Chess Notes
Edward
Winter
When contacting
us
by e-mail, correspondents are asked to include
their name and full
postal address and, when providing
information, to quote exact book and magazine sources.
The word ‘chess’ needs to appear in the subject-line
or in the message itself.
8381. Announced
mates (C.N.s 8329, 8334, 8351, 8360 & 8367)
Concerning announced
mates, Dan Scoones (Port Coquitlam, BC, Canada)
draws attention to comments by Hans Kmoch on page 76 of
the March 1964 Chess Review (Reshevsky v Fischer,
1963-64 US championship):
8382. Samuel
Reshevsky and Julius Rosenwald
Harrie Grondijs (Rijswijk, the Netherlands) forwards a
photograph which he owns:
The board appears to be the wrong way round, but in such
cases two other possibilities require consideration:
either the photograph has been reversed (unlikely here,
since Reshevsky’s hair-parting and breast-pocket are on
the left) or, as discussed in C.N. 5124, there is an
optical illusion with the shade of the chessboard squares.
8383. Chess
for younger readers (C.N.s 6323 & 6329)
An addition from Michael Clapham (Ipswich, England) can
be shown courtesy of the Cleveland Public Library, Six
Chess Lessons for Junior Players by S. Tinsley
(Stroud, 1893):
8384. Korchnoi’s
name deleted from a match book? (C.N. 8279)
No corroboration has been found of Bernard Levin’s
assertion that after Korchnoi’s departure from the Soviet
Union in 1976 ‘a new Soviet book on the 1974
Karpov-Korchnoi championship match had to have all
references to Korchnoi deleted, so that he is simply
referred to throughout as “the opponent”’.
More generally, however, the Soviet press’s practice of
omitting his name has been mentioned by Korchnoi himself.
For instance:
‘Once the Soviet Chess Federation had failed in its
attempt to exclude me from the world championship (a
service for which I have President of the World
Federation Dr Euwe to thank) the press couldn’t cope
with having to report my candidates’ matches with
Petrosian, Polugayevsky and Spassky. I was never named,
and referred to only as “the challenger”, but of course
people knew who I was and what the news “Polugayevsky
played poorly against the challenger” meant.’
Source: an interview with Korchnoi by Richard Forster in
Kingpin, Autumn 2001, pages 15-18 (translation by
George Green).
Below is the relevant section of the original interview,
published on page 57 of the Neue Zürcher Zeitung,
23 March 2001:
Can readers submit any particularly egregious examples
from Soviet publications of the time?
8385. Rat
Opening/Defence
C.N. 6861 quoted from page 236 of the May 1891 BCM:
‘One popular character at Purssell’s is Mr Manley, a
good old Purssellite, who is best known by his “rat”
openings (P to Kt3 and B to Kt2).’
It was not specified whether the moves were played by him
as White and/or Black. Below is an entry on page 170 of
the Dictionary of Modern Chess by Byrne J. Horton
(New York, 1959):
On page 148 of the July 1965 Chess Life John W.
Collins wrote:
‘As for 1 P-K4, or 1 P-Q4, P-KN3 2 P-Q4, or 1
P-K4 P-Q3, who knows what to call it? Some say
it is the King’s Fianchetto, some the Paulsen, some the
Pirc, some the Robatsch, and some the Ufimtsev. Bobby
Fischer once dubbed it the Rat Defense.’
Whether Fischer did ‘once’ dub the opening in that way
(publicly) seems unclear. The only reference that we can
offer is from a game annotated by him on pages 44-45 of
the February 1964 Chess Life:
The game-reference in the first paragraph after 4...c6 is
also notable.
8386. Sneak
openings (C.N. 8368)
C.N. 8368 quoted a passage from page ix of Brevity
and Brilliancy in Chess by Miron J. Hazeltine (New
York, 1866):
In an apparent mix-up, the ‘sneak’ reference was
attributed to James A. Leonard in item 214 of unit three
of Napier’s Amenities and Background of
Chess-Play by W.E. Napier (New York, 1935):
‘It was the gifted Leonard, with the “first refusal” of
Morphy’s mantle in his pocket, who in this country first
spoke of the French Defense as the King’s Pawn Sneaks
One. The obloquy of evading open-game amounted, in Civil
War days, to a class consciousness. This is not hard to
understand when opening play is recalled. What became
terrors later on in the Ruy López were then merely
growing pains. A player then had to rely on his
imagination for his devices; a pre-digested game was as
rare then as an original is now.
There was no good reason, many thought, to shirk open,
airy, and pelting chess.
The prejudice died hard.’
See too page 211 of Napier’s Paul Morphy and The Golden
Age
of
Chess (New York, 1957), as well as Horowitz’s
references to Leonard (based on Napier’s comments) on page
84 of Chess Review, March 1950 and on page 88 of How
to Win in the Chess Openings (New York, 1951).
8387. Keres
v Petrov
Stuart Rachels (Tuscaloosa, AL, USA) is surprised by the
above, from page 210 of The Art of Attack in Chess
by V. Vuković (London, 1998), because after 8...Nf6 ...
... the possibility of 9 Bxb7 is not mentioned.
Our initial comment is that in earlier editions of the
book (in the descriptive notation – see page 237) the
first 13 moves were not given.
Other authors have passed over in silence 9 Bd3 (which,
incidentally, was not a novelty in 1939). See, for
example, pages 262-263 of Modern Chess Opening Theory
by A.S. Suetin (Oxford, 1965).
Keres himself referred to the line in his monograph on
the French Defence (Örebro, 1957, page 176, and Moscow,
1958, page 149), giving 9 Bxb7 (‘!’) and making no mention
of his game against Petrov.
Below are some annotators’ comments on the relevant phase
of the Keres v Petrov game:
- ‘8...Kt-B3? A blunder! It allows 9 BxKtP BxB 10
Q-Kt5ch regaining the B.’
Al Horowitz, Chess Review, May 1939, page
106.
- ‘9 Le4-d3. Vit vinner en bonde: 9 L:b7 L:b7 10 Db5+
jämte 11 D:b7.’
Schackvärlden, June 1939, page 209.
- ‘8...Kt-B3? And this is a direct blunder. ...P-B4 was
better. 9 B-Q3. Objectively stronger was the
exploitation of Black’s lapse: 9 BxKtP! BxB 10 Q-Kt5ch
etc. The omission of such an obvious stratagem may be
justly attributed to an oversight in the course of a
game between amateurs; but masters like Alekhine,
Spielmann and Keres will often avoid the win of a pawn
in this manner if it interferes with their contemplated
attacking policies.’
Keres’ Best Games of Chess 1931-1940 by F.
Reinfeld (London, 1941), page 193.
- ‘9 Bd3. Black automatically played 8...Nf6, and White
equally automatically retreated his bishop. After 9 Bxb7
Bxb7 10 Qb5+ Black would have lost a pawn for no
compensation.’
Paul Keres Chess Master Class by Y. Neishtadt
(Oxford, 1983), page 110.
Even so, there are writers who have suggested that 9 Bd3
may have been preferable to 9 Bxb7:
- ‘9 Le4-d3. Dies dürfte besser sein als 9 Lxb7 Lxb7
10 Db5+ usw., denn Schwarz bekommt für den Verlust des
Bauern die Initiative.’
Turniere, Taten und Erfolge by E. Ridala
(Berlin, 1959), page 70.
- ‘9 Bd3. Probably more correct than giving up the
initiative for a pawn: 9 Bxb7 Bxb7 10 Qb5+ Qd7 11 Qxb7
O-O.’
Paul Keres’ Best Games, volume two, by E.
Varnusz (Oxford, 1990), page 139.
8388.
Capablanca v Phillips
A game (from a 31-board display) submitted by Eduardo
Bauzá Mercére (New York, NY, USA):
José Raúl Capablanca – Charles W. Phillips
Chicago, 24 November 1909
Centre Counter Game
1 e4 d5 2 e5 c5 3 f4 Nc6 4 c3 d4 5 Nf3 Bg4 6 h3 Bxf3 7
Qxf3 e6 8 Bb5 Nge7 9 d3 a6 10 Ba4 Rc8 11 Nd2 dxc3 12 Bxc6+
Rxc6 13 bxc3 Nd5 14 Ne4 Be7 15 O-O
15...Nxc3 16 Bb2 Nxe4 17 dxe4 c4 18 Bc3 Qd3 19 a4 O-O 20
Rab1 Qxf3 21 Rxf3 Rb8 22 a5 b5 23 axb6 Rcxb6 24 Rxb6 Rxb6
25 f5 Bc5+ 26 Kh2 Rb3 27 f6 g6 28 h4 h5 29 Kg3 Kf8 30 Kf4
Ke8 31 Kg5 a5 32 g4 Bb4 33 White resigns.
Source: Chicago Tribune, 28 November 1909, page
4:
8389.
Korchnoi’s name deleted (C.N.s 8279 & 8384)
Dan Scoones (Port Coquitlam, BC, Canada) writes:
‘Victor Korchnoi’s participation in the 1977-78
Candidates’ cycle was covered in rather curious and
inconsistent fashion by the leading Soviet chess
publications. Unlike mainstream news outlets such as Pravda
and Izvestia, the chess publications could
hardly suppress his name but they did make a serious
effort to suppress his results.
In the weekly newspaper 64 there was
detailed coverage of all the Candidates’ matches
except the ones involving Korchnoi. The bare results
of his matches against Petrosian and Polugayevsky were
given, but no games were published. Detailed analysis
was provided of all the other games from the
quarter-final and semi-final matches. For the final
match, Korchnoi v Spassky, only the weekly standings
and the final result were given. There was just one
exception: the moves of the final game were published.
Shakhmaty Riga followed a policy similar to that of
64. There was detailed analysis of all matches
except the ones involving Korchnoi, for which only the
bare results were given. For the final match against
Spassky, the box score and the moves of three games
(4, 12 and 18) were published.
In Shakhmaty v SSSR there was no coverage of
the Candidates’ cycle, including the non-Korchnoi
matches, except for three or four annotated games from
the “non-Korchnoi” quarter-finals. This is remarkable.
A leading master qualifies to play a match against the
Soviet world champion, and the whole matter is
completely ignored by the leading Soviet chess
publication.
Shakhmatny Bulletin published all the games of the
cycle and did not refrain from identifying Korchnoi by
name. In keeping with the magazine’s general editorial
policy, there were no annotations and no added
comments. However, in the annual index, published in
the 12/1977 issue, none of Korchnoi’s games that had
appeared in earlier issues was indexed.
The front and back covers of the 3/1978 issue of 64:
That is the issue which should have announced
Korchnoi as Karpov’s official challenger on its front
cover. Instead, the news is buried on the back page.
This may be contrasted with the front cover of the
48/1974 issue, which announced Karpov as the winner of
the 1974 Candidates’ cycle:
The 1978 world championship match received normal
coverage in all four publications, but for the
Candidates’ matches the general policy seems to have
been to ignore Korchnoi as much as possible.’
8390. Aliens (C.N.
8378)
A video interview with Kirsan Ilyumzhinov in English was
mentioned by Olimpiu G. Urcan in an article about the FIDE
President and ‘Alien Theory’ on pages 48-50 of the Summer
2011 Kingpin. The clip,
entitled ‘President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov tells of his
invitation to an alien spaceship’, has subtitles, as
transcribed below:
‘It happened on 17 September, I remember, in Moscow; it
happened in my apartment.
... I was taken from my apartment in Moscow and taken
to this spaceship, and we went to some star. After that
I asked “Please bring me back” because the next day I
should be back in Kalmykia, to Elista, and go to the
Ukraine. They said, “No problem Kirsan you have time.”
They are people like us. They have the same mind, the
same vision. I talked with them. I understand we are not
alone in this whole world. We are not unique.
I am not a crazy man ... but after that when I gave the
first interview to Radio Freedom in Russia five years
ago thousands, not hundreds, thousands of people wrote
me letters and called me on the phone saying “Kirsan,
you are a politician and you aren’t afraid to speak
about it.” From the United States every year, it is an
official statistic, more than four thousand people are
contacted in such a way. My theory is that chess comes
from space. Why? Because the same rules, 64 squares,
black and white, and the same rules in Japan, in China,
in Qatar, in Mongolia, in Africa. The rules are the
same. Why? I think it seems maybe it is from space.’
A further item will quote other statements on the subject
by the FIDE President, and particularly in
Russian-language sources.
8391. Ajedrecista
On the subject of Chess
and Computers, Christian Sánchez (Rosario,
Argentina) draws attention to a brief video
sequence of the Ajedrecista in action.
8392.
Nimzowitsch v Hofer
Mr Sánchez also writes:
‘Page 15 of the Düna Zeitung, 22 January (4
February) 1905 gave the conclusion of Nimzowitsch v Hofer:’
8393.
Dus-Chotimirsky v Penin
A further contribution from Mr Sánchez concerns a finish
given in The Smothered
Mate. Page 152 of the 8 (21) May 1910 issue of the Rigasche
Zeitung stated that White gave knight odds and that
the game was played at the Café Dominique in St
Petersburg:
8394. Aliens
(C.N.s 8378 & 8390)
Thanks to Dan Scoones (Port Coquitlam, BC, Canada) we are
able to present a comprehensive new feature article Kirsan Ilyumzhinov and
Aliens, with texts in English and Russian.
8395. Repetition
John Nunn (Chertsey, England) writes:
‘I have been looking at some world championship
games from the early twentieth century, and I have a
query about the repetition rule in force at the time.
Two examples:
This is from Schlechter v Lasker, Game 1, Vienna,
1910. Play continued 56 Rxa5 Rc4 57 Ra6+ Ke5
58 Ra5+ Kf6 59 Ra6+ Ke5 60 Ra5+ Kf6.
The position after Black’s 56th move was repeated
at Black’s 58th and 60th moves, so under modern rules
Black could have claimed a draw before playing
60...Kf6.
The second position occurred in Janowsky v Lasker,
Game 8, Berlin, 1910. The game continued 49
Qd6+ Kb7 50 Qe7+ Kc6 51 Qd6+ Kb7 52 Qe7+ Kb6 53 Qd8+
Kb7 54 Qd7+ Kb6 55 Qe6+ Kc7 56 Qf7+ Kb8 57 Qf4+ Kb7 58
Qf7+ Kb8 59 Qf8+ Kc7 60 Qf4+ Kc6 61 Qd6+ Kb7.
The positions after 49...Kb7, 51...Kb7 and 61...Kb7
are identical, so again Black could have claimed a
draw (at this point a draw claim would have been
perfectly reasonable even though Black actually won
the game).
As I understand it, at one time the repetition rule
required that the moves had to be repeated, rather
than the positions. Thus in the first example the
moves leading to the positions were not the same,
being ...Rc4 in one case and ...Kf6 in the other two
cases. The second specimen is a little different, in
that the move preceding the repeated positions was in
every case ...Kb7, but the king came from c6 twice and
from c7 once.
My main question is whether anyone knows the exact
rule which was in force at the time and, in
particular, what was the rule for these world
championship matches. I would also be interested to
know when the modern form of the rule was introduced.
A repetition rule involving moves must be fairly
complicated to cater for repetitions which are more
than simple to-and-fro sequences (as in the second
example). There is also the question as to whether
Qg6xPh6+ is the “same” move as Qg6-h6+, for example,
not to mention the matter of castling and en
passant rights.’
For Lasker’s world championship matches against
Schlechter and Janowsky no consolidated versions of the
complete regulations have come to light, and we have found
nothing specific about repetition of positions or moves,
although the possibility of a draw in the Schlechter v
Lasker game was mentioned in vague terms on page 24 of the
16 January 1910 issue of Deutsches Wochenschach:
‘Man sieht, Weiß hat das Remis in der Hand, versucht
aber begreiflicherweise auf Gewinn zu spielen.’
The origins of the repetition rule were discussed in
C.N.s 3461 and 5695. The wording quoted in the former item
(‘If the same position occurs thrice during a game, it
being on each occasion the turn for the same player to
move, the game is drawn’) also appeared as Rule VII in the
‘Revised International Code’ on page 9 of the
English-language Hastings, 1895 tournament book. In that
event a practical case arose during Blackburne’s game
against Albin. A note by von Bardeleben to 71...Rc8 was
contradicted by the tournament book editors (page 118):
In the British Chess Code (London, 1899 and 1903)
the relevant provision was formulated differently:
‘A game is treated as drawn if, before touching
a man, the player whose turn it is to play claims that the
game be treated as drawn, and proves that the existing
position existed, in the game and at the commencement of
his turn to play, twice at least before the present turn.’
In Germany a different rule had been in force, enshrined
in the Statuten und Meisterturnierordnung des
Deutschen Schachbundes, which were adopted in
Nuremberg on 15 July 1883:
Source: Nuremberg, 1883 tournament book, page 11:
A comparable provision was still applied in the twentieth
century. For example, the following was given by Johann
Berger on page 95 of the March 1906 Deutsche
Schachzeitung:
‘Als unentschieden gilt auch die Partie, wenn
dreimal hintereinander beide Gegner dieselben Züge
oder Zugreihen machen.’
An English translation appeared, with discussion, on page
233 of the May 1910 Chess Amateur:
‘The game is also counted as drawn, if three times in
succession both sides make the same moves or series
(plural) of moves [same moves or groups of moves].’
Can readers assist with further information?
8396. Alekhine games
The feature articles An Alekhine
Blindfold Game and An Alekhine
Miniature have been updated to include Raymond
Keene’s latest bungling, on successive pages of Little
book of Chess Secrets (Glasgow, 2013). Far from
rectifying his earlier errors, he goes even further astray
(‘Alekhine-Mindeno, Germany, 1933’).
Corrections are one of the few things that Raymond Keene
will not copy.
8397.
Botvinnik on the world championship
Stuart Rachels (Tuscaloosa, AL, USA) asks whether Hans
Ree was right to state on page 128 of the 7/2013 New
in Chess:
‘Botvinnik has said that a world championship match,
with everything that it involves, would take one year
off one’s life.’
The best supporting quote that we can offer is a
paragraph by Harry Golombek about the 1963 Botvinnik v
Petrosian match, on page 115 of Chess Life, May
1963:
‘Both contestants have shown, on and off, undoubted
signs of strain and both have given utterance to their
thoughts on the matter. Botvinnik has said that each
world championship match has cost him a year of his
life. He may have meant by this that the necessary
preparation for such a match took a year, but it is
still more likely that he meant the anguish and the pain
caused by the whole contest shortened his life
expectation by one year.’
8398. A German
proverb?
‘No fool can play chess, and only fools do.’
Stuart Rachels notes that this was given as ‘a German
proverb’ on page 262 of Maxims of Chess by John W.
Collins (New York, 1978) and enquires whether that
description (also to be found in other publications) is
justified.
The observation was referred to as an ‘old adage’ on page
1 of The Pleasures of Chess by Assiac (New York,
1952), in a text reproduced from his New Statesman
column, 1949, page 485. There was no suggestion that the
sentiments emanated from Germany. Indeed, on page 7 of the
German edition of the book, Vergnügliches Schachbuch
(Cologne and Berlin, 1953), the phrase was said to be of
English origin:
‘... wer immer von der Schachtarantel gestochen ist,
wird sehr bald die Wahrheit des alten englischen
Sprichworts zugeben müssen: “Ein Narr kann nicht
Schach spielen, aber nur Narren tun es”.’
See too Chess Proverbs.
8399.
Observations by Botvinnik
We offer a miscellany of observations by Mikhail
Botvinnik published in English-language chess magazines.
First, some excerpts from an interview in the Latvian
magazine Šahs as presented by Eliot Hearst on page
135 of the June 1962 Chess Life:
- ‘Because of your good results in the “sixties”, the
Caro-Kann Defense has once again become popular. What
can you tell us about this defense?’
‘This defense limits the possibilities of White. When
the defenses P-K4, P-K3 or P-QB4 are employed, White has
a much bigger choice of variations than in the case of
the Caro-Kann Defense, where Black usually has a very
solid position. As a result, in match-play the Caro-Kann
is a very efficient weapon, since, in a match, one plays
as White to win the game, whereas, as Black, one tries
to merely obtain a satisfactory defense. And if, in the
last Tal match, White got a slight advantage against
this defense, the reason was not because of the opening
itself, but because of errors committed later in the
game.’
- ‘What is your opinion about Tal’s play in the last
match and about the style of your opponent in
general?’
‘It is said that if one is beaten by someone, it is
necessary to criticize the opponent; and if one beats
someone, it is necessary to praise him. I think it is
better to always be consistent ...
... He is a rather unique player. When the game takes
on a more or less open character, and when piece-play is
important, nobody can equal Tal. The view that he
calculates variations very quickly is widespread, and it
is really so.
In other positions he is weaker. Here no calculation
can help him. In such positions one can play him
entirely peacefully. As for me, it was natural that I
would try to obtain such positions against Tal, where he
would have difficulties.
Further, I think that one of his shortcomings is that
he is lazy. He used to work more, prepare better,
particularly in the openings. If you have watched his
games over the past two years, you will observe nothing
new. He attempted the move 3 P-K5 against the Caro-Kann,
but this variation is not very dangerous, and one cannot
prepare only one variation for such a catch. This
circumstance naturally offered me the possibility of
preparing something new for him each time. This
facilitated my work during the games.
If Tal had been well-prepared, if he had devoted enough
time to the study of typical positions, his talent would
render him much more dangerous than he is now. No second
can do the player’s work; the player has to work for
himself.’
The next set of quotes comes from an article ‘M.M.
Botvinnik declares ...’ on pages 3-8 of CHESS,
October 1968 (a report on an address by Botvinnik to an
audience of 400 in Vladimir in late July):
- ‘Amongst our promising young players only two stand
out – Anatoly Karpov from Tula and Mike Steinberg from
Kharkov. It is still far from certain that they will
make grandmasters of the calibre of Spassky and Tal.’
- ‘I have already mentioned Efim Geller as our leading
theoretician. His ideas on the openings and on the
transition from opening to middle-game have become
common knowledge nowadays. Before his advent, we did not
properly understand such modern openings as the Indian
set-ups.’
- ‘Spassky is an exceptionally sober player with
enviable good health. He is a good psychologist. He is a
sound judge of situations and of the balance of strength
between himself and his opponent. He rarely gets into
time-trouble. You cannot confuse him. He is always in a
happy and confident state of mind and does everything
equally well.
Geller can play exceptionally well, but he can also
play very badly. Spassky’s play is always that of a very
good grandmaster.
It is this combination of qualities that has enabled
Spassky to achieve outstanding successes.’
- ‘Korchnoi always considers that his fine positional
understanding and his deep knowledge of theory (not book
theory, but his own theory of the openings) should bring
him success.
Korchnoi can do what the majority of players can’t –
stick it out when defending a difficult position and
then switch over instantly, if the opportunity comes, to
counter-attack. His combination of courage and accurate
calculation enables him to overcome the nervous strain
caused by difficult situations. Spassky avoids such
positions. Hence, it is hard to say which of them will
win [in the Candidates’ Final]. Only 12 games makes a
pretty short match. The one who manages to win a couple
of good deep games will have a great chance of victory.’
- ‘At 25, he [Fischer] is nowadays the sort of legendary
figure Tal was once. You have to agree at once that he
is outstandingly talented. He analyses superbly, plays
most energetically, has a fine competitive temperament
and great resourcefulness. He can both hold out in
defence and attack hard. His nerves respond to any
demands on them.
... But there is another Fischer. Apart from his
outstanding chess talent there is the question of his
general intellectual development. This is probably on
about the level of a 14 or 15-year old child. His
character is unstable. He is too easily provoked. You
could say he is naïve and doesn’t really understand
life. He takes hasty decisions which at times harm both
himself and the name of chess. It is all very sad. His
absence from the Candidates’ contest certainly reduces
interest in the event.’
Pages 38-40 of the November 1972 CHESS had an
interview with Botvinnik by B.H. Wood, conducted during
the Olympiad in Skopje. One question:
- ‘Do you think you would have won against Fischer?’
‘Do you mean against the Fischer of today or when I was
at my best? It depends on whether there would be a
return match. If this were to be covered by the rules,
then perhaps I should have lost the first match against
him as I did against Tal, but then have made a serious
study of his defects and exploited them in the return
match.’
This may be compared with a remark of Spassky’s reported
by William Hartston. See C.N. 7137.
8400. Oversights
From page 13 of the October 1968 CHESS:
‘As many readers have pointed out, Morry in his notes
to Webb v Cafferty overlooked for two moves that White’s
king was in check.’
The game, played in the British Championship in Bristol,
had been published on page 350 of the September 1968
issue:
In this position W. Ritson Morry gave 26 Qe6+ a question
mark and affirmed:
‘Nobody seems to have noticed here that White could
force mate by: 26 R-R7ch N-K2 27 RxBch [sic] KxR
[28] Q-N7ch, and guess what next!’
This line is illegal since 26...Ne7 gives discovered
check.
Towards the end of his notes Morry commented that 30 Qd6+
wins, whereas White can give mate on the move with either
30 Qxb7 or 30 Rxb7, and the alleged mating line ending
with 32 Qf4+ disregards another discovered check,
32...Ne5+.
8401. James
Mavor’s reminiscences
Hans Renette (Bierbeek, Belgium) forwards an excerpt from
pages 79-80 of My Windows on the Street of the World
by James Mavor (London and New York, 1923):
‘In 1873 or 74 I resumed my interest in chess, and in
one or other of these years I joined the Glasgow Chess
Club. About the same time Zukertort came to Glasgow to
play a series of simultaneous blindfold games, and I was
asked to call out the moves for him. I think he played
22 boards. It was a very marvellous performance. One of
the players challenged one of Zukertort’s moves. The
player had in defiance of all rules been moving about
the pieces on his board. Zukertort was not in the least
disturbed by the challenge. He repeated the game from
the beginning, and then gave the position as it should
be. It is needless to say that he was indisputably right
and the seeing player wrong.
Within this decade also I became acquainted with
Blackburne, with Captain MacKenzie, the celebrated
American chessplayer, and more importantly, with
Steinitz, with whom I remained on friendly terms until
his death. Steinitz was undoubtedly the greatest chess
master of his time, and perhaps of any time. He did not
distinguish himself beyond the field of chess, but he
had other interests. He had either invented or somehow
become involved in an invention in marine engineering.
This invention consisted in some alleged improvement in
the screw-propeller. I got him some information that he
wanted from some of my shipbuilding friends, but I do
not think his project came to anything. Much more
interesting were his philosophical views which he
propounded on various occasions. Curiously enough, he
regarded his achievements in chess with great modesty;
but he really prided himself upon his powers as a
philosopher. I cannot say, however, that there was
anything original in his philosophy. So far as I could
form a judgment, he was a Spinozist. Among his less
well-known writings is a little pamphlet called The
Economies of Chess [sic], in which he shows
for the benefit of the intending chess professional that
chess does not pay. This pamphlet promulgates the thesis
which he once developed to me viva voce: “Here
am I”, he said, “the most successful chess professional
of my time, winner of the most important prizes in chess
matches and editor of the most important and
remunerative chess column” (he edited the chess column
of The Field), “and yet, on the average, I have
not received more than the wages of an artisan.”
Sometimes, in the eighties, I used to play with Bird at
Simpson’s Divan in the Strand, and occasionally Steinitz
used to look on and make caustic comments on the game.’
Page 45 of Blindfold Chess by Eliot Hearst and
John Knott (Jefferson, 2009) notes that the largest number
of blindfold games ever played by Zukertort simultaneously
was 16. How many exhibitions he gave in Glasgow we do not
know, but one such display, on 12 boards, was reported on
page 221 of the February 1873 Chess Player’s Chronicle.
8402. The Berlin
Defence
Our latest feature article, The
Berlin Defence (Ruy López), is a compilation of
analysis by, among others, Alapin, Berger, Jaenisch,
Tarrasch and von Bardeleben.
8403. A Zugzwang position
This ‘Jung v Szabados’ position from the 1950s (White to
move) has been discussed in a number of C.N. items (see
pages 77-78 of Chess Facts and Fables and C.N.
4555).
Publications gave the venue as Hungary, Venice and
Dessau, and now Riccardo Del Dotto (Picciorana-Lucca,
Italy) adds that August Livshitz offered a fourth version:
Reggio Emilia. See, for instance, the second volume of Test
Your Chess IQ (Oxford, 1981, page 32 and Oxford,
1989, page 26). Our correspondent also notes that the Zugzwang
position had been the subject of compositions by Rinck
and Troitzky, and he believes that the ‘Jung v Szabados’
ascription is false.
For further details see his article ‘Smascherato
un
falso
storico?’.
8404. An
enticing riddle
‘It is one of the most enticing riddles of the
centuries-old attractiveness of chess that a phenomenon
so deeply rooted in the materialistic and rapacious
should offer a satisfaction which is so deeply spiritual
and so innocent of harm to one’s fellow man.’
Source: page 119 of How to Improve Your Chess:
Second Steps by I.A. Horowitz and Fred Reinfeld (New
York, 1952).
8405. Gusev v
Auerbach
From Dan Scoones (Port Coquitlam, BC, Canada):
‘On pages 167-170 of 7 Ways to Smash the
Sicilian (London, 2009) Yuri Lapshun and Nick
Conticello analyse a game cited as “Y. Gusev-Y.
Averbakh, Moscow, 1951” and marvel that one of the
stalwarts of the Soviet chess establishment could be
so comprehensively beaten by a relatively unknown
master. The source was stated to be Rolf Schwarz’s
1966 work Die Sizilianische Verteidigung.
Gusev’s opponent was not Yuri Averbakh but a minor
Soviet master named E. Auerbach. The game was played
not in Moscow in 1951 but in the championship of the
Molniya Sporting Society in 1946. It was published on
page 300 of Shakhmaty v SSSR 10/1951:
I have not been able to trace the venue or any other
games from the event.’
We note many sources which gave incorrectly Black’s
identity and the game’s date. An exception is Queen
Sacrifice by I. Neishtadt (Oxford, 1991), which has
a footnote on page 210 stating that Black should not be
confused with Yuri Averbakh; the occasion was given as
‘Moscow, 1946’. On page 212 Neishtadt commented:
‘Virtually the most impressive of all queen
sacrifices.’
8406. The
laws of chess in the Handbuch
Repetition of Position or
Moves in Chess refers to the code of laws set out in
the Handbuch des Schachspiels in the latter part
of the nineteenth century. Courtesy of the Cleveland
Public Library we give a PDF file comprising
the relevant text from the sixth and seventh editions of
the Handbuch, published in Leipzig, 1880 and
Leipzig, 1891 (pages 15-17 and 26-27 respectively).
8407. A German
proverb? (C.N. 8398)
Jerry Spinrad (Nashville, TN, USA) sends two citations:
‘A man must be a very clever fellow and a fool to make
a really good chessplayer.’
Source: Brisbane Courier, 21 April 1884, page 3.
‘It has been said that no fool could be a first-class
chessplayer, and none but a fool would be.’
Source: Sydney Mail, 6 March 1897, page 487.
8408. An
early Koltanowski game
George Koltanowski (Antwerp) – Jean-Louis Ormond
(Vevey)
Played by correspondence
Ruy López
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Nxe4 6 d4 exd4
7 Re1 d5 8 Nxd4 Bd6 9 Nxc6 Bxh2+ 10 Kf1 Qh4 11 Be3 O-O 12
Nd4 Bg4 13 Nf3 Qh5 14 Bb3 Rad8 15 c3 Bg3 16 Ke2
16...Nxf2 17 Bxf2 Rfe8+ 18 Kd3 Qf5+ 19 Kd2 Bxf2 20 Rxe8+
Rxe8 21 Qf1 Bxf3 22 gxf3 Qxf3 23 Na3 Qf4+ 24 Kd3 Qf5+ 25
White resigns.
Source: Schweizerische Schachzeitung, October
1921, pages 154-155. As regards the occasion, the heading
merely stated that the game had been ‘jouée récemment
par correspondance’.
8409. World
championship seconds
From Leonard Barden (London):
‘In an interview after his match against Anand,
Carlsen said that he had no on-site seconds in
Chennai, although he was in contact via Skype with Jon
Ludwig Hammer, Norway’s number two player.
When was the last time that a player had no strong
assistant at a world championship match? I am
referring to assistants of master level capable of
providing technical help, and not “seconds” who were
effectively managers dealing with match rules and
similar matters.’
Precise records of players’ seconds are often difficult
to trace, and no list of the kind requested by a
correspondent in C.N. 5657 has yet been built up. For
example, for the 1929 and 1934 Alekhine-Bogoljubow matches
and, even, the 1927 Capablanca v Alekhine encounter it
seems unclear which other players were involved in any
capacity.
In response to Mr Barden’s enquiry we can offer a quote
from page 135 of the June 1962 Chess Life (the
item mentioned in C.N. 8399). An interviewer asked
Botvinnik:
‘Why did you decide against having a second in the
return match with Tal?’
Botvinnik’s response:
‘My friend, the master Goldberg, with whom I have
worked these past years, refused to be my second this
time. He is older than I, and to second is far more
tiring than to play. It is exhausting, and I understand
his point of view. For example, when I help as a
spectator at a chess tourney, I tire faster than if I
play myself. And the second has to be alert for the
five-hour duration of the game, as well as afterwards,
to analyze the adjourned game throughout the night. So
before me rose the question: “Should I engage a new
second whom I may not have too much confidence in?” How
could we successfully work together without a long
friendship and mutual respect? Therefore, I decided not
to use a second.
Formerly, when I was young, I always played alone. I
decided to take the risk and, as you see, it didn’t turn
out badly. It is true that in some games I had
difficulties because of poor analysis; I made bad
mistakes of analysis in the second and 19th games.’
From page 71 of The World Chess Championship 1963
by R.G. Wade (London, 1963):
‘Each player was entitled to have a “second” to help in
openings, preparations and adjournment analysis.
Surprisingly Botvinnik had no-one. Petrosian had the
benefit of aid from the very capable grandmaster Igor [sic]
Boleslavsky. A second, who is temperamentally suited,
can make a very appreciable difference. Botvinnik showed
the need in the decisive 18th game, where his
adjournment homework was not up to his usual standard.’
On page 129 of the May 1963 BCM Harry Golombek,
who was the judge in Moscow, wrote of Botvinnik:
‘He has no official second here whereas Petrosian has
the redoubtable Boleslavsky as his second.’
Other quotes on this topic will be gratefully received.
8410.
Questions to Petrosian
C.N. 13 (see page 232 of Chess Explorations)
cited a quip by Petrosian during the 1974 Karpov v
Korchnoi match, from page 166 of Anatoly Karpov: Chess
is My Life by A. Karpov and A. Roshal (Oxford,
1980):
‘The press centre was linked to the stage by four
television screens. Arranged in groups around the
chessboards, grandmasters and journalists analysed the
position, periodically glancing at the screens. At the
start of the match (before his departure to the
international tournament in Manila) perhaps the most
popular figure in the press centre was Petrosian. The
journalists would constantly turn to the ex-world
champion: “Tigran Vartanovich, what should be played
here?” “When I knew that, I was down on the stage,
instead of up here”, was Petrosian’s joking reply.’
8411. Isaac
Boleslavsky and Igor Bondarevsky
C.N. 8409 noted R.G. Wade’s reference to ‘Igor
Boleslavsky’. As mentioned by a correspondent in C.N. 1148
(see page 158 of Chess Explorations) on page 171
of his book Soviet Chess (London, 1968) Wade made
the reverse mistake: ‘Isaac Bondarevsky’.
8412.
Matches compared
‘The world championship match Botvinnik-Petrosian was
one of the toughest. The Capablanca-Alekhine 1927
encounter was a Sunday afternoon picnic compared with
it.’
Source: The World Chess Championship 1963 by R.G.
Wade (London, 1963), page 9.
8413.
Bulging bookshelves
An article by G.H. Diggle published in the July 1974 Newsflash
and reproduced on page 1 of volume one of Chess
Characters (Geneva, 1984).
‘Britain is, as never before, teeming with new chess
works the purchase and study of which (the more sanguine
reviewers imply) will rapidly “people this Isle with
grandmasters”.
Speaking as an embittered Local Bad Master of 50 years’
standing, we have our doubts. If no man by taking
thought can add one cubit to his stature, can a
chessplayer do so by steeping himself in “bookish
theoric”? He may keep what chess he has in good running
order – he may even pick up a few spare parts – but he
will still be saddled with his original brainbox. The
great Deschapelles, we are told, never looked at a chess
book; Paul Morphy looked at very few; and those of us
whose bookshelves bulge with semi-digested works,
“without which no chess lover’s library could possibly
be complete”, are tempted to think, in our sombre
moments, that left on our own we might have achieved
fame – as it is, we shall die as we have lived,
befuddled by the verbosity of pedantic humbugs.
Our own nasty suspicions of chess literature were first
aroused in 1945, when the enterprising officials of the
Lud-Eagle chess club arranged for a number of
consultation games to be played there in public by the
leading players then in London. On hearing what was
afoot, we hied us to the Lud-Eagle in a state of
delighted anticipation – here was a chance of actually
overhearing the experts planning aloud – we expected not
only an intellectual but a philological treat, for we
naturally supposed that their consultations would be
couched in the same mystic language in which they are
depicted by twentieth-century annotators as thinking
things out when playing on their own. Thus we hoped to
hear, as we hovered ecstatically on the fringe of the
crowd, such fragments as “From the strategical point of
view, Dr X, I am inclined to agree that P-KR3 is
positionally indispensable; but a feeling of
psychological malaise pervades me as though something
more dynamic were called for; and incidentally (though I
am loth to distract a man of your calibre with mere
tactical trivialities) we must first liquidate the
technical obstruction of our king being in check.”
But alas, all we did in fact hear was a series of
muffled banalities such as “the snag is, the rook’s
pinned”, “if we swap off, the knight pops in”, and once
(most deplorable of all) “you swore blind we could hold
the bally pawn”.
We came away shaking our hoary head – and we are
shaking it still.’
8414. Aaron Sayers
From page 206 of the April 1928 Chess Amateur:
‘Aaron Sayers, aged 53, with no means of support, but
with a passion for chess, and alleged to be known in
Ireland as a champion chessplayer, was brought before
the magistrate at Bow Street Police Court on 15 March,
accused of obtaining credit by fraud at a tea-shop. The
five nephews who were not aware of his destitute
condition heard of the charge and at once rallied round
him. The magistrate placed him on probation for 12
months.’
Two contemporary newspaper reports on the ‘teashop chess
champion’ from Ireland:
Manchester Guardian,
16 March 1928, page 11
Daily Mail, 16 March 1928, page 7.
8415. Maxim
From page 19 of the Cheltenham Chronicle and
Gloucestershire Graphic, 3 November 1928:
See Chess and Radio for
references to a radio broadcast by S. [sic] Tinsley
(E.S. Tinsley’s brother).
Wanted: other sightings of the maxim ‘Move the right
piece to the right square at the right time’.
8416. Who?
8417. Aaron
Sayers (C.N. 8414)
David McAlister (Hillsborough, Northern Ireland) has
traced references to ‘A. Sayers’ in the Irish press during
the period 1914-27:
‘In the 1914 Leinster Championship he was the
runner-up to Charles J. Barry. The latter was the
reigning champion, and Sayers seems to have qualified
to meet him, the format probably being two
all-play-all tournaments with four (probably)
qualifiers playing a semi-final before the winner
faced the previous year’s champion. Two future Irish
champions, Philip Baker and Thomas George Cranston,
played in Sayers’ section. Sources: Weekly Irish
Times, 21 March 1914, page 16 (there is also a
reference to Sayers playing in the Armstrong Cup, the
league competition for Dublin clubs) and the Weekly
Irish
Times, 16 May 1914, page 24.
I have also found a reference to Sayers on board one
for the Cairo Chess Club (named after its premises,
the Café Cairo) in a friendly match with the Rathmines
Chess Club (Weekly Irish Times, 24 January
1914, page 19).
The Irish Times of 6 December 1919, page 7
reported on his game against Capablanca in a
simultaneous exhibition in Dublin earlier that month:
The conclusion given in that newspaper report was
used on page 339 of Capablanca in the United
Kingdom (1911-1920) by V. Fiala (Olomouc, 2006),
although with the misspelling “Sayer”, an erroneous
position and an unexplained continuation (“1 a3”, even
though it was Black’s move). It is, however, difficult
to understand what the newspaper meant by white pawns
on “K.Kt. sq.” and “Q.sq.”.
In 1924 Sayers competed in the major section of the
Tailteann Games, where he came second to Lord Dunsany.
There were two qualifying groups and then a final
section of six (Irish Times, 19 August 1924,
page 6).
In the 1925-26 league season he was a member of the
Sackville Chess Club team which won the Armstrong Cup,
as reported in the Irish Times, 16 April 1926,
page 11, 20 April 1926, page 11, 30 April 1926, page
11 and 5 May 1926, page 10.
In 1927 Sayers played on board 13 in the Belfast v
Dublin match; see my article The
Time Traveller, which has a photograph of him.’
Chess
Notes Archives
Copyright: Edward Winter. All
rights reserved.
|