Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 473

Kings, Commoners

and Knaves
Further Chess Explorations
Edward Winter

Foreword by
Yasser Seirawan

Russell Enterprises, Inc.


Milford, CT USA

Kings, Commoners and Knaves


Further Chess Explorations

Copyright 1999
Edward Winter
All Rights Reserved
ISBN: 1-888690-04-6
Published by:
Russell Enterprises, Inc.
PO Box 30
Milford, CT 06460 USA
http://www.chesscafe.com
hwr@chesscafe.com
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 98-87479
Printed in the United States of America

Except as noted below, all photographs used in this book are courtesy
Edward Winter. Signature facsimiles and the photograph of Olga
Capablanca Clark courtesy the Russell Collection.

Table of Contents

Foreword

ii

Preface

iii

References

iv

Positions

II

Games

III

Openings

141

IV

Miscellaneous

169

Gaffes

262

VI

M ysteries

303

VII

Reviews

332

VIII

Quotes

375

43

Book List

399

Games and Positions Chronologically

412

Index of Games and Positions by Player

419

Index of Openings

424

General Index

426

Foreword

Like so many others in the chess world, I first became familiar with Edward
Winter' s writings through his publication Chess Notes, which was a blend of
scholarly chess journalism, historical research, topical material and accurate good
riddance for the lazy and sloppy authors of the chess world. The charm of Chess
Notes lay in its good humour and down-to-earth approach, bringing chess
scholarship down from the ivory tower and making it relevant to virtually all
lovers of the Royal Game.
His highly successful book Chess Explorations was a compendium from the
journal ' s eight-year run, and now, in this same vein, we have Kings, Commoners
and Knaves. In this Information Age, when most of the yearly deluge of chess
books falls into two or three drearily predictable categories, it is a delight to
open a book that contains material of the sort not to be found elsewhere. Winter
is also a dedicated foe of the hackneyed untruths that populate so many chess
books, and I promise you that you will never look at chess history in the same
way after you read this book.
That is not to say that history is all that you will find here. Kings, Commoners
and Knaves also contains topical commentary and hundreds of games and
positions from all levels of play. Above all, this is a chess book to enjoy and to
cherish. Combining scholarly and lively writing, it is uncommonly well
researched and well-written, and has that delightful undercurrent of humour and
wit that has always graced Winter' s writings. Kings, Commoners and Knaves is
a rare chess book, to be treasured for years to come.
Yasser Seirawan
Three-time US Chess Champion
Seattle, September 1 998

ii

Preface

In this collection of further chess delvings the twofold objective remains to offer
fresh, reliable material and to rectify various misconceptions, and worse, which
continue to permeate the chess world.
It is a world of kings, commoners and knaves, all forms of life from the sublime
to the repellent. The kings, of course, are the game ' s foremost luminaries, whose
glorious and tragic careers are the very cornerstone of chess history. The
commoners include a large cast of unsung heroes dedicated to the game and
meriting our recognition and respect. Last, and certainly least, come the knaves,
relatively small in number, often incompetent, but withal pernicious.
Heartfelt thanks are extended to readers for their continuing support of our
sleuthing and, in particular, to the correspondents from some 20 countries whose
contributions are included in the present book. Thanks are also due to the various
magazines which have given permission for material to be reproduced here.
Technical advice and proofreading assistance have been provided, far beyond
the call of duty, by Mr Richard Forster (Winterthur, Switzerland) and Mr Jonathan
Manley (liford, England). Finally, special thanks must be offered to the publisher,
Mr Hanon Russell, for his exceptional enthusiasm and expertise throughout the
production process.
Readers' comments, however critical, may be communicated to the publisher
and will be warmly welcomed.
Edward Winter
Geneva, December 1 998

iii

References

The C.N. number is specified in the case of items which have appeared
in the Chess Notes series, the publication schedule of which has been:
C.N.s 1-291:
C.N.s 292-592:
C.N.s 593-871:
C.N.s 872-1071:
C.N.s 1072-1299:
C.N.s 1300-1521:
C.N.s 1522-1788:
C.N.s 1789-1933:

1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989

C.N.s 1934-2020:

C.N.s 2117-2145:

1993
1994
1995
1996

C.N.s 2146-2181:

1997

C.N.s 2182-2187:

1998

C.N.s 2188-

1998-

C.N.s 2021-2075:
C.N.s 2076-2116:

C.N.s 1934-2187 appeared in a syndicated column run by the author.


Thereafter C.N. became a regular column exclusively in New in Chess.
Other previously published writings are identified by the year of
publication, preceded by one of the following abbreviations:
A

American Chess Journal

British Chess Magazine (BCM)

CHESS

CC

The Chess Cafe (Internet)

Inside Chess

Kingpin

New in Chess

Schacknytt.

iv

I
Positions

Find the win

A superb example of how every detail of a position needs to be examined. It


would seem immediately obvious that White mates quickly by 1 xh7+ 'it'xh7 2
l:! h3+ 'it'g6 3 li:Je7 mate. Or l li:Je7+ 'it'h8 2 xh7+ 'it'xh7 3 l:! h3 mate. Or l li:Jf6+
gxf6 2 gxf6+ 'it>h8 3 xh7+ <it>xh7 4 l:! h3 mate. Standard mating combinations
except that there is no mate. All the above variations are impossible owing to the
pin on the a8-h 1 diagonal. The winning line is simply l li:Je7+ and 2 xb7.
Sourc e : Wiener Schachzeitung, M arch 1 9 2 3 , page 1 4 . The position arose
in a 1 907 game; Krej c ik was White, his grandmaster opponent being
unnamed.
(741 & 796)
Unusual finishes

Three unusual finishes:


(See diagram, top of next page.)
White, to move, found the quickest conclusion: 26 'it>d2 , with three ways of
mating on the following move.
Source: tournament book, pages 42-43 .

H. von Gottschall-C. Walbrodt, Kiel, 1 September 1 893 .

J.R. Capablanca-J. Grommer, New York, 2 July 1 9 1 3 .


White exploited his opponent' s back-rank weakness b y 3 9 fl e8 fl f4 40 b8
g8 41 'lillb 3+ h8 42 fl xf8+ fl xf8 43 'lillf7 'lilieS 44 'lill x f8+ Resigns.
Source: American Chess Bulletin, August 1 9 1 3 , page 1 7 1 .

A . Brinckmann-R. Keller, B ad Oeynhausen, 1 8 July 1 939.


White administered the coup de gra ce as follows: 27 fl d8 fl xd8 28 fl h7+
Resigns. It is mate in two. A rare double rook sacrifice.
Source: Lachaga tournament book, pages 38-39.
2

(C 1985)

Instant mates

Mate in one move.

Solution: There needs to be a white square in the bottom right-hand comer.


Turning the board 90 degrees in one direction allows 1 d4 mate and, in the
other, 1 fxg8(.l) mate.
This problem by Alapin was published on page 88 of the March-April 1 9 1 6 Wiener
Schachzeitung, together with two easier mate-in-one positions (based respectively
on the familiar tricks of the en passant rule and nine black pawns).* (1 158 & 1 1 95)
The 'Christmas Puzzle' hereunder, by J.C.J. Wainwright, appeared on page 262
of the December 1 9 1 7 American Chess Bulletin:

'White mates in one move. '

The solution was given on page 50 of the February 1 9 1 8 issue. It must be Black' s
move; whatever he plays, White then mates in one move.
A position to ponder

Three posers (See diagram, top of next page.):


a) White to move and win. b) Where has this position been widely seen? c) Where
(1497)
has it been printed before?
a) The winning combination is easy enough: 1 xb4 axb4 2 xa8+ Ae8 3 1txd5 .
*A problem by W. Langstaff in which White has nine pawns and mates in one after the removal of
any one of them was given on page 554 of The Social Chess Quarterly, July 1 935.

b) The position was played out in an episode of the NBC television series Columbo
in which the world chess champion murdered his closest rival.
c) It is given, for instance, on pages 1 68- 1 69 of Winning Chess by Irving Chemev
and Fred Reinfeld.
(1557)
Congratulations to Jack O' Keefe, who has discovered that the position did come
from a real game:
W.J. Wolthuis-C.H.O'D. Alexander, Maastricht, 1 946. Nimzo-l ndian Defence.
1 d4 <}f6 2 c4 e6 3 <}c31.tb4 4 'l'ifc2 <}c6 5 <}f3 d6 6 a31:txc3+ 7 i*xc3 0-0 8 g3
<}e4 9 i*c2 f5 10 l:tg2 i*f6 1 1 e3 Ad7 1 2 b4 a5 1 3 b5 <}e7 14 Ab2 c6 1 5 a4
fc8 16 bxc6 <}xc6 17 0-0 <}b4 18 i*b3 d5 1 9 cxd5 exd5 20 fcl xcl + 2 1
xcl b 5 22 axb51:txb5 23 <}e5 i*e6 2 4 a 1 <}d2 25 i*xb4 Resigns.

The poser position was also used in a 'Chess Quiz' on page 21 of the June 1 948
issue of Chess Review.
(1666)
Rene Olthof sends us a copy of an article on pages 1 44- 1 45 of the 711 988 issue
of the Danish magazine Skakbladet, an article by Bent K0lvig on chess positions
which have appeared in films or television programmes. The one given in C.N.
1 497 (see above) is included, though without reference to the Wolthuis v
Alexander game.
Here is a position that we jotted down from the film La Diagonale du Fou
(Dangerous Moves) :

Solution: l . . .xh3+ .
The film' s closing credits state that Nicolas Giffard created the games. W e trust
that he did not create the one played by Alexandre Arbatt in a swimming pool;
(1726)
the board is the wrong way round.
Jack 0' Keefe has found that the position from La Diagonale du Fou, with colours
reversed, is almost identical to a position H.S. Hoit v Amateur ( ' a recent game ' )
published o n page 1 34 o f Chess Review, June 1 93 8 .
W e now note that Chemev gave the Hoit position o n page 3 3 o f Combinations
(1838)
The Heart of Chess. *
Announced mates

The following position occurred in a correspondence game between Edgar Odson


and H.F. Arnold.

White played 60 .lld 8+ and announced mate in 24 moves.


Source: American Chess Bulletin, December 1 9 1 1 , page 278. Other little-known
(alleged) examples - and verifications - of long announced mates would be
welcome.
(1753)
From Richard Forster:
'It would seem to be true, e. g. 60JJ.dB + 'i!le861 'i!lf6( 61 JJ.f6 is less accurate
because of 61. . .l!e4+62 'i!ld5.fi.xe6+ 63l!xe6+ 'i!ld7) and now:
a) 61. . .l!e4 62.fi.e7l!xe6+63l!xe6.fi.xe6 64 'i!lxe6 f4 65'i!lf6f3 66.i.c5f2
67.fi.xf2 'i!l/8 68.fi.d4 'i!le869 'i!lg7 'i!ld7 70 'i!lxh7 'i!le6 71 h5 gxh5 72 g6
'i!lf5 73 g7 'i!le4 74gB(tiJ') etc., or
b) 61. . ..fi.xe6 62 'i!lxe6l!xc3 63 JJ.f6l!c864!!xa6followed by l!a6-a7xh7
andh5.
In both variations White can probably mate by move 84.

'

*See also pages 1 3 3- 1 34 of Chemev and Reinfeld's The Fireside Book of Chess.

Below are further little-known announced mates. We should like to learn a)


whether a computer check can prove any of them unsound, and b) the longest
forced mate that any computer can currently verify.

J. Winter-J.T. Beckner, Chicago, 1 9 1 3 .


2 3 . . :d5 was played. 'Here Black announced mate i n 1 3 moves. A s White

continued, it was accomplished in 1 0 . ' The game ended: 23 . . :d5 24 e4 fxe4 2 5


<\g3 g5 26 xg2 h6+ 2 7 <\h5 xh5+ 28 g3 g4+ 29 f2 xg2+ 30 e3
!!f8 31 !! he l g5+ 32 2 Adl mate.

Source: American Chess Bulletin, October 1 9 1 3, page 227 .


Richard Forster comments :
'I am convinced that this announcement is not correct. E. g. 24 rti'xg2 .JJ.xg2+
25 h2 .iJ.xh1 26!1xh1 'iM3 27 .flg3 M2+ 28 h3 !1f8 29 d5 rti'xb2 30
dxe6!1f6 31 .flxf5, etc.

In the game line, 25rti'xf3 exf3 26 4Jf4 rti'g527 .flxg2 rti'xg2+28h4!118 29


!1cg1 !1f4+ (29... rti'xb2 30 g3) 30 rflh5 g6+31 h6 rti'xb2 (31 ... rti'd2 32
f1xg6+ hxg6 33 .JJ.clf1h4+ 34 rflxg6 rti'g2+ 35 'i!lf6) 32 .iJ.xg6!1f6 33 h5
hxg6+ 34!1xg6+!1xg6 35 xg6, etc.

There are other improvements too:


a) 28... rti'g5+29 r!l/2 rti'd2 +30 g3 rti'xg2+31 f4!118 +32 e5 rti'g3+33
xe6 rti'd6 mate.
b) 30... rti'g5+ 31 f2 !118, and mate in three.
c) 31 d5delays the mate until move 37. '

S . Kruger-C.G. Watson, Telegraphic match (New South Wales v Victoria) .


White has j ust played 35 hxg6, and Black had a ' simple mate i n thirteen' which
he did not find until after the game: 35 . . . d5 + 36 gl . e l + (Watson played
36 . . . c5 + and drew.) 37 f2 d2+ 38 f3 e2+ 39 f4 . fl + 40 g5 f6+ 4 1
h4 xh2 + 42 g4 e2 + 4 3 h4 .hl + 4 4 . h3 f2+ 45 g4 t:l.gl + and mate
in two moves more.
Source: Chess World, 1 January 1 950, pages 1 1 - 1 2.

J. Bannet-W.P., Correspondence game, 1 896-97 .


White announced mate in 1 4 moves.
Source: La Strategie, 1 5 March 1 898, pages 7 1 -72.
A further note by Richard Forster:
'Actually it is a mate in 10: 1 .ilxd6+ cxd6 2 !1f6+ g7 3!117+ h6 (or
3... g8 4!1f5+, e.g. 4. .. g7 5 -m'7+ h6 6!1xh5+ xh5 7 '@'f3+ h6 8
Je6 g5 9 '!ff6+ h5 10 '!fxg5mate) 4 '!fe3+ '!fg5 ( 4. g5 5 Jf5+ r!lg6 6
'!fe6 mate) 5Jf5+gxf56!1f6+ h57 '1ff3+ '!fg4 8!1xf5+ r!lh4 9g3+ h3
10 '!fg2 mate.
. .

'

I.A. Gutierrez-H.C. Davis, Correspondence game.


White announced mate in 14 as follows: 31 'it!e7+ '<t>d5 32 4Ja5 !! f6 33 c4+ '<t>d4
34 'it!c5 + '<t>d3 35 'it!e3+ '<t>c2 36 'it!b3+ d2 37 Ab4+ c l 38 'i1Yc3+ '<t>b1 39
Aa3 !! xf2 40 '<t>xf2 e3+ 41 'it'xe3 b8 42 4Jb3 !! xb3 43 axb3 any 44 'i1Yb2 mate.

Source: American Chess Bulletin, February 1 920, page 39.

(2045)

J. Ken MacDonald reports that in the Gutierrez v Davis position his computer
found a forced mate in six moves: 1 4Je3 !!c5 2 Axc5 Ad7 3 'i1Yd6+ t7 4
'it!xd7 + '<t>g6 5 'it!f5+ '<t>h6 6 4Jg4 mate.
(2066)
Richard Forster observes that in the announcement too several short-cuts were
missed (e.g. 34 4Jb3 +, 36 4Jb3 and 39 4Jb3).
C.N. 1 37 1 (see Chess Explorations, page 1 64) discussed two brevities (Taylor v
Amateur, London, 1 862 and Potter v Amateur, London, 1 870) featuring
announced mates which were longer than the games themselves. We have now
noted the game below, which appeared on pages 434-435 of the September
1 907 BCM and 'was played at board 26 in the recent correspondence match
Midland Union v Southern Union' .
H.R. Barker-A.H. Owen, Correspondence game. Giuoco Piano.
1 e4 e5 2 Ac4 Ac5 3 4Jf3 4Jc6 4 c3 4Jf6 5 0-0 0-0 6 d3 d5 7 exd5 4::\ x d5 8 Axd5
'it!xd5 9 Ae3 .llg4 10 .ll x c5 'it!xc5 1 1 h3 Axf3 12 i1Yxf3 !! ad8 13 4Ja3 !! d7 14
!! ad1 !!fd8 15 !! d2 'it!d6 16 !! fd1 'it!g6 17 'it!e2 h6 18 4Jc4 !! e7 19 !!e1 b5 20
4Je3 a6 2 1 b4 f5 22 'i1Yd1 !! ed7 23 4Jc2 f4 24 !! e4

24 . . . xe4 ( 'Black with this move announced mate in 25 moves or less. White

rep lied, I resign after your 36th move. Of course, I could vary the form of checks,
and drive your king to shelter; but this would be as futile as unsportsmanlike. ' )

25 dxe4 xd2 26 g4 xc2 27 e6+ '<t>h7 28 xc6 d l + 29 '<t>h2 xf2 30


'it!e6 ff1 31 f5+ g8 32 e6+ f8 33 f5+ '<t>e8 34 xe5+ dB 35 d5 +
xd5 36 exd5 a 1 37 a3 '<t>d7 38 g4 a2+ 39 g1 '<t>d6 40 h4 '<t>xd5 41 g5 e4
42 gxh6 gxh6 43 fl f3 44 '<t>e 1 '<t>g2 45 d1 f3 46 c l f2 47 '<t>b1 e2 48
(2142)
any fl() mate.

A further example :

M.E. Goldstein-P. Rocks, Correspondence game, 1 920.


'A brilliant ending where White sacrificed two rooks and then announced mate
in 14' - BCM, February 1 92 1 , page 5 1 .
22 xg7 xc3 23 h8+ xh8 24 xh6+ g8 25 f5 'it/xa1 + 26 '<t>f2 c6 (The
BCM says that Black could have avoided defeat by 26 . . . c2+ 27 'it>g3 e2, after
which White would have only perpetual check.)

'White now announced mate in 1 4 by 2 7 f8+ '<t>h7 2 8 xf7+ '<t>h8 2 9 h5+


'<t>g8 30 h6+ '<t>h8 (30 ... g7 3 1 g5 + '<t>h7 32 g8+ and mate in five) 3 1
'itleB+ '<t>g7 3 2 g8+ '<t>f6 33 f7+ '<t>g5 (Now it would be mate in four with 34
f4+ . ) 34 f5+ '<t>xh6 35 .MS+ g7 36 f6+ '<t>h5 37 xg7 c2+ 38 '<t>g3 xg2+
39 '<t>xg2 any 40 h6 mate.'
We are still seeking games with announced mates longer than the games
9

themselves. The following, given on page 1 5 1 of P. Anderson Graham' s


monograph on B1ackbume, is a borderline case:
J.N. Burt-J.H. Blackburne (simultaneous), Bristol, 1 869. King 's Gambit Accepted.
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 .\f3 g5 4 Ac4 Ag7 5 c3 g4 6 b3 gxf3 7 Axf7 + 'it>f8 8 Axg8
xg8 9 0-0

Here Blackbume announced mate in nine moves : 9 . . . Ad4+ 10 :B.f2 xg2+ 1 1


'it>fl :B.xf2 + 1 2 'it>e 1 fl + 1 3 'it>xfl h4 1 4 b4+ d6 1 5 xd6+ cxd6 1 6 cxd4
(2166)
Ah3+ 1 7 'it>g1 e 1 mate.
From Richard Forster:
'The announcement is correct, but 13... '!fh4 ? allows 14 cxd4 and White
escapes immediate mate, though not defeat. The correct line is 13... '!fg5!,
i. e. 14 '!fb4+c5 15 '!fxc5+.ti.xc5 16 d4 '!fg2+ 17 r!!le1 '!fe2 mate. '
A Reshevsky problem

The following problem, composed by Reshevsky before he was nine years old,
was one of two published on page 1 82 of the November 1 920 American Chess
Bulletin :

Mate in three moves.


1 'it>f4 f2 ( l . . .h2 2 'it>e3 f2 3 .ilxf2 mate) 2 Ah2+ 'it>xh2 3 .\f3 mate.

10

(K 1992)

Pomar problems

Compositions by notable players are always of interest. The following mate-in


three problems were composed by the Spanish prodigy Arturo Pomar (born 1 93 1 )
when he was about ten years old, according to page 23 1 of La vida de Arturito
Pomar by Juan M. Fuentes and Julio Ganzo.

1 . a4 f5 2 E! g8, or l . . .d5 2 E! c8, etc.

1 &L:!a4 bxa4 2 Aa3, etc.

(1945)

Double queen sacrifice

Few games have two consecutive queen sacrifices, but one example, involving
double promotion, is K. Gilg v K. Lamprecht, played at Karbitz on 1 8 August
1 924 :

11

Black played 68 . . .fl () 69 xfl h 1 () 70 xh1 Stalemate.


Source: Osterreichische Schachrundschau, September 1 924, page 270. (1948)
Capablanca fragments

Compilers of 'complete games' volumes are often undecided about whether to


include game fragments. Here is one that is seldom seen anywhere:

J.R.Capablanca (simultaneous)-N.N., Moscow, 1 935.


With Black to move, play went 1 7 . . . h5 1 8 Ae2 h4 1 9 Axg4 Axg4 20 . d4
. xe3+ 2 1 'it>fl . e 2 22 <tlxe2 Axe2+ 23 'it>xe2 xd4, and B lack won by
continuing . . . a 5 .
Source: 64, 3/ 1 935, inside front cover.

(1953)

The following position, also rarely given in chess literature, comes from a
simultaneous game played against Shtyren in Moscow in early 1 935. Capablanca
(White) is what modern stylists call 'material up' or ' up material ' , but faces
mating threats.

Play continued 1 gxf7+ 'it>f8 2 b4+ Ae7 3 xe7+ <it>xe7 4 f8()+ . xf8 5 Ag5+

.f6 6 exf6+ gxf6 7 .ll xf6+ 'it>f7 8 .llh 4+ 'it>g6 9 . g4+ 'it>h5 10 . l f4 e5 1 1 . g5+
'it>h6 1 2 . f6+ xf6 1 3 .h5+ 'it>xh5 1 4 Axf6 e4 and the game was agreed drawn

a few moves later.


Source: 64, 31 1 935, inside front cover.
12

(K 1993)

Critical moments

Pages 234-237 of Chess with the Masters by Martin Beheim give the game
R. Fine v P. Keres, A VRO, 1 93 8 . After 39 moves this position arose:

The American' s move 40 'ifilxel is criticised as inferior to 40 .xel, which, it is


claimed, would have drawn. Then Beheim comments:
'The consequences of a tiny slip like this may have affected the whole of
modern chess history . For Fine tied with Keres in thi s great A VRO
tournament, but the application of the tie-breaking system gave Keres the
official right to challenge for the world championship.
Had Fine been the winner, it is quite possible that his American compatriots
would have found the backing for a title match with Alekhine - and Fine
would have had excellent chances against an Alekhine who was, in 1 938,
well past his peak. It is scarcely exaggerating to suggest that Reuben Fine
came within one move of becoming the first world champion from the United
States.
What actually happened was that Fine, disappointed by not winning the
AVRO tournament and his inability to dislodge Reshevsky from the United
States championship, gradually withdrew from international chess.'
We have lost count of the fallacies in this fanciful speculation about the consequences
of a game played as early as round seven out of 1 4. Can readers quote better examples
of decisive positions in chess history?
(1958)
Tarrasch studies

Siegbert Tarrasch is seldom thought of as a study composer, but two of his


compositions were published on page 309 of the 1 92 1 Kagans Neueste
Sc hac hnac hric hten:

13

White to move and win.

1 'it>f6 'it>h5 2 g8() xg8 3 'it>g7 'it>g5 4 h3 'it>h5 5 h4 and wins. Or l . . .'it>h4 2
g8() xg8 3 <:!ig7 <:!ih5 4 h4 and wins.

White to move and draw.

1 e5+ 'it>g8 2 c5+ 'it>f8 3 d6+ 'it>e8 4 b5+ 'it>f7 5 c4+ 'it>g6 6 d3+ and
to avoid mate or loss of the queen Black must go back to f7, allowing perpetual
check. If 6 . . . h6 7 .IUB+ h5 8 g4+ h4 9 ..lle7+ h3 10 ..llf1 mate.
Tarrasch regarded 'study' as an unsuitable term; he preferred 'winning (or
drawing) problems ' , as opposed to 'mating problems ' ( The Game of Chess,
page 77).
(K 1993)
Alekhine queen sacrifices

From Alekhine in Europe and Asia by John Donaldson, Nikolay Minev and
Yasser Seirawan here are four little-known queen sacrifices from simultaneous
games:
(See diagram, top of next page.)
32 E! xb5 a6 (if 32 ... cxb5 then 33 c6 mate) 33 ..llc3 xa3 34 E! b7+ dB 35
xc6 mate.

14

A. Alekhine-L. Litov, Serpukhov, November 1 9 1 5 .

A. Alekhine-F. Segovia, Buenos Aires, 1 9 August 1 926.


26 tfxe6 c6 (or 26 . . . dxe6 27 Ae5+) 27 Ae5 + xe5 28 tfxe5+ Resigns.

A. Alekhine-Maurer, Vienna, 4 October 1 930.


25 4Jxe8 .. xc2 26 ff6+ 'JJg7 27 .. xd7 .. c l + 28 'JJh 2 tfb6 29 4Jg5 'JJh6 30
4Jxf7 + 'JJg7 3 1 4Jd6+ 'JJh6 32 .. xh7+ 'JJg 5 33 4Jfe4+ 'JJf4 34 .. h4 mate.*

*The book gave '33 <tlde4+ 'it>f4 3 4 E! h4+ 1-0', but according t o page 1042 o f the October 1930

L'Echiquier

Alekhine played the faster 33 <tlfe4+.

15

A. Alekhine-Kohn, Subotica, 28 December 1 930.


2 1 4Jxe6 Resigns. (lf 2 1 . . .xd3 then 22 Ek7 mate.)

(1970)

Young Junge

Victor Charushin has sent us a copy of his 1 993 book (in Russian) 'The Games
of Klaus Junge' * . We pick two combinations from early in the career of this
exceptional German player, who died in combat in 1 945 at the age of 2 1 .

Braasch-K.Junge, LUbeck, 2 April 1 939.


20 ... xb3 2 1 'ltrxb3 .ilxc4+ 22 'ltrxc4 4Jd2+ 23 gl 4Jxc4 24 f3 e2 25 M2 d3
26 g4 d2 27 g2 4Je3+ 28 g3 dl ('ltr) 29 Resigns.

*Russian title:

Tanets n a krayu vulkana

('Dance o n the Edge o f a Volcano').

16

Henning-K. Junge, Hamburg, 24 March 1 940.


23 . . . cxd2 24 E! xc7+ xc7 25 E! xd3 E! xd3 26 c4+ .llc 5 27 xd3 E! d8 28 .lld4
E! xd4 29 Resigns.
In all, 90 games plus biographical information are presented in this book of 1 28
(2014)
pages.

In this position from the game v Henning, if 27 b6+ then 27 . . . c8 is the only
way to win. After the above C.N. item was written Helmut Riedl brought out a
monograph on Junge which (on page 24) reported that Junge had put forward
the move 27 .lld4. The book gave some fascinating analysis:
27 .lld4 E! d8 (27 . . . dl () 28 xc5+ with perpetual check) 28 .ll x c5 (28 xc5+
d7 29 bxa6 bxa6) 28 . . .b8 29 .lld6+ E! 3xd6 30 exd6 E! xd6 3 1 b6 E! d7 32
f4+ c8 (32 . . .a8 33 c7) 33 c4+ d8 34 c5 'it?e8 35 c8+ E! d8 and
wins.

An unusual position
From page 365 of the September 1 904 Revue d'Echecs, taken from the Melbourne

Leader:
(See diagram, top of next page.)

17

In this game between two unnamed amateurs, Black won as follows: l . . .g6 2
.tlh4 g8 3 -tlf3 .tle2+ 4 h1 'l;i"h8+ 5 .tlh2 .tlg3+ 6 fxg3 fxg3 7 'l;i"g1 g5 8
(K 1993-94)
Resigns.
Richard Forster remarks:

' White should force a draw with 3 'i!J'd3 '/!J'el+4 'i!lh2 .Je4 5 '/!J'c2 '/!J'xf2 6
'@'xe4 '@'xh4+ 7 r!lgl '@'xg4 8 '@'e8+, etc. '
Promotion to knight
A position given on page 6 1 of volume one of Schachtaktik by Erwin Voellmy:

Players and occasion not stated (apart from 'Sept. 1 9 1 2' ) .


White won by 1 f1a 1 d1 ('l;i") 2 E! a7+ xb6 3 c8(-tl)+ c6 4 b 5 mate.

(2015)

Promotion to knight without check


On page 1 76 of Chess Curiosities, Tim Krabbe quoted a position from a USSR
correspondence game (Babushkin v Postnikov, 1 969-70) featuring what was
claimed to be 'the only knighting on record that was not a check'. We note that
the game between Xu Jun and Vassily lvanchuk in the 1 993 World Team
Championship in Lucerne (won by Black in 62 moves) began: 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6
3 .tlf3 dxc4 4 'l;i"a4+ .tld7 5 e4 .tlf6 6 .tlc3 a6 7 Axc4 f1b8 8 'l;i"c2 b5 9 Ae2 Ab7
10 0-0 b4 1 1 e5 bxc3 1 2 exf6 cxb2 1 3 fxg7
(See diagram, top of next page.)

18

13 . . bxal().

(2016)

Antonio Gude sends this position from a game between Adams and Miles at
Tilburg on 1 7 November 1 99 3 :

White played 9 0 b8(). and according t o the tournament bulletin the game was
drawn at move 1 22. However, Tony Miles informs us:

' It was actually drawn around move 135, but neither the players nor the
(2031)
computer monitor could keep track during the final time scramble. '
Alain Pallier offers a further example. The position below was reached at the
end of the game between Najdorf and Schweber at Buenos Aires, 1 968 :

Black having just moved 63...6-cS, White played 64 b8(). and the game
was declared drawn.
Source: Shakhmatny Byulletin, 111 969, page 32.

19

(2043)

Two further specimens have come from Alain Pallier:

Vujic-Petrovic, Yugoslav Ladies' Championship, Kola, 1 985.


White played 74 f8(4J) and won at move 87 .
Source: New in Chess, November 1 985, page 57.

I. Leventic-J.P. Boudre, European Cup, Luxemburg, 1 993.


62 b8(4J). The game was won b y Black a t move 8 1 .
Source: Europe Echecs, November 1 993, pages 1 9-20.

(2061)

A large number of specimens of knight promotion without check were given by


Rene Olthof in an article entitled 'Silicon Curiosities' on pages 80- 8 3 of
the 4/ 1 994 New in Chess.
Julian Alonso Martin forwards us the following position from a 1 9 8 5
correspondence game between Palevich and Lebelt:

20

Play went: 1 .\xc4+ dxc4 2 !'!d1 exd1 (.l) 3 .lle4 .\xc3 4 .ll x a8 .\xa2 S .lld S c3
6 Axa2 c2 7 Ab1 Drawn.
The above was published on page 29 of issue 1 of the 'Especial' edition of Ocho
(2068)
por Ocho. We should like further details.
Jerzy Konikowski proposes an alternative way for White to draw in the above
Palevich v Lebelt position: 1 !'! xc4 e1 (i*) ( l . . .dxc4 2 .\xc4+ a4 3 .\b2+ ,
followed b y 4 .\d3 .) 2 !'!cS i*e2 (against the threat of 3 .\c4+ and 4 !!aS mate)
3 .lc4+ i*xc4 4 !!aS+ i*a4 S !'! xa4+ xa4 6 b2 bS .
He also reports that the Palevich v Lebelt position inspired him t o compose the
following ending, which was published in the 1 21 1 986 issue of Schach-Echo, as
well as on page 260 of Schachspiegel 21 1 992:

White to move and win.


Solution: 1 e7 a l (i*) 2 .ll x a1 !'! d8 3 exd8(.l) AeS 4 .\xc6 .ll x a1 S .\xa7 Ad4
6 .\cS .ilxcS 7 .\b6+ .ll xb6 8 axb6 b8 9 b7 c7 1 0 a7 and wins.
(2112)

Stalemate

C .N . 1 640 published this position, taken from page 75 of Echecs et mythe by


Arrabal:

'Tritsky v Folk, 1 896' . White draws by 1 d1 + .

21

We now note that page 1 95 of the 1 3 June 1 897 issue of Deutsches Wochenschach
and page 1 8 1 of the June 1 897 Deutsche Schachzeitung give:

Played by Troitzky (St Petersburg) in a knight's odds game. l . . . E! g6+ 2 g3


'llt'f3 3 E!dl .ilxh3 4 E! xd8+ c,Jtxd8 5 'lit'dl + 'lit'xdl Stalemate.
Wanted: the complete score and pertinent details, as well as other examples of
(2021)
stalemate on a relatively crowded board.
Julian Alonso Martfn sends the next position, from page 1 30 of the 2 October
1 989 issue of the Spanish weekly publication Cambio 16:

This is said to be from a game in which White, Prince N. Galitzin (Golitsyn),


played: 1 d8+ 'it?xd6 2 b7+ d5 3 'lit'e5+ 'it?xe5 4 f4+ 'it?d5 5 c3+ 'it?xc4 6
a5 + xb4 7 a3+ c,Jtxa5 8 b4+ .ilxb4 9 axb4+ xb4 Stalemate.
Who can provide more information?

(2069)

Since writing C.N. 2069 we have found that a similar diagram (White to draw,
composer not named) appeared on page 96 of the February 1854 Deutsche
Schachzeitung and on page 3 2 1 of Deutsches Wochenschach, 15 September 1 907.
Compared with the diagram above, both these sources omit the units at b4, b5,
c4 and h4 but have a black pawn at e5. The solution is the same.
(2132)

22

A Bogoljubow study

White to move and win.


Solution: 1 .ili4 (not 1 exf6 gxf6 2 .ilf4 h5) 1 . . . fxe5 2 f6 g5 3 f7. l . . .g5 2 d6 Ac6
3 e6 gxf4 4 d7 c l() 5 d8(). l . . .h5 2 d6. l . . . .ilxd5 2 exf6 g5 3 fxg6 hxg6 4
bxa4.
Source: Deutsches Wochenschach, 25 April 19 15, page 116.

(2028)

Ulf Klimant questions the soundness of the Bogoljubow study. In the final line
given in C.N. 2028 ( l . . .Axd5 2 exf6 g5 3 fxg6 hxg6 4 bxa4), our correspondent
says that Black could play 2...h5. He proposes the variations:
a)
b)
c)

3 fxg7+ h7 4 f6 g6;
3 fxg7+ h7 4 bxa4 h4;
3 f7 axb3 4 Acl h4.

(2108)

Four queens
Robert Timmer quotes positions where each side has two queens only:
i)

Injorm ator No. 35 (page 33 1) gave the ending of Bacs6 v Szlabey, Hungary,
1983.

Play went: 1 h8+ ad4 2 c8+ c5 3 e5 + b4 4 b2 + 'it>a5 5 a8+ a7


6 d5+ Resigns.
23

From Richard Forster:


' The Fritz computer program does not agree with the annotator in
Informator. By playing 2... 'it'b4Black should draw because A. Schneider 's
line in Informator 3 'lii'b8+ 'it'c3 4 'lit'c7+ 'it'b4 5 'lii'b6+ etc. can be improved
upon by 4... 'lii'c5 5 'lii'ee5+ 'it'b4 6 'lii'b2+ 'it'c4and Black should draw. In the
game the analogous 4... 'it'c4 loses to 5 'lit'a6+ .
Instead, Fritz shows that White has a forced win with 1 'lii'8c6+ . '

ii) A composition by Noam D. Elkies on pages 5 8-59 of issue 2 of the American


Chess Journ al. In the summer of 1 992 Lewis Stiller discovered a mutual
Zugzwang position (White: king on hl and queens on h2 and g2. Black: king on
a1 and queens on a7 and f6) which Elkies used to create the following study:

White to move and win.

The bare bones of the solution: 1 g7+ '<t'h2 2 f8() b5 + 3 '<t'h6 b6+ 4 .ltc6
xc6+ 5 '<t'xh7 b 1 ()+ 6 '<t'h8 '<t'h 1 7 fg8 and wins. This is the Stiller position,
rotated by 90 degrees.
(2034)
Single bishop mate

Examples of that most attractive of finishes, the single bishop mate, are: a) N.N.
v Pillsbury (complete score unavailable); b) Troitzky ' s composition, and c) the
'Pardee v Rubinstein' position from S.S. van Dine ' s fictional The Bishop Murder
Case (New York and London, 1 929). A middle-of-the-board specimen appeared
in L 'Italia Scacchistica in 1 9 1 1 and was reproduced in a number of contemporary
magazines (e.g. BCM, October 1 9 1 1 , page 372, and Deutsches Wochenschach,
20 August 1 9 1 1 , page 306):
(See diagram, top of next page.)
C . Perlasca-N.N., Como Chess Club, Date?
White won by 1 4Je8+ '<t'xe8 2 xb8+ '<t'd7 3 d8+ '<t'e6 4 c8+ ( 4 e8+
would have led to mate next move.) 4 . . . 'it'd6 5 dxe5+ '<t'c5 6 xf8+ xf8 7 .lte7
mate.
(2038)
24

The position below is from a game between R.J. Fischer and J. Witeczek,
simultaneous display, Detroit, 9 February 1 964:

Fischer played 62 .Kl5 and Black resigned.


Source: page 1 0 of A Legend On the Road by John Donaldson, which took the
game from the Detroit News of 1 6 February 1 964.
Another position that comes to mind is on page 1 3 1 of the March 1 926 BCM. It
was from a skittles game, and the players' names were not specified.

Play went 1 xa1 bxa1 () 2 a8() and B lack resigned. The magazine also
points out the line 1 a8() xfl + 2 xfl bl ()+ 3 e 1 d3+ 4 g1 g6+ 5
'itlh1 g2 mate.
(2096)

25

A further specimen, from The Brilliant Touch in Chess by Walter Kom (see
page 73 of the 1 966 Dover reprint) :

Benzinger-Reichherzer, Munich, 1 939.


Play went: l . . . <it'e3 2 f!xg5 f!d1 + 3 f!g1 'it?f2 4 f!xd1 -'tg2 mate.

(2173)

'The most humorous position'

Page 1 59 of the July-August 1 9 1 5 American Chess Bulletin presented a


composition by A.J. Fink of San Francisco that was described as 'the most
humorous position that has ever been set upon a chessboard' :

Mate in five moves.

Solution: 1 c4+ .t\xc4+ 2 Ad4+ .'Je5+ 3 .t\g5+ A3+ 4 Elb1 + flxa8 5 xf3 mate. Other
lines include: 1 ...xc4 2 f!b5+ 'itte6 3 .t\g5+ <it'x5 4 Ae4+ xe4 5 xe4 mate. (2048)
Miscellaneous positions

(See diagram, top of next page.)


A position from a game at the Cafe Kaiserhof, Berlin, which was passed on by
Jacques Mieses.
Play went 1 axb7 f!e6+ 2 <it>xe6 <it>c6 Drawn.
26

Source: Deutsches Wochenschach, 24 January 1 897, page 32.*

J. Fou1ds-G. Shories, Bradford Chess Club, Date?


The finish was: l . . .'itte l + 2 .lld l 'itt x d2+ 3 xd2 Ag5+ 4 d3 e3+ 5 d2
e4+ 6 d3 c4 mate.
Source: Deutsches Wochenschach, 10 May 1 9 1 4, page 1 68.

From a game between A. Speyer (Speijer) and E. de Haas (Place and date?).
1 d7 c5 2 e6 b8 3 xd6 (3 4Jd3+ would win easily.) 3 . . . e8+ 4 d7
e7 + 5 xe7 Stalemate.
*A similar position had already appeared on page 21 2 of the July 1895 Deutsche Schachzeitung
as a study by Troitzky, but with the action in the 'North East' part of the board. See also page 26
of A.J. Roycroft's Test Tube Chess (and the revised edition thereof, The Chess Endgame Study),
Which placed Troitzky's study in the 'South East'. To complete the tour, page 85ofT. Schuster's

Wenn Sie am Zuge wiiren. . . ? put the play in the 'South West' sector. We cannot think of any
other posi tion which has been published in all four quadrants.

27

Source: Tij dschrift van den Nederlandschen Schaakbond, November 1 924,


page 3 1 6.
(K 1 994)
Prodigious swindle

A position from page 205 of the December 1 9 2 1 American Chess Bulletin :

S. Reshevsky (simultaneous)-C. W. De Graff, Portland, 1 0 June 1 92 1 .


The prodigy won as follows: 1 e2 ..b8 2 b3 ll.xc3 3 Axc3 .. xc3 4 h5 ..bc8 5
..d2 4:)e5 6 d4 4:)ci3+ 7 'it>b1 4:)b4 8 .. fl 4:)xc2 9 g4+ <M8 (After 9 . . . 'it>h8 White
would be lost.) 10 .. xf7+ 'it>xf7 1 1 ..f2+ 'it>e7 1 2 g7+ 'it>e6 1 3 ..f6 mate. (K 1 995)
Two neat endings

O.E. Michaelis-E.L. Whitehouse, Occasion?


In this position, from a game in which White gave queen's knight odds, play
continued: l . . . .. e8 2 ..ef5 E!. e7 3 a4 .. g8 4 g3 E!. g6 5 a5 .. a6 6 d5 .. xa5 7 d6
.. d7 8 c6 .. xd6 9 cxb7 Resigns.
Source: Columbia Chess Chronicle, 1 December 1 889, page 1 2 1 .
(See diagram, top of next page.)
l . . .c6+ 2 b5 .. xb5 (Black should have played 2 ... .. a8+ 3 'it>b4 d6+ 4 'it>c3
d4+ 5 'it>c2 xg1 6 xe5 + g7, with a considerable advantage.) 3 .. g8+

28

S. Auerbach-N.N. ( ' Dr. W. ' ), Lemberg, 24 April l 9l l .


'iftxg8 4 cxb5+ Resigns.

Source: Deutsches Wochenschach, 14 May 1 9 1 1 , page 1 90.

(K 1995)

Endgame study

Richard Forster submits the following position, which appeared in l nformator


No. 49, with annotations by Krogius:

Belik-Igonin, USSR, 1 990.


It is stated that White won by 1 b4 c4+ 2 a3 d3 3 .l1.xc4 bxc4 4 a2 + dl 5
c3+ cl 6 a2 d2 7 a l dl () 8 a2 mate.
In reply to a query from us, John Roycroft states that he believes the position to
be a study by V. Pachman, published in 1 93 5 in C eskoslovenskf S ac h .
Confirmation is sought, a s well a s a n explanation of the game version given by
l nformator.
(2086)
We now have the 1 935 Ce skoslovenskj Sa ch and can confirm that the position
c lai med by lnf orm ator No. 49 to be from a game between Belik and lgonin was
the mirror-image (i.e. with the white king on g3 instead of b3) of a study by
29

V. Pachman(n) published on page 72 of the April-May 1 935 issue of the Czech


magazine.
(2107)
An elegant finish

N.N.-J. Mieses, Leipzig, Date?


Black won by : l . . .g6 2 xf8+ h7 3 g4 hxg4 4 h l g3 5 f4 El xh2+ 6 gl
El h l + 7 g2 c2 + 8 xg3 h2+ 9 g4 h4 mate.
Source: Deutsches Wochenschach, 1 1 July 1 9 1 5 , pages 1 97- 1 98 .

(2089)

Another Junge

N.N.-Otto Junge, Concepci6n (Chile), 1 909?


1 . . . .:lxe5 2 dxe5 g2 and Black wins. The purpose of the knight sacrifice was to
prevent White from castling.

Source: Deutsches Wochenschach, 27 February 1 9 1 0, page 8 1 .


It i s probable that Black was Klaus Junge' s father, given that his name was
indeed Otto and that Concepci6n was the birthplace of Klaus.
(2090)

30

further game by Otto Junge:

Schwarz-0. Junge, Hamburg-Altona, 2 1 December 1 905 . French Defence.


1 e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 exdS exdS 4 Ad3 <)c6 S <)f3 Ag4 6 Ae3 <)f6 7 <)bd2 Ae7 8
c3 0-0 9 'll!c 2 e8 1 0 <)eS Ad6 1 1 f4 .ilxeS 1 2 fxeS <)xeS 1 3 dxeS xeS 14 '<t>f2
'll!d6 1 S ae1? ae8 1 6 <)fl xe3! 17 xe3 xe3!! 18 'it>xe3 'lllb 6+ 19 '<t>f4

19 . . . '11!e 6! ! 20 g3 'll! e 1 +! 2 1 'it>f4 ltd1 22 .ilxh7+ <;t>f8 23 'llffS <)hS+ 24 gS f6+


2S '<t>g6 'll!e8 mate.

Source: Wiener Schachzeitung, July-August 1 906, pages 223-224.


The game was annotated by Georg Marco, but only his punctuation is given
above. Another game by Otto Junge ( 'of Hamburg' ) is to be found on page 14 of
Hermann Heemsoth' s 75 meiner scho nsten Partien. It was played in the 1 94748 Klaus Junge Memorial Tournament.
(21 79)
A strange manreuvre

The diagram shows the position after White ' s 30th move ( e 1 -b 1 ) in the game
A. Kupchik v J.R. Capablanca, New York, 24 and 29 July 1 9 1 3 .

Capablanca played 30 . . . <)a4 and won at move 60. On his score sheet he noted
(in Spanish): 'Black should play 30 . . . <)c4, and if 31 xbS d2 32 b1 <)xeS 33
<tl xeS c8 and Black wins at once.'
The score sheet also gives the times for the complete game: White: 2.50 and
B lack: 2. 1 5 .
(21 14)
31

Richard Forster adds:


'Ve ry interesting. White 's most stubborn continuation at the end of
Capablanca 's variation would be 34 g2 1'1c1351'1b8+ h7 36 4Jxf7, but
Black wins after 36. .. g6 37 hxg6+ xg6 384Je5+ gl 39l1b7+f8, since
the king can ultimately escape from perpetual check. '

Another game of Kupchik' s in 1 9 1 3 was notable for the amount of time his
opponent spent on a move in the early stages. A short match in New York between
Duras and Kupchik (which the former won with a score of +2 - 1 =0) began with
a game which opened 1 e4 e5 2 <tlf3 <tlc6 3 <tlc3 <tlf6 4 Jlb5 Jlb4 5 0-0 0-0 6 d3
d6 7 Jlg5 Jle6 8 <tle2 <\e7 9 c3 Jla5

Here Duras thought for 58 minutes before playing 10 <tlg3, and went on to win.
Source: American Chess Bulletin, October 1 9 1 3, page 233.

Resignation in winning position

Wanted : little-known cases of resignation in a winning position . Here is a


straightforward early one (Pari s, 1 846) in which 'a distinguished English
Amateur' unnecessarily resigned against Kieseritzky. It appeared on page 327
of The Chess Player 's Chronicle, 16 October 1 847 .
(See diagram, top of next page.)
Play continued 281"lxg8 ( '2 8 c4 would have won the game directly. ' ) 2 8 . . .b 2 and
White resigned. ('A remarkable termination, the winning player surrendering the
victory ! Annoyed at not having advanced his c-pawn to stop the onward march of
Black' s pawn, White hastily gave up the game at the moment it was within his
grasp. He had simply to play 291"lb8, and he must have won without difficulty .. . )
'

32

The magazine points out the line 29 . . . Axb8 30 g8() b1 () 31 h7+.

(2123)

E. Sonnenschein* gave this position on page 236 of CHESS, 1 4 March 1 93 8 :

Players and occasion?


Sonnenschein wrote: 'A friend of mine played 1 Ah6 in the diagrammed position
and, when Black replied l . . ..fe8, resigned. He could have won the game, by a
splendid sacrificial line 2 Axf7+ xf7 3 t! fl + g8 4 t!f8+ t! xf8 5 g7 mate. '
Although Sonnenschein does not stipulate that h e was B lack, such is stated by
Ian Mullen and Moe Moss on page 90 of Blunders and Brilliancies.
(2144)
Miracle

E. Sonnenschein-N.N., Czechoslovakia, Date?


*Information is sought about Sonnenschein. A player of this name was mentioned on pages 1 84-

1 85 of the April 1 905 American Chess Bulletin.

33

This position also appeared on page 236 of CHESS, 14 March 1 938 and makes
a good quiz question: how can White save his e-pawn, relieve the pin on the e
file and win the bishop at f6?
The ingenious solution is: 1 c4 .ll x g2 2 E!gl .llh3 3 E! g3 Ad7 4 E!e3 'and the
miracle has happened' .
(2145)
Chess Fundamentals

Andrew Kinsman has placed on the Internet an analytical query (raised by Neil
McDonald) regarding the game between F.F.L. Alexander and Sir George
Thomas in the 1 9 1 9-20 City of London Chess Championship. *

I n section 2 5 o f Chess Fundamentals Capablanca wrote that after 3 8 4 'i5\'h6


39 'i5\'c2 , 'I take pleasure in offering the position to my readers as a most beautiful
and extraordinary win for Black, beginning with 39 . . . 'i5\'h3+!!! I leave the variations
for the student to work out' . Capablanca seldom accorded a move two exclamation
marks, let alone three, but Neil McDonald has shown 39 . . :h3+ to be a blunder,
refuted by 40 <tlxh3 gxh3+ 41 hl e2 42 E! bbl exfl ('i5\')+ 43 E! xfl Ag6 44 E! c l
E! e3 45 Axg6 hxg6, after which Black may still draw but is hardly winning.
The game has not been widely published, although Fred Reinfeld wrote on page 82
of A Treasury of British Chess Masterp ieces that Thomas' s finish was 'one of the
most beautiful conclusions in the whole range of chess literature' . Reinfeld referred
to Capablanca and Chess Funda mentals but did not mention 39 . . . 'i5\'h3+.
(2130)
A Saavedra sidelight

The gestation of the Saavedra study was documented in an article entitled 'Wie
was Saavedra?' by J. Selman Jr. on pages 239-244 of the November 1 940 issue
of the Tijdschrift van den Koninklij ken Nederlandschen Schaakbond. Thanks to
*As noted on page 394 below, Sir George Thomas diffidently nominated this game as his best
performance.

34

a detailed summary in chapter 7 of Chess Curiosities by T. Krabbe it is now


widely known how a position from an 1 875 Fenton v Potter match game was
(inc orrectly) recalled by Georges Barbier in the Glasgow Weekly Citizen of
27 April 1 895, and then slightly changed the following week and called a draw
for Black after 6 c8() . On 25 May 1 895 Barbier gave the celebrated winning
move found by Saavedra: 6 c8(.).
One sidelight of the affair seems to have been overlooked: the Fenton v Potter
position was the basis for another endgame study which also gained fame in
1 895 . Following the death of George C. Heywood on 8 March 1 895, the April
issue of the BCM (pages 1 82- 1 83) published the composition below, which
Heywood had 'regarded as his masterpiece' in the realm of endgame studies :

White to play and win.

Solution: 1 .ld5 xd5 (or i below) 2 c7 d6+ (or ii below) 3 xb5 d5+ 4 b4
d4+ 5 c3 d1 (or iii below) 6 'it>c2 and 7 c8().
i) l . . . a3 2 b7 a 1 3 .Jc3 cl 4 .Jge2. l . . .d4 (or l . . . d2) 2 c7 c4 (or
2 . . . c2) 3 .Je3+ .

ii) 2 . . . g5 3 .Jf3 g3 (or 3 . . . f5) 4 c8() xf3 5 g4 f7 6 d1 + 'it>f2 7 c2+


king moves to the eighth rank 8 b1 + king moves to the seventh rank 9 a2+

or 9 g6+ .

iii) 5 . . . g4 6 .Jh3 g3+ 7 d2 xh3 8 c8() g3 9 f8+ g1 1 0 e2 g2+


11 e 1 'it>h2 (or 1 1 . . .'it>h1 ; ' If here or at the 1 3th move the rook plays away,
then it or pawn must speedily fall. ' ) 1 2 h8+ g1 1 3 h3 g6 14 e3+ h2 (or
1 4 . . . h 1 ) 15 h6+ 'it>g1 1 6 h3 g5 17 f3 'it>h2 18 h5+ g1 1 9 h3 g4 20
'l!i'e3+ h2 21 fl .

By coinci dence, the deaths of Heywood and Potter were announced on the same
page (page 1 80) of the April 1 895 BCM. Publication of Heywood ' s study, the
headi ng to which stated 'Suggested by an Ending from actual play between
M ess rs. Potter and Fenton' , may well have prompted Barbier' s attempt later the
same month to recall the 1 875 position.
(K 1996)
35

Janowsky mate

From a game, given in C.N. 35 1 , in which Janowsky beat an unnamed opponent


in Vienna on 20 October 1 900. Play went: 23 l=!g1 f5 24 h5 .lf6 25 gxf7+ f8
26 h8+ xf7 27 l=!xg7 mate.
Source: Wiener Schachzeitung, January 1 90 1 , page 1 6- 1 7 .
Richard Forster informs u s that 2 4 . . . .1li6 instead o f 24 . . . .lf6 would have won for
(215 1 )
Black.
Lightning ending

The conclusion of a quick game between Alekhine and Tartakower, played at


Carlsbad on 8 May 1 923 appeared in C.N. 1 050, taken from the Wiener
Schachzeitung, July 1 923, pages 1 35- 1 36.

1 Aa7 'it>c4! 2 b6 c3! 3 b7 d2 4 b8() dl ()+ 5 g2 d5 + 6 'it>g3 'it>d3!! 7


bl + e2 8 c2+ Ad2 9 .ll c 5 fl ! ! 1 0 h4 g2 mate. (Punctuation by

Tartakower.)
Richard Forster writes :
'The initial position is clearly drawn. White 's 8'lii'c 2+isn 't the most accurate,
but only 9./J.c5??loses the game. 9 r'b2 and 91!lh2 still draw. '
(2152)

36

Skulduggery

The following position, from a game between unnamed players, was published
on page 53 of the February 1 909 BCM, taken from The Chess Weekly:

White saw that if his knight at b3 were to be taken he could force mate in four
moves. To avoid arousing his opponent' s suspicions by leaving the knight en
prise, White moved it to d5, a deliberately illegal move which Black demanded
should be retracted, with the 'penalty' of having to make a move with the king.
White complied, playing 1 'i\?bl , and after l . . .cxb3 he announced mate in four
(21 57)
moves: 2 xa6+ !! xa6 3 Axa6+ 'it>b8 4 dB+ Ac8 5 xeS.
Unusual finish

This position arose after White ' s 86th move in the game Kostic v Jaffe, Carlsbad,
4 September 1 9 1 1 , as published on pages 1 6 1 - 1 62 of volume 1 of the tournament
book:

Play continued 86 . . . Ad4 87 'i\?b5 Ae3 88 'i\?c4 Ab6 89 'i\?c3 Ae3 90 'it>c2 Ag5
91 !! hl A4 92 h4 Ag5 93 !! h5 A4 94 !! f5 Ah6 95 !!e5+ Ae3 96 !! e7
Resig ns.
(21 59)
Bishop v knight endgame

An instructive piece of endgame play :


( See diagram, top of next page.)
37

V. Pire-S . Flohr, Rogaska Slatina, 1 929.


40 . . . a4! 4 1 b4 d4!! 42 xd4 'it>d5 43 'it>g2 Aa6 44 f3 'it>c4! 45 fxe4 c3 46 f5
'it>b3 47 d6 Ad3! 48 e5 Ag6 49 h4 xa3 50 f3 xb4 5 1 g4 a3 52 h5
Axh5+ 53 xh5 a2 54 Resigns.

Punctuation by Flohr, who presented this ending on page 1 89 of the December


1 929 C eskoslovenslry Sa ch. It was also annotated, under the title 'a Flohr
masterpiece' , by Roberto Grau on pages 38-39 of the February 1 940 El Aj edrez
Americana. Since the whole game appeared on pages 73-78 of the Rogaska
Slatina, 1 929 tournament book, it may be wondered why such an interesting
(2161 )
piece of play has been so neglected.
Botvinnik v Suttles

Jorge Luis Fernandez queries the analysis on page 40 1 of Botvinnik' s Partidas


selectas, volume 3 :

M. Botvinnik-D. Suttles, Belgrade, 1 969.


Botvinnik writes that instead of 2 5 f3 he should have played 25 b3!! and if
25 . . . xe4 26 xe4 Axfl White wins easily by 27 e6+ 'it>g8 28 'l1Yb2 e5 29
xe5 dxe5 30 'l1Yxe5 c7 31 "Jfxc7. However, our correspondent suggests that
30 . . . 'it>f7 would at least draw.
Similar analysis by Botvinnik appeared on page 323 of his bookAnaliticheskiye
38

Raboti 1 95 7- 1 970 (Moscow, 1 986), where he attributes the line


master Tringov. The Spanish book does not mention Tringov
Bulgarian
to the
thereby
giving the impression that the 'Bulgarian master' was Suttles,
e,
by nam
Canadian.
Botvinnik gave different analysis on page 1 94 of Selected
is
who
-1
970.
1967
(21 78)
Games
1 Kriticheskiye

A Bernstein ending

Page I 08 of Creative Chess by Amatzia A vni ( 1 99 1 and 1 997 editions) has this
position, headed 'Dr 0. Bernstein - Amateur, Stockholm, 1 906 ' :

In this seemingly hopeless position White is said to have played 1 gd6 (If 1
a7 d2 2 gxg7 g8 and Black wins.) l . . .d2 2 ac6 b8 3 b6 a8 4 a6
Drawn.
Did thi s occur in a game? When the position appeared on page 1 6 1 0 of
L 'Echiquier of 9 April 1 932 it was given as a Bernstein study, published in
( K 1 998)
' Chakmatnoe Obozz enic 1 906' . *
Rook endings

A miscellany of rook endings with a brutal finish:

K. Andreaschek-Zehetmayer, Vienna, 1 904.


*I.e. Shakhmatnoe Obozrenie.

39

1 . . .1'!8b6 2 E! xb6 E! xg5 3 E! b7 E! g8 4 E! h7 mate.

Source: Wiener Schachzeitung, Supplementheft, 1 9 1 2, page 399.

From a skittles game in London between unnamed opponents.


Play continued 1 E! b8+ '!Je7 2 E! b7+ '!Jf6 3 E!f7+ '!Je5 4 E! xg7 '!Jf4 5 Resigns.
Source: BCM, September 1 906, page 373.

A position by George S . Carr, constructed circa 1 894.


White wins with 1 h3 .
Source: BCM, March 1 907, page 1 05 .

The players o f this game are unidentified.


40

1 c6 E! xh6 2 c7 E! c6 3 E! h6 and wins.

Source: American Chess Bulletin, July-August 1 93 1 , page 1 29. The Bulletin' s


sou rce, the Stratford Express, said that Alekhine had praised the charm of this
(K 1998)
endin g.
Difficult problem

Mate in two moves.

This composition by Walter Pulitzer appeared on page 60 of the April 1 907


edition of The Chess Player 's Scrap Book, a short-lived journal edited by Emanuel
Lasker, with this commentary:
'Wm. Steinitz said concerning the two-move problem presented above:
"I thought that no two-move nut could be too hard for my evening dessert.
However, after puzzling in vain for over a quarter of an hour, I came to
the conclusion that there must be a mistake about it, and therefore looked
for the key; and sure enough, there was a mistake - namely, my own !
The problem is sound, original, difficult and beautifully constructed.
Altogether a gem ! So far as I can remember, this is the first time (probably
in thirty-five years) that I have failed to solve a two-move problem within
fifteen minutes."'
The key move is 1 M6.

(2185)

Euwe problem

In an interview with Pal Benko on pages 4 1 0-4 1 3 of the August 1 978 Chess Life
& Revie w, Max Euwe stated that he had only ever composed one chess problem:
(S ee diagram, top of next page.)

41

Mate in two moves.

Euwe reported that he had composed it in 1 920 'when I was travelling, and
made it only because I needed one for my column and I had none with me' .
Key move: 1 d6.

J. R. Capablanca

M. Botvinnik

S. Tarrasch

42

II
Games

Suicide

In this game White undertook to mate his opponent in, at most, 35 moves:
C.G. Watson-N.N., Melbourne, 1 9 1 6. Danish Gambit.
1 e4 eS 2 d4 exd4 3 c3 dxc3 4 .itc4 c6 5 4:)xc3 bS 6 Ab3 b4 7 4:)ce2 "i*f6 8 4:)f3
h6 9 Ae3 "i*g6 1 0 4:)eS xg2

11 d4 "i*xh1 + 12 d2 "i*xa1 1 3 Axf7+ d8 1 4 4:)f4 c5 15 4:)e6+ <:lle7 1 6 "i*dS


xb 2+ 17 e1 d6 1 8 f4 4:)f6 (Suicide.) 19 "i*xd6+ xd6 20 AxeS mate.

Source: The Times Literary Supplement, 2 1 December 1 9 1 6, page 628 . (B 1975)


Soldatenkov

How famous would the following game have become had it been played by
M orphy?
V. Soldatenkov-N.N. Occasion? Ruy LOpez.

1 e4 eS 2 4:)f3 4:)c6 3 .itbS 4:)f6 4 d3 d6 5 Ae3 .itd7 6 4:)bd2 dS 7 exdS 4:)xd5 8


e2 .itd6 9 4:)e4 Ag4 1 0 0-0-0 0-0 1 1 h3 AhS 1 2 g4 Ag6 1 3 h4 hS 14 4:)fg5
hxg4 1 5 hS .itxe4 1 6 4:)xe4 f5 1 7 Ac4 4:)e7 1 8 AgS c6 1 9 h6 g6 20 h7+ h8 2 1
.lth6 fxe4 22 dxe4 Et f7 23 "i*xg4 4:)f6 2 4 gS 4:)ed5 25 exdS cxdS 2 6 "i*xg6 c7

2 7 Axd5 4:)xd5

43

28 g8+ . xg8 29 hxg8()+ xg8 30 .dg1 + t!g7 31 . xg7+ xg7 32 Axg7


xg7 33 .d1 and wins.

Source: The Times Literary Supplement, 24 October 1 902, page 320.

(B 1975)

Kostic blindfold
B. Kostic-D. Donaldson, Colorado Springs, July 1 9 1 5 . King 's Gambit Accepted.
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 4)f3 Ac5 4 d4 Ab6 5 .ilxf4 4)f6 6 4)c3 0-0 7 e5 4)h5 8 Ag5
e8 9 g4 f6 1 0 Ac4+ h8 1 1 gxh5 fxg5 1 2 h6 g6 1 3 h4 g4 14 4)g5 d6 1 5 e6
c6 16 Ad5 e8 17 xg4 e7 18 0-0-0 c6 19 h5 t! f5 20 hxg6 t! xg5 21 g7+
g8

22 4)e4 . xg4 23 4)f6+ xf6 24 e7+ Ae6 25 e8()+ and mate next move.

Sources: American Chess Bulletin, September-October 1 9 1 5 , page 1 95 and The


Times Literary Supplement, 26 August 1 9 1 5 , page 288.
The Bulletin commented : ' One will have to look through Morphy ' s collection
of games to find anything like thi s remarkable effort on the part of B ori s
Kostic . '
( B 1975)
Twins

The following two games are bright miniatures played in Spain during the Second
World War. In the first Alekhine defeats Perez in 1 3 moves, and in the second
44

Perez returns the compliment in 1 2. The former was a friendly encounter and
the latter one of 26 games played by the world champion in an international
lightning tournament.
F.J. Perez -A. Alekhine, Malaga, December 1 94 1 . Vienna Game.
1 e4 e5 2 4)c3 Ac5 3 Ac4 d6 4 4)ge2 4)f6 5 d4 exd4 6 4)xd4 4)c6 7 4)xc6 bxc6
8 0-0 4)g4 9 e2 h4 1 0 h3 h5 1 1 M4 4)xf2 12 Axf7+ e7 1 3 Ah2 4)xh3+ 14

Re signs.
F.J. Perez -A. Alekhine, Madrid, 22 October 1 943 . Vienna Gambit.
1 e4 e5 2 4)c3 4)c6 3 f4 exf4 4 4)f3 g5 5 d4 g4 6 Ac4 gxf3 7 .ilxf4 fxg2 8 .ilxf7+
rt;xf7 9 h5+ g7 1 0 !!g1 4)ge7 1 1 .ilh6+ g8 1 2 !! xg2+ Resigns.

Source: Agonia de un Genio (Alekhine) by P. Moran, pages 1 57 and 1 64. (C 1978)


Smothered mates

After White ' s tenth move Teichmann remarks, 'White ' s game soon becomes
altogether hopeless, and the tragi-comic conclusion seems a just punishment for
having missed the right moment to resign' . A punishment for Muller but a treat
for us. A smothered mate is unusual enough, but rarer still is a king choked not
by pawns but by pieces.

20 . . . xh2+ 21 4)xh2 xh2+ 22 xh2 4)f2 mate.

S ource: BCM, January 1 907, page 36.

(C 1979)

The posi tion below arose after 40 moves in a game between S. Levitzky and M.
Chigorin at a tournament in Moscow on 1 October 1 899:

45

White, to move, is threatened with mate at g2. In desperation he played the neat,
if forced, move 41 'i!i'b2 . The game ended 41. . . 'i!i'd5 42 ltxf3 'i!i'xd.B, after which
White resigned.
Source: Wiener Schachzeitung, November 1 899, pages 1 82- 1 84.
This smothered mate often occurs through a familiar manceuvre involving a
different kind of queen sacrifice.

W. Steinitz (simultaneous)-R. Stein, New York, 27 November 1 884.


Steinitz announced mate in five moves by 16 'i!i'e6+ b8 17 <tld7+ c8 18
<tlxb6+ 'it'b8 19 'i!i'c8+ xeS 20 <tld7 mate. In his annotations (The International
Chess Magazine, January 1 885, pages 24-25) he described this as 'an ordinary
version of the smothered mate ' , and it had indeed already been known for many
centuries.

When the king is not mated in the comer, the winner may need help from an
advanced pawn.
(See diagram, top of next page.)
G. Mackenzie mated in five moves: 28 'i!i'h6+ e8 29 <tlg7+ 'iftf8 (If 29 . . . xg7
then 30 'i!i'h8+) 30 <tle6+ 'it'e8 31 'i!i'f8+ xf8 32 <tlg7 mate.
Source: Brooklyn Chess Chronicle, 1 5 September 1 884, page 1 84.

46

One of the great beauties of chess is the way a theme may lend itself to countless
variants. In the next example, taken from the BCM of June 1 920 (page 1 7 1 ),
there is a pin on the white queen. The players ' names are not recorded.

Play went l . . Jh g2 2 xg2 gl + 3 .!:! xgl <tlf2 mate.


Sometimes a little preparatory work is required:

F. Dus-Chotimirsky-Penin, St Petersburg (Date?).


l . . . <tlh3 2 .!:!fl . d2 3 <tlxd2 gl + 4 .!:! xgl <tlf2 mate.

47

Source: Deutsches Wochenschach, 28 August 1 9 1 0, page 3 1 4.


Finally, the smothering manreuvre may merely be the preface to a different
winning motif, such as the so-called corridor mate.

Won by Edmond Gestesi in Paris.


1 .ilc5 <ld3 + 2 'if.lb1 <tlxc5 3 <lf7+ 'itlg8 (3 . . J'! xf7 4 xd8+ f8 was necessary.)
4 <tlh6+ 'itlh8 5 '8-g8+ xg8 6 <tlf7+ '8-xf7 7 xh7+ 'itlxh7 8 h 1 mate.

Source: BCM, July 1 9 1 1 , page 276.


A complicated game

Josef Krejcik ( 1 885- 1 957) is helped by his opponent' s weak opening play but
conducts his attack with such verve that it is amazing that such a fine game
could have been forgotten. Sacrifices come thick and fast. The highlight of the
game is White ' s 1 8th move which, incidentally threatening a concealed mate in
two, gives up a rook in elegant style to shut Black' s queen' s bishop out of play.
J. Krejcik-K. Krobot, Vienna, 1 4 February 1 908 (?). Centre Game.
1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 xd4 <Jc6 4 e3 g6 5 Ad2 Ag7 6 <lc3 <lge7 7 0-0-0 0-0 8 f4 a6
9 <lf3 f5 10 Ac4+ <it>h8 1 1 <lg5 '8-e8 12 exf5 xf5 13 g4 f8 14 '8-h3 h6 1 5
hg1 b5 1 6 <tlxb5 axb5 1 7 Ac3 h5

48

1 8 d6 cxd6 19 gxh5 gxh5 20 Axg7+ '!lxg7 2 1 4Jf7+ 4Jg6 22 xg6+ '!lxg6 23


f5 + '!lf6 24 h4+ '!lxf5 25 g5 + '!le4 26 &Llxd6+ '!ld4 27 c3 mate.

Source: Wiener Schachzeitung, January 1 909, pages 30-3 1 .

(C 1983)

We happen to see that a more worthy finish would have been the mate in three
resulting from either 23 g3+ or 23 g2 + .
( 1 009)
When the Wiener Schachzeitung repeated the game in its August 1 924 issue
(pages 224-229) the date specified was 24 February 1 909. A third, hybrid
possibility was given by Krejcik himself on page 35 of Mein Abschied vom
(1214 & 1261)
Schach: 24 February 1 908.
Queen available with check

Three times White has the opportunity to capture the queen with check and three
times he declines.
F. Visier- J.R. Betancourt, Spanish Championship, Reus, 1 968. Sicilian Defence.
1 e4 c5 2 4Jf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 4Jxd4 4Jf6 5 4Jc3 a6 6 .Q.c4 e6 7 l:tb3 l:te7 8 Ae3
0-0 9 e2 l:td7 10 0-0-0 b5 1 1 a3 c7 1 2 '!lb 1 4Jc6 13 g4 ac8 14 f4 e5 1 5
.\xc6 .Q.xc6 1 6 g5 &Llxe4 1 7 &Llxe4 .Q.xe4 1 8 hg1 exf4 1 9 Axf4 Ag6 2 0 h4 fe8
21 h5 l:txg5 22 hxg6 xe2 23 gxf7+ '!lh8 24 .Q.xd6 c6 25 xg5 xc2 26 .Q.e5
.cl + 27 '!la2 h6 28 . xg7 xg7

29 . xcl .f8 30 .g1 xf7 31 l:txf7 Resigns.

Source: Campeones y campeonatos de Espana de ajedrez by P. Moran, pages


33 4 -335 . Moran described it as 'one of the most beautiful games played in
Spain ' .
( C 1 985)
Ultra-sharp attack

An ultra-sharp attack from a match between Romania and Latvia:


I. Gudju-K. Behting, Paris, 16 July 1 924. Greco Counter-Gambit.

49

1 e4 e5 2 4Jf3 f5 3 Ac4 fxe4 4 4::l x e5 'iiltg 5 5 4Jf7 'iil! x g2 6 t'! fl d5 7 Axd5 4Jf6 8
4Jxh8 lth3 9 Ac4 4Jc6 10 c3 4Je5 1 1 d4 0-0-0 1 2 lte2 4Jf3+ 1 3 ltxf3 'iil! xfl + 1 3
d2 'iil! x f2+ 1 4 Ae2 e 3 + 1 6 c2 Af5+ 1 7 b3 Ae6+ 1 8 c4 Ac5 1 9 d5

19 . . . 4Jxd5 20 Ag4 4Jf4 21 Axe6+ 4Jxe6 22 'iiltg4 'liltf6 23 4Jc3 b8 24 4Je4 'iiltd4
25 a3 'lilld 3+ 26 a2 'iiltx c4+ 27 b3 t'! d2 + 28 Ab2 t'! xb2+ 29 xb2 Ad4+ 30
b1 'iilt x b3+ 3 1 c1 ltb2+ 32 b1 Axa3 mate.

Source: Primera Olimpfada de Ajedrez, page 1 1 3 .

(C 1 985)

Coincidence?

The first chapter of Franrs:ois Le Lionnais' book Tempetes sur l 'echiquier is


intriguing. On page 1 0 he gives the score of the famous game Hamppe v Meitner,
Vienna, 1 872 (our readers will have no trouble finding the game) and then adds
the following, astonishingly similar battle:
R. Frauenfelder-M. Gschwend, Oerlikon, July 1 956.* Bishop 's Opening.
1 e4 e5 2 ltc4 4Jc6 3 'iilte 2 4Ja5 4 -'txf7+ xf7 5 'iilth 5+ e6 6 'iiltf5+ d6 7 d4
c6 8 'iiltx e5 b6 9 4Ja3 a6 1 0 xa5+ xa5 1 1 4Jc4+ b5 1 2 a4+ xc4 1 3
4Je2 Ab4+ 1 4 d1 Ac3 1 5 b3+ b4 1 6 4Jxc3 xc3 1 7 Ab2+ b4 1 8 Aa3+
(286)
c3 and drawn by perpetual check.

The game in C.N. 286 was published in the March 1 957 BCM, page 59, the source
being Leonard Barden' s The Field column of 1 7 January 1 957. That must mean
that Le Lionnais' ' 1 957' was wrong. The BCM (D.J. Morgan' s Quotes and Queries
column) gives ' 1 956 Swiss Boys' Championship' and states that the players were
R. Frauenfelder and M. Gschwend. D.J. Morgan' s view was that 'two bright lads
have pulled a fast one ! ' He added that 'the commentator on the game in the Zurich
(1397)
National Zeitung [sic] did not notice the identity of the old game' .**
*Le Lionnais wrote 'Frauenfelder v Gshend, Switzerland, 1 957' .
**The Frauenfelder v Gschwend game was published on pages 1 80- 1 8 1 of the September 1 956
Schweizerische Schachzeitung, where it is described as 'the game of the tournament' (Swiss Junior
Championship). The annotations say that after move nine White recalled the nineteenth-century
game from a column by Gygli a couple of years earlier. In May 1 998 Richard Forster verified the
matter with R. Frauenfelder. The latter stated that several participants in the event, including
Gschwend, were staying at his family' s home. Both he and Gschwend had lost badly the previous
day and therefore decided to make an amusing and spectacular draw . In short, their game was
pre-arranged.

50

On page 1 0 of the January 1 890 International Chess Magazine Steinitz wrote:


' .. .1 beg to claim to the best of my belief and knowledge as my own entirely
what is not distinctly acknowledged as belonging to somebody else, including
"the principles" and "the modem school", on which subject their full due is
given in my book to Heydebrand, Staunton, Winawer, Paulsen, etc ., and
some more will be said in my second volume about a still more important
forerunner of modern play, Herr Hammppe [sic] of Vienna. '

Steinitz was referring t o his book The Modem Chess Instructor; the reference to
Hamppe is most interesting. Who can say more about this unsung hero? (1635)
From G.H. Diggle:
'In C.N. /635 you askfor more about the "unsung hero Hamppe ", misspelt
by Steinitz "Hammppe " and by both Staunton and Harrwitz "Hampe ". I
have had a little search and find the following item in the Chess Player' s
Chronicle 1 850, page 289:

"CHESS IN GERMANY. A few months since the members of the chess


circle at Berlin were gratified with a visit from Herr Hampe [sic] , who
since the departure of Mr Lowenthal is accounted the strongest player
in Vienna. ' He has won ' , observes the B erlin Schachzeitung, 'from
Mr Jenay a majority though not a large one; he has been defeated by the
celebrated Lowenthal, but not disgracefully, since he won [sic] in the
ratio four to five. He played also with Mr Falkbeer in the last month
which the latter spent in Vienna, about thirty games, of which Mr Hampe
[sic] was only one or two ahead. Finally he has had an opportunity lately
of measuring himself against Mr Szen, with whom, to use his own
expression, he got off better than in former combats. The games which
he played with us bear evident marks of that genius and originality for
which his play is remarkable. In style he reminds us of an old friend
Mr S chorn who has always ready some 'devilment' which is not to be
found in the books."
(Schorn was of course the weakest of the seven "Berlin Pleiades ", though
he was "as much above Horwitz as a painter as he was below him as a
chessplayer " - W. Wayte in the BCM 1 882, page 44. )
This paragraph is followed by two ofHamppe 's games, a draw v Hanstein
and a win against Wolff.
In 1852 Harrwitz visited Vienna and played seven games with Hamppe
(Harrwitz 4, Hamppe 1, drawn 2 ). For the scores, see British Chess Review
1853, page 258 et seq.

51

Hamppe 's recorded games in Staunton 's Chess Praxis show him as a 1 e4
e5 2 4Jc3 addict: two losses to Szen on pages 81 -82, a draw with Szen on
page 429, two losses to LOwenthal on pages 431 -435, one loss to Falkbeer
on page 436. Page 225 ofHarrwitz 's British Chess Review 1 853 has a loss
by Hamppe to Szen. His unique game against Meitner appeared in La
Strategie 1 8 72, page 323. '
( 1 714)

Detailed notes to the Hamppe v Meitner game are also to be found in the following
sources:
BCM, November 1 889, pages 439-44 1 - annotations by C.E. Ranken; Chess
Life & Review, November 1 976 (page 634), August 1 977 (page 447), February
1 978 (page 84), August 1 978 (page 438); Draw! by W. Heidenfeld (pages 3-5).
Father and son

This light game is sometimes (e.g. on pages 62-63 of 200 Celadas de Apertura
by Emil Gelenczei) credited to Aron Nimzowitsch, but was actually played by
his father according to page 2 1 5 of Chemev' s 1 000 Best Short Games of Chess:
S. Niemzowitsch-N. Neumann, Riga, October 1 899. Muzio Gambit.
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 .!f3 g5 4 Ac4 g4 5 0-0 gxf3 6 "i1i'xf3 "i1i'f6 7 d3 Ag7 8 .lc3 .!c6
9 .ilxf4 .!d4 10 "i1i'f2 d6 1 1 .ld5 "i1i'd8 12 e5 c6 13 Ag5 "i1i'd7

14 .lc7+ "i1i'xc7 1 5 Axf7+ '<t>d7 1 6 "i1i'f5+ .lxf5 17 e6 mate.

Information (dates, etc.) on Nimzo Senior would be appreciated.

(683)

The game was published on page 77 of Schachjahrbuch fur 1 899, 11. Theil by
Ludwig Bachmann. Page 386 of the November 1 9 1 5 BCM gave the date of the
game as 10 February 1 900 and did not specify that White was S. Niemzowitsch.
A strange conclusion
A. Hild-H. Goering, Munich, 23 July 1 900. Petroff Defence.
1 e4 e5 2 .!f3 .!f6 3 .lxe5 d6 4 .lf3 .lxe4 5 d4 d5 6 Ad3 Ae7 7 0-0 Ag4 8 c4

52

.)c6 9 e 1 0-0 10 cxd5 1\xf2 1 1 xf2 xd5 1 2 1\c3 h5 1 3 Af4 fe8 14 lte2
ad8 1 5 Ag3 1\xd4 1 6 1\xd4 xd4

1 7 xd4 Ac5 18 Axg4 Axd4+ 1 9 '<t'fl Resigns.

Source: tournament book, page 1 72.

( 751)

Tal and Capa

We are grateful to Leonard Barden, who has sent us the original game-scores
from a London simultaneous exhibition given by Tal on 9 January 1 964. Familiar
names amongst the Blacks are Macdonald-Ross, Rumens and Hartston. However,
we shall adopt the lazy journalist' s method, and quote the shortest game, played
on board 20:
M.Tal (simultaneous)-E.W. Jaggs, London, 9 January 1 964. French Defence.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 1lc3 Ab4 4 e5 c5 5 a3 Axc3+ 6 bxc3 cxd4 7 cxd4 1\e7 8 Ad3
0-0 9 1lf3 1lbc6 1 0 Axh7+ h8 1 1 Ad3 1\g6 1 2 1\g5 Resigns.

We have the games on file in case Tal researchers require them.

(1 000)

From the Providence Journal of 4 and 1 7 December 1 922 Richard Lappin sends
three Capablanca simultaneous games, including the following, strikingly similar
to the above Tal one:
J.R. Capablanca-F.C. Hoffman, Providence, 20 November 1 922. French
Defence.
1 d4 e6 2 e4 d5 3 1lc3 Ab4 4 Ad3 1\c6 5 1\f3 dxe4 6 Axe4 1\ge7 7 0-0 Axc3
8 bxc3 0-0 9 Axh7+ h8 10 Ad3 f6 1 1 1\e5 fxe5 12 h5+ g8 13 Ah7+ h8
and Black resigns .
(1 759)

Mrs Houlding

In an entertaining article on pages 1 69- 1 70 of the April l 973 BCM, C.J.S. Purdy
described the frustrations he had experienced in trying to discover more about Mary
Hou lding. Curiously, he appears to have overlooked that her obituary was indeed
Printed in the BCM (April l 940, page 1 29), and that a subsequent letter (June 1 940,
page 200) revealed her maiden name, Palmer, and a few more family details. (1 133)
53

We note that Mrs Houlding is to be seen in a group photograph on page 363 of


the September 1 9 1 3 BCM. She appears to be about half the size of everybody
else (hence the expression 'small Houlding' ) . Examples of her play are rare, and
the best we have found is the following game, which won the first prize for
brilliancy in the British Ladies ' Championship Tournament of 1 909. It comes
from page 450 of the October 1 909 BCM:
Miss Taylor-Mrs Houlding, Scarborough, 1 909. Queen 's Indian Defence.
1 d4 b6 2 4:\f3 Ab7 3 e3 e6 4 c4 4:\f6 5 Ae2 Ae7 6 4:\c3 0-0 7 0-0 d6 8 b3 4:\bd7
9 Ab2 4:\e8 1 0 e4 f5 1 1 e5 . b8 1 2 exd6 Axd6 1 3 d5 exd5 14 4:\xd5 4:\df6 1 5
4:\xf6+ 4:\xf6 1 6 4:\e5 E!e8 1 7 f4 Ac5+ 1 8 h 1 4:\e4 1 9 xd8 .bxd8 2 0 Af3

20 . . . 4:\g3+ 2 1 hxg3 . d6 22 4:\g4 fxg4 23 Axg4 .h6+ 24 Ah3 . xh3 mate. (I I 54)

Queen versus pawns

Since the theoretical value of the queen is commonly stated to be nine pawns,
what happens if this balance of material is applied in a game? The game hereunder
is taken from pages 1 64- 1 65 of the November 1 846 Deutsche Schachzeitung
and has an engrossing finish: there are four white knights.
General Guingret-L. Kieseritzky.

1 e5 e6 2 d5 d6 3 e4 c6 4 exd6 cxd5 5 e5 b6 6 d4 f6 7 .fid3 g6 8 .fie3 4:\c6 9 c5


Ag7 1 0 b4 Ad7 1 1 b5 bxc5 12 bxc6 Axc6 13 dxc5 fxe5 14 fxe5 Axe5 1 5 4:\d2
E! b8 16 .b1 f6 1 7 4:\e2 g7 18 0-0 g5 19 4:\b3 h5 20 .fid4 hxg4 21 fxg4 d7
22 f4 -'txd4+ 23 4:\bxd4 4:\f6 24 f5 e5 25 4:\e6 . xh2 26 4:\xg7 4:\xg4 27 f6 e4 28
f7 . bh8 29 f8(4:\)+ c8 30 d7+ b7 31 d8(4:\)+ a8 and B lack wins.

54

The Deutsche Schachzeitung adds a note on the mate-avoiding line 30 .\h7


8x h7 3 1 . f8+ b7 or d7 32 fl . allowing 33 .\gl .
The same magazine gives a number of games where White has eight pawns,
in various initial formations, for the queen : 1 849, pages 1 89- 1 90, 1 850,
(1274)
p ag es 2 1 -24 and 1 850, pages 1 53- 1 60.
Lionel Kieseritzky ( 1 806- 1 853) deserves to be remembered for more than losing
the 'Immortal Game' . The encounter below, played at unusual odds, illustrates his
ingenuity and demonstrates that, contrary to what is often supposed, such concepts
as play against a backward pawn were not unknown a century and a half ago.
L. Kieseritzky-Lecrivain, Paris, 1 842. (Remove White ' s rook at a 1 and add
extra white pawns at c4, d4 and f4.)
1 e4 e 6 2 d5 d 6 3 d 4 f6 4 dxe6 Axe6 5 f5 Ad7 6 f4 .\h6 7 h5+ .\ f7 8 .\f3 e7
9 Ad3 .\c6 10 c3 0-0-0 1 1 d5 .\b8 1 2 b4 c6 1 3 Ae3 b6 14 0-0 .\a6 1 5 .\bd2 c5
16 b5 .\c7 17 a4 .\h6 1 8 Af2 . g8 19 a5 e8 20 h4 .\xb5 2 1 cxb5 Axb5 22
c4 Ad7 23 axb6 axb6 24 .\b1 b7 25 .\c3 . a8 26 . b 1 . a3 27 Ae 1 a8 28
tl'f2 g6 29 fxg6 hxg6 30 b2 a7 3 1 .\b5 Axb5 32 xb5 . a6 33 Aa5 . xa5 34
ti'c6+ a6 35 .\d4 b7

36 b5+ . xb5 37 cxb5+ a5 38 .\c2 a4 39 Ac4 and White mates next move.

Source: Geistreiche Schachpartien by L. B achmann, pages 54-55 .

(2075)

Instructive games

There follows a selection of forgotten games which neatly exemplify various


chess themes and recurring motifs. In most cases they may be considered 'text
book' material, although text books have a tendency to repeat the same old
hackneyed games. Contrary to the impression sometimes given, Torre v Lasker,
Moscow, 1 925 is not the only existing example of the 'sea-saw combination' ;
nor has it yet been decreed that Bernstein v Capablanca, Moscow, 1 9 1 4 is
compu lsory as an illustration of the 'back-rank mate' .
a ) The knight fork

The first game, played at rook odds, is a beautiful example of a real rarity: a
55

double knight fork:


G. Reichhelm-W. Biddle, Occasion? (Remove White ' s rook at a l .)
1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 f4 Ab4+ 4 f2 Ac5 5 Ad3 d6 6 4Jf3 Ag4 7 fl 4Jc6 8 g3
4Jf6 9 e5 dxe5 1 0 fxe5 4Jxe5 1 1 e 1 e7 1 2 4Jxe5 .itd6 1 3 .it4 4Jh5+ 14 xg4
4Jxf4 1 5 xf4 AxeS 1 6 e4 f6 17 xeS xeS 18 f1xe5+ fxe5 1 9 f5 0-0-0
(Another curiosity : castling when the enemy king is up to the fifth rank.) 20
xeS h6 2 1 4Jd2 c5 22 M5 + c7 23 4Je4 he8+ 24 Ae6 b6 25 a4 c6 26 f5
f8+ 27 g6 f4 28 .it5 f8 29 g4 e8 30 4Jg3 e7 3 1 h4 f2 22 4Jh5 h2
33 4Jxg7 xh4 34 4Jh5 d5 35 xh6 e5 36 g5 h1 37 4Jf4 g7+ 38 4Jg6+
d6 39 f6 c7 40 g5 c4 41 4Je5 fl 42 g6 g1 43 4Jf7+ c5 44 4Jg5 c6+
45 4Je6+ (Cross checks are rare, but this is the second one.) 45 . . . d5 46 f7

(Black' s next move sets the scene for a remarkable knight manreuvre.)

'

46 . . . xg6 47 4Jf4+ e5 48 4Jxg6+ xf5 49 4Je7+ e5 50 4Jxc6+ d5 5 1 4Jxa7


c5 52 4Jb5 d3 53 cxd3 cxd3 54 e6 d2 5 5 4Jc3 c4 56 d6 b3 57 c6
xb2 58 4Jd1 + c2 59 4Jf2 b3 60 b5 a3 61 4Jd1 b3 62 4Je3 a3 63
4Jc4+ and wins. (White concludes, appropriately enough, with a further knight

fork.)
Source: Brentano 's Chess Monthly, April 1 882, pages 6 1 6-6 1 7 .
From Richard Forster:
'There is another interesting point at the end: 58. .. c2 is a decisive mistake;
58... b3 59 b5 a3 or 59... c2 would have drawn. '

Gustavus Reichhelm ( 1 839- 1 905) was the Games Editor of Brentano 's Chess
Monthly ( 1 88 1 - 1 882), a superbly produced magazine which closed down after
1 5 issues because the chess public was offering it only ' slender support' .
b) Mechanical development

A straightforward and effective illustration of unthinking mobilisation is the


following game, won by Geza Mar6czy during a tour of the United States:
56

G. Mar6czy-M. Morgan, Philadelphia, 1 906. Ruy Lopez.


1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 .ilb5 a6 4 .ila4 f6 5 0-0 .ile7 6 . e 1 b5 7 Ab3 0-0 8 c3 d6
9 d4 Ag4 1 0 a4

10 . . . .b8 ( 'A decisive mistake. Black was playing mechanically and making the
book moves without realising the actual change in the position, a pawn being at
c3 instead of knight' - Mar6czy.) 1 1 axb5 axb5 1 2 d5 Resigns.

Source: American Chess Bulletin, April 1 906, page 76.


c) The two bishops

Mar6czy is also the winner of the next game, which demonstrates how the bishop
pair can dominate two knights. The brief notes are by the Hungarian himself:
M. Smith-G. Mar6czy, Winnipeg, 1 906. Sicilian Defence.
1 e4 c5 2 f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 xd4 f6 5 Ad3 c6 6 f3 ( 'More natural is 6
.lle3 . ' ) 6 . . :c7 7 c3 a6 8 e2 Ae7 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 Af4 d6 1 1 g3 Ad7 1 2 c3
<\e5 13 'i:t'h1 ( 'Losing a pawn and the game. 13 .ilc2 was his best. Black is well
developed, having overcome the opening difficulties. Either 13 Axe5 or 13 xe5
by White would be inferior. ' ) 13 . . . xd3 14 'lixd3 .llb 5 1 5 c4 iixc4 16 iixc4
.llxc4 17 .fcl . ac8 1 8 . d 1 d5 1 9 d2 dxe4 20 dxe4 Ad5 2 1 c3 . fd8 22
h 3 .ll c6 23 . xd8+ . xd8 24 .d1 . xd1 + 25 xd1 d5

( ' The ensu ing ending is very instructive and well demonstrates the strength of
two bishops. ' ) 26 Ad2 f5 27 e2 e5 28 'iffg 1 'it>f7 29 e3 'i:t'e6 30 c3 f4 3 1
57

<it>fl b5 32 a3 g5 33 f3 h5 34 .\a2 .llc 5 35 .\b4 .llb7 36 .\ec2 a5 37 .ll xf4 gxf4


38 .\a2 .lld 5 39 .\c3 Ac4+ 40 <it>e l b4 41 axb4 axb4 42 .\a4 'it'd5 43 <it>d2 Afl
44 .\el .lle 3+ 45 <it>dl <it>c4 46 <it>c2 b3+ 47 <it>dl Ad4 48 <it>d2

48 . . . h4 49 Resigns.

Source: American Chess Bulletin, May 1 906, page 86.


d) The seventh rank

Now a game which, while illustrating the power of the two bishops, shows the
value of commanding the seventh rank with rooks. It is also a worthwhile reminder
that Janowsky did not always refuse queen exchanges, despite the claims of
certain chroniclers.
W.E. Napier-D. Janowsky, Hanover, 3 1 July 1 902. Ruy LOpez.
1 e4 e5 2 .\f3 .\c6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Aa4 .\f6 5 0-0 .lle7 6 .\c3 b5 7 Ab3 d6 8 d3 .\a5
9 .\e2 Ab7 10 .\g3 g6 1 1 'i\t'e2 .\xb3 12 axb3 0-0 13 Ah6 fl e8 14 .\d2 d5 1 5
f! adl 'i\t'd7 1 6 h 3 <it>h8 1 7 .\ f3 .lld6 1 8 'i\t'd2 .\g8 1 9 d4 .\xh6 2 0 'i\t'xh6 .118 2 1
'i\t'g5 exd4 2 2 .\xd4 Ag7 2 3 .\f3 'i\t'e7 2 4 exd5 'i\t'xg5 2 5 .\xg5 <it>g8 2 6 .\5e4
fl ed8 27 c4 .ll x b2 28 .\c5 .llc8 29 .\d3 Ag7 30 .\b4 .llb7 31 cxb5 axb5 32 .\e4
fl a3 33 .\c5 Ac8 34 .\c6 flf8 35 f! fe l .llf6 36 fl e4 <it>g7 37 flb4 f! e8 38 f! xb5
fl a2 39 .\d3 fl ee2 40 flc5 .ll5 41 .\cl fl ed2 42 fl fl fl ab2 43 fl c4 f! xd5 44
.\b4 f! dd2 45 fl f4 c5 46 .\c6 Ag5 47 fl c4

47 . . . .1le3 48 <it>hl f! xf2 49 f! xf2 f! xf2 50 <it>h2 Axel 51 f! xcl Ae4 52 <it>gl
f! xg2+ 53 <it>fl Axc6 54 f! xc5 Af3 55 fl c3 .lla8 56 Resigns.

58

Sourc e: tournament book, pages 66-67 .


e) Desperadoes

From a simultaneous display by the then world champion:


A. Alekhine-N.M. Boekdrukker, Bussum, 1 November 1933. Sicilian Defence.
1 e4 c5 2 00 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 xd4 f6 5 c3 c6 6 Ae2 d5 7 exd5 exd5 8 0-0
!J,.e7 9 .ile3 Q-0 10 b3 .ile6 1 1 b5 a6 1 2 5d4 .e8 1 3 c3 vt!c7 14 h3 Ad6 1 5
.lc5

15 . . . .ilxh3 1 6 xa6 Ah2 + 17 h1 .ilxg2 + 1 8 xg2 bxa6 19 xc6 . xe3 20 fxe3


i;t'g3+ 21 h1 Ag1 22 . f2 Axf2 23 vt!fl .e8 24 vt!g2 vt!xe3 25 Af3 e4 26 d4
:8e5 27 vt!h2 Ag3 28 vt!e2 f2 + 29 g2 vt!h6 30 vt!c2 and Black announced

mate in four moves.


Source: Tarrasch 's Schachzeitung, 1 December 1 933, pages 69-7 1 .
f) Active king in the endgame

Lastly, an enthralling rook ending which the anthologists and pedagogues have
neglected.
J, Mieses-B. Richter, Frankfurt, 27 July 1 887. Vienna Game.
1 e4 e5 2 c3 c6 3 g3 Ac5 4 .ilg2 f6 5 ge2 d6 6 0-0 Ag4 7 d3 d4 8 h3
M3 9 .ile3 xe2+ 10 xe2 la.xg2 1 1 xg2 la.xe3 1 2 fxe3 h5 1 3 g1 vt!e7 14
f3 g8 1 5 h4 g6 1 6 c3 0-0-0 1 7 b4 vt!e6 1 8 vt!b3 vt!xb3 1 9 axb3 h6 20
. xa7 b6 2 1 f3 'it>d7 2 2 g5 . df8 23 .a2 'it>e7 24 . af2 f6 25 f3 g5 26 e1
. t7 27 b5 . a8 28 c2 . ff8 29 b4 g4 30 h4 g8 31 d5+ d7 32 xf6+
xf6 33 . xf6 . xf6 34 . xf6 . a3 35 .f5 . xb3 36 . xh5 . b2 + 37 'it>fl .b1 + 38
e2 . b2 + 39 d1 . b 1 + 40 c2 .g1 4 1 . h7+ d8 42 h5 . xg3 43 h6 .h3 44
b3 g3 45 'it>c4 g2 46 . g7 . xh6 47 . xg2 . h3 48 . g8+ d7 49 . g7+ d8

(See diagram, top of next page.)


50 d5 . xe3 51 c6 . xd3 52 . d7+ 'it>e8 53 . xc7 d5 54 exd5 e4 55 d6 e3
56 c4 'it>f8 57 . e7 . c3 58 . e4 e2 59 . xe2 . xc4 60 e6 'it>e8 61 d6 . d4 62

59

a2 e4+ 63 'it'd5 e 1 64 'it'c6 c l + 65 'it'xb6 'it'd7 66 d2 b1 67 'it'a6 a 1 +


68 'it'b7 b1 69 b6 b3 70 d5 b2 71 'it'a7 a2+ 72 'it'b8 b2 73 b7 b3 74
'it'a7 'it'c6 75 b8(4J)+ 'it'xd5 76 d7 Resigns.

Source: tournament book, pages 25 1 -252.


Readers sometimes pass over lengthy games, but nobody should miss the above
finale. Underpromotion in a rook ending is a very rare occurrence.
(N 1 988)
An unpublished Kasparov game

H.E. Ballo offers this game:


G. Kasparov (simultaneous)-H.E. Ballo, Cologne, 29 October 1 988. Queen 's
Indian Defence.
1 d4 4Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 g3 c5 4 4Jf3 b6 5 Ag2 Ab7 6 d5 exd5 7 4Jh4 g6 8 4Jc3 .llg7
0-0 0-0 1 0 .llg 5 h6

1 1 Axf6 Axf6 1 2 4:lxg6 Axc3 1 3 bxc3 e8 14 4:lf4 4Jc6 1 5 Axd5 g5 1 6 e4


ad8 1 7 4Jd3 4Ja5 18 f4 g7 19 e5 Aa6 20 a4 d6 21 ae 1 dxe5 22 4:\xe5
e7 23 4:\ xf7 xf7 24 e8+ xe8 25 xe8+ f8 26 Axf7+ 'it'g7 27 xf8+
'it'xf8 28 Ad5 4:lxc4 29 e1 4Ja3 30 e6 .lld3 3 1 xh6 4Jb5 32 c4 4Jc3 33 'it'f2
'it'g7 34 c6 4:lxa2 35 c7+ 'it'f6 36 g4 'it'g6 37 h4 4Jb4 38 h5+ 'it'h6 39 'it'g3
4:lxd5 40 cxd5 Resigns.

The position in the diagram arose in Capablanca v Marshall, Carlsbad, 1 929,


60

which continued 1 1 4Jxd5 . The tournament book points out that List-Siimisch,
Berlin, 1 927, had proceeded 1 1 ..ll xf6 ..llxf6 1 2 4Jxg6. Analysis of this line also
appeared on pages 40-45 of Tartakower' s Das neuromantische Schach as well
as on page 54 of Alekhine' s book on the 1 927 New York tournament. It would
be interesting to learn how much of all this was known to Kasparov when he
(K 1 990)
played 1 2 4Jxg6.
Ten seconds per move

David Hooper and Dale Brandreth' s The Unknown Capablanca published two
of the Cuban ' s rapid transit games (against Meyer and Rosenthal), 'all that could
be found although Capablanca was the fastest player in the world for more than
twenty-five years' (page 1 00).
Jack O' Keefe has now discovered a third specimen, played in the finals of a ten
seconds-per-move tourney held j ust before the New York, 1 924 international
tournament. Since Capablanca finished first with 8-2, a point ahead of Schapiro
and Tenner, the game had a decisive influence on the final standings.
M.A. Schapiro-J.R. Capablanca, New York, 1 1 March 1 924. Queen 's Gambit
Declined.
1 d4 d5 2 4Jf3 4Jf6 3 c4 e6 4 4Jc3 c6 5 e3 4Jbd7 6 Ad3 b6 7 0-0 ..llb7 8 e4 dxe4
9 4Jxe4 c5 10 'i!e2 cxd4 1 1 4Jxd4 Ac5 1 2 4Jb3 0-0 13 ..llg5 Ae7 1 4 . ad 1 4Jxe4
1 5 ..ll x e7 'i!xe7 16 ..ll x e4 ..ll x e4 17 'i!xe4 4Jf6 18 'i!h4 . ac8 19 . d4 aS 20 . fd1
a4 2 1 4Jd2 e5 22 . d3 'i!b4 23 b3 axb3 24 axb3 . fd8 25 4Je4 . xd3 26 4Jxf6+
gxf6 27 Resigns.

Source: Christian Science Monitor, 1 5 June 1 924.


Jack O' Keefe comments :
'If the score is correct, Schapiro resigned when he had a simple perpetual
check by 27 'lii'g4+, and Capablanca could have won by 26.. : itJ/8 (27 fJxh7+
e8). Not easy to see at ten seconds per move. '
A crosstable of the event was published on page 52 of the March 1 924 American
Chess Bulletin. The field included Mar6czy and Tartakower.
(K 1 990)
Castling trick

A further contribution from Jack O' Keefe:


'After the Manhattan Chess Club International of 1 948-49, Euwe visited
Detroit for a few days. He stayed at the home of a friend who one evening
inv ited some local players over to meet the former world champion. Euwe

61

graciously agreed to play some casual games with us, one of which was a
charming miniature. '
M. Palmer-M. Euwe, Detroit, 1 949. Sicilian Defence.
1 e4 cS 2 ff3 a6 3 d4 cxd4 4 4)xd4 4)f6 S Ad3 eS 6 4)b3 4)c6 7 0-0 dS 8 exdS
4)xdS 9 Ae4 Ae6 10 f3 d7 1 1 t'!d1 Ag4 12 t'! xdS Axf3 13 t'! xd7 Axe4 1 4
t'! xb7

14 . . . 0-0-0 1 S Resigns.

A novel example of the familiar trick of queen' s-side castling to win a stray
rook at Kt2. Other cases can be found on pages 1 1 - 1 4 of Tim Krabbe' s book
(K 1990)
Chess Curiosities.
Robert John McCrary sends the following game featuring the same manreuvre:
R..J. McCrary-S. Wassner, Correspondence game. Albin Counter-Gambit.
1 d4 dS 2 c4 eS 3 dxeS d4 4 4)f3 4)c6 S 4)bd2 Ag4 6 h3 Ae6 7 a3 aS 8 b3 t'! a6
9 e3 AcS 10 exd4 t'! b6 1 1 d3 4)xd4 1 2 4)xd4 .ilxd4 1 3 4)f3 .ilxb2 14 xd8+
xd8 1 S Axb2 t'! xb2 16 0-0-0+ Resigns.

Proposals for a name for this castling trick would be welcome - something graphic
(K 1993)
rather than jokey.
We have now found a much earlier specimen:
G.H. Thornton-Boultbee, 1 884 (?). King 's Gambit Declined.
1 e4 eS 2 f4 AcS 3 4)f3 d6 4 d4 exd4 S 4)xd4 4)f6 6 4)c3 0-0 7 .ile3 e7 8 .ild3
t'! e8 9 a3 4)g4 1 0 Ag1 fS 1 1 Ae2 fxe4 1 2 4)dS f7 1 3 Ac4 Ae6 14 4)xe6 t'! xe6
1 S xg4 c6 1 6 xe6 xe6 1 7 4)e7+ 'M8 1 8 Axe6 xe7 1 9 Ac8 4)d7 20 Axb7
b8 21 .ilxc6 xb2

(See diagram, top of next page.)


22 Axd7 xd7 23 AxeS dxcS 24 0-0-0+ Resigns.

62

Source: Brooklyn Chess Chronicle, November 1 884, page 3 1 .


Jeremy Gaige' s Chess Personalia lists George Howard Thornton (born in
Watertown, NY on 28 April l 85 1 , died in Buffalo, NY on 30 January 1 920). Unless
an earlier game can be found, 'Thornton castling trap' might be an appropriate
(K 1994)
term.
Below is another game position which confutes Tim Krabbe' s belief (see Chess
Curiosities, page 1 1 ) that this attractive castling combination was unknown until
Selesniev' s 1 92 1 study.

P. Krii ger-Stein, Hamburg, May 1 908.


Play went: l . . . xb2 2 dxe5 dxe5 3 a8+ dB 4 xd8+ xd8 5 0-Q-0+ and wins.
Source: Deutsches Wochenschach, 2 May 1 909, page 1 5 3 . *

(K 1 996)

King hunt
W . C. Spencer-N.N., Fort Snelling (USA), 1 884 (?). Four Knights ' Game.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 f6 3 c3 c6 4 Ac4 xe4 5 Axf7+ xf7 6 xe4 d5 7 fg5+
g6 8 f3 dxe4 9 f7+ 'it>xg5 1 0 d3+ 'it>h4 1 1 g3+ 'it>h3 12 h5+ g2 13 Ag5
e8

(See di agram, top of next page.)


*This queen ' s-side castling ruse was subsequently discussed by Robert Timmer in Chapter 3 o f his
book Startling Castling!

63

Source: Brooklyn Chess Chronicle, November 1 884, page 3 1 .

(K 1994)

Capablanca's games

At the Central Cafe in Vienna on 2 December 1 9 14, Richard Reti won a miniature
against Dunkelblum ( 'of Cracow' ) :
R . Reti-Dunkelblum, Vienna, 2 December 1 9 14. Three Knights ' Game.
1 e4 e5 2 <tlf3 <tlc6 3 <tlc3 Ac5 4 <tlxe5 <tlxe5 5 d4 Axd4 6 xd4 f6 7 <lb5 d8
8 c5 Resigns.

The game was published on page 1 53 of the July-August 1 9 1 5 issue of the Wiener
Schachzeitung and has become an anthology piece. White' s seventh and eighth
moves were awarded two and three exclamation marks respectively, and the
conclusion is certainly a neat example of the double threat (to c7 and f8). Yet
remarkably, the identical moves had been played before, and although the earlier
game had been won by none other than Capablanca, it was promptly forgotten.
The occasion was a simultaneous display in Washington on 6 January 1 909.
Missing the main threat, the young Cuban ' s opponent, E.B . Adams, played
8 . . . <Jc6, which was naturally answered by 9 f8 mate.
The Capablanca score has been published in The Games ofJose Raul Capablanca
by Rogelio Caparr6s, a compilation of 58 1 'official' games (i.e. from tournaments
and matches) and 6 1 9 games from exhibitions, simultaneous displays, etc .
Unfortunately, the book contains many careless errors . For example, in
Capablanca' s famous victory over Corzo in 1 90 1 ( 1 1 th match game), the final
move was 60 c5, and not 60 c6 (which is stalemate). Curiously, the same
mistake is to be found on the New in Chess diskette of Capablanca' s games.
Caparr6s will even indicate the wrong player as the victor (e.g. Game 5 1 5 of the
informal section) . Games 289 and 292 are identical. Game 5 2 1 is headed 'J.R.C.
v Amateur, Unknown 1 93 1 ', yet is one of the Cuban's most celebrated tournament
victories (against Mattison, Carlsbad, 1 929). The book has many typos (though
64

few in the scores themselves), and the approach to quoting such information as
sources ( ' local papers and chess magazines ' ) is casual in the extreme. *
Whereas the 'official' games section adds little, i f anything, to the Weltgeschichte
des Schachs volume on the Cuban published in 1 963, the 'informal' part contains
games that will be new to almost every chess enthusiast. An example is the
following:
J.R. Capablanca-Randolph, New York, June 1 9 1 2. Three Knights ' Game.
1 e4 e5 2 <tlf3 <tlc6 3 <tlc3 Ac5 4 <t\xe5 Axf2 + 5 xf2 <t\xe5 6 d4 <tlg6 7 Ac4 d6
8 t=l fl Ae6 9 Axe6 fxe6 1 0 'it>g1 <tlf6 1 1 Ag5 0-0 1 2 d3 d7 1 3 Axf6 t=l xf6 1 4
t=! xf6 gxf6 1 5 t=l fl t=lf8 1 6 b5 c6 1 7 b3 d 5 1 8 exd5 cxd5 1 9 .tle2 g7 20 c3
e5 2 1 <tlg3 <tle7 22 <tlh5 + 'it>g6 23 c2+ e4 24 e2 f5 25 g4 h6 26 gxf5+ t=l xf5
27 g4+ t=lg5 28 t=l f6+ h7 29 t=lf7+ h8 30 f8+ .tlg8

31 xg5 hxg5 32 t=l xg8+ Resigns.

(1 1 992)

'How not to play for Black'

The following unknown Capablanca victory was played in New York four days
before the start of his match with Marshall and was presumably a practice game.
Our source is the Cuban's own score sheet, which includes the following comment
to an unidentified correspondent: 'I send you this game which I played the other
day so that (barring the ending) you may know how not to play for B lack. To
make up for the game, I played Jaffe the following day and he never had a . . .
[rest o f text missing] ' .
L.R. Eisenberg-J.R. Capablanca, New York, 1 5 April 1 909. Two Knights '
Defence.

1 e4 e5 2 <tlf3 .tlc6 3 Ac4 <tlf6 4 <tlg5 d5 5 exd5 <tla5 6 Ab5+ c6 7 dxc6 bxc6 8
.lle 2 h6 9 <tlf3 e4 1 0 .tle5 d4 1 1 f4 Ac5 1 2 fl Ab6 1 3 c3 d6 1 4 b4 <tlb7 1 5
a4 Ad7 1 6 <tla3 0-0 1 7 .tlac4 c7 1 8 <t\xd7 <t\xd7 1 9 c2 t=! fe8 2 0 a4 a5 2 1
b1 t=l ad8 2 2 b3 Aa7 23 Aa3 axb4 2 4 cxb4 c 5 2 5 b 5 <tla5 2 6 <t\xa5 xa5 27
.llb2 <tlb6 28 c3 xc3 29 Axc3 <tlxa4 30 Ae5 Ab8 31 b6 t=! e6 32 Ac7 t=l f8 33
.ll d 1 Axc7 34 bxc7 t=l b6 35 t=l a 1 <tlb2 36 Ag4 t=! c6 37 c8() t=l fxc8 38 Axc8
xc8 39 e2 t=l d8 40 g3 h7 41 f5 <tlc4 42 t=la2 t=l d5 43 g4 <tle5 44 t=l f4 <tld3 45
*Three years later, in 1 994, a 'revised 2nd edition ' was published by Chess Digest. It was only
marginally better.

65

fl e5 46 a4 c4 47 h3 f3 48 xc4 xd2+ 49 e3 h2 50 dl g5 5 1
d8 xh3+ 5 2 e2 h2+ 5 3 e3 h3+ 5 4 d2 g6 55 f6 e3+ 5 6 e2 e6 57
d7 g5 58 xf7+ g6 59 e7 xf6 60 xe6+ xe6 61 e4+ d5 62 xe3
(K 1 992)
xe3+ 63 xe3 e5 64 Resigns.

Brilliancy

Antonio Rico ( 1 908- 1 988) has recently been the subject of a short but interesting
monograph by Pablo Moran, published by the Federaci6n Asturiana de Ajedrez.
A strong player, Rico won the Gij6n tournament of 1 945 a point and a half
ahead of Alekhine and Medina. The game that follows, played ten years later, is
subtitled 'the most beautiful attacking game' :
A. Rico-F. Ballbe, Gij6n, 8 August 1 955. King 's Indian Defence.
1 e4 d6 2 c4 g6 3 d4 Ag7 4 c3 f6 5 h3 0-0 6 Ae3 bd7 7 f3 e5 8 dxe5
xe5 9 Ae2 e8 1 0 'i\i'd2 Ae6 1 1 xe5 dxe5 1 2 0-0-0 d7 1 3 g4 c6 14 h4 a6
15 h5 b5 1 6 hxg6 fxg6 1 7 'i'!i'e 1 'i\i'a5 18 '1\i'fl b4 1 9 b1 f6 20 'i'!i'g2 'i\i'xa2 21 g5
Axc4 22 gxf6 Axe2

23 xh7 i*c4+ 24 c3 bxc3 25 xg7+ f8 26 Ac5+ 'i'!i'xc5 27 g8+ W 28


'i\i'xg6+ e6 29 f7+ Resigns.
(K 1 993)

Father and son

This game was won by A.K. Rubinstein' s son, Sammy, in the first championship
for French-speaking Belgian players:
Gilles-S. Rubinstein, Brussels, 1 980. * Ruy LOpez.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 Ab5 d6 4 0-0 Ad7 5 e 1 ge7 6 d4 g6 7 Axc6 Axc6 8
bd2 Ae7 9 c4 0-0 1 0 'i'!i'd3 f5 1 1 i*b3 h8 1 2 exf5 xf5 1 3 e3 xf3 1 4
gxf3 h4 1 5 d5 'i\i'd7 16 fl 'i'!i'h3+ 1 7 e2 x f3 1 8 'i'!i'xf3 Ab5+ 1 9 e3
Ag5 + 20 e4 i*h4+ 21 M4 c6 22 c7 f8 23 e6 Axf4 24 i*g2 Ad2+ 25 f4
xf4+ 26 Resigns.
*The venue and date were supplied in C.N. 1 96 1 by Karl De Smet, who obtained the informati on
direct from Sammy Rubinstein.

66

Source: Chess Horizons, December/January 1 980/ 1 98 1 , page 24. (1940 & 1961 )
Reti's knights

'Reti had an extraordinary gift for using his knights to create weaknesses in
open positions' , wrote Roberto Grau in La Nacion of 26 October 1 930. By way
of example, he printed the following forgotten game, in which over half of White's
moves are made by the knights:
R. Reti-L. Belgrano Rawson, Buenos Aires, 6 September 1 924. Caro-Kann
Defence.
1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 c3 dxe4 4 xe4 f6 5 g3 eS 6 00 exd4 7 xd4 'l!i"xd4 8
4)xd4 .Q.c5 9 Ae3 5 10 e4 xe3 1 1 xc5 xfl 12 xfl b6 13 e4 0-0 14

0-0-0 c5 15 b5 a6 16 ed6 Ae6 17 f4 g6 18 h3 h5 19 f2 g7 20 fS gxf5


21 xfS+ g6 22 bd6 adS 23 e7+ g7 24 g4 hxg4 25 hxg4 c7 26 fd2

27 6 a8 28 fl + g7 29 M+ g6 30 5+ gS 31 d6 f6 32 e4+
h6 33 xf6 g7 34 gS d5 35 h2 h8 36 4:ili5+ g8 37 th1 Resigns.

The annotations by Grau call 8 ... .Q.c5 a slight error and criticise 9 ... 5 as a
routine move. White ' s 1 0 -tle4 is described as 'a formidable manceuvre to
eliminate the bishop, which is watching over d6' . However, a different view on
this line was expressed by Alekhine in his book on New York, 1 927. In the 1 4th
round, Alekhine v Capablanca had the same opening. To the Cuban' s 8 . . . Ac5,
Alekhine replied 9 M and wrote, 'Naturally not 9 Ae3 immediately, because
of 9 . . .g4 or 9 . . . 5. etc . '
Grau did not specify the venue o r date o f the Reti game. W e imagine that i t was
one of his two wins against the tail-ender in the 1 924 Argentine Championship,
a tournament which Reti won, playing hors concours. Page 2 1 3 of the December
1924 American Chess Bulletin gave the final standings, but no games. (1 962)
Jan Kalendovsky confirms our suggestion that the Reti v Belgrano Rawson game
occurred in the Buenos Aires tournament of 1 924. It was played in round three,
on 6 September 1 924. The score was published on pages 424-426 of El Ajedrez
Argentino, 1 926.
Mr Kalendovsky is the author of Richard Reti - 5achovj myslitel.

(2007)

Pawns only

A rarity in master praxis is the immediate pawn storm, whereby a player refrains
from moving pieces in the opening. Examples are given on pages 14- 1 6 of Wonders
and Curiosities of Chess by Irving Chernev. A 'new' specimen may be found on
Page 84 of Alekhine in Europe and Asia by John Donaldson, Nikolay Minev and
67

Yasser Seirawan, an excellent book. All Alekhine' s pawns moved before any
piece was touched.
A. Alekhine (simultaneous)-E.D.G. Fralun, Jakarta, 1 March 1 933. Sicilian Defence.
1 e4 c5 2 b4 cxb4 3 a3 e6 4 axb4 Axb4 5 c3 Ae7 6 d4 d5 7 e5 .<\c6 8 f4 f5 9 g4
.<\h6 10 g5 .<\f7 1 1 h4 "?tic7 1 2 .<\a3 Axa3 1 3 Axa3 .<\a5 14 Ab4 .<\c4 1 5 Axc4
"?tixc4 16 .<\e2 Ad7 17 h5 Ab5 18 'ifilf2 "?tixe2+ 19 "?tixe2 Axe2 20 'iftxe2 'ifild7 2 1
Ei hb1 g6 22 El h 1 a 6 2 3 Ac5 gxh5 2 4 El xh5 El ag8 25 Ei b 1 'ifilc8 2 6 Ae7 h6 27
M6 Ei h7 28 Eib6 .<\d8 29 Axd8 'ifilxd8 30 Ei xe6 Ei c7 3 1 gxh6 Ei xc3 32 h7 El h8
33 Ei g6 Ei c l (sic - or 33 . . . El c8, etc.?*) 34 Ei g7 b5 35 Ei xf5 Resigns.
(1 969)
Snap mate

'A remarkably pretty ending ' , wrote The Chess Amateur (December 1 907 ,
page 82) when it published the following brevity :
Coldweli-F.J. Marshall, Occasion? Giuoco Piano.
1 e4 e5 2 .<\f3 .<\c6 3 Ac4 Ac5 4 0-0 d6 5 c3 Ag4 6 d3 h6 7 Ae3 Ab6 8 .<\bd2
.<\f6 9 "?tic2 Axf3 10 .<\xf3 .<\g4 1 1 Ei ae1 .<\e7 1 2 h3 <lf6 13 "?tib3 0-0 14 Axb6
axb6 1 5 d4 .<\g6 16 "?tic2 "?tie7 17 g3 "?tid7 18 'ifilg2 "?tic6 19 e2 "?tid7 20 El d 1
.<\h5 2 1 .<\xe5 .<\gf4+ 22 gxf4 .<\xf4+ 23 'ifilf3

23 . . . xh3+ 24 'iftxf4 g5 mate.

(1981 )

Pillsbury games

A selection of simultaneous games by Pillsbury which are absent from the


standard monographs on him:
H.N. Pillsbury-C.F. Bliss, Chicago, 3 1 December 1 898. French Defence.
1 d4 e6 2 e4 d5 3 .<\c3 .<\c6 4 .<\f3 Ab4 5 Ad3 .<\ge7 6 0-0 f5 7 exf5 .<\xf5 8 Axf5
exf5 9 Ag5 Ae7 1 0 Ei e 1 0-0 1 1 M4 M6 1 2 .<\b5 Ei f7 1 3 c3 a6 1 4 .<la3 .<\e7 1 5
.<\g5 Axg5 1 6 Axg5 "?tid6 17 "?tie2 .<\g6 1 8 h4 Ad7 1 9 h 5 .<\f4 2 0 "?tif3 .<\e6 2 1
J.l.d2 f4 22 Ei e 5 c6 2 3 Eiae1 Ei af8 2 4 h 6 g6 25 .<\c2 Ei f5 2 6 "?tid3 .<\g5 2 7 f3 .<\f7
28 Ei e7 .<\xh6 29 c4 Ei 5f7 30 Ab4 f6 31 Ei 7e5 M5
*The subsequent SkinnerNerhoeven book on Alekhine (page 448) did indeed give 33 . . . E! c8.

68

32 .ilxf8 l:txd3 33 .ilxh6 '/i;Yxe5 34 xe5 d7 35 <tle1 and wins.

U.N. Pillsbury-L.F. George, Chicago, 3 January 1 899. Vienna Gambit.


1 e4 e5 2 <tlc3 <tlf6 3 f4 <tlc6 4 fxe5 <tlxe5 5 d4 <tlc6 6 e5 <tlg8 7 <tlf3 Ab4 8 Ad3
<tlge7 9 0-0 d6 10 exd6 .ilxd6 1 1 <tle4 0-0 1 2 <tlxd6 '/i;Yxd6 13 c3 M5 14 <tlg5
<t\xd4 1 5 M4 'ii;Yg6 16 Ac4 <tlc2 17 cl 'li;Yb6+ 18 'itJh1 '/i;Yxb2 19 Ab3 ad8 20
e2 <tld5 21 xc2 Axc2 22 l:txc2 g6 23 Ae5 <tlxc3 24 '/i;Yh5 Resigns.
D.T. Phillips-H.N. Pillsbury, Chicago, 7 January 1 899. King 's Pawn Opening.
1 e4 e5 2 <tlf3 <tlc6 3 <tlxe5 (One of the names of this line is the Chicago Gambit.)
<tlxe5 4 d4 <tlc6 5 d5 <tlb8 6 Ad3 d6 7 0-0 <tld7 8 c4 J1e7 9 <tlc3 <tle5 1 0 .ile2 f5
1 1 f4 <tlf7 1 2 Ad3 fxe4 1 3 <tlxe4 Af5 14 'itJh1 .ilxe4 1 5 Axe4 <tlf6 1 6 M3 0-0 17
g4 <tld7 1 8 .ile3 b6 1 9 l:te4 <tlc5 20 l:tc2 a5 2 1 f3 <tlh8 22 h3 g6 23 g5 '/i;Yd7
24 h4 f5 25 'ii;Yg4 af8 26 '/i;Yh3 Ad8 27 a3 8f7 28 b4 <tlb7 29 i:td2 '/i;Ye8 30
l:!e1 e7 31 xe7 '/i;Yxe7 32 -'txf5 gxf5 33 '/i;Yxf5 <tlg6 34 h6 <tlf8 35 'ii;Yd3 '?fff7
36 f5 Ae7 37 g6 hxg6 38 fxg6 'it!g7 39 'it!f5 <tld8 40 h3 Af6 4 1 Ah6 'it!e7 42
l:!e3 Ae5 43 Ag5 'it!e8 44 .Q.xd8 <tlxg6 45 .ilxc7 Resigns.
H.N. Pillsbury (blindfo1d)-T.B. Lyman, Washington, 8 February 1 899. King 's
Gambit Accepted.
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 <tlf3 g5 4 h4 g4 5 <tlg5 d5 6 exd5 <tlf6 7 <tlc3 Ag7 8 d4 <tlh5
9 Ac4 <tlg3 10 .ilxf4 'it!e7+ 1 1 'itJd2 <tlxh1 1 2 d6 cxd6 13 .ilxf7+ 'itJd8 14 <tld5
<tlf2 15 'it!fl <tle4+ 16 'itJcl 'it!f8 17 <tlxe4 Ah6 18 Ag5+ Axg5 + 19 hxg5 'itJd7 20
f6 'itJc6 21 <tle7+ 'itJb6 22 '/i;Yxd6+ <tlc6 23 <tld5+ 'itJa5 24 'it!c7+ 'itJb5 25 a4+
'it>c4 26 c3 i:te6 27 b3+ 'itJd3 28 <tlc5+ 'itJe2 29 <tlxe6 Resigns.

69

Source: American Chess Magazine, February and March 1 899, pages 342, 343,
345 and 390.
The same journal (August 1 899, page 75) quoted from the Washington Post
Pillsbury ' s explanation of his success in playing chess, checkers [draughts] and
whist simultaneously :
'I don ' t mind smoking interfering with my play. Some folks say it takes the
sharp edge from one ' s intellect, and spoils one ' s memory. I haven' t found it
so. I ' ve smoked since I was fourteen, and I can play better when I have a
cigar in my mouth - only a cigar, never anything else. When I play a lot of
games at the same time, I must be keyed up to it, as it were. I practise what
you call self-hypnotism. It is largely will-power. You see, it' s just this way.
When it becomes my tum to make a move at one of the chess boards, my
mental powers are concentrated severely on the one move. All the other
chess boards, the checkers and whist are obliterated from my mind. It is as
though I had never started playing those games at all. I seem to remember
nothing of them. I come to a decision, the move is made, and I tum again to
the cards in my hand. Quick as lightning the game of chess vanishes from
my mind. Now it is nothing but whist with me. I seem never to have had a
thought of anything but the game of cards. I play one. Then I move one of
the checkers. These transitions of mind take place so quickly that I seem to
be playing chess, checkers and whist all at once, and to be thinking of all the
games at once. But it is as I explained. The only thing I really need for the
ordeal is my cigar. '
A game of draughts won by Pillsbury is given on page 1 76 of Irving Chemev' s
(1 985)
The Compleat Draughts Player (Oxford, 1 98 1 ).
Too late for inclusion in C.N 1 985 it dawned upon us that Pillsbury missed a
mate in three at move 25 of his game against Lyman (25 <tldc3+ '<t>a6 26 -'tc4+
b5 27 .ilxb5 mate). Now Salomon Levy has pointed out to us that, a move later,
26 <tld2+ would also mate faster, although he does not mention the quickest line,
namely 26 <tld2+ '<t>xd4 27 f4+ '<t>c5 28 <tlb3 mate.
Colin Crouch has kindly confirmed these mates at our request, and adds:
' 27 c2, instead of 27 b3+, is another attractive forced mate. White is
threatening 28 .fJe3 mate, and if 27. Axd5 28 b3 mate or 27. xd5 28
.fJ/6+ c4 29 b3 mate.
..

. .

28 'IJ'g3+, instead of 28.fJc5+, is the last forced mate: 28. xe4 29 '/i}e3+
xd5 (or 29 f5 30 'IJ'f4 mate) 30 'IJ'xe6 mate.
..

. . .

Some of the mating positions are quite intricate, indeed almost problem70

like, but one feels sure that Pillsbury would have found them easily enough
in a normal tournament game, so while Pillsbury 's blindfold exploits are
remarkable, there is still some loss of clarity of thought in playing in such a
way.
(2009)
A Rubinstein victory

The scores of little-known games by the masters are always appreciated. Jan
Kalendovsky sends the following:
A.K. Rubinstein-Kupczinski, Warsaw, 1 9 1 4 . Four Knights ' Game.
1 e4 e5 2 <tlf3 <tlc6 3 <tlc3 <tlf6 4 Ab5 <tld4 5 <tlxd4 exd4 6 e5 dxc3 7 exf6 xf6
8 bxc3 c6 9 e2+ 'it>d8 1 0 .ila4 .ilc5 1 1 d4 .ilxd4 1 2 cxd4 xd4 1 3 0-0 xa4 14
Ei e l b4 1 5 .b1 f8 1 6 Af4 f6 1 7 d2 b6 1 8 Ad6 f7 1 9 f4 Aa6 20 . bd1
xa2 2 1 f5 Ac8 22 . e7 a5

23 Ac5 d6 24 . xd6+ <it>xe7 25 . d7+ Resigns.

Source: Moskovskiye vedomosti, 2 November 1 9 1 4 - or 15 November 1 9 1 4 in


(1 986)
the Gregorian calendar.
A forgotten Chigorin game

M. Chigorin-Gratchevsky, St Petersburg, 1 875. (Remove White ' s queen' s


knight.)

1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 <tlf3 g5 4 Ac4 g4 5 0-0 gxf3 6 xf3 e7 7 d4 <tlc6 8 Axf4


<tlxd4 9 c3 c5 10 'it>hl b6 1 1 Axf7+ 'it>d8 1 2 Ae3 Ac5 1 3 . ad 1 <tlf6 1 4
Ei x d4 . f8 1 5 . xf6 Axd4 16 Ag5 .ilxf6 17 xf6+ xf6 1 8 .ilxf6 mate.

Source: page 1 7 of La Revista de Ajedrez (Havana), 22 January 1 889, which


(2000)
described it as 'a previously unpublished game' .
Alekhine blindfold games

To ni Preziuso has carried out extensive research into Alekhine' s simultaneous


di splays in Switzerland. The following blindfold game (ten-board exhibition)
71

was described by Alekhine as 'the most interesting of the seance' :


A. Alekhine-W. Grigorieff, Geneva, 1 October 1 925 . Queen 's Gambit Declined.
1 d4 dS 2 e4 e6 3 e3 <\f6 4 <\e3 e6 S <lf3 <\bd7 6 ..lld 3 dxe4 7 ..ll x e4 bS 8 Ad3
a6 9 0-0 Ab7 10 e4 eS 1 1 eS <\dS 1 2 <\gS <\xe3 1 3 bxe3 Ae7 14 <\e4 El e8 1 S
g4 <\xeS 1 6 xg7 <\g6 1 7 <\xeS ..llf8 1 8 <\xb7 e7 1 9 <\d6+ xd6 2 0 f6
Ae7 2 1 f3 <\h4 22 h3 El g8 23 ..lle4 fS 24 ..llf3 E! xe3 2S ..lle 3 f4 26 E! ac l
E! xe1 27 Axe l xd4 28 Ae6+ f7 29 E! e 1 d6 3 0 ..llf3 eS 3 1 ..1lb2 ..llf6 32 Eld1
<\xf3+ 33 xf3 e6 34 b7+ e8 3S Ele1 ..1ld8 36 e4 El gS 37 h4 ElhS 38 E! e6
d7 39 f3 fS 40 El e6+ f7 41 E! d6 b1 + 42 El d 1 fS 43 dS+ Resigns.

This score is absent from that shoddy book The Games of Alekhine by Rogelio
Caparr6s and Peter Lahde. So too is the following one, from the same blindfold
session:
A. Alekhine-H. Lommer, Geneva, 1 October 1 925 . Queen 's Gambit Declined.
1 d4 dS 2 e4 e6 3 <\e3 <\f6 4 exdS exdS S A4 <\e6 6 e3 e6 7 <\f3 Ae7 8 Ad3
..lld7 9 h3 . e8 1 0 0-0 0-0 1 1 <\eS <\xeS 1 2 dxeS <\e8 1 3 b3 b6 1 4 E! ad1 ..lle S
1S <\e2 e7 1 6 <\d4 <\e7 1 7 e2 h6 1 8 e2 fS 1 9 exf6 xf6 20 Ag3 eS 21
<\b3 El fe8 22 e4 Ae6 23 <\xeS bxeS 24 f4 e4 2S fxeS exd3 26 E! xd3 e7 27 El e3
Ab7 28 hS dxe4 29 Ah4 d7 30 El g3 El e6 31 A6 <\e8 32 xh6 El e7 33
..ll xg7 <\xg7

34 E! xg7+ xg7 3S xe6+ Elf7 36 E! f6 f8 37 El g6+ h7 38 E! g4 h8 39


El h4+ El h7 40 E! xh7+ xh7 41 d7+ g7 42 e6 e3 43 d3 + h8 44 d8+
h7 4S d3+ Drawn.

In the position of the di agram, both players missed the mate in three
beginning with 34 El f8 + , a line subsequently pointed out by a reader of the
Tribune de Geneve. The source of thi s material is a privately-prepared
booklet by Mr Preziuso, entitled A ljechins Besuche in der Schweiz 1 92 1 (K 1 993- 94)
1 934 .
The Alekhine v Lommer game would seem to be the one referred to by Bruce
Hayden on page 14 of Cabbage Heads and Chess Kings:
72

' . . . back in 1 925, the 2 1 -year-old composer [i.e. Lommer, who in fact was
not quite 2 1 ] was picked to face Alekhine in one of his exhibition games at
Geneva.
He shook that great master and the onlookers with a variation which left
him with a won game. He shook the onlookers much more later by letting
His Greatness get away with a draw. '
Does the play justify this description?

(K 1 995)

A spectacular draw

A part from the surprising combinational phase, the game below is notable for a
rare sortie by the white queen at move six:
M. Euwe-E. Straat, VAS Winter Tourney, Amsterdam, 1 922-23 . Queen 's
Gambit Declined.
1 c4 4Jf6 2 d4 e6 3 4Jc3 d5 4 Ag5 Ae7 5 e3 0-0 6 "iii"f3 4Jbd7 7 cxd5 exd5 8 Ad3
c6 9 0-0-0 b5 10 h4 b4 1 1 4Jce2 "iii"a 5 1 2 b1 Aa6 1 3 Ac2 fc8 1 4 Axf6 4:1xf6
15 g4 c5! 1 6 dxc5 xc5! 1 7 4:1d4 "iii"c7 18 g5 4:1e4! 1 9 g6! Af6! 20 gxf7+ "ii! x f7 2 1
4Jge2 ac8 22 Ab3 Ac4 23 h 5 a 5 2 4 4:\cl Aa6! 25 4Jd3 Axd3+ 2 6 xd3 "iii"c 7!
27 a4! bxa3 28 "ii! x e4 c l + 29 a2 axb2 30 xb2

30 . . . "ii!c 2+!! 31 a3 "ii! x b3+! 32 4:\xb3 dxe4 33 xcl xc l 34 4:1xc1 exd3 35


-tlxd3 Drawn.

The exclamation marks are as awarded by Euwe, who annotated the game on
p ages 1 27 - 1 2 8 of the May 1 9 2 3 Tijdschrift van den Nede rlandschen
Schaakbond.
(2024)
Two queens against one

A. Nelson-A. Freundlich, Handicap Tourney, New York, 1 9 1 8- 1 9. (Odds of


P awn and two moves; remove Black' s f-pawn.)

1 e4 . . . 2 d4 c5 3 4Jf3 cxd4 4 4:1xd4 4Jc6 5 Ae3 .lf6 6 .ld2 "iii"a 5 7 c3 e6 8 Ae2


e7 9 0-0 0-0 10 f4 a6 1 1 e5 -tld5 12 .lc4 "iii"c7 1 3 f5 b5 14 fxe6 bxc4 1 5 xf8+

73

Axf8 1 6 xc4 <tlxe3 17 e7+ <tlxc4 18 e8() <tl6xe5 19 <tlf5 Ab7

20 eh5 b6+ 21 <it>h1 xb2 22 he2 xc3 23 !!cl h3 24 !! xc4 xf5 25


. h4 !! c8 26 . h5 f4 27 b2 <tlg4 28 db 1 Ae4 29 e1 !! c2 30 b3+ d5 3 1

Resigns.
Source: BCM, May 1 9 1 9, page 1 70.
An endgame featuring two queens against one is Reti v Rubinstein, Marienbad,
1 925. Queens were exchanged at move 1 6, but three promotions on moves 5 254 led to this position:

Play continued: 54 . . . e3 5 5 a4 e2 56 d4+ <it>fl 57 d3 <it>f2 58 d2 b 1 + 59


<it>c7 c5 60 b3 xb3 6 1 cxb3 <it>fl 62 d3 <it>f2 63 c2 <it>fl 64 c4 <it>f2 65
xeS+ <it>fl 66 c4 <it>f2 67 d4+ <t>f1 68 d3 f2 69 d2 <it>fl 70 d3 <it>f2 71
d4+ <it>fl 72 c4 <it>f2 73 c5 + <it>fl 74 c4 <it>f2 75 d4+ <it>fl 76 d3 <it>f2 77
d2 <it>fl 78 e3 Ag2 Drawn.
(2025)

Quick Keres loss

From Jan Kalendovsky comes the next game, played in a blitz tournament
following the conclusion of the Olympiad:
B. Kostic-P. Keres, Stockholm, 1 937. Two Knights ' Defence.
1 e4 e5 2 <tlf3 <tlc6 3 d4 exd4 4 .llc4 <tlf6 5 0-0 d5 6 exd5 <tlxd5 7 <tlg5 .lle 7 8
<tlxf7 <it>xf7 9 h5 + g6 1 0 xd5 + <it>g7 1 1 Ah6+ <it>f6 1 2 g5 mate.

Source: Sa chovj tyden, 1 937, page 1 1 9.


74

(2036)

Tal' s neglected game

In C.N. 238 W.D. Rubinstein pointed out that the game below, taken from pages
1 1 3- 1 1 4 of The Chess Sacrifice by V. Vukovic, did not appear to have been
published in any Tal monograph. We appealed for further details, without success.
M. Tal-A. Koblentz, 'Training Game ' , Riga, 1 96 1 . Sicilian Defence.
1 e4 c5 2 <\f3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 <\xd4 <\f6 5 <\c3 a6 6 .llg5 e6 7 f4 .!J.e7 8 f3 c7
9 0-0-0 <\bd7 1 0 .ile2 h6 1 1 Ah4 b5 1 2 e5 .!J.b7

13 exf6 Axf3 14 Axf3 d5 1 5 <\xe6 fxe6 1 6 Ah5+ g6 1 7 .llx g6+ 'ifi>f8 18 fxe7+
g7 19 .ilg3 .\f6 20 l=!he1 b4 21 l=! xe6 bxc3 22 f5 b7 23 b3 d7 24 .lle 5
"ii1' x e6 25 fxe6 'iti>xg6 26 f! fl .\h7 27 .llx h8 f! xh8 28 l=! f8 l=! xf8 29 exf8() 4:\xf8
30 e7 'ifi>f7 31 exf8()+ 'iti>xf8 32 'ifi>d1 and 'White won in a few moves ' .

In his book on the former world champion, Talj Sa hovski Umjetnik I Borac,
Koblentz gave examples of his games against Tal, but not the remarkable one
published here.
(2046)
A Blackburne brilliancy

A favourite Blackbume brilliancy from pages 1 82- 1 83 of Mr Blackbume 's Games


at Chess by P. Anderson Graham:
J.H. Blackburne (simultaneous)-N.N., Manchester. Steinitz Gambit.
1 e4 e5 2 .\c3 .\c6 3 f4 exf4 4 d4 d5 5 .!d.xf4 dxe4 6 d5 f6 7 d2 .\ce7 8 d6
<tlg6 9 <\d5 xb2 1 0 4:\xc7+ 'ifi>d8 1 1 l=! d 1 l=! b8 1 2 d7 .llb4 1 3 <\e6+ fxe6 1 4
Ac7+ 'ifi>xc7 1 5 d8()+ 'ifi>c6 1 6 d6+ Axd6 1 7 xd6 mate.

No date is given, but the book' s chronological order suggests 1 894 or 1 895 . In fact,
the score had already been published much earlier in a number of sources, such as
pages 44-45 of the 1 5 December 1 886 issue of the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle and
pages 1 7 1 - 1 72 of the Columbia Chess Chronicle of 2 June 1 888; Blackbume' s
opponent was identified a s H. Stelling, and the occasion indicated a s a 22-board
simultaneous exhibition in Manchester. Moreover, the conclusion was given as the
less spectacular 14 . . . 'ifi>e7 1 5 d8()+ Resigns; the finish published in the Blackbume
book is in the Columbia Chess Chronicle' s notes.
(2047)
75

Staircase manreuvre

Chess manuals quote few examples of the staircase manceuvre from actual play.
An example is the following, taken from pages 7-8 of the January 1 929 American
Chess Bulletin :
E. Tholfsen-H. Bigelow, Marshall Chess Club Championship, New York,
1 2 January 1 929. Ruy Lopez.
1 e4 e5 2 l\f3 l\c6 3 .llb 5 d6 4 d4 .lld7 5 4Jc3 4Jf6 6 0-0 .lle 7 7 e1 exd4 8
l\xd4 4Jxd4 9 i*xd4 .llx b5 1 0 4Jxb5 a6 1 1 4Jc3 0-0 1 2 Ag5 4Jd7 1 3 .ll x e7 i*xe7
14 . ad1 4Jf6 1 5 e5 fe8 1 6 f4 4Jg4 1 7 4Jd5 "i*d8 1 8 h3 4Jh6 1 9 "i*c3 c6 20 4Je3
d5 21 g4 f6 22 "i*b3 fxe5 23 4Jxd5 cxd5 24 xd5 "i*h4 25 xe5+ f8

26 "i*b4+ f7 27 i*c4+ f8 28 "i*c5+ f7 29 "i*d5 + f8 30 "i*d6+ e7 3 1


(2050)
i*xe7+ Resigns.

Steven Wagner sends the following game, taken from page 1 1 of the 3/1 964
issue of Schach-Echo:
I. Polgar-J. Trapl, Budva, 1 963. Queen 's Gambit Declined.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 4Jc3 c5 4 cxd5 cxd4 5 i*xd4 4Jc6 6 "i*dl exd5 7 e3 4Jf6 8 .lle 2
Ab4 9 .ild2 0-0 1 0 00 e8 1 1 0-0 .llg4 1 2 "i*b3 d4 1 3 4Jb1 Ad6 14 "i*xb7 c8 1 5
c l c7 1 6 "i*b5 dxe3 1 7 fxe3 .llxf3 18 .ll xf3 4Jd4 1 9 i*fl . xcl 2 0 "i*xcl 4Jxf3+
21 gxf3 "i*b8 22 f4 .llxf4 23 exf4 "i*b6+ 24 h1 "i*b7+ 25 g1 e2 26 "i*fl

26 . . . i*b6+ 27 h1 i*c6+ 28 g1 "i*c5 + 29 h1 "i*d5+ 30 g1 "i*d4+ 3 1 h1


"i*e4+ and Black won. The magazine gives the line 32 g1 4Jg4 33 1lc3 "i*d4 + .

76

Zoltan Blazsik informs us that White in this game, played in the World Students '
Team Championship, was Istvan Polgar. He is not known to be related to his
(2065)
celebrated namesakes.
Resisting a Marshall onslaught
F.J. Marshall-N.T. Whitaker, Manhattan Chess Club, New York, 1 9 1 1 . King 's
Gambit Accepted.
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 4Jf3 g5 4 c4 g7 5 d4 d6 6 d3 4Jc6 7 h4 h6 8 hxg5 hxg5 9
xh8 xh8 10 e5 'ifilf8 1 1 h7 Ag7 1 2 h5 e7 1 3 4:lxg5 4:lxd4 14 4Ja3 d5 1 5
xd5 xe5+ 1 6 'ifilf1 4Jh6 1 7 .Q.d2 1ti5 1 8 .Q.b4+ 'ifilg8 1 9 Axf7+ 'ifilh8 2 0 e 1 6
21 Ae7 b6 22 4Jc4 a6 23 'ifilg1 -'tg4 24 h2 4Jf5 25 xf4 4Jxe7 26 xe7 6
27 4Je5 f8 28 g3 M5 29 b4 xc2 30 e6 d8 3 1 4Je4 d4+ 32 'iftf1 Ad3+ 33
.lxd3 xd3+ 34 'ifilg2 4Jxf7 35 h4+ 'ifilg8 36 g6 4Je5 37 xg7+ 'iftxg7 38 e7+
f7 39 xe5+ 'ifilf8 40 h8+ 'ifile7 41 e5+ 'ifild8 42 h8+ 'ifile7 Drawn.

Source: American Chess Bulletin, July 1 9 1 1 , page 1 65 .


At the time, Whitaker (who was born o n 9 April l 890 and died o n 2 0 May 1 975)
was a student at the University of Pennsylvania.
(2062)
Discovered mate

A game from page 1 57 of the 1 5 July 1 887 issue of the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle:
N.N.-van Foreest, Amsterdam, Date? King 's Gambit Accepted.
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 4Jf3 g5 4 h4 g4 5 4Je5 4Jf6 6 Ac4 d5 7 exd5 Ag7 8 d4 4Jh5
9 c3 0-0 1 0 0-0 xh4 1 1 Axf4 g3 1 2 Axg3 4:lxg3 1 3 4Jf3 hl + 1 4 'ifilf2 4Je4+ 1 5
e3 xg2 1 6 e2 h6+ 1 7 'ifild3

1 7 . . .Af5 18 xg2+ 4Jg3 mate.

It is unclear whether Black was Arnold E. van Foreest ( 1 863- 1 954) or Dirk van
Foreest ( 1 862- 1 956). Lodewijk Prins, the author of Een Hulde aan Jhr. Dr Dirk
van Foreest, tells us:
77

'In their early twenties they were renowned for spending days and nights
playing chess within their circle offriends. Dirk was a paragon of solidity,
whereas Arnold cultivated the coffee-house style. /feel that A rnold probably
played the game in question, but how the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle got
(2070)
hold of it puzzles me.
'

Rubinstein

Akiba Rubinstein: Uncrowned King by John Donaldson and Nikolay Minev is


the first of a two-volume work and covers the period 1 882 to 1 920, presenting
474 games, many with both contemporary and modem notes. * Players and
historians will appreciate the authors' practice of examining opening variations
in the light of modem knowledge. For instance, a game on page 27 begins 1 e4
e5 2 d4 exd4 3 c3 '(!fe7 4 cxd4 '(!fxe4+ 5 Ae3 Ab4+ 6 <lc3 d5 . B lack' s sixth
move is given an exclamation mark and described as 'a major improvement
over the example shown in ECO' (6 . . . .lf6) .

The book is not without occasional slips, but no previous writers have revealed
so much about Rubinstein' s obscure early years. Below is a game played in the
event discussed in C.N. 200 1 (see pages 3 1 7-3 1 8 below) :
A.K. Rubinstein-D. Daniuszewski, L6dz, 1 7 December 1 907. French Defence.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 <lc3 <lf6 4 exd5 exd5 5 Ag5 c6 6 Ad3 Ad6 7 <lge2 0-0 8
'l*d2 Ag4 9 0- 0 <lbd7 1 0 <lg3 '(!fc7 1 1 h3 Axg3 1 2 fxg3 Ah5 1 3 'l*f4 '(!fb6 14
<la4 '(!fa5 .ilxf6 <lxf6 1 6 <lc5 b6

17 '(!fh4 Ag6 1 8 . xf6 gxf6 1 9 <ld7 .fd8 20 <lxf6+ g7 2 1 Axg6 hxg6 22 '(!fh7 +
(2076)
f8 23 .fl 'ifi'd2 24 '(!fh8+ e7 25 <lg8+ e8 26 .lh6+ Resigns.

Knight mate

The following skirmish has a rare finish: White' s one and only move with his
king ' s knight gives mate. A diagram is provided for those wishing to spare
themselves the earlier play.
*The same authors rounded off Rubinstei n ' s career in a second volume, published the following
year, i.e. 1 995 .

78

D. Cowan-T. Catano, Mexico City, 1 886. King 's Pawn Opening.


1 e4 f5 2 exf5 .\f6 3 Jte2 e5 ( G . S . S preckley v A . Mongredien, Liverpo o l ,
1 1 Ju ne 1 845 began 1 e 4 f5 2 exf5 .\f6 3 e2 h5 4 .\h3 d 5 5 .\f4 1txf5 6 .\xh5
.)xh5 7 ltxh5+ g6 8 1tg4. When the score was printed in the BCM, June 1 888,

pages 294-295, the annotator, W. Wayte, wrote, 'Mr Mongredien is, so far as
we are aware, the only player who has tried the Gambit a move behind. A game
or two of his at this opening occur in the C. P. C. [Chess Player 's Chronicle] . ' He
lo st the game in 37 moves.) 4 lth5+ rtle7 5 d3 d6 6 'li1"f3 d7 7 'li1"xb7 c6 8

b3 Jtd5 9 c4 xg2 1 0 Jtf3 Jtxh1 1 1 1txh1 e4 1 2 dxe4 .\bd7 1 3 e5 .\xe5 1 4


e3 g5 1 5 fxg6 hxg6 1 6 f4 .\g4 1 7 'li1"e4 c6 1 8 fxe5 'li1"a5 + 1 9 d2 'li1"xe5 20
.>lg 5+ rtlf7 21 'li1"xe5 .\xe5 22 h4 g7 23 .\c3 ac8 24 0-0-0 .\xc4 25 fl +
e6 26 1tg2 c7 27 1th3+ rtle5

28 .\f3 mate.

Source: Brooklyn Chess Chronicle, 1 5 November 1 886, page 28.

(K 1 995)

Golz- 'Sch', Graudenz, 1 875(? ) . Benoni Defence.


1 e4 e6 2 d4 c5 3 d5 d6 4 .\c3 exd5 5 'li1"xd5 .\f6 6 1tb5+ rtle7 7 Jtg5 e6 8 f4
.il.xd5 9 .\xd5+ rtie6 1 0 ltxf6 gxf6 1 1 f5 + rtle5 1 2 d3 'li1"a5+ 1 3 c3 c4

14 .\f3 mate.

Source: Deutsche Schachzeitung, August 1 875, page 240.


Here is a third specimen, this time featuring the queen' s knight:

79

(K 1 995)

F. Lazard-N.N. , Paris, 1 903. King 's Gambit Accepted.


1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 .f:lf3 g5 4 -'tc4 Ag7 5 d4 g4 6 -'txf4 gxf3 7 0-0 fxg2 8 i:txf7+
xf7. White announced mate in six by 9 h5+ e7 10 .Q.d6+ xd6 1 1 c5+
e6 12 d5+ e5 13 d6+ xe4

1 4 .f:ld2 mate.

Source: Wiener Schachzeitung, January 1 904, page 27 .

(K 1 996)

J. Krejcik-L. Deutsch, Olmiitz, December 1 904. King 's Gambit Accepted.


1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 .f:lf3 .lle7 4 .llc4 .Q.h4+ 5 g3 fxg3 6 0-0 gxh2 + 7 h 1 -'tg3 8
.llx f7+ xf7 9 .f:le5+ e6 1 0 g4+ d6 1 1 .f:lc4+ c5 1 2 d4+ xc4 1 3 e2+
xd4 14 d3 + c5 15 -'te3+ b4 16 a3+ a5 1 7 b4+ a4

18 .f:lc3 mate.

Source: Wiener Schachzeitung, March-April 1 908, pages 1 06- 1 07 .

( K 1 998)

Mirror image

The following offhand game features a neat trap at move 2 1 and a finish which
is a mirror image of Morphy ' s famous opera brevity against the Duke and Count:
A.B. Hodges-Daniels, Nashville, December 1 886. Vienna Gambit.
1 e4 e5 2 .f:lc3 .f:lf6 3 f4 .f:lc6 4 fxe5 .f:lxe5 5 d4 .f:lg6 6 e5 .f:lg8 7 Ac4 .f:lxe5 8 -'tb3
.f:lg6 9 .f:lf3 .f:lf6 1 0 0-0 d6 1 1 .f:lg5 d5 1 2 e2+ Ae7 1 3 . xf6 gxf6 1 4 .f:lxd5 fxg5

80

1 5 .itxg5 Ae6 1 6 xe7 xe7 1 7 d5 f6 18 Axf6 .f8 19 xe6 d6 20 Aa4+


d8 21 . e 1 . xf6 22 g8+ xg8 23 . e8 mate.

Source: Brooklyn Chess Chronicle, 1 5 April l 887, page 1 09.

(2088)

A quick Botvinnik loss

It is odd to think of Botvinnik losing a 1 9-move Evans Gambit, but such a game
has been published.
I.A . Kan-M.M. Botvinnik, U S S R Championship (semi-final section) ,
Odessa, 1 2 September 1 929. Evans Gambit Declined.
1 e4 e 5 2 f3 c6 3 Ac4 Ac5 4 b4 .itb6 5 a4 a6 6 c3 f6 7 d5 xe4 8
0-0 0-0 9 d3 f6 1 0 Ag5 d6 1 1 d2 Ag4 1 2 Axf6 c8 1 3 xb6 cxb6 1 4 f3
Ae6 1 5Ah4 xb4 1 6 Ae7 c5+ 1 7 <;t>h1 . fe8 1 8 e4 c6 1 9 Axd6 Resigns.

Source: Ajedrez, January 1 930, page 1 2.

(2094)

Alekhine v Vidmar Junior

Black in the game below was Dr Milan Vidmar' s son, then aged nearly 2 1 .
A. Alekhine (simultaneous)-M. Vidmar Junior, Ljubljana, 1 1 December 1 930.
Queen 's Gambit Declined.
1 d4 f6 2 f3 d5 3 c4 e6 4 c3 bd7 5 Ag5 ./j,e7 6 a3 0-0 7 e3 c6 8 Ad3 dxc4
9 Axc4 b5 1 0 Aa2 a6 1 1 e4 c5 1 2 e5 e8 1 3 Axe7 xe7 1 4 d5 exd5 15 xd5
d8 16 0-0 c7 17 xc7 xc7 18 e6 fxe6 19 Axe6+ <;t>h8 20 g5 f6 21 f3
Ab7 22 h3 h6 23 f4 e4 24 ./j,f5 . xf5 25 xf5 hxg5 26 fxg5 c4 27 'it'h 1 c5
28 h3+ <;t>g8 29 g6 g5 30 g4 e4 and Black resigned.

Source: Magyar Sakkvilag, February 1 93 1 , page 70.

(2099)

Consultation win

Consultation games often lack sparkle, but the next game is a definite exception.
P. Ware and F.K. Young-J.H. Zukertort, Boston, 17 January 1 884. Evans
Gambit Accepted.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 Ac4 Ac5 4 b4 Axb4 5 c3 Aa5 6 d4 exd4 7 0-0 dxc3 8 b3
f6 9 e5 g6 1 0 xc3 ge7 1 1 Aa3 0-0 1 2 . ad1 b5 13 .ild3 g4 1 4 h3 e6
1 5 Axh7+ <;t>h8 1 6 d5 b4 1 7 g5 xd5 18 xe6 fxe6 1 9 Ab1 bxa3 20 d3
( 'The allies had intended to play 20 c2, and. upon Black' s replying . . . .f5,
whi ch is forced, 2 1 . xd5, winning easily. One of them, however, nervously
called out d3 . ' - C.E. Ranken. * ) 20 . . . . f5 21 g4 xeS 22 e4 f3+ 23 <;t>h 1
* A different version was given by Young on page 440 of The Grand Tactics of Chess. He referred
to 'the miscalling, by the teller, of White's twentieth move'.

81

llg5 24 g2 !'! f3 25 E! xd5 exd5 26 !'!dl E! xh3+ 27 gl ilf3+ 28 fl Aa6+ 29


Ad3 1lh2+ (29 . . . 1ld2+! - Ranken.) 30 gl E! xd3 3 1 E! xd3 Axd3

32 xd5 ( 'Black must have overlooked this move, by which, curiously enough,
every one of his pieces is attacked, and he must lose two of them. ' - C. E. Ranken.)
32 . . . !'! f8 33 xh2 !'! xf2+ 34 g3 Ab6 35 xd3 !'! xa2 36 xd7 !'! f2 37 e8+
h7 38 h5 + g8 39 g5 f8 40 g6 a2 41 h8+ e7 42 xg7+ d6 43 c3
e6 44 h8 E! f6 45 g7 E! g6+ 46 h3 d7 47 h7 E! h6+ 48 xh6 a l () 49
d2+ e7 50 g8() h l + 51 h2 f3+ 52 hg3 h l + 53 g4 dl + 54
g5 cl + 55 h5 dl + 56 8g4 Resigns. ( 'The whole game is one of the

most interesting that we ever played over. ' - C.E. Ranken.)


Source: BCM, July 1 884, pages 275-276.

(21 1 5)

Analytical disaccord

One of the most complex games ever played was Capablanca v Bogoljubow,
Moscow, 1 925 . It has been dissected not only by both players but also by such
luminaries as Lasker, Alekhine, Euwe, Spielmann and Tartakower. Many of
their comments reflect profound disagreement, as will be seen in the compendium
presented below. It was prepared in two stages. After assembling the masters'
assessments, we submitted a draft to Richard Forster, whose detailed comments
were then incorporated at numerous places.
The occasion itself was tense. The game was played in the 1 9th of 21 rounds, at
which time the leading positions were: 1 Bogoljubow, 1 42 points; 2 Lasker,
1 2Y2 points; 3 Capablanca, 1 1 Y2 points; 4-6, Marshall, Reti and Torre, 1 02 points.
Capablanca (and Reti) had the handicap of a bye in one of the last three rounds.
The Cuban world champion had lost two games to lesser lights (Ilyin-Genevsky
and Verlinsky).
J.R. Capablanca-E. Bogoljubow, Moscow, 5 December 1 925 . Queen 's Gambit
Accepted.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 f3 dxc4

Capablanca, in his annotations on pages 34-35 of the January 1 926 issue of Kagans
82

Neueste Schachnachrichten: 'Probably with the intention of simplifying the game,


in consideration of how White handled this variation in previous games during this
tournament. However, in the present case White had to play for a win in order to
come third, and therefore wished to simplify the game only if compelled to. '

Alekhine annotated the game o n page 1 2 o f the January 1 926 Revue suisse
d'echecs. His notes were dated 'London, 30 December 1 925 ' , although that was
the day he played Colle in the Hastings tournament. Of Black' s third move he
wrote: ' It is better to accept the gambit on the second move or the fourth (after
3 . . . <lf6 4 <lc3, for example: 4 . . . dxc4 5 e4 Ab4!). Now White obtains a clear
advantage by advancing his e-pawn two squares. '
[Forster: 'Alekhine' s opinion about the right moment to take o n c 4 has been
considered correct up until modem times, but doubts have recently arisen. The
position after 3 . . . dxc4 has been reached in several top-class games: for example,
Xu Jun v Ivanchuk, Lucerne, 1 993 (0- 1 , 62) * ; Yusupov v Ivanchuk, Riga, 1 995
{Yz-2, 3 1 ) ; Kramnik v Ivanchuk, Dortmund, 1 995 ( 1 -0, 50); Lobron v Lautier,
Dortmund, 1 995 ( 1 -0, 44) ; Kramnik v Ehlvest, Novgorod, 1 995 (0- 1 , 30). But
in none of them was the theoretical recommendation 4 e4 played. Instead 4
"i!Ya4+ or 4 e3 was preferred. ' ]
4 e4

Bogoljubow (in the tournament book) : 'The books recommend 4 e3, but Black
then has far fewer difficulties. '
4 c5
..

Capablanca: '4 . . .<lf6 instead of the text move deserved consideration.' Unless
otherwise stated, all Capablanca quotations in the present article come from A
Primer of Chess (London, 1 935).
Alekhine: ' If 4 ... <lf6 then 5 Ag5 h6 6 Axf6 "i!Yxf6 7 Axc4 with advantage. '
[Forster: 'The revival of the variation was based not on 4 . . . <lf6, which was never
thoroughly analysed because after the Capablanca v Bogoljubow game Black
refrained from 3 . . . dxc4, but on the crude 4 . . . b5. An example is Khalifman v
Ivanchuk, Tilburg, 1 994, which B lack won. ' ]
5 .Q.xc4

Tartakower (on page 85 of Kagans Neueste Schachnachrichten, 1 926, Sonderheft


No. 1 ) : 'The fact that White achieves little by the vehement thrust 5 d5 exd5 6
ex d5 <lf6 7 xc4 .Q.d6 8 0-0 0-0 was shown by the game Capablanca v Zubarev
in the 1 7th round, even though the novelty 9 Ag5 ! (instead of 9 <lc3 a6 10 a4
* See pages 1 8- 1 9 above.

83

h6!) 9 . . . Ag4 1 0 <tlc3 <\bd7 1 1 <\e4 c7 ( 1 1 . . .Ae5 ! is better) 1 2 Axf6 <t\xf6 1 3


<\xf6+ gxf6 1 4 h 3 Ah5 1 5 l==i e 1 etc. disorganised Black' s king ' s side.'

5 cxd4
.

Lasker (whose analysis of the game in De Telegraaf of 20 December 1 925 was


reproduced on pages 285-286 of the December 1 925 issue of Tijdschrift van den
Nederlandschen Schaakbond) : ' If 5 . . . <\c6 then 6 d5 would be to White' s
advantage. '
6 4:) xd4 4:)f6

Tartakower: 'If 6 . . . e5, 7 <\b5 with advantage. '


Deutsche Schachbliitter January 1 926, pages 1 0- 1 1 : ' 6 . . . e 5 with the aim o f an
exchange of queens would be too naive because of 7 b3 . ' [Forster: '7 b3
xd4 8 Axf7+ d8 9 0-0, with a large advantage. ' ]

I n Partidas Clasicas de Capablanca (Buenos Aires, 1 943) Gideon Stahlberg


and P. Alles Monasterio wrote : ' Against Spielmann at the 1 929 Carlsbad
tournament Griinfeld played 6 . . . b6, but after 7 <tlc3 Ad7 8 0-0 <\c6 9 <tlf3 c7
10 e2 Ad6 1 1 l==i d1 <\ge7 1 2 Ae3 <\e5 1 3 <\xe5 White obtained much the
better position. ' Griinfeld' s actual move was 6 . . . a6.
[Forster: ' If Black has this position nowadays he prefers 6 . . . a6. An example is
Douven v Fischer Nielsen, Groningen, 1 990: 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 e4 c5 4 <tlf3 e6
5 Axc4 cxd4 6 <\xd4 a6 7 0-0 <\f6 8 Ag5 Ae7 9 e5 <\fd7 10 Af4 b5? 1 1 Axe6!

(The thematic sacrifice.) 1 l . . .fxe6 1 2 <\xe6 b6 1 3 <\xg7+ f7 1 4 <\f5 <\f8 1 5


<\xe7 xe7 1 6 <tlc3 Ab7 1 7 <\d5+ Axd5 1 8 xd5 c6 1 9 Ag5+ e8 2 0 d8+
f7 21 e7+ g6 22 ad1 Resigns. ' ]

7 4:)c3

7 Jic5
...

Bogoljubow: 'This move has been censured by many critics, but unfortunately
Black had nothing better. For instance, after 7 . . . Ae7 there would follow 8 e5
84

.ld5 9 g4! with the better position. After 7 . . . e5 8 .ldb5 xd1 + 9 'ii>xd1 .la6
1 0 -'te3 ! .lg4 1 1 -'l.xa7! El xa7 1 2 .\xa7 .\xf2 + 1 3 'ii>e2 .\xh1 14 .\xc8 -'tc5 1 5
E( xh 1 0-0 1 6 -'l.xa6 bxa6 1 7 .la4 White i s a piece ahead. ' Vassily Panov' s book

on Capablanca (Moscow, 1 959) repeated Bogoljubow' s analysis without giving


credit.
Fred Reinfeld ' s The Immortal Games of Capablanca adds to Bogoljubow ' s
variation: ' Note that i f 1 5 . . . 'ii>d7 1 6 -'l.xa6 bxa6 1 7 .la4 El xc8 1 8 Eld1 + 'ii>e6 (if
the bishop interposes, 19 .lb6+ wins) 19 Elcl 'ii>d6 20 b4 wins . '
Golombek, i n Capablanca ' s Hundred Best Games of Chess (London, 1 947):
'The text move is not altogether satisfactory . . . nor can the more modest 7 . . . J:J.e7
be recommended, since White gets much the better game by 8 e5 .lfd7 9 e2
0-0 10 0-0 a6 1 1 Eld1 c7 12 Af4 b5 13 -'td3 -'l.b7 14 El ac1 , and the violent
7 . . . e5 8 .ldb5 xd1 + 9 'ii>xd1 .la6 10 -'te3 b6 1 1 f3 leaves White ahead in
development. Safest is therefore 7 . . . .lbd7, preventing the disorganising thrust, e5 . '
Tartakower: '7 . . . -'l.b4 would b e bad: 8 a4+ .lc6 9 .\xc6 Axc3+ 1 0 bxc3 bxc6
1 1 xc6+ -'td7 1 2 b7 El b8 1 3 xa7 .\xe4 14 -'ta3, etc. and White has
supremacy. [Forster: 'Tartakower' s last move is not very convincing because of
14 . . . El a8 1 5 d4 El xa3 16 xe4 El xc3, but 14 0-0 or 14 e3 keeps a big
advantage. ' ] However, 7 . . ..lbd7 already now was to be considered. ' Annotating
the game on pages 1 05- 1 08 of Schachmethodik (Berlin, 1 929), the source of all
future Tartakower quotes in this article, he wrote: 'Peaceful development by
7 . . . -'l.e7 would also be admissible, since the combination 8 e5 .lfd7 9 -'txe6
would be incorrect because of the reply 9 . . . .lxe5 ! ' [Forster: ' Here Tartakower
exaggerates. 9 . . . .lxe5 is indeed the best move, because 9 . . .fxe6 10 .\xe6 b6
1 1 .ld5 ! loses, but after 9 . . . .\xe5 1 0 Axc8 xc8 1 1 0-0 White still has the
advantage. ' ]
Euwe and Prins, i n Het Schaakphenomeen Jose Raoul Capablanca y Graupera:
'7 . . . a6 was probably also good, in order to play an eventual . . . b5 and to answer
8 a4 by 8 . . . Ab4 (a move not possible immediately because of 8 a4+). The
game might continue: 7 . . . a6 8 e5 .ld5 9 .J:J.xd5 exd5 10 0-0 .lc6, and Black' s
position is by no means hopeless, although it must for the time being be handled
with great care.'

Capablanca: 'As a result of the system of development adopted by Black, White


has gained a move. White has already developed both his knights and his bishops
while Black has developed only one knight and one bishop. In a fairly open
position like this, such a thing generally leads to loss of some sort. Black is
already hard pressed to find a satisfactory move. If 8 . . . 0-0 9 e5 .ld5 10 -'l.xd5
ex d5 1 1 0-0 with a decided advantage to White . '
B ogo ljubow: ' In this position I was able t o find, after very long thought, no
85

satisfactory defence. After 8 . . . .1lxd4 9 .llx d4 0-0 (or 9 . . . .lc6) 10 .llc S White
retains the advantage. If 8 . . . .lc6, White replies 9 <tlxc6. Finally, after 8 . . . 0-0 9
0-0 (not 9 <tlxe6) 9 . . . .lbd7 10 e2 <tleS 1 1 fd1 ! White has a won game . ) '
[Forster: ' 8 . . . 0 - 0 w a s n o t that bad, a s Euwe/Pri n s demonstrate . After
8 . . . .ll x d4 9 .ll x d4 the critical variation is 9 . . . .lc6 10 AcS aS!? 1 1 .lla 3!
<tlxe4 12 c l ! , and White has very good compensation for the pawn. ' ]
Euwe and Prins: 'This threatens to win a pawn by 9 <tlxe6 .ll x e6 1 0 .llb S+,
followed by 11 .ll x cS or 9 <tlxe6 xd1 + 1 0 xd1 .llx e6 1 1 .llb S+, etc . '
8 4)bd7
...

Capablanca: 'Black wanted to prevent eS. He could not play 8 . . . eS because of 9


<tldbS . ' In Kagans Neueste Schachnachrichten the Cuban wrote: '8 . . . 0-0 was to
be considered. The text move gives White the possibility of a positional sacrifice
which offers excellent winning chances. '
Lasker: 'This continuation i s too risky. With 8 . . . 0-0 Black ' s game would still be
defendable.'
Alekhine: 'A serious mistake. The only move was 8 . . . 0-0, after which Black
would still have been able to put up a fight against White ' s superior position,
since White would have no direct threats. '
Bogoljubow (who gives 8 . . . .lbd7 a n exclamation mark) : 'Black provokes the
bishop sacrifice, hoping at least to obtain good tactical chances. '
Tartakower: 'Or 8 . . . .1lxd4 9 .ll x d4 <tlc6 1 0 .llc S xd1 + 1 1 xd 1 , etc., with
advantage to White. Perhaps relatively best is 8 . . . e7 . '
Euwe and Prins: 'Correct and, i n my opinion satisfactory, would be 8 . . . 0-o. Without
doubt White still stands better after 9 eS <tlfd7 (if 9 . . . .IdS then 10 <tlxe6 { Stahlberg
and Alles Monasterio, as well as Panov, give ' 1 0 .llx dS exdS 1 1 0-0 with a clear
advantage' . } ) [Forster: 'Euwe and Prins erred here. Capablanca's 10 .llx dS exdS
1 1 0-0 secures White an advantage, while after 10 <tlxe6 .llxe6 1 1 AxeS (neither 1 1
<tlxdS .llx e3 1 2 <tlxe3 aS+ 1 3 d2 xeS nor 1 1 .llx dS .ll x e3 1 2 fxe3 b6 gives
any advantage) 1 1 . . .<tlxc3 12 xd8 xd8 13 Axe6 <tla4 14 .lle7 e8 1S Ab3
Black has a pleasant choice between 1 S . . . xe7 with the initiative or 1S . . . <tlxb2 16
.lld6 <tld3+ 1 7 fl <tlxeS with a healthy extra pawn. ' ] 10 f4 <tlb6 [Forster: 'Here I
prefer Golombek' s suggestion of 10 . . . b6 because after 1 1 d2 <tlc6!? 1 2 <tla4
.llb4! 13 <tlxb6 .llx d2+ Black has a good game through either 14 Axd2 <tlxb6 1 S
<tlxc6 <tlxc4 or 14 xd2 <tlxb6 1 S .lld3 <tlb4! ' ] 1 1 .llb3 .llxd4 1 2 Axd4 <tlc6 1 3
.llc S, but Black's position i s certainly not a s bad a s i n the game. The reason for
which Bogoljubow dispensed with 8 . . . o-o, i.e. White's reply 9 0-0, is not valid:
8 . . . 0-0 9 0-0 a6 10 a4 e5, etc., or 8 . . . 0-0 9 0-0 a6 10 eS <tlfd7 1 1 f4 bS, and in both
86

cases Black has a satisfactory game.'


Panov: ' 8 ... 4Jc6? was not possible owing to 9 4Jxc6 xd1 + 1 0 xd1 and if
1 0 . . . .ilxe3?? then 1 1 d8 mate . '

9 .1}.xe6

This type of sacrifice was to occur in two other Capablanca games (v Havasi at
Budapest, 1 928 and v Mieses at Margate, 1 935). By coincidence it had been
seen earlier in 1 925 , at the Debrecen Haupttumier. That game, between B .
Honlinger and M . Kol6sz, began 1 d4 4Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 4Jf3 d5 4 4Jc3 4Jbd7 5 e3
J1e7 6 J1d3 a6 7 0-0 dxc4 8 Axc4 b5 9 Ab3 c5 10 e4 cxd4 1 1 4Jxd4 Ab7 1 2
Axe6 and White w o n 1 5 o r 1 6 moves later. ( S ourc e : O sterreichische

Schachrundschau, 1 2 November 1 925 , pages 234-23 5 , and page 1 8 2 of


Tartakower' s Das Entfesselte Schach (Kecskemet, 1 926) .) The latter book
contains the remark ' such a piece sacrifice seldom occurs in the opening stage' .

Bogoljubow: ' In this game, Capablanca felt morally obliged to play for a win
and he therefore made this move immediately. Whether this sacrifice should
have led to a win is extremely difficult to determine. '
Alekhine: ' Absolutely correct, since for the piece he obtains at least two pawns,
as well as a very violent attack. '
9 fxe6 10 xe6 aS
...

Capablanca: 'The alternative was 10 . . . b6. White might then have played 1 1
4Jxc5 4Jxc5 1 2 0-0 and Black would have extreme difficulty to guard against
White ' s many threats. For instance: 12 . . . c6 1 3 l=! c l 4Jcxe4 14 4Jxe4 xe4 1 5
l=! e 1 f7 1 6 l=! c7+ g6 1 7 .ild4 f4 1 8 l=! ee7 d8 1 9 l=! xg7+ h6 2 0 l=! xh7+
4Jxh7 21 l=! xh7+ xh7 22 h5+ g8 23 g6+ f8 24 Ac5+ and wins . '
Regarding this line, Euwe and Prins state that Capablanca 'prudently omits to
make known' how White would win after 18 . . . l=!g8 (instead of 18 . . . l=! d8). [Forster:
'Indeed there seems to be no way for White to conclude his attack. ' ] Their book
suggests that after 10 . . . b6 'the strongest continuation for White is 1 1 4Jxc5
87

<tlxeS 1 2 .!"k1 (with the threat of AxeS) 1 2 . . . 0-0 1 3 <tldS <tlxdS 14 xdS+ Ae6
1 S xeS xb2 1 6 0-0 xa2 1 7 Ad4 f7 1 8 a 1 e4 19 xa7. ' 1 6 . . . Axa2
(instead of 16 . . . xa2) would lose by ' 1 7 Ad4 b3 18 Axg7+ rtixg7 1 9 gS +
rtih8 20 eS+ rtig8 2 1 e3 e6 22 g3+ <!i t7 23 g7+ <!ie8 24 hS+ rtid8 2 S
d1 +, etc . ' The book also gives analysis to show that White would win in case
of moves other than 1 2 . . . 0-0 (i.e. 1 2 . . . Ae6, 12 . . .Ad7 and 1 2 . . . b8). [Forster:
'Euwe and Prins do not mention the active reply 12 . . . Ag4!? 1 3 f3 0 3 e2 aS!)
13 . . . d8, after which 14 <tldS <tlxdS 1S exdS OS AxeS aS +) 1S .. .'b4+ 1 6
<!ifl <tle4!? 1 7 fxg4 0-0+ is bad for White. The right way i s 1 4 e2 Ae6 1 S 0-0!
( 1 S <tldS <tlxdS 16 exdS aS + 17 Ad2 xa2 1 8 xeS xdS, with an equal
ending), with the serious threats 16 <tla4 and 16 <tldS . Since after 1 S . . . aS 1 6
b4! xb4 1 7 <tldS ! White has a clear advantage, Black still has huge problems. ' *]

In Capablanca' s line, Golombek puts forward: ' 1 S AeS dS 16 e 1 + <!it7 1 7


e7+ rtig6 1 8 .ild4 .ile6 (not 1 8 . . . e8 1 9 .ilxf6) [Forster: 'Here 1 9 xg7+ instead
of 19 Axf6 wins immediately. ' ] 19 1 e7 hg8 20 d3 + . ' His inaccurate
numbering of the moves has been corrected here. [Forster: 'After 20 .. .'l1tfS 2 1
g3+ rtihS! i t i s not easy for White to break through, owing to his back-rank
weakness and the threat of . . . <tldS . But if White omits 19 ee7 hg8 and instead
plays at once 19 d3+! fS 20 g3+ rtihS, he wins by 2 1 xg7, irresistibly
threatening 22 h3 and 23 Ae3 . Black' s best defence therefore is 18 . . . d8, hoping
for 19 d3 + fS 20 g3 + g4!, but White has the nasty 20 e3 !, threatening
to launch a strong attack after 2 1 h3! Now Black must react very carefully to
avoid succumbing immediately. His best line may be 20 . . . .ile6!, and after 2 1
xe6 xd4! , 2 1 ee7 xd4! , 2 1 Ae3!? e8, or 2 1 h 3 d7! h e just seems to
survive. ' ]
Lasker: ' 1 0 . . . b6 1 1 <tlxeS <tlxeS 1 2 0-0, threatening 1 3 <tla4 and eS.'
Bogoljubow: ' It was not easy to foresee that White ' s attack on the f-file would
be conclusive. Subsequently it was established that B lack could have equalised
with 10 . . . b6! For example, 1 1 <tlxeS (White is obliged to exchange this
troublesome knight) 1 1 . . .<tlxeS 12 0-0 e6! Here White has four continuations
at his disposal :
a) 1 3 c l <tlexe4 14 <tlxe4 xe4 1 S AeS dS , and White ' s attack can hardly
break through.
b) 13 <tldS <tlxdS (another line that comes into consideration is 13 . . . <Je6 1 4 c l
d7, etc., recommended b y Lasker) 1 4 exdS d6 1 S AxeS xeS 1 6 hS + rtif8
(or perhaps 1 6 . . . rtid8) 1 7 acl d6 1 8 e3 h6, and the outcome is unclear.
[Forster: ' Line b) is not convincing at all. After Lasker' s 1 3 . . . <Je6 1 4 c l d7
White still obtains quite a dangerous attack with 1 S <tlxf6+ gxf6 16 hS + . There
*Euwe/Prins examine I6 . . . '/;ll x a2 and I6 . . . .1txa2, but on page 1 20 of his 1 996 book Twenty-five
Annotated Games Robert Hiibner offered an important improvement: I6 . . . b6. He analysed five
lines, in none of which White could obtain any significant advantage.

88

is a strong improvement over Bogoljubow ' s variation with 1 5 d4!, followed


by 16 xg7, and Black has serious problems. It is surprising that neither annotator
considers the simple 1 3 . . . 4Jcxe4!, which wins rather easily ( 1 4 4Jxf6+ 4Jxf6 1 5
t'i c 1 d5 !). ' ]
c ) 1 3 e5? 4Jfd7! 1 4 4Jd5 b6! , and B lack obtains a counter-attack.
d) 1 3 AxeS xc5 14 e5 4Jg4 1 5 4Jd5 (not 1 5 4Je4 because of 1 5 . . . xe5,
threatening mate) 15 . . .Ae6 1 6 4Jf4 -'tf5 1 7 b3 b6, and Black can defend
himself. '
[Forster: 'To sum up, 10 . . . b6 is probably better than 1 0 . . . a5, although after
1 1 4Jxc5 4Jxc5 1 2 t'i c l ! Black remains in a difficult position. 1 2 0-0 is also
extremely dangerous, but no definite win has yet been demonstrated. ' ]
1 1 0-0

Alekhine: 'Even better than 1 1 4Jxg7+ t7 12 4Jf5 , to which Black would have
replied 1 2 . . . 4Je5 . ' Golombek also gives this variation, adding ' 1 3 0-0 -'te6 and
Black will follow up with 14 . . . t'i d8 [sic - 'R-Q l ' ] to get all his pieces in play' .
[Forster (joint analysis with Werner Hug) : 'A better line than Golombek ' s 1 3
0-0 i s 1 3 b3 +! -'l.e6 1 4 4Jh6+ e7 1 5 xb7+ -'td7 (forced, a s 1 5 . . . 4Jfd7 1 6
A.g5+ and 1 5 . . . 4Jed7 1 6 e5 lose immediately) 1 6 -'txc5+ xc5 1 7 0-0 t'i ab8 1 8
a6 t'i xb2 1 9 t'i ac l , and White has three pawns and a lasting initiative for the
piece. Still, Alekhine' s assessment is correct, as in the game the Cuban should
win almost by force. ' ]
Euwe and Prins: 'Naturally 1 1 4Jxg7+ t7 1 2 4Jf5 was also an excellent option.
It may be noted that 1 1 e5 would be refuted by 1 1 . . .-'txe3 12 exf6 4Jxf6. Now,
however, this move comes into account: 12 e5 -'l.xe3 13 exf6 4Jxf6 1 4 4Jxg7+
t7 1 5 fxe3 xg7 1 6 t'i xf6 xf6 1 7 4Je4+ etc. There is also a much more serious
threat: 12 -'txc5 4Jxc5 13 b4 xb4 1 4 4Jc7+ . '
ll -'l_xe3

Capablanca in Kagans Neueste Schachnachrichten: ' Evidently forced. Black


finds himself in a quandary. '
Deutsche Schachbliitter: 'There i s clearly nothing better. If 1 l . . .'t7 there follows
1 2 4Jxc5 and 1 3 e5 . '

Golombek: ' If 1 l . . .'t7 1 2 b3 and wins still more speedily than i n the text. '
Das Schachgenie Capablanca by Isaak and Wladimir Linder (East Berlin, 1 988):
'If 1 1 . . . t7 then 12 4Jxc5 4Jxc5 13 e5, followed by 1 4 d5 + . ' [Forster: 'The

89

variations are: 1 3 . . . d8 1 4 f3 , 1 3 . . . Ag4 1 4 b 1 ! 4Jfd7 1 5 b4 a3 1 6 4Jb5 !,


and 13 ... 4Jfd7 1 4 d5 +, followed by either 15 e6 or 1 5 4Je4, winning. On the
other hand, Golombek' s 1 2 b3 leaves some questions open after 1 2 . . . g6! 1 3
4Jf4+ c;t>h6. ' ]

Euwe and Prins: ' 1 l . . .e7 i s refuted b y 1 2 4Jxc5 4Jxc5 1 3 4Jd5 + . '
Tartakower: ' 1 l . . .Af8 would b e impossible, o n account o f 1 2 4Jb5 ! '
12 fxe3

Alekhine: ' If 1 2 . . . g8 then 1 3 d6 , etc . ' Golombek adds ' 1 3 . . . f7 1 4 4Jd5 and
Black has no adequate defence' .
Bogoljubow : 'In view of the threats 1 3 4Jxg7+ and 1 3 4Jd5 Black has nothing
better. '
Wiener Schachzeitung, December 1 925 , pages 354-355, which stated that its
notes were based on those of Capablanca and Reti: 'The threat was not only 1 3
4Jxg7+ but also 1 3 d6 . '

Euwe and Prins: ' 1 2 . . . b6 1 3 4Jxg7+ f7 1 4 4Jd5 and wins; or 1 2 . . . e5 1 3


4Jxg7+ f7 1 4 l."!f5 e7 1 5 4Jd5 xe4 1 6 f4 and 1 7 4Jh5 . Against 1 2 . . . g6, 1 3
4Jd5 4Jxd5 1 4 exd5, with the threat of 1 5 f3, is decisive. [Forster: 'For example,
1 4 . . . b6 1 5 f3 e7 1 6 d6+ ! ! , with a decisive attack. ' ] The clearest
demonstration of the hopeless situation of the B lack forces is the variation
12 . . . g8 1 3 4Jd5 b8 (or 13 . . . f7 1 4 4Jec7 and 1 5 h5 +) 14 b4 a3 1 5 4Jec7+
d8 (if 15 . . . f8, 16 e5 is decisive, and if 15 . . . f7, 16 h5 + is decisive) 16 e5
4Jxd5 17 xd5 xe3+ 18 h1 and Black can resign ( 1 8 . . . h8 1 9 e6) . ' [Forster:
'After 1 3 . . . b8 White has many ways to win, one of them being demonstrated
by Euwe and Prins. In fact, after both 1 3 . . . f7 and 1 5 . . . f8 White could win at
once with Qh5(+) ! Unfortunately, Euwe and Prins do not mention Black' s best
defence, i.e. 1 3 . . . 4Jxd5! After 14 exd5 4Jf6 1 5 xf6!? gxf6 1 6 h5 + g6 17 4Jf4!
(17 xh7 xg2+!) White secures a strong attack for his piece, but the outcome
is far from clear. Alekhine' s ( 1 2 . . . g8) 13 d6! is therefore definitely stronger. ' ]
90

From the monograph on Capablanca by Bengt Horberg and Jostein Westberg:


'If 1 2 . . :e5 then 13 .:tlg7+ 'iftf7 1 4 i:!f5 itie7 1 5 tld5 it!xe4 1 6 1:! f4 itie5 17 tlh5
with a quick finish.'
13 l'th3

A nnotating the game on pages 1 8 1 - 1 82 of Ca sopis Ce skoslovenskfch Sa chistii,


December 1 925, Amos Pokorny stated that 1 3 it!g4 would also be good, with
the threat of 14 itfxg7+, with tld5 to follow. [Forster: 'A very surprising remark
at first sight, but it is also very hard to find a satisfactory defence for Black after
1 3 it!g4. For example, 1 3 . . . i:! e8 1 4 itfxg7+ 'iftxe6 1 5 tld5! tlxd5 1 6 exd5+ 'ittd6
1 7 it!h6+ 'ittc7 1 8 i:! c l + tlc5 19 i:!f7+ Ad7 20 itff4+ 'iftd8 2 1 b4! and White
wins . ' ] *
13 Cifi'g6

Tartakower: ' 1 3 . . . itib6 1 4 tlg5 + 'iftg6 1 5 itff7+ 'iftxg5 [Forster: ' 1 5 . . . 'ifth6 is more
stubborn, but with 16 .:tle6, followed by i:! f3, White still wins . ' ] 1 6 it!xg7+ would
lead to a quick mate.'
Pokorny gave the line 1 3 . . . tlf8 1 4 tlg5+ 'ittg6 1 5 itff7+ 'ifth6 1 6 i:! xf6+ . [Forster:
'This is not very clear if Black simply replies 1 6 . . . .:tlg6. Perhaps the greedy 1 4
tlc7+ Ae6 1 5 'l*xb7 i:! d8 1 6 tlxe6+ 'iftxe6 1 7 itfxg7, with a quick win, is better. ' ]
14 f5

Capablanca: ' 1 4 i:! f3 would probably win also, but the text move is better and
should have brought about a quick ending. '
Lasker: 'This i s stronger than 1 4 i:! f3, which would b e answered b y 1 4 . . . tle5, a
move that would now be refuted by 1 5 tld5 , and Black is still in the game.'
Bogoljubow : 'This is stronger than 1 4 i:! f3, which would have been answered
by 14 . . . tle5 , a move that does not work now because of 1 5 tld5 ! '
BCM, March 1 926, pages 1 44- 1 45 : 'The Viennese player, Kmoch (winner of
the Debrecen Tournament) puts forward here 1 4 i:! f3 as better, with the
continuation 14 . . . .:tle5 15 i:! g3+ 'ifth6 1 6 1:! fl .ilxe6 17 it!xe6 with a winning
game. At 1 5 B lack could have interposed at g4 either the king' s knight, when
the reply would be 1 6 i:! fl , or the queen' s knight, when the reply would be 1 6
tld5 . ' [Forster: 'The critical line here is 1 4 3 .:tle5 1 5 i:!g3+ 'ifth6 1 6 1:! fl and
now , as in the game, 16 . . . it!b6! There is no clear route for White: 17 .:tlxg7 it!xb3
1 8 i:! xf6+ tlg6!, or 18 axb3 tlh5 ! Nor would 17 i:!h3+ 'ittg6 18 tlf4+ 'iftg5 1 9
d5!? i:! e8! b e sufficient. I t is all very messy. There may b e a hidden win for
*The 1 997 'Chess Stars' book on Capablanca (volume 1 , page 75) mentions 1 3 f5 'l;l<b6 as unclear.

91

White, but it is certainly not easier to find than the one in the game . ' ]
I n his booklet A Tamad6 Jatek (Kecskemet, 1 928) Spielmann appended a question
mark to 14 E1f5 and suggested the following: 14 E1 f3 4Je5 1 5 E1 g3+ '<t>h6 1 6
4:lxg7 'iii'b6 17 'iii'a 3 'iii'c7 1 8 4Jb5 and 1 9 4Jd6. O r 1 6 . . . E! g8 1 7 E! fl E! xg7 1 8
E! xf6+ 4Jg6 (if 1 8 . . . E1 g6 then 19 'iii'g8) 19 'iii'd 1 (threatening 2 0 'iii'd6 and 2 1
'iii'f4+) 1 9 . . . 'iii'e 5 20 'iii'f3 Ad7 2 1 'iii'f4+ . The monograph o n Capablanca by
Chalupetzky and Toth (published by Magyar Sakkvilag in 1 943) reproduced
Spielmann' s annotations, correcting two typographical errors (16 4Jxg7 instead
of 1 6 E! xg7, and 17 . . . 'iii'c7 rather than 17 . . . 'iii'c6). [Forster: 'Spielmann ' s proposal
16 4:lxg7 seems stronger to me than Kmoch' s 16 E!fl . Still, Spielmann' s variations
are only some sample lines, and there are many other sharp variations which
have yet to be examined to reach a final verdict. So far, I think that White always
has very good chances, although the game continuation is even more convincing.
Spielmann' s question mark for 14 E1 f5 is certainly not justified. ' ]
14 ... '/Nb6

Euwe and Prins: ' If 14 . . . 4Je5 1 5 4Jd5 (given by Bogolj ubow) and the knight is
lost, for if 1 5 . . . 4Jfd7 there follows mate in two moves, and if 1 5 . . . Axe6, 16
4Jf4+ '<t>h6 1 7 'iii' x e6, with the threat of mate at h5 , is decisive . '
Horberg and Westberg: 'The best defence. After 1 4 . . . 4Je5 1 5 4Jd5! Axe6 1 6
4Jf4+ h6 1 7 'iii' x e6 White wins easily. '
15 4)f4+ h6

16 g4

Capablanca: 'White had practically a forced mate thus: 1 6 'iii'f7 g6 1 7 g4 'iii'x e3+
1 8 g2 gxf5 1 9 g5+ '<t>xg5 20 'iii'g 7+ xf4 2 1 E! fl + '<t>e5 22 'iii'e 7+ '<t>d4 23 E!d1 +
c4 24 'iii'e 6+ '<t>c5 25 b4+ '<t>xb4 26 'iii'b 3+ and 27 'iii'b 5 mate. Again: 1 6 'iii'f7 g6
17 g4 'iii' x e3+ 18 '<t>g2 4Jxg4 1 9 E!h5+ gxh5 20 'iii'x h5+ '<t>g7 2 1 'iii' xg4+ '<t>f8 22
4Je6+ '<t>e8 23 'iii'h 5+ '<t>e7 24 4Jd5 + winning the queen. In the game itself White

played differently. He thought that he could force the game, without having to
go into all these complications, by playing 16 g4, which proved to be a serious
mistake.' [Forster: 'Everybody seems to quote this Capablanca variation without
92

checking it. 2 1 4Je6+! instead of 2 1 xg4+ wins instantly: 2 1 4Je6+ f6 22


4Jd5+ xe6 23 xg4+, followed by 24 4Jxe3, winning B lack' s queen. After
Capablanca' s 21 xg4+ Black has a more stubborn defence, i.e. 2 1 . . .f7!, and
White still has to find some accurate moves to win the game (22 e6+ f8 23
!:!fl ! etc.). ' ]
Lasker: 'The winning move was 1 6 f7. However, the win was not very easy to
find: 16 . . . g6 17 g4 xe3+ 18 g2 gxf5 19 g5+ xg5 20 g7+ xf4 21 E1. fl +
<;t>e5 22 e7+ d4 23 E1. d1 + c4 24 e6+ c5 25 E1. d5+ 4:lxd5 26 xd5+ <;ftb6
27 d6+ a5 28 b4 mate.' Lasker gave a mate that was one move longer than

necessary.
Alekhine: 'With this ill-considered move White lets slip a win which could easily
have been forced by 16 f7. If then 16 . . . g6, White would have had a choice
between two winning variations :
I. 17 g4 xe3+ 18 g2 gxf5 1 9 g5+ xg5 20 g7 xf4 2 1 . fl + e5 22 e7+
d4 23 E1.d1 + c4 24 e6+ c5 25 b4+ and mate in two.
II. 17 4Je6 E1. g8 (or A, B, C) 18 E1. f3 4Je5 1 9 E1.h3+ 4Jh5 20 f4+ and mate in
three.
A. 1 7 . . . 4Je8

(or 1 7 . . . 4Jh5) 1 8 E1.h5+ and mate in three.

B. 17 . . . xe6 1 8 xe6 gxf5 19 4Jd5 E1.f8 20 e5 and wins.


C. 1 7 . . . xe3+ 1 8 h1 gxf5 1 9 g7+ h5 20 El. fl E1. g8 2 1 E1. xf5 + h4 22 g3+
<;fth3 23 4Jf4+ xf4 24 E1. xf4 E1. xg7 25 E1. h4 mate . '
I n L 'Echiquier Edmond Lancel noted that in this final variation there was (as
Lancel pointed out in La Nation Beige of 8 January 1 926) a mate in three moves
by 20 4Je2, instead of 20 . fl . [Forster: 'The forced mate is in four if B lack
begins with moves like 20 . . . 4Jd5 or 20 . . . cl + . ' ]
Bogoljubow: 'This should have lost. The winning continuation was 1 6 f7! g6
(or a, b) 17 g4 (or e) 1 7 . . . xe3+ 1 8 g2! gxf5 (or 1 8 . . . 4Jxg4 1 9 E1.h5+ gxh5 20
xh5+ g7 2 1 xg4+ and White wins easily) 1 9 g5+ xg5 20 g7+ xf4 2 1
E1. f1 + e5 22 e7+ d4 23 E1.d1 + c4 2 4 e6+ c5 25 b4+ xb4 2 6 b3+

and 27 b5 mate. This variation was given by Capablanca.


a) 1 6 . . . g5 1 7 E1. xg5 xe3+ 1 8 h 1 E1.g8! 1 9 E1. xg8 and White wins.
b) 1 6 . . . xe3+ 1 7 h1 g6 1 8 E1. xf6 (18 4Je6 is also strong, leading to variation c)
1 8 . . . 4Jxf6 1 9 xf6 E1. e8 (not 1 9 . . . g4 because of 20 h4+ h5 21 4Jxh5 !) 20
<bcd5 ! f2 (not 20 . . . xe4 because of 21 h4+ and 22 4Jf6) 21 h4! and White
wi ns easily. { Reinfeld was apparently in error when he also attributed variations

93

a) and b) to Capablanca. Panov reproduced the present note b), as well as


Capablanca' s analysis of 16 'li!fl, without any acknowledgment to either master. }
c) 17 .Je6 'li!xe3+ 18 'it1h1 gxf5 (if 1 8 . . . t=!. g8 then 19 . f4) 1 9 'li!g7+ 'it1h5 20 . fl
. g8 2 1 . xf5+ 'it1h4 22 g3+ 'it1xh3 23 .!f4+!'
In variation a), Euwe and Prins added 1 8 . . . 'it1xg5 19 'li!g7+ 'it1xf4 20 . fl + 'it1e5 2 1
'li!e7+ 'it1d4 22 t=!. d1 + 'it1c4 2 3 'li!e6+ 'it1c5 2 4 b4+ 'it1xb4 25 'li!b3+ and mates. In
variation c), Euwe and Prins add the lines 18 . . . 5 19 g4 and 18. .. .!e8 19 .f3
.!e5 20 . xe3 .!xf7 21 t=l. h3 mate, and give 20 .!e2! instead of Bogoljubow's 20
.fl .
[Forster: 'The position after 1 5 . . . 'it1h6 has been analysed not only very widely
but also very precisely . Apart from the above-mentioned inaccuracy by
Capablanca which has been reproduced nearly everywhere, and Bogoljubow/
Alekhine' s 20 . fl instead of 20 .!e2!, there seem to be neither mistakes nor
important gaps. ' ]
16 g5
...

Capablanca: 'This simple move upsets the cart.'


Bogoljubow: 'Now 1 7 'li!fl is impossible owing to 1 7 ... t=!.f8. Black threatens to
exchange queens and then play . . . gxf4 . '
Wiener Schachzeitung: 'This i s better than 1 6 . . . 'li!xe3+ 1 7 'it1g2, after which Black
could not play 17 . . . g5 on account of 18 'li!fl . f8 19 . xf6+, etc . '

I. and W. Linder: 'If 16 . . . 'li!xe3+ there follows 1 7 'it1g2 g 5 1 8 'li! fl 'li!d2+ 19 'it1h1
'li!d4 20 .Je6. If 18 . . . .f8 then 19 . xf6+ .!xf6 20 'li!xf8 mate. Also, 16 . . . 'li!xb3 is
ruled out because of 1 7 g5 mate ! '
17 xb6

Alekhine: 'This should give B lack the better ending. 17 h4 was to be considered,
with great complications rather in White ' s favour. ' [Forster: "'Great
complications" is true, but "rather in White ' s favour" is hardly the correct
assessment. See below . ' ]
94

Tartakower: ' 1 7 h4 offered greater chances than the text move . '
Golombek: 'White would lose after 1 7 h 4 'li1txe3+ 1 8 <it'fl gxf4 1 9 g 5 + <it'h5 20
gx f6+ <it'g4 21 'l1e6 <it'f3 . ' [Forster: ' After White missed a forced win, the
annotators ' interest declines heavily, and no one tries to find the truth in the
position after 17 h4. Only Golombek gives a variation, but it is an irrelevant one
(for example, 21 <tld5 instead of 2 1 'lte6??) . After 17 h4 'ltxe3+ White has three
sensible king moves, which are all answered similarly. For instance, 18 <it'g2
gx f4 1 9 g5+ <it'g6! 20 h5+ (20 gxf6 'li1fg3+ 21 <it'fl <tlc5!) 20 . . . <it'g7! 21 gxf6+ <it'h6.

White still has many tempting continuations, but Black' s king has found relative
security, and it is White ' s king that is dangerously exposed. 18 <it'h1 and 18 <it'fl
lead to roughly the same result if Black's king heads for the safe square h6. If
there is no substantial improvement for White in these variations, 17 h4 can be
dismissed as insufficient. So Golombek' s assessment was probably right, although
his variation proves nothing at all. ' ]
Bogoljubow (who gives 17 'li1txb6 two exclamation marks) : 'Capablanca finds
the only possibility of retaining something of an attack. '
Euwe and Prins: 'If White avoids the exchange o f queens, his fate would be
sealed. For example, 17 <tlb5 <tlc5 , or 17 'ltc2 gxf4 18 g5+ <it>g6 ( 1 9 e5 'li1txe3+)
or 1 7 'ltc4 <tlxg4 18 <tld5 'li1txb2 or, finally, 17 'ltd1 'ltxe3+ 18 <it'fl (otherwise
18 . . . <tlxe4) 1 8 . . . b6, etc . '
17 ... axb6 18 .dl

Euwe and Prins: ' 1 8 <tlfd5 <tlxg4 1 9 h3 <tlge5 20 d1 <tlg6, and Black's material
advantage irresistibly makes itself felt. '
18 ... .g8

Capablanca: ' Although Black is a piece ahead he still has trouble to get out of
this position without serious loss. He should have simplified the game now by
18 . . . gxf4 19 g5+ <it'g7 (best) 20 gxf6+ <tlxf6 21 t:! g5+ <it'f7 22 exf4 and White
should have to fight hard to obtain a draw. Black failed to take advantage of the
one chance he had in the whole game.'
Lasker: 'The logical move was 1 8 . . . t:! a5, whereby B lack would control e5 .
[Forster: 'After 18 . . . t:! a5 ! B lack should win quite easily ( 1 9 <tlfd5 <tlxg4) . ' ] *
18 . . . gxf4 1 9 g5+ <it>g6 2 0 d6! f8 2 1 exf4 would b e less good.' { Euwe and
Prins give 21 <tld5 instead of 21 exf4. } [Forster: ' In my opinion 1 9 . . . <it>g6 is not
as bad as the annotators would have us believe. If after 20 d6 B lack plays
20 . . . fxe3, he obtains a passed pawn and with careful defence should win.
Nonetheless, 19 . . . <it>g7! is the safer choice, and is therefore preferable. ' ]
*The above-mentioned 'Chess Stars ' book adds 1 9. . .4Jg4 2 0 E!.dfl E!.e8 2 1 b4 E!.a3 to the Lasker
li ne.

95

Alekhine: 'Incomprehensible ! By simply taking the knight Black would have


obtained at least a draw. For example: 18 . . . gxf4 19 g5+ rtig7 20 gxf6+ xf6 21
E!g5+ rtif7 22 exf4 h6 23 E!g3 h5 . ' [Forster: 'Here too 22 ... E!a5 is a sensible
alternative. After 23 e5 h6! 24 E!g2 h5! Black has excellent winning chances. ' ]
The identical line to Alekhine' s i s given b y Tartakower and b y Golombek, without
any mention of Alekhine. Euwe and Prins write that after 23 E! b5 (e.g. 23 . . . E!g8+
24 'it'fl , followed if possible by E! d6), it would seem that White should not lose.
[Forster: '23 E! b5 is no improvement since 23 . . . E!g8+ 24 'it'fl E!g4! loses a vital
pawn. Even 24 'it'f2 Ad7 25 E! xb6 Ac6 would fail to save the game for White . ' ]
Bogoljubow: ' At best this suffices for a draw, i f Black subsequently finds the
best moves. In contrast, Black would have had winning chances after 18 . . . gxf4
( 1 8 . . . E!a5 is also good) 19 g5+ 'it'g7 20 gxf6+ xf6 21 E! xf4 (or 21 E!g5+ f7 22
exf4 h6!, with a counter-attack.) 2 l . . . E! a 5 ! '
19 .ifdS 4) xg4

Bogoljubow: 'If 19 . . . E!g6, there follows 20 e7 c5 21 E! d8!' Instead Golombek


has (after 19 . . . E!g6) ' 20 e7 E!g7 (20 . . . c5 21 E! d8!) 21 cd5 xd5 22 xd5
E! xa2 23 E! c l E! a8 24 E! c7 and Black has no good continuation. '
Euwe and Prins give 19 . . . xg4 a question mark and analyse 19 . . . xd5 with
four variations:
'A. 20 xd5 c5 (if 20 . . . E! xa2 then 2 1 e7, etc . ; if 20 . . . E! g7 then 21 e5, etc . Or
20 . . . f8 2 1 E! f6+ g6 22 e7 and 23 f5+) 21 E! f6+ 'll g7 22 E! dfl Axg4 23
E!f7+ 'it'h6 24 f6 Ae6 25 xg8+ E! xg8 and there is no winning line to be
found.
B. 20 exd5 E!f8 21 E! dfl E! xf5 22 E! xf5 rtig6, etc.
C. 20 E! dxd5 f8 2 1 E!f6+ g6 22 h3 E! a6, etc.
D. 20 E!fxd5 f6 21 E! d6 E!g6 22 h3 b5 23 E! b6 xg4 24 E! xg6+ hxg6 25 hxg4
b4 26 d5 E! xa2 27 f6* rtig7 28 e5 E! xb2 and it is clearly not Black who is in
danger. '
[Forster: 'Black is better in every variation. He just escaped defeat after 16 g4
and in return commits two serious mistakes himself ( 1 8 . . . E!g8? and 19 . . . xg4?) . ' ]
20 4)e7 .g7
Wiener Schachzeitung: 'The threat was 21 xc8, followed by 22 E! xd7. '
21 .d6+ <it'hS 2 2 .f3
* 'Chess Stars' offers 27 <\xb4!?

96

Alekhine: ' Thanks to his opponent' s 1 8th move, White again has a won game
since Black cannot play 22 . . . 4Jge5 because of 23 . h6+ and mate next move.'
Bogoljubow: 'A very strong move which assures White of at least a draw. '
22 ... 4)gf6

23 h3+

Alekhine: 'But this check is redundant. A much simpler line was 23 4Jcd5 . t7
(if 23 . . . 4Jxd5 or 23 . . . 4Jxe4 then 24 .h6+, etc.) 24 e5, etc . '
Tartakower: 'Even more precise, a s Alekhine pointed out, would b e 2 3 4Jcd5 .
For example, 23 . . . 4Jxe4 24 . h6+! g4 25 g2! and mate next move, or 23 . . . . t7
2 4 e 5 , or again, 23 . . . . xe7 24 4Jxe7 4Jxe4 25 . d4, etc . ' [Forster: 'What if Black
simply plays 25 . . . 4Jdf6 now? After 26 . dB he can choose between 26 . . . g4
and 26 . . . . xa2!? 27 . xeS g4!, in both cases with the issue unresolved. Nor
should B lack worry too much about 25 .h3+ g4 because after 26 . dh6 he
has 26 . . . . xa2 !, while after 26 . hh6 his king escapes by 26 .. .'f3! (not 26 . . . . xa2
27 . d2 ! ! - see below). ' ] *
23

g4 2 4 g3+

Bogoljubow: 'The attempt by 24 g2 to mate Black would fail because of


24 . . . . xe7. '

24 .. h5 2 5 4)f5
.

Alekhine: 'It is truly surprising how Capablanca complicates matters for himself
in this game. Here too he could play 25 4Jcd5. For instance: 25 . . . . xe7 26 4Jxe7
<tlxe4 27 .h3+ 'it>g4 28 'it>g2! . xa2 29 .d2!! 4Jxd2 30 . xh7, followed by 31 h3
mate. '
* 'Chess Stars' gives the line 23 4Jf5 ( ' ? ' ) ""g6 24 .lxg7 ""xg7 25 e5 .Jg4 26 e6 .\deS 27 E!f5 h6 28

xb6 .lc4 29 E!f7+

\t>g6.

97

Bogoljubow: 'An interesting line would be 25 .Jcd5 xe7! (if 25 . . . .Jxd5 there
follows the problem-like finish 26 h6+ and 27 h3 mate) 26 .Jxe7 xa2!! (not
26 . . . .Jxe4 because of 27 h3+ 'iflg4 28 'iflg2 ! xa2! 29 d2! .Jdf6! - Black must
not take the rook in view of 30 xh7 and 31 h3 mate - 30 h6 .Jh5 31 c2 -'td7
32 xh7, and Black is compelled to play 32 . . . .Jf4+) 27 .lxc8 .lxe4 28 xd7
.Jxg3 29 hxg3 'iflg4! and B lack just manages to draw. ' [Forster: 'A very bold
statement by Bogolj ubow. It is not clear how Black draws after 30 xh7! 'iftxg3
(30 . . . xb2 31 f7!) 31 'iflfl ! xb2 32 f7! or 3 1 . . .'iflf3 32 h3+! 'iflg4 33 h6!
'iflf3 34 f6+! 'iftxe3 35 xb6. Even the cunning 30 . . . 'iflf3 fails after 3 1 f7+!
'iftxe3 32 'iflg2! , intending 'iflh3 and 'iflg4. The Swiss national team, including
Viktor Korchnoi, contributed to this analysis. Another attempt after 25 .Jcd5 is
25 . . . f7 (26 e5 .Je4!, or 26 h3+ 'iflg4 27 'iflg2? .lxe4!), but here White has a
hidden win: 26 .Jf5! xa2 (Black' s only chance is active play. For example,
26 . . . a4 27 h3 + 'iflg4 28 'iflg2 .lg8 29 g3+ 'iflh5 30 h6+!! .lxh6 31 h3+

and White mates next move by capturing at h6 with either rook or knight.) 27
h4! h6 28 hxg5 hxg5 29 .Jf4+! exf4 30 exf4, and Black cannot escape mate. 25
.Jcd5 should also ultimately win, but there is no reason to criticise Capablanca
for 25 .Jf5 . ' ] { Tartakower attributed Bogoljubow ' s variation ( ' a more or less
forced winning line ' ) to Prokes in the Czech publication 28 Rijen, but giving, in
the absence of 32 . . . .Jf4+, 32 . . . -'te8 33 h3+ 'iflh4 34 .Jf5 mate. }
25

...

)3g6

Euwe and Prins: ' If the black rook had fled to, for instance, g8 it would be
possible after 26 h3+ for the black king to step aside to g6, but this would offer
no salvation: 27 h6+ 'iflf7 28 e5 .Jg4 29 e6+ 'ifte8 30 .Jd5 .lxh6 3 1 .Jc7+ 'iflf8
32 .lxh6, and B lack can resign.' [Forster: 'Euwe and Prins commit a grave
error. If B lack plays 3 1 . . .'iftd8 instead of 3 1 . . .r,t>f8 it is White who can resign.
The right move therefore is 30 xh7! , and Black' s position remains hopeless. ' ]
Pokorny: Not 2 5 . . . g8 because of 2 6 e5, or 2 6 h3+! r,t>g6 (if 2 6. . . g4 then 27
'iflg2) 27 h6+ 'iflf7 28 e5!.

26 4:le7

Capablanca: 'The position is most interesting. B lack is in a mating net, but to


98

finish the work is most difficult. Incidentally, all the commentators have gone
wrong in their analysis of this position. They have suggested several ways of
playing to force a win, but against their suggestions there are ways of getting
out. There is in fact only one way to win by force and that is to play now 26
E! h3+. White actually played 26 li:Je7 in order to gain time; figuring that Black
could not do any better than to come back to this position. B lack, however,
considering this position as lost, tried to get out by giving up the exchange, and
lost. [Forster: 'This makes the reader believe that Black is lost anyway. As we
shall see, he misses two very good chances in the further course of the game,
and therefore 26 li:Je7 was quite a serious mistake by Capablanca. ' ]
Let u s see the variations arising from 2 6 E!h3+. W e have then: 2 6. . .'itt g4 2 7 '<t>g2
li:Jx e4 28 E! d5 li:Jxc3 29 E! h4+ gxh4 30 li:Jh6+ E! xh6 31 h3 mate. Again: 26 E! h3+
<ittg4 27 '<t>g2 li:Jc5 28 li:Jh6+ E! xh6 29 E! xh6 li:Jcxe4 [Forster: '29 . . . li:Jh5 is a better
try. Even so, after 30 e5 'it'h4!? 31 E! d4+ g4 32 E! d8!, followed by E! h8 and
E!8xh7 White should win. ' ] 30 li:Jxe4 li:Jxe4 31 E! d5 and Black cannot prevent h3
mate. A most remarkable position. ' [Forster: ' 3 1 h3+ '<t>f5 32 E! d5 mate is even
more exact. ' ] { Panov repeated Capablanca' s analysis without any attribution. }
Tartakower mentions that if 27 E! d2 (instead of 27 '<t>g2) then 'not 27 . . .'iixh3?
28 E! g2 li:Jh5 29 li:Jd1 , followed by a quick mate, but 27 . . . li:Jxe4!, with salvation' .
Instead of Capablanca' s 28 E! d5, he proposes : ' 28 li:Je7!! E! g7 (if 28 . . . E! xd6 then
29 li:Jxe4, and if 28 . . . li:Jxd6 then mate is administered by 29 E! xh7 and 30 h3
mate. As can be seen, this edge-pawn mate occurs in many variations) . 29 li:Jxe4
E! xe7 30 li:Jg3 ! li:Jf6 31 E! d4+ E! e4 (or 3 1 . . .li:Je4 32 E! xh7) 32 E! xh7 li:Jh5 33
E! xe4+ [Forster: ' Here either 33 E! xh5 or 33 h3+ mates next move. ' ] 33 . . . li:Jf4+
34 h3 mate.' { Tartakower overlooked that 34 h3 is illegal. } [Forster: 'Instead
White plays 34 '<t>f2, followed by 35 h3 mate. Nonetheless, the move 28 li:Je7
(originating from Alekhine?) is much worse than Capablanca' s brilliant 28 E! d5!!,
because after 28 ... E! g7 29 li:Jxe4 E! xe7 30 li:Jg3 B lack can defend by 30 ... E! a4! 3 1
E!. hh6 E!. xe3! with a draw a t least. ' ]
Euwe and Prins give the variation 26 E!.h3+ '<t>g4 2 7 '<t>g2 E!a5 28 li:Jh6+ E!. xh6 29
E!. xh6 li:Jxe4 30 li:Jxe4 (threatening li:Jg3 and mate) 30 . . . E!. xa2 31 E! d5 E!. xb2+ 32
li:Jf2+ E! xf2+ 33 '<t>xf2 and mate follows. [Forster: ' 28 li:Je7 is also strong. 29 ... li:Jh5
would be more tenacious, but 30 E!. xh7! followed by 31 E!. dh6! still wins. Also,
Euwe and Prins missed a forced mate by, instead of 31 E!d5, 31 h3+ '<t>f5 32
li:Jg3+ '<t>e5 33 E!. he6 mate. ' ]
Alekhine: 'The penultimate error, which generally wins the game ! Instead of
this repetition of moves, White could force mate as follows: 26 E!.h3+ '<t>g4 27
\t>g2 (threatening 27 E!. xh7 li:Jxh7 28 E!. xg6, etc.) 27 . . . li:Jxe4 28 li:Je7!!
I. 28 ... li:Jxd6 29 E!. xh7, etc.
II. 28 . . . E!. xd6 29 li:Jxe4, etc.
III. 28 . . . E!. g7 29 li:Jxe4 E!. xe7 30 li:Jg3, with the double threat of 3 1 E!. d4+
99

and 31 t'! xh7, followed by h3 . '


Bogoljubow : 'Capablanca i s naturally playing for a win and wishes, i f Black
answers 26 . . . t'! g7, to play the line given in the previous note. A very pretty
possible finish here would be: 26 t'! d2 g4 (the correct line is 26 . . . t'! g8! 27 t'! h3 +
g6 28 4Je7+ f7 29 4Jxg8 xg8 30 t'! g3 g4! with an unclear outcome) 2 7
4Je2 ! ! (threatening 2 8 4Jf4+ and 29 h 4 mate) 27 . . . 4Jxe4 28 h4!, followed by 4Jf4
mate.'
BCM: 'White wants perhaps to get past the 30th move easily, to have more time
for reflection. He has here several alternatives. One was 26 g2 (threatening 27
t'!h3+ and 28 4Jh6+) but Black still replies 26 . . . g4 and White seems to be no
further advanced. Another was 26 t'! h3+ g4 27 g2 4Jxe4 28 t'! xg6 xf5
(must) 29 t'! g8; but then 29 . . . 4Jdf6 30 moves 4Jxc3, and Black seems to be out
of his difficulties. Still another (also by Herr Kmoch) is 26 d2, threatening
mate in three; the defence 26 . . . g4 would then expose Black to another mate by
27 4Je2 4Jxe4 28 h4! and 29 4Jf4 mate. '
26 g4
...

Capablanca: ' In order to get his king out of the mating net.'
Capablanca (in Kagans Neueste Schachnachrichten) : 'Black realised that White
wished to maintain the position until after move 30, in order to have more time
to think about the proper continuation. Since Black recognised that his position
was untenable he decided to try something else. However, thi s proved
unsuccessful.'
Alekhine: 'Ridding himself once and for all of the mating threats. '
Bogoljubow (who gives his move a question mark) : 'Black was i n time trouble
and was unable to calculate the extreme complications resulting from 26 . . . t'! g7
27 4Jcd5 . The idea of leaving the rook where it stands is, at present, excellent,
but instead of the text move Black should have played 26 . . . 4Jc5 ! ! After 27 4Jxg6
4Jfxe4!! it would be White ' s tum to seek a means of escape: 28 t'! d8!! xg6 29
t'!g2 (not 29 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 30 t'! g2 , because of 30 . . . t'! xa2!) 29 . . . 4Je6 30 xeS
xeS 31 4Jxe4, with a roughly level game . ' { The line beginning with 26 . . . 4Jc5
was repeated by Reinfeld, without acknowledgment to Bogoljubow. Tartakower
credited to Duras the variation 26 . . . 4Jc5 27 d8 4Jfxe4 28 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 29 4Jxg6
4Jxg3 30 4Je7. [Forster: 'After 30 . . . 4Je2+ and 3 l . . . t'! xa2 Black still has a clear
advantage. ' ] In Bogoljubow' s line, instead of 29 . . . 4Je6 Euwe and Prins give
' 29 . . . 4Jxc3 30 bxc3 4Je6 31 t'! e8, and now Black, in view of the threat of 32 f2,
followed by t'!g8+ and t'!f6, has nothing better than to force a draw with 3 l . . .f7
32 t'! h8 g7, etc., or 3 1 . . .4Jc7 32 t'! e7 4Jd5 33 t'!e5 4Jc7 etc . ' } [Forster Goint
analysis with Hug) : 'Black can try for a win with 29 . . . 4Jf6, intending . . . 4Je6 an d
. . . b5, but if White finds the prophylactic 30 a3! he has the better game (30 . . . 4Je6
1 00

3 1 E! d6! Ad7 32 E! gd2 ! ) . Therefore a draw would be the correct result. ' ]

Golombek: 'The sacrifice o f the exchange i s now B lack' s best chance, since
26 . . . E! g7 27 .:lf5 allows White to restore the position as before with the mating
attack.'
BCM: 'B lack is understood to have regarded his position as untenable, and
therefore to have elected to risk something for a chance of escaping. If 26 . . . E! g7
27 .:lcd5 opens up a new series of threats. Black could not then move his king' s
kni ght because of 28 E! h6+ <it>xh6 29 E!h3 mate; meanwhile he would be
threatened with 28 .:lf4+ and 29 E! xg7, so that he would probably find it advisable
to give back the exchange in that variation also. ' *
27 xg6

27... <if}xg6

Capablanca: 'If 27 . . . hxg6 28 e 5 . '


Lasker: 'A shameful blunder. After 27 . . . hxg6 Black stands very well. '
Alekhine (who awards 2 7 . . . 'it>xg6 a double question mark): 'The final mistake.
After 27 . . . hxg6 Black could still have defended himself, although the winning
chances would have remained with White. '
Bogoljubow: 'Black overlooks the reply. Longer resistance could be achieved
with 27 . . . hxg6, but it would hardly have been possible to save the game .'
BCM: 'If 2 7 . . . hxg6 28 e 5 ! ! but he does not escape this by the course chosen. '

Eu we and Prins: 'There follows an analysis o f the situation after 2 7 . . . hxg6 28


e5 .

A. 2 8 . . . .:le8 29 e6 .:lg7 { I. and W. Linder give only 29 . . . .:lc7 3 0 E! e7. } 30 E! e7


h6 (forced) [Forster Goint analysis with Hug) : 'No. 30 . . . 'it>h6 is neither forced
* 'Chess Stars' gives a line beginning 26 . . . 4::lc 5 27 f3!, leading to a slight advantage for White.

101

nor good. A much better line is 30 . . . <:lfS! 3 1 l='! h7+ <:Jh6 (31 . . .'it'gS? 32 <:Je4
mate), and there is no win for White: a) 32 e6 <:Jf6 33 l='! h8 <tlfg8! or 33 e7 .ild7;
b) 32 <tldS <\xeS 33 <tlxb6 t=! xa2 34 <tlxc8 <tlf3+ or 33 <:Jf6+ 'it'gS 34 <:Je4+ with
only perpetual check. ' ] 31 xg4 and owing to the forthcoming 32 h4+ - as
well as the penetration of a rook to the eighth rank (e.g. 3 l . . .bS 32 t=! h4+ <tlhS
33 t=!e8 <tlb6 34 e6 'it'g7 3S e4 and wins) - Black has nothing better than 3 1 . . .t=!aS,
after which there follows 3 2 h4+ <tlhS 33 t=! c4 t=!cS 34 e6 <:Jdf6 3 S xeS bxcS
36 <tla4 <tlg7 37 <tlxcS <tldS (if 37 ... <\fe8 then 38 a4 b6 39 <tld7) 38 l='! d7 <tlb6
(otherwise 39 t=! c7 is decisive) 39 d8. Ultimately (after a2-a4-aS) Black will
have to surrender. Thus would Lasker and Alekhine have played.
B. 28 . . . <\g8 29 e6 <tleS (29 . . . <:JcS receives the same reply; if 29 . . . <\df6 there
follows 30 e7 and 31 <tle4 or 31 <tldS) 30 dB <tle7 31 t=! e8 <1Sc6 32 e4, followed
by 33 <tldS wins. [Forster: 'If 29 . . . <:lcS 30 dB <tle7 then 31 <tldS! <tlxdS 32
l='! xdS+ 'it'h6 33 e7 Ad7 34 b4 . ' ]

C . 2 8. . . <:Jh7 2 9 e 6 <tleS (if 2 9 . . . <:lcS or 2 9 . . . <:Jdf8, 3 0 e 7 i s decisive, and if


29 . . . <\df6 then 30 d8) 30 <tldS , and the threat of 31 e7 .ild7 32 <tlxb6 or 32
xd7 decides the issue.' [Forster: ' Instead of 30 <tldS, it is simpler to play 30 e7
.ild7 31 dS , winning a piece. It is surprising that apart from Euwe and Prins
none of the annotators tried to find out the true value of 27 . . . hxg6. Taking into
account my improvement 30 . . . <:JfS! instead of 30 . . . 'it'h6 in variation A of Euwe
and Prins, I think that Bogoljubow probably missed a draw here. ' ] *
28 El xg4+

28 f7
...

Euwe and Prins: 'Or 28 . . . 'it'hS 29 t=! g7 aS 30 <tldS <tlxdS 31 xh7+ 'it'gS 32
t=! g7+ 'it'hS 33 xdS+ xdS 34 exdS and a fourth pawn will soon be lost.'
Golombek: 'If 28 . . . 'it'hS 29 l='! g3 and the black king is in a mating net.' In the
German edition of Golombek' s book, the translator, Rudolf Teschner, changed
this note to: 'Or 28 . . . 'it'hS 29 t=!g7! with the threat of 30 eS. For example, 29 . . . <it>h6
* 'Chess Stars' gives 29 E!d4 (after 28 . . . <tle8) as another path to victory, but Richard Forster considers
that Black obtains a good game with the reply 29 . . . E!a5 (rather than 29 .. .'.!;>h6).

1 02

30 t=!. gxd7, or 29 . . . t=!.a5 30 .Je2! t=!.g5+ 3 1 .lg3+ h4 32 t=l.f7! and wins . ' [Forster:
'A nother very strong possibility is 29 t=!.f4, and if 29 . . . .Jg4 then 30 t=l. f7! ' ]

29 ..f4 g7

[Forster: ' 29 . . . e7 fails to 30 e5 .Je8 3 1 .Jd5 + d8 32 t=!.f8 . ' ]


30 e5 e8

Euwe and Prins : ' Since Black evidently did not wish to resign yet, he would
have served his cause best by 30 . . . .Jg8. White must proceed with 31 e6. Then
would come:
a) 3 1 . . ..Jc5 (3 1 . . . .Jf8), after which 32 t=!.f7+, followed by 33 t=!.f8, wins. [Forster:
'32 t=!.f7+ is right after 3 1 . . . .Jf8, but after 3 1 . . . .Jc5 White can play 32 t=!. g4+ h8
33 d8 Axe6 34 t=!. gxg8+ Axg8 35 t=!. xa8. ' ]

b) 3 1 . . . .Jdf6 3 2 e4 and wins with 3 3 .Jd5 .


c) 3 1 . . . .Je5 32 .Jd5 , etc . '
31 ..e6 Resigns.

Capablanca: ' After 3 1 . . . .Jc7, 32 t=!. e7+ followed by 33 e6 wins a piece. '
Tartakower: After ' 3 1 . . . .Jc7 32 t=!. e7+ g6 (or 32 . . . 'it>g8 3 3 e 6 .Jc5 3 4 t=!. xc7
.Jxe6 35 t=!.g4+, and White ends up the exchange and a pawn ahead) 33 e6 .Jc5
34 t=!. xc7 .Jxe6 35 t=!. g4+ f5 36 t=!. cc4, the win for White would be thoroughly
secure. '
A number of sources (most importantly Bogoljubow ' s tournament book) state
that the moves 3 1 . . . .Jc7 32 t=!. e7+ were actually played. In both A Primer of
Chess and Kagans Neueste Schachnachrichten, Capablanca indicated that Black
resigned after 3 1 t=!. e6.
Bogoljubow: ' From start to finish an extremely exciting game, which contains
infinitely more subtleties than has generally been suggested. Unfortunately the
finish was marred by Black ' s time trouble. '
Alekhine: 'A very amusing game, to be sure, but n9t at all what the chess world
has the right to expect from a meeting between the tournament winner and the
w orld champion.'
In the last three rounds of the tournament Bogolj ubow and Lasker scored
respectively one point and 1 'h points out of three, while Capablanca achieved
1 03

two points out of two. The final standings were thus: I . Bogoljubow 1 5 Y2; 2.
Lasker 14; 3 . Capablanca 1 3Y2. As at Bad Kissingen, 1 928, Capab1anca finished
behind Bogoljubow, but defeated him in their individual game.
(N 1 996)
Quick defeat

Sought: consultation games in which eminent players jointly suffer a quick defeat.
An example is given below.
J . Mieses and E. Cohn-A. Nimzowitsch and R. Spielmann , Munich,
10 December 1 90 6 . Nimzowitsch Defence.
1 e4 eS 2 d4 c6 3 dxeS i*h4 4 f3 i*xe4+ S Ae2 xeS 6 0-0 xf3+ 7 Axf3
i*g6 8 c3 AcS 9 dS c,t;Jd8 1 0 .ilhS c6 1 1 xf7 e7 1 2 b4 Ad6 1 3 d4

Resigns.
Source: Schachjahrbuch fii r 1 906, II. Teil, pages 89-90.

(2126)

Legall's trap

A rare case of a master finding himself on the sharp end of Leg all ' s trap:
V. Sj oberg-S . Tarrasch ( s i mu l taneo u s ? ) , Skifarp [modern spelling :
Skivarp ] , 24 May 1 9 1 1 . Dutch Defence, Staunton Gambit.
1 d4 fS 2 e4 fxe4 3 c3 f6 4 f3 cS S dS eS 6 dxe6 dS 7 fxe4 d4 8 eS dS 9 e4
xe6 10 00 c6 1 1 d3 g4 1 2 0-0 xeS

13 xeS Axd1 14 AbS + c,t;Je7 1 S AgS + c,t;Je6 1 6 Axd8 c,t;JxeS 1 7 gS AhS 18


ae 1 + e3 1 9 13.c7+ d6 20 AaS af8 2 1 xe3+ dxe3 22 c3+ c,t;JdS 23
xg7 xh2+ 24 c,t;Jxh2 xfl 2 S Axfl g8 26 xh7 xg7 27 f6+ c,t;JeS 28
xhS f7 29 g3 c,t;Jf4 30 Ad3 a6 31 a4 c7 32 b3 c6 33 e2+ c,t;Jg4 34 c,t;Jg1
6 3S Ae4 f7 36 c3 b6 37 Af3 + c,t;Jf4 38 dS + c,t;JeS 39 xe3 Resigns.

Source: Tidskrift for Schack, September-October 1 9 1 1 , pages 1 55- 1 56, which


contained brief notes by the winner.
(2133)

1 04

Who was Valenta?

S teinitz called the following 'an instructive and beautifully terminated game' .

19 . . . '1\txg2 + 20 Resigns. ( 'We do not remember having seen a finer two-move


combination in actual play, and considering that it was forecalculated, we may
say that Herr Valenta, who has hitherto been unknown to fame, certainly deserves
a reputation in future' - Steinitz.)

Source: The International Chess Magazine, October 1 889, pages 3 1 2-3 1 3 .


Steinitz' s magazine inverted the names o f the two players. Although this error
was corrected on page 349 of the November 1 889 issue, J .H. Ellis repeated it on
page 1 27 of his anthology Chess Sparks. On the other hand, the brilliancy was
duly credited to Valenta in various editions of the American anthology The Golden
Treasury of Chess.
We have seen a few other games (not wins) by Valenta. Who was he?

(2134)

Jan Kalendovsky sends extensive biographical information on Otakar Valenta


( 1 859- 1 9 1 7), together with a number of games. From the latter we pick the
follo wing:
0. Valenta-H. Neustad[t]l, Prague, 1 88 3 . French Defence.

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 exd5 4 4Jf3 f6 5 e5 Ad6 6 Ag5 'i\te7 7 f4 h6 8 Ah4


AxeS 9 fxe5 'i\tb4+ 10 c3 t'fxb2 1 1 exf6 t'fxa1 12 fxg7 E!g8 13 Ab5 + c6 1 4
e2+ Ae6 1 5 0-0 cxb5 1 6 'i\txb5+ d7 1 7 t'fb4 f6 1 8 Axf6 xf6 1 9 . xf6 Af7
2 0 t'Y xb7 . xg7 2 1 'i\txa8+ e7 22 . fl 'i\txa2 23 'i\tb7+ d8 24 . f2 '\ta l 25 . f6
e8 26 . c6 f8 27 . a6 Resigns.

(2 1 74)

Source: Zlata Praha, 28 July 1 893.


1 05

Obvious moves spumed

Wanted: cases where masters have spumed obvious moves. An example follows :
V. SoultanbeietT-J. Kornreich, Ghent, October 1 930. Queen 's Indian Defence.
1 d4 4Jf6 2 4Jf3 e6 3 c4 b6 4 g3 Ab7 5 Ag2 Ae7 6 4Jc3 4Je4 7 c2 4Jxc3 8 bxc3
4Jc6 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 4Je5 4Ja5 1 1 Axb7 4Jxb7 1 2 f1d1 d6 1 3 .:lc6 d7 14 e4 Af6
1 5 f3 c8 1 6 g4 h6 1 7 Axh6 4Jd8 1 8 xf6 gxf6 1 9 4Je7+ h7

20 Axf8 (Soultanbeieff rewards this move with two exclamation marks and writes:
'The point of the combination, whereas the weak move 20 4Jxc8? would lose a
piece after 20 . . . xh6 2 1 4Je7 f! e8. White is now threatening mate by El d3-h3,

and to avoid it Black has no option but to return the queen, with a decisive loss
of material. ' ) 20 . . . 4Jb7 21 .:lxc8 f! xc8 22 Ae7 g6 23 f4 f! e8 24 f5+ g7 25
fxe6 f! xe7 26 ext7 xt7 27 f! fl g6 28 f! f2 c5 29 f! afl f7 30 f1 f5 4Ja5 3 1 g5
4Jxc4 32 f! xf6+ f! xf6 33 gxf6 t7 34 e4 4Jd2 35 f1 f4 4Jc4 36 h4 Resigns.

Source: L 'Echiquier, December 1 930, pages 1 060- 1 06 1 .

(21 3 7)

Teichmann miniature

The following miniature is well known:


R. Teichmann-N.N., Berlin, 1 9 1 4. Centre Counter-Game.
1 e4 d5 2 exd5 xd5 3 4Jc3 d8 4 .:lf3 Ag4 5 Ac4 e6 6 h3 Axf3 7 xf3 c6 8
d3 f6 9 g3 4Jh6 10 Ag5 g6 1 1 .:lb5 cxb5 1 2 xb8+ f! xb8 1 3 Axb5 mate.

A number of books, including the 1 97017 1 and 1 995 editions of Jack Spence' s
monograph on Teichmann, give the occasion a s a simultaneous exhibition in
Zurich in 1 920. However, Richard Forster points out that the score appeared on
page 1 08 of a book published six years earlier: Schachmeisterpartien des Jahres
1 914, Band //, by Bernhard Kagan. The venue is not specified, but Kagan states
that White gave the odds of his queen's rook.
(2141)
Richard Forster has now found the game on pages 1 23- 1 24 of the August 1 9 1 4
1 06

Schweizerische Schachzeitung, which took it from the Hamburger Nachrichten.


It is stated that White did give the odds of his queen' s rook and that the game
was 'played recently at the Cafe Kerkau in Berlin' .
A Czech brilliancy
V. Kautsky-J. Knapp, Prague, 28 April 1 9 1 1 . French Defence.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 4Jc3 4Jf6 4 e5 4Jfd7 5 f4 c5 6 4Jf3 f6 7 -'l.e2 4Jb6 8 0-0 cxd4 9
4Jb5 Ac5 1 0 4Jfxd4 a6 1 1 exf6 axb5 1 2 fxg7 . g8 1 3 .Q.xb5+ rtle7 1 4 f5 r,t>d6 1 5
f6 4J6d7 1 6 b4 -'l.b6 1 7 c 3 e 5 1 8 rtlh1 4Jxf6 1 9 Ag5 Ag4 2 0 e 1 4Jbd7 2 1 g3
. xg7

22 . xf6+ 4Jxf6 23 xeS+ and mate in three more moves.

Source: Casopis Ceskoslovenskfch Sachistu, September 1 924, pages 1 38- 1 39. (2143)
Karpov and Kasparovich
Koyalovich-Karpov, St Petersburg, 22 April 1 903 . King 's Gambit Accepted.
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 .ilc4 d5 4 -'l.xd5 h4+ 5 rtlfl g5 6 g3 fxg3 7 rtlg2 Ad6 8 e5
.ilxe5 9 e 1 d4 1 0 Axt7+ rtlxt7 1 1 4Jf3 Ah3+ 1 2 r,t>xh3 g4+ 1 3 rtlg2 gxf3+ 1 4
xf3 4Jh6 1 5 hxg3 d5 + 1 6 rtlf2 4Jg4+ 1 7 rtle2 e4+ 1 8 Resigns.

This game was published on page 1 82 of L. Bachmann' s Schachjahrbuch jUr


1 903, three pages after the well-known blindfold encounter Pillsbury v
Kasparovich, Moscow, 1 4 December 1 902.
(K 1 996)
Another game by Karpov the Elder:
Karpov-Sigfried, St Petersburg, 1 1 September J 906. Giuoco Piano, Meller
Attack.
1 e4 e5 2 4Jf3 4Jc6 3 Ac4 .ilc5 4 c3 4Jf6 5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4 Ab4+ 7 4Jc3 4Jxe4 8
0-0 Axc3 9 d5 M6 10 . e 1 4Je7 1 1 . xe4 0-0 1 2 d6 cxd6 1 3 4Jg5 h6 14 4Jxt7
x t7 1 5 Axt7+ r,t>xt7 1 6 h5+ rtlf8 1 7 -'l.xh6 e8 1 8 Axg7+ Axg7 1 9 . f4+ 4Jf5
20 . xf5+ rtle7 2 1 . e 1 + Resigns.

1 07

Source: Casopis Ceskjch Sa chistu, 1 906- 1 907, pages 75-76.

(K 1 99 7)

Kottnauer

The obituaries of Cenek Kottnauer ( 1 9 1 0- 1 996) have, in common with all the
encyclopaedia entries on him, been strangely wanting in pre- 1 940s references
to his chess career. Czech magazines of the 1 930s contain occasional games by
'Kottnauer' (no forename or initial given), including the following:
Kottnauer-E. Bogoljubow (simultaneous), Prague, 2 January 1 932. Queen 's
Gambit Declined.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 f3 f6 4 e3 e6 5 c3 bd7 6 1td3 dxc4 7 1txc4 b5 8 Ab3
b4 9 e2 Ae7 1 0 0-0 0-0 1 1 g3 c5 1 2 e4 Ab7 1 3 !':l e 1 cxd4 14 xd4 c5 1 5
Ac2 !':l c8 1 6 Af4 b6 1 7 e5 d5 18 h5 g6 1 9 h6 xf4 20 xf4 !':lfd8 2 1
!':l ad1 !':l d5 22 h5 d7 23 g3 !':l c4 24 ge2 !':l xe5 25 1tb3 !':le4

26 Axc4 !':l xf4 27 xf4 1tc5 28 fxe6 1ta6 29 -'tb3 -'txd4 30 !':l xd4 4:\f8 3 1 !':l d8
fxe6 32 !':l xe6 Resigns.

Source: Ce skoslovenskj Sa ch, January 1 932, page 9. The score was also given,
with notes by Vera Menchik, on page 1 5 3 of the April 1 932 issue of The Social
Chess Quarterly.
(K 1 996)
Walbrodt

A game by Carl August Walbrodt ( 1 87 1 - 1 902) that has been unjustly neglected:
C. Golmayo-C.A. Walbrodt, Havana, 6 March 1 893. Scotch Game.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 4:lc6 3 d4 exd4 4 xd4 d6 5 Ab5 Ad7 6 0-0 f6 7 c3 Ae7 8 f4
0-0 9 xc6 Axc6 10 Ad3 d7 1 1 h1 ae8 1 2 h3 d5 1 3 e5 d4 14 h2 dxc3
15 exf6 Axf6 1 6 bxc3 Axc3 1 7 !':lb1 d5 18 g4 f5 19 g3 !':l f6 20 f2 Ae 1 2 1
!':l xe 1 !':l xe 1 22 !':l b4 !':l xcl 23 Ac4 !':l g6 24 d2

(See diagram, top of next page.)


1 08

24 . . .1' d1 25 xd1 E! xg2+ 26 h1 E! d2 + 27 f3 xc4 28 Resigns.

Source: Deutsche Schachzeitung, May 1 893, pages 1 36- 1 3 8 .

(K 1 996)

Sacrificial attack
C.T. Shedden-E.H. Benningham, Correspondence game, 1 9 1 1 . Bishop 's Opening.
1 e4 e5 2 Ac4 4Jf6 3 d3 Ac5 4 4Jc3 d6 5 f4 4Jg4 6 g3 4Jf2 7 h5 g6 8 h6 4Jxh1
9 f5 4Jd7 1 0 Ag5 f6 1 1 g7 E! f8 12 4Jd5 fxg5 13 fxg6 c6 1 4 gxh7 cxd5

15 g6+ ( ' Three pieces down and two others en prise. ' ) 15 . . . e7 1 6 Axd5 4Jf6
17 g7+ e8 1 8 h8() e7 1 9 xe7+ xe7 20 g7+ e8 2 1 Ab3 Axg1 22
d2 4Jxe4+ 23 dxe4 E! f2+ 24 e1 E! xh2 25 Aa4+ d8 26 xg5 + c7 27
vtfe7+ b6 28 xd6+ a5 29 a3 M2+ 30 d1 Ag4+ 31 cl b6 32 b4+ a6
33 Ac6 Resigns.

Source: BCM, December 1 9 1 1 , page 462. The magazine wrote: 'Rarely have we
seen such a series of offered sacrifices as in this spirited encounter. '
(2147)
Harrwitz blindfold performance
B. Horwitz and G. Perigai-D. Harrwitz (blindfold), London, 1 846 or 1 847 .

( Remove White ' s queen' s rook.)

1 e4 e5 2 Ac4 4Jf6 3 4Jf3 4Jc6 4 4Jg5 d5 5 exd5 4Ja5 6 ..llb 5+ Ad7 7 vtle2 ..lld6
8 Axd7+ xd7 9 c4 b6 1 0 4Jc3 0-0 1 1 0-0 4Jb7 1 2 d3 E! ae8 1 3 h 1 h6 1 4 4Jh3
vtfg4 1 5 f3 h5 16 4Jb5 e4 17 vtfd1 exf3 18 E! xf3 E! e7 1 9 ..lld2 4Jg4 20 4Jxd6
<tlx d6 2 1 g1 E! fe8 22 4Jf4 h4 23 g3 f6 24 ..ll c 3 f5 25 h3 4Je5 26 d4 f6

1 09

27 . f2 h5 28 '<t>g2 -tld7 29 b4 -tlg5 30 e5 -tlef3 31 e4 -tlel + 32 Axel . xe l 33


d6+ 'it'h7 34 h4 .Je6 35 -tld5 g4 36 xg4 hxg4 37 d7 . d8 38 e6 t! e5 39 -tle3
-tld4 40 b5 -tlxb5 41 -tlxb5 . xb5 42 d4 '<t>g6 43 l'!e2 '<t>f7 44 '<t>f2 . fS+ 45 'it>e3
. dS 46 'it'd3 . d6 47 . e2 .8 48 'it'e4 'it'e6 49 .e2 f5+ 50 'it'd3+ '<t>f7 51 l'! e2
'<t>e7 52 a4 .ff6 53 l'!e2+ . de6 54 . xe6+ . xe6 55 d5 . d6 56 '<t>d4 g6

57 '<t>e5 a6 58 '<t>d4 b5 59 axb5 axb5 60 '<t>e5 b4 61 d4 . xd5+ 62 'it>xd5 b3 63


'it>e5 b2 64 'it>f4 bl () 65 g5 e4 66 h5 gxh5 67 'it'xh5 xe6 68 'it'g5 xd7
69 '<t>g6 e6+ 70 '<t>g5 '<t>f7 71 '<t>f4 '<t>g7 72 '<t>g5 e4 73 '<t>h5 '<t>f6 74 '<t> moves
hl mate.

Source: The Chess Player's Chronicle, 30 January 1 847, pages 33-34. Staunton' s
magazine commented: ' It i s not often, over the chess board even, that anything
finer or truer is seen than the play of Black throughout this game. When one
looks at the precision of these latter moves, and remembers under what
circumstances they were played, the whole thing becomes a marvel, as curious
as it is inexplicable. ' The game lasted five hours.
(2153)
An entertaining game
N.N.-W.M. de Visser, Manhattan Chess Club, New York, Date? Ruy LOpez.
1 e4 e5 2. -tlf3 .Je6 3 .ilb5 a6 4 ..lla4 .Jf6 5 0-0 -tlxe4 6 d4 ..lle 7 7 l=! e l f5 8 dxe5
0-0 9 ..llb 3+ '<t>h8 1 0 M4 g5 1 1 Ae3 g4 1 2 -tld4 -tlxe5 13 -tlxf5 . xf5 14 .ild4 d5
15 f4 gxf3 16 gxf3 t!g5+ 17 'it>hl ..llf6 1 8 fxe4 ..llh 3 19 l'!gl -tlg4 20 -tle3 e5 2 1
AxeS e7 22 . xg4 ..ll xg4 2 3 fl ..ll x e3 2 4 bxe3 xeS 25 f6+ l'!g7 2 6 . fl
l'! g8 27 h3

1 10

2 7 . . . Af3 + 28 h2 d6+ 29 xd6 !!g2+ 30 h1 !! f2 mate.

Source: Brooklyn Chess Chronicle, 15 March 1 887, page 94.

(2 155)

A Kostic miniature

A game taken from pages 46-47 of Schachjahrbuch for 1911, 1. Teil:


G. Wiarda-B. Kostic, Cologne, 15 April 1 9 1 1 . Four Knights ' Game.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 c3 f6 4 Ab5 Ab4 5 0-0 0-0 6 d3 d4 7 Ac4 c6 8 Ag5
d5 9 exd5 Ag4 1 0 dxc6 c8 1 1 Axf6 Axf3 1 2 gxf3 h3 1 3 cxb7 !! ae8 1 4 Ad5

14 . . . e4 1 5 b8() xb8 16 Axd4 Ad6 1 7 !! e 1 Axh2+ 18 h 1 Ae5+ 19 g1


Axd4 20 !! xe4 b6 21 fl xf3 22 !! e6 g4+ 23 g2 xg2 + 24 Axg2 fxe6
(2158)
25 e4 xb2 26 Resigns.

Consultation game

Our nomination for the consultation game with the finest line-up of players:
Em. Lasker, F.J. Marshall, R. Teichmann, M. Chigorin-D. Janowsky, T.F.
Lawrence, G. Marco, C. Schlechter. On board S. S. Pretoria, 1 3- 1 5 April 1 904.
King 's Gambit Accepted (Rice Gambit).
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 f3 g5 4 h4 g4 5 e5 f6 6 Ac4 d5 7 exd5 Ad6 8 0-0 Axe5
9 e1 e7 10 c3 Af5 1 1 d4 bd7 1 2 dxe5 h5 13 e6 fxe6 1 4 dxe6 0-0-0 1 5
exd7+ xd7 1 6 e2 xh4 1 7 f2 g3 1 8 xa7 !! d3 1 9 d2 !! xd2 2 0 Axd2

:1:
. . ;. =

L
-'

-.-

ft -. . ft

:I: D

..

,r

111

20 . . . xh2+ 2 1 fl f3 22 a8+ d7 23 a4+ c6

24 e7+ xe7 25 1tg5 + d7 26 d1 + c7 27 a5 + b8 28 e5+ a8 29


xh8+ a7 30 d4+ b6 31 e 1 fxg2 32 Ae3 c5 33 e5 g1 ()+ 34 .ilxg1
xg1 + 35 d2 f2+ 36 Ae2 g2 37 e7+ b8 38 e3 Resigns.

Source: Wiener Schachzeitung, February 1 905 , pages 33-35 .

(2160)

Since writing C.N. 2 1 60, we have noted that on pages 80-86 of Karl Marx Plays
Chess by Andrew Soltis there is 'The Immortal Consultation Game' played at
Voronovo in 1 952. The White allies were: Petrosian, Averbakh, Taimanov, Geller,
Botvinnik and Smyslov. Black: Keres, Kotov, Tolush and Boleslavsky.
(21 75)
Two correspondents, Andrew Butterworth and Paul Timson, point out that when
the 1 952 game appeared on pages 45-48 of Petrosian 's Legacy it was claimed
that Boleslavsky, Botvinnik and Smyslov participated only in the latter part of
the game.
(21 90)
Forever young

Games by three forgotten players who died prematurely about a century ago.
N.N.-N.E. Mitropolsky, St Petersburg, 1 890. (Remove B lack' s f-pawn.)
1 e4 c5 2 h5 + g6 3 xc5 .lc6 4 c3 e5 5 e3 h6 6 f3 .lf6 7 .la3 d5 8 1tb5
Ag4 9 g3 f4 10 Axc6+ bxc6 1 1 d3 .\xe4 1 2 g3 b6 13 fl

-
. 'r.
r&av. -r&
r&
li P
-..
---

. -

.,i/ -
-i'P..;;
ft i i i i1]
,. -"" -----'lti
'''[)
""

:::- . -?.

7 ..
;,.

1 3 . . . xb2 1 4 a6 1txd2+ 1 5 fl 0-0 1 6 f3 1txf3 1 7 1txb2 g4+ 1 8 .\f3 xf3+


19 g2 f2+ 20 g1 Ah3 21 xc6 fl + 22 xfl lte3 + 23 f2 Axf2 mate.

1 12

Source: Deutsche Schachzeitung, July 1 890, pages 205-206.


Nikolay Egorovich Mitropolsky died on 29 August the following year, about a
fortnight before his 25th birthday.
H.H. Cole-N.W. van Lennep, Occasion? (Match game, probably London, 1 896).
Falkbeer Counter-Gambit.
1 e4 e5 2 f4 d5 3 exd5 e4 4 <tlc3 <tlf6 5 Ac4 <tlbd7 6 'i!1te2 Ad6 7 d3 0-0 8 dxe4
Ab4 9 \t'fl Axc3 10 bxc3 . e8 1 1 e5 <tlb6 12 Ab5 c6 1 3 dxc6 bxc6 14 Axc6
<tlg4 1 5 <tlf3 Ae6 16 <tld2 <tlc4 17 ll.xe8 <tlce3+ 18 \t'g1

1 8 . . . <tld1 19 <tlf3 <tlxc3 20 'i!1td2 'i!1tb6+ 21 <tld4 <tle2+ 2 2 \t'fl <tlxd4 23 h3 ll.c4+
24 e1 <tle3 25 ll.a4 <tlef5 26 c3 <tle6 27 ll.c2 <tlg3 28 .b1 'ii1tc 5 29 'ii11e 3 <tlxh1
30 f5 'i!1te7 31 f6 'i!1tc5 32 g4 . d8 33 fxg7 <tlf4 34 ll.e4 'i!1txe5 35 ll.d2 . e8 36
Axh1 'i!1txe3+ 37 Axe3 . xe3+ 38 Resigns.

Source: BCM, May 1 896, pages 209-2 1 0 .


The death o f Norman Willem van Lennep took place in September o f the
following year; he was in his mid-twenties.
The third player, Arved Heinrichsen, died aged 23 in Vilnius on 23 August
1 900, a victim of tuberculosis.
A. Heinrichsen-H. Gazalch, Alexandria, January 1 898. Queen 's Gambit Declined.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 <tlc3 <tlf6 4 ll.f4 ll.d6 5 ll.g3 0-0 6 c5 Axg3 7 hxg3 . e8 8 f4
<tlc6 9 <tlf3 b6 1 0 cxb6 axb6 1 1 'i!1tc2 <tla5 1 2 e4 h6 1 3 e5 <tld7 1 4 b4 <tlb7 1 5
.llb 5 'i!1te 7 1 6 <tlg5 'i!1txb4 1 7 . xh6 \t'f8

1 13

18 h7 xc3+ 1 9 <it'e2 b2+ 20 <it'f3 !'! a3+ 2 1 'i!tg4 xa1 and White an
nounced a neat mate in seven : 22 h8+ 'i!te7 23 !! xe6+ fxe6 24 xg7+ <it'd8 25
.\f7+ 'i!te7 26 .\d6+ 'i!td8 27 .\xb7+ Axb7 28 xd7 mate.

Source: Schachjahrbuchfor 1899, II. Theil, by L. Bachmann, pages 1 1 1 -1 1 2. (K 1997)


Blindfold correspondence game

Owen Hindle submits this game:


Norris-A. Marriott (blindfold), Correspondence game. Ruy LOpez.
1 e4 e5 2 .\f3 .\c6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Aa4 f5 5 d4 exd4 6 0-0 .ilc5 7 .\gS .\f6 8 .ilb3
dS 9 exd5 .\aS 1 0 !'!e 1 + 'i!tf8 1 1 d6 .\xb3 1 2 dxc7 xc7 13 cxb3 Ad7 14 b4 h6
1 S .\e6+ Axe6 1 6 bxcS 'i!tf7 1 7 xd4 !'! ad8 1 8 b4 gS 1 9 .\c3 f4 20 f3 !'! he8
21 .\a4 aS 22 c3 <it'g6 23 .\b6 g4 24 xaS gxf3 2S gxf3 <it'h7 26 .\c4 g7+ 27
'it>f2 .ilh3 28 !'!g1

Black announced mate in four moves.


Source: The Westminster Papers, 1 February 1 879, pages 22 1 -222.
The Papers introduced the game as follows: 'Played, by correspondence, between
Mr Norris, of London, and Mr A. Marriott, of Nottingham, the latter playing
blindfold.'
(K 1 997)
Capped knight

C .N. 1 327 referred to a game on page 80 of the Dictionnaire des Echecs by


Franois Le Lionnais and Ernst Maget which was headed 'Max Lange v
Schierstedt, Breslau, 1 868 ' . The same information was given on page 43 1 of
Irving Chernev' s 1000 Best Short Games of Chess, and both sources state that
White undertook to give mate with his queen' s knight.
In reality, the game was played 12 years earlier, as is shown by pages 238-239
of the June 1 85 8 [sic] issue of the Deutsche Schachzeitung.
1 14

M.Lange-Jenny v. S., Halle, October 1 856. King s Gambit Accepted.

(To win, White must mate with his queen' s knight.)


1 e4 e5 2 c3 6 3 f4 exf4 4 f3 g5 5 Ac4 g4 6 0-0 gxf3 7 d4 fxg2 8 Axf7+ 'lt>xf7
9 h5+ g7 10 !'! xf4 6 1 1 Ae3 d6 1 2 2 e7 13 xg2 Ae6 14 !'!afl Af7

1 5 xh6+ xh6 1 6 !'! g4+ 'lt>h5 1 7 g3+ xg4 1 8 !'! f5 h6 1 9 h3+ h4 20 !'! h5+
.ilxh5 2 1 f5 mate.

In C.N. 1 327 we expressed some doubt about whether this was a genuine 'capped
knight' game, given that Black made no attempt to attack the queen' s knight.
Richard Forster now suggests that the identity of the piece coiffee may have
been sealed in an envelope and thus unknown to the odds receiver.
We cannot recall any references in chess literature to this interesting idea.

(2162)

Tarrasch Defence

A strange article appeared on page 1 69 of the June 1 9 1 8 BCM concerning a


little-known line in the Queen' s Gambit Declined. It was reported that during a
recent lecture at the Mercantile Library in Philadelphia Marshall had improvised
'the following remarkable game' :
1 d4 d5 2 f3 c5 3 c4 e6 4 c3 f6 5 cxd5 exd5 6 g3 cxd4 ( 'This move,
introduced by Marshall, if not properly answered, yields Black a good game . ' ) 7
xd4 c6 8 xc6 bxc6 9 Ag2 Ac5 10 0-0 0-0 1 1 Ag5 h6 1 2 .ilxf6 '*xf6

1 15

1 3 .f:lxd5 cxd5 1 4 xd5 Axf2+ 1 5 !'! xf2 xb2 1 6 !'! xf7 !'! xf7 1 7 !'!fl b6+, and
here the article ends rather mysteriously with the question 'And what is the
verdict?'

Wanted: more information about this line.

(2163)

Blindfold expert

Although it can be retorted that the ability to play sans voir is no measure of
world-beating chess skill, it remains an arresting and inconvenient truth that a
forgotten nineteenth-century player such as Alexander Fritz ( 1 857 - 1 932) could
play 1 2 blindfold games simultaneously, a feat that would, at least, stretch most
of today ' s masters . A report of Fritz' s exploits appeared on page 1 72 of the June
1 880 Deutsche Schachzeitung, and below is one of his games, also forgotten,
from a four-board blindfold exhibition.
A. Fritz (blindfold)-A. Hensel, Darmstadt, September 1 877. Sicilian Defence.
1 e4 c5 2 d4 d6 3 .f:lf3 .f:lf6 4 .f:lc3 cxd4 5 .f:lxd4 e5 6 Ab5+ Ad7 7 .f:lf5 .f:lc6 8
.f:\xd6+ Axd6 9 xd6 a6 1 0 Ag5 h6

l l .f:ld5 !'! c8 1 2 Axf6 a5+ 13 c3 xb5 1 4 0-0-0 Ae6 1 5 .f:lc7+ !'! xc7 1 6 d8+
.f:\xd8 17 !'! xd8 mate.

Source: Deutsche Schachzeitung, October-November 1 879, pages 336-337. (CC 1997)


Quick Thomas loss

Sir George Thomas once lost a game in 1 3 moves to the tournament tail-ender:
G.A. Thomas-T.H. Tylor, Weston-super-Mare, 7 April 1 926. Queen 's Gambit
Declined.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 .f:lf3 c6 4 .f:lc3 .f:lf6 5 e3 .f:le4 6 Ad3 f5 7 0-0 .f:ld7 8 .f:le 1 Ad6
9 Axe4 fxe4 1 0 h5 + g6 1 1 h6 Af8 1 2 f4 .f:lf6 1 3 f3 .f:lh5 14 Resigns.

1 16

(K 1 998)

Source: BCM, May 1 926, page 2 1 2.


Schlechter
A

couple of games which it is surprising not to find in all the various Schlechter
monographs :

C. Schlechter-J. Bendiner, [Vienna,] 1 1 October 1 893 . French Defence.


1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 .ild3 f6 4 c3 .ilb4 5 exd5 exd5 6 f3 0-0 7 0-0 .ilg4 8 Ag5
c6 9 e2 .ilxf3 10 gxf3 bd7 1 1 g3 .ild6 1 2 'it>h 1 c7 1 3 .g1 'it'h8 14 f5
.g8 1 5 d2 h5 1 6 . g4 . ae8 1 7 .h4 df6 1 8 .g1 g6 1 9 .ilxf6+ xf6 20
g5 . e6 2 1 . gg4 .ilf8

22 xf6+ . xf6 23 . xh7+ 'it'xh7 24 .h4+ Ah6 25 . xh6 mate.

Source: Wiener Schachzeitung, August 1 924, page 230.


The magazine' s obituary of Jakob Bendiner (July 1 930 issue, pages 220-22 1 )
stated that he had been Schlechter' s training partner. Suffering from financial
problems, he committed suicide on 20 May 1 930 by jumping into the Danube.
L. Fried-C. Schlechter, Vienna, 1 894. From Gambit.
1 f4 e5 2 fxe5 c6 3 f3 d6 4 exd6 .ilxd6 5 d4 f6 6 Ag5 h6 7 Ah4 g5 8 M2
<tle4 9 e3 g4 1 0 Ah4

Source: Chess World, 1 December 1 950, pages 276-277 .


1 17

(K 1 998)

Royal walkabouts

A number of chess literature' s most famous games feature a king which wanders
into the open, in most cases reluctantly. That fine writer W.H. Cozens ( 1 9 1 1 1 984) published a book entitled The King-Hunt, and T. Krabbe' s Chess Curiosities
had a lengthy chapter on what he termed 'Steel kings' . Here we examine some
other, neglected examples from yesteryear, beginning with the most frequent
type: enforced peregrinations. In the position below, the black king is smoked
out by a violent combination prepared by an innocent-looking pawn move.

W. Cook and W.H.K. Pollock-F.J. Lee and O.C. Muller, London, January 1 888.
White played 1 a3 and, after the routine reply l . . .a5, unleashed 2 4Jxe6 'it>xe6 3
xd5+ 'it>xd5 4 Aa2 mate.
Source (position only): Pollock Memories by F.F. Rowland, page 1 57. In a lecture
reported on page 1 4 of the January 1 9 1 1 American Chess Bulletin Hermann
Helms referred to this finale as 'the acme of chess artistry' .
A similar 'smoking out' idea had been seen a few years earlier:
Reina-Thimm, Mexico City, circa 1 884. Bishop 's Opening.
1 e4 e5 2 Ac4 4Jf6 3 d3 Ac5 4 4Jf3 d6 5 0-0 0-0 6 c3 c6 7 Ab3 Ag4 8 Ae3 4Ja6
9 4Jbd2 d5 1 0 h3 Ah5 1 1 g4 4Jxg4 1 2 hxg4 Axg4 1 3 'it>g2 d4 1 4 cxd4 exd4 1 5
M4 f6 1 6 'it>g3 h 5 1 7 E! h 1 E! fe8 1 8 g1 4Jb4 1 9 fl 'it>h7 2 0 a3

1 18

20 . . . 4Jd5 2 1 exd5 'iiY xf4+ 22 '<t'xf4 Ad6+ 23 '<t'g5 f6+ 24 '<t'h4 Af4 25 4Je4 . xe4
26 dxe4 g5+ 27 4Jxg5 + fxg5 mate.

Source: Brooklyn Chess Chronicle, 1 5 June 1 884, pages 1 37- 1 38.


The next position, published o n page 2 7 8 o f the 3 1 July 1 9 1 0 issue o f Deutsches
Wochenschach, also has knight and queen sacrifices on consecutive moves. The
only details given are that White was Charles Kiihne and that the game was
played at the Geneva Chess Club:

White played 1 'iiYe 2 and Black announced an elegant mate in four: 1 . . .4Je5+ 2
fxe5 'iiY x e4+ 3 '<t'xe4 Ab7+ 4 '<t'f4 g5 mate.
It might be an exaggeration to call this game 'Dufresne' s Evergreen' , but the
finish is certainly piquant:
J . Dufresne-Willberg, Occasion? King 's Gambit Accepted.
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 4Jf3 g5 4 h4 g4 5 4Je5 h5 6 Ac4 f1 h7 7 4Jxf7 . xf7 8 Axf7+
'<t'xf7 9 d4 d6 10 Axf4 4Jd7 1 1 Ag5 Ae7 12 0-0+ '<t'g6 13 e5 Axg5 14 'iiYd 3+
h6 1 5 . f7 4Jgf6 1 6 hxg5+ '<t'xg5 1 7 f1 g7+ '<t'h4

(See diagram, top of next page.)


1 8 'iiYh 3+ gxh3 1 9 g3 mate.

Source: Deutsche Schachzeitung, August 1 857, pages 267-268 .


1 19

Next, two specimens in which the dragnet is set up by the move '?/!xg7+, followed
by a powerful double check.

Vane-Miles, Sydney, 1 897.


1 d5 4Jxd5 2 '?/!xg7+ xg7 3 e5 + h6 4 .ilg7+ h5 5 fl. xd5+ f5 6 4Jf4+ h4
7 fl.g4+ fxg4 8 fl.h5 mate.

Source: Deutsches Wochenschach, 1 9 December 1 897, page 467 .


C.S. Anderson-Schneider, Brooklyn, 1 908. Hungarian Defence.
1 e4 e5 2 4Jf3 4Jc6 3 Ac4 e7 4 0-0 4Jf6 5 4Jc3 d6 6 h3 0-0 7 d4 exd4 8 4Jxd4
d7 9 '?/Jd3 h6 1 0 '?/Jg3 h7* 1 1 '?/Jd3 h8 1 2 b3 4Jh7 1 3 f4 4Ja5 1 4 .ilb2 4Jxc4
1 5 bxc4 '?/Jc8 1 6 4Jd5 '?/Jd8 17 '?/Jg3 Ah4

* 1 0 . . . 4:lxd4 wins.

1 20

1 8 Vbxg7+ rtlxg7 1 9 4Jf5+ 'it'g6 20 4Jxh4+ Vbxh4 2 1 f5+ Axf5 22 exf5 + rtlh5 23
g4+ Vbxg4+ 24 hxg4+ 'it'xg4 25 !! f4+ rtlg3 26 !! af1 4Jg5 27 Ad4 4Jh3+ 28 rtlh1
4Jxf4 29 !! xf4 Resigns.

Source: American Chess Bulletin, September 1 908, page 1 9 1 .


'A remarkable specimen of chess, particularly by correspondence' was James
Mason' s description of this game:
L.C. Moise-J.W. Harriman, Correspondence game, 1 899. Evans Gambit
Declined.
1 e4 e5 2 4Jf3 4Jc6 3 Ac4 c5 4 b4 Ab6 5 a4 a6 6 c3 4Jf6 7 'ibb3 0-0 8 d3 d6 9
a5 Aa7 10 Ag5 h6 1 1 h4 hxg5 (Mason gives this a question mark, suggesting
instead 1 l . . .'ibe7.) 1 2 hxg5 4Jg4 13 Axf7+ !! xf7 14 g6 Axf2 + 1 5 'it'e2 d5 1 6
g xt7+ rtlxf7 1 7 exd5 4Ja7 1 8 !! h 5 Vbf6 1 9 4Jbd2 Vbf4 2 0 d6+ Ae6 2 1 4Jg5 + rtlg6

22 Vbxe6+ rtlxh5 23 !!h1 + Ah4 24 4Jgf3 'ibe3+ (Here Mason recommends 24 . . . g5 .)


25 rtldl 4Jf2+ 26 rtlc2 Vbxd3+ 27 'it'b3 g5 28 4Jxe5 Vbxd6 29 g4+ Resigns.

Source: BCM, February 1 900, pages 72-7 3 .


Another novel game:

121

22 . . . g6+ 23 <it'xh6 Af8 mate.

Source: BCM, February 1 9 1 9, page 56.


And now an example from tournament praxis:

Source: tournament book, pages 1 68- 1 69.


Sometimes an audacious king will, unprompted, commitfelo de se. In the three
examples below the king march is neither compulsory nor judicious:
A . Hvistendahl-J.S. Kipping, Liverpool v M anchester Team M atch,
Manchester, 17 November 1 8 8 3 . Giuoco Piano .
1 e4 e5 2 <tlf3 <tlc6 3 Ac4 Ac5 4 c3 d6 5 d4 exd4 6 cxd4 Ab6 7 0-0 <tla5 8 Ae2
.l'id7 9 d5 f6 1 0 Ad3 c5 1 1 e5 dxe5 12 <tlxe5 0-0-0 1 3 <tlxd7 xd7 1 4 g4 g6
15 Ab5 e7 16 Axd7+ xd7 1 7 xd7+ <it'xd7 1 8 <tlc3 <tle7 1 9 <tle4 <tlxd5 20
d1 <it'c6 21 b4 <tlxb4 2 2 d6+ b5 ( 'This was running his head into the noose

indeed, but he may be forgiven on account of the pretty termination which it


produces, and because in any case, with correct play, White must have won . '
- C.E. Ranken.) 2 3 a4 + <it'c4
===

-- 0 >
:t
-- @?,
'* -
,. -
-
-0 fJ_f;ill
"

1 22

24 -'tb2 <lb3 25 Axh8 <lxa1 26 <ld2 mate.

Source: BCM, January 1 884, page 20.


W.H. Gunston-O.C. Miiller, Manchester, 1 890. Ruy LOpez.
1 e4 e5 2 <lf3 <lc6 3 Ab5 <lf6 4 0-0 <lxe4 5 d4 Ae7 6 e2 <ld6 7 Axc6 bxc6
8 dxe5 <lb7 9 <lc3 <lc5 10 <ld4 Aa6 1 1 g4 Axf1 1 2 xg7 .. f8 1 3 xfl <le6
1 4 <lf5 Ag5 1 5 xh7 Axc l 1 6 f!. xcl g5 17 f!. e 1 g6 1 8 <le4 xh7 1 9 <lf6+
d8 20 <lxh7 t'! h8 2 1 <lf6 .. xh2 22 g1 .. h8 23 t'! d 1 <lf8 24 <ld4 c8 25 <lf5

( 'Trying it on. Black' s king might have come back again. It is not clear what he
hoped or expected by going to b7 . ' - E. Freeborough.) 25 . . . b7 26 <lxd7 .le6
2 7 .lf6 ad8 28 .. xd8 t'! xd8 29 <le3 b6 30 fl c5 31 g3 d4 ( 'The king is
a strong piece and he plays boldly. The ending shows, in amusing fashion, how
he may easily be too bold. ' - E. Freeborough.) 32 <lfg4 e4 33 e 1 <lg5 34
e2 .. h8 35 c3 .. b8 36 b3 .. h8 37 f4 <lh3 38 <lf6 mate.

Source: BCM, November 1 890, pages 456-457.


C. Schmid-C. Schwede, Dresden, 1 879. Four Knights ' Game.

(Notes abridged from James Mason' s)


1 e4 e5 2 <lf3 <lc6 3 <lc3 .lf6 4 Ab5 Ab4 5 <ld5 .ilc5 6 d3 d6 7 .ilg5 Ad7 8
<lh4 h6 9 .ilxf6 gxf6 1 0 f3 <ld4 1 1 -'txd7+ xd7 1 2 g4+ c6 ( 'If 1 2 . . . e8,
of course 1 3 g7. However, rather than undertake this ill-starred journey with
his king, B lack should interpose the pawn, and then, if 13 <lxf5 or 1 3 exf5, play
13 . . . g5 . ') 1 3 <lf5 ( ' It would be safer to castle . . . 13 . . . .lxf5 would defer the end,
but make it certain - as certainties in chess are reckoned. ' ) 1 3 . . . <lxc2+ 14 d2
<lxa1 1 5 <lfe7+ c;t>b5 1 6 a4 + a6 1 7 b4 <lb3+ 1 8 c;t>c3 <ld4 1 9 b5+ a5 20 d1
l='! e8 ( ' Here Black perhaps misses his only chance. 20 . . . c6 would give his

antagonist a great deal of trouble - even if it would not compel him to raise the
siege altogether. ' )
(See diagram, top of next page.)
21 c4 Ab4 22 <lxb4 a6 23 <led5 c5 24 'lii' d 2 Resigns.

Source: BCM, May 1 893, page 239.


1 23

There is some similarity between the preceding Schmid


this one:

Schwede game and

J. Rejfir-K. Treybal, Prague, 1 8 March 1 928. Queen 's Gambit Declined.

(Punctuation by Dtiras)

1 d4 .lf6 2 c4 e6 3 .lc3 d5 4 Ag5 !J..e7 5 e3 a6 6 cxd5 exd5 7 d3 .lbd7 8


.lge2 b6 9 .lg3 g6 1 0 h6!! b7 1 1 h4! c5 1 2 h5 c4 1 3 !J..c 2 b5 14 A4! E!. g8 1 5
hxg6 hxg6 1 6 e4!! .lb6 1 7 e5! .lfd7 18 g4 .lf8 1 9 .lf5! !J..c8 2 0 g3 .le6 2 1
e3 d7! 2 2 .lh6 E!. f8 2 3 f4 c6 2 4 e2 b4 25 .la4

25 . . . b5! 26 .lxb6 xb6 27 E!. ad1 .lg7 28 f3! Ae6 29 g4 f5 30 gxf5 .lxf5 3 1
.lxf5 gxf5 32 E!. h6! E!. ae8 3 3 E!. dh 1 c6 34 E!. g6 d8 3 5 E!. hh6 d7

36 h1 ! ! Ab6 37 d1 !! a5 38 a3! b3 39 Axb3! b5 40 Ad2+!! c3+ 41 e 1 !


.ilxd4 42 bxc3 Resigns.

Source: Ce skoslovenskf Sach, April 1 928, pages 54-5 5 . Although Treybal lost,
the game was also published on page 1 1 5 of the monograph Dr Karel Treybal
by L. Prokes.
1 24

Just occasionally, a centralised monarch can perform very well in the middle-game:
A. Crosskili-E. Thorold, Beverley (England), 3 September 1 875. Evans Gambit
Accepted.
1 e4 e5 2 .t'lf3 .t'lc6 3 Ac4 Ac5 4 b4 ltxb4 5 c3 ltc5 6 0-0 d6 7 d4 exd4 8 cxd4
,ilb6 9 .t'lc3 Ag4 10 Ab5 ltxf3 1 1 gxf3 f8 1 2 Axc6 bxc6 1 3 h 1 .t'lf6 14 Ag5
h6 1 5 Ah4 g5 1 6 ltg3 h5 17 h3 d7 18 'it>g2 g8 19 e5 .t'ld5 20 .t'lxd5 cxd5 21
-(Wd3 g4 22 hxg4 hxg4 23 f4 c5 24 dxc5 dxc5 25 ad1 d8 26 f5 c4 27 a3+ g7
28 e6 fxe6 29 fxe6 b7 30 Ae5+ g6 31 g3 d4+ 32 f3

32 . . . 'it'f5 ( ' This king is the most attacking piece on the board.' - J. Wisker.) 33
f4+ xe6 34 f6+ 'it>d5 35 ltxd4 gxf3+ 36 'it>f2 f1g2+ 37 'it>xf3 ltxd4 38 xg2

38 . . . 'it>c5 + 39 f3 g8+ 40 'it>h2 h7+ ' and B lack wins ' .

Source: The Chess Players ' Chronicle, 1 875, pages 337-338.


In the next example, the White allies miss their chance of a rare march:

1 25

Edersheim and Loman-Censer and van't Veer, The Hague, 1 4 May 1 9 1 5 .


White played 25 xa7 and the game was eventually drawn. In the Amsterdam
publication Weekblad A. Speyer pointed out that White could win easily and
prettily by 25 c6+ 'iftf8 26 c8 'ifte8 27 h4 (Preventing 27 . . . g5, followed by
28 . . . E! g6. If 27 . . . g5 then 28 h5.) and the white king is free to infiltrate.
Source: Deutsche Schachzeitung, September 1 9 1 5 , page 269.
In our concluding game both kings have Wanderlust:
E.R. Perry-G.E. Croy, Los Angeles, 1 9 1 8. Queen 's Gambit Declined.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 .lc3 .lf6 4 .ilf4 .lbd7 5 e3 c5 6 .lb5 e5 7 dxe5 a5+ 8 'ifte2
dxc4 9 .ld6+ .ll x d6 1 0 xd6 .le4 1 1 d5 b4 12 i'!b1 .lc3+ 13 bxc3 xb1 14
i*xc4 h5 1 5 e6 c2 + 1 6 'ifff3 .lb6 1 7 exf7+ 'iftd8 18 .llg 5+ 'iftd7 1 9 b5+ 'iftd6
20 .llf4+ 'it>d5 21 .lld 3 .llg4+ 22 'it>g3 ( 'The kings do a merry dance around the

board. For one player' s king to be at g3 and the other player' s at d5 with so
much material remaining makes the position look more like a problem than an
actual game . ' )

22 . . . i*xc3 23 .Jf3 .lld7 2 4 b1 f6 25 .lg5 h4+ 2 6 'it?f3 c4 2 7 .ile4+ 'it?c5 2 8 a3


a5 29 E! d 1 E!h5 30 E! d6 Ag4+ 31 'it>xg4 E! xg5+ 32 'it>f3 .ld5 33 Axd5 and wins.

Source: BCM, September 1 9 1 8, page 278 . 11 was stated that 'Master Croy' was
aged 1 5 .
(CC 1998)
Miniatures

Miniature games can be highly instructive because they demonstrate crime and
punishment in drastic, not to say sadistic, form. Many spectacular brevities have
been published over and over, but here we examine a few that the anthologists
have left aside.
The first is taken from pages 27-28 of a book published in Mexico in 1 893, Un
poco de ajedrez by Manuel Marquez Sterling ( 1 872- 1 934), and it shows the
author in action.
1 26

M. Marquez Sterling-N.N., Occasion? (Remove White's rook at a l .)

1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 Ac4 c6 4 f3 f6 5 e5 'it!e7 6 0-0 e4 7 t! e 1 c5 8 Ag5


f6 9 exf6 i*xe l + 10 'it!xe1 + d8 (Marquez Sterling notes that Black should
have played 10 . . . e6.)

11 'it!e8+ xeS 1 2 f7 mate.

In the next game, a typical miniature, White sacrifices a pawn at move eight to
gain time (by wrong-footing the black queen) and to build up a powerful attack.
G.H. Wolbrecht-H.F. Lee, Chicago, 1 906. Sicilian Defence.
1 e4 c5 2 c3 c6 3 f3 f6 4 d4 cxd4 5 xd4 e6 6 Ae3 Ab4 7 Ad3 'it!a5
8 0-0 .ilxc3 9 bxc3 i*xc3 1 0 b5 "i*e5 1 1 f4 "i*b8 1 2 e5 d5 13 d6+ f8 1 4
.ilc5 g8 1 5 'it!h5 d8

16 e8 (One threat now is 17 .ild6 c7 1 8 .ilxc7, winning the queen.) 16 . . . b6 1 7


g5 g 6 1 8 i*h6 Resigns. It is mate next move.

Source: American Chess Bulletin, September 1 906, page 1 85 .


A queen stifled by a bishop i s also an eventuality i n the game below, i n which
White plays the opening far too passively :
J. Michlo-R. Pikler, Budapest, 6 May 1 93 1 . Caro-Kann Defence.
1 d4 c6 2 e4 d5 3 exd5 cxd5 4 2 .il5 5 gf3 c6 6 c3 .:N6 7 Ae2 'it!c7 8 o-0 e6
9 l=! e 1 Ad6 1 0 h3 0-0 1 1 h4 (The tournament book recommends 1 1 fl . )

(See diagram, top o f next page.)


1 1 . . .xd4 (If now 1 2 cxd4 then 12 ... Ac2, the 'Rubinstein trap' .) 12 xf5 xf5

1 27

1 3 .lf3 Ac5 1 4 g4 (White suddenly becomes reckless.) 1 4 . . . Axf2 + 1 5 xf2


'il'1g3+ 1 6 fl .le4 1 7 Resigns.

Even a leading master will occasionally be on the receiving end of a miniature.


Carl Schlechter' s quick defeat against a lesser light comes from pages 1 08- 1 09
of the April 1 904 Deutsche Schachzeitung.
C. Schlechter-H. Fahndrich, Vienna, 29 October 1 903 . Ruy LOpez.
1 e4 e5 2 .lf3 .lc6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Aa4 .lf6 5 0-0 .lxe4 6 d4 b5 7 Ab3 d5 8 dxe5
Ae6 9 c3 Ac5 10 a4 b8 1 1 axb5 axb5 12 .ld4 .lxe5 13 Af4 .lg6 1 4 .lc6 'l!1f6
1 5 Ae3 .lh4 1 6 Axc5

16 . . . Ah3 17 gxh3 (But not, the Deutsche Schachzeitung says, 17 'l!1xd5 .lf3+ 1 8
h1 Axg2 + 1 9 xg2 .lh4+ 20 h3 'l!1f3+ 2 1 xh4 g5+, and Black wins .)
1 7 . . . 'l!1xc6 1 8 Ad4 (Here the German magazine recommends 1 8 'l!1h5 .lxc5 19
t!e1 + f8 20 'l!1xh4 .lxb3 2 1 'l!1e7+ g8 22 t! a6 'l!1c5 23 'l!1d7 h5 24 t! c6 'l!1f8
25 t! xc7 h6 26 t! e7.) 1 8 . . . h5 (To enable the black queen to give check on the
g-file without White ' s queen being able to interpose at g4.) 19 h1 'l!1g6 20 g1
.lxf2+ 2 1 Resigns. (After 2 1 Axf2, B lack wins with 2 l . . .'i!1e4+.)

Krejcik odds game

In C.N. 1 399 (as well as on page 58 of Chess Explorations) we gave the following
odds game, taken from pages 24-25 of Mein Abschied vom Schach by J. Krejcik:
J. Krejcik-N.N., Cafe 'Jiigerzeile' , April 1 947 . (Remove White ' s queen.)
1 e4 e6 2 d4 h6 3 .lc3 a6 4 .lf3 g5 5 Ac4 g4 6 .le5 f5 7 exf5 exf5 8 Af7 + e7
9 .ld5 + d6 1 0 .lc4+ c6 1 1 .lb4+ b5 (We wondered why 1 1 . . .Axb4+ was

1 28

not played here.) 1 2 a4+ xb4 1 3 Ad2 mate.


We now note that the score was published on page 1 44 of the May 1 962 Chess
Review by Walter Kom, who made the following points :
a)

the actual finish was : 10 c4 b6 (Richard Forster points out to us the line
lO . . . cS 1 1 b4 cxd4 12 Af4 and White is winning.) 1 1 c5+ bxcS 12 <lc4+
c6 1 3 <\aS+ bS 14 a4+ xa5 1 5 Ad2 mate.

b)

' Krejcik told me in 1 949 that he really played thi s silly game against
a Dr Gruber' .

Hanstein

Page 390 below records Morphy' s high view of Hanstein ( 1 8 1 1 - 1 850), one of
the Berlin 'Pleiades' . An example of his play is given here:
C. Mayet-W. Hanstein, 1 848 (Occasion?). Scotch Gambit.
1 e4 eS 2 <lf3 <\c6 3 d4 exd4 4 Ac4 AcS 5 0-0 d6 6 c3 d3 7 xd3 <\f6 8 Ae3
.llx e3 9 xe3 0-0 10 <\d4 <\e5 1 1 .llb3 . e8 1 2 <\d2 <\eg4 13 f4 c5 14 <\bS
.:tle5 1 5 . adl a6 1 6 <tla3 b5 1 7 h3 Ab7 1 8 .ilc2 .:tlg6 1 9 e3 c8 20 f4 c6 2 1
M2 . e7 22 . del . ae8 23 . e 2

2 3 . . . <:\hS 2 4 e l <\hxf4 25 . ef2 <\h5 2 6 c 4 b 4 27 dl <tlg3 28 Aa4 c8 29


.ilxe8 xeS 30 <\c2 .:tlxfl 31 xfl xe4 32 <tle3 bl 33 xbl . xe3 34 MS
. el + 35 .:tlfl .:tleS 36 b3 e6 37 gS f6 38 d2 .:tlc6 39 f4 .:tld4 40 hl e5
41 g4 hS 42 c8+ h7 43 d7 .:tle2 44 . f3 <\g3+ 45 . xg3 xg3 46 fS+
g6 47 f3 h6 48 f4+ gS 49 f2 cl 50 gl . xfl + 5 1 xfl xfl + 52
xfl g5 53 f2 f4 and Black wins.

Source: Deutsche Schachzeitung, November 1 848, pages 427-428.


Nineteenth-century prodigies

Readers should brace themselves for a bumpy start:


M. Eisner-Frau Elsner, Klein Wanzleben, 1 3 November 1 885. Four Knights '
Game.

1 e4 eS 2 <lf3 <\c6 3 .:tlc3 <\f6 4 .ilbS <\e7 5 0-0 c6 6 .llc4 <\g4 7 h3 .:tlf6 8 .:tlxeS
d6 9 Axt7 mate.

1 29

This game (warts and all) was published on page 356 of the November 1 885
Deutsche Schachzeitung. Max Elsner had defeated his mother, and the score
was submitted by Herr F. Elsner, who related that his Sohnchen was aged 6%,
having been born on I 0 February 1 87 1 . This left an arithmetical puzzle unresolved
but, more importantly, a record or near-record had seemingly been set for the
youngest player to have a game published.
Few nineteenth-century children - or, to use an anachronism, teenagers - found
their chess production put on public view. In fact, the only familiar Wunderkinder
seem to have been Morphy, Napier and Capablanca. In the problem field there
was the mysterious Frank Norton (born in 1 866) and Lilian Baird ( 1 88 1 - 1 977).
Other so-called prodigies tended to receive fulsome write-ups without a chess
move in sight. Jacob Billikopf (born circa 1 882) of Richmond, Virginia was the
subject of a feature, plus photograph, on page 335 of the November 1 897
American Chess Magazine, which described him as 'an apt and brilliant player,
and who bids fair to develop into a phenomenal chess player' and who might
'some day rival his fellow-countryman, Chigorin' . Such words are cheap and
risk-free. Much was made of the boy ' s background ( ' of Hebrew extraction' , 'a
child of the steppes' , 'of good Slavic stock'), after which no space was left for
any games or results.
More is known (including at least one game) about George H. Derrickson of
Philadelphia, who died in 1 862 at the age of 1 7 , and about Andres Ludovico
Viesca from Mexico (born in 1 869) . * Another alleged prodigy was Gueffier of
France, who, as a 1 2-year-old, drew against Janowsky in a simultaneous display
in Paris (BCM, March 1 894, page 89) and was inevitably panegyrised as ' likely
to be a champion of the future' . That proved beyond him, and it remains to be
established whether he was, at least, the same Gueffier who drew against Emanuel
Lasker on a similar occasion (in Paris in 1 909 - see pages 26-27 of the first issue
of Lasker & His Contemporaries).
An intrinsically riveting subject, child prodigies have been neglected by chess
literature. Neither Great Games by Chess Prodigies by Fred Reinfeld nor Los
niiios prodigio del ajedrez by Pablo Moran strayed much beyond the Morphy
Capablanca-Reshevsky-Fischer rut, and any scholarly treatise of the future will
need to consider prodigies of all types, including those whose initial promise
was never fulfilled. There is much hunting to be done. To quote in passing a
twentieth-century case, is it true that in a simultaneous display in Buffalo on
8 March 1 9 1 7 Frank Marshall was held to a draw by a 1 2-year-old boy who had
been playing for only a year? Pages 73-75 of the April 1 9 1 7 American Chess
Bulletin reported that Robert C. White of 59 Zittel Street, Buffalo, New York
achieved this feat, although his triumph needs to be viewed in the context of
Marshall' s total score: + 1 27 -1 = 1 6.
*Concerning Derrickson, see pages 229-230 below . A game played by Viesca at the age of seven
was given on page 52 of Chess Explorations.

1 30

Nineteenth-century chess is commonly surmised to have been dominated by


ho ary, briar-puffing venerables, and it is true enough that the chess clubs were
not pulsating with young blood. Where exceptions existed then, they have been
forgotten now. About J.D. Roberts of Ireland, for instance, chess sources do not
provide even a basic biography. Page 44 of A History of the Dublin Chess Club
by A.A. Luce records that Roberts became a member in 1 879 but otherwise
reveals nothing. The January 1 88 1 Chess Monthly (page 1 47) wrote, 'The
champion boy of Ireland - Master Roberts is not 15 years yet' , which would
imply that he was born in the first part of 1 866, and the same issue (pages 1 471 49) gave two of his games:
H. Fisher-J.D. Roberts, Dublin, 1 880. Bishop 's Opening.
1 e4 e5 2 Ac4 Ac5 3 e2 <'lc6 4 c3 <'lf6 5 d3 0-0 6 Ag5 d6 7 b4 Ab6 8 a4 a6
9 <'ld2 Ae6 1 0 f4 h6 1 1 Axf6 xf6 1 2 f5 Axc4 13 <'lxc4 Aa7 1 4 <'lf3

14 . . . d5 1 5 exd5 e4 1 6 d4 exf3 1 7 xf3 fe8+ 1 8 d2 <'lxd4 1 9 cxd4 xd4+ 20


d3 f2+ 21 c3 e2 22 ac l ae8 23 hfl xg2 24 f3 .ili2 25 c2
Ad4+ 26 xd4 xc2 27 <'le3 xf3 28 <'lxc2 f2+ 29 Resigns.

H. Fisher-J.D. Roberts, Dublin, 1 880. Ruy LOpez.


1 e4 e 5 2 <'lf3 .'lc6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Aa4 <'lf6 5 d3 d6 6 c3 b5 7 Ab3 Ae7 8 <'lbd2
0-0 9 <'lfl d5 10 exd5 <'lxd5 1 1 Axd5 xd5 12 <'le3 d8 13 0-0 f5 14 b3 +
'it>h8 1 5 d5 Ad7 1 6 <'lxe5 <'lxe5 1 7 xe5 Ad6 1 8 d5 f4 1 9 <'ld1 h4 20
f3 ae8 21 d4 e2 2 2 h1

22 . . . xg2 23 xg2 Ah3+ and wins.

131

The next specimen was one of three consultation games played simultaneously
by Steinitz:
J.D. Roberts and C. Tuthiii-W. Steinitz, Dublin, 1 2 January 1 88 1 . Two Knights '
Defence.
1 e4 e5 2 .f:lf3 .f:lc6 3 .llc4 .f:lf6 4 .f:lg5 .f:lxe4 (Very seldom seen, although Steini tz
himself had successfully faced it in an informal game against Wilson in London
in 1 862. * ) 5 .ll x f7+ <it'e7 6 d3 .f:lf6 7 .llb3 d5 8 f4 Ag4 9 -&'Yd2 h6 1 0 fxe5 hxg5 1 1
-&'Yxg5 .f:lxe5 1 2 -&'Yxe5+ <it'd7 1 3 .f:lc3 Ad6 1 4 -&'Yg5 -&'Ye7+ 1 5 -&'Ye3

r. , Jli
' :t ;;
. -:
#'
S1
:f;:
.l.t' lii'
/. . /
If


' "''- " . z


.fti
"
.ft .ft"
''
.ft ;ill

rrFi w
II%
?M

,.

'0

1 5 . . . -&'Yf8 1 6 .1ld2 e8 1 7 .f:le4 .f:lxe4 1 8 dxe4 xe4 1 9 Axd5 and Black mated in

two moves.
This game is absent from the various collections of Steinitz ' s games, and its
finish was confused. A number of publications (e.g. the Philadelphia Times and
Cincinnati Commercial of 1 88 1 ) gave Steinitz ' s 1 8th move as ' 1 8 . . . RxRP' . So
did The Chess Player 's Chronicle of 25 January 1 8 8 1 (pages 38-39), but it printed
a correction in the following issue ( 1 February 1 88 1 , page 57).
A further game by the prodigy :

*T. Harding wrote about tbis opening in his October 1 996 article for The Chess Cafe.

1 32

1 3 4Jxe5 4Jxe5 1 4 f4 xf4 1 5 b5 e6 1 6 xe6 xe6 1 7 xa5 b6 1 8 b5


dx c3 1 9 c6+ f5 20 xc3 e6 2 1 4Ja3 !! hd8 22 4Jb5 c5 23 4Jc7+ d6 24
4)xa8 d4+ 25 xd4 cxd4 26 4Jc7 4Jd3 27 !! ed1 4Jb2 28 !! xd4+ xc7 29
cl + and wins.

Source: Brentano 's Chess Monthly, July 1 88 1 , pages 1 34- 1 35 .


The magazine stated that the occasion was a match which Roberts (this time
only 'the boy champion of Dublin' ) had won by the odd game against Cairns,
'one of the strongest local players ' . Roberts went on to study at Cambridge
University (Sidney Sussex College), and won his top-board game against C.D.
Locock in the 1 885 Oxford-Cambridge match. Two years later he was at Hertford
College, Oxford, and on 5 March 1 887 he played first board in a match between
old and present members of the University Club, losing both of his games (to
G.E. Wainwright). Page 1 56 of the April 1 887 BCM described Roberts as 'erst
of Dublin, who as a youth displayed such precocity in chess some years ago ' .
No longer could h e be regarded a s a special talent.
Courtesy of the Oxford and Cambridge Universities, some further biographical
information can be supplied. The son of Michael Roberts (who was Professor of
Mathematics at Trinity College, Dublin), John Drew Roberts was born in
Kingstown, Dublin on 23 October 1 864. (It will thus be noted that the above
quoted Chess Monthly report of his age was incorrect.) After studying at
Sherbourne School, he matriculated at Cambridge in 1 883 and at Oxford in
1 887. He was ordained in 1 893 and served in various livings. His last appointment
was as Vicar of St Andrew' s, South Wimbledon, and he died on 8 June 1 93 1 . He
received a six-line obituary on page 3 1 6 of the July 1 93 1 BCM which misreported
his playing record at university and made no mention of his earlier exploits.
A young virtuoso who merits serious attention from chess historians is the
American James A. Leonard. Born in New York on 6 November 1 84 1 , he
acquired fame among his contemporaries for his brilliant attacks and blindfold
prowess, only to die on 26 September 1 862 in Annapolis, Maryland, before
reaching even his 2 1 st birthday.
Leonard ' s status was recalled by James D. Seguin in the July 1 906 American
Chess Bulletin (page 1 27), a tribute to Pillsbury reprinted from the New Orleans
Times-Democrat:
'With the admitted exception of the king of chess kings, our own Paul
Morphy, Pillsbury assuredly stands as the finest exponent of the game that
America has yet produced - unless perhaps on a plane with him may be
placed the natural (though never fairly developed) capacity of that remarkable
if erratic and early eclipsed genius of the early sixties, James Leonard, of
New York, whose life so soon disappeared amid the smoke and gloom of
battle in the great civil war. But, of course, lack of opportunity to attain
development of genius on Leonard' s side precludes fair comparison in this
instance. '
1 33

A sketch of Leonard* appeared on page 320 of Brentano 's Chess Monthly,


November 1 88 1 , an issue which also gave a number of his games, presented by
Miron Hazeltine. (The material had originally been published in the Macon
Telegraph in 1 867 .) Leonard ' s main haunt was the Morphy Chess Rooms in
New York, on the south-eastern comer of Broadway and Fourth Street, and
Hazeltine remarked that Leonard was the Rooms' ' light and lustre' . It was there
that, in the summer of 1 860, he won the second New York Handicap tournament,
from a field which included the even younger Derrickson. Leonard defeated
James Parker B arnett ( 1 83 1 - 1 886) in the deciding match:
J.A. Leonard-J.P. Barnett, New York, 1 860. Evans Gambit Accepted.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 .llc4 .llc 5 4 b4 Axb4 5 c3 .lla 5 6 d4 exd4 7 0-0 f6 8 cxd4
0-0 9 e5 e8 1 0 d5 e7

1 1 d6 g6 1 2 .llg5 f6 13 exf6 gxf6 14 .llh6 . e8 1 5 d5 . e6 16 xa5 . xd6


1 7 c3 b6 1 8 M5 . c6 1 9 d5 . xc4 20 xc4 .llb7 2 1 g4 d5 22 h4 .llc8 23
g3 d4 24 . ad1 d6 25 xd6 cxd6 26 . xd4 Resigns.

Source: Brentano 's Chess Monthly, November 1 8 8 1 , page 322.


Another victim during Leonard ' s short career was William Homer, who had
been the victor in the Minor tournament at New York, 1 857 while Morphy had
been winning the main event.
W. Horner-J.A. Leonard, New York, 1 860 or 1 86 1 . Giuoco Piano.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 .llc4 .llc 5 4 c3 f6 5 d4 exd4 6 e5 d5 7 b4 .llb6 8 .llb 5 e4
9 cxd4 0-0 1 0 .ll x c6 bxc6 1 1 0-0 f6 1 2 exf6 xf6 1 3 h3 .ll x h3 1 4 gxh3 xf3 1 5
xf3 . xf3 1 6 'it>g2 . af8 1 7 .lle 3

(See diagram, top of next page.)


1 7 . . . xf2 1 8 .ll xf2 . xf2 + 19 . xf2 . xf2+ 20 'it>xf2 .ll x d4+ 2 1 'it>f3 .ll x a1 2 2

Resigns.

Source: Brentano 's Chess Monthly, November 1 88 1 , page 323.


Hazeltine also referred to Leonard ' s 'wonderful blindfold seances in the Fall of
*See plate section.

1 34

1 86 1 , the Winter and Spring of 1 862' . The next game was one of eight played
simultaneously without sight of the board:
J.A. Leonard (blindfold)-Hoffman, New York, circa 1 86 1 . Centre Game.
1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 4Jf3 Ac5 4 Ac4 f6 5 0-0 h6 6 c3 4Jc6 7 e5 g6 8 cxd4
.ilb6 9 d5 4Jb4 1 0 a3 4Ja6 1 1 4Jc3 4Je7 1 2 4Jh4 h7 1 3 d6 g5 1 4 dxe7 gxh4 1 5
4Jd5 g6 1 6 Ae3 c 5 1 7 f4 . g8 1 8 f3 4Jc7

19 f5 g7 20 4Jf6+ xe7 21 4::\ x g8+ xg8 22 .ilxh6 4Je8 23 h5 d6 24 xh4+


d7 25 . ad1 c7 26 f6 Ad7 27 ltf4 ltc6 28 exd6+ d8 29 g5 h7 30 . fe 1
c2

Here Leonard announced a less-than-obvious mate in five beginning with 3 1


d7 .
S ource: Brentano 's Chess Monthly, November 1 88 1 , page 3 24.
1 35

Next, a loss by Leonard:

F.E. Brenzinger-J.A. Leonard, New York, circa 1 86 1 .


White announced mate i n six (i.e. beginning with 2 1 xe7) although it i s actually
mate in five.
Source: Brentano 's Chess Monthly, November 1 88 1 , page 325 .
There follows a n illustration o f how to fend off a strong attack. Page 573 o f the
March 1 882 Brentano 's Chess Monthly reported that around 1 859-60 'the brilliant
James A. Leonard appeared in the chess arena and received much of his early
instruction and practice at the hands of Mr Richardson' .
P. Richardson-J.A. Leonard, New York, circa 1 860. King 's Gambit Accepted.
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 4Jf3 g5 4 Ac4 Ag7 5 d4 d6 6 c3 h6 7 0-0 4Jc6 8 b3 e7 9
g3 g4 1 0 Axf4 gxf3 1 1 E! xf3 4Jd8 1 2 4Jd2 Ae6 1 3 d5 Ag4 1 4 E! f2 h5 1 5 E! e 1 h4
16 e5 dxe5 1 7 d6 cxd6

JS
-

11-
:t B

:t
- -

JJI
7 - .J'

,fm$
'jm*R
t2..i d

J.1

18 4Je4 hxg3 1 9 hxg3 4Je6 20 Ag5 4Jxg5 2 1 4Jxg5 4Jf6 22 Axf7+ f8 23 E! efl
d5 24 Axd5 E! h5 25 4Je4 E! h6 26 xb7 xb7 27 Axb7 E! b8 28 4Jxf6 Axf6 29
E! xf6+ E! xf6 30 E! xf6+ g7 3 1 E! a6 E! xb7 32 b4 f7 33 c4 e4 34 f2 Af3 35 c5
e7 36 c6 E! xb4 37 E! xa7+ d6 38 c7 E! c4 39 a4 E! xc7 40 E! xc7 xc7 4 1 e3

Drawn.

Source: Brentano 's Chess Monthly, March 1 882, page 576.


Under the title 'A Chess Genius Who Died Early' The Cincinnati Commercial
1 36

of 1 7 December 1 88 1 gave a Leonard miniature against an opponent who is


well known to us through being well known to Morphy:
N. Marache-J.A. Leonard, Occasion? Giuoco Piano.
1 e4 e5 2 .)f3 .)c6 3 Ac4 Ac5 4 0-0 .)f6 5 d4 Axd4 6 .)xd4 .)xd4 7 f4 d6 8 fxe5
dx e5 9 Ag5 '?!Je7 1 0 c3 .)e6 1 1 xe6 Axe6 1 2 Axf6 gxf6 1 3 '?!!f3 0-0-0 14 .)a3
hg8 1 5 '?!fxf6

1 5 . . . d2 1 6 g3 '?!!c 5+ 1 7 f2 xb2 18 .)b1 d8 1 9 'it>g2 xf2 + 20 '?!! xf2 'and


Black winds up the affair with one stroke of play ' . No particulars were offered,
but the continuation was evidently 20 . . . Ah3+ (2 1 'it>f3 d3 + 22 'it>e2 g4+).

Two further games have kindly been contributed by Mr Jacques N . Pope:


J.A. Leonard-Lecour, New York, June or July 1 860. Evans Gambit Accepted.
1 e4 e5 2 .)f3 .)c6 3 c4 Ac5 4 b4 xb4 5 c3 Ac5 6 0-0 d6 7 d4 exd4 8 cxd4
Ab6 9 Ab2 .)f6 10 .)bd2 0-0 1 1 e5 dxe5 1 2 dxe5 .)d5 1 3 .)e4 Ae6 1 4 '?!Jc 1
.)ce7 1 5 .)fg5 h6 1 6 .)f3 'it>h8
--

11 s
}.f.ti/ ... -.til
.&
. ,
.&
'
AB
,

'- 7.:; -r.


.
-,
--- !
.,

"/////!
///

7.:;

//////

:frJr. .
-
,ai
.'M'
1M'
;

';_'@1

"'h

17 .)f6 gxf6 1 8 '?!! x h6+ 'it>g8 1 9 exf6 Resigns. (A computer check shows that
after 1 9 . . . .)f5 White would have given mate in, at most, eight moves.)

S ource: The Spirit of the Times, 1 4 July 1 860.


J.A. Leonard-L. Mark, New York. (Date?) Scotch Game.
1 e4 e5 2 .)f3 .)c6 3 Ac4 h6 4 d4 exd4 5 0-0 d6 6 .)xd4 .)e5 7 Ab3 c5 8 f4 .)c6

9 '?!!h 5 g6 1 0 '?!!d 5 '?!!c7 1 1 .)b5 '?!!d7 1 2 e5 .)b4 13 .)xd6+ Axd6 14 '?!! x d6 '?!! x d6

1 37

1 5 exd6 .ile6 1 6 a3 .ilxb3 1 7 axb4 Axc2 1 8 bxc5 f5 1 9 b4 .:lf6 20 .:lc3 a6 2 1


E! e 1 + Ae4 2 2 Ab2 E! f8 2 3 b 5 d7 2 4 .:la4 .:ld5

25 c6+ bxc6 26 .:lc5 + xd6 27 .ila3 E! fe8 28 .:flxe4+ d7 29 bxc6+ xc6 30


E! ac l + b6 31 Ac5+ c7 32 Aa7+ b7 33 .:ld6+ xa7 34 .:flxe8 .:flxf4. It is
mate in five (35 E! c7+ b6 36 E!b1 + a5 37 E! c2, etc.).

Source: The Dial, 4 October 1 86 1 .


Moreover, thanks to Mr Jack O' Keefe, via Mr Pope, the following four games
may be added. They appeared in Hazeltine' s 1 866 book Brevity and Brilliancy
in Chess (on pages 3, 45 , 82 and 94-95 respectively) .
[J.?] Thompson-J.A. Leonard, Occasion? King 's Gambit Accepted.
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 .:lf3 g5 4 .ilc4 .ilg7 5 d4 d6 6 c3 c6 7 ii1b3 ii1e7 8 .:flxg5 i?1xg5
9 .ilxf7+ f8 10 .ilxg8 E! xg8 1 1 0-0

Black mated in two.


J.A. Leonard-Jos. Leonard, Occasion? (Remove White ' s rooks at a 1 and h l .)
1 d4 d6 2 c4 e5 3 e3 c5 4 d5 .:lf6 5 .:lc3 .ilg4 6 f3 .ilh5 7 .:lb5 .:le4 8 ii1a4 .:lf6 .

White mated in two moves.


The score was published by Claudius Hiither (Schnell Matt!, page 1 00) and by
Kurt Richter (666 Kurzpartien, page 1 0 - he called it 'a text-book example of
the power of double check'), without any date, giving 'J.A. Leonhard' [sic] as
White and with no identification of B lack, who was James' brother, Joseph. The
138

latter was described by Hazeltine (on page 368 of the December 1 88 1 Brentano 's
Chess Monthly) as 'a nice, good-natured, rollicking boy, vehemently devoted to
three laudable objects - Muggins, the Morphy Chess Rooms, and his brother' .
J.A. Leonard-F. Perrin, Occasion? Petroff Defence.
1 e4 eS 2 f3 f6 3 Ac4 xe4 4 c3 f6 S xeS dS 6 Ab3 Ad6 7 d4 0-0 8
AgS h6 9 Ah4 Ae6 1 0 f4 cS 1 1 "ii1'd2 c4 1 2 Aa4 a6 1 3 0-0-0 bS 1 4 fS AxfS l S
. dfl Ah7 1 6 . xf6 gxf6 1 7 xdS AxeS 1 8 dxeS d7 1 9 "ii1' x h6 fxeS 2 0 Axd8
. axd8 2 1 . fl fS 22 e7+ h8 23 g6+ g8 24 . f3 .f7 2S t=i g3 f4. White

mates in five.
J.A. Leonard-Jackson, Occasion? (Remove White' s queen.)
1 e4 eS 2 f3 c6 3 Ac4 AcS 4 c3 f6 S d3 g4 6 d4 exd4 7 h3 dxc3 8 hxg4
cxb2 9 Axb2 d6 1 0 bd2 xg4 1 1 0-0-0 d4 1 2 . de l xf3 1 3 gxf3 Ae6 1 4
..lld3 xa2 l S eS d S 1 6 e 6 f6 1 7 f4 Ab4 1 8 f3 Axel 1 9 Ag6+ e7 2 0 Aa3+
<it>xe6 21 d4+ d7 22 MS + e8 23 . xel + f7 24 Ae6+ g6 2 S .gl + h6.

It is now mate in four (and not five, as stated in Hazeltine' s book).


The final two games have been supplied by Mr Jeremy Gaige. Culled from the
Macon Telegraph of 1 867, both are from eight-board blindfold exhibitions.
J.A. Leonard (blindfold)-E.W. Bryant. New York, 25 October 1 86 1 . Scotch
Gambit.
1 e4 eS 2 d4 exd4 3 f3 AcS 4 Ac4 c6 S c3 f6 6 0-0 dS 7 exdS xdS 8 cxd4
Ab6 9 gS MS 1 0 c3 ce7 1 1 xdS xdS 1 2 . e l + Ae6 1 3 xe6 fxe6 1 4
'l!YhS + f8 1 S . xe6 f6 1 6 "ii1'f3 "ii1' xd4 1 7 Ah6 "ii1' x f2 + 1 8 "ii1'xf2 Axf2 + 1 9 xf2
g4+ 20 g3 xh6 2 1 . fl + fS+ 22 . xfS+ g8 23 . e8 mate.
J.A. Leonard (blindfold)-C.A. Gilberg. New York, 1 7 January 1 862. Ruy LOpez.
1 e4 eS 2 f3 c6 3 AbS a6 4 Aa4 bS S Ab3 d6 6 0-0 ..lle 7 7 d4 exd4 8 AdS
"i!:Yd7 9 xd4 ..llb7 1 0 c3 f6 1 1 xc6 Axc6 1 2 Axc6 "ii1' x c6 1 3 dS "ii1'd7 1 4 f4
xe4 l S . e l fS 1 6 xe7 "ii1' x e7 1 7 "ii1'd S . c8 1 8 "ii1' xfS d8 1 9 . xe4 'l!i'f8 20
"i!:Yg4 h6 21 fS dS 22 t=i e6 c6 23 Af4 'lli'f7 24 f6 gxf6 2S . d6+ Resigns.

It is recorded that the entire latter display lasted under three hours. The most
blindfold games Leonard ever played simultaneously was apparently ten ( +4 -4
=2) in New York on 16 November 1 86 1 . His opponents included Derrickson.
Leonard came onto the chess scene just as Morphy was easing himself out of it.
On page 262 of his biography of Morphy, David- Lawson stated that in New
York in October 1 860 'Morphy met J.A. Leonard and Otto Michaelis, offering
both the queen' s rook' , but no further details are recorded. Leonard played most
of his chess in New York, although he did visit Philadelphia in 1 86 1 for a match
against William Dwight ( 1 83 1 - 1 888), who was later to become a General. With
Leo nard leading by +6 -3 =2 and requiring only one more win, the match was
1 39

left unfinished and he returned to New York.


Seguin was not alone in ranking Leonard among America' s very best. According
to page 8 of Reichhelm' s Chess in Philadelphia (published in 1 898), Leonard
'was, after Morphy, the most promising player America ever produced' . But
then came the Civil War, and Leonard was gone, at the age of 20. The
circumstances were reported by Hazeltine in the Macon Telegraph of 1 867:
'Moved in an evil hour - by what mocking friend we know not - he enlisted
on 1 February 1 862 to Company F., 88 N.Y. Volunteers, an Irish Regiment.
He was in the battle of Fair Oaks, and in the seven days' battles, till that of
Savage ' s Station where he was captured. Though detained less than three
months, so ill would his frame bear the unavoidable hardships that he was
attacked with fever and scorbutic dysentery and died at Annapolis.
The sad intelligence o f hi s death was conveyed t o the writer by his brother,
who with his now doubly bereaved mother.repaired to Annapolis to soothe
his last moments. But before reaching him, on 26 September, his spirit
departed. He remembered with blessings his friends in his last hours. '
I n Brentano 's Chess Monthly, December 1 88 1 , page 369, Hazeltine recalled
that Leonard ' s 'favourite pupil' , the above-mentioned E.W. Bryant, 'never tires
of recording Leonard' s games, or of taking lessons from him, or of penning his
praises in his letters' and that 'the chess world is indebted to him for the score of
many of his young master' s games, which would otherwise have been lost' . It
must be hoped that more of Leonard ' s brilliancies will come to light. Incredibly
enough, chess players today are most unlikely to find a single game by him in
their books or, even, in those million-game databases. That is a gross injustice
( CC 1 998)
which has to be rectified.
John S. Hilbert draws our attention to this game, played by a seven-year-old
against his father:
W.D. Brereton-Master Brereton, Pittsburg, 1 898. Steinitz Gambit.
1 e4 e5 2 c3 c6 3 f4 exf4 4 d4 h4+ 5 <it>e2 d6 6 00 ltg4 7 Axf4 0-0-0 8 h3
.ilxf3+ 9 xf3 'll1tf6 10 e3 g5 1 1 Ag3 Ah6 12 d5 g4+ 13 Af4 Axf4+ 14 xf4
gxh3 15 gxh3 e8 16 h4 ge7 17 Ah3+ b8 18 .ilg2 hg8 19 e2 M+ 20
<it>d2 xg2 21 exf5 xd4 22 e1 il1te5 23 Resigns.

Source: Philadelphia Public Ledger, 1 0 February 1 898, which contained


Kemeny' s annotations. He wrote that Black was probably 'the youngest chess
player living' .

1 40

III
Openings

The Griinfeld Defence

'One of the most remarkable Griinfelds ever played ' is how Jack O ' Keefe
describes the following game:
1 d4 lLlf6 2 c4 g6 3 lLlc3 d5 4 e3 Ag7 5 lLlf3 0-0 6 cxd5 CL\xd5 7 Ae2 CL\xc3 8 bxc3
c5 9 0-0 cxd4 10 cxd4 CL\c6 1 1 Ab2 ltg4 1 2 c l c8 1 3 Aa3 t1a5 14 t1b3 fe8
1 5 c5 t1b6 1 6 b5 t1d8 1 7 CL\g5 Axe2 1 8 CL\xf7 CL\a5 and White mates in three.

Why remarkable? Because the game was played not just before Griinfeld' s career
but even before Morphy' s . According to the Chicago Tribune of 1 3 July 1 879,
which took the score from the Glasgow Herald, the game was played between
Cochrane and Moheschunder in May 1 85 5 . It was also annotated by Steinitz in
The Field of 6 June 1 874.
(K 1 990)
Kasparov, Karpov and the Scotch

We present some background notes on the variation in the Scotch Game played
twice by Kasparov against Karpov in the 1 990 world championship match. In
particular, it will be shown how, 1 1 0 years ago, the same line was part of a bitter
analytical dispute between the world' s leading active players, Steinitz and
Zukertort.
1 e4 e5 2 4)f3 4)c6 3 d4 exd4 4 4) xd4 4)f6 5 4) xc6 bxc6 6 e5 tflle7

Tarrasch (in The Game of Chess) approved of 6 . . :rtfe7, but earlier master comment
had been negative. In the English-language book of the Hastings, 1 895
tournament, Albin said that it was 'not good', the usual continuation being 6 . . . CL\d5
(a move which Tarrasch considered unsatisfactory) .
In The Modem Chess Instructor, published i n 1 889, Steinitz had given 6 . . . t1e7
a question mark, with the following analysis: 7 t1e2 CL\d5 8 c4 Aa6 9 f4 0-0-0 1 0
141

f2 b4+ (or 1 0 . . . b6 1 1 c5 -'1.xf1 1 2 cxb6 -'1.a6 1 3 bxc7, with the better game)
1 1 -'1.d2 xb2 1 2 cxd5 Axf1 1 3 xfl xa1 (or 13 . . 5.!tb7 1 4 -'1.c3 Ab4 1 5 Axb4,
with advantage) 14 a6+ b8 15 e2 b2 16 c3, with the better game.
Another Steinitz line was 9 . . . b4+ 10 d1 b6 1 1 b3 c8 12 Ad2 b6 1 3
c3 Ae7 14 h5, again with the better game for White.

7 e2 4)dS

8 c4

Several commentators have called this the 'Mieses Variation' apparently because
Jacques Mieses occasionally adopted it in the 1 890s. But, as will be seen below,
Blackbume used it twice against Zukertort in match play in 1 8 8 1 , at which time
Mieses' chess career had barely begun.
Tarrasch (op. cit.) said that 8 c4 was bad because of 8 . . .-'1.a6 9 f4 b4+ 1 0 d1
(if 10 d2 xf4) 10 . . . Ac5 , after which one possibility, he said, would be 11 a3
b3+ 1 2 c2 e3+ 13 Axe3 xe3 14 d2 d6 1 5 exd6 0-0-0, ' and Black has
the far superior game' . Instead of 8 c4, Tarrasch recommended 8 d2 Ab7 9
b3 0-0-0 1 0 c4 b6 1 1 Ad2 .. e8 1 2 f4 f6, 'and Black has the superiority in the
centre' . An attack by 1 3 a4 would be beaten back by 1 3 . . . Aa6 1 4 e4 f7 1 5
c 5 -'1.xf1 1 6 cxb6 axb6 1 7 a 5 b5 . 'All these variations are exceptionally trenchant
and lively. ' Up to 16 cxb6 this was the tenth match game Mieses v Tarrasch,
Berlin, 1 9 1 6. Tarrasch played the inferior 16 . . . xb3.
8 d2 was the move chosen by Blackbume in a blindfold simultaneous game

against Piper in London in October 1 88 1 ( The Chess Monthly, June 1 882, pages
306-307). Play continued: 8 . . . g6 (as good as 8 . . . a5, said the magazine) 9 f3
Ag7 1 0 a3 ( 'White dare not play 1 0 Ag5 at once, for Black would win with
10 . . . b4+ at least a pawn ' ) 10 . . . a5 1 1 Ag5 e6 1 2 c4 b6 1 3 M4 Aa6, and
Black eventually won (at move 40) .
Another continuation is 8 b3 a5 9 Ab2 a4 1 0 d2 axb3 1 1 axb3 .. xa 1 + 1 2
Axa1 a3 1 3 d1 Ab4 (Mieses v Marco, Hastings, 1 895, a game won by
Black in 54 moves). Albin (in the English-language tournament book) said:
'White should play 8 c4 (if 8 . . . b4+ 9 d2 f4 1 0 xb4 Axb4+ 11 Ad2
1 42

.Q.xd2+ 1 2 4Jxd2 4Jg6 1 3 4Jf3), with the better game; and if instead of check with
the queen, 8 . . . 4Jb6, then White would get a better development of his game.'

In the same tournament book, Schiffers called 8 f4 'good continuation here' .


Mieses v Forgacs, Ostend, 1 907 went 8 f4 f6 9 c4 Aa6 10 b3 fxe5 1 1 fxe5 0-0-0 1 2
Ab2 'l!i'g5 1 3 4Jd2 .1lb4 1 4 Ad4 . de8 1 5 a 3 l=! xe5 1 6 .1lxe5 .1lxd2+ 1 7 d1 Ac3
1 8 . c l .ll x e5 19 'l!i'f2 4Je3+ 20 e2 Ad4 21 'l!i'f3 Ab7 22 'l!i'g3 'l!i'e7 23 d3 c5
24 d2 4Jf5 25 'l!i'h3 Ae3+ 26 Resigns.
s

..

. Jta6

Karpov' s choice in the 1 4th game, 1 990. The match book by Kasparov, Geller,
Lein and Chepizhny says (page 1 00) that Karpov' s choice in the 1 6th game,
8 . . . 4Jb6, 'is not new, and had already occurred in tournament play ' . That is quite
an understatement, given that 8 . . . 4Jb6 even appeared in Bilguer 's Handbuch in
the nineteenth century. lt offered the variation 8 . . . 4Jb6 9 M4 Aa6 1 0 4Jd2 'l!i'b4
1 1 0-0-0 . b8 1 2 a3 'l!i'a4, which prompted The Chess Monthly to observe that
'some of the moves for White show more valour than discretion' .
Another line: 8 . . .-l!i'b4+ 9 4Jd2 4Jf4 1 0 'l!i'e4 4Je6 1 1 f4 Ab7 1 2 a3 'l!i'b6 1 3 4Jf3 c5
(Walbrodt v Marco, Hastings, 1 895, a 58-move draw). In the English-language
tournament book, Schiffers said that 9 d1 was preferable. A modem instance
of Marco ' s line of development (except that Marco castled on the king ' s
side) was praised a s ' quite a neat concept' b y Miles o n page 5 o f Inside
Chess, 29 December 1 990.
9 b3

For 9 f4, see Schiffers' notes to the correspondence game Chardin v Schiffers,
given on page 252 of the English edition of the Hastings, 1 895 tournament book.
Also Deutsches Wochenschach, 1 895, page 8 3 . Various spellings of Chardin ' s
name are to b e found.
9 ...0-0-0

In his 1 4th match game against Karpov at Lyon in 1 990, Kasparov played 10 g3
now, and this caused players with the black pieces to examine other choices at
move nine (9 . . :h4, 9 . . . g6 and 9 . . . g5).
Here we continue with the old line.
10 .Q.b2

One of the most often quoted games is Mieses v Teichmann, Hastings, 1 895,
1 43

which continued 10 Ab2 4Jb6 1 1 g3 t! e8 1 2 Ah3 f6 1 3 0-0 fxe5 and was won by
Black at move 53.*
1 0 Ab2 was also played in the 1 4th game of a match in London between
Blackbume and Zukertort in 1 88 1 , a match which Zukertort won with a score of
+7 -2 =5 . Steinitz ' s annotations in The Field were strongly criticised by his
enemies Zukertort and Hoffer, who were the joint editors of The Chess Monthly.
An acrimonious analytical controversy on the complete set of 1 4 match games
took up countless pages of these and other journals.

10... g5

This was Zukertort' s reply to B lackbume' s 10 Ab2, and, in a rare instance of


harmony, both Steinitz and Zukertort/Hoffer believed it to be B lack' s best
move . * * This 1 4th match game continued (after 1 0 Ab2 g5) as follows:
l l e4

Steinitz wrote that 1 1 h4 would be better because if 1 1 . . .Ab4+ then 1 2 'itld1


g6 13 c2 with advantage. The Chess Monthly gave 1 1 h4 g6! * * *
l l . .Q.b4+ 12 d1 4)e7 13 h4
..

The Chess Monthly calls this the only move, parrying the threatened 1 3 . . . d5 . It
regards 13 f4 as far inferior because of 1 3 . . . d5 14 cxd5 g4+ 1 5 f3 xf3+
(and not 15 ... t! xd5 + 1 6 'itlc2, winning a piece) 1 6 gxf3 Axf1 1 7 xfl 4Jxd5 .
13 ... g6

Steinitz says that this is best since the queen would have stood badly at h6,
allowing White to gain time for development with 14 'itlc2, which prevents 14 . . . d5
because of 15 exd6 xd6 1 6 c5 . The Chess Monthly notes the variation 13 . . . d5
14 cxd5 h5 + 1 5 g4 xd5 + 16 'itlc2 and wins.
14 xg6 hxg6 15 c2

Steinitz describes this as unnecessary and prefers 15 Ad3 , guarding against the
knight' s entry at f5 . If then 1 5 . . . d5, White can play 16 exd6, followed by 1 7
'itlc2 and 1 8 t!dl . The Chess Monthly says that the reply t o 1 5 Ad3 would have
been 1 5 . . . g5 .
* Gewinnen mit Schottisch by Gutman gives 13 e6! dxe6 14 <\d2 b8 1 5 f4 and 16 0-0-0, ' with
very good compensation for the pawn ' .
* *Gutman did not agree, recommending 1 0 . . .g6 or 1 0 . . .f6.
* * *In his game against Unzicker in the 1 983/84 Bundesliga, Hort improved substantially on White ' s
play with 1 1 <\bd2 (Gutman).

1 44

After a complex battle, White (Blackburne) resigned this concluding match game
at move 52.*

Another move instead of Kasparov' s 10 g 3 is 1 0 e4, as had been played by


Blackburne in his 1 2th match game against Zukertort. In The Field, Steinitz
called it an unwise trap and probably an attempt to induce Black to play 1 O . . . .)b4
1 1 a3 dS 1 2 fS + . He recommended 10 .Q.b2 or 10 b2, but not 10 Aa3 because
of 10 . . . xa3 1 1 .)xa3 Ab4+, and White ' s queen must interpose to avoid the
loss of a piece by 12 . . . .)c3+. As regards 10 'ltb2, Steinitz gave the following
'likely continuation' : 10 . . . .)b6 1 1 cS Axfl l 2 cxb6 .ilxg2 13 bxa7 'iti>b7 1 4 gl
AdS lS Jle3, 'and the pawn at a7 will be somewhat troublesome in the middle
game, though for the ending it, no doubt, stands weak. But then, even if Black
wins this pawn, he will only have a doubled pawn plus in the queen centre,
while White will remain with a passed pawn on the a-file. On the whole, we are,
however, inclined to pronounce in favour of the move in the text ( 1 0 Ab2),
which seems to leave more initiative to the first player' . In reply, The Chess
Monthly expressed preference for 10 Ab2, believing that 10 'ltb2 was 'very
inferior' . The magazine gave the following analysis: 10 b2 .)b6 1 1 .Q.e2 (or
1 1 cS Axfl l 2 cxb6 Axg2 1 3 bxa7 'it>b7 1 4 gl AdS 1 S Ae3 e8 [or 1S . . . 'lth4,
winning the h-pawn* * ] 16 f4 f6 1 7 Ad4 fxeS 1 8 fxeS cS 19 Ac3 Ac6 20 .)a3 [if
20 .)d2 then 20 . . .h4+ and 2 l . . .'itxh2] 20 . . . dS, and Black will remain ultimately
two pawns ahead. ) l l . . . e8 12 f4 (if 12 Af4 then 12 . . . gS has much greater
effect) 12 . . . gS 1 3 fxgS (or 1 3 g3 gxf4 1 4 gxf4 h4+. If 13 0-0, then 1 3 . . . gxf4 1 4
.ilxf4 .ilg7) 1 3 . . . .Q.g7 1 4 Af4 cS l S b 4 .Q.xeS 1 6 .ilxeS xeS 1 7 'ltxeS xeS 18
'iti>f2 Axc4 1 9 Axc4 .)xc4 20 h4 he8 21 .)c3 .)b2 22 a3 dS.

Steinitz subsequently replied to this in a letter to the editor: 'You go at great


length to prove that one of the two moves which I had in a short remark suggested,
instead of an obvious error which occurred in actual play, should be wrong. But
the main point of your analysis seems to me to lie in your second sub-variation
on the 1 3th move, for I really cannot see that Black gets the least advantage if at
the end of your sub-variation White play l S .)c3.' followed, should Black protect
the f-pawn with the rook, by a4 and aS, and afterwards Ag4 . ' The Chess Monthly
responded with a claim that B lack did not have to protect the f-pawn at all and
*After 1 5 1ftc2 Gutman states that 15 . . . .lf5 would leave B lack with the better game.
* *Gutman gives 1 5 .ile3 d6!

1 45

by offering the following variation (after 1 0 b2 <tlb6 1 1 Ae2 !'l e8 1 2 f4 g5 1 3


0-0 gxf4 1 4 Axf4 Ag7): 1 5 <tlc3 Axe5 1 6 Axe5 xe5 1 7 t'l xf7 d4+ 1 8 'it>fl (if
18 'it>h 1 or 1 8 t'l f2, then 1 8 . . . t'l xe2 1 9 xe2 xc3) 1 8 . . . <tlxc4 (or Black may win
two pawns with 18 . . . t'l xe2 19 'it>xe2 <tlxc4 20 bxc4 Axc4+) 19 bxc4 Axc4 20
Axc4 xc4+ etc. If White plays 20 t'l f2 instead of 20 Axc4, then 20 . . . t'l xe2 2 1
t'l xe2 t'l f8+ 22 'it>e1 .11 x e2 2 3 <tld1 xb2 2 4 <tlxb2 t'l fl + 25 'it>xe2 t! xa l . The
following month, The Chess Monthly corrected itself by noting that 18 . . . <tlxc4
19 bxc4 .11x c4 was 'overthrown' by the powerful reply 20 t'l b l . 'We had given,
however, as sub-variation 18 . . . t'l xe2 1 9 'it>xe2 <tlxc4 20 bxc4 -'txc4+, which leaves
White obviously with a hopelessly lost game after 21 'it>f3 -'txf7 . '
After 10 e4 {)f6 1 1 e2 (not 1 1 e3 <tlg4 - Steinitz), the 1 2th match game
between Blackbume and Zukertort continued:
11 ... }3e8 12 f4 d5

Steinitz: 1 2 . . . d6 would have won a pawn for B lack in view of 1 3 exf6 d8 1 4


Ae3 xf6. The Chess Monthly concurred, adding: 1 3 exd6 d7 1 4 Ae3 <tlg4
and 1 3 Ab2 <tld7 1 4 ' P-B4' (an impossible move) f6 or 1 4 exd6? d8 1 5 Ae5
cxd6.
13 {)c3 * d7
The Chess Monthly recommended 1 3 . . . <ld7 1 4 e3 (if 14 Ad2 or 14 Ae3, then
14 . . .f6) 14 . . . <lb6 1 5 c5 (if 15 Ad2 then 1 5 . . . f6) 1 5 . . . Axf1 1 6 cxb6 Axg2 1 7
bxa7 'it>b7 1 8 t'lg1 h4+, and Black will be a pawn ahead . * *
1 4 Ad2 d4 15 {)a4 {)d5

According to The Chess Monthly, 15 . . . c5, followed by 16 . . .-'tb7 would be much


better.
16 f3 {)b4
The Chess Monthly wrote: ' 1 6 . . . <lb6 was the proper reply. If then 17 c5, Black
obtains a good game with 17 . . . Axf1 1 8 xfl <tlxa4 1 9 a6+ 'it>d8 and, after 20
xa4 or 20 bxa4, 20 . . . .11 x c5 . '

This 1 2th match game between Blackbume and Zukertort finished abruptly : 1 7
0-0-0 f5 1 8 Axb4 Axb4 1 9 Ad3 d7 20 c5 Ab5 2 1 Axb5 Resigns. The notes
by Steinitz and Zukertort/Hoffer to the final moves have been omitted here.
Although many of the above Scotch Game variations still occur in modem games,
*Gutman recommends 1 3 4Jd2 'ii!l'd7 14 b2, with advantage to White. Therefore B lack has to be
content with a repetition of moves after 1 1 . . .4Jd5 12 'ii!l'e4 4Jf6, etc.
* *Gutman gives the improvement 14 f2.

1 46

the great labour of these giants from another century seems to have been virtually
(I 1 991)
forgotten.
Trompowsky

Nomination for the name most commonly misspelt nowaday s : Octavio


Trompowsky ( 1 897- 1 984), the Brazilian player best (or only) remembered
for the opening 1 d4 4Jf6 2 -'tg5 . Quite apart from ' Trompowski ' and
'Trompovsky ' , the ECO has helped start a trend towards ' Trompovski ' . It
cannot be said when the moves 1 d4 4Jf6 2 Ag5 were first played, but pre
Trompowsky cases exist, an example being the game between S tepan
Levitzky and Amos B urn, Breslau, 27 July 1 9 1 2 . Play continued 2 . . g6 3
Axf6 e x f6 4 c4 Ag7 5 4Jc3 0-0 6 e3 d6 7 Ad3 (the tournament book says
that 7 g3 and 8 Ag2 come into consideration) 7 . . . f5 8 4Jge 2 4Jd7 9 'ltc2 4Jf6
.

1 0 0-0 c6 1 1 b4 El e8 1 2 El ab 1 'lte7 1 3 b5 4Je4 1 4 bxc6 bxc6 1 5 Axe4 fxe4


16 'lta4, and the game was eventually drawn ( at move 5 7 ) . Information
about other early cases of 1 d4 4Jf6 2 Ag5 would be welcome. (K 1 992)

The question of the origins of the Trompowsky Opening was taken up on pages
1 1 - 1 2 of the 7/1 992 New in Chess, without any earlier specimens being offered.
One can be added now, although it arises by transposition:
S. Levitzky-S. lsbinski, Russian National Tournament, St Petersburg, October
1 9 1 1 . Trompowsky Opening.
1 d4 d5 2 Ag5 4Jf6 3 Axf6 gxf6 4 c4 c5 5 cxd5 'ltxd5 6 e3 cxd4 7 4Jc3 'lta5 8
exd4 Ag7 9 Ad3 4Jc6 1 0 4Je2 Ag4 1 1 f3 Ad7 1 2 0-0 4::l xd4 1 3 4Jxd4 'ltb6 1 4
Ac4 f5 1 5 h1 Axd4 1 6 4Jd5 'ltc5 1 7 El c l El c8 18 b 4 'ltxc4 1 9 El xc4 El xc4 2 0
'l1e2 Resigns.

Source: Deutsche Schachzeitung January 1 9 1 2, page 1 0.


Levitzky won the tournament. Stefan Isbinski (or Izbinsky), who finished third,
was to die about six months later, aged 27 .
(K 1 995)
The following game, difficult to attribute precisely, * is featured in various
databases:
1 d4 4Jf6 2 Ag5 4Je4 3 Ah4 c5 4 f3 'lta5 + 5 c3 4Jd6 6 d5 g6 7 e4 b5 8 Ad3 Ag7
9 4Je2 b4 10 d2 c4 1 1 -'tc2 b3 1 2 Ad1 4Jb5 1 3 M2 'ltxa2 1 4 El xa2 bxa2 1 5
4Ja3 4Jxa3 1 6 "iii'c l 4Jb1 1 7 Ac2 a 1 ('l1) 1 8 la.. x b1 d6 1 9 0-0 4Jd7 2 0 Resigns.

The Mar6czy Bind

Wanted: information about the origins of the Mar6czy Bind. One of the few
*It has, for instance, been given as Stackpole v Kirkham, 1 88 1 and B . Kirkham v G. Mackenzie,
1 88 1 .

1 47

writers to venture a precise game reference is Andrew Soltis. Pages 97-98 of his
Pawn Structure Chess claim that 'the first master game to gain recognition of
the Bind was Swiderski v Mar6czy, Monte Carlo 1 904, in which Mar6czy, with
B lack in a Dragon formation, was the "bindee" rather than the "binder". It was
his opponent who played P-QB4 and P-K4. But for years later Mar6czy, a great
Hungarian grandmaster and chess journalist, repeatedly drew attention to the
powers of the Bind, and, by the 1 920s, permitting the B ind was equated with
making a blunder. '
The quoted Swiderski Bind actually arose through transposition; the opening
moves were 1 e4 c5 2 c4 <[)c6 3 i[)f3 g6 4 d4 cxd4 5 i[)xd4 .llg7 6 .lle 3 <[)f6 7
i[)c3 d6 8 .lle 2 .ll d7 9 0-0 0-0, and subsequent imprecision by White gave
Mar6czy the game in 48 moves. Around this time, an early c4 by White in the
Sicilian was being linked to Mar6czy ' s name (e.g. Wiener Schachzeitung,
October 1 906, page 348), but it is far from easy to trace early specimens of the
Mar6czy B ind, played either by G.M. himself or by other masters. (K 1 992)
Page 79 of the March-April 1 906 Wiener Schachzeitung reproduced from Magyar
Sakklap Mar6czy' s annotations to the 1 6th match game between Tarrasch and
Marshall at Nuremberg, November 1 905 (which began 1 e4 c5 2 d4 cxd4 3 i[)f3
a6 4 i[)xd4 g6 5 .lle 2 .llg7 6 i[)c3 <[)c6) . On four consecutive moves (3-6) Mar6czy
stressed the value of the move c4.
The Dragon

Page 79 of Soltis' Pawn Structure Chess notes that in his autobiographical


1zbrannyye partii, published in 1 95 3 , F. Dus-Chotimirsky claimed to have
invented the name 'Dragon Variation' . This is another term whose origins tend
to be skated over by the reference books. Dus-Chotimirsky recorded (pages 5758) that his astronomy studies had led him, in 1 90 1 , to see a resemblance between
the black pawn formation and 'the pattern of Draco the Dragon in the northern
sky ' . It would be interesting to discover when 'Dragon Variation' started
appearing in print.
(K 1 992)
Oddity

The following game, which appeared in the chess column of The Cincinnati
Commercial in 1 88 1 , is notable for a bizarre third move (claimed at the time to
be a unique occurrence) and the sacrifice of all White ' s king' s-side pawns by
move six.
I.E. Orchard-J.S.R. Thomson, USA, 1 88 1 . King 's Gambit Accepted.
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 g3 fxg3 4 1[)[3 gxh2 5 .llc4 i[)f6 6 l==\ xh2 i[)xe4 7 l==i e2 d5 8 .llx d5
xd5 9 i[)c3 h5 10 i[)xe4 h1 + 1 1 <M2 xd1 and White mated in two. (K 1 992)

1 48

The above game beginning 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 g3 was also publi shed on


page 262 of The Chess Player's Chronicle of 3 1 May 1 88 1 . That source specifies
that the winner, I.E. Orchard, christened his third move the 'Palmetto Gambit'
in honour of his native state, South Carolina. In a letter on page 290 of the June
1 8 8 1 issue of the Chronicle F.V. of Southsea reported that he had played White
in a game beginning 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 g3 fxg3 4 4Jf3 ; after 4 . . . d5 5 exd5 xd5
6 4Jc3 e6+, he was two pawns down and his attack had been neutralised. On
the same page, another correspondent, J.S .E. of Liverpool, pointed out that far
from being a novelty, 3 g3 was ' noticed curtly' on page 392 of the most recent
edition of the Handbuch. The continuation given was 3 .. .fxg3 4 hxg3 d5, and
'Black has the better game' . The Chronicle sniffily suggested that 'the "newly
invented gambit" is meant as another of those practical jokes for which our
American cousins are so justly celebrated' .
(K 1 996)
Fischer and Damiano's Defence

A new book from the USA provides the largest collection yet of Fischer' s games
(942, most with brief notes) : Bobby Fischer Complete Games of the American
World Chess Champion compiled and edited by Lou Hays. The section on
simultaneous encounters offers a number of surprises, such as a game in which
Fischer was held to a draw against Damiano' s Defence:
R.J. Fischer (simultaneous)-R.F. McGregor, Houston, 28 March 1 964.
Damiano 's Defence.
1 e4 e5 2 4Jf3 f6 ( ' B luffing. McGregor, actually a strong player, wanted Fischer
to think he was a beginner. ' ) 3 4:lxe5 e7 4 4Jf3 d5 5 d3 dxe4 6 dxe4 xe4+ 7
Ae2 Af5 8 4Jd4 4Jc6 9 4:lxf5 xf5 10 0-0 Ad6 1 1 Ag4 b5 1 2 4Jc3 c4 1 3
Ae2 f7 14 Ab5 0-0-0 1 5 g4+ f5 1 6 h3 4Jge7 1 7 4Je4 h6 1 8 4:lxd6+ t! xd6
19 Af4 t! d4 20 Ae3 b4 2 1 .ilxc6 4:lxc6 22 b3 t! e4 23 fd1 t! d8 24 t! xd8+
4:lxd8 25 t!d1 e6 26 g3 t! xe3 Drawn.

It is notable that Fischer did not play the gambit line recommended by the Wiener
Schachzeitung (May-June 1 9 1 2, page 1 79, and July-August, page 200): 8 0-0
( ' ! ' ) xc2 9 e 1 Ae7 1 0 4Jc3 4Jc6 1 1 Ab5 0-0-0 1 2 e3, with the threat of 1 3
4Je l . The magazine also pointed out the snap finish 8 0-0 xc2 9 t! e 1 xd1 1 0
Ab5+ f7 1 1 Ae8 mate, but o f course after 1 0 . . . d8 there is n o mate at e 8
because the rook is pinned. Fischer' s 8 4Jd4 line was preferred by earlier opening
encyclopaedias ; the 1 843 edition of B ilguer' s Handbuch des Schachspiels
(pages 48-49) gave 8 4Jd4 4Jc6 9 4:lxf5 xf5 10 0-0 Ad6 1 1 Ad3 .
As always in such cases, we wonder how much knowledge the master had, and
(1 934)
needed, of this historical background.

1 49

Breyer Defence

Wanted: information about the origins of the Breyer Defence in the Ruy Lopez,
as featured in the Fischer v Spassky matches. When did Breyer play it or write
about the line? Also, when was his name first attached to it?
( 1 939)
Ivan B ottlik draws attention to his account of thi s matter on page 22 1 of
volume 3 of Magyar Sakktortenet:
' Here is the situation regarding the puzzle of the Breyer Defence in the Ruy
Lopez. This term has been adopted by chess literature throughout the world,
although no-one has so far managed to discover a game played by Breyer
with 9 . . . <tlb8. There is no trace of it even in his writings. The term has
become so well established that Vienna chess players told Gedeon B arcza
in 1 955 that this move had been recommended by Breyer. (Breyer visited
Vienna regularly and also played in tournaments there in 1 920 and 1 92 1 .)
A 1 955 text by a Viennese contemporary of Breyer, the International Master
and renowned theoretician Hans Muller, contains decisive information and
confirms that this variation did indeed originate with Breyer. In Schach
Echo, 1 955, page 247, he writes as follows in explaining a game with the
move 9 . <tlb8 : "This strange, though well thought out, retreat was first
recommended by the Hungarian master G. Breyer in one of his essays as an
improvement on the classical Chigorin Defence."
.

In this explanation, Muller quotes from memory several of Breyer ' s


observations. There is therefore n o doubt that at some point h e saw the
essay. Unfortunately, so far neither we nor any foreign researchers into
Breyer' s life and work have been able to find any further trace.
Nevertheless, the term "Breyer Defence" can be j ustified by Muller' s text. '
Mr Bottlik' s letter to us adds:
'It is several years since I wrote the above, but neither I nor others have
been able to make any progress whatsoever. Concerning the "essay "
mentioned by Muller, it should be noted that either it existed in manuscript
form and was lost (like the manuscript of Breyer 's book on the ending rook
and bishop versus rook) or else it was published somewhere and remains to
be discovered. '
(2004)

Opening novelties

In London on 1 7 February 1 993 Kasparov gave a simultaneous exhibition against


1 50

consulting groups. The most widely published game, a victory for him as White
over a team which included Maxim Dlugy, began 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 e4 b5 4
a4 c6 5 b3 e5 6 axb5 cxb5 .

Numerous commentators described the line (and 5 . . . e5 in particular) as a


theoretical novelty, yet it has long been known, having appeared on page 829 of
the 1 922 edition, revised by Schlechter, of Bilguer' s Handbuch des Schachspiels.
The only difference is the inversion of moves 5 and 6 by both sides.
'If it' s not in ECO or my database, it must be a theoretical novelty' is dangerously
slack reasoning for an annotator.
( 1 9 75)
Marshall's Gambit

What is the earliest known example of the Marshall Gambit in the Ruy Lopez?
The score below appeared on pages 22-23 of the February 1 893 issue of The
Chess World, taken from the New York Sun, and on pages 1 20- 1 2 1 of the 2 April
1 893 issue of Deutsches Wochenschach. The allies were Conill, Ostolaza, Lopez
and Herrera.
C.A. Walbrodt-AIIies, Havana, 1 8 or 1 9 February 1 893. Ruy LOpez.
1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3 Ab5 a6 4 .Q.a4 6 5 o-o Ae7 6 !!e1 b5 7 .Q.b3 0-0 8 c3 d5 9
exd5 e4 10 dxc6 exf3 1 1 g3 .Q.g4 1 2 d4 h5 1 3 .Q.g5 !!e8 14 d2 7 1 5 Axe7
!! xe7 16 h3 Axh3 17 xf3 !! xe 1 + 18 xe1 M6 19 e3 Ag4 20 e5 g5 21 f4
6 22 xg4 hxg4 23 -'txe6 fxe6 24 !!e1 !! e8 25 d5 <M7 26 e4 E1 e7 27 dxe6+
xe6 28 xe6+ E1 xe6 29 !! xe6 xe6 30 f2 a5 31 e3 g6 32 e4 a4 33 d4
34 d5 f6 35 b4 axb3 36 axb3 37 b4 6 38 c4 bxc4 39 xc4 e6 40
c5 e7 41 b5 dB 42 b6 cxb6+ 43 xb6 c8 44 c7 Resigns.
(1996)

On page 260 of the April 1 974 Chess Life & Review Edward Lasker made the
peculiar claim that it was only during the New York, 1 924 tournament that
Emanuel Lasker learned of the Marshall Gambit:
' I had told him [Emanuel Lasker] on one of our morning walks in Central
Park that during the war, when of course no chess news crossed the Atlantic,
Marshall had invented a pawn sacrifice against the Ruy Lopez which he
had tried against Capablanca in a tournament in New York in 1 9 1 8, but
despite his tremendous attack, Capablanca succeeded in refuting it over the
board. I told him how this "Marshall attack" went. . . '
The Capablanca v Marshall game had been published on pages 1 5 8- 1 60 of the
August 1 9 1 9 Deutsche Schachzeitung and in the Cuban ' s 1 920 book My Chess
Career.
151

On the subject of opening preparation, Marshall wrote in the final paragraph of


the introduction to his 1 9 1 4 book Marshall 's Chess "Swindles " :
'The player who relies upon things h e has "cooked up" beforehand to win
his game is sure to lose in that power of self-reliant, ever-ready and active,
over-the-board thought and command, which is at once both the great value
and the chief source of success in the noble game of chess. '
The O'Kelly Variation

When was the O' Kelly Variation in the Sicilian Defence (1 e4 c5 <bf3 a6) first
played? An early instance is A.J. Souweine v F.J. Marshall, Manhattan Chess
Club Championship, 1 905 (?). Black won in 33 moves.
Source: American Chess Bulletin, January 1 906, page 1 5 .

(2023)

Early instances

Examples of openings played before their supposed 'invention' are always of


interest. On pages 1 8- 21 of R. P. Michell A Master of British Chess by J. du
Mont there is a game against Siegheim played in London in 1 903 in which
Michell (as Black) opened 1 d4 <bf6 2 <bf3 e6 3 c4 b6 4 <bc3 Ab4 .
C.N. 1 2 1 8 pointed out that page 238 of Tartakower' s My Best Games of Chess
1 905- 1 930 called a game beginning 1 d4 <bf6 2 <bf3 e6 3 c4 Ab4+ 'Neo-lndian
Defence, Buckle-Bogoljubow Variation' . Tartakower' s claim that 3 . . . Ab4+ 'is
already to be found in some of the games of Buckle' remains to be proven; the
closest example we have found so far is 1 d4 e6 2 c4 Ab4+ 3 <bc3 Axc3+
(2029)
(Lowenthal v B uckle, 4th match game, London, 1 85 1 ).
Reti on Hypermodernism

John Donaldson sends an English translation by R. Tekel and M. Shibut of an


interesting article by Reti 'Do "New Ideas" Stand Up in Practice? ' , published on
pages 8- 1 0 of the Virginia Chess Newsletter of September/October 1 993.
A sidelight is Reti' s nomination for White ' s best first move: 1 c4. His reasoning
begins : 'One would expect Black' s strongest point in the centre to be d5 since,
unlike e5, it has natural protection by the queen. Therefore, the ideal initial
move is 1 c4, immediately taking aim at d5 . '
Tartakower (see page 1 5 o f his book referred to i n the previous item) called 1 c4
'the strongest initial move in the world' .
(2030)

152

Morphy and Blackmar

The final paragraph of C.N. 1 966 (see page 352 below) referred to contradictory
versions of a game between Morphy and Maurian. We have now found the
score in a nineteenth-century source: it was the first of three Morphy games
'recently published for the first time in the New Orleans Times-Democrat' which
appeared on pages 90-9 1 of the 1 5 March 1 887 issue of the Brooklyn Chess
Chronicle. The date indicated (9 May 1 864) corresponds to Lawson' s, and the
conclusion is given as 30 . . . .ll x f2 + 'and Black wins ' .
The third o f these games i s relevant to a matter raised by John T . Campbell, who
asks us about the accuracy of the following passage on page 76 of Blackmar
Diemer Gambit by Eric Schiller:
' In an article "Paul Morphy - Spiritual Father of the B lackmar-Diemer
Gambit" Diemer makes reference to the game Morphy-Blackmar, New
Orleans 1 866, which saw [1 d4 d5 2 e4 e6] 3 h3!?. Now this is a move in
true gambit style. After 3 . . . dxe4 4 .llc4 f6 5 0-0 b6 7 6 f3 e3 7 Axe3 Ae7
White has reestablished material equilibrium. '
We have no knowledge of Morphy playing Blackmar, but page 9 1 of the Brooklyn
Chess Chronicle of 1 5 March 1 887 has a queen' s knight odds game between
Morphy and C.A. Maurian, played at New Orleans in 1 866, which followed the
same line as far as 7 .\lxe3 .Ae7. At move six a note says: 'As the New Orleans
Times-Democrat remarks, the position is now very similar to one that occurs in
the B lackmar Gambit. ' The Chronicle gives the opening moves as 1 e4 d5 2 d4
e6, but 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 h3 is the order in later sources.
(2044)
Tom V. Purser reports that on pages 1 4- 1 5 of issue 3 1 of his periodical Blackmar
Diemer Gambit World (May 1 988) he and Anders Tejler discussed the question
raised in C.N. 2044, concluding that the erroneous idea of a game between
Morphy and Blackmar arose from a faulty reading by Eric Schiller of page 1 64
of E.J. Diemer' s (reprinted) book Das moderne Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
(Heidelberg, 1 976).
Gary Lane writes:
'I am currently engaged in writing a book on the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit*
and should like to verify a claim on pages 8-9 of Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
(Chess Digest, Dallas, 1977 edition) by Ken Smith and John Jacobs that one
ofArmand Edward Blackmar 's musical compositions "later became a part of
the musical score to the Clark Gabie- Vivien Leighfilm version of Gone with
(2063)
the Wind ".
'

We are grateful to the publishers McFarland


*The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit (Batsford, 1 995).

153

&

Company, Inc . for contacting a

number of their film music authors in an attempt to establish a connection between


A.E. Blackmar and Gone with the Wind. So far, nothing has been found. Ken
S mith informs us that he does not remember the source of the information that
(21 99)
he gave in his 1 977 book Blackmar-Diemer Gambit.
The Oliver Gambit

The obscure Oliver Gambit (1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 f3 g5 4 h4 g4 5 e5 h5 6 .ilc4


h6 7 d4 d6 8 xf7) is named after the New England player Benjamin Lynde
Oliver ( 1 788- 1 843). One of the few published games featuring the line appeared
on page 67 of Chess in Philadelphia by Gustavus C. Reichhelm:
P.P. Randolph-C. Vezin, Philadelphia, 1 847. King 's Gambit Accepted.
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 f3 g5 4 h4 g4 5 e5 h5 6 .ilc4 h6 7 d4 d6 8 xf7 xf7
9 .ilxf7+ <itlxf7 1 0 Axf4 Ah6 1 1 0-0 'itlg7 12 c3 .ile6 1 3 d5 Af7 1 4 d4+ 'itlg8
1 5 e5 dxe5 1 6 i.txe5 !!h7 17 e4 i.tg7 18 g5 i.txe5

19 e4 !! g7 20 !! xf7 !! xf7 21 xf7 <itlxf7 22 h7+ 'itle8 23 g8+ 'itle7 24 e6+


'itlfB 27 !! fl + 'itlg7 and White mated in three moves.

Brief information about the players was given by the BCM when it published the
game on page 236 of the August 1 9 1 8 issue. It may also be noted that xf7 one
move earlier has also been called the Oliver Gambit in some sources (e.g.
page 1 05 of The Bristol Chess Club by J . Burt) .
(K 1 994)
By transposition

The Ruy Lopez may occur even if White plays 1 d4 . The game between
J. Berger and A. Nimzowitsch at Carlsbad on 3 September 1 907 (a 44-move
draw) began 1 d4 f6 2 f3 d6 3 bd2 c6 4 e4 e5 5 c3 i.te7 6 i.tb5 .
Source: pages 238-239 of the tournament book.
Wanted: other surprising transpositions. *
*See also page 20 1 below.

1 54

(21 00)

Full of holes

On page 1 37 of Dynamic Chess, R.N. Coles affirmed that Capablanca gave as


his reason for practically never playing the Sicilian Defence 'Black' s game is
full of holes ' . Where, if anywhere, did the Cuban write this?
(21 05)
Juvenile

Shortly after the 1 927 world championship match Alekhine claimed that a 1 4year-old boy had improved on Capablanca' s play in one game.
On 29 December 1 927 Alekhine, who had been world champion for a month,
played a simultaneous game in Santiago de Chile against Rodrigo Flores (born
1 9 1 3) which began 1 d4 .Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 .Jc3 d5 4 Ag5 .Jbd7 5 e3 c6 6 cxd5 exd5
7 Ad3 Ae7 8 .Jge2 0-0 9 .:tlg3 . e8 1 0 c2 .Jf8 1 1 h4 b6 1 2 .Jf5 Axf5 13 Axf5
c5 .

Source: El Ajedrez Americano, February 1 928, page 1 44; the full score of the
game, which White won in 33 moves, is also on page 4 1 of Alekhine in the
Americas.
El Mercurio published Alekhine' s fulsome comments on his stay in Chile
( 1 January 1 928, reprinted in El Ajedrez Americano on page 1 36 of the February
1 928 issue) . He predicted a fine future for Flores, whose line of defence in the
Queen' s Gambit was 'far superior to what Capablanca himself played against
me recently in the same variation ' . The 3 2nd game of the 1 927 world
championship match had continued 9 . . . .Je8 10 h4 .Jdf6 1 1 c2 Ae6 12 .Jf5
Axf5 1 3 Axf5 .Jd6.

Alekhine later contradicted himself. His second volume of Best Games states
that Capablanca' s 9 . . . .Je8 could hardly be avoided, since 9 . . . . e8 'would have
been very strongly answered by 1 0 .Jf5 ' . He wrote similarly in A uf dem Wege
zur Weltmeisterschaft.
(K 1995)
Irregular Opening

The above euphemistic heading hardly does justice to White' s freakish path to a
speedy victory:
J.A. Anderson-N.N., St Louis, 1 929. Irregula r Opening.
1 h3 g6 2 g3 Ag7 3 f3 .Jf6 4 e3 0-0 5 d3 d5 6 c3 e5 7 b3 .Jh5 8 'it'f2 g5 9 .Je2
Af5 10 a3 e4 1 1 f4 h6 1 2 g4 exd3 1 3 g5 dxe2 14 Axe2 Resigns.

Source: The Gambit, August 1 929, page 240.


155

(K 1 996)

l c4

Numerous books assert that Carl Carls always played 1 c4, except on the occasion
when his c-pawn was glued to the board. In fact, games in which Carls opened
as White with another first move may even be found in the monograph Carl
Carls und die "Bremer Partie ".
Annotating the move 1 c4, as played in a match game between Carls and Antze
at Bremen in 1 933, Tartakower declared (on page 637 of the August-September
1 934 issue of L 'Echiquier) :
'An opening which the master from Bremen has been playing, almost without
exception, for about 30 years.
Just recently, however, I learned that in annotating the game Eliskases v L.
Steiner, which B lack won prettily ... , the German master and journalist
Leonhardt expressed his joy that this tortuous opening, which comes from
the Eastern Jews ("Ost-Juden") Nimzowitsch and Tartakower, will lose some
of its worth.
With such remarks*, Leonhardt is certainly doing his homeland a disservice.
His hope of flattering official circles may well backfire and he may well be
"corrected" for publishing assertions which are:
1 . untrue, since the opening was introduced by the Englishman Staunton;
2. maladroit, since the system was developed by the German Carls;
3 . ridiculous, since in the game in question, Eliskases v L. Steiner, the move
1 c4 was played by a good Tyrolean, whereas it was refuted by a Semitic
player;
4. preposterous, since in chess we take pleasure in seeking truth, without
players' personalities playing any role;
5 . unhealthy, since in chess we prefer to be rid of political, ethnological etc .
discussions; and finally;
6. harmful, since the German authorities recommend their citizens not to
make attacks on foreigners. '
Leonhardt died a few months later, a great loss to German chess.

(K 1 996)

One of the finest

The above-mentioned brilliancy Eli skases v L. Steiner, Budapest, 1 93 3 i s


too famous t o b e given here, b u t it may b e noted that on page 9 of the
January 1 95 2 Chess Review Fred Reinfeld described it as ' one of the finest
games ever played' .
(K 1 996)
*We have yet to find Leonhardt' s original annotations.

1 56

Earliest opening blunder

C.N. 1 745 asked whether the opening to the 1 906 game between Delmar and
Marshall ( 1 b4 e5 2 .ilb2 <\c6) was a unique example of a leading player
blundering at move two. We now note on page 60 of A Legend On the Road by
John Donaldson that the simultaneous game Fischer v Thornell, Chicago,
23 March 1 964 began 1 e4 <\f6 2 <lf3. 'The only explanation for this move is
(2150)
that Fischer thought Black had played l . . .e 5 . ' Thornell won at move 38.
Standard moves criticised

After 1 d4 d5 2 c4 one would hardly expect to find a twentieth-century master


questioning the continuation 2 . . . e6. Richard Teichmann did so, on page 463 of
the November 1 906 BCM. Following Black' s second move he wrote: 'The latest
experiences of Masters' Tournaments shew that after all it is best to accept the
Queen' s Gambit at once' .
(2168)
The Richter Attack

Alan McGowan is seeking pre- 1 932 specimens of the Richter (or Richter-Rauzer)
Attack in the Sicilian Defence (1 e4 c5 2 <\f3 <\c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 <\xd4 <\f6 5 <\c3
d6 6 Ag5).

We have found two games so far:


1 e4 c5 2 <\f3 <\c6 3 <\c3 <\f6 4 d4 cxd4 5 <\xd4 d6 6 .llg 5 (Miiller v Gregory,
Barmen, 1 905 - see pages 388-389 of the tournament book) .
1 e4 c5 2 d4 cxd4 3 <\f3 <\c6 4 <\xd4 <\f6 5 <\c3 d6 6 Ag5 (Breyer v Balla,

Budapest, 1 9 1 3 - Magyar Sakktortenet, volume 3, page 1 28).


Databases have the following early examples with the move order 1 e4 c5 2 <\f3
<\c6 3 d4 cxd4 4 <\xd4 <\f6 5 <\c3 d6 6 .ilg5 :

Rausch v SchOnmann, Hamburg, 1 9 1 0


Pavlov v Golubev, Leningrad, 1 922
Alekhine v Board 7, Blindfold exhibition, Paris, 1 925
E.G. Sergeant v Winter, Scarborough, 1 930.

(K 1 997)

Danish Gambit

We are often reminded, but still oftener forget, that opening theory is not an
inexorable march forward. Lines, variations, sub-variations and entire openings
1 57

come into and go out of fashion, by chance and whim. It is frequently claimed
that the Danish Gambit (1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 c3) was dealt a lethal blow by
3 . . . dxc3 4 ..llc4 cxb2 5 ..ll x b2 d5 6 ..llx d5 .lf6 7 ..ll x f7+ xf7 8 xd8 Ab4+, but
few openings are ever truly refuted and, even when they are, ignorance about
the circumstances and details persists. Countless books ascribe the above Danish
Gambit 'refutation' to Schlechter, whose magazine, the Deutsche Schachzeitung,
gave the line in annotations on page 80 of its March 1 9 1 4 issue. Analysing that
same third game in the 1 9 1 3 match between Marshall and Duras, which featured
' 5 . . . .lf6?' , Andrew Soltis wrote on page 2 1 6 of Frank Marshall, United States
Chess Champion : 'Schlechter had not yet introduced the defence (5 . . . d5! 6 Axd5
.lf6) that would permanently retire the Danish Gambit' . In reality, Marshall
himself, annotating that game, had written that 5 . . . d5 6 Axd5 .lf6 7 Axf7+
xf7 8 xd8 Ab4+ 9 d2 Axd2+ 1 0 .tlxd2 E! e8 'would make things rather
interesting' (page 247 of the November 1 9 1 3 American Chess Bulletin). In any
case, not all authorities agree on the force of 5 . . . d5 (see, for instance, page 22
of Modern Chess Miniatures by Barden and Heidenfeld), and the move 5 . . . d5
(answered by 6 exd5) had been played earlier, in E. Macdonald v R. Lean,
Brighton, 29 January 1 906 (BCM, March 1 906, page 1 28). In short, little is clear
( CC 1 997)
cut in the openings labyrinth.
Lisitsin Gambit

The moves 1 .lf3 f5 2 e4 ( ' Lisitsin Gambit' ) occurred in a forgotten game played
about a decade before Lisitsin himself 'introduced' the line. The game Alfred
Emil Wolf v Max Weiss, Vienna, 1 2 May 1 923, began 1 .lf3 f5 2 e4 fxe4 3 .lg5
.lf6 4 d3 e3 5 fxe3 e5 6 Ae2 d5 7 0-0 Ae7 8 Ah5+ g6 9 .lc3 0-0 1 0 A3 c6 1 1
e4 d4 and was drawn at move 44.
Wolf annotated the game on pages 1 62- 1 64 of the August 1 923 Wiener
Schachzeitung, the issue which announced his death. The son of the master
Siegfried Reginald Wolf, he died on 2 August 1 923 at the age of 23 from a fall
in the Swiss mountains (Jungfrau). Page 338 of Bachmann' s Schachjahrbuch
1 923 also credited to him the introduction of the Landstrasse Gambit (1 .lf3 d5
2 c4) .

Another 1 .l f3 f5 2 e 4 game of the 1 920s appeared on pages 1 30- 1 3 1 of the


August-September 1 926 issue of Ca sopis Ce skoslovenskfch Sa chistii:
A. Hochwald-V. Berger, Kyjov, 20 August 1 926. Lisitsin (Wolf?) Gambit.
1 .lf3 f5 2 e4 fxe4 3 .lg5 .lf6 4 d3 exd3 5 Axd3 e5 6 .tlxh7 d5 4 ..llg6+ e7 8
Ag5 Ae6 9 .lc3 c6 1 0 e2 .ld7 1 1 0-0 i;la5 1 2 E! fe1 d8 1 3 .tlxf6 gxf6 14
Axf6+ Ae7 1 5 Axh8. Black resigned at move 2 1 , but the magazine did not give
the remaining moves.
(K 1 998)

158

'The Swiss Gambit'

The books call i f4 f5 2 e4 the Swiss Gambit, but this is a misnomer resulting from
a misunderstanding. These opening moves, three consecutive improbabilities,
attracted considerable international attention after the theoretician Alexander Wagner
( 1 868- 1 942) publi shed an article on pages 3 5 - 3 6 of the February 1 9 1 2
Schweizerische Schachzeitung. Entitled ' A New Gambit. The Swiss Gambit' , it
presented the following game from a Swiss correspondence tournament:
A. Wagner-V. Costin, Correspondence game.

(Notes by Wagner)
1 f4 f5 2 e4 fxe4 3 <lc3 <lf6 4 g4 d5 ( ' 4 . . . h6 is safer, after which 5 d3 d5! would
follow . ' ) 5 g5 Ag4 6 Ae2 Axe2 7 xe2 <lg8 ( 'Black has nothing better. If
7 . . . <lfd7 there follows : 8 f5! g6 9 <\xd5 <lc5 10 <lf4! ' ) 8 b5+ <ld7 ( ' Best. ' ) 9
xd5 c6 ( 'Nor can the second pawn be saved. ' ) 1 0 i*xe4 c7 1 1 <lf3 0-0-0 1 2
<ld4 <lc5 1 3 i*e3 ( ' 1 3 f5+ is disadvantageous for White because o f 1 3 . . . e6
1 4 <\xe6 e8! ' ) 13 . . . i*d7 1 4 <lce2 i*d5 15 gl d6 ( ' B lack ' s game is lost
because of his lack of scope for development. 15 . . .g6? would be followed by 16
b4! <ld7 17 <le6 e8 18 .ilb2 . ') 1 6 d3 <le6 17 h3! b8 18 c4 ( ' B lack resigns
for the piece cannot be saved. ' )

Wagner wrote that i n honour o f the event he wished to name the new opening
(i.e. 1 f4 f5 2 e4 fxe4 3 <lc3 <lf6 4 g4) the 'Swiss Gambit' . To test the line, so
page 1 68 of the July 1 9 1 2 American Chess Bulletin reported, Wagner 'engaged
in 1 5 correspondence games simultaneously against well-known masters and
analysts, with the surprising result that only S.R. Wolf managed to draw a game,
while the 14 other games were partly won by White and are partly pending,
much in favour of White' .
Three games appeared on page 1 43 of the August 1 9 1 2 Schweizerische
Schachzeitung:
A. Wagner-A. Ritter Zuk von Skarszewski, Correspondence game.
(Notes from the July-August 1 9 1 2 Wiener Schachzeitung, page 1 96)
1 f4 f5 2 e4 fxe4 3 <lc3 <lf6 4 g4 d5 5 g5 d4 ( 'This move proves insufficient. ' )
6 gxf6 dxc3 7 fxg7 cxd2+ ( '7 . . . .ilxg7 8 dxc3 i*xdl + 9 xdl e 5 o r 9 . . .ilg4+
came into consideration. ' ) 8 Axd2 .ilxg7 9 h5 + f8 10 0-0-0 i*e8 1 1 d5
Ad7 (The Wiener Schachzeitung gave analysis to show that 1 1 . . . i*c6 would be
better.) 1 2 Ac4 <lc6 1 3 <le2 <ld8 1 4 Ac3 .ilxc3 1 5 <\xc3 Ae6 1 6 e5 Resigns.
.

A. Wagner-F. Lipez, Correspondence game.


1 f4 f5 2 e4 fxe4 3 <lc3 <lf6 4 g4 d5 5 g5 d4 6 gxf6 dxc3 7 fxg7 (On page 222 of
the October 1 9 1 2 American Chess Bulletin A.J. Souweine suggested that 7 h5+,
followed by 8 i*e5, would lead to 'an absolutely winning position for White ' . )
7 . . . cxd2+ 8 Axd2 Axg7 9 h5 + f8 1 0 0-0-0 i*d4 1 1 .ilc3 i*e3+ 1 2 bl 11.xc3

1 59

1 3 4Jh3 Axh3 1 4 bxc3 4Jd7 1 5 Ac4 b6+ 16 Ab3 .ile6 1 7 t'!. xd7 Axb3 1 8 axb3
h6 19 t'!.hd1 c5

20 t'!. xe7 xe7 21 e5+ e6 2 2 g7+ f7 23 t'!. d7+ xd7 24 xf7+ Resigns.

A. Wagner-Guyaz, Correspondence game.


1 f4 f5 2 e4 fxe4 3 4Jc3 4Jf6 4 g4 d5 5 g5 .ilg4 6 .ile2 .ilxe2 7 xe2 d4 8 gxf6
dxc3 9 fxg7 cxd2+ 10 Axd2 .ilxg7 1 1 h5 + f8 1 2 f5 + e8 1 3 0-0-0 4Jc6 1 4
Ac3 4Jd4 1 5 h5 + f8 1 6 4Jh3 c 5 1 7 .ilxd4 cxd4 1 8 4Jg5 e8 1 9 4Je6+ g8
20 t'!. hg1 xh5 2 1 t'!. xg7 mate.

Another game was published on pages 1 97- 1 98 of the July-August 1 9 1 2 Wiener


Schachzeitung:
A. Wagner-Caslin, Correspondence game.
1 f4 f5 2 e4 fxe4 3 4Jc3 4Jf6 4 g4 e6 5 g5 4Jd5 6 4Jxe4 4Jxf4 7 d4 4Jg6 8 h5
e7 9 Ad3 f7 1 0 4Jh3 4Je5 1 1 .ile2 g6

1 2 dxe5 gxh5 1 3 .ilxh5 xh5 14 4Jf6+ d8 1 5 <bxh5 4Jc6 1 6 Ad2 .ilb4 17 c3


M8 18 Af4 4Je7 19 0-0-0 4Jg6 20 t'!. hfl .ile7 21 4Jg7 4Jf8 22 g6 Resigns.

Adolf Albin discussed the gambit on pages 3 2 1 -324 of the November 1 9 1 2


Deutsche Schachzeitung, but gave scant variations, viz. 1 f4 f5 2 e4 fxe4 3 d3
exd3 4 .ilxd3 4Jf6 5 g4 g6 5 g5 4Jh5 and 1 f4 f5 2 e4 fxe4 3 4Jc3 4Jf6 4 g4 g6 5
g5 4Jh5 6 d3 d5 7 .ile2 4Jg7 8 dxe4 dxe4 .

The Schweizerische Schachzeitung reverted to the opening on pages 33-37 of its


1 60

March 1 9 1 3 issue, where 'A.D. ' [Andreas Duhm] wrote an article awash with
irony which suggested 'Lapland Gambit' as a more appropriate name. He included
a game in which Wagner played a future President of FIDE:
A. Wagner-A. Rueb, Correspondence game.
1 f4 fS 2 e4 fxe4 3 <tle3 <tlf6 4 g4 dS S gS <tlg4 6 h3 eS 7 fS (7 hxg4 exf4 8 g6 f3
Duhm.) 7 . . . AxfS 8 hxg4 Ag6 9 d3 <tle6 1 0 Ag2 exd3 1 1 exd3 .Jb4 1 2 E!h3 e6
1 3 <tlee2 "iii'a S 14 Ad2 "iii'b S 1 S Axb4 Axb4+ 16 '<t>f2 0-0+ 17 '<t>g3 Axd3 18 '<t>h2
e4 19 <tiel Afl 20 a4 Ad6+ 21 '<t>h 1 "iii' x b2 22 <tlee2 Axe2 23 <tlxe2 E! f2 24 E!e3
E! af8 2 S E!b1 "iii'e S 26 <tlg3 "iii' x gS 27 1=! 1 b3 "iii'h 4+ 28 '<t>g1
-

28 . . . 1=! 8f3 29 E! xf3 exf3 30 E! xf3 xf3 31 Resigns.

Duhm furthermore stated that White could play 7 d3 (though not 7 d4 exf4 8
Axf4 4:\h6 or 8 hxg4 f3) 7 . . . e3 8 hxg4 exf4 (or 8 . . . d4 9 <tle4 fxe4 1 0 "iii'f3 Ad6 1 1
<tle2 0-0 1 2 E! xh7) 9 <tlh3 . Another line given by him was 7 d3 <tlh6 8 dxe4 d4
9 <tlf3, and he also scrutinised the retreat S . . . <tlg8, as played in the next game:
A. Wagner-H. Duhm, Correspondence game.
1 f4 fS 2 e4 fxe4 3 <tle3 <tlf6 4 g4 dS S gS <tlg8 6 d3 MS 7 dxe4 dxe4 8 'lii'dS
(Duhm calls this a mistake, recommending instead 8 "iii' x d8+ '<t>xd8 9 Ag2 . )
8 . . . "iii' x dS 9 4:\xdS '<t>d8 1 0 Ae3 <tld7 1 1 a3 e 6 1 2 <tle3 <tle7 1 3 <tlge2 4:\dS 1 4
4:\xdS exdS 1 S <tld4 g6 1 6 4:\xfS gxfS 1 7 0-0-0 e6 18 Ah3 AeS 1 9 AxeS <\xeS 2 0
AxfS '<t>e7 2 1 E! hfl E! af8 22 Ag4 4Je6 23 Axe6 '<t>xe6 'with a very favourable

endgame for Black' .


Next, Duhm looked at 1 f4 fS 2 e4 exf4 3 <tle3 <tlf6 4 g4 h6 as a means of giving
the black knight a flight square. His article included a game which, with
annotations by Black, had appeared on pages 335-336 of the November 1 9 1 2
Deutsche Schachzeitung:
A. Wagner-A. Lenz, Correspondence game.
1 f4 fS 2 e4 fxe4 3 <tle3 <tlf6 4 g4 h6 (Given an exclamation mark by Lenz.) S gS
(Duhm said that S d3 was not to be recommended because of S . . . dS 6 dxe4
Axg4. ) S . . . hxgS 6 fxgS 4:\hS (Lenz: ' . . . The knight at c3 must take the gambit
pawn in order to reach f2 and cope with the threat of . . . <tlg3, on which my entire

161

defensive system was based. ' ) 7 4Jxe4 (According to Duhm, if 7 -'tg2 then 7 . . . d5
8 d3 e5 9 'ltfe2 4Jc6 10 dxe4 4Jd4 1 1 'ltfd3 Ac5, followed by castling, or 7 d3
4Jg3 8 'ltfg4 [8 -'tg2 4Jxhl 9 -'txe4 d6] 8 . . . 4Jxhl 9 'ltfxe4 e6.) 7 . . . d5 8 4Jf2 Af5
(Lenz: 'From a purely theoretical viewpoint, the opening has been refuted, since
Black is developed and has a pawn in the centre and an open rook ' s file, while
his king is more safely placed than White ' s. ' ) 9 c4 e6 1 0 'ltfb3 Ac5 1 1 4Jf3 4Jg3
12 hxg3 Axf2 + 13 xf2 xhl 14 4Jh4 xfl + 15 xfl dxc4 16 'ltfa4+ 'ltfd7 1 7
'ltfxd7+ 4Jxd7 1 8 4Jxf5 exf5 1 9 b 3 cxb3 20 axb3 4Jc5 2 1 b4 4Jb3 22 bl 4Jxcl
23 xcl d7 24 f2 e8 and B lack won.

Duhm examined the next game too (which Josef Krejcik had given on pages
1 94- 1 95 of the July-August 1 9 1 2 Wiener Schachzeitung ) :
G. Heim-R. Miinz, Vienna, 1 0 July 1 9 1 2.
1 f4 f5 2 e4 fxe4 3 4Jc3 4Jf6 4 g4 h6 5 g5 hxg5 6 fxg5 4Jh5 7 -'te2 g6 8 4Jxe4 d5
9 -'txh5 xh5 (Duhm considered that 9 . . . gxh5 would give Black a clearly won
game.) 10 4Jg3 xg5 1 1 d4 g4 1 2 4Jf3 A5 1 3 4Je5 h4 1 4 4Jxf5 gxf5 1 5 4Jg6
e4+ 16 fl e6 17 'ltth 5 d7 18 gl xd4 19 'ltfh7+ -'te7 20 4Jxe7 dl + 2 1
f2 xgl 22 4Jxf5 + c6 23 4Jd4+ b6

24 Ae3 xal 25 4Jxe6+ d4 26 4Jxd8 dxe3+ 27 xe3 4Jc6 28 4Jxc6 bxc6 29 'lttd3
e8+ 30 d2 ae l 31 'ltfb3+ c5 32 'ltfc3+ d6 33 'ltfg3+ le5 34 h4 e6 35
h5 d8+ 36 cl dd5 37 'ltfg6+ e7 38 c4 cS 39 h6 xc4+ 40 d2 h4 41
h7 eh5 42 'ltt xc6 d8 43 'ltta8+ d7 44 'ltt xa7 xh7 45 a4 h2+ 46 c3 7h3+
47 c4 c2 + 48 d5 xb2 49 aS a2 50 a6

50 . . . a4 51 e5 hS+ 52 f6 xa6+ 53 Resigns.

1 62

The May-June 1 9 1 3 Wiener Schachzeitung (pages 1 30- 1 43) added much further
material on the Swiss Gambit, including contributions by Wagner. Among the
games given were two against Hauke:
A. Wagner-A. Hauke, Correspondence game, 1 9 1 3 .

(Punctuation by Wagner)
1 f4 f5 2 e4 fxe4 3 .lc3 .lf6 4 g4 h6 ( 'Of the possible defences, this is the
weakest. Black aims to obtain a completely open rook' s file, but nothing particular
is achieved thereby. ' - Wagner.) 5 g5 hxg5 6 fxg5 .lh5? 7 Ae2! ! .lf4? ( '7 . . . g6 is
much better, and after 8 Axh5 gxh5 . The only game my opponent won continued
that way, whereas B lack lost a game with 7 . . . g6 8 Axh5 xh5 . ' - Wagner.) 8 d3
exd3 9 Axf4 dxe2

10 d3! d6 1 1 g6+ r,t>d7 12 .lgxe2 e8 13 e4 r,t>d8 1 4 g6! c6 15 .ld5


h5? 16 c4 d7 1 7 fl ! h8 18 Ag5 .lc6 19 .ld4! .le5 20 h4!! xh4 2 1
t! xf8+ e8 2 2 t! xe8+ 'it>xe8 2 3 Axh4 c5! 2 4 <i:lb5 <i:lf3+ 25 'it>2 <i:lxh4 2 6 .ldc7+
r,t>f8 27 <i:lxa8 a6 28 .lb6! M5 29 'it>g3 <i:lxg6 30 fl axb5 31 xf5+ r,t>e8 32 t!g5
'it>f7 33 xg6! r,t>xg6 34 cxb5 'it'f7 35 a4! Resigns.

A. Wagner-A. Hauke, Correspondence game, 1 9 1 3 .

(Notes and punctuation by Wagner)


1 f4 f5 2 e4 fxe4 3 .lc3 .lf6 4 g4 c6! ( 'This interesting variation, first indicated
by Professor Ziolo, reveals new charms in the Swiss Gambit. Nevertheless, I
regard 4 . . . e6, which the master S .R. Wolf used against me, as theoretically better,
because it has the threefold aim of opening up a path for the bishop at f8 ,
preventing f5 and saving the king by giving it breathing space . ' ) 5 g5? ( 'At that
time I was not yet ready with my analysis of this variation. In this one line alone
it is necessary to play 5 d3 first, with the continuation 5 . . . d5 6 g5 Ag4 7 d2
.lfd7 8 dxe4 e6 9 g2 Ah5 10 h3 Af7, with the better game for White. Or 5
d3 exd3 6 g5 dxc2 7 xc2 .ld5 8 Ad3 <i:lxc3? 9 Ag6+ hxg6 1 0 xg6 mate.
Black rises and leaves the premises. ' ) 5 . . . .ld5 6 f5! ( 'Best; otherwise the attack
is quickly over. ' ) 6 . . . a5 ( ' In a consultation game in the Cracow Club against
Professor Ziolo 6 . . . c7 was played here. Both moves aim to make room for the
king . ' ) 7 h5+ 'it'd8 8 Ah3 ( ' 8 <i:lxe4 would naturally be followed by 8 . . . .le3,
and B lack wins . ' ) 8 . . . d6 9 .lge2 <i:lxc3 10 dxc3! .ld7 ( ' If 10 . . . Axf5? then 1 1
g6! ' ) 1 1 h4! .le5 1 2 xe4 g6 1 3 .ld4 Ag7 1 4 .le6+ Axe6 1 5 fxe6 ( ' This

1 63

pawn looks sickly, but it survives the game, which ends in a draw. ' ) 1 S . . . t! f8 1 6
fl t! xfl + 1 7 Axfl 'tlc7 1 8 a 4 f8 ( 'The game was agreed drawn at the 5 2nd
move after a protracted ending with opposite-colour bishops. ' )
In an article i n the May-September 1 9 1 4 Wiener Schachzeitung, pages 1 55- 1 59,
Krejcik offered the next three games:
E. Hold-R. Miinz, Vienna, 28 November 1 9 1 2.
1 f4 fS 2 e4 fxe4 3 4::\c 3 4::\f6 3 g4 g6 4 gS 4::\ h S 6 d3 dS 7 Ae2 4::\g7 8 dxe4 dxe4
9 4::\ x e4 xd1 + 10 Axd1 MS 1 1 4::\g 3 4::\d7 1 2 4::\f3 0-0-0 13 b3 eS 14 fxeS

.... .

!111 ;1:

'1_ - 7.:"
'S
jf::;.-s
---i
:t D 1), :t
' -,ft
' '

1t,; ''


.IJ

. 1t,; '<o
"- >,%
.ft,)1<"

'
?

l:::
:l

'e:t
-

r.

:1,

14 . . . 4::\ x eS 1 S 4::\ x eS t! e8 1 6 .ilb2 Ad6 17 0-0 AxeS 18 AxeS !! xeS 1 9 c4 t! d8


20 M3 4::\e6 2 1 h4 4::\d4 22 t!cl t!e3 23 'tlg2 4::\ x f3 22 t! xf3 t! d2 + 2S t! f2 Ah3+
26 <tlg1 t! xg3+ 27 'tlh2 t!g2+ 28 t! xg2 Axg2 29 Resigns.

E. Hold-R. Miinz, Vienna, 1 9 1 2.


1 f4 fS 2 e4 fxe4 3 4::\c 3 4::\f6 3 g4 g6 4 gS 4::\h S 6 d3 dS 7 .Q.e2 4::\g7 8 dxe4 dxe4
9 xd8+ 'tlxd8 10 4::\ xe4 MS 1 1 .Q.d3 4::\ d7 1 2 4::\f3 Axe4 13 Axe4 4::\ c S 14 AdS
e6 1 S Ac4 Ad6 1 6 b4 4::\d7 1 7 a3 t! f8 1 8 4::\d4 Axf4 1 9 Axf4 t! xf4 20 4::\ x e6+
4::\ x e6 21 Axe6 t! e4+ 22 Resigns.
E. Hold-G. Heim, Vienna, 10 October 1 9 1 2.
1 f4 fS 2 e4 fxe4 3 4::\ c 3 4::\f6 4 g4 dS S gS 4::\g4 6 h3 eS 7 hxg4 exf4 8 4::\h 3 .Q.e7
9 4::\ x f4 AxgS 1 0 d3 Ah4 + 1 1 'tld2 e 3 + 1 2 <tlxe3 d4 + 1 3 'tld2 dxc3 + 1 4
bxc3 0-0 1 S f3 t! xf4 1 6 Resign s .

Krejcik's article was followed by a contribution from Georg Marco, who added
another Swiss miniature:
N.N.-A. Onderka, Occasion?
1 f4 fS 2 e4 fxe4 3 4::\ c3 4::\f6 4 g4 4::\c 6 S gS 4::\g8 6 4::\ x e4 dS 7 4::\g3 eS 8 d3 Ad6
9 e2 4::\ge7 1 0 fxeS AxeS 1 1 4::\f3 Ag4 12 Ag2 d6 1 3 f2 0-0 1 4 c3 4::\fS 1 S
4::\ xfS t! xfS 1 6 fl t! af8 1 7 e2 .ilxc3+ 1 8 Resigns.

Marco also reported on a line from Max Koppel: 1 f4 fS 2 e4 fxe4 3 4::\ c 3 4::\f6 4
g4 eS, with two variations:

1 64

a)
b)

5 fxe5 Ac5 6 exf6 xf6 7 <tlxe4 h4+ 8 <tlg3 d5, and


5 g5 <tlg4 6 xg4 d5 7 g3 exf4 8 xf4 d6.

Finally, he mentioned 4 . . . b6, played by Konstantin Mandrila in a correspondence


game against Julius Wagner Ritter von Jauregg. After 4 g5 <tlg8 6 <tlxe4 d5 7
<tlg3 Mandrila recommended as best 7 . . . g6.
It should not, however, be imagined that the moves 1 f4 f5 2 e4 were first seen
around 1 9 1 1 . Wagner' s own writings in the Schweizerische Schachzeitung
acknowledged that they had been dealt with, by F. A. Lange, on pages 1 82- 1 86
of the June 1 859 Deutsche Schachzeitung. The following were the main lines
given by Lange:
a)

1 f4 f5 2 e4 fxe4 3 h5+ g6 4 Ae2 gxh5 5 Axh5 mate ( 'Let us begin with

a joke. ' ) .
b)

c)
d)

1 f4 f5 2 e4 fxe4 3 f5 <tlf6 4 Ae2 h5 (the magazine added an editorial note


recommending 4 . . . g6 as stronger) 5 <tlh3 d5 6 0-0 e6 7 fxe6 Axe6 8 <tlg5
Ag4 9 d3.
1 f4 f5 2 e4 fxe4 3 Ac4 <tl6 4 d3 d5 5 Ab3 exd3.
1 f4 f5 2 e4 fxe4 3 <tlc3 <tlf6 4 d3 exd3 (4 ... d5 5 dxe4 dxe4 6 e2 A5 7
i!f-b5+ Ad7 8 i!f-xb7 Ac6 9 i!f"b3 or 5 . . . <tlxe4 6 <tlxe4 dxe4 7 i!f-h5+ g6 8
e5) 5 Axd3 e6 6 Ad2 Ac5 7 g4 0-0 (7 . . . <tlh5 8 00 ; 7 . . . <tld5 8 g5 g6 9
<tlxd5 exd5 10 e2+ e7 11 xe7+ Axe7 12 h4 d6 13 h5 Af5 14 Axf5
gxf5 15 Ac3 f8 16 0-0-0 c6 17 g6 and White stands better) 8 g5 <tld5 (or
8 . . . <tle8 9 h5 g6 10 Axg6 hxg6 11 xg6+ 'ifi>h8 12 <tle4 i!f-e7 13 Ac3+
<tlg7 14 i!i-h6+ 'ifi>g8 15 <tlf6+ with advantage) 9 i!i-h5 g6 10 Axg6 i!i"e7
11 0-0-0 hxg6 12 g6+ g7 13 xg7+ <1Jxg7 14 <t\xd5 .

When the Handbuch subsequently referred to the above line it gave 5 . . . d5 as


leading to the better game for Black, and it was this that prompted Wagner to
turn to 4 g4 instead of 4 d3. The title of his original article ( 'A New Gambit. The
Swiss Gambit' ) was to be misinterpreted, but at no stage did he name 1 f4 f5 2
e4 after Switzerland or claim to have invented those moves. In an identically
entitled article on pages 1 93 - 1 94 of its July 1 9 1 2 issue, the Deutsche
Schachzeitung gave the move 4 g4 in bold type, once again indicating that the
mere moves 1 f4 f5 2 e4 were not being called the Swiss Gambit. On the other
hand, the BCM (March 1 9 1 2, page 1 1 1 ) implied the opposite, by omission.
In the same June 1 859 issue of the Deutsche Schachzeitung which published
Lange ' s analysis there appeared (page 1 98) this score:
Vollrath-E. Fischer, Correspondence game, 24 September 1 85 8-25 March 1 859.
1 f4 f5 2 e4 fxe4 3 d3 exd3 4 Axd3 <tlf6 5 g4 d5 6 g5 Ag4 7 i!i-d2 <tlfd7 8 i!f"g2
Ae6 9 b4 <tlc6 10 a3 g6 1 1 Ab2 g8 12 i!f"e2 W 13 00 Ag7 14 Axg7 xg7
1 5 <tlbd2 e6 16 'ifi>f2 i!f-e7 17 <tlb3 i!i-d6 18 i!f"e3 Ag8 19 b5 e7 20 Axc6 xc6

1 65

2 1 c3 b6 22 a4 d6 23 . he l c5 24 b5 aS 25 .lbd2 0-0-0 26 .le5 . f8 27 'it>g3


.\xeS 28 xeS d8 29 .lf3 El f5 30 e3 e5 31 fxe5 d4 32 cxd4 1.1.d5 33 .lh4
cxd4 34 el + El c7

35 .\xf5 . xe l 36 .axel + 'it>d7 37 e6+ Axe6 38 .\xd4 xg5+ 39 'it>2 f4+ 40


.\f3 AdS 41 El c3 Axf3 42 . xf3 xh2+ 43 'it>fl hl + 44 'it>f2 h4+ 45 'it>fl
'it>d6 46 . fe3 c4+ 47 'it>f2 h5 48 . e4 f7+ 49 'it>g3 g5 50 .dl + 'it>c5 5 1 Ele5+
'it>b4 52 El e4+ 'it>c5 53 Ele5+ 'it>b4 54 El e4+ 'it>c3 5 5 . de l h4+ 56 'it>g2 h3+ 57
'it>g3 h5 58 'it>f2 h2 59 . le3+ Drawn.

There follow some further nineteenth-century games beginning 1 f4 f5 2 e4 :


F.A. Lange-W. Schulten, Duisburg, April 1 860.
1 f4 f5 2 e4 fxe4 3 .lc3 .lf6 4 d3 d5 5 dxe4 dxe4 6 e2 .lc6 7 .\xe4 .\xe4 8
xe4 g6 9 Ab5 Ad7 1 0 Ae3 Ag7 1 1 0-0-0 c8 1 2 .lf3 a6 1 3 Axc6 .ilxc6 1 4
c4 Axf3 1 5 gxf3 b 5 1 6 c6+ 'it>f7 1 7 El d7 El e8 1 8 El xc7 5 1 9 El dl . adS 2 0
. cd7 . c8 2 1 e4 xe4 2 2 fxe4 . c4 23 e5 . ec8 2 4 'it>bl . xc2 25 El a7 . 8c6
26 . e l . xel + 27 Axel g5 28 f5 AxeS 29 Axg5 -'1.6 30 h4 h6 31 Axf6 'it>xf6 32
b4 'it>xf5 33 . xe7 El c4 and B lack won.

S ource: Deutsche Schachzeitung, April 1 86 1 , pages 1 30- 1 3 1 .


A. Kiisel-C.F. Huch, USA, Occasion?
1 f4 f5 2 e4 fxe4 3 f5 .lf6 4 Ae2 h5 5 .lh3 d5 6 0-0 d6 7 .lf4 Axf5 8 .\xh5
Ag6 9 .\xf6+ exf6 1 0 h3 g3 1 1 Ag4 Ac5+ 12 'it>hl Ad6 1 3 'it>gl h2+ 14 'it>f2
f5 1 5 .ile2 and B lack gave mate in seven. However, our computer offers 1 5 . . . e3+
1 6 'it>xe3 e5 + and mate in three more moves.

Source: Deutsche Schachzeitung, June 1 872, page 1 67 .


H.E. Bird-0. Gelbfuhs, Vienna, 22 July 1 87 3 .
1 f4 f5 2 e 4 fxe4 3 d 3 exd3 4 Axd3 .lf6 5 .lf3 e 6 6 .lg5 g 6 7 h 4 Ah6 8 h 5 Axg5
9 fxg5 .ld5 10 hxg6 e7 1 1 . xh7 . xh7 12 gxh7 b4+ 13 'it>fl h4 1 4 13.g6+
'it>e7 1 5 h5 Resigns.

Sources : Deutsche Schachzeitung, November 1 873, page 328, and page 17 of


1 66

the Vienna, 1 873 tournament book.


C.P. Hofstede de Groot-A. Anderssen, Amsterdam, 1 5 July 1 875.
1 f4 fS 2 e 4 fxe4 3 d 3 exd3 4 Axd3 f6 S f3 e6 6 c3 Ae7 7 e4 c6 8 c3 d6
9 fgS xe4 1 0 xe4 g6 1 1 e2 eS 1 2 0-0 MS 1 3 gS Axd3 14 xd3 AxgS
1S fxgS e7 16 h3 d7 1 7 Ae3 xh3 18 gxh3 and White resigned about ten

moves later.
Source: Deutsche Schachzeitung, September 1 884, page 280. The magazine
observed that the game had historical value, to which Hermann von Gottschall
added on page 433 of his monograph on Anderssen, 'it certainly has no other
value' .
A lull ensued, and the interest generated b y Wagner prior to the Great War also
proved transient. The moves 1 f4 fS 2 e4 seldom resurfaced, although our final
two games here were played within a month or so of each other:
J. Pelik3n-A. Alekhine, Podebrady, July 1 936.
1 f4 fS 2 e4 fxe4 3 d3 e3 4 Axe3 f6 S d4 e6 6 Ad3 c6 7 a3 e7 8 h3 b6 9
0-0 Ab7 1 0 d2 g6 1 1 Af2 Ag7 1 2 c3 0-0 1 3 e2 aS 14 a4 fdS 1 S Ah4 e8
1 6 g4 f6 1 7 gS edS 1 8 Ag3 e7 19 de4 xe4 20 xe4 cS 2 1 dxcS bxcS
2 2 h4 eS 23 fxeS AxeS 24 AxeS xeS 2S f6+ xf6 26 xf6 xf6 27 gS hS
28 e7 f7 29 xeS f4 30 Ac4 d5 31 Af1 e8 32 b4 e4 33 d6 axb4 34
cxb4 d4 35 aS d3 36 a6 Aa8 37 cl e2+ 38 Axe2 dxe2 39 g3 hS 40 gxh6
c;tJh7 41 b5 ef4 42 h5 gxh5

43 xf4 xf4 44 b6 Af3 4S b7 c4 46 e 1 Axb7 Drawn.

K. Hromadka-K. Havasi, Munich Olympiad, 21 August 1 936.


1 f4 fS 2 e4 fxe4 3 c3 f6 4 g4 g6 5 g5 h5 6 d3 exd3 7 f5 g7 8 fxg6 hxg6
9 1.txd3 f5 10 Axf5 gxf5 1 1 h4 e6 12 hS e7 13 h6 f7

(See diagram, top of next page.)


1 4 M4 d6 1 S e2 c6 1 6 g2 e7 1 7 0-0-0 l.td7 18 xb7 Ac6 1 9 xc7
Axh1 20 xd6 c6 21 b5 Axd6 22 xd6+ c;tJf8 23 xf7 c;tJxf7 24 d7+ c;tJg6

1 67

25 E! g7+ h5 26 h7 e5 27 Ad2 f4 28 g6 Ae4 29 E! c7 xg6 30 Resigns.

This game was given on pages 22-23 of Komel Havasi and Dr Geza Nagy by
W.A. FOldeak:, published by The Chess Player in 1 996.
Nowadays, the opening is seen mainly, if at all, in correspondence tourneys, and
is invariably labelled 'the Swiss Gambit' . Given that Lange discussed 1 f4 f5 2
e4 half a century before the Swiss appellation was proposed by Wagner (who, in
any case, applied it only to the 4 g4 line), it cannot be justified to continue
calling 1 f4 f5 2 e4 the Swiss Gambit.
(CC 1 998)
The earliest Caro-Kann Defence

Which is the earliest published game featuring the Caro-Kann Defence?


C.N. 42 reported on an 1 864 consultation game involving Zukertort (White).
We can now say that G.S. Spreckley v A. Mongrectien, Liverpool, 1 847 began 1
e4 c6 2 d4 e5 3 dxe5 a5+ 4 c3 xe5 5 f3 c7 6 Ac4. White won by
forcing mate at move 25 , and the full score appeared on page 1 1 5 of The Chess
Player 's Chronicle, 1 0 April 1 847 .
A game played in India between Valentine Green and 'The Brahmin' opened 1
e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Ad3 e6 4 f3 f6 5 e5 fd7 6 c3 c5 and was published on
page 1 1 1 of Cassell 's Illustrated Family Paper, 1 6 July 1 859.
(21 88)
Morphy 's Defence explained

Discussing the Ruy Lopez on page 359 of The Grand Tactics of Chess, Franklin
K. Young had the following to say about 3 . . . a6:
' . . . bad, inasmuch as the left minor crochet is of no utility in a minor right
oblique refused, nor in a full front unopposed by the maj or oblique
echeloned. '
W e have seen the light.
1 68

IV
Miscellaneous

Two rooks

From W.D. Rubinstein:


' Why is it that endings where one side has two rooks are seldom or never
covered (e. g. in the Batsford series by Averbakh et al. ) ? Indeed, if one side
still has two rooks, is it an endgame ? '

Surely it is, and a very common one. Glancing at the Weltgeschichte des Schachs
volume on Capablanca we note that he had more 2v2 endings to play than,
for instance, 'V!!fv'Y!!!, <\v.1, etc. Yet it is true that literature neglects them. Pachman,
in his Chess Endingsfor the Practical Player, also fails to give a single specimen.
Is one to assume that the principles involved are identical to those for v ? No,
there must be more to it than that.
( 7/ 6)
lf the books neglect the 2 ending, what about magazine articles? We have
so far found just two, by Rinck, in the February and June 1 92 1 issues of La
Strategie.
(81 7)
Pat Constant draws our attention to an article on double rook endgames in the
October 1 980 CHESS, by Edmar Mednis (pages 277-280). *
(842)
Jaffe's claim

Dale Brandreth provides the following text from pages 5-6 of Jaffe 's Chess
Primer:
'Charles Jaffe ' s career has been both remarkable and tragic. At the very
height of his fame his progress was intercepted by Jose Capablanca. At the
Havana Tournament of 1 9 1 3 Mr Capablanca stated to the press that since
Jaffe had come to Cuba for the sole purpose of helping Marshall win, he
would never again play in a tournament where Jaffe was entered as a
contestant. It is certainly deplorable that Messrs. Cassel and Helms, the
American chess correspondents, not only believed these charges but also
*A subsequent book, Batsford Chess Endings, provided coverage (pages 324-332).

1 69

aided Capablanca by successfully keeping Jaffe out of all those American


Tournaments in which they had influence. It might be noted that the great
Dr Emanuel Lasker was driven from the U.S. by very much the same tactics.
He was barred from the New York Sextet Master Tournament of 1 927 . '
The above is taken from an unsigned 'biography' s o i s i t strictly true to say that
Jaffe himself made the accusation? We hope that he did not write the 'biography'
himself, given how it continues :
'Charles Jaffe ' s knowledge of the game is unsurpassed by anyone. As an
expert in the openings there is no one in the world who is his superior.'
This was written in the late 1 930s, long after Jaffe's prime.

( 79 7)

Vidmar

From Paul Timson:


'On perusing Jan Timman 's book The Art of Chess Analysis I came across
the following incredible passage* :

"The Vidmar Memorial Tournament is held every two years. For some
reason or other, the fifth in the series, in 1 979, attracted me immediately.
Not that I have ever played through a game of Vidmar' s - at least, never
a game he won; but probably I have seen a number of his losses printed
among the collected games of Alekhine, Capablanca, and Euwe. Frankly,
this splendid tournament is a rather exaggerated mark of honour for a
not very brilliant chess player."
Whilst Timman is entitled to his own opinion of Vidmar 's play, it seems
curious that he should commit it to print without bothering to play through
any of Vidmar's wins. '
(953)
Hypnosis

From The Compleat Draughts Player by Irving Chernev (pages 1 74- 175):
'Draughts playing by hypnotism is the latest achievement of an exponent of
the latter science. A lad was hypnotised and persuaded that he was Wyllie,
the celebrated draughts player. He was then matched against a first-class
opponent. Each move was made without hesitation and the game was played
in the presence of numerous spectators. '
*The passage i n question i s on page 1 94 of the RHM edition of 1 980 and on page 1 85 of the
Cadogan version of 1 997.

1 70

Chernev then gives the score of the game, as printed in the Occult Review. He
notes that the story was quoted in Draughts World, 1 9 1 0.
(974)
A hypnotism article, by Lev Alburt and Harvey Simon, appeared in CHESS,
August 1 983, pages 63-68.
John Roycroft reminds us of a passage on the same subject in leu d 'Echecs et
sciences humaines, pages 1 24- 1 25 (see also pages 1 00- 1 0 1 of The Psychology
of Chess by W. Hartston and P. Wason), as well as an advertisement which
appeared in the April 1 985 Chess Life, page 50:
'Amazing results ! Improve your chess with Hypnosis Cassettes. Money back
guarantee. For free information, write Pself-Psych .. . '
We remain psceptical.

(995)

'Lasker appears to exert a sort of hypnotic influence upon many opponents,


for it is difficult to explain how warriors accustomed to victory, when they
have come into the advantage against him, suddenly play the game for a
loss. '
Tarrasch in his book o n the St Petersburg, 1 9 1 4 tournament (page 1 68 o f the
German original and page 238 of the English translation).
Page 490 of Alexander Alekhine 's Chess Games, 1 902-1946 quoted a comment
by Nimzowitsch in De Telegraafof 1 May 1 934 regarding Bogoljubow' s attitude
to his match that year against Alekhine:
' Apparently he believed that his performance in the match was being
influenced by some hypnotic power brought about by Alekhine. In spite of
being assured by Nimzowitsch that this was impossible, Bogoljubow insisted
that it could be done.'
An article entitled ' Chess and Hypnosis' by Lenny Cavallaro appeared on
pages 57-58 of the June 1 99 8 Chess Life.
Brief obituaries

James J. B arrett writes:


'P. W. Sergeant died in 1952. An almost insultingly brief " obituary " appeared
in the BCM for November of that year (page 324). No mention of his long
connection with the BCM. No mention of Morphy' s Games of Chess. Half
a sentence skirts the subject of his considerable non-chess publications. No
mention of his date of birth or death. The only book mentioned is his A

171

Century of British Chess - and, oh yes, "helping R. C. Griffith with two


editions of Modem Chess Openings ". The whole tone ofthis small paragraph
that serves as an obituary is cold and unfeeling, and there was no follow
up. There must be a story here. Did he have a falling-out with the BCM ?
And I could not find even a mention in CHESS. '
The worst case of brevity must surely be the BCM' s obituary of Reti (July 1 929
issue, page 25 8): seven lines. *
(1 268)
The index to the 1 946 volume of the BCM listed 40 obituaries. Fifty years on, in
1 996, there were five. What conclusions should be drawn about the present-day
health of chess players and/or of the BCM?
(K 1 997)
The Termination

In his review of Kasparov' s Child of Change in the 8/ 1 987 New in Chess, Tim
Krabbe questioned whether Kasparov was wronged by the termination of his
first match since he was trailing 3-5 against Karpov. This reasoning, originally
voiced by hardly anyone except the American writer Hugh Myers, is now gaining
ground. Two other critics of Kasparov' s latest autobiography who have echoed
Krabbe ' s doubts are Leonard B arden and Nigel Short. The former wrote on
page xviii of the Financial Times of 2 1 November 1 98 7 :
'Central to Kasparov' s thesis is the "day o f shame" when Campomanes
abandoned the 1 9 84-85 world title match just after the youthful hero had
recovered from 1 -5 down to 3-5 . Karpov still needed only one win to
complete the six required for the match. Kasparov' s account of this episode
repeats his earlier public statements and seems to have it both ways. In one
paragraph he says, "I wanted no part in any deals behind closed doors". In
the next, "the FIDE proposal to stop now and start afresh . . . wasn' t so bad for
me . . . to start play again at nil-nil was better than 5-3 against". It is a strange
plot which, by its victim' s own assessment, doubled his chances of victory . '
Under the title 'Grandmaster o f Self-Delusion ' , Short asked o n page 4 3 o f The
Spectator of 1 7 October 1 987:
' . . . what sort of conspiracy gives Kasparov a chance to start afresh the match,
at 0-0, when he is 5-3 down against one of the greatest chess geniuses ever?
Whereas, if the match was continued his chances of winning were, by his
own admission, a mere 25-30% . '
There seems to be a distinct move away from how the termination decision w a s
interpreted at the time; in 1 985 it was widely condemned as Campomanes'
response to panic-stricken pleas that he save the title of hi s worn-out friend
Karpov. That was the message in Kasparov' s fulminations against Campomanes,
*Regarding brief obituaries of Lasker and Capablanca, see page 1 34 of Chess Explorations.

1 72

Karpov, Sevastyanov, Gligoric, Kinzel, etc. in a series of press conferences and


interviews. Journalists believed him and were unreceptive to other points of
view.
Now, some three years after 'The Day of Shame ' , as Kasparov terms it, Child of
Change provides an opportunity to analyse the affair more soberly. In
investigating the reliability of the claims made by Kasparov and his supporters
we may reduce the issues to five basic questions.
1 ) Was Karpov exhausted towards the end of the match ?

Karpov has always strongly denied it, so let us examine what Kasparov has said.
On page 1 25 of Child of Change he claims that Karpov 'had exhausted his
strength' and says on page 1 30 that 'the blunt reason they called a halt was
because Karpov was in no state to go on without the serious risk of defeat' .
Unfortunately, on pages 1 24- 1 25 he contradicts himself:
' Some people - Karpov' s supporters, of course - have claimed that the quality
of the chess at the end was very poor, showing that the champion must have
been sick and that my victories were a fluke. This is not borne out by close
analysis. Grandmasters have picked out the following games for "outstanding
technical expertise, brilliant ideas or sheer sporting excitement": numbers
six, nine, twenty-seven, thirty-two, thirty-six and - crucially - game forty
eight, the very last one. [In fact this anonymous quote is not by 'grandmasters'
but by Raymond Keene, taken from page 1 40 of The Moscow Challenge.]
The people around Karpov couldn ' t understand what was happening .
Because he had beaten me so easily in the early games, they assumed he
must be unwell to be losing at the end. But Karpov himself knew better. He
knew that in the last game, a good game of chess, I caught him out in one
mistake. His people couldn' t see this. To them if Karpov is losing he must
be sick, so we must protect him - and, incidentally, of course, ourselves.'
Kasparov reiterates this on page 143:
'The people around him attributed my late victories to the fact that he was
so exhausted, but Karpov knew better. He knew it was my chess that was
beating him.'
2) Was Kasparov in good physical and mental shape at the end of the match ?

Here is a quote from page 1 30 of Child of Change, referring to game 48:


'Of course, it was very embarrassing for them that I won this game - and
even more embarrassing that I won it with such good play. For this invalidated
their argument that both of us were too exhausted to play good chess. As
John Nunn has pointed out, forty-eight games is not at all an unusual number
173

for grandmasters to play over a period of five months, and a number of the
forty draws played in Moscow were short. I was certainly feeling in better
shape than I had in September, as I kept pointing out to every official I
came across . '
However, let us compare that with what Kasparov said in a n interview in the
7/1 985 New in Chess (page 7):
'Exhaustion did exist anyway ... The most difficult to cope with was the
psychological exhaustion, which increased even when a game was not so
intense, because the match lasted a long time, and the responsibility was
great. Regardless of whether a game was short or long, and even when one
did not find oneself in extremely taxing circumstances, one could not relax,
and had to think about the match all the time. One ' s brain was working, and
the nervous tension did not stop, not even for a moment. '
3) In what circumstances did Campomanes return to Moscow shortly before
terminating the match ?

In studying this question, Kasparov' s words on page 1 25 of his book should be


borne in mind: 'The final truth about this match, I believe, is as Grandmaster
Keene reported it. ' Kasparov and Keene are close friends who have collaborated
on literary and political projects; Keene' s writings are frequently quoted with
approval in Child of Change.
Now, this is what Raymond Keene wrote on page 8 of The Spectator of
23 February 1 9 85 :
'On the evening of Saturday 9th February, Campomanes was telephoned
urgently from Moscow, with the stunning message from the world
champion ' s camp that Karpov, having lost two games in a row, was unable
to continue and Campomanes should fly at once to Moscow to bail him
out. '
It should, however, be noted that:
i) the message did not come 'from Karpov' s camp' . Gligoric was telephoning
on behalf of Kinzel, who did not have a common language with Campomanes;
ii) 'having lost two games in a row' was not part of the message, but Keene' s
own addition to it;
iii) there is no evidence that Campomanes was told that Karpov ' was unable to
continue' ;
iv) Campomanes was not asked to go to Moscow; he took that decision himself;
1 74

v) 'to bail him out' was not part of the message, but Keene' s (slanted) way of
interpreting it.
Raymond Keene himself (see May 1 986 BCM, page 206) no longer defends his
quoted words from The Spectator; nor has he retracted them.
Finally on this episode, one may note what Donald Schultz of the United States
Chess Federation said on page 34 of the January 1 988 Chess Life:
'The recent campaign [Keene/Lucena v Campomanes] was one of the dirtiest
I've ever seen. It was based on unproven innuendo. For example, the phone
call that Campo received during the first Karpov-Kasparov match. They stated
that it was from Karpov and that Campo was supposed to go to Moscow. I was
there, in the room, when Campo received the call ! It was from Svetozar Gligoric,
and it asked that Campo go to Lucerne, to meet with Alfred Kinzel.'
4 ) Was Kasparov disadvantaged by the termination decision ?

Firstly here, we may recall what B arden quoted: Kasparov' s words on page 1 33
of Child of Change about a new match starting at 0-0:
' In a way this wasn' t so bad for me. I was sure I would win the second
match. I had become much wiser than at the beginning of this one. And to
start playing again at nil-nil was better than five-three against. '
Reviewing the book on page 37 of the Sunday Telegraph of 1 8 October 1 987,
Raymond Keene wrote:
' Kasparov claims that Campomanes halted the first Kasparov-Karpov match
"without result" just as the former was on the verge of victory. '
I n fact, Kasparov stated (see page 1 4 1 o f Child of Change) that his chances of
winning the match were ' about 25 or 30% ' . It is not clear how Keene interprets
25 or 30% chances as meaning 'on the verge of victory' . *
5) Was the termination decision defensible a s a matter ofprinciple ?

*On pages 4-5 of the 4/ 1 9 8 8 New in Chess Raymond Keene replied to our accusation of
misrepresentation on this matter by simply writing, 'I have a right to my own opinion ' . That
naturally disregards the fact that in the Sunday Telegraph he had been professing to report
Kasparov 's claim - non-existent in reality - of being on the verge of victory. In any case, is it even
Mr Keene ' s opinion? On page 1 40 of The Moscow Challenge he wrote that ' at the end his
[Kasparov's] chances may even have been superior' (emphasis added). That was also quoted in
Child of Change (page 1 25 ) .

1 75

Firstly, it should be recalled that nobody appears to have suggested outright


termination of the match until Kasparov himself did so to Kinzel at the very
beginning of February 1 985. (Kasparov and Kinzel subsequently gave conflicting
accounts of the circumstances and context in which Kasparov proposed that the
match should be terminated. )
Kasparov nonetheless writes o n page 1 55 o f Child of Change:
' . . . as Ray Keene pointed out when Campomanes visited London : "He
proceeds from the arguable premise that a 'decision' was needed at all. In
fact, no decision was necessary, since the match was proceeding according
to regulations and these should have been allowed to run their course".
Precisely . '
The principle that 'no decision was necessary ' , which Raymond Keene expounded
on page 42 of The Spectator of 4 May 1 985 and repeated on page 20 of
Manoeuvres in Moscow, is further illustrated by his words on page 204 of the
May 1 986 BCM:
' . . . a vast amount of the criticism aroused by the K-K match termination is
not because that termination damaged the specific rights or chances of either
player. Rather it is because outside intervention from a third party violates
the very nature of chess ! '
(One notes in passing that the argument that Karpov had to be 'bailed out' has
been dropped.)
However, on page 21 of Manoeuvres in Moscow Keene wrote:
' Ironically, had Campomanes kept silent after game 48 and only stepped in
to stop the match if there had been a further series of draws, his action
would probably have met with widespread approval. '
S o the argument now i s that what was wrong was Campomanes' timing, not the
principle of termination (or 'outside intervention from a third party ' ) .
Raymond Keene' s protests about Campomanes' decision need t o b e viewed in
the context of the following telex, which was sent on 15 February 1 985 from
London to Lucerne and Moscow:
' Please convey urgently to FIDE President Florencio Campomanes
Raymond Keene offers a compromised [sic] solution to end the current
problems in Moscow. In view of the current difficulties and in respect to the
splendid fighting spirit there has prevailed in the world championship,
Raymond Keene proposes that the current match be declared drawn with
1 76

the players sharing the world title. This tie can then be broken in a match of
fixed duration to be held late in the year and offers [sic] to find sponsorship
that will allow the return fixture to be held in London.
If this solution is acceptable London Docklands Development Corporation
would be delighted to act as host to this prestigious event.
John Tisdall.'
Raymond Keene has provided two contradictory claims as to when the telex
was despatched. On page 1 39 of The Moscow Challenge he indicated that it was
sent after the final announcement by Campomanes that Karpov 'accepted' the
termination decision and Kasparov 'would abide by it' . However, on page 4 1 1
of the September 1 986 BCM he stated that the telex was sent in the morning, in
reaction to an (inaccurate) announcement on the radio that the match had already
been terminated. *
Conclusion :

It is only considerations of space that prevent further contradictions and


inconsistencies from being given here. Let us finish with one final puzzle, a
brief quote from page 1 35 of Child of Change, where Kasparov describes the
scene in Moscow immediately after - yes, after - Campomanes' press conference
announcement that the match was being terminated, with a new one to start
at 0-0 the following September:
'There was a great deal of shuffling and noise in the audience at this news.
The video tape shows my trainers and myself talking and laughing among
ourselves. '
The obvious question here i s : why were Kasparov and his trainers l aughing?
(N 1 988)
Another startling case of serial invention by a journalist writing about the
Termination of the 1 984-85 Karpov v Kasparov match is given in the present
item. Firstly, let us examine the message which the President of the USSR Chess
Federation sent to Campomanes shortly before the match was terminated:
'To the President of FIDE, Mr F. Campomanes
Taking into account the unprecedented duration of the world title match
*Other examples of untruthful reporting of this matter by Raymond Keene and The Times are
given on pages 27 1 -272 below. Moreover, on page 1 39 of The Moscow Challenge, Keene wrote
that his termination telex proposal was made 'in my capacity as President of the Commonwealth
Chess Association ' . In reality, the Association was not mentioned anywhere in the message.

1 77

between A. Karpov and G. Kasparov, which is still in progress after more


than five months, and in which 48 games have already been played (that is
two full matches under the old rules), the USSR Chess Federation, expressing
concern about the health of the participants, requests a three-month
suspension of the match.
As is known, there was envisaged in the agreement of the unlimited match
Fischer-Karpov [ 1 976 - sic] a break after four months' play. This provision
was included on the basis of advice of medical specialists. Yet the Karpov
Kasparov match, as already pointed out, has exceeded this length and is still
in progress.
We also point out that the proposal to have a break does not run contrary to
the FIDE Constitution, nor to the match regulations, and, we feel, would be
met with satisfaction by the public opinion of the chess world.
Your positive decision would be helpfu l and in the interests of the
development of chess creativity.
Respectfully yours, V.I. Sevastyanov
1 3 February 1 985 . '
Now, compare that with how B .H. Wood summarised the letter i n the February
1 985 CHESS (page 283):
' . . . Vitaly Sevastianov, the ex-astronaut president of the Soviet Chess
Federation, wrote Campomanes a letter on 14 February, again admitting
that Anatoly could not go on and begging for a stop to the match, with
Karpov retaining his title and Kasparov "permitted" a rematch later in the
year. '
One may note that:
a)

Wood gives the incorrect date;

b)

The letter did not 'admit that Anatoly could not go on' . It referred to both
players;

c)

It did not 'beg' for the match to be stopped;

d)

There was nothing about Karpov retaining his title;

e)

There was nothing about a rematch for Kasparov;

f)

Sevastyanov was asking for a suspension of the match, which Campomanes

178

refused to grant;
g)

Wood never c orrected, or a p o l o g i s e d for, h i s amazing l i tany of


misinformation.
(S 1 986)

A Spassky interview

The March 1 987 Europe Echecs (pages 1 59- 1 64) has a terrific interview with
Boris Spassky, by Jacques Le Monnier. The former world champion talks can
didly about all of his main opponents, singling out Keres as a particularly kind
and gentlemanly colleague. The last chess artist was perhaps Larsen, the game
having now moved towards a phase of chess 'killers ' . Spassky says that he is
still in contact with Fischer: 'He is poor. . . it' s tragic. It greatly saddens me to
think of his fate; he became world champion and then suddenly everything
collapsed' . Fischer ' will never return' .
Although Spassky will perhaps one day publish a book of his games, he has
stopped annotating because it brings in little money. 'I have written only one
book, on my 1 977-78 match in Belgrade against Korchnoi' , over which he has
been ' maltreated and defamed' . For six years he could not bring himself to speak
to Korchnoi.
We are unclear as to the publication details of this book, and would welcome
information. It will be recalled that during the ' Chess Crisis' of 1 977-78 jour
nalists were almost without exception for Korchnoi ; hardly a word was heard
in favour of Spas sky. As we know from the Termination Affair, the chess press
prefers to play its controversies by intuition rather than by serious investigation
and analysis.
(1 3 79)
C.N. 1 379 asked for information about a book by Spassky on his 1 977-78 match
against Korchnoi. The former world champion gives an excellent interview to
Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam on pages 36-42 of the 7/1 988 New in Chess:
'I wrote two books. One about my loss to Karpov and the second book
about my loss to Korchnoi. I called this latter book "The Dramatic Match".
I sent it to Schmaus, the publishing house, and they didn ' t publish it and I
am happy they didn ' t publish it. But they still have the manuscript. '
Spassky also states (though how seriously i t is difficult to guess) that he i s still
writing a book on his match against Fischer:
'I would like to publish this book after my death, because it contains certain
memoirs, certain ideas. There is no sense in writing such a book for the
money, because it is very poorly paid. Nobody is going to pay you decently
for it. If you want to write a good quality book you need time. I have many
recollections from my chess career, I met many interesting people, but I
1 79

wouldn' t like to write a book like, for example, Kasparov did.* This is not
a book, I could only read two or three pages of it, this is garbage. As cham
pion of the world I would pay at least one million dollars to get rid of such
garbage. A shame ! First of all, if you write a book as champion of the world,
you should write it personally, without any journalist. '
(1 791)
Olga Capablanca

On 6 April 1 987 we had a lengthy telephone conversation with Olga Capablanca


Clark and subsequently received the following letter:
'28 April 1 987
Dear Chess Friends,
Among the multitude of games played by my late husband, Jose Raul
Capablanca, there is one that has never been published nor even seen by
anyone except the three of us: Capablanca, Tartakower and myself.
In the years that 1 had known Capa he had never played in private, he had
never practised, nor even had a chess set at home. Ever so different from
the chess masters all over the world!
This was, however, a very special occasion. It happened in Paris. I believe
the year was 1 938. We stayed in the Hotel Regina, Place Jeanne D 'A rc,
quite near the Louvre Museum. I had one of my frequent bad colds and
stayed in bed to recuperate, when Savielly Tartakower, one of our good
friends, came over for a visit. He stayed quite a while. Then suddenly he
said to Capa: "I have a chess set with me. Why not play a game ? "
Much to my astonishment, Capa smiled. " Why not? We are in good com
pany. " He grabbed some of the hotel stationery, a small table was moved
close to my bed and the two masters sat down to play. How long the game
lasted I couldn 't quite tell, as here and there I slept a little. I remember
Capa woke me up by gently touching my shoulder, to give me a few folded
sheets of Regina stationery, on which he had written the score of Capa v
Tartakower. Of course he won.
"Here is a present for you, cherie. "
Gingerly I took the folded stationery. "But you know I don 't understand a
thing about chess. "
Both he and Tartakower laughed good naturedly.
*I.e. Child of Change.

1 80

" Take it and hide it well. Some day in years to come it will buy you a
beautiful bijou ", Capa said. "Ever since I was a child everything I did was
written down. And this is the only chess game that is only yours. "
Anyone wishing to buy the Capablanca jewel, as he referred to it, should
write as soon as possible to Mr Edward Winter. . . The 30th September would
be the appropriate time-limit, as I have authorised him to receive the bids
on my behalf. In view of the exceptional nature of the game and surround
ing circumstances, no offer under $US 10, 000 will be accepted.
With sincerest good wishes to all chess players in all lands.
(Signed)
Olga Capablanca Clark ' *

(1383)

Mistaken identity?

From page 59 of the English version of A History of Chess by J. Gizycki, in a


chapter written by B .H. Wood:
'Yates died a sloven, a drunkard, in pathetic circumstances. '
A mix-up with William Winter?

(1422)

Copyright

Can there be copyright on a chess game? Could players or organisers place


restrictions on, or demand payment for, the publication of game-scores in
columns, magazines and books? It is worth examining some of our forefathers'
attempts to grapple with these questions.
Rule number 12 at the first international tournament (London, 1 85 1 ) read as
follows:
'As the managing committee guarantee to every subscriber of a guinea and
upwards, a correct copy of the whole games, and as considerable expense
must attend the recording of so many games and their subsequent publica
tion, it must be understood that no one will be allowed, in the first instance,
to publish any part of them, without the express sanction of the committee. '
Although New York, 1 857 had an almost identical regulation, i t took two years
for the tournament book to be published, by which time games had been widely
*No bids were received by the deadline, and we have no information on the present whereabouts
of the game-score. Olga Capablanca died in the mid- 1 990s.

181

printed in magazines and newspapers.


Similarly, the rules for the Cleveland, 1 87 1 congress specified, 'All games and
problems shall remain the property of the Congress, and shall not be published
without its consent' (page 5 of the tournament book). At Philadelphia, 1 876 a
complication was added:
'The games shall be the exclusive property of the association for publica
tion in book form, each player, however, being entitled to the use of three of
his games for that purpose. '
Source: tournament book, page viii.
The above cannot, however, be dismissed as j ust an eccentricity from another
century. One of the conditions of play at New York, 1 927 was the following:
'The players undertake not to write any annotation or publish any of the
games played in book form for a period of one year after publication of the
Official Tournament Book. '
Here the trouble was that the 'Official Tournament Book' , which was supposed
to be by Capablanca, was never published. (American Chess Bulletin, February
1 927, pages 2 1 and 23 .)
An early copyright controversy had occurred over Wisker and MacDonnell' s
1 874 match i n London, when the former claimed the exclusive right to publish
the game-scores in his chess column in The Sportsman. P.T. Duffy of The
Westminster Papers dissented:
'The copyright in Mr Wisker' s moves cannot belong to Mr MacDonnell or
vice versa . . . We have compared a game to a speech. No copyright exists in
a speech. As the words are uttered the reporter can take them down and the
speaker cannot stop their publication . '
A fuller account o f this controversy, b y G .H. Diggle, appeared i n the June 1 986
news flash (page 6). (See also pages 253-254 of the 31 May 1 88 1 issue of The
Chess Player 's Chronicle.) Duffy ' s comparison with a speech would be less
appropriate in Britain at a later date because 'it is well established that it is not
permissible to take a note of a lecture and publish it "for profit"' (Copyright and
Performing Rights by W.J. Leaper, London, 1 957, page 1 8).
Steinitz deployed his eloquence to the full to demand adequate financial re
wards for chess masters. For instance, he wrote on page 336 of the November
1 886 /ntemational Chess Magazine:

1 82

'There is hardly any first-class professional who, on the average, has earned
more than the wages of a common laborer, and on the other hand, there are
thousands of occupations in which thousands of times more money is made
with thousands of times less expenditure of real intellect . . . It is gravely
preached that men of talent and genius, who happen to be born without a
golden spoon in their mouth, should enter the public chess arena in a starv
ing condition merely for the entertainment of thousands of rich people all
over the world who only ought to pay their money to incapable critical
chess pirates and their publishers. '
Copyright was one o f the innumerable issues discussed i n the lengthy negotia
ti ?ns which eventually resulted in his 1 886 match with Zukertort. In a letter
dated 2 August 1 885, Zukertort' s representative, J . l . Minchin, wrote:
'To avoid the p o s sibility of dispute on a point of some i mportance,
Mr Zu kertort s u ggests that the games in the match shall be the prop
erty of the player who has the first move in the game. After publication
such sole property will determine, and Mr Zukertort is of course prepared
to publish his own games in an American journal, without delay, after
which they can be also printed by his opponent. '
Source: The International Chess Magazine, September 1 885, page 258 .
Steinitz ' s representative, T . Frere, responded o n 1 8 August 1 885, i n a letter
which was printed on pages 259-263 of the same issue:
'On the question of property-right in the games Mr Steinitz would prefer
that each party shall have the separate right of publishing any or all of the
games during the match and a collection of the games within three months
after the match shall have ended, and that either party may obtain copyright
for the games and his own notes, both in America and in England, but that
neither party shall have any commercial claim on the opponent' s published
games or collection thereof. Mr Steinitz, however, is willing to submit this
question to the referee . . .
'

The contract eventually signed by Steinitz and Zukertort on 29 December 1 885


stated:
'Property right in the record of all games played in the match shall insure
[sic] to each player, who shall have the separate right of publishing any or
all the games during the match, and a collection of the games after the
match, and that either player may obtain copyright for the games and his
own notes, both in America and in England or elsewhere, but that neither
player shall have any commercial claim on his opponent' s published games,
or collection thereof. '
1 83

Source: The Chess Monthly, January 1 886, page 1 36.


The conditions of the Steinitz v Gunsberg world championship match of 1 89091 contained a similar clause, published on page 3 26 of The International Chess
Magazine, November 1 890:
'Property right in the record of all games played in the match shall inure to
each player who shall have the separate right of publishing any or all the
games during the match, and a collection of the games after the match, and
that each, W. Steinitz, I. Gunsberg, player may obtain copyright for the
games and his notes both in America and in England or elsewhere, but that
neither shall have any commercial claim on his opponent' s published games
or collection thereof. '
Steinitz ' s penury had a profound effect on his world championship successor.
The November 1 905 issue of Lasker's Chess Magazine (page 34) reprinted an
item from The Saturday Review:
'There has been a good deal of complaint on the newspapers because
Tarrasch and Marshall are withholding the games in their match from im
mediate publication. Mr Lawrence calls it "a short-sighted policy, which
we trust will not obtain in similar contests in the future, for unless the chess
public is enabled to play over games while the interest is still warm, it will
be found that not only interest but the necessary material support will be
lacking". The implication that chess masters are men of fortune and that by
these tactics they will kill their goose is surely unconsidered and inadequate.
The mistake these writers make is in considering the score of a game of
chess as news which unless immediately transmitted to the world loses all
value. Why this should be so is a mystery. For a long time chess enthusiasts
have obtained the products of chess masters with their halfpenny or penny
paper but these gratuities must not be looked upon as vested interests even
though the whole public are the beneficiaries. So far no chess master has
had to submit to the indignity of being dubbed a "bloated millionaire" nor is
there any likelihood that the immediate future will materially alter his con
dition. But we know of no reason why he should not try to get something
out of the public for the pleasure, interest and instruction which are derived
from playing his games. In a nutshell, judging from the past, if each game
appeared in every newspaper in the country within twenty-four hours after
it was concluded the players would not be one penny better off. Not only
that, but in consequence the publication in book form afterwards is looked
upon as a sort of "reprint" and is generally doomed to failure, while the
necessity for paying anything to see the games played is regarded as almost
in the nature of charity when they can be had for nothing in the next issue of
the local paper.
Chess differs from other things in that the score of a game adequately and
1 84

absolutely represents everything that transpires over the board, and the
youngest reporter on the newspaper staff can be entrusted with writing it
correctly. Where is the reporter who could really convey a tithe of what
transpires on the football field, the cricket field, the billiard table, the con
cert room or the theatre? If anybody is really interested in any of these
things he must be at the appointed time and place to see the contest or the
performance. On the other hand a game of chess produced by the best play
ers in the world can be examined in the library or in the drawing-room a day
or a century after [it] is played, and its effect is only modified by the par
ticular capacity of the reader. The score is a complete record for all time.
On this very account chess can never prove very remunerative to its profes
sors. Publicity may be necessary for wrestlers, footballers, or prodigies, but
it remains to be shown what benefit professional chessplayers have derived
from it. '

Lasker made regular attempts to copyright his games, and on at least one occa
sion proposed that he alone should be paid. In The Evening Post (New York) of
22 November 1 9 1 1 he announced the conditions under which he would accept
Capablanca' s challenge for a title match. The fourth one read:
'The games of the match are the property of Dr Lasker, who is at liberty to
charge for the viewing of them and for their publication in any form he may
deem to his advantage. '
Capab1anca categorically rejected the demand:
'A chess game, from its very nature and the manner of its production, must
be the joint property of the two persons producing it . . . You can charge
what you like for the publication of the games in any form you may deem to
your advantage. But, unfortunately, that is a common privilege, of which
anyone may take advantage. '
I n the meantime Lasker explained his reasoning :
'Dr Lasker' s activity in chess extends over more than twenty years. Hence,
it is his personality that gives the games their principal interest, and it is
only fair that he should have the benefit of his own work. Again, the chal
lenger risks nothing in the way of reputation, whereas he has enormously to
gain. Clause 4 is intended to be an offset for the advantage which the chal
lenger reaps in this respect. '
Capablanca' s laconic comment:
'So Dr Lasker thinks it is his personality that gives the games their principal
interest. '
1 85

Source: American Chess Bulletin, February 1 9 1 2, pages 27-3 1 .


In its 20 January 1 9 1 6 issue (page 36), The Times Literary Supplement added an
asinine political slant to the discussion on copyright claims:
'The principal and most frequent offenders in this matter have been the
German professional players, who would doubtless have been pleased to
establish such a monopoly that the simple move of P-K4 could not be played
without, say, Dr Lasker' s permission. '
Even when the Lasker v Capablanca match was eventually played in Havana in
1 92 1 , the question of copyright still loomed. For example, the Cuban newspaper
Diario de Ia Marina ( 1 4 April 1 92 1 , page 1 ) reported that the eleventh match
game was 'the property of Lasker and Capablanca and cannot be reproduced' . It
is one thing to make such a declaration, but quite another to enforce it. Even for
the Capablanca v Marshall match of 1 909 the players jointly published an agree
ment stipulating that 'ownership in the scores of the games shall be vested equally
in the two principals ' (American Chess Bulletin, April 1 909, page 83). There is
no evidence that anybody paid attention.
The British writer W.H. Watts discussed the matter on pages 2 1 3-2 1 4 of The
Chess Budget, July 1 925 :
' . . . The only way . . . is for the publication of the games to be restricted to
those papers that are willing to pay for them. A game once played is no
longer the property of the Masters who produced it, but becomes the
property of the promoters of the Tournament. If I write a book or compose
a piece of music for a publishing house or paint a picture for a patron or
produce any other thing to a definite order it becomes the absolute property
of the purchaser, subject to there being no specific agreement to the con
trary and the same with a game of chess.
As now conducted these games are free for the use of any person who
copies them out and being free, but few papers want them - if there were a
charge for their use as many and possibly more would be published. It would
create a demand.
Possibly the innovation would cause some resentment and meet with some
opposition at the first, but the great chess playing public should with a little
effort soon put this matter right.
My choice of newspapers and other periodicals is restricted to those run
ning chess columns except only in cases where there is some occasional
article that I want - but my regular purchases have a column - and a few
more doing the same thing would soon produce the desired result.
1 86

Newspapers pay fabulous sums for exclusive items, exclusive photographs,


etc . , and they would soon be induced to pay reasonable small fees for
exclusive chess games, from the big tournaments, between masters. Under
our existing arrangements a few papers send their reporters and reproduce a
game - other papers which do not go to the expense, copy this game from
the first newspaper, knowing that is free "copy". This would be obviated
and all columns reproducing the games would be liable for payment
according to some fixed scale of charges. Copyright in the game would
lapse after a period in exactly the same way that copyright in a book lapses
eventually.

Again:- The official book of the tournament would have an added value.
Some such scheme was adopted in the Lasker v Capablanca match at
Havana but there was a serious leakage - and the publi shers went too
far in price increase when the book was published. There is a limit and this
was over-reached in this particular case.
The fact remains that there is an untapped source of revenue and one which
if properly and tactfully developed should go far to provide the means to
wards holding another International Master Tournament in this country.
Twenty years is too big a gap between one British International and two or
three thousand pounds too big a sum to collect more frequently than this, so
that some ingenious person has to devise means of raising the money and
this is a suggestion.
Many of the individual subscribers to the last London Tournament got
nothing tangible for their money, but if every subscriber of say two guin
eas were to have a copy of the official Tournament Book, and every sub
scriber of five guineas were to have a copy autographed by every player,
the Tournament would take place within two years from now. Other in
ducements could be held out in the shape of free passes, etc., and the money
would quickly be raised - but it would be necessary to strictly reserve the
copyright in all the games.
Pirated music is looked at askance - why not pirated copies of chess games?'

Academic s too sometimes debated the issue. In the June 1 909 Wiener
Schachzeitung (pages 1 69- 1 70) a complex article by Dr Josef Kohler of Berlin
University, reprinted from Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht,
concluded that copyright was impossible. A game of chess was like any
historical event and could be described by anybody; there could be no question
of a patent since the element of business or commerce was missing. An English
translation of the article, just as complex, appeared on pages 1 48- 1 49 of the
February 1 9 1 1 Chess Amateur.
A similar conclusion was reached a few years later when, commenting on copy1 87

right in the context of speculation about the eventual creation of an International


Chess Federation, the February 1 9 1 6 American Chess Bulletin (page 42) quoted
from the London Times:
'Has our friend realised that there is not, and cannot be, any copyright in the
score of a game of chess, wherever and whenever played? True, no one is
obliged to publish the score of a game played, but once it is published, the
score is free for anyone to copy. The accompanying notes, if any, in any
newspaper or periodical, are quite another matter, but the score is merely a
record that a player has made certain moves, and as he has no copyright in
the moves, neither he nor anyone else can assume the possession of a copy
right in the record of them.'
The Chess Amateur December 1 9 1 0 (page 85) stated that if copyright existed at
all it belonged to the Federation Committee organising a given event.

'They, however, being practical men, waive their right, knowing quite well
that the public must be kept interested by the general publication of selected
games. If this publication is to be denied, a denial quite within the rights
and power of the committee, public interest and subsequently subscriptions
[to tournament funds] would wane.'
In January 1 9 1 1 (page 1 1 6) the magazine continued on the same theme:
'Our advice to Masters is to let well alone. To claim payment for copyright
is injudicious. The more often Masters ' work can appear before the public,
the better for the Masters. The public has a short memory. New men arise,
who claim present attention and the giants of former days are easily forgot
ten. In the meantime Masters may derive some consolation from the fact
that each insertion in a magazine or newspaper is an advertisement which
may not be regarded as being without value. It is quite open to Masters to
test, practically, the value of copyright. The games, in a match between two
players of high standing, might be briefly and pithily annotated by each and
published at a moderate price. This should be done as soon as possible after
the match, before public interest is lost. Both players would thus, possibly,
reap more benefit than by asserting and securing copyright of the scores. '
Quite apart from the international legal entanglements, copyright payments would
entail formidable practical complications. Could everyone afford the sums in
volved, whatever they were and whoever calculated them? Would account be
taken of a journal ' s circulation, and of partial publication (e.g. openings only)?
Would a bureaucratic clearing house be required, perhaps one costing about as
much as what it collected? What about criticisms of elitism, of excessively
favouring a small group of top players? (A comparison suggests itself here with
the Public Lending Right, whereby authors in some countries receive payment
1 88

according to how often their books are borrowed from libraries.) Would there
be any limit to the duration of copyright? Aren' t prizes and playing fees suffi
cient nowadays? Or, to return to The Chess Amateur' s argument, isn ' t there a
danger of reducing chess publicity in the media? Moreover, why should prob
lems and studies be ignored? Since they are generally composed by one indi
vidual without the involvement of a federation or organiser, they could be a
prime target for copyright restrictions.
It is still possible that, for important matches or tournaments, players or organisers
will be tempted to prevent outsiders from 'cashing in' with instant books, per
haps arguing that it is in everybody' s interests to await an authoritative account
from the protagonists themselves. The likely counter-claims would be about
'the right to information' and the value of an independent view.

There is, however, one anomalous practice that is difficult to defend: anybody
can publish a collection of a player' s complete games, his life ' s work. Is there
any other cultural or artistic domain which allows the compiler to pocket every
thing, and the originator nothing?*
(N 1 987)
Accusations

In 1 987 Pergamon Press published London-Leningrad Championship Games


by G. Kasparov, translated by Kenneth P. Neat. The 24 games (especially the
1 6th) have impressively deep notes; which other world champions have ever
offered the public such a detailed explanation of their play? It is particularly
instructive to read Kasparov' s (mainly negative) views on other commentators'
annotations.
There is relatively little off-the-board comment, but enough to underline what
Child of Change has already shown: Kasparov has precious little regard for
truth, accuracy, consistency or fairness. One example will suffice. As is well
known, after losing three consecutive games to Karpov, Kasparov accused
Vladimirov, his second, of treachery. He repeated his denunciation, at length,
on pages 203-208 of Child of Change. A couple of sample extracts follow:
' . . . my intuition in chess, the logic of the way things developed then,
prove, to my mind - though Vladimirov denies it - that I was betrayed . . . '
(page 204)
'I have often wondered what drove Vladimirov to behave as he did . . . The
motive, I think, was a twisted kind of jealousy . . . He was having to live
through me. I was achieving the sort of success he craved for himself and
which he thought his own talents deserved. Deep down he resented my
*The above is an expanded version of our article in New in Chess. For further information see 'On
an Art Without Copyright' by Bjorn Frank in Kyklos, Vol. 49 - 1 996, pages 3- 1 5 . Since then, FIDE
has expressed renewed interest in the subject of copyright.

1 89

success. He thought it should be his. This kind of feeling makes a man a


natural traitor, especially if it is allied to a weak personality with a tendency
to self-degradation. ' (page 205)
Kasparov has never offered proof, and fawning journalists have never demanded
any. But now, having destroyed Vladimirov' s reputation, the same Kasparov
has the gall to write on page 1 1 3 of London-Leningrad Championship Games:
' . . . a serious conflict occurred in my relations with Vladimirov after the 1 9th
game. To me he seemed to be behaving strangely - copying out the analysis
of openings employed in the match. I cannot assert anything, and I have no
grounds for accusing him, but equally I can no longer trust Vladimirov as I
used to. '
Note those words carefully :
' . . .1

cannot assert anything, and I have no grounds for accusing him . . .

'

Our admiration for Kasparov' s chess skill is immeasurable, but the rest fills us
with revulsion.*
(1514)
Drawn brilliancies

Wanted: drawn games which were awarded a brilliancy prize. The best-known
case is probably Geller v Golombek, Budapest, 1 952, if only because Black has
so often written about it. An earlier example was Mieses v Pillsbury, Vienna
Gambit Tournament, 1 903. Mieses annotated the game on pages 1 48- 1 50 of the
May 1 94 1 BCM, this being his final note:
'This game was awarded a brilliancy prize with both players sharing it,
since the adjudicating Committee expressed the opinion that the ingenuity
of the attack, on one side, and the skill and doggedness of the defence, on
the other side, deserved the highest praise. A draw winning a brilliancy
prize is quite unique in the history of tournaments. '
(154 7)
From Ed Tassinari :
'A drawn brilliancy that immediately comes to mind is Medina v Toran,
Palma de Mallorca, 1 968, which is annotated on pages 1 71 - 1 72 of
Heidenjeld 's Draw ! '

We add that Heidenfeld ' s book (page 1 38) draws attention to another case,
Heidenfeld v Pachman, Madrid, 1 960. The chairman of the committee appointed
to award the special prizes, Roman Toran, had stated, 'A draw has no claim to
being considered at all for such an award ' , but Heidenfeld counters with three
*An alternative view of the Vladimirov matter was proffered by Mr David Goodman on page 24 of
the January 1 987 Chess Life. It included the memorable assertion, 'Kasparov is a disarmingly
straightforward person ' .

1 90

arguments:
a) There was the Vienna, 1 903 precedent, and others;
b) The game chosen at Madrid for the prize ' was later found to contain a hole as
big as a house (in the winner' s play . . . ) ' ;
c) Toran himself subsequently won such a prize. 'It is not known that he refused to
accept the award on the grounds that a drawn game should not be eligible.' (1575)

Immortal but unknown

One way in which an ordinary amateur can become a chess immortal is by being
in tlfe right place at the right time. If, for instance, he is on the scene just as a new
prodigy emerges, even an inglorious defeat will perpetuate his memory. A case
in point is Juan Corzo, for whom the right place and time were Havana 1 90 1 ,
when he lost an historic match to the young Capablanca. Two of Corzo' s defeats
are among the most celebrated games in literature, and his name will be remem
bered as long as chess is played.
But despite this, and to say nothing of the further publicity he gained by being
on the sharp end of a Capablanca brilliancy prize game in the Havana, 1 9 1 3
tournament, Corzo' s immortality clearly has its limits. Hardly anyone nowa
days knows anything about him, and it is not easy to find out more. Investiga
tions are hindered by the erratic nature of Cuban periodical literature, which is
all fits and starts. Time and again, new chess journals have wobbled along to an
early grave, and throughout most of Corzo' s life the country was without any
specialised magazine. Chess books appeared at the rate of two or three a decade;
Corzo wrote none, and none wrote about Corzo.
Juan Corzo y Principe was born in Madrid on 24 June 1 873 but moved to Cuba
when he was in his mid-teens. The first serious event in which he appears to
have participated was the Championship of the Havana Chess Club in 1 896. He
came fourth but won the brilliancy prize for his game against Manuel Golmayo:
J. Corzo-M. Golmayo, Havana, 1 896. Two Knights ' Defence.

(Notes by Corzo)
1 e4 eS 2 4Jf3 c6 3 Ac4 <N6 4 d4 xe4 5 dxeS cS 6 0-0 .A.e7 7 c3 0-0 8
dS d6 9 A4 ( 'Janowsky says that 9 xe7+ is stronger, because after 9 . . . xe7
or 9 . . .'xe7 White could reply 10 exd6, leaving Black with an isolated pawn

and the bi shop pair against bishop and knight while also holding the open
central files for his rooks . ' ) 9 . . . dxeS 10 eS Ad6 1 1 d3 e6 12 Axd6
xd6 1 3 3 e7 ( ' 1 3 . . . f4 would have been better. ' ) 14 hS Ad7 1 S El ad1
g6 1 6 fS b6 1 7 El fe1 El ad8 1 8 Ele3 ef4 1 9 xf4 xf4 20 gS g6

(See diagram, top of next page.)


191

2 1 Axf7+ xf7 22 e7+ 4Jxe7 23 i':fxg7+ e6 24 i':fxe7+ Resigns . ( 'Mate can


not be prevented. An elegant finish which earned me the brilliancy prize. ' )

Source: Ajedrez en Cuba, pages 265-266.


Manuel Golmayo' s father was Celso Golmayo y Zupide, who had been gener
ally accepted as Cuban champion since his 1 862 match defeat of Felix Sicre.
Celso did not play in the 1 897 national championship tournament, but his title
stayed in the family because another son, Celsito, was declared champion after
a play-off against Andres Clemente Vazquez. Although Corzo finished only
fourth, he was evidently improving rapidly; in the following year' s tournament
he won the national title outright. There was no immediate call for him to defend
it.
After winning two informal games against Capablanca in September/October 1 90 1 ,
Corzo faced the prodigy i n the now famous match, which lasted from 1 7 Novem
ber to 1 8 December 1 90 1 and ended in victory for Capablanca by +4 -3 =6. Until
about 30 years ago it was feared that only the two games Capablanca published in
My Chess Career had survived, but the remaining scores have since trickled into
circulation, largely thanks to the research of Miguel Aleman, E.W. Axe, James
Gilchrist and Paul Leith. A number appeared in the BCM in 1 960, and two subse
quent books published the full set: Los nifws prodigio del ajedrez by Pablo Moran
(Barcelona, 1 973) and The Unknown Capablanca by David Hooper and Dale
Brandreth (London, 1 975). The latter work gave the clock times, showing that
Capab1anca played at an average speed of 90 moves an hour.
The exact statu s of the match is debatable. Capablanca wrote in My Chess
Career, ' the victory made me, morally at least, the champion of Cuba' , but in
the B uenos Aires newspaper La Critica of 19 September 1 927 he remarked
after his first match game against Alekhine in the world championship: ' Since
my first match, with Corzo for the Cuban Championship, when I was 1 2 years
of age, this is the first time in a match that my opponent has taken the lead,
which does at least have the merit of a novelty . ' Corzo' s view on the 1 90 1
match was that they were 'offhand games' (El Figaro, 25 April 1 909, page 2 1 9).
Finally, it is worth noting that even today the year of the match is often wrongly
given as 1 900, whereas the correct date, 1 90 1 , is confirmed by local newspaper
reports. The error may be traced back to the games index of My Chess Career.
1 92

In 1 902 Corzo retained/regained his national title in a double-round champion


ship tournament, finishing two and a half points ahead of his brother Enrique,
and four ahead of Capablanca, who came only fourth. Corzo won both of his
individual games against the prodigy, but the scores seem to have been lost.
It is almost certain that another celebrated Corzo v Capablanca brilliancy (game
2a in Reinfeld' s The Immortal Games of Capablanca) did not involve Juan Corzo
at all, despite that attribution on page 1 3 6 of The Unknown Capablanca .
Although the Cuban newspaper Diario de Ia Marina of 5 February 1 902 (evening
edition, page 4) claimed that White was Juan Corzo, Juan himself said in the
Mexican magazine Ajedrez of February 1 93 8 (page 1 29) that Capablanca' s
opponent had been his brother, Enrique (who had died in the early 1 930s).
Ajedez en Cuba, a scarce book by Carlos Palacio published in Havana in 1 960,
/
lists' further match results of Juan Corzo: v Ramon Iglesias ( 1 897) +5 -0 = 1 ; v
A.C. Vazquez ( 1 900) +4 -0 =0; v Vazquez (return match, almost certainly also
in 1 900) +5 -7 =6; v Rafael B lanco ( 1 9 1 1 ) +5 -0 -0. The American Chess
Bulletin of May 1 9 1 2 (page 1 06) mentions another match against Iglesias, played
in 1 90 1 , Corzo winning +7 -5 =2. This source also says that Corzo had won casual
games from Dr Lasker and Taubenhaus. *

The following correspondence game against the 'Club Capablanca' of Placetas,


taken from Cr6nica de Ajedrez of August 1 9 1 1 (pages 82-83), is a good example of
Corzo' s aggressive style, although here it is unsuccessful. The annotations (written
before 5 . . . d5 was discovered - see page 1 5 8 above) are by Corzo:
Club Capablanca-J. Corzo, Correspondence game. Danish Gambit.
1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 c3 dxc3 4 Ac4 cxb2 ( 'The theorists consider that it is

dangerous to accept the third pawn. Nonetheless in practice the position is


defendable, and Mieses, that great advocate of the Danish Gambit, has suffered
reverses, such as the game he lost to Mar6czy in the Paris tournament of 1 900,
which seem to demonstrate quite the opposite . * * In other words, the danger
involved in playing this opening is greater for White than for B lack. ' ) 5 .ilxb2
d6 6 <\f3 "ir!e7 7 0-0 .ile6 8 "f!b3 <\d7 9 .ilxe6 "f!xe6 ( ' A fundamental error.
9 . . .fxe6, followed by 10 . . . <\c5 would have given Black a solid position. ' ) 1 0
"f!xb7 .b8 ( ' When I played this move I saw the attack with which I should be
confronted, but I preferred a rapid death to the kind that would have awaited me
if I had played 1 0 . . . <\b6 or some similar move leaving me with the same
number of pawns and an inferior position. ' ) 1 1 "f!xc7 . xb2 1 2 'ioc8+ r:tJe7
1 3 <\d4 "f!xe4 14 <\c6+ r:tJf6 1 5 "f!xd7 ( ' 1 5. <\c3, and if 1 5 . . . "f!f5 then 1 6
ad 1 , would seem very strong . ' ) 1 5 . . . c2 1 6 <\xa7 d5
*A number of games between Lasker and Corzo were given in The Collected Games of Emanuel

Lasker by K. Whyld, published in 1 998.


* *The Mieses v Mar6czy game at Paris, 1 900 was not a Danish Gambit. Corzo was probably
thinking of Mieses' loss in 24 moves at Monte Carlo, 1 903.

1 93

17 -i)c3 ( 'An unexpected sacrifice which proves sound. ' ) 1 7 . . . !! xc3 18 -i)b5
!! c2 ( 'The position is interesting. Another possible defensive move is 18 . . . !! c4,

but the entry of the white rook and the bad position of the black king would
make the second player' s situation almost desperate . ' ) 19 !! ae 1 !! e2 20 'l*c6+
itte6 21 'l*c3+ <it>g6 22 ittd3 + !! e4 23 f3 .ilc5 + 24 'it?h 1 -i)f6 25 fxe4 -i)xe4 ( 'The
decisive error. 25 . . . dxe4 would have left drawing chances. ' ) 26 -i)c7 ( 'Well
played. If 26 -i)c3, Black could have drawn by perpetual check: 26 . . . !!e8 27
-i)xd5 'l*xd5 28 itfxd5 -i)f2+ 29 <it'g1 -i)h3+ . ') 26 . . . 'l*e5 27 -i)xd5 f5 28 -i)f4+ <it'g5
29 !! xe4 ( 'Brilliant and decisive. Black is irretrievably lost irrespective of whether

he accepts the sacrifice. ' ) B lack resigns.


His only full-scale international tournament was Havana, 1 9 1 3, where he brought
up the rear but produced many of the liveliest games. Four years later he came
second in a small triangular tournament in the Cuban capital, half a point behind
C.S. Howell and half a point ahead of Blanco.
Corzo was a prolific journalist who wrote columns in a variety of publications
over a 30-year period. His weekly column in the Cuban magazine El Figaro was
particularly rich, frequently containing four or five games, two problems and
general chess news, all spread out over a full page. He also played a key role in
Capablanca-Magazine, which enjoyed a relatively long run ( 1 9 1 2 to 1 9 1 4).
Corzo was described as the Administrador.
A good illustration of his play during this period was published in Capablanca
Magazine of 3 1 December 1 9 1 3 (pages 235-236):
J. Corzo-J.A. Buch, Occasion? Scotch Game.
1 e4 e5 2 -i)f3 -i)c6 3 d4 e xd4 4 Ac4 Ae7 5 -i)xd4 -i)e5 6 Ab3 d6 7 f4 -i)g6
8 0-0 -i)f6 9 -i)c3 -i)g4 10 -i)f5 h5 1 1 -i)xg7+ <it'f8 12 ittd5 -i)h6 13 f5 -i)e5 1 4
Axh6 !! xh6 1 5 -i)e6+ Axe6 1 6 fxe6 c6 1 7 'l*d2 .ilg5 1 8 'l*e2 f6 1 9 !! ad1 ittc7
20 !!f5 'it?e7 2 1 'l*f2 (So that if 2 1 . . .-i)g4, 22 !! xg5 . ) 2 1 . . .!!g6 22 !! xeS !! ag8

(See diagram, top of next page.)


23 !! ed5 Ah4 24 itfxh4 ittb6+ 25 !! 1d4 !! xg2+ 26 <it'1 !! d2 27 e5 !!g6 28

1 94

exd6+ 'it'd8 29 e7+ 'it'd7 30 e8()+ 'it'xe8 31 e4+ 'itf7 32 e7+ 'it'g8 33 gS+

Resigns.*
Corzo/ sometimes took a board in Capablanca' s simultaneous exhibitions in
I
Havana. One of the few available scores is the following, which may not have
been published before outside Cuba:
J.R. Capablanca-J. Corzo, Havana, 28 March 1 93 1 . Queen 's Gambit Declined.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 <tlf3 4Jd7 4 4Jc3 4Jgf6 5 g5 b4 6 b3 c5 7 cxd5 exd5 8 a3
Axc3+ 9 xc3 c4 1 0 b3 <tle4 1 1 xd8 4::l x c3 1 2 a5 4Je4 1 3 bxc4 dxc4 14 <tld2
<tlxd2 15 'it'xd2 b6 1 6 Ac3 Aa6 1 7 e4 0-0-0 18 'it'e3 he8 1 9 f3 f5 20 e5 4Jf6 2 1
g 3 4Jd5+ 22 'it'd2 'it'd7 23 g2 'it'e6 2 4 f4 b7 25 hg1 b 5 26 ab1 a 6 2 7 a4
Ac6 28 axb5 axb5 29 Axd5+ 'it'xd5 30 g4 fxg4 31 xg4 g6 32 h4 h5 33 h3
a8 34 g3 e6 35 b2 'it'e4 36 e3+ 'it'xf4 37 b1 a2+ 38 b2 b4 39 fl +
'it'g5 40 Resigns.

S ource: Diario de Ia Marina, 30 March 1 93 1 , page 1 2.


Not long afterwards, Corzo embarked upon a new literary venture. This para
graph appeared on page 463 of the November 1 93 3 BCM:
'In spite of political troubles, Juan Corzo, ex-champion of the Havana Chess
Club, has succeeded in bringing out the first (September) number of a new
monthly, Jaque Mate, at the price of $ 1 a year. Most of the space in this
opening issue is given to the games of the historic match Corzo-Capablanca
at the end of 1 90 1 , begun just before Capablanca' s 1 3th birthday. There is
also an article on "World Champions from Ruy Lopez to Alekhine". '
Despite considerable efforts, i t has proved impossible to trace this magazine, or
even to find a reference to it in any Cuban source. (It is unconnected with the
Jaque Mate published in Havana in the 1 960s and 1 970s .)
Corzo is such an obscure figure that it is appropriate that there should even have
been confusion over when he died. In reference books the date was regularly
*An odds game against Marfa Teresa Mora Iturralde, played in late 1 9 1 5 or early 1 9 1 6, was given
in C.N. 1 1 78 . (See also page 56 of Chess Explorations.)

1 95

given as 27 September 1 93 8 until it was realised a couple of years ago* that the
October/November 1 944 issue of Capablanca Magazine and issues 7, 8 and 9
of Jaque Mate 1 964 contained photographs of Corzo taken on 1 3 April 1 940
and 2 1 March 1 94 1 .
It turned out that Corzo died, i n Havana, on 27 September 1 94 1 . Capablanca
survived him by just five months.
(N 1 988)
Hastings, 1919

Christophe Bouton points to the Winter v Capablanca game played in the Hastings
tournament of 1 9 1 9 and asks us, 'Is that you ? '
No. We had retired by then.

(1 795)

Grandmaster

In 1 985 FIDE made Harry Golombek an emeritus GM. However, H.G. evi
dently considered that to be mere rubber-stamping:
' Known as the Rubinstein Variation after the great Russo-Jewish master,
Rubinstein, this line was all the rage when I was a young grandmaster. . '
.

Source: Beginning Chess by H. Golombek, page 1 46.

(1808)

Kasparov on computers

Perhaps the real question that will determine in due course whether Kasparov was
right about computers** is the extent to which they can be programmed to 'judge'
long-term strategical planning or, alternatively, the extent to which they become so
strong at analysing variations that their inability to undertake long-term strategical
planning will be an insignificant weakness by comparison. These thoughts have
recently been reinforced as we looked over Capablanca' s notes to his victory against
Alekhine at Nottingham, 1 936, which first appeared in the Russian Tournament
Bulletin (special issue of 64), No. 5, 24 August 1 936, page 2:
(See diagram, top of next page.)
Here Alekhine resigned. Capablanca wrote what may be regarded as a brilliant
exposition of White ' s winning procedure (translation by K.P. Neat) :
* See C.N. 1 08 5 .
* *This was written in 1 989. Kasparov had given a n interview claiming that no computer would
ever beat him and that it was 'ridiculous' to suggest that a computer would one day be world chess
champion. See page 250 of Chess Explorations.

1 96

' In this position the game was adjourned, and was resigned a few days later
without being resumed. White can win in various ways, the most "scien
tific" being as follows: place his bishop at c3 (during this time B lack can
op ly make waiting moves), and then advance his h-pawn to h5 ; B lack will
have to keep his king either at h6, or (after advancing his pawn to h6) at h7
(the latter is of course stronger). In both cases White will place his bishop at
h3, forcing Black to defend the f5 pawn with his rooks. With his king at h7,
Black will have to move his king between h7 and g8. White will transfer his
king to f3 and, when the black king is at g8, transfer his knight from g3-fl
e3-d5, when B lack will be forced to defend the b6 pawn with one of his
rooks. White then gives a check at f6, forcing B lack to give up the
exchange. White will then carry out a further regrouping and place his
bishop at d5 , while holding the long diagonal with his other bishop from c3.
Black will again end up in a stalemate [sic] position, and hence White will
win another pawn, after which Black ' s resistance will be overcome. '

S o that i s what Capablanca would have done. We should b e interested to learn


how the strongest computers would act in the diagrammed position.
(1 892)
First world champion?

Who was the first to claim the title of world chess champion? Those who thought
that it might have been Steinitz will be put right by page 23 of The Great Jewish
Chess Champions by Harold U. Ribalow and Meir Z. Ribalow: 'Albert Alexandre,
a Frenchman who claimed the world title in 1 776, was a Jew. ' The co-authors
may have meant Aaron Alexandre, even though he was only about ten at the
time. Appropriately, the book' s dust-jacket mentions that 'the Harold U. Ribalow
Award is presented annually by Hadassah magazine for an outstanding
(K 1 992)
English-language work of Jewish fiction' . *
Poetry

Examples of notably good or notably bad chess poetry are always of interest. A
high scorer in the latter category is the following, which 'H.T. B . ' managed to
have published on page 64 of the March 1 930 American Chess Bulletin:
*For further information on usage of the title world champion, see pages 280 and 324-325 below.

1 97

'Miss Menchik
Miss Menchik is of master rank,
It seems Mar6czy she ' s to thank;
Still, there is little doubt of it
She owes a deal to native wit.
Much knowledge she has garnered in,
E'en ' gainst the giants she ' ll oft win
- No doubt sometimes to their chagrin
Chess champion of the gentler sex
Here ' s luck to her! Should she annex
In her next venture some big prize
Keen critics will feel no surprise . '

( K 1 992)

A further sample of the dithyrambic skills of H.T. B land. On page 207 of the
December 1 929 American Chess Bulletin he exalted the challenger in that year' s
world championship match:
'Bravo "Bogol", you ' ve shown pluck,
One and all we wish you luck.
Gee, some thought you ' d barged between
Other players who ' d have been
Less likely straightaway to lose
Just as friend Alekhine might choose;
Undaunted, "Bogol", you went in
Believing you ' d a chance to win,
Or failing that, to make a fight,
Which you are doing as we write .'

(K 1 994)

Duplication

First, a quiz question: name the naturalised American who won the following
famous game:
1 e4 e5 2 f3 d6 3 d4 .Q.g4 4 dxe5 .Q.xf3 5 xf3 dxe5 6 Ac4 f6 7 b3 "f!!e7 8
c3 c6 9 .Q.g5 b5 10 xb5 cxb5 1 1 Axb5+ bd7 1 2 0-0-0 !! d8 1 3 !! xd7 !! xd7
14 !!d1 e6 1 5 Axd7+ xd7 1 6 "f!!b8+ xb8 17 !! d8 mate.

The answer is not Paul Morphy (who was a native-born American) but Edward
Lasker. The Morphy brilliancy against Count Isouard and the Duke of Brunswick
was once repeated move for move by Lasker, as he reported on page 26 of the
second edition of Chess Strategy:

1 98

'The logical sequence of the moves in this game, as pointed out in the com
mentaries to it, is borne out by the curious coincidence that I once had the
opportunity of playing a game in exactly the same sequence of moves, against
a player to whom Morphy ' s "brilliancy" was unknown. '
Identical chess games or themes d o occur from time to time, and here w e shall
look at some of the less well-known cases of repetition - and fabrication.
An apparent case of chicanery is to be found on page 240 of the December 1 9 1 6
American Chess Bulletin, which published 'the following brilliant Evans Gam
bit' , as submitted by the winner:
E.B. de Ia Campa-S.R. Farinas, Havana, 1 9 1 6. Evans Gambit Accepted.
1 e4 e 2 .Jf3 .Jc6 3 c4 c5 4 b4 xb4 5 c3 a5 6 d4 exd4 7 0-0 dxc3 8 a3
d6 9 b3 .Jh6 1 0 .Jxc3 .ilxc3 1 1 xc3 0-0 1 2 t! adl .Jg4 1 3 h3 .Jge5 14 .Jxe5
.Jxe5 15 e2 f5 16 f4 .Jc6 1 7 .ilc4+ h8 1 8 b2 'itfe7 19 . de l t! f6 20 exf5
f8 2 1 t! e8 xe8 22 xf6 e7 23 xg7+ xg7 24 f6 xg2+ 25 xg2 .ll x h3+
26 'iftxh3 h5 27 t!gl Resigns. Times: White, 65 minutes; Black, 95 minutes.

5"'

The clock times add an air of authenticity, but the American Chess Bulletin was
promptly informed that this was a Morphy game (see, for example, pages 204206 of LOwenthal' s book on the American, or page 1 70 of Sergeant' s first mono
graph). The Bulletin (February 1 9 1 7, page 39) commented dryly that Mr de Ia
Campa 'was duly apprised of the state of affairs and since then we have received
from him two letters, in neither of which he admits any intention to perpetrate a
fraud upon the chess public' . Morphy' s victory was in a blindfold game against
P.E. Banford at New Orleans in 1 85 8 . *
Page 9 2 o f Hugh Myers' remarkably detailed 1 985 book o n 1 e 4 .Jc6 points out
that Saulson v Phillips, Chicago, 1 907 and Hartlaub v Meyer, Cologne, 1 9 1 6
both went:
1 e4 .Jc6 2 d4 e5 3 d5 .Jce7 4 f4 d6 5 .Jf3 .llg4 6 .Jc3 .Jg6 7 h3 xf3 8 .llb 5+
c6 9 dxc6 xdl 1 0 cxb7+ e7 1 1 .Jd5+ e6 12 f5 mate.

Next, an example of a duplicated odds game, which was published on page 1 97


of the May 1 903 BCM, taken from an article by Chigorin in Novoe Vremya.
N.N.-I.A. Zybin, St Petersburg Handicap Tournament, 1 903? (Remove Black' s

f-pawn.)
1 e4 .Jc6 2 d4 e5 3 dxe5 .Jxe5 4 f4 .Jf7 5 c4 .Jgh6 6 'it/d4 e7 7 xg7 d5 8
.ll x d5 .llf6 9 Resigns.

*See page 76 o f Chess Explorations o r page 3 5 0 o f the biography o f Morphy b y David Lawson.

1 99

Thirteen years later the identical moves were played in a game at the City
of London Chess Club between H . B ernstein and W. Winter, as reported on
pages 394-395 of the December 1 9 1 7 BCM.
There follows a specimen from correspondence chess:
P.L. Williams-H. Falconer, Correspondence game, 1 946. Scotch Gambit.
1 e4 eS 2 oiJf3 oiJc6 3 d4 exd4 4 Ac4 AcS 5 oiJgS oiJh6 6 oiJxt7 oiJxf7 7 Axf7 + xf7
8 hS + g6 9 xeS d6 1 0 c4+ Ae6 1 1 bS oiJeS 12 f4 Ac4 1 3 b4 h4+ 1 4

Resigns.
A game between Greville and Harrwitz (Paris, 1 845) had been identical, except
that White played 10 dS+ .
Source: Chess World, 1 March 1 947, page 55.
Shortly after the spectacular miniature J. Polgar v Angelova had been played at
the 1 988 Thessaloniki Olympiad, Richard Reich pointed out to us (see C.N.
1 806) that the whole game had been given on page 44 of the 1 984 book The
Anti-Sicilian: 3 .ti.b5( +) by Y. Razuvayev and A. Matsukevitch, where mention
is made of ' Levchenkov-Eganian, USSR, 1 978 ' .
Sometimes a master has the opportunity to play the identical game twice:
J.H. Blackburne-two unnamed players, Hastings and Eastboume, 1 894. French
Defence.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 dS 3 oiJc3 oiJf6 4 AgS Ae7 5 Axf6 Axf6 6 oiJf3 0-0 7 Ad3 oiJc6 8 eS
Ae7 9 h4 f6 1 0 oiJgS fxgS 11 Axh7+ xh7 12 hxgS + g8 13 . h8+ xh8 1 4
hS + g8 1 5 g 6 .fS 1 6 h7+ f8 1 7 h8 mate.

On page 1 79 of Mr Blackbume 's Games at Chess, J. H. B. wrote: 'A curious


fact about this game is that move for move I played it exactly in the same way
twice in one week, once at Hastings and once at Eastboume, in the year 1 894. '
The same game may even occur between the same players i n the same event.
For instance, the third and fifth games of the Portisch v Nunn match (played in
B udapest in 1 987) were:
1 oiJf3 oiJf6 2 c4 g6 3 d4 Ag7 4 g3 0-0 5 Ag2 c6 6 oiJc3 dS 7 cxdS cxdS 8 oiJeS e6
9 0-0 oiJfd7 10 oiJxd7 Axd7 1 1 e3 oiJc6 1 2 b3 e7 1 3 Ab2 . fc8 Drawn.

The individual phases of chess also give rise to bizarre repetition, an example
being the opening moves of two games played on adjacent boards in the fifth
round of the Hastings, 1 922-23 tournament (30 December 1 922):

200

1 ) Rubinstein v Conde : 1 d4 d5 2 4Jf3 e6 3 e3 4Jf6 4 ltd3 Ad6 5 0-0 4Jbd7 6


4Jbd2 0-0 7 e4 dxe4 8 4Jxe4 4Jxe4 9 Axe4 4Jf6 1 0 Ad3 b6 1 1 Ag5 Ab7 1 2 'li1e2
Ae7 1 3 . adl .
2) Yates v P.W. Sergeant: 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 4Jc3 dxe4 4 4Jxe4 4Jd7 5 4Jf3 4Jgf6
6 Ad3 4Jxe4 7 Axe4 4Jf6 8 Ad3 Ae7 9 0-0 0-0 1 0 'ii1e 2 b6 1 1 Ag5 Ab7 1 2
. adl .
Two distinct openings have led to identical positions, one after 1 3 moves but the
other after 1 2. *
Middle-game combinations can also be the subject of duplication, but here too
one must be wary, since chess chroniclers often write n 'importe quai. On page 39
of tl March 1 992 Europe Echecs, Sylvain Zinser asserted that the following
pos ition had arisen in 'Blackbume v Gifford, England, 1 874' .

The finish is given as 1 'ii1 x c6+ xc6 2 4Je5+ c5 3 4Jd3+ d4 4 d2, and
mate next move by 5 c3 is unavoidable. B ut this position bears an uncanny
resemblance to the following, widely published in chess literature:

Kasparyan v Manvelyan, simultaneous display; USSR, 1 936. White won with 1


fl xc6 1txc6 2 'ii1c 4+ b7 3 'li1xc6+ xc6 4 4Je5+ c5 5 4Jd3+ d4 6 d2 'ii1e 6
7 c3 mate.

*See also page ! 54 above.

20 1

Few combinations are unique, and there are often 'variations on a theme' . A
strange example is the so-called 'Game of the Century ' won by the 1 3-year-old
Fischer against Donald Byrne in the 1 956 Rosenwald Trophy Tournament. It
was a Griinfeld Defence, the climax to which came when Black ignored the
attack on his queen by the white queen' s bishop and played . . . .lle 6, with over
whelming threats to the white king at fl . Yet all that i s exactly what also
happened in the following game, played the year before Fischer was born :
Riissher-Walcicer, Cracow/Warsaw, 1 942. Grunfeld Defence.
1 d4 f6 2 f3 g6 3 c4 .llg7 4 c3 dS 5 cxdS xdS 6 e4 xc3 7 bxc3 cS 8 .llc4
0-0 9 h3 cxd4 1 0 cxd4 c6 1 1 .lle 3 aS+ 1 2 .lld2 a3 1 3 b1 xd4 14 .llb4
xf3+ 1 5 fl

1 S . . . .Ile6 16 .lle 2 xa2 17 .llxf3 fd8 18 e1 ac8 19 g4 b6 20 .llxe7 .llc 3 21


cl d2 22 .llh4 .lld4 23 e1 cc2 24 h2 .llc4+ 25 g1 xf2 26 xf2 xf2 27
.ll xf2 .ll x f2+ 28 xf2 xb1 + 29 h2 a2 30 xa2 Axa2 31 Resigns.

Source: Gran Ajedrez by Alekhine, pages 278-279.

(C 1 992)

An earlier case was 18 . . . .1le6 in the game E. Polyak v D. Bronstein, Kiev, 1 938.
See pages 7 1 -73 of The Sorcerer's Apprentice by Bronstein and Furstenberg.
Testing Reshevsky

On page 1 0 of the August 1 992 Chess Life Andy Soltis wrote that Reshevsky had
told a number of chess players that he was born in 1 909, and not 1 9 1 1 as com
monly believed.* If so, a curious (and unflattering) twist is given to the series of
intelligence tests that the prodigy underwent in Berlin in 1 920 at the hands of
Dr Franziska B aumgarten. The latter wrote a detailed report in CHESS ( 14 March
1 939, pages 245-246). Pages 323-324 of the 1 4 M ay 1 93 9 issue of the same
magazine reproduced the memory and geometrical tests. Dr B aumgarten, whose
subject may have been over ten years old and not eight-and-a-half, reported:
'He failed to recognise a lion, a monkey, a tiger or a camel; a fox or wolf he
called a dog; a bat he called a bird . . . Shown a picture of a mushroom, he
said "chocolate !" - presumably on account of the colour; to a picture of a
cabbage he said "tree". He had never, so far, tried to draw, and was unable
to copy even the simplest geometrical forms correctly. Moreover, though
he knew that the day was a Wednesday, he had not the slightest idea of the
*However, in an interview with Hanon Russell in August 1 99 1 , Reshevsky insisted that he had
indeed been born in 1 9 1 1 .

202

day, month or day of the month. He did not know the names for the elemen
tary colours red, yellow, blue. In Arithmetic, he was below standard for his
age: he did not know the number 0 . . . '
Unfortunately, the report omits to indicate whether Reshevsky' s mother tongue
was being used. In tests on spatial visualisation the boy fared much better.
'It was in memory tests that the young Reshevsky showed the most extraor
dinary proficiency. He was allowed four minutes to examine forty figures,
each drawn in a special square on a sheet of paper; the paper was then
removed. He was able to restate the figures without a single mistake, and in
the correct order. '
Dr B aumgarten also noted that the boy was exceptional in that he declined any
assistance with the tests; 'this desire to overcome difficulties is definitely char
(1943)
acteristic of unusually gifted children. '
We have copies of the earlier German language versions of the Reshevsky
report, as follows:
- pages 235-244 of the j ournal Praktische Psychologie, 8/1 920;
- pages 46-59 of the book Wunderkinder Psychologische Untersuchungen by
Dr Franziska B aumgarten (Leipzig, 1 930).
On the title page of the latter source, the author is described as 'Privatdozentin
an der Universitiit Bern ' * .

A t sea

Who was the first player to give a simultaneous exhibition at sea? According to
page 296 of the 14 April 1 936 issue of CHESS:
' Did you know . . . that the first simultaneous display on board ship was given
by Dr Tartakower on the Massilia in the Mediterranean, 1 93 1 ? Also he is
the only person to have given a simultaneous exhibition in an aeroplane between Budapest and B arcelona in 1 929. '
However, some years later (November 1 944, page 1 9) the same magazine quoted
from the May-June 1 944 Iowa Chess Correspondent the reminiscences of
Norman W. Bingham, a boyhood friend of Pillsbury' s. The two crossed the
Atlantic together in 1 899:
' ... Pillsbury played a dozen blindfold simultaneous games against various
passengers, winning them all handily. The tables were in the smoking room
and Pillsbury sat with me on deck, talking about early school days. Stewards
*The German items indicate that the tests were not conducted in Reshevsky ' s mother tongue.

203

from the smoking room flitted back and forth with paper memoranda to
communicate the moves from the various tables. I tried to get Harry to tell
me how he did it, but he couldn't; and I don ' t believe he knew himself. He
said he didn' t carry a picture of the various tables in his mind and he didn' t
memorise the moves. H e seemed t o just know, when told what the move
had been on one table, what he wanted to do. At any rate, if he was able to
tell me how he did it, he successfully refrained .. . '
Pages 3 5 6 and 3 7 3 o f K. Landsberger' s book o n Steinitz mention small dis
plays by Steinitz during Atlantic crossings, in 1 897 and 1 898.
( 1 94 7)
Epifanio Nieto points out that the 1 907 New York State tournament was played
on board S. S. Alexandria, plying between Charlotte, New York and Quebec.
The event was won by Julius Finn.
Source: American Chess Bulletin, August 1 907, page 1 46.

(2058)

J. Perez Mendoza-Henneberg, On board Konig Frederick August, 4 May 1 9 1 2.


Ruy LOpez.
1 e4 e5 2 4Jf3 4Jc6 3 .ilb5 a6 4 .ila4 4Jf6 5 0-0 b5 6 .ilb3 d6 7 4Jg5 d5 8 exd5
<tlxd5 9 <tlxf7 xf7 1 0 f3+ e6 1 1 <tlc3 4::\e7 1 2 d4 c6 1 3 :8 e 1 d6 14 <tlxd5
4::\ x d5 1 5 :8 xe5 i.te6 1 6 i.tf4 4::\ xf4 17 xf4 Axb3

18 :8 d5 + 'it>xd5 19 e5 + c4 20 axb3+ b4 21 e1 mate.

Source: El Ajedrez en Ia Argentina, pages 363-364. *

(2083)

Writing Nimzowitscb

Val Zemitis has an original photograph of the Carlsbad, 1 9 1 1 participants, with


many players' signatures. One of them seems to read 'Niemzowitsch' (although

*For a game from the 1 904 Janowsky


260-26 1 below.

Marco match which was played on board ship, see pages

204

the last few letters are unclear), and Mr Zemitis asks why N. ' s name is spelt
differently nowadays.
At least part of the answer is that later in his career N. himself changed the
spelling to 'Nimzowitsch ' . Hanon Russell informs us that his Collection
contains several dozen specimens of N . ' s signature from 1 926 onwards; all
are written ' Nimzowitsch ' .
For reference, we add that Nimzowitsch ' s 'old' signature appeared on page
344 of the October-November 1 9 1 0 Wiener Schachzeitung . The ' new' one
was reproduced on page 10 of the January 1 927 American Chess Bulletin .
I n C . N . 447 Jeremy G a i g e commented on the vari o u s s p e l l i n g s of
Nimzowitsch ' s name .
( 1 956)

Jan K endovsky sends the following item which appeared in the 1 September
1 929 issue of the Czech publication Ntirodn( politika :
'Our major problem was how to write his name. Therefore, with his kind
permission, we examined his passport, where he had written in his best
Latvian "Nimcovics". Therefore it is perfectly permissible if, in Czech, we
write his name "Nimcovic". In international tournaments, where German is
the international language, he has signed his name "Nimzowitsch" .' (1987)
The Badmaster

Geoffrey Harber Diggle (born in Moulton, Lincolnshire on 6 December 1 902)


died in Brighton on 1 3 February 1 993. Affectionately christened the Badmaster
by C.H.O'D. Alexander (who also described him as ' one of the best writers on
chess that I know' ) , G.H.D. contributed many fine articles to the BCM ( 1 9331 98 1 ) and the BCF' s Newsjlash and Chess Moves ( 1 974- 1 992).
Specialising in nineteenth-century chess history (particularly the Staunton
period) , he brought the old masters to life with rare wit and shrewdness .
These qualities also permeated his accounts o f the idiosyncratic doings and say
ings of club 'characters' , such as the elderly player 'who fumbled his way to
perdition at reasonable speed until he was a queen and two minor pieces to the
bad, after which he discovered that "every move demanded the nicest calcula
tion'" , or 'the Lincoln bottom board of 1 922, who complained that he had "lost
his queen about the third move and couldn' t seem to get going after that". '
A former county champion, G.H.D. was charmingly self-deprecatory i n his remi
niscences, as when he had a game adjudicated by Tartakower: 'The Great Mas
ter, having been fetched, sat down at the board very simply and unaffectedly,
and drank in through his spectacles the fruits (and probably the whole deplor
able history) of the Badmaster' s afternoon strategy. '
205

Little escaped G.H.D. ' s eye, even towards the end. Modestly adapting Oscar
Wilde, he claimed to have 'nothing to declare but his longevity ' , simply adding
that he had ' mingled from time to time with three generations of eminent play
ers ranging from Isidor Gunsberg to Nigel Short, and rambled extensively round
the highways and byways of provincial chess' . He was one of the game' s most
stylish chroniclers.
(C 1 993)
Bronstein's book

David Bronstein' s book on the Candidates' tournament in Zurich, 1 95 3 is


regarded as a classic, and it is therefore of interest to note his comments in an
interview with Antonio Gude on pages 3 8-42 of the March 1 993 issue of the
Revista lntemacional de Ajedrez. Bronstein declared:
'Most of the nice words and elegant expressions in the book overall are the
work of Vainstein, who writes very well . . . Of course, the analysis and tech
nical concepts are mine, as are the views on my rivals, but it may be said
that a large part of the text is by Vainstein. Also, it is a book for which I do
not have particular affection because it reminds me of a tournament that
was very special in a negative sense. Things happened there that I should
like to forget. .. We shall discuss that another time. I do not wish to be more
specific for the moment. ' *
( 1 949)
Combinations

What constitutes a combination? Many books claim that a sacrifice is essential,


but C.J.S. Purdy used the following position to dispute that:

White, to play, wins by 1 .ll.b 5+ e7 2 <N5+ <it/e6 3 .Jxg7+, etc. He has made no
sacrifices but 'a succession of threats winding up with the capture of the netted
piece' . See page 20 1 of C.J.S. Purdy: His Life, His Games and His Writings by
J. Hammond and R. Jamieson.
*In The Sorcerer 's Apprentice by D. Bronstein and T. FUrstenberg Vainstei n ' s participation is not
(2/24)
acknowledged. See, in particular, page 1 7 and page 202.

206

Other illustrative positions would be welcome. Do readers agree with Purdy that
' Combinations are characterised by violent moves, but not necessarily sacri
(1 960)
fices ' ?
Lawrence Stevens concurs that a combination does not necessarily contain a
sacrifice:
' What are being "combined " are the powers of more than one piece and/or
forcing moves. I would think that the sacrificial characterisation evolved
through usage, i. e. it was statistically likely that a sacrifice had occurred. '

From Robert S . Moore:


' c/!cil Purdy seems to me to be defending an exceptionally doubtful thesis
that "combinations " do not require a sacrifice. Admittedly, in his chosen
example we see a number of combinational elements - line clearance, over
worked pieces and a mating net - but all of the moves given would likely be
found, although perhaps without fully realising their implications in ad
vance, by the merest beginner. Sacrifice is the drama, the surprise, the
brilliance and the dignity of a combination; it is that which lifts it above
being only an illustration of the elements. In Purdy 's own example, 3 .tl.c4
(instead of 3 .Jxg7+) is a minor combination. '

From Philip Laren:


'I wasfirst shown the position in C.N. 1 960 a few years ago by Ron Finegold,
who asked me to find the best continuation. It doesn 't take a super Grand
master to figure out that 3 .tl.c4! is a) a sacrifice, b) objectively better than
3 .Jxg7+ and c) much more aesthetically pleasing. '

Ron Evers writes:


'My personal definition: "A combination is a sequence of moves thatforces
together (combines) two or more tactical themes ". Purdy 's example, there
fore, is a combination because it forces together, by an attack on the king,
two tactical themes: decoy and double attack. Sacrifice in a combination is
the method of applying force. "You know of course that attacks and threats
of all kinds, exchanges and Zugzwang are such means of applying force,
but the most lasting effects are achieved with sacrifices." This quote is from
Yuri Averbakh 's Chess Tactics for Advanced Players, page 212. An ex
ample on page 209 proves to me that a sacrifice is not needed in a combina
tion. '

Robert John McCrary sends us a copy of the July 1 989 issue of the Magazine of
the SC Chess Association, in which (pages 1 4- 1 5) he contributed an article that
207

defined 'combination' as follows:


'A combination is a precisely-identified set of variations at least three half
moves deep, leading to a precise set of objectives, with the same player
moving first and last in all the variations, and with his opponent having a
choice of at least two defences leading, respectively, to distinct outcomes. '
A contribution from Antonio Gude:
'I believe that Purdy is mistaken about the position with which he claims to
illustrate his interesting thesis, because White wins by following a logical
tactical sequence which should not be regarded as a combination. A posi
tion that provides a better illustration of his theory comes from the game
Ivan Sokolov v Lembit Oll (Wijk aan Zee, 1 993), after Black 's 29th move.
White plays an extraordinarily strong move ( 30 c8). Owing to the strength
of White 's finish, we can call it a combination, since it is surprising and
effective. However, it is also the consequence of an earlier combination,
which did involve sacrifices. '

30 c8 d7 31 El e l + e6 32 El xe6+ fxe6 33 f7+ Resigns.

We add two other views:


a) 'A combination has nothing to do with sacrifice, but, of course, there are
sacrificial combinations just as there are combinations which are designed to
win an opponent' s pieces or bring about an accession of material . ' (W .H. Watts,
writing on page 14 of Chess Pie No. 3 (London, 1 936).)
b) 'What is combination? Nothing but the logical weaving together of ideas. '
(J.N. Hanks, Chess World, February 1 960, page 25 .)
A final thought: should the definition of 'combination' cover combinative
hallucinations, such as the following?
(See diagram, top of next page. )
20 8

R. Spielmann-G. Stoltz, fifth match game, Stockholm, 1 932.


Play f ontinued 15 . . . .lb4 16 axb4 . xd2 17 xd2 .lf3+ 18 gxf3 Axf3 19 e4
Resi ns. (If 1 9 . . .h4 then 20 d6.)
Source: page 153 of Tidskriftfor Schack, December 1 932, which gave the full
game, with notes by Spielmann.
(2035)
Publishing the next game on pages 280-28 1 of its September 1 905 issue, the
Deutsche Schachzeitung described the finish as 'an original nine-move combi
nation winning the enemy queen' .
F.J. Marshall-E. Pecher, Brussels, 22 May 1 905 . Danish Gambit.
1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 c3 dxc3 4 Ac4 cxb2 5 ilxb2 Ab4+ 6 .lc3 .lc6 7 .lf3 .lf6
8 e5 e7 9 0-0 ilxc3 1 0 exf6 xf6 1 1 . e l + 'it'd8 1 2 Axc3 xc3 1 3 d5 d6 1 4
. ac l f6 1 5 .lg5 Ae6 1 6 .lxe6+ fxe6 1 7 . xe6 f4 18 . ee l . f8 1 9 'it' h 1 'it'd7
20 Ad3 . ae8

2 1 . xe8 .. xe8 22 Af5+ 'it'd8 23 . xe8+ 'it'xe8 24 g8+ 'it'e7 25 xg7+ 'it'e8 26
g8+ 'it'e7 27 e6+ 'it'f8 28 f6+ Resigns.

Wanted: other/better examples of 'original' combinations.

(K 1 997)

FIDE champion

Who was the first FIDE champion? Not B otvinnik in 1 948, but Bogoljubow in
1 928. The minutes of FIDE ' s 5th Congress (The Hague, 1 -5 August 1 928)
209

relate that the General Assembly regarded that year' s B ogolj ubow v Euwe
encounter ( +3 -2 =5) as the first match for the title of FIDE champion. The
organisation believed that a general championship within FIDE could exist
in addition to the world championship, with the two possibly combined
later on. The President, Dr Alexander Rueb, acknowledged that the press and
officials had reacted with astonishment and incomprehension to the idea of a
separate FIDE title. The following year Alekhine defeated Bogoljubow in a world
championship match, and the whole concept of a FIDE title faded away.
In The Hague, Alekhine agreed that future world championship matches should
take place under the aegis of FIDE; however, any rematch with Capablanca
would, he said, have to be held under exactly the same conditions as the 1 927
Buenos Aires match. At the 1 1 th Congress (Zurich, 27-29 July 1 934) Rueb re
ported that Euwe had made a formal request to FIDE that his planned 1 935 title
match against Alekhine should take place directly under FIDE' s auspices. None
of this materialised.
FIDE ' s reports show that many masters, including Alekhine, maintained regu
lar contact with the nascent ruling body. A future C.N. item will examine its
attempts to establish criteria for the awarding of titles. To date, the subject of
pre-Second World War chess administration has been neglected by historians
and researchers.
( 1 967)
FIDE titles

The report on FIDE ' s 8th Congress (Prague, 22-26 July 1 93 1 ) indicates that on
behalf of the Polish Federation Dawid Przepi6rka asked FIDE to draw up a list
of International Masters and establish the conditions for the granting of such
titles. The President, Dr Rueb, was unenthusiastic, but to study the question a
small Committee was formed, with Alekhine, Vidmar and Przepi6rka among
the members. It was not until the 1 2th Congress (Warsaw, 28-3 1 August 1 935)
that a text was adopted. This stated that the title of International Master would
be awarded by FIDE to any player who won a tournament featuring a minimum
of 14 players if at least 70% of the players were International Masters, or who
came second twice in such events. Less successful tournament scorers could
obtain the title if they also won a recognised match (of at least four games up)
against an International Master. Initially, the Committee was to prepare a basic
list of recipients. Titles would be awarded for life, and there could be no appeal
against the Committee' s decisions.
When a (modified) system was eventually introduced (20th Congress, Paris, 2022 July 1 949), a distinction was made between Grandmaster and International
Master. There were under 30 of the former, and fewer than 1 00 of the latter.
Most of these title-holders were familiar personalities whose names needed no
adornment, but nowadays 'Grandmaster' , ' International Master' , etc. are used
210

almost like forenames. Paradoxically, the very top players outgrow their titles;
it would be incongruous, and perhaps even insulting, to refer to 'Grandmaster
Fischer' .
(1 982)
Seirawan on Fischer

On 7 January 1 993 Yasser Seirawan gave a telephone interview (lasting nearly


three hours) to Hanon Russell for the USA Today Sports Centre. Seirawan' s
comments o n Fischer, with whom he spent about 1 5 hours during the 1 992
Spassky match, are of particular interest. Some extracts follow, slightly edited
by us:
I

Fischer 's sense of humour:

'Bobby has a very engaging smile. A friendly, friendly man and what really
blew me away was how funny he was. We laughed for hours and hours. I
mentioned to him Bruce Lee, and he said, "Bruce Lee ! Did you see that
movie?" And he gets up and mimics Bruce Lee and does this brilliant parody.
Four people are on the floor just laughing, holding their tears back it was so
good. '
One of the most surprising exchanges came when Seirawan offered Fischer the
opportunity of using Inside Chess to express his views. Since Fischer had often
accused people of misquoting him, Seirawan promised that he would not change
a comma in anything Fischer submitted. An astonished Fischer stepped back
and said, ' You mean, I could have an editorial space? Well this ain' t a promise
or anything like that, but I really want to thank you because no one ever offered
that to me before. ' Seirawan retorted that many publishers would be delighted
to take anything Fischer wrote, and the latter replied, ' Yeah, but they always
change my words' . The conversation ended with Seirawan again assuring Fischer
that not a word would be changed if he made a submission to Inside Chess, to
which Fischer said, 'Thank you. I will really think about it, but it is no guarantee. '
O n Jews:

' He explained to me that he was raised in a Jewish household, that he was


basically abandoned by his father and that although he lived with his mother
Regina, she went on to her education studies, left two children (his sister
and him) at home, and he was very much abandoned as a child. I think that
this terrible experience certainly affected him throughout his entire life. But
he also explained to me that he was brought up in a chess community in
Manhattan. He had to have a lot of savvy. There was an enormous number
of Jewish people in the chess world, in New York, whom he communicated
with on a constant day-to-day basis. Many helped him, and he acknowl
edges that. A little entry fee here, a book there, a ride there, etc. But he also
says that many, many times he has had business affairs with Jewish busi
nessmen which have not worked out. As a result of these experiences, his
21 1

answer is "I don ' t want to deal with Jews any more . . . That' s just the way it
is. Yasser, I ' m sorry, it' s a closed question". '
When Seirawan argued that Fischer was 'condemning a whole group of people' ,
Fischer replied: 'Yasser, I know you think I ' m being unfair. It' s just my experi
ence. My reasons. ' Seirawan commented to the interviewer that Fischer 'is a
racist, he is not a Nazist' and that he 'magnifies his problems out of proportion.
He takes his problems and puts them on the world stage' .
Fischer 's plans:

'Bobby told me that his idea was to play three matches in 1 993 and whip
Kasparov in 1 994. His intention was to play three top players. He specifi
cally singled out the loser of the Timman-Short match. He further men
tioned specifically Michael Adams of England and Viswanathan Anand of
India. He doesn' t want to play me. He doesn' t want to play any American
because he feels that he doesn' t have an American challenger. ' *
(1971 )
lsidor Gunsberg

Chess history is such that it is possible for a master to be narrowly defeated in a


world championship match and still be ignored by posterity. Isidor Gunsberg
( 1 854- 1 930) lost to Steinitz in New York in 1 890-9 1 by a two-game margin. He
was also subsequently a prolific columnist, but few nowadays remember what,
or even where, he wrote.
When Gunsberg died, Alekhine published a tribute in La Naci6n of 1 0 August
1 930. He said that the deceased had been 'a force of the first order between 1 885
and 1 893' and that there were two aspects to Gunsberg ' s chess individuality:
'firstly, an absolute lack of originality and, secondly, a clearly exceptional abil
ity to adapt' . Gunsberg showed uncommon skill and ingenuity in 'understand
ing the strategic weaknesses of Chigorin' s style and the psychological weak
nesses of Steinitz' s style' and in exploiting these deficiencies during his matches
against them. Alekhine continued:
'For example, to the end of his days Chigorin never knew how to defend as
Black against the Queen ' s Gambit and believed that the quintessential prob
lem for the second player lay in the satisfactory development of his queen' s
bishop. Consequently, i n his match against the Russian master, Gunsberg tried
all imaginable forms of the Queen' s Gambit and the Queen's Pawn Game; he
thereby obtained, as White, results which were more than satisfactory.
Against Steinitz, who was a renowned connoisseur of the Queen' s Gambit
*A book on the second Fischer v Spassky match which was co-authored by Seirawan contained
much further Fischer information. Our review of it appears on pages 352-359 below.

212

but whose ideas at that time about how to defend against the Evans Gambit
were baroque and unhealthy, Gunsberg exploited this factor to combat his
great opponent.
. . . By no means was he a genius, but he was talented and a great worker.
Moreover, Guns berg was highly esteemed for his efforts - during a particu
larly difficult transitional period for our art - to disseminate chess. He there
fore has every right to the recognition of all who love chess. '
Scrutiny of the games i n the two matches suggests that Alekhine' s thesis about
Gunsberg' s opening choices was rather an exaggeration.
(1977)

Isid r Gunsberg is the only world championship challenger who has not yet
beerl the subject of a games collection. Any anthologist who cares to repair this
injustice will be able to use raw material such as the following:
Knapton-!. Gunsberg, Bradford, 1 885 (?). Two Knights ' Defence.
1 e4 e5 2 <t!f3 <t!c6 3 Ac4 <t!f6 4 <t!g5 d5 5 exd5 <t!a5 6 Ab5 + c6 7 dxc6 bxc6 8
.ll e 2 h6 9 <t!f3 e4 1 0 <t!e5 d4 1 1 <t!g4 <t!xg4 1 2 .ll xg4 e3 1 3 Af3 exf2 + 14 'itlfl
Aa6+ 1 5 d3 0-0-0 1 6 e2 Ac5 17 <t!d2 he8 18 Ae4

1 8 . . . <t!c4 1 9 <t!b3 xe4 20 dxe4 d1 + 2 1 xd1 <t!d2 mate.

S ource: Brooklyn Chess Chronicle, 1 5 April 1 885, page 108.


I. Gunsberg-Vitta, Nice, 1 925 . Caro-Kann Defence.
1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 <t!c3 dxe4 4 <t!xe4 <t!f6 5 <t!g3 e5 6 f3 exd4 7 <t!xd4 Ac5 8
Ae3 <t!g4 9 d2 <t!xe3 10 fxe3 Ae7 1 1 Ac4 c5 1 2 0-0 Ae6

213

1 3 xe6 i!1xd2 14 xg7+ 'it>d8 1 5 E! ad1 d7 1 6 Axf7 Ad6 17 e4 E! f8 1 8


xd6 'i!1g4 1 9 e6+ e7 20 xf8 c6 2 1 1te6 Resigns.

Source: BCM, January 1 926, page 29.

(2082)

Consulting books

The Laws of Chess prohibit the consultation of books, etc. during play, but there
have been exceptions. A Rice Gambit tournament held in Monte Carlo in 1 904
was won j ointly by Marshall and Swiderski . Each of the six competitors
received a copy of the booklet The Rice Gambit by Hermann Helms and Hartwig
Cassel (New York, 1 904) and was free to consult it, or any other documentation,
during play. (Source: La Strategie, March 1 904, page 65 .)
(1979)
Basic Chess Endings

John Roycroft writes:


'The late and great Reuben Fine is said to have written Basic Chess End
ings in six weeks. Is this fact or rumour? If he had a team of helpers, who
were they ? '

I n 1 984 Fine gave a three-hour interview to Bruce Pandolfini which was the
basis for an article on pages 24-27 of the October 1 984 Chess Life. Pandolfini
wrote:
'Undoubtedly, his magnum opus is Basic Chess Endings. Though it took
only about an incredible three months to write, it stands out as a great achieve
ment in chess history. Fine says he had no trouble organising the material,
but had to work diligently accumulating the examples, many of which he
himself created. '
Three months' work means that Fine wrote, on average, just over six book pages
per day.
(1980)
Rare queen sacrifices

One of the rarest sacrifices is a queen offer at KKt3 (i.e. g3 or g6) when the
opponent has three unmoved pawns in front of his castled king. The best-known
example is S. Levitzky v F.J. Marshall, Breslau, 1 9 1 2, at which, so Marshall
claimed, spectators ' showered' the board with gold coins. Other cases are
A. Alekhine v A. Supico, Lisbon, 1 94 1 (often incorrectly given as 'Tenerife,
1 945 ' ) and N. Rossolimo v P. Reissman, San Juan, 1 967 .
214

A further example was published on page 376 of the November 1 897 American
Chess Magazine:

V. Tietz-Mader (Maader?), Occasion?


White won by 1 f5 xf5 2 xg6 hxg6 3 .}xe7+ xe7 4 d8+ h7 5 h4 mate.
Complications arise with the next specimen:
M.A. Fox-H.E. Bauer, Antwerp, 1 90 1 . Ruy LOpez.
1 e4 e5 2 .}f3 .}c6 3 .l'.tb5 .}f6 4 0-0 .}xe4 5 e1 .}d6 6 .}xe5 Jle7 7 Jlf1 0-0 8
d4 .}f5 9 c3 d5 10 d3 e8 11 f4 .}d6 12 e3 .}a5 13 .}d2 eN'S 14 h3 .}h4
15 g4 .}g6 16 h5 .}c6 17 .}dc4 dxc4

18 xg6 hxg6 19 .}xg6 fxg6 20 .l'.txc4+ Resigns.

The players' names and the occasion are taken from page 1 45 of the May 1 90 1
Deutsche Schachzeitung, but subsequent publications added numerous changes.
The Basis of Combination in Chess by J . du Mont claimed (see pages 1 35 and
2 1 5) that White was A.W. Fox. So did page 1 3 3 of The Golden Treasury of
Chess 'compiled by the editors of Chess Review' (London, 1 958), a book which,
moreover, stated 'Washington, D.C., 1 90 1 ' . Page 48 of 500 Ruy Lopez Minia
tures by Bill Wall followed the Treasury version but gave 'J. Bauer' as Black.
Page 46 of All About Chess by AI Horowitz proposed 'A. W. Fox v J .H. Bauer' ,
although the latter, who lost a famous game to Lasker, had died in 1 89 1 .
Chess literature contains a further game with a spectacular g6, and, coinciden215

tally, it too involves a Fox. The following position may be found on page 52 of
Combinations The Heart of Chess by Irving Chemev:

This is given as Fox v Casper, but no venue or date is stipulated. The finish was
1 -'tb6 xb6 2 g6 hxg6 3 .le7+ <it>h7 4 :8 f3 c5 5 :8 d5 Resigns, although
Chemev notes a simpler win: 1 g5 g6 2 h6 gxf5 3 .lld4, etc. See also page 3
of Blunders and Brilliancies by Ian Mullen and Moe Moss.
(1 994)
According to page 1 73 of the 23 May 1 897 Deutsches Wochenschach, the first
position in C.N. 1 994 arose in a game between V. Tietz and C. Mader played in
Carlsbad on 10 May 1 896.
Another example of a queen sacrifice on g 6 (with, however, a pin on the
B lack f-pawn) i s :
F.J. Marshall (blindfold)- Allies, Kingston, N.Y., 1 5- 1 6 November 1 9 14. Centre
Game.
1 e4 e5 2 d4 d6 3 .lf3 .le7 4 dxe5 .llg4 5 Ac4 .lbc6 6 .lc3 .:tlxe5 7 .:tlxe5 dxe5
8 xg4 .lg6 9 Ae3 -'td6 1 0 0-0-0 0-0

1 1 xg6 hxg6 1 2 h4 a6 1 3 h5 gxh5 14 :8 xh5 g6 1 5 :8 h6 g7 1 6 :8 dh1 <it>f6 1 7


.ld5+ e6 1 8 .lb6+ <it>e7 1 9 Ag5+ f6 2 0 :8h7+ <it>e8 2 1 .llh6 cxb6 22 .ll xf8
.ll x f8 23 .llf? + 'it>d7 24 :8d1 + .lld6 25 .lld 5 + <it>e8 26 .ll x b7 :8 b8 27 :8 h8+ <it>d7
28 :8 xd8+ :8 xd8 29 .ll x a6 <it>c7 30 Ab5 :8 h8 3 1 f3 :8h2 32 M1 f5 33 exf5 gxf5
34 <it>d2 :8 h4 35 c3 :8 h8 36 b4 :8 d8 37 <it>c2 f4 38 a4 :8 a8 39 .llb 5 :8 g8 40 :8 d2
:8 c8 41 'it>d3 'it>b7 42 'it>e4 :8 xc3 43 :8 xd6 Resigns.

216

The allies were: S am Bernstein, John D. Kline, Emanuel Metzger, F.H. Sanford,
Charles Reynolds and M. Schlessinger.
Source: American Chess Bulletin, December 1 9 1 4, page 258, which quotes the
Kingston Daily Freeman:
' This was one of the most thrilling games of its kind ever played, be
cause Mr Marshall relaxed his attention for a moment and on his eleventh
move made the error of giving up his queen for a knight. This error would
have meant defeat for any ordinary player, even when able to see the board,
and the fact that Mr Marshall nevertheless won is amazing. '
(2022)
A straightforward queen sacrifice at g6 when B lack has unmoved king' s-side
pawns appeared in the game between W. Cohn and G. Marco given on pages
62-63 of Teichmann' s book of the Ostend, 1 907 master tourney.

Play went: 24 .\xc6 xc6 25 xg6 b7 26 .\h6+ f8 27 xh7 gxh6 28 xh6+


e7 29 M5 d5 30 h4+ 'it>f8 3 l.itxe6 fxe6 32 f6+ 'it>g8 33 h3 Ab7 34
g6+ f8 35 t! xe6 Resigns.
The next position comes from the 1 942 correspondence game Wade v Bennett:

After 1 9 xg6 Black resigned in view of 19 . . . hxg6 20 Axf7+ xf7 2 1 h8+


xh8 22 .\xf7+ g8 23 .\xd6 d8 24 t! e6.
This game (for which page 29 of Chernev' s Combinations The Heart of Chess
incorrectly put 'London, 1 943 ' ) gives rise to many complications.
217

Walter Kom provided the complete game on pages 1 62- 1 63 of the July 1 943
CHESS. The additions within brackets in the game-score are by us.
R.G. Wade-E.W. Bennett, Correspondence game, New Zealand, 1 942. Queen 's
Gambit Declined.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 .\c3 .lf6 4 Ag5 .\bd7 5 e3 Ae7 6 .lf3 0-0 7 !'!cl c6 8 Ad3
dxc4 9 Axc4 .\d5 10 Axe7 'i/!xe7 1 1 0-0 .\xc3 12 !'! xc3 e5 13 f!c2 exd4 1 4
exd4 .lf6 1 5 !'! e 1 f!d6 1 6 .\g5 Ag4 (Levenfish v Riumin, Moscow, 1 935 and
Stahlberg v Menchik, L6di, 1 93 8 both saw 16 . . .f!f4 17 .\xf7. On page 7 1 of
the Nottingham, 1 936 tournament book Alekhine said that his game against
'Petersen' [Pettersson would be correct] at Orebro, 1 935 had gone 16 . . . h6 1 7
.\ x f7 !'! x f7 1 8 f! b 3 and w i n s . In fact, the relevant O rebro game w a s against
H . Carlsson, and White' s 1 8th move was 'i!3'g6. As Calle Erlandsson has pointed
out to us, Alekhine annotated the game on pages 86-87 of the April 1 935 issue
of Tidskrift for Schack.) 17 !'!g3

(Walter Korn now gave the variation 1 7 . . . 'i/!xd4 1 8 .\xh7 .\xh7 1 9 !'! e4 . On
page 1 89 of the September 1 943 CHESS H.H. Cole said that this could be
answered by 19 . . . M5 ' and I do not see any win for White; probably there is a
better 1 8th move for him and I hope there is, because the real game was particu
larly brilliant. ' On page 1 9 1 of the September 1 943 issue, C.H. Reid also gave
this line and stated that White should therefore play 1 8 !'! e7, with the possible
continuation 18 . . . Ah5 1 9 .le6 'i!3'd6 [if 1 9 .. .fxe6 then 20 E! gxg7+ 'ifilh8 2 1 !'! xh7+]
20 .\xg7 Ag6 2 1 .\f5 'i!3'f4 2 2 E! xb7, with advantage. On page 12 of the October
1 943 CHESS, J.J. O ' Hanlon said that 18 !'! e7 could be answered by 18 . . . !'! ad8. *
'It seems to me that the best line of play for Black is 17 !'! g3 Ah5! 1 8 !'!h3 h6 1 9
!'! xh5 hxg5 20 !'! xg5 !'! fe8! with the better game . ' W e wonder whether, i n
recommending 20 . . . !'! fe8, O ' Hanlon took account of 2 1 Axf7+ . )
1 7 . . . Ah5 1 8 !'! h3 .ilg6 (Kom: ' 1 8 . . .h 6 was necessary. ' ) 1 9 'i!3'xg6 Resigns.

Bob Wade has informed us that, as stated on pages 27-28 of Neishtadt' s book
on the Queen' s Gambit Declined (Moscow, 1 967), the entire game was already
known from analysis by Kopayev and Chistyakov dating back to 1 938 (exact
source not given by Neishtadt). Below is part of Neishtadt' s account, of which
*O' Hanlon ' s 18 . . . E! ad8 runs into trouble after 19 E!d3.

218

an English translation has kindly been supplied to us by Ken Neat:


' How then should Black defend against the threat of 18 xg4?
The pawn capture 17 . . . 'i!:t'xd4 is strongly met by 18 e7, while if 17 . . . g6 1 8
h3. Black cannot reply 18 . . . Af5 in view o f 1 9 'i!:t'xf5! gxf5 20 4)e4+ 'i!:t'xg3 2 1
4)xf6+ 'tlg7 22 4)h5+ and 23 4)xg3, o r 2 1 . . .'tth8 22 fxg3 . (This variation
from the old analysis was also repeated in a game; 17 years later Kholmov
lost in precisely this way to the German master Golz at the tournament in
Dresden, 1 956.) And after 1 8 . . ...Q.d7 1 9 'i!:t'b3 White maintains strong pres
sure (analysis by Kopayev and Chistyakov).
But perhaps the retreat of the bishop to h5 was not a mistake. Let us analyse
other replies by Black, apart from 18 . . . ..Q.g6, which leads to a catastrophe.
Black can offer the exchange of rooks by 18 . . . ae8. After 19 xe8 xe8
20 ! hh5 (as will be seen later, 20 4)xh7 is better) 20 . . . e 1 + 21 ..Q.f1 , and in
the opinion of Gligoric White retains the advantage. 2 1 . . .4)xh5 22 'i!:\'xh7+
<it'f8 23 'i!:\'xh5 .

But instead of 2 1 . . .4)xh5 the "quiet" move 2 1 . . :ltrd5! gives Black the ad
vantage. Therefore the old recommendation of Kopayev and Chistyakov
should be considered: 19 c l , and if 19 . . . ..Q.g6 20 'i!:t'xg6, as in the variation
examined earlier.
Thus Kopayev and Chistyakov convincingly showed that the immediate
manreuvre of the bishop to g6 is impracticable. And yet against the threat of
18 xg4 there is a defence. In the game Boleslavsky v Moiseev (Odessa,
1 949) Black went in for thi s entire variation, which was considered
unfavourable, and after 18 h3 he made the unexpected move 18 . . . 'i!:t'b4 ! .
B y attacking the rook and saving the queen from the terrible fork with which
the combination of Kopayev and Chistyakov concluded ( 4)xt7 + ), Black com
pletes the bishop manreuvre: 19 he3 -'i.g6 20 'i!:t'b3 'i!:\'xb3 21 ..Q.xb3 feB.
Black has avoided the dangers. After 22 <it'fl 'ttf8 the players agreed a draw.
It may be concluded that the seemingly formidable move 17 g3 is not so
fearsome.'
We add that Neishtadt also referred to Kopayev and Chistyakov' s 1 938 analysis
when giving the 'i!:t'xg6 line on pages 1 29 - 1 30 of Queen Sacrifice. * In both books
he noted that it subsequently occurred in the game Marovic v Chagan (World
Student Team Championship in Cracow, 1 964). On page 96 of the Lachaga
book on Moscow, 1 935, Becker said that the 22 4)xt7+ 23 4)xd6 version was
also played in Maccioni v Letelier in Santiago de Chile, 1 945 and that the 1 964
game brought White a brilliancy prize.
(2092)
*Walter Korn returned to the Wade v Bennett game, mentioning the Kopayev and Chistyakov
analysis, on page 1 06 of Chess Review, April 1 967 .

219

Calculation

Page 30 of Chess Pieces by Norman Knight reported that, when asked by a lady
at a Hastings Congress how many moves he was accustomed to thinking ahead,
Sir George Thomas replied, 'Madam, I am content with the move immediately
ahead ' .
Steinitz ' s answer t o a similar question appeared o n pages 3 1 6-3 1 7 o f K .
Landsberger' s book o n him. Steinitz said that i t depended o n who his opponent
was :
'The stronger the opponent, the more moves I can foresee because he makes
the correct moves. With a weak player, I anticipate one or two moves and
plan my responses. I am constantly thinking, "If he does this, then I ' ll of
course do that". '
O n page 64 o f the November 1 989 Playboy, Kasparov stated:
'It depends on the nature of the position. Chess is a complicated game. But
in positions where everything is forced - one move, one answer - I can
calculate something between ten and fifteen moves ahead. But that happens
very rarely. Usually, the positions are more complicated than that - one
move, then five answers, each of them having five answers. You have to
use your intuition in cases like that, your positional understanding. It' s very
good if you can calculate five, six, maybe seven moves ahead.'
In his annotations to the game Capablanca v Czerniak, Buenos Aires Olympiad,
1 939, Alekhine gave a variation leading to 24 d8 mate and commented:
'This represents a combination of 1 2 moves beginning with 1 3 b4, a very
rare instance in modem chess of a master having to calculate so far ahead.'
Source: Gran Ajedrez by A. Alekhine, page 1 37 .
We continue to seek positions in which players calculated far ahead.

F.J. Lee-Em. Lasker, London, 4 July 1 899.


220

(1 995)

Play continued: 37 . . . . xd4 38 cxd4 i!i'g4+ 39 <M1 g2+ 40 e 1 g1 + 41 d2


c3+ 42 xc3 i!i'xf2+ 43 d1 e3 44 Ab3+ g7 45 d5+ h6 46 i!i'e1 Ac8 47

Resigns. After the game Lasker stated that he had seen 46 . . . Ac8 at move 37 (Wiener
Schachzeitung, October 1 899, page 1 63). The magazine gives as an alternative line
46 . . . e2+ 47 d2 i!i'd4+ 48 c2 e4+ 49 c3 e3+ 50 c2 4Jg2, and also reports
that from the diagram Tarrasch offered another possibility: 37 . . . g4+ 38 <M1 g2+
39 e1 g1 + 40 d2 4Jg2 41 e2 e3+ 42 fxe3 .M3.
(2140)
Further examples of masters calculating deeply:
i) In the game between Bum and Showalter in the 1 898 cable match between
Great Britain and the United States, this position arose after White ' s 29th move:

The US master now played: 29 . . . b3 30 Axb3 axb2 31 .d1 4Jxe4+ 32 fxe4


Axe4 33 4Jc3 Ag6 34 4Jb1 . c8 35 e3 E!. c l 36 4Ja3 E!. xd1 37 la.xd1 b1 () 38
4Jxb1 Axb1 39 a4 d6 40 a5 c5 41 Ae2 Ac2 42 h4 Aa4 43 a6 b6 44 g4
Ad7 45 e4 Ac8 and B lack won after move 5 8 .

Page 5 7 8 o f the March 1 898 American Chess Magazine declared regarding


29 . . . b3: 'A remarkable continuation, and one in which Showalter says he counted
eleven moves through a sacrifice and recovery' . On page 1 57 of the April 1 898
BCM James Mason called the ending 'remarkable and instructive' .
ii) Annotating his move 3 1 4Jd6 against Sir George Thomas at Carlsbad, 1 923,
Alekhine wrote in his first Best Games collection: 'The winning move, of which
the consequences, in the leading variation, had to be analysed twelve and fifteen
moves ahead.'
iii) Page 55 of Alexei Shirov' s Fire on Board, a five-star book, reports a case
which occurred in this position:
(See diagram, top of next page.)
Play went 1 6 . . .c7 1 7 b4 4Jd8 1 8 4Jd3 4Je6 1 9 Ae2 Axe4 20 fxe4 4Jxe4 21
c2 4J4xc5 22 4Jxc5 4Jxc5 23 bxc5 e4 24 0-0 E!. ad8 25 E!. ad1 xc5 26 h 1 d3
27 Axd3 exd3 28 c3 . Instead, 28 E!. xd3 would lose outright to 28 . . . f5 .
22 1

A. Hauchard-A. Shirov, World Junior Championship, Santiago, 1 990.


Shirov' s note at move 16 reads : ' It is surprising that, when making this move, I
had already seen the possibility of a queen sacrifice on move 28 ' .
(21 67)
Regarding lengthy combinations, in his first Best Games volume Alekhine used
the phrase 'the longest which I have ever undertaken' to describe the play be
ginning with 33 . . . "iii"d7+ in his game against Treybal at Pistyan, 1 922, claiming
that the winning manceuvre comprised no fewer than 20 moves. The game was
omitted from the Batsford book Alexander Alekhine 's Best Games.
Old versus new

Kasparov' s views on masters of the past are given on page 275 of Mortal Games
by Fred Waitzkin. A suggestion by Fischer that Capablanca was one of the best
of all time is described as 'nonsense' by Kasparov, who adds:
'Bobby says that he is not sure he could have beaten Capablanca. Ridicu
lous. He would have won easily. To compare players from different eras
makes no sense. My games against Karpov would not be understood by the
great players of the nineteenth century. If you took someone like Ljubojevic,
who will finish near the bottom in Linares, and put him back into the twen
ties, Capablanca' s time, he would have been world champion without a
question. The only way to judge the old players is relative to the other play
ers of their period. Fischer was far ahead of the other players of his day. By
this measure, I consider him the greatest world champion.'
In The Times of 5 October 1 993 (page 1 1 ) Kasparov said, 'If you compare our
games [in the Kasparov v Short match] with previous title matches, you will
find mistakes in all of them' . This prompts us to suggest one method of compar
ing players of different eras: their frequency of error in top-level matches. After
Capablanca took the world title from Lasker in Havana in 1 92 1 without losing a
game, he asserted (BCM, October 1 922, page 376): 'The one outstanding fea
ture of the match and the one that most critics overlook is that not once did he
222

[Lasker] have a won game . ' Even today annotators accept that the Cuban ' s play
in that match was virtually faultless, so why would Ljubojevic, or even Kasparov,
have been assured of success in the 1 920s? Readers' views are welcomed. (2006)
From Peter Verboven:
'C.N. 2006 proposes comparing masters of different epochs by their fre
quency of error in top-level matches. Because of the rules, all chess games
end after a finite number of moves. Every position is thus either a draw, or
a win for White or Black. This also applies to the initial position, though
nobody knows for sure which of the three it is. Let us define an error as a
move that turns a win into a draw, or a draw into a loss; we will define a
blunder as a move that turns a win into a loss. /fit were possible to point out
all errors and blunders in a single game, we could know, by working back
wards, whether the initial position is a forced win. Since errors cannot cur
rently be counted, they cannot constitute a measure of comparison. The
strength ofa player depends as much on his ability to induce error as on his
skill in avoiding error. '
(2057)
Snooze

A quote from page 48 of Michael Adams Development of a Grandmaster by Bill


and Michael Adams, in which the master ' s father describes an incident at the
East Devon Open in 1 983 :
' . . .1 was aware of a large crowd around Michael' s board after about three
hours of play. I did not go across and it was only later that I found out that
Michael had fallen asleep at the board. Nilbody knew what to do because it
was felt that if I was asked to wake him up, it would constitute receiving
help from a third party, which would be against the laws of chess. As it
happened, Michael stirred after a quarter hour or so and proceeded to play
( K 1 993)
a move as if nothing had happened. '

From page 457 of the September 1 937 BCM comes a report on round 1 5 of that
year' s Stockholm Olympiad:
'Landau, tired out with hard play and journalistic work combined, fell asleep
at the 1 1 th move. Sympathetically realising the situation, Dunkelblum shook
him gently by the arm and suggested a draw. "Yes", said Landau, "and
(K 1 998)
please don ' t wake me again". '

223

Profligacy of grandmaster titles

W.D. Rubinstein writes:


' Concerning the profligacy of grandmaster titles, I should like to suggest a
new category called " World Master ", which would include (A) the current
world champion and all living, previous ones; (B) anyone who has played
unsuccessfully in a world title match; (C) up to ten other players of long
distinction. At present, category C would possibly include: Najdorf, Szabo,
GligoriC, Geller, Larsen, Portisch and perhaps two or three others. As there
are either nine or ten persons in (A) and (B), depending on how to count
Short!Timman, there would be only 1 5-20 " World Masters ", making it the
equivalent of what was meant by "grandmaster " before the Second World
War. '

We recall the view of W.H. Cozens, given on page 1 6 1 of the April 1 976 BCM:
'The obsession with grading is fast becoming the curse of chess; from the top
(where the multiplication of grandmasters already calls for the creation of a
new supermaster class - the dozen or so with legitimate pretensions to a world
title match) right down to club level where it is simply laughable.'
(2010)
As far back as the May 1 953 Chess Review (page 1 29) a reader, W.N. Wilson,
had declared himself 'perturbed about the loose use of the term "grandmaster". '
I n reply the Editor remarked that 'with a couple of dozen grandmasters around
now, we ought to have a grade designated between the bulk of these and the
world champion' .
Impostors

Information about chess impostors will be gratefully received. The May-June


1 923 American Chess Bulletin (page 1 1 2) quoted from The Brazilian American
(Rio de Janeiro) a sceptical account of 'a visit from a Dr Max Blumenfeld, who
had arrived on the Lutetia from Belgium' . Wishing to give a simultaneous dis
play, he said that he was a professional chess player who had won tournaments
in Warsaw and Vienna and had defeated the Belgian champion, Colle. He claimed
to have invented a 'Blumenfeld Gambit' in the Queen' s Pawn Opening and 'he
also showed us a couple of end games of his composition, which he has authorised
us to publish as original contributions to our column' .
Page 1 1 0 of the American Chess Bulletin reproduced one of these, with the
heading ' End Game, by Dr Max B lumenfeld, Poland ' . The next issue (July
August, page 1 3 6) contained a letter from D. Przepi6rka of Warsaw pointing
out that the study was by him; it was first published in Szachista Polski in 1 920
224

and repeated in a number ofjournals. The letter added that no Dr Max Blumenfeld
was known in Poland, although Beniamin Blumenfeld of Moscow was the origi
nator of the B lumenfeld Gambit, an opening made famous by the game Tarrasch
v Alekhine, Pistyan, 1 922.
The study in question may be found, correctly ascribed to Przepi6rka, on
page 1 87 of 1234 Modern End-Game Studies by M.A. Sutherland and H.M.
Lommer, page 254 of A.J. Roycroft' s Test Tube Chess and pages 1 25- 1 26 of
David Przepi6rka A Master of Strategy by H. Weenink. Where ' Dr Max
B lumenfeld' came from and went to we do not know.
(202 7)
Living chess

Capablanca's victory at living chess over Herman Steiner (Los Angeles, 1 1 April
1 933) is often published, despite being described as 'probably pre-arranged' on
page 1 1 5 of The Unknown Capablanca by David Hooper and Dale Brandreth.
Page 326 of our 1 989 book on the Cuban said that 'the chances must be high that
the game was pre-arranged ' , and since then we have found the following remark
by Steiner himself, on page 66 of the March 1 943 Chess Review:
' .. .in reality it was pre-arranged by Capablanca, who at that time refused to
play any other way. Naturally, I would like this known as it could not pos
sibly be considered an Immortal Game.'
(203 7)
On page 1 30 of 1001 Brilliant Ways to Checkmate Reinfeld offered this position:

The solution given was 1 xc6+ t1'xc6 2 t1'b4 mate, but on page 52 of the June
1 987 Chess Life a reader pointed out 1 t1'e7 mate. The Chess Life columnist,
Larry Evans, might have been expected to know, and mention, that, with the
(vital) difference of a white pawn on a4 rather than a2, the position was identical
to the finish of Capablanca v Steiner, but nothing was said.
A remarkably similar conclusion arose in a game published on pages 4-5 of the
March 1 923 Wiener Schachzeitung:

225

S. Tartakower-A. Holte, Copenhagen, 20 January 1 923. Queen 's Gambit


Declined.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 4Jc3 4Jf6 4 .il.g5 .il.e7 5 e3 0-0 6 c2 4Jbd7 7 4Jf3 c6 8 cxd5
exd5 9 .il.d3 h6 10 h4 e8 1 1 .il.4 Ab4 12 0-0-0 e7 13 g4 4Jxg4 1 4 dgl
4Jgf6 1 5 4Je5 4Jxe5 1 6 dxe5 4Jh5 1 7 Axh6 xe5 1 8 g5 f6 19 xh5 gxh6 20
gl + f8 21 .il.g6 .il.xc3 22 bxc3 '3ie7 23 .il.5 .il.xf5 24 xf5 xh4 25 xf7+
'3id6 26 g6+ '3ic5 27 xb7 ab8 28 b3 xb7 29 xb7 a4

30 xc6+ and mate next move.

(2189)

Cuban photographs

Armando Alonso Lorenzo has sent us photographs (copyright: Bernardo Alonso


Garcia) of Capablanca' s grave at the Colon Cemetery in Havana. An addition
since our own visit in 1 986 is a tall white queen by the sculptor Florencio Gelabert.
Another photograph, taken at the new ( 1 99 1 ) National Museum of Sports, shows
items (table, board, pieces and chair) used in the 1 92 1 world championship match
between Capablanca and Lasker. *
(2054)
Lasker v Steinitz discrepancy

From Brad Thomson:


'While preparing an article (published on pages 34-39 of the June 1 994 En
Passant) on the J OOth anniversary of the Lasker v Steinitz match, which
concluded in Montreal, 1 noticed that the three sources I was using did not
agree at one point. In game 1 7, Steinitz 's last victory, the following position
arose:

(See diagram, top of next page. )


C. Devide 's book o n Steinitz gives Lasker playing 21 Jelc5 22 't!td2 A. e6
23 b4 't!tc7, and now 24 d5, at which point all sources agree again. But the
move order given in The World Chess Championship: Steinitz to Alekhine
*The photograph of Capablanca' s grave is reproduced in the plate section .

226

by P. Moran and in the Weltgeschichte volume on Lasker is 21 b4 c7 22


.Jel c523 d2 .JJ. e6and now 24 d5, whereupon the transposition is com
plete. '

We add that the logical latter version is supported by such contemporary sources
as the Deutsche Schachzeitung (July 1 894, page 202), the BCM (July 1 894,
page 3 00) and The Chess Monthly (July 1 894, pages 335-336).
(2071 )
Earliest castling

Responding to a call from George Jelliss for the shortest game ending with mate
by queen' s-side castling, in C.N.s 39 1 and 462 Michael McDowell gave:
a) 1 e4 d5 2 exd5 '{g(xd5 3 'it>e2 -'ti5 4 'it>e3 '{g(e6+ 5 'it>d4 ila6 6 c3 0-0-0 mate
and
b) 1 c4 d5 2 d4 'it>d7 3 M4 'it>e6 4 e3 'it>f5 5 ile2 'it>e4 6 '{g(d3+ 'it>xd3 7 ilbc3
dxc4 8 o-o-0 mate.
Mr McDowell has now found a slightly shorter solution for the first task (where
mate is possible by a rook move alone, without involving the king): 1 d4 d6 2
(2079)
ila3 'it>d7 3 JU4 'it>c6 4 d3 'it>d5 5 f5+ 'it>xd4 6 0-0-0 mate.
The preceding item was published in 1 995 . Naturally Mr Larry Evans ignored it
when, on page 4 1 of the December 1 996 Chess Life, he congratulated a reader
on submitting a constructed game which was almost identical to the final one
above.
Morphy and beer

H.R. Sadeghi has submitted a beer-mat. * The coat-of-arms is identical to that of


the Morphy family (see page vii of Morphy Gleanings by P.W. Sergeant and
page 3 1 6 of Lawson' s biography). Page 4 of the latter book reports that Paul
Morphy' s great-grandfather 'changed his name from Murphy to Morphy when
he arrived in Madrid from Ireland in 1 753, in accommodation to the Castilian
pronunciation' .
*See the photographic plate section.

227

The brewery, based in Cork, has informed us that it was initially well known in
the Munster area for landowning and banking interests . Its coat-of-arms is
believed to date back to the seventeenth century .
(K 1 995)
Cut

Page 293 of the New York, 1 889 tournament book has this game, played in the
first round:
D.G. Baird-J. Mason, New York, 27 March 1 889. French Defence.
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 exd5 4 .lf3 Af5 5 Ad3 Axd3 6 xd3 .Jf6 7 0-0 Ad6 8
fl. e l + and 'Game lost by forfeit' .

An explanation was provided by Steinitz on page 237 of the August 1 890 Inter
national Chess Magazine: at New York, Mason 'forfeited a game "by time" on
the 8th move, and on several occasions, to speak in plain language, simply
created disgraceful drunken disturbances' .
The magazine often mentioned Mason ' s fondness for a drop. On page 265 of
the September 1 885 issue, a tournament reporter recorded being asked by a
friend, 'How is it that Mason has such a good chance of winning the first prize at
Hamburg?' The answer, with a reference to the tournament tail-ender, was,
'Because he' s keeping Bier a long way off' .
The anecdote about Bogoljubow, mug of beer in hand, being cut out of a pho
tograph appeared on page 1 3 of the first issue of CHESS ( 1 4 September 1 935)
and was placed in Switzerland. Page 267 of The Even More Complete Chess
Addict asserts that Spain was the venue. In Mille et une anecdotes by Claude
Scheidegger (page 7 1 ) the story moves to England, and the beer reference has
been cut out too. Switzerland is the choice of Sunnucks ' The Encyclopaedia of
Chess, whose account of this heady matter constituted nearly a quarter of the
entire entry on Bogoljubow.
(K 1 995)
Modesty

A remark by Euwe on page 253 of Terence Tiller' s Chess Treasury of the Air:
'During my chess career, I have made quite a few oversights. In fact, I have
probably made more silly blunders than any other world champion. '
Page 1 23 o f the American Chess Magazine, September 1 899, quoted a remark
by Steinitz in the Glasgow Weekly Herald:
'No great player blundered oftener than I have done. I was champion of the
world for twenty-eight years because I was twenty years ahead of my time.
228

I played on certain principles, which neither Zukertort nor anyone else of


his time understood. The players of today, such as Lasker, Tarrasch,
Pillsbury, Schlechter and others have adopted my principles, and as is only
natural, they have improved upon what I began, and that is the whole secret
( K 1 995)
of the matter. '
Anecdotes

A hoary anecdote is Alekhine' s alleged description of a dream in which chess


masters were banned from Heaven but Bogoljubow gained entry because 'he
only thinks he' s a master' . (See, for instance, pages 2 1 -22 of The Bright Side of
Chess by Irving Chernev.) In reality, chess enthusiasts of the previous century
had already been in stitches over the same yam. It appeared on page 6 of the July
1 898 American Chess Magazine.
(K 1 995)
Colour coincidence?

From page 1 54 of Rubinstein 's Chess Masterpieces by Hans Kmoch:


'Rubinstein played many tournament games against Yates. It is a curious
coincidence that Yates almost always had the white pieces. '
W e have counted 1 8 games. Yates was White i n 1 1 o f them, including a se
quence of nine (from Hastings, 1 922 to Budapest, 1 926). He was then B lack in
all five remaining encounters (Bad Kissingen, 1 928 to San Remo, 1 930). Yates'
total score was +2 -8 =8.
(2091 )
Most national titles

From page vii of 'Mr Chess ' The Ortvin Sarapu Story by Ortvin Sarapu :
'The record shows that I have won outright or shared the title of New Zealand
champion on 20 occasions. Not only is this the most titles for New Zealand,
but also for the world. No other player has ever won so many national champi
onships. Eight times I was "relegated" to runner-up and once to fourth. ' (21 02)
Derrickson

Wanted: games played by George H. Derrickson of Philadelphia, USA, who died


on 16 April 1 862 at the age of 1 7 and whom several nineteenth-century sources
referred to as a potential second Morphy. His only widely-published game is a 1 7move brilliancy played in Philadelphia in 1 860 against an amateur (identified as
J. Smith on pages 4 1 -42 of America 's Chess Heritage by Walter Korn) .
229

A problem by Derrickson, composed circa 1 86 1 , was printed on page 366 of the


December 1 88 1 issue of Brentano 's Chess Monthly:

Mate in two moves.

Key : 1 f2 .

(2103)

Beating Alekhine

From the introduction (by Larry Evans) to game 8 in Fischer' s My 60


Memorable Games * :
'Alekhine said, in his prime, that to wrest a point from him it was necessary
to win the same game three times: once at the beginning, once in the middle,
once at the end.'
Did Alekhine ever make such a statement? On page 24 1 of the 1 4 March 1 939
CHESS, Tartakower described his win against Alekhine at the Folkestone Olym
piad of 1 93 3 :
' A s usual against "Alexander the Great", one had t o beat him three times
(2104)
over to score a single point against him. '
Film stars

Which FIDE President married a Hollywood star?


Answer: Folke Rogard, whose second wife was Viveca Lindfors ( 1 920- 1 995).
She was perhaps best known for her role as Queen Margaret opposite Errol
Flynn in Adventures of Don Juan.
Calle Erlandsson reports that a photograph of her with Rogard, Lundin and
*On pages 45-48 of the January 1 997

CHESS

we scrutinised the Batsford re-write of Fischer's

book, which took many hundreds of unjustified liberties with Fischer' s prose. For Mr Larry Evans'
risible response, see pages 3-4 of

Inside Chess, 3 1

March 1 997. The magazine decided to print

nothing further on the subject, on the grounds that our exchange with Mr Evans had already 'made
him look a fool'.

230

Ekelund was published on page 1 7 1 of the July-August 1 949 issue of Tidskrift


(K 1995)
for Schack.
Courtesy of Mr Erlandsson, further information can be provided on the only
screen goddess lucky enough to marry a FIDE President. Viveca Lindfors' mem
oirs, entitled Viveka. . . Viveca . . . , were published by Bonniers in Sweden in 1 978.
Page 93 relates that when she wed Rogard in 1 944 he changed his surname, and
p age 1 24 explains why :
'It was a shock for [F.R.] when his brother was jailed for theft. Folke was a
successful young lawyer and very fearful for his reputation. He decided to
move with all the members of his family to another town, whether they
wanted to or not. He changed his name from Rosenberg to Rogard and cut
all bonds. '
Mr Erlandsson points out that Rosenberg should read Rosengren. At the age of
seven or eight V.L. had changed her first name from Viveka to Viveca.
On page 1 35 the book relates the couple' s ten-day visit to New York in March
1 946 to sign contracts before going to Hollywood:
'Folke did not assist me very much. He read, he slept, he ate, he drank wine,
he smoked cigars. He did not care about his appearance. He even played
chess against himself and took care of his leisure time much better than I
did mine. However, for him nothing was at stake.'
It was Rogard ' s third marriage of five.

(K 1 996)

Errol Flynn ( 1 909- 1 959) is chiefly remembered for his swashbuckling films and
off-screen embroilments, but he was also a vividly eloquent novelist and journalist.
He received a brief mention on page 79 of the 14 November 1 937 issue of CHESS:
'Errol Flynn is another film-star chess-ite' . Page 61 of Errol Flynn in Northampton
by Gerry Connelly (Corby, 1 995) reported:
'Flynn might not have been an Einstein or a Socrates, but he always took
intelligent approaches to his film roles, played chess well, could converse
in a number of exotic languages, and worked productively as a writer. '
Flynn himself took lightly the claims made on his behalf. In an article entitled
'My Plea for Privacy' published in Screen Guide in 1 937 he wrote:
'As to my private life - well, there' s precious little of it left - but according
to what I read in the newspapers, I am a master of such minor arts as box
ing, fencing, wrestling, jiu-jitsu, horsemanship, hunting, fishing, sailing,
swimming, golf, tennis, chess, trap-shooting and jacks. I get up early in the
23 1

morning and after dashing through Beethoven' s Etude in B Minor I casu


ally practise each and every one of the above sports, sometimes doing a
little Indian club work with my disengaged hand.'
A photograph of Errol Flynn playing chess appeared in the book From a Life of
Adventure: The Writings of Errol Flynn edited by Tony Thomas (Citadel Press,
1 980) . Taken during the shooting of his 1 942 film They Died with Their Boots
On, it showed him locked in combat with Olivia de Havilland.*
(K 1 998)
The Laskers

Colin Crouch points out that on page 50 of The World 's Great Chess Games
Reuben Fine said that Emanuel Lasker wrote a book on unemployment.
Mr Crouch has been unable to find such a work in any bibliography, although
there is a 1 9 1 1 book, published by Macmillan, London, entitled Unemployment:
a social study, by B . S . Rowntree and B . Lasker. Bruno Lasker subsequently
wrote extensively about East Asian economies, but it is not known whether he
was related to Emanuel. We add that Emanuel Lasker did write about, inter alia,
unemployment in The Community of the Future (New York, 1 940).
Emanuel Lasker' s brother Berthold ( 1 860- 1 928) was a strong chess player and
problemist, and the two were apparently distant relatives of Edward Lasker.
C . N . 10 quoted the latter' s claim to this effect, which appeared on page 1 1 9 of
issue 3 of Lasker & His Contemporaries, published in 1 980. On page 1 84 of the
March 1 974 Chess Life & Review Edward Lasker wrote: 'I did not discover that
we were actually related until he [Emanuel Lasker] told me shortly before his
death that someone had shown him a Lasker family tree on one of whose branches
I was dangling' .
Another Lasker was Alfons. Page 1 43 of the May 1 9 1 0 Deutsche Schachzeitung
gave this game between him and Eduard (i.e. Edward):
A. Lasker-E. Lasker (simultaneous), Breslau, October 1 909. Giuoco Piano.
1 e4 e5 2 <tlf3 <tlc6 3 Ac4 <tlf6 4 d3 Ac5 5 Ag5 d6 6 h3 Ae6 7 Ab5 a6 8 13.xc6+
bxc6 9 d4 exd4 10 <tlxd4 13.xd4 1 1 xd4 c5 12 c3 <tlxe4 13 xg7 xg5 1 4
xh8+ \t>d7 1 5 xa8 cl + 1 6 \t>e2 xc2+ 1 7 \t>e3 xf2 + 1 8 \t>d3 c4+ and

mate next move.


According to page 48 of Fred Reinfeld' s Chess: win in 20 moves or less, a
reprint of his 1 948 book Relax with Chess, the two players were brothers . Giv
ing this game on page 15 of 500 Italian Miniatures, Bill Wall affirmed that
Black was Emanuel Lasker.
A fifth Lasker (forename unknown) had a game-score published on page 53 of
the February 1 870 Deutsche Schachzeitung. lt was one of three blindfold games
*The photograph is given in the plate section.

232

played simultaneou sly by Alexander Alexander in Hamburg on 1 8 August


(21 06)
1 869 . *
Rice

Page 10 of the January 1 906 American Chess Bulletin announced the birth of Frank
J. Marshall' s son, who was christened Frank Rice Marshall. Was the unusual sec
ond forename chosen in honour of lsaac Rice, the Rice Gambit' s Maecenas? (21 1 3)
Banknotes

Jonathan Manley asks if there are any instances of money depicting chess, apart
from the well-known Estonian banknotes featuring Paul Keres.
One such case comes to mind. Schachfirma Fruth, Unterhaching, Germany is
selling 'emergency money' from the early 1 920s, during which period of hyper
inflation German towns and villages were entitled to print their own currency.
The banknotes included s i x chess series with 1 8 different chess motifs, includ
(21 2 7)
ing a portrait of Anderssen.
'Excellent'

Ilya Rabinovich ( 1 89 1 - 1 942) has a rare, probably unique, distinction: he wrote


a book, Endshpil (two editions, published in 1 927 and 1 938), which was hailed
as 'excellent' by both Capablanca and Alekhine. See the 'Endgame Masters'
chapter of Capablanca 's Last Chess Lectures and Alekhine' s notes to the game
against Vidmar at B led, 1 93 1 in his 1 924- 1 937 Best Games collection. (K 1996)
Alekhine on Capa's endings

The Czech writers Jan Kalendovsky and Vlastirnil Fiala are producing a series
of detailed books on Alekhine in English. The first ( 1 87 pages) was published in
1 992 and covered the period 1 892- 1 92 1 ; the second (464 pages) takes the story
up to 1 924.
The second volume contains several interviews with Alekhine in which he ex
presses a high opinion of Capablanca' s endgame play. For example, page 265
quotes from page 14 of Ce ske slovo of 17 June 1 923, where the Russian master
stated that he felt superior in the opening ( ' since Capablanca tends to underesti
mate its importance' ) but added: 'Naturally, as far as the endgame is concerned,
Capablanca has no rival; no-one among the contemporary masters has any chance
to beat him in it' .

*A sixth Lasker, Hermann, a cousin of Edward, was mentioned on page 204 of Deutsches
Wochenschach, 1 3 June 1 909.

233

Just a few years later, Alekhine had a very different assessment of the Cuban.
On page 16 of his book Das New Yorker Schachturnier 1 92 7 he wrote:
' In the endgame he is not to be feared by a first-class master since here it is
only exceptionally that he manages to raise his play above average. '
In fairness to Alekhine, his view may have changed because he drew an inferior
rook ending against Capablanca in the fourth round of the 1 924 New York tour
nament (a game which Mark Dvoretsky analysed in depth in an article on pages
36-43 of issue 3 of the American Chess Journal in 1 995). On page 2 of his book
On the Road to the World Championship 1 923- 1 92 7 Alekhine described that
game as a 'revelation' and wrote, 'I was convinced that if I had been in
Capablanca' s position I should certainly have won that game' .
In fairness to Capablanca, he was ill at the start of New York, 1 924. It is, of
course, impossible to know whether Alekhine was being sincere in any or all of
the statements quoted above.
(138)

Youngest player

Capablanca, receiving queen odds, defeated Ramon Iglesias in Havana on


1 7 S eptember 1 893 when he was four years and ten months old. Have games
by younger players been published?
(2146)
Now we seek the youngest problemist. On page 1 32 of the May-June 1 9 1 7 Ameri
can Chess Bulletin, this composition appeared:

Mate in two moves.

The caption in the A CB was 'By Elliot Franklin Eichholz (aged 5 years) ' . It is
(2184)
unlikely that readers will need to be given the solution.
The least bookish

'A man who is known as the least bookish of all international players' was
234

Marshall' s description of himself in his introduction to Marshall 's Chess


(2149)
"Swindles " .
Chessy words

Jonathan Manley reports the following citations in the latest edition of the com
plete Oxford English Dictionary:
chessdom: City of London Chess Magazine, June 1 875
chessic: Gunsberg in Knowledge, 1 883
chessist: 'Some openings and end-games from the actual play of eminent East
em chessists' - Academy, 30 July 1 88 1

'Meeting of chessists i n Dewsbury ' - Leeds Mercury, 1 3 December 1 886


chessite : ' The airs of superiority the c h e s s i tes a s s u me over us poor
backgammonists ' - New Monthly Magazine, 1 834

The following may be added here:


chessay: subtitle of the book Not Only Chess, 'A Selection of Chessays' by
G. Abrahams ( 1 974)
chessical: 'He keeps in touch with matters chessical at the Washington Chess
and Checker Club . ' - American Chess Bulletin, January 1 9 1 2, page 5
chessikins: 'Apropos of these chessikins . . . ' - W .E. Napier, Pittsburgh Dispatch,
quoted in the January 1 907 BCM, page 1 6
chesslet: J . Schumer published a small book Chesslets in 1 928
chessmanity: ' He will have some claim to be regarded as a benefactor to
"chessmanity". ' - F.P. Wildman, BCM, December 1 90 1 , page 497
chessn icdote : Chessn icdotes and Chessn icdotes
G. Koltanowski ( 1 978 and 1 98 1 )

11:

titles of books by

chessophobe: 'The base calumny industriously spread by "chessophobes" (to


coin a word) should be silent in face of these facts . ' - Philip H. Williams, Ameri
can Chess Bulletin, February 1 9 1 1 , page 26
chessy: 'A chessy game of great interest all through. ' - Great American Chess
(K 1 997)
Players, Il H.N. Pillsbury by P. Wenman, page 1 07 ( 1 948)

235

Here are earlier citations for two words given above:


chessy: ' [R.H.V.] Scott has an excellent "nose" for attack, and has some exceed
ingly "chessy" ideas. ' - BCM, October 1 920, page 305
chessical: ' . . . we are much mistaken if affairs chessical do not enjoy a notable
enlivenment so long as he remains in our midst' - W.E. Napier writing about
Eisenberg in the Pittsburgh Dispatch, 4 August 1 904 (quoted on page 1 25 of
Napier The Forgotten Chessmaster by John S . Hilbert, published by Caissa
Editions in 1 997).

Two new entries:


chesser: 'A correspondent protests against the use of the word "Chessist", which,
we believe, is an importation from the other side of the Atlantic, where an ener
getic community finds it necessary to coin words to meet the requirements of its
advancing spirit. . . . Still, we do not like the word, nor do we think it illustrates
the principle of economy of force, for "Chesser" would be more economical and
not less graceful. But "Chess player" concisely conveys the meaning that is
intended, and appears to meet all reasonable requirements. ' - The Chess Ama
teur, April l 907, page 1 99
chessercize: in 1 99 1 Bruce Pandolfini wrote two books, Chessercizes and More
(K I 998)
Chessercizes.

More additions:
chesspool: On page 236 of the August 1 888 issue of The International Chess
Magazine Steinitz used the term ' that monthly chesspool ' to describe The
Westminster Papers.
chess-ty: 'The champion' s "chess-ty" physical make-up is not that of the popular
conception of a chess-player. ' - C. Sherwood, writing about Alekhine in the
Los Angeles Times. The item was quoted on page 96 of the May-June 1 929
American Chess Bulletin.
chessikin : An earlier instance can be quoted here: page 292 of The International
Chess Magazine, October 1 889.

Some contributions from Chris Ravilious:


chesser: 'English chessers, to use the American word, . . . ought certainly to sub
scribe to this capital monthly' . - City of London Chess Magazine, May 1 875
(cited in the OED Supplement of 1 933)
chessner: 'Yonder' s my game, which, like a politic chessner, I must not seeme
to see' . - Middleton' s A Game at Chesse ( 1 624)
chessomania : 'a pathological craving for chess to the virtual exclusion of al l
other activities and concerns' - page 65 of An Illustrated Dictionary of Chess

236

by Edward R. Brace ( 1 977)


chessophrenetic: '(nonce term) a chess fanatic ' - ibid.
chessy: 'Q to Kt7 would have been more chessy. ' - Gunsberg in Knowledge, 1 5
Ju ne 1 883

' Such encounters . . . are often more productive of "chessy" situations than
match game s ' . - Daily News, 1 9 July 1 8 8 3 . B oth these quotations, as well
as the above Middleton one, were in the original ( 1 8 84- 1 928) edition of the
(K 1 998)
OED.
Anderssen and dedications

Can readers quote unusual dedications in chess books? The Chess Games of
Adolph Anderssen edited by Sid Pickard is dedicated 'To the Glory of our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ, And His holy Church' . A rare knight manreuvre given
on page 242 of the book:

A. Anderssen-C. Mayet, Berlin, 1 865 .


30 h7 e8 31 f8 f6 32 d7 Ae6 33 E! xe6 Resigns.

A better chance of salvation would have been 30 . . . 4. a suggestion to us from


Richard Forster. He gives the following possible play : 3 1 Axe4 b3 (If 3 l . . .Axe4
32 E! xe4 \'i1d5 33 "tiff3 "tifxa2 34 f6+ f8 35 E! e 1 E! c8 36 "tifhS wins.) 32 f6+
(The only way. 32 \'i1e3 Axe4 33 \'i1xe4 dS draws.) 32 . . . gxf6 33 "tifh7+ 'it>f8 34
E!e2 "tifxa2 (Otherwise White wins easily. For example, 34 . . . bxa2 35 "tifh8+ e7
3 6 AxdS+ 'it>d7 37 \'i1h3+, or 34 . . . Axe4 35 \'i1h8+ 'it>e7 36 E! xe4+ .) 35 \'i1h6+
'it>e7 36 \'i1e3 .
(K 1997)
Alessandro Nizzola offers the following:
'To my two fathers' - Bobby Fischer by Frank Brady ( 1 970s edition).
A proposal from Gordon Cadden:
'To the memory of the humourless chess author; may his royalties plum
met' - one of three dedications in How to Cheat at Chess by William R.
Hartston.
(K 1 998)
237

Blackbume

On page 1 5 of issue 1 0 of Kingpin Stephen Fry referred to the well-known anec


dote about a simultaneous exhibition at which a glass of whisky en prise was
supposedly taken en passant. He commented, 'What I like about that story is
that it is so completely unfunny' . But did such an incident occur? Bent Larsen
informs us that at Teesside in 1 972 he met an eye-witness to the episode (alleged
to have happened in Manchester) .
B lackbume was certainly fond of a sip, even though page 40 1 of the October
1 924 BCM recorded his remark 'my favourite beverage is castor oil ' . Page 494
of the June 1 899 American Chess Magazine quoted from the New Orleans Times
Democrat an interview which Blackbume had given to Licensing World, an
anti-temperance journal:
'I find that whiskey is a most useful stimulus to mental activity, especially
when one is engaged in a stiff and prolonged struggle. All chess masters
indulge moderately in wines or spirits. Speaking for myself, alcohol clears
my brain, and I always take a glass or two when playing. '
The Times-Democrat commented: 'Mr B lackbume, with great frankness, pro
ceeded to dilate further upon the joys of the bowl and the misery of its depriva
tion. '
Page 286 o f the July 1 899 issue o f the BCM gave a general account of
Blackbume' s liking for public banter:
'Some simultaneous players pace from board to board as if engaged in a
matter of life and death importance, and with a very serious - not to say
sombre - funeral appearance. Not so Blackbume, for he contrives to make it
a merry performance. He bubbles over with humour, he has flashes of fancy
and plays off wit. He annotates each move as he goes along, and the anno
tations are calculated to make even the losing player laugh and be on good
terms with himself. '
The following game was published by The Cincinnati Commercial in 1 88 1 but
was not included in P. Anderson Graham' s monograph on Blackbume. Black ' s
name is appropriate t o our theme.
J.H. Blackburne (simultaneous)-Brewer, London, 1 8 8 1 . King 's Gambit
Accepted.
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 4Jf3 g5 4 h4 g4 5 4Je5 .ll.g7 6 d4 4Jf6 7 4Jxt7 'it>xt7 8 .ll. xf4 d5
9 4Jc3 4Jxe4 10 4Jxe4 e8 1 1 .ll.e 5 dxe4 12 .ll.c4+ .ll.e 6 13 0-0+ 'it>g8

(See diagram, top of next page.)


238

14 xg4 d7 1 5 .a.xe6+ . xe6 1 6 Axg7 . g6 1 7 .f8+ 'ltxg7 1 8 xd7+ 4:lxd7 1 9


(K 1997)
. xa8 Resigns.

Crowds

Estimates of crowd sizes are notoriously unreliable, but some old reports of high
figures at chess events may be tentatively noted here.
a) 'Probably the largest crowd that has ever witnessed a chess fight assembled
to witness the closing game of the contest between Chigorin and Steinitz at
Havana on February 28. It is estimated that about 1 ,900 people were present at
the Centro Asturiano during the progress of that game.' (The International Chess
Magazine, December 1 89 1 , page 370.)
b) Capablanca reported: 'The tournament [Moscow, 1 925] was played at the
Hotel Metropole, a very spacious building . . . It can comfortably take 1 ,200 people,
yet it was crowded. There were always 1 ,500 to 2,000 spectators. ' (Interview in
Diario de Ia Marina, 1 9 January 1 926, page 1 7 )
.

Page 92 of the February 1 926 BCM gave another participant' s estimate: 'Yates
says that there were about 5 ,000 visitors per day at the congress . '
c ) Regarding Capablanca' s simultaneous exhibition against two hundred play
ers at 50 boards in New York on 1 2 February 1 93 1 : 'Conservatively estimated,
upward of 2,000 persons attended this outstanding performance, unique even in
the colorful career of the Cuban master. . .' (American Chess Bulletin, March
1 93 1 , page 45 .)
d) Moscow, 1 936: ' According to Reuter' s report, so great was the eagerness to
see the play that every one of the 2,000 seats in the hall were occupied, standing
room was j ammed with spectators, and crowds outside clamoured for admis
sion.' (BCM, June 1 936, page 282.)
' I 00,000 people had to be refused tickets of admission to the first round of the
M oscow tournament. ' (CHESS, 14 November 1 936, page 87.)

239

At the other end of the scale, page 1 93 of Warren Goldman' s Carl Schlechter!
Life and Times of the Austrian Chess Wizard gives an account from the Wiener
Allgemeiner Sportzeitung of the attendance at Monte Carlo, 1 904 (participants :
Mar6czy, Schlechter, Marshall, Gunsberg, Marco and Swiderski). The report
claimed that the top attendance was on the final day, with eleven onlookers,
whereas only three had watched the first round' s play.
(K I 997)
Pages 2 1 0-2 1 1 of the July 1 928 Deutsche Schachzeitung gave the following
game of living chess, reporting that there were 2,000 spectators :
B . Lichtenstei n - E . G riinfeld, Trabrennplatz, V i e n n a , 6 June 1 9 2 8 .
Philidor 's Defence.
1 e4 .\f6 2 .\c3 eS 3 .\f3 d6 4 d4 .\bd7 S g3 g6 6 Ag2 Ag7 7 h3 c6 8 Ae3 t:YaS
9 dxeS .\xe4 10 0-0 .\xc3 1 1 bxc3 dxeS 12 d6 t:YdS 13 t:Yb4 t:Ye6 14 l"l ae 1
e7

1 S .\xeS AxeS 16 Ad4 cS 17 AxeS cxb4 18 Axh8 1\eS 19 AxeS Ae6 20 cxb4
t:Yxb4 2 1 l"lb1 t:YcS 22 .fa.xb7 l"ld8 23 M6 l"ld6 24 Ag2 t:YfS 2S l"lb8+ d7 26 l"lb7+
c8 27 l"lfb1 AdS 28 l"lb8+ c7 29 Ae7 l"lb6 30 l"\8xb6 axb6 31 AxdS t:YxdS 32
l"le1 t:Yd2 33 l"le3 t:Yxc2 34 a3 t:Yd1 + 3S g2 fS 36 AgS t:YhS 37 h4 d6 38 M4+
dS 39 l"lb3 c6 40 Ae3 bS 41 l"l c3+ b7 42 f3 gS Drawn.
(K I 998)

Best books

Wanted: published nominations for the best-ever chess book. Three are given
below:
i) 'Signor C. Salvioli has reclaimed the birthright of chess literature for Italy.
Without exception the first volume of his Teoria e Pratice [del giuoco] degli
Scacchi as a collection of games alone is the most valuable chess book extant in
any language' . W. Steinitz, on page 83 of the March 1 885 issue of The Interna
tional Chess Magazine.
ii) On page 1 5 1 of Instructions to Young Chess-players by H. Golombek (Lon
don, 1 958) Reti ' s Modern Ideas in Chess was described as 'the best book ever
written on chess ' .
240

iii) 'Without question, Chess Fundamentals, by Capablanca. ' M. Botvinnik, in


terviewed on page 26 of Chess Life, March 1 984.
(2165)
Times for individual moves

Is it possible to identify the first game for which the exact time consumed on
individual moves is known?
We open the bidding with Reshevsky v Alekhine, A VRO, 1 93 8 ( CHESS,
1 4 December 1 93 8 , pages 1 47- 1 49 ) . The longest think was at move 20;
Alekhine reflected for 34 minutes and 20 seconds before playing ... dxe5. (21 70)
Never lost on time?

Pages 252-253 of Carl Schlechter! Life and Times of the Austrian Chess Wizard
by Warren Goldman quote from Rudolf Spielmann' s book Ein Rundflug durch
die Schachwelt:
'The clock knows no favourites, for even Capablanca, a rapid player, occa
sionally lost on time. Conversely, the powerful Carl Schlechter always
reached the time control with five minutes for his final move.'
Is it true that Schlechter never lost a game on time, and can the same be said of
any other prominent master?
(21 71 )
Predictions

From time to time we publish notable predictions, whether fulfilled or not. In a


talk at the Manhattan Chess Club on 1 1 January 1 9 1 6 Dawid Janowsky opined
'that international chess in Europe was dead for at least twenty years to come' .
(Source: Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1 2 January 1 9 1 6.)
(21 72)
Brilliancy oddity

C.N. 1 548 mentioned a tournament in which B .H. Wood offered a brilliancy


prize which was won by C. Sims for his victory over B .H. Wood himself. An
other case, at the Ventnor City Invitational Tournament of 1 945, is presented by
Walter B. Suesman ( 1 9 1 8- 1 984) on page 6 of his book Chess Games and Chess
Problems: 'I.S. Turover was a strong New York amateur, and a patron of the
game. Here he falls victim to the brilliancy prize he donated. '
W.B. Suesman-I.S. Turover, Ventnor, 1 945 . King 's Gambit Accepted.
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Ac4 f6 4 c3 d5 5 exd5 c6 6 dxc6 xc6 7 f3 .llg4 8 d3

24 1

4Jd4 9 xf4 c5 1 0 Axf7+ 'it1xf7 1 1 4:'le5+ 'it1f8 1 2 4:lxg4 4:lxg4 1 3 'ii xg4 4:'lxc2+
14 'it1d2 4Jb4 1 5 'iiYf5 + g8 1 6 'iiYe 6+ 'it1f8 1 7 .11d6+ Resigns.
(21 77)

Consecutive sacrifices

Who has played the most sacrifices on consecutive moves? There was a succes
sion of four breakthrough offers in the well-known conclusion to the game Leif
Lund v Aron Nimzowitsch, Kristiania, 6 May 1 92 1 (simultaneous display against
20 players).
Nimzowitsch annotated the ending in Kagans Neueste Schachnachrichten, 1 April
1 925, page 1 64, but it has not yet proved possible to find the full game.
(2180)
Zugzwang

'The most remarkable winning move on record' was Reuben Fine ' s description
of 25 . . . h6 in the ' Immortal Zugzwang Game' (page 1 30 of his 1 952 book The
World 's Great Chess Games). On page 32 of Fifty Great Games of Modern
Chess, Harry Golombek called it the 'finest possible example of Zugzwang ' .
Fred Reinfeld considered i t Nimzowitsch ' s ' most famous game ' (Great
Moments in Chess, page 1 07 ) . As will be seen below, all that may or may not
be true, but initially the game was virtually ignored by the chess world.
First, for ease of reference, the moves:
F. Siimisch-A. Nimzowitsch, Copenhagen, March 1 923 . Queen 's Indian Defence.
1 d4 4Jf6 2 c4 e6 3 4:'lf3 b6 4 g3 Ab7 5 Ag2 Ae7 6 4Jc3 0-0 7 0-0 d5 8 4Je5 c6
9 cxd5 cxd5 1 0 .11f4 a6 1 1 El c l b5 1 2 'iiYb 3 4Jc6 1 3 4:lxc6 xc6 14 h3 'liYd7 1 5
'it1h2 4:lh5 1 6 .lld2 f5 1 7 'iiY d 1 b4 1 8 4:'lb1 .11b 5 1 9 El g 1 .11d6 2 0 e4 fxe4 2 1 'iiY x h5
El xf2 22 'iiYg 5 El af8 23 'it1h1 El 8f5 24 'iiYe 3 .11d3 25 Elce1

25 . . . h6 26 Resigns.

It is tempting to imagine the game being instantly flashed around the planet as
a unique specimen of hypermodern technique resulting in a hapless opponent
242

being tied up, or down, hand-and-foot. In truth, the score is absent from almost
all the maj or chess magazines of 1 923 (e.g. Deutsche Schachzeitung, Wiener
Schachzeitung, BCM, American Chess Bulletin and Tijdschrift van den
Nederlandschen Schaakbond).
Nor did it appear in the 25-page 'Games of 1 923' section in Chess of To-day by
A lfred Emery (London, 1 924) or, even, in Ludwig Bachmann' s Schachjahrbuch
1 923 (published in Ansbach the following year), which had nearly 1 80 games.
The year Nimzowitsch died, 1 935, Reinfeld brought out a monograph entitled
Thirty-five Nimzowitsch Games, 1904-192 7, but there was still no 'Immortal
Zugzwang Game' . Some subsequent ' standard sources' also ignored it, an ex
ample being 500 Master Games of Chess by Tartakower and du Mont (London,
1 952).
It was, at least, included in the Copenhagen, 1 923 tournament book (page 23),
albeit with a mere seven brief notes in Richard Teichmann' s characteristically
desiccated style. B lack' s 1 5th and 1 6th moves were allotted one exclamation
mark apiece, but Teichmann showed little enthusiasm for the finale. The tourna
ment book also came out as a supplement to the periodical Kagans Neueste
Schachnachrichten, between the A pril 1 923 and June 1 923 issues, and
Teichmann' s comments were used on page 1 06 of the July 1 923 Casopis
Ceskoslovenskfch Sachistii. It was hardly an auspicious start for the 'most fa
mous game' .
Eventually, Nimzowitsch went on a propaganda blitz. He burst into annotational
song on pages 1 7- 1 8 of the 2/1 925 Wiener Schachzeitung under the heading
'Zugzwang on a full board ! ' Double exclamation marks accompanied Black' s
lOth, 20th and 25th moves, and the high-spirited victor described 25 . . . h6 as
follows:
' An exceptionally beautiful problem move ! This puts White in nothing less
than a tragic Zugzwang position (I won ' t say tragicomic, since the sheer
force of B lack' s play rules out any thought of humour) .
. . .In the opinion of the well-known Danish amateur master, the writer/edi
tor Hemmer Hansen, this game would be worthy of being placed alongside
the ' Immortal Game' . While Anderssen was able to deploy the "sacrifice"
as such to maximum benefit, I, Hansen said, achieved a similar effect with
the Zugzwang. In Danish chess circles, this game is therefore described as
the Immortal Zugzwang Game ! '
Later that year, he continued i n the same vein i n his first book, Die Blockade
(page 52), writing of 25 . . . h6:
'A brilliant move which announces the Zugzwang . . . .This unusually brilliant
243

Zugzwang mechanism makes this game, which Dr Lasker in a Dutch publica


tion called a magnificent achievement, a counterpart to the "Immortal Game".
There the maximum effect of the "sacrifice", here that of the "Zugzwang".'
The Lasker article (in a Dutch newspaper?) has yet to be located.

Die Blockade was followed, also in 1 925, by the first edition of Mein System, in
which (page 55) Nimzowitsch had fresh words of acclaim for his performance:
' . . . a short game, which is known far and wide as the "Immortal Zugzwang
Game". It is of interest to us because the outpost is used here merely as a
threat or even just as a ghost. And yet its effect is enormous. '
It had been a quick transition from commendations i n Danish and Dutch sources
to recognition 'far and wide' . Meeker sentiments by Nimzowitsch appeared in
the English edition, My System, published in 1 929, although that version did
have his closing remark, 'a brilliant move which announces the Zugzwang' .
The English translator of My System was Philip Hereford (i.e. Arthur Hereford
Wykeham George, who died in 1 937). His introduction, dated 29 August 1 929,
referred to Zugzwang as the only word left untranslated in the book, 'partly
since it is [sic] become familiar in English chess circles, partly, in fact mainly,
because the single word conveys an idea, or complex of ideas, which can only
be expressed in English by a circumlocution ' .
I n reality, the term Zugzwang was not commonly found i n English-language
chess literature prior to the publication of My System. In German, though, it had
been in regular use in the nineteenth century. Pages 353-358 of the September
1 85 8 Deutsche Schachzeitung had an unsigned article 'Zugzwang, Zugwahl und
Privilegien ' . F. Amelung employed the terms Zugzwang, Tempozwang and
Tempozugzwang on pages 257-259 of the September 1 896 issue of the same
magazine. When a perceived example of Zugzwang occurred in the third game
of the 1 896-97 world championship match between Steinitz and Lasker, after
34 . . . .g8, the Deutsche Schachzeitung (December 1 896, page 368) reported that
'White has died of Zugzwang' . As is shown, inter alia, by the appearance of that
game in the Fine/Reinfeld collection of Lasker' s masterpieces, published in 1 935,
Zugzwang established itself in English-language chess sources in the 1 930s.
Then came the quest for a satisfactory translation or circumlocution. The most
frequent rendering nowadays is compulsion to move, but many fanciful proposals
had to be endured first. Discussing the position reached after 40 . . :e2 in Bogoljubow
v Alekhine, Hastings, 1 922, Brian Harley offered straight-waistcoat on page 27 of
his 1 936 book Chess and its Stars. That, in tum, was converted into US parlance as
straightjacket by the American Chess Bulletin (July-August 1 936 issue, page 1 20).
On page 266 of the 14 March 1 939 CHESS, H.G. Hart suggested move-bound. The
244

same magazine (20 August 1 939, page 438) recorded R.E. Kemp' s offering of
squeezed, 'in use in his club 45 years ago, long before Bridge-players took up the
term for the exact parallel of this operation in their game' .
After the Second World War, Assiac (the pseudonym of Heinrich Fraenkel)
organised a New Statesman competition to find a suitable translation of Zugzwang.
As reported on page 54 of his book The Pleasures of Chess, the entries included
plank-walk, movicide, goose-gang, gadarene-pull and dreadmill. Both squeeze
and movebound were submitted, and the latter actually won first prize for Gerald
Abrahams. H. G. Hart' s CHESS precedent had evidently been forgotten. Walter
Kom went further in his book The Brilliant Touch in Chess (page 72), offering
movebound, movestruck, movetight, off tempo, in a jam, in a squeeze and du
ress. At least part of the intention of all this was to elude a purportedly ugly
sounding German word.
Equivalents were sought in other languages too. In an article on page 1 73 of the
September 1 942 issue of the Argentinian magazine Caissa, Carlos Skalicka pro
posed semi-ahogado (Spanish for semi-stalemate). The same item maintained,
on undisclosed grounds, that the term Zugzwang had been invented over 50
years previously by Hermann Zwanzig ( 1 837- 1 894), and that Dufresne ' s opin
ion was that it had ' truly enriched the German language' .
A word i s normally defined, or at least clearly understood, before it is translated,
but with Zugzwang the contrary occurred. In an heretical article 'That Zugzwang
Nonsense ! ' on pages 26-27 of the January 1 972 BCM Wolfgang Heidenfeld
( 1 9 1 1 - 1 980) threw a weighty spanner in the works:
'The opponent' s Zugzwang - the compulsion (as opposed to the right) to
make a move - enables a player to win - or draw, as the case may be - a
position which he could not otherwise win or draw. If the opponent had the
choice of moving or "passing" at his discretion, there would be no win or
draw. Once this criterion is lacking there is no Zugzwang. There may be a
complete blockade, with one side powerless to make any useful move - but
this is no real Zugzwang.'
On this basis Heidenfeld denied that the Sii.misch v Nimzowitsch game featured
Zugzwang at all. Observing that in the final position it would be more advanta
geous for White to move (e.g. 26 cl xbl 27 El.gfl ) than to pass, he suggested
that the 'Immortal Zugzwang Game nonsense' had resulted from 'the vanity of
Nimzowitsch' . He also disallowed Alekhine v Nimzowitsch, San Remo, 1 930
as an example of Zugzwang, notwithstanding Alekhine ' s claim in his second
Best Games collection. Similar arguments were outlined by Andy Soltis on
page 55 of Chess to Enjoy, and the current hesitancy over the exact meaning of
Zugzwang is highlighted by the contrasting entries for the word in the 1 984 and
1 992 editions of The Oxford Companion to Chess.
245

The debate is far from over, but in the meantime some further oddities about the
Siimisch v Nimzowitsch game may be recorded here. Although it apparently
won no brill iancy prize, Ludwig S tei nkohl put it in his 1 995 book 99
SchOnheitspreise aus 150 Schachjahren, calling the opening the Catalan, rather
than the Queen' s Indian Defence. AI Horowitz' s book All About Chess gave it
twice, with two different introductions. In presenting the closing position, Chess
Techniques by A.R.B. Thomas reversed the colours, stating that Nimzowitsch,
as White, won with the concluding move h3. (It is true, however, that in an
earlier round the two masters had played the same opening against each other,
with opposite colours and a minor transposition, up to White' s eighth move. )
Aaron Nimzowitsch Ein Leben .fii r das Schach b y Gero H. Marten (page 1 47)
asserted that Siimisch thought for an hour before resigning, whereas on
page 443 of Die Hypermoderne Schachpa rtie Tartakower, a participant in
the Copenhagen, 1 923 tournament, wrote that Siimi sch overstepped the time
limit. Although Tartakower concluded that page with the words 'The Immortal
Zugzwang Game ' , they were indented and in quotation marks, not necessarily
suggesting that Tartakower himself had originated the epitaph as is sometimes
believed.
Just as sacrifices are attractive because possession of material is usually an ad
vantage, the appeal of Zugzwang is that possession of the move is almost invari
ably desirable. Difficult to define and translate, Zugzwang is, in all its possible
forms, easy to enjoy. As the pri ze-winning Gerald Abrahams suggested on
page 3 8 of Brilliance in Chess (London, 1 977), 'of all chess situations, Zugzwang
( CC 1 997)
is the one most likely to stimulate mirth ' .

War Crimes
Harrowing charges of Nazi war crimes have been levelled against a chessmaster
who participated in the Kemeri, 1 937 tournament alongside such figures as
Alekhine, Fine, Flohr, Keres, Reshevsky and Tartakower. A densely-documented
1 2-page report in The Australia/Israel Review, Vol. 22 No. 14 ( 1 -22 October
1 997) states that Karlis Ozols 'executed thousands of Jews and liquidated entire
Latvian villages during World War II' . Among the specific claims are that on
1 July 1 94 1 he joined the Latvian Security Police in Riga; that in early 1 942 he
w a s tra i n e d at FUrs tenberg ( G erman y ) , an e s t a b l i s h m e n t run by the
Sicherheitsdienst (the security service of Himmler' s SS); that he commanded a
unit of about 1 00 Latvians which, between 24 July 1 942 and 27 September
1 943, assisted in the transportation, guarding and execution of Jews; that be
tween July 1 942 and September 1 943 over 1 0,000 Jews from the Minsk ghetto
were murdered, with Ozols personally carrying out some killings; that on 8-9
February 1 943 Ozols and l l 0 Latvians under his command assisted the S S to
kill more than 2,000 Jews of the Slutz ghetto. 'The killings [open-air shootings
and gas vans] were efficiently organised. Orders directly from Hitler were passed
down the SS hierarchy to the Latvian officers under their command. ' On 20 April
246

1 944 Ozols was promoted to the rank of Obersturmfiihrer and was decorated
with the KVK II (Kriegsverdienstkreuz - the War Merit Cross). The following
December, he disappeared.
Here we offer an overview of the chess career of Karlis Alexandrs Ozols, who
was born in 1 9 1 2. The birth-date given in standard chess sources is 9 October
(Gregorian calendar), but in a letter to us dated 7 November 1 98 8 Ozols wrote,
'my date of birth is 9th August 1 912, in Riga, Latvia ' . Sometimes it is stated
(e.g. in a feature on him on pages 288-289 of the I December 1 949 issue of the
Australian magazine Chess World) that he learned the moves of chess at 1 5 and
that two years later he drew against Emanuel Lasker in a simultaneous display,
but it has not proved possible to find details. A further two years on, he was
already competing in the Latvian Championship, finishing fifth. He studied Law
at the University of Riga.
Ozols was a member of the Latvian team at the Munich Olympiad in the sum
mer of 1 936. It came sixth out of 2 1 . Kurt Richter' s two-volume work on the
event gave none of Ozols' games but recorded that he scored +7 -I =7 . One
game, his loss (to B alogh of Hungary), appeared in a smaller book on the Olym
piad, Olympische Blitzsiege by E.J. Diemer (published in Kecskemet in 1 936).
Kemeri, 1 937 was Ozols' most testing tournament, an event in which Flohr,
Petrov and Reshevsky came joint first, ahead of Alekhine and Keres. Ozols
shared last place with Hasenfuss, whom he beat in their individual game:

K. Ozols-W. Hasenfuss, Kemeri, June 1 937. Dutch Defence.

1 c4 f5 2 f3 f6 3 g3 e6 4 .llg2 d5 5 0-0 c6 6 b3 Jle7 7 .llb 2 0-0 8 d3 bd7 9


bd2e8

10 e4 (Beginning a rare instance of the Excelsior theme. ) 10 . . . c5 1 1 e5 xd3


12 exf6 xb2 13 fxe7 xd1 14 exf8()+ xf8 15 flfxd1 f6 16 f\e1 .ild7 1 7
.\e5 .lle 8 18 f4 Eld8 19 .\df3 h6 20 h4 'it'h7 21 c 5 a 5 22 flacl .llh 5 23 'it'f2 i/e7
24 .\d4f6 25 .llf3 .llf7 26 'it'e3 Jlg8 27 .llh 5 g5 28 hxg5 hxg5 29 flhl 'it'g7 30
flh2 g4 31 flch1 e7 32 .llf7xc5 33 'it'd3b6 34 .\xe6+ 'it'f6 35 .\xd8 .ll x f7
36 .\d7+ Resigns .
Source: Das Grosse lntemationale Schachmeistertumier zu Kemeri in Lett/and
247

1 93 7 (published in Riga, 1 938), pages 1 1 4- 1 1 5 . Elsewhere (page 2 1 0) the book


commented: 'Ozols is a good strategist and expert on the openings, but his tac
tical play still leaves much to be desired. '
Shortly afterwards, h e represented Latvia i n the 1 937 Olympiad i n Stockholm,
scoring +2 -5 =3. His best-known game was against Peter Reid of Scotland, which
he won in eight moves, despite overlooking the win of a piece at move seven. The
score may be found on page 1 57 of A. FOldeak' s Chess Olympiads and on
page 1 09 of W.H. Cozens ' The Lost Olympiad. Reid died about two years later,
aged 27, in a climbing accident (BCM, September 1 939, pages 396-397).
Ozols' name more or less vanished from chess periodicals until after the War,
when he played in a few tournaments in Germany for 'displaced persons' (to
use the term in CHESS, January 1 948, page 89). These events included the
Mattison Memorial Tourney in Hanau (near Frankfurt) in 1 947, which was won
by his fellow Latvian Endzelins, ahead of Zemgalis, Bogoljubow and Honlinger.
Ozols was equal fifth.
His decision to settle in Australia was announced on page 1 59 of the 1 July 1 949
Chess World (a magazine edited by one of the finest of all chess writers, C.J.S.
Purdy). The 1 September 1 949 number (page 208) reported that Ozols had joined
the Melbourne Chess Club, and the 1 December 1 949 issue (page 288) presented a
photograph of him, together with the cross table of the Championship of Victoria,
which he had just won with a score of +9 -0 = 1 . 'Ozols has developed a very solid
style in the post-war years; like any master, he can be combinative when he likes. '
I n all, Ozols won the Championship of Victoria nine times between 1 949 and
1 97 1 , as is shown by the table on page 55 of Care for a Game - The Story of
Melbourne Chess Club by Robert Brooking, a booklet published in the mid1 980s. He also won the Australian Open Tournament in Melbourne in 1 949-50
and 1 95 1 -52, as well as, jointly, the Australian Championship in 1 956-57. He
became a naturalised Australian citizen on 17 October 1 956.
A selection of his most interesting games follows.

K. Ozols-C.J.S. Purdy, New South Wales v Victoria match, 1 4 October 1 950.


Irregular Opening.

1 4Jf3 d5 2 g3 g6 3 g2 g7 4 d4 c5 5 dxc5 4Ja6 6 c4! d4!? 7 c6! Elb8! 8 cxb7


.ll xb7 9 a4+ d7! 10 xd7+ <;>xd7 1 1 0-0 e5 1 2 4Jbd2 4Je7 1 3 4Jb3 Elhc8 14
4Jfd2 .ll x g2 15 <;>xg2 4Jf5 1 6 Eld1 <;>e6 17 4Je4! Elxc4 18 g4! 4Jd6 19 4:lxd6
xd6 20 e3 <;>e7? 2 1 exd4 exd4 22 .llf4 Elbc8 23 Ele1 + <;>f8 24 Elacl E\xcl 25
.lld6+! g8 26 4:\xcl Eld8 27 Aa3 4Jc7 28 4Jd3 Af8 29 Axf8 <;>xf8 30 Elcl 4Je6
31 b4 <;>e7 32 a4 Eld7 33 f4 d6 34 <;>f3 f5 35 gxf5 gxf5 36 4Je5! Elc7 37 Elxc7
4Jxc7 38 b5 4Jd5! 39 4Jc6 <;>c5 40 4:lxa7 d3
(See diagram, top of next page.)
248

41 a5! xf4 42 e3 c4 43 b6 d5+ 44 '<t>d2 b4 45 b7 a6 46 c6 f4 47 h4!


f3 48 e5+ '<t>b5 49 xd3 '<t>xa5 50 e3 '<t>b6 5 1 '<t>xf3 '<t>xb7 52 '<t>g4 c7 53
'<t>g5 d6 54 '<t>h6 '<t>e6 55 '<t>xh7 c7 56 '<t>g6 d5 57 h5 e7+ Drawn.
Source : Chess World, 1 November 1950, pages 249-252.
Purdy annotated the game, but only his punctuation is given above. His con
cluding note read, ' Moral: a single well advanced passed pawn, in combination
with pieces, can often successfully pit itself against two united passed pawns. '

R. Zile-K. Ozols, Australian Championship, Brisbane, 1951. Dutch Defence.

1 c4 f5 2 f3 f6 3 g3 g6 4 b3 Ag7 5 Ab2 c5 6 Ag2 0-0 7 0-0 c6 8 d3 d6 9


bd2 e5 10 e4 f4 1 1 h3 fxg3 1 2 fxg3 h5 1 3 '<t>h2 Ae6 1 4 e2 e7 1 5 Ac3
.llh6 16 gl d4 17 Axd4 cxd4 18 df3 f6 1 9 c2 af8 20 e2 .lle3 21 b4
b6 22 a4 g5 23 fgl .llf2 24 d2 g7 25 b5 g4 26 h4 h6 27 Ahl f6 28 '<t>g2
Ae3 29 el e7 30 xf8+ xf8 31 '<t>h2 f6 32 fl d8 33 g2

33 . . . f4 34 xf4 exf4 35 a2 xh4+ 36 gxh4 xh4+ and Black wins.


Source: Chess World, June 1951, pages 113-114.

K. Ozols-K. Reintals, Australian Championship, Brisbane, 1951. King 's Gambit


Accepted.

1 f4 e5 2 e4 exf4 3 f3 f6 4 c3 h5 5 .llc4 d6 6 d4 Ae7 7 0 -0 0-0 8 <tlel g6


9 Ae2 f6 10 .ll xf4 d5 1 1 e5 e8 1 2 Ah6 g7 1 3 d3 e8 14 .ll xg7 xg7 1 5
f4 c6 16 .lld3 d7 17 f3 f8 18 ael b6
249

1 9 <tlhS+ 'it>g8 20 <tlf6+ xf6 21 exf6 e6 22 f4 <tld7 23 .!:!e3 'it>h8 24 xg6


.g8 2S xh7 .!:!g4 26 h6 f8 27 'i!YhS . xg2+ 28 'it>xg2 4Jxf6 29 . xf6 g7+
and B lack resigned in view of 30 .!:!g3.
Source: Chess World, June 1951, pages 118-119.
Next, from the same event, 'a rollicking game ' which is ' another example of
Ozols' special variant of the Dutch Defence' .

G . Berzzarins-K. Ozols, Australian Championship, B ri sbane, 1951. Dutch


Defence.

1 d4 fS 2 e4 4Jf6 3 <tle3 g6 (Annotating a later Ozols game which opened the


same way, W.J. Geus wrote on page 140 of the July 1960 Chess World, ' Origi
nally tried in Russia, now completely adopted by Ozols, who deserves to have
his name attached to this variation. ' ) 4 g3 Ag7 S g2 4Je6 6 e3 0-0 7 4Jge2 d6
8 0-0 eS 9 Axe6 bxe6 1 0 dxeS 4Jg4 1 1 exd6 exd6 1 2 4Jd4 'i!Ye8 1 3 .b1 gS 1 4
<tlf3 g6 1 S d2 f4 16 exf4 gxf4 17 4Jh4 hS 18 4Je4 AfS 1 9 <tlxd6 xb1 20
xb1 fxg3 21 hxg3

2 1 . . .4Jxf2 22 . xf2 . xf2 23 'it>xf2 eS+ 24 'it>g2 xd6 2S f4 d4 26 <tlfS xe4


27 <tlxg7 dS+ 28 'it>h2 'it>xg7 29 cl .!:!e8 30 e3+ 'it>g8 31 Ae3 .!:!eS 32 g4
. e4 33 eS xeS 34 AxeS .!:!e2+ and Black won.
Source: Chess World, May 1952, page 113.
On page 1 of the January 1952 Chess World M.E. Goldstein wrote: ' With his
delicate sense of position and superlative end-game technique, Ozols impressed

250

me [at the 1951-52 Australian Open] as a polished master with but one psycho
logical weakness, a tendency to repeat certain openings of slightly inferior theo
retical value ' . Goldstein also said that Purdy, S teiner, Koshnitsky, Ozols,
Endzelins and Hanks 'form a band of six who could assure Australia of victory
in a six-boards match against any countries in the world except Russia, USA and
Yugoslavia' .

H. Andreasson-K. Ozols, Pietzcker Tourney (Australian Open), 1953-54. Pirc


Defence.

1 e4 d6 2 d4 g6 3 <tlc3 Ag7 4 Ae3 <tlf6 5 Ae2 0 -0 6 d2 <tlc6 7 0 -0 -0 <tlg4 8


Axg4 Axg4 9 f3 .lld7 1 0 .llh6 .ll xd4 l l .ll x f8 xf8 1 2 <\ge2 .llg7 13 g4 <tle5 14
e3 b5 1 5 h4 b4 1 6 <tld5 <tlc4 17 b3 <tlxb2 18 Eld4

18 . . . c5 19 xb2 a5 20 b3 cxd4 2 1 <tlb6 Ae6 22 <tld5 d8 23 Eldl .llx d5 24


exd5 b6 25 d3 c5 26 e4 a4 27 <tlxd4 b3 28 axb3 a3 29 b4 xb4 30 <tlb3
xe4 31 fxe4 a2 32 Resigns.
Source: Chess World, February 1954, pages 38-39.

0. Sarapu-K. Ozols, Australian Championship, Melbourne, 1957. French


Defence.

1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 c5 4 c3 <tlc6 5 <tlf3 b6 6 a3 c4 7 Ae2 Ad7 8 <tlbd2 .lle7


9 0 -0 f5 10 exf6 .ll xf6 1 1 Elel <tlge7 1 2 Afl 0 -0 1 3 b3 <tlxd4 14 cxd4 .ll xd4 1 5
Elbl .ll x f2+ 1 6 hl c3 1 7 <tlc4 dxc4 18 xd7 Axel 1 9 xe7 cxb3 20 .llc4
Elae8 21 g5 Elxf3 22 gxf3 b2 23 A4 c2 24 Ae5

24 . . . c7 25 Ad3 cl() 26 .ll x h7+ xh7 27 h5+ h6 28 xh6+ gxh6 29


xc7 Ac3 and Black won.
251

This game is annotated on pages 1 3 8- 1 39 of C.J.S. Purdy 's Fine Art of Chess
Annotation and Other Thoughts, compiled and edited by Ralph J. Tykodi. Sarapu
gained revenge two years later in a tournament in Sydney, a game he included
on pages 29-30 of his autobiography 'Mr Chess ' The Ortvin Sarapu Story.
A curiosity from this period was Ozols' game against B asta in the 1 958-59 Aus
tralian Championship in Sydney . As noted on pages 61 and 72 of the March
1 959 Chess World, B asta secured a draw under the 50-move rule in a middle
game position in which both players still had all their pawns.
Under the heading 'Wizard Strategy by Ozols ' , the next game was published on
pages 4-5 of the January 1 963 Chess World. It may also be found in the above
mentioned Tykodi book (pages 1 49- 1 50) .

G. Koshnitsky-K. Ozols, Australian Championship, Perth, 1 962-6 3 . Dutch


Defence.

1 4Jf3 f5 2 d4 4Jf6 3 g3 g6 ( 'The Dutch Indian or Leningrad System is known in


Australia as the Ozols Dutch . ' ) 4 Ag2 Ag7 5 c4 d6 6 0 -0 4Jc6 7 d5 4Je5 8 b3
4Jf7 9 Ae3 0-0 10 4Jc3 4Jg4 1 1 Ad4 4Jge5 1 2 E!ad1 h8 1 3 e4 4Jxf3+ 14 Axf3
4Je5 1 5 Ag2 f4 16 f3 Ad7 17 4Je2 g5 18 g4 b6 19 c3 a5 20 b3 e8 21 a3 h5
22 h3 g6 23 E!f2 h6 24 Afl M6 25 4Jcl g7 26 E!dd2 g8 27 4Je2 f7 28
Axe5 Axe5 29 4Jd4 E!h8 30 d3 E!h7 31 4Jf5 h8 32 E!fe2 hxg4 33 fxg4 f6
34 Ag2 E!hh8 35 fl

35 . . . b5 36 cxb5 a4 37 E!c2 E!hc8 ( ' Ozols is particularly good at recognising


when time is not of vital importance. ' ) 38 bxa4 E!xa4 39 b6 cxb6 40 E!xc8 Axc8
41 b3 E!a8 42 f2 Ad4+ 43 f3 Ac5 44 a4 e5 45 h4 Ad7 46 hxg5 E!xa4 47
g6+ xg6 48 Resigns .
K. Ozols-0. Weber, Melbourne (Pre-Zonal Quadrangular) , 1 96 3 . King 's
Gambit A ccepted.

1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 4Jf3 Ae7 4 Ac4 4Jf6 5 e5 4Jh5 6 0-0 0-0 7 4Jc3 d6 8 d4 Ag4
9 4Jd5 dxe5 10 dxe5 Ac5+ 1 1 h1 4Jc6 1 2 e1 E!e8 1 3 4Jxf4 Axf3
(See diagram, top of next page. )

14 e6 ( ' I wonder how many lesser brains would recapture automatically. This is
252

masterly play . ' - E.A. B asta.) 14 . . . Axg2+ 1 5 xg2 fxe6 16 f5 d4 17 Axe6+


xe6 18 xe6+ 'it>h8 19 Ag5 xb2 20 e1 Af8 21 Acl xc2 22 xh5 d8 23
d5 xd5 24 xd5 h6 25 f7 11.e7 26 f4 'it>h7 27 b3 f2 28 d3+ g8 29
e2 h4 30 g6 f6 31 xe7+ xe7 32 xe7 f3+ 33 'it>g1 g4+ 34 f2
'l*f5+ 35 'it>g3 g6+ 36 'it>h4 Resigns.
Source: Chess World, June 1963, page 93.
It was also in 1963 that Ozols won a tournament in Melbourne (+6 -0 =1) ahead
of Alexander Kotov, whom he beat in their individual game:

K. Ozols-A. Kotov, Melbourne, 1963. English Opening.

1 c4 d6 2 g3 g6 3 Ag2 Ag7 4 c3 e5 5 e3 e7 6 ge2 0 -0 7 0-0 bc6 8 d5


f5 9 d3 'it>h8 1 0 ec3 g5 1 1 f4 gxf4 1 2 gxf4 g6 1 3 h5 exf4 1 4 xf4 xf4 1 5
xf4 e5 16 h4 h6 17 e4 g4 18 d5 c6

L!lav
&i r {
W::
- - ..,
t.D
.
4i

,,
-
- -
ft
-1]


w
a

-,w;.

W////

1 9 xg4 fxg4 20 Axh6 g8 21 Ag5 cxd5 22 Axd8 xd8 23 xd5+ 'it>h8 24 d4


Ad7 25 h5+ 'it>g8 26 e5 Ae6 27 11.e4 d7 28 d5 W 29 h7+ 'it>f8 30 f5
e7 31 e6 c8 3211.d3 Axb2 33 fl Ad4+ 34 'it>h1 cc7 35 xg4 Resigns.
Source: Chess World, September 1963, page 130, October 1963, pages 154156, and November 1963, page 164.
In later years, Ozols concentrated on correspondence chess, not altogether sur
prisingly if it is recalled that pages 184-185 of the November 1962 Chess World
had commented, 'his trouble is nerves ' and that 'if Ozols could concentrate

253

solely on fighting his games, and not worry over grievances, his results would
do more justice to his mastery ' . He was awarded the International Correspon
dence Master title by FIDE in 1972. Our final game is a specimen of his postal
play which is to be found in a number of databases :

K. Ozols-Donnelly, Correspondence Olympiad, 1987. King 's Indian Defence.

1 c4 f6 2 c3 g6 3 e4 d6 4 d4 g7 5 f3 c6 6 e3 a6 7 a4 a5 8 e5 fd7 9 f4
a6 1 0 f3 b4 1 1 e2 b6 1 2 h3 M5 1 3 Elcl f6 1 4 exf6 exf6 1 5 d5 c5 1 6
0 -0 e7 1 7 Af2 0-0-0 18 Ele1 fl 1 9 b5 M8 2 0 fl Elg8

21 fd4 cxd4 22 xd4 d7 23 a7 a6 24 a8+ ab8 25 xa5 c5 26


a7+ "'d7 27 b4 Resigns.
Ozols has never been prosecuted for war crimes. A detailed inquiry into his
wartime record was carried out in Australia by a Special Investigations Unit,
which concluded that he was ' the highest ranking alleged war criminal living
in Australia' . The Unit prepared detailed evidence against him, on which the
report by The Australia/Israel Review was to draw extensively, and in June
1992 the Senior Counsel advised the Director of Public Prosecutions that a prima
facie case existed against Ozols concerning war crimes and genocide. However,
that same month the Federal Government shut down the Unit. The Director of
Public Prosecutions wished to continue, but was stopped by the Attorney Gen
eral. The case was closed.
For his part, Ozols refused to talk to the Review. In a 1979 interview he stated
that he had been in Riga when the Germans had arrived in 1941, that former
officers of the Latvian reserve had been asked to offer their services and that he
had merely carried out guard duties.*
(CC I997)

Bones
From CHESS (14 February 1939, page 209):
*Acknowledgment for a copy of the Australia/Israel Review report: Professor W.O. Rubinstein
of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth.

254

'Herr Bredwalt was passionately devoted to chess. He decreed that, after


his death, a set of chessmen should be made from his bones. The request
was duly carried out, so Herr Bredwalt will play chess for maybe a century
or more yet.'
The item was inevitably headed 'Chess in his bones ! '

(CC 1 998)

Wilde
Referring to Oscar Wilde on page 261 of the December 1953 Chess World,
C.J.S. Purdy wrote 'Wylde' . The misspelling brought forth a clever correction
from a reader, R. Jackson, on page 8 of the January 1954 issue:
'Sir,
Why do you spell Wilde with a Y ?
Was not the man lord o f the I?
Now he shouts from the Shades,
Whether furnace or glades,
"Purdytion take Purdi ' s damned Y".'

(CC 1 998)

Poem censored
Wordsworth Donisthorpe (1847-1914) may be the only person to have suffered
'censorship' over a chess poem. Pages 138-139 of the January 1895 Chess
Monthly published a 'British Chess Club Alphabet' . Two extracts :
'B stands for Bernard, the chessplayers ' Nemesis ;
For daily and nightly h e lives o n the premises . '
'R stands for Reeves, whom the public entrusts,
With the busting of openings and opening of busts . '
Thirty years later (BCM, March 1925, page 127) i t was reported that The Chess
Monthly had deleted the rhyming couplet regarding one prominent member of
the British Chess Club, Professor Klein:
' K stands for Klein, the bacillus ' s horror
At chess I would back the bacillus termorrer. '

(CC 1 998)

Janowsky jottings
' Even at New York, 1924, the masters agreed that for the first four hours of play
Janowsky was equal to any player in the world. ' So declared the obituary of

255

Janowsky on pages 28-30 of the February 1927 American Chess Bulletin, which
also stated that around the first few years of the century he 'was the strongest
player in the world' . Without going that far, Capablanca wrote in My Chess
Career that Janowsky had been 'one of the most feared of all the players' . In
Diario de Ia Marina of 20 April 1913 the Cuban mentioned that Janowsky' s
best period was 'around 1902'.
Ossip Bernstein gave the following assessment on page 15 of the January 1956
Chess Review:
'Janowsky was no chess scientist or theoretician. He knew what he had to
do on the chessboard; but he did not know, or could not explain, why it had
to be done. He had only two rules in chess: always attack; always get the
two bi shops (and, indeed, he u sed the advantage of the two bishops
wonderfully) . His main strength, indeed, was his extraordinary intuition,
which gave him the exact feeling for what to do and how to do it. '
The didactic value of Janowsky' s handling of the bishop pair was also stressed
by Alekhine. Writing in 1945, he noted that the prodigy Arturo Pomar had not
yet learned the value of the two bishops and advised that 'it would be very
profitable for him to study the best games of Janowsky' . (Source jLegado! by
Alekhine, page 125.)
A prime characteristic of Janowsky' s playing style was its sheer energy, not to
say restlessness. Little more than 20% of his tournament and match games were
drawn. 'II n 'est pas dans mon temperament d 'attendre' , he once declared (BCM,
June 1909, page 261). His temperament has, in fact, attracted far more attention
than his games or results, yet he was, for instance, the only master apart from
Tarrasch to beat the first four world champions, Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca
and Alekhine. In all, he scored a dozen victories against them. Today, few
brilliancies from his long career are kept alive, and only one book has been
devoted to him, published in Russian in 1987. His country of origin (Poland)
has done no more for his memory than have his adopted homelands (France and
the United States).
Dawid Markelowicz Janowsky (born 1868) was the last of the unsuccessful
challengers for Lasker' s world championship title (Berlin, November-December
1910, a severe defeat). It is, or should be, well known that the two players ' ten
game match in Paris the previous year had not been for the world title, contrary
to the assertions of such historical analphabets as Jonathan Speelman ( The
Observer of 19 April 1998). In that same article Speelman gave a position from
a familiar game in the match, and wrote, 'I had never seen it before' . The position
was incorrect.
There follow some neglected Janowsky combinations from off-hand play:

256

From a knight' s odds game between D. Janowsky and S . David, Paris, 1891 or
1892.

19 Axg7+ 'itt xg7 20 . xh7+ 'itt xh7 21 f6+ 'itth8 22 h5+ and mate in two.
Source: Deutsche Schachzeitung, February 1892, pages 50-51.

Play went: 16 V!ftxa7+ '3lxa7 1 7 axb6+ 'itlb7 18 . a7+ 'ittc6 1 9 . xc7+ 'ittb 5 20
4Jc2 (20 c4+ would have saved a move.) 20 . . . 4Jec6 2 1 c4+ '3la6 22 .a1 + 4Ja5
23 4Jb4 mate.
Source: Deutsche Schachzeitung, May 1892, page 152.
The position below is also from a Paris game, which Janowsky (White) played
blindfold:

257

1 4Jxg6xg6 2 Axf5 xf5 3 xg8+ Axg8 4 . xe7+ 'it'f8 5 . xd8 mate.


Source : Deutsche Schachzeitung, November 1893, page 345.

Friedman-D. Janowsky, Paris, 1894.

l . . .h4 2 4Jxd4 4Jg3+ 3 hxg3 hxg3+ 4 'it'gl Axd4+ 5 .f2 Axf2+ 6xf2 .dl + 7
fl .hl + 8 'it'xhl . xfl mate.
Source : BCM, September 1894, page 355 and November 1894, page 452.

Robino-D. Janowsky, Paris .

l ... M5 2 4Jxf5d2+ 3 'it'bl dl + 4 Acl xcl + 5 'it'xcl Aa3+ 6 'it'bl .dl mate.
Source: La Strategie, 15 April 1898, page 118.

Coulomzine-D. Janowsky, Paris .

258

29 . . . g6 30 'it>h2 4Jd2 3 1 gl e2 32 '1Wxd8+ 'l!txd8 33 xd2 'l!txd2 34 4Jxd2


xg2+ 35 xg2 el('IW) 36 e2 'l!thl + 37 'it>g3 'l!tgl + 38 'it>h4 g5+ 39 c,t?h5 gxf4
40 e5 and Black mated in three moves.
Source: La Strategie, 15 November 1898, page 344. Typically complex Janowsky
play, although various short-cuts were possible (3 l . . . xg2+, 33 . . . -l!th4 and

39 . . . '1Wg3).

Janowsky was White in this position from a game at the Manhattan Chess Club,
New York. He played 1 4Ja6+ c,t?a8 2 4Jxc7+ 'it>b8 3 4Ja6+ 'it>a8 4 b7 e2 5
b8+ xb8 6 4Jc7 mate.
Source: American Chess Bulletin, March 1918, page 69.
A specimen of his play in a consultation game :

D. Janowsky-Dobell, Mackeson and Watt, Hastings, 1 September 1897. Ruy


LOpez.

1 e4 e5 2 4Jf3 4Jc6 3 -'tb5 4Jf6 4 o-o 4Jxe4 5 el 4Jd6 6 4Jxe5 -'te7 7 Ad3 4Jxe5
8 xe5 0-0 9 4Jc3 M6 1 0 e3 g6 1 1 b3 4Je8 1 2 .ila3 d6 1 3 4Jd5 Ag5 1 4 f4 .ilh6
1 5 Ab2 Ae6 16 'l!tf3 c6 1 7 4Jc3 d5

18 f5 d4 19 fxe6 fxe6 20 'l!th3 Axe3+ 21 dxe3 dxc3 22 xe6+ '<t>h8 23 Axc3+


4Jg7 24 dl e8 25 h3 t=!d8 26h6 l:'=!d7 27 h3 b5 28 l:'=!d2 'it>g8 29 e4 'l!te7
30 c,t?hl 'l!tc5 31 Ab2 4Jh5 32 '<t>h2 t=!df7 33 Ae2 4Jf4 34 Ag4 '1Wb4 35 t=!d4 '!tel
3 6 l:'=!d7 t=!xd7 37 Axd7 t=!f7 38 Ae8 '1Wxe4 39 .ilxf7+ '<t>xt7 40 'l!txh7+ '<t>e8 4 1
'l!th8+ '<t>d7 4 2d4+ xd4 4 3 .ilxd4 a 6 4 4 g4 '<t>e6 4 5 h4 and White won.
259

Source: BCM, October 1 897, pages 395-396. Janowsky played four games
simultaneously against teams of three players.
Now a sample of Janowsky' s annotations to one of his games:

G. Marco-D. Janowsky Sixth match game, 13 June 1 904. King 's Gambit Declined.*
1 e4 e5 2 f4 Ac5 3 'iif"f3 ( ' An innovation meriting consideration. ' * * ) 3 . . . 4Jc6 4
c3 d6 5 Ac4 4Jf6 ('5 . . . Ae6 was stronger. ' ) 6 d3 0-0 ( 'Premature, in view of the
ease with which White sets up a king' s-side attack. Here too 6 . . . Ae6 would be
much better. ' ) 7 f5 ( 'Hemming in the enemy queen' s bishop and threatening g4,
followed by h4. ' ) 7 . . . d5 8 b3 ('8 xd5 4Jxd5 9 exd5 4Je7 1 0 g4 'iit" x d5, etc.
and 8 exd5 e4 9 dxe4 4Je5 10 'iif"e 2 4Jxc4 1 1 'iit" x c4 4Jxe4, etc. would be to
White ' s disadvantage. ' ) 8 . . . dxe4 9 dxe4 'iit" d6 10 Ag5 ( 'With 10 g4 he could
have put his opponent in a very tricky position. ' ) 10 . . . h6 1 1 xf6 ( 'The reply to
1 1 h4 would have been 1 l . . . .d8.') 1 l . . . 'iit" xf6 1 2 4Jd2 .d8 ( 'Taking possession
of the open file and having in mind the possibility of being able, if necessary
later on, to escape with the king via f8 and e7. ' ) 1 3 0-0-0 a5 ( ' To set up a
counter-attack and chase the bishop away from the very awkward diagonal which
it occupies. ' ) 14 h4 ( ' In positions of this kind there is rarely time to defend, and
victory goes to the player who can attack the fastest. ' ) 14 . . . a4 15 c2 b5 16
4Je2 b4 17 g4 bxc3 ( ' Too soon. 17 . . . a6, threatening 1 8 . . . Axe2, followed by
19 . . . bxc3, would have been much stronger. ' ) 18 4Jxc3 ( 'Forced, for if 18 bxc3
then 18 . . . a3+, etc . ' ) 18 . . . 4Jd4 1 9 'iit"g 2 a3 20 g5 ('20 b3 would be more solid. ' )
2 0 . . . axb2+ 2 1 b1 'iit"c6 22 gxh6 ( 'He has n o time to play 22 f6 because of
22 ... Ab4 . ' ) 22 . . . 'iit" xh6 23 4Jb3 3 24 4Jb5 ( ' A tempting move, the consequences
of which White did not examine sufficiently closely . ' )

2 4 . . . 4Jxb5 ( 'The attack h e obtains provides ample compensation for the sacrifice
of the exchange . ' ) 25 . xd8+ h7 26 . d3 ( 'If 26 'iif"g3 then 26 . . . . b8, threatening
mate in a few moves by 27 . . . 'iit"c 1 +. After 27 .dd1 , Black wins with 27 . . . 'iit" c 6. ' )
*This was the final game of a match (won by Janowsky witb a score of +4 -2 =0) which was played
on board S.S. Pretoria as Marco and Janowsky returned to Europe after their success at the
Cambridge Springs tournament. During their journey out to America, on the same ship, eight
masters (including Marco and Janowsky) had played a consultation game, tbe score of which is
given on pages 1 1 1 - 1 1 2 above.
**In fact, 3 'iol'f3 was played twice by Charousek in 1 896, against Showalter and Mar6czy.

260

26 . . . b8 27 g5 ( 'He was threatened with 27 . . :cl + 28 xc1 bxcl()+ 29


xcl <\c3+ and mate next move. ' ) 27 . .. Aa6 28 d2 Ac5 29 hh3 <\d4 30 b3
( ' After 30 dg3 Ab4 31 <\b3 xc2 32 xc2 c5 the loss of a piece is inevitable. ' )
30 . . . xb3 31 Axb3 f6 3 2 xh6+ ( ' If 3 2 g2 then 3 2 . . . .1lb4, etc . ' ) 3 2 . . . xh6 33
xb2 ( ' Material is now level, but B lack has the better pawns, two bishops and a
superior position. ' ) 33 . . . d8 ( 'Decisive . ' ) 34 c2 ( ' If 34 f3 h5, etc . , and if
34 c4 d4, etc . ' ) 34 . . . Ab4 35 b1 .llb7 36 Resigns. ( 'His e-, f- and h-pawns
cannot be defended. ' )
Source: La Strategie, 21 September 1904, pages 263-264.
Janowsky was active in chess play until the end. An onlooker at the 1925
Marienbad tournament wrote on page 295 of the July 1925 BCM: 'Janowsky,
gaunt, cadaverous, but with a ready smile which lights up his whole face, goes
up to the two or three ladies who sit there waiting, and makes one of his many
little witticisms about the other players . "Have you seen so and so? He sway to
and fro, to and fro. If he do it much more, I tell him he make me sea-sick" . '
A t Semmering, 1926 Janowsky was still winning remarkable games, including
one against Rubinstein. He died on 15 January 1927 in Hyeres (France) . The
Wiener Schachzeitung (February 1927, page 30) described him as 'one of the
greatest masters of the royal game ' . Page 191 of Ludwig B achmann ' s
Schachjahrbuch 1 92 7 called him a genius. The obituary writer in L 'Echiquier
(January 1927, page 552), who had seen him a few months previously in Ghent,
reported on the ' sunken eyes behind large spectacles' of a master who had been
'one of the greatest players of his time' . John Keeble noted on pages 103-104 of
the March 1927 BCM that Janowsky had arrived in Hyeres in December 1926
for a tournament due to begin there the following month. He was diagnosed as
being in the final stage of tuberculosi s . In Keeble ' s words, Janowsky ' was
absolutely without means and in a dying state. A lonely man (he had never
married), no relatives near to him, no religion, no income and apparently no
friends, for he was not really a sociable man to make them. What a sad end to a
(CC 1 998)
successful career devoted almost wholly to chess.'

D. Janowsky

PaulMorphy

261

v
Gaffes

Mates missed
It is always interesting to see little-known specimens of mates missed by the
masters . An example follows from pages 2 1 5-2 1 6 of The Australasian Chess
Review of 20 August 1 93 3 :

W . Winter-J. Gemme, Folkestone Olympiad, 2 1 June 1 933. English Opening.

1 c4 e5 2 .Jf3 .Jc6 3 .Jc3 .Jf6 4 d4 exd4 5 .Jxd4 Ab4 6 Ag5 h6 7 Ah4 0 -0 8


E!cl .Je5 9 e3 .Jg6 1 0 Ag3 .Je4 1 1 Ad3 Axc3+ 1 2 bxc3 .Jxg3 1 3 hxg3 .Je5 14
Ab1 d6 1 5 i*c2 f5 1 6 E:th5 i*e8 1 7 i*e2 .Jg4 18 Eth4 g5 19 .ll x f5 .Jxf2 20 E! xh6
.ll xf5 2 1 i*xf2 Ad3 22 .Jf3 g4 23 E!d1 Ae4 24 E! d4 gxf3 25 gxf3 E! xf3 26 i*h2
'l;g7 27 i*h4 M5 28 Etg4+ Axg4 29 i*g5+ 'l;f7 30 Eth7+ 'ifte6 31 '/!i"xg4+ 'ifte5
32 'l!i"g5+ 'ifte4 33 'lth4+ 'iftd3 34 'ltd4+ <it>c2 35 Eth2+ 'l;b1 36 i*d1 mate.
However, in the following month ' s issue (20 September 1 93 3 , page 244) G.H.
Brown mentioned that W.W. missed the mate 33 i*d5+ 'l;xe3 34 i*d4.
(213)
Alan Slomson points out that William Winter also missed 28 'ltf6+ <it>g8 29 E:th8
mate, as noted by Reinfeld in the tournament book (page 1 1 4).
(259)
Kemeny overlooked a mate in one in a game he won against Pillsbury.

E. Kemeny-R.N. Pillsbury, Philadelphia, 30 October 1 895 . Evans Gambit


A ccepted.

1 e4 e5 2 .Jf3.Jc6 3 Ac4 Ac5 4 b4 Axb4 5 c3 Ad6 6 d4 .Jf6 7 0-0 0-0 8 .Jbd2


i*e7 9 Ad3 .Je8 10 .Jc4 f6 1 1 .Je3 g6 1 2 .Jd5 i*d8 1 3 Ae3 Ae7 14 .Jd2 d6 1 5
f4 .Jg7 1 6 f5 g5 1 7 h4 gxh4 1 8 'l!i"g4 'ifth8 1 9 xh4 'ltd7 20 'iftf2 Ad8 2 1 E!h1
.Je8 22 Eth3 .Ja5 23 Etah1 Ett7 24 Ae2 Etg7 25 Ah5 'iftg8 26 .ll x e8 xe8 27
i*xh7+ E! xh7 28 E! xh7 Axf5 29 exf5 i*f8 30 E:th8+ <:tlf7 31 Etlh7+ i*g7 32 Ab6
xh7 33 Etxh7+ 'iftg8 34 Etg7+ 'l;h8 35 .Je4 Resigns.
The mating move need hardly be indicated . . .
Source of the score : page 26 7 of Harry Nelson Pillsbury American Chess
26 2

Champion by Jacques N. Pope, which took the score from the New York Daily
Tribune of 3 1 October 1 895 but did not point out the missed mate. ( CC 1 998)

Capablanca v Alekhine
One might expect chess writers to be capable of reporting correctly the basic
details of, at least, a famous event such as the 1 927 world championship match
between Capablanca and Alekhine. It took place in Buenos Aires in 1 927. There
were 34 games, and Alekhine won with a score of +6 -3 =25 .
On page 1 0 of 100 Classics of the Chessboard, A.S.M. Dickins and H. Ebert
state that the match took place in New York.
On page 1 6 3 of The Literature of Chess, John Graham wrote: 'The end result?
Alekhine won by four games to three with 25 draws ! '
On page 1 4 of Karpov-Korchnoi 1978 b y Raymond Keene: ' Matches varied in
length from ten games (Lasker-Schlechter 1 9 1 0) to thirty-five (Capablanca
Alekhine 1 927) . '

Ibid., page 1 24: ' Most commentators were predicting a long match and the record
of thirty-five games held by Capablanca v Alekhine 1 927 appeared in danger. '

Ibid., page 1 38 : ' . . . the thirty-five games of the 1 927 Capablanca-Alekhine match' .
Page 50 of the Larousse du jeu d 'echecs states that the match lasted three months,
and page 37 1 says that Alekhine was proclaimed world champion after the 27th
match game.
(585, 889 & 1015)

Cheating
A quote from page 1 02 of J. Platz ' s Chess Memoirs, concerning the two Laskers :
' ...1 personally have witnessed when Edward came to Emanuel j ust to "show"
him an interesting endgame position. And everybody who knew Emanuel
Lasker knows that he would never ask: "Who is White and who is Black?"
but go right down to the analysis of the position and get deeply involved
with it. And that is how Dr Edward Lasker got a thorough analysis of a
position which in reality was one of his adj ourned tournament games !
Emanuel Lasker never knew the truth . '

From pages 30-3 1 o f Chess for Fun & Chess for Blood b y Edward Lasker:
'Some contestants think nothing of showing adjourned positions to stronger
26 3

players and asking their advice. In fact, they have grown so accustomed to this
unfair practice they are almost no longer capable of realising that what they do
is just plain cheating, whether sanctioned by usage or not. '
( 747 & 81 1 )

Graham
From a review of Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess on pages 26-27 of that wretched
book The Literature of Chess by John Graham:
Page 26: 'The book is confusing ! '
Page 27: ' an ideal gift for a beginner' .
A further sample showing Mr Graham' s unique grasp of his subject:
Page 49: (on a Horowitz openings book) : 'This is, at first sight, a massive volume
(790 pages), which simply duplicates the MCO by presenting all playable lines
of all chess openings. '
Page 74: (regarding Modern Ideas in Chess) : 'The word "modem" refers to
1942 when Reti first recorded these ideas . ' Reti died in 1929.
Page 75: we learn that Tarrasch was a hypermodern player.
Page 89: (on Nimzowitsch): ' He has [sic] not much of an author. '
Page 132: Morphy 'visited Paris in 1867 during the American Civil War' .
Page 161: 'Anderssen was given recognition as the best after Morphy' s death . '
Anderssen predeceased Morphy by five years .
Page 175: Reinfeld' s Great Games by Chess Prodigies: half-way through the
review, Graham starts calling the author Horowitz.
Page 184: 'Alekhine died in Spain' . (Same error on page 211.)
Page 189: Botvinnik ' s One Hundred Selected Games: 'Curiously, in 1936 he
does not mention the Nottingham Tournament. . . ' Curiously, he does in our copy .
One could give countless examples of misspellings of names, and Graham' s
remarks o n translating (page 141) and a Roizman book ( ' An understanding of
Russian limited to recognition of Cyrillic characters is sufficient to decipher
players ' names, but not enough to read annotations' - page 158) are sufficient
proof that he is no linguist. Blending in with all this are the author' s criticisms of
the writing of others. On page 179 we are warned to treat a book ' w i th
circumspection. There are errors . ' Another title (page 196) is sternly rebuked:

264

'More care should have been taken in publishing. There are several mistakes. ' (889)

Dake's loss
From Chess Panorama by William Lombardy and David Daniels (page 105):
' Another way in which it is possible to annoy an opponent with impunity is
to offer him a draw after every move. While it is true that the American
master Arthur Dake was once forfeited against then world champion
Capablanca for repeatedly offering a draw, this is the only recorded instance,
and it may well be doubted if the forfeit would have been imposed had the
positions been reversed . '
Another instance of matter-of-fact fiction. Dake played Capa only once (when
the Cuban was no longer champion), at New York, 1931. Hooper and Gilchrist' s
book on Capablanca' s games remarks: 'This was the only time that Capablanca
won a lost endgame . ' An interview with Dake in the December 1984 Chess
Life (page 30) shows that he simply threw away the game through a series of
(900)
blunders/weak moves due to over-confidence.
It is possible that Lombardy and Daniels were thinking of the game between
Dake and Turover at New York, 1931. John Rather supplies a copy of page 96
of the May-June 1931 American Chess Bulletin, which contains Alvin C. Cass'
adjudication of a dispute in which Dake was forfeited for distracting Turover in
a time scramble, although there was no question of persistent draw offers. ( 1 088)

Capa's contradiction
This well-known position occurred in the tenth match game between Lasker and
Capablanca, Havana, 1921:

What did Capablanca think of his opponent' s 44 \t>e2? In his match book
(page 24) he writes, 'Not a mistake, but played deliberately. White had no way to
protect his QKtP' . Similarly, in A Primer of Chess he commented, 'There is no way
for White to save his QKtP. White's next move is not, therefore, a blunder' .

265

However, in notes reproduced in Homenaje a Capablanca the Cuban writes,


(92 1 )
'White' s next move is a blunder which facilitates Black ' s task' .
I n Mei n Wettkampfmit Capablanca Lasker gave 44 'it'e2 a question mark, without
further elucidation. Richard Forster comments :

'The point is that after 44 e l .Ja5 45 d2l!xb3 (45. . . .Jxb3?46 c2)46


l!xb3 .Jxb3+, the rooks are exchanged and White has better drawing chances
than in the game, where Black retains his active rook. '

Abysmal
On page 9 of The Moscow Challenge Raymond Keene wrote that it was
' staggering' that Steinitz had an 'abysmal' tournament record in his period as
world champion ( 1 886 - 1 894 ) . The truth is that Steinitz did not play in a single
tournament during the period under consideration.
(976)
On page 256 of the June 1 985 BCM Mr Keene made the astounding claim that
'in calling Steinitz ' s tournament record "abysmal" he was criticising it on the
grounds of lack of activity ' . By that logic, we pointed out on page 305 of the
July 1 985 issue, given that Fischer has played in no tournaments since 1 970 his
tournament record since then could be labelled ' abysmal ' . *

Competition
Alan S lomson writes:

'I would like to suggest that you institute a "Historical Blunder of the Year "
Competition. For this, I should like to nominate the following extract from
the book Kasparov v Karpov, published by Chequers:
"Not since the inaugural world championship match of 1 886 had the
players been required to move house in the middle of the battle." (Note
before Game 1 3 )

This mistake is particularly remarkable since I doubt whether many people


carry in their head the venues of all the world championship matches, and
any recourse to a reference book would be bound to show the error of this
statement. '
Any other bungled history nominations? Our Jose Alexandrovich Lasker award
*Mr Keene' s ignorance of Steinitz was also demonstrated on page 35 of his volume Duels of the
Mind, where he stated that Steinitz published a book called Modem Chess Theory. No such work

exists.

266

awaits the proud winner.

(1316)

Unnecessary loss
The following game is to be found on pages 1 0- 1 1 of Chemev' s 1000 Best Short
Games of Chess, as well as pages 96 -97 of Chess Traps, Pitfalls, and Swindles
by Horowitz and Reinfeld:

N.N.-Beis, Germany, 1 940. Falkbeer Counter-Gambit.


1 e4 e5 2 f4 d5 3 4)f3 dxe4 4 4)xe5 4)c6 5 Ab5 4Jf6 6 4)xc6 bxc6 7 Axc6+ Ad7

8 Axa8 Ag4 ( 'Boom ! There goes the queen and the game' - Chemev. )
However, in Chess Life & Review, August 1 978 (page 438) a reader, Don
Reckseen, pointed out that White could keep going with 9 Axe4 Axd1 10 Ac6+,
followed by 1 1 'it'xdl . Confirming this, John Peters gave the line 9 . . .'e7 1 0 d3
and said that instead of 8 .ilxa8 White could have achieved approximate equality
with 8 Axd7+ xd7 9 d3. We note that page 8 of Falkbeer Counter-Gambit
edited by Colin Leach says that the moves up to 8 . . . Ag4 also occurred in a game
Tartakower v Gruber, Vienna, 1 9 1 9.
(1656)

Thinker
On page 1 8 of volume 1 of The Best of Chess Life and Review B ruce Pandolfini
calls AI Horowitz ' the most influential chess thinker in the country ' . Poor
America.
(1 768)

Mr Larry Evans
Larry Evans' column in Chess Life continues to be unspeakable. In a letter dated
4 January 1 989 we informed him:
' The February "Best Question" prize is awarded to two readers who commit
the blunder of attributing to Capablanca an endgame study by Troitzky,
even though a correspondent pointed out in your own column (March 1 97 4,
page 1 99) that it was Troitzky' s composition and not the Cuban ' s .
Moreover, you are wrong to congratulate the prize-winners o n being "the first
to find the right solution". The complete drawing line was given in the 2/ 1 973
Shakhmaty v SSSR and issue 32 of the endgame studies magazine EG. ' (1844)
Mr Evans ignored our request for the record to be corrected, and we therefore
wrote to Chess Life:
' . . .h e has refused t o publish a correction. The reason, according t o M r Larry
267

Parr (USA Today Network, 2 April 1 990), is that it is unimportant whether


the study is attributed to Capablanca or Troitzky. I hope that you will show,
by publishing the present letter, that you do not share that attitude to historical
truth . '
Our letter was indeed published, o n page 6 6 o f the October 1 990 Chess Life.

Frank Marshall
All reference books claim that Frank J. Marshall died in 1 944, but the consensus
has now been broken by Raymond Keene in The Complete Book of Gambits.
Page 8 1 has a game which is headed ' Lewitzky-Marshal l, B reslau 1 99 1 ' ,
and page 1 84 presents 'Marshall-Duras, San Sebastian 1 99 1 ' .*
( 1 944)

Revelation of the century


Nimzowitsch was 'one of the great masters of nineteenth-century chess ' . (From
an article by David Spanier on pages 42-44 of the B ritish Airways magazine
High Life, May 1 992. )
(K 1 993)
Another writer whose concern about chess history is seemingly limited to its
name-dropping potential has now come up with: 'the 1 9th-century master Siegbert
Tarrasch' .
Source: page 2 of Nigel Short: Questfor the Crown by Cathy Forbes. (K 1993-94)

Howlers and chicanery


Harry Golombek' s book Capablanca 's Hundred Best Games of Chess has highly
inaccurate biographical material and results tables. Some examples were given
in C.N. 1 080, but the BCM took no notice when it reprinted the book in 1 989.
It gave just a cursory errata slip (which was itself wrong about a ' missing '
tournament (Hastings, 1 929-30), since it claimed that Capablanca scored three
draws, instead of five) .
On 22 November 1 989, quoting a large number of examples, we informed the

BCM Editor that many obvious factual errors had not been corrected. Our letter
was ignored for three years, until the BCM (October 1 992, page 520) found an
exquisitely deceitful way of using it to ridicule us: out of all our corrections the
magazine simply mentioned one (regarding Hastings, 1 929-30), thus deluding
its readers into believing that our complaint about the book merely concerned a
single matter of detail .
*The book naturally has many other clangers, such a s the statement o n page 3 1 that i t was Tarrasch,
rather than A1ekhine, who won their game at Pistyan, 1922.

268

T o set the record straight (about this and other issues), on 5 October 1 992 we
wrote another letter to the BCM Editor. Naturally it too was suppressed. (1951 ) *

Pillsbury's last game


On page I 0 of the November 1 992 Chess Life A. Soltis said that Pillsbury ' s last
published game was against Marshall in 1 904. Not so. C.N. 1 673 gave the score
of Pillsbury v Edward Hymes, Philadelphia, May 1 905, which had been printed
in the New Orleans Times-Democrat of l S June 1 905 and the June 1 905 American
Chess Bulletin (page 226) . Mr Soltis was therefore also wrong to suggest on
page 50 of his 1 990 book on Pillsbury, written with Ken Smith, that the Hymes
game 'has apparently been lost' .
(1 954)

Book title
Such is the insouciance of some chess publishers and authors that even the title
of a book may be wrong. In 1 990 Chess Enterprises, Inc . (USA) published a 58page monograph by Eric Schiller entitled Janowski-lndian Defence - 1 d4 4Jf62
c4 e 6 3 4Jc3 .JJ.f5. As well as being on the front cover, the same sequence of
moves (i.e. with . . . e6 instead of . . . d6) appeared in large characters on the title
page and in the heading to the introduction.
(1 963)

How to Play
Chess and How to Play It, a 90-page book by B . Scriven, was brought out by
Universal Publications Ltd. in the late 1 930s. There is no reason to dispute the
preface ' s avowal that 'you may not be able to beat Capablanca when you come
to the last page' . Some snippets :
' In chess, however, the sole aim is to attack the opponent' s king . ' (page 32)
' Of course, another form of drawn game arises when both players are so
weakened that neither has the strength to check the other.' (page 34)
' Knights can do a great deal of damage which is only apparent when it is
done. ' (page 4 1 )
' Before making a move, note all the consequences . ' (page 49)
'Of the three stages, the beginner would do well to pay particular attention
to the first and last. If he can open well and if he can deliver a subtle check,
*See also our review of Capablanca books in the algebraic notation, on pages 362-367 below. This
shows that the BCM neglected to correct about 150 factual mistakes.

269

that will be much more than two-thirds of the battle. In fact, if the game is
opened well, the middle game will largely take care of itself. ' (page 50)
Pages 59-60 give the moves of a model game (beginning 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3
-'tc4 h4+) without any heading other than 'The Morphy Opening ' , but the
same score is repeated on pages 88-89 with more information: 'An Anderssen
Kieseritzki Game' . It is indeed Anderssen' s Immortal, though Mr Scriven calls
it 'a recent County Championship Game' .
( 1 965)

Monaco
Page 18 of the January 1929 BCM reported that on 11 November 1928 Capablanca
had given a simultaneous display in Monaco.
The entry on Hans Fahrni* in Golombek' s Encyclopedia (hardback and paperback
editions) stated that in 1909 the Swiss player won a tournament in Monaco.
Page 24 of Arrabal' s book Echecs et mythe said that in 1934 Tarrasch died in
Monaco.
In each instance, the place in question is Munich. The mix-up presumably stems
from Monaco in Italian meaning either Munich or Monaco.
( 1 9 78)

Another blunder
'Chess games were first recorded towards the end of the eighteenth century . '
Raymond Keene, The Times, 16 November 1991 (Saturday Review, page 53). ( K 1993)

Botvinnik effaced
Ed Tassinari has sent us a photocopy of the New York Times obituary (28 March
1993) of Reuben Fine by Harold Schonberg . To quote just one example of the
characteristic Schonbergery, we are informed that Alekhine and Capablanca
shared first prize at Nottingham, 1936 and that Fine and Reshevsky were equal
second.
(K 1 993)

Literary invention
In 1987 B atsford brought out Unorthodox Openings by Joel Benj amin and Eric
Schiller. In the section on Nimzowitsch' s Defence (1 e4 .\c6) the authors wrote
(page 50):

*By Raymond Keene.

270

' Myers, Harding and Westerinen have all written books on the subject.
Westerinen' s is the best, but very hard to find . '
In the April-May 1 98 8 issue o f The Myers Openings Bulletin (page 1 6), Hugh
Myers commented:
'Hard to find ! I should say so. I ' ve never seen it, and other theoreticians
have told me that they don ' t know of it. I have seen a book by Westerinen
titled 4Jc6! - it has nothing to do with 1 e4 c6 . . . You don ' t really think
that [Benjamin and Schiller] would have judged a book as "best" without
ever seeing it! ?'
In the January-March 1 993 issue of the same magazine, Myers reported that in
1 988 Schiller, then temporarily in Hawaii, had insisted that a book on 1 e4 c6
by Westerinen did exist, and that a copy was in his library in Chicago. He promised
to give Myers further information upon his return home. The remainder of the
episode is easily guessed. Schiller kept silent and Myers eventually secured a
copy of the book by Westerinen. It was published in Swedish in 1 972* and dealt
only with 1 d4 f6 2 c4 g6 3 c3 Ag7 4 e4 d6 5 f3 0 -0 6 Ae3 c6.
(K 1993)

Embarrassing
On page 1 1 of the 71 1 993 New in Chess, Hans Ree described The Times' reporting
as ' an embarrassing collection of hype and half-truths' . But what about the
outright untruths too? A few examples follow .
The newspaper' s (premature) announcement, by Daniel Johnson on 3 1 March
1 993, that it had secured the Kasparov v Short match asserted that The Times
had offered ' the largest prize fund in the history of chess ' . In fact, it was smaller
than the purses for Kasparov v Karpov, 1 990 and Fischer v Spassky, 1 992.

The Times' frequent references to the closing stages of the 1 984-85 Karpov v
Kasparov match were flatly false. On 27 February Raymond Keene wrote that
' Kasparov revived and began to win game after game' . On I April Walter Ellis
claimed that Campomanes had stopped that match as Kasparov 'began to move
ahead of the "approved" champion, Anatoly Karpov ' , while a leading article the
same day affirmed that the match was stopped ' after Kasparov had won several
games in a row' .**
General chess history fared no better. On 26 June Raymond Keene wrote that one
of Reuben Fine' s triumphs in the 1 930s was 'share of first prize with Capablanca at
Nottingham, 1 936' ; on 2 1 August his column claimed that Gustav Neumann won
*Also in Finnish the same year.
**The misinformation has continued. On page 49 of Man v Machine by Raymond Keene and
Byron Jacobs with Tony Buzan, we are told that the match was stopped 'just as Kasparov had
started to win a series of games ' .

27 1

a tournament four years after he had died; on 9 September he erred by 30 years


regarding the origins of the Marshall Gambit in the Ruy Lopez.

The Times even proved unreliable about itself. On 1 8 May Ian Murray, after
showing total ignorance about the conditions for pre-Second World War world
title matches, blundered about the identity of the newspaper' s own chess
correspondent in the 1 930s.
Throughout the Kasparov v Short match, The Times claimed to be publishing
annotations by Short, but page 224 of The Inner Game by Dominic Lawson, a
close friend of Short ' s , reveals: ' Nigel Short, however, never once bothered to
speak to the Times man about the games the day after they were played. Instead,
he would delegate one of his seconds, usually Jon Speelman, to give the
newspaper some analysis to satisfy its readers, and it was this which would duly
appear, masquerading as the unintermediated voice of Nigel Short.'
Incidentally, the same book reports (page 1 46 ) that during the match Times staff
'privately told Short that they would pay for any grandmaster in the world to be
flown to London to help him recover from his four-game deficit. What Kasparov
would have thought, let alone said, had he discovered that the organisers of the
match were prepared financially to back one of the participants against the other
- him - defies exact prediction. It would certainly have been a spectacular
(N 1 993)
Azerbaizhani outburst. '

Reflecting inaccurately
In C.N. 583 Mr Raymond Keene acknowledged that Fighting Chess, published
by B atsford, 'should have appeared under the joint authorship of Bob Wade

and Gary Kasparov . . . in future I will try to amend Bob 's position to co-author
on the jacket to reflect accurately the colossal amount of work he put into this. '
That did indeed occur, but now the bibliography of a new B atsford book lists
'Gary Kasparov - Fighting Chess (B atsford). Kasparov' s own collection of his
games ' , with no mention of Wade. The new book in question is Chessfor Absolute
Beginners by, of course, Raymond Keene.
In that bibliography, the name of the 'co-author' is nonetheless remembered in the
case of Batsford Chess Openings. Mention of BCO brings to mind a further example
of Batsford ' s behaviour. Reviewing the original edition, the BCM (February 1 983 ,
page 5 1 ) made a number of criticisms but described it as 'a definite event in chess
publishing' . Batsford' s publicity material has systematically misquoted this as 'a
definitive event in chess publishing' .
(K 1993-94)

272

The Times
In a letter to us dated 23 July 1 993, the Editor of The Times, Mr Peter Stothard,
professed that it was his newspaper' s practice to correct errors in print. When,
however, further factual inaccuracies were brought to his attention, Mr Stothard
became uncommunicative.
An example of how The Times' preference for propaganda rather than facts has
already contaminated chess books is offered by the following passage:
' B y 1 922 The Times had become so closely linked with world class chess
that it was involved with Jose Capablanca, the Cuban master, in creating
what became known as the London Statutes, which set out the rules under
which championship matches were played. These lasted until 1 946, when
the international chess federation FIDE took over organising games as the
new world governing body .. . '
Source: article by Ian Murray o n page 4 o f The Times, 1 8 May 1 993.
In reality, the London Rules (not 'London Statutes ' ) were used for only one
match, Capablanca v Alekhine in 1 927, and The Times ' involvement in their
preparation was negligible, but that did not stop The Times from including the
following in a sequence of advertising puffs in The Even More Complete Chess
Addict by M. Fox and R. James:
' B y 1 922 The Times was so synonymous with chess that it was involved
with the creation of Capablanca' s World Championship Match rules. These
rules, which became known as the London Statutes, were in force, with
minor modifications, until 1 946 when FIDE took over the title for itself. '
The hammering continued on page 1 1 of Kasparov v Short by Raymond Keene:
' B y 1 922 The Times was so central to the world of chess that it was
involved with the creation of Capablanca' s World Championship Match
rules . . . These rules, which became known as the London Statutes, were
in force, with minor modification s , until 1 946 when FIDE took over
the title for itself. '
(K 1 993-94)

Illiteracy
Which English-language chess book features the poorest prose? A front-runner
must be Modem Analysis of the Chess Openings by Frank J. Marshall (published
by J.R. Vrolijk, Amsterdam, undated but 1 9 1 21 1 3).
Some examples :
273

'I know my style is not as sound as the modem school calls for, still I have
had few regrets when I was not successful, for to have been told after the
play. "It was a fine try or a very pretty game", buoyants one up and many
times more than compensates for the loss . ' (Introduction, page 7)
'Be careful about pawns. To move one for to attack with is better, than to
have to move one for to defend with . ' (page 1 5 )
'A move to which I have given quite some study to, is instead o f the text, 4
. . . . . , 4. Kt-Q5 , it is also greatly favored by Teichman, and as Rubinstein in
his game with Spielman shows it cannot be triffled with . ' (Regarding 4 . . . <\d4
in the Four Knights ' Game, page 50.)
An (at least partial) explanation of this clutter is provided by the notice which
appeared on page 1 5 1 of the July 1 9 1 3 American Chess Bulletin:
'Mr Marshall tells us that he was exceptionally unfortunate in the preparation
of this work in that, after mailing the original manuscript from England to a
printer in Holland, he saw no more of it, nor any proofs, until it reached him
in book form ! That the technical matter should prove so correct is little
short of a marvel. '
( K 1 993-94)

Znosko-Borovsky's book
On page 20 of the April 1 994 Chess Life, Andy Soltis rehashes a rickety anecdote:
'Shortly after Jose Capablanca became world champion Znosko-Borovsky
published a booklet of the Cuban ' s losses called Capablanca 's Errors.
Asked about it, Capa said he hoped to write a book called Znosko-Borovsky 's
Good Moves but, he said, "Unfortunately, I didn ' t succeed in finding
material for it" . '
M r Soltis provides n o evidence regarding Znosko-Borovsky ' s alleged booklet
or Capablanca' s alleged dialogue. (We can add that Znosko-Borovsky did write
an article called 'Capablanca' s Fehler' on pages 1 50- 1 54 of the January-March
1 926 Kagans Neueste Schachnachrichten; it discussed positions from seven
games, four of which the Cuban won.)
A similar tale, with Euwe replacing Capablanca, appeared on pages 276-277 of
(2032)
the 14 April 1 939 issue of CHESS.

Common misspellings
Which chess personalities ' names are most commonly misspelt? Prominent

274

examples are William Hartston, Alexander McDonnell, Lionel Kieseritzky and


Lord Lyttelton, frequently given as 'Hartson ' , 'MacDonnell' , ' Kieseritsky ' ,
(2040)
' Lyttleton' and other uncaring variants.*

S myslov v Reshevsky
Andreas Keller writes:

'There seems to be an inaccuracy in H. Golombek 's book The World Chess


Championship, 1 948 which is not mentioned in the foreword to the 1 982
BCM reprint. At move 42 in the 1 1 th round game between Smyslov and
Reshevsky the following position was reached:

Golombek states that play went: 42 'i!lg3 'i!l/8 43 f3 l1al 44 'i!lf4 a2 45 e5


'i!lg8 46 'i!lf5 !Ifl 47 !1xa2 l1xf3+ 48 'i!lg6 r!l/8 49 !1a8+ 'i!le7 50 !1a 7+
Resigns.
However, the tournament books by Euwe and Keres, as well as Smyslov 's
autobiographical collections, give: 42 'i!lg3 !1e2 43 'i!l/3 !1a2 44 'i!le3 'i!l/8
45f3 !1a1 46 'i!lf4a2 47e5 'i!lg8 48 'i!lf5!1f1 49!1xa2!1xf3+ 50 'i!lg6 'i!l/8 51
(2072)
l1a8+ 'i!le7 52 l1a 7+ Resigns. '
Werner Kiihne sends a copy of the Russian bulletin of the world championship
match-tournament, Na pervenstvo mira, 1 5 April 1 948, No. 9, page 5. This, together
with several other sources, would suggest that Golombek' s version of the final
(21 10)
moves of the game between Smyslov and Reshevsky was incorrect.

A Staunton position
Louis B lair submits a position discussed on pages 26-27 of The Chess-Player 's
Handbook by Howard Staunton (various - but all? - editions):

*Regarding the frequent misspelling o f Trompowsky, see page 147 above.

275

Staunton writes:
' White is enabled to castle, giving check to the adverse king at the same
time, and win the game easily, for B lack has no square to which he can
move his king without going into check, and is consequently obliged to
interpose his Q. at K.B ' s second or K.B ' s third square [t7 and f6 respectively],
in either case being checkmated in two more moves, as you will soon be
able to see . '
Our correspondent wonders where the mate in two is after . . . f6.

(2073)

More prevarication
The Times' policy of warding off accuracy in its chess pages is shown by an
episode resulting from a letter we sent to the newspaper on 1 6 January 1 99 1 :
'With regard to recent Winning Move chess features in The Times.
Monday, 7 January : the position claimed to be from a game between
B ogolj ubow and Alekhine is fictitious (as indeed was the one based on the
same game which was published by The Times on 28 December 1 990) .
Wednesday, 9 January : the position allegedly from Capablanca v Thomas
never occurred. The same day ' s feature al'So gives the impossible move 2
xa2 in the solution to Tuesday ' s column.
Finally, in the solution published on Thursday, 10 January, the reference to
"2 b8 mate" is erroneous ; it is not checkmate because B lack can reply
2 . . . e8.
In short, your chess correspondent is running true to form. '

The Times published n o correction, but ten weeks later w e received the following
reply (quoted here in full) from Mr Keene:
'Thank youfor your recent letter to The Times concerning the Bogoljubow276

Alekhine and Capablanca-Thomas Winning Move positions. It seems to me


that the positions and variations have been quoted before, but if you have
any information to the contrary, I would be most interested to see it. '
Where is the logic or sense in that?
In the meantime, Mr Keene blunders on. On 29 August 1 994 his Winning Move
feature published an incorrect position from Mannheim, 1 9 1 4 and then gave as
the actual finish a line that never happened. (The real game lasted over 30 moves
more.) For good measure he also mangled the winner' s name, putting 'Farin'
instead of Fahrni. All that in one little puzzle. What is the solution to the Keene

(K I994)

problem?

'Several'
Mr Bob Rice' s knowledge of chess and/or sense of fairness may be measured by
his assertion on page 9 of the B atsford book on the 1 993 Kasparov v Short
match :
'Although the World Championship matches have been arranged by many
different organisations, the lineage of the 1 3 Champions has been recognised
by all, including the World Chess Federation (FIDE), a group of national
amateur bodies that arranged the last several matches . '
'Last several' means ' last seventeen ' .

(N I995)

Misprint
The following final note was appended to a game on page 3 1 1 of the 20 May
1 965 issue of CHESS:
'The spectators enjoyed this game - or at least they enjoyed telling the bottle
weary players of their missed opportunities ! '
On page 349 of the 20 July 1 965 number, the CHESS Editor described the misprint
as 'quite our funniest' .
(K I995)

Jews?
Writers who discuss chess-playing Jews tend to have a shaky grasp of basic facts.
Page 56 of David Spanier' s Total Chess ( 1 984 and 1 986 editions) described both
Carl Schlechter and Vassily Smyslov as Jewish. Famous Chess Players by Peter
Lerner, a children' s book published in Minneapolis in 1 973 which has been brought
to our attention by Louis Blair, states (page 38) that among the Jewish players
whom Alekhine supposedly attacked in his Nazi articles was Max Euwe. lt may be
277

recalled that the Pariser Zeitung articles themselves wrongly included K.ieseritzky
and Schlechter as Jews.
(K 1 995)

Jinx
There are few Reshevsky games like the following one :

S. Reshevsky (simultaneous)-H.H. Ryan, Tulsa, 1 93 1 . Ruy LOpez.

1 e4 e5 2 l:lf3 1:lc6 3 Ab5 l:lf6 4 0-0 .Ae7 5 e2 d6 6 h3 0 -0 7 .Axc6 bxc6 8 d4


exd4 9 1:lxd4 Ab7 10 l:lc3 a5 1 1 .lli4 ( ' Amazed at this reply I began to suspect
a trap and as Mr Reshevsky ' s speed brought him back to my board so quickly, I
played safely . ' - H.H. Ryan.) 1 1 . . d7
.
1 2 !!ad1 ( ' It now becomes apparent that
Mr Reshevsky has been oblivious to his fatal error for two successive moves . ' )

1 2 . . . Aa6 1 3 f3 Axf1 14 '<t>xfl !!fe8 1 5 1:lf5 !! ab8 1 6 b 3c8 17 Ag5 Ad8 18


Ah6 g6 19 4Jd4 d5 20 l:lxc6 ( 'This comer of the board seems to be a sort of
"Jinx" to the single player. ' ) 20 . . a6+
.
21 '<Ttg1 xc6 22 exd5d7 23 M4 1:lh5
24 Ah2 f5 25 d6e6 26 '<t>hl f4 27 l:ld5 cxd6 28 Axf4 l:lxf4 29 xf4 e5 30
c4 '<t>g7 31 f4e2 32 c3+ '<t>g8 33 !!gl Ah4 34xa5 ( ' Again the "Jinx" . ' )
3 4 . . . !!b5 35 Resigns.
Source: The Gambit, August-September-October 1 93 1 , page 66 .

(K 1 995)

' Chess journalist of the year'


The Times of 22 April 1 995 (page 20) reported in all seriousness that Mr Raymond
Keene had been named Chess Journalist of 1 994. A photograph showed him
receiving an engraved statuette from ' Demetri Djelica' [sic] , who was described
as the Director of the ' International Chess Writers Association' . No information
was offered, then or later, about the origins or composition of this hitherto
unknown set-up.
Outside The Times' pages, the Director is better known as Dimitrije Bjelica,
whose exploits include a two-volume work on Fischer: Robert Fiser - Genije
koji se ne vra cil (Belgrade, 1 984) . On pages 8-9 of its 5/1 986 issue, New in
Chess published a letter from Christiaan B ijl, the compiler of Die gesammelten
Partien von Robert J. Fischer (first published in 1 976 , with a revised edition in
1 986 ) . Extracts from the letter are reproduced here with the kind permission of

New in Chess:
' . . . When he [Bjelica] started volume two it seems that he suddenly got very
tired after having written page 49. From page 5 1 onwards to page 24 1 ( ! ) he
tries to give Fischer' s games, introduced by the misleading heading "Sve
Fiserove partije" - the complete games of Fischer - but in fact he gives only
a poor sixty per cent of them. To my surprise Bjelica has boldly used exact
replicas of the copyrighted lay-out of my work . . . Puzzled and dazed the
278

reader discovers that games are completely cut to pieces, or rather spoiled
in cuttings. Names of players are corrupted ( . . . ), authorised annotations are
copied or badly cut off. Bjelica collected diagrams from my original edition,
several of which he inserted in wrong places and he even used diagrams
without the game scores ! . . . From some games he omitted moves or names
of players, added the names of annotators between the moves of an
unannotated game, or replaced the actual game moves by a variation. He
created even a seven move miniature of Fischer versus Petrosian, and he
outrageously omitted in many cases the sites of play and the game-numbers
in matches . . . The book oozes contempt for its buyers and is an insult to
Fischer, who broke off all connections with Bjelica in 1 97 1 after he had
been cheated by this "friend".
It is known in the chess-world that Bjelica' s reputation is a dubious one.
With [this] publication he added another outrage of the worst sort to his
long list of non-fulfilments, gross falsehoods and impostures. '
M r Keene will surely triumph again i f another such award i s offered. Who else
would even consider accepting it?*
(K 1 995)

Another mystery organisation


On page 1 2 1 of Chess An Illustrated History Raymond Keene describes David Levy,
his brother-in-law, as 'President of the International Chess Association ' . (K 1995)
In the same book Mr Keene presented some cigarette cards with a chess theme,
of which he wrote (page 76) : 'A praiseworthy attempt to assimilate chess into
popular culture in cigarette cards of the 1 930s. The backs of the cards incorporate
quite advanced information about the game . '
A cigarette card illustration o n the following page shows what passes for 'quite
advanced information' in Mr Keene' s mind:
'J.R. Capablanca. Greatest of all chess players. Champion of the world in
1 923, having opposed fifty players at once. '

Hall of shame
W.D. Rubinstein has submitted extracts from The Sports Hall of Shame by Bruce
Nash and Allan Zullo (published by Pocket Books, New York, 1 987).
Page 222 avers that Steinitz ' was the most despised player who ever lived. He
*Naturally enough, no report h a s been seen of a n y award in subsequent years.

279

treated opponents as if they were nothing more than pawns who deserved to be
captured . . . Known as much for the Steinitz temper as he was for the Steinitz
Gambit, the explosive grandmaster turned chess halls into mine fields . '
The same page reports that Alekhine 'terrorised international chess competition
during the first half of this century . His opponents faced the fury of hell after
those rare moments when they uttered "checkmate". That little word unleashed
a volcano. Once, after he was forced to surrender in a major tournament, a raging
Alekhine grabbed his lead-weighted king and hurled it like a bean-ball across
the room, nearly braining a referee who ducked just in time . '
In short, merely spiced-up versions of some of the worst b i t s of Harold
Schonberg ' s Grandmasters of Chess.
(K 1 995)

Repetition
Louis B lair reports that four passages on page 36 of William Steinitz, Chess
Champion by Kurt Landsberger repeat, almost word for word, material in the
Preface to Championship Chess by P.W. Sergeant. However, whereas Sergeant
wrote that Steinitz 'did not claim any title when he defeated Anderssen in a
match in 1 866' , Landsberger asserted, 'When Steinitz defeated Anderssen he
announced that he was the world champion' .
(K 1 995)

Unauthoritative monographs
Why do so many biographical monographs contain elementary blunders and
attach little attention to basic presentation? For example, Paul Morphy partidas
completas, a pitiful 'bilingual ' Spanish/English book by Rogelio Caparr6s, is
rife with factual mistakes, typographical errors and faulty language. Magic
Morphy by Chely Abravanel and Philippe Clere twice claims that its subject
died in 1 8 86, instead of 1 884.

Aljechin, der Grofite! by Egon Varnusz and Arpad Foldeak goes wrong on the
master' s birth date and, even, on the moves and dates of a number of his most
famous games.
On page 1 4 1 of Pour Philidor C.M. Carroll claims that ' during the first half of
the twentieth century, Philidor was not a well-known figure in history . As far as
I can determine, the 200th anniversary of his birth on 1 926 went by totally
unnoticed . . . ' To give just one straightforward refutation of that, the October
1 926 BCM had a two-page article on Philidor by John Keeble whose first sentence
referred to the bicentennial .
The 'Champion Endgame Series ' , published in the United States by Sergey
280

Akhpatelov and Stephen Gordon, consists of monographs on Steinitz, Lasker,


Capablanca, Alekhine and Euwe, with more threatened. Steinitz' s forename is
misspelt ( 'Willhelm ' ) on the front cover of volume 1 . The other books have a
few lines of career information, seldom accurate. Lasker' s death date is wrong .
Capablanca' s 1 92 1 score against Lasker is incorrect, as are Alekhine' s birth and
death dates. We learn that Alekhine 'died March, 25 1 946 in Portuguese ' and
that he 'won in 49 large toutnaments' [sic] . Lasker 'won in 1 3 large toutnaments'
[sic] . Twice in the Euwe volume (once on the front cover) the Dutchman ' s year
(K 1 995)
of death is given as 1 986, instead of 1 98 1 .

Correction needed
On page 256 of the May 1 995 BCM Mr Bernard Cafferty claimed that Bernstein
missed a likely win against Teichmann at Carlsbad, 1 9 1 1 , and that the winning
line was also overlooked by Vidmar in his tournament book
Vidmar' s work on Carlsbad, 1 9 1 1 ignores the matter because the game was
played at Carlsbad, 1 923. The tournament book of that event, not written by
(K 1 995)
Vidmar, was reprinted in 1 977 by the BCM. *

Alekhine's self-contradiction
The game between Alexander and Reshevsky at Nottingham, 1 936 began 1 c4
e5 2 4Jc3 4Jc6 3 g3 g6 4 Ag2 Ag7 5 e3. In the tournament book (page 67)
Alekhine commented as follows on White ' s fifth move: 'This weakens the square
f3 without necessity . To be considered was 5 d3 followed eventually by f4. '
Later i n the tournament, the same moves occurred i n Lasker v Alexander. This
time Alekhine wrote (page 265 ) : 'More promising is 5 e3, as played (with the
colours reversed by Botvinnik against Alexander in the 1 st round) . '
The contradiction was pointed out by a reader of CHESS, T.V. Parrott, on page 1 5 3
of the May 1 953 issue. I t was also referred to (with n o mention o f the CHESS
precedent) by Arthur Oliver on page 1 05 of the June 1 962 Chess World.
(2109)

No brilliancy
Page 4 1 of Chess Combination as a Fine A rt by W. Golz and P. Keres gave the
position below, introduced by the words 'Grandmaster Keres characterises the
decisive finishing combination . . . as a gem of chess art' :
(See diagram, top of next page.)
*Printing a correction proved beyond M r Cafferty' s capacity.

28 1

F. Perez-M. Najdorf, Torremolinos, 1 96 1 .

'Perez hit upon a real problem move by which he finally brought down his
opponent. ' The solution provided (on page 2 1 7 of the book) is: 1 c3+ .Et xc3 2

i:rg2+ e5 3 .ild4+ xd4 4 i:rd2+ .Etd3 5 xb4+ e5 6 f4+ d5 7 'l*xd6+


e4 8 f4+ d5 9 'l*c4+ e5 1 0 'l*e6+ d4 1 1 .Etf4+ c3 1 2 'l*e 1 + b2 1 3
.Etf2+ a3 14 'l*e7+, followed b y mate. ' A lucky chance in a n actual game. A
master rarely has this sort of success in the course of his career.'
In reality, Perez lost the game, and the diagrammed position above never arose .
The full game :

F. Perez-M. Najdorf, Torremolinos, 1 96 1 . Sicilian Defence.

1 e4 c5 2 f3 e6 3 d4 cxd4 4 xd4 f6 5 3 d6 6 g3 a6 7 .ilg2 Ad7 8 0-0 c6


9 Ae3 .ile7 1 0 'l*e2 'l*c7 1 1 .Etad1 a5 1 2 h3 .Etc8 (The tournament book had
the misprint '.Etg8' .) 1 3 f4 c4 1 4 Acl b5 1 5 g4 b4 1 6 b1 h6 1 7 b3 b6 18 g5
hxg5 19 fxg5 h5 20f3 f6 21 'l*g4 'l*c5 22 gxf6 xf6 23 'l*g6+ d8 24 Ae3
'l*h5 25 xe6+ Axe6 26 Axb6+ d7 27 'l*g3 Axh3 28 e5 .ilxg2 29xg2 .Et xc2
30 e6+ xe6 31 .Et de1 + f7 32 .Et xe7+ tlixe7 33 xg7+ e6

34 'l*xf6+ d7 35 'l*g7+ c6 36 'l*c7+ d5 37 'l*b7+ .Etc6 38 .Etcl and White


resigned.
Thu s at move 34 White played 'l*xf6+, whereas the combination in the
Gob/Keres book might have occurred if White had played 34 .Et xf6+.
282

Keres gave an accurate account of the actual game and of Perez ' s missed
o pportunity in the chess column of the Swiss newspaper Tages-Anzeiger on
28 June 1 96 1 . Although Keres was named as a co-author of Chess Combination
as a Fine A rt, the title page states: ' Selected and edited by Werner Golz from the
writings of Kurt Richter. With an introductory chapter by Paul Keres and a
Foreword to the English-language edition by Harry Golombek OBE. ' (21 1 1 )

Alekhine misses mate in one?


Richard Forster draws attention to this position, which arose after White ' s 25th
move in the game Reti v Marshall, New York, 1 924 (see pages 1 65- 1 66 of the
tournament book) :

Play went 25 . . . <tlxg3 26 hg1 , and Alekhine wrote: 'Or 26 hxg3xg3+ 27 e2


g2+ 28 t'd3 xh1 29 xh1 xf3+, to be followed by 30 . . . 'l!1-xh 1 , with an easy
win . ' Instead, there is 28 . . . 'l!1-c2 mate.
On page 33 of his 1 929 book Schachmethodik Tartakower copied Alekhine ' s
oversight, a s did Soltis o n page 270 o f Frank Marshall, United States Chess

Champion.

(21 1 7)

We now note that in the original 1 925 edition of Alekhine' s book W.H. Watts
gave a nine-page errata supplement which mentioned (on page vi) 28 . . . 'l!1-c2
mate. Most of the corrections concern notational matters, but it is remarkable
that the Dover reprint ignored the errata list.
(213 1 )
Some complications need t o b e explored. First, therefore, the complete game
score as it appeared in the tournament book:

R. Reti-F..J. Marshall, New York, 6 April 1 924. Queen 's Gambit Declined.

1 <t\f3 <tlf6 2 c4 d5 3 cxd5 <tlxd5 4 d4 Af5 5 <tlc3 e6 6 'l!1-b3 <tlc6 7 e4 <tlxc3 8 exf5
<tld5 9 -'tb5 -'tb4+ 1 0 -'td2 Axd2+ 1 1 <t\xd2 exf5 1 2 -'txc6+ bxc6 1 3 0-0 0-0 1 4
a4 b8 1 5 <tlb3 b6 16 'l!1-xa7 "t!t'g5 17 'l!1-a5 c5
(See diagram, top of next page. )
283

1 8xc5 <tlf4 1 9 g3 l"lh6 20 ttfxc7 <tle2+ 21 g2g4 22 l"lh1 f4 23 f3h3+ 24


f2 l"lc8 25 a5 <tlxg3 26 l"lhg1 xh2+ 27 l"lg2 'it!h4 28 l"lcl l"le8 29 b5
<tle4+ 30 fl h1 + 31 Resigns.
However, when Reti annotated the game on pages 259-260 of the September
1 924 Wiener Schachzeitung he gave White ' s 1 8th move as 18 dxc5. If that were
correct, Alekhine would have missed no mate later in the game.
Hanon Russell possesses the original score sheets of both Reti and Marshall.
They respectively give White ' s 1 8th move as ' Dxc5 ' and ' QxP' . A later
transcription error in the German notation would have been easily made (i.e.
' Dxc5 ' becoming 'dxc5 ' ).
Finally, it should be noted that on page 1 26 of Das New Yorker Schachturnier
1 92 7 Alekhine wrote regarding the communication of game-scores by telegraph :
' B ut in general more accurate wire information for the foreign press should
be provided during American tournaments. In 1 924, for example, a similar
error resulted in a wholly incorrect judgment of Marshall' s win against Reti . '

Euwe error
On pages 34-35 of the 14 September 1 936 CHESS Euwe annotated his game
against Sir George Thomas (White) at Nottingham, 1 936. It began : 1 e4 <tlf6 2

e5 <tld5 3 d4 d6 4 <tlf3 l.tg4 5 l.te2 c6 6 0-0 dxe5 7 <tlxe5 Axe2 8xe2 e6 9 b3

bS

lit. t'it
-% rr -W

l /

it' ' W///,
rrr
tLJ

284

Now Euwe played 9 . . . 4Jd7 and wrote, 'Interesting here was 9 . . .4:lf4 10e4xd4
1 1 xd4? 2+ or 10 Axf4 xd4 attacking both the rook and the bishop. But
White plays 10 W!xd4 11 xf4* xa1 1 2xf7+ dB 13 AgS+ and wins' .
On pages 83-84 of the 1 4 November 1 936 issue a reader, H.T. of Hythe, pointed
out that Euwe ' s 'interesting ' line loses owing to 10 Axf4 xd4 1 1 d2, and if

1 1 ..
. xa1 12 <t\c3 b2 13 <t\c4.
Wanted: other annotational mishaps involving leading players.

(K 1 997)

Marshall at his worst


A game from page 20 1 of the June 1 9 1 6 BCM:

FJ. MarshaU (simultaneous)-J.P. Hopkins, New York, (Date?). Danish Gambit.

1 e4 eS 2 d4 exd4 3 c3 dxc3 4 Ac4 <t\c6 5 <t\f3 <t\f6 6 0-0 Ae7 7 eS <t\g4 8 e2


d6 9 exd6xd6 10 h3 <t\d4 1 1 <t\xd4 h2 mate.
It is not recorded whether the spectators showered Marshall with anything.(K 1997)

Beauty
Spanish chess books are renowned for their misprints, but the title page of Joyas
del Ajedrez Postal ( 1 930- 1 94 7) by E . J . M archi sotti has an appropriate
( K 1 997)
misquotation of Keats : 'A think of beauty is a j oy for ever. '

A question of credibility
Can the chess aficionado have faith in what he reads on the Internet? The short
answer, alas, is no. Quite apart from those irredeemably dire chess newsgroups
(two parts cat-lap, one part sulphuric acid, and scant trace of literacy), the Web
currently fails to offer reliable basic information about, for example, the game ' s
great champions o f the past.
Anyone seeking enlightenment may find himself, courtesy of an undiscriminating
search-engine, at the 'World Chess Champions' page (www .chesschampions.com);
having then clicked on 'Capablanca' , he comes face-to-face with a risible run
through of the geni u s ' s life which contains such as sertions as, ' I n 1 9 1 4
Capablanca went l l -0 i n a New York tournament' . A s i s well known, his only
tourney in 1 9 1 4 was in St Petersburg, Russia, where he went + 10 -2 =6.
Our nescient tutor goes on to affirm that in 1 922 Capablanca played in the ' 1 5th
British Chess Federation championship' . In reality, there was no such event
and, of course, even if there had been, a Cuban would hardly have been eligible.
*In fact, this was also possible in Euwe ' s first line: 1 0 e4 xd4 and now 11 xf4.

285

Later, there is talk of $ 1 0,000 in gold for the 1 927 match between Capablanca
and Alekhine. Untrue again, as is the unaccountable claim that in 1 935 and 1 936
Capablanca participated in tournaments in Ramsgate. Are English seaside resorts
really so indistinguishable? Margate is meant.
At the 1 939 B uenos Aires Olympiad, we are told, Capablanca scored '6 wins
and 4 draws ' . Read 7 wins and 9 draws. The final paragraph relates that the
Cuban 'played over 700 tournament games winning over 7 1 percent of the time' .
The public record, easily accessible and a shade different, shows that he played
485 tournament games, winning 5 5 .87% of them.
The perpetrator of this jumble has unabashedly given his name : Bill Wall. That
is the same individual who presumes to narrate Capablanca' s career in the Web ' s
grandly-named 'Chessmaster Encyclopedia' (www.chessmasternetwork.com) .
Most of the above mistakes are rehashed there.
Nor does Mr Wall prove any more of a safe pair of hands when, in the same two
Web sources, he directs his 1 0-watt searchlight at the career of Alekhine. Naturally
there are simple misspellings (e.g. 'Schleeter' , with 'Teichman' two lines later) ,
followed by the same gold bullion bull. For good measure we are informed that
Alekhine was the author of ' several books ' . Eighteen, in fact.
For more about two of the ' several' , a link is provided to a page on Alekhine by
Mark Crowther, whose expertise and eloquence shine through in the following
excerpt:

' On the Way to the World Chess Championships a book published in several
languages before being published here by Pergammon comparitively
recently.
New York 1 924. A classic Tournament record produced by Dover. One of
his very best, due for a revamp in format one would hope though. '
Where does one start? I n the first title, for O n the Way read O n the Road. The
word Chess shouldn' t be there. Championships needs to be in the singular, and
the dates 1 923- 1 92 7 are m i s s i n g . The m i s spellings ' Pergammo n ' and
'comparitively ' are just the icing on the cake. Concerning the second paragraph,
the English edition of the New York, 1 924 tournament book was produced by
the American Chess Bulletin; Dover merely did a reprint in 1 96 1 .
Surely such writings are, to borrow from Mr Crowther' s ineffable prose, due for
a revamp in format, content and everything else one would hope though.
The weak in chess are seldom shy about meting out opinions, despite their
ignorance of even straightforward matters . (Nothing criticised in the present
article would have been at all difficult to get right.) Mr Crowther avers, for
286

in stance, that in the last 1 8 months of his life (i.e. 1 944-46) Alekhine ' was
probably not even in the top 50 in the World on the strength of a couple of
matches he played against weak Portuguese opponents ' .
A startling assertion, so let u s examine the facts. Who, we may ask, were those

'weak Portuguese opponents' ? The record (readily available) shows that Alekhine
had a match against just one Portuguese player, F. Lupi. That was in January
1 946, and the world champion won +2 - 1 = 1 . Given that the moves of his victory
in the third game are unpublished, the suggestion that Alekhine was outside the
top 50 is thus based on a grand total of three games played two months before
his death.
Among Mr Wall ' s other effluence is a pitiful feature on 'eccentric chessplayers '
(www.txdirect.net/users/walVchess .htm) . A couple of sentences about Alekhine
will give the flavour:
' In a few tournaments he was found in a field drunk. He would urinate on
the floor in other events . '
For these dainty tidings no documentary source i s given, o f course, for the Walls
of this world expect us to take on trust their attacks on the chosen prey of the
day. It can only be guessed that he has gleefully seized and embroidered upon
what Reuben Fine (strong master, undependable writer) said on page 54 of The
Psychology of the Chess Player, but that really won ' t do. Poach from a dubious
source some suspect chitchat about a deceased master and whisk it up from an
alleged one-off incident into a categorical denunciation of repeated misconduct.
Yes, being a chess j ournalist is that easy .
At least Messrs Wall and Crowther manage to report correctly that Alekhine
died in Portugal. Even that feat has proved beyond a famously untrustworthy
writer, Larry Evans, in his misnamed column 'All about Alekhine' (to be found
at the same Chessmaster Network site) . He bafflingly asserts that Alekhine died
'in Madrid' . By normal standards a laughable blunder, but for Mr Evans a routine
lapse. In a recent article ' Alekhine ' s Last Day s ' in the same source, he
contradicted himself, saying that Alekhine died 'in Lisbon ' . That too needs
correction, but at least it is the right country .
Another article on the 'Chessmaster Network' has Larry Evans putting forward
his classification of 'The Ten Best Players of All Time' . The penultimate name
is B otvinnik, who, he informs us, died in 1 994. Actually it was 1 995 . Then
comes Tal, believed by Mr Evans to have died in 1 99 1 . The correct year is 1 992.
And so it is that people possessing only minimal acquaintance with the world
chess champions ' careers consider themselves qualified to recount them, rank
them and ridicule them. Whether on the Web or in books and magazines, all
287

too many shoddy writers treat the greats of yesteryear with contempt, yet
willingly defend or shield the reprobates of today . Our intention is to do
the opposite.
( CC 1 997)

Publisher's name
The publishers of a Spanish edition of Capablanca' s book of ' last chess lectures'
even managed to misspell their own name ( 'Aguiilera ' ) .
(CC 1 998)

The Mammoth Book of Chess


The Mammoth Book of Chess by Graham Burgess (published by Robinson, 1 997)
has a number of qualities, but painstaking accuracy is not among them. A
magazine title (page 1 26) is just as likely to be misspelt as a master' s name (e.g.
the game on page 200, which has mistakes for both players) or the name of a
publisher (page 528). Graham Burgess is badly out of touch with chess history if
he believes that Capablanca' s opponent (page 65) was 'Tanarov' (instead of
Fonaroff) or that (page 239) the Cuban lost a tournament game in 1 1 moves.
Another mysterious blunder is ' Alekhine-Drewitt, Dortmund, 1 923' (page 296).
The game was played in Portsmouth and is in Alekhine' s first volume of Best
Games. Mr B urgess is also two years out with Steinitz' s year of birth (page 495 )
(K 1 998)
and, on the next page, one year adrift over Tal ' s year of death.

Kasparov v Krabbe
In C . N . 1 4 5 8 Tim Krabbe gave the score of his defeat by Kasparov in a
simultaneous exhibition in Amsterdam in 1 987, an item picked up by the 2/ 1 988
New in Chess (page 5).

In this position from the game, play went 34 .ilxf4 xf2 35 d3 xb2 36d5

f6 37 .ilg5 b2 38 Et xh7+ Resigns.


In December 1 997 Michael Lorenz contributed an item to The Chess Cafe on
the Internet which stated that 35 .ilg8 would have won outright and that, rather
than 38 Et xh7+, 38 00 would have mated in five. The Chess Cafe also gave
Tim Krabbe' s confirmatory response :
288

' In fact, both sacrifice and resignation are nonsense. After 38 . . . xh7 3 9
f7+ g7 40 xe8 c7+ (40 . . . b3 or . . . aS 41 e4) 41 Af4 xc4 42 AeS
Ae6 43 xb8 c8 44 xb4 White will have to work to win, if there is a
win at all. '

(21 86)

Douglas Bryson adds that the Fritz computer program points out that 34 Ah4
mates in six moves.

The press
' Perhaps I ' ll get him a reporter doll for Christmas . Wind it up and it gets it
wrong . '
Ruth, i n Tom Stoppard' s Night and Day.
Examples of healthy scepticism about the press are always welcome. The
specimen below comes from page 1 39 of the September 1 963 Chess World:
'A prominent article on Kotov appeared in a Sydney newspaper, crediting
him with being a former world champion and being "second in the last
world championship". A few of us saw Kotov at lunch, and we solemnly
shook hands with him, congratulating him on his new honours. He said,
"We always say that if a newspaper article is 5% right, it is good. This one
was not quite as good as that, but it was not so bad - it said my name was
Alexander Kotov, and it is" . '
From page 1 2 o f Secrets of Grandmaster Chess by John Nunn:
' After this event [the Richmond Easter Congress, 1 966] my photograph
appeared in the Putney & Roehampton Herald, where my name was
incorrectly given as "Jimmy" Nunn (a correction appeared the week after) .
My opinion of the accuracy of journalists took a nose-dive and has been
going down ever since . '
Finally, a n item from page 2 5 o f the January 1 92 1 BCM:
' . . . America has produced, if not a peer, at least a critic of Samuel Rzechevski,
in the person of Edward Rochie Hardy, of Columbia, aged 1 2, and alleged
to be master of twelve languages, as well as an expert at chess and draughts.
According to this young man, Rzechevski ' s success is due to a "trick move".
He confesses to having such a move himself at draughts - or checkers, as
he calls it - and says that Rzechevski "must have hit upon some play that
will in every case checkmate his opponent" . When asked if he would play
a game with the Polish prodigy, Master Hardy replied: "Not me ! You can ' t
beat a trick move." So does wisdom come t o u s out o f the mouths o f babes
and sucklings, interpreted by the American pressman ! '
(K 1 998)
289

Doubled pawns
Golombek' s entry on ' Doubled Pawns' in The Encyclopedia of Chess gave as
an illustration a position in which there were nine white pawns .

Rubinstein trap
The ' Rubinstein trap' acquired its name after Akiba Rubinstein fell into it twice,
against Euwe at Bad K.issingen, 1 928 and Alekhine, San Remo, 1 930. The relevant
moves may be found in numerous sources, such as page 2 1 of Chemev' s Wonders

and Curiosities of Chess.


The motif had been seen, in a rather more sophisticated form, in an earlier game:

N. Br6dy-H. von Gottschall, Dusseldorf, 1 3 August 1 908. Queen 's Gambit


Declined.

1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 <tlc3 <tlf6 4 <tlf3 Ae7 5 M4 0-0 6 e3 a6 7 cl <tlbd7 8 cxd5


exd5 9 Ad3 c6 10 0-0 e8 1 1 h3 <tlf8 1 2 <tle5 <tlg6 1 3 Ag3 <tlxe5 14 dxe5 <tld7

1 5 <tlxd5 <tlxe5 16 <tlxe7+ -f!Jxe7 17 Ab1 <tlg6 18 e4 -f!Jg5 19 h2 -f!Jb5 20 b3


Ae6 21 f4 adS 22 c2 .ilc8 23 f2 b4 24 cd1 <tlf8 25 e5 .ile6 26 f5 .ild5
27 Ah4 d7 28 -f!Jg3 'l:ta5 29 -'ti6 g6 30 g5 Resigns.
Source: tournament book, pages 89-90.
A fate even worse than Rubinstein ' s is to fall into the same trap twice in one
game. The specimen below was contributed by W.H. Cozens on page 236 of
CHESS, 27 March 1 965 :

H. Bouwmeester-N. Padevsky, Tel Aviv Olympiad, November 1 964. Sicilian


Defence.

1 e4 c5 2 <tlf3 d6 3 d4 exd4 4 <tlxd4 <tlf6 5 <tlc3 a6 6 h3 e5 7 <tlde2 Ae6 8 g4


Ae7 9 Ag2 0-0 1 0 Ae3 <tlbd7 1 1 <tlg3 <tlb6 1 2 0-0 g6 1 3 b3 c7 14 <tlce2 <tlbd7
1 5 c4 b5
290

16 4:)f5 l=!fe8 17 4:)xe7+ l=! xe7 18 f4 exf4 19 .ilxf4 4:)e8 20 cxb5 axb5 21 4:)d4 b4

22 re il.xf5 23 exf5 l=!a5 24 fxg6 hxg6 25 h1 4:)e5 26 .ilg5 l=!d7 27 l=!cl l=!c5 28 'l!i'd2
'lM>8 29 ..l'a.e3 l=!xc1 30 l=!xcl liJg7 31 .ilg5 32 .ilf6 l=!a7 33 h6 Resigns . (2187)
Own piece captured

K. Reintals-S. Kruger, Australian Championship, Brisbane, 1 95 1 .


White played 30 l=! xc3, which M.E. Goldstein explained as follows in Chess
World (October 1 95 1 , page 225 ) :
' Desperately short o f time, White here captured his own bishop with his
rook ! His score sheet clearly reads 30 TxL, which i s the Conti nental
rendering of RxB .
29 1

The Director of Play rightly ruled that, as White had touched his R at B3 he
must move it. As the rook could no longer protect the bishop, a piece is lost
and White promptly resigned. '
The magazine ' s editor, Purdy, remarked: ' B y the new rules, not yet i n force, the
FIRST piece touched must be moved; here perhaps it was the bishop. Present
rules give the opponent the choice. '
Purdy added, ' Ahues once took his own pawn i n a big tourney ' . H e was doubtless
thinking of the well-known game Przepi6rka v Ahues, Kecskemet, 1 927, but it
was Przepi6rka who captured his own bishop. By coincidence, there too the
illegal move was 'RxB ' .
(CC 1998)

Historical havoc
Chess enthusiasts like to question, review and perfect almost every aspect of the
game. Analysts seek the strongest move; composers take pains to construct
positions devoid of surplus units or dual variations; administrators meet to thrash
out foolproof definitions of technical terms and ideal formulations of obscure
rules or pairing systems. World champions advocate changes to complicate play
or dispense with the need for book knowledge. The one conspicuous exception,
where perfection is seldom a goal, is the game' s literature and, in particular, its
history .
It is nonetheless recognised that chess books have become unacceptably slipshod
and excessively numerous. As Lev Polugayevsky observed in the 711 990 New
in Chess (page 57):
'Ninety per cent of all chess books you can open at page one and then
immediately close again for ever. Sometimes you see books that have been
written in one month. I don ' t like that. You should take at least two years
for a book, or not do it at all . '
O n page 6 9 o f the 1 / 1 99 1 issue o f the same magazine, John Nunn remarked:
'I like to see some evidence that the author has really done some work for
his book. You see a lot of books these days where you think, "Well, did this
take two weeks or two and a half weeks to write?" . '
I n fact, books have been churned out faster still. O n page 1 7 o f the November
1 990 CHESS Raymond Keene claimed/admitted: 'One book I wrote over a
weekend, and it only took that long because of the physical limitation of getting
the stuff onto the page' .
Precious little scholarly stuff gets onto the page, and it is hardly surprising that

292

nowadays Mr Keene is the king of a thousand clearance sales. By the very act of
writing an author in effect sets himself up as an authority, yet all too many are
content for nearly anything to be printed under their names, especially regarding
chess history. It is as though all writers, no matter how unenlightened about the
game' s past, feel licensed - compelled, even - to indulge in historical name-dropping,
u nder the delusion that their output will gain prestige from occasional references,
however shallow or fallacious, to the old-timers. Some writers even vaunt their
lack of education. In an interview published in the 8/ 1 996 New in Chess, David
Norwood declared, 'I've written more books than I have read on chess' .
For convenience, two categories of book with historical content may be defined:
Category A, comprising works on academic or theoretical history, and Category
B, composed of books in which history has a practical or utilitarian application.
Category A thus includes investigations into the archaeological origins of chess,
tournament and match statistics, and bibliographies. Regardless of the intrinsic
interest, study of such matters will improve nobody ' s Elo rating. These books
are usually written by, and tailored for, the 'pure historian ' and are researched
properly, published privately and distributed prosaically. Gaps, however small,
in our knowledge are filled, often definitively, by unsung heroes like John van
Manen, who has produced fine catalogues of Australian chess literature and
competitions. As a rule, books in Category A have a high proportion of novel
information, one reason being that the readership is a relatively exacting one
which expects something unobtainable elsewhere. The problem is that titles may
sell as few as 200 copies .
In the much wider Category B, the heritage is, or should be, used for didactic
purposes (in relation to over-the-board play, compositions, etc . ) . Ideally, chess
history and chess praxis will go hand-in-hand, popularising each other. Although
the historical content may be central to the book' s thesis (e.g. Chessfrom Morphy
to Botwinnik by Imre Konig and Dynamic Chess by R.N. Coles), it is more
likely to be incidental (as in The Golden Dozen by Irving Chernev, which uses
the past essentially for entertainment, without historical perspective) . Most
Category B books show fewer signs of authorial exertion than Category A works,
and it sometimes seems that the more effort an author puts into a book, the fewer
readers he will attract. The writer who compiled an anthology of a given master' s
games would reach the top of Category B if he undertook a detailed work of
annotation and biography, but the forbidding size, look and price of the
masterpiece would certainly occasion lower sales than for a sketchy 1 00-pager
(nadir of Category B) on that master' s best-known combinations. An historian/
archivist of the calibre of Jeremy Gaige, whose books (e.g. Chess Personalia A
Biobibliography) belong exclusively to Category A, will never sell as well as,
say, Bruce Pandolfini (whose inconsequential works have claimed that he has
' 1 00,000 books in print ' ) , but it would be simple justice if top Category B
writers, at least, achieved far higher print-runs.
The peak of Category A and the bottom of Category B are the extremes of our
293

scale; just as a Gaige would not write One-Move Chess by the Champions or
Chessercizes, so a Pandolfini would be unlikely to do a biobibliography . On th e
other hand, some lower-rung Category B writers produced, once upon a time,
material of substance. Fred Reinfeld did some good books in the 1 930s. The
young Larry Evans worked hard on self-published monographs of minority
interest, giving no indication of how he would end up. Writers may legitimately
be expected to improve with age, as their j udgment matures and their libraries
expand, but many c areer curves go in the opposite direction. The road
downmarket is a congested one.
Category A works repose in their own little sanctum, and people' s acquaintance
with history usually comes from reading lower Category B books. The elite of
Category B is, in a sense, the most important type of literature, creating a bridge
between ' minority interest' learning and 'popular' books. An outstanding example
is John S . Hilbert ' s Napier The Forgotten Chessmaster. There remai ns,
nevertheless, an unfortunate blockage which prevents the knowledge contained
in upper Category B books (and, a fortiori, Category A ones) from filtering
downstream. Whatever decent research is carried out, the overall quality of history
in the most widely-read books barely improves, with little trace of any trickle
down effect. Many inferior works dominate bookstore shelves, leaving most
chess aficionados almost unaware of the existence of Category A or, even, the
more respectable end of Category B . Prospective purchasers have far less choice
than might be thought. The mere quantity of books published does not ensure a
wide range of reading matter, any more than the availability of two dozen look
alike television channels guarantees varied viewing.
It is worth summarising the four main ways that history is abused by the anti
historical :
1 . They make statements that are inaccurate or ill-informed.
2. They write accurately enough, but only because the material is common
knowledge, i.e. information which has already been worked to death in other
Category B books.
3 . They disguise ignorance of chess history by space-filling, often anecdotal .
4. They dispense with facts and volunteer interpretations and opinions.
The most improbable individuals deem themselves qualified to round up the
usual scores for a games collection. In 1 996 Eric Schiller came out with a volume
on Rudolf Spielmann. * Moderately energetic writers lacking a sense of shame
could cobble together such books until doomsday, and it is extraordinary what
* ' Rudolf appeared on the front cover, but elsewhere (including the title page and back cover) the
name was misspelt ' Rudolph' .

294

pub li shers will agree to put between covers. Chris Ward bit the dust with The
Genius ofPaul Morphy, which, for example, has this description of 4 . . . d5 against
the Evans Gambit (page 59): ' Presumably then this was a trendy riposte at the
ti me, but it hasn ' t had so much as a look-in for ages ' . Tousled prose often
acc ompanies indifference to academia, and it is no surprise to find Mr Ward
p as sing over the work of Morphy scholars such as David Lawson (though
p a ge 99 does refer to somebody called ' Dawson ' ) . 'I have never really been
a h istorian ' , he divulges on page 7 , in case we had missed the point.
Inaccuracy i s astoundingly rampant, and the genesis of some errors defies
explanation. Julian Hodgson ' s Chess Traveller's Quiz Book descended into
errancy as early as its second position, on page 3 (a dozen years out regarding a
Reti v Tartakower game, one of the most famous ever played). And doesn ' t
everybody also know that the venue o f the 1 852 'Evergreen Game ' between
Anderssen and Dufresne was Berlin? Eric Schiller doesn't. On the first page of
positions in The Big Book of Combinations he wrote ' unknown ' . Naturally the
ensuing pages continued in the same vein. In his error-sodden book World
Champion Openings Mr Schiller refers (page 1 3 ) to 'Emil Zukertort' , just like
Emil Zatopek. Six lines later, Gunsberg ' s forename is misspelt. So is his surname.
Two lines after that, it is wrongly claimed regarding Steinitz, ' in 1 892 he ran
into Lasker' . The book' s introduction includes the 1 860s as Morphy ' s 'heyday ' ,
yet even Chris Ward is aware that by then Morphy had withdrawn from serious
play. Mr Schiller is no more at home with the moderns. Page 21 has the wrong
year of death for Botvinnik, while on pages 50 and 368 we learn about the game
'Unzicker v Tal, Hamburg, 1 996' . Tal died in 1 992. A biographical note in
World Champion Openings states that Mr Schiller 'is the author of 7 1 chess
books ' , but does not explain the furor scribendi. The common-sense rule here
is: never trust any writer who has counted, and brags about, his output.
Time and again Category B books make do, for safety ' s sake, with repeating
historical common knowledge, or what is believed to be such on the say-so of a
1 950s potboiler cheaply reprinted by Dover. A hundred pseudo-historical tomes
can be read without finding anything about, for instance, Janowsky beyond a
handful of tried-and-true games, biographical cliches and ignorant derision.
Authors reel off loose-change information, perhaps mistily recalled from their
voracious teenage reading and certainly never verified or updated, despite the
obvious need to keep abreast of the latest discoveries, just as a master must be
acquainted with the most recent opening theory.
A peculiar kind of arrogance is required for a writer to think that his own name
on the cover is enough to justify publication of a book, even if it contains nothing
Worthwhile or new. Those who write may be masters, historians or hacks, but in
any eventuality the historical material presented usually relies on platitudes,
anecdotal trivia, over-familiar quotes and other routine skimmings. Writers have
a mysterious passion for the well-worn: the same Morphy opera miniature against
295

the Duke and Count (which Pandolfini even rehashed in his Solitaire Chess column
in the January 1 998 Chess Life); the same Bogoljubow versus Alekhine brilliancy
from Hastings, 1 922, without a scrap of original analysis; the same facts (or non
facts) about the legendary figures of the game; and, above all, the same errors,
mindlessly copied from one writer to the next. Mistakes and tittle-tattle have a gift
for getting themselves duplicated that straightforward facts somehow lack.
The uncaring see no need to have their work checked by a competent authority.
That would certainly have been a task and a half in the case of Impact of Genius by
R.E. Fauber, and we can only wonder how it ever came to be published. The same
applies to Learn Chessfrom The World Champions: Kasparov-Anand 95 by Bjarke
Kristensen and Don Maddox, which begins with a deplorable run-through of world
championship history that repeats numerous inaccuracies by its equally blithe
predecessors. Straightforward dates stand no chance. Page 1 9 reports that Tal's
death was in 1 994; two pages later we are told that Petrosian died in 1 993 (instead
of 1 984). Page 26 discloses that Kasparov challenged for the world championship
in 1 974. Mr Maddox used to be the editor of Chess Life.
For those unskilled in coping with facts an equally convenient alternative is to
pack half a page anecdotally, e.g. by citing the list of obscure words learnt by
Pillsbury as a memory test, as if such 'human interest' material were a substitute
for proper history. More or less identical restaurant stories have illustrated ad
nauseam the purported absent-mindedness of Paulsen, Lasker and Rubinstein,
and few worry whether there is truth in the tales or in their underlying point, if
any. There are, however, encouraging signs that the anecdotal school of chess
history, the curse of Category B books for decades, is being jeered into regression,
if not extinction.
Another substitute for facts is interpretation or speculation. Here we have authors
who feel entitled to opine that Alekhine dodged Capablanca, that Capablanca
dodged Alekhine, that each dodged the other or that neither dodged either, all
without any hint of thought, let alone investigation. It is extraordinary how the
unschooled manage to reduce complex issues to facile certainties. The writer
who confesses that he is 'not good at attention to detail' (see page 1 7 of the
November 1 990 CHESS for that stark, though redundant, admission by the
Weekend Wordspinner) is like a pianist who admits to being tone deaf. B road
sweeps are valueless. Unless an author has explored his terrain thoroughly, how
will he be reasonably sure that his central thesis cannot be overturned? Facts
count. Tentative theorising may have a minor role once research paths have
been exhausted but, as a general principle, rumour and guesswork, those tawdry
journalistic mainstays, have no place in historical writing of any kind.
Even works with certain scholastic pretensions tend to lack corroborative
footnotes and bibliographical references. Sources are considered to be frills; the
writings of Andrew Soltis, for instance, optimistically expect the reader to take
296

almost everything on trust. Primary sources (notably old magazines and


tournament books) are commonly disregarded, but so too are in-print books of
quality. An author' s failure to consult proper, standard sources may be revealed
by details which are, of themselves, minor. On pages 1 24- 1 26 of Modern Chess
Miniatures Neil McDonald gave the game Capablanca v Chase, New York, 1 922
and wrote: 'History has not been kind to Mr Chase. We know almost nothing
about him, not even his initials . ' Note that coercive 'we' , as if no reader could
possibly have more information than Mr McDonald. Heaven forbid that the latter
should have taken the trouble to inspect the American Chess Bulletin of the
time, but even The Unknown Capablanca, a top-notch Category B work, would
have given him the allegedly elusive initial. For some reason, David Hooper and
Dale Brandreth ' s book, originally published by Batsford in 1 975, has frequently
been ignored, even by that publisher' s own chess adviser, Raymond Keene. On
page 28 of the July 1 9 8 8 CHESS he referred to a game 'Capablanca v Ribeiras
1 935 ' and indicated that he did not know the occasion on which it was played.
All necessary particulars, including the correct spelling Ribera, are on pages 97-98
of The Unknown Capablanca.
Newcomers to chess should quickly realise that even basic archival and statistical
information is sparse. Sports such as tennis, golf, baseball and cricket offer their
devotees a mass of data in readily available publications, but chess does not. Even
today' s leading masters are less well represented in book form than was the case a
couple of decades ago. In the 1 970s there were several 'complete' collections of
Karpov' s games, but no such volume has covered Kasparov' s career, apart from a
1 983 book from Batsford misleadingly entitled My Games. One world championship
challenger, Gunsberg, has yet to be the subject of any monograph at all. Instead, we
are swamped by books on openings, the category least interested in the game' s
heritage and one which pays only fleeting attention even to pre- 1 960s chess, i.e. the
period before the Informants became available as a convenient research prop.
Historical ignorance of the openings is rampant, with writers regularly analysing
from scratch positions already meticulously examined in the past. Openings books
featuring proper historical delving are a rarity (the work of such luminaries as W.
John Lutes and Hugh Myers being the exception), and it cannot be salutary for
chess literature that there is so much (unhistorical) concentration on the most
ephemeral phase of the game. Books are written about the Trompowsky Opening
by people who cannot spell Trompowsky.
Category B volumes have customarily been published by the large companies
(fewer of which are now interested in chess) and are geared towards the mass
market, which is believed to mean those preoccupied with scoring more points.
Unrealistic promises of increased playing strength are rife in titles and promotional
literature, and these are gullibly repeated by so-called reviewers. Vulgarity is
the fashion, and such mellifluous titles as Opening Zaps to Cream Gazza in 20
Moves with! may soon descend upon us. An unhealthy proportion of lower
Category B books have gaudy front covers and jokey titles, the unflattering, if
297

inadvertent, message being, 'Chess is a dull game, you are a dull reader, so here
is a simple, jolly book j ust for you ' . To reinforce the impression of insouciant
expertise, the authors may well strive for (flippant) humour, normally with results
about as funny as a sinus wash.
The physical quality of books is not rising, and sturdy hardbacks of the kind that
G. Bell & Sons offered until the mid- 1 970s are nowadays a rarity, although
McFarland & Company, Inc. brings out a few. Standard books are often shorter
than before, without, of course, any commensurate reduction in the cost. The
April 1 998 BCM (page 1 97) announces that it is selling a new openings paperback,
all 1 28 pages of it, at 1 4.50 (over $ 24), which its review calls 'a very reasonable
price' . There is no mystery to this. The book is by Graham Burgess, who happens
to be a member of the publisher' s editorial team, which happens to include Murray
Chandler, who happens to be the editor of the BCM. This is just a routine part of
the United Kingdom' s injurious coterie of chess writers, editors and publishers.
Caveat emptor.
More generally, publishers should coax writers into giving their all and shun
individuals who have no all to give. Instead, editorial rigour and scrutiny are
manifestly in decline. Contracts are doled out to the most implausible people, on
occasions seemingly in bundles. Desk-top production gives increased autonomy
to those who do not want to be left out, even if they have nothing to communicate.
The upshot of all this is that a moderately competent chess enthusiast can pick
off historical howlers within minutes of opening almost any new book, and,
blurb-writers being what they are, sometimes it need not even be opened. The
same puny selection of photographs of masters circulates from one book to the
next. Proofreading is a fading art. (Harry Nelson Pillsbury American Chess
Champion by Jacques N. Pope is an upper-middle Category B book, much praised
by some critics, yet it misspells a) La Strategie 1 6 consecutive times on pages
335-338, and b) Wiener Schachzeitung 1 6 consecutive times on pages 343-346.)
Prose quality is in decline, with diminishing concern about grammar and style
or the distinction between written and spoken language. Today' s mood favours
brash, T -shirt informality (awash with slang, players' nicknames and exclamation
marks), as if chess, intrinsically lacklustre and arcane, needs to borrow from the
zingy, gory vernacular of the professional wrestling circuit if readers are to be
kept awake.
The inadequate monitoring of new chess literature is another problem. The 1 3th
edition of Modem Chess Openings was published at the beginning of the 1 990s,
yet it is hard to recall any authoritative critique that compared it to earlier editions
and to other single-volume openings manuals. The public ' s interests were
forgotten long ago. Much literature is sold by mail, but the USCF, for instance,
barely mentions certain high-quality books and is less than candid about the
deficiencies of many that it does endeavour to sell, not to say off-load. Chess
Life is just one of many magazines less concerned with serious reviewing than
298

wi th s ales patter. Little wonder that bungling authors can hope to escape scot
free in the crowd.
s .H. Wood once wrote (January 1 95 1 CHESS, page 8 1 ) that a reviewer of a
book could rarely spare more than one hour for his job. With today' s rate of
book production, he would have to be far quicker now. When poor books appear,
few people utter a word of protest, for it takes longer to prepare a diligently
negative review than a few bromidic compliments. Censuring a writer for
inflicting a feeble or unnecessary book on the chess world may be reckoned bad
form, as if unquestioning gratitude were due to all who do our game the honour
of writing about it, no matter how unequipped for the task they may be. Eminent
film critics have a more fastidious approach: they j udge whether a production is
a masterpiece and, if it is not, they bluntly explain why. In chess that would
appear absurdly rigorous, not to say churlish and pedantic. Writers who devote
pages to arguing whether one move is better than another profess astonishment
that others care that historical facts should be correct. If that is pedantry then so
be it; the important thing is not to be a sloppy pedant like Bernard Cafferty.

It should not be imagined that gratitude will be expressed to those who do point
out mistakes . Errare humanum est (though it is a question of degree - importance
and frequency), but to apologise is apparently superhumanum. A good writer
welcomes corrections and seeks an early opportunity to put the record straight,
but others are reluctant to amend the record on ' mere' historical matters.
Perpetrators of such blunders tend also to be the most negligent on topicaVpolitical
matters, and this double penchant for imprecision makes them all the less inclined
to acknowledge error, if only because the embarrassment would be continual.
Anyone who has asked the (London) Times or the ever more barbarian BCM to
correct their gaffes will know that there are few struggles more uphill.
In some areas of chess writing a rare alliance of two skills is called for: playing
strength and historical expertise. It is unwise for the 'non-playing' historian to
publish his own analysis, although he may be a useful compiler. Similarly, players
who are unversed in, and indifferent to, chess history should not touch it. They
are no doubt equally uninformed about fairy chess, and rightly abstain from
lecturing on that subject.
But if historians have the knowledge and documentation and players have the
expertise in chess praxis, why don' t the two work together? Since no good
annotated collection of Steinitz ' s games has been published for many a long
decade, an historian might wish to repair the omission. Despite having access to
almost all surviving scores and being well guided by existing annotations (notably
Steinitz ' s own, which were excellent), he recognises that all this would be
i nsufficient to give the modern reader worthy notes. That is a job for a strong
master. The obvious solution is for the historian and master to cooperate, an

299

infrequent happening since the master may have little interest in Steinitz' s games,
be uninspired by the prospective level of royalties and, understandably, fee l
apprehension at the scale of the task. More fundamentally, masters and historians
inhabit different worlds, rarely even corresponding. The consequences of this
partitioning are frequently seen nowadays when publishers bring out algebraic
editions of old books without removing elementary mistakes.
Another beneficial innovation would be a research association that paid chess
history the serious attention that is automatically accorded to other academic
domains. Apart from checking manuscripts and coordinating researchers' work
to avert duplication of effort, a chief task would be to index sources, viz. to do
for chess openings and general subjects what Gaige has been undertaking for
chess personalia and tournaments. Only in this way can rich material from the
past be systematically resurrected. Magazines of the 1 920s and 1 930s feature
many extensive openings articles by that great theoretician Ernst Griinfeld, yet
players today are writing about these same variations without any knowledge of
Griinfeld' s research and analysis, let alone his life. Such journals also have
Tartakower' s sparkling annotations to hundreds of games, but for the present
generation it is as though they had never existed.
A further essential task is to anthologise all the main games played since chess
began, so that there finally exists an exhaustive chronicle. In the early 1 980s
such a project (the Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games) was initiated,
unconvincingly, by David Levy and Kevin J. O' Connell and was abandoned
before 4,000 scores had been published. In 1 993 A.J. Gillam of the Chess Player
assembled in book form 805 games played in 1 925 , although available informal
scores would have added hundreds to that total. What is required is a more
profound effort geared towards including every significant game ever recorded,
with full indexing of openings, middlegame configurations and endings. It is
now possible to find databases with a million or more games, but from the
historical standpoint the results have been slapdash with, in any case, a heavy
bias towards recent events. Unexposed to scrutiny and unchecked by historians,
such material has so far proved inaccurate and incomplete.
In the meantime, chess history teeters along from one battering to the next. Despite
that, our overview concludes on a note which is optimistic as well as negative.
For if low-grade writers sometimes seem to emerge unscathed they do so only
temporarily. The supreme judge of chess history, i.e. chess history itself, is
unmerciful to dross-merchants. P. Wenman, a sometime champion of Scotland,
brought out many books from the 1 930s onwards, and, despite his fugacious
annotations and general historical laxity, he enjoyed good sales for a while and
suffered little admonition. However, by the time he died, in 1 972, he had been
virtually forgotten, and few, if any, chess magazines even reported his demise.
Wenman treated chess history and the chess public with disdain. Eventually, both
( CC 1998)
repaid him in kind.
300

As noted on page 293 above, David Norwood declared in an interview that he


h ad written more chess books than he had read. On the rare occasions when he
uses an old position there is a high chance of error. Page 1 3 of his Chess Puzzles
book (published by Usborne) affirms, incredibly, that no chess problems were
published until 1 845, yet the same page gives 1 822 as the date of a problem by
Babson (who was not born until l 852). Page 25 calls Damiano 'an Italian Master' .
He was Portuguese. On page 32 comes a position from 'a game between Frazekas
and Speelman in 1 938 ' . The players' names should read Fazekas and Spielmann.
Page 25 of The Daily Telegraph Chess Puzzles, another Norwood venture, goes
awry in the Edward Lasker v Thomas position, with a wrong date ( 1 9 1 0) and
wrong circumstances (it was not a 'blitz game'), quite apart from the failure on
page 33 to mention the faster mates that Lasker missed. Page 40 has a game
'A.N. Other-Philipp, Halle, 1 9 1 2 ' . In fact the winner was named R.H. Philip
and the venue was Hull. (The position appeared (undated) on page 309 of the
25 August 1 9 1 2 Deutsches Wochenschach.) Page 44 has a position labelled
'Cochrane-Staunton, London, 1 942' .

Worst start to a tournament?


On the s ixth move of h i s first-round g ame in the Vienna tournament
( 1 3 November 1 922), Takacs blundered away a piece against Rubinstein: 1 d4
<tlf6 2 c4 e6 3 <tlc3 b6 4 e4 Ab7 5 Ad3 Ab4 6 "itfc2 d6 7 "itfa4+ <tlc6 8 d5. He
resigned at move 24.
Databases give several l 990s games with the same blunder (6 . . . d6) .

Bad starts to books


The Introduction to L 'art de fa ire mat has a position from ' Fairhust S. Reshewsky, Hastings, 1 93 8 ' with a missed mate in seven. In reality: a) for
Fairhust read Fairhurst; b) for Reshewsky read Reshevsky ; c) for 1 93 8 read
1 937; d) for mate in seven read mate in eight. Only the players' names are
corrected in the English edition.
Page 3 of Your Move! by Y. Neishtadt has 'Hastings 1 929/30' , instead of 1 9 1 9,
for one of Capablanca' s most famous positions, against Sir George Thomas.
On page 4 (as well as, for example, page 56) ofPlay Chess Combinations and
Sacrifices David Levy shows that he does not know the difference between a pin
and a skewer.

301

Legendist
Keene on Kasparov:
'Legend has it that at fours [sic] years old - before he had been taught the
moves - he was already solving problems which baffled his seniors, he had
just picked up the patterns from watching adults play . '
Source: Sunday Times ' 1 000 Makers o f the Twentieth Century ' , 1 99 1 .
Kasparov on Kasparov (four years previously):
' One spring evening, just before my sixth birthday, my parents were trying
to solve a chess problem in the newspaper set by the old master Abramian .
I had never played chess . . '
.

Source: Child of Change, page 1 4 .

Blindfold
An excerpt from page 1 9 of "En Passant " Chess Games and Studies by George
Koltanowski :
'When Philidor, the Frenchman, in 1 8 1 6 played six games blindfold the
Press went mad, thinking it an eighth wonder . . . '
It certainly would have been. Philidor had died in 1 795 .

,/7
A. Nimzowitsch

Emanuel Lasker

302

Morphy ' s coat-of-arms (see page 227)

J A Leonard
.

E. Kemeny

J.W. Showalter

A . B . Hodges

Em. Lasker and W. Steinitz, Philadelphia, 1 894

H . N . Pillsbury

Sir George Thomas

A. Nimzowitsch

J .R. Capablanca

T . R . Dawson

E.D. B ogolj ubow and J . R . C apablanca, Moscow, 1 925

E. Tholfsen

Mir Sultan Khan

K. Junge

M. Euwe and M. B otvinnik, Nottingham, 1 93 6

A. Alekhine (playing E. Steiner, Kemeri , 1 937)

F. Reinfeld

Capablanca' s grave, Havana

Olivia de Havilland and Errol Flynn ( 1 942)

R. Fine

Kotov

Keres

A. Kotov and P. Keres, Zurich, 1 95 3

A. Kupchik

Olga Capablanca Clark

VI

Mysteries

Capablanca anomalies
To what extent did Capablanca prepare for his world championship match with
Dr Lasker? In his booklet on the event James Schroeder writes (page 1 0) : 'He
studied Lasker' s games extensively and was well prepared when the match was
played. ' But on page 73 of From Morphy to Fischer Horowitz says: 'Capablanca,
be it noted, made no special preparations either, but then, he never did. '
Perhaps it all depends on whether you agree with William Winter (in Kings of
Chess, page 92) that Capablanca 'was proud to consider himself a professional
chess player' or with Harry Golombek (The Game of Chess, page 2 1 9) that 'he
never became a chess professional ' .
One other little mystery o f rather less importance appeals to the imagination. In
Chessworld 1 964 (volume 1 , number 3 , page 33) Olga Capablanca describes
her late husband as 'always an early riser' . But Edward Lasker wrote in The
Adventure of Chess (page 1 1 1 ), 'I do not remember his ever breakfasting before
I had my lunch ' .
(C 1 977)

Marshall's gold coins


The perennial story about the game Levitzky v Marshall, Breslau, 1 9 1 2 is as
confusing as ever. We once brought up the subject with Irving Chernev, who
replied (letter of 1 3 October 1 975):

'Let 's put the quietus on this, once and for all! Frank J. Marshall himself
(in person, not a moving-picture) told me himself that it was true. The
spectators, he said, threw gold pieces on his board at the conclusion of his
brilliant win over Levitzky. While Marshall 's memory was sometimes faulty
(he remembered very few of his great games) this was an incident one could
hardly forget. '
However, Andy Soltis writes in Chess Life, January 1 984 (page 1 0) : ' It wasn' t
303

appreciative spectators who showered Frank Marshall ' s board with gold coins
after one of his brilliancies - it was disgruntled bettors who had wagered on
Marshal l ' s opponent. '
The source of this revelation is not provided. Was the practice of betting still
extant in 1 9 1 2?
(670)
In AI Horowitz' s throw-together A ll About Chess the famous Marshall game is
given twice (pages 63 and 1 50). On each occasion it i s denied that any gold was
showered, on the say-so of Marshall' s widow. For example: ' ... Caroline Marshall,
who ought to know, disclaims knowledge of even a shower of pennies ' . ( 714 )
From Hugh Myers :

' The Soltis version strikes me as being stupid. How could debts be paid off
in that way during a tournament game ? Where is his source for such a
story? 1 don 't doubt that betting was possible, but losers don 't usually pay
so eagerly. And they bet gold on Levitzky ? ? '
Soltis does not generally believe i n giving his sources for anything. However,
we imagine he is relying on America 's Chess Heritage (page 99):
' Eyewitness reports, as circulated in Europe in the 1 920s, come close to
corroborating Marshall' s story. Two of the Czech participants at Breslau,
Oldrich Duras, who had shared 1 st prize with A. Rubinstein, and K. Trey bal.
both senior master members of the Dobrusky Chess Club in Prague, often
took pleasure in recounting this and other episodes to the junior members,
including myself. As corroborated by their compatriots Dobias, Hromadka,
Pokorny, Thelen, and other Czechs who had also been to Breslau, what
really happened was the paying of a bet. As the story was told, the Leningrad
master Levitzky was accompanied by another Russian, P .P. Saburov, a well
to-do patron of the game. Another visitor was Alexander Alekhine, a dapper,
prosperous aristocrat who was on his way from Stockholm (where he had
won l st prize) to a tournament in Vilna. Saburov, Alekhine, and a few other
Russian guests made it their duty to place a wager on Levitzky ' s win over
the "played-out American" . However, Marshall upset their patri otic
predictions and the bettors tossed over their pledges. Rubles, marks, Austrian
crowns, and similar coinage of the period were minted partly or fully i n
gold. As related b y Zidlicky, even the two silver Maria Theresa thalers came
in the "shower", something not mentioned in the respectable accounts of
( 768)
the tournament book. '

Owen Hindle quotes from page 62 of Marshall 's Chess "Swindles " , which gave
the Levitzky v Marshall game with notes by Hermann Helms taken from the
304

Brooklyn Daily Eagle. At the end Helms wrote:


'After the game a number of enthusiastic spectators presented Mr Marshall
with a handful of gold pieces, saying the game had given them great
pleasure . '
(2148)

Who were they?


Who was Mlle Maud Flandin? Pages 928-929 of the January-February 1 935
L 'Echiquier give a couple of positions from games won by her, with the following
tex t: 'La championne de France, Mile Maud Flandin (nee a Saigon) a tres vite

atteint un haut degre de perfection. Elle va probablement affronter en 1 935 Ia


detentrice du titre mondial, Mile Vera Menchik. '
The record shows that Mlle Flandin never did compete for the women ' s world
championship, and we cannot recall ever having seen her name elsewhere. Is she
(829)
known to any readers?
David Pritchard submits a page from one of his scrapbooks which contains an
item published in the Daily Sketch in 1 936 (exact date not recorded). A photograph
of a studious-looking woman had the following caption :
'Miss Angeligi Leoni, of Cyprus, won twenty-seven and drew three of thirty
simultaneous games of blindfold ches s . '
How did this unlikely story arise?

(K 1 993)

No information has yet been received on the Cypriot woman player mentioned
above, but here is another bizarre case. Page 8 1 of the March 1 928 issue of the
US j ournal The Gambit reproduced a feature, including photograph, headed
"'Brainiest" girl claims Championship' . The full item reads:
"'Birdie" Reeve, Chicago, 1 7, considered the world' s cleverest girl of her
age, has just played simultaneously 1 0 of the leading chess players of the
West and claims championship of her sex. She has a record of 1 90 words a
minute on the typewriter and is the author of three volumes on the science
of words . '
( K 1996)
In a simultaneous exhibition held in Chicago on 9 February 1 924 one of
Alekhine' s games was a victory against Florence Gleason, with both sides playing
blindfold. The game has been widely published; for example, on page 57 of the
March 1 924 American Chess Bulletin, as well as in Alekhine in the Americas by
J. Donaldson, N. Minev and Y . Seirawan and volume 2 of Complete Games of
Alekhine by V. Fiala and J . Kalendovsky.
305

Alekhine remarked that no other woman in the world could have accomplished
the feat of playing blindfold against him. Who was Florence Gleason? (K 1 997)

The Polish Immortal


The 1 November 1 986 issue of the Spanish magazine Jaque has a letter from a
reader, Julian Alonso Martin, about the famous Gliksberg/Glucksberg v Najdorf
game. He points out that Najdorf s own annotations to the game (Jaque, January
1 975) contained the comment, ' Ya tengo tablas por perpetuo. Mis 1 7 afios las
rechazan ' . Najdorf was 1 7 in 1 927, but the game is normally said to have been
played in Warsaw in 1 935. A further complication from the Jaque correspondent:
Najdorf learned chess at the age of sixteen yet is claiming to have played the
brilliancy one year later.
Najdorf specified that the game was played 'en un campeonato de Polonia' and
that ' although the game was awarded the first brilliancy prize in this tournament,
I have always wondered whether the distinction should not have gone to the
second-prize game, which I shall annotate shortly' . Mr Martin (who further points
out that Najdorf did not participate in the 1 927 Championship) has been awaiting
that for over ten years.
A note or two of our own. Najdorf came second in the Polish Championship in
Warsaw in 1 935 but the event had no player called Gliksberg or Glucksberg.
Nor did the 1 935 Warsaw Team Tournament, where the game is sometimes said
to have been played (e.g. on page 1 45 of R.N. Coles' The Chess-player 's Week
end Book) . When Tartakower publi shed it in the August 1 93 5 Wiener
Schachzeitung (page 226) he wrote that it was 'played in a tournament in Warsaw
in 1 935 ' , specifying 'a local tournament' on page 225 . His annotations closed
with the description: 'The Polish Immortal' .

(1377)

Who i s able to do some sleuthing?

Jan Kalendovsky has made an important discovery about the Gliksberg v Najdorf
game, claimed by dozens of books to have been played in 1 93 5 : the score
appeared, with brief notes by Najdorf, in the chess column of the Czech
publication Pravo lidu of 1 November 1 930. No precise occasion is indicated,
(201 3)
but the source is given as Kurjer Warszawski.
On page 107 of the 4/1 994 issue of the Polish magazine Szachista, Tadeusz Wolsza
commented on C.N. 20 1 3 , stating that the game was first published, by Leon Tuhan
Baranowski, in the newspaper DzieiiPolski in August 1 930. Mr Wolsza has found
only one event in Warsaw in which both Najdorf and Glucksberg participated: a
second category tournament (ten players) which ended in January 1 930 and in
which Najdorfwas fourth with five points and Glucksberg tenth with 1 point. Najdorf
won their individual game, but was it the game?
306

(2052)

Alekhine v Najdorf and Flohr?


Issue 9 (June 1 988) of the Revista lnternacional de Ajedrez has a most interesting
interview with Najdorf, although salt is a necessary accompaniment to many of
the stories of the 'Patriarch of World Chess' . Najdorf of all people should know
(p age 25) that in 1 939-40 Rubinstein was not in Warsaw, which is where he
situates that deplorable old yarn about A . K . R . volunteering to go to a
concentration camp.
On pages 27-28 we learn that in Warsaw in 1 927 Najdorf took a board in a
simultaneous exhibition given by Alekhine (being one of two 'extra' opponents
whom Alekhine played blindfold). Naj dorf says that he won by a rook sacrifice
and that Alekhine was able to recall this feature when Najdorf reminded him of
the game 1 2 years later. *
(1 660)
C.N. 1 49 1 referred to a passage regarding Alekhine by Salo Flohr, written in
1 976, on page xvi of Bled 1 931 /nternational Chess Tournament: 'The first time
I saw him was in 1 925 (I first lost to him in an exhibition) . . . ' Another score that
would appear not to be extant.

The Baron
From P.C. Wason:

'Who was Baron Dory ? What are the details of the tournament designed to
test his defence (Vienna, 1 93 7) ? And what are the details of his resistance to
the Nazis which led to a sentence of death which was not carried out? '
Perhaps a reader would care to deal with the biographical matters raised by our
correspondent. Articles about the Dory Defence (1 d4 .:lf6 2 .:lf3 .:le4) appeared
in the Wiener Schachzeitung of October 1 936 (pages 293-295) and December
1 936 (pages 359-360), the writers being Immo Fufi and Ladislaus von Dory
respectively. The features were the subject of brief items in the BCM of January
1 937 (page 22) and March 1 937 (page 1 40).
The May 1 937 Wiener Schachzeitung (pages 1 39- 1 4 1 ) carried a report on the
Dory Defence tournament, held in the Cafe Central, Vienna on 1 9-26 May. Keres,
Weil, Becker and Podhorzer (order of finish) played two games against each
other. From the many games from the event which the Wiener Schachzeitung
published, we pick the following:

*We have found no trace of any such occasion. For further doubt regarding Najdorf s claims to
have played Alekhine, see page 342 of Alexander Alekhine 's Chess Games, 1 902-1946.

307

D. Podhorzer-P. Keres, Vienna, May 1 937. Dory Defence.

1 d4 f6 2 f3 e4 3 bd2 dS 4 g3 cS S dxcS xeS 6 Ag2 c6 7 0-0 eS 8 c4


d4 9 b4 d7 10 bS aS 1 1 e1 Ae7 1 2 f4 exf4 13 . xf4 0-0 14 .fl eS 1 S
13..b 2 13..gS 1 6 c2 d3 17 exd3 xd3 1 8 Ad4 b4 19 f3 xc2 20 'iiY x c2 Ae 6 2 1
.ad1 Axc4 22 AcS 'iiYc8 23 'iiYf2 Ad8 24 . xd8 . xd8 25 Resigns.
Source: Wiener Schachzeitung, June 1 937, pages 1 73- 1 74.

( 1 6 78)

A book by Rubinstein
What was the genesis of the only book for which authorship is credited to
Rubinstein, La partida de ajedrez (Madrid, 1 97 1 ) ?
( 1 705)
So far nobody has provided exact details of where Rubinstein' s annotations
originated. Ed Tassinari remarks that the editor' s note in the book states that the
material had been published in the Polish press under the general title 'The Game
of Chess' and that Rubinstein had intended to bring it together in book form. To
rephrase the question: where and when did Rubinstein run a chess column? ( 1 843)
Richard Lappin points out that on pages 289-290 of Fred Wilson' s Lesser-known Chess
Masterpieces: 1906-1915 there is the game Bernstein v Rubinstein (Vilna, 1 9 1 2) with
annotations by Rubinstein from Novoe Vremya. We can find no trace of Rubinstein' s
having been a columnist of that publication. For the record, the game culled by Fred
Wilson appeared on pages 1 74- 1 75 of the 1 9 1 3 Year-Book ofChess.
(1910)

Where? When?
'Where? When?' , ask C.W. Pritchett and M.D. Thornton on page 61 of Scotland 's
Chess Centenary Book with regard to the following game between Mackenzie
and Hammond. 'Little is known about this game. It is not even absolutely certain
that it was played by "Captain" Mackenzi e . ' Can readers provide further
information?

Mackenzie-Hammond, Occasion? Petroff Defence.


1 e4 eS 2 00 6 3 xeS d6 4 00 xe4 S d4 dS 6 13..d3 Ad6 7 Q-0 0-0 8 c4 c6 9

cxdS cxdS 1 0 3 xc3 1 1 bxc3 Ag4 1 2 .b1 'iiYc7 1 3 h3 AhS 14 Axh7+ xh7 1 S
gS+ g6 16 g4 A4 17 . xb7 'i!t'xb7 18 13.. xf4 .h8 19 'i!t'd3+ 'it'6 2 0 . e l Ag6

308

21

.lh7+ !! xh7 22 g5 mate.

(1 72 1 )

The game was given o n page 75 o f Ellis ' 1 895 book Chess Sparks with the
heading ' Played before 1 876 . . . G.H. Mackenzie v Hammond' . Jacques N. Pope
has informed us that the game was published in the chess column of The Albion
on 2 1 April l 866, although no venue was stipulated. We have now also seen that
it appeared on pages 78-79 of The Chess World, 1 866, with the heading 'played
at the Boston Chess Club ' .

Was Alekhine a Nazi?


In March 1 94 1 a series of articles under the name of Alexander Alekhine appeared
in the Pariser Zeitung, a newspaper published in the French capital by the
occupying German forces. Entitled 'Aryan and Jewish Chess ' , the articles claimed
that Jews had had a destructive effect on the development of the game. Three
brief extracts will suffice:
- ' Do the Jews, as a race, have a gift for chess? After 30 years ' chess
experience I would like to answer this question in the following manner:
yes, the Jews have an exceptional talent for exploiting chess, chess ideas
and the practical possibilities that arise. But there has not been up to now a
Jew who was a real chess artist. '
- 'Just as with Nimzowitsch and his System, so was Reti given a warm
welcome by the maj ority of Anglo-Jewish pseudo-intellectuals for his book
Die neuen ldeen im Schach. * . . And this cheap bluff, this shameless self
publicity, was swallowed without resistance by a chess world, poisoned by
Jewish journalists, which echoed the jubilant cries of Jews and their friends;
"Long live Reti , and long live hypermodern neoromantic chess". '
.

- 'Again i n the 1 937 return match with Euwe the collective chess Jewry was
aroused. Most of the Jewish masters mentioned in this review attended as
press reporters, trainer and seconds for Euwe. At the beginning of the second
match I could no longer let myself be deceived: that is, I had to fight not
Euwe, but the combined chess Jewry, and in the event my decisive victory
( 1 0:4) was a triumph against the Jewish conspiracy . '
Much o f the material was subsequently reprinted, though with considerable
textual variants, in the Deutsche Zeitung in den Niederlanden and in the Deutsche
Schachzeitung. The magazine CHESS printed extensive English translations (of
the Deutsche Schachzeitung version), as did Horowitz and Rothenberg ' s 1 963
book The Personality of Chess. However, it was not until 1 986 that a complete
English version of the original Pariser Zeitung articles became available (Alekhine
Nazi A rticles, an excellent pri vately printed booklet edited by Kenneth Whyld) .
* Correct would be im Schachspiel.

309

Condemnation of the articles came from many notable sources. The November
1 945 CHESS (page 28) quoted from De Waarheid a denunciation of Alekhine by
G.C.A. Oskam: 'His libellous articles have filled me with sorrow. They were written
by a miserable collaborator, by a mean profiteer; they breathe lies and fraud, the
necessary elements of racial hatred; they are dictated by the qualities present in the
person of a double traitor . . . ' The same magazine published an anti-Alekhine letter
from Ossip Bernstein which was not without over-the-fence gossip: 'I refrain from
giving further disgusting details about his behaviour. It could be added that he
adopted the Nazi salute "Heil Hitler' with outstretched arm. '
Alekhine' s first disavowal of the articles appears to date from just after the liberation
of Paris (and not from just after the end of the War, as sometimes alleged even
today). The December 1 944 BCM (pages 274-275) and the January 1 945 CHESS
(page 53) both reported Alekhine' s statement in a published interview (News Review,
23 November 1 944) that while in France 'he had to write two chess articles for the
Pariser Zeitung before the Germans granted him his exit visa ... Articles which
Alekhine claims were purely scientific were rewritten by the Germans, published
and made to treat chess from a racial viewpoint. '
After his invitation to the London, 1 946 tournament was withdrawn because of
his war record, Alekhine wrote a long open letter (Madrid, 6 December 1 945) to
the organizer, W. Hatton-Ward, which was widely published at the time. With
regard to the articles, he stated:
'Among the heap of monstrosities published by the Pariser Zeitung appeared
insults against the members of the Committee which organised the 1 937
match; and the Dutch Chess Federation even lodged a protest on this matter
with Post. At that time I was absolutely powerless to do the one thing which
would have clarified the situation, to declare that the articles had not been
written by me . . .
For three years, until Paris was liberated, I had to keep silent. But from the
first opportunity I tried in interviews to show up the facts in their true light.
Of the articles which appeared in 1 94 1 during my stay in Portugal and which
I learnt about in Germany through their being reproduced in the Deutsche
Schachzeitung, nothing was actually written by me. I had submitted material
dealing with the necessary reconstruction of the FIDE (the International
Chess Federation) and a critique, written well before 1 938, of the theories
of Steinitz and Lasker. I was surprised when I received letters from Messrs
Helms and Sturgis at the reaction which these articles - purely technical had provoked in America and I replied to Mr Helms accordingly. Only
when I knew what incomparably stupid lucubrations had been created in a
spirit imbued with Nazi ideas did I realise what it was all about. But I was
then a prisoner of the Nazis and our only hope of preservation was to keep
silent. Those years ruined my health and my nerves and I am even surprised
that I can still play chess. '
(The above is the CHESS translation (January 1 946 issue, page 76). In the BCM
3 10

(J anuary 1 946, pages 2-4) Helms came out as ' Helsus' and ' 1 939' was given
rather than 1 938.)
Alekh ine wrote a further denial on page xx of his posthumous book jLegado!:
' Once more I insist on repeating that which I have published on several
occasions: that is, that the articles which were stupid and untrue from a
chess point of view and which were printed signed with my name in a Paris
newspaper in 1 94 1 , are a falsification. It is not the first time that unscrupulous
journalists have abused my name in order to publish inanities of that kind,
but in the present case what was published in Pariser Zeitung is what has
caused me the most grief, not only because of its content but also precisely
because it is impossible for me to rectify it . . . Colleagues know my sentiments
and they realise perfectly well how great is the esteem in which I hold their
art and that I have too elevated a concept of chess to become entangled in
the absurd statements poured out by the above-mentioned Pari sian
newspaper.'
Thus Alekhine' s line of defence was not consistent. Sometimes he claimed to
have written nothing, but on other occasions said that the anti-Jewish slant had
been added by others. The latter possibility is unlikely; once the anti-Jewish
slant is taken away there is hardly anything left.
Two widely-read reference books, Golombek' s The Encyclopedia of Chess
(London, 1 977) and Hooper and Whyld' s The Oxford Companion to Chess
(Oxford, 1 984) state that upon the death of Alekhine' s widow in 1 956 the articles
were found in Alekhine' s own handwriting. In both cases the authors subsequently
gave their source for this information: Brian Reilly, then the Editor of the BCM,
had told them in 1 956 that he had just seen the articles. However, this is denied
by Reilly, whose eagerly-awaited biography of Alekhine will doubtless provide
his account of the matter. * Another alleged sighting of the articles also has a
curious twist. In the May 1 986 Europe Echecs (pages 300-30 1 ) Jacques Le
Monnier reported that before her death Grace Alekhine had passed a number of
her late husband' s notebooks to a friend (unnamed). In 1 95 8 Le Monnier was
given access to the material and found, word for word and in Alekhine ' s own
handwriting, the text of the first anti-Semitic article, which had appeared in the
Pariser Zeitung of 1 8 March 1 94 1 . The word 'Jew' was almost invariably
underlined, Le Monnier reported. This testimony seems watertight until one
compares it with what Le Monnier wrote about the articles on page 24 of his
1 973 book 75 parties d 'Alekhine: 'Alekhine stated several times that "not a
word had been written by him". It will never be known whether Alekhine was
behind these articles or whether they were "manipulated" by the editor of the
Pariser Zeitung, a Czech player well known at the time in Parisian chess circles. '
These are, to say the least, surprising words from someone who, a dozen or so
years later, was to declare that he himself had seen one anti-Semitic article in
Alekhine' s own handwriting. (In passing it may also be wondered why Alekhine
*Reilly died i n 1991.

311

and his wife refrained from destroying such incriminating material as may ha ve
been in their possession after the fall of the Third Reich.)
Such inconsistencies will be welcomed by defenders of Alekhine, many of whom
have suggested that, being forced, for his own and his wife ' s safety, to write
anti-Semitic material, the then world champion deliberately made it ridicul ous
and inaccurate. The original Pariser Zeitung publication contained many
elementary misspellings of proper names ( 'Marschall' , 'Andersen' , 'Pilsburry ' ,
etc. ) . There is a reference to the match between La Bourdonnais and 'Macdonald'
(instead of McDonnell) and to a 'Polish Jew' named ' Kienezitzky' . (Kieseritzky
is meant, although he was apparently neither Polish nor Jewish.) Some mistakes
were corrected in the Deutsche Schachzeitung reprint, as were factual errors like
the suggestion in the Pariser Zeitung that Schlechter was a Jew. But the theory
that Alekhine tried to signal his insincerity is mere guesswork which is not even
supported by any claim to that effect from Alekhine himself. The wrong spellings
might just as easily be put down to a Pariser Zeitung typesetter' s difficulty in
reading Alekhine ' s idiosyncratic handwriting.
Fresh documentation has recently come to light which considerably strengthens
the case against Alekhine. Pablo Moran has discovered two Madrid publications
dated 3 September 1 94 1 which contain interviews given by Alekhine just before
his departure for the Munich, 1 94 1 tournament. El Alcazar reported:
'He [Alekhine] added that in the German magazine Deutsche Schachzeitung
and the German daily Pariser Zeitung, currently published in Paris, he had
been the first to deal with chess from the racial point of view. In these
articles, he said, he wrote that Aryan chess was aggressive chess, that he
considered defence solely to be the consequence of earlier error, and that,
on the other hand, the Semitic concept admitted the idea of pure defence,
believing it legitimate to win this way . '
Alekhine told Valentin Gonzalez o f lnformaciones about h i s intention t o give
lectures 'about the evolution of chess thought in recent times and the reasons for
this evolution. There would also be a study of the Aryan and Jewish kinds of
chess.' Moreover, Alekhine was quoted as saying that he was not in favour in
the United States and England 'as a result of some articles I wrote in the German
press and some games I played in Paris during the last winter - against 40
opponents - for the German Army and Winter Relief. ' When asked which players
he most admired Alekhine ' s published reply was : ' . . . I must stress the greatest
glory of Capablanca, which was to eliminate the Jew Lasker from the world
chess throne. ' *
The Nazi articles affair is one of chess history ' s most notorious scandals and
intriguing mysteries. Although, as things stand, it is difficult to construct much
of a defence for Alekhine, only the discovery of the articles in his own handwriting
*In C.N: 1 455 we gave complete translations of both Spanish articles.

312

wi ll settle the matter beyond all doubt.

(N 1 989)

on p age 6 of the 4/1 989 New in Chess Jacques Le Monnier made a brief reply
con sis ting of a fuller extract from his Europe Echecs article, in which he had
said that he had seen an article in Alekhine' s own handwriting, and the following
remark:
'I would not change a word. Alekhine' s notebooks are private documents
and French law is categorical in this respect. They will enter in the public
domain sixty years after the author' s death, i.e. in 2006. After this date
historians and researchers may consult them, provided that Alekhine' s heirs
and the owners of the notebooks agree. '
It i s a pity that Mr Le Monnier did not answer our straightforward point: i f i n 1 958
he saw an article in Alekhine' s own hand, why, some 1 5 years later, did he write
that 'it will never be known whether Alekhine was behind these articles .. . ' ? (1920)

'Steinitz Played Jack the Ripper'


The lurid headline above could, just possibly, be true. The Ripper & The Royals
by Melvyn Fairclough (London, 1 99 1 ) set out to demonstrate that Jack the Rip
per was Winston Churchill ' s father, Lord Randolph Churchill ( 1 849- 1 895). From
page 89: 'He further proved his ability to plot ahead when he became a first
class chess player. He once played against the chess champion of the world in a
game described by Winston as "original, daring, and sometimes brilliant" . '
The score is t o b e found o n page 257 o f part 1 o f Schachmeister Steinitz by
Ludwig B achmann:

W. Steinitz (blindfold, simultaneous)-Lord Randolph Churchill, Oxford,


17 May 1 870. King 's Gambit Accepted.

1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 f3 g5 4 h4 g4 5 e5 -tife7 6 d4 d6 7 xg4 -titxe4+ 8 e2 d5


9 e5 h6 10 c3 Ab4 1 1 -titxe4 dxe4 1 2 Axf4 f5 13 0-0-0 .ilxc3 14 bxc3
d6 15 c4 f6 16 c5 fxe5 17 AxeS f7 18 Axh8 xh8 19 !!e1 b6 20 !! xe4+
'<t>d8 21 Ac4 .ilb7 22 !!g4 g6 23 h5 e7 24 !!e1 bc6 25 d5 b4 26 c6 Ac8
27 !!g7 bxc6 28 dxc6 xc6 29 Ab5 Ab7 30 .d1 + 'it>e8 31 !! xc7 'it>f8 32 !!fl +
'it>g8 33 Ac4+ and Black is mated in a few moves.
Bachmann also gives (pages 258-259) a drawn consultation game, played in Oxford
in August 1 870, between Steinitz and Anthony, Churchill and Ranken.
Steinitz himself wrote an admiring sketch of Lord Randolph Churchill (and
another parliamentarian, Charles Bradlaugh) in the New York Tribune of 4 February
1 89 1 , a text subsequently reprinted on pages 4-6 of the January 1 89 1 issue of The
International Chess Magazine. The obituary of Lord Randolph Churchill on
313

page 82 of the February 1 895 BCM reported that from his early college days to
the beginning of his political career the deceased was, in his own words, ' an
ardent chess player' . Further information, including details of Winston Churchill' s
enthusiasm for chess, is given on pages 89-90 of King, Queen and Knight by
Norman Knight and Will Guy.
This is hardly the place for a discussion of the claim that Lord Randolph Churchill
perpetrated the Whitechapel murders of 1 888. It need merely be stressed th at
countless Victorian notables have been accused of involvement by one
' Ripperologist' or another. *
( K 1 993)

Fine's short loss


According to a number of books, the late Reuben Fine once lost a tournament
game in seven moves. The score of H. Borochow v Reuben Fine, Pasadena,
1 932 is often said to be: 1 e4 .\f6 2 eS .\dS 3 c4 .\b6 4 d4 .\c6 S dS .\xeS 6 c S
.\bc4 7 f4 Resigns.
Page 436 of the August 1 978 Chess Life & Review published a letter from G.S.G.
Patterson, the President of the Pasadena, 1 93 2 International Chess Congress,
reporting that the actual moves were: 1 e4 .\f6 2 eS .\dS 3 d4 .\c6 4 c4 .\b6 S dS
.\xeS 6 cS .\bc4 7 f4 e6 8 'iit'd4 'iit'h4+ 9 g3 'iit'h6 10 .\c3 exdS 11 fxeS Resigns.
Patterson ' s letter specifically corrected Larry Evans, who had affirmed (Chess
Life & Review, October 1 977, page 557) that Fine won the game. Even so, in a
book published several years later The Chess Beat - Mr Evans repeated, in
-

large bold letters, his claim that 'Black won' (after 7 f4 e6), adding 'But Chernev
says Black resigned ! ' (page 24). For our part, we see no reason to doubt G . S . G .
Patterson' s version of the score. M r Evans' unaccountable assertion that Fine
( 1 968)
won is refuted by the tournament crosstable.
Val Zemitis sends us a copy of a 1 984 card he received from Harry Borochow
( 1 898- 1 993) regarding the Borochow-Fine brevity played at Pasadena, 1 932.
Borochow states that the correct score is: 1 e4 .\f6 2 eS .\dS 3 c4 .\b6 4 d4 .\c 6
( ' ??' ) S dS .\xeS 6 cS .\bc4 7 'iit'd4 ( ' ! ' ) e6 8 Ae2 [Sic. 8 f4 must be meant. ]
8 . . . 'iit'h 4+ 9 g3 'iit'h6 1 0 .\c3 Resigns. H e added the following note: '4 . . . e6 o r
. . .dS were the only moves ever played. 7 d4 wins two pieces o r [sic] the queen.
In 1 000 Best Games, he [Chernev] thought shortening it to only pawns against
knights was a good theme, but 6 cS loses, for 6 . . . 'iit'h 4+ 7 'it'e2 e4+ wins a
rook. When Fine played 4 . . . .\c6, I saw the entire combination almost at once,
but studied for 15 minutes, thinking Fine had found a new move ! '
* Steinitz suggested ironically that the chess player and poet Wordsworth Donisthorpe could
have been Jack the Ripper. See, in particular, the following issues of The International Ches s
Magaz i f.l e : October 1 8 8 9 , page 2 9 8 ; November 1 8 8 9 , pages 3 3 3 - 3 3 4 ; December 1 8 8 9 .
page 3 7 0 ; January 1 890, page I I .

314

Borochow ' s remark that 6 c5 loses in the game version published by Chernev is
evidently based on the misapprehension that White has already played f4 .
Concerning the inscrutable '8 Ae2' , it may be noted that in 1 984 Mr Zemitis
took a photograph of Borochow posing behind the final position; the white bishop
is still on its home square . *
(2084)

Ea rly grandmasters
In an article on page 1 9 of the March 1 989 CHESS Nigel Davies writes:
' The original grandmasters , however, were created by the Tsar at the
great St Petersburg tournament of 1 9 1 4 . They were Lasker, Capablanca,
Alekhine, Marshall and Rubinstein, arguably the five best players of the
day, and of whom three held the world championship at one time or another. '
For Rubinstein read Tarrasch ; A . K . R . came nowhere in the St Petersburg
tournament. The Tsar' s conferment of the five Grandmaster titles is a recurrent
story in historical works, but what proof of it is there in Russian literature of the
(1810)
time?
Louis B lair believes that the source of the Tsar story is almost certainly page 2 1
of Marshall ' s My Fifty Years of Chess, a book i n which Fred Reinfeld i s known
to have played an extensive role. Our correspondent quotes a passage (referring
to the period of the St Petersburg, 1 9 1 4 tournament) from page 1 98 of Nicholas
ll by Dominic Lieven (St Martin' s Press, New York, 1 993):
' The imperial family spent April and May 1 9 1 4 in the Crimea. The Council
of Ministers no longer had an effective chairman but the monarch was
hundreds of miles from his capital with communications passing by post
(2080)
and courier.'
We note that both the Wiener Schachzeitung and the Deutsche Schachzeitung
were using the term ' grandmaster (GroBmeister) tournament' to describe
St Petersburg, 1 9 1 4 before the event began .
Page 28 of the January 1 9 1 4 Deutsche Schachzeitung called Capablanca 'der
kubanische GroBmeister' . (This news item also reported that in a simultaneous
display at St Petersburg, in 1 9 1 3, a draw had been scored by a ten-year old, Prince
Gedroiz, who was 'the son of a lord-in-waiting of the Imperial Court' .)
(2101)
Page 1 1 9 of the second Alekhine volume by Fiala and Kalendovsky offers a
strange twist to the question of whether Tsar Nicholas II conferred the title of
'grandmaster' on the finalists of the St Petersburg, 1 9 1 4 tournament. The book
quotes an interview with Alekhine in El Debate of 28 May 1 922. Asked whether
he had started to play chess at a very early age, he replied:
*Val Zemitis discussed the matter further on pages 22-23 of Inside Chess, August 1 998.

315

'I have played chess since the age of seven and when I was 1 4 I was named
a master by the Tsar h i m s e l f when I w o n the national tournament i n
S t Peters burg . '
For 1 4 read 1 6. The event in question was the St Petersburg, 1 909 All-Russian
tournament, but is there any more evidence of the Tsar' s involvement in that
event than there is, at present, concerning St Petersburg, 1 9 1 4 ?
(2139)

Alekhine v Capablanca?
On pages 63-64 of Tumierpraxis Franz Gutmayer gave the following position :

He claimed that it arose in a game (undated) between Alekhine and Capablanca,


and that play continued: l . . . E! xg2+ 2 E! xg2 fS+ 3 hS h3+ 4 g6 E!e6 mate .
We know of no such game.

(1973)

From Jan Kalendovsky comes a proposed solution to the puzzle.


In his sixth-round victory over Alekhine at St Petersburg, 1 9 1 4, Capablanca won
with the sacrificial combination 23 . . . xg2. In the tournament book (page 65),
Tarrasch preferred 23 ... g4 24 f3 e6 25 .ll xf4 E! xel + 26 2 E!fl + 27 g3 gS

28 -'txgS 'i1/g6 29 'it>h4 (or 29 'it>f4 E!e4+, etc.) E!eS 30 f4 E! xf4+ 31.ilxf4 E!hS mate.
The diagramme d position (arising after move 27 in the Tarrasch variation) broadly
316

re sembles that given in C.N. 1 97 3 .

(1 988)

Stephen Berry has ingeniously concocted a variation (after 23 . . . g4 24 f3 e6


2 5 Axf4 . xel + 26 f2) which results in Gutmayer' s position: 26 . . . .gl (threat:
27 . . . el mate) 27 g3 h6 28 .f2 (28 . xd6 e2) 28 . . . g5 29 -'td2 c4 (intending
(2003)
30 . . . h4 mate) 30 f4 d3+ 31 g4.

Bribery and roguery


Our archives contain, courtesy of the Manhattan Chess Club, a copy of a letter
dated 1 0 August 1 930 to Capablanca from E . S . Tinsley, the chess correspondent
of The Times (London). After discussing the world championship rematch
negotiations and whether Alekhine might participate at the next Hastings
tournament, Tinsley wrote :
' . . . Did I tell you that Wahltuch started talking to me about A[lekhine] saying
he had asked him whether he would like to play the return match with you
in England. A . ' s reply was that he would not, as he did not think the English
press was sympathetic towards himself! Then W. said to me, "You have
something against him?" I said, "Yes, I have, and so have The Times, as he
committed the unforgivable sin, so far as they are concerned. He will get
justice from us, as Champion of the World, but nothing more." And W ahltuch
had not the face to ask me exactly what it was, perhaps he knew ! If he did,
he knew what a fool Alekhine had been, as he would be under no illusions
as to what a bribe meant to our people. The roguery was in throwing over
his own friend, so soon as he realised our attitude in the matter. '
To what is Tinsley referring?

(1 997)

Rubinstein's Immortal Game


Rubinstein' s Immortal Game against Gedali Abram Rotlewi was played in L6d:i
but when? Some sources, such as Kmoch' s monograph on Rubinstein, note that
both 1 907 and 1 908 have been given as the year.
The game was published on pages 1 5 6- 1 5 8 of the May-June 1 908 Wiener
Schachzeitung under the heading ' Ru s sian National Tournament, L6d:i ,
26 December 1 907 ' . The tournament took place in December 1 907 -January 1 908.
Page 255 of The Year-Book of Chess, 1 908 by E.A. Michell reports:
' The results were some time before they reached England, for the wording
of the results and games gave rise to suspicions on the part of the police
authorities that the information was cipher of a revolutionary character.

317

Internal troubles also took place, Rubinstein being accused of coaching


Danischevsky in his adjourned game against Alapin, which the former
subsequently won. The decision of the Committee in awarding the game to
Alapin gave offence to some of the competitors, and these protested by not
presenting themselves to play in the following round. This accounts for a
discrepancy in the score, whereby some games were forfeited by both
players. '
The crosstable shows that one double forfeit was Rubinstein v Rosenblatt.
However, as noted by the Yea r-Book, the table indicates a victory for
Danischevsky [Dawid Daniuszewski] against Alapin; 'hence it is assumed that
the committee must have reconsidered their decision' .
(2001 )

An unknown player
W.G. Povarov writes:

'What is known about Boncourt, who may be considered the world 's number
two player in La Bourdonnais ' time ? Moreover, when Saint-Aman t
challenged him to a match in 1 83 7 Boncourt defeated him. The last chess
that Boncourt played was, to my knowledge, against Kieseritzky in January
1 840, after which he disappeared from the pages of chess history. What
happened to him ? '
I n an article o n Saint-Amant i n the BCM o f October 1 933 (page 406), G.H.
Diggle wrote of Boncourt as follows:
' . . . a retired Government clerk whom Walker describes as "The Nestor of
the Cafe de Ia Regence". Boncourt was a fine and chivalrous player; though
an older man even than Deschapelles, he cared nothing for reputation, but
played even with all comers and retained his great skill right up to his death
in 1 840. Boncourt' s style was "the correct, rather than the brilliant", and
has even been compared with that of Buckle. In 1 836 Boncourt made even
games with Szen; in 1 839 he played three games with Walker, winning two
and drawing the third; and the veteran held his own against Kieseritzky
within a month of his death.
With Boncourt Saint-Amant played a long series of games extending over
several years, and, according to Walker, Boncourt stood at the end with a
majority of three. Delannoy tells us that Boncourt established a long lead at
the start, but that finally "perseverance, intellect and imagination triumphed
over the older player, and during the last year of their contests the ancient
(2002)
Professor acknowledged his conqueror" . '

318

A pawn ending mystery


In Chess Fundamentals Capablanca published the following as 'Example 8 ' :

Page 64 o f Comprehensive Chess Endings, volume 4 , b y Y . Averbakh and


I. Maizelis (Oxford, 1 987) comments on the position as follows:
' Here the only move not to win is 1 g5? in view of l . . .g6. Curiously, in the
first edition of his Chess Fundamentals, Capablanca asserted (he later
corrected this) that 1 f5 also did not win in view of l . . .g6 (he left the analysis
of the variation to the reader). Capablanca gave the solution 1 <ifre4 <itre6 2
f5+ f6 3 f4 etc . But it is precisely by 1 f5! that White wins more quickly. '
Critical analysis o f this position appeared o n page 268 o f the November 1 949

Magyar Sakkvilag, where Dr Jenc5 B an claimed to correct Capablanca by


demonstrating a win by 1 f5 g6 2 fxg6 e6 3 g5 (Not 3 e4 f6 4 g7 xg7 5
f5 t7. with a draw. ) 3 . . . e7 4 e5 f8 5 f6 g8 6 g7 h7 7 g8('l1\')+
xg8 8 g6 and wins. These moves were repeated by Fred Reinfeld on
page 279 of The Joys of Chess (New York, 1 96 1 ), in a chapter entitled ' Boners
of the Masters ' . The ending was also discussed in Chess Life & Review in June
1 97 1 (page 306), December 1 97 1 (page 704) and November 1 972 (page 549).
The last of these was a contribution from Paul Keres:
' Furthermore, I got interested in the position from Capablanca' s Chess
Fundamentals, given in Dec.n 1 , page 704. I have not got the English edition
of the book, but in the German translation ( 1 927 and 1 934) the statement is
that 1 P-B 5 does not win because of 1 . . . P-N 3 . The Russian translation of the
book, on the contrary , states that 1 P-B 5 also w i n s , B l ac k ' s best
counterchance being 1 ... P-Kt3 . My impression is that Capablanca originally
made the mistake, thinking the position was a draw, but later, noticing his
error, did make a correction. Of course that is only my impression - I have
no facts to prove it. '
So did Capablanca commit a 'boner' by claiming that 1 f5 would not win and, if
so, did he correct it? All editions of Chess Fundamentals published in the United
Kingdom (including the 1 92 1 original) seem to state: 'In the above position
319

White can win by 1 P-B5 [our italics ] . B lack' s best answer would be P-Kt3 . '
The Cuban adds that White 'cannot win by 1 P-Kt5 , because P-Kt3 draws' and
later writes that 'White can win, however, by playing 1 K-K4' . This is followed
by a number of variations.
G. Bell and Sons, Ltd. were the UK publishers, but the US edition was published
by Harcourt, Brace and Company. The original 1 9 2 1 US edition reads:
'In the above position White can win by 1 P-B 5 . B lack ' s best answer would
be P- Kt3 draws . (The student should work thi s out.) He c annot win by
1 P-Kt5 , because P-Kt3 draws. '
The first two sentences obviously contradict each other, and i n the second sentence
the word ' draws ' , which is absent from the UK edition, is syntactically incorrect.
Did the US typesetter accidentally add the word, perhaps led astray by the
similarity to the way the final sentence ends?
To eradicate the contradiction, one of the first two sentences in the US version
needed to be changed. Remarkably, the solution adopted - in the mid- 1 930s US
edition, which was publi shed with a new Preface by Capablanca dated
1 September 1 934 - was to put: ' In the above position White can ' t win by
1 P-B5 . Black' s best answer would be P-Kt3 draws.'
To summarise, although it was suggested by Averbakh and Maizelis that Capablanca
a) wrongly wrote that White cannot win with 1 f5 and b) later corrected the text to
'can win', in reality the change (made in the mid- 1 930s US edition) went in the
opposite direction: 'can' was altered to 'can't' . Why and by whom?
Further complications arise concerning the German edition (published in 1 927
by Walter de Gruyter & Co. under the title Grundzuge der Schachstrategie),
from which Dr B an was working.
For some reason it stated:

'In der Stellung (Beispiel 8) kann WeiR nicht durch 1 f5 gewinnen; die
richtige Erwiderung wiire 1 g6(der Leser moge dies selbst durchdenken).
WeiR kann auch nicht gewinnen mit 1 g5, weil Schwarz g6antwortet. '
. . .

The words nicht and auch have no equivalent in the original English-language
editions. More confusion occurred when the 1 979 reprint of the German
translation amended the position to j ustify the nicht: White ' s king was put on e3
and B lack' s on e7 .
Do readers know of any other pre- 1 934 editions, in any language, which state,
(201 1 )
'White can ' t win by 1 f5 ' ?

320

Mo rphy's unexplained words


From pages 30-3 1 of Life of Paul Morphy in the Vieux Carre of New-Orleans
and Abroad by Regina Morphy-Voitier:
'Another mania which lasted a while, was walking up and down the long
verandah of his home, his hands behind his back and muttering these words
in a low voice : "Il plantera Ia banniere de Castille sur les murs de Madrid
au cri de Ville gagnee, et le petit Roi s 'en ira tout penaud." ("He will plant
the banner of Castile upon the walls of Madrid to the cry of victorious [sic
- gagnee means 'won ' ] city, and the little King will go away looking very
sheepish.") He did not know that he was being overheard, nor was it ever
known what he meant by these words. '
(2026)
C.N. 2026 quoted faithfully from the book by Morphy ' s niece (including the
mistranslation of ' victorious city ' for ' Ville gagnee' ), but it is worth noting that
slightly different English versions of Morphy ' s words appeared on page 30 of
Morphy Gleanings by P.W. Sergeant and on page 299 of David Lawson' s Paul

Morphy The Pride and Sorrow of Chess.

(2030)

Ghosted?
Occasional items (see, in particular, C.N.s 445 , 969, 1 073, 1 1 5 3 , 1 1 73, 1 237
and 1 27 3 ) have tussled with the question of whether Reshevsky wrote the
autobiographical Reshevsky on Chess (New York, 1 948) or whether it was
ghosted. The following elements seem irreconcilable:
a) John C . Rather, who was on the staff of Chess Review at the time that journal
published the book, reported in C.N. 445 :

'Reinfeld selected the games and annotated them; I wrote the foreword;
and Alfred Sheinwold (the bridge writer) and I prepared the introductory
text throughout the book (the soi disant autobiography). In short, beyond
sanctioning the project, Sammy had little to do with it. '
b) In early 1 985, Hugh Myers received the following note from Reshevsky :
' . . .it is written that the book Reshevsky on Chess was written by someone
else. False ! Every word in that book was written by me ! I think you ought to
correct that. Thanks, S. Reshevsky . '
c ) O n page 32 o f The World 's a Chessboard (Philadelphia, 1 948) Reuben Fine
stated:
' Several years ago Reinfeld was preparing a book of Reshevsky ' s games,
321

and he asked me to contribute an introductory article. Why he asked me, of


all people, I can ' t say, but anyhow I wrote the article .. . '
N o book o f Reshevsky' s games was published under Reinfeld' s name, and
Reshevsky on Chess contains no article by Fine.
d) Page 256 of the August 1 950 Chess Review contained a critique of Reshevsky
on Chess by Fred Reinfeld himself:
'The notes are especially fine and illuminate many valuable points that were
ignored or misunderstood by earlier annotators. Playing over these games
with Reshevsky' s superb notes makes one feel that one is seeing them for
the first time - seeing them as Reshevsky saw them when he played them.
Hence the title . '
e ) Page 1 2 1 o f the March 1 952 CHESS quoted a fulminatory letter from Reinfeld
to E.G.R. Cordingley:
' Although you have consistently maligned my work, you praised the
"Reshevsky" annotations to the skies ; would you have done so if you had
known that I wrote those annotations?'
The CHESS editor commented: 'In his fury, Fred Reinfeld has rather let the cat
out of the bag . '
(2039)

Unhealthy opponents
John Nunn writes:

'Everybody knows the chess aphorism concerning the player who commented
that he had never beaten a healthy opponent, but who originally said this
and what was the exact quote ? I have asked several grandmasters, and
received a range of answers. Most went for Tartakower, but in the back of
(205I )
my mind I have the idea that it was Bogoljubow. '
From pages 54-55 of the February 1 89 1 BCM:
'Few men will admit the superiority of an opponent, and he who loses finds
generally something in himself to account for defeat; or, as Lowenthal once
remarked to me, "He always has a doctor' s certificate in his pocket ! " '

(2I I 8)

The writer was Charles Tomlinson.

In reply to C.N. 205 1 a number of readers referred us to an (unsubstantiated)


322

assertion by B .H. Wood in the 1 949 /llustrated London News and reprinted on
p age 1 0 of Reinfeld' s The Treasury of Chess Lore that Amos Bum 'was heard to
remark plaintively towards the end of his long life that he had never had the
satisfaction of beating a perfectly healthy opponent' .

What was played?


Gabriel Velasco draws attention to a discrepancy in the score of the game Duras
v Rubinstein, Carlsbad, 1 907 . The opening moves were 1 e4 e5 2 f3 c6 3

c3 f6 4 .llb 5 .llb4 5 0-0 0-0 6 d3 .ll x c3 7 bxc3 d6 8 Ag5 'it!e7 9 .e1 d8 10


d4 e6 11 Acl c6 1 2 .llfl 'it!c7, after which Kmoch' s monograph o n Rubinstein
says that White played 13 h4, whereas on page 37 of Akiba Rubinstein 's Chess
Academy by Viktor Glatman 13 g5 is given. The books agree that there followed
13 . . . . e8 14 'it!d3 Ad7 1 5 g3 .ad8 16 .llg2 .llc8 17 f4 exf4 18 gxf4 f8 19 f5,
but then Kmoch has 19 . . . h6 and Glatman 19 . . . g6. After 20 .lld 2, Black played
20 . . . 8h7 according to Kmoch whereas Glatman gives 20 . . . g7. Both books
state that the game ended 21 f3 .e7 22 h4 c5 23 h2 .de8 24 .e3 b6 25 M3
.llb7 26 .ae1 c4 27 'it!e2 .ll x e4 28 'it!g2 d5 29 .llc l Axf3 30 xf3 . xe3 31Axe3
.e4 32 'it!h3 .g4+ 33 h1 .g3 34 'it!h2 g4 35 .llg 1 xh2 36 .ll x h2 'it!f4 37
g1 'it!xh4 38 Resigns. The respective annotators (Kmoch and, for the Glatman
book, Lputian) naturally offer contradictory assessments of the game, since they
were discussing different positions.
The Kmoch version of the score follows the Carlsbad, 1 907 tournament book.
We have yet to find any source that concords with the moves presented by
Glatman' s book.
(2055)
From Richard Forster:

'Further evidence in favour of the score as given by Kmoch is that in the


Glatman version Black could simply win an important pawn by 19 .1J.xf5.
. . .

Incidentally, another Rubinstein game is the subject of an error in several


monographs on him (viz. the ones by Kmoch, Glatman and Donaldson/
Minev ). At move 38 in the game Rubinstein v Tarrasch, Carlsbad, 1 923 this
position occurred:

323

Kmoch writes that he cannot believe that 38 rii'c4, which is given in


contemporary sources, is the right move, because it allows 38. . . rii'xe3.
Therefore he decided that the move actually played must have been 38 rii'c3.
Since my analysis proves that White wins a piece after 38 rii'c4 rii'xe3 39
rii'b4!! (39. . . rii'e2 40 !Ixb8 rii'h5+ 41 g2 rii'e2+ 42 g1 rii'd1 + 43 f2! or
40. . . M1 + 41 .li.g2 rii'f5+ 42 g4 rii'd3+ 43 h40. I don 't think there is any
justification for Kmoch 's altering the game course which has been copied
widely. '
It should be noted that on page 97 of Rubinstein Gewinnt! Hans Kmoch wrote
after 38 i*c3:

'Die Bucher und Zeitschriften geben hier iibereinstimmend, jedoch ohne


Anmerkung 38 rii'c4 an. Es is jedoch nicht zu sehen, warum WeiR den
Bauer[n] e3 geopfert und Schwarz ihn nicht genommen haben sollte. '
This was mistranslated on page 1 2 1 of Rubinstein 's Chess Masterpieces as :
'The books and the newspapers unanimously recommend 3 8 Q-B4, but
without analysis: However, it is not apparent why White sacrifices the pawn
at K3, and why Black does not capture . '
I n reality, Kmoch was reporting that all the publications had given 38 i*c4 as
the move played, not as a recommendation. In short, he unjustifiably altered the
score of the game.

Early use of ' world chess champion'


A topic raised by W.G. Povarov: early examples of terms such as 'world chess
champion' , 'chess championship of the world' , etc. Pre- 1 886 examples are
sought. We note that on page 86 of The International Chess Magazine of April
1 888 Steinitz called himself 'the only true champion of the world for the last 22
years (I may say so for once)' .
(2059)
On page 1 63 of its April 1 894 issue, the BCM said that Steinitz 'has held the
chess championship of the world for 28 years, having won it by his defeat of
Anderssen in 1 866' . Unsurprisingly, it was at the time of Morphy' s apogee that
'champion' terms were notably prevalent. Some examples :
(Regarding the Morphy v Harrwitz match) : ' . . . no man living can tell whether,
or no, these two gentlemen are not now engaged in fighting for the Chess
championship of the whole world! ' C.H. Stanley, Harper 's Weekly, 9 October
1 85 8 .
'Morphy is comparatively a boy, but h e stands today the champion o f the world' .
324

The American Union, 9 October 1 85 8 .


' The Chess Championship of Europe - Morphy vs Staunton' . Porter 's Spirit of
the Times, 1 3 November 1 85 8 . The article also refers to Staunton' s 'assumed
p osition as Chess Champion of Europe' . In the same column N. Marache wrote
that Staunton 'has, for years, written and printed himself the "Champion of the
World", (?) without ever having taken the slightest steps to sustain his usurped
title ' . The following week' s issue (20 November 1 858) also called Staunton 'the
self-styled Chess Champion of the world' and wrote about Morphy v Staunton
under the heading 'The chess championship of Europe' .

Morphy v Lowenthal
Ignacio Vidau Cabal asks how many games Morphy and Lowenthal contested
in New Orleans in 1 850. Some sources state two, others three.
C.N. 1 0 1 5 pointed out that extensive research by David Lawson on pages 24-35
of his 1 976 biography of Morphy had demonstrated that there were three games.
On the other hand, although Paul Morphy partidas completas by the error-prone
Rogelio Caparr6s purports to give the scores of three games, two of them (the
draw on page 1 9 and the Morphy win on page 20) are virtually identical. The
score of the third game has never been found.
(2081 )

The best move


What is the origin of the familiar remark by a master that he saw (or looked)
only one move ahead, but it was always the best move?
From Louis B lair:

'l.A. Horowitz (1907-1973) was fond of telling the story of a "New York
expert ", who, after winning a game against Capablanca, explained that
although he looked ahead one move "it is always the best move ". (See, for
example, page xi of How to Think Ahead in Chess. ) On page 164 of All
About Chess, Horowitz referred to the "best move " player as "New York 's
East-side pride ", which suggests Charles Jaffe, who won a tournament game
against Capablanca (New York, 1913). '
(2085)

Zukertort, Zulus and Lulu


Tomasz Lissowski sends an article about Zukertort by Jan Kleczynski in the
Warsaw publication Tygodnik llustrowany of 27 February 1 886. It states that
Zukertort' s grandfather was English and that:
325

' . . .for two years in Chislehurst he [Zukertort] was a teacher of a you n g


French cesarewitch. Later as a correspondent of the Standard newsp aper
and as an associate of young Prince Lulu, he went to Africa, spending ti me
among the Zulus.'
Mr Lissowski asks if any of this can be true. A tentative start can be made by
pointing out that in 1 878 Zukertort was in Chislehurst for an 1 1 -game match
against Rev. John Owen. He also played the following consultation game at J.N .
Strode' s residence (Camden House, Chislehurst) :

Prince Louis Napoleon, Baron Corvisart and J.N. Strode-J.H. Zukertort


(blindfold), Chislehurst, 1 3 December 1 878. Ponziani Opening.

1 e4 e5 2 4:Jf3 4:Jc6 3 c3 d5 4 d3 f5 5 'fJ!e2 fxe4 6 dxe4 4:Jf6 7 Ag5 dxe4 8 4:Jgl


Jlf5 9 4:Jd2 Ac5 1 0 0-0-0 'fJ!d3 1 1 xd3 exd3 1 2 4:Jb3 Axf2 1 3 Axd3 e4 14 Ab5
0-0 15 4:Jd4 4:lxd4 16 cxd4 c5 17 Ac4+ 'it'h8 18 d5 Ad4 19 h3 b5 20 Ae2 4:lx d5
2 1 g4 Ag6 22 a3 aS 23 Axb5 . ab8 24 a4 4:Jb4 25 4:Je2 e3 26 4:lxd4 4:Ja2 mate.
Source: Deutsche Schachzeitung, February 1 879, pages 42-43 .
Page 1 067 of the Chambers Biographical Dictionary (Edinburgh, 1 990) says
that in March 1 87 1 Napoleon III 'joined the ex-empress at Chislehurst, Kent,
and resided there in exile until his death [in 1 873] . His son, Eugene Louis Jean
Joseph ( 1 856-79), Prince Imperial, was in the field with his father in 1 870, but
escaped to England, where he entered Woolwich Academy. He was killed in the
Zulu campaign of 1 879. '
(K 1 995)
No new information has yet emerged regarding the Zukertort item, but a
connection may be noted here between the Napoleon clan, J .N. Strode's residence
in Chislehurst and another chess personality, James Mortimer. His obituary
on pages 1 00- 1 0 1 of the May 1 9 1 1 American Chess Bulletin had the following
tailpiece:
'In the course of his sojourn in Paris Mr Mortimer became an intimate of
Napoleon III, and was the last person who spoke to him before the fatal
operation at Chislehurst in 1 873, where Mr Mortimer had procured shelter
for the exiled imperial family at the house of his friend Strode. ' (K 1 996)
Pages 350-35 1 of the August 1 909 BCM quoted from an article by Hoffer in The
Field of 1 0 July 1 909:
'The late Mr Strode, owner of Chislehurst - the residence of the late Emperor
Napoleon - was a great admirer of Kolisch, and a keen sportsman. Feeling
that young Kolisch - who was more interested in the attractions of London
than in the match [against Louis Paulsen] - would lose it, he made the
proposal at the eleventh hour that he would give Kolisch 5 for every game
he did not lose, provided he accepted his hospitality at Chislehurst. Kolisch
326

consented, came up to town with his host, and returned with him to
Chislehurst after the conclusion of each game, and this is the reason that 1 8
draws occurred. '

Pseudonym
In 1 960 Arco Publications (London) published The Complete Chess Player by
'Edward Young' . Although Betts ' Bibliography says that this was a pseudonym
used by Fred Reinfeld, the dust-jacket of Young' s book commends the author' s
work as follows: 'Throughout the book his commentary on the various moves is
most lucid and sound, and for sheer readability he is on a par with Fred Reinfeld.'
Nor is it easy to understand the brief, cryptic review which appeared on
p age 3 1 9 of the November 1 960 BCM:
'The (n+2)th way of becoming a "complete chessplayer". The publishers
inform us that this book "should rank as a classic of its kind". It will.
Information on the dust-jacket has been compiled with the usual meticulous
attention and errors are purely accidental. '
In 1 953 Reinfeld himself had produced a book entitled The Complete Chessplayer
(K 1995)
(p ublished in New Jersey) . The content was altogether different.

Proof is still being sought that Edward Young was a pseudonym of Fred Reinfeld.
In 1 955 Chess Review published three articles entitled 'Bright Combinations'
by Edward Young, who was described as 'a new chess author' .
(K 1 996)

Edward J. Tassinari notes that around 1 955 several small works (pocket-size
pamphlets) appeared under the name of Edward Young: A Pocket Guide to Chess
Openings, A Pocket Guide to Chess Pitfalls, A Pocket Guide to Chess Endings,
A Pocket Guide to Chess Combinations and Sacrifices and Chess at a Glance.
The publishers were I. & M. Ottenheimer, Baltimore, Maryland.
Jimmy Adams sends a copy of Chess in 30 minutes, published by E.S . Lowe
Company Inc . , New York. It is marked 'Copyright 1 955 by Edward Young ' .
However, the book is evidently a reissue, since i t concludes (page 9 1 ) with a
reference to the first USA world champion, Bobby Fisher [sic] .
Proof that Edward Young was Fred Reinfeld is still proving elusive. (K 1 997)

327

When did Reinfeld learn chess?


a) On page 9 of The Human Side of Chess (London, 1 953) Fred Reinfeld said
that he learned chess 'a few months after my eleventh birthday, in 1 92 1 , when I
read that Jose Raoul Capablanca had wrested the World Championship in chess
from Emanuel Lasker' .
b) On page 1 5 of How to be a Winner at Chess (London, 1 956) Reinfeld stated
that he learned chess 'as a youngster of twelve' . That means between January
1 922 and January 1 923, given that he was born on 27 January 1 9 1 0.
c) On page vii of Dr Lasker's Chess Career (London, 1 935) Reinfeld declared :
' I learned the moves a s a high school youngster, about three months before the
great New York Tournament of 1 924. '
(21 1 6)
Page 1 54 of the December 1 926 American Chess Bulletin reported that Reinfeld
was one of three players to draw against Capablanca in a 25-board simultaneous
exhibition at the Marshall Chess Club in New York on 30 November that year.
On page 94 of Great Moments in Chess Reinfeld wrote:
'Many years ago I played against Rubinstein in a simultaneous exhibition .
I was almost cross-eyed with reverence for the great man, and, in Frank
Marshall' s classic phrase, "he beat me like a child". One detail still lingers
in memory. Though Rubinstein was a stocky man with stubby fingers, his
hands manreuvred the chessmen with such elegance that I was spellbound. '
The exhibition took place o n 1 8 February 1 928 (see page 26 1 of Akiba Rubinstein:
The Later Years by J. Donaldson and N. Minev). The scores of Reinfeld' s games
against Capablanca and Rubinstein have not yet emerged.

Women's world championship


On pages 2 1 0-2 1 1 of The Adventure of Chess Edward Lasker relates how, in
London in 1 9 1 2, Gunsberg played a trick on him when getting him to play a
game against a woman visitor to the Divan. Only after Lasker had lost did
Gunsberg tell him that she was Mrs Fagan, who 'just recently returned from San
Remo, where she won the ladies' world championship' . The story is also related
on page 1 7 1 of Bradley Ewart' s Chess: Man vs Machine.
A few contemporary sources , such as page 37 of the second volume of
Schachjahrbuch fii r 1 91 1 , refer to a ladies' tournament in San Remo in 1 9 1 1 ,
but none mentions the title 'world championship' or gives Mrs Fagan as a
competitor. They all say that the event was won by Miss Kate Finn of London .
Did Lasker mix up the names Finn and Fagan? And what was the basis for the
(21 20 )
'world championship' claim?
328

Which beautiful game?


In section 33 of Chess Fundamentals Capablanca annotated the game Janowsky
v Kupchik, Havana, 1 9 1 3, which began 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 c3 f6 4 Ag5 Ae7
5 e3 bd7 6 Ad3 dxc4 7 Axc4 b6. At this point the Cuban says that the
normal course, 7 . . . 0-0 followed by 8 . . . c5, is more reasonable and he recommends
as a 'beautiful illustration of how to play White in that variation' the game between
Janowsky and Rubinstein, St Petersburg, 1 9 1 4 .
Since that encounter began 1 d4 d5 2 f3 c5 3 c4 e6 4 e3 f6 5 Ad3 c6
6 0-0 dxc4 7 .ilxc4 a6 8 c3 b5 9 .ild3 cxd4 10 exd4 b4 and was won by
B lack, who did not castle until his 1 7th move, it would seem that Capablanca
was thinking of a different game. But which one?
(2122)

Capa's mysterious challenger


As related on page 1 9 of our book on Capablanca, in 1 909 the Cuban was
somehow duped into accepting a challenge to a 1 5-game match from Rudolph
Pokorny, billed as 'chess champion of Mexico' , but no meeting took place once
it emerged that Pokorny was an ordinary club player. It may be added here that
before Pokorny slipped back into oblivion a specimen of his play appeared on
page 49 of the 6 November 1 909 issue of The Chess Weekly. The magazine' s
annotations ( 'by our office boy ' ) are probably a s derisive as any i n chess literature.

R. Pokorny-A. Sandoval, Mexico City, 1 909. Bishop 's Opening.


(Notes by The Chess Weekly)
1 e4 e5 ( 'So far, both players follow the books . ' ) 2 Ac4 c6 3 f3 h6 4 d4 exd4

5 xd4 e5 6 Ab3 d6 7 0-0 c6 8 f4 g4 9 f5 h4 1 0 h3 4f6 1 1 f3 g3


('Probably a hasty move . ' ) 1 2 c3 5?? 1 3 e2 ( 'The beginning of a profound
combination. ' ) 1 3 . . . xf3 1 4 gxf3? ( 'The "champion" now seems to have slightly
the better game, but - . ' ) 14 . . . gf6 1 5 c3 Ad7 1 6 f2 Ae7 1 7 t:lg2 f8 1 8 f4
0-0-0 1 9 e5 dxe5 20 fxe5 d5 2 1 xd5 cxd5 22 f6 ( 'Disdaining the marooned
knight, or instinctively shunning a "wooden horse". ' ) 22 . . . Ac5+ 23 'it'h1 g6 24
xd5 ( 'Lasker might have found a different way to prepare for the end, but
allowance should be made for individual style. ' ) 24 . . .Ab6 25 Axh6 ( 'Naturally. ' )
2 5 . . . Ac6 2 6 c4 h8 27 Ag7? ( ' The logical continuation. ' ) 2 7 . . . xg7

329

28 fxg7? ( 'Hazardous. ' ) 28 . . . l='! xh3 mate ( ' B lack ' s move, of course, is very timely,
but White may content himself with the reflection that human foresight is not
infallible. And did not Jove nod?' )
The Weekly concluded with a flourish:
'There are positions in which we believe we could determine Capablanca ' s
next move, but we doubt our ability to gauge the scope of Mr Pokorny ' s
( K 1996)
versatility in any situation short of Zugzwang. '

Games played in secret


Page 1 6 of Complete Games of A lekhine, volume 2, by V. Fiala and J .
Kalendovsky refers to a four-game match between Alekhine and Bogoljubow
played in Triberg in June/July 1 92 1 :
'Alekhine and Bogoljubow wrote down an agreement pledging that the results
would not be published in the next fifteen years . . . . Bogoljubow himself
confirmed the existence of the secret match (which ended in a draw + 1 -1 =2)
only many years later. It was mentioned in the Introduction to the collection of
games from the [ 1 934] world championship match against Alekhine. In their
lifetime neither protagonist made public mention of any game of this match. '
The book gives the four game-scores.

(2/56)

Learning not to blunder


On page 82 of the April 1 927 American Chess Bulletin William M. Russel l
affirmed that 2 0 years previously Capablanca had learned from Albert W. Fox
( 1 88 1 - 1 964) 'his art of stalling and waiting for his opponent to blunder' .
Is anything more known about Fox ' s alleged influence on the Cuban?

(2/ 69)

Confusion
C.N.s 1 750 and 1 864* discussed the confusion surrounding a miniature attributed
to various players from Steinitz onwards (1 e4 e5 2 4Jf3 4Jc6 3 Ac4 4Jf6 4 d3
Ac5 5 0-0 d6 6 Ag5 h6 7 Ab4 g5 8 Ag3 h5 9 4Jxg5 h4 1 0 4Jxf7 hxg3 1 1 4Jxd8
.ilg4 1 2 d2 4Jd4 1 3 4Jc3 4Jf3+ 1 4 gxf3 .ilxf3 1 5 Resigns). We now note that on
pages 1 86- 1 87 of El Ajedrez Americano, June 1 937, Roberto Grau stated that
Capablanca had won the game (with the slight transposition 3 .ilc4 .ilc5 4 d3
4Jf6). White was named as 'N.N. ' , no occasion was specified, and we believe

(21 81 )

that Grau was simply mistaken.


* See also pages 200-202 of Chess Explorations.

330

Flight of fancy?
Page 1 00 of The Sorcerer 's Apprentice by D. Bronstein and T. Furstenberg states
that during the Second World War Tartakower (born in 1 887) was several times
' dropped by parachute behind enemy lines on secret missions ' . Does any evidence
(K 1 996)
ex ist for this?

Greek gift
When was the Axh7+/.:i)g5+ attack first played? In The Chess Companion Irving
Chernev annotated the game Morphy v Guibert, Paris, 1 858. After B lack' s 7 . . . h6,
he wrote (page 1 87):
' Anybody else would have c astled and fallen into the trap 8 B x Pch
KxB 9 N-N5ch, etc . An old trap to you and me, but it was invented twenty
five years after this game was played ! '
Chernev contradicted himself two pages later o n (an item reprinted from his
column in the July 1 953 Chess Review) :
' Another little idea that Paulsen anticipated is the ritual sacrifice of BxPch
in the French Defence. Credit is usually given to Fritz, who surprised Mason
with it in the Nuremberg tournament of 1 88 3 . So here to dispute the claim
is an entry from a match [Paulsen v Schwarz] played in 1 879. '
But what about Greco' s use of Axh7+/.:i)g5+ in the early seventeenth century ?
An example even appears on page 90 of a previous book by Chernev, 1 000 Best

Short Games of Chess. *

(K 1 996)

Among the film stars?


From page 27 of One-Move Chess by the Champions by Bruce Pandolfini :
'With his great abilities and striking good looks, Capablanca was idolised
both in and out of the chess world. In a major magazine' s poll in the 1 920s,
he was ranked as the world' s third most handsome man, right behind Rudolf
[sic] Valentino and Ramon Novarro. Cecil B. DeMille even brought him to
Hollywood, where he planned to make him a star. '
Wanted: substantiation of any or all of this.

(2182)

*In 1 925 the second issue of Les Cahiers de l 'Echiquier Franfais (page 59) suggested that the
Fritz v Mason game was the earliest specimen of xh7+ in a tournament game.

33 1

VII
Reviews

Karpov's Chess is My Life


Although his peak years should, incredibly, still lie ahead, Anatoly Karpov has
already achieved as world champion a chain of successes unmatched by any
other post-war titleholder. In terms of both quantity and quality of play his record
is simply without parallel. For an account of his career to date (or, rather, as far
as the preparations for the 1 978 Korchnoi match) he has collaborated with the
journalist Aleksandr Roshal to produce a remarkable work comprising no fewer
than 359 large pages. A detailed biographical narrative is interspersed with over
one hundred games, almost a third of them finely annotated by Karpov himself.
A big book with a twee title, it amounts to one prolonged standing ovation for
the great Soviet player, with Roshal clearly out to prove himself a reincarnation
of Morphy' s biographer and spaniel F.M. Edge. The idealised portrayal is even
aided by the photographs, an offbeat collection in which Karpov dutifully conveys
to the camera his talent for fishing, boating, playing billiards, appreciating art,
feeding a horse and collecting stamps. (Not all in the same snap, it should be
pointed out, although Roshal ' s fawning prose suggests that Karpov might well
cope even with that.) Roshal certainly has the words to match: 'In his collection
there are now tens of thousands of specimens, and about each stamp he knows
literally everything . '
I n the circumstances it is strange t o find the /zvestiya chess correspondent
complaining that 'the apology for a critic does not accept the existence of half
tints and paints portraits of top grandmasters in one colour only ' . Good words
but having identified the trap, Roshal falls headlong into it. His brushwork many would say daubing - on Korchnoi is decidedly monochrome, which is in
stark contrast to the rosiness abounding in the acclamation of 'Tolya' or, to
quote one chapter heading, ' the flying man from the Urals' . Here the sh rill
hosannas are enough to raise Philidor, and in the end it is left to Karpov himself
to make the occasional murmur of self-criticism that proves vital for the book to
retain some semblance of perspective, not to say dignity.

332

The tricky question that arises is whether Soviet writers shou ld b e ex pected to
restrain their enthusiasm for Karpov if the West is, rightly, also rh apsodisi ng
over him. At what point does well-meaning patriotism tip over into short-sigh ted
chau vinism? Britain' s recent advance in the game is already being labelled an
' exp losion' although such hyperbole might have been better left until the
emergence of one or two British world champions. For all its naivety and worse,
Russian Chess 'propaganda' is at least firmly based on staggering achievements
over the decades. Roshal ' s principal weakness is not so much that he is a
propagandist but that, less bearable still, he is a bad propagandist. He will put
many readers off Karpov for life.
There are disappointingly few revelations about the subject' s private life, inner
thoughts or even training and study routines . The public persona is presented as
a cool-headed, rather self-willed individual with few illusions about his immense
powers. 'I always want to be first. If I weren' t a chess-player, all the same I
would aim to be first at something' . In a 1 976 interview with foreign journalists
he was asked, inevitably, to name his most dangerous rivals. Now on such
occasions protocol demands a good-natured platitude or two in reply along the
lines of 'I consider that Master X is a player to watch, and I always enjoy our
vigorous battles' , but instead Karpov rejoindered coldly. 'I don ' t see anyone at
the moment' . Roshal is right to note that his great compatriot demonstrates ' not
an unhealthy vanity, but a conscious pride ' , although he neglects to add that one
of the real keys to Karpov, as well as to Fischer for that matter, is ruthlessly
objective logic. It may not always win friends, but is a quality that lies at the
very heart of both players ' approach to chess and, indeed, to life in general.
Hardly any attempt is made to analyse why Karpov is so good at chess, except
through a quagmire of quotations like 'In general one has to learn not to lose,
and wins will then come of their own accord' . The rather unsatisfactory conclusion
at the end of the 359 large pages is simply that Karpov is an 'enigma' . Name a
world champion who wasn' t.
The Pergamon edition reads well, despite intermittent lapses into shaky English
including, if we may quibble, an annoying determination to on every possible
occasion split infinitives. But neither translator nor reader is given an easy time
by such sentences as: 'He was the guest of engineering workers and river transport
workers , machine operators and vegetable growers, corn-producers and
fishermen, geologists and volcanists, students and young pioneers' (page 248).
The absence of a general index is lamentable, there being no rule that, just because
Soviet literature is rarely well indexed, translators may not make amends
themselves. The footnotes, however, are most apposite. Fewer and the reader
would have been left bewildered, more and the text would have been undermined.
For the student of Karpov (and who can afford not to study him?) the book
certainly presents a mass of information, though much of it is awkwardly selected
333

and organised, and does offer a genuine insight into the strains of life on the
grandmaster circuit, as well as some idea of the additional burden resting on the
world champion. It becomes evident that many strong players would happily
finish a tournament bottom with one solitary point if only that ignominious score
could result from a victory over Karpov. Every opponent is a resolute scalp
hunter.
The co-authors provide many unexpected touches of wit and intriguing examples
of razor-sharp observation: 'Polugayevsky plays excellently in positions which
demand exact and concrete calculation, but loses his way in positions where
there is no specific plan' . 'When the competition becomes more fierce, Larsen ' s
nerves will simply not stand it' . 'Andersson plays as if he were an old man, who
knows everything and fears everything' . When Fischer decided to spectate at
San Antonio, 1 972, he flew in just in time for the final round, and Roshal observes
wryly, 'He had acquired a new habit - now he was late not only for his own
games, but also for other people' s ' . Yet elsewhere judgments can be bland beyond
belief. Here is Karpov' s recollection of his first contact with Fischer, at the same
S an Antonio tournament: 'All I can say is that outwardly he made on me
personally a favourable enough impression.' End of reminiscence.
Both the strengths and the weaknesses of journalism are represented in Chess is
My Life, with flashes of lively and informed writing standing alongside material
that is superficial and scrappy. It is a pity that there is so much chaff amongst the
(B 1 981 )
wheat. At half the length this would have been twice the book.

Essay on Chess
It is not widely known, but Marshall died on his way home from playing Bingo,
wearing clean underwear. This is j ust one divulgation to be found in Essay on
Chess by Anthony E. Santasiere, a book that we have only just come across, and
wish we hadn' t. It is, loosely speaking, a plea for tactical, rather than positional,
chess ( 'The Queen' s Gambit is neither a gambit nor an honor to any Queen. It is
like a piece of dead flesh kept overlong on ice . ' ) by a Believer who makes sure
we know it. We have rarely read so many foolish judgments within such a short
space.
Lasker (page 2 1 ) : 'If he really loved anyone or anything, it was probably
himself (I knew him well, was his friend the last two years of his life - he
was no longer a lion, had softened, mellowed, and - I felt - then understood
and was capable of love). '
'Now Capablanca ! the great Capablanca (how well he knew it !), the perfect
machine, the fiery temperment [sic] with, especially in his prime, the cold,
selfish heart, the incredible insane conceit - Capablanca.' (page 23).
334

' Tarrasch was a supreme egotist, a self-made Prussian God . . . . He was


bankrupt spiritually . ' (page 23)
Page 24 (Capablanca again): 'But as he grew older there was a sad downtrend
(unlike, for instance, Lasker of [sic] Mieses) . The weakening was more
spiritual in nature than physical, though I believe that in his prime he was
insane - i.e., incapable of recognising an equal competitor . . . There never
was or will be an egotist quite so extreme as Capablanca' . . . 'Through him
we see clearly that the anti-artist, the anti-Christ, ends only with ashes, dust ! '
After all that, the reader dreads what 'punishment' Alekhine will take, but the
result is a surprise: the author likes Alekhine (despite his adherence to the Queen' s
Gambit) : ' Spiritually, out of many sufferings bravely borne, he had patient
endurance, humility, courage ' (page 26) . Elsewhere we read of Chigorin' s
'vanity ' and Herman Steiner' s 'colossal egotism' (page 3 1 ) and that Rossolimo
'had been temporarily insane' (page 43).
This is not an Essay on Chess, it is the prejudiced rambling of an apparently
cultured man who, nevertheless, was gravely deficient in common sense. Once
the sub-Fine psychology peters out, our author descends to the usual old chess
anecdotes, a minimum effort being made to string them together in any logical
order. It is a wretched book.
Anthony Edward Santasiere was born on 9 December 1 904 and died in Hollywood,
Florida on 1 3 January 1 977 (although his death was not widely publicised). (67I )
From Anthony Saidy :

'It is true that Santasiere wrote badly, wrote poetry that was embarrassing,
had extreme views - yet, carving out a niche as our most flamboyant
contemporary romantic, he was unique. He was important as an antidote.
My early Marshall C. C. games with him were among my most instructive.
As late as the Canadian Open, I 960 (which I won with many uneasy
moments) he was able to run up to me and exclaim about a pretty but simple
knight sacrifice he 'djust played, "I 've just won the most beautiful game of
my life ". He really believed it at that moment. A true lover of chess - a type
seldom found among top competitors today. '
( 762)

Much better
A good beginners ' work is The Batsford Book of Chess by Bob Wade, a revised
edition of Playing Chess, that neatly produced if floppy paperback of a decade
ago. Whereas Levy and O ' Connell would appear to have written Instant Chess
in a weekend, Wade ' s book represents the culmination - and the accumulation
of a lifetime ' s teaching experience.

335

A valiant attempt has been made to keep the new format version as well illustrated
as Floppy; however, too many of the photographs of the chess personalities are
of poor quality or too dark. The one on page 89 is particularly shady.
Reliable as Wade is on all technical aspects of chess, there is a most unhappy
slovenliness on other matters of detail. A remark on page 20 about the possibility
of publishers having to speed up the 'inevitable change' from descriptive to
algebraic notation hardly strikes the reader as a 1 984-type observation. One ' s
worst fears are confirmed o n page 1 33 , when the author fails t o record Euwe ' s
death, which has occurred i n between the two editions.
There is no justification for the statement on page 70 that Edward Lasker (in
1 9 1 2) was an American. He had never even visited the New World at that time.
Little care has been taken over name spellings towards the end of the book:
' Kieseritsky ' , (pages I l l and 1 1 2) , ' M acDonnell' (pages 1 2 1 and 1 22),
'Federation International des Echecs' (page 1 55), 'Jaque' (page 1 5 8), 'Bleyavsky'
(page 1 59), 'Nenarakov' (page 1 60), and 'Nimozowitsch' (page 1 60). Even the
back cover misspells the name Hartston and the title of Golombek' s Encyclopedia.
Other rough edges include a reference on page 1 02 to a bibliography on
page 1 5 8 which does not exist, the incorrect implication on page 1 22 that the
' Immortal Game' was played in the London, 1 85 1 'even' [sic] , and the inclusion
on pages 14 7- 1 5 2 of the discredited Adams-Torre game.
Such defects could so easily have been avoided. They tarnish an otherwise well
written book.*
(92 7)

More books
Bruce Pandolfini has written yet another new book for the Fireside Chess Library:
Russian Chess (subtitle: 'Learn from the New Champions ' ) . It contains only six
games, all won by Soviet players in the 1 980s, but the annotations, aimed at
inexperienced players, are detailed. The first game, for instance, takes 30 pages.
Prose explanations are preferred to variations, and there is a good selection of
general principles ( 'concepts' ) . A more eccentric and misleading practice is the
provision of quotes by Russian/Soviet writers (even Chigorin and Alekhine),
fitted in to suit the games under discussion.
That old American verbosity is sometimes on show. 'Black is less declarative in
playing 1 . . .' (page 1 8). '4 .. b5 contributes nothing developmentally meaningful'
(page 23). 'For the odoriferous pawn Black would lose a piece' (page 1 20). This is
reminiscent of the road-sign once seen in the United States by Alistair Cooke. Instead
of 'Low Bridge' it read 'Impaired Horizontal Clearance' .
.

Two matters of historical detail regarding Russian Chess: page 49 unjustifiably


*A later ( 1 99 1 ) edition was equally lax . See Kingpin, Autumn 1 993, page 37.

336

calls Staunton 'the self-proclaimed British World Champion of the 1 850s' .


Secondly, page 1 42 mentions 'the Cambridge Springs Variation of the Queen' s
Gambit' a s being 1 d4 d 5 2 c 4 e6 3 .Jc3 .Jf6 4 g5 .Jbd7 5 cxd5 exd5 6 .Jxd5
.Jxd5 7 xd8 b4+, etc.
The book acknowledges the help of 'America' s preeminent chess historian, master
Bruce Alberston, for his prodigious research, analysis, and technical virtuosity' .
Pardon?
In Plan Like a Grandmaster (translated from the Russian by Ken Neat) Alexei
Suetin does a poor impersonation of Kotov, the author of the fine . . Like a
Grandmaster series. Plan. . . has 354 scores (full or part), starting with the Famous
Game Morphy versus the Opera allies (the date of which is five years out) and
ending with the Famous Game Alekhine v Botvinnik, Nottingham, 1 936. Most
of the 352 others are also Famous Games, the same old Famous Games that are
constantly recycled in other dreary books.
.

The chief aim of Suetin' s work is to illustrate 'the most vital point of a chess
game ' , which is 'the transition between opening and middlegame' , but there is
little detailed annotation and the general prose passages are rather soporific a la
Pachman(n). That complex masterpiece Alekhine v Book, Margate, 1 938 has
just two brief notes. Since the blurb says that the 354 games or extracts 'illustrate
how top masters handle the opening' one would at least expect an index of
openings. In short, the book (from the author' s point of view) has to be considered
a characteristic example of the modem Easy Way Out school.
(1656)

Petrosian's games
The Games of Tigran Petrosian Volume 1, 1 942-1 965, compiled by Eduard
Shekhtman
Books featuring the 'complete games' of contemporary players seem to have
gone out of fashion. In the decade up to 1 980, Fischer' s output was well covered
by several publishers; Tal had a series of three volumes from B atsford, though
the project broke off at 1 97 3 ; Korchnoi' s career was dealt with by the Oxford
University Press; various comprehensive collections of Karpov' s games appeared.
S ince then, publishers have indulged in what may euphemistically be termed
belt-tightening, to the extent that even the games of Kasparov, notwithstanding
his popular style of play, have yet to be properly anthologised.
The appearance of The Games of Tigran Petrosian is thus a surprise. Its aim is
to provide all the games played by the late world champion ( 1 929- 1 984), and
this first volume, for which 1 965 provides a rather unnatural break-off point,
contains a more or less complete record of the early period. It begins with the
sole informal game, a win against Flohr in a June 1 942 simultaneous exhibition,
337

and ends with two games against Korchnoi from the Moscow v Leningrad match
of November 1 965 . The scale of the project is underlined by a comparison with
the 1 963 Wildhagen book on Petrosian, which went as far as the Curar;:ao
Candidates' tournament of May-June 1 962. Wildhagen contained 350 games,
while Shekhtman gives 938 for the same period. The overall total in Volume I
of Shekhtman ' s book is 1 ,089, and although the majority appear in bare-score
form, many have notes. Indeed, almost every leading Soviet player is to be found
among the annotators, and over 70 games have analysis by Petrosian himself.
He wrote engagingly and instructively, concentrating on prose explanations rather
than variations. Moreover, and this tends to be a useful indicator of quality, the
winner' s moves are sometimes criticised. Those 70 or so games would, alone,
constitute quite a book.
Many of Petrosian ' s articles and interviews are woven into the collection, which
is further brought to life by eight pages of photographs. His reminiscences
repeatedly stress the influence of Nimzowitsch, whose Chess Praxis was the
first serious chess book he studied. For Petrosian, that volume was 'not a work
of reference but a book kept under my pillow - a bedtime story for a chess child ' .
Nimzowitsch ' s aim was to teach positional chess, and Petrosian expresses the
interesting view that ' the teaching of positional play is equivalent to the teaching
of chess in general ' . But of all the articles, perhaps the most remarkable is a ten
page account by Petrosian, published here for the first time, of the 1 963 match
against Botvinnik which brought him the world title. He is typically generous
about his opponent: 'Botvinnik, like no-one else, is able to arrive for the start of
an event in the highest state of preparedness and from the very first moves to
play at full strength' .
The book has been produced with painstaking care, although opponents ' first
names and the exact dates of games might have been incorporated. (In the past it
was common practice for precise dates to be given in primary sources, whereas
nowadays, curiou sly, thi s is a compliment generally reserved for world
championship games.) An extensive spot-check of game-scores revealed no
printing errors at all, and the quality of the English also provides a refreshing
contrast to many chess books churned out nowadays . The work has been
translated and edited by Kenneth P. Neat, the highly respected translator of some
50 Russian titles.
Among other books on Petrosian, English-language readers have long been
familiar with those by Clarke (Bell, 1 964), O ' Kelly de Galway (Pergamon, 1 965 )
and Vasiliev ( B atsford/RHM, 1 974). In 1 990 two further titles appeared .
Petrosian the Powerful by Andrew Soltis and Ken Smith (Chess Digest) presented
30 games with entertaining annotations but was poorly structured, having no
games at all from the years 1 967- 1 98 1 . Petrosian 's Legacy (Editions Erebouni)
was a compilation, also by Eduard Shekhtman, of Petrosian ' s writings. Despite
some overlap with the new Pergamon book, few will regret acquiring both.

338

Much has been written about Petrosian ' s amenability to an early handshake and
his inexplicable (Botvinnik' s word) playing style, which never made him a
favourite with those columnists or anthologists chiefly interested in printing 25
or 30 moves of glitter. Diversity of styles at world championship level is proof
of the richness and profundity of chess, but Petrosian was perhaps the first reigning
world champion whom ordinary players felt free to patronise, as though it was
unforgivable for him not to play like Tal. His tournament results were seldom
outstanding, and the ' Petrosian Problem' had a lengthy airing in the pages of
CHESS in 1 967-68, with the late Wolfgang Heidenfeld, a formidable debater,
leading the prosecution ' s case against 'a king of shreds and patches ' . Petrosian
was not indifferent to criticism, even admitting that when a Soviet article on the
1 956 Candidates' event ignored him despite his equal third place, 'I began
seriously wondering whether I shouldn ' t give up chess' . Although he could be
sublimely uncompetitive, it is worth recalling that he was the only one of the
seven world champions between Alekhine and Karpov to win outright two
consecutive title matches. Ultimately what counts, even more than sporting
results, is the character and depth of a player' s talent and the quality of his best
games, and in this respect Petrosian ' s peers have been notably more appreciative
than the chess commonalty. After failing to dethrone him in 1 966, Spassky
described Petrosian as ' first and foremost a stupendous tactician' . Kasparov has
reported, referring to a post-mortem session in 1 98 1 , that 'I found that Petrosian ' s
positional judgment was considerably deeper than m y own' .

The Games of Tigran Petrosian takes us up to the half-way mark in Petrosian ' s
six-year reign a s world champion, a second volume being planned for the final
two decades of his life . More vicissitudes were in store, but Petrosian ' s
imperturbability at the board seems to have been matched by equanimity about
his overall career. On page 2 1 6 of this fine book he records: 'Looking back, I
rarely recall vexations and disappointments. Compared with the joys which chess
has generously given me, they are mere trifles. ' *
( C 1 991)

A catastrophic encyclopedia
The dust-jacket of The Batsford Chess Encyclopedia by Nathan Divinsky trumpets
'the game ' s most complete and up-to-date work of reference' . What is provided
is a shambles full of mistakes, misjudgments and misprints from cover to cover.
The present review merely aims to point out a warning sample.
Despite a further dust-jacket pledge of 'explanations of all technical terms ' ,
there are many omissions, such as 'bind ' , 'excelsior', 'skewer' and 'transposition' .

*The second volume, covering the years 1 966-1983, was published by Pergamon shortly afterwards.

339

What definitions we are offered are frequently casual and imprecise. On page 86 a
hole is described as 'the square in front of a backward pawn ' , which is contradicted
by the editor' s own use of the word on page 1 54. On page 146 the description of the
Forsyth (misspelt as Forsythe) Notation as 'a simple and effective method of
describing a chess position' is belied by a mix-up over white and black bishops in
the illustrative diagram and caption. Page 1 57: the units in a pawn chain do not
have to be 'opposed by an enemy pawn chain' . Page 2 1 1 : Divinsky fails to record
that there are two separate versions of the Tarrasch trap. Page 232: a waiting move
does not necessarily occur in the ending. Even the definition of resign on page 1 74
('to give up the game before being checkmated' ) is inadequate because a player
may resign by mistake (as in the second diagram on page 54) and even, in theory,
when his opponent has insufficient mating material. Definitions need proper thought
to cover all eventualities, however rare.
There is also little rhyme or reason to the selection and balance of biographical
entries. Figures such as Albin and Przepi6rka have no entry at all, although
room is found for a five-word one on Jose Ferrer ( 'Movie actor who enjoys
chess' ) . Denker, a US champion, gets two lines, but, just overleaf, Divinsky
awards himself five times as much space, taking the opportunity to record for
posterity that he was 'on the BBC chess TV show during the London half of the
Kasparov-Karpov match of 1 986' . (Divinsky scatters numerous self-mentions
throughout the encyclopedia, notably for Warriors of the Mind, a book widely
derided by critics.) Page 87 calls Nimzowitsch and Reti the leaders of the
Hypermodern school, but whereas the former has a four-column entry with an
illustrative game, the latter gets only one column and no game (just an over
familiar endgame study). A composer of the stature of Rinck receives, apart
from an illustrative composition, a grand total of four words. Problemists, and
especially problem terminology, are treated with even greater disregard.
Hubner's name is spelt three different ways in the book' s first 3 1 pages. Page 2
refers to the ' Suisse' (instead of Sousse) Interzonal of 1 967 . Other assorted
misspellings include 'Teichman' , 'Le Lionnaires' (instead of Le Lionnais),
' Kerchnoi ' , 'Nimjowitsch' , 'English' (for Englisch), 'Boundarevsky' , 'Duz
Khotmirsky' , 'Du-Duz-Khotimirsky' , 'Blackburn' , 'Card' (Caro), 'zugswang' ,
'Anderseen' , ' The Philodorian' , ' Philador' s Legacy' and many more. Some
foreign accents are put on once in a while, but most never at all. Page 5: Alekhine
was initially buried in a cemetery ( 'cemetary' in Divinsky ' s spelling) in Portugal,
not France. Page 9: the move 1 a3 was not 'first played by Anderssen in his
1 85 8 match with Morphy ' . Page 36: Corzo should be described as Cuban
Champion. Page 9 1 : Jaffe did not win 'two tournament games from Capablanca' .
Pages 1 1 5- 1 1 7 : the three-page entry on London makes no mention at all of the
1 922 tournament, which featured three world champions. Page 1 3 1 : the entry
on Modern Chess Openings (2 1 lines) does not even name Walter Korn, the
person responsible for the book for the past 50 years. Page 1 94: Capab1anca' s
simultaneous score should read 1 02 wins and not 1 20.
340

The encyclopedia also contains many self-contradictions. For example, page 40


says that variations in castling continued until the seventeenth century and, in
Italy, until the twentieth century. But page 178 asserts that 'there was ambiguity
about castling until about 1 474' . Page 62 announces that Morphy won the world
championship, but elsewhere (page 240, for instance) it is stated that the world
championship did not exist until two years after Morphy' s death. Page 8 1 reports
that Steinitz used the term hanging pawns, but page 1 44 states that Nimzowitsch
introduced it. The entry on Kostich (or Kostic - Divinsky varies the spelling
elsewhere) claims (page 1 04) that in 1 9 1 6 he set a simultaneous record of 30
blindfold games, yet page 1 75 says that Reti achieved a blindfold simultaneous
record in 1 925 by playing 29 games.
Book references are full of mistakes. For further reading on Charousek (page 42),
two books are recommended, but both authors' names are misspelt. Page 68 asserts
that Fischer's Chess Games was written by two people whose names, in fact, appear
nowhere in that book. The titles of two of Purdy' s world championship match
books (page 1 67) are an invention. A minor book on Smyslov is mentioned, but
not his important autobiography (page 1 96 ) . English-language titles and
publication dates are often given in contradictory forms in different entries; for
example, Fine ' s psychology work on page 67 and page 1 67, and many other
masters ' books, even the best-known ones in chess literature. Page 1 1 0 and
page 204: Lasker' s Manual is given contradictory titles and contradictory publication
dates. Foreign words/titles are massacred. The entry for Kahn on page 93 lists four
titles, with several errors. Breaking with literary convention and common sense,
Divinsky has translated into English many (but not all - there is never any
consistency) foreign book titles, a procedure which gives the false impression that
English-language editions have been published (e.g. 'Ragozin 's Best Games' on
page 1 72 ) . On the other hand, when such an edition does exist, fresh
misunderstandings arise. For example, page 30: David Bronstein - Chess Improviser
appeared in Russian in 1 976, but not in English until 1 983. Confusing misprints
abound. On page 1 65 a title is not italicised when it needs to be, but a couple of
pages later two authors' names are italicised when they shouldn' t be.
Chess periodicals are treated with similar negligence. The American Chess
Bulletin cannot be described (page 6) s 'bi-monthly ' . Purdy ' s famous
A ustralasian magazine is repeatedly given as 'Australian ' . Page 93 : the
information about Kagan ' s magazine is wrong. Page 1 42: New in Chess (which
appears only in English nowadays) is not a 'monthly magazine' . Divinsky writes
both 'La Strategy' and 'La Strategie' (without the required accent on the e, of
course). Page 242: 'Belinger Schachzeitung' . Berliner is meant.
Almost all the illustrative games, positions and compositions are hackneyed, as
are the photographs. In another unkept promise, the dust-jacket twice speaks of
'photographs of all the great players' , but the articles on such leading figures as
Bogolj ubow, Nimzowitsch and Reti remain unillustrated, even though there are
34 1

pictures of a number of present-day British players and, for instance, of Yuri


Razuvaev, or ' Rasvvayev' as the caption calls him. (The woefully inaccurate
and incomplete index offers a third choice: Razuvayev.)
The book purports to give exact birth and death dates of personalities whenever
possible, yet despite writing on page 73 that Gaige' s books are 'indispensable
for chess authors ' , Divinsky is clearly unfamiliar with Gaige ' s indispensable
1 987 work Chess Personalia. The result is disaster. Dozens - yes, literally dozens
- of dates are unnecessarily wrong, incomplete or missing. If people like Gaige
put nearly 25 years' research into a book, why can ' t people like Divinsky be
bothered to take notice? An expose of the encyclopedia' s treatment of dates
could be the subject of a lengthy separate review, but two brief points will suffice
for now: Sergey Smagin (page 1 95) mysteriously has no birth reference at all,
and UdovCic, Yudovich and Lundin are believed by Divinsky still to be alive.
Unbeknown to the 'most complete and up-to-date encyclopedia' , they died in
1 984, 1 987 and 1 988 respectively.
Although Divinsky is so manifestly out of his depth on even elementary factual
matters , he is seldom shy about dispensing his opinions and prej udices .
Page 239 pontificates that the books of Znosko-B orovsky 'have not stood
the test of time ' , ignoring the fact that several of them were/are still in print
decades after Znosko-Borovsky' s death. (The test of time? There are few pages
in Divinsky' s encyclopedia that have stood the test of two minutes' scrutiny.)
Passing over Ernst Griinfeld ' s monumental theoretical activity, Divinsky attacks
the man: Grtinfeld was 'uneducated, unsophisticated, superstitious and almost
primitive' (page 78). On page 1 74 we are informed that 'Reshevsky is a short,
grim and determined man with little charm or graciousness' . The entry on the
'controversial' Campomanes is predictably hostile. True to B atsford ' s style of
sledgehammer propaganda, the criticism is repeated in the entries on Karpov
and Kasparov, in identical words both times.
Equally predictably, the entry for Batsford' s controversial chess adviser (page 97)
is abject flattery. It takes up more space than the article on Gunsberg, who was
a world title match contender. When Divinsky likes someone, the honey flows.
Averbakh is 'charming' . Dlugy is 'charming' . Larsen is 'charming' . Seirawan
is 'charming ' . Short is 'charming' . S tahlberg is ' charming ' . Timman i s
' charming ' . Spassky ' s third wife i s 'charming ' . Marco ' s annotations are
'charming' . Baden-Baden is 'charming' . Montpellier is 'charming' . And so, of
course, is Lodewijk Prins. Prins charming.
Divinsky thrives on rumours, and much of what he tells us is like gossip over
backyard clothes-lines. Sentences begin with 'Some say that. . . ' , 'It is said that. . . ' ,
'He i s said to have lost. . . ' , 'Janowski i s reputed to have said that. . . ' , etc. Numerous
articles are childish (e.g. the patzer entry on page 1 5 6 and the Carlsbad material
on page 1 99). The entries on both Korchnoi and Mar6czy make a fuss over that
342

occultist yam about a game between the two players. Perhaps the paranormal
can also explain why Divinsky unwittingly claims on page 1 1 0 that James
Gilchrist co-authored a book which was not published until 1 3 years after his
death. Many sentences are impenetrable. Page 66 says that Filip 'is a lawyer and
can be called Dr Filip' . Page 76 proclaims that Gligoric 'evolved to a curious
cross between Rubinstein and Capablanca' . Page 1 0 1 tells us that the knight is
'one of the most interesting pieces on the chessboard' (which ones are more
interesting and which less?) and that 'knights can be quite effective' (which
pieces can't be?) . Page 1 98 speculates implausibly that after the 1 972 match
'Fischer was completely wiped out of chess by Spassky' .
Worst of all, Divinsky presents other people' s writings as his own. For example,
on page 37 he says of Capablanca: 'What others could not discover in a month ' s
study, h e saw a t a glance' . Word for word, that is what Reuben Fine wrote about
the Cuban on page 1 1 1 of his 1 952 book The World 's Great Chess Games.
Without a murmur of acknowledgment, Divinsky' s book lifts countless chunks
from The Encyclopedia of Chess edited by Harry Golombek (Batsford, 1 977).
The fact that Divinsky was part of the 1 3-member team of contributors to that
earlier volume hardly entitles him to present under his own name the work (even
entire entries or paragraphs) of the other contributors, notably the late Wolfgang
Heidenfeld' s technical and illustrative material. The deja vu starts on the very
first page (see the article on adjournment) and endures until the very last entry in
the book (Zwischenzug). But Divinsky not only copies, he copies undiscemingly.
For instance, he fails to correct Pachman' s Czechmate in Prague to Checkmate in
Prague (page 1 55) or Young ' s Chess Strategies to Chess Strategetics (page 237).
The appalling truth is that he has repeated dozens - yes again, literally dozens - of
factual mistakes in the Golombek book, including many that were pointed out by
reviewers at the time.
None of this inhibits the latest Batsford handout from informing the public that
Divinsky ' s encyclopedia is 'completely new ' and ' the definitive work of
reference ' . In reality, of course, The Oxford Companion to Chess is so
overwhelmingly superior in all respects that direct comparisons with The Batsford
Chess Encyclopedia would be piteous. It would be like comparing a Rolls-Royce
and a rattle-trap. *
( K 1 992)

Alekhine Renaissance
A. Alekhine: Agony of a Chess Genius by Pablo Moran, edited and translated by
Frank X. Mur
A lekhine in the Americas by John Donaldson, Nikolay Minev and Yasser
Seirawan
*On page 20 of Popular Chess, April 1 992, Raymond Keene included Divinsky ' s Encyclopedia
among the ten chess books he would take to a desert island. 'Essential . . . Without it, I ' d be lost ! '

343

The Games of Alekhine by Rogelio Caparr6s and Peter Lahde


Complete Games of Alekhine (Volume One) by Jan Kalendovsky and Vlasti mi l
Fiala

Das Schachgenie Aljechin by Isaak Linder and Wladimir Linder


Alexander Alekhine is remembered as one of the more prolific world champions
in the literary realm. He wrote some 1 8 chess books, nearly all dealing eith er
with individual events in which he participated or with specific phases of his
career. Many later writers were thus able to produce Alekhine 'best game '
compilations on the basis of material effortlessly gleaned from the master' s books,
and until recently there has been little attempt to go beyond this nucleus of
familiar, not to say stale, material. But now, with 1 992 marking the centenary of
his birth, a number of authors have been striving - and indeed competing to
uncover further games and to research the nooks of A1ekhine' s life.
-

Among the key difficulties facing them are the intensity of his activity in
numerous countries and the paucity of solid information, i.e. documentation,
about certain aspects of his life (notably his Russian/Soviet period, up to the
beginning of the 1 920s ). Chroniclers must also be prepared to tackle such issues
as Alekhine' s unlovely character traits and the sheer scale of his tragedy . No
other world chess champion started life with more or finished it with less .
Frank and equitable treatment o f personal matters was a characteristic o f Agonia
de un Genio by Pablo Moran, originally published in Madrid, 1 972 by Aguilera.
A revised and expanded English-language edition appeared in 1 989 (A. Alekhine:
Agony of a Chess Genius, edited and translated by Frank X . Mur). The book
provides detailed coverage of Alekhine ' s various visits to Spain and Portugal,
notably during the Second World War, as well as offering light reading on topics
such as 'The Nazism of Alekhine ' , 'Alekhine the Man' and ' Alekhine and
Women ' . Above all, countless forgotten games are presented, most with
annotations, though information about sources is lacking.
Insufficient use is made of Alekhine material that came to light between 1 972
and 1 989, and although the handsome English version is certainly much superior
to the Spanish original, a further edition could doubtless be made better still. On
the other hand, and to keep matters in perspective, it should be noted that Agony
of a Chess Genius is vastly superior to nine-tenths of what passes for chess
literature nowadays .
Geographical limits also determined the scope o f Alekhine in the Americas by
John Donaldson, Nikolay Minev and Yasser Seirawan. The format is similar to
the magazine Inside Chess, with much material (about 1 40 games, many
annotated, plus contemporary comment) crammed into 47 pages. Despite a few

344

rou gh edges, such as the lack of any indexing and some printing errors (e.g. an
inc orrect birth date for Alekhine on page I , corrected in a quote on page 2), the
work has been edited well and reads smoothly. Like Moran' s book, it concentrates
on Alekhine' s informal games, many of which appeared in the American Chess
Bulletin but nowhere else.
' The authors of this work are not chess historians ' , declares the introduction
(p age I ), yet within the book ' s self-imposed limits they demonstrate more
scholarship than do many pretenders to that title. Their valuable re-examination
of some of Alekhine' s games and annotations in the light of 1 990s praxis serves
to highlight a fundamental problem in chess literature: the divide between masters
and historians. The shrewd historian will realise that his lack of over-the-board
mastery disbars him from the annotation of games and other similar practical
tasks, and he will bear in mind the chess adage that 'a weakness is not a weakness
if it is unexposed and cannot be exploited ' . Likewise, few masters possess
adequate knowledge or research material to write usefully about chess history,
though the Inside Chess team has shown that there are exceptions. How
unfortunate that the two categories, historian and master, so seldom join forces.
When forces are joined by persons who belong to neither category, the result is
liable to be a book like The Games of Alekhine by Rogelio Caparr6s and Peter
Lahde. Part One has 953 tournament games, Part Two 2 1 4 match games, and
Part Three 4 1 0 offhand games (a very small number, in a section which also
fails to identify the types of event involved) . Throughout the volume the games
are presented without exact dates, precise sources, annotations, or information
about possible score discrepancies, etc . , and even the moves themselves are
incorrect in many cases.
That does not deter the book from claiming on page 385 that ' Since the publication
of his book The Games of Capablanca, in 1 99 1 , Caparr6s fixed his mind in
comp leting the only other great book missing in the chess literature: the Games
of Alexander Alekhine' (quoted verbatim). It is regrettable that he did not fix his
mind in correcting the countless grammatic al/idiomatic solec i s m s and
typographical errors ( p lus another wrong birth date for Alekhine, this time on
the back cover). The hallmarks of the p resentation of games and results are
inconsistency and loose thinking, and the lack of historical judgment is further
shown by naive name-dropping (as when, on page 93, the bare score of Alekhine' s
widely published game against Dake is grandly headed 'Contributed b y GM
Arthur Dake ' ) .
While i t is true that The Games ofAlekhine furnishes the largest quantity o f the
Franco-Russian master' s games so far gathered within a single volume, other
prospective authors had already accumulated hundreds more. In particular, many
readily available tournament games have been overlooked by the Chess Scribe
book, as have simultaneous specimens of decidedly better quality than the 1 9
345

'lost' games scraggily annexed to the end of the book, following a last-minu te
donation. The Games ofAlekhine may have filled a gap in chess literature, but it
has filled it poorly and temporarily.
A more ambitious project, with a correspondingly more venturesome title, has
come from Czechoslovakia: Complete Games of Alekhine by Jan Kalendovsky
and Vlastimil Fiala. To date, the first of four volumes has appeared, covering
the years 1 892- 1 92 1 . In addition to 334 games, mostly unannotated but some
with notes by Alekhine, there is a huge amount of biographical material, and the
research is as prodigious as the presentation is shambolic. Typographical errors
superabound, especially in the game annotations ( 'Black could decisived the
game by beatiful combination in his favour' - page 29), despite three Americans
being credited for correcting the translation.
The industry of Kalendovsky and Fiala is to be respected, but Volume One is an
amorphous potpourri which propels the reader backwards and forwards through
a maze of parts and subchapters. There is a surprisingly large number of factual
errors (such as a crosstable on page 66, where most of the totals do not add up) .
The lamentable typesetting and editing undermine the undeniable scholarship
(e.g. the extensive use of Russian and Soviet sources to provide the most detailed
portrayal yet of Alekhine' s early years). One welcome point, though, is that
much of the information is substantiated in footnotes. All too often authors offer
'information' (in the broadest sense of the term) without any indication of their
sources. Whether intentionally or not, this practice inevitably leaves the reader
powerless to distinguish between fact and fable.
Footnotes are not a feature of Das Schachgenie Aljechin by Isaak and Wladimir
Linder, a run-of- the-mill book all too similar to the father-and-son team ' s
monographs o n Capablanca ( 1 988) and Lasker ( 1 99 1 ) from the same publisher.
It goes down the beaten track competently enough, neither better nor worse than
would be expected from the brief, perfunctory bibliography on the last page.
But what were the authors trying to achieve with any of the three books, given
that they scarcely add to common knowledge? In the Alekhine volume, most of
the standard games, habitual facts, and customary photographs are on parade
yet again, and virtually the only novelty is that Alekhine' s play during the Second
World War is, for some reason, more or less ignored.
Alekhine' s reputation has suffered greatly at the hands of general purpose chess
writers whose fondness for exaggeration and meretricious colour has led them
to focus on his personal weaknesses, real or imagined. (To use four euphemisms,
Alekhine has frequently been accused of being uncandid, dissolute, intemperate,
and racially partisan.) None of the above books makes any systematic attempt to
analyse Alekhine the person or Alekhine the player, and it remains to be seen
whether future authors can, in addition to providing reliable factual information,
unravel some of the manifold paradoxes and contradictions. For example,
346

Alekhine dishonestly 'improved' some game-scores for immortality yet could


write annotations that were merciless in exposing previously undetected errors
in his own play. He produced a tournament book (of New York, 1 927) which
was shamefully biased against Capablanca, yet he managed to remain reasonably
objective in another one (Nottingham, 1 936) written when relations between the
two masters were infinitely worse. Alekhine is frequently described as 'immoral' ,
yet until the 1 930s chess literature seldom contained an uncomplimentary word
about him. Even his playing style is the subject of widely varying assessments
by qualified commentators. Was it sound? Was it hypermodern? Was he relatively
weak in endings?
A nswers may be offered by other books on Alekhine being prepared now: the
remaining volumes of the Kalendovsky/Fiala project, more from Inside Chess
and a work by L. Skinner/R. Verhoeven. Whatever, it must be hoped that these
books will show fewer signs of the disorderliness and haste that characterise
some of the recent works discussed above. So far there has been teeming activity
and comparatively little to show for it. But why the rush? After all, even the
calendar-conscious can look towards a new publication target that should allow
plenty of time for research, fact-checking, and proofreading: 1 996 will be the
(A / 992)
50th anniversary of Alekhine' s death.

Alexander Alekhine 's Chess Games, / 902 - 1 946 by Leonard M. Skinner and
Robert G.P. Verhoeven
Alekhine 'certainly seems to have his eye on the top rung of the ladder' , wrote
the November 1 9 1 2 American Chess Bulletin (page 245). Despite that, l 'homme
presse had to wait 1 5 years (a period including the Great War, the Russian
Revolution and, even, some erroneous death-notices) before becoming world
champion. As he neared his goal of a match against Capablanca, his playing
record remained patchier than is sometimes imagined, particularly in tournaments
which also featured other potential challengers. When he defeated the Cuban in
Buenos Aires he was 35 years old, Kasparov' s age today, yet he went on to scale
further heights at S an Remo, 1 930 and B led, 1 93 1 . The decline which eventually
and inescapably set in was by no means as abrupt as has been suggested, and
even in the 1 940s he was still playing many wonderful games and writing as
lucidly as ever.
No serious chess authority has doubted that Alekhine was among the very greatest
masters of all time, but he is one of those players (Steinitz is another) whom
many writers feel at particular liberty to maul in the grubbiest personal terms.
Reuben Fine' s psychology book called Alekhine ' the sadist of the chess world' .
Raymond Keene, not content with co-authoring a gaffe-packed book which
dumped Alekhine as number 1 8 on the list of all-time best players, claimed in
Chess An Illustrated History that Alekhine played the 1 935 world championship
match 'more or less in a perpetual stupor' . Harold C. Schonberg' s Grandmasters
347

of Chess called Alekhine ' as amoral as Richard Wagner or Jack the Ripper' .
There is none of that sort of thing in Alexander Alekhine 's Chess Games, 1 9021 946. The Foreword, by the master' s son, Alex A. Aljechin, rightly protests :
' Normal standards of j ournalistic decency are often ignored. My father does not
deserve to be treated in this way ' . It must puzzle him why Alekhine ' s personal
flaws, actual or fictitious, sometimes stimulate more interest than do his games
and writings, but throughout this excellent new book the play is the thing. Where
such painful issues as the Nazi articles affair are mentioned - as one way or
another they must be - the account is coolly restrained.
Not that the volume slides into hagiography. On a number of occasions various
'unpleasant incidents ' are recorded, petty behaviour ascribable to Alekhine ' s
undoubtedly short fuse. Even so, each such episode (and significantly they tended
to occur in simultaneous exhibitions rather than ' serious' events) can be matched
by a contemporaneous report of the rank and file ' s appreciation of the visiting
master' s cordiality, solicitude and charm.
Alex A. Aljechin also comments that his father' s 'definitive chess biography
has yet to be published' . Although each chapter of the book under review contains
a biographical account by way of introduction to the games and event reports,
what is principally on offer is extraordinarily deep delving into Alekhine' s over
the-board exploits. That requires a huge 807-page book, beautifully hardbound,
with, in all, 2,543 games (including some fragments). The ground covered is
well demonstrated by the concluding reference and index material. Pages 736764 give crosstables ranging from a 1 902-03 correspondence tournament to
Caceres, 1 945. There follows a detailed 22-page results list of Alekhine' s matches,
tournaments and exhibitions. After seven pages of bibliography comes an index
of his opponents and consultation partners, a full 27 columns occupying nine
pages. Finally, we are provided with the openings indices, stretching from AOO
to E90. There are even early games in which Alekhine played Alapin ' s Opening
(1 e4 e5 2 e2), although he was later to refer to 'this grotesque knight move '
(page 29). Readers who like to see varied openings will not be disappointed,
given Alekhine' s propensity for playing lines which world champions usually
avoid. An example is the Dory Defence (1 d4 f6 2 c4 e6 3 f3 e4), which he
essayed in a 1 93 8 tournament game. There are over 200 French Defence games,
and the database buccaneers will not be slow to plunder the book' s treasures.
The figure of 2,543 games is to be compared with the 1 ,577 boasted by The
Games of Alekhine by Rogelio Caparr6s and Peter Lahde (published in 1 992) .
Unlike their feeble predecessors, Messrs Skinner and Verhoeven have presented
the scores with exact dates and sources. Moreover, many of the games have
Alekhine ' s own annotations from lesser-known publications. Our shelves contain
well over a hundred books by and about Alekhine. The ' about' category includes
many cheap-j ack contractions of Alekhine ' s own works, with the master' s
348

annotations shamelessly appropriated with little or no credit given. Thi s new


book has adopted the opposite approach, leaving to one side Alekhine ' s best
known annotations on the legitimate assumption that the reader will not need
them again. Countless fresh insights into Alekhine ' s thinking are thus on offer.
To quote a snippet at random: 'One should not, or must not, develop the bishops
in fianchetto without having previously dominated at least one of the central
squares. If this is not done, one ' s opponent gets sufficient freedom of action that
is enough to transform it into a superiority that is almost conclusive' - La Naci6n,
4 May 1 930 (taken from page 205). On the other hand, a criticism may be made :
Alekhine wrote up so many of his own games that some of his annotations have
unj ustifiably been omitted.
The work begins with an exceptionally well-investigated record of Alekhine ' s
early years and a large number o f unpublished games from his notebooks . He
became such an active player, tireless globetrotter and prolific annotator that in
depth researching of his career must have been an uncommonly gruelling task.
Wherever he travelled, the co-authors have endeavoured to follow up on his
exploits through reports in magazines and newspaper columns. His 1 933 visit to
the Far East, for instance, is chronicled on the basis of such sources as The
China Press (Shanghai), the South China Morning Post, the China Mail and the
Hong Kong Daily Press. About 75 games from that tour are provided, together
with detailed local reports. It is pointed out that one of his opponents at a display
in Tokyo, Grace Freeman, later married him.
For those already familiar with most of Alekhine' s 'best' games, a major attraction
will be the hundreds of simultaneous games, which may be regarded as the
chess artist' s pencil sketches . Although Alekhine wrote (see page 2 1 3) that they
were rarely 'a perfect model of correctness ' , the entertainment and instructional
value of encounters between master and amateur is often extremely high. His
blindfold exploits in particular were awesome and, it would seem, are beyond
the capacity of anybody alive today. Not unexpectedly, Alekhine' s losses are
over-represented in the book, because of the tendency of parochial columnists
to publish the club hero' s isolated or fluke defeat of the maestro. Over the years,
how many chess masterpieces have been lost through journalistic provincialism?
In a work of this size (it will doubtless be the largest chess book that some
enthusiasts will ever own) there are inevitably some misprints and other defects .
It has to be said that typographical errors are more frequent than would be
expected, that a few of the translated annotations bear only a passing resemblance
to English and that it is rare to find, even in the chess world, such a poorly
punctuated book. Of more substantial importance is the editorial decision to
give notes by Alekhine alone. This means, for example, that Game 1 708 - against
Hulscher (an opponent whom Alekhine misnamed 'Mindeno ' in his second Best
Games volume) - is mute concerning the subsequent analytical controversy about

349

Alekhine ' s concluding combination. It is a particular pity that the annotational


finds of John Nunn in the (truncated but useful) Alexander Alekhine 's Best Games
(Batsford, 1 996) have been ignored. The co-authors have even passed up the
opportunity to set the record straight on some historical matters. On page 235
Alekhine wrote that after 1 d4 .\f6 2 c4 e6 3 .\c3 d5 4 Ag5 c6 5 e3 he was
unaware of 5 .. :a5 having been played in master praxis. It had occurred (with a
transposition of moves) in Pillsbury v Janowsky, Budapest, 1 896 and Reggio v
Pillsbury, Monte Carlo, 1 903. Similarly, on page 509 we read, after 1 e4 e5 2
.\f3 .\c6 3 Ab5 a6 4 Aa4 d6 5 0-0 .\f6, a claim by Alekhine to have introduced
6 c3, a move already seen in Walbrodt v Steinitz, Hastings, 1 895 .
Yet such blemishes (of conception or of detail) are dwarfed by what has been
achieved: outstanding detective work which will transform readers' knowledge of
Alekhine. All those verbalisms which are dragged out by reviewers to describe the
most humdrum and inaccurate of chess books ( ' not to be missed ' , 'deserving a
place in every chess lover' s library ' , etc.) should have been saved for this one.
Some reviews try to prod people into buying a new book on the grounds that the
chess world should support the publisher, almost as if it were a charity. Regardless
of the gratitude that we owe to McFarland & Company, Inc., no such special pleading
is necessary here. AlexanderAlekhine 's Chess Games, 1902-1946 should be bought
on its merits by anyone who cares about chess and its finest exponents. It is a
superb piece of work which immediately takes its place in that highest and rarest
class of books: those which permanently enrich our beloved game.
(N 1998)

Long and wrong


One of the longest books in recent years is Le Guide des echecs by Nicolas
Giffard and Alain Bi15nabe . Its 1 ,592 pages cover most aspects of chess and
include about 500 pages by Mr B ienabe on problems and studies. One defect
immediately stands out: published in 1 993, the book is badly out of date. For
example, the item on the Grandmasters' Association (pages 887-888) is unaware
of the departure, back in 1 99 1 , of Bessel Kok. (Over the years, the GMA seems
to have endured more resignations than Colonel Moreau . )
I t soon becomes clear that any pseudo-fact, apocryphal anecdote o r unplayed game
that has been published in an easily accessible source is liable to be snitched and
repeated by Mr Giffard. In the section on miniature games, for instance, he attributes
a spurious skirmish to Napoleon, still believes that the Gibaud v Lazard game
occurred, and trims a 32-move Capablanca game into an 1 1 -move miniature. In the
'History of the Chess Champions' part, he unwisely lifts whole wodges from his
own 1 978 book La fabuleuse histoire des champions d 'echecs. Many mistakes
thus recur, even regarding such plain matters as Marshall' s introduction of his Ruy
Lopez gambit. In his earlier volume Mr Giffard showed no awareness of chess
research undertaken before 1 978. In Le Guide des echecs he disregards all research
carried out before and after that date. His Bible, frequently quoted in both books,
350

remains Harold Schonberg' s Grandmasters of Chess.

(1964)

Regarding the Gibaud v Lazard game, there follows a quote from page 22 1 of
the June 1 92 1 BCM:
' When in England recently, M. Znosko-Borovsky . . . showed us the score of
the following curious little game played in Paris last year: 1 d4 d5 2 <tlf3
Ag4 3 <tle5 <tlf6 4 4:Jxg4 <tlxg4 5 <tld2 e5 6 h3 <tle3 7 Resigns . '
From page 420 o f CHESS, 1 4 July 1 937:
'Monsieur Gibaud asks us to correct a mistake made by the author of Curious
Chess Facts [Irving Chernev] and quoted by us last month. He never lost
any tournament game in four moves. Searching his memory he recalls a
"skittles" he once played against Lazard, a game of the most light-hearted
variety, in which, his attention momentarily distracted by the arrival of his
friend Muffang, he played a move which allowed a combination of this
genre - but certainly not four moves after the commencement of the game.
Rumour, he said, must have woven strange tales about this game, coupling
it perhaps with the theoretical illu stration Znosko-B orovsky gives on
page 24 of his Comment on devient brillant joueur d 'echecs. '
The shortest version (1 d4 <tlf6 2 <tld2 e 5 3 dxe5 <tlg4 4 h 3 <tle3 5 Resigns)
regularly appears in books . In his introduction to Chess Tactics, Paul Littlewood
even called it 'the shortest match game known in chess literature - Gibaud
Lazard, Paris, 1 927 ' . Richter' s Kombinationen dated it ' 1 935 ' .

A new Morphy hook


In March 1 993 Caissa Editions brought out Paul Morphy and the Evolution of
Chess Theory by Macon Shibut. In a sense, it complements David Lawson' s
extensive biography o f 1 976, which paid little attention to Morphy ' s games. An
underlying argument in Macon Shibut' s book is that they have seldom been
accorded sufficient analytical attention, and he puts his case well (page 8):
' Annotators who want to educate or entertain are not interested in tearing
apart an instructive Morphy combination. Rather, they want to fi nd
characteristic errors in the opponents' play, and they want the hero ' s
consequent victory to seem a matter o f course (and the more elegantly
achieved, the better). The effect of such presentations in countless beginner' s
texts has been to reduce Morphy ' s games to a collection of fables . '
The writings o n Morphy o f Steinitz and Reti are reviewed critically, and there i s

35 1

much original analysis. The author goes badly astray in the misnamed 'Complete
Games' section, overlooking that Lawson gave more than 60 neglected Morphy
games in the BCM of August 1 978 and September 1 979. *
One matter of detail: Shibut' s game 368 (Morphy v Maurian at queen' s knight
odds) is labelled New Orleans, 1 866 and said to have been drawn shortly after
move 4 1 . However, Lawson (BCM, September 1 979, page 4 1 4) asserted that
the game was played in New Orleans on 9 May 1 864 and that Morphy resigned
after Black' s 30th move. The absence of game sources in both the Shibut book
and the Lawson articles makes it hard to investigate the discrepancy.
(1 966)

More US volumes
The 1 99 1 paperback Power Chess by Paul Keres is 'only' an edited compilation of
the great Estonian master' s articles in Chess Life and Chess Life & Review, yet it
contains considerably more instruction and entertainment than most recent European
books. A detailed biography of Steinitz by Kurt Landsberger is often poorly written
and edited, and even contains incongruous phrases like 'which in turn makes the
birth of Wilhelm in May 1 837 unlikely but conceivable' (page 4).
In 1 992 /nside Chess brought out Impact of Genius by R.E. Fauber, a dire 390page work subtitled '500 Years of Grandmaster Chess' . Factual errors abound,
anecdotes are invented, sound logic is scarce. A sample of Mr Fauber' s choice
prose, taken, virtually at random, from page 238:
'Only Franyois Philidor, Emanuel Lasker, and Ignaz Kolisch rival Max Euwe
as the most important chess players of all time. That is to say that their
accomplishments made them truly eminent in fields other than chess. Philidor
was the Richard Rodgers of his day. Lasker made a single but key contribution
to the development of 20th century mathematics. Kolisch was rich. ' (K 1993)

Instant Fischer
Bobby Fischer vs. Boris Spassky: The 1 992 Rematch by Jack Peters
Fischer-Spassky 1 992 : World Chess Championship Rematch by Leonid
Shamkovich and Jan R. Cartier
The Art ofWar Revisited - Robert J. Fischer vs. Boris V. Spassky 1992 by Mitchell
R. White
Bobby Fischer: The $5, 000, 000 Comeback by Nigel Davies, Malcolm Pein, and
Jonathan Levitt
*Alerted to this omission, the publisher brought out a 1 5-page addendum later in 1 993.

352

Fischer-Spassky II: The Return of a Legend by Raymond Keene


No Regrets by Yasser Seirawan and George Stefanovic
Instant books on important chess events are not a new development, but today ' s
technology allows authors t o gather and emit information a t record speeds. As
soon as it was confirmed that Fischer was indeed returning to the centre stage
after 20 years in the wings (or even outside the theatre), a number of writers set
to work. Their task was relatively difficult, given the short time available to
prepare background material, and the almost inaccessible, not to say proscribed,
venues of Sveti Stefan and Belgrade.
The six books being considered were published during the four months or so
following the match, the first of them (the Davies, Pein and Levitt volume)
about two days after Fischer won game 30. Although no perfect correlation is
detectable between the books' merits and their order of publication, the best one
was among the last to appear. (A seventh book in English, the 4 1 -page Fischer
Spassky 1 992, privately published by F.E. Condon in New Jersey, arrived much
later than the others, and is anyway notable only for its cumbersome structure,
with games presented by opening rather than chronologically.)

The 1 992 Rematch by Jack Peters (a book henceforth called 'Peters ' ) is the
smallest of the works and the most modest in production values. The games are
given with a smattering of information and gossip, other brief textual matter,
and three photographs.
Fischer-Spassky 1992: World Chess Championship Rematch by Leonid Shamkovich
and Jan R. Cartier ( ' Shamkovich and Cartier' ) has a roomy, single column format.
All the previous Fischer-Spassky games are given, with very brief notes, followed
by general background information, and then the 30 match games, each introduced
by a page of quotes from chess personalities and others. The notes are clear and
fairly detailed. Most games are followed by a set of ' Supplemental Games' with the
same opening. The book, which has 1 9 contemporary, full-page photographs, ends
with transcripts of the first two press conferences.
The Art of War Revisited - Robert J. Fischer vs. Boris V. Spassky 1 992 by Mitchell
R. White ( 'White ' ) is oversized and unillustrated. It features 68 pages of
unannotated ' Supplementary Games' , a much more extensive selection than the
comparable material in Shamkovich and Cartier.
Bobby Fischer: The $5, 000, 000 Comeback by Nigel Davies, Malcolm Pein, and
Jonathan Levitt ( 'Davies et al. ' ) has 48 pages on Fischer, Spassky and their
rivalry, plus four pages of background on the match itself. Pages 53- 1 25 give
the 30 annotated games, and the book ends with notes about the Fischer clock
and extracts from the first press conference. The only illustration is the cover
photograph of Fischer and Spassky at the board.
353

Fischer-Spassky II: The Return of a Legend by Raymond Keene ( ' Keene ' ) has
brief background material, including the scores of earlier encounters, and then
99 pages on the 1 992 games. Its only illustration is a caricature dating from the
1 972 Reykjavik match on the front cover.
No Regrets by Yasser Seirawan and George S tefanovic ( ' Seirawan and
Stefanovic ' ) has 1 2 pages of introduction, 270 pages on the match games, 1 9
pages o f Seirawan' s thoughts o n Fischer, and a six-page glossary o f terms and
individuals. The middle section combines into a single sequence annotations,
substantial background information, the text of all nine press conferences and
the players' post-game comments, and short interviews with over 30 leading
figures, such as Anand, Botvinnik, Geller, Gligoric, Zsuzsa Polgar, Schmid,
S hort, Smyslov, Timman and Torre . Page 1 specifies that Stefanovic ' s
contribution was to write 'the colour commentary for games 1 2-30. ' The book
has a dozen illustrations.
Some of the books have unwelcome frills. Keene, at the end of each game,
moves the players' Elo ratings up or down, but since the starting-point for Fischer
is his 1 972 rating and for Spassky his 1 992 one, the exercise is of even less
interest than the Shamkovich and Cartier computation of Fischer and Spassky ' s
'hourly pay t o sit a t board' .
Examining the game annotations offered by each book reveals immense variety.
Consider game 30 as an example. Seirawan and Stefanovic give it some 1 90
lines of notes, about six times as many as Keene (32 lines), even though the
latter claims to have concentrated on analysing decisive games. Of course, simple
word-counts may be misleading; White, for example, may take a paragraph where
other writers would prefer a sentence or silence. There is also considerable
difference of opinion on which moves should be criticised and praised.
The books generally avoid analytical dogmatism, but not all of them make use
of the players ' own comments on the games. Although Spassky said at the
concluding interview (quoted on page 272 of Seirawan and Stefanovic) that in
game 30 his knight was bad on b3, only Shamkovich and Cartier speak against
its move there, calling it ' dubiou s ' . After describing 13 g4 as ' probably
positionally a losing move' , Fischer pointed out 16 . . . 4Je5 17 h6, a line given
only by Seirawan and Stefanovic.
Naturally there are contradictory views about the players ' overall performance.
Peters (page 49) writes, regarding game 20: 'Whenever it appeared that Fischer
had regained his old form, he would throw in a game like this one. Inaccurate
openings, inferior middlegame strategy, tactical oversights - how can a great
player commit so many mistakes? Thanks to Fischer' s own chess clock, he cannot
use time pressure as an excuse . ' But despite these severe words, Peters' own
annotations to game 20 criticise little in Fischer' s play. Davies et al. provide
even less indication as to why Black lost the game.
354

None of the books gives the individual time taken for each move. Comment on
Fischer' s clock is broadly favourable, with Davies et al. remarking that 'It solves
the problem of adjournments and desperate time trouble, but cannot remedy
human exhaustion' (page 1 03). According to Shamkovich and Cartier, ' It will
without a doubt eventually become the accepted method of timing chess games' ,
and pages 28-29 of their book also declare: 'It i s most significant that not one
mention of time trouble has found its way into the coverage of the Fischer
Spassky 1 992 match . . . The new clock has great merit. '
The quality of language and general presentation varies greatly. Peters '
inconspicuous book affords little cause for complaint or enthusiasm. It opens
with a two-page explanation of notation, yet by page 1 2 (in the notes to game 2)
jargon is being used: 'B lack has an extra passer . . . ' Many sentences in the sparse
notes lack a finite verb, yet they retain a certain attractive dryness. The general
textual matter tends to have a sharper edge; on pages 7 1 -72 Peters says that
'Two factors prevented this match from bringing unanimously favourable
attention to chess. First was Fischer' s nasty temperament, as shown by his vicious
accusations and conspiracy theories. Second was his decision to start his
comeback in an outlaw nation. '
The back-cover blurb o f the Shamkovich and Cartier book unconvincingly
congratulates itself on being 'THE complete account of the richest and most
talked about match in the history of chess ' . The book suffers generally from a
poor prose style, and despite emphasis on proofreading in the publisher' s note,
it has the most typographical errors, particularly in the closing pages. (The runner
up is probably White' s book, which is marred by a typographical defect whereby
many foreign names have spaces instead of letters.) More than any other work,
this one is engrossed by gossip, a sort of 'hear and print' style of journalism, as
on page 1 07 : 'There are rumours circulating about future Fischer matches. One
undocumented report claims that nineteen million dollars has been raised for
future matches by Fischer. '
The White book is larded less with rumours than with ruminations, e.g. sententious
quotations from ancient Oriental philosophers such as Sun Tzu ( 'Thus, what is
of supreme importance is to attack the enemy' s strategy' - page 1 5). Alongside
is White ' s own writing, a painful amalgam of coarseness and pretension. For
example: 'White has been forced to "pack ' em in" like sardines on the kingside'
(page 25), and ' If this game included a studio soundtrack, then B lack' s move
would sound like a freight train hitting a buffalo' (page 1 28). The chess pieces
are often called 'Cleric' , 'Hopper' , 'Button' , 'Padre' , and 'Cardinal' , etc. There
is a j uvenile over-use of exclamation marks, and when nothing is to be said,
White is the man to say it. In Chess Life Ilya Gurevich wrote of a move in game
28, ' If I did not know any better I would say that this game is fixed' . After
quoting this, White (page 1 2 1 ) adds the following even more trite comment:
'Eh? Fixed, you say . . . Marvelous ! Suffice it to say that young Master Gurevich' s
355

impetuosity is no match for his perceptivity . ' White himself has a perceptivity
and logic all of his own, as in his comment, 'Spassky has never played th is
position before, and consequently blunders ' (page 1 09, emphasis added) . Most
of White ' s annotations are notably dependent on the comments of others, and
no other book has less background material.
The notes in Davies et al., which are by Malcolm Pein and Jonathan Levitt, are
quite well written, and the authors concede that they do not always agree (as in
game 12 on pages 90-94) . A central contention of this book i s that for Spassky
'fighting Fischer on his 1 960s and 1 970s territory is a bad idea' (page 82). Lack
of time shows in the presentation of background material on Fischer and Spassky,
which has a dishearteningly unimaginative selection of information and games.
Once again the reader is served up Fischer' s brilliancy against Donald B yrne,
who is pointlessly accused of playing on in a hopeless position: 'perhaps he
thought that by lengthening the game in this way he could make it less publishable'
(page 5 ) . It is a pity, and this criticism applies to all but one of the works being
reviewed, that so little use is made of the large quantity of Fischer facts available;
apart from his writings, both known and neglected, over a period of more than
30 years, there are, after all, his extensive comments at the surprisingly frequent
press conferences during the 1 992 match. Davies, whom the introduction credits
with writing the background sections, is nonetheless a sufficiently astute
commentator to discern more in Fischer than the barren cliches of old. He suspects
that ' the rough exterior may conceal a man of warmth, sensitivity and integrity
for whom the world has never been a very easy place to live' (page 29). Not
knowing for sure, Davies makes a virtue of simply acknowledging the problem :
' It is certainly not easy to sift through the morass of rumour and speculation.
Many of the stories have emanated from journalists looking to make a quick
buck on a "crazy chess champ" article and happy to sacrifice accuracy to achieve
the desired effect' (page 25). He might have added that so-called specialised
chess writers have been only slightly less guilty in this respect than journalists
without a background in the game.
Next on the list is a book whose first introductory page (page 7) describes Fischer
as 'the greatest mind-warrior in the history of the planet' , whose last two pages
(pages 1 29- 1 30) call Fischer ' the most extraordinary chess player ever to have
walked the planet ' , and whose final sentence says that a Kasparov-Fischer match
will establish ' who is the supreme mental gladiator on Planet Earth' . The prose
is unmistakably that of Raymond Keene in full cry . Frantic over-emphasis
pervades Fischer-Spassky II: The Return of a Legend. Spassky' s king is not just
cornered, it is ' utterly cornered, with no hope of escape ' ; in other games Fischer
has to ' acquiesce in a completely hopeless endgame' and Spassky ' s 'attacking
prospects had utterly vanished' . Similarly, the background commentary comprises
histrionics rather than history. In a typical example, the second paragraph of the
Introduction (page 7) avers that the 1 992 match 'blasted the chess world, as well
as those fascinated by the mind-bending eccentricity of the game ' s most superb
356

practioner [sic] , into frenzies of excitement and anticipation ' . Page 1 5 says that
earlier games caused 'unprecedented levels of anticipation and excitement' . But
such flummery cannot disguise the author' s insufficient familiarity with Fischer' s
life. On p age 8 the reader is informed that Fischer 'began to distribute scurrilous
pamphlets whenever the opportunity arose.' Did he? When? What 'opportunities '
arose? What were the scurrilities? How many such pamphlets has Keene himself
seen? How many has anyone seen?
The slapdash prose, replete with misused vocabulary and grammar, cheapens
whatever it touches. In game 25, as so often elsewhere, Keene has the bombast
while others (Seirawan and Stefanovic in particular) have the analysis. At move
1 8, the Keene book has nine lines, beginning ' Spassky has been so shell-shocked
by 1 5 4Jb6!! that he has been rendered witless and cannot gather his thoughts ' .
We learn that ' B lack must strike back quickly with either . . . e5 or . d5' , but no
variations are offered. Seirawan and Stefanovic, in contrast, give several possible
lines .
. .

No Regrets is o f outstanding quality, and probably even better than Seirawan ' s
monograph, highly praised by Fischer, on the last Kasparov-Karpov match. The
annotations are magnificently detailed, and Seirawan is the only writer to cover
Fischer' s declarations fully. He publishes the complete transcripts of all nine
press conferences, whereas Shamkovich and Cartier give only two and Keene
provides a summary of just the first, labelling it 'The Press Conference' as if the
other eight never existed. Fischer' s insistence on selecting press conference
questions stifled discussion, but the issues raised are of enthralling interest, even
to historians. For example, Fischer said (as quoted on p age 1 1 6 of Seirawan and
Stefanovic), ' Morphy, I think everyone agrees, was probably the greatest genius
of them all. . . ' His honesty is exemplified by the now-familiar quotation, 'That ' s
chess, you know. One day you give a lesson, the next day your opponent gives
you a lesson ' (page 52).
The transcripts in No Regrets highlight Fischer ' s aversion to Kas p arov, who is
described as a 'pathological liar' (page 55) and ' an outright crook' (page 1 5 1 ) .
After stating that Kasparov wrote a letter to him signed ' your co-champion ' ,
Fischer remarked, ' He is not m y co-champion, h e is a criminal and should b e in
jail' ( p age 282). Having announced (page 2 1 2) that he will write a book to justify
his allegations of pre-arranged world championship games, Fischer can hardly
now do otherwise, but whatever supporting 'proof he may have should in any
case have been presented concurrently with the accusations .
T h e books , all written before t h e Kasparov-S hort world championship
controversy arose, show a surprising willingness to entertain Fischer' s claims to
the world champ ionshi p . Shamkovich and Cartier indicate (page 1 3 1 ) that
Kas p arov is ' FIDE World Champion ' , and their book has ' World Chess
Championship Rematch' on the front cover and title page. Davies et al. too

357

(page 23) call Kasparov the 'reigning FIDE champion' , adding (page 24 ), ' . . .
Fischer' s anger at the three K' s becomes altogether reasonable when you start
out from the premise that FIDE had no right to take Fischer' s title away' . Seirawan
says (page 5), 'To Fischer, Kasparov is merely FIDE champion. It is a compelling
argument. Until the wondrous day when they play a match, the chess world has
room for two World Champions' . On page 84 he adds, ' I completely recognise
and support Bobby Fischer as a World Champion. I also completely recognise
and support Kasparov as FIDE Champion ' . Nonetheless, on page 26 of his 1 992
book Winning Chess Tactics Seirawan referred to 'America ' s former World
Champion, Robert Fischer' .
The match books naturally accord Fischer far more esteem than do the media in
general. One reason for Fischer' s bad press is his tendency to keep reporters off
balance with statements which, without warning, switch from perspicacity to
absurdity and back again. Cliche-loving journalists can be at ease in coveri ng
Fischer only if they ignore the perspicacity, emphasise the absurdity, and add a
dose of invention. 'A lot of these quotes about me are not correct' , protests
Fischer on page 1 1 7 of Seirawan and Stefanovic' s book. Seirawan is doubtless
right to say (page 290) that 'Bobby is a pure person in the sense that he goes
straight to the heart of a topic, no beating around the bush' . In other words,
Fischer is neither diplomatic nor hypocritical, and, right or wrong, he has kept
his beliefs and principles intact for 3 0 years . Kasparov has trouble not
contradicting himself over what he said last Tuesday .
Among the ten authors, only Seirawan and Stefanovic went to the match. Seirawan
spent time with the players, and his book is able to demolish numerous myths.
On page 29 1 , he writes, 'After September 23rd, I threw most of what I'd ever
read about B obby out of my head. S heer garbage. B obby is the most
misunderstood, misquoted celebrity walking the face of the earth ' . Hyperbole
aside, it is hard to resist the force of this argument. We learn that Fischer is not
camera shy (page 85), that 'He smiles and laughs easily ' (page 96) , and that ' . . .
Bobby i s a wholly enjoyable conversationalist. A fine wit, he i s a very funny
man' (page 303). On page 293 Brad Darrach ' s savage book Bobby Fischer vs.
the Rest of the World is identified as the coup de grace for Fischer' s reputation.
He fought Darrach and his publishers in the courts and lost. It is regrettable that
apart from some sketchy newspaper accounts, few details are available about
Fischer' s litigation activities since the Reykjavik match. Peters claims (page 9)
that 'Fischer filed frivolous lawsuits, seeking tens of millions of dollars, then
blamed the U . S . government when they were thrown out of court' , but here, as
elsewhere, the reader' s thirst for hard facts is not slaked.
The preface to No Regrets by the editor, Jonathan Berry, warns that readers will
not find ' a politically correct, blanket condemnation of B obby Fischer' but will
be left to make up their own minds on the basis of the exhaustive accounts of
Fischer s views. Seirawan qualifies as an objective chronicler of Fischer, though

358

h e is certainly - to borrow from Tom Stoppard - 'objective-for' rather than


'objective-against' . An important component that helps No Regrets to remain
balanced is the series of mini-interviews with leading players ; diametrically
opposed views abound.
Seirawan and Stefanovic have produced the inside story, and their book's superiority
over the other five is such that even the best of them look shallow and almost
irrelevant by comparison. No Regrets should serve as a model for future world
championship match books, whoever the champion and challenger may be. (A 1993)

Fischer found
Finding Bobby Fischer, Chess interviews by Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam. New in
Chess, 1 994
British chess periodicals tend to shun original set-piece interviews with eminent
personalities, unless it is the personalities who shun interviews with British chess
periodical s . Nonetheless, the potential of the format has been repeatedly
demonstrated by Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam in New in Chess, and the magazine has
marked its first decade of publication by producing a compendium of his most
memorable encounters. They provide a significant insight into the lives and opinions
of an impressive array of the world' s leading players, including Botvinnik, Smyslov
and Spassky. Between them, Kasparov and Karpov are interviewed a total of ten
times. Unlike other less gifted exponents of the deceptively difficult art of
interviewing, Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam (whom Nigel Short, in the Spring 1 992
Kingpin, called his favourite chess writer) brings to the task painstaking preparation,
wide knowledge and sharp intelligence. He manages all this self-effacingly, leaving
the interviewee alone in the limelight, and although a difficult ball is occasionally
lobbed in, the overall tone is amiable and enthusiastic.
The title is derived from the roving reporter' s encounter with Fischer at Sveti
Stefan in September 1 992, related on pages 24 1 -247 under the quote ' I ' m not
going to give you an interview ' . Fischer is described as ' an essentially kind and
innocent person, who can suddenly lash out when he is overcome by
monomaniacal obsession. But who can also be endearingly engaging ' . During
their meeting the American was even induced to give examples of alleged game
fixing; it was a well-merited scoop for New in Chess, even if the account falls
well short of Seirawan' s in the match book No Regrets.
Despite some printing errors and unnatural turns of phrase, Finding Bobby Fischer
is beautifully produced. Occasional footnotes prove helpful, although a few
factual inaccuracies have been left hanging. Did B otvinnik really say (page 36)
that Capablanca wrote My Chess Career before, rather than after, the First World
War?; did Gligoric (page 84) really call Aneurin Bevan ' the leader of the Labour
p arty in England' ? ; and did Najdorf (born in 1 9 1 0) really claim (page 1 05) that
he was 'a young man of seventeen or eighteen years old' when he discussed

359

with Alekhine the latter' s brilliancy against Book at Margate, 1 938?


Mercurial chess politics are widely featured, and this book will prove particularly
valuable to any future chronicler of how Garry Kasparov ' s vehemence on
numerous issues has evolved, revolved and dissolved.
(K 1 995 )

Schlechter
Carl Schlechter! Life and Times ofthe Austrian Chess Wizard by Warren Goldman
is a posthumous work of 537 pages in which the author presents an extraordinarily
detailed account of a master too easily remembered solely for his drawn match
against Lasker in 1 9 1 0. As noted on page 5 1 , Lasker wrote of Schlechter: 'He
knows every part of the game, opening, middle and particularly the ending. All
adjectives apply to his style; it is bold and cautious, straightforward and trappy ,
complicated and simple, hard to define, and withal personal' .
When we once remarked to Warren Goldman that our favourite Schlechter game
was his win against Walter John at Barmen, 1 905, he told us that his own choice
was the 'heroic defence' masterpiece against Schiffers (Vienna, 1 898). Since
both games are well known, we choose a lighter battle here:

Cavera-C. Schlechter, Milan, 3 June 1 90 1 . Philidor's Defence.

1 e4 e5 2 f3 d6 3 d4 f5 4 dxe5 fxe4 5 g5 d5 6 c3 c6 7 f4 h6 8 Ae2 Ae7


9 h4 0-0 10 Ah5 '1'1i'b6 1 1 g4 d7 12 e6

1 2 . . . e5 1 3 Af7+ hxf7 14 exf7+ xf7 1 5 xf7 f3+ 16 fl Axg4 17 xd5


cxd5 18 '1'1l<xd5 .llh 3+ 19 e2 Ae6 20 '1'1i'xe4 d4+ 2 1 d1 Ag4+ 22 e1 Axh4+
23 fl Ae2+ 24 g1 f3+ 25 g2 '1'1i'f2+ 26 Resigns.
This handsome hardback is extensively illustrated with rare photographs and
documents. Sixty pages are devoted to analysing the games of the world
championship match against Lasker and the controversy regarding the conditions
under which it was fought.
It is hard to imagine any chess enthusiast who would not treasure this enchanting
book.
(2077)

360

Abbreviated Alekhine
Alexander Alekhine 's Best Games by Alexander Alekhine with additional material
by C.H.O'D. Alexander and John Nunn
English-language chess publishers' sluggishness in providing algebraic editions
of classic books is such that even the much-loved Alekhine trilogy, which contains
some 260 games, is still available only in the descriptive notation. Alexander
Alekhine 's Best Games, a severely abbreviated selection of what the publishers
janglingly call 'algebraicised games' , is no adequate substitute.
Well over half of the trilogy's games have simply vanished, the editorial shears
having been wielded at the particular expense of tournament encounters against
lesser lights and brilliancies from simultaneous displays. The book jumps from
1 9 1 4 to 1 9 1 9 without an annotated game; after AVRO, 1 938, Alekhine was an
active world champion for more than seven years, but we are left with only five of
his games from that period (all against Keres and Junge, and all played in 1 942).
The sole good news, though certainly it is substantial, is that John Nunn, who
typeset the abridgement, has added dozens of footnotes, mostly to contradict the
assessments of Alekhine and Alexander. To quote a simple case (a note to Black' s
1 8th move in Alekhine v Isakov, Moscow, 1 9 1 9), page 33 points out 20 xe6+,
a move missed by Alekhine himself and a number of annotational parrots. Page
after page demonstrates Dr Nunn ' s sedulous insights, which may actually
outnumber those presented in all previous sources since the day Alekhine first
set pen to paper.
How unfortunate, therefore, that the book is also marred by Batsford' s abiding
indifference to the historical record . Eye-catching errors have been left
uncorrected from Alekhine' s time. (Examples : Mahrisch-Ostrau, 1 924 instead
of 1 923 on page 27 ; a curious cross-reference to the wrong Selesniev game on
page 8 3 ; an untrue remark on page 1 00 that 1 g3 e5 2 4Jf3 was ' an experiment
which Reti never repeated after the present game' ; Kemeri, 1 927, rather than
1 937, on page 282.) Moreover, fresh mistakes have been added. (For instance:
on page 227 a mysterious misspelling 'Aretsson ' , instead of Axelsson as correctly
given by Alekhine; Munich, 1 943, rather than 1 942, on page 300; in the index
of opponents, the suggestion of three games against the same Steiner.)
Insufficient knowledge of Alekhine lore is much in evidence. Page 37 gives
without comment a 1 5-move game against Tenner which is well known to be
spurious. Nor is there any amendment of Alekhine' s curtailed versions of his
games against Sterk (page 49) and Rubinstein (page 1 1 4). Many analytical
emendations pointed out over the years by third parties are ignored; for instance,
Alekhine' s note to Black ' s 20th move in his game against Kimura at Tokyo,
1 93 3 has been widely censured, but the B atsford book offers no comment.
361

Concerning the brilliancy against Book at Margate, 1 938, there is even apparent
unawareness of the (readily available) annotations of Alekhine himself.
It must be hoped that this book ' s new analysis will not be similarly disregarded
when a fu ture publi sher ventures to produce what is re ally needed : a
conscientiously edited algebraic edition of Alekhine ' s complete original choice
of best games.
(K 1 996 )

Capablanca goes algebraic


Chess books in the descriptive notation are becoming unmarketable, rather like
black and white films. And so, just as Hollywood has been using computer
originated colouring to ' modernise' ageing celluloids, chess publishers have set
about converting classic tomes, and some others, to the algebraic notation. After
a slow, haphazard start (Emanuel Lasker' s works are still on the waiting-list) ,
there is now a burgeoning of ' algebraicised' editions, to borrow Batsford ' s
neologism. (It could have been worse : 'de-descriptivised' . )
Capablanca' s three main books - My Chess Career ( 1 920), Chess Fundamentals
( 1 92 1 ) and A Primer of Chess ( 1 935) - have undergone conversion, with mixed
results. My Chess Career, his first book in English, was published a year before
he became world champ i o n . It had 35 annotated games, l i nked by a n
autobiographical narrative containing both self-praise (homed in o n b y some
critics) and self-censure (ignored by almost all critics). The publishers, G.Bell &
Sons, rose to the occasion and produced a stately, navy blue hardbac k ;
Capablanca' s signature was embossed i n gold o n the front cover, and there was
a fine frontispiece portrait, protected by a translucent interleaf. That was chess
book production in the lean aftermath of the Great War. What has happened to
our game if, in the 1 990s, we are reduced to limp opuscules like Garry Kasparov 's

Chess Puzzle Book?


Chess autobiographies hardly existed in 1 920, and that year' s April issue of the

American Chess Bulletin (pages 65-66) was entranced by My Chess Career:

'Of

all of Capablanca' s varied achievements none, we venture to say, will be hailed


with greater delight than this his latest and best contribution to the literature of
the game' . In 1 966 Dover Publications Inc . reissued the book with a new
Introduction by Capablanca' s most impassioned cheer-leader, Irving Chernev .
H e described My Chess Career a s one o f the five most exciting chess books he
had read.
In 1 994, Grandmasters Publishing of Corsicana, Texas brought out a coarse
algebraic version, ' newly edited and revised by Lyndon Laird' . The task sounds
a clerical doddle, but Mr Laird highlighted the various pitfalls by side-stepping
none of them. Cheap in all but price, his garish paperback extirpated the original
book ' s style, flavour and dignity. Labelled an 'Expanded Edition ' , it tagged on
362

some 60 pages of extraneous material; among the unwarranted and unwanted

partie-crashers were four Capablanca scores from Nottingham, 1 936, with


annotations by Alekhine.
As early as page 5, the reader may have foreboding about Mr Laird ' s credentials
for the job. Richard Reti wrote that chess was Capablanca' s mother tongue, but
in his Foreword Mr Laird bafflingly attributes this famous remark to Reuben
Fine. He nevertheless sees fit to make fussily redundant interjections throughout
the text, though liable to be silent when a word of amendment is required. For
example, at move 26 in Capablanca v Bernstein, St Petersburg, 1 9 1 4 mate in
three, not five, is possible.
Unsurprisingly, mistakes have been added. At the end of Game 4, Capablanca v
Raubitscheck, victory becomes defeat ( '0- 1 ' instead of ' 1-0 ' ) . Game 6, played in
June 1 908, is headed ' 1 906- 1 908 ' , as if it were a correspondence epic. Game 22
(v Nimzowitsch) is also misdated. In Capablanca v Janowsky, San Sebastian,
1 9 1 1 two gross annotational errors (confusion of the a- and h-pawns) have been
made in Capablanca' s notes to his 52nd and 5 8th moves. Wanted: a respectful
edition of My Chess Career from a responsible publisher.
Caution and sobriety, rather than presumption and vulgarity, are the hallmarks
of Cadogan Chess ' s algebraic versions of Chess Fundamentals and A Primer of
Chess, published in 1 994 and 1 995 respectively . Few stops have been pulled out
in the production department, and in each case the algebraic paperback has
roughly half as many pages as the descriptive hardback. There is no stopping
progress. Nonetheless, Capablanca' s original texts are followed closely, to the
extent that in A Primer of Chess even such slips as the move numbers on pages
1 28- 1 29 and the year of two Euwe games on page 1 43 and page 1 46 have been
left untouched.
Botvinnik described Chess Fundamentals as the greatest of all books on the
game, and C apablanc a ' s standing as a writer has been widely debated.
Golombek' s Preface to Capablanca 's Hundred Best Games of Chess called him
' strangely poor at explaining and annotating his own games ' , whereas 30 years
later, in The Encyclopedia of Chess, the same Golombek wrote that Capablanca
was 'a lucid and excellent writer on chess' . In an unexpectedly lukewarm review
of Chess Fundamentals on page 1 0 of its Janu ary 1 922 issue, the BCM
commented:
' It must not be thought that a study of this book will make a beginner into a
good player, nor do we imagine that the author expects such to be the result,
though he leads the way to a very great i mprovement by his lucid
explanations . '
The Cuban gave h i s own view i n a 1 934 Preface t o the reissue o f the US version:
363

' . . . Chess Fundamentals is as good now as it was thirteen years ago. It will
be as good a hundred years from now; as long in fact as the laws and rule s
of the game remain what they are at present. The reader may therefore g o
over the contents of the book with the assurance that there is in it everything
he needs, and that there is nothing to be added and nothing to be changed.
Chess Fundamentals was the one standard work of its kind thirteen years
ago and the author firmly believes that it is the one standard work of its kind
now.'
This is vintage Capablanca. Believing that he had written an outstanding book,
he saw no reason to pretend otherwise. He has often been termed chary with
analysis, although his ability to pinpoint succinctly a game ' s critical moments is
beyond dispute. The particularity of his prose style was its absence of style, its
plainness. Simple vocabulary and simple syntax made him the antithesis of
Nimzowitsch and Tartakower. Very much a literalist, in annotations he shunned
figures of speech like similes and metaphors, as well as cultural references,
paradox, humour and discursive matter, as if such additives would cloud his
annotations' pedagogical value. At their most skeletal (e.g. in his booklet on the
match against Lasker) his notes inevitably disappointed, but whatever they lacked
in colour they gained in clarity and timelessness. Owing to its direct, spare prose,
Chess Fundamentals reads as naturally today as it did in 1 92 1 .
We know from Olga Capablanca Clark ' s Introduction to Capablanca 's Last
Chess Lectures ( 1 967) that her husband found writing easy but disliked it.
Evidence exists too that it was far from profitable for him. A Primer of Chess
appeared at the beginning of 1 93 5 , and on 1 7 October of that year the US
publishers, Harcourt, Brace and Company, Inc., informed him that 'a little more
than 1 ,500 copies' had been sold. A royalty statement dated 30 June 1 937,
accompanied by a cheque for $46.62, showed that US sales in the first half of
1 937 had totalled 1 55 , plus one copy sold to Canada.
Notwithstanding his oft-alleged 'laziness' , Capablanca annotated more of his
own games than is often realised: over 1 50. But he wrote fitfully (for example,
hardly anything between 1 928 and 1 934), and for an overview of his career we
must turn to third p arti e s . In English the choice is between a pair of
quinquagenarians, The Immortal Games ofCapablanca by Fred Reinfeld ( 1 942)
and Capablanca 's Hundred Best Games of Chess by Harry Golombek ( 1 947) .
The Reinfeld work, which has 1 1 3 games, first appeared nine months after
Capablanca died. It was reprinted in 1 990 by Dover, and there was another ( 1 97 4)
descriptive notation edition, from Collier Books, with an Introduction by Robert
Byrne. The manifold factual mistakes in Reinfeld' s book remain uncorrected to
this day, but overall it was not bad for its time. Dover' s blurb reminds us that
Capablanca' s best games are ' models of beauty, economy, clarity a nd
imagination' . How often such words have been written, but how true they are.

364

Capablanca 's Hundred Best Games of Chess, originally published in the United
Kingdom by Bell, was reprinted in paperback by Batsford ( 1 986) and by the
BCM ( 1 989). In neither case was any effort made to patch up the analysis and
history; pages 268-269 above show how the BCM botched its chance. From the
outset Golombek denied that the Bell original had any errors at all, and he even
wrote (CHESS, January 1 95 1 , page 8 1 ), 'To the best of my knowledge it contains
only one misprint' . Golombek was never one for afterthoughts. To the end he
was unable to admit the need for sweeping repair work, but the objective reader' s
appreciation o f the book dwindles the more h e scrutinises it. John Nunn certainly
had his work cut out in 1 996 when Batsford decided to do an algebraic edition,
under the title Capablanca 's Best Games. At Nunn ' s request, we submitted a list
of historical corrections ; there turned out to be well over 1 5 0 in all, a figure
decidedly unflattering to both Golombek and the writer of the memoir of
Capablanca, Julius du Mont. (Not quite all the amendments have been heeded;
for instance, the date of Capablanca' s match against Euwe (page 26) should
read 1 93 1 , not 1 932.)
In the annotations Nunn decided to correct 'minor' analytical flaws without comment
but to use footnotes in important cases. As ever, his observations are of much interest,
an example being the game Marshall v Capablanca, New York, 1 93 1 .

Play continued 2 1 . . :xa4 22 . xd6 4Jbd5. Golombek awards Black ' s 22nd move
an exclamation mark for being 'a neat little combination, winning a pawn by
force' . A footnote by Nunn disputes that: 'The two players and Golombek all
apparently overlooked the crushing move 23 .a6!!, which wins material. After
most replies White can just take the knight, while 23 . . . 4Jxf4 24 . xa8+ .d8 25
. xd8+ 4Je8 26 . xf4 g5 27 . f3 gxh4 28 4Jxc5 is also an easy win . ' Nunn writes
that since Capablanca' s intended combination is unsound he should have
preferred the quieter line 2 1 . . . .a6 22 g5 4Je8 23 .al .b7, 'retaining some
positional advantage' . Unfortunately, this judgement throws into disarray the
reader ' s understanding of the game as a whole, for earlier notes by Golombek
are allowed to stand. He had nothing but praise for Capablanca in this game, and
criticised White ' s play at moves 7, 8, 1 0, 1 1 , 14 and 1 5 . Indeed, 1 5 a4 was
castigated as 'a blunder, after which the game is already past saving ' . If that is
all true, it is unclear why Black has only ' some positional advantage' after the
play pointed out by Nunn at move 2 1 .
365

At their best Golombek' s notes were effective, but the Batsford book makes one
realise that he was often careless in analysis, dogmatic about openings, indifferent
to move transpositions and negligent about the chronological order of games.
He was also hampered by restricted research material and limited awareness o f
Capablanca' s own annotations, despite some personal contact between the two
players. (Batsford' s back-cover blurb errs in calling him an 'occasional opponent
of Capablanca' ; they met at the board once only.) Another problem is Golombek' s
prolixity. He liked the sound of his own typewriter, and some of his prose has,
unlike Capablanca' s, dated badly. Even so, Batsford goes too far with its stylistic
changes, which begin with the first word in the first note in the first game. Above
all, Golombek's selection of games looks increasingly inapt and unrepresentative,
and in this respect Reinfeld may already have performed better in his earlier
book, which Golombek haughtily ignored (apart from slavishly copying its
shambolic tournament and match result tables) .
Knowledge of Capablanca' s career has advanced enormously since the 1 940s .
In 1 963 came the Weltgeschichte des Schachs monograph by James Gilchrist
and David Hooper, a collection of tournament and match games so thoroughly
researched that little could be added even now. In 1 975 David Hooper and Dale
Brandreth produced The Unknown Capablanca (descriptive notation), a
complementary anthology of games from events other than tournaments and
formal matches. Its sole drawback, B atsford ' s hit-or-miss typesetting, was
rectified in a 1 993 Dover reprint.
Published by the Oxford University Press in 1 978 and reprinted by Dover in
1 982, Capablanca 's Best Chess Endings by Irving Chernev presents (in full
algebraic notation) 60 complete games, annotated with emphasis on the final
phase. Well over half are absent from the Golombek volume, a fact which
underscores not only the inadequacy of Golombek' s selection but also Chernev' s
readiness to embrace newly-found material. Written with deceptive casualness,
Capablanca 's Best Chess Endings was, perhaps, Chernev ' s finest book,
combining hard analytical work and his customary screwball levity. Only Chernev
could write annotations like (page 1 69) ' "Don' t simplify against Capablanca!",
I keep telling them at the office' .
Since the 1 970s, investigations have continued apace. We attempted to shed
additional light in our 1 989 book published by McFarland & Co., Capablanca A
Compendium of Games, Notes, A rticles, Correspondence, Illustrations and Other
Rare A rchival Materials on the Cuban Chess Genius Jose Raul Capablanca,
1 888-1 942. Then came The Games of Jose Raul Capablanca (Caissa Editions,
1 99 1 , with a revised version from Chess Digest in 1 994) . Its readers should
exercise caution and scepticism, given the extreme slackness of the compiler,
Rogelio Caparr6s, a kind of Lyndon Laird squared, but, if nothing else, the number
of games gathered (over 1 ,200 bare scores) reinforces the point that any modern
writer wishing to cream off Capablanca' s 1 00 best will have infinitely more raw
366

material to choose from than did Golombek.


To do justice to Capablanca, however, an anthology of at least 200 annotated
games is surely needed. Pending the realisation of that dream, Golombek' s book
will have to suffice. It is not a particularly attractive stand-in, even after its algebraic
( C 1 99 7)
face-lift.*

Larousse
No author is cited on the cover or title page of the Larousse du jeu d' echecs, a
477 -page hardback, produced with the cooperation of the French Chess
Federation, but elsewhere there is a list of twenty contributors, headed by Marc
Gatine. The unfamiliarity of almost all the names is easy to decry, but many
poor books are inflicted on the chess world by familiar names. In a catchpenny
move, the front cover mentions Joel Lautier, on the strength of a one-page preface
which promises a work that is 'the most complete and most erudite published to
date' . If only. Left open or shut on a coffee table, the Larousse du jeu d'echecs
is elegantly fetching, but the text is a cascade of factual blunders, misprints and
general misconceptions.
All aspects of the game receive treatment of sorts, though barely venturing outside
the groove of stereotyped facts and non-facts to be found in hundreds of earlier
books. Even basic matters are maltreated. For example, 'combination' is defined
on page 463 as 'a sequence of moves made by a player which, if it is correct,
compels the other player to make forced replies' . The section on endgame studies
attributes to ' Grigoriev, 1 928' the famous 'fast king at h8' position which Reti
conceived in 1 92 1 . The following page (page 295) has 'Treed' instead of Teed
and 'Reichelm' instead of Reichhelm. No chess authority nowadays would seem
to write Alexander 'MacDonnell' rather than McDonnell, or Lionel ' Kieseritsky'
rather than Kieseritzky, but the Larousse book does that and more. On page 233
(as well as in the lamentable index - why are French books never properly
indexed?) we have 'Milner-Berry' instead of Milner-Barry. Page 301 refers to a
publication called Workly Citizen, which should read [Glasgow] Weekly Citizen.
On page 304 the co-author of L 'Art defaire mat, called a bestseller, should read
Victor Kahn, not Kann. When a surname is rendered correctly, the success may
be spoilt by a bizarre forename. Page 342 has 'James Marshall' , instead of Frank.
Marshall' s famous 1 2 . . . xf3 sacrifice against Janowsky was played in Biarritz
in 1 9 1 2 and not, as claimed on page 45 , in Paris in 1 905. On page 208 the errors
pile up when a position is marked 'Potter v Mathews, London, 1 95 1 , Legal ' s
mate' . For Mathews read Matthews, for 1 95 1 read 1 868, and for Legal read
Legall. (The game in question was given on page 1 78 of The Chess Players '
Quarterly Chronicle, 1 868.) A couple of pages later comes the following diagram
*Later in 1 997, Chess Stars brought out a two-volume set of Capablanca's 'complete' tournament
and match games, with languageless annotations.

367

heading: 'Tylar v Winter, Hastings, 1 963 ' . Tylor and 1 933 would be correct.
Erratic dates are a feature. Stating that the Kasparov v Short match was played
in 1 992, rather than 1 993, may be easily done (page 1 2 1 ), but there is no excuse
for repeating (on page 292) the old inaccuracy about Najdorf s 'Immortal Polish
Game' being played in 1 935. And it takes special historical gifts to present a
'