6+ Kf7 25 Qf6+ Kg8 26 Qxg5+
10
This got him noticed and later in 1848 he has a little match with G. W.
Medley. The result was not published but the Chronicle published one win by
either player on pages 227-9. Here is Smith's win.
George W. Medley C. F. Smith
London match, 1848
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 e3 c5 5 Nf3 Nc6 6 a3 a6 7 b3 b6 8 Bb2 cxd4 9
Nxd4 Nxd4 10 Qxd4 Bc5 11 Qh4 Bb7 12 cxd5 Nxd5 13 Qg3 Bf8 14 Nb5?!
[FEN"r2qkb1r/1b3ppp/pp2p3/1N1n4/8/
PP2P1Q1/1B3PPP/R3KB1R b KQkq - 0 14"]
14...Rc8?!
Staunton wrote: "It is not at all clear to us why this Kt. was not taken; White
would certainly have got an attack, but hardly sufficient to compensate for
such a sacrifice".
14...axb5 15 Bxb5+ Ke7 16 e4 was presumably the idea; Black must return
the piece by 16...Qd6 when he may get the better of things, but Smith's
reluctance to be greedy is understandable.
15 Nd4?!
I think 15 e4 looks better.
15...b5 16 Be2?? Qa5+ 17 Kf1
Not 17 b4? Nxb4 18 axb4 Qxb4+ 19 Kf1 Qxb2.

17...Qd2 18 Rb1
[FEN"2r1kb1r/1b3ppp/p3p3/1p1n4/3N4/
PP2P1Q1/1B1qBPPP/1R3K1R b k - 0 18"]
18...Qxb2?!
This is an unsound combination which White fails to refute. 18...Nf6
maintains Black's advantage.
19 Rxb2??
White should have made space for his king by 19 Bxb5+ axb5 20 Rxb2 Rc1+
21 Ke2.
19...Rc1+ 20 Bd1 Rxd1+ 21 Ke2 Nc3# 01
A lengthy article in The Chess Player's Chronicle for 1856 concerned the
career of Elijah Williams, who had died in 1854. It detailed his various
matches and on page 127 of that volume (number six of the second series,
which is available in Google Books), appears this tantalising item:
"In 1848, Mr. Williams was matched to play 4 games on even terms,
and 4 giving Pawn and move, against Mr C. F. Smith. The score of this
match never appeared, but 1 even game won by Mr. Smith was printed;
perhaps, therefore, the match never came to an issue".
By that the writer implies that Williams realised he would not be able to give
odds to Smith with any prospect of success. Here is the game in question,
from volume nine of the original Staunton series of the Chronicle.
C. F. Smith Elijah Williams
First match game, London 1848
Evans Gambit [C51]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 b4 Bxb4 5 c3 Bc5 6 00 d6 7 d4 exd4 8 cxd4
Bb6
The so-called Normal Position.
9 Bb2 Nf6 10 d5 Ne7 11 Bxf6 gxf6 12 Nd4 Ng6 13 f4 00
[FEN"r1bq1rk1/ppp2p1p/1b1p1pn1/3P4/
2BNPP2/8/P5PP/RN1Q1RK1 w - - 0 14"]
14 Nc3
The Chronicle preferred 14 Kh1.
14...f5 15 Kh1 fxe4 16 Nxe4 Qh4 17 g3 Qh6 18 Nf3 Bh3 19 Re1 f5 20 Neg5
Rfe8 21 Qa4
[FEN"r3r1k1/ppp4p/1b1p2nq/3P1pN1/
Q1B2P2/5NPb/P6P/R3R2K b - - 0 21"]
"The attack is kept up with a good deal of spirit and determination".

21...Kf8 22 Qd7 Ne7 23 Re6 Qg7 24 Rf6+ Kg8
"It is obvious that taking the rook would have lost the queen".
25 Qe6+ Kh8 26 Nf7+ Kg8 27 N3g5 "and wins". 10
In the Chronicle late in 1848 is a game Smith loses, in which Harrwitz (then
recently returned to England in June) gave him pawn and move and finished
prettily. The first known game with Bird also appeared in print that year. Of
course they may well have played others and the overall result between them
is not known. Some of these early games began 1 e4 c5 and 1 e4 e6; thereafter
it was always 1 e4 e5. In 1850, in the games between them that were
published in the Chronicle, Horae Divanianae, and the Rgence, there are
many King's Gambits and some games in the Ruy Lopez (defended by 3...
Nf6, 3...d6 or 3...Bd6?!).
C. F. Smith Henry Bird
London, 1848
Sicilian Defence, Morra Gambit [B21]
From The Chess Player's Chronicle, volume 9 (1848) page 272.
"Dashing little affair just played between Mr. C. F. Smith and Mr. H. Bird,
two young, but highly promising additions to our Chess Circle".
1 e4 c5 2 d4 cxd4 3 Nf3 e5 4 c3
"It is needless to point out why he does not take the KP".
4...dxc3 5 Nxc3 Nc6 6 Bc4 d6 7 00 Be6 8 Bxe6 fxe6 9 Ng5 Qd7 10 Qh5+
g6 11 Qh3 Nd4 12 f4 Be7 13 fxe5 Bxg5 14 Bxg5 dxe5 15 Nd5
[FEN"r3k1nr/pp1q3p/4p1p1/3Np1B1/
3nP3/7Q/PP4PP/R4RK1 b kq - 0 15"]
"This is prettily played".

15...h6
15...exd5 loses the queen after 16 Rf8+ Kxf8 17 Qxd7.
16 Qa3
"The proper move".
16...Ne2+ 17 Kh1 Ng3+ 18 hxg3 hxg5+ 19 Kg1 000
[FEN"2kr2nr/pp1q4/4p1p1/3Np1p1/
4P3/Q5P1/PP4P1/R4RK1 w - - 0 20"]
"Deplorable as this appears, it is about the best thing left for him".
20 Nb6+! axb6 21 Qa8+ Kc7 22 Rac1+ Kd6 23 Qa3# 10
Early in 1849, Smith entered the knock-out tournament at the Divan which
was probably the first open tournament (other than club competitions) to be
held in England. He was unfortunate to be drawn in the first round with the
eventual winner, because he was probably good enough already to have
defeated some of the other competitors. All games were played level, and the
pairings were mini-matches for the first to win two games. Buckle beat him 20. Afterward they played at pawn and move, and here is Smith's only known
win against the historian. In another game, also published in Horae
Divanianae, Smith saved a difficult position against Buckle by reducing
material in (the critical line) to two knights (for Buckle) against two widely
divergent pawns.
C. F. Smith Henry Thomas Buckle
London, circa 1850
From Horae Divanianae, game LXXVII, pages 912.
Remove Black's f-pawn.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 Nc6 3 e5 d6 4 Bd3 Nge7 5 Bg5 Nxd4 6 Qh5+ Kd7 7 Nc3 Qe8 8
Qg4 Ndc6 9 Nf3 a6 10 000 d5
[FEN"r1b1qb1r/1ppkn1pp/p1n1p3/3pP1B1/
6Q1/2NB1N2/PPP2PPP/2KR3R w - - 0 11"]
11 Bc4! h5 12 Qh3 Qg6 13 Bxd5 Ke8 14 Be4 Qf7 15 Bxc6+ Nxc6 16 Rd2
Be7 17 Bxe7 Qxe7 18 Rhd1 g6 19 Ne4 Kf7 20 Nf6 Nxe5 21 Nxe5+ Kxf6 22
Qc3 Qh7 23 Ng4+ 10
C. F. Smith was apparently never a member of the grand chess clubs like the
St. George's. He played chiefly at the Divan and at the City Road Chess Club
in Islington. This seems to have been a club for lower middle-class men,
probably artisans or clerical workers in the City of London nearby.
The first mention I found of him in Bell's Life was on 4 April 1849. He gave
odds of a knight to an "amateur" and won in eleven moves. Many more games
were published in that column during the year, some against Bird and others
on level terms, but many against weaker opponents to whom he gave a
handicap. His most frequent opponent in odds games was C. W. Cradock,
another member of that club, to whom at first he gave a knight. Soon Smith
reduced the odds he gave Cradock to pawn and two moves, with several
games appearing. Cradock was evidently an improving player, and at one
point they played a set match at these odds. Bell's Life on 22 September 1850,
describing Smith as President of the City Road Club, reported that Smith had
won 5-0 and published one game. Smith did not always win their casual
games.
The frequent press references to C. F. Smith come to an end rather suddenly.
He seems to be mysteriously absent from the London chess world in 1851 and
indeed until quite late in 1852. Have I overlooked some references? It is
possible, but one thing is certain: there is no mention of him around the time
of the chess tournament in the summer of 1851, in the columns or in
Staunton's book of the event. He is not a subscriber to the tournament and
does not even play in the secondary event. Either he is not in London or he is
not playing chess. The most notable absentee from the chess scene at the same
period was Captain Evans, inventor of the Evans Gambit, who is known to
have then been working for a British shipping line at Porto Grande in the
Cape Verde Islands. Is it possible Smith's chess contacts had got him a job
there too? Yet there are no games of his with Evans, nor any suggestion of a
nautical background.
Another possibility, probably the most plausible, is that whatever work Smith
did (and he was quite possibly an artisan or a clerk of some kind) involved
him in long hours in connection with the Great Exhibition being held for most
of 1851 in London. A third possibility is that he had work outside London that
year and for much of 1852. Unless new sources turn up, we shall never know.
Smith's name reappears in Bell's Life in late 1852 and he is mentioned again
several times up to early 1854. As noted above in connection with The British
Chess Review, his main associates now seem to be Harrwitz, Boden, and
Simons. A loss to Bird, published in the Review, is explicitly stated to have
been played on 15 December 1852 and there is a loss to Cradock who again
received pawn and two moves. This is on such an early page that it must have
been played in 1852 or earlier. The four games in the Review from 1853 are
played level, Smith moving second in each case. Two of them he wins against
anonymous amateurs, and there is a win against George Maude and a loss to
Boden.
Staunton also published some of Smith's games in 1852 and 1853 in the
Chronicle and the Illustrated London News. In one his opponent was so weak
that he was able to give odds of queen's rook and queen's knight, yet win in
ten moves! The other games were by post and will be mentioned below.
The Review came to a sudden end in the second half of 1854, when Harrwitz
hurriedly left England. Just before then, Bell's Life on the 23rd and again on
the 30th July 1854 published games in which Harrwitz successfully gave
Smith pawn and move, whereas on the 23rd there is a game where he beats
Bird, conceding only the move but not the pawn. This seems to be a sure sign
that Bird has significantly improved relative to Smith over the past five years.
My last note of a Smith game at this period is that on 8 April 1855 Bell's Life
published a game that Boden won against him, playing level. I cannot be
certain I have included all the references to Smith that I came across, but as I
have been interested in him for several years, I believe I did not miss many.
I shall only say a little here about the postal tournament won by Smith,
because it is covered in detail in my book. He had apparently stated to play
friendly matches through the Home Circle, which ran many friendly events of
this type before starting its tournament. Smith began by losing 2-0 to
Valentine Green of the Hermes Chess Club at Oxford University (whom he
could probably have beaten over the board) but after that he gets the hang of
this different mode of play where tactical speculation is less likely to be
rewarded.
He then wins the following game against Fraser of Dundee, who was already
an opponent to be reckoned with, although by no means the force he later
became.
C. F. Smith George Brunton Fraser
Correspondence 1853
Evans Gambit [C51]
Notes from Chess Player's Chronicle, 1853, pages 262-3.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 b4 Bxb4 5 c3 Bc5 6 d4 exd4 7 00 d6 8 cxd4
Bb6 9 h3 Na5
"We like to see this move occasionally tested, although we think it puts the
knight sadly out of play".
10 Bd3 Ne7 11 a4 00
[FEN"r1bq1rk1/ppp1nppp/1b1p4/n7/P2PP3/
3B1N1P/5PP1/RNBQ1RK1 w - - 0 12"]
12 Ra2
"Mr. Smith is accurately acquainted with almost every form of the Evans'
opening, and usually conducts the attack with great skill and attention".
12...f5 13 e5 f4 14 e6 Bxe6 15 Bxh7+ Kh8 16 Ng5
"White continues his attack with considerable spirit and ingenuity".
[FEN"r2q1r1k/ppp1n1pB/1b1pb3/n5N1/
P2P1p2/7P/R4PP1/1NBQ1RK1 b - - 0 16"]
16...Bxa2 17 Qh5 Rf6 18 d5 Bxd5 19 Bg6+ Kg8 20 Qh7+ Kf8 21 Qh8+

Ng8 22 Nh7+ Ke7 23 Qxg7+ Rf7 24 Bxf7 Bd4 25 Qg5+ 10
In the tournament, run as a knock-out, and began around the same time that
the Fraser game was probably played, Smith was paired first with Francis
Gilder of Paddington. The first game was drawn but Gilder lost the replay by
a clerical error. Next he had to play R. B. Wormald, who later was a wellknown author and editor but at this time was barely twenty years old and, like
Green, an Oxford undergraduate. Once more, there was a draw followed by a
win for Smith in the replay. It was such replays that caused the event to be so
protracted.
C. F. Smith Robert Bownas Wormald
Home Circle corr. tourney, round 2, 1854
Four Knights Game [C48]
From Cassell's Illustrated Family Paper, vol. 2, no.71 (5 May 1855), page
151.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Nc3 Nc6 4 Bb5 Bc5 5 d3 d6 6 Bg5 h6 7 Bh4 g5 8 Nxg5
"Daring as this move appears to be, we believe it to be perfectly sound".
8...hxg5 9 Bxg5 Rg8 10 h4 Bg4 11 Qd2 Bb4 12 00
"Overlooking the very ingenious reply adopted by Black. 12 f4 appears
preferable".
12...Qd7 13 f3 Nh7 14 fxg4 Nxg5 15 hxg5 Bc5+ 16 Rf2 000
[FEN"2kr2r1/pppq1p2/2np4/1Bb1p1P1/
4P1P1/2NP4/PPPQ1RP1/R5K1 w - - 0 17"]
17 Bxc6 bxc6
"Should Black now retake with the Q, White would regain the exchange by
playing 18 Nd5".
18 Nd1 Bxf2+ 19 Nxf2 Rg7 20 d4 Qe7 21 Qa5 exd4 22 Qxa7 Qe5 23 a4
Rh7 24 a5 Qh2+ 25 Kf1 Qf4 26 Kg1 Qe3 27 Qa6+ Kd7 28 Qd3 Re8 29
Qxe3 dxe3 30 Nh3 Rb8 31 b3 Rb4 32 Nf4! Rxe4 33 Nh5
"The position is now curious and instructive. Black cannot avoid the loss of
the exchange".
[FEN"8/2pk1p1r/2pp4/P5PN/4r1P1/
1P2p3/2P3P1/R5K1 b - - 0 33"]
33...Rxh5 34 gxh5 e2 35 Kf2 Kc8 36 h6 Kb7 37 g3 Re5 38 h7 Re8 39 Rh1

Ka6 40 Ke1 Rh8 41 Kxe2 1-0
In the third round (semi-final), Smith was paired with an anonymous
opponent, "Beta", believed to have been a Newcastle player. Once more a
draw was followed by an easy win in the replay. Finally, Smith had to meet
the better-known Newcastle player Silas Angas, commonly known as
"Alpha", but the game (which is given in my book) proved an anti-climax
after a blunder so Smith won the game comfortably. This was effectively his
swansong.
In 1858, Smith might have met Paul Morphy, for they were due to meet in the
first round of the Birmingham tournament, but was deprived of the
opportunity through no fault of his own. On the day of the first round, shortly
after the draw was made, the American champion sent a telegram from
London to say he would not compete. Smith received a walkover, and,
pleading another engagement, withdrew without playing his second round
opponent, who would have been R. B. Brien. After that occasion, which may
have been a failed attempt at a comeback, Smith disappears from the record
except for one game published in 1859 in the Illustrated London News, which
was probably played by post. In this he won against his old opponent, Fraser.
Rating Mr. Smith
I am no mathematician or ratings statistician but I have been in
correspondence with Professor Rod Edwards, from Canada, whose "Edo
Chess Ratings" website is well worth a visit for anyone interested in
nineteenth century chess. He expects soon to be recalculating many of his
ratings thanks to information collected over the past year, but here I am
quoting the figures available at the start of February 2011. Unfortunately, he
does not yet have enough data to arrive at an accurate rating estimate for
Smith, and but we can see what figures he has calculated for other players in
London, especially those against whom Smith played.
For the year 1848, when Smith emerges, Howard Staunton stands second on
the world list at 2612 (below Tassilo Heydebrand und von der Lasa), and
ahead of Petroff, Anderssen, and Kieseritzky. The second rated English player
is the historian Henry Thomas Buckle at 2542. Estimating Buckle's strength in
comparison with Staunton is notoriously difficult because they never played
"even". Buckle once told the Rev. G. A. MacDonnell that he always accepted
odds of pawn and move from Staunton because he wanted to remain his
friend, implying that he thought he might have achieved fair results without
odds but Staunton, a vain man, needed an excuse for losing.
Daniel Harrwitz, a player often in England at this period, has an 1848 Edo
rating of 2535, placing him eighth, just below St. Amant. Lower on the list
come Elijah Williams (2435), Henry Bird (2332) and George Medley (2311).
It will be recalled that Smith won his only game (level) with Williams, scored
50% with Medley, lost at odds to Harrwitz and beat Bird easily in the one
game definitely from that year. That would suggest he was already about 2400
in 1848 if the other ratings are accurate, which is too high, though it must be
remembered that these figures represent comparative performance and not the
quality of play we would expect of players of that rating today.
The Edo ratings for 1849 show Staunton 2626, Buckle 2532, Harrwitz 2516,
Williams 2458, George Medley 2356, Bird 2331, Simons 2273, John Medley
2208, and Smith (appearing for the first time) 2144. There are some problems
with this, which more data (if it can be found) may help to solve. Buckle had
won the tournament at the Divan so why did his rating decline? Smith's rating
is based solely on his loss to Buckle in the Divan event; the information in
this article should enable a more meaningful estimate to be made.
The only other year with an Edo rating for Smith at present is 1850, showing
him rising to 2160, but the change is based solely on the 5-0 odds match win
against Cradock, and on Bird's win in an Evans Gambit match discussed
below. The many other games between them have not been taken into
account, nor Smith's numerous games with other players. There are several
results from 1849 and 1850 that should improve Smith's rating, notably his
score of +1 1 =1 in three games receiving pawn and move from Buckle at
the Divan.
I have a general problem about including odds games in such calculations
at least for any handicap more than pawn and move. Another difficulty in
estimating Smith's rating is that it depends on what rating can be calculated
independently for Bird from the latter's other results at this period. Bird's
current Edo rating is static in 1848-9, which is implausible for a young
improving player. It rises to 2365 in 1850; he was clearly playing a lot of
chess that year. It passes 2400 in 1854 and, with a few small dips, gradually
climbs into the low 2500s by 1872, a level Bird maintains (more or less) for
just over a decade before falling back with increased age. Evidently from the
1870s onwards there is far more quality data available from major
tournaments and ratings can be calculated with much more confidence.
I do not think that Bird and Smith ever played a set match with free choice of
openings, but a report in the Illustrated London News on 31 August 1850
shows they played an Evans Gambit match in 1850 in which Bird scored
seventy-five percent from the fourteen games played. Smith had wagered 2-1
in the event of the gambit being accepted so he seriously misjudged his
chances here and Bird must have defended well. Two of the games were
published in that paper, one of them being reprinted by Staunton later in his
Chess Praxis, but the Evans only occurs in one other game I have seen
between them.
Apart from the Evans match games of 1850, I have collected twenty-four
published games between the two men, in which Smith had White in eleven,
which seems a fair sample. Overall the score is 13-11 to Bird. Probably they
played dozens if not hundreds of games together. The only published game in
1848 was the one above, a victory for Smith, and there is a game from 1852
won by Bird. Their score in games definitely dated 1849 is 4-4. The rest are
probably from 1850 although those in Williams's book could have been 1849
or perhaps early 1851. In the ordinary games of 1850, Bird leads only 8-6 but
when you add the Evans match games the score in his favour becomes 189.
My impression is that Smith and Bird were evenly matched at first, or Smith
somewhat ahead, but there is little doubt that Bird began to surpass his rival in
the second half of 1850 and after Smith's hiatus from play he was clearly
weaker and they probably seldom played again. Bird was later to demonstrate
great originality in opening ideas but at this stage of his career he was not
markedly different in style from Smith. Both men were good at building
attacks, and were more than capable of finding clever combinations but also
of making blunders.
We shall probably never know exactly what happened to Smith but he made
three "mistakes" that prevented him having a career like Bird's:
He missed the 1851 tournament, when he might have benefited from
playing in the Provincial Tournament and might even have filled a late
vacancy in the main event. Also he would have been certain, if in
London, to have enjoyed many causal games with the foreign visitors.
After his mid-1850s revival he must have put career or family first, as
is perhaps indicated by his not remaining in Birmingham for the
tournament's second round.
He died young.
I conclude with what may have been Smith's best win against Bird. It first
appeared in Horae Divanianae (game CIII, page 120) and was reprinted in
Staunton's Chess Praxis on pages 211212.
C. F. Smith Henry Bird
Ries's Divan London, circa 1850
Ruy Lopez [C60]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Bd6?! 4 c3 Nge7 5 d4 Ng6 6 00 00 7 Nbd2 a6 8
Ba4 b5 9 Bb3 Nce7 10 a4 c6 11 axb5 cxb5 12 c4
[FEN"r1bq1rk1/3pnppp/p2b2n1/1p2p3/
2PPP3/1B3N2/1P1N1PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b - - 0 12"]
12...Bb7
Better 12...bxc4 said Staunton.
13 c5 Bc7 14 d5 d6
Highly imprudent Staunton.
15 c6 Bc8 16 Qc2 f5 17 Re1 fxe4 18 Nxe4 Bf5 19 Bg5 h6 20 Bxe7 Qxe7 21
Qc3 Kh7
21...Kh8 would have saved a move Staunton.
22 Rad1 a5 23 Ba2 a4 24 Qc2 Bg4 25 Rd3 Nf4 26 Ra3 Kh8 27 Bb1
[FEN"r4r1k/2b1q1p1/2Pp3p/1p1Pp3/p3Nnb1/
R4N2/1PQ2PPP/1B2R1K1 b - - 0 27"]
Threatening mate Staunton.

27...Bf5 28 Qd2 Ba5
The object of this move apparently was to get a passed pawn on the a-file
Staunton.
29 b4 Bb6 30 g3 Nh3+ 31 Kg2 Bxe4 32 Bxe4 Nxf2 33 Bb1 g5
[FEN"r4r1k/4q3/1bPp3p/1p1Pp1p1/pP6/
R4NP1/3Q1nKP/1B2R3 w - - 0 34"]
The position is very double-edged and objectively it is probably better for

Black, but Smith fights and turns the tables.
34 Rc3?! Ra7?! 35 Qc2 Rf6 36 Qe2 g4? 37 Nh4
Now White gets on top.
37...Qf7 38 Qxb5 Bd8 39 Rf1 Nh3 40 Rxf6 Qxf6 41 Nf5 e4 42 c7 Rxc7 43
Qe8+ Kh7 44 Rxc7+ Bxc7 45 Qxe4 Qb2+ 46 Bc2 Ng5 47 Qe7+ 10

New In Chess Just Got Newer
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Translate this page
There was a revolution in chess publishing in 1984 when the world's first
truly international chess magazine was launched. New In Chess, entirely in
English but with a Dutch editorial team, was introduced with a slim free
number, issue zero, to everyone who went to the chess Olympiad in
Thessaloniki, Greece that autumn. Many of us were immediately convinced
that taking out a subscription was obligatory. We were not disappointed. New
In Chess has now being going for over twenty-six years, but with a new look
for 2011. It is still published, as it then was, in Alkmaar, a coastal town in
North Holland.
New In Chess evolved from a magazine in the Dutch language called
Schaakbulletin that first appeared in 1968. The original publisher of both
magazines, Willem (or Wim) Andriessen soon recruited to his team the upand-coming grandmaster Jan Timman and established top players like Jan
Hein Donner to produce a quality product. I saw it occasionally but its
circulation potential was inevitably restricted by the fact that few players
outside the Netherlands and Belgium could read the text articles which were
an important part of the package. Switching to English to create New In Chess
immediately opened up a huge global market. Andriessen retired in 2003, at
age sixty-five, although he still does part-time work for them as consultant
and book publisher. Now the publisher is Allard Hoogland, and on their own
website, there is an article by him giving his view of the company's history
and philosophy.
We should not forget the contribution of two other long-term contributors,
GM Genna Sosonko and Ren Olthof, who are principally involved with the
New In Chess Yearbooks. GM Paul van der Sterren was originally co-editor
with Sosonko of that series but he retired in 2003.

the games from
The switch to the English language and away from Dutch events, except for
major competitions, implied a focus on international events and affairs in the
chess world of worldwide interest. Local news and amateur games which
form much of the staple content of national magazines necessarily had to be
excluded, but this also meant that chess fans with broad enough interests and
deep enough pockets might subscribe to both a national magazine (such as
Chess in Great Britain or Chess Life in the United States) as well as New In
Chess, which inevitably became a strong competitor for all English-language
magazines. The coverage of international events in such magazines as British
Chess Magazine could not match New In Chess, except for events where
English grandmasters were involved, and Inside Chess (which GM Yasser
Seirawan used to edit) eventually ceased publication.
An important element in the early success and strategy of New In Chess was
that they employed a computer database for all the games. This, in the period
1983-5, was truly innovative. It not only ruled out notation errors (which
bedevilled all chess publications in the pre-computer typesetting era) but also
meant that all games found by the company's researchers were available to all
writers and editors.
The Dutch scientific and academic publishing house Elsevier were involved
in the early stages but it seems the connection ended after 1985.
New In Chess did not get the formula right at first, naturally. Instead of
employing the well-known Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings classification
system, they used a mnemonic system of their own and, with Elsevier,
produced two weighty and expensive volumes to introduce the code with
example games. It never caught on with any other publisher, or with players
Purchases from our

accessible:
New In Chess, 2010/8

by New In Chess
New In Chess Yearbook #97

by New In Chess
SOS, Volume 12
by Jeroen Bosch
in general, not least because ChessBase used the ECO system. Their own
attempt at marketing a rival system, NiCBase, though it was not technically
inferior to early versions of ChessBase, appears to have been a commercial
failure too. Their complementary games on diskette service was useful at first
but had competitors, and the weekly free game download service from The
Week In Chess more or less killed it off. By the time that ChessBase moved
from DOS to the Windows platform, NiCBase seems to have died. New In
Chess were also innovative with CD products, which looked a good option for
a time but again they seem to have lost out to competitors in this field, not to
mention piracy concerns.
The attempt to produce the New In Chess magazine monthly, like most
national magazines, was abandoned after a year. They switched to eight issues
and this is what saved them. Instead of the constant pressure to produce
monthly issues and cover everything, they concentrated on quality in an area
where they faced no direct competition from ChessBase or Informator. Each
issue was so good that the next was eagerly awaited, although one never quite
knew when to expect it to arrive through the letter-box. For somebody
commuting to work on buses, as I was in the magazine's first decade, the
arrival of each new issue meant two or three days at least when there was no
question about what reading matter to throw in the briefcase, along with a
pocket chess set naturally.
In recent years they have also been successful with chess books on various
subjects, notably Genna Sosonko's Russian Silhouettes which recycle the
more timeless material from the magazine and are mostly bought by people
who are not subscribers to the periodical. There is also the Secrets of Opening
Surprises series which it styles as a periodical. Some, but not most, of the
"SOS" articles first see the light of day in the main New In Chess magazine.
Opening theory articles used to be a staple of many chess magazines but
nowadays that sort of thing is largely left to computers and fringe magazines
like Kaissiber. Offbeat lines rather than main lines from master praxis are the
subject matter of the "SOS" series.
Apart from Timman's contributions, which gave the magazine the status of
having a world-class annotator and analyst with personal insight into top
chess, another major asset for them is co-editor Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam,
whose interviews opened the world of the professional player to rank-and-file
readers whereas other magazines' interviews traditionally only scratch the
surface and deal with current issues. An outstanding writer, he is now rightly
recognised internationally as one of the most outstanding journalists who have
ever written on the game in the English language. Jan Timman remains editorin-chief but Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam is undoubtedly his right-hand man and
probably takes much of the responsibility for the content of each issue.
Looking at an old issue at random, I picked number eight of 1998 from the
shelf; it had ninety-eight pages, starting with 'NIC's Caf' (three pages), which
is a potpourri of short items, followed by 'Readers' Letters' (two pages). There
were many photographs, but all in black-and-white. The issue's principal
feature was a report on Anand's win at Tilburg (pages ten through fifty-six)
with annotated games by most of the world's top grandmasters who played in
that tournament. There followed Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam's interview with
Vadim Zviagintsev who had done well at the Elista Olympiad; Alex
Yermolinsky's report on the victory by Nick de Firmian in the U.S.
Championship; a report on the Women's Olympiad at Elista; Gelfand's report
on the Cap d'Agde rapid event won by Karpov; an SOS article by Jeroen
Bosch on Svidler's gambit in the Grnfeld (1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 4 Bg5
Bg7!?); an article by Jan Timman replying to some criticism of his friendly
match with Kasparov; then finally three pages of 'Chess Notes' by Edward
Winter, an itinerant feature which soon migrated to the Internet.
By the end of 2002 the magazine had grown by eight pages and occasional
spots of colour were appearing. By the end of 2006 it was very colourful and
the more robust 'perfect bound' spine replaced staples.
The first issue of 2011 still begins with 'NIC's Caf' followed by a page of
'Your Move', consisting of short letters from readers, and then the publisher's
statement about the format change. Then comes Ten Geuzendam's report on
the London Classic in December 2010, won by Magnus Carlsen, and his
interview with American grandmaster Ken Rogoff, who has been a professor
at Harvard since 1999. (For more on that, see below.)
After that come reports on Reggio Emilia, the Russian Championship, and the
Women's World Championship as well as other articles. Jimmy Adams writes
a tribute to the late Larry Evans, Loek van Wely describes his "pre-sabbatical"
run on the American circuit, and in the SOS series, Jeroen Bosch examines
the North Sea Defence (1 e4 g6 2 d4 Nf6 3 e5 Nh5) which, as I showed in a
recent article, cost Magnus Carlsen a point against Michael Adams at the last
Olympiad. According to Bosch, Black had a good position until he became
over-ambitious at moves seventeen and eighteen. My reservation is that Bosch
does not mention any of the high-level correspondence games that have been
played in this defence.
Evans pulled off the following brilliancy when he was about fifteen. The
score is from NICBase online.
Robert Warner Larry Evans
U.S. Junior Championship 1947
Ruy Lopez [C84]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 00 Be7 6 c3 Nxe4 7 Re1 Nc5 8
Nxe5 Nxe5 9 Rxe5 Nxa4 10 Qxa4 00 11 d4 d5 12 Qb3 Bd6 13 Re1 Qh4
14 g3 Qh5 15 c4 dxc4 16 Qxc4 Bh3 17 Qb3 Rfe8 18 Rd1
[FEN "r3r1k1/1pp2ppp/p2b4/7q/3P4/
1Q4Pb/PP3P1P/RNBR2K1 b - - 0 18"]
Here Evans played

18...Re3!!
When if 19 Qxe3 Qxd1+ or 19 Bxe3 Qf3 quickly mate.
White played
19 fxe3 Qe2 20 Qxb7
Protecting g2, but then came
20...Qxd1+ 21 Kf2 Qf1# 01
The best defence is 19 Qc2! when Evans would have played 19Re2 (not
19Qf3?? 20 fxe3) 20 Qb3 Rae8 21 Bd2 R2e3! 22 fxe3 Qf3 "wins, as 23
Qc2 is no longer a defence!" (Adams).
I actually found the interview with Rogoff the most fascinating piece in the
whole issue, perhaps because I live in Ireland and I read it during our general
election campaign where the financial crisis was the number one issue.
Rogoff is one of the world's leading experts on such matters, and predicted the
Lehman Brothers crash (without naming them) and not long ago, he was chief
economist for the International Monetary Fund.
Ken Rogoff Jan Smejkal
Biel Interzonal 1976

This was one of Rogoff's memorable games. He said in the interview that the
Czech master Smejkal 'was outplaying me badly, but he slipped at one point
and let me have a counterattack which won.'
1 c4 Nf6 2 Nc3 c5 3 g3 g6 4 Bg2 Bg7 5 e3 00 6 Nge2 Nc6 7 00 d6 8 d4
cxd4 9 exd4 Bf5 10 h3 h5 11 Bg5 Qd7 12 Kh2 e5 13 d5 Nd4 14 Nxd4 exd4
15 Nb5 Rfc8 16 Rc1 Nh7 17 Bf4 g5 18 Bd2 a6 19 Na3 g4 20 hxg4 hxg4 21
b4
[FEN "r1r3k1/1p1q1pbn/p2p4/3P1b2/1PPp2p1/
N5P1/P2B1PBK/2RQ1R2 b - - 0 21"]
21...Bd3?!
The assessment begins to change at this point; 21...Nf6 maintains Black's
advantage.
22 Re1 Qf5 23 Kg1 Bf6?!
Now White can take the initiative.
24 c5 Ng5?
[FEN "r1r3k1/1p3p2/p2p1b2/2PP1qn1/1P1p2p1/
N2b2P1/P2B1PB1/2RQR1K1 w - - 0 25"]
This loses, but Black was already in trouble.

25 Bxg5! Bxg5 26 Nc4 Rd8 27 Nxd6 Rxd6 28 cxd6 Bxc1 29 Qxc1
[FEN "r5k1/1p3p2/p2P4/3P1q2/1P1p2p1/
3b2P1/P4PB1/2Q1R1K1 b - - 0 29"]
The passed pawn at d6 is going to be decisive now.

29...Rc8 30 Qd2 Kh7 31 d7 Rd8 32 Re7 Kg6 33 d6 Kf6 34 Qh6+ Qg6 35
Qh4+ Kg7 36 Re8 10
Ljubomir Ljubojevic Ken Rogoff
Malaga, 1971
This is the loss he mentions in the article. He was then about sixteen and
unused to being outcalculated. It was the last round and he needed a win for
an IM norm. Ljubojevic, who was three years older, amazed Rogoff by
showing him in the post-mortem how much more he had seen at an
unspecified critical point.
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 e5 dxe5 5 Nxe5 e6 6 Bb5+ Nbd7 7 d4 a6 8
Bxd7+ Nxd7 9 Qh5 Nxe5 10 dxe5 b6 11 Bg5 Qc7 12 000 Bb7 13 Rd2 h6
14 Rhd1
[FEN "r3kb1r/1bq2pp1/pp2p2p/2p1P1BQ/
8/2N5/PPPR1PPP/2KR4 b kq - 0 14"]
14...hxg5 15 Qxh8 Qxe5 16 f3 b5 17 Ne4 Bd5 18 Nxc5 000 19 Nd3 Qf5

19...Qc3 can be met by 20 Kb1 or even 20 bxa3 when White stands better
after the queens come off.
20 Kb1 b4 21 Qh5 Bd6 22 h4 Be7 23 hxg5 Qxg5 24 Qh2 Bf6 25 f4 Bxa2+
26 Kxa2 Qa5+ 27 Kb1 Bc3
[FEN "2kr4/5pp1/p3p3/q7/1p3P2/
2bN4/1PPR2PQ/1K1R4 w - - 0 28"]
Chessbase's Mega Database seems to give an incorrect finish: 28 Nc1?, saying

Black resigned. It cannot have been the final move of the game because it
blunders material: 28...Rxd2 29 Rxd2 Bxd2 30 Qh8+ Qd8 31 Qxg7 Bxc1 32
Kxc1 f6 and White must play a queen endgame with no obvious winning
chances.
28 g3
I think this is what was actually played.
28...Rd5 29 Nc1 10
I am not completely enamoured of everything New In Chess does. It virtually
ignores correspondence chess, which still has many adherents, and rarely has
historical articles. The "Just Checking" mini-interviews to which two pages in
each issue is devoted, is, to my mind, just trivia, obviously a questionnaire
which the grandmaster subjects can fill in during five idle minutes waiting to
board in some airport lounge. Maybe this is just a generational thing?
However, the new layout means that it is an even greater waste of space than
before, space filled with fairly meaningless graphics.
Its policy on book reviews is idiosyncratic to say the least. Most books are
ignored and no publisher can count on a mention of a new book however
worthy. Instead New In Chess has lengthy book articles by semi-retired
grandmasters (nowadays Jonathan Rowson) who tend to write at length on
whatever they fancy. The most recent article is a good example. Rowson
writes three pages on a book, Counterplay: An Anthropologist at the
Chessboard by Robert Desjarlais, that was not yet in print at the time. It is
extremely doubtful that this advance publicity was of as much help to the
author or publisher in selling the book, interesting though it sounds, as a
review of the book would have been in a future issue. For the potential reader
it is very frustrating to be advised to wait for a book when they would rather
be given advice on picking between books that are actually newly available.
However, subscribers got a big surprise recently when the first issue of 2011
dropped through the letterbox. The number of pages was about the same, but
the page format was changed to a larger size, and not to the familiar European
A4 format either. Also the paper quality was improved, enabling better colour
printing.
There was a time when most European chess magazines were published in the
A5 format, as British Chess Magazine still is today. That is, a page size of
14.8 x 21 cm (roughly 6 x 8 inches). Convenient for the bookshelf, but
restrictive in its design possibilities, A5 is the cheapest printing choice. When
I ran my own magazine, Chess Mail, I would have preferred the New In Chess
format but many printers (especially in Britain and Ireland) are not geared to
it, and by mailing in the corresponding (C5) envelope size, mailing costs are
also kept to a minimum. Layout, however, can only be single or double
column and large photographs are impossible.
To avoid having extremely boring layouts, I sometimes typeset page spreads
with asymmetric columns (and a light grey tint behind the narrower outer
columns) but only certain types of features were suited to this treatment. Most
A5 layouts are boring.
When some magazines preferred a larger page, it has tended to be A4 (double
the size of A5), which is 21 x 29.7cm. Thus B. H. Wood's old magazine
Chess, which was in A5 format from the early 1950s onwards (it had
originally been larger), was changed to A4 when he retired and it was taken
over by Robert Maxwell's Pergamon Press and ultimately by its present
publishers, Chess and Bridge.
Anybody who looks at the magazine rack in a British or Irish newsagent
immediately sees that the A4 format is dominant. A magazine in A5 will not
achieve many impulse sales, if indeed the newsagent will display it at all. A5
is for subscription magazines and A4 for point-of-sale marketing. In North
America, where the metric A and B page sizes are not used, the standard page
is US Letter, slightly wider and squatter than A4.
New In Chess, up to the end of 2010, was instead published in the 16.5 x
24cm format which continental printers are perhaps more used to, although
for books it is becoming more popular. That page size is still used by the
popular Spanish-language magazine Jaque for which I write occasionally.
(Their co-editor Yago Gallach assures me they have no plans to change.) This
wider format means that it is possible to have a three-column layout, and
although it means narrow columns, space can be saved with smaller diagrams
and neater typesetting of game-scores, facilitating the inclusion of more
material without seeming too crowded.
New In Chess have now switched to 21 x 27cm, which is just fractionally

smaller than the US Letter paper size in each dimension. This wider format is
still chiefly suitable for three-column layouts but the columns are wider and
the pattern can be varied. It will be interesting to see how they develop this in
future issues.
My main concern, however, is, how will I fit this on my bookshelves? Will I
bother to keep every issue indefinitely, as I have done in the past? Is there not
a tendency that in the future an issue will be read and then disposed of
because there is nowhere convenient to keep it, except maybe in ugly piles?
Here is a game from a recent tournament, taken from the new issue (but not
with the same notes).
Paco Vallejo Alexander Onischuk
Reggio Emilia 2010/11
Scotch Game [C45]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nxc6 bxc6 6 e5 Qe7 7 Qe2 Nd5
8 Nd2
Vallejo seemed to think this would be a surprise to his opponent, and was
disappointed by the quick reply. Many database-driven modern masters just
don't seem to know old theory!
8...Bb7
[FEN "r3kb1r/pbppqppp/2p5/3nP3/8/8/
PPPNQPPP/R1B1KB1R w KQkq - 0 9"]
"Now I was out of book after having been the first to deviate," writes Vallejo,
but this position occurred in the eighth and tenth games of the 1916 MiesesTarrasch match.
9 Nf3
Mieses played 9 Nb3 here but the complications favour Black. White could
return to main lines by 9 c4 but Vallejo did not want that.
9...Qb4+ 10 Qd2 Qe4+! 11 Be2
A game N. Yaremenko-M. Kravtsiv, Minsk 2006, continued instead 11 Qe2
Bb4+ 12 Kd1 Qg6 13 c4 Ba6 14 Qc2 Nb6 15 Bd2 Bc5 16 b4 Be7 17 Qxg6
hxg6 18 Rc1 c5 19 a3 Bb7 20 Bd3 Rh5 21 Re1 Bxf3+ 22 gxf3 000 23 f4
Rxh2 ( , 51) but after winning the pawn Black probably should have
won.
11...Ba6 12 Kf1 Bxe2+ 13 Qxe2 Qf5?!
Vallejo says Black should have played 13...Qxe2+ followed probably by 14...
d6.
14 c4 Nb4 15 Bd2 Bc5
15...Nxa2 would be met by 16 Nd4 (not 16 Rxa2?? Qb1+) 16...Qg6 17 f4.
15...Be7 "was a reasonable alternative" says Vallejo in his notes, but since
White can reply exactly the same way as in the game, it is incomprehensible
why he awards "!?" to the text.
16 Bxb4! Bxb4 17 Rd1 00 18 Qd3 Qe6 19 Ng5 Qh6 20 h4! Rad8?!
20...Rae8! was correct, says Vallejo.
21 Rh3 d5? 22 Qf5 Rde8 23 Rf3
[FEN "4rrk1/p1p2ppp/2p4q/3pPQN1/
1bP4P/5R2/PP3PP1/3R1K2 b - - 0 23"]
23 cxd5 is objectively better according to the winner's notes.

23...Qxh4?
Black falls into the trap.
24 Rh3 Qxc4+ 25 Kg1 g6 26 Qf6 Be7
[FEN "4rrk1/p1p1bp1p/2p2Qp1/3pP1N1/
2q5/7R/PP3PP1/3R2K1 w - - 0 27"]
Do you see what Onischuk overlooked?

27 Nxh7!!
Black cannot take the queen because the knight recaptures with check and
then 29 Rh7 is mate. This is only the first point, however. The second (not
mentioned in the notes in the magazine) is that if Black makes some random
move now, White sets up the same mating pattern by 28 Qh8+! Kxh8 29 Nf6
+ etc.
27...Qg4
Threatening to take the rook on d1 with check as well as meeting the threat
just mentioned because there would be ...Qxh3 at the end. White's next move
is the third point of the combination.
27...Qe2 is met the same way.
28 Qxe7!! 10
Black resigned because if 28...Qxh3 (or 28...Rxe7? 29 Nf6+; if 28...Qxd1+ 29

Kh2 Qh5 30 Nf6+ wins Black's queen while saving White's own, and mate
soon follows.) 29 Nf6+ and 30 Nxe8; 29 Qxf8+ Rxf8 30 Nf6+ and 31 gxh3
also wins.
By the way, since I mentioned Rogoff, I saw from the business pages in the
28 February issue of The Times of London that another retired grandmaster
and former stockbroker, is making a come-back, although not to chess. David
Norwood is returning to the financial world as chairman of a company called
Retroscreen Virology, after two years. Norwood had given up his previous
career in 2008 to spend two years as a writer on a remote island in the
Bahamas. Talk about getting away from it all! The paper has an amusing
photo of Norwood in T-shirt, Bermuda shorts and a baseball cap, dangling
two huge fishes from either hand. Maybe you can find it on the Internet.
David Norwood Sofia Polgar
Bermuda 1995
Rti Opening [A06]
1 Nf3 d5 2 b3 Nf6 3 Bb2 Bf5 4 g3 e6 5 d3 Be7 6 Nbd2 00 7 Nh4 Bg4 8 h3
Bh5 9 g4 Nfd7 10 Ng2 Bg6 11 e3 e5 12 Qf3 c6 13 h4 h6?
13...f6! is a much better way of providing a retreat for the bishop, shoring up
the e-pawn at the same time.
14 Qg3 Re8 15 Be2 Bb4
[FEN "rn1qr1k1/pp1n1pp1/2p3bp/3pp3/
1b4PP/1P1PP1Q1/PBPNBPN1/R3K2R w KQ - 0 16"]
This prepares an exchange that seems to help White. Polgar perhaps expected
the reply 16 000.
16 a3!
16 000 Qe7 17 e4 a5 with counterplay; the white king paradoxically turns
out to be safer in the centre.
16...Bxd2+ 17 Kxd2 c5 18 f4 exf4
18...f6 would induce the breakthrough 19 g5.
19 Nxf4 Nf8 20 g5
Now a kingside file must open.
20...hxg5 21 hxg5 d4 22 exd4 cxd4 23 Qh2 Bh7
[FEN "rn1qrnk1/pp3ppb/8/6P1/3p1N2/
PP1P4/1BPKB2Q/R6R w - - 0 24"]
The only way to prevent mate but now the bishop will be hemmed in.
24 g6! fxg6 25 Bf3 Re5
She could have resigned. There is no time for 25...Nc6 because of the pretty
finish 26 Bd5+ Kh8 27 Qxh7+! Nxh7 28 Nxg6#.
26 Bxb7 Nc6 27 Bxc6 Rc8 28 Qg2 g5 29 Bd5+ 10
Postscript
English reader John Townsend thanks me for my interesting article on C. F.
Smith but points out that it's possible he was not the Smith who was deprived
of an opportunity to play Morphy at Birmingham in 1858. I cannot now recall
why, several years ago, I jumped to the conclusion it was the same person but
certainly others have done so as well. The ChessBase Mega Database also has
C. F. Smith scoring a walkover against Morphy and then conceding one to R.
B. Brien.
As Townsend points out, Staunton wrote in the Illustrated London News on 4
September 1858 that "Messrs Ingleby and Smith, two members of the
Birmingham Club, only joined the tournament in order to complete the
number, there being no chance of there maintaining a struggle against such
powerful opponents." Then with respect to round two, he wrote: "Mr Smith
resigned the game without playing, his name having been inserted only to fill
up the number." Townsend rightly says that C. F. Smith, at least at the
strength he displayed around 1849-50, would have been able to give Brien a
decent game. While it is possible he was living in Birmingham in 1858, and
that Staunton might not have remembered him, it is more likely than not that
the 1858 Smith was not C. F.
Incidentally, I was able in the British Library last week to look again at the
Chess Player's Chronicle for 1850 where I found three more games between
C. F. Smith and Bird from that year which were not included in my statistics
last month. Bird won two and Smith won the other. There was also one more
game from early 1851 (possibly played late in 1850) which Bird won. Also
Rod Edwards points out that his rating calculations were recently updated, but
he thinks (and I agree) that it is unwise to include results from published
games, which are not from set matches or tournaments, because they may
well be unrepresentative of the full set of games played between a pair of
opponents.

Remembrance of Endgames Past

It has been a long time since this column featured endgames. Back in the late
1960s and early 1970s, long before databases, I gradually compiled a large
index file of practical endgames and late middle-game positions that mutated
into endgames. These were mostly taken from the Russian monthly
Shakhmatny Bulletin and other chess magazines to which I subscribed in those
days. Also, I saved the endings of several games that I played myself and
some played by others from tournaments in which I competed.
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Translate this page
The card index, recently rediscovered, has at least 250 entries and I have
started to go through them. Several have annotations, the source of which is
not always stated, and usually I had not recorded where I found the game,
alas. Of course the notes may be unreliable. None of the games in this article
were played (or originally annotated) with the benefit of modern computers.
As I wanted to show how the endings were seen at the time they were
originally played and published, I have not attempted to re-analyse most of
them in the light of computer analysis technology, especially as engines are at
their least reliable in endgames. But then it is well known that this is the phase
of the game where human analysis can sometimes be better than that of the
machine, even today.
Purchases from our

accessible:
ECE: Rook Endings

by Chess Informant
The one important exception is that in some of the five-man endgames shown
here, tablebases provide an irrefutable guide to the correct result and line of
play. This affects mostly the last few examples where my intention was to
compare what leading endgame analysts thought in the 1970s and 1980s with
what is known for certain today. Readers can have fun analysing all these
endings for themselves, but I do not intend to participate in any debate about
them.

the games from
There is material in the card index for about three columns, beginning with
this one. So more will follow later this year. Many of the games recorded are
well-known by famous grandmasters and world champions; these I exclude as
I am sure they are easily available. I checked about twenty-five percent of the
games so far to see if they are in ChessBase's Mega Database 2011. Many are,
but some are not, and in a few cases the august database includes an incorrect
move or truncates the finish. Here is a case where I think that database may be
wrong.
ECE: Queen Endings

by Chess Informant
Oleg Privorotsky Arkady Novopashin

Leningrad 1967
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nc6 5 Nc3 d6 6 Be2 Nf6 7 Be3 Be7 8 0
0 00 9 Nb3 a6 10 f4 b5 11 a3 Bb7 12 Bf3 Rc8 13 Qe1 e5 14 f5 Na5 15
Nxa5 Qxa5 16 Bg5 Qb6+ 17 Qf2 Qxf2+ 18 Rxf2 d5 19 Bxf6 gxf6 20 Re2
Bc5+ 21 Kf1 Bd4 22 Nxd5 Bxd5 23 exd5 Bxb2 24 Ra2 Bc3 25 a4 b4 26 a5
Rfd8 27 Be4 Rc4 28 g3 Rd4 29 Kf2 Kf8 30 Kf3 Ke7 31 Ra4 Kd6 32 Ke3
Kc5 33 Ra2 Rd6 34 Kf3 Rd1 35 Ke3 Kc4 36 Ra4 Rf1 37 Ra2 Kc5 38 Ra4
ECE: Minor Piece Endings

by Chess Informant
[FEN "8/5p1p/p2r1p2/P1kPpP2/Rp2B3/
2b1K1P1/2P1R2P/5r2 b - - 0 38"]
In ChessBase's version the game ends here as 0-1, which is implausible unless
White's flag fell. My card index actually begins at this point. I probably found
this in Shakhmatny Bulletin or another Russian magazine. My index card says
the finish from here was as follows:
38...Rxd5 39 Bxd5 Kxd5 40 g4 e4 41 Rg2 Ke5 42 Rg3 Rc1 43 Ra2 Re1+ 44
Kf2 Rh1 45 Rh3 Kf4 46 Rxh7 e3+ 01
Here then is a selection of endgames, mostly from my cards. I begin with king
and pawn and conclude with queen and pawn endgames.
King and Pawn Endings
This type of ending is fundamental, so even when there are one or two pairs
of pieces on the board players must always be aware of the possibility of
liquidation. After a winning advantage has crystallized here, there is rarely a
second chance for the weaker party, unless a queen endgame results.
Alexander Zaitsev Enver Bukic
USSR v Yugoslavia, Skopje 1969
[FEN "8/5kp1/4p3/4KpP1/1p1P4/
1P6/8/8 b - - 0 66"]
66...g6 67 d5 exd5 68 Kxd5 Ke7 69 Ke5 Kd7 70 Kd5 Kc7 71 Kc5 f4 72

Kd4 Kd6 73 Ke4 f3 74 Kxf3 Ke5 75 Ke3 Kf5 76 Kd4 Kxg5 77 Kc5 Kf4 78
Kxb4 g5 79 Kc3 Ke3 01
Wolfgang Unzicker Arturo Pomar Salamanca
Clare Benedict Cup team tournament, Leysin 1967
Caro-Kann Defence [B14]
1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 cxd5 4 c4 Nf6 5 Nc3 e6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Nf3 00 8 Bd3
dxc4 9 Bxc4 b6 10 00 Ba6 11 Bxa6 Nxa6 12 Ne5 Nb4 13 a3 Nbd5 14 Nc6
Qd7 15 Nxe7+ Qxe7 16 Nxd5 exd5 17 Re1 Qd6 18 Bxf6 Qxf6 19 Re5 Qc6
20 Rc1 Qb5 21 Qe2 Qxe2 22 Rxe2 Rfc8 23 Rec2 Rxc2 24 Rxc2 Kf8 25 f3
Re8 26 Kf2 Re6 27 Rc8+ Re8 28 Rc6 Re6 29 Rxe6 fxe6
[FEN "5k2/p5pp/1p2p3/3p4/3P4/P4P2/
1P3KPP/8 w - - 0 30"]
30 Ke3 Ke7 31 Kf4 Kd6

If 31...Kf6 32 h4 h6 33 a4 a5 34 b3 g5+ 35 hxg5+ hxg5+ 36 Ke3! e5 37 g3!
and wins.
32 a4 a6 33 b4 a5 34 b5 h6 35 h4 g6 36 g3! e5+
Black is lost. If 36...Kd7 37 Ke5 Ke7 38 g4.
37 dxe5+ Ke6 38 g4 g5+!? 39 hxg5 hxg5+ 40 Kxg5 Kxe5
[FEN "8/8/1p6/pP1pk1K1/P5P1/
5P2/8/8 w - - 0 41"]
41 f4+
41 Kh4! is simpler; e.g., 41...Kf4 42 g5 Kf5 43 g6!+- Kxg6 44 Kg4 Kf6 45
Kf4 Ke6 46 Ke3.
41...Ke4 42 f5 d4 43 f6 d3 44 f7 d2 45 f8Q d1Q 46 Qf5+ Ke3 47 Qf4+ Ke2
48 Kh6! Qd8 49 Qe5+ Kf3 50 g5 Kg4 51 g6 Qh4+ 52 Kg7 Qd8 53 Qe4+
Kg5 54 Kf7! Qf6+
54...Qd7+ 55 Qe7+ forces off queens and wins the black b-pawn.
55 Ke8 Kh6 56 g7 Kxg7 57 Qe7+ Kg6 58 Qxf6+ Kxf6 59 Kd7 10
J. Pogats Gedeon Barcza
Hungarian ch, Budapest 1955
[FEN "8/7p/p7/1p1p1k2/1P6/P3K1P1/
7P/8 w - - 0 41"]
41 h3
If 41 Kd4 Kg4 42 Kxd5 Kh3:
a) 43 Kc5 h5 44 Kb6 Kxh2 45 Kxa6 Kxg3 46 Kxb5 h4 47 a4 h3 48 a5 h2 49
a6 h1Q and wins, which is why White is doomed to ultimately unsuccessful
manoeuvres on the kingside.
b) 43 Ke4 Kxh2 44 Kf3 h6!;
41 Kf3 Kg5 42 Kg2 Kg4 43 h3+ Kg5! 44 Kf2 (44 Kf3 Kf5) and now 44...
Kf6!! 45 Ke2 d4 46 Kd3 Ke5 47 g4 Kf4 transposes to the game continuation.
41...Ke5 42 g4 d4+ 43 Kd3 Kf4 44 Kxd4 Kg3 45 Ke4 Kxh3 46 Kf4 Kg2 47
g5 Kf2 48 Kg4 Ke3 49 Kg3 Ke4 50 Kg4 Ke5 51 Kh5 Kf5 52 Kh4 Kf4 53
Kh5 Kg3 54 Kh6 Kg4 0-1
White resigns as he can no longer avoid the liquidation of the kingside
followed by losing the race to the queenside.
Mark Taimanov Sakharov
37th USSR ch semifinal, Rostov-on-Don 1969
[FEN "8/5pk1/6pp/4r3/5R2/6P1/
3K3P/8 b - - 0 54"]
Normally rook and three versus rook and two on the same wing will be
drawn. If the white king were on g1 or g2 that would be the case here also.
54...Rf5! 55 Rxf5
After 55 Rh4 g5 56 Rh3 Rf2+ 57 Ke3 Rb2, White should lose because of his
badly placed rook. So he tries the pawn ending instead, hoping to be saved by
Black's broken pawns.
55...gxf5 56 Ke3 Kg6 57 Kf4 Kf6
[FEN "8/5p2/5k1p/5p2/5K2/6P1/
7P/8 w - - 0 57"]
58 h3 Kg6 59 Ke3 Kh5 60 Kf4 Kg6 61 Ke3 Kg5 62 Kf3 h5 63 h4+ Kg6 64
Ke3 Kg7 65 Kf3 f6 66 Kf4 Kg6 67 Kf3 Kf7 68 Kf4 Ke6 69 Kf3
For 69 Ke3 Ke5 see the position after move seventy-one in the game.
69...Kd6
69...Ke5 70 Ke3 f4+ 71 gxf4+ Kd5! also wins (but not 71...Kf5 72 Kf3=).
70 Kf4 Ke6 71 Ke3 Ke5 72 Kf3
[FEN "8/8/5p2/4kp1p/7P/5KP1/8/8 b - - 0 72"]
72...f4! 73 g4
73 gxf4+ Kf5 wins for Black here because it is White's move: 74 Kg3 Ke4 75
f5 Kxf5 76 Kf3 Ke5.
73...hxg4+ 74 Kxg4 Ke4 75 h5 f3 76 h6 f2 01
Vladas Mikenas B. Vladimirov
USSR ch semifinal, Moscow 1963
[FEN "8/p2r1k1p/2RP2p1/8/2p3P1/2Nb4/
PP5P/6K1 w - - 0 32"]
32 Na4!?
A knight on the rim with lots of vim! However, 32 Kf2 Ke6 33 Ke3 Rxd6 34
Rxd6+ Kxd6 35 Kd4 was perhaps objectively superior.
32...Ke6 33 Nc5+ Kd5 34 Nxd7 Kxc6 35 Ne5+ Kxd6 36 Nxd3 cxd3 37 Kf2
[FEN "8/p6p/3k2p1/8/6P1/3p4/PP3K1P/
8 b - - 0 37"]
All forced to here.

37...Kd5?
After this the point of White's simplification becomes clear. Black probably
missed a draw here, by 37...Ke5 38 Ke3 d2 39 Kxd2 Kf4 40 h3 Kg3 41 Ke3
Kxh3 42 Kf3 Kh4 43 Kf4 h5 (43...g5+ 44 Kf3 h5) 44 gxh5 Kxh5 45 b4 g5+
46 Kg3 Kg6.
38 Ke3 Kc4
[FEN "8/p6p/6p1/8/2k3P1/3pK3/PP5P/
8 w - - 0 39"]
39 g5
Forcing Black to move his a-pawn.
39...a6 40 h3
And again. This is Black's last reserve tempo.
40...a5 41 a4!!
Black must have missed this idea at move thirty-seven.
41...d2
If 41...Kb4 42 Kxd3 Kxa4 43 Kc4 (zugzwang) 43...h5 44 gxh6 g5 45 h7 g4 46
h8Q.
42 Kxd2 1-0
Black resigned, as 42...Kb4 is met in the same way; while if 42...Kd4 43 b3,
White crawls forward and eventually obtains a winning passed pawn.
Milan Vukic Wolfgang Pietzsch
Sarajevo 1967
Based on notes by GM B. Ivkov.
[FEN "4k3/ppr2p2/4p1p1/7p/2P1K3/1P4P1/
P4P1P/3R4 w - - 0 34"]
34 Rd4 f6 35 f4 Ke7 36 b4 b6?

In this endgame Black gets a painful lesson on the dangers of passive defence.
36...a5! was the best try.
37 Kd3 Rc8 38 Kc3 e5 39 fxe5 fxe5 40 Rd5 Ke6 41 a4 a6? (41...Rf8!) 42 a5
b5 43 Rc5 Rxc5 44 bxc5
[FEN "8/8/p3k1p1/PpP1p2p/2P5/
2K3P1/7P/8 b - - 0 44"]
44...Kd7??
Disastrous. There were two better options:
a) 44...b4+! 45 Kxb4 Kd7 46 Kc3 Kc6 47 Kb4 e4=.
b) 44...bxc4 45 Kxc4 e4 46 Kd4 e3 47 Kxe3 Kd5 48 Kf4 Kxc5 49 Kg5 Kb5
50 Kxg6 Kxa5 51 Kxh5 Kb4 and the tablebase server shows that the resulting
queen and h-pawn versus ending is comfortably drawn for Black.
45 cxb5 axb5 46 h4 10
Chris Shephard M. P. Townsend
England 1969
This position occurred in the Sunday Times British schools team competition
semifinal in 1969.
[FEN "8/1p4p1/3n4/p1N1p1k1/2P3P1/
PP2K3/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
The adjudicators Hugh Alexander and Bernard Cafferty awarded White a win
because of the following continuation:
1 Ne4+!
Forcing a king and pawn ending which is won although White goes a pawn
down.
1...Nxe4 2 Kxe4 Kxg4
[FEN "8/1p4p1/8/p3p3/2P1K1k1/
PP6/8/8 w - - 0 3"]
3 b4!
3 c5 wins also but is less obviously forcing.
3...axb4 4 axb4 Kh4
a) 4...Kh5 fails to a skewer after 5 c5 g5 6 b5 g4 7 c6 bxc6 8 bxc6 g3 9 c7 g2
10 c8Q g1Q 11 Qh8+.
b) 4...Kh3 5 c5 with the same breakthrough, White queening with check.
c) 4...Kg5 5 Kxe5 Kg6 6 Ke6 shuts out the black king: 6...Kh7 7 c5 g5 8 Kf5
Kg7 9 b5
5 c5 g5 6 b5 g4 7 c6 bxc6 8 bxc6 g3
[FEN "8/8/2P5/4p3/4K2k/6p1/8/8 w - - 0 9"]
9 Kf3! (9 Ke3 also wins.) 9...e4+!

The black king dare not move to h3, because then White queens with check.
10 Kg2! e3 11 Kf3! 10
I conclude this section with a finish of my own, albeit not from the card index.
On this occasion I had to work a night shift on a newspaper, for which it was
necessary to finish as quickly as possible after the move-forty time control. To
achieve this outcome, transition to a pawn ending was ideal.
Gerry O'Connell Tim Harding
Dublin Telecom 1991
[FEN "4r3/p4n2/1p3kp1/2pR4/4Pp2/5K1B/
1P4PP/8 b - - 0 39"]
39...Ng5+ 40 Kxf4 Rxe4+ 41 Kg3 Nxh3 42 Kxh3 Rd4!

Mission accomplished. White might do some thinking but all the rest of my
moves could be played instantly.
43 Rxd4 cxd4 44 Kg3 Ke5 45 Kf3 a5 46 h4
No better is 46 Ke2 a4, etc.
46...a4 47 g4 b5 48 Ke2
Or 48 h5 gxh5 49 gxh5 b4 50 h6 Kf6, etc.
48...b4 01
Queen and Pawn Endgames
Because of the power of the queen on an open board, these can be among the
trickiest to play in practice. The very simplified ones were among the first to
be solved by computer and play in some of the following has been checked
against the tablebases which infallibly show the objectively correct result and
line of play. The first of these, however, has several pawns and so is not
amenable to exhaustion by computer.
Aron Nimzowitsch O. Antze
Hannover 1926
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 g3 Bg7 4 Bg2 00 5 f4 d6 6 Nf3 c6 7 00 d5 8 cxd5 cxd5
9 Ne5 Qb6 10 Nc3 Rd8 11 b3 Na6 12 Ba3 Bf8 13 Na4 Qb5 14 Qd3 Qa5 15
Rfc1 Bf5 16 Qc3 Qb5 17 Bf1 Ne4 18 Qe1 Qe8 19 e3 b5 20 Nc6 Rdc8 21
Bxb5 Bd7 22 Bxa6 Rxc6 23 Bb7 Rxc1 24 Rxc1 Rd8 25 Nc5 Bc8 26 Bxc8
Rxc8 27 Qa5 e6 28 Nxe4 dxe4 29 Rxc8 Qxc8 30 Bc5 Bxc5 31 Qxc5 Qa6 32
Qc2 Qa5 33 Kf2 Qh5 34 Qxe4 Qxh2+ 35 Qg2 Qh5 36 g4 Qa5 37 Kg3 h6
38 Qf2 Qc7 39 Kh3 f5 40 gxf5 gxf5 41 d5 exd5 42 Qg2+ Kf7 43 Qxd5+ Kf6
[FEN "8/p1q5/5k1p/3Q1p2/5P2/1P2P2K/
P7/8 w - - 0 44"]
This position illustrates manoeuvring in a queen ending with many pawns.

44 Qd4+ Kg6 45 Qd2 Kf6 46 Qb2+ Kg6 47 b4 Qc4 48 Qd2 Kh5 (48...Qf1
+?? 49 Qg2+) 49 a4 a6 50 Kg3 Qg8+ 51 Kh2 Qc4 52 Qb2 Qd3 53 Qg2 Qc4
54 Kg3 Qg8+ 55 Kh3 Qc4 56 Qf3+ Kg6 57 Kh4 Kg7
57...Qxb4 58 Qc6+ Kg7 59 Kh5! Euwe.
58 Qb7+ Kg6 59 Qb6+ Kh7 60 Qf6! Qd5
To set up perpetual check with ...Qh1+, but...
61 Kg3 Qg8+ 62 Kh2 Qa2+ 63 Kh3 Qd5
[FEN "8/7k/p4Q1p/3q1p2/PP3P2/4P2K/
8/8 w - - 0 64"]
64 Qe7+
64 Qxa6? Qf3+ 65 Kh2 Qf2+, etc.
64...Kg6 65 Qe8+! Kh7
If 65...Kf6 66 Kg3 Qd3 67 a5 Qf1 68 Qe5+ Kg6 69 Qe6+ Kg7 70 Qxf5 Qg1+
71 Kf3 Qf1+ 72 Ke4 Qc4+ 73 Ke5 Qb5+ 74 Ke6 and wins (Nimzowitsch).
66 Kg3 Qb3 67 a5!
[FEN "4Q3/7k/p6p/P4p2/1P3P2/1q2P1K1/
8/8 b - - 0 67"]
67...Qb1?!
67...Qd3 gave more chances of a draw, but not after 68 Qf7+ Kh8 69 Qf6+
Kh7 70 Qd4!:
a) 70...Qxd4 71 exd4 Kg7 72 b5, etc.
b) 70...Qb1 71 Qd7+ Kg6 72 Qc6+ Kg7 73 Qb7+ Kf8 74 Qxa6 winning as in
the game.
c) 70...Qf1 71 Qd7+ Kg6 72 Qe6+ Kg7 73 Qxf5 winning eventually.
68 Qd7+ Kg6 69 Qc6+ Kg7 70 Qb7+ Kf8 71 Qxa6 Qe1+ 72 Kf3 Qd1+ 73
Qe2 Qd5+ 74 Kf2 Qd8 75 a6 Qh4+ 76 Kg2 Qe7 77 Qf3 Qc7 78 b5 Qg7+
79 Kf2 Qb2+ 80 Qe2 Qa1 81 b6 10
Horst Rittner Sandor Szekely
Eberhardt Wilhelm Cup correspondence 1963
[FEN "7q/3pk3/p3p3/1p1PPp2/1P5p/P1QP4/
7P/7K b - - 0 36"]
Black possibly missed a win here. The pin on the diagonal looks natural so he
played 36...Qa8 but it turned out that the resulting king and pawn position
was drawn. The game ended as follows: 37 Qd4 Qxd5+ 38 Qxd5 exd5 39
Kg2 Ke6 40 d4 f4 41 Kf3 Kf5 42 h3
Instead Black could have played 36...Qh5!.
Now I. Bottlik & Szekely gave the following possible continuation in Magyar
Sakvilag: 37 Qc5+ Kf7 38 dxe6+ dxe6 39 Qa7+ Kg6 40 Qe7 Qd1+ 41 Kg2 h3
+ 42 Kf2 Qd2+ 43 Kf1 Qxd3+ 44 Kf2 Qd4+ 45 Kf3 Qe4+ 46 Kf2 Qg2+ 47
Ke3 Qg5+ 48 Qxg5+ Kxg5 with a winning king and pawn ending; e.g., 49
Kf3 f4 50 Ke4 Kg4.
The next one soon becomes a queen endgame.
Alexander Zaitsev Kosenkov
RSFSR ch semifinal 1965
[FEN "8/4Kpp1/4b3/4P1k1/2p3p1/6P1/
5R1P/8 w - - 0 51"]
51 Rxf7 Bxf7 52 Kxf7 c3 53 e6 c2 54 e7 c1Q 55 e8Q
[FEN "4Q3/5Kp1/8/6k1/6p1/6P1/7P/
2q5 b - - 0 55"]
55...Qf1+ 56 Kg8 Qf6 57 Qd7 g6!?

Black could also try 57...Kh6, giving up the advanced pawn but driving the
black king away: 58 Qxg4 Qd8+ 59 Kf7 Qf6+ 60 Ke8 Qe5+ 61 Kd7 and it
will be hard for White to make progress.
Perhaps the passive defence by 57...Kh5 would have been best, as exchanging
queens does not win for White: 58 Qf7+ Kh6 59 Qxf6+ gxf6 60 Kf7 Kg5 61
Ke6 Kg6
58 Kh7 Qb2??
After 58...Kh5 59 Qe8, Black is getting squeezed, but 59...Qg5 should hold.
Not, however, 59...Kg5? 60 Qe3+ Kf5 61 Qf4+ Ke6 62 Qxg4+ Kf7 63 Qd7+
Kf8 64 h4, etc.
59 Qd5+ 1-0
Black resigns, if 59...Kf6 60 Qd6+ Kf7 (If 60...Kg5 61 Qxg6 mate, while if
60...Kf5 61 Qxg6+ Ke5 62 Qg7+ wins the queen.) 61 Qxg6+ Kf8 62 Qg8+
Ke7 63 Qg7+ forcing queens off.
Raul Sanguinetti Lubomir Kavalek
Havana Olympiad final-A 1966
From the days when GM Kavalek still represented Czechoslovakia. This one
is in the databases.
[FEN "3Q4/6pk/p6p/8/8/KPq5/P7/8 w - - 0 33"]
33 Qd5 Qf6 34 b4 Qg5 35 Qc4 Qf6 36 Kb3 h5 37 a4 h4 38 b5 axb5 39

axb5 Qf3+ 40 Ka4 h3 41 b6 Qg2 42 Qd3+ g6 43 b7 Qxb7 44 Qxh3+
[FEN "8/1q5k/6p1/8/K7/7Q/8/8 b - - 0 44"]
After the simplification, we have a knight's pawn on the third rank only. It
should not win but White fell into a trap.
44...Kg7 45 Qc3+ Kg8 46 Qf6 Qe4+ 47 Kb3 Kh7 48 Qg5 Kg7 49 Ka3 Kf7
50 Kb3 Ke6 51 Ka3 Qd3+
[FEN "8/8/4k1p1/6Q1/8/K2q4/8/8 w - - 0 52"]
52 Ka4?
52 Kb2 is necessary, and draws, as GM Bruno Parma pointed out at the time.
52...Qd7+! 0-1
Black forces the queen exchange whatever the reply.
Now for three connected simplified examples featuring the theoretically
difficult case of a knight's pawn on the sixth rank.
Lyavdansky Volovich
Moscow-Leningrad 1968
[FEN "8/7K/6P1/8/4q3/2Q5/8/1k6 w - - 0 1"]
GM Lev Polugayevsky was asked to adjudicate this position, which would

decide the 1968 Moscow-Leningrad match but he had no theory to guide him.
Subsequently the ending of queen and g-pawn (or b-pawn) on the sixth rank
against queen was subjected to detailed analysis.
Analysis by Moscow master Lisitsin, published in 64 in 1969, claimed White
had a forced winning method. This was then tested in the PodgayetsShamkovich game (see below). Further analytical articles appeared, by
Novotelnov (Shakhmatny Bulletin 7/1970, page 199) and Faibisovich
(Shakhmatny Bulletin 2/1971, page 40).
GM Yuri Averbakh reviewed the debate in detail in volume three of his
Comprehensive Chess Endings series (translation by Ken Neat, Pergamon
Press 1986) pages 69-74, but he came to the conclusion that theory could not
yet decide the question. The tablebase says this position is a draw.
1 Qb3+
The first phase of Lisitsin's plan is to transfer the white queen to a6 and king
to a7 so that both pieces are on the file adjacent to the black king. Remember
that White has a maximum of fifty moves in which to advance his pawn or
exchange queens.
1...Ka1 2 Qa3+ Kb1 3 Qd6
This protects the pawn and the queen provides some shelter for the king to run
across the board.
3...Ka1 4 Kg8 Qa8+ 5 Kf7 Qb7+ 6 Ke6 Qb3+ 7 Qd5 Qb6+ 8 Kf5 Qf2+ 9
Kg5 Qg1+ 10 Kf6 Qf2+ 11 Qf5 Qb6+ 12 Kg7 Qb7+ 13 Qf7 Qe4
There are no more delaying checks because after 13...Qb2+ 14 Qf6 the queens
are exchanged.
14 Qa7+ Kb1 15 Qb6+ Ka1 16 Qa6+ Kb1 17 Kf7 Qd5+ 18 Ke7 Qe5+ 19
Kd8 Qh8+ 20 Kc7 Qg7+ 21 Kb8
[FEN "1K6/6q1/Q5P1/8/8/8/8/1k6 b - - 0 21"]
21...Qh8+
21...Qe5+ is stronger according to Averbakh, and would lead to a position
seen in the next ending. It turns out, however, that 21...Qh8+ should not lose.
22 Ka7
Accomplishing phase one of the Lisitsin plan.
22...Qe5
The tablebase says a draw is still the correct result and that 22...Qc3 also
holds.
23 Qb7+ Ka1 24 Qa8
[FEN "Q7/K7/6P1/4q3/8/8/8/k7 b - - 0 24"]
The idea is to use the threat to exchange queens to drive the black king out of
his four-square corner box. Averbakh awards this move an exclamation mark,
but the reason why is not clear. According to the tablebase, it's still a draw.
24...Qd4+??
Neither Lisitsin nor Averbakh detected that this move is an analytical blunder.
The tablebase said that Black must play either 24...Qg5 or the obvious 24...
Qc7+ when if 25 Qb7 Qc5+ 26 Qb6 Black has three playable moves: 26...
Qc3, 26...Qe5 and 26...Qe7+.
25 Kb8+ and wins.
The tablebase says "M16," which means that in a maximum of sixteen moves
White will checkmate his opponent. Now he can soon advance his pawn to set
up a position that old theory knew to be winning; e.g., 25...Kb2 26 Qb7+
(Now the king cannot go back to the a-file because of 27 Qa7+.) 26...Kc2 27
g7.
Lev Podgayets Leonid Shamkovich
Volgograd 1969
[FEN "6K1/5Q2/6P1/8/4q3/8/1k6/8 w - - 0 1"]
This is the starting point of the second endgame analysed in Averbakh's book.
For the first few moves, Podgayets followed the Lisitsin plan.
1 Qf6+ Ka2 2 Qa6+ Kb2 3 Kf7 Qd5+ 4 Ke7 Qe5+ 5 Kd7 Kb1 6 Kc8 Qf5+
7 Kb8 Qe5+ 8 Ka7
[FEN "8/K7/Q5P1/4q3/8/8/8/1k6 b - - 0 8"]
8...Qg5
This move had a "question mark" in my card index probably because it was
criticised in the Russian debate from the early 1970s, yet it is one of three
moves to draw according to the tablebase server.
The waiting move 8...Kb2 also draws although Averbakh condemned it. He
said White can then carry out Lisitsin's Qb7-a8 manoeuvre but we have just
seen that this should not be decisive.
8...Qc3! was recommended by Novotelnov and debated by Faibisovich, who
thought it could delay Black's defeat, but not more. 9 Qb5+ Ka2 10 Qa4+ Kb1
11 Qe4+ Ka1! was Novotelnov's main line and Black indeed holds if he
follows the tablebase line.
Instead Faibisovich suggested 9 Qb7+ when:
a) 9...Ka1 was his analysis, claiming a win for White after 10 Ka8! (Vacating
a7 for the queen and threatening 11 Qa7+ Kb1 12 g7.) 10...Qh8+ (The only
move) 11 Qb8 Qh1+ (Again the only move) 12 Ka7:
a1) 12...Qg1+ 13 Qb6 Qg4 14 Qf6+ (Faibisovich considered 15 Qa6+ Kb1 16
Ka8 which takes longer according to both Averbakh and the computer.) 14...
Kb1 or 14...Ka2 15 g7 winning.
a2) 12...Qd5! is the only defence according to the tablebase. Then:
a21) 13 Qa8! The last move in Fabisovich's variation. The applause from
Averbakh is perhaps worth it because it sets Black a problem, but actually
nothing wins. Instead of 13...Qd6? 14 g7! Qc7+ 15 Qb7 Qc5+ 16 Ka8
(winning because there is no check on f8 any longer) Black can play 13...
Qg5! the only move to hold, and not considered in Averbakh's book.
a22) 13 Qh8+ was given as an alternative by Faibisovich: 13...Kb1 (13...Ka2
does lose: 14 Qh2+! Ka1 15 Qg1+ Ka2 16 Qf2+.) 14 Qf6 Qa5+ and Black can
draw (instead of Faibisovich's 14...Qd7+ 15 Kb6, "etc").
b) 9...Ka2! is more tenacious according to Averbakh.
[FEN "8/KQ6/6P1/8/8/2q5/k7/8 w - - 0 10"]
Then after 10 Ka8 Qh8+! 11 Qb8 Qh1+ 12 Ka7 Black can play
b1) 12...Qg1+ 13 Qb6 Qg5! with a position very similar to the actual line in
the game. 14 Qa6+ Kb2 when Averbakh thought White would eventually win,
but the computer shows otherwise.
b2) 12...Qa1 is also discussed by Averbakh. Neither of the replies
recommended by Faibisovich actually wins, so Averbakh was right to be
sceptical although he could not prove it without today's computer resources:
b21) 13 Ka6 Qc3 14 Qh2+ Ka1 15 Qh1+ Kb2 16 Qe4 when Averbakh pointed
out 16...Qa3+ 17 Kb5 Qb3+ 18 Kc5 (18 Qb4 Ka1! 19 Qxb3 stalemate.) 18...
Qc3+ also draws as he thought; e.g., 19 Kd6 Qa3+ 20 Ke5 Qc5+ 21 Kf4 Qf2+
22 Kg4 Ka1.
b22) 13 Qh2+ Kb1+ 14 Kb8 Qf6 15 Qh1+ Ka2 16 Qa8+ Kb1 17 Qb7+ Ka1
18 Qa7+ Kb1 19 Qf7 when, as Averbakh suspected, 19...Qe5+ can hold the
draw.)
Now returning to the main line after 8Qg5.
9 Qd3+ Ka2 10 Qc2+ Ka1 11 Qa4+ Kb1 12 Qe4+ Ka2
The black king must avoid a1 and b2 because of 13 Qd4+ and 14 g7.
13 Ka6
Having improved his queen position, White's aim now is to bring his king to
safety.
13...Qf6+ 14 Kb5
[FEN "8/8/5qP1/1K6/4Q3/8/k7/8 b - - 0 14"]
14...Qg5+
Also, 14...Qb2+ and 14...Qh8 are playable but other queen moves and all king
moves would be fatal.
15 Ka4 Qg1 16 Kb4 Qb6+ 17 Kc4 Qc7+ 18 Kd3 Qd6+ 19 Ke2
[FEN "8/8/3q2P1/8/4Q3/8/k3K3/8 b - - 0 19"]
This is actually where Black went wrong in the game. The tablebase shows
that Shamkovich had a choice of five playable moves, but he did not find any
of them.
19...Qf6??
Perhaps the best move is 19...Ka1! as recommended by Averbakh, who
commented "One gains the impression that White is unlikely to be able to
improve his position here". The other moves that do not lose are 19...Qa6+,
19...Qb6, 19...Qb8 (because 20 g7 in reply to any of those would lose the
pawn to 20...Qb2+), and 19...Qh2+.
After 19...Ka1, play can go 20 g7 (Averbakh also considered some other
moves.) 20...Qh2+ 21 Kd1 Qh5+ (21...Qg1+? loses to 22 Qe1 Qxg7 23 Kc2+
Ka2 24 Qb1+ Ka3 25 Qb3 mate.) 22 Kc2 Qc5+ 23 Kb3 Qa3+ which is
drawing because 24 Kxa3 is stalemate.
20 Qg2
Not the only win, but the quickest; White threatens both 21 g7 and a
discovered check.
20...Qg7 21 Kd3+
The only winning move.
21...Ka3 22 Qa8+ Kb2 23 Qb8+ Ka1 24 Qd6 Qg8
24...Qb7 is the most tenacious, as Averbakh said, but it still loses eventually.
25 Qa3+ Kb1 26 Qb4+ Ka1 27 Qc3+ Kb1 28 Qc2+ 1-0
As the queens are about to be exchanged, Black resigned.
So if the ghost of Polugayevsky had to do that adjudication today, one could
advise him that the general case of queen and g-pawn on the sixth rank
against queen is a draw, although of course exceptional positions (particularly
good placement of white forces or bad ones of black forces) would be
different. I am full of admiration for Averbakh despite pointing out a few
mistakes in his analysis which I doubt that anyone detected at the time. His
judgment and analysis, in this type of position which is much more
comprehensible by computer retrograde analysis than by ordinary human
calculation, has time and again to have been proved much more often right
than not.
In a somewhat later Soviet competition, the same endgame once again arose.
Juris Neimanis Evgeny Dragomaretsky
USSR Team Ch., Moscow, 1972
[FEN "5Q2/8/8/6K1/1k4P1/8/8/q7 b - - 0 56"]
Both sides have just promoted pawns so this was the position when the queen
ending arose. The pawn is starting much further back but White soon
progressed it to the sixth rank and then got stuck.
56...Kb3 57 Kg6 Qa6+ 58 Kg7 Qe2 59 g5 Kc2 60 Qf5+ Kb2 61 g6
Now the pawn is on the sixth, the clock starts; White needs a queen exchange
or pawn advance not later than move 111. However a series of aimless moves
follows.
61...Qe7+ 62 Qf7 Qe4 63 Kg8 Qa8+ 64 Qf8 Qd5+ 65 Kh7 Qh1+ 66 Qh6
Qe4 67 Qh2+ Kb1 68 Qg1+ Ka2 69 Qf2+ Ka1 70 Kg7 Qb7+ 71 Kh6 Qh1+
72 Kg5 Qd5+ 73 Qf5 Qg2+ 74 Kf6 Qc6+ 75 Kg7 Qb7+
[FEN "8/1q4K1/6P1/5Q2/8/8/8/k7 w - - 0 76"]
I have the impression that somewhere around here there was an adjournment
and team-mates of Neimanis took the opportunity to tell him about the
Lisitsin plan. He rapidly transfers his queen to a7 and tries to bring his king
across the board.
76 Qf7 Qe4 77 Qa7+ Kb1 78 Qb6+ Ka2 79 Qa6+ Kb1 80 Kf7 Qd5+ 81
Ke7 Qe5+ 82 Kd7 Qg7+ 83 Kc8 Qf8+ 84 Kb7 Qg7+ 85 Kb8!
Threatening to win by Qb7+, exchanging queens.
[FEN "1K6/6q1/Q5P1/8/8/8/8/1k6 b - - 0 85"]
85...Kc1?
Dragomaretsky infringes the golden rule that, in such queen endings, the
safest place for the defending king is as far away from the enemy pawn as
possible (that is if you cannot safely occupy a square directly in its path to the
queening square). He conceives the suicidal plan of marching his king to the
other corner and gets away with it!
According to the tablebase, Black should play either 85...Qh8+ 86 Ka7 Qe5
(or 86...Qc3) or 85...Qe5+ which transposes exactly to PodgayetsShamkovich (position after Black's move seven above).
86 Qc6+
White has seven theoretically winning moves and this is slightly the quickest.
It should mate in thirty-six moves with a pawn advance or queen exchange
just in time.
86...Kd2 87 Qd6+?
87 Kc8 is correct, tracking the black king in the hope of setting up a crosscheck to exchange queens. See below. After the inaccurate text, White needs
further inaccuracies from his opponent, which are not forthcoming.

87...Ke1 88 Kc8 Kf1 89 Qf4+ Kg2 90 Qf7 Qc3+ 91 Kd7 Qd4+ 92 Ke8 Qh8
+ 93 Ke7 Qe5+ 94 Qe6 Qg7+ 95 Ke8?!
95 Kd6 is best and 95 Qf7 second best. All moves win theoretically but
inaccuracies increase the danger of not forcing the queen exchange or pawn
advance in time. For example, 95 Kd6 Kg1 96 Qe1+ Kg2 97 Qe4+ Kg1 98
Ke6 Qg8+ 99 Kf5 Qf8+ 100 Kg5 Qd8+ 101 Kf4 Qd6+ 102 Kg4 Qd7+ 103
Kh5 Qg7 104 Qe3+ Kf1 105 Kg5 Qb2 106 Kf5 Qc2+ 107 Qe4 Qc8+ 108 Kf4
Qd8 109 Kg4 Qg8 110 Qb1+ Ke2 111 Qb2+ Kd1 and time is up. Draw
(although White has a theoretical win).
95...Kg1 96 Qf7 Qh8+ 97 Qf8 Qh5 98 Kf7 Qd5+ 99 Kg7 Qb7+ 100 Qf7
Qb2+ 101 Qf6 Qb7+ 102 Kh6 Qh1+ 103 Kg5 Qg2+ 104 Kh5 Qe2+
Saved by the bell! With only seven moves left to the fifty-move rule cut-off,
White concedes the draw. If there were no limit and both sides played the best
moves from here on, White would mate in forty-five moves from now!
So how should White have won this?
Let's return to the position after Black's eighty-sixth move.
[FEN "1K6/6q1/2Q3P1/8/8/8/3k4/8 w - - 0 87"]
87 Kc8!
Now best play according to the tablebase goes as follows.
87...Qh8+ 88 Kc7 Ke3
Somewhat surprising; this defers defeat by seven moves compared with the
next best choice, 88...Qg8.
89 Qd7 Qe5+ 90 Kd8 Qa5+
Of course checks on h8, g5 and f6 would all be immediately fatal to Black.
91 Ke8 Qh5
Preventing the pawn advance by a pin.
92 Kf7 Ke2
If 92...Ke4 93 Qd6 Ke3 94 Ke7 Qh4+ 95 Qf6 Qb4+ 96 Kf7 Kd2 97 g7.
93 Qd4 Ke1 94 Qd3 Qg4 95 Qd6
95 g7? does not win after 95...Qf4+! 96 Ke6 Qg4+ 97 Kf6 Qh4+, etc.
95...Qh5 96 Qd4 Ke2 97 Kf6 Qh6
Not 97...Qh8+? 98 g7.
98 Qg4+ Kd3 99 Kf7 Qh1 100 g7
[FEN "8/5KP1/8/8/6Q1/3k4/8/7q b - - 0 100"]
The pawn advance resets the fifty-move clock and White soon wins.
For example, 100...Qb7+ 101 Kf6 Qb6+ 102 Kg5 Qd8+ 103 Kf4 Qg8 104
Kg3 Kc3 105 Kh3 Kb2 106 Kg2 Qd5+ 107 Kg1 Qc5+ 108 Kh1 Qe3.
Surprisingly the tablebase says that 109 Qg1 now mates one move quicker
than 109 g8=Q.

Slaying the Spanish and Other Matters

Two or three times each year I review books in this column. This time I have
in hand a large batch, nearly all from Everyman Chess. I am hoping a few
more will come in from other publishers. So in this column I shall concentrate
on just one of Everyman's books, and also briefly mention a book that I have
bought rather than receiving free. I shall come back to books again in July or
August, but next month I shall deal with endgames once more. The column
concludes with a lengthy postscript about developments on my website.
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Translate this page
IM Timothy Taylor is a diligent author who presents his material in a lively

way. His new book advocates a relatively unpopular (yet probably perfectly
sound) way of meeting the Ruy Lopez. While I have some doubts about
whether this will work at the highest level, or in top correspondence events,
many of his suggestions look good for normal amateur over-the-board chess
at least. They offer a good deal of information and advice, to which I add in
my illustrative games.
Purchases from our

accessible:
Slay the Spanish!

by Timothy Taylor
Timothy Taylor has come up with a nice alliterative title in Slay the Spanish!
(Everyman Chess, 288 pages softback, $27.95, ChessCafe.com Price: $23.95).
The book is written from the point of view of Black and chiefly deals with the
variation of the Ruy Lopez known as the Modern Steinitz (the line that used
to be called the Steinitz Defence Deferred), arising via 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3
Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 d6.
Ruy Lopez Exchange

by Krzystof Panczyk
& Jacek Ilczuk

the games from
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/1pp2ppp/p1np4/4p3/B3P3/
5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 5"]
Also, as discussed below, the author advises at length on what to do if White

plays the exchange variation, which is the only way that the Lopez player can
avoid the Modern Steinitz.
The problem with the original Steinitz defence, 3d6, was not just that Black
self-pins his knight, but that in some lines he cannot maintain the strongpoint
on e5, chiefly because of the line that became known as the "Tarrasch trap."
Siegbert Tarrasch Georg Marco
Dresden 1892
Ruy Lopez [C62]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 d6 4 d4 Bd7 5 Nc3 Nf6 6 00 Be7 7 Re1
Now Black must "give up the centre" by capturing on d4, but this was not
understood before the present game. Tarrasch shows why in this classic
miniature.
7...00?
True Combat Chess

by Timothy Taylor
[FEN "r2q1rk1/pppbbppp/2np1n2/1B2p3/
3PP3/2N2N2/PPP2PPP/R1BQR1K1 w - - 0 8"]
8 Bxc6 Bxc6 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 Qxd8 Raxd8 11 Nxe5

Black loses a pawn. If he does not accept this, worse befalls him, as Marco
discovered the hard way.
11...Bxe4 12 Nxe4 Nxe4 13 Nd3
With a skewer down the e-file. Now one neat tactic follows another.
13...f5 14 f3 Bc5+ 15 Nxc5 Nxc5 16 Bg5 Rd5 17 Be7 Re8 18 c4 10
Playing 3a6 first, with d6 following after the bishop retreats to a4, means
that although the knight is still pinned for the time being, Black is in a
position to break the pin by b5 at the appropriate moment without loss of
time. So the Tarrasch Trap cannot be sprung in the Modern Steinitz.
William Steinitz himself seems to have first played the move order 3a6 4
Ba4 d6 at the New York 1894 tournament, and although others (including
Louis Paulsen and Semyon Alapin) had played it before him, it did not catch
on until 1894 when the variation became all the rage.
The defence is flexible because Black has two options with his king's knight:
either to go to g6 via e7, or else to f6, and the king's bishop can be
fianchettoed in some lines. Moreover, because of the early d6, Black's
queen's bishop can come into play early, and the move f7-f5 (supported by
that bishop) is also an option.
Although Black has more than one solid way of defending, Taylor clearly has
a liking for the sharper ways of handling the Modern Steinitz, which give
Black winning chances if he is willing to take risks. The Siesta variation and
the Yandemirov Gambit are the principal weapons.
From White's point of view, his moves five thorugh seven are likely to be
castling, c2-c3, and d2-d4 but it can make a lot of difference whether he plays
5 0-0 or 5 c3. Some options for Black really only work in reply to one or the
other, so White has to decide whether he is willing to face the Siesta variation,
5 c3 f5. Then in Taylor's experience, frightened White players tend to reply 6
d3?! (he gives examples), but after the correct 6 exf5 Bxf5 White faces a
critical choice.
[FEN "r2qkbnr/1pp3pp/p1np4/4pb2/B7/2P2N2/
PP1P1PPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 7"]
If White now plays 7 0-0 to get the king safe, there is a hole on d3 and the
bishop leaps in with 7Bd3 8 Re1 Be7 to gum up White's development.
Alternatively, from the diagram, White plays 7 d4! e4 8 Ng5 d5 9 f3. This is
the critical test and Black must be prepared to sacrifice a pawn. To illustrate
this line, I give a game that is not in Taylor's book.
Aleksey Mikhailov Edvins Vitolins
Fifth USSR Correspondence Team Championship 1975
Ruy Lopez [C74]
This game was published first in Shakmaty (Riga, 21/1977) and in Informator
25.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 d6 5 c3 f5 6 exf5 Bxf5 7 d4 e4 8 Ng5 d5 9
f3 e3 10 f4 Nf6
Preventing queen checks at h5.
11 00 Bd6 12 Bxe3
[FEN "r2qk2r/1pp3pp/p1nb1n2/3p1bN1/B2P1P2/
2P1B3/PP4PP/RN1Q1RK1 b kq - 0 12"]
Taylor says (page 110) that the evaluation of the whole Siesta may depend on
this move which, he claims, "has never been played in a high-level game." He
thinks Black is OK.
12...00 13 Nf3 Ng4 14 Bc1 Na5
C. J. Lennox-H. D. Holmes, Scottish championship 1974, went 14...b5?! 15
Bb3 Bxf4? (He should defend the d-pawn with a knight.) 16 Bxf4 Bxb1 17
Bg5 so White won a piece and the game.
15 h3 Nf6
[FEN "r2q1rk1/1pp3pp/p2b1n2/n2p1b2/
B2P1P2/2P2N1P/PP4P1/RNBQ1RK1 w - - 0 16"]
16 Bc2
16 Ne5 is the move considered by Taylor. It is probably an open question
whether White can maintain an edge here. He cites no game source but gives
the continuation 16...c5 17 Be3 cxd4 18 Bxd4 Qc7 19 Nd2 Nc6 20 Ndf3 (20
Bb3 is a Rybka suggestion that he doesn't consider.) 20...Nxd4 21 cxd4 Rac8.

Now while Taylor is correct to say that Black has nothing to fear from 22
Rac1, Rybka indicates 22 Qd2 (and maybe some other moves) are slightly in
White's favour.
16...Bxc2 17 Qxc2 c5
This is perhaps almost equal for Black.
18 Ne5 cxd4 19 cxd4 Qb6 20 Be3 Bxe5 21 fxe5 Nc4! 22 Qd3?
White should have played 22 Bf2 with about equal chances.
[FEN "r4rk1/1p4pp/pq3n2/3pP3/2nP4/
3QB2P/PP4P1/RN3RK1 b - - 0 22"]
22...Nd7?
22...Ng4! is strong.
23 Re1 Rac8 24 b3 Ndxe5!
Black's position was slipping; this seems to be the best fighting chance.
25 dxe5 Nxe3 26 Rxe3?
26 Qxe3 Qxe3+ 27 Rxe3 Rc1+ 28 Kh2 Rff1 29 Rd3 Black regains the piece
but the rook ending looks good for White.
26...Rc1+ 27 Kh2 Qe6!
[FEN "5rk1/1p4pp/p3q3/3pP3/8/
1P1QR2P/P5PK/RNr5 w - - 0 28"]
Black has enough counterplay now and saves the game.

28 a4 Rff1 29 Ra2 Rxb1 30 Rf2! Rxf2 31 Qxb1 Qf7 32 e6 Qf4+ 33 Rg3
Qe5 34 Qc1 Qxe6 35 Qc7 g6 36 Rg5! Qf7 37 Qxf7+ Kxf7 38 Rxd5
In order to avoid the Siesta, White should prefer 5 0-0 although then there is a
different sharp line to be prepared for: 5Bg4 6 h3 h5 7 d4 b5 8 Bb3 Nxd4
which involves a (probably unsound) piece sacrifice by Black in the main
line. To illustrate this Yandemirov Gambit line, I also give a game that is not
in Taylor's book. In his bibliography he does cite MegaCorr4, an old
correspondence database CD of mine (but by no means the most recent), but

evidently he did not consult it for this line.
Ernst Kotzem Nikolay I. Kashkadamov
EU/M/GT/035 corr ICCF 1968
Ruy Lopez [C72]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 d6 5 00 Bg4 6 h3 h5
The "Yandemirov gambit" was known long before Yandemirov! White in this
game was originally Polish and went by the name of Ernest Kocem but,
moving to Germany, he changed his name to Ernst Kotzem, presumably so
that it would be pronounced correctly.
7 d4 b5 8 Bb3 Nxd4 9 hxg4
[FEN "r2qkbnr/2p2pp1/p2p4/1p2p2p/3nP1P1/
1B3N2/PPP2PP1/RNBQ1RK1 b kq - 0 9"]
9...hxg4
This old move is refuted according to Taylor; most of the games with the
gambit in my correspondence database are from the 1970s or thereabouts and
feature it rather than 9...Nxb3.
Taylor says that is the only playable move but I am doubtful whether it is
really any better. Play can continue 10 axb3 hxg4 11 Ng5 Qd7 12 c4 (or 12
Qd3) 12...Rb8 13 Rxa6 f6 14 Nc3 fxg5 15 Nxb5 Nf6 16 Ra7 Rc8 17 Re1 Qf7
18 Be3 Qh5 19 Kf1 Kd7 and now for 20 b4 see Taylor pages 1701.
I have two correspondence games with 20 Qa1 which is not in the book. After
20...Qg6:
a) 21 Qa5 Rh1+ 22 Ke2 Rxe1+ 23 Kxe1 Qxe4 24 Nxc7 Qb1+ 25 Ke2 Qxb2+
26 Ke1 Qb1+ 27 Ke2 Qb2+ 28 Ke1 Qb1+ , R. Mantyla-C. Jepson,
Finjub-45 corr 2007.
b) 21 Qa4 Kd8 22 Qa5 Qxe4 23 Nxc7 Ke7 24 Nb5+ Ke8 25 Ke2 g3 26 f3 Qc2
+ 27 Qd2 Qxb3 28 Qd3 Qxc4 29 Qxc4 Rxc4 30 Nxd6+ Bxd6 31 Ra8+ Kf7 32
Rxh8 Rc2+ 33 Kf1 Nd5 34 Bxg5 Kg6 35 Rd8 Rf2+ P. Casa Saez-M.Boada
Marti, Spain corr 2007.
10 Ng5 Nh6 11 f4!
Nigel Short-Jan Timman, Pamplona 2000, is Taylor's exemplar here.
Note also 11 Bd5 Be7 12 c3 Bxg5 (12...c6 13 Nxf7! T. HamaratKashkadamov, corr 1980) 13 cxd4 Rc8 14 Bc6+! (improving on 14 f4 exf4 15
Bc6+ Kf8 16 Bxf4 Bxf4 17 Rxf4 Qh4 which was unclear in SigurjonssonMarjan, Novi Sad 1976) 14...Kf8 15 g3 Bxc1 16 Qxc1 Qf6 17 dxe5! Qxe5 18
Re1 Qh5 19 e5! Nf5 20 Qf4 d5 21 Kf1 Rd8 22 a4 Ne7 23 axb5 10, Tunc
Hamarat-Dr Walter Wittmann, corr 1980.
11...d5!
This seems to be critical. Timman played 11...c6 12 g3 Nxb3 (12...f6 13 Ne6
when the knight is not trapped and can be supported by f4-f5.) 13 cxb3 exf4
14 gxf4 Qd7 15 f5 d5 and now Short showed that he could have obtained a
big advantage by 16 Qd4! (for details see the book).
12 Bxd5 c6
Taylor only mentions 12...Bc5 13 Be3 Qd6, which is refuted by 14 Bxf7+! (I
find that 14 b4 was played in earlier games.) 14...Nxf7 15 Nxf7 Qb6 (15...
Kxf7 16 fxe5+) 16 Nxh8 exf4 17 Qxg4 fxe3 18 Rf7 as in a game played in
Kiev in 2005; again see the book for details.
[FEN "r2qkb1r/5pp1/p1p4n/1p1Bp1N1/
3nPPp1/8/PPP3P1/RNBQ1RK1 w kq - 0 13"]
13 c3
Not 13 Bxf7+?! Nxf7 14 Qxg4 (14 Nxf7? Qh4) when:
a) 14...Nxg5 15 fxg5 Qd7 is a safe line.
b) R. Jankowicz-W. Strzemkowski Poland corr ch 1971, saw lively
complications and balanced chances after 14...Bc5!? 15 Be3 Nxg5 16 fxg5
Qb6!? (Apparently Black's piece sacrifice was deliberate.) 17 Bf2 Ke7!? 18
b4 Raf8 19 bxc5 Qxc5 with chances for both sides; Black only lost because of
mistakes much later in the game.
13...Bc5 14 Be3 cxd5 15 cxd4 exd4
[FEN "r2qk2r/5pp1/p6n/1pbp2N1/3pPPp1/
4B3/PP4P1/RN1Q1RK1 w kq - 0 16"]
16 Bf2!
This seems to be the problem for Black. Perhaps it has not been noticed as it
has been rarely played and White did not win the games.
Instead R. C. Mitchell-N. H. McMillan, BCCA corr 1978, went 16 b4 dxe3 17
bxc5 d4 18 Qd3 and now Black should have played 18...g3! with a quite
promising game, instead of 18...Qf6?! when White missed the strong reply 19
e5.
16...g3
After 16...Qf6? 17 exd5 Qxf4, White resigned in some kind of protest in a
2001 British Correspondence Championship game but was really winning this
position after 18 Qd2. Also 16...dxe4 is no good because of 17 Nxe4 or 17
Qc2 00 18 Nd2!
17 Bxg3 d3+ 18 Bf2 Bxf2+ 19 Rxf2 dxe4 20 Nxe4
White is a knight for a pawn up and should have won comfortably.
20...Qd4 21 Nbc3!?
Perhaps White should have preferred 21 Ng5 00 22 Nd2 or 21 Nbd2 but it
seems he was worried about the b-pawn.
21...00 22 Qf3 b4
Black has managed to muddy the waters somewhat.
23 Na4?!
This is rarely a good place for a knight. More courage was needed: 23 Nd5!
Rfe8 24 Nd6 Re2 25 Ne7+ Rxe7 26 Qxa8+ Kh7 27 Rd1 seems to keep White
on top.
23...Rae8 24 Nec5??
[FEN "4rrk1/5pp1/p6n/2N5/Np1q1P2/
3p1Q2/PP3RP1/R5K1 b - - 0 24"]
Very careless. 24 Nd2 was necessary. White forgot his Nimzowitsch here
("restrain, blockade...").
24...Re3??
Intent on following his plan, Black misses 24...d2! which wins elegantly in a
variation that should have been found in correspondence play, although this
was before the computer era: 25 Kh2 (25 Rd1 Re1+ 26 Kh2 Ng4+) 25...Re3
26 Qd1 Re1 27 Qxd2 Ng4+ 28 Kg3 Re3+ and White must give up the queen,
because 29 Kxg4? f5+ forces mate in a few moves.
25 Nb3
White is on top again.
25...Qa7 26 Qd5?
26 Qh5 f5 should be somewhat in White's favour still.
26...Ng4
The remainder is less interesting. Black gains the initiative but ultimately fails
to win the game.
27 Qc5 Qd7 28 Rf3 d2 29 Qc2 Re1+ 30 Rf1 Rxa1 31 Rxa1 Qxa4 32 Qxd2
Qb5 33 Re1 Qb6+ 34 Qd4 Qh6 35 Nd2 Qh2+ 36 Kf1 Qh1+ 37 Qg1
[FEN "5rk1/5pp1/p7/8/1p3Pn1/8/
PP1N2P1/4RKQq b - - 0 37"]
37...Qh5
Black would have somewhat the better endgame after the queen swap but
wants more.
38 Qd4 Qb5+ 39 Kg1 Qa5 40 Nf3 Rd8 41 Qa7 Qxa2 42 Qb6 Rc8 43 Qxb4
Qd5 44 Qe7
[FEN "2r3k1/4Qpp1/p7/3q4/5Pn1/
5N2/1P4P1/4R1K1 b - - 0 44"]
44...Qc5+
This throws away the last of his advantage. It seems inconsistent to exchange
queens now but maybe Black was becoming frightened of the opponent's
counterplay.
45 Qxc5 Rxc5 46 Ng5 g6 47 g3 Rc2 48 Re8+ Kg7 49 Ra8 Rxb2 50 Rxa6
Ne3 51 Ra7 Rb1+ 52 Kf2 Ng4+ 53 Kf3 Nh6
Taylor's "hero" for the Modern Steinitz is Paul Keres. His book has many
examples of Keres playing the variation with Black in over the board games,
but now we see how he handled it as white in a postal game.
Paul Keres Udo Tarve
Estonian Correspondence Championship, 1951
Ruy Lopez [C75]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 d6
Steinitz Deferred or Modern Steinitz. Taylor's book has many examples of
Keres playing the variation with Black but now we see how he handled it as
White.
5 c3 Bd7 6 d4 Nge7
Keres himself often played this move with Black. According to Taylor it is
inaccurate but he never had to meet the strongest reply. Taylor says that, in
this move order, 6...Nf6 is the solid choice and he considers that 6...Nge7
should only be played against 6 00.
7 Bb3
This move works well in the present game but Black missed an improvement.
7 Be3 is strong according to Taylor.
[FEN "r2qkb1r/1ppbnppp/p1np4/4p3/3PP3/
1BP2N2/PP3PPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 7"]
7...h6
7...Ng6 was the intention behind Black's sixth move but in view of White's
last move it has to be deferred because of 8 Ng5.
8 Nh4!?
This radically interferes with Black's plan of ...Ng6. Here Keres is actually
following Geller's play against him at the 1950 USSR Championship (game
56 in Taylor's book).
8 00 occurred later in Fischer-Pachman, Mar del Plata 1959, which Taylor
gives in his opening chapter of Modern Steinitz games played by world
champions.
8...Na5
8...Nc8 had been played in Geller-Keres but although Black won, it was
unconvincing. Taylor also looks at 8...Ng6 and 8...exd4 before saying that "In
short, 9 [sic] ...Nc8 seems best"; that misprint is on page 57.
9 Bc2 g5 10 Nf5 Nxf5 11 exf5
[FEN "r2qkb1r/1ppb1p2/p2p3p/n3pPp1/3P4/
2P5/PPB2PPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 11"]
11...Qf6?!
This is where Taylor misses something. It is perhaps only this move that
spoils Black's game.
Taylor does not mention the alternative 11...Nc6!, which seems to be about
equal, e.g. 12 00 and now:
a) 12...Bg7, when Suetin-Aratovsky, Leningrad semi-final, USSR ch. 1951,
continued 13 dxe5 Nxe5 14 Nd2 Qe7 15 Ne4 000 16 f4 with complications.
After 16...gxf4 17 Bxf4 Black blundered by 17...d5? (17...h5 is Rybka's

suggestion.) allowing White the combination 18 f6! Bxf6 19 Nxf6 Qxf6 20
Qd4! (stronger than 20 Qxd5 Qb6+.) 20...Rhe8 21 Rae1 Ng4 22 Qa7 Bb5 23
Qa8+ Kd7 24 Qxb7 and White soon won. However if Black had left his pawn
on d6 this trick would not have worked.
b) 12...Qf6 may be simpler; the computer program Rykba likes it and says
"equal"...
12 d5 c6
This move is not in Taylor's book, but it doesn't matter as White is well on top
now. He cites a later game: 12...Bg7 13 Nd2 b5 14 a4! (following the same
idea as Keres had previously employed in our main game.) 14...bxa4 15 Bxa4
(Keres-Arulaid, Parnu 1955), "and Black could already be pronounced dead"
says Taylor.
13 Na3! b5 14 b4 Nb7 15 Nb1!
Keres intends a4, opening the position to expose the black king which has no
safe place to go.
15...Nd8
15...a5 16 a4 axb4 17 dxc6! Bxc6 18 axb5 Rxa1 19 bxc6 with clear advantage
for White is a line from the book on Keres by Egon Varnusz.
16 a4 bxa4
Or 16...cxd5 17 axb5 Bxb5 18 Qxd5 Bc6 19 Ba4 (Varnusz).
17 c4 Bxf5 18 dxc6 Nxc6 19 Nc3 Bd7 20 Nd5 Qd8 21 h4!
[FEN "r2qkb1r/3b1p2/p1np3p/3Np1p1/pPP4P/
8/2B2PP1/R1BQK2R b KQkq - 0 21"]
After this second pawn sacrifice it's really looking bleak for the black king.
21...gxh4 22 Be3 Rb8 23 Bxa4 Bg7
Black intends to castle kingside. It's a critical moment for White to find the
most precise continuation.
24 Bxc6 Bxc6 25 Rxa6 Bxd5
If 25...Bb7 26 Qg4.
26 Qxd5 Rxb4
[FEN "3qk2r/5pb1/R2p3p/3Qp3/1rP4p/
4B3/5PP1/4K2R w Kk - 0 27"]
27 Qc6+!
Very sharp; Keres must have judged here that his thirty-second move gives
him decisive threats. According to Varnusz's book, the game ended here,
which is only plausible if White sent a conditional.
27...Qd7 28 Ra8+ Ke7 29 Ra7 Qxa7 30 Bxa7 Rb1+ 31 Ke2 Rxh1 32 c5!
Rd8
If 32...dxc5? 33 Bxc5+ Kd8 34 Bd6.
33 Bb6 Rd7 34 Qc8 10
Threatening to queen the pawn; Black resigns since he cannot take on c5
because 35 Bxc5+ Ke6 36 Qe8+ wins the rook.
After 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Bxc6, Taylor discusses both the regular
4dxc6 and the unusual 4bxc6, each having a chapter but he recommends
the latter.
Taylor has already shown that the line 4 Ba4 d6 5 Bxc6+ bxc6 is not
dangerous to Black, which is hardly surprising since three of White's five
moves have been played with a piece that is no longer on the board. He likes
the situations that arise so much that he states the variation is playable with a
tempo less for Black, namely 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Bxc6 bxc6 (with
the black pawn still on d7) as shown in the next diagram.
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/2pp1ppp/p1p5/4p3/4P3/5N2/
PPPP1PPP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 5"]
At first sight it might seem that Black loses a pawn after 5 Nxe5 but in fact
that is not so. There are two variations:
a) 5Qg5 6 Nf3 Qxg2 7 Rg1 Qh3 where White can force a draw by
repetition if he wants, e.g. 8 Nc3 (or immediately 8 Rg3) 8Ne7 9 Rg3 Qh5
10 Rg5 Qh3 11 Rg3 etc. However, White can (and usually will) play for
advantage instead of taking the draw.
b) 5Qe7! 6 d4 d6 7 Nxc6 Qxe4+ 8 Qe2 Qxe2+ 9 Kxe2 Bb7 10 d5 Kd7 and
Black will regain the pawn with an equal game.
It seems to me that the problem with 4bxc6 is not 5 Nxe5 nor with the
commonly played 5 d4 when, if he is careful, Black can eventually catch up
with development. Then he has the bishop pair (as in the 4dxc6 line) but
without the danger that White obtains an automatic mobile kingside pawn
majority for the ending.
The real critical line seems to me to be the apparently modest 5 Nc3 which
protects the e-pawn and so threatens 6 Nxe5. Black has occasionally replied
5f6? but then White has 6 Nxe5! fxe5 7 Qh5+ with a raging attack, whether
Black replies 7g6 or 7Ke7.
So Black normally plays 5d6 6 d4 exd4 reaching the next diagram.
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/2p2ppp/p1pp4/8/3pP3/
2N2N2/PPP2PPP/R1BQK2R w KQkq - 0 7"]
Here Taylor discusses 7 Nxd4, pointing out that 7c5 8 Nc6 is good for
White but that 7Ne7 prevents that and c5 follows next move.
The problem, it seems to me, is that White obtains an enduring edge with 7
Qxd4!, which is not in Taylor's book. There is only a small amount of
practical experience in this line because 4bxc6 is so seldom played. After
7c5, White can play either 8 Qd3 or 8 Qe3 and has the typical Steinitz
Defence space advantage (pawn on e4 versus pawn on d6) plus a structural
advantage (two pawn islands against three) and Black is also behind on
development. After 7Nf6 8 Qe3 the normal 8Nf6 is dubious because of 9
e5.
A New Book about Staunton

English genealogist John Townsend has just published a new book, Notes on
the Life of Howard Staunton. It is only available from the author at 25 plus
postage. Since he only accepts payments in British currency, this book is
probably chiefly of interest to UK readers. For more information and details
on how to purchase, see his web page.
This is neither a game collection (there are no game scores) nor a full
biography, and it tends to concentrate on less well-known aspects of
Staunton's career rather than the well-known controversies over the 1851
tournament and the 1858 Morphy visit. Yet Townsend includes much new
information on Staunton's contemporaries on the London chess scene, on his
wife's family, and some interesting research-based speculations about
Staunton's origins. This book also has the best coverage I have yet seen on
Staunton's Shakespeare editorial work. In particular the author has
investigated in detail Staunton's friendship (and correspondence with)
Shakespeare scholar James Halliwell Phillips.
It is practically an axiom with Townsend that anything Staunton said about
his early life was more likely to be designed to obscure than to reveal the
truth. He comes up with some interesting but not proven suggestions,
including a possible first wife who was still alive when our "hero" married the
widow Frances Carpenter Nethersole in 1849, and also a possible sister. I do
not automatically agree with everything Townsend says, but his book has
given me some things to think about when I come to write the final draft of
the chapter on Staunton in my next book for McFarland.

Some readers may find the book too digressive, in that it explores the lives
and backgrounds of many individuals tangential to Staunton's life, but
Townsend's expertise and access to the relevant sources means he has made
some significant discoveries about the life-histories of several Victorian
players and the relationships between them.
Postscript: New Chess History Website

Over the last few weeks, I have been making radical changes to my website,
adding a large new section called the Chess History Research Zone, for
people interested in reading about, or researching for themselves, the history
of our game. The starter page for this section is available here.
The first phase of the Research Zone is now complete but more will be done
later when I have time, including some discoveries about postal chess history
that didn't fit in my recent book, Correspondence Chess in Britain and
Ireland 1824-1987.
I began with some pages of bibliographical aids that summarise findings from
my doctoral researches. These will be particularly of interest to readers who
own a copy of Ken Whyld's bibliography Chess Columns: A List. I found that
book immensely helpful but I also found numerous additions and corrections
during my researches. Some more information and corrections will be added
about chess columns later when I have time to go systematically through my
annotated copy of Whyld.
I have also added some pages about chess magazines, because I have found
that neither the recent Di Felice book on Chess Periodicals nor Nick Pope's
survey of chess magazines on the recently-redeveloped Chess Archaeology
website are entirely reliable. The following lists are among those which can
be found on my site at present:
Publishing history of the Chess Player's Chronicle

Other UK chess magazines, 1837-1914
British chess columns to 1850
Notes and corrections on British chess columns
Irish chess columns chronological list
Irish chess columns annotated alphabetical list
In another section of the Research Zone, I am presenting the history and page
images from W. H. S. Monck's long-lost chess column in a Irish Victorian
school magazine, Our School Times with a PGN file of games by him, which
includes one rediscovered game he played against Steinitz! I do not think you
will find this in any Steinitz game collection. More game files will be added at
a later date, but I am just starting a new correspondence tournament (ICCF
Second Veterans World Cup semifinal) and do not want to give away any
potential help to opponents during the opening phase!
During my researches, I also often consulted various collections of early
correspondence matches between clubs, which were compiled by the late
professor Carlo Pagni. Unfortunately these are full of mistakes. To enable
readers who have any of those books, or (more likely) databases including
those games, to make corrections, and also to guide future researches, I have
added to the website a page: "Early British and Irish inter-club
correspondence matches: correcting the work of Prof. Carlo Pagni".
Among other articles that can be read on the site (including some older ones)
are the following:
Zukertort in Dublin, 1879

Steinitz in Dublin, 1881
George Frith Barry, Irish chess-player and cricketer
Correspondence match for big money in Trinidad
Early European correspondence chess
The first two of those are both updates of a major article by me that appeared
some time ago in Quarterly for Chess History.
In the meantime, reader feedback and contributions are welcomed. Please
inform me of any remaining problems with the site.
Finally, I am scheduled to be interviewed on an Irish radio station, Newstalk
106-108fm, on Sunday, the 29th of May and the programme will be available
on the Internet. For details, go to my website.

Endgames on the Table

Two months ago this column featured king and pawn endgames and queen
endgames. As promised, I now return to my old card index to show you
examples of some other types of endgame. In several of these, the original
players and annotators struggled while computers today show how the ending
should be played. I am not referring to analysis engines they would struggle
too but the tablebases created by retrograde analysis.
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Translate this page
Purchases from our

accessible:
They can now be used to obtain the correct result and optimal path of play in
almost all positions in which there are no more than six men on the board,
except for where one side can still castle (exceedingly rare with such limited
material) or where one side has only a bare king (an obvious win for the other
side unless it is immediately stalemate).
For readers who want to know exactly what tablebases are about, and how
they are created and used, there are some excellent articles online.
ECE: Rook Endings

by Chess Informant
However, before examining some endgames soluble by tablebase, I shall

show you some minor piece endings that have more than six men so that the
brain is still required.
Minor Piece Endings
Gedeon Barcza Bela Sandor
Budapest, 1947
ECE: Queen Endings

by Chess Informant

the games from
[FEN "8/8/6pp/p7/2k1KPPb/2p4P/P1N5/8 w - - 0 51"]
51 Ne3+ Kb4 52 Kd3 Ka3 53 Nc4+ Kxa2 54 Kc2!! a4 55 Nb6 Ka3 56 Nd5
Bg3 57 Kxc3 Ka2 58 Kc2 Ka3 59 f5 gxf5 60 gxf5 h5 61 f6 h4 62 f7 1-0
ECE: Minor Piece Endings
by Chess Informant
[FEN "8/5P2/8/3N4/p6p/k5bP/2K5/8 b - - 0 62"]
Black resigned, somewhat early, in view of 62...Bd6 63 Nf4, when
a) 63...Kb4 64 Ng6 Kc4 65 f8Q Bxf8 66 Nxf8 which the K4IT tablebase
confirms is a win for White; e.g., 66...Kd4 67 Ng6 Ke4 68 Nxh4 Kf4 69 Ng2
+ Kg3 70 h4 (The pawn is impregnable and White wins by bringing his king
to the kingside after capturing the a-pawn.) 70...Kg4 71 Kb2 etc.
b) 63...Ka2 64 Ng6 a3 65 Nxh4! (Because 65 f8Q? only draws after 65...Bxf8
66 Nxf8 Ka1 67 Ng6 a2.) 65...Ka1 66 Nf5 Bf8 67 h4 Bb4 68 h5 Bf8 (Black
plays for stalemate but it doesn't work.) 69 h6! Bxh6 70 Nxh6 a2 71 Kb3 Kb1
72 f8Q a1Q 73 Qf1 mate.
Nikolay Minev Lajos Portisch
Halle zonal, 1967
Ruy Lopez [C93]
0 9 h3 h6 10 d4 Re8 11 Be3 Bf8 12 Nbd2 Bb7 13 dxe5 dxe5 14 Nh2 Na5 15
Bc2 c5 16 Qf3 Bc8 17 Rad1 Qe7 18 Ndf1 Nc4 19 Bc1 g6 20 b3 Nb6 21 Ne3
h5 22 Qg3 Bg7 23 Nf3 Bb7 24 Nd2 Nc8 25 c4 Nd6 26 Nd5 Nxd5 27 exd5
h4 28 Qe3 Rac8 29 Ba3 b4 30 Bb2 Rc7 31 Nf3 e4 32 Bxg7 Kxg7 33 Qf4
Qf6 34 Qxf6+ Kxf6 35 Nd2 Rce7 36 f3 exf3 37 Rxe7 Rxe7 38 Nxf3 a5 39
Rf1 Kg7 40 Kf2 a4! 41 Re1 Rxe1 42 Kxe1
[FEN "8/1b3pk1/3n2p1/2pP4/ppP4p/
1P3N1P/P1B3P1/4K3 b - - 0 42"]
White is winning a pawn but Black can erect a blockade.

42...f5 43 Nxh4 Kf6 44 Nf3 g5 45 g3 g4 46 Ng1 gxh3 47 Nxh3 a3 48 Nf4
Bc8 49 Kf2 Bd7 50 Ke3 Bc8 51 Bb1 Kg5 52 Kf3 Kf6 53 Ke3 Kg5 54 Kf3
Kf6
[FEN "2b5/8/3n1k2/2pP1p2/1pP2N2/
pP3KP1/P7/1B6 w - - 0 55"]
It seems that a draw should now be the correct result. The sequel featured a
sensational turning of the tables.
55 Bd3? Nf7 56 Ng2? Ne5+ 57 Ke2 Bd7 58 Nh4 f4!! 59 Be4
If instead 59 gxf4 Bg4+ 60 Ke3 Nxd3 61 Kxd3 Bd1
[FEN "8/8/5k2/2pP4/1pP2P1N/pP1K4/
P7/3b4 w - - 0 62"]
White has no good way to prevent the threatened 62...Bxb3 63 axb3 a2 etc.,
queening the a-pawn; e.g., 62 d6 Bxb3 63 Ng6 Ke6 64 f5+ Kxd6 65 f6 Ke6
66 Ne5 Kxf6 67 Nd7+ Ke7 68 Nxc5 Bxa2 threatening ...Bb1+ and queening
the pawn.
Now we return to the game after 59 Be4.
[FEN "8/3b4/5k2/2pPn3/1pP1Bp1N/
pP4P1/P3K3/8 b - - 0 59"]
59...fxg3 60 Ng2 Bg4+ 61 Kd2
[FEN "8/8/5k2/2pPn3/1pP1B1b1/
pP4p1/P2K2N1/8 b - - 0 61"]
61...Nxc4+!
The same theme in a new guise.
62 bxc4 b3 63 Bb1 Bf5 64 Kc3
To prevent promotion, White must return the extra piece. He soon has an
extra pawn but the black g-pawn is decisive.
64...Bxb1 65 Kxb3 Ke5 66 Kxa3
[FEN "8/8/8/2pPk3/2P5/K5p1/P5N1/
1b6 b - - 0 66"]
66...Be4 67 Ne1 g2 68 Nxg2 Bxg2 69 Ka4 Kd4 70 Kb5 Bf1 71 d6 Bxc4+ 72

Kb6 Be6 73 a4 Kd5 01
White resigned, because 74 a5 c4 75 Kc7 (or 75 a6 Kxd6 76 a7 Bd5) 75...c3
76 a6 c2 77 a7 c1Q+ is check, so Black wins. Portisch went on to win the
tournament.
Krylov Runza
Presov, 1951
[FEN "6k1/2p2pp1/p1p1n2p/2Pr4/1P3P2/
2B3P1/P3R2P/6K1 b - - 0 28"]
This one reduces eventually to a king and pawn ending.

28...Kf8 29 Kf2 g6 30 Ke3 f5 31 Rd2! Rxd2?! 32 Bxd2 Ke7 33 Bc3 h5 34
Be5 Kd7 35 Kd3 Kc8 36 Kc4 Kd7 37 a4 Kc8
[FEN "2k5/2p5/p1p1n1p1/2P1Bp1p/
PPK2P2/6P1/7P/8 w - - 0 38"]
38 b5! axb5+ 39 axb5 Kb7 40 h4! Nd8

If 40...cxb5+, Pachman indicated 41 Kd5! and not 41 Kxb5? c6+!=.
41 Bf6 Kc8?
a) 41...Ne6 42 Be7 cxb5+ (42...Ng7 43 Kd4! cxb5 44 Ke5) 43 Kd5 Ng7 44 c6
+ Kb6 45 Bc5+ Ka5 46 Ke5 b4 47 Kf6 Kb5 48 Bd4 Kc4 49 Be5 Ne8+ 50 Ke7.
b) 41...Nf7 42 Bg7! cxb5+ 43 Kd5 c6+ 44 Ke6 Nd8+ 45 Ke7 (Krylov).

42 Bxd8 cxb5+ 43 Kxb5 Kxd8 44 Ka6 Ke7!
[FEN "8/2p1k3/K5p1/2P2p1p/5P1P/
6P1/8/8 w - - 0 45"]
45 Ka7!
The 'distant opposition' wins, whereas 45 Kb7?? (conceding the direct
opposition) loses: 45...Kd7 46 Kb8 Kc6+ (Pachman). The mundane 45 Kb5?
Kd8 draws.
45...Ke6 46 Kb8! Kd5
46...Kd7 47 Kb7 Kd8 48 c6.
47 Kxc7 10
Black resigned, for if 47...Kxc5 48 Kd7 Kd5 49 Ke7 Ke4 50 Kf6 Kf3 51
Kxg6 Kxg3 52 Kg5.
Two Rook Endings
These are of course among the most common type of endgame in practice.
Many of these, too, are often reducible to tablebase positions, as in the second
case below. In the first case there are nine men on the board so human
analysis is needed.
Alatortsev Zagoryansky
Leningrad, 1938
[FEN "8/4k3/1p5p/r2PP2P/p3K3/
R7/8/8 w - - 0 52"]
Mutual connected passed pawns; better king position wins.

52 Rg3 a3 53 d6+ Ke6 54 Rg6+ Kd7 55 Rg7+ Kc8 56 Rc7+ Kb8 57 Rc1
Ra4+ 58 Kd5 Ra5+ 59 Kc6 10
In Kibitzer 179, I used the Lokasoft tablebase, available online, to study some
queen and pawn versus queen endgames but that database is limited to fiveman endgames. Tablebases sometimes come up with counter-intuitive moves
and strange-looking manoeuvres, but their analysis is based on reducing more
complex endings to ones whose result is a known for certain.

Now nearly all six-man endgames (all except five v bare king) can be checked
at the Knowledge4IT website, and it reveals, for example, that a grandmaster
blundered in the following position.
Eduard Gufeld David Bronstein
Kislovodsk 1968
[FEN "8/8/2r3K1/8/5k1P/8/2PR4/8 w - - 0 90"]
90 Kg7??
Gufeld missed the winning move 90 Kf7!, which, even before the tablebase
confirmed the win, looked to be a better practical chance.
a) Obviously Black loses if he is tempted by the h-pawn: 90...Kg4 91 Ke7
Rc3 (91...Kxh4 92 Rd4+ and 93 c4) 92 Ke6 Kh5 93 Kd6 Kxh4 94 Kd5 Kg4
95 Kd4 lifting the blockade and winning a standard R+P v R ending.
b) Perhaps Gufeld thought that Black draws by 90...Ke3 91 Rh2 Kf4, but the
tablebase shows White has a forced win here also. The main line begins 90
Kf7! Ke3 (If 90...Kg4 91 Ke7 Kxh4 White wins by 92 Rd4+.) 91 Rh2 Kf4 92
h5 Kg3 (92...Rc7+ transposes.) 93 Rh1 Rc7+ 94 Kf8 Rc8+ 95 Ke7 Kg2 (95...
Rxc2 is no better.) 96 Re1 Kf3 97 Rf1+ Ke4 98 h6 Rxc2 99 Rh1 with a book
win.
90...Kg4 91 Rh2
91 Rd4+ Kh5 92 c4 Rxc4 93 Rxc4 is stalemate.
91...Kg3 92 Rh1 Rxc2
Now there are only five pieces on the board, the Lokasoft tablebase can
handle it. Both tablebases agree that this is a drawn endgame.
93 h5 Rc7+
The only plan to hold the position: lateral checks until the white king moves
away and allows the rook to blockade.
94 Kf6 Rc6+ 95 Kf7 Rc7+ 96 Ke6 Rc6+ 97 Kd5 Rh6 98 Ke4
[FEN "8/8/7r/7P/4K3/6k1/8/7R b - - 0 98"]
98...Kg2
At last Black has a choice. 98...Rh8 holds. He could also play 98...Kg4 99 Rg1
+ Kh3, but not here 99...Kxh5?? 100 Kf5 mating.
A more instructive finish is 99...Kh4?? when 100 Kf5 is winning because it is
suicidal to take the pawn (100...Rxh5+ 101 Kf4 mates or wins the rook) while
otherwise White will break the blockade (100...Ra6 101 Rh1+ Kg3 102 h6
and wins).
99 Rh4 Kg3 100 Rh1 Kg2
I shall have more rook endings in a later article, perhaps.
Queen Versus Rook and Pawn
If the side with the queen has no passed pawn, a rook defended by a pawn can
sometimes set up an impregnable defensive barrier against the queen. It must
be able to shuttle between the two squares defended by the pawn. The
position of the defensive king and the rank on which the pawn stands can be
crucial. Even when the position is winnable by the stronger side, good
technique is needed.
Correct play in endgames of this type used to involve intellectual effort of a
high level. It still does on the rare occasions such positions arise in over the
board match or tournament play. However this type of endgame, once reduced
to six men, is highly amenable to tablebase reference in correspondence
games.
Les Blackstock W. Ritson Morry
Eastbourne open, 1967
[FEN "8/3kp1Q1/3p4/4r3/2P5/3K4/8/8 b - - 0 73"]
73...Kc7??
An instructive mistake. After 73...Rc5 Black is safe in his book draw. If
Black's pawns were further advanced then White could win because the queen
(and sometimes king) could obtain infiltration squares behind the black king.
74 c5!
White sacrifices his only pawn and yet can still win. The original analysis of
this type of position was due to A. D. Philidor (1777) and B. von GuretzkyCornitz (1864).
74...Rxc5
There is nothing better.
75 Qxe7+
Reference to a tablebase confirms this is indeed winning for White. He must
of course ensure he makes a capture (or Black move his pawn) within fifty
moves. Blackstock, hardly surprisingly, did not win in the minimum number
of moves but he never let the decisive advantage slip.
75...Kc6 76 Qe8+ Kc7
If 76...Kb6 77 Qd7.
77 Kd4 Re5
If 77...Rc6 78 Qe7+ (not 78 Kd5? Rc5+).
78 Qa8 Rc5 79 Qa7+ Kc6
If the king goes to the back rank, Averbakh's standard treatises show the
winning plan. Now Black hopes to maintain the ...Re5-e5-c5 shuttle and
eventually escape with a draw under the fifty-move rule.
80 Qb8 Kd7 81 Ke4 Re5+ 82 Kf4 Rc5 83 Qb7+ Ke6
If 83...Rc7 then 84 Qb5+ is best..
84 Qh7 Rc4+?!
Now White's king is able to advance. If instead 84...Re5 85 Qc7 Rc5 86 Qd8
Black is gradually squeezed out of his ideal formation; e.g., 86...Rf5+ 87 Kg4
Rc5 88 Qe8+ Kf6 89 Qd7 and Black's pieces are forced into inferior positions.
85 Kg5 Rc5+ 86 Kg6 Ke5
Not 86...Re5 87 Qf7 mate.
87 Qd7
[FEN "8/3Q4/3p2K1/2r1k3/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 87"]
White has a theoretical win now that the king-hunt is under way, and
eventually Black resigned on the 119th move. I don't have a record of the
remaining moves.
Now a position where Black deliberately steered for the rook versus queen
situation.
Fritz Smisch Lod Prins
Hastings 1938-9
[FEN "8/4kp1Q/4n3/8/2r4p/7P/5PP1/6K1 w - - 0 1"]
1 g4!?
This is probably premature; 1 Qh8! is better.
1...hxg3 2 fxg3 Ng5 3 Qf5 Nxh3+!
A good decision; Black creates practical defensive chances by eliminating
White's passed pawn while he has the opportunity.
4 Qxh3 Rc6
This position is too complex for the five-man Lokasoft tablebase to handle,
but the K4IT six-man tablebase shows the solution.
[FEN "8/4kp2/2r5/8/8/6PQ/8/6K1 w - - 0 5"]
Keres demonstrated the winning plan:

5 Qh4+ Ke8 6 Qh8+ Ke7 7 Kf2 Rg6 8 Kf3 Re6 9 Kg4 Rg6+ 10 Kh5 Re6
11 g4 Rg6 12 g5 Re6
[FEN "7Q/4kp2/4r3/6PK/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 13"]
Other sequences were possible but White could always have forced this
position.
13 Qb8! Rg6 14 Qb4+ Ke8 15 Qe4+
Now White is ready to give up queen for rook to achieve an elementary won
pawn endgame. The example illustrates the branching solution, depending on
which square the rook stands on.

15...Re6
Or 15...Kf8 16 Qxg6 fxg6+ 17 Kxg6 Kg8 18 Kh6 and wins.
16 Qxe6+ fxe6 17 Kh6 again forcing the promotion of the pawn.
However, in the actual game, White allowed Black's king to reach g8,
bringing about the following position, which the tablebase confirms is drawn:
[FEN "6k1/5p2/4r3/5K2/6P1/5Q2/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
The following complicated example came from the 1954-6 Dyckhoff

Memorial correspondence tournament and was annotated by Ludwig Rellstab
in the tournament book. Russian analyst V. Henkin wrote an article in
Shakhmatny Bulletin 9/1967 with analysis of this and analogous positions.
(He reversed the colours so that the queen would be White.)
Analysis with the tablebases changes our view again.
Julius Nielsen Louis Bigot
Dyckhoff Memorial 1954-6
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 e5 Nfd7 5 Nce2! c5 6 c3 Nc6 7 f4 Qb6 8 Nf3 f6
9 Qb3? cxd4 10 Qxb6 axb6! 11 Nexd4 Nc5 12 b4 Na4 13 Nb5 Kd8 14
Rb1? Be7 15 Be3 Bd7 16 Kd2 Rf8 17 Be2 fxe5 18 fxe5 Rf5 19 Bd4 Nc5! 20
bxc5 Rxa2+ 21 Kd1 bxc5 22 Be3 Nxe5 23 Rf1 Nxf3 24 Rxf3 e5 25 Ke1 g6
26 Rxf5 gxf5 27 Bf3 e4 28 Be2 Bc6 29 Bf4 Bf6 30 Kf1 Bxb5 31 Rxb5 Ra1+
32 Kf2 Bxc3 33 Bg5+! Kd7 34 Rxb7+ Kc6 35 Rxh7 Be1+ 36 Ke3 d4+ 37
Kf4 d3 38 Bh5 Bd2+ 39 Kxf5 Bxg5 40 Kxg5 c4 41 Kf4 c3 42 Bg6 Re1 43
Bxe4+ Rxe4+ 44 Kxe4 d2 45 Rh3 c2 46 Rc3+ Kd6 47 Rxc2 d1Q 48 Rf2
Qd5+ 49 Ke3 Qe5+ 50 Kf3 Qxh2
[FEN "8/8/3k4/8/8/5K2/5RPq/8 w - - 0 51"]
As Rellstab recognized, White's problem here is that his king and rook are on
each other's ideal squares. If the white rook were on f3 and the king on f2, this
position would be drawn with either side to move, as the tablebase confirms.
Black's task is to prevent the rook reaching f3 and if possible to drive the king
further into the open.
51 Re2 Qg1?
The K4IT tablebase shows this spoils the win. This was the only slip the
winner made. Black should play 51...Qh5+, 51...Qh7 or 51...Qh8.
52 Re4?
White misses his chance. The only saving move was 52 Kg3!; e.g., 52...Qd4
53 Rf2 Qe5+ 54 Rf4 and although White has not yet achieved the regrouping
of rook and king, he cannot be prevented from achieving it in the long run.
52...Qf1+ 53 Kg3 Qd3+!
Otherwise White draws by Re4-f4-f3 as Rellstab said.
54 Kf4 Kd5 55 Re3 Qd2 56 Kf3 Kd4 57 Re2 Qg5
[FEN "8/8/8/6q1/3k4/5K2/4R1P1/8 w - - 0 58"]
58 g3?
This is strategic error (not highlighted by Rellstab's original analysis), because
the pawn should not be advanced on principle. The tablebase, however, thinks
Black is winning anyway.
58...Qh5+ 59 Kf2 Qh2+ 60 Kf3 Qg1 61 Re4+ Kd5 62 Rf4 Qf1+ 63 Kg4
Qg2 64 Kh4 Ke5 65 Rf7 Qa2 66 Rf4 Qh2+ 67 Kg4 Qh1 68 Rf7 Ke4 69 Re7
+ Kd3 70 Re5 Qh8 71 Kf5 Qf8+ 72 Kg5 Qg7+ 73 Kf4 Qf6+ 74 Rf5 Qd4+
75 Kg5 Qg7+ 76 Kh4 Qh6+ 77 Kg4 Ke3 78 Rf3+ Ke2 79 Rf4 Qh8 80 Rf5
Qg7+ 81 Rg5 Qh7 82 Ra5 Qd7+ 83 Rf5 Ke3
[FEN "8/3q4/8/5R2/6K1/4k1P1/8/8 w - - 0 84"]
With the black king approaching the pawn, the end cannot be far off.
84 Kg5 Qg7+ 85 Kh4 Qh6+ 86 Rh5 Qf6+ 87 Kh3 Kf2 88 Rh4 Qg5
Rellstab awarded this an exclamation mark and it is the quickest way to win
but 88...Kg1 is almost as quick and eight other moves do not spoil the win.
89 Rf4+?!
Only one reply to this wins, but it is an obvious move. 89 Rg4 would have
prolonged the fight by several moves.
89...Kg1 01
If 90 Rh4 (or 90 Ra4 Qh5+ 91 Rh4 Qf5+ 92 Rg4 Qe6) 90...Qf5+ 91 Rg4 Qe6.
Now we return to the position after Black's fifty-seventh move.
[FEN "8/8/8/6q1/3k4/5K2/4R1P1/8 w - - 0 58"]
Henkin showed that, instead of 58 g3, White's best defence is 58 Kf2 when:
a) Rellstab gave 58...Qf4+ as the refutation, with no continuation, but the
tablebase shows this is much slower than advancing the king.
b) 58...Kd3 (Henkin) is best. We now follow his main line, 59 Re8 Qc5+ (59...
Qb5 and 59...Qh5 are slightly better.) 60 Kf1 and Henkin categorically stated
that this position is drawn, but that is not correct. Where did he go wrong?
After 60...Kd2 (The tablebase slightly prefers 60...Qd4), Henkin gave two
continuations:
b1) 61 Rd8+? Kc2! 62 Ra8 Qd5! with a long winning line for the queen in
Henkin's analysis.
b2) 61 Re2+! is indeed much better, but it still loses eventually: 61...Kd1
(One of two winning moves; the tablebase slightly prefers 61...Kd3.) 62 Re1+
Kc2 (62...Kd2 is better but the text does not spoil the win.) 63 Re2+ Kb3 64
Re8 Qb5+ 65 Re2 Kc3 66 Kf2 Qc5+ 67 Kf1 Kd3 68 Re1 and in Henkin's
opinion Black cannot make progress.
To see how Black can in fact win from this position, I recommend interested
readers to follow the continuation on one of the servers. (The Lokasoft one is
slightly easier to use perhaps.) The next few moves are: 68...Qb4 69 Kf2 Kd2
70 Re2+ Kd1 71 Re3 Qf8+ 72 Rf3 (It is true that White has now achieved the
Rf3, Kf2 formation but it is no longer sufficient because "the barbarians are
inside the gates." Play continues...) 72...Qc5+! 73 Kg3 Qe5+ 74 Kg4 Ke2 75
Kh3 Qd6 76 Kg4 Qh2 and at last White is forced to play 77 g3 since
everything else loses the g-pawn quickly. Now a new fifty-move count
begins, and Black wins much as in the game.
A Practical Example
Tim Harding Ivan Rudyak
EM/J50/Q16 ICCF Email, 2003
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Bg5 e6 7 f4 Qc7 8 f5!?
Be7 9 Qd3 Nc6 10 000 Nxd4 11 Qxd4 b5 12 fxe6 fxe6 13 Be2 Bb7 14
Bxf6!? Bxf6 15 Qxd6 Qxd6 16 Rxd6 Ke7 17 Rb6 Rhb8 18 Bg4 Bc8 19
Rxb8 Rxb8 20 Ne2 Bb7 21 Bf3 g5 22 h3 Be5 23 Rd1 h5 24 c3 Rg8 25 Bxh5
Bxe4 26 Bf3 Bxf3 27 gxf3 Rh8 28 Rh1 Bc7 29 Nd4 Rf8 30 Re1 e5 31 Nc6+
Ke6 32 Kd2 Rh8 33 Rh1 a5 34 Re1 Rxh3 35 Nd4+ Kd5 36 Nxb5 Bb6 37 c4
+ Kxc4 38 Rxe5 Rh2+ 39 Kc1 a4! 40 b3+! axb3 41 axb3+ Kxb3 42 Kd1
Kc4
[FEN "8/8/1b6/1N2R1p1/2k5/5P2/7r/3K4 w - - 0 43"]
Here is a practical example of the use of a tablebase to save work and time in
a correspondence game. I had offered a draw a few moves earlier but my
opponent had declined. Despite the reduced material and absence of passed
pawns, he has some advantage because my king is confined to one rank and
he may be able to generate mate threats.
Therefore, rather than drag on a long defence with objectively "correct"
moves, I saw a way to reduce the position to one where the tablebase
guarantees a draw.
The value of using the server is not so much in the actual later play, since
mostly White has a choice of moves that draw and only obvious blunders
would lose. Its practical use is verifying in advance that liquidation to a
particular endgame will draw (or win as the case may be) while there is still
the opportunity to play differently if it does not work.
43 Rxg5!?
As when I take his pawn, I lose either my knight or the exchange, it would be
safer in over-the-board play to keep the rook on the e-file where it can block
on e1.
43...Bc5! 44 Rxc5+!
This is the point; 44 Nc3 Kd3 could be tricky.
44...Kxc5 45 Nc3
[FEN "8/8/8/2k5/8/2N2P2/7r/3K4 b - - 0 45"]
I also consulted Chapter One of GM John Nunn's Secrets of Pawnless

Endgames. He says that if the king is on the edge of the board (but not in the
corner) with the knight on a laterally adjacent square then almost all positions
are drawn. I reckoned that if I have my knight on d2, he can attack it with K
and R, and win the pawn. So I have to let him win the pawn. The knight
should be brought to c1 or e1. The tablebase server confirmed that this plan
draws.
45...Kd4
After looking at the server for himself, Black offered a draw. He could also
have tried 45...Kc4 46 Ne2 46 Ne4 and Nb1 also draw 46...Kd3 47 Nc1+ Ke3
48 Nb3 48 f4 also draws 48...Kxf3 49 Nd2+ and if Black plays 49...Ke3 there
is a knight fork.
Postscript I: FIDE and FIFA

So the world governing body of soccer, FIFA, has re-elected seventy-fiveyear-old Swiss gerontocrat Sepp Blatter as president for another four-year
term. He is following in the great tradition of Joseph Stalin who also liked to
hold elections with himself as sole candidate. Moreover he has announced
that voting for future World Cups (after 2022 that is, since the next two have
already been assigned) will be by all the 200+ countries that are members of
FIFA rather than by a small and more easily bought cabal.
That is all right, then; it will bring FIFA in line with FIDE where successive
presidents have kept themselves in power by pandering to the block vote of
"Third World" member nations who represent only a small minority of
players worldwide.
However, maybe Blatter will find some way to cancel that awful decision to
play the 2022 World Cup in summer in Qatar. Maybe Kirsan Ilyumzhinov can
do a deal with the Qataris to have the chess olympiad there instead?
Postscript II: Radio interview with me

I did a short interview about my new book, Correspondence Chess in Britain
and Ireland, 1824-1987 on the "Talking History" programme of Newstalk 106108fm, an Irish radio station, on 29 May. They have sent me an MP3 file and
you can find a link to it on my website.

Time to Change Your Opening Repertoire?

I said I would write about books this month, and so I shall, but so many have
arrived that it is not possible to examine them all. Since the summer is the
time for preparing new openings for next season, I shall deal with openings
books this month and leave the others for another column later in the year. If
you were thinking of changing your opening repertoire, using new books that
your opponents probably have not seen, there has never been such a wide
choice.
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Translate this page
Part of the fun of chess for many amateurs is playing gambits, but the new
book by Irish IM Sam Collins is designed to wean you off them or help you
to refute them if you are the defender. In Gambit Busters (Everyman Chess,
US $26.95, Chesscafe Price: $19.95) he begins by admitting he never liked
facing gambits, which are available in almost every opening, but he has
learned to face his fear and conquer it. After showing a couple of horrible
losses early on, he does show some wins later in the book.
Purchases from our

accessible:
Gambit Busters
by Sam Collins
One disappointment was that the book contains no examples of either the
Najdorf Sicilian Poisoned Pawn, or the From Gambit against Bird's Opening,
1 f4 e5!?. To compensate, he gives six examples of the Evans Gambit, to
which I have devoted far too many hours of my life. Here is Sam playing
against it.
Chris Baker Sam Collins
England (Four Nations Chess League), 2009
Evans Gambit [C52]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 b4 Bxb4
As Collins writes, "4...Bb6 is quite playable," to which I add: rather drawish.
The Scotch Game

by Yelena Dembo
5 c3

the games from
The Sniper
by Charlie Storey
[FEN "r1bqk1nr/pppp1ppp/2n5/4p3/1bB1P3/
2P2N2/P2P1PPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 5"]
5...Ba5
This is the sharpest continuation. Although 5...Bc5 used to be played a lot in
the nineteenth century, the arguments in favour of doing so were never really
convincing.
5...Be7 has a solid reputation but does not really test the soundness of White's
gambit, since he gets the pawn back quickly in the main line 6 d4 Na5 7 Nxe5
Nxc4.
Game Fourteen in the book is an example of the rarer 5...Bd6. This used to be
known as the Stone-Ware defence, after two American amateurs, although it

had been played much earlier by Alexander McDonnell and by Lionel
Kieseritzky. The idea is to strong-point e5, and Pillsbury played it sometimes,
winning two games at Hastings 1895. Now 6 d4 Nf6 7 00 00 8 Re1 h6 9
Nh4? exd4 10 Nf5 Bc5 11 cxd4 d5! and Black seized the initiative in JobavaGrischuk, Plovdiv 2003.
6 d4
Modern players generally choose this. In his chapter on Historical
Development, Collins gives two examples of 6 00 from the Chigorin-Steinitz
world championship matches, but he points out that 6...Nf6 is good then.
Steinitz had other, wackier, ideas. Also 6 Qb3 has been tried but is not really
good enough; Collins gives an example in his book: 6...Qe7 7 d4 Nf6, a
novelty, featured as Game Fifteen in the book (Jobava-Aronian, Antalya
2004).
6...exd4
6...d6 is a solid alternative.
7 00
White offers another pawn, proposing the Compromised Defence (7...dxc3 8
Qb3), which was much analysed by the likes of Zukertort in the 1870s. It is
prudent to decline.
7...Nge7
This is nowadays considered the best way to continue, although it was
virtually forgotten until recommended by Bernard Cafferty and myself in the
first edition of our book Play the Evans Gambit in the 1970s. Since then,
theory probably advanced more in this variation than in any other line of the
Evans. With correct play, the position is about equal but both sides have
chances.
7...d6 was the old main line, with White continuing either 8 cxd4 or 8 Qb3.
7...Nf6 is an option says Collins, but anyone who walks into that jungle
without a guide deserves to be eaten by a tiger. Theory recommends 8 Ba3!
d6 9 e5! following two of Morphy's games. White may not have a forced win
but this is certainly not one of the more reliable defences to the Evans.
8 Ng5
8 cxd4 d5 9 exd5 Nxd5 10 Qb3 Be6! is the main alternative, when
a) The line is illustrated in the book by Sulskis-Svidler, Moscow 2001, which
continued 11 Qxb7 Ndb4 12 d5?! (After 12 Bb5 Bd5 13 Ne5 Rb8 14 Bxc6+
Nxc6 15 Qa6 Rb6 16 Qd3 00 and Black stands much better as analysed by
IM George Botterill in the 1970s.) 12...Rb8 13 Qxb8 Qxb8 14 dxe6 fxe6 15
Nc3 00 when White did not have enough for the queen.
b) Also possible is 11 Ba3 when
b1) 11...Qd7 is about equal, as in two of my postal games, e.g. 12 Rc1 Nb6 13
Bxe6 Qxe6 14 Qb5 a6 15 Qg5 when Black can play safely by 15...Qg6
(Krantz-Harding, corr 1988).
b2) Instead, when Sam Collins got this position, he played 11...Bb4!? 12
Bxb4 Ncxb4 13 a3 Nc6 14 Qxb7 Na5 15 Qa6 Nxc4 16 Qc6+ Kf8 17 Qxc4
(Vitoux-Collins, Ireland 2009), and now Sam says he should have played 17...
g6 and ...Kg7 with a good position.
8...d5 9 exd5 Ne5
[FEN "r1bqk2r/ppp1nppp/8/b2Pn1N1/2Bp4/
2P5/P4PPP/RNBQ1RK1 w kq - 0 10"]
10 Bb3
Collins says this is inaccurate, preferring 10 Qxd4 when play can go 10...f6
(rather than entering "muddy waters" by 10...Nxc4 11 Qxg7 Kd7) 11 Bb5+
(11 Bb3 Bb6 12 Qa4+ Qd7 13 Ne6 Qxa4 14 Bxa4+ Kf7 is a line from the old
Bilguer Handbuch.) 11...c6 12 dxc6 bxc6 13 Be2! and White has regained his
pawn but that's all. Asaturyan-Harding, corr 1988-91, went on 13...Qxd4 14
cxd4 Bg4!? 15 f3?! Bb6 16 Bb2 Bf5 17 Ne4 000 18 Rd1 Nd5 19 Na3 Rhe8
20 Nc2 with an eventual draw but Black had the edge.
10...00 11 Qxd4?!
a) Also poor is 11 Nxh7 Kxh7 12 Qh5+ Kg8 13 Qxe5 as was analysed in the
1990s; Collins now suggests 13...Nf5!
b) The best move is 11 cxd4 when after 11...Ng4 Hite has tried
b1) 12 Ba3 Nh6! (M. W. Johnson-Simon Webb, IECG World Email
Championship 1996) is analysed in the second edition of "Play the Evans
Gambit".
b2) 12 Qf3 Nf6 (Morozevich-Adams, Wijk aan Zee 2001) is given in Sam's
book, in a note on page 119.
11...N7g6 12 Bc2 Bb6 13 Qd2?! h6 14 Ne4 Qh4 15 Ba3 Re8 16 Bc5 Bxc5
17 Nxc5 Nf4 18 f3
[FEN "r1b1r1k1/ppp2pp1/7p/2NPn3/5n1q/
2P2P2/P1BQ2PP/RN3RK1 b - - 0 18"]
18...Nxf3+! 19 Rxf3 Re1+ 01

The Scotch Game by Yelena Dembo (a Greek IM) and English IM Richard
Palliser is a major treatise on this important opening, and it is refreshing to see
a new female author. A monster work at 381 pages, it retails for $28.95
(ChessCafe Price: $24.95).
This is a very big book that dives into analysis without any introductory
"ideas" chapter. This will make it daunting for sub-2200 players but
correspondence players will probably love all the detail. Otherwise, if this
work has a weakness, it is perhaps that the desire to concentrate on main lines
popular in current practice means that there is both a loss of historical

perspective but also, more seriously, a neglect of some inferior lines which in
practice occur a lot in amateur chess. Therefore readers could be looking in
vain for guidance on these lines.
On the first point, there is nothing earlier in the bibliography than Peter
Wells's 1998 monograph (which is now superseded) and so no mention of IM
George's Botterill's ground-breaking work on the Scotch from the 1970s,
which also covered the Scotch Gambit (4 Bc4) and Goring Gambit (4 c3)
which are not included here. Botterill researched back to nineteenth century
examples of the Scotch. This really laid the groundwork for players such as
Kasparov who took up the opening subsequently; hitherto it had been an
extreme rarity in twentieth century master chess. GM Lev Gutman's works are
also not mentioned.
In the following correspondence game, White's ninth move is an example of a
sharp move that became popular at sub-master level because computers saw
that it won material. There have been quite a lot of games with it, but in line
D22 on page 300- this is the elephant in the room that nobody mentions.
Jes Simmelsgard Tim Harding
ICCF World Cup 12, 2000
Scotch Game [C45]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nxd4 Bc5
Another line sometimes played below master level which could have done
with some more detailed attention is 4...Nxd4 (or 3...exd4 4 Nxd4 Nxd4) 5
Qxd4 which receives brief coverage on pages 358-9. Black's most solid plan
of 5...d6 gets five lines. After 6 Nc3 the authors only mention 6...Nf6 but I
had a correspondence game against a 2340 opponent that continued 6 Nc3
Bd7 (not in the book) and I required dozens of hours and extreme accuracy to
win that game. Also 5...Ne7 as played in the last game of the LondonEdinburgh correspondence match in the 1820s only concedes a very slight
edge.
5 Be3 Qf6 6 c3 Nge7 7 Bc4 Ne5 8 Be2 Qg6 9 Nb5?!
This move doesn't seem to be in any book yet in my correspondence database
White does well in games among low-rated players. I had to find the
refutation for myself but I later discussed the line with GM Lev Gutman
whose opinion was that it cannot be good.
The normal line is 9 00 but also known is 9 Bf3?! 00 (Dembo & Palliser
recommend 9...d5.) 10 Nd2 Nd3+ 11 Kf1 f5 12 exf5 Nxf5 13 Nxf5 Rxf5 14
Ne4 Bxe3 15 Qxd3 Bb6 16 Rd1 d6 17 Qd2 Be6 (Mortimer-Zukertort, London
1883).
[FEN "r1b1k2r/ppppnppp/6q1/1Nb1n3/4P3/
2P1B3/PP2BPPP/RN1QK2R b KQkq - 0 9"
9...Qxg2
Several games have gone 9...Bxe3 10 Nxc7+ Kd8 11 Nxa8 Qxg2 12 Rf1
reaching the main line below by transposition; Not 9...Qb6? 10 Bxc5 Qxc5 11
Qd4 (Bruschetta-Otto, corr 1992).
10 Nxc7+ Kd8 11 Rf1 Bxe3

11...Qxe4? was played in Abbey-Clare, corr 1994: 12 Nd2 Nd3+ 13 Bxd3
Qxd3 14 Nxa8 Bxe3 15 fxe3 Qxe3+ 16 Qe2 Qxe2+ 17 Kxe2 b5 18 Ne4+-.
12 Nxa8
White has "won" the exchange but if his a8-knight falls then it is Black who
wins material...
12...Bf4
[FEN "N1bk3r/pp1pnppp/8/4n3/4Pb2/
2P5/PP2BPqP/RN1QKR2 w Q - 0 13"]
This seems to be a key position where White has options.

13 Nd2
13 Qa4 and 13 Na3 have also been tried.
13...Qxh2 14 Qa4 Bxd2+ 15 Kxd2 Qf4+ 16 Ke1
Now we diverged from previous games. I had already noted that this move
may be preferred by computers so my opinion that White was not thinking
much for himself was increasing.
Previously 16 Kc2 had been played, when 16...N5c6! 17 Rg1 b6!? 18 Rxg7
Bb7 19 Nxb6 Qxf2 20 Qb5 axb6 is Gutman's suggestion.
16...N7c6 17 Rd1 Re8 18 f3 f5
Black will open the e-file and also hope to trap the a8-knight cheaply in the
long run.
19 Qb5 fxe4 20 fxe4 Qxe4 21 Kd2 d6 22 Kc1 Bf5 23 Rxf5 Qxf5
White can regain at least one of his lost pawns but his knight is in trouble and
Black has two passed pawns on the kingside.
24 Qxb7 Qd7 25 Qa6 Ke7 26 Bd3 h6 27 Nb6 Nxd3+ 28 Qxd3 axb6
White might resign but, blaming the post, dragged this game out for months
longer than its natural course.
29 Qe3+ Ne5 30 Qxb6 g5 31 Rh1 Rh8 32 Kb1 g4 33 Qe3 Qf5+ 01
Black won on time.
Everyman Chess introduces new author Charlie Storey as a FIDE Master
who has been teaching chess in England for over fifteen years. His book The
Sniper (US $26.95, ChessCafe Price: $22.95, also available as an e-book for
$19.95) advocates an opening system or Black based on 1g6, 2Bg7 and
3c5. He advocates playing those as your first three moves against almost
anything (except 1 b3 or 1 b4 of course) but also covers the Dragon-like
Sicilian Sniper (1c5, 2g6) and some other allied systems. Like most
Everyman chess books (but not the one on the Scotch) the story is told
through seventy illustrative games.
Storey's recommended line sometimes involves a (temporary?) pawn sacrifice
in return for which Black gets to give up the bishop pair too, for the sake of
trebling White's c-pawn, viz. 1 e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 Nc3 (if 3 c3 he admits Black
must play 3d5 first and not 3c5) 3c5 4 dxc5 Bxc3+ 5 bxc3 Qa5.
[FEN "rnb1k1nr/pp1ppp1p/6p1/q1P5/4P3/
2P5/P1P2PPP/R1BQKBNR w KQkq - 0 6"]
My initial reaction was: What an ugly position! Who would want to be either
player here? Not White whose pawns are wrecked and have lost their
dynamism, and who is not likely to be able to hold the extra pawn for long.
Nor Black, begging to differ with Mr Storey, since he has just swapped off his
fianchettoed bishop leaving ugly holes at g7, f6 and h6. His only developed
piece is his queen which he proposes to move some more (gobbling on c3 and/
or c5) before moving a knight.
Yet Storey has won games against strong players with this variation in British
Championships, so it cannot be so easy to refute. Now he has let the cat out of
the bag with this book, it may be a different matter.
C. Desmarais J. Fang
Chelmsford, 2001
Modern Defence, Spike Variation [B06]
1 e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 Nc3 c5 4 dxc5 Bxc3+ 5 bxc3 Qa5
Instead 5...Nc6!? (to rule out White's Qb4) is discussed in Games 18 and 19
of Storey's book. e.g. 6 Be3 Qa5 7 Qd2 Nf6 8 f3 00 9 Bd3 b6 (MassereyAdianto, Lausanne 2001); this ...b6 pawn sacrifice is Storey's key
recommendation in the variation.
Also 5...Nf6!? was suggested long ago by Gerard Welling, with the not
entirely convincing idea 6 e5 Ne4 7 Qd4 Qa5!
6 Qd4 Nf6 7 Qb4
The alternative 7 Bd2 Nc6 8 Qe3 b6! 9 cxb6 Qxb6! 10 Qxb6 axb6 11 f3 00
12 Kf2 Ba6 is discussed in detail in the book, pages 514.
7...Nc6!?
Here is an example where White won. 7...Qc7 8 Nf3 Nc6 9 Qc4! Qa5 10 Rb1
d6 11 cxd6 Be6 12 Qb5 Qxb5 13 Bxb5 Nxe4 14 dxe7 Kxe7 15 Ba3+ Kf6 16
Bd3 Rhe8! 17 c4 Kg7 18 00 Bg4 19 Rfe1 Bxf3 20 gxf3 Nd2 21 Rxe8 Rxe8
22 Rxb7 Nxf3+ 23 Kg2 Ne1+ 24 Kg3 10 J. Verwoert-Gerard Welling, 27th
Netherlands Corr Ch 1996-7.
8 Qxa5 Nxa5 9 Bd3 00 10 Ne2 b6 11 cxb6 axb6 12 Be3 d5 13 Bxb6 dxe4
Now Black was happy.
[FEN "r1b2rk1/4pp1p/1B3np1/n7/4p3/
2PB4/P1P1NPPP/R3K2R w KQ - 0 14"]
14 Bb5 Ba6 15 Bxa5 Bxb5 16 Bb4 Nd5 17 Nd4 Bc4 18 a3 Rac8

18...Rfc8! is much better says Storey.
19 000 Nxb4 20 axb4 e5 21 Nb3 Bxb3 22 cxb3 Rxc3+ 23 Kb2 Rd3 24
Rc1 Rb8 25 Rc4 Rd2+ 26 Kc3 Rxf2 27 Rxe4 f6
[FEN "1r4k1/7p/5pp1/4p3/1P2R3/1PK5/
5rPP/7R w - - 0 28"]
Black won the endgame instructively.

28 Rc4 Kf7 29 g4 Rf3+ 30 Kc2 Rh3 31 Rc7+ Ke6 32 Rd1 e4 33 Rdd7 Ke5
34 Rxh7 Rxh7 35 Rxh7 Kf4 36 Re7 f5 37 gxf5 gxf5 38 Kc3 Ke3 39 Kc4 f4
40 b5 f3 41 Kc5 f2 42 Rf7 Ke2 01
One big point in favour of the Sniper, if the resulting positions suit you, is that
you do not have to buy any books about 1 d4 openings or the English etc. Just
be sure that you can handle transpositions to the Dragon or Accelerated
Dragon Sicilians, and that you have something prepared against the Sokolsky
Opening and against 1 b3.
American IM Cyrus Lakdawala was invited to write a book on the Veresov, 1
d4 Nf6 2 Nc3 d5 3 Bg5 because of a misunderstanding with the publisher's
editor. John Emms didn't realise at first that the Lakdawala who was winning
games with this opening was Cyrus' brother Jimmy. Eventually he persuaded
Cyrus to take on the project anyway. This was a brave move for both editor
and author. Actually Cyrus had played the opening in some rapid tournaments
and took it up again; probably rapid and blitz events is where this opening
belongs.
The outcome is a fat (304 page) volume entitled A Ferocious Opening
Repertoire (Everyman Chess, US $27.95, ChessCafe Price: $22.95). There are
105 annotated illustrative games. It is interesting, incidentally, to note that
price points for chess openings books seem to bear no relation to their size.
When it works, the Veresov (or Richter-Veresov as it is often called) can give
White an impressive crush. Here is an example from the book.
Cyrus Lakdawala Barquin
San Diego rapid, 2010
Richter-Veresov Attack [D01]

1 d4 d5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 Bg5 h6?!
Do not try this at home. Why give away a tempo?
4 Bxf6 exf6 5 e3
[FEN "rnbqkb1r/ppp2pp1/5p1p/3p4/3P4/
2N1P3/PPP2PPP/R2QKBNR b KQkq - 0 5"]
5...c6
5...Bb4 6 Nge2 00 7 a3 Ba5 8 b4 Bb6 9 g3 Bg4?! (better 9...f5) 10 Bg2 c6 11
h3 Bh5 12 Qd2 Nd7 13 Nf4 Bg6 14 00 Bc7 15 e4! and White has achieved
his strategic aim, winning eventually (S. Chekhov-V. Sokolovsky, Voronezh
2009: Game 40 in the book).
6 Bd3 Bd6 7 Qf3 00 8 Nge2 Re8 9 h4 b5 10 Ng3 a5 11 Nce2 Ra7 12 Nf5
Bxf5 13 Qxf5 g6 14 Qf3 Kg7
Not 14...h5 15 g4.
15 g4 Rae7 16 h5
[FEN "1n1qr3/4rpk1/2pb1ppp/pp1p3P/3P2P1/
3BPQ2/PPP1NP2/R3K2R b KQ - 0 16"]
16...Na6?
16...g5 was necessary for king safety.
17 hxg6 fxg6 18 000 Nb4? 19 Bxg6! Rh8
If 19...Kxg6 20 Rxh6+ Kxh6 21 Qxf6+ and mates.
20 Bf5 Nxa2+ 21 Kd2 a4 22 Ra1 Nb4 23 c3 Na6 24 Bd3 Qc8 25 Rh5 Nc7
26 Rah1 Ne6 27 Rxh6! Rxh6 28 Rxh6 1-0
There is a big but here. If you were to believe the author, the arrival of a
French Defence position on the board would be a nasty shock to a nave
defender who was just hoping by a timid e6 to avoid the main line of the
Veresov. Thus, on page 109 he writes of the position after 3 Bg5:
"At this point, your opponent begins to get cold feet, realizing he doesn't
know a thing about the Veresov and impulsively he responds 3e6 4
e4 The really wonderful benefit for you is that about 80% of your
opposition will be unfamiliar with the black side of the French!"
My answer to that is a colourful expletive related to what comes out of the
rear end of a cow's husband. My recommendation to potential purchasers of
this book is that, unless you are a French Defence player with Black yourself,
do not attempt the Veresov against anyone who regularly plays the French
(especially not the 3Nf6 lines) because they have a choice of sound
variations and they will surely know them better than you do.
One reason the Veresov never appears in my repertoire is that as a long-time
French Defence advocate I do not have to fear it. This is because an early e4
is central to the Veresov but after 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nc3 Nf6 (or even 2e6 3 e4 if
you want to defend a Winawer, 3Bb4, or play Rubinstein's 3dxe4) 3 Bg5
e6 4 e4 Black has a wide variety of playable replies.
Now 4Bb4 is the MacCutcheon, 4Be7 is the Classical, 4dxe4 is the
Burn variation. These are all respectable lines that give both players a fair
crack of the whip and it is Black's call which one will arise.
Even Alekhine's 4h6?! (which gambits the d-pawn after 5 Bxf6) has been
taken seriously recently in a chapter from Secrets of Opening Surprises 4.
That move is not mentioned at all in the book.
As for the line 1 d4 d5 2 Nc3 e6 3 e4 Black, if he is content to draw, has a line
that will break the Veresov player's heart: 3dxe4 (Rubinstein's move) 4
Nxe4 Nd7 followed up the way P. H. Clarke used to do in English
tournaments in the 1970s.
After 5 Ngf3, Clarke did not defend the way the book shows (with 5Ngf6
and 6c5) but rather with 5Be7, 6Ngf6 and awaiting the right moment
for c5, which could come much later. Lakdawala also looks at the "Fort
Knox" 4Bd7 version but to my mind the Clarke treatment is more secure
than Fort Knox. In a recent Dublin league match, where our university team
faced relegation and I had to not lose at all costs, the Clarke variation enabled
me to defer the weight of the struggle to the endgame and my frustrated
opponent eventually went wrong and lost.
There is also a certain inconsistency in the author's approach. I can understand
why the Albin-Chatard Attack is recommended against the Classical, since
4Be7 5 e5 Nfd7 6 h4 is a dangerous gambit that will suit the style of
Veresov players. (That's not the same as saying it's entirely sound, but Black
usually declines.)
Against the MacCutcheon, however, the author took up Emms's suggestion
and recommends meeting 4Bb4 by 5 exd5 which is not a bad move but,
frankly, will not suit the style of Veresov/ Chatard attacking fiends. Only
those with the mental flexibility to switch in one move from berserker mode
to subtle teaser out of minute advantages will adopt this move.
Illa Smirin Mikhail Shereshevski
Sokolsky Memorial, 1985
French Defence, MacCutcheon Variation [C12]
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bg5 Bb4
The same position is reached via 1 d4 d5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 Bg5 e6 4 e4 Bb4.
5 exd5 Qxd5
5...exd5 is drawish at best. MacCutcheonites tend to prefer the queen
recapture.
6 Bxf6 gxf6
6...Bxc3+ 7 bxc3 gxf6 8 Qd2 and now he considers ...Qa5 and 8...c5, but also
possible is 8...Nd7 as in my book The Classical French (Batsford, 1991, page

169) 9 c4 Qe4+ 10 Ne2 b6 11 f3 (Alekhine) 11...Qc6=.
7 Nge2 Nc6 8 Qd2
Here Lakdawala considers only 8...Qg5 but there are two other possibilities,
8...Qa5!? and the move seen in this game.
8...Bxc3! 9 Qxc3 Bd7 10 Qb3 Qxb3 11 axb3 Nb4! 12 000 Bc6 13 Nf4 0
00
[FEN "2kr3r/ppp2p1p/2b1pp2/8/1n1P1N2/
1P6/1PP2PPP/2KR1B1R w - - 0 14"]
Shereshevski is the author of several books on the endgame and he showed

how to handle this position.
14 c3 Nd5 15 Nh5 Rhg8 16 Rg1 Ne7 17 Be2 Bxg2 18 Nxf6 Rg6 19 Ng4 Be4
20 Ne5 Rxg1 21 Rxg1 Bg6 22 h4 f6 23 Nxg6 hxg6 24 Bg4 Kd7 25 Re1 f5
26 Bf3 c6 27 Kd2 Rh8 28 Rh1 Kd6 29 c4 e5 30 Ke3 exd4+ 31 Kxd4 c5+ 32
Kc3 b6 33 b4 cxb4+ 34 Kxb4 Nc6+ 35 Kc3 Ne5 36 Be2 f4 37 f3 a5 38 Kd4
Nc6+ 39 Kc3 Ne5 40 b3 Rh5 41 Rd1+ Ke6 42 Rd5 Rxh4 43 Rb5 Nd7 44
Bd3 Rh5 45 Bxg6 Rxb5 46 cxb5 Kd5 47 b4 axb4+ 48 Kxb4 Kd4 49 Bh5
Ne5 50 Kb3 Ke3 51 Kc2 Nxf3 52 Kd1 Nd2 01
An even fatter book is The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit by IM Christoph
Scheerer (Everyman Chess, US $27.95, ChessCafe Price: $23.95). This
famous but dubious gambit begins 1 d4 d5 2 e4 dxe4 3 Nc3 and if Black
replies 3Nf6, as he usually does, then comes 4 f3. Of course the first thing
to note is that French Defence players can simply "chicken out" by 2e6 or
reach the aforementioned Rubinstein Variation by 2dxe4 3 Nc3 e6. CaroKann players can play 2c6 or 3c6. If Black does not want to take the
pawn, then Lemberger's 3e5!? (treated in the first chapter) is fascinating.
Like the book on the Scotch and unlike the other two, this book is not built
around illustrative games but employs the old "Batsford-style" variation
subdivision treatment. I do not propose to analyse the BDG in this article but
in a future column I may examine some of the lines from the book.
Now, although the book's index is silent on the matter, Scheerer does actually
mention those possibilities on pages 50-51. He recommends 4 f3 against the
Caro-Kann, which should transpose to lines elsewhere in the book, but he
shrinks from suggesting 4 f3 against the Rubinstein French. A pawn is a
pawn. So he falls back on recommending a book about the French by a
colleague one that, I am glad to say, also does not discuss the Clarke
treatment of the Rubinstein, mentioned above.
It is true that the BDG pawn is hard to resist. As with the Latvian CounterGambit, countless correspondence games have been played by amateurs in
tournaments organised specifically to test it and thousands of these games can
be found in databases. Some are interesting. Many contain huge blunders.
You will not find many games played by professional masters with this
opening.
Finally, those who buy Storey's book will be pleased to know that 1g6 is
not considered either in Lakdawala's book on the Veresov or Scheerer's book
on the Blackmar-Diemer.
Postscript
It is absolutely shocking that FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov paid a
highly publicised visit during June to see his old friend Colonel Muammar
Gadaffi in Tripoli. The English chess federation was rightly very quick to
issue a press release saying that this meeting brings the game of chess into
disrepute.
Can nothing (legal) be done within FIDE to get rid of Ilyumzhinov? Is there
not something in the constitution that would enable him to be impeached? All
the federations that voted for him last year out of fear or self-interest should
be examining their consciences and supporting a motion of no confidence in
the President at the next opportunity.

Computer Chess: The State of the Art

Professor Monty Newborn wrote a book on computer chess back in 1975, so
he has been working in this field almost from the early pioneering days. Now
an emeritus professor of computer science at McGill University in Montreal,
he is very well qualified to survey the history of computer versus computer
tournaments and to give an assessment of the current power and future
potential of chess engines.
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Translate this page
In the early decades of computer chess research, academic computer

scientists, working with what is puny hardware by today's standards, argued
over whether a 'brute force' calculating approach, or an attempt to make the
machine play chess by human-like heuristics ('artificial intelligence') would
yield better results. Then computer chess became commercialised and the
scientists concentrated on how to make the most of the new computing power
available. One gain for them was that instead of needing to program the
computers in binary machine language in order to maximise speed, the power
available is so vast that they can use a higher-level language (usually 'C'),
which enables sophisticated procedures to be implemented. Also there is
virtually no limit now on the amount of computer memory available to hold
comprehensive and deep opening 'books' and to have access to endgame
tablebases, although the latter only come into play in a small minority of
games.
Purchases from our

accessible:
How to Use Computers

to Improve Your Chess
by Christian Kongsted
Deep Fritz 12
by ChessBase

the games from
Newborn's new book Beyond Deep Blue, published in London by SpringerVerlag, includes 118 games played by seventeen different chess engines from
Kasparov's matches with Deep Blue in 1996 and 1997 up to the 2010 world
computer championship. The matches between Deep Fritz and Kramnik
(2002) and Deep Junior versus Kasparov (2003) are also included. Otherwise
all the games in the book are between computer opponents.
The games are mostly not annotated but there are introductory comments to
some of them, and some diagrams of critical moments. This is a book
primarily for computer scientists but one that chess players are also likely to
find of interest. In this article I include five games from the book, with some
additional comments by this humble "carbon unit." With Elo ratings of over
3000 now being claimed for the top computers, one has to be careful what
comments are made, and no doubt that is partly why Newborn has not
provided analysis of specific moves.
There are certain things that this book does not do which it might have done,
however. One of these is to relate the developments of the openings played in
computer chess tournaments to developments in "human" opening theory. I
have addressed this specifically in my annotations to one of the five games
below. The other connected issue is to assess the real power of chess engines
Deep Junior
by ChessBase
tested without their opening books.

Finally, no advice is given to the human player on how to play against
computers. The message from the author basically seems to be that since
computers are now way ahead, any advice would be futile. He omits the 2005
match between Michael Adams and Hydra because it was "the first major
match in which a top grandmaster was really taken to the cleaners by a
machine." Adams, at that time rated number seven in the world, could only
scramble one desperate draw from six games on that occasion. As experts
such as John Nunn pointed out at the time, allowing the computer an
unlimited opening book and access to endgame tablebases made this an
unequal struggle, and Adams did not help his chances by just playing "normal
chess" without any special preparation.
Since the top computer engines are already playing "better" chess than any
grandmaster, ChessBase's continuing omission of engine games from their
databases seems a rather strange decision to me. Admittedly, computer versus
computer games tend to be somewhat unfathomable but they are certainly not
as boring as they used to be except sometimes the final phases where they
play on for ages rather than agree draws or resign as a human would.
On page 257 Newborn says, "the likelihood of the human chess world
champion defeating the best chess-playing engine is approaching zero
quickly." Somewhere else he says that the current rating difference implies
the top computer would score ninety-two percent against the highest-rated
human. Newborn predicts that over the next decade the top engines will reach
3500 standard!
Let us look at five computer versus computer games from the book.
Ferret Shredder
9th World Computer Ch, 1999
Evans Gambit [C52]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 b4
This must have been a decision by the Ferret programmers. The Ruy Lopez is
by far the most usual
1 e4 e5 opening in the book and classic gambits are unusual.
4...Bxb4 5 c3 Ba5 6 d4 exd4 7 00 Nge7
Shredder's "book" tells it to play one of the best defences to the Evans.
8 cxd4 d5 9 exd5 Nxd5 10 Ba3 Be6 11 Bb5
Probably chosen by Ferret's opening book designers in preference to the
theoretical recommendation 11 Qb3.
11...Bb4 12 Bxc6+ bxc6 13 Bxb4 Nxb4 14 Qa4 Qd6 15 Nc3
Old theory going back to Levenfish (1939) had 15 Nbd2.
15...Nd3
Humans tend to castle here, though not always.
16 d5 Nc5
Later the following occurred in a correspondence game: 16...Bf5 17 Nd4 Bg6
18 Nxc6 00 19 Nb5 Qd7 20 Nbxa7 Rfe8 21 Qd4 Be4 22 f3 Qxd5 23 Qxd5
Bxd5 24 Rfd1 Bc4 25 a4 h6 26 Nb5 Bxb5 27 axb5 Rxa1 28 Rxa1 Ne5 29
Nxe5 , J. Rodda Romero-A. Gonzalez Lopez, Cuba corr. 2002.
17 Qxc6+ Qxc6 18 dxc6
[FEN "r3k2r/p1p2ppp/2P1b3/2n5/8/
2N2N2/P4PPP/R4RK1 b kq - 0 18"]
Is the pawn on c6 weak or strong? The two games I found from this position
suggest opposite conclusions.
18...Ke7
V. Vainio-J. Heino, Finland team ch 2000, went instead 18...Rb8!? 19 Rab1?!
Ke7 20 Nd4 a6 21 Rfe1 Rxb1 22 Rxb1 Rd8 23 Rd1 Rb8 24 h3 Rb4 25 Nf3
Rc4 26 Nd5+ Bxd5 27 Rxd5 Ne6 28 Ne5 Rc1+ 29 Kh2 f6 30 Nd3 Rxc6 31
Nb4 Rc5 32 Rd2 a5 and Black is a pawn ahead although eventually he did not
win. Maybe one or both of the players knew this computer game.
White's 19th move looked weak. Instead White should pursue his own plans;
e.g., 19 Rfe1 and Black cannot reply 19...Rb6? because of 20 Nd5.
19 Rfe1 Nd3 20 Re3 Nb4 21 Nd4 Rhd8 22 Rd1 Kf6 23 a3 Nd5 24 Ne4+
Ke7 25 Ree1 Bg4 26 f3 Bc8 27 Nc5+ Kf6 28 Nb5 Be6 29 Na6 Rac8 30
Nbxc7
[FEN "2rr4/p1N2ppp/N1P1bk2/3n4/
8/P4P2/6PP/3RR1K1 b - - 0 30"]
30...h5 31 h3 h4 32 a4 Nxc7 33 Rxd8 Rxd8 34 Nxc7 Rc8 35 Nxe6 fxe6 36

Rc1 e5 37 Kf2 Ke6 38 g3 hxg3+ 39 Kxg3 Kd6
39...Kf5 looks better as Black is not threatening to win the c-pawn.
40 Rd1+ Ke6
Newborn does not explain what would happen in the king and pawn endgame
after 40...Kxc6 41 Rc1+ Kd7 42 Rxc8 Kxc8. It is an easy win for White: 43
Kg4 Kd7 44 Kf5 Kd6 45 Kg6 Kd5 46 h4 Kd4 (46...e4 47 fxe4+ Kxe4 48
Kxg7 etc.) 47 Kxg7 Ke3 48 h5 Kxf3 49 h6 e4 50 h7 e3 51 h8Q and wins.
41 Rd7 Rxc6 42 Rxg7 Rc3 43 Rg4
Not 43 Rxa7? e4.
43...Kf5 44 h4 Rc1 45 h5 Rc6 46 Rg7 Ra6 47 Rg4 Rc6 48 Rg7 Ra6
[FEN "8/p5R1/r7/4pk1P/P7/5PK1/8/8 w - - 0 49"]
Shredder proposed a draw but the game plodded on for a good while longer,
White trying to exploit the extra pawn.
49 Rg8 Rb6 50 Kh4 Rb4+ 51 Kg3 Rb6 52 Kh4 Rb4+ 53 Rg4 Rb2 54 Kg3
Rb6 55 a5 Rd6 56 Rg7 Ra6 57 Rg8 Rd6 58 Kh4 Rd4+ 59 Kg3 Rd6 60 Rb8
Kg5 61 Re8 Rd5 62 a6 Ra5 63 Re7 e4 64 Rxa7 Ra3 65 Kf2 Rxf3+ 66 Ke2
Kxh5 67 Ra8 Rf7 68 Ke3 Re7 69 Rb8 Kg6 70 Rb6+ Kf5
Draw agreed (by the operators presumably).
The role of opening books is central to understanding the next game. Where
known, precise dates of play are stated because theory moved very fast in this
variation.
Rybka Shredder
15th World Computer Ch, June 18 2007
Najdorf Sicilian, Poisoned Pawn [B97]
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Bg5 e6 7 f4 Qb6 8 Qd2
Qxb2 9 Rb1 Qa3 10 e5
When I was at school in the 1960s this natural move was the main line of the
Poisoned Pawn but Bobby Fischer seemed to have busted it and attention
shifted to 10 Bxf6 or 10 f5, seeking positional compensation or a slower
attack. GM John Nunn, writing his The Complete Najdorf 6 Bg5 (1996) wrote
that 10 e5 'has slumped' and was a 'theoretical backwater. A revival is not
imminent.' Over ten years later, some top GMs revived the line with White's
fourteenth move, no doubt the result of home analysis with their computers.
10...dxe5 11 fxe5 Nfd7 12 Ne4 h6 13 Bh4 Qxa2 14 Rd1!
[FEN "rnb1kb1r/1p1n1pp1/p3p2p/4P3/
3NN2B/8/q1PQ2PP/3RKB1R b Kkq - 0 14"]
This move is not in Nunn's book. I have read that it was discovered by Nataf
in 2005 but am unsure if that is correct. Ftacnik's analysis (in ChessBase
Magazine 118 for example) of his game with Shirov, played on April 1, 2007,
was probably published too late to influence the designer of Rybka's book for
the coming computer tournaments, otherwise the course of the present game
would have been different.
14...Qd5
14...Nxe5?? is too risky as it leaves d8 undefended and White can play 15

Nb5.
15 Qe3 Qxe5 16 Be2 Bc5 17 Bg3 Bxd4 18 Rxd4 Qa5+ 19 Rd2 00 20 Bd6
[FEN "rnb2rk1/1p1n1pp1/p2Bp2p/q7/
4N3/4Q3/2PRB1PP/4K2R b K - 0 20"]
This game was essentially a contest between the designers of the respective
opening 'books' of the two computers, as Newborn explains on page 160. He
says Rybka would have preferred Black in this line, if it had not been in 'book'.
20...Re8
The games reaching this position in ChessBase's Mega Database 2011 were
nearly all played in 2007, after which professional players seem to have
abandoned the line.
Black has also tried the following:
a) 20...Rd8!? 21 Qg3 Qf5 22 Be5 Qg6 23 Qh4 Nc6 24 00 (24 Bh5 Qf5 25
Bxg7 Nc5 26 Nxc5 Kxg7 seems to be a critical line.) 24...f5 25 Bh5 Qh7 26
Bb2 fxe4 27 Rf7 Rf8 and now:
a1) 28 Qf2?? Rxf7 29 Qxf7+ Kh8 30 Rf2 e5 31 Qd5 Nf6 01, MotylevAnand, Wijk aan Zee, January 14 2007.
a2) White should have played 28 Rxg7+ Qxg7 29 Bxg7 Kxg7 30 Qg3+ Kh8
31 Qg6 forcing a draw by 31...Rf6 32 Qe8+ Rf8 33 Qg6.
b) 20...Nc6:
b1) 21 Bxf8:
b12) 21...Nxf8 22 00 Bd7 23 Nd6 Ne5 24 Nxb7 Qc7 25 Nd6 f6 26 c4 Bc6
27 Ra1 Nfd7 28 Qd4 (10, 41) Anand-Van Wely, Wijk aan Zee, January 23
2007.
b11) 21...Kxf8 22 00 Qb6?? 23 Rxf7+! Kg8 24 Rxg7+ 10, Luther-Ftacnik,
Germany (Bundesliga) February 4 2007.
b2) 21 00 f5 22 Bxf8 Nxf8 23 Nd6 b5 24 Bf3 Bd7 25 Nxf5 exf5 26 Rxd7
Nxd7 27 Bxc6 Rd8 28 Bxd7 10, Shirov-Guliyev, Calatrava (date unknown)
2007.
21 00
Correspondence players, mostly powered by silicon, no doubt, took up this
variation and in my database there are forty-nine games played from this
position between 2007 and 2009.
[FEN "rnb1r1k1/1p1n1pp1/p2Bp2p/q7/
4N3/4Q3/2PRB1PP/5RK1 b - - 0 21"]
21...f5
Ftacnik's notes identified this as a mistake, but it is uncertain whether it is. He
wrote that 'Anand was at the last Bundesliga double round in Baden Baden
and after the game had a lot to contribute to the long and fascinating post
mortem.'
Black's alternative is 21...Nc6:
a) 22 Kh1 f5 23 Nc5 Nf6 24 Bf3 e5 25 Nb3 Qa4 26 Rfd1 Qc4 27 Rd5 Kh7 28
Rc5 Qe6 29 Bxc6 bxc6 30 Rxe5 Qf7 31 Rxe8 Qxe8 32 Qxe8 Nxe8 33 Be5
Ra7 34 Rd8 Rd7 35 Rxd7 Bxd7 36 Nc5 Bc8 37 Kg1 Kg6 38 Kf2 Nf6 39 Ke3
Kf7 40 Kd4 g5 41 h3 f4 42 h4 Bf5 43 hxg5 hxg5 44 Nxa6 Bxc2 45 Nb4 Ba4
46 Nd3 Bb5 47 Nf2 Ke6 48 Bc7 Kf5 49 g3 f3 50 Bd6 g4 51 Be7 Nh5 52 Bd6
Ng7 53 Ke3 Ne6 54 Ne4 Bc4 55 Be7 Bd5 56 Nd6+ Kg6 57 Nb7 Ng5 58 Nc5
Nh3 59 Nd3 Kf5 60 Bd6 Bc4 61 Nf2 Nxf2 62 Kxf2 Ke4 63 Bc5 Bf7 64 Ke1
Kd3 65 Bf2 Bb3 66 Bg1 Ba4 67 Bf2 Kc3 68 Bg1 Kb4 69 Kd2 c5 70 Bf2 c4
71 Be1 Kb3 72 Bf2 c3+ 73 Kc1 Kc4 01, Korneev-Colovic, Benasque, July
12 2007.
b) 22 Qf4 f6 23 Qg3 Kh7 24 Bc7 b6 25 Bf4 Re7 26 Bxh6 gxh6 27 Rxf6 Rg7
28 Qf4 Rg6 29 Rxg6 Kxg6 30 Rxd7 Bxd7 31 Qf6+ Kh7 32 Qf7+ Kh8 33 Qf6
+ , I. Chirila-I. Salgado Lopez, World Under16 ch, Kemer, November
26 2007.
22 Qg3
Anand and Ftacnik claimed that Black's twenty-first move is not playable for
Black because of the reply 22 Bh5!' Yet it does not seem to have been played
so maybe there was a flaw.
Rybka follows Shirov's play.
[FEN "rnb1r1k1/1p1n2p1/p2Bp2p/q4p2/
4N3/6Q1/2PRB1PP/5RK1 b - - 0 22"]
22...fxe4?
Newborn notes that ten days previously, Deep Fritz refused the knight against
Deep Junior (in the third game of their match at Elista), but eventually lost.
Thereby he implies that refusing the knight is a mistake, whereas in fact it is

almost certainly the correct choice. Nor does Newborn provide any of the
time-related human context I am providing here. That is important because it
was humans at this stage of the game who decided what the computers would
play.
We shall return to that possibility below.
23 Qg6
White has sacrificed three pawns and a knight, but is winning.
23...Rd8
a) 23...Qd8 24 Rf7 Qb6+ 25 Kh1 Qb2 26 Rxg7+ Qxg7 27 Qxe8+ Kh7 28
Qxc8+- and White wins.
b) 23...Qxd2 24 Qxe8+ Kh7 25 Bh5 Qe3+ 26 Kh1 Qg5 27 h4 Qxh4+ 28 Kg1
Qg5 29 Be7 Qxh5 30 Qxh5 Nc6 31 Bg5 Nce5 32 Bf4 10, Rentner2-PvP,
playchess.com rapid, June 22 2007.
24 Rf7 Qc3
24...Qb6+ 25 Kh1 Qb2 26 Bc5 Rf8 27 Bxf8 Nxf8 28 Rd8 Qa1+ 29 Rf1+-.
25 Bg4
Newborn says this was the last Rybka book move. Maybe the computer would
have chosen differently had it been allowed to calculate for itself.
25 Bb4 Qe5 26 Bg4 Re8 27 Rdf2 Nc6 28 Rxg7+ Qxg7 29 Qxe8+ Kh7 30 Rf7
Nde5 31 Rxg7+ Kxg7 32 Bc3 h5 33 Bxh5 e3 34 Bg6 Kh6 35 Qg8 Nxg6 36
Bf6 Nce7 37 Qg7+ Kh5 38 h3 10 was B. Ivanov M. Dabija corr 2008
(played on the ICCF server).
[FEN "rnbr2k1/1p1n1Rp1/p2Bp1Qp/8/
4p1B1/2q5/2PR2PP/6K1 b - - 0 25"]
25...Nf8
25...Nc6 26 Rdf2 e3 27 Rf1 Qd4 28 c3 Qxc3 29 Bxe6+-.
26 Bxf8 Qa1+
A human example is 26...Rxf8 27 Rxf8+ Kxf8 28 Bh5 Qa1+ 29 Rd1 Qxd1+
30 Bxd1 Nc6 31 Bh5 Ke7 32 Qxg7+ Kd6 33 Qxh6 a5 34 Qf4+ e5 35 Qf8+
Kc7 36 Bf7 e3 37 h4 a4 38 h5 Rb8 39 Qg7 a3 40 Ba2+ Kb6 41 g4 Nd4 42
Qh6+ 10, H. Daurelle-P.Rosso, LSS webserver corr. 2007.
27 Rf1 Qxf1+ 28 Kxf1 Rxf8+ 29 Rf2 Nc6 30 Bh5 Rxf2+ 31 Kxf2 Ne5 32
Qe8+ Kh7 33 Ke3 b5 34 Kf4 Bb7 35 Qe7 Bd5 36 Kxe5
With queen versus rook, the win is only a matter of time. The three pawns
(not being far advanced) are largely irrelevant. (TH)
36...a5 37 g4 e3 38 g5 hxg5 39 Qxg5 Kg8 40 Qxe3 Rf8 41 Be2 b4 42 Bd3
Rf3 43 Qg5 b3 44 Bg6 Rf6 45 Qh5 Rxg6 46 Qxg6 b2 47 Qe8+ Kh7 48 Qb5
Kh6 49 Qxb2 Ba8 50 Qc1+ Kh5 51 Qf4 Bd5 52 c4 Bc6 53 Qf7+ Kg4 54
Qxe6+ Kf3 55 Qxc6+ Ke3 1-0
Black (or its operators) resigned.
Now let us return to see what may happen if the knight offer is declined.
Deep Junior Deep Fritz
Third match game, June 8 2007
Najdorf Sicilian, Poisoned Pawn [B97]
(Moves 1-21, and White's twenty-second move as in the previous game)
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Bg5 e6 7 f4 Qb6 8 Qd2
Qxb2 9 Rb1 Qa3 10 e5 dxe5 11 fxe5 Nfd7 12 Ne4 h6 13 Bh4 Qxa2 14 Rd1!
Qd5 15 Qe3 Qxe5 16 Be2 Bc5 17 Bg3 Bxd4 18 Rxd4 Qa5+ 19 Rd2 00 20
Bd6 Re8 21 0-0 f5 22 Qg3 Nc6!
[FEN "r1b1r1k1/1p1n2p1/p1nBp2p/q4p2/
4N3/6Q1/2PRB1PP/5RK1 w - - 0 23"]
23 Qg6 Qd8 24 Bc4

24 c4 Ne7 25 Qg3 fxe4 26 Bc7 Nf5 27 Rxf5 Qe7 28 Bd6 Qd8 29 Bc7 Qe7 30
Bd6 was Shabalov-Ehlvest, Stillwater, 21 May 2007.
24...Kh8!
Here Ftacnik's comment to his game was: 'I was very lucky to have this
resource at my defensive disposal. Shirov was using a lot of time in order to
find the real refutation of Black's daring strategy. Fortunately at this stage
there probably wasn't one.'
25 Ng5 Qxg5
Not 25...hxg5 26 Rxf5!.
26 Qxe8+ Kh7
[FEN "r1b1Q3/1p1n2pk/p1nBp2p/
5pq1/2B5/8/2PR2PP/5RK1 w - - 0 27"]
27 Bf4!
Rybka, apparently thanks to its opening book designer, diverged from

Ftacnik's game. That continued 27 Qxe6 Nf6 28 Qe2?! (28 Qe1 Ne4 29 Rd1
Qg6 30 Bf4 Be6= Ftacnik) 28...Ne4 29 Rd3 Qg6 30 Ba3 Ne5 31 Rd4 Qb6 32
Rfd1 Nc6 33 Qe3 Nxd4 34 Qxd4! Qxd4+ 35 Rxd4 b5 36 Bd3 Ra7 37 Rd8
Be6 38 Re8 Bc4?! (38...Bf7!) 39 Bxe4 fxe4 40 Rxe4 Rd7? (40...Rf7! 41 Re1
a5 offered winning chances.) 41 Bb4 Kg6 42 Re7! Rd1+ 43 Re1 Rxe1+ 44
Bxe1= and White had an easy endgame draw (Shirov-Ftacnik, German
Bundesliga, April 1 2007).
27...Qg6 28 Qxg6+
Ftacnik had given 28 Qxe6 Qxe6 29 Bxe6 Nf6 30 Bc4 with an edge to White.
In E. Blom-A. Roberts, IECG world ch corr 2008, Black managed to draw
from here in one of the few games in the variation that White has not won.
28...Kxg6 29 Bxe6 Nf6 30 Bc4
[FEN "r1b5/1p4p1/p1n2nkp/5p2/
2B2B2/8/2PR2PP/5RK1 b - - 0 30"]
30...Kh7
This is probably a mistake.
30...Bd7 has led to draws in two correspondence games, after 31 Rd6:
a) 31...Re8 32 Bg3 a5 33 Ra1 Re3 34 Bb5 Rc3 35 Bh4 Be8 36 Bd3 Ne5 37
Bxf6 gxf6 38 Rxa5 Nxd3 39 Rxd3 Rxc2 40 Rg3+ Kf7 41 Rxf5 Bc6 42 Rh5
Rc1+ 43 Kf2 Rc2+ 44 Kf1 Rc1+ 45 Ke2 Rc2+ 46 Kd3 Ra2 47 Rxh6 Ra3+ 48
Kd4 , A. Hebels-F. Kunzelmann, ICCF server 2007.
b) 31...a5 32 Ra1 a4 33 Ra3 Re8 34 Rxa4 Ne5 35 Rb4 Nxc4 36 Rxc4 Bb5 37
Rc7 Re1+ 38 Kf2 Rf1+ 39 Ke3 Bc6 40 g3 Re1+ 41 Kd2 Rh1 42 Be5 Rxh2+
43 Kc3 h5 44 Kb3 Rf2 45 c3 f4 46 gxf4 h4 47 Rc8 h3 48 Rh8 Bg2 49 Rh4
Kf5 50 Rd8 Rf3 51 Rf8 Ke6 52 Rc8 Rg3 , P. Bjazevic-J. Kracht, ICCF
server 2007.
31 Bc7 a5 32 Ra1 a4 33 Bb5 Ne4 34 Rd3 Nb4 35 Rd8 a3 36 Bd7 Nxc2 37
Rf1 Bxd7 38 Rxa8 Be6 39 Be5 Ng5 40 Rf2 Bb3 41 Rxf5 Kg6 42 Rf1 a2 43
Ra7 Ne3 44 Rxb7 Bd5 45 Rxg7+ Kh5 46 Rc1 Nxg2
[FEN "8/6R1/7p/3bB1nk/8/8/p5nP/2R3K1 w - - 0 47"]
White gradually manoeuvred a tedious endgame victory (1-0, 85); see
Newborn's book, pages 153-4, if you want the rest.

Professor Newborn explains that in more recent times, Rybka's team have
changed their approach to opening books more than once. For the 2008
computer world championship, their opening book designer Jeroen Noomen
'concluded that the fewer moves a game follows book, the more it is to the
advantage of the stronger engine' (which in recent years has usually been
Rybka). To Newborn this makes good sense, although computer chess
practitioners have usually adopted the opposite policy, presumably with a
view to ruling out traps and to target presumed weaknesses in opposing
programs. Also, as in the Sicilian Poisoned Pawn example, if the book
designers discover an improvement in a main line before their opponents, it
may lead to a win but this is a double-edged plan in such variations, and the
result hardly proves that engine A is superior to engine B.
Noomen's reasoning was that long book variations, leading to many piece
exchanges, diminished Rybka's chances of proving its superiority. In positions
with less material on the board, it was harder for Rybka to find a line that
gave a significant advantage. Also a smaller opening book was less likely to
include errors.
For the 2009 championship, however, Nick Carlin extended Noomen's book;
partly this may have been because the rules that year limited the power of the
hardware that could be used. The aim now was to lead Rybka into lines that
terminated in 'rich positions with plenty of winning chances, and to prevent
opposing authors from doing the opposite.'
With the hardware restrictions removed for 2010, Rybka (and some of its
opponents) ran on linked hardware that enabled 200 processors to co-operate
in the analysis of positions. This is far removed from what your home
computer has 'under the hood' but it enabled the following brilliant
performance.
Rybka Shredder
18th World Computer Ch Amsterdam, 2010
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 d5 4 Nf3
Rybka offers the Catalan Gambit and remains a pawn down for nearly forty
moves.
4...dxc4 5 Bg2 a6 6 00 Nc6 7 e3 Bd7 8 Qe2 b5 9 b3 cxb3 10 axb3 Be7
This has been seen in some human games but 10...Bd6 or 10...Bb4 would be
more usual.
11 Nc3
11 Bb2 is normal in human games; perhaps 11 Nc3 got Shredder out of its
book.
11...Bd6
So already a tempo is wasted by Black. This could be because its book told it
to play 10...Be7 but once the computer began calculating it wanted the piece
on d6 instead. That kind of incompatibility between a program and its book
was common in the early days of computer chess but does not seem to happen
much nowadays.
A human example is 11...Nd5 12 Bd2 00 13 Rfc1 Nxc3 14 Bxc3 Ra7 15
Qb2 Nb4 16 Ne5 Be8 17 Bxb4 Bxb4 18 Bc6 Bd6 19 Bxe8 Qxe8 20 Nc6 Ra8
21 e4 Qd7 22 e5 Be7 23 b4 f5 24 Qb3 Rfe8 25 Ra2 Bf8 26 Qf3 Qd5 27 Qxd5
exd5 28 Rca1 Re6 29 Rxa6 Rxa6 30 Rxa6 g5 31 Kf1 Kg7 32 Ke2 Be7 33 Ke3
Kf7 34 h3 h5 35 Kd3 Rg6 36 Ke2 Re6 37 Ke3 Rg6 38 f3 Re6 39 f4 g4 40 h4
Rg6 41 Ke2 , C. Pauwels P. Coleman, ICCF server 2007.
12 Bb2 00 13 Rfc1 Nd5 14 Ne4 Re8 15 Nc5 Bc8 16 Ne1 Bf8 17 Ned3 Ra7
18 Qe1 Nb8 19 Ne5 Qe7 20 e4 Nb6 21 Bf1 f6 22 Ned3 Rd8 23 Bg2 Qe8
[FEN "1nbrqbk1/r1p3pp/pn2pp2/1pN5/3PP3/
1P1N2P1/1B3PBP/R1R1Q1K1 w - - 0 24"]
An impressive purposeful sequence from White now follows.

24 e5 f5 25 h4 Nd5 26 Bxd5!
This is an instructive case of transformation of advantage. The proud Catalan
bishop gives its life for the sake of the good f4-square for the knight followed
by a central pawn breakthrough.
26...Rxd5 27 Nf4 Rd8 28 d5! exd5 29 e6! d4 30 Qe5 Be7 31 Ncd3 Bd6 32
Qxd4 c5 33 Nxc5 Nc6 34 Qe3 Bxf4 35 Qxf4 Rd5 36 Qf3 Bxe6 37 Nxe6
Qxe6 38 Re1 Qf7 39 Re8+ Qxe8 40 Qxd5+ Rf7
Black now goes swiftly from a pawn up to a pawn down. These things happen
when White gets on top in the Catalan, as Topalov can testify after his match
with Anand.
41 Rxa6 Nb4 42 Ra8 Nxd5 43 Rxe8+ Rf8
[FEN "4Rrk1/6pp/8/1p1n1p2/7P/1P4P1/
1B3P2/6K1 w - - 0 44"]
44 Re5 Rd8 45 Rxf5 g6 46 Rg5 Kf7 47 h5 Rd6 48 Kf1 Ke7 49 hxg6 hxg6
50 Ke2 Ke8 51 Kf3 Kd7 52 Ke4 Kc6 53 Bd4 Re6+ 54 Re5 Rd6 55 Re8 Nf6
+ 56 Bxf6 Rxf6 57 f4 Kc5 58 Ke5 Rf7 59 Rb8 Rd7 60 Rg8 Rd3 61 Rxg6
Rxb3
[FEN "8/8/6R1/1pk1K3/5P2/1r4P1/8/8 w - - 0 62"]
62 Rg8 Re3+ 63 Kf6 Rf3 64 f5 Kc6 65 g4 Ra3 66 g5 Ra6 67 Kg6 Kd5+ 68

f6 Rb6 69 Kf5 Rb7 70 g6 Kc5 71 f7 Kb4 72 f8Q+
Black should resign but played on until it was checkmated ten moves later.
72...Kb3 73 Qd6 Ra7 74 Qe6+ Kb4 75 Qe1+ Kb3 76 Rh8 Kc4 77 Qc1+
Kb4 78 Rh3 Ka5 79 Qa3+ Kb6 80 Qd6+ Kb7 81 Rh7+ Ka8 82 Qd8# 10
My last example from Newborn's book really is a 'reductio ad absurdum' of
programmers trying to tell their creations what to play in almost every
conceivable situation. Why buy a dog and wag yourself?
Hiarcs Sjeng
Internet Chess Club CCT12 Computer tourney, 2010
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Be3 e6 7 f3 b5 8 Qd2
Nbd7
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/3n1ppp/p2ppn2/1p6/3NP3/
2N1BP2/PPPQ2PP/R3KB1R w KQkq - 0 9"]
9 g4
9 a3 was played in the next round in Sjeng-Shredder, won by White.
9...b4 10 Na4 h6 11 000 Ne5 12 Qxb4 Bd7 13 Bf4 g5 14 Bd2 Be7 15 h4
Rb8 16 Qa3 gxh4 17 Bb4 Qc7 18 Bxa6 00 19 Rxh4 Bxa4 20 Qxa4 Qb6
This move diverged from a 2008 Internet game in ChessBase's database.
21 Bb5 Nxe4 22 Rh2 Nxf3 23 Nxf3 Ra8 24 Qb3 Qxb5 25 Re1 Rxa2 26
Rxe4
[FEN "5rk1/4bp2/3pp2p/1q6/1B2R1P1/
1Q3N2/rPP4R/2K5 b - - 0 26"]
In two ICCF world championship candidates games, one in 2008 and another
in 2009, play was aborted here; draw by mutual fear presumably. White is a
piece for a pawn up but must survive a lengthy king-hunt. We shall see what
fun those four players missed by chickening out!
26...Ra1+ 27 Kd2 Qf1 28 Rhe2 Rb8 29 Qc3 Rd1+ 30 Ke3 Bd8 31 Qc6 Bb6
+ 32 Kf4 Qh3 33 Bxd6 h5 34 gxh5 Rf1 35 Rb4
[FEN "1r4k1/5p2/1bQBp3/7P/1R3K2/
5N1q/1PP1R3/5r2 b - - 0 35"]
35...Qh4+ 36 Ke5 Qxh5+ 37 Kf4 Qh4+ 38 Ke5 Qg3+ 39 Rf4 Qg7+ 40 Rf6
Qg3+ 41 Ke4 Qg4+ 42 Rf4 Qg6+ 43 Ke5 Rd1
Neither engine is interested in a draw yet, it seems.
44 Rxf7
A computer will of course never make such a blunder as 44 Bxb8?? Rd5+ 45
Qxd5 Qh5+ and Black wins.
44...Rd5+ 45 Qxd5 Kxf7 46 Kf4 Qf6+ 47 Kg4 exd5 48 Bxb8 Bd8 49 Be5
Qa6 50 Rh2 Qg6+ 51 Kf4 Qe4+
[FEN "3b4/5k2/8/3pB3/4qK2/5N2/
1PP4R/8 w - - 0 52"]
It turns out that the whole game to this point was in the opening (!) book of
both engines! Why, you may well ask? And where did the book designers find
this sequence?
Since, if anything, Black has had the edge throughout, why especially did the
Hiarcs engine not have a better move programmed in at a much earlier stage?
Neither spent any time calculating until now. From this point, the time they
took is given in the book.
52 Kg3 Ke8 53 Rh6 Bg5 54 Re6+ Be7 55 c3 Kd7 56 Rh6 Qc2 57 b4 Qd3
58 Rb6 Bd8 59 Rb7+ Kc6 60 Rb8 Bb6
[FEN "1R6/8/1bk5/3pB3/1P6/
2Pq1NK1/8/8 w - - 0 61"]
Hiarcs now finds a neat tactic to eliminate the pawns and so greatly reduce
Black's winning chances.
61 b5+!? Qxb5
61...Kxb5? loses the bishop: 62 Bd4 and draws comfortably.
62 c4
The point: both ways of capturing the pawn would lose the queen.
62...Qb1 63 cxd5+ Kxd5 64 Bf4 Qg6+ 65 Ng5 Bd4 66 Rd8+ Kc4 67 Rd6
Qf5 68 Nf3 Bc5 69 Ne5+ Kb5 70 Rd8 Qh7 71 Rb8+ Ka6 72 Ra8+ Kb7 73
Rd8 Be7 74 Rd3 Ka6 75 Rd7 Qh4+ 76 Kf3 Kb5 77 Be3 Bb4 78 Rd5+ Ka4
79 Rd3 Qf6+ 80 Ke4 Qe7 81 Bd4 Qh4+ 82 Kd5 Qd8+ 83 Ke4 Qg5 84 Bc3
Qh4+ 85 Kd5 Qh1+
Drawn by agreement.
[FEN "8/8/8/3KN3/kb6/2BR4/8/7q w - - 0 86"]
One question that this book will not answer for readers is what program
should they buy, and another connected question is what relation is there
really between these freakish purpose-built tournament computers with their
multiple processors (up to 200) compared with the performance to be
expected on a typical dual-core off-the-peg computer that most people have at
home or in their office?
My main disappointment with Newborn is that he has not addressed this.
Another aspect he might have explored is the symbiosis between man and
machine exemplified in high-level correspondence chess nowadays, although
this may be difficult to assess because only a few of the top players are frank
about the way they use computers in their games. There seems to be a much
higher percentage of draws nowadays in correspondence events because
computers are good at saving slightly disadvantageous positions, and to win
games it is usually necessary to obtain a serious opening advantage.
In a correspondence tournament that recently began, two of my opponents
played g7-g6 in front of their castled king (with the bishop away on the
queenside), just to keep my knight out of f5, and disregarding the holes thus
created on g7 and h6. Evidently such moves have been inspired by Rybka and
its cousins, which do not fear ghosts and can calculate their way out of
trouble. Such moves would have been condemned twenty years ago in
beginner manuals on positional chess!
Programmers and scientists will like the book, because each chapter has a
long list of references and links, but ordinary players will wish he had done a
bit more actual writing.

Which are the Oldest Chess Clubs?
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Translate this page
I have been prompted to write on the topic of early British chess clubs by a
recent thread posted at the English Chess Forum's history section. Towards
the end of August, Ray Collett launched a new thread on the subject and there
were many quick responses. I have monitored the replies up to 9 September
and more may well have been added since. I noted that there have been some
contributions with interesting new information, but also several that either
gave inaccurate information or asked questions to which nobody had (yet)
given the correct answers. Rather than deal those points piecemeal on the
Forum, I thought it better to write a Kibitzer about it.
In the first part of this article, I look briefly at the theoretical justification for
studying chess clubs; i.e., why people who are not specially interested in
chess might nevertheless consider the subject important. In the second part, I
look at some specific cases of early chess clubs and address points raised in
the Forum debate. In the final section, I present a few games played in early
chess clubs.
Purchases from our

accessible:
Centre-Stage and Behind

the Scenes
by Yuri Averbakh
Why study chess clubs?

Historians, in the past twenty years or so, have taken a great interest in the
origins and early growth of middle-class clubs and societies as part of the
development of civil society in western Europe from the seventeenth to the
nineteenth centuries. The classic work on this subject, focusing on the earlier
part of that period, is Professor Peter Clark's book British Clubs and Societies
1580-1800: The Origins of an Associational World (Oxford 2000). Clark has
been, since 2000, Professor of European Urban History at the University of
Helsinki.
Houdini 2 Standard
by Robert Houdart

the games from
Chess clubs, with a couple of exceptions noted below, hardly emerged in the
period covered by Clark's book. Nor is chess mentioned in J. Barry's 1985
doctoral thesis for Oxford University, "The Cultural Life of Bristol 16401775" which I read while preparing my own dissertation. I doubt that this was
due to any deficiency in the author's research. He noted that card tables and
backgammon sets proliferated in wealthy homes after 1700 but that later in
the century there was a crackdown on gambling games. This certainly
continued up to the early Victorian period, when there was new legislation,
and this would also have contributed to chess gaining a hold.
As yet, chess clubs have probably not received the degree of attention that
they deserve in the social history of the early and mid-nineteenth century,
compared with the attention that has been given to sports clubs such as the
Marylebone Cricket Club, Wimbledon, and the early association football and
rugby football clubs. An exception here is H. J. G. M. Scholten's 1999
Play the Benko Gambit

by Nicolai Pedersen
doctoral thesis on the social-cultural background of chess clubs in the

Netherlands in the nineteenth century. Scholten analysed different types of
clubs: the social background of their membership, their rules, their frequency
of meeting and so on. Some of what he found was probably peculiar to the
circumstances in the Netherlands and not directly comparable to England, one
main difference being that the Dutch had no big city clubs with professional
players.
Chess is inherently meritocratic; Jack can be as good as his master. The chess
club, in the United Kingdom at least, was essentially a creation of the
development of associational culture in the nineteenth century in the context
of the industrial revolution and gradual opening up of society on the basis of
talents instead of inherited privilege.
Early chess clubs possibly arose from people finding they had the game in
common when they met in other sociable contexts. Clubs meeting in public
venues were, like their private precursors, at first inward-looking and
convivial, but soon became predominantly concerned with the game itself, as
an 1849 article in the Quarterly Review noted: 'Now there is a club in almost
every considerable provincial town.' Later, clubs became interested in
competing with each other.
Primary source evidence for a chess club having existed in a particular town
at a particular date is not that hard to find, especially nowadays when so many
local newspapers have been digitised permitting word-searches for terms such
as "chess club." What this will generally not tell you is what kind of club it
was (formal or informal), its membership, how long it had existed or whether
it was ephemeral. So it is easier to find an earliest date for a chess club having
existed in particular towns than it is to trace subsequent collapses and reestablishments, splits and mergers between, say, the 1830s and 1840s when
clubs started to multiply, and the 1880s and 1890s when they first begin to
compete with one another in cups and leagues.
An important type of primary source, highly valued by historians when they
can get it, is actual physical evidence that a chess club existed. This is most
likely to take the form of the printed rules of a club, since these would have
been circulated around towns and copies may yet survive in public libraries or
private hands. Printing the rules was a good way of showing that a club
formally existed and then of publicising it; also they sometimes list the
officers and members of the club. Not many rule-books of this type seem to
survive. Those of the Manchester Chess Club (1817) and Edinburgh Chess
Club (1822) are the earliest.
John Townsend pointed out on the Forum that subscription lists for books can
provide evidence that a club existed, in particular citing the 1836 book of
Alexander McDonnell's games to which several clubs and club members
subscribed. The following are mentioned there: Belfast, Bristol, Cambridge,
Doncaster, Dublin Library and Dublin Philidorean, Edinburgh, Exeter,
Greenwich, Hambro' [where was that?], London, Manchester, Newcastle,
Norwich, Nottingham, Pentonville, Taunton, Yarmouth, and York; also St
Petersburg, Circle des Panoramas (Paris), and Caf de la Regence (Paris).
Manuscripts, such as minute books, also provide valuable evidence.
Sometimes these were compiled by a club secretary subsequent to the time of
a club's formation, but they are still very useful nonetheless. The London
Chess Club which was founded in 1807 and expired in 1870 but some
documents can be seen in the London Metropolitan Archive; these were
probably compiled by George Perigal between 1830 and 1850. Also many of
the letters London sent to Edinburgh during their correspondence match of
1824-8 survive. At one time Edinburgh was said to have a full set of these but
when I visited in 2007 it was clear that several had gone missing over the
years.
A third type of evidence about early clubs consists of the various directories
that were compiled at various times in the nineteenth century. In some years,
first in 1856, the covers of The Chess Player's Chronicle had lists of clubs
with addresses, names of secretaries and other details. Unfortunately, when
volumes were bound, the binders often discarded the covers and these are lost,
and reprints of those magazines generally lack these lists, but some original
copies survive with this information.
The first person to compile a club directory was W. R. Bland of Derby in
1880, although it omits Scottish and Irish clubs, and he compiled a second
edition in 1882. After a gap of some years, Frideswide and Thomas Rowland
carried on this work for a while. It is noticeable that in many cases, clubs told
Bland a year of foundation that was later than the earliest year known from
the Chronicle lists or other sources, thus indicating discontinuity or at least a
loss of records and lack of surviving members from earlier times.
Secondary source evidence for early clubs also exists in the form of clubs
writing their own histories, either as books or, more common nowadays, as
websites. In some cases the authors of these rediscover and include earlier
records, as was the case with the work edited by Adrian Thorpe, The Bury and
West Suffolk Chess Club 1867-1997, which incorporates the 'Proceedings of
the Bury and West Suffolk Chess Club 1867-83'. There is a real need now for
somebody to compile a bibliography/web-ography of all the different club
histories and history websites that are available, and then as a second step to
start putting all this information into a database. The Ken Whyld Association
has already published a bibliography of the centenary books of numerous
German chess clubs but I doubt if this has been done for other countries.
The oldest clubs: some questions and answers
In this section I deal with some of the points raised in the English Chess
Forum thread and make reference to an outstanding recent discovery (not by
me) that was revealed there. As one contributor wrote, Bill Wall has put a
potted history of early chess clubs and chess cafes online. In my opinion,
some of this is accurate but the lack of sources makes it of little value. As
usual with Wall, there are some glaring errors and even contradictions within
the document itself. For example, he has confused the old London Chess Club
(founded 1807) with William Lewis's chess rooms in St. Martin's Lane.
There are occasional references to British chess clubs in the eighteenth
century but none of them lasted. With both France and England, the word
"club" may be a misnomer; we are usually talking about groups who met in
coffee houses but did not form a body with a constitution and membership
fee. The best-known, and perhaps only genuine, English eighteenth century
chess club was Parsloe's in St. James's, London, which was established in
1774 to cater for Philidor's visits to England.
New York had a club in 1802 that did not last. In 1810 the Brazen Nose Chess
Club in Oxford had eight members but expired in 1811.
The oldest still-existing chess club, perhaps surprisingly, is in a landlocked
city: Zrich, in Switzerland, founded in 1809 and still going strong. Swiss IM,
Dr. Richard Forster, author of the mammoth biography of Amos Burn, has
researched and written its history, published already in German. An English
version of his book, The Zurich Chess Club 1809-2009, is due to be published
by McFarland later this year, and I may write on the subject of chess clubs
again next year after I have had the opportunity of reading that work.
Since writing my thesis, I found evidence of an early chess club in Ipswich,
but it was probably not long-lived. The Ipswich Journal of 9 October 1813
reported: 'We are enabled to inform our readers, that a Chess Club is recently
established in this town, which is held at the Waggon and Horses Inn once a
fortnight, and which having for its object the extension of the knowledge of
that pleasing and scientific game, is calculated to afford considerable pleasure
to the amateurs of that amusement.'
When one tries to determine what is the oldest chess club in England it is
impossible to avoid arguments over definitions and proof of continuity. In
many cases where a club is very old, or has the same name as a very early
club, it may be no simple matter to decide whether this really counts as the
same club or not.
To deal with Bristol first, two contributors to the Forum raised points about it.
As Benjamin Keen of London Chess Club gave a simultaneous display

against two opponents in Bristol, reported in Bell's Life in London on 20
August 1826, this may suggest that the nucleus of a club was forming. Elijah
Williams was involved in the city's first formal club in 1829 which continued
into the 1840s, but whether there was unbroken continuity is less clear. In
1843, Bell's Life in London reported that Williams was now organising a club
in Bristol 'which promises to be permanent', with thirty to forty members
meeting at Guildhall coffee house on Thursday evenings. Bristol is the only
city to have two different books commemorating different phases of its
nineteenth century chess development. These are
a) Elijah Williams (ed.), Souvenir of the Bristol Chess Club; containing
one hundred original games of chess, recently played, either between
the best players in that society, or by them with other celebrated players
of the day, with copious notes (London 1845).
b) John Burt, The Bristol Chess Club its History, Chief Players and
23 Years' Record of Principal Events; 151 games by 64 past and present
members etc. (Bristol 1883).
Elijah Williams was a key figure in the early years until he moved to London
during the 1840s and was their main player in the postal match against
Staunton (1839-40). In 1846 the Bristol club transferred to the Athenaeum.
After Williams moved to London, the club decayed until it was reconstituted
in 1859 as the Bristol Athenaeum Chess Club. In 1871, they had to leave the
Athenaeum and became the Bristol & Clifton Chess Association, probably
only the second chess club in Victorian England to admit women as members,
notably Mary Rudge who joined when she moved to Clifton in 1874. There is
good evidence that Bath was the first club to admit women, a few years earlier.
Apart from the main club already mentioned, there were also unconnected
clubs at some periods. In the 1860s there was a St. James's Club of Bristol
(possibly connected with the St. James' Club of London) and around 1887
there was the City Chess and Draughts Club, which played a postal match
against Bath. Their players were Burt, Blacklock, Davis, Gilbert, Harries, and
T. G. Wright. It appears that John Burt, who had written the history of the
Bristol & Clifton club then fell out with them and resigned, I am still not sure
why. He must have then joined or formed this rival club, but died in April
1888. Perhaps some reader from Bristol can throw light on this?
One contributor to the thread asked: "I read somewhere that Liverpool CC
was the oldest continually existing club in the world. Not sure if they are still
going though." Yes, they are still going, so far as I am aware, but, as noted
above, Zurich is older. So are others and it is certainly not even the oldest club
in the United Kingdom.
Christopher Kreuzer and Ray Collett mentioned early clubs in Scotland on the
Forum. Edinburgh Chess Club, which I have visited twice, is undeniably the
oldest. It has history pages posted at its website. Despite a reorganisation in
1852 (when they merged with another club in the city, Staunton attending) the
continuity of records makes it undeniable that this is the same club from the
start. (Moreover Edinburgh have kept the present premises since acquiring
them in the 1890s.)
The earliest club in Dundee apparently dates from 1829. Though there was
briefly an earlier club in nearby Montrose, who wrote a letter to the
Edinburgh club, preserved in its archive. The complicated early history of
clubs in Dundee can be found in: Peter W. Walsh, The Story of Dundee Chess
Club: its personalities and games (Dundee 1984). That Montrose club was
possibly an ancestor of the Angus club mentioned by Walsh?
Forster examined some of the records of Liverpool Chess Club for his huge
biography of Amos Burn, who was a long-time member and some-time
President of it. Unfortunately, the records do not yet seem to be placed in a
public archive to ensure their preservation and to make them available for any
historian to go and study them. One website, mentioned in the thread, has
posted extracts from J. S. Edgar's history: Liverpool Chess Club. A short
sketch of the club from its first meeting, 12th December 1837, to the present
time (Liverpool 1893). This is a book of some interest, but the compiler
evidently had no idea about Liverpool clubs prior to 1837.
I do not agree with suggestions on the Forum that the brief Liverpool Mercury
chess column, which ran from 9 July 1813 until about 20 August 1814,
indicates a local chess club existed then, though I concur with Geoff Chandler
saying it "does show Chess was of interest in Liverpool." If there had been a
club, it would probably have been stated explicitly. The column was a private
initiative of the proprietor and editor Egerton Smith, who later ran another
chess column in The Kaleidoscope at various times during the 1820s. From
reports in The Kaleidoscope and various references to chess in the Liverpool
Mercury during the 1820s, it seems that various attempts to found chess clubs
were made but they did not last long. Political factionalism in the city may
have been part of the problem; Smith was closely identified with the
Concentric Society and other liberal movements. However, the evidence is
sometimes a bit contradictory. When Leeds and Liverpool played their
correspondence match in 1825, somebody from Liverpool wrote to the papers
to say that this match was nothing to do with the members of the Liverpool
chess club. (See, for example, Bell's Life of 30 October 1825, citing an
unidentified Liverpool paper.) At various dates attempts were made in the
press to re-found a club in Liverpool. One was in the Liverpool Mercury on 8
October 1830.
As Mick Norris pointed out on the Forum, a Manchester Chess Club was
founded on 3 September 1817. Its original laws are interesting and contain the
following statement: "When one has nothing else to play, and his king being
out of check, cannot stir without coming to a check, then the game is stalemate. In England he whose king is stale-mate wins the game but in France,
and several other countries, the stale-mate is a drawn game." It took about
twenty years to finally eradicate the idea in some clubs that you could lose by
stalemating your opponent. In 1990, an interesting history Chess and
Manchester was compiled by Eric Nowell and Alan Smith, which gives most
of the details about early clubs in the city. There is also some of this
information online. I also found further facts through my research into old
newspapers.
The original Manchester Club perhaps sometimes had a rather tenuous
existence. In 1835, the Nottingham player Perrier moved to Manchester and
could not find a club. Thanks partly to his efforts, Bell's Life was able to
report a few months later that the revived club had twenty members and
hoped soon to double that. In October 1836 there were two clubs in
Manchester, but by 1838 their existence was in doubt. In October 1839
Walker said there was no regular club and a reader should enquire of a hatter
called Kovis in Market-street who might know of players. Just about that
time, a new club started in the Manchester Athenaeum, which opened in 1839.
From about 1846, chess was reviving in the city. In 1853 the two clubs
merged. Later they seem to have separated again and the old Manchester
Chess Club formally went out of existence and its property sold in December
1876, although a resurrection soon followed.
At the University of Nottingham Manuscripts and Special Collections, there is
a book referenced as "Records of Nottingham Chess Club 1842-1900:
MS/675." The first entries in this book, which goes up to 1898, are dated lists
of people attending meetings in May 1842. Also pasted in is a tiny greencovered booklet, printed in 1858 and entitled 'Rules of the Nottingham Chess
Club, held at Bromley House, founded October 16 1829.' I am not in a
position to say whether any present chess club in Nottingham is the direct
successor of the old Bromley House club, but if so that makes it a strong
candidate for England's oldest club with a continuous existence, pre-dating
Norwich by a few years. Bell's Life reported on a Nottingham chess club ball
in 1839, with several hundred visitors at the Exchange Assembly Rooms:
'Such a galaxy of beauty never looked before on chess boards.'
On the Forum, it was Warren Kingston who mentioned the Norwich Chess
Club website. This is a series of pages compiled by Owen Hindle, mostly
about visits of masters to the club. It mentions the book by P. H. Bannock,
History of the Norfolk & Norwich Chess Club: 1836-1936 (Norwich 1936),
although Bell's Life actually mentions Norwich Chess Club in 1835. Yet in
1840 when the paper mentioned a correspondence match between nearby

Yarmouth and Lynn, it said: 'In Norwich chess appears to be at a low ebb. We
hear of no regular club.' It is perhaps too much to expect most clubs to be able
to produce proof of continuous existence from such an early date to the
present.
Bannock's book shows that the Norwich club revived around 1850, and,
following a split, it re-formed under its present name, the Norwich and
Norfolk Chess Club, in 1856. The most prominent early members after that
(from the 1860s) were Frederick Rainger (leader of the successful split) and
later John Odin Howard Taylor. In later years, the chess writer John Keeble
was a prominent member.
As for Leeds, Bell's Life reported on 13 May 1838 on the dinner held at the
end of the first year of the revived club:
'Mr Muff, the Chairman, went into a short retrospective statement,
not only of the transactions of the session just closed, but also gave the
meeting the history of the two former Chess Clubs in Leeds, each of
which lasted only a few years. At that period, however, the number of
Chess players in this neighbourhood was but limited, and there was little
of that enthusiasm in favour of this truly scientific game which exists at
the present day.'
Jon D'Souza-Eva mentioned "the wonderfully named Dublin Philidorean
Society." This was Ireland's first well-documented chess club, founded in
Dublin in July 1819, taking its name from the eighteenth century chess master
Philidor, and meeting at the Harp Coffee House. Its precursor, from 1813, was
(according to an article on Irish chess in Staunton's magazine) 'more a friendly
society than a Club, the members not having any regular Club-room, but
meeting for practice weekly at each other's houses.' The change probably
came when a young Trinity College Dublin egyptologist, Edward Hincks
resigned his fellowship to become a country Rector. In September 1828, as
mentioned in The Kaleidoscope, the Philidorean challenged the Edinburgh
Chess Club to a correspondence match but the Scots rested on their laurels.
In the 1830s a new chess club was formed in the Dublin Library and
ultimately these two clubs coalesced during the 1840s. Further foundations
and mergers followed the Irish Famine until 1865 when the Dublin Chess
Club organised the first Irish chess congress at the Dublin Athenaeum, in
which Steinitz participated. The collapse of the Athenaeum left the city with
only the rump of an old club at the Library, until 1867 when the City and
County of Dublin Chess Club (later renamed Dublin Chess Club) was
founded. I am not sure about the history of Belfast clubs but Dublin Chess
Club is almost certainly the oldest Irish club and many of its records survive.
Posters to the Forum also mentioned two clubs of which I was a member at
various times. The Worcester City Chess Club was re-founded in 1837; its
web page includes information from A History of Worcester City Chess Club
by Ray Collett and Tom Widdows (1987). Paul McKeown posted on the
Forum a lot of information that was new to me about the Athenaeum Chess
Club in London, of which I was team captain in its centenary year when we
won the National Club Championship. He says that the Chess Club's full style
is the "Camden Athenaeum, Westminster and Central Chess Club," following
two mergers." McKeown found that the Camden Athenaeum opened in 1871,
and the Athenaeum Chess Club started there two years later in 1873.
John Upham provided a weblink for the Huddersfield Chess Club, which he
thought was founded in 1852. John Townsend was able to point out that in
1844 Huddersfield had the distinction of hosting the annual meeting of the
Yorkshire Chess Association at the George Hotel and the report in the Chess
Player's Chronicle shows the town already had a chess club then. In fact, very
early in the Chess Player's Chronicle (1841), Staunton acknowledges
receiving lists of members belonging to clubs in the following cities and
towns: Paris, Berlin, Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester, Portsmouth, Lynn,
Halifax, Maldon, Sheffield, Wakefield, Huddersfield, and Hull.
Now to that major discovery: Ray Collett opened the Forum thread by
drawing attention to this. Thanks to the art-history sleuthing of Streatham &

Brixton Club members, Hereford Chess Club has recently put in a bid to be
recognised as the oldest provincial English club (though without a continuous
history). Its early existence is proved by a tremendous piece of physical
evidence but actually I do not believe that any connection to later clubs in the
town is likely to be proved. When I was researching a conference paper on
early clubs up to 1850 (mostly existing in the 1840s), I came across no
references to one in Hereford. The story has been revealed over a period of
months on the club blog.
To summarise, Richard Tillett of Streatham & Brixton found in a junk shop

an old book called An Illustrated History of Interior Design by Mario Praz
(Thames & Hudson 1964, reprinted 1982). It included some pictures of people
playing chess, the caption to one of which said T. Leeming, The Chess Club
of Hereford (early 19th century) in a collection in Florence. With other
Streatham members, he went on the hunt. The Streatham sleuths subsequently
discovered that Thomas Leeming painted at least two versions of the picture,
including himself in the composition. They think he was born about 1788 and
found that by 1814 he was regularly visiting Hereford where he met his wife.
Hereford Chess Club now claims to have been founded in 1812 .
The curator of the Hereford Museum and Art gallery shows the Streatham
sleuths a copy of the inscription that was originally on the back of their copy
of the painting, naming the seven members of the club (including Leeming) in
1815 and it also said "Club Establish'd Nov. 29 1812." This is truly a
remarkable discovery by the Streatham men and full marks for their persistent
research.
The Streatham blog says: "The existence of a provincial club at such an early
date may promote chess historians to rethink the spread of organised chess
outside London." Indeed it does at least modify the accepted view that port
cities were the main ones to have clubs initially.
Some games played by early chess clubs
Prior to the 1880s, except in London where club teams could more easily
meet at evenings, much of the competition between clubs was by
correspondence, which is where I first came in. My approach was that before
once can really see what the inter-club postal matches were about, it was
necessary to find out something about the clubs themselves.
The following is summarised from my History of Correspondence Chess in
Britain and Ireland. It included these game fragments, although they were not
played by post, because the match between the Yorkshire clubs of Doncaster
and Wakefield in 1838 appears to have been the first inter-club match over the
board. The games were played by consultation; team matches with individual
opponents developed later.
The two sides traveled to a neutral venue, Kempsall, to play over two days,
with the representatives of each club in separate rooms. A friendly dinner was
enjoyed in between. The early moves of both games were published in Bell's
Life in London on 9 September 1838, with light notes by George Walker.
Wakefield Doncaster
First consultation match game, Kempsall, 1838
1 e4 e6 2 f4 d5 3 e5 c5 4 Nf3 Nc6 5 c3 Bd7 6 Bd3 Qb6 7 Bc2 Nh6 8 d4
This move appears to be premature and opens the game too much.
8...cxd4 9 cxd4 Bb4+
A weak check. The knight advanced to the same square were better.
10 Nc3 f6 11 00 00 12 Kh1 fxe5 13 fxe5 Nf5 14 a3 Be7 15 Na4 Qc7 16
Bxf5 Rxf5 17 Nc3 Qb6 18 b4
[FEN "r5k1/pp1bb1pp/1qn1p3/3pPr2/1P1P4/
P1N2N2/6PP/R1BQ1R1K b - - 0 18"]
18...Nxd4??
Well-intentioned, but "good intentions; are not enough at Chess. Doncaster
overlooks the simple counter move of pinning the Knight."
19 Be3 Qd8 20 Qxd4 (10)
The game becomes devoid of interest, Wakefield having won a piece for a
pawn. Doncaster fought it out, however, to fifty-five moves before they were
compelled to resign.
Doncaster Wakefield
Second consultation match game, Kempsall, 1838
1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Bc5 3 c3 Qg5 4 Qf3 Qg6 5 Ne2 d6 6 h3 Nf6 7 d3 Be6 8 Bb3
c6 9 Be3 Bb6 10 Nd2 Na6 11 Nc4 Bc7 12 00 d5 13 Nd2 00 14 Ng3 Rad8
15 Qe2 Bb6 16 Nf3 Nd7 17 Nh4 Qf6 18 Nhf5 Bxf5 19 Nxf5 Kh8 20 Qg4 h6
21 exd5 cxd5 22 Bxd5 Ndc5 23 Bxc5 Nxc5 24 Qf3 Rxd5 25 Qxd5 Qxf5 26
d4 Rd8 27 Qxe5 Qxe5 28 dxe5 Nd3 29 Rad1 Nxe5 30 Rxd8+ Bxd8 ()
[FEN "3b3k/pp3pp1/7p/4n3/8/2P4P/
PP3PP1/5RK1 w - - 0 31"]
Walker wrote that although Wakefield looked like winning, "Doncaster,

however, managed to draw the game by some skilful play. The contest was
carried to upwards of one hundred moves, second Queens being introduced,

and many ingenious stratagems attempted on both sides."
To illustrate early correspondence matches between clubs here is a game
which was considered for inclusion in my history but did not make the final
cut. The late Professor Pagni, who published various collections of
correspondence games, found the other game of this match but not this one,
although both were first printed in the same issue of the Illustrated London
News, 24 April 1858, with a few notes by Staunton.
It is likely that the match was arranged by George William Lyttelton, who had
been a brilliant classics scholar at Cambridge and might have become an
academic had his father, the third Baron, not suddenly died, obliging him to
take over the Hagley estate (very near Stourbridge) and family
responsibilities. Cambridge, unsurprisingly, won this match 20 against the
small Worcestershire club, but it could have been 11 had the latter not been
so sporting. The gentlemanly decision (see note to move eleven) was probably
suggested by Lyttelton.
Cambridge University Stourbridge
Correspondence match, 1858
Ruy Lopez [C64]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Bc5 4 c3 Qf6 5 00 Nge7 6 d4 exd4 7 Bxc6
The Kt was taken for the sake of getting out of the 'bookwork' as soon as
possible.
7...dxc6
The best move.
8 cxd4 Bb6 9 Bg5 Qe6 10 Nc3 00 11 h3
[FEN "r1b2rk1/ppp1nppp/1bp1q3/6B1/3PP3/
2N2N1P/PP3PP1/R2Q1RK1 b - - 0 11"]
This move was made under a misapprehension. When the committee met to
decide upon this play, they inadvertently, in setting up the men, placed
Black's Queen at Q 3rd, instead of K 3rd. The mistake was not discovered till
several moves had been played on both sides, when Stourbridge, rather than
spoil the game, very generously allowed the moves up to the eleventh to be
retracted
11...h6 12 Bh4 Ng6 13 Bg3 f5 14 e5 Rd8 15 Re1 Ba5
15...Qf7 would have hampered White terribly.
16 Qa4 Bxc3 17 bxc3 Kh7? 18 c4 b6 19 Rad1 Bb7 20 d5 cxd5 21 Nd4 Qe8
22 Qxe8 Rxe8 23 Nxf5 Rad8 24 e6 c6?
24...dxc4.
25 Bc7 Ra8 26 f4 Rec8 27 cxd5 cxd5 28 Rc1 Re8?
28...d4 29 Nxd4 'as any attempt to win the exchange would have cost them
dear'.
29 Nd6 Re7 30 Nxb7 Rc8 31 f5 Nh4 32 Nd6 Rf8 33 Re5 d4 34 Rc4 g6
34...g5 35 Bd8.
35 f6 Rxf6 36 Bd8 Rfxe6 37 Bxe7 Rxe5 38 Bxh4 (10) and in a few more
moves Black resigned.
Finally, here is a game played by Benjamin Keen at Bristol on 15 August
1826.
Benjamin Keen Riddle
Muzio Gambit [C37]
Bell's Life in London reported:
On Tuesday last the Philidorian Match was played at Bristol, by Mr Keen, of
the Middle Temple, against Mr Riddle and Mr Jaikes, of the city of Bristol.
Mr Keen played two games at the same time, giving the further advantage of
the pawn and move in the game which he played seeing the pieces. He won
both games. The following were the principal moves made in the game played
without seeing the board.
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4 g4 5 00 gxf3 6 Qxf3 Bc5+ 7 d4 Bxd4+ 8
Kh1 Be5 9 Bxf4 Qf6 10 Bxe5 Qxf3 11 Rxf3 f6 12 Bxc7 Nc6 13 Nc3 Nd4 14
Rf2 Ne6 15 Bg3 d6 16 Bxd6 Bd7
[FEN "r3k1nr/pp1b3p/3Bnp2/8/2B1P3/
2N5/PPP2RPP/R6K w kq - 0 17"]
17 e5 fxe5 18 Bxe6 Bxe6 19 Rf8+ Kd7 20 Rxa8 Kxd6 21 Rd1+ Ke7 22

Rdd8 a6 23 b3 h5 24 Ne4 Bf5 25 Re8+ Kf7 26 Nd6+ and wins. (10)
Postscript
My book The History of Correspondence Chess in Britain and Ireland 18241987 is one of four titles shortlisted for the English Chess Federation's 2011
book of the year award. I have not seen the other three books yet but hope to
catch up with at least one of them later. If the publishers of those titles are
reading this, maybe they would like to put a review copy in the post, please?
A PDF file of this month's column, along with all previous columns, is
available in the ChessCafe.com Archives.

A Visit to Scheveningen
A deadline for a very large book is imminent and final research and checking
for the book motivated me to make, last month, my fourth pilgrimage to the
excellent chess book collection at the Royal Dutch Library in The Hague. It
also gave me the opportunity to revisit Scheveningen which, as most readers
will know, is also the name of a variation in the Sicilian Defence.
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Translate this page
Purchases from our

accessible:
Scheveningen is a seaside resort on the North Sea with a glorious sandy beach
and is very much the playground for the region around the Dutch political
capital city. Although it is now incorporated in The Hague, until some time
after the First World War it was a separate town. It is famous in chess because
of three tournaments that were held there in the years 1905, 1913, and 1923.
The last of these in particular gave us the terms "Scheveningen variation" and
"Scheveningen system," of which more later.
First, the pronunciation! I am told that during World War II Dutch patriots
used it as a password because the Germans could not pronounce the name
correctly. (As the ancient Hebrews used "shibboleth" because their
neighbours could not say it properly: Judges 12-5 and 6.)
Chess Informant #111

by Branko Tadic
Armed with the Lonely Planet guide to the Netherlands, which advises you
that the correct way to say it is "S-CH'ay-fur-ninger" I tried a few times, but I
doubt if I ever got it right. However, if you play this line in the Sicilian maybe
you should try to get the pronunciation right too, so when your opponent in
the post-mortem pronounces it with a hard "v" and an "n" sound at the end,
you can impress him or her with your linguistic expertise.
Ljubomir Ljubojevic
by Milan Bjelajac

the games from
Chess School 1-2-3
by Slobodan Mirkovic
The tournaments mentioned above were played in the splendid venue of the
Kurhaus hotel, a classic grand hotel which was opened in 1885 on the site of a
bathhouse that had existed since 1818. The Kurhaus website states that the
architects were the same Germans, Johann Friedrich Henkenhaf and Friedrich
Ebert who had built the Grand Hotel Krasnapolsky in Amsterdam. The
following year the Kurhaus burned down and had to be rebuilt, which was
done within a year.
It is now a five-star hotel again, part of the Swiss-owned Steigenberger group,

situated on the north end of the sea-front just south of the pier. Pictures with
this column show how its exterior looked, then and now. The playing hall for
the tournaments was the Kursaal, the magnificent dining room which is really
the heart of the hotel. It is accessible both via the hotel reception area (on the
road) and via an impressive, if now slightly decayed, set of steps up from the
promenade, not far from the pier. On the way up the steps you will see three
gold stars, one of which celebrate a visit by the Rolling Stones to the hotel in
1964.
The Kursaal actually has two levels: the main dining area, with a famous bar
and some private rooms, to one side, and overlooking it a balcony level. This
made it ideal as a cabaret venue and many famous entertainers have
performed there. The famous ceiling murals were painted in 1904 by Van
Hoeck in one month with the help of thirty assistants; some can be seen in one
of the photographs accompanying this article.
The Kurhaus went through a time of crisis and was closed as a hotel for most
of the 1970s but it was saved, partly through the efforts of Dutch singer Paul
van Vliet, a native of the town. Even when it was closed as a hotel, he
continued to perform in the Kursaal until 1975 when he had to move to the
nearby Circus Theatre because of renovation works that commenced in 1972.
In 1979 the Kurhaus reopened, with further work done in 1990 and another
renovation and development in 2008.
The Tournaments
Books were published about the three Scheveningen tournaments, and Dutch
collector Bert Corneth was kind enough to bring along to our Kursaal dinner
his copies of all of them and allow me to take some photographs for this
article. Thus, the images from the tournament books are all courtesy of Bert
Corneth.
The 1905 book, he says, is a rarity which Joost Felkers, a member of the Ken
Whyld Association (of chess historians and collectors) helped him to obtain.
The 1913 booklet is also rather uncommon.
The 1905 tournament in Scheveningen was a fourteen-player round-robin
dominated by Frank Marshall although he underestimated the Dutch amateur
D. Bleijkmans and was beaten.
D. Blejkmans Frank Marshall
Scheveningen 1905
Queen's Gambit/Caro-Kann Defence [B22]
1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 c5 3 e3 Nc6 4 c4 cxd4 5 exd4
This position is classified as a Caro-Kann because it would more normally
arise via 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 cxzd5 4 c4 Nc6 5 Nf3.
5...Bg4 6 Be3 e5 7 cxd5 Qxd5 8 Nc3 Bb4 9 dxe5 Bxf3 10 Qxf3 Qxe5 11 Bc4
Bxc3+ 12 Kf1 Nf6 13 bxc3 Qxc3 14 Rc1 Qb2 15 Re1 00 16 Bb3 Rae8 17
g4!?
[FEN "4rrk1/pp3ppp/2n2n2/8/6P1/
1B2BQ2/Pq3P1P/4RK1R b - - 0 17"]
Black has won a pawn but White has the bishop-pair. The Dutch amateur goes
for all-out attack.
17...Re7 18 g5 Nd7 19 Kg2 Nde5 20 Qg3 Ng6?

This is a surprisingly passive choice from Marshall; 21...Nd3 is strong.
21 Bc5 Rxe1?
Black should sacrifice the exchange, possibly by 21...Qd2.
22 Rxe1 Ra8?
[FEN "r5k1/pp3ppp/2n3n1/2B3P1/
8/1B4Q1/Pq3PKP/4R3 w - - 0 23"]
Trying to keep his material advantage is a terrible oversight. White can

probably win in several ways now.
23 Ba3!?
Ingenious, but 23 Qc7 would also have been crushing.
23...Qd4 24 Bxf7+! Kxf7 25 Qb3+ 10
As the crosstable shows, the Dutch amateur Benjamin Leussen (1876-1924)

was the surprise winner of the second prize ahead of the well-known masters
Rudolf Spielmann, Rudolf Swiderski, and Oldrich Duras. Leussen's win
against Duras was included in my review of chess events of 1905 (Kibitzer
104).
The second-placed Dutchman was Rudolf Loman (1861-1932), a musician
who spent much of his career in London. He finished ahead of Leonhardt and
several Dutch players, as well as George Shories (of England, though German
by birth) and A. Reggio of Italy. The low percentage of draws is also striking,
with some players having only decisive games.
The group photograph of the players from the book shows the arrangement of
chess tables in front of the stage in the Kursaal. Marshall sits at the centre
table with his wife beside him. Unfortunately, the face of Shories is partly
obscured in the photograph. Also at Scheveningen in 1905, a local team
played a touring Hastings Chess Club team and the Dutch Chess Association
challenged England to play an eight-a-side match the following year.
Frank Marshall Oldrich Duras
Scheveningen 1905
This game shows sustained pressure by the first prize-winner leading to a
pretty final combination.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bg5 Nbd7 5 e3 Be7 6 Qc2 c6 7 cxd5 Nxd5 8
Bxe7 Qxe7 9 Nf3 00 10 Nxd5 exd5 11 Bd3 Nf6 12 00 Re8 13 Ne5 h6 14
f4 Nd7 15 Rf3 Nf8 16 Raf1 f6 17 Ng6 Nxg6 18 Bxg6 Rf8 19 f5 Bd7 20 Rg3
Be8 21 Rff3 Bxg6 22 Rxg6 Rf7 23 g4 Re8 24 h4 Qe4 25 Qf2 Qd3 26 g5
hxg5 27 hxg5 fxg5 28 Rxg5 Rf6 29 Rh3 Re7 30 Kh2 Kf7
[FEN "8/pp2rkp1/2p2r2/3p1PR1/
3P4/3qP2R/PP3Q1K/8 w - - 0 31"]
31 Rxg7+! Kxg7 32 Qg3+ Kf7 33 Rh7+ Ke8 34 Qb8+ Kd7 35 Qxb7+ 10

I note that ChessBase's Mega Database 2011 has the following game but with
the wrong result (at the end it says 1-0 instead of 0-1). Evidently, Leonhardt's
parents had a sense of humour, and/or an interest in the crusades, as they gave
him a second name which (together with his surname) recalls the two great
heroes on either side in the Crusades: Saladin and Richard the Lion-heart.
Paul Saladin Leonhardt Frank Marshall
Scheveningen 1905
Ruy Loopez, Deferred Schliemann [C70]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 f5
An extremely risky variation, later played sometimes by correspondence
world champion Vladimir Zagorovsky.
5 d4 fxe4 6 Nxe5 Nf6 7 00 Be7 8 Nc3 00 9 Bg5 Na5 10 Bxf6 gxf6 11 Qg4
+ Kh8 12 Qxe4 fxe5 13 Qxe5+ Bf6 14 Qxa5 Bxd4
[FEN "r1bq1r1k/1ppp3p/p7/Q7/B2b4/
2N5/PPP2PPP/R4RK1 w - - 0 15"]
15 Rae1
This is perhaps not as strong as 15 Rad1 which keeps up the pressure by
attacking the bishop.
15...d6 16 Nd5?
This is definitely an error that loses the initiative; either 16 Qd5 or 16 Bb3
was required.
16...Qg5!
White's knight is pinned and ...Bh3 is also a threat.
17 h4 Qxh4 18 Qd2?
This loses; 18 Ne3 was the last chance.
18...Bh3 19 Ne3 Rg8 20 g3 Bxf1 21 Kxf1 Bxe3 0-1
[FEN "r5rk/1pp4p/p2p4/8/B6q/4b1P1/
PPPQ1P2/4RK2 w - - 0 22"]
The cover of the 1913 book shows that it was a celebration of the fortieth year
of the Dutch chess federation, Nederlands Schaakbond, founded in 1873.

Played at the end of July, this was quite a strong event won by Alekhine with
11/13 half a point ahead of Dawid Janowski. This time the top Dutch player
was Adolf Olland, who took third prize with nine points with England's
Frederick Yates was half a point behind, but ahead of several of the foreign
representatives: Edward Lasker, Gyula Breyer, Jacques Mieses, and Fritz
Englund. Two of the Dutch players from 1905 competed again: Jan Willem te
Kolste, who had a +2 score, and Loman, who had a poor tournament.
The group photograph shows the players from the main tournament, and some
others, in one of the private rooms off the main dining room. This must be one
of the last photographs of the Hungarian-born chess journalist Leopold Hoffer
who reported on the tournament for The Field on the 2nd and 9th of August.
He died soon afterwards, on 26 August, and Amos Burn then took over the
Field column.
Jacques Mieses Alexander Alekhine
Scheveningen 1913
Centre Game [C22]
1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 Qxd4 Nc6 4 Qe3
This variation is not as an innocuous as it may appear. The active queen can
generate dangerous threats early in the game.
4...Be7 5 Bd2 Nf6 6 Nc3 00 7 000 d5 8 exd5
Not 8 e5 Ng4.
8...Nxd5 9 Qg3 Bh4!
The queen is driven away to forestall the threat of Bh6.
10 Qf3
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/ppp2ppp/2n5/3n4/7b/2N2Q2/
PPPB1PPP/2KR1BNR b - - 0 10"]
10...Be6!?
This is probably not the objectively best move. Alekhine indicated 10...Nxc3
11 Bxc3 Qg5+ 12 Bd2 Qc5 13 Be3 Qa5 although the pawn sacrifice 11 Qxc3
Bxf2 12 Nf3 could be tried.
11 Be3
Tartakower and Du Mont, in 500 Master Games of Chess, suggested 11 Nh3
but failed to consider the reply 11 Nh3 Nd4 12 Qe4 c5 13 Nf4 Nxc3 14 Bxc3
Bf5 15 Qxb7 Bxf2 when the complications seem to favour Black.
11...Nxc3 12 Rxd8 Nxa2+ 13 Kb1 Raxd8
Black has full material value for the queen and all his pieces are actively in
play, unlike White's kingside.
14 Be2
14 c3 is an attempt to trap the knight; Alekhine offered no note here. The
reply 14...Ne5 15 Qe2 Bb3seems more direct than 14...Bb3 15 Be2 Bf6
(suggested by Tartakower & Du Mont).
14...Nab4 15 Nh3 Rfe8 16 Nf4 Bf5 17 Rc1 g6 18 g4!
If 18 Bb5 (Tartakower & du Mont) 18...Ne5 19 Qe2 c6 20 Ba4 Ng4 21 g3 Bf6.
18...Be4 19 Qh3 Bf6 20 Bf3
White manages to exchange bishops and his position is now at least equal
according to computer analysis. Alekhine manages to bamboozle his
opponent with a succession of ingenious tactics but until the end the result
should probably have been a draw.
20...Bxf3 21 Qxf3 Ne5 22 Qe2
Prudent; computers tend to think White can snatch the b-pawn here; humans
(other than Korchnoi) usually refuse such pawns.
22...c5! 23 Rg1 c4 24 h4
24 g5!? also came into consideration.
24...Nd5 25 Nxd5 Rxd5
[FEN "4r1k1/pp3p1p/5bp1/3rn3/2p3PP/
4B3/1PP1QP2/1K4R1 w - - 0 26"]
26 f4
26 Bg5 also came into consideration.
26...Nd3! 27 Qf3!?
This was a critical moment where annotators disagree.
27 cxd3 could have been met by the following:
a) 27...cxd3? was given by Tartakower and Du Mont as an improvement but

instead of 28 Qd2 Rb5, given by them, it is answered by 28 Qf3! Rb5 29 Rg2
and Black has nothing.
b) 27...Rxd3! 28 Rg3 Bd4 when
b1) 29 Qxd3 cxd3 30 Bxd4 is another Tartakower and Du Mont blunder.
Black emerges the exchange ahead after 30...Re1+ 31 Ka2 d2 as Alekhine
said, e.g. 32 Rd3 d1Q 33 Rxd1 Rxd1 34 Bxa7 Rd3 and eventually wins.
b2) 29 Qc2! Bxe3 30 Qxc4 diverging again:
b21) 30Red8 when Alekhine claimed that Black had the better game, which
is very doubtful after 31 Qe4.
b22) 30...Rd1+ 31 Ka2 Re6 32 Qc8+ Kg7 33 Qxb7 Rb6 34 Qe4 Ra6+ 35 Kb3
Rb6+. Now 36 Ka2 and both sides must settle for perpetual check, because if
36 Kc2?? Rc1+ 37 Kd3 Rb3+ 38 Ke2 Rxb2+ White will lose material as a
result of various mating nets and other tactical accidents.
27...Rb5! 28 cxd3 Rxb2+ 29 Kc1 cxd3 30 Kd1 Rc8
[FEN "2r3k1/pp3p1p/5bp1/8/5PPP/
3pBQ2/1r6/3K2R1 w - - 0 31"]
31 g5??
This loses immediately.
31 Rg2? was suggested by some analysts but the computers confirm it loses to
Alekhine's manoeuvre 31...Rb1+ 32 Kd2 Rb3! 33 Kd1 Bc3! 34 Bc1 Bb4 e.g.
35 Bb2 Re8 36 Qf2 d2.
However, after 31 Qe4 Black may have nothing better than 31Rb1+ 32 Kd2
Rb2+ which draws.
31...Rcc2 32 Ke1 Rb1+ 33 Qd1 Bc3+ 01
Edward Lasker Jacques Mieses
Scheveningen 1913
Scandinavian Defence [B01]
1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qa5 4 d4 Nf6 5 Nf3 Bf5 6 Ne5 Ne4 7 Qf3 Nd6 8
Bd2 e6 9 g4 Bg6 10 h4 Qb6 11 000
[FEN "rn2kb1r/ppp2ppp/1q1np1b1/4N3/3P2PP/
2N2Q2/PPPB1P2/2KR1B1R b kq - 0 11"]
Black's opening has been a dismal failure.

11...f6 12 Nxg6 hxg6 13 Bd3 Qxd4 14 Bxg6+ Kd7 15 Be3 Qb4 16 a3 Qc4
17 Qxb7 Qc6 18 Be4! 10
The 1923 tournament celebrated the golden anniversary of the Nederlands
Schaakbond and was played as match between a team of ten players from the
Netherlands and ten others, each player meeting all the opposing team but
none of their own team. Prizes were also awarded for the best five individual
performances on each side. This type of competition has ever since been
known as the Scheveningen system, and has since been used, for example, in
Ladies versus Veterans matches.
The image of the page with the crosstable shows that the text was in German,
by B. Kagan. He was complimentary about the home players, saying that they
played some good games. Paul Johner, who went through undefeated, and
Spielmann were the top scorers with 8/10. In total, the "visiting" team won
69-30.
As the visiting team was very strong, all but two being professionals, and the
Dutch were all amateurs, this is no discredit to the home team. Also it is not
surprising that nearly all the visitors scored more points than the most
successful home players. Future world champion Max Euwe and Speyer were
the only Dutch players to achieve a fifty percent score.
In 1923, Olland played for a second time in Scheveningen, as did Yates, but
curiously Oskam was in the field for 1905 and 1913 but not in 1913, the same
being true of Spielmann. In a way, Oskam's performance was more creditable
than Euwe's because he beat Rti and Marczy but he was less consistent.
Loman was the only player to compete in all three tournaments.
Also, one player from the Netherlands played on the visiting team: Hendrik
Strick van Linschoten. He was the only one on that team to score below fifty
percent. Note also that he is in the 1913 photograph although he was not
playing in the international tournament.
The Variation
The 1923 tournament is best remembered, though, because of the variation in
the Sicilian. The characteristic formation for Black is the flexible formation
with a limited but resilient centre, involving an early combination of the
moves d6 and e6, usually with a6 and Nf6, sometimes with Nc6.
Move orders can vary. Similar systems had been tried in the nineteenth
century and are sometimes known as the Paulsen variation. Systems with 2
e6 and 4a6 are generally known as the Kan variation nowadays or if Black
plays e6 with Nc6 but not an early d6, Taimanov's name is invoked.
The most famous game from the tournament is Marczy-Euwe, but analogous
lines (with delayed Nc6 or Nf6 and earlier a6) were seen in WeeninkJohner, Strick van Linchoten-Fontein, and Fick-Colle.
Gza Marczy Max Euwe
Scheveningen (round 2), 1923
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 d6 6 Be2
White's development with the bishop on e2 brings about the main line of the
Scheveningen after Black's next move. The move 6 Bc4, met by 6...e6, would
bring about what is now known as the Sozin variation (though seen in
Sellman-Zukertort, London 1883!). That was played in the game SpielmannEuwe at Scheveningen 1923, which ended in a draw.
6...e6
After the Second World War, the alternative 6...e5 was introduced by
Boleslavsky, with the idea of following up...Be6, but that seems to be played
rarely nowadays.
At Scheveningen there were two games where Black at first looked as if he
would adopt Euwe's formation but played g6 instead of e6, heading into
a Dragon variation.
7 00 Be7 8 Kh1
Yates-E. Straat, Scheveningen 1923, went 8 Be3 00 9 Qd2 a6 10 Rad1 Qc7
11 a3 Na5 12 Nf3 Nc4 13 Bxc4 Qxc4 14 e5 dxe5 15 Nxe5 Qc7 16 Bf4 Rd8
17 Ng6 Rxd2 18 Bxc7 Rxd1 19 Nxe7+ Kf8 20 Rxd1 Kxe7 21 Bd8+ Ke8 22
Bxf6 gxf6 23 Rd3 e5 24 Nd5 Rb8 25 Nxf6+ Ke7 26 Nd5+ Kf8 27 Nb6 Bf5
28 Nd7+ Bxd7 29 Rxd7 10.
8...00 9 f4 Qc7
The delayed ...a6 is a feature of some Scheveningen variations today. Black is
not worried that White might play Ndb5 as the queen can go to b8 and then
the lost time is regained by the subsequent ...a6. However 9...Bd7 (or even 8...
Bd7) is probably better, because then if White leaves the knight on d4, Black
can exchange and follow up with ...Bc6, a very solid formation.
10 Nb3
This is another characteristic manoeuvre. White voluntarily retreats in order to
avoid simplification, reckoning that Black's space for his pieces is limited.
10...a6 11 a4
Naturally White does not wish to allow ...b5.
11...b6 12 Bf3 Bb7 13 Be3
[FEN "r4rk1/1bq1bppp/ppnppn2/8/P3PP2/
1NN1BB2/1PP3PP/R2Q1R1K b - - 0 13"]
13...Nb4?!
Pioneers can often fail to obtain the reward for their efforts through losing
their way in uncharted ground. Black decides to play for ...d5 but modern
players would rarely handle the variation that way nowadays. There is indeed
a wide choice of moves here, and 13..Na5 has been seen (e.g., HaugePedersen, Oslo 2010), inviting White to capture on a5. Also 13...Nd7 and
various rook move (13...Rab8, 13...Rac8, and...Rfe8) have been tried.
14 Qe2 d5 15 e5 Ne4 16 Bxe4 dxe4 17 Qf2
As b6 cannot be defended, ...Bd8 being too passive, the pawn has to advance.
17...b5 18 axb5 axb5 19 Nd4
This defends c2 and so attacks b5.
19...Bc6 20 Qg3 Rxa1 21 Rxa1 Rb8?
He should either have sacrificed the pawn by 21...Ra8 or defended it by 21...
Qd7 because White now launches a powerful attack. After White's 24th move
the downside of the text will be apparent.
22 f5 exf5 23 Nxf5
Scheveningen players have since learned not allow this formation of queen on
g3 and knight on f5.
23...Bf8 24 Bf4 Ra8 25 Rc1
Marczy rules out his opponent's only counterplay.
25...g6 26 e6 Qb7 27 e7 Bg7 28 Nxg7 Kxg7 29 Qh4 f6 30 Qh6+ Kg8 31

Bd6 1-0
Threatening Qf8+ with mate next move, so Black resigned.
Despite this setback, the potential of the Scheveningen formation was
recognized and employed it in many subsequent games. Employing it
successfully does, however, require a subtle feel for position and tempo and
knowledge of all the typical manoeuvres of both sides. In the early career of
Kasparov, he studied the variation very deeply with Nikitin.
Postscript
It is alarming to hear that British Chess Magazine, the world's oldest
surviving chess magazine, is in some difficulties and badly needs former
subscribers to return to the fold (and new ones to sign up). They are restarting
the old correspondence chess column so I certainly intend to rejoin the
subscriber list soon.
B.C.M. was founded in 1881 but only became the world's oldest magazine
after Deutsche Schachzeitung effectively came to an end in 1996, when Stefan
Bcker edited the last volume to have the old magazine's title on its cover. For
the last few years it had merged with another magazine, Deutsche
Schachblatter Schach-Report so it could be argued that December 1888 was
its last issue as an independent entity. (The name Deutsche Schachzeitung was
only adopted in 1872 by the Berlin-based magazine, founded by Ludwig
Bledow in 1846. A magazine published in Leipzig had been the first to use the
name Deutsche Schachzeitung.
B.C.M. has never gone through such name-changes, although it emerged from
the Huddersfield College Magazine, which had an increasing amount of chess
content in the late 1870s and in 1880, and was towards the end edited by John
Watkinson, who became the first editor of B.C.M.
B.C.M. has been through many ups and downs in the intervening years
without missing one issue. It managed to survive the bombing of its editor's
house in World War II, a national printer's strike in the early 1960s, and the
sudden death of its manager and typesetter (Freddie Reilly) just as the
magazine reached its centenary. So let us hope the old survivor can keep
going in the Internet age.
Their lively new British Chess Magazine website is well worth visiting.

The Double Life of Adolphus Zytogorski

Part One
Purchases from our

accessible:
Over the last few weeks I have been working extremely hard to complete the
text of my next book for McFarland, Eminent Victorian Chess-Players, which
I hope will be published in 2012. This features biographical essays (including
games and visual illustrations) of ten major figures in nineteenth century
British chess, with short digressions about their principal opponents and other
leading characters.
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Translate this page
Inevitably, some of the interesting material which I researched and wrote up

had to be discarded to prevent the book becoming unbalanced and too long.
One of the lesser players whose story had to be greatly trimmed was Adolf (or
Adolphus) Zytogorski. Possibly most readers have never heard of him, though
he has the distinction of being the final entry in two alphabetically-arranged
works of reference: Jeremy Gaige's Chess Personalia and Frederic Boase's
Modern English Biography (Volume 3), which was published in the early
1900s (and where his name is incorrectly spelled "Zytagorski, Adolphe."
Pasadena 1932
by Sherwood, Brandreth,
& Monson
Part of my methodology for the book was to use the Ancestry website to seek
personal details about players mentioned in the book and sometimes in this
way I made contact with relatives or descendants of the subjects and was able
to exchange information with them. One of my most fruitful exchanges of this
type was with English teacher Mike Roy Read, who is descended from a sister
of Zytogorski's second wife, and he has agreed to the publication of this
article in the hope that some readers (most likely in Poland or elsewhere on
the European continent) may be able to provide relevant information to add to
the story. While I concentrated on the chess, Mike has made some excellent,
even astonishing, discoveries about Zytogorski which are revealed this month
and next. The findings in these articles are really a co-operative effort.
The Zurich Chess Club
At this stage, the one thing we are sadly lacking is any photograph or other
likeness of Zytogorski and we should very much like to find one. Several
questions arising from our researches will be listed at the end next month.
1809-2009
by Richard Forster
Who was Zytogorski?

the games from
Zytogorski was Polish (or at least half-Polish) and is usually said to have been
born in 1807 but it was probably somewhat later than that. His surname would
apparently be pronounced Zhyto-goorski in Poland. He came to England in
the 1830s at an unknown date; he had certainly arrived by 1837. Zytogorski
died in London in March 1882, about twenty years after he ceased active
chess-playing.
There is evidence from games and results that in the mid- and late-1850s he
was then one of the strongest players in England. He was certainly not in
Staunton's class (but by then Staunton had almost retired), while Elijah
Williams had died in 1854 and both Bird and Horwitz were inactive at that
period. Zytogorski was somewhat weaker than Harrwitz (who anyway went to
France during 1854) and Lwenthal, but he was not much inferior to
Falkbeer, and was stronger than Brien (editor of the Chess Player's Chronicle
after Staunton) and others with whom he played regularly.
Little information about Zytogorski is freely available online. There is a short
Wikipedia article about him but it is entirely derivative and not wholly
accurate. The fullest text article previously about Zytogorski appeared in
Quarterly for Chess History with an article by Tomasz Lissowski entitled
"The Greatest One Before Winawer?" (meaning greatest Polish player). In the
printed version, the Quarterly's editor Vlastimil Fiala added a selection of
Chess Personalia
by Jeremy Gaige
Zytogorski's games; the ones presented this month and next are largely
different. Fiala also adds some comments that I do not entirely agree with. He
writes, for example "after his arrival in London at the turn of 18301831" but
there is nothing to prove it was as early as that. You can read Lissowski's part
of the article for yourself online (see link above). It includes a shortened
version of the British Chess Magazine obituary, though with minor mistakes
in the text, which is quoted in full below.
There is no mention of Zytogorski in the chess press before 1841 that I have
been able to discover. In ChessBase's Mega Database 2011, twenty games by
Zytogorski can be found, most of them being from a tournament in 1855, and
none played before 1851 although he is also known to have been an active
player in 1841/42 at Goode's European Cigar Divan and Chess Rooms, at 39
Ludgate Hill, where Staunton was a regular and played many of his games
with John Cochrane. It would probably be possible to collect at least fifty of
Zytogorski's game-scores from all sources, including consultation games and
games at odds.
The death certificate of Zytogorski.

[Click here to enlarge image.]
Obituary in B.C.M. 1882

The death of Zytogorski was noticed in a few chess publications but only B.C.
M. gave a lengthy obituary article, on pages 141-2 of its second (1882)
volume. Rev. William Wayte wrote the longest obituary which Lissowski
summarises and some of which is quoted below. Throughout, Wayte gave the
incorrect spelling Zytogorski. For Poles, the correct ending is "i" not "y." So, I
have changed that, and there are accents on some of the letters which were
never used in England. Here are some extracts from the obituary.
"In Adolph Zytogorski there has passed away a player of considerable
eminence, who but for adverse circumstances would have achieved a far
higher reputation among the masters of the game. His name has been for
many years so little before the public that it may even be unknown to the
younger generation: yet it is one of those which ought not to be
altogether forgotten.
Mr. Zytogorski died on the 27th of February in the German Hospital,
Dalston, at the age of 75. He was one of the numerous band of Polish
refugees who, after the ill-starred rising of 1831, overspread the capitals
of Western Europe. Like too many of his fellow-exiles, he passed his
long life in poverty and obscurity."
"If Fortune was unkind to Zytogorski, it is but fair to Fortune to say that
he had opportunities of bettering himself which he was too much of a
Bohemian to turn to account. He is believed to have passed the greater
part of the last half-century in England, but was occasionally heard of in
Germany."
"In the earliest volumes of the Chess Player's Chronicle, 1841-2, a few
of his games are recorded; and he contributed a valuable analysis of the
problem of Rook and Bishop against Rook, partly reproduced in
Staunton's Handbook He was, indeed, a master alike of the theory and

practice of end-games"
"In 1843 he played a match with Staunton, then at the height of his
strength and reputation, receiving Pawn and two moves, and won six
games right off the reel Staunton suppressed all mention of this
match; and, as long as he controlled the chess organs, nothing more was
heard of the winner Zytogorski was befriended by the late Mr. Brien,
who succeeded Staunton as Editor of the Chronicle in 1854-56; and
Brien, after his quarrel with Staunton, published for the first time the
particulars of the above match... Many of his games appear in this series
of C. P. C., as well as in the next which followed after an interval in
1859-62; but for the last twenty years we have scarcely met with his
name in the public prints... Zytogorski, if he had been in a position to
assert himself, would unquestionably have taken a high place among the
masters of European reputation."
Comments on Wayte's article
The first point to note in the above is that the death certificate indeed proves
that Zytogorski died in a London hospital for German speakers. Probably
German was his mother tongue and further reasons to believe that are stated
below. However, it can also be noted that he was certified as dying on 28
February 1882, instead of the 27 February given in all chess sources. (In my
book I point out many discrepancies of this sort.)
The most important detail is that the certificate says he was seventy,
contradicting Wayte's statement that Zytogorski was seventy-five-years old.
Was this a misprint in B.C.M. or did Wayte have some evidence for that age?
The Chess-Monthly also said seventy-five but one magazine may have copied
the other. Philip Sergeant in A Century of British Chess and more recently
Gaige's Chess Personalia also said seventy-five but Wayte was probably the
source of all the various accounts (including the Oxford Companion to Chess,
page twenty-four in the first edition) stating 1807 as Zytogorski's year of
birth. I have even seen January 1806 suggested but without any evidence; if
that was right, he would have been seventy-six at death. Unless firm evidence
turns up for Zytogorski being seventy-five, we should assume that the
certificate, being an official record, is correct.
The certificate and census information, although incomplete, tend to
corroborate each other to show that Zytogorski was probably born in 1811 or
1812. Although there is some variation in the various censuses where he
appears, but none would accord with birth in 1807, still less in 1806. In the
1841 census he is said to be thirty. Then he was listed as thirty-eight in the
1851 census and as forty-nine in 1861. We have not found him in the 1871 or
1881 censuses yet. Possibly he was abroad or using another name (as in 1851
and 1861), or his unusual surname may have been transcribed incorrectly (as
in 1841) and so not found in searches.
Commenting on what Wayte had written, W. N. Potter added in his Land and
Water column, "That Staunton acted in a spirit of oppressive injustice towards
Zytogorski is made abundantly clear." Potter also remembered that Zytogorski
"had no taste for what is called respectability." The word "Bohemian" at this
time meant somebody of an artistic mien and unconventional behaviour.
Evidently there was much about Zytogorski that Wayte perhaps did not know,
or at least did not say. It is hard to know what he was hinting it when he
referred to the Bohemianism and the spurning of opportunities. Did Wayte
mean alcoholism? Revolutionary activity? Sexual irregularities? All of the
above?
In fact as will be shown below, Zytogorski also used another name and had a
double life, but for chess he only used his original name and probably the
chess world never knew about his other identity which Mike Roy Read has
uncovered.
Family Life
According to two censuses, he was born in Transylvania, which raises further
questions as that region in the Carpathians has never, so far as I am aware,

been part of Polish territory. Now it is in Romania but that was a twentieth
century change. In Zytogorski's day there was no independent state of Poland;
it was divided between the Tsarist and Austro-Hungarian empires and Prussia.
Transylvania was then a region of the Austro-Hungarian empire directly
administered from Budapest, suggesting that his father may have been a
merchant or an Austro-Hungarian government official posted there. Perhaps
the family were not there long and he spent most of his childhood in Poland.
Why would he have been involved in the Polish rebellion if he did not have a
personal connection with Poland?
The main reason that Zytogorski did not avail of the Tsar's offer of an
amnesty in 1844, which would have enabled him to return to that part of
Poland, was that he had put down firm roots in England and had a family. His
eldest child was three-years-old in 1841, so he was certainly in England by
1837. John Townsend, in his book Notes on Howard Staunton (which I
discussed in an earlier column), correctly allowed for errors in recording
foreign names and made an educated guess that has been proved correct,
when he identified them in the 1841 census. There they appear as "Adolph
Zagorski," a thirty-year-old Pole of independent means, living with "Henretta
Zagorski", aged twenty, and a three-year-old son, Agenor. Informed by me
about this, Mike made a series of revealing discoveries about this first Mrs.
Zytogorski. Harriet Eliza Humphryes was born in Lambeth about 1821, the
daughter of Thomas and Harriet Augusta Mary Humphryes, but her father
must have died when she was quite young and her mother remarried. Her
stepfather was a Polish immigrant, Jacob Pitichowski, so it now seems likely
that Zytogorski met her through him.
The birth certificate of Alfred Victor Zytogorski, the second son, born 1848.
Adolphus and Harriet had four children, of whom the eldest (Agenor) cannot
be traced after 1861. He would have been an adult and could well have gone
to the continent or America. The other three were Vanda (1843-1923), Alfred
Victor (1848-1925), and Clementina (1854-1940). The daughters never
married but Alfred married Lucy Browning (1851-1918) and they had three
children. Mike found a birth and marriage certificate for Alfred and death
certificates for Vanda and Clementina, as well as for Harriet Eliza Zytogorski,
who died aged ninety on 18 February 1913 in Ilford, Essex.
The marriage certificate of Alfred V. Z.

Mike was able to find Harriet in every census up to 1911, except for 1891. In
1871 she is listed as head of household and as an artist's wife; she has either
been deserted or there has been a voluntary separation. By 1867 at latest,
Zytogorski had taken up with a younger woman, Maria Haymes (1844-75),
with whom he had two children: Marmaduke H. Zytogorski (1868-70) and
Blanche Haymes Zytogorski (1871-1957), who (after her mother's early
death) was brought up by an aunt (Mike Roy Read's ancestor), became a nurse
and never married. This does not necessarily mean Zytogorski committed the
crime of bigamy. There actually seems to be no record of him marrying either
woman, and it is unknown whether he was reconciled with Harriet after
Maria's death. There is nothing to show whether the two families were aware
of each other or not.
The death certificate of Zytogorski's last child, Blanche Haymes Zytogorski.

There is another twist. Some time between 1848, when Alfred was born, and
the 1851 census, Zytogorski started to change the family name to Hanstein,
which we may guess may have been his mother's maiden name. In 1851 he
called himself J. Adolphus Hanstein and in 1861 the "Adolphus" has been
abandoned altogether. Now he appears in the Ancestry index as "John T.
Haustein," but the image looks like Hanstein to me. However he does not
seem to have ever called himself Hanstein in the chess world, where he was
well known as Zytogorski.
The death certificate of Zytogorski's second wife, Maria.

His name change can also be traced through his literary work. Between the
late 1840s and 1852, at least three books of folk tales by the Weimar professor
Johann Carl August Musaeus (1735-87) were published in London, in which
Adolphus Zytogorski is named as the translator. Musaeus was a precursor of
the brothers Grimm in collecting popular tales from the lips of the peasantry.
Cover image of one of the books of

folk tales he translated.
After Mike Roy Read told me about the Hanstein name, I ordered up every
book at the British library which is attributed in their catalogue either to
Zytogorski or Hanstein, and I was able to make comparisons. That library
does not however have the earliest translation which was probably the first
edition of The Chronicle of the Three Sisters by Musaeus, translated by
Zytogorski. The J. F. initials on three of the later translations may have been a
printer's misreading of manuscript "J. T." Mike provided a screenshot of the
1852 Libussa translation showing the name of Zytogorski, perhaps the last
time (until he met Maria) that he used this name except for chess.
Between 1855 and 1866, further translations from Musaeus and other writers
appeared, but now the name of J. T. Hanstein or J. F. Hanstein appears. The
reprint of Libussa, is exactly the same as the 1852 Zytogorski edition except
for the title page.
The death certificate of Zytogorski's first wife, Harriet.

His two elder daughters seem to have had different loyalties. Clementina used
the surname Hanstein but on the death certificate of her elder sister is written
"Vanda Zytogorski otherwise Hanstein, daughter of Adolphus Zytogorski
(deceased) an Interpreter." It may have been because of Vanda that Harriet's
death certificate also bears the principal surname Zytogorski, but also
mentioning Hanstein.
TThe death certificate of one of Zytogorski's daughters by his first wife, Vanda.
Alfred Zytogorski worked for many years under that name as a letter-carrier
for the post office. Shortly after Adolphus's death in 1882, he must have been
desperate for money and took a silly risk. He was convicted at the Old Bailey
of stealing letters (presumably containing cash or other valuables) and was
sentenced to eighteen months hard labour. There is a report of the magistrates
court hearing in the Era. The full trial report can be found online.
Chess Career
There are various sources for Zytogorski's chess career including the earliest
volumes of the Chess Player's Chronicle, when Staunton was editing it, and
afterwards. Robert Barnett Brien edited the Chronicle from August 1854,
through 1855 and until the magazine failed during 1856. Zytogorski was then
involved to some considerable extent in the Third Series that began in 1859;
he may even have been principal editor for a time and his name sometimes
appeared on the cover.
In 1841 Zytogorski supplied Staunton with some analysis of the endgame
rook and bishop against rook, which appeared in the Chronicle: "This
gentleman, after pursuing the investigation with a diligence and devotedness
unparalleled, has in the handsomest manner, without solicitation, presented to
the conductors of this magazine the fruits of his labours."
Some games with Staunton appear in the Chronicle in 1841/42 including a
loss shown below. From his early career, there are also two of his losses to
Elijah Williams in A Souvenir of the Bristol Chess Club. He plays weakly in
those games but one would not expect to find in a book of this type any games
Zytogorski may have won against Bristolians. Nor was Staunton fond of
publishing his own losses. The biggest issue concerns whether Staunton really
did lose a match at odds against Zytogorski in 1843 and that will be dealt with
in next month's article.
There is not much sign of Zytogorski playing chess after 1843 until 1851
when the tournaments in London and arrival of overseas visitors undoubtedly
stimulated new interest in the game. Dutch master and chess historian Fred
van der Vliet told me that in 1844 Zytogorski paid a visit to Bulgaria. On his
return, Zytogorski wrote to Thomas Wilson Barnes about two variant forms of
the game, Abagoren Chess and Bolyar Chess, that he had come across while
there. The reference for this information is Variant Chess, LV (September
2007) page fifty-five.
Whether he took up the game again in 1851 or whether his activities were just
not reported because Staunton controlled most of the media is not clear. If
Zytogorski was playing, one would at least expect Walker to mention him in
Bell's Life in London. Games by him from 1851 are certainly known,
including the win in a casual game against Anderssen to which Wayte
referred.
Adolphus Zytogorski Adolf Anderssen
London 1851
Evans Gambit [C52]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 b4 Bxb4 5 c3 Ba5 6 d4 exd4 7 00 dxc3 8
Qb3 Qf6 9 Bg5?! Qg6 10 Nxc3 Bxc3 11 Qxc3 Nge7 12 Bxe7 Nxe7 13 Ne5
Qf6 14 Bxf7+ Kd8 15 Rac1 Nc6 16 f4 Rf8 17 Bd5 a5 18 Nxc6+ bxc6
[FEN "r1bk1r2/2pp2pp/2p2q2/p2B4/
4PP2/2Q5/P5PP/2R2RK1 w - - 0 19"]
19 e5 Qe7 20 Bxc6 Ra7 21 Rcd1 Qb4 22 Qd4 Ke7 23 Qxa7 10

Zytogorski appears to have played much stronger in the 1850s than
previously. In 1854 he won a match 6-4 against Fredericus Godfrey Janssens,
who was a Belgian teacher resident in London. I found the final game of their
match annotated by Lwenthal in his column in the Era. I have abbreviated
the notes somewhat.
Adolphus Zytogorski F. G. Janssens
Tenth match game, London 1854
Sicilian Defence or English Opening? [B20]
From The Era, 15 October 1854: "The following skilful and scientific game
has terminated the match between Messrs. Zytogorski and Jansens [sic], in
favour of the former."
1 e4 c5 2 c4
An unusual move.
2...e6 3 Nc3 Nc6 4 f4 Nge7 5 g3 Nd4 6 Nge2!?
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/pp1pnppp/4p3/2p5/2PnPP2/
2N3P1/PP1PN2P/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 0 6"]
6Nec6
It is obvious that checking with the Kt would have lost Black much time.
7 Nxd4 Nxd4 8 Bg2 Be7 9 d3 d6 10 Be3 Bf6 11 00 00 12 Rb1 Rb8 13
Ne2 Nxe2+ 14 Qxe2 b6 15 b4 Bb7 16 b5 Kh8 17 Rbd1 Qc7 18 g4 g6 19 h4
Rg8
Not 19...Bxh4? 20 g5 winning the bishop.
20 g5 Bg7 21 h5
[FEN "1r4rk/pbq2pbp/1p1pp1p1/1Pp3PP/
2P1PP2/3PB3/P3Q1B1/3R1RK1 b - - 0 21"]
21...h6!
The correct move. Had he taken 21...gxh5 then h5 would have secured the
game for White.
22 Rf3 d5 23 hxg6 fxg6
If 23...dxe4, Lwenthal gave the variation 24 Rh3 fxg6 25 dxe4 Bf8 (25...h5?
26 Rxh5+) 26 Qb2+ Kh7 27 Bf3 h5 28 Bxh5 gxh5 29 Rxh5+ Kg6 30 Rh6+
Kf7 31 Qf6+ Ke8 32 Qxe6+ Qe7 33 Qxg8 winning easily.
24 gxh6 Bf6 25 Rg3 g5 26 h7
We believe that White might have safely taken 26 Rxg5!?
26...Rg7 27 e5 gxf4 28 Rxg7 Bxg7 29 Bxf4 Rf8 30 Qe3 d4 31 Qg3 Rf5 32
Bh3 Rh5
[FEN "7k/pbq3bP/1p2p3/1Pp1P2r/2Pp1B2/
3P2QB/P7/3R2K1 w - - 0 33"]
33 Rf1
White did not fall into the snare of Black's last move, by 33 Bxe6??
33...Qe7 34 Qg4 Qe8 35 Qxe6 Qxe6 36 Bxe6 Kxh7 37 Bg4
Finely conceived.
37...Rh4 38 Bf5+ Kg8 39 Be6+ Kh7 40 Bd5
All these moves are admirably played by White.
40...Rg4+!
[FEN "8/pb4bk/1p6/1PpBP3/2Pp1Br1/
3P4/P7/5RK1 w - - 0 41"]
Very ingenious; if 41 Kh2 Bxd5 (If Black takes the other bishop with his
rook, the game will be drawn.) 42 cxd5 Rxf4 43 Rxf4 Bxe5 44 Kg3 c4 and
wins.
41 Kh1! Bc8 42 e6 Bf8 43 Be5 Bh6 44 Rf7+ Kg6 45 Rc7 10
Zytogorski was evidently friendly with the German musician Joseph Kling
who ran a public coffee house and private chess rooms upstairs in the same
building, at 454 New Oxford Street, in 1855, the private rooms transmuting
into the McDonnell Chess Club. Most of the games played in a tournament
there, in late April and May 1855, can be found in databases as they were
reported by Brien in the Chronicle. Further information about the goings-on at
Kling's can be found in the chess column of the monthly Sharpe's London
magazine of entertainment and instruction. Zytogorski was very active as a
player in 1855 but then seems to have withdrawn for a time.
Next month: the later playing career, the Staunton controversy, and many
more games.

The Double Life of Adolphus Zytogorski

Part Two: Further Mysteries
Purchases from our

accessible:
Last month's article introduced Adolphus Zytogorski (1810?-1882), detailed

his curious double family life and his literary work, and dealt with part of his
chess career. In this second part, I look at his later competitions and discuss
the question of the disputed Staunton match. At the end there are some
questions and hints for any readers who may be in a position to do further
research into this curious Victorian chess expert.
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Translate this page
The Later Playing Career

It is evident from Zytogorski's British Chess Magazine obituary (quoted in
full last month) that he played a good deal of chess in London during the
1840s, at least in the early years of that decade, but there are no firm
statements about his performances, except for the questionable Staunton
match discussed below. This may partly be, as Wayte alleged in that article,
because Staunton suppressed all mention of Zytogorski's name in the Chess
Player's Chronicle (which he edited up to July 1854) and the Illustrated
London News.
Pasadena 1932
& Monson
In the 1850s, it was becoming more normal in the chess press to provide
detailed results of matches and other competitions. So it is known that
Zytogorski did not play in the tournament of 1851 at the St. George's Club,
probably because he was on bad terms with its principal organiser, Staunton.
Possibly he had been out of practice but that seems less likely, as he is known
to have won at least three casual games against Anderssen in London that
summer. I republished one last month; here is another:
Adolf Anderssen Adolphus Zytogorski
London 1851
Bishop's Gambit [C33]
From The Chess Player, volume 1, no. 6 (23 August 1851) page 43.

1809-2009
by Richard Forster
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Bc4 Qh4+ 4 Kf1 d6 5 Nf3 Qh5 6 d4 b5 7 Be2 c6 8 Bxf4

f6? 9 Ng5

the games from
"Premature," commented the magazine editors, Kling and Horwitz. Either 9

d5 or 9 a4 would be better.
9...Qh4 10 g3 Qh6 11 Bh5+ g6
Chess Personalia
by Jeremy Gaige
[FEN "rnb1kbnr/p6p/2pp1ppq/1p4NB/3PPB2/
6P1/PPP4P/RN1Q1K1R w kq - 0 12"]
12 Bg4?!
12 Nf7 Qxh5 13 Qxh5 gxh5 14 Nxh8 leaves White the exchange ahead but
with a trapped knight; the position is a mess. Also 12 Ne6 Qxh5 13 Nc7+ Kd7
14 Qxh5 gxh5 15 Nxa8 is similar. This is why a queenside pawn should have
been advanced first.
12...fxg5 13 Bxc8 gxf4 14 Bb7 fxg3
14...Qh3+ may be somewhat stronger.
15 Kg2 gxh2 16 Rxh2 Qf4!? 17 Nd2 Bg7 18 Nf3 Nf6 19 Bxa8 Ng4!?
[FEN "Bn2k2r/p5bp/2pp2p1/1p6/3PPqn1/
5N2/PPP3KR/R2Q4 w k - 0 20"]
This is one of many slight inaccuracies in this game but Black keeps on top.
20 Qd3 Nxh2 21 Nxh2 00 22 Kh1 Re8 23 Re1 g5 24 a4 a6 25 d5 c5 26
axb5 axb5 27 Qxb5 Rf8 28 Bc6 Be5 29 Qe2 Qh4
"The winning move," said The Chess Player.
30 Rg1 Rf2 31 Rxg5+ Kh8 32 Rh5 Qf4 01
Anderssen probably played quickly and for fun; such games should not fool
readers into thinking that Zytogorski was really the stronger player. A few
weeks later in the same magazine, there is a game he lost to Weil with white
in twenty moves. Gottlieb Weil, a German language teacher (sometimes at
Brighton College and sometimes in Cambridge) was described by Lwenthal
in 1853 (Chess Player's Chronicle, page 61) as "undoubtedly a smart and
brilliant player, but he is the unsoundest amateur in Europe."
In 1853 there was an another game by Zytogorski in Kling and Horwitz's
magazine: a loss in forty-seven moves to D. Hillel, who was possibly German.
Then in 1854 Zytogorski won the match with Janssens mentioned in my last
article. This was reported in the Chronicle, now edited by R. B. Brien.
As I mentioned at the end of the November article, some information about
competitions held at Kling's chess rooms in 1855-6 can also be found in a
source I recently discovered. Sharpe's London Magazine of entertainment and
instruction was a monthly illustrated literary magazine which began a chess
column starting in volume 6 (the May 1855 issue), under the headline "Chess
Exercises by Kling and Zytogorski". After the April 1856 number, the column
was conducted by Kling alone, continuing up to June 1857 (although three
months in 1856 had no column). These articles provide some information to
supplement what is known from the Chess Player's Chronicle.
The second Sharpe's article reports on the start of the eight-player tournament
at Kling's in 1855, which was based (as was usually the case in those days) on
a knock-out system with mini-matches. The first player to win four games
went through to the next round. Zytogorski was paired with Brien and, as the
column and the Chronicle show, they had a very close contest. After a draw in
the first game, played on 30 April, Zytogorski won two games but then Brien
equalized. They then each won a game and after a draw, Zytogorski finally
won the ninth game to win the match 4-3 with two draws. The decisive game
began as a Philidor Defence (very popular in those days) but then started to
look like a Sicilian.
Robert Barnett Brien Adolphus Zytogorski

Kling's tournament, London 1855
Philidor Defence [C41]
The Chess Players Chronicle, new series III (1855), page 194.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 Be2 Be7 4 Nc3 Nf6 5 d3 Bg4 6 Be3 Nbd7 7 Nd2 Bxe2 8
Qxe2 c6 9 d4 Qc7 10 h3 h6 11 d5 cxd5 12 exd5 a6 13 f4 b5
[FEN "r3k2r/2qnbpp1/p2p1n1p/1p1Pp3/5P2/
2N1B2P/PPPNQ1P1/R3K2R w KQkq - 0 14"]
14 a3 Qb7 15 00 00 16 Qf3 a5 17 Nb3 b4 18 axb4 axb4 19 Na2 Rfc8 20

fxe5 Nxe5 21 Qf2 Nxd5 22 Bd4 Bg5 23 h4 Ng4 24 Qf3 Be3+ 25 Bxe3
Ngxe3 26 Rf2 Rxc2 27 Rxc2 Nxc2 28 Rc1 Nce3 01
The next column, probably the one for July, reported that Zytogorski had won
the first prize. He had won his second round (or semi-final) against Barnes by
4-1, and in the final he beat Green 4-1. The column had two of their games.
Valentine Green Adolphus Zytogorski
Notes by Kling and Zytogorski in Sharpe's London Magazine, June 1855.
1 c4 d5?! 2 cxd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qd8 4 e3 e5 5 g3 Nf6 6 Nge2 Bg4 7 Bg2 c6 8
00 Bd6 9 d4 00 10 dxe5 Bxe5 11 Qc2 Na6 12 f3 Be6
Better than playing 12...Bh5.
13 f4 Nb4
[FEN "r2q1rk1/pp3ppp/2p1bn2/4b3/1n3P2/
2N1P1P1/PPQ1N1BP/R1B2RK1 w - - 0 14"]
14 Qa4
White ought to have offered the exchange of queens.
14...Bd6 15 Bd2 Qc7 16 Nd4 Bc4 17 Nce2 Bxe2 18 Nxe2 Qb6 19 Rad1
Nbd5 20 Nd4 Rfe8
This move gains a pawn by force.
21 Ba5 Qxb2 22 Bxd5 Nxd5 23 Rb1 Nc3
A compelling and good move.
[FEN "r3r1k1/pp3ppp/2pb4/B7/Q2N1P2/
2n1P1P1/Pq5P/1R3RK1 w - - 0 24"]
24 Rxb2 Nxa4 25 Rxb7 Rxe3 26 Nf5 Rd3 27 Nxd6 Rxd6 28 Rb4 Nc5 29
Rc4 Nd7 30 Bb4 c5 31 Bxc5?
A fatal oversight which costs him a piece.
31...Rc6 01
Adolphus Zytogorski Valentine Green
Ruy Lopez [C65]
Notes by Kling and Zytogorski in Sharpe's London Magazine, July 1855.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6 4 d4 Qe7 5 Bxc6 dxc6 6 dxe5 Qb4+ 7 Nc3
Nxe4 8 Bd2 Nxd2 9 Qxd2
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/ppp2ppp/2p5/4P3/1q6/
2N2N2/PPPQ1PPP/R3K2R b KQkq - 0 9"]
9...Bg4
Black might have won the Q Kt's Pawn.
10 000 Be7 11 a3 Qa5 12 Nb1 Qxd2+ 13 Nbxd2 000 14 h3 Bxf3 15
Nxf3 Rxd1+ 16 Rxd1 Rd8 17 Rxd8+ Kxd8
[FEN "3k4/ppp1bppp/2p5/4P3/8/P4N1P/
1PP2PP1/2K5 w - - 0 18"]
18 Nd4 Bc5
A weak move; why not 18...g6.
19 c3 g6 20 Kd2 Kd7 21 Kd3 Ke7 22 Ke4 f6 23 exf6+ Kxf6 24 g4 Bd6 25
f4 h5
25...h6 would have been preferable.
26 a4 hxg4 27 hxg4 Kf7 28 Nf3 Kf6 29 b3
[FEN "8/ppp5/2pb1kp1/8/P3KPP1/
1PP2N2/8/8 b - - 0 29"]
29...Kf7
Black's bishop stands idle; why not play him to a3?
30 f5 gxf5+ 31 Kxf5 Ke7 32 g5 Kf7 33 g6+ Kg7 34 Nd4 Kg8 35 Kf6 Ba3
It is now too late; the game is hopeless.
36 g7 Bb2 37 Kg6 Bxc3 38 Nf5 10
The fifth (September 1855) column includes a consultation game with
Falkbeer and Horwitz against Zytogorski and Kling, won by the latter. In the
November and December columns there are two drawn games from a match
in which Zytogorski gave Green odds of pawn and move. Green eventually
won this match 8-7. As Philip Sergeant said in his book A Century of British
Chess, the player in the Kling's tournament and in this match probably
Valentine Green, the former Oxford University student friend of Brien. (He
went to India for a time but I believe that was later.) There was also an S.
Green who played at Kling's in a consultation game published in the third
column.
The following win by Zytogorski was published in the Chronicle for 1856,
pages 234-5. It is not clear whether it was from the same match. Again it
shows Zytogorski's endgame skill.
Valentine (?) Green Adolphus Zytogorski
MacDonnell Club, London, 1855-1856
Pawn and move
[CPC new series iv (1856) pages 234-5]
Zytogorski gave Mr. Green the odds of pawn and move. Remove Black's fpawn.
1 e4 Nc6
This move received the sanction of Philidor, and we doubt whether there is
any better defence.
2 d4 e6 3 Nf3 d6 4 Nc3 g6 5 Bc4 Qf6 6 Bg5 Qf7 7 00 Na5 8 Bd3 b6 9 Ne2
h6 10 Bd2 Nb7 11 e5 Ne7 12 c4 Bg7 13 Qc2 dxe5 14 Nxe5 Bxe5 15 dxe5
Nc5 16 Rad1 Bb7 17 Be3 Nxd3 18 Qxd3 Nf5
Black is beginning to obtain some play for his pawn (TH).
[FEN "r3k2r/pbp2q2/1p2p1pp/4Pn2/2P5/
3QB3/PP2NPPP/3R1RK1 w kq - 0 19"]
19 Ng3 Qe7 20 Ne4 Kf7 21 Nf6 Rad8 22 Qc2 c5 23 Rxd8 Rxd8 24 Rd1
Qc7 25 Rxd8 Qxd8 26 Qd2 Qc7 27 Qd7+ Qxd7 28 Nxd7 Be4!
[FEN "8/p2N1k2/1p2p1pp/2p1Pn2/2P1b3/
4B3/PP3PPP/6K1 w - - 0 29"]
A well-timed move, menacing operations of an active nature upon the Queen's

side, and also tempting White to make a counter-attack which must end in
disaster.
29 Nb8
Foreseeing the direct, but not the indirect, consequences of Black's last move.
29...Nxe3 30 fxe3 Ke7 31 b4 Bb7 32 b5 Kd8 33 Kf2 Kc8
[FEN "1Nk5/pb6/1p2p1pp/1Pp1P3/
2P5/4P3/P4KPP/8 w - - 0 34"]
34 Nc6
The student of end-games will do well by observing that if White had played
34 Na6 Black could have left that piece imprisoned, and have taken his bishop
forward, 34...Be4 gaining at once either the hostile g-pawn or c-pawn.
34...Bxc6 35 bxc6 Kc7 36 Ke2 Kxc6 37 a4 a6 38 Kd3 b5 39 cxb5+ axb5 40
axb5+ Kxb5 41 Kc3 c4 01
In the autumn of 1855, an impostor was travelling around the English

provinces pretending to be Zytogorski. The Chronicle for November reported
that he had been seen in Huddersfield but that the genuine Zytogorski had not
been out of London for a long time.
Towards the end of 1855, the Chess Player's Chronicle reported that a series
triangular "pool" contests would be played. The first was to begin on 30
November with a mini-match between Brien and Falkbeer a mini-match, for
the first to win two games, and the winner of that would meet Zytogorski in
the final. "If Mr. Zytogorski is successful, he will have to play the loser in the
first match; if unsuccessful, the winner of the first match will be declared
victor in the first pool. The second pool will be on the same terms, the losers
commencing" (page 398). The pool results were reported in the Chess
Player's Chronicle but not in Sharpe's.
The January 1856 Chronicle shows that Brien won the first game, Falkbeer
the second, the third was drawn and Falkbeer won the fourth. The February
1856 Chronicle shows that in Game Five, Zytogorski blundered at move
seven and resigned next move. He beat Falkbeer in Game Six but the Austrian
defeated him in the seventh and final games, thus winning the pool. However,
there is no record of the second pool, which should have started with a BrienZytogorski mini-match, actually taking place. Instead all three entered what
the February 1856 Sharpe's column describes as "The Great Chess
Tournament" to be held at the MacDonnell Chess Club.
The column included the first round pairings and the rules for the tournament
which included fines for late arrival at appointments to play the games. Rule
Three says that "It was proposed and seconded that Captain Evans be
requested to act as umpire, and that Mr C. Kenny should act as treasurer."
This is (apart from an easy problem published that year in the Chronicle) the
last time that Captain Evans is mentioned as being active in London chess. He
had been involved with Zytogorski in a consultation game at Kling's played
early in 1855 (and published in the Chronicle), but was never mentioned in
the Sharpe's column. This is some indication that Evans had left the capital
and had perhaps gone back to Wales for a time, where his elderly mother was
still alive.
The twelve players in this tournament were listed. They included most of
those who were in the 1855 Kling's competition. Zytogorski won 5-2 against
Muller. Apparently Zytogorski had given notice that he might not be able to
complete the tournament, perhaps because he had to travel abroad. The March
1856 column does not include Zytogorski's name in the heading and it was
announced that he resigned the second round in favour of Colonel Szabo "on
account of business." Brien also withdrew because of illness.
Sharpe's says Zytogorski and Szabo had started their match and the score
stood at 2-2 when it ended prematurely. The March column includes one win
by each of them.
Adolphus Zytogorski Colonel Szabo
MacDonnell Club tournament, London, 1856
Ruy Lopez [C60]
From Sharpe's London Magazine, March 1856
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nge7 4 c3 Ng6 5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4 Bb4+ 7 Nc3 00
8 00 Be7 9 d5 Nce5 10 Nxe5 Nxe5 11 f4 Bc5+ 12 Kh1 Ng6 13 Qh5 f6 14
Bd2 d6 15 Rae1 a6 16 Bd3 Bd4 17 Be3 Bxc3 18 bxc3 c6 19 Bd4
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/1p4pp/p1pp1pn1/3P3Q/
3BPP2/2PB4/P5PP/4RR1K b - - 0 19"]
Black now cracks under the pressure.

19...Rf7? 20 dxc6 Re7
He has to sacrifice a pawn because if 20...bxc6 21 Bc4 wins the exchange.
21 cxb7 Bxb7 22 Rf3 Rc8 23 Rh3 Nf8 24 f5 Qa5 25 Rhe3 Qxa2 26 Qg4
Qf7 27 Qe2 Rec7 28 Bxa6 Bxa6 29 Qxa6 Rc6 30 Qb5 Nd7 31 g4 h6 32 h4
Kh7 33 Rg1 Ne5 34 Rh3 Kg8 35 g5 hxg5
The paper does not say which pawn captured first.
36 hxg5 fxg5 37 Rxg5 Qe7 38 Rhg3 10
Information about Colonel Szabo is lacking; his name suggests that he was
Hungarian, and so he may have been, like Lwenthal, exiled after Kossuth's
failed revolution of 1848. His military rank suggests a person of mature years.
Databases usually give a first name for him Djuro (or Gyrgy) but this does
not appear to be anywhere in English chess sources. Gauge's Chess
Personalia gives dates for that Szabo of 1840-1892, with credible references,
so the Szabo who played various chess events in London in the 1850s would
appear to have been a different man. He beat Barnes in the third round of the
MacDonnell tournament but was defeated by Falkbeer in the final. Szabo also
entered the 1858 British Chess Association tournament in Birmingham but
was beaten 2-0 by Dublin mathematics professor George Salmon in the first
round.
After withdrawing from the MacDonnell tournament, Zytogorski seems to
have dropped out of play for a year or two and Kling continued the column
alone. There is no sign that Zytogorski played against Morphy in 1858,
though perhaps they met. Zytogorski was certainly in action again earlier that
year. Following the closure of Kling's, most of the same people seem to have
migrated to a new venue, but there was possibly an interval of as much as a
year in between. Lwenthal's review of 1858 (published in The Era on 26
December) noted that: "The Philidorian Rooms have been opened in
Rathbone-place, and among the stars who shine in this new sphere are Messrs.
Brien, Falkbeer and Zytogorski." This is where the third series of The Chess
Player's Chronicle (1859-62) was published. Also the MacDonnell Club was
revived for a time around then, I believe. (In 1851 there had been a
Philidorian Chess Rooms at 19, Strand, with possibly some of the same
people, such as Kling, involved, since the early numbers of his magazine The
Chess Player mention it as a place where that magazine could be purchased.)
On 2 May 1858, Lwenthal announced the following in his Era column:
A POOL AT CHESS. An interesting pool has just been arranged at
Starie's Chess Rooms, in Rathbone-place. Eight players have entered the
lists, viz. Messrs, Brien, Kenny, Campbell, Zytogorsky, Falkbeer,
Healey, Goodwin, and Mller. Mr Kenny has kindly consented to act as
Secretary, and Herr Lwenthal has been named Umpire. We are
promised some of the games, and shall be able to lay them before our
readers in due course.
This was a much more elaborate competition than previous tournaments,

evidently designed to give everyone plenty of practice. Each player met all the
others in turn, starting with seven "lives" like a cat, and losing a "life" every
time they lost a game. Originally there were eight players but Goodwin
(elsewhere called Godwin) either lost all his games and so was eliminated, or
else dropped out at an early stage.
On 9 May the Era published the following game from the pool.
Adolphus Zytogorski Robert Barnett Brien
Philidorian Rooms pool, London, 1858
Notes by Lwenthal, in the Era, 9 May 1858
1 e4 c5 2 f4 e6 3 c4!? Nc6 4 Nf3 g6 5 a4?! Bg7 6 Nc3 a6 7 Bd3
[FEN "r1bqk1nr/1p1p1pbp/p1n1p1p1/2p5/
P1P1PP2/2NB1N2/1P1P2PP/R1BQK2R b KQkq - 0 7"]
7...Bd4?
We should have preferred 7...Nge7, castling, and retaining the bishop in his
present position, where eventually he could have been of good service.
8 Bb1 b6 9 Ne2
Taking correct advantage of Black's 7th move.
9...d5?
We believe that 9...d6 would have been more prudent play.
10 Nfxd4 Nxd4 11 Nxd4 cxd4 12 cxd5 exd5 13 00 Ne7
Preparatory to pushing ...d3, in which case, after Bxd3 Black would have
played ...dxe4 with a fine attack.
14 Ra3
This serves two purposes: it frustrates Black's intended manoeuvre, and places
the rook in a good attacking position.
14...Bb7 15 e5 Qc7
[FEN "r3k2r/1bq1np1p/pp4p1/3pP3/P2p1P2/
R7/1P1P2PP/1BBQ1RK1 w kq - 0 16"]
16 Rd3?
This was a weak move and, properly opposed, might have placed White in an
embarrassed position.
16...Rc8?
16...Bc8 would have been the correct play; had that move been made, the
position would have been tolerably even. The move in the text completely
cramps Black's forces and renders his game inferior.
17 b3 Qc5 18 Bb2 Nc6 19 Qg4 00 20 Rc1 Qe7 21 Rg3 Kg7 22 h4 Qb4 23
Rd1
[FEN "2r2r2/1b3pkp/ppn3p1/3pP3/Pq1p1PQP/
1P4R1/1B1P2P1/1B1R2K1 b - - 0 23"]
The maintenance of this pawn was indispensable to White's future operations.

23...Rc7 24 h5 Bc8 25 Qg5 Qe7 26 Ba3 Qxg5 27 Bxf8+ Kxf8 28 Rxg5 Ne7
29 hxg6 hxg6 30 Kf2 a5 31 Bd3 Bd7 32 g4 Kg7 33 Kg3 b5
[FEN "8/2rbnpk1/6p1/pp1pP1R1/
P2p1PP1/1P1B2K1/3P4/3R4 w - - 0 34"]
This last series of moves was extremely well taken by Black, playing, as he
was, an up-hill game; but the position was so much in White's favour that
success could not be expected to attend his efforts.
34 axb5 Rb7 35 f5 f6 36 exf6+ Kxf6 37 Re1! Bxb5
The position here is highly interesting and critical, but White's bold move
leaving the rook en prise will be found, on examination, to ensure a speedy
and secure victory. 37...Nxf5+ would be fatal and if 37...Kxg5 then 38 Rxe7
winning easily.
38 Rxe7 Kxe7 39 Rxg6 Be8 40 Re6+ Kf8 41 Bc2 d3 42 Bd1 Rc7 43 Kf2
Rc1 44 Re1 d4 45 g5 Bf7 46 g6 Bg8 47 f6 Rc6 48 f7 Rf6+ 49 Bf3 1-0
Some other games (not by Zytogorski) appeared in the same column in
subsequent weeks. Then on 20 June, the Era carried a report of a meeting on
the 14th "of the committee concerning the Pool now pending" with various
resolutions adopted. Lwenthal then stated:
The result of the previous one was that Mr. Zytogorski was first, Mr.
Brien second, Mr. Campbell third, Mr. Falkbeer fourth, Mr. Healey fifth
and Mr Kenny sixth.
Taken literally, this would suggest that Zytogorski had now won the pool that
began in early May and a second one had commenced, but it seems doubtful
that this was the case. There may be a misunderstanding by Lwenthal here as
no other reports refer to a second pool. It seems more likely that at this stage
each player had met all the others and Zytogorski was the only undefeated
player while Brien had beaten all the others and Goodwin had dropped out.
Lwenthal's own detailed report on 9 January 1859 names the players in the
above order as the result of the first round, saying that Kenny and Muller each
had two lives left but Muller now dropped out.
At some point in the summer, the pool was adjourned and only resumed in
November. Zytogorski was less successful in this later phase and ultimately
finished third. Lwenthal's final report on the event in the Era (see the image)
remarked on the good recovery by problem composer Joseph Graham
Campbell who, after three rounds, had only "life" left but managed to avoid
further defeat until Falkbeer beat him at the end.
In 1860 the British Chess Association held a very unsuccessful congress in
Cambridge and Zytogorski was one of the few who attended. In the first
round of the tournament he won 2-0 against somebody called Bateman. He
was due to play Ignaz Kolisch next but withdrew and that seems to have been
almost the end of Zytogorski's competitive career. He also met the Scottish
clergyman John Donaldson (known as "Delta") on that occasion. In his
reminiscences (Illustrated London News, 24 April 1880), Delta mentioned
that he too had visited Cambridge. "I played there two games with Zytogorski
whose style of play reminded me of that of his countryman Michalouski, who
was president of the Dumfries club in 1846." Delta did not say what was the
result of those two games. For estimates of Zytogorski's playing strength at
various stages, see Professor Rod Edwards's "Edo Historical Chess Ratings"
pages at www.edochess.ca. Edwards had calculated Zytogorski's peak rating

to be 2431 in 1855 but all figures will be updated, probably in January, to
include the pool played in 1858 about which I recently gave him the details.
Around the Spring of 1861 Zytogorski appears to have ceased his
involvement in the Chronicle, with Kolisch being main editor for a time. The
Era has a report in September that Zytogorski was chosen to be one of the two
secretaries at the Divan for the telegraph match played against Bristol on
Saturday 12th, as part of that year's B.C.A. congress. The last year Zytogorski
competed in chess events was probably 1862 but he did not even play in the
Handicap at the London Congress. There is a tandem game in The Chess
Player's Magazine (1863) in which he was involved. The two players on each
side made alternate moves without consulting; this may have been played
earlier of course. Also in late 1862 somebody of that name, from Gloucester,
expressed an interest in a correspondence tournament about to be organised
by a weekly journal, Cassell's Illustrated Family Paper, NS XI (27 Dec.
1862) page 79.
Lastly, he was noticed as a spectator of the second Oxford-Cambridge
university chess match in 1874.
The Staunton Affair
Brien's story of Zytogorski's 6-0 whitewash against Staunton was first printed
in the Chess Player's Chronicle in 1855, repeated early the following year,
and later repeated by Wayte and others. There is no independent evidence for
such a match and only circumstantial evidence for or against. In my opinion,
there are several reasons for disbelieving that there any such match occurred,
which Brien stated was played in 1843 at Staunton's usual odds of pawn and
two moves.
Howard Staunton
Firstly, Brien said he would publish "some of" the games but eventually he
could only produce one score from the supposed match. This is perhaps the
strongest reason for disbelieving the story, along with his known motivation
since he had fallen out with Staunton and apparently Zytogorski had also.
Secondly, Staunton had a plus score against Zytogorski from their known
games at those odds in 1841. It is clear that by 1843 Staunton's playing
strength had improved considerably, and he won his match against SaintAmant soon after he was said to have played the odds match. Clearly
Staunton was at the peak of his powers in late 1843 whereas there is little
other evidence that Zytogorski was a strong player until the 1850s (other than
in endgames).
Thirdly, in 1846 Staunton won a majority of games at the same odds against
Daniel Harrwitz, who was certainly rather stronger than Zytogorski. Against
that in the scales, Staunton was accused in other cases of suppressing
unfavourable results, and certainly tried to do so in his odds match later with
Eduard Lwe. Perhaps Brien and Zytogorski "promoted" a series of casual
games to the status of a match in retrospect.
The overall score between Staunton and Zytogorski is certainly unclear. In the
first volume of the Chess Player's Chronicle, Staunton published a long draw
between them and a game he won in only twelve moves despite conceding
those odds. Subsequently he published three wins, of which one may be seen
below, which he won quite comfortably. There is no indication that these
constituted a match, and a whitewash against Staunton, at any time between
1841 and 1843, sounds improbable.
Adolphus Zytogorski Howard Staunton
London, 1841
From Chess Player's Chronicle, II (4 Dec. 1841) pages 85-6. Notes by
Staunton, who conceded odds of pawn and two moves (remove Black's fpawn).
1 e4 and 2 d4 e6 3 Bd3 c5 4 d5 d6 5 e5
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pp4pp/3pp3/2pPP3/8/3B4/
PPP2PPP/RNBQK1NR b KQkq - 0 5"]
5...Ne7 6 Bb5+ Bd7 7 exd6 Qa5+ 8 Bd2 Qxb5 9 dxe7 Bxe7 10 a4 Qb6 11
Bc3 00 12 Nf3 Qd6 13 Be5 Qxd5 14 Qxd5 exd5 15 Bxb8 Raxb8 16 00
Bg4 17 Ne5 Bf5 18 Nd2 Rbd8 19 c3 Bd6 20 f4 Bc2 21 g3 c4 22 Rfc1 Bf5 23
Re1 Bc5+ 24 Kg2 a5 25 g4 Bc2 26 Kg3 Rf6 27 Rec1
[FEN "3r2k1/1p4pp/5r2/p1bpN3/P1p2PP1/
2P3K1/1PbN3P/R1R5 b - - 0 27"]
An ill-judged move.
27...Be3!
Black properly avails himself of the advantage presented by his opponent's
last move.
28 Rxc2 Bxf4+ 29 Kg2 Bxe5 30 Nf3 Bd6 31 Rd1 Bc7 32 Rcd2 Rdf8 33 Nd4
g6 34 Re2 Bb6 35 Nb5 Rf2+ 36 Rxf2 Rxf2+ 37 Kg3 Rxb2 38 Rxd5 Bf2+ 39
Kf3 Bh4 40 Rc5 Rxh2 41 Rxc4 Rf2+ 42 Ke3 b6 43 Nd6 Rf8 44 Rc8 Bf2+
45 Ke4 Rxc8 46 Nxc8 Bc5 47 Na7 Kf7 48 Nc6 Kf6 49 Ne5 Kg5 50 Kf3 h5
51 gxh5 gxh5 and, after several moves more, White abandoned the game (0
1).
In A Century of British Chess (page 91), Philip Sergeant wrote that "After his
quarrel with Staunton, Brien raked up a game which the master, conceding
pawn and two, lost to Zytogorski in 1843, and stated the result of a match at
those odds to have been 6-0 in the Pole's favour."

I like that "raked up!" Brien had made that allegation first in the 1855 volume
(on page 399) and said he would give some of the games in the next number.
On page nineteen of the 1856 volume he did produce one game which has the
whiff of plausibility about it, but the 6-0 match result story seems to have
been believed mostly by Wayte and those who have accepted his account
uncritically.
Here is the game in question.
Adolphus Zytogorski Howard Staunton
Pawn and two-move match, London 1843
Remove Black's f-pawn
Notes from the Chess Player's Chronicle, new series IV (1856) page 18,
where it is introduced as follows. "In the ensuing game, which was the
deciding one of a match played in 1843, Mr. Staunton gave Mr. Zytogorski
'the pawn and two moves.' In the match referred to Mr. Zytogorski won six
games, Mr. Staunton none."
1 e4 and 2 d4 e6 3 Bd3 c5 4 e5
4 d5 and 4 dxc5 are equally good moves. 4 e5 leads to a more vigorous attack
in the opening; the other moves to a more solid and enduring system of
combination in the middle of the game. The result, consequently is that by 4
e5 games are either won without a struggle or compromised seriously; by 4 d5
and 4 dxc5 the first player, with less attack, retains a more secure situation.
TH: One detail that may imply the present game was composed rather than
genuine, or that it was played much earlier than 1843, is that Staunton
repeated the same line in his 1846 match with Harrwitz, who however chose 4
dxc5. He could not count on Harrwitz's being ignorant of Zytogorski's
variation so must have had some improvement in mind.
4...g6
In the only game of De la Bourdonnais which has been preserved [at these
odds], the greatest master of chess that the world has yet produced played 4...
Qa5+. Decidedly that move is the best resource, but as our English amateurs
in the succeeding age of play were not fully alive to the consequences of 4...
g6, it was temporarily a good move. It is now universally admitted that it must
inevitably lose the game, if the attack be properly conducted. Our great
masters, Lewis and MacDonnell, seem to have displayed the deepest foresight
in games at the odds of the pawn and two moves, as it is clear from their
published games that they preferred 2...Nc6 for the opening move of the
second player.
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pp1p3p/4p1p1/2p1P3/3P4/
3B4/PPP2PPP/RNBQK1NR w KQkq - 0 5"]
5 h4 cxd4 6 f4
It is extremely curious that this simple move, the magical effect of which is
that the game is won off-hand, does not occur in a single game published in
the Chess Player's Companion, in which Mr Staunton gave the odds of the
pawn and two moves. (See pages 41154.) To this cause, amongst others,
may be ascribed the success of the giver of the odds in former times, the times
in which no one had a complete acquaintance with the peculiarity of the odds.
6...Qa5+
In a game Medley-Harrwitz (pages 452-3 in that book) the latter played 6...
Ne7 (Mr Medley having not at that time reached his present strength.)
7 Bd2
The move in the text... appears to us to be too bold for a match-game. White
being so many games ahead... risks too much in this encounter.
7...Qb6 8 h5 Qxb2 9 hxg6
[FEN "rnb1kbnr/pp1p3p/4p1P1/4P3/3p1P2/
3B4/PqPB2P1/RN1QK1NR b KQkq - 0 9"]
9...h6
Not 9...Qxa1? 10 Rxh7 winning. The Chronicle note observes that Staunton
recommended this way of capturing in similar situations in the Companion.
Although Zytogorski's games were not to be found in the illustrative games,
they "have been well worked by the editor in the analysis of the openings."
10 g7 Bxg7 11 Qh5+ Kf8
11...Kd8 seems to be a stronger move.
12 Ne2 Qxa1 13 00 Ne7 14 Bb4 Nbc6 15 Bxe7+ Nxe7 16 Nd2 Qxa2
The black queen being so badly posted, the second player might have
exchanged her for the rook, but even in that case his game would have been
exposed to disaster. If 16...Qb2 17 Nc4.
17 f5 1-0
[FEN "r1b2k1r/pp1pn1b1/4p2p/4PP1Q/
3p4/3B4/q1PNN1P1/5RK1 b - - 0 17"]
The Chronicle just says "and wins."

The following continuation is printed in Quarterly for Chess History as if it
was actually played, but the Chronicle only gives it as a possible continuation.
(QCH also gives 1844 which cannot be the right date as the Chronicle said the
match with Staunton was before the Saint-Amant match in Paris.)
17 f5: A good move. If Black take the pawn with knight or pawn, White can
rejoin immediately with Bc4, e.g. 17...Nxf5 18 Bc4 Qxc2 19 Nxd4 Qxd2 20
Nxf5 Bxe5 21 Ne3+ Ke7 22 Qxe5 Rg8 23 Nd5+ Kd8 (23...Ke8 24 Nf6+) 24
Qc7+ Ke8 25 Nf6+ Ke7 26 Nxg8+ White holds an extra piece, with the best
game.
Further Discoveries and Questions
Since the first article was published, Mike Roy Read has had more success in
attempting to trace the descendants of Adolphus Zytogorski.
Alfred's children, traced by Mike so far, were: Beatrice Alice (born 1877,
married 1900), Alfred Ernest (born 1879) and George Victor (1882) whom,
World War I records show, joined the Royal Horse Artillery in 1902. The
1911 census and Harriet's death certificate mention a grand-daughter Gertrude
French, born in Fulham in 1882, who could possibly have been a widowed
daughter of Agenor.
These are the leads that need to be pursued, bearing in mind that the name
Zytogorski could well have been changed by descendants. The death of
Alfred Ernest Hanstein, aged thirty-two, occurred in London on 8 October
1911; he was probably the person mentioned in the last paragraph. That would
make him a son of Alfred Victor Zytogorski and therefore a grandson of
Adolphus Zytogorski. Mike also thinks that George Victor adopted the
surname George at some time but this is unconfirmed.
To carry forward and clarify the story of Zytogorski any further, it would be
useful to see whether his name turns up when more newspapers are digitised.
It would also be interesting to know if any reader can help with the following
questions.
Is there evidence on the continent of Europe about the birth and early years of
Zytogorski and of his later visits to Germany and elsewhere?
What is known about the Polish immigrant scene in London in 1830s? It
would be good specifically to have evidence about Zytogorski (and his
stepfather-in-law Pitchowski). We do not know when exactly he arrived in
London, when he learned chess, and whether he continued with any political
activity.
Did he use any other names? The 1871 and 1881 censuses remain a dark area.

Chess in the Years 1862 and 1912

Previous January columns have focused on events and personalities in the
game a century past, so it is now time to look at what happened at the
chessboard in the year 1912. Recognising, however, that because of the First
World War competition was thin in the years 1914-19 (especially 1915-18)
future articles in this series will also look at events 150 years back. I have
decided to start this double look-back already because 1862 was a year of
particular significance in the chess world. The second part of the article will
look at 1912.
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Translate this page
1862: Steinitz comes to London

At the start of the 1860s the world of top chess was in rather a lull. After his
storming European tour of 1858-59 Paul Morphy, like Howard Staunton, was
effectively in retirement. With one exception, Morphy had beaten everybody
there was to beat Louis Paulsen, in the first American Congress, and then, in
matches, the top professionals Lwenthal, Harrwitz, and Anderssen as well as
several amateurs. 1862 was to show that a new generation was on the rise, but
Morphy withdrew from competition and never tested himself against them.
The civil war in the U.S. largely halted competition there, and the only major
event in Europe in 1861 was a long match in England, in which Paulsen,
returned from America, fought the new star Ignacz Kolisch to a standstill.
After thirty-one games they called it a draw although Paulsen held a slender
lead 16-15. There had been many draws and in the second half of the match
Paulsen, who had held a large lead at first, had only scored one win.
The British Chess Association congress in London was the principal event in
1862 and it brought together a strong field of fourteen for the first time in an
all-play-all tournament. Although some leading players, apart from Morphy,
were missing (no Kolisch, no Lange), it saw the return to form of Anderssen
and had long-term consequences. Two of the grandmasters of the future
Blackburne and Steinitz entered the world stage, and the Italian master
Serafino Dubois also performed well. Some British amateurs performed
above expectations, particularly the clergymen John Owen and George
Macdonnell. The most significant outcome was that Steinitz made his home in
London for the next twenty years.

the games from
Purchases from our

accessible:
The Congress was not run on modern lines, with set rounds where everyone
played a designated opponent on a particular day. Some of the London-based
players began their programme before the overseas visitors arrived. Most of
the games were played in the various clubs and although the St. James's Hall
was taken for one week, only some tournament games were played there.
Moreover, draws did not count, as was frequently the case in mid-Victorian
tournaments. The chief organiser, Johann Lwenthal, started with three wins
against amateurs (and a walkover), but then poor health and the duties of
organisation led him to retire. Under other circumstances he might have been
one of the principal contenders but he effectively retired from serious play at
this point.
The fight for first place resolved itself into a duel between Anderssen and
Paulsen. Anderssen won nine games in succession before suffering a surprise
loss to Owen. Paulsen who was beaten by Dubois. The following was the
decisive game:
Adolf Anderssen Louis Paulsen
London, 1862
Ruy Lopez [C65]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6 4 d3
Pasadena 1932
& Monson

1809-2009
by Richard Forster

by Gino Di Felice
Lwenthal's notes in his tournament book are critical of the defensive

character of this move.
4...d6 5 Bxc6+ bxc6 6 h3 Be7
"In some of his match games Mr. Paulsen here played ...g6."
7 Nc3 00 8 00 Ne8 9 d4
"The best move to prevent Black's contemplated advance of the f-pawn."
9...exd4 10 Nxd4 Bb7 11 Be3 d5
This threatens to win a piece by 12...c5 and 13...d4.
12 Nf5 Bf6 13 Bc5 Nd6
[FEN "r2q1rk1/pbp2ppp/2pn1b2/2Bp1N2/
4P3/2N4P/PPP2PP1/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 14"]
14 Re1
It is not obvious that Lwenthal was correct when he commented here: "14
Bxd6 might have won a pawn, but the move selected by Mr. Anderssen is
preferable."
14...Re8 15 Qg4 Nxf5
"Black might with equal effect have played 15...Bc8."
16 exf5 Qd7 17 Qf3 a5 18 Ne2
[FEN "r3r1k1/1bpq1ppp/2p2b2/p1Bp1P2/8/
5Q1P/PPP1NPP1/R3R1K1 b - - 0 18"]
18...a4
"Mr. Paulsen had here a move at his command which would have
considerably improved his game. A glance at the position will convince good
chess players that 18...Re4, with the view of doubling the rooks afterwards,
would have given him a strong game."
19 c3 Ra5?
Lwenthal commented that Anderssen's last move had anticipated this attempt
to dislodge the bishop.
20 Bd4
"Mr. Anderssen has the game in his hands."
20...Qd6 21 Ng3 Be5?
"Black has an extremely difficult game to play, and his position becomes
more and more embarrassing."
22 f6!
"The natural sequence to Black's last move."
22...Qxf6 23 Qh5
"Nothing can now withstand White's attack."
23...g5
[FEN "4r1k1/1bp2p1p/2p2q2/r2pb1pQ/p2B4/
2P3NP/PP3PP1/R3R1K1 w - - 0 24"]
The double error that now occurred is hard to explain, except by the tension of
the tournament situation, given that these were the two strongest active
players of 1862. It does not say much for the accuracy of play in those days,
but the quality in some other games from the tournament was higher.
24 Qe2??
Lwenthal wrote that "24 h4 strikes us as decidedly better," and indeed this
should have won. Even stronger, however, would be 24 Rxe5 Rxe5 25 f4.
24...Qh8??
"A serious mistake which presently loses the game." Paulsen pointed out
afterward that he should have played 24...Qg6! to escape the pin, for if 25
Bxe5 f6 "regaining the lost bishop and having a safe game." He is now totally
lost one more.
25 Bxe5 f6 26 Qh5 Rxe5 27 Rxe5 fxe5 28 Qe8+ Kg7 29 Nf5+ 10
Anderssen finished with 12 points (including one walkover) and Paulsen with
11, having also lost to Dubois. After the tournament, Anderssen and Paulsen
played a small match in London which was deemed drawn at 4-4, both
players needing to return to the continent. Steinitz enhanced his growing
reputation by winning a match against Dubois 5-3 with one draw.
Owen took the third prize with 10 points and Dubois scored 9, tied with
Macdonnell. Steinitz scored 8 and Blackburne, who had never before played
outside Manchester, scored 4, but impressed with a blindfold simultaneous
display.
The Scottish army officer George Henry Mackenzie, who was not in the main
tournament, also made a strong debut this year. He won the Handicap event,
winning a game against Anderssen from whom he received odds of pawn and
move. Later in the year he won a match against MacDonnell, played at the
Dublin Library Club.
In October, Paul Morphy sailed from New Orleans on a Spanish vessel with
his friend Charles Maurian, starting to make his way to join his mother and
sister in Paris. He played some games in Cuba but there was nobody there to
provide him with serious resistance. Two games can be found on databases
and websites, but have Morphy's opponents been correctly identified?
D. Felix Sicre Paul Morphy
Havana, 1862
Ruy Lopez [C77]
The Weltgeschichte des Schachs collection of Morphy's games (edited by
Rellstab) says this game was played on 18 October 1862. The ChessBase
Mega Database 2012 claims that J. M. Sicre was the loser of this game.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 d3 Bc5 6 00 b5 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 h6
9 Be3 Bxe3 10 fxe3 00 11 Nbd2 d5 12 exd5 Nxd5 13 Qe2 Be6 14 Bxd5
Qxd5 15 Ne4 f5 16 Nf2 Qd8 17 b3
[FEN "r2q1rk1/2p3p1/p1n1b2p/1p2pp2/8/
1PPPPN2/P3QNPP/R4RK1 b - - 0 17"]
17...g5 18 Kh1 g4 19 Ng1 Qg5 20 Rad1 Ne7 21 Qd2 Rad8 22 d4 c5 23 e4?

A miscalculation, relying on a pin down the d-file which is easily broken.
23...Qxd2 24 Rxd2 cxd4 25 Rfd1 fxe4 26 Nxe4 Bd5
The winning move.
27 cxd4 Bxe4 28 dxe5 Rxd2 29 Rxd2 Rf1 30 e6 Kg7 31 Rd4 Re1 32 Rd2
Nd5 33 e7 Kf7 34 Rf2+ Kxe7 01
Paul Morphy Jos Maria Sicre
Havana (blindfold game) 1862
The Weltgeschichte des Schachs collection says this game was played
blindfold by Morphy on 22 October. David Lawson's book on Morphy (page
283) says that J. M. Sicre was "a very good chess player and a slave of Felix
Sicre."
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 exd5 4 Nf3 Bd6 5 Bd3 Nf6 6 00 00 7 Nc3 c6 8 Bg5
Bg4 9 h3 Bxf3 10 Qxf3 Nbd7 11 Rfe1 Qc7 12 g4 Rfe8 13 Be3
[FEN "r3r1k1/ppqn1ppp/2pb1n2/3p4/3P2P1/
2NBBQ1P/PPP2P2/R3R1K1 b - - 0 13"]
13...Kh8? 14 g5 Ng8 15 Qxf7 Re7 16 Qh5 Nf8 17 Qg4 Ne6 18 Bxh7 Nf6 19
gxf6 gxf6 20 Bg6 Rg7 21 Qh5+ Kg8 22 Kh1 Nf8 23 Bf5 Bf4 24 Rg1 Bxe3
25 fxe3 Rg5 26 h4 Nh7 27 hxg5
[FEN "r5k1/ppq4n/2p2p2/3p1BPQ/
3P4/2N1P3/PPP5/R5RK b - - 0 27"]
ChessBase stops here. Additional moves are included in the WGS collection.
27...Nxg5 28 Rxg5+ fxg5 29 Rg1 10
1912: Lasker's rivals advance their case
In the half century between 1862 and 1912, chess made huge advances in
terms of the technical standard of play. The rise of professionalism and annual
master tournaments and the growth of chess literature raised the bar in terms
of opening knowledge, and positional ideas unknown to the experts of fifty
years previously were available to a new generation of players through the
example of Steinitz and Lasker and the teachings of Tarrasch. The years
before the First World War were the high age of modernism in European
culture in its many aspects, as the continent walked blindly towards the
precipice.
In the little world of chess, 1912 was another year when the world champion
Dr. Emanuel Lasker (who had just returned to Europe) chose to rest on his
laurels. Capablanca, who got married, also did not compete that year. Both
Capablanca and Rubinstein made attempts to negotiate with Lasker to play a
world championship match but without success. Therefore, 1912 became an
opportunity for others to make their mark, which many did.
The Year-Book of Chess for 1912, edited by E. A. Michell, considered that
1912 "will undoubtedly be remembered as one of the richest in tournament
play that the chess world has known for some time." He instanced four
international tournaments "of great distinction" at Abbazia (a King's Gambit
tournament), San Sebastian, Pistyan, and Breslau, plus a lesser international at
Stockholm and limited openings tournament at Budapest, with important
national tournaments in Hungary and Russia. In addition, there was a match
between Marshall and Janowski, played in Biarritz in September, which
Marshall won 6-2 with two draws.
Foreshadowing the status of the USSR Championships half a century later,
Michell observed that the Russian national tournament was "considerably
stronger as regards the standing of the competitors than many international

tournaments." American chess-lovers had a major disappointment because a
tournament planned for New York and Havana in December did not take
place.
English chess, on the other hand, was in a slump. Only Amos Burn (in his
final active year) and Yates competed internationally. Burn played his last
tournament at Breslau (the Eighteenth German Federation Congress), but age
caught up with him: he was now sixty-three. Whereas long tournaments used
to suit his powers of endurance, in this case he was the early leader, but
collapsed as the event wore on, losing several games. After the cancellation of
the American event, he declined all further invitations and retired from active
play.
The British Chess Federation raised a subscription on the fiftieth anniversary
of Blackburne's emergence as an international player, which paid for an
annuity for himself and his wife, but he did not compete in 1912. In January,
Atkins won the play-off for the 1911 British Championship title against F. D.
Yates (thus completing his run of six consecutive victories) but missed the
1912 tournament, held at Richmond in Surrey. This threw the field open, the
new champion being R. C. Griffith, co-editor of Modern Chess Openings. In
the B.C.F.'s Major Open tournament, held alongside the championship, joint
first was "A. Green," said by Hoffer to be the pseudonym of a foreign
competitor; does any reader know who this was? There was even a match
between competitors of the Major Open and the championship, won by the
former!
Wins for black predominated at Abbazia, but Michell argued that this was
because the change to a riskier style did not suit most masters. He said the
King's Gambit should not be considered refuted because "in the hands of
players like Spielmann and Duras, the gambit seems to be full of life."
The San Sebastian tournament, the strongest of the year, was played from 19
February to 20 March, starting soon after the end of Abbazia, with eleven
strong masters meeting each other twice. Burn and Rotlewi had also been
invited but did not participate. According to Hoffer in The Field of 24
February, Burn sent the organisers a letter withdrawing just before the
tournament began. Forgacs only played the first half of the tournament.
Akiba Rubinstein was to be the player of the year, but he had early losses to
Spielmann and Duras at San Sebastian. He won because of a strong
performance in the second half in which he scored 7 out of 9. His final score
was 12 points from nineteen games, half a point ahead of Spielmann (who
made 8/10 in the first half) and Nimzowitsch, and a point ahead of Tarrasch.
In Capablanca's comments on the San Sebastian tournament, which can be
read at Chess History, the great Cuban noted that Tarrasch had been written
off prematurely after his loss to Lasker in 1908. "He is still a player to be
feared and beating him is a Herculean task." Michaell, too, noted that
Tarrasch won more games than anyone else at San Sebastian (nine), whereas
Teichmann and Schlechter only scored one win between them, perhaps
because of the fact that non-prizewinners received 100 francs for each win
and fifty francs for each game drawn.
Nimzowitsch had gone into the last round half a point ahead and should have
played for a draw against Rubinstein, but eventually lost. Nevertheless,
Nimzowitsch advanced his reputation this year. Perlis, with 10, also made a
plus score at San Sebastian and Marshall scored fifty percent.
Rubinstein won at Pistyan by a wide margin, and he also tied for first at
Breslau with Duras. Then he won the Russian championship which was held
in Vilna at the end of the year. Several players there would now be considered
Poles or Balts as the Russian empire then was geographically even more
extensive than the Soviet Union later became. Rubinstein finished ahead of
Alapin, Alekhine (who had won in Stockholm), Bernstein (the close runnerup at Vilna), Nimzowitsch, and Salwe, among others. Michell foresaw "Of the
younger players, Alekhin[e] stands very probably quite by himself."
Here is one of Rubinstein's lesser-known victories of 1912:

Akiba Rubinstein Gyula Breyer
Breslau 1912
Irregular Defence [B07]
1 d4 d6 2 e4 Nd7 3 f4 e5 4 Nf3 exf4 5 Bxf4 Ngf6 6 Nc3 Nb6 7 a4 Qe7 8 Bd3
h6 9 00
Black's opening experiment, a sort of passive King's Gambit Declined, has
turned out poorly.
9...Bg4 10 h3 Bh5 11 a5 Nbd7 12 e5
[FEN "r3kb1r/pppnqpp1/3p1n1p/P3P2b/
3P1B2/2NB1N1P/1PP3P1/R2Q1RK1 b kq - 0 12"]
12...dxe5 13 dxe5 Qb4 14 Qc1 Bxf3 15 Rxf3 Qc5+ 16 Kh1 Nd5 17 Nxd5
Qxd5 18 e6 fxe6 19 Bxc7 Ne5 20 Bxe5 Qxe5 21 Bg6+ Kd7 22 Re3 Qc5 23
Qd2+ Bd6 24 Rd1 Rad8 25 b4 Qc7
[FEN "3r3r/ppqk2p1/3bp1Bp/P7/
1P6/4R2P/2PQ2P1/3R3K w - - 0 26"]
26 Bf7
Relying on technique, Rubinstein misses the quicker win by 26 Rxe6!+- when
if 26...Kxe6 27 Qd5+ White soon mates: 27...Kf6 (27...Kd7 28 Qf5+ Kc6 29
b5#) 28 Qf5+ Ke7 29 Qf7#.
26...Rhf8 27 Bxe6+ Ke7 28 Bd5+ Kd7 29 Rc3 Qb8 30 Qd4 Rf6 31 Qg4+
Ke8 32 Qxg7 Be5 33 Re3 Qd6 34 Rxe5+ Qxe5 35 Bf7+ Ke7 36 Bh5+ Ke6
37 Bg4+ 10
Alexander Alekhine Osip Bernstein
RUS-ch Vilnius, 1912
This is Game Fourteen in the first volume of My Best Games by Alekhine.
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 Nc3 a6 4 d4 cxd4 5 Nxd4 Qc7 6 Be2 Nf6 7 00 Be7 8 f4
Nc6 9 Kh1 d6 10 Bf3 Bd7 11 Be3 00 12 Qe2 Rac8 13 Qf2 b5 14 Nb3 Ne8
15 Rad1 Rb8 16 Rd2 Na5 17 Nxa5 Qxa5
[FEN "1r2nrk1/3bbppp/p2pp3/qp6/4PP2/
2N1BB2/PPPR1QPP/5R1K w - - 0 18"]
18 e5! b4
If 18...d5, 19 Bxd5 because Black would be lost after 19...exd5 20 Nxd5:
a) 20...Bd8 21 Bc5 Be6! 22 Bxf8 Kxf8 23 Qc5+ Kg8 24 f5 Bxd5 (24...Bxf5
25 b4; 24...Qxd2 25 fxe6) 25 Qxd5.
b) 20...Qd8 21 Bc5 Bxc5 22 Qxc5+-.
19 Ne4 d5 20 Nc5 Bb5 21 Ra1! Nc7
Alekhine criticised this move, saying 21...Qc7 or 21...Qd8 would have been
better, although Black's position would remain very precarious.
22 a4!
[FEN "1r3rk1/2n1bppp/p3p3/qbNpP3/Pp3P2/
4BB2/1PPR1QPP/R6K b - a3 0 22"]
As this threatens to win the queen by Nb3, Black must lose at least the
exchange.
22...Bc4
If 22...bxa3 23 Rxa3 Qb4 24 c3 Qc4 25 Be2+- or 22...Bxc5 23 Bxc5 Rfc8 24
c3! Bxa4 25 Bd1 bxc3 26 b4!+-.
23 Nd7 b3 24 Nxb8 Rxb8 25 c3 Na8 26 Be2! Rc8 27 f5! Bxe2 28 Rxe2 Bc5
29 Rf1 Bxe3 30 Rxe3 Qb6 31 a5 Qc6 32 Rf3!?
Alekhine said 32 f6 g6 33 Qh4 Qe8 34 Rh3 h5 35 Qg5 Qf8 36 Rxh5 would
have been simpler.
32...exf5 33 Rxf5 Nc7 34 Rxf7 Ne6
[FEN "2r3k1/5Rpp/p1q1n3/P2pP3/8/
1pP5/1P3QPP/5R1K w - - 0 35"]
35 Qa7! h6 36 Re7 Qc4 37 Rff7 Qe4 38 Qxa6 Rc6 39 Qf1 Kh7 40 Rf6! d4
41 Rfxe6 Rxe6 42 Rxe6 dxc3 43 bxc3 b2 44 Rb6 Qc2 45 a6 Qc1 46 Qg1 10
The following is a spectacular game, belying the Petroff Defence's boring
reputation.
Dawid Janowski Frank Marshall
Third match game, Biarritz 1912
Petroff Defence [C42]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Nxe5 d6 4 Nf3 Nxe4 5 d4 d5 6 Bd3 Bd6 7 c4
This was often seen in the early days but White should prepare central action
by 7 00.
7...00
This allows White to return to the main line by 8 00 if he wants;
subsequently Marshall played several games with 7...Bb4+. Note that the old
Petroff monograph by Forintos and Haag has the wrong move order for this
game.
8 cxd5?!
In the fifth game Janowski tried 8 c5 Be7 9 Nc3 but still obtained an inferior
position following 9...Nxc3 10 bxc3 b6 11 cxb6 axb6 12 Be3 c5 13 Qc2 h6 14
Qd2 Re8 15 00 c4 16 Bc2 Nd7 17 Rae1 Bf8.
8...Bb4+
[FEN "rnbq1rk1/ppp2ppp/8/3P4/1b1Pn3/
3B1N2/PP3PPP/RNBQK2R w KQ - 0 9"]
9 Kf1?
Far too optimistic; 9 Nbd2 is the least evil.
9...Qxd5 10 Qc2 Re8 11 Nc3
Now White apparently expected 11...Bxc3 12 bac3 which would justify his
king move, but instead he is burned up by a brilliant display of tactics from
Marshall. 11 Bxe4 Rxe4 12 Nc3 is met by 12...Bxc3 13 bxc3 Bg4 but the text
is worse.
11...Nxc3 12 bxc3 Qxf3!
[FEN "rnb1r1k1/ppp2ppp/8/8/1b1P4/
2PB1q2/P1Q2PPP/R1B2K1R w - - 0 13"]
13 cxb4
Not 13 gxf3? Bh3+ 14 Kg1 Re1+ and mate next move. Instead, 13 h3 Qh5 14
cxb4 Nc6 15 Bd2 Be6, followed by ...Rad8, also leaves Black on top.
13 Bd2 (or 13 Bb2) 13...Bh3 14 Rg1 is relatively best, and regains the piece
after 14...Bd6 15 gxh3 but Black's position is far superior after the
precautionary 15...g6.
13...Nc6 14 Bb2?
[FEN "r1b1r1k1/ppp2ppp/2n5/8/1P1P4/
3B1q2/PBQ2PPP/R4K1R b - - 0 14"]
14 Be3 fails to 14...Bh3! 15 Rg1 Rxe3; 14 h3 is best, transposing to the

previous note. Janowski's attempt to refute Marshall's combination leads to
fascinating play, however.
14...Nxb4!
The assault continues, giving White no time to recover his development or
safeguard his king. However, the computer (Deep Rybka 3) prefers the more
materialistic continuation 14...Bh3 15 Rg1 Nxb4 16 Qd1 Qxd3+ 17 Qxd3
Nxd3 18 gxh3 Nxb2 winning a piece; e.g., 19 Rb1 Nd3 20 Rg3 Nf4 21 Rxb7
Rad8.
15 Bxh7+ Kh8 16 gxf3 Bh3+
16...Nxc2 17 Bxc2 Bh3+ 18 Kg1 Re2 transposes.
17 Kg1 Nxc2 18 Bxc2 Re2
The main point of the combination begun at move fourteen. Black now wins a
piece unless, as in the game, White tries to save it and is mated instead.
19 Rc1
[FEN "r6k/ppp2pp1/8/8/3P4/5P1b/
PBB1rP1P/2R3KR b - - 0 19"]
19...Rae8!?
Marshall could have won with greater certainty by the elegant 19...Rxc2! 20
Rxc2 Re8 mating in six moves at most: 21 Rc1 Re6.
20 Bc3
20 Be4 would oblige Black to "win ugly" by 20...f5 21 Ba3 fxe4 22 f4 e3.
20...R8e3?!
This somewhat artificial, if effective, choice by Marshall is a slight flaw
although Janowski's response leads to a pleasing geometric effect at the end.
Marshall again failed to see that he had a straightforward mate with 20...Rxc2
21 Rxc2 Re6 22 Bd2 Rg6+ 23 Bg5 Rxg5#.
21 Bb4
If 21 fxe3 Rg2+ 22 Kf1 Rxc2+ 23 Ke1 Rxc1+ 24 Kd2 Rxh1.
21 Be4 Rxc3 22 Rd1 (22 Rxc3? Re1#) holds out longest, but Black is sure to
win in the end; e.g., 22...Ra3.
21...Rxf3
Like a cat toying with a mouse.
22 Bd1 Rf6! 01
White resigns, for if 23 Bc2 (23 Bxe2 Rg6+ 24 Bg4 Rxg4#) 23...Rxc2! 24
Rxc2 Rg6#.
Postscript: Updates on Previous Columns

With respect to Kibitzer 177, Professor Rod Edwards (host of the excellent
website www.edochess.ca) has turned up an earlier reference to the Victorian
expert C. F. Smith, who was the winner of the first correspondence chess
tournament in the early 1850s. Although I have so far been unable to find any
postal game played by Smith before 1852, he appears to have started playing
chess by post in 1847. A paragraph in Bell's Life in London, 2 May, says:
"Any amateur in London or its environs desirous to play a game by
correspondence can hear of an opponent by addressing Mr. C. F. Smith, 16,
Spencer-terrace, Lower-road, Islington."
With a nice piece of diligent research in old newspapers, Alan Smith
(Manchester) has cleared up my query in the previous column (Kibitzer 187)
about the Colonel Szabo who was active in English chess in the 1850s and
early 1860s. His name, according to a brief obituary notice in the Liverpool
Mercury (20 April 1865) was Emeric de Szabo and he died in London on 10
April 1865. He was indeed an Hungarian refugee, who had been secretary for
war in Kossuth's revolutionary government of 1848-9. He had spent some

time in Manchester (playing for that club in a telegraph match against
Liverpool in 1859) and had resided in Liverpool three years before his death.
Alan also sent me the score of a game to which I briefly referred in Kibitzer
171 when reviewing a book on the Ponziani Opening. It was actually played
in 1998, not 1999, on top board in a match between the Greater Manchester
Chess Association and Leicestershire. Here are the moves.
Mike Surtees Mark Hebden
England, 1998
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 c3 d5 4 Qa4 Bd7
The Caro Counter-Gambit.
5 exd5 Nd4 6 Qd1 Nxf3+ 7 Qxf3 Nf6 8 Bc4 Bd6 9 d3 Qe7
The Bolton player Surtees said in his notes that 9...Bg4 was better.
10 Bg5 h6 11 Bxf6 gxf6 12 Nd2 f5 13 Bb3
[FEN "r3k2r/pppbqp2/3b3p/3Ppp2/8/1BPP1Q2/
PP1N1PPP/R3K2R b KQkq - 0 13"]
13...00?!
Surtees was waiting last move to see which side his opponent would castle; he
reckoned 13...000 was safer.
14 000 b5 15 h3 a5 16 g4 f4
If 16...a4 17 gxf5! axb3 18 f6! (Surtees).
17 Ne4 f5
Otherwise White would play g4-g5.
18 gxf5 Bxf5 19 Rdg1+ Kh8 20 Qh5 Qh7 21 Rg2 a4 22 Bd1 a3?
22...Ra6 (Surtees) would be better at once.
23 b4
[FEN "r4r1k/2p4q/3b3p/1p1Ppb1Q/1P2Np2/
p1PP3P/P4PR1/2KB3R b - - 0 23"]
23...Ra6
The main line in Surtees's notes goes 23...Bxe4 (23...Rg8? 24 Nf6) 24 dxe4
Rg8 (24...Qxe4 25 Rg6) 25 Rhg1 Rxg2 26 Rxg2 Rg8 27 Rxg8+ Kxg8 28 Qe8
+. This seems to end prematurely. After 28...Kg7 (28...Bf8 29 Qxe5) 29 Qd7+
Kh8 30 Qxh7+ Kxh7 31 Be2 seems to be winning the endgame on the
queenside despite the opposite coloured bishops.
24 Rhg1 Be7 25 d6 Rxd6 26 Nxd6 cxd6 27 Bb3 Bg5 28 Rxg5 hxg5 29
Qxg5 f3 30 Bd5 Bxd3 31 Rg4 Qg6 32 Qxg6 Bxg6 33 Rxg6 e4 34 Kd2 Re8
35 Ke3 Rc8 36 Kd4 e3 37 fxe3 Rf8 38 Rg1 10
Postscript
I intend to look at chess books next month, so if any publisher has a title they
wish to have reviewed, they should send it at once.

A Mixed Bag of Book Reviews

This month we look at a batch of recent books which, as usual, contain a large
selection of openings treatises. They are all briefly mentioned in the final
section, but most of the space will be devoted to the three which do not fall
into that category. Since one of the books is about problems, we start with a
problem for you to solve.
Purchases from our

accessible:
White to play and mate in three moves
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Arthur Kaufmann
by Olimpiu G. Urcan
& Peter Michael Braunwarth
Translate this page
[FEN "8/4p3/1B6/3R4/4kNK1/1p6/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
The solution will be given later in the column when we come to discuss the
title in question.
Giants of Innovation

the games from
Craig Pritchett's, Chess Secrets: Giants of Innovation

(Everyman Chess, 288 pages, US$27.95, UK 16.99;
ISBN 978-1-85744-671-5), assesses the contribution
to chess of five grandmasters from different periods:
Steinitz, Emanuel Lasker, Botvinnik, Korchnoi, and
Ivanchuk. It thus forms part of Everyman's miniseries which has so far comprised Great Attackers
(Colin Crouch on Kasparov, Tal and Stein), and two
books by Neil McDonald, The Giants of Power Play
(Topalov, Geller, Bronstein, Alekhine, and Morphy),
and The Giants of Strategy. The chapters of those
books dealt with ideas rather than individuals but the
subtitle and cover photographs of the latter book showed it was based on
inspiration from Kramnik, Karpov, Petrosian, Capablanca, and Nimzowitsch.
We still await a work telling us what we should learn from the world
champions Euwe, Smyslov and Spassky; were they not "giants" of
something? Clearly there is something artificial about the concept, but there is
some interest in these works nevertheless.
Pritchett's choice of Korchnoi and Ivanchuk in preference to world champions
does seem rather arbitrary, just as his use of the term "innovation" is vague.
What he really does in this book is to annotate a small selection of games by
each player that shows them to good advantage. In my forthcoming book for
McFarland, Eminent Victorian Chess Players, I comment on Pritchett's views
on Steinitz, so here I shall just say something about one of his other subjects.
His assessment of Lasker is interesting, but hardly novel, and I do object to
Pritchett's anachronistic use of the term "post-modern" (on page 80) to
describe the style of play of not only Lasker but also Pillsbury.
Postmodernism was a term coined in architecture in the second half of the
twentieth century, and in that context has a specific meaning. To use the
Pasadena 1932
& Monson

1809-2009
by Richard Forster
word, dating from well after the Second World War, in connection with late
nineteenth and early twentieth century chess, even as played by its most
advanced practitioners, seems empty jargon without meaningful content.
Also, relying on Lasker's old biographer Hannak is not really acceptable today
when much more through and scholarly work on the life of Lasker has been
published since. Pritchett seems reluctant to say anything bad about Lasker,
evidently one of his heroes, but I am not so sure that his character was entirely
admirable. His long tenure of the world title certainly had something to do
with his avoidance of worthy contenders in the years before the First World
War.
Choosing a Move
Although the author is not a master, I am inclined to
recommend the book by Per Ostman, Your Best
Move: A Structured Approach to Move Selection in
Chess (Everyman Chess, 222 pages, US$26.95, UK
15.99; ISBN 978-1-85744-660-9). Ostman is an
Australian software architect and chess trainer (and
father of a promising junior player) who has clearly
thought a lot about the way to present his material to
assist chess coaches and improving players. Move
selection, decision-making, is after all the key process
without which no amount of chess knowledge will get
you anywhere in practice.
For Ostman, move selection is a process which begins as soon as your
opponent makes his move: and it consists of several distinct stages. The first
part of the book discusses this in a fairly elementary fashion. The stages
identified by Ostman are update (your view of the board), select (possible
moves), verify (the value of the move you are inclined to play), then (blunder)
check, then execute (the move), and then (while the opponent is thinking)
prepare for what comes next. Each stage is discussed in some detail, followed
by a full example.
Part Two of the book deals in more detail with potential candidate moves,
Part Three with knowledge, and Part Four with skills, such as calculation,
evaluation, planning, and time. The final part deals with preparation for play.
Victorian Problemist Revived
Books on chess problems are comparatively rare
nowadays as the principal chess book publishers
evidently consider there is little market for them, so
readers who are interested in this aspect of the game
should welcome the appearance of John Brown: The
Forgotten Chess Composer by Brian Gosling
(Troubadour Publishing of Leicester; 208 pages, 10
stg., ISBN 978-1848767-294). The book includes fifty
problems by early Victorian chess problem composer
"J. B. of Bridport", whose real name was John Brown
(1827-1863), together with much interesting
biographical information and some history of the
context in which he devised his puzzles.
The diagram which introduced this column is one of the fifty in the book and
was also one of the examples of Brown's work in H. Weenink's history The
Chess Problem (1926). It was first published on 4 April 1863 in Cassell's
Illustrated Family Paper, whose chess editor was Henry Cook Mott. Brown
died on 17 November that year, of tuberculosis. By no means was it the case
that the majority of Brown's compositions were published in the Illustrated
London News. On 30 April 1864 Mott introduced another problem by "the
late J. B. of Bridport" saying
'The beautiful problems of this composer, many of which have appeared
in our journal, under the nom de plume of "Domino", are about to be
published in one volume, for the benefit of his widow, who is in very
indigent circumstances.'
The fact that Brown sometimes used the name 'Domino' appears to be
unknown to Gosling and may have led to his not identifying more of the
composer's work during his research. After the death of Brown, leaving a wife
(whom he had married in 1860) and at least two children (one of whom
Gosling has managed to identify), a charitable move was made to collect
Brown's problems that had appeared in a variety of sources and produce a
book to be sold for the benefit of the widow and family. This appeared in the
summer of 1865 under the title Chess Strategy. It is true that Staunton was
probably instrumental in launching the idea of the collection and persuading
Trbner to publish it, and the Preface appears to have been by him. But
Staunton did not do most of the work, as he stated he was too busy and asked
for others to help.
I also doubt that he wrote the anonymous review, quoted in Gosling's book,
which appeared in the Illustrated London News on 4 November 1865. (The
book was available by the end of May and if Staunton had written the review
himself, there would probably not have been such a long delay in its
appearance. Most likely he asked an acknowledged expert such as Frank
Healey to write it.)
By and large I am happy with Gosling's historical sections, except that I
believe Gosling gives undue credit to Howard Staunton for the production of
the first book of Brown's problems, nor does he hint at the negative side to
Staunton's character. Staunton had various helpers who examined submitted
problems and advised him on which were most worthy of publication. Chess
Strategy contains 174 problems but an editorial note says three or four are
repetitions as they were collected by various hands from different periodicals.
The person who did most of the work of compiling Chess Strategy was
Frederick George Rainger (1829-1871), of Norwich, a frequent contributor to
many chess problems.
The best evidence for this is in the book Chess Skirmishes (1889) by another
Norwich player, John Odin Howard Taylor. On page vi in the preface to that
work, Taylor mentions the problemist Rev Horatio Bolton and 'his successors
in art', J. A. Miles and J. Keeble. Then he refers to the efforts of another
Norwich man, the late F. G. Rainger, 'with that energetic kindness which was
his chief characteristic', which chiefly were responsible (after he wrote to
Staunton offering his services) for J. B. of Bridport's problems being
published in a book for the benefit of his widow.
"Although, as of course, voluntarily promised by Mr Staunton an
acknowledgment in the preface, no reference whatever to his [Rainger's]
labours was made, and his connection with the work has remained
unknown."
The solution to the problem at the start of the column is 1 Rc5!, which gives
away two flight squares. The main threat (seen if Black promotes his b-pawn)
is 2 Rc6 and 3 Re6 mate, which is the refutation of 1Kd4. It is nicely
echoed by a mate from the other side if Black makes the other king move: 1
Ke3 2 Rc2+ Ke4 3 Re2 mate. If Black prevents the mate on the e-file, then the
coup-de-grace comes from the side inside: 1e6 2 Rc6 e5 3 Rc4 mate.
The Openings Books
Since the inauguration of the Batsford series (now more than forty years ago!)
the majority of English-language chess book publishing has been devoted to
the openings, but the majority have a short shelf-life and are not very
memorable unless you play the particular openings. In the early years of
opening monographs, authors used to include a certain amount of material on
the historical development of the openings they studied, but this is usually
absent from books nowadays, though whether it is the authors, the readers, or
the publishers who want the books just to focus on the most recent
developments I am unsure.
Everyman Chess are now the main publishers of openings books and the
present batch, which all reached me in the latter half of 2011, are equally
divided between 1 d4 and 1 e4 systems. The former are all from the point of
view of Black, and I start with them.
Forty years ago, the Benko Gambit (1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6) was
only beginning to become known among club players. Compared with earlier
gambits based on giving up the b-pawn (the Volga and Blumenfeld CounterGambits), the idea was not to catch White off-balance by short-term tactical
tricks, but had a sound basis which has enabled the gambit to develop and
survive into twenty-first century master praxis.
Evolved by Hungarian-born American grandmaster
Pal Benko, it had a revolutionary concept: a
positional sacrifice, aimed at opening the a- and bfiles for Black's heavy pieces to combine with the
fianchettoed king's bishop to seize the initiative and
tied White down to defence. My book Counter
Gambits, first published in 1973 (and reissued by
Dover in 2001), was, I think I can fairly claim, one of
the earliest to deal with this gambit; soon afterwards,
Benko's monograph was published in the United
States by RHM. Since then, there have been various
attempts to refute or evade the Benko, but it seems to
be resisting extinction quite well. Play the Benko Gambit, the latest book on
this opening, is written by a master who has practical experience with the
gambit from both sides of the board, Danish IM Nicolai V. Pedersen
(Everyman Chess, 208 pages, US$26.95, UK 15.99; ISBN 978-1-85744-6340). This title is also available as an ebook in ChessBase format.
In a recent Dublin league match, a member of my club team won a game with
it in the endgame, as so often happens in the Benko. The following game
from the book shows how it is also possible for White to lose quickly if he
chooses a bad variation.
S. Pavlovic T. Giorgadze
Lugano, 1985
Benko Gambit [A58]
Here is a game from the book, illustrating a quick Black win from the early
glory days when White was still trying to find the best ways to meet the
gambit.
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 cxb5 a6 5 bxa6 g6
[FEN "rnbqkb1r/3ppp1p/P4np1/2pP4/8/8/
PP2PPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 6"]
The reason why Black delays the usual recapture on a6 with the bishop is
shown in this game. If White plays the double fianchetto, the knight should
recapture.
6 g3
6 Nc3 Bxa6 7 Nf3 d6 8 g3 Bg7 9 Bg2 is the modern main line of the
fianchetto variation which is one of White's best options. Pedersen gives some
examples illustrating his recommendation 9...Nfd7.
6...d6 7 b3 Bg7 8 Bb2 Nxa6! 9 Bg2 00 10 Qd2?! Bf5
[FEN "r2q1rk1/4ppbp/n2p1np1/2pP1b2/8/
1P4P1/PB1QPPBP/RN2K1NR w KQ - 0 11"]
11 Nf3?
11 Nc3 Nb4 12 Kf1 was necessary but Black stands somewhat better.
11...Nb4 12 00
If 12 Nd4 Be4! 13 00 Bxg2 14 Kxg2 Ne4 Black's position is preferable but
now White loses material.
12...Nc2 13 Nh4 Nxa1 14 Nxf5 Nxb3
14...Rxa2 also wins.
15 axb3 gxf5 16 Qg5 h6 17 Qxf5 Qd7 18 Qf3 Ra2 19 Bc3 Qg4!
[FEN "5rk1/4ppb1/3p1n1p/2pP4/6q1/
1PB2QP1/r3PPBP/1N3RK1 w - - 0 20"]
20 Nd2 Qxf3 21 Nxf3 0-1

White resigned in view of 21...Nxd5, which would also be the answer to 21
Bxf3.
The author does not include any of his wins with White but does include as
illustration some of his games with Black. Here is one of them, a spectacular
example which may not be in your database.
P. H. Nielsen Nicolai Pedersen
Danish Team Championship, 2006
Benko Gambit Declined [A57]
1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 c5 3 d5 b5 4 c4
This game takes an unusual route to the Benko.
4...g6 5 cxb5 a6 6 b6!? Qxb6 7 Nc3 d6 8 e4 Bg7 9 Nd2 00 10 Be2 Nbd7 11
Nc4 Qc7 12 Bf4 Rb8 13 Qd2?! Nb6 14 Ne3?
[FEN "1rb2rk1/2q1ppbp/pn1p1np1/2pP4/
4PB2/2N1N3/PP1QBPPP/R3K2R b KQ - 0 14"]
14 00 Nxc4 15 Bxc4 Ng4 is equal, but now Black has a fine coup.
14...Na4!! 15 Nxa4 Nxe4 16 Qc2 Qa5+ 17 Kf1 Rb4 18 Nc4
If 18 Nc3 Nxc3 19 bxc3 Rxf4 regains the piece advantageously.
18...Qxa4 19 Qxe4 Bf5 20 Qxe7 Re8 21 Qxd6
[FEN "4r1k1/5pbp/p2Q2p1/2pP1b2/
qrN2B2/8/PP2BPPP/R4K1R b - - 0 21"]
21...Bxb2! 22 Nxb2
If 22 Re1 Bc3.
22...Rxb2 23 Be3 Rxe2!
[FEN "4r1k1/5p1p/p2Q2p1/2pP1b2/
q7/4B3/P3rPPP/R4K1R w - - 0 24"]
24 Kxe2
If 24 Qc6 Bd3! 25 Qxa4 R2xe3+ 26 Kg1 Re1+ wins.
24...Qc4+ 25 Ke1 Qc3+ 26 Ke2 Bg4+ 27 f3 Qxe3+ 28 Kf1 Bf5 01
Anyone intending to play the Benko does need to have a reasonable
acquaintance with other Benoni-type structures, since White may not accept
the pawn, and with symmetrical English positions (since White may not play
3 d5 at all). The author helps readers there also. To deal with the latter case,
Pedersen includes a chapter on the Kasparov Gambit: 1 d4 Nf6 c5 3 Nf3 cxd4

4 Nxd4 e5 5 Nb5 d5 6 exd5 Bc5, and the final chapter covers the Topalov
Variation which begins 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 c5 3 d5 b5 4 Bg5 Ne4.
English IM John Cox has written a modest book
offering a repertoire for Black against the Queen's
Gambit. Many players who open 1 d4 at amateur
level probably do so with the expectation that their
opponents will defend with anything but the old
Orthodox defence, which was so popular in the days
of Capablanca and Botvinnik but is nowadays not a
popular choice below master level where its solidity
is still respected. Cox's book, Declining the Queen's
Gambit (Everyman Chess, 208 pages, US$26.95, UK
15.99; ISBN 978-1-85744-640-1), bases Black's
defence around the Tartakower Variation, in which
Black fianchettoes his queen's bishop after an early h6 to hit White's bishop
that is normally developed on g5. Nigel Short is among the top grandmasters
to employ this system. This title is also available as an ebook in ChessBase
format.
The basic move order Cox uses is 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 Be7 5
Bg5 h6 6 Bh4 0-0 7 e3 b6 but early move order is extremely flexible. After 3
Nc3 Nf6 (Black can also play 3Be7), many theory books give 4 Bg5 as
White's main move, although this will often transpose unless Black plays 4
dxc4 or 4Nbd7. In practice, many players with Black prefer the move order
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6, intending the Nimzoindian Defence, then meet 3 Nf3 by 3
d5 after which 4 Nc3 leads to the lines in this book.
The Lasker Defence (with 7Ne4 instead of 7b6) is offered as an
alternative to the Tartakower. Cox also considers lines where White develops
that bishop on f4, and the exchange variation where White plays an early cxd5
before moving that bishop. A final chapter deals with the Catalan Opening, in
which White fianchettoes his king's bishop. Cox recommends taking the pawn
on c4 and following up with an early Bb4+, which was a fairly unusual
treatment of the opening until Topalov played it against Kramnik in their
2006 title match at Elista.
American IM David Vigorito is the author of
Attacking Chess: The King's Indian, Volume 2
(Everyman Chess, 368 pages, US$27.95, UK 16.99;
ISBN 978-1-85744-664-7). This volume deals with
the Fianchetto Variation (lines where White plays
g3), the Four Pawns Attack, the Averbakh, and
miscellaneous lines. The King's Indian is a monster
opening and trying to master it with Black is a
lifetime commitment, whereas White can just pick
one line and learn it well. I shall refrain from further
commitment except to note that the publisher offers
an innovation: "2 free updates of this book available
within a year of publication at www.everymanchess.com."
The former books are aimed at experienced players but Everyman Chess has
also launched a new "Move by Move" series, presumably intended to replace
or supplement its "Starting Out" volumes of recent years. This series was
devised by GM John Emms and employs a question and answer format
designed to get the reader thinking rather than passively reading. The first two
examples are before us now.
Cyrus Lakdawala, an American IM who has written
for the publisher in the past, is the author of The
Slav: Move by Move (Everyman Chess, 414 pages,
US$29.95, UK 19.99; ISBN 978-1-85744-678-4),
which deals with 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6, perhaps the most
solid defence of all to 1 d4. Since Black can develop
his queen's bishop at f5 or g4 (even occasionally at
e6) he does not have to fear it becoming as "bad" as
it can become in the orthodox Queen's Gambit

Declined. The Slav is explained through several
illustrative games in which nearly all Black's moves
receive comments, and frequent questions are asked. For somebody learning a
new opening for the first time, this approach can be useful but of course there
is not as much analytical and exemplary detail on sidelines as the standard
Everyman books supply. This title is also available as an ebook in ChessBase
format.
English GM Neil McDonald, a very experienced
writer on the game, is the author of The Ruy Lopez:
Move by Move (Everyman Chess, 316 pages, US
$27.95, UK 17.99; ISBN 978-1-85744-669-2),
which follows the same formula but is a more
compact book. The opening is again a very solid
choice but this time from White's point of view.
Again, the approach is straightforward and sensible
but one cannot expect the level of detailed
examination that one would expect from a
monograph aimed at experts. Authors of such works
are bound to over-simplify at times and may not
always examine sidelines with the same critical eye they give to the main
issues. This title is also available as an ebook in ChessBase format.
Take, for example, the discussion on pages 293-4 of Black's important
eleventh move choice in the Marshall Attack. After 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5
a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 00 Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 00 8 c3 d5 9 exd5 Nxd5 10 Nxe5
Nxe5 11 Rxe5 c6, the reader is told that this is an important move and then
asked why:
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/4bppp/p1p5/1p1nR3/8/
1BP5/PP1P1PPP/RNBQ2K1 w - - 0 12"]
McDonald then gives a clear explanation of the advantages of 11...c6

(anchoring the knight, blocking the b3-bishop, etc) before going on to say
why Marshall's original 11..Nf6, playing for a mating attack, fails against
correct defence. Then, however, comes a comment with which I would take
issue, especially if it were in a major monograph on this opening. McDonald
writes that "violent attempts by Black starting with 11...Bb7 also fail..." but I
do not consider 11...Bb7 to be a "violent attempt" at all; on the contrary, it
also defends the d5-knight and is perhaps Black's safest drawing line if
followed up correctly. There are also lines where White can go wrong and
lose. Writing in 1989, GM John Nunn described 11...Bb7 as "certainly a
tricky move for a poorly prepared White player to meet." McDonald
recommends the continuation 12 d4 Bf6 13 Re1 Re8 14 Nd2 but only gives
14...b4? for Black. The stronger 14...Nf4! has been known for many years,
when after 15 Nf3 Bxf3 16 Rxe8+ Qxe8 17 gxf3 Bg5 Black has little to fear
since the extra white pawn is doubled and isolated. If White plays 18 Bxf4
Bxf4, there are opposite-coloured bishops too.
A couple of decades ago, John Nunn wrote a book
on Beating the Sicilian which went through three
editions before he apparently decided the defence
was too robust to have a fourth attempt. Now up-andcoming GM Gawain Jones has taken up the
challenge of finding a repertoire for White to
recommend to ordinary mortals against this pesky

defence. Unlike Nunn, he does not use the main lines
with 3 d4 (there are so many variations) but
recommends lines based on an early Bb5 against
both 2d6 and 2Nc6. With the title How to Beat
the Sicilian Defence: An Anti-Sicilian Repertoire for
White (Everyman Chess, 350 pages, US$29.95, UK 19.99; ISBN 978-185744-663-0), it should be popular.
Jones puts the emphasis on restricting Black's play in the early stages, in order
to obtain a slight but persistent advantage, and then playing to exploit this. He
considers that the Moscow Variation, 2d6 3 Bb5+, has an unjustified
reputation for drawishness. White's general plan is to establish a Maroczy
Bind formation by playing an early c2-c4, exchanging his light-squared
bishop, sooner or later, for whichever piece Black interposes at move three.
The defenders' alternatives are to play 3Nd7 4 d4 Ngf6, or 3Bd7 4 Bxd7
+ Qxd7, or 3Bd7 4 Bxd7+ Nd7; while there is also the "hybrid variation"
3Nc6 which can also be reached via 2Nc6 3 Bb5 d6. Following 2Nc6
3 Bb5 there are several more complex alternatives which have been tested at
high level.
After 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6, however, it is clear that 3 Bb5 would be pointless and
White has to adopt a different approach if he wishes to avoid 3 d4. Jones
recommends a form of the King's Indian Attack with an early Qe2, that has
some similarities with the old Russian champion Chigorin's 2 Qe2 method
against the French Defence. The key position that Jones aims for, shown in
the diagram below, can arise by various move orders; for example, 1 e4 c5 2
Nf3 e6 3 d3 d5 4 Qe2!? (an idea of Bronstein's) 4Nf6 5 g3 Nc6 6 Bg2 Be7
7 0-0 0-0 8 e5 Nd7 9 c4!
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/pp1nbppp/2n1p3/2ppP3/2P5/
3P1NP1/PP2QPBP/RNB2RK1 b - - 0 9"]
White's plan here is to hold the queenside and attack on the kingside. The
important e5-pawn will be protected by Bf4, with the move h2-h4, typical of
King's Indian Attacks, a necessary detail to rule out g5. Later White can
advance h5-h6, to provoke weaknesses in Black's king position. If Black
forestalls this by h6, then White will manoeuvre a knight to g4, creating
chances of sacrificing a piece for two pawns on h6, with a mating attack to
follow. From the book, here is a game in this variation played by Kasparov in
a simultaneous display.
Garry Kasparov M. van Beurden
London simul, 2003
King's Indian Attack [C00]
1 e4 e6 2 Qe2 c5 3 Nf3
Via the Sicilian this would be reached by 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 Qe2.
3...Nc6 4 g3 Be7 5 Bg2 Nf6 6 d3 d5 7 00 00 8 e5 Nd7 9 c4 d4
Not bad says Jones. Many other moves are considered in the book including
9...Nb6 which the author calls the main defence.
10 h4 a6 11 Bf4 h6 12 Re1 b5 13 h5 Bb7
Black misses the chance of counterplay by 13...bxc4!? 14 dxc4 Rb8 15 b3 a5.

14 Nbd2 bxc4 15 Nxc4! Nb4 16 a3 Nd5 17 Bd2 Rc8?
White now obtains a dominating position, forcing Black to give up the
exchange in a few moves. Jones said he should play 17...a5 18 Nh2 a4 19 Ng4
although White remains better.
18 Ba5! Qe8 19 Nfd2 Rc6 20 Ne4 Qb8 21 Ned6 Bxd6 22 Nxd6 Rxd6 23
exd6 Qxd6 24 Rac1 Ba8 25 Bd2 Rb8 26 b4 cxb4 27 axb4 e5
27...Nxb4 is met by 28 Bxa8 Rxa8 29 Qe4 Rd8 30 Rc4.
28 Rc2!?
28 Rc4 is simpler says Jones.
28...Nxb4 29 Bxb4 Qxb4 30 Bxa8 Rxa8 31 Rec1 Qd6? 32 Rc8+! Rxc8 33
Rxc8+ Kh7 34 Qe4+ 10
Another British GM, Simon Williams, is the author of
Attacking Chess: The French (Everyman Chess, 350
pages, US$29.95, UK 19.99; ISBN 978-1-85744663-0). Subtitled "a Dynamic Repertoire for Black,"
the book concentrates on the main line Winawer
Variation, 1 e4 e6 2 d4 3 Nc3 Bb4, and lines for
Black against White's alternatives to 3 Nc3. There is
also inevitably a lot of space devoted to the Tarrasch
Variation, 3 Nd2, against which the author
recommends 3Nf6. This leaves less than thirty
pages to discuss White's other options. Williams does
not appear to think much of the King's Indian Attack
(which is introduced by 2 d3 against the French). He says Black should go 1
e4 e6 2 d3 c5 3 Nf3 Nc6 4 g3 Nge7. Readers of his book should note by
avoiding an early d5, Black evades the line recommended by Jones against
the 2e6 Sicilian, but should be aware that formations involving Qe2 may
still arise and are not discussed by Williams. This title is also available as an
ebook in ChessBase format.
Beating Unusual Chess Defences: 1 e4 is by British
IM Andrew Greet (Everyman Chess, 304 pages, US
$27.95, UK 16.99; ISBN 978-1-85744-621-0). This
is a one-stop-shop for a range of Black's options
including the Pirc, Modern, Scandinavian, and
Alekhine defences. In fact Greet deals with all replies
to 1 e4 other than 1e5, the Sicilian, the French and
the Caro-Kann and a few moves so outrageous that
nobody plays them (though even 1g5 gets a
mention). Many 1 e4 players will find this useful
though they should recall that whole monographs
have been written about almost all the defences that
are here reduced to a chapter. Correspondence players, for example, may look
at his recommendations but will need something much more detailed.
Postscript
With respect to my query about the player calling himself Green who played
in the 1912 Major Open at Richmond, Alan Smith has found confirmation in
the Manchester Guardian that he was the Dutch master Abraham Speijer, or
Speyer (1873-1956). In the match between the Championship and Open
players, he defeated Wahltuch, says Alan.

When Two Pieces Beat a Queen

If you were Black in the position after 1 e4 c5 2 f4 d5 3 Nf3 dxe4 4 Ng5 Nf6
5 Bc4, what would you do?
Purchases from our

accessible:
Can you resist the temptation to win White's queen by ...Bg4?
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Gambit Busters
by Sam Collins
[FEN "rnbqkb1r/pp2pppp/5n2/2p3N1/
2B1pP2/8/PPPP2PP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 5"]
Translate this page
Black has two possibilities here: the positional 5e6 and the obvious but
risky 5Bg4, which is what chiefly interests us today.
Did you think White had blundered his queen and so you bashed out 5...Bg4
without further thought? Or were you so preoccupied with the threat to your fpawn that you chose 5...e6 and did not notice the 5...Bg4 possibility?
Welcome to Bryntse's Gambit!
Now look at the board from White's position, showing the introductory moves
of this line.
The Gambit Files

by Bill Harvey
1 e4 c5 2 f4 d5 3 Nf3!?
In fact, Arne Bryntse was not a 1 e4 player but an aficionado of Bird's
Opening. He used to reach the same position via 1 f4 d5 2 Nf3 c5 3 e4!? but it
is far more likely to arise via 1 e4.
the games from
I looked at several books on the Sicilian Defence, and in particular on the

Grand Prix Attack, to see what (if anything) they had to say about 3 Nf3. In
most cases, only 3 exd5 and 3 Nc3 (and sometimes 3 e5?!) are discussed, and
the consensus appears to be that 2...d5 has put 2 f4 out of business, so that
Grand Prix players are advised to play 2 Nc3 and only after 2...Nc6 then 3 f4.
The only exception is Gary Lane's 1997 book for Batsford on the Grand Prix
Attack, which does not draw attention to the 5...Bg4 possibility, but only cites
the Hector game (with 5...e6) mentioned below.
3...dxe4 4 Ng5!?
Yes, this is a reversed Budapest Defence where White has the extra move f2f4, which is admittedly of questionable value in that opening. It is also
possible to play 4 Ne5 (see below) but in that case no queen offer is involved.
4...Nf6 5 Bc4
The Alterman Gambit Guide

White Gambits
by Boris Alterman
[FEN "rnbqkb1r/pp2pppp/5n2/2p3N1/
2B1pP2/8/PPPP2PP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 5"]
5Bg4
The more sober option 5e6 will be discussed later in the article.
After 5Bg4, White has two moves (6 Bxf7+ and 6 Qxg4) which amount to
the same thing. The latter may have the greater shock value but the same
position is reached after 6 Qxg4 Nxg4 7 Bxf7+ Kd7 as would arise if the
move pairs were played in the more obvious order. After 6 Bxf7+ Kd7 (the
only legal move) White must play 6 Qxg4 as it is the only way to obtain two
pieces for the queen. Then 7Nxg4.
In either case, White obviously plays 8 Be6+ and puts the question to Black:
where does the king go?
[FEN "rn1q1b1r/pp1kp1pp/4B3/2p3N1/
4pPn1/8/PPPP2PP/RNB1K2R b KQ - 0 8"]
White is scoring about 66% in thirty-five games in my database

(correspondence and OTB); with 5e6 Black scores many draws but White
still comes out with 13/21.
There are four legal replies to the bishop check on e6, but clearly 8...Kd6??
loses back the queen immediately after 9 Nf7+. White's knight cannot be
trapped after 9...Kxe6 10 Nxd8+ and so Black will lose at least a pawn.
It is true that 5Bg4 can be played with the intention of accepting a quick
draw by repetition, since Black might play 8...Ke8 in the diagram position.
Then after 9 Bxg4?!, the black king is safely placed and it is highly unlikely
that White could have compensation for the sacrificed material. Therefore,
after 8...Ke8, White must repeat moves by 9 Bf7+ Kd7 10 Be6+ and if Black
is content with a no-contest, he can play 10...Ke8 again, and after a further
repetition he can claim the draw.
From White's point of view, therefore, it is better to play the Bryntse Gambit
against a higher-rated opponent, who won't want to lose rating points, or in a
match or tournament situation where a draw is sufficient to give a satisfactory
result, such as a minor prize or title norm result. Or you could play it in a
tournament situation where the opponent must play for a win whatever the
risk. (In that case Black would do better to choose 5...e6.)
In practice, though, when Black plays 5Bg4 the quick perpetual check has
not been arisen in any of the games in my databases.
Assuming Black does not want a draw, a really mad position soon arises, in
which White's two minor pieces have in practice frequently vanquished the
black queen.
Black's choice in the last diagram position, if he is playing on, is between 8...
Kc7 and 8...Ke6. The king is not really safer on the former square because
after 8...Kc7 9 Bxg4 there is an immediate threat of a knight fork on e6,
obliging Black to play 9...Qe8, whereas 8...Kc6 9 Bxg4 offers Black more
options. I find that although my database does include games with 8...Kc7, the
majority feature 8...Kc6. Later in the article, you can see an example of 8...
Kc7 but mostly I shall examine the main line.
Origin of the Line
Before going into some detail, a little history of the variation seems in order.
The gambit with 3 Nf3 and 4 Ng5 appears to be the invention, in the 1960s, of
a Swedish correspondence player: Arne Bryntse. Apparently, he even tempted
opponents to accept the gambit by the use of conditional move offers, which
were common in the postal chess era. In case his opponent might not see the
point, when he posted the move 5 Bc4 he would add the conditional offer "if
5Bg4 6 Qxg4." Good psychology! After that, fewer opponents would
"chicken out" and prefer 5e6.
Arne Bryntse
In the 1960s and early 1970s, Bryntse was a regular competitor in the
Swedish correspondence chess championship, and he won the title in 1972.
Bryntse played the Bird regularly but unfortunately few opponents played the
necessary sequence that allowed him to offer the queen. He did, however,
play analogous lines in some other games.
In the twenty-seventh championship (1967) Bryntse's opponent Olle Smith
declined the kind offer with 5e6, as shown further on. However, the
following year, one opponent, Gsta sterling, accepted the offer. Three
years later, the same opponent came back for more punishment. Here are the
games I know by Bryntse in which his opponent accepted the queen sacrifice.
Arne Bryntse Gsta sterling
Swedish Correspondence Chess Championship-28, 1968
Sicilian Defence, Bryntse Gambit [B21]
1 f4 d5 2 Nf3 c5
After 2...g6, Bryntse played 3 e4 dxe4 4 Ng5 Nf6 5 Bc4 against Arne Bjuhr,
in the 1972 Swedish Correspondence Chess Championship and in other
games. In the 1973 championship, Sune Hjorth, decided not to play 5...Bg4.
3 e4
Also 1 d4 f5 2 c4 Nf6 3 g3 e5 4 dxe5 Ng4 5 Nf3 Nc6 was a pet line of
Bryntse's with Black a cross between the Dutch and Budapest.
3...dxe4 4 Ng5 Nf6 5 Bc4 Bg4
5...e6 was played in the earlier game Bryntse-Smith, shown below.
6 Qxg4 Nxg4 7 Bxf7+ Kd7 8 Be6+ Kc6 9 Bxg4 e6 10 Nc3 Bd6
Three years later sterling played the improvement 10Nd7 as shown below.
11 00 Rf8 12 d3 Na6
Black is not keen to open lines that his opponent may use; if 12...exd3 13
Nxe6 with Bf3+ probably to come.
13 Nxe6 Qh4 14 Be2 Nb4 15 dxe4 a6
This prevents Nb5 and Bb5+ but cuts off the black knight's retreat.
16 Bd1 Rf6 17 g3 Rg6
Black threatens to draw by perpetual check (18...Rxg3+) so Bryntse prevents
that.
18 Kg2 Qe7 19 f5
[FEN "r7/1p2q1pp/p1kbN1r1/2p2P2/1n2P3/
2N3P1/PPP3KP/R1BB1R2 b - - 0 19"]
19...Rxe6
Black must surrender the exchange one way or another (19...Rf6 20 Bg5).
20 fxe6 a5 21 a3 Na6 22 e5 Qxe6
22...Bxe5 could lead to a neat finish: 23 Rf7 Qxe6 24 Bf3+ Kb6 25 Rxb7#.
23 exd6 Kb6 24 Bf3 h6 25 Bf4 g5 26 Rae1 Qg6 27 Re7 Rb8 28 d7 Rd8 29
Be4 Qg8 30 Be5 10
The second game was less one-sided, partly because of a slip by White, but
the ultimate result was the same. After this Bryntse got no more takers in the
Swedish corr championships.
Arne Bryntse Gsta sterling
Notes by Bryntse in the book Korr-SM 19671976, page 169, unless
otherwise stated.
1 f4 d5 2 Nf3 c5 3 e4 dxe4 4 Ng5 Nf6 5 Bc4 Bg4 6 Qxg4!
'Has a queen sacrifice been seen as early as move 6 before?' asked Bryntse.
6...Nxg4 7 Bxf7+ Kd7 8 Be6+ Kc6 9 Bxg4 e6 10 Nc3 Nd7 11 Bxe6 Nf6 12
Nf7?
Bryntse gives this a question mark but no further comment at this point; the
next note explains.
12...Qe8 13 Bc4 a6 14 Nxh8 b5
White believed he would win a whole rook but that is not the case. He now
suffers a loss of momentum which is questionable in a sacrificial variation.
15 Bf7
[FEN "r3qb1N/5Bpp/p1k2n2/1pp5/4pP2/
2N5/PPPP2PP/R1B1K2R b KQ - 0 15"]
15...Qc8! 16 Nxe4 Nxe4

White can now, in various ways, obtain rook and bishop or two bishops for
the queen. The preferred option is the only line that gives White some chances.
17 Bh5 Qe6 18 Nf7 Kc7 19 Ne5 Qf5 20 Bf3 Re8 21 d3 Ng5 22 00 Bd6 23
Bg4 Qf6 24 Bd2 h5
The initiative threatens to return to White, but this attempt by Black is a
failure.
25 Bxh5 Rh8 26 Bg4 Qh6 27 h3 Bxe5 28 fxg5 Qd6 29 Rae1 Bd4+ 30 Kh1
Rf8 31 Ba5+ Kb8 32 Rxf8+ Qxf8 33 Bf3 Qf7
White relies on the bishop-pair's strength on the long diagonals.
34 c3
34 Bc6 was tempting, but it is refuted by 34...Be5!!.
34...Bf2 35 g6!
Black's move would have given him chances, if this reply had not existed.
35...Qxg6 36 Re7 Bg3 37 Rd7 Bh4
TH: If 37...Kc8 38 Rd8# or 37...Bf4 38 Rd8+ Ka7 39 Ra8# or 37...Bc7 38
Bxc7+ Kc8 39 Re7 (or 39 Bg4).
38 Rb7+ Kc8 39 Rb6 Qxd3 40 Bg4+ Kc7 41 Rf6+ Kb8 42 Rf8+ Ka7 43
Bf3 10
Bryntse Gambit on the Internet
When I started to research this article, having found quite a few games in
databases, I did a search for "chess Bryntse" on Google and was surprised to
find several results. Let us review these first.
I discovered that Dana Mackenzie (two of whose games in the line were in
my database) had written about this in Chess Life (March 2007) and also on
his blog but Mackenzie wrote his article on the basis that the line was good
for playing against computers. I shall not be exploring that aspect.
So let us start with one of his games in which Black's play against Mackenzie
was hardly inspiring. It does illustrate one of the many traps lurking around.
Dana Mackenzie Drayton Harrison
Western States Open, Reno 2006
1 e4 c5 2 f4 d5 3 Nf3 dxe4 4 Ng5 Nf6 5 Bc4 Bg4 6 Qxg4 Nxg4 7 Bxf7+ Kd7
8 Be6+ Kc6 9 Bxg4 e5?
Other possibilities will be considered further on, including a game where
Mackenzie still won although his opponent played much better.
10 Nf7
White will now pick up either the e-pawn with check or the exchange, but
Black was more generous:
[[FEN "rn1q1b1r/pp3Npp/2k5/2p1p3/4pPB1/
8/PPPP2PP/RNB1K2R b KQ - 0 10"]
10...Qh4+?
10...Qe8 or 10...Qf6 would be better.
11 g3 Qxg4?? 12 Nxe5+ 10
A more serious test followed two days later when an IM took up the challenge
but was defeated.
Dana Mackenzie David Pruess
Western States Open, Reno 2006
8 Be6+ Kc6
8...Ke8 9 Bf7+ draws if Black continues to repeat (not 9 Nf7? Qd4).
9 Bxg4 e6
Rybka3 suggests 9...Qe8!? 10 Nc3 Na6 11 a3 h6 12 Ngxe4 Qg6 13 h3 Kc7 14
d3 Qc6.
10 Nc3 Na6
Mackenzie says in Chess Life that his opponent spent thirty-four minutes here,
only to make the move Mackenzie was best prepared for because it had
occurred in his practice games with Fritz9.
11 a3!
White amazingly can afford to spend a tempo ruling out ...Nb4. Later the
move will prove useful as a preparation for b2-b4.
11...Bd6 12 00 Nc7 13 Ncxe4
White wants to trade a knight for Black's remaining bishop at an early stage.
This can be better than trading it for a rook in some cases.
13...Qe7 14 Nxd6 Qxd6 15 d3 Raf8
[FEN "5r1r/ppn3pp/2kqp3/2p3N1/5PB1/
P2P4/1PP3PP/R1B2RK1 w - - 0 16"]
Mackenzie explains at this point that White is not playing for an immediate
attack on the king but his main concern is to keep Black's straight-line pieces
bottled up. He has the bishop-pair so wants to open diagonals but keep files
closed.
16 Bf3+
Not 16 Be3 as Black replies 16...Nd5 and can win the white f-pawn, thereby
opening a file.
16...Kd7 17 c3
Not 17 Bxb7 says Mackenzie. "This opening is not about winning pawns, it is
about active piece play" he says. I agree. When you have two bishops versus a
queen, a pawn either way is unlikely to be a major factor. Nor is 17 Be3 good
because of ...Nd5 again. White is not in a hurry and we shall see that
eventually his dark-squared bishop will get into the game.
17...Nd5 18 g3 h6 19 Ne4 Qc7 20 b4!
Now Mackenzie felt sure he was getting an advantage. His human opponent
was floundering in the same way that his computer opponents Fritz and Crafty
had done in trial games.
20...cxb4 21 axb4 b6 22 Bd2 Rf7 23 c4 Nf6 24 Bc3 Ke7?
Black needed to exchange knights here, although his game remains difficult.
25 Be5 Qd7 26 Nd6 Rd8
Mackenzie points out that it is too late to return the queen, because after 26...
Qxd6 27 Bxd6+ Kxd6 28 Ra6, followed by Rfa1 and Rxa7, White will soon
have two extra pawns; e.g., 28...Rc8 29 Rfa1 Rcc7 30 c5+.
27 Nxf7
27 b5 is even stronger says Mackenzie. The knight is superior to the rook so
why exchange them?
27...Kxf7 28 d4 Kg6
Black believed his game was lost so tried an unexpected move, but an
objectively better try was 28...b5, which is met by 29 c5 Nd5 30 Rfb1
(threatening Ra6) 30...Qb7 (prevents Ra6 but puts the knight in a pin) 31 Ra3,
followed by Rba1.
29 g4!?
White starts to think in terms of direct attack.
29...Rc8 30 c5 Qb5 31 Rxa7 Qd3 32 h4 h5 33 g5!
[FEN "2r5/R5p1/1p2pnk1/2P1B1Pp/
1P1P1P1P/3q1B2/8/5RK1 b - - 0 33"]
33...Ne8
33...Ng4 fails to 34 f5+!; e.g., 34...Kxf5 (or 34...Qxf5 35 Rxg7#) 35 Be2+.
34 Kg2 b5 35 Re1 Kf5 36 Be4+
36 Bxh5! would have created a mating net but the text also wins, so long as
White avoids traps.
36...Qxe4+ 37 Rxe4 Kxe4 38 Ra5 Nc7 39 Bxg7 Kxf4 40 Be5+ Kg4 41 g6
Kxh4 42 g7 Rg8 43 Ra7 Nd5 44 Rf7 Ne3+ 45 Kf3 Ng4 46 c6 10
The Bryntse Gambit Declined
A wise Black probably declines the gambit and Dana Mackenzie says 5e6
seems to equalise fairly comfortably. One of Bryntse's postal opponents
played this move and White still managed to win.
Arne Bryntse Olle Smith
1 f4 d5 2 Nf3 c5 3 e4 dxe4 4 Ng5 Nf6 5 Bc4 e6
[FEN "rnbqkb1r/pp3ppp/4pn2/2p3N1/
2B1pP2/8/PPPP2PP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 6"]
6 Nc3
Here I played 6 Qe2 in a Dublin league match, which I won't publish, as the
move is seriously inferior. Black gets opportunities of counter-attack based

on ...Nb4 or ...Nd4, and it is by no means clear that the queen belongs on e2. I
managed to draw in the end, but it was a struggle.
An amusing example of how the queen may strike was seen in the help-mate
miniature J. Lebroche-J. R. Delmont, Champagne 2005, which went 6 Nc3
Be7 7 Qe2 Nc6 8 Nxe4 Nd4? 9 Qd3 0-0?? 10 Nxf6+.
6...Nc6
This or the immediate 6...a6 is usually played.
7 Ngxe4 a6
See the next game for an example of the more usual knight exchange on e4.
8 a4 b6 9 d3 Bb7 10 00 g6 11 f5 gxf5 12 Bg5 Be7 13 Bxf6 Bxf6 14 Qh5
Nd4 15 Rxf5 Nxf5 16 Bxe6 Bd4+ 17 Kh1 Qe7 18 Bxf5 Bxc3 19 bxc3 Bxe4
20 Bxe4 000 21 Rf1 f6 22 Qf5+ Kc7 23 Qxf6 Qxf6 24 Rxf6 Rd6 25 Rf7+
Rd7 26 Rf5 Re8 27 h4 h6 28 Kh2 Rg8 29 Kh3 Rgg7 30 g4 Rgf7 31 Rh5
Rd6 32 g5 hxg5 33 hxg5 Kd8 34 g6 Rg7 35 Rg5 Ke7 36 Kg4 Rf6 37 Kh5
Rf2 38 a5 Rh2+ 39 Kg4 bxa5 40 Rxc5 Rxc2 41 Kg5 a4 42 Bd5 a3 43 Kh6
Kf6 44 Rc6+ 10
Swedish grandmaster Hector probably learned about the Bryntse Gambit from
its author. He obtained no opening advantage in the following game, but
eventually Hector's Finnish opponent swindled himself.
Jonny Hector Jouni Yrjla
Gausdal zonal tournament, 1987
1 e4 c5 2 f4 d5 3 Nf3 dxe4 4 Ng5 Nf6 5 Bc4 e6!
Solid alternative.
6 Nc3 a6 7 a4 Nc6 8 Ngxe4
White often captures with the queen's knight but it usually makes no
difference.
8...Nxe4 9 Nxe4 Be7 10 d3 00 11 00 b6 12 Bd2 Bb7 13 Qh5 Nd4 14 c3 g6
15 Qg4 h5 16 Qd1 b5 17 Ba2 Nf5 18 Qe2
Lane's book stopped here, saying: "with a roughly equal position."
18...Qd7 19 Rae1 bxa4 20 Ra1 Bd5 21 Be1 a3 22 bxa3 Rfd8 23 Bb1 Qc7
24 Nd2 Bd6
[FEN "r2r2k1/2q2p2/p2bp1p1/2pb1n1p/
5P2/P1PP4/3NQ1PP/RB2BRK1 w - - 0 25"]
Now Black stands better and he should have won the game.
25 Qf2 c4 26 d4 Rab8 27 Ne4 Be7 28 Ng5 Rb3 29 a4 Qb7 30 Bd2 Rb2 31
Rd1 Bf6 32 Nf3 Bxf3 33 Qxf3 Qxf3 34 gxf3 Bxd4+ 35 cxd4 Nxd4 36 Be4
f5?
Black should play 36...Ne2+ and then capture on d2. Even after the text he
keeps some winning chances.
37 Be3 Ne2+ 38 Kf1 Rxd1+ 39 Rxd1 fxe4 40 fxe4 c3?
After this blunder, which deprives the knight of its flight square, White gets
on top. Maybe Black's flag was hanging.
41 Re1 Rb4 42 Kxe2 Rxe4 43 Rc1 Rxa4 44 Kd3 Kf7 45 Rxc3 Ra2 46 Rc7+
Ke8 47 Rc2 Ra4 48 Bd4 Ra5 49 h4 Ra3+ 50 Ke4 Rh3 51 Ke5 Kd7 52 Bf2
a5 53 Rd2+ Kc6 54 Kxe6 Rh2 55 Rc2+ Kb5 56 Kd5 a4 57 Rb2+ Ka6 58
Kc6 Rh1 59 Rb8 10
I now show you some lesser-known games in the queen sacrifice and Bryntse
declined lines.
Martin Prorok E. Nagy
Balatonlelle 2009
8 Be6+ Kc6 9 Bxg4 e6 10 Nc3 Nd7
[FEN "r2q1b1r/pp1n2pp/2k1p3/2p3N1/
4pPB1/2N5/PPPP2PP/R1B1K2R w KQ - 0 11"]
Mackenzie did not say in his article how he would have met this move.
White's treatment in this game does not seem to accord with his (or Brynte's)
way of playing the gambit and yet eventually he comes out on top.
11 Bxe6 Nf6 12 Nf7 Qe7 13 Bc4 a6 14 a4 Rd8 15 Nxh8 Rd4 16 Nf7 Ng4
16...Rxc4? 17 Ne5+.
17 Ba2 Qh4+ 18 g3 Qh3
Black has achieved some activity with the queen, but his rook is badly placed.
19 Ne5+ Nxe5 20 fxe5 Be7 21 Ne2 Qg2 22 Rf1 Qxh2 23 Be6 h5 24 Ra3
[FEN "8/1p2b1p1/p1k1B3/2p1P2p/P2rp3/
R5P1/1PPPN2q/2B1KR2 b - - 0 24"]
A very strange position. Although the white queen's bishop never moves in
the whole game, he seems to be winning.
24...h4 25 gxh4 Qxe5 26 Bf5 Bxh4+ 27 Kd1 Bg5 28 Nxd4+ cxd4 29 Rh3
Bf4 30 Bh7 Qe6 31 Rh4 g5 32 Rhxf4 gxf4 33 Rxf4 Kc7 34 Bxe4 Qg8 35
Bd3 Qg3 36 Rf1 10
The Bryntse Gambit seems to work well in correspondence chess. Wladyslaw
Krol of Poland, an ICCF Senior International Master (a title with no FIDE
equivalent) has played many games with it over several years. Here are two of
his wins and a draw:
Wladyslaw Krol Jose Roberto Morau
IECG correspondence 2007
1 e4 c5 2 f4 d5 3 Nf3 dxe4 4 Ng5 Nf6 5 Bc4 Bg4 6 Bxf7+ Kd7 7 Qxg4+
Nxg4 8 Be6+ Kc7 9 Bxg4 Qe8 10 Ne6+ Kb6
[FEN "rn2qb1r/pp2p1pp/1k2N3/2p5/4pPB1/
8/PPPP2PP/RNB1K2R w KQ - 0 11"]
11 b4!?
In his article, Mackenzie published two games against computers that reached
this position. He preferred 11 d3, in order to prevent Black playing 11...Qg6,
which would be prettily refuted by 12 Na3!! Qxg4 13 Nc4+ Kb5 14 a4+ Kc6
(14...Ka6 15 Nc7#) 15 Ne5+.
One of his games continued 11...h5 12 Bh3 and the other went 11...exd3 12
Na3. He wrote, "Sacrificing another pawn or two... The main thing is to get
all of his pieces developed as quickly as possible."
11...Qg6!
This was the move Mackenzie wanted to prevent, but White still seems to
have sufficient resources.
12 bxc5+ Kc6 13 Bh3 Nd7 14 Ba3 Qf6 15 Nc3 Qh4+ 16 Kd1 Nf6
[FEN "r4b1r/pp2p1pp/2k1Nn2/2P5/4pP1q/
B1N4B/P1PP2PP/R2K3R w - - 0 17"]
17 Kc1
Maybe 17 Rb1 is better as there seems no immediate need to run away with
the king.
17...b6 18 Rb1 g6 19 Rb3 Kb7?
Far from making the black king safer, this move assists White. The usual
problem has arisen that White improves piece coordination while Black finds
it hard to make his other pieces cooperate with the queen.
20 cxb6 axb6 21 Bc5 Nd7 22 Bd4 Bh6 23 Nd5
White is rightly uninterested in grabbing the exchange, which is on offer at
h8. The central bishop, radiating power in all directions, is stronger than the
rook.
23...Kc6 24 Nxb6 Nxb6 25 Rxb6+ Kd7 26 Rb7+ Kc6 27 Rc7+ Kb5 28 Rc5
+ Ka6 29 Nc7+ Kb7
[FEN "r6r/1kN1p2p/6pb/2R5/3BpP1q/
7B/P1PP2PP/2K4R w - - 0 30"]
White now executes a problem-like manoeuvre to bring the king's rook into
action.
30 Kb2! Ra4 31 Ka1! Rxd4 32 Rb1+ 10
Wladyslaw Krol Francisco Rubio Doblas
IECG correspondence 2001
1 e4 c5 2 f4 d5 3 Nf3 dxe4 4 Ng5 Nf6 5 Bc4 e6 6 Nc3 a6 7 a4 Be7 8 Ncxe4
Nxe4 9 Nxe4 00 10 Qh5 b6 11 Ng5 h6 12 h4
[FEN "rnbq1rk1/4bpp1/pp2p2p/2p3NQ/
P1B2P1P/8/1PPP2P1/R1B1K2R b KQ - 0 12"]
12...Nc6 13 Bd3 f5 14 Qg6 hxg5 15 hxg5 Bxg5 16 fxg5 Ne5 17 Qh5 Nxd3+
18 cxd3 Qc7 19 Kd1 Rd8 20 b4 Kf8 21 Bb2 Qf7 22 g6 Qg8 23 Qg5 Ke8 24
Rh7 e5 25 Qh4 10
Wladyslaw Krol Gino Figlio
ICCF correspondence 2005
1 e4 c5 2 f4 d5 3 Nf3 dxe4 4 Ng5 Nf6 5 Bc4 e6 6 Nc3 Be7 7 Ncxe4 Nxe4 8

Nxe4 Nc6 9 d3 00 10 a3 b6 11 00 Bb7 12 Bd2 Nd4 13 c3 Nf5 14 Qe2
Qd7 15 Bb3 Rad8 16 Bc2 Ba6 17 Rf3 Bb7 18 Rh3 Qd5 19 Rf1 a6 20 g4
Nd6 21 c4 Qc6 22 Bc3 g6
[FEN "3r1rk1/1b2bp1p/ppqnp1p1/2p5/
2P1NPP1/P1BP3R/1PB1Q2P/5RK1 w - - 0 23"]
23 f5 Nxe4 24 dxe4 Bg5 25 Rhf3 Qc7 26 Qf2 e5 27 h4 Bf4 28 Rxf4 exf4 29

Qxf4 Qxf4 30 Rxf4 Rfe8 31 e5 Bc8 32 b4 h5 33 e6 gxf5 34 Rxf5 Rxe6 35
Rg5+ Kf8 36 Rxh5 Ke7 37 g5 Re8 38 Kf2 Kd8 39 Bf6+ Kc7 40 Bd1 Re4
41 Rh7 Kd6 42 Bf3 Rxc4 43 bxc5+ bxc5 44 Rxf7 Rxh4 45 g6 Rh6 46 g7
Rg8 47 Bc3
Postscripts
After my league game, my opponent said that I should have played my knight
to e5 not g5, which surprised me, but I see that this also has been written
about on the Internet. Since the knight going to e4 is characteristic of the
Fajarowicz variation in the Budapest, the line here has been called the
"Bryntse-Faj."
1 e4 c5 2 f4 d5 3 Nf3 dxe4 4 Ne5
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pp2pppp/8/2p1N3/4pP2/8/
PPPP2PP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 4"]
After my aforementioned league game, my opponent immediately said that

this move is better than 4 Ng5 and maybe he is right. However, it does not
involve a queen sacrifice so I shall not discuss this in any detail.
An article about this by Michael Goeller was posted in December last year.
One trap that has occurred in Internet play is 4Nf6 5 d3 exd3 6 Bxd3 g6 7
Nxf7 Kxf7 8 Bxg6+.
White can also play the same way against the Caro-Kann all the same
moves except that Black's pawn is less actively placed on c6 instead of c5.
That is, 1 e4 c6 2 f4 d5 3 Nf3 dxe4 and now of course White will definitely
play 4 Ng5 not 4 Ne5, because he has no checks on the a4-e8 diagonal. Krol
has tried this. One main difference after the gambit is accepted is that, the
square c6 being unavailable, Black must play his king back to e8. Then
Mackenzie thinks White has nothing better than taking the draw, and also he
thinks that the 5...e6 line is more troublesome for White with ...c6 than in the
Sicilian version.
Readers' Responses
Brian Gosling from the UK Many thanks for Tim's review of John Brown
which I am happy with. As expected I slightly disagree with his: "By no
means was it the case that the majority of Brown's compositions were
published in the Illustrated London News" In ch.V of the book, I list J.B's
compositions that appeared in the ILN for certain periods and I stand by my
original statement that most of JB compositions were originally published in
the ILN.
Patrick from the Netherlands Tim, you missed one book in the Chess
Secrets series, also by Pritchett: Heroes of Classical Chess. In that book the
author discusses Smyslov and a few other giants like Anand and Fischer.
Louis from the USA Smyslov, along with Rubinstein, Fischer, Anand, and
Carlsen were covered by Chess Secrets: Heroes of Classical Chess by Craig
Pritchett.
Tim Harding The title mentioned does not appear to have been sent to me
for review.
Tony from the USA I understand what you meant but just a small quibble
with your comment about post modern. Postmodernism is a concept that
encompasses a wide range of ideals, methods and practices. It is more
importantly not a philosophical movement in itself, but rather, incorporates a
number of philosophical and critical methods that can be considered
'postmodern', the most familiar include feminism and post-structuralism.
Julian from the USA In his column Mr. Harding mentions that Lasker's
biography by Hannak is now outdated and more complete or thorough works
are available. Does he have any particular works in mind? If he could list
some in a future column, it would be very helpful.
Editor Emanuel Lasker Denker Weltenbrger Schachweltmeister edited by
Richard Forster, Stefan Hansen, and Michael Negele, 1,079pp. (Berlin, 2009).
Hans Renette from the Netherlands A bit more information on Speyer in
Richmond (1912) can be found at http://kranten.kb.nl. There are two articles
on this subject published in the Algemeen Handelsblad (August 3 and August
24). In the article from August 3, it is stated that Speyer isn't a member
anymore of the Dutch chess bond and thus cannot participate in the Dutch
championship. The game between Speyer and Wahltuch was published in
another newspaper: Het nieuws van den dag voor Nederlandsch-Indie, on
June 14, 1913.
Craig Pritchett from the UK With regards to my reference to "postmodern" in Giants of Innovation (p.80). The phrase is used in a
straightforward dictionary sense and I certainly don't labour the concept! It is
linked directly at pp.80-81 (on the only two occasions I use it) to the explicitly
"modern" ideas of Steinitz. Steinitz consciously used such terms as "modern

ideas" and "modern school" frequently and linked his and others' development
of them to specific historic moments (I mention two of these L. Paulsen's
early 1860s influence and the Steinitz & Potter analyses of the later LondonVienna correspondence games in chapter one on Steinitz). I am a little
surprised that anyone could doubt that Lasker (perhaps particularly) did not
both drink in Steinitz's teachings and adapt them in accordance with his own
fighting and especially highly calculating playing style; i.e., in a positive, if
sceptical, forward-looking "post modern" way, in the very low-key sense that
I actually define and use the term in context. I trust I'm not really so "vague"
or "anachronistic"!

Correspondence Chess at a Crossroads?

Since Bo Bredenhof began the CC Chronicles column at ChessCafe.com, I
have largely left such matters to him. Nevertheless, as the author of some
books on correspondence chess and one-time editor of the CC-specialist
magazine Chess Mail (from 1996 to 2005), I still feel qualified to write about
this topic.
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Translate this page
Purchases from our

accessible:
Despite predictions made in the 1990s that the rise of computer engines was
sure to kill off the correspondence game, the reverse seemed to happen in the
early "Noughties". True, many veteran players who did not adapt to the
computer era, gave up the game altogether, while some die-hards still
continued to play by post and complain about opponents who used Fritz and
its cousins. By now, most of the latter group have probably given up CC also,
while a few may have been gradually converted.
The numbers in these two groups were greatly outweighed by the new, mostly
young, players who took up email chess once the Internet became widely
available. There were also many former postal players in countries (especially
in the former USSR and Latin-America) where the international postal service
had virtually broken down but now found it was easy and cheap to play by
email.
Chess Miniatures
by Tim Harding
For a few years, the predominance of the International Correspondence Chess

Federation (ICCF) was challenged by rivals, partly because of some poor
decisions made by its leadership in the early twenty-first century, in particular
some poor rules decisions, and missing the chance to introduce server play
sooner, perhaps with the superior Chessfriend software. However, anyone
who had hopes of making serious money with CC servers has probably been
disappointed.
By now ICCF seems to have seen off the competition and is re-established as
the only place to play if you want recognition in the form of international
titles and ratings.

the games from
The Kaufman Repertoire

by Larry Kaufman
It is also a fact that in the late 1990s and early 2000s, that while supercomputers could beat grandmasters at chess, the average home PC and
commercially available software was still beatable by CC masters, who used
mostly traditional methods to select their moves. I think that is no longer the
case. At one time it was an interesting challenge to outwit the computer but
that is rarely possible now.
ICCF has always allowed unlimited use of computers in its competitions, on
the grounds that any ban is unenforceable and would only favour those who
break it. The main problem that I see is that its rating list is becoming
increasingly meaningless. Tournaments at most levels now principally test
computer skills, and are won by those who have the money to upgrade their
computer hardware annually and purchase the latest software. When the rating
list loses its meaning, so do the title norms calculated on the basis of them,
and ultimately the master titles themselves. Up to about the year 2005, you
could be pretty sure that anyone who earned the ICCF grandmaster or senior
international master title was a strong player. You would probably need to
have been at least a 2000 player over-the-board (at least at some stage in your
playing career) to distinguish between good computer advice and bad.
Nowadays, between opponents who are operating similar hardware and
software, chess judgment and knowledge doubtless can still make a difference
(especially in selection of openings), but, with computer power doubling
every two years, a player who uses old equipment can easily be beaten by a
SOS 14
by Jeroen Bosch
weaker opponent.
Another big change that occurred in the last decade was that email
correspondence chess was gradually replaced by CC on web-servers, which
had many advantages, not least that the age-old problems of the clerical error
and arguments over timekeeping were finally eliminated. As a result many of
the small and often informal email correspondence chess clubs that evolved in
the early years of the Net no longer exist, though a few survive. Also some
traditional CC clubs, such as the British Correspondence Chess Society
(BCCS), no longer exist, although the world's oldest club, the British
Correspondence Association (founded 1906) still flourishes, running a
mixture of postal and email events, and competitions run on the ICCF webserver.
It is noteworthy that the BCCA, like some American clubs, still has a rule
forbidding computer engine use. You are allowed to do opening preparation
using databases, but not to switch on the engine or use endgame tablebases.
Over the past winter, having not played much CC in the last five years, I
entered two ICCF master tournaments and one BCCA event. I very carefully
observed the no-computer rule in the latter. I did not do very well in any of
these tournaments (the two ICCF ones are still ongoing) but scored a few wins
and more losses. I must say that I enjoyed the BCCA games more, flawed
though they were, and (having analysed them with the engine after the event
was over) I believe my opponents were also being honest. When all the games
are finished, later this year I hope, I intend to write another column where I
shall show a few of the games, or excerpts, that illustrate the difference
between computer-aided and computer-free CC.
In Bredenhof's March 2012 column, the one that is current at the time this
article is being posted, he discusses a few points on which I should like to
comment.
He asks firstly, are there too many draws in CC? Certainly in the old postal
days, I used to look at tournament crosstables in Fernschach magazine and
see that seven-player tournaments were frequently won with 6/6 and even in
fifteen-player events, scores of 13/14 or better were by no means abnormal,
even in master class. Nowadays a score of +5 is likely to at least tie first in a
thirteen-player event (8/12) and +6 or +7 (11 or 11 points) can win a
fifteen-player tournament. There is a high likelihood of avoiding defeat in a
slightly worse position if you have up-to-date hardware and software. Typical
"plus over minus" positional advantages from the opening will not win unless
you can convert them into a more concrete endgame advantage, while
initiative-based attacks that would almost invariably lead to victory over-theboard may be defended successfully by ice-cool computer calculation.
Bredenhof thinks it is OK for tournaments to be won with a +4 or +5 score,
but rejects the proposal to switch to soccer-type scoring of three points for a
win and one for a draw, except perhaps as a tie-break system. The three-point
scoring has been used for some OTB events (such as the super-grandmaster
tournament in London last December), but is not really suitable for CC
because a player who scored some draws early on might then fall ill and his
opponents get an easy three points against him, and other random factors
could occur. Also I don't see how the 3-1 system, if adopted universally, could
be compatible with the present ICCF rating system. Would ratings be
calculated on the 3-1 system or the old system? If the latter, many players
heading for a mid-table position would quickly aim for draws to preserve their
ratings once it was clear that first prize was unachievable.
I rather disagree with Bredenhof that the Sonneborn-Berger tie-break system
is fair. OK, as he says, it does give credit for beating stronger opponents, but
inevitably (since total scores are equal) it means that the same player has also
dropped a loss or two, or more draws, to weaker opponents? I do not see why
an inconsistent pattern of results is preferable to a consistent one? Maybe the
win against the higher-placed opponent was a freak, caused by the latter
making a blunder against this player but not against his rival who had the
inferior SB?
End of the Old CC Scene
When I was editing my magazine and active in ICCF, there was a lively group
of people running CC websites, from America and elsewhere, many of whom
were veterans of the old postal days. It seems the torch has passed to a new
generation, as many of these sites seem to be inactive now. Increasingly, I am
having to drop links from my, now non-commercial, website as I find that
they are broken or the linked sites inactive. So far as I can tell, there is no
longer anything new happening at its parent site, the once very popular
CorrespondenceChess.com, which was established by John Knudsen in the
1990s and taken over later by Grayling V. Hill. This used to be connected
with The Correspondence Chess Message Board (TCCMB), which is still
online (as a Bravenet Forum) but appears close to death through lack of
support. There was nothing really happening on TCCMB since 2007 anyway;
attempts to re-establish it after the ICCF closed its forum did not succeed.
It seems that the old CC scene of the late 1990s and early 2000s is effectively
finished. The network of enthusiasts who helped build the email game during
that period have drifted away from chess, or at least from CC. In part this may
have just happened through non-chess-related life-changes as we grew older,
but no doubt the computer issue was a major factor.
Another was the duration of games. Whenever I have tried to recruit for CC
some strong OTB players in their forties or fifties who played some CC in the
postal days, I find three reasons for refusal. One is the computer engine
question. The others are that games take too much time to conduct (the time
spent on analysis), and the other is that tournaments drag on too long. If you
are playing a tournament and not doing well, you would prefer it to end
reasonably quickly and try to better in another, while if you are successful,
you would prefer to complete your qualification rather than wait for one or
two games that drag on a further year.
I think that one of the big problems that affected ICCF was allowing too much
time per move, and in particular the carrying over of unused time. In the
postal era, the rate of play was three days per move (i.e., thirty days for ten
moves) with zero days counting if you posted your reply the day the move
came in. Some players used the time that moves were in the post to analyse;
others did not. Depending on how far away your opponent lived, you might
play a move a week or a move a month. With the Internet, abolishing
transmission time, ICCF changed to ten moves in fifty or sometimes sixty or
seventy days. That is far too long in my opinion because it leads to huge
accumulations of time by both players.
Perhaps fifty or sixty days for the first ten moves, or even the first twenty, is
fair enough because the amount of openings research and analysis required
when starting a high-level tournament against a dozen opponents can be huge.
There should, however, be a strict limit on how much unused time can be
carried on to subsequent time controls. I have one opponent who, at move
forty-six, has currently 112 days in hand and so he only bothers to make a
move once every ten or fourteen days. In between, such is the position, he
probably does not look at the game at all but is just dragging it out. ICCF has
now restored an old rule so that after twenty silent days, each day counts
double, but maybe that should apply after fourteen days when the server sends
its first warning.
The implementation of the crucial final day of the time control is also wrong
in ICCF, in my opinion. This is because if you send twenty-three hours and
fifty-eight seconds of any day and then make your move, you get the whole
day restored; only whole days are counted when your clock is not running.
This was an attempt to mimic the old postal chess rule where, if you got into a
situation where you had zero days for two moves, you could avoid
overstepping by making same-day replies. However, the time between the
postman's delivery and the last collection from your local post box might only
be five or six hours; you did not have twenty-four hours to make a same-day
reply. On the server, you have to make (say) the fortieth move before your
time runs out, but if you are at move thirty-five and your clock shows one
day, you can stretch this out, so in reality there is little pressure. You know
you have almost six days to decide on those moves, one day for each, and an
email notification comes to you as soon as the opponent moves and your
clock starts running. Nobody loses on time in ICCF web-server chess except
deliberately (because they don't like resigning) or accidentally (going on
holiday without booking their leave).
A Game for Gary Lane's Readers
I also read Gary Lane's April 2012 column, and offer a correspondence game
here that is relevant. Following Lane's publication in March of a game BaloghPonkratov, Moscow 2012, in which Black tried the move 5Nge7, a reader
from Surinam pointed out that a miniature correspondence game with this
move was played in 1969 and included in a booklet on the variation by Jimmy
Adams. As it happens, I found a much earlier example of it, while doing the
research for my book Correspondence Chess in Britain and Ireland, 18241987. As I show there, W. Hatton-Ward (who was White in the following
game) organised numerous correspondence matches and tournaments through
his chess column in the Referee, a Sunday newspaper. He was also organiser
of two master tournaments in London, in 1932 and 1946.
W. Hatton-Ward F. P. Reynolds
Referee readers correspondence match, London v Provinces, 1926
From The Referee, 11 April 1926
Ruy Lopez Schliemann [C63]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 f5 4 Nc3 fxe4 5 Nxe4 Nge7
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/ppppn1pp/2n5/1B2p3/4N3/
5N2/PPPP1PPP/R1BQK2R w KQkq - 0 6"]
6 d4 d5
Much better than 6...exd4? played in the 1969 game Norlin-Williams.
7 Neg5?!
This leads to an unsound knight sacrifice. The correct line is 7 Nc3 e4 8 Ne5
as in Balogh-Ponkratov.
7...h6! 8 Nxe5?! hxg5 9 Bxg5 Qd6 10 00 Bd7
Clearly White has some tactical opportunities but a piece should be a piece.
Here Black evidently hopes to be able to castle queenside, but this will not be
easy to arrange because of the potential fork by Nf7. Black could also
consider 10...a6 or 10...Be6.
11 Bxc6 Nxc6
This is the best recapture because it seeks to exchange the e5-knight.
12 Re1
12 Qf3!? is more direct but after 12...Be6 Black should still be better.
[FEN "r3kb1r/pppb2p1/2nq4/3pN1B1/3P4/
8/PPP2PPP/R2QR1K1 b kq - 0 12"]
12...Nxe5??
Black falls into the trap. 12...Be7! makes it doubtful whether the piece
sacrifice is justifiable.
13 Rxe5+?!
This is the routine reply but since the knight cannot run away, White should
have first played 13 Qf3! Be6 14 Rxe5 Kd7 15 Rae1 Re8 16 g3 (to rule out
"cheapos" on h2) and it is hard for Black to escape the bind because c2-c4 is
coming, and if 16...Kc8 17 Qe2 Kd7 (17...Qd7 18 Rxe6 emerging two pawns
ahead) 18 c4 is very strong; e.g., 18...Qa6 (18...c6 19 c5; 18...Qc6 19 cxd5) 19
cxd5 Qxe2 20 dxe6+.
13...Be6?
13...Kf7 14 Qf3+ Kg8 was the correct defence.
14 f4
Instead of this crude attempt to regain the sacrificed piece, White should play
14 Qf3 transposing to the note to move thirteen.
14...g6?
After this move, which prevents f4-f5 but creates a new weakness, White is
on top again. 14...Kf7 was necessary. The position remains complicated but
Black retains hopes of long-term survival and even success; e.g., 15 f5 Bd7 16
Qf3 Re8.
15 Qd3 Kf7 16 Rae1 Bd7 17 f5!
[FEN "r4b1r/pppb1k2/3q2p1/3pRPB1/3P4/
3Q4/PPP3PP/4R1K1 b - - 0 17"]
17...gxf5
This makes matters worse. 17...Kg8 is the toughest defence, but White can
obtain winning chances by 18 f6 Bf5 19 f7+ Kh7 (19...Kg7 20 Rxf5 gxf5 21
Qxf5 Qxh2+ 22 Kf2) and now the best move may be 20 f3 when White
should win in the end. After 20 Qd2, White stands better but many
complications lie ahead. Also possible is 20 Qe3!? but 20 Rxf5 gxf5 21 Re5
(21 Qxf5+? Qg6 or 21 Qh3+ Bh6) is possibly insufficient.
18 Rxf5+ Kg8
If 18...Bxf5 19 Qxf5+ Kg7 20 Bf4 with a strong attack.
19 Bf4 Bxf5 20 Qxf5 Qd8
[FEN "r2q1bkr/ppp5/8/3p1Q2/3P1B2/
8/PPP3PP/4R1K1 w - - 0 21"]
21 Bg5?
White offered a draw, which Black accepted, pointing out that the Referee
columnist had missed 21 Qe6+ Kh7 22 Re3 Qh4 23 Rh3 which wins the
queen. In fact, 23 Qf7+ is even stronger and mates in nine further moves: 23...
Bg7 24 Be5 Rhg8 25 Qf5+ Kh8 26 Rh3, etc.
Two High-level Games
To conclude this month's column, I present two high-level CC games which
recently finished after being presented (without any commentary) on the
ICCF web-server while they were being played. They were played on top
board in a friendly match Finland versus the Netherlands. Both players are
ICCF grandmasters; the Dutch player is also a FIDE international master of
long standing, and well known for his unusual opening choices, as can be seen
here.
Dick van Geet Auvo Kujala
Netherlands-Finland corr. match 2010-12
Nimzowitsch-Larsen Attack [A01]
1 b3 e5 2 Bb2 Nc6 3 Nf3
This is a specialty of Van Geet and other Dutch masters, instead of the usual 3
e3 or 3 c4. White aims to clear the long diagonal for his fianchettoed bishop.
3...e4 4 Nd4 Nxd4
4...Nf6 is also possible. There are examples of it in the book on 1 b3 by Byron
Jacobs and Jonathan Tait (Game Twenty-one) but not in the more
idiosyncratic book on 1 b3 by Odessky.
5 Bxd4 d5
I wonder how White intended to improve upon 5...Nf6 6 c4 Be7 7 Nc3 00 8
Qc2 d5 9 cxd5 Nxd5 10 Nxd5 Qxd5 11 Qc3 Rd8 12 e3 c5 13 Bxg7 Qg5 14
Be5 Rd5 15 Bf4 Qg6 16 Bc4 Bf6 17 Qc2 Rd3 18 000 Be6 19 f3 b5 20
Bxe6 fxe6 21 fxe4 c4 22 Rhf1 Rc8 23 e5 Bg7 24 Kb2 Qe4 25 Ka1 Rc5 26
Rb1 Qd5 27 e4 Qxe4 28 Rbe1 Qd5 29 Rc1 Qd6 30 Kb1 Qd4 31 Qb2 Qe4 32
Rc2 c3 33 Qc1 Bxe5 34 Be3 Rc7 35 Rf3 h5 36 Bh6 cxd2 37 Bxd2 Qd4 38
Rxc7 Rxd2 01, (Van GeetA. Soltau, Mostert memorial corr. 2006).
6 e3
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/ppp2ppp/8/3p4/3Bp3/
1P2P3/P1PP1PPP/RN1QKB1R b KQkq - 0 6"]
6...Ne7
Van Geet has also met the following:
a) 6...Nh6 7 d3 Nf5 8 Bb2 exd3 9 Bxd3 and now
a1) 9...Be7 10 c4 dxc4 11 bxc4 Bf6 12 Nc3 c6 13 Qc2 Qa5 14 00 00 15
Rab1 Be6 16 Ne2 Bxb2 17 Rxb2 b6 18 Nf4 Qe5 19 Nxe6 fxe6 20 g4! Nh4 21
Bxh7+ Kh8 22 Be4 Nf3+ 23 Bxf3 Rxf3 24 Re1 Raf8 25 Re2 g5 26 Kg2 R3f7
27 Qd3! c5 28 h3 Rf3 29 Qg6 R3f6 30 Qb1 R6f7 31 Rbd2 Kg8 32 Qc2 Kg7
33 Rd1 Rf6 34 Rd7+ R8f7 35 Rxf7+ Rxf7 36 Rd2 Rc7 37 a4 Kf6 38 f4! Qxe3
39 Re2 Qd4 40 fxg5+ Ke7 41 Rd2 Qg7 42 Qd3 10, (Van Geet-V.
Palciauskas, H-W. von Massow memorial corr, 1996).
a2) 9...Bb4+ 10 c3 Bc5 11 00 00 12 c4 dxc4 13 bxc4! Re8 14 Nc3 h6 15
Qc2 Nh4 16 Ne4 Bf8 17 Rad1 Qe7 18 Ng3 Be6 19 Bd4! c5 20 Bb2 Rad8 21
e4 Qc7 22 f4?! (better 22 Kh1) 22...b5! 23 Nh5 bxc4 24 Be2! Rxd1 25 Rxd1
Bc8 26 Re1 Qd7 27 Bc3 Nxg2?! 28 Kxg2 Rxe4 1-0, (Van Geet-Palciauskas,
H-W. von Massow memorial corr, 1996). White had prepared the reply 29
Kg1 but Black lost on time.
b) 6...Nf6 7 c4 Bf5 8 Nc3 dxc4 9 Bxc4 Bd6 10 f3 Nh5 11 00 Qh4 12 f4 00
13 g3 Qh3 14 Rf2 Bg4 15 Bf1 Bxd1 16 Bxh3 Bc2 17 Bf5 Rfe8 18 g4 g6 19
gxh5 gxf5 20 Nd5 Kf8 21 Rg2 Red8 22 h6 c6 23 Nf6 Ke7 24 Nxh7 Ba3 25
Bf6+ Ke6 26 Bc3 Bd3 27 Rg7 Be7 28 Ng5+ Bxg5 29 fxg5 Be2 30 g6 fxg6 31
Rxg6+ Kf7 32 Rg7+ Ke6 33 Rxb7 10, Van GeetT. Craig, CC Olympiad
XV 2003,
7 Bb2
Jacobs & Tait's book gives here an illustrative game with 7 c4 (WellingMinasian, Cappelle la Grande 1996) but Van Geet proceeds in noncommittal
style and tempts Black to hang himself.
7 Qh5 is not Van Geet's style in this line. An example from another player
who uses the 3 Nf3 line went 7...Be6 8 d3 Nc6 9 dxe4 Nxd4 10 exd4 dxe4 11
Qb5+ c6 12 Qxb7 Rc8 13 c3 Rc7 14 Qa6 Bb4 15 a3 Qg5 16 axb4 Qc1+ 17
Ke2 Bg4+ 18 f3 Qc2+ 19 Nd2 exf3+ 20 gxf3 Re7+ 21 Kf2 Qxd2+ 22 Kg3
Re3 23 Bg2? (Here White appears to have missed a drawing line: 23 Qxc6+
Bd7 24 Qa8+ Ke7 25 Qxh8 [not 25 Qd5 Re6] 25...Rxf3+ 26 Kxf3 Bc6+ 27
Kg4 Bd7+ draws) 23...h5 24 h3 Rxf3+ 25 Bxf3 h4+ 26 Kxg4 f5+ 27 Kxf5 00
+ 28 Ke4 Re8+ 29 Kf5 Qe3 30 Kg4 Rf8 01, F. BendigP. Daus, IECG corr.
2006.
7...Nc6
7...Nf5 would transpose to Van Geet-Franzen, above, if White replied 8 d3.
8 d3
8 Nc3 Bf5 9 Ne2 h5 10 Ng3 Bg4 11 Be2 Bxe2 12 Qxe2 Qg5 13 h4 Qg6 14 0
00 Bd6 15 Rh3 000 16 d3 f6 17 dxe4 dxe4 18 Qb5 Rd7 19 Qf5 Qxf5 20
Nxf5 Rhd8 21 Nxd6+ Rxd6 22 Rxd6 , was Van Geet-C. Flores
Gutierrez, Mostert memorial corr. 2006.
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/ppp2ppp/2n5/3p4/4p3/
1P1PP3/PBP2PPP/RN1QKB1R b KQkq - 0 8"]
8...Qg5
Perhaps this is too optimistic. It is not easy to identify the fatal error by Black.
9 Nc3 Bb4
Maybe this is already bad. Black concedes the bishop-pair too readily and
White thereafter exploits his dark square superiority.
10 a3 Bxc3+ 11 Bxc3 Bg4 12 Qd2 00 13 h3 Be6 14 000 Qe7 15 Bb2 f6
16 g4 a5 17 Bg2
[FEN "r4rk1/1pp1q1pp/2n1bp2/p2p4/4p1P1/
PP1PP2P/1BPQ1PB1/2KR3R b - - 0 17"]
17...exd3
This is where the computer indicates that Black goes wrong, opening lines for
his opponent.
18 Qxd3 Rfd8 19 f4 Rd6 20 Rhe1 Rad8 21 Bf3 Bf7
After this move White is able to force a favourable queenless middlegame.
22 Qb5 Qd7 23 a4
To open a new diagonal for the queen's bishop.
23...b6 24 Ba3 Na7
There is no other way to save the exchange but the queen swap progresses
White's plans.
25 Qxd7 R6xd7 26 g5
[FEN "3r2k1/n1pr1bpp/1p3p2/p2p2P1/
P4P2/BP2PB1P/2P5/2KRR3 b - - 0 26"]
White increases the scope of his bishops and his advantage is probably
decisive now in top-level CC.
26...f5
26...fxg5 loses the exchange after 27 Bg4.
27 h4 Nc8 28 h5 c6 29 Bb2 Ne7 30 Rd2 Kf8 31 Red1 Be6 32 Bd4 c5 33
Bb2 Bf7 34 Rh1 Be6 35 h6 g6 36 Rhd1 Kf7 37 Bf6 c4 38 Kb2 Rc8 39 Be2
cxb3 40 cxb3 Ra7 41 Bb5 Rcc7 42 Be5 Rcb7 43 Bd4 Rb8 44 Rc1 Bd7 45
Rdc2
The bishop-pair has done its work. The remaining bishop is clearly superior to
Black's knight and White will count on superior rook activity. The doubled bpawn is only temporary: the old a-pawn will become a passed c-pawn
eventually. That, too, is only a temporary phase as White must have foreseen
the single rook ending that eventually arises.
45...Bxb5 46 axb5 Rbb7
[FEN "8/rr2nk1p/1p4pP/pP1p1pP1/
3B1P2/1P2P3/1KR5/2R5 w - - 0 47"]
47 Rc6
Black must accept the temporary exchange offer because otherwise the bpawn falls.
47...Nxc6 48 bxc6 Rb8 49 c7 Rc8 50 Bxb6 Ra6 51 Rc6 Ke8 52 Rd6
In view of the threat Rd8+, Black must return the material and go into a rook
ending.
52...Rxb6 53 Rxb6 Rxc7 54 Rb5 Re7 55 Rxa5
[FEN "4k3/4r2p/6pP/R2p1pP1/5P2/
1P2P3/1K6/8 b - - 0 55"]
55...Rxe3
The alternative is also lost: 55...Kf7 56 Rxd5 Rb7 57 Re5 and the two extra
pawns must win in the end.
56 Ra8+ Kd7
If 56...Kf7 57 Rh8 Re2+ 58 Kc1 Rf2 59 Rxh7+.
57 Ra7+ Kc6 58 Rxh7 d4 59 Rg7 Re2+ 60 Kc1 Rh2 61 Rxg6+ Kd5 62 Rg8
Ke4 63 g6 Rxh6 64 g7 Rh1+ 65 Kb2 Rg1 66 Re8+ Kd3 67 g8Q Rg2+
[FEN "4R1Q1/8/8/5p2/3p1P2/1P1k4/
1K4r1/8 w - - 0 68"]
A little joke: 68 Qxg2 would now be stalemate.

68 Ka3 10
The other game was more dramatic.
Auvo Kujala Dick Van Geet
Finland-Netherlands corr. Match 2010-12
Modern Defence, Ujtelky Variation [B06]
1 e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 Nf3 d6 4 Nc3 a6
First played by M. Ujtelky against Kholmov and Spassky at the Chigorin
memorial tournament in Sochi 1964.
5 Bc4 b5
Ujtelky and subsequent adopters of the line usually played 5...e6, followed
by ...Ne7, with a cramped hedgehog system. Van Geet's provocative move
aims to improve on this by gaining some space on the queenside first.
According to ChessBase's Mega Database, it seems to originate from N.
Radev-J. Trapl, Decin 1975.
6 Bb3 e6 7 00 Nd7
[FEN "r1bqk1nr/2pn1pbp/p2pp1p1/1p6/3PP3/
1BN2N2/PPP2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 w kq - 0 8"]
There have been some previous correspondence games in this line but not
involving grandmasters.
8 e5
There are no other examples of this in my CC database. The move, which
invites Black to lock the centre, was played by Tal in a simultaneous game
that reached the position by a slightly different move order. Instead, 8 a4 b4 9
Ne2 has been played with mixed success in CC and unsuccessfully in OTB
master games. 8 Re1 has also been seen.
8...Ne7 9 Ng5 d5 10 Ne2 c5 11 c3 cxd4 12 cxd4 a5
Creating queenside counterplay.
13 Ng3 Nc6 14 Bc2 a4 15 Nf3 Ba6 16 h4 Rc8 17 h5 00
[FEN "2rq1rk1/3n1pbp/b1n1p1p1/1p1pP2P/
p2P4/5NN1/PPB2PP1/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 0 18"]
This looks risky but how else to get the king's rook into play?
18 Ng5!?
White commits to a direct attack. 18 Bg5 Qb6 19 h6 Bh8 20 Rc1 Nb4 21 Bb1
would be the quiet way to go.
18...Nxd4!?
This move initiates huge complications. Perhaps it was based on a
miscalculation but of course both players may have analysed the variations
much deeper than I have done. It would be a good challenge for readers to try
to get to the bottom of this position. On the face of it, Black does not obtain
enough for the knight. Instead, 18...b4 looks playable.
19 hxg6!
An important zwischenzug. After 19 Qxd4?, there is the following:
a) 19...Rxc2?! 20 hxg6! although this is unclear because Black can play 20...
Rxc1 21 gxf7+ Rxf7 22 Raxc1 Qxg5.
b) 19...Nxe5! and the queen must retreat: 20 Qh4 (20 hxg6?? Nf3+) when 20...
Rxc2 21 hxg6 h6! 22 Qh3 Nxg6 23 Nxe6 Bc8 breaks the attack.
19...hxg6
There is nothing better. If 19...h6? (or 19...fxg6 20 Qxd4) 20 gxf7+ Rxf7 21
Bh7+ Kf8 22 Nxf7 Kxf7 23 Qxd4 Bxe5 24 Qg4, White is the exchange ahead
with a strong attack.
20 Qxd4
[FEN "2rq1rk1/3n1pb1/b3p1p1/1p1pP1N1/
p2Q4/6N1/PPB2PP1/R1B2RK1 b - - 0 20"]
20...Rc4
Black cannot recover the piece because after 20...Rxc2 21 Qh4 Re8 22 Qh7+
Kf8 23 Nh5! he must give up the exchange by 23...gxh5 (23...Nxe5? 24
Nxg7) 24 Qxc2 Nxe5 25 Bd2. Nevertheless, the complications are
considerable, as in the game.
21 Qd1 Nxe5
Black has only two pawns for the knight but has opened the long black
diagonal, but is ahead on development since the white rooks are yet to enter
the fight.
22 f4!?
This activates the king's rook in a direct way as well as chasing Black's
knight. The reply is perhaps not the best. 22 Re1 is a calmer way to proceed.
22...Nc6?!
22...Qc7 23 fxe5 (23 Bb1 Rxc1 24 Qxc1 Nc4 is promising for Black.) 23...
Rxc2 may be a better chance.
23 Bd3 a3 24 Rb1 b4 25 Be3!?
If 25 Ne2 Qb6+ 26 Kh2 Rxc1 27 Nxc1 axb2 but maybe 25 Bxc4 Bxc4 26 b3
Bxf1 27 Nxf1 was possible.
[FEN "3q1rk1/5pb1/b1n1p1p1/3p2N1/
1pr2P2/p2BB1N1/PP4P1/1R1Q1RK1 b - - 0 25"]
25...Bxb2?
This perhaps is the decisive mistake. 25...axb2 is probably better but can lead
to almost incalculable fantasy variations; e.g., 26 Qg4 Qe7 27 Qh3 Ra8 Or ...
Rb8 28 Qh7+ Kf8 29 Bxg6 fxg6 30 Qxg6 Rc3 31 f5 (31 Nxe6+!?) 31...Bxf1
32 f6 Bxf6 33 Rxf1 b1Q 34 Rxb1 Rxe3 35 Nh7+ Qxh7 36 Qxh7 Bd4 37 Kh2
Ra7 where it still not clear who stands better.
26 Qg4 Qf6
Another step to perdition? The alternative was 26...f5.
27 Nh5 Qc3 28 Qh3
This threatens Nf6+ in some variations. Black has no time to capture the
tempting bishop.
28...Re8
This gives the king an escape route. If 28...Qxd3? 29 Nf6+ Kg7 30 Ne8+!
forces mate.
Also if 28...gxh5 29 Qxh5 Qg7 (29...Qxd3 30 f5 Rh4 31 Qxh4 Qxe3+ 32 Kh1
Kg7 33 f6+ etc.) 30 Bh7+ Kh8 31 f5 Bf6 (31...f6 32 Bg6+ Kg8 33 fxe6 fxg5
34 Rxf8+ Kxf8 35 Rf1+) 32 fxe6 Bxg5 33 Bg6+ Qh6 (33...Kg8 34 exf7+) 34
Qxh6+ Bxh6 35 Bxh6 White wins eventually.
29 f5!
More fuel is thrown on the fire.
29...exf5
29...Qxd3 30 Nf6+ again forces mate; e.g., 30...Kg7 (30...Kf8 31 Qh8+ Ke7
32 Qxe8+) 31 Qh7+ Kxf6 32 Qxf7+ Ke5 33 Qc7+ Kf6 34 Nh7#.
30 Rxf5
[FEN "4r1k1/5p2/b1n3p1/3p1RNN/1pr5/
p1qBB2Q/Pb4P1/1R4K1 b - - 0 30"]
30...gxf5
30...Rh4 31 Qxh4 gxf5 leads to more beautiful variations: e.g., (31...Bxd3 32
Nf6+ and mates) 32 Nh7 Bxd3 33 Rc1! to deflect a defender of f6, for if 33...
Bxc1 34 N5f6+ forces mate.
31 Qxf5 Nd8 32 Rf1 Rc7
By defending f7 sufficiently, Black's king manages to run away but it is still
doomed.
33 Qh7+ Kf8 34 Qh6+ Ke7 35 Qxa6
Thus the bishop on d3 is defended. The fun is not yet over; Black still has
some counterplay.
35...b3 36 Qb5! bxa2 37 Nf4!
[FEN "3nr3/2r1kp2/8/1Q1p2N1/5N2/
p1qBB3/pb4P1/5RK1 b - - 0 37"]
37...Qc6 38 Qb4+ Kd7 39 Bb5 a1Q

The queen is dead, long live the queen.
40 Rxa1 Bxa1 41 Nxd5 Re5 42 Nb6+ 10
Postscript
Next Saturday, 15 April, I shall speak about some Victorian chess players,
especially Joseph Blackburne, at the Ken Whyld Association's annual meeting
in Norwich, England. Other interesting talks are on the agenda and I hope to
be able to report on this event in the next column.

An Unusual Chess Congress in Norwich

Last month, my wife and I spent a pleasant weekend in Norwich, England, for
a chess congress with a difference. No official chess was played; boards and
clocks were not in evidence. Instead books were on the agenda. This was the
annual meeting of the Ken Whyld Association (KWA), the second time that I
have attended one of these. I joined and spoke about my correspondence chess
history research at the 2005 meeting.
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Purchases from our

accessible:
The KWA was founded in November 2003, named after the English chess
historian Kenneth Whyld who had died that year on 11 July, aged seventyseven. The KWA is an association of chess historians and chess collectors,
numbering now almost 200 members, which meets annually in different
countries, in addition to informal meetings of some members at chess auctions
and congresses from time to time. Most meetings are held on the European
continent and this was the first time the KWA had come to Britain.
Players
by Tim Harding
Translate this page
Giddins, Grondijs, and Stigter
Steve Giddins's chess blog entry for Thursday 19 April described the occasion
as 'an oasis of civilisation', especially when compared with the machinations
of the English Chess Federation on which the former British Chess Magazine
editor frequently commentates. 'Nobody whinging about lost rating points or
missed wins, no ECF scroungers with their hands out, demanding that
everyone present contribute money to their vile organisation, and not an
offensive T-shirt in sight.'
the games from
The Lund Chess Academy in Sweden will launch a new specialised auction/
book trading site on 1 June, designed to give an eBay-style service customised
to the needs of chess players and chess collectors. From each sale a small
commission will go to promoting chess training at the academy. A brief
presentation about this was given at the meeting by the Danish chess historian
Per Skjoldager, whose book Aron Nimzowitsch: On the Road to Chess
Mastery, 1886-1924 (written with co-author Jrn Erik Nielsen) is now at
proof stage and is due to be published by McFarland later this year. Calle
Erlandsson is also involved with this project, about which I shall probably say
more later in the year when it is up and running. It is already possible to
register as a user of the site. This is not, however, a KWA project.
The main business of the meeting was conducted on Saturday 14 April, when
several members gave talks about their research discoveries. I was invited to
give the opening talk, probably because my subject was broader than that of
the other speakers. I introduced the theme of Eminent Victorian Chess
Players, my new book just out from McFarland, of which I shall not say much
more here. Readers can find out more about it on my ChessMail website, and
order through the publisher or the usual retail outlets. In my Norwich talk, I
Chess Miniatures
by Tim Harding
Chess Periodicals
by Gino Di Felice
spoke mostly about Blackburne, one of the ten biographical subjects in the
book, and I believe I had a few surprises even for an audience so well-read in
chess history. These revelations can be found in the book. Moreover, there is
an update of the online edition of the Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography planned for 24 May (or thereabouts), which will include three new
1,000-word articles commissioned from me: on Captain W. D. Evans and
Isidor Gunsberg (who have chapters in my book) and Mary Rudge, who has
not.
The Hindles and Tim Harding
Owen Hindle, who lives in the Norfolk seaside resort of Cromer, followed me
in the order of speakers. He told us about John Odin Howard Taylor (18371890) and his place in British chess history. Son of a wealthy landowning
Norfolk family, I. O. H. Taylor (as his name was usually written in his day)
was the author of two collections of chess games: Chess Brilliants (1869) and
Chess Skirmishes (1889). He also conducted a newspaper column in a
Norwich paper, The Eastern Daily Press for about two years in the early
1870s.
Taylor knew most of the leading figures in British chess in his day, and was
briefly tempted to become a chess professional, before Kolisch (in 1859)
warned him that he would never be a strong enough player. Instead Taylor
went into the family law firm and satisfied himself by entertaining many
illustrious visitors to the Norwich club, including Boden, Steinitz, Zukertort,
and others. After Taylor's death, Steinitz acknowledged this on page 175 in
the June 1890 issue of his International Chess Magazine, recalling that 'the
days I myself passed as his guest on a few occasions belong to the most
pleasant recollections of my life in England.'
I learned that, thanks to Taylor, Joseph Blackburne's first professional
blindfold display was played in Norwich in December 1862, shortly before
his first match with Steinitz began. The local players made a small plus score.
Taylor can probably be considered the third significant figure in early Norfolk
chess, following the Rev. Horatio Bolton (1793-1873), the problem composer,
and Frederick George Rainger (1829-1871), who was mentioned in a recent
column of mine as assisting Staunton with the book of John Brown's chess
problems.
Michael Negele
After Taylor, another key figure was John Frederick Keeble (1855-1939),
who lived all his life in Norwich. He was the subject of a talk by KWA
treasurer Michael Negele. Although never a master player, Keeble was a
connoisseur of chess problems (especially the self-mate variety) and later
wrote also on chess history. The audience learned that Keeble, who never
married and lived very frugally, worked for fifty-three years as a railway
clerk, rarely taking a day off. He conducted a chess column in the Norfolk
News for several years before the First World War but only started playing
tournaments in 1925, a few years after his retirement. It seems he now had
leisure time and free rail travel, because of his former profession, of which he
now took advantage. Keeble had also been a colour sergeant in the territorial
army (Britisih army reserve) and was a skilled marksman.
In his historical writings (both published articles and unpublished letters),
Keeble does make some strange mistakes, which Negele mostly attributed to
Keeble's advanced years. For instance, it seems that when Keeble made his
will, he left one bequest to a man who had died two years previously. By the
time he died, Keeble had amassed 10,000, some of which was left to chess
players. Unfortunately, Keeble's chess library, left to the British Chess
Federation, was destroyed in the wartime aerial bombing of London.
After outlining Keeble's life in his talk, Negele chiefly discussed Keeble's
claim that Daniel Willard Fiske had tried to hoax the chess world by
describing a lost manuscript supposedly written by the eighteenth century
priest Louis Rou. If genuine, this manuscript would be the earliest American
writing on the game, pre-dating Benjamin Franklin's Morals of Chess. Fiske
claimed to have seen this manuscript and wrote about it in his book of the first
American chess congress (published in 1859) and again in the early 1900s.
Keeble sought to prove by analytical reasoning that this manuscript did not
exist, and tried to convince both John G. White and Harold Murray, but
Negele gave several reasons for believing that Keeble was wrong and that this
was not a prank by Fiske. This question will perhaps never be settled
absolutely unless the manuscript is ever found.
Gordon Cadden
Gordon Cadden, the first speaker in the afternoon, revealed how through
dedicated detective work he has found the long-forgotten location of
Philidor's grave, which eluded so many hunters in the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries. As I believe Cadden's article may be published shortly, I
shall not pre-empt his work here. Furthermore, he has found a new piece of
evidence to suggest that Philidor's date of death really was 31 August 1795,
which I have questioned in the past in this series of articles. He has almost
convinced me, but I think there may be still some possible avenues to explore
before the question is settled decisively, and further research must await the
publication of Cadden's article.
There was considerable interest in Bernard Cafferty's talk about the history of
the British Chess Magazine, which was founded in 1881 but looks likely to
expire within the next few years. Cafferty was editor of the magazine for
more than a decade and also knew personally many of the key people
associated with the magazine in the immediate post-war decades, so there is
nobody better qualified to speak on the subject. In this article I only mention
some of the fascinating points that arose in Cafferty's talk, which ought to be
published in some form. As he said, the history of the magazine is a reflection
of the changing society in which it operated.
He identified the three most important people involved in BCM in the period
from the 1950s until he he took over: Harry Golombek, Brian Reilly, and Ken
Whyld himself. Although Golombek was only editor from January 1938 until
his call-up for war service in the summer of 1940, he had a fifty-year
association with the magazine and was chairman until 1989. Whyld, chiefly
through his Quotes and Queries column (in which he surpassed the efforts of
his predecessor D. J. Morgan), was an important contributor.
Bernard Cafferty
Reilly, who kept the magazine going for thirty-three years, was in Cafferty's
opinion "the most businesslike" of all the magazine's editors, at least until
Murray Chandler. A particular coup by Reilly was to put out feelers at the
1956 Moscow Olympiad which enabled BCM to have a near-monopoly in the
West of sales of Russian chess books, which were then the best in the world,
as well as being very cheap.
As Cafferty explained, it was extraordinary that in its first 100 years BCM had
only seven editors. He said that until 1937 or 1938 it operated as a cottage
industry wherever everybody worked from home and nobody got paid. Since
the summer of 2010 it seems to have reverted to this, he said. Giddins, the last
paid editor, apparently agreed with this judgment. Cafferty says that some key
events in BCM history cannot be proved from documents and he included in
his talk some things he was reliably told by those involved. In the late 1930s,
it was apparently P. S. Milner-Barry, who had been working in the Stock
Exchange, who advised turning BCM into a limited company and involving
Golombek. Then in 1949, according to Cafferty, Julius du Mont was removed
as editor by the directors (V. J. Soanes, J. N. Derbyshire, and C. H. O'D.
Alexander) because he refused to increase the subscription price although
costs were rising. In particular, Soanes (another Stock Exchange figure) did
not wish to be associated with a company that was trading while insolvent. It
was at this point that Reilly came in.
Tony Gillam
The last speaker was Tony Gillam, from The Chess Player publishing house
in Nottingham, whose subject was 'Lost chess books', which he divided into
three categories. He admitted that it all depends upon what you mean by 'lost'
and what you mean by 'book'. In the first category there are books that are
known to have been published, but of which no known copies survive. An
example of this is the Blackfriars Chess Journal, several issues of which were
produced in 1884 by two Norwich schoolboys. The Cleveland library and
British Library each have one (different) issue but the only known complete
set was in Norwich central library which was destroyed by fire some years
ago. Fortunately, Owen Hindle's wife Kathleen (who was present throughout
our meeting) 'saved' this curious publication by making photocopies of the
whole set some years prior to the fire.
Gillam's second category consists of unpublished items, of which one copy
was known but nobody knows where it is. Some tournament books come into
this category, for example Debrecen 1913 which partly survives in some page
proofs after the print shop burned down.
The third category is 'nearly lost' items, though I found it harder to understand
what Gillam meant by this. Some very rare or 'lost' items may in fact be in
private collections whose owners are very secretive, and these will only
emerge if those collections are ever sold or given to a public institution.
However, there is still the chance of rare items turning up at random. KWA
member Michael Clapham was recently able to buy, at book market in Bury
St. Edmunds, the first volume of the 1913 Edinburgh manuscript magazine
The Chess Board, of which probably only three sets were made.
Peterson, Adams, and Cannon
Bibliography is one of the key concerns of the KWA, which is shared by both
the historians and the collectors. In 2005, the association attempted to create a
global bibliographical database, but the way in which it was designed proved
to be too ambitious, at least for that time, and there were not enough people
qualified to assist. Now Andreas Saremba, a software designer from Berlin,
and Per Skjoldager have revived the project in a more flexible and generalised
way that is not chess-specific and so may interest developers in other areas.
The plan now is to first build the structure of a collaborative person database
(a "new Gaige"), which can be used to identify players involved as authors,
editors, publishers or subjects of published works. It is designed in such a way
that the same software could be used to develop a database of, say, bridge
players or golfers. Saremba presented an encouraging outline of the early
stage of development and it looks as if this is a project in which many people
can assist, some on the technical side and others by providing or validating
data. As this project develops, I hope to be able to give more information
about it.
At the KWA meeting, I was given copies of two recently published national
bibliographies, which I note briefly here. They differ in approach, because
what may be appropriate for one country need not be applicable to another.
Australia, for example, because of its particular geography and history, has a
strong tradition of correspondence chess which is reflected in its bibliography,
whereas a compact country like Belgium has had few publications on this
subject.
Belgian chess publications: an annotated
bibliography, compiled by Henri Serruys and Guy
van Habberney, which is a handsomely produced 154page paperback on glossy paper with full colour
illustrations of book covers on most of the right hand
pages. There are also, in coloured panels, biographical
notes and sometimes photographs of significant
figures in Belgian chess.

This was clearly a labour of love and not a
commercial proposition. Published by the authors in
2011 in Antwerp, its text is in English, giving it the
widest appeal as well as avoiding any of the internal difficulties of bilingual
Belgian society. At least until recent times, however, the works in French
seem to have greatly outnumbered those produced in the Dutch (or Flemish)
language.
In fact, though, the first chess book published in Belgium was in English.
Chess publishing in Belgium began in the fifteenth century, when in 1474
William Caxton produced the first edition of his Game and Playe of the
Chesse in Bruges, which was his second book in English, being his translation
of a work by Jacobus de Cessolis. (His second edition of the chess book was
published in London.) After Caxton, until well into the nineteenth century,
Belgian chess books were either in Latin or French. During the eighteenth
century, Ireland had been a favourite operating location for book publishing
pirates; after 1815, Serruys and van Habberney show, Belgium for a time was
the place to make pirate editions of French-language books, especially
Philidor editions.
Guy van Habberney
I would have welcomed some explanation from the editors about why there
were no Belgian chess books published between 1856 (number 33) and 1905
(number 34). Also I wondered why it is not until the year 1924 and page 36 of
the bibliography that one encounters a Belgian book published in Dutch:
Eerste begrippen over Het Schaakprobleem, by Francis Peeters. Again, I am a
little surprised that the editors do not draw attention to this detail in their
introduction. Perhaps these are speculative matters requiring further research
and do not, strictly speaking, belong in a bibliography. Presumably, the
Flemings must have been accustomed to buying their chess books from The
Hague and Amsterdam? From the 1940s, works in Dutch appeared more
frequently in Belgium.
I think I might take this book as the model of how to do a chess bibliography
for a small country if I ever get around to compiling an Irish chess
bibliography, which would not be as slight as you might think. The placing of
the Table of Contents at the end (page 157), following the index, is not a
detail I would follow, however. Also any Irish bibliography would certainly
include a section on chess columns in Irish newspapers and magazines, which
is absent from this otherwise excellent Belgian work.
The section on books continues to page 99, and there follows a section on
Bulletins of tournaments and other competitions. Then (starting on page 113)
come the Belgian chess magazines. Before the First World War, I learned
from this book, there was only one: the Revue d'checs, which ran from
October 1900 to December 1909. Then in the early 1920s came the shortlived Het Schaakleven, the Bulletin de la Fdration Belge des Echecs, and
Het Schaakblad but from 1925 to early 1939 L'Echiquier had a substantial
run, while De Problemist (1927-31) and a new Het Schaakleven (1931-34)
catered to the other linguistic community.

Nor were those the only Belgian chess magazines of the 1930s, and as in other
countries (confirming what I wrote about the World War Two period in my
Correspondence Chess in Britain and Ireland) postal chess was able to
survive in Belgium also during the German occupation. The magazine A.J.E.
C., which had begun in 1933 to cater for postal players, continued until June
1944, when the liberation of the country led to better conditions for OTB play.
L'Echiquier Belge, the principal postwar magazine, had begun in 1942 but
was considerably enlarged after the end of the war, and the bibliography
summarises its volumes up to the sixty-ninth volume of 2010/11. Apart from
those I have mentioned, there have been several other magazines from the
1940s onwards whose careers are carefully outlined here.
The Chess Literature of Australia and New Zealand
was first issued in 1975 and last updated by the late
John von Manen. It has now been updated to 2009 in
a fourth edition by Bob Meadley and Paul Dunn. The
editors admit they would have liked the
collaboration of a New Zealand enthusiast to bring
the publications from that country up to date. Several
KWA members assisted in overcoming technical and
financial issues to bring the bibliography to its
present state in print.
As mentioned above, there are several items in this
book relating to correspondence chess, thanks in part to the influence of Cecil
Purdy who was the first world champion in this form of the game. Australian
Correspondence Chess Quarterly is still being produced regularly, and the
bibliography shows me that the editor, Shaun Press, began this (doubtless
unpaid) work in November 2005. The book notes all the editors (and one
change of title) going back to 1948.
One decision by Von Manen, which the new editors preserve, is the inclusion
of a section on Australian Literature Published Overseas. This twelve-page
section largely consists of works written by the prolific Gary Lane and by
Purdy, published in Britain or the U.S.A, but a few items (especially on page
85) sit oddly. Books of London chess congresses of 1862 and 1922, for
example, are included just because in each there was one Australian player
who did not perform significantly. The vast majority of the content of these
books has nothing to do with Australia, and there have been several modern
tournament books which are not included although Rogers, Max Fuller or
other Australians were playing. I suppose the new editors recognise this, but
did not want to drop older items that Von Manen had included.
To my mind, a national bibliography should just include works published in
that country, and only books or bulletins of tournaments that were played in
the country. This rule is followed in the Belgian bibliography; Serruys and
Van Habberney include Georges Koltanowski's and Alberic O'Kelly de
Galway's books published in Belgium but not their ones published abroad in
other languages.
The book does include a through index, twenty-two pages long, and other
useful supplementary material. There is an article by Meadley about Von
Manen, including some colour photographs, and Part 7, "A trip though Bob
Meadley's Chess Library" has colour photographs of the covers of many
Australian books from his collection.
To order either book, including a price quotation for mailing to where you
live, contact the KWA president by email on vanhabberneyg@telenet.be.
For more details of KWA activities and projects, and members' interests, see
the KWA website.
Postscript One: More chess players in 'ODNB.'
On 24 May, the online edition of the Oxford Dictionary of National

Biography (ODNB) will be updated with new articles about sports men and
women, a theme selected to reflect the Olympic Games in London to be held
later this summer. Fortunately, the editors consider chess to be a sport, and
indeed chess players have always been well represented in the selection of
lives in this Dictionary, as I discussed in an earlier article (Kibitzer 165,
February 2010). The new update will include 1,000-word articles by me on
Captain Evans, Mary Rudge and Isidor Gunsberg, although the final form of
these has been determined by the editors of the Dictionary.
There is, of course, much more detail on Evans and Gunsberg in the chapters
about them in my new book, but for readers wondering whether or not this
book will interest them, the articles may provide a taster. The Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography is a subscription website, but free access is
available through many libraries and academies that have institutional
subscriptions, especially in the UK.
Postscript Two: Anand defends his title again

Most readers will already be aware that a new world chess championship
match is (depending on when you see this column) about to begin or actually
under way in Moscow. The opening ceremony is on Thursday 10 May and the
first game on Friday 11 May. Viswanathan Anand is strong favourite to
defend his title successfully against the Israeli (formerly Belarus) grandmaster
Boris Gelfand over twelve games (the last being on 28 May) with tie-breaks,
if required, on 30 May. Kramnik-Topalov 2006 was decided on tie-breaks but
we must hope this does not happen this time.
Gelfand's emergence as challenger is somewhat surprising. He was world
number three on ratings in 1990-1991 but Anand overtook him the following
year and has been ahead ever since, while Gelfand's relative position fell back
and he is currently seventy-two rating points behind Anand. The Spanishresident Indian champion is also by now vastly experienced in high-level
matches, having played for the title against Kasparov (unsuccessfully),
Kramnik (winning in 2008) and twice against Topalov.
While many readers would probably prefer that Anand was playing against
Magnus Carlsen, it has to be recognised that Gelfand earned his shot at the
title. It must be hoped that the online coverage of the games at the official site
will be at least as good as when Vishy played Topalov last time, and that we
shall see some innovative ideas and excellent examples of high-level chess.
When I cast my vote on the site's poll last week, it said that eighty-three
percent of 1,067 voters predicted that Anand would win during the regular
games. The winner will collect sixty percent of the $2.55 million prize fund
and the loser will get forty percent.

Anatomy of a Match
As many feared, the destination of the world chess crown came down to
whoever could handle the clock better in the rapid playoff games. Not
surprisingly, that was Viswanathan Anand, who retained the title with an
unconvincing victory. The unsuccessful challenger, Israeli (former Belarus)
grandmaster Boris Gelfand will feel necessarily disappointed to lose the
match by what was almost the smallest possible margin, but he actually did
much better than most chess fans expected. He ran Anand close enough to
think that another shot at the title in two years time is not out of the question.
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Translate this page
Anand and Gelfand, along with Vasily Ivanchuk, were the leaders of a new
generation, somewhat younger than Nigel Short, who emerged around 1990
and like him found their path to the top blocked throughout the decade by the
towering figure of Garry Kasparov. Some world champions are dominant,
others just first among equals. Kasparov was one of the former, like Karpov
before him; Anand, like Botvinnik, was one of the latter, and even more so
now after the match in Moscow.
Vishy Anand:
World Chess Champion
& John Nunn
In case any reader was away on another planet in late May, the Indian
grandmaster tied 6-6 in the regular games with his Gelfand, and then won 21 in the tense quickplay showdown. Anand thereby retains for another two
years the title he successfully defended against Kramnik in 2008 (when a
twelfth game was not required) and defended again against Topalov in 2010,
when five of the twelve regular games were decisive.
I have long been a supporter of Anand, but I was very disappointed in his play
throughout this match and I cannot see him being able to defend the title
successfully in future if faced with one of the leaders of the twenty-something
generation of grandmasters such as Magnus Carlsen or Levon Aronian, whose
ratings are now higher than his. Already in the last match Anand was not the
world's top-rated player, but he showed against Topalov, after the disaster of
Game One, that he could rise to the big occasion and play some deep and
spectacular chess when required, notably in the final game of that contest
(discussed in Kibitzer #169, June 2010).

the games from
Purchases from our

accessible:
My Most Memorable Games

by Boris Gelfand
Of course Anand is by now a very experienced match player, though he was

not sufficiently tested by the solid yet rather timid Gelfand, who was able to
prevent Anand showing his full powers but was probably too conservative in
style to set the board on fire. "If a player doesn't like the [playoff] format,
then he should take more risks in the earlier stages of the match," said French
grandmaster Joel Lautier at the official website moscow2012fide.com.
Many observers noted Anand's propensity it might be called a deliberate
policy in the regular match to exchange bishop for knight. Statistics show
that Anand made this exchange seven times out of twelve in the regular
games, and was never punished for conceding the bishop-pair; all those
games were drawn, so his only loss came in a game where he did not do this.
So much for the vaunted advantage of the bishop-pair!
Then when it came to the playoffs, Anand gave up the bishop-pair in three out
of four games (including the game he won), but at least one expert considered
that he should not have been allowed to do this. GM Evgeny Bareev, quoted
on the official match website, laid part of the blame on Gelfand's coaches,
who did not prepare him well for the playoff. 'The problem is that he spent a
lot of time and energy on the opening and got a position that, for Anand, is
pretty standard a knight against a bishop. It's well known that, in speed
chess, a knight against a bishop is a half-pawn advantage.' By this, I assume
Bareev meant that the knight is the better piece to have to set tactical traps
Anand-Gelfand, 2012
by CEWN
when the players are short of time, and he should therefore have chosen a
different defence, or different Sicilian Variation. On this analysis, Gelfand's
defending 1 e4 with the 2Nc6 Sicilian, inviting 3 Bb5 and 4 Bxc6, was just
playing into the champion's game-plan for the rapid games, and it may
explain why Anand did not employ 1 d4 in the playoff.
Even if Gelfand was insistent that he continue defending this way, he and his
assistants should have been able to predict that Anand would play 7 d4 in the
second playoff game (improving on 7 Bb2 from Game Ten of the regular
series). If his preparation had been done thoroughly, he would have saved a
lot of critical time early in the game which he eventually lost.
Technical problems with online coverage
Something must be said about the online reporting of this match, which in
some ways was excellent but in others failed. Anyone planning online
coverage of a major chess event in future, especially a head-to-head match
where large numbers of watchers are expected, should take heed of what went
wrong, especially on playoff day when the moves came thick and fast and the
number of spectators probably peaked. My criticisms are not directed at the
commentators but rather the web-master and technical people who made the
arrangements.
The official coverage was provided by New in Chess editor Dirk Jan ten
Geuzendam, assisted by one or more grandmasters, who discussed the current
game, while a parallel Russian commentary was also provided. The main
discussant for the first two games was Nigel Short, and then Jan Timman did
games three and four. Peter Svidler did most of the others, but Peter Leko did
two games when Svidler (a well-known cricket fan) was probably, like me,
also following progress in the second test match between England and the
West Indies.
He came back after that was over, and then following Vladimir Kramnik's
commentary on Game Twelve, Svidler handled the playoffs. Some listeners
may have been puzzled by his comment at one point in the third playoff game
that Gelfand had 'missed a sitter'. That term is cricketing slang, meaning he
had dropped an easy catch; i.e., he had failed to take an obvious winning
opportunity.
The watcher at home or office had the choice between the live streaming page
and a page which showed the moves and board position and optional Houdini
Aquarium analysis. This one also showed the clock times but, except on
playoff day, these were often clearly not correct as the aggregated times of the
players as shown was sometimes many minutes behind the true playing time
to that point.
If you were watching the live streaming page, the view switched between the
commentators and the stage, and occasionally (not often enough) showed the
actual board and clock. Anand usually wore a blue shirt without a jacket.
Gelfand a white open-neck shirt with grey jacket. The players could walk off
stage to a shared rest area where, apparently, each had their own sofa and
table. The arbiters sat at a table on the corner of the stage where they could
observe the board, clock and rest area on their laptop.
On the streaming page there was usually (not always) also a small chessboard
diagram, but this showed the position being discussed by Ten Geuzendam and
his commentator, which was frequently not the real position in the game at
that point. From comments they made, it is clear that in the commentary room
they were not receiving instant information about moves being played. This
was another serious fault in the coverage, and it meant that one usually
needed another browser window (or Playchess) open to see what was really
going on.
If you came late to a game, you could download the PGN but to get text
commentary on games that could also be referred back to, I usually had the
Chessdom site also running.
The alternative screen on the official site, split into frames, showed the
moves with Houdini annotations. It also sometimes carried the commentary

but not in the earlier games or all the later games. This arrangement was
preferable but it could sometimes be seen that the live streaming was some
moves behind the actual situation on the board.
Another reason why it was not sufficient to have the live streaming
commentary was that there were several interruptions of long duration each
day (except playoff day). Some of these were commercial advertisements in
English or Russian, but there were also long art documentaries about the
collections at the State Tretyakov Gallery which was hosting the event. These
were not without interest but we would have preferred to watch them some
other time.
The most significant breakdown of the live coverage occurred during the third
playoff game, at the following point where Anand (Black) had just played
41...Nf4-e6.
[FEN "8/p4r1k/2R1n3/2Pp4/3P2B1/
4R2P/3r4/7K w - - 0 42"]
Black threatens both ...Rf1 mate and ...Nxd4 but although White cannot
capture the knight with either piece, he can keep some advantage. I had both
Playchess's game-watching client and the official site running at this point.
The former showed that Gelfand had about thirty seconds left on his clock
and these precious moments counted down to zero and then the flag went red
and Playchess indicated that Gelfand had lost on time, and therefore the
match.
This was not in fact the case, as Gelfand did play 42 Rf3 before his flag fell,
and so gained an additional ten seconds, but it was impossible to follow the
game on Playchess from this point. Nor was I able to find out the true
situation from Chessdom, or from the official site for quite some time,
although I briefly recovered Svidler's commentary (with considerable
timelag) that showed a hectic rook and pawn endgame was in progress, and
ultimately discovered that this had been drawn. So there would be one more
rapid game. After quite some time, the official website showed the game
ending in a draw after Black's fifty-ninth move but days later, as discussed
below, ChessBase and the official site could not agree on how exactly the
game had ended, and nobody commented on the discrepancy.
I went back to Playchess, which eventually showed the correct result as draw,
but none of the moves following 41...Ne6 and I could not get Chessdom to
show the game's latter stages at all. Next day Chessdom and Playchess were
still showing 41...Ne6 as the point where the game ended in a draw! Also the
Playchess coverage broke down early in the fourth playoff game while
Chessdom did manage to show the moves and commentary as text, but with
no pieces on the board.
Ten critical moments in the match
1. First game, position after fourteen moves. This game set the tone for the
lack of fighting spirit that bedevilled the regular stage of the match. Briefly it
looked as if we would see lively unbalanced middlegames as had
characterised the Anand-Topalov match but interest was soon snuffed out.
Anand Gelfand
Gruenfeld Defence [D85]

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 d5 4 Nf3 Bg7 5 cxd5 Nxd5 6 e4 Nxc3 7 bxc3 c5 8
Bb5+ Nc6 9 d5 Qa5 10 Rb1 a6 11 Bxc6+ bxc6 12 0-0 Qxa2 13 Rb2 Qa5 14
d6 Ra7
[FEN "2b1k2r/r3ppbp/p1pP2p1/q1p5/4P3/
2P2N2/1R3PPP/2BQ1RK1 w k - 0 15"]
15 Bg5
This appears to have been the novelty in the game. One online commentator
unearthed the precedent 15 Bf4 Rd7 16 Rd2 Bxc3 17 Rd3 exd6 18 Rxd6 Qd8
19 Rxd7 Qxd7 20 Qc2 Bd4 with an eventual draw in M. Dabija-I. Bucsa, 6th
Romanian Internet Championship Final, 2010.
First impressions were that White has some dangerous threats in return for the
pawn he has sacrificed. More reflection, engine analysis and the course of the
game showed that Black can neutralize the dangers by returning the pawn to
force a queen exchange, after which Black has the long-term advantages of
the bishop-pair and an outside passed a-pawn, while White's c-pawn is a
weakness that ties a rook down to its defence.
15...exd6! 16 Qxd6 Rd7 17 Qxc6 Qc7! 18 Qxc7 Rxc7 19 Bf4 Rb7 20 Rc2 00 21 Bd6 Re8 22 Nd2 f5 23 f3 fxe4 24 Nxe4 Bf5 -
Gelfand seemed happy to "cash in" his slight advantage for a safe half-point
with black in the opening game. That was no doubt a reasonable ambition
before the game began but would not several other top GMs have tried to win
the endgame? Instead of offering a draw Gelfand should certainly have
played on to the time control with no risk of losing and make Anand prove
the draw. One suggestion was 23...Bd7.
2. Third game, did Anand miss a win? I do not feel qualified to answer
whether Anand missed a win at move thirty-four or thirty-five, which
grandmasters will probably be arguing about for many weeks to come.
Perhaps eventually in some chess magazine or website a definitive answer
will eventually be provided. It could even turn out that the critical moment
was earlier than move thirty-four.
When Kasparov briefly joined the commentators during Game Six, he was
asked for his view about the winning try in Game Three? He said he had not
analysed it but his instinct was that somehow White probably had a winning
move, although it was not easy to find. Anand had maybe been too shallow in
his analysis of the critical ending, which required a precision that (in
Kasparov's view) Anand had not shown in the last year. At the climax of the
game, Kasparov suggested, "maybe he assumed Black would achieve a
counterplay sufficient for the draw. Clearly Anand missed the moment when
he maybe needed to spend twenty minutes to look at the position from a
different angle."
The third game was probably the most interesting of the twelve played at a
regular time-limit. Gelfand appeared not to be surprised by Anand's switch to
Alekhine's anti-Grnfeld move 3 f3. The Israeli grandmaster either outplayed
or out-prepared his opponent to reach an equal position with his novelty 16
e4, followed by 17Na4, but then Gelfand made errors at moves twenty-
three and twenty-four which gave White winning chances. This game was one
of the few in the match where Anand fell behind on the clock.
Anand Gelfand
Anti-Grnfeld [D70]
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 f3 d5 4 cxd5 Nxd5 5 e4 Nb6 6 Nc3 Bg7 7 Be3 0-0 8 Qd2
e5 9 d5 c6 10 h4 cxd5 11 exd5 N8d7 12 h5 Nf6 13 hxg6 fxg6 14 0-0-0 Bd7
15 Kb1 Rc8 16 Ka1 e4 17 Bd4 Na4 18 Nge2 Qa5 19 Nxe4 Qxd2 20 Nxf6+
Rxf6 21 Rxd2 Rf5 22 Bxg7 Kxg7 23 d6 Rfc5?! 24 Rd1 a5?! 25 Rh4 Rc2 26
b3 Nb2 27 Rb1 Nd3 28 Nd4 Rd2 29 Bxd3 Rxd3 30 Re1 Rd2 31 Kb1 Bf5+
32 Nxf5+ gxf5 33 Re7+ Kg6
[FEN "2r5/1p2R2p/3P2k1/p4p2/7R/1P3P2/
P2r2P1/1K6 w - - 0 34"]
34 Rc7?
Many commentators suggested the much sharper 34 d7! but I have not yet
seen a clear proof of a winning line.
Editor's Note: Charles Sullivan from the USA, commenting on the
Chess Evolution analysis wrote, "'After 34.d7 Rcc2 35.Rc4 Rxa2
[Naiditsch], White wins very simply with 36.d8=Q (if 36...Rxd8, then
37.Kxa2 puts White a rook ahead).' Perhaps Anand did not play 34.d7
because he could not convince himself that 34.d7 leads to a win after
both (a) 34...Rd1+ 35.Kb2 Rd2+ 36.Ka3 Rcc2 and (b) 34...Rc5 (when
best seems to be the complex 35.Rexh7 Rd2+ 36.Ka3 b5)."
34...Re8 35 Rh1?
Other commentators thought White may have missed a win by 35 Re7!?.
35...Ree2! 36 d7 Rb2+ 37 Kc1 Rxa2 -
3. Sixth game, after Black's seventeenth move: Gelfand returns his extra
pawn. In this case he probably made the right decision although it was not
easy to assess the dangers he faced if he tried to hold the pawn.
Gelfand Anand
Semi-Slav [D45]
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 e3 e6 5 Nf3 a6 6 Qc2 c5 7 cxd5 exd5 8 Be2 Be6
9 0-0 Nc6 10 Rd1 cxd4 11 Nxd4 Nxd4 12 Rxd4 Bc5 13 Rd1 Qe7 14 Bf3 00! 15 Nxd5 Bxd5 16 Bxd5 Nxd5 17 Rxd5 Rac8
[FEN "2r2rk1/1p2qppp/p7/2bR4/8/4P3/
PPQ2PPP/R1B3K1 w - - 0 18"]
18 Bd2
Why not move the queen? Gelfand was asked at the press conference his
reason for giving back the pawn immediately. "I could not find how I could
bring my bishop into the game without... I calculated some lines but in none
of them would I be able to get my pieces into the game."
Kasparov joined the commentary team at a later point and they looked at what
could have happened if Gelfand had tried to hold his pawn. Kasparov said this
pawn sacrifice had not happened accidentally. "Vishy is known for his deep
preparation This is evidently a main line he prepared for the match." He
also said "Vishy is very good at neutralising small advantages, so that a small
edge cannot materialise" which was proved right on the whole, although the
next game was to be an exception to that observation
18...Bxe3 19 Bc3 Bb6
Gelfand started a long think here. Maybe he feared Anand's preparation was
not yet over.
20 Qf5 Qe6 21 Qf3
Svidler showed an elegant line to prove that after 21 Qxe6 White can not take
advantage of the isolated pawn. 21...Bxf2+! 22 Kh1 (22 Kxf2 fxe6+) 22...fxe6
23 Rd7 e5 24 Bxe5 (24 Rxb7 Rf7) 24...Rf7 25 Rxf7 Kxf7 26 Rf1 Kg6 with
the point 27 Rxf2?? Rc1+ 28 Rf1 Rxf1 checkmate. Had Gelfand missed
something in this line when he chose to return the pawn at move eighteen?
21...f6 22 h4 Qc6
After his first long think, Anand protected the b-pawn in order to challenge
the d-file. Gelfand could not find any advantage.
23 h5 Rfd8 24 Rxd8+ Rxd8 25 Qxc6 bxc6 26 Re1 Kf7 27 g4 Bd4 28 Rc1
Bxc3 29 Rxc3 Rd4 -
The first half of the match (and also Games Nine through Twelve to some
extent) were extremely tedious for anyone hoping to see lively high-quality
chess, or even much chess played at all. In the twelve regular games, the total
move count (by White) was 351 less than thirty moves per game.
Former British Chess Magazine editor Steve Giddins' comments after the
fourth game in his blog were repeated on the ChessBase website news page.
Giddins put the blame largely on computers which, he argued, equalised the
result of players' preparation, making it likely that neither side could come to
the board with an advantage. This is especially the case with tactical lines that
depend on calculation.
Giddins also complained, as I do, that the match was of too-short duration,
which made the players even more cautious than they might be in a longer
match. With only twelve regular games there was a real danger that just one
decisive game might decide the title. (Svidler made a similar comment early
in the match and they were proved right.) These factors taken together meant,
in his view, that we have "a whole series of effectively contentless games,
where the players are just checking each other's computer-aided preparation."
The consequence, in his jaundiced view, was that classical chess was now as
doomed as correspondence chess.
4. Seventh game: Anand loses the plot and collapses ignominiously.
Gelfand Anand
Semi-Slav [D45]
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 e3 e6 5 Nf3 a6 6 c5 Nbd7 7 Qc2 b6N 8 cxb6
Nxb6 9 Bd2 c5 10 Rc1 cxd4 11 exd4 Bd6 12 Bg5 0-0 13 Bd3 h6 14 Bh4
Bb7 15 0-0 Qb8!
On Chessdom, Naiditsch saw this as a winning try, while on the FIDE
commentary Leko calls it a high-class move. After the event, this looked like
a move to hold the draw had it been followed up correctly, but White still has
an edge.
16 Bg3 Rc8 17 Qe2 Bxg3 18 hxg3 Qd6 19 Rc2 Nbd7 20 Rfc1
[FEN "r1r3k1/1b1n1pp1/p2qpn1p/3p4/3P4/
2NB1NP1/PPR1QPP1/2R3K1 b - - 0 20"]
20...Rab8?!
In this game too, Anand fell behind on the clock, although Gelfand now had a
long think also. Although Anand made worse moves than this later in the
game, those were when his position had already become horrible. Karpov
came into the FIDE commentary room later and demonstrated the drawing
variation 20...Rc7 which works only because of the long variation 21 Na4
Rac8 22 Rxc7 Rxc7 23 Rxc7 Qxc7 24 Qc2 Qxc2 25 Bxc2 a5 26 Nd2 Bc6 27
Nc5 Nxc5 28 dxc5 Nd7 29 Nb3 and now 29...Ba4!.
The question here is whether White would have played instead 21 a3 and
reached as strong a position as he did in the actual game.
On the other hand Leko considered that move twenty-one was the fatal error.
21 Na4 Ne4?
Karpov said he did not understand why this was played; what was Anand
aiming for, he asked? The sequel bore out his criticism; White has a winning
position now. Leko said Black should have played 21...Rxc2 when:
a) 22 Qxc2 Rc8 and if 23 Qd2 Ne4 so White would have to sacrifice his
queen if he wanted to play for advantage but 23 Qxc8+ Bxc8 24 Rxc8+ is OK
for Black in the long run.
b) After 22 Rxc2 Bc6 23 Nc5 Bb5 (Leko's alternative line) Black succeeds in
exchanging his bad bishop although he perhaps remains somewhat worse.
22 Rxc8+ Bxc8 23 Qc2! g5?! 24 Qc7 Qxc7 25 Rxc7 f6 26 Bxe4 dxe4 27
Nd2 f5 28 Nc4 Nf6 29 Nc5 Nd5 30 Ra7 Nb4 31 Ne5 Nc2
Anand managed to conjure up some threats of perpetual check based on his
knight and e-pawn but it was insufficient as Gelfand remained calm. White's
thirty-seventh move forces checkmate in one line where Black is allowed to
queen the pawn.
32 Nc6 Rxb2 33 Rc7 Rb1+ 34 Kh2 e3 35 Rxc8+ Kh7 36 Rc7+ Kh8 37 Ne5
e2 38 Nxe6 10
5. Eighth game: Gelfand falls into a trap and throws away his lead.
Anand Gelfand
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 f3 c5 4 d5 d6 5 e4 Bg7 6 Ne2 0-0 7 Nec3!? Nh5 8 Bg5
Bf6 9 Bxf6?!
Leko could not understand why Anand did not play 9 Be3 when he
considered White has everything under control. After the instant reply, White
thought for twelve minutes or so, as if he had forgotten the pawn could
recapture.
9...exf6 10 Qd2
With a threat of g2-g4. Some thought the move required no preparation but if
10 g4?! Nf4 11 Qd2 g5, Black can blockade the kingside according to Leko's
live commentary.
10...f5 11 exf5 Bxf5 12 g4!?
This was the only way to justify previous play and fight for an advantage.
Black has solved his opening problems and is very comfortable if this is
avoided or does not work.
12...Re8+
The immediate 12...Bxb1 is not pleasant for Black after 13 Rxb1 Ng7 14 h4
h5 15 Kd1 Nd7 16 Kc2 according to the live commentary.
12...Qh4+ was preferred by Csaba Balogh at Chessdom, although, in The
Times, Keene claimed 13 Kd1 Bxb1 14 Rxb1 Nf6 15 Qf4 is better for White.
White must now move his king because after (12...Re8+) 13 Be2 then 13...
Qh4+ would be good.
13 Kd1 Bxb1 14 Rxb1
[FEN "rn1qr1k1/pp3p1p/3p2p1/2pP3n/
2P3P1/2N2P2/PP1Q3P/1R1K1B1R b - - 0 14"]
14...Qf6??
Balogh (who was commenting with engine assistance) said that although this
screamed to be played, it was losing to an unobvious refutation and this is
what happened. Knight retreats such as 14...Ng7 clearly show that White has
achieved the better from the opening after all.
Svidler, on the other hand, was advocating 14...Qf6 in the live commentary
and did not see the refutation until it appeared on the board. The Moscow
grandmasters' trade union was very much in evidence in the attempt to justify
Gelfand's blunder after the game.
Svidler said later that he was analysing the game with two 2700+ GMs who
were also rooting for 14...Qf6 and hadn't seen 17 Qf2. He said it should not be
called an inexplicable blunder, although the double-question mark might be
right because it loses by force a position that was not seriously worse for
Black.
15 gxh5 Qxf3+ 16 Kc2 Qxh1 17 Qf2! 1-0
Belatedly seeing that the black queen is trapped, Gelfand resigned. It was
amazing he could lose so quickly, especially as many had thought his position
was better. It was soon discovered that this was the shortest decisive game in
the history of the world chess championship.
Later discussion focused on whether the resignation was premature; it seems
that it was. Gelfand would not have resigned against you or me. Against
Anand he would probably have lost in the end, but there was no reason not to
try 17...Nc6! 18 dxc6 Qxc6 and make White prove the win.
In The Times, Ray Keene claimed Gelfand had good fighting chances but the
long variation supplied by his friend, English amateur Julian Simpole, based
on 19 Bg2 Qd7 20 Nd5 Qa4+ 21 b3 Qxa2+ 22 Rb2 Qa1. Keene and Simpole's
analysis continued 23 hxg6 (I think 23 Nf6+ may be slightly better.) 23...hxg6
24 Nf6+ Kg7 25 Nxe8+ (25 Bxb7 Re1 26 Bxa8 Qc1+ 27 Kd3 Rf1 'gives
Black decent practical chances as the white king is horribly exposed' Keene.
25...Rxe8 26 Bxb7 Re1 27 Qd2 a5 when Keene rightly comments: 'Although
White is a piece ahead here he will have terrible trouble finding a way to
activate his dormant rook. The final position is not clear and Gelfand should
not have resigned.'
Instead of 19 Bg2, White can play 19 Bd3 (Leko) but it is still not completely
clear.
6. Game Nine: Gelfand cashes in his advantage prematurely. Anand
draws with rook and knight versus queen.
Gelfand Anand
Nimzoindian Defence [E54]
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 e3 0-0 5 Bd3 d5 6 Nf3 c5 7 0-0 dxc4 8 Bxc4
cxd4 9 exd4 b6 10 Bg5 Bb7 11 Qe2 Nbd7 12 Rac1 Rc8 13 Bd3 Bxc3 14
bxc3 Qc7 15 c4 Bxf3
Naiditsch on Chessdom gave this a "?!" and called it 'a really surprising
move'. Either 15...h6 or 15...Rfe8 seems better.
16 Qxf3 Rfe8 17 Rfd1
From now, Gelfand started to take some time but was well ahead on the
clock. He thought afterwards that White had a good opening and that he held
a big advantage.
17...h6 18 Bh4 Qd6!
[FEN "2r1r1k1/p2n1pp1/1p1qpn1p/8/2PP3B/
3B1Q2/P4PPP/2RR2K1 w - - 0 19"]
This was a clever move by Anand, allowing White to 'win' the queen. This
was a temptation that Gelfand almost certainly should have resisted. Svidler
said White should have wanted more and even if White had already played h2h3 (so that his king could answer back-rank checks by Kh2) it would still not
be clear that this is White's best option. 19 h3 and 19 Bg3 Qb4 20 a3 were
both suggested.
19 c5!?
In the press conference afterward, Gelfand said he thought he would get two
weaknesses to attack in endgame. It turns out they can be defended.
19...bxc5 20 dxc5 Rxc5 21 Bh7+ Kxh7 22 Rxd6 Rxc1+ 23 Rd1 Rec8 24 h3
Ne5
Anand wanted to eliminate the bishop and then set up one of three fortresses:
either with the knight on d5, or the rook on d5 (and pawn on a5), or as in the
game, the rook on the second rank protected by the knight. Gelfand can
prevent the first two by accurate manoeuvres but he cannot break down the
third even with kingside pawn advances.
25 Qe2 Ng6 26 Bxf6 gxf6 27 Rxc1 Rxc1+ 28 Kh2 Rc7 29 Qb2 Kg7 30 a4
30...Ne7 31 a5 Nd5 32 a6 Kh7 33 Qd4 f5!
Svidler considered that after a pawn exchange on g4 Black could even lose a
pawn (front f-pawn and h-pawn) if White has no h-pawn as a result. The
black king goes to e7 and all his pieces are connected. Should White have
played g2-g4 earlier?
[FEN "8/p1r2p1k/P3p2p/3n1p2/3Q4/
7P/5PPK/8 w - - 0 34"]
34 f4 Rd7 35 Kg3 Kg6 36 Qh8 Nf6 37 Qb8 h5 38 Kh4 Kh6 39 Qb2

39 g4!? hxg4 40 hxg4 fxg4 41 Qe5 looked more critical, but it seems 41...Nh7
42 Kxg4 Kg6 will hold. If 43 f5+ Black has 43...exf5+ 44 Qxf5+ Kg7
because 45 Qxd7 fails to 45...Nf6+.
39...Kg6 40 Qc3 Ne4
This was actually the only game of the twelve to reach the time control! Now
each player received an extra hour to reach move sixty.

41 Qc8
Commentators noted the amusing trap 41 Qf3Nf6 42 Qg3+ Kh7 43 Qg5 Ne4
44 Qxh5+ Kg7 and Black wins by ...Rd8-h8 because of his mating net!
41...Nf6
Gelfand had a huge think here. White wants to create some sort of zugzwang
to make the black rook leave the seventh rank but it cannot be done.
42 Qb8 Re7
Anand said in the press conference that 42...Kh6 would repeat the position
after Black's 38th and should also be good enough. Then he saw his final
defensive formation.
43 g4 hxg4 44 hxg4 fxg4 45 Qe5 Ng8 46 Qg5+ Kh7
It turns out that White cannot break down this fortress, even with an f4-f5
break.
47 Qxg4 f6 48 Qg2 Kh8
Anand, who had nearly an hour in hand, threatens to win the white queen!
You cannot blame Gelfand for trying for a bit but there is very little that can
be tried.
49 Qe4 Kg7 -
Improving the king position and soon ...Nh6-f5 will be possible. Gelfand
accepted the draw offer; he would need his king at g6 to create any threats. 'I
simply don't know if White missed a win somewhere' said Anand afterwards.
The score remained tied and there were two whites for Anand in the three
regular games left. In those, however, there was very little drama and neither
player achieved a significant advantage.
7. First playoff game: did Anand miss a win?
Gelfand Anand
Semi-Slav [D46]
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 e3 e6 5 Nf3 Nbd7 6 Qc2 Bd6 7 Bd3 0-0 8 0-0
e5 9 cxd5 cxd5 10 e4 exd4 11 Nxd5 Nxd5 12 exd5 h6 13 b3
13 Nxd4 does not win a pawn; one option for Black is 13...Bxh2+ 14 Kxh2
Qh4+ 15 Kg1 Qxd4 when d5 becomes weak and White could end up a pawn
in arrears.
13...Ne5 14 Nxe5 Bxe5 15 Re1 Re8 16 Bb2 Bd7 17 Qd2 Qf6 18 g3 Rac8
Gelfand now had a very long think and it is far from clear what he hoped to
achieve with his next move, which proved to be an error as it unprotected the
b3-pawn. The game now exploded into tactics.
19 a4? Qf3! 20 Be4
This is necessary to save the d5-pawn because 20 Bc4?? allows a quick
checkmate by 20...Rxc4 21 bxc4 Bh3. Gelfand looked shocked but eventually
found the best reply.
20...Qxb3 21 Reb1
Svidler said that 'Anand must know he is objectively close to winning and just
needs to find the precise continuation while Gelfand must be rattled.' Apart
from the lost pawn, there is the problem of the bishop potentially hanging at
e4.
[FEN "2r1r1k1/pp1b1pp1/7p/3Pb3/P2pB3/
1q4P1/1B1Q1P1P/RR4K1 b - - 0 21"]
21...Bxg3?!
There are many tempting possibilities but perhaps none is a clear win. Svidler
was at first calling for 21...Bf6 22 Bxd4 Qc4 but then saw this can be met by
23 Rb4. 21...Qb6, the recommendation of Sergey Karjakin in the Russian
commentary booth, may be the best try.
Also 21...Rc4 22 a5 Bf6 looks strong, but maybe White can reach a drawn
endgame by 23 Bd3 Rcc8 24 Bxd4 Qxd5 25 Bxf6 Bc6 26 Bh7+ Kxh7 27
Qxd5 Bxd5 28 Bd4.
22 Ra3!
It became gradually clear that Black was not after all winning easily. Anand
looked a bit taken aback as he must have missed this. Now he had to
'recalibrate' as Svidler put it.
22...Qb6
Here 22...Qc4 was a chance to justify his combination but it was very unclear,
and there was not time to calculate properly such variations as 23 Bd3 Qxd5
24 hxg3 Bc6 25 f3 Re3 and 23 Rc1!? Bf4 24 Qxf4 Qe2 25 Rxc8 Bxc8. Anand
must have feared that he could just be lost if the tactics did not work.
23 Bxd4 Bxh2+ 24 Kxh2 Qd6+ 25 Rg3 Rxe4
Anand now had five minutes against Gelfand's four.
26 Bxg7 Kh7?!
26...Rh4+ should have been a safe draw.
27 Rxb7 Rg8
[FEN "6r1/pR1b1pBk/3q3p/3P4/P3r3/
6R1/3Q1P1K/8 w - - 0 28"]
Now the players were now down to about three minutes each, plus the ten
second per move increment. 28 Qd3! looks best here but may not be decisive,
especially in the clock situation; a queen endgame could arise after some
forced exchanges. The challenger decided not to gamble and forced a draw by:
28 Qxh6+?! Qxh6+ 29 Bxh6 Rxg3 30 Kxg3 Bc8!
This makes the draw safe because after the bishop is captured the white rook
is not on seventh rank any more. A dramatic game comes swiftly to a
peaceful conclusion now.
31 Rc7 Kxh6 32 Rxc8 Rxa4 -
'Anand has shown in this game that he is fallible and capable of missing stuff'
said Svidler, who thought that 28 Qd3! would have been 'horribly annoying'
for Black. It was certainly objectively the right move but it may lead to a
queen ending that White in practice could not win under the time control.
9. Second playoff game: Gelfand missed a clear draw. There were possibly
two places in this game where he could have put this game to bed. The first
was in the middlegame without queens and the second was at the very end
when he had rook and bishop versus rook, knight and pawn.
Anand Gelfand
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 e6 4 Bxc6 bxc6 5 b3 e5 6 Nxe5 Qe7 7 d4 d6 8
Nxc6 Qxe4+ 9 Qe2 Qxe2+ 10 Kxe2 Bb7 11 Na5 Bxg2 12 Rg1 Bh3 13 dxc5
dxc5 14 Nc3 0-0-0 15 Bf4 Bd6 16 Bxd6 Rxd6 17 Rg5 Nf6 18 Rxc5+ Kb8
19 Nc4 Re8+ 20 Ne3 Ng4 21 Ncd5 Nxe3 22 Nxe3 Bg4+ 23 f3 Bc8 24 Re1
Rh6 25 Rh1
[FEN "1kb1r3/p4ppp/7r/2R5/8/1P2NP2/
P1P1K2P/7R b - - 0 25"]
25...Rhe6?!
Black has sufficient compensation for the pawn but this inaccuracy allows the
white king to slip away to the queenside. Instead 25...Rd6! was suggested by
Svidler after the game as a way to force a draw because it prevents this escape
and threatens ...Ba6+:
a) 26 Rc3 f5 would now force the king to move to the kingside 'where, in all
likelihood, he would be mated' said Svidler.
b) 26 Re1 Rh6 27 Rh1 Rd6, with a draw by repetition, was therefore shown
by engines as best play after 25...Rd6.
26 Rc3 f5 27 Kd2 f4 28 Nd5 g5 29 Rd3 Re2+ 30 Kc1 Rf2 31 h4 Ree2 32
Rc3 Bb7 33 Rd1 gxh4 34 Nxf4 Re8 35 Rh1 Rc8 36 Rxc8+ Bxc8 37 Rxh4
Bf5 38 Rh5 Bxc2 39 Rb5+ Ka8 40 Nd5 a6 41 Ra5 Kb7 42 Nb4 Bg6 43
Nxa6 Rxf3 44 Nc5+ Kb6 45 b4 Rf4 46 a3 Rg4 47 Kd2 h5 48 Nd7+ Kb7 49
Ne5 Rg2+ 50 Kc3 Be8 51 Nd3 h4 52 Re5 Bg6 53 Nf4 Rg3+ 54 Kd4 Bc2 55
Rh5 Rxa3 56 Rxh4 Rg3 57 Nd5 Rg5 58 b5 Bf5?!
[FEN "8/1k6/8/1P1N1br1/3K3R/8/8/8 w - - 0 59"]
This move does not lose, but it misses a clear-cut drawing move, 59...Bd3!!,
which none of the commentators seems to have spotted. Grandmaster
Lubomir Kavalek demonstrated this in the online newspaper The Huffington
Post. There are three variations:
a) 59 Kxd3? Rxd5+ 60 Kc4 Rd6 with a book draw of rook versus rook and
pawn, the king being optimally placed in front of the knights pawn.
b) 59 Rh6 and now
b1) 59...Bxb5 60 Rb6+ Kc8 61 Rxb5 Rg1 draws, although precision is
required with little time on the clock, because the defending king is on the
edge of the board.
b2) 59...Rxd5+! 60 Kxd5 Bxb5 reaches the dead drawn endgame of king and
bishop versus king and rook.
59 Rh6 Bg4 60 Rf6 Rf5 61 Rb6+ Ka7 62 Rg6 Bf3 63 Rg7+ Kb8 64 Nc3
Bb7 65 Kc4 Bf3 66 Kb4 Bd5 67 Na4 Rf7 68 Rg5 Bf3 69 Nc5 Kc7 70 Rg6
Kd8 71 Ka5
[FEN "3k4/5r2/6R1/KPN5/8/5b2/8/8 b - - 0 71"]
Now Gelfand, under extreme stress, made the final blunder that allowed
Anand to exchange knight for bishop. Tablebases show that 71...Bh1,
correctly followed up, holds the draw.
71...Rf5?? 72 Ne6+ Kc8 73 Nd4 Rf8 74 Nxf3 Rxf3 75 Kb6 Rb3 76 Rg8+
Kd7 77 Rb8 10
10. Third playoff game; Gelfand misses the win of a piece (maybe twice).
Gelfand Anand
Slav Defence [D12]
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 e3 Bf5 5 Nc3 e6 6 Nh4 Bg6 7 Nxg6 hxg6 8 Bd3
Nbd7 9 0-0 Bd6 10 h3 0-0 11 Qc2 Qe7 12 Rd1 Rac8 13 c5 Bb8 14 f4 Ne8
15 b4 g5 16 Rb1 f5 17 b5 gxf4 18 exf4 Nef6?
'Definitely an error' according to GM Danny King's commentary for
ChessBase. The other knight would have been better there. Even so, Black is
probably already worse and should have played ...a6 before White's b4-b5 in
order to eliminate the a-pawns.

19 bxc6 bxc6 20 Ba6 Rc7
'Playing 20...Rc7 is the same as giving up,' said Kramnik.
Although White can win by a pawn by Bb7 if the rook goes elsewhere,
commentators Kramnik and Lautier suggested that Black should have tried
20...Rece8 followed by ...e5, but can that work? Another possibility would
have been 20...Rcd8 hoping for 21 Bb7 Nxc5 but, as King showed, 21 Ne2
rules out that trick and renews the Bb7 threat.
Over the next few moves, Gelfand had several ways to reach a dominant
position.
21 Be3 Ne4 22 Rb2 g5 23 Rdb1 gxf4 24 Bxf4 e5?
[FEN "1b3rk1/p1rnq3/B1p5/2Pppp2/
3PnB2/2N4P/PRQ3P1/1R4K1 w - - 0 25"]
25 Bxe5
This was played too quickly according to King, who claimed 25 Nxe4! is the
winning move: 25...fxe4 26 Bxe5 and the b8-bishop will soon fall. Or if 25...
exf4 26 Nd6. The question that future analysts will answer is whether White
has a clearer win there than in the next note, but evidently Gelfand missed a
win at either move twenty-five or twenty-six, and possibly both.
25...Nxe5 26 Rxb8?
26 Nxe4! here would definitely have won a piece and the game; e.g., 26...fxe4
(26...Nc4 27 Bxc4 fxe4 28 Ba6 Gilberto Milos's analysis at ChessBase; or
26...Ng6 27 Nd6) 27 dxe5 and the black bishop cannot be saved, e.g. 27...
Qxe5 28 Rxb8 Qd4+ 29 Kh2 Qe5+ 30 Kh1 Rcf7 31 Rxf8+ Rxf8 32 Qa4
(Houdini analysis).
26...Ng6 27 Nxe4 fxe4 28 Qf2
Instead of an extra piece, Gelfand has only won a pawn and Black obtains
compensation for it.
28...Qg7 29 Kh2 Rcf7 30 Qg3 Nf4 31 R8b3?! Qxg3+ 32 Rxg3+ Kh7 33
Rd1 Ne6 34 Be2 Rf2 35 Bg4 Nf4 36 Rb1 Rf7 37 Rb8 Rxa2 38 Rc8 e3 39
Rxe3 Rxg2+ 40 Kh1 Rd2 41 Rxc6 Ne6!
In the section about the live commentary, I have already explained what
happened here.
42 Rf3! Rxf3 43 Bxf3 Nxd4 44 Rc7+ Kh6 45 Bxd5 Rc2 46 Be4 Rc3 47 Kg2
Kg5 48 Kh2
[FEN "8/p1R5/8/2P3k1/3nB3/2r4P/7K/8 b - - 0 48"]
48...Nf3+?!
Anand chose a difficult (but not yet lost) rook and pawn endgame. Since
White has the wrong bishop for the h-pawn, the minor pieces should have
been retained. 48...Ne6 49 c6 a5 50 Ra7 Nd4 51 Rxa5+ Kf4 is a draw
according to Gilberto Milos at ChessBase. After 52 Bd5 Rc2+ 53 Kg1, White
can escape the checks but 53...Nxc6 eliminates the danger pawn.
49 Bxf3 Rxf3 50 Rxa7 Rc3
Despite being two pawns down, Anand still had a theoretically drawn position
here, as tablebases show.
51 Rc7
[FEN "8/2R5/8/2P3k1/8/2r4P/7K/8 b - - 0 51"]
Where should the black king go now, and where did it actually go? According
to the tablebases, three moves for Black would retain the draw here: 51...Rc2,
51...Kh4 (discussed as the possible drawing line in King's annotations) and
51...Kf4, which was the move actually played according to the official match
website, but which is not mentioned by King.
51...Kf4
Was this played? According to the ChessBase website, in both the notes by
Gilberto Milos and the video commentary by King, Anand played 51...Kf5.
Milos then gave the finish of the game as follows 51...Kf5 (Tablebases say
this move loses.) 52 c6 Ke6 53 h4 Kd6 54 Rc8 Ra3 (briefly reaching the same
position as in the official version, but then varying again.) 55 Kg2 Re3 56
Kh2 Ra3 57 Kg2 Re3 58 h5 Re5 59 h6 Rh5 60 Rh8 Kxc6 (This is after fiftyeight moves in the official version shown as our main line. Whichever is
right, the next move was the blunder.) 61 Rh7?? Kd6 (the last move in the
official version) 62 Kg3 Ke6 63 Kg4 Rh1 -. 'The black king reaches the
pawn in time.'
52 Rc8 Ke5??
If his king really was on f4, then this was a horrible blunder by Anand. Even
without tablebase aid, it should be clear to the human eye that 52...Rc2+ is
best. It leads to a drawn position in all lines because White must soon give up
the h-pawn to avoid an immediate perpetual check; e.g., 53 Kg1 Rc1+ 54 Kg2
Rc2+ 55 Kf1 Kf3! 56 Ke1 Ke4 57 Kd1 Rc3 58 Kd2 Rxh3. Then with the
defending king much better placed, the c-pawn can be stopped.
Of course, if Black played 51...Kf5 as ChessBase say, then this was not
possible. So perhaps this is a strong circumstantial argument in favour of
ChessBase's version of the score.
53 c6
According to tablebases, 53 h4 is a slightly shorter way to victory and 53 Kg2
also wins.
53...Kd6 54 h4
Otherwise Black's king enters the square of the h-pawn after a double capture
on c6.
54...Ra3 55 Kg2
55 h5 also wins.
55...Re3 56 h5 Re5 57 h6 Rh5 58 Rh8 Kxc6
Leading to the last decisive moment where, since the advantage he obtained
in Game Four was never big enough, Gelfand missed his final chance to
equalize the match.
[FEN "7R/8/2k4P/7r/8/8/6K1/8 w - - 0 59"]
59 Rh7??
Milos commented: 'An incredible mistake! While it is true, Gelfand had less
than a minute left on his clock, the increment per move would ensure he
never actually ran out of time.'
Svidler said that even with virtually no time, White should have understood
that the h7-square was needed by his king.
59 Kg3 would have won, as tablebases confirm. (Moreover 59 Kf3 comes to
the same and even 59 Kf2 preserves the win.) 59...Kd7 fails to 60 h7 while if
59...Rh1 60 Kg4 Rg1+ 61 Kf5 Rf1+ 62 Kg6 Rg1+ 63 Kh7 Kd7 64 Rg8! Rf1
65 Kg7 Rg1+ 66 Kh8 Rf1 67 h7 Ke6 68 Kg7 Rg1+ 69 Kf8 Rf1+ 70 Ke8 Ra1
71 Rg6+ Kf5 72 Rf6+! (Not the only winning move, but quickest) 72...Ke5
73 Rh6 Ra8+ 74 Kf7 Ra7+ 75 Kg6 Ra6+ 76 Kg5 and Black can no longer
prevent the pawn queening.
59...Kd6 -
The moscow2012fide.com version, which looks like becoming the official
version of the gamescore, ends here but Milos (who as already noted diverges
at move fifty-one) indicated that two further moves were played on each side
before the draw was agreed.
Even the next day, the versions on the FIDE and ChessBase websites still did
not agree about the sequence from Black's fifty-first move onwards, although
they did concur on the fatal blunder that cost Gelfand the win.
Of course the players had long since ceased to keep score and it was not
possible for them to reconcile the record immediately afterward because they
only had a ten minute break before the final game.
Who can resolve the questions of what Anand actually played at move fiftyone, and what was the authentic sequence to the end of the game? I find it
extraordinary that in a world championship match there can be such
uncertainty and the discrepancy was not pointed out at either the official or
ChessBase sites while everyone was still in Moscow so that it might have
been settled.
Postscript
Some readers appear to have misunderstood something I wrote in my May
column about British Chess Magazine. Probably one sentence could have
been better drafted by me. When I said that the journal "looks likely to expire
within the next few years," this was entirely my opinion and I might have
been putting it too strongly. Some read these words as if I was attributing
them to former editor Bernard Cafferty. He did not say that. Of course in
these difficult times for print publications, chess or otherwise, there is always
the possibility that any could eventually close and much depends on the
willingness of owners to support them through times of crises that will
inevitably arise, and of course on chess players to subscribe. Readers should
not however hesitate to subscribe, to this or any other chess periodical, for
fear that they will not receive their full quota of issues. That would be selfdefeating and would soon leave the chess world with no printed magazines at
all. BCM went through a bad patch in 2011 especially when it had to sell its
shop in Baker Street to its competitor. Now they are concentrating on their
magazine and have a much better presence online.
The Lund Chess Academy has completed its first online chess auction and is
now starting to accumulate sellers' items for their next one to be completed by
15 August when bidding will start, concluding on 1 September. You can
register to buy and sell at their website.

Plain Man's Guide to the Kieseritzky Gambit

Part One
During 2002 I wrote a four-part series of articles on the King's Gambit for the
magazine Chess Mail, of which I was then editor, surveying various
variations through practical examples from correspondence play. Ten years
on is a good time to revisit the subject and see what has changed. Reader
feedback is welcome and can be incorporated in the second or third parts
(scheduled for August and September 2012) or in a future article.
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
My original series title was 'Plain man's guide to the King's Gambit' and
somewhat apologetically I have decided to retain this gender-biased line. That
is not because I don't think female chess-players should play the King's
Gambit (and there are of course many more strong female players than was
the case ten years ago) but rather because 'Plain man's guide to' was such a
stock book title phrase that I chose it then out of nostalgia and for its
recognition factor. My university library has fifty-six titles beginning with
those words and only two 'Plain person's guide' (and none beginning 'Plain
woman's guide').
Purchases from our

accessible:
No Passion For Chess Fashion

by Raetsky & Chetverik
Translate this page
The King's Gambit, one of the oldest openings, begins as follows:

1 e4 e5 2 f4
Beating the Open Games

by Mihail Marin
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppp1ppp/8/4p3/4PP2/
8/PPPP2PP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 2"]

the games from
White offers his f-pawn, temporarily at least, with some of the following
objectives in mind:
a) To destroy Black's central bastion at e5, thus guaranteeing open play;
b) To obtain a majority of pawns in the centre, to gain space in the
middle game;
c) To open the f-file as a future line of attack (after castling kingside);
d) To accelerate development of the pieces (although 2 f4 in itself does
not directly help with this);
e) To envisage a queenside pawn majority, valuable for the endgame (if
White's e-pawn is exchanged for Black's d-pawn, and especially if his dpawn is also exchanged for Black's c-pawn);
f) Psychological motivation: to unsettle Black by a direct confrontation;
the defender must decide whether to attempt to hold the gambit pawn.
ECO C
by Chess Informant
g) Theoretical motivation: many King's Gambit lines have been very

deeply analysed and the well-prepared attacker can win quickly if his
opponent chooses an inferior line.
h) Bird's Opening players can switch to it if Black replies with From's
Gambit (1 f4 e5 and now 2 e4).
The drawbacks of the King's Gambit, on the other hand, may be outlined as
follows:
a) White gives away a valuable pawn which may not be recovered;
b) In so doing, White also weakens his king position in the short run;
moreover, kingside castling is not always possible and sometimes
castling must be forgone altogether;
c) Attempting to justify the initial pawn sacrifice, White sometimes
finds it necessary to sacrifice further material, usually a minor piece, in
order to build up threats before Black can consolidate. Such piece
sacrifice lines tend to be obscure or unsound.
d) Black has a wide choice of replies which means that White has a lot
of variations to learn.
The latter, together with doubts about soundness, is perhaps the main reason
for the relative unpopularity of the gambit nowadays. To be honest, I have
always avoided playing it with white in serious games but may get around to
it some day. I have had many interesting games with black, usually in
correspondence events; over-the-board, opponents rarely played it against me.
Do not go looking for my King's Gambit games in databases. With a very few
exceptions, you will not find them. Some of my games were played on the
Internet under pseudonyms that I do not intend to reveal.
Nevertheless, the King's Gambit is fun and difficult to defend at rapid timelimits because of White's initiative. This makes it an attractive choice when
rating points and titles are not at stake. It is also one of those openings that is
far from likely to be successful below the level of masters and experienced
tournament players. Nowadays, few grandmasters play the King's Gambit
except as a shock weapon, but it may be noted that former world champion
Boris Spassky has still been playing it in simultaneous displays this century.
As there is so much material, I have divided this into a two-part article. This
month will deal only with the main branch of the classical King's Knight's
Gambit Accepted, 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 (This month I will not look at other
replies.) 3 Nf3 g5. This principally means the Kieseritzky Gambit. The
August column will deal with all other lines arising from 3g5 and other KG
lines will be discussed in September.
So, continuing from the first diagram:
3 Nf3
White follows the old rule of thumb, knights before bishops. This also
prevents a check at h4 and hurries to get castled. The first and second parts of
the series concentrate on the various gambits arising from Black's next move
and the diverse variations arising from it. Other variations will be dealt with
in the third article, in September.
3...g5!?
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppp1p1p/8/6p1/4Pp2/5N2/
PPPP2PP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 4"]
This ancient reply was my preferred move for many years when I have had to
meet the King's Gambit in correspondence chess. Obviously the first point is
that it protects the pawn on f4 and also it threatens to harass the knight at f3.
3...g5 says 'I have a pawn and I'm going to keep it. What are you going to do
about it?' When I was learning chess, the attitude to this move seemed to be
that 3...g5 was an obviously bad sort of nineteenth century move that
deserved to be punished and Fischer's 3...d6 (to be considered next time)
evolved as a way of improving on it. Nowadays, the view seems different:
White has to prove he has something against 3...g5 or why should Black
bother with indirect attempts like 3...d6 and 3...h6?
After 3g5, White has three main ways to proceed. The subject of this
month's article will be the move generally considered best, namely.
4 h4
About twenty years ago, when I resumed playing 1...e5 in about fifty percent
of my black games, I studied all this for a lecture I was giving. 4 h4, usually
leading to the Kieseritzky Gambit, is the crux of the whole thing; White won't
allow the dark-square pawn chain to solidify into an impenetrable Great Wall
of China.
The other moves (principally 4 Bc4 and 4 d4) are very exciting, of course.
They will be discussed next time, along with perhaps some reader comments
on this article (but only if they are received by 31 July).
4...g4
This is the problem with 3...g5; we wanted to play it to support the f4-pawn
not to chase white pieces to better squares. However, there is a positive side
to the move for Black: h4 becomes a target and the white king may get
opened up in some lines.
Now White must move his knight; where should it go?
A: 5 Ng5?! (Allgaier)
B: 5 Ne5 (Kieseritzky)
A: 5 Ng5?!
Like the Charge of the Light Brigade, the knight ventures into the jaws of
death; it has no retreat from here.
This article will not deal in any detail with the Allgaier lines because I
discussed them in the Kibitzer series numbers 78 and 79 (November 2002 and
December 2002).
Here is a high-level CC tournament example.
C. Depasquale J. Asquith
Allgaier Gambit [C39]
BFCC-40 email master invitational 2002
5...h6 6 Nxf7 Kxf7
[FEN "rnbq1bnr/pppp1k2/7p/8/4PppP/8/
PPPP2P1/RNBQKB1R w KQ - 0 7"]
7 d4
Or 7 Bc4+!? (For other moves see my November 2002 Kibitzer article.) 7...d5
8 Bxd5+ Kg7 (8...Ke8 9 d4 Nf6 is also possible.) 9 Bxb7?! (9 d4 may be
better but modern examples played by strong players are lacking.) 9...Bxb7
10 Qxg4+ Kf7 11 Qh5+ Ke7 12 Qe5+ Kd7 13 Qxh8 Nf6 14 e5 Nc6 (14...
Bxg2 was analysed by Dufresne in the nineteenth century.) 15 Qxf6 Qxf6 16
exf6 Nd4 17 00 and now:
a) 17...Bc5 18 b4 Ne2+ 19 Kh2 Rg8 20 bxc5 Rxg2+ forcing perpetual check
(John Delaney-P. Peto, SEMI email 2003).
b) 17...f3 18 gxf3 Nxc2 19 d4 Nxa1 20 Bf4 Nc2 21 Rc1 Nxd4 22 Rxc7+ Ke6
23 Kf2 Bxf3 24 Rc4 Rd8 25 Rxd4 Rxd4 26 Kxf3 Kxf6 27 h5 Rd3+ 28 Kg4
Bd6 29 Nc3 Rd4 30 Ne2 Re4 31 Kf3 Rxe2 32 Bxd6 Rxb2 33 a4 Ra2 34 Bf4
Kg7 35 Be5+ Kh7 36 Bb8 Rxa4 01, Brunomag-Redshift, Internet Chessclub
CC Quads, a correspondence game (thirty days per ten moves, computer
and other assistance allowed). This was sent in to me by the winner (George
Sobala), who said my 2002 ChessCafe.com article was "most helpful!"
7...f3!
7...d5 has also been seen.
8 Be3!? fxg2
If 8...d5 9 Nc3 Modern Chess Openings, 14th edition.
9 Bxg2 d6 10 Qe2 Be7 11 00+ Kg7
[FEN "rnbq2nr/ppp1b1k1/3p3p/8/3PP1pP/
4B3/PPP1Q1B1/RN3RK1 w - - 0 12"]
Black's king looks relatively safe here and he has a whole extra knight. 12 e5
could be worth a try in a blitz game.
12 Nc3 c6 13 e5 Bxh4 14 Ne4 d5 15 Nd6 Be6 16 Rf5!?
[FEN "rn1q2nr/pp4k1/2pNb2p/3pPR2/
3P2pb/4B3/PPP1Q1B1/R5K1 b - - 0 16"]
This ingenious move might give chances over the board. White threatens
Qxg4+ and 16...Bxf5 17 Nxf5+ White may well be winning. Also if 16...h5
17 Raf1, the position is unclear with all White's forces in action.
16...Rh7!
This gives the king a flight square at h8 and kills White's attack.
17 Nxb7 Qe8 18 Raf1 Qg6 19 Nd6 Nd7 20 c4 Kh8 21 cxd5 cxd5 01
So don't believe anyone who tells you the Allgaier Gambit, 5 Ng5, is sound.
White has to sacrifice a piece speculatively. The Hamppe-Allgaier Gambit in
the Vienna (i.e. with the added moves Nc3 for White and ...Nc6 for Black),
may be a different matter.
B:
5 Ne5!
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppp1p1p/8/4N3/4PppP/
8/PPPP2P1/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 5"]
On this square the knight has a future, attacking g4 (twice) as well as f7, and
having retreat squares at its disposal.
Lionel Kieseritsky
This is the starting point of the Kieseritzky Gambit, named after a nineteenth
century master with the splendid name Lionel Adalbert Bagration Felix
Kieseritzky (1806-1853), otherwise best known as the loser (to Adolf
Anderssen) of the Immortal Game. This is rather unfair to him as he was a
fairly decent player for his day. He was originally from a part of what is now
Estonia but spent much of his adult life in Paris where he was one of the
strongest players in the 1850s.
In Kibitzer 78, when I wrote about the Allgaier, I also said
"The Kieseritzky Gambit has been studied very deeply and unless you are
willing to analyse deep into the middle-game, you are not likely to find
anything new. The earliest that a playable new move might be introduced is
perhaps around move ten. So the Kieseritzky is well-suited to correspondence
play but is not such a good bet for normal face-to-face or Internet contests
unless you are an expert."
In reply to 5 Ne5, Black in the old days tried lots of silly moves (like 5...h5),
but only three are suitable for mission-critical applications. White attacks the
g4-pawn twice and it's not defended, so you are returning the gambit pawn,
OK? It is a choice between 5...d6 and 5...Nf6 and I don't claim to know which
is better. I have tried them both.
B1: 5...d6
B2: 5...Nf6
B3: 5...Bg7
The other fifth moves for Black are all liable to give White a strong, even
decisive attack. The popular nineteenth century choice was to defend the
threatened pawn by 5...h5?! but this is asking for trouble. Of course there are
always people willing to revive old ideas.
The official refutation goes 6 Bc4 Rh7 (another point of Black's fifth move) 7
d4 Bh6 (7...d6 8 Nxf7! or 8 Nd3!?) 8 Nc3 Nc6 9 Nxf7 Rxf7 10 Bxf7+ Kxf7
11 Bxf4 Bxf4 12 00 Qxh4 (Nothing is really better.) 13 Rxf4+ Kg7 14 Qd2!
(14 Qd3 was been seen but then a later d4-d5 can be met by ...Ne5 with gain
of time.) 14...d6 (14...Qg5? 15 Rf7+) 15 Raf1 Nd8 16 Nd5 Bd7 17 e5!
(threatening both 18 Nxc7 and 18 Nf6) 18...dxe5 18 dxe5 Bc6 19 e6! Bxd5 20
Rf7+ Nxf7 21 Rxf7+ Kh8 (21...Kg6 22 Qd3+) 22 Qc3+ Nf6 23 Rxf6 Qxf6
(23...Qg5 24 Rh6+ Kg8 25 Rh8#) 24 Qxf6+ Kh7 25 Qf5+ Kh6 26 Qxd5 Kg6
27 Qd7 10, Bronstein-Dubinin, USSR Ch, Leningrad 1947.
B1: 5...d6
The idea is to get your pieces out while White takes back the pawn and tries
to find something for his knight to do after it has finished its business on g4.
6 Nxg4 Nf6 7 Nxf6+
If instead 7 Nf2, the logical thing for Black to do is occupy the open file with
7...Rg8 8 d4 Bh6. There are plenty of recent practical examples of this; Black
seems to making a good plus score.
7...Qxf6 8 Nc3 Nc6!
This move, which was not mentioned by McDonald, is best. Black doesn't
need to play ...c6 to prevent 9 Nd5 driving his queen from its lovely square
because it actually wants to go to the even lovelier g6.
9 Bb5
9 Nd5, aiming to eat c7 and a8, is not to be feared because of juicy variations
like (8...Nc6) 9 Nd5 Qg6 10 Nxc7+? Kd8 11 Nxa8?? Qg3+ 12 Ke2 Nd4#.
Better here is 10 d3 Qg3+ 11 Kd2 (Fedorov-Anand, Wijk aan Zee 2001) but
now Jens Kristiansen's move 11...Nb4!! (instead of the normal 11...Ne7)
makes this unattractive for White. Black has a draw in hand if White goes for
the a8-rook, and 12 Nxb4? Qe3+ (Schreiber-Jensen, email 2000) probably
loses for White.
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/ppp2p1p/2np1q2/1B6/4Pp1P/
2N5/PPPP2P1/R1BQK2R b KQkq - 0 9"]
9 Bb5 is the move Michael Agermose Jensen recommended for White a

decade ago in his article for Correspondence Chess News. The move was
played against me at www.itsyourturn.com many years ago. I didn't make the
best response but there must be some doubt whether 'Black is OK' anyway.
The diagram position does not yet seem to have received proper attention
from grandmaster theoreticians.
9...a6!?
This is the most popular choice in correspondence games, although 9...Kd8
has sometimes been seen and is the usual choice in OTB games. One example
is 10 Bxc6 bxc6 11 Qf3 Rg8 12 d3 Bh6 13 Qf2 Rb8 14 Ne2 Rxb2 15 Bxb2
Qxb2 16 00 Qxc2 17 Nxf4 Qxf2+ 18 Rxf2 Bg7 19 Rc1 Bd4 20 Rxc6 Rg4 21
Nd5 Bb7 22 Rc4 Bxf2+ 23 Kxf2 Rxh4 24 Nxc7 Rh5 25 a4 h6 26 Nb5 Ba6 27
Rd4 , C. Martin Sanchez-U. Maffei, ICCF server 2008. However, there
is much more to be analysed here.
10 Nd5
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/1pp2p1p/p1np1q2/1B1N4/
4Pp1P/8/PPPP2P1/R1BQK2R b KQkq - 0 10"]
10...Qg7!
This is possibly critical; in other games Black put his queen on g6. For
example, 11 00:
a) 11...axb5 12 Nxc7+ Kd8 13 Nxa8 Bg4 14 Qe1 Bh3 15 Qf2 Rg8 16 d3 Bg7
17 c3 Be5 18 g3 Qxg3+ 19 Qxg3 Rxg3+ 20 Kf2 Bxf1 21 Kxf1 Rxd3 22 Nb6
Ne7 23 Ke2 Rh3 24 Bd2 Rxh4 25 Rf1 f5 26 exf5 Nxf5 27 Kd3 Ne7 28 Ke4
Rh5 29 a4 bxa4 30 c4 Bxb2 31 Nxa4 Be5 32 Ba5+ Kd7 33 Rb1 Rh3 34 Nb6+
01, H. Mhlenweg-H. Koch, ICCF Email 2005.
b) 11...Kd8 12 Bxc6 bxc6 13 Nxf4 Qxe4 14 c3 Rg8 15 d3 Qe8 and now:
b1) 16 Nh5 Bg4 17 Nf6 Bxd1 18 Nxe8 Kxe8 19 Rxd1 Be7 20 Re1 Kd7 21
Rf1 Rg7 22 Bh6 , J. Asquith-J.Marin Solano, BFCC Jubilee Email 2000.
b2) 16 Qc2 Be7 17 h5 Bh4 18 d4 f5 19 Bd2 Rb8 20 b4 Bg3 21 Be1 Qe3+ 22

Kh1 Rg4 23 Nh3 Rh4 24 Bd2 Qe7 25 Kg1 Rg4 26 Rf3 Bh4 27 Raf1 Qf7 28
Be1 Be7 29 Re3 Qxh5 30 Qe2 Bf6 31 Nf4 Qf7 32 Ne6+ Bxe6 33 Rxe6 Rg8
34 Rxf5 , L. TintureR. Rizzo, corr France 2002.
11 00 Rg8
Black threatens mate on g2 before defending c7. A high-level correspondence
game continued 12 Rf2 Kd8 13 Be2 Nd4 14 c3 Nxe2+ 15 Qxe2 Bg4 16 Qf1
f3 17 d4 Be7 18 Qc4 Bxh4 19 Qxc7+ Ke8 20 g3 Bd7 21 Qxd6 Qxg3+ 22
Qxg3 Rxg3+ 23 Kh1 Rh3+ 24 Rh2 Rc8 25 Be3 f2 26 Kg2 Rxh2+ 27 Kxh2
Bb5 28 Kh3 f1Q+ 29 Rxf1 Bxf1+ 30 Kxh4 Rc6 31 e5 Bc4 32 Nf6+ Rxf6 33
exf6 Bxa2 34 Kg5 , M. Nimtz-V. Piccardo, 18th CC World Ch Final
2003.
B2: 5...Nf6!
This makes sense. Black counter-attacks White's e-pawn. Jensen turns his
attention to this in his second article (CCN 51) and asks: 'If the Kieseritsky is
really as bad as the press it gets, then why do the world's best players keep
playing it?'
[FEN "rnbqkb1r/pppp1p1p/5n2/4N3/4PppP/
8/PPPP2P1/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 6"]
6 d4
6 Bc4!? is a more aggressive but not necessarily stronger move, attacking the
f7-pawn, when after 6d5 7 exd5 Bg7 it transposes to line C2 below. In
olden days Black often tried 7Bd6, when 8 0-0?! Bxe5 9 Re1 is the
unsound Rice Gambit. After 8 d4 Nh5, play is similar to line C2, except for
the different posting of the black bishop.
6 Nxg4 gives Black a comfortable game after 6...Nxe4 7 Qe2 Qe7 or 7 d3
Ng3.
6...d6
6...Bg7 transposes to the main line C, reachable via 5...Bg7 6 d4 Nf6. Then 7
Nc3 is the main move while 7 Bc4 d5 8 exd5 gives the same position that
usually arises after 6 Bc4.
7 Nd3 Nxe4 8 Bxf4
Both sides have choices at this point. White can play here 8 Qe2 Qe7 9 Bxf4
to avoid Black's second option below but if so, he misses out on the chance of
playing Gallagher's line, 9 Be2.
Now the following:
B21: 8...Qe7!?
B22: 8...Bg7
B21: 8...Qe7!?
[FEN "rnb1kb1r/ppp1qp1p/3p4/8/3PnBpP/
3N4/PPP3P1/RN1QKB1R w KQkq - 0 9"]
9 Be2
I said in my original article that 9 Qe2 can lead to drawish endgames. One
reader, Gary Ruben (Canada), however commented: 'On the other hand, if
after you have taken your best shot at winning and it doesn't work out, having
a draw to fall back on isn't bad. Particularly in such a fluid open position'.
There has been quite a lot of further experience OTB and in correspondence
events with both 12 0-0-0 Re8 and 12 Nxe4 being tried here. Results seem to
be equally divided so this looks like a line where the better play can win, with
either colour.
9...Bg7!?
9...Nc6 is also promising; e.g., 10 Nc3 f5 (not 10...Nxd4? 11 Nd5 Qd8 12
Nf2).
10 Nc3
Neil McDonald's 1998 book on the King's Gambit says Black has already
gone wrong at move eight. He shows that 10Bxd4? is suicidal because of
11 Nd5 and that Black seems to have nothing better than 10Nxc3.
10...h5!?
My idea, which I tried in an anonymous web-server game about ten years
ago. Whereas McDonald was of the view that Black's g-pawn is useless once
it has been forced to advance to g4, this advance supports the g-pawn and it
has value again in cramping White's kingside and maintaining the material
advantage. White's pawn on h4 is now a potential weakness for the endgame
and in the short run it has to be defended by the rook.
[FEN "rnb1k2r/ppp1qpb1/3p4/7p/3PnBpP/
2NN4/PPP1B1P1/R2QK2R w KQkq - 0 11"]
Now the move ...h7-h5, which was not good at move five when Black had
zero development, is quite logical. I am saying to White: you had the chance
to take your pawn back and you didn't do it, so now I close the door. White
has to seek his compensation in piece play.
11 Nd5 Qd8 12 c3
White defends the d-pawn. 12 Nf2 does not cut across Black's plans to
simplify.
12...c6 13 Ne3 Be6 14 Nf2 Nxf2 15 Kxf2 unclear.
White is struggling to prove equality here, although I am not sure what the
best continuation is. Maybe the d-pawn should be returned by 15...Nd7 16
Bxd6 Nf6 or maybe 15...Bh6!? is good though I don't really like the look of it.
I played 15...Qf6!? but my Austrian opponent managed to find counterchances: 16 Kg3! 0-0 17 Qc2 c5!? 18 Rd1 cxd4 19 Rxd4 Bh6 and a lively but
balanced struggle ensued, ending in a draw eventually. Of course this was an
anonymous web-server tournament and probably neither player gave it the
attention he would in a serious CC game. Still, there is definitely food for
thought here. Also 8...Bg7 is potentially a bad line for White.
On the basis of those two games, I definitely felt more comfortable as Black
playing 5...Nf6 rather than 5...d6.
B22: 8...Bg7!?
[FEN "rnbqk2r/ppp2pbp/3p4/8/3PnBpP/
3N4/PPP3P1/RN1QKB1R w KQkq - 0 9"]
9 c3
Alternatively, 9 Qe2 (Bangiev) 9...00! 10 Qxe4 Re8 11 Ne5 dxe5 12 dxe5 is
good for Black:
a) 12...Nc6 was Michael Jensen's suggestion.
b) 12...Bxe5! is even stronger: 13 Bxe5 Nc6 14 Qf4 Rxe5+ 15 Be2 Qd4 16
Rf1 Be6 17 Nc3 Bc4 18 Qxd4 Nxd4 19 Rf4 Nxe2 0-1, C. BuenjerPeter
Daus, V0086.012 DESC email, 2001.
9...00! 10 Nd2 Re8 11 Nxe4
Or 11 Be2 (Thomas Johansson) 11...g3!? 12 Nxe4 Rxe4!? 13 Bxg3 (13 Kd2
c5!) 13...Bg4 (13...Qf6!?) 14 Nxf4 (or 14 Nc1 soon transposing to the text)
14...Qe7 15 Kf2 Bxe2 16 Nxe2 Nd7 17 Re1 Qf6+ 18 Kg1 Bh6 19 Bf2 Rae8
20 Qd3 Be3 21 Rf1 Qxh4 22 Qxe3 Rxe3 23 Bxh4 Rxe2 24 Rf2 Kg7 25 Raf1
Rxf2 26 Kxf2 f5 27 Rd1 Kg6 28 Kf3 Re4 29 Bd8 c5 30 Bc7 cxd4 31 cxd4 d5
32 Bf4 Nf8 33 Be5 Ne6 34 g3 h5 35 b4 Ng5+ 36 Kf2 h4 37 gxh4 Rxh4 01,
J. Dupont P. Daus, Freechess 0250 corr, 2002.
[FEN "rnbqr1k1/ppp2pbp/3p4/8/3PNBpP/
2PN4/PP4P1/R2QKB1R b KQ - 0 11"]
11...Rxe4+
K.Hjortstam-A.Moens, ICCF Thematic Final 1999, went instead 11...Bf5 12
Be2 Bxe4 13 00 h5? (better 13...Qxh4 14 Bxg4 Nc6) 14 Bg5 f6? (14...Qd7)
15 Bc1 Qe7 (Threat ...Bxg2) 16 Qb3+ Kh7 17 Nf2 Bg6 18 Bd3 Nd7 19 Bxg6
+ Kxg6 20 Qc2+ f5 (20...Kf7 21 Qf5 Rh8 22 Qd5+ Qe6 23 Qxb7) 21 Nd3
Rf8 22 Bg5 Qf7 23 Rae1 Rae8 24 Rxe8 Qxe8 (24...Rxe8 25 Rxf5! Qxf5 (25...
Kxf5 26 Nc5+) 26 Nf4+) 25 Re1 (Threatens clear win by 26 Nf4+ Kh7 27
Re7 so no need to risk 26 Rxf5!?) 25...Ne5 26 Re3 Qb5 27 Nf4+ Kh7 28 dxe5
dxe5 29 Nxh5 Bh6 30 Qd2 Bxg5 31 hxg5 Kg6 32 Nf6 Qb6 33 Nd7 Rd8 34
Nxe5+ 10.
12 Kf2?
We follow Anteru Harju Wesley C. Green, ICCF Officials 50th JT/IM-B
ICCF Email, 2001. Harju didn't know this king move had been refuted. Better
12 Be2 but White is still worse says Jensen 12...Qe8!? (for 12...g3!? see the
note to White's 11th move.) 13 Kd2! see Jensen in CCN51.
12...c5! 13 g3
13 dxc5 dxc5 14 g3 is book but Black seems to win with 14...c4 (14...Qb6 is
also good.); e.g., 15 Nc5 Qb6 16 Qd6 Nc6 17 Be3 Rxe3 18 Kxe3 Bf8 19 Qd2
Bh6+ 01, J.Precerutti-E.Roche Peris, EM/GT/A012 ICCF Email 1998.
13...cxd4 14 Bg2 Re8 15 c4 Nc6 16 Bd5 Ne5 17 Re1 Bf5 18 Nxe5 dxe5 19
Bg5 Qc7 20 Qb3 e4 21 Bf4 e3+ 22 Kg2 Be5 23 Qxb7 Qxb7 24 Bxb7 Rab8
25 Bc6 Rxb2+ 01
Harju commented for Chess Mail: 'My position is hopeless because of the
strong pawns on "d" and "e". A few times I have decided never to play the
Kings Gambit any more: But the often the temptation is too strong, as the
punishment is too.'
C: 5...Bg7
This move was recommended by Korchnoi and Zak and perhaps, if followed
up well, it may be playable after all.
6 d4 Nf6
If 6...d6 (6...Nf6 see 5...Nf6 6 d4 Bg7), 7 Nxg4 Bxg4 8 Qxg4 Bxd4 9 Nc3 is
good for White according to the books by Gallagher and McDonald.
[FEN "rnbqk2r/pppp1pbp/5n2/4N3/3PPppP/
8/PPP3P1/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 7"]
There are two main moves for White here:

C1: 7 Nc3
C2: 7 Bc4
There is little to recommend regaining the pawn by 7 Nxg4 Nxe4 8 Bxf4
when Black stands better after 80-0.

C1: 7 Nc3
The move that is supposed (e.g., in Neil McDonald's book) to give White a
good game.
7...d6 8 Nd3 Nh5!
After 8...0-0 9 Nxf4! Nxe4 10 Nxe4 Re8 11 Kf2 Rxe4 12 c3, White comes off
best. This old line from Rubinstein has been confirmed as good for White in
several correspondence games, although admittedly many of these games
were not at IM level or higher.
The text move is also in need of really tough tests.
9 Nxf4
Following the books, but this is a line where computer analysis suggests
Black has better chances than previously thought.
9...Ng3 10 Rh2 0-0
This is probably better than 10...Nxf1.
11 Be2
Maybe 11 Be3!? is better.
11...Re8!
Instead of Euwe's line 11...Nxe2 12 Ncxe2 f5 13 c3 fxe4 14 Qb3+ as also
given by Korchnoi and Zak.
12 Bxg4
Not 12 Qd3? Nxe4 13 Nxe4 Bf5 0-1, H. Jaeger-H. Wastel, ICCF email 2007.
[FEN "rnbqr1k1/ppp2pbp/3p4/8/3PPNBP/
2N3n1/PPP3PR/R1BQK3 b Q - 0 12"]
Now Black has two untested possibilities:

a) 12...Nxe4 13 Kf1 and now either 13...Bxg4 (played in one anonymous nonICCF webserver game that I have seen) or 13...c5 may turn out well for Black.
b) 12...Nc6!? attacks d4 and may even be better.
C2: 7 Bc4
[FEN "rnbqk2r/pppp1pbp/5n2/4N3/2BPPppP/
8/PPP3P1/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 7"]
7...d5!?
This is an important possibility because its main line can also arise by
transposition from 5...Nf6. Alternatively, Black can simply meet the threat to
his f-pawn by castling, but returning the gambit pawn by d5 is a common
King's Gambit theme, as it gains time to start developing the queenside.
8 exd5
As mentioned already, this important position can arise via 5Nf6 6 Bc4 d5
7 exd5 Bg7 8 d4.
8...Nh5!?
In a few games Black has castled instead or played 8...Nxd5 (met by 9 Nc3 or
9 0-0) but White appears to have the freer game in both cases.
On h5, the knight protects the f4-pawn and opens an attack by the queen
against White's h4-pawn. The position of the white king now looks somewhat
shaky, whereas Black can get his king into safety quickly by castling.
Possibly, White may stand well here but as shown below the critical position
is highly unclear and appears not to have been tested yet in any high-level
correspondence game. I strongly recommend readers to investigate this line.
9 0-0!
White gives up his weak pawn to force a queen exchange and hope that his
central and queenside preponderance will be of more significance than the
extra pawn which Black again holds, if only temporarily.
In the game M. Petr-F. Jenni, Rogaska Slatina 2009, White deferred the
sacrifice, playing 9 Nc3 0-0 10 Ne2 Qe7 (Gallagher and other writers on the
King's Gambit recommend 10c5!) 11 0-0 f3 12 gxf3 Qxh4 13 Nxg4 Bxg4
14 fxg4 Qxg4+ 15 Kh2. Although White eventually won this game, the
situation of his exposed king on a wing denuded of pawns does not make a
happy impression.
9...Qxh4 10 Qe1! Qxe1 11 Rxe1 0-0 12 Nc3 Nd7
In a friendly match during 2002 between two top American correspondence
players, N. Eric Pedersen and Wesley Brandhorst, Black chose instead 12
c5 when 13 Nb5 Nd7 transposes to the note 13c5 below.
13 Nb5
This is a critical position. It is analysed in both the 1992 King's Gambit book
by Joe Gallagher (Game Nineteen) and the 1998 book by Neil McDonald
(Game Twelve) without coming to definite conclusions. There is definitely
scope for more investigation. I conclude my article with some correspondence
games from here.
Michael A. Jensen Helmut Quelle
Kieseritzky Gambit [C39]

Schach magazine King's Gambit thematic email, 2000
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 h4 g4 5 Ne5 Bg7 6 d4 Nf6 7 Bc4 d5 8 exd5 Nh5
9 00 Qxh4 10 Qe1 Qxe1 11 Rxe1 00 12 Nc3 Nd7 13 Nb5
[FEN "r1b2rk1/pppn1pbp/8/1N1PN2n/
2BP1pp1/8/PPP3P1/R1B1R1K1 b - - 0 13"]
13...Nxe5!?
Although not mentioned in those books, this may be the most accurate
response.
In R. Byrne-Keres, USA v USSR telex match 1955, Black instead played 13...
c6 which is the most common choice here. The American grandmaster then
played 14 Nc7 which was met by the exchange sacrifice 14...cxd5!; the most
reply line is possibly 14 dxc6.
Subsequently, in Winants-van der Sterren, Wijk aan Zee 1995) Black
preferred 13c5. Then 14 dxc6 (en passant) would of course be the same as
13c6 14 dxc6 but the Belgian master Winants preferred the quiet 14 c3 and
after 14cxd4 15 cxd4 Nb6 16 Bb3 Bd7 the game soon petered out into a
draw.
The most recent over-the-board game I have seen in this variation, E. Berg-D.
De Vreugt, Bermuda 2002, saw 13c5 met by 14 d6!? (threatening Nxf7).
Black replied 14cxd4 and lost, but 14Nxe5 or 15Nb6 would probably
be the critical replies.
McDonald speculates (on page 38 of his book) about the possibility 13c5
14 Nc7, when the resource employed by Keres is unavailable since the black
pawn stands on c5 not c6. Play continues 14Rb8 15 d6 Nb6 (Instead 15...
cxd4? 16 Nxf7! wins for White according to McDonald; e.g., 16...Rxf7 17
Re7 Ne5 18 Re8+ Bf8 19 Rxe5) 16 dxc5 Nxc4 17 Nxc4 Bd4+ 18 Kh2 b5 (So
far according to McDonald, who said 19 cxb6 was forced here). Now the two
aforementioned Pedersen-Brandhorst games went as follows:
a) 19 cxb6 axb6 20 Rd1 Bf2 21 d7 Bb7 (McDonald stopped here saying
Black had good attacking chances.) 22 Nd5 Rfd8 23 Bxf4 g3+ 24 Kh1 Nxf4
25 Nxf4 b5 26 Ne5 Ra8 27 Nh3 Ra6 28 Nxf2 gxf2 .
b) 19 Ne5 Bxc5 20 d7 g3+ 21 Kh3 Bb7 22 Rd1 Rfd8 23 Kh4 Nf6 24 Bxf4
Be7 25 Ng4 Rxd7 26 Rxd7 Nxd7+ 27 Kxg3 Rc8 28 Nh6+ Kh8 .
14 dxe5 c6
Black intends to offer the exchange, as Keres did, but with the knights already
exchanged.
[FEN "r1b2rk1/pp3pbp/2p5/1N1PP2n/
2B2pp1/8/PPP3P1/R1B1R1K1 w - - 0 15"]
15 Nc7
Or 15 Nd6 cxd5 16 Bxd5 Rb8 17 b3 Be6 18 c4 Rfd8 19 Ba3 Bxd5 20 cxd5
Bf8 21 Rad1 b5 22 Bc5 a5 23 b4 axb4 24 Bxb4 Rbc8 25 Rc1 (25 Nxc8 Bxb4
regains the exchange with a good ending.) 25...Rxc1 26 Rxc1 Ng3 27 Rd1
Bxd6 28 Bxd6 Kg7 29 Bb4 , A. Kozlowicz-L. Alves, CADAP Email
2000.
15...cxd5
[FEN "r1b2rk1/ppN2pbp/8/3pP2n/2B2pp1/
8/PPP3P1/R1B1R1K1 w - - 0 16"]
16 Bxd5
16 Nxa8 dxc4 would be very like Byrne-Keres (in fact a direct transposition if
White played 17 Bd2?!), probably too risky for White.
16...Rb8 17 e6
Two other games have gone as follows:
a) 17 c4 Bd7 18 e6 Bd4+ 19 Kh1 Bxe6 20 Nxe6 Ng3+ 21 Kh2 fxe6 22 Bxe6+
Kh8 23 Bxg4 Rf6 24 Bxf4 Rxf4 25 Kxg3 Rbf8 26 Kh3 R4f6 27 Bh5 Rf5 28
Bg4 R5f6 29 Bh5 Rf5 30 Bg4 R5f6 , Jan Zidu-Laura Hartmann,EM/J50/
P046 ICCF email 2001.
b) 17 c3 Rd8 18 Bb3 Kf8 19 Nd5 Bh6 20 Rf1 Be6 21 Nxf4 Nxf4 22 Bxf4
Kg7 23 Rab1 b6 24 Bxh6+ Kxh6 25 Bxe6 fxe6 26 Rf6+ Kg5 27 Rxe6 Re8 28
Rxe8 Rxe8 29 Re1 Re6 30 Kf2 h5 31 g3 b5 32 b3 Kf5 33 Re3 Rxe5 34 Rxe5
+ Kxe5 35 Ke3 a5 , L. FedeliF. Venturelli, WQE004 ICCF server 2008.
17...Bxe6 18 Nxe6 Rbe8 19 Bd2 fxe6 20 Bxe6+ Rxe6 21 Rxe6 Bxb2 22 Rf1
Bd4+ 23 Kh2 Rf5 24 Re4 Bf2 25 Rxf2 g3+ 26 Kg1 gxf2+ 27 Kxf2 Kf7 28
Kf3 Rc5 29 c4 b6 30 Bb4 Rc6 31 Rd4 a5
To sum up, Black has considerable choice in meeting the Kieseritzky but
nothing that amounts to a clear refutation. Sources do not agree on best play.
On the whole I tend to prefer Black, but new ideas for both sides may yet be
found.
Line C2 is particularly interesting and if it is playable for Black, the question

arises whether he should prefer to aim for it via 5...Bg7, as shown here, rather
than by more usual route via 5Nf6 5 Bc4 d5.
Postscript: Zukertort's grave

Zukertort's grave in London's Brompton cemetery has been restored, with a
new headstone in English and Polish, thanks to GM Stuart Conquest, the
Polish Heritage Society, Dr Michael Negele and several other benefactors.
Thanks to Messrs. Conquest and Negele for supplying the picture shown here.
A rededication ceremony was held there on 26 June. More details can be
found on the website of the Ken Whyld Association, which links to further
reports.
One of the strongest chess grandmasters of the nineteenth century, Johannes

Herman Zukertort (1842-1888) lived in London from 1873 until his
premature death. He won Paris 1878 and London 1883, two of the greatest
tournaments of the time. However, he is now best remembered as the loser (to
Steinitz) of the first official World Chess Championship match, played in
various American cities in 1886. There is a chapter about Zukertort in my
new book Eminent Victorian Chess Players.


Part Two
This is the second part of my survey article, based chiefly on correspondence
games, begun last month. Here we consider those King's Gambit lines
following 3 Nf3 g5 where White does not play 4 h4. A postscript discusses
some reader feedback in brief.
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
The 'King's Knight's Gambit' is an umbrella term covering all variations

beginning 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3. Within this we find numerous named
gambits which sometimes can transpose one into another. Before examining
lines in detail and showing sample games, it may be useful to give a little
alphabetical guide (probably incomplete) to the names of King's Gambit
variations since this can be confusing. Numerous subdivisions, some almost
never seen nowadays, are named after chess heroes of the romantic period
from the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries.
Purchases from our

accessible:
ECO C
by Chess Informant
Most of these lines have been recognised as unsound, albeit many are fun to
play in friendlies and a good practical chance at rapid time limits.
Translate this page

the games from
Allgaier Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 h4 g4 5 Ng5 (discussed

last month).
Bishop's Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Bc4, to be considered in my next
article.
Cotter Gambit: an old name in England for the Allgaier Gambit.
Cunningham Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 Be7 (next article).
Fischer Defence: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 d6 and if 4 d4 (not forced) 4
g5 5 h4 g4, see the September article.
Ghulam Kassim Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4 g4 5 d4.
Hanstein Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4 Bg7 5 0-0, see
below.
Kieseritzky Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 h4 g4 5 Ne5
(discussed last month).
Little (or Lesser) Bishop's Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Be2, to be
considered in my next article. (Estrin and Glazkov called this the
Petroff Gambit.)
Lolli Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4 g4 5 Bxf7+.
McDonnell Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4 g4 5 Nc3.
Muzio-Polerio Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4 g4 5 0-0
offering the knight.
Prnu (or Keres) Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nc3, in the September
article.
Philidor Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4 Bg7 5 h4.
Quaade Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Nc3.
Rice Gambit: mentioned in the previous article, is an offshoot of the
Kieseritzky Gambit, arising via 5Nf6 6 Bc4 d5 7 exd5 Bd6 8 0-0; the
sacrificed knight is eventually recovered after 8Bxe5 9 Re1 but
Black should have more than a draw.
Rosentreter Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 d4 g4 5 Bxf4 offering
the knight.
Salvio Gambit: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4 g4 5 Ne5.
Schallopp Defence: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 Nf6.
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5
Having dispensed with 4 h4 last month, White's other significant possibilities
are:
A: 4 Bc4
No Passion For Chess Fashion

by Raetsky & Chetverik
Beating the Open Games

by Mihail Marin
B: 4 d4 (and 4 Nc3)
A: 4 Bc4
White is getting ready to sacrifice his knight if Black attacks it with the gpawn. It's not really clear that c4 is the right square for the Bishop if White
cannot break through to f7, so Black should probably not be tempted.
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppp1p1p/8/6p1/2B1Pp2/
5N2/PPPP2PP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 4"]
The defender has two main alternatives:

A1: 4g4
A2: 4Bg7
Also possible is 4...d6 usually leading to the Hanstein Gambit (A22) or to a
sort of Fischer Defence.
A1: 4g4
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppp1p1p/8/8/2B1Ppp1/
5N2/PPPP2PP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 5"]
This is just asking for White to sacrifice lots of pieces and give mate,
although realistically perpetual check may be all he'll get if Black keeps his
head.
5 0-0
White reckons that time and development are of the essence and is willing to
sacrifice the knight to get castled and bring the queen into play.
There are various other ways to go mad:
a) The Lolli Gambit 5 Bxf7+? Kxf7 6 Ne5+, sacrificing the bishop instead of
the knight, is completely unsound. Black should reply 6Ke8 7 Qxg4 Nf6 8
Qxf4 d6 9 Nf3 (or 9 0-0 dxe5) 9Rg8 and White has no real compensation
for the piece.
b) 5 Nc3 gxf3 6 Qxf3 is called the McDonnell Gambit, after Alexander
McDonnell who played it in one of his matches in 1834 against French master
Labourdonnais, the first series to be recorded in full and published. Some
sources claim it is a playable proposition, on the basis of 6 d6 7 d4 Be6 8
d5 (Keres) which is recommended in Korchnoi and Zak's book.

S. Kuipers-R. Swinkels, Arnhem 2004, continued 8...Bd7!? 9 00 Qf6 10 Qd3
Bh6 11 Be3 Qg7 12 Bxf4 Bxf4 13 Rxf4 Ne7 14 Raf1 00 15 R4f3 Ng6 16
Rg3 Bc8 17 Ne2 Nd7 18 Nf4 Nde5 19 Qc3 f5 20 Ne6 Bxe6 21 dxe6 Nxc4 22
Qxc4 fxe4 23 e7+ Rf7 24 h4 c6 25 Qe6 Re8 26 h5 Rexe7 27 hxg6 hxg6 28
Qc8+ Rf8 29 Rxf8+ Qxf8 30 Rxg6+ Rg7 31 Rxg7+ Kxg7 32 Qg4+ Kf6 33
Qxe4 Qh6 34 Qd4+ Ke7 35 Qc3 a6 36 Qb3 Qc1+ 37 Kh2 Qh6+ 38 Kg1 Qc1
+ 39 Kf2 Qd2+ 40 Kf3 Qd1+ 41 Kg3 Qe1+ 42 Kf3 Qf1+ 43 Kg3 Qe1+ 44
Kh2 Qe5+ 45 g3 Qe2+ 46 Kh3 .
White was probably lucky to draw that. Anyway it should be noted that Estrin
and Glazkov recommend that 8...Qh4+! is better for Black. Since 9 Kf1 loses
to 9...Bg4 10 Qxf4 Bh6 White has to reply 9 g3, when after 9...Bg4 10 Qxf4
Qh3 (a crucial tempo gain) 11 Bf1 (or 11 Rf1 f6 threatening ...Bh6) 11...Qh5
his compensation for the piece is nebulous.
c) 5 d4 is known as the Ghulam Kassim Gambit, after an Indian player of the
1820s who was involved in the historic Madras versus Hyderabad
correspondence match. Afterwards James Cochrane, cousin of the more
famous John Cochrane, published a booklet which included the games and
Ghulam Kassim's analysis of this variation. After 5gxf3 6 Qxf3, Black is
usually advised to play 6d5 7 Bxd5 Nf6 to meet 8 0-0 by 8c6. Instead 8
Nc3 is some improvement but it is hard to believe this form of the knight
sacrifice can be sound.
d) 5 Ne5 Qh4+ 6 Kf1 is the Salvio Gambit beloved of Steinitz at one time. As
in the Bishop's Gambit, White encourages Black to give the queen check, not
minding the loss of castling rights. He hopes the queen will prove to be
misplaced in the long run.
d1) For the old main line 6...Nh6 7 d4, I refer readers to the sixth game
Steinitz-Zukertort match game of 1872, annotated on pages 172-3 of my new
book Eminent Victorian Chess Players. Anderssen had played 7...d6 against
Steinitz in their 1866 match, after which Zukertort introduced the
improvement 7...f3! In 1872 Steinitz found an improvement on an article
Zukertort had written about the Salvio in the Neue Berliner Schachzeitung.
d2) 6...Nc6!, recommended by Steinitz in 1885 in his International Chess
Magazine, is reckoned to be critical.
d1) 7 Qxg4? got Steinitz a lost position against Hruby at Vienna 1882,
although he eventually won the game.
d2) The critical line is reckoned to be 7 Nxf7 Bc5 8 Qe1 g3 9 Nxh8 Bf2 10
Qd1 Nf6 when Black threatens 11...Ng4, and if here 11 h3 or 11 d4, Black
replies 11...d5.
The elegant theoretical main line goes 11 Be2 d6 12 c3 Bg4 13 h3 Ne5! 14 d4
f3 15 Bxf3 Nxf3 16 gxf3 g2+! 17 Ke2 Bxf3+! 18 Kxf3 Qxe4+ 19 Kxf2
gxh1=Q, etc.
Can computer analysis discover any way through the complications for
White? If not, the Salvio is busted.
Now we return to the main line of 4 Bc4 g4 5 0-0:
5...gxf3 6 Qxf3
This is one of the most ancient forms of the King's Gambit, popularly known
as the Muzio (due to a misunderstanding by Sarratt), but which is nowadays
attributed to Polerio, though it was not necessarily his invention either. The
early Italian free castling rule (meaning that the king could go directly to h1
instead of g1) made this a much stronger attack than it is in modern chess.
Black is a piece up, but, lacking any development, must walk a tightrope,
even though he has the option of checks on d4 which were impossible in the
original Polerio version. Clearly the traditional weak point f7 is to be the
focus of White's attack since he has three pieces bearing down against it.
6...Qf6
Several other moves have been tried as a way of circumventing the main line,
but discussing them is perhaps a job for another day.
7 e5
More material is thrown on the fire to open the e-file and especially to deflect
the black queen from the defence of f7. Other moves have been tried, but this
is the main line and we cannot discuss everything.
7...Qxe5
[FEN "rnb1kbnr/pppp1p1p/8/4q3/2B2p2/
5Q2/PPPP2PP/RNB2RK1 w kq - 0 8"]
Now White can continue 'normally' or sacrifice a second piece.

8 d3!
Estrin and Glazkov, based on old analyses by Chigorin, came to the
conclusion (in their 1982 book published by Pergamon) that this gives equal
chances although the modern tendency seems to be to prefer Black.
Unfortunately, numerous misprints on pages 54-56 of that edition make some
of their analyses hard to follow.
The alternative 8 Bxf7+?! Kxf7 9 d4 sacrifices a second piece to break open
the defences. After 9...Qxd4+ 10 Be3 Qf6 11 Nc3 or 11 Bxf4, the gamble
may work, but the Double Muzio looks unsound to me. Black should reply 9...
Qf5! This move isn't mentioned by Korchnoi and Zak, and only briefly
(admittedly favourably) by Estrin and Glazkov, but McDonald says 'this may
be the only playable move.'
White then continues 10 g4 Qg6 11 Bxf4 Nf6 12 Be5:
[FEN "rnb2b1r/pppp1k1p/5nq1/4B3/
3P2P1/5Q2/PPP4P/RN3RK1 b - - 0 12"]
Here Black has two moves that give him excellent winning chances:
a) 12...Be7 13 Nc3 d6 14 Bxf6. Here McDonald implies White may stand a
little better, but instead of 14...Bxf6 English CC-grandmaster Peter Millican
pointed out 14...Bxg4 winning for Black.

b) 12...d6 is recommended by McDonald but again is analysis is not
altogether convincing. After 13 Bxf6 Bxg4 14 Qg2, he recommends 14...Rg8,
which may be good (it threatens 15...Bf3). He says 'not 14...Bg7? 15 Bg5+
Kg8 16 Qxg4' but here it is not clear how he thinks White should meet 16...
h6!; e.g., 17 Qc8+ Kh7 18 Qxb7 Nd7.
I conclude that 8 Bxf7+ is almost certainly refuted and that 8 d3 is necessary.
The main line then goes as follows:
8...Bh6 9 Nc3 Ne7 10 Bd2
[FEN "rnb1k2r/ppppnp1p/7b/4q3/2B2p2/
2NP1Q2/PPPB2PP/R4RK1 b kq - 0 10"]
10...Nbc6
Not 10...0-0? 11 Rae1 when Korchnoi and Zak wrote that 'It is doubtful
whether Black's position is defensible' after 11...Qc5+ 12 Kh1 and
McDonald's book gives a similar conclusion. Here 12...d5 is probably critical
and a Henry Bird-C. F. Smith game in this line is analysed on page 113 of my
Eminent Victorian Chess Players.
Also 11...Qf5 is interesting since after 12 Rxe7 Qc5+ 13 Re3! fxe3 the attack
by 14 Bxf7+ Kh8 15 Ne4 Qe7 16 Bc3+ Bg7 17 Bxg7+ Kxg7 18 Qg4+
apparently only draws, but 14 Ne4! ought to win (if 14...e2+ 15 Nxc5 exf1=Q
+ 16 Kxf1 Bxd2 17 Ne4) although this needs detailed proof.
11 Rae1 Qf5
Korchnoi and Zak wrote that 11Qc5+ 12 Kh1 0-0 13 Bxf4 Bg7 14 Be3 is
also unclear after 14Qa5 which improves on old Swedish analysis.
12 Nd5
Alternatives are reckoned to be inadequate but here too Black may be more
than "OK" with best play.
12...Kd8!
[FEN "r1bk3r/ppppnp1p/2n4b/3N1q2/2B2p2/
3P1Q2/PPPB2PP/4RRK1 w - - 0 13"]
13 Qe2!
This is the Maclean Attack, analysed in depth by Chigorin in his later years,
but he failed to find a decisive line for White. In his well-known 1874 game
with Davidov (analysed in McDonald's book), the great Russian master had
played 13 Bc3 and won, but best defence is good for Black.
13...b5?!
13Qe6 allows White to force an immediate draw by repetition with 14 Qf2
Qf5 15 Qe2 etc. and that may be Black's best line.
13b5 was recommended in the books by Korchnoi/Zak and McDonald but
may be inadequate, although analysis with today's more powerful computers
will possibly improve the defence.
14 Bxf4!
This move was underestimated by McDonald and not even mentioned by
Korchnoi/Zak or by Estrin/Glazkov.
14...Bxf4
Not 14Nxd5? 15 Bxh6!.
15 Rxf4 Qg5
McDonald says that 'if 15Qe6, then 16 Qf2 maintains the attack, while 15
Qxf4 16 Nxf4 bxc4 17dxc4 is unclear.' I tend to prefer White there also since
17d6 (to get the bishop into play) can be met by 18 c5.
16 Rg4! Qf5 17 Re4 Re8
This position seems to be definitely good for White.
[FEN "r1bkr3/p1ppnp1p/2n5/1p1N1q2/
2B1R3/3P4/PPP1Q1PP/4R1K1 w - - 0 18"]
a) Now A. MoensE. De Beck, Belgium corr, 1993-4, continued 18 Rf1 Qg5

19 h4 Qh6 (19...Qg6? 20 Nxe7 Nxe7 21 Bxf7 Qb6+ 22 d4 d5 23 Bxd5 and
wins Moens) 20 Rxf7 Nd4 21 Qg4 (21 Rxd4? Nxd5!) 21...Qg6 22 Qxg6
hxg6 23 Nf6 Ndf5? (23Rh8 minimises Black's disadvantage.) 24 Nxe8
Kxe8 25 Bb3 c6 26 Rh7 d5 27 Re5 Kf8 28 g4 Kg8 (28...Ng7 29 Rxg7 Kxg7
30 Rxe7+) 29 gxf5 Kxh7 30 Rxe7+ Kh6 31 f6 Bf5 32 f7 Rf8 33 Rxa7 Kg7 34
a4 Rb8 35 a5 Be6 36 Rc7 Rc8 37 Rxc8 Bxc8 38 c4 Bb7 39 cxd5 cxd5 40 a6
Bc6 41 Kf2 Kxf7 42 Ke3 10.
b) Deep Rybka 3 on my computer prefers 18 Qe3 d6 19 Nxe7 Nxe7 20 Rxe7
Be6 21 Rxe8+ Kxe8 22 Rf1 Qc5 23 Qxc5 dxc5 24 Bxb5+ with a winning
endgame.
A2: 4...Bg7!
After studying all the Muzio-Polerio nonsense, I ask why on earth does Black
unguard the f4-pawn when he has this perfectly good move 4...Bg7 instead?
[FEN "rnbqk1nr/pppp1pbp/8/6p1/2B1Pp2/
5N2/PPPP2PP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 5"]
Black is heading for the Hanstein Gambit where he plays ...d6, ...h6, ...Nc6
and lots of nice sensible developing moves, where White doesn't get much
chance for berserk sacrifices and generally loses a pawn down. In World Cup
terms, White has conceded an early goal and had a man sent off before he
starts to play for an equaliser; it doesn't make sense.
5 0-0
The alternative is the Philidor Gambit, 5 h4, which Estrin and Glazkov's book
called the Greco-Philidor Gambit. The assault on the pawn chain comes a
move too late, as Black can support the pawn chain now that his h8-rook is
protected. After 5...h6 6 d4 d6 (the characteristic position of this gambit),
Philidor analysed the continuation 7 c3 c6?, but instead comes 7...Nc6.
a) Old theory goes 8 Qb3 Qe7 9 0-0 (or 9 hxg5 hxg5 10 Rxh8 Bxh8 11 Qb5
g4 when complications favour Black.) and after 9...Nf6! 10 hxg5 hxg5 11
Nxg5 Nxe4 (or perhaps even better 11...Nxd4) with Black for preference. The
queen is probably misplaced on b3.
b) 8 00 with two master examples:
b1) 8...Qe7 9 Qd3 g4 10 Ne1 f3 11 gxf3 Be6 12 Bb3 Qxh4 13 fxg4 000 14
Ng2 Qxg4 15 Bc2 (Better is 15 d5, however.) 15...Nge7 16 Qd1 Rhg8 17
Qxg4 Bxg4 18 Kh2 Rdf8 19 Bf4 f5 20 Nd2 fxe4 21 Bxe4 Bf5 22 Nh4 Bxe4
23 Nxe4 Nd8 24 Bg3 Ne6 25 Rxf8+ Rxf8 26 Nd2 Nd5 27 Rf1 Rxf1 28 Nxf1
b5 29 Nf5 Kd7 30 Nd2 a5 31 Ne4 Bf8 32 b3 Ng5 33 Nxg5 hxg5 34 Be1 Ke6
35 Ng3 b4 36 cxb4 axb4 37 Kg2 Bg7 38 Ne2 Kf5 39 Ng3+ Kg4 40 Ne2 Ne3
+ 41 Kf2 Nc2 42 Bd2 c6 43 Kg2 d5 44 Kf1 Bf8 45 Bc1 Bd6 46 Kf2 c5 47
dxc5 Bxc5+ 48 Kg2 Ne1+ 49 Kf1 Nf3 50 Bb2 Kh3 51 Bf6 Kg4 52 Bd8 Kf5
53 Ng3+ Kf4 54 Bc7+ Ke3 55 Nf5+ Ke4 56 Ng3+ Kd3 57 Kg2 Nd2 58 Bd8
Ne4 59 Nf5 Ke2 60 Ba5 g4 61 Kh2 d4 62 Bxb4 Bxb4 63 Nxd4+ Kf2 64 Nf5
Bd6+ 65 Kh1 g3 66 Nxg3 Bxg3 01, A. Luco-Hebden, Le Touquet 1992.
b2) 8...g4 9 Ne1 Qxh4 10 Bxf4 Nf6 11 e5 dxe5 12 dxe5 g3 13 Bxg3 Qxg3 14
exf6 Bf8 15 Nd3 Bd6 16 Qh5 Bg4 17 Bxf7+ Kf8 18 Qg6 Qh2+ 19 Kf2 Qg3+
, Nakamura-Ivanchuk, Cap d'Agde 2010.
5...d6 6 d4
In the Fischer Defence, after 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 d6 4 d4 g5, the Hanstein
will usually arise if White avoids h2-h4; e.g., 5 Bc4 Bg7 6 0-0 transposing to
the present position. Also 4 Bc4 h6 5 d4 g5 6 0-0 gives a Hanstein but White
has also tried 5 d3 giving rise to novel positions.
6...h6
This position can also arise via the Becker Defence, 3...h6, which is a way to
steer for the Hanstein while avoiding the Kieseritzky. Black just wants to
develop soundly, retaining the extra pawn for later use, and to make it hard
for White to launch a sacrificial attack.
[FEN "rnbqk1nr/ppp2pb1/3p3p/6p1/2BPPp2/
5N2/PPP3PP/RNBQ1RK1 w kq - 0 7"]
A search in the ChessBase Mega Database for games involving at least one
player rated 2500+ shows that Black almost always wins from this position
unless White was Boris Spassky!
7 c3
White can try to break open the kingside by 7 g3, but it seems premature.
Evidence is not in favour since White's king can get into danger. A promising
reply for Black is 7...Bh3 (probably stronger than blocking by 7...g4 8 Nh4 f3
as computers sometimes suggest) 8 Rf2 Nc6 and if 9 Bb5 Nf6 10 d5 a6. This
old suggestion by Estrin seems to hold up under computer examination. Also
7...Nc6 at once may be good, as in Arnason-Larsen, Reykjavik 1978, and
Buecker-Flear, Dortmund 1989.
Malaniuk has tried 7 h4!? (against J. Ivanov, Sverdlovsk 1989), but there is
insufficient experience to judge how best to meet this. Black need not reply
7...g4 since the g5-pawn is adequately defended.
7...Nc6 8 g3!?
McDonald's main example game was the unclear Jonkman-L. B. Hansen,
Wijk aan Zee 1994, where White tried 8 b4 to which Black replied 8...Qe7
but he criticized that and suggested 8...Bg4. Also 8...Nf6 may be playable.
The old-fashioned 8 Qb3 is ineffective because of 8...Qd7.
8...Bh3
Development with threats is again preferable to 8...g4.
9 gxf4
9 Qb3 fails to 9Na5 10 Bxf7+ (10 Qa4+ c6) 10Kf8.
9...Qd7!
White would be happier if Black took the exchange on f1 with an unclear
situation.
10 Rf2 Nf6
[FEN "r3k2r/pppq1pb1/2np1n1p/6p1/2BPPP2/
2P2N1b/PP3R1P/RNBQ2K1 w kq - 0 11"]
After 10...gxf4 11 Bxf4 (Hoeksema-Ligterink, Groningen 2002 and others),

the game is becoming more open, which White wants to see.
10...Nf6 is an old Glazkov recommendation, endorsed by McDonald. If White
protects the e-pawn by 11 Qd3 or 11 Qe1, Black castles queenside and is then
ready for a kingside fight where the white king is the more exposed. If 11 Bd3
Black may exchange on g4 and then castle queenside.
11 e5? does not work after 11...Ne4. In a correspondence game R. Guehn-E.
Duliba, ICCF 2001, White continued 12 Qe2 offering the exchange, but Black
rightly ignored this attempt to open the e-file and played 12...d5 after which
White was already totally lost.
It is hard to see how White can make any headway against the Hanstein and
so must look for something other than 4 Bc4. If he does not want to play the
Kieseritzky 4 h4, then the ideas in the next section, though they come with a
health warning, are more promising. At least Black is less likely to know how
to meet them.
B: (4 d4 and 4 Nc3)
If you really don't want to play 4 h4 or 4 Bc4, then (contrary to Margaret
Thatcher's favourite slogan) There Is An Alternative!! One way to play it is
the modern version of the Rosentreter Gambit, 4 d4 intending to answer 4...
g4 by the knight sacrifice 5 Bxf4, as analysed by correspondence grandmaster
Maurice Johnson back in Chess Mail's 1998 gambit issue. If mishandled, this
could be dangerous to Black's health.
Perhaps sounder is the Quaade Gambit, 4 Nc3, in which White prepares to
offer a rook in the main line.
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppp1p1p/8/6p1/4Pp2/
2N2N2/PPPP2PP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 0 4"]
For example, 4...g4 5 Ne5 (5 Bc4 transposes to the McDonnell Gambit.) 5...
Qh4+ 6 g3 fxg3 7 Qxg4 (the point) and now:
a) 7...g2+, accepting the offer, loses after 8 Qxh4 gxh1=Q 9 Qh5 according to
old analysis by Levenfish and Keres which may be found in Korchnoi and
Zak's old book on the King's Gambit.
b) 7...Qxg4 8 Nxg4 d5 9 Bh3 dxe4 10 Nf6+ Kd8 11 Bxc8 Kxc8 12 Nfxe4
gxh2 13 Rxh2 with sufficient compensation for the pawn, following ninteenth
century analysis.
The main snag with the Quaade is that Black can ignore the offer and calmly
reply 4...Bg7 which should lead to a Hanstein where White has ruled out his
c2-c3 option. It seems 4 Nc3 is sounder than 4 d4 if the offer is accepted but
rather less flexible if it is avoided. Take your pick.
So let us look instead at the following:
4 d4
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppp1p1p/8/6p1/3PPp2/
5N2/PPP3PP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 4"]
4...g4
Black can also play 4...d6 which transposes to the Fischer Defence, to be
considered next month.
Again he can side-step White's devious sacrificial idea by 4...Bg7, as against
the Quadde. Here though White has more options, besides 5 Nc3, and Fischer
Defence positions can arise.
Here is an example of the Rosentreter Accepted.
Darrell Nightingale Arild Haugen
CC Olympiad-15 Final 2006
Rosentreter Gambit [C37]
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 d4 g4
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppp1p1p/8/8/3PPpp1/
5N2/PPP3PP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 5"]
5 Bxf4!
This move, introduced by Fedorov against Michael Adams at the 1997
European Team Championship in Pula, was the most exciting new
development in the King's Gambit in the last quarter century. Ireland's ICCF
Senior International Master Darrell Nightingale has played it in several highlevel correspondence games.
Old books mention only 5 Ne5 and 5 Nc3. Rosentreter's original idea was to
proceed 5 Ne5 Qh4+ 6 g3 fxg3 7 Qxg4 with the same tactical ideas as in the
Quaade Gambit. There, too, 7g2+ gives White a strong attack, at least
worth a draw, but 7Qxg4 is playable in this case. Hence the newer idea to
follow up by Bxf4 instead.
5...gxf3 6 Qxf3 Nc6
Black has tended to prefer this lately. McDonald claimed that the theoretical
(i.e., ECO) move 6...d5 was strong, but against this White need not play 7
exd5, but instead has 7 Nc3 or 7 Be5! both analysed by M. W. Johnson in
Chess Mail.
Otherwise the main choice is 6...d6:

a) Fedorov-Adams went 7 Nc3 Nc6 8 Bc4 reaching a position known from
the Pierce Gambit in the Vienna (1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nc6 3 f4 exf4 4 Nf3 g5 5 d4
g4 6 Bc4 gxf3 7 Bxf4 d6?! 8 Qxf3). Adams played 8...Qh4+ 9 Bg3 Qf6
leading to an early queen exchange and fair chances for White, but Fedorov
afterwards indicated 8...Nxd4 9 Bxf7+ Kxf7 10 Qh5+ Kg7 11 0-0 Nf6 as very
good for Black (see Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings for example). Bangiev
suggested castling on the opposite side, since after 11 0-0-0 the rook attacks
the d4-knight. McDonald agreed with this suggestion. It could be good
enough for an early perpetual check after 11...Ne6 12 Qg4+ Kf7 13 Qh5+ and
perhaps McDonald's 12 Be5+ is better.
b) Instead, White can play 7 Bc4 and if 7...Bg7 8 0-0 with compensation
according to Nunn's Chess Openings (1999). CC-GM Maurice Johnson's
article in Chess Mail 5/1998 recommended (7 Bc4 Bg7) 8 e5 dxe5 9 Bxe5
Nf6 10 0-0 Nbd7 11 Qf4!
A new treatment for Black was seen at move 7 in Nightingale-Dambrauskas,
Elburg Anniversary Final email, 2003: 6...d6 7 Bc4 Be6 (Black sacrifices a
couple of tempi to block the a2-g8 diagonal.) 8 d5 Bc8 (He wants d7 for the
queen's knight.) 9 00 Bg7 10 e5! (White is eager to reopen lines.) 10...Ne7
(Capturing on e5 leads to death on f7.) 11 Nc3 (If 11 Bh6 0-0.) 11...00 12
Ne4 dxe5 13 Bg5 Kh8 14 Bf6! Bf5 (14...Nd7 15 Bxg7+ Kxg7 16 Ng5 Ng6 17
Qh5 Nf6 18 Rxf6! with a dangerous attack, sufficient to draw.) 15 Qxf5 Nxf5
16 Bxd8 Ne3 17 Be7 and White is somewhat better in the complicated
queenless middle-game. The continuation was: 17...Nd7 18 Bxf8 Rxf8 19 d6
Nxc4 20 dxc7 Rc8 21 Rxf7 Rxc7 22 Ng5 Bf6 23 Nxh7 Bd8 24 Rd1 Ncb6 25
Nf8 Kg8 26 Rdxd7 Nxd7 27 Rxd7 Rc8 28 Nh7 Bb6+ 29 Kh1 Rxc2 30 Nf6+
Kf8 31 g4 Rxb2 32 Rxb7 Rxa2 33 Nd7+ Ke8 34 Nxb6 axb6 35 Rxb6 Kf7 36
Rb4 Re2 37 Kg1 .
7 Bc4
7 c3 is the alternative.
McDonald recommended 7 d5, to meet 7...Nd4 by 8 Qd3, but Michael
Agermose Jensen wrote in after my Chess Mail article to suggest 7...Ne7
'followed by ...Ng6, and all White has achieved is to close the c4-f7 diagonal.'
7...Qh4+!?
Also known are the following:
a) 7...Nxd4 8 Bxf7+! Kxf7 9 Qh5+ Jonathan Tait;
b) 7...Qf6 8 e5 Nxd4 9 exf6 Nxf3+ 10 gxf3 c6 11 Nc3 d5 12 Bxd5 cxd5 13
Nxd5 Kd7 14 Nc7 Rb8 15 Nb5 Ra8 16 Nc7 Rb8 17 Nb5 Ra8 18 Nc7 Rb8 , V.Menoni-M.Lanzani, Bratto open 2002;
c) 7...Bg7 8 e5! Nxd4 9 Bxf7+! Kxf7 10 Qd5+ Kf8 11 0-0 Estrin &
Glazkov;
d) 7...d6!? also comes into consideration.
e) In my original article, I featured 7...d5!? as the main line, continuing 8
Bxd5 Nxd4 9 Bxf7+ Kxf7 10 Qh5+ Kg7!? (10...Ke6 forces an immediate
draw by 11 Qe5+ Kf7 12 Qh5+ but Black wants to win.) which has occurred
in several correspondence games.
[FEN "r1bq1bnr/ppp3kp/8/7Q/3nPB2/
8/PPP3PP/RN2K2R w KQ - 0 11"]
e1) 11 0-0 Be7 12 Na3!? Nf6 (12...Bf6!? Tait) 13 Bh6+ Kg8 14 Qg5+ Kf7 15
Qh5+ Kg8! (15...Ke6 16 Qh3+ Kd6 17 Qd3 c5 18 c3 Ng4 19 cxd4 Nxh6 20
Rac1! or 17...Kc6 18 c3 Bc5 19 Kh1! a line from CC grandmaster M.W.
Johnson.) 16 Qg5+ Kf7 17 Qh5+ Kg8 -, J.Tait-A.Fedorko, BCCA corr
1996. Maybe Black should be winning if he played more ambitiously?
e2) 11 Be5+ Nf6 12 0-0 Be7 13 Qg5+ (13 Nc3 Rf8 14 Nd5 h6 15 Nxe7 Qxe7
16 Bxd4 Qd6 17 Bc3 Kh7 18 Qh4 Qc5+ 19 Kh1 Ne8 20 Rf3 Rxf3 21 gxf3
Qf8 22 Qf2 Bg4 seems better for Black, though he did not manage to win in
D.Acunzo-A.Dearnley, Italy v BCCA corr 1994) 13...Kf7 14 Nc3 Ke6 15
Bxd4 Qxd4+ 16 Kh1 Rf8 (16...h6!? 17 Qg6 Rg8! is unclear.) 17 Rad1 Qc4
when:
e21) A 1998 correspondence game P. Leisebein-A. Gysi continued 18 Rxf6+?
Rxf6? 19 Qg8+ Rf7 20 Qg4+ -, but surely Black should be winning after
18...Bxf6 19 Qg6 Rf7, not pointed out by the original commentators. After 20
Nd5 Qxc2 21 Qh3+ Kd6 22 Qa3+ c5 23 Ne3+ Qxd1+ 24 Nxd1 Bxb2!
(threatening mate on f1) 25 Qd3+ Bd4 Black has two rooks and a piece for
the queen, and White's serious threats are over.
e22) Despite being two pieces down, White probably missed a win: 18 Qh6!
Rd8 19 Rde1!; e.g., 19...Kd7 20 Rxf6 Bxf6 21 Qxf6 Ke8 22 Nd5 Kd7 23 Rd1
and White wins according by Dr Thomas Stock and Carmelo Coco. Computer
analysis today suggests Black may have some fighting chances with 19...c5
instead, but certainly White should have tried to win, replying 20 e5.
This is all typical romantic King's Gambit stuff: the quality and activity of the
pieces is more important than their quantity.
Now, to return to 7...Qh4+:
8 g3
[FEN "r1b1kbnr/pppp1p1p/2n5/8/2BPPB1q/
5QP1/PPP4P/RN2K2R b KQkq - 0 8"]
8...Qe7!
Stock had analysed 8...Qf6 9 Nc3!; e.g., 9...Nxd4 10 Qd3 Ne6 11 Bxe6 with
clear advantage to White: 11...dxe6 12 0-0-0 Bg7 13 Nb5 Qxb2+ 14 Kd2.
With 8...Qe7, we follow a fairly recent high-level correspondence chess

example. Although White drew the game, there must be some doubts about
whether he should have been able to do so. It is his turn to find an early
improvement.
9 Nc3 Nxd4 10 Qf2 Ne6 11 000 Nxf4 12 gxf4
White is a whole piece down, but his opponent is almost totally undeveloped.
12...Qc5 13 Qe2 b5!?
This is not compulsory. 13...Ne7 14 Kb1 b5 15 Nxb5 Rb8 is also possible.
Throughout the game there are other options and Black always seems on the
verge of winning, yet his opponent found resources.
The continuation was 14 Bxb5 Rb8 15 e5 Kd8 16 Rhf1 Ne7 17 Rf3 c6 18 Bc4
Bh6 19 Bxf7 Rb4 20 e6 Bxf4+ 21 Kb1 d6 22 a3 Rd4 23 Ne4 Qb5 24 Rfd3
Rxd3 25 Rxd3 Qe5 26 Rxd6+ Kc7 27 Rd3 Nd5 28 Qe1 Kb8 29 Qh1 Nb6 30
Qf3 Rf8 31 Nc5 Nc4 32 c3 Be3 33 Nd7+ Bxd7 34 exd7 Nd2+ 35 Rxd2 Bxd2
36 Be8 Rxf3 37 d8Q+ Kb7 38 Bxc6+ Kxc6 39 Qa8+ Kb6 40 Qxf3 (White has
queen and four pawns against queen, bishop and two. Perhaps Black should
still be able to win this.) 40...Qe6 41 h4 Be3 42 Kc2 h6 43 a4 Ka5 44 b3 Qe5
45 b4+ Kb6 46 a5+ Kb5 47 Qf1+ Kc6 48 b5+ Kd7 49 b6 axb6 50 axb6 Bxb6
51 Qf7+ Kc6 .
Postscript: Reader Feedback from last month

A number of readers commented on my previous article, two making the
same point. After the characteristic opening moves of the Kieseritzky Gambit,
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 h4 g4 5 Ne5, Black can also play 5Qe7 which
I had not mentioned. As David Flude (Australia) said in his email, it is
usually regarded as inferior, but after 6 d4 d6 7 Nxg4 Qxe4 was "sprung on
him" in correspondence and "is very drawish". However Black's eighth move
in his message was a misprint. An anonymous New Zealand reader sent the
same suggestion with the rather impolite message line "You missed one." He
(or she) indicated 8 Qe2 Qe7! claiming clear advantage for Black, which is
far less convincing than Flude's claim of equality. Perhaps that's what his
computer advised. This eighth move is indicative of the kind of reassessments
that computers are bringing about since old books do not mention the
possibility, which certainly reduces the attractiveness of the Kieseritzky for
White.
Another reader, from Denmark, complained that I had not taken account of
some articles by Stefan Bcker about the King's Gambit and demanding to be
told why not. Part of that message was added as a comment to my last article.
I appreciate his suggestion but not the aggressive language in which it was
couched.
Some of Bcker's articles appeared in a German-language magazine,
Kaissiber, that I had ceased to receive some time previously. Part of their
content apparently also appeared in the form of ChessCafe.com columns.
Regular readers will be aware that this website has published a vast amount of
material over the years and it is not possible to keep track of everything; the
articles referred to appeared when I was concentrating on my Ph.D.
researches, and was reading very little current chess material. Moreover,
those Bcker articles can now only be found in an archived zip file under the
heading 'Past columnists: Over the Horizons.'
Those of you who are really keen are welcome to download and unzip
Bcker's columns but this mini-series is a Plain Man's Guide and not an
attempt to survey the whole field of the King's Gambit and cover everything
in detail.


Part Three
This is the third and final part of my survey article, begun in July. Here some
King's Knight's Gambit lines other than 3 Nf3 g5 are briefly considered. The
subject is too big for me to consider every defence that has been attempted, or
to give more than some illustrative games on most that I do consider. I look at
the following lines, in this order, and then at the end there will be some
comments from a reader about the previous article.
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
I shall only deal with the King's Gambit Accepted. The Falkbeer CounterGambit and other lines where Black avoids 2exf4 may be dealt with
another year. Likewise I do not include the gambit accepted lines where
White does not play 3 Nf3.
Nowadays only well-prepared defenders are advised to enter the critical 3...g5
lines, and many prefer a more positional approach to defending the gambit.
Translate this page
Purchases from our

accessible:
by Tim Harding
At one time, Modern Chess Openings recommended 3...Nf6 4 e5 Nh5

(Schallopp Defence) by which Black makes an eccentric defence of the
gambit pawn, but the offside knight does not appeal to many players
nowadays. Both 5 d4 and 5 Be2 are promising for White. Also some books
consider 3Nc6, but I have no personal experience with that and do not
discuss it here.
Black need not strive officiously to retain the extra pawn. He can follow the
recipe, popularised in the early twentieth century, of returning the material in
search of a positional advantage. The main moves associated with this
approach are 3...d5 (Modern Defence) and 3...Be7 (Cunningham Gambit). I
consider them in turn before taking an admittedly brief and shallow look at
the Fischer Defence.
A: 3 Nf3 d5
B: 3 Nf3 Be7 (Cunningham)
C: 3d6 (Fischer Defence)
D: 3h6 (Becker Defence)
What It Takes to Become

a Chess Master
by Andrew Soltis
A: 3 Nf3 d5
the games from
Dr. Gordon R. Evans (England, 2309) Aloyjz Kubasky (Slovakia, 2226)

IECG correspondence, 2003
King's Gambit [C36]
Notes by Tim Harding
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 d5
This is perhaps not as popular as it used to be, but probably remains playable.
4 exd5 Nf6 5 Bc4 Nxd5 6 0-0
Complete Slav I
by Konstantin Sakaev
[FEN "rnbqkb1r/ppp2ppp/8/3n4/2B2p2/5N2/
PPPP2PP/RNBQ1RK1 b kq - 0 6"]
6...Be6
Other possibilities are 6...Be7 and 6...Nc6!?.
7 Bb3 Be7 8 c4
Neil McDonald recommended this renewed gambit as White's only way to get
chances.
8...Nb6 9 d4 Nxc4 10 Bxf4 Nb6
Others have been seen, but this was recommended in McDonald's book.
11 Bxe6 fxe6 12 Qe2 Nc6 13 Nc3
[FEN "r2qk2r/ppp1b1pp/1nn1p3/8/3P1B2/
2N2N2/PP2Q1PP/R4RK1 b kq - 0 13"]
13...Nxd4
This move has become the norm in recent years, in correspondence play
anyway. McDonald's book, and my earlier article, considered only 13Qd7
14 Ne5 when:
a) 14...Nxe5 15 Bxe5 Bd6 (Bangiev-Florin, EU/MSM/III corr 1983) 16 Nb5
(Gallagher) 16...Bxe5 and Black should be able to survive, claimed
McDonald, e.g. 17 Qh5+!? g6 18 Qxe5 0-0-0 19 Nxc7 Qxd4+ 20 Qxd4 Rxd4
21 Nxe6 Rc4.
b) 14Qxd4+?! 15 Kh1 and then:
b1) New at this time. 15...Nxe5 (15...0-0 16 Nb5) 16 Bxe5 Qc4 17 Qh5+ g6
18 Qh3 Rf8 19 Rxf8+ Bxf8 (A.Oomen-A.Peters, Netherlands corr 1989), but
now 20 Qxh7 0-0-0 21 Bf6 Rd7 (21...Re8 22 Qxg6) 22 Qxg6 or 22 Qg8 is
awkward for Black (McDonald).
b2) The featured game in my old Chess Mail article went instead 15Qc5 16
Ne4 Qd5 17 Rad1 Nd4 18 Rxd4! Qxd4 19 Rd1 with clear advantage to White
(Kri Elsonrni H. Kristjnsson, Iceland Corr Ch, 1997). That game ended:
19...Qa4 20 b3 Qa5 21 b4 Qa4 22 Nc3 Qxd1+ 23 Qxd1 0-0 24 Qg4 Rxf4 25
Qxf4 Rf8 26 Qc1 Bg5 27 Qa1! Bf6 28 Nf3 Nd5 29 Qe1 Nxc3 30 Qxe6+ Kh8
31 h4 Rd8 32 g4 Nd5 33 g5 Bb2 34 h5 a6 35 Ne5 Bxe5 36 Qxe5 c6 37 h6

Rg8 38 a3 1-0.
14 Nxd4?!
This is probably too speculative. White has had somewhat better results with
14 Qe4 Nxf3 15 Rxf3 when several correspondence games have resulted in a
draw. This plan will immediately regain one of the sacrificed pawns, either on
e6 (if Black castles, immediately or following 15...Bc5 16 Kh1) or one of the
queenside pawns (after 15...Qd7 16 Qxb7 or 16 Rd1).
14...Qxd4+ 15 Kh1 Qc4!
White threatened 16 Be5 as well as the simple capture on e6. This move
proposes a queen exchange and prevents both those options for the attacker.
16 Qh5+!?
Deep Rybka suggests cutting White's losses by 16 Qxc4 Nxc4 17 Nb5 when
White will soon pick up the c-pawn, but it is not clear that this is good enough
to draw in the long run, and it certainly abandons any hopes of a win.
16...g6 17 Qe5 Rf8 18 b3 Qc5
[FEN "r3kr2/ppp1b2p/1n2p1p1/2q1Q3/
5B2/1PN5/P5PP/R4R1K w q - 0 19"]
After this White is unable to avoid a queen exchange fairly soon, leading to
an endgame a pawn down, which should be lost.
19 Qe1
In T. van der Berkmortel-M. Schroeder, Netherlands corr 1998, White played
19 Nb5 Qxe5 20 Bxe5, but after 20...Nd5 21 Rxf8+ Bxf8 22 Nxc7+ Nxc7 23
Bxc7 Rc8 Black took the initiative, gaining the seventh rank for his rook, and
duly won.
19...e5! 20 b4 Qxb4 21 Qxe5 Qc5
Now Dr. Evans could find nothing better than 22 Qxc7 Qxc7 23 Bxc7 Rxf1+
24 Rxf1 Kd7 25 Bxb6 axb6 when Black's extra pawn is doubled. However
bishop versus knight is a significant additional advantage and Black duly won
the endgame. The final moves were 26 a4 Ra5 27 Rf4 Rc5 28 Rf3 Rc4 29 g3
Kc6 30 Kg2 Bd6 31 Nb5 Be5 32 Re3 Kd5 33 Ra3 Rb4 34 h4 Kc5 35 Re3
Ba1 36 Nc7 Rxa4 37 Ne6+ Kc4 38 Re4+ Kb3 39 Re3+ Bc3 40 Nf8 b5 41
Nxh7 b4 42 Nf6 Kc2 43 Ne4 Ra1 44 Re2+ Kd3 01.
B: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 Be7 (Cunningham Defence or Cunningham
Gambit)
This is a time-honoured way of meeting the King's Gambit, going back to the
Scotsman Alexander Cunningham around the end of the seventeenth century
but which Cunningham? The much-travelled historian and diplomat of that
name (1654-1737) was credited with the invention by historian Harold
Murray. On the other hand, the venerable Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography says it was his contemporary, the jurist and scholar Alexander
Cunningham of Block, (born between 1650 and 1660, deceased in 1730), who
introduced the Cunningham Gambit. To investigate this question would
involve too great a digression without any certain result, but if any reader can
answer it decisively I should like to hear their evidence and arguments.
1 e4 e5 2 f4!? exf4 3 Nf3 Be7
Black avoids pawn weaknesses and commitments and just gets on with
development. This move has been a regular preference of grandmaster Mark
Hebden.
[FEN "rnbqk1nr/ppppbppp/8/8/4Pp2/5N2/
4 Bc4
According to GM Neil McDonald's book, the assessment of the fun line 4
Nc3 Bh4+ (4...Nf6 is 'chicken' and concedes White an edge) 5 Ke2 depends
on Black's piece sacrifice in the variation 5...d5 6 Nxd5 Nf6 7 Nxf6+ Qxf6 8
d4 Bg4 9 Qd2! Nc6 10 c3 g5 11 Kd1 0-0-0 12 Kc2 Rhe8!? 13 Bd3 Bxf3 14
gxf3 Nxd4+ 15 cxd4 Rxd4 (J.Gallagher-J.Klovans, Oberwart 1993) 16 a4!
Red8 17 Ra3 (McDonald remarks that apart from the piece sacrificed, the h4bishop is not contributing much).
It should be noted, though, that Hebden played 5...c6 6 d3 d5 against Mark
Lyell (rated 2287) in the 2009 Uxbridge Open, and Turkish GM Suat Atalik
preferred 5...d6 in a 2003 game.
4...Nf6
The usual advice is not to check if White frees f1 for the king, although GM
Ivan Sokolov did play the check successfully against Benoit Taddei (2266) in
the 2006 French Team Championship.
5 e5
5 Nc3 is occasionally seen:
a) 5Nxe4 6 Bxf7+ (6 Nxe4 d5 is somewhat better for Black.) 6Kxf7 7
Nxe4 (7 Ne5+ Kg8) 7Rf8 8 0-0 Kg8 9 d4 d5 should be good for Black,
although he went wrong later and lost in E. Berg-B. Ahlander, Swedish Ch.
2002, a game which Korchnoi annotated for ChessBase.
b) 50-0 6 d3 c6 7 e5 Ng4 8 Bxf4 d6 9 Qd2 dxe5 10 Nxe5 Bh4+ 11 g3 Nxe5
12 Bxe5 Nd7 13 Bf4 Bf6 brought Black the initiative in H. Murphy-Hebden,
Atkins Memorial, Leicester 2010. White soon conceded the bishop-pair and
castled into his weakened kingside, losing rapidly.
5...Ng4 6 d4
English correspondence master Dr. Mike Donnelly has pointed out that
numerous transpositional possibilities depend on the order in which White
plays d4, Nc3 and 0-0. He reckoned the immediate pawn advance is the most
dangerous try unless Black can get away with checking at move six or seven.
Note also that if 6 0-0 0-0 7 h3, Black has 7d5! 8 Bb3 (if 8 exd6 Qxd6
threatening a fork with Qc5+) Black has 8c5! 9 hxg4 c4 10 Ba4 b5 11

Bxb5 Qb6+ regaining the piece (Kennaugh-Hebden, Hawick 1994).
6...d5
There are alternatives, but a high proportion of Cunningham games reach this
position. (Donnelly-Pyrich, below, actually went 6d6!? which transposes to
the usual 6...d5 line after the reply.)
[FEN "rnbqk2r/ppp1bppp/8/3pP3/2BP1pn1/
5N2/PPP3PP/RNBQK2R w KQkq d6 0 7"]
7 exd6
This is the critical move.
The alternative, 7 Bb3, retains the central pawn wedge:
a) 7...Ne3 8 Bxe3 fxe3 9 0-0 with an edge to White (1-0, 38) was played in
Fedorov-Soldatenkov, Petrov Memorial 1996.
b) 7...Bh4+ 8 Kf1 b6 9 Qe2 (White fights for control of c4; Not 9 Bxf4? Ba6+
10 c4 dxc4 11 Ba4+ b5 12 Nc3 bxa4 13 Qxa4+ c6 Kramer-Euwe, Netherlands
1941) 9...a5! when the threat of ...a4 gains a tempo. 10 a3 looks the correct
response.
After 7 exd6, Black has a three-way choice:
B1: 7...Qxd6
B2: 7...Bh4+!?
B3: 7...Bxd6
B1: 7...Qxd6
[FEN "rnb1k2r/ppp1bppp/3q4/8/2BP1pn1/
5N2/PPP3PP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 8"]
This is usually reckoned to be safest, but that is not entirely clear.

8 0-0 0-0
8Ne3? was neatly punished in P. Jack-Leupolt, corr 1996: 9 Bxe3 fxe3 10
Nc3 Qh6? 11 Bxf7+! Kd8 12 Qd3 Be6 13 Bxe6 Qxe6 14 Rae1 Nd7 15 Rxe3
Qc6 16 Rfe1 Bd6 17 Qxh7! 1-0.
9 Nc3 Nc6
9...Qh6 is recommended by Gallagher, and it may well be better:
a) 10 Nd5 Bd6 is fine for Black; e.g., 11 Re1 Be6 12 h3 c6 13 Nb6 axb6 14
Bxe6 fxe6 15 hxg4 Qg6 (Blatny) or 11 h3 (Bangiev) 11...Nf6 12 Nxf6+ Qxf6.
b) 10 h3 Ne3 11 Bxe3 fxe3:
b1) 12 Nd5 Bd6 13 Qd3 Re8 14 Rae1= Blatny, McDonald.
b2) 12 Ne5 should be met by 12...Be6 following Belotti-Loncar, 1995, which
is annotated in McDonald's book. His alternative suggestion 12...Bf6
(Shofman-Antoshin, Moscow 1953) should be shunned, as it can be met by
13 Nxf7! Rxf7 14 Qd3; e.g., 14...Qg6 15 Ne4 Kh8 16 Bxf7 Qxf7 17 Qxe3
Nc6 18 Rad1 which appears to be better for White, who has completed his
development and will soon capture on f6.
b3) McDonald does not mention White's alternative 12 Qd3 Bd6 13 Rae1 Nc6
14 Qxe3 Qxe3+ 15 Rxe3 Na5 16 Bd3:
b31) 16...c5 17 Nb5 cxd4 18 Nbxd4 h6 19 c3 with an edge to White (LutikovBudovskis, USSR 1974.
b32) 16...h6 17 Nb5 Be6 18 Nxd6 cxd6 19 b3 Rfe8 20 Rfe1 Kf8 21 Nh4 Bd7
22 Nf5 Bxf5 23 Bxf5 Nc6 24 c3 Rxe3 25 Rxe3 Ne7 26 Be4 d5 27 Bf3 Rc8 28
Kf2 b5 29 Bg4 Rc7 30 Ke2 Nc6 31 Kd3 Re7 32 Bf3 Rd7 33 b4 Ne7 , H.
Kosmol-R. Felber, ICCF Email 1997.
10 Nb5 Qh6 11 Nxc7
[FEN "r1b2rk1/ppN1bppp/2n4q/8/2BP1pn1/
5N2/PPP3PP/R1BQ1RK1 b - - 0 11"]
11...Nce5?!
11...Rb8 is probably safer, and about equal after 12 Qd3.
12 dxe5 Qb6+ 13 Kh1 Qxc7 14 Qe2 Ne3
14...Bc5?! has nuisance value, but White can reply 15 Bxf4 Nf2+ 16 Rxf2
Bxf2 17 Ng5 with dangerous threats 17...Bh4 (17...Bb6 18 Qe4 g6 19 e6) 18
Nxf7.
15 Bxe3 fxe3 16 Bb3
White soon wins a decisive pawn.
16...a5 17 a4 Qc5 18 Rae1 b6 19 Qxe3 Ba6 20 e6 f6
If 20...Bxf1 21 exf7+ Kh8 22 Qxe7.
21 Rg1 Rfd8 22 Qe4 b5 23 Rd1 bxa4 24 Qxa4 Rxd1 25 Rxd1 Bb5 26
Qxa5!
Neatly destroying the last resistance.
[FEN "r5k1/4b1pp/4Pp2/Qbq5/8/
1B3N2/1PP3PP/3R3K b - - 0 26"]
26...Qc6
If 26...Rxa5 27 Rd8+ Bxd8 28 e7+ etc.
27 Nd4 Qd5 28 Bxd5 Rxa5 29 b4 10 (E. Can-J. Radulski, Ankara 2009).
B2: 7...Bh4+!?
The bishop check seems to do badly, but perhaps deserves further
investigation. Even Hebden lost the following game with it, against Bernd
Rechel, at Sunningdale 2008 in the British 'Four Nations' league, after messy
complications.
That game continued 8 Kf1 0-0 9 Bxf4 cxd6 10 Nxh4 Qxh4 11 Qd2 Nc6 12
Nc3 Re8 13 Nb5 Be6 14 Bxe6 Rxe6 15 d5 Rf6 16 Kg1 Nce5 17 Rf1 Nc4 18
Qd4 a6 19 Nc3 Rc8 20 h3 Nh6 21 b3 Na3 22 Qb4 b5 23 Rf3 Nxc2 24 Qe4
b4 25 Bxd6 Qxe4 26 Nxe4 Rxf3 27 gxf3 Nf5 28 Kf2 Nce3 29 Bxb4 Nxd5 30
Bd2 Nfe7 31 Rc1 Rxc1 32 Bxc1 Nb4 33 Bd2 Nec6 34 a3 Nc2 35 a4 Kf8 36
Nc5 N2b4 37 Bxb4 Nxb4 38 Ke3 Nd5+ 39 Kd4 Nc7 40 Nb7 Ne6+ 41 Kd5
Ke7 42 Nc5 Nf4+ 43 Kc6 Nxh3 44 b4 Ng5 45 b5 axb5 46 a5 Nxf3 47 a6
Nd4+ 48 Kd5 10.
B3: 7...Bxd6!?
Now we follow:
Dr Michael J. Donnelly George Pyrich
Reg Gillman memorial corr. 1999.
This game was published in Chess Mail in 2000 with Donnelly's notes and the
gist of them appear below, updated by me.
8 Qe2+
Now Black usually plays 8...Qe7, when queens usually soon come off and
White is often said to be (more than) OK. However, the present game is worth
further examination since, as the players themselves commented afterward, it
seems to challenge Gallagher's assessment of the sub-variation.
8...Kf8!?
This move, dismissed by Gallagher without analysis, has also been played by
Motwani. White failed to obtain any advantage against it in the present game.
9 Nc3
9 0-0 will probably transpose.
9...Nc6 10 0-0
10 Nd5 was recommended by Glaskov and Estrin, but both Donnelly and
Pyrich consider that Black has a good game after 10...Be6 11 Nxf4 Bxc4 12
Qxc4 Qe7+.
10 Bd2 with the idea of an early queenside castling is an interesting
possibility, which Donnelly has discussed with Thomas Johansson, author of
the bilingual book The King's Gambit for the Creative Aggressor
(Schachverlag Kania 1998). Pyrich said he would probably have replied 10...
g6 11 0-00 Kg7 12 Nd5 Be6 or 12...Re8.
10...Bf5
Johansson's book gave 10...Nxd4 11 Nxd4 Bc5 12 Rxf4! Bxd4+ 13 Kh1 Nf6
14 Qd3 as good for White. Pyrich intended to reply 10...g6, as he felt Black
should be developing pieces and he thought 10...g5 (V.Ninov-V. Georgiev,
Plovdiv 2004) is probably just bad.
11 h3!?
Donnelly rejected 11 Nd5 (the move given by Johansson as favouring White)
on account of 11...g5, and if then 12 g3 Nf6! which he was afraid his
opponent would find in Glaskov and Estrin's book, which, in fact, Pyrich did
not have.
Donnelly also pointed out that 11 Bd2 Qf6 12 Rae1 Nxd4 13 Nxd4 Qxd4+ 14
Kh1 g5 15 Nb5 Qb6 16 Bc3 f6 17 h3 h5 was Vega Holm-Durao, Seville Open
1999, but he considered this an unconvincing offer of a second pawn, even
though White won.
11 Ne4 is also reasonable, and possibly the best move, in order to obtain the
bishop-pair, and also with a threat of Neg5 attacking f7. It was played in the
drawn game T. Gabrielsen-N. V. Pedersen, Danish junior tournament 2004,
which continued 11...h6 12 c3 Qe7 13 Nxd6 cxd6 14 Bxf4 Qxe2 15 Bxe2 d5
whereupon White should have continued 16 Bd6+ Kg8 17 Ne5 with a
winning position.
A more consistent continuation for Black was 12...g5, although 13 h3 Nf6 14
Nexg5!? hxg5 15 Nxg5 Qe7 leads to obscure play. Alternatively, Black can
try to stay a pawn up by 12...Qd7 (or ...Qe7) 13 Nxd6 Qxd6 14 c3 Re8.
Although he faces the long-term problem of activating the king's rook, the
other pieces are working well and chances are probably about equal.
11...Nf6 12 Nb5 Ne4
Not 12...a6 13 Nxd6 Qxd6 14 c3 Ne4 (14...Re8 15 Qd2) 15 Nh4 Ng3 16 Qf2
Nxf1 17 Nxf5 Qg6 18 Qxf4 and the knight is trapped.
Now if 13 Re1 g5 holds the gambit pawn.
13 Nxd6 Qxd6
Not 13Ng3 14 Qd1 Nxf1 15 Nxf5.
14 Bxf4
This combination is the point of White's play from move eleven said
Donnelly. Is it entirely sound, though?
14...Qxf4 15 Ne5
[FEN "r4k1r/ppp2ppp/2n5/4Nb2/2BPnq2/
7P/PPP1Q1P1/R4RK1 b - - 0 15"]
15...Nxd4
This move seems to be safe, but is it best?
According to Donnelly's analysis, 15Qd2 fails to 16 Nxc6! Qxe2 17 Bxe2
when 17bxc6 18 Rxf5 Ng3 19 Rf2 brings about a double rook ending
where White has clearly all the winning chances.
So the critical line is 17Ng3 18 Bc4 Nxf1 19 Rxf1 when Donnelly wrote
that 19bxc6 20 Rxf5 f6 21 Rc5 'gives sufficient play for the exchange due
to the white lead in development'.
Computers, however, suggest that Black should go down this line, but play
19Bg6! (instead of 19bxc6):
a) 20 Bxf7 bxc6 21 Bxg6+ Ke7 22 Be4 Rad8 23 c3 Rd6 when only Black has
winning chances in the endgame.
b) 20 Ne5 f6 21 Nd7+ Ke7 22 Nc5 Bf7 23 Re1+ Kf8 and if 24 d5 c6 25 Nxb7
cxd5 when White has clearly lost control.
16 Rxf4 Nxe2+ 17 Bxe2 Nd6
Deep Rybka suggests 17g6!? since 18 g4 would be met by 18Re8.
18 Raf1
18 Nxf7 Kxf7 19 g4 Kf6 20 Raf1 g6 21 Bd3 Rhg8 is good for Black
(Donnelly). White can consider 18 Nc4 which is about equal after 18...Be6.
18...Be6 19 c4
The only satisfactory move according to Donnelly's analysis. Capturing on f7
just leads to simplification which is to Black's advantage.
19...c5
19...f6 20 c5 Nf7 21 Nxf7 Bxf7 22 Bf3 with Ra4 to follow gives plenty of
play for the pawn (Donnelly).
20 b4 g5
20Rc8!? is an alternative leading to great complications after 21 Bg4!.
21 Rf6
[FEN "r4k1r/pp3p1p/3nbR2/2p1N1p1/
1PP5/7P/P3B1P1/5RK1 b - - 0 21"]
The game was agreed drawn at this point because the following analysis
indicated the position is level: 21...Ke7 22 Bg4 Ne4:
a) 23 Rxf7+ Bxf7 24 Rxf7+ Kd6 25 Rf5 Rhf8 26 bxc5+ Kc7 27 Nf3 h6 28
Rd5 Nf6 29 Nd4 leads to very obscure complications in which White does not
however seem worse (Donnelly).
b) 23 Rh6 cxb4 24 Re1 Nc3 25 Nxf7 Kxf7 26 Rhxe6 h5 27 Rf1+ Kg7 28 Re7
+ Kg6 29 Bf5+ Kf6 30 Re6+ Kg7 (30...Kf7 31 Bg4+) 31 Re7+ with perpetual
check (Donnelly).
c) 23 R6f3 also comes into consideration, since the fork 23...Nd2 is met by 24
Rxf7+ with another messy exchange sacrifice endgame.
C: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 d6
In a famous article written in his youth, A Bust to the King's Gambit, Bobby
Fischer claimed a refutation of the King's Gambit beginning with this move.
Many KG players consider the Fischer Defence quite critical. However, I
don't have experience of the most popular lines that arise and won't
pontificate too much on it. The main idea behind the move is to defend the f4pawn, but only after it is directly threatened, and first to cover the square e5,
in order to rule out the Kieseritzky Gambit. Black will be perfectly happy to
enter Hanstein-like defensive formations, but if his pawn on g5 is chased by
h2-h4, then he will be able to force the white knight back to g1 when
replying ...g4. This in turn may induce White to adopt entirely different plans
than those employed against 3...g5.
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/ppp2ppp/3p4/8/4Pp2/5N2/
C1: 4 Bc4
C2: 4 d4 g5
C1: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 d6 4 Bc4
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/ppp2ppp/3p4/8/2B1Pp2/
5N2/PPPP2PP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 4"]
4...h6
Black has to avoid the trap 4...g5? 5 h4 g4 6 Ng5 Nh6 7 d4 with the point 7...
f6 8 Bxf4 fxg5 9 Bxg5 Qd7 10 0-0.
Now he is hoping for 5 d4? g5 6 0-0 Bg7 reaching the Hanstein Gambit.
5 b3
Maybe the best move! The idea logically exploits the fact that since ...g5 has
not yet been played, White would be first to the long diagonal with his bishop.
Another way to follow up 4 Bc4 against the Fischer Defence is 5 d3?!.
Johansson attributes this move to Gallagher, but it goes back to Edwin
Bhend's experiments in the 1970s or earlier. However, having tried this move
too, I am more doubtful about its merits. It leads to unclear situations, for
example, 5...g5 6 g3 (trying to undermine the black pawn chain) 6...Nc6!?
(probably better than 6...g4) 7 gxf4 g4 8 Ng1 Qh4+ 9 Kf1 Nf6 (9...f5!?) 10
Kg2:
a) 10...Nh5 11 Nc3 g3 12 Qe1! Rg8 13 h3 'with advantage to White as his K
is perfectly safe' Gallagher.
b) 10...Rg8! 11 Nc3:
b1) 11...g3 12 h3 h5 13 Nce2 is given by Johansson, but to my mind the
move ...g3 is a clear error by Black in these examples, removing the dangers
to the white king.
b2) 11...Be6!:
b21) 12 Nge2? Bxc4 13 dxc4 Qh3+ 14 Kg1 d5!.+ is a line illustrating the
insecurity of the white king.
b22) 12 Bb5 0-0-0 13 f5 (13 Nce2 d5!? unclear Cimmino) 13...Bd7 14 Bf4
d5! and Black seizes the initiative (0-1, 35) U.Nyberg-P.Cimmino, European
Teams Corr Ch 1994.
Now we return to 5 b3. Black has various options here, of which one
possibility is the following.
5...Nc6 6 Bb2
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/ppp2pp1/2np3p/8/2B1Pp2/
1P3N2/PBPP2PP/RN1QK2R b KQkq - 0 6"]
6...Be6!?
Johansson said he had seen no examples of this. Otherwise play goes 6...Nf6
7 Nc3 Be7 8 Qe2 0-0 when Johansson recommends White to castle queenside.
7 Qe2 Nf6 8 0-0 a6 9 d4 Bxc4 10 bxc4
Johansson advises that White should always aim to recapture with the pawn
in this type of position, increasing central control and making queenside
castling more problematic for Black.
[FEN "r2qkb1r/1pp2pp1/p1np1n1p/8/2PPPp2/
5N2/PBP1Q1PP/RN3RK1 b kq - 0 10"]
10...Be7
10...Qe7 may be better.
11 Nh4?!
Too crude; 11 Nc3 is probably correct.
11...Qd7?!
Black avoided 11...g6 because of the weakening of the a1-h8 diagonal and
11...g5? 12 Nf5 would certainly give White massive compensation. However,
the downside of White's eleventh is demonstrated in the following variation:
11...Nd7! 12 Nf5 Bf6 13 Rxf4 g6 14 e5 (otherwise d4 drops off.) 14...dxe5 15
d5 gxf5 16 dxc6 bxc6 17 Rxf5 and it's not clear if White has enough. Now
Black collapsed.
12 Nf5 g6 13 Nxe7 Qxe7 14 Rxf4 0-0-0 15 Nd2 g5?
Based on a complete miscalculation.
16 Rf5 Rhe8 17 Raf1 Nxe4 18 Rxf7 Qe6 19 d5 Qg6 20 dxc6 Ng3 21 Qg4+
1-0 (KibitzerTranslightor, www.playchess.de, 2002. This was a
correspondence game in an event where computer engine use was not
allowed: hence all the mistakes! However, it may give readers some ideas.)
C2: 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 d6 4 d4 g5
It should first be noted that the move 3...d6 in itself was not new with Fischer.
In one of Joseph Blackburne's blindfold simultaneous displays, for example,
his amateur opponent continued 4...Bg4 (and quickly lost). Only 4...g5,
protecting the extra gambit pawn, constitutes the Fischer Defence.
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/ppp2p1p/3p4/6p1/3PPp2/
5 Nc3!?
The main line of the Fischer Defence is considered to be 5 h4 g4 6 Ng1,
which I am not going to discuss, as it is such a huge variation and surely it is
not White's best try? There Black has a wide choice, with 6...Bh6, 6...Qf6, 6...
f3, and 6...f5 among the plausible choices, none of which has yet emerged as
clearly best. The assessment remains unclear, but Thomas Johansson believes
this continuation is against the spirit of the KG: White surrenders his lead in
development. On the other hand, if White can capture the front f-pawn to
equalize material, then Black's kingside looks even weaker than his.
So let us return to 5 Nc3: Mark Nieuweboer from Surinam wrote in after my
last column to say that 'Against both the Fischer and the Becker Defence
White's best might be a set-up with d4, Nc3 and g3, leaving the bishop on f1.
The idea is of course to improve on the Hanstein by avoiding the irritating ...
Bh3 lines If that's correct, then the Quaade 4 Nc3 may be in business on my
amateur level, though Black also has 4...d6/Bg7 5 d4 g4 transposing to the
Rosentreter after all and ultimately to the Pierce Gambit. Then again 4...Nc6
is the Vienna immediately!'
The move Nieuweboer is suggesting actually arose in the following high-level
correspondence game from my original Chess Mail series of articles. The
winner is an ICCF Senior International Master from Ireland.
Darrell Nightingale Giorgio Ruggeri Laderchi
Elburg 50 friendly email tourney, 2001
King's Gambit [C34]
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 d4
White offers the Rosentreter Gambit, which I discussed last month, but
Black's next move turns it into a Fischer Defence.
4...d6
Black prefers a Fischer to the risk involved in allowing White's knight
sacrifice after 4...g4 5 Bxf4. (More recently two of Nightingale's strong CC
opponents Dambrauskas from Lithuania and Haugen from Norway did
accept the knight and these games both ended in draws.)
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/ppp2p1p/3p4/6p1/3PPp2/
5 Nc3!?
White offers a variant on the Quaade Gambit (3...g5 4 Nc3).
5...Bg7
The Quaade would arise after the unclear 5...g4 6 Bxf4 gxf3 7 Qxf3 Nc6 8 000 Qh4.
Nightingale considered that the natural-looking move 5...Bg7 'must be
considered dubious after this game... With 5...Bg7 ruled out (and the line
played is in nearly all the books, but with 8 Ng1), 5...h6 is the move for those
that want to avoid committing ...g4, as it takes the sting out of 6 g3,
permitting ...fxg3 immediately.'
Assuming 6 g3 is still best, Nightingale points out that the game is then likely
to transpose to the Becker Defence (see line D below).
6 g3 h6
6...g4 was still a possibility.
7 gxf4 g4 8 Rg1!
Nightingale: This delightful move I found when preparing 7 gxf4 I looked
at Furhoff-Hjartarsson 1996 with 8 Be3 gxf3 9 Qxf3 h5 10 Rg1 and that must
have suggested 8 Rg1 to me it just looked correct as soon as I saw it. It calls
5...Bg7 into question, I think.
8...Bf8?!
Nightingale suggested this was too passive, and suggested 8...Bf6!?. He also
pointed out 8...Rh7 9 Be3 gxf3 10 Qxf3 Nc6 11 0-00 h5; 8...Kf8 9 Be3 gxf3
10 Qxf3.
9 Be3 gxf3
Against 9...f5 or 9...h5 the plan was 10 Nd2.
10 Qxf3 Ne7 11 0-00
[FEN "rnbqkb1r/ppp1np2/3p3p/8/3PPP2/
2N1BQ2/PPP4P/2KR1BR1 b kq - 0 11"]
11...c6?!
Nightingale's comment here was: 'probably a mistake: now White can play on
the d6-pawn. Black will try to defend ... but it's mission impossible!'
12 d5 h5
The direct threat is Bg4, but the associated idea here is to play Rh6.
13 h3 a6
Black finds that 13...Rh6 would be premature since after 14 dxc6 bxc6 15 f5
the rook would have to retreat. There are many complicated alternatives with
White replying e4-e5 or Bc4 depending on circumstances.
14 e5!
White wants to break open the d-file where his rook opposes the black queen.
14...cxd5 15 Rxd5 Rh6!
This may be the best chance.
Ruggeri Laderchi later analysed 15...Nxd5 16 Nxd5 Qa5 (16...Be6 17 Nf6+
Ke7 18 Qxb7+) 17 b4, but actually Nightingale intended 17 Bb5+!! axb5 18
Bb6 which is decisive. If 18...Qxa2??, White mates in nine starting 19 Nf6+.
16 Rd3 Qc7 17 Ne4 Nf5 18 Rg8
[FEN "rnb1kbR1/1pq2p2/p2p3r/4Pn1p/
4NP2/3RBQ1P/PPP5/2K2B2 b q - 0 18"]
Black is now clearly in serious trouble.

18...Nd7 19 exd6 Qc4 20 b3 Qb4 21 Bd2 Qb6 22 Bc3 Qc6 23 Bg2 1-0
Black resigned in view of lines like the following:
a) 23...Nc5 24 Qe2 Be6 25 Nf6+ Rxf6 26 Bxc6+ bxc6 27 Bxf6;
b) 23...Qb5 24 Ng5 Nc5 25 Rd5 Be6 26 Nxe6 fxe6 27 Rxc5 Qxc5 28 Qxb7
c) 23...Qb6 24 Ng5 Rxd6 (24...Nc5 25 Rd5 etc.) 25 Qxh5 Nh6 26 Qe2+ Re6
27 Nxe6 Qxe6 (27...fxe6 28 Ba5) 28 Rxf8+ Nxf8 (or 28...Kxf8 29 Re3) 29
Re3.
After I published this game in Chess Mail, Nightingale wrote to me that: 'I see
the game line probably looks a mess at first blush, but it is totally won after
White's 11th, 10th and even 8th moves. Giorgio concedes that that is so after
his 11th, but I see no alternative offering from him. After my 11th, the
development count is 6 vs. 1, Black cannot hope to ...0-0 because of the open
g-file, and he has no time to ...0-0-0 (at least 5 spare moves required) before
the pawn trio advances and catches his K in the centre'.
'The KG player who seeks to avoid the Kieseritzky, Hanstein/Philidor and

'Blackburne', is, I agree, restricted in choice when facing 3...g5, ...d6 or ...h6
to my mind to these various 5 Nc3 lines that result in each case in Becker
Defence lines with ...d6, or else ...g4 and some mayhem!'
This leads into a discussion of the Becker Defence.
D:
Thomas Schmelz Aydin Satici
ICCF Officials 50th Jubilee GM-B Email, 2001
1 e4 e5 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 h6 (Becker Defence)
[FEN "rnbqk1nr/ppp2pb1/3p3p/6p1/3PP3/
2N2NP1/PPP5/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 0 8"]
Becker's move 3...h6, like Fischer's 3...d6, intends to play ...g5 when f4 is
attacked. His pawn chain is thereby reinforced and Ng5 by White ruled out.
In some lines it can transpose to Fischer's defence, and, like 3...d6, it poses
White the question of how he will avoid transposition to the Hanstein line
which is safe for Black. Yet 3...h6 is clearly less center-oriented than 3...d6. It
does not control e5, nor does it further queenside development.
4 d4!?
In Johansson's book, 4 b3 is discussed extensively as a promising alternative
remedy for White against the Becker. McDonald and Gallagher's books also
have a brief treatment of it. The fianchettoed queen's bishop makes ...g5
problematic for Black, but without ...g5 the move ...h6 is wasted.
4...g5 5 Nc3
5 Bc4 d6 6 0-0 Bg7 transposes to the Hanstein Gambit. If 5 h4 Bg7, when 6
Bc4 d6 transposes to the Philidor Gambit, and 6 hxg5 hxg5 7 Rxh8 Bxh8 8 g3
d5! is clearly good for Black.
5...Bg7
More precise than 5...d6 6 g3 fxg3, as White can play 7 h4. Instead 7 hxg3
Bg7 transposes back to the game.
6 g3!?
Shabalov-A. Ivanov, USA Ch 2000, went 6 Bc4 d6 7 g3 fxg3 8 hxg3 Bg4 9
Rf1 Qf7 10 Qd3 Nc6 11 Be3 a6 12 0-0-0 which was unclear and eventually
drawn.
6...fxg3 7 hxg3
Not 7 h4 g4 8 Ng1 d5! (Gallagher-Nunn, Islington 1990).
7...d6
[FEN "rnbqk1nr/ppp2pb1/3p3p/6p1/3PP3/
2N2NP1/PPP5/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 0 8"]
This is the position that would have arisen in Nightingale v. Ruggeri Laderchi
had Black adopted Nightingale's suggestion of 5...h6 6 g3 fxg3 7 hxg3 and
only then 7...Bg7.
8 Bc4
The critical line for the Becker Defence.
a) 8 Nxg5? hxg5 9 Rxh8 Bxh8 10 Qh5 Bxd4 11 Bxg5 Bf6 12 Qh7
(Gallagher) is refuted by 12...Bxc3+, followed in due course by Qxg5
Nightingale;
b) 8 Be3 Nf6 9 Bg2 Nc6 10 Nh2 Bd7 11 Qe2 0-0 12 Nd1 Re8 13 Nf2 Nd5 14
0-00 (14 exd5? Nxd4 15 Qd2 Rxe3+) 14...Nxe3 15 Qxe3 Qf6 16 c3 Ne7!
(Preparing ...c5) 17 Rdf1 Qg6 18 Qd3 Rad8 19 Re1 c5 20 d5 b5 21 Nf1 c4 22
Qd1 b4 23 cxb4 c3 with a winning attack for Black (Callaghan-Idema,
Lewkowitz Memorial A corr 1994).
8...Nf6
I commented in Chess Mail that Black should probably have played 8...Bg4!?
instead.
Nightingale wrote to me that 'With your suspicion that 8...Bg4 is good, I
concur. Then 9 Rf1 Qd7 10 Qd3 a6 11 Be3 Nc6 12 0-0-0 seems the crucial
line.' That would be a transposition to Shabalov-Ivanov, mentioned in the
note to White's sixth move.
9 Qd3 Nc6 10 Be3
In an earlier game Nightingale had played 10 a3, but was not satisfied with
this.
10...Bg4 11 Rf1
[FEN "r2qk2r/ppp2pb1/2np1n1p/6p1/
2BPP1b1/2NQBNP1/PPP5/R3KR2 b Qkq - 0 11"]
11...0-0?
Castling the wrong side runs into a surprising attack soon: 11...Qd7 12 0-00
0-00 13 Bb5 is the line that Gallagher thinks causes Black problems, but
after 13...a6 14 Ba4 Qe8 (14....d5) 15 d5 Ne5 Nightingale reckoned Black
was OK. I am not so sure, but have not looked at this with a fast computer.
12 a3 Bh3 13 Rf2 Ng4 14 Rd2 Na5 15 Ba2 Nxe3 16 Qxe3 Qc8 17 0-00 c5
18 Nd5 Re8 19 Rf2 Be6 20 Nxg5! cxd4 21 Qf4 hxg5 22 Qxg5 1-0
[FEN "r1q1r1k1/pp3pb1/3pb3/n2N2Q1/
3pP3/P5P1/BPP2R2/2KR4 b - - 0 22"]
Resignation does seem somewhat premature. Black must try 22...Qd8 (not
22...d3 23 Nf6+ nor 22...Kf8 23 Rh1) 23 Nf6+ Qxf6 24 Rxf6 Bxa2 25 Rh1
(threatening Rf6-h6-h8 mate; not 25 b3 Rac8 26 Kb2 Rxc2+) 25...Re5 26
Qh4 Kf8 which fights on although Black's long-term prospects are poor.
Postscript (1): Reader feedback

Mark Nieuweboer has seen one of Stefan Bcker's books in the German
language, which was never translated into English. He sends in two short
remarks based on it concerning the Muzio-Polerio Gambit line discussed last
month.
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4 g4 5 0-0 gxf3 6 Qxf3 Qf6 7 e5 Qxe5 8 d3
Bh6 9 Nc3 Ne7 10 Bd2
[FEN "rnb1k2r/ppppnp1p/7b/4q3/2B2p2/
2NP1Q2/PPPB2PP/R4RK1 b kq - 0 10"]
1) After 10Nbc6 11 Rae1 Qf5 12 Nd5 Kd8, 13 Qe2 (MacLean) 13Qe6

14 Qf2 does not draw as Black can play for a win with Qg6, a move
suggested by Snosko-Borovsky (Analytische Untersuchungen ber den
MacLean Angriff, Leipzig 1911). That's why Bcker suggests 14 Nxe7 Qxe7
15 Bc3 (Chigorin) 15Rg8 16 Qh5 Qg5 17 Rf2 Qxh5 18 Bf6+ Ne7 19 Bxe7
+ Ke8 20 Bd6+ draw.
2) Another way to draw is 10...c6 11 Rae1 Qc5+ 12 Kh1 d5 13 Qh5 Qd6 14
Bxd5 O-O 15 Rxe7 cxd5 16 Nxd5 Nc6 17 Bxf4 Bxf4 18 Rxf4 (Schlechter)
18Qg6 19 Nf6+ Kg7 20 Ne8+ Kg8 as in a game played in Switzerland in
1983, which is not in Bcker's booklet, but Mark found it mentioned in
Fernschach magazine somewhat later.
A reader from Germany wrote in to thank me for my last article and to
suggest that 'In the King's Gambit there is a new trend after 3...g5 (also after
3...d6 and 3...h6), White plays 4 Nc3 with similar ideas like in the Rosentreter
4 d4; but he doesn't have to sacrifice the piece after 4...g4 5 Ne5! There are
several games by Zvyangintsev and other strong players after 4 Nc3. Perhaps
you could consider it in one of the next columns? In my view it is White's
most promising try in the King's Gambit!'
Thank you for the idea, Chris. If other readers who have games with this 4
Nc3 line can send them in, maybe this can be a topic for early next year.
Postscript (2): New Blackburne research

Following the publication of my Eminent Victorian Chess Players, I have
been considering whether a fuller treatment of one of its subjects, Joseph
Blackburne, may be possible in future. It would require extensive further
research into his long life and games. I invite readers who are in a position to
assist to research their local newspaper columns and club archives for details
of Blackburne's movements and games played in their locality. I have posted
a page about this on my website at: http://www.chessmail.com/research/
blackburne.html.
Postscript (3): Auction offers and requests

I am seeking to acquire one or two copies each (only if in good condition and
unmarked) of Chess Mail magazine volume 7 (2003) numbers 2, 6, 7, and 8.
If any reader has these, please contact me via ChessCafe.com. I can offer
copies of some of my old books in exchange.
That is the only year of which I am very short. I have a few sets in good
condition of all other years of Chess Mail (unbound loose issues) which I
would be willing to sell or exchange. I may post these in the next few weeks
on eBay or the Lund chess auctions website, so keep an eye out if you are
interested, or email me.
Postscript (4): Was this an April Fool?

Finally, readers may be interested in an interview on the ChessBase website
with Rybka programmer Vasik Rajlich, saying his recent project has been to
analyse the King's Gambit to exhaustion with a huge network of computers.
According to this amazing claim, 3 Nf3 loses by force, with the optimal line
for Black being Fischer's 3d6 4 Bc4 h6 5 d4 g5!, although Fischer's
analysis was inaccurate in some details, he says. If instead Black plays 3g5,
the Kieseritzky (which we examined last time) is good enough for a draw,
which I don't think we need a computer to prove. The article also says that the
Bishop's Gambit, 3 Bc4, is refuted by 3Nf6! His most startling conclusion
is that White has only one way to draw against best defence after 2exf4,
which is 3 Be2 and if 3d5 then 4 exd5!.
Of course we may be entitled to reserve our opinion until Rajlich publishes
his findings in more detail, but certainly the King's Gambit would be more
amenable to this kind of approach than, say, the French Defence. However, if
it is true as seems likely that this article was an 'April Fool', we shall
probably be waiting for a later generation of quantum computers before chess
is solved like this.

Digitised Chess Literature: Philanthropy or

Piracy?
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Translate this page
A few weeks ago, I received an email from somebody enquiring whether my

new book, Eminent Victorian Chess Players, was in descriptive notation. I
was slightly surprised. I supposed he was worried that, since descriptive was
the almost universal notation in the nineteenth century among Englishlanguage chess publications (also French and Spanish for that matter), the
games in my book might be presented in the old-fashioned way. I hastened to
reassure him that my book is indeed in algebraic notation although several
quoted annotations retain the flavour of the original.
So I was surprised, a second time, to be told that the potential reader would
not be buying my book since (being in his mid-fifties!) he considered himself
to be too old to learn algebraic. That was indeed a pity, especially as this was
defeatist talk not at all in line with my belief in lifetime learning.
Nevertheless, all is not lost for people like him because there is a wealth of
old chess literature in descriptive notation available free online for anyone
who understands or indeed who is not too old to learn it! Players of my
generation grew up with descriptive and the version seen in Victorian chess
literature is much the same. The most obvious differences are that "Kt" is
usually written instead of "N", and that instead of "K1," for example, you may
read "K sq." In the earlier works, you are likely to see "ch" rather than "+" for
checks, and instead of hyphens and multiplication signs you may see the
words "to" and "takes".
The principal point of difficulty that can arise, usually in long games, is that
ambiguous situations can arise where the old notation will say, for example,
"KR" or "Q Kt", meaning the piece which originally began on that wing,
whereas in twentieth century descriptive the square the piece is actually
moving from is likely to be clarified. Victorian chess sets often had some
marker to distinguish the king's and queen's knights and rooks which we don't
have, and therefore which piece is which sometimes has to be kept track of
mentally, or by checking back through earlier moves.

the games from
Purchases from our

accessible:
by Tim Harding
$43.95!
The Stress of Chess

by Walter Browne
$21.95!
None of these difficulties are insuperable, and even somebody who does not
know descriptive notation can find websites to teach it; for example, on
Wikipedia or at chess.com. It is worth the effort learning descriptive in order
to open up for you the wealth of digitised old chess literature.
Much of this huge free library is available through Google Books, and some
through other outlets. One of the other sites you can go to is Forgotten Books
but the quality of their files in general is not as good. They restrict your free
downloads to five (though they may tell you fifty at first), so you should only
go there for material that is unavailable on Google. Otherwise, you can pay a
few cents for more. Forgotten Books calls itself a "proud partner of Amazon.
com", so clearly their ultimate aim is to make money for somebody, not
philanthropy, and all their books are also available for physical print-ondemand. Forgotten Books's description of their offerings is also very limited
so you could end up with something you did not want.
For example, when searching for books with chess in the title, I was offered
Soviet Chess by R. G. Wade, a work which is certainly not out of copyright as
Bob died only a few years ago. So if they were really offering that it would be
a crime. However, it seems that the book is placed in the category
"Philosophy Greco-Roman" and the short (and error-littered) computer
generated description is something to do with Plato and Lord Lyttelton. So
clearly something has gone wrong with their automated processing and if you
Modern Chess Preparation

by Vladimir Tukmakov
$19.95!
bought this title, you would end up with some Victorian work on classics.
Their descriptions are generally unhelpful so you need to be very careful with
this site.
Usually the files can be saved to your computer as PDFs although sometimes
pages can only be viewed online and printed off one at a time, especially if
only sample parts of works are available. Google's PDFs are generally
excellent but I have found some of the ones from Forgotten Books (especially
the larger files) are very slow to scroll though and the pages take a long time
to fully render onscreen. Nevertheless, as with Steinitz's book of the 1889
New York Chess Congress, which I could not find on Google, this was a great
book to obtain digitally, and the word-searching did work. So far as I can see,
Google are not offering many tournament books at present, except for
tournaments played in England like London 1862. There is no shortage of
elementary manuals of little more than curiosity value today.
However, comparing notes with chess researchers elsewhere, I have found
that what is available to me in Ireland seems to be far less than what North
American surfers are allowed to download. It possibly depends on differences
in copyright law between one country and another. For example, I sometimes
get the message that "Sorry, books on Google Play is not yet available in your
country" or "No ebook available" when a friend in Canada has been able to
download it.
Some of the titles I have obtained were downloaded a year or more ago and
possibly are not free any more. I think some reprint publishing houses do
deals with Google to offer an old book in hard copy, which may lead to the
free download being withdrawn. So my general policy is to keep checking to
see if something you want has become available, and then to grab it while you
can.
Go to Google Books and then either search for a specific author or title, or put
chess in the title or subject windows and scroll through what is available.
"Full view only" will restrict hits to complete books; "All books" (the default)
will give results including modern books with no preview or restricted
preview.
When you see a "full view" title, you want click on it and a page will come
up. You can scroll through this if you want. The main thing is, if you see a red
button saying "EBOOK FREE" top left, hover your mouse over it until a
links menu pops up. Then click on "Download PDF". You then have to enter
the "captcha" security string and the download should be yours. If you don't
see that button, then there won't be an ebook, at least not where you live.
Google will have scanned everything in the library volume, so do not be
surprised if there are several blank or almost blank pages before the book
content begins.
There is also a difference between what is freely available to anyone and what
is only available through subscription. Also, the quality of what is available
does vary: sometimes only page images are provided although increasingly
fully word-searchable text created with OCR (optical character recognition) is
the norm, and again some of the search engines with the databases provide
much more flexible options to find precisely what you are looking for in a
text.
Several of the issues arising from the digitisation of chess literature will be
teased out in this article, but first let us get an idea of what is out there.
Roughly speaking, these fall into three classes: books, periodicals, and
newspapers.
Newspapers, which often contain regular columns or one-off reports of chess
activities, are a special case. Many newspapers are available free through
Google News; these are mostly North American but do include the Glasgow
Herald, as Alan McGowan kindly pointed out to me. Unfortunately, the page
images are not, so far as I can see, presented in a convenient way nor their
content readily searchable. However, if you know the precise date of the
article you want, then you can find it with some difficulty. More and more
newspapers are being placed online through a range of special databases,

though as yet not many are from the twentieth century. I say a little more
about digitised newspapers below and may return to the subject next year.
Books
Canadian novelist Robertson Davies once wrote that "To be a book-collector
is to combine the worst characteristics of a dope fiend with those of a miser."
Thanks to freely-downloadable digitised chess books, the miser dimension is
gradually disappearing, although collectors who still value beautifully bound
originals in fine condition will stay pay good prices for some titles in
auctions. Readers chiefly interested in the content, such as historians, do not
need collectors' items.
Here is a list (far from complete) illustrating the range of chess books that I
have been able to obtain in PDF and you should probably be able to obtain
also. However, some of these came from my Canadian friend and may be
unavailable in Europe or wherever you live.
The exploits and triumphs, in Europe, of Paul Morphy, by Morphy's

late secretary (Edge). The English edition, with a slightly different title,
is probably also available.
A Popular Introduction to the Study and Practice of Chessby an
Amateur (1851). This is an early manual that came out soon after
Staunton's Handbook. The author was S. S. Boden, a leading
contemporary of Bird and Morphy.
Chess Brilliants, One Hundred Games, selected by I. O. Howard
Taylor of Norwich Chess Club (1869)
The Chess-Player's Annual for the Year 1856, edited by Charles
Tomlinson (the only year that ever came out, but full of interesting
material). Also his Amusements in Chess.
Staunton's Chess Praxis, and other books by him.
Several George Walker books, including Chess Studies (the first large
published collection of actual play, over 1,000 games) and his Chess
and Chess Players, still a good read, which includes the articles he
wrote for Fraser's Magazine. Also his collection of Games Actually
Played by Philidor should be available.
Horae Divanianae, by Elijah Williams (1852), a collection of 150
games played at the Grand Divan in the Strand.
Willard Fiske's The book of the first American chess congress is well
worth obtaining.
The Principles of Chess in Theory & Practice by James Mason (1894);
this is one I got from Forgotten Books.
Some early books on chess compositions are also available, for
example A collection of two hundred chess problems, by Francis
Healey (1862).
Periodicals
A huge amount of nineteenth century chess periodicals are now available on
Google Books, which I guess is bad news for reprint houses like Moravian
Chess, although there are always some advantages to having a physical
volume. Nearly all the English chess magazines can now be found, though
there are several gaps, and occasionally the digitised volumes may be missing
an issue or two.
For example, The Philidorian, George Walker's very first attempt at a chess
magazine, is available. Most of the Chess Player's Chronicle series is
available up to the late 1880s although some years it did not appear. Also
1876 (only three issues published) and 1883 do not seem to be available yet,
even in North America, and many volumes after the 1860s cannot be
downloaded where I live.
The Westminster Papers is now almost completely available, but only some
volumes of Hoffer and Zukertort's The Chess-Monthly. The case of British
Chess Magazine is discussed later in this article.
There are also quite a few American, French, and German chess periodicals
available on Google, and some volumes of the early Dutch chess magazine
Sissa.
Copyright issues and preservation
Google and co. also state that they are not releasing material which is still in
copyright but only titles that are in the public domain. They are, however,
digitising practically everything, and waiting for copyrights to expire. Sample
pages of recent books are also available without the author's permission.
When Google first started doing this, there was supposedly an opt-out scheme
for authors, but in practice it was extremely difficult for non-US authors to do
anything about it.
Most of my own books are non-preview, but I see that the few of which I sold
reprint rights to Dover some time ago are partially available: some pages can
be seen in preview. So perhaps Google have also made agreements with
publishers. However, all my contracts with Dover explicitly state that I retain
the electronic rights, as I had the foresight to realise these could be valuable
in future and Dover were not interested in paying more to acquire them.
Google however have gone right ahead and posted large numbers of pages.
They can expect to hear soon from a lawyer presenting a bill on my behalf.
The problem, of course, is that Google has enormous financial muscle. If any
reader in the U.S. is willing to take this case for me pro bono, please get in
touch through ChessCafe.com. Or perhaps Google will quietly take the pages
down if somebody working there reads this.
Through agreements with numerous universities and other institutions such as
the British Library and New York Public Library, which often hold many
chess books, Google are amassing a huge digitised library; they must think
that in the long run this will make them money.
From the point of view of the universities and libraries, this is philanthropy
and makes good sense in terms of their long-term mission to preserve the
printed word for future generations. The handling of old printed material
inevitably leads to deterioration. Digitisation makes sense to preserve the
original texts for the far future, as it only involves one-time handling under
controlled conditions. This project also means that Google is probably paying
them much needed funds for their archival and research work.
Where long-deceased authors are concerned, there is no real objection to what
Google is doing, but I do see an issue arising in the case of long-running
periodicals which are still in existence. Several newspapers that have been
running since the nineteenth, and even eighteenth centuries, have now
established online archives, usually through licensing arrangements with
digital publishers such as Proquest. The Times of London was one of the first
to do this. Now the Observer and the Manchester Guardian (latterly, just
Guardian), Irish Times and others are available through such databases.
Numerous other British and American newspapers which had chess columns
can be found, free or otherwise, online.
In some cases, collectors made scrapbooks of chess columns which are a
valuable resource for researchers, though generally these have only been
copied to microfilm. In a few cases page images (not word-searchable) can be
found online. The largest I know of is the Jack O'Keefe Project at the Chess
Archaeology website, which offers a large range of old American columns.
There is a small example of this on my own website, where I present the longlost column from Our School Times, an Irish school magazine.
It would be very hard for anyone else to do a pirate digital version of a whole
newspaper, if only because the newspaper's own physical archive is probably
the only place where a complete set of originals can be found. However, it is
a different matter with magazines, where complete sets may be held by
several libraries.
I am thinking in particular of British Chess Magazine, which began in
January 1881 and is still in publication. Since it has been published every
month since then without interruption, should not the present company
running this title hold rights going back to the start? Original bound volumes
of many of the years prior to World War One (especially for the first few
years) typically sell for hundreds of Euro in auctions. There should be a
market for good quality reprints or e-books. Exploitation of such rights should
surely belong to B.C.M. itself? It appears, however, that others are making
money out of this content resource whether what they are doing is legal or
not may depend upon the jurisdiction, but again this could be a case for the
pro bono lawyer?
Part of the problem, I suspect, is that it probably never occurred to Google,
Forgotten Books, Amazon and the like, that a minority periodical that began
in 1881 might still be running and therefore could be in the public domain.
The libraries which provided the originals for scanning should, however,
know or easily be able to find out, and should be able to advise Google etc.
that there might be a copyright issue. It appears, though, from what Google
say online, that they take the view that anything older than 120 years is
definitely OK to release and so they have made B.C.M. available up to 1891
(though not to surfers in the UK or Ireland I think), and probably next year
they will release 1892.
B.C.M. tell me that they have been buying some of the items on offer to see
what they are like, while they consider whether a breach of copyright action
would have some chance of success. They bought a reprint of B.C.M. 1906
via Amazon at a cost of 26 sterling, which was scanned from an original in
the New York Public Library. Now 1906 clearly falls outside the 120-year
rule. B.C.M. fears that pirates are releasing their material up to 1941 or 1942.
The reprint they bought came from a company called Lightning Source UK
Ltd. Apparently that company told one of the B.C.M. directors that they are
not concerned with copyright issues and devolve that to the client for whom
they are printing. In effect they are merely printers and not publishers. I am
no lawyer but I wonder can they get away with that? In an action for libel, the
plaintiff can join the printer and publisher in the action so maybe, at least in
UK law, somebody whose copyright was infringed by a digital publisher or
reprint house could do the same?
James Mason
To round off the column, here is an annotated game which I came across
recently during my search for material on Blackburne, whom I am currently
researching. The standard collection of Blackburne's games, edited by P.
Anderson Graham in 1899, incorrectly says this game was played at
Simpson's Divan in 1881. The loser, Irish-American master James Mason,
wrote good notes to it in his book The Principles of Chess in Theory &
Practice (1894) pages 190-1, which I got from Forgotten Books.
Joseph Henry Blackburne James Mason
London Quintangular 1892
King's Gambit [C38]
Notes by Mason
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4 Bg7 5 d4 d6 6 00 h6 7 c3 Nf6
Inferior to 7...Qe7 or 7...Nc6. For 7...Ne7 see ChigorinC. Schmid in the

same book.
8 e5! dxe5 9 Qb3 00 10 Nxe5 Qe8
10...Be6 11 Bxe6 fxe6 12 Qxe6+ Kh7 13 Qf5+ and White can draw if he
likes. Or instead of 12 Qxe6+ he play 12 Qxb7 with advantage.
11 Ng6 b5!
[FEN "rnb1qrk1/p1p2pb1/5nNp/1p4p1/
2BP1p2/1QP5/PP4PP/RNB2RK1 w - - 0 12"]
12 Bxb5
The only move to save the Piece. But this it does effectually enough, and
Black has lost his Pawn.
12...Qe4 13 Ne5
If 13 Nxf8 the following would not be improbable: 13...Bb7 14 Rf2 Ng4 15
Re2 Bxd4+ 16 cxd4 Qxd4+ 17 Kf1 Nxh2+ 18 Ke1 f3 19 Be3 Qh4+ 20 Bf2
fxg2 etc., Black winning.
13...Bb7 14 Nf3 Ng4 15 Re1 Qg6 16 Be2 Qc6 17 Bd3 Nf6
Necessary to prevent Be4. Also having in mind the practicability of ...g5-g4.
By his next move White guards the weak spot, giving his Knight freedom of
movement to e5, if advisable.
[FEN "rn3rk1/pbp2pb1/2q2n1p/6p1/3P1p2/
1QPB1N2/PP4PP/RNB1R1K1 w - - 0 18"]
18 Qc2 Nbd7 19 Na3 Rae8 20 Bd2 a6 21 Rxe8 Rxe8 22 Re1

Relying upon his superior strength on the Queen side. The Pawn position
would be lost for Black.
22...Rxe1+ 23 Nxe1 Qe6 24 Bc4 Nd5 25 Qd3 N7f6
(This is an example of what I referred to above. In the book this move is
described as "Q Kt-B3".)
26 Nac2 Bf8
(And this move pair was printed as "26 Q Kt-B2 B-KB sq". Mason does
however use short dashes for "to", "x" for captures and "+" for checks, this
being a comparatively late Victorian work where the modern tendency for
abbreviation was in evidence.)
[FEN "5bk1/1bp2p2/p3qn1p/3n2p1/2BP1p2/
2PQ4/PPNB2PP/4N1K1 w - - 0 27"]
27 Qe2
Therefore he cannot exchange indiscriminately, else ...QxQ would be all right
here.
27...Ne4 28 Nf3 Bd6 29 Bc1 a5 30 Nd2 Nxd2
30...f5, besides being hazardous in itself, would probably lead to the loss of
the a-pawn, after 31 a4 and 32 Nb3. The Black Queen holds her ground next
move, rather than yield the open file.
31 Bxd2 Kf8 32 Qxe6 fxe6 33 Ne1 Ke7 34 Nd3 Nb6 35 Bb3 Bd5 36 Bxd5
exd5
This greatly strengthens the Queen side, and reduces the position to a draw
on its meritsthough a difficult one.
[FEN "8/2p1k3/1n1b3p/p2p2p1/3P1p2/
2PN4/PP1B2PP/6K1 w - - 0 37"]
37 b3 a4 38 Kf2 axb3 39 axb3 Nd7 40 Kf3

White conducts the remaining operations with great skill. In reply to this
move the Black King perhaps ought to go to e6but there is still no harm
done.
40...Kf6 41 c4 dxc4 42 bxc4
[FEN "8/2pn4/3b1k1p/6p1/2PP1p2/
3N1K2/3B2PP/8 b - - 0 42"]
42...Kf5
This, however, is an absolutely fatal error. 42...c5 was the obvious move to
draw.
43 c5! Be7 44 Ba5! g4+ 45 Ke2 Ke4 46 Bxc7 f3+ 47 gxf3+ gxf3+ 48 Kd2
Kxd4 49 c6
An uncommon termination. The Knight cannot be saved, else the Pawn
Queens.
49...Bg5+ 50 Kc2 Resigns. 1-0
Postscript: more eBay offers

As part of my house-clearing operation, I have posted some more chessrelated items (and some non-chess ones) on eBay. Typically my auctions last
ten days with a "Buy Now" option but I am restricted in how many lots I can
offer per month. If you want to find what I am offering for sale at any given
time, do a search for "Chess Mail" or in the advanced search page, look for
items only from the seller "kibitzer63".

Misadventures in the Aviary

Victorian chess master Henry Edward Bird had a highly idiosyncratic
approach to chess openings. Today he is probably best remembered for his
championing of the move 1 f4, known worldwide as Bird's Opening. While
working on my book Eminent Victorian Chess Players, which includes a
chapter about Bird, I decided to play several games with his favourite
openings in order to obtain a better feel for his approach to chess.
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Translate this page
Another opening variation named after him, and which he also played
throughout his fifty-year long career, was Bird's Defence to the Ruy Lopez
(Spanish Opening), 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nd4. Bird's aviary of chess
variations also includes his line in the Italian Game (slow build-up with c3, d3
and an early b4) but I have not tried that recently. I did play 1 f4 in some
correspondence games (and have also met it as Black), but spent only a little
time on analysing it. I spent rather more time on Bird's Defence and played it
both over-the-board and by correspondence, although I now think it is too
risky for the latter mode of play.
Purchases from our

accessible:
by Tim Harding
For that purpose of my Bird chapter, I think my experiment succeeded to

some extent, but my results and rating have certainly suffered! Nevertheless, I
did have some interesting games (mostly draws and losses) which I shall now
share with readers. Clearly Bird understood his openings better than I do, but
he also had the advantage that opponents did not have the benefit of modern
databases and theoretical works.
In this month's column, I shall look at Bird's Opening and then my December
column will deal with Bird's Defence. I shall start with two illustrative games
played by Bird himself.
Henry Bird Max Judd
Sixth US Congress, New York, 1889 (Round 7)
Bird's Opening [A02]
Bird's Opening
by Tim Taylor
Notes by Steinitz in the tournament book, page 330, unless otherwise stated.
1 f4
the games from
TH: This move was not original with Henry Bird, who probably first played it
during his match with Ernst Falkbeer in 1856. It had been tried in the 1830s
and 1840s by De la Bourdonnais, Staunton, and St. Amant among others.
Bird's last tournament game with 1 f4 was a loss to Steinitz at the London
1899 international, the final competition that either of them played.
1...c5 2 e3 e6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 b3
TH: Bird often combined 1 f4 with a queen's fianchetto, although against
some formations he adopted a Stonewall formation. In all cases his idea was
to take firm control of e5.
4...d5 5 Bb2 Be7 6 Be2 Nc6 7 0-0 0-0 8 Qe1
Enter 1.f4, Bird's Opening

by Andrew Martin
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/pp2bppp/2n1pn2/2pp4/
5P2/1P2PN2/PBPPB1PP/RN2QRK1 b - - 0 8"]
8...Ne4
A development of the Q side was more in order.
9 d3 Bf6 10 Ne5 Nd6 11 Nd2 Bxe5 12 fxe5 Nf5 13 Bg4 Nce7
13...d4 would have isolated the adverse front KP [i.e. the e5-pawn] and
blocked the hostile QB with better prospects for Black's game.
14 Bxf5 exf5 15 Nf3 Be6 16 a4 a5 17 Nh4 Rc8 18 Rd1 b6 19 Qg3 Kh8 20
Rd2 Rc6 21 Rdf2 Rg8 22 Qg5
[FEN "3q2rk/4nppp/1pr1b3/p1ppPpQ1/
P6N/1P1PP3/1BP2RPP/5RK1 b - - 0 22"]
22...Qf8
The K side was better guarded if he had not crowded his heavy pieces on that
wing and tried a diversion on the other flank by the advance of P-B5.
23 h3 g6
Unnecessary and weak.
24 e4
[FEN "5qrk/4np1p/1pr1b1p1/p1ppPpQ1/
P3P2N/1P1P3P/1BP2RP1/5RK1 b - - 0 24"]
24...d4
It was much better to capture the centre Pawn, which either allowed him the
time for the defence that his opponent required to recover the Pawn, or left
him a Pawn ahead as some compensation for the attack which the adversary
had anyhow.
25 Bc1 Bc8 26 Qg3 h6 27 Qh2 Be6 28 Kh1 Kh7 29 g4 fxe4 30 dxe4 c4
[FEN "5qr1/4np1k/1pr1b1pp/p3P3/P1ppP1PN/
1P5P/2P2R1Q/2B2R1K w - - 0 31"]
31 Rf3 cxb3 32 cxb3 Rc3 33 Qd2 Rxf3 34 Nxf3 Bxb3 35 Nxd4 Bc4 36 Rf6
Qg7 37 e6
37 Qg2 first was stronger.
37...g5 38 Rxf7 Qxf7 39 exf7 Bxf7 40 Nf5 Ng6 41 Qd4 Bb3 42 Qd7+ 1-0
With his usual energy, Mr. Bird grasps the winning opportunity.
Henry Bird Joseph Blackburne
Hastings international 1895
From Gambit [A02]
Notes, except those at the beginning, are by Schiffers from the tournament
book.
1 f4 e5
TH: Bird played his opening several times against his great contemporary
Blackburne, who usually responded in this way. So far I have discovered
thirteen games between them with 1 f4 (about half their official contests in
which Bird had White, including half a dozen consultation games). In six of
the games, including this one (which was the last with 1 f4) Blackburne chose
From's Gambit.
Of course, White can transpose to the King's Gambit by 2 e4, so Black needs
to be prepared for that also. Bird never did that, no doubt aware that
Blackburne was a great exponent of it, whereas when Bird played 1 e4 he was
usually aiming for the Evans Gambit.
2 fxe5 d6 3 exd6 Bxd6
[FEN "rnbqk1nr/ppp2ppp/3b4/8/8/8/
PPPPP1PP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 4"]
4 g3
TH: This was Bird's last idea against the From. 4 Nf3 is more usual:
a) 4...Nf6 (or 4...Nh6 transposing next move) 5 d4 Ng4 6 Bg5 f6 7 Bh4
occurred in (at least) two earlier games between Bird and Blackburne, who
also tried 5...Ne4.
b) 4...g5 5 d4 g4 6 Ne5 Bxe5 7 dxe5 Qxd1+ 8 Kxd1 Nc6 9 Bf4 Be6 10 e3
Nge7 11 Bb5 0-0-0+ 12 Kc1 Bd5 13 Rg1 a6 14 Be2 Be6 15 Nc3 h6 16 Bd3
Ng6 17 Bxg6 fxg6 18 Rd1 Rde8 19 e4 g5 20 Bg3 Rhf8 21 b3 h5 22 Rd2 h4
23 Bf2 Nxe5 24 Be3 h3 25 Bxg5 g3 26 hxg3 Rf1+ 27 Kb2 Rxa1 28 Kxa1 h2
29 Rd1 Ng4 30 Rh1 Bf7 31 Kb2 c6 32 Kc1 Bg6 33 Kd2 Rxe4 34 Nd1 Rd4+
35 Ke2 Rxd1 36 Rxd1 Be4 37 Rd8+ Kc7 38 Rd1 Bxg2 39 Bd8+ Kc8 40 Bb6
Bd5 0-1, Bird-Em. Lasker, Newcastle upon Tyne 1892.
4...h5
TH: Bird-Lasker, also at Hastings 1895, went 4...f5 5 d3 Nf6 6 c3 Nc6 7 Bg2
Ne5 8 Nd2 Qe7 9 Nf1 Bd7 10 Bf4 0-0 11 Bxe5 Bxe5 12 Qc2 Kh8 13 Bf3
Rab8 14 Qd2 Rfe8 15 h3 Qd6 16 Kf2 c5 17 e3 Bb5 18 Rd1 Rbd8 19 c4 Bc6
20 Qe2 b5 21 b3 bxc4 22 bxc4 Ba4 23 Rb1 Rb8 24 Nd2 Bxg3+ 25 Kg2 Bh4
26 Rh2 Bc2 27 Rxb8 Rxb8 28 d4 cxd4 29 exd4 Re8 30 Qf1 Re1 31 c5 Qxd4
32 Qxe1 Bxe1 33 Nb3 Bxb3 34 axb3 Qxc5 0-1.
5 Bg2 Nc6
Apparently 5...h4 would be stronger.
6 Nc3 h4 7 Ne4 hxg3 8 h3 Nf6 9 Nxd6+ Qxd6 10 d3 Be6 11 c3 0-0-0 12
Qa4 Nd5 13 Bd2 g5
[FEN "2kr3r/ppp2p2/2nqb3/3n2p1/Q7/
2PP2pP/PP1BP1B1/R3K1NR w KQ - 0 14"]
The beginning of a pretty combination.

14 Bxg5 Nxc3 15 Qf4
After 15 bxc3 would follow 15...Qc5 with a triple attack on c3, g5, and f2.
15...Qxf4 16 Bxf4 Nd5 17 Bxg3 Rdg8 18 Kf2 Rh6 19 Bxd5 Bxd5 20 Nf3
Nb4 21 Be5 Rh5 22 d4 Nd3+ 23 Ke3
23 exd3 Rf5 regaining a piece, with a strong attack.
23...Nxb2 24 Rag1 Rxg1 25 Rxg1 Rxh3 26 Kf4 Nd3+ 27 Kf5 Bxf3 28 exd3
Bd5
[FEN "2k5/ppp2p2/8/3bBK2/3P4/
3P3r/P7/6R1 w - - 0 29"]
29 Kf6 Kd7 30 Rc1 Rh6+ 31 Kg7 Rg6+ 32 Kh7 Rc6 33 Rb1 Rc2 34 Rb5
Kc6 35 Ra5 a6 36 a3 Bb3 37 Bf4 Kd7 38 Kg7 Rg2+ 39 Kf6 Be6 40 d5 Rg6
+ 41 Ke5 Bh3 42 Rc5 Bg2 43 Kd4 c6 44 d6 Bd5 45 Rc2 Rg4 46 Rf2 b5 47
Kc5 a5 48 d4 Rg8 49 Re2 Re8 50 Rh2 b4
[FEN "4r3/3k1p2/2pP4/p1Kb4/
1p1P1B2/P7/7R/8 w - - 0 51"]
51 a4
If 51 axb4?? Rb8 and mate next move.
51...Rg8 52 Kb6 Rg4 53 Bd2 Rxd4 54 Kxa5 c5 55 Be3 Rc4 56 Kb6 Kxd6
57 a5 Be4 58 a6 Rc3 59 Rd2+ Rd3 60 Bxc5+ Ke5 61 Re2 Rd8 62 a7 b3 63
Kb5 Kf5 64 Kb4 Bc2 65 Ka3 Ra8 66 Re7 Kg6 67 Rb7 Be4 68 Rxb3 f5 69
Kb4 Kf7 70 Kc3 Ke6 71 Rb8 Ke5 -
I do have vague memories of opening 1 f4 way back in the 1964 British
Under-16 Championship and drawing with a strong opponent, but that game
is not preserved. On a few occasions I have met the Bird, the following being
the most recent.
Guy Chouraqui Tim Harding
ICCF Veterans World Cup2 semi-final, 2011
From Gambit [A02]
1 f4
Unfortunately, the From Gambit, in correspondence at least, looks like a poor
way to give up a pawn, but I was playing for fun in this event, and saw it as
good practice because I was thinking of playing Bird's with White.
1...e5 2 fxe5 d6 3 exd6 Bxd6 4 Nf3 Nf6
I do not trust 4...g5.
5 e3
5 Nc3 was recommended by GM Bent Larsen and in an article by Vigus in
one of the "Dangerous Weapons" volumes.
5...Ng4 6 d4 Qe7 7 Qd2

Very much a computer move, I think!
[FEN "rnb1k2r/ppp1qppp/3b4/8/3P2n1/4PN2/
PPPQ2PP/RNB1KB1R b KQkq - 0 7"]
7...0-0
7...Bf4 would regain the pawn but White has no problems after that and gets
an edge in development and space.
8 Nc3
Probably White's only good move; otherwise 8...Re8 regains the pawn safely.
8...c5
The pawn centre needs to be challenged although Black's queen can be driven
back.
9 Nd5 Qd8 10 dxc5 Bxc5 11 h3 Nf6 12 Nxf6+ Qxf6 13 Bd3 Nc6 14 0-0
Black has to take an important decision now.
14...Ne5
This move came out best in deep probing with the Deep Rybka-3 program.
14...Nb4!? was also examined but seemed less flexible. Apparently 14...Be6
is insufficient as it has no real threat.
15 Nxe5
White played this quickly although it is by no means obviously best. The
game might have developed in a more interesting way if my opponent ahd not
been so clearly satisfied with a draw.
15...Qxe5 16 Qf2
The queen must move before the c1-bishop can be developed. Qf2 seems the
most obvious choice since it prevents ...Re8.
16...Bd7 17 Qf4 Rae8 18 Qxe5 Rxe5 19 b4 Bxe3+ -
In my games as White in the Bird, I twice tried a Leningrad formation
(reversed Leningrad Dutch), and twice played the "true" Bird involving an
early e3. My experiences would lead me to definitely prefer the latter on any
future occasion, as both my games with the king's fianchetto were disastrous.
Please do not judge me by these next two exhibitions of rank patzerdom.
Tim Harding Boris Gorokhovsky
ICCF 9th European Team Championship semifinals, board 2, 2011-12
1 f4 d5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 g3 g6 4 Bg2 Bg7 5 0-0 0-0 6 d3
When playing the early stages of these games, I often consulted Timothy
Taylor's book Bird's Opening, which has been reviewed in this column in the
past. It did not prove very helpful at critical moments but I cannot blame
Taylor for these losses well, maybe just a little bit.
6...c5
[FEN "rnbq1rk1/pp2ppbp/5np1/2pp4/5P2/
3P1NP1/PPP1P1BP/RNBQ1RK1 w - - 0 7"]
My opponent spent over a week on this. By analogy with Leningrad Dutch

White is a tempo ahead (since Black has yet to play ...Nc6) so the choice is
between 7 c3 (to which 7...b6 is perhaps a good reply), 7 Nc3 or 7 Qe1.
7 Nc3?!
I definitely will not play this again. In the Leningrad Dutch, the ...Nc6 lines
are probably inferior and having the extra move as White does not seem to
improve matters. If anything, it means Black can react according to what his
opponent plans.
7...d4
My opponent took a long time on this well-judged move. If 7...Nc6 8 e4.
8 Ne4
I doubt that 8 Na4 is any better.
8...Nxe4 9 dxe4 Qb6!
[FEN "rnb2rk1/pp2ppbp/1q4p1/2p5/3pPP2/
5NP1/PPP1P1BP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 0 10"]
There is no example of 9...Qb6 in Taylor's book. What I found in databases

and Rybka's analysis was unpromising for White and I did not find a solution.
After eight moves White is already close to lost.
9...Nc6 10 e3 would be a standard Leningrad reversed with extra tempo.
10 Nd2?!
This idea of mine seemed at the time to make a lot of sense as it prepares to
occupy c4 with tempo, so cutting across his plan. However the sequel proved
it to be too slow and a mistaken concept. I found a lot of alternative sharp

lines which computers assess as slightly better for Black, although he does
not get it all his own way and could go wrong.
10...Nc6
10...Rd8 could be met by 11 e5!?
11 Nc4
11 e3 can be met by 11...dxe3 12 Nc4 e2 13 Qxe2 Qa6! 11 b3 also came into
consideration.
11...Qc7 12 b3 b5 13 Nb2 c4
[FEN "r1b2rk1/p1q1ppbp/2n3p1/1p6/2ppPP2/
1P4P1/PNP1P1BP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 0 14"]
Black wins material in all variations.

14 e5 Be6 15 e3 Rad8 16 Qe2 f6 17 a4 cxb3 18 axb5 Nb4 19 exf6 Bxf6 20
exd4 Bxd4+ 21 Kh1 Bf7 22 cxb3 Qc2 23 Qxc2 Nxc2 24 Ra6 Bxb3 25 Be4
Hoping to play Nd3.
[FEN "3r1rk1/p3p2p/R5p1/1P6/3bBP2/
1b4P1/1Nn4P/2B2R1K b - - 0 25"]
25...Rf5!
The R cannot be captured because of ...Bd5+ mating with his B pair.
26 Nd3 Rxb5 27 Kg2 Bb6 28 Ne5 Rc5 0-1
Tim Harding CC-GM Tony Barnsley
ICCF 9th European Team Championship semifinals 2011-12
1 f4 d5 2 Nf3 g6 3 g3 Bg7 4 Bg2 Nh6!? 5 d3 d4 6 c3 Nc6 7 Bd2 0-0 8 Na3
Nf5 9 0-0 e5!
Probably a good move, not expected by my computer program Rybka.
10 fxe5 Nxe5 11 Nxe5 Bxe5 12 Nc4 Bg7!
12...dxc3 13 bxc3 would of course give White a predominance in the centre,

enabling Black's minor pieces to be driven back.
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/ppp2pbp/6p1/5n2/2Np4/
2PP2P1/PP1BP1BP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 13"]
13 cxd4
13 e3 should perhaps have been preferred. One line from my notes goes 13...
dxe3 14 Bxe3 Nxe3 15 Nxe3 Re8 (15...Qg5 16 Qf3) 16 Qf3 Be6 17 d4 c6 18
d5 cxd5 19 Nxd5 Qa5 20 b4 (20 Nf6+ Bxf6 21 Qxf6 Rad8) 20...Qa6 (20...
Qxd5 21 Qxd5 Bxd5 22 Bxd5 is a probable draw with bishops of opposite
colour.) 21 Nf6+ Bxf6 22 Qxf6 Rac8 (22...Qb6+ 23 Rf2) 23 a4 which is
maybe about equal.
13...Qxd4+ 14 Kh1 Be6 15 Bc3
This is inconsistent. Although it appears the safer move, White will be left
with weaknesses. So perhaps I should have been braver and risked 15 Bxb7!?
with very unclear possibilities arising after either of Black's plausible replies,
15...Bxc4 and 15...Rab8. At any rate, I should have done deeper analysis
before selecting my move.
15...Qc5 16 Bxg7 Kxg7 17 Rc1 c6 18 Qb3 Qe7 19 Qc3+ f6 20 e4?!
This decision was over-optimistic and taken too hastily, playing into Black's
hands.
20...Bxc4 21 exf5
[FEN "r4r2/pp2q1kp/2p2pp1/5P2/2b5/
2QP2P1/PP4BP/2R2R1K b - - 0 21"]
21...Bf7!
Black correctly rejected the offer of the a-pawn, here and later, when White
can combine kingside threats and exploitation of the bishop's insecure
position. Now White is left with long-term weaknesses and has a positionally
lost game.
22 Rce1 Qd6 23 Rf4 Rae8 24 Be4 g5 25 Rf3 Re5 26 a3 Rfe8 27 Rfe3 Rb5
and Black soon won material and the game. (0-1)
Now for the games in which I played e3 rather than g3. Though I won neither,
the positions that arose were fascinating and I should have at least obtained a
draw from the first of them.
Tim Harding Trevor Brotherton
BCCA 2011/12 Candidates D
This game was played in a tournament where computers could be used for
database searching but not engine analysis. Hence some of the blunders I
made later! So I won't reproduce much of my analysis of side-variations, as it
was all done without benefit of Rybka or Fritz.
1 f4 Nf6
1...g6 2 e4 occurred in two one of my games, transposing to a form of the
Modern Defence. One of these I drew and the other I won, so my results with
1 f4 were not entirely ghastly, though, in view of my second move, Bird's
Opening can hardly take the credit.
2 Nf3 d5 3 e3 g6
For 3...Bg4 see the next game.
4 b4
[FEN "rnbqkb1r/ppp1pp1p/5np1/3p4/1P3P2/
4PN2/P1PP2PP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 4"]
I sent my opponent the message: "Wide wingspan on this Bird!"

4...Bg7
He replied: "Can it fly I wonder? Bent seemed to think so," showing he was
aware of Larsen's games.
5 Bb2 0-0 6 Be2
Larsen played this in at least two games (versus Spassky and Dely), which
can be found in Taylor's book.
6...a5 7 b5 a4 8 0-0
After 8 Na3 c5, I found White was scoring 0.5/3 in my database.
8...Nbd7
Not in Taylor's book. 8...c6 9 Na3 occurred in Ivkov-Cuellar, Sousse
interzonal 1967 (discussed by Taylor). 8...c5!? came into consideration.
9 Na3 Nc5 10 Ne5!?
There are two snags with this innovation. One is the temporary closure of my
bishop's diagonal (which Black immediately exploits) and the other is that the
QN never has anywhere to go. I decided, however, that I was unimpressed by
10 c4 dxc4 11 Nxc4 Nce4 12 Qc2 Nd6 as in a Bronstein-Ciocaltea game in
my database.
10...Nfe4
10...Nfd7 is perhaps well met by 11 c4 though that is not what I calculated at
the time.
11 Bf3
This prepares d2-d3 and the bishop's latent pressure against d5 forestalls ...
Nd6 for time being. 11 d3 Nd6 12 Qd2 (idea Qb4) was also considered but
12...Nf5 is good enough. 11 Bd4 threatens to win a piece by d2-d3, but 11...
Ne6 seemed a good reply to that.
11...f6
I had noticed this was possible but had not paid much attention to it.
12 d4!?
I hoped Black might have overlooked this and the point was to free up d3 for
my N and to exploit his interlinked Ns.
12...Nd7
He spent several days on his move, while I analysed complicated possibilities
such as 12...Ne6 13 c4!?.
13 Nd3
I had visions of getting my N into play with lines like 14 Bxe4 de 15 Nc5. 13
Nxd7 Bxd7 14 c4 would be simpler.
13...c6
13...Nb6 can be met by 14 c4! dxc4 15 Bxe4.
14 Qe1!?
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/1p1np1bp/2p2pp1/1P1p4/
p2PnP2/N2NPB2/PBP3PP/R3QRK1 b - - 0 14"]
At the time, I thought this was a clever "creeping move," la Kotov, heading
for b4, but I was now drifting into fantasy and losing control of the position.
Activating the QN should probably have been the priority.
14...f5!?
Unexpected, this anchors his N and tries to revive KB but may have negative
points also. I was analysing things like 14...Qb6 15 Qb4 (threatens a pawn
win by 16 bxc6) but overlooking lots of other possibilities.
14...cxb5!? 15 Qb4 e6 was also possible. 14...e5!? would have required
careful analysis if he had played it, but may be all right for White. 14...Qa5
could have been met by 15 Nb4 (one point of my last move) although I am
not sure that was my plan at the time.
15 Qb4
Obviously the consistent continuation: eyes e7 and a4, prepares c2-c4 and
links Rs. My QB and QN are slight worries but his development is worse. But
I underestimated the reply so maybe this sortie should have been delayed.
15...Ndf6
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/1p2p1bp/2p2np1/1P1p1p2/
pQ1PnP2/N2NPB2/PBP3PP/R4RK1 w - - 0 16"]
16 Nc5?!
16 c4 was crying out to be played before it was too late.
16...g5!?
Highly unexpected and very aggressive; objectively 16...Qd6 or 16...Qa5 may
be better. Even if this had been a tournament with engine use allowed, I am
far from sure that the computers would have come up with 16...g5 as a hightariff option. No doubt Black counted on my having two queenside minor
pieces inactive. The crucial point that I missed will be revealed later on.
17 Bxe4
This was based on a miscalculation. Probably I should just have taken on g5.
17...fxe4 18 bxc6 bxc6 19 fxg5 Ng4 20 Rxf8+ Bxf8!
[FEN "r1bq1bk1/4p2p/2p5/2Np2P1/
pQ1Pp1n1/N3P3/PBP3PP/R5K1 w - - 0 21"]
21 h3
Desperation; this admission of error doesn't win a piece but does at least buy
some time and makes him calculate accurately.
21 Qe1 had been my original intention; I saw too late that after 21...Qd6 22
g3 (defending the mate and threatening h2-h3 to win the N) Black just plays
22...Ne5! since the c5-N hangs. Meanwhile, he threatens ...Nf3+ and after 23
dxe5 (23 Nxe4 Nf3+ 24 Kf2 dxe4) 23...Qxc5 White's position is a wreck. To
avoid this, I needed to have seen the trick before making my seventeenth
move.
21...Nxe3
Black now finished off efficiently, avoiding traps.
22 Bc1 Nf5 23 Bf4 Bg7 24 c3 e5 25 dxe5 Bf8
25...Qa5!? should also win.
26 g4 Ra5 27 Nb7!
This try offers some swindling chances; it might have worked in an over-theboard game.
27...Bxb4 28 Nxd8 Bc5+! 29 Kg2!? Ne7! 30 Nc2 Bb6 31 Nxc6 Nxc6 32
Rb1 Bc7 33 Nd4 Rc5 34 Nb5 Bxe5 35 Bxe5 Nxe5 36 Nd6 Nc4 0-1
Tim Harding Nicola Latronico
ICCF 9th European Team Championship semifinals, board 2, 2011-12
1 f4 d5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 e3 Bg4 4 h3!?
This led to my most exciting game in the opening. A more conventional
treatment is 4 Be2 Nbd7 5 0-0 Bxf3 6 Bxf3 e5 (Taylor calls this the "recipe
variation".) 7 d4:
a) 7...e4 8 Be2 Bd6 9 b3!, intending c4, was Larsen-Smailbegovic, Game #19
in Taylor's book.)
b) 7...exd4! 8 exd4 Be7 9 Nc3 Nb6 10 Qd3 as discussed on page 68 of the
aforementioned book.
4...Bxf3 5 Qxf3 Nbd7
[FEN "r2qkb1r/pppnpppp/5n2/3p4/5P2/
4PQ1P/PPPP2P1/RNB1KB1R w KQkq - 0 6"]
We have transposed to Danielsen-Luther, Petermnnchen GM 1999, which is

illustrative Game #22 in Taylor's book. There the early move order was 2...
Bg4 3 e3 Nd7 4 h3 Bxf3 5 Qxf3 and now Taylor thinks that the natural 5...
Ngf6 could already be a mistake and suggests 5...e5!?, which was not an
option in the present game.
6 g4
6 Nc3 is an alternative discussed by Taylor, which he says is inferior because
of 6...c6 7 g4 e5. Actually Black seems to be able to get into that line after the
text move also. Instead 6...e6 7 g4 Bb4 8 g5 was played in the famous game
Nimzowitsch-Kmoch, Kecksemet 1927.
6...c6
Luther got into serious difficulties after 6...e6 7 d3 Bb4+ 8 c3 Bd6 9 e4 dxe4
10 dxe4 e5 11 g5 Ng8 12 f5 h6 13 h4 Be7?! when Henrik Danielsen, one of
the leading exponents of the Bird in recent years, hit him with 14 Qh5!
Taylor suggested the gambit 6...e5!? 7 g5 e4 8 Qe2 Ng8 9 Qb5 c6 10 Qxb7

Ne7 but I can understand why this might not appeal.
7 Nc3
Maybe 7 g5 is possible but I was doubtful about it, so play returns to Taylor's
recommendation.
7...e5 8 g5 Ng8 9 d3 Qb6!?
9...Bb4 was played in Vigus-Pert, Witley 1999, with Taylor criticising the
move and suggesting 9...h6 as an improvement. My Italian opponent prefers
to go his own way. Indeed 9...Qb6 looks strong as Black prepares to castle
queenside and catch the white king in the centre. Moves like ...d4 are also in
the air and what is White to do with his queen's bishop?
[FEN "r3kbnr/pp1n1ppp/1qp5/3pp1P1/5P2/
2NPPQ1P/PPP5/R1B1KB1R w KQkq - 0 10"]
10 Bd2!?
I was very pleased at the time with this solution which I eventually found,
although there may be other possibilities. Now I don't have to worry about ...
Bb4 and if Black castles queenside then I do too, and my king position will be
the more secure. Of course this move could only be played after careful
calculation of the b-pawn sacrifice.
In an over-the-board game, I would expect one player or the other to go
wrong in the complications and lose, but in a correspondence game with an
average of five days per move, and engine use allowed, gross blunders are
unwise speculations are far less likely to occur.
10...d4!?
Black decides to decline the pawn and plays a reasonable alternative, which
in the main line is a pawn sacrifice of his own. After 10...Qxb2 11 Rb1 Qxc2,
the key move is 12 Be2! when White's threats include e3-e4 (so that my
queen defends d3) followed immediately by Bd1 to trap the queen. The main
line that I analysed went. 12...Ba3 (not 12...0-0-0? 13 fxe5 and he cannot play
13...Nxe5 because of 14 Qf5+ Nd7 15 Bd1) 13 Bd1 Qxd3 14 Rb3 (This is
very wild as I am three pawns down but have various threats, starting with
the attack on his B.) 14...e4 15 Qg4
[FEN "r3k1nr/pp1n1ppp/2p5/3p2P1/4pPQ1/
bRNqP2P/P2B4/3BK2R b Kkq - 0 15"]
And Rybka thinks this is about equal!

Now if 15...Bf8 16 Be2 or 15...Bd6 16 Be2 Qc2 17 Bd1 Qd3 18 Be2. The
critical line seems to go 15...h5! 16 gxh6 Be7:
a) 17 Be2 Nxh6 (He must play this sooner or later, else I have a draw; if 17...
Qc2 18 Bd1) 18 Qxg7 Bf6 19 Qxh8+ Bxh8 20 Bxd3 exd3 21 Rxb7 Bxc3 (If
21...Nc5 to guard d3 then 22 Rc7 or 22 Rb1.) 22 Bxc3 Nc5 23 Rc7 is about
equal.
b) 17 Rxb7!?:
b1) 17...Nc5 leads to a draw after 18 Be2 Qc2 19 Bd1 Nd3+ (19...Bh4+?! 20
Qxh4 Nd3+ 21 Ke2 Nc1+ 22 Kf1!) 20 Ke2 Nc1+ 21 Ke1 Nd3+, etc.
b2) 17...0-0-0 18 Be2 Kxb7 (18...Nxh6 19 Bxd3 Kxb7 transposes; probably
not 19 Rxd7?! because of 19...Nxg4.) 19 Bxd3 Nxh6 20 Qe2 (20 Qxg7 Bf6)
20...exd3 21 Qxd3 and White has Q against R, N and pawn in a permanently
unclear position.
Now we return to the actual game with the position after 10...d4.
[FEN "r3kbnr/pp1n1ppp/1qp5/4p1P1/3p1P2/
2NPPQ1P/PPPB4/R3KB1R w KQkq - 0 11"]
11 exd4 exd4 12 Na4 Qa6 13 Qe4+ Ne7 14 Qxd4

I may as well grab the pawn, as the sequel makes clear.
14...0-0-0 15 Nc3
The knight must retreat but his queen has been driven to an inferior square. 15
Qc4? b5 16 Nc5 Nxc5 17 Qxc5 Nd5; 15 Qe4 looks too slow.
15...Nf5
[FEN "2kr1b1r/pp1n1ppp/q1p5/5nP1/
3Q1P2/2NP3P/PPPB4/R3KB1R w KQ - 0 16"]
16 Qg1!
16 Qc4 devalues the extra pawn and opens the d-file for him. Black probably
has the better prospects in the ensuing queenless middle-game where White
loses the right to castle. 16...Re8+ 17 Ne2 (17 Be2 Qxc4 18 dxc4 Ng3) 17...
Qxc4 18 dxc4 Nd6 19 b3 Ne4 and my analysis continued to above move 30
without finding anything very consoling, though no clear advantage for Black
either.
16...Bc5
Rybka preferred 16...Bb4, perhaps seeing the game continuation through to
the end, while, I to be frank, failed to predict his next move.
17 d4!
The point of my capturing his d-pawn earlier is that this move threatens Bxa6.
17...Qb6!
[FEN "2kr3r/pp1n1ppp/1qp5/2b2nP1/3P1P2/
2N4P/PPPB4/R3KBQR w KQ - 0 18"]
This was an astonishing move and a totally unexpected piece sacrifice. My

opponent must have examined the position deeply.
Now 17...Rde8+ should be better for White. I had expected 17...Rhe8+ (or
17...Bxd4 transposing) 18 Kd1 Bxd4 19 Bxa6 Bxg1 20 Bd3 (Two black
pieces hang, so...) 20...Ne3+ 21 Kc1 Bf2 22 Ne4 (Black must give up the
exchange.) 22...Rxe4 23 Bxe4 Nc5 24 Bd3 (24 Bf3 looks unclear but may
favour White?) 24...Nxd3+ 25 cxd3 Rxd3 26 Bxe3 Rxe3 27 Kc2 Re2+ 28
Kd3 Re3+ 29 Kd2 and White has R v B+P in an ending (with extra pair of
rooks). This must give winning chances.
Also 17...Nxd4 was playable. Then my K gets safe by 18 0-0-0 because his
queen is still en prise. After 18...Qa5 (18...Nb3+? 19 cxb3; 18...Qb6 19 Na4)
my queen moves up the g-file and there is still much play left.
18 Na4
I decided that 18 dxc5 was too risky, since after 18...Qxb2 (18...Rhe8+!?) 19
Rc1 Rhe8+ 20 Be2 Black certainly has compensation for the piece.
18...Rhe8+ 19 Kd1
This is forced; not 19 Be2?? Qa6.
19...Qc7
[FEN "2krr3/ppqn1ppp/2p5/2b2nP1/N2P1P2/
7P/PPPB4/R2K1BQR w - - 0 20"]
White now has another big decision. I decided to take the material and allow
him to force perpetual check, rather than risk the 20 Qg4 against a high-rated
opponent. Also 20 dxc5 enabled me to reduce my game-load.
20 dxc5
20 Qg4!? was the only way to play for more. Then 20...Nxd4 21 Nxc5 h5
seems critical, to get my Q off diagonal and release the pin. There follows 22
gxh6 f5 (Black will regain the piece but White stays a P or two up and gets
Qs off.) 23 Qxg7 (23 Na6 messes Black's pawns but squanders a tempo.) 23...
Nxc5 (only move) 24 Qxc7+ Kxc7 when White has the B pair but no
development; the QR is out of play and K not in good position.
For example, if 25 Bd3 Rh8 (equal according to Rybka), Black regains one
and maybe both pawns eventually, though I could try 26 Be3 Rxh6 27 Kd2.
On the other hand, if 25 Kc1, to release White's dark-squared B for action,
25...Ne4 is probably best, to rule out Bc3. Maybe White can play on with 26
Bd3 though.
20...Nxc5
The end is forced now; either side loses if they try to avoid the perpetual
check. Thus 20...Ne3+ 21 Kc1 (even 21 Bxe3!?) 21...Qxf4 22 Bd3 or 20...Re4
21 Bd3 Rxf4 22 Nc3.
[FEN "2krr3/ppq2ppp/2p5/2n2nP1/N4P2/
7P/PPPB4/R2K1BQR w - - 0 21"]
21 Nxc5
Not 21 Bd3? Nxd3 22 Qxa7 Nxb2+.
21...Rxd2+ 22 Kxd2 Qxf4+
If 22...Rd8+ 23 Nd3.
23 Kc3 Qe5+ 24 Kd2! -

Adventures in the Aviary:

Bird's Defence
Purchases from our

accessible:
Following up last month's column on Bird's Opening, I now look at my

attempts to imitate Henry Bird's handling of his defence to the Spanish.
James Mason Henry Bird
Ruy Lopez, Bird's Defence [C61]
Paris International (11), 23 July 1878.
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Translate this page
Notes by Schallopp, from his tournament book, Der internationale

Schachkongress zu Paris 1878, pages 144-5.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nd4 4 Nxd4 exd4 5 0-0 h5!?
This bizarre-looking thrust was Bird's regular choice in later years. Andrew
Greet's book Play the Ruy Lopez (Everyman Chess 2006) is the only one to
give it any serious coverage. Greet commented that "the move is nowhere
near as bad as it looks and has been used by some very strong players"
including Morozevich. He added, "White should remember the old clich
'flank activity is best met by a counter-attack in the centre' and respond with 6
c3." That was played in a game Lko-Morozevich.
by Tim Harding
6 f4
Safer and better was 6 d3.
6...c6 7 Be2 d5 8 d3 dxe4 9 dxe4 Bc5 10 Bd3 Nf6 11 f5 Ng4
ECO C
by Chess Informant

the games from
[FEN "r1bqk2r/pp3pp1/2p5/2b2P1p/3pP1n1/
3B4/PPP3PP/RNBQ1RK1 w kq - 0 12"]
Black has now achieved a good attacking position.

12 Bf4 Bd7 13 Na3 Qe7 14 Nc4 b5 15 Na5 Ne3 16 Bxe3 dxe3 17 Qe2 Qe5
18 c3 h4 19 Rf3 g6
Chess Informant 114

by Chess Informant
[FEN "r3k2r/p2b1p2/2p3p1/Npb1qP2/4P2p/
2PBpR2/PP2Q1PP/R5K1 w kq - 0 20"]
This strengthens the attack equally if White captures on g7 or allows Black to

capture.
20 Nb3 Bb6 21 Nd4 0-0-0 22 Rxe3 gxf5 23 exf5 Bxd4 24 cxd4 Qxd4 25
Kh1 Rde8 26 Be4 h3
[FEN "2k1r2r/p2b1p2/2p5/1p3P2/3qB3/
4R2p/PP2Q1PP/R6K w - - 0 27"]
27 g3
On 27 gxh3, there would follow 27...Rh4 28 Rd1 (28 Re1 c5) 28...Qb6 29
Qd2 Qc7 followed by ...c5.
27...Re5 28 Rd1 Qb6 29 Qd2 Rd8 30 g4 c5 31 Kg1
White takes advantage of the temporary obstruction of the black queen (on
the a7-g1 diagonal) to remove the danger to the bishop. (Schallopp means that
Black was threatening 31...Rxe4 32 Rxe4 Bc6.)
31...c4 32 Qf2 Rde8 33 Rde1 Bc6 34 Bxc6 Rxe3 35 Rxe3 Rxe3 36 Kf1 Qd4
37 Bf3 Qd3+ 0-1
Blackburne played Bird's Defence many times in his final active decade. In
his last international tournament, at St. Petersburg 1914, he nearly beat
Alekhine with it.
Alexander Alekhine Joseph Blackburne
St. Petersburg preliminary, 22 April 1914
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nd4 4 Nxd4 exd4 5 0-0 g6
This was Blackburne's favourite way of handling the defence, a move he
introduced against Tarrasch at Ostend 1905.
6 d3 Bg7 7 f4 c6 8 Bc4 d5 9 exd5 cxd5 10 Bb5+ Kf8!
[FEN "r1bq1knr/pp3pbp/6p1/1B1p4/3p1P2/
3P4/PPP3PP/RNBQ1RK1 w - - 0 11"]
This is a typical idea in the Bird Defence. White's bishop now looks rather
silly and will lose time; Alekhine was apparently unaware of the finer points
of Bird's defence though it was well known in England. However, Blackburne
unwisely repeated the defence against Tarrasch and Capablanca who had
prepared themselves better.
11 Nd2??
The future world champion blunders a piece.
11...Qa5 12 a4 a6 13 Nb3 Qd8 14 Bd2 axb5
Tarrasch, in his book of the tournament, preferred 14...Nh6 intending ...Nf5,
as there is no need to take the piece yet.
15 axb5 Rxa1 16 Bb4+ Ne7 17 Qxa1 Bf6 18 Qa7 b6 19 Re1 Be6 20 Kh1 h5
20...Kg7 is better according to Tarrasch.
21 Bxe7+ Qxe7 22 Qxb6 Qb4 23 Qc5+ Qxc5 24 Nxc5
[FEN "5k1r/5p2/4bbp1/1PNp3p/3p1P2/
3P4/1PP3PP/4R2K b - - 0 24"]
Clearly White is beginning to obtain some counterplay but it should not be

sufficient to save the game. Commentators did not agree on how Black should
respond.
24...Bd8
24...Ke7 would not be good enough according to Tarrasch, because of 25 b6
Kd6 26 b4 Bd8 27 b7 Bb6 28 Na6 Ba7 29 b5 but Georg Marco pointed out
the resource 29...Rb8!!; e.g., 30 b6! (If White takes the rook, the pawns will
easily be stopped.) 30...Rxb7 31 bxa7 Rxa7 32 Nb4 Kc5! 33 c3 dxc3 34 Nc2
Ra2 and Black wins.
25 Nxe6+ fxe6 26 Rxe6 Kf7 27 Rd6 Be7 28 Rxd5 Rc8 29 c4 dxc3 30 bxc3
Rxc3 31 Kg1 Ke6
31...Bf6 was better, wrote Tarrasch. Black is making things harder for himself
as Alekhine keeps finding resources. As the material becomes reduced,
White's drawing chances increase.

32 Re5+ Kd6 33 Re3 Rb3 34 Kf1 Rb4 35 Re4 Rb2 36 Re3 h4 37 Re4 Bf6
38 b6 Kd5 39 Re8 Rxb6 40 Kf2 Rb3 41 Rg8 Rxd3 42 Rxg6 Ke6
[FEN "8/8/4kbR1/8/5P1p/3r4/5KPP/8 w - - 0 43"]
43 g4?!
Here White should force a draw by 43 g3! since if 43...h3 44 Rh6 Rd2+ 45
Kf3 Rxh2 46 g4 followed by Kg3 to pick up the pawn.
43...hxg3+?
Evidently Blackburne (seventy-two years old!) was tired and thought it was a
draw anyway, but Tarrasch could not understand why he consented to
exchange his last pawn so readily. 43...Kf7! retains some winning chances: 44
Rh6 h3 45 g5 Bd4+ 46 Ke2 Re3+ "and the defence is very onerous" wrote
Tarrasch.
44 hxg3 Kf5 45 Rg8 -
Now we shall look at my efforts with this defence, on a variation-byvariation, rather than chronological basis.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nd4
Bird's invention.
4 Nxd4 exd4 5 0-0
All the eight games I have played with Bird's Defence followed this normal
course. I have tried three different replies but not Blackburne's recipe.
A: A game with Bird's 5...h5

B: Games with 5...c6
C: Games with 5...Bc5
A: Bird's 5...h5
The only game I have played with the immediate 5...h5 is still unfinished at
the time of writing, although it is likely to end in a draw early in the New
Year. So I shall only show the first phase of the game.
Jacques Leroy Harding
ICCF European Team Championship 2011-12
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nd4 4 Nxd4 exd4 5 0-0 h5 6 d3
My opponent played this quickly, but 6 c3 is the recommendation for White
in Greet's book.
6...Bc5
As Bird always played here. White now has a wide choice.
[FEN "r1bqk1nr/pppp1pp1/8/1Bb4p/3pP3/
3P4/PPP2PPP/RNBQ1RK1 w kq - 0 7"]
Note, also, a game below where I played 5...Bc5 in conjunction with a later ...
h5. Arguably there is little point in playing ...h5 until White is actually
threatening Qh5 or Qg4; it shows Black's hand rather early. The opposite
argument is that if you intend to do it anyway, maybe do it early and White (if
he doesn't know the idea) may react poorly.
7 Nd2 c6 8 Bc4
8 Ba4 can also be played.
8...d5 9 exd5
9 Bb3 is supposedly strong; would Bird have played 9...Be6 then?
9...cxd5
[FEN "r1bqk1nr/pp3pp1/8/2bp3p/2Bp4/3P4/
PPPN1PPP/R1BQ1RK1 w kq - 0 10"]
10 Nb3!?
Can this novelty be good? Previously 10 Bb5+, 10 Bb3 and 10 Re1+ were all
known. For example, 10 Bb3 Bg4 11 f3 Be6 12 Re1 Ne7 led to a sixty-move
draw in Mason-Bird, London BCA 1887.
10...Bb6 11 Bb5+ Kf8 12 Re1 Be6
Computers like White's position but I reckon that if early threats can be met,
White has two pieces out of play on queenside.
13 a4 a6 14 a5 Ba7 15 Ba4
White's plan is Qd2, then c2-c3 (or c4 if I don't inhibit that).
15...Ne7
This gives me various options and frees g8 for my king to evade pins. It
would be attractive to play 15...Qf6 (preventing both Bf4 and c3) but it is
refuted by 16 Qd2 followed by Qb4.
16 Qd2 Qd6 17 Qf4 Qxf4 18 Bxf4 Nf5 19 g3 Bb8
[FEN "rb3k1r/1p3pp1/p3b3/P2p1n1p/
B2p1B2/1N1P2P1/1PP2P1P/R3R1K1 w - - 0 20"]
White decides to keep the dark squared bishops on the board, since after the
superficial 20 Bxb8 Rxb8 21 Nc5 my king will soon migrate to the handy
square d6.
20 Bg5 Bd6 21 h3 Bb4
Now his a-pawn is kept under observation and c2-c3 is ruled out for the near
future. The cramping effect of the doubled d-pawn (which Tarrasch
mentioned in his notes to the Alekhine-Blackburne game) is evident to the
human judgment although computers always think White has the edge.
22 Re2 Rc8 23 Bf4 Rg8 24 Be5 g5
Very much in the Bird style.
25 Kg2 Rg6 26 Rd1 Kg8
[FEN "2r3k1/1p3p2/p3b1r1/P2pBnpp/Bb1p4/
1N1P2PP/1PP1RPK1/3R4 w - - 0 27"]
White now began an almost endless series of manoeuvres with his rook,
which I countered by bringing my king up to h6/h7 and waiting. All my other
pieces are optimally placed and White's only way to make anything happen is
to capture on d4, exchanging knights and giving up the a-pawn.
There were numerous double repetitions but my opponent was careful to
avoid a third one, until eventually it got to the stage where any sensible move
was very soon going to allow me to claim a draw. Throughout this phase, my
computers continued to assess White's position as preferable but also to
believe that the meaningless rook shuffles were stronger than the capture of
the d-pawn.
My opponent finally played Nxd4 at move fifty-three! However, I was soon
able to establish another stable defence and offered a draw at move seventythree. This was silently declined but two moves later my opponent blundered
away a pawn. Unfortunately, it was possible for him to reach a completely
drawn endgame by careful play thereafter, because it really would have
served him right to lose the game.
B:
Jonathan O'Connor Harding

Armstrong Cup (league competition), Dublin, 2010
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nd4 4 Nxd4 exd4 5 0-0 c6
This was my first game with the Bird and I could not remember which move
was supposed to be best.
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/pp1p1ppp/2p5/1B6/3pP3/
8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQ1RK1 w kq - 0 6"]
6 Ba4 Nf6
6...Bd6 also comes into consideration. Now if 7 e5 Ne4 and ...Nc5.
7 d3
This is a well-known position where Black normally chooses between 7...d5,
7...d6 and 7...Be7. At the board I found an interesting alternative.
7...Qc7! 8 e5
This looks premature; 8 Nd2 would be more normal. Clearly 8...Qxe5 is a
blunder (9 Re1) but Black now gets a central square for his knight.
8...Nd5 9 Re1
9 c4 might be better.
9...Bb4 10 Re4!?
White could also consider 10 Bd2 or 10 Nd2, but perhaps best is 10 c3! dxc3
(10...b5!?) 11 bxc3 (11 Bb3? c2) 11...Nxc3 12 Qg4.
10...0-0
[FEN "r1b2rk1/ppqp1ppp/2p5/3nP3/Bb1pR3/
3P4/PPP2PPP/RNBQ2K1 w - - 0 11"]
11 Bb3
Not 11 Qg4? f5 12 exf6?? Nxf6.
11 Qh5!? was rejected by my opponent but it would have led to sharper play
and is probably White's best continuation.

My opponent was worried about the possibility 11...d6 12 Rh4 h6 13 Bxh6
gxh6 14 Qxh6 f5 but White's sacrifice looks sound to me. I was therefore
considering 11...Re8, setting up a back rank trick so that 12 Rh4? is refuted
by 12...Nf6!, but the simple reply 12 Bb3 is harder to meet. Then if 12...Re6
13 c3! (stronger than Bxd5) leads to complications where White will have the
bishop-pair in a position that is becoming open.
Black's safest line is probably 11...Be7 (to prevent Rh4) 12 Rxd4 g6 13 Qe2
d6 when if 14 Bh6 he can definitely consider 14...dxe5 15 Bxf8 Kxf8.
11...d6!
Black has no problems after this.
12 exd6
If 12 Bxd5 cxd5 13 Rxd4 Bc5, while after 12 Qh5?! dxe5 13 Bxd5 cxd5 14
Rh4 h6 15 Bxh6 the attempted sacrifice can be met by 15...g6! 16 Qe2 Be7 17
Bxf8 Bxh4 18 Bh6 Kh7 when Black has the bishop-pair and the better
developed game.
12...Bxd6 13 Qf3
If 13 Bxd5 cxd5 14 Rxd4 Bxh2+ 15 Kh1 Be5.
13...Be6 -
I proposed a premature draw but perhaps Black even stands better here. In the
next game, by correspondence against an experienced international master,
the shortcomings of the 5...c6 line were more apparent.
Manfred Dorer Harding
2nd ICCF Veterans World Cup semifinal 2011.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nd4 4 Nxd4 exd4 5 0-0 c6
To avoid the risk of having three games in the same tournament going down
the 5...Bc5 6 Bc4 line (see below), I chose a different fifth move here, but I
should be reluctant to repeat it.
6 Bc4!
More usual, and stronger, than 6 Ba4 which O'Connor played against me.
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/pp1p1ppp/2p5/8/2BpP3/
8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQ1RK1 b kq - 0 6"]
6...g6!?
The obvious 6...d5?! was shown to be good for White in a rapid game
Kasparov-Khalifman, Moscow 2002, after 7 exd5 cxd5 8 Bb5+ Bd7 (Here the
square f8 is unavailable for the king!) 9 Re1+ Ne7 (9...Be7? 10 Qg4) 10 c4!
In a later game I tried 6...Nf6 (see below).
The move 6...g6 in this position was first played by Spassky, and is somewhat
in the Blackburne mode, but White's eighth move points up the flaw when
Black has played ...c6 rather than ...d6 in conjunction with ...g7-g6. In most of
Blackburne's games White had kept the king's bishop inside the pawn chain
clearly less of an immediate threat to Black.
7 d3 Bg7 8 Qf3 Qe7 9 c3
[FEN "r1b1k1nr/pp1pqpbp/2p3p1/8/2BpP3/
2PP1Q2/PP3PPP/RNB2RK1 b kq - 0 9"]
9...dxc3?!
This innovation gives White too fluid a game. Spassky (against Ljubojevic at
the 1982 London Phillips and Drew international) preferred to sacrifice a
pawn by 9...Nf6 10 cxd4 d5 11 exd5 cxd5 12 Bb5+ Kf8, followed by ...Be6, ...
h6 and marching his king to h7, but White won in the end.
10 bxc3 b5 11 Bb3 a5 12 d4 Nh6 13 Bf4 0-0
[FEN "r1b2rk1/3pqpbp/2p3pn/pp6/3PPB2/
1BP2Q2/P4PPP/RN3RK1 w - - 0 14"]
Black's idea is the promising exchange sacrifice 14 Qe3!? Ng4 15 Qg3 Nf6
16 Bd6 Qxe4 17 Bxf8 Bxf8, with a pawn and good compensation, but White
is not fooled by the material grab.
14 Nd2!
This move is more problematic for Black. Black tries to unpin and create a
defensive wall but I was unable to maintain it and eventually was crushed.
14...a4 15 Bc2 f6 16 Rfe1 d6 17 Nf1 Bd7 18 Qg3 Nf7 19 h4 Bh6 20 Bxh6
Nxh6 21 h5
[FEN "r4rk1/3bq2p/2pp1ppn/1p5P/p2PP3/
2P3Q1/P1B2PP1/R3RNK1 b - - 0 21"]
This is horrible for Black and I lost without finding any real counterplay.
Michael Granski Harding
ICCF European Team Championship 2011-12
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nd4 4 Nxd4 exd4 5 0-0 c6 6 Bc4 Nf6
Varying from the previous game. 6...Nf6 has been played successfully many
times in English correspondence chess by Kevin McLaughlin has played
successfully. Unfortunately, it is not quite good enough as this game shows.
7 Re1
If White plays 7 e5, the reply is simply 7...d5.
7...d6 8 c3
8 e5 is again premature. McLaughlin used to reply 8...dxe5 (8...Nd5 has been
seen: 9 exd6+ Be6.) 9 Rxe5+ (9 f4? e4) 9...Be7 and Black was OK.
8...Ng4 9 h3
Not 9 cxd4? Qh4.
9...Ne5 10 d3
As recommended in Greet's book. The sharp alternative 10 Bf1 d3 11 f4 (or
11 Re3) 11...Qb6+ 12 Kh2 g5 was well covered in an article by Jonathan Tait
in issue 159-160 of the BCCA magazine Correspondence Chess where 6...
Nf6 was recommended.
10...Nxc4
10...dxc3 11 Nxc3 Nxc4 12 dxc4 transposes. 11...Be7 without taking on c4 is
also known.
11 dxc4 dxc3 12 Nxc3 Be7
12...Be6!? 13 Nd5 f6 14 Bf4 Kf7 15 Ne3 Qb6!? occurred in SuttonMcLaughlin, corr 2001, but Greet recommends the simple alternative 13 Qd3.
13 Bf4
[FEN "r1bqk2r/pp2bppp/2pp4/8/2P1PB2/
2N4P/PP3PP1/R2QR1K1 b kq - 0 13"]
13...0-0
13...Be6 may transpose, but it need not do so. I decided to follow McLaughlin
14 Qd2
Instead of usual 14 Qd3; other queen moves have also been tried.
14...Be6 15 b3 Bf6
Not 15...Qa5? 16 Nd5! winning a pawn; e.g., 16...Qd8 (16...Bd8 17 Ne7+!
Kh8 18 Qxd6 Re8 19 Nf5 Bxf5 20 Bd2! Tait) 17 Nxe7+ Qxe7 18 Bxd6 Qd7
19 Rad1 with advantage in Guseinov-Dzhmamuradov, Moscow 1979 (1-0,
38).
15...Qd7 can be considered also.
16 Rad1
Black's problem d-pawn cannot be taken yet (16 Bxd6?? Bxc3-+) but White
could also consider 16 Re3!? which protects c3 and so threatens d6.
16...Be5 17 Ne2!
Tait's article mentioned this as another option but it seems much stronger than
17 Be3 f5!? 18 f4 (18 exf5 Bxf5 19 Ne2 Tait) 18...Bxc3 19 Qxc3 fxe4 and
Black has no problems to draw in a Sutton-McLaughlin postal game.
[FEN "r2q1rk1/pp3ppp/2ppb3/4b3/2P1PB2/
1P5P/P2QNPP1/3RR1K1 b - - 0 17"]
17...Qe7 18 Be3 Rfd8

18...g6 loses a pawn to 19 f4 Bg7 20 Qxd6; also not 18...d5? 19 f4.
19 f4 Bf6 20 f5 Bd7
After 20...Bc8 White gets a middlegame attack, so I preferred to try my luck
in the ending, but I could not hold it. Maybe I missed a better line somewhere.
21 Qxd6 Qxe4 22 Ng3 Qe5
22...Qe7 also comes into consideration but after 23 Qxe7 Bxe7 24 Bb6 Bb4
(24...axb6 25 Rxe7) 25 Bxd8 Bxe1 26 Rxd7 Bxg3 27 Bc7 Bxc7 28 Rxc7 Rb8
29 h4 Black is virtually paralysed.
23 Qxe5 Bxe5 24 Bg5 Bxg3 25 Bxd8 Bxe1 26 Rxd7 b5 27 Be7 bxc4 28
bxc4 a5 29 Kf1 Bg3 30 a4 Be5 31 c5 g6 32 f6 h5 33 Ke2 Rb8 34 Rd6!
[FEN "1r4k1/4Bp2/2pR1Pp1/p1P1b2p/
P7/7P/4K1P1/8 b - - 0 34"]
There is no question of taking this rook and giving him a monster passed
pawn, but everything else eventually loses too, I think.
34...Rb4 35 Rxc6 Rxa4 36 Ra6 Kh7 37 Bd6 and White eventually won.
C:
The following is the second over-the-board game I played with 3...Nd4 and
the first time I played the 5...Bc5 line.
Justin Daly Harding
Armstrong Cup, Dublin, 26 October 2010
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nd4 4 Nxd4 exd4 5 0-0 Bc5 6 d3 c6 7 Bc4
I think that Black is now OK, whereas 7 Ba4!, played against me in a later
game, is much more worrying.
7...d5 8 exd5 cxd5
[FEN "r1bqk1nr/pp3ppp/8/2bp4/2Bp4/
9 Re1+
Here or next move, Bb5+ would be simply met by ...Kf8 leaving the white
bishop loose and out of play, the same idea as in Alekhine-Blackburne. The
black king is safe on f8 (the main problem being activating the king's rook)
but now Black will be able to castle.
9...Ne7 10 Bb3 0-0 11 Qf3 Be6 12 Bg5 Qd7
If I could get positions like this regularly, I would be more inclined to repeat
Bird's Defence. The doubled d-pawn is not so serious because the file is not
open, and White's position is cut in half. If he plays c2-c3 or c3-c4, then my
dark-squared bishop will come into play after ...dxc3.
13 h3
The white queen was in danger of being embarrassed.
13...Ng6 14 Bf4?!
[FEN "r4rk1/pp1q1ppp/4b1n1/2bp4/3p1B2/
1B1P1Q1P/PPP2PP1/RN2R1K1 b - - 0 14"]
14 Nd2 was correct.

14...Rae8?!
Unfortunately, spotting I could set a trap (15 Bg3?? Bg4!), I moved too
hastily and missed my best chance to actually win a game with Bird's Defence.
While waiting for my opponent to reply, I saw that I should instead have
chosen: 14...Bxh3! 15 gxh3 Qf5 I missed this move, the point being that the
f4-bishop is now pinned against the unprotected queen. White has nothing
better than 16 Bxd5 Nxf4 when if 17 Bxb7 (17 Be4 Nxh3+ followed by
exchanging queens and then ...Rae8 with a sound extra pawn for Black.) 17...
Rab8 and the complications favour Black, e.g. 18 Kf1 (18 Be4 Nxh3+) 18...
Qxh3+ 19 Qxh3 Nxh3 20 Bg2 Nf4 21 Re4 (21 b3 Rbe8) 21...Nxg2 22 b3 f5
23 Re5 Ne3+! 24 fxe3 Rbc8 and White's underdevelopment will be fatal.
15 Nd2
After this simple reply, White stabilises his position and I could not find a
strong follow-up.
15...Bb4
15...a5 16 a4 Bb4 was better, perhaps.
16 a3
16 Rac1 was also possible, intending c2-c3.
16...Ba5
[FEN "4rrk1/pp1q1ppp/4b1n1/b2p4/3p1B2/
PB1P1Q1P/1PPN1PP1/R3R1K1 w - - 0 17"]
17 Red1!
Avoiding the last trap 17 Re2? Bg4 18 hxg4 (18 Qxg4 Qxg4 19 hxg4 Nxf4)
18...Rxe2.
17...Nh4
The position is about equal. I decided to settle for a draw by repetition rather
than a long heavyweight bout where I would always regret the oversight at
move fourteen.
18 Qg3 Nf5 19 Qf3 Nh4 20 Qg3 Nf5 -
Peter Opitz Harding
2nd ICCF Veterans World Cup semifinal 2011
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nd4 4 Nxd4 exd4 5 0-0 Bc5
This ought to be best and Bird played many games with it, until switching to
5...h5.
[FEN "r1bqk1nr/pppp1ppp/8/1Bb5/3pP3/
8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQ1RK1 w kq - 0 6"]
6 Bc4
It is uncertain whether Bird ever had to meet this. He probably did but not
in a surviving game; only a small fraction of his countless rapid informal
games were recorded or ever printed. Now 6...c6? is met by 7 Bxf7+ Kxf7 8
Qh5+ and 9 Qxc5.
6...d6
I played 6...h5 in the more exciting game against Hladecek, below.
7 d3
White didn't go down the dangerous 7 b4 line and instead probably intended
to follow a model correspondence game Hamarat-Burger. 7 c3 is another line
he rejected, when 7...c6 is probably best.
7...c6
As recommended by Glenn Flear in his book Offbeat Spanish.
8 Qh5
If 8 f4 Nf6!? (or immediately 8...f5), hoping for 9 e5?! Nd5 (Flear); 8 a4!?
comes into consideration.
8...Qe7
This is critical according to Flear.
9 Bg5
If 9 Nd2 Nf6 10 Qh4, and now 10...Be6 (Flear) is more solid than 10...g5!?
(Dvoiris-Meister, Russia 1992) 11 Qxg5 Rg8 12 Qf4 (12 Qh4 Rg4 13 Qh6
Rg6 repeats.) 12...Bh3 13 g3 when White has compensation for the exchange.
9...Nf6 10 Qh4 h6
I decided it was best to play this now while Black retains the option of ...0-0
or ...Rg8 depending on whether White responds f4 or Nd2.
11 f4 0-0
After a lot of thought I decided to follow the line seen in previous master
games, and which is recommended by Flear, but might consider one of the
other moves in future. I have the same position as arose in a game SerperNaumkin, the path recommended by Flear.
12 Bxf6
This is forced, the point being that White must exchange queens, else Black is
completely level. Although Black's kingside pawns are shattered, it is
remarkably difficult for White to take advantage of this factor.
12...Qxf6 13 Qxf6 gxf6 14 f5
Else Black himself plays ...f5 and eliminates at least one pawn weakness.
[FEN "r1b2rk1/pp3p2/2pp1p1p/2b2P2/
2BpP3/3P4/PPP3PP/RN3RK1 b - - 0 14"]
Big decisions are coming up for Black now.

14...b5
Serper-Naumkin, Agzamov Memorial, Tashkent 1987, continued 14...Rd8 15.
Nd2 d5 16.exd5 cxd5 17.Bb3 a5 18.a4 Bb4 19.Nf3 Bxf5 20.Nxd4 Bc5 21.
Rxf5 Bxd4+ 22.Kf1 Bxb2 23 Rd1 and eventually Black drew in an endgame
of rooks and bishops of opposite colour. However, at Opatija in 2003, Zlatko
Topalovic played the more dynamic 23.Rb1 Be5 24.d4 Bxd4 25.Bxd5 Rab8
26.Rxb7 against Naumkin and won in fifty-four moves.
15 Bb3 Bb4
This major alternative was suggested by Deep Rybka-3 on my laptop. I
preferred it to 15...a5 which was played in V. Bologan-E. Najer, Moscow
1995, continuing 16.a4 Bb4 17.Rd1 Bd7 18.Nd2 Bxd2 19.Rxd2 Rfb8 20.Ra2
Kf8 21.Rd1 Ke7 22.Rda1 b4 23.Rf1 Rg8 24.Rf4 Rg5 25.Rh4 Rag8 26.g3 h5
27.Ra1 Rh8 28.Rf1 Rhg8 29.Rf3 c5 30.Kf2 Bc6 31.Rff4 Rd8 32.g4 hxg4 33.
Rfxg4 d5 34.Rxg5 fxg5 35.Rh6 Rd6 36.Rxd6 Kxd6 37.Bxd5 Bxa4 38.Bxf7
Bxc2 39.Ke2 Ke5 40.Bc4 Ba4 41.Kf3 Bd1+ 42.Kf2 Bc2 43.Ke1 Ba4 44.Ke2
Bc2 45.Kf2 Bd1 46.Ke1 -. Najer has played a lot of games with Bird's
Defence and always seemed comfortably drawing in that game, but I liked the
idea of putting my bishop rather than my pawn on a5.
16 Rf4 Bb7 17 a3
My opponent played this without delay, and the next move pair also followed
rapidly.
17...Ba5 18 a4 a6
After about an hour more (in a game where five days per move was
allowed!), White played:
19 Rg4+ Kh7 20 Kf1 Rg8
This required some thought but the 20...Bb4 alternative does nothing really.
20...Rg8 is good, to exchange his only active piece for an inactive one.
[FEN "r5r1/1b3p1k/p1pp1p1p/bp3P2/P2pP1R1/
1B1P4/1PP3PP/RN3K2 w - - 0 21"]
21 Rxg8 Kxg8 22 Ke2

22 g4!? was possible, but I think the game is now destined for a draw anyway.
Either through due care, or just by luck, White evades a wicked trap. If he
opened the a-file here, or next move, he could lose; viz., 22 axb5 axb5 23 Ke2
d5!? and now I was hoping for 24 Nd2? (24 exd5 cxd5 is more critical.) 24...
Bxd2!! 25 Rxa8+ Bxa8 26 Kxd2 dxe4 27 dxe4 c5 28 Bd5 Bxd5 29 exd5 c4
when I think Black wins. A player who was slavishly following the advice of
his computer could fall into this because programs do not easily see the
strength of 24...Bxd2, especially not several moves ahead.
22...d5 23 Nd2 Bxd2 24 Kxd2 dxe4 25 dxe4 c5 26 Bd5 Bxd5 27 exd5
[FEN "r5k1/5p2/p4p1p/1ppP1P2/P2p4/
8/1PPK2PP/R7 b - - 0 27"]
Here White offered a draw, which I eventually decided to decline as I saw

little risk in playing out the endgame. There are still a few chances for White
to go wrong. The main issue is what will White do at move thirty after the
forced sequence.
27...Rd8 28 axb5 axb5 29 Ra5 Rxd5 30 Rxb5 Rxf5 31 Kd3 Re5 32 b4
White plays the obvious safe moves rather than trying to be subtle and create
chances for me to err.
32...cxb4 33 Rxb4 -
White offered the draw again and there was now no point in declining.
Jacqueline Roos Harding
ICCF European Team Championship 2011-12.
The veteran French correspondence player earned an ICCF women's
grandmaster norm in this tournament in part thanks to me!
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nd4 4 Nxd4 exd4 5 0-0 Bc5 6 d3
This is stronger than 6 Bc4.
[FEN "r1bqk1nr/pppp1ppp/8/1Bb5/3pP3/
3P4/PPP2PPP/RNBQ1RK1 b kq - 0 6"]
6...c6
Bird eventually came around to choosing this after mostly unsuccessful
experiments with other moves, but he did not have to meet the critical 7 Ba4.
6...h5 transposes to a line Bird sometimes played (5 0-0 h5 6 d3 Bc5).
7 Ba4!
Recommended for White by Gary Lane and others. I found no games of
Henry Bird in this position; his opponents played Bc4. Flear in Offbeat
Spanish calls this "One of White's best system against the Bird's. The pin
along the a2-g8 diagonal is maintained and the ...d5 break is delayed and thus
becomes less effective."
7...d6
ECO and GM Glenn Flear prefer this to the usual formula 7...Ne7 8 f4 f5
although the a2-g8 weakness remains a problem.
7...d5 has been played several times of late (though not in over-the-board
master games) but now 8 exd5 Qxd5 (8...b5 9 Bb3 cxd5 was seen in one
game.) 9 Bb3 Qf5 10 Re1+ Ne7 11 Nd2 0-0 12 Ne4 looked awkward.
8 Nd2
8 f4 (more normal) 8...f5 is considered critical by Flear, but Roos's natural
choice avoids the immediate lock on the kingside.
8...Nf6
8...Be6 9 f4 (9 Bb3 Qd7) 9...b5 has been played but White can sacrifice a
pawn: 10 f5 (10 Bb3 Qd7) 10...bxa4 11 fxe6 fxe6 12 e5. Maybe I should have
tried 10...Bd7!? 11 Bb3 Nf6 in this line; it may be OK for Black.
8...Ne7 is a known move but White has a plus score. I avoided it on the basis
that my French opponent would most likely know the game BacrotMorozevich in which 8...Ne7 was played.
9 h3
White could also play 9 f4 now that ...f5 is no longer available, but Black can
consider 9...0-0, 9...Ng4 and 9...a5 for example. 9 Bb3 is another idea.
9...0-0 10 c3 Be6
Perhaps I should have preferred 10...Re8!? 11 Nf3 dxc3 12 bxc3 Qa5!?
11 Nf3 dxc3 12 bxc3 h6 13 Bc2 Re8
This complicated position with a fluid center seems to be in White's favour.
My opponent judged the possibilities much better than me.
13...Qa5 also came into consideration.
14 Re1
Black would probably rather meet the direct 14 d4, i.e. 14...Bb6
(threatening ...Bc4) 15 Bd3 (not 15 e5?! dxe5 16 dxe5 Qxd1 17 Rxd1 Nd5)
15...Ba5 (15...d5 16 e5 Ne4).
14...Qd7!?
With the rather crude idea of a bishop sacrifice on h3.
15 d4 Bb6 16 Qd3 Bc7 17 a4
Opening a second front. My analysis had concentrated on 17 e5 and 17 Bf4
which seemed more forcing.
17...d5!? 18 e5 Ne4 19 Nd2 f5 20 Nb3 b6 21 f3 Ng5
21...Ng3 loses the knight after 22 Kf2 Nh5 23 g4.
22 a5 Rf8
Not a computer move, but it helps to provide a secure defence for f5.
23 Ba3 Rf7 24 h4 Nh7 25 f4
In case I might have been planning ...g5.
25...Nf8 26 Bb4 Qe8
Black is really grovelling now. My long-term plan was to get the knight to e6,
the Nimzowitsch blockade square, but I am never able to do this, mostly
because of the weakness of the f5-pawn.
27 Qg3 Rc8 28 axb6 axb6 29 Reb1 Ra8 30 h5 Rxa1 31 Rxa1 Bb8 32 Ra8
Ra7 33 Rxa7 Bxa7 34 Qh3
Of course not 34 Bd6? Qxh5.
34...Qf7 35 Bd6 Kh8
Waiting; to make White find a winning plan rather than make a committal
move. It is no use, though.
36 Qh4 Qe8 37 g4 ... (1-0)
The rest was too horrible to relive. White won at move fifty-five.
The following is definitely the most fun game that I have had with Bird's
Defence and it involved hair-raising complications. I suspect I was lost at one
point but I am proud of the way I generated lively counterplay at the critical
moment, and an interesting endgame also arose. In an over-the-board game
White might have even lost from the critical position.

Miloslav Hladecek Harding
2nd ICCF Veterans World Cup semifinal 2011.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nd4 4 Nxd4 exd4 5 0-0 Bc5 6 Bc4 h5!?
This is surely what Bird would have replied. There are two Winawer-Bird
games reaching this position via 5...h5. This turned out more exciting than the
6...d6 I played against Opitz, but perhaps I followed up incorrectly.
7 d3
7 Qf3 Qf6= was Winawer-Bird, London 1883. If 7 c3 Nf6 (7...Ne7!?) hoping
for 8 e5?! Ng4.
7...c6
Rather overdoes the underdevelopment? 7...d6 was played by Bird (or
reached by transposition from 5...h5).
[FEN "r1bqk1nr/pp1p1pp1/2p5/2b4p/2BpP3/
8 e5
White has played a wide variety of moves here. This has only been played in
three games. Computer thinks that the one Black won was unsound so I
suppose he found an improvement there.
8 c3 was expected, when I intended 8...Nf6!? 9 Nd2 (9 e5 Ng4 is more or less
OK for Black.) 9...d5 10 exd5 cxd5 11 cxd4 (11 Bb5+ Kf8 is the usual story.)
11...dxc4 (11...Bd6? 12 Re1+ Kf8 13 Bb3; 11...Bxd4) 12 dxc5 cxd3 which is
very messy!
8 Nd2 d5 9 exd5 cxd5 10 Bb3 (10 Bb5+ Kf8 thematic) 10...Ne7 led to a draw
in 29 moves in A. Dobrowolski-Z. Wieczorek, Polanica Zdroj 2007.
If 8 Re1 (to prevent ...d5), Black can play 8...a5 (threatening ...b5, ...a4) 9 a4
d6 10 Nd2 Bg4 11 f3 Be6.
8...d5 9 exd6 Bxd6!?
Thus I managed to disimprove on previous games, although 9...Qxd6 was
better for White in M. Kolosowski -P. Mickiewicz, Koszalin 2007, until he
messed up the endgame.
10 Nd2
I had agonised over the complications following rook check but he played this
within an hour.
10...Nf6
This had only been played in one game where Black made a bad mistake. 10...
Bg4 was the alternative, when 11 f3 (rather than checking on e1) may prove
awkward.
11 Re1+
V. Ivanov-Najer, Moscow championship 1992, continued 11 Nf3 Bg4 (11...00 may be good also.) 12 Qe1+ (12 Re1+ is probably better.) 12...Kf8 13 Nxd4
Bxh2+ 14 Kxh2 Qxd4 15 a4 Qd6+ 16 f4 and now Najer played 16...b5? but
16...Re8 is strong.
11...Kf8
Unfortunately, now my king's knight blocks ...Qh4 ideas.
12 Nf3 Bg4 13 h3 Qa5!
[FEN "r4k1r/pp3pp1/2pb1n2/q6p/2Bp2b1/
3P1N1P/PPP2PP1/R1BQR1K1 w - - 0 14"]
The note I made in my database reads: "PIECE SAC GUNG HO!" White
prudently declined.
14 c3!
14 hxg4 allows Black a strong attack after 14...hxg4 and possibly even loses.
Now:
a) 15 Ng5!? Bxh2+ 16 Kf1 Bd6 17 Nxf7 (if 17 Qd2 Bb4) 17...Rh1+ 18 Ke2
Re8+ 19 Be3 dxe3 (19...Rh2 leads to a draw.) 20 Rxh1 exf2+ 21 Kxf2 Qf5+
22 Kg1 Bc5+ 23 d4 Re1+! 24 Qxe1 Bxd4+ 25 Kh2 g3+! 26 Qxg3 Ng4+
winning White's queen.
b) 15 Nxd4 Qh5 is the critical line: 16 Kf1 b5 (probably better than B moves
or Q checks) 17 Bb3 a6! (Preparing ...c5: an amazing slow move after the
piece sacrifice). Now computers think White stands better, with 18 c3 maybe
best (to provide a retreat for the knight) but there are many possibilities which
one would explore deeply in a correspondence game. Clearly my opponent
did not feel secure in that variation.
14...dxc3 15 bxc3 Bxf3
Not 15...Qxc3? 16 hxg4 Qxa1 17 Qb3 b5 18 Ba3, nor 15...Qf5?? 16 Nd4.
Instead 15...b5 looked tempting for a moment but 16 Bb3!+- shows it is
weakening.
16 Qxf3 Rd8
The pawn grab on c3 again seems too risky.
17 d4 h4 18 Bf4 Rh5 19 Rab1 Qc7
[FEN "3r1k2/ppq2pp1/2pb1n2/7r/2BP1B1p/
2P2Q1P/P4PP1/1R2R1K1 w - - 0 20"]
At this point I thought I should probably lose but White's, only superficially
strong, next move brought about a simplification. I have to give up a pawn
but obtain counterplay.
20 Be5?! Bxe5
After this there is actually a very long forced sequence.
21 dxe5 Rxe5 22 Rxe5 Qxe5 23 Rxb7 Qe1+ 24 Kh2 Qe5+ 25 g3 hxg3+ 26
Kg2
[FEN "3r1k2/pR3pp1/2p2n2/4q3/2B5/
2P2QpP/P4PK1/8 b - - 0 26"]
At this point Black has a choice.

26...Rd6!
And now White had a choice:
27 Rxa7?!
I actually had not expected this move which I think costs him whatever
winning chances remained. I have not preserved all the variations I analysed
in great depth while the game was in progress. Probably White should play
one or other of the obvious moves instead: 27 Rxf7+ or 27 fxg3 Rd2+ 28 Kf1,
but in either case the position is very messy because White's king is not
altogether secure and there are long-term tactical chances for Black.
27...gxf2!
Now my counterplay against his king is so strong that he is forced to accept
an endgame.
28 Rxf7+ Ke8 29 Rxg7 Qe4 30 Bf1 Rd1 31 Qxe4+ Nxe4 32 h4
[FEN "4k3/6R1/2p5/8/4n2P/2P5/P4pK1/
3r1B2 b - - 0 32"]
This is another critical moment on which I spent a lot of time.

32...Nxc3!
32...Nd2 might seem better. However, in this line White will sacrifice his
bishop while my knight is stuck on the edge. it may be possible to reduce to a
drawn rook vs. rook plus a- and c-pawn ending but unpleasant. The move I
chose, correctly followed up, is good for a draw with fewer headaches.
33 h5 Rd6 34 Rg6 Rxg6+ 35 hxg6 Ke7 36 a3! Kf6
Now White surprisingly did not try (or did not see) one last trap.
37 Kxf2 Kxg6 -
In his position I would have played 37 Bd3 when Black must find the "only
move" 37...Nd1!. By preventing Kxf2, I tie his king down and he cannot play
38 Bc2?? nor 38 Bf5?? nor 38 Bc4?? because of 38...Ne3+.
Play could then go as follows:
a) 38 Kf1 (trying to do nothing and outmanoeuvre me) is met by 38...Nb2.
Now, wherever his bishop goes I have an easy draw thanks to forks, and if he
tries to save his a-pawn I can win his bishop and the game.
b) 38 a4 Nb2 (attacks both a-pawn and bishop) 39 a5 (Else I capture the apawn with an obvious draw.) 39...Nxd3 40 a6 and there is only one way to
stop his pawn: 40...Nf4+ 41 Kxf2 Nd5 (41...Ne6 is equivalent.) 42 a7 Nc7 43
Ke3 and I cannot save my pawn, but I can stop his, so it is a draw: 43...Kxg6
44 a8Q (44 Kd4?? Nb5+) 44...Nxa8 45 Kd4= etc.
c) 38 Be4 c5! 39 a4 Nc3 40 a5 Nxe4 41 a6 Nd2 (41...f1Q+ comes to the same
but maybe here he could blunder with a6-a7.) 42 Kxf2 Nc4 43 Ke2 Nb6.
d) 38 Bb1? may be met by 38...c5 (not the only move) 39 Kf1 (39 a4 Nc3 40
Bc2 Nxa4 41 Bxa4 Kxg6=) 39...c4. He cannot play Ke2 and so liquidation is
inevitable soon.
e) 38 Ba6? is obviously not good as it undefends g6 and blocks the a-pawn
and so gives me more time.
f) 38 Be2 is simplest, but Black secures the half point by 38...Nb2! 39 Kxf2
Kxg6 which is a tablebase draw. If White insists on playing on, then ...N-a4b6 and then Black brings the king across. Also 38...Nc3 is good enough.

The Kibitzer
Page 1 sur 15
Search ChessCafe
HP Calculatrice financire HP
10bII+, fonctionne par piles
35,49
Cliquer ici
Only Search ChessCafe.com
Purchases from our

accessible:
Looking Back: Chess in 1863 and 1913

Today the Kibitzer celebrates its double century: the 200th column,
having begun publication in June 1996. As always for a January column,
the theme is the chess world a century ago, including also a little about
how things were fifty years previous to that. One player connects the
chess worlds of 1863 and 1913: Joseph Henry Blackburne (born 1841)
who remained a strong player up to the First World War.
The
Kibitzer
Chess in 1863
Tim Harding
Translate this page

Select Language
Powered by
Compared with the previous year, when the second great London Chess
Congress was held, 1863 was a quiet year without major tournaments.
Several of the strongest players of the day had no recorded results in
1863. This included Anderssen and Paulsen, or very few games in the
case of Kolisch. As for chess publications, July was to see the launch of
The Chess Player's Magazine, intended to be a like-for-like replacement
for The Chess Player's Chronicle which had folded (again) in 1862. (For
the intervening months, the columns in Bell's Life in London and the Era
provide some information.)
by Tim Harding
Translate
Originally the investors in the new magazine had recruited Daniel

Harrwitz to be editor, probably a risky move since Harrwitz had
abandoned his previous editorial effort, The British Chess Review, a
decade earlier. This time Harrwitz did not even get started (although
some games may have been contributed by him to early issues) and he
was replaced in the editorial chair by the Austrian journalist and master
Ernst Falkbeer.
There was very little formal chess activity at all during 1863, as can be
seen from pages 38-39 of Gino di Felice's book Chess Results 17471900 which shows just six head-to-head matches and one individual
tournament in the twelve month period. The editor dates the last of the
George Henry Mackenzie versus G. A. Macdonnell matches to 1862,
although it did not finish until early 1863. That was Mackenzie's last
contest before emigrating to America.
Five of the matches played (or begun) in 1863 involved William
Steinitz, who was by far the most active player, establishing himself as a
chess professional in the British capital with crushing match wins
against Blackburne (which began just before Christmas 1862), the
Belgian-based Frederic Deacon (two matches), Augustus Mongredien
senior, and (concluding early in 1864) against Valentine Green.
The first (July) issue of the new magazine stated that the Deacon match
was recently concluded, having been delayed by ill health of both
players. It probably began in the Spring and ended in June.
Shady Side
by John S. Hilbert
Chess Results 17471900

by Gino Di Felice
William Steinitz Frederic Deacon

Seventh match game, London, June 1863
Kieseritzky Gambit [C39]
Notes by Falkbeer in The Chess Player's Magazine volume 1, no. 1 (July
1863) pp. 1112
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 h4 g4 5 Ne5 Nf6 6 Bc4 d5 7 exd5 Bd6 8 d4
Nh5 9 Nc3 Qe7 10 Bb5+ Kd8 11 0-0 Bxe5 12 dxe5 Qxe5 13 Re1 Qf6 14
Qe2
mhtml:file://C:\Users\Gilles\Downloads\_____________________CHESS CAFE ----... 22/07/2013
The Kibitzer
Page 2 sur 15
Vous Vendez Un
Bien?
www.partenaire-europ...
Vendez 100% Entre
Particuliers Vendez Sans
Commission la Vente
Diagnostics
Immobiliers
[FEN "rnbk3r/ppp2p1p/5q2/1B1P3n/5ppP/
2N5/PPP1Q1P1/R1B1R1K1 b - - 0 14"]
14...c6?
14...Nd7 would afford a safer line of defence, though it allows the Kt. P.
to be taken. Suppose: 15 Ne4 "This appears stronger than taking P with
Q at once." 15...Qd4+ 16 Kh2 (best) 16...Re8 17 Qxg4 Rxe4 18 Rxe4
Qxe4 19 Qxh5 Nf6 20 Qg5 Qf5 21 Bxf4 h6 22 Qg3 (best).
15 dxc6 bxc6 16 Ne4
(TH: Computers evaluate Rd1+ as strongest here, because now Black
could have replied 16...Qd4+ 17 Nf2 Bd7 with better defensive chances
than in the game.)
16...Qxh4
With his K. so exposed, it is hardly prudent to play his Q so far away. It
is to be remarked, that in this opening the R.P. can rarely be taken
without danger.
www.Diagnostiqueurs-...
Trouvez gratuitement
votre expert certifi prs
de chez vous !
Expert immobilier
66
www.expert-immobilie...
Devis en ligne gratuit
Dterminez la valeur de
vos biens
Estimation
immobilire
Orpi.com/Estimation-B...
Vendre, Estimer Un Bien
Immobilier Profitez Des
Conseils & Rseau Orpi
-60 % sur Vos

Mensualits
bcfinance.fr/Rachat-Cr...
Propritaires :
Regroupez vos Crdits.
Devis Gratuit !
17 Bxf4
[FEN "rnbk3r/p4p1p/2p5/1B5n/4NBpq/
8/PPP1Q1P1/R3R1K1 b - - 0 17"]
Well played; from this point to the end White carries on the attack with
great vigour.
17...Nxf4 18 Qd2+ Bd7 19 Qxf4 cxb5 20 Nd6 Be6 21 Rad1 Nd7 22
Nxf7+ Ke7 23 Qd6+ Kxf7 24 Qxe6+ 1-0
Deacon resigned the game and the match (which was originally to have
been for the first to win seven games). The score was 5-1 with one draw.
When not playing matches, Steinitz was apparently largely occupied in
giving odds to weak amateurs, often winning these games with pretty
combinations and earning himself the nickname of "the Austrian
Morphy."
William Steinitz Schlesser
London, 1863
Notes by S. S. Boden in The Field, 29 August 1863, page 223.
In this pretty example of the Evans Gambit, Mr Steinitz gave the odds of
the Q Kt to an amateur of the London chess circles. Remove White's
Queen's knight.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 b4 Bxb4 5 c3 Bc5 6 0-0 d6 7 d4 exd4 8
cxd4 Bb6 9 h3 h6 10 Bb2 Na5 11 Bd3 Nf6 12 Qe2 0-0 13 e5
The Kibitzer
Page 3 sur 15
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/ppp2pp1/1b1p1n1p/n3P3/
3P4/3B1N1P/PB2QPP1/R4RK1 b - - 0 13"]
The commencement of a very pretty attack. Perhaps Black's reply should
have been KR to K.
13...dxe5 14 dxe5 Nd5 15 Qe4 f5 16 exf6 Nxf6 17 Bxf6 Qxf6 18 Qh7+
Kf7 19 Rfe1 Be6 20 Ne5+ Ke8 21 Ng4
This is all very prettily played.
21...Bxf2+ 22 Kf1 Qe7 23 Nxf2 Kd8 24 Rad1 Kc8 25 Kg1 Qc5 26 Rxe6
Qxf2+ 27 Kh1 Qg3 1-0
[FEN "r1k2r2/ppp3pQ/4R2p/n7/
8/3B2qP/P5P1/3R3K w - - 0 28"]
White forced mate in five moves. For assistance of young players, we
may observe that White commences with 28 Qf5.
William Steinitz Holstein
London, 1863
Notes by S. S. Boden, in The Field, 12 September 1863.
Mr Steinitz gives the Q Rook to Mr Holstein, of Philadelphia, played a
few days ago at Mr Ries's Chess Divan. Remove White's Q R.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 h6 4 d4 exd4 5 0-0 Bc5 6 c3 d3 7 b4 Bb6 8 b5
[FEN "r1bqk1nr/pppp1pp1/1bn4p/1P6/
2B1P3/2Pp1N2/P4PPP/1NBQ1RK1 b kq - 0 8"]
8...Na5
8...Nce7 were better, but it is not likely that a player receiving the odds
of a rook should see this.
9 Bxf7+ Kxf7 10 Ne5+ Kf6
If 10...Ke6 11 Qg4+ and the same moves follow as did occur.
The Kibitzer
Page 4 sur 15
11 Qf3+ Kxe5 12 Qf5+ Kd6 13 e5+
[FEN "r1bq2nr/pppp2p1/1b1k3p/nP2PQ2/
8/2Pp4/P4PPP/1NB2RK1 b - - 0 13"]
The winning move.
13...Ke7
If 13...Kd5 14 e6+ and on Black's moving 14...Kd6 as best, White plays
15 Bf4+ and mates with Q next time. If Black play 13...Kc5 the game is
forced by White as follows: 14 Qxd3 Nc4 (best) 15 Na3 Qh4 (best) 16
f4 and White mates in a move or two. This pretty variation was played in
a back-game, and is equally correct and brilliant on the part of Mr
Steinitz.
14 Ba3+ d6 15 exd6+ Ke8 1-0
White mates in two moves.
In Germany, a small congress was held in Dsseldorf, where Dr Max
Lange emerged victorious from a play-off after a tie with Wilfried
Paulsen, brother of the more famous Louis. However Lange was losing
the decisive game until close to the end, when Paulsen fell into a trap.
The Civil War was under way in the United States. Mackenzie resigned
his British commission and took passage across the Atlantic, to enlist on
the Union side, not yet to play chess. He had seen military action in
India, after which his more sedentary postings in Dublin and London
had probably left him feeling somewhat redundant, though they
improved his chess.
One effect of the war in America had been to coop Paul Morphy up in
new Orleans, but as we saw in the January 2012 column, he had
managed before the end of that year to escape the Union blockade and
reach Havana. From there he travelled for the second time in his life to
Paris, not setting foot in England.
Any hopes that Morphy might repeat his glory year of 1858 were to be
disappointed. He played relatively few games, except for a long series
against Jules Arnous de Rivire, which Di Felice questionably considers
to include a match, won 9-3 by Morphy. This was the last time the
American genius contended with an opponent even half worthy of his
mettle. Falkbeer reported in The Chess Player's Magazine (page 20) that
"Mr. Morphy has for some time past been in Paris, but we regret to say
that he has been playing but very little in public." The magazine
published one win each by the two men, "contested at a private sitting."
Paul Morphy Jules A. de Rivire
Paris 1863
Italian Game [C53]
Notes by Falkbeer from The Chess Player's Magazine, volume 1 (1863)
page 20.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 c3 Qe7
This is departing from the usual mode of playing the Giuoco Piano. The
best move for the second player at this time is acknowledged to be
4...Nf6.
5 d4 Bb6 6 0-0 d6 7 h3 Nf6 8 Re1 h6 9 a4 a5 10 Na3 Nd8 11 Nc2 Be6
This is the natural consequence of the bad opening Black adopted on his
fourth move. Apparently he had no alternative, at this stage of the game,
The Kibitzer
Page 5 sur 15
but to play either the move in the text, or else to castle. The latter move
would have led to the following consequences: 11...0-0 12 Nh4 Kh7
(best) 13 Nf5 Bxf5 (best) 14 exf5 e4 15 g4 d5 16 Bb3 Qd6 (NB: The
text actually has "K to Q third," with the comment "We see no better
move.") 17 g5 etc. with the better game.
12 Ne3 Bxc4 13 Nxc4 Nd7 14 Ne3 g6 15 Nd5 Qe6 16 Bxh6
An admirable move. If Black takes B he loses the Queen.
[FEN "r2nk2r/1ppn1p2/1b1pq1pB/p2Np3/
P2PP3/2P2N1P/1P3PP1/R2QR1K1 b kq - 0 16"]
16...f6 17 Bg7 Rh5
Compulsory, for the same danger as before was threatened. Had he
played his Rook to any other square, say Kt's square, White, by taking
the KBP at once, would have won the Queen afterwards, by playing Kt
to Kt fifth.
18 g4 Rxh3 19 Nxf6+ Nxf6 20 Ng5 Qd7 21 Bxf6 Rh4 22 f3 exd4 23
cxd4 Rh6
He was obliged to get the Rook out of danger, but this move did not
improve his position.
24 Kg2 Nf7 25 Rh1 Nxg5 26 Rxh6 Nh7 27 Qh1 Nxf6 28 Rh8+ Ke7 29
Rxa8 Bxd4 30 Qh6 Qc6 31 Rc1 Qb6
[FEN "R7/1pp1k3/1q1p1npQ/p7/P2bP1P1/
5P2/1P4K1/2R5 w - - 0 32"]
32 Rxc7+
Played in Mr Morphy's happiest style, and certainly the most elegant
way of terminating the struggle.
32...Ke6 33 Re8+ 1-0
And Black abandons the contest. (NB: Some databases have an
additional move pair: 33...Nxe8 34 Qxg6+ 1-0.)
Although the rise of Blackburne to the chess heights was to be delayed a
few more years, following his match loss to Steinitz, he continued to
increase his reputation as a blindfold player. Based in his home city of
Manchester, Blackburne set a new European record on 20 June by
conducting twelve games of chess simultaneously without sight of
boards or men, as reported in several newspapers. Not all the games
were completed at the first sitting and the display was concluded two
days later.
Blackburne had previously played ten opponents blindfold on several
The Kibitzer
Page 6 sur 15
occasions during 1862 but Louis Paulsen had played eleven at Bristol in
October 1861, and perhaps more than that once or twice in America,
although his fifteen-board simultaneous in Dubuque (November 1858)
was unfinished. So by completing a twelve-board display, Blackburne at
least equalled the world record, and later (it is unclear when or where)
he attempted fifteen, but perhaps unsuccessfully. A new record of
sixteen was eventually set by Zukertort at the end of 1876 but he also
required two sitting on different days to complete the display, and had
finished very few of the games on the first day.
Because of the slow rate of play in such displays, ten boards seemed to
be a practical limit for a single session, and in later years Blackburne
generally preferred to play eight opponents unless ample time was
available, but occasionally played ten or twelve again. It was also a
matter of some astonishment to contemporaries that Blackburne could
sometimes pull off remarkable winning combinations in such games, as
in this game from a display in 1863.
Blackburne "Mr A"
Kidderminster blindfold simul, Worcestershire, 1863
Danish Gambit [C21]
From the Household Chess Magazine, no. 1 (1865) pages 7-9, and the
Era of 15 March 1868.
1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 Bc4 d6
This move converts the opening into a variation of "Philidor's defence"
unfavourable for second player. 3...Nf6 is the correct move.
4 Nf3 Nc6 5 c3 dxc3 6 Nxc3
TH: The position is now the same as in the version published in the book
Mr. Blackburne's Games of Chess.
[FEN "r1bqkbnr/ppp2ppp/2np4/8/2B1P3/
2N2N2/PP3PPP/R1BQK2R b KQkq - 0 6"]
6...Ne5
This is a very weak move, which not only loses a valuable Pawn, but
also permits White to obtain a splendid attack.
7 Nxe5 dxe5 8 Bxf7+ Ke7 9 Bg5+ Nf6 10 Qh5 c6 11 Rd1 Qa5 12 f4
Nothing can now withstand White's attack; the game, in fact, was not to
be saved after Black's fatal error on his sixth move.
[FEN "r1b2b1r/pp2kBpp/2p2n2/q3p1BQ/
4PP2/2N5/PP4PP/3RK2R b K - 0 12"]
12...Qc5 13 fxe5 Qxe5 14 0-0 h6 15 Be8 Be6 16 Rxf6 gxf6
The Kibitzer
Page 7 sur 15
Nothing better, for if he had taken Bishop with Queen he would have
been mated in a few moves; for suppose: 16...Qxg5 17 Rxe6+ Kxe6 18
Qf7+ Ke5 19 Qc7+ Ke6 20 Bf7+ Kf6 21 Rf1+ and mates in two more
moves.
17 Rd7+ Bxd7 18 Qf7+ Kd6 19 Qxd7+ Kc5 20 Be3+ Kb4 21 Qxb7+
Ka5 1-0
[FEN "r3Bb1r/pQ6/2p2p1p/k3q3/4P3/
2N1B3/PP4PP/6K1 w - - 0 22"]
In this position Blackburne announced mate in three moves.
Chess in 1913
1913 was, of course, the last year of full chess activity before the
outbreak of the First World War (in August 1914) was to transform
everything, a theme we shall examine twelve months from now. While
some chess masters in 1913 may have had a sense of the gathering
storm, for most the belle epoque probably continued much as before.
Emanuel Lasker was on his throne and showing little sign of allowing a
challenger to threaten him. Moreover, Akiva Rubinstein, who spent
much of the year unsuccessfully attempting to negotiate a match with the
champion, was not involved in any serious competitions, perhaps not
wishing to jeopardise his apparent status as world number two. So 1913,
with the two leading masters inactive, was hardly a vintage year; it is
hard to imagine such a circumstance arising today as if both
Viswanathan Anand and Magnus Carlsen took the year off.
In a previous column, I have already written about one of the major
tournaments of 1913, at Scheveningen, which was won by the upcoming
Alexander Alekhine. Following that, Alekhine paid short visits to both
Paris and London in September, playing some exhibition games against
Edward Lasker and several simultaneous displays, before returning to
Russia.
Earlier in the year, in New York, a National American Tournament was
a poor substitute for the planned 1912 Havana/New York international
which had never materialised. Capablanca won, half a point ahead of
Marshall, with Janowsky again the leading European master.
Capablanca played mostly in a dry technical style, and typically ground
Janowsky down, playing a Four Knights Game and boring his opponent
to death in a long double rook endgame. However, he was involved in a
more complicated struggle against Whitaker where he had to recover
from an oversight in the opening.
Norman Tweed Whitaker J. R. Capablanca
New York National 1913
Queen's Pawn Game [D00]
1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 d6 3 Nc3 d5 4 Bf4 e6 5 e3 Bb4 6 Bd3 c5 7 0-0 c4?!
This advance is usually anti-positional in such situations, so it is
surprising to see Capablanca playing it. He appears to have believed he
was winning a pawn, overlooking White' s twelfth move.
8 Be2 Bxc3 9 bxc3 Ne4 10 Qe1 Qa5 11 Nd2 Nxc3 12 Bxc4!
The Kibitzer
Page 8 sur 15
[FEN "rnb1k2r/pp3ppp/4p3/q2p4/2BP1B2/
2n1P3/P1PN1PPP/R3QRK1 b kq - 0 12"]
12...Nc6
Not 12...dxc4? 13 Nxc4 Qb4 14 Nd6+ Kd7 15 Nxf7 and White should
win; e.g., 15...Rd8 16 Bd6 Qa5 17 Ne5+ Ke8 18 Nc4.
13 Nb3 Qb4 14 Bd3 Na4 15 Qe2 0-0 16 Qh5 f5 17 g4!? Qe7 18 gxf5
exf5 19 Kh1 Nb2 20 Be2 Nc4
[FEN "r1b2rk1/pp2q1pp/2n5/3p1p1Q/
2nP1B2/1N2P3/P1P1BP1P/R4R1K w - - 0 21"]
21 Nc5
Doubling rooks on the g-file might be more dangerous for Black.
21...b6 22 Qf3?!
Instead of this simplification, 22 Nd3 followed by Rg1 etc. would
maintain the advantage.
22...bxc5 23 Qxd5+ Be6
23...Kh8 is playable and perhaps better; e.g., 24 Qxc4 (24 Qxc6?? Bb7)
24...cxd4! 25 Bf3 Bb7.
24 Qxc6 Rac8 25 Qg2 cxd4 26 exd4 Qd7 27 c3 Rf6 28 Rg1
Too late. 28 f3 is better, to meet 28...Rg6 by 29 Qf2 and then Rae1,
holding the centre and extra pawn.
28...Rg6 29 Qh3 Bd5+ 30 f3 Rg4!
Capablanca seizes the initiative.
31 Rxg4 fxg4 32 Qg3 Qf5
Threatening 33...Rf8.
33 Rg1 h5 34 h3 Rf8 35 Bxc4 Bxc4 36 Bd6 Rf6!
36...Qxf3+ 37 Qxf3 Rxf3 38 hxg4 Rh3+ 39 Kg2 hxg4 40 Bg3 is drawish
because of the opposite coloured bishops.
37 Be5 Rg6 38 Kh2 Bd5 39 Qf4 Qc2+ 40 Rg2
The Kibitzer
Page 9 sur 15
[FEN "6k1/p5p1/6r1/3bB2p/3P1Qp1/
2P2P1P/P1q3RK/8 b - - 0 40"]
40...Qd3
40...Qxc3 41 hxg4 Qxf3 42 Qxf3 Bxf3 43 Rc2 Rxg4 puts White a pawn
ahead, but Capablanca probably considered this too drawish, and
preferred to keep queens on the board.
41 hxg4 Bxf3 42 Rd2 Qf1 43 g5 Qh1+ 44 Kg3 Bd5 45 Rf2 h4+
45...Rxg5+ 46 Qxg5 Qg1+ 47 Kh4 Qxf2+ 48 Qg3 is very drawish;
Capablanca prefers to take risks to retain winning chances.
46 Kg4!
46 Qxh4? probably loses after 46...Qg1+ 47 Kf4 Qc1+ 48 Kf5 Rc6!
threatening forced mate following 49...Be6+. (The Russian Chess Stars
book on Capablanca gives 48...Be6+ 49 Ke4 Rxg5 but although this is
tricky for White, it is possibly defensible with best play.)
46...h3 47 Rb2 Be6+ 48 Kh5 Kh7 49 Re2 Qd1 50 Qd2 Qg1 51 Qf4 Bd5
52 Rd2 Bg2 53 Kh4
53 Qf5?? Bf3+ 54 Kh4 Qe1+ and Black wins.
53...Kg8
The position remains unclear; but here 54 Re2 should be fine for White.
54 Rb2 Kh7 55 c4 Qe1+ 56 Kg4 Qg1
[FEN "8/p5pk/6r1/4B1P1/2PP1QK1/
7p/PR4b1/6q1 w - - 0 57"]
57 d5??
White finally cracks. Black should now win although there is still work
to do. White should probably have played 57 c5 or 57 Rd2.
57...Bxd5+ 58 Qg3 Be6+ 59 Kf3 Qf1+ 60 Ke3 Qxc4 61 Bd4 Qc1+ 62
Rd2 Bf5
The Chess Stars book says 62...Bc4? was played, but White would have
replied 63 Qxh3+.
63 Qh4+
If 63 Ke2 Re6+ 64 Be3 Kg6.
63...Kg8 64 Be5?
The Kibitzer
Page 10 sur 15
This makes Black's task easier; 64 Qf4 is best.

64...Re6 65 Qd4 h2 66 Qd8+ Kh7 0-1
Subsequently an eight-player double-round tournament in Havana, held
during March, saw Marshall take first prize ahead of Capablanca,
Janowsky again trailing.
As The Year-Book of Chess commented (on page 7 of the delayed 1912
edition): "It cannot be said, however, that these two tournaments
established anything beyond the fact that, apart from Capablanca and
Marshall, no American player of the present day is capable of contesting
on equal terms with European masters." At this time, Edward Lasker
was still in Europe, active in British chess, while the editor clearly did
not count Emanuel Lasker who was inactive in chess although still living
in America.
Frank Marshall Harry P. Kline
New York National 1913
Tartakower and du Mont p466: "A brevity in which there is much to
admire. The feature of White's play is the logic of its conception, and the
economy of means employed in its execution."
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Nf3 Be7 5 Bg5 Nbd7 6 e3 0-0 7 Rc1 b6 8
cxd5 exd5 9 Qa4
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/p1pnbppp/1p3n2/3p2B1/
Q2P4/2N1PN2/PP3PPP/2R1KB1R b K - 0 9"]
9...Bb7
On 9...c5, White proceeds to operate on the queenside, starting 10 Qc6.
10 Ba6 Bxa6 11 Qxa6 c6
Black should probably accept a slight disadvantage by 11...h6. If 11...c5
12 0-0.
12 0-0
[FEN "r2q1rk1/p2nbppp/Qpp2n2/3p2B1/
3P4/2N1PN2/PP3PPP/2R2RK1 b - - 0 12"]
12...Ne4?
This leads to catastrophe but was not identified by Tartakower and Du
Mont as the losing move. 12...h6 is still best.
13 Bxe7 Qxe7 14 Qb7 Rfc8?
The Kibitzer
Page 11 sur 15
Black overlooks a simple combinational liquidation. He could escape the

pin by 14...Qe6 but after 15 Nxe4 dxe4 16 Ng5 White wins at least a
pawn.
15 Nxd5 Qd6 16 Rxc6 1-0
[FEN "r1r3k1/pQ1n1ppp/1pRq4/3N4/
3Pn3/4PN2/PP3PPP/5RK1 b - - 0 16"]
The knight fork on e7 justifies all.
In Britain, Fred Yates had emerged as the leader of the new generation,
winning the Northern Counties Union Congress in January for the fourth
year in succession, as Atkins withdrew from national competition until
after the war. Yates won the British Championship in Cheltenham,
defeating Blackburne. The new City of London Chess Club champion
George Alan Thomas (not yet Sir George) was a potential rival to Yates,
but badminton and lawn tennis took up much of his energies.
Blackburne, seventy-one-years old at the time of the championship, was
far from at his best but taught one opponent an endgame lesson.
Joseph Blackburne H. B. Uber
BCF-championship, Cheltenham 1913
Philidor Defence [C41]
From the Manchester Guardian, 14 August 1913
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 Bc4 Bg4 4 c3 c6 5 d3 Qc7 6 Nbd2 Nf6 7 Qe2 Be7 8
h3 Bh5 9 Nf1 Bg6 10 g4 Nbd7 11 Ng3 h5 12 g5 Nh7 13 h4 0-00 14
Rg1 Nhf8 15 Nf5 Bxf5 16 exf5 d5 17 Bb3 Bd6 18 Be3 Kb8 19 0-00 g6
20 f6 Ne6 21 Ne1 Rhe8 22 Qf1 Ndc5 23 Bc2 d4 24 cxd4 exd4 25 Bd2
Bf4 26 Ng2 Bxd2+ 27 Rxd2 Nf4 28 Rh1 a5 29 Nxf4 Qxf4 30 Qh3 Rd5
31 Qg3 Qxg3 32 fxg3 Re3 33 Rg1 Rf5
[FEN "1k6/1p3p2/2p2Pp1/p1n2rPp/
3p3P/3Pr1P1/PPBR4/2K3R1 w - - 0 34"]
Blackburne now attempted to break out of his cramped position and
liquidate his doubled pawn.
34 g4 Rf4?!
The wrong plan; Uber could have maintained his pressure by 34...hxg4
35 Rxg4 Rd5.
35 gxh5 gxh5 36 Rh1
The ending is about equal, but Uber should here have played something
like ...Kc7. Instead he conceived a knight manoeuvre which enabled his
wily opponent to turn the tables.
36...Nd7?
The Kibitzer
Page 12 sur 15
[FEN "1k6/1p1n1p2/2p2P2/p5Pp/3p1r1P/
3Pr3/PPBR4/2K4R w - - 0 37"]
Gunsberg wrote in the Manchester Guardian: "Up to this point very little
need be said about the play. Black got the better position, but, like all
young players, he did not sufficiently take into account the dangers of
the end-game when playing such an experienced opponent. The play
which now follows is exceedingly interesting. The play in this ending is
an object-lesson of ingenuity in advancing pawns. Black could not have
stopped the advance in any case."
37 Bd1!
For one move, the bishop is not required for the defence of d3.
Blackburne grabs his chance.
37...Ne5 38 Bxh5 Nxd3+
Consistent but a serious error, as the knight was required to help deal
with the pawns.
39 Rxd3 Rxd3
The Times noted that "Blackburne v Uber was adjourned in a critical
position. Uber had won the exchange, but Blackburne had three passed
pawns ..." In the evening adjournment session, "Blackburne's passed
pawns, as expected, proved all-powerful..."
40 Bxf7 Rf2 41 g6 Rdd2 42 Bb3 Rd3 43 f7 Rg3 44 h5 d3 45 h6 d2+ 46
Kd1 Rg5 47 g7 Rc5 48 f8Q+ 10
Ireland also had a new chess champion in 1913 as the recently founded
Irish Chess Union organised a competition to produce a challenger for
the national title which James Alexander 'Porterfield' Rynd (now in his
mid-sixties) had not been called upon to defend since 1893, but was now
willing to relinquish. John J. O'Hanlon of Portadown came through the
qualifier and, as expected, duly defeated Rynd in a short match.
Later in the year Capablanca went on a tour of some European capitals
on his way to take up his consular duties in the Russian capital.
Vlastimil Fiala's collection of documents and games, Capablanca in the
United Kingdom (1911-1920) shows that the future world champion
arrived in London on 10 October after an eight day voyage from the
New World. On Monday 13th he played a simultaneous display against
a strong City of London Chess Club team, winning eighteen games, and
losing seven. Among those who defeated him were the Dutch master R.
Loman and writer P. W. Sergeant. A few days later Capablanca scored
7-0 in a small simul at the Divan, where Edward Lasker was one of his
opponents, before moving on to Paris.
Capablanca played against Mieses and Teichmann, among others, while
in Berlin, and against Nimzowitsch in Riga. The Cuban met Alekhine
for the first time when he reached St Petersburg, where he also played
against Eugene Znosko-Borovsky and Fedor Dus-Chotimirsky. They
played two exhibition games, both won by the Cuban. The finish of the
first, played on 14 December, may be found in Graham Burgess's book
Chess Highlights of the 20th Century. Here is the second game, played
on 23 December.
A. A. Alekhine J. R. Capablanca
St Petersburg exhibition 1913
Ruy Lopez [C90]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 0-0 Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 d6 8
The Kibitzer
Page 13 sur 15
c3 Na5 9 Bc2 c5 10 d4 Qc7 11 a4

This is premature.
11...b4 12 Nbd2 0-0 13 Nf1 cxd4 14 cxd4 Be6 15 Ne3 Rac8 16 Bd2 Nc4
[FEN "2r2rk1/2q1bppp/p2pbn2/4p3/
PpnPP3/4NN2/1PBB1PPP/R2QR1K1 w - - 0 17"]
Black has at least equalised.
17 Nxc4 Qxc4 18 Rc1 b3
This pawn will eventually decide the game. Although Black exchanges a
central pawn for a wing pawn, he retains some initiative.
19 Bb1 Qxa4 20 dxe5 dxe5 21 Nxe5 Rxc1 22 Bxc1 Rd8
Both 22...Qa1 and 22...Rc8 also came into consideration.
23 Qe2 h6
23...Nd7 is the computer preference.
24 h3
White follows suit but 24 Bf4 is more active.
24...Bc5 25 Bf4 Nd7 26 Rd1
White appears to have stabilised the situation.
26...Bb6 27 Nf3 Bc4 28 Qe1 Nc5
[FEN "3r2k1/5pp1/pb5p/2n5/q1b1PB2/
1p3N1P/1P3PP1/1B1RQ1K1 w - - 0 29"]
29 Bd6?
A misjudgment, which is answered by a miscalculation.
29...Nd3?
29...Qa1 would be much better. If then 30 Ne5 Ba5.
30 Bxd3 Rxd6 31 Ra1?
Alekhine fails to take advantage of his opponent's slip. After 31 Bxc4
Rxd1 32 Bxf7+! Kxf7 33 Qxd1 Qxe4 34 Qxb3+ Qe6 35 Ne5+ Ke7
Black is a pawn down and has to fight for a draw.
31...Qb5 32 Bxc4 Qxc4
The Kibitzer
Page 14 sur 15
[FEN "6k1/5pp1/pb1r3p/8/2q1P3/1p3N1P/
1P3PP1/R3Q1K1 w - - 0 33"]
Now Black is definitely on top.
33 Rc1
Apparently Alekhine overlooked the neat reply but even after 33 e5 he
faced a tough struggle to draw.
33...Qc2!
Now the White b-pawn falls because 34 Rb1 would be met by
34...Bxf2+.
34 Kh2
34 Rxc2 bxc2 is of course an easy win for Black, for if 35 Nd2 Ba5 and
otherwise 35...Rd1 decides.
34...Qxb2 35 e5
There is nothing left but attempts to swindle.
35...Bxf2 36 Qf1 Rg6 37 Rc8+ Kh7 38 Rf8 Qc2 39 Rxf7 b2 40 Rb7 Bb6
41 Nd2 Qxd2 42 e6 b1Q 0-1
On this evidence, Lasker and Rubinstein were still well ahead of
Capablanca, with Alekhine a poor fourth, but a few months later the St
Petersburg international tournament would see Capablanca playing
much more strongly than he had done in 1913.
1913 saw the deaths of some leading figures in British and continental
chess. The eminent English problemist Edward Nathan Frankenstein and
German chess writer Oskar Cordel passed away, aged seventy-three and
sixty-nine respectively. Also the distinguished chess writer and organiser
Leopold Hoffer died at seventy-one-years old, in August; thereafter
England's most important chess column, in The Field, which Hoffer had
conducted since September 1882, was taken over by retired master
Amos Burn, who maintained its high standard for a further decade. Then
in September, Polish-born master Julius Perlis died at the age of thirtythree in a mountaineering accident in the Austrian Alps.
Postscripts
This week I have resumed my offers on eBay: mostly to do with chess.
Search for international offers by member kibitzer63.
At the Chess Mail website, I have just started a pictorial blog-style
report on my trip to Burma (Myanmar) in the second half of December.
A new page will be added daily from now until the end of January.
OrderThe Kibitzer #200 (Ebook)

by Tim Harding
In ChessBase, PGN, and PDF formats. Viewable in Ipad, Itouch, Kindle,
ChessBase and other PGN and PDF viewers.
All for only .99 cents!!
The Kibitzer
Page 15 sur 15
2013 Tim Harding and BrainGamz Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comment on this month's column via our official Chess Blog!!

The Kibitzer
Page 1 sur 19
Search ChessCafe
Purchases from our

accessible:
Absolute Correspondence Chess
The full history of correspondence chess will probably never be written,
although many national studies have been produced. Probably more
chess of this variety has been played in Germany, over the past two
centuries, than anywhere else, so Fernschach in Deutschland, especially
needs an assiduous chess historian.
The
Kibitzer
The antecedents of North American correspondence chess date back to a

New York versus Washington match begun in 1838, and the first
Canadian match was played in 1841 between Kingston, Ontario, and
Quebec. Many other matches and tournaments on the continent followed
over the next sixty years, with the Canadians very much to the fore in
organising the latter. This has been well documented in The History of
Correspondence Chess in Canada by Leonard Zehr and J. Ken
MacDonald, a handsome hardback book published by Thinkers' Press in
2006.
Tim Harding
Translate this page

Select Language
Powered by
Translate
Documentation of the postal (much later, Internet) game in the United

States has been much more patchy, but recently an important
contribution to the history has been published, and most of this column
will be devoted to that. Back in 2000, McFarland published in hardback
Correspondence Chess in America by Bryce D. Avery, which has
recently been reprinted in softcover. This substantial work did a very
thorough job of documenting the history of the Correspondence Chess
League of America (founded 1917) and its immediate antecedents,
which is important because the CCLA has long been the largest and
arguably the most important society organising this form of chess
competition.
Avery's book, however, immediately attracted criticism from members
of other American correspondence chess clubs, and from independent
reviewers such as myself, for its highly misleading title. The history of a
club, albeit a major one, was being presented as a national history, which
patently it was not. A major merit of the new book discussed below is
that thereby the same publisher, McFarland, makes amends by issuing a
partial history of what was for half a century CCLA's chief rival
organisation.
A second shortcoming of Avery's book has also gradually become
apparent over the last ten years, namely that Avery's treatment of
nineteenth century CC in America prior to the formation in 1896 of the
Pillsbury National Correspondence Chess Club, was so brief as to be
almost non-existent. The 1838 match was not mentioned; the CanadaUSA match of the mid-1870s was not mentioned and although two
postal tournaments were mentioned (with a few games included), others
were overlooked. Also the historic Postcard Match between the USA
and United Kingdom which began in 1877 was said by Avery to be a
cable match played in 1879!
Absolute
Correspondence
Championship
by Alex Dunne
in America
by Bryce Avery
by Tim Harding
Most of these lacunae in the early history of American CC have now

been filled, albeit in an ad hoc way (partly in book chapters, but mostly
in Internet articles and articles for the Quarterly for Chess History), by
the writings of various chess historians: the late Carlo Pagni, Neil
Brennen, John Hilbert, Zehr and MacDonald, Eric Ruch and myself.
Probably these, following further research to fill any gaps, should all be
brought together sometime in an edited volume on the history of
nineteenth century CC in the United States.
By the 1930s, the CCLA was thriving and began a series of large-scale
annual events under the name Grand National, which had first been used
by the Pillsbury association. It also, curiously, was the USA's affiliate to
the fledgling FIDE so had a stake in over-the-board chess too. This
situation could not last and the United States Chess Federation was
(according to Avery's book) formed in December 1939 from the merger
of various pre-existing bodies along with the CCLA. Since most of the
The Kibitzer
Page 2 sur 19
world was now at war, this change had no immediate effect

internationally. Not much chess was being played after Pearl Harbor.
USCF had fewer members than CCLA at first and few funds, and the
war was a convenient excuse for not paying dues to FIDE for several
years.
From 1946 onwards, the USCF began to grow and produced its own
small paper called Chess Life. It also began to organise its own postal
tournaments and these became increasingly important. Also the Golden
Knights series, begun by Chess Review under Al Horowitz, was to
become a rival to the Grand National, but Chess Review was not to
merge with USCF until 1969. Keen postal players quite likely entered
tournaments run by both organisations.
American participation in the international events run by ICCF was
fairly small in the immediate post-war decades, though there were
exceptions such as Walter Muir who was active in both domestic and
overseas competition. The USA has produced two correspondence world
champions Hans Berliner and Vytas Palciauskas and a few
correspondence grandmasters. However, the international master and
grandmaster titles can only be earned from international play and some
of the strongest postal players from the United States have rarely if ever
chosen to play internationally at least until the Internet era. Many
found it was cheaper and much quicker and to play the American events,
whereas continental European players (with mostly narrower national
horizons) were more likely to enter ICCF events even at sub-master
level. Some very strong American players were also perhaps put off by
the language barrier and the requirement (until the webserver era) to use
ICCF's numeric form of the algebraic notation.
A key figure in the growth of USCF's postal chess organisation was Jack
S. Battell (1909-85) who took over that role in 1969, and his successor
Joan DuBois (who also joined USCF in 1969) was a tireless worker in
this field for over thirty years. The chess writer Stefan Gerzadowicz was
among its leading players. As DuBois approached retirement, Alex
Dunne became increasingly prominent as a popularizer of
correspondence chess, with his monthly column for Chess Life, "The
Check is In the Mail," which he still writes for the USCF website
although it has not appeared in print since 2006. In 2005, Alex (who is
an ICCF international master and FIDE Master) took over from DuBois
as correspondence chess organizer for USCF, but it now looks from their
website that USCF has now wound up its correspondence chess arm,
leaving the field almost clear for CCLA. This absence from the website
is possibly misleading, however, as I believe the Absolute series may
still continue.
By the 1990s, on the eve of the Internet, the United States had numerous
postal chess organisations of various sizes. Eventually an umbrella
group, ICCF-US, was founded to be the United States's representative at
the International Correspondence Chess Federation, and also to run a
unified United States CC Championship open to players from all the
various American clubs. The first preliminaries of the new USCCC
began in 1972 and the first final was played from 1974-76. Meanwhile,
the main organisations continued to run their club championships: called
the Rook Final in the case of APCT and the Absolute Correspondence
Championship in the case of USCF. Although not actually national
championships, these and the CCLA's championship were usually strong
tournaments
Only a few of the organisations founded in the postal chess era still
survive. The All Service Postal Chess Club (ASPCC), for American
servicemen and veterans, continues. Also there was APCT (the
American Postal Chess Tournaments) which had begun in 1967. After
1970, when Helen and James Warren took over running APCT, it grew
considerably and attracted the membership of some of the country's
strongest postal masters, such as Jon Edwards. However, after more than
thirty years, the Warrens decided to retire and no new tournament entries
were accepted after May 2005, after which they completed all their
tournaments and eventually closed down. For the time being, a historical
reference site remains but sadly it lacks a downloadable game database
which would have provided a welcome record of APCT's career.
USCF's top event, the Absolute, was inaugurated by Battell in 1976 as a
round robin event for the top players in the club. The first competition
had only seven players and the 1977 and 1978 events were also
organised on the double-paired system, each player meeting every
The Kibitzer
Page 3 sur 19
opponent with both colours. Thereafter, there usually was a field of

thirteen, single-paired, so each player had six games with White and six
with Black, starting simultaneously as is normally the case with
correspondence events. (An exception was 1999, with just eight players,
double-paired.)
The Absolute Correspondence Championship of the United States Chess
Federation, 1976-2010 is edited by the only person who could do it, the
aforementioned Alex Dunne. Published by McFarland, this is a 330-page
softcover documenting the history of USCF's most important
tournament. There are all the crosstables, various statistics for all the
competitors, 306 games (if I counted correctly) with notes of varying
depth, and short personal notes on all the players in each tournament,
especially the champions.
Until now, this series of important tournaments has not been well
documented, and apparently it was only when the aforementioned
Dunne took over running the series in 2005 that it was made mandatory
for players to submit the game score when reporting a result.
Consequently, many of the games played in these tournaments have
been lost. Dunne says he has collected more than 2,000 of the
approximately 2,600 played between 1976 and 2010. I have about 1,150
in my database, mostly collected from various sources over the years
that I edited Chess Mail; though the book also has some I never saw
before, especially from the earliest events, a few of which I have found
time to input.
My database of unannotated games is included with the e-book of this
article for readers who wish to purchase it. The dating of games in the
file may seem odd in places, but I understand (though the book does not
clarify this) that several of the Absolute Championships only began in
the year following their nominal title.
The 2008 champion was Ciaran O'Hare, a surgeon from Oklahoma
whom I played over the board in Dublin in 1976 when he was a medical
student. Ciaran, who now holds the Senior International Master title
from ICCF, still plays for Ireland in international competitions. (Another
of the Absolute champions was a Canadian.) O'Hare commented to me
recently as follows:
"The games in the book are well selected and (to me) annotated in an
entertaining and accurate way. It has always (till 2013) been a computer
free program, but the amount of draws and the success so first timers in
the 2010 tournament especially would suggest that day is gone!"
In the light of that comment, it is interesting to note on page 297 of
Dunne's book that about halfway through the 2008 event "Figlio
discovered that computer use was not allowed in the Absolute
tournaments. He then did the honourable thing and withdrew from the
event." Gino Figlio was runner up in the 2007 Absolute, unbeaten but
with one win less than the champion, Edward Duliba. So it seems
probable that Figlio had used computer engines to achieve that result.
I think that the well-produced book will interest many people, not
necessarily only those interested in correspondence chess. This is not
least because the vast majority of games in the book will probably be
completely new to potential readers, and may well contain opening ideas
they can borrow which will be new to their opponents! So far as the
selection is concerned, I did wonder casually if Dunne has a slight bias
(perhaps unconscious) towards including Black wins. In his chapter on
the 1986 Absolute there are eight games: six won by Black and only two
by White! However, the next chapter has a heavy preponderance of wins
by White, so maybe it is just the way that particular tournament panned
out.
The rest of this column will consist of games from the Absolute
championships, but I will provide mostly different annotations. I make
no claim that these are the best games from these events far from it. I
did not want to skim off the cream.
Kit Woolsey Robert M. Jacobs
USCF 1976 Absolute
Ruy Lopez [C67]
Jacobs was the first champion and this is the first game in Alex Dunne's
The Kibitzer
Page 4 sur 19
book on the Absolute Championships.

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6 4 0-0 Nxe4 5 d4 Nd6 6 Bxc6 dxc6 7 dxe5
Nf5
The "Berlin Wall" variation though Dunne's book does not use that
name.
8 Qxd8+ Kxd8 9 Nc3 h6
[FEN "r1bk1b1r/ppp2pp1/2p4p/4Pn2/8/
2N2N2/PPP2PPP/R1B2RK1 w - - 0 10"]
Kramnik reached this position four times in his successful world title
challenge against Kasparov in 2000. On the last occasion (Game 9) this
is the move he played. As Jacobs says, and Kasparov found, once Black
equalises he's on the road to winning!
10 Bd2
Kasparov replied with 10 Rd1+ Ke8 11 h3, probably not the best plan,
although delaying the rook move gives Black the option of playing the
king to c8 instead. Woolsey's 10 Bd2 looks a bit timid, but Tarrasch had
used it to beat Lasker at Hastings 1895.
10...Be6 11 Rad1
Tarrasch played 11 Ne2 but the rook move is more usual.
11...Ke8 12 Ne4 Rd8
This seems to have been a novelty. 12..Be7 would have transposed to a
game Voronov-Katalymov, USSR Cup 1970.
13 Rfe1 b6 14 b3 Be7 15 c4 Kf8 16 h3 Kg8 17 Bc3 Kh7
Black has "castled by hand" and is now at least completely equal. His
pawn structure is inferior but he has the bishop-pair.
18 Kh2 c5 19 g4
[FEN "3r3r/p1p1bppk/1p2b2p/2p1Pn2/
2P1N1P1/1PB2N1P/P4P1K/3RR3 b - - 0 19"]
"This error has been in preparation for several moves," comments
Jacobs.
19...Nh4 20 Ng1 Ng6 21 Ne2 Bc8 22 f4
As in the exchange variation strategy, White would like to create a
kingside passed pawn, but we are nowhere near an endgame. Black's
The Kibitzer
Page 5 sur 19
pieces become increasingly active.

22...Bb7 23 N4g3 Nh4 24 Ng1 Ng2 25 Rxd8 Rxd8 26 Rf1 Rd3 27 Be1
Nxe1 28 Rxe1 Bh4 29 N1e2 Rd2 30 f5
[FEN "8/pbp2ppk/1p5p/2p1PP2/2P3Pb/
1P4NP/P2rN2K/4R3 b - - 0 30"]
White will eventually manage to create a passed pawn, and even queen
it, but at too high a price.
30...Bf3 31 Kg1 Rxa2 32 e6 fxe6 33 fxe6 Bxg3 34 e7 Bxe1 35 e8Q
Rxe2 36 Qf7 Be4 0-1
John Kalish Kit Woolsey
USCF 1976 Absolute
This game by the runner-up was annotated in Fernschach magazine but
is not in the Dunne book. Interestingly, Kalish was able to play in the
event although he was living in Japan, which meant much longer transit
times. In the 1990 Absolute, one player who moved to Mexico was
boycotted by several opponents and thereby received some points by
default not enough to finish in a high placing, however.
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Bg5 e6 7 f4 Be7 8
Qf3 Qc7 9 0-0-0 Nbd7
This was a very popular main line in the 1960s and early 1970s. White
used to play 10 g4, which came back into fashion later.
10 Bd3 Nc5
Later 10...h6 and 10...b5 became the critical moves.
11 Rhe1
[FEN "r1b1k2r/1pq1bppp/p2ppn2/2n3B1/
3NPP2/2NB1Q2/PPP3PP/2KRR3 b kq - 0 11"]
11...h6
In the German correspondence magazine, this was awarded a question
mark and 11...0-0 was recommended instead, but later games showed
that 12 e5 dxe5 13 fxe5 probably gives White the advantage; e.g.,
13...Nd5 14 Ne4 Nb4 15 Nf6+! Bxf6 16 Bxh7+ Kxh7 17 exf6 with a
winning attack in Helsloot-Strand, corr 1988.
12 Bh4 Nfxe4 13 Nxe4 Bxh4 14 Qg4!
The Kibitzer
Page 6 sur 19
[FEN "r1b1k2r/1pq2pp1/p2pp2p/2n5/
3NNPQb/3B4/PPP3PP/2KRR3 b kq - 0 14"]
Good calculation by Kalish, who was at this time also in the process of
qualifying for the Tenth World Correspondence Championship Final.
14...Nxe4
Black tries to reduce material and keep his extra pawn but his
development is too backward. Not 14...Bxe1? 15 Qxg7 Rf8 16 Nf6+
Ke7 17 Nf5+! exf5 18 Nd5+.
15 Qxh4 Nf6 16 g4 Bd7 17 g5 Nd5 18 gxh6 Rxh6 19 Qg5
[FEN "r3k3/1pqb1pp1/p2pp2r/3n2Q1/
3N1P2/3B4/PPP4P/2KRR3 b q - 0 19"]
19...Rf6?
This blunder brings the game to an abrupt end, but Black is close to lost
anyway, e.g. 19...Ne7 20 Qxg7 Rxh2 21 Rh1 Rxh1 22 Rxh1 0-0-0 23
Qxf7 e5 24 Qxe7 exd4 25 Rh7 and White is effectively a strong passed
pawn up.
20 Qxd5 0-0-0 21 Qg5 1-0
Humberto Cruz Frank Camaratta Jr.
USCF 1979 Absolute
I had not seen this curious game until I found it in Dunne's book on page
27.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 c3 d5 4 Qa4 Qd6
This move (avoiding the weaknesses involved in supporting the e-pawn
by 4...f6) was sometimes played by Howard Staunton when opponents
chose his old favourite 3 c3 against him.
5 exd5
Probably an inferior reply, and White's next move is certainly a mistake.
5...Qxd5 6 Bc4
The Kibitzer
Page 7 sur 19
[FEN "r1b1kbnr/ppp2ppp/2n5/3qp3/Q1B5/
2P2N2/PP1P1PPP/RNB1K2R b KQkq - 0 6"]
6...Qe4+!
Much better than 6...Qd6 as played by Staunton in two consultation
games from 1857 when J. J. Lwenthal was the main opponent.
7 Kf1
7 Kd1 is also good for White according to an example in T. Taylor's
recent book on the Ponziani.
7...Be6 8 Bb5 Qxa4 9 Bxa4 Bc4+ 10 Ke1 f6
Black has to play this after all, but with queens off the board there is less
to worry about.
11 d4 e4 12 Nfd2 Bd3 13 b4 b5 14 Bb3 a5 15 bxa5 Nxa5 16 Bd5 c6 17
Be6 Nb7 18 Bg4 c5 19 f3 e3 20 Ne4 cxd4 21 Bb2 Nh6 22 Be6 Bxe4 23
fxe4 d3
[FEN "r3kb1r/1n4pp/4Bp1n/1p6/4P3/
2Ppp3/PB4PP/RN2K2R w kq - 0 24"]
"Seldom have two foot soldiers gone so deep, so soon," observes Dunne.
24 h4 Nc5 25 Bd5 0-0-0 26 Na3 Na4 27 Be6+ Kb8 28 Nxb5 Nxb2 29
Nd4 Rxd4!
[FEN "1k3b1r/6pp/4Bp1n/8/3rP2P/
2Ppp3/Pn4P1/R3K2R w - - 0 30"]
30 cxd4 Bb4+ 31 Kf1 Re8 32 d5 Rxe6! 33 dxe6 Ng4 34 g3 e2+ 35 Kg2
d2 36 Kf3 d1Q 0-1
N. Eric Pedersen Max Zavanelli
USCF 1980 Absolute
The Kibitzer
Page 8 sur 19

The winner of this game was the principal organiser of ICCF-US and
ICCF's North America Pacific Zone for many years. Max was really
responsible for bringing American correspondence chess fully into the
international arena in the 1980s and 1990s.
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 e5 6 Ndb5 d6 7 Bg5 a6
8 Bxf6
This move later came to be judged premature but in 1980 it was still an
open question whether White should play this or the immediate 8 Na3.
8...gxf6 9 Na3 f5
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/1p3p1p/p1np4/4pp2/4P3/
N1N5/PPP2PPP/R2QKB1R w KQkq - 0 10"]
To take advantage of White's move order instead of transposing to the
Sveshnikov main line by 9...b5.
10 Qh5 d5!? 11 exd5
According to recent theory, White is better in the complications after 11
0-0-0 and therefore Black should prefer 10...b5 as played by Janowski
against Tarrasch at Vienna, way back in 1898.
11...Bxa3 12 bxa3 Qa5 13 Kd2 Ne7 14 Qe2
[FEN "r1b1k2r/1p2np1p/p7/q2Ppp2/8/
P1N5/P1PKQPPP/R4B1R b kq - 0 14"]
14...Be6
Dunne, in his book, rightly says that this move improves on 14...e4 as
played in a Russian game from 1970. Another Russian game, however,
had gone 14...f6 with advantage to Black. The text move, and its
immediate follow-up, was suggested in the pioneering book Sicilian ...e5
(Batsford 1976) by Harding and Markland, and was probably in fact an
idea of Minev.
15 Qxe5 0-0-0 16 Bd3 Rhg8 17 Rhb1 Rxd5 18 Qf6 Nc6 19 Rb2 Rxg2
20 Rab1 Rxf2+ 21 Ke1 Rxh2 22 Rxb7
The Kibitzer
Page 9 sur 19
[FEN "2k5/1R3p1p/p1n1bQ2/q2r1p2/8/
P1NB4/P1P4r/1R2K3 b - - 0 22"]
22...f4
Dunne says 22..Qc5 first is stronger.
23 Be4 Qc5 24 Rc7+ Kxc7 25 Nxd5+ Bxd5 26 Qxf4+ Kd8 27 Qxh2
Bxe4 28 Qh4+ Qe7 29 Qxe7+ Kxe7
[FEN "8/4kp1p/p1n5/8/4b3/P7/
P1P5/1R2K3 w - - 0 30"]
After the slaughter, Black is left with two minor pieces against a rook
and the better pawn structure, sufficient to win in the end.
30 Rb6 a5 31 Kf2 Kd6 32 Rb7 f6 33 c3 Ke5 34 Rd7 h5 35 Kg3 f5 36
Rf7 Kd5 37 Kf4 Kc4 38 Rh7 Kxc3 39 Rxh5 Kb2 40 Rh3 Kxa2 41 Re3
a4 42 Kg5 Kb2 43 Kf6 Nd4 0-1
Greg Berry Charles Bush
USCF 1981 Absolute
Italian Game [C54]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 c3 Nf6 5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4 Bb4+ 7 Bd2
Unfortunately, 7 Nc3, although fascinating, will yield White a draw at
best and has been analysed to the end of the game in many variations,
which makes it unsuitable for correspondence play.
7...Bxd2+ 8 Nbxd2 d5 9 exd5 Nxd5 10 Qb3
[FEN "r1bqk2r/ppp2ppp/2n5/3n4/2BP4/
1Q3N2/PP1N1PPP/R3K2R b KQkq - 0 10"]
10...Nce7
Dunne writes a rather odd note here: "Still about even was 10...Na5.
This retreat only encourages White." Of course 10...Nce7 is a well-
The Kibitzer
Page 10 sur 19
known main line where White's piece play is balanced by the isolated dpawn's potential weakness. Yes, Black can play 10...Na5 (and indeed
Jan Pinski prefers it in his book Italian Game and Evans Gambit), but
after 11 Qa4+ Nc6 (11...c6? 12 Bxd5 Qxd5 13 Rc1 is very good for
White) White has the option of complicating by 12 Bb5, or repeating
with 12 Qb3 when Black must either settle for a draw or play...Nce7
after all.
In the pre-computer era, at least, Black was rarely willing to settle for a
quick draw because postal tournaments were often won with a very high
percentage score. In the 1987 Absolute, James O'Brien drew just one
game and won eleven, relegating Darrell Le Gore, who scored 10/12, to
runner-up position.
11 0-0 0-0 12 Rfe1 c6 13 Rac1
This is an old continuation that has fallen into disuse because it may be
too early to commit the rook to a particular file.
I had some success over the board with 13 Ne4 although theory
considers Black can equalise, probably starting with 13...Nb6; 13 a4 is
usually considered to be the most precise move although Black can hold
the balance with care.
13...Qb6
Here Black should probably play 13...Nb6.
14 Qxb6?
As Dunne observes, White should avoid the exchange of queens and
play 14 Qa3. White might have found that move in The Italian Game by
Harding and Botterill (Batsford 1977) with the continuation 14...Be6 15
Ne4 Rad8 16 Neg5 (Rossolimo-O'Kelly, Hastings 1950/51).
14...axb6
At this point it looks as if Black should stand well, having an open file
for his queen's rook bearing down on the a-pawn and a good blockade
on the d-pawn. Unaccountably he now throws away a tempo with his
bishop and allows his own pawn structure to be shattered. Dunne,
however, makes no comment at all between moves fourteen and thirty.
15 Ne4 Bg4
15...Rd8 or 15...Be6 16 Neg5 Bf5 looks right.
16 Ne5 Be6 17 Ng5 Rad8
The rook does not succeed in his task here; 17...b5 should be
satisfactory.
18 Nxe6 fxe6 19 Nf3 Nf4
The e-pawn cannot be held because of 19...Rf6 20 Ng5 Rd6? 21 Ne4,
but at least Black should have gained a tempo by 19...b5 first.
20 Bxe6+ Nxe6 21 Rxe6 Nf5 22 Re4 Rd5 23 Rce1 Rfd8 24 Re8+ Kf7
25 Rxd8 Rxd8 26 Re4 Kf6 27 g4 Nd6 28 g5+ Kf5 29 Re7 h6 30 Rxg7
hxg5
[FEN "3r4/1p4R1/1ppn4/5kp1/3P4/5N2/
PP3P1P/6K1 w - - 0 31"]
The Kibitzer
Page 11 sur 19
31 h3
Dunne rightly observes that "White has played well up to this point but
now begins to shilly-shally. Better was 31 Rxg5+."
31...b5 32 Rxg5+ Ke4 33 Kg2 Nf5 34 Nd2+ Kd3 35 Rxf5 Kxd2 36 Rf7
Dunne wonders why White did not just play 36 h4, and maybe it is good
but rook's pawns are notoriously difficult to cash in.
36...Rxd4 37 Rxb7
Here Dunne suggests 37 f4 would be the move.
37...Kc2 38 b3 Kb2 39 Ra7 c5 40 Rb7 Rb4 41 h4 Kxa2 42 h5 Kxb3 43
h6 Ka4!?
After 43...Rh4 44 Rxb5+ Kc4 45 Rb6 Kd5, the ending is a book draw,
but Black's choice is understandable and works out well in practice.
44 Ra7+ Kb3 45 Rg7 Rh4
[FEN "8/6R1/7P/1pp5/7r/1k6/5PK1/8 w - - 0 46"]

46 Kg3?
Dunne is surely right to guess that this was a clerical error, saying that
46 Rg3+ Kb4 (Actually I think the king should go to c4.) 47 Rh3 retains
strong drawing chances, since evidently Black cannot exchange rooks.
The game could continue 47...Rg4+ 48 Rg3 Rh4 49 Rh3 etc. with a
repetition of moves. Otherwise the black rook retreats to the back rank,
when his own pawns can advance and probably force a win.
46...Rxh6 47 Rg5 Kb4 48 f4 c4 49 Kf3 c3 0-1
The 1986 event was unusual in that Gerzadowicz, as Dunne says,
"conducted a running series of articles commenting on his Absolute
games live as they unfolded." This possibly helped his opponents as
Gerzadowicz finished in the middle of the table with 6 points from his
twelve games and in 1987 he scored fifty percent. These annotations
from those two tournaments later found their way into his book Journal
of a Chess Master. In the 1988 Absolute, he fared much worse and
scored only 2. Those games, among others, can be found in
Gerzadowicz's later book Journal of a Chess Original. Here is one of his
more successful efforts but without his verbal notes which are both
copyright and inimitable. Dunne includes the game with just one
comment.
Keith Vickers Stefan Gerzadowicz
USCF 1986 Absolute
Irregular King's Indian [A48]
1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 Bf4 Nh5 5 Bg5 h6 6 Bd2 d6 7 Ne4?!
Vickers said afterwards he should have played 7 e4.
7...e5
Not 7...f5? 8 Ng3 Nf6 9 Nh4 Kf7 10 e4 with advantage to White, said
Gerzadowicz.
8 dxe5 dxe5 9 Bc3 Qe7 10 Qd2 Nc6
The Kibitzer
Page 12 sur 19
If 10...0-0? 11 Bb4.
11 Ng3 Bg4 12 Nxh5 Bxh5 13 e4 Rd8 14 Qe3 0-0
Black has the edge now.
[FEN "3r1rk1/ppp1qpb1/2n3pp/4p2b/4P3/
2B1QN2/PPP2PPP/R3KB1R w KQ - 0 15"]
15 h3 Nd4 16 0-0-0 Bxf3 17 gxf3 Qf6 18 Bc4 b5 19 Bd5 c6 20 f4 Nxc2
21 Kxc2 cxd5 22 Rxd5?! Rxd5 23 exd5 Qf5+ 24 Qd3 e4 25 Qxb5 Bxc3
26 bxc3 Qxf4
[FEN "5rk1/p4p2/6pp/1Q1P4/4pq2/
2P4P/P1K2P2/7R w - - 0 27"]
27 Rf1?
27 Qe2 was a better try in this bad position, say both Dunne and
Gerzadowicz.
27...Rb8 28 Qe2 e3 29 c4 Qd4 0-1
The unwisdom of playing the same dubious variation twice in a
correspondence event was seen in the following.
Harry Kord Keith Vickers
USCF 1987 Absolute
Scandinavian Defence [B01]
1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qa5 4 d4 Bf5 5 Nf3 Nd7 6 Bc4 e6 7 Bd2 00-0 8 Qe2 Bg4
With the idea of continuing Qh5 and then capturing on f3 to double the
pawns, but this cannot be done against the correct reply.
9 Nb5 Qb6 10 a4 e5 11 a5 Qg6 12 a6 c6 13 axb7+ Kxb7?
13...Kb8 may be relatively better.
The Kibitzer
Page 13 sur 19
[FEN "3r1bnr/pk1n1ppp/2p3q1/1N2p3/
2BP2b1/5N2/1PPBQPPP/R3K2R w KQ - 0 14"]
14 Bxf7!
14 Rxa7+ Kc8 15 Bxf7 1-0 was O'Brien-Vickers in the same event, but
objectively Kord's move may be better.
14...Qf6
Dunne provides no analysis but an old note of mine (not checked with a
computer) says if 14...Qxf7 15 Nd6+ Bxd6 16 Qa6+ Kb8 17 Qxa7+ Kc8
18 Qa6+ Kc7 (or 18...Kb8 19 Qa8+ Kc7 20 Ra7+ Kb6 21 Qb7#) 19
Ba5+ Nb6 (or 19...Kb8 20 Bxd8 Nb6 21 Qxb6+ Qb7 22 Nxe5+-) 20
Qxb6+.
15 Nd6+ Kc7 16 Rxa7+ Kxd6 17 Bb4+ c5 18 Bxc5+ Nxc5 19 dxc5+ 1-0
There is neither space in this article nor time in my life to review the
Absolutes year by year (you should buy the book!), so to conclude here
are two games by tournament winners of more recent days which are not
in the collection. This is hardly a criticism of the editor; he was seriously
spoiled for choice.
I can understand Dunne not including the following very long game, but
the book contains an even longer one (114 moves!). The whole struggle
is of interest despite the flawed endgame.
Ted Brandhorst Michael W. Bates
USCF 1999 Absolute
Irregular QP Game [E00]
Notes by Ted Brandhorst, for Chess Mail 6/2003, with notes on the final
phase by Tim Harding.
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Bg5 c5
Gets out of book early.
4 d5 exd5 5 cxd5 Qb6 6 Bxf6 Qxf6
Superior to 6...gxf6.
7 Nc3 d6 8 e3 Be7 9 Bd3 0-0 10 Qc2 Qh6 11 Rc1 Na6
11...Nd7 12 Nge2=.
12 a3 Nc7 13 Nge2 f5 14 0-0 Bd7 15 Ng3
[FEN "r4rk1/ppnbb1pp/3p3q/2pP1p2/8/
P1NBP1N1/1PQ2PPP/2R2RK1 b - - 0 15"]
The Kibitzer
Page 14 sur 19
The defence of f5 creates weaknesses.

15...g6 16 b4 b5
16...f4 17 exf4 Qxf4 18 Rce1 was worth considering
17 bxc5 dxc5 18 d6 Bxd6 19 Nxb5 Nxb5 20 Bxb5 Bxb5 21 Qb3+ Kh8
22 Qxb5 Qg7 23 Rfd1 Rad8 24 Ne2 Qe5 25 g3 Be7 26 Nf4 Rxd1+ 27
Rxd1 g5 28 Nh5
White plays his knight to an aggressive but vulnerable (due to lack of a
retreat) position at the edge of the board.
28...Rb8 29 Qa6 Qe4 30 Qxa7 Rb1 31 Qd7 Rxd1+ 32 Qxd1 Kg8 33 Qa1
Kf7
[FEN "8/4bk1p/8/2p2ppN/4q3/P3P1P1/
5P1P/Q5K1 w - - 0 34"]
Black threatens to attack the vulnerable knight with his next move. At
this point, White examined the board thoroughly and every reasonable
move seemed to lead to a draw. In a last-ditch effort to scare up winning
chances, White examined the sacrifice of the N for the sake of advancing
his a-pawn. Lo and behold, everything seemed to fit together like
clockwork for White, right down to the end of the game. On top of that,
the sacrifice of the knight would be difficult for Black to reject because
it looks for all the world like White forgot his knight was vulnerable and
inadvertently left it at risk. Black becomes almost obligated to attack the
stranded piece.
34 a4 Kg6
Black takes the bait and White then forces the sacrifice to be accepted.
35 Qg7+ Kxh5
Immediately thereafter, White dominates the position even though a
bishop down. Black becomes tied to the defence of his mate-threatened
king. It seems unbelievable to me that White could win this ending on a
relatively open board with queen (+5 pawns) against queen+bishop (+2
pawns, one being very advanced). The calculation made at 34 a4
required calculating at least a dozen or more moves ahead. I cannot
recall another important game in my twenty-plus years of CC play where
I felt confident enough in a sacrificial calculation that I bet everything
on it being accurate.
36 h3 g4 37 Qxh7+ Kg5 38 Qg7+ Kh5 39 h4 f4 40 exf4 c4 41 a5 c3 42
Qf7+ Kh6 43 f5 Qc6 44 Qxe7 c2 45 Qg5+ Kh7 46 Qc1 Qe4 47 f6 Kg6
48 Qg5+ Kf7 49 Kh2 Qg6 50 Qc5 Kxf6 51 a6 Qf5 52 Qc3+ Kf7 53 Kg1
Qe4 54 a7 Qa4 55 Kh2 Qxa7 56 Qxc2 Qd4 57 f3 gxf3 58 Qb3+ Kg6 59
Qxf3
The Kibitzer
Page 15 sur 19
[FEN "8/8/6k1/8/3q3P/5QP1/7K/8 b - - 0 59"]

Here Brandhorst believed he was winning. He wrote, 'One winning
technique is described in Fine's Basic Chess Endings (pages 536-7).
White tries to achieve Fine's diagram #562 but can't quite do it. It isn't
until move eighty-three that White finds an alternative winning method.'
Nowadays we have online endgame tablebases for six-man endings and
it seems from the one at www.k4it.de/ that actually this particular
position should be drawn! All the more credit to Ted Brandhorst,
perhaps, for manoeuvring without computer assistance until his
opponent went wrong, and ultimately allowed him to achieve a winning
position.
59...Qc5 60 g4 Kg7 61 Kh3 Qe5 62 h5 Kg8 63 Qf2 Kg7 64 Qd2 Kh7 65
Qc2+ Kg7 66 Qh2 Qe1 67 Qc7+ Kh6 68 Qc6+ Kg7 69 Qg6+ Kh8 70
Qf6+ Kh7 71 Qd4 Kg8 72 Kg2 Qc1 73 Qe5
[FEN "6k1/8/8/4Q2P/6P1/8/6K1/2q5 b - - 0 73"]

In the next phase, both players (being inhuman and not having access to
today's technology) play imprecisely.
73...Qh6?
The tablebase shows only three moves hold the game: 73...Qd1,
73...Qd2+ and 73...Kh7.
74 Kg3?
74 Kf3 is the only winning move says the tablebase. Then 74...Qf8+ is
relatively best. If 74...Qd2 the winning method starts 75 Ke4! Qc2+ 76
Kf4 Qd2+ 77 Kf5.
74...Qb6?
74...Qd2 would draw, if followed up correctly.
75 Kf4!
This is one of five moves that should win.
75...Qf2+ 76 Kg5 Qd2+ 77 Kf6 Qf2+ 78 Kg6 Qc2+ 79 Kh6 Qc6+ 80
Kg5 Qc1+ 81 Qf4 Qc5+
The Kibitzer
Page 16 sur 19
[FEN "6k1/8/8/2q3KP/5QP1/8/8/8 w - - 0 82"]

82 Kh4!
82 Qf5 would be a slower win; others draw.
82...Qc6 83 h6
The only correct move. 'After this move,' Brandhorst wrote, ' the win is
fairly easy.'
83...Qh1+ 84 Kg5! Qd5+ 85 Qf5 Qb7 86 Kg6 Qc6+ 87 Qf6 Qc2+ 88
Kh5 Qh2+ 89 Qh4 Qc7 90 Qg5+ Kh7 91 Qg7+ Qxg7 92 hxg7 Kxg7 93
Kg5 1-0
O'Hare's 2008 victory is represented in this book by his wins against
Greene and Rodriguez, although in his online Chess Life article for July
2010 Dunne chose O'Hare's games against Rhodes and Schakel. Perhaps
he did not want to repeat too many of the games from his column in this
book. Another O'Hare game that is not in the book is the following, from
an earlier tournament, the 2003 Absolute, in which he finished fourth. I
hope he won't mind if I repeat here the notes he supplied at the time for
the Irish Correspondence Chess Association Newsletter because that had
a very small readership.
Richard Title Ciaran O'Hare
USCF 2003 Absolute ch
Notes by Ciaran O'Hare
Sometimes draws are the most interesting. Over-the-board Black's
kingside play offers practical chances for the pawn. But in postal play it
is a different story! Here Black plays aggressively and just about finds
enough counterplay to save the draw.
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 e5 6 Ndb5 d6 7 Bg5 a6
8 Na3 b5 9 Bxf6 gxf6 10 Nd5 f5 11 Bd3 Be6 12 0-0 Bxd5 13 exd5 Ne7
14 c3 Bg7 15 Nc2 0-0 16 a4 e4 17 Be2 bxa4 18 Rxa4 a5
[FEN "r2q1rk1/4npbp/3p4/p2P1p2/R3p3/
2P5/1PN1BPPP/3Q1RK1 w - - 0 19"]
This pawn must eventually fall.
19 Nd4 Kh8 20 Qd2 Qb6 21 Rfa1 Be5 22 Nb5 Rg8 23 Bf1!
Preparing to protect the king (g3, Bg2). Not 23 b4?! f4! 24 Bc4 (24
Rxa5 Rxa5 25 Rxa5 f3 26 Bf1 Nf5 27 g3 Nxg3!+) 24...f3 25 g3
Bxg3!+.
23...Ng6 24 Kh1
The Kibitzer
Page 17 sur 19
24 Qe3!?.
24...Rg7
[FEN "r6k/5prp/1q1p2n1/pN1Pbp2/R3p3/
2P5/1P1Q1PPP/R4B1K w - - 0 25"]
24...Qd8 25 Nd4 Qf6!? 26 Rxa5 Rxa5 27 Rxa5 Bxd4 28 Qxd4 Qxd4 29
cxd4 Rb8 30 Rb5 Rc8 31 Kg1+-.
25 g3
It may seem that White is unwise to give Black this target but things
aren't that easy; e.g., 25 b4?! Nh4 26 bxa5 Qd8 27 f4 exf3 28 g3 f4! 29
gxh4 Qxh4 30 Nd4 Rag8.
25...Qd8 26 Nd4
26 b4 f4 27 Rxa5 Rxa5 28 Rxa5 e3 29 fxe3 fxg3 30 h3 Nh4 31 Bg2 Rg6
is unclear. Instead 29 Qe2 exf2 30 gxf4 Nxf4 31 Qxf2 Nxd5 gives a
slight advantage.
26...Qf6 27 Bh3
Forcing the swap of pieces. 27 Nc6 h5!? 28 Rxa5 Rxa5 29 Rxa5 f4 30
Ra4 h4!? 31 g4 Qg5 32 Rxe4 f5 33 Re1 fxg4 unclear.
27...Bxd4 28 Qxd4 Qg5 29 Bg2
Not 29 Rxa5?? Rxa5 30 Rxa5 Qc1+. If 29 b4 Ne5 30 Rxa5 Rc8 31 Ra8
Rgg8 32 Rxc8 Rxc8 33 Bf1 Kg8 34 c4 Qh5 35 Bg2
29...Ne5 30 b4 h5!
Finally get time to play this!
31 Rxa5 Rc8 32 Ra6
32 Ra8 Rxa8 33 Rxa8+ Kh7 34 Bh3!? h4 35 Qe3.
32...h4! 33 Rxd6 hxg3!!
[FEN "2r4k/5pr1/3R4/3Pnpq1/1P1Qp3/
2P3p1/5PBP/R6K w - - 0 34"]
Offering the knight which I don't think White can take.
34 fxg3
34 Qxe5 gxf2 35 Qg3 Qxg3 (Maybe 35...e3 36 Bf3 Kh7 37 Be2 Qxg3
38 hxg3 Rxg3 39 Kh2 Rg5 40 Raa6 Kg7+) 36 Rh6+ Kg8 37 hxg3 e3
The Kibitzer
Page 18 sur 19
unclear; e.g., 38 Ra2 f4! 39 Kh2 (39 gxf4? Re8 40 Re2 Ra8+)
39...fxg3+ 40 Kh3 f5 41 Rh4 Rxc3 is a bit better for Black.
34...f4 35 Qxe4 fxg3 36 h4 Qh5 37 Kg1 Rg4 38 Qe2 Qf5
Black must keep queens on. If 38...Rxh4 39 Qxh5+ Rxh5 40 Rc6! Nxc6
41 dxc6 Rb5 42 Ra7 Kg7 43 Bf1 Rd5 44 b5 Rc5 45 c4 Kf6 46 Kg2+-.
39 Rf1 Rf4
[FEN "2r4k/5p2/3R4/3Pnq2/1P3r1P/
2P3p1/4Q1B1/5RK1 w - - 0 40"]
40 Rc6!?
A last effort. 40 Rxf4 Qxf4 41 Qh5+ Kg7 42 Qg5+ Qxg5 43 hxg5 Rxc3
44 Rf6 Rb3 45 d6 Rxb4=.
40...Nxc6 41 dxc6 Kg8 42 c4 Rc7 43 Rf3 Kf8 -
Draw offered by Black and accepted an interesting struggle!
One omission I thought strange. The book lacks a roll-call of all the
champions. Since it is not found there, I have compiled the list:
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
1976 Robert Jacobs

1977 Steve Tennant
1978 Frank Camaratta
1979 Christopher Van Dyck
1980 David Eisen
1981 David Eisen & Kiven Plesset
1982 Manfred Zitzman & Robert Hux
1983 Robert Hux
1984 Errol Liebowitz
1985 James O'Brien
1986 Errol Liebowitz
1987 James O'Brien
1988 James O'Brien
1989 James Bovay
1990 Frank Kargol
1991 Ron Lifson
1992 Vernon Vix & Louis Owen
1993 Daniel Fleetwood
1994 Stephen Barbre
1995 David Burris
1996 Kiven Plesset
1997 Stephen Barbre & Paul L. Thompson
1998 William Maillard & Edward Duliba
1999 David Novak
2000 Richard Title & Jan Koziol
2001 David Novak
2002 Wesley 'Ted' Brandhorst
2003 Leonard L. 'Corky' Schakel
2004 Leonard L. 'Corky' Schakel
2005 Keith Rodriguez and William Boucher
2006 Laurence Anderson & Walter Brower
2007 Edward Duliba
2008 Ciaran O'Hare
2009 David Sogin & Gary Walters
2010 Harry Ingersol
The book does have a table of competitors in the Absolute over the
years, arranged from the highest percentage scorers down to the three
The Kibitzer
Page 19 sur 19
players who scored 0/12. I was struck, when scrutinising this table, that
many of these American masters are little-known outside their own
country, even in the correspondence chess world. By far the highest
scorer was James O'Brien, who won the 1985, 1978, and 1988 Absolute
(he did not play the 1986 event) and was runner-up in 1989, after which
he retired because of neurological problems. Despite two losses in that
event, he beat the winner and finished with an 83.3 percent score from
forty-eight games. The two next highest players in the table had 75
percent, from two and one events respectively.
Like O'Brien, the 1991 champion, Ron Lifson, so far as I can see, has
never had an ICCF rating. These two perhaps never played
internationally concentrating their efforts on domestic play in the
USA. The statistics show Lifson played 156 games in the Absolutes,
scoring 58 percent overall.
In fact I have only played two of the Absolute champions in thirty-five
years of international competition: Liebowitz (in a team tournament) and
Brandhorst (in an inter-country friendly match). Some others I have met
to talk to, or corresponded with, but never played against. Apart from the
champions, I played in ICCF competition against only two others who
finished downtable: Zavanelli and Sweeney.
It is difficult to judge whether the USA would have been able to do
better in top international events like the Olympiads had they been able
to persuade more of the Absolute champions to turn out for their
country. Perhaps the readers can make their own judgment on the quality
of play by buying the book and playing through the games, pausing at
critical moments to think what they would have played.

by Tim Harding
The ebook also offers bonus content of more 1,100 games from
Absolute Correspondence events! All for only .99 cents!!
Comment on this month's column via our official Chess Blog!

The Kibitzer
Page 1 sur 20
Search ChessCafe
Purchases from our

accessible:
Going Dutch
Or How Winning the Queen is Not Enough
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Translate this page

Select Language
Powered by
Translate
Unusually, this column is devoted to just one game the longest I have
ever played in terms of moves. A Staunton Gambit against the Dutch
Defence, it went through several fascinating phases, concluding with an
unusual queen against rook and bishop endgame. After the opening
phase, my annotations below are chiefly a digest of notes I made during
the progress of the game, which have not been checked since with a
powerful computer. I believe that readers will find the whole game
interesting and instructive.
I am not prepared to get into detailed discussions about the game, but
would be interested to hear expert opinion on where Black went wrong
and what chances may have been missed on both sides. Did I miss a
quicker win? Could Black have saved the ending even at a late stage?
Possibly, but only deep investigation will yield reliable answers;
superficial computer analysis will not. Believe me, I spent hundreds of
hours on this game and the computer's suggestions were often wrong.
Absolute Correspondence
Championship
by Alex Dunne
Tim Harding G. Robert Arnold

ICCF Veterans World Cup semifinal, 2011-2012
Staunton Gambit [A83]
1 d4
This tournament for over-sixties began on 1 June 1011 on the ICF
webserver. Everyone in the semifinal had already achieved a high
position in a preliminary group completed the previous year. My
opponent told me he was a Florida real estate lawyer and seventy-one
years old when this game began. Arnold was briefly a subscriber to my
magazine Chess Mail about ten years ago. He wrote at the start of the
game that he was familiar with my website and that he reads Kibitzer
regularly.
When I received the pairing list, and did some research on the opponents
before play began, I found that Arnold appeared to be a lifelong
Alekhine's Defence and Classical Dutch player. I found a few games
where he had played a particular line against the Staunton Gambit where
I saw possibilities for improvement, so I decided to go for that. "It
should be fun at least," I noted. I made my first move before clocks
started.
in America
by Bryce Avery
Leningrad System
by Stefan Kindermann
1...f5
So did he! I did not hurry with move two until the start-date because I
did not want to assist him time-wise and needed to analyse ahead. I
assembled all the reference works in my library that discuss this line and
of course I was also preparing my other games.
2 e4 fxe4 3 Nc3 Nf6
He took a long time on his third move but perhaps for non-chess reasons
as there is no popular alternative. Admittedly, Steinitz did sometimes
play 3...e6 4 Nxe4 Nf6 early in his career. 3...g6 is also a possibility,
intending to meet 4 Nxe4 by 4...d5, but White can consider 4 h4!? d5 5
h5.
4 Bg5!
The Kibitzer
Page 2 sur 20
[FEN "rnbqkb1r/ppppp1pp/5n2/6B1/3Pp3/
2N5/PPP2PPP/R2QKBNR b KQkq - 0 4"]
"The only move respected by very strong players," according to GM

Neil McDonald on page 23 of his book Play the Dutch, which is a
repertoire book for Black and considers 4 Bg5 in more detail than most
recent books on the Dutch.
4 f3 exf3 5 Nxf3 makes a real gambit of it, but I am sceptical and have
never played this. Tartakower's 4 g4 is too sharp for serious
correspondence play.
4...Nc6
As expected, Black repeated the move he played previously, but he took
a couple of days on the move. The gambit pawn cannot be held if White
is determined to win it back. 4...d5? is just a blunder, because of 5 Bxf6
exf6 6 Qh5+ g6 7 Qxd5 when Black's position is already in ruins. 4...e6
is also known, but the self-pin is hardly ambitious, White replying 5
Nxe4 with an edge. Also 4...g6 would invite 5 h4!; and another inferior
move, 4...b6?!, is discussed in Valeri Beim's book Understanding the
Leningrad Dutch, on page 31.
The main alternative, namely 4...c6, is certainly a reasonable option,
although Beim does not like it, saying "Black neglects his development
and does not attack the centre."
Here beginneth a short digression. Apart from opening a diagonal for the
black queen, the threat to consolidate the e4-pawn by ...d5 forces White
to take an immediate decision about whether to play f2-f3 after all, or
else regain the pawn at the cost of giving up the bishop-pair. That is
what Staunton chose to do in the stem-game of his gambit.
a) 5 Bxf6?! exf6 6 Nxe4 and now
a1) 6...d5 7 Ng3 Bd6 (7...Qb6 8 Qe2+ Kf7 9 0-0-0 Na6 10 Qf3 was
promising for White although he eventually lost in Neumann-Steinitz,
Baden-Baden 1870.) 8 Bd3 0-0 9 N1e2 f5 10 f4 c5 11 c3 cxd4 12 cxd4
Bb4+ 13 Kf2 Nc6 14 Rf1 Ba5 15 Kg1 Bb6 16 Bb5 Qf6 17 Bxc6 bxc6 18
Rf3 c5 19 dxc5 Bxc5+ 20 Kh1 Bb7 21 Rb3 Bb6 22 a4 a5 23 Nxf5 Qxf5
24 Rxb6 Ba6 25 Ng3 Qxf4 26 Qxd5+ Kh8 27 Qxa5 Rac8 28 Qe1 Rfe8
29 Qg1 Bd3 30 a5 Bc4 31 a6 Bd5 32 Rd1 Qe5 33 Nf1 Rc2 34 Rxd5
Qxd5 35 Ne3 Qd2 36 Nxc2 Qxc2 37 a7 Qc7 38 Re6 Ra8 39 Qe3 h6 40
Re8+ Rxe8 41 Qxe8+ Kh7 42 Qe4+ g6 43 Qe3 Qb7 44 h3 h5 45 b4 h4
46 b5 Qd5 47 Qe7+ Kh6 48 Qxh4+ Kg7 49 Qe7+ Kh6 50 Qe3+ g5 51
b6 Qd1+ 52 Kh2 Qd6+ 53 Qg3 Qxb6 54 a8Q Qf6 55 Qab8 Kg6 56
Qgd6 1-0, Staunton-Horwitz, 11th match game, London 1846 (from The
Chess Players Chronicle 1846, p. 120.)
a2) 6...Qb6! (not mentioned by Beim) was Steinitz's improvement,
played against W. N. Potter in an 1872 game in London, which is
annotated in my book Eminent Victorian Chess Players.
b) 5 f3 is more ambitious and leads to unclear complications:
b1) 5...exf3 6 Nxf3 when Black has tried various moves:
b11) 6...e6 7 Bd3 gives White has a space advantage, but nothing clear
in return for the pawn. 7...d6 (Beim's book follows 7...Be7?! 8 Ne5!
Lasker-Pillsbury, Paris 1900; 7...d5!? 8 Ne5 Nbd7 is a possibility.) 8 0-0
Be7 9 Qe2 Na6 10 a3 Nc7 11 Rae1 b6 (11...0-0 is obviously better.) 12
Nh4. Now if 12...0-0 White has 13 Nf5, but 12...Kd7 as actually played
in Marshall-Spielmann, Dusseldorf 1908, was ridiculous and led to
catastrophic loss.
The Kibitzer
Page 3 sur 20
b12) 6...g6 is relatively untested. One example from correspondence

play is 7 Bd3 Bg7 8 Qd2 (Also possible is 8 0-0 with the idea Qe1-h4,
Rae1) 8...d6 9 0-0 0-0 10 Rae1 Qc7 (10...Na6!?) 11 Nh4 Na6 12 Bxg6
hxg6 13 Nxg6 Rf7 (Botosani-Iasi, Romania corr 1925). Here White
missed the strong continuation 14 Nxe7+ Rxe7 15 Bxf6 Rxe1 16 Qxe1
Bg4 17 Qh4+- (Marius Ceteras).
b13) 6...d5 7 Bd3 g6 is mentioned in my old book The Leningrad Dutch
as improving on Pillsbury-Levin, Hannover 1902, but after 8 Qd2 Bg7 9
0-0-0 0-0 but Black can't be worse says Simon Williams on page 92 of
his book Play the Classical Dutch.
b14) 6...d6 7 Bd3 Bg4 8 0-0 Qa5 9 Qd2 Nbd7 10 b4 Qc7 11 Rae1 0-0-0
12 b5 c5 13 b6! Qxb6 14 Rb1 with a strong attack (Serebrisky-Makarov,
USSR 1950). This is from Jan Pinski's book Classical Dutch. He says
that 4...c6 "looks awkward," but the fact that this is the only sample line
given for it suggests to me that he has not given it much attention.
b2) 5...Qa5 also comes into consideration; e.g., 6 Qd2 (6 Bxf6 exf6 7
fxe4 Bb4 8 Qd2 or 8 Nge2 8...d5=) 6...exf3 (6...e3!?) 7 Nxf3 d6 8 Bd3
and White has compensation; this line occurred in two Soviet games
around 1949-50 but would be worth re-examination.
b3) Beim discusses 5...d5 6 fxe4 dxe4 7 Bc4 which he considers good
for White.
Now we return to the actual game with 4...Nc6.
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/ppppp1pp/2n2n2/6B1/3Pp3/
2N5/PPP2PPP/R2QKBNR w KQkq - 0 5"]
5 d5
This is the only consistent move. The first point of Black's knight
development is that he can meet 5 f3 by 5...e5!
Another idea is seen in the line 5 Bxf6? exf6 6 Nxe4?? Qe7! when
White loses the knight because of 7 Qe2 Nxd4. Pinski blunders here,
overlooking the queen pin and recommending "6...d5!" which can be
met by 7 Qh5+ with a murky position, in view of 7...g6 8 Qxd5! Qxd5?
9 Nxf6+.
5...Ne5
This knight is heading for the f7-square to bolster the kingside and
challenge my bishop.
6 Qd4
6 f3 allows Black to carry out his plan: 6...Nf7 (Safer than taking on f3
which accelerates White's development.) and now there may be nothing
better than 7 Bxf6 exf6 when 8 Nxe4 is necessary (not 8 fxe4 Bb4).
a) 7 Be3 e5! (Perhaps even better than 7...exf3 8 Nxf3 g6 as given in my
old book, following Van Seters-Rossolimo, Beverwijjk 1950.) 8 dxe6
dxe6 9 Qxd8+ Kxd8 10 0-0-0+ (10 fxe4 Ng4) 10...Bd7 11 Nxe4 Nxe4
12 fxe4 Bd6 13 Nf3 Ke7= McDonald.
6 Qe2!? is a relatively recent idea discussed in Neil McDonald's book:
6...Nf7 7 h4!? (Following about four pages where he examines 7 Bxf6)
7...c6! 8 0-0-0 cxd5 9 Nxd5 e6! and he thinks Black is now OK. Beim
also analyses 6 Qe2. I did not investigate this as I wanted to go down my
opponent's previous line.
The Kibitzer
Page 4 sur 20
6...Nf7! 7 h4!?
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/pppppnpp/5n2/3P2B1/
3Qp2P/2N5/PPP2PP1/R3KBNR b KQkq - 0 7"]
Beim says "this looks active but is unsuccessful." To me, it looks much
more challenging than Beim's main line 7 Bxf6 exf6=, with ...f5 to
follow soon, while if 7 Bh4 ("worth a try" he says) Black can choose
between 7...e5 and 7...g5 8 Bg3 Bg7.
7...c6
"The most interesting response but also rather double-edged" says
McDonald; the idea is ...Qb6.
7...e5! is favoured by some theorists, though not mentioned by Beim.
a) Accepting the endgame by 8 dxe6 dxe6 9 Qxd8+ Nxd8 is not very
ambitious for White; Steffen Pedersen in The Dutch for the Attacking
Player thinks Black is somewhat better here after 10 0-0-0 Bd7!
(stopping Nb5) 11 Nge2 and Ng3 will eventually regain the gambit
pawn and White is at least no worse. The Williams book (page 92) has
an example of what can go wrong for Black if he plays 10...Nf7?
instead.
b) MacDonald considers 8 Qa4!? which has not received much attention
as yet, though he thinks Black should be safe by returning the pawn with
8...h6 rather than entering into wild complications by 8...c6.
On the basis of all the material I have seen, and the present game, I
would say that Black should definitely choose 7...e5 in future.
8 0-0-0
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/pp1ppnpp/2p2n2/3P2B1/
3Qp2P/2N5/PPP2PP1/2KR1BNR b kq - 0 8"]
8...Qb6
After several days thought, Black followed two previous games of his
although I imagine he must have been getting suspicious that I knew
these precedents.
Presumably, Mr Arnold was analysing an old Russian line given in my
Leningrad book: 8...Nxd5 9 Nxd5 cxd5 10 Qxd5 e6 11 Qxe4 (I also
gave Kuzminikh's line 11 Bxd8?! exd5 12 Ba5 b6 13 Be1 Bb7 14 Ne2
Bc5 15 Nc3 but in the computer era this may not be trustworthy, as
Black does not attempt to hold the pawn but completes his development
by 15...0-0 16 Nxd5 Ne5.) 11...Nxg5 12 hxg5 Qxg5+ 13 f4 is safer; then
if 13...Qf6 which Kotov, and my book, called equal, White probably just
is somewhat better with 14 Nf3
The Kibitzer
Page 5 sur 20
9 Bxf6
Pinski's treatment of the Staunton Gambit is again shown to be
inadequate. He seems unaware that this is the main line, and the only
move he considers is 9 Qd2?.
9...gxf6 10 Qxe4 Qxf2
In this way Black retains extra pawn. The downside is all the time being
lost with the queen while White gets his pieces into good positions.
11 Nf3 Bh6+
While Black was pondering, my computer and I examined several
alternatives but none of that analysis has been preserved unfortunately.
I think 11...Bg7 and 11...e6 were the chief alternatives.
12 Kb1 Qe3
An alternative is 12...e6. Arnold continued to follow a known path,
including his former game, shown below. Pedersen says "the ideal
square for White's queen has yet not been established." I think it has: it
should go to a4.
[FEN "r1b1k2r/pp1ppn1p/2p2p1b/3P4/
4Q2P/2N1qN2/PPP3P1/1K1R1B1R w kq - 0 13"]
13 Qa4!
Here I diverged with the move recommended in my old book, and also
by Deep Rybka 3, which reckoned White has plus over minus here. The
same game (Yudintsev-Martinov) is quoted by McDonald. Can Black
improve after 7...c6 before 15 Bd3 asks the author?
Arnold's previous game had gone 13 Qg4 (Pedersen also has an example
of 13 Qb4!?) 13...d6 (Pedersen's move order 13...Qf4 14 Qh5 d6 is just a
transposition.) 14 Qh5 Qf4 15 dxc6 bxc6 16 Qa5 (Beim says only that
16 Be2 Qf5 gives Black a large advantage.) 16...Bd7 (Pedersen cites a
game with the counter-attacking 16...Rb8; viz., W. Schmidt-Yilmaz,
Thessaloniki ol 1988.) 17 Bd3 e5 (Pedersen's main line is 17...Rb8 as in
Parker-Marusenko, Lonon Lloyds Bank 1984.) 18 Rdf1 Qe3 19 Ne4
Bg7 20 Qa3 Qb6 21 Nxd6+ Nxd6 22 Qxd6 Rb8 23 b3 c5 24 Qd5 Be6 25
Qe4 f5 26 Qe2 e4 27 Ng5 h6 28 Bxe4 fxe4 29 Qh5+ Kd8 30 Rd1+ Ke7
31 Nxe6 Qxe6 32 Qxc5+ Ke8 33 Rd6 Qe5 34 Qxe5+ Bxe5 35 Re6+ Kf7
36 Rxe5 Rhe8 37 Rf1+ Kg7 38 Rxe8 Rxe8 39 Kc1 e3 40 c4 Rd8 41 Re1
Rd2 42 Rxe3 Rxa2 43 g3 Kf6 44 c5 Ra6 45 b4 Ra4 46 Re4 a5 47 c6 1-0,
D.Zaas-Arnold, Golden Knights corr USA 1995. In another game from
1996 Arnold's opponent withdrew after 9...gxf6 because of illness. What
this did tell me was that he was likely to repeat his previous defensive
line at least to that point, so I was not too worried that he would play
7...e5 or, earlier, 4...c6.
I suppose Arnold intended to improve on that with ...Rb8 at either move
sixteen or seventeen as Pedersen indicated. However, I never intended to
play 13 Qg4, as I thought it was the wrong square for the queen at this
point. I would rather let him castle and then attack the king. I give full
marks to McDonald as the only commentator who has spotted White's
correct line of play in this variation, except for the detail shown in my
fourteenth and fifteenth moves.
13...Qf4
The Kibitzer
Page 6 sur 20
Again I have lost most of my contemporary analysis of the alternatives,

but did retain two short notes. Mr Arnold sportingly sent a message to
warn me he had looked at my old Leningrad book, page 161.
14 Nd4!
Here Yudintsev played 14 Qb3 when
a) 14...Nd6 may be Black's best reply. My move order avoids that.
b) 140-0 (Cirabisi-Dzhumaev, Genova 2006) when Neil McDonald
recommends 15 Bd3! (with the idea 16 Rde1 [xe7] and then maybe 17
Re4) 15...a5 16 Nd4! with the threat Nf5 xe7 (not 16 Rde1 b5! 17 Rxe7
a4 18 Qa3 b4) and if then 16...Kh8 (16...Qxd4? 17 Bxh7+) 17 Nf5! b5
18 Ne2! probably winning.
c) 14...a5 is more usually played; "with a sharp game and balanced
chances" my old book said. Pedersen only cites a game where White lost
quickly with 15 a4?, but 15 Nd4 0-0 16 Bd3 was the actual move order
in Yudintsev-Martinov, 7th USSR Corr Ch semifinal 1964-5, which
transposes to McDonald's line in the previous note. Unfortunately, after
16...Kh8, Yudintsev didn't find McDonald's 17 Nf5!; instead he played
17 Qb6 and the game was drawn in fifty-one moves.
14...a5 15 Be2!?
The queen does not need to retreat to b3; instead, I proceed to embarrass
the black queen. 15 g3!? also comes into consideration with the same
purpose.
My opponent was probably expecting 15 Qb3 when Black can choose
between three moves: 15...0-0 16 Bd3 returning to Yudintsev-Martinov,
or 15...Rg8!? or 15...Qe5.
The first phase (theory and known practice) has come to an end and
there follows a brief but very complicated second phase of original
analysis, during which it becomes clear that White has won the first
skirmish.
[FEN "r1b1k2r/1p1ppn1p/2p2p1b/p2P4/
Q2N1q1P/2N5/PPP1B1P1/1K1R3R b kq - 0 15"]
15...0-0
My notes say "Others lose; he has 20 days left for 5 moves." I did not
preserve analysis of alternatives during this phase of the game.
16 Rhf1
I also examined 16 g3 and maybe others.
16...Qe5 17 Rfe1 Be3
It is becoming clear that Black must give up his queen for assorted
material. If 17...Kh8, then 18 Bd3 may be best; if 17...b5 18 Qb3.
18 Bf3 Nd6 19 Rd3
The idea is not to expose b2 by opening the b-file for him.
19...Bxd4
He sent the message: "I am walking into dangerous territory with plenty
The Kibitzer
Page 7 sur 20
of land mines."
20 Rxe5 Bxe5
[FEN "r1b2rk1/1p1pp2p/2pn1p2/p2Pb3/
Q6P/2NR1B2/PPP3P1/1K6 w - - 0 21"]
This ends the second phase of the game. I now have queen for rook,
bishop, and pawn. I had to analyse deeply again before replying; I
warned him I was finishing a book and would be slow.
21 Qg4+ Kh8 22 Qh5
This may be best, but I greatly underestimated the difficulties that still
lie ahead. In this third phase, White wanted to cash in his slight material
advantage by direct attack. One idea behind 22 Qh5 was manoeuvring
my bishop to e4 or f5 to threaten mate at h7. I found that plan does not
work against tough defence and therefore it seemed necessary to find a
way to maintain the advantage into a more simplified situation. This
struggle (up to move thirty-six) involved plenty of calculation and
judgment of possibilities, and took several months if I recall correctly.
22 Re3 Rf7 23 Na4 (23 Qh5 Rg7 24 Ne4 was also examined.) 23...Rg7
24 Qh5 was one try that did not seem clear enough. 22 Ne4 was another
try.
22...f5
Black has to take defensive action on the kingside. This shuts my knight
out of e4 so it tries a different route.
22...a4 23 Ne4 Ne8 (23...Nc4 24 d6 e6 25 Qh6 Kg8 26 g4 Rf7 27 g5 was
promising.) 24 d6 exd6 25 Bg4 Ng7 26 Qh6 Kg8 27 Nxd6 is the kind of
attacking development he must avoid.
23 Na4
This was chosen after rejecting 23 g4 Bg7 (23...fxg4?? 24 Qxe5+) when
neither 24 g5 nor 25 gxf5 promised a clear enough continuation.
23...Ra6
I had also analysed 23...b5 and 23...Bg7, but understandably Black
wants to develop the rook. This is probably his only hope of
counterplay.
24 c3
Gives my king "luft" and blocks his bishop's attack on b2. He spent
more than twenty days on his reply, ending up in zeitnot. This was
surprising as he has used no leave and could have taken most of
December off.
24...cxd5 25 Rxd5 Bg7 26 Be2 Rc6
His last two moves were played quickly. He had six days to reach move
thirty. I had analysed 26...b5 27 Bxb5 Bb7 28 Bxa6 Bxd5 29 Nc5 Bc6
(29...Ne4 30 Nxd7) 30 Bd3.
27 Bb5 Nxb5
27...Rc7 is passive and met by 28 Nb6.
The Kibitzer
Page 8 sur 20
28 Rxb5 b6
This was unexpected. I thought 28...Rh6 was tougher.
29 Rxf5
I saw no obvious reason to reject this move which levels the pawns,
leaving me with Q+N v R+B+B (with extra pair of rooks)
29...Rg8 30 Rb5 Rd6 31 Rxb6
In other lines (31 a3, 31 Nxb6) White soon gives up rook for queen and
and b-pawn, but hopes to win with connected passed pawns on the
queenside.
31...Rd2
The only move to get counterplay? If 31...Rd3 32 Rb8 d5 33 Nb6.
32 Rb8 Rf8
Probably critical.
33 a3 d6 34 Nb6
He had twenty-nine days to reach move forty; his next two moves
looked obvious, but after that he had some difficult decisions to make.
34 Qxa5 at once was also considered.
34...Bf5+
I expected him to play this quickly, so was a bit surprised that he took
nine days on it!
35 Qxf5 Rxb8 36 Qxa5
[FEN "1r5k/4p1bp/1N1p4/Q7/7P/
P1P5/1P1r2P1/1K6 b - - 0 36"]
I preferred this to 36 g4; the passed a-pawn would be the ace of trumps,
I hoped.
36...d5
After ten days thought; 36...Rxg2 37 Qa7 Rf8 38 Qxe7 Rf1+ 39 Ka2
Bxc3 40 Qd8+ Rg8 41 Qxd6 Bf6 42 a4 looked promising to me and
probably unpleasant to him.
37 a4
To get the key pawn moving, and make an escape route for the king.
37...d4
Played quickly as he had just ten days to reach move forty. It was logical
to break up my pawns and expose the White king. On d5 the pawn
would become weak or soon be lost: 37...e5?! 38 Kc1 Rf2 39 Qxd5.
38 cxd4
The Kibitzer
Page 9 sur 20
[FEN "1r5k/4p1bp/1N6/Q7/P2P3P/
8/1P1r2P1/1K6 b - - 0 38"]
Black is confronted with another choice. He makes no obvious errors in

this monster game, but possibly his next is the losing move. If not, the
losing move may be deep into the ending.
38...Rxd4
I expected 38...Rd1+ 39 Ka2 when Black has another choice:
a) 39...Rxd4 40 Qa7 Rf8 41 Qxe7 Rd2 42 Nc4 Rxg2 43 a5 and White
should win with connected passed pawns; e.g., 43...Rb8 44 Qc7 and
compared with the game I have the rampant a-pawn after the forced
capture on b2.)
b) 39...Bxd4! seems the toughest defence and I had not found a win
against it. before my opponent took with the rook and saved me the
trouble of trying further. 40 Nc4 and now
b1) 40...Bf6 41 Qc7 Rg8 42 a5 Rdd8 43 Qc6 Rc8 44 Qe4 Rgd8 45 Ne5
Rf8 46 b4 Rc7 47 b5 Rb8 48 Nf7+ Kg8 49 Ng5 Bxg5 50 Qd5+ e6 51
Qxe6+ Rf7 52 hxg5 would be an easy White win.)
b2) Better 40...Rc1 41 Qd5 Bf6 42 g4 Rc8 43 g5 R1xc4 (43...Bg7? 44
Ne5) 44 gxf6 Rxa4+! (44...exf6 45 a5) 45 Kb3 Raa8 46 fxe7 looks
harder to win as I do not have connected passed pawns. If my e-pawn
falls he probably draws. I did analysis up to about move sixty-five in this
variation. If 38...Rxg2 39 Qa7 Rg8 40 Qxe7 Bxd4 41 Nc4, and White is
ready to push the a-pawn.
39 Qc5
Rybka wanted to play Ka2, but it proved unsatisfactory on closer
examination; Black can reply 39...Bf6. I want to get my queen more
active.
39...Re4
If 39...Rd2 40 Nc4, I was thinking along the following lines: 40...Rxg2
(40...Bxb2 41 Nxd2 Bd4+ 42 Qb5 Rxb5+ 43 axb5 and N+3P versus
B+2P should, with care, win thanks to the outside passed pawn?) 41 Qc7
Rf8 42 a5 Rg6 (42...Bf6 43 a6 Rgg8 44 a7 Rc8 45 Qf4 Ra8 46 Qe3
Bxh4 47 b4) 43 h5 Ra6 44 Qxe7 Raf6 45 Ka2 Rf4 46 Qc7 and my apawn's advance is supported by the knight here.
40 Qc7
40 Nc4 was an alternative that received a lot of attention here.
40...Rf8 41 Nc4
The Kibitzer
Page 10 sur 20
[FEN "5r1k/2Q1p1bp/8/8/P1N1r2P/
8/1P4P1/1K6 b - - 0 41"]
41...Rff4 42 Qc8+ Rf8 43 Qc6 Rff4 44 Qe8+ Rf8 45 Qb5

This concludes my first manoeuvre; viz., Qc7-b5 played as two free
moves while his pieces are in the same position as in the diagram after
my forty-first move!
45...h6
The main point is that 45...Rff4 is now met by 46 g3 because ...Rxc4
would not attack the queen. 45...Rxh4 is met by 46 a5 because his pieces
are not working well together to stop the passed pawn.
If 45...Rc8, I had worked out: 46 Nb6 Rb8 47 a5 Re5 48 Qa6 Re4 49
Nc4 Rxh4 50 Qc6 (Start of my next manoeuvre to advance the a-pawn.)
50...Rh1+ 51 Kc2 Rf1 52 a6 Rf2+ (52...Rff8 53 b4 Rxb4 54 a7) 53 Kb1
and variations seemed to turn out well.
46 a5
Heading for the queen versus rook and bishop endgame. The a-pawn
will claim the life of one of his rooks in exchange for my knight. Of
course it is also vital that I pick up the e-pawn in exchange for the bpawn.
46...Rff4 47 g3 Rg4 48 a6 Rxc4 49 a7 Ra4
49...Rc8 50 Qb7 Rg8 51 a8Q Black loses a tempo on the main line.
50 Qc6
50 Qb8+ Kh7 51 a8Q Rxa8 52 Qxa8 Rb4 comes to the same.
50...Rgb4 51 a8Q+ Rxa8 52 Qxa8+ Kh7 53 Qd5 Rxb2+ 54 Kc1 Rf2
Probably best; 55...Rb4 was the alternative.
55 Qe4+ Kg8 56 Qxe7
[FEN "6k1/4Q1b1/7p/8/7P/6P1/5r2/2K5 b - - 0 56"]
The fascinating late middlegame, complex endgame has finally arisen.

We are only about halfway through the game.
56...Bf8!
This was a surprise as 56...Bb2+ was expected. I thought I had found a
win against that in most lines. His move suggests a plan to defend with
the rook on the sixth rank, which looks like a sound idea. This looks
The Kibitzer
Page 11 sur 20
tougher to break down. Black will aim to keep his pieces close to his
king.
57 Qe6+
All the time White is looking ahead to the consequences of g4-g5.
Unless White has his king and queen in ideal positions, or Black
deteriorates his piece positions, then he can just exchange pawns. That
reduces the position to a computer-solved six-man endgame which can
be looked up on the Internet.
A typical drawing line is 57 Qd8 Kf7 58 Qd5+ Kg7 59 g4 Rf6 60 Qd7+
Kg8 61 Kc2 Rg6 62 Qe8 Rd6 63 g5 Kg7 64 Qe5+ Kf7 65 Qf5+ Kg7 66
Qe4 hxg5 67 hxg5 with a theoretical draw, which is not worth playing
on in correspondence chess, because the opponent can find every move
on tablebase websites.
57...Kg7 58 Kd1!
The first consideration is that my king must come into the game. I
should not rush my pawn advances until his position is improved. The
second is that I do have to make another pawn move or capture by move
105! The option to make the move g3-g4 must be kept in reserve, as I do
not want to start the next fifty-move count prematurely. Also there could
be lines where I want to put my queen on g4, or even try to play my king
to h5 via g4.
Deep Rybka 3 suggested 58 g4 Rf6 59 Qd7+ Kg8 60 Kc2 Rd6 61 Qb7
Bg7 62 Qb8+ Bf8 63 Qb3+ Kg7 64 Qb7+, but of course White is getting
nowhere here.
58...Rf6
My opponent made a same-day response here and on his next two
moves.
59 Qd7+ Kg8 60 Qe8 Kg7 61 Ke2
My computer wanted to move the pawn. Over and over again, human
judgment is superior to computer analysis in this endgame.
61...Bd6
Threatening ...Bxg3 and hoping to force the pawn advance.
In correspondence chess, it was not likely he would fall for 61...Rf7 62
Kd3 (In fact 62 Qe5+ is probably better.) 62...Rf3+ 63 Ke4 Rxg3?? 64
Qe5+.
62 Qd7+
It was now 22 May 2012 and the game had been in progress almost a
year. In my dreams, a target position for White is to get king to e8 (if
only!) with pawns on g4 and h4. His pieces would stand on Bf8, Kg7,
Rf6. My queen would be on the long diagonal, pinning. Then White can
liquidate by 1 Qxf6+ Kxf6 2 Kxf8 giving a tablebase win with K+2P v
K+P.
Therefore my medium-term strategy is to get king up to e8 somehow;
passing the sixth rank barrier will be the difficulty. He can always stop
that, I think, but maybe the need to avoid that situation can lead to
concessions elsewhere. I do not think either player knew for sure
whether this position should be won or not and I still don't!
62...Kf8
Black now has his pieces on their optimal squares. The rook prevents my
heading for h5 and also makes it hard to get my king to the sixth rank
and beyond. Also his bishop eyes my g-pawn.
63 Qg4
I may soon have to play g3-g4 and then he will try to force me to
advance g4-g5. My idea, however, is to guard the g3-pawn by Qg4 and
then try to bring up the king. Ideally I want him on e8, coming to close
The Kibitzer
Page 12 sur 20
quarters with his opposite number, but it is hard to see how the sixth
rank barrier can be crossed.
63...Be7
63...Kf7 soon comes to the same thing.
64 Kd3 Kf7
[FEN "8/4bk2/5r1p/8/6QP/3K2P1/8/8 w - - 0 65"]
65 Ke4
65 Qe4 may threaten Qh7+, but he can defend by 65...Rd6+ 66 Kc4 Rg6
67 Qf5+ Kg7 68 Qe5+ Kf7 when
a) 69 Kd5 might be worth a try if the K+2 v K+1 positions were won,
but White still cannot get the king across the sixth rank because h4-h5
loses to ...Rg5.
b) 69 Qe4 when 69...Kf6 may give White an opportunity to advance the
king? (69...Rxg3?? loses the rook to 70 Qf4+, but 69...Bd6 or 66...Bf6
could be a solid defence.) 70 Kd5 threatening Kc6 etc. heading for e8.
However, I was not convinced this would work so I stuck to my original
plan.
65...Kf8
65...Re6+ also comes into consideration; e.g., 66 Kf5 (Threatening
Qh5+) 66...Rf6+ 67 Ke5 probably with similar play to the game; Black
is beginning to be stretched now my king is on the fifth rank.
66 Qd7
I could play 66 Kd5 but there is no hurry. Manoeuvrings and probing
repetitions are in the nature of this type of position.
66...Bd6
66...Kf7 also came into consideration; e.g., 67 Qc7 Kf8 68 Qb8+ Kg7 69
Kd5 Rf8 70 Qb3 Rf6 (not 70...Bf6 71 Qa4 and my king will penetrate to
the sixth rank).
67 Qg4 Be7
So the position has been repeated and it is time to try Plan B.
68 Kd5
Please, please, please let me cross the sixth rank!
68...Rd6+
68...Bd6?! could fall into a trap, I am not sure. Of course I would not
reply 69 Kc6?? allowing 69...Bxg3 with check, but instead 69 Qd4! is
awkward for him. 69...Rg6? This loses, but I think he has two better
moves. (69...Kf7; 69...Be7 However, nothing is spoiled. At worst, I can
then manoeuvre again and try something else.) 70 Qh8+ Black's
coordination is destroyed; the cat is among the pigeons. 70...Kf7 only
move (70...Rg8 71 Qf6+; 70...Ke7 71 Qh7+ Kf6 72 Kxd6) 71 Qh7+ Rg7
72 Qf5+ (72 Qxh6? Bxg3 is drawn.) 72...Ke7 73 Qe6+.
69 Ke5 Rf6
The Kibitzer
Page 13 sur 20
Black rightly sticks to his plan with the rook on f6. Can this be broken
down?
70 Qd7 Kf7!
He played this within an hour. Can I restrict him further? So far I had
not found a winning line against this, whereas I found wins against other
moves. White will of course avoid all drawn six-man endings and so is
still in no hurry to push that pawn.
For example, if 70...Rf7? 71 Qc8+ Kg7 72 Qg4+ followed by Qg6, wins
h-pawn and probably the game.
Or if 70...Rg6? 71 Qc8+! Kg7 (71...Kf7 72 Kf5 was also analysed to a
win in several lines.) 72 Qc7 so that the queen guards g3 as well as
attacking e7; e.g., 72...Kf7 73 Kf5 Rd6 74 Kg4 Ke6 75 Qc8+ Kf7 76
Qc4+ Kf8 77 Kh5 Ke8 78 g4 Bf8 79 g5 hxg5 80 hxg5 with a tablebase
win.
71 Qd3
Will Black let me into h7?
71...Kg7
[FEN "8/4b1k1/5r1p/4K3/7P/3Q2P1/8/8 w - - 0 72"]
72 Qd1
Of course I could go to b3, d4 or c4 in one move but there is no hurry.
71 Qd1 does not look very promising but it covers d6 (Black cannot
enter the pawn ending) and also eyes g4 and h5.
72...Kg6
72...Kf7 73 Ke4 (73 Qh5+ Kg7!) 73...Kg7 74 Qd7 Kf7 is hard to assess.
I was aiming for a queen penetration; e.g., 75 Qc7 Kf8 76 Kd5 Kf7 77
Qb8 Bf8 78 Qd8 Be7 79 Qh8 when Black's options are becoming
reduced and a win may be possible.
73 Qb3
73 Qg4+ looks good at first sight, but I think Black can defend; viz.,
73...Kf7 (only move; not 73...Kh7 74 Qd7 Rf7 75 Ke6 Kg7 76 Qxe7
with a won king and pawn ending one of the tricks Black has to watch
if my king is able to penetrate.) 74 Qd7, but after Black's "only" move,
74...Kf8, no progress seems possible: 75 g4 Rg6 attacks both my pawns
76 Kf5 Rf6+ 77 Ke5 Rg6 78 Qf5+ Kg7.
73...Kg7 74 Qc3 Kg6 75 Qd4 Kf7
75...Bd6+ 76 Kd5 may represent some progress. Certainly not 75...Kg7
76 Ke4 Kf7 (76...Kg6!?) 77 Qd5+ Kf8 and now it is time to push 78 g4.
76 Qc4+ Kg7 77 Kd5 Kf7 78 Qc2
Eyeing h7 again, though 78 g4!? came into consideration.
78...Kg7
78...Rg6 may be playable, but after 79 Ke5 White looks to be making
progress: 79...Bd6+ (79...Rxg3?? 80 Qf2+; 79...Re6+ 80 Kf5 heading for
h5) 80 Kf5.
The Kibitzer
Page 14 sur 20
79 Qe4
Since neither g3-g4 nor h4-h5 promise anything; I doubt if h4-h5 is ever
good with the pawn on g3.
79...Rd6+ 80 Kc4 Bf6 81 Qg4+ Kf7
[FEN "8/5k2/3r1b1p/8/2K3QP/6P1/8/8 w - - 0 82"]
82 Kc5
Not 82 Qf4? Rd4+ 83 Qxd4 Bxd4 84 Kxd4 Ke6=.
82...Be7 83 Qh5+ Kf8 84 Kb5
Avoiding discovered attacks.
84...Kg7 85 Qe2 Kf7 86 Qe4 Rg6 87 Kc4
Thinking of marching the king to h5 without allowing him to pin my
queen on rook by ...Re6 at a fatal moment.
87...Bf8 88 Qf5+
88 Kd5 is useless because of ...Rd6+.
88...Kg7 89 Kd5 Be7 90 Ke4 Rf6 91 Qc8 Rf7 92 Qg4+
White must advance a pawn by move 105 at latest unless he makes a
capture.
92...Kh7 93 Kd5
[FEN "8/4br1k/7p/3K4/6QP/6P1/8/8 b - - 0 93"]
93...Bd8
Not 93...Rf6?? 94 Qe4+. Thus his main defensive idea has at last been
broken down. I am still not sure if he could have prevented that from
happening.
94 Qh5!
This move was suggested not by Rybka but by Fritz 8 on an old slow
computer that I use for writing and accounts. Admittedly its suggested
continuation was not the most precise.
I commented to my opponent that we are getting close to a 100-move
game which I never had in CC (my previous longest actually was only
seventy-four moves).
The Kibitzer
Page 15 sur 20
94...Rf8
He replied: "I only had one 100-move game actually 101. I believe that
you are close to having figured out a winning endgame." I was not sure
about that yet. White's best next move is not obvious.
If 94...Kg7, I intended 95 Ke6 rather than Fritz's 95 g4. Now a sample
line is 95...Re7+ (95...Ra7 96 Qe5+ Kh7 97 Qe4+ Kg8 98 Qg6+ Rg7 99
Qe8+ Kh7 100 Qxd8 Rxg3 is a tablebase win for White with queen and
h-pawn versus rook and h-pawn.) 96 Kd6 Rf7 97 g4 Bc7+ (97...Rf6+ 98
Kd7 Rf8 99 g5 hxg5 100 hxg5 wins; 97...Be7+?? 98 Ke6) 98 Kc6 Bf4
99 g5 hxg5 100 hxg5 is another tablebase win.
94...Rf1 looks dangerous for Black, having his three pieces so loose and
spread out. An attempt to exploit that might go 95 g4 Rf8 96 Ke6 Bf6 97
g5 Bg7 but is not clear.
94...Rf6?! 95 Qe8 Rf2 (hoping for a skewer after Qxd8??) definitely
seems to lose: 96 Kc4 Bf6 97 Qf7+ Kh8 (only move) 98 Kd3 seems to
put Black into zugzwang.
95 Kd6
Played after some delay caused by watching the Olympics on television.
It still seemed premature to play g3-g4.
95...Bf6
It was now 11 August; the adjudication date in this tournament was 30
November, so I was conscious of needing to move quickly. My
honourable opponent did not play for adjudication in the hope of saving
the game that way.
95...Rf6+ also had to be analysed but I was pretty sure White wins; e.g.,
96 Kd7 Rf8 97 g4 Bf6 98 g5 Bg7 99 Qe2 Rf4 100 Qe8 Rf8 101 Qe4+
Kh8 102 Ke7 Rg8 103 Kf7 Rf8+ (103...hxg5 104 hxg5 is a quick win.)
104 Kg6 Rd8 105 Qc6 Rf8 (105...hxg5 106 hxg5 forces mate; 105...Rg8
should lose in the same way 106 gxh6 Ba1+ 107 Kf7) 106 Qd7 Rg8 107
gxh6 Ba1+ 108 Kf7 Bg7 109 Qc6 Be5 110 h5 Bd4 111 h7 Rg7+
(111...Rg5 112 Qa8+ Kxh7 113 Qe4+ wins the bishop.) 112 Ke6 Bg1
(112...Kxh7 113 Qe4+ wins bishop; 112...Rxh7 113 Qe8+ mate in
three), and now while 113 Qe8+ may be not objectively best (113
Qe4!?), it would force him to take the pawn 113...Kxh7 bringing about a
tablebase win for White
96 g4
[FEN "5r2/7k/3K1b1p/7Q/6PP/8/8/8 b - - 0 96"]
This looks like the right time; now the fifty-move rule is not an issue.
96...Bg7
Several other moves were also considered, including 96...Rd8+ 97 Ke6
Bg7 98 g5 (probably transposing to the main line soon) and; 96...Ra8 97
g5 Ra6+ (97...Bg7 should also lose.) 98 Kd7 Bg7 99 Qe8 Ra7+ 100 Ke6
hxg5 101 hxg5 is a tablebase win.
97 g5
This has to be played when my king and queen are optimally placed,
which looks like now. 97 Kd7 also came into consideration.
The Kibitzer
Page 16 sur 20
[FEN "5r2/6bk/3K3p/6PQ/7P/8/8/8 b - - 0 97"]
97...Rf4
After a long think in a difficult situation. Not 97...Kh8 98 Qg6!.
The main line I had been analyzing went 97...Rd8+ 98 Ke6 Ra8
(98...Rb8 is possible too; of course I would not reply with Rybka's g5g6+.) 99 Qg4 Re8+ (I think his rook must remain on the back rank.) 100
Kd7 Rf8 (Only a sample of many moves analysed.) 101 Qe4+ Kh8 102
Ke7 Rg8 103 Qe3 (Threatening gxh6) 103...Kh7 104 Qd3+ Kh8 105
Kf7 and I thought this was progress, but had not finished analysing the
line when my opponent chose 97...Rf4 instead.
98 Qe8!
It is pleasant, after so much manoeuvring, to threaten mate in one.
Rybka of course preferred 98 g6+, which is rubbish, always drawing
unless his king has to capture and get driven into the open. Black's next
two moves came quickly.
98...Rf8
This time he went down my main line, and this was also Rybka's top
choice. Black loses now if he ever exchanges pawns on g5 a sure sign
of progress.
Most of my analysis was devoted to 98...Rd4+ 99 Kc5 Rg4 100 Kb6
(Playing for zugzwang again, but maybe the direct 100 Qf7 is better.)
100...Rb4+ 101 Ka7 Rg4 102 Ka6 (Now his rook must move down the
file.) 102...Rg1 103 Qe4+ Kh8 104 Kb7 (The king heads back to the
kingside.) 104...Rf1 (104...hxg5 105 hxg5 Rxg5 106 Qh4+) 105 Qg6
Rg1 106 Qe8+ Kh7 107 Qe4+ Kh8 108 Qe3 Rb1+ 109 Kc7 (Now Black
cannot prevent gxh6.) 109...Rf1 (109...hxg5?? 110 Qe8+ Kh7 111 Qe4+)
110 gxh6 Rf7+ 111 Kc8 Rf8+ 112 Kd7 and Black is out of useful
moves.
The following line illustrates the one case where g5-g6+ does work:
98...Bf8+ 99 Kd7 Rf1 (99...Rxh4 100 Qxf8 hxg5 101 Qf6! wins.) 100
Qe4+ Kh8 101 Qc4 Ra1 102 Ke6 Bg7 103 Qc8+ Kh7 104 g6+! (This is
a temporary pawn sacrifice to expose his king.) 104...Kxg6 105 Qc2+
Kh5 106 Kf7 Bd4 (After 106...Ra7+ 107 Kg8, I threaten to win his rook
by a fork.) 107 Qf5+ (Now I win his B.) 107...Kxh4 108 Qf4+ Kh3 109
Qxd4 I have queen versus rook and pawn, but can win his pawn soon,
after which it is all over.
99 Qe4+ Kh8
99...Kg8 may also be playable but probably transposes at some point. I
also analysed: 100 Qg6 Ra8 101 Qe6+ Kh8 102 Kc7 Rf8 103 gxh6 (This
is a seven-man ending, so cannot be looked up on the Internet, but it
smells like a win.)
The Kibitzer
Page 17 sur 20
[FEN "5r1k/6b1/3K3p/6P1/4Q2P/8/8/8 w - - 0 100"]
100 Ke7
The best move here is not obvious, but I did not think this could spoil
anything and it sets Black a wide and difficult choice. My aim is to get
the queen to g6 and at the right moment win a pawn by gxh6 when he
cannot recapture. This is my first CC century and I only reached move
100 once in an over-the-board game.
100 Qg6!? would have no immediate threat while my king and queen are
aligned.
100...Kg8
Played after more than two weeks, and probably best? If 100...Rf1?? 101
Qa8+; while 100...Rb8 probably loses to 101 gxh6.
100...Rc8 looks one of the tougher nuts to crack? Maybe 101 Qe6 (101
gxh6!?) 101...Ra8 102 Qe3 will do the trick. Or if 100...Rf2 101 gxh6
Bb2 (101...Bxh6 102 Qd4+) 102 Qb4.
101 Qg6
This was sent on 16 September. Trying this costs nothing as I can
always get the same position again, I think.
Rybka and Fritz kept wanting to check with the queen and then play g6,
h5 which leaves Black with a fortress where he can just endlessly
play ...Rf8-g8-f8. Probably Black can also play ...Rf6, because if I ever
exchange queen for rook and bishop on f6 or f8, he ends up stalemated.
Finally at a depth 23 search Rybka changed to preferring 31 Qg6, but
with the main line 31...hxg5? which gives me an obvious tablebase win.
101...Kh8
It was now 5 October. If 101...hxg5?, 102 hxg5 mates in twenty-six said
two different tablebase servers. Or if 101...Ra8?? 102 gxh6 Ra7+ 103
Ke8 Ra8+ 104 Kd7 Ra7+ 105 Kc8 Ra8+ 106 Kb7 winning.
[FEN "5r1k/4K1b1/6Qp/6P1/7P/8/8/8 w - - 0 102"]
102 gxh6
This was now my longest ever game (in moves), exceeding my 101move loss to Swedish GM Lars Karlsson at Paris 1983.
White could also play a waiting move, but not 102 h5? hxg5 103 h6?!
(103 Qxg5 would be a tablebase draw.) 103...Rg8 when White can even
lose this by careless play! Thus 104 Qxg5?? Bf8+ 105 Kf6 Be7+ or 104
The Kibitzer
Page 18 sur 20
h7?? Bf8+ or 104 hxg7+?? Rxg7+ and White cannot stop Black's gpawn. However 104 Kf7 Rf8+ 105 Ke7 Rg8 is a draw by repetition.
102...Rg8
Now 103 hxg7+ Rxg7+ only draws and 103 Kf7 repeats after
103...Rf8+, but White makes progress by forcing his bishop to move
away leaving my pawn on h6.
103 Qe6
There are slightly different variations depending where the bishop goes.
There was still work to do to clinch the win although the final result was
becoming obvious.
103 Kf7 gets nowhere: 103...Rf8+ 104 Ke7 is a repetition. (Rybka liked
104 Ke6??, but 104...Rf6+! 105 Qxf6 Bxf6 106 Kxf6 is dead draw. The
computer would probably see that eventually.)
103...Bd4
Played on 18 October. Also ...Ba1, ...Bb2 and ...Bc3 came into
consideration for him. Readers may enjoy trying to find the variations
for themselves an instructive exercise.
104 Qc4!
This was arrived at eventually, after first trying 104 Qf7 and 104 Kf7.
For once Rybka and I agreed on the right move. The attack on the bishop
gains the tempo to play Kf7, so it looks good. Black has three available
squares for the bishop now.
104...Bb2
I do not think it matters where he plays the bishop. I was fairly confident
now that I had detailed analysis which would satisfy an adjudicator if
necessary. The target position is White Kf7, Qc6, pawns h5 and h6;
Black Rg8 and bishop on c3 or d4, whereupon Qg6 wins.
105 Kf7
The king goes to a light square to rule out bishop checks, before
executing the key idea (should it be necessary) of h4-h5 and then Qg6.
At that point, mate would threaten on g8 and he could not play rook
takes queen because the connected passed pawns on g6 and h6 beat the
bishop. So the rook would have to wander away and his pieces would
lose their cohesion.
105 h5, which I analysed first, and which Rybka also wanted to play at
first, could be inaccurate because of 105...Ba3+ (This is his main
defensive idea now, and there is no need to allow it.) 106 Kf7 Rf8+ 107
Ke6 Bb2 and progress is questionable though it may be possible.
105...Be5
This was the main line in my analysis.
If 105...Rb8, then 106 Qc6 makes sense as it cuts out lateral check and
prepares Qg6 (after h5). Then 106...Be5 (What else? His rook has
nowhere to go except g8.) 107 h5 and White is ready to pull the trigger.
Or if 105...Ra8 106 Qb4 Ba1 (106...Ra7+? 107 Kg6 Ra6+ 108 Kh5
(Threatens both Qxb2 and Qf8+.) 107 Qb6 again cuts out lateral checks
in preparation for h5.
105...Ba1 is another possible continuation, but after 106 h5 Rg1 107 Qc5
White will win in similar fashion to other variations.
106 h5 Ba1
If 106...Bb2 107 Qc2 maybe, to go to g6 if bishop moves; or to g2
if ...Rb8 instead?
107 Qa6 1-0
The Kibitzer
Page 19 sur 20
[FEN "6rk/5K2/Q6P/7P/8/8/8/b7 b - - 0 107"]
Although I had worked out how to win, I was a bit surprised that Black
resigned here rather than try 107...Bb2, since in this position Rybka
stopped making progress and from this point it aimlessly repeated moves
by Qb6-Qa6.
I would have played 108 Qg6, which transposes to lines I already proved
as wins, where Black moves his rook instead at move 105.
Postscript
The candidates tournament to decide the next challenger to world
champion Vishy Anand begins in London on 15 March. It will continue
to 1 April (or 2 April if tiebreaks are required.) Each of the eight
competitors will play the others with both white and black. There will be
online coverage, no doubt, but at the time of writing the URLs for sites
that would give official reports had not been announced.
Notwithstanding the good fight up put up by the last challenger, Boris
Gelfand, I believe that a large majority of chess fans will be hoping that
grandmaster Magnus Carlsen emerges triumphant from the fray
especially as Anand looks much more vulnerable now, although he has
already won a tournament in 2013. With all due respect to the other
seven candidates, a match between Carlsen and Anand would be the
most eagerly awaited. Carlsen with the highest ever Elo rating and a
string of major tournament successes despite his youth would surely be
a worthy world champion, while if any of the other grandmasters (other
than perhaps Aronian) emerges from London, I would tend to hope that
Anand somehow retains the title.
The eight candidates with their ages and ratings are as follows:
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Magnus Carlsen (Norway, 22, 2872)

Vladimir Kramnik (Russia, age 37, 2810)
Levon Aronian (Armenia, 30, 2809)
Timour Radjabov (Azerbaijan, 25, rated 2793)
Alexander Grischuk (Russia, 29, 2764)
Vassily Ivanchuk (Ukraine, age, 2757)
Peter Svidler (Russia, 37, 2747)
Boris Gelfand (Israel, 44, 2740)
The world champion Anand is currently on 2784.

Gelfand qualified by virtue of being the loser of the last title match,
while Grischuk, Svidler and Ivanchuk were the top three finishers in the
Chess World Cup 2011. Aronian, Carlsen, and Kramnik got in by virtue
of having the highest average rating between July 2011 and January
2012. Radjabov, who will celebrate his twenty-sixth birthday just before
the event begins, was invited on a wild card, having the highest rating of
players not otherwise qualified.
Whoever wins, we can expect some high-class chess to be played.

by Tim Harding
The Kibitzer
Page 20 sur 20

The ebook also offers bonus content of the games from the Veterans
Cup event, games from ECO code A83, and games with the same
endgame material balance! All for only .99 cents!!

The Kibitzer
Afficher cette page en: franais
Traduire
Options
Options
Dsactiverpour:
pour : anglais
Dsactiver
anglais
Search ChessCafe
Purchases from our

accessible:
The Hollis Enigma
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Translate this page

Slectionner
une langue
Slectionner
une
Fourni par
langue
Traduire
Adrian Swayne Hollis, correspondence chess grandmaster and classical

scholar with an international reputation in both fields, was born on 2 August
1940 and died on 26 February 2013, although his death was only reported in
mid-March. He was the only child of Roger Henry Hollis, of whom more
anon, and his wife Mary Margaret (ne Church). I met Adrian Hollis on
several occasions over a period of many years, though cannot claim to have
known him well. He was a quiet, reserved, soft-spoken and scholarly man
whose play at the chessboard sometimes (as in his occasional use of the
Dragon Sicilian) showed a ferocity that seemed alien to his persona, but his
correspondence games probably reflected more of the mature man. This
column is devoted to his career and play.
Absolute Correspondence
Championship
by Alex Dunne
At the age of thirteen Adrian Hollis learned the moves of the game from a
cousin. Within three years he won his first ever chess tournament, the 1956-57
London Boys' Championship, at the age of sixteen. He soon was among the
strongest over-the-board players of his generation at ages eighteen to twentyone before putting his academic career first. This was a few years before
FIDE introduced the Elo rating system and opportunities of obtaining
international titles were extremely limited, especially for British players,
otherwise he could certainly have become an IM at least.
in America
by Bryce Avery
Adrian Hollis
Probably around 1962 or 1963, when he was a postgraduate student at

Oxford, the teacher at my school (nearby Abingdon) invited Hollis to give a
simultaneous display, and I seem to remember he came back the following
year to do another. I have no record of our games, which I probably lost, but
he remembered me when in later years I came up to Oxford myself and he
was a fellow and tutor in classics at Keble College. In the meantime, he had
had a spell as lecturer at St. Andrews University in Scotland.
Hollis recalled playing five times on the English team in the Student
http://www.chesscafe.com/kibitz/kibitz203.htm[14/04/2013 00:24:43]
Writings in Chess History

by John S. Hilbert
The Kibitzer
Olympiads, of 1960-64 at least. (Databases may call these under-26 team

tournaments, but in those days I think there was no age limit.) He played six
times on BCF senior teams in the, then annual, Anglo-Dutch match (scoring
7 from twelve games) and 1962 played in the small Clare Benedict Team
Tournament.
The following game features a powerful attack developing with the black
pieces.
Paul Dozsa Adrian Hollis
World Student Olympiad, Helsinki 1961
Sicilian Defence, by transposition [B20]
1 d3 g6 2 g3 Bg7 3 Bg2 Nf6 4 e4 0-0 5 c3 d6 6 f4 c5 7 Nf3 Nc6 8 0-0 Bd7 9
h3 Rb8 10 Kh2 b5 11 Qe2 Ne8 12 Be3 b4 13 c4 Nc7 14 e5? dxe5 15 fxe5
Ne6 16 Bf2 Qc7 17 Re1 f6 18 exf6 Rxf6 19 Nbd2 Rbf8 20 Rf1 Rf5 21 Nh4
Ncd4!
[FEN "5rk1/p1qbp1bp/4n1p1/2p2r2/1pPn3N/
3P2PP/PP1NQBBK/R4R2 w - - 0 22"]
22 Bxd4 Nxd4 23 Qxe7

Not 23 Qd1 Qxg3+! 24 Kxg3 Be5+.
23...Re8 24 Nxf5 Nxf5 25 Qg5 Nxg3! 26 Bd5+ Kh8 27 Kg2 Nxf1 28 Rxf1
Qc8 29 Rf3 Re5 30 Qg3 Re2+ 31 Rf2
[FEN "2q4k/p2b2bp/6p1/2pB4/1pP5/
3P2QP/PP1NrRK1/8 b - - 0 31"]
Typically Hollis now sees the way to reduce this seemingly complicated
middlegame to a comfortably won ending.
31...Bxh3+ 32 Kf3 Qg4+! 33 Qxg4 Bxg4+ 34 Kg2 Rxf2+ 35 Kxf2 Bxb2 36
Ne4 Bd4+ 37 Kg3 Be2 38 Kf4 Bxd3 39 Kg5 Bb1 0-1
After Christmas 1962 he played in the Hastings premier, which was good
experience but it is hardly surprising that he found the going tough. In the first
round he had black against former world champion Smyslov but blundered on
move nineteen and soon had to resign. He finished the tournament with 2/9,
scoring one win in the process, against Fritz van Seters.
In the early 1960s the Dragon Variation received much attention from a group
of young university players at Oxford, who included Peter N. Lee (British
champion in 1965) now one of England's top bridge players I believe and
the younger Andrew Whiteley. Although this sharp and uncompromising
The Kibitzer
variation would not be Hollis's staple choice against 1 e4 in competition, he

undoubtedly made a good choice in the following game, as no doubt the
Mongolians would not have been au fait with the latest finesses discovered in
the city of dreaming spires.
Purev Tumurbator Adrian Hollis
World Student Olympiad, Budva, 1963
Dragon Sicilian [B76]
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 g6 6 Be3 Bg7 7 f3 Nc6 8 Qd2
0-0 9 0-0-0
By this time in the Oxford area, even schoolboys like me knew that 9 Bc4 was
becoming the critical line, but Tumurbator plays a more old-fashioned
variation which encourages Black to play the following pawn sacrifice.
Hollis, who was probably in his 'book' for several moves more, seizes the
initiative and eventually launches a sacrificial attack that would have been
worthy of John Littlewood.
9...d5!?
This is not compulsory as Black can also continue with 9...Bd7, or exchange
knights and then develop the bishop on e6.
10 Nxc6 bxc6 11 exd5 cxd5 12 Nxd5 Nxd5 13 Qxd5
This was all known from the 1950s. White greedily tries to call his opponent's
bluff, rather than trading the Dragon bishop by 13 Bh6.
13...Qc7 14 Qc5
Taking the rook looks very unwise after 14 Qxa8 Bf5 followed by ...Rfc8.
14...Qb7 15 Qa3! Bf5
[FEN "r4rk1/pq2ppbp/6p1/5b2/8/Q3BP2/
PPP3PP/2KR1B1R w - - 0 16"]
16 Kb1?
White puts his head into the lion's mouth. The critical moves are 16 Ba6 and
16 Bd3!?.
16...Rab8
The pressure down the b- and c-files and along the black diagonal g7-a1 is
typical of a Dragon effectively breathing its fire. This had all happened in a
game Ravinsky-Averbakh, USSR 1951, which Tumurbator is unlikely to have
known about or he would not have gone down this line.
17 b3 Qc6!?
Sapi and Schneider's 1990 book says 17...Qc7? 18 Bd3? Qe5 is winning, but
White can avoid destruction by 18 Qc5!, greatly limiting Black's advantage,
as there may be nothing better than 18...Qxc5 19 Bxc5 Rfc8 20 g4 Rxc5 21
gxf5 Rxf5 etc.
Computers prefer 17...Rfc8, which does look extremely painful for White but
Hollis's move is a forced win too.
The Kibitzer
18 Qc5 Qf6 19 Bd4
[FEN "1r3rk1/p3ppbp/5qp1/2Q2b2/3B4/
1P3P2/P1P3PP/1K1R1B1R b - - 0 19"]
19...e5?!
It is perhaps a pity Hollis did not find the more elegant 19...Rfd8! since after
20 Bxf6 Rxd1+ 21 Kb2 Bxf6+ 22 Ka3 Rc8 the queen must move to b5 and
a7, whereupon Black will play 23...Rxc2 and White, with his kingside pieces
undeveloped, looks busted. This would probably have been out of character,
though.
20 Bc3 Rfc8 21 Qa5 Qc6 22 Ba6 Rc7 23 Kb2 Bf6 24 g4?
Perhaps more in hope than expectation, White tries to drive back one of the
attackers, but of course there is no need to retreat the bishop. Instead White
should have got his last piece into play by 24 Rhe1 (and if 25...Reb6 26 Bfd1)
when chances are roughly equal.
24...Rb6 25 Be2
[FEN "6k1/p1r2p1p/1rq2bp1/Q3pb2/6P1/
1PB2P2/PKP1B2P/3R3R b - - 0 25"]
25...e4! 26 Bxf6 Qxf6+ 27 c3 Rbc6 28 gxf5 Rxc3 29 Ka3 Rc2 30 Rb1 Qd6+
31 b4 Rxe2 32 fxe4 Rc3+ 33 Rb3 Qd2 34 Ra1 Rxb3+ 35 axb3 Qb2+ 36
Ka4 Qxa1+ 0-1
At his peak, Hollis was in the top ten British Chess Federation rated players.
Yet in 1964, as Hollis explained in the 1983 book British Chess which
featured all international title-holders at that time, he 'decided that henceforth
for me "serious" chess would mean correspondence, while OTB became
pleasant social activity'. One factor in that decision was his move to Scotland
to take up his first lectureship, top chess competition there not being so strong
as it later became. He was awarded the British Master title just after he had
virtually retired from that form of competition.
Hollis started playing by post relatively early, having been introduced to this
form of the game as a teenager by his father's colleague, Graham Mitchell,
who had played in the first Correspondence World Championship Final in the
late 1940s. In the winter of 1963-64 Hollis played for Oxfordshire in the
annual Ward-Higgs inter-county tournament, where each person had just one
game; for many it was the only postal competition they ever played. Hollis
again employed the Dragon to defeat Michael Haygarth of Yorkshire, who
was to be the surprise winner of the 1964 British Championship at Whitby, so
this was an auspicious start to his correspondence career. That game, along
The Kibitzer
with some others, may be found annotated in detail by Hollis in British

Chess. Here are the moves with only the lightest comments; readers can enjoy
working out the complications for themselves.
Michael Haygarth Adrian Hollis
Ward Higgs correspondence 1963
Sicilian Dragon [B77]
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 g6 6 Be3 Bg7 7 f3 0-0 8 Bc4
Nc6 9 Qd2 Bd7 10 h4 Rc8 11 Bb3 Ne5 12 Bh6 Nc4 13 Bxc4 Bxh6 14 Qxh6
Rxc4 15 0-0-0 Rxc3! 16 bxc3 Qa5
[FEN "5rk1/pp1bpp1p/3p1npQ/q7/3NP2P/
2P2P2/P1P3P1/2KR3R w - - 0 17"]
17 Kb2 Rc8 18 Rd3 Bb5 19 Nxb5 Qxb5+ 20 Ka1 Rc5 21 Rb1 Qa6 22 Qc1
Ra5 23 Rb2 b6 24 Qb1 Nd7 25 Rb4 Ne5 26 Re3 Nc4 27 Rd3 Rc5 28 Qe1
Ra5 29 Qb1 Ne5
[FEN "6k1/p3pp1p/qp1p2p1/r3n3/
1R2P2P/2PR1P2/P1P3P1/KQ6 w - - 0 30"]
30 Re3
Not 30 Rd5 Rxd5 31 exd5 Qe2 and wins.
30 ..Rc5 31 Rb3 b5 32 Qd1 Qc6 33 Qd4 Nc4 34 Rd3 a5 35 g4?! a4 36 Rb4
Ne5 37 Re3 Qc8! 38 Kb1 h5! 39 gxh5 Nc6 40 Qd3 Nxb4 41 cxb4 Rxh5 42
e5 Rxe5 43 Rxe5 dxe5 44 Qxb5 Qc3 45 Qxa4 Qxf3 46 b5 e4 47 b6 e3 48
Qb3 Qf1+ 49 Kb2 e2 50 b7 e1Q 51 b8Q+ Kh7 52 Q8b6 Qc1+ 53 Kc3 Qcf4
0-1
[FEN "8/4pp1k/1Q4p1/8/5q1P/1QK5/
P1P5/5q2 w - - 0 54"]
The Kibitzer
The final position, with four queens but White helpless!

In the 1965-66 winter season, Hollis played in the British Correspondence
Championship for the first time, and tied for the title with multiple times
champion Slade Milan, both scoring seven wins and three draws. The
following season he won outright with 9/10, after which he moved on to
international play, choosing not to defend his title because of international
commitments. He did play the British CC Championship one more time: in
the 1970-71 event he scored 8 again and won by a two-point margin.
Also, starting in 1966, Hollis took board two (below Milan) in the B.C.C.A.
'Socrates' team in the twelve-board Eberhardt Wilhelm Cup competition for
towns and club teams across Europe. Then in 1968 he was (along with Hugh
Alexander and John Littlewood) on the six-board British team selected for the
7th Correspondence Chess Olympiad, and in the same year he started a
semifinal section for the 7th World CC Championship. Probably he was
taking on too many high-level games here. In the latter event, Hollis finished
second in his section, scoring 9/12, his loss to group winner J. Krzyszton
(Poland) costing him a place in the final. He never did qualify for the World
Championship.
Adrian Hollis
Hollis was an excellent Games Editor for the quarterly magazine

Correspondence Chess, published by the British Correspondence Chess
Association, for three years starting with the August 1966 issue, which
involves a lot of unpaid work, as I can testify having undertaken this task for
a few issues some years later. Hollis also wrote an article on the different
skills required for the two forms of the game in the May 1968 issue of that
magazine. Freedom from the clock was one of the advantages of
correspondence chess that he stressed.
A fuller picture of his advice and technique emerged in a revealing interview
he once gave to British Chess Magazine, in which he said that 'I very seldom
write down analysis ... [not doing so is] a way of forcing oneself to re-check
and re-evaluate everything continually, without relying on previous
judgments.'
Asked how much time he spent on each game and each move, he said it
varied, but 'In a particularly awkward game I may spend at least five hours
per move over a whole sequence of moves'. His basic method was to answer
postcards in the order they arrive 'and once getting started on a position, not
leaving it until I've decided on a move. In practice, I sometimes deal with the
"easy" ones first and postpone the "difficult" ones... Of course, one analyses
almost subconsciously in the bath, when walking along the street, at boring
committee meetings etc.'
It is also worth quoting further advice which Hollis offered to the aspiring CC
grandmaster: 'Above all be critical, both of oneself and others... Avoid false
optimism... and try to view your thoughts in a detached manner. Do not
believe there are two good moves in a position; find out why one of them is
not as good as it looks. Take your opponents seriously until you have
evidence that they are not Botvinnik. Fight like a tiger in a difficult position
and be remorseless in a favourable one.'
The Kibitzer
GM Hollis re-read his BCM interview in the mid-1990s when I was writing
my book Winning at Correspondence Chess. He commented, 'I don't disagree
with anything I said then, though I don't live up to much of it, e.g. I don't
spend so long with a board (since life is increasingly hectic) and in the last
ten years I have made two clerical errors which were immediately fatal.'
Adrian Hollis Klaus Engel
8th CC World Championship, semifinal-2 1972
Nimzo-Indian Defence [E20]
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 f3
Hollis played this little-known version of the Smisch variation four times in
postal tournaments that began in 1972. In the 7th Olympiad final, he scored a
win, a draw, and a loss. It leads to sharp positions which can be hard to judge.
More often he chose 4 a3 and sometimes 4 e3, while in his later career he
returned to 4 Qc2 which he had also played in his early days. This probably
reflected a revival of the reputation of the 4 Qc2 line in the late twentieth
century.
4...c5
Hollis-Lambshire, British Ch, Bristol 1968, went 4...d5 5 a3 Bxc3+ 6 bxc3 c5
7 cxd5 Nxd5 8 dxc5 Qa5 9 e4 Nxc3 10 Qd2 Nc6 11 Bb2 Na4 12 Qxa5 Nxa5
13 Bxg7 Rg8 14 Bf6 Bd7 15 Nh3 and despite White's backward development,
he has a strong position because he has the bishop-pair and Black's king is
caught in the centre. Lambshire tried 15...Rg6 16 e5 Nxc5 17 Nf4 Rxf6 giving
up the exchange but eventually White won.
5 d5 Bxc3+ 6 bxc3 Qa5
Instead 6...Nh5 7 g3 f5 8 Nh3 (8 dxe6 Qf6) 8...0-0 9 Bg2 d6 10 f4 Nf6 11
Ng5 Qe7 12 0-0 exd5 13 cxd5 h6 14 Nf3 Re8 15 c4 was about equal but
Black eventually won in Hollis-Bouwmeester.
7 e4 exd5 8 cxd5 Qxc3+ 9 Bd2 Qe5 10 Ne2 d6 11 Bc3
[FEN "rnb1k2r/pp3ppp/3p1n2/2pPq3/4P3/
2B2P2/P3N1PP/R2QKB1R b KQkq - 0 11"]
This strong bishop and general activity seems to compensate for the sacrificed
pawn.
11...Qe7 12 Ng3 0-0 13 Qd2 a6 14 a4 Re8 15 Be2 Nbd7 16 0-0 g6 17 Rae1
h5 18 Bd1 Qf8 19 a5 Nh7 20 Ba1 f6 21 h4 b5 22 axb6 Nxb6 23 f4 Qh6 24
Qc3 Bg4 25 Bxg4 hxg4 26 h5 Rad8 27 hxg6 Qxg6 28 Qa5 Nc8 29 Qxa6
Ne7 30 Rb1 Rd7 31 Rb7 Red8 32 Rxd7 Rxd7
The Kibitzer
[FEN "6k1/3rn2n/Q2p1pq1/2pP4/4PPp1/
6N1/6P1/B4RK1 w - - 0 33"]
33 e5! Rd8 34 Qc4 Kf8 35 Bb2 Qg8 36 e6 Rb8 37 Qa6! Rxb2 38 Qxd6 Qg6
39 Qxc5 Qc2 40 Qxc2 Rxc2 41 d6 1-0
Hollis received the IM award in 1970 from ICCF and GM in 1976. The semifinals of the 8th World Championship were played at the same time as the
seventh final, starting in 1972. Hollis finished third behind two Soviet players
in Group 2 with 11/16, losing two games. His disappointment was
somewhat assuaged by winning the British-organised Potter Memorial
tournament, 1974-76, and thus became England's second CC-GM. The first
prize of 150 was probably a lesser incentive for him than gaining the title.
Adrian Hollis Risto Kauranen
Potter Memorial correspondence 1974
Nimzo-Indian Defence [E25]
Notes based on those by Hollis, BCM 6/1977
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 a3 Bxc3+ 5 bxc3 c5 6 f3 d5 7 cxd5 Nxd5 8
dxc5 f5 9 Qc2 0-0 10 e4 fxe4 11 fxe4 Qh4+ 12 g3 Qf6 13 Bd3 Qxc3+ 14
Qxc3 Nxc3 15 Bf4 Bd7
Better is 15...Rd8 16 Bc2 Bd7= (or 16...Na6 as in a game Hollis-Steiner).
16 Rc1
If 16 Bd6 Rc8 17 Nf3 Nb5.
16...Na4
Now if 16...Nb5, Hollis intended 17 Rb1.
17 Bd6 Rc8 18 Nf3 b6
Recommended by GM Laszlo Szabo in Informator 16 as an improvement on
the game Petran-Lengyel, Hungarian championship 1973.
19 Ne5 Nxc5
[FEN "rnr3k1/p2b2pp/1p1Bp3/2n1N3/4P3/
P2B2P1/7P/2R1K2R w K - 0 20"]
Szabo's variation concluded 20 Bxb8 Nxd3+ or 20 Rxc5 Rxc5! 21 Bxb8 Rxb8

22 Nxd7 Rc1+ with advantage to Black, but Hollis pointed out that 21 Rxc5
(transposing to the game) would still win for White.
The Kibitzer
Whereas his opponent apparently followed this suggestion blindly, Hollis

looked at the position with a fresh pair of eyes. "I had seen these notes and
worked out the (fairly obvious) refutation even before the game started,"
wrote Hollis. If your opponent seems to be following a theoretical line
disadvantageous to him, bitter experience teaches that he has probably seen
the theory and found an antidote".
20 Bxc5! Rxc5
20...bxc5 21 Bc4 Re8 22 Rd1 Bc8 23 0-0 followed by Rd6 or Rf7 is also very
strong for White.
21 Rxc5 bxc5
Black is a pawn ahead but it is impossible for him to unravel his queenside.
22 0-0 g6 23 Bc4 Bc8 24 Rd1 1-0
[FEN "rnb3k1/p6p/4p1p1/2p1N3/2B1P3/
P5P1/7P/3R2K1 b - - 0 24"]
Black resigned in view of the conditional continuation 24...Kg7 25 Rd8 Bb7

26 Nd3. He could have struggled on by 26...Nc6 27 Rd7+ Kh8 28 Rxb7 Na5
although after 29 Ba6 White must win.
The following encounter featured a very delicate rook endgame, which Hollis
wrote an article about in B.C.M., April 1976. For a long time Hollis believed
he had found a new way to win this type of ending, which he had really,
notwithstanding the fact that Russian analysts eventually proved that Black
could have held the draw. The updated analysis can be found in detail in my
book Correspondence Chess in Britain and Ireland.
Adrian Hollis Tibor Florian (Hungary)
CCOL7 final, board 1, 1972-77
Fianchetto Grnfeld [D76]
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nf3 Bg7 4 g3 d5 5 cxd5 Nxd5 6 Bg2 0-0 7 0-0 Nb6 8 Nc3
Nc6 9 d5 Na5 10 Bf4 c6 11 dxc6 Nxc6 12 Qc1 e5 13 Be3 Nd4 14 Rd1 Be6
15 Nxd4 exd4 16 Bxd4 Bxd4 17 e3 Bxe3 18 Qxe3 Qe7 19 Ne4 Bd5 20 Qc5
Qxc5 21 Nxc5 Bxg2 22 Kxg2 Rac8?!
Black gives up a pawn for counterplay but 22...Rab8 was a better drawing
chance since 23 Nd7 Nxd7 24 Rxd7 is not sufficient to win.
23 Nxb7 Rc2 24 b4 Re8 25 Rd8 Rxd8 26 Nxd8 Na4 27 a3 Rc3 28 Re1 Kf8
29 Re5 Rc7 30 h4 h6 31 Ra5 Nc3 32 Ra6 Rd7 33 Nc6 Rd6 34 a4 Nxa4 35
Rxa4 Rxc6 36 Rxa7
The Kibitzer
[FEN "5k2/R4p2/2r3pp/8/1P5P/6P1/
5PK1/8 b - - 0 36"]
36...Rc3 37 b5 Rb3 38 Rb7 Kg7 39 b6 h5 40 Kf1

Hollis plans to play his king to the d-file. When Black captures the f-pawn,
the white king goes to the c-file and the defending rook cannot return behind
the passed pawn (a strategy that can only work with a b-pawn).
40...Rb2 41 Ke1 Kf6 42 f3 Rb3 43.Kd2 Rxf3 44 Kc2
[FEN "8/1R3p2/1P3kp1/7p/7P/5rP1/
2K5/8 b - - 0 44"]
44...Rf5?
This has now been shown to be the fatal mistake.
44...Re3!! is the right plan. Hollis thought White could now win by 45 Rc7
Re8 46 b7 Rb8 47 Kd3 Kf5! 48 Rxf7+ Kg4 49 Rf4+! Kxg3 50 Rb4.
a) Black loses after 50...Kh3? 51 Ke2! Kg3 (51...Kg2 52 Rb3 or 51...Re8+ 52
Kf2 Rf8+ 53 Ke3 Rb8 54 Kf3 as in the main line) 52 Ke3 Kh3 53 Kf3 Rf8+
54 Ke4 Rb8 55 Ke5+-.
b) Instead, 50...g5! is the saving move discovered by Russian analysts. Black
creates a countervailing passed pawn: 51 hxg5 h4 52 g6 (or 52 Ke2 h3 53 Kf1
h2 54 Rb3+ Kf4 55 Kg2 Kxg5=) 52...h3 53 g7 h2 54 Rb1 Kg2= (Averbakh).
45 Rc7 Rb5 46 b7 Ke6
If 46...Kf5, following Fine's defensive recipe (hoping for 47 Rxf7+? Kg4),
Hollis found 47 Kc3! (threatening 48 Rxf7+ Kg4 49 Rf4+ and 50 Rb4), e.g.
47...Kg4 (or 47...f6 48 Kc4 Rb1 49 Rc5+ Kg4 50 Rb5) 48 Rc4+! Kxg3 49
Rb4 Rxb7 50 Rxb7 Kxh4 (50...f5 51 Rg7) 51 Rxf7 Kg3 52 Kd2 g5 53 Ke1+-.
47 Kc3 f6 48 Kc4 Rb1 49 Kc5 Kf5 50 Rd7!
White prevents ...Kg4 and threatens Rd5+ followed by either Rd6+ or Rd4+
and then inserting the rook on the b-file.
50...Rc1+ 51 Kd6 Rb1 52 Kc7 Rc1+ 53 Kd8 Rb1 54 Kc8 Kg4 55 Rd6 g5 56
Rxf6 gxh4 57 gxh4 Kxh4 58 Rg6! Kh3 59 Kc7 Rxb7+ 60 Kxb7 h4 61 Kc6
1-0
In the 8th Correspondence Olympiad Final, Jonathan Penrose moved up to top
board, but Hollis's unbeaten 8 points (seventy-one percent) on board two
The Kibitzer
was arguably almost as important as Penrose's contribution to the bronze

medal won by the team.
Adrian Hollis Milan Jovcic
CC Olympiad 8 final board 2, 1977
Semi-Slav [D36]
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c6 4 Nf3 Nf6 5 cxd5 exd5 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Qc2 g6 8 e3
Bf5 9 Bd3 Bxd3 10 Qxd3 Nbd7 11 h4
The natural reaction to exploit the weakness created by ...g6, especially as the
black bishop is not on g7.
[FEN "r2qk2r/pp1nbp1p/2p2np1/3p2B1/
3P3P/2NQPN2/PP3PP1/R3K2R b KQkq - 0 11"]
11...0-0 12 0-0-0 Re8 13 Bxf6 Nxf6 14 h5 Nxh5 15 Rh3 Kg7 16 Rdh1 Rh8
[FEN "r2q3r/pp2bpkp/2p3p1/3p3n/3P4/
2NQPN1R/PP3PP1/2K4R w - - 0 17"]
White now breaks his opponent's position with an exchange sacrifice.

17 Rxh5 gxh5 18 Rxh5 Qc8 19 Ne2 Kf8 20 Nf4 Ke8 21 Ne5 Bf6 22 Rxh7
Bxe5 23 dxe5 Rxh7 24 Qxh7 Ke7 25 Ng6+ Ke6 26 Qh3+ f5 27 e4 1-0
After two successive bronze medals, the Great Britain team (again led by
Penrose), finally broke the Soviet hegemony and won the gold medals in the
9th Correspondence Chess Olympiad, 1982-7, as recounted in detail in the
final chapter of my history of correspondence chess. Hollis again went
through an Olympiad unbeaten and although, like Penrose, his total of 6/8 was
only the second highest score on the board, his performance was very solid
and effective. In that book I include his game with Jovcic. Here is another of
his wins from that tournament, where he beats a FIDE grandmaster.
Adrian Hollis Laszlo Barczay
CC Olympiad 9 final board 2, 1982
English Opening [E01]
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 c5 4 Nf3 cxd4 5 Nxd4 d5 6 Bg2 e5 7 Nf3 d4 8 0-0 Nc6
9 e3 d3 10 Nc3 Be6 11 Ng5 Bg4 12 f3
Apparently a novelty. 12 Qb3 was known from Timoshchenko-Panchenko,
Kislovodsk 1982, where the reply was 12...Qb6. Also 11 b3 had been tried.
12...Bc8 13 Nge4 Be6 14 Nxf6+ gxf6
The Kibitzer
[FEN "r2qkb1r/pp3p1p/2n1bp2/4p3/2P5/
2NpPPP1/PP4BP/R1BQ1RK1 w kq - 0 15"]
Is the d3-pawn strong or weak? And what about the white c-pawn? Hollis
does not worry about these factors yet. The next move starts to open two key
lines where his opponent is weak: the f-file and the long white diagonal.
15 f4! Bxc4 16 Qa4 Be6 17 fxe5 Qb6 18 exf6 0-0-0 19 Bd2 Bh6 20 Nd1
Nd4
Trying to exploit the pin on the diagonal (21 exd4 Bxd2).
21 Rc1+
[FEN "2kr3r/pp3p1p/1q2bP1b/8/Q2n4/
3pP1P1/PP1B2BP/2RN1RK1 b - - 0 21"]
The position still looks messy but White not only has an extra pawn, he is
building up threats against the black king which was forced to castle
queenside thanks to White's fifteenth move.
21...Nc2
He has to block the file with the knight. Black would have preferred to play
21...Kb8, maintaining his fork at e2, but it fails to 22 Ba5 Ne2+ (22...Bd7 23
Qa3) 23 Kh1 because if 23...Qa6 24 Bc7+ Kc8 25 Qxa6 bxa6 26 Rc5 Bf8 27
Bd6+ Kd7 28 Bxf8 Rhxf8 29 Nf2 and wins.
22 Qh4
Good play, driving the bishop back and so reducing the potential for
counterplay.
22...Bf8 23 Nf2
White threatens to undermine the knight by Nxd3.
23...Bc5
Black tries to re-employ his bishop. If instead 23...Qxb2 24 Rb1 Qxa2 25
Bxb7+, exposes the black king; while if 23...Kb8, White can choose between
24 Nxd3 Rxd3 25 Rxc2, 24 Qe4, or 24 Qf4+ Bd6 25 Qe4.
24 Qe4 Bd5 25 Qf5+ Be6 26 Qe4 Bd5 27 Qf5+ Be6
The Kibitzer
[FEN "2kr3r/pp3p1p/1q2bP2/2b2Q2/8/
3pP1P1/PPnB1NBP/2R2RK1 w - - 0 28"]
After two repetitions to save time and test his opponent's intentions, Hollis
plays for a win.
28 Qe5 Qc7 29 Qxc7+
Another player might prefer 29 Qe4 but Hollis believes he can win the
endgame.
29...Kxc7 30 Be4 Kb6
30...Bc4 leads to a wholesale slaughter of the minor pieces by 31 Bxd3 Bxd3
32 Nxd3 Rxd3 33 Rxc2 Rxd2 34 Rxc5+! (The single rook ending arising after
34 Rxd2 would be technically difficult to win.) 34...Kd6 35 Rc4 Rxb2
(Otherwise White will be two pawns up.) 36 Rd4+ and White's two rooks are
a strong fighting force, geared up to create a winning passed f-pawn, e.g.:
a) 36...Ke5 37 Rd7 Rf8 38 Re7+ Kd5 39 Rd1+ Kc6 40 Rdd7 Rxa2 41 Rxf7, or
b) 36...Kc7 37 Rc1+ Kb8 38 Rd7 Rf8 39 Rcc7 Rd8!? 40 e4! etc.
31 Nxd3 Bxe3+ 32 Bxe3+ Nxe3 33 Rfe1 Ng4 34 Nc5 Bc8?
34...Nxf6 was marginally better, but White will win after 35 Nxe6 fxe6 36
Bf3 Rd6 37 Re3 as he has active rooks, bishop versus knight and weak pawns
to attack.
35 Bf3 Nxf6 36 Re3 1-0
Black resigns as he will soon suffer material losses or get mated. If 36...Rhe8,
37 Rb3+ and the b7-pawn soon falls.
Hollis continued to play high-level correspondence chess, admittedly with
declining results, until the email chess era when he called it a day. He played
in two more Olympiads and in some invitational tournaments, which offered
other players the chance to qualify for international titles. The Reg Gillman
Memorial, which began in December 1999, was his last tournament. In the
following game Hollis won with black against a Latvian FIDE grandmaster
who also later became an ICCF grandmaster.
Aivars Gipslis Adrian Hollis
Alekhine Memorial postal tournament, 1991-93
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 e6 6 g4 a6 7 g5 Nfd7 8 Bg2
In the same event Dr. J. Franzen of Slovakia chose 8 Be3 against Hollis and a
lively game ended in a draw. 8 Bg2 also has a good reputation but Black's
ninth move gets White out of the book.
8 Bg2 b5 9 f4 b4 10 Nce2 Bb7 11 h4
In CC Informator 5, Gipslis suggested 11 b3!?.
11...Nc5 12 Ng3 g6 13 b3!?
This surprised Hollis who thought a rapid h4-h5 would be more consistent
with White's formation.
The Kibitzer
13...Bg7 14 Bb2 0-0 15 Qd2

Gipslis rejected the obvious h5 in view of 15...e5 with counterplay.
15...Qb6 16 0-0-0 a5 17 Nde2
Black's attack looks the more formidable now. Probably this was White's last
chance to create worries for Black by h4-h5.
17...Bxb2+ 18 Kxb2 a4 19 Nc1 axb3 20 cxb3 Nc6! 21 h5 Qa5 22 Kb1
[FEN "r4rk1/1b3p1p/2npp1p1/q1n3PP/
1p2PP2/1P4N1/P2Q2B1/1KNR3R b - - 0 22"]
If 22 Ka1 Nd4!. Now the battle rages around the a2-pawn but White's hopes
of creating an impregnable position are shattered by the reply which certainly
illustrates "remorselessness" and finding the very best move; this is just the
sort of situation where a second best move could allow White to escape.
22...Na7! 23 Qb2 Nb5 24 Ka1 Nc3 25 Rd2 Ra7 26 Rh2 Rfa8 27 Bf3 Qc7 28
Rc2 Nxa2! 29 Nxa2 Rxa2+ 30 Qxa2 Rxa2+ 31 Kxa2 Qa5+ 32 Kb1 Qa3! 01
The last trap was 32...Nxb3? 33 Ra2 Qc5 34 Rhc2 Qg1+ 35 Kb2 Qxg3?? 36
Ra8+! Bxa8 37 Rc8+ Kg7 38 h6 mate.
Spying allegations against his father
Though he never went public about it, Adrian Hollis must have been seriously
affected by the storm of publicity that broke in Britain over allegations that
his late father Sir Roger Henry Hollis (1905-73) had spied for the Soviet
Union. Sir Roger had left Oxford University without taking a degree, and then
after working for a short period in Barclay's Bank, he went to China where he
worked for the British American Tobacco Company from 1928-36 until he
contracted tuberculosis and was invalided home. He married in 1937 and in
1938 started to work for Britain's internal security service, MI5, where he rose
to deputy director-general in 1963 and then director-general from 1956 to his
retirement in 1965. He was knighted in 1960, an honour promoted to KBE in
1966. A few years later, however, he was called back to London and was
asked to submit to interrogation following allegations made by a Russian
defector.
Of course none of this was known publicly at the time, and possibly even
Adrian Hollis knew nothing of it, but interest in Russian spies had been
stirred up by the exposure in 1979 of art historian Sir Anthony Blunt as the
so-called 'fourth man' of the Cambridge spy circle (after MacLean, Burgess,
and Philby). There was strongly suspected to have been a fifth man but Sir
Roger (who had not been to Cambridge) did not fit the bill; the fifth man was
actually a Scot named Cairncross. The public however was ready to believe
anything and right through the 1980s publishers had a good market for books
claiming dramatic revelations in this area.
The Kibitzer
Sir Roger Hollis
Several years after Sir Roger's death, leaks from MI5 had led to the
publication of journalist Chapman Pincher's 1981 book Their Trade is
Treachery, which was serialised in the Daily Mail, leading to a page one story
in The Times on 24 March 1981, headlined "MI5 chief suspected since 1970."
Although Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher stated in the House of Commons
next day (25 March) that Hollis's name and reputation had been cleared by
Lord Trend's investigation, the allegations continued for years despite
government denial. As the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article
on Sir Roger (on which I rely for some of these details) says, "The great
public interest in the matter was a severe ordeal for Hollis's family," and it
could well have damaged Adrian's performance when trying again to qualify
for the world championship at correspondence chess.
There was more in Pincher's later book Too Secret Too Long in 1984. The
aforementioned Graham Mitchell, deputy to Sir Roger Hollis at MI5, had also
been suspected at one time but was cleared less unambiguously. A 1984
World in Action television documentary and further books, including Nigel
West's 1987 Mole-hunt: the full story of the Soviet spy in MI5 (1987), kept the
pot boiling.
Roger Hollis was certainly not the fourth or fifth man, but circumstantial
evidence and innuendo suggested he might be the alleged MI5 spy Elli,
identified by Russian defector Igor Gouzenko as having been active for
Moscow around 1942. Central to Pincher's allegations were that Sir Roger,
while in China, had definitely had at least social contact with left-wingers,
even communists, in particular at the Shanghai 'salon' of an Englishwoman,
Agnes Smedley. Possibly there he had met a woman code-named "Sonia"
who had been living (and running spies) in Switzerland but mysteriously
turned up in Oxford not long after the USSR became an ally of Britain during
the war, following the German invasion in the summer of 1941.
Peter Wright's notorious 1987 Spycatcher (banned in Britain), raised the
temperature, as this was a book by an embittered man who had actually
worked in MI5 under Hollis and Mitchell and had raised suspicions about
them. On page 375 of his book, Wright claimed to have found proof but
only when it was too late to ask Hollis about it that Sonia was sending radio
messages from Oxford to Moscow and so was active in running a spy ring
between 1941 and 1943, which could mean that Hollis was "Elli". Also, if
Pincher is right, the interrogators did not know about a possible link between
Hollis and Sonia in China, or that Hollis had taken the Trans-Siberian railway
to Moscow in 1934.
The 1989 book The Truth about Hollis, by W. J. West, raised the allegations
once more, but it appears that Oleg Gordievsky and another Russian defector
denied that Hollis was a spy, and were believed. While Mitchell, who had
been a journalist with the Illustrated London News before World War Two,
was always an implausible suspect, Sir Roger Hollis's personal background
was much more open to suspicion. Most likely Adrian Hollis never knew the
whole truth about his father, who had died before the storm broke in 1981.
The authorized history of MI5 Defend the Realm, by Christopher Andrew
(2010), dismisses the allegations against both men. (The title of the U.S.
The Kibitzer
edition is The Defense of the Realm.) Numerous references to Mitchell and

Hollis can be found via the index; Hugh Alexander is also mentioned.
Andrew dismisses the conspiracy theories of the 1980s contemptuously and
identifies the wartime MI5 spy Elli as Leo Long but he left MI5 soon after
the war, which would mean that there was no "mole" in 1960s MI5 after all.
So Roger Hollis was apparently innocent after all.
Postscript: Carlsen survives tense London showdown
The London Candidates Tournament, played in late March and early April,
was a very strong event in which eight of the world's top players met each
other twice. The first half seemed rather dull but the closing phase was full of
surprises, not least the collapse of the early leader Levon Aronian, who was
tied with Magnus Carlsen for the lead until a loss to Gelfand in round nine
left the Norwegian in sole lead. In round ten they both won, but then Aronian
lost two games in a row and in the critical twelfth round Carlsen finally lost a
game, against Ivanchuk with black, who until then had only scored one win
and had contrived to lose four games on time. (He also lost round thirteen on
time in a hopeless position.)
Meanwhile Kramnik, who had drawn every game in the first half of the
tournament, got into his stride with a win in round eight against Svidler. Then
came Kramnik's round twelve victory, playing black, his third in succession.
Aronian had constructed a remarkable drawn endgame position only to throw
away the game (and his qualification hopes) at move fifty. This suddenly
thrust the former world champion into a half-point lead. Jeff Sonas, on the
ChessBase website, calculated complicated statistical possibilities in the case
of a tiebreak, which largely became redundant after round thirteen's results.
The key point was that Kramnik needed to finish ahead of Carlsen on points.
In Easter Sunday's tense penultimate round, Kramnik, playing his last white,
came close to winning but went wrong just before the first time control.
Perpetual check soon resulted, but Carlsen ground on, in a long gritty ending,
with knights and same coloured bishops, Carlsen had nearly half-an-hour in
hand while Radjabov was virtually depending on his thirty-second increment.
Just when it looked like a draw was likely, Carlsen cashed in his thinking time
and came up with one last try; a surprise knight move was met erroneously
and suddenly Radjabov was dead lost. So, going into the last round, Carlsen
would be sure to qualify if he could beat Svidler with white, while a draw
would be OK if Kramnik (playing black against Ivanchuk) was unable to win.
If any bookmakers were taking bets on the last round, they would have
cleaned up because surely nobody would have put good money on the 'double'
that actually occurred: both the leaders lost! I watched every minute of the
last round 'live' online and certainly failed to predict many of the critical
moves. Carlsen went in for a very double-edged line, and soon got into
desperate time trouble, just after Ivanchuk played a positional pawn sacrifice
that at first looked crazy but turned out to be deeply judged. Soon after the
time control, the Norwegian resigned a hopeless endgame against against
Svidler (who thereby tied with Aronian for third) but by then he could see
that Ivanchuk, who had negotiated the time control for a change, had kept his
extra pawn and would liquidate to a clearly won ending. So, later this year,
we shall have the world championship match that probably all chess players
(except Kramnik, of course, and probably Anand, too) have been wanting to
see: Anand versus Carlsen!
Order The Kibitzer #203 (Ebook)

by Tim Harding
The Kibitzer
The ebook also offers bonus content of more than 250 Hollis, many with
annotations! All for only .99 cents!!

The Kibitzer
Afficher cette page en: franais
Traduire
Options
Options
Dsactiverpour:
pour : anglais
Dsactiver
anglais
Search ChessCafe
Purchases from our

accessible:
Toiletgate, Irish Style
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Translate this page

Slectionner
une langue
Slectionner
une
Fourni par
langue
Traduire
Most readers probably recall the 'Toiletgate' allegations that marred the 2006
world championship match between Vladimir Kramnik and Veselin Topalov.
In April this year, at a tournament in the Irish city of Cork, a new 'Toiletgate'
occurred, involving players of considerably less eminence, but with an added
twist. It was extensively (but rather inaccurately) reported at the time in the
Irish news media and received a certain amount of attention online since. The
central issues are what should be done to prevent players analysing their
games in the privacy of the restroom, and what should the reaction be if a
player is suspected of doing this?

by Chess Informant
If I play a correspondence competition under BCCA rules, I do not use

computer engine assistance and expect my opponents also to abide by the
association's rules. In other correspondence chess play, whether under ICCF
rules or in casual Internet play, I expect my opponents to employ electronic
assistance and will do the same myself.
When I play an over-the-board chess event, I certainly expect the game to be
a straightforward contest between two human beings, neither of whom will
seek or accept assistance. There are two distinct issues here: talking to other
people about your game, or seeking assistance elsewhere, which in the old
days could mean a sly visit to the tournament bookstall, but today is much
more likely to mean recourse to an electronic device.
Chess Evolution #08

by Chess Evolution
On a very small number of occasions in the pre-computer era, I found myself

playing an opponent who regularly got up from the board when it was my turn
to move to speak with a friend who was a much stronger player than either of
us. The game was about level but my opponent seemed to be playing much
better than normally. It is possible they were discussing the weather or
football but it began to prey on my mind that I was really playing the friend
rather than my official opponent. Even if it was not true, this was liable to
affect my own performance.
I decided that I must think really hard in my opponent's time, try to predict
her moves accurately and immediately make my response so that she had no
time to get up from the board to obtain advice (if that is what she was doing).
I don't recall exactly what happened but I think I managed to keep her at the
board for four or five successive moves at a critical phase of the middlegame.
Eventually my opponent played one or two inferior moves and I managed to
win, but around this time she did much better than expected in the British
Ladies' Championship and others voiced suspicions about her performance.
There were never any formal complaints and shortly afterwards she married,
moved abroad, and probably stopped playing competitive chess.
Of course, even before the invention of electronic devices, there were
probably cases where players went to the toilet with a pocket set in order to
calculate possible complications. Or perhaps they had a pocket opening
encyclopaedia to check variations. It has always been virtually impossible to
stop this type of behaviour, which would only be detected accidentally if the
offender was careless. However, the development of small devices capable of
Chess Evolution #09

by Chess Evolution
The Kibitzer
analysing chess positions better and faster than the human brain does add a
new dimension, although I am not sure how strongly the chess apps on smartphones can perform compared to a chess engine on a fully fledged computer.
Even if your opponent is not cheating, the belief that he is doing so can
adversely affect your thinking processes. The extension of that thought is that,
while not actually cheating, an opponent can do things that disrupt your
equanimity and ability to concentrate. The following is relevant to what
happened in the Irish Toiletgate as it can illustrate the thinking process and
emotional reactions of the cheat's victim.
The worst case though not involving cheating of the same kind that ever
happened to me occurred back in the 1970s in an Open tournament. A rather
unpleasant opponent (whom I had recently defeated in another competition)
brought a beer mug full of water to the board. The thought crossed my mind
that he perhaps intended to deliberately spill this at some strategic moment,
but of course there was no proof of any such intention, other than the water
itself standing by the board, and I did not wish to break my concentration or
that of the players on nearby boards.
However, a few minutes later this is precisely what happened. While it was
my turn to move, he got up from the board and accidentally-on-purpose
spilled the whole pint over the board and my trousers. Not surprisingly he
won the game (which he certainly was not winning prior to this incident) and
my chance of a prize in the tournament was spoiled. Afterwards I regretted
not making an accusation about my opponent to the controllers, either when
the water was brought to the board, or after the spillage, but certainly if
anything like that had ever occurred again, then I would have been quick to do
something. Nowadays I would try to claim the game under the rule that it is
forbidden to annoy or distract the opponent, but in those days the rule was, I
think, chiefly considered to refer to speaking to the opponent, especially with
respect to reiterated draw offers.
The FIDE laws of chess (specifically 12.2) make a distinction between the
playing venue and the playing area. Without the arbiter's permission, players
are not permitted to leave the venue (which is defined as including
refreshment areas, designated smoking areas, and rest rooms) but the player
having the move is not allowed to leave the playing area, which presumably
means where the boards are. So a player is allowed to go the toilet after
making his move, but if it his turn and he needs to go, then he must ask the
arbiter's permission.
Article 12.3 has three clauses, the third of which forbids smoking. The first
forbids the use "of any notes, sources of information or advice" or analysing
on another chessboard. The second clause provides that any "mobile phone or
other electronic means of communication" in the playing venue (not just the
playing area) must be completely switched off and if such device makes any
noise, the opponent wins the game (unless the position is unwinnable, in
which case it is a draw). This second part of 12.3 is totally adequate, as I shall
discuss below. Article 13.4 lists penalties that the arbiter can impose for
infractions, which can include declaring the game to be lost and expulsion
from the event.
There are two reasons why I consider that the second part of 12.2 is
inadequate. Firstly, its focus is apparently chiefly on preventing other players
being distracted (by ringing phones or text notifications, let alone actual
conversations) rather on preventing cheating. It is good so far as it goes but
does it go far enough? I have on one occasion sat at the adjacent board in a
tournament to a player whose phone rang during a game. He did not
immediately resign; apparently hoping that his opponent would not insist on
enforcement of the rule. However, after a minute or two, my opponent and I
were eventually left in peace.
An unscrupulous player might visibly switch off his phone before the
commencement of a game, but then go to the toilet at a certain point in the
game, switch it on again and "phone a friend" to get advice on the position.
This, however, might run the risk of being overheard, and so is unlikely to
occur. The biggest danger is that while in the privacy of the cubicle the cheat
will use a program on the device to analyse the game or to access a website
where he can find games in the same opening which will help him play more
strongly than he is otherwise likely to do.
The Kibitzer
This brings us to the second point. The wording "mobile phone or other
electronic means of communication" clearly forbids the use of a device that
can communicate with the outside world but it does not exclude small
computers (if any such exist today) which are capable of analysing games but
which are not also communications devices. It is true that the use of such
devices (which are not phones) seems to fall under the first clause, but a
stronger law seems to be needed that explicitly forbids the use of any
electronic device in any way while a playing session is in progress, even if
one's own game is finished.
Ideally all such devices should be lodged with the arbiter during a round, and
this might work at small tournaments with a limited number of players. For
the vast majority of matches and tournaments, but there are of course at least
two problems with that suggestion. Firstly there is a danger of theft, secondly
that somebody might take back your phone by mistake for their own of the
same model, and thirdly that the arbiters simply have too many other
responsibilities. This is especially the case towards the end of a round, when
some players would be finished and wanting to reclaim their phones, just as
the arbiters are needed to supervise time scrambles. There is also the
possibility that an unscrupulous player could bring two devices to a game, one
to be given up to the arbiter and the other to be kept concealed and used
during the game.
Therefore, it is not easy to see how the present rule can be improved, except
that it should be reworded to exclude all electronic equipment.
The First Toiletgate
In 2006, the Bulgarian grandmaster Topalov played the then world champion
Kramnik in Elista, which is in Kalmykia, part of Russia. So he was not only
the challenger but was playing "away". Elaborate conditions in the rules of the
match governed such matters as screens between the players and the
audience, to prevent any kind of signalling, and video recording of the rest
areas. These included not just toilets but also demonstration boards where
players, when not their turn to move, could sit out of the audience's gaze, and
study the position. It seemed to Topalov that Kramnik was spending an
excessive amount of time in this back area instead of at the match board.
Topalov lost the first two games by blunders (having been close to a win in
Game One) and the next two games were drawn.
According to the book of the match by Topalov himself and co-author Zhivko
Ginchev (published by Russell Enterprises in 2007), especially pages 25-29,
Topalov's delegation asked to see the video recordings, which they finally
received after the fourth game. It appeared that there were many toilet visits
by Kramnik and some gaps in the tapes which made them suspicious. Unlike
the 2012 Anand-Gelfand match where there was a common backstage seating
area, each player in the Kramnik-Topalov match had his own private area (as
had been the case in several previous title matches.) Topalov's team requested
that the organisers exercise more control over the rest areas: "When your
opponent spends more than two hours where you cannot see him, you have
the right to know what he does there."
The upshot was that an appeals committee decided that in future the toilet
visits of both players should be supervised. Kramnik at first refused to these
conditions and defaulted Game Five, but eventually the match resumed, was
tied, and then Kramnik won the tiebreak.
For Kramnik's point of view on the matter, my source is the book From
London to Elista by Evgeny Bareev and Ilya Levitov. They say that Kramnik
had been in poor health since 2005, and then on page 345 they accuse
Topalov's manager Silvio Danailov of starting "this awful scandal." Their
interpretation is that the Toiletgate incident was a provocation organised by
Danailov to unsettle Kramnik because he had lost confidence in Topalov and
could see no other way that his player could score +2 in the remaining eight
regular games. They are extremely critical of the Appeals Committee which
made decisions in Topalov's favour on the basis of suspicion only, with no
evidence, and two of whose members were subsequently replaced by the
FIDE President before the match could resume.
Both books are really unpleasant to read, with each side continuing to believe
The Kibitzer
they were completely in the right. Bareev and Levitov are critical of the
arbiter, perhaps unfairly, but they are probably correct, though, to say that the
reaction to the provocation was badly handled by Kramnik's head of
delegation, but eventually some sort of rationality prevailed. The biggest loser
was probably Topalov in the end; he had no sympathy for me when he lost
this match and later the one to Anand. Last year he could not even qualify for
the 2013 Candidates, but he is now up to fourth in the FIDE rankings (below
Carlsen, Aronian, and Kramnik) so a future challenge cannot be ruled out.
Cork Congress Incident
In the incident at the 2013 Cork Chess Congress, at least there can be no
criticism of the experienced tournament director in this case, Gerry Graham.
The full facts probably will not emerge until the Irish Chess Union completes
its investigation, but what appears to have happened is the following. An
adult player, forty-seven-year-old Gabriel Mirza, became convinced that his
teenage opponent was cheating, because after virtually every move (from
move four it said in one report) the youngster was getting up from the board
and going away. When this behaviour continued and the teenager could not
be seen in the playing area, Mirza followed him to the restroom and saw the
boy going into a toilet cubicle.
Several Irish newspapers quoted Mirza as follows:

"After each move he went to the toilet, at least 20 times...I found him in
the toilet with an Android checking the moves with a chess engine. I
tried to get over the cubicle wall to grab the tablet from his hands, and
firstly I was thinking to jump over inside that cubicle. But I wanted a
witness, so I ran straight to the controller, Mr Gerry Graham and called
him to follow me immediately," said Mr Mirza. "The organisers (Mr
Michael Bradley) and other adult approached there at the Gents [and]
followed me inside where I forced the cubicle door and I pulled this guy
out from the toilet. I just grabbed him and then I was stopped by the
people behind me."
One report said that Graham first asked the boy to come out and it was when
he refused that Mirza forced the door. In one news report Mirza was stated to
be formerly a soccer player for Steau Bucharest, while other reports name
different Romanian clubs, so perhaps his former career gave him the skill to
kick a door down. He called this a "citizen's arrest" and said he did it because
he was afraid his opponent would flush the evidence down the toilet. It is not
clear how much physical force Mirza used and whether his actions constituted
an assault; that could be for the courts to decide. Unfortunately, the score of
the game is not available (though perhaps the investigating committee have
it), so it is impossible at this point to judge from internal evidence whether
Mirza's opponent had obtained any benefit from his silicon adviser.
The immediate upshot was that the gardai [Irish police] were called:
"His coach avoided me and he called the Garda. I was interviewed by a
one lady from the Garda and then after I gave all details with a witness.
I was told that I won my game as the guy admitted about his fraud. We
were both stopped to play last round," said Mr Mirza.
The arbiter clearly made the right calls. He acted promptly on the complaint
and appears to have acted sensibly and in full accordance with the rules. As
the teenager apparently admitted he was using an electronic device to assist
him in some way, he was deemed to have lost the game and expelled from the
tournament. Mirza was also expelled because of his conduct in breaking down
the door rather than letting the tournament director take charge of the
The Kibitzer
situation. The report in the Limerick Leader on 23 April includes the text of
an email from Graham to Mirza explaining his decision:
"The Laws of chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise
during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where
cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be
possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations
which are discussed in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have
the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity.
Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of
judgement and thus prevent him from finding the solution to a problem
dictated by fairness, logic and special factors. FIDE appeals to all chess
players and federations to accept this view. As I witnessed you
assaulting another player, a junior player, only 16 years old, I would cite
that you certainly took an action that will bring the game of chess into
disrepute. Because of the seriousness of your infraction, I chose
expulsion for the event."
Apparently Mirza later apologised to the organisers for overreacting at the
tournament, held in the Metropole Hotel, Cork. Some of the misreporting of
details about the incident can be put down to journalists who know little about
chess and chess organisation. I do get the impression, however, that Mirza
was keen to publicise it, and his photograph has appeared in several
newspapers and websites. Some of the things he is quoted as saying about the
circumstances are rather misleading.
Some reports implied that Mirza was in contention to win an important event.
The truth is that he was not in the Open section, as some newspapers claimed,
but in the thirty-six-player Major section. Another inaccurate statement about
this (in news reports and some websites) was the claim that the 400 Euro prize
was the second highest of any Irish chess tournament. Also, Mirza was quoted
as saying "I was stopped to win the tournament!" However, he had already
lost one game and even if he had won round five in the ordinary way, he
would not necessarily have been paired in the last round with the young man
who won the event with a 6/6 score. Nor, even if they had been paired and he
had won, would he necessarily have had the best tie-break.
The same, of course, applied to his young opponent. Why cheat when the
potential gain was so small and the downside so large?
The Irish Chess Union executive held an emergency meeting three days after
the incident, on Wednesday 24 April, following receipt of the tournament
controller's report. They ruled as follows:
Player A has been accused of using an electronic device to analyse
chess positions during a game.
Player B has been accused of using force on a minor.
Two three-person sub-committees of experienced chess organisers were
formed to investigate the cases separately and recommend appropriate action.
A Northern Ireland barrister is one of those on the second panel. Readers who
wish to see the full official statements so far made about this matter by the
Irish Chess Union can read the texts online.
The I.C.U. executive statement included the following:
While many people might consider that either one or both players
should be temporarily banned from taking part in ICU events while the
two sub-committees are conducting their investigations, there is nothing
in our constitution and code of conduct that would enable the executive
to do this. However, both players will be asked to voluntarily refrain
from taking part in ICU events while the disciplinary sub-committees
are making their investigations. Both players will also be asked to sign a
letter agreeing to abide by our code of conduct.
The statement also said that the reports of both sub-committees will be
published on the ICU website. (It will probably be several weeks before these
reports are ready, though.) They also said that name of the minor will not be
published, but of course it has already emerged on the Internet and is common
knowledge in the Irish chess world.
The Kibitzer
The Limerick Leader on 30 April reported that "the parents of his opponent
who was age 16, have since sent a solicitor's letter to Mirza, a Romanian
national who has been living in Limerick for the past 15 years." The paper
also said that Mirza claims to be "receiving huge support from players who
want cheating banished from the sport" and that he was not aware of the boy's
age at the time of the incident.
Has Player A got off lightly so far? If the Irish Chess Union had really
wanted to keep his name a secret they should have long ago asked the
Congress organisers to take down from their website the detailed results of the
tournament. At the time of writing this article, at least, the pairings and game
results can still be seen.
From this it can be gleaned that the incident occurred in the fifth round,
played on Sunday morning, 21 April. Mirza's rating prior to the tournament
was 1532. He had lost in the first round and then won three games. His score
of 3/4 at that point put him in joint third with six other players. He had little
realistic chance of winning the tournament as the eventual winner Fionn
O'Neill won all six rounds and there was another player who had only
dropped half a point from his first four games. O'Neill had won the minor
section last year, also with a 100% score. His fine achievement has been
overshadowed by the cheating incident.
Mirza's fifth round opponent was not named in press reports, which only said
he was a sixteen-year-old male pupil at a private school in Dublin. Anyone
who knows the Irish chess scene reasonably well would have easily guessed
which school that was likely to be: the prestigious Jesuit-run Gonzaga
College, the only school to have a team in the top division of the Leinster
league. As in previous years, apparently, a teacher had brought a large group
of pupils to the congress.
From the tournament results and cross-referencing with the Irish Chess Union
rating list, it is evident who the cheat was but there are potential legal issues
with publishing the name of a minor without consent, so we will have to
continue to refer to him as Player A. Player A had a rating prior to the
tournament of 1325 (according to the Congress web page) but 1248 in January
according to the ICU website, up from 1096 last September. A new rating list
is due out later in May.
It is possible that Player A could have been cheating earlier in the tournament.
Suggestive of that is that in the third round he defeated the runner-up,
Michael Bradley, who won his other five games. On the other hand, Player A
lost his round four game to a middle-aged opponent who certainly would not
have been using computer assistance. Perhaps that defeat left him desperate
for a win to get back in contention, or maybe it was an impulse decision after
being taken by surprise in the opening? We are unlikely to find out.
If indeed Player A was a student there, Gonzaga College's website states at the
beginning of its Code of Behaviour that "Gonzaga College SJ aspires to be a
community that promotes mutual respect, co-operation and justice for all as
core values." It also includes the statements that: "Each member of the school
community shares responsibility for the order and well being of our College
The vision of the College is that each member of the community would aspire
to be self disciplined and to show concern for the needs of others."
Perhaps if the lad had gone alone to the tournament, the school might have
considered this was none of their business, but since he was reportedly part of
a large group of their pupils, they may well consider the incident falls within
the remit of their Code. So will the college discipline this student? Some
newspapers said the school did not respond to requests for comment and it is
hardly likely they will say anything, at least until the school year is over.
After this all blows over, the young player may well decide to give up
competitive chess, even if he is not suspended. The consequences of this
affair are likely to far more serious for Mirza, although there appears to be
sympathy in some quarters for his taking action to expose cheating. Similar
incidents have certainly happened before in other countries, but this is
probably the first time an opponent took physical action to expose the
wrongdoing and catch the offender red-handed.
In postings on various Internet boards, there seems to be considerable
The Kibitzer
disagreement as to who should be regarded as the victim in this case. Perhaps

both are offenders and both are victims. There is even a "Chess Row in Cork"
thread at the English Chess Forum. One poster drew attention to the fact that
Mirza has been somewhat controversial in Irish chess organisational matters,
as his own Secretary's report to the 2012 annual general meeting of the ICU
shows.
The background to this is that in the 2011 National Club Championships, to
determine which Irish club should represent Ireland at the European Team
Championships, the winners were the small village of Adare whose team
largely consisted of Romanian GMs and masters, evidently recruited by
Mirza, together with then current Irish champion, Alex Lopez from Cork,
who was on board five. (The week after the Cork incident Adare won this
competition for the third year in succession.) Understandable attempts to
change the rules to prevent a repetition of this incident would appear to have
been resented by Mirza, whose secretary's report appears to imply a
conspiracy to remove him from office.
He stood for re-election as ICU Secretary in September 2012. He was
defeated by the only other candidate, but the new Secretary, Bryan Tobin,
resigned after a few weeks in office, leaving the executive free under the
constitution to appoint a replacement for the remainder of the term. Kevin
O'Flaherty is now the Secretary.
I am not involved in any Irish chess organisational matters, and never have
been. I leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions while we await the
reports of the ICU's two disciplinary sub-committees and the final decision of
the ICU in this matter, which will surely at least involve the suspension of
both players involved from any participation in Irish chess for a significant
period.
For the wider chess world, this is a warning and a wake-up call!

by Tim Harding
In PDF format. Viewable in Ipad, Itouch, Kindle, and other PDF viewers.
Only .99 cents!!

The Kibitzer
Page 1 sur 16
Search ChessCafe
Purchases from our

accessible:
Lothar Schmid, 1928-2013
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Translate this page

Select Language
Powered by
Translate
'Tis all a Chequer-board of Nights and Days

Where Destiny with men for Pieces plays:
Hither and thither moves, and mates, and slays,
And one by one back in the Closet lays.
Thus Edward Fitzgerald's (first edition) free rendering of stanza 49 from
the Rubaiyat of eleventh century Persian writer Omar Khayyam.
One by one, the giants of chess from the twentieth century are being laid
back in the box for captured chessmen. This month, we remember
German grandmaster Lothar Maximilian Lorenz Schmid, who was born
on 10 May 1928 in Dresden-Radebeul and died, shortly after his eightyfifth birthday, in Bamberg on 18 May this year. Obituaries appeared
worldwide, not only in the chess press and blogosphere. Unfortunately, I
only met Schmid once, and that only briefly, so I cannot comment on his
personality.
Newspapers usually emphasised the difficult role Schmid played, as
chief arbiter, in managing two of the most contentious world chess
championship matches: Fischer versus Spassky in Reykjavik (1972) and
Karpov-Korchnoi in Baguio City (in 1978). In addition he was arbiter
for the London half of the match between Karpov and Kasparov in 1986
and the sanctions-busting Fischer-Spassky rematch in Yugoslavia
(1992), as well as other important events.
The Complete Kalashnikov

by Matthieu Cornette
& Fabien Libiszewski

by Chess Informant
Chess Evolution #09

by Chess Evolution
Schmid at Oberhausen in 1961
It is probably true to say that without Schmid's tactful and diplomatic

handling of the crisis that arose early in the Reykjavik match, that Bobby
Fischer would never have become world champion. After the first game,
which Fischer had lost through a childish pawn-grab in a drawn ending,
the American refused to play until television cameras were removed. He
defaulted Game Two but Schmid managed to persuade him to return for
Game Three which was played in a private room. At the start of that
game Fischer created a new upset but Schmid stopped Spassky's clock
and managed to mollify both players. The game and match resumed,
with the well-known outcome.
The 1978 match in the Philippines was also reported worldwide because
of its Cold War background, following Korchnoi's defection from the
USSR. It was tricky for an arbiter not only because of its length (being
The Kibitzer
Page 2 sur 16
for the first to win six games, and it reached 5-5), but furthermore
because of the many protests lodged by both sides. There was an air of
absurdity about the proceedings, with Korchnoi claiming that Karpov
was receiving coded messages according to the colour of the yogurt
delivered to him during games, and allegations about parapsychologists
and other unusual spectators. Although Schmid eventually had to return
to Germany on urgent business before the end, he successfully
negotiated the most critical moments.
Arguably, though, his work as FIDE arbiter was the least of Lothar
Schmid's achievements. He was also a double grandmaster, for both
over-the-board and correspondence play, and although he was never
world champion, Schmid briefly in the 1950s could be considered to
have proved himself the world's best player in that form of the game. On
top of this, he was a chess collector extraordinary; he has left the largest
collection of chess literature and memorabilia to be held in private
hands. The (as yet unknown) destiny of this collection is likely to be of
great interest to chess historians and collectors, and its disposal is likely
to have a seismic effect on values of chess collectables for many years to
come.
Schmid was able to build such a large and valuable collection for two
reasons. Firstly, his father's family owned the Karl May Verlag
publishing house which published the works of a popular nineteenth
century writer, Karl May. Most obituaries briefly refer to this, but The
Times gave considerable detail, probably thanks to Ray Keene's
expertise in German literature, which was his university degree subject.
Apparently, May's books continued to sell well in twentieth century
Germany so that the Schmid family fortune ultimately came into
Lothar's hands when his father died in 1951. Furthermore, having been
allowed to leave East Germany to play chess (apparently hiding his
mother in the boot of his car), he was free to build up the business in
Bamberg. He was able to use some of his wealth in the early 1950s to
acquire the libraries of German collectors at a time when few people in
the country were glad to obtain some cash for such luxuries that they
happened to have kept from pre-war times.
Schmid in Braunschweig, November 2011

Photo: Ken Whyld Association
Should it turn out that Schmid has left his collection intact to some
public library or other institution, it would be important that sufficient
finds were also granted that would guarantee the upkeep and
accessibility of the material. It is much more likely, as was the fate of
other great collections in the past, that they will be broken up and
auctioned. This would first require the large task of cataloguing, since it
is understood that Schmid himself had long since lost track of his
holdings. A properly produced catalogue (printed or on the Internet)
would in itself be of immense interest since it would certainly contain
information about numerous rare items.
Then, when the collection was actually put on sale, probably in
Germany, it is to be hoped that there would be a brief opportunity to
view some of these rarities. The auction, itself, would probably be a
competitive event, but what would be the long-term outcome? Probably
many collectors fear that the market could be flooded and their present
holdings, collected at great expense and trouble over many years, would
diminish in value. The very volume of items likely to see the light of day
The Kibitzer
Page 3 sur 16
could depress the chess collector market for many years to come.
The rest of this article will largely deal with Schmid's playing career. A
database of over 500 of his games (nearly all wins and draws, both
postal and over-the-board) is included in the e-book version of this
column.
Schmid as Chess Player
Schmid was fortunate in being too young to be called up to fight in the
Second World War. At the age of thirteen, he won the Dresden
Championship, but the level of opposition may not have been as high as
it would have been in peacetime. After the war, and especially after he
became resident in West Germany, his career progressed rapidly, and in
1948 he played in the final of 12th German Championship with mixed
success. His opponents included established masters Ludwig Rellstab
and Rudolf Teschner and another future grandmaster, Wolfgang
Unzicker, who was to be a regular colleague of Schmid's on German
national teams. The following year Schmid met an even more famous
grandmaster for the first time.
Efim Bogoljubow Lothar Schmid
13th German Ch, Bad Pyrmont 1949
Scotch Four Knights [C47]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 d4 exd4 5 Nxd4 Nxe4!?
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/pppp1ppp/2n5/8/3Nn3/
2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 0 6"]
Apparently introduced in this game; Schmid surprises the veteran former

world title challenger.
6 Nxc6
6 Nxe4 is probably better since after 6...Qe7 7 f3! d5 Black seems to
have the worst of the complications. Gary Lane's book Winning with the
Scotch recommended 8 Bb5 Bd7 9 Bxc6 bxc6 10 0-0 dxe4 (HandokoHecht, Thessaloniki ol 1984) 11 fxe4! g6 (to rule out Nf5 and to
fianchetto the bishop; if 11...0-0-0 12 Qd3) 12 Be3 Bg7 13 Nb3 when
Black cannot castle kingside because of 14 Bc5, which also looks to be a
strong reply to 13...Bxb2. So 14...Qe6 would be the least evil, hoping
that the bishop-pair may compensate for the weakened pawns and
stranded king.
6...Nxc3 7 Nxd8 Nxd1 8 Nxf7 Nxf2!?
8...Kxf7 9 Bc4+ Kf6 10 Kxd1 c6= is safer according to Euwe.
9 Nxh8 Nxh1
[FEN "r1b1kb1N/pppp2pp/8/8/8/8/
The Kibitzer
Page 4 sur 16
PPP3PP/R1B1KB1n w Qq - 0 10"]
10 Bd3?!
This allows the black knight to escape, while not totally succeeding in
extricating his own cornered piece.
10 Be3!, followed by 0-0-0, gives White the better game; this is
presumably why Schmid did not repeat his experiment.
10...Bc5! 11 Bxh7 Nf2
Also, now White cannot castle.
12 Bf4 d6 13 Bg6+ Kf8 14 Bg3 Ng4 15 Nf7?
15 Kd2 was better, to give his rook some scope; e.g., 15...Be6 16 Re1
Bxa2 17 Bf5. This gains a tempo for the white knight to escape via g6,
and a draw is the most likely outcome.
15...Ne3 16 Kd2 Bf5
[FEN "r4k2/ppp2Np1/3p2B1/2b2b2/
8/4n1B1/PPPK2PP/R7 w - - 0 17"]
17 Ng5?
A fatal miscalculation.
17 Nh8 was, paradoxically, best, to escape by 17...Bxg6?! 18 Nxg6+.
Instead 17...Bd7 maintains some advantage for Black.
17...Bxg6 18 Ne6+ Ke7 19 Nxc5 Nxc2!
Not 19...dxc5 20 Re1 Rd8+ 21 Kc1 which would be very drawish.
20 Bh4+ Ke8 21 Ne6 Kd7 22 Nf4 Nxa1 23 Nxg6 Re8 24 Bf2 Nc2! 25
Nf4 Nb4 0-1
Schmid met Bogoljubow on two later occasions, scoring a draw and a
second win (in the French Defence).
In 1950 he played in the first postwar FIDE chess Olympiad at
Dubrovnik, and he continued to play in these events up to 1974. During
these two decades he played numerous international tournaments but
was never really a chess professional, having a large private income
from business. Several times he also led the German team in a team
tournament for western European countries; the following game was
played on one of those occasions.
Lothar Schmid Jesus Diez del Corral
10th Clare Benedict Cup, Lucerne 1963
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 e5 c5 5 a3 Bxc3+ 6 bxc3 Ne7 7 Qg4 Qc7
8 Qxg7 Rg8 9 Qxh7 cxd4 10 Ne2 Nbc6 11 f4 Bd7 12 Qd3 dxc3 13
Nxc3
One of several possibilities that were hot theory in the 1960s in what
was then the very trendy French Poisoned Pawn.
13...a6 14 Rb1
The Kibitzer
Page 5 sur 16
[FEN "r3k1r1/1pqbnp2/p1n1p3/3pP3/5P2/
P1NQ4/2P3PP/1RB1KB1R b Kq - 0 14"]
14...Rc8
After this game, theoretical attention turned to 14...Na5!.
15 h4! Nf5 16 Rh3 f6 17 exf6 Kf7 18 h5 Rg4 19 h6 Ncd4
19...Rh8? loses to 20 Qd1! Rg6 21 g4 Rgxh6 22 gxf5! Rxh3 23 Bxh3
Rxh3 24 Qg4 Rh1+ 25 Kf2 Kxf6 26 Nxd5+! exd5 27 Bb2+ (Schmid).
20 h7 Rh8 21 Qd1 Rh4! 22 Rxb7!
Not 22 Rxh4? Qxc3+ 23 Qd2 Qg3+ 24 Kd1 Qxh4 25 Rxb7 Rd8+
(Schmid).
22...Qxb7 23 Rxh4 Nxh4 24 Qxd4
[FEN "7r/1q1b1k1P/p3pP2/3p4/3Q1P1n/
P1N5/2P3P1/2B1KB2 b - - 0 24"]
24...Nf5?
According to Schmid, 24...Rxh7!? was the best chance, when White
continues 25 Qc5! and now
a) 25...Ng6 26 g4 (26 Be3 Kxf6 27 f5 Kxf5 28 Ne4!) 26...Kxf6 27 f5!
exf5 28 Nxd5+ Kf7 29 Bc4 and wins.
b) 25...Kxf6 26 Qf8+ Kg6 (26...Rf7 27 Qh8+) 27 Bd3+ Nf5 28 g4
winning.
c) 25...Bc6 26 Bd3 Nxg2+ 27 Kf2 Rh1 28 Bxa6! Qd7 29 Bc8! (The
critical moment) and now
c1) 29...Qxc8? 30 Qe7+ Kg6 31 Qg7+ Kf5 32 Qg5# (Schmid).
c2) 29...Qe8 when Schmid suggested 30 Qa7+ Kxf6 31 Bb2 Kf5! 32
Qc7 (32 Kxg2? Qg6+ e.g. 33 Kxh1?? d4+ 34 Kh2 Qg2#) but after
32...Nxf4 Rolf Schwarz (1967) said it is not clear that White can win.
However, former Irish Champion John Moles (in Chapter 4 of his classic
1975 Batsford book The French Defence: Main Line Winawer)
demonstrated 30 Ne4! dxe4 31 Qa7+ Kxf6 32 Bb2+ winning.
25 Qd3! d4
If 25...Rxh7 26 g4!+-.
26 Ne4 Bc6
The Kibitzer
Page 6 sur 16
If 26...Qb1 27 Qd1! Ne3 28 Qh5+ Kf8 29 Qc5+! Ke8 30 Qe7# or

26...Bb5 27 Qf3 Kf8 28 a4! Bxf1 29 Ng5 Qxf3 30 gxf3 winning
(Schmid).
27 Ng5+ Kxf6 28 g4! Bb5 29 Qe4 Qxe4+ 30 Nxe4+ Ke7 31 gxf5 Bxf1
32 Kxf1 Rxh7 33 f6+ Kf8 34 Ke2 Rh1 35 Bb2 1-0
In the late 1940s and 1950s, Schmid devoted considerable time and
energy to postal play, first making his mark in 1948, in the Max Blumich
Memorial, an international open event in several sections that was
organised by Germany. The first German Correspondence Chess
Championship, a two-stage event, began in 1949 and Schmid qualified
for the final, played 1950-52, which he won.
Berthold Koch Lothar Schmid
1st German Corr Ch Final 1950-52
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 c5 4 c3 Qb6 5 Nf3 Bd7 6 Bd3 cxd4! 7 Nxd4 Nc6!
8 Nxc6 bxc6 9 0-0 Ne7 10 Nd2 Ng6 11 Nf3 Be7 12 Qe2 Qc7 13 Re1 00 14 h4 f6!
[FEN "r4rk1/p1qbb1pp/2p1ppn1/3pP3/7P/
2PB1N2/PP2QPP1/R1B1R1K1 w - - 0 15"]
Active defence: Schmid has played precisely so that his knight gains
access to e5 just in time.
15 exf6 gxf6 16 Nd4 e5 17 h5
Not good, but White has few choices. Both 17 Nf5 and 17 Qh5 would be
answered by 17...e4.
17...Nh4 18 Bh6 Rf7 19 g3 Bf8! 20 Qd2 exd4 21 gxh4 Bg4 22 Be2
Bxh6 23 Qxh6 Bxe2 24 Rxe2 Kh8 25 Rae1 Rg8+ 26 Kh1 Qd7 27 Re6
[FEN "6rk/p2q1r1p/2p1Rp1Q/3p3P/
3p3P/2P5/PP3P2/4R2K b - - 0 27"]
27...d3!
White never had time to capture this pawn. Its advance forces the white
queen to retreat.
28 Qe3 Rfg7 29 Qxd3 Rg4 30 Qh3 d4!
Now White has no defence against the threat of 31...Qd5+ 32 f3 Qxf3+
etc., leading to forced mate.
31 R6e4
If 31 c4, then 31...c5 creates the threat to check with the queen from b7
The Kibitzer
Page 7 sur 16
instead.
31...Rxe4! 0-1
White resigns for if 32 Qxd7 comes 32...Rxh4+ and mate next move.
Schmid's obituary in The Times curiously omitted his greatest success at
this form of the game. The German-organised Dyckhoff Memorial
Tournament, played from 1954-56, was a very large international jubilee
in numerous sections, of which the top invitational group was roughly
the same standard as the early ICCF World Championship Finals.
Schmid played a very high standard of chess in the Dyckhoff, defeating
his main rival, Belgian grandmaster Alberic O'Kelly de Galway, against
whom he had the good fortune to be awarded the white pieces. Schmid
was awarded the ICCF grandmaster title on the basis of this tournament
victory.
Christiaan Hayes Lothar Schmid
Dyckhoff Memorial Invitational corr, 1954-56
Old Benoni [A43]
1 d4 c5
The "Old" Benoni which was a great favourite with Schmid throughout
his career. Against opponents below the "world top" Schmid tended to
win with this defence.
Of course it is played on the assumption that most 1 d4 players do not
wish to be white in a Sicilian Morra Gambit. However, in the most
decisive game from the 2nd ICCF world championship, V. V. Ragozin
took up the challenge:
2 e4 cxd4 3 Nf3 Nf6 (Despite losing the present game, Schmid repeated
3...Nf6 against Rantanen at Munich 1958, but the Finn did not play a
critical line. In another game Schmid just played 3...e6 transposing to
normal lines.) 4 e5 Nd5 5 Bc4 (5 Qxd4 is stronger, according to notes on
this game that GM Paul Motwani wrote a few years ago for my
magazine Chess Mail. However, he also showed that Black has no
simple route to equality after the text move.) 5...Nb6 6 Bb3 d5 7 exd6 e6
8 Qxd4 Qxd6 9 Nc3 Qxd4 10 Nxd4 a6 11 Be3! N8d7 12 0-0-0
(Motwani wrote, "With simple, strong moves, Ragozin has already built
up a serious advantage. White's sizeable lead in active piecedevelopment makes this position extremely unpleasant for Black".)
12...Nc5 13 Rhe1 Bd7 14 Nf5 0-0-0 15 Bxc5 Bxc5 16 Ne4 exf5 17 Nxc5
Bc6 18 Bxf7 Bxg2 19 Rxd8+ Rxd8 20 Ne6 Rd6 21 Nxg7 Rh6 22 Re6
Rxh2 23 Rxb6 Be4 24 f3 Bxf3 25 Nxf5 Be4 26 Nd4 h5 27 Rh6 h4 28
Bh5 1-0.
Now we return to the Hayes game after 1 d4 c5.
2 d5
The South African expert Hayes prefers to follow a line played by
Gligoric and other grandmasters against Schmid.
2...d6 3 Nc3
3 g3 e5 4 dxe6 fxe6 5 Bg2 Nf6 6 e4 Nc6 7 Ne2 Be7 8 0-0 Rb8! 9 h3 0-0
10 Nf4 Bd7 11 Nc3 b5 L. Evans-Schmid, Helsinki ol 1952 (drawn in
sixty-one moves).
3...g6 4 e4 Bg7 5 Nf3 Nf6 6 Be2
The Kibitzer
Page 8 sur 16
[FEN "rnbqk2r/pp2ppbp/3p1np1/2pP4/4P3/
2N2N2/PPP1BPPP/R1BQK2R b KQkq - 0 6"]
After 6 Bf4 0-0 7 Bc4? b5! 8 Bxb5 Nxe4 9 Nxe4 Qa5+ 10 Nc3 Bxc3+
11 bxc3 Qxb5 12 Qd3 Ba6 (P. Trifunovic-Schmid, Zurich 1954), Black
had a positional advantage and won in fifty-four moves.
6...Na6
In the book of the Dyckhoff Memorial tournament, this move (which he
had first played against Gligoric in 1954) was awarded a double
exclamation mark. In earlier games Schmid had simply castled; e.g.,
6...0-0 7 0-0 Na6 8 Nd2! Nc7 9 a4 b6 10 Nc4 Ba6 11 Bf4 Rb8 12 b3!
Nd7 13 Qd2 with an edge to White in Smyslov-Schmid, Helsinki ol
1952.
7 0-0
Tal preferred 7 Bg5 against Schmid in 1960 but the game ended in a
draw.
7...Nc7 8 Nd2
Schmid criticised this in the tournament book and said that 8 Bf4 was
correct. However, he had presumably prepared an improvement on the
game he had lost to Julio Bolbochan in this line at the 1954 Amsterdam
Olympiad.
Gligoric and Keres both preferred 8 a4 here but neither was able to beat
Schmid with it. In 1962 Spassky beat Schmid employing 8 Re1.
8...a6 9 a4 Bd7 10 Nc4
10 f4 is too ambitious: 10...0-0! 11 Bf3 Rb8! 12 a5 Nb5! 13 e5 Ne8 14
Re1 Qc7 15 Nc4 Nxc3 16 bxc3 Bb5! 17 Nb6 dxe5 18 c4 e4 and Black
went on to win in V. Bergraser-Schmid from the 2nd ICCF world
championship final.
Also not 10 e5?! Nfxd5! 11 Nxd5 Nxd5 12 Ne4 Bc6 13 exd6 0-0! (B.
Larsen).
10...b5
[FEN "r2qk2r/2nbppbp/p2p1np1/1ppP4/
P1N1P3/2N5/1PP1BPPP/R1BQ1RK1 w kq - 0 11"]
11 Nb6?
At the 1960 Leipzig Olympiad, Schmid repeated this line against the
great Botvinnik, but found that his opponent had done good preparation:
11 e5! (This move is not mentioned in the extensive notes to the Hayes
game in the book of the Dyckhoff Memorial.) 11...dxe5 Very sharp.
(11...bxc4 12 exf6 Bxf6 13 Ne4 Bg7 is probably better.) 12 axb5 axb5
13 Rxa8 Qxa8 14 Nxe5 b4 This is crushed. (Perhaps fearing deep
preparation, Schmid avoids the more obvious replies 14...0-0 15 d6 exd6
16 Qxd6; or 14...Nfxd5 15 Nxd7 Bxc3 16 Nxc5) 15 d6! bxc3 16 dxc7
Qc8 17 Bf4 cxb2 18 Nxd7 Nxd7 19 Bb5 Bd4 20 c3 e5 21 cxd4 exf4 22
Bxd7+ Qxd7 23 Qe2+ Kf8 24 Qe5! Kg8 25 Rb1 f6 26 Qxc5 Kg7 27
Rxb2 Re8 28 Rb1 f3 29 gxf3 Qh3 30 Qc6 1-0.
11...b4! 12 Nxa8 Qxa8 13 Nb1
Schmid said that 13 e5 bxc3 14 exf6 Bxf6 favours Black but 13 Na2
came into consideration.
The Kibitzer
Page 9 sur 16
13...Nxe4 14 Bf3 f5! 15 Nd2?

Schmid had analysed 15 Re1 Qxd5 16 Qxd5 Nxd5 17 Bxe4 fxe4 18
Rxe4 Bf5 (or 18...a5) with excellent compensation. Probably best is 15
c4, he said.
15...Ng5! 16 Re1 Nxf3+ 17 Nxf3 Nxd5 18 Nd2 0-0 19 Nc4 Bc6 20 h4
"A demonstration of helplessness," said Schmid.
20...e5! 21 h5
[FEN "q4rk1/6bp/p1bp2p1/2pnpp1P/PpN5/
8/1PP2PP1/R1BQR1K1 b - - 0 21"]
21...Rf6
A slight inaccuracy; with 21...Qd8 Schmid said he could have avoided
White's next move, which prolongs the fight.
22 Na5! Bd7!
Schmid avoids the trap 22...Re6 23 c4! bxc3? 24 bxc3 Nxc3? 25 Qb3
Nd5 26 Bd2; 22...Be8 was also not right: 23 h6 Bh8 24 Bg5 Re6 25 c3!
Bf7 26 Qd2.
23 Nc4
Not best, but the danger to Black is over.
23...gxh5 24 Qxh5 Rg6 25 Qf3 e4 26 Qd1 f4 27 a5 Bg4! 0-1
Reginald Bonham Lothar Schmid
Old Benoni [A43]
Schmid called this struggle with the blind master Bonham, from
Worcester, a difficult game, and he annotated it in detail in the
tournament book.
1 d4 c5 2 d5 d6 3 Nc3 g6 4 g3 Bg7 5 Bg2 e5!? 6 dxe6 fxe6 7 e4 Nc6
[FEN "r1bqk1nr/pp4bp/2npp1p1/2p5/4P3/
2N3P1/PPP2PBP/R1BQK1NR w KQkq - 0 8"]
8 Nf3?
Schmid said it is hard to believe that this simple developing move leads
to a disadvantage, but White should have played 8 Nge2 to secure the
c3-knight.
The Kibitzer
Page 10 sur 16
8...Nge7 9 Be3 Qb6! 10 Rb1

Had his knight been on e2, White could have played 10 Qd2 instead.
10...0-0 11 0-0 Nd4 12 Ne1 e5
Black has emerged from the opening with an advantage but there is yet
much work to do.
13 Na4 Qa6 14 c3 Ne6! 15 b4
The best chance.
15...b5 16 Nb2 cxb4 17 cxb4 Nc6!
17...Qxa2 would have allowed White to force a draw: 18 Ra1! Qxb2 19
Nd3 Qc3 20 Rc1 Qa3 21 Ra1=.
18 Qb3 Kh8 19 Nc2 Bd7 20 Rfc1 Rac8 21 Nd1 Ned4 22 Bxd4 exd4!
23 f4 Qb6 24 Kh1
[FEN "2r2r1k/p2b2bp/1qnp2p1/1p6/1P1pPP2/
1Q4P1/P1N3BP/1RRN3K b - - 0 24"]
24...g5! 25 f5 Ne5 26 Ne1 Rc4 27 Nb2 d5!

Another strong pawn move. If White takes the rook, then Black obtains
mobile connected passed pawns.
28 Ned3 Nxd3 29 Nxd3
29 Qxd3 would have been met by 29...Rc3! 30 Qd2 dxe4 31 Rxc3 dxc3
32 Qxd7 c2! 33 Rc1 (or 33 Rf1 Qf2) 33...Qe3.
29...dxe4 30 Bxe4 Bxf5 31 Bxf5 Qc6+ 32 Kg1 Rxf5 33 Rf1 Rc2 34
Rf2
Schmid said that perhaps the most difficult decision of the game came at
this point to play for an endgame win rather than continue the attack.
34...Rcxf2!
If 34...Rfxf2 35 Nxf2 Qc4, White has 36 Qf3!.
35 Nxf2
[FEN "7k/p5bp/2q5/1p3rp1/1P1p4/1Q4P1/
P4N1P/1R4K1 b - - 0 35"]
35...Qf3!
The Kibitzer
Page 11 sur 16
35...Rf3 could be met by 36 Qd1!.

36 Qxf3
White cannot well avoid the queen exchange: if 36 Qc2 d3 or 36 Nd3
h5.
36...Rxf3 37 Rd1 Ra3 38 Rd2 Kg8 39 Ne4 g4 40 Nf2
If 40 Nd6 Bh6 41 Nxb5 Ra4! 42 Rb2 Bc1 when either a2 or b4 will fall.
40...h5 41 Nd3 Bh6 42 Nf4 Bxf4 43 gxf4 d3 44 Kf2 Kf7 45 Ke3 Kf6
[FEN "8/p7/5k2/1p5p/1P3Pp1/
r2pK3/P2R3P/8 w - - 0 46"]
46 Ke4
The pawn endgame after 46 Rxd3 Rxd3+ 47 Kxd3 Kf5 48 Ke3 h4 is of
course lost for White.
46...h4 0-1
White resigned, for if 47 Rg2 Rc3!, threatening ...Rc2; while 48 Rxg4
fails to 48...d2 49 Rg1 Rc1.
Lothar Schmid O'Kelly de Galway
Ruy Lopez [C65]
Before the tournament it was expected that grandmaster O'Kelly, who
later became the third ICCF world champion, was favourite for the
tournament. As it happened, he was rapidly outplayed in this game and
although it was his only loss, O'Kelly finished runner-up, two points
behind Schmid.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Bc5 4 c3 Nf6 5 0-0 0-0 6 d4 Bb6 7 Bxc6
O'Kelly said he lost his interest in the game after this relatively weak
move by his opponent!
7...dxc6! 8 Nxe5
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/ppp2ppp/1bp2n2/4N3/
3PP3/2P5/PP3PPP/RNBQ1RK1 b - - 0 8"]
Not 8 Bg5 because of 8...Bg4 9 h3 (9 Nbd2 exd4 10 e5 h6 11 Bh4 g5 12

exf6 gxh4) 9...Bxf3 10 Qxf3 exd4 11 e5 Qd5! according to Schmid in
the tournament book.
8...Nxe4
The Kibitzer
Page 12 sur 16
According to O'Kelly, this was his serious mistake, saying that 8...c5
with the idea 9 dxc5 Qxd1 10 Rxd1 Bxc5 should lead to a quick draw as
the e4-pawn cannot be defended. If 11 Nd2 Re8 12 Nd3 Bb6 13 Re1,
attempting to hold the extra pawn, then 13...Nxe4!! 14 Rxe4 Bf5
regaining the piece.
9 Re1 Nf6?
Schmid, however, identified this as the losing move, indicating 9...Nd6
with approximate equality.
10 a4 a5 11 Bg5 c5 12 Nd2
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/1pp2ppp/1b3n2/p1p1N1B1/
P2P4/2P5/1P1N1PPP/R2QR1K1 b - - 0 12"]
The absence of the king's bishop from e7 now becomes appreciable.

12...h6
This pawn sacrifice was his best chance, said Schmid, as 12...cxd4 13
Ne4 Ra6 14 Qf3 Ba7 15 cxd4 was untenable for Black.
13 Bxf6 Qxf6 14 Ne4 Qf5 15 Nxc5 Bxc5 16 dxc5 Re8
If 16...f6, White intended 17 Nf3! (not 17 g4? Qg5 18 h4 Qxh4 19 Ng6
Qg5! 20 Nxf8 Bxg4; nor 17 Nd3 Be6) 17...Qxc5 18 Qb3+, followed by
Rad1, with a strong initiative.
17 Qd4
[FEN "r1b1r1k1/1pp2pp1/7p/p1P1Nq2/
P2Q4/2P5/1P3PPP/R3R1K1 b - - 0 17"]
17...f6
Now if 17...Be6 18 c6! f6 19 cxb7 Rad8 20 Nc6! (Schmid); e.g.,
20...Rxd4 21 Ne7+ Rxe7 (21...Kf7 22 Nxf5 Rdd8 23 Nd4) 22 b8Q+
ending the exchange and a pawn ahead.
18 Nc4 Be6 19 Ne3 Qh5 20 b4 Qe5 21 Nc2 Qxd4 22 Nxd4 Bd7 23 b5
Kf7 24 f4 Rab8 25 Kf2 c6 26 b6 1-0
At the same time as the Dyckhoff, Schmid played in one of the
semifinals of the 2nd World Championship, played concurrently, but lost
his game to Bergraser of France. They tied with 5/6 but Bergraser
qualified on tiebreak. However, a vacancy arose when one of the
medallists from the first championship decided not to take his place, and
Schmid was the obvious replacement.
The final of the 2nd ICCF World Championship was played from 1956
to 1959 and this was to be Schmid's last postal tournament. Losing to the
The Kibitzer
Page 13 sur 16
eventual champion, Ragozin, and also to Kjellander of Sweden, he had

to be satisfied with a share of second place, evidently a disappointment.
He could have played in the Third Final but decided instead to retire
from this form of play.
Schmid as Opening Theoretician
In his early years, Schmid specialised in certain opening variations
which he knew very well and he was responsible for some innovations
in the French Defence. In particular, he was very effective on the black
side of the Tarrasch Variation which he answered with 3...Nf6.
Frantisek Batik Lothar Schmid
2nd Correspondence World Championship Final, 1956-59
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nd2 Nf6 4 e5 Nfd7 5 Bd3 c5 6 c3 Nc6 7 Ne2 Qb6
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/pp1n1ppp/1qn1p3/2ppP3/
3P4/2PB4/PP1NNPPP/R1BQK2R w KQkq - 0 8"]
Schmid made a major contribution to the development of this variation

in the French Defence. In later years the development of the queen on c7
has often been preferred, however.
8 Nf3 cxd4 9 cxd4 f6
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/pp1n2pp/1qn1pp2/3pP3/
3P4/3B1N2/PP2NPPP/R1BQK2R w KQkq - 0 10"]
10 exf6
One of Schmid's earliest games in this variation went instead: 10 Nf4?!
(He almost proved this move to be too sharp.) 10...fxe5 when
a) Not 11 Nxe6? Bb4+ 12 Nd2 (12 Kf1 Nf6 13 Nxg7+ Kf8) 12...e4 13 00 exd3 14 Re1 Nde5! with advantage to Black in Frohleiks-Schmid, corr
1948.
b) 11 dxe5 and now
b1) 11...Ndxe5?! (This is the right idea but the move is premature.) 12
Nxe5 Nxe5 13 Qh5+ Nf7 14 0-0 (Not 14 Bxh7 Bb4+ transposing to line
b2.) 14...Bd6 15 Bxh7 (White is now on top.) 15...Bxf4 16 Bxf4 Qxb2
17 Rac1! and White won in thirty-three moves (Seibold-Schmid, Max
Blumich Memorial corr 1950-51).
b2) Schmid later demonstrated that Black needs to check first: 11...Bb4+
12 Kf1 Ndxe5 13 Nxe5 Nxe5 14 Qh5+ Nf7 15 Bxh7 Qd4! 16 Be3 Qxb2
(so far Schmid, 1951) 17 Rc1 Qe5 18 Qd1! Rxh7 19 Qa4+ Bd7 20 Qxb4
Rc8 21 Ng6!? (21 Rxc8+ Bxc8 22 Ng6 Qd6 with an edge to Black in
Menke-Wilde, corr 1957) 21...Rxc1+ 22 Bxc1 Qd6 23 Qxb7 Nd8! 24
The Kibitzer
Page 14 sur 16
Qa8 (24 Qxa7 e5) 24...Rxh2! with clear advantage to Black (John
Watson).
10...Nxf6 11 0-0 Bd6
[FEN "r1b1k2r/pp4pp/1qnbpn2/3p4/3P4/
3B1N2/PP2NPPP/R1BQ1RK1 w kq - 0 12"]
12 Ng3?!
White tried many other moves in this position.
a) 12 Nf4 puts the knight on a more critical square: 12...0-0 13 Re1
when
a1) Schmid's first try in this position was 13...Ne4!? 14 g3 Bxf4 (Geller
suggested 14...g5!? to meet 15 Nh5 by 15...Nxf2!) 15 Bxf4 Qxb2 16 Re2
Qa3 (Rossolimo-Schmid, Dubrovnik ol 1950) 17 Bxe4 dxe4 18 Rxe4
favours White according to ECO, but Geller didn't think this was clear.
a2) 13...Bd7 14 Nxe6 Rfe8 15 Bf5 (Not 15 Bf4? Bxf4 16 Nxf4 Rxe1+
17 Qxe1 Nxd4 and Black went on to win in B.E. Horberg-Schmid,
Amsterdam ol 1954.) 15...Na5!? 16 Bg5 Bxe6 17 Bxe6+ (17 Rxe6
Bxh2+ 18 Nxh2 Rxe6 19 Bxe6+ Qxe6 20 Bxf6 Qxf6 and a draw was
agreed here in Gligoric-Schmid, Dublin zonal 1957.) 17...Rxe6 18 Rxe6
Bxh2+ 19 Kxh2 (19 Nxh2 Qxe6 transposes to the previous note.)
19...Qxe6 20 Bxf6 Qxf6 21 Qe2 Nc6 22 Re1 Rf8 23 Qe6+ Qxe6 -,
A. Lundqvist-Schmid, 2nd CC World Championship Final 1956-59.
b) 12 Nc3 is more flexible, and after 12...Bd7 White tried the following:
b1) An earlier Gligoric-Schmid game, at Hastings 1951-52, had
proceeded more sharply 13 Nb5 Bb8 14 Nc3 Nxd4 15 Nxd4 Qxd4 16 h3
Qb6 17 Be3 Qxb2 18 Bd4 Qa3 19 Bxf6 gxf6 20 Qh5+ Kd8 21 Nxd5
exd5 22 Rad1 but Black was able to defend and the Yugoslav
grandmaster had to work very hard to save a half point in the end.
b2) 13 Re1 0-0 14 Bg5 Rae8 15 Rc1 Re7 16 Na4 Qd8 17 Nc5 Bc8 18
Bb1 Qb6 was played in Penrose-Schmid, Moscow Olympiad 1956.
White now sacrificed his b-pawn by 19 Qd3 but Schmid withstood the
resulting attack and the game ended in a draw.
c) Stoltz-Schmid, Helsinki ol 1952, went 12 a3 0-0 13 b4 which allows
Black at least easy equality: 13...e5 14 dxe5 Nxe5 15 Nxe5 Bxe5 16 Be3
Qc7 winning material and 0-1 in thirty-four moves.
d) In E. Walther-Schmid, Dublin zonal 1957, Schmid again showed his
willingness to grab the b-pawn after 12 Re1 0-0 13 Nc3 Kh8 14 Bc2
Bd7 15 h3 Rae8 16 Be3 Qxb2 17 Na4 Qb4 18 Rb1 Qa5 19 Nc5 Bxc5 20
dxc5 Bc8 21 Bf4 but now bishops of opposite colour arose by 21...Ne4
22 Bxe4 dxe4 23 Rxe4 Qxa2 24 Bd6 Rf5 and although Schmid remained
a pawn ahead, the game ended in a draw following complications.
12...0-0
The Kibitzer
Page 15 sur 16
[FEN "r1b2rk1/pp4pp/1qnbpn2/3p4/3P4/
3B1NN1/PP3PPP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 0 13"]
13 b3 e5
Again, Black has nothing to fear once he has achieved this advance
before the development of White's queenside is complete. The resulting
isolated d-pawn is less significant than the active piece play that results
from freeing the action of Black's queen's bishop.
14 dxe5 Nxe5 15 Nxe5 Bxe5 16 Rb1 Ng4
The pressure on the dark squares around White's king is a recurring
theme in this variation.
17 Qe2 Bd4 18 Nh1 Qd6 19 g3 Bd7 20 Kg2 Rae8 21 Qd1 Qf6
[FEN "4rrk1/pp1b2pp/5q2/3p4/3b2n1/
1P1B2P1/P4PKP/1RBQ1R1N w - - 0 22"]
22 f3
If 22 h3 Re1! 23 Qxe1 (23 Rxe1 Qxf2+ 24 Nxf2 Rxf2+ 25 Kg1 Rd2+ 26
Kf1 Nh2# or 26 Kh1 Rh2#) 23...Qf3+ 24 Kg1 Ne5 25 Be2 Bxh3 26
Bxf3 Nxf3# (analysis by Schmid).
22...Ne3+ 23 Bxe3 Rxe3 24 g4
Desperately trying to free his comically imprisoned knight.
24...Be5 25 Ng3 Qd6 26 Qc2 Bxg3 27 hxg3 Bxg4
The coup de grace.
28 Bxh7+ Kh8 29 Bd3 Rexf3 30 Kh1 R8f6 0-1
For further obituaries and memoirs of Lothar Schmid by those who
knew him, I refer readers to the website of the Ken Whyld Association
website.

by Tim Harding
The Kibitzer
Page 16 sur 16
In PDF format. Viewable in Ipad, Itouch, Kindle, and other PDF

viewers. Only .99 cents!! With more than 500 bonus games!

The Kibitzer
Page 1 sur 14
Search ChessCafe
Purchases from our

accessible:
London 1862, As It Happened

In Kibitzer 188 (January 2012), as part of my review of 100 and 150 years ago,
I dealt briefly with the London 1862 international tournament, but recently I
have been examining it in more detail. As part of my research for my
Blackburne biography and game collection (which I hope to complete early
next year), I have been examining his matches and tournaments on a day to
day basis, so far as that is possible, and London 1862 was his first tournament.
I still hope to find out more about this event so the present column is a
preliminary report and does not mention all the periodical sources which I
have examined or hope to examine in future. Readers who purchase the e-book
will however receive a database with the games of the tournament which is as
accurate as I can make it at the present time. There are eighty-five games.
The
Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Translate this page

Select Language
Powered by
Translate
San Remo 1930

by Robert Sherwood
Looking at final crosstables of tournaments can give a misleading impression

of what really happened. In following round-by-round one can see who made a
good start, or a late surge, or who collapsed after failing to win a crucial game.
With modern tournaments, and even many late nineteenth century congresses
that have good tournament books, this is fairly easy to do, but London 1862
was not organised like modern tournaments.
Nor, although it has tournament books (two in fact) they are not organised in a
temporal sequence. Sometimes we are told what date a game was played, but
this is often not the case. Fortunately, there were some newspaper reports,
which have become available recently in digitised format online, which enable
a much fuller picture to be extracted if the sources are read carefully. I shall be
going on to do the same with other tournaments, but some (like London 1870)
were just not well enough reported to make complete information available.
The main source for London 1862 is The Chess Congress of 1862, the large
official tournament book edited by chief organiser, J. J. Lwenthal, with
assistance from George Medley. It is available in PDF from Google Books. A
smaller German tournament book, by Berthold Suhle, also appeared (Der
Schachkongress zu London im Jahre 1862); it has some game annotations that
differ from the official book. To supplement the books, there is the press.
Lwenthal wrote weekly reports on the progress of the Congress for his
column in The Era, which give much the same information as the tournament
book, but do help somewhat to clarify the sequence of events and games.
Additionally, some daily newspapers carried reports, those in the Daily News
being the most valuable I have so far found.
The British Chess Association had evolved from the Northern and Midland
Chess Association, which in turn had developed from a Yorkshire Chess
Association founded in the early 1840s. The faltering steps towards the
creation of the first national chess association (which collapsed in the early
1870s) had led to a small, but successful, Congress held in Bristol in the
autumn of 1861, which had resolved to hold a larger-scale event the following
year in London. This was to be the first large-scale international master
tournament since Staunton's in London during the Great Exhibition of 1851
and in 1862 there was also to be an exhibition. In later years several other
international chess congresses were associated with exhibitions in various
cities, especially Paris in 1867, 1878, and 1900.

by John S. Hilbert

Setting the scene

The committee of the B.C.A. decided on a novel plan for their tournament:
every competitor in the master tournament would play every other opponent,
instead of using the knock-out system that until then had almost always been
employed. (There had been a few previous all-play-all tournaments, such as
the one organised by the London Chess Club in 1851 after Staunton's, but it
was really London 1862 that set the pattern for nearly all future events.) In
addition to the master tournament, there was also a Handicap tournament
(where the stronger players conceded odds to weaker amateurs), but that was
run on the knock-out system.
Three other key features of the tournament structure also differed from what
we are accustomed to nowadays. Firstly, there was not one single venue for the
Congress. Instead, the majority of the games were played at various chess
clubs (chiefly the London and St. George's clubs), where they could be
The Kibitzer
Page 2 sur 14
kibitzed by the members but the public was not admitted. Also, games could
be played at Simpson's Divan in the Strand.
Secondly, draws did not count half a point. Instead, they had to be replayed at
a later date with reversed colours. Over the next forty years, various formulae
were tried at tournaments to try to avoid or minimise draws, until the halfpoint system (used at Dundee in 1867) became the norm. For example, at Paris
1867 draws did not count and were not replayed. Vienna 1873 was structured
as best of three mini-matches. In London 1883 draws were replayed with
reversed colours, twice if necessary, and only after the third draw was a half
point counted to each player. This led to some players contesting far more
games than others and the duration of the event became excessive. At New
York in 1889, where everybody played each opponent twice, draws in the first
cycle counted half a point but in the second cycle they had to be replayed once
with the colour for the replay chosen by lot. At Monte Carlo 1901, draws were
scored a quarter of a point each with a replay to decide the destination of the
second half point.
Thirdly, at London in 1862 there was no fixed timetable of rounds whereby all
competitors played on the same days at the same venue. The participants
themselves, in conjunction with the organisers and club secretaries, had to
agree dates and venues for their games. These schedules appear in the papers
sometimes and help to clarify the sequence of events, although there were
definitely some departures from the plan and the arrangements for many games
never appeared in print.
Adolf Anderssen
Despite absentees of varying distinction (particularly Kolisch who would have
been a potential winner), it could not be denied that the tournament line-up
included some notable entries and several nationalities were represented.
Breslau teacher Adolf Anderssen had been the winner in 1851 but had not
impressed when he came to the Manchester tournament of 1857. Louis
Paulsen, who had been runner-up to Morphy in the first American congress of
1857 but was now back in Europe, had shown by his 1861 performances that
he was becoming a master of the first rank. John Lwenthal, winner of the
1858 Birmingham tournament (in which he had beaten Staunton), was
potentially also a formidable competitor but poor health coupled with his
responsibilities as chief organiser forced him to withdraw after playing only a
few games.
There were three other arrivals from abroad. Steinitz had won a tournament at
the Vienna Chess Club to decide the Austrian representative, and his
biographer Kurt Landsberger wrote that a financier named Tedesco had paid
his expenses to go to England. Steinitz already arrived in London in early May
to find his feet. The other overseas visitor, Italian champion Serafino Dubois,
on the other hand, only arrived after the tournament was well under way and
had to fit in all his games on a tight schedule. There was also Frederic Deacon
who was Belgian but of an English family.
The rest of the field consisted of mostly London-based amateurs, although
twenty-year-old Blackburne had come from Manchester, and James Robey
was an Australian. Both John Owen and George Alcock MacDonnell were
Church of England curates, based in London at this time, and so had ample
opportunity for regular practice in the top chess clubs; this helps to account for
their strong showing in the tournament. The field was completed by Thomas
Barnes who, like Owen, had played against Morphy during the latter's 1858
visit, Valentine Green, James Hannah, and Augustus Mongredien, President of
the London Chess Club.
The rules, specified in advance, called for an entrance fee of 5 pounds to be
paid by 24 May, with a maximum field of twenty-four players. If two thirds of
the players had agreed then 1 e4 would have been a compulsory first move but
at the preliminary meeting the requisite majority was not obtained.
De Rivire and Prince Sergei Urusov were originally announced as entering
but in the end did not play. The latter was not present, and so was struck out,
but De Rivire (who was present) said that he regretted that "pressing
engagements would prevent his taking part in the Tournament." He returned to
The Kibitzer
Page 3 sur 14
Paris but did come back to London and played friendly games. Dubois
apparently was allowed to be represented by proxy.
A time limit of twenty moves in two hours was agreed, to be measured by
sandglasses. Time saved would be carried forward to the next period. No
adjournments were allowed except for "a reasonable time for refreshment"
during which period analysis (with or without other persons) was prohibited on
pain of forfeit. A gentleman was expected to play his own game unaided.
Arrangements for playing games, having been agreed, were entered into a
book. Rules for lateness were lenient by today's standards but probably needed
to be so because of the difficulties of getting around London's crowded streets
in those days. (The first underground trains only started to run in 1863.) If a
player did not arrive within an hour of the appointed time, he was fined five
shillings and his sandglass started. If he was very late, he was excused the first
time control but had to reach move forty before four hours had run out. A
player arriving five hours late therefore lost the game by forfeit, and if neither
player arrived there would have been a double forfeit.
Players were expected to play at least four games per week, except by special
agreement but that seems to have been forthcoming in several cases. Pairings
were to be arranged so that each player had an equal number of games with
and without first move (not counting replays). Another detail was that the
second player in each game was required, on penalty of ten shillings, to
provide the organisers with the score of the game. This rule appears to have
worked well as the tournament book did contain all the games played, which
was by no means the case with several major tournaments over the next ten
years.
The early games
The Congress began at 8pm on the evening of Friday 13 June with a
preliminary meeting in St James's Minor Hall, B.C.A. president Lord Lyttelton
being in the chair. All players were supposed to attend for the purposes of
pairing and learning the regulations, but it seems an exception was made for
Dubois who was represented by proxy as he had indicated he would be a late
arrival.
Augustus Mongredien
Barnes and Mongredien, "being eager to commence hostilities," decided to
play next day, which they did on Saturday 14th at the London Chess Club.
Their game, "which was marked by great vicissitudes" (and that could be
called typical English understatement), went as follows. It is not a very highclass game in many respects but can be instructive for showing how material
advantage in chess is by no means everything.
Thomas Barnes Augustus Mongredien
BCA Grand Tournament London (1), 14 June 1862
Ruy Lopez [C64]
Notes by Tim Harding.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Bc5 4 0-0 Nge7 5 c3 d6?
This loses a piece but the game is not given up easily.
6 d4 exd4 7 cxd4 Bb6 8 d5 a6 9 Ba4 0-0 10 dxc6 bxc6 11 Bg5 f6 12 Bh4 d5 13
Nc3 d4 14 Ne2 c5 15 Qd3 a5 16 Nd2 Ba6 17 Bb3+ Kh8 18 Bc4 Bb7
The Kibitzer
Page 4 sur 14
[FEN "r2q1r1k/1bp1n1pp/1b3p2/p1p5/2BpP2B/
3Q4/PP1NNPPP/R4RK1 w - - 0 19"]
19 Nf4
Barnes starts a premature attack when he should be developing his rooks and
seeking to exchange pieces. Black resists stoutly and soon wins a second pawn
for his piece.
19...Qd7 20 Ne6 Rfe8 21 Bg3 Nc6 22 Nf4 Ne5 23 Qe2 Nxc4 24 Nxc4 Bxe4 25
Qd2 Qf7 26 b3 g5 27 Nd3 Qg6 28 Rad1 h5 29 f3 Bf5 30 h4?
Most unwisely opening the g-file for Black.
30...Rg8
[FEN "r5rk/2p5/1b3pq1/p1p2bpp/2Np3P/
1P1N1PB1/P2Q2P1/3R1RK1 w - - 0 31"]
31 hxg5 Bxd3 32 Qxd3 Qxg5
Black now regains the piece because of the mate threat on g2, and should win.
The main hope for White is that he has by far the better minor piece.
33 Rf2 Qxg3 34 Re1 Rae8 35 Rxe8 Rxe8 36 Re2 Rg8
If Black had exchanged rooks, he might have found it hard to avoid perpetual
check or the loss of one or two of his extra pawns. He would rather keep rooks
on and exchange queens.
37 Qf5 Qg5 38 Qd7 h4 39 Kh1 Rg7 40 Qe8+ Kh7 41 Nd2 f5
To prevent Ne4.
42 f4 Qg6 43 Nf3
White is now willing to exchange queens as he has some threats and hopes to
at least recover one pawn.
43...Qxe8 44 Rxe8 Rg4 45 Ng5+ Kg7 46 Re7+ Kg6 47 Re6+ Kh5 48 Nf7
Threatens mate in one!
48...Rg6
48...Rxf4 would allow mate in three moves!
49 Re8 Rg7
49...Rg3 is probably better; while 49...c4, to start liberating the bishop, also
came into consideration.
50 Ne5 Kh6 51 Rf8 c6 52 Rxf5 Bc7 53 Rf6+ Kh7 54 Rxc6 Bxe5 55 fxe5
The Kibitzer
Page 5 sur 14
[FEN "8/6rk/2R5/p1p1P3/3p3p/1P6/
P5P1/7K b - - 0 55"]
Black has managed to exchange minor pieces but at the cost of his extra pawns
and now White has a passed pawn.
55...Rd7
55...d3 should be good enough to draw as the rival passed pawns will probably
be exchanged.
56 Rd6!?
56 e6 Re7 57 Rxc5 is better as Black is unlikely to fall into the trap of
exchanging rooks.
56...Re7 57 Rd5 Kg7 58 Rxc5 Rd7 59 e6 Rd6 60 Re5
60 Rf5 Rxe6 61 Rd5 Re1+ 62 Kh2 Re4 63 Rxa5 is drawish.
60...Kf8 61 Re2
61 Re1 would be preferable.
61...d3 62 Rd2 Ke7 63 Kg1 Kxe6
Now Black has winning chances again.
64 Kf2 Kf5
[FEN "8/8/3r4/p4k2/7p/1P1p4/
P2R1KP1/8 w - - 0 65"]
65 a3?
Why not 65 Kf3 or 65 Ke3 rather than let Black advance his king further?
65...Ke5??
Now White gets on top again.
65...Ke4 should win for Black after 66 b4 Rf6+ 67 Ke1 Ke3 68 bxa5 h3! 69
gxh3 Rg6.
66 Ke3 Kf5 67 Rxd3 Rxd3+?
Of course his only hope was to retain rooks on the board.
68 Kxd3 Kg4 69 Ke2 h3 70 gxh3+ Kxh3 71 b4 1-0
The tournament officially began on the following Monday, 16 June, and we
can trace the round-by-round progress of the first week roughly as follows.
The Era was published on Sundays but of course printed and distributed on
Saturday afternoon so we can assume that Lwenthal had a Friday morning
deadline, enabling him to report what had happened in the tournament up to
Thursday evening.
The Era says puzzlingly that on the 20th "three games were played at the St
George's Club, between Anderssen and Roby [sic]; and two others, at the
Grand Cigar Divan, between Messrs. Deacon and Green and Messrs
Blackburne and MacDonnell." However, there is no record of any draws in the
tournament between Anderssen and Robey, so this is probably just a case of a
badly punctuated sentence perhaps incorrectly typeset. The "three games" was
The Kibitzer
Page 6 sur 14
probably intended to encompass all three pairings. It seems unlikely that

Robey could have drawn two games with Anderssen, such was the gulf
between their strengths. Or maybe they played two offhand games after the
tournament game.
On the other hand, the report says that on the 18th "a game was played at the
St. George's, between Messrs. Barnes and Owen, and two others, at the Divan,
between Steinitz and MacDonnell." That wording clearly implies there was a
draw between the second pairing before their decisive game, but if so, there is
no game score or other reference in the tournament book, so this may also have
been an error in the newspaper.
Lwenthal, in the tournament book, wrote that at the end of the first week
Anderssen already had won five games and lost none but no other player was
specially placed. Dubois had still not arrived while Paulsen and Lwenthal
through ill health had only each played one game (which they won). However,
the number of draws was not stated. Also I think that the book only copies The
Era of 22 June, and so these figures lack any results from Friday and Saturday,
which only come into The Era reports the following weekend. The Era of 22
June also listed the provisional schedule for the following week's play.
The second week
Dubois finally arrived in London on Tuesday 24 June, "fatigued by long
journey and suffering from indisposition", and immediately went to the
London Chess Club and afterwards the St. James's Club. He played some
practice games during the week but was unable to start competitive play until
the following Monday. "The other combatants had now settled to their work in
earnest and great progress was made in the play." However, the list of results
for this week in both the tournament book and The Era look incomplete. By
Friday of the second week it looked almost certain that Anderssen would win
the tournament as his score had reached 9-0, although he had yet to meet
Owen, Paulsen, and Lwenthal. The exact date that he played the following
game with Blackburne is uncertain, but from the known scores of the players
reported in the Daily News, this game was probably played on 26 or 27 June.
J. H. Blackburne
A. Anderssen J. H. Blackburne
BCA Grand Tournament London, 1862
Notes by Suhle in the German tournament book.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 exd5 4 Nf3 Nf6 5 Bd3 Bd6 6 0-0 0-0 7 h3 h6 8 c4 c6 9
Nc3 Be6 10 cxd5 Nxd5 11 Ne4 Bc7 12 Be3 Nd7 13 Qe2 Re8 14 Rfe1 Bf5 15
Nfd2 Ba5? 16 Nd6
[FEN "r2qr1k1/pp1n1pp1/2pN3p/b2n1b2/
3P4/3BB2P/PP1NQPP1/R3R1K1 b - - 0 16"]
16...Bxd3
Lwenthal believed that Black could have obtained a good game by 16...Nf4
but his opinion is erroneous because of the following continuation: 17 Qf3
Nxd3 18 Qxf5 Nxe1 19 Rxe1 Bxd2! (best said Lwenthal) 20 Qxf7+ Kh8 21
Nxe8! (Also in Lwenthal's variation 21 Bxd2 Rxe1+ 22 Bxe1 Nb6 23 Nxb7
Qd7, or 23 ...Qe8, having the exchange for two pawns; White can play instead
23 Qg6, which is the preface to a strong attack.) 21...Qxe8 22 Qxe8+ Rxe8 23
Bxd2 and White holds the advantage.
The Kibitzer
Page 7 sur 14
17 Qxd3 Bxd2 18 Bxd2 Rxe1+ 19 Rxe1 Qf6 20 Nxb7 Rb8 21 Na5
[FEN "1r4k1/p2n1pp1/2p2q1p/N2n4/3P4/
3Q3P/PP1B1PP1/4R1K1 b - - 0 21"]
21...g5
21...Rxb2 would be fatal to Black because of the continuation 22 Re8+ Nf8 23
Rxf8+ Kxf8 24 Qa3+.
22 Nc4 N5b6 23 Ne5 Nxe5 24 dxe5 Qe6 25 Qg3 Nc4 26 Bc1 Nd6! 27 f4 Nf5
28 Qf2 gxf4 29 Qxf4 Kh7 30 Rf1 Ng7 31 Qg3 Qg6 32 Qh4
[FEN "1r6/p4pnk/2p3qp/4P3/7Q/
7P/PP4P1/2B2RK1 b - - 0 32"]
32...Nf5?
32...Ne8 was better according to Blackburne.
33 Qf4 Ng3 34 Qxf7+ Qxf7 35 Rxf7+ Kg8 36 Rf2 Rd8 37 Rd2 Re8 38 Rc2
Re6 39 Bf4 Nh5 40 g3 Kf7 41 Kf2 Kg6 42 Kf3 Ng7 43 Rd2 Ne8 44 Rd7 a6 45
g4 c5 46 h4 h5 47 gxh5+ Kxh5 48 Rh7+ Kg6 49 Rh6+ Kf7 50 Rxe6 Kxe6 51
Ke4 Nc7 52 h5 Nd5 53 Bg5 1-0
Then on Saturday 28 June, the following game revived the hopes of
Anderssen's nearest rivals. There are several queries in the score of this game
which I would like to check against contemporary German printed sources at a
future date.
John Owen Adolf Anderssen
BCA Grand Tournament London, 28 June 1862
Staunton Gambit [A82]
1 d4 f5 2 e4 fxe4 3 Nc3 e6 4 Qh5+!? 6 5 Qe5 Nf6 6 Bg5
6 Nxe4 is also perfectly playable.
6...Be7 7 d5?
White must take the pawn back here, although it leads to exchanges. Seeking
complications against Anderssen was certainly a risky policy.
7...0-0 8 Bh6 d6 9 Qd4 e5 10 Qd2 Rf7 11 h3 Nbd7 12 0-0-0 Nc5 13 Bc4
[FEN "r1bq2k1/ppp1br1p/3p1npB/2nPp3/
2B1p3/2N4P/PPPQ1PP1/2KR2NR b - - 0 13"]
13...a5
The Kibitzer
Page 8 sur 14
The first of several possible inaccuracies in commercial databases comes at

this point. The English tournament book indicates that the sequence was
13...a5 14 Nge2 Bd7 and not the other way around.
14 Nge2 Bd7 15 g4 Qe8 16 Ng3 b5 17 Be2 b4
Not only does White have no compensation for the gambit pawn; he is also
forced on the defensive.
18 Nb1 c6 19 Be3 Nxd5 20 Bxc5 dxc5 21 Nxe4 Rf4
This is ineffective after the reply; Black should press on with 21...Be6 and
22...a4, or the immediate 21...a4.
22 Bc4! Be6 23 Qe2 Qf7 24 Nbd2 a4
Natural and strong, but ChessBase's database, which says it is following
Suhle's tournament book, instead has the dubious sequence 24...Nb6 25 Bxe6
Qxe6 26 f3. Now both ChessBase and a New In Chess Yearbook 54 analysis
by Meulders have 26...c4 but this is obviously nonsense as Black would play
26...Qxa2 in that position.
25 Kb1 Nb6 26 Bxe6 Qxe6 27 f3 c4
The two versions have now converged at the same position.
28 c3 a3 29 Qf2 c5
[FEN "r5k1/4b2p/1n2q1p1/2p1p3/1pp1NrP1/
p1P2P1P/PP1N1Q2/1K1R3R w - - 0 30"]
30 Nxc5 Bxc5 31 Qxc5 bxc3?!
Meulders identified this as a dubious choice, suggesting instead 31...Na4 32
Qxb4 Nxb2 and wins; my computer concurs, but the text move is not bad if
followed up correctly.
32 bxc3 Nd7
This retrograde step was surprisingly not identified as an error by Meulders,
but it dissipates much of Anderssen's advantage. 32...Na4 was crying out to be
played here, threatening a fork on c3.
33 Qc7 Nf8?
[FEN "r4nk1/2Q4p/4q1p1/4p3/2p2rP1/
p1P2P1P/P2N4/1K1R3R w - - 0 34"]
This is definitely bad, as Meulders said. The position was becoming tricky but
after 33...Qd5! 34 Nb3! Qxf3 35 Qxd7 cxb3 Black would at least be the more
likely winner.
34 Rhe1
This is another divergence point in the sources. I follow the sequence in the
English tournament book which seems more plausible as well as more
authoritative. ChessBase etc. have 34 Qc5 Rf7 35 Rhe1 reversing the order of
White's moves. 34 Ka1 would have been playable also.
34...Rf7 35 Qc5
Meulders assessed this position as slightly in White's favour.
The Kibitzer
Page 9 sur 14
35...Qa6
ChessBase here has 35...Rc8 which is unlikely as White could have answered
that by 36 Qxa3. The game in these sources concludes 36 Qe3 Qa6 37 Ka1
Rb7 38 Qxe5 Rb5 39 Qd4 Ne6 40 Qd7 Rb6 41 Ne4 Rf8 42 g5 Rb7 43 Qd5
Rb5 44 Qd6 Rb6 45 Qe5 Nf4 46 Rd7 1-0.
36 Ka1
[FEN "r4nk1/5r1p/q5p1/2Q1p3/2p3P1/
p1P2P1P/P2N4/K2RR3 b - - 0 36"]
Here the tournament book comments that "White has fought manfully through
all his difficulties, and has profited to the utmost by his adversary's leniency.
He has now obtained a safe game, while that of Black is compromised beyond
remedy."
36...Rb7
36...Rd8 might keep things on an even keel. Then 37 Qxe5?? cannot be played
because after 37...Qa4 (threatening ...Qc2 and ...Qb2 mate) 38 Qe4 Rfd7 it's
curtains for White. Therefore he would probably have to play 37 Ne4 which
looks equal.
37 Qxe5?!
There may be some doubt whether the finish in the English tournament book is
correct; of course it's simply possible that Owen, facing several attractive
choices, just did not make the absolutely best moves. 37 Qd5+ in order to take
the e-pawn with check after 37...Kh8 or 37...Kg7 seems more logical than
snatching it at once. 37 Qxc4+ is also strong-looking.
37...Rb5 38 Qd4 Ne6 39 Qd7 Rb6 40 Ne4 Rf8 41 g5
Here 41 Rd6 would be even stronger.
41...Rb7 42 Qd5 Rb5 43 Qd6 Rb6 44 Qe5 Nf4 45 Rd7 1-0
Black resigns as mate is not to be avoided in the long run.
Database users should note that this is not the only case where my database
differs from usual sources. In the famous Dubois-Steinitz game, for example,
the English tournament book indicates that White played 22 Qe2. Various
Steinitz game collections and ChessBase give move 22 Qe1 here, though it
transposes next move.
Lwenthal by now had won three games and then Robey, who had been
scheduled to meet him at the Divan on 26 June, apparently failed to show
(although this is never explicitly stated) and so conceded the point by forfeit.
The fourth point for the Hungarian is already included in his total published in
The Era on the 29th. Lwenthal would be too busy as organiser to play any
games the next week.
The "grand week"
For the third week, beginning on Monday 30 June, the St. James's Hall was
booked for a festival of chess and tournament games were not played
elsewhere that week. Members of the public were admitted on payment of two
shillings and sixpence (one eighth of a pound for those readers who don't
remember the old British money I grew up with).
This week was chiefly intended as an occasion to publicise chess through a
variety of matches, consultation games, and special exhibitions, which
included the blindfold simultaneous displays given by Louis Paulsen and
Blackburne. There also was to have been a telegraph match with Paris which
was first postponed and then cancelled, due to problems at the French end. It
was principally during that week that the Daily News carried extensive reports.
The Kibitzer
Page 10 sur 14
Wilhelm Steinitz
On the first evening a club match was played between the London and St.
James's clubs, comfortably won by the former. Tournament games were
arranged for the daytime. One of these was the decisive Anderssen-Paulsen
clash which I do not give here as you can find it in my former article in the
ChessCafe.com Archives. The same day Barnes beat Green, Owen beat
Steinitz (a replay but their draw may have been earlier the same day), and
Dubois played his first game: a draw with Blackburne.
On Tuesday 1 July, there were three tournament games and a consultation
game for the spectators to enjoy. The struggle between Owen and Mongredien
"lasted the whole of the day, and was marked by great care and determination
on both sides, ending in a drawn battle." Also, on Tuesday, Robey beat Deacon
and Steinitz defeated Barnes in the following game.
Wilhelm Steinitz Thomas Barnes
BCA Grand Tournament London, 01 July 1862
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 Be2 g6 4 0-0 Bg7 5 Nc3 a6 6 e5? f5 7 b3 Nh6?
7...Nc6 was stronger according to Suhle.
8 Na4 Qc7 9 Ba3 Bf8 10 d4 b6 11 dxc5 bxc5 12 Qd2! Nf7 13 Qc3 Nc6 14
Rfe1 Nfxe5 15 Nxe5 Nxe5
[FEN "r1b1kb1r/2qp3p/p3p1p1/2p1np2/
N7/BPQ5/P1P1BPPP/R3R1K1 w kq - 0 16"]
16 Bc4 Nxc4 17 Qxh8 Nxa3 18 Qxh7 Qc6 19 Rad1 d5
Lwenthal considered that 19...d6 would be safer.
20 Nb6 Qxb6 21 Qxg6+ Kd8 22 Qf6+ Kc7
On 22...Be7 follows 23 Rxd5+, etc.
23 Qxf8 Qd6 24 Qg7+ Bd7 25 c4 d4?
[FEN "r7/2kb2Q1/p2qp3/2p2p2/2Pp4/
nP6/P4PPP/3RR1K1 w - - 0 26"]
The Kibitzer
Page 11 sur 14
26 b4! Nc2 27 bxc5 Qxc5 28 Rxe6 Qf8 29 Qe5+ Kc8 30 Rb1! Nb4
If 30...Bxe6 31 Qxe6+ Kc7 32 Qb6+ Kd7 33 Qb7+ Kd6 34 Rb6+ Ke5 35
Qd5+ Kf4 36 Rg6 and mate in a few moves.
31 Rf6 Qe8 32 Qc5+ Nc6 33 Rf8 1-0
The Daily News on 2 July said that this was the fourth tournament game that
Steinitz had played, and that it followed losses to Blackburne, MacDonnell,
and Anderssen. However, this is typical of the contradictions between sources
that make it impossible to unravel the precise sequence of events. Steinitz had
certainly played several more games because, as already mentioned, he had
played Owen twice and his fourth game (or at least fourth decisive result) was
in fact his rook sacrifice win against Mongredien. That is believed, from the
advanced schedule in the first Era report, to have been played at the London
Chess Club on Tuesday 24 June. The win against Barnes, though, probably
made the greater impression (as the Daily News says) because it was played at
a public venue. Steinitz's game would have been witnessed by members of the
London club only. The Mongredien game is not annotated in this article as it
has been widely published; it can be found, for example, in my book Eminent
Victorian Chess Players and in the first volume of My Great Predecessors by
Kasparov. Here is the bare game score.
Wilhelm Steinitz Augustus Mongredien
London international, 1862
Scandinavian Defense [B01]
1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qd8 4 d4 e6 5 Nf3 Nf6 6 Bd3 Be7 7 0-0 0-0 8 Be3
b6 9 Ne5 Bb7 10 f4 Nbd7 11 Qe2 Nd5? 12 Nxd5 exd5 13 Rf3 f5! 14 Rh3 g6
15 g4?! fxg4?
[FEN "r2q1rk1/pbpnb2p/1p4p1/3pN3/
3P1Pp1/3BB2R/PPP1Q2P/R5K1 w - - 0 16"]
16 Rxh7!? Nxe5 17 fxe5 Kxh7 18 Qxg4 Rg8? 19 Qh5+ Kg7 20 Qh6+ Kf7 21
Qh7+ Ke6 22 Qh3+ Kf7 23 Rf1+ Ke8 24 Qe6 Rg7 25 Bg5 Qd7 26 Bxg6+
Rxg6 27 Qxg6+ Kd8 28 Rf8+ Qe8 29 Qxe8# 1-0
Wednesday was the date set for Paulsen's blindfold display against ten
opponents but there were also three tournament games that day. Barnes lost to
Dubois, and Blackburne to Robey, while Owen and Mongredien played again
with reversed colours and drew once more, so a third game was contested
between them on the Thursday (with the original colours), Owen finally
winning with white.
On Thursday 3 July, when a telegraph game with Paris had been scheduled,
two prize consultation games were hastily arranged instead for the
entertainment of spectators. There were also two further tournament games
(and some Handicap games): the decisive Owen-Mongredien game and a win
for MacDonnell against Robey.
Friday 4 July was the date of Blackburne 's triumphant blindfold display, in
which he was reckoned by observers to have equalled if not surpassed the
performance of Paulsen two days previously. It must be remembered that
Blackburne was only twenty years old and had begun playing these exhibitions
only in January whereas Paulsen had been giving them for several years.
On the same day Anderssen easily beat the unwell Dubois in a game which
"lasted little more than an hour, and was not conducted by Signor Dubois with
his usual skill. In fact his play was extremely bad." MacDonnell won with
Black against Owen, after seven hours play, and Paulsen beat Barnes (who
opened 1 f4) in four hours; that was a replay of an earlier draw which the
tournament book fails to date.
On Saturday 5 July, the French telegraph match was definitively cancelled, so
various alternative spectacles were arranged including an eight-board
simultaneous display in which Anderssen conceded knight odds in all games.
Blackburne (probably tired after his display and lack of sleep) lost his
tournament game to Barnes, while Lwenthal's tournament book says "there
was also another contest between Messrs V. Green and Steinitz, which
terminated in favour of the latter." The games are not described but it is known
they played three, Green having white in two of them. Possibly there were all
played on the same day.
The Kibitzer
Page 12 sur 14
The final week(s)

All the above results are dated and stated in the tournament book, but clearly
others had been played but not mentioned. Some of these can be deduced from
press reports, but as yet I cannot form a complete picture of the sequence of
results for all the lesser players, particularly Dubois.
All the distractions and other events of the Grand Week meant that some
players still had not completed their programme of fourteen games; indeed
probably nobody had managed to do so. Any outstanding games had to be
played off in the clubs or at the Divan.
However, one looks in vain through the tournament book by Lwenthal and
Medley for a statement of the players' scores at this stage. Scores given in The
Era and Daily News do not quite tally for some players and must include some
results of games not described in news reports. The tournament included
eighty-five game scores from the Grand Tournament, which is perhaps all,
certainly most, that were actually played. I am still trying to find further
sources that might resolve the gaps and contradictions and clarify the order of
play further. Nevertheless, the book is rather perfunctory in the way it
describes the event, especially its conclusion. The results table does not seem
to have been definitively closed until the end of July.
J. J. Lwenthal
On pages lxvi-lxvii the book says that there were now some retirements from
the tournament, but nothing is said here in connection with Blackburne. The
book says, "Mr. Robey had lost the majority of his games, and having,
therefore, no chance of a prize, resigned." Robey had played ten games,
including wins against Blackburne and Deacon, so he apparently forfeited
against Dubois and Hannah, in addition to the earlier default against
Lwenthal. The latter's own score of 4-0 appeared promising but he had
already been allowed to postpone his scheduled game with Blackburne, and
perhaps others. Game scores in the book show that the players he had beaten
were Barnes, Green, and Mongredien. The book says that "the fatigues
attending his office resulting in serious indisposition, he was compelled to
forfeit all the games he had not played."
Then the book states that "Mr. Deacon was also suffering from severe illness,
he therefore determined to concentrate his energies on the Handicap." Deacon
had, in fact, played eight games in all, against seven opponents. He had beaten
Green and Blackburne and the walkover against Lwenthal made his official
total three points. Deacon had drawn with Barnes and then lost to him, while
he had lost at the first time of asking to Anderssen, MacDonnell, Mongredien,
and Robey. The players who now scored a win by forfeit without the
satisfaction of defeating Deacon were Dubois, Hannah, Owen, Paulsen, and
Steinitz. I have drawn up a chart of what games were actually played and
when, but there are still many gaps in it so I am not yet ready to publish that.
It is therefore quite messy to establish how the tournament actually stood
following three weeks of play. The retirements meant that Anderssen, at least,
had now completed his programme, with just one loss; only Paulsen had a
chance of matching that.
It is known that the only competitors who (discounting Lwenthal) actually
played at least one game against all the others were Anderssen, Barnes,
Blackburne, and Owen. Anderssen had had only one draw, with Mongredien,
winning the replay. Mongredien had played many draws during the
tournament, making his progress slower.
One of the big uncertainties is when Paulsen lost his game with Dubois, since
it was that defeat which made it impossible to tie with Anderssen for first
place. Nor was he yet certain of undivided second place, since it is known that
he had to replay his game with Blackburne, who had drawn with him on
Saturday 26 June at the St. George's Club (if the schedule published in The Era
on 22 June was followed.) Blackburne also had drawn games to replay with
Mongredien (whom he had already played twice) and with Dubois. Because of
the importance of the Blackburne-Paulsen replay, I think it safe to assume that
everyone wanted it to be played off quickly and so it was probably on Monday
The Kibitzer
Page 13 sur 14
7 July or (if Paulsen was playing Dubois that day) perhaps on Tuesday 8 July.
He was not named as being present at the dinner on Thursday 10 July, nor at
the meeting about the new laws of chess, which was held the following
Thursday. This does not mean for certain that he was not there, but it seems
unlikely he was.
The loss to Paulsen was almost certainly the last game Blackburne played, and
he then returned to Manchester without finishing his programme. All the
tournament book has to say on the matter is one sentence on page lxxiii: "On
July 21st Mr. Blackburne resigned; and by the end of the month the Grand
Tournament was brought to a conclusion." The delay of a fortnight between
Blackburne's last game and his resignation probably means that the committee
wrote to ask him whether he intended to come back to London to replay his
games with Dubois (who was still in town) and with Mongredien, and awaited
Blackburne's reply before confirming the award of the points to those players.
On Saturday 2 August "the Managing Committee met to award the prizes."
The ranked table of results in the book (page lxxiv) is as follows, but I have
modified it to add a second column showing how many draws each competitor
played. I have also put two numbers in bold italic as these constitute an error,
commented on below.
We are accustomed to see tournament results nowadays presented as a

crosstable and one may be found on page 35 of Gino Di Felice's book Chess
Results 1747-1900 (McFarland 2004). An image of that table is shown here,
with draws indicated by asterisks, wins by forfeits as + and losses by forfeit as
. His table does not seem to be quite accurate in some details but I sympathise
with his difficulty in trying to get the matter correct. He shows Steinitz v.
Deacon as a played game, perhaps because they were scheduled to meet at the
St. George's Club on 27 June, but there is no game score and the result tallies
in the tournament book (see table below) only work if Steinitz won by
forfeiture.
Di Felice shows Dubois having five wins by play and four by forfeiture which
does not tally with the official result table. However, I think he has come to the
correct conclusion here. Much as one would like to accept the official table
above as authoritative, it clearly contains a misprint since the total of games
shown as won by forfeit is twenty but the total lost by forfeit as twenty-one!
The total won by play (71) also does not agree with the total lost by play (70).
However, these checksum errors are easily corrected by adjusting the wins
numbers for Dubois to agree with Di Felice. Dubois certainly scored by forfeit
against Blackburne, Deacon, and Lwenthal, but Robey's total of defaults is
not correct unless that was also an unplayed game and why would Robey
have withdrawn if he had already played Dubois and had only one opponent
left to meet? Ergo, Dubois won by forfeit against Robey.
From this it follows that seventy pairings were decided by play and twenty-one
by forfeit; the sum of those figures (91) is the correct number of pairings in a
fourteen-person round-robin. It is uncertain how many actual games were
played. The tournament book has seventeen draws and there could have been a
few more, as observed above. Therefore, two of the decisive games are
missing from the book. Careful comparison of the revised results table with the
games in the tournament book shows that Hannah's win against Green and
Barnes's win against MacDonnell are absent.
This answers a couple of queries raised by Professor Rod Edwards in the page
about London 1862 on his excellent historical chess ratings website. Edwards
mentions various discrepancies between accounts that he consulted when
The Kibitzer
Page 14 sur 14
compiling his historic ratings for players who participated. I think the present
article clears up most if not all his perplexities over dates.
Edwards raises the question of what happened in the pairings between
MacDonnell and both Dubois and Barnes, which have been variously scored in
secondary sources and are not explicitly reported in the primary sources. For
the numbers to add up correctly, one of these must have been decided by play
(in games not preserved in the tournament book) and the other must have been
a win by forfeit.
Dutch chess historian Feenstra Kuiper, in his book on chess tournaments, had
Dubois beating MacDonnell but this gets their totals wrong. From the above
and my calculations, it is certain that Dubois forfeited, so Edwards made the
right call on this and on Barnes v. MacDonnell where again Feenstra Kuiper
(who said it was unplayed) was wrong. Finally, there was no question of playoff matches, as mooted by Edwards on the basis of something said by Staunton
in the need for of a play-off. These two did play a match in September but it
had no connection with the tournament.
Di Felice made one clear mistake when he placed Dubois above MacDonnell,
perhaps because of the Italian compiler's sympathy for his countryman, or
perhaps just because he found the players in that order in another source.
However, page lxxiv of the tournament book makes it clear that the tie for
third was broken in favour of MacDonnell, on the reasonable grounds that he
had more wins by actual play and Dubois had more by forfeit. The fifth and
last prize then fell to Steinitz; the fact that Lwenthal's scores were not
cancelled (as would have been the case in later years) did not affect the prize
list.
The Handicap tournament was not finished until September, when Mackenzie
won first prize. In view of the emergence in later years of Mackenzie as a great
player, it is certainly unfortunate that he was not in the Grand Tournament, and
why he did not play is something a biographer (should he ever have one) ought
to investigate. Maybe his military responsibilities did not permit him to get the
necessary time off, though in peacetime I find that hard to believe. It was not
to be long before he resigned his commission and went to America.
Postscript: Schmid books to go on sale
Following my column last month, it has now been announced that part
(perhaps only a small part) of the late Lothar Schmid's extensive library is to
go to auction later this year. It has been reported on the Ken Whyld
Association's website, that the Klittich-Pfankuch house in Brunswick, who
regularly hold auctions of chess literature and collectables, are to sell about
1,200 of Schmid's books at their November auction. A large attendance may be
expected but further details will probably only become available much nearer
the time.

by Tim Harding
In PDF format. Viewable in Ipad, Itouch, Kindle, and other PDF viewers.
Only .99 cents!! With all games from the Chess Congress of 1862!

The Kibitzer
Page 1 sur 12
Search ChessCafe
Purchases from our

accessible:
Chess Research Resources: A Major Update

While some of the detail in this article is chiefly intended for readers interested
in doing chess history research themselves, I hope it will be on the whole of
general interest. To broaden the appeal, the second half of the column consists
of master games that I recently discovered, and which you are most unlikely to
find in the usual databases or Internet sources.
The
Kibitzer
In this article I shall mostly discuss some changes that have taken place at the
Royal Dutch Library, in The Hague, and at the British Library, in London. My
previous Kibitzer articles on chess research included:
Tim Harding
Translate this page

Select Language
Powered by
San Remo 1930

by Robert Sherwood
#105 (Feb. 2005) Chess Treasures at the British Library.

#117 (Feb. 2006) In the Footsteps of Harold Murray (Bodleian Library,
Oxford).
#126 (Nov. 2006) Chess Book Heaven at the Royal Dutch Library.
#132 (May 2007) The World's Greatest Chess Library (Cleveland,
Ohio).
Translate
John G. White Collection

Living as I do in Europe, I have not had an opportunity to return to the John G.
White collection at Cleveland, but I have found the staff there helpful in
answering email queries. For readers in central and north-eastern USA or
south-east Canada, for whom a journey to Cleveland is practicable, I
recommend a visit of at least a couple of days. You should prepare carefully
(as with any major library) by making lists of the shelf-marks of items you
wish to see and contact the librarians in advance to say you are coming to look
at chess collection items.

by John S. Hilbert
As with all the libraries mentioned in this article, you will probably have to
bring photographic ID (such as your passport) and proof of address (such as a
recent utility bill) in order to obtain a reader's ticket.
All the special collection material in Cleveland is held in book stacks so you
need at least to order your highest priority items in advance to ensure they are
ready when you arrive and to avoid wasting time.
It should also be noted that they have now posted some of their holdings in
PDF format on the library website. In particular, I note that you can download
these files, which are digital reproductions of chess column scrapbooks that
were collected painstakingly by collectors at the time the columns were
published.

Bodleian Library, Oxford

The last time I was at the Bodleian Library in Oxford was in August 2011.
This is primarily a library for Oxford students and scholars, but it does cater
for visiting researchers if they can show a need to use its collections, which,
for chess writers, principally means the Harold Murray papers. If you are not
an Oxford alumnus, you will need to bring some documentation (such as a
letter from an Oxford scholar or a publisher) to prove you need the kind of
library ticket that will enable you to read manuscripts there. Much of the
Bodleian's collections are now housed in a modern book store in Swindon,
which means what you need must be ordered at least a working day in
advance, which is not very convenient. The library wanted to build a new book
store in Oxford but was refused planning permission, and at present some of
the library's buildings are being extensively redeveloped. While the New
Bodleian building is being rebuilt as the Weston Library, modern special
collections material has to be read at the Radcliffe Science Library.
The situation should improve in October 2014, when the Weston Library is
due to reopen for academic readers, but at present I would not recommend
doing chess research in Oxford unless you live near there, or need to see
material that only Oxford holds. I am also told that the National Chess Library
at Hastings no longer keeps chess items on open shelves and that they must be
requested in advance.
British Library
mhtml:file://F:\_________________CHESS CAFE\8. August 2013\The Kibitzer 207.... 05/09/2013
The Kibitzer
Page 2 sur 12
This has, of course, long been the case with the British Library. Over the last
few years they have been building specialised storage buildings at Boston Spa
in Yorkshire (roughly between Leeds and York), where there is a small reading
room which I have never visited. A large proportion of their periodical
holdings have been moved there, including just about all chess magazines, so
at least two working days notice are required to order them to the main B. L.
reading rooms at St. Pancras in north central London. In case of delays, it is a
good idea to order items held remotely for the day before you actually need
them.
Books which are stored on the campus are usually available in well under two
hours but last orders for the current day close at 4pm. The maximum number
of orders per day is ten, but up to six consecutive volumes of a periodical
count as one item, and you can hold six books or periodical volumes overnight.
The good news is that the British Library's (fairly) new online catalogue, called
Explore the British Library, is now much improved on the situation in 2005
and the ordering process for books is considerably simplified and more
efficient than it used to be. They are also more open than they used to be to
granting reader tickets, though it is still not a library designed for use by
undergraduates who should normally be able to find what they need elsewhere.
You can register online for B. L. services and then obtain a reader card the first
time you visit, when you have to show your ID documents and discuss your
requirements in the department that handles reader registration. On a normal
day this should only take half an hour. Without a reader ticket you can use the
B.L.'s free wifi service available throughout the St. Pancras campus, but you
will not be able to enter reading rooms. You should be warned that the main
reading rooms tend to fill up by lunchtime, especially in the summer and other
holiday periods, after which seats may not be available until late afternoon. So
it is a good idea to go early (doors open at 9.30am) or work in the early
evenings (books have to be returned to the issue desk by 7.45pm in the main
rooms, but some close at 5pm).
The most important change affecting chess researchers is the imminent closure
of the old British Newspaper Library in Colindale (near Hendon, on the
Edgware Road of the Northern Line). It has now been definitively announced
that this will close on 8 November 2013. I paid my last visit there on the days
during the London heatwave of mid-July. A new storage building for
newspapers has been built in Boston Spa and they have begun the process of
moving bound volumes of journals, and the newspaper volumes will follow
soon. Anybody hoping to read bound volume newspapers at the old British
Library Newspapers reading room at Colindale needs to get there before the
end of August. Already some, including Land and Water, which had W. N.
Potter's important column, are embargoed. By early September, only
microfilmed and digitised newspapers will be available in Colindale and then
for its last few weeks. Having spent something like two months at Colindale
over the past nine years, it is sad to see it closing, although in many ways it
was never ideal. One motive for moving the newspapers is to store them in
modern air conditioned surroundings which should preserve these often very
frail and crumbling volumes for the future. There has always been a difficult
trade-off between conservation and making resources available to researchers,
and perhaps that will be easier to manage under the new conditions, but in the
short run chess researchers in Britain face a year or more with very limited
access to old newspapers.
Analyse systme
gratuite
FR.PCSpeedUp.me
Acclrez votre PC en 2
minutes. Nettoyage pc
gratuit
Ordinateur Lent ?
nettoyeur-registre.win
Faites un Nettoyage
d'Ordinateur. Essayez Cet
Outil Rapide & Gratuit!
Pilotes Samsung
Samsung.Official-Driv
Tlcharger les Pilotes
Samsung. Rapide, profitezen maintenant!
Tlcharger PC
Cleaner
www.pc-accelerateur.
Rparer & Acclrer Votre
PC. (Tlchargement
Recommand)
Nettoyage
d'Ordinateur ?
Nettoyage-Ordinateur.
Nettoyez Votre ordinateur
En 2mn & Retrouvez Un PC
Comme Neuf !
It is promised that a dedicated newspaper reading room (microfilms and

electronic copies only) is to be opened at St. Pancras, but that will not be until
some time in February 2014. The exact terms of use of the new reading room
will probably not be clear until it is up and running, and responding to reader
feedback. For example, if readers are held to ten items per day for microfilms
it will be effectively impossible to do a full day's research. Even staff who are
due to transfer to St. Pancras seem to have little idea what the new
arrangements will be.
However, they do promise to replace all of the microfilm equipment with new
digital microfilm readers, which should be a considerable improvement on
present arrangements. Several libraries I have used in recent times (notably the
National Library of Ireland in Dublin) now have advanced digital readerprinter machines which are a somewhat more complex to use but are capable
of delivering readable images and good quality printouts from overexposed or
underexposed microfilms.
Access to the newspaper bound volumes is likely to become extremely
restricted, with those in good condition possibly available to readers in
Yorkshire and in some cases (if they are fit to be transported) to the main
British Library in London. However, it is not likely to be possible to see any
bound volumes until the autumn of 2014. Moreover, many volumes from the
English provinces and Wales up to 1900 are affected by a discovery of
asbestos in one of the buildings in Colindale, which will require specialist
clean-up. Those volumes have been unavailable for several months, and
probably will not get moved to Boston Spa until next year. It also means those
papers are unavailable for microfilming and digitisation. They are in effect
unavailable indefinitely. Anybody needing to see such newspapers, if they
have not been microfilmed already, will have to find out whether they are
The Kibitzer
Page 3 sur 12
available in the local city and county libraries where they were originally
published.
Royal Dutch Library
Just after Easter, I went back to The Hague for my fifth visit to the Koninklijke
Bibliotheek, known in English as Royal Dutch Library, or just the KB. There
one day I happened to meet a former English opponent and fellow researcher.
He said he had been using the old article of mine, mentioned above, as a guide
but found that much had changed at the library in the intervening years. Indeed
it has, although mostly for the better, whereas you can tell from what I said
above that the conditions for readers interested in chess have in some libraries
perhaps disimproved. Also of course much has changed at many public
libraries as a result of the digitisation of books and newspapers, which was the
subject of last October's article (Kibitzer 197). I have some further comments
on that below.
It is very easy to get to the KB because it is right beside the (constantly being
rebuilt) railway station Den Haag Centraal. On an intercity train it takes less
than half an hour from Schiphol (Amsterdam's airport) or if you are staying in
The Hague itself, or nearby, most trams go there. The library opens at 10am
and on Tuesdays to Thursdays it stays open late. There is a restaurant in the
building (La Place) where you can get breakfast (from 8.20am) and a good
lunch, and a snack bar near the locker room area stays open until late
afternoon, so you never have to leave the building. (The British Library also
has a restaurant and cafs but they tend to be more crowded and more
expensive. The KB is often busy in the middle of the day but never seems to be
crowded.)
An annual pass (Jaarpass) costs only 15 Euro and allows access to the special
collections as well as the ordering of books from the stacks, so if you are
visiting for more than a day or two and intend to undertake research, that is
what you need. If you just want a short visit to read open shelf items, you can
buy a daily pass when you are there.
The very big advantage of going to The Hague is the immediate availability of
a very large amount of material on open shelves in an area on the first floor
reading room. There are even a couple of chess sets provided with comfortable
chairs if you want to relax or just look at a game you have found using a
proper set. The books on open shelves include a large selection of biographies,
game collections, and standard reference works, as well as quite a few fairly
obscure but useful books. These are mostly in English and German but there
are also books in other languages. Then there are several bookcases with
complete or near-complete runs of most of the important chess periodicals,
historical and current, in several languages, such as British Chess Magazine
(from its start in 1881), The Chess Player's Chronicle (a few late issues are
missing), the Deutsche Schachzeitung, etc.
Some other important or rarer periodicals, including the Westminster Papers,
and the books which formed part of the core collection of founders A. D. van
der Linde and Meindert Niemeyer, have to be read in the Special Collections
room. Some other chess items are available only on microfilm. These include
the French chess magazine La Stratgie, the Deutsches Wochenschach, and
others. The catalogue references for microfilms are not very helpful but with
some difficulty on my recent visit I discovered, after asking about three
different librarians, that the chess microfilms are to be found in cabinet 42, in
the middle of the 'Microzaal' room.
Making copies of microfilm pages costs 10 Euro cents a page, and they also
have fairly cheap photocopying machines of the old kind. Just above all other
copying at the KB can be done free because you can use your own digital
camera, which is absolutely forbidden at the British Library. In general making
copies of anything works out expensive at the British Library whereas the
Dutch seem to subsidise their national library more generously. They also have
new machines where you can scan books and save the result to PDF on a USB
key, but I did not use them on my last visit as they were very popular with
other readers and the instructions were only in the Dutch language.
Ordering of books is the main difficulty at present at the KB. The old paper
slips were abolished some time ago and also books will only be delivered at set
times of day. For more information, go to the KB's English-language
homepage.
Readers are now expected to place their stack requests online, either from
home or using the computer terminals in the building. This, however, only
seems to work for Netherlands residents, because a lot of the KB's modern
holdings can be borrowed by holders of annual passes. Therefore, on my last
visit, and the previous one in 2011, I had to ask staff members to order the
books I needed, using printed lists I prepared in advance. If you have a current
pass, you can use the KB's 'Ask a librarian' online page to send it a list of
requests in advance of your visit (maximum fifteen).
Games found in old newspapers
The Kibitzer
Page 4 sur 12
I continue to search for chess games and old chess news in various online
resources, including the British Newspaper Archive which is a commercial
project partnered by the British Library. There are various packages available
but anybody intending to do serious research over a long period needs the
twelve-month unlimited package which costs 79.95. I am still getting used to
the differences between this and the previous services I have used, so will not
say much more about it at this point. It does include all the newspaper titles
that are in the previous nineteenth century British Library Newspapers
databases (which are probably free at all UK universities and many major
public libraries) but the interface and search engine are at present not as good.
On the other hand the B.N.A. includes many more titles, some going beyond
1900, and they are constantly increasing what is available. Unfortunately,
Bell's Life in London is not included. That is, rather illogically (since it was a
newspaper), in a nineteenth century Periodicals collection exclusive to the B.L.
which may be available free in the U.K. but not where I live.
The games below were found in a variety of sources, including hard copy and
database. The first game is not of great quality or significance in itself, but is
of interest in being by far the earliest known game involving the great
musician Walter Parratt. He was born in Huddersfield, Yorkshire, on 10
February 1841 so was only seventeen years old at the time; the other games of
his that are known date from the 1870s when he was at Oxford University.
Being what would nowadays be called a 'mature student', he was considerably
older than the other players in the first Oxford v Cambridge University match
(see Kibitzer 123, August 2006). He later became master of the Queen's
Musick and was knighted. Parratt was famous for being able to play a game of
blindfold chess simultaneously while playing the organ. When you consider
that playing a large church organ involves both hands and both feet (with all
those pedals and stops, not to mention perhaps three keyboards), this is a
considerably more difficult feat than playing chess and a piano simultaneously.
Walter Parratt & Dr. Scott G. Brook jr. & J. Eastwood
Huddersfield consultation 1858
From the Huddersfield Chronicle, 7 August 1858.
The following game is the opening one in a match at chess by consultation,
which has recently commenced between four of the leading members of the
Huddersfield Chess Club. (The match was for the best of nine games, the score
so far being 2-2.)
1 e4 c5 2 Bc4 e6 3 Nc3 a6 4 a4 b6 5 Nf3 Bb7 6 d3 g6 7 Bg5 f6 8 Bf4 Bg7 9
0-0 Ne7 10 Qd2 0-0 11 Bh6 f5 12 Bxg7 Kxg7 13 Ng5 fxe4 14 Ncxe4 h6 15
Qc3+ Kg8
[FEN "rn1q1rk1/1b1pn3/pp2p1pp/2p3N1/
P1B1N3/2QP4/1PP2PPP/R4RK1 w - - 0 16"]
16 Bxe6+ dxe6 17 Nxe6 1-0
The next two games were found by me in a rare newspaper volume from 1862
which will now be unavailable for research for a long time, perhaps
indefinitely. Unfortunately, I was unable to see the 1861 volume because it
was declared 'unfit for use' by the curators of the British newspaper Library.
One must hope that at some future date restoration work and microfilming or
full digitisation will be carried out. Although the 1862 volume had many
pictures, I saw none of the players in the international chess tournament. Most
of the material was familiar from other sources (including Lwenthal's column
in The Era) and indeed the following games, I afterwards discovered, had also
been included in that column on 13 April where you can find his annotations.
From J. J. Lwenthal's column in the Illustrated News of the World, 26 April
1862: "Two wins by L. Paulsen at Hameln chess club against some of the
strongest players of that society." This and the next game, which are not to be
found in a German collection of games by the Paulsens and Morphy, must date
from the period of a few months between Paulsen's return to Germany from
England at the end of 1861 and his coming back for the London 1862
tournament.
C. Lemke Louis Paulsen
Hamelin, 1862
Evans Gambit [C51]
The Kibitzer
Page 5 sur 12
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 b4 Bxb4 5 c3 Ba5 6 d4 exd4 7 0-0 d6 8 cxd4

Bb6 9 Ng5?! Nh6 10 Be3 0-0 11 Nf3 Ng4
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/ppp2ppp/1bnp4/8/2BPP1n1/
4BN2/P4PPP/RN1Q1RK1 w - - 0 12"]
12 d5 Bxe3 13 dxc6 Bb6 14 cxb7 Bxb7 15 Nc3 Qf6 16 Nd5 Bxd5 17 Bxd5 c6!
Black returns the gambit pawn in order to use the rook on the c-file in a
counter-attack against f2.
18 Bxc6 Rac8 19 Bb7
[FEN "2r2rk1/pB3ppp/1b1p1q2/8/4P1n1/
5N2/P4PPP/R2Q1RK1 b - - 0 19"]
19...Nxf2 20 Rxf2 Rc2 21 e5 Qf5 22 h3 Rxf2 23 Kh1 dxe5
Black is now the exchange and two pawns ahead, with an easy win.
24 Qe1 Re8 25 Rb1 Rxa2 26 Be4 Qf4 27 Qh4 Qxh4 28 Nxh4 Rd8 29 Nf5 g6
30 Ne7+ Kf8 31 Nc6 Rdd2 32 Nxe5 Bc7 33 Nc6 f5 34 Bf3 g5 35 Rf1 Rf2 36
Re1 g4 37 hxg4 fxg4 38 Bd5 Rad2 39 Be4 Rde2 0-1
C. Lemke Louis Paulsen
Hamelin, 1862
King's Gambit [C37]
Illustrated News of the World, 26 April: Two wins by L. Paulsen at Hameln
chess club against some of the strongest players of that society.
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4 g4 5 Ne5 Qh4+ 6 Kf1 f3
[FEN "rnb1kbnr/pppp1p1p/8/4N3/2B1P1pq/
5p2/PPPP2PP/RNBQ1K1R w kq - 0 7"]
7 g3? Qh3+ 8 Kf2 Nf6 9 Nc3 Qg2+ 10 Ke3 Bh6+ 11 Kd4 d6 12 Nxf7 0-1
The Kibitzer
Page 6 sur 12
[FEN "rnb1k2r/ppp2N1p/3p1n1b/8/2BKP1p1/
2N2pP1/PPPP2qP/R1BQ3R b kq - 0 12"]
And Black mates in three moves.
The following games are not in databases or the standard Steinitz game
collections, such as the one by Sid Pickard. Moves and notes from the
Birmingham Journal, 24 November 1866: "The following are two of a series of
games recently played between the Rev. S. W. Earnshaw, of the Birmingham
Club, and Herr Steinitz." They were probably played in Birmingham during a
break in Steinitz's match with Bird. As with the Huddersfield Chronicle, the
Birmingham Journal was recently made available through the British
Newspaper Archive.
Samuel Walter Earnshaw Wilhelm Steinitz
Birmingham? 1866
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Bf4
This move, which was first introduced by Herr Harrwitz, is a very forcible
move.
3...c5 4 e3 Nc6 5 Nc3 cxd4 6 exd4
White would have gained nothing by playing instead 6 Nb5 on account of
6...Qa5+.
6...dxc4 7 Nf3 Bd6
Herr Steinitz wisely cuts off the range of this B, as it threatened to become
very troublesome.
8 Bg3
Although White loses time by playing thus, he opens a file for his KR.
8...Bxg3 9 hxg3 Qb6 10 Rb1 Bd7 11 Bxc4 Nf6 12 a3 0-0 13 Bd3 Rfd8
The youngest player cannot fail to see that taking White's QP would have cost
Black at least a clear piece.
14 Qc2 h6 15 Rd1 Rac8 16 Qb1 Be8
[FEN "2rrb1k1/pp3pp1/1qn1pn1p/8/3P4/
P1NB1NP1/1P3PP1/1Q1RK2R w K - 0 17"]
17 Rh4
This was an error which eventually cost White the game. It was suggested by a
strong player, when the game was over, that White would have done better by
pushing his QP instead. (Computer analysis, however, shows that this is no
better and White already stands much worse.)
17...Kf8 18 Bc2 Ng8 19 Qc1 g5 20 Nxg5
This is altogether unsound, now that Black's K Kt has returned to his own
square.
20...hxg5 21 Qxg5 f6 22 Qe3 Qxb2 23 Bh7 Nxd4 24 Rg4 Rxc3 25 Rxg8+ Kf7
26 Qh6
This is a blind effort of despair only.
The Kibitzer
Page 7 sur 12
26...Nf3+
Curiously enough Herr Steinitz overlooked a mate on the move.
27 gxf3 Rxd1+ 28 Kxd1 Ba4+ 29 Ke1 Qa1+ 30 Kd2
30 Ke2 Qd1#.
30...Qc1+ 31 Ke2 Qd1# 0-1
Wilhelm Steinitz Samuel Walter Earnshaw
Birmingham? 1866
Evans Gambit [C51]
Notes from the Birmingham Journal. Steinitz actually took the Black pieces
again but since he moved first, colour references have been changed to the
modern convention.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 b4 Bxb4 5 c3 Bc5 6 0-0 d6 7 d4 exd4 8 cxd4
Bb6 9 Nc3 Na5
We take this to be the best defence at present known to the Evans Gambit.
10 Bd3 Bg4
This is an inferior move, because, when the hostile Kt is taken off, White lays
himself open to the full fire of Black's KR. 10...Ne7 is a far better move.
11 Ne2 Bxf3 12 gxf3 Qf6
The Queen should have marched at once to h4.
13 f4 0-0-0
Black selected this move, thinking his K would be comparatively secure from
attack, since White's Pawns on the Q's side are so much broken. If instead
13...Bxd4 he would have lost at least a piece.
[FEN "2kr2nr/ppp2ppp/1b1p1q2/n7/3PPP2/
3B4/P3NP1P/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 0 14"]
14 Bb2 Qh4 15 Kh1 Nf6 16 f3 Rhg8 17 Ng3
Very well played. If 17...Qxf4 he will lose the exchange, e.g., 18 Bc1 Qh4 19
Nf5.
17...g6 18 Qd2 d5 19 e5 Nh5 20 Nxh5 Qxh5
Although by playing thus White preserved his Pawns unbroken, he ought to
have taken with P, and so brought his KR into excellent play, although at the
cost of a Pawn.
21 Bc3 Nc6 22 Bb5 Ne7 23 a4 c6 24 Bd3
[FEN "2kr2r1/pp2np1p/1bp3p1/3pP2q/
P2P1P2/2BB1P2/3Q3P/R4R1K b - - 0 24"]
24...a6?
This turned out to be a very weak move. 24...Rge8 would perhaps have been
better. (Actually the computer prefers Black up to this point and suggests
24...Nf5.)
25 a5 Bc7 26 Rab1 Nf5 27 Rf2
The Kibitzer
Page 8 sur 12
This is not only defensive, but exceedingly attacking at the same time.
27...Rd7 28 Qb2 Ne7
This deplorable move is about the best at White's command.
29 Qxb7+ Kd8 30 Bxa6 Ke8 31 Qa8+ Rd8 32 Qa7 Qf5 33 Rb7 Nc8 34 Qc5
Kd7 35 Rfb2
Threatening to take the B for nothing on his next move.
35...Rde8 36 Rxc7+ Kxc7 37 Rb7+ Kd8 38 Rb8 Kc7 39 Rxc8+ Rxc8 40 Qd6#
1-0
Joseph Henry Blackburne T. Boutwood
Luton blindfold simul, 4 November 1880
Evans Gambit [C52]
From the Luton Times and Advertiser, Friday 12 November 1880.
On this occasion Blackburne played ten games simultaneously blindfold, and
won the other nine. The player who drew was President of the club.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 b4 Bxb4 5 c3 Ba5 6 d4 exd4 7 0-0 Nge7
[FEN "r1bqk2r/ppppnppp/2n5/b7/2BpP3/
2P2N2/P4PPP/RNBQ1RK1 w kq - 0 8"]
Although it leads to very sharp play, this is one of the soundest defences to the
Evans Gambit and sometimes surprises White if he plays 4 b4 without having
studied the opening thoroughly.
8 Ng5
8 cxd4 was almost always played in the few early games with this line. Then
8...d5 9 exd5 Nxd5 10 Qb3 Nce7 (10...Be6 is much better.) 11 Ba3 c6 12 Bxe7
Kxe7 occurred in the stem-game, James Thompson-Charles D. Mead, New
York 1857 (in the American Chess Monthly, 1857, page 108.). That was
drawn in forty moves, but here White missed 13 Bxd5 Qxd5 14 Qa3+ and
Black may lack a sufficient defence (Cafferty and Harding, Play the Evans
Gambit, 2nd edition).
8...0-0?
This loses the exchange. Black should play 8...d5 9 exd5 Ne5 10 Bb3 0-0 11
cxd4 Ng4 12 Ba3 and now instead of 12...Nxd5?! 13 Bxf8 (1-0, 41)
Anderssen-S. Mieses, Breslau 1867, Black can play 12...Nh6 13 Nd2 b5 14
Nde4 b4 15 Qc2 Nhf5 (15...bxa3?? 16 Nf6+) 16 Qc5 bxa3 17 Qxa5 Bb7 when
chances levelled out in M. W. Johnson-Simon Webb, IECG email
championship 1996.
9 Qh5 h6 10 Nxf7 Rxf7 11 Bxf7+ Kh7
Although matters look bad for Black, he is not entirely without resources since
he has an extra pawn White's development is somewhat backward.
12 f4!?
The blindfold player goes for the jugular but White is better with the simple 12
cxd4 Bb6 13 Bb2, e.g., 13...Nxd4 14 Nd2 d6 15 Nf3 Ne2+? 16 Kh1 Nf4 17
Ng5+ Kh8 18 Qxh6# 1-0, Jolowicz-Glunz, Hamburg 1971.
12...Bb6 13 f5 dxc3+ 14 Kh1 Bd4
The Kibitzer
Page 9 sur 12
[FEN "r1bq4/ppppnBpk/2n4p/5P1Q/
3bP3/2p5/P5PP/RNB2R1K w - - 0 15"]
15 f6! c2 16 fxe7?
Good enough, but the blindfold player misses the pretty forcing line 16 fxg7
Bxg7 17 Bxh6! Bxh6 18 Bg6+! Kg8 (17...Nxg6 18 Rf7+) 19 Qxh6 Nxg6 20
Qxg6+ Kh8 21 Nd2 with forced mate in a dozen moves.
16...Nxe7 17 e5 Bxa1 18 Bxh6! gxh6 19 Bg6+ Kg8
[FEN "r1bq2k1/ppppn3/6Bp/4P2Q/
8/8/P1p3PP/bN3R1K w - - 0 20"]
20 Bh7+?
Failure of "vision"; in later years Blackburne would probably have played the
calm 20 bxc2 which forces mate in eight moves.
20...Kxh7 21 Qf7+ Kh8 22 Qf6+ -
Drawn by perpetual check.
Finally, I offer two games played by Emanuel Lasker during his engagement to
play chess at the German Exhibition in Earls Court, London, in August 1891.
The following game is available in databases but with incorrect information
about the circumstances.
Emanuel Lasker Oscar Conrad Mueller
German Exhibition, Earls Court, London, 1891
Ruy Lopez [C67]
This event was reported regularly in the London Daily News and this game
was found in the issue for 4 August 1891. Lasker made his first appearance on
3 August, having been invited by the managers of the exhibition. After playing
some simultaneous games against all-comers (four at a time as there was no
room for more), he met the professional player Mueller single-handed (not a
simul as ChessBase says in its Mega Database). The game was played in two
sessions with an adjournment from 5.30pm to 7.30pm.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6 4 0-0 Nxe4 5 d4 Be7 6 Qe2 Nd6 7 Bxc6 bxc6 8
dxe5 Nb7 9 b3 0-0 10 Bb2 d5 11 Nbd2 c5 12 Rfd1 Bf5 13 Rac1 Qc8 14 Nf1
Qe6 15 Ne3 Be4 16 Nd2 Bg6 17 f4
[FEN "r4rk1/pnp1bppp/4q1b1/2ppP3/5P2/
1P2N3/PBPNQ1PP/2RR2K1 b - - 0 17"]
17...f6 18 Qf3 fxe5 19 Qxd5 Qxd5 20 Nxd5 Bd8 21 Bxe5 c6 22 Ne3 Bb6 23
Ndc4 1-0
The Kibitzer
Page 10 sur 12
The following game is not in Chessbase's database or the Ken Whyld

collection of Lasker games, though I expect it is in the huge German work on
the world champion by Richard Forster, Stefan Hansen and Michael Negele,
Emanuel Lasker: Denker Weltenbrger Schachweltmeister (Exzelsior Verlag
2009). I found it in the Daily News of Saturday 8 August which reported that
Lasker's total score in simultaneous games at the exhibition was now seventynine wins and one draw. Then it said that the previous evening he had played 'a
special game for a small stake with Mr. Gibbons.' Can any reader tell me more
about who Gibbons was?
Gibbons Emanuel Lasker
German Exhibition Earls Court, London, 07.08.1891
1 f4 d5 2 e3 g6 3 Nf3 Bg7 4 Be2 Nc6 5 d3 Nf6 6 h3 0-0 7 Ne5 Nxe5 8 fxe5
Nd7 9 d4 f6 10 exf6 Bxf6 11 0-0 e5 12 c4 exd4 13 exd4 dxc4 14 Bxc4+ Kg7
15 Be3 Re8 16 Bf2 Nb6 17 Be2 c5
[FEN "r1bqr3/pp4kp/1n3bp1/2p5/3P4/
7P/PP2BBP1/RN1Q1RK1 w - - 0 18"]
'On the 18th move Mr. Gibbons had to relinquish a pawn, but playing very
well he recovered the pawn with a considerable advantage in position...'
18 Na3 Bxd4 19 Bxd4+ Qxd4+ 20 Qxd4+ cxd4 21 Bb5 Rd8 22 Rac1 Nd5 23
Nc2 a6 24 Bc4 Nb6 25 Rf7+ Kh8 26 Bd3 Be6 27 Rxb7
'His attack gradually became stronger. On his 29th move he succeeded in
doubling his rooks on the seventh file' (That should be rank!) 'and losing a
piece on the 34th move the German Master's game seemed hopelessly lost.'
27...Na4 28 Ne1 Rd6 29 Rcc7 Bg8 30 Nf3 Nb6 31 Ng5 Rf8 32 Nxh7 Rfd8 33
Ng5 R8d7 34 Rxb6
[FEN "6bk/2Rr4/pR1r2p1/6N1/
3p4/3B3P/PP4P1/6K1 b - - 0 34"]
34...Rxb6 35 Rxd7 Rxb2 36 Rxd4 Rxa2 37 Bxg6 Kg7
'But his opponent let a certain victory slip from his grasp. He gave way in an
unaccountable manner and left a piece en prise on his 45th move.'
38 Be4 a5 39 Bc6 Bb3 40 Nf3 a4 41 Nd2 Bc2 42 Rc4 Bd3 43 Rg4+ Kh6 44
Nc4 Be2
[FEN "8/8/2B4k/8/p1N3R1/7P/
r3b1P1/6K1 w - - 0 45"]
45 Rg3?? Bxc4
The Kibitzer
Page 11 sur 12
'Lasker then made a rush with his passed pawn, and succeeded in obtaining a
winning advantage on his 50th move. The game caused considerable
excitement among the spectators.'
46 Rf3?
46 Bxa4 Rxa4 47 Rg4 Ra1+ 48 Kh2 of course draws easily.
46...a3 47 Rc3 Bf7 48 Rc1 Rb2 49 Be4 a2
[FEN "8/5b2/7k/8/4B3/7P/pr4P1/2R3K1 w - - 0 50"]

50 Ra1?
50 Kh2 holds comfortably because 50...Bd5? can be met by 51 Bxd5 Rb1 52
Rc6+ Kg5 53 Ra6 a1Q 54 Rxa1 when any sensible continuation holds the draw
with Bishop and two pawns against Rook.
50...Bd5! 51 Bxd5 Rb1+ 52 Kh2 Rxa1 53 Kg3
White cannot play his King to the f-file while his Bishop must keep watch on
the a-pawn, whereas Black's king is free to march. Nevertheless I suspect that
poor shell-shocked White could have resisted better in the sequel.
53...Kg6 54 h4 Kf5 55 Bb3 Ke5 56 Bg8 Kd4 57 h5 Ke5 58 h6 Kf6 59 Bb3
Kg6 60 Bc4 Kxh6 0-1
After a few busy weeks at the Exhibition, the Bristol Mercury, 19 September,
reported that Lasker took a holiday in Brighton before returning to London. He
played a good many casual games with local players and 'on Monday evening
last' (presumably 14 September) he conducted a ten-board simultaneous
display at La Crmerie, East street, the headquarters of the Sussex Chess
Association. Starting at 8pm, Lasker played the Ruy Lopez on all boards,
except against Mr T. Duff Barnett (the newly-appointed Hon. Sec. of the
Brighton club), who played the Sicilian, and another game which was a King's
Gambit Declined. Barnett beat Lasker, who also conceded one draw, winning
the other eight games, all in a time of about two hours and fifteen minutes.
Then Lasker went back to London for a few more days playing at the
Exhibition.
Postscript
I promise to write my next column on a non-historical theme!

by Tim Harding

The Kibitzer
Page 12 sur 12

The Kibitzer
Page 1 sur 13
Search ChessCafe
Purchases from our

accessible:
A New Look at an Old Opening
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Forty years ago, Chess Player of Nottingham published my first chess book:
Bishop's Opening, so it is appropriate to take another look at it now. It will
have to be a very selective look, because database searches soon reveal that
thousands of games have been played in the past decade with 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4,
whereas at the time I wrote that book there would have only been a few dozen
master games with it in a decade.
Starting Out: Open Games
by Glenn Flear
Translate this page

Slectionner une langue
Fourni par
Traduire
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppp1ppp/8/4p3/2B1P3/8/
PPPP1PPP/RNBQK1NR b KQkq - 0 2"]
Beating 1 e4 e5
by John Emms
Before Bent Larsen started playing the opening in the 1960s there were hardly
any at all, and in the early 1970s Bill Hartston was the only leading British
player who included it in his repertoire. One could go to an Open tournament,
play 2 Bc4, and see the opponent react with surprise. There were usually two
reactions: either a think of two or three minutes, or else an immediate 2...Nf6
and then a long think by Black at move three.
I started to play this opening after a break of a couple of years from chess
while I worked on a postgraduate degree. Having completed that, and while
waiting for the results, there happened to be a chess tournament in Oxford, in
which I played without much success but it got me thinking about the game
again. Having some free time and access to some old chess theory books in the
Bodleian Library, I started making notes on this old opening which Larsen had
revived.
Play 1 e4 e5!
by Nigel Davies
Then I tried it out in my next tournament, the 1972 Barnstaple Open in Devon.
However I was not confident enough yet to get involved in theory so after 1 e4
e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 I played 3 Qe2, which actually is not a bad move since the king's
bishop is already developed and putting the Queen on the e-file inhibits an
early ...d5 by Black. Of course Black will normally reply 3...Nc6, but the threat
of ...Nd4 is easily stopped by 4 c3, preparing to play d4 later and recapture
cxd4 in the best Philidorian tradition. The snag with this line is that the pawn
on c3 interferes with the development of the queenside pieces and that is the
main reason to reject the 3 Qe2 option.
One of the ideas of the Bishop's Opening is of course that the f-pawn is not
blocked by the knight, but this does not mean that you always have to play an
early f4; sometimes White will play Nf3 later, often transposing to regular 2
Nf3 variations.
In the 1980s the Bishop's Opening became quite fashionable, at a time when
the Petroff Defence appeared to be an immovable rock that was leading to
draw after draw. By opening 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 the Petroff main lines could be
circumvented, as play usually continued 2...Nf6 3 d3 Nc6 4 Nf3 which brings
about a form of Two Knights Defence (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 d3).
Books were published under the title Bishop's Opening that were, however,
principally concerned with this line, which I hardly considered to be worthy of
that name.
A key point about that line, by whichever move order it may arise, is that it is
very tempting for Black to play 4...d5, thinking this is a "freeing" move, but
then it turns out that the Black e-pawn becomes weak and has to be sacrificed.
The following game from Larsen's book of his early best games made a big
http://www.chesscafe.com/kibitz/kibitz208.htm
19/09/2013
The Kibitzer
Page 2 sur 13
I recommend that you study both the following games in conjunction with the
notes from Larsen's Selected Games. (By the way, I much prefer the title of the
German edition, Ich Spiel Auf Sieg, "I Play To Win.")
Bent Larsen B. Berger
Amsterdam Interzonal (rd 7), 28 May 1964
1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 d3 d5 4 exd5 Nxd5 5 Nf3 Nc6 6 0-0 Bg4 7 Re1 Be7 8 h3
Offre
Chromebook
Samsung
Google.fr/Samsung_
Achetez un
Chromebook
Samsung et
gagnez un
smartphone
gratuit.
[FEN "r2qk2r/ppp1bppp/2n5/3np3/2B3b1/
3P1N1P/PPP2PP1/RNBQR1K1 b kq - 0 8"]
8...Bxf3
It is better to retreat the bishop to h5, but Black was relying on his next move.
9 Qxf3 Nd4! 10 Qg4! 0-0?
10...Qd6 was necessary.
11 Rxe5 Nf6 12 Qd1 Bd6 13 Re1 Re8 14 Be3 c5 15 Nd2 Bc7 16 Nf3 Qd6 17
Bxd4 cxd4 18 Rxe8+ Rxe8 19 c3
[FEN "4r1k1/ppb2ppp/3q1n2/8/2Bp4/
2PP1N1P/PP3PP1/R2Q2K1 b - - 0 19"]
19...dxc3 20 bxc3 Nh5 21 Qa4 Re7 22 Qxa7 Nf4 23 Qxb7 h5 24 Qc8+ Kh7
25 h4 1-0
Another game of Larsen's from that book was also very influential. By contrast
with that tactical battle, this one from the same tournament is highly positional
in nature.
Bent Larsen Levente Lengyel
Amsterdam Interzonal (rd 9), 30 May 1964
1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 Nc3
This time Larsen plays a different move order. This position, like many other
lines that I used to play via 2 Bc4, can also be considered to be part of the
Vienna Opening, which I may look at in a future article. Black could now play
3...Nxe4, for which see two later games in this article.
While can also play 3 d4 (usually leading to the Urusov Gambit, which I
discussed earlier in several Kibitzer articles), or various unsound moves such
as 3 Nf3 (the Boden-Kieseritzky Gambit).
3...Nc6 4 d3 Bb4 5 Nf3
This is more effective than 5 Nge2 or 5 Bg5 but White must be prepared for a
long grind. Larsen always was.
5...d6 6 0-0 Bxc3 7 bxc3 Na5 8 Bb3 Nxb3 9 axb3 0-0 10 c4
19/09/2013
The Kibitzer
Page 3 sur 13
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/ppp2ppp/3p1n2/4p3/2P1P3/
1P1P1N2/2P2PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b - - 0 10"]
The exchange of two pairs of minor pieces have brought about opposite
coloured bishops (not drawish in this situation) and a transformation of the
queenside pawn structure. Larsen liked this diamond formation where he
controls d5 (making a later f2-f4 possible) and also has a half-open a-file and
use of the c3 square for his pieces. In this position, earlier in the tournament,
Gligoric played 10...b6 and managed to draw but Larsen did not believe the
position was equal and has another chance to prove it.
10...Qe7 11 Nd2 Nd7 12 Qh5 Nc5 13 f4! exf4 14 Rxf4 Qe5 15 Qxe5 dxe5 16
Rf2 Ne6 17 Nf3 f6 18 Be3 a6 19 Nh4 Bd7 20 Nf5 Rae8 21 h3 Rf7 22 Kh2
Nf8 23 g4 Ng6 24 Ng3 Ne7 25 Raf1 Be6 26 Ne2 Nc6 27 Kg3 Nb8 28 Nc3 c6
Larsen explained that it is hard for Black to do anything and his first objective
was to rule out the advance ...f5. Now Black has ruled out Nd5 but created new
holes in his position.
[FEN "1n2r1k1/1p3rpp/p1p1bp2/4p3/2P1P1P1/
1PNPB1KP/2P2R2/5R2 w - - 0 29"]
White's next phase is aimed at preparing an eventual d3-d4 advance; Black's

thirty-sixth move makes this easier.
29 c5 Nd7 30 Na4 Rd8 31 h4 Rdf8 32 Nb2 Rc8 33 Ra1 Kf8 34 Ra4 Ke8 35
Rb4 Rc7 36 c3 g6? 37 d4 h5? 38 g5 fxg5 39 Bxg5 exd4 40 Rxf7 Kxf7 41
cxd4 Nf6 42 Kf4 a5 43 Ra4 Bxb3 44 Rxa5 Ng4 45 Ra3 Be6 46 Nd3 Kg7
[FEN "8/1pr3k1/2p1b1p1/2P3Bp/
3PPKnP/R2N4/8/8 w - - 0 47"]
47 Ne5 Rc8 48 Be7 Re8 49 Bd6 Nxe5 50 Bxe5+ Kf7 51 Kg5 Bg4 52 Ra1
Re6 53 Rb1 Re7 54 Rf1+ Ke8 55 Kxg6 Kd7 56 Rf4 Be2 57 Bd6 Re6+ 58
Kg5 Bd3 59 Be5 Be2 60 Rf2 Bd3 61 Kf4 Rg6 62 Ke3 Bc4 63 Rf5 Rg1 64
Rxh5 Re1+ 65 Kf4 Bd3 66 Rh7+ Ke6 67 d5+ cxd5 68 exd5+ Kxd5 69 Rd7+
1-0
Of course I do not claim to play at anything like Larsen's level, but I now offer
three of my early games with the opening and then more recent ones from an
ICCF correspondence tournament. They do show the difficulties that
opponents often have in meeting this opening.
Tim Harding R. M. R. O'Kelly
Oxfordshire-Kent county match, 1969
1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nc6 3 f4 Bc5 4 Nf3 d6 5 c3 f5?!
19/09/2013
The Kibitzer
Page 4 sur 13
[FEN "r1bqk1nr/ppp3pp/2np4/2b1pp2/
2B1PP2/2P2N2/PP1P2PP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 6"]
Neither this move nor my reply to it can really be recommended. I include the
game for historic reasons. It was possibly the first time I played this opening, a
few months before the final examinations for my first degree, which was
followed by my two-year break from chess. Then in 1971 I recalled I had had
success with the move.
6 Ng5?! exf4! 7 h4!? Ne5! 8 Bxg8 Nd3+ 9 Kf1 Rxg8 10 Qb3 Rf8 11 Qb5+
Bd7 12 Qxd3 Qe7 13 b4 Bb6 14 a4?! h6 15 a5 hxg5 16 axb6 fxe4 17 Qd5
cxb6 18 Qxg5 Qf7 19 Na3
[FEN "r3kr2/pp1b1qp1/1p1p4/6Q1/
1P2pp1P/N1P5/3P2P1/R1B2K1R b q - 0 19"]
19...f3? 20 g4 a5? 21 Kf2! axb4 22 Nb5! Bxb5 23 Rxa8+ Kd7 24 Qxb5+

Kc7 25 Rxf8 Qxf8 26 Qc4+ Kb8 27 Qxe4 1-0
Tim Harding R. J. Stockwell
Oxfordshire-Surrey county match, 1971
1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 Nc3 Nxe4
Black takes up the challenge, but his sixth move shows that he does not know
the theory. Perhaps he expected 4 Nxe4? d5 which is good for Black.
Or there is 4 Bxf7+?! Kxf7 5 Nxe4 d5 6 Qf3+ Kg8 which is more trappy. After
my 1973 book came out, only mentioning the old moves 7 Ne2 and 7 Ng5 in
this position, London player Graham Lee showed me his ingenious idea for
White which he said had won him some games. White can play 7 d4!:
[FEN "rnbq1bkr/ppp3pp/8/3pp3/3PN3/
5Q2/PPP2PPP/R1B1K1NR b KQ - 0 7"]
Here the tempting 7...Bb4+? turns out to be very good for White after 8 Bd2!.
Also, of course, 7...dxe4?? 8 Qb3+ mates in two moves. There's actually a
game that ends like that in ChessBase's database, which only goes to prove the
old adage that "there's one born every minute."
So how should Black meet 7 d4? Perhaps the best move is 7...Qe8! which
worked in M. Giroux -A. Pressburger, a Canadian correspondence game in
2006: 8 Qb3 exd4 9 Qxd5+ Be6 10 Qxd4? (10 Qxb7 Nc6 is also good for
Black.) 10...Nc6 and White was busted. Lee's choice, though, was 8 Ng5!?
(threatening Qxd5+) 8...exd4+ 9 Kf1 but it seems that Black can then play
9...c6 and if 10 Bd2 h6 11 Re1 Qg6 Black should win. So probably White
should play 9 Ne2 and 10 0-0. Black can also consider 7...h6, 7...Be7, or
7...exd4 8 Ne2 Nc6, so I was never tempted to try Lee's idea myself although
he insisted that it was better than 4 Qh5.
19/09/2013
The Kibitzer
Page 5 sur 13
4 Qh5 Nd6 5 Bb3 Nc6 6 Nb5
[FEN "r1bqkb1r/pppp1ppp/2nn4/1N2p2Q/
8/1B6/PPPP1PPP/R1B1K1NR b KQkq - 0 6"]
I think this was my first game with what I was later to call the FrankensteinDracula Variation. White crudely threatens 7 Nxd6+ cxd6 8 Qxf7 mate. See
also the next game.
6...Qe7?! 7 Nxc7+ Kd8 8 Nxa8 b6 9 d3 Bb7 10 Nxb6 axb6 11 Be3 Kc7 12 f3
g6 13 Qg5 f6 14 Qg3 Nf5 15 Qf2 Nxe3 16 Qxe3 f5 17 Ne2 Qh4+ 18 Qf2
Qb4+ 19 c3 Qb5 20 0-0-0 Bh6+ 21 Kc2 Na5 22 Rhe1 Nxb3 23 axb3 Bg5 24
d4 e4? 25 Qg3+ f4 26 Nxf4 Bxf4 27 Qxf4+ Kc8 28 fxe4 1-0
Tim Harding Dr. Gerald Katz
Brighton (Major open), 1972
1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 Nc3 Nxe4 4 Qh5 Nd6 5 Bb3 Nc6 6 Nb5 g6
Unlike the previous opponent, Dr. Katz knew what he was supposed to be
doing.
7 Qf3 f5 8 Qd5 Qe7 9 Nxc7+ Kd8 10 Nxa8 b6 11 d3
[FEN "N1bk1b1r/p2pq2p/1pnn2p1/3Qpp2/
8/1B1P4/PPP2PPP/R1B1K1NR b KQ - 0 11"]
However he may not have been so familiar with this way of handling the
variation for White, which was employed effectively by Danish master Julius
Nielsen against Altshuler in the final of the 5th correspondence chess world
championship (165-68). The game was analysed in Ken Messere and Hans
Berliner's book of the championship.
11...Nd4 12 Nh3 f4 13 Nxb6 axb6 14 Qa8 Kc7 15 Bd5! Nxc2+?! 16 Ke2
Nb4?! 17 Qa7+ Bb7?! 18 Bxb7 Nxb7 19 Bd2 Nc6 20 Rac1 g5 21 f3 d5?! 22
Nf2 Bg7?? 23 Rxc6+ Kxc6 24 Rc1+ Kd7 25 Qxb7+ 1-0
This was the first of a few wins I scored in the line although in later years I
also sometimes took Black or played 5 Qxe5+. On the whole, however, I have
found opponents very reluctant to play 3...Nxe4.
In 2011 I decided to try the Bishop's Opening in the semifinal of the 2nd ICCF
Veterans World Cup and was fortunate that four opponents met 1 e4 by 1...e5.
I played the Bishop's Opening in each case, scoring two wins and two draws. I
probably should have won the first of the draws also.
Tim Harding Jose Ledezma Alvarez
ICCF Veterans World Cup, webserver 2011-2012
1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 Nc3 Nc6 4 d3
4 f4 Nxe4 does not work for White; it is far too risky for correspondence
chess.
4...Na5
Apparently Larsen considered this one of the best defences. He played it as
Black in the 1991 Danish championship when 2415-rated Jan Sorensen played
the Bishop's Opening against him. Larsen won that game and it is included in
the database on offer to purchasers of the ebook version of this article.
19/09/2013
The Kibitzer
Page 6 sur 13
5 Nge2
Against Kristian Rohde Jensen of Denmark, I varied with 5 Bb3 Nxb3 6 axb3
d5 7 exd5 Bb4 8 Bd2 0-0 9 Nf3 Nxd5 10 0-0 Nxc3 and now tried 11 Bxc3
Bxc3 12 bxc3 f6 13 Qe2 Re8 14 Rfe1 Bg4 15 h3 Bxf3 16 Qxf3 but had little or
no advantage and the game was drawn. Instead 11 bxc3 Bd6 transposes to
known lines; e.g., 12 Ng5 (12 Qe2!?) 12...f5 Larsen-Portisch, candidates 1968.
5...Nxc4 6 dxc4 Be7
Sorensen-Larsen went 6...d6 7 Bg5 Be6 8 Nd5 c6 9 Bxf6 gxf6 10 Ne3 Qa5+
11 Nc3 Qb4.
7 Qd3 0-0 8 0-0 d6 9 Ng3 c6
Several other moves have been tried here: 9...Be6, 9...Nd7, 9...Ne8, 9...Re8
and even 9...g6. In ChessBase's Mega Database 2011, White scores 0/3 here
but I do not think he stands worse at all.
10 Bg5
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/pp2bppp/2pp1n2/4p1B1/
2P1P3/2NQ2N1/PPP2PPP/R4RK1 b - - 0 10"]
10...g6
My Chilean opponent's choice of this move virtually proves he is using a
computer program such as Rybka. It was Rybka's main line; the program
apparently sets a high premium on preventing Nf5. 10...Be6 11 Rad1 Qc7 12
Nf5 Bxf5 13 exf5 Rad8 occurred in E. Sobjerg-T. Ochsner, Danish ch qualifier
1996, which Black eventually won.
11 Bh6!?
It might be better to keep this in reserve but I wanted to hit him with a move
Rybka did not rate highly, as it could shake his confidence in it a bit.
11...Re8 12 Rad1
If 12 h3 Qb6 plans a trick to attack the B across the rank.
12...Be6 13 h3
13 Bg5 was also possible.
13...Qa5 14 Nf5
This is unclear. 14 b3 might be better.
14...Bxf5
14...gxf5 would be pointless as the piece must be returned with his kingside
weakened after 15 exf5 Kh8 16 fxe6 fxe6 and White might be a bit better then.
15 exf5 e4 16 Qd4 Qxf5 17 Rfe1 Bd8
He plays Fritz's first choice. Not Rybka's! 18 Qxd6 Qh5 This was unexpected;
not a Rybka or Fritz choice 19 Qf4 This move (Fritz's first choice) has direct
threats (Rxd8). 19...Re6
[FEN "r2b2k1/pp3p1p/2p1rnpB/7q/2P1pQ2/
2N4P/PPP2PP1/3RR1K1 w - - 0 20"]
19/09/2013
The Kibitzer
Page 7 sur 13
Black made this response (Fritz's third choice) very quickly. Presumably he
did not wish to exchange queens.
20 a3!?
20 Bg5 can lead to sharp play 20...Nd5 21 cxd5 Bxg5.
20...Rc8 21 b4 Bc7 22 Qg5 Ne8 23 Qxh5 gxh5
I thought I had the advantage here but probably did not follow up correctly and
the game ended in a draw. There was one point where I could have won a
pawn but the resulting endgame looked clearly drawn.
24 Bc1 f5 25 Ne2 Re7 26 Bg5 Rf7 27 c5 Be5 28 Bf4 Bf6 29 Nd4 Ng7 30 c3
Re8 31 f3 h4 32 Bd6 Rd7 33 Kf2 Bg5 -
The next game was very tense until it came to a premature end. Unfortunately,
I have not preserved the analysis done while it was in progress.
Tim Harding G. Bronts
1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 Nc3 Bc5 4 f4!?
This was a very sharp choice. It may be dubious in this position but Zukertort
and Weaver Adams both employed it. Even Nigel Short once played it against
Speelman in their 1991 candidates match. Black can allow a standard King's
Gambit Declined type of position (4...d6 or 4...Nc6) or play 4...d5, 4...exf4 or
even 4...Bxg1.
4...d6 5 Nf3 0-0 6 d3 a6
This is a typical move, which preserves the B from exchange by Na4.
Computers think Black has the edge now but I reckon it is rather unclear.
Black's king's bishop is very annoying of course.
7 f5
White has played several other moves but 7 f5 has a one hundred percent
record in my database. The sequel shows why.
[FEN "rnbq1rk1/1pp2ppp/p2p1n2/2b1pP2/
2B1P3/2NP1N2/PPP3PP/R1BQK2R b KQ - 0 7"]
7...b5
Or 7...h6 8 a3 (8 Qe2 c6 9 Bd2 b5 10 Bb3 a5 11 a4 Bd7 12 0-0-0 Na6 13 g4
Nxg4 14 Rhg1 Bxg1 15 Rxg1 Nc5 16 Rxg4 Nxb3+ 17 cxb3 Kh8 18 Qg2 Qf6
19 Qh3 Bxf5 20 exf5 Qxf5 21 Bxh6 1-0 V. Berg D. Millward, London 2003)
8...c6 9 Qe2 d5 10 Bb3 Re8 11 Nd1 b5 12 g4 Nbd7 13 g5 hxg5 14 Nxg5 Bb7
15 h4 Bf8 16 Ne3 c5 17 Nxd5 Nxd5 18 Qh5 1-0, F. Meyer-S. Leiser, Germany
1995.
8 Bb3 c6 9 Bg5 Nbd7 10 Qe2
Perhaps White should just play 10 g4!? as in Z. Eberth-Z. Horvath, Gyongyos
1998, which continued 10...Qb6 11 h3 Bf2+ 12 Kf1 h6 13 Qd2 Bc5 14 Bh4
Be3 15 Qe2 Bb7 16 Re1 Bf4 17 Rg1 Nc5 18 Bf2 Qd8 19 Bxc5 dxc5 20 h4 c4
21 dxc4 c5 22 Rd1 Qe7 23 g5 Nh5 24 f6 Qe6 25 cxb5 Qh3+ 26 Qg2 Ng3+ 27
Kf2 Qxg2+ 28 Rxg2 Nxe4+ 29 Nxe4 Bxe4 30 g6 gxf6 31 gxf7+ 1-0.
19/09/2013
The Kibitzer
Page 8 sur 13
10...Bb7
Examples of other tries are as follows:
a) 10...Qb6 and now
a1) 11 Rf1 a5 12 a4 Ba6 13 h3 Rfe8 14 g4 b4 15 Nb1 d5 16 Nbd2 Bd4 17
Bxf6 Nxf6 18 g5 Nxe4 19 Nxe4 dxe4 20 Qxe4 Bxb2 21 g6 Kh8 22 gxf7 Bxa1
23 fxe8Q+ Rxe8 24 Ng5 h6 25 f6 1-0, M. Carmes-D. Billot, St Lorrain 2001.
a2) 11 g4 a5 12 a4 Bb7 13 axb5 cxb5 14 Bxf6 Nxf6 15 g5 Nd7 16 g6 Nf6 17
Bxf7+ Rxf7 18 gxf7+ Kxf7 19 Ng5+ Kg8 20 Ne6 Bc8 21 Nd5 Nxd5 22 exd5
Be3 23 f6 Bxe6 24 dxe6 gxf6 25 Qg2+ 1-0, P. Shah-T. Parveen, Sri Lanka
2001.
b) 10...a5 11 a4 Qb6 12 axb5 cxb5 13 Nd5 Nxd5 14 Bxd5 Bb7 15 Ba2 a4 16
Bd2 b4 17 Bc4 Ra7 18 g4 Nf6 19 h3 Ba6 20 Bxa6 Rxa6 21 Kf1 Rfa8 22 Kg2
b3 23 cxb3 axb3 24 Rxa6 Rxa6 25 g5 Nd7 26 g6 hxg6 27 fxg6 d5 28 gxf7+
Kf8 29 exd5 Qg6+ 30 Ng5 Rf6 31 Rf1 Rxf1 32 Kxf1 Qf5+ 33 Kg2 Be7 34
Qh5 Bxg5 35 Bb4+ 1-0, A. Damia-A. Franco, Crema 2004.
11 Bh4 h6 12 g4
White must not be passive.
12...d5 13 g5 hxg5 14 Bxg5 a5
This was the move that originally worried me most. Rybka claimed that Black
was equal after 14...Bd4 15 0-0-0 a5, or 14...Qb6 15 h4 or 14...Qc7 15 exd5
cxd5 16 0-0-0 Rac8 and now my idea was 17 Qg2!
[FEN "r2q1rk1/1b1n1pp1/2p2n2/ppbppPB1/
4P3/1BNP1N2/PPP1Q2P/R3K2R w KQ - 0 15"]
15 a4
Earlier analysis had Black much better after 15 exd5. White needs to hold the
e4 point and can castle if the queenside becomes blocked.
15...Qc7 16 Qg2!
White must fight for initiative! I, not the computer, found this move, which is
the only one to create immediate threats.
16...b4
Fritz considered this second best. 16...Nh5 was Rybka's first choice; it protects
g7 but 17 exd5 seems logical as he has relaxed control of e5/d4. After
16...bxa4 (Rybka's second choice) I thought 17 Nxa4 was probably the best
reply with maybe a tiny edge.
17 Ne2 Qd6 18 0-0-0 Rfe8 19 Kb1 1-0
[FEN "r3r1k1/1b1n1pp1/2pq1n2/p1bppPB1/
Pp2P3/1B1P1N2/1PP1N1QP/1K1R3R b - - 0 19"]
Here Black lost on time. My opponent went a long foreign holiday thinking he
he had booked leave but either forgot to do so or did not do it correctly.
Black's position is more critical than may at first appear. Among other
problems, he has to reckon with an exchange sacrifice by Rhg1 which, if
accepted, leaves Black very vulnerable on the dark squares. The main problem
19/09/2013
The Kibitzer
Page 9 sur 13
open g-file and several options to build up more pressure against the black
king with h2-h4 or Qh3.
Tim Harding S. I. Chekmasov
My opponent in this most interesting game was a sixty-eight-year-old
pensioner from Volgograd. For a long time he was in contention for first place
and this was the only game he lost in the group.
1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 Nc3 Bc5
In notes to an old game of mine I wrote, "A straight-forward move, but one
that already restricts Black's options compared with 3...Nc6. The rule "knights
before bishops" applies here. Then after 4 d3 Black could still play 4..Bc5 but
also has the options of 4... Na5 and 4...Bb4 which are two of the most effective
lines. When Black plays ...Bc5 then a King's Gambit Declined position can
often arise, and I sometimes played the Bishop's Opening that way. However,
there are some lines with an early ...Bc5 in which ...Nc6 is deferred."
4 d3
This game was slower to get going than the one against Bronts as my opponent
was apparently away when the event began. I decided not to repeat 4 f4!?.
4...c6
4...d6 5 f4 had been my intention, when 5...Nc6 leads to a regular King's
Gambit Declined after 6 Nf3. 5...Bxg1 probably helps only White.
5 Bb3 0-0 6 Nf3 d6 7 0-0 Nbd7 8 Ne2 Bb6 9 c3 Nc5 10 Bc2 Bg4
[FEN "r2q1rk1/pp3ppp/1bpp1n2/2n1p3/
4P1b1/2PP1N2/PPB1NPPP/R1BQ1RK1 w - - 0 11"]
11 Ng3
11 Kh1 Bxf3 12 gxf3 d5 13 Rg1 is also possible as in B. Ivanovic-A.
Beliavsky, Bugojno 1984, reckoning that the half-open the g-file is more
significant than the doubled f-pawn, but I preferred to avoid a structural
weakness.
11...Ne6 An innovation, but perhaps inadvisable. 11...Nh5 Now Hartston
played 12 d4 against Tigran Petrosian at the 1977 European Team
Championships in Moscow (and drew the game), but I intended 12 Nf5 Ne6
(Several other moves are possible.) 13 d4 exd4 14 h3!.
12 h3
This forces Black to surrender the bishop-pair.
12...Bxf3
Not 12...Nh5?! 13 hxg4! Nxg3 14 Re1! to trap the g3-N though a pin saves it
from immediate capture; White will win a pawn.
13 Qxf3
I considered that White has an edge here.
13...g6?!
This is a radical choice to keep my N out of f5, but with his dark-squared
bishop on the other wing, it creates weaknesses. As with the game against
Ledezma, ...g6 looks like a computer move
14 a4 Re8
Black pre-empts Bh6 which now would be ineffective. 14...a5 had been
expected.
15 a5 Bc7
19/09/2013
The Kibitzer
Page 10 sur 13
16 Bb3 d5 17 Bh6 d4 18 Rfd1 Nd7 19 Ne2 dxc3

19...Qh4 would be met by 20 Bd2.
20 bxc3
The next couple of moves were to prove critical. White will sacrifice a pawn
for compensation which initially is hard (especially for computers) to assess,
but increasingly looked more than sufficient as the game went on.
20...Bxa5
He accepts the pawn offer, not having much choice about it. Otherwise Black
is just worse.
21 d4 Bb6 22 d5!
[FEN "r2qr1k1/pp1n1p1p/1bp1n1pB/3Pp3/
4P3/1BP2Q1P/4NPP1/R2R2K1 b - - 0 22"]
I wrote in my database notes, "May lose as impossible to analyse to

exhaustion, but consistent and should give dynamic compensation for pawn
with considerable complications." 22 Bxe6 was rejected on principle, as it
meant playing for a draw.
22...cxd5 23 Bxd5
23 exd5?! e4 (23...Nec5!?) 24 Qxf7+! is flashy but at best can draw: 24...Kxf7
25 dxe6+ Rxe6 26 Nf4 Nc5 27 Rxd8 Rxd8 28 Nxe6 Nxe6 29 Ra4 (or Re1
transposing) 29...Kf6 30 Rxe4 Nc5 31 Rf4+ with an ending that could be
slightly better for Black. 23 Rxd5 could also be considered.
23...Rb8 24 Nc1
This was to get my least active piece into play.
24...Qc7 25 Nd3
25 g3 also came into consideration.
25...a5
If 25...Qxc3? 26 Rdc1 Qd4 27 Ra3 (threatening Rc4 to trap the queen in the
centre of the board) 27...f5 (only move) 28 exf5 (28 Rc4!?) 28...e4 29 Bxe4 is
good for White. 26 g3 Bc5 If 26...Ba7 27 h4 b5 28 h5.
27 Nxc5
Around here Rybka thought the position equal but Black may have made an
error already, and certainly appears to do so at move twenty-nine.
27...Ndxc5 28 h4 b5 29 h5
[FEN "1r2r1k1/2q2p1p/4n1pB/ppnBp2P/
4P3/2P2QP1/5P2/R2R2K1 b - - 0 29"]
29...a4?!
While it is tempting to push the extra passed pawn as far as it will go, Rybka
was probably right to prefer 29...b4, a move which is not so easy to ignore.
30 hxg6 hxg6
19/09/2013
The Kibitzer
Page 11 sur 13
31 Kg2 Qe7 32 Rh1 Nd7 33 Rh4

Now Rybka could see White was winning. The attack on Black's king is far
more significant than his extra pawn.
33...Qf6 34 Qg4 Rbc8 35 Rah1
[FEN "2r1r1k1/3n1p2/4nqpB/1p1Bp3/
p3P1QR/2P3P1/5PK1/7R b - - 0 35"]
35...Ndc5
Played after quite a long think. Fritz wanted to play 35...Rxc3 but then 36
Bxe6 Rxe6 37 Bg5 Qg7 38 Qh3. Alternatively, Black has 36...Qxe6 37 Bg5
(and if 37...Qxg4 38 Rh8+ Kg7 39 R1h7#) or 36...Rc2 37 Bf5+- blocking the
counter-attack against f2, or 36...fxe6 37 Bg5 Qg7 38 Qh3 and finally even
Fritz sees White is winning).
36 Be3
This was fairly obvious, opening the h-file and creating capture options to
eliminate defensive knights. kept a lot of analysis for the final stages which I
do not reproduce here as it is fairly clear what is going on.
36...Rc7 37 Rh7
Threatening Qh3.
37...Kf8
He who fights and runs away may live to fight another day. 37...Nd3!? gives
up the queen for two rooks but will not save Black in the end: 38 Bxe6!? (38
Qh3 may be better.) 38...Rxe6 39 Rh8+ Qxh8 40 Rxh8+ Kxh8 41 Qh4+ Kg7
(41...Kg8 42 Qd8+ Kg7 43 Qxc7) 42 Bh6+ Kh7 (42...Kg8 43 Qd8+ Kh7 44
Qxc7 Kxh6 45 Qxf7 soon picks up the R or the N.) 43 Bf8+ Kg8 44 Qd8 Rb7
45 Bb4+ (or Ba3+), then 46 Qxd3.
38 Qe2 Rec8
[FEN "2r2k2/2r2p1R/4nqp1/1pnBp3/p3P3/
2P1B1P1/4QPK1/7R w - - 0 39"]
Now 39 Qxb5 is the obvious move but after considering that in detail, and also
39 Bh6+, I went for another option.
39 c4!? bxc4
Was this best?
40 Rh8+ Ke7 41 Rxc8 Rxc8 42 Qxc4
Threatening Bxe6 to win a piece since c8-R undefended. Black has a choice
now.
42...Nd4
42...Ke8 can be met by 43 Bxc5! Nxc5 (43...Rxc5 44 Qxa4+) 44 Bxf7+ Qxf7
45 Rh8+ Ke7 46 Qxf7+ Kxf7 47 Rxc8 Nxe4 48 Rc4 Nf6 49 Rxa4 with a R
versus N ending (2 pawns each) that ought to be a comfortable technical win.
If 42...Rc7 (So that the e6-N defends the R) 43 Qb4 (Pins c5-N to threaten
Bxe6 again) 43...Nd4 (to block capture on c5) 44 Rh7 Ke8 (44...Qf3+ 45 Kh2)
45 Qb8+ Qd8 (45...Kd7 46 Rxf7+) 46 Rh8+.
19/09/2013
The Kibitzer
Page 12 sur 13
Allowing Black to check on f3 is more convincing than 43 Bxd4 exd4 44 Rh7

Nxe4 45 Qb4+ Nc5 46 Rxf7+ Qxf7 47 Bxf7 Kxf7 48 Qxd4 when White has no
passed pawn and could have trouble with the a-pawn.
43...Qf3+ 44 Kh2 Qe2 45 Rxf7+
45 Qb4!? also came into consideration.
45...Ke8 46 Qxe2
46 Qb4 was also promising but much more complicated.
46...Nxe2 47 Ra7
[FEN "2r1k3/R7/6p1/2nBp3/p3P3/
4B1P1/4nP1K/8 b - - 0 47"]
White has no material advantage but threatens mate with the bishops. This
forces a winning endgame.
47...Nd7 48 Be6 Rd8 49 Bg5 Nd4 50 Bxd8!
Not 50 Bh3?? Nf3+ and 50 Bf7+ is inferior to the text because Black's K gets
to e6 quickly. 50...Kxf7 51 Bxd8 Ke6 52 Ra6+ Kf7 53 f4 Nc5 54 Ra7+ Ke6 55
Bb6 Nxe4 with chances to defend.
50...Nxe6 51 Bc7 a3?!
51...g5 was a bit more testing: 52 Kh3 (Threat K-g4-f5) 52...Nf6 (52...Ndc5 53
Bxe5 Nxe4 transposes; if 52...Ke7? 53 Bxe5; or 52...Nec5 53 f3 Ne6 54 Kg4
Nd4 55 Rxa4 when White's exchange and pawn up should comfortably win.)
53 Bxe5 Nxe4 54 Kg4 Nxf2+ 55 Kf5 Nc5 56 Bd4 Nfd3 57 Bxc5 Nxc5 58 Ra5
leading to Rook plus g-pawn v Knight, which must win.
52 f3! 1-0
Preserving the kingside majority. After a long think Black resigned.
Postscripts
Alan Smith of Manchester informs me that T. C. Gibbons, whose 1891 loss to
Lasker was in this column last month, had played in the British Chess
Association amateur championship in 1889 and was active from then up to
about 1898. "He was a fan of the Dutch and 1 f4, so probably a disciple of
Bird," adds Alan, who writes the "Quotes and Queries" column in British
Chess Magazine.
The Irish Chess Union disciplinary sub-committee that investigated the Cork
toiletgate incident (see my May 2013 column) has reported that the teenage
player accused of cheating has admitted consulting a program on an electronic
device while his game was in progress. The committee's recommendation of a
four-month suspended ban, which has already expired, is laughable especially
as the player, so far as I am aware, voluntarily entered no competitions during
that period. The ICU Executive committee discussed the matter on 25 August
and unanimously agreed on the following statement:
"Since the Disciplinary Committee is independent we cannot alter its
decision, but the ICU Executive want to state that we regard this sentence
as excessively lenient, and will put steps in place to ensure more
appropriate sanctions in future, When FIDE introduce guidelines on such
matters, the ICU will ensure that its procedures are in full accordance
with them."
We still await the report of the second sub-committee investigating the
behaviour of the cheat's opponent, Gabriel Mirza. Just before the deadline for
this column, the Irish Chess Union published on its website the motions for
discussion at its annual general meeting, due to be held in Dublin on 29
September, and the nominations received for the 2013-14 executive which will
be elected on what is likely to a lively and rather lengthy occasion. A very
large turnout may be expected. Mirza himself is one of three candidates
nominated for Public Relations Officer and he has submitted several motions
too.
19/09/2013
The Kibitzer
Page 13 sur 13
Afficher cette page en : Franais
Traduire
Dsactiver pour : Anglais
Options
The first listed motion reads: "Anyone found to have cheated in a chess event
in Ireland or representing Ireland, is to be suspended from playing chess in
Ireland for a minimum period of 5 years for an adult and 1 year for a minor
proposed by Martin Crichton."
Several changes to the ICU code of conduct are also proposed. If you want to
know more, you can find the texts online through the indicated link.

by Tim Harding
The ebook contains bonus material of all of Larsen's game in the Bishop's
Opening and more!! Forty-five games in all!

19/09/2013
Search ChessCafe
Purchases from our

accessible:
Handicap Tournaments of the 1870s
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Translate this page
A big difference between the way chess was organised in the nineteenth century and
more recent times, especially in England, was the principle of stronger players giving
odds to weaker ones, and often playing in tournaments organised on that basis. This
article explains how the system worked, with special reference to the series of annual
Handicap tournaments run in the 1870s by the City of London Chess Club,
England's largest. That was in effect its club championship, and in several of these
tournaments some strong masters competed Bird, Blackburne, Steinitz, and
Zukertort among them. Usually, however, the tournaments were won by much
weaker players, thanks to the operation of the handicaps designed to give everyone
(in theory) a chance of success.
Garry Kasparov, Part II:

1985-1993 (Ebook)
by Garry Kasparov
Nowadays, chess clocks provide a convenient way of levelling opponents for casual
play as the stronger player can be required to play much faster than the opponent,
but in the old days material handicaps were required, and indeed became very highly
systematised. The perceived difference in strength between two players determined
the handicap that would operate, somewhat as in golf an eighteen-handicapper can
compete with a scratch player, with a set adjustment to scores depending on their
relative handicaps. However, as there are only three possible results to a chess
game, the system is necessarily less subtle.
In the early nineteenth century, when club chess began but more games were played
in coffee houses and "divans," there were very few players who would now be
considered experts or masters. So they had little opportunity to play against new
opponents of comparable strength. If they wanted variety in their chess, they had
little choice but to give odds, and so the system began to evolve, building on what
was already known in the time of Philidor. The most typical odds that Philidor used
to give were pawn and move if he was black against a reasonably strong amateur, or
knight (sometimes even knight and move) against weaker opponents. Moreover, he
could be playing blindfold or playing several opponents at the same time when doing
this. If two players often met, then they might try other material odds. For example,
the Saxon ambassador to England, Count Brhl, played sometimes against Philidor
on level terms, but there are also games on record at pawn and move, and where
Philidor (as white) starts without his queen rook or queen knight while, as some
compensation, Brhl has no f-pawn.
In the early nineteenth century, players such as William Lewis and Alexander
McDonnell experimented with other odds, such as pawn and two moves, or the
odds of the exchange, and McDonnell was reputed to be expert at conceding the
heavy odds of a rook.
Practical Endgame Play:

Beyond the Basics
by Glenn Flear
Chess Developments:
The Grnfeld (Ebook)
by David Vigorito
Essential to the evolution of odds-giving was the fact that games, both in clubs and in
public resorts, often involved a stake (usually of sixpence, or later a shilling). If the
odds between two players were correct, then at the end of a sitting in which several
games might be played between them, they should come out level or almost level. If
not, the odds needed to be increased or decreased, depending on who had won a
majority of games. A player whose pride would not let him accept odds would find
himself hit in the pocket and might accept them next time. Statements to this effect
can be found, for example, in the writings of George Walker in the 1840s.
By Staunton's heyday in the 1840s and 1850s, there was a clear hierarchy of the
normal odds that a "first-class" player (equivalent to a scratch golfer) would give to
weaker opponents whose relative strength was pretty well known on the basis of
past results. Howard Staunton even wrote a book, The Chess Player's
Companion, giving numerous examples and advice about play at different odds, but
he was neither the first nor the last expert to do so.
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com
he was neither the first nor the last expert to do so.

Pawn and move was the standard handicap when one player was reckoned stronger
than the other by one class, or if it was not clear by how much. This meant that the
stronger player had black and started without his f-pawn.
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/ppppp1pp/8/8/8/8/
PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
There were really two possible strategies for the person conceding these odds. You
could play as Philidor was wont to, by blocking the centre and hoping to gradually
outplay the opponent or await a blunder, or you could try to provoke an unsound
attack by the opponent; for example, by using the Sicilian Defence to gambit a
second pawn from the start, as in the following game. Objectively, of course, Black
is lost, but when he is much the stronger player, strange things can happen.
Mr H Blackburne
Simpson's Divan, London, 05.01.1878
Pawn and move: Remove Black's f-pawn.
Notes by W. N. Potter in Land and Water, 12 January 1878.
1 e4 c5 2 Qh5+ g6 3 Qxc5 Nc6 4 Bb5 e5
TH: Attacking the white queen with tempo.
5 Qc3 Bb4 6 Qg3
White follows a line recommended by Potter in the current Westminster Papers.
6...Nf6 7 Bxc6 dxc6 8 Qxe5+
We should prefer 8 Nf3.
8...Kf7 9 Nf3 Re8 10 Qg5 Rxe4+ 11 Kf1 Bf5 12 d3 Qd5
[FEN "r7/pp3k1p/2p2np1/3q1bQ1/1b2r3/
3P1N2/PPP2PPP/RNB2K1R w - - 0 13"]
13 Nc3
Black's last move was deep and strong. This is a natural, but an altogether
insufficient reply. 13 h3 is White's best resource.
13...Bxc3 14 bxc3 Rg4 15 Qd2 Rxg2
[FEN "r7/pp3k1p/2p2np1/3q1b2/8/2PP1N2/
P1PQ1PrP/R1B2K1R w - - 0 16"]
16 Ng5+
The capture of the rook had been provided for after the following fashion: 16 Kxg2
Bh3+ 17 Kg3 (best) 17...Nh5+ 18 Kxh3 Qxf3+ 19 Kh4 Nf6 20 Qf4 (If 20 h3 or
Qg5, then 20...h6 winning) 20...g5+ 21 Qxg5 h6 and wins.
16...Rxg5 17 Qxg5 Qxh1+ 18 Ke2 Bg4+ 19 Kd2 Qd1+
As Mr. Blackburne points out, 19...Re8 is shorter.
20 Ke3 Re8+ 21 Kd4 Re4+ 22 Kc5 Re5+ 0-1
Clearly, if those two players were accustomed to meeting regularly, Blackburne
would have offered a heavier handicap. The next step was odds of pawn and two.
This meant that the weaker player made two moves (usually 1 e4 and 1 d4) before
Black (who had no f-pawn) made his first move. Here the opportunity for White to
win by an early direct attack was greater.
Staunton was so much stronger than most of his contemporaries that he often had to
give those odds. So he made a special study of the pawn and two moves openings
and even played a match with the master Daniel Harrwitz in which they played level
in one third of the games, Staunton gave pawn and move in another set, and pawn
and two in a third and Staunton did better when offering the heavier odds, the
strategies for which were evidently much less clear to Harrwitz.
The next step, when there was a difference of three classes between opponents, was
for the stronger player to have the white pieces and give odds of a knight. This was
usually the queen's knight although sometimes the king's knight was given instead.
With a difference of four classes, the stronger player started without the queen's
rook, it generally being understood that he could castle queenside with the ghost of
the rook. Very occasionally, even heavier odds might be offered.
Of course, if you played against somebody of your own standard (or class as it was
called) then you played "level" or "even", alternating games with white and with
black, and so learned the regular openings. Playing by post, where odds were rarely
given, was a good way of practising the standard game if you normally received
odds.
The general principle was that a promising novice who improved steadily would
progress through stages systematically until he reached the second class at least.
Thus, at first he would learn to defend against heavy odds until his chess skill had
reached the stage where he could calculate well enough to defend against a first or
second class player who gave him the rook or knight. He would learn to be not too
greedy, how to establish a pawn centre and to castle his king into safety, and finally
how to exploit his material advantage. However, in a large club like the City of
London, whose members included several masters and amateur experts, only those
who practised regularly and had some aptitude for the game would progress beyond
the "Knight class." In fact the City of London in the 1870s sometimes arranged
matches between its Knight class and teams from lesser clubs in the East End and
suburbs. On one occasion, its first class players played a match against Bermondsey,
conceding a knight on every board, and won convincingly; that experiment was not
repeated.
In mid-Victorian England, as chess clubs really began to blossom, but leagues had
yet to evolve (in most areas that only started in the 1890s), competition among the
members of a club was the most important thing. In London of the early 1870s, with
the old London Chess Club closed and the Westminster Club declined to a whist
coterie, the City of London Chess Club (founded in the 1850s) emerged as the
leading chess club in the capital, with a wide range of middleclass membership from
clerks to successful businessmen and bankers. Several working men with a special
talent for chess belonged not only to their local club but were also elected to the City
club. (Aristocrats and the clergy tended to belong to the St. George's Club, where
Zukertort was resident professional after the summer of 1872.) The City of London
changed its premises several times, as it tried to accommodate its growing
membership and their desire to have more club nights in the winter, but it was usually
located around Bishopsgate (near to Liverpool Street railway station).
The First City Club Handicap
By the winter season of 1870-71 the City of London Chess Club was big enough to
run a Handicap Tournament with forty-eight players, probably the largest tournament
of this kind hitherto contested, and probably most of its members entered. Any
reader who has Richard Forster's huge biography of Amos Burn can find the results
table on page 32, where the author reconstructed the pairings and results from
various news reports. I am engaged on doing the same for several of the subsequent
tournaments, although sometimes information is missing.
The tournament which began on 22 November 1870 set the pattern for the way the
Club ran its Handicap for several years. It was a knock-out tournament run on the
basis of mini-matches for each pairing, where two wins were required to progress.
Draws did not count. If you were paired with an opponent of the same class, you
played even, alternating colours. Otherwise the odds (and so the colours) were
determined by the handicap rules and class assignments established by the Club
committee at the commencement of the event.
There were four prizes. The twenty-four first-round winners were paired, reducing
again to twelve, six, and finally three players who had won all their matches. Those
three then played a final pool, meeting each other, and the player who came out third
(i.e., worst) received no prize. Instead, the third and fourth prizes were awarded to
those who did best in a parallel tournament which began with the twenty-four firstround losers.
Cecil de Vere
In the 1870-71 tournament, the players assigned by the Handicappers to the first
class were Henry Bird, Joseph Blackburne, William Norwood Potter, Cecil de Vere
and the up-and-coming Amos Burn. The weakest players were assigned to the fifth
class. As Forster's book shows, Burn started by beating a fourth-class player named
Bartrum (who soon vanishes from chess history) but was next paired with De Vere,
the 1866 British Champion, and was defeated. After this Burn went back to work in
Liverpool, so he never played in a City handicap again.
Bird also won his first round 2-1, conceding pawn and move, but then lost to a
fourth class player. Blackburne progressed through three rounds in which he
defeated players to whom he had to concede a knight (in two cases) or pawn and
two; only two of these games were published. Then in the round of six he was paired
with Potter and finally lost 2-1 after five tough games. So the final pool consisted of
De Vere, Potter, and a third class player named H. K. Argall. Potter emerged as
victor with De Vere taking the second prize. The third prize went to R. H. Fenton, a
second class player who was later a minor professional.
The 1871-72 Handicap
It has not been possible to ascertain every pairing in the 1871-72 tournament but
most results are known. This competition is of special historical interest because
William Steinitz won it. He had been elected an Honorary Member of the club and
was of course assigned to the first class, along with De Vere, Potter, and George
Gossip (another newcomer). Blackburne, perhaps busy with his club exhibitions, did
not enter, and neither did Bird, who was in temporary retirement from chess.
In the first round, Steinitz had to give a rook to a fourth class player named Lawson,
which he did, winning two games to none in the first week of play. The moves have
not, I believe, been preserved. In the second round he had to give knight odds and
again won 2-0, finishing before Christmas. Here is the lesser-known of those games;
the other appeared in The Field.
William Steinitz Dr S. Swyer
City of London Club Handicap 1871-2 round 2
Remove White's queen's knight.
From The Era, 21 January 1872.
1 e4 e5 2 f4 d6
"A weak defence, but Black feared to accept the gambit from so subtle an
adversary."
3 Nf3 Nc6 4 c3 h6 5 Bc4 Nf6 6 d3 Bg4 7 Qb3 Na5 8 Bxf7+ Ke7
"Already Black is in troubled waters, and he will have much ado to keep himself
afloat."
9 Qa4 Nc6 10 Bg6 Bh5 11 Nh4 Rg8 12 Bxh5 Nxh5 13 Qb3 Nf6 14 Qxb7
[FEN "r2q1br1/pQp1k1p1/2np1n1p/4p3/
4PP1N/2PP4/PP4PP/R1B1K2R b KQ - 0 14"]
14...Kd7 15 Nf3 Rb8 16 Qa6 Rb6 17 Qa4 Qc8 18 fxe5 Ra6 19 e6+ Kxe6 20
Qc4+ Kd7 21 d4 Na5 22 Qf7+ Be7 23 b4 Nb7 24 0-0 Nd8 25 Qb3
[FEN "2qn2r1/p1pkb1p1/r2p1n1p/8/1P1PP3/
1QP2N2/P5PP/R1B2RK1 b - - 0 25"]
25...Nxe4?
The game is decided by a blunder in a difficult position where White threatened e4e5.
26 Qxg8 Bf6 27 Re1 Qb7 28 Bxh6 gxh6 29 Qh7+ Kc8 30 Rxe4 d5 31 Re8
Qc6 32 Re3 Ra3 33 Rae1 Rxc3 34 Rxc3 Bxd4+ 35 Nxd4 Qxc3 36 Nf3 d4 37
Qe4 1-0
Unfortunately, it has not (so far at least) been possible to determine who was
Steinitz's third opponent, as neither The Field (whose chess column sometimes
failed to appear in 1872) nor Land and Water gives all the results. Meanwhile, the
1870-71 champion Potter won through three rounds, his second opponent being
Gossip, and now had to meet Steinitz, who defeated him 2-0. One of those games
was a Staunton Gambit, which can be found in my book Eminent Victorian Chess
Players. Meanwhile, De Vere had lost in the second round, so Steinitz was now the
only master remaining in the competition.
The other players in the final pool were Keates (sometimes seen spelled as "Keats"),
a third class player who was also one of the leading members of the Bermondsey
club, and a second class player named Thomson. Steinitz had to give pawn and
move to Thomson, pawn and two to Keates. The games with Thomson are not
preserved, but both wins against Keates appeared in The Era and are quite
impressive, not least because the latter showed some ideas and put up a fight,
particularly in the following game.
Keates William Steinitz
City of London Club Handicap 1871-2 London (5.2), 1871
Notes (probably by Staunton) in The Era, 19 May 1872.
1 e4 and 2 d4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 exd5 exd5 5 Bd3 Nf6 6 Bg5 Be7 7 Nc3 0-0 8
Qd2 Nc6 9 0-0-0 a6 10 Rde1 b5 11 h4 b4 12 Ne2 a5 13 Ng3 a4
These pawns mean mischief, and will effect it, if not skilfully and promptly opposed.
14 Nf5 Bxf5 15 Bxf5 b3 16 a3 bxc2 17 Bxc2 Na5 18 Qd3 g6
[FEN "r2q1rk1/2p1b2p/5np1/n2p2B1/p2P3P/
P2Q1N2/1PB2PP1/2K1R2R w - - 0 19"]
19 h5
Taking the Kt would, perhaps, have been better play; though the attack now
obtained is very strong.
19...Ne4 20 Bxe7 Qxe7 21 hxg6 hxg6 22 Rh3 Nc4
[FEN "r4rk1/2p1q3/6p1/3p4/p1nPn3/
P2Q1N1R/1PB2PP1/2K1R3 w - - 0 23"]
23 Reh1
The following is worth consideration: 23 Rxe4 Qxe4 24 Qxe4 dxe4 25 Bxe4 Rad8
26 Bxg6 etc.
23...Qf6 24 Rh8+ Kf7 25 Ne5+ Nxe5 26 Rxf8+ Rxf8 27 dxe5 Qxe5 28 Bxa4
Rb8 29 Qc2 c5 30 g3 c4 31 Rd1 Nc5 32 f4 Qe3+ 33 Kb1 Nd3 34 b4
[FEN "1r6/5k2/6p1/3p4/BPp2P2/
P2nq1P1/2Q5/1K1R4 b - b3 0 34"]
34...Nxb4! 35 axb4 Rxb4+ 36 Ka2 Qa7 37 Ka3 Qc5 38 Be8+

If he had played 38 Ka2 the reply would probably have been 38...Qa5.
38...Kf8 39 Rxd5 Rb3+ 0-1
I think that Steinitz's performance in the 1871-2 Handicap was the only time a first
class player (or perhaps anyone) won the City Club handicap without even
conceding one draw. Steinitz was, though, an experienced campaigner in Handicap
tournaments. For example, in the 1868-69 British Chess Association congress it was
the only tournament that he (as a foreigner) was allowed to enter, and he won it,
defeating Wisker in the final pool. Keates won second prize by defeating Thomson,
and Fenton won third prize for the second year in succession.
The 1872 Winter Handicap
The Handicap tournaments were usually organised soon after the club's annual
general meeting which was in October. The meeting decided that this year just one
win would suffice to progress to the next round, which naturally would speed up the
tournament. This may have affected the entries; they still had forty-eight players but
nobody from the first class of previous years played. In the case of Blackburne, it
was probably his touring, while Potter and Steinitz were kept busy conducting the
correspondence match with Vienna on behalf of the club. Others may have been
deterred by the thought that it was too much of a lottery. When two wins were
needed, you might have been able to gauge an opponent's strengths and weaknesses
and then come back to win the tie 2-1. The upshot was that the players who in
normal years would have been assigned to the second class were (along with the
promoted Keates) this year mostly in the first, and the tournament was over before
Christmas.
The tournament came down to a final pool involving Fenton and John de Soyres
from the First Class and W. Elliot Vyse from the third class. The Field of 28
December 1873 reported that in the final game Vyse, receiving pawn and two
moves, beat De Soyres, who won second prize, so this time Fenton missed out.
Here is a game by the winner, from an earlier round. There were at least two players
named Pfahl in London chess around this time and it is uncertain which of them was
his opponent. It was probably J. Pfahl.
W. E. Vyse J. Pfahl
City of London Handicap 1872
Notes from The Field, 4 January 1873.
1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6
The annotator, probably Steinitz, said the best continuation after 1...d6 was 2...Be6
and afterwards to f7.
3 Bd3 e5 4 d5 Be7 5 f4
[FEN "rnbqk2r/ppp1b1pp/3p1n2/3Pp3/4PP2/
3B4/PPP3PP/RNBQK1NR b KQkq - 0 5"]
5...0-0
This is premature. He should rather have played out 5...Bg4.
6 f5 c6 7 c4 Na6 8 Nc3 Qb6 9 Nh3 cxd5 10 cxd5 Nc5 11 Qe2 h6 12 Nf2 Bd7
13 Be3 Nxd3+ 14 Nxd3 Qd8 15 Nf2 b6 16 0-0 Rc8 17 Rac1 Be8 18 Nh1 Qd7
19 Ng3 Qb7 20 a4 Bd7 21 Rfd1 Rc7 22 Nb5 Bxb5 23 Qxb5 Rfc8 24 Rxc7
Rxc7 25 Rc1 Rxc1+ 26 Bxc1 Qd7 27 Qxd7 Nxd7 28 b4 a5 29 Bd2
[FEN "6k1/3nb1p1/1p1p3p/p2PpP2/
PP2P3/6N1/3B2PP/6K1 b - - 0 29"]
White plays the game throughout with great judgment. After shutting up his
opponent's pieces in the onset, he never allows him an opportunity to extricate
himself.
29...axb4 30 Bxb4 Nc5
There would have been a better chance of drawing if Mr Pfahl had not exchanged
his Kt for the B, but the position was not inviting.
31 Bxc5 dxc5 32 Kf1 Kf7 33 Ke2 Bh4 34 Kd3 Bxg3 35 hxg3 h5 36 Kc4 Ke7
37 a5 bxa5 38 Kxc5 Kd7 39 Kb5 Kc7 40 Kxa5 1-0
Probably dissatisfied with the outcome of the previous competition, the club decided
in the autumn of 1873 to revert to the previous system where two wins were needed
to progress. This decision resulted in a strong entry. The handicapping committee
were also perhaps mindful of the fact that the 1870-71 and 1871-2 tournaments had
been won by acknowledged first-rate players and were therefore perhaps a little
generous in their handicapping of some of the new and younger members who were
still improving.
John Wisker
Despite the absence of Steinitz and Blackburne, the top echelon was back to
strength in this tournament because Bird, De Vere, Potter, and Wisker all entered,
along with Zukertort who had been elected Honorary Member in the meantime.
Additionally, John Lord was assigned to the first class, which was a little surprising
but perhaps he was known to be a strong odds-giver. He won three rounds but was
then unable to give a knight to the eventual winner of the competition.
For the first time, there was a sixth class, to whom (had a first class player been
paired) he would have had to conceded rook and knight, but this did not occur. That
rule was changed the following year.
In these tournaments, later rounds sometimes seem to be paired to facilitate progress
between players who had completed their rounds early but in the first round the
draw was apparently always done on an entirely random basis and never seeded. It
paired Bird with De Vere, and the latter won 2-1. De Vere then successfully gave
odds to three more opponents to reach the final pool. Zukertort had to play Vyse
first, conceding pawn and two moves, but eventually won through 2-1 with a draw.
He then played W. T. Chappell, also of the third class, who was a former Honorary
Secretary of the club (and so probably one of the handicappers). Then he won his
way through to the pool by giving a knight to two fourth class opponents: L. Cohen,
one of the leading players from the Jewish Workingmen's Club, and then somebody
named Osborne.
The other player in the final pool was a little-known player called Sothers, who was
placed in the fourth class. This meant that despite winning three rounds in the 1871-2
Handicap before losing to Keates, he had not been promoted to third class, as he
probably should have been; he had not played in the autumn 1872 Handicap.
Sothers won both his first two pairings receiving pawn and move, and was then
paired with Wisker, who forfeited the deciding game when the score was 1-1, after
which he defeated Lord by an unknown score.
In the pool, Zukertort first played De Vere, on level terms of course, and The Field
of 28 February 1874, shows that he won 2-1. Next Zukertort played Sothers but,
although he won one game, ultimately could not overcome the handicap of giving the
knight and Sothers won. Now De Vere had to play Sothers and he did win the first
game, after which the second was adjourned. The Field of 21 March said that if De
Vere won then the pool would have had to start afresh. Sothers, however, came
through to win first prize by 2-1, leaving Zukertort with second prize and De Vere
got nothing.
Unfortunately, The Field did not publish any games by Sothers and it may be they
were never made public. In later years players were encouraged to give game scores
to the club secretary so that the best examples could be circulated among the chess
press.
The special general meeting on 7 October 1874, which accepted Potter's resignation
as Honorary Secretary (because of his duties as editor of the City of London Chess
Magazine), also decided to increase the size of the Handicap tournament to sixtyfour players. This was presumably because the increased membership of the club
had led to a demand for more places, and there was the added advantage that sixtyfour was the most convenient number, enabling them to have straight pairings
throughout without the need for final pools in Sections A and B (the losers'
tournament). Another rule change was that each class was subdivided so that some
players, if they were paired with a stronger member of their own class, would have
white in all the games instead of alternating colours.
Anthony Rosenbaum
First-time competitors in the Handicap this season were the artist Anthony
Rosenbaum, who later painted the group portrait of chess masters supposedly
assembled for a telegraph match, and novelist R. D. Blackmore, the author of bestseller Lorna Doone. They were both eliminated in the second round; in the case of
Rosenbaum, he forfeited the second game without playing.
The first class this time consisted only of Bird, Potter, Zukertort, and Wisker. If a
first class player met a sixth class opponent now, due to a rule change, he had to
concede two minor pieces of his own choice. Potter managed in the first round to
beat Herbage 2-0 conceding these odds.
In the second round, an exciting game between Down and Zukertort was annotated
in depth by Potter in the City of London Chess Magazine. Like the Steinitz game
above, it shows how a top master could beat an experienced opponent from an
objectively difficult, if not lost, position, partly by good psychology: judging the
limitations of the opponent and so knowing what risks were acceptable.
H. F. Down J. H. Zukertort
City of London CC Handicap 1874-5 round 2, November 1874
Notes by Potter (shortened) from the City of London Chess Magazine, I
(December 1874) pages 286-288, Zukertort giving odds of pawn and two moves.
1 e4 and 2 d4 e6 3 f4
Injudicious and pretty certain to lead to the neutralization of his centre. It is
furthermore objectionable, on the ground of relieving the odds giver from the
difficulty which usually attends the disposition of his K Kt. 3 Bd3 is the recognized
and best continuation.
3...Nh6 4 Nf3 d5 5 Bd3 c5 6 c3 Nc6 7 e5 Be7
[FEN "r1bqk2r/pp2b1pp/2n1p2n/2ppP3/
3P1P2/2PB1N2/PP4PP/RNBQK2R w KQkq - 0 8"]
Black has a better game than he should have so early. His Kt at h6 clearly occupies
a most influential stand point.
8 0-0 0-0 9 Na3 Bd7 10 Nc2
Not so good as 10 Qc2 which might eventuate as follows: 10...Nf5 11 g4 c4 12
Bxf5 exf5 13 g5 Bxa3 14 bxa3 giving a position which would probably end in a
draw, a result with which White would have reason to be well satisfied, considering
how his opening advantage has become dissipated.
10...Rc8 11 dxc5 Bxc5+ 12 Kh1 g6 13 Bd2 a5
[FEN "2rq1rk1/1p1b3p/2n1p1pn/p1bpP3/
5P2/2PB1N2/PPNB2PP/R2Q1R1K w - - 0 14"]
Displaying a fine intuition of the position. After this move, an important fact becomes
clear, viz. that the three Black pawns on the queen's side are more powerful than
their White rivals opposite.
14 Qe1 Qb6!?
By this move Black makes up his mind to that sacrifice of the exchange which takes
place five moves later, hoping to be more than compensated by winning two pawns,
though having an eye more particularly to the b-pawn. However the move in the text
is not really good, because, subsequently, by a line of play which we show further
on, the odds receiver was able to force the game, that is, we feel tempted to say,
supposing he were not an odds receiver.
15 Qh4 Kg7 16 f5!?
As intended, not good, for he will lose his f-pawn, and his important b-pawn in
return for the gain only of the exchange, but actually it should win the game.
16...Nxf5 17 Bxf5 Rxf5 18 Qh6+ Kg8 19 Ng5
The veiled possibility and the player's intention have so far ridden in the same coach,
but now they will part company.
19...Rxg5
[FEN "2r3k1/1p1b3p/1qn1p1pQ/p1bpP1r1/
8/2P5/PPNB2PP/R4R1K w - - 0 20"]
20 Qxg5?
Had White seen the silken thread which was entwined in the series of moves he has
been making, we should have considered that the handicappers did not know their
business. White could have won by 20 Rf7!!, Potter's analysis continuing 20...Kxf7
21 Qxh7+ Ke8 22 Bxg5 Nxe5 (If 22...Be7 White mates in two, or if 22...Ne7
White mates in six moves.) 23 Qg8+ Bf8 24 Rf1 Qd6 25 Bh6 Kd8 26 Bxf8 Qa6
27 Bd6+ Be8 28 Qf8 Nc6 (or 28...Kd7 29 Bxe5) 29 Rf7 Qe2 30 Bg3 and wins.
20...Be7 21 Qg3 Qxb2 22 Rfc1 Rf8 23 Rab1 Qxa2 24 Bh6 Rf7 25 Ne3 Bc8
26 Ng4 a4 27 Rf1 a3 28 Rbc1 Qb3 29 Rxf7 Kxf7 30 Qf3+ Ke8 31 Be3 a2 32
Qf1 h5
An artistic touch.
33 Nf6+ Kd8 34 Bd4 Ba3 35 Rd1 Nxd4 36 cxd4 Qxd1 0-1
White resigns in view of 37 Qxd1 Bb2 queening the a-pawn next move.
The third round saw the defeat of two favourites. The young player A. J. Maas, as
Potter predicted in the magazine, was stronger than the third class to which he had
been assigned and in this case Zukertort was unable to avoid a 2-0 defeat against
him, conceding the same odds as he had to Down. Wisker was also in difficulties,
giving pawn and move to Dr William Ballard, another experienced campaigner. He
lost the first game (see below), then managed two draws and a win, but ultimately
lost 2-1.
Dr. W. R. Ballard J. Wisker
City of London CC Handicap 1874-75 round 3
From the City of London Chess Magazine, I (January 1875) pages 311-312,
Wisker giving odds of pawn and move. Notes by Potter.
1 e4 Nc6 2 d4 e5 3 d5
3 dxe5 followed by f4 and Bc4 is the best play at this point.
3...Nce7 4 Bg5 d6 5 Be2 Qd7
Black is afraid to move 5...Nf6 on account of 6 Bxf6 gxf6 7 Bb5+ for he must then
cover with his B, which, being taken, would leave him with a weak spot at e6.
However, we should consider; 5...a6 a better move than that in the text.
6 Nf3 Ng6 7 Nh4
Strongly played. Very embarrassing this for the second player.
[FEN "r1b1kbnr/pppq2pp/3p2n1/3Pp1B1/
4P2N/8/PPP1BPPP/RN1QK2R b KQkq - 0 7"]
7...N8e7 8 h3 Nxh4 9 Bxh4 Ng6 10 Bg5 Be7 11 Bxe7 Kxe7

Too venturesome against such a careful opponent.
12 Qd2 h6 13 c4 Rf8 14 Nc3 Nf4 15 0-0-0
[FEN "r1b2r2/pppqk1p1/3p3p/3Pp3/2P1Pn2/
2N4P/PP1QBPP1/2KR3R b - - 0 15"]
15...Kf7
If 15...Nxg2 16 Rdg1 Nf4 (not 16...Rxf2? 17 Rh2) 17 Rxg7+ followed by 18 Bg4.
White evidently, in that case, retains a much superior game; still, we should prefer
that line of play for Black as affording the only chance of loosening the position.
16 Bg4 Qe7 17 g3 Bxg4 18 hxg4 Ng6 19 f4 Ke8 20 Rdf1 Kd7 21 Rf2 Rae8
22 Qe3 b6 23 b4 a6 24 a4 Ra8 25 Kb2 a5 26 b5 Rf6 27 f5 Nh8 28 g5
[FEN "r6n/2pkq1p1/1p1p1r1p/pP1PpPP1/
P1P1P3/2N1Q1P1/1K3R2/7R b - - 0 28"]
The series of moves which have led to the present position has been played by Dr
Ballard with a really first-class judgment, for, while making himself safe against
unfavourable chances, he has secured a superiority likely to lead to ultimate victory.
28...hxg5 29 Qxg5 Rg8
29...Rh6 would have been immediately disastrous, on account of the reply 30 f6.
30 g4 Nf7
30...Rh6 was now, we think, Black's best move, as giving him a chance of utilising
his g-pawn against the threatened breach. In fact, we doubt whether Dr Ballard was
not premature in advancing his pawn to g4. To be sure, it made him safe against any
unlooked for turn of fortune, but g4, in view of certain eventualities, was a square it
was better if possible to keep unoccupied.
31 Qe3 Rh6 32 Rxh6 gxh6
32...Nxh6 was doubtless preferable.
33 f6 Qf8 34 Qf3 Ng5?
Evidently an oversight. 34...Rg5 gave some chance of a draw, and at any rate would
have made the work of winning a prolonged and tedious affair, as White would have
had to bring his king round to the K side, and forced the change of queen and rook
before he could have done anything.
35 Qf5+ Kd8 36 f7 Rg7 37 Qf6+ 1-0
As Potter's notes to these games show, he was a shrewd operator at odds and knew
the handicap openings well. In round two he beat the problemist E. N. Frankenstein
(second class) by 2-0, then he beat Botterill and Vyse (both third class). Bird also
progressed, but not so comfortably. He won in turn against Heinke (fourth class),
then Huckvale (third class) who achieved a win and a draw before losing twice, then
in the third round Bird beat Eschwege (third class) by the same score. In the quarter
final Bird was paired with Stow (fourth class) and here he lost 0-2, unable to give
this opponent the knight.
The other fourth round pairings saw Maas defeat Dr Ballard, receiving pawn and
move, while Bussey and Pfahl, two long-serving members of the third class, met on
even terms, with Pfahl victorious. In the semifinal, Potter was paired with Stow,
perhaps because they were the first two to finish the previous round. Potter was
successful, although he lost one of their three games at knight odds. Maas beat Pfahl
2-0, playing level.
Then in the final, as Potter probably feared, Maas was a tough proposition at pawn
and two moves; could he do better than Zukertort? He did but it was not enough
game. The first game was adjourned after six hours. After three games they were 11 with a draw, but eventually Maas (said to be "barely 18 years old") won 2-1. It is
noteworthy that, many years later, Arthur Maas (who lived from 23 February 1857
to 19 August 1933), having perhaps not played much tournament chess in the
meantime, scored 7 out of 11 for joint second place behind George Shories in the
BCF Major Open (second tournament to the British Championship) at the age of
fifty-four, in August 1911.
A. J. Maas Dr. W. R. Ballard
City of London Handicap 1874-75 round 4, 1875
Notes by Steinitz from The Field, 17 February 1875.
1 e4 Nh6
This, the favourite defence of Philidor, has latterly fallen into disuse, as ...d6 or ...e6
is much preferred.
2 d4 Nf7 3 Nf3 e6 4 Bd3 c5 5 c3 Be7 6 0-0 cxd4
Criticised by Steinitz as facilitating the quick development of White's QN.
7 cxd4 b6 8 Nc3 Ba6 9 Ne2 Bxd3 10 Qxd3 Nc6 11 Bd2 0-0 12 Rac1 Rc8 13
Ne1
A good move, which prepares the strengthening of the centre by the advance of the
f-pawn.
[FEN "2rq1rk1/p2pbnpp/1pn1p3/8/3PP3/
3Q4/PP1BNPPP/2R1NRK1 b - - 0 13"]
13...Qe8 14 f4 Nh6 15 Nf3 d5 16 e5 Nf5 17 Kh1 Qh5 18 Rg1 Qg6

Threatening to win the white Q by ...Ng3+.
19 Qb5
The best reply.
19...Nb8 20 g4 Rxc1 21 Bxc1 Nh6 22 f5 Nxf5
Black had nothing better. Had he retreated 22...Qf7 White would have obtained a
winning position thus: 23 Bxh6 gxh6 24 f6 Bd8 25 g5 h5 26 g6 hxg6 27 Nf4 etc.
[FEN "1n3rk1/p3b1pp/1p2p1q1/1Q1pPn2/
3P2P1/5N2/PP2N2P/2B3RK w - - 0 23"]
23 gxf5
Mr Maas evinced good judgment at this point in discarding the more tempting move
23 Nf4 as it would probably have led to the following continuation: 23...Nxd4 24
Nxg6 (24 Nxd4 Qe4+) 24...Nxb5 25 Nxe7+ Kf7 followed by 26 Bg5 h6
recovering the piece.
23...Qxf5 24 Rf1 a6 25 Qb3
Not 25 Qxb6? Qh3 26 Ng3 Bh4.
25...Qh3 26 Kg1 Qg4+ 27 Ng3 h5 28 Kf2 Nc6 29 Ke1
[FEN "5rk1/4b1p1/ppn1p3/3pP2p/3P2q1/
1Q3NN1/PP5P/2B1KR2 b - - 0 29"]
29...h4?
An injudicious advance, which relieves White from all apprehension as regards his
centre pawns, which were seriously threatened. Black would have done much better
to simply capture the d-pawn (29...Nxd4) still maintaining a good attack and leaving
the opponent's e-pawn isolated.
30 Ne2 h3 31 Bd2 Qg2 32 Ng3 Bh4
This merely leads to an exchange of pieces, with a much simplified position which is
all to the advantage of the opponent who is a piece ahead. Black would still have
retained a good chance of drawing had he taken the d-pawn instead, e.g.,
32...Nxd4 33 Nxd4 Rxf1+ 34 Nxf1 Bh4+ 35 Kd1 (Best; if 35 Ng3? Bxg3+ and
White could not retake as the h-pawn queens) 35...Qxf1+ etc.
33 Nxh4 Rxf1+ 34 Nxf1 Qe4+ 35 Qe3 Qxh4+ 36 Ng3 Nxd4 37 Qf4 Qxf4 38
Bxf4 Nf3+ 39 Kf2 Nxh2 40 Ne2 Ng4+ 41 Kg3 Nh6
The game was certainly lost, but if Black intended to struggle a little longer, 41...h2
42 Kg2 Nf2 looked much more to the purpose.
42 Bxh6 gxh6 43 Kxh3 Kg7 44 Kh4 Kg6 45 Nd4 h5 46 a4 1-0
A. J. Maas W. N. Potter
City of London Handicap 1874-75 (final), 1875
Notes based on those by Steinitz in The Field, 13 March 1875.
Potter giving odds of Pawn and two moves.
1 e4 and 2 d4 e6 3 Bd3 Qe7 4 Nf3
Steinitz preferred Ne2 to keep the f-pawn available.
4...d6 5 Nc3 Bd7
[FEN "rn2kbnr/pppbq1pp/3pp3/8/3PP3/
2NB1N2/PPP2PPP/R1BQK2R w KQkq - 0 6"]
6 d5
In our opinion the best plan for the receiver of these odds consists in treating the
opening steadily, without endeavouring to augment his advantage too soon. Being a
pawn ahead and occupying the centre, he ought not to advance either of the middle
pawns until he can thereby force an opening for his rooks or minor pieces.
6...e5 7 0-0 g6 8 Ne2 Bg7 9 Ne1 Nh6 10 f4 0-0 11 Nf3 Nf7 12 Be3 b6
If 12...exf4 13 Bxf4 Bxb2 14 Rb1 regaining the pawn at b7 but Black now threatens
to win back the handicap pawn.
13 Rb1 a5
We should have preferred 13...c5.
14 Qd2 Na6 15 fxe5
[FEN "r4rk1/2pbqnbp/np1p2p1/p2PP3/4P3/
3BBN2/PPPQN1PP/1R3RK1 b - - 0 15"]
15...dxe5
Here Steinitz preferred 15...Nxe5 as a chance of equalizing. Although White can
exchange pieces, turning the closely-observed extra pawn to account will not be
easy: 16 Nxe5 Rxf1+ 17 Rxf1 Qxe5 18 Bxa6 Rxa6 19 Bd4 Qe7 20 Bxg7 Qxg7 21
Qc3 Qxc3 22 Nxc3 Ra8.
16 Rf2 Nb4 17 Nc3 Nxd3 18 cxd3 b5!?
By the nature of the odds given, Black has an extremely difficult game, and must
confine himself to an indifferent course of play, waiting for opportunities. For all that,
it was hardly advisable to weaken the coherence between the pawns on the right
wing, and to leave an assailable spot open on c5, as is done by this advance.
[FEN "r4rk1/2pbqnbp/6p1/pp1Pp3/4P3/
2NPBN2/PP1Q1RPP/1R4K1 w - - 0 19"]
19 Rbf1 h6 20 Rc1 Kh7 21 Nd1 Rfc8 22 Bc5 Nd6 23 Ne3 Re8 24 Qe2 Qd8
25 b3 a4 26 b4 Kg8 27 a3 Nb7 28 Qd1
[FEN "r2qr1k1/1npb2b1/6pp/1pBPp3/pP2P3/
P2PNN2/4QRPP/2R3K1 w - - 0 28"]
28...h5?!
Black is now assuming the offensive, boldly speculating on the chances of an error
on the part of the odds receiver; for we cannot doubt that, against an even player,
Mr Potter would have first exhausted his reserve of waiting moves for instance
...Rc8 before even thinking of depriving himself of the protection which the pawn
at h6 afforded his entrenchment on the K side.
29 Qc2 Bh6 30 Rcf1 Nxc5 31 Qxc5 Bf8
Mr Potter still rejects playing for a draw, which we believe he had a better prospect
of securing by proferring the exchange of queens at e7. White had then scarcely
anything better but to accept the offer, since, if he retreated to c1, the opponent
could have prepared a strong attack by ...Rc8.
32 Qc3! Bd6 33 h4 Qe7 34 Ng5 Rf8 35 Rf7 Rxf7 36 Rxf7 Qd8
We would sooner have given up the queen for R and Kt than submitted to the dreary
sort of defence consequent upon this retreat.
37 Nf1 Qe8 38 Kh1 Rc8 39 Ne3 Ra8 40 g3 Rc8 41 Kh2 Ra8 42 Ng2 Qc8 43
Nf4
[FEN "r1q3k1/2pb1R2/3b2p1/1p1Pp1Np/
pP2PN1P/P1QP2P1/7K/8 b - - 0 43"]
43...Be8 44 Rh7 Qg4 45 Nfe6 Qe2+ 46 Kg1 Qe3+ 47 Kf1 Qxg3 48 Rg7+
Kh8 49 Qd2 1-0
Resigns; White threatens Nf7+ and Qh6 mate.
This is the end of my story for the moment because I do not at present have
information about the City of London Club Handicap tournaments of the 1875-76
and 1876-77 seasons. In the former case, it is because Steinitz fell out with the club
in the autumn of 1875 and resigned, as recounted in my chapter about him Eminent
Victorian Chess Players. Consequently the tournament was not reported in his
column in The Field. Also I have not researched the 1876-77 tournament yet. A
future article will probably deal with further tournaments. Anyone purchasing the ebook, however, can already find some annotated games from later City handicaps in
the database.

by Tim Harding
The ebook contains bonus material of further annotated games from later City
handicap matches!


Purchases from our

accessible:
Jonathan Penrose, Postal Grandmaster
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Translate this page
October's number of British Chess Magazine, which arrived in my mailbox on 4

November, includes an article by Alan Smith about Jonathan Penrose, but it only
deals with his career as an over-the-board player, where his record was belatedly
recognised with the award of the FIDE grandmaster title. Nothing, however, was
said there about his subsequent success as a correspondence player, so this seems a
good time to republish extracts from my interview with Penrose which appeared in
my Chess Mail magazine number 3/2000. Outside the subscribers to that magazine,
his views on this form of the game are little known, so it is appropriate to bring the
interview to the attention of a wider readership. (I have cut a few passages that are
not of interest thirteen years on.) The database included for purchasers of the ebook includes all seventy-seven games that Penrose played by post; this article just
features a few.
Penrose's career as a postal player began in the mid-1970s, around the time he was
ceasing to play competitively over-the-board, and continued into the mid-1990s,
ceasing at the dawn of the Internet era. In those twenty years he had a great run of
success, which culminated in a bronze medal for the 13th CC World Championship,
a team gold medal in the 10th Correspondence Olympiad and the ICCF
grandmaster title. Readers of my history of correspondence chess will know some of
this, and that book includes the crosstables of his major tournaments and some of his
games. For this article, I have chosen other games.
Magnus Force (Ebook)

by Colin Crouch
Nimzo-Larsen Attack:
Move by Move
by Cyrus Lakdawala
Personal Facts
Jonathan Penrose PhD.
Born October 7, 1933 (Colchester, England).
OBE for services to chess 1971.
Living Hertfordshire (England); Taught psychology at Middlesex University
(now retired).
FIDE IM 1961, GM 1993.
Over-the-board chess career included ten British Championship victories and
wins against Bogoljubow and Tartakower (at age sixteen), Euwe, Tal, Larsen,
O'Kelly and Portisch, and the better of a draw with Fischer. Also achieved
record fifty wins for England in nine FIDE Olympiads (mostly on board one).
ICCF IM 1980, GM 1983.
Highest-rated ICCF player for several years (rating was 2725 at one time).
His CC achievements included first place in the BPCF Jubilee and Julius
Nielsen Memorial invitational grandmaster tournaments, a gold medal on top
board for England in Olympiad Final IX, and third place in the 13th World
Championship Final.
Final CC career record (not counting annulled games): +46 =25 -4 (78%).
Garry Kasparov, Part II:

1985-1993 (Ebook)
by Garry Kasparov
Penrose Interview
London Chess Centre kindly provided the facilities for conducting this interview, in
London in November 1999. At the time we met, Penrose was second on the ICCF
rating list at 2711, and was one of the elite band of players to hold both the FIDE
and ICCF grandmaster titles.
His distinguished OTB career included ten wins in the British Championship,
breaking the record long held by H.E. Atkins, although he failed by one to equal
Atkins's other record of seven consecutive victories. Penrose's win against Tal in the
last round of the 1960 Leipzig Olympiad was the only game lost by the Latvian
genius between his two matches against Botvinnik. However, he rarely played
individual tournaments outside Britain, otherwise the GM title would probably have
come much sooner.

Most of 1950s was spent studying psychology culminating in a doctorate, which led
to university teaching from the early 1960s, with chess fitted in during the holidays.
Always an amateur, Penrose was the leading player in England for twenty years until
he was taken ill at the board during the 1970 Siegen Olympiad. A few years later, he
took up CC with immediate success.
The late Dr Charles Hunter, a stalwart of English CC teams at this time, and Hugh
Alexander, who had switched to CC in the 1960s, started to persuade Dr Penrose
in 1971 that it might be interesting to try postal play. However, it was a few years
before he actually had a go, and he made his debut in the BPCF v Finland friendly
match that began on January 3, 1975.
The English board order for this thirty-board match was a bit strange. Dr Hunter
was on board one (fair enough), with sixty-nine-year-old Graham Mitchell (who had
played in the 1st CC World Championship Final) on board three but why was
Penrose placed on board four and a certain Tim Harding on board two? Peter
Markland, who had played in the 1970-71 Hastings Premier and was later to
become a CC-GM also, but at this stage was fairly new to postal chess, was down
on board ten.
Evidently, the British team selectors put too high a premium on prior correspondence
chess experience. Hunter had told Penrose: "You'll find it quite difficult...it's a
different game," so he was happy to start on a lower board. It is typical of this
modest man not to argue about board orders. In September 1972 I had to play
higher than usual on the Oxfordshire team because term had not yet begun for the
undergraduates, but one didn't expect to meet on board two in an OTB match a
player who had won his last British Championship just three years previously.
(Naturally, I soon lost.)
Penrose remembered this occasion. In this case, the player to whom he had
conceded top board was Ernest Klein (1951 British champion) who was then
making a brief comeback for Essex on condition that he played board one. This
Viennese-born master had been involved in a BBC v Norway radio CC match in
1952 against Olaf Barda. Each night at 11.30 the latest move was announced on the
radio but after thirty-eight moves the following position arose, with Klein (white) two
pawns down.
Klein Barda
[FEN "6k1/p2b2pp/2pbq3/2p1p1P1/
2P1Q3/1P2B3/PN4K1/8 w - - 0 39"]
Now the BBC voice announced that "Due to pressure of work, Mr Klein has had to
withdraw from the game..." Klein had unsportingly refused either to play on or to
resign, Penrose told me: "He de-Kleined to continue," as it was joked at the time.
To return to Penrose's debut match, the Finns were probably not fooled because
they put their highest rated player, Jorma Aijala on board four. It did them no good
as Penrose won both games comfortably. The following is the better game, and was
unpublished prior to my interview, when the winner supplied the score. He was very
cooperative as I had sent him in advance all the games of his that were generally
known and he filled in the gaps when we met.
Jorma Aijala Jonathan Penrose
Great Britain-Finland, corr 1975
(Notes by Tim Harding)
1 c4 c5 2 Nc3 Nc6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 d4 cxd4 5 Nxd4 e6 6 g3 Qb6 7 Nc2 d5 8 cxd5
exd5 9 Bg2 d4 10 Nb1 Bc5 11 0-0 0-0 12 Ne1 Re8 13 h3 Bf5 14 Nd3 Nb4 15
Nxc5 Qxc5
Nxc5 Qxc5
[FEN "r3r1k1/pp3ppp/5n2/2q2b2/1n1p4/
6PP/PP2PPB1/RNBQ1RK1 w - - 0 16"]
The position has similarities to a Tarrasch Defence. White has obtained the B pair
but it is only temporary. His queenside development is backward so he is unable to
prevent ...Be4. 16 Na3 Be4 17 Bd2 Bxg2 18 Kxg2 Qc6+ 19 Kh2 d3 20 e3 An
admission of failure, but after 20 exd3 Nxd3 Black's knights, supported by the
rooks, create threats on both wings. Not 20 Bxb4? dxe2. 20...Nbd5 21 Rc1 Qd7
22 Rc4 Ne4!? 23 Kg2 Rad8 24 Rd4 Qc6 This sets up a masked battery on the
long diagonal in preparation for the final combination.
[FEN "3rr1k1/pp3ppp/2q5/3n4/3Rn3/
N2pP1PP/PP1B1PK1/3Q1R2 w - - 0 25"]
25 Kh2? 25 Rc4 looks somewhat better: 25...Qg6 (25...Qf6 26 Rd4) 26 Rd4?

(but better 26 Nb5 or 26 Nb1) 26...Nf4+. 25...Nxe3!? This piece sacrifice,
although sound, is not necessary as 25...Nxd2 26 Qxd2 Nxe3 also wins. However,
White can fight on with rook and knight against queen in the line 27 Qxe3 (27
fxe3?? Rxd4) 27...Rxe3 28 Rxd8+ Re8 29 Rxd3. 26 Bxe3 Rxd4 27 Bxd4 Ng5!
28 h4 If 28 Bxa7 Nf3+ 29 Kh1 d2. 28...Nf3+ 29 Kh3 g5 30 Be3? This loses
instantly, but Black has a technically easy win after 30 Qxd3 g4+ 31 Kxg4 Nh2+ 32
Kh3 Nxf1 33 Qxf1 Qd7+ and ...Qxd4. 30...g4+ 0-1
After that warm-up against Finland, in 1977 Dr Penrose began CC Olympiad Final
VIII, still down on board four! He massacred the "innocents" +11 -0 =1 (only
Manfred Kahn of East Germany drew) and thus set up one of the world's highest
CC-Elos when ICCF began publishing ratings. This also earned him the CC-IM
title.
I asked Dr Penrose how he had found the CC opposition compared with OTB at
this early time of his CC career. "On the whole, they were weaker, obviously," he
replied, though "possibly this is because I wasn't on board one". Penrose was, of
course, used to playing the top British players and the top boards of other countries
in OTB events like FIDE Olympiads and the Clare Benedict team tournament and
world championship zonals.
After the Olympiad VIII result, England had to play him on board one for
Olympiads IX and X and he had more draws. "It is hard to win with Black in CC"
and he was usually happy to get a draw in those games.
Speaking with Jonathan Penrose, you get the impression he is very English but in fact
one of his grandparents was Irish and another was Latvian: maybe this accounts for
the extra touch of flair in his play! In fact he comes from a very distinguished family.
His father was Lionel Penrose, a renowned geneticist and his uncle Roland Penrose
was very much involved in modern art and the surrealist movement. He knew
Duchamp and Jonathan also met him once in London, "so I was very interested to
read your article about Duchamp".
One of his brothers, Roger Penrose, is the author of books such as The Emperor's
New Mind (first published in 1989) which attacked the idea that computers can be
intelligent, but you sometimes have to be an expert in mathematics to understand it.
"I wish he would write something a little easier to read." More recently, Roger
Penrose published Cycles of Time: an extraordinary new view of the universe
(2010) but Jonathan Penrose has not written any books that I am aware of.
Jonathan's other elder brother, Oliver, was also a mathematician and expert chess
player in his youth. For more facts about Jonathan's early life and OTB career, I
refer you to Smith's recent BCM article and an interview by Jimmy Adams which
appeared in the August and October 1998 issues of Chess Monthly.
I believe that Penrose could have become CC World Champion if he had begun just
a few years earlier, rather than continuing OTB play with diminishing returns in the
early 1970s. Thus he might have played in World Championship Final XI or XII
which (while no pushover) were perhaps not quite as strong as Final XIII; moreover,
he would have been a few years younger at the crucial time. He agreed that maybe
after breaking Atkins' record would have been a good time to stop OTB and start
CC, and then he might have done even better.
Returning to Olympiad VIII, Penrose's brilliant result on board four helped the
English team to take third place. IM George Botterill wrote in the book British
Chess that the next game against his Swedish opponent changed the assessment of a
sharp Sicilian variation.
Jonathan Penrose Kjell Krantz
CCOL8 final, bd. 4 1977
Sicilian [B33]
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 Nc6 6 Ndb5 d6 7 Bf4 e5 8 Bg5
a6 9 Na3 Be6 The old Bird/Larsen line that was soon to be superseded. 10 Nc4
Rc8 11 Bxf6 gxf6 12 Ne3 Ne7 13 Bd3 Qb6 14 0-0 Qxb2 Suggested by Larsen
in Skakbladet (1963). 15 Ncd5 Bxd5 16 exd5 Qd4 17 Rb1! Penrose's
improvement on 17 Qf3 Qf4=.
[FEN "2r1kb1r/1p2np1p/p2p1p2/3Pp3/3q4/
3BN3/P1P2PPP/1R1Q1RK1 b k - 0 17"]
17...Rc7 If 17...b5 18 a4! breaking up the black queenside, for if 18...Qxa4 19

Ra1 followed by Rxa6. 18 Qf3 Qf4 19 Qe2! e4?! The decisive mistake but White
holds a clear advantage anyway. 20 Bxa6! bxa6 21 Rb8+ Nc8 22 Qxa6 Kd8 23
Rfb1 Qe5
[FEN "1Rnk1b1r/2r2p1p/Q2p1p2/3Pq3/
4p3/4N3/P1P2PPP/1R4K1 w - - 0 24"]
24 Rxc8+! Rxc8 25 Qa5+ Ke8 26 Qa4+ Kd8 27 Rb7 1-0

The following game against Soviet GM Yudovich also had not been published before
Penrose supplied it for my Chess Mail article. It illustrates his handling of the
Queen's Gambit Accepted that brought a lot of points with black.
Mikhail Yudovich sr. Jonathan Penrose
CCOL8 final, bd. 4, 1977-82
QGA [D29]
1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 Nf3 a6 His favourite move order. 4 e3 e6 5 Bxc4 Nf6 6 0-0

c5 7 Qe2 b5 8 Bb3 Bb7 9 Rd1 Nbd7
[FEN "r2qkb1r/1b1n1ppp/p3pn2/1pp5/
3P4/1B2PN2/PP2QPPP/RNBR2K1 w kq - 0 10"]
10 Nc3 Qc7 11 e4 cxd4 12 Nxd4 Bc5 13 Bg5 0-0 14 Rac1 Qb6 15 Nf3 Bc6 16
h3 Rac8 17 Bh4 Qb8 18 a3 Nh5 19 Nd4 Bxd4 20 Qxh5 Nf6 21 Qe2 Qf4 22
Bg3 Qg5 23 Qe1 Bc5 24 Kh2 Rfe8 25 e5 Nh5 26 Ne2 Qe7 27 Rd3 Nxg3 28
Nxg3 Ba8 29 Rc2 Bb6 30 Re2 Red8 31 Rxd8+ Qxd8 32 Qb4 Qd4 33 Qe7
Qf4 34 Qb4 Qxb4 35 axb4 Rd8 36 Bc2 Rd4 37 Be4 Bxe4 38 Nxe4 Rxb4 39
Rc2 Rc4 0-1 Adjudicated as a win for Black.
[FEN "6k1/5ppp/pb2p3/1p2P3/
2r1N3/7P/1PR2PPK/8 w - - 0 40"]
In 1981, Penrose began his first individual CC event the BPCF Jubilee
tournament, which still has not been properly documented as no book appeared and
many games are unavailable. This began as a fifteen-player tournament, but was
reduced to thirteen players at an early stage. Two games do not count for his career
record: Endzelins died and CC-GM Peter Clarke (whose best man Penrose had
been in 1962) retired, unwell, before any moves were played.
Curiously, Penrose and Clarke both married chess players named Margaret Wood.
Peter Clarke's wife (known as "Peggy") is the daughter of the late B.H. Wood of
Chess, Sutton Coldfield. She earned the Ladies's IM title from ICCF and was still
playing correspondence chess until a few years ago. Penrose married the daughter of
Frank Wood, whom I remember as the excellent organiser of Oxfordshire junior
chess in the 1960s. The Penroses had two daughters, Katy and Harriet.
The BPCF event developed into a race between two of the English contingent and
Penrose's score of 9/12 (not 9/14 as stated in Chess Monthly) was just enough
for clear first. "Towards the end of the BPCF Jubilee, TD Reg Gillman did warn me
that Webb was getting a good score and I should play for wins, but it didn't matter
as I was winning my two remaining games anyway."
As a result of this tournament, ICCF awarded Penrose the CC-GM title in 1983 but
he had to wait another ten years before the FIDE congress completed the double.
Note (that unlike Golombek's case) this was not an honorary GM title, but earned
by results. The British Chess Federation had tried to prove much earlier that Penrose
had qualified and eventually Leonard Barden, supported by Lothar Schmid,
demonstrated that the Varna (1962) and Lugano (1968) Olympiads and the 1963
Enschede zonal had been genuine GM results for Penrose.
In the BPCF tournament, Penrose won what he described as perhaps "my most
enjoyable CC game," which he annotated in full for Chess, October 1998.
Simon Webb Jonathan Penrose
BPCF Jubilee corr, 1981
Sicilian, Keres Attack [B81]
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 d6 6 g4 Nc6 7 g5 Nd7 8 Ndb5

Ndb8 "A satisfying move to be able to make." 9 a4 a6 10 Na3 Be7 11 Nc4 Ne5
12 h4 Nbc6 13 Be3 Nxc4 14 Bxc4 Bd7 15 f4 Qa5
[FEN "r3k2r/1p1bbppp/p1npp3/q5P1/
P1B1PP1P/2N1B3/1PP5/R2QK2R w KQkq - 0 16"]
16 0-0 Webb later suggested 16 Qd2 b5 17 Bb3. 16...h6 17 Qe2 hxg5 18 hxg5
f5 If 18...f6 19 f5. 19 Bd3 d5 20 exf5 exf5 21 Rfe1 0-0-0 21...d4 is now a major
threat. 22 Bb5 "A brave attempt to complicate in a difficult position." 22...d4 23
Nd5
[FEN "2kr3r/1p1bb1p1/p1n5/qB1N1pP1/
P2p1P2/4B3/1PP1Q3/R3R1K1 b - - 0 23"]
23...dxe3 24 Bxc6 Bc5! 25 Bxd7+ Rxd7 26 Red1 If 26 Qc4 Qd2! 26...Rh4

"The remaining moves of the game needed to be worked out at this moment!"
[FEN "2k5/1p1r2p1/p7/q1bN1pP1/P4P1r/
4p3/1PP1Q3/R2R2K1 w - - 0 27"]
27 b4 Qd8 28 Qc4 Qh8 29 Qxc5+ Kb8 30 Kf1 Rh2 31 Qxe3 Rh1+ 0-1
White resigned in view of 32 Ke2 Qh5+ 33 Kf2 Qh2+ 34 Kf3 Qh3+ 35 Kf2 Rh2+
36 Ke1 Re7!! The position at the end of this variation deserves a diagram.
[FEN "1k6/1p2r1p1/p7/3N1pP1/PP3P2/
4Q2q/2P4r/R2RK3 w - - 0 37"]
If 37 Qxe7 Black mates in two moves.
Starting about a year after the BPCF tournament, but taking much longer to
complete (1982-87), was the Final of the 9th CC Olympiad. This team competition
was nominally won by Great Britain, as it was prior to Scotland and Wales having
separate full membership of ICCF, but all six players were English. Always a good
team player, Penrose feels this was the peak of his CC career: The team scored
33/48, three and a half points clear of West Germany with the USSR third. They
lost 2-4 to the USSR but won all their other seven matches. "All members of the
team did well: every member of the team made a plus score."
He was now meeting players closer to his own level and his +6 =2 -0 result was
very solid rather than spectacular. Round about this time, Penrose also experienced
his first loss at CC, in a relatively unimportant event. He played for Essex in the
1981-82 Ward Higgs inter-county tournament, winning against D.V. Mardle, but in
the same competition in 1984, he was beaten in a nice anti-Sicilian attack by Trevor
Thomas from Reading: "an underestimated player" he observes.
Apart from that game, "normal service" continued with the Julius Nielsen Memorial
organised by Denmark from 1985- 88, won by Penrose with a convincing +10 =3 0, two points clear of the runner-up, Ekebjaerg. In this event, too, there was a
withdrawal: Penrose was thinking of offering a draw to Kosenkov when suddenly
the Russian retired and his games were cancelled.
The next event to start (1988) was the 10th Olympiad Final, with Penrose again on
top board. This time England finished second, in a very close fight for the medals,
and Penrose scored +4 =4 -1. The loss to East Germany was probably his most
difficult game, "certainly my most interesting loss".
Hans-Ulrich Grnberg Jonathan Penrose
CCOL10 final, bd.1 1988-93
QGA [D20]
1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 e4 e5 4 Nf3 Bb4+ 5 Nc3 exd4 6 Nxd4 Ne7 7 Bxc4 Nbc6
8 Be3 Nxd4 9 Bxd4 0-0 10 a3 Ba5 11 0-0 Ng6 12 Bc5 Re8 13 Qa4 Bh3!?
"I played this combination early on, without analysing it out, but it didn't quite work. I
put the game aside to analyse more deeply the next month but somehow was never
quite able to justify the sacrifice. However, it is probably the best move in the
position. If there is a mistake it may be earlier."
[FEN "r2qr1k1/ppp2ppp/6n1/b1B5/Q1B1P3/
P1N4b/1P3PPP/R4RK1 w - - 0 14"]
14 Qxa5 Qg5 15 g3 b6 16 Bxb6 Qf6 17 Rfd1 Qf3 18 Bf1 Bxf1 19 Kxf1 Ne5
20 Bxc7 Qh1+ 21 Ke2 Qf3+ 22 Kf1 Qh1+ 23 Ke2 Qf3+ 24 Ke1 Nc4 25 Qd5
Nxb2 26 Ba5 Rac8 27 Kf1 Nxd1 28 Rxd1 Rxc3 29 Bxc3 Qxc3 30 Rd3 Qc1+
31 Kg2 g6 32 Rb3 Qc2 33 Rb4 Qe2 34 h4 Qg4 35 Qb7 a5 36 Qb5 Rd8 37
Qxa5 Rd3 38 Kh2 Qf3 39 Rb8+ Kg7 40 Qc5 Kh6 41 Qf8+ Kh5 42 Rb5+ 1-0
"I spent a lot of time on this game, to no avail."
Penrose added, "This event also featured my best swindle."
Juhani Sorri Jonathan Penrose
CCOL10 final board one, 1988-93
[FEN "8/8/4BR2/1pk5/7p/1K2p2P/
1P2r3/8 w - - 0 52"]
"Black has just played 51...e4-e3. White made a mistake in reply: 52 Rh6?
Rxb2+! 53 Kxb2 -. Sorri offered a draw (good move!) and I now slightly
regret accepting immediately. The position is a draw, but White could have been
required to make a few careful moves in the subsequent ending."
Penrose never played in any qualifying tournaments for the Correspondence World
Championship but occasionally ICCF have given direct invitations to players with
outstanding records. The BPCF approached Penrose and asked if he would like to
play in Final XIII, and he accepted. Presumably he was offered the place due to his
very high rating. He has turned down invitations too. "I always made sure I only had
one tournament at a time". There was in fact some overlap between team and
individual events in the 1980s, but Penrose generally seems to have played
moderately fast and got several games finished quickly in all his events.
The championship tournament proved very tough and although Penrose was the
early leader he eventually lost two games to Russian players and finished with the
bronze medal.
Dr Fritz Baumbach, the reigning champion when the tournament began, had warned
Penrose at the beginning: "Watch out for Umansky!" He was the dark horse;
however, Penrose didn't take notice. He appears not to have prepared for particular
opponents and wasn't aware that Umansky had won the USSR CC Championship
until I told him. The World Championship Final took almost nine years to complete
but Penrose had finished his games by 1994. (Maybe he should have played
slower?)
The ending against the 10th CC world champion, Lithuanian-born American
garndmaster Palciauskas was interesting: "I had to work hard to draw". This was
especially satisfying. "I was pleased that the latter part of the game very closely
followed analysis I had made".
Victor Palciauskas Jonathan Penrose
13th CC World Championship, 1989-1998
QGA [D21]
1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 c5 3 c4 dxc4 4 Nc3 e6 5 e4 cxd4 6 Nxd4 Nf6 7 Bxc4 Bc5 8 Be3
0-0 9 0-0 a6 10 Rc1 Nbd7 11 Be2 e5 12 Nf5 Bxe3 13 Nxe3 Nc5 14 Qxd8
Rxd8 15 f3 Be6 16 Rfd1 Rxd1+ 17 Ncxd1 Rc8 18 b4 Na4 19 Rxc8+ Bxc8
[FEN "2b3k1/1p3ppp/p4n2/4p3/nP2P3/
4NP2/P3B1PP/3N2K1 w - - 0 20"]
20 Nc4 Be6 21 Nxe5 Bxa2 22 Kf2 Kf8 23 Ke3 Ng8 24 Kd4 Ne7 25 b5 f6 26
Nd7+ Ke8 27 Nc5 Nxc5 28 Kxc5 axb5 29 Bxb5+ Kd8 30 Nc3 Bf7 31 Kb6
Kc8 32 g3 g5 33 Ba4 Bh5 34 Kc5 Bxf3 35 Kd6 Kd8 36 Ke6 Ng8 37 Bb5 h5
[FEN "3k2n1/1p6/4Kp2/1B4pp/
4P3/2N2bP1/7P/8 w - - 0 38"]
38 Kf7 Nh6+ 39 Kxf6 Ng4+ 40 Kxg5 Nxh2 41 Kf6 Ng4+ 42 Ke6 Nf2 43 e5
Nh1 44 Kf6 Nxg3 45 e6 Bc6 46 e7+ Ke8 47 Bd3 Kd7 48 Kf7 Kc7 49 Kf8 h4
50 Nb5+ Kb6 51 Nd4 h3
[FEN "5K2/1p2P3/1kb5/8/3N4/3B2np/
8/8 w - - 0 52"]
52 Nxc6 h2 53 e8Q h1Q 54 Qe3+ -

However, the following was probably his best game in the tournament. Penrose's
opponent, Dr Fritz Baumbach, was the reigning world champion when the game
began and kindly contributed his own comments specially for this article.
Jonathan Penrose Dr Fritz Baumbach
13th CC World Championship, 1989-1998
Maroczy Bind [B36]
Notes here only summarise the private comments of both players which were
published in Chess Mail.
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 g6 5 c4 Nf6 6 Nc3 d6 7 Be2 Nxd4 8
Qxd4 Bg7 9 0-0 0-0 10 Qd3 Nd7 11 Bg5 Nc5 12 Qe3 Bd7 13 Nd5 Re8 14
Rab1 a5 15 b3 Rb8 16 Rfd1 Bc6 17 a3 Ne6 18 Bh6 Bh8 19 f4 Nc7 20 a4
[FEN "1r1qr1kb/1pn1pp1p/2bp2pB/p2N4/
P1P1PP2/1P2Q3/4B1PP/1R1R2K1 b - - 0 20"]
Penrose said: "White is a bit better in this line; at any rate, he has more space."
Baumbach admitted that "after this unexpected move, I exceeded my time limit (61
days in 20 moves) but Jonathan did not claim it. We had a really friendly
correspondence!"
20...Bxd5 21 cxd5 b5 22 Rbc1 bxa4 23 bxa4 Rb7 24 h3 Qb8 25 Rc2 Rb4 26
Kh2 e6
"A bit committal," commented Penrose. The problem with the move, he explained, is
that the N has to recapture on e6 allowing the white B to b5. Baumbach said he
agreed, "but what else [could he play?] "26...Rxa4 is not possible because of 27
Rxc7! Qxc7 28 Bb5. Jonathan's answer was unexpected for me."
27 Qc1! Rb7 28 dxe6 Nxe6 29 Bb5 Rd8 30 e5 Bg7 31 Bxg7 Kxg7 32 exd6
Rxd6 33 Rc8!
[FEN "1qR5/1r3pkp/3rn1p1/pB6/P4P2/
7P/6PK/2QR4 b - - 0 33"]
Evidently this required calculation. As a direct consequence of 26...e6, White is able

to get Q versus two rooks in a position that favours the queen, since the black
pawns at a5 and f7 are both vulnerable.
33...Rxd1 34 Qc3+ Nd4 35 Rxb8 Rxb8 36 Qc7 Rd8 37 Bc4 Rd7 38 Qxa5
Re7 39 Qd5!
"Once more unexpected," said Baumbach. After 39 Qc3 f6 Black has counterplay.
Unfortunately Penrose couldn't find his notes to the latter part of the game, so the
remaining quotations are from Dr Baumbach.
39...h5 40 f5 Rd7 41 Qe5+ f6 42 Qe8 Nxf5 43 Be6 Rc7 44 Qb8
"Jonathan kept me occupied constantly so that I could not coordinate my pieces."
44...Rdc1 45 Qg8+ Kh6 46 Qd8 Kg7 47 Qg8+ Kh6 48 Qf8+ Kg5 49 Qb4
[FEN "8/2r5/4Bpp1/5nkp/PQ6/7P/
6PK/2r5 b - - 0 49"]
49...R1c3?
"The pendular movements of the white queen caused me difficulties time and again.
This threatens a two-move mate (50 Qd2+) but now it was better to hide the king
again by 49...Kh6."
50 a5 Re3 51 Qb6 Re7 52 h4+ Kxh4 53 Bxf5 gxf5 54 Qxf6+ Kg4 55 a6 R3e6
56 Qa1 Re1 57 Qa2 Re8 58 a7 h4 59 a8Q Rxa8 60 Qxa8
"If Black's pawns were on h7 and f7 with his K on g7 he could draw by ...Re6 but
here there is plenty of space for the white Q to operate behind enemy lines."
60...Re3 61 Qg8+ Kf4 62 Qh7 Kg5 63 Qg7+ 1-0 "An interesting fight with a lot
of good ideas, especially by Jonathan Penrose, who made evident that he was
deservedly the top-Elo player!"
Dr Penrose also told me about the way he organised "housekeeping" for his games
though of course in the computer era, most correspondence players no longer do
this on paper. He recorded his CC games in A4-sized hardback notebooks, with the
games in the front (with date/time information etc.) and tables of analysis at the back.
Sometimes he also made notes on loose-leaf sheets and didn't keep those after the
games.
"I don't think I've made a clerical error in any CC game. Often I'd keep the game an
extra day to make sure. In CC there is plenty of time to do this." (Purdy used to do
the same.)
I asked if he had any other advice for readers.

"You need a lot of patience and hard work. A game can last several years and you
must not get bored with it." Penrose told Jimmy Adams in the Chess Monthly
interview that computers were a big factor in his deciding to retire from CC.
"Indeed, correspondence play may not be possible in its traditional form for much
longer unless some gentleman's agreement can be made so as not to use them for
correspondence play...
"The chess scene has been changed by computers. Even in over-the-board play,
they have influenced the organisation of the game. In my day computers were a thing
of the future and you had to do your own analysis."
He didn't have a computer when we met, but intended to buy one soon. "Not for
email". To analyse chess games?, I asked. "No, to play chess against the computer".
Apart from computers, however, he told me: "One of the reasons I gave up playing
CC was that I felt I was starting to make tactical errors" e.g., against Umansky.
Here is the position in question.
Mikhail Umansky Jonathan Penrose
[FEN "4r1k1/p1p1qppp/1n6/3rP3/2p1R3/
5N1P/PPQ2PP1/4R1K1 b - - 0 21"]
21...Qd8?!
"I thought he couldn't play e5-e6..." but he did. This leads to White control of the
e-file. "In fairness, White already has the superior game and alternative 21st moves
by Black don't seem quite to equalise either, but the realisation of my simple tactical
error gave me quite a shock." That game was annotated in Chess Mail 2/1997 by
Umansky.
While Umansky was the "dark horse", most of the other games went well and Dr
Penrose took the bronze medal a clear point ahead of Korelov and Pereira.
Penrose found it amusing that one of his opponents, Viktor Tomkovich, wanted a
video of ballroom dancing, and he sent him one. "We don't have anything like this in
Russia," wrote his opponent. In fact this was the last game Penrose finished in the
championship. "The card came on my birthday and said 'I resign'. I thought this was
symbolic, i.e. it doesn't often happen that a Russian player gives a birthday present
of a card with a game resignation on it!"
After this, he decided to stop playing correspondence chess.
At the very start of our meeting, Dr Penrose handed me copies of several previously
unpublished games that I had asked him to seek out from his records.
He surprised me by saying "There is one more game" though he described it as "a
mistake." I thought at first he meant he had lost it, but no. The result was the right
one, but it was a mistake to agree to play it, he said. Judge for yourself.
Jonathan Penrose (Essex) Ian Wallis (Suffolk)
Counties & Districts Ward Higgs postal tournament 1997-1998
Spanish [C78]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 0-0
In CC, Penrose preferred the main line Spanish, though he had flirted with the
Goring Gambit (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 c3) over the board in earlier years.
Later he played it occasionally, for example, in the London League, but didn't
consider it suitable where opponents could consult the literature. "It wouldn't be a
surprise; the main benefit of the Goring Gambit was surprise. I never played the
Evans Gambit or the King's Gambit!"
"In most cases I did play fairly orthodox lines with White. I tried to avoid the
Marshall Counter Gambit at all costs, OTB too. So (after 5...Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3
0-0) I had played 8 a4 against im".
5b5 6 Bb3 Bb7 7 c3 Bd6 8 d4 0-0 9 Re1 h6 10 Nbd2 Re8 11 h3 Bf8
[FEN "r2qrbk1/1bpp1pp1/p1n2n1p/1p2p3/
3PP3/1BP2N1P/PP1N1PP1/R1BQR1K1 w - - 0 12"]
12 Nxe5 Nxe5 13 dxe5 Rxe5 14 f4 Bc5+ 15 Kh2 Re8 16 e5 Qe7 17 Nf1 Ne4
18 Be3 Rad8 19 Bd5 Nf2 20 Bxf2 Bxd5 21 Bg3 Qe6 22 Bh4 Be7 23 f5 Qc6
24 f6 gxf6 25 Ne3 Be4 26 Ng4 f5 27 Bxe7 Rxe7 28 Nf6+ Kf8
[FEN "3r1k2/2pprp2/p1q2N1p/1p2Pp2/
4b3/2P4P/PP4PK/R2QR3 w - - 0 29"]
29 Rxe4 fxe4 30 Qh5 Re6 31 Rf1 Qc5 32 Rf5 1-0

However, this team event (organised by BCF) was not rated by ICCF and so Dr
Penrose soon disappeared from the published rating list as "inactive".
Postscripts
I shall discuss the Anand-Carlsen match for the World Championship only after it is
over, probably in next month's article.
British Chess Magazine Ltd. have just launched a new downloadable PDF magazine
called Junior B.C.M. for young players and chess coaches. Edited by experienced
chess coach David Levens from Loughborough, new issues will appear every two
months. It is available on Apple and Android mobile devices and in a variety of ereader formats. A rating of one, two or three pawns is shown on each article to
indicate the level of player it is principally aimed at. Should be a hit!
Further to my August column, I paid another visit to the Royal Dutch Library last
month. The "chess pavilion," as they call it, is no longer on the top floor, near the
Special Collections, but on the main reading room level (which they call the first
floor). You are now more likely to be surrounded by readers who are not interested
in chess, and I miss the view from the balcony, but there are more seats and the
shelving area has been expanded. This means that some more journals (such as
Quarterly for Chess History) have now been moved from closed stacks to open
shelves, and some open shelf material for other indoor games is also nearby. The
new location is also more convenient for the main issue desk and is right beside the
Microzaal (microfilms room).
Also they have taken the opportunity to send for microfilming and rebinding some of
the popular journals that were in poor condition. I found that about half of Zukertort
and Hoffer's magazine The Chess-Monthly and some volumes of British Chess
Magazine (1897 for instance) are not currently available, but next year everything
should be either back in place or available on film. There is never any problem
finding a modern reader-printer machine (the Microzaal rarely has many readers)
and it only costs 10 Euro cent to copy an A4 page from microfilm which compares
very favourably with British Library rates. Among the chess journals available there
on microfilm (in cabinet 42) are American Chess Bulletin, Deutsches
Wochenschach, La Stratgie, and Shakhmaty v SSSR to name but a few.
The British Newspaper Library at Colindale on the Northern Line has now closed
forever. The latest information is that the new reading room for newspapers at the
main from the British Library, beside St. Pancras railway station, will open some time
in March 2014. It will be on the second floor. An extensive refit of what was the
second room of the Business and I.P. Centre is proceeding; you can read about all
this on the B.L. website. Many details of how it will be organised remain unclear, but
I intend to go there soon after it opens and will report next year. The earliest date
when it may be possible to order bound volumes of journals and newspapers (of
titles unavailable in any other form) is, they say, October 2014 but I suspect they will
deny requests for most nineteenth century material as the condition of the volumes
will be too poor.

by Tim Harding
The ebook contains bonus material of all seventy-seven games that Penrose played
by post!

Search ChessCafe
Purchases from our

accessible:
The Torch has Passed to a New Generation
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
So Magnus Carlsen, as most people expected for some time now, has become
World Chess Champion. As President John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural speech,
on 20 January 1961, "the torch has been passed to a new generation".
Unlike my previous articles about world title matches, written with the benefit of
hindsight, I thought it would be more interesting to write up Anand versus Carlsen in
diary format, game by game and not edit the comments afterwards. I have included
various extracts from the play but assume readers have access to the game scores
elsewhere. (P.S.: At the very end of this long column, there is a film review
unconnected to the match.)

by Colin Crouch
Translate this page
I have also made some comments near the end, written about two weeks after the
match concluded. In particular, I wanted to distinguish between moments in the
match that were critical for psychological reasons and moments that were critical
from the analytical point of view. However, I have not tried to second-guess
grandmaster analyses of the match. There are certain phases in some of the games
(Game 9 in particular) which will probably be argued over for months, if not years,
to come.
Game 1, 9 November: Carlsen Anand
This match was long awaited, since Carlsen had failed to win through in the two
previous cycles, although he was favourite to do so. As with Fischer versus Spassky,
1972, the challenger had the higher rating but could not impose himself at the start.
The first game of a title match often tends to be drawn, especially in such a short,
twelve-game contest as this, although sometimes there are decisive results.
The Panov-Botvinnik Attack:

Move by Move
by Lorin D'Costa
The Nimzo-Larsen Attack:

Move by Move
by Cyrus Lakdawala
Credit: Anastasiya Karlovich, chennai2013.fide.com
As usual with such matches, because of the high early demand, it proved hard to
obtain the feed of the "live" service from chennai2013.fide.com during the early
moves. I gather that my experience was typical. No doubt, however much
bandwidth the host servers have, they are bound to get swamped at times like the
start of games, and it did not help that the game had already been going twenty
minutes before I could get to my computer. Eventually a Google search found a
mirror of the official feed at www.geekosystem.com, which it had obtained through
Youtube. I could see the position was some kind of fianchetto Grnfeld where Black
had provoked an early crisis by ...d5xc4 but the sequence of earlier moves was
unavailable. I had to make do with this feed for about twenty minutes, but I kept
trying to access the official site.
As the game slowed down, no doubt millions of viewers worldwide quit their
connection and I was able to access the official site after eleven moves. Thereafter I
had no problems. My broadband connection at home is much faster than the one I
had for the Gelfand match, which probably helped. I obtained the commentary and
current position just after Carlsen retreated 12 Bb2-c1.
[FEN "r2q1rk1/pp2ppbp/2p2np1/2P2b2/
2nP4/2N2NP1/P3PPBP/R1BQ1RK1 b - - 0 12"]
English IM Lawrence Trent and Indian WGM Tania Sachdev did the commentary.
They explained that they were aiming at average and social players not experts and
computer-watchers, and were not using computer analysis.
The commentators enjoyed analysing 12...e5!? as a temporary pawn sacrifice, but
Anand played 12...Nd5 which retained a safe, if tiny, edge. By the time I had
finished breakfast, the game was over but I did watch the press conference. After
12...Nd5, Carlsen said he saw that 13 Qe1 would be bad because of 13...Nb4, so
he had to "pull the emergency brake". The game had continued as follows:
13 Qb3 Na5
During the press conference, Anand said he considered 13...b5 but the likely
continuation was 14 cxb6 (though he said 14 a4 was possible) 14...Na5 15 Qb2
axb6 16 Ne5 which he thought was OK for White.
14 Qa3 Nc4 15 Qb3
White cannot avoid the draw by repetition. Anand pointed out the trap 15 Qa4?
Bxd4!; e.g., 16 Nxd4 (if 16 Qxc4 either 16...Bxc3 or 16...Nxc3 with the same idea
as in the main line) 16...Nxc3 17 Qxc4 Qxd4 18 Qxd4 Nxe2+.
15...Na5 16 Qa3 Nc4 Draw agreed
Anand said, "A comfortable draw like this with Black is always satisfactory".
Carlsen said, "An ordinary occurrence. You do something slightly wrong in the
opening and you have to shut it down".
Game 2, Sunday 10 November: Anand Carlsen
Because of family commitments, I feared in advance that I would only be able to
watch the early stages of Game 2, and would have to catch up with the outcome
later in the day. As it happened, although more moves were played than in Game 1,
it was over in less time. Again Black, if anything, had the more comfortable side of
an early draw by repetition.
In preparation, I downloaded the PlayChess guest client (version 7) from the

ChessBase website to see what following the game there would be like. I was able
to view both systems from the start but, being unwilling to pay the premium
membership at Playchess to receive their grandmaster commentary, I just kept it
running in the background so I could keep track of the game in case of any problems
later. For the first few moves, Playchess was slower but was soon showing moves
more or less in real-time.
The arrival of a classical Caro-Kann on the board was somewhat surprising. The
choice of 8 Ne5 was predicted by the Indian commentators and evidently also by
Carlsen who continued quickly. Each player got up from his chair to take off his
jacket after making his tenth move and Carlsen even went away from the board for a
minute. Anand thought two minutes on 11 f4 and at least five minutes on 13 Bd2, to
which Carlsen replied instantly. Carlsen reached move fourteen, castling kingside
(the opposite wing to Anand), having used only five minutes on the clock. He only
began to think after Anand's reply 15 Ne4, after which White had used about twenty
minutes. The only interesting moment in the game arose after Black's 17...Qd5.
[FEN "r4rk1/pp2bpp1/2p1p2p/3qP3/
3PQ2P/2P5/PP1B2P1/2KR3R w - - 0 18"]
The commentators seemed to expect 18 Qg4!? here, thinking that the ending after
18 Qxd5 could lead to the type of position Carlsen prefers. However, it may be that
both players were still in their preparation. Anand eventually acquiesced in the
exchange of queens and soon demonstrated that he had a safe way to force a draw
by alternate threats to Black's h6- and f7-pawns (assuming Carlsen was unwilling to
play risky advance of his f-pawn).
Now the shadow-boxing was over, with neither side apparently willing to show their
advance plans; nor had either been forced into a serious rethink. After a day off,
battle will resume on Tuesday.
Carlsen varied from Game 1 with 3 c4 and Anand did not spend much thinking time
on 3...dxc4, which evidently surprised the Norwegian. After 10...h6, Carlsen looked
worried, wiping his face; Ms. Sachdev said "Carlsen always looks unhappy," but
really it is just his intense concentration. Carlsen eventually replied 10 Bd2 and left
the board; Anand did not return immediately. The commentators pointed out the
generation gap: twelve-one years difference between the players, only surpassed in
world championship history by Botvinnik v Tal and Lasker v Steinitz.
After about ninety minutes, GMs Ramesh and Susan Polgar took over the
commentary. They were on for an hour, and then the teams took turns again. On
their second spell, they pointed out that this is the first world championship match
(since when?) when neither the champion nor challenger was from eastern Europe or
a former Soviet country. For the third game in succession, Black was in no
difficulties from the opening and after 23 Qf4-g4 the following position was on the
board.
[FEN "1r1r4/4qp1k/1pp3pp/3bb3/3p2QP/
3P2P1/1P1NPPB1/R3R1K1 b - - 0 23"]
There was general relief that Anand played the double-edged 23...h5!? rather than
forcing yet another repetition draw by 23...Be6 24 Qf3 Bd5, etc. By 24 Qh3 Be6
Anand forced Carlsen to play 25 Qh1, so he faced the problem of how to get it
back into play and deal with Black's threat to create a passed pawn on the c- or dfile. On the other hand, he now dominated the a-file and long light diagonal.
25...c5 26 Ne4 Kg7 27 Ng5 b5 28 e3
"Totally unexpected, maybe a bad move... opening the position with the queen on
h1" said Polgar. "Wow, this is very interesting. Maybe Black can win a pawn?"
Anand was now ahead on the clock by about seven minutes and computers evaluate
a definite advantage for Black. Ramesh said it was a psychological advantage for
Anand to force Carlsen to take two short draws. The Norwegian likes to play long
games out to a finish. Has he lost patience?
They thought Black seemed to have no alternative but to accept the pawn sacrifice,
but there came a surprise after 28...dxe3 29 Rxe3
[FEN "1r1r4/4qpk1/4b1p1/1pp1b1Np/
7P/3PR1P1/1P3PB1/R5KQ b - - 0 29"]
Now everyone expected 29...Bxb2, when White's compensation following 30 Rae1

Rb6 appeared vague. Instead, Anand quickly played 29...Bd4, not taking the bpawn. After a minute or two, Carlsen played Re2 to defend b2, not taking on e6
which would give Black the open f-file for pressure against f2. The computer
evaluation in Anand's favour declined when he rejected the pawn although both
commentators thought the Norwegian was "not a happy camper" and "fighting for
survival".
After 30 Re2 c4 31 Nxe6+ fxe6, Carlsen had little more than a minute per move to
the time control at move forty; Anand had almost two minutes per move. White had
to choose between three different ways to lose a pawn: 32 Be4, 32 dxc4, or 32
Kh2.
It seems that Carlsen defended correctly, with 32 Be4 cxd3 33 Rd2 and Black's
advantage soon evaporated. At the time control, when each player received an extra
hour to reach move sixty, Anand offered a draw, doubtless disappointed by the
outcome. The position on the board, with opposite-coloured bishops and pawns
only on one wing, was "obviously" dead drawn. Even a 2200 player would probably
have little difficulty holding this against Carlsen. I would even expect to do so myself.
[FEN "3b4/6k1/4pqp1/1B5p/7P/5QP1/
5P2/6K1 w - - 0 41"]
Nevertheless, Carlsen, after a minute or two, played on with 41 Qb7+. He was

"sending a message; I'm in control," said Polgar. She pointed out Anand's first six
games with Gelfand had been drawn, sometimes prematurely. Carlsen obliged
Anand to demonstrate the clear draw, which he did comfortably by liquidating the
kingside pawns. The game did not end until the last pawns were exchanged.
At the press conference, Carlsen said "I made a couple of misjudgments in the
middle game". His plan in the early middle game with Ne4, Bb4, did not work but
was "not a disaster". He underestimated Black's plan with ...b5 and was just happy
to survive. "It looked scary".
Anand spoke about the bishop-pair but said "White has the a-file and always has
enough counterplay if I go on a pawn-hunting expedition. So he decided to go for
opposite coloured bishops. It was surprising, though, that no journalist posed the
question, whether he thought he had missed a win somewhere. Even though they
would not have received any meaningful answer.
Someone did ask, was Kasparov there to support Carlsen? Carlsen said he had not
seen him yet but good that one of the legends of the game had come to watch the
match. Anand agreed. "It was good to get the match going a bit... Today was a little
bit nervy. As far as content and excitement goes, it was pretty good".
Game 4, 13 November: Anand Carlsen
Today the commentary was started by Polgar and Ramesh. They expected another
Caro-Kann but Carlsen chose 1...e5 and the Berlin (3...Nf6) defence to the Ruy
Lopez, which has been popular with endgame-oriented players since it was revived
by Kramnik against Kasparov in the 2000 World Championship match. As Polgar
said, in the intervening years nobody has come up with a way to give White a clear
advantage in this line. Queens have come off early and Black has the bishop-pair but
a doubled c-pawn, while White has a kingside pawn majority as in the Exchange
Lopez.
The time-lags between moves appearing on the official feed and the PlayChess feed
and their being shown to the commentators was up to a minute (throughout the
match), because the commentators had to rely on a delayed video feed of the actual
board. I was surprised that this issue was never addressed. Why could they not be
provided with the same instant feed that watchers at home receive? It was annoying
when commentators continued analysing one move when it was evident to home
viewers that a different one had been played.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 4 Bb5 Nf6 4 0-0 Nxe4 5 d4 Nd6 6 Bxc6 dxc6 7 dxe5 Nf5 8
Qxd8+ Kxd8 9 h3 Bd7 10 Rd1 Be7
[FEN "r2k3r/pppbbppp/2p5/4Pn2/8/5N1P/
PPP2PP1/RNBR2K1 w - - 0 11"]
The first ten moves were played rapidly until Anand began thinking here.
11 Nc3 Kc8 12 Bg5 h6 13 Bxe7 Nxe7 14 Rd2 c5 15 Rad1 Be6
With 11 Nc3 Kc8, they had transposed to a position known from a couple of
previous master games, and the continuation 12 Bg5 h6 13 Bxe7 Nxe7 followed D.
Jakovenko-Z. Almasi from the 2007 World Cup tournament at Khanty Mansiysk,
and a game involving Norwegian master Jon Ludvig Hammer, a known Carlsen
helper, was involved, which continued 14 a4 a5.
Anand eventually followed Jakovenko's choice 14 Rd2, preparing to double rooks
on the central open file. As soon as Carlsen returned to the board, he played
14...c5, and then Anand doubled rooks, the first real novelty in the game. Carlsen
played 15...Be6 quickly; so far the Norwegian used roughly six minutes and Anand
about twenty-four minutes.
16 Ne1
Anand played this quickly, surprising the commentators. Carlsen was probably still in
his preparation because he replied after only a couple of minutes, attacking the epawn which had just been undefended.
16...Ng6 17 Nd3 b6
The commentators pointed out that the immediate 17...c4? 18 Nc5 Nxe5 would be
met by 19 Nxe6 followed by moving one of the rooks to the e-file, regaining the
pawn with advantage. Now Anand had to justify his strange sixteenth move and find
the best way to defend the e-pawn.
18 Ne2
Rather than passively defending it with a rook, which would be an admission of
error, Anand invited complications.
[FEN "r1k4r/p1p2pp1/1p2b1np/2p1P3/
8/3N3P/PPPRNPP1/3R2K1 b - - 0 18"]
Carlsen began to use significant time at last. Ramesh thought, from the speed in
which Anand played Ne1, that he might still be in his preparation. Carlsen must have
been wondering this too. The main issue the commentators discussed was whether
Black could capture the a-pawn or would the bishop become trapped? They
reminded listeners about Fischer's first game with Spassky where the American
captured such a pawn and eventually lost. They thought they had found a superior
line for Black, 18...c4 19 Ndf4 Nxf4 20 Nxf4 c3! 21 bxc3 Bxa2, but Carlsen
eventually played 18...Bxa2 and left the board. Did he still have the benefit of home
analysis? All this action had taken place in the first hour.
18...Bxa2 19 b3 c4 20 Ndc1 cxb3 21 cxb3 Bb1
At this point Trent and Sachdev took over the commentary. The position was
unclear and there seemed to be good prospects of a decisive result but with either
player possibly the winner. Anand had played a pawn sacrifice; how good was his
compensation?
22 f4
Trent thought 22 Rd7!? Nxe5 23 Re7 was worth considering, and then if 23...f6 24
f4 Ng6 25 Rxg7, but said Black does not have to capture the e-pawn.
Anand played 22 f4 quite quickly, defending the e-pawn and keeping Rd7 in
reserve. Should Black now rescue his bishop and put it on a strong diagonal by
22...Be4, and if 23 Rd7 Rf8.
22...Kb7 23 Nc3 Bf5 24 g4 Bc8
Was this really what Anand expected when he played 18 Ne2, they wondered?
25 Nd3
This supports the f4- and e5-pawns. Carlsen started thinking.
25...h5 26 f5 Ne7
The commentators had been analysing 26...Nh4 but Carlsen retreated the knight
without hesitation. Anand really needed a good think now to justify his pawn
sacrifice.
27 Nb5
This appeared to trouble Carlsen, who had a long think and eventually had less time
on the clock than his opponent for the first time in the game. If he kicked the knight
with ...a6, then the knight comes to a strong central square, d4, in preparation for
e5-e6. If he did not, then White could attack c7 a second time with one of his rooks.
At this critical moment, Polgar and Ramesh returned. Black had long-term chances
with possible queenside pawns in endgame but they agreed that if Black did not find
a concrete continuation, then he could easily end up much worse.
[FEN "r1b4r/pkp1npp1/1p6/1N2PP1p/
6P1/1P1N3P/3R4/3R2K1 b - - 0 27"]
27...hxg4 28 hxg4 Rh4 29 Nf2

Now White has such ideas as Rd8 or even Rd7. Ramesh preferred White; Polgar
thought that was exaggerated. For the first time in the game, Anand got up from the
board once it became clear that Carlsen was having a long think about move twentynine. Polgar was impressed by the way Anand showed no emotion during the game,
unlike Kasparov "whom you could read like an open book". Carlsen was more
expressive and avoided eye contact with his opponent.
29...Nc6 30 Rc2 a5 31 Rc4
While Anand was considering his thirty-first move, the Chennai servers appeared to
crash for a few minutes (both the FIDE site and PlayChess). After a few minutes
both were running again.
31...g6
Now Polgar considered that Black was "slightly better at least".
At this point Trent and Sachdev returned. The former considered that all three results
were still possible, while the latter said that Anand's idea in sacrificing the pawn was
not exactly clear but the aim may have been long-term compensation. Now it was
White who needed a concrete continuation. Anand used a lot of time but it seemed
his ideas were running out and Carlsen looked relaxed. As the commentators
predicted, he chose the only available forcing line.

32 Rdc1 Bd7 33 e6 fxe6 34 fxe6 Be8 35 Ne4
Anand was getting down to his last ten minutes now and had to find the very best
moves. He came up with 35 Ne4!?, offering his g-pawn with check. The main point
is to activate his least good piece, and if Black's rook does capture, it can become
stranded, White having threats of Nc5+ or Ned6+. Sachdev had been suggesting a
variation on this idea, 35 Kg2 (intending Kg3) 35...Rd8 36 Ne4 (threatening Nf6)
and if 36...Rxg4+ 37 Kh3 but Anand's plan, centralising the king, is perhaps better.
At any rate, Carlsen found no refutation.
35...Rxg4+ 36 Kf2 Rf4+ 37 Ke3 Rf8
Carlsen had taken the pawn quickly but the commentators thought 37...Rf8 a
probable mistake. Perhaps he misjudged the situation or miscalculated something?
38 Nd4
Now Carlsen looked unhappy; he had thrown away at least half a point perhaps?
When the time control was reached, however, he was still a pawn ahead and a draw
seemed probable.
38...Nxd4 39 Rxc7+ Ka6 40 Kd4 Rd8+
[FEN "3rbr2/2R5/kp2P1p1/p7/3KN3/
1P6/8/2R5 w - - 0 41"]
Unfortunately for White, he cannot advance his king (41 Ke5?? Rf5 mate) but 41
Ke3 was the obvious move now, threatening the fork e6-e7 without allowing Black
a check. There was some surprise that Anand rejected this after a long think. Instead
he chose the following:
41 Kc3
This may appear safe (keeping the king near the b-pawn) but it hands the initiative
back to Black; Anand cannot have seen all the dangers when he made his choice.
41...Rf3+ 42 Kb2 Re3 43 Rc8
The commentators Polgar and Ramesh thought this gave Black a safe draw by
reducing to a drawn rook and pawn ending after the exchange of rooks and minor
pieces, and then forcing the exchange of the kingside pawns. However, they had
failed to spot Carlsen's next move.
43...Rdd3!
[FEN "2R1b3/8/kp2P1p1/p7/4N3/1P1rr3/
1K6/2R5 w - - 0 44"]
Carlsen continued to set quite a few traps. He forced his opponent to make more
choices, especially ones that may be harder for the human opponent than the
computer, which now wanted to play the complicated possibility 44 Rc4!?. Anand
probably saw it quickly but took a lot of time, calculating all the many possible sharp
variations. Eventually, he rejected it and checked on a8 and then took the bishop.
Computer engines thought this double rook ending gave Black more hope, but
Anand negotiated the difficulties and eventually he drew the game in sixty-four
moves.
This had been a very exciting game, giving spectators full value for money. In the
press conference Anand said, "Something went horribly wrong with the opening. I
made one illogical move after the next," but his resourceful play in the crisis was very
impressive.
There followed a rest day, and then came the two days that decided the match.
Game 5, 15 November: Carlsen 1 Anand 0
Carlsen opened 1 c4 this time, which Anand seemed to expect, quickly replying
1...e6. After 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Anand selected the Semi-Slav, 3...c6, after which
Carlsen chose 4 e4, which usually leads to a sharp gambit variation. There followed
4...dxe4 5 Nxe4 Bb4+ but Carlsen did not play the Marshall Gambit, 6 Bd2, but
instead the quieter 6 Nc3, which is rarely seen and to which theory books devote
little or no attention.
[FEN "rnbqk1nr/pp3ppp/2p1p3/8/1bPP4/
2N5/PP3PPP/R1BQKBNR b KQkq - 0 6"]
Anand responded 6...c5. There followed 7 a3 Ba5 8 Nf3 whereupon Carlsen left
the board. So after less than ten minutes we had a totally different type of game from
the previous four. The commentators said Carlsen had not played 4 e4 before in
competitive games, and presumably therefore had prepared this line specially for the
match. Anand started thinking and after a couple of minutes he took off his jacket.
Then he played 8...Nf6 and it was time for Carlsen to start cogitating. The plan he
developed at moves then to thirteen but the feeling of commentators Trent and
Sachdev was that Anand had at least equalised.
Then the Polgar-Ramesh team took over with the former slightly preferring White,
especially after 13...Bc7 which seemed to waste a tempo, compared with castling.
After 18 Ne4! Anand's position looked worryingly passive but he had prepared the
resource 18...Bb6 19 c5 f5! and after a flurry of simplifying moves, the threat of a
white knight coming into d6 had been prevented. However, a double rook and
bishop ending now arose in which Carlsen probably had at last reached the type of
endgame position in which he excels. White's bishop on e4 pressed Black on both
wings and he also had three pawn islands against four, a technical advantage. The
odds might still be on a draw but Carlsen had the open d-file still, and soon grabbed
the f-file with 23 Rhf1. "Carlsen is really comfortable now; you can tell it by his body
language," said Trent.
[FEN "7r/pr1bk1pp/2p1p3/8/4B3/P3P3/
1P4PP/2KR1R2 b - - 0 23"]
Anand played the next phase of the game impressively, achieving counterplay with
23...Rb5 (threatening ...Re5) and the resulting complex endgame was hard to
assess, although the commentators judged White to be slightly better. Polgar said if
Carlsen was playing most opponents he would probably win, but against Anand or a
few other top grandmasters it might not be enough, although it was certainly more
pleasant to be White. Anyway, a long game was likely. This is the first game in the
match where it was White who was pressing, but how Carlsen was to make
progress was by no means obvious.
Over the next few moves Black managed to become more active but a critical
moment came at Anand's thirty-fourth move where it seemed as if White's advantage
may have evaporated.
[FEN "8/4k3/2p1pR2/p1r3pb/3rP2p/
PP6/1KB2RPP/8 w - - 0 35"]
34...Rd4!?
Anand's move looked strong but commits him to a pawn sacrifice. The position was
becoming unbalanced and less drawish after all. In the post-mortem he said that
passive defence by 34...Rg8 was probably best.
35 Rh6 Bd1 36 Bb1 Rb5 37 Kc3 c5 38 Rb2 e5 39 Rg6
Carlsen had to avoid some tricks (like 39 Bd3? Rxb3+) and for the last two moves
to the time control, he was down to two or three minutes, Anand having slightly
more time.
39...a4 40 Rxg5 Rxb3+ 41 Rxb3 Bxb3 42 Rxe5+ Kd6 43 Rh5 Rd1 44 e5+
Kd5 45 Bh7
Carlsen did not rush the capture of the e-pawn. In the subsequent rook and bishop
endgame, Anand probably had one more chance to hold the draw, when, following a
long think, Carlsen had played Bb1-h7, threatening a check on g8.
[FEN "8/7B/8/2pkP2R/p6p/PbK5/
6PP/3r4 b - - 0 45"]
Here Anand played 45...Rc1+? and after the fairly obvious reply 46 Kb2 he began
thinking. There was probably no longer any way to save the game. All the engine
evaluations changed and the commentators soon said they were receiving tweets that
Black's forty-fifth was a mistake. Certainly, that is what computers reckoned.
The subtler move 45...Ra1! would have threatened the a-pawn, and 46 Kb2 then
would be met by 46...Ra2+ and 47...Rxg2. The main point is that 46 Bg8+ could be
answered by 46...Kc6 47 Bxb3 Rxa3! 48 Kc4 axb3 49 Rh6+ Kd7 when White
would only be left with pawns on one wing and would need to expend time to pick
up the b-pawn. A draw was very likely in this variation.
The idea that Anand probably missed was that after 45...Rc1+? 46 Kb2 Rg1 47
Bg8+ Kc6 (if the king comes forward, White takes the h-pawn with check) White
plays 48 Rh6+! which drives the black king back and forces a won ending. Instead
of this, the commentators spent ages analysing 48 Bxb3 axb3 49 Kxb3 Rxg2 50
Rxh4 Re2 51 a4 Rxe5 when White's technical difficulties are much greater and
perhaps no win can be forced.
So now Carlsen led 3-2 and the next two games would be crucial. Anand would
have two whites in a row because, as in the two previous world championship
matches, the colour sequence was reversed half-way, and he desperately needed to
win one of these games.
Game 6, 16 November: Anand 0 Carlsen 1
Preparing for this game, Anand's difficulty was that Carlsen had already shown two
different defences against 1 e4, against neither of which he was able to obtain any
advantage. Could he improve on Games 2 and 4 or would he even face a third
different defence today?
I was not able to watch the game live until it had already reached the rook ending
where it looked like Anand should be able to hang on for a draw. Before this stage
he had already accepted doubled isolated e-pawns, probably unnecessarily, and
then given up one of them, certainly unnecessary. Here is the position at the move
forty time control when the queens have just been exchanged on e7.
[FEN "8/4rpk1/6pp/1p6/2pR4/2P4P/
1P4PK/8 w - - 0 41"]
The first idea from the commentators was that White would liquidate the queenside
with b2-b3, and try to hold the ending on the kingside. This is dependent on the
well-known ending with rook and f-pawn and h-pawn versus rook (no other
material) being drawn if the defending king is in a position to stop the pawns.
However, in this case there are two h-pawns and that might make a difference.
The plan Anand chose is playable but Carlsen found an amazing idea and Anand
blundered in a sensational finish. Now with a two-point lead the pre-match favourite
Carlsen was almost certain to become the next world champion.
At the press conference, Carlsen said he obtained a pretty solid position or slightly
better. After Anand gave up the pawn, Carlsen had missed White's h4-h5 idea which
weakened his kingside. It was probably a draw then but he "had one little trap and
went for it".
[FEN "5R2/8/7p/5p1k/2p4p/2P3r1/
1P4PK/8 b - - 0 56"]
Here Carlsen offered his remaining queenside pawn.

56...Kg5 57 Rg8+ Kf4!
This was a "big surprise, very puzzling," said Susan Polgar. Black gives up his cpawn to win the g-pawn in exchange. It was the only winning try.
58 Rc8!?
In the press conference, Anand thought 58 Rf8 instead of Rc8 was just a draw,
though I would like to see analysis supporting that opinion. Cannot Black then
continue 58...h3 59 gxh3 Rd3 followed by ...Rd2+ perhaps? Surely most players
would have chosen Rc8.
After Rc8, Carlsen said in the press conference that "it is very difficult, perhaps
impossible, to defend. The white pawns on b2, c3 seriously inhibit the rook. Without
those pawns it would be a draw, but the f-pawn is very fast".
58...Ke3 59 Rxc4 f4
Anand said, "I just blundered into ...f4". However, the commentators on the official
website, were of the opinion that 60 b4 would draw and computer calculation seems
to bear them out. They were still analysing it when Anand played the
incomprehensible
60 Ra4?? and had to resign a few moves later.
On reflection, Anand seems to have played extraordinarily badly at several stages of
this game, making poor decisions that I would not expect from opponents on the
middle boards in the Irish league. Apart from the clear errors, 23 Qg4 (incurring
doubled pawns) was unnecessarily self-harming while 29 or 30 d5 would probably
be played by the average 2000 player and they would be right. 50 Kh3 looked
distinctly odd, an attempt to be too clever or maybe seeing ghosts in the wrong
place, since most players I know would have played the superior 50 Kg3 without
much thought. As for 60 Ra4 it is a death-wish move in a position where everyone I
know would, for better or worse, push the b-pawn. We ordinary mortals have all
played games where we self-destruct and cannot understand afterwards how it
happened, but for the world champion to play so poorly when defending his title is
very surprising.
Most observers, probably even the players themselves (though, of course, not in
public statements), judged that at 4-2 Carlsen the match was already decided. Only
one of the subsequent games was worth detailed comment.
Game 7, 18 November: Anand Carlsen
Carlsen had his second successive black today. If he did not lose, he would have a
majority of whites in the remaining games and would be odds on favourite to
become world champion. Even if he did lose, the task for Anand to reach 6-6 and
bring about the rapid play-off would be very hard. His confidence must have been
bring about the rapid play-off would be very hard. His confidence must have been
shattered.
I, and presumably millions of viewers worldwide, experienced intense frustration

with the online coverage. Everything proceeded normally to the position after Black's
eleventh move and then the commentary broke down while Anand was considering
his 12 0-0-0. Numerous times when the audiovisual link was restored it kept
returning to the same point. The correct board position was shown on the left of the
split-screen while on the right Susan Polgar was talking about a much earlier
situation.
I even rebooted my computer but it made no difference. I had to rely on PlayChess's
feed to know what point the game had actually reached. Several times I managed to
obtain the current commentary on the Chennai-FIDE site but then it broke and
lapsed back to Polgar and Ramesh discussing the position after 11...Qe7. In actual
fact the position at that point was about move seventeen and the other commentary
team of Trent and Gupta was in place!
Groundhog Day! This happened at least twice more until it all settled down again
around move eighteen.
As for the game, Anand once more seemed to play into Carlsen's hands by
continuing with the Ruy Lopez and allowing three pairs of pieces to be exchanged
early on. It did not seem that the Indian's team had found anything really
revolutionary against the Berlin Defence. He varied from the previous game with 5
Bxc6 but Carlsen's novelty 7...Bh5, followed by 8...Nd7, sucked the dynamism
from the early middle game. It was a short game, finished in just over three hours.
This was the shortest game in terms of duration at the board. Carlsen produced a
little surprise, 1 e4. This was presumably an invitation to a Sicilian Defence, which
had occurred in some of their previous games, in the hope of a decisive result that
could bring the end of the match quite close. Anand thought for a minute and then
decided to play the Berlin Defence himself, but after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6
4 0-0 (as in Game 4) 4...Nxe4, the Norwegian avoided the endgame line 5 d4 and
instead played the older main line 5 Re1 Nd6 6 Nxe5. Carlsen blitzed out his first
dozen moves, which he had probably prepared for the black pieces, and although
Anand played somewhat slower he must have known this variation in detail too. As
Trent pointed out when he was on commentary later, 11 c3 was first played in the
1886 world championship match by Steinitz against Zukertort; then Black won.
Anand and Carlsen followed theory to move sixteen at least, the position having
occurred in at least a couple of fairly recent grandmaster games. Anand had his first
long think at move sixteen, at which point Carlsen had only used five-and-a-half
minutes. When Anand played 16...c6 he had taken a total of twenty minutes. Carlsen
immediately replied 17 Re1, the first new move according to Susan Polgar. Quite
rapid play (especially on White's part) continued up to 20 Be5, when Carlsen had
used ten minutes. They were probably now both out of preparation. Anand's
manoeuvre ...Nf5-g7-e6 was apparently geared to avoiding the exchange of heavy
pieces on the e-file but in the position after 22 Ne5 White appeared to stand slightly
better. Carlsen looked bored and sleepy.
Following a blitz simplification from moves twenty-four to twenty-eight a king and
pawn endgame arose. Carlsen, of course, did not offer a draw but the position
should be dead level. Anand was replying quickly and confidently. After 33 h4 h5
the pawn structure was completely blocked and the draw was agreed.
Carlsen was one half-step nearer the title. "I didn't particularly mind a draw, as was
evident from my play," said Carlsen; "I just wanted to set him one or two traps.
There wasn't much to think about and I wasn't in any mood to think". In reply to a
question, Carlsen still declined to name his team of seconds. Maybe in future a rule is
needed to make that obligatory in advance of the match.
Game 9, 21 November: Anand 0 Carlsen 1
As usual, Anand arrived a little early for this absolutely crucial game, and Carlsen
with only about a minute before the clocks are started. Also as usual, there was a
quick handshake as the challenger sat down, but no eye contact from Carlsen. While
Anand's knights face forwards, Carlsen's face each other across the rank.
The champion had to win this game and so, as widely predicted, there was no Ruy
Lopez today. Instead Anand played 1 d4 and a Nimzo-Indian with 4 f3 soon arrived
on the board, soon transposing to the Smisch variation. Anand did not hesitate;
Carlsen began to think about his seventh move. The commentators pointed out that
Anand had not beaten Carlsen for two and a half years. Anand waited with his cup
of black tea beside the clock, then eventually got up from the board.
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 f3 d5 5 a3 Bxc3+ 6 bxc3 c5 7 cxd5 exd5 8 e3
c4
Carlsen recaptured with the e-pawn instead of the more usual knight. Susan Polgar
said she was sure both lines had been prepared by Black, with the final decision to
be taken at the board depending on mood and match situation. 7...Nxd5 is
considered more reliable. Carlsen's 8...c4, to shut the white KB out of play and
establish a queenside pawn majority, is a committal decision and must have been
preparation, because normally one would not be in a hurry to remove the pressure
on White's centre pawn. This unbalanced pawn structure gave obvious potential for
a dynamic decisive game.
[FEN "rnbqk2r/pp3ppp/5n2/3p4/2pP4/
P1P1PP2/6PP/R1BQKBNR w KQkq - 0 9"]
9 Ne2 Nc6 10 g4
This thematic idea had once been played by Kasparov against Judit Polgar. Carlsen
now began to use serious time and did not look entirely happy; this one would not
be easy to turn into a quick endgame. The earliest grandmaster game with this
position was probably Korchnoi-O'Kelly de Galway, Buicharest 1954, which had
gone 9 g4 Nc6 10 Ne2 Na5 11 Ng3 Nb3 12 Ra2 h5 13 g5 with a draw in thirty
moves. Judit Polgar had played 9...h6 and lost.
10...0-0 11 Bg2
So far Anand had used just eight minutes, Carlsen about twenty.
11...Na5 12 0-0 Nb3 13 Ra2 b5 14 Ng3 a5 15 g5 Ne8 16 e4
[FEN "r1bqnrk1/5ppp/8/pp1p2P1/2pPP3/
PnP2PN1/R5BP/2BQ1RK1 b - - 0 16"]
The on-screen computer was suggesting an evaluation in Black's favour of a quarter

of a pawn, but the commentators reckoned that arose from computers assessing
Black's king as being safer, because of the advanced g-pawn. The human judgement
on that point was likely the other way around: Black's king was the one in some
danger. Anand was now a quarter of an hour ahead on the clock.
16...Nxc1 17 Qxc1 Ra6 18 e5 Nc7 19 f4 b4
[FEN "2bq1rk1/2n2ppp/r7/p2pP1P1/1ppP1P2/
P1P3N1/R5BP/2Q2RK1 w - - 0 20"]
Carlsen had a long think at move eighteen and was falling well behind Anand on the
clock for the first time in the match. Black was now guaranteed a protected passed
pawn. Who would be quickest? "If Anand fails to checkmate Carlsen, Black will
crash through on the other side," said Trent. Anand had only used forry minutes to
this point, compared with sixty-eight minutes by Carlsen, so he had plenty of time to
work it out. Should he trade pawns and rooks on the queenside before pressing on
("wimp out" as Trent put it), or should he ignore the queenside?
20 axb4? axb4 21 Rxa6 Nxa6
Exchanging rooks was a superficially good idea, because the Black QR had
potential to defend along the rank whereas the white rook had few offensive
prospects. This choice by Anand, though, showed he had not worked out the
method of attack he was to employ later. Had he done so, he would have realised
that he need to retain the QR to stop the black passed pawn.
22 f5
"Chaos!" welcomed Trent and Sachdev. Ms. Susan Polgar and Ramesh returned at
this critical moment. "I would be very nervous if I was Black," she said and he
agreed. In practice White had dangerous attacking prospects, although the
computers somewhat preferred Black.
22...b3
After calculating, Carlsen played 22...b3, with twenty-five minutes and a few
seconds left to reach move forty. Now Anand started to use his thinking time, as his
next move could decide whether he had any chances left of retaining the world title.
Unlike the earlier games, Carlsen did not get up from the board and go to the rest
area off-stage until Anand was down to his last twenty-five minutes.
[FEN "2bq1rk1/5ppp/n7/3pPPP1/2pP4/
1pP3N1/6BP/2Q2RK1 w - - 0 23"]
Apparently Anand was looking for a forced win, which is probably not there. "He
must either be analysing to checkmate, or he doesn't see a checkmate," says Polgar.
Maybe 23 f6 or 23 Nh5, with ideas of a knight sacrifice on f6, might well have
worked in practice against a lesser opponent. Ramesh even suggested 23 Rf2,
freeing the queen to go to f4. He believed that an immediate attack was unnecessary
but could build up, since the black pieces are not well placed if the b-pawn cannot
be pushed through to queen. He did not like a premature f5-f6 that would bring the
as yet unmoved black bishop into play.
Everyone was happy that the champion was not going down without a fight; this was
really the first game where he had taken any risk, and we had seen that trying not to
risk anything had not worked last week.
23 Qf4
White would have liked to play 23 f6, and if then 23...g6 24 Qf4 Kh8 (preparing to
defend the mate on g7 with the rook) 25 Qh4 b2 26 Qh6 Rg8 and now 27 Rf4,
threatening mate in two moves by 28 Qxh7+ and 29 Rh4#. The snag is that Black
has 27...b1Q+ and then the mate will be prevented by giving up the new queen for
the rook.
23...Nc7
Black could not push 23...b2 because the queen and rook would have mopped up
the passed pawn.
24 f6
Deep Rybka-3 on my computer wanted to play 24...gxf6 but the commentators
considered that 24...g6 was the only move and that is what Carlsen played. He then
brought his knight back to defend the mate threat on g7, because now if he defended
with the king on h8 and rook on f8 his new queen would be too slow. That was the
effect of Qf4.
25 Qh4 Ne8
25...Kh8 would lose here because White has time for Rf4-h4, so Black prepares
instead to defend g7 with his busy knight. White will try for a mate on h7 instead.
26 Qh6 b2 27 Rf4!?
What else could Anand do? Maybe 27 Ne2 was possible and if 27...Be6 28 Nf4
Qa5 29 Nxe6 fxe6 30 Bh3 maybe the result will be a draw.
27...b1=Q+
[FEN "2bqnrk1/5p1p/5PpQ/3pP1P1/
2pP1R2/2P3N1/6BP/1q4K1 w - - 0 28"]
Here a disaster occurred: Anand very quickly blocked with 28 Nf1?? instead of
with the bishop. The commentators and computers immediately said Black was
winning. He must have missed 28...Qe1. Carlsen flashed out this obvious move.
"Poor Anand's face; he knows it". After a couple of minutes, he resigned, because if
Rh4 Black's queen must take it and Carlsen would be a rook ahead.
This is what should have happened: 28 Bf1! Qd1 29 Rh4 Qh5 30 Nxh5 gxh5 31
Rxh5 Bf5 (forced) 32 g6! (Rykba had found this move even before the blunder
was on the board. It seems that Anand, analysing earlier, had got stuck on analysing
32 Bh3 and missed this idea at the board.) 32...Bxg6 (only move) 33 Rg5! (to
regain the piece by h4-h5). Then it is probably too dangerous for Black to try to
win, as he could even lose in some lines, and it might be best to bail out with
33...Nxf6 and expect to draw thanks to the exposed position of the white king.
The match was now effectively over. The commentators were in shock, Carlsen led
6-3. He only needed a draw from the next three games, in two of which (if he
needed them) he would have white. Asked at the press conference to describe the
tension, Carlsen admitted "it was really tough game, extremely unbalanced...and I
was in danger of being mated, which wasn't the case in previous games". The white
pawns looked extremely menacing but he couldn't find a forced mate for White. He
just "had to calculate as best as I can and go with that... It seems there wasn't any
mate, at least not an obvious one".
As somebody said later, it was "cruel and unusual punishment" for Anand to have to
attend the press conference after this debacle. He said he knew before the game that
he "needed to change the course of the match drastically". So credit to him for giving
it a go, but it was a tragic way for the game to end. This game will probably be
analysed for weeks to come, maybe years.

These were the last rites for Anand's tenure of the World Championship. The only
question was whether Anand would accept the inevitable with a quick draw or try to
win the game with black against all the odds. His choice of the Sicilian showed he
intended to make Carlsen work for the final half point.
Carlsen avoided open variations, instead following a game they had played a few
months previously (which he should have won) in the variation 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3
Bb5+ Nd7. Anand varied from that at move eight, and Carlsen introduced a new
idea at move thirteen. The game proceeded very rapidly; in the first half hour they
played seventeen moves each. Quite an interesting game developed as a possible
repetition was rejected by Carlsen but ultimately the game was of course drawn,
after Anand played another blunder at move twenty-eight, of which the Norwegian
failed to take full advantage. Carlsen made sure of the draw by reducing to an
endgame.
This time, at the press conference, Anand was allowed to leave after taking a few
questions. The new world champion was then crowned.
Last thoughts on the match
Carlsen, as he admitted afterwards, started nervously but Game 3 showed him that
his opponent was also vulnerable, and thereafter he was able to play his normal
game. So Anand's failure to play 29...Bxb2 was the first critical moment in the
match, both from the analytical and psychological points of view.
From Anand's public statements, Game 5 was the turning point. He said that his
match strategy had been to try to neutralize Carlsen's strong point (enjoyment of long
games, probing for error) and in this game he nearly succeeded but collapsed and
lost the ending. In this game, however, the psychological crisis came before the
technical failure. Immediately after the game, Anand said 35...Rd4 "looks strong but
turned out to be a mistake". I agree, though, with Anish Giri who said on his website
that "The culmination of underestimating his position was the game five, when Anand
lost, saying that his decisive mistake was Rd4, an excellent active move, which
secured absolute equality". The technical failure in this game was Anand's missing
45...Ra1, the drawing resource which just about everybody saw, and playing
45...Rc1? instead. After this the match was, in effect, lost, especially when Anand
compounded the error by unnecessarily losing Game 6 also.
What about the game in between, though? In Game 4, Anand played the early
middle game poorly and he thought he was losing, but when the tactical crisis arose,
Anand outplayed Carlsen beautifully and at the first time control, though still a pawn
down, he was able to force a draw. He did it, though, rather tentatively, with 41 Kc3
after a long think and then he had to survive some very clever traps set by Carlsen.
Most experts, I think, would have played the natural 41 Ke3 quickly and
confidently, as if it were a winning try of the sort that Carlsen himself goes for. The
game would still have been drawn in the end but playing the more aggressive, less
"safe" move, would have paid Carlsen back for the finish in Game 3. It would have
said in effect "You have spoiled a game you probably should have won, and now
you have to prove you can draw it".
Anand's failure to play the Sicilian in Game 8 was a further psychological
capitulation. Presumably it was predicated on him assuming he could draw Game 9
at least and then employ the Sicilian in Game 10, but the way Game 9 turned out he
did not get the chance, because the match situation meant Carlsen could just play for
a draw. Game 9 itself was of course a tragedy, which deprived the chess world of
what might have been a brilliant game, or at least a very exciting and instructive
draw.
So now the chess world has a young and (for the media) attractive new world
champion. He is a champion, though, whose style is very dry and almost impossible
for 99.9 percent of chess players to emulate even if they wanted to.
Postscript: 'Computer Chess' film
Recently the Irish Film Institute showed a feature film, set at an American computer
chess tournament in the early 1980s, called Computer Chess, which premiered at
the 2013 Sundance Film Festival. It was shot by director Andrew Bujalski on blackand-white video to give it an authentic period look (except for one scene near the
end which is in colour.)
This is a very strange movie. I gather that cineastes have coined the term
"mumblecore" to describe this type of American independent cinema with
deliberately low production values and amateur acting. Although it purports in some
scenes to be documentary in style including one character with a 1980s video
camera who shoots the proceedings it is really fictional and at times surreal. In
those days, before hardware improvements made programs super-strong and there
was real money to be made, computer chess research was done mostly by
enthusiasts in research labs and universities. Several of these teams spend a
weekend in a hotel playing a five-round tournament while, in the same hotel, there is
an encounter-group conference run by an African guru; gradually the two groups
intermingle.
One theme in the film is the gulf between the potential for artificial intelligence and the
reality of a computer which prefers taking perpetual check rather than the opposing
queen (a real problem in that era). The other theme is the single-mindedness and
sexual repression of the people operating and programming the computers, who are
mostly graduate students.
Having long ago written two books about the early years of computer chess, I could
recognise some of the references although names of real people and real chess
computers of the period are not used. For example, there is a chess master who has
a bet that no machine can beat him before 1984; this character, though American, is
clearly based on David Levy. There is also a college professor possibly based on
legendary computer scientist Ken Thompson.

I found the film very funny at times. Whether I was laughing at the bits I was
supposed to laugh it is another matter. Some parts were extremely tedious and rather
predictable, and then it would suddenly take a totally unexpected trajectory.
Reactions to the film online vary widely; the person who wrote that it was like early
Cronenberg, only better, came closest to my view.

by Tim Harding
The ebook contains bonus material of the full annotated games of the match and all
75 games contested between Anand and Carlsen!

Search ChessCafe
Purchases from our

accessible:
Looking Back: Chess in 1914 and 1864
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Translate this page
My annual look back to chess a century and 150 years ago, brings us to the
outbreak of the First World War, and fifty years before that, to a time when little
happened in chess.
1864: A quiet year
There was little memorable chess in 1864, with no tournaments of great significance
and the only high-level matches being played in France and Germany. Gino Di
Felice's Chess Results 1747-1900 has only one and a half pages on 1864. Max
Lange won the West German championship in Dsseldorf, a tournament run on
knock-out lines. The top Germans were busy playing matches with each other, while
in England the leading players avoided doing so. L. Paulsen beat Neumann 6.5-3.5
in Berlin; Anderssen beat Zukertort 5.5-3.5 in Breslau. Then in July, Anderssen was
held to a 4-4 tied match in Berlin by B. Suhle, after which the Breslau maths
professor beat Neumann 8-6 and Schallopp 6-1. Then Paulsen beat Lange 6-2. In
Paris, Ignatz Kolisch tied a match 4-4 with Philipp Hirschfeld and then beat Samuel
Rosenthal 7-1. In Rotterdam, the Italian champion Dubois beat a local player, Smalt,
2-0.
Outside Europe there was almost nothing to note, except that Paul Morphy (soon to
retire permanently from chess) played some games in Cuba on his way home from
Paris, and a few back in New Orleans. David Lawson's biography of Morphy, The
Pride and Sorrow of Chess, records that he arrived in Havana on 16 February,
when a banquet was held for him, and on that occasion he played some games.
Morphy left two days later. Lawson, on page 293, wrote: "In those days he played a
number of games with the Cuban champion, Celso Golmayo, and others, always
giving odds of the Knight." On the next page Lawson says that the Cuban (who was
to play in the 1867 Paris international and in the 1880s several matches with top
masters), won three out of five games played at those odds, leading Morphy to
admit that the most he could give Golmayo was a pawn and two moves.
The only game between them from 1864 in the Wildhagen collection of Morphy's
games (taken from Maroczy's book on Morphy) was played on level terms but in
that case Morphy was not looking at the board. Lawson quotes from a report of the
banquet that Morphy, before the dinner, "played a game with Mr. Sicre, giving him a
Knight" and after the dinner "he played alternately several games with Messrs.
Dominguez, Golmayo and Sicre, by memory, while carrying on at the same time an
animated conversation" with his host, the rich banker, Francisco Ferrer. In other
words, this may have been a three-board blindfold simultaneous. Some readers may
also recall my column of two years ago (Kibitzer 188) where I pointed out that there
were two Cuban players with the same surname: the stronger was Jos Maria Sicre,
a black slave, and the other was the slave-owner Felix Sicre. Evidently it was the
latter at the banquet. The Wildhagen book has one game against each of the three,
blindfold. Here is the game against Golmayo, which had some theoretical value at the
time.
The Panov-Botvinnik Attack:

Move by Move
by Lorin D'Costa
The Nimzo-Larsen Attack:

Move by Move
by Cyrus Lakdawala

by Colin Crouch
Internet
Explorer 10
microsoft.com/InternetExplorer
Switch to IE10 Today

& Discover Why It's
The Best Browser for
Windows 7
Paul Morphy Celso Golmayo Zupide

Havana, 1864
Evans Gambit [C51]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 b4 Bxb4 5 c3 Bc5 6 0-0 d6 7 d4 exd4 8 cxd4
Bb6 9 Nc3 Nf6? 10 e5
And Respect
Nexus 7 from
$229
[FEN "r1bqk2r/ppp2ppp/1bnp1n2/4P3/
2BP4/2N2N2/P4PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 10"]
10...dxe5
10...d5 11 exf6 dxc4 12 fxg7 Rg8 13 Re1+ led to a White win in Morphy-de
Riviere, 1858. 10...Ng4 11 h3 Nh6 12 Bg5 Qd7 13 e6 is also very good for White,
in view of 13...fxe6 14 Bxe6 Qxe6 15 Re1, Euwe.
11 Ba3 Bxd4 12 Qb3 Be6
If 12...Qd7 13 Ng5 (13 Nxd4 Nxd4 14 Qb2 Qc6 15 Bb5! Sokolsky) 13...Nd8 14
Rad1 h6 (or 14...Ne6 15 Bxe6 fxe6 16 Nb5 with many threats) 15 Rxd4! with a
terrific attack (Harding & Cafferty)
13 Bxe6 fxe6 14 Qxe6+ Ne7 15 Nxd4 exd4 16 Rfe1 Qd7
16...Nfg8 lost in Morphy-Stanley, New York 1857.
17 Qxe7+ Qxe7 18 Rxe7+ Kd8 19 Rd1 b6 20 Rxd4+ Kc8 21 Nb5!
[FEN "r1k4r/p1p1R1pp/1p3n2/1N6/
3R4/B7/P4PPP/6K1 b - - 0 21"]
21...Kb8
After 21...c5 simply 22 Rd1, threatening Nd6+, wins easily.
22 Rxc7 Re8 23 g3 a6 24 Bd6 Ne4
24...axb5 25 Rxg7+ is evidently hopeless for Black, who soon loses his knight.
25 Rxe4 Rxe4 26 Re7+ Kc8 27 Rxe4 axb5 28 Re8+ Kb7 29 Rxa8 1-0
The American Civil War did not end until the Spring of 1865. When Morphy
returned to New Orleans in February 1864, it was under occupation by Union
troops. He set up his law office and endeavoured to establish a professional career;
little chess was played.
In England, the Chess Player's Magazine was in its second year, edited by the
Austrian master, Ernst Falkbeer. It did not have a great deal of current news to
report. "Mr J. H. Blackburne's great blindfold performance at the Philidorian Chess
Rooms, Rathbone Place, April 2, 1864" received detailed attention. Under
uncomfortable conditions, he played eight games, winning only two and drawing
two. All the games were published in the magazine. In a later simultaneous that year
he apparently won seven of the eight games but the magazine carried no report.
Blackburne was not yet a full-time professional; Steinitz, was but he had little
opportunity to display his full powers. He completed a mismatch with Valentine
Green, who managed to draw two games out of nine.
Towards the end of 1864, there was a little excitement in London chess circles when
(as Philip Sergeant described in his A Century of British Chess) the Chess Player's
Magazine was the subject of a hostile takeover. The December number was set to
contain a review, by R. B. Brien, of the Book of the 1862 Congress, edited by

Lwenthal and Medley. The former got wind that an unfavourable review was to
appear and suppressed it by buying the magazine. Early in 1865 the magazine, now
under Lwenthal's editorship, included a different review of the book by Professor
Duncan Forbes. Brien, presumably, was going to take the Staunton line on the
dummy pawn rule but Sergeant does not say anything about that.
Towards the end of the year, on page 380, the Chess Player's Magazine published
the following "Useful and practical End-game from actual play. By Herr Steinitz."
White to play and win, 1864
[FEN "8/8/6p1/3R2P1/1p6/1K3pk1/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
The solution was apparently never published but appears to be 1 Kxb4 f2 2 Rd1
Kf4 (Or 2...Kg2 3 Kc4 f1Q+ 4 Rxf1 Kxf1 5 Kd4 Kf2 6 Ke5 Kf3 7 Kf6 Ke4 8
Kxg6 Ke5 9 Kf7+-) 3 Rf1 Kxg5 4 Rxf2 Kh4 5 Kc4 g5 (Or 5...Kg3 6 Rf6 g5 7
Kd5 g4 8 Ke4 Kg2 9 Rg6 g3 10 Kf4) 6 Kd5 g4 7 Rf8 1-0.
Mostly Steinitz played offhand games for money at the Cigar Divan in the Strand, of
which some brilliant examples survive. The following is noteworthy because of the
later celebrity of his opponent, then only nineteen years of age. I take a slight liberty
including it here, because it was possibly played very early in 1865, and is assigned
to that year in Ludwig Bachmann's compilation Schachmeister Steinitz. However
the first publication of the game was in the February number of The Household
Chess Magazine, with detailed notes by Blackburne which must have taken him
some time to write and get into print, so I tend to think the game was probably
played late in 1864.
Cecil De Vere Wilhelm Steinitz
Off-hand game at the Cigar Divan, London 1864
Giuoco Piano [C54]
Notes by J. H. Blackburne (except where otherwise stated)
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 c3 Nf6 5 0-0 Nxe4?!
Very hazardous; 5...d6 is the proper move. Bachmann commented that at this time
Steinitz liked to play very aggressive moves.
6 d4 exd4 7 cxd4 Be7
This appears to be his best play.
8 d5 Nd6 9 dxc6 Nxc4 10 Qd4!
A very good move. The opening moves have been played by Mr. De Vere with
great skill and judgment, and he has now obtained such an excellent position, that
with ordinary care he ought certainly to have won the game.
[FEN "r1bqk2r/ppppbppp/2P5/8/2nQ4/
5N2/PP3PPP/RNB2RK1 b kq - 0 10"]
10...bxc6
10...bxc6
Black was compelled to submit to some loss, and we believe the move in the text
will be found to be his best for it is very evident he could not safely have played
10...d5. For example, 11 Qxg7 Rf8 (If 11...Bf6 12 cxb7 followed by Re1+ with a
winning position.) 12 cxb7 Bxb7 13 Re1 Qd6 14 Nh4 Bc8 (This appears to be his
best move, for if 14...f5 15 Bg5 Rf7 16 Qg8+ Rf8 17 Qxh7 Rf7 18 Qh5 winning
easily.) 15 Bh6 Kd8 16 Rxe7 Qxe7 17 Qxf8+ Qxf8 18 Bxf8 and White must win.
11 Qxg7
Tempting, and apparently very good, but 11 Qxc4 would have been safer play.
11...Rf8 12 Re1 d5 13 Bh6 Be6
[FEN "r2qkr2/p1p1bpQp/2p1b2B/3p4/2n5/
5N2/PP3PPP/RN2R1K1 w q - 0 14"]
14 Ng5
This move allows Black to escape; (14) Nd4 would, we think, have been better.
14...Bxg5
An ingenious resource.
15 Bxg5
15 Qxf8+ would, unquestionably, have been better; but even in that case Black
would have had a drawn game, if we mistake not.
15...Qd6 16 f4 Qc5+ 17 Kh1 Ne3
[FEN "r3kr2/p1p2pQp/2p1b3/2qp2B1/
5P2/4n3/PP4PP/RN2R2K w q - 0 18"]
18 b4
Bachmann gave 18 b3 as the move played but the Household Magazine is the
primary source and that has 18 b4, attacking the black queen, with Blackburne
commenting: "Bad, because it forces Black the way that he would go. 18 Na3,
guarding c2, was the correct move."
18...Qc2 19 Bh6 0-0-0 20 Na3 Qd3
Far better than 20...Qf2 which would have enabled White to exchange queens.
21 Qg3 d4 22 Bxf8 Rxf8 23 Nb1
He does not appear to have any better move.
23...Bd5 24 a4 Nxg2 25 Kg1 Nxe1 26 Qxe1 Rg8+ 0-1
Blackburne added, "For the information of our readers generally, we beg to state
that Herr Steinitz is considered one of the finest players in London."
Blackburne, it may also be noted, was probably the only master from 1864 who
was still alive and active in top chess fifty years later. There must have been a few
other long-lived players among the amateur ranks in various countries and it could be
an interesting game for readers to discover a few of their names. I believe Samuel
Wellington, who was a few months older then Blackburne when the latter beat him
3-0 in the 1862 Manchester-Liverpool match, was still a member of the Liverpool
club just after the First World War and there was talk of the two veterans having
another meeting.
1914: War 1 Chess 0
But for war, FIDE might have been established this year instead of ten years later. A
proposal for an international chess federation had been aired for some time and was
discussed at the end of the St Petersburg international but without any definite
decision.
The first major tournament of the year was the All-Russian tournament, held at Saint
Petersburg from 4-30 January. The field was very strong, since the first prize
included a place for the winner in the great international tournament to be held in the
same city a few months later. The Polish-born Alexander Dawidowicz Flamberg
(1880-1926) was in the lead until the dramatic last round, when he was defeated by
Eugene Znosko-Borovsky and so relegated himself to a footnote in chess history.
Flamberg's misfortune enabled Alekhine and Nimzowitsch to overtake him and they
tied for first place. In the play-off they each won one game and it was decided to
invite them both to the international.
In March, Teichmann beat Spielmann 5-1 in a match while Edward Lasker
completed victory in the City of London Chess Club Championship, a strong
amateur tournament played throughout the winter months.
Saint Petersburg was the venue for the last great tournament before the
conflagration. It was especially important because there had been no great
tournament in 1913, but the field was somewhat unbalanced due to the decision to
invite some veterans rather than the top ten or twelve active masters in the world. It
was not unexpected that Winawer declined to play, but Blackburne's participation
was undoubtedly a bonus for the organisers as he had declined an invitation to the
1909 tournament and was now making his first visit to Russia at the age of seventytwo. He even managed to win two games and almost beat Alekhine as well.
Gunsberg, younger than Blackburne but less in practice, also accepted but finished a
poor twelfth (and last) without winning a game. He had warmed up for the event by
playing in (and winning) the fairly strong Easter congress of the Kent association, but
that necessitated a rushed journey to arrive on time in the eastern Baltic port.
Moreover, Gunsberg was busy throughout the tournament sending reports to the
Daily Telegraph, whose chess correspondent he was. Blackburne, having played in
the first truly representative Anglo-Dutch match over Easter in the Hague (winning
one game and losing one against L. Gans) had time for a more leisurely journey.
The structure of the St Petersburg tournament was also unusual. In the preliminary
phase, the eleven participants met each other once, after which the top five played a
double-round final, with all scores from the preliminary carried forward. This format,
which penalised slow starters and put a premium on avoiding defeats, was widely
criticised, especially after it led to the elimination of Rubinstein, who had been hoping
to arrange a world championship match with Lasker later in the year. It was pointed
out that a twelve-player double-round tournament, which would have left much less
to chance, would have only required one more day to complete than the format
actually chosen. Teichmann was missing because he had fallen ill. Some of the
leading masters who were not included at St Petersburg (including Rti, Schlechter,
Spielmann, and Tartakower) contested a gambit tournament at Baden instead.
Spielmann emerged victorious.
Capablanca began strongly, his 8/10 making him clear favourite, as he carried over
one and a half points more than Lasker and Tarrasch who were in second place.
Lasker had surprisingly lost to Bernstein while Tarrasch had lost to Janowsky. The
playing schedule, requiring the players to take the main meal of the day before play
began, apparently did not agree with Tarrasch's digestive system and at one point in
the final he lost four games in succession. Alekhine and Marshall, with 6 points
apiece, were the other two players who qualified for the final stage. The scores of
the eliminated players were as follows: Bernstein and Rubinstein 5, Nimzowitsch 4,
Blackburne and Janowsky 3.5 each, Gunsberg 2.
The intended Russian tournament book never appeared, no doubt because of the
outbreak of war. Very promptly in July 1914, a tournament book edited by Dr
Tarrasch was published in Nuremberg, and a second edition appeared after the war.
In 1993 Caissa editions issued an English translation by Dr. Robert Maxham which
incorporated additional notes from other sources. Anyone who has these books may
have noted a confusion over dates which the editor and translator failed to resolve.
Due to the Russian Empire still being on the old Julian calendar, which was thirteen
days behind that used in the West, all the local ("old style") dates differed by that
amount from the western calendar and even the day of the week was different.
This appears to have led Tarrasch to make some mistakes in dating, for example he
(and his translator) say that both Round Seven and Round Eight were played on 2
May, which is evidently incorrect. The sixth round, all agree, was played on
Wednesday 29 April, and I have managed to verify that round eight was on the
Saturday (western date). I am fairly sure now, from online newspaper sources, that
round seven was actually played on 30 April but would like better confirmation that
1 May was a free day or set aside for adjournments. Can any reader help with
primary source information here? It should also be noted, if you have a copy of the
English (Caissa) edition, that Game 52 on page 190 is headed "CapablancaNimzowitsch" but was actually Capablanca-Blackburne. Unlike the dating queries,
this is not carried forward from the German editions but was an error by the
American translator and editor.
The final phase of the tournament began on 10 May according to the tournament
books. There were two games a day, with one player having a bye each time,
making it hard to keep track of relative placings. Tarrasch soon fell out of contention
for first prize while, in the second round, Lasker held an endgame against
Capablanca with rook against bishop and knight, the draw being agreed after 100
moves. After the sixth round, when Lasker beat Alekhine with black, he had at last
the same number of points as Capablanca, but with only three games left to play,
whereas Capablanca had four to play. Their meeting in the next round was therefore
of the utmost importance.
Emanuel Lasker Jose Raul Capablanca
St Petersburg final 1914
Ruy Lopez Exchange [C68]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Bxc6
Tarrasch asked Lasker afterwards why he had chosen this "drawish" line when he
needed to win, and the reply was that there was no way for White to obtain an
advantage against the Open Variation which had already been played successfully in
this tournament. This was only part of the reason. The Exchange Variation played by
Lasker was not only a surprise but turned out to be a psychological master-stroke
when Black was only playing for a draw. The resulting pawn structure is very good
for White if the position becomes too simplified; on the other hand Black wants to
keep the game under control and not risk complications. Capablanca fell between
the two stools.
4...dxc6 5 d4
Lasker's policy from the start was to simplify. In later years, Bobby Fischer
preferred a more complex handling of the Exchange Variation with 5 0-0.
5...exd4 6 Qxd4 Qxd4 7 Nxd4 Bd6 8 Nc3 Ne7 9 0-0 0-0
Tarrasch wrote that Black should have played 9...f5 to either eliminate or isolate the
e-pawn, but Capablanca continued to believe after the game that White's next move
was weak.
10 f4 Re8 11 Nb3 f6
"Black thereby parries the non-existent threat of e5," wrote Tarrasch, and Rti
agreed, saying e4-e5 could only benefit Black by conceding the squares d5 and f5.
However the real error comes later.
12 f5! b6
Another dubious decision; he should develop the bishop on d7, keeping an eye on
e6.
13 Bf4
[FEN "r1b1r1k1/2p1n1pp/pppb1p2/5P2/
4PB2/1NN5/PPP3PP/R4RK1 b - - 0 13"]
13...Bb7
Even Capablanca admitted that this was a mistake and that he should have
exchanged bishops on f4 instead of incurring a new weakness on d6. He somehow
overlooked White's manoeuvre Nd4-e6. Black could have justified his earlier play
by 13...Bxf4 14 Rxf4 c5 15 Rd1 Bb7 16 Rf2 and now, not 16...Rad8 (Lasker), but
16...Rac8! intending ...Nc6-e5-c4, and if White meets ...Nc6 by Nc1 then the black
knight can go to d4 instead.
14 Bxd6 cxd6 15 Nd4 Rad8 16 Ne6 Rd7 17 Rad1
[FEN "4r1k1/1b1rn1pp/ppppNp2/5P2/
4P3/2N5/PPP3PP/3R1RK1 b - - 0 17"]
17...Nc8?
Capablanca changes plans and decides on an exchange sacrifice. He would have
done better to continue with his original idea of 17...c5 followed by ...d5 which he
had reckoned would guarantee the draw. If 18 Nd5 Bxd5 19 exd5 b5 followed by
working his knight around to e5 with ...Nc8-b6 and then via c4 or d7 to the key
locking square.
18 Rf2 b5
This leads to the opening of the a-file. Black would have done better to prepare the
exchange sacrifice without delay.
19 Rfd2 Rde7 20 b4 Kf7 21 a3 Ba8
"My play throughout was of a most irresolute character," wrote Capablanca later.
On pages 244-5 of the English tournament book Capablanca's socialising is blamed
for his collapse. There it is said that Capablanca had made the mistake the previous
day (when he had the bye) of going to a fashionable restaurant with friends and
staying up too late. Then after the Lasker game, although he had to play Tarrasch
next day, Capablanca had a date with an attractive woman that went on into the wee
hours of the morning. 21...Rxe6 might even yet have saved the game, although there
has been much debate over this.
22 Kf2 Ra7 23 g4 h6 24 Rd3 a5 25 h4 axb4 26 axb4 Rae7 27 Kf3
27 Rg3 was correct according to Capablanca.
27...Rg8 28 Kf4 g6
Black now becomes paralysed. 28...g5+ (taking advantage of White's inaccurate
king manoeuvre) was the last chance: 29 hxg5 hxg5+ 30 Kg3 Rh8 31 Ra1 Bb7 32
Rdd1 Ke8 33 e5 Reh7 34 Ne4 Rh3+ 35 Kf2 Rh2+ 36 Ke1 Rxc2 37 Nd2 "and the
struggle is still complex" according to the editor of the English tournament book.
29 Rg3 g5+ 30 Kf3 Nb6 31 hxg5 hxg5 32 Rh3 Rd7 33 Kg3 Ke8 34 Rdh1
Bb7
[FEN "4k1r1/1b1r4/1nppNp2/1p3Pp1/
1P2P1P1/2N3KR/2P5/7R w - - 0 35"]
35 e5!
The decisive breakthrough, which frees e4 for the second knight, after which Black
soon loses material.
35...dxe5 36 Ne4 Nd5 37 N6c5 Bc8 38 Nxd7 Bxd7 39 Rh7 Rf8 40 Ra1 Kd8
41 Ra8+ Bc8 42 Nc5 1-0
This victory alone would have been insufficient to assure Lasker of first prize but his
countryman came to his aid in the next round, as Capablanca slipped up against
Tarrasch in a surprising way.
Jose Raul Capablanca Siegbert Tarrasch
St Petersburg final 1914
Four Knights Game [C49]
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bb5 Bb4 5 0-0 0-0 6 d3 Bxc3 7 bxc3 d5?!
Tarrasch tried to surprise Capablanca with the Svenonius variation but found his
opponent prepared.
8 Bxc6 bxc6 9 Nxe5 Qd6 10 Bf4 Re8 11 Qf3
Tarrasch believed this was a new move and thought for half an hour. 11 exd5 Rxe5
12 d4 Re1 would lead to an equal endgame according to Tarrasch.
11...dxe4 12 dxe4 Rxe5
[FEN "r1b3k1/p1p2ppp/2pq1n2/4r3/4PB2/
2P2Q2/P1P2PPP/R4RK1 w - - 0 13"]
13 Rfd1!?
The tournament book says White should have played 13 Rad1 Bg4 14 Qg3 Bxd1
15 Bxe5 Qe6 16 Bxf6 Qxf6 17 Rxd1 "with a pawn to the good and the better
position." However, the computer finds the resource for Black 14...Qe6! which
keeps the game roughly level; e.g., 15 Bxe5 Nxe4 16 Qf4 Bxd1 17 Rxd1 f5=.
13...Bg4 14 Qg3??
Capablanca makes a fatal oversight, thinking that he is only making a temporary
piece sacrifice. The correct line was 14 Rxd6 Bxf3 15 Rxf6 gxf6 16 Bxe5 Bxe4
which Tarrasch says is equal for White, but he would have had quite some work to
do to hold it with Black: 17 Bxf6 Bxc2 18 Re1.
14...Bxd1 15 Bxe5
Apparently Capablanca now expected 15...Qd8 16 Bxf6 Qxf6 17 Rxd1 with an
extra pawn.
extra pawn.
15...Qd2!
Now the threat of ...Qe1 mate, which would not have been possible after 13 Rad1,
means that White remained a piece down.
16 f3 Nh5 17 Qf2
If 17 Qh4 g5 forces Qf2.
17...Qxf2+ 18 Kxf2 Bxc2 19 Rc1 Ba4 20 Bxc7
White, although having only a pawn for a knight, was able to resist for a long time
because of the discoordination of the black forces. Eventually Tarrasch brought
home the point after eighty-two moves.
[FEN "r5k1/p1B2ppp/2p5/7n/b3P3/
2P2P2/P4KPP/2R5 b - - 0 20"]
20...Rc8 21 Rb1 Bb5 22 Rd1 Kf8 23 Be5 Ke7 24 a4 Bc4 25 Rd4 Be6 26 Rb4
Bd7 27 Rb7 Ra8 28 Ke3 Nf6 29 a5 Ke8 30 Bd4 a6 31 f4 c5 32 Bxf6 gxf6 33
Rb6 Ke7 34 f5 Bb5 35 g4 Rd8 36 Kf4 Rd1 37 h4 h6 38 Rb7+ Kf8 39 Rc7 c4
40 g5 hxg5+ 41 hxg5 Rf1+ 42 Kg4 Rg1+ 43 Kf4 fxg5+ 44 Ke5 Re1 45 Kf6
Rxe4 46 Rxf7+ Ke8 47 Rg7 g4 48 Rg5 Bc6 49 Kg7 Bd5 50 Rg6 Re7+ 51
Kh6 Be4 52 Rxg4 Bxf5 53 Rxc4 Re5 54 Kg5 Bd3+ 55 Kf4 Rf5+ 56 Kg4
Rxa5 57 Rd4 Bb5 58 Kf4 Ra3 59 Ke5 Bd7 60 c4 Kd8 61 Rd2 Kc7 62 Kd4
a5 63 Rd3 Ra1 64 Kc3 Rc1+ 65 Kb2 Rh1 66 Rd5 a4 67 Rd2 Bc6 68 Ka2
Kb6 69 Rb2+ Kc5 70 Rb1 Rh3 71 Rg1 Kxc4 72 Rc1+ Kb5 73 Rb1+ Kc5 74
Rc1+ Kd6 75 Rd1+ Bd5+ 76 Kb2 a3+ 77 Ka1 Kc5 78 Rc1+ Bc4 79 Rg1 Rh2
80 Rg5+ Kb4 81 Rg1 Ra2+ 82 Kb1 Rd2 0-1
In the penultimate round Capablanca regained some ground, winning against
Marshall in a tough game while Lasker was held to a draw by Tarrasch. Therefore
going into the last round, Lasker led by half a point. He had white against Marshall
while Capablanca had white against Alekhine. They both won and so Lasker
reaffirmed his status as World Champion for the last time, scoring an amazing 7/8
against top grandmaster opposition.
The outbreak of war in August 1914 saw great upheavals for many chess players
and it ended or ruined many careers, apart from the masters who were actually killed
in the fighting that lasted until November 1918. Rubinstein, for example, was never
the same force again. Amateur chess was soon hit, with many entrants withdrawing
from the British Championship held in Chester in August, and although some chess
clubs did continue through the war, many failed or suspended their activities. Also
many British chess columns ceased with the outbreak of war, although The Field,
Illustrated London News, and Daily Telegraph continued. Gunsberg, in particular,
suffered a serious loss of income.
The world champion Emanuel Lasker returned to Germany after Saint Petersburg,
and during the war Lasker made some unwise public statements, which made him
persona non grata in England for a long time afterwards. His cousin Edward
Lasker, having mixed parentage, was permitted to sail from England to then-neutral
U.S.A. at the outbreak of war.
The British Championship of 1914 was held in Chester and the outbreak of war led
to many last-minute withdrawals from the various tournaments. Only eleven players
instead of the usual twelve competed in the championship (as one of the late
replacements himself withdrew) and the tournament ended in a tie between
Blackburne and F. D. Yates. The small-minded British Chess Federation insisted on
a play-off being held to decide the title, despite several calls in the press for it to be
shared, and ultimately (Blackburne being too unwell to play Yates that winter) the
championship was awarded to Yates alone.
The German Federation's international tournament at Mannheim was in progress

when war broke out. The masters who were citizens of the Russian empire found
themselves in a difficult situation; most were interned, first in Mannheim and then
moved to Baden-Baden. Bogoljubow was among their number. Alekhine, perhaps
because of his aristocratic family, was released and came to England before returning
to Russia. The tournaments played among the internees are a fascinating subject for
research, and Tony Gillam of Nottingham is preparing a book on that subject, which
will be very welcome when it eventually appears.
Alekhine had played the following game a few days before the outbreak of
hostilities.
Alexander Alekhine Hans Fahrni
DSB-19.Congress Mannheim (11), 1914
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bg5 Be7 5 e5 Nfd7 6 h4
White enlivens the Classical French main line with a gambit. This has become known
as the Albin-Chatard-Alekhine Attack, the latter's name being included principally
because of this famous brilliancy.
6...Bxg5
Accepting the pawn is dangerous but there is no clearly safe way of declining the
offer either.
7 hxg5 Qxg5 8 Nh3 Qe7 9 Nf4 Nf8
This is too passive. The main lines are 9...g6 and 9...Nc6.
10 Qg4
[FEN "rnb1kn1r/ppp1qppp/4p3/3pP3/3P1NQ1/
2N5/PPP2PP1/R3KB1R b KQkq - 0 10"]
White already threatens not only 11 Qg7, but also 11 Nfxd5 exd5 12 Qxc8+,
revealing one of the main ideas behind White's eighth move.
10...f5
This meets both the immediate dangers but allows White to open the centre and
creates a new weakness (see move thirteen).
11 exf6 gxf6 12 0-0-0 c6 13 Re1! Kd8
13...Nbd7 is useless because of 14 Nxe6, while if; 13...Na6 (hoping to bolster the
centre by ...Nc7) White continues 14 Bxa6 bxa6 15 Nfxd5 cxd5 16 Nxd5 Qf7 17
Qf4 threatening both 18 Nxc7+ and 18 Nxf6+ (Alekhine).
14 Rh6! e5
Striving for active defence since it is very hard for Black to find a constructive move.
14...Bd7 is not immediately disastrous but nor does it achieve much and White
continues the attack by 15 Qh4 (to force a new weakness) 15...f5 16 Qg3.
15 Qh4 Nbd7 16 Bd3
Threatening 17 Bf5 among other things.
16...e4 17 Qg3
This revives the threat of Nfxd5.
[FEN "r1bk1n1r/pp1nq2p/2p2p1R/3p4/
3PpN2/2NB2Q1/PPP2PP1/2K1R3 b - - 0 17"]
17...Qf7
In the first volume of his Best Games, Alekhine wrote that Black cannot play
17...Qd6 for after 18 Bxe4! dxe4 19 Rxe4 he would be defenceless against the
threat 20 Qg7, but Black could avoid the worst by 18...Ne6! although it means
White has regained his pawn and will continue the attack without any concessions.
My computer thinks that 18 Nxe4 is therefore more forceful and decisive. Instead
17...Nb6 is met by 18 f3 and if 18...f5 19 fxe4 fxe4 20 Nxe4 dxe4 21 Rxe4 with a
winning attack.
18 Bxe4 dxe4 19 Nxe4
[FEN "r1bk1n1r/pp1n1q1p/2p2p1R/8/
3PNN2/6Q1/PPP2PP1/2K1R3 b - - 0 19"]
19...Rg8
Alekhine correctly judged that if 19...Qxa2 20 Nxf6 Nxf6 21 Qg7! White is
winning, although slower computers need time to appreciate that after 21...N6d7 22
Qxh8 Qa1+ 23 Kd2 Qa5+ 24 Kd1 Kc7 25 d5 Black has no good continuation;
e.g., 25...Qa1+ (25...Kb8 26 Re8) 26 Kd2 Qa4 27 g3 Qb4+ 28 Qc3 and even the
exchange of queens brings no relief.
20 Qa3!
Alekhine was not deceived by 20 Nd6 which can be met by 20...Qxa2 "seeing that
White's discovered checks do not lead to mate."
20...Qg7
If 20...Qe7 Alekhine gave 21 Qa5+ b6 22 Qc3 winning, though the computer
prefers simply 21 Qxe7 Kxe7 22 Nxf6+.
21 Nd6! Nb6 22 Ne8! Qf7
Or 22...Nc4 23 Qc5 Qf7 and now the computer prefers the complicated 24 Nd6
but White can just win by 24 Rxf6 (Alekhine); 22...Qd7 23 Nxf6.
23 Qd6+ forcing mate. 1-0
Postscript
I concur with many of the criticisms made by ChessCafe.com colleague Olimpiu
Urcan in his December column about the website chessgames.com, though I have by
no means investigated it in the detail that he has. I rarely look at that site,
occasionally when other sites link to it, and I have usually found it a waste of time.
My own site does not link to it.
As for the so-called historical articles on the chessgames.com site, you can be pretty
sure that every one will contain at least one error, probably plagiarised from a
previous work of equally dubious provenance. For example, Urcan's article links to
a page about the Steinitz-Gunsberg chess match of 1890-91 and Urcan suspects
that chessgames.com has obtained its information from Nick Pope's much more
reliable Chess Archaeology website without attribution.
However, I see that the chessgames article includes an incorrect statement that the
Hungarian-born Gunsberg was a British citizen at the time of the match, "making him
the first British challenger to the World Chess Championship." However, as readers
of my book Eminent Victorian Chess Players will know, Gunsberg did not
become a naturalized British subject until 1908. (I am absolutely certain about this,
having examined the Gunsberg naturalization file at the British National Archives.)
The original source of the error at chessgames.com is probably the very bad book
Grandmasters of Chess by Harold Schonberg. By now, that mistake has probably
been repeated in numerous other places.
My first recommendation to you is to delete chessgames.com from your favourites (if
it is there) and not to follow any links to it. Secondly, if you are in need of an online
chess game database, I suggest the NicBase online database which offers a free
searchable database of about 1.7 million high-class games.

by Tim Harding

16/7/2014
The Kibitzer
Search ChessCafe
We are still ironing out some wrinkles in the website redesign. In

the meantime enjoy this month's The Kibitzer. Please support this
column with a purchase from our chess shop.
Purchases from our

accessible:
The Oldest Chess Leagues and a

Success Story
The Kibitzer
Tim Harding
Translate this page
Select Language
Pow ered by
Translate
Welcome back to Kibitzer readers and a warm welcome to new

readers. Before beginning this month's topic, a few sentences are in
order to reset the scene. To remind the former, but chiefly for the benefit
of the latter, The Kibitzer is a wide-ranging column that is posted on the
second Wednesday of each month. It features articles on both historical
and contemporary topics, usually (though not always) including a couple
of games, and occasionally dealing with byways in opening theory. The
first Kibitzer article appeared here in June 1996, and it was one of the
two original columns on the site. Many of the early columns are still freely
available in the ChessCafe.com Archives, but in most cases any game
files associated with them have long disappeared and I regret that I
cannot answer questions about any but the most recent articles.
Some of you may, during the first half of this year, have seen the
historical articles that I have been posting (on the usual schedule) at my
own website. If you have missed them, please look them up over the
next few weeks as I do not guarantee they will remain indefinitely. These
are drafts for a future book of essays on chess history and part of the
purpose in posting them was to elicit feedback, and I am grateful to
those readers who have provided it. However, it will not be possible for
me to keep updating them because (by the time this article is posted) I
will be engaged in the 2014 Irish Chess Championship.
Bent Larsen's Best Games

by Bent Larsen
Grandmaster Preparation:
Endgame Play
by Jacob Aagaard
After that I shall enter the most critical and intensive phase of work on
my biography and game collection about Joseph Henry Blackburne
(1841-1924) that I am writing for the McFarland publishing house. This
will be a very large book containing a full treatment of his life and more
than 1,000 of his games (many annotated in varying degrees). Finishing
that by my deadline will not allow me to do much else or conduct much
correspondence for the rest of this year, except of course writing the
monthly Kibitzers.
Chess clubs and chess leagues
The question I deal with this month is: what are the oldest chess leagues
in the world? I am going to "cheat" by assuming that there were probably
none outside the United Kingdom before the twentieth century, perhaps
not until after the First World War. To set me right, however, I should
welcome information (evidenced by sources, please) about the earliest
chess leagues elsewhere in the world.
Grandmaster Preparation:
Attack & Defence
by Jacob Aagaard
To make it clear what I mean, I define a chess league as a competition

(usually annual) in which teams from various chess clubs in a city or
geographic region associate to play regular matches against each other,
possibly in more than one division, and usually competing for one or
more trophies. This generally (but not necessarily) involves a regional or
http://www.chesscafe.com/kibitz/kibitz.htm
1/14
16/7/2014
The Kibitzer
national association or some kind of supra-club association to which the

clubs affiliate and run the competition. The trophy may well be a cup but
I want to make a clear distinction between a league (where all teams play
each other) and a cup competition which involves elimination of
unsuccessful teams. I am also excluding by my definition inter-club
competitions of a more loosely structured kind, where clubs do not
necessarily play all the others, and where the size of teams may vary,
even if there is sometimes a trophy at stake.
The definitions stated in the previous paragraph are not unusual. For
example, consider the way the amateur sport of rugby union (the fifteenplayer game) was structured in the post-1945 period (and indeed
before), in the days when my father played for Saracens. The thirteenplayer Rugby League game had broken away from the Union game in
the late nineteenth century, and (until about the 1970s, I think) the
amateur club teams at all levels did not have leagues. Instead
newspapers might publish tables showing the relative success of the firstclass teams among themselves, but strictly speaking these were all
friendly matches and top teams did not play all the others. Leagues were
seen as a sign of professionalism.
The inter-club chess scene in Britain until the 1880s was rather like that,
as I shall explain in more detail in a moment. I am still researching this
subject and it may be that some readers based in England, who may
have better access than I to records of early clubs and leagues, may be
able to add to what I have to say or correct me on some points. In such
cases, I will do what I have done in the past, and put the new points or
corrections in a postscript at the end of a later article.
As I have written elsewhere, chiefly in my history of correspondence
chess, the evolution of chess clubs in the early stages was heavily
focused on the membership (often small) attending meetings regularly and
not on competition with other clubs. Some early clubs kept records of
attendance (the early Nottingham Chess Club for instance) and some
even fined members who missed meetings. This was a survival strategy
for if attendance fell off then the club would dissolve, as many indeed
did. Competition with other clubs, even if they wanted it, was rarely
possible by personal meeting because few had neighbouring clubs, and in
the few cases (such as London) where they did, the members were
probably of different social echelons and so would not normally
associate. Other factors militating against regular inter-club play overthe-board were the great expense and difficulty of travel before the
railway network grew and social conditions led to more leisure time.
Clubs did, however, sometimes compete by post, of which the most
celebrated example was the 1824-1828 London-Edinburgh match. On
rare occasions, clubs did meet for face-to-face matches, these
sometimes took the form of consultation games, rather than the kind of
match that later evolved where each player had one opponent. The first
known match, between the chess clubs of Doncaster and Wakefield in
1838, was of this kind. In 1844 Maidstone and Rochester (which had
previously played postal games) met in person at an inn halfway between
the towns and played eight-a-side, possibly individual pairings though the
reports do not state this. That contest, discovered by Dr Adrian Harvey,
was probably the earliest prototype of the modern inter-club match.
Then in April 1855 the clubs of Liverpool and Manchester, the two
greatest outside London, met in Liverpool, nine-a-side. Individual results
were preserved and that may be the earliest match where this is the case.
Nevertheless, it was not like a modern match because on each board the
players played as many games as they could in the available time: often
two, sometimes three. This clearly gave an advantage to a club with an
2/14
16/7/2014
The Kibitzer
outstanding player who could win games quickly, as when Liverpool met
Manchester again over-the-board in 1862, and twenty-year-old
Blackburne won 3-0 on his board. Even in the 1870s and later it was
quite common in team matches for more than one game per board to be
played.
Two early leagues: Edinburgh and Lancashire
The dates of establishment of some chess leagues are definitely known.
The Lancashire chess league is certainly one of the oldest but its
establishment was not straightforward, either historically or
geographically (since part of the Manchester conurbation is actually in
Cheshire). For the information in this paragraph I am reliant chiefly on
research by Alan Smith, published in Chess and Manchester (edited by
Eric Nowell). That book was published in 1990 by the Manchester and
District Chess Association, on the centenary of a meeting held at
Manchester Chess Club on 14 June 1890, with representatives of
twenty-four Lancashire and Cheshire Chess Clubs. However, two of the
biggest and longest-established clubs in the region (Manchester
Athenaeum and Liverpool) declined to attend; in all, forty clubs had been
invited. A proposal was made to classify the clubs into leagues, within
which each would play each other, but in that year there were only
friendly matches and no formal committee to administer the competition,
only a Secretary. Eventually on 13 June 1891, at another meeting, the
name Lancashire Chess League Association was formally agreed and
thirty-seven clubs were divided into four leagues (what we would
nowadays call Divisions). The first match was played on 10 October
1891 but apparently not all matches were played out that season. The
1892/93 season was the first time that all four leagues were fully
conducted and a knock-out cup tournament was also instituted. So you
can take your pick for the start year of the Lancashire chess league but
to meet all my criteria as specified above, 1892 should probably be
taken as the commencement.
The Edinburgh Chess League's formation is more clear-cut. It was
constituted about Christmas-time 1903, as reported in The Scotsman on
26 December, with a committee formed to administer it and eight clubs
participating in the first competition being played in 1903/04 winter
season. The founder members were the Edinburgh University Union
Chess Club, the Inland Revenue, the Edinburgh Deaf and Dumb Chess
Club, the Edinburgh Chess Club, the Portobello Chess Club, the
Edinburgh Working Men's Club and Institute's Chess Club, the
Philosophical Institution, and the Edinburgh Insurance Chess Club. Each
team was to play each other once over six boards, one game per board.
Moreover a time limit for play was set: twenty-four moves per hour. A
draw decided which teams played which at home. A drawn match
counted one point and a won match two points; in the event of a tie for
first place on match points, the teams would play a deciding match. Also
the player who scored the most points would be champion of the league
(with a play-off if necessary).
One proviso was that the Edinburgh Chess Club (Britain's oldest
surviving club) would not field its "senior team"; otherwise the outcome
of the competition would have been a foregone conclusion, but how they
decided which players were ineligible to participate in the league was not
made clear in the Scotsman's report. All players had to be amateurs and
bona fide members of the clubs they represented and of course no
player could be on more than one team in a season. More teams joined
the league in the next few years. The Edinburgh was almost certainly
Scotland's oldest chess league as the website for the Glasgow Chess
League indicates the first winners were Queen's Park in 1908/09.
3/14
16/7/2014
The Kibitzer
These were not the earliest leagues, however. There are three wellknown candidates for the oldest: the Woodhouse Cup in Yorkshire
(dating from 1884), the London League (origins somewhat obscure),
and the Armstrong Cup in Dublin (started in 1888). Prima facie, the
Woodhouse must be the oldest but it is not so clear because originally it
was a knock-out competition, not a league. Let us now examine their
competing claims.
First to start: the Woodhouse Cup
The early history of the Edwin Woodhouse Cup was documented, with
many statistics, in an article in the July 1913 number of British Chess
Magazine, after Leeds Chess Club had just won the original trophy
outright. I have also consulted Steve Mann's "Yorkshire Chess History"
web pages. The idea to have an inter-club competition in West
Yorkshire was proposed at the twenty-ninth annual meeting of the West
Yorkshire Chess Association, which was chaired by the Mayor of
Leeds, Alderman Edwin Woodhouse. B.C.M. just says this was in "April
1884" while Mann's web pages suggest it was the twenty-sixth and I
found a report of the meeting in the Leeds Times, 3 May 1884 which
confirms that date.
The Woodhouse Cup
After a proposal for the Bradford Exchange Chess Club to join the
Association was accepted, its president Hartwig Cassel proposed that
club secretaries should meet each October to arrange fixtures for the
ensuing season, "that it should not be incumbent upon either club to
entertain each other at the matches," and that a challenge cup should be
subscribed and competed for. This was agreed and the Mayor asked to
be allowed to present the Cup, which was to be the property of the
West Yorkshire Chess Association. The date for the first meeting of
secretaries (13 October) was set, and on that occasion the original rules,
which are reproduced in full on Mann's site, were agreed.
Initially the competition was open to clubs in the West Riding of
Yorkshire, and the size of teams was not fixed. They could be between
eight and twenty, the town with the smaller population to determine the
number (clearly a fair condition). No more than two games were to be
played at a board and if one team defaulted a board it was scored 2-0
against them. Sessions were to last five hours with the second game not
to be commenced unless there was less at least an hour remaining; also
either player could call for a fifteen-minute break before starting the
second game. There was no time limit for play. The B.C.M. article of
4/14
16/7/2014
The Kibitzer
1913 incorrectly says that "chess clocks had not yet been invented,"
which is untrue as the first double clocks (whose design is generally
attributed to Thomas Bright Wilson of Manchester) had been used at the
London 1883 Congress. However, such clocks must have been still rare,
expensive, and not in general use.
The first season of the Woodhouse Cup was very disappointing. The
disparate size and strengths of clubs discouraged many from entering.
My information from the above sources on what happened is
supplemented by reports in the Irish Sportsman early in 1885. Only
Leeds, Bradford, and Wakefield actually competed; Dewsbury and
Huddersfield initially entered but withdrew. Bradford engaged Isidor
Gunsberg to coach its players and when the first match was played, on
17 January 1885, Bradford beat Leeds by 20 to 15, two games
being played in most cases. On 31 January Bradford defeated Wakefield
over eight boards to become first holders of the Woodhouse Cup.
Unfortunately, neither the B.C.M. article nor Mann's pages make it clear
when the Woodhouse Club actually became a true league in which each
club played against each other. The B.C.M. article does, however, say
that in 1891 (probably meaning the 1890/91 season) Wakefield,
Dewsbury and Hall participated, "the competition being then conducted
on the 'knock-out' system." To obtain more information about other early
years of the Woodhouse Cup, I turned to the British Newspaper
Archive.
Because of the unsatisfactory beginning, Hartwig Cassel made a new
proposal that a second competition be instituted to cater for smaller
clubs. After much discussion, it was agreed that "B" teams of clubs
entering the Woodhouse Cup could not be admitted to the new
competition, which had been Cassel's original idea. The new trophy, said
to be a salver, was handed over by Cassel at the meeting on 17 October
1885 which instituted the Yorkshire County Chess Association. It may
also have been at this meeting that the rule of only one game per board
was introduced. Reports appeared in the Sheffield Independent and the
Leeds Times on 24 October. This second competition became the
Bradford Observer Challenge Trophy Competition. (Cassel was chess
editor of the Bradford Observer before he emigrated to New York.)
The Woodhouse Cup was opened to clubs outside West Yorkshire but
the new competition was only open to "minor" clubs in the West Riding.
The broadening of the competition to the whole county in 1885 meant
that two more Yorkshire cities with a long and strong chess tradition
(Hull and Sheffield) were now eligible to enter. Seven clubs were paired
at the above meeting, the first round being Halifax v. Leeds, Huddersfield
v. Wakefield, Hull v. Bradford, with Sheffield having the bye. However,
there is some doubt about whether Halifax and Hull actually participated.
A new set of pairings appeared in the Sheffield Independent of 28
November showing just five rounds, to be played between 6 January
and 20 March 1885, with only five clubs participating. Nevertheless, if
this pattern was actually proceeded with, then it is clear that the
Woodhouse Cup in its second season was a true league, albeit a small
one.
The winner was Sheffield, who, according to Mann, insisted on being
allowed to play all their matches at home, a rather unfair advantage.
(According to the above report, Sheffield was drawn to play away to
Wakefield and to meet Huddersfield at a neutral venue, Penistone.) The
Sheffield Daily Telegraph, which this season reported the Woodhouse
Cup quite thoroughly, said on 7 February 1887 that the winning team last
season was the Sheffield and District Chess Association "which is
composed of affiliated clubs in the town and neighbourhood." So the
players did not all come from the long-established Sheffield Athenaeum
5/14
16/7/2014
The Kibitzer
club.
The same report says that the first round of the 1886/87 season was
played about two weeks earlier, when Sheffield had defeated Wakefield
7-1 while Leeds and Halifax drew 4-4. Then on Saturday 5 February
Sheffield (led by the Rev E. J. Hunstman) played Halifax, who insisted
on the minimum number of boards (eight) and Sheffield only conceded
one draw. On the same day Leeds played Bradford over twenty boards
and won by 10 to 9. Two weeks later, Sheffield had to play away to
Bradford, who again elected for twenty boards. Bradford scored a
decisive victory while on the same day Halifax beat Wakefield, Leeds
having the bye. Bradford were away to Wakefield on 5 March over
eight boards, but one of the Wakefield players arrived too late and the
board was forfeited, so Bradford scored a narrow win in a match that
might otherwise have been tied.
The crucial Sheffield-Leeds match was postponed for a week but was
won by Leeds. That result was not to be found in the Sheffield Daily
Telegraph! In the final round, when Sheffield had the bye, Leeds had
only to beat Wakefield which they did without losing a game, while
Halifax beat Bradford to come second. The final report was found in the
Nottinghamshire Guardian on 1 April which had a crosstable of match
results between teams.
The meeting to arrange the 1887/88 Woodhouse Cup was held in Leeds
on 12 November, reported in the Leeds Mercury the following Monday.
It was decided to introduce a time limit of eighteen moves an hour, and
that the club which had the right to determine the number of boards to be
played should inform their opponents at least ten days before the match.
This implies that there must have been cases of players travelling and
then finding they had no opponent. The ballot for the rounds was made,
there being the same five teams entered as before: Bradford, Halifax,
Leeds, Sheffield, and Wakefield, the first matches to be played on 14
January 1888. As it transpired, however, Woodhouse Cup was not
competed for that season although the Bradford Observer trophy (a
knock-out competition that season) did go ahead. The reason for the
hiatus is not explained on Steve Mann's site but the 1913 B.C.M. article
says "In 1888 there was a very severe epidemic of small-pox in Sheffield
during the winter months, and the competition was abandoned for that
year."
The Sheffield Daily Telegraph of 12 January, two days before the first
round should have been played, clarifies what actually happened.
Wakefield, who were due to play Halifax, withdrew from the
competition, while "Bradfordhas refused to meet Sheffield at the latter
place on Saturday, owing to the small-pox epidemic." Sheffield had not
actually withdrawn but a meeting of the West Yorkshire Chess
Association on 30 January decided that the only fair course was to
abandon the competition for that year.
That was the only break, other than the two World Wars of the twentieth
century which also led to the suspension of most other chess leagues.
The B.C.M. article also says that the Leeds club was the only one to
take part in every competition up to 1913; it is not said why Bradford
missed two seasons. From the above, it seems clear that the Woodhouse
Cup was almost always a league except in the very first season and the
1891 competition, and the year when epidemic prevented it being held at
all. Those details were what created some doubt whether the
Woodhouse Cup could be considered the earliest league, going by the
strict definition above.
The B.C.M. article notes that in the 1894/95 season it was established
6/14
16/7/2014
The Kibitzer
that there would be ten players on each side playing each other both
home and away. So by 1894/95 the Woodhouse Cup had become a
clearly modern league. There is a very nice quote on page 282 of the
B.C.M. article, which was probably written by the magazine's then
editor, I. M. Brown, himself a Yorkshireman, and which indicates the
spirit in which early league chess was conducted, as well as the reason
why it perhaps took so long for such contests to begin:
"One of the arguments against the institution of a contest of this
kind was that it would engender a keenness of play that would
tend to destroy sportsmanship, lead to sharp practices, and
embitter the relationships between the clubs. This is the exact
opposite of what has actually occurred."
The original cup was won by Leeds after victories in 1911-1912-1913
so a second cup was instituted. Leeds won in 1913/14 and 1914/15
after which there was no contest for the next four seasons because of the
war. The competition was reinstituted in 1919/20 when Leeds won
again. Eventually Sheffield won three years in a row, concluding in 1926
and so that trophy became theirs. The Leeds Club then redonated the
original Woodhouse Cup and it has been played for ever since, except
for the six winter seasons when World War Two was in progress. If no
distinction is made between the original and second trophy, the
Woodhouse is certainly the oldest still-existing inter-club annual
competition, yet it is not the league that has been contested the most
times.
The London league and its precursors
You might expect that London would have the oldest inter-club
competition but several factors militated against the establishment of a
league in the capital before the late nineteenth century. There were social
factors and size factors and playing strength. A "posh" club like the St.
George's (its members being aristocrats, clergymen and/or possessors of
"old money") would only occasionally stoop to play the City of London
whose members, though many of them were quite prosperous, had to
work for a living. The City of London Chess Club was so strong that if it
put out its full strength against any club other than the St. George's or the
British Chess Club (in the latter's heyday of the late 1880s and early
1890s) that the result would be a foregone conclusion. In fact most of
the City club's matches against other clubs involved their third and fourth
class players, who would received odds of pawn and two moves or a
knight from the club's crack players such as Blackburne, MacDonnell, or
Potter.
From the 1870s onwards, there was regular inter-club match activity in
London, but much of it involved competition among the clubs catering to
men of the artisan and lower middle-classes, which were in some cases
organised on a geographic and sometimes on special-interest basis.
Among the most prominent of these in the 1870s and 1880s were the
Jewish, the Bermondsey, the Pancras, the Railway Clearing House Club
at Euston (composed of clerks who had a very well organised social
club), the Camden Athenaeum (precursor of the Athenaeum Chess
Club), and the Endeavour Club of Brixton, whose history is being traced
by Martin Smith in a long-running series of articles on the excellent
Streatham and Brixton Chess Club blog. When an individual emerged
from one of these clubs as especially talented at chess, he would usually
have no difficulty obtaining election to the City of London Club: among
them Isidor Gunsberg and the problemist E. N. Frankenstein (of the
Jewish club), Thomas Beardsell (of Bermondsey) and Mr. Keats or
Keates (of the St. James's Working Men's Club.)
7/14
16/7/2014
The Kibitzer
In 1871 the Working Men's Club and Institute Union, inspired by Lord
Lyttelton who gave the first trophy, instituted a chess competition for
affiliated clubs which took the form of knock-out matches. This led to a
winning team that would then challenge the previous year's champion
club. The trophy (after the first year) was decided by the match between
the champion players of each club, with the important proviso that the
winner could not put forward the same champion in succeeding years. In
1871, when possibly only four clubs entered, the winner was Beardsall
who beat Bellew of Mile-end Institute in the semi-final and Stevens of
Bedford Institute (of Spital square) in the Final, which was played at the
W.M.C.I.U. central office in Strand on 14 June. Eventually the trophy
was won outright by the Jewish club who won in their first three years of
competition 1876, 1877, and 1878, their champions in those years being
Louis Cohen, J. Pfahl, and Abraham Mocatta. Other clubs were formed
in the inner and outer suburbs during the 1870 and 1880s, some of
which vanished after a few years or became amalgamated; others were
more successful, including the North London club (based around
Hampstead, I think) which had some powerful supporters. I believe that
Hackney Archive has papers relating to that club which I have not yet
seen.
By 1878, according to P. W. Sergeant's estimate in his A Century of
British Chess, there were about thirty chess clubs in or around London;
I rather think that may be an under-estimate. Potter's column in Land
and Water records that on the 1st of April a meeting of club secretaries
(including Bermondsey, Jewish, Railway clearing house, and the
Athenaeum), attempted to form a Metropolitan Chess Association. H. F.
Gastineau of the City club was in the chair, and its president was G. W.
Medley of the St. George's. Sergeant says that Medley, who was
Lwenthal's executor, had proposed to make a grant to the association
from the available funds in the estate but the idea was too poorly
supported. Nevertheless, informal and fairly regular competition between
all but the largest clubs was certainly a major feature of London chess by
the 1880s, with club secretaries meeting in the autumn to arrange
fixtures, but it lacked formal structure.
However, this initiative was possibly the germ of the Staunton Medal
which I believe was instituted in 1880 and was awarded to the player
who had made the best result in club matches on the most successful
team. This medal is one topic on which more research is needed. I found
Land and Water, 21 May 1881, saying that five clubs were contending
for the Medal and the Bermondsey club were likely to win it: "The
Bermondsey Chess Club has always stood very high in our estimation.
Its members owe nothing to social advantages or to the patronage of
anyone. Sturdy and independent, what their club is and what they as
individual players are they owe to themselves alone."
It was less clear which player in the club was to have the medal.
Beardsell was the most likely, his score at present being +10 =2 -2
whereas Barker (+6 -2 =1) and Watts (6-1) had played fewer matches.
On 18 June Potter reported the presentation of the medal to Beardsell.
Who won it in subsequent years I cannot say.
Then in 1883 Herbert Baldwin of the North London club and Leopold
Hoffer, chess correspondent of The Field, announced plans for an interclub competition which became a reality the following year. The rules
were published at the start of the February 1884 issue of The ChessMonthly which said that: "In framing the following rules we have taken as
a basis the rules of the Staunton medal competition instituted by Mr.
Edward Marks, and we are indebted to his courteous co-operation and
intimate knowledge of the various competing clubs for the necessary
alternations."
8/14
16/7/2014
The Kibitzer
The clubs listed as competing for the trophy in its first year were the
Alexandra, Athenaeum, Bermondsey, Croydon, Excelsior, Greenwich,
Ibis, Kentish Town, Ludgate Circus, North London, Railway Clearing
House, South Hampstead, and South Norwood, with provision that the
list could be modified at the discretion of the donors. Teams had to
consist of at least eight members with nobody playing for more than one
club in any season.
However, the Baldwin/Hoffer Trophy was not an all-play-all league, as
Rule 4 made clear: "The minimum number of matches which shall qualify
any club for this competition is twelve, which shall be played against at
least six of the other clubs named." Matches played between 1 October
1883 and 30 April 1884 were taken into account, the club secretaries
being responsible for sending the reports to the editor of The Field or
the editor of The Chess-Monthly (i.e., Hoffer and Zukertort) by the first
week in May. So matches already played that season were included.
The rules for the second season of the Baldwin-Hoffer Trophy were
decided at meeting of club secretaries on 23 September 1884 and
published in the October 1884 number of The Chess-Monthly on page
34. They were clearer and more strict. The trophy was open for
competition amongst the metropolitan and district clubs and they must
formally enter by 15 October enclosing an entrance fee of 2s. 6d. (one
eighth of a pound). Most importantly, each club was to play one match
with every other entered club, so the go-as-you-please aspect was (in
theory at least) eliminated. In the case of a tie there would be a play-off
match. The entrance fees would go towards a medal for the most
successful player of the winning team, that club to decide which player
would win it. Matches had to be completed in time for results to be sent
in by the first week in May. There was also the crucial proviso that "the
trophy shall become the property of the club which shall first win it three
times."
The competition for the Staunton Medal presented by Marks also
continued for a time. A report in the Morning Post on 30 March 1885
shows that North London won both that year, but does not say which
player received the medal. In the Staunton competition they won eleven
matches and drew one out of twelve. In the Baldwin-Hoffer they won all
their seven matches. The defeated clubs were Brixton, Ludgate Circus,
Greenwich, Bermondsey, Kentish Town, the Athenaeum, and the
London & Westminster Bank. Next season Brixton did manage to
briefly interrupt the North London club's hegemony, being victorious in a
play-off match on 18 January 1886 by 6-4 (including six draws).
For the 1886/87 season, the entrants were stated to be the Athenaeum,
London and Westminster Bank, Brixton, North London, Railway
Clearing House, South Norwood, and Ludgate Circus, so this was only
a small fraction of the active clubs in the metropolis. The mighty clubs
stood aloof while the lesser ones judging they had no chance of success
mostly did not enter. North London made no mistake this time and on
Thursday 3 March, as MacDonnell reported in the Illustrated Sporting
and Dramatic News, they won for the third time and at a celebratory
dinner the Baldwin-Hoffer Trophy was presented to that club "whose
permanent property it has now become."
The short-lived career of that trophy meant that a new solution was
required. Sergeant states that in September 1887 a Metropolitan Chess
Clubs' Competition was founded, in two sections (Senior and Junior)
with a prize for each. There was indeed a meeting that day but it was not
until May 1888 that the committee of secretaries appointed that day
completed their work. According to a report in the Morning Post of 14
May, two prizes were to be offered for competition, and the committee
9/14
16/7/2014
The Kibitzer
would decide which clubs were to be classified as senior and which as

junior.
In each competition every club had to play one match with every other
club in the same division (as we would now call it) so these were clearly
to be what we now define as leagues. Senior teams had to field at least
twelve players; in the junior competition, not fewer than eight. In its
report, the Post (clearly mindful of what had happened to the previous
initiative) suggested that a cup or trophy might be instituted to be held for
the year (only) by the victorious club "and this would give a more
permanent character to the competitions." It warned, however, that
although the rules had been carefully drawn up, the area within which
clubs may be regarded as "metropolitan" (and so eligible to enter)
remained undefined, which could cause problems in future "seeing how
numerous are the clubs in the outlying suburbs."
So the establishment of the Metropolitan Chess Clubs Competitions was
the next stage to the formation of a true London League, but it is clear
from the above that the statement (to be found on the website of the
league) that the League was established in 1887 is misleading. In the
1887/88 season there were only friendly matches between clubs without
a formal competition. The initial steps to the League's formation did begin
in September 1887 but it did not actually exist until later. The Morning
Post of 24 September 1888 reported on the well-attended secretaries'
meeting the previous Saturday which had determined that seven clubs
had entered for the senior prize and eight from the junior. Although the
London Chess League, as a formally constituted body, only began in
1893 (according to Sergeant's book), it is fair to consider that 1888 is
the true year of its commencement which makes it precisely the same age
as its Irish rival discussed below.
The teams competing for the senior prize in the first season were the
North London, Athenaeum, Ludgate-circus, Blackfriars, Brixton,
London Banks, and the South Norwood. The teams competing for the
junior prize were (according to that report) the Post Office, Metropolitan
Board of Works, Great Western Railway, Exeter Hall, Polytechnic, St.
Martin's-le-Grand, Ibis, and the East London. I am not sure about some
of the clubs in that list; St. Martin's-le-Grand was actually the
headquarters of the Post office in those days, so did they enter two
teams or was there some mistake in the list? The Morning Post on 11
February announced that the Athenaeum had won the senior prize
although two matches in the competition were as yet unplayed. South
Norwood "unaccountably" defaulted five of the twelve boards in their
match with Athenaeum; in the games played the teams were level. I have
not found out which club won the Junior prize in the first season.
In the second season (1889/90) North London won the senior prize.
Another step towards the formation of a permanent body to administer
the league can be seen from a report in the Morning Post on 19 May
which said that the first annual dinner of the Metropolitan Chess Clubs
was held at the Holborn Restaurant the previous Thursday and the prizes
for the 1889/90 season were presented then. North London won the
senior trophy ("a massive silver medal") and Battersea Chess Club won
the junior prize. In the third year Ludgate Circus won the senior prize,
but in Sergeant's book, on page 214 (including a footnote), I find in
relation to 1890 that:
"The North London C.C. was so strong that, having won the
Senior Cup at the beginning of the year, it found no cup opponents
for the following winter, the competition falling through. In the
record officially supplied to the B.C.M. Annual, 1915, the
Ludgate Circus C.C. appears as the winner of the Senior event in
10/14
16/7/2014
The Kibitzer
the season 1890-1, from two other competitors only."

The Daily News, 17 September 1890, confirms this with a brief report
saying that only the North London, the Athenaeum and Ludgate Circus
had entered the senior competition, clearly being too strong for the rest.
There were twenty entries for the junior, which was therefore divided
into two sections with a play-off. However, a new force was about to
enter London chess. On 17 April 1890 the Metropolitan Chess Club
was founded by an amalgamation of smaller clubs and in 1891/92 it
entered the senior competition for the first time. For five seasons it
dominated the league.
At the September 1891 secretaries' meeting, although thirty-three clubs
were represented many had not entered teams that season. Only six
entered for the senior prize and eleven for the junior. Consideration was
given to inaugurating a third competition for the following year. At the
third annual dinner in May 1892 the president, L. A. Atherley-Jones MP
suggested that the present arrangement "would lead in the future to a
consolidation of all the clubs a sort of confederation which would give
birth to a central controlling power, able to direct all the chess clubs in
the Metropolis." This is what duly happened eventually so that in 1904
when the British Chess Federation was founded, the London Chess
League was one of the founder members while the City of London
Chess Club was not. However, I am still uncertain when precisely the
London Chess League was formally constituted.
The table of London League winners shows that it was played for in
1914/15 despite the start of the war but there was no competition for the
next four winters, and there was also no competition in the six winters of
World War Two. So it has been played 115 times up to now.
The donor's original inscription on the Armstrong Cup.
The Armstrong Cup

Despite the name, which is that of the trophy, the Armstrong Cup has
always been a league and not a knock-out cup. The trophy (see
pictures) was donated in 1888 by barrister William Armstrong "for
annual competition by the chess clubs of Dublin" and six teams entered in
the first season, playing each other twice. The first match was played on
20 October 1888. Therefore the Armstrong began in the same season as
the forerunner of the London League and (being generous to the latter) it
may be accepted that they are jointly the second oldest chess leagues.
Nowadays the Armstrong Cup and its subsidiary competitions are open
11/14
16/7/2014
The Kibitzer
to all the chess clubs in Ireland's eastern province, Leinster.

A full list of winners of the competition (except for the most recent
season) can be seen at David McAlister's website. It can be seen from
this that although the competition was played in 1891/92 no award of the
Cup was made because of a dispute. As with the other competitions
mentioned above, the First World War interrupted the Armstrong which
was played in 1914/1915 but not thereafter for several years. The Irish
War of Independence (against Britain) kept chess off the agenda until an
Irish Times report of 17 December 1921 which stated that "The
Armstrong Cup competition, which had not taken place for several years
owing to the war has this year been resumed." Ever since 1921/22 the
Armstrong has been played annually, with no interruption for the Second
World War because the Irish Free State (as it was then) remained
neutral.
Just after the victory: most of the Trinity team (minus top board Juri Firstov)
and three of the four reserves who played in some of the eight-board matches.
Front row (from left): Shane Sheedy, John Buckley, and Oisin Benson.
Second row: Tim Harding, Jacob Miller, Denis J. O'Donoghue, Anthony
Bourached, Rory Delaney, Karl McPhillips, and Stephen Moran.
The 2013/14 competition was won by Dublin University (otherwise

known as Trinity College Dublin) who were one of the six original
competitors. In my many years of playing for various teams in the
Armstrong, dating back to the 1976/77 season, this year was the first
time I had been on the winning team! (Though I did captain the
Athenaeum in 1974/75 when they won the London League and the
National Club Championship in Britain.) Trinity first won the Armstrong
in its third season, 1891, and won it for the fifth time in 1945 so there
was a very long wait for the sixth win, while in the intervening years
University College Dublin won it six times so we have now equalled our
rival (who don't play in the competition at present).
Leinster Chess Union president Charlie Talbot presents

Trinity College team captain Anthony Bourached
with the Armstrong Cup and his winner's medal
after the last round in April 2014.
12/14
16/7/2014
The Kibitzer
I had originally intended to include some games from team members in

this article but that will have to wait because several of us are playing in
the Irish Chess Championship and publishing games could assist our
rivals. I promise some next time.
The Armstrong Cup today with the new base.
In the meantime, the photos show the cup (which has just been enhanced
with a new base as there was no room for more winners' names to be
engraved), a photo taken on the night of the final round (just before
Easter), and also a photo of some of the team members taken recently.
Unfortunately our top board player, Juri Firstov, is not in the pictures.
Everybody else on the team has a close connection with the university,
being either a current undergraduate or postgraduate or else a recent
graduate.
To sum up, although the Armstrong Cup missed more years in the early
twentieth century than its rivals did, it has enjoyed in total more league
seasons than the others. Not counting that disputed early year, the
Armstrong Cup has been won 119 times. The London League (even if
we accept it as beginning in 1888/89) has "only" been played 115 times
(because of two breaks for war) while the Woodhouse Cup, although it
was first to start, also missed ten years for war and one for epidemic
which adds up to 118 competitions, and two of those were knockouts
not a proper league. Moreover the trophy for the winning team has
always been the same piece of silverware. So there is at least one basis
on which one could argue that the Armstrong Cup is the senior inter-club
competition.
by Tim Harding
13/14
16/7/2014
The Kibitzer
In ChessBase, PGN, and PDF formats. Viewable in Ipad, Itouch,

Kindle, ChessBase and other PGN and PDF viewers.

14/14
Search ChessCafe
PLAY
MAGNUS
CARLSEN
CHESS
Play chess against the World Champ Win a chance to play Carlse
Purchases from our

accessible:
We are still ironing out some wrinkles in the website redesign. In the
meantime enjoy this month's The Kibitzer. Please support this column
with a purchase from our chess shop.
The Kibitzer
Events on the Irish Chess Scene

It has been several years since I devoted a column to chess in Ireland, where I
live, but two interesting events in July are worthy of a Kibitzer column. This
also makes an appropriate follow-up to last month's column in which I proved
that the Armstrong Cup competition, dating from 1888, is one of the three
senior inter-club chess leagues in the world.
Tim Harding
Championships 1-X
by Tim Harding (ed.)
So I shall first report on the 2014 Irish Chess Championship, which was played
from 5-13 July in Dublin, and then on grandmaster Alexander Baburin's
blindfold chess performance a few days later. I also include at the end, as
promised, three games played by members of the winning Trinity College
Dublin team in the 2013/14 Armstrong. (All team members were invited to
submit games but the others were either too modest or preferred to conceal
their opening repertoires.)
Translate this page
The Irish Championship is always a nine-round Swiss system tournament,

played one game per day starting on the second weekend in July, and was
particularly strong this year, although there was only one IM and five FIDE
Masters in the field. On the other hand, there were about twenty experienced
Dublin-based experts capable of giving anyone a tough game. The large entry
was no doubt because the tournament, which rotates year to year around the
country, was played this year at a central Dublin venue (Trinity College)
which is easily accessible by public transport. Players rated 1900+ on either
the Irish Chess Union or FIDE lists could enter but exceptionally three players
rated just below 1900 were also admitted. They had a hard time.
Mannheim 1914 and
the Interned Russians

by Anthony Gillam
In this article I concentrate on the fight for top honours and a few unusual
happenings. My own result (-1) was disappointing, chiefly due to a couple of
poor opening choices and a blunder, costing me three losses, though I did
have two good wins and a couple of my draws were hard-fought to the end.
Readers who purchase the e-book of this column will also receive the
complete game file (minus notes to my own games.)
The time limit was a new one to me which just goes to show I have not been
playing enough tournaments lately. In fact it was the same used in the 2014
FIDE Olympiad, viz. an initial allocation of 40 moves to be played in 90
minutes, with a 30-second increment added after each move played. After
that, the game had to be played to a finish (without adjournments of course)
but additionally 30 minutes were added to a player's allocation, so long as he
made the 40-move time control, but those minutes were only shown on the
clock after one player had used up his initial allocation (including increments).
So there were some incidents where a flag was shown to have fallen but the
clock continued working and the time was eventually added. The players were
polled before the last round to ask whether they thought more time should be
allowed and most thought that at least an extra ten minutes should be
allocated. A limit of 1 hour 40 minutes with 30-second increments is almost
equivalent to the old 40/2 control, except that (since the last 30 seconds only
get added after completing move 40) it is really 40 moves in 1 hour 49 and a
half minutes. (In fact, I note that in the recent British Championship, the initial
clock setting was 1 hour 40 minutes and 30 seconds, presumably to get around
that objection.) Several players in Dublin thought that even that was too fast
for a national championship.
Progress of the championship
The controller used the Swiss Master program to generate the pairings, which
The Classical Era of
Modern Chess
by Peter Monte
were based on the June 2014 FIDE ratings (where players had a FIDE rating),
because, I was told, that was the current list when entries were being accepted.
In round one the top half played the bottom half, with white on the odd
numbered boards. Results mostly went as expected but there were two draws
and in one game the higher-rated player lost automatically when his mobile
phone rang in his bag after a few moves. Considering that disappointment, he
did well to reach 5 points eventually.
A curious incident occurred in one first round game, B.Palmer-S.Jessel, though
I am not sure exactly who offered the draw here. It is Black to play in the
diagram, which was the final position in the game. A curious thing about the
impact of this result is that the fifth seed, a FIDE Master not resident in
Ireland, came close to winning the tournament after this and another lucky
escape.
[FEN "5K2/4P3/3N2k1/8/8/8/7p/8 b - - 0 64"]
I suppose the players must have been very short of time yet it seems strange
that the next move of each player, obviously forced, were not played out.
White (the lower-rated player) can hardly lose so why not play on for a bit? In
that case, after 64...h1+Q 65 e8=Q+ Black would have to choose between
four squares for his king. In the event of 65...Kg5 or maybe even 65...Kh6
(others are obviously hopeless) maybe White, if down to his last thirty
seconds, might choose the wrong sixty-sixth move and let Black escape.
However, analysed calmly or by resorting to an endgame tablebase, it will
become clear that within a few moves, in every variation from the diagram,
Black should either lose his queen (to a knight fork or skewer on the h-file) or
else be checkmated. I leave it to readers to work out the details.
Already after two rounds, only four players had 100 percent scores. They were
IM Sam Collins (2488), Stephen Brady (2388) who is a multiple former Irish
champion, John Redmond (2259), and Philip Short (2247) who have all been
prominent on the Irish chess scene for several years and compete almost
annually in the championship. Philip shared the Irish Championship back in
1986 and won it outright in 1988. Sam, who previously won in 2002, was
certainly pre-tournament favourite. A few years ago Sam almost qualified for
the grandmaster title but now he is working as a lawyer he probably has had
less time for international chess. I think this was the first time in several years
that he had entered the championship. In the Tromso Olympiad he played
Board Two to GM Baburin but Ireland did not do well enough to give him a
shot at the third GM norm he needs, and he is still working to get his rating up
to 2500. It does look, though, that he will get there before long and become
Ireland's first home-grown grandmaster.
Also in the field, and on 1 points after two rounds, was Colm Daly, the
defending champion, who has also won the title on previous occasions. In this
tournament he seemed a bit below par but in Tromso he played much better
and scored a very nice win against an Iranian grandmaster in round nine. Our
other three Olympiad team members missed the championship two of them
probably because they could not get time off to play both events.
In round three Collins beat Short while the other co-leaders had a thirteenmove draw. Then in round four Collins won against second seed David
Fitzsimons (who was on the 2012 Irish Olympiad team) while old rivals Brady
and Daly played out a hard-fought draw on the second board. Jessel, thanks to
his "Swiss Gambit" draw in the first round, had much easier opponents than
most contenders in rounds two and three but in round four he beat Redmond
to haul himself up into second place which meant that he met Collins in round
five. Their game was eventually drawn but I gather from overhearing a
conversation between them that Jessel may have missed winning chances with
Ng5 at some point when he was short of time. Here is the bare score and you
can judge for yourself.
Stephen Jessel Sam Collins
Irish Senior Championship (round 5), 9 July 2014
Hedgehog [A30]
1 Nf3 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 g3 b6 4 Bg2 Bb7 5 0-0 g6 6 b3 Bg7 7 Bb2 0-0 8 Nc3 Na6
9 d4 cxd4 10 Nxd4 Bxg2 11 Kxg2 Nc5 12 f3 Rc8 13 e4 d6 14 Qe2 a6 15
Rad1 Qc7 16 Nd5 Qb7 17 Rfe1 Rfe8 18 Ba1 Nfd7 19 Rd2 Ne5 20 a4 Rcd8
21 Qd1 e6 22 Nc3 Bh6 23 f4 f5 24 Qb1 Ng4 25 Nf3 e5 26 b4 Nxe4 27 Nxe4
fxe4 28 Qxe4 Qxe4 29 Rxe4 exf4 30 Rxd6 Ne3+ 31 Kh3 g5 32 Rxe8+ Rxe8
33 g4 Bf8 34 Rxb6 h5 35 Nxg5 hxg4+ 36 Kh4 Bd6 37 Kh5 Nxc4 38 Rb7
Be5 39 Bxe5 Nxe5 40 Ne4 Re6 41 Ng5 Rf6 42 Rb8+ Kg7 43 Rb7+ Kg8 44
Rb8+ Kg7 45 Rb7+ -
In the same round, Short and Brady drew while Daly won his game to join
Jessel on 4/5. That meant that Sam had white for the very important clash with
Daly next day. Round Six was indeed to prove perhaps the most dramatic day
in the tournament, and it effectively meant that after it there were only two
likely contenders to be champion.
This is what happened. Collins played the Four Pawns Attack against Daly's
Modern Defence set-up, then won a pawn and finished up prettily.
Sam Collins Colm Daly
Irish Senior Championship (6.1), 10 July 2014

1 c4 g6 2 d4 d6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 Nf6 5 f4 c5 6 d5 0-0 7 Nf3 e6 8 dxe6 fxe6 9
Bd3 Nc6 10 0-0 Ne8 11 Kh1 a6 12 Ng5 Nd4 13 e5 Nf5 14 Qe2 Nc7 15 Nce4
b6 16 Nxd6 Nxd6 17 exd6 Qxd6 18 Be4 Ra7 19 Be3 Qe7 20 Rad1 Ne8 21
b4 Nf6 22 bxc5 bxc5 23 Bf3 Rc7 24 Bc1 Rd7 25 Rde1 Rd6 26 Ba3 Qc7 27
Qe3 Rd4 28 Nxe6 Bxe6 29 Qxe6+ Kh8 30 Bb2 Rd2 31 Be5 Qa5 32 Rb1
Qxa2 33 Rb7 Rf2 34 Rxf2 Qxf2 35 h3 Qh4 36 Qe7 Rg8 37 Bd5 Qe1+ 38
Kh2 Qh4
[FEN "6rk/1R2Q1bp/p4np1/2pBB3/
2P2P1q/7P/6PK/8 w - - 0 39"]
39 Qxg7+! Rxg7 40 Rb8+ 1-0

Meanwhile on second board, Brady (White in a 3...Nf6 Tarrasch French) had
established a large, probably winning, positional advantage against Jessel by
move twenty-five with his opponent critically short of time, as indeed he was
in several games in the tournament. While Brady had about forty minutes on
his clock at this stage, Jessel was already relying on his thiry-second
increments added after each move.
Stephen Brady Stephen Jessel

Notes by Tim Harding, with the help of Houdini 4 Pro.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nd2 Nf6 4 e5 Nfd7 5 Bd3 c5 6 c3 Nc6 7 Ne2 cxd4 8 cxd4
f6 9 exf6 Nxf6 10 Nf3 Bd6 11 0-0 0-0 12 Bf4 Bxf4 13 Nxf4 Qd6 14 g3 Qb4
15 Re1 Qxb2 16 a3 g6 17 Bc2 Qb6 18 h4 Qc7 19 Rc1 Qg7 20 Ng5 Nd8 21
Bb3 h6 22 Ngxe6 Bxe6 23 Nxe6 Nxe6 24 Rxe6 Rad8

Objectively, 24...Qf7 was necessary to keep White's pressure within
manageable bounds.
25 Qe2 Rd7 26 Rc3 Kh7 27 Rf3

[FEN "5r2/pp1r2qk/4Rnpp/3p4/3P3P/
PB3RP1/4QP2/6K1 b - - 0 27"]
27...Ne4?!
Jessel probably hoped either to complicate or to obtain some relief by
exchanges if White wins by a pawn by 28 Rxg6?! If instead 27...Rc7 28 Qe5
or 27...Rdf7 28 Bc2 threatening both Qe5 and h4-h5.
28 Rxf8
Here Brady missed his first clear-cut win by 28 h5! Rf6 (28...gxh5 29 Bxd5)
29 Rexf6, etc.
28...Qxf8 29 h5!
Still a pretty strong move; if now 29...Qxf5 30 Rxg6.
29...gxh5
If 29...Qf5 30 Rxg6 when if 30...Nxf2!?, then 31 Qe8 threatens mate and
forces a decisive simplification.
30 Bc2 Kg7 31 Bxe4 dxe4 32 Qxe4?
Although this probably should still win, White has lost his chance to gain a
decisive material advantage and the winning process becomes more technical,
especially against the clock with an opponent moving almost instantly. 32
Qxh5 is much more direct, when if 32...Re7 the best move is 33 Rxh6 is best,
but 33 Qxh6+ Kg8 34 Qg5+ Rg7 35 Qd5 would also be good enough.
32...Qf7 33 d5 b5 34 Qd4+
34 Qe5+ is better but he could still do that later.
34...Kh7 35 Qd3+
Here 35 Qe3 or 35 Qe4 would also be strong.
35...Kg7 36 Qd2??
We have all made tragic blunders like this at some time or another. He could
return to the winning path by 36 Qd4+ Kg8 37 Qe5.
36...Qxe6 0-1
This loss effectively put Brady out of contention for his usual high position in
the tournament.
In Round Six there were also wins for Fitzsimons (against Short) who now had
four and a half points, while several players on 4 were also in contention for
third place, including Paul Wallace a doctor based in the English midlands
who (like Short) was one of the strongest young players when I first came to
Ireland in the mid-1970s. Short won his Round Seven game to reach 4
points, while Wallace reached the same score by holding Sam Collins to a
draw. It was impressive to see those two still well capable of playing to a high
standard into their late fifties against much younger opponents. I wish I could
still do it but I am several years older than them. Also in Round Seven, Jessel,
again very short on time, won a rook and opposite-coloured bishop ending
against Fitzsimons.
With two rounds to go, Jessel had caught up with Collins at last but could
expect slightly stronger opposition because the latter had been in the early
lead. Brady was the highest rated player whom Collins had not met but,
doubtless deflated, he drew his round seven and eight games so Sam avoided
him. Instead he had a tense game with a member of his own club.
Sam Collins David Murray

Notes by Tim Harding, assisted by Houdini 4 Pro.
1 e4 c5 2 Nc3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nd4 4 Bc4 e6 5 Nge2 Ne7 6 0-0 Nec6 7 Nxd4 Nxd4
8 d3 Be7 9 Be3 0-0 10 f4 f5 11 Kh1 Kh8 12 Bb3 b6 13 Bxd4 cxd4 14 Ne2
Bc5 15 exf5 Rxf5 16 Ng3 Rf6 17 f5 Rh6
It was also possible to suppress the white bishop by 17...d5 but Black intends
to use his own bishop on the long diagonal.
18 Qg4 Bb7 19 fxe6
[FEN "5r2/pp1r2qk/4Rnpp/3p4/3P3P/
PB3RP1/4QP2/6K1 b - - 0 27"]
19...Bd6?
19...Rh4 20 Qe2 dxe6 21 Rf7 Qg5 22 Nf1 Bc6 was the critical line according
to Houdini.
20 Rf7 Rg6 21 Qxd4 Bxg3 22 e7!?
This allows Black the opportunity to try for a swindle. 22 hxg3 also wins
according to Houdini, because if 22...Qg5 (22...Bxg2+ 23 Kxg2 Qg5 24 Qf2)
23 e7 h5 24 Rf8+ Kh7 25 Bg8+ Kh6 (or 25...Kh8 26 Bd5+) 26 Rxa8.
22..Bxg2+!
[FEN "r2q3k/p2pPRpp/1p4r1/8/3Q4/
1B1P2b1/PPP3bP/R6K w - - 0 23"]
23 Kg1!
After 23 Kxg2? Be5+ 24 Kh1 Bxd4 25 exd8Q+ Rxd8, Black lives to fight
another day.
23...Bxh2+
Or 23...Be5 24 exd8Q+ Rxd8 25 Qxe5.
24 Kxh2 Qc7+ 25 Qf4 Rh6+ 26 Kxg2 Qc6+ 27 Kf2 1-0

New Irish Champion Sam Collins (right) playing his last round game
against Jonathan O'Connor, who was chief organiser of the Baburin
blindfold display the following week.
Also in Round Eight, Jessel produced a good win with black against Daly in
the Steinitz variation of the French (a line that would not arise from Daly's
normal opening repertoire), while Fitzsimons (against Redmond) and Short
(against Wallace) had important wins in the fight for third place. In the last
round Collins, as black, had complications against a 2150 player in a Four
Pawns King's Indian, and had to take risks to avoid the draw which would
have been the natural consequence of making the objectively correct moves.
In the consequent complications White lost in a position evaluated by Houdini
as +1 for him, another success for Collins's pragmatic approach to playing
black. So he had set the target, while Jessel (despite having white) found it
impossible to make headway against Short and ultimately ended up in a
drawish rook endgame. Fitzsimons beat Daly in sixty-four moves which
turned out to be good enough for third place alone; Fitzsimons is looking like
a probable future Irish champion. Meanwhile, a bizarre endgame arose on
board four between Brady and Wallace.
Paul Wallace Stephen Brady
[FEN "5r1k/7p/4pNq1/3pP3/1QpP3P/
Pp3RP1/1P4K1/2b5 b - - 0 37"]
37...Qh6??
Here 37...Ra8 offered some objective hope of survival.
38 Ng4
White wins a rook but instead of resigning Black tries to make something of
his pawn chain and proves surprisingly resourceful.
38...Qd2+ 39 Qxd2 Bxd2 40 Rxf8+ Kg7 41 Rb8
This should eventually win but it is hard to see Black continuing for long after
41 Rf1!.
41...Bc1 42 Rb7+?
The right plan is 42 h5! (to keep out the black king from f5) when 42...h6 fails
after 43 a4 Bxb2 44 a5 Bxd4 45 Kf3. Or if the black king rushes towards the
queenside comes 42...Kf7 43 Rb7+ Ke8 44 Rxh7 Bxb2 (or 44...c3 45 bxc3 b2
46 Rb7) 45 Nf6+ Kf8 46 h6 and White soon queens his pawn and checkmates.
42...Kg6 43 a4
43 Nf6 may be stronger but White should still win with the text move. I am
glad that I did not have to play this ending.
43..Bxb2 44 Ne3 Bxd4 45 Nd1
Although Black obtains four (!) connected passed pawns in the variation 45
Kf3! Bxe5 46 a5 Bd4 47 a6 Kf6, White blockades the leading pair by 48 Nd1,
threatening 49 a7, and this should win.
45...Kf5 46 Kf3 Kxe5 47 a5 Kd6 48 a6 e5 49 g4
Houdini recommends 49 Rxh7 here, with 50 a7 to follow. Then the white hpawn should eventually win. Even later on there were chances to force a
decision on the kingside.
49...e4+ 50 Ke2 Bc5 51 Ne3 Kc6 52 Kd2 h6
[FEN "8/1R6/P1k4p/2bp4/2p1p1PP/
1p2N3/3K4/8 w - - 0 53"]
53 Nxd5?!
53 g5 still wins; Wallace must have miscalculated something.
53...Kxd5 54 Rb5?
After this the endgame is definitely drawn. There were still winning chances
with 54 g5.
54...e3+ 55 Ke2 Kc6 56 Rxc5+
The resulting queen ending is drawn, but if instead 56 Rb7 Bb6! (threatening
...b2) 57 Rb8 Kc7! (57...b2? 58 a7!) 58 Rb7+ Kc6 repeats moves.
56...Kxc5 57 a7 b2 58 a8Q b1Q 59 Qc8+ Kd4 60 Qh8+ Kc5 61 Qf8+ Kd5
62 Qf7+ Kd4 63 Qf6+ -
This "save" must have been some consolation for Brady after his earlier
disappointment.
Soon after this game finished, Jessel-Short ended with White (again down to
his last seconds several times) having to settle for a draw by threefold
repetition. So the leading final scores were Collins 8, Jessel 7, Fitzsimons
6, and Short 6. Fifth was Gerry MacElligott, from Dublin, on 5; he is rated
2010 but made a tournament performance of 2203. I drew with him in Round
Four and he scored 4/5 in the subsequent rounds. There was a large group
finishing on 5, including Brady, Daly, Redmond, and Wallace.
The Ladies Championship, which only had seven entrants (four of whom were
eighteen or younger), was won by Gearidin U Laighlis, whose young
daughter was also in the field. Another sign of changing Ireland is that three
of the ladies were born in or have parents from eastern Europe: from
Lithuania, Romania, and Serbia, I believe. We also have several strong male
players from the continent living and playing chess in Ireland but perhaps
none were eligible to compete in the senior championship, probably retaining
their original citizenship.
Baburin plays "blindfold"
Grandmaster Baburin, who has been living in Ireland for more than twenty
years, attempted to set a new Irish record for simultaneous blindfold play at
Dublin Castle on Wednesday 16 July. This involved playing simultaneously,
without sight of the chess boards against sixteen club players. The record he
was seeking to break was set by Johannes Zukertort, one of the greatest
masters of the nineteenth century, who met twelve opponents on the afternoon
of 31 January 1879, but with some games only completed the next day. For a
description of thee occasion
when Zukertort set his Irish record see my
website.

Alexander Baburin
There had only been a few previous blindfold simultaneous exhibitions in

Ireland. Wilhelm Steinitz, in October 1865, had played first three and the
following Saturday four opponents and in later years Blackburne played
several blindfold simuls in Ireland but never against more than eight
opponents. Readers seeking more information about blindfold chess history
may wish to look at the website www.blindfoldchess.net which is edited by
Eliot Hearst, co-author (with John Knott) of the book
Blindfold Chess that was
published a few years ago by McFarland. I should warn, though, that some
details about Blackburne and Paulsen's blindfold performances in that book
are unreliable. In the case of Paulsen, Olimpiu Urcan has already shown in his
July 2011 column for ChessCafe.com that claims of Paulsen playing twelve
boards blindfold in the U.S.A. cannot be verified and that his attempt to play
fifteen was unsuccessful because the games were unfinished. The current
world record is an amazing forty-six games, set by German amateur player
and FIDE Master Marc Lang in 2011.
Urcan also asked: "who, if anyone, might have played more than Paulsen's
verified ten game record after 1858, but fewer than Zukertort's sixteen game
record set in 1876?" The answer is that Paulsen definitely played eleven at the
Bristol congress on 13 September 1861 while Blackburne certainly played
twelve in Manchester in June 1863, although in most of his displays
Blackburne had just eight opponents (chiefly so that his exhibitions could be
completed in one session). The fullest information about Blackburne's
blindfold play will be presented in the book about his life and career which I
am currently preparing and which I hope will be published towards the end of
next year. For me, therefore, it was particularly fascinating to watch a modern
grandmaster wrestling with the task which Blackburne so often undertook.
Undoubtedly the organizing team from the Irish Chess Union set Baburin a too
daunting set of conditions. Despite the limited available time, he was
persuaded to play not just one game more than Zukertort had done in 1879,
but rather four more, and it was deemed that he had to score 75 percent
(12/16) to beat the record. This was apparently after consulting Marc Lang
and other keepers of records but in my view this was too stiff a criterion and
67 percent (11/16) would have been tough enough and even 60 percent
(10/16) would have been satisfactory to beat the record, especially considering
the extra four games and the much higher general level of club play nowadays
compared with 1879. A second factor militating against success was that the
opposition was far stronger than necessary to comply with the conditions for a
record. Several of the opponents were rapidly improving juniors in their early
teens and one was an adult rated in the 1800s who only in the previous week
had played several rounds of the Irish senior championship.

The parentsof IM Mark Quinand hisfiance,Donna Anita Nikolaisen,
in Victorian dress at the Baburin blindfold display.
As in Zukertort's display, the master, opponents, and many spectators wore

formal dress. As usual for such events, the master was not actually blindfolded
but sat apart behind a screen with his back to the play. His moves and those of
his opponents were called out aloud and Baburin's moves were made on the
boards by expert "tellers," of whom I was one. Unlike Zukertort, Baburin had
only one evening available for his feat, with play commencing at 5.20pm, a
maximum of six and a half hours available (including three short breaks). The
start had been scheduled for 5pm and the delay (caused by a television
interviews and photographers and introductory speeches) told against the
player in the final hour when another two or three moves would certainly have
decided two or three games, ultimately left unfinished, in his favour.
Zukertort, unlike Blackburne who always took white in his simuls, used to
alternate colours in his blindfold displays. That was designed to assist him in
distinguishing one game from another. As Hearst and Knott stress in their
book, keeping the games differentiated in the memory in the first twelve to
fifteen moves has been, for most blindfold practitioners, the hardest part of the
feat, as any confusion can lead to multiple blunders and the failure of the
attempt. Grandmaster Baburin decided to take white on fourteen boards but
Black on Boards Eight and Sixteen, thus dividing the opposition into two sets
of eight.
Tellers Stephen Brady (left) and Gerry O'Connell waiting for Baburin to
call out his next move at Board Five around 9pm when most games
in the simul were reaching a critical stage.
Unfortunately it soon became clear that in three or four games he was having
difficulty in fixing in his mind the precise position and several times in the
first ten moves he called out moves which he had already made on that board.
Also in one case he apparently misheard "(pawn to) c6" as Nc6, which led
him to put a bishop en prise when he thought he was pinning a knight. Soon
after that, one of the junior players claimed a win on the grounds that Baburin
had three times called out illegal moves, and that this penalty was normal in
such exhibitions. I was not in the room at the time, but I do not think this
claim should have been upheld because Baburin was trying to beat a record
set in 1879 when there were certainly no such rules, and moreover a youngster
would have been better advised to enjoy the benefit of a proper game with a
grandmaster rather than "enjoy" such a cheap victory. I told the chief
organiser that in my opinion this loss should not be counted in calculations for
the record but I do not think the grandmaster was given that assurance.
At the first break Baburin's score was 2/4 but over the next three hours his play
was increasingly assured and impressive. One by one he took control of nearly
all the remaining games, achieving superior if not winning positions in most
of them, and nowhere stood worse. The record definitely seemed to be "on"
after all. His win below, shows the steady positional style he adopted on most
boards, building up pressure without seeking any complications.
Alexander Baburin Gearidin U Laighlis
Blindfold simul, Dublin 16 July 2014

1 e4 e6 2 Qe2 d5?!
Chigorin's move, designed to prevent ...d5, surprised the lady champion who
reacted incorrectly, as a result of which she reached a passive Center Counter
type of position.
3 exd5 Qxd5 4 Nc3 Qd8 5 Nf3 Nf6 6 d4 Be7 7 Bg5 0-0 8 0-0-0 c6 9 Ne5
Nbd7 10 f4 Nd5 11 Nxd5 cxd5 12 Bxe7 Qxe7 13 Kb1 Nf6 14 g4 Rd8 15 g5

Nd7 16 h4 Nxe5 17 fxe5 Bd7 18 Qe3 b5 19 Bd3 a5 20 h5
[FEN "r2r2k1/3bqppp/4p3/pp1pP1PP/
3P4/3BQ3/PPP5/1K1R3R b - - 0 20"]
20...g6 21 Rh4 Kg7 22 Rdh1 Rh8 23 Qf4 Rag8 24 Qf6+ Kf8 25 hxg6 1-0
Prompt resignation, with the loss of at least a pawn inevitable, was the right
thing to do under the circumstances. Unfortunately some of the other players
later failed to follow her example, although they had been asked by the
organisers at the start not to play on in clearly lost positions.
I do not wish to be critical of Baburin's play and I certainly would not be able
to play even one game against a club opponent under these conditions, but I
did get the impression that he had made some incorrect policy decisions
before the event. Whereas Blackburne or Zukertort would almost exclusively
have had games beginning 1 e4 e5 with good chances of scoring some quick
wins through superior opening knowledge or tactical oversights, a general
problem for the blindfold player nowadays is that closed openings are
prevalent and club players are hard to catch out in the early stages. Baburin's
strategic style and opening repertoire were more suitable to an over-the-board
simul, proceeding at a faster pace, than the conditions of blindfold play where
he sometimes thought two minutes on moves. He opened 1 d4, more often
than 1 e4 and in one case he met the French Defence with the Exchange
Variation, not conducive to obtaining a quick advantage.
Grandmaster Alexander Baburin deep in thought behind his screen.
Baburin also did not help himself in the risk-averse way that he handled some
critical middlegame positions, often being content with a small technical
advantage when a little tactical flourish (which Blackburne or Zukertort would
certainly have welcomed) would probably have brought about a rapid victory.
Board Fifteen (the highest rated opponent) played the opening antipositionally and was the first to obtain a lost game but the "kill" never came
and Baburin was swindled in the final hour, losing the exchange and with it
his attack. The following position from one of his games against a junior
probably best illustrates what I mean.
Alex Byrne Alexander Baburin
Blindfold simul Dublin (board 8), 16 July 2014
[FEN "2r2rk1/3q1p1p/b3pp2/p1P5/Pp2P3/
1Q3N2/5PPP/2R1K2R w K - 0 1"]
Probably because he had Black in this game, Baburin did play sharply with a
type of Noteboom Semi-Slav and here he had achieved a winning advantage
thanks to White's king being trapped in the middle. His young opponent
boldly played an extremely risky try which required an active refutation.
1 e5!? Rfd8?
After 1...fxe5! 2 Nxe5 Qd4, Black's queen creates deadly threats and White has
only a check. So after 3 Qg3+ Kh8 White has only 4 Qe3 Qxe3+ 5 fxe3 Rc7
when the ending is clearly won for Black. Also 1...Qd5 was better than the
text which forces an endgame that is not as advantageous as Baburin probably
expected it to be.
2 exf6 Qd3 3 Qxd3 Rxd3 4 0-0 Rxf3 5 gxf3 Bxf1 6 Kxf1 Kf8 7 Ke2 Ke8 8
Kd3 Kd7 9 Kc4 Kc6

9...Rb8 10 Rd1+ Kc7 is still somewhat better for Black.
10 Rd1 Rb8 11 Rd6+ Kc7 12 Kb3 Rd8 13 Ra6 Rd3+ 14 Kc4 Rxf3 -
And a draw was very likely at the point when play ended.
Baburin won two more games about 11pm while he also had some pawn-up
positions where the win would be a slow process, and a game where he was
bound to deliver mate or win huge material yet the opponent continued to the
end. In the final hour, Baburin, like some of his opponents, was tired and he
had to concede two draws until he ultimately he lost track of the position in a
game he had been close to winning, calling out two illegal moves in
succession. Then he could no longer break the record and so, with "time"
about to be called anyway, his attempt had to be abandoned.
He was understandably very disappointed but as Sam Collins said in a short
closing speech, this had nevertheless been a remarkable achievement which
very few grandmasters or masters could have attempted. Much of the play,
Collins said, had been as good as would have been expected in a sighted
simul, and that was certainly true between about 7-10.30pm. Ultimately
Baburin failed because of the too stringent conditions and the too high average
level of the team he had to contend with. There are certainly lessons here for
anyone considering organizing (or playing!) an event of this kind anywhere,
but it certainly created great interest and publicity for chess, and gave
everyone concerned a sense of what Blackburne and Zukertort did for a living.
Trinity games from the Armstrong
To complete the column here, as promised last month, are three games from
the 2013/14 Armstrong Cup league competition by members of the winning
Trinity College Dublin team. First a game by our captain, annotated by
himself.
Mattias Rahneberg Anthony Bourached
Armstrong Cup match, 5 December 2013
Notes by the winner.

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 d5 4 Nc3 Bb4 5 Bg5 h6 6 Bh4?!
A slight inaccuracy which after the following response leads to an equal
position but where Black has great chances to play for an advantage. 6 Bxf6
Qxf6 is standard.
6...g5!? 7 Bg3 Ne4 8 Rc1 h5 9 h3
Black does well in the complications; for example, 9 cxd5 exd5 10 Qa4+ Nc6
11 Ne5 Bd7 12 Qb3 h4 13 Qxd5 Nd6 (13...hxg3?? 14 Qxf7#) 14 Nxd7 hxg3
15 Ne5 gxf2+ 16 Kxf2 Qf6+ 17 Ke1 Qf4 18 Nd3 Qe3.
9...Nxg3 10 fxg3 Qd6
[FEN "rnb1k2r/ppp2p2/3qp3/3p2pp/1bPP4/
2N2NPP/PP2P1P1/2RQKB1R w Kkq - 0 11"]
This is the point. The king will need to endanger itself in order to defend the
pawn. Giving Black a very easy, albeit level, game.
11 Kf2 h4
Creating a useful hole on g3.
12 gxh4 gxh4 13 Ne5
White had to be very accurate, this is Fritz's second favourite move and yet
gives Black a good advantage. The counter intuitive opening of the centre
with cxd5 and e4 was actually the only way to stay level.
13...c6!!
[FEN "rnb1k2r/pp3p2/2pqp3/3pN3/1bPP3p/
2N4P/PP2PKP1/2RQ1B1R w kq - 0 14"]
Black takes a quiet moment to sure up his centre while simultaneously
defending the b5-square from a knight hop and thirdly giving the bishop a
route back to c7 to target White's weak dark squares!
14 Qd3
After 14 a3 Ba5 15 e4 Nd7 16 b4 Bc7 17 exd5 exd5 18 Nf3 Qh6 19 Bd3 (19
Kg1 Qe3#) 19...Bg3+ 20 Kf1 dxc4 21 Bxc4 Nb6 22 Ne2 Bf5, Black is almost
winning!
14...Nd7
The daring knight threatens to come to f6 from which it will have a choice of
holes on e4 and g3.
15 Nxd7 Bxd7 16 Qf3
16...Qf4+ was threatened.
16...Rg8 17 e3 Rg5!!

[FEN "r3k3/pp1b1p2/2pqp3/3p2r1/1bPP3p/
2N1PQ1P/PP3KP1/2R2B1R w q - 0 18"]
A tri-purpose move: Black allows doubling on the g-file; defends d5 in

preparation to castle queenside; and makes an instant threat of Rf5.
18 Ne2?
18 Bd3 was essential but hardly left White with much chance: 18...Qe7 19
cxd5 exd5 20 Rhe1 0-0-0 21 Kf1 Re8.
18...e5!
Preventing the interposition of the knight on f4 and renewing the threat of Rf5
while bringing the two bishops into play.
19 dxe5 Qxe5 20 Kg1?!
The king had enough of being in the centre, the position can now be very
easily converted.
20...Bd2 21 Rc3 Bxc3 22 Nxc3 0-0-0 23 cxd5 cxd5 24 Qf2 Rg3 25 Qxf7
Qxe3+ 26 Kh2 Qe5

26...Rxh3+ won immediately.
27 Kg1 Bc6 28 Bb5 Rxc3 0-1
Noel Lynch Rory Delaney
Armstrong Cup match, 15 February 2014
Benko Gambit Declined [A57]

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 c5 3 d5 b5 4 e3 e6 5 dxe6 fxe6 6 Qf3 d5 7 cxd5 Bb7 8 Bxb5+
Nbd7 9 Bc6 Bxc6 10 dxc6 Ne5 11 Qd1 Qc7 12 Nf3 Rd8 13 Nbd2 Nd3+ 14
Ke2 Qxc6 15 Qb3 Be7 16 Nc4 Ng4 17 Rf1 h6 18 h3
[FEN "3rk2r/p3b1p1/2q1p2p/2p5/2N3n1/
1Q1nPN1P/PP2KPP1/R1B2R2 b k - 0 18"]
18...Ngxf2!?
Black sacrifices two minor pieces for a rook, which is justifiable if it leads to a
strong attack before White can develop his queenside. This is a difficult move
to meet in practice, even if it is objectively inferior. Houdini 4 Pro came up
with the lengthy tactical sequence 18...Qe4 19 Ncd2 Nf4+ 20 Kd1 Nxg2 21
Nd4 Rxd4 22 Qb5+ Kd8 23 Qb8+ Kd7 24 Qxa7+ Kc6 25 Qa6+ Kd7 26 Qb5+
Kc7 27 exd4 Nxf2+ 28 Rxf2 Qe1+ 29 Kc2 Qxf2 and White takes perpetual
check by 30 Qa5+ Kd7 31 Qb5+ Kc7 32 Qa5+, etc.
19 Rxf2 Nxf2 20 Kxf2?!
This is not outright bad but allows Black to create the complications he
requires. The probable refutation is 20 Nce5! Qa6+ 21 Kxf2 and if 21...0-0 22
Ng6 Rf7 23 Nxe7+ Rxe7 24 Bd2.
20...0-0 21 Nce5!
21 Kg1 (best met by 21...Qd5) would move the king towards safety.
21...Bh4+!?
[FEN "3r1rk1/p5p1/2q1p2p/2p1N3/7b/
1Q2PN1P/PP3KP1/R1B5 w - - 0 22"]
21...Qd6 is the computer choice but White then plays 22 Ng6 followed by Bd2.
22 g3??
22 Kg1 would give winning chances but White, seeing the chance to attack
two black units simultaneously, falls into a trap.
22...Qd6 23 Kg2
If 23 gxh4 Qxe5 or 23 Ke2 Bxg3.
23...Rxf3! 24 gxh4 Qxe5 25 Kxf3 Qf5+
White is still a piece down but undeveloped and his king is defenseless.
26 Ke2 Qh5+ 27 Ke1 Qxh4+ 28 Ke2 Qxh3
28...Qe4 (threatening ...c4) is also strong.
29 e4 Qg2+ 30 Ke1 Rf8 31 Qd3 Rf2 0-1
The main significance of the following game is that, being the first to finish,
early in a match against one of the stronger teams, it was very good for the
morale of our players. Undoubtedly my opponent, perhaps wanting to get
home to see the second half of a Champions league soccer game, played much
too fast. He normally plays better than this.
Danny Roberts Tim Harding
Armstrong Cup Dublin, 25 February 2014

1 f4 d5 2 Nf3 g6 3 c4!? d4 4 g3 Bg7 5 d3 Nc6 6 Bg2 Nh6 7 Nbd2 Nf5!?
7...e5 was seriously considered, and is probably best but I thought he would
play 8 Nxe5 (not 8 fxe5 Ng4) 8...Nxe5 9 fxe5 Ng4 10 Nf3.
8 Ne4! 0-0
8...Ne3 9 Bxe3 dxe3 is more urgent although the e3-pawn will probably fall in
the end.
9 Rb1 a5 10 a3 a4?!
This strategically desirable move worked as a decoy sacrifice but probably is
not sound! 10...e5 11 b4 axb4 12 axb4 exf4 13 Bxf4 Ne3 14 Bxe3 dxe3 looks
logical.
11 Nc5 Ne3 12 Bxe3 dxe3 13 Nxa4 e5

[FEN "r1bq1rk1/1pp2pbp/2n3p1/4p3/N1P2P2/
P2PpNP1/1P2P1BP/1R1QK2R w K - 0 14"]
14 Nxe5?!
White did not hesitate but this probably helps me. He wants to exchange pieces
when a pawn ahead but he should be thinking of his king's defence. 14 fxe5
Nxe5 15 Nc3 was the least evil (not 15 0-0 Nxc4! 16 dxc4 Qxd1 17 Rfxd1
Rxa4).
14...Nxe5 15 fxe5 Bxe5 16 0-0 Qd4 17 b4
Else I might have played ...Bd7 but he might have done better to get his knight
back immediately.
17...h5
This could even have been played last move. White's weak point must be
attacked quickly.
[FEN "r1b2rk1/1pp2p2/6p1/4b2p/NPPq4/
P2Pp1P1/4P1BP/1R1Q1RK1 w - - 0 18"]
18 Nc5 h4
Simply 18...Rxa3 is also good, but now 19 gxh4? Qxh4 is obviously strong for
Black who wins quickly after 20 h3 Bxh3 21 Qe1 Qg4. Other possibilities are
19 Qe1 hxg3 and 19 Ne4 f5.
19 Nb3 Qg4 20 d4
This was the logical consequence of his previous move, trying to drive my
bishop back to g7. However I could now have played 20...Bxg3!.
20...Rd8?!
[FEN "r1br2k1/1pp2p2/6p1/4b3/1PPP2qp/
PN2p1P1/4P1BP/1R1Q1RK1 w - - 0 21"]
This is not as strong as I thought but it worked! Now White (who has taken
twenty-three minutes to Black's forty-three) had an hallucination and
blundered, but his position is difficult anyway.
21 Rxf7??
21 Bf3! does does not force a draw by repetition as my queen can go to g5.
However, 21 Qc1! puts Black on the defensive. Fortunately he did not see
this. I had mostly been analysing 21 Bd5 when 21...Rxd5!? may not work but
21...hxg3 does seem strong.
21...Kxf7 22 Bd5+
White had missed that the reply to 22 Qf1+ is simply 22...Bf6.
22...Rxd5 23 cxd5 Bd6
Admittedly this is rather timid and I could have spent a bit longer on
23...Bxg3! but why take a risk when a piece ahead. The threat is almost as
strong as the execution.
24 Qd3 Bf5 25 Rf1 Re8! 26 Nc5 hxg3 27 Ne6 gxh2+ 28 Kh1 Qg1+ 0-1
FREE
CBSE
DIGITAL
NOTES
Class VI-X Digital Notes ,Video & More. For Quick Learning ! Join
Order
The Kibitzer #214 (Ebook)
by Tim Harding

Comment on this month's column via our official
Chess Blog!

The Kibitzer #215 by Tim Harding

Watching Chess Online and Other Matters
Over the last few weeks I have been watching a lot of chess tournaments online. Hitherto I tended to do this only for
world championship matches and candidates tournaments but, having an upgraded broadband service at home since last
summer, the experience has been more satisfying. Also I took note of something one of the fellow competitors of my
own generation said to me during the Irish Championship; he had, I think, been maintaining his playing strength partly
through following top games online. I agree. It does much more for tactical awareness as well as maintaining one's
sense of what is new and topical in the openings compared with reading about tournaments afterwards in chess
magazines.
In general, the delivery of the service by the various providers is somewhat better but there is still room for
improvement. As I think I have said before, the one thing that mars the commentary in these services is when the
commentators are clearly unaware of the latest moves made in a game and continue to discuss a variation that can no
longer happen.
I am not sure as to the reason for these time-lags but sometimes you can see the latest moves unfolding on the same
web-page as the commentators continue to discuss irrelevancies for two minutes or more. The web-page is getting an
automatic update from the electronic board but somehow the commentators are not getting that feed. Sometimes, too, a
mini-screen shows a move being played on the board a minute after the board has been updated. This issue really needs
to be addressed as a priority by presenters of live chess. I can understand if commentators wish to finish explaining a
point to viewers who may not be experts, but they should get on to discussing the real situation within seconds. Or is
the time-delay there for some security reason? I cannot imagine what.
The three latest competitions I have watched were the 2014 Sinquefield Cup in St. Louis (which started on 27 August);
the FIDE Olympiad in Troms, Norway, played in the first half of August; and the British Championship which
immediately preceded that. In each case I will comment on the presentation and show a few interesting positions and
games that caught my attention.
My usual method when watching any tournament is to have several browser tabs open to the site. However, this was
impractical with the Sinquefield Cup and the Olympiad because the audio commentaries on each tab interfere with each
other. So in order to follow many games in real time I have the others up in Chessdom, which provides the move list,
current position, computer evaluations, and the option to play through the game from the beginning (in case you do not
pick up the game at the start of play). With the British Championship, I was able to have several boards open from the
official site without a problem because the web-page with the commentary feed had to be selected separately from the
game feeds, within which you could switch from one game to another fairly readily. The downside was that
occasionally the game feeds froze.

Sinquefield Cup (Rounds 1-6)
The deadline for this column meant that I had to write most of this column on the rest day of this great tournament, so I
can only comment on Rounds 1-6. I may come back to it next month. For any readers who do not know, this was a
double round-robin tournament for six of the world's top ten rated players, including the world champion Magnus
Carlsen. With an average rating of more than 2800 it was billed as the strongest tournament ever.
Apart from Carlsen, the other players were Levon Aronian, Veselin Topalov, the American-Italian Fabiano Caruana, the
new French star Maxime Vachier-Legrave (called "MVL" by the commentary team), and the top American player
Hikaru Nakamura. By the way, the others in the top ten on the September list are Alexander Grischuk, Sergey Karjakin,
Vladimir Kramnik, and former champion Viswanathan Anand. The others all played in the Olympiad but Anand, most
of us suspect, is busy cooking up something special for the re-match against Carlsen, which is due to be played later
this year. (See the Postscript.)

The early rounds of the Sinquefield were exciting for spectators. Very sharp theoretical preparation characterised several
of the clashes and they were decided before the endgame. Play started 2pm local time, 8pm where I live; by move forty
all the games in the first three rounds had been decided. Although the games in rounds four and five were mostly
longer, only one-third of the fifteen games in the first five rounds were drawn.
The tournament got off to a lively start despite two draws out of three in the first round. Vachiev-Legrave played a sharp
sideline in the Scotch very rapidly against Carlsen who plunged into a half-hour think after White's thirteenth move.
M. Vachier-Lagrave - M. Carlsen
Sinquefield Cup, Saint Louis (1), 27 August 2014
Scotch Game [C45]

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nxd4 Bc5 5 Nb3 Bb6 6 Nc3 Nf6 7 Qe2 a5 8 e5 0-0 9 exf6 a4 10 Nd5 Re8 11 Be3 axb3
12 Qg4 g6 13 Bc4
[FEN "r1bqr1k1/1ppp1p1p/1bn2Pp1/3N4/
2B3Q1/1p2B3/PPP2PPP/R3K2R b KQ - 0 13"]
13...Nb4! 14 Nxb4
The Frenchman thought almost as long in reply. Carlsen said in his interview afterward that when this happens with an
opponent who was clearly deeply prepared, you wonder if you have played a move that is so bad it did not show up as a
serious option in the computer analysis.
14...d5 15 Qf4 dxc4 16 0-0 bxc2 17 Nd5 Re6 18 Qxc4 Bxe3 19 fxe3 b5 20 Qc5 Bb7 21 Ne7+
[FEN "r2q2k1/1bp1Np1p/4rPp1/1pQ5/
8/4P3/PPp3PP/R4RK1 b - - 0 21"]
21...Kh8
Playing for a win. 21...Rxe7 followed by....Qd2 forces a draw quickly.
22 Qxc2 Raa6 23 Rac1 Rxf6 24 Rxf6 Rxf6 25 Qxc7
[FEN "3q3k/1bQ1Np1p/5rp1/1p6/
8/4P3/PP4PP/2R3K1 b - - 0 25"]
25...Qd2?!
Carlsen used up most of his remaining time on this and decided he should threaten mate, but now White can always
force perpetual check. With more time, he might have played a move the commentators were also examining 25...Qd3!
which covers f5 (to stop perpetuals and threaten ...Qxe3+). Since 26 Qe5 achieves nothing after 26...Kg7, White may
have nothing better than 26 Qc3 when Black can play for a win by 26...Qxc3 despite being a pawn down in the ending.
26 Qb8+ Kg7 27 Qg8+ Kh6 28 Qf8+ Kh5 29 Rc5+ g5 30 Rxg5+ Kxg5 31 Qg7+ Rg6 32 Qe5+ f5 33 h4+ Kh5 34
Qxf5+ Kh6 35 Qf8+ Kh5 36 Qf5+ Kh6 37 Qf8+ Kh5 38 Qf5+ -
After four rounds Caruana had a clear score, so they were calling him "Mr. Perfect." Every other player had lost at least
one game and only MVL was even on fifty percent. The fight for second place (as it was becoming) changed again in
round five, partly due to Aronian's endgame collapse against Carlsen: the first game in the tournament where Magnus
really looked like the Magnus who had ground down Vishy in the last title match. At the half-way point the astonishing
standings were Caruana 5/5 (despite having three blacks against the world top!), Topalov & Carlsen 2, VachierLegrave 2, Aronian and Nakamura 1. It was hard to know whether to be more astonished by Caruana's brilliant and
efficient play, Aronian losing three games in succession, or Carlsen's failure (so far) to impose himself upon his
opponents. At some point already, though, everyone had shown something special in at least one game, with the
arguable exception of Nakamura who may not be in the top ten much longer if he does not do better in the second half
or in his next tournament.
What I have particularly enjoyed about this tournament is the efficient and varied live presentation with a very wellbalanced three person team providing the coverage. WGM Jennifer Shahade, who deserves a special award for her hair,
and elder statesman GM Yasser Seirawan did the primary commentary. They found a good balance between explaining
things for the relative notice and yet also providing insightful discussion for strong amateurs and experts. Sometimes,
of course, the conclusions they came to on the run differed from the overnight engine-tuned analyses available next day
on ChessBase, but this is only to be expected.
Frequently Shahade and Seirawan went over to GM Maurice Ashley for database searches and fantasy variations from
the computer engines, while Maurice also comfortably handled the interviews with players (losers as well as winners)
after the games. Some of Maurice's turns of phrase were particularly vivid and entertaining. For example, "Topalov has
got his killer face on" and "e6 is not exactly lodgings that kings like to rent!"
Sometimes the video cameras caught insightful moments. For example at the end of the Carlsen-Topalov game, where
the world champion over-pressed trying to win a drawn ending but ultimately saved it, the producers caught the
moment when the handshake occurred. Though we had no sound, it was evident (and the commentators highlighted
this) that Topalov immediately asked Carlsen had he missed a win, and the latter suggested a move that had the
Bulgarian reeling back in disappointment wondering how he could have missed it. Seirawan correctly guessed that this
was the critical moment and admitted they, like Topalov, had not given it sufficient attention at the time.
Carlsen - Topalov
[FEN "1NR5/6p1/p2kn2p/Pr6/4p1PP/
4P3/5K2/8 b - - 0 45"]
Here Topalov played 45...Rxa5 but Carlsen had evidently said he was much more worried about 45...Rc5!, when if the
rooks are exchanged White must lose his knight while if the rook moves to an inferior square Black can take the apawn with improved chances. Eventually it turned out that White could save the ending after 46 Rxc5 Nxc5 47 h5 Kc7
48 Nxa6+ Nxa6 49 Kg3 but it would have been tough. The main point is that the white a-pawn will tie down one of
Black's pieces while the white king simplifies the kingside; Black of course cannot block by 49...g5 because of 50 hxg6
en passant, winning. So White gets to play Kf4 and g5 and although Black can prevent his last pawn being exchanged,
he cannot both do that and capture the a-pawn. The ending is worth analysing for yourself at home.
Some earlier incidents in the tournament also concerned Topalov. After losing to Caruana in the first round, he played a
fine combination that took Aronian by surprise but the position remained unclear. Topalov had an hallucination at some
point and made serious errors of judgment to be on 0/2. Maurice Ashley commented that the sharks smelled blood. "It
looks like Topalov is going to be lunch again at this tournament."
Next day he should have been Nakamura's lunch when the first diagram position was reached.
V. Topalov - H. Nakamura
Sinquefield Cup, Saint Louis (3), 29 August 2014
Ruy Lopez, Archangelsk Variation [C78]

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 0-0 b5 6 Bb3 Bc5 7 c3 d6 8 a4 Rb8 9 h3 0-0 10 d4 Bb6 11 Re1 Bb7 12 axb5
axb5 13 Na3 exd4 14 cxd4 Na5 15 Bc2 b4 16 Nb1 Re8 17 Nbd2 b3 18 Bb1 Qd7 19 e5 dxe5 20 dxe5 Nh5! 21 Ng5?

[FEN "1r2r1k1/1bpq1ppp/1b6/n3P1Nn/8/
1p5P/1P1N1PP1/RBBQR1K1 b - - 0 21"]
21...g6?
Instead the line Maurice Ashley was calling out to be played, 21...Bxf2+! 22 Kxf2 Qd4+ 23 Re3 (not 23 Kf1 Ng3#)
23...Rxe5, would have placed White in a desperate situation. The d2-knight is pinned and so cannot come to the pinned
rook's assistance. Nakamura said afterward that he did not play this because he could not calculate all the variations to
the end. I think perhaps this is due to a negative influence of the computer on young masters. The great tacticians of the
past (Blackburne, Chigorin, Tal, etc.) would not have felt it necessary to do so but would have trusted their instinct. The
critical reply seems to be 24 Be4 but Black comes out of the complications ahead on material.
22 e6 fxe6 23 Qg4 Nf6 24 Qh4 Rf8 25 Ndf3 Bd5 26 Ne5 Qg7 27 Bd2 Nc6
Nakamura squanders his second chance. Despite a long think Black does not find the right way. 27...Nh5 is very strong
according to GM Akobian's notes on ChessBase.
28 Nxc6
[FEN "1r3rk1/2p3qp/1bN1pnp1/3b2N1/7Q/
1p5P/1P1B1PP1/RB2R1K1 b - - 0 28"]
28...Bxc6?
28...Nh5 may still win, and if 29 Nxb8 Bxf2+ (as Ashley pointed out). Now his third and last chance is gone and it is
Nakamura who becomes lunch.
29 Bc3! e5 30 Rxe5 Nd5 31 Qc4! Bxf2+ 32 Kh1 Rb4 33 Bxb4 Qxe5 34 Be4 Rf6 35 Rd1 Kg7 36 Bxd5 Bxd5 37 Qxd5
1-0
The sessions with the main three commentators were punctuated by interviews from a young lady reporter, Teryn
Schaefer, at the Chess Hall of Fame. I was pleased to see that one of these during round five was with old friend Dr.
Michael Negele, from Wuppertal, who announced that he and a colleague are preparing a second (this time Englishlanguage) edition of their mighty work on Lasker.
Last-minute addition to this section:
F. Caruana - V. Topalov
Sinquefield Cup, Saint Louis (6), 2 September 2014

1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nc6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Nxc6 bxc6 7 Bd3 d5 8 0-0 Nf6 9 Re1 Be7 10 e5 Nd7 11 Qg4 Kf8
Played at Tromso 2014 by Caruana himself, his opponent Solak replying Qe2.
12 Na4 Qa5
A novelty which met with a confident and almost instant reply. Apparently Topalov did not expect to be still in his
opponent's preparation?
13 Re2! h5 14 Qf4 g5 15 Bd2!
[FEN "r1b2k1r/3nbp2/p1p1p3/q2pP1pp/
N4Q2/3B4/PPPBRPPP/R5K1 b - - 0 15"]
Now 15...gxf4 is possible but after 16 Bxa5 Black has too many weaknesses in the ending, said Topalov to Ashley after
the game.
15...Qc7 16 Qg3 h4 17 Qg4 Rg8
The rook proves terrible here. The commentators suggested the 17...Nxe5!? exchange sacrifice: 18 Rxe5 Qxe5 19 Bc3.
18 Rae1
Caruana only used thirteen minutes so far (with the thirty second increments, his clock was showing 1.26).
18...c5 19 c4 dxc4 20 Bxc4 Bb7 21 h3! [21 f4?] 21...Rd8 22 Bc3 Nb8 23 Re3!
White just plays calm improvements to his position; not 23 Qh5? Qc6. Ashley called this a prophylactic move, intended
to prevent Black's next, and if 23...a5 24 Qh5 becomes possible because 24...Qc6 can be met by 25 Rf3. Topalov
miscalculated here.
23...Nc6? 24 Bxe6!
Played after about seven minutes. Yasser Seirawan said, "Mr. Perfect is incandescent." Maurice Ashley was in ecstasy.
"This is brutal! This is Brooklyn Chess!"
[FEN "3r1kr1/1bq1bp2/p1n1B3/2p1P1p1/
N5Qp/2B1R2P/PP3PP1/4R1K1 b - - 0 24"]
24...fxe6
Taking the bishop is demonstrably fatal. The only alternative was to give up material. 24...Rd4 is no good so 24...Nd4
was perhaps best. 25 Bf5 Nxf5 26 Qxf5 Qc6 27 Rf3.
25 Rf3+ Ke8
It was brave and noble for Topalov to go straight to Maurice Ashley after the game was over. As the commentators had
thought, 25...Kg7 was Topalov's original intention at move twenty-three, but then he saw 26 Qh5! Rdf8 27 Rf6!! is
killing, as indeed the team had shown. For example, 27..Bxf6 28 exf6+ Rxf6 29 Qxg5+ or 27...Rxf6 28 exf6+ Bxf6 29
Qxg5.
26 Qxe6 Rg7
26...Rf8 is worse: 27 Nxc5 Rxf3 28 Qg6+ (28 gxf3 Nd4 29 Qg6+) 28...Rf7 (28...Kf8 29 Ne6#) 29 e6.
27 Qh6!
The only move to maintain the attack, said Ashley; if 27 Nxc5? Nd4!.
27...Nd4
This move appears to have some threats but is no longer effective. (If instead 27...Bf8 28 e6 Nd4 29 Rxf8+ Kxf8 30
e7+.) Now, having played several quick moves in succession and quickly leaving the board after each one, Caruana
started thinking again, seeking the precise line to finish the game. Eventually he played the move Ashley wanted to see.

[FEN "3rk3/1bq1b1r1/p6Q/2p1P1p1/N2n3p/
2B2R1P/PP3PP1/4R1K1 w - - 0 28"]
28 e6!
"This is a demolition," said Maurice. "It's hard for me to believe what I'm witnessing," says Yasser. He explained what
he meant. Instead of the expected ten-year domination of world chess by Magnus, we are seeing the emergence of a
player with an all-round style and superb opening preparation who could be a real challenger to Carlsen very soon.
28...Nxf3+
If 28...Bxf3 29 Qxg7 Nxe6 30 Qg6+; or 28...Nxe6 29 Bxg7 Rd6 30 Rb3 Qc6 31 Rxb7 Qxb7 32 Rxe6.
29 gxf3 Bf8
If 29...Rg8 30 Qh5+ Kf8 31 Qf7# while if 29...Qf4 Ashley pointed out the amusing line 30 Qxg7 Bd6 31 Qxb7 Qh2+ 32
Kf1 Qxh3+ 33 Ke2 Qxe6+ and now not 34 Kd2 walking into discovered check, but simply 34 Kf1 and the pin down the
e-file punishes Black for leaving his king on e8.
Topalov's move sets a final trap because now 30 e7?? is "the worst move on the board," Ashley said: Black would
answer 30...Qxe7! and White's advantage is minimal
30 Qh5+ Ke7 31 Bxg7 And Topalov resigned.
Caruana was now on 6/6. "Hero. We are not worthy," said the commentators.
Troms Olympiad
At the Olympiad there was so much to watch that it was hard to take it all in, with hundreds of games in progress each
day. Most viewers probably watched their national teams and some of the top games. I kept an eye on the English and
Irish teams most days, plus Carlsen if he was playing. The official live coverage was, as with the Sinquefield, provided
on the chess24 platform, but using pictures provided by Norwegian television, who had placed mini-cameras by every
board on the top tables. It was arranged that the Norwegian first team would always play on table three, however they
were doing in the tournament. In addition there was sometimes a roving camera and a camera on the analysis room,
where the chief co-commentators were GM Jan Gustafsson (a German, despite his Norwegian name) and English IM
Lawrence Trent who is becoming an old hand at this line of work. They made quite a good team, though not as
colourful as Shahade and Seirawan.
The big winners, as most readers are probably aware by now, were the Chinese men who stormed to victory, losing only
one game out of forty-four in the eleven rounds. Especially impressive was Ding Liren who is now fifteenth on the
FIDE list and heading upwards fast. If there is a 2105 Sinquefield Cup, on similar lines to this year's tournament, expect
to see him there. I will not comment on games from this event, except to note that Carlsen was possibly burdened by
the expectations of being the local hero. Perhaps (as at St. Louis) he did not want to play openings that he thought he
might need to use against Anand. Against Caruana he defended 1 e4 by 1...d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qd8 and had a bit of
a struggle but won in the end. In the second game he lost, he met the Ruy Lopez with Bird's Defense (3...Nd4) which
did not work out well. (Note also that in St. Louis he tried 3...g6 against Nakamura.) The biggest shock was that he
managed to lose an endgame a pawn up against Naiditsch, who fought very well.
The FIDE elections of course overshadowed the whole thing. One point that interested me was whether the Russian
invasion of eastern Ukraine, and in particular the Malaysia Airlines atrocity, would cost Kirsan Ilyumzhinov crucial
votes from Third World countries that have previously voted for him and enable rival candidate Kasparov to win the
FIDE presidency. It did not, though perhaps it affected the Russian men's team who seemed distinctly below par. So
much so that it was probably not necessary for any manipulation of the pairings to avoid a Russia-Ukraine clash in the
open Olympiad. (In the women's Olympiad the two countries did eventually meet, which must have been tense,
especially as one of the Russians had just defected from Ukraine.)
In the end Ilyumzhinov won another term as FIDE President by such a large margin that corruption can hardly explain it
alone. Some criticised Kasparov's campaign, saying he did himself damage on Twitter. I also suspect that in many
countries Kasparov has not yet been forgiven for the split he caused twenty years ago when he took the world
championship away from FIDE.
Originally I had intended to include quite a lot of political commentary in this column, concerning the fate of the world
championship match, but decided not to because the situation is so volatile. Carlsen, for excellent reasons, may refuse
to play a world title defence match in Russia, especially if the source of the funding is dubious. At the time of writing,
FIDE has given him an extension to decide and so this is a topic to return to in the future. I would strongly urge Anand
not to play a title match anywhere in Russia this year, and if he does go there to play anyone other than Carlsen for the
world title, then I shall certainly cease to be a lifelong fan of his.
British Championship
I "warmed up" for the Olympiad by watching several rounds of the British Championship on the English Chess
Federation's live feed, which included commentary by IMs Martin and Ravikumar for much of the early middle-game
and time scramble phases. Andrew Martin's "game of the round" videos are probably still available online. When I
lived in London in the early 1970s I knew Andrew quite well as a keen up-and-coming young player and he has
certainly worked very hard to become an IM and now an excellent chess teacher and broadcaster. He did the main
commentary while IM Ravikumar made some remarks too; unfortunately there was no camera on him. The coverage
provided by the English Chess Federation was of course low-cost and low-key compared with the two major events just
discussed, and there was only about two-and-a-half hours of analysis for each round, but it did show how even quite
modest tournaments can be presented online nowadays.

It was not the commentators fault that, frustratingly, the DGT automatic board relays sometimes froze, and one of the
commentators had to go out to the playing room to catch up. I also could not understand why Ravikumar's laptop
apparently did not automatically update the positions, and several times people in the audience with tablets were calling
out to him to refresh his screen. Nevertheless, on the whole the system worked well and the guess-the-move
competitions must have been fun for the live audience. There was one moment of off-board drama in round nine when
a fire alarm went off and suspended play for about ten minutes.
The championships were held this year in Aberystwyth, and on an unusual schedule. To accommodate the players going
to the Olympiad, the championship began on Saturday 19 July (other tournaments did not begin until the Monday) and
seven rounds were played until there was a day off on the 26th. The next three rounds were also played in the
afternoons with the final round starting at 9.30am on Wednesday 30 July. Another difference this year, again due to the
Olympiad, was the rule that in the event of a tie for first place the title would be shared without a play-off, on the
assumption (correct as it turned out) that one player involved in any such tie would need to be on their way without
delay from western Wales to Troms in the Norwegian Arctic, not a straightforward journey.
I missed the early rounds of the British Championship but picked up the tournament around the second weekend.
Despite the presence of seven grandmasters in the field, the early running was made by thirty-one-year-old IM Jonathan
Hawkins who won his first six games to establish a lead of one-and-a-half points. I have not yet read his book From
Amateur to IM but after his performance in this tournament I think I must get hold of a copy soon. His next three games
were drawn, however, so that going into round ten (where he had black against GM Mark Hebden) his lead was
reduced to half-a-point. Here I shall just pick out a few key moments from games I was watching, particularly
endgames.
In round seven IM Richard Pert was playing the lower-rated Charles H. Storey, who at one point soon after the move
forty time control had a fairly clearly drawn double rook ending. Storey misplayed this and allowed his opponent to
reduce it to an instructive single rook endgame after which the white king was able to invade the black pawns. The fun,
though, was only beginning.

[FEN "8/4p3/3pK1k1/3Pp3/4P3/r1p2P2/
2R5/8 w - - 0 57"]
In this position the black king has just captured a pawn on g6, and White played 57 Kxe7?! should now have played 57
Rg2+! which wins easily by forcing the black king to the edge.
However, White was still just winning after 57 Kxe7, which was probably played without much hesitation. The game
continued 57...Kg5 58 Kxd6 Kf4 59 Ke6 Kxf3!.
This is probably the best practical chance against a human opponent, as the sequel shows. After 59...Ke3 60 d6 Kd3 61
Rxc3+ Kxc3 62 d7 Ra8 63 Kxe5, White's three pawns beat the rook. Houdini prefers 59...Ra6+ 60 d6 Rc6 61 Ke7 Kxf3
62 d7 Rc7 63 Rxc3+ Rxc3 64 d8Q Kxe4 when White has queen versus rook and pawn but with careful play he will win
the pawn soon, and eventually mates or wins the rook.
60 Kxe5 Ke3 61 d6 Kd3
Now comes the really instructive part of the ending.
[FEN "8/8/3P4/4K3/4P3/r1pk4/2R5/8 w - - 0 62"]
62 d7??
Very careless. After 62 Rc1 it costs Black more tempi to eliminate the white rook; e.g., 62...Kd2 (or 62...Ra5+ 63 Ke6
Kxe4 64 Rxc3 with a simple rook and pawn versus rook win) 63 Rh1 Ra7 64 Ke6 c2 65 d7 Ra8 66 e5 c1Q 67 Rxc1
with an elementary win for the two pawns against rook.
62...Ra5+??
Very hard to understand; maybe Black just thought he was losing or did he think the check was an improvement on
capturing the rook? After 62...Kxc2! 63 d8Q Kb2 everything is protected and Black's strong c-pawn guarantees a
comfortable draw.
63 Ke6??
This gives Black a second bite at the cherry, whereas after the far-from-obvious Houdini find 63 Kf4! Ra8 (or 63...Kxc2
64 d8Q) 64 Rxc3+ Kxc3 65 e5 White is winning in both variations according to the
tablebase server, though for
humans there could still be opportunities to go wrong perhaps.
63...Kxc2! 64 d8Q
[FEN "3Q4/8/4K3/r7/4P3/2p5/2k5/8 b - - 0 64"]
64...Ra4??
This is a fatal loss of tempo, whereas with 64...Ra3! (the only move, which Houdini 4 finds without the aid of a
tablebase) Black achieves the same compact formation as in the note to move sixty-two. White cannot win; e.g., 65 e5
Kb2 66 Qd4 (pinning the pawn) 66...Ka2 67 Qc4+ Rb3 or....Kb2.

After 64...Ra4 Pert won efficiently without giving Black another chance.
65 e5
65 Kf5 also wins.
65...Kb3
It is worth noting why it is too late for Black to correct his mistake with 65...Ra3. White continues 66 Kd5 (All king
moves except Ke7 lead to a win.) 66...Kb2 67 e6 c2 68 Qb6+ Rb3 69 Qd4+! Ka2 (69...Rc3 70 Qd2 Kb3 71 e7 c1Q 72
Qxc1+ wins with queen against rook.) 70 Qc4 (Simplest, though 70 e7 does win despite Black queening first.) 70...Kb2
71 e7 again leading to queen versus rook. Of course if White can avoid having to play bare queen versus bare rook, so
much the better.
66 Qd3 Rb4
This points up a key difference with what Black should have done. He cannot play 66...Kb2 because 63...Qb5+ wins the
rook.
67 Kd5
Good enough although the tablebase says 67 Qb1+ is the quickest win.
67...Kb2 68 Kc5
68 e6 also wins, and in fact the tablebase prefers it although Black queens first; e.g., 68...c2 69 e7 c1Q 70 e8Q Qh1+ (if
70...Qg5+ 71 Qe5 is check and forces off the queen.) 71 Kc5 attacks the loose rook and forces mate in nine. Frankly I
cannot imagine any sensible human playing this when there is the perfectly good alternative of approaching with the
white king and squeezing the defender to death. After the move played, 68...Rb3 is met by 69 Qd4 (pin) 69...Ka2 70
Qf2+ Rb2 71 Qe1 and Black has no useful move. Storey chose a different way to lose.
68...Rb8 69 Qd4 Rc8+ 70 Kb6 Rb8+ 71 Kc7 Rb3 72 e6 Ka2 73 Qc4 Kb2 74 Qd4 Ka2 75 Qc4 Kb2 76 e7 c2 77 e8Q
c1Q 78 Qe5+ Rc3 79 Kb8 Qc2 80 Qb4+ Qb3 81 Qexc3+ 1-0
In round eight the Pert twins, IM Richard (who was on 5/7) and GM Nicholas (5.5/7) were paired with each other and
played a one-move draw (1 e4 e5). Howell-Hawkins was agreed drawn at move thirty-two in an unbalanced endgame
that looked clearly better for Black. Both were getting a little short of time, though, and perhaps it was a case of mutual
fright since the potential passed pawn race is hard to calculate against the clock. Here is the final position where the
defending champion, Howell, has just played 32 Nh4-f3 and offered a draw.
[FEN "5r2/pkp2n1p/5P2/1p6/5RP1/
2r2N2/7P/4R1K1 b - - 0 32"]
Hawkins accepted the draw offer although he was a pawn ahead. Houdini 4 on a fast laptop reckons that Black should
play on and win by 32...a4 when if 33 Ne5 (33 Kf2 a4 or 33 g5 a4) 33...Re8 34 Rfe4 Nd6 35 R4e2 b4 36 Nf7 Rxe2 37
Nxd6+ cxd6 38 Rxe2 Rc8.
It will be interesting to see what human analyses of this endgame may emerge later in chess magazines. Of course
Hawkins's decision to accept the offer could be seen as a good practical move since it kept one of his most dangerous
rivals at a full point distance. It could have paid off if things had gone right for him in round nine.
Then the round nine game between an IM and the defending champion saw some extraordinary twists.
Daniel Howard Fernandez - David Howell
101st British Chess Championships, Aberystwyth, 28 July 2014
Ruy Lopez [C77]

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 d3 d6 6 c3 g6 7 Nbd2 Bg7 8 Nf1 b5 9 Bc2 0-0 10 Ng3 Re8 11 0-0 Bb7 12 a4
Nb8 13 axb5 axb5 14 Rxa8 Bxa8 15 Be3 c5 16 Bb1 Nbd7 17 Qb3 Qb8 18 Ng5 d5 19 exd5 Nxd5 20 Ba2 h6
Probably 20...f5 immediately is good. Anyway Howell, who had turned up five minutes late, had a very good position
but was down to about two or three minutes (plus increments) against an opponent with much more time in hand. This
is far from a perfect game but it is the kind of drama that makes watching master tournaments online so fascinating You
can pit your own analytical powers against the actual players, trying to foresee or improve upon their choices.
21 N5e4 Rc8 22 Qd1 f5 23 Bc1 Kh7 24 Nd2 Qa7 25 Bb1 Rf8 26 h4! Kh8 27 Nf3 Qb6 28 Re1

[FEN "b4r1k/3n2b1/1q4pp/1ppnpp2/7P/
2PP1NN1/1P3PP1/1BBQR1K1 b - - 0 28"]
Howell, soon having only thirty seconds per move, not surprisingly made some inferior choices but managed to retain
some latent threats. For about ten moves Fernandez played really well, picking up a pawn and threatening a second
while also loosening the position of his opponent's king.

28...Qd6?
28...b4!? or 28...Bb7 was the last chance for Black to keep control. Now White's best is 29 h5!.
29 d4?! cxd4
29...e4! was crying out to be played. Now White can grab the initiative.
30 h5 e4 31 Nxd4 Ne5?
31...e3 was the best try, but Howell was now very short of time.
32 hxg6 Ne7
[FEN "b4r1k/4n1b1/3q2Pp/1p2np2/3Np3/
2P3N1/1P3PP1/1BBQR1K1 w - - 0 33"]
Here Fernandez, faced with a critical position where he had at least three promising moves (all of which would probably
win if correctly followed up) used up a lot of time before making the second best choice, after which he missed the
killer continuation. By the move forty time control, he was equal at best and after the forty-first move Howell was
easily winning.
33 Nh5
If correctly followed up, this should have been good enough to win. 33 Nxb5 Qxg6 34 Qd6 forces off the queens and
should win without danger. Presumably White thought this would make it easier for Howell to make the time control
(but doesn't he always?) and he hoped to win without going into an endgame. 33 Qh5!? also required consideration.
33...Qxg6 34 Nxg7 Kxg7 35 Bf4 Nf7 36 Nxb5 Nd5 37 Bh2?!
This wastes a tempo. White can block the attack on g2 by 37 Bg3 because Black cannot reply 37...f4 on account of 38
Bxe4 awaking the sleeping bishop. Had White forgotten this piece?
37...Kh7 38 c4?
38 Bg3 was necessary to keep an advantage. Black now has at least enough to draw.
38...Rg8 39 Bg3 Nf6 40 Qd2 Nh5
That's the time control and Black's game is definitely easier to play now especially as White must realise he has
wrecked his own winning position.
41 Nc3?
After this the knight is less active when queens are exchanged. 41 Qd4 Nxg3 42 fxg3 Qxg3 43 Qf2 Qg5 is a bit better
for Black, but the computer finds a little twist on this: 41 Qd7 provoking 41...Rg7 (41...Kh8 42 Qd4+ Rg7 43 Qa7) and
now 42 Qd4 Nxg3 43 fxg3 Qxg3 44 Qf2 the point being that if 44...Qg5 45 Nd4 threatens a fork on e6.
41...Nxg3 42 fxg3 Qxg3 43 Rf1?
Now White is completely lost; 43 Qf2 was objectively the best chance.
43...Nd6 44 Qf2 Qg5 45 Nd5 Bxd5 46 cxd5 Rg7 47 b4 Kh8 48 Bc2 Nc4 49 Re1 Ne5 50 Ra1 Ng4 51 Qg3 Qd2 52 Rf1
Ne3 53 Qh3 Nxf1 54 Bxe4 Ng3 0-1
Recoveries like this explain why Howell is still British Champion. In the same round Hebden had an easy win with
black against GM Simon Williams, while Hawkins (white) and Nicholas Pert, after some early complications, reached a
drawn ending and shared the point.
In round ten, Hawkins had black against GM Mark Hebden, arguably the only top British player of the last twenty years
who has never won the national championship. Taking a leaf from the book of world-class grandmasters who have
adopted Lasker's Defence to the Queen's Gambit when a draw with black was the order of the day, Hawkins (normally
a King's Indian defender) did the same, and attained his objective. Fortunately for Hawkins, he retained his half-point
lead in the end because Howell (black) was held to a draw by Nicholas Pert, but Richard Pert and Arkell won their
games to reach seven points and a theoretical chance of tying the championship if Hawkins lost in the last round. Had
some results gone differently Hawkins might have received the last round white he was due on alternation and probably
counting upon, but the draw came out differently:
R. Pert (7) v Hawkins (8).
Howell (7) v Hebden (7).
G. Pert (7) v Arkell (7).
The final round started at 9.30am. Hawkins chose the Semi-Slav this time, against which (after a few minutes thought)
Pert selected the sharp Marshall Gambit, "playing for three results" as the nature of the tournament situation required
for him. The first dozen moves were played quickly, after which (thanks to the increments) Hawkins clock showed
more time than he had started with. So he had not been surprised. At move thirteen White started thinking.
Howell, as throughout the tournament, arrived a few minutes late and then thought about his first move. He opened 1 e4;
Hebden played the Hungarian Defence. It would be a waiting game for these two, depending on how the Hawkins game
panned out. If Hawkins was going to win, then a draw to consolidate shared second might be the best option, but if
Hawkins faltered they had a chance of the title. Howell began a long think. He may have known what he was going to
play next but it was worth waiting to see who emerged from the opening on board one better. The board three players
also had a chance of sharing the title if Hawkins lost and their game was decisive. Arkell played a Slav Grnfeld but,
although a long grind was in prospect, after two hours play and twenty-nine moves they had reached a symmetrical
ending with only queen and five pawns each and soon agreed a draw, which proved to be worth a share of third prize
for both.
Eventually Richard Pert, who had only vague compensation for his pawn, made a strategic draw offer which Hawkins
accepted to be sure of becoming at least a share of the championship; had there been a play-off this year he would
probably have chosen to continue, but when you are offered the chance to become British Champion for the first time
(albeit shared) you would be a fool to risk anything. Hawkins's pragmatic play - six wins followed by five draws - was
an unorthodox way to do it but his achievement was well earned.
Meanwhile Hebden played an aggressive pawn advance which Howell soon showed to be unwise and weakening;
ultimately White won and became co-champion. In one of the last games to finish, on board four, fifteen-year-old
Ravia Haria, who had defended tenaciously for the first forty moves, took advantage of a misguided attempt by GM
Simon Williams (who earlier could have just won a clear pawn) to win a drawn endgame. So Haria, who had not played
any of the leaders since losing to Hawkins in round two, also shared third place.
Postscript
The FIDE website, as of 1 September, says the World Championship will take place in Sochi from 7 to 28 November. I
hope it will not. Chess players have a responsibility to the victims of the Air Malaysia murders and their families. If
you live in a country that backed Ilyumzhinov for FIDE President, get rid of your national leadership and replace it
with one that opposes this Putin lackey.
Are you listening to me, Canada, India, and Mexico? You should have done it before Troms but better late than never.
Do it now!
Copyright 2014 Tim Harding and BrainGamz, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
The Kibitzer #216 by Tim Harding

Brown Study: A Question of Edwardian Identity
by Tim Harding
One of the problems historians have to confront is not to mix up the people we want to write about, and in fact there was
a good book on this subject in 1973, by E. A. Wrigley, called Identifying People in the Past. An updated work on this
subject is badly needed in the Internet era, now that there are so many digitised sources for family history, but it needs
to be done by somebody who is an expert in using genealogical sources of the hard copy variety as well as electronic
sources. Maybe John Townsend, who has written two books of this type of research to do with chess players of the
early nineteenth century, would care to have a go at least so far as chess history is concerned, since Jeremy Gaige is
no longer with us?
This article deals with the question, who was the Edwardian amateur expert, F. Brown of Dudley? An earlier version
of this article was available for a few weeks at my own website www.chessmail.com, but it is no longer there. The
original provoked considerable response from a number of people, especially Gerard Killoran and Andy Ansel, to
whom I am grateful for making this improved version possible, especially sending me more games. This version of the
article includes a few games annotated by me and the set of games so far found in the e-book of this article.
The Problem
When the National Chess Tournament, organised by the City of London Chess Club, opened on Monday 25 July 1904,
many newspapers reported the strong field of competitors. For example, The Field, 16 July, listed F. Brown as an
entrant for the tournament and probably Hoffer, the papers chess editor at that time, included the initial because the
surname Brown is common. Those reporters who added the town of residence, F. Brown (Dudley), probably thought
they were doing enough to identify the player but in fact this was not the case.
This was the most important tournament in England since the international held five years previously. The club (miffed
that its terms for acceptance as a founder member of the British Chess Federation) had organised it as a counterattraction to the B.C.F.s first British Championship which was scheduled for Hastings a few weeks later. Because the
National Tournament admitted foreign masters resident in Britain, it had the stronger field of the two, including
Gunsberg, Teichmann, Van Vliet, and Mason, as well as Napier, who (though he had mostly lived in America) was a
British citizen, while the home contingent was led by Blackburne and F.J. Lee.
The Manchester Courier on the Tuesday noted that, apart from these acknowledged masters, the tournament also
included the following well-known amateurs: Messrs. F. Brown, of Dudley, A. Curnock, W. H. Gunston, of
Cambridge, P. S. Leonhardt, R. Loman, A. J. Mackenzie of Birmingham, J. Mortimer etc.
Similar lists also appeared in other newspapers. Curiously, some of these (such as the Sheffield Daily Telegraph the
previous Saturday) listed F. Brown, J. Dudley It seems likely that a Press Association wire report, attempting to
identify Brown as a Dudley player, had instead invented a new contestant. In reports of chess events throughout the
decade one frequently sees only F. Brown or Brown of Dudley. Modern reports of tournaments from this period
also have a problem. Tony Gillams book on Tournaments and Matches of 1904 has only surnames for the players.
Those reporters who provided both an initial and the town of residence, F. Brown (Dudley), probably thought they
were doing enough to identify the player concerned but in fact this was not the case. In a few cases reporters were
aware of the need to be more explicit. Interestingly the Falkirk Herald, 27 July 1904, did say Fred Brown in its list of
entries. Apparently he had visited Falkirk.
It turns out that active in Dudley chess from the 1880s up to the First World War there were Frederick Brown and Frank
Brown, both of them strong enough to play in the British Championship on one occasion. Frequently they both played
on the same team for Dudley Chess Club or for Worcestershire. (Dudley was in Worcestershire until the 1966
reorganisation of British local authorities, when it was transferred to Staffordshire, but in 1974 it became part of the
new West Midlands county.)
Gerard Killoran also discovered that a man called Frederick Brown, who played in some of the correspondence chess
tournaments organised by Mrs. Rhoda Bowles in her chess column for Womanhood magazine, also took part in a
random chess tournament organised in 1903/4 which was reported by Mrs. Bowles. This resulted in a further identity
crisis for this article as those postal games seemed to be by a much weaker player.
Mr. Killoran, through diligent beavering in digitised periodicals, has happily now established that the Fred Brown of
those tournaments was not the same person as Fred Brown of Dudley. Instead he was a member of the Metropolitan
Chess Club and lived in Upper George Street, Bryanston Square, London W1. An announcement in the London Gazette
shows that Frederick Brown of London died in 1924 and so cannot have been Fred Brown of Dudley. The game file for
the ebook includes only the games played by the Dudley men.
Which F. Brown was Which?
Several months ago, with some help from Professor Rod Edwards of the historical ratings site www.edochess.ca, I set
out to establish which of the F. Browns of Dudley played in which tournament. Clearly this was essential because if
you have the wrong man, as Rod initially did in some cases (though he has it sorted now), then not only their ratings
but those of many other players can be distorted. It seems fairly clear now that Fred Brown was the stronger player, at
least in the 1900s, and it was definitely also he who played a bit of chess in the years immediately after the 1914-18
war. Thanks to information provided by reader Gerard Killoran, I now know that Frank Brown had died in 1917. There
are probably some more tournaments to be found in which one or other brother participated.
Mr Killoran also discovered that both Fred and Frank Brown were cricketers, and in the early 1890s it appears to have
been Fred who played a few matches for the Worcestershire team but not first class matches. He played for the club
and ground side a few times, which implies he was an amateur member of the county club.
While it is now clearly established that Fred and Frank were brothers, there are still some unanswered questions. It has
proven particularly difficult to find good games played by Frank Brown though he must have been quite a strong player
for his day, because otherwise his entry for the 1906 British Championship would have been declined. On several other
occasions he played in the Major Open, the second tournament at the B.C.F. Congress (also usually quite strong as
foreigners were eligible), while Fred who in fact was the player in that 1904 National tournament played in the
British Championship of 1910.
It has taken research on Ancestry.co.uk as well as in chess sources to build up a picture of the Browns. In the most
informative of the available English censuses, that of 1911, a Frank Brown, single, aged forty-seven (retired bank clerk)
and a solicitor named Frederick Brown, also single and aged forty-five, were living with their parents Thomas and
Anne Brown in Dudley, Worcestershire, along with two other single brothers: Walter Brown, retired ironworks clerk
aged fifty, and Philip Brown, solicitors clerk, aged forty-two. It appears, in fact, that neither Frank or Fred married, at
least not until after the death of their parents. Rod Edwards found references in the Illustrated London News of 1876
(29 January and 19 February) to another Frank Brown playing in two 1876 matches for Dudley against the
neighbouring town of Stourbridge. From the sources I saw, it is evident that the chess-playing Frank Brown of 1876
was not the father of Frederick and Frank. My best guess at present is that this was probably an uncle or other relative
as the main Frank Brown would have been too young then. Walter and Philip are, I think, unknown in chess sources.
Fred and Franks father Thomas Brown (born about 1833) was also a member of the Dudley chess club. He drew with
Blackburne, which was published in the Birmingham Weekly Mercury, on 7 December 1889. That game is in the ebook
file and one or two of his other games are also known.
Frank was born about 1864, and Fred about 1866. These dates are consistent with what appears in various censuses but I
have not obtained their birth certificates to ascertain the precise dates; it would cost nearly 10 per certificate. In the
1891 and 1901 censuses, the parents and four sons were all together. In 1891, Walter (thirty) was an iron works clerk;
Frank (twenty-seven) was a bank clerk; Frederick (twenty-five) was a solicitor, and Philip (twenty-three) solicitors
clerk. The census representative apparently interviewed Philip. Details in 1901 are similar except for the ages and the
fact that Walter was now an insurance clerk.
Frank Brown the chess player was almost certainly the Frank Brown born in Kings Norton, Worcestershire, in the
quarter July-Aug-Sep 1864, and Frederick Brown was born in in the same place two years later. I found Fred aged five
in the 1871 census, in Dudley, so in the intervening period the family had moved to the larger town, probably because
of greater employment prospects. There were actually six Brown brothers, of whom Fred was the fifth.
Jeremy Gaiges reference work, Chess Personalia, has no mention of Frank Brown, but Gerard Killoran has sent me a
short obituary notice from British Chess Magazine, 1919, page 296, which reported that Frank had died in June 1917,
aged fifty-three, due to intense shock following a severe fall. The paragraph continued:
In his younger days, Frank Brown was prominent in Worcester County Chess. When quite a youth he carried off the
Worcester Championship trophy, presented by Lord Lyttelton, by winning the competition three times.
This information means that the probate record for a Frank Brown in the original version of this article must be for a
different man; the name was not uncommon. Armed with the correct year of death, I was then able to find the following
probate record which clearly is the correct one. Frank died intestate and his chess-playing brother applied for a grant to
administer his estate.
BROWN Frank of 272 Castle-street Dudley Worcestershire died 26 June 1917 Administration Worcester 1 September
to Frederick Brown solicitor. Effects 2897 5s. 5d
Gaige's book did provide an approximate death date for Fred Brown, based on another British Chess Magazine obituary
(1933, pages 118-119) which a kind reader sent to me. From that clue, I found a probate record which is certainly the
chess-playing Fred:
BROWN Frederick, of 272 Castle-street Dudley Worcestershire died 9 February 1933 at the General Hospital
Birmingham Probate London 20 April to Philip Brown solicitors clerk. Effects 6741 5s. 4d.
Clearly his executor was his brother Philip who was probably working as Fred's clerk. I also found in 1928 a probate for
a Walter Brown to his widow, which (if it is the right man) would mean a late marriage.
Fred's British Chess Magazine obituary (1933, pages 118-119) read as follows:
By the death of Fred Brown at Dudley in mid-February, the Midlands loses one of its strongest players. When in his
best form, few of his countrymen could beat him, and on several occasions played a masterly game against foreign
experts. He was a solicitor by profession, but managed to play a good deal before the war. His brother Frank will be
remembered as a strong player, but he was never quite as good as Fred.
Their Chess Careers
Moving on now to their early chess career, I have by no means done a thorough search but there are various references
to Dudley Chess Club and the Browns in the late 1880s and 1890s, in R. J. Buckleys chess column for the Birmingham
Weekly Mercury, and in various newspaper reports that turned up in searches in the British Newspaper Archive.
Press reports including inter-club match lists show that by the late 1880s Frank and Fred Brown were leading players in
the Dudley Chess Club. When they played nearby Walsall on 19 March 1890, a match easily won by Dudley, Frank
was on top board with Fred on board two.

George Edward H. Bellingham
Soon a new star was rising. When Blackburne played thirty simultaneous games at the Dudley Institute on 31 October
1889, George Edward H. Bellingham (born in September 1874 so barely fifteen years old), was the only winner. He
was probably the son of a Dr. Bellingham who was also a member of the Dudley Chess Club. Within a few years,
Bellingham would become one of the strongest players in the English Midlands and before he was out of his teenage
years, Bellingham had become one of the strongest amateurs living anywhere outside London. (Forsters giant book on
Amos Burn, for example, shows that Burn had a lot of difficulties playing Bellingham around the turn of the century.)
Regular competition with Bellingham probably raised the Browns standards too and within a few years north
Worcestershire had a fourth amateur expert, Charles Hugh Sherrard of Stourbridge (who played in the 1905 British
Championship but died on 28 May 1906 in Egypt, where he worked as a school principal). He was a son of a keen
chess player, the Rev. H. W. Sherrard (1862-1892) who had another son with the same initials but I dont know if that
H. W. Sherrard played chess.
Charles Hugh Sherrard

So at one time there was a strong cohort of strong amateurs from north Worcestershire, consisting of Bellingham, C. H.
Sherrard and the Brown brothers. However, Sherrard moved to Kent about 1891 (though sometimes afterward
competing in Midlands events) before taking up a teaching post in Egypt in 1902. He died of fever in Cairo on Monday
28 May 1906 according to the Western Daily Mercury of 1 and 8 June 1906.
On 25 April 1891, Bellingham (still only sixteen!) began a weekly chess column in the Dudley Herald which also ran
for a few years and provides good information about chess in his local area. In the very first article, he published a
postal game that the Brown brothers had drawn, about two years previously, against J. H. Blake, the unofficial English
correspondence chess champion. There is no other evidence of the Browns from Dudley playing postal chess.
In the autumn of 1892, Bellingham played a long match against Fred Brown. The quality of play was somewhat uneven.
After losing the first two games to Fred, Bellingham got the measure of his older rival and won the match convincingly,
despite losing Game 16 with White in only a handful of moves (see below). Thereafter, the younger man was clearly
the strongest player in the Midlands, but soon after playing the first British Championship in 1904, he seems to have
given up chess for more than thirty years, for unknown reasons. That led Fred as once more the strongest player in
Dudley.
I have little information about the Browns in the mid-1890s, but from 1899, Fred was playing in regional tournaments:
the Midland Counties Chess Association in Birmingham (1899), the Southern Counties in Bath 1900 (when Frank
played in the second section), the Southern Counties again at Norwich in 1902.
It may be that in 1902 Fred had given up his job for a time and tried to improve his chess. The Worcestershire
Chronicle, 29 March 1902 said that Mr Fred Brown, well known in local chess circles as a prominent member of the
Worcester county team, but otherwise unattached, is about to leave Dudley for London. The same paper on 21 June
said he was now in the Metropolis, and playing with characteristic ardour. At the Vienna Caf he secured a win from
Mr H. N. Pillsbury, playing level across-board. However, the Western Times, 19 November 1902 said the best game
prize at Norwich had been awarded to James Mortimer for his game against Fred Brown, Dudley. So perhaps Freds
venture to the capital was only an extended holiday.
Then in 1903 he ventured to the Netherlands for the strong amateur tournament at Hilversum, which was won by
Leonhardt ahead of Duras. After three rounds, Hoffer commented in The Field: Mr. Brown, if anything, is too careful;
his style is defensive; consequently he has not lost a game yet; but this is only a negative success. No prize can be won
by drawing games.
After a few more rounds Hoffer wrote that: Mr. Brown seems to have appreciated our remarks last week; he has
abandoned the timid style, and has done comparatively well. Eventually Fred scored six and a half points from the
fourteen games he actually played, though his win against Vijzelaar (who withdrew later because he was ill) was not
counted officially. Some of his games were annotated in The Field. A curious incident occurred in his game with
Neumann. Brown exceeded the time limit at move thirty-six but Neumann only claimed the game after allowing him to
make another move. His claim was disallowed but Neumann won the replayed game. Brown also spoiled his score in
round ten when, with in the ending of Rook versus Rook and Knight (no pawns) he allowed Johannes Esser to
checkmate him. The games from that tournament are readily available so I do not give an example here.
In 1904, as noted at the start of this article, Fred played in the National Tournament but scored only five and a half
points from sixteen games, though this was no disgrace in that company. His openings were experimental at times. It is
noteworthy that he had an interesting draw with Napier (who won both the big tournaments of 1904), opening 1 d4 d5 2
Bg5, and also drew with Mason, employing the Staunton Gambit, so he was not afraid of famous opponents. All his
games from this tournament are known except the one with Mortimer, which began as a Ruy Lopez and was drawn.
In P. W. Sergeants A Century of British Chess there is only Brown, F. in the index, but when you turn to the relevant
pages (247 and 249), you can read that Fred Brown played in the 1906 Ostend amateur A; while in 1907, Frank
followed his example. That is plausible, but I would be glad of independent confirmation that Sergeant got this right.
It was probably Fred Brown who came equal second with Julius du Mont behind George A. Thomas in the Kent
congress at Tunbridge Wells in 1912. In view of the good result in that company (five and a half points out of eight), he
seems more plausible than Frank at that date.
The Search for their Games
Apart from the Amateur International at Hilversum and the 1904 National Tournament only a handful of games by Fred
Brown (and no wins at all by Frank) appear in the widely available databases; in some cases I unfortunately still lack a
primary source to confirm these are genuine, but Mr Killoran has helped a lot here.
The earliest game attributed to Fred on chessgames.com (at least at the time I wrote my original article) is a Blackburne
blindfold game said to be from 1878, but was almost certainly against a different Brown. The 1878 date comes from the
book Mr. Blackburnes Games at Chess but the game in question was first published in Land and Water on 26 April
1879, and it was in fact played in Croydon on 22 April 1879. So the assignment of that game to Fred Brown, from
Dudley in Worcestershire, is almost certainly incorrect. In fact it is a typical error of the unreliable chessgames.com
website, jumping to unwarranted conclusions.
In another case, it is definite that a game often attributed to Fred was not played by him. This was a famous Max Lange
miniature won against a player named Gibbs. As Edward Winter has shown in Chess Notes 4793, the winner was
actually C. Wreford Brown (the primary source reference being British Chess Magazine, September 1939).
Fred Brown appears in British Chess Magazine for 1902 in a group photograph taken at the Norwich congress.
Unfortunately, the copy is not of the best quality. Fred is a dapper-looking middle-aged individual with a dark
moustache and wearing a straw boater. He is seated with crossed legs (on the far left) and the Scottish lady player to his
left, a Miss Offord, seems to be glancing at him admiringly while everybody else looks at the camera.
Chess Notes also has a
group photograph taken at Margate 1923 in which F. Brown is identifiable (CN 4046), but
Winter did not raise the question of whether this was Fred or Frank.
Who Played Which Tournament?
In order to enable readers to assign games they may find to the correct F. Brown, the following (incomplete) list of their
competitions may help. This has been gradually compiled by Rod Edwards and myself with some help from others.
1885 Birmingham Daily Post, 10 September: Frank and Fred in a Dudley-Stourbridge club match on 8 September
(Frank lost on board three; Fred drew on board ten). The Rev. H. W. Sherrard and his son C. Sherrard were the top two
boards for Stourbridge.
1886 Birmingham Daily Post, 7 June has a report of a cricket match with Frank and Fred playing for Dudley v
Crosswells. The latter won easily by an innings.
1887 Birmingham Daily Post, 9 March 1887 chess match Dudley-Wolverhampton over seven boards. The Dudley team
was led by Frank; board two was Pitchford who had been top board in 1885. G. H. Mainwaring (quite a strong postal
player) was board. Thomas Brown (the father) was board four, C. G. Brown (not a close relative, but maybe a cousin)
was board six and on board seven was Fred.
1891 Birmingham Daily Post, 10 December: Dudley v Walsall on 8 December. Frank was top board and Fred board
two, Bellingham board four.
1893 FRANK in the first North-South match in Birmingham (for North). The finish of the game was published; see
below. Later, Birmingham Daily Post, 22 April 1893, Dudley v Stourbridge played on 20 April. Board 1 Frank v C. H.
Sherrard (the latter claiming win) to be adjudicated; result unknown. Bellingham was board two and Fred board three.
1894 North V South match in London, board forty-two. The Morning Post, and London Standard, 9 April, both say F.
Brown (Dudley) won for the North against H. W. Butler of Brighton for the South, but which Brown was it? Before
that, Birmingham Daily Post, 12 January 1894, Dudley v Stourbridge played on 10 January. Top board was a draw
between Frank and C. H. Sherrard. Fred played board two; no Bellingham. In a match against Walsall played a few
days later, weaker opposition, Bellingham played board two and the Browns did not play (Birmingham Daily Post, 18
January 1894).
1895 Birmingham Daily Post, 15 March 1895 Dudley v Worcester for the county championship. Bellingham was board
one, Fred board two. There was no Frank and Dudley arrived one player short!
1899 FRED in Midland Counties Chess Association, Birmingham.
1900 The Birmingham Daily Post chess column (in the British Newspaper Archive online) also has several match
results mentioning the Browns and Bellingham. At this time Frank Hollins was the strongest player in Birmingham and
they had several tussles with him. Notably, FRED won the championship of the St. Georges Club, Birmingham, half a
point ahead of Frank Hollins (the 1899 champion). Also playing were A. H. Hyde, W. T. Stallman and H. Saunders,
maybe others? The Birmingham Daily Post, 10 April 1900, said the field was small and single round only. Brown lost
to Hyde but Hollins lost to Brown and drew with Hyde. Maybe a reader with access to Birmingham sources can find
out more about this. The tournament could be included in Rod Edwardss calculations if full results were available.
1900 also FRED in the Southern Counties Chess Union championship, Bath; FRANK in Class II-B section.
1902 FRED in Southern Counties championship, Norwich.
1903 FRED in Netherlands tournament, Hilversum.
1904 FRED in National tournament, City of London Chess Club; FRANK in the First Class tournament at B.C.F.
Congress, Hastings.
1906 FRED in Ostend Amateur section A; FRANK in the 3rd B.C.F. British Championship, Shrewsbury.
1907 FRANK in Ostend Amateur section A (to be confirmed).
1909 FRED in Kent & Sussex 1st class open, Hastings; FRANK in B.C.F. 1st class open, Scarborough.
1910 FRED in Kent association tournament, Bromley AND in the 7th B.C.F. British Championship, Oxford. FRANK in
the Major Open at Oxford.
1911 FRANK in Major Open at the 8th B.C.F. congress, Glasgow.
1912 FRED? at Tunbridge Wells (Kent Easter congress, 1st class open). To be confirmed. FRANK in Major Open at
10th B.C.F. congress, Richmond.
1914 FRED in the Kent Chess Association Easter congress at Dartford. FRANK in the Northern Counties congress at
Blackpool and in the Major Open at the 12th B.C.F. congress, Chester.
Anything later than June 1917 was FRED. Games played for Metropolitan Chess Club, and postal games, in the early
1900s were by the other Frederick Brown.
Some Games
George E. H. Bellingham Fred Brown
Evans Gambit Declined [C51]
16th Bellingham-Brown match game, Dudley 1892

Dudley Herald, 5 November 1892. It was rather noble of young Bellingham to publish this story against himself.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 b4 Bb6 5 b5 Nd4 6 Nxe5? Qf6 7 Nxf7?
[FEN r1b1k1nr/pppp1Npp/1b3q2/1P6/2BnP3/8/P1PP1PPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 0 7]

7...d5! 8 Nxh8 Nxc2+ 9 Qxc2 Qxf2+ 10 Kd1 Bg4+ 11 Be2 Bxe2# 0-1
Frank Brown P. Maurice
North v South, Great Western Hotel, Birmingham, 28.01.1893

BCM 1893 page 81.
[FEN "3r4/pp5p/2p1k1p1/3bPp2/2p2P2/2N3P1/PPP2K1P/3R4 w - - 0 27"]

27 Ne2 c5 28 Nc3 a6 29 Na4 Ke7 30 Nxc5 Bc6 31 Rxd8 Kxd8 32 Ke3 Ke7 33 Kd4 b5 34 Nxa6 ...and wins. (1-0)
The following is a great struggle between two of the rivals. Sherrard must have been on school holiday over Easter.
Charles Hugh Sherrard Fred Brown
Centre Counter [B01]
Midland Counties congress Birmingham, 04.1899
Notes by Tim Harding; source for score: Chess Players Chronicle, 24 May 1899.
1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qa5 4 d4 Nf6 5 Nf3 Bg4 6 Be2 Nc6 7 Be3 e6 8 h3 Bxf3 9 Bxf3 Bb4 10 Qd3 Nd5 11 Bd2
Rd8 12 0-0!?
12 Nxd5 is safer, but White perhaps miscalculated something in the tactics that begin at move fourteen.
12...Nde7 13 a3!? Rxd4
[FEN "4k2r/ppp1nppp/2n1p3/q7/1b1r4/P1NQ1B1P/1PPB1PP1/R4RK1 w k - 0 14"]

14 Qe3
Holding the tiger by the tail; 14 Qe2 is wiser.
14...Bd6
I suspect White was counting on 14...Bc5 15 Ne4 (or maybe 15 b4 Rxb4 16 axb4 Bxe3 17 bxa5 Bxd2 18 Nb5) 15...Qb5
16 Nxc5 (16 a4!?) 16...Qxc5 17 Bc3 and failed to spot the latent threat in the apparently milder bishop retreat.
15 Ne4 Qe5 16 Nxd6+
16 Bc3 Qh2# is presumably what Sherrard had failed to foresee at the critical moment.
16...Qxd6!?
16...Rxd6 leaves White a pawn ahead but this is almost counterbalanced by White having the bishop-pair against the
knight-pair. Recapturing with the queen also gives White good compensation.
17 Bxc6+
White exchanges a bishop rather than go on the defensive after 17 Bc3 Nf5 but that is perhaps what he should have
done, counting on the long-term. He could also have played a rook to d1.
17...Nxc6!
Now the game continues very double-edged as Black rightly decides to return the pawn, in order to use the g-file later,
rather than allow his pawns to be wrecked after 17...bxc6 18 Bc3 Nf5 19 Qe2.
18 Bc3 Rd5 19 Bxg7 Rg8 20 Qh6 Ne7

[FEN "4k1r1/ppp1npBp/3qp2Q/3r4/8/P6P/1PP2PP1/R4RK1 w - - 0 21"]
21 Bf6
Not 21 Qxh7?? Rg5; 21 g4? would be met by the piece offer 21...Nf5! 22 gxf5 Rxf5 threatening ...Qd5 and ...Rh5.
White's bishop will be lost and probably the king also.
21...Rg6 22 Qxh7 Qf4
If 22...Rxf6 White regains the piece by 23 Qh8+ Ng8 24 Qxg8+.
23 Qh8+
Computers calculate many sharp possibilities in this position; for example, if 23 Bh4 Nf5 24 Qh8+ Kd7 25 Bg3 Rxg3!
(25...Nxg3 26 fxg3 Qe3+ 27 Kh1 Qxg3 28 Rxf7+ Kc6 29 Rf2! Qxf2 30 Qe8+ Kb6 31 Qxg6 and White survives,
possibly with some advantage.) 26 fxg3 Qe3+ 27 Kh1 (27 Rf2 Rd2) 27...Nxg3+ 28 Kh2 Nxf1+ 29 Rxf1 f5 and Black
has regained his pawn, although a draw is the likely outcome.
23...Rg8
23...Kd7 came into consideration also.
24 Qh4 Qf3! 25 Bg7 Qf5
The complications are soon to end in a level position. 25...Rh5 also came into consideration, with a likely queen
exchange following. Not 25...Rxg7?? 26 Qh8+ Rg8 27 Qxg8+ Nxg8 28 gxf3.
26 Qh6
Houdini 4 Pro detects an inaccuracy, suggesting 26 c4, if White has ambitions, or else 26 Bf6 Qf3 27 Bg7 Qf5 28 Bf6
with repetition.
26...Qh5
Black is also inaccurate. 26...Qh5 at once is correct; not 26...Qxc2? 27 Rac1.
27 Kh2?
Perhaps a slip in time trouble; White now ends up in a difficult, probably lost, endgame. White should have used the
donated tempo to play 27 c4.
27...Qg5 28 Qxg5 Rxg5 29 Bf6 Rxg2+ 30 Kh1 Nd5
[FEN "4k1r1/ppp2p2/4pB2/3n4/8/P6P/1PP2Pr1/R4R1K w - - 0 31"]

31 Be5 R2g5 32 Bg3 Rh5 33 Kh2 Rgh8 34 h4 Ne7 35 Bxc7
36 Rad1 might be somewhat better but White's desire to reduce pawns is understandable.
35...Rxh4+ 36 Kg2 Rc4 37 Be5?
His last chance to play actively for a draw was 37 Bd6 Rxc2 (37...Nf5!?) 38 Rfc1 Rd2 (If 38...Rxb2 39 Rc7; but Black
might prefer 38...Rxc1 39 Rxc1 Nc6 40 b4.) 39 Bxe7 Kxe7 40 Rc7+ Rd7 41 Rxd7+ Kxd7 42 Rd1+ since a rook ending
would probably be technically more difficult for Black to win.
37...Rg8+ 38 Kf3 Rxc2 39 Rac1
At last this rook moves!
39...Rxc1 40 Rxc1 Nc6 41 Bg3
In the remainder of the game Black cashes in the pawn he has won.
41...Rg5 42 Rd1 Rb5 43 Rd2 f6 44 Bd6 Rd5 45 Rxd5 exd5
[FEN "4k3/pp6/2nB1p2/3p4/8/P4K2/1P3P2/8 w - - 0 46"]

46 Ke3 Kd7 47 Bf8 Ke6 48 f4 Ne7 49 b4 Nf5+ 50 Kf3 b6 51 Kg4 d4 52 b5 d3 53 Bb4 Nd4 54 a4 f5+ 55 Kg3 Kd5 56
Kf2 Ke4 57 Bc3 Ne2 58 Bd2 Nxf4 59 a5 Nd5 60 axb6 axb6 61 Bc1 Nc3 62 Bg5 f4 63 Ke1 Ke3 64 Bxf4+ Kxf4 65
Kd2 Ke4 0-1
Very few complete wins by Frank Brown have turned up, so the following (though decided by a blunder) will have to
do.
Frank Brown Charles George Bennett
Southern Counties class II-B Bath, 09.1900
Notes by Tim Harding; source: Leeds Mercury 29 September 1900.

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 c3 d5 4 exd5
4 Qa4 is the critical move.
4...Qxd5 5 d4 Bg4 6 Be2 0-0-0 7 h3 Bxf3 8 Bxf3 e4 9 Be2 f5 10 0-0 Bd6 11 Qb3 Nf6 12 Bc4 Qa5 13 Be6+ Kb8 14
Bd2 Rhe8 15 d5 Ne7 16 c4 Qb6 17 Be3 Qxb3 18 axb3
[FEN "1k1rr3/ppp1n1pp/3bBn2/3P1p2/2P1p3/1P2B2P/1P3PP1/RN3RK1 b - - 0 18"]

The big question is whether the bishop on e6 is good or bad. First, Black must defend a7.
18...b6
18...a6 could also have its disadvantages.
19 Nc3 Kb7 20 Ra2?!
20 g4!? f4 (20...fxg4 21 hxg4 is also unclear.) 21 Bd4 is double-edged but might turn out well.; 20 Nb5 a6 21 Nxd6+
cannot be bad.
20...a5 21 c5?!
Positionally unsound, but White doubtless wanted to keep his own play going before Black could go ...Be5 or ...f4.
Better moves were, again, 21 g4!? and 21 Nb5.
21...Nexd5?
Black loses a piece and the game is decided. If 21...Bxc5 no doubt the plan was 22 Bxc5 bxc5 23 Rxa5 but then comes
23...Nexd5 24 Bxd5+ (24 Bxf5 g6) 24...Nxd5 25 Rxc5 c6 with positional advantage to Black (because of the doubled
pawn) and ...e3 in the air.
22 Bxd5+ Nxd5 23 Nxd5

23 cxd6 is even stronger.
23...Bxc5 24 Bxc5 Rxd5 25 Be3 h6 26 b4 Ra8 27 Rfa1 g5 28 g3 c6 29 bxa5 Raxa5 30 Rxa5 Rxa5 31 Rxa5 bxa5 32
Kf1 Ka6 33 Ke2 Kb5 34 g4 f4 35 Bd4 c5 36 Bg7 c4 37 Bxh6 a4 38 Bxg5 Kb4 39 Bf6 Kb3 40 g5 Kc2 41 g6 1-0
Apparently Frank Brown wrote to his brother, who wasnt doing well in the City of London Club National tournament,
suggesting he try an unusual move next time he had White. This is what happened. This is possibly the stem-game of
the opening long before the days of Henri Grob and Michael Basman! Maybe the Brown brothers had looked at this
at home?
Fred Brown Louis van Vliet
The Spike?/ Grobs Angriff?/ Brown Attack?? [A00]
London National (16), 1904
From Tony Gillams book mentioned above. I seem to recall seeing this game in The Field but did not note the date.
1 g4 d5 2 h3
He plays it the Basmaniac way, rather than the gambit 2 Bg2 Bxg4 3 c4.
2...e5 3 Bg2 c6 4 d3 Bd6 5 Nd2 Ne7 6 c4 Be6 7 Qc2 Nd7 8 Ngf3 Ng6 9 Nb3 f6 10 Bd2 Qe7 11 Rd1 Bb4 12 e3 a5 13
a3 Bxd2+ 14 Rxd2 dxc4 15 dxc4 Qf7 16 Bf1
[FEN "r3k2r/1p1n1qpp/2p1bpn1/p3p3/2P3P1/PN2PN1P/1PQR1P2/4KB1R b Kkq - 0 16"]

16...Nb6?
Now White takes the initiative. Black would stand better after 16...a4 or 16...0-0.
17 Nc5 Qe7 18 Nxe6 Qxe6 19 c5 Nd7 20 Bd3 Ne7??
Black overlooks the loss of a piece.
21 Bc4 Nd5 22 e4 Nxc5 23 exd5 cxd5 24 Rxd5 Qc6 25 Rxc5 Qxf3 26 Bd5 Qf4 27 Rc8+ 1-0
Unfortunately, the games from the British Championships in which the Browns played are mostly missing, except for a
few draws and losses. They are not worth including here. The following game was played while Yates was spending
several days as a guest of Birmingham Chess Club playing individual and consultation games with members and gave a
simul.
Fred Brown Fred Dewhirst Yates
Queens Pawn Game [D05]
Exhibition Game, 3 January 1914

Birmingham Daily Post, 6 January 6, 1914.
1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 c5 3 e3 e6 4 b3 Nf6 5 Bd3 Nc6 6 Bb2 cxd4 7 exd4 Bd6 8 Nbd2 0-0 9 0-0 Bd7 10 Ne5 Rc8 11 Nxc6
Bxc6 12 Nf3 Ne4 13 Qe2 f5 14 Ne5 Rf6 15 f3
[FEN "2rq2k1/pp4pp/2bbpr2/3pNp2/3Pn3/1P1B1P2/PBP1Q1PP/R4RK1 b - - 0 15"]

15...Bxe5 16 fxe4 dxe4 17 dxe5 exd3 18 Qxd3 Rg6 19 Qxd8+ Rxd8 20 Rf2 f4 21 Kf1 Rf8 22 Rd1 h6 23 Rd4 f3 24
gxf3 Bxf3 25 Rd3 Bg2+ 26 Ke1 Rxf2 27 Kxf2 Be4 28 Rd2 h5 29 Ke3 Bc6 30 Rf2 h4 31 c4 h3 32 Bd4 a6 33 b4 Rg1
34 Kd2 Rg4 35 Kd3 Be4+ 36 Ke3 Bc6 37 Kd3 Be4+ 38 Ke3 Bc6 -
Here is the last known game by Fred Brown, found by Gerard Killoran, who found information in the Yorkshire Post
and Leeds Intelligencer of Friday 31 December 1920. It was a subsidiary event at the Hastings festival, being an
invitation tourney for four players: F. Brown, A. J. Mackenzie, G. G. M. Norman, and H. G. Cole. I am not sure about
Norman but the others were all veterans who had been strong players before the First World War.
Harold Godfrey Cole Fred Brown
Kings Gambit [C38]
Invitation Tournament Hastings 1920-21, 4 January 1921

Hastings and St Leonards Observer, 8 January 1921.
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4 Bg7 5 0-0 d6 6 d4 Nc6 7 c3 h6 8 g3 g4 9 Nh4 f3 10 Na3 Nf6 11 Re1 0-0 12 h3 Re8
13 Bd3 Nh5 14 Kh2 a6 15 Nc2 Ne5!

[FEN "r1bqr1k1/1pp2pb1/p2p3p/4n2n/3PP1pN/2PB1pPP/PPN4K/R1BQR3 w - - 0 16"]
16 Ne3
If 16 dxe5? Bxe5 , threatening ...Qxh4, and wins.
16...Nxd3 17 Qxd3 Nf4 18 Qc2 Nxh3 19 Nef5 Bxf5 20 Nxf5 Qf6 21 Bf4 Qg6 22 Qd2 Qh5 23 Be3 Nf2+ 24 Kg1
Qh1+ 0-1
Postscript
As a coda to my comments last month on the Sinquefield Cup, the anti-climax of the last two rounds (all games drawn)
was a pity but it did not detract from the fact that this was one of the greatest tournaments ever. With six players on an
average rating of 2800, it is simply amazing that the one who started with the third highest rating could win the
tournament with two rounds to spare and finish three points clear of the world champion. Fabiano Caruana, playing
what in interviews he called normal chess, finished the tournament with three draws (the first against Carlsen to
clinch first prize). He was showing a few signs of tiredness (mental rather than physical, probably) and a slight fear that
he might spoil his great result with a loss. Otherwise, if he had maintained the streak of form from the earlier rounds he
would probably have beaten Carlsen too and would certainly have beaten Nakamura. He even had a slight edge with
black at one point in the last round against Aronian.
Chess fans are now rather in the situation that we were when Gelfand was about to play Anand for the world title but
Carlsen was world number one; most people wished that Carlsen instead was the challenger. Yet Gelfand acquitted
himself well. Now there is a temptation to think that Caruana should be challenger but he still has more experience to
gain, as he knows himself. If the return world title match is played between Carlsen and Anand, the Indian has a real
chance, as events in St. Louis have shown. Caruana will probably get his chance in a few years.
Coverage of the four-man grandmaster tournament that followed in Bilbao (which did not have English-language
commentary) was dogged by problems with the website, which perhaps had insufficient bandwidth to cope with a large
number of international visitors. Moreover the software used was far inferior to the Chess-24 system. Nevertheless, the
tournament was of interest for Anands convincing performance; he only lost in the final round when he had the
tournament already won.

Copyright 2014 Tim Harding and ChessEdu.org. All Rights Reserved.
The Kibitzer #217

Wading in the Baltic
by Tim Harding
The Baltic Defence to the Queen's Gambit (ECO code D06) gets its name from its adoption by players from north-east
Europe, specifically GM Igors Rausis and his wife, correspondence GM Olita Rausis. It arises by 1 d4 d5 2 c4 Bf5 or
sometimes via 1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 Bf5 3 c4. Although the latter move order excludes two of White's sharpest responses, they
are the lines most typical of the Baltic Defence. Sometimes the Baltic transposes into a variation of the Slav Defence;
those lines will only be cursorily treated here.

The "true" Baltic Defence initiates very sharp play from a very early stage and there are some gambit lines with an
affinity to the Albin Counter-Gambit. It would be fatal for Black to play 2...Bf5 without some knowledge of the
principal variations, but if Black does know them he can seize the initiative from an unprepared opponent.
1 d4 d5 2 c4
For the frequently seen move order 2 Nf3 Bf5 3 c4 see B below.
2...Bf5
[FEN "rn1qkbnr/ppp1pppp/8/3p1b2/2PP4/8/PP2PPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 3"]

One of Black's main ideas is to exchange this bishop, which is his problem piece in so many replies to the Queen's
Gambit, for the White queen's knight. If this is allowed, it means that the white pressure on the centre is reduced
because there is no knight on c3 pressing d5 and preparing e2-e4, and moreover the queen's rook, displaced to b1 where
it has no future and must soon move again. These factors compensate Black for the loss of time involved in exchanging
a piece that moved twice for one that never moved.
The absence of Black's queenside bishop from his queenside, specifically the guard of his b7-pawn, also has the effect
of tempting White to undertake early tactical operations for the sake of winning material. In such variations Black
hopes to gain time against the exposed White queen while other White pieces remain undeveloped.
We will examine first what happens if White captures immediately on d5, and then look at some of the quieter lines, and
finally at the direct tries at refutation involving an early 3 Qb3.
A: 3 cxd5
B: 3 Nc3 with Nf3 (including 2 Nf3 lines)

C: 3 Nc3 followed by Qb3
D: 3 Qb3
A:
3 cxd5
White allows the minor piece exchange and Black is more or less obliged to gambit a pawn.
In this line we follow:
J. Ehlvest - I. Rausis, Riga, 1995:
3...Bxb1 4 Qa4+
Accepting the gambit is not so clear but after playing 3 cxd5 there is probably nothing better.
The move 4 Rxb1, which I played the first time I had to meet the Baltic, is inaccurate. Black's reply 4...Qxd5 attacks a2
and if White continues 5 Qa4+ to protect that pawn then 5...c6 holds everything, after which Black can develop more or
less normally with a roughly equal game. That actually transposes to the next note.
4...c6! 5 dxc6
Declining the pawn by 5 Rxb1 Qxd5 6 Nf3 (6 e3 is also possible) 6...Nd7 when White has tried 7 e3, 7a3 and 7 b4 but
none really impress. Both sides have practical chances. A game G. Flear-G. Sermier, French team championship 2003,
went 7 b4 Ngf6 (Instead Black could consider 7...e5 or 7...e6 and if 8 e3 a5 according to Dautov's notes for ChessBase.)
8 e3 e6 9 Qc2 Bd6 10 Bd3 Qh5 11 h3 and now Dautov said 11...0-0 12 0-0 e5 would equalize. There are obviously
other options for both sides but this line is fairly tame compared with much of the Baltic complex.
5...Nxc6 6 Rxb1
[FEN "rn1qkbnr/ppp1pppp/8/3p1b2/2PP4/8/PP2PPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 3"]

6...Qxd4
6...e5!? was the older move here, when play can go 7 Bd2 (7 a3!? Houdini 4) and now 7...Qxd4 (7...exd4 8 Nf3) 8 Qxd4
Nxd4 (8...exd4!? 9 g3 Bc5 10 Bg2 Nge7 11 Nh3 a5 12 Nf4 gave White an edge in Kaunas-Rausis, Riga zonal 1995.) 9
Nf3 (maybe 9 e3!? Nc6 10 Bb5 Bd6 11 Bxc6+ bxc6 12 Nf3 Ne7 13 e4 again with an edge said Shirov, while 10 b4 is a
Houdini 4 suggestion.) 9...Nc6 10 e4 Nf6! was unclear in Kuzmin-Shirov, Moscow 1991.

7 Qd4 Nxd4 8 e3
8 Nf3 Nc2+! 9 Kd1 Nb4 10 Bd2 e6 11 e3 a6 is unclear or perhaps there is a very slight White edge.
8...Nc6 9 b4
If 9 Bb5 Rc8! 10 Nf3 e6 11 Nd4 Nge7 12 Bd2 a6 may be playable for Black (Houdini).
9...e6 10 a3 Bd6 11 Nf3 Nf6 12 Bb2 Ke7 13 g3! Rac8 14 Bg2 Rhd8 15 Ke2
[FEN "2rr4/pp2kppp/2nbpn2/8/1P6/P3PNP1/1B2KPBP/1R5R b - - 0 15"]

White now has a definite advantage. The game continued 15...g6 16 Rbc1 Nd5 17 Rhd1 f6?! (Better 17...Nb6!?
intending ...a5 according to Hecht's notes for ChessBase.) 18 Rd2 a6 19 Rdc2 f5 and after complications White
eventually won, but here he should probably have played not 20 h3 but 20 Ng5! h6 21 Bxd5 exd5 22 Nf3. The upshot
of this is that while 3 cxd5 may lead to an advantage for White it is certainly messy enough for him to want to look
elsewhere for a solution.
B:
Next we look at the positional lines, which arise via either:
1 d4 d5 2 c4 Bf5 3 Nf3 e6 4 Nc3
Or:
1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 Bf5 3 c4 e6 4 Nc3
Note in passing that in the latter move order 4 Qb3 Nc6 5 c5 Rb8 6 Bf4 f6! 7 e3 g5 8 Bg3 Nge7 was fine for Black at
this point in Bareev-Speelman, Hastings 1992/93 although he eventually lost the game. Also after 1 d4 d4 2 Nf3 Bf5
White is not obliged to play 3 c4. He can play 3 g3 or 3 e3 to avoid the confrontational sharp lines altogether.

[FEN "rn1qkbnr/ppp2ppp/4p3/3p1b2/2PP4/2N2N2/PP2PPPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 0 4"]
4...c6
This transposes initially to a minor Slav Defence variation (3 Nf3 Bf5 4 Nc3 e6) classified as D11 but in practice
nowadays will usually arise via 2...Bf5.
The true Baltic treatment would be 4...Nc6?! but it is probably unsound if White plays accurately. After 5 Bf4 Black
has:
a) 5...dxc4!? when White should play 6 e3 (to meet 6...Nb4 by 7 e4), because if 6 e4 Bg4 7 d5 exd5 8 exd5 Qe7+ 9 Be2
(9 Be3!? risky) 9...Bxf3 10 gxf3 Houdini 4 Pro finds 10...0-0-0! (instead of 10...Ne5? 11 Qa4+ ) when 11 Qa4 Nd4 12
Qxa7 Nxe2 13 Qa8+ Kd7 14 Qa4+ is perpetual check.
b) 5...Nf6 6 e3 Be7 with two ways for White to seek an edge:
b1) 7 a3 0-0 8 Rc1 a6 9 cxd5 exd5 10 Bd3 (maybe better 10 Be2 ideas of minority attack) 10...Bxd3 11 Qxd3 Nh5?!
(11...h6 12 0-0 Bd6 suggested; if 11...Bd6 12 Bg5) 12 Bg3 Nxg3 13 hxg3 g6 14 Ke2 Bf6 15 g4 Bg7 16 g5 (Van WelySokolov, 2000) 16...f6.
b2) 7 cxd5!? Nxd5 (7...exd5 8 Bb5) 8 Bg3 0-0 (8...Bb4 9 Qc1 0-0 10 Be2 is a variation from the 2002 book Unusual
Queen's Gambit Declined by Chris Ward; if 8...Ncb4 9 Rc1 Dautov.) 9 Be2 Bb4 10 Qc1 Bd6 11 0-0 Bxg3 12 hxg3
Kramnik-N. Short, Horgen 1995 (Short switched to 4...c6 in their next game).
5 Qb3
This move usually comes in for White sooner or later in the Baltic. Now Black must decide how to defend his b-pawn.
5...Qb6
This is almost always played as Black would be happy to enjoy the half-open a-file after that would arise after 6 Qxb6
in reply. Also Black hopes that the reduced pressure on his centre after inducing c4-c5 will leave him a freer hand on
the wings.
Black can of course just play 5...Qc8 but it is rather passive and allows White a wide choice of plans. The old
Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings recommended 6 cxd5 with an edge to White, or White can play 6 g3!? Be7 7 Bg2
Nf6 as in a game Matamoros-Gurevich, Lanzarote 2003, and now Gurevich suggested 8 Nh4 Bg4 9 h3 Bh5 10 g4 Bg6
11 g5. White can also play 6 Bf4 but on that square the bishop may later be attacked by a Black knight, as after 6...Nf6
7 Rc1 (7 e3 is possible) 7...Nbd7 8 cxd5 Nxd5= (but not 8...exd5? 9 Nb5).
5...Qc7 is also possible, when White has the choice of quiet play or the sharp 6 Bf4!? dxc4 7 Bxc7 cxb3 8 e4 Bg6 9
axb3 Nf6 10 Nd2 followed by f3 building a large centre which is rather intimidating for Black (Khalifman-Kabanov,
Russian League 2008, for example). White also has the half-open a-file but if he doesn't like the doubled pawn he could
play 9 a3 instead and hope to pick up the stray b3-pawn later.
Returning now to 5...Qb6, White plays:
6 c5
[FEN "rn2kbnr/pp3ppp/1qp1p3/2Pp1b2/3P4/1QN2N2/PP2PPPP/R1B1KB1R b KQkq - 0 6"]

Now a big split:
6...Qxb3!?
A major alternative is 6...Qc7 7 Bf4 Qc8 (After 7...Qxf4?! 8 Qxb7 it is not obvious what Black obtains as compensation
for the exchange.).
[FEN "rnq1kbnr/pp3ppp/2p1p3/2Pp1b2/3P1B2/1QN2N2/PP2PPPP/R3KB1R w KQkq - 0 8"]

There is a huge amount of material on this D11 variation in databases, books, and online so I shall only offer a few
guidelines. I am unconvinced, though, that this is an attractive line for Black.
Now 8 e3 can be illustrated by two examples:
a) 8...Be7 9 Qa4 Nd7 10 b4 a6 11 h3 Ngf6 12 Qb3 Ne4 13 Be2 g5 14 Bh2 h5 15 Ne5 Nxe5 16 Bxe5 f6 17 Bh2 Nxc3 18
Qxc3 Kf7 19 a4 Qd7 20 Bg3 h4 21 Bh2 Bd8 22 Kd2 Bc7 23 Bxc7 Qxc7 24 b5 axb5 25 axb5 cxb5 26 Bxb5 Be4 27 f3
Bf5 28 Rxa8 Rxa8 29 Ra1 Rxa1 30 Qxa1 e5 31 Bd3 Bxd3 32 Kxd3 Kg6 33 Qa8 Kf7 34 Qh8 Qc6 35 Qh7+ Kf8 36

Qh8+ Kf7 Draw (Wohlfahrt-Rausis, corr 1994).
b) 8...Nf6 9 Qa4 Nbd7 10 b4 a6 (10...Nh5!?; 10...Bg4 11 b5 Bxf3 12 bxc6!) 11 h3 Be7 12 Qb3 0-0 13 Be2 Be4! and
Black was OK in Kramnik-Shirov, Linares 1994, a game which should be easy to find online.
The more dangerous alternative is 8 Nh4 Bg6 (There are other moves but 8...Be4 9 f3 Bg6 10 Nxg6 hxg6 11 e4 Nf6 is
essentially same as the immediate Bg6 line.) 9 Nxg6 hxg6 10 e4 Nf6 11 exd5! Nxd5 (11...exd5 12 0-0-0) 12 Nxd5 cxd5
when White has tried two plans:
a) 13 Bxb8 Qxb8 14 Bb5+ Kd8 15 g3 (15 0-0?? Qxh2#) 15...Be7 (improving on 15...Qc7 16 0-0 b6 17 Rfe1 Be7 18 Re5
Rh5 19 Qf3 Bf6? 20 Qxd5+ 1-0 Robatsch-Hertneck, 1994) 16 0-0 Bf6 17 Rad1 Qc7 18 Rfe1 (Van Wely-Salov, Donner
Memorial 1995) and now maybe Danny King's idea 18...b6 is playable, e.g., 19 c6 a6 20 Qa3 Be7 21 Qa4 Qa7 is
unclear, he claimed.
b) 13 Bb5+!? Nc6 14 0-0-0 (planning h4-h5) for which see Kramnik-Gelfand, Wijk aan Zee 1998.
B1: 6...Qxb3
This move is very interesting but perhaps ultimately incorrect. In the first two rounds of the 2014 Irish Championship I
had this position, once with either colour, and White won both games. (I should mention that in the game where I was
Black the opening sequence was 2 Nf3 Bf5 and I had no intention of meeting 2 c4 by 2...Bf5 because I did not trust line
D below.)
7 axb3 Na6!?
This is the critical move if Black is trying to seize the initiative on the queenside. It can lead to very wild tactics.
The alternative is to accept a slight disadvantage but one which White needs to play precisely to take advantage of.
7...Nd7 8 b4
All this occurred in Khalifman-Wolski, New York open 1998. White's idea is always to eliminate his doubled pawn,
using it to crack open the queenside before Black can block it. Nevertheless 8...a6 9 b5! cxb5 10 Nxb5 Rc8 11 Nc3 Ne7
may be playable for Black.
Instead Wolski played 8...f6 and lost as follows: 9 b5 Ne7 10 e3 e5 11 bxc6 bxc6 12 b4 Kd8 13 b5 cxb5 14 Bxb5 e4 15
Nd2 Nb8 16 f3 exf3 17 Nxf3 Bd7 18 Bd3 Nbc6 19 e4 Nb4 20 Bb1 dxe4 21 Bxe4 Bc6 22 Bxc6 Nexc6 23 Ke2 Kc8 24
Rd1 a5 25 d5 Ne5 26 Nxe5 fxe5 27 Ne4 Nc2 28 Ra2 Nd4+ 29 Kd3 Be7 30 Be3 Rd8 31 Kc4 Nc6 32 Rb1 1-0.
A similar idea arose in my first round game at the Irish Championships where Black played 7...Nf6 and I replied 8 b4.
The game continued 8...Nbd7 9. b4 a6 10. b5 cxb5 11. Nxb5 Rc8 12. Nd6+ Bxd6 13. Bxd6 Ne4 14. Bg3 h6. White has
lost some time with his knight manoeuvre to d6 and must be careful to complete his development. After 15. e3 O-O 16.
Be2 Rfe8 17. O-O Nxg3 18. hxg3 Black had eliminated my bishop pair and decided to get active which was probably a
mistake. Play continued 18...e5!? 19. b4 Bg4?! 20. dxe5 Nxe5 21. Rfd1 Nxf3+ 22. Bxf3 Bxf3 23. gxf3 and Black's
isolated d-pawn was doomed to drop off sooner or later (Harding-Loughran, Irish Championship 2014).
Now we return to 7...Na6. The move which I chose in the next round, having Black this time.

[FEN "r3kbnr/pp3ppp/n1p1p3/2Pp1b2/3P4/1PN2N2/1P2PPPP/R1B1KB1R w KQkq - 0 8"]
Black evidently has intentions of ...Nb4 with a fork on c2 and other violent possibilities are also in the air.
Over the next few moves my opponent, former Irish champion Philip Short, consumed a huge amount of time but
eventually found a good solution although he was unfamiliar with the line. He said afterwards that he was just trying to
find a way to avoid losing a piece. Meanwhile I failed to remember some crucial details of my preparation!
B1: 8 e4?!
B2: 8 Bf4
Also:
a) 8 Ra4!? (This pawn offer is a Shirov suggestion which is unclear and perhaps has never been tried.) 8...Bc2 (8...Nf6?!
9 e4) 9 e3 (9 Bf4!?) 9...Nc7 (9...Bxb3? 10 Ra3) seems about equal after 10 Be2 or 10 Bd2.
b) 8 Na2!? would prevent ...Nb4 but is very passive.
c) Maybe 8 e3 Nb4 9 Ra4 is also playable.
B1: 8 e4?!
This is the old theoretical move, as recommended for example in Graham Burgess's book on the Slav.
[FEN "r3kbnr/pp3ppp/n1p1p3/2Pp1b2/3PP3/1PN2N2/1P3PPP/R1B1KB1R b KQkq - 0 8"]
8...Nb4! 9 exf5
If 9 Ra4 Nc2+ (Black must sacrifice a piece) 10 Kd1 (or 10 Kd2 dxe4 11 g4 Bg6) 10...dxe4:
Burgess now recommended 11 Ng5 citing Svidler-Mokriak, Alma-Ata 1991, and claiming some advantage for White,
but Houdini finds 11...Nxd4 12 Rxd4 Bxc5 and ...Bxf2.
11 Nh4 is similar, while 11 Nd2 returns the piece after11...Nf6 12 Kxc2 e3+ and ...exd2 which is apparently OK for
Black.
9...Nc2+ 10 Kd1 Nxa1 11 fxe6 fxe6!? 12 b4
Some notes you may find claim White is winning here. Shirov-Svidler Arnold Cup, Gausdal 1992, continued 12...a5 13
bxa5 Nb3 14 a6 Nxc1 15 axb7 Rb8 16 Kxc1 Rxb7 17 Bd3 g6 18 Re1 Bh6+ 19 Kc2 Ke7 20 b4 Nf6 21 Ne5 Rc7 22 b5
cxb5 23 Nxb5 Rb7 24 Nc6+ Kd7 25 Ne5+ Ke7 26 Nd6 Rc7 27 Ndf7 Bg7 28 Nxh8 Bxh8 29 f4 Nd7 30 Ra1 Bf6 31 Ra8
1-0. However but Houdini 4 says Black is winning after 12...g6, and also that 12...Nf6 unclear.
If that is correct, White must probably abandon 8 e4. Unfortunately for me, Short did not play 8 e4 but eventually found
the move recommended by Houdini.
B2:
8 Bf4!
[FEN "r3kbnr/pp3ppp/n1p1p3/2Pp1b2/3P1B2/1PN2N2/1P2PPPP/R3KB1R b KQkq - 0 8"]

8...f6
There is also the perhaps untested 8...Bc2!? 9 Nd2 f6 10 e3 Nb4 11 Ra4 Nd3+ 12 Bxd3 Bxd3 13 b4, which is slightly
better for White maybe although Black has the B pair and White is weak on light squares.
9 e3!
9 e4?! Nb4 10 exf5 Nc2+ 11 Kd1 Nxa1 12 fxe6 was unclear in a game Zakarevich-Vaulin.
9...Nb4 10 Ra4
This move is favoured by Houdini, but 10 Kd2 is also tricky to meet. The critical line then is probably 10...e5 11 Bg3 as
suggested by Thomas Ernst, rather than 11 dxe5 Bxc5 12 Na4 which is unclear. Unfortunately I forgot 10...e5, played
very badly from this point and was crushed.
10 Ra4 was also played in a game involving another former Irish champion, this time on the losing side:
10...Nd3+ 11 Bxd3 Bxd3 12 Kd2 [12 b4] 12...Ba6 13 Rha1 Ne7 14 b4 Kd7 15 Ne1 g5 16 Bd6 Nc8 17 Bxf8 Rxf8 18
Rxa6 bxa6 19 Rxa6 Rb8 20 Nd3 Re8 21 f3 Rb7 22 b5 Ne7 23 Nb4 Rc8 24 e4 dxe4 25 fxe4 Ke8 26 Nxc6 Nxc6 27
bxc6 Rxb2+ 28 Kd3 Kd8 29 d5 exd5 30 exd5 Rxg2 31 d6 Rg1 32 Ne4 f5 33 c7+ Rxc7 34 dxc7+ Kxc7 35 Nc3 g4 36
Rh6 g3 37 Nd5+ Kd8 38 hxg3 Rxg3+ 39 Kd4 1-0 A. Shchekachev - S. Brady, European Club Cup Saint Vincent
2005.
It seems from these results that 7...Na6 is in the repair sheds and may have to be abandoned, but it is fertile ground for
analysis.
C:
1 d4 d5 2 c4 Bf5 3 Nc3
[FEN "rn1qkbnr/ppp1pppp/8/3p1b2/2PP4/2N5/PP2PPPP/R1BQKBNR b KQkq - 0 3"]

White preserves the knight from exchange and attacks the d5-pawn.
3...e6
This is the normal move to defend d5 although White can still "win" a pawn if determined to do so, whatever the risk.
If instead 3...c6?! Black is playing a dubious gambit because after 4 cxd5 cxd5 5 Qb3 he cannot defend both his b-pawn
and d-pawn. Therefore play usually goes instead 4 cxd5 Nf6 or 4 Qb3 Qd7 5 cxd5 Nf6 but Black scores very badly in
these lines. He has less compensation than in the main gambit line with ...c6 below because he has not exchanged the
bishop for the knight.

[FEN "rn1qkbnr/ppp2ppp/4p3/3p1b2/2PP4/2N5/PP2PPPP/R1BQKBNR w KQkq - 0 4"]
Now if White continues 4 Nf3, as is normal, then the game transposes to the slower lines considered under B which
frequently arise via 2 Nf3 Bf5 3 d4 e6 4 Nc3 etc.
After 3 Nc3 e6, there are two distinctive line that is really important to know in detail, though transpositions are
possible.
4 cxd5
There is also the immediate 4 Qb3 where White attacks the b-pawn now that the bishop has been cut off from the
queenside by ...e6. On the other hand the bishop is defended by the e-pawn and the way has been opened for the king's
bishop which may not come out yet but can defend a black knight on b4 from its base at f8. Therefore Black will
usually meet 4 or 5 Qb3 by ...Nc6, and this is the main reason why ...e6 is preferable to ...c6 in this line.
After 4 Qb3 Nc6 (4...dxc4 5 Qxb7 should be good for White), play will often go 5 cxd5 exd5 transposing to the main
line C below. After 4 Qb3 Nc6 White could play more quietly by 5 f3 or 5 e3 but in that case Qb3 looks a bit odd.
4...exd5 5 Qb3 Nc6
The attack on White's d-pawn virtually forces the next move to defend it.
6 Nf3
[FEN "r2qkbnr/ppp2ppp/2n5/3p1b2/3P4/1QN2N2/PP2PPPP/R1B1KB1R b KQkq - 0 6"]

Black now has a choice:
6...Nb4!?
This is the sharpest move, typically the human choice since the knight temporarily blocks the threat to b7 in addition to
threatening a fork at c2. The computer program Houdini 4, however, prefers to develop another piece:
a) 6...Nf6! is the critical reply. Now:
a1) 7 Bg5 Na5 8 Qa4+ c6 9 Bxf6 gxf6 has occurred in several games, though not at the highest level. For example,
grandmaster Mamedyarov (at the Dubai open in 2003) tried 10 e3 Qb6 11 0-0-0 0-0-0 12 Bd3 but after 12...Be6 13 Qc2
Nc4 he was unable to win against an opponent, Fadi Eid, who was rated almost 200 points below him. Black's kingside
pawns were shattered but he had the bishop pair and his king was safer.
a2) 7 e4!? is the computer's ultra-sharp preference, but humans shy away from it. Play might continue 7...dxe4 (7...Nxe4
also comes into consideration, and if 8 Qxb7 Bd7 9 Nxd5 Bd6 with wild play.) 8 Ne5 (Not 8 Qxb7 Rb8 9 Qxc6+ Bd7
and Black will regain his piece with the initiative.) 8...Be6!? 9 Qxb7 (Not 9 Nxc6 bxc6 and Black's pieces come out
fast.) 9...Nxd4 10 Bb5+ (forced) 10...Nxb5 11 Qxb5+ Nd7 and Black has fairly good chances. If you don't like that,
Houdini's other suggestion 8...Nxe5 9 dxe5 Nd7 is about equal.
b) 6...Bb4 allows White to obtain the bishop pair by 7 a3 (7 Bg5 f6!? or 7...Nf6) 7...Bxc3 8 bxc3 (8 Qxc3 Nf6 9 Bg5 h6
10 Bxf6 is equal.) also renewing the threat to b7 but 8...Rb8 may be an adequate reply. There have been insufficient
tests.
7 e4!
Compared with the 6...Nf6 7 e4 line, White attacks the Baltic bishop as well as ruling out ...Nc2+ for the time being.
That is presumably why Houdini's analyses give the preference to 6...Nf6.
7...dxe4
[FEN "r2qkbnr/ppp2ppp/8/5b2/1n1Pp3/1QN2N2/PP3PPP/R1B1KB1R w KQkq - 0 8"]

I have about fifty examples of this position in my database but none played at a really high level. White now has two
moves to save the knight and, incidentally, threaten checkmate in one move. Houdini 4 thinks that both offer White
some advantage but that 8 Ng5 is rather better.
a) 8 Ne5 (the computer's preference) 8...Be6 (virtually forced) 9 Bc4 Bxc4 (9...Qxd4 10 Bxe6 Qxe5 11 Bxf7+ Kd7 12 00 looks very strong for White.) 10 Qxc4 Nd3+ 11 Nxd3 exd3 12 Qb5+ (or 12 0-0!?) 12...c6 13 Qxb7 Qe7+ 14 Qxe7+
and 15 Be3 with some advantage for White. Instead Black can avoid the simplification by 10...Qe7 but after 11 0-0
White should son regain the pawn with a dominating position.
b) 8 Ng5 Nh6 9 Bc4 Qd7 10 0-0 also looks good for White.
D:
1 d4 d5 2 c4 Bf5 3 Qb3!?
This is the most direct attempt at refutation. It is probably a case of (to quote a song some readers may be old enough to
remember):
"Fools rush in
where wise men fear to go,
but wise men never fall in love,
so how are they to know?"
[FEN "rn1qkbnr/ppp1pppp/8/3p1b2/2PP4/1Q6/PP2PPPP/RNB1KBNR b KQkq - 0 3"]

My first round Irish Championship opponent repeated the Baltic in a later round and this fatal accident occurred:
3...Nc6? This is thematic in some Baltic lines but here it is just about the worst move on the board. Black must now
lose material: 4 cxd5 Na5?? (4...Nxd4 loses the knight to 5 Qa4+ and 6 Qxd4; 4...Nb8 keeps the deficit to a pawn or
two.) 5 Qb5+ c6 6 dxc6 Nxc6 7 Qxf5 e6 8 Qd3 Rc8 9 Nc3 Bb4 10 Nf3 Nf6 11 g3 Qa5 12 Bg2 Nd5 13 Bd2 1-0 (P.
Reynolds-J. Loughran, Irish Championship 2014). I was surprised to see this as Loughran had played the Baltic in
several games but evidently had neglected to prepare something against 3 Qb3, or else had forgotten his preparation.
Databases show that some other players have also lost rapidly in this way.
So what is Black to do about the double threat to his b-pawn and d-pawn?
There are several possibilities, but some are pretty clearly bad also. For example 3...Bxb1 4 Qxb7 Nd7 5 Rxb1 leaves
Black a clear pawn down. In practice Black has almost always chosen 3...e5, considered below in more detail, but it is
worth mentioning briefly that her could consider:
3...e6 White should play 4 Qxb7 when the soundness of Black's gambit is questionable; instead 4 Nf3 is too slow
because of 4...Nc6 5. Qxb7 Nb4 6. Na3 Rb8 7. Qxa7 Ra8 drawing by perpetual attack on the queen. After 4 Qxb7 Nd7
Houdini recommends 5 c5 Rb8 6 Qa6 to hold one pawn and limit Black's piece play. (This gives some indication of
why 3...e5 is more critical.)
3...Nf6 4 Qxb7 Nbd7 5 cxd5 Rb8 6.Qc6. Here Black may win back one pawn eventually but is unlikely to have enough
compensation for the second one. Nevertheless Black's lead in development may put White off going in for this.
3...dxc4 4 Qxb7 (If 4 Qxc4 Nf6 Black may be OK; not 4 Qb5+ Nc6 5. d5 a6 and certainly not 5. Qxf5?? losing to
5...Nxd4) 4...Nd7 5 Nc3 Rb8 6 Qc6 requires some analysis. Black is not yet a pawn down but is liable to lose the c4pawn eventually. Perhaps 6...e5 is the best try.
Generally, Black wants to make the most active and most complicated reply and hence the Albin Counter-Gambit style
move 3...e5!? is the most critical. Many players with White will be unhappy in the resulting positions and will avoid 3
Qb3 for that reason.

Igors Rausis annotated the following exemplar game in Correspondence Chess Informator 3.
G. Kotenko - I. Rausis
ICCF WT/M/GT/247 corr 1989

1 d4 d5 2 c4 Bf5 3 Qb3 e5
[FEN "rn1qkbnr/ppp2ppp/8/3ppb2/2PP4/1Q6/PP2PPPP/RNB1KBNR w KQkq - 0 4"]

4 Qxb7
4 cxd5 is Houdini 4's first choice on my laptop. 4...exd4 5 Nf3 Bc5 (5...Be4!?) 6 Nxd4 Bxd4 7 Qa4+ Nc6! 8 dxc6 b5!
(8...b6 is safer when after 9 e3 Be5 10 Nd2, White has an extra pawn but is behind in development.) 9 Qxb5!? (9 Qb3
may be best.) 9...Ne7 10 e3 (10 Nc3 is Houdini's preference.) 10...Rb8 11 Qe2 0-0! as in Ward-Rausis, Le Touquet
open 1992, improving on 11...Bf6 in a previous Rausis game. Now Ward dared not take the piece and played 12 Nc3
but soon lost quickly anyway. 12 exd4 Nxc6 13 Na3 Nxd4 14 Qc4 could be critical.
4 dxe5 was Houdini's third choice. It is now very like an Albin. Ward suggests 4...Nc6 5 Nf3 (5 cxd5 Bb4+ 6 Nd2 Nd4
is unclear.) 5...Nb4! (whereas Houdini proposes 5...d4 6 a3 Qd7 7 Qxb7 Rb8 8 Qa6 Nge7 9 g3 Ng6 10 Bg2 Be7 11 Qa4
0-0 12 Nbd2 Ngxe5 13 b4 Rfe8 with White standing slightly ahead at 0.23 pawns at depth 24.) and now play might go
6 Na3 dxc4 (or 6...a5 as in a game Rei-Vasconcelos) 7 Qxc4 Be6 8 Qf4 Qd7 with complications that I shall not attempt
to resolve.
Other lines indicated by Houdini for consideration are 4 Nf3 Nc6 5 cxd5 Nb4 6 e4 Bxe4 7 Nxe5 Nc2+ 8 Kd1 Bd6 9
Qb5+ c6 10 dxc6 bxc6 11 Nxc6 and 4 Qxb7 Nd7 5 dxe5 Ne7 6 Nf3 Rb8 7 Qxa7 Nb6 8 Qa6 dxc4 9 Qa5. There is
plenty of scope for readers to do their own homework!
4...Nd7 5 Nc3
Ward discusses options here but surprisingly not 5 Nf3! This is a Houdini suggestion and could be critical. Then 5...Rb8
(maybe 5...e4!?) 6 Qxa7 Ra8 and Black repetitions will force White to take the Qc6 option eventually, e.g., 7 Qb7 Rb8
8 Qc6 (8 Qa6!? exd4) 8...Bb4+ 9 Bd2 with double-edged play. Instead 6...Bc2 7 Bd2 Ra8 8 Qb7 Rb8 9 Qxd5 led to a
win for White in C. Syre-J. Streit, Berlin 2010. Also 6...Bb4+ has been tried in correspondence chess.
5 dxe5 is also possible when Black can continue in Albin style by 5...d4!? or look into 5...Ne7 6 Qb3 Nc6 7 Nf3 Rb8 8
Qd1 dxc4 9 Nc3 Bb4 10 g3 0-0 (Houdini) or 5...Rb8!? when Houdini tends not to agree with suggestions in Ward's
book.
Black should be OK after 5 cxd5 exd4! (5...Rb8 6 Qxa7 Ra8 7 Qb7 Rb8 is a draw.) 6 Qc6 Bc5 7 Nf3 Ne7 8 Qa4 0-0 as
Houdini suggests, instead of 8...Nxd5 in a game cited by Ward.
5...exd4 6 Nxd5 Bd6
[FEN "r2qk1nr/pQpn1ppp/3b4/3N1b2/2Pp4/8/PP2PPPP/R1B1KBNR w KQkq - 0 7"]

7 e4!?
For 7 Nf3 see the next game.
If 7 Bf4 Bxf4 8 Nxf4 Houdini proposes 8...c5 whereas Ward has a game with 8...Ngf6; 7 b4 Rb8 (7...Ngf6 8 Nxf6+
Nxf6 Houdini) 8 Qxa7 Ne7 9 c5 (If 9 a3 Nxd5 Houdini.) 9...Be5 is unclear. 10 Bg5 f6 11 Nxe7 Be4 (threat ...Ra8) 12
Qa6 fxg5 Houdini.
7...Nc5?!
Not best says Houdini (because of White's improvement at move 11) but Rausis played it by post and then repeated it
over the board so he must have liked it. Ward has no other moves, but Houdini proposes 7...dxe3! 8 Bxe3 Rb8 9 Qxa7
Ngf6, while 7...Rb8 8 Qxa7 Bxe4 9 Qxd4 is unclear.
8 Qc6+
8 Nxc7+ Bxc7 was also possible, when 9 Qb5+ Nd7 10 Qxf5 Ba5+ 11 Kd1 Ne7 is about equal. Maybe 9 Qc6+ Nd7 10
exf5 is more accurate. Then 10...Ba5+!? 11 Kd1 Ne7 was unclear in a game Sorensen-Rausis but Houdini suggests
10...Ne7!
8...Bd7 9 Nxc7+ Qxc7!
Not 9...Bxc7? 10 Qxc5 Ba5+? 11 b4.
10 Qxa8+ Ke7 (Threatening ...Bc6)

[FEN "Q5nr/p1qbkppp/3b4/2n5/2PpP3/8/PP3PPP/R1B1KBNR w KQ - 0 11"]
11 Qd5?
After this it may be Black for preference. Instead Houdini finds 11 e5! Bxe5 12 Qf3.
11...Nf6 12 Qxd4 Ncxe4 13 Nf3 Qa5+ (13...Bg4!? may be stronger.) 14 Bd2 Nxd2 15 Nxd2 Be5 16 Qe3 (16 Qd3 Rd8)
16...Re8 17 0-0-0
If 17 Be2 Kf8 18 Qd3 (18 0-0? Bxh2+ 19 Kxh2 Rxe3 20 fxe3 Qxd2 Ward) 18...Bg4 favours Black.
17...Ng4 18 Nb3 Qxa2
[FEN "4r3/p2bkppp/8/4b3/2P3n1/1N2Q3/qP3PPP/2KR1B1R w - - 0 19"]

Now Ward's book Unusual Queen's Gambit Declined included Gutop-Rausis, (Moscow 1992) as an illustrative game
36, which ended 19 Qg5+ Kf8 0-1. Ward wrote that 19 Qc5+!? "with the move 20 Qa3 to follow was the only way for
White to stay alive" but apparently he had not seen Rausis's game with Kotenko. It ended:
19 Qc5+ Kf6! 20 Qa3 Qxa3! 21 bxa3 Ba4! 22 Rd3 Bf4+! 3 Kb2 Rb8 24 Rf3 Rxb3+ 25 Rxb3 Be5+ 26 Rc3 Nxf2 27
Rg1 Nd1+ 28 Kc1 Bf4+ 29 Kb1 Nxc3+ 30 Kb2 Bxh2 31 Rh1 Nd1+ 32 Kb1 Bd6 33 Rh3 Bc5 34 Bd3 Nf2 35 Rf3+
Ke7 36 Bc2 Bc6 0-1
P. Thompson - K. Dolgitser
CCLA ch-10 corr USA, 1994

1 d4 d5 2 c4 Bf5 3 Qb3 e5 4 Qxb7 Nd7 5 Nc3 exd4 6 Nxd5 Bd6 7 Nf3

[FEN "r2qk1nr/pQpn1ppp/3b4/3N1b2/2Pp4/5N2/PP2PPPP/R1B1KB1R b KQkq - 0 7"]
7...Rb8
Ward has a game with 7...c5 instead and 7...Ne7 also comes into consideration. A postal game P. Cody-O. Rause, corr
1994, went instead 7...Nb6?! 8 Bg5 f6 9 Nxb6 Bb4+ 10 Bd2 Bxd2+ 11 Nxd2 axb6 12 g4 (12 c5 Ne7 is unclear.)
12...Rb8 13 Qd5 and White stood better but eventually lost.

8 Qxa7
8 Qc6 Ne7 9 Nxe7 Qxe7 10 Nxd4 Be4 11 Qa4 Bb4+ 12 Kd1 Qd6 13 e3 c5 14 a3 cxd4 15 axb4 dxe3+ 16 Ke1 exf2+ 17
Kxf2 is unclear (Dolgitser).
8...c6 9 Qa6! Ne7 10 Nxe7 Qxe7 11 Qxc6 Be4! 12 Qa4 0-0 13 Bg5 f6 14 Bc1 Bb4+ 15 Bd2 Bxf3! 16 gxf3 Nc5 17
Bxb4 Nd3+!
[FEN "1r3rk1/4q1pp/5p2/8/QBPp4/3n1P2/PP2PP1P/R3KB1R w KQ - 0 18"]

18 Kd2 Rxb4 19 Qa5 Nxf2 20 b3?
Dolgitser analysed 20 e4!? Nxh1 21 b3 Qd6 22 Qd5+ Qxd5 23 exd5 Ra8 24 d6 Rxb3 25 axb3 Rxa1 26 d7 Ra8 27 Bg2
Kf7 28 Bxh1 Ke7 29 f4 Rb8 30 Kc2 Kxd7.
20...Qe3+ 21 Ke1 Rfb8 22 Rd1
If 22 Rg1 Nd3+ 23 Kd1 Nb2+ 24 Ke1 Nxc4 (Dolgitser).
22...Nxd1 23 Kxd1 Kh8 24 Qf5 Ra8 25 Qc2 d3 26 Qxd3 Qxd3+ 27 exd3 Rxa2 0-1
Have fun with the Baltic Defence and play it with confidence - or not at all!
Postscript
A long time ago (I forget in which column) I mentioned a curious little book of self-mate chess problems by John
Keeble entitled Vive Le Beaut which was produced in a limited edition of only twenty copies, ten on pink paper (A
series) and ten on yellow (B series). There was also a normal edition called the
Caduceus with the same text. An article
by T. R. Dawson mentioned this book in
British Chess Magazine 1939 (pages 185-187), but, as Owen Hindle, who
owns copy 10A said to me: "It is curious that Keeble should have asked Dawson to reveal the secretand yet
(apparently) not inform him of the lemon copies."
For the last few years Hindle and I, and some other members of the Ken Whyld Association, have been trying to
establish who originally received the twenty books and where they went and who has them now. One of the details that
makes this task so difficult is that Keeble said he was going to leave a list of the recipients with the copy he was
donating to the British Museum library (now British Library), and he may indeed have done so, but that copy (5A) was
destroyed by bombing in the Second World War. It is also likely (since Keeble left his own book collection to the
British Chess Federation) that his two copies, 2A and 2B, were destroyed in 1940 in the Blitz when the National Chess
Centre at the John Lewis store in London went up in flames, many other chess treasures also being lost. It is probable,
therefore, that at most 17 copies of this book survive. Eight of these are known to be in public or university libraries,
and the rest are presumably held by private collectors.
The reason I mention this now is that a copy is coming up for auction in Germany on 20 and 22 November and you can
see the catalog online. The chess books going on sale are all duplicates from the late GM Lothar Schmid's collection
and the guide price for this book is 300 though. I always suspected Schmid had a copy but as this is a duplicates sale it
implies, incidentally, that Schmid must have had another copy which is not for sale yet. The copies were all numbered
1A-10A (pink) and 1B-10B (yellow) and the copy for auction is 9A. More information may come to light as a result of
this auction and, if so, it will be reported here.
Meanwhile, I am still hoping that some reader will go and inspect the copy at the Philadelphia Free Library and report
back on its colour and serial number. This is believed to be one of two copies which Keeble gave to Alain C. White,
who passed it on to George Willing, whose collection went to that library. We think it should be a lemon copy
numbered 1B but the library catalogue says it is pink so somebody needs to go and actually see it. Apart from that, the
copies about which there is no information are 5B, 6A and 6B, and 10B. It is presumably (at least) one of those that
Schmid also possessed.
Download The Kibitzer #217 (Ebook) in ChessBase, PGN, and PDF formats. Viewable in Ipad, Itouch, Kindle,
ChessBase and other PGN and PDF viewers. As an extra bonus, the database accompanying the ebook has more than
3,500 games!
Senior Moments
by Tim Harding
Senior chess tournaments are increasing in popularity and this year the FIDE World Senior team tournament was
revived. Although it drew a quite small entry, interest in future years is likely to increase and in 2015 team and
individual championships are scheduled for both World and Europe seniors. A big change this year, not universally
popular, was that instead of the traditional 60+ age group events (50+ for women), FIDE introduced a two-tier
structure. The "real" seniors are now 65+ (players born 1949 or earlier were eligible) while a 50+ "junior senior"
category was introduced.
The 2014 World Seniors Congress was held at the Mediterranean Village hotel near Katerini, in northern Greece, from
24 October to 4 November over 11 rounds, one game per day with a rest day. When I was in my late fifties, I had
always intended to resume serious over-the-board play in order to be in the youngest cohort the year I reached 60, but
as it happened I was then busy with my History PhD so it was out of the question. The rearrangement to 65+ suited me
fine because there were only a few players younger than me in the tournament, though I did have to play two of them.
This was my first time to play a seniors event of any kind, so I was fairly satisfied with my final score of six and a half
points, particularly as I was never below a 50 per cent score and won five games, ending with a small rating increase. It
was also the first time I had played an 11-round tournament since 1978 although I have played several nine-round
tournaments. (The 1984 FIDE Olympiad was fourteen rounds but I only played nine of them.)
Relaxing on the hotel patio... Greek veteran IM Nikolaos Skalkotas (left) and Danish GM Jens Kristiansen, who was
World Seniors Champion in 2012.
The age group change was unpopular with some people and the overall entry of the two men's tournaments combined
was smaller than last year's single event. Players in their early 60s were particularly affected and it is probable that
2011 champion Vladimir Okhotnik did not come because of this, while 2012 champion Jens Kristiansen had to compete
with the "juniors". However GM Anatoly Vaisser, the 2013 champion (representing France), was old enough to defend
his title and in 2015 Okhotnik will be eligible for the 65+ event, which is therefore likely to be even stronger than this
year at the top. I was told that another reason for the drop in entries was that there was no option to stay in cheaper
accommodation nearby. A condition of entry was to stay at the venue, a 5* hotel on the coast, which was quite some
distance from Katerini in fact; the nearby seaside resort Paralia (twenty minutes walk along the seafront) was almost
closed down at this time of the year.

General view of the women's tournament.
Due to the small entry for the women's tournament (25 players) they were all in one tournament but separate prizes were
awarded in the two age groups. There massive up-floats and down-floats in the last few rounds since every woman had
to play nearly half the other competitors. There were 47 players in the 50+ section and 91 in the "real" Senior
championship, not arrive so each tournament had a bye.
A side-effect of the change was that the publicity (for example at the ChessBase website) tended to concentrate on the
50+ tournament, although it had the smaller entry, because of the presence of some active professional grandmasters
and in particular because it was the come-back tournament of England's John Nunn. As a rough comparison, a British
player who scored five and a half in the 50+ tournament had precisely the same tournament performance rating as
another who scored six points in the 65+ tournament.
The oldest competitor in the Congress... Joseph Rozewicz of London (originally Poland), who was born in 1930.
Many countries, and all continents, were represented in the entries though understandably the majority of players were
from Europe. The American entry was very sparse. Perhaps potential competitors had not recovered from the 2014 US
Seniors Open, which was held in September on a cruise ship, in conjunction with a poker tournament, and was won by
GM Walter Browne.
After five rounds of the women's tournament the leading positions were as follows: Nona Gaprindashvili (2013 runnerup) and Svetlana Mednikova, both on 4 points. They had already met and drawn their game. Former world champion
Gaprindashvili, from Georgia, is of course a legend in chess, being the first woman to earn the "unisex" grandmaster
title. The following was perhaps her best win at Katerini.
N. Melashvili - N. Gaprindashvili
Modern Defence (A04)

World Seniors (Women), Katerini (2.1), 25 October 2014
1 Nf3 g6 2 d4 d6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 Bf4 Nd7 5 Qd2 e5 6 dxe5 dxe5 7 Bg5 f6 8 Be3 Nf8 9 Qxd8+ Kxd8 10 0-0-0+ Bd7 11
Ne4 Ne6 12 g3 Ke8 13 Bh3 f5 14 Nfg5 Nxg5 15 Nxg5 Nf6 16 f4 e4 17 Bd4 Rd8 18 Bg2 h6 19 Nh3 Kf7 20 Rd2 Bc6
21 e3
[FEN "3r3r/ppp2kb1/2b2npp/5p2/3BpP2/4P1PN/PPPR2BP/2K4R b - - 0 21"]

21...Ng4 22 Re1 Bxd4 23 Rxd4 Rxd4 24 exd4 Nxh2 25 c4 Ng4 26 d5 Bd7 27 Re2 c6 28 Nf2 Nf6 29 dxc6 Bxc6 30
Bh3 Nh5 31 Re3 Kf6 32 Kd2 g5 33 fxg5+ hxg5 34 Bxf5 Kxf5 35 g4+ Kf4 36 gxh5 g4 37 Nh1 Rxh5 38 Ng3 Rh2+ 39
Ne2+ Kg5 40 b4 a6 41 a4 Bxa4 42 Rxe4 Bc6 43 Re7 Bf3 44 b5 axb5 45 cxb5 g3 46 Rg7+ Kf6 47 Rxg3 Bxe2 48 b6
Bg4+ 49 Kc3 Rh3 0-1
Leading positions in the men's events were as follows. Senior-65:
Vaisser led with 4.5 and there were six players on 4
points; IM Vladimir Zhelnin, GM Yuri Balashov, GM Victor Kupreichik, FM Vladimir Gergel, IM Hermann van
Riemsdijk (of Brazil), and GM Mihai Suba (Romania). The large group on 3.5 included GM Evgeni Vasiukov and IM
Craig Pritchett of Scotland, who beat me in round two.
Keith Arkell and John Nunn at the start of their very brief game in round three.
Senior-50: GM John Nunn 4.5; GMs Keith Arkell, Mark Hebden, Zurab Sturua, and Evgeny. Sveshnikov 4; GMs Jens
Kristiansen and Karen Movzsziszian, and IM Janiz Barle were on 3.5. There had already been some games among the
leaders. Nunn had played a quick draw with Arkell in round three and beat Hebden in round four after the latter
declined a draw. He then beat Kristiansen. The following game and two endgames were played in round five, which
featured some very hard fights. Apart from the games included in the text of this article, I have included some other
interesting games with some notes in the accompanying database.
M. Hebden - E. Kalegin
Queen's Pawn, Barry Attack (A48)

World Seniors 50+, Katerini (5.2), 28 October 2014
1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 g6 3 Nc3 d5 4 Bf4 Hebden's favourite system, a sort of Veresov but with Bf4 instead of Bg5; can any
reader enlighten me about the origin of that name, Barry Attack? 4...Bg7 5 Qd2 0-0 6 Bh6 Bxh6?!
Hebden has had this
position before many times. Exchanging bishops draws the White queen away from the centre but looks inferior to me.
7 Qxh6 Nc6 8 e3 Qd6 9 Ng5 e5 10 0-0-0 exd4 11 Nb5 Qe7 12 Nxd4 Ne5 13 Be2 Rd8 14 Rhe1 c5 15 Nb5 Bf5 16 f3
a6 17 Na3 b5 18 Nb1 Rac8 At last White has time to bring new attackers into play on the kingside.
[FEN "2rr2k1/4qp1p/p4npQ/1pppnbN1/8/4PP2/PPP1B1PP/1NKRR3 w - - 0 19"]

19 g4 Be6 The piece sacrifice 19...Bxc2!? 20 Kxc2 d4 looks unclear.
20 h3 20 Qh4 threatens Nxh7 but is unclear after
20...h6 21 Qxh6 d4. 20...d4 21 f4 Nc6 21...Ned7 maybe. 22 f5!? If 22 Nd2 dxe3 23 Nde4 Bd5. 22...Nb4?! This piece
sacrifice is dubious; 22...Bd5 was a good option, after which White may struggle to justify his play. 23 fxe6 Nxa2+ 24
Kd2 fxe6 25 Rf1 dxe3+ 26 Kxe3 Nb4 27 Bd3 c4?
Hebden has finally obtained a definite advantage. Perhaps the best
defence was 27...Nxd3 28 Rxd3 Rxd3+ 29 cxd3 c4 30 Nd2.
[FEN "2rr2k1/4q2p/p3pnpQ/1p4N1/1np3P1/3BK2P/1PP5/1N1R1R2 w - - 0 28"]
28 Be4?! Perhaps short of time, Hebden understandably misses the computer combination 28 Bxg6!, e.g. 28...Rxd1
(28...hxg6 29 Rxd8+ Rxd8 230 Qxg6+ Qg7 31 Qxg7+ followed by a fork on e6) 29 Bxh7+! Qxh7 (29...Kh8 30 Nf7+!
Qxf7 31 Bg6+) 30 Nxh7 Nbd5+ 31 Ke2 Rxf1 32 Kxf1 and Black cannot recapture on e7 because of the fork at e6. The
move played lets Black back into the game. 28...Nxe4
He could also have tried 28...Rxd1 29 Rxd1 Nbd5+ 30 Ke2 Nxe4
31 Nxe4 Qc7 when the exposed White king may make it hard for White to cash in his material advantage.
29 Nxe4 Nxc2+ 30 Ke2 Nd4+ 31 Kf2 Rf8+ 31...e5 looks better, to anchor the central knight. 32 Kg2 Qb7 33 Nbd2
With the extra knight back in play, Black's situation becomes critical. 33...Nf5?
This trick is easily dealt with; the
centralizing 33...Qd5 looks best.
34 Qg5 Rcd8 35 Rf3 Nd4 36 Rxf8+ Rxf8 37 Rf1 Rxf1 38 Kxf1 Qf7+ 39 Kg2 Nc6
40 Nf3 Qe7 41 Qf4 e5 42 Qd2 Nd8 43 Qd5+ Nf7 44 Nfg5 1-0.
Nattiest dresser... GM Evgeny Sveshnikov who now represents Latvia.

My round five game had ended fairly quickly so after an early dinner I went to watch the remaining games. There were
two really tense and long fights. It was very impressive how, four hours into the heat of battle, GM Sveshnikov was still
immaculately dressed in his suit and bow tie while Barle still sported his bow tie that he wore throughout the
tournament. Most other players in these senior tournaments did not wear neckties at all.
E. Sveshnikov - J. Barle
[FEN "r7/1p1R1pk1/2p3p1/p5Pp/2P2P2/4K2P/PP6/8 b - - 0 40"]

40...Re8+ Following general principles, Black wants to defend actively in a rook ending. If 40...b5 41 cxb5 cxb5 42 Rd5
b4 43 Kd3 while 40...Rb8 is passive and invites a white king invasion.
41 Kf3 Re1 42 Rxb7 Rc1 43 Rb3 If 43 Ra7 Rxc4 44 Rxa5 Rc2.
43...Rxc4 44 Rc3 Rd4 45 Ke3 Rd1 46 a4 Re1+ It is
not clear who this helps; maybe just 46...Rb1 was better. 47 Kd4 Rd1+? Better
47...Rf1 48 Ke5 Rf2 49 Rb3 Re2+ 50
Kd4 Rf2. 48 Kc5 Rf1 49 Kb6 Rxf4 50 Kxa5 Rf5+ 51 Kb6 Rxg5 52 Kxc6 Sveshnikov's play appears uncertain in the
latter stages; 52 Rxc6 looks best, and if 52...Rg3 53 a5. 52...h4
Black's idea is to force the b-pawn to advance and then
play ...Rg3 winning the h-pawn. 53 Ra3 53 Rc5 looks stronger because White's a-pawn is fast. 53...Rg2
[FEN "8/5pk1/2K3p1/8/P6p/R6P/1P4r1/8 w - - 0 54"]

54 b4 On the face of it, 54 a5 is strong but can Black harass with checks permanently? Presumably Sveshnikov was
worried he could. 54...Rg3 55 Ra1 Rxh3 56 a5 Rc3+ 57 Kb6 h3 58 a6 h2 59 a7 Ra3 As Barle became more nervous
you could see his lips move slightly as he was calculating the variations "aloud" to himself. The same phenomenon
could be observed in other games where he got into difficulties, such as against John Nunn. 60 Rh1 60 Rxa3 h1Q 61
a8Q wins but Sveshnikov must have feared a miscalculation allowing perpetual check.
60...g5 61 Rxh2 g4 62 Rh5 Simply 62 Kb7 g3 63 Rg2 f5 64 a8Q Rxa8 65 Kxa8 f4 66 b5 wins. 62...g3 63 Rg5+ Kf6 64
Rg8 Ultra-cautious again: I expected to see 64 Rxg3 Rxg3 65 a8Q. 64...Ke5 65 a8Q Rxa8 66 Rxa8 f5 67 Rg8 Most
moves win; 67 b5 and 67 Kc5 are one move quicker.
67...f4 68 Kc5 Ke4 69 b5 f3 70 Rg4+! 1-0
V. Stepovoj - C. Frick
This endgame was being played simultaneously with Sveshnikov-Barle, a few boards away.
[FEN "2r2bk1/p1r2p2/P5p1/3Q3p/8/2p3PP/2R2P2/7K w - - 0 39"]

Black seems to have a fortress with R, B and strong P v Q. How can he lose?
39 Kg2 Bg7 40 g4! White opens a "second
front". To have chances he must try to expose the black king to the queen's pressure. 40...Rc5 41 Qb7 R5c7 42 Qb5
hxg4 43 hxg4 Bf6 44 f4 Rd8 45 g5 Bg7 46 Kf3 Rcd7 White now takes a risk to tempt Black out of his fortress.
[FEN "3r2k1/p2r1pb1/P5p1/1Q4P1/5P2/2p2K2/2R5/8 w - - 0 47"]

47 Ke2!? Kh7 After 47...Rd4 48 Qb7 Re8+ 49 Kf3 Rd3+ 50 Kg4 Ree3 51 Qg2 Bd4 Houdini 4 claims Black even
stands a bit better.
48 Qc6 Re7+ 49 Kf3 Red7 50 Kg4 Rd6 50...Rd1 51 Rh2+ Kg8 52 Qc7 R1d7 53 Qc4 Rd1=
(Houdini). 51 Qc7 R6d7 52 Qc6 Rd2!? Instead of maintaining the status quo for a draw, Black decides to exchange
rooks - maybe a winning try. He should play 52...Rd1 53 Rh2+ (53 Rxc3?! Bxc3 54 Qxc3 Rg1+) 53...Kg8 54 Qb7
R1d7. 53 Rc1 Rd1 54 Rxd1 Rxd1 55 Qg2
[FEN "8/p4pbk/P5p1/6P1/5PK1/2p5/6Q1/3r4 b - - 0 55"]

55...Bd4!? Still Black has everything protected and should draw. However there are things White can try now that
Black has only one rook, so fewer counter-attacking threats. 55...Rc1! was presumably what Black intended when
exchanging rooks. He "only" has to play ...c2 and then move away the R with check to queen the pawn. White has to
prevent this immediately. 56 f5 c2! (56...gxf5+ 57 Kxf5 Rb1 58 Qe4) 57 f6 (Presumably Black got "cold feet" about his
B being driven here but it's OK. If 57 Qh2+ Kg8 58 fxg6 fxg6 59 Qb8+ draws by perpetual check.) 57...Bf8 58 Qh3+
Kg8 59 Qh2 Bc5 threatening ...Rg1+ and so forcing 60 Qb8+ Kh7 61 Qh2+ etc. with a draw.
56 Qh2+ Kg8 57 f5 Of course. 57...gxf5+ 58 Kxf5 Rd2 59 Qb8+ Kg7 60 Qb4 Pins the pawn to prevent it advancing.
60...Rd1 61 Qc4 Rd2

[FEN "8/p4pk1/P7/5KP1/2Qb4/2p5/3r4/8 w - - 0 62"]
Now 62 Qb4 will lead to a draw by repetition soon. White tries his last throw of the dice. 62 g6!? Why not? There is no
risk of White losing. You have to admire his persistence. 62...fxg6+ 63 Ke4 Of course it should still be a draw.
63...Kh6 64 Qf7 Bg7?! There was no need to give away the a-pawn, but maybe Black was still trying to win.
64...Kh5!= 65 Qh7+ Kg5 66 Qf7 Kh6 67 Qf4+ Kg7 68 Qc7+ Kf6 69 Qd8+ Kf7 70 Qd5+ Kf8 71 Qd6+ Kg7 72 Qc7+
Kf6 (Houdini).
65 Qxa7 Rd4+ 65...Kh7 66 Qf7 c2! was playable as an attempt to liquidate the queenside, viz., 67 Qc7 (67 a7?? c1Q
Black queens first and mates) 67...Rd4+ 68 Ke3 (68 Kf3?? Rd3+ 69 Kf2 Rc3-+) 68...Rd6 (68...Ra4 is equivalent.) 69
Qxc2 Rxa6 70 Qh2+ Bh6+ 71 Ke4 Ra4+ 72 Kd5 Rf4 and draws.
66 Kf3 Rd3+ Since the whole point of Black's play was to advance the c-pawn, it is hard to comprehend why he did not
do it: 66...c2! 67 Qc7 Rd3+ 68 Ke4 Rc3 and now White can only prevent Black queening by giving perpetual check.
After 69 Qh2+ Kg5 70 Qg1+ Kh5 (70...Kf6 might allow a7 although that also seems to be a draw: 71 a7 (71 Qd4+
Kg5) 71...c1Q 72 Qxc1 Rxc1 73 a8Q Re1+ 74 Kf4 Re5) 71 Qh1+ Kg4 72 a7 c1Q 73 Qxc1 Rxc1 74 a8Q Re1+ 75 Kd3
Re5 76 Qb7 Bf6 77 Qg2+ Kf5 and Black has a secure drawing fortress.
67 Ke2 Rd2+ 68 Ke1
[FEN "8/Q5b1/P5pk/8/8/2p5/3r4/4K3 b - - 0 68"]

68...Bd4? Now White finally has the opportunity to demonstrate what a queen can do against stray pieces 68...Ra2! will
soon draw by trading pawns. 69 Qe3+ Kh7 70 Qh3+ Bh6 71 Qxc3 Rxa6; 68...Kh7 probably also draws. White has no
immediate check and after 69 Qg1 (69 Qf7 Rd6 70 Qa2 c2! 71 Qxc2 Rxa6 etc. draws.) 69...Bh6 70 Qa7+ (70 a7 c2
threatens mate on the move 71 Qc5 Rd7 72 a8Q c1Q+ 73 Qxc1 Bxc1 and it seems that the temporary loose position of
Black's pieces is not fatal and can soon be rectified: 74 Qc6 Re7+ 75 Kd1 Bg5 76 Qd5 Bf6 and after ...Kg7 next move
all is in order.)
69 Qf7! Suddenly Black has a real difficulty controlling the a-pawn. The threat of Qf4+ means the rook cannot move to
a2. 69...Bf2+?
This spoils the last chance. 69...Rf2 is possible because both sides would queen after Qxf2. White can
try 70 Qe7 (threatening Qh4+) 70...Kh5 71 Qh7+ Kg5 72 Qd7 Rd2 but Black threatens ...Bf2+ so the pawn cannot
advance. Instead 73 Qa4 Kf6 74 a7 Bf2+ 75 Kf1 Bxa7 76 Qa6+ (76 Qxa7? c2 draws; White must give perpetual.)
76...Kf5 77 Qxa7 when White wins the B but Black still has two pawns and the rook. The king must try to get to d3, so
77...Ke4! Tablebases show this draws; everything else loses. Play could now go: 78 Ke1 Kd3 79 Qa6+ Kc2 (79...Kd4
also draws with best play.) 80 Qxg6+ Kb2 81 Qf6 Kc2 and White cannot make progress.
70 Kf1 Be3 71 Qf8+ Kg5 71...Kh5 72 Qf3+ wins the B. So Black loses his c-pawn but has not caught the a-pawn. 72
Qe7+ Kf4 73 Qc7+ Kf3 74 Qc6+ Kf4 75 Qxc3 Rf2+ 76 Ke1 Rg2 77 Qf6+ Kg4 78 Qxg6+ Kf3 79 Qf5+ Kg3 80
Qe5+ Kf3 81 Qd5+ Kg3 82 Qd6+ Kf3 83 Qc6+ Kg3 84 a7 This is the culmination of White's manoeuvre to win the
bishop but tablebases identify no fewer than 17 inhuman moves that win more quickly, 84 Qd5 being the most exact.
84...Bf2+ 85 Kd1 Bxa7 86 Qc7+ Kh3 87 Qxa7 Kh2 88 Ke1 Rg1+ 89 Kf2 Rg2+ 90 Kf1 Rg4 91 Qe3 1-0
The 50+ World Champion... GM Zurab Sturua of Georgia.

The English supremacy came to an end in round six, when Nunn (as Black) was caught out by Sturua of Georgia and
resigned on the 20th move when he was losing the exchange. In round 7 (after the rest day) there was a shock result in
the women's tournament, when Ingrid Lauterbach (of Germany, but nominally an English player) beat Gaprindashvili.
Also a report of the congress appeared for the first time on the ChessBase news page, featuring among its photographs
one of your columnist playing his first round game, against Tony Booth of New Zealand.
In round 7 of the Junior Seniors, Nunn beat Barle in an efficient Ruy Lopez against the passive Steinitz Defence, but in
round 8 he lost again with Black, this time in a very long game against Sveshnikov which lasted five and a half hours.
On top board Sturua won against Kristiansen.
J. Kristiansen - Z. Sturua
Colle-Zukertort Opening (D05)

World Seniors 50+, Katerini (8.2), 01 November 2014
1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 e6 3 e3 c5 4 Bd3 d5 5 b3 This game shows an instructive treatment by Black employing a queen's
fianchetto against the Zukertort system.
5...Nc6 6 0-0 Bd6 7 Bb2 b6 8 Nbd2 Bb7 9 a3 0-0 Black has equalized already.
10 Ne5 Rc8 11 f4!? Ne7 12 Qf3 Nf5 13 Rad1
[FEN "2rq1rk1/pb3ppp/1p1bpn2/2ppNn2/3P1P2/PP1BPQ2/1BPN2PP/3R1RK1 b - - 0 13"]

13...c4! This pawn sacrifice seizes the initiative. 14 Bxf5 exf5 14...c3!? 15 Ndxc4 15 bxc4 Rc7 best?
15...Ba6 15...Be7
was also possible. 16 Nxd6 Qxd6
Black regains the material 17 c4 dxc4 18 bxc4 Bxc4 19 Nxc4 Rxc4 20 d5 Ne4 21
Rd3 f6 22 Qh3 Qd7 23 Rfd1 Rc2 24 Rb3 Nf2 25 Qf3 Nxd1 26 Qxd1 Rc5 27 Rd3 Rd8 28 d6 Rc6 29 Qb3+ Qf7 0-1.
In the same round Arkell beat Hebden and was now the only English player with realistic hopes of first place, especially
as the round nine draw brought him against an untitled Turk with a much lower rating than the other top contenders.
With three rounds to go Sturua and Sveshnikov (who had already drawn with each other) led by half a point from
Arkell. Hebden, having had two draws followed by that loss, gained some minor satisfaction by winning the blitz
tournament which ws held in the morning before round ten.
Meanwhile in the 65+ section, GM Vaisser finally lost in round 8, playing surprising weakly with White against IM
Alexander Zakharov. Somebody pointed out afterwards that Zakharov had once played in a USSR Championship Final
(the 31st, in 1963), something Vaisser never qualified to do. This "real seniors" tournament was now wide open with
several possible winners.
A. Vaisser - A. Zakharov
Queen's Pawn Game (A45)

1 d4 Nf6 2 Nc3 d5 3 Bf4 Instead of the Veresov, 3 Bg5.
3...Bf5 4 e3 e6 5 Be2 5 Bd3 was correct. 5...Bb4! 6 g4?!
This
led to the downfall of the early leader; White tried to solve the problem of the pin in a radical way but he seriously
weakened his kingside in doing so. He should have admitted the error of his previous move by 6 Bd3. If 6 Nf3 then
6...Ne4 is awkward. 6...Bg6 7 f3 c5!? Going for immediate complications, although 7...0-0 was also possible.
Presumably White would then have played the consistent 8 h4!? 8 h4!? Continuing the aggressive policy. 8 a3 Bxc3+ 9
bxc3 Nc6 should also be somewhat in Black's favour. 8...h6
Perhaps 8...h5 or; 8...cxd4 9 exd4 h5 was more accurate. 9
Kf2
White continued to play in the belief that the tactics would work out advantageously for him. 9 a3 was more
sensible. 9...cxd4 10 exd4 Nc6 11 Nb5 Rc8
Castling is also possible but Black does not want to allow the ghost of an
attack. 12 Bd3 12 c3 would solidify the centre but leave the knight without a good retreat. 12...Bxd3 13 Qxd3 a6

[FEN "2rqk2r/1p3pp1/p1n1pn1p/1N1p4/1b1P1BPP/3Q1P2/PPP2K2/R5NR w k - 0 14"]
14 a3 14 c3 Be7 15 Na3 was the last chance although Black would obviously stand much better. 14...Be7 15 Nc3
Nxd4!-+ 16 Kg2 Nc6 17 Nge2 Nd7 18 Ng3 Nde5 19 Qd2 Ng6 20 Nh5 Kf8 21 g5 hxg5 22 hxg5 e5 23 Bg3 Bxg5 24
Qxd5 Qxd5 25 Nxd5 Nce7 26 Nc3 Nf5 27 f4 Bh4 0-1
In round 9 of my tournament, Zakharov faced GM Balashov and they drew a well-fought game, which gave others the
chance to catch up. There were some other tense games near the top. Vaisser lost to Kupreichik and appeared to be
effectively out of contention, but other results were to go his way.
General view of the tournament hall.

In the 50+ tournament, things went well for the English grandmasters who revived their hopes, all three winning. Rather
surprisingly both Sturua and Sveshnikov agreed quick draws with their opponents, allowing Keith Arkell back into
contention. Perhaps Sveshnikov (who had Black) was tired after his struggle with Nunn and wished to recharge his
batteries before the expected round ten duel with Arkell, but it was surprising that Sturua (who had White) did not
make more effort against Barle, who had shown himself vulnerable with the black pieces against the very top
opponents.
Yasin Hur - Keith Arkell
Caro-Kann Defence (B12)

1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 c5 4 dxc5 Nc6 5 a3 Nxe5 6 Bb5+ Nc6 7 b4 Nf6 8 Bb2 e6 9 Nf3 Be7 10 0-0 0-0 11 Nbd2 a5 12 c3
Qc7 13 Re1 b6 14 cxb6 Qxb6 15 Qe2 Bd7 16 Rab1 axb4 17 cxb4 Ne5!?

[FEN "r4rk1/3bbppp/1q2pn2/1B1pn3/1P6/P4N2/1B1NQPPP/1R2R1K1 w - - 0 18"]
18 Nxe5 Better 18 Bxd7. 18...Bxb5 Keith says thanks for the bishop pair. 19 Qf3 Rfc8 20 Rbc1 Ba4 21 g4 Be8 22 h4
Nd7 23 g5 Nxe5 24 Bxe5 Qa6 25 Bb2 Ba4 26 Rc3 Rxc3 27 Qxc3 f6 28 Qc7 Bd6 29 Qc1 Rc8 30 Qa1 e5 31 gxf6
gxf6 32 Re3 Kf7 33 Qa2 Apparently threatens both Qxd5+ and Ne4 but Black gets his threats in first. 33...Rg8+ 34
Kh2?! If 34 Kh1 Bc6.
[FEN "6r1/5k1p/q2b1p2/3pp3/bP5P/P3R3/QB1N1P1K/8 b - - 0 34"]

34...Bc6 34...e4+ 35 Kh1 Bc6 was also possible but improving piece position comes first. Arkell would anyway rather
advance the passed d-pawn when the opportunity arises. 35 Qb3 Better 35 Ne4. 35...Qa4!?
Not best according to
Houdini, which suggests 35...e4+ 36 Kh1 Bf4.
36 Qxa4? Better 36 Ne4 when Black must find 36...Bb8! and not
36...Qxb3 37 Nxd6+ Ke6 38 Rxb3 Kxd6 39 b5. 36...Bxa4 37 Kh1 d4 Now Black is definitely winning. 38 Re1 Rc8 39
f3 Rc2 40 Bc1 f5 41 Kg1 Be7 42 Nf1
Results in a fatal pin. If 42 Kg2 Bxh4 43 Rxe5 Rxc1 44 Rxf5+ Ke6 45 Ra5 Rc2.
42...Bxh4 43 Rxe5 Rxc1 44 Rxf5+ Ke6 45 Ra5 d3! 46 Kg2 Rxf1 0-1
J. Nunn - E. Kalegin
Kan Sicilian (B42)

1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 a6 5 Bd3 Bc5 6 Nb3 Be7 7 Qg4 g6 8 Qe2 d6 9 0-0 Nc6 10 Na3 Ne5 11 Nc4 Nxc4
12 Bxc4 Qc7 13 Bd3 e5 14 f4 Nf6 15 Qf3 Bg4 16 Qf2 Be6 17 h3 h5 18 Be3 Nd7 19 Rad1 Rc8 20 Kh1 Qd8

[FEN "2rqk2r/1p1nbp2/p2pb1p1/4p2p/4PP2/1N1BB2P/PPP2QP1/3R1R1K w k - 0 21"]
21 c4 Bxc4?! This costs the exchange for the pawn; maybe Black thought it the best practical chance. 22 Bxc4 Rxc4 23
fxe5 Nxe5 24 Bd4 Rxd4 25 Qxd4 0-0 26 Nd2 b5 27 Nf3 Qb8 28 b3 Rd8 29 Qd5 Bf6 30 Nxe5 dxe5 31 Qc6 Rxd1 32
Rxd1 Be7 33 Qxa6 b4 34 Rc1 Kg7 35 Rc8 Qd6 36 Qxd6 Bxd6
[FEN "2R5/5pk1/3b2p1/4p2p/1p2P3/1P5P/P5P1/7K w - - 0 37"]

The technical phase begins. 37 Rc6 Be7 38 Kg1 f5 Black creates passed pawns for a threat and to simplify, but now his
king is cut off. 39 exf5 gxf5 40 Kf2 Simplest. Nunn demonstrates that Black's apparent counter-chances can be dealt
with comfortably. 40...h4 41 g3 hxg3+ 42 Kxg3 Bg5 43 h4 Bd2 44 h5 e4 45 Rd6 A trial manoeuvre. 45...Be3 45...f4+
46 Kg4 will lead to a blockade, win of a black centre pawn and/or a mating net.
46 Rc6 Bd2 47 Rg6+ Plan B. 47...Kf7
48 Rd6 Be3 49 h6
Zugzwang. 49...f4+ 50 Kg4 f3 51 h7 Kg7 52 Rd7+ Kh8 53 Kh5 f2 54 Kg6 Bb6 55 Rg7 1-0
In round 10 Hebden, as he put it, was "hammered" by Sturua while Arkell maintained his joint leader position by
defeating Sveshnikov, which put the latter out of contention. Sveshnikov had obtained a winning, but complicated
position and at the critical moment he blundered and Keith trapped his queen in the middle of the board. Nunn was held
to a draw which meant that third prize was likely to be his fate. The surprise player of that tournament, 2138-rated
untitled Yasin Hur from Turkey recovered from his loss the previous day to beat GM Kristiansen, thereby probably
earning an IM norm, for which his other reward was to play Nunn with White in the last round.

World Senior Champion in 2013 and 2014... Anatoly Vaisser of France.
In the penultimate round of the 65+ tournament, the top board (Zakharov-Kupreichik) and the next two boards were all
drawn while on board 4 Vaisser beat GM Nikolai Pushkov in 71 moves. This created a clumping among the leaders
which made the final winner impossible to predict. The winning total would be 8 or 8.5 points. Nine players could
reach 8 while three (two of whom were playing each other) could make the higher score. Here were the last round
pairings for the 65+: Kupreichik (7.5)-Balashov (7.5); Van Riemsdijk (7)-Zakharov (7.5); M. Wahlbom (7)-Vaisser (7);
Zhelnin (7) -Lederman (7); Malisov (7)-Rooze (6.5).
In the 50+ the top boards were: Sturua (8)-Bischoff (6.5); Arkell (8)-Barle (6.5); Yasin Hur (6.5)-Nunn (7); Movsziszian
(6.5)-Sveshnikov (6.5); Bruno (6.5)-Kalegin (6); Stepovoj (6)-Hebden (6). Tiebreaks were likely to be required to settle
the men's tournaments. The first tie-break rule (individual results if all players in the tie had met) was unlikely to be
applicable in the 65+ if there was a multiple tie, while in the 50+ it would be indecisive if Sturua and Arkell had the
same result. The second tiebreak rule was Buchholz-1, i.e. sum of opponent's scores disregarding the lowest-scoring
opponent, and the third was Buchholz (SOS with all opponents counted). Failing that, the player with the most games
with Black would come out on top, which is rather arbitrary. If that also yielded no result then the number of won
games would count. More wins also means more losses in the case of a tie, of course. That tiebreak would favour
Arkell but only if they were level on both the Buchholz scores.
Chess Legend... Nona Gaprindashvili of Georgia.

Going into the final round in the women's tournament, Gaprindashvili was tied second but leading the 65+ cohort by
half a point. With the top players having already met, her chances of overhauling WIM Svetlana Mednikova of Russia
did not look good. That is indeed how it turned out but Mednikova's counter-gambit was not very convincing. Her first
place earns her the WGM title.
L. Saunina - S. Mednikova
Ruy Lopez (C70)

World Seniors (Women), Katerini (11.1), 04 November 2014
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nge7 5 Bb3 d5?! This involves a pawn sacrifice in the long run. 6 exd5 Nxd5 7 0-0
Be7 8 Re1 Bg4 9 h3 Bh5 10 g4 Bg6 11 Nxe5 Nxe5 12 Rxe5 Nb4 13 d4 0-0 14 Nc3 Nc6 15 Rd5 Bd6 16 Bg5 Ne7
[FEN "r2q1rk1/1pp1nppp/p2b2b1/3R2B1/3P2P1/1BN4P/PPP2P2/R2Q2K1 w - - 0 17"]

17 Bxe7? After 17 Qe2 Re8 18 Re1 Nxd5 19 Bxd8 Rxe2 20 Rxe2 Rxd8 21 Bxd5 c6 22 Bf3 Black has some
compensation for the pawn but probably not enough.
17 Re5 is an interesting exchange sacrifice 17...Bxe5 18 dxe5
since White now threatens f4-f5 whether Black exchanges queens or not. 17...Qxe7 18 Qe1 Qh4 19 Kg2 Rfe8 20 Qd2
h6 Black prevents Qg5 and now has a dangerous Marshall-type attack with the d5-rook in danger and the White
kingside weakened.
21 Re1 b5 22 a3 Rad8 23 Rxe8+ Rxe8 24 f4 h5 25 gxh5 Be4+ 26 Nxe4 Rxe4 27 Qf2 Qe7 28 Re5
White has been reluctant to give up the exchange but should have done this earlier. 28...Bxe5 29 fxe5?? This loses
immediately. 29 dxe5 was compulsory. 29...Qg5+ 30 Kh1 Qxh5 31 Kg1 Qd1+ 32 Kg2 Re2 33 Bxf7+ Kf8 0-1.
The absurdity of the FIDE tie-break system was confirmed by the outcome of the 50+ tournament. Stewart Reuben had
been arguing vociferously over dinner that cumulative scores would be a better system than Buchholz since it would, in
many cases at least, make it possible to know before the last round began who was favoured by the tie break. In that
case Sturua would have been ahead but Arkell would have known that if his rival drew then a draw would not be
enough. Sturua would probably not have agreed a 17-move draw if that was the rule.
As it was, calculation was well-nigh impossible; both had played Sveshnikov, Barle, Hebden and Nunn; neither had
played Movsziszian. The biggest potential swing was on board five where Fabio Bruno of Italy (who had played
Sturua) had White against Evgenij Kalegin who had played Arkell. Keith was very tired after playing two tournaments
back-to-back and although he obtained a slight advantage in "his" type of position he agreed a draw rather than risk
blundering.
The decisive game finished very late, in fact it was the last game of the whole congress to end. In the meantime Arkell
and Sturua shook hands and agreed that morally they were joint champions.
F. Bruno - E. Kalegin

[FEN "7k/4Q3/8/6KP/2p3P1/2q5/8/8 b - - 0 94"]
Tablebases show that White would be winning if there were no c-pawn. The situation with the pawn is less clear.
94...Qd2+?? According to Houdini 94...Qc1+ would have drawn, and 95 Kg6 Qb1+ the point being that if there were
no c-pawn White would be able to play 96 Kf7 Qh7+ 97 Ke8 but that is not possible here because Black would
exchange queens and promote first. 96 Kh6 Qb6+ etc. 94...Qd4 was also good enough - though of course very hard to
play in practice.
95 Kg6 Now White will be able to move his king to h6 and answer a check on the diagonal by g4-g5, so he has forced
mate and Black resigned. 1-0.
Had Kalegin saved the draw, Arkell and Sturua would have had identical Buchholz-1 scores but the Georgian
grandmaster would have been ahead on the full Buchholz count. This was not predictable in advance because it also
depended on other results which made a difference. For example, had Yasin Hur beaten Nunn instead of losing this
would have equalized their Buchholz also and Arkell would have got the title on the basis of his greater number of
wins.
Turning now to the "real" Senior tournament, Both Irish representatives in the 65+ tournament finished on +2 and
gained FIDE rating points. This was my first 11-round tournament since 1978 and I felt in retrospect that I could have
done somewhat better with a different strategy. In the early rounds the crisis seemed to come too early and I should
have steered for longer games where the fact that I was in the second youngest cohort (players born in 1948) could have
been to my advantage. When I switched to that policy in the second half, my results improved and indeed my score was
achieved mainly by winning endgames with Black.
Pete Morriss of Ireland preparing to unleash 1 b4.

On the other hand, Pete Morriss of Galway, who had played some senior tournaments previously, had an impressive run
in mid-tournament which included a neat swindle against an octogenarian grandmaster who ended up on the same score
as us.
P. Morriss - E. Vasiukov
Sokolsky Opening (A00)

1 b4 In this tournament Morriss always opened 1 b4. He scored three wins, two draws and only one loss. 1...e5 2 Bb2
Bxb4 3 Bxe5 Nf6 4 a3 Ba5 5 c4 0-0 6 e3 d5 6...Re8 is normal and probably more accurate.
7 cxd5 Nbd7!? Perhaps
with the idea of getting White out of his comfort zone. 8 Bc3 Bb6 9 d6!? The pawn probably cannot be held in the long
run and this does create a weakness but 9 Bc4 looks more combative.
9...cxd6 10 Nf3 Nc5 11 Be2 Be6 12 Nd4 Bd7 13
a4 Nfe4!? 14 0-0 Nxc3
Houdini likes 14...Qg5. 15 Nxc3 Ba5 16 Nd5 a6 17 Bf3 Rc8
[FEN "2rq1rk1/1p1b1ppp/p2p4/b1nN4/P2N4/4PB2/3P1PPP/R2Q1RK1 w - - 0 18"]

18 Qb1!? An interesting pawn sacrifice, which might have been declined by 18...Re8. 18...Bxd2 19 Rd1!? 19 Nb6 Rb8
20 Nxd7 Qxd7 21 Qc2 Ba5 22 Rfd1 was a positional treatment with opposite coloured bishops, but White prefers to go
for a kingside attack - probably the best policy against an octogenarian grandmaster..
19...Ba5 20 Nf5 Bxf5 21 Qxf5 Rb8 22 Rd4 g6 23 Qh3 Kg7 24 Rad1 Qd7 25 Qh4 Bd8 26 Qg3 It's all or nothing now.
26...Nxa4 27 Nf4!?
27 h4 and 27 Bg4 also came into consideration. 27...Be7 28 Nh5+ Kh8 29 Rxd6 This is the idea
behind White's 27th move but it should not have worked. 29...Bxd6 30 Rxd6 Qe7? 30...Qc7! wins for Black, because if
31 Nf6 (31 Rxg6?? Qc1+ and mates; or; 31 Qe5+ f6 32 Nxf6 Qc3 forcing off the queens.) 31...Rfd8 32 Rxd8+ Qxd8 33
Qe5 Rc8 34 g4 All knight discovered checks fail to 34...f6. 34...Nc5 35 Be2 There is no way to reinforce the attack.
35...Qc7 and wherever the white queen moves on the diagonal, there is a black knight move to attack her.
31 Nf6
[FEN "1r3r1k/1p2qp1p/p2R1Np1/8/n7/4PBQ1/5PPP/6K1 b - - 0 31"]

31...Rbc8?? Vasiukov throws away the second half point. 31...Rfc8 draws, the difference being that after 32 Qh4 Rc1+
33 Rd1 Rxd1+ 34 Bxd1 Black can play 34...Kg7 35 Nh5+ Kf8 36 Qd4 Qc7 and White has only perpetual check by 37
Qg7+ (or Qh8+) 37...Ke7 38 Qf6+ Kf8 etc. 31...Rg8 32 Qh4 Rg7 may also be playable. Vasiukov essentially lost this
game because he missed numerous opportunities to activate that rook. 32 Qh4 Now there is no defence. 32...Rc1+ 33
Rd1 Rxd1+ 34 Bxd1 h5 35 Qg5 1-0

H. van Riemsdijk - A. Zakharov
Taimanov Sicilian (B47)

1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nc6 5 Nc3 Qc7 6 Nxc6 bxc6 7 Bd3 Nf6 8 0-0 d5 9 Qf3 Be7 10 Re1 0-0 11 e5 Nd7
12 Bf4 Nc5

[FEN "r1b2rk1/p1q1bppp/2p1p3/2npP3/5B2/2NB1Q2/PPP2PPP/R3R1K1 w - - 0 13"]
12...Rd8 was probably better, to discourage White's next move. 13 Bxh7+!?
Enterprising but objectively only good for
half a point. Board 1 having played a quick draw, Zakharov would have tied first if he had drawn this game and could
win the tournament outright if he won it. 13...Kxh7 14 Qh5+ Kg8 15 Re3 f5 16 Rg3 Bd8 17 Re1 17 b4!? came into
consideration but leaving the knight on c5 sets traps.. 17 Bh6 gives up too much for the queen after 17...Qxe5
17...d4 17...Qf7 18 Rg6 d4 transposes(18...Ne4?? 19 Re3!)
18 Ne2 Qf7 19 Rg6 Bd7?! Black (who could win the tournament outright if he won this game) was apparently intent on
avoiding lines that might end in perpetual check - a dangerous policy. White might take a draw in the event of 19...d3
20 cxd3 Nxd3 21 Bh6 Bb6 22 Bxg7 (22 Qg5!? is a try for more.) 22...Qxg7 23 Rxg7+ Kxg7 24 Qg5+ Kf7 25 Qf6+
although the immediate perpetual can be avoided by the risky 25...Ke8!? 26 Qg6+ Ke7 (26...Rf7!?) 27 Rf1 Rb8
20 Bh6 Be8 21 Bxg7 Qxg7 22 Rxg7+ Kxg7 23 Qf3
[FEN "r2bbr2/p5k1/2p1p3/2n1Pp2/3p4/5Q2/PPP1NPPP/4R1K1 b - - 0 23"]

White has to retreat for the time being but has long-term prospects with Q+2P v R and two bishops. The Black d-pawn
is weak. 23...Ba5 24 Rd1 d3
Giving up a third pawn to get activity and the d4 square. 25 cxd3 Rd8 26 Nf4!? There is
probably no defence to this, but even stronger was 26 b4! Bxb4 27 Qg3+ Kf7 28 Qh4 forking rook and bishop.
26...Kf7 27 a3 Bb6 28 b4 Nb3 29 a4 Rh8 30 Qg3 Nd4 The knight has reached d4 but White has a new attack phase
now.. 31 Qg6+ Kf8 32 Qf6+ Kg8 33 a5 Bc7 34 Nxe6 Nxe6 35 Qxe6+ Bf7 36 Qe7 Rc8 37 Qd7 Kg7 38 e6 Decisive
38...Bxh2+ 39 Kf1 Rcf8 40 g3 f4 41 gxf4 Bxf4 42 Ke2 Kf6 43 exf7 Rxf7 44 Qxc6+ Ke7 45 Rg1 Re8 46 Kd1 Be5 47
Re1 1-0.
Although Van Riemsdijk came fourth on the tiebreak, and so was not eligible for an official prize, it was a nice touch
that he also received a medal. There was also a prize for the highest placed player aged 75 years or older, but I failed to
note who won it. Maybe it was shared between Vladimir Gergel (Ukraine, born 1939), Evgeni Vasiukov (Russia, born
1933), and Heimo Titz (Austria, born 1936), who all finished on six and a half points.
Now for the game that decided the 65+ section. Vaisser had to play for a win with Black against his Swedish opponent,
and he would soon have been encouraged by the draw on top board and the developments in Van Riemsdyk versus
Zakharov. It was predictable that Vaisser would be first if he reached a tie because he had led the tournament for the
whole of the first week.
M. Wahlbom - A. Vaisser
Labourdonnais Sicilian (B32)

1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 e5!? 5 Nb5 d6 6 c4 Be7 7 N1c3 a6 8 Na3 Be6 9 Bd3 Bg5 10 0-0 Bxc1 11 Rxc1
Qg5 12 Nd5 Rc8 13 Kh1 Nge7 14 Nc2 Ng6 15 Nce3 0-0 16 Bb1 Nd4 17 g3 Bxd5 18 Nxd5 Qd8 19 Qg4 Ne7 20 Ne3
Qb6 21 b3 Qc6 22 f3 Qc5 23 Nf5 Ndxf5 24 exf5 f6 25 Qe4 d5 26 Qe1 d4 27 b4 Qd6 28 Bd3 b6 29 Rf2 Rc7 30 Rfc2
Qd7 31 g4 g6 32 Qe4 Kg7 33 c5 b5 The game has been very sharp and unclear. Now White tries to force a
breakthrough in support of his passed pawn.
[FEN "5r2/2rqn1kp/p4pp1/1pP1pP2/1P1pQ1P1/3B1P2/P1R4P/2R4K w - - 0 34"]

34 a4!? 34 fxg6 hxg6 35 f4 would be too difficult for White to calculate over the board without the risk of misjudging
the resulting position: after 35...Qd5 (necessary to protect the king from threats) White liquidates to a rook endgame
with rival passed pawns 36 Rf2 Qxe4+ 37 Bxe4 f5 38 gxf5 gxf5 39 fxe5 fxe4 40 Rg1+ Ng6 41 Rxf8 Kxf8 42 Rxg6 and
now Houdini 4 Pro considers that chances are balanced after either 42...e3 43 Kg1 or 42...a5 43 Rd6. It is
understandable that White avoided this. 34...gxf5!? Risky, but Vaisser correctly judged he would be able to create
winning chances in a fluid situation rather than by blocking by ...g5. 34...bxa4 would be asking for trouble on the
queenside, whatever the computer may say. 34...g5 35 axb5 axb5 36 h4 h6 would be a defensive strategy only. 35 gxf5
Nd5! The knight threatens not only the b-pawn but also to instal itself at e3 or f4, so White has to accept the
simplification.
36 axb5 36 Rg2+ (here or at move 38) 36...Kh8 37 axb5 axb5 38 Bxb5 would probably transpose to the
game.
36...axb5 37 Bxb5 Qxb5 38 Qxd5 Qxb4 38...Kh8 would lose to 39 Qd6 Rcc8 (39...Rcf7 40 c6) 40 Rg2.
[FEN "5r2/2r3kp/5p2/2PQpP2/1q1p4/5P2/2R4P/2R4K w - - 0 39"]

39 Rg2+!? This was possibly a mistake because the linked rooks defend each other and the passed pawn, while the
check could be given later by either rook if required. White could also have considered 39 f4 (or 39 Qd6 Rcf7 40 f4
probably transposing) 39...exf4 40 Qd6 Rcf7 41 Rd1 Qb3 42 Rg2+ Kh8 43 Qxd4. This is drawish but White was half a
point behind so could not tie first even if he won the game.
39...Kh8 40 Rcg1!? Threatening mate in two but the reply
is obvious and helps Black to consolidate. Again 40 f4 came into consideration. Houdini 4 analyses 40...exf4 41 Qd6
Qb8 42 Qxd4 f3 43 Rgc2 Qe8 44 Rf2 Qc6 45 Qd3 Rfc8 46 h3 Qa8 47 Qc3 Qa6 48 Rxf3 Rxc5 49 Qxc5 Rxc5 50 Rxc5
Qe2 51 Rcc3 with a drawn endgame. 40 c6 Qb8 41 Qd6 Qd8 42 Qc5 Qc8 and; 40 Qd6 Rcf7 are also adjudged level by
Houdini.
40...Qb8 Forced. Not 40...Rcc8? 41 Qd7+- Now, however, each player gained an extra half hour and Vaisser, who was
well ahead on the clock, took a great deal of care over his next few moves. White's pawns are all isolated which means
he is now the one in greater danger of losing.
41 f4?! After this Vaisser was able to force off the queens. 41 c6 was probably better, and only after 41...Qc8 42 f4
when if 42...Rd8 (42...Qd8 43 Qf3) 43 Qe4 exf4 44 Qxf4 d3 45 Qg3 d2 46 Rd1 with a probable draw.
41...Qd8 42 Qf3 Qa8!? The computer actually prefers 42...e4 43 Qxe4 Re8 44 Qf3 Rxc5 with a tiny edge to Black. 43
Qxa8 Rxa8 44 fxe5 fxe5 45 f6 45 Rg5 also came into consideration, and after 45...Rxc5 46 f6 Rf8 (Black can play
these moves in either order.) 47 f7 threatens mate and forces 47...Rcc8 48 Rxe5 Rxf7 49 Rd5 Rf4 when the draw is
virtually certain. This variation is presumably why the computer preferred 42...e4.
45...d3!
[FEN "r6k/2r4p/5P2/2P1p3/8/3p4/6RP/6RK w - - 0 46"]

This move seemed to sow doubts in White's mind. 45...Rxc5 46 f7 Rcc8 47 Rg5 e4 48 R5g4 d3 49 Rxe4 Rd8 is slightly
annoying for White but there are various ways to hold the position. 45...Rf8 46 Rg5 will transpose into the preceding
drawn line.
46 Rd2?! Now White is on the slippery slope. 46 Rg5! should be a straightforward draw, for if 46...e4 (46...Re8 47 Kg2
e4 48 Rd5 Rg8+ 49 Kf1 Rxg1+ 50 Kxg1 Kg8 51 Kf2 is a clear draw, as is 46...Rxc5 47 f7 Rcc8 48 Rxe5 and if
48...Rd8 49 Re7 d2 50 Re2 d1Q 51 f8Q+ Rxf8 52 Rxd1=.) 47 Re5 Rd8 48 Rxe4 (48 Kg2 is also good enough.)
48...Rxc5 49 f7 Rcc8 50 Re7 d2 (50...Rf8 51 Rd7 Rcd8 52 Rg8+ Rxg8 53 fxg8Q+ Rxg8 54 Rxd3) 51 Re2 d1Q (There
is nothing better.) 52 f8Q+ Rxf8 53 Rxd1 is a dead draw also.
46...Rd8! Vaisser spent several minutes on this move, presumably assessing the rival merits of 46...e4!? 47 Re1 Rxc5
48 Rxe4 Rc2 49 Rd1 (the only move) Black probably can make no progress since the active White rook will come to
e7.
47 Re1? A fatal mistake since in this position the e-pawn can be protected. 47 Rg5! was best and clearly draws. If Black
tries 47...Rxc5 (47...e4 48 Re5) then 48 f7! is good enough, and also sets a trap: 48...Rcd5?? 49 Rdg2 and White forces
mate 49...h6 (49...h5 50 Rxh5#) 50 Rg8+ Kh7 51 R2g7#, while if
48...Rcc8 49 Rxe5 Kg7 and the passed pawns will
both fall eventually, with a draw. Instead 48...Rc1+! 49 Kg2 Rc2 (49...e4 50 Re5) poses a final problem, but White can
easily solve it by 50 Rf2 e4 51 Re5 Rxf2+ (or 51...Rf8 52 Rxe4 Rxf7 53 Rxc2 dxc2 54 Rc4) 52 Kxf2 Rf8 (52...Kg7??
53 Re8; 52...e3+ 53 Kxe3=) 53 Rxe4 Rxf7+ 54 Ke3 Rd7 55 Kd2=

47...Rxc5 48 Re3 Rcd5!
[FEN "3r3k/7p/5P2/3rp3/8/3pR3/3R3P/7K w - - 0 49"]

The best try; 48...Kg8 49 Rexd3 Rxd3 50 Rxd3 Kf7 51 Rd7+ Kxf6 52 Rxh7 Rc2 is awkward for White but probably
tenable. If 48...Rc2 White draws by 49 Rdxd3 but not 49 Rexd3?? Rxd2 or 49 Rd1?? d2. 49 f7? This pointless move
loses without a fight. 49 Kg2 Kg8 50 Kf2 Kf7 51 Rh3 still offered fair drawing chances.
49...Kg7 0-1
Tournament director Nikos Kalesis.

The organising team deserve warm thanks. Nikos Kalesis was Tournament Director while Sotiris Logothetis was Chief
Arbiter and in charge of live coverage. Every game was broadcast live using DGT boards. The all-female team of coarbiters was: Aleksandra Dimitrijevic (Women's championship and Senior 50 tournament), Dimitra Vatkali (S50), Efi
Andrikopoulou, Theodora Youtsogiannopoulo, and Angelina Kontini (S65), together with Xenia Kalesi (secretariat).
George Mastrokoukos ran the website where all the games and pairings were posted within an hour after the completion
of each round.
Clashing by dates with the Katerini congress, there was a smaller senior congress in England, the 15th Royal Beacon
Seniors at Exmouth, played over five rounds from 3-7 November. The 65+ section had forty players, the highest-rated
being A. Footner (187 ECF, equivalent to 2096 FIDE). The winner was William G. Addaway of Bridport with 4.5/5.
There was also a "Junior" section (50+) with 18 players, won by I. Heppell with 4/5. For more details see
keverelchess.com.
The principal dates and venues for FIDE Seniors events in 2015 are as follows.
World Senior Teams: 24 February-4 March 2015, Dresden, Germany: 50+ and 65+.
The venue for the
European Senior Individual is now Eretria (on an island near Athens), not Halkidiki, and the dates are
28 April (arrival day)-8 May, 9 rounds, 65+ and 50+ and women's tournament.
European Senior teams: 12-22 July, Vienna, team format not yet decided.
World Individual Seniors: 9-22 November, Acqui Terme, Italy.
The English Chess Federation is moving to separate events for the two age groups at its 2015 Congress, to be held on
the University of Warwick campus near Coventry. (Previously they had a seven-round event for the 60+ age group.)
The 65+ championship is over the first week (27 July-1 August, six rounds), immediately followed by the 50+ (2-7
August also six rounds). There are also separate five-round events for seniors rated below 150 (equivalent to 1800
FIDE) on the E.C.F. rating list.
The 2015 PanAmerican seniors are scheduled for Venezuela but there are no dates announced as yet on the FIDE
website.
Postscript: the World Championship
Having devoted a whole column last year to the 2013 match between Anand and Carlsen, I decided to let this one pass
by with minimal comment. The extraordinary double blunder in game 6 marred what looked like might be a closely-run
contest, but the likelihood is that Carlsen would somehow have won the match even had the Indian taken his
opportunity. Anand did well to hold the marathon Game 7 but in the subsequent four games Carlsen, though he
sometimes stood slightly worse, played the critical moments of the games with coolness and precision. Overall, then,
Anand should be pleased that he improved greatly on his Chennai performance, showing good opening preparation and
reaching some interesting positions, but I cannot see him challenging for the world title in the next cycle which will
take two years to complete. Especially when you remember that he first played a match for the world championship in
September 1995, against Kasparov. The next Candidates tournament is scheduled for March 2016 and, though he has
an automatic place, perhaps Anand will not take it up. The current favourite to be Carlsen's next challenger is of course
Fabio Caruana but a lot can happen between now and March 2016.
Download
The Kibitzer #218 (Ebook) in ChessBase, PGN, and PDF formats. Viewable in Ipad, Itouch, Kindle,
ChessBase and other PGN and PDF viewers. The database accompanying the ebook has more than 880 games from the
World Seniors, including bonus annotated games!
Chess in 1865 and 1915

by Tim Harding
As usual at the start of a new year, the Kibitzer looks back to chess a century ago but, because of the First World War,
1915 was not a vintage year for chess. So, as with the column 12 months ago, I also look back 150 years. Unfortunately
1865 also was not especially memorable. As I noted in my article about 1864 and 1914, the only long-lived player of
note who was active in both years was Joseph Henry Blackburne, whose biography by me is now with the publisher
(McFarland). Apart from a few simultaneous exhibitions, he did little in 1915 while in 1865 he was not yet a full-time
chess professional.
The American Civil War ended in the Spring of 1865 but chess life there took a while to recover. Paul Morphy was now
definitely in retirement from the game and had taken up the law, as Staunton informed a correspondent in the
Illustrated London Newson 7 January. Therefore such chess activity as there was that year was in Europe.
Chess tournaments were still rare occurrences and Gino Di Felice's first volume of his Chess Results series records only
two in 1865: the 5th West German Congress at Elberfeld in August and the Dublin Chess Congress in September and
October, about which more later. The main German tournament was a four-man all-play-all in which Gustav R.
Neumann scored 3/3 against Karl Hoing, Victor Knorre, and Joost Pinedo. There was also a knock-out
"Hauptturnuier"for lesser players. Since the main strength of German chess at this time was in Prussia (centred on
Berlin, Leipzig, and Breslau) Elberfeld was not a very important event. More significant was Neumann's victory over
Anderssen in a long-drawn-out match in Berlin, by 15.5 to 12.5 according to Di Felice.
Several other head-to-head matches were played during 1865. Anderssen was below his best in the mid-1860s and also
lost two matches to the upcoming J. H. Zukertort, by the margins 8-15 and 4-10 according to Di Felice. Unfortunately
we cannot say who was the strongest German player then since Neumann did not play Zukertort and the Paulsen
brothers were inactive in 1865. Also these encounters between Anderssen and his pupil Zukertort may have been more
in the nature of training games with opening variations being tested by agreement.
Some smaller matches also took place. Di Felice records that Anderssen beat Carl Mayet 5.5-2.5, Neumann and
Anderssen both beat Knorre (4-2 and 2-1 respectively), while surprisingly the French champion De Riviere recovered
from a bad start to draw 2.5 all with Neumann. Also Berthold Suhle won a match against Hirscheld 7-0 with two draws.

William Steinitz
In England, Di Felice has a match result Steinitz 4 Robey 1 but these may have been offhand games for a small stake
rather than a set match. The game won by the Australian Robey (who had played in the London 1862 tournament and
later settled in Manchester) was published.
James Robey - William Steinitz
Evans Gambit (C51)
Off-hand game, London, 1865
The Chess Player's Magazine (1866, pages 51-52) said this was one of five games played recently, Steinitz winning the
other four. The collections by Bachmann and Pickard say it was played in 1865.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 b4 Bxb4 5 c3 Bc5 6 0-0 d6 7 d4 exd4 8 cxd4 Bb6 9 Nc3 Na5 10 e5 dxe5
[FEN"r1bqk1nr/ppp2ppp/1b6/n3p3/2BP4/2N2N2/P4PPP/R1BQ1RK1 w kq - 0 11"]
11 Bxf7+ Kf8 If 11...Kxf7 12 Nxe5+ (Bachmann). 12 Ba3+ Ne7 13 Nxe5 Qxd4 14 Qh5 Qxc3 15 Rad1 c5 16 Rd3 16
Bb3 wins, e.g., 16...Ng6 (16...g6 17 Qh6+ Ke8 18 Bf7#) 17 Nxg6+ hxg6 18 Qxh8+. 16...Qxd3 Or 16...Qc2 17 Bb3. 17
Nxd3 g6 18 Qf3 Kg7 19 Bb2+ Kh6 White mates in four moves: 20 Qf6 Nf5 21 Bc1+ Ne3 22 Bxe3+ Kh5 23 Qg5# 10.
Two chess magazines were launched during 1865, but neither was a great success.
The Household Chess Magazine,
launched in January by Manchester businessman Thomas Hopwood ("Toz") in collaboration with Blackburne lasted
only three issues. Then The Chess World, edited by Staunton, appeared in March and eventually ran through four
volumes, until it closed in March 1869. It was a rather dull read, though with its anti-foreigner bias it would have
appealed to UKIP voters had there been any in 1865. The magazine was chiefly a vehicle for Staunton's pomposity and
his attacks on the British Chess Association and its code of chess laws adopted in 1862. The continuing Chess Player's
Magazine(now edited by Lwenthal) was better. Early in the year it noted that the Blackheath Chess Club "...has
rapidly risen in public favour, continues its activity, the result of which is that their Tuesday evening meetings have
become highly successful, and on these occasions the Committee have secured the attendance of Mr. Steinitz."
An event which created considerable excitement early in the year was the telegraph match between the Dublin
Athenaeum and the St. James's Chess Club in London, played on 22 February. Blackburne and Steinitz were among the
large crowd who came to witness the contest and a small booklet was afterwards published. 1865 saw only one English
tournament, for amateurs, played in Redcar on the north Yorkshire coast. The Rev. Arthur Bolland Skipworth both
organised and win it (with 8/8), the runner-up being problem composer Walter Grimshaw. The other contestants were
nonentities.
Later in the year the Dublin players enterprisingly organised a Congress in which three tournaments were held: an Open
event, an event for British and Irish amateurs, and a third event for Irish residents only. The preliminary meeting was
held on 23 September, just after the last major cricket match of the Irish season. (One of the leading Dublin chess
players, George Frith Barry, his brother Sam, and some others were active in both games.)
Rev. George Alcock MacDonnell

Di Felice records only the principal tournament, which was won by Steinitz. The fact that Blackburne did not come to
Dublin is clear evidence that he was not a professional chess player at that date. Steinitz was therefore clear favourite
for the tournament, and of those who had played in London 1862 only the Rev. George Alcock MacDonnell was also
present this time. He defeated William Bolt (of Dawlish, in Devon), Edward James Cordner (of Belfast), and Edward
Cronhelm (of Halifax, but now working in Dublin) but was held to a draw by MacDonnell, who also defeated the other
three. The draw was then replayed and won by Steinitz.
Wilhelm Steinitz - G. A. MacDonnell
Philidor's Defence (C41)
Dublin Chess Congress playoff, 1865
Illustrated London News, 21 October 1865.

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 Bc4 Be7 4 c3 Nf6 5 d3 0-0 6 0-0 Bg4 7 h3 Bxf3 8 Qxf3 c6 9 Bb3 Nbd7 10 Qe2 Nc5 11 Bc2 Ne6 12
g3 Qc7 13 f4
[FEN"r4rk1/ppq1bppp/2ppnn2/4p3/4PP2/2PP2PP/PPB1Q3/RNB2RK1 b - - 0 13"]
13...Rfe8
Better 13...exf4.
14 Nd2 Rad8 15 Nf3 Kh8 16 f5
With clear advantage to White, who soon builds up an irresistible kingside attack.
16...Nf8 17 g4 h6 18 g5 hxg5 19 Nxg5 Kg8 20 Kh1 N6h7 21 Nf3 Rd7 22 Rg1 Bd8 23 Bh6 f6 24 Rg2 d5
[FEN"3brnk1/ppqr2pn/2p2p1B/3ppP2/4P3/2PP1N1P/PPB1Q1R1/R6K w - - 0 25"]
This is fatal but it is hard to find a move for Black.
25 Rag1 Ree7 26 exd5 cxd5 27 Ba4 Rd6 28 Rxg7+ Rxg7 29 Rxg7+ Qxg7 30 Bxg7 Kxg7 31 Qg2+ Kh8 32 Nd2 Bb6
33 Be8 Be3 34 Nf1 Bf4 35 Bf7 Ng5 36 Bh5 Rd7 37 Bg4 e4 38 Qf2 Bb8 39 Qd4 Be5 40 Qxa7 exd3 41 Kg2 d4 42 c4
Kg7 43 Qa3 Ne4 44 Qxd3 Nc5 45 Qa3 Bd6 46 Ng3 d3 47 Nh5+ Kf7 48 b4 Na6 49 c5 Be5 50 c6 1-0.
Lwenthal also came to Dublin for a few days and was present for the 5 October telegraph match as umpire for the St
James's Club.This re-match understandably created less interest in London than it did in Dublin. Lwenthal also played
a simul during his visit, both these events being reported in his column for the Era. He was present for the start of
Steinitz's three-board blindfold display on Saturday 7 October, but made his farewells early as he was sailing for Britain
early next morning. The following Saturday Steinitz played blindfold again, this time against five opponents, scoring
four wins and a draw. MacDonnell won the second tournament, and the third (which has later been recognised as the
first Irish Championship) was a protracted affair with a large number of opponents. Law student J. A. Rynd, then only
about 18 years old, emerged as the winner.

Cecil De Vere
There can be no doubt that Steinitz was the strongest active player in England but he found it hard to meet serious
opposition. That may have something to do with his challenging Cecil De Vere to a match in which he conceded odds
of pawn and move. This apparently began about the 12th of December. Steinitz won the first game but it soon became
clear that the new English star was too strong to be yielded such an advantage. Steinitz won only two more games and
drew two, so De Vere won 7-3. The last game of the series was also the best so is given here although it was actually
played early in 1866.

Cecil De Vere - Wilhelm Steinitz
12th game of Odds Match, 10 January 1866

1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 e6 4 Nf3 Nc6 5 Bb5 a6 6 Bxc6+ bxc6 7 0-0 Be7 8 Qd3 0-0 9 Ne2 a5 10 Ng3 Ba6 11 c4 d5 12
b3 c5
[FEN"r2q1rk1/2p1b1pp/b3pn2/p1pp4/2PPP3/1P1Q1NN1/P4PPP/R1B2RK1 w - - 0 13"]
13 exd5
13 Ng5 "leads to some interesting positions"said the Chess Player's Magazinebut no doubt De Vere wished to keep
control of the centre and prepare the coming attack.
13...exd5 14 Qe3 dxc4
A pawn down, Steinitz has to complicate the situation and hope to regain his material.
15 Nf5! Rf7 16 Re1
16 Ne5 was probably even stronger.
16...Nd5 17 Qe6 Bf6
Steinitz finds the best try.
18 Ne5 Bxe5 19 Rxe5
[FEN"r2q2k1/2p2rpp/b3Q3/p1pnRN2/2pP4/1P6/P4PPP/R1B3K1 b - - 0 19"]
19...Nb4!?
Here Black might have tried 19...Bc8!; it is easy to overlook or underestimate a retreat move. 20 Qxd5 Qxd5 21 Nh6+
gxh6 22 Rxd5 cxd4 23 bxc4 Rd7 would set White a much harder task to exploit his advantage, thanks to the opposite
coloured bishops.
20 Nh6+!
Steinitz perhaps expected 20 Ne7+ Qxe7 21 Qxe7 Rxe7 22 Rxe7 Nc2 23 Rb1 Nxd4 although after 24 Bd2 White should
eventually win, for after 24...c3 25 Bxc3 Ne2+ 26 Rxe2 Bxe2 27 Re1 Black faces a dilemma; he must either give up the
a-pawn by 27...Re8 or allow the white rook into e7.
20...gxh6 21 Bxh6 Qf6
Here Black has the superficially attractive 21...Qxd4 but after 22 Rae1 Qxf2+ 23 Kh1 there is nothing better than
23...Kh8 (23...Nd3 24 Qg4+ mates in four.) 24 Qe8+ Rf8 25 Bxf8 Rxe8 26 Rxe8 Black must return the queen with
interest.
22 Rg5+ Qxg5 23 Bxg5
The Erasand the C.P.M. stopped here saying that "after a few more moves Black resigned the game and the match. This
brief game is admirably played by Mr. De Vere, and forms a fitting termination to a very interesting contest."Some
databases also end here, but the Illustrated London Newsof 24 March 1866 had the continuation:
23...cxd4 24 bxc4 24 Bh6 is even stronger but Black is also helpless after the text move. 24...c5 25 a3 Bc8 26 Qe5 Rf5
27 Qe8+ Rf8 28 Qe4 1-0.
Chess in 1915
The war did not involve as many countries in 1915 as it did in 1917 and 1918 but even so restrictions on movement, not
to mention financial issues, meant that chess activity was largely only within countries (whether combatants or neutrals
like the U.S.A.) and much of it was by post, especially in Britain. There was a minor master tournament in New York,
won by Capablanca ahead of Marshall. There was also some chess played in Russia, where Alekhine continued to
develop his game, and probably in Germany where interned Russians continued to play amongst themselves.
British Chess Magazine for December 1915 reported that despite the war, the Italian publication L'Ego degli Scacchi
(published in Palermo) had announced that its second international correspondence tournament was definitely fixed to
start in January 1916! Prizes 120, 50, 30 francs in cash, entry fee 10 francs. Twenty entries would be accepted, divided
into four groups! Italy was not yet in the ware but was soon to join, on the Allied side, presumably putting an end to
this idea.
Although many chess columns in Britain came to an end, both B.C.M. and the Chess Amateur struggled on, and the
chess column in The Field and Illustrated London News continued. From the variety in Burn's Field
column you might
think there was no war on, except that major tournaments are conspicuous by their absence. The British Championship,
for example, was suspended for several years and the City of London Chess Club Championship was the strongest
event held regularly during the war years. In Ireland in May, Harold Thomas of Belfast and R. G. Dixon-Addey of
Castlebar played a minimatch to see who would challenge J. J. O'Hanlon for the Irish championship. Dixon-Addey won
that contest but O'Hanlon retained his title comfortably, thrashing the west of Ireland man 3-0.
Gradually war-related news snippets appeared. Early in the year Burn reported that the Russian internees had been
moved from Baden to Triberg. On 6 February he wrote an amusing item about the lack of a 'German Opening.' On 27
February there was a letter from the trenches and it was reported that Tartakower (in the Austrian army) had been
concussed in an accident. (In the Second World War, Tartakower was on the other side, serving with the Free French as
"Lieutenant Carlier.")
There was a shortage of high-level games for Burn to annotate but he was able to publish several games from a long
match between the strong amateur R. H. V. Scott and a Russian player named L. I. Estrin (of Vilna), who was perhaps
distantly related to the Yakov Estrin who in the second half of the twentieth century was a prominent openings analyst
and correspondence world champion? Scott also played (and lost) a short match with G. A. Thomas who was now in
uniform but not yet posted to the Middle East.
There were of course some war-related deaths. F. G. Naumann, first British Chess Federation President, was drowned in
May when the Lusitania was torpedoed off the Irish coast. The war took its toll on chess clubs, too, with the venerable
St. George's Chess Club and the London ladies' Chess Club closing at some stage during the four years of hostilities.
The following correspondence game is of interest chiefly for the instructive tactics surrounding the double blunder that
concluded it.
H. A. Cadman - P. Chignell
Vienna Game (C29)
Played in the 1915-1916 Kitchin Memorial, a postal tournament for Yorkshiremen.

1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 f4 d5 4 fxe5 Nxe4 5 Nf3 Bg4 6 Qe2 Nxc3 7 bxc3 Be7 8 d4 0-0 9 Qf2 Nd7 10 Bd3 f6 11 Bxh7+
Kxh7 12 Qh4+ Kg8 13 Qxg4 fxe5 14 Qe6+ Kh8 15 dxe5 Nc5 16 Qg4 Ne4 17 Nd4 Rf7 18 Nf5 Qd7 19 Qh3+ Kg8

[FEN"r5k1/pppqbrp1/8/3pPN2/4n3/2P4Q/P1P3PP/R1B1K2R w KQ - 0 20"]
Here White can win the black queen for two pieces by 19 e6 Qxe6 20 Nh6+ Qxh6 21 Bxh6 but thought he could do
better than that and gave the knight check first, whereupon his opponent resigned. 20 Nh6+? 1-0??
Black's resignation was an even bigger mistake! Even though he thought he was lost, he might as well have spent one
postage stamp to see White's next move. If 21 Qxd7 Bh4+ 22 g3 contemporary notes give 22...Bxg3+ 23 hxg3 Rxd7 24
Bf4 Rg7 or 24...Rh7 with the better game for Black, but instead White has 24 Rxh6 with about equal chances. A better
move is 22...Rxd7 when 23 gxh4 Re8 Black's temporary deficit of a double pawn is less significant than his lead in
development and piece activity. The notes in BCM Chess Annual 1916page 197 give 21 e6 as probably what Black
thought was the winning move. However, that can be met by 21...Bh4+! 22 g3 Re7!, as pointed out by C. H. Chepmell
of Hove, writing to the Westminster Gazette. Then if 23 exd7 Ng5+ or 23 0-0 Rxe6 or 23 Qg4+ Ng5 or 23 Qxh4 Rxe6.
To make Black's resignation still more tragic, 22...Nf2 is also quite good for him.
The following famous postal game between two clergymen was undoubtedly one of the brilliancies of the year.
Francis Edmund Hamond - William Ernest Evill
Ponziani Opening (C44)
BCCA Trophies First Class corr. 1915-16

BCCA Magazine 20, for December 1915, said the game had just concluded. Its editor, the Rev. Griffiths, wrote: "For
sheer audacity and brilliancy we have seen nothing to compare with it in Correspondence Chess. The loser is a player
of no mean Chess attainments and we are sure he readily joins with us in honouring his doughty opponent, who has
here produced a combination worthy of the redoubtable Murphy [sic]. Bs, Kts and Rs are engaged in joint operations
with such dire effect that the Black Queen, though her White vis-a-vis is slain, can only look on in blank despair".
Notes by Hamond followed. Hamond had played in the British Championship at Shrewsbury in 1906 before his
ordination and did so again in later years, on the last occasion (1929) defeating the new champion, Mir Sultan Khan.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 c3 d5 4 Qa4 f6 5 Bb5 Nge7 6 exd5 Qxd5 7 d4 Bd7 8 Be3 exd4 9 cxd4 Ne5 10 Nc3 Nxf3+ 11
gxf3 Qf5 12 0-0-0 c6
"New and untried. It may prove better than ...a6 but I doubt it,"wrote Hamond. The Ponziani book by K. Hayward and
D. C. Taylor gives 12...Bxb5 13 Nxb5 Kf7 and if 14 Nc3 (14 Qb3+ Qd5 or 14 Nxc7? Rc8) 14...Nd5 15 Qb3 c6 16
Qxb7+ Be7.
13 Bd3 Qxf3 14 Rhe1 Kd8 15 Be4 Qh5

[FEN"r2k1b1r/pp1bn1pp/2p2p2/7q/Q2PB3/2N1B3/PP3P1P/2KRR3 w - - 0 16"]
16 d5!?
Gives White a good attack for the Pawn sacrificed on the 13th move, says Hamond. Later R. C. Griffith in Modern
Chess Openings, suggested 16 Qb3 with a ferocious attack.
16...c5 17 Qa5+ b6 18 Qa6 Bc8 19 d6
This wins, wrote Hamond, saying the possibilities are numerous.
19...Bxa6 20 dxe7+ Kxe7
If 20...Kc7 21 Bf4+ Kc8 22 Rd8#; or 20...Ke8 21 exf8Q+ with R, N and B against Q.
21 Bxa8 Kf7
21...Bc4 is a computer attempt to defend; this variation is not in Hamond's notes. For example, 22 Bxc5+ Kf7 23 Rd7+
Kg6 24 Be4+ (Only when this is on the board do some engines see that Black doesn't have a draw.) 24...Kh6 (24...f5 25
Rg1+)
25 Be3+ g5 26 h4 Be6 (26...Qxh4 27 Rh1) 27 hxg5+ fxg5 28 Rd8. It is comical how White's R+N beat Black's
Q+P thanks to the Rh1 idea which does not even need to be executed at once since Black is so tied up.
22 Rd7+ Ke6
The black B cannot be saved. If 22...Be7 23 Bd5+ Kf8 24 Bf4 (Hamond).
23 Bc6 Bd6 24 f4 Bc8 25 Bxc5+ Be5 26 Re7+ 1-0.
For if 26...Kf5 27 Be4+ Kxf4 28 Be3+ Kg4 29 Rxg7+ and now the Q must interpose or mate in three follows.
The following game, or rather the "game"in the notes is quite famous too. Graham Burgess, in his book Chess
Highlights of the 20th Century, says that Alekhine claimed to have won this as an actual game with White, and says
"Alekhine was notorious for such inventions"but in fact Alekhine made it clear that this was just a variation he chose to
avoid in the actual game, in which he was Black.

N. D. Grigoriev
N. D. Grigoriev - Alexander A. Alekhine
French Defence, MacCuctheon Variation (C12)
Moscow club tournament Moscow (6), 26.11.1915
From Skinner & Verhoeven collection of Alekhine's games #371.

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bg5 Bb4 5 e5 h6 6 exf6 hxg5 7 fxg7 Rg8 8 h4 gxh4 9 Qg4 Be7 10 g3 c5
[FEN"rnbqk1r1/pp2bpP1/4p3/2pp4/3P2Qp/2N3P1/PPP2P2/R3KBNR w KQq - 0 11"]

11 0-0-0
The following variation, in which five queens appear on the board, was given in Alekhine's notes for Shakhmatny
Vestnik, but has sometimes been published as an actual game. After 11 gxh4 Alekhine said he intended 11...Bf6 to
avoid the complications that could follow 11...cxd4. He gave this illustrative line: 11...cxd4 12 h5! dxc3 13 h6 cxb2 14
Rb1 Qa5+ 15 Ke2 Qxa2 16 h7 Qxb1 17 hxg8Q+ Kd7 18 Qxf7 Qxc2+ 19 Kf3 Nc6 20 Qgxe6+ Kc7 21 Qf4+ Kb6 22
Qee3+ Bc5 23 g8Q b1Q

[FEN"r1b3Q1/pp6/1kn5/2bp4/5Q2/4QK2/2q2P2/1q3BNR w - - 0 24"]
24 Rh6!! Qxf1 (24...Bxe3? 25 Qd8+ Kc5 26 Qfd6+ Kd4 27 Q8f6+ and mate next move.) 25 Qb4+ Qb5 (25...Kc7 26
Qg3+ mate in a few moves) 26 Qd8+ Ka6 27 Qea3+ mates in two -analysis by Alekhine.
Now we return to the actual game.
11...Nc6 12 dxc5 Qa5! 13 Kb1 e5?
13...Bf6 14 Nb5 Ke7! ought to win for Black - Alekhine.
14 Qh5 Be6
[FEN"r3k1r1/pp2bpP1/2n1b3/q1Ppp2Q/7p/2N3P1/PPP2P2/1K1R1BNR w q - 0 15"]
15 Nxd5?
Grigoriev fails to punish the mistake. When playing 13...e5, Alekhine had overlooked that White could play here 15
Bh3 and if 15...0-0-0 (15...Bxh3 16 Nxh3 d4 17 Nd5)
16 Qxf7.
15...Bxd5 16 Rxd5 Nb4! 17 Rxe5 Qxa2+ 18 Kc1 0-0-0!
Not 18...Qa1+? when 19 Kd2 Qxf1 20 Rxe7+ Kxe7 21 Qe5+ leads to perpetual check.
19 Bd3 Qa1+ 20 Kd2 Qxb2 21 Ke3 Bf6! 22 Qf5+ Kb8 23 Re4 Rxd3+ 24 cxd3 Bd4+ 25 Kf4 Qxf2+ 0-1.
Alekhine, it will be remembered, had avoided the fate of his fellow Russians, probably because of a medical
examination deciding he was unfit for military service. Tony Gillam's recent book Mannheim 1914 and the Interned
Russiansshows that in 1915 those Russians not yet repatriated were now held in Triberg where they played many
consultation games and other competitions among themselves. He shows that the British and Russian chess federations
sent money to Germany to support the Russian masters, who included Bogoljubow. In return for this money the
Russians were to annotate their best games for British Chess Magazineand other publications.
Ilya Rabinovich
Gillam wrotes (page 409) that by the end of 1915 there were only five of them left in Triberg. Tournaments had become
less satisfactory. Bogoljubow was clearly the strongest of them, with Rabinovich not far behind, then Selesniev, while
Maljutin and Weinstein were not in the same class as the others. Nevertheless at the end of 1915 and early 1916 another
tournament was held, involving only the three strongest masters. The following game, which is included in Gillam's
book on pages 500-501 without notes, was published in Deutsches Wochenschach 1916, page 116.
Efim Bogoljubow - Ilya Rabinovich
Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defence (C66)
Internees tournament Triberg, 1915

1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6 4 0-0 d6 5 d4 Bd7 6 Nc3 Be7 7 Re1 exd4 8 Nxd4 0-0 9 Bf1 Re8 10 Nde2 h6 11 Ng3 Bf8
12 h3 Ne5 13 Be3 c6 14 Qd2 Qc7
[FEN"r3rbk1/ppqb1pp1/2pp1n1p/4n3/4P3/2N1B1NP/PPPQ1PP1/R3RBK1 w - - 0 15"]
15 f4 Ng6 16 Rad1 b5 17 Bd3 b4 18 Nce2 c5 19 f5! Ne5 20 Nf4 Bc6 21 Nfh5! Qd8!
If 21...Nxh5 22 Nxh5 c4 23 f6! (Bogoljubow).

22 Nxf6+ Qxf6 23 b3 Qh4 24 Bf2 Rad8 25 c4!
[FEN"3rrbk1/p4pp1/2bp3p/2p1nP2/1pP1P2q/1P1B2NP/P2Q1BP1/3RR1K1 b - c3 0 25"]
White targets d6 and Black's reply makes his task easier.
25...Nxd3? 26 Qxd3 Be7 27 Qf3 Qf6 28 Nh5 Qb2 29 Re2 Qc3 30 Qg4 Bg5! 31 Be1! Qe5 32 Bg3 Qe7! 33 h4 Bf6 34
Rde1 Bd4+! 35 Kh1 f6 36 Nf4! Be5 37 Ne6 Ra8 38 Bxe5 dxe5 39 Rd1 Rec8
The strong knight cannot be challenged because if 39...Bd7 White has 40 Nxg7.
40 Re3! Kh8 41 Rd6 a5 42 Qd1! Ra7 43 Nxc5 Be8 44 Ne6 Bf7 45 Nd8 Bh5 46 Qd5 1-0.
Download
ChessBase and other PGN and PDF viewers. The database accompanying the ebook has more than 600 games,
including bonus annotated games!
Chinese Heading for World Domination

by Tim Harding
As most readers will recall, the People's Republic of China won the chess Olympiad for the first time in Troms last
August. The question began to be asked, how long before a Chinese player challenges for the world championship.
China, it will be recalled, has already had two women's world champions, including the current holder. Several young
players performed excellently and the whole team had only one lost game in the 44 played. Ding Liren, on board two,
was particularly impressive. Then in December Yu Yangyi, who was also on that team, won the very strong open in
Qatar, confidently crushing early leader Anish Giri in the penultimate round and then former world champion Vladimir
Kramnik in the last round. The commentators did an interview with him afterwards but needed an interpreter.
After watching several recent major tournaments online, it is becoming clear to me that it is only a matter of time before
a player from China wins the world championship. They may not have a player in the 2016 Candidates tournament,
though it cannot be ruled out, but in the next cycle it is looking increasingly likely that the challenger will be somebody
who is currently under 25 years of age, and quite likely Chinese.
In the February FIDE rating list, which incorporates results from the Tata Steel tournaments in the Netherlands, there
are now nine Chinese players in the top one hundred, six of them over 2700. This does not include players of Chinese
ethnicity who represent other countries. The women's world champion Hou Yifan reached 2700 on the "live" list after a
few rounds at Gibraltar so is likely to go above 2800 also and overtake the recently-retired Judit Polgar next month.
Hou Yifan is studying international relations at university and in an interview at the Gibraltar tournament it was clear
that her English is already pretty good.
That number of players above 2700 also does not include sixteen-year-old grandmaster Wei Yi who won the
Challengers section of the Tata Steel at Wijk aan Zee and will be in the top group in 2015. After the tournament his
rating was just shy of 2700 but at the time of writing his live rating is above 2700 after he won the first four rounds in
the Tradewise master open at Gibraltar. If he sustains that to the end of the month, he will become the youngest player
to go above 2700 in a published list, beating Magnus Carlsen's record. Ding Liren and Yu Yangyi could be wondering
if he, rather than one of them, will emerge as China's top player within the next few years, or do they have other young
geniuses in the pipeline? Quite likely they do.
"GM Ding Liren, WChJ Athens 2012"

by Andreas Kontokanis from Piraeus, Greece.
Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons.

China has its own game, Xiangqi, which differs from the western game in several important respects, but players who
were strong at that could be "converted" to western chess. Even now, I wonder how deep is the pool of western chess
players in China. Are their bright children now learning the western game first, or are they still picking out the junior
champions of Xiangqi for special schooling in chess?
This phenomenon led me to take down from my bookshelf, for the first time in many years, Chinese School of Chessby
their first national trainer, Liu Wenzhe, which was published by Batsford in 2001. When this book first appeared it was
hard for a westerner to take it altogether seriously because of the propaganda element with citings of works by Mao
Zedong and Lenin and obligatory criticisms of western ways of thought. However it does contain some interesting
ideas.
Liu Wenzhe
Liu Wenzhe (1940-2011), who was awarded China's first IM title in 1978, had started as a Xiangqi master, then had
taken up the western game in the mid-60s. For ten years from 1966-1976 western chess was forbidden during the
Cultural revolution. He spent this period, on a starvation diet according to the introduction to his book, going every day
to the Beijing Library where he translated Russian chess books (more than a million words) into Chinese and studied
these works at home at night. In 1978 China entered a FIDE Olympiad for the first time, in Buenos Aires, and it was
there that Liu Wenzhe won his famous miniature against Dutch grandmaster Donner.
Liu Wenzhe - Jan Hein Donner
Pirc Defence (B07)

Buenos Aires Olympiad,1978
1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 4 Be2 Bg7 5 g4

[FEN "rnbqk2r/ppp1ppbp/3p1np1/8/3PP1P1/2N5/PPP1BP1P/R1BQK1NR b KQkq - 0 5"]
5...h6
The reaction 5...c5 may be better but 5...h6 in itself may not be bad as the intended h4-h5 can be met by blocking the
kingside and White does not want his pieces tied to the defence of the g-pawn, so he decided to protect it with his
pawn, after which Be3 and Qd2 could follow.
6 h3 c5 7 d5 0-0?
[FEN "rnbq1rk1/pp2ppb1/3p1npp/2pP4/4P1P1/2N4P/PPP1BP2/R1BQK1NR w KQ - 0 8"]

7...Na6 followed by ...Nc7, aiming for ...b5 is better, but it is castling that is the technical and psychological error.
8 h4!
As Liu says in his book, Donner, not knowing his unrated opponent, interpreted 6 h3 as a timid move whereas he should
have paid more attention to the fact that 5 g4 was aggressive. Now with the Black king committed to the kingside, 8 h4,
despite the tempo loss, makes good sense.
8...e6 9 g5 hxg5 10 hxg5 Ne8?
10...Nh7 intending to protect h7 by ...Re8 and ...Nf8 was necessary.
11 Qd3

[FEN "rnbqnrk1/pp3pb1/3pp1p1/2pP2P1/4P3/2NQ4/PPP1BP2/R1B1K1NR b KQ - 0 11"]
Liu could already see the prospect of a mating attack.
11...exd5 12 Nxd5 Nc6 13 Qg3 Be6 14 Qh4 f5
Liu was thinking about 15 Bc4 here but then he saw the solution. However he treble-checked his calculations before
committing himself to the queen sacrifice.
15 Qh7+ Kf7
[FEN "r2qnr2/pp3kbQ/2npb1p1/2pN1pP1/4P3/8/PPP1BP2/R1B1K1NR w KQ - 0 16"]

16 Qxg6+!!
16 Rh6 should also win but the winning combination is beautiful.
16...Kxg6
Forced, of course, but Donner played the remaining moves quickly, hoping to rush his opponent into an error.
17 Bh5+ Kh7 18 Bf7+ Bh6 19 g6+
Not 19 Rxh6+?? Kg7 when Black would win.
19...Kg7
If 19...Kh8 20 Rxh6+ Kg7 21 Rh7#.

20 Bxh6+ 1-0.
In the early 1980s China was only beginning to build an elite squad of players who would emerge in international chess
tournaments. In 1981 IM Bob Wade led were in an invited team of Batsford authors, sponsored by the publisher, who
visited China to play matches there: the first western players to penetrate the bamboo curtain. After this the new
generation of Chinese masters (mostly born in the early 1960s) began to emerge into western competition, led by Ye
Rongguang (China's first grandmaster), and Ye Jiangchuan, who became the third Chinese grandmaster and the
country's first player to achieve a rating above 2600.
"Xie Yun 1993" by Andrzej Filipowicz
Miesicznik "Szachista" nr 1/1994, str. 11.

Of course it was very hard to break into the Soviet-dominated elite of male professional chess and the Chinese also
targeted women's chess which at that time was not as strong in absolute terms or in depth, the leading players being
from Russia and the then Soviet republic of Georgia. Then the Polgar sisters emerged from Hungary but since Judit
Polgar disdained to participate in female-only competitions, leaving the way open for her sister Susan to become world
champion. In the meantime Xie Jun (born 1970) had won the women's world title in 1991) also becoming China's
second grandmaster in the process). After losing to Polgar in 1996 she regained the title, holding it from 1999 to 2001.
Her book Chess Champion from China, published by Gambit in 1998, was written in the interim.
Maia Chiburdanidze - Xie Jun
Ruy Lopez (C90)

8th match game, Women's World Championship, Manila 1991
At this stage of the 16-game match Chiburdanidze led 4-3 and a tied match would enable her to retain the title, so Xie
Jun needed at least two wins.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 0-0 Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 0-0 8 d3 d6 9 c3 Na5 10 Bc2 c5 11 Nbd2 Nc6 12
Nf1 Re8 13 h3 Bb7
Varying from game four in which Black played 13...h6 and obtained a good position but eventually lost after a blunder.
14 Ng3 Bf8 15 Nf5 Ne7 16 Nxe7+ Bxe7 17 a4
[FEN "r2qr1k1/1b2bppp/p2p1n2/1pp1p3/P3P3/2PP1N1P/1PB2PP1/R1BQR1K1 b - - 0 17"]

17...Bf8
Keeping her options open; in her book,. Chess Champion from China, Xie Jun said she thought that 17...h6 18 axb5
axb5 19 Rxa8 Bxa8 20 Bb3 Bf8 21 Bd2 would lead to a draw.
18 Bg5
She thought White should still have played axb5 and Rxa8 first.
18...h6 19 Bh4!? Be7 20 d4
20 axb5 etc. was the last chance to simplify.
20...Qc7 21 dxe5 dxe5 22 Qe2 c4! 23 Red1 Qc5 24 Nh2?!
Still avoiding axb5 but now Black takes the initiative.
24...b4! 25 cxb4 Qxb4 26 Nf3
Xie Jun thought at the time White should have played 26 Rab1.
26...Nh5 27 Bxe7 Qxe7

[FEN "r3r1k1/1b2qpp1/p6p/4p2n/P1p1P3/5N1P/1PB1QPP1/R2R2K1 w - - 0 28"]
28 g3
If 28 Qxc4 she intended 28...Rac8 29 Qb3 Nf4 30 Rd2 Rc7 31 Rad1 Rec8 32 Kh1 a5 33 Bb1 Bc6 with good
compensation for the pawn according to her book.
28...Qe6 29 Kh2 Nf6 30 Ra3 a5 31 Re3 Bc8 32 Qf1 Rb8 33 Rb1 Ba6 34 Qe1 Rb4 35 b3 Reb8 36 bxc4 Nd7!
Black has several pawn targets and all her pieces are more active than their opposite numbers "but the situation remains
tense for a while."
37 Reb3 Qxc4 38 Rxb4?!
Not 38 Bd3 Rxb3 39 Bxc4 Rxb1 so the best try was 38 Qd1! when Xie Jun analysed 38...Qc5 39 Qd2 (39 Re3 Rxb1 40
Bxb1 Rb2 41 Kg1 Nb6) 39...Bc4 (or 39...Rc8!?) .
38...axb4
Black decided to retain rooks and trade queens.
39 Bb3 Qd3! 40 Qd1?!
Xie Jun expected 40 Kg2 Bb7 (40...Nc5?? 41 Bxf7+) 41 Bd5 Bxd5 42 exd5 e4 43 Nh2 Qxd5 to reach the adjournment
with an extra pawn.
40...Qxd1 41 Rxd1 Nc5 42 Rb1 Bd3 43 Rb2 Bxe4 44 Nxe5 Nxb3 45 Rxb3 Bd5 46 Rb2 b3 47 Nd3
[FEN "1r4k1/5pp1/7p/3b4/P7/1p1N2PP/1R3P1K/8 b - - 0 47"]

47...f6?
After the game her seconds criticized Xie Jun for this lost tempo, pointing out the correct line and how White might
now have saved the game. She says she should have played 47...Ra8 48 Nc5 f6 49 Rb1 Rb8 50 Na6 Rb6 51 Nc5 Bc4
52 f4 b2 53 a5 Rb5 54 Na4 Bb3 55 Nc3 Bc2 and wins.
48 g4?!
Xie Jun's book says 48 a5! Bc4 49 Nc1 Ra8 50 Rb1!! Rxa5 51 Nxb3 Rb5 52 Nd2 would have forced a draw. Houdini
thinks Black might still play for a win by 48...Rb5 instead, e.g., 49 a6 Ra5 50 Rb1 Ra2 51 g4 Rd2.
48...Bc4?
48...Ra8 was again the correct continuation. Xie Jun's book gives the line 49 Nc5 Rc8 50 Nd3 Bc4 51 Nc1 Bf7 52 Nd3
Rc3 53 Rd2 Rc4 54 Nb2 Rc2 55 Rxc2 bxc2 56 Nd3 Bc4 57 Nc1 Kf7 and Black should win as her bishop dominates the
knight.
49 Nc5?
The win became easy now. Again White missed the idea 49 Nc1 to push the a-pawn and force the black rook off the bfile, after which Rb1 and Nxb3 draws. Or if 49...Rd8 hoping for 50 Nxb3? Rb8-+ or 50 Rb1 Rd1-+ (in Schussler's notes
for ChessBase) White again saves the day by 50 a5!.
49...Rc8 50 Ne4 Bd5 51 Ng3 Ra8
The last trap was 51...Rc2? 52 Rxc2! bxc2 53 Ne2 drawing.
52 Ne2 Rxa4 53 Nc3 Ra2! 54 Rb1 Rxf2+ 55 Kg1 Rg2+ 56 Kf1 Rh2 0-1.
This levelled the score at 4-4 and turned out to be the critical game.
Since then China has produced two further female world champions. Zh Chen (born 1976) became world champion in
2001 but did not defend it in 2004. She moved to Qatar and married GM Mohamad Al-Modiakhi, but is still an active
player.
Zhu Chen - Sergei Tiviakov
English Opening (A50)

Ubeda open, 1998
This game is annotated in Liu Wenzhe's book starting on page 70.
1 Nf3 Nf6 2 c4 b6 3 g3 Bb7 4 Bg2 g6 5 d4 Bg7 6 0-0 0-0 7 Re1 e6 8 Bg5 h6 9 Bf4 Nh5 10 Bc1 d6 11 Nc3 c5 12 e4
Nc6
[FEN "r2q1rk1/pb3pb1/1pnpp1pp/2p4n/2PPP3/2N2NP1/PP3PBP/R1BQR1K1 w - - 0 13"]

13 Be3
Liu Wenzhe was very critical of Tiviakov's careless annotations for Chess Informant. Here for example Tiviakov
suggested 13 e5!? cxd4 14 Nxd4 but Liu suggests the exchange sacrifice offer 14...Nxd4 15 Bxb7 dxe5 and Houdini
agrees that this is good and White would be unwise to continue 16 Bxa8.
13...e5 14 dxe5 dxe5 15 Nd5 Nf6 16 Nd2 Nd4 17 a3 Nxd5 18 exd5 Rc8 19 Rb1 b5?!
Houdini likes 19...Qd7 here; Liu suggested 19...f5!?.

20 b3! a6 21 f4 Re8 22 fxe5 Rxe5 23 Kh1 Qe7 24 Bf2 Re8 25 Rxe5 Qxe5 26 Ne4 Rc8 27 Qd3 f5 28 Nd2 a5 29 Re1
[FEN "2r3k1/1b4b1/6pp/pppPqp2/2Pn4/PP1Q2P1/3N1BBP/4R2K b - - 0 29"]

29...Qf6
A critical moment. 29...Qd6 was considered by Tiviakov, with the reply 30 b4. Instead of this Liu suggested 30 g4
which Houdini finds not bad, but prefers 30 a4 or even 30 h4.
30 cxb5 Qd8 31 Qc4 Kh8 32 a4
[FEN "2rq3k/1b4b1/6pp/pPpP1p2/P1Qn4/1P4P1/3N1BBP/4R2K b - - 0 32"]

32...g5?
The losing move in a critical situation. 32...Qd7 was suggested by Liu with a complex position and some advantage for
White after 33 Nb1; Houdini suggests 33 d6!
33 Bxd4 cxd4 34 Qd3 f4 35 Qf5 fxg3 36 d6 Qxd6 37 Bxb7 Rf8 38 Qd3 gxh2 39 Nc4 Qb4 40 Rd1 Rf2 41 b6 g4 42
Qg3 Rf8 43 Bg2 h5 44 Qxh2 1-0.
The third and most recent Chinese women's world champion Hou Yifan, won the title in a tournament in 2010, thus
becoming the youngest female world champion ever. She will only reach the age of 21 on 27 February this year and is
evidently continuing to improve so Judit Polgar's peak achievements (FIDE rating of 2735 and world ranking of eight)
are definitely in her sights. She only won one game in the Tata Steel Masters, and lost three, but this did her rating no
harm and the experience of playing several of the world's top men in short succession will surely be beneficial soon.
Top board in the Chinese Olympiad squad in Troms was GM Wang Yue, a relative veteran since he was born in 1987.
He was apparently assigned the task of taking the flak on top board while the youngsters raked in the points. In round
three he lost with Black to Peter Leko but drew all his other games, which is not so bad when you learn that his
opponents included Kramnik, Wojtaszek, and Vachier-Legrave (he also had Black in those games) and (with White) he
met Vasily Ivanchuk, Anish Giri and Shakhriyar Mamedyarov. He only played one opponent with a lower rating.
"Yu Yangyi" by Kgolp76.

Ding Liren (born 1992) played ten games in Troms, mostly on board two, scoring five wins and five draws. Yu Yangyi
(born 1994) played all eleven rounds of the Olympiad, mostly on board 3 (sometimes board 2), winning eight games
and drawing three. He is not yet a full-time chess professional, at least not officially, being a student at Beijing Sports
University. The senior member and captain of the team was GM Ni Hua (born 1983) played nine games in the
Olympiad, on boards 3 and 4, winning four and drawing five. Wei Yi (born 1999), who became a grandmaster in 2013,
was the reserve, playing five games, winning three and drawing two. We should also not forget another teenager, Zhao
Jun (born 1986), who stormed through the field at Hastings over the New Year and is now rated 2621.
February ratings
Ding Liren 2755 (gained 23 points in January, now 14th on the world ranking list).
Li Chao 2728 (born 1989 but relatively inactive)
Wang Yue 2726
Yu Yangyi 2724
Wang Hao 2713 (born 1989 relatively inactive)
Ni Hua 2704 (gained 15 points)
Wei Yi 2695 (gained 20 points)
Bu Zianqzhi 2681
Hou Yifan 2672
then big gap to tenth-rated Zhou Weiqi 2627
The top Chinese women after Hou Yifan are:
Ju Wenjun 2547 (born 1991)
Zhao Xue 2527 who both have the "unisex" GM title too.
Some recent games

Ding Liren - Grzegorz Gajewski
Catalan Opening (E11)

Troms Olympiad, 14 August 2014
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 Bb4+ 4 Bd2 Be7
A fashionable idea in the Catalan and Bogo-Indian, sacrificing a tempo to lure White's bishop on to a square it will soon
need to vacate.
5 Bg2 d5 6 Nf3 0-0 7 0-0 c6 8 Qc2 Nbd7
White would rather have the knight on d2, protecting the c-pawn. Achieving this requires some rather artificial
manoeuvring but Ding Liren solves the problem efficiently.
9 Rd1
Waiting for Black to show his hand, and ready to meet ...Ne4 by Be1.
9...b6 10 b3 a5 11 Bc3 Ba6
Arguably there is little point to this now and the bishop should just go to b7.
12 Nbd2
[FEN "r2q1rk1/3nbppp/bpp1pn2/p2p4/2PP4/1PB2NP1/P1QNPPBP/R2R2K1 b - - 0 12"]

12...b5
This is soon shown to weaken c6.
13 e4
The advance White always wants to make in this sort of line.
13...bxc4 14 bxc4 Nxe4 15 Nxe4 dxe4 16 Ne5

[FEN "r2q1rk1/3nbppp/b1p1p3/p3N3/2PPp3/2B3P1/P1Q2PBP/R2R2K1 b - - 0 16"]
Now the c4-pawn is safe and Black has a problem.
16...f5!?
Trying to complicate; Black is left with two weak queenside pawns and a vulnerable kingside after 16...Nxe5 17 dxe5
Qc7 18 Qxe4.
17 Nxc6 Qe8 18 Bxa5 Nf6 19 d5 Bb7 20 Nxe7+ Qxe7 21 Bc3 exd5 22 Rab1 Rf7 23 Bxf6 Qxf6 24 cxd5
Ding Liren will now cash in his extra pawn without allowing any meaningful counterplay.
24...Rd8
[FEN "3r2k1/1b3rpp/5q2/3P1p2/4p3/6P1/P1Q2PBP/1R1R2K1 w - - 0 25"]

25 d6 Ba6 26 Qc6 Bd3 27 Rxd3 exd3 28 Bd5 Kf8 29 Bxf7 Qxf7 30 Rd1 Qxa2 31 Qc7 Qa8 32 d7 d2 33 Rxd2 Qa1+
34 Kg2 Qf6 35 Re2 f4 36 Qc5+
Whenever Black thinks he is getting somewhere, White has a check.
36...Kf7 37 Qh5+ Qg6
37...Kf8 38 Re8+ Rxe8 39 dxe8Q#; 37...g6 38 Qd5+ and gxf4.
38 Qd5+ Kf8 39 Re5 fxg3 40 hxg3 1-0
Jan-Krzysztof Duda - Yu Yangyi
Najdorf Sicilian (B92)

Troms olympiad (11.3), 14.08.2014
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Be2 e5 7 Nb3 Be7 8 Bg5 Be6 9 Bxf6 Bxf6 10 Qd3 0-0 11 0-0-0
Be7 12 Kb1 Nd7 13 Nd5 Bxd5 14 Qxd5 b5 15 Qb7 Nf6 16 f3 Re8 17 c4 Bf8 18 Qc6 Qb8 19 Na5 Qa7 20 c5 dxc5 21
Qb7 c4 22 Qxa7 Rxa7 23 Rc1 Rc7 24 Nb3 Rd7 25 Na1 Rd2 26 Rc2 Red8 27 b3 c3 28 a4 bxa4 29 Bxa6 a3 30 Bb5
h5 31 h4 g6 32 Re1 Bb4 33 Rec1 Kg7 34 Ka2 Ng8 35 Rxd2 Rxd2+ 36 Rc2 Ne7 37 Rxd2 cxd2
[FEN "8/4npk1/6p1/1B2p2p/1b2P2P/pP3P2/K2p2P1/N7 w - - 0 38"]

The Chess24 commentators at the Olympiad had fun watching Yu Yangyi's exploitation of this amusing opposite
coloured bishops endgame where White is helplessly trapped in the corner and soon can only move his bishop on one
diagonal.
38 Be2 Nc6 39 Nc2 Nd4 40 Nxd4 exd4 41 f4 d3 42 Bf3 Kf6
The commentators were plotting a route around the board for Black's king to c3 but Yu found a simpler way to win.
43 g4 hxg4 44 Bxg4 Ke7 45 e5 Kd8 46 f5 gxf5 47 Bd1
White's passed pawn means the king cannot stray to the queenside.
47...Ke7 48 h5 Kf8 49 Bf3 Kg7 50 Bd1 Kh6 51 Bf3 Kg5 52 Bd1 f4 53 Kb1 Kf5 54 Bf3 Kxe5 55 Ka2 Bf8 56 h6 Kf6
Of course Bxh6 lets the white king out of the box.
57 Bh5 Bb4 58 Kb1 f3 0-1
The threat of ...f2 means the Black king gains access to the h-pawn and it's all over.
Yu Yangyi - Vladimir Kramnik
Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defence (C65)

Qatar Masters Open, Doha, 4 December 2014
Kramnik was leading the tournament by a half point but his opponent was no respecter of persons. This game was
annotated by Sagar Shah on chessbase.com so I only point out a few details.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6 4 d3 Bc5 5 Bxc6 dxc6 6 Nbd2
6 Nxe5? Qd4 7 Be3 Qxe5 8 d4 Qxe4 9 dxc5 Qxg2-+.
6...Be6 7 0-0
7 Ng5? Bxf2+!.
7...Nd7 8 Nb3 Bb6 9 Ng5 Bxb3 10 axb3 f6 11 Nf3 Nf8 12 Nd2 Ne6 13 Qh5+!? g6 14 Qd1 Bc5?!
14...0-0 as sometimes the obvious move is best..
15 Nc4 b5
This surprised the commentators (GMs Danny King and Simon Williams), who wondered if the plan was ...Bf8-g7.
That would probably have been too slow.
16 Na5 Qd7 17 Be3 Bb6 18 b4 0-0 19 Qd2 f5?! 20 exf5 gxf5?!
Kramnik does not play like an ex-world champion in this game.
21 Qc3! f4
Talking to King after the game, Yu indicated the better move 21...Bxa5 22 Rxa5 f4 23 Bxa7 f3 24 Qxe5 fxg2 which he
said might end in a draw.
22 Bxb6 cxb6 23 Nxc6 Qd6? 24 Rxa7!
Kramnik had hoped for 24 Nxe5 Nd4! 25 Rae1 Rac8.
24...Rxa7 25 Nxa7 f3 26 Qc6! Qe7 27 Nxb5 Kh8 28 g3 Qf7
Nothing works for Black.
29 Ra1! Ng5 30 Ra8 Qe7 31 h4 Nh3+ 32 Kf1 e4 33 Qxe4 1-0.
Kramnik resigned and Yu Yangyi won the tournament with a score of 7.5 out of nine.
Zhao Jun - Jahongir Vakhidov
Scandinavian Defence (B01)

Hastings Masters 2014-2015, 5 January 2015
1 e4 d5 2 exd5 Qxd5 3 Nc3 Qd6 4 d4 Nf6 5 Nf3 g6
Ukrainian (now American) master Michael Melts has long advocated 3...Qd6 but his main line is 5...Bg4.
6 Nb5 Qb6 7 Na3 c6 8 Nc4 Qc7
Four moves with the queen out of eight is not desirable.
9 Nce5

[FEN "rnb1kb1r/ppq1pp1p/2p2np1/4N3/3P4/5N2/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R b KQkq - 0 9"]
Five moves with this knight but it's now on a great square.
9...Bg7 10 Bc4 0-0 11 0-0 Nd5 12 Bb3 e6 13 c4 Nf6 14 h3 c5 15 Bf4 Qa5 16 d5 Qd8
Back home after achieving nothing.
17 Rc1 b6 18 Re1 Nh5 19 Bh2 Bh6
A miserable move; what about the queenside pieces? It's hard to believe Black is a grandmaster rated over 2500.
20 Rc3 Bf4
So much for the fianchettoed bishop.
21 Bxf4 Nxf4 22 Qd2 Nh5
[FEN "rnbq1rk1/p4p1p/1p2p1p1/2pPN2n/2P5/1BR2N1P/PP1Q1PP1/4R1K1 w - - 0 23"]

Now Zhao "puts the boot in".
23 Nxf7!! Kxf7
23...Rxf7 24 dxe6 is murder so Black must capture with the king.
24 dxe6+ Ke7 25 Rd3 Qc7 26 Qh6 Rh8 27 Ne5 Bxe6 28 Nxg6+ hxg6 29 Qxh8 Kf7 30 Rf3+ Bf5 31 Rxf5+ 1-0.
Black really got what he deserved in this game.
"Wei Yi 2012" by Andreas Kontokanis from Piraeus, Greece.
Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

Wei Yi - Vladimir Potkin
French Defence (C11)

Tata Steel Challengers, 11 January 2015
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 e5 Nfd7 5 f4 c5 6 Nf3 Nc6 7 Be3 a6 8 Qd2 b5 9 Bd3
9 dxc5 is recommended for White in Parimarjan Negi's book on the French, which does not mention 9 Bd3.
9...b4 10 Na4 c4 11 Be2 c3 12 Qd1 cxb2 13 Nxb2 Be7 14 0-0 0-0 15 Bd3 f5 16 g4!?
Black should probably accept this offer as he falls into a bad position, but he probably feared deep preparation by the
Chinese team in the line 16...fxg4 17 Ng5.
[FEN "r1bq1rk1/3nb1pp/p1n1p3/3pPp2/1p1P1PP1/3BBN2/PNP4P/R2Q1RK1 b - - 0 16"]

16...a5 17 gxf5 exf5 18 Qe2 Nb6 19 Kh1 a4 20 Rg1 a3 21 Nd1 Na4 22 Rg3 Rf7
22...Be6 was better here, and also next move, according to Sagar Shah's notes for ChessBase.
23 Qg2 Nc3?
Black apparently feared the White knight entering the attack via f2 but Wei Yi soon proves that piece was not required
to carry out his plans.
24 Nxc3 bxc3 25 Bb5 Qb6 26 Rg1 Bf8
[FEN "r1b2bk1/5rpp/1qn5/1B1pPp2/3P1P2/p1p1BNR1/P1P3QP/6RK w - - 0 27"]

27 Rh3! g6 28 Ng5 Qxb5 29 Nxf7 Ne7 30 Nh6+ Bxh6 31 Rxh6 Ra7 32 Qh3 Qe2 33 Rxh7 Qxc2 34 Rh8+ Kf7 35
Qh7+ Ke6 36 Rxg6+ 1-0.
Teimour Radjabov - Ding Liren
King's Indian Defence (E90)

Tata Steel Masters, 13 January 2015
Ding Liren is a great exponent of the King's Indian Defence as he showed in this game (against one of the leading K.I.D.
practitioners) and also against Aronian at Wijk aan Zee.
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 Nf3 0-0 6 h3 e5 7 d5 Nh5 8 g3 f5 9 exf5 gxf5 10 Ng5 Qe8 11 Be2 Nf6 12 Be3
Na6 13 Qd2 Bd7 14 0-0-0 h6
[FEN "r3qrk1/pppb2b1/n2p1n1p/3PppN1/2P5/2N1B1PP/PP1QBP2/2KR3R w - - 0 15"]
Apparently this was the first new move.

15 Nf3 Nc5 16 Nh4 Nce4 17 Nxe4 Nxe4 18 Qc2 Ng5 19 Bd3 e4 20 Be2 Rc8 21 Kb1 c5 22 dxc6 Rxc6 23 Qd2 Be6
[FEN "4qrk1/pp4b1/2rpb2p/5pn1/2P1p2N/4B1PP/PP1QBP2/1K1R3R w - - 0 24"]

24 Bxg5?
24 Bd4! was necessary and unclear according to ChessBase's notes by Cristian Chirila.
24...hxg5 25 Qxg5 Ra6 26 Rd2 b5 27 Rc1 Qf7 28 Ng6 Bf6 29 Qh6 Rb8
[FEN "1r4k1/p4q2/r2pbbNQ/1p3p2/2P1p3/6PP/PP1RBP2/1KR5 w - - 0 30"]

Here comes the winning attack.
30 Nf4 Bxc4 31 Rxc4 bxc4 32 Nd5 Bg7 33 Qg5 c3! 34 Bc4 cxd2 35 Nf6+ Kf8 36 Nh7+ Ke8 37 Bxf7+ Kxf7 38
Qxf5+ Kg8 39 Kc2??
39 Qe6+! was necessary. In order to escape the checks, Chirila gives the variation 39...Kxh7 40 Qxe4+ Kh8
(40...Kg8!?) 41 Qh4+ Kg8 42 Qc4+ d5 43 Qxd5+ Kf8 44 b3 Bc3 and Black should win.
39...Rxb2+ 40 Kd1 Rb1+ 0-1
Aronian,L (2797) - Ding Liren

Tata Steel Masters (13), 25.01.2015
1 c4 g6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 Nf3 0-0 6 h3 e5 7 d5 Nh5 8 g3 f5 9 exf5 gxf5 10 Ng5 Qe8 11 c5 Nf6 12 Bb5
A new move by Aronian.
12...Qe7 13 g4!?
Aronian starts to go berserk; this move in itself may be OK but the follow-up was not.
13...Na6
Ignoring White's ideas for now seems best.
14 Ne6 Bxe6 15 dxe6 Nxc5
[FEN "r4rk1/ppp1q1bp/3pPn2/1Bn1pp2/6P1/2N4P/PP3P2/R1BQK2R w KQ - 0 16"]

16 g5
16 gxf5 was necessary although after 16...d5 Black should have good prospects..
16...Ne8
Apparently Aronian overlooked or underestimated this move.
17 Nd5 Qxe6 18 b4
18 Bxe8 Qxe8 19 Nxc7 fails to 19...Qc6 which seems to be what Aronian missed. He thought for ages, probably trying
to make 18 Bc4 work but it doesn't.
18...Ne4 19 Bxe8 Qxe8

[FEN "r3qrk1/ppp3bp/3p4/3NppP1/1P2n3/7P/P4P2/R1BQK2R w KQ - 0 20"]
20 f3
20 Nxc7 is again met by 20...Qc6 as this time Nxa8 loses to ...Qc3+.
20...Ng3 21 Rg1 f4
21...Qh5! has been suggested. It seems Ding did not find the most efficient way to win this strange game, but he got
there in the end.
22 Nxc7 Qe7 23 Qb3+ Kh8 24 Ne6
24 Nxa8 e4.
24...Rfe8 25 Nxg7 Kxg7 26 Bb2 Qxg5 27 Rd1 Rad8
[FEN "3rr3/pp4kp/3p4/4p1q1/1P3p2/1Q3PnP/PB6/3RK1R1 w - - 0 28"]

As in his earlier game with Wesley So, Aronian finds ways to fight on for a long time in an objectively hopeless
position but he cannot save it.
28 Rd5 Qf5 29 Kd2 Qxh3 30 Kc1 Qf5 31 Bc3 h5 32 Kb2 h4 33 Qd1 h3 34 Qd2 Kf7 35 Re1 Qf6 36 Qc2 Nf5 37 Rd2
Rg8 38 Qe4 b6 39 Rh1 Rh8 40 Qb7+ Qe7 41 Qa6 Ng3 42 Rhh2 Rd7 43 Rc2 Rc7 44 Qd3 Qe6 45 Ka3 Nf5 46 Bd2
Rxc2 47 Qxc2 Nd4 48 Qd3 Qd5 49 Kb2 b5 50 Bc3 Qxf3 51 Qb1 Qg3 52 Rd2 h2 53 Bxd4 h1Q 54 Qf5+ Ke7 55
Qc2 Qd5 0-1
Yu Yangyi - Deep Sengupta
English Opening (D78)

Gibraltar, 30 January 2015
1 c4 c6 2 Nf3 d5 3 g3 Nf6 4 Bg2 g6 5 Qa4 dxc4 6 Qxc4 Bg7 7 0-0 0-0 8 d4 Bf5 9 Nc3 Nbd7 10 e3 Ne4 11 Rd1 Nb6
12 Qb3 Qc7 13 Bd2 Nxc3 14 Bxc3 Nd5 15 Nd2 Bg4 16 Rdc1 Nxc3 17 bxc3 Rac8 18 a4
[FEN "2r2rk1/ppq1ppbp/2p3p1/8/P2P2b1/1QP1P1P1/3N1PBP/R1R3K1 b - - 0 18"]

The b-pawn is now a prime target.
18...b6 19 a5 c5 20 axb6 axb6 21 Rcb1 cxd4 22 cxd4 Bf5 23 Be4 Bxe4 24 Nxe4 Qc6 25 Nd2 Rfd8 26 Ra7 Rc7 27
Rxc7 Qxc7 28 Nc4
[FEN "3r2k1/2q1ppbp/1p4p1/8/2NP4/1Q2P1P1/5P1P/1R4K1 b - - 0 28"]

Activating the knight because it was undefended and the b-pawn cannot run away.
28...e5 29 dxe5 Bxe5 30 Qxb6 Qxb6 31 Rxb6
Methodical play by White has given him an ending with an extra pawn and, given that all the pawns are on the same
wing, the preferable minor piece: the knight.
31...Bc3 32 g4
This cramps Black and prepares to create a new weakness. In knight versus bishop endings there is no hurry to create a
passed pawn, rather the reverse.
32...Kg7 33 h4 h6
Perhaps worried about g4-g5. Black can do little but await the unfolding of White's plans.
34 Rb5 Bf6 35 h5 gxh5
Otherwise White will capture on g6 and the king must recapture.
36 Rxh5
It is important not to split White's pawns.
36...Bg5 37 Kg2 Rd1 38 f4 Be7 39 Rb5 Rc1 40 Ne5 Bf6 41 Nd3 Rd1 42 Rd5 Bh4 43 Rd7
The coming threat to f7 will force off the rooks.
43...Kf8 44 Kf3 Bf6?
This makes White's task easier.
45 Ne5
[FEN "5k2/3R1p2/5b1p/4N3/5PP1/4PK2/8/3r4 b - - 0 45"]

45...Rxd7 46 Nxd7+ Ke7 47 Nxf6 Kxf6
The king and pawn ending is routine.
48 Kg3 Ke6 49 Kh4 Kd5 50 Kh5 Ke4 51 Kxh6 Kxe3 52 f5 1-0.
Black resigns for if 52...Kf4 53 f6 Ke5 54 Kg7 Ke6 55 g5.
Postscript
Good news for the West is that in round 6 at Gibraltar Wei Yi's streak of at least 37 games without defeat was ended by
England's David Howell in a game lasting seven hours and 87 moves. Wei Yi, it seems, still has a little to learn about
endgames. After four straight wins he missed a win in a rook ending in round five and then succumbed to the British
co-champion. This doesn't mean the threat of Chinese world domination is receding; Howell himself is of partly Asian
parentage, and moreover the new Irish under-14 champion is also of Chinese descent. In a recent Dublin tournament he
beat me and drew with (almost beating) one of Ireland's top players, FM Colm Daly.
Download
The Greatest Bunratty Festival Yet

What drew more than 350 chess players to a remote hotel in the south-west of Ireland, including twelve grandmasters
and many IMs just for a weekend, 20-22 February? Perhaps it was the wet, windy Irish weather. More likely, it was the
beer. Most likely of all it was the traditional festival atmosphere created by the sponsor Gary O'Grady of the London
Heathrow-based Blackthorne International Transport (www.blackthornetransport.co.uk) which specialises in delivery
cargo to Russia. This was about the twentieth time a winter chess congress has been held in Bunratty but only the
second time I have attended. The previous time was 1997 when there were only a handful of players from overseas,
whereas now it is a major event in the calendar.
This was the biggest Bunratty yet, with at least 350 competitors in five tournaments. Many of the amateurs were
undoubtedly regular attendees. Others were drawn by the chance to see legends of the game like Nigel Short and new
Filipino-American star Wesley So in the flesh. For the visiting masters, apart from the fees and conditions, it was a
chance to meet some ordinary players and not have to worry about their FIDE ratings. The proximity of Shannon
Airport also means that those visitors who wanted to do so could get to the tournament and away again without having
to visit Dublin and then cross the country by road or rail, though some did.
Bunratty Castle, centre-piece of the folk park.

At the venue, the Bunratty Castle Hotel, the chess weekend is always popular because the players fill the rooms and bars
and make little trouble. For those visitors who want to relax (and a many spouses and parents and children of
competitors were in evidence) there is a pool and spa and choice of restaurants, with various tourist attractions within
walking distance. This pictorial report should give a feel for the place. I went primarily to meet people and took a bye
in the Saturday evening round to enjoy the pool and a leisurely meal with my wife while other suffered. For those who
stay the extra night on Sunday, a blitz tournament is laid on. Next time I go, I will probably stay for that.
The dates for the next two years Bunratty festivals are already fixed: 19-21 February 2016 and 17-19 February 2017.
The Classic (GM) Tournament
This year there was an additional tournament. The 10-player round-robin Bunratty Classic was played at the rate of two
games per day, but with only one game at the start, Wednesday 18 February. This tournament was played in the hotel's
library and spectating was not possible, the games being shown live using DGT boards. It is a pity, though, that they
could not arrange to have more screens in the lounges so that more than one game could be followed, and therefore this
event passed by largely ignored by the majority of competitors in the weekend events. Some people perhaps felt that the
opportunity to achieve a title norm should have been made available to more than one Irish player, but the difficulty is
that other candidates than Irish champion Sam Collins (who has two GM norms under his belt) need to improve their
ratings so that their inclusion would not damage the category of the event. The other Irish IMs and FMs seem to have
reached a plateau but in another two years, the situation could be quite different as there are many up-and-coming
teenage Irish players.
Irish Champion Sam Collins at the start of the last round in the Classic.
The draw for the Classic was done and the pairings announced several weeks in advance, giving competitors ample
opportunity to prepare for their opponents with the appropriate colour. The normal sequence of rounds had to be
adjusted so that the Thorfinsson brothers played each other first, which led to unusual sequences. Irish hope Sam
Collins began with two Whites followed by two Blacks. Four first round games were drawn but the game between the
two well-known English chess commentators GM Simon Williams and IM Lawrence Trent only began at 9pm,
presumably because of a disruption to somebody's travelling arrangements.
IM Lawrence Trent, a regular commentator on Chess24,
who took a few days off to compete in the Classic.

During his commentary on the Gibraltar tournament, Williams happened to mention that Trent had at first offered him a
draw (weeks before the start of the event!) but then had second thoughts and requested to withdraw the offer, perhaps
because a +4 score was required to get a GM norm. As it turned out, Williams (who played a Torre Attack against the
King's Indian) came out of the opening with a poor game and the following position arose immediately following the
exchange of queens.
S. Williams - L. Trent
Bunratty Classic (1.3), 18 February 2015
[FEN "3r1rk1/pp3pb1/4b1pp/2pn4/P1N4N/2P3P1/1P2BPP1/R3K2R w KQ - 0 18"]

From the diagram, the game continued:
18 0-0?! Bxc3!
The start of a deeply-calculated sequence. The same tactic was possible after 18 0-0-0 Bxc3! but 19 Rxd5 Bxb2+ 20
Kxd2 Bxd5 (White having two knights for rook and two pawns) is perhaps not as decisive as in the game continuation.
19 bxc3 Nxc3 20 Bf3
If 20 Rfe1 Nxe2+ 21 Rxe2 Bxc4 with two extra pawns.
20...Bxc4 21 Rfc1 Rd3!
After 21...Ne2+ 22 Bxe2 Bxe2 23 Rxc5 White regains one of the pawns but should still lose. The text also forces an
exchange of one pair of rooks which makes his task much easier.
22 Ra3 Rxf3! 23 Raxc3 Rxc3 24 Rxc3 Be6 25 Rxc5 Rc8 26 Ra5 Rc1+ 27 Kh2 a6... (0-1). Black won at move 48,
White putting an end to his own misery with a help-mate.

Icelandic IM Bjorn Thorfinsson, who dominated the
Classic tournament and earned a GM norm with a round to spare.

Bjorn Thorfinnsson - Sam Collins

1 Nf3 Nf6 2 g3 g6 3 Bg2 Bg7 4 0-0 0-0 5 c4 d6 6 d4 c6 7 Nc3 Qa5 8 e4 e5 9 dxe5 dxe5 10 a3 Bg4 11 h3 Rd8 12 Qc2
Bxf3 13 Bxf3 Nbd7 14 b4 Qc7 15 Bb2 Nf8 16 Rfd1 Ne6 17 Ne2
[FEN "r2r2k1/ppq2pbp/2p1nnp1/4p3/1PP1P3/P4BPP/1BQ1NP2/R2R2K1 b - - 0 17"]

Black has at least equalised because this knight is better than White's KB. Houdini 4 now suggests 17...c5 18 Bg2 Nd4
but Collins chose another plan.
17...a5
Now Houdini likes 18 c5 but the Icelandic IM chooses to exchange rooks and offer a pawn sacrifice which, if accepted,
brings his bishop to life.
18 Rxd8+ Rxd8 19 Rd1 Rxd1+ 20 Qxd1 axb4 21 axb4 Ng5 22 Bg2

[FEN "6k1/1pq2pbp/2p2np1/4p1n1/1PP1P3/6PP/1B2NPB1/3Q2K1 b - - 0 22"]
22...Ngxe4 23 c5!?
Houdini prefers to regain the pawn by 23 Qd3 Ng5 24 Qe3 Ne6 25 Bxe5 Ng4 26 hxg4 Bxe5 but White prefers a trickier
idea.
23...Ng5 24 Qa1 Nd7 25 Nc3 Bf8
Black's difficulties begin with this retrograde move, but Sam was possibly concerned about the complications that could
arise from Houdini's recommendation 25...f5!? (Space-gaining but potentially weakening) 26 Qa2+ Nf7 27 g4!?.
26 h4 Ne6 27 Ne4 Be7 28 Nd2 f6 29 Nc4 Ndf8 30 Bh3 Qd8 31 Bf1 Nd4?
This falls into a devilish trap. A waiting move such as 31...Kg7 or 32...Qd7 was called for.
32 Bxd4 exd4
After 32...Qxd4 33 Qxd4 exd4 34 Na5 Black cannot defend his b-pawn, following which the c6-pawn and d4-pawn
become vulnerable. The b-pawn also will fall after the game continuation but Black's queen gives him some tactical
counter-chances.
33 Qa7 Qd7 34 Nb6 Qc7 35 Ba6!
[FEN "5nk1/Qpq1b2p/BNp2pp1/2P5/1P1p3P/6P1/5P2/6K1 b - - 0 35"]
This is the point; Black's minor pieces are too passive to support the advance of his d-pawn.
35...Qe5?
35...d3 was a better try, giving up the passed pawn instead after 36 Bxd3 (36 Kf1?! d2) 36...Nd7 with good chances to
hold the draw.
36 Bc4+ Kh8 37 Qxb7
Not only attacking the c6-pawn but also the bishop.
37...Qe1+
37...f5 loses to 38 Nc8 Bxh4 39 Qf7 forcing 39...Qg7 40 Qxg7+ Kxg7 41 gxh4.
38 Kg2 Qe4+ 39 Kh2
There is no perpetual check.
39...Qe1 40 Qxc6 Qxf2+
If 40...Qxb4 41 Qd5.
41 Qg2 Qe1 42 Nc8 Qe5 43 Qb7 Qf5 44 Qxe7 Qf2+ 45 Kh3 Qf5+ 46 Kg2 Nd7 47 Nd6 Qc2+ 48 Kh3 1-0.
Bjorn Thorfinsson, who had been the last invitee to the tournament, certainly seized his opportunity at Bunratty. He now
led with 2.5/3 (having drawn with his brother in the first round) and never looked back. Indeed by the close of play on
Saturday, he had only dropped two half points and virtually won the tournament with two games to go. On the Sunday
morning he accepted the draw that brought him the grandmaster norm and certain first prize; another draw meant he
finished on seven points. Unfortunately his round five game against Simon Williams is missing from the file currently
available but perhaps it will turn up eventually.
Australian FIDE Master Justin Tan who earned his final IM norm in the Classic.
Young Australian FM Justin Tan earned his final IM norm with a 50 per cent result, losing to the tournament winner
and beating Adam Hunt. Twenty-eight of the 45 games ended in a draw, several of them in under twenty moves, due to
the tough playing schedule and conservative play aimed at earning norms rather than winning games. The last game to
finish was however, an exception to the rule.
GMs Sebastien Maze and Simon Williams at the start of their game in the Classic.
Sebastien Maze - Simon Williams
Sicilian Defence (B51)

1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 Bb5+ Nc6 4 0-0 Bd7 5 Re1 Nf6 6 c3 a6 7 Bf1 e5 8 h3 g5!?
[FEN "r2qkb1r/1p1b1p1p/p1np1n2/2p1p1p1/4P3/2P2N1P/PP1P1PP1/RNBQRBK1 w kq - 0 9"]

A wild response which has failed in two previous outings I found in my database, but presumably Williams, a dangerous
attacking player, had done some computer preparation
9 d4
Accepting the pawn offer 9 Nxg5 Rg8 is no doubt what Black wants so White plays to open the centre.
9...g4 10 hxg4 Bxg4
Black has nothing clear for the pawn but in a last round game (the second of the day), with nothing hanging on it except
rating points, Williams is apparently more motivated than his opponent. The other four games had been drawn but did
Maze leave it too late to propose the draw, or not offer one at all?
11 dxe5?!
A careless move; surely he should take the c-pawn when the black knight cannot go to e5?
11...Nxe5 12 Be2?
More time lost; Black develops his attack with tempo; 12 Nbd2 looks necessary.
12...Bxf3 13 Bxf3 Rg8 14 Bf4 Nfd7 15 Be2 Qh4 16 Qd2
The computer program Houdini 4 says Black already stands better after 16 Bg3 Rxg3 17 fxg3 Qxg3 18 Nd2 Qe3+ 19
Kh2 (19 Kf1 0-0-0) 19...Qh6+ 20 Kg1 Be7.
16...Be7 17 Qe3 Bg5 18 Bxg5 Rxg5
[FEN "r3k3/1p1n1p1p/p2p4/2p1n1r1/4P2q/2P1Q3/PP2BPP1/RN2R1K1 w q - 0 19"]

19 Nd2?
He needed to prepare Rh1 without delay by 19 g3 0-0-0 20 Kg2 when the correct attacking plan is less clear. After
20...Ng6!? (not 20...Rdg8?? 21 Rh1) White can prevent transposition to the game continuation by 21 Rh1 Nf4+ 22 Kg1
Nxe2+ 23 Qxe2 Rxg3+ 24 fxg3 Qxg3+ 25 Kf1 (25 Qg2 Qe1+ 26 Kh2 Qh4+ draws by perpetual check.) 25...Rg8!?
(25...Qf4+ 26 Qf2 Qc1+ also draws.) 26 Qf2 Qd3+ 27 Qe2 Qg3=. Therefore 20...Nf6 is the only way to play for a win,
e.g., 21 Nd2 Qh6 22 Rh1 (22 Nf1!?) 22...Rxg3+ 23 Qxg3 Qxd2 with good compensation for the exchange.
19...0-0-0 20 g3 Rdg8 21 Kg2 Ng6!
[FEN "2k3r1/1p1n1p1p/p2p2n1/2p3r1/4P2q/2P1Q1P1/PP1NBPK1/R3R3 w - - 0 22"]
White is lost.
22 Rg1
This loses at least the exchange but there is nothing better. The move was played after a long think which would have
been better to do at an earlier stage. 22 g4 is the only way to stop ...Nf4+, but Black wins instead by 22...Nde5.
22...Nf4+ 23 Kf1 Qh3+ 24 Ke1 Ng2+ 25 Rxg2 Qxg2 26 Bf1 Qh1 27 Nf3 Accelerates the end. 27...Rg4 28 Kd2 Re8 01
Ted Jennings (left), who completed his International Arbiter qualification
in running the Classic tournament, with chief organiser Gerry Graham.

The Classic tournament was run by Ted Jennings who has thereby completed his qualification for the International
Arbiter title. Three norms from one small event is not bad at all and justifies the sponsor's investment.
General view of the Masters. GM Bogdan Lalic can be seen in the foreground, left.
The Masters and Subsidiary Events
The four weekend tournaments were Swisses, played over six rounds starting at 8pm on the evening of Friday 20
February, rather too late an hour for me, but facilitating those who had to come a long way or travel after work.
Another possible criticism is that the ratings used for the tournament were applied inconsistently which meant that
sometimes the pairings were not what they should be. For Irish players, their Irish ratings as published on 16 January
were used, although there had been one major congress in the meantime, affecting many live ratings. Secondly, the
ratings used for the many visitors from overseas were not always correct. Titled players were listed according to their
January FIDE ratings, rather than the February ones, though this only affected a few players. More seriously, the many
untitled English players were listed according to their English Chess Federation ratings instead of their FIDE ratings.
(There was nobody without a FIDE rating.) In one case, there was a difference of 100 points, putting a player in the
bottom half of the draw for round one who should have been in the top half. However, I do not like to criticise the
organisers harshly. They certainly needed more helpers to cope with such a large congress, probably a much bigger
turnout than they had initially anticipated.
A view of the Major and Minor sections, played in the hotel's main function room.
The top three boards in the Master tournament were played on DGT boards, and thanks to this an interesting (if
imperfect) long endgame between Wesley So (Black) and Nick Pert was preserved in full. This game was played in
extreme time shortage by both masters, but it was impressive how So (who originally had about five minutes less)
gradually caught up thanks to the fifteen second increments for each move. After a lot of manoeuvring in a rook and
bishop endgame, So managed to improve his king nearer the main scene of action, and the following position arose.
N. Pert - W. So
Bunratty Masters (4) 21 February 2015
[FEN "8/5p1p/1r1pbk2/8/3R1K1P/5B2/5P2/8 b - - 0 49"]

Black's rook had been tied to the defence of his d-pawn for many moves but at last he was able to play 49...d5! because
after 50 Bxd5? Rd6 the king and pawn endgame would be lost for White. Thereafter he was gradually able to make
progress and won at move 70.
The ordinary games of the tournament were input to a database by Dublin organiser Herbert Scarry, a true labour of
love. A few games are missing while some are truncated because of the rule that players could cease writing the moves
when their time went below five minutes.
Here is a small selection of games from the tournament.
IM Thomas Rendle and GM Wesley So soon after the start of their game in round two.
Thomas Rendle - Wesley So
Sicilian Defence (B21)
Bunratty Masters (2), 21 February 2015

1 e4 c5 2 d3
Rendle also played this move against GM Etienne Bacrot last year. He usually avoids Open Sicilians.
2...g6 3 f4 Bg7 4 Nf3 Nc6 5 Be2 d6
5...Nf6 6 0-0 0-0 7 Qe1 d5 8 Bd1 dxe4 9 dxe4 e5 10 Nc3 exf4 11 Bxf4 Nd4 12 Qh4 was played in Rendle-Bacrot,
European Club Cup 2014, which was drawn.
6 0-0 e5
[FEN "r1bqk1nr/pp3pbp/2np2p1/2p1p3/4PP2/3P1N2/PPP1B1PP/RNBQ1RK1 w kq - 0 7"]

This formation arises sometimes in the Sicilian via 2 c3 e5.
7 c3 Nge7 8 Qe1 0-0 9 Qh4 f6 10 Na3 Be6 11 Be3 exf4
11...b6 12 d4 cxd4 13 cxd4 exd4 14 Nxd4 Nxd4 15 Bxd4 d5 was about equal in S. Doll-D. Ackermann, Hockenheim
1994, although White eventually won.

12 Qxf4 Kh8 13 Nc2 b6 14 Qh4 g5!?
[FEN "r2q1r1k/p3n1bp/1pnpbp2/2p3p1/4P2Q/2PPBN2/PPN1B1PP/R4RK1 w - - 0 15"]

Fighting for the initiative by ruling out Bh6, at the risk of incurring weaknesses.
15 Qg3 d5 16 a3?!
This looks like a wasted move but perhaps White was considering b4 and recapturing with the a-pawn.
16...a5 17 Rad1 a4 18 h4!?
The weakness on b3 is fixed but 18 d4 looks better than this move; now White is committed to kingside attack but his
king is not so safe.
18...g4
[FEN "r2q1r1k/4n1bp/1pn1bp2/2pp4/p3P1pP/P1PPBNQ1/1PN1B1P1/3R1RK1 w - - 0 19"]

19 h5!
Putting up a good fight.
19...gxf3 20 h6 Bxh6
20...Rf7 might appear but So wants to gain a tempo against White's bishop.
21 Bxh6 Rg8 22 Qxf3 Rg6 23 Qh5 Qd7 24 Qh4 Rag8
Black's g-file pressure outweighs White's on the f-file.
25 Rf2?
Houdini indicates 25 Ne1, protecting g2 and threatening Rxf6.
25...Ne5
Now the best move may be Rd2 to reinforce g2 after the bishop moves. 25...Bh3 would be a dead end, forcing White to
find 26 Ne1.
26 Rdf1 Bg4
Black now has the initiative; White cannot take the f-pawn.
27 Ne3? A fatal error; White's game collapsed because he failed to see the key idea of putting this knight on e1. This
was the last chance to put it there.
27...Bxe2 28 Rxe2 d4! 29 cxd4 cxd4 30 Nf5 Nxd3 31 Bd2 Ne5 32 Bf4 Ng4 33 Nxe7 Qxe7 34 e5 d3! 35 Re4 Qb7
Ramping up the pressure against g2.
36 Qe1 f5 37 Rd4 Ne3 0-1
This is how GMs beat IMs.
Nigel Short - David Fitzsimons
Old Benoni (A43)

1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 c5 3 d5 e6
White does not allow transposition to a Modern Benoni. Simply 3...g6 or 3...b5!? (though perhaps not against this
opponent) might be better.
4 Nc3!? exd5
This aggravates the problem; maybe 4...Qa5 could be tried.
5 Nxd5 Nxd5 6 Qxd5 Nc6 7 Bg5 Qb6 8 Qe4+ Be7 9 0-0-0

[FEN "r1b1k2r/pp1pbppp/1qn5/2p3B1/4Q3/5N2/PPP1PPPP/2KR1B1R b kq - 0 9"]
9...d5!
Black tries to solve his dual problem of backward d-pawn and inability to castle with this pawn sacrifice.
10 Rxd5 Be6 11 Rd3!? Nb4?
Computer engines quite like Black with 11...c4; the knight only gets in the way of his other pieces trying to attack.
11...c4 12 Re3 0-0-0!? coordinates his pieces and puts the onus on White to solve his kingside logjam.
12 Ra3 f6
Of course not 12...Nxa2+?? 13 Rxa2 Bxa2 14 Qxe7#
13 Bd2 Kf7 14 e3
Inviting Black to capture the pawn with check, but tactically it is too risky.
14...Qc6
14...Nxa2+ 15 Rxa2 Bxa2 16 b3 traps the bishop.; 14...Bxa2?? 15 Bxb4; 14...a5 15 Bc4
15 Qxc6 Nxc6
Black has to accept that he is just a pawn down.
16 Ra4 Rhd8 17 Bc4 Rd7 18 Bxe6+ Kxe6 19 Re4+ Kf7 20 g4 Rad8 21 h4 Bd6 22 Bc3 Bc7 23 h5 Rd5 24 b3 R8d7
25 g5

[FEN "8/ppbr1kpp/2n2p2/2pr2PP/4R3/1PB1PN2/P1P2P2/2K4R b - - 0 25"]
White seizes the initiative on the kingside.
25...h6
25...fxg5 26 h6! g6 27 Rg4
26 gxh6 gxh6 27 Rg4 Rf5 28 Rh3 Ne7 29 Bd2
Threatening e4 followed by Bxh6.
29...Rfd5 30 Rg1 f5 31 Bc3 Ke6 32 Rhh1 White will exchange rooks on the d-file and probably soon win a second
pawn on the kingside. 1-0
The prize for the highest untitled Irish player was won by fast-improving teenager Conor O'Donnell. Here he rapidly
dissects the position of a club-mate to win a miniature with the supposedly sedate Caro-Kann.
David Murray - Conor O'Donnell

1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 Bf5 4 Nc3 e6 5 g4 Bg6 6 Nge2 c5 7 Be3!? h5!?
This move is a comparatively new idea in this position, formerly played sometimes in reply to the main line, 7 h4.
[FEN "rn1qkbnr/pp3pp1/4p1b1/2ppP2p/3P2P1/2N1B3/PPP1NP1P/R2QKB1R w KQkq - 0 8"]
8 Nf4 Bh7 9 dxc5

This move is apparently designed to get the white knight to d6 where it turns out to be useless. Opening up the game
like this is hard to understand when he could just play 9 Nxh5.
9...Nc6 10 Nxh5 d4 11 Nb5 dxe3 12 Nd6+ Bxd6 13 cxd6 Qa5+ 14 c3 exf2+ 15 Kxf2 Qc5+ 16 Ke1 Qxe5+ 17 Be2 00-0 0-1.
Former chess professional David Norwood was a little unlucky to miss out on the prizes. After two wins against lowerrated players, he held Wesley So to a draw in round three. Here is the curious final position with Black to move. He is
two pawns up but none of them are able to cross the long diagonal controlled by White's bishop, while White's passed
pawns tie the black king down to defence.
W. So - D. Norwood
[FEN "6k1/2p2b2/p7/2p1BPK1/7P/8/p7/8 b - - 0 46"]

Then on the Saturday evening Norwood had a tough rook ending with Gawain Jones which was fortunately preserved in
full thanks to the DGT boards. Quite a crowd gathered around the final stages.
British GM Gawain Jones deep in concentration early in the last round.
David Norwood - Gawain Jones

English v. Dutch (A25)

1 g3 e5 2 c4 Nc6 3 Bg2 f5 4 Nc3 Nf6 5 d3 Bb4 6 Bd2 0-0 7 e3 f4 8 exf4 exf4 9 Bxf4 d5 10 cxd5 Nxd5 11 Nge2 Bg4
12 Qb3 Be6 13 Qd1 Bg4 14 Qb3 Be6 15 Qd1 Nd4 16 Be5 Nxc3 17 bxc3 Bd5 18 0-0 Bxg2 19 Nxd4 Qd5 20 Qg4
Qxe5 21 Kxg2 Bxc3 22 Qe6+ Qxe6 23 Nxe6 Bxa1 24 Nxf8 Kxf8 25 Rxa1 Rd8 26 Rc1 c6 27 Rc3 Rd5 28 a4 Ke7 29
f4 Kd6 30 Kf3 Rd4 31 Rb3 b6 32 Ra3 a5 33 Kg4 Kc5 34 Rc3+ Kd5 35 Ra3 Rb4 36 h4 Rb2 37 h5 c5 38 Kf5 Kd4
39 g4 Rf2 40 Rb3 Rf1 41 g5
[FEN "8/6pp/1p6/p1p2KPP/P2k1P2/1R1P4/8/5r2 b - - 0 41"]

41...g6+ 42 hxg6 hxg6+ 43 Kxg6 Rxf4 44 Rxb6 Kxd3 45 Rb5 c4 46 Rxa5 c3
If you started watching at this point, as I did, you might wonder at first which way the pawns were moving.
47 Rc5 Rc4 48 Rd5+ Ke3 49 Rd1 c2 50 Rc1 Kd2 51 Rxc2+ Rxc2 52 Kf6 Rc6+ 53 Kf7 Kc3 54 g6 Rxg6 55 Kxg6
Kb4 56 Kf5 Kxa4 1/2-1/2
Former world number two, GM Nigel Short, waiting for his opponent in round two.
Then in round 5 Norwood had Black against Peter Wells, who had beaten Nigel Short on Saturday afternoon. That was
a draw also, and Norwood concluded with a fourth draw against IM Richard Bates. Wells had an excellent tournament,
finishing in the four-way tie for second place. Perhaps Wells was a little fortunate in that as long as he played sensibly
in the last round it was always on the cards that So would agree to a draw to be sure of the tournament victory. Ireland's
adopted GM Alexander Baburin, on the other hand, played well (draws against Hebden and Wells and a win against
Hebden), but had to face So with Black in round five when the Filipino-American needed to win.
The top two boards of the Challengers tournament in round 2,
with International Arbiter Margit Brokko (Estonia) playing Black near the window.
The Challengers, which had a rating cut-off of 1999, was also quite strong at the top, with several players rated in the
1900s and some strong juniors whose rating is likely to be higher than that before long. The Challengers and Masters
were played in one room; the two larger ones for lower-rated players were held in the hotel's Castle Suite, its main
function room. The Challengers ended in a five-way tie on 5 points.
One of those who shared first in the Challengers:
Jacob Miller, a student at Trinity College Dublin.

Full results and prizewinner lists may be found at www.bunrattychess.com, the website maintained by Ted Jennings.
Postscript
Please check out my offers on eBay. To find them, search for seller: kibitzer63.
Download
Chess Literature: A Question of Quality

By Tim Harding
The founders of Quality Chess, back in 2004, were Swedish IM Ari Ziegler, Danish GM Jacob Aagaard, and Scottish
GM John Shaw. In 2007, after Ziegler left to become president of the Swedish chess federation, the company moved to
Scotland and two more Scottish titled players - IM Andrew Greet (previously known as a chess author for Everyman
Chess) and GM Colin McNab - later joined the team. The output of Quality Chess is about evenly divided between
openings and "improvement" books, the latter dealing with various aspects of chess, though not history or biography
and there is little on the endgame. Possibly relevant to some readers, a few of their titles are in German. You can find
out more, and see the full catalogue including outlines of coming titles and a blog at the
company's website. It is also
noteworthy that PDF excerpts are available on their website for most, if not at all, their titles, and that if you order three
books together you get free postage to addresses in Europe. Otherwise, postage is 5 Euros per book, or 8 Euros for two
books in Europe.
I obtained four of their recent openings books: three purchased and one as a free bonus. As soon as they arrived (printed
in Estonia and distributed from Poland) I noticed the nice white paper and neat typesetting which immediately makes
their productions more attractive than the average chess book. In general, each chapter begins with a brief summary and
quick index to find which main variation is on which page. Then each variation in the chapter is dealt with in turn, the
principal moves of the main line shown in bold type and the rest in Roman.
Over the past 45 years (approximately) during which openings monographs have been published in English, there have
been a variety of approaches. The pioneering Batsford books, when Bob Wade was in charge and with which I was
associated for a time, were based on thorough historically-based research into the development of the openings
concerned, and generally made use of Soviet and Yugoslav source material which provided games and theoretical
analyses available first-hand to very few players in the West. It was no accident that Bob invited many authors who
received their scholarly training at Oxford and Cambridge universities; many of us were current or recent postgraduate
students at the time we researched articles for Wade's periodical
Chessman Quarterly which led into the Batsford
series. In these books, variations generally ended when one side established a clear (if not always large) advantage or
when Black achieved equality. Complete annotated games were rarely presented.
Over the succeeding years, and especially as computers facilitated lazy chess research, two other types of opening books
came to predominate. One was the "illustrative game" approach, especially favoured by the publisher Everyman Chess,
where the reader could follow a game through to the (sometimes irrelevant) conclusion, usually at the cost of providing
less historical background and less detail on variations which might be important but did not actually occur. There
were, of course, some good books with this approach but a reader was much more likely than with the Wade approach
to find that a variation that occurred in his or her recent game was not covered. The other kind of opening move is the
repertoire, from either White or Black side, which generally gave more verbal explanation of ideas but, being aimed at
young players and club players, was liable to over-simplify or gloss over difficulties.
In the twenty-first century, with its great increase in strength of computer analysis engines, authors now face a
responsibility to analyse their main lines very deeply and to check all their illustrative practical examples for hidden
oversights and to mention counter-intuitive new ideas that the engines suggest. The chess annotators' old friend, the
infinity symbol denoting "unclear", can still be used in sub-variations but the main lines need to be tested to destruction.
It is to be regretted that in almost all opening books there is very little attention given to providing background on the
development of openings, which is probably due in equal measure to the publishers' requirement to keep books
relatively short and so minimise costs, and to the fact that most young players nowadays do all their research on
computers and are relatively ignorant of chess history.
In the books published by Quality Chess under the "grandmaster repertoire" label, a mixture of the old and new
approaches is used, but in the variations they do examine they are more like the Wade than the Everyman approach, and
the better for it. The variations considered by the authors to be the most important are examined in great detail, but
space is usually not wasted on irrelevant continuations beyond the point where a definite assessment is established.
Moreover, as their website says, their books tend to be a bit more expensive because they are generally longer and more
detailed than those of their rivals. They also point out that while something like a Fritz Trainer video DVD can be
useful for presenting ideas, a five-hour disc of this type only holds as much information as about fifteen pages in a
book. Moreover, a DVD is inconvenient as a reference work.
I will start my specific comments with Boris Avrukh,

The Classical Slav (Quality Chess 2014, 429 pages) which is the
17th volume in the publisher's Grandmaster Repertoire series and the sixth book that Israeli GM Avrukh has written for
them. (A seventh, a new edition of his first on the Catalan, is due out at the end of this month.) This defence to the
Queen's Gambit has been part of my opening repertoire for decades and my bookshelf holds numerous books on the
subject, but this is certainly one of the best although it does not deal with some major lines in the Slav as it is presented
as a guide for Black. Primarily Avrukh's book covers 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Nc3 dxc4 but with divergences at
White's third and fourth move (principally an early e2-e3 and the Exchange Variation) also covered. When White plays
3 Nc3 Avrukh only covers 3...Nf6, not going into the tactical complexities of 3...dxc4 and 3...e5!?.
Practitioners of the Chebanenko Slav with ...a6 will only find part of this book useful because it is only against the 3
Nc3 Nf6 4 e3 variation that Avrukh considers 4...a6, but (in a variation from his normal procedure of giving only one
line for Black) he also covers 4...Bf5 as an alternative to that. The option is offered because 4...Bf5 can involve a
counter-gambit which some solid Slav players may not wish to risk. From page 254 onwards Avrukh's book discusses
the classical main line arising from 3 Nf3 Nc6 4 Nc3 dxc4, with the most detailed analysis concentrating on 5 a4 Bf5.
Then both main lines, 6 e3 and 6 Ne5, are covered in about 60 pages each.
B. Avrukh - L. Fressinet
Queen's Gambit, Slav Defence (D17)

Bundesliga Germany, 2008
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Nc3 dxc4
This is the classical Slav, the main theme of Avrukh's book. The Semi-Slav (5...e6) and 5...a6 are different stories
altogether.
5 a4 Bf5
This has been the main battleground in the Slav over the years and is the only move for Black that Avrukh discusses.
Smyslov's 5...Na6 is also playable but Soultanbeieiff's old line 5...e6 is passive. It was a disastrous choice by David
Howell in the last round of the recent European Championship at Jerusalem

[FEN "rn1qkb1r/pp2pppp/2p2n2/5b2/P1pP4/2N2N2/1P2PPPP/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 0 6"]
6 Ne5
White can also play the old and solid move 6 e3 or the somewhat fashionable 6 Nh4!? which can lead to repetitions if
both players are peaceable. Avrukh deals with both these variations.
6...Nbd7
In the old days Black used to prefer 6...e6 but that line has fallen on bad days, so Avrukh only considers the knight
move.
7 Nxc4 Qc7 8 g3 e5
Black has to play this to avoid being overwhelmed in the centre.
9 dxe5 Nxe5 10 Bf4
This pin is the obvious drawback of the line.
10...Nfd7 11 Bg2 g5
Morozevich's idea to break the pin. This is the type of modern main line that neither side should embark upon unless
they are confident of being able to rattle out the correct first twenty moves in a minute or two.
12 Ne3 gxf4 13 Nxf5 0-0-0 14 Qc2

[FEN "2kr1b1r/ppqn1p1p/2p5/4nN2/P4p2/2N3P1/1PQ1PPBP/R3K2R b KQ - 0 14"]
14...Nc5
14...Kb8? (not in the book) succumbed to a brilliancy: 15 0-0 fxg3 16 hxg3 h5 17 e3 Nf6 18 Rfd1 Re8 19 Rac1 Neg4 20
Nb5 Qb6 21 Nbd4 Re5 22 Qd3 Bc5 23 a5 Qxa5 24 b4! Bxb4 25 Nxc6+! bxc6 26 Nd4 Re6 27 Nxc6+ Rxc6 28 Rxc6
Ne5 29 Qc2 Nfd7 30 Rc4! Nxc4 31 Rxd7 Qc5 32 Qe4 1-0 A. R. Salem Saleh-E. Blomqvist, Gibraltar 2015.
15 0-0 fxg3 16 hxg3 a5 17 Rad1
17 Ne4 is the main alternative considered in Avrukh's book but he calls it "relatively harmless". See, however, the
recent game Teske-Stachanczyk in the database accompanying this column.
17...h5 18 Rxd8+ Qxd8 19 Rd1 Qf6
[FEN "2k2b1r/1p3p2/2p2q2/p1n1nN1p/P7/2N3P1/1PQ1PPB1/3R2K1 w - - 0 20"]

Avrukh considers five moves for White here, saying 20 Qd2 "is considered to be White's most dangerous continuation."
However he suggests adequate lines for Black; see Babula-Mamedov in the database.
20 e3
With the idea of redeploying the queen's knight on d4 in support of its companion. Another try is 20 Bh3 see the
database for the recent game Teske-Pitschka.
20...Kb8 21 Ne2 Ne6
Clearing the way for his bishop.
21...Nxa4?? 22 Qxa4 Qxf5 23 Rd8+ +-.
22 Ned4 Bb4 23 Nxe6 fxe6!
This pawn is more useful on e6, chasing away the knight, says Avrukh.
24 Nd4
A more recent game, Wen Yang-R. Sardana, Qatar Masters Open, Doha 2014, varied with 24 Nh4 Rg8 25 b3 Ng4 26
Nf3 Rf8 27 Rf1 Rd8 28 Qh7 Rh8 29 Qe4 Rf8 30 Qh7 Rh8 31 Qc2 Rd8 32 Nd4 e5 33 Nf3 Rd7 34 Qe4 Rf7 35 Qc4 Rf8
36 Qe4 Rf7 37 Qc4 Rf8 38 Qe4 1/2-1/2.
24...Rd8
24...h4? 25 f4!.
25 Rf1 Rc8!?
25...Rd6 is also playable.
26 Qh7 Nc4! 27 Rc1 Nxe3
[FEN "1kr5/1p5Q/2p1pq2/p6p/Pb1N4/4n1P1/1P3PB1/2R3K1 w - - 0 28"]

28 Nxc6+
Short of time, White goes for a draw.
28...bxc6 29 Rxc6 Rxc6
Or 29...Qd4 30 fxe3 Qxe3+ 31 Kh2 Rxc6 32 Bxc6 Qe2+ 33 Bg2 Kc8=.
30 Bxc6 Qe7 31 Qxe7 Bxe7 32 fxe3 Kc7 33 Bf3 1/2-1/2
1.e4 vs The French, Caro-Kann & Philidor by Parimarjan Negi (Quality Chess 2014, 600 pages) is a very big and very
impressive book, notwithstanding the (at first sight strange) trio of defences covered. Actually it is not so strange
because these days, as the author points out, the Philidor is less likely to arise from 1 e4 e5 than from 1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6
3 Nc3 e5 since White has more or less given up trying to obtain any advantage in the endgame arising from 4 dxe5 and
5 Qxd8+ (which is not analysed in this book).
22-year-old Indian grandmaster Negi, who became the second youngest GM ever at the age of 13, played top board for
India at the Tromso Olympiad last summer. Following that, he went to America where he started as a freshman at
Stanford University last September. Deciding not to become a professional chess player (after two years of trying it)
freed him up to put ideas in his book that he might otherwise have needed to save up for tournaments. That helps to
make this book exceptionally honest and valuable. He has also presented a Fritz Trainer on the Scotch which is better
than average for those products. Revealing his secrets does mean, though, that if he occasionally plays master chess
now he is likely to vary from his book recommendations (So far I think he has just played one small tournament in
Burlingame this year.)
Parimarjan Negi - Damian Justo
French Defence, Winawer Variation (C19)

Cappelle-la-Grande Open 3 March 2014
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3
At Burlingame Negi avoided any preparation issues with 3 e5.
3...Bb4
His book also deals with other third moves for Black; against 3...Nf6 he goes with 4 e5.
4 e5 c5 5 a3 Bxc3+ 6 bxc3 Ne7 7 Qg4 0-0 8 Bd3 Nbc6 9 Qh4 Ng6 10 Nf3 Qc7 11 Be3 c4 12 Bxg6 fxg6 13 Qg4
[FEN "r1b2rk1/ppq3pp/2n1p1p1/3pP3/2pP2Q1/P1P1BN2/2P2PPP/R3K2R b KQ - 0 13"]

This is a variation where neither side should venture without knowing the theory in depth.
13...Bd7
13...Qf7 and 13...b5!? are also examined in depth. For example, 13...b5!? 14 h4 Rf5 15 Ng5 - a move apparently not one
of the five moves analysed by Emanuel Berg in his
Grandmaster Repertoire 15 book for Quality Chess. If 15...Qa5 16
Kd2 or 15...h6 16 h5 (16 Nh3!?) or 15...Qd8 16 h5 h6 17 Nh3 gxh5 18 Qg3 h4 19 Qg4 Kh7 20 Ng1 says Negi.
After the critical reply 15...Qe7, the continuation recommended by Negi remains to be tested: 16 h5 (16 Qh3 eventually
led to a draw in Leko-Lupulescu, Tromso ol 2014.) 16...h6 17 Nh3 (17 f4 Qe8!). "White cannot worry about pawn
sacrifices in these lines," says Negi in the analogous position with Black's queen on d8. Now after 17...gxh5 18 Qg3 h4
(18...Kh7 19 Nf4 Qe8 20 Qh3) 19 Qg4 Kh7 Negi recommends 20 Ng1! (20 Nf4 Qg5!) but says 20 f4!? is also possible.
14 h4 Rf5 15 h5 gxh5 16 Rxh5 Rxh5 17 Qxh5 Be8 18 Qh3 Nd8

[FEN "r2nb1k1/ppq3pp/4p3/3pP3/2pP4/P1P1BN1Q/2P2PP1/R3K3 w Q - 0 19"]
This move was recommended in the third (2003) edition of John Watson's
Play the French, pages 187-188.
19 Kd2
19 Ng5!? (19 Bg5!? is also known.) 19...h6 20 Nxe6 Qa5! leads to wild complications which Negi chooses to examine
no deeper. K. Delaney-S. Moran, Dublin 2012, shows the dangers for White of overestimating his chances: 21 Nxg7?
(21 Bxh6 Nxe6 22 Qxe6+ Bf7 23 Qh3 gxh6 24 f4 is unclear.; 21 Nxd8 Qxc3+ 22 Ke2 Qxc2+ 23 Kf1 Rxd8 is
somewhat better for Black according to Watson.) 21...Qxc3+ 22 Ke2 Qxc2+ 23 Kf1 Kxg7 24 f4 (White is busted; he
can capture on h6 with check in two different ways, but in either case 24...Kg8 is a safe reply.) 24...Bg6 25 g4 Be4 26
f5 Nf7 27 f6+ Kg8 28 e6 Ng5 29 Qg3 Nf3 30 Bf2 Qd3+ 31 Kg2 Nxd4+ 0-1.
19...Bg6
[FEN "r2n2k1/ppq3pp/4p1b1/3pP3/2pP4/P1P1BN1Q/2PK1PP1/R7 w - - 0 20"]

Watson had claimed that Black could draw now, but Negi found ways to improve on his analysis. Negi explains how he
thought he had found a forced win for White in his preparation for the book, but had to think again and rewrite the
section after the present game.
20 Rh1
In his book Negi analyses 20 Rf1! which has only been seen in a few imperfect correspondence games. Negi now
believes this is the correct and strong continuation for White. His main line goes on 20...Qf7 21 g4 h6 22 Nh4 Rc8 23
Nxg6 Qxg6 24 f4 h5 25 Rg1! (To keep queens on the board) 25...hxg4 26 Rxg4 Qf5 27 Qg2 with Rg5 coming,

followed by f4-f5. This plan awaits practical tests, it seems.
20...Qf7
Watson's main line went 20...Qb6 21 Nh4 Bxc2 22 Kxc2 Qb3+ 23 Kd2 Qb2+ 24 Kd1 but Negi says: "It may appear that
Black has compensation, but there is no perpetual, and White can just continue playing on the kingside." 24...Qxc3
(24...Qb3+ 25 Ke2 Qxc3 26 Kf3) 25 f4 (Not in Watson's book) 25...h6 26 Ke2! as in a 2011 correspondence game
Lopez de Jeronimo-Kirillov.
21 g4
Watson only analysed 21 Ng5!?.
21...h6 22 Nh4 Nc6!
[FEN "r5k1/pp3qp1/2n1p1bp/3pP3/2pP2PN/P1P1B2Q/2PK1P2/7R w - - 0 23"]

Negi's opponent found this novelty, the point of which is seen in the line 23 Nxg6 Qxg6 24 g5 h5 25 Qxh5 Qxh5 26
Rxh5. He says computer engines reject 22...Nc6 because they don't see that the extra White c-pawn is useless.
23 f4 Ne7 24 Rf1 Rf8 25 f5 exf5 26 g5 h5 27 Ng2 f4! 28 Nxf4 Bf5 29 Qxh5 Qxh5 30 Nxh5 Ng6!
"It is hard for White to prove any advantage from here," says Negi.
[FEN "5rk1/pp4p1/6n1/3pPbPN/2pP4/P1P1B3/2PK4/5R2 w - - 0 31"]

31 Rb1 b6 32 Nf4 Nxf4 33 Bxf4
Although Negi did manage to win eventually, he says his opponent should have drawn with correct defence in the rook
and opposite coloured bishop endgame.
33...Be6 34 Ke3 g6 35 a4 Rb8 36 Kf2 a6 37 Bc1 Bd7 38 a5 Rf8+ 39 Kg3 b5 40 Ba3 Rf7 41 e6 Bxe6 42 Re1 Bd7 43
Be7 Bf5 44 Bf6 Be4 45 Kf4 Rh7 46 Re3 Kf7 47 Ke5 Rh4 48 Kd6 Rh2 49 Kd7 Rxc2 50 Be7 Rd2 51 Bb4 Rg2 52
Kc7 Ke6 53 Kb7 Kd7 54 Rh3 Rb2 55 Rh7+ Ke6 56 Kxa6 Kf5 57 Kxb5 Kxg5 58 a6 Ra2 59 a7 Bc2 60 Kb6 1-0
Negi includes the Philidor Defence in his book because it is now much more common than it used to be, Black often
choosing to head for it via 1 e4 d6 (instead of 1...e5 2 Nf3 d6 etc.) 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 e5 when White may have nothing
better than 4 Nf3. (Negi says that exchanging pawns on e5 and then queens is not giving White any advantage but he
gives no examples.) When the Philidor-Hanham main line arises after 4 Nf3 Nbd7 5 Bc4 Be7 (5...exd4 is briefly
discussed too.) Negi has various move order tweaks for White to avoid the lines where Black has been achieving
equality.
In the case of the Caro-Kann, Negi provides a main line repertoire for White which like his coverage of the French goes
into great depth and detail where he thinks it is most required. Here is a recent game played since the publication of the
book.
E. Najer - V. Laznicka

Prague, 2015
1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 dxe4 4 Nxe4 Bf5 5 Ng3 Bg6 6 h4 h6 7 Nf3 Nd7 8 h5 Bh7 9 Bd3 Bxd3 10 Qxd3 e6 11 Bd2
Ngf6 12 0-0-0 Be7 13 Kb1 0-0 14 Ne4
[FEN "r2q1rk1/pp1nbpp1/2p1pn1p/7P/3PN3/3Q1N2/PPPB1PP1/1K1R3R b - - 0 14"]

14...c5
Negi also considers 14...Nxe4 15 Qxe4 Nf6 16 Qe2 Qd5. Here his book recommendation is 17 Be3 but in his recent
tournament he played 17 Rhe1 against 2417-rated T. Enkhbat, again presumably to avoid any preparation rather than
because he has necessarily changed his mind about the relative value of the moves.
15 g4 Nxg4 16 Qe2 Qb6 17 Nh4!?
17 Ne5 Ndxe5 18 dxe5 f5 (18...Nxe5? 19 Rhg1 Negi-Del Rio Angelis, Montcada 2009)
19 exf6 Nxf6 20 Nc3!.
17...Ngf6
Negi awards this a ? and 17...f5 18 Ng6 Rf7 19 f3 fxe4 20 fxg4 cxd4 21 Nxe7+ Rxe7 22 Qxe4 is another line he
analyses in detail.
18 Rdg1 Kh8
[FEN "r4r1k/pp1nbpp1/1q2pn1p/2p4P/3PN2N/8/PPPBQP2/1K4RR w - - 0 19"]

19 Bxh6!?
Not bad, but Negi demonstrates a winning line for White with 19 Ng6+! fxg6 20 hxg6, which computers confirm. For
example 20...Qa6 (20...Ng8 21 Bxh6 Nxh6 22 Qe3! Negi; 20...Qc6 21 Nxf6 Nxf6 22 Bxh6 Houdini) 21 Qe3! Ng8 22
Rxh6+! Nxh6 23 Qh3+- Negi.
19...gxh6 20 Qe3 Kh7 21 Rg6! Ng8 22 Nf5 exf5 Forced 23 Rxb6 axb6 24 Ng3 and White eventually won. The full
game may be found in the accompanying database.
Mayhem in the Morra by American IM Marc Esserman (Quality Chess 2012, 359 pages) is a very different style of
book, less objective perhaps, but full of humorous touches. The author seeks to persuade readers that 2 d4 is a strong
reply to the Sicilian Defence. I don't agree with his comments claiming that the Morra is sounder than the Evans
Gambit but the meat of this book is very exciting and careful study of it would probably improve the results against the
Sicilian of many aggressive sub-2200 players. At amateur level, up to about 2000 especially, the Morra can be
extremely dangerous in the hands of an imaginative attacker. Where the gambit has failed in high-level chess it is partly
because of White adopting inferior lines and best play arguably leads to equal positions. Houdini 4 confirms many of
Esserman's recommendations.
A few years ago, German IM Hannes Langrock wrote a book promoting the Morra so this is the second in recent years
to recommend it and yet one rarely sees the gambit being played in international tournaments and consequently there
are few recent high-level examples to be found in databases which opponents can learn and follow. This actually means
that compared with opening books covering fashionable main lines, Esserman's book may have a longer shelf-life. The
snag could be, as somebody objected online, that there is almost as much Morra theory to learn as in the main lines, but
with a pawn down. That's unfair because the Morra maniacs don't have to learn the Najdorf, Dragon, Sveshnikov etc.,
they only have to learn the gambit accepted and the lines arising from (1 e4 c5 2 d4 exd4 3 c3) 3...Nf6 and 3...d5 which
have affinities (often transpositions) with 2 c3, and also 3...d3 which is not dangerous to White.
M. Esserman - J. Sarkar
Sicilian Defence, Morra Gambit (B21)

Miami open, 11 September 2008
1 e4 c5 2 d4 cxd4 3 c3 dxc3 4 Nxc3 e6 5 Nf3 a6 6 Bc4 b5 7 Bb3 Bb7 8 0-0 b4
This line was an alternative recommendation for Black in Palliser's 2007 book
Fighting the Anti-Sicilians.
9 Nd5!
[FEN "rn1qkbnr/1b1p1ppp/p3p3/3N4/1p2P3/1B3N2/PP3PPP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq - 0 9"]

This sacrifice has been played several times; it is sound but not decisive. All results have occurred. "IM Sarkar admitted
to me after the game that he always considered this sacrifice to be a joke..."
9...exd5
9...Bc5 10 Bg5! f6 11 Ne5! threat Qh5+ should win although three White pieces
en prise (Esserman)
10 exd5! d6
[FEN "rn1qkbnr/1b3ppp/p2p4/3P4/1p6/1B3N2/PP3PPP/R1BQ1RK1 w kq - 0 11"]
Black can also play 10...Bd6 11 Re1+ and now:

a) 11...Ne7 12 Ng5 0-0 13 Qh5 h6 14 Ne4 Qc7 15 Bxh6 Bxh2+ 16 Kh1 Qe5 17 Bg5 Nxd5 and now Esserman gives 18
Rad1! (threatening 19 Bxd5 Bxd5 20 Nf6+, instead of 18 Bxd5? which led eventually to a loss for White in M. Zelic-D.
Sermek, Makarska 1995.)
18...g6 19 Qxh2 Qxh2+ 20 Kxh2 Nb6 21 Nd6+-.
b) 11...Kf8 12 Qd4 Nf6?! 13 Nh4! is analysed by Esserman on pages 109-110. Instead, Palliser lazily mentioned
12...Qf6 13 Qe4 Qe7 (a casual suggestion by Argentinian ICCF grandmaster Roberto Alvarez), saying it draws after 14
Qd3 Qf6 15 Qe4 but a few seconds' analysis with an engine will demonstrate that Black is totally lost after 14 Bf4!!
11 Qd4!?
11 Re1+ may be even stronger, e.g. 11...Be7 12 Qd4 (Instead of 12 Nd4!? given by Palliser, which may be unsound)
12...Kf 13 Qxb4 Bc8 14 Bf4 a5 15 Qa3 (Esserman) which is unclear. Not now 15...Nf6? (or 15...Bg4 16 Nd4 with a
permanent bind) 16 Rxe7+11...Nf6
11...Nd7! 12 Re1+ Ne7 unclear
12 Qxb4! Qc7
If 12...Qd7 13 Ba4 or 12...Bc8 13 Re1+ Be7 14 Bf4!
13 Bf4!?
13 Bg5! may be even better but now Black rapidly collapsed:
13...Nbd7 14 Rfe1+ Kd8 15 Rac1! Qb6 16 Ng5!! 1-0.
[FEN "r2k1b1r/1b1n1ppp/pq1p1n2/3P2N1/1Q3B2/1B6/PP3PPP/2R1R1K1 b - - 0 16"]
Aggressive 1 d4 players will welcome

Playing the Trompowsky: An Attacking Repertoire by English IM Richard Pert
(Quality Chess 2013, 264 pages) which recommends 1 d4 Nf6 2 Bg5 for White (and if 2...Ne4 3 Bf4). In some cases he
offers alternative lines for White. The book also has shorter chapters on 1 d4 d5 2 Bg5 (the pseudo-Trompowsky) and
on 2 Bg5 against the Dutch Defence. In the latter chapter I note that he does not mention 2...c6 which Hikaru Nakamura
played against Vojinovic in the first round of this year's Gibraltar open, winning a wild game that continued 3 e3 Qb6 4
Nd2 Qxb2. A few weeks later at Reyjavik, Navara-Jussupow went instead 3 c4 d6 4 and White won although he played
e2-e3 at move 4 and then e3-e4 at move 7.
Richard Pert - C. Storey
Trompowsky Attack (A45)

British Chess Championship, Aberystwyth, 25 July 2014
1 d4 Nf6 2 Bg5 c5
2...Ne4 3 Bf4 c5 can lead to the same line. Then 4 d5 transposes to the present game while an example of 4 f3 (a game
by Nigel Short) can be found in the database. Or if 3...d5 then 4 e3 was discussed in my "Senior Moments" article a few
months ago (the game Hebden-Bouaziz).
3 d5
Pert also considers 3 Nc3 in his book; chapter 3 is devoted to it.
3...Ne4
Against 3...Qb6 he recommends the Vaganian Gambit, 4 Nc3 Qxb2 5 Bd2.
4 Bf4 Qb6
4...e6 is an alternative also discussed in the book.
5 Nd2 Qxb2
Pert says that 5...Nxd2 is more common but he is not sure it is best.
6 Nxe4 Qb4+ 7 c3 Qxe4 8 e3 g5 9 Bg3 Bg7 10 Rc1

[FEN "rnb1k2r/pp1pppbp/8/2pP2p1/4q3/2P1P1B1/P4PPP/2RQKBNR b Kkq - 0 10"]
Engines tend to prefer Black somewhat here. In his book (page 102) Pert examines 10...d6 as the main line, with 10...e6
and 10...b5 being mentioned briefly. Since the book came out in 2013, Storey had presumably always planned to
diverge here.
10...Bf6 11 c4
If 11 d6 Houdini suggests 1...h5 to meet 12 dxe7 by 12...h4 or 12 h3 by 12...b6. Pert prefers more "normal" chess.
11...d6 12 Nf3 Qg6 13 Qb3 b6 14 h4 h6 15 Bd3 Bf5 16 Be2 Nd7 17 a4 Qg7 18 Bd3 Bxd3 19 Qxd3
[FEN "r3k2r/p2nppq1/1p1p1b1p/2pP2p1/P1P4P/3QPNB1/5PP1/2R1K2R b Kkq - 0 19"]

19...gxh4
Opening the kingside may assist White. Black could also play 19...Bb2 with the idea of exchanging queens (unless the
reply is Rc2) and playing ...g4.
20 Nxh4 Bxh4 21 Rxh4 h5?!
This looks nervous. The computer still prefers Black after 21...Rg8 or 21...Nf6.
22 Kf1 Qg6 23 e4 f6 24 Re1 Ne5 25 Bxe5 fxe5 26 Qh3
Now there are only heavy pieces and each side dominates one of the colour complexes. Objectively the game is level,
but the stronger player is always likely to win such positions and, with a 200-point Elo advantage, Pert grinds on.
26...Kd8 27 a5 Kc7 28 Qa3 Rhg8 29 g3 Qe8 30 Kg2 Rb8 31 axb6+ axb6 32 Qa7+ Rb7 33 Qa6 Qa8 34 Qb5 Ra7 35
Rb1 Rb8 36 Rxh5 Ra5 37 Qb3 Ra3 38 Qd1 Qa4 39 Rh7
[FEN "1r6/2k1p2R/1p1p4/2pPp3/q1P1P3/r5P1/5PK1/1R1Q4 b - - 0 39"]

39...Qxd1!
If 39...Qxc4?? 40 Rxe7+ Kd8 the rook sacrifice 41 Qg4! would give White a mating attack.
40 Rxd1 Kd7
40...Re8 is perhaps better, and if 41 Rb1 Ra4.
41 Rb1 Ra4 42 f3 b5!? 43 cxb5 Ra2+ 44 Kh3 c4 45 Rc1 Ra4 46 g4 Rxb5 47 g5
Pert has managed to bring about an unbalanced endgame where his passed pawn gives him winning chances, albeit at
some risk as Black also has a passed pawn.
47...Rb3
47...Rb8!= should hold if properly followed up.
48 Kg4 Ra2 49 Rh3 c3?
49...Rb8 gives more drawing chances.
50 g6 Rg2+??
50...Rb8 was absolutely necessary now. The single rook ending is winning for White.
51 Rg3 Rxg3+ 52 Kxg3 Ke8 53 Kg4 Kf8 54 Rc2 Kg7 55 Kf5 Ra3

[FEN "8/4p1k1/3p2P1/3PpK2/4P3/r1p2P2/2R5/8 w - - 0 56"]
We have now reached the final phase of the endgame, which I already analysed last September in Kibitzer 215. After 56
Ke6 Kxg6 White missed a straightforward win by 57 Rg2+! and then blundered at move 62, leading to a drawn
position which he nevertheless won eventually. You can find the further moves in the Archives or in the database file.
Moving to works from another publisher, I must say I was very disappointed by Isaak and Vladimir Linder, Wilhelm
Steinitz: 1st World Chess Champion (Russell Enterprises 2014, 198 pages). This is an unreliable and disorganised book,
which has various sub-sections on Steinitz's main opponents and is certainly not a life of Steinitz. For example, it is
somewhat strange that in a book about Steinitz two of his games with J. H. Blackburne which the authors include are
Steinitz losses while another was Zukertort's famous brilliancy from London 1883, not a Steinitz game at all. In fact
after checking the references to Blackburne (on whom I have just written a biography) I found so many errors that I
discarded this book without reading it all. Game 7, on pages 37-39, is said to be the first game of the SteinitzBlackburne 1862/3 match but was actually the game won by Blackburne in the 1862 London international tournament.
The Linder book cannot be considered a proper history or biography due to its failure to cite sources properly. Probably
the authors chiefly relied on Russian secondary sources. There are various reference lists which break up the text in an
ugly way, apparently in order to avoid giving footnotes or end-notes which a proper historical work requires. Moreover,
on page 38 a book about problems is attributed to J. H. Blackburne but it was actually written by his contemporary
Stewart Shirley Blackburne, who was no relation of the great chess master. The relevance of that work to Steinitz is
also absolutely nil. Indeed the value of this book by the Linders is not much higher than nil; avoid.
A more worthwhile production is My Best Games of Chess 1905-1954 by Savielly Tartakower (Russell Enterprises
2015, 437 pages) which was a welcome addition to my library, since I only have one of the two volumes in the 1950s
edition edited by Harry Golombek, which was of course in the old descriptive notation. The editorial work, very
important in this case (including the conversion to algebraic) has been done by Taylor Kingston. Tartakower was a
player of original style, and of an attacking bent, which made him rather out of step with his ultra-positional
contemporaries who followed in the wake of Tarrasch, Capablanca, and Rubinstein. There are several Evans Gambits
in the book, for example. A real biography of Tartakower is sadly, however, not to be expected, because of the huge
research in several countries that would be required. This book has no games from the time when he served as
"Lieutenant Carlier" with the Free French, though he certainly did play some chess in wartime London, having served
in the Austrian forces in the First World War.
Here is one of Tartakower's games from the book.
Savielly Tartakower - Dawid Przepiorka

Budapest, 1929
1 e4 c6
In ChessBase's Mega Database (at least in the 2011 edition) Black's first move is given as 1...e6, not 1...c6. This is
typical of the blunders in that product concerning historical games.
2 d4 d5 3 f3!?
Tartakower observed that "as in most of my theoretical predilections (or innovations), I reckon above all on the practical
chances and not on a scientific basis." Nevertheless Black takes this move lightly at his peril. His rather inoffensive first
move means that White can perhaps afford such a weakening move.
This 3 f3 line is discussed in the first chapter of Karpov's 2006 Batsford book
Caro-Kann Defence: Advance Variation
and Gambit System. Since 3 f3 is hardly in Karpov's style, I sensed a possible ghost writer. Indeed, though nobody else
is credited on the cover and title page, IM Mikhail Podgaets is credited in the blurb and copyright line, so I suspect this
chapter was his work.
I also note with interest that IM Lawrence Trent has recently issued a 60-minute Fritz Trainer DVD on 3 f3, calling it
the Fantasy Variation. That can also be downloaded for a moderate price at the ChessBase website, where a brief
excerpt video can be viewed online.
3...dxe4
Against 3...e6 (which is examined at length in the Karpov book) Tartakower used to play 4 Be3: see Game 100 in the
book. Instead Trent suggests 4 Nc3 Bb4 5 Bd2 rather than 5 Qd3 as mentioned in Tartakower's notes. Trent also deals
with 5 a3 Bxc3+ 6 bxc3 dxe4 7 Qe2 exf3 8 Nxf3 which is analogous to the Winckelmann-Riemer Gambit against the
Winawer French.
3...e5!? is also in the Karpov book, saying it can lead to irrational positions.
4 fxe4 e5 5 Nf3
Not 5 dxe5?? Qh4+.
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pp3ppp/2p5/4p3/3PP3/5N2/PPP3PP/RNBQKB1R b KQkq - 0 5"]

5...exd4?
Karpov and Podgaets approve of 5...Be6 (Nimzowitsch, hoping for 6 dxe5?! or 6 Nxe5? Qh4+) 6 Nc3 (If 6 c3 Nf6 or
6...Nd7 in the Karpov book) 6...Bb4 7 dxe5 is Tartakower's not altogether convincing suggestion. Black can also
consider 5...Bg4!? 6 Bc4 Nd7 7 0-0 Ngf6 8 c3 Bd6 9 Qb3 0-0 10 Qxb7 exd4 11 cxd4 Nb6 which was a counter-gambit
idea seen in Peregudov-Savon, St Petersburg 1994, cited by Karpov and Podgaets. Now it seems that White's pawngrabbing will lead him into difficulties.
6 Bc4 Be6
An example from the Karpov book goes 6...Bb4+ 7 c3 dxc3 8 Bxf7+! Ke7 (8...Kxf7 9 Qxd8 cxb2+ 10 Ke2 bxa1Q 11
Ng5+ Kg6 12 Qe8+ Kh6 13 Ne6+ g5 14 Bxg5# 1-0 Skurski-Gazic, Poland 2000.) 9 Qb3 cxb2+ 10 Qxb4+ Kxf7 11
Bxb2 Qe7 12 Qc3 Nf6 13 0-0 Na6 14 Ba3 c5 15 Qb3+ Ke8 16 Nc3 and "White's attack clearly outweighs the slight
material loss."
Or 6...Bc5 7 0-0 Nf6 (7...f6? 8 Ne5!! Levitsky-Izbinsky, St Petersburg)
8 Ne5 (Or 8 Ng5) and if 8...Be6 9 Nxf7! is
discussed in the Karpov book.
6...Be7 is more resolute says Tartakower, but then he gives 7 0-0 Nf6 8 Ng5 0-0 9 e5! Nd5 10 Qh5 Bxg5 11 Bxg5 with
advantage.
7 Bxe6 fxe6 8 0-0 Be7
8...Bc5 9 Ng5 d3+ 10 Kh1 dxc2 11 Qxc2 Nd7 12 e5 is another powerful line for White from the Karpov book.
9 Nxd4
[FEN "rn1qk1nr/pp2b1pp/2p1p3/8/3NP3/8/PPP3PP/RNBQ1RK1 b kq - 0 9"]

A simple solution to the seemingly complicated problem, as Tartakower said. It seems that Black is already in a lost
position.
9...Qd7
9...e5 10 Qh5+ and Qxe5; 9...c5 10 Nxe6 Qxd1 11 Nxg7+ Kd7 12 Rxd1+; 9...Qb6 10 Kh1; 9...Bc5? 10 Qh5+ and Qxc5.
10 Qh5+ Kd8 11 Be3! c5 12 Rd1! cxd4
12...Bd6 would resist longer.
13 Rxd4 Bd6 14 e5 Nf6 15 exf6 gxf6 16 Nc3 1-0.
Black resigns in view of the many threats, such as 17 Ne4 or 17 Rad1 or 17 Rxd6 followed by Rd1.
I intend to deal with more books from these publishers and endgame topics in my next two columns.
Postscript
A word seen several times in Avrukh's Slav book, and in other recent chess books I have read, is tabiya, to mean a
standard position, frequently arising in master chess (and sometimes by a variety of move orders), which comes about
from rapid opening moves up to the point where real thought and original play begins. Wikipedia defines it (in chess
contexts) as "a position in the opening of a game that occurs after a series of moves that is heavily standardized, and
from which the players have many possible moves again." For example, on page 102, near the start of Chapter 10,
Avrukh gives a diagram following 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 e3 a6 5 Nf3 Bf5 and writes "Beginning with the same
tabiya as in the previous chapter..."
The origin of this now widely-current term is obscure. I recall that at the 1984 FIDE Olympiad in Thessaloniki, I went
(on a day when I wasn't playing) to a lecture by GM Raymond Keene where he used the word. He was challenged by
some listeners from Middle East countries who said that tabiya means table. Keene tried to insist that the word was
taken from Arabic and in chess it had acquired the meaning explained above but the Arabic speakers in the audience all
denied this and said the only meaning of tabiya was table.
I can see how, by extension, a word literally meaning table could come to acquire a metaphorical sense, i.e., a position
in which one might set up the chess table for the start of a game, but the people in Keene's audience seemed to
understand this but denied that was the case. Maybe they were wrong, though; perhaps it was Ray's pronunciation that
confused matters?
So I looked this up in Harold Murray's classic work A History of Chess where I find mention on page 235 of ta'biya
(plural ta'baiyat) which Murray said may be translated as "battle array" since its root is not from a word meaning table
but from a verb meaning to array an army. Presumably this was the source from which Keene and maybe other writers
derived the modern chessy use of tabiya.
Can anyone clarify further?
Download
ChessBase and other PGN and PDF viewers. The database accompanying the ebook features additional bonus
annotated games!
More Books and Endgame Watching

By Tim Harding
Russell Enterprises have long been publishing books by IM Dvoretsky, one of the best chess authors currently working.
Profession: Chess Coach (Russell Enterprises 2014, 384 pages) is subtitled For Friends and Colleagues, V olume 1 ).
This a review of his career, with several practical examples lightly annotated. The second volume is due out shortly, so
I shall postpone my review until I can consider the two books together.
This month I shall consider the fourth (2014) edition of the highly recommended
Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual (large
format, 524 pages) in conjunction with some practical examples from recent tournaments that I have been following
online at the excellent chess24 website and elsewhere. Before turning to that topic, however, I shall give you brief notes
on some other books (and also two DVDs) that I looked at over the winter.
The Modern Tiger by Swedish grandmaster Tiger Hillarp Persson (Quality Chess, 2014, 536 pages softcover) is a
thorough rewrite of his 2005 book Tiger's Modern rather than a second edition. It will suit aggressive players who like
to be able to adopt a similar structure with the Black pieces against both 1 e4 and 1 d4, the system being based on
1...g6, 2...Bg7, and 3...d6 against almost everything - although 1...d6 may also lead into the system - generally deferring
the move ...Nf6. I haven't played the Modern Defence for decades but after obtaining this book I looked over a lot of
my early games with the Pirc (1 e4 d6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 g6 etc.) and Modern Defenses. The Pirc prevents White playing
c4 but does show Black's hand sooner and involves learning much more theory.
A crucial element of Tiger's handling of the Modern Defence is an early ...a6 move against almost all opposing
formations (except those where White plays c2-c4) in preference to ...c6 which used to be played in the 1970s.
Although this appears to neglect the centre, ...a6 prepares ...b5 and...Bb7 with a threat of ...b4 to target the White epawn, and so is more confrontational than lines with ...c6. In some cases the author recommends switching to a Pirc
formation with ...Nf6, or offers this as an alternative, and he also deals in one chapter with the Hippopotamus, where
Black essentially plays on three ranks only. Against some White formations, Black may ends up playing ...c5 and
exchanging that pawn for the White d-pawn, leading to Dragon Sicilian type middle-games without having to learn lots
of Yugoslav Attack theory.
Here are two recent games played by the author, too recent for inclusion. The first was a nice win for Tiger but two days
later he ran into a stronger and better-prepared opponent.
Ari Ziegler - Tiger Hillarp Persson
Modern Defence (B06)
Elite Hotels Vaxjo Open. 13 February 2015
[Notes by Tim Harding]

1 e4 g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 Nc3 d6 4 f3?!
If White intends to play Be3 he should do it right away. The pawn move is not always required.
4...a6 5 Be3 b5 6 h4 h5!?
Tiger takes a radical decision to slow up White's kingside play.
7 Nh3 Bxh3
There is no point in playing ...Bb7 with the e-pawn so solidly protected. Instead he prevents the knight coming to g5.
8 Rxh3 c6 9 Qd2 Nd7
Ruling out e4-e5 ideas before completing his kingside development.

[FEN "r2qk1nr/3nppb1/p1pp2p1/1p5p/3PP2P/2N1BP1R/PPPQ2P1/R3KB2 w Qkq - 0 10"]
10 a4?
This looks misguided, especially since White castles later. Perhaps Ziegler was worried that 10 Bd3 can be met by
10...c5, but 10 Be2 looks logical, starting to prepare g2-g4 if Black castles kingside and not making it easy for the
opponent to open queenside lines: 10...Ngf6 11 Nd1 0-0 12 Nf2 and compared with the game, if Black plays 12...e5 13
g4 exd4 14 Bxd4 c5 15 Be3 the pawn on d6 is hanging and Black's rooks are not connected. White's king's position can
be decided later. White carries out the knight manoeuvre a move too late in the game.
10...Ngf6 11 Be2 0-0 12 Nd1 Qc7 13 Nf2 e5 14 g4 hxg4 15 fxg4 exd4 16 Bxd4 c5 17 Bxf6
17 Be3 loses the initiative because of 17...Rfe8 and it is Black who is threatening to win pawns. So White has to go for
an all-or-nothing attack and the outcome is nothing.
17...Nxf6 18 h5 Rfe8 19 hxg6
White's position is unhealthy but this exchange is soon shown to be premature. He should have castled at once.
19...fxg6 20 0-0-0 Qf7!
A strong posting for both offensive and defensive purposes, enabled by White's careless 19th move.
21 Kb1 bxa4 22 Qxd6 Rab8 23 e5 Nh7 24 Qxc5 Rxe5 25 Qc4
[FEN "1r4k1/5qbn/p5p1/4r3/p1Q3P1/7R/1PP1BN2/1K1R4 b - - 0 25"]
Now Black has a nice tactical finish.

25...Rxe2! 26 Qxe2 Rxb2+ 27 Kc1 Rb8 28 Nd3 a3 29 Kd2 a2 30 Qh2 Rb1 0-1
Y. Solodovnichenko - Tiger Hillarp Persson
Modern Defence (B06)
Elite Hotels Vaxjo Open. 15 February 2015
[Notes by Tim Harding]

1 e4
1 Nf3 g6 2 e4 Bg7 3 d4 d6 4 Nc3 was the early move order in P. Vernersson-T. Hillarp Persson, Elitserien 2003 (Game
56 in the book, starting on page 306).
1...g6 2 d4 Bg7 3 Nc3 d6 4 Nf3 a6
Tiger's trademark; he says most of his opponents now choose 5 a4 when 5...b6 leads to the Hippopotamus. Instead
4...Nf6 leads to the Classical Pirc.
5 Be2 b5
Tiger plays the move order recommended in his book. Against Vernersson, he played 5...Nd7?! 6 0-0 b5 7 Re1 Bb7 but
he says White should have played 7 d5! In the book 5...e6!? is also considered, the best reply being 6 Bf4.
6 0-0 Bb7
[FEN "rn1qk1nr/1bp1ppbp/p2p2p1/1p6/3PP3/2N2N2/PPP1BPPP/R1BQ1RK1 w kq - 0 7"]

7 e5!?
White, who had perhaps read the book, finds a move not mentioned there. 7 Re1 Nd7 would transpose to the Vernersson
game. Also 7 Bg5 h6 8 Bh4 b4 9 Nd5 a5 followed by ...g5 and ...e6 should be OK for Black says Tiger (page 302).
7...b4
Picking up the gauntlet White has thrown down, but this was probably prepared analysis. 7...e6 may be best.
8 Na4 e6 9 a3
The point; Black must exchange the pawn and open lines unless he is prepared to sacrifice it after 9...a5 10 Qe1!
9...bxa3 10 Rxa3 Ne7 11 Bf4 0-0 12 Qc1 Nf5 13 Rd1 h5 14 h3

Preparing to eject the knight from its outpost at the risk of some weakening.
14 Rb3!? is an engine suggestion.
14...Nd7 15 g4 hxg4 16 hxg4 Ne7
16...Nh4? fails tactically to 17 Ne1! threatening Bg5.
17 c4 dxe5 18 dxe5 Qe8 19 Qe3
[FEN "r3qrk1/1bpnnpb1/p3p1p1/4P3/N1P2BP1/R3QN2/1P2BP2/3R2K1 b - - 0 19"]

Black's opening is refuted and he resorts to double-edged moves trying to drum up counterplay against e5.
19...Bxf3 20 Bxf3 Rb8 21 b3 Qc8 22 Ra2 g5
Desperation.
23 Bxg5 Ng6 24 Be4 Ndxe5
Black has achieved his objective but lacks a real answer to White's bishop pair and kingside initiative.
25 Qh3 c6?! 26 f4 f5 27 fxe5 fxe4 28 Rh2 Nxe5 29 Qh7+ Kf7 30 Qh5+
A repetition to gain time on the clock. 30 Bh6! was crushing, however. 30...Nf3+ (or 30...Rg8 31 Nc5!) 31 Kg2 Rg8 32
Nc5 and the last piece enters the attack.
30...Kg8 31 Qh7+ Kf7

[FEN "1rq2r2/5kbQ/p1p1p3/4n1B1/N1P1p1P1/1P6/7R/3R2K1 w - - 0 32"]
32 Qxe4?!
Inaccurate, due to time trouble presumably; White still has not seen Bh6.
32...Rxb3 33 Rf1+?
The wrong rook. Now Tiger has managed to create a swindle but probably both players were blitzing and he goes wrong
later. 33 Rf2+ Kg8 34 Rxf8+ and 35 Rd8 wins.
33...Ke8 34 Bf4 Qd7 35 Rd2 Rxf4
Also 35...Qf7 is interesting.
36 Qxf4
[FEN "4k3/3q2b1/p1p1p3/4n3/N1P2QP1/1r6/3R4/5RK1 b - - 0 36"]

36...Rg3+?
36...Nd3 is very complicated but after the forced queen exchange Black should have enough to draw. 37 Qe4 Qd4+ 38
Qxd4 Bxd4+ 39 Kh2 Ra3; 36...Qe7 is also better than the text.
37 Kh1 Rxg4??
37...Qf7 38 Qxf7+ Nxf7 39 Rd7!; 37...Rh3+ 38 Kg2 Rd3 was perhaps the best practical chance.
38 Qxg4 1-0.
Here Black either resigned or lost on time. He is lost since if 38...Nxg4 (After
38...Qxd2 39 Qxg7 forces mate, and39
Qxe6+ would also win.) 39 Rxd7 Kxd7 40 Rf7+ and Rxg7.
As I said in the last article, DVDs authored by grandmasters or experienced IM coaches cannot provide nearly as much
information as a book can do, while costing almost as much to buy, but if well done they can provide a good
introduction to an opening or variation as the lessons help to fix key ideas in the mind with also test positions and
supporting databases provided to guide further study. ChessBase currently offer both three-hour and cheaper one-hour
"Fritz Trainer"collections, and the latter can be downloaded if you prefer that to waiting for a disk to arrive in the post.
These shorter ones can, however, hardly be long enough to provide detailed grounding in a major variation.
I looked at two of the longer DVDs, both of which come with the program needed to run them, so you don't need to
have Fritz or ChessBase already on your computer. Parimarjan Negi, whose book on the French, Caro-Kann and
Philidor defences I reviewed favourably last time, has also made a DVD on the Scotch from the White side. It deals
with 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nxd4 only, not the 4 Bc4 or 4 c3 lines. Negi has some interesting ideas for White,
and also includes what he considers is Black's best treatment, but theory is already moving on somewhat and buyers of
this product will need to do their own research on games played in 2014 and 2015. No doubt if the DVD had been
finalised a few months later it would have included analysis of the exciting game from Saint Louis last September,
between Maxime Vachier-Lagrave and Magnus Carlsen. There have also been a few other Scotches between players at
the world top since the DVD came out, such as So-Aronian from the Tata Steel Masters, Wijk aan Zee 2015. This old
opening seems to be a good option if you don't want to face the Berlin Defence to the Ruy Lopez.
Parimarjan Negi - C. Molin
Scotch Game (C45)

Politiken Cup, 21.07.2014
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 Nxd4 Qf6
[FEN "r1b1kbnr/pppp1ppp/2n2q2/8/3NP3/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - 0 5"]

To avoid the 4...Bc5 5 Nb3 line, and hoping to transpose into the 4...Bc5 5 Be3 Qf6 variation.
5 Nb5!?
5 Nb3 is Negi's principal recommendation, preventing ...Bc5, and if 5...Qg6 6 f3 avoiding the pin 6 Nc3 Bb4, and
setting the trap 6...Bd6?! 7 Nc3 Bxh2 8 Rxh2 Qg3+ 9 Ke2 Qxh2 10 Nd5.
5...Bb4+?!
5...Bc5 is better, when:

a) 6 Qf3 Bb6 7 Qg3 d6 8 N1c3 Ba5 9 Bd2 Nge7 10 Na3 Bb4 11 Nc4 Be6 12 0-0-0 Qg6 13 Qh4 0-0-0 14 Ne3 f6 15
Ncd5 Bxd2+ 16 Rxd2 Qf7 17 f4 f5 18 Bd3 Rde8 19 Qf2 Kb8 20 Nxe7 1/2-1/2 Negi-A. Rasmussen, Politiken Cup
2014.
b) 6 Qe2 is discussed on the DVD, e.g., 6...Bb6 7 N1c3 Ba5 (7...Nge7 8 Be3 is also mentioned.) 8 Bd2 a6 9 Na3 b5 10
0-0-0 Nge7 11 Nd5 Bxd2+ 12 Qxd2 Nxd5 13 exd5 Ne7 14 d6 cxd6 15 Qxd6 Qxd6 16 Rxd6 Bb7 17 Rd2 0-0-0 18 c4
b4 19 Nc2 a5 20 Nd4 Rhf8 21 Bd3 g6 (21...Bxg2 22 Rg1) 22 Re1 Ng8 23 Re5 d5 24 c5 Rfe8 25 Rde2 Rxe5 26 Rxe5
Kb8 27 Bb5 Kc7 28 Be8 Nf6 29 Re7+ Kb8 30 c6 1-0 E. Andreev-J. Olsar, Orlova 2013.
6 Bd2!
Not allowing a pin on the knight.
6...Bc5
So Black has lost a tempo. If 6...Qxb2? 7 N1c3 threatening Rb1 as well as Nxc7+.
7 Qf3 Qxf3 8 gxf3 Bb6 9 Rg1 a6 10 N5a3 Nge7 11 Nc4
Not 11 Rxg7 Ng6.
11...Bd4 12 Nc3 d6 13 Ne3 Bd7 14 Ncd5 0-0-0 15 c3 Bxe3 16 Nxe3 g6 17 0-0-0
[FEN "2kr3r/1ppbnp1p/p1np2p1/8/4P3/2P1NP2/PP1B1P1P/2KR1BR1 b - - 0 17"]

17...f5?!
Black has trouble finding counterplay and this weakening move leads to the loss of a pawn after a few moves.
18 Nc2 Ne5 19 Rg3 Bb5 20 Bg5 Rde8 21 f4 Nd7 22 Bxb5 axb5 23 Bxe7 Rxe7 24 exf5 gxf5 25 Nd4 Rf8 26 Nxb5 Re4
27 Rg7 Rxf4 28 Rxh7 Rxf2
Black has kept material equality but at too high a cost. The white rooks become savage. 29 Re1! Rg8 30 Rg7!

[FEN "2k3r1/1ppn2R1/3p4/1N3p2/8/2P5/PP3r1P/2K1R3 b - - 0 30"]
Neat: Black cannot take the rook because of mate in one.
30...Rd8 31 h4 Ne5
31...Rh2 32 Ree7 Rxh4 33 Nd4 Rg4 34 Rh7 threatens both Nxf5 and Ne6.
32 Rxc7+ Kb8 33 Rd1 d5 34 Rg7!? Nc4 35 b3 Ne3 36 Rdg1 Rxa2 37 Rd7
The back rank trick again.
37...Rc8 38 Rgg7 1-0
Rustam Kasimdzhanov, although a former FIDE knock-out World Champion, is not a grandmaster whom I would
consider to stand in line in the "apostolic succession"from Steinitz to Carlsen. Nevertheless, on the basis of his DVD on
the McCutcheon French (1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bg5 Bb4), he would seem to be a good coach. I have more
reservations about this DVD than the one by Negi, however. Although he presents this double-edged variation from the
Black point of view, he does not seem to have played it himself in master chess, except with White. There are also
viewer videos and a smaller database on this DVD than on the one by Negi, and he does not cover everything that he
might have done. In particular, he has nothing to say about 5 Nge2, which is not entirely innocuous, and there is only a
brief mention of it in the database he provides. This is a serious shortcoming in my opinion because it is a move White
often plays at amateur level. Like Negi, though, Kasimdzhanov does provide some original analysis in critical lines and
some little-played sidelines which White might like to try to avoid main lines.
Rustam Kasimdzhanov - D. Smerdon
McCutcheon French (C12)
Tromso Olympiad 2014

Kasimdzhanov had almost finished working on the DVD when he was paired with Australian GM Smerdon at the
Olympiad. His preparation showed that his opponent played the McCutcheon - but not against 1 e4, hence his move
order choice.
1 d4 e6 2 e4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bg5 Bb4 5 e5 h6 6 Bc1
Kasimdzhanov reckons the old main line 6 Bd2 is fine for Black. The bishop retreat (which creates the option of
redeveloping it at a3 in some lines) is much less known.
6...Ne4 7 Qg4 g6 8 a3 Bxc3+ 9 bxc3 c5 10 Ne2 cxd4 11 cxd4

[FEN "rnbqk2r/pp3p2/4p1pp/3pP3/3Pn1Q1/P7/2P1NPPP/R1B1KB1R b KQkq - 0 11"]
11...Nc6
If 11...Qa5+ 12 c3.
12 c3 Qa5 13 Be3
Not 13 f3 Nxd4.
13...Ne7 14 Qh3 f6 15 f3 Ng5 16 Qg4 Nf7?!
He said Black should prefer 16...Nf5 (16...fxe5 17 dxe5 Nf7 18 f4) 17 Bd2 (17 Bc1!?) 17...h5 18 Qf4 Nh3 19 gxh3 g5.
17 exf6 e5 18 Qg3 Nf5 19 Qf2 0-0 20 Bd2 Re8 21 g4
So far Smerdon had played well but White was still in his preparation!
[FEN "r1b1r1k1/pp3n2/5Ppp/q2ppn2/3P2P1/P1P2P2/3BNQ1P/R3KB1R b KQ - 0 21"]

21...N5d6 22 Bg2 Nc4 23 Ra2
23 Bc1 may be more precise.
23...exd4 24 Qxd4 Bd7 25 Kf2 Qb5 26 Nf4 Qb3 27 Rha1 Nce5 28 Qb4 Qc4 29 Qxc4 dxc4
White has retained the extra pawn and duly won.
30 Nd5 Rad8 31 Kg3 Ba4 32 f4 Nd3 33 Ne7+ Rxe7 34 fxe7 Re8 35 Be3 Rxe7 36 Bxa7 Nd6 37 Bd4 Ne4+ 38 Bxe4
Rxe4 39 Rf1 Kf7 40 Rd2 Bd7 41 Rf3 Re1 42 Rfxd3 cxd3 43 Rxd3 Bb5 44 Rd2 Bc6 45 h3 Ra1 46 Be5 g5 47 Rd6
Ra2 48 h4 h5 49 hxg5 Rg2+ 50 Kh4 Rh2+ 51 Kg3 Rg2+ 52 Kh3 Rxg4 53 Rf6+ Ke7 54 Rh6 Rg1 55 Bd4 Rg4 56 f5
Bd7 57 f6+ Ke6 58 Rxh5 Kf5 59 Rh7 Be6 60 f7 Rf4 61 f8N Rf3+ 62 Kg2 Bd5 63 Rf7+ Kxg5 64 Rxf3 Kg4 65 Nd7
Bxf3+ 66 Kf2 Bh1 67 Ke3 1-0
Unfortunately I am not in a position to do full justice to ChessBase Complete:
C hess in the D igital A ge by Jon
Edwards (Russell Enterprises 2014, 353 pages large format). This book is based on the assumption that readers have
ChessBase 12 or the newer ChessBase 13 but as I am still using CB10 I am not able to make practical use of the
author's advice on many internet-related aspects of the program, but it does look as this is a very helpful manual for
owners of the more recent editions of the program.
My Chess by Dutch GM Hans Ree (Russell Enterprises 2013, 240 pages) is a collection of his journalistic articles. The
book does not contain any chess games so I intend to bring it with me for reading on a forthcoming holiday and report
back later.
Draw: the Art of the Half-Point in Chess by Leonid Verkhovsky (Russell Enterprises 2015, 132 pages) is not only a
small book; it's an old book, the line "foreword by Mikhail Tal"being a giveaway in that respect. Lev Khariton is named
as translator but no original publication date is mentioned, apart from the year 1972 on the foreword. I used to own a
small scruffy, but quite instructive, booklet entitled "Nichya!"which was probably the original but it no longer appears
to be in my possession. This is a topic, of course, on which the late Wolfgang Heidenfeld wrote entertainingly: first in a
little German book, Grosse Remispartien , and subsequently in an enlarged English edition, simply entitled Draw.
Verkhovsky's aim is not so much to present good drawn games as the mechanisms by which draws come about, through
the ingenuity of the defender or the failures of the superior player. Incidentally, in his introduction, he states incorrectly
that Baden-Baden 1870 was the first international tournament where draws counted half a point. In fact, it was Dundee
1867 that first had that rule.
Endgames for fun and profit
Returning now to Dvoretsky, the endgame is definitely the phase of the chess struggle for which he is most renowned,
rather taking on the mantle that Averbakh wore in the 1970s and 1980s. One point that becomes clear is that endgame
theory, though much more stable than opening theory, is not entirely set in stone. Partly through the discoveries of
modern players and analysts, and partly through computer tablebase explorations of positions with very few men on the
board, more and more of Reuben Fine's classic Basic Chess Endings becomes questionable.
Of course you will not reach an endgame if you are trapped in the opening or outplayed in the middle game, but I don't
agree with those pundits (such as Chess24's Jan Gustafsson and Laurence Trent) who tell amateurs that preparation
time spent on the endgames is much less well spent than that on openings. By all means, spend time on your main
defences with Black to 1 e4 and 1 d4 which you can be fairly sure will arise in a high percentage of your games, and
also prepare your main White weapon as thoroughly as you can, and by all means solve a few tactical puzzles on a
daily basis, but also do enough work on endgames that you will have a feel for them if they arise. It is not just a
question of playing the endgame itself, but also of being able to judge what simplifications are favourable or
unfavourable in the late middle-game, and of being able to handle tricky situations when short of time.
When I was "growing up"in chess, games tended to be adjourned or even adjudicated before real endgames arose or had
to be fully played out, but nowadays you will usually be required to play the game to the end with perhaps only a 15second increment per move (or not even that) so that thorough calculation may be impossible and you have to rely on
instinct and knowledge. To give on example, I did a search in ChessBase for recent games where one side had to mate
with bishop and knight (no other material on the board) and they were not all wins. There were several draws where,
presumably, either the stronger side's flag fell (so it was a draw, since you cannot win on time with bare king) or else
the player did not know the technique and failed to win inside the 50 moves allowed. This is an endgame you need to
practice in order to be able to do it if it ever arises in your games. There are videos online that can help.
One of the helpful features of Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual is the way that the most crucial examples and analyses are
presented in blue typeface, with supporting material in black, so that although the book is very big you can quickly find
the pages that most require your attention.
In this article I just give a few examples of endings that came to my attention. I became interested in the endgame of
bishop and one pawn against bishop (and B+2 v B+1 which frequently leads to it) after I had to win one such ending in
a tournament last September. I managed to do so and checked the theory afterwards.
J. Nohr - T. Harding
City of Dublin Masters 2014
[FEN "8/8/5bp1/pp1k4/2pP4/P1P2K2/1P1B4/8 b - - 0 55"]

Black has just played 55...b5-b4. He has a significant, possibly decisive, advantage due to his better posted pieces and
outside passed pawn. The game continued:
56 axb4 axb4 57 cxb4?
A fatal error.
57...Bxd4 58 Bc3 Bb6 59 Kf4 Bd8 60 Kf3 Be7 61 Kf4 Kc6 62 Ke5 Kb5 63 Ke6 Bxb4 64 Be5 Bd2 65 Kf6 g5 66 Kf5
Kb4 67 Bf6 Kb3 68 Kg4 Kc2 69 Kf3 Kd3 70 Be7 Be3 71 Bf6 Bd4!
Clearly the opportune moment to simplify has arrived.
[FEN "8/8/5B2/6p1/2pb4/3k1K2/1P6/8 w - - 0 72"]

72 Bxg5 Bxb2 73 Bh6 Bd4 74 Bc1 Kc2 75 Bf4 c3 76 Ke2 Bf6 77 Be3 Kb1 78 Kd3 c2 79 Bd2 Bb2 80 Be3 Bc1 81
Bc5 Bg5 82 Ba3 Be7 0-1.

Not 82 ..Bc1? 83 Bc5 but 82...Bf6 also wins (by zugzwang) because the short diagonal to c1 is too short. Against a
centre pawn White could draw.
Here is the closing stage of a similar endgame, which is to be found in Dvoretsky's book: example 6-4 page 111.
Dvoretsky names Black as "Rosenholz"and dates the game incorrectly to 1986. As often, the stronger side's first task is
to exchange the opponent's last pawn in the correct way. The position of one's own second-last pawn will generally
determine where the enemy king will be, and the worst place for the defending king is far away to the side. The
defender can usually (not always) save the ending if his king can reach the queening square of the last pawn; otherwise
it has to try to get behind it.

V. Charushin - K. I. Rosengolz
ICCF 11th European Championship, corr 1973
[FEN "2B5/8/Pk6/6K1/6p1/6P1/4b3/8 w - - 0 58"]

Here 58 Bxg4? Bxa6 59 Kf4 Kc7 60 Bf3 Kd6 61 g4 Ke7 leads to a draw. White must manoeuvre to improve the
position. He won as follows:
58 Kf4! Ka7
If 58 ..Kc7 59 a7 Bf3 60 Bxg4 (Dvoretsky).
59 Bxg4 Bxa6 60 Bf3 Kb6
60 ..Bc8 61 Be4 Kb6 62 Bf5 also wins for White.
61 g4 Kc5 62 g5 Kd6 63 g6 Ke6
If 63 ..Ke7 64 Kg5 Kf8 65 Kh6 Bc4 66 g7+ Kg8 and Black loses although he has reached the queening square. White
plays 67 Be4 after which Bh7+ wins. Black's king got in the way of his bishop.
64 Kg5 Bc4 65 g7 1-0.
Black resigned. Dvoretsky gives the possible continuation 65...Kf7 66 Kh6 Kf6 67 Kh7 Kg5 68 Kh8 Kh6 69 Be4
followed by B-h7-g8 winning. The point is that after 69 ..Bb3 70 Bh7 Bc4 71 Bg8 Bd3 72 Bf7 Bh7 73 Be6 and, as in
the previous example, Black has no more squares on the short diagonal.
The key ideas are explained by Dvoretsky in an analysis of the following ending between two top grandmasters of the
classic era.
J. R. Capablanca - D. Janowski
New York 1916
[FEN "6k1/8/6P1/1p1K4/3B4/1P6/3b4/8 w - - 0 73"]

Capablanca realised that the immediate pawn exchange would not work. Dvoretsky gives the variation 73 Kc5 b4 74
Kc4 Be1 75 Bc5 Kg7 76 Bxb4 Bg3! 77 Bc3+ Kxg6 78 b4 Kf7 79 b5 Bc7 80 Kd5 Ke7 81 Kc6 Kd8 82 Kb7 Kd7 draws.
So Capablanca maneuvered in the hope of eliciting an error.
73 Ke4 b4 74 Be3 Bc3 75 Kd3 Be1 76 Bd2 Bf2 77 Ke4 Bc5?
77...Kg7 was correct to gain a tempo: 78 Kf5 Bc5 79 Bf4 Bf2 80 Be5+ Kg8 and Black can hold (Dvoretsky).
78 Kd5 Be7 79 Kc4 Kg7 80 Bxb4 Bd8
[FEN "3b4/6k1/6P1/8/1BK5/1P6/8/8 w - - 0 81"]

Here Capablanca went wrong.
81 Bc3+?
At a critical moment the defending king will be able to gain a tempo by attacking his bishop. 81 Bd2!? is the winning
line given by Dvoretsky although the tablebase shows that 81 Be1 is one move quicker, and both 81 Bc5 and 81 Bd6
also win, albeit slower. The idea in each case is the same: to obstruct the Black king's route to c4. Dvoretsky's main line
goes 81...Kxg6 82 b4 Kf5 83 Kd5! Kg4 84 b5 Kf3 85 Kc6 Ke4 86 Kb7 (Dvoretsky gives this two exclamation marks
but the tablebase says Be1 also wins, and a move quicker in fact. 86 Be1 Kd3 87 Kb7 is the precise route to Dvoretsky's
finish.) 86...Kd3 (86...Bh4 prolongs the resistance slightly but White will still win.) 87 Be1 Kc4 88 Ka6 Kb3 89 Ba5
Bg5 90 b6 etc.
81...Kxg6 82 b4 Kf5 83 Kd5 1-0?!
[FEN "3b4/8/8/3K1k2/1P6/2B5/8/8 b - - 0 83"]

Here Black resigned in a drawable position as Averbakh has shown. Janowski should have continued 83...Kf4!! 84 Bd4
Kf3! 85 b5 Ke2! 86 Kc6 Kd3 87 Bb6 Bg5 88 Bc7 Be3! 89 Kd5!
If 89 Bd6 Kc4 employing the principle "the king behind the king".
89...Bd2!
Again Black must find the only move; now if 90 b6 Ba5 pins and enables the bishop to eliminate the pawn. However
White can still set a few more traps:
90 Bd8(Threatening 91 b6 Ba5 92 b7.) 90...Be3! 91 Bc7!(91 Be7 Bb6 92 Kc6 Ba5! 93 Bd6 Kc4) 91...Bd2! 92
Kc6(Again forcing Black to find the only move) 92...Be3! 93 Kb7!(93 Bd6 Kc4) 93...Kc4(The "inhuman"moves Kc3
or Kc2 would also draw, because both transpose next move.) 94 Ka6! Kb3!!(The king heads for a4 - but only on the
light squares. After 94...Kb4? 95 Bb6 Bg5 96 Ba5+ gains a tempo and wins with b6 next move.) 95 Bb6 Bg5(95...Bf4
is also sufficient.) 96 Bf2 Bd8 97 Be1 Ka4. Thus Black prevents Ba5 and draws.
Now to rook endgames; at the Gibraltar tournament which he won earlier this year, Hikaru Nakamura had the stronger
side of two rook endings but was unable to win either of them. The first was against British co-champion David Howell
who fought very hard in a probably lost position and eventually reached the following position.
D. Howell - H. Nakamura
Tradewise Gibraltar Masters 2015

[FEN "8/R7/4pkpp/3p4/3r1PKP/8/6P1/8 w - - 0 43"]
The game continued: 43 Kf3 Rd3+ 44 Ke2 Rb3 45 Rh7 h5 46 Rd7 Rb1 47 Rd8 Rh1 48 g3 Kf5 49 Kf3 Rf1+ 50 Ke2
Ra1 51 Rf8+ Kg4 52 Rf6 Kxg3 53 Rxe6 Kxf4 54 Rxg6 Ra3 55 Rg5 Re3+ 56 Kd2 Re5 57 Rg8 Ke4 58 Rh8 Kf3 59
Rg8 Re4 60 Rg5 Rd4+ 61 Kc2 Rxh4 62 Rxd5
[FEN "8/8/8/3R3p/7r/5k2/2K5/8 b - - 0 62"]

Howell now has a theoretically drawn position in the notorious endgame of rook and rook's pawn versus rook, with the
rook obstructing its path to the promotion square.
Vancura discovered a drawing method involving rook checks from the side, with the rook returning to attack the pawn
when the king is driven away. His study is example 9-43 on page 162 of Dvoretsky. Another example is the ending of
Carlsen-Aronian at last year's Sinquefield Cup in Saint Louis where, at one point, Carlsen had three extra pawns (two
h-pawns and an a-pawn) yet Aronian magicked a draw by the Vancura method. (You can see that game in the PGN
database.)
62...Rh1 63 Kb2??
When the pawn reaches the 7th rank, the defending king must be on a2 or b2 so that the rook cannot give check or set
up a skewer to enforce promotion, but there is no need for this move yet. Howell probably remembered that the
Vancura draw involves moving the K to b2 to make room for his rook, but not the precise situation where the move was
necessary, and he played it too soon. Instead 63 Rd3+ draws if correctly followed up, e.g. 63...Ke4 64 Rc3 h4 65 Kb2
h3 66 Rc4+ Kd5 67 Rc3 Kd4 68 Rg3 h2 69 Rh3 Ke4 70 Ka2 Kf4 71 Kb2 Kg4 72 Rh8.
63...h4 64 Rd4 Ke3??
Nakamura fails to exploit his opponent's mistake and goes the wrong way. 64...Kg3 wins, e.g. 65 Rd3+ Kf2 66 Rd2+
Ke3 67 Rd8 Rg1 as the rook has escaped from the corner and can co-operate with the black king to protect and advance
the pawn.
65 Rc4 Now the Vancura draw is achieved. 65...h3 66 Rc3+ Kd4 67 Rg3 Rh2+ 68 Ka1 Rh1+ 1/2-1/2
In the last round, Nakamura reached another classic rook ending: three pawns each on the king's wing and an outside
passed pawn, again with the rook in the least satisfactory position, obstructing his own pawn. Fortunately for him, a
draw was all he needed, as his opponent knew well how to hold the position. Even so, inaccuracies were committed.
H. Nakamura - P. Harikrishna
Tradewise Gibraltar Masters.2015
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 b6 4 g3 Ba6 5 Qc2 Bb7 6 Bg2 c5 7 d5 exd5 8 cxd5 Nxd5 9 0-0 Nc6 10 Rd1 Be7 11 Qa4 Nf6
12 Nh4 0-0 13 Nf5 d5 14 Nc3 Nd4 15 Nxd4 cxd4 16 Rxd4 Qe8 17 Qxe8 Rfxe8 18 Rd1 Bb4 19 Bd2 Bxc3 20 Bxc3
Rxe2 21 Bf3 Re6 22 Bxf6 Rxf6 23 Bxd5 Bxd5 24 Rxd5 g6 25 Rad1 Rc6? 25...Rc8 should draw comfortably. 26 Rd7
Rc2 27 Rb7 Rxb2 28 Rdd7 Rf8 29 Rxa7 b5 30 Rdb7 b4 31 h4 h5 32 Kg2 Kg7 33 Ra4
[FEN "5r2/1R3pk1/6p1/7p/Rp5P/6P1/Pr3PK1/8 b - - 0 33"]

33...Rc8!
It's important to make White defend the passed a-pawn with the R in front of it rather than from the side, where the rook
does not obstruct its advance and can influence play on the other wing.
34 Rbxb4 Rcc2! 35 Rxb2 Rxb2 36 Ra7 Kf6 37 a4 Ra2
The defending R must get behind the enemy pawn at once to prevent the lateral defence.
38 Ra8?
This mistake was not noticed by the online commentators. GM Simon Williams just said this ending was a book draw
but did not explain in any detail and perhaps he did not know the latest finesses. He only talked in terms of White
wanting to get his K to a7, so not advancing the pawn to that square because then his king would have no shelter on the
queenside.
There is no urgency for Ra8, which can never be prevented. Instead White should bring his K out while he can. After 38
Kf3 Black can only wait while White advances his pawn to a6 and his K to e3. White should aim for the Steckner
position (see next diagram), which is a relatively recent theoretical discovery. Although White cannot force a win, he
can make it much harder for Black to draw than in the old plan of bringing the king to a7. The winning try depends on
forcing Black to sacrifice his rook for the a-pawn without the white king having to go to the corner. The result will
depend on whether White can win the ultimate endgame with rook against black pawns. One tempo will make all the
difference. For a detailed discussion see Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual pages 203-211 (example 9-158) and Karsten
Mueller's March 2012 endgame column at the Chess Cafe archives.
Had Nakamura played 38 Kf3!, then after 38...Ke6 39 Ke3 Kf6 40 a5 Ke6 41 a6 Kf6 he would have reached the
Steckner position:
[FEN "8/R4p2/P4kp1/7p/7P/4K1P1/r4P2/8 w - - 0 42"]

It is important for White to leave his R on a7 as with R on a8 the black king can go to f5. In 1989 V. Kantorovich of
Moscow published an article claiming this position was drawn, but in 2003 J. Steckner found a new winning try for
White. Then in 2011-2012 Vardan Pogosyan showed Dvoretsky a defence he had found to Steckner's idea.
Nevertheless it is well worth learning Steckner's idea because you could well get a chance to try it and it is much less
likely that your opponent will know the subtle defence. Nakamura had apparently forgotten the theory (or never learned
it) but I expect he knows it now.
42 Kd4!
Now if Black plays the natural move 42...Rxf2? he loses after 43 Rc7 Ra2 44 a7 Kf5 45 Kc4! Kg4 (45...Rc2+ 46 Kb3
Rxc7 47 a8Q) 46 Kb3! Ra6 47 Rc4+ Kxg3 48 Ra4 (The key point of Steckner's idea is this rook manoeuvre.) Rxa7 49
Rxa7 Kxh4. Here White must not play Rxf7 but wins by bringing his K across. Any K move to the c-file wins if
correctly followed up. Had Nakamura gone in for this line, Harikrishna would have needed to find Pogosyan's defence
42...g5!! 43 Kd5! g4!!To see why, consult the references given above.
Now we return to the actual course of the Nakamura-Harikrishna game after 38 Ra8.

[FEN "R7/5p2/5kp1/7p/P6P/6P1/r4PK1/8 b - - 0 38"]
38...Kf5?
Hariskrishna missed his first opportunity to avoid the Steckner position by playing 38...Ra3!, probably berhaps because
all the pre-Steckner book analysis is with BR on a2. Nakamura now had a second chance to play Kf3, after which he
could eventually bring his rook back to a7 and probably reach the Steckner position eventually.
39 a5? Ra3!
Harikrishna (who played the defence quite fast and confidently) now prevents Nakamura from reaching the Steckner
position. During the commentary, one tweet (probably sent before ...Ra3 was on the board) was displayed from a
spectator saying the game was heading for the Steckner position but Williams missed his cue. He did not discuss any of
the above subtleties.
40 Ra7 Kf6 41 Ra8 Kf5 42 Ra7 Kf6 43 a6 Ke6
[FEN "8/R4p2/P3k1p1/7p/7P/r5P1/5PK1/8 w - - 0 44"]

44 f3
Nakamura had several long thinks (or more precisely pauses) during this ending. Probably he knew what he intended to
play but was waiting to see what would happen in the board 2 game. If Howell did not win (and in the end he was lucky
not to lose), then Nakamura could be satisfied with a draw for outright first. Since f3 and g4 cannot be prevented,
Nakamura should probably first have tried 44 Kf1 to see whether Black would respond correctly 44...Ra2 45 Kg2 Ra3.
44...Kf6 45 Kf2 Ke5!?
An unnecessary variation by Harikrishna; instead of just waiting, he offered a pawn swap.
46 Ke2
46 Rxf7 Rxa6 is a book draw.
46...Kf6 47 Ra8
47 Kd2, sacrificing the f-pawn here, does not win because WK is too far back. After 47...Rxf3 48 Rc7 Ra3 49 a7 Kf5 50
Kc2 compare the note to move 38. In the Steckner ending WK would be on c4 instead, and able to move to b3 to attack
R on a2. After 50...Kg4 51 Kb2 Ra6 the difference is apparent. In the Steckner solution White has Rc4+ Kxg3, Ra4
(supported by K) and Black has to give up R on a7 without forcing WK so far from the kingside pawns. The outcome is
an ending of R v 3P which White just wins. Here White's K is on the wrong rank, viz. 52 Rc4+ Kxg3 53 Rc3+ Kxh4.
The point is that Black takes the h-pawn one move earlier than in the Steckner position and this makes all the
difference: 54 Ra3 Rxa7 55 Rxa7 and tablebases show this is a drawn ending.
47...Kf5 48 Kf2
Nakamura worked out that the K march to the queenside is futile and could even risk loss if he misplayed the R v pawns
ending. Rather than just agree a draw, he decided to create a kingside passed pawn.
48...Kf6 49 g4!
There is nothing else left to try.
[FEN "R7/5p2/P4kp1/7p/6PP/r4P2/5K2/8 b - - 0 49"]

49...Ke5
Harikrishna waited for a6-a7 to rule out any lines where the WK might yet be able to reach a7.
50 a7 Kf6 51 gxh5 gxh5 52 Rh8 Rxa7 53 Rxh5
In the final phase Black still has to be a bit careful. It would even be drawn without his f-pawn but not easy.
53...Ra1 54 Rb5 Rh1 55 Kg3 Kg6 56 Rb6+ f6 57 Rb5 Kh6 58 Kg4 Kg6 59 h5+ Kh6 60 f4 Rg1+ 61 Kf5 Kxh5 62
Kxf6+ Kh6
BK stays on short side and heads for f8 if allowed.
63 Rb2
Threatening mate in 1 but actually making defence easier.
63...Rg6+
Both 63...Rh1 and 63...Kh7 also draw.
64 Kf7 Rg7+ 65 Kf8
Now White will lose his pawn and the draw is clear. Nakamura said he forgot this when he played Rc2.
65...Rg4 66 Rb4 Kg6 67 f5+ Kxf5 68 Rxg4 Kxg4 1/2-1/2
Postscript
Page proofs of my Blackburne book are starting to arrive as I write this article. Next month I shall have more to say
about this book, but you can read about it at my Chess Mail website, the
publisher's website, or
Amazon.
Download
ChessBase and other PGN and PDF viewers. The database accompanying the ebook features additional bonus
annotated games!

Tim Harding - Chess Cafe - The Kibitzer (Columns With FENs)

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Tim Harding - Chess Cafe - The Kibitzer (Columns With FENs)

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

From the Archives...

Since it came online in 1996, ChessCafe.com has presented thousands of

Purchases from our

Watch for an item to be posted online periodically throughout each month.

Translate this page

The Kibitzer by Tim Harding

Play through and download

Why You Lose at Chess

The Fighting Fajarowicz

Threatening mate on g2 and planning a sacrificial follow-up. 27 f3 g4? Black

[FEN "4Q3/1prq4/p1k1p3/3PP2p/P1 p4B/

Black resigned, for if 41...Kc5 (41...exd5 42 Qg6+ mates: 42...Kc5 43 Qb6#;

ChessCafe.com. All Rights Reserved.

This article first appeared at ChessCafe.com in March 1997.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]

From the Archives...

Purchases from our

The Kibitzer by Tim Harding

Translate this page

The Kibitzer and the Even More Complete Najdorf

Play through and download

Sicilian Najdorf 6.Bg5

Sicilian Najdorf 6.Be3

the publication Chessman Quarterly edited by International Master R.G.

ChessCafe.com. All Rights Reserved.

This article first appeared at ChessCafe.com in April 1997.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]

From the Archives...

Purchases from our

The Kibitzer by Tim Harding

Translate this page

Chess Computers Aren't Really So Clever

Play through and download

Why You Lose at Chess

Rethinking the Chess Pieces

theoretical concepts seen in these papers, which aimed to try to make a

Here White has an overwhelming material advantage (despite having not

Now COKO threatens immediate mate by Qb3 so Black, being a computer,

ChessCafe.com. All Rights Reserved.

This article first appeared at ChessCafe.com in May 1997.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]

From the Archives...

Purchases from our

The Kibitzer by Tim Harding

Anyone for the Franco-Benoni?

Translate this page

Eminent Victorian Chess

of Old Benoni (also reachable 1 d4 c5 2 d5 e6 3 e4) and is considered briefly

ChessCafe.com. All Rights Reserved.

This article first appeared at ChessCafe.com in June 1997.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [ChessCafe Shop] [ChessCafe Blog]

From the Archives...

Purchases from our

The Kibitzer by Tim Harding

Translate this page

Chess Games Belong To The World

Play through and download

Eminent Victorian Chess

CC-GM Gert Jan Timmerman (Netherlands) GM (ICCF and FIDE)

The start of the final assault.

ChessCafe.com. All Rights Reserved.

This article first appeared at ChessCafe.com in October 1997.

[ChessCafe Home Page] [Book Review] [Columnists]

From the Archives...