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.
7022. Leningrad v Moscow match, 1937
Some well-known figures are in this photograph taken
during the Leningrad v Moscow team match (30 June and 1
July 1937):
Source: Chess Review, September 1937, page 210.
From John Hilbert (Amherst, NY, USA):
‘My work on a game collection and biography of
Major Otho E. Michaelis of the United States Army,
Ordnance Corps, has intrigued me for several years
now, and not least because Michaelis appears in so
many geographically varied chess contexts: in New
York City, 1860, winning a rook-odds game against
Paul Morphy; in Detroit, 1869, winning the Michigan
State Chess Association title; in Philadelphia, in
1882 and 1884, winning the Philadelphia Chess Club’s
championship, as well as off-hand games with
Steinitz; and at various times in St Paul,
Minnesota, in Troy, New York, in Boston and,
finally, in Augusta, Maine. His chess followed his
military career. From a variety of sources over 130
games and game fragments have been collected for the
book. Steinitz acknowledged Michaelis as among the
most prominent amateur chessplayers in the country,
and regretted his passing. So did many others, both
in and out of chess.
Of at least equal interest is Michaelis’ career in
the military, which took him as a teenager on the
Gettysburg campaign in July 1863; to Nashville for
Hood’s disastrous attack on General George H.
Thomas’s forces, where he served as Thomas’s chief
of ordnance (Michaelis was the first non-West Point
graduate to qualify to enter the ordnance corps); to
the Little Big Horn to identify bodies two days
after Custer’s defeat; to the top of Mount Whitney
in California; to the lecture hall of the
prestigious Franklin Institute in Philadelphia; and
his work in a variety of federal arsenals conducting
experiments for the ordnance corps. An expert in
chess, whist, ordnance, metallurgy, electricity,
meteorology, translation and perhaps other fields
too, Michaelis, the 1862 valedictorian of the Free
Academy of New York (four years later renamed the
City College of New York), was something of a
Renaissance man, in the term’s best sense.
Until recently, however, his family has in some
ways proved more elusive than his chess or military
careers. Having obtained his pension records from
the time when his widow applied for an increase in
funds, I can now share further information. As is
known, Michaelis was born in Germany on 3 August
1843 and died in Augusta, Maine on 1 May 1890. He
died of a spinal infection at the relatively young
age of 46. His wife, Kate Kercheval Woodbridge
Michaelis, was born on 2 February 1846, in Detroit,
Michigan.
Otho and Kate Michaelis were married in Detroit on
29 December 1868. They had nine children over a
period of 20 years, only six of whom outlived their
father. All but two were born at various army
arsenals across the country. The following list of
their children is taken from Kate Michaelis’s sworn
affidavit found among the pension records:
1. Guy Michaelis, born on 14 September 1869, at
Detroit Arsenal, Dearbornville, Michigan;
2. Marion Field Michaelis, born on 1 September
1871, at Watertown Arsenal, Boston, Massachusetts;
3. George Veil Shepard Michaelis, born on 21
June 1873, at Watertown Arsenal, Boston,
Massachusetts;
4. Francis Woodbridge Michaelis, born on 22
April 1875, at Allegheny Arsenal, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania;
5. Margaret Lawrence Michaelis, born on 27 May
1877, at St Paul, Minnesota;
6. Otho E. Michaelis, Jr., born on 1 March 1879,
at St Paul, Minnesota;
7. Kathleen Alfred Michaelis, born on 22 March
1882, at Frankford Arsenal, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania;
8. Sidney Clare Morgan Michaelis, born on 22
October 1885, at Watervliet Arsenal, West Troy,
New York;
9. Helen Michaelis, born on 6 October 1889, at
Kennebec Arsenal, Augusta, Maine.
The couple’s time at Kennebec Arsenal proved
deadly for the family. Guy, their eldest son, died
there of consumption, aged 18, on 11 October 1887.
Helen, their youngest child, died the day she was
born, 6 October 1889. Margaret, aged 12, died less
than two months after her youngest sister, on 1
December 1889, when she fell through the ice on the
pond behind their home. Michaelis attempted to
rescue her, but had to be rescued in turn,
unconscious, and he spent over two weeks in
hospital. The following year, Michaelis himself
died.
Questions regarding the Michaelis family still
remain, and I should be grateful to any readers who
can provide information or leads on such matters as
the following:
1. What was Michaelis’ actual place of birth in
Germany and who were his parents?
2. What is the date of death and place of burial
of his wife, Kate Kercheval Michaelis? (Pension
records indicate that she was still living in the
early to mid-1920s, in Brookline, Massachusetts.
She apparently never remarried.)
3. A descendant of Otho E. Michaelis may still
be alive. Otho E. Michaelis, Jr. died in a car
accident in Georgia on 31 March 1919, having
turned 40 at the beginning of that month. However,
it appears that there was an Otho E. Michaelis
III, as well as an Otho E. Michaelis IV. The name
is sufficiently rare for it to seem highly
unlikely that an Otho E. Michaelis IV was
unrelated to the nineteenth-century chessplayer.
During the 1990s, and earlier, a Dr Otho E.
Michaelis IV, a research biologist with the
Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center,
Agricultural Research Services, US Department of
Agriculture, Beltsville, MD, published numerous
scientific articles. He was also an adjunct
associate professor, Division of Renal Diseases,
Department of Medicine, George Washington
University, Washington, DC. Any information
provided by readers which leads to contact with
him or with any descendant of the chessplaying
Otho E. Michaelis will be much appreciated.
4. A photograph or engraving of Michaelis, or of
any of his family members, is also highly
desired.’
7024. Chess prodigies (C.N. 6148)
We note a further book on the subject of chess prodigies:
Шахматные вундеркинды (Shakhmatnye vunderkindy) by
E. Gik (Moscow, 2006). Its main focus is on relatively
recent players.
Some chess chroniclers are obliged to
attempt, nolens volens, to sum up in a paragraph
or two the complexities and uncertainties of the Termination of the
first Karpov v Kasparov match (1984-85). We wonder whether
readers can quote a better summary than the one on page 84
of the revised edition of Leonard Barden’s book Play
Better Chess (London, 1987):
‘... Karpov began to sit on his lead, just waiting for
Kasparov to make a fatal slip. But the match was now
into its fourth and fifth month, and Karpov’s strength
was ebbing. Kasparov got back to 5-1, then Karpov
suddenly lost two games in a row for 5-3 after 48 games.
The match was becoming an embarrassment to the Soviet
authorities, and play was transferred from the grand
Hall of Columns to the Hotel Sport in the suburbs.
After 48 games Florencio Campomanes, President of the
International Chess Federation (FIDE), took his
controversial and unprecedented decision to annul the
match. He made his announcement at a chaotic Moscow
press conference where both Karpov and Kasparov declared
they wanted to continue to play. Campomanes then led the
grandmasters backstage for private discussions after
which he confirmed his decision. K and K blamed each
other, the chess world was aghast at what was seen as an
arbitrary and false conclusion which many thought was
made to rescue a tottering Karpov. Objectively, however,
it was still much more likely that Karpov would win one
game before Kasparov won three, and the defending
champion played under a psychological burden in the next
K v K series in 1985.’
Leon L. Labatt – Frank James
Marshall
New Orleans, 13 March 1913
Petroff Defence
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Nxe5 d6 4 Nf3 Nxe4 5 c4 d5 6 Nc3
Nxc3 7 dxc3 Be6 8 Qb3 Nc6 (‘After the game was over,
Marshall remarked that perhaps 8...dxc4 was stronger at
this point than the text move; but he had been willing
to give up the pawn for the development of his pieces.’)
9 Qxb7 Na5 10 Qa6 c6 11 cxd5 Qxd5 12 Be3 Be7 13 Be2 O-O
14 Qd3 Rab8 15 b3 Ba3 16 Rd1 Qxd3 17 Bxd3 Bb2 18 c4 Bc3+
19 Ke2 Rfe8 20 h3 Rbd8 21 g4 c5 22 Kf1 f5 23 Bxc5
23...Nxc4 (‘One of Marshall’s surprises (called by the
masters “Marshall’s swindles”). The knight cannot be
captured with advantage.’) 24 gxf5 Nb2 25 fxe6 Nxd3 26
e7 Rd7 27 Ba3 a5
28 Ke2 (‘This is the psychological moment for the king
to come into the game, and Judge Labatt showed excellent
judgment and daring in bringing his majesty unattended
into the enemy’s country. However, the maneuver ending
with the play of 37 Kf7 wins the game for White.’)
28...Nf4+ 29 Ke3 Nd5+ 30 Ke4 Nf6+ 31 Kf5 Rd5+ 32 Ke6 Rb5
33 Rd8 Bb4 34 Bxb4 Rxb4 35 Rhd1 h6 36 Ne5 Kh7 37 Kf7 Ne4
(‘Marshall now sets a neat little trap for White; if
here 38 Rxe8 Ng5+ 39 Kf8 Rf4+ 40 Nf7 Rxf7 mate.’) 38
Kxe8 Rb7 39 Kf8 Ng5 40 e8(Q)
40...Kh8 (Threatening 41...Nh7 mate.) 41 R1d7 Resigns.
Source: American Chess Bulletin, June 1913,
pages 138-139, with a correction on page 151 of the July
1913 issue. The notes cited came from the New
Orleans Times-Democrat.
The conclusion of this (individual) game was given in
C.N. 1291. See pages 14-15 of Chess Explorations.
7027. Marshall inscription
Our collection includes a copy of Marshall’s book Modern
Analysis of the Chess Openings (Amsterdam, 1912 or
1913), inscribed by him in Pittsburgh on 18 April 1913:
Lynne Leonhardt (Claremont, WA, Australia) is seeking
information about her great-great-great-grandfather,
John Worrell, who was a second to Staunton in the 1843
match against Saint-Amant in Paris.
We have noted fewer particulars in the Chess
Player’s Chronicle than in Le Palamède.
From page 481 of the 15 November 1843 issue of the
latter:
The agreement between Staunton and Saint-Amant, signed
on 13 November 1843, was given on page 563 of the French
magazine, 15 December 1843, and the following was
published on page 31 of the 15 January 1844 issue:
‘M. Staunton s’est trouvé placé dans des
conditions bien défavorables en venant lutter sur
une terre étrangère, et se trouvant ensuite
abandonné par ses témoins, MM. Worrell et Wilson,
qu’une grave et subite maladie a forcés de retourner
en Angleterre. Nous devons dire cependant, qu’ayant
été dignement remplacés par MM. Bryan et Dizi, leur
absence à peine s’est fait sentir.’
Javier Asturiano Molina (Murcia, Spain) asks whether
firm information is available about the death-date of
Josef Hašek. Whereas ‘1976’ is given on page 123 of Malá
encyklopedie šachu by J. Veselý, J. Kalendovský
and Bedrich Formánek (Prague, 1989), our correspondent
points out that the listing Almanach českých
problémistů by Z. Libiš has ‘1981’. In neither
case is a precise date offered.
‘Chess will never become a popular game with
Americans ...’
John Blackstone (Las Vegas, NV, USA) sends this cutting
from page 2 of the Brooklyn Eagle, 24 May 1858:
7031.
Saidy v Fischer
From Tony Bronzin (Newark, DE, USA):
‘While recently reading the fine book Endgame
Strategy by Mikhail Shereshevsky (Oxford, 1985) and
comparing its analysis (on pages 176-177) of Saidy v
Fischer, US Championship, 1963-64 with what appears on
pages 312-314 of volume four of Garry Kasparov’s My
Great Predecessors, I noticed a discrepancy regarding
Black’s 47th move. Kasparov’s book indicates that
Fischer played the decentralizing move 47...Nh5, while
Shereshevsky has 47...Ne4. The latter move is
corroborated by Anthony Saidy in a letter published in
Larry Evans’ column in the November 1986 Chess
Life (page 47).
Position after 47 Bh4
Which move was played, ...Ne4 or ...Nh5? Kasparov’s
analysis at move 48 to save White, which includes the
move 49 Bf2, does not work with the black knight on
e4.’
The score was published on page 35 of the February 1964 Chess
Life and on page 146 of the May 1964 Chess
Review. In each case the move given was 47...Ne4.
On the other hand, Saidy contributed an introduction to
the game in Bobby Fischer by Karsten Müller
(Milford, 2009) – see pages 248-249 – and in that book the
game-score had 47...Nh5, with a question mark and the
comment ‘too slow’.
A photograph from earlier in the game appeared on page
132 of the May 1964 Chess Review:
We are grateful to Russell Miller (Vancouver, WA, USA)
for documentary data regarding Otho E. Michaelis. It has
been forwarded to John Hilbert.
7033.
Dispute
Tartakower wrote as follows in CHESS, May 1940,
pages 188-189:
‘The conclusion of the tournament at Budapest in 1928,
the one called the “Siesta” tournament, was marked by a
dispute. When the last round started, Capablanca led, a
point in front of Marshall. It became common knowledge
that his game with Vajda had been agreed a draw before a
move had been made, with the official consent of the
tournament committee. Marshall protested violently, on
the grounds that this arrangement deprived him of all
chance of sharing in the second prize. The “chance”
proved purely theoretical (when he lost to L. Steiner so
could not have caught up with Capablanca in any case).
Capablanca, moreover, had little reason to fear a defeat
at Dr Vajda’s hands. Marshall, however, was badly put
out by this incident and took particular pains to
inflict on Dr Vajda, the next time he came up against
him, a resounding defeat.’
Brief comments: a) Marshall won second prize; clearly, it
was the first prize he was eager to share. b) L. Steiner
did not play at Budapest, 1928, though ‘E.’ and ‘H.’ did.
c) Marshall’s resounding defeat of Vajda was in fact a
35-move draw at the 1930 Hamburg Olympiad.
The above item (C.N. 987) appeared over 25 years ago, but
we have yet to obtain clarification of Tartakower’s
claims.
From pages 116-117 of CHESS, 30 November 1970:
A quote from page 235 of Chess Review, October
1937:
‘The Berlin tournament of 1920, played during the
post-War turmoil and financed very generously by
Bernhard Kagan, probably has a higher percentage of
good games than any other tournament ever played.’
7036.
Eguiluz and Vázquez
White to move. What did he play? Answer
We shall return to this question towards the end of the
present item, but first a game given in C.N. 1662 (see
page 76 of Chess Explorations):
Mariano Eguiluz – Andrés Clemente Vázquez
Occasion?
Muzio Gambit
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 4 Bc4 g4 5 O-O gxf3 6 Qxf3 Qf6
7 e5 Qxe5 8 d3 Bh6 9 Nc3 Ne7 10 Bd2 c6 11 Rae1 Qc5+ 12 Kh1
d5 13 Qh5 Qd6 14 Nxd5 cxd5 15 Bxd5 O-O 16 Rxe7 Qxe7 17
Qxh6 Kh8 18 Re1 Qd8 19 Bc3+ f6
20 Re8 Qxe8 21 Qxf6+ Resigns.
Source: pages 45-46 of Un poco de ajedrez by
Manuel Márquez Sterling (Mexico City, 1893). C.N. 1662
quoted the author’s comment ‘This game places Señor
Eguiluz on the same level as the Morphys and Anderssens’.
We mentioned too the similarity with the finish to
Morphy’s blindfold win against P.E. Bonford in New
Orleans, 24 March 1858.
Eguiluz’s victory was also given on page 299 of the
November 1933 issue of the Argentinian magazine El
Ajedrez Americano:
The following appeared on page 173 of the June 1879 Deutsche
Schachzeitung:
Since Vázquez’s book Algunas partidas de ajedrez is
not in our collection we shall be grateful to know what
information it provides on his encounters with Eguiluz. In
the meantime, below are three further games between the
two players:
Mariano Eguiluz – Andrés Clemente Vázquez
‘Played some years ago’, Mexico City
Bird’s Opening
1 f4 d5 2 d4 c5 3 Nf3 Nc6 4 e3 c4 5 c3 Bf5 6 Be2 Rc8 7
Nbd2 e6 8 O-O Nf6 9 b3 b5 10 b4 Bd6 11 a4 a6 12 axb5 axb5
13 Ne5 Bxe5 14 fxe5 Ne4 15 Nxe4 Bxe4 16 Ra6 O-O 17 Bf3 Bd3
18 Rf2 Qc7 19 Rfa2 Qb7 20 Bd2 Ra8 21 Qa1 Rxa6 22 Rxa6 f6
23 exf6 Rxf6 24 h3 g5 25 Be1 Bc2 26 Ra3 Qf7 27 Bg3 Ba4 28
Bd6 Qg6
29 Rxa4 bxa4 30 Qxa4 Qe8 31 e4 Qd7 32 e5 Rf7 33 Bg4 Nd8
34 Qa8 Kg7 35 b5 Nb7 36 Qa6 Nxd6 37 exd6 Kg6 38 Qc6 h5
39 Bxe6 Qxe6 40 d7 Qxc6 41 bxc6 Resigns.
Source: Brooklyn Chess Chronicle, 15 April 1885,
page 108.
Mariano Eguiluz – Andrés Clemente Vázquez
Nineteenth match-game, Mexico City, 1876
Giuoco Piano
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 c3 Nf6 5 d3 d6 6 a4 a5 7
O-O O-O 8 Bg5 h6 9 Bh4 Be6 10 Nbd2 Kh7 11 h3 g5
12 Bxg5 hxg5 13 Bxe6 fxe6 14 Nxg5+ Kg6 15 Nxe6 Qe7 16
Nxf8+ Rxf8 17 Kh2 Qe6 18 f4 exf4 19 d4 Nxd4 20 cxd4 Bxd4
21 Rb1 Ng4+ 22 Kh1 Nf2+ 23 Rxf2 Bxf2 24 Qc2 Rh8 25 Nf3 Bg3
26 e5+ Qf5 27 Qxf5+ Kxf5 28 exd6 cxd6 29 Rd1
29...Rc8 30 Kg1 Ke6 31 Nd4+ Ke5 32 Nb5 d5 33 Nc3 d4 34
Ne2 Rc2 35 Nc1 Ke4 36 b3 Bf2+ 37 Kf1 Be3 38 Nd3 Kf5 39 b4
axb4 40 Nxb4 Rf2+ 41 Ke1 Rxg2 42 Nd5 Rg1+ 43 Ke2 f3+ 44
White resigns.
Source: Análisis del juego de ajedrez by A.C.
Vázquez, volume one (Havana, 1889), page 77.
Source: volume one of Análisis
del juego de ajedrez
The final game takes us back to the quiz question at the
start of the present item.
Andrés Clemente Vázquez – Mariano Eguiluz
‘Fourth game of the first match’, Mexico City, 1875
Philidor’s Defence
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 Nc6 4 Bb5 Bd7 5 O-O Qe7 6 Nc3 O-O-O
7 d5 Nb8 8 Be3 a6 9 Bc4 f5 10 b4 h6 11 b5 f4 12 bxa6 fxe3
13 a7 exf2+ 14 Rxf2 Na6 15 Bxa6 bxa6
16 Qb1 Bg4 17 a8(B) Re8 18 Bc6 Bd7 19 Qb7+ Kd8 20 Qa8+
Bc8 21 Rb1 Qf7 22 Rb8 Ne7 23 Nxe5 Qxf2+ 24 Kxf2 dxe5
25 d6 cxd6 26 Qb7 Resigns.
Source: Análisis del juego de ajedrez by A.C.
Vázquez, volume two (Havana, 1889), pages 36-37.
Vázquez explained that at move 16 White’s a-pawn could
not be promoted to a queen because under the Mexican rules
of the time, in the absence of an agreement to the
contrary, promotion was possible only to a piece already
captured.
7037. Chess literature in Hellenic (C.N.
5612)
Michael Syngros (Amarousion, Greece) has updated his catalogue of ‘Chess
literature in Hellenic (original or translations) and
books by Hellenic authors in other languages’ and kindly
authorizes us to make it available here.
This illustration comes from the multilingual cartoon
book Η ζωή μας είναι σκάκι by Κώστα Νιάρχου/Costas
Niarchos (Athens, 1972).
Notes on the life of Howard
Staunton by John Townsend (Wokingham, 2011) has just
been published in a limited hardback edition of 100
copies.
The book also contains carefully-researched material
about some secondary figures discussed in C.N., such as T.
Beeby, F.M. Edge and J. Worrell.
7039. Starbuck
Alan Smith (Manchester, England) notes further games by Daniel Starbuck in the St
Louis Globe-Democrat of 1881 (3 July, 31 July, 4
September and 11 September). Below is the shortest one,
from the 4 September issue:
Daniel F.M. Starbuck – Max Judd
St Louis, 1881
French Defence
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bd3 dxe4 5 Nxe4 Nxe4 6 Bxe4
Nc6 7 Nf3 Bd6 8 Be3 Ne7 9 a3 O-O
10 Bxh7+ Kxh7 11 Ng5+ Kg6 12 Qg4 f5 13 Qf3 Nd5 14 h4 Nxe3
15 Qxe3 Rh8 16 f4 Rh5 17 O-O-O Be7 18 g4 Rxg5 19 hxg5 Qd5
20 Qh3 Bxg5 21 Qh5+ Kf6 22 Qxg5+ Kf7 23 Rh7 Resigns.
Our correspondent points out that the Starbuck games can
be consulted courtesy of the Jack
O’Keefe Project at the Chess Archaeology website. It
is a magnificent resource.
Game 43 in Alekhine’s first volume of Best Games,
against ‘M. Prat’, was described as ‘one of 20
simultaneous games played at Paris, September 1913’. The
book was published in 1927; the German and Dutch
editions brought out in 1929 identified Black as ‘J.
Prat’ and did not stipulate the number of games in the
exhibition. On the other hand, Deux cents parties
d’échecs (Rouen, 1936) said that it was a
20-board display and that Black was ‘N. Prat’.
La Stratégie (October 1913, page 415) gave only
the conclusion of the game and did not offer
corroboration of Alekhine’s later statement that after
Black’s 21st move he announced mate in ten:
As regards the number of players, 16 was the figure
specified on page 360 of the September 1913 issue of the
French magazine:
‘Le 10 septembre, également à La Régence, M.
Alekhine conduit simultanément seize parties; avec
une rapidité surprenante, il obtient le brillant
résultat de quinze gagnées et une seule perdue
contre M. le Dr de Hayes.’
Larger version
From right to left, Capablanca, Keres and Euwe, but then
...?
7042. Vladimirs Petrovs/Vladimir Petrov
Jan Kalendovský (Brno, Czech Republic) notes two
illustrated articles in Russian found via the Latvian
website www.ves.lv:
7 Секретов
(‘7 Secrets’), 29 November 2007 (page 10); PDF version.
Вести
(‘Vesti’), 26 February 2009 (page 12); PDF version.
It may be recalled that in 2004 Caissa Editions
published Vladimirs Petrovs A Chessplayer’s Story from
Greatness to the Gulags by Andris Fride.
Concerning Hector Rosenfeld we add the article ‘Sam
Loyd As I Knew Him’ from page 151 of the July 1935 issue
of Chess Review:
Christian Sánchez (Rosario, Argentina) has answered our
request for information about Eguiluz v Vázquez games
published in the latter’s books Algunas partidas de
ajedrez (Mexico City, 1879 and 1880). Volume one
gave all seven games of the first match, 21 of the 43
games from the second match, and 23 of the 35 games in
the third match, whereas volume two had three offhand
games between the two players (with no occasions
specified).
Three of the four games in C.N. 7036 are in volume one.
The Muzio Gambit game occurred in the second match
(Mexico City, February 1876). Moreover, according to the
book (pages 44-45) Vázquez resigned after 20 Re8. There
is also a discrepancy regarding the Philidor’s Defence
game in C.N. 7036; page 36 of volume one states that
Black (Eguiluz) resigned after 23 Nxe5. The Bird’s
Opening game in our earlier item is in neither Vázquez
volume.
Below are four games from Algunas partidas de
ajedrez:
Andrés Clemente Vázquez – Mariano Eguiluz
Second match, Mexico City, February 1876
Irregular Opening
1 e4 d6 2 d4 c6 3 f4 e6 4 Nf3 Be7 5 Bd3 d5 6 e5 Nh6 7
O-O g6 8 c4 f5 9 Nc3 Nf7 10 c5 h6 11 b4 g5 12 a4 Rg8 13
b5 g4 14 Ne1 Qa5 15 Bd2 Qd8 16 a5 Nd7 17 Qa4 Nb8 18 Nc2
a6 19 bxa6 Nxa6 20 Bxa6 Rxa6 21 Nb4 Ra7 22 a6 Qd7
23 axb7 Rxa4 24 b8(Q) Rxa1 25 Rxa1 Qb7 26 Ra8 Qxb8 27
Rxb8 Kd7 28 Na4 Bd8 29 Nb6+ Bxb6 30 cxb6 Nd8 31 Nd3 Nb7
32 Nc5+ Nxc5 33 dxc5 Rd8 34 b7 Resigns.
Source: volume one, page 45.
Mariano Eguiluz – Andrés Clemente Vázquez
Third match, Mexico City, 1877
Bishop’s Opening
1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 d3 Bc5 4 Bg5 h6 5 Bh4 O-O 6 Nf3 d6
7 Nbd2 Be6 8 c3 g5 9 Bg3 Kg7 10 a4 a5 11 O-O Bxc4 12
Nxc4 Nh5 13 d4 Nxg3 14 fxg3 Ba7 15 Kh1 exd4 16 cxd4 f5
17 exf5 Rxf5 18 d5 Qg8 19 Qb3 Qxd5 20 Rad1 Qc6
21 Nfe5 Rxf1+ 22 Rxf1 dxe5 23 Nxe5 Qe8 24 Rf7+ Resigns.
Source: volume one, pages 59-60.
Mariano Eguiluz – Andrés Clemente Vázquez
Third match, Mexico City, 1877
Bishop’s Opening
1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 d3 Bc5 4 Bg5 h6 5 Bh4 Nc6 6 c3 Na5
7 Bxf7+ Kxf7 8 b4 d5 9 bxc5 dxe4 10 Bxf6 Kxf6 11 Qa4 Nc6
12 dxe4 Qe7 13 Qa3 Nd8 14 c4 Rg8 15 Nc3 c6 16 Rd1 Be6 17
Rd6 Nf7
18 Nd5+ cxd5 19 Qf3+ Kg5 20 h4+ Kg6 21 Qf5 mate.
Source: volume one, page 63.
Mariano Eguiluz – Andrés Clemente Vázquez
Mexico City (date?)
King’s Gambit Accepted
1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 Be7 4 Bc4 Bh4+ 5 g3 fxg3 6 O-O
gxh2+ 7 Kh1 d5 8 Bxd5 Nf6 9 Bxf7+ Kxf7 10 Nxh4 Rf8 11 d4
Kg8 12 Nc3 Bh3 13 Ng2 Nc6 14 d5 Ne5 15 Bg5 Neg4 16 Qd4
16...Nh5 17 Bh4 Qxh4 18 Ne2 Qg3 19 Nef4 Qxg2+ 20 Nxg2
Ng3 mate.
Source: volume two, page 24.
7045.
Grading bonkers
A further article by G.H. Diggle, the Badmaster, from
page 88 of Chess Characters (Geneva, 1984). It was
originally published in the November 1982 Newsflash.
‘Is the Chess World gradually becoming (to paraphrase a
famous utterance of Lord Hailsham’s) “Stark Staring
Grading and Grandmaster Bonkers”? It would seem that
Gradings and not Pawns (as Philidor once taught us) are
now “the soul of Chess”. From some entertaining and
controversial letters lately published in “a well-known
chess periodical” it appears that at a recent weekend
Tournament two ungraded players contrived to “get
through the Customs”, and having infused themselves
(like unleavened bread) into the midst of the graded,
proceeded to add to their crimes by making very
respectable scores. “Should not more Congresses”,
enquires a perturbed reader, “have a special Section for
ungraded players?” But this “apartheid” suggestion is
torn apart in another letter by a “searing” satire on
the alleged superior airs of the “graded ones” – “All
ungraded players are despicable ... they should be
thrown into the basement at Congresses and only allowed
to play each other – so they’ll all stay ungraded – hee!
hee!”
Nevertheless the first letter has a point, and is
perhaps actuated not so much by any contempt for the
“ungraded” as by the fear of lesser sections in
Tournaments being spoiled by wolves in sheep’s clothing
appearing from nowhere, modestly concealing their
“fangs” when filling up their entry forms, and then
showing “what big teeth they have got” by gobbling up
their opponents (and the prize-money) “with every
description of carnivorous enjoyment”. The letter also
enquires, “Would you agree the proper place to get a
grade is in a Club?” Certainly, if you are after one –
but what about cantankerous old codgers like the BM who
“don’t want no grade at their time of life” and object
to seeing themselves priced on a list with the common
herd and exposed to the humiliation suffered by “The Tin
Gee-Gee” who was only marked one-and-nine while another
was marked two-and-three. Is this haughty spirit and
defiance of the closed shop to preclude the BM from
jousting with graded genius, if he finds himself in the
mood? It might be argued that this question is purely
academic, as the BM has not played in a Congress for
over 40 years. But just as a man is deemed by law to be
capable of having issue at the age of 100, it is not to
be ruled out that the BM might suddenly take it into his
head to have a last fling and flicker across the Chess
World like a stale meteor, throwing BCF Officials into
some confusion by an entry form bearing such “recent
results” as “Third Prize, Lincoln City Championship,
1932”. On such an entry being accepted (and it had jolly
well better be) Identikit sketches of the BM would no
doubt have to be posted on the Congress walls to
safeguard against impostors of grandmaster strength (in
collusion with the BM and in consideration of half the
prize-money) taking his place in the “third class” or
fourth if there is one.’
At the end of the following month’s article G.H. Diggle
added a characteristically self-deprecatory erratum:
‘P.S. BM blunders again! (Newsflash, November
’82) He learns from “an unimpeachable source” that it
was “The Toy Soldier” not “The Tin Gee-Gee” who was only
marked one-and-nine. When will he verify his
references?’
Further to the recent celebrations of Victor Korchnoi’s
80th birthday, Gábor Gyuricza (Budapest) asks why so
many reference books give the master’s date of birth as
23 July 1931 instead of 23 March 1931.
Our correspondent observes, for example, that the July
date is on page 177 of Shakhmaty Entsiklopedichesky
Slovar edited by Anatoly Karpov (Moscow, 1990) and
in the (impersonal) ‘Career Record 1947-1976’ on page 6
of Korchnoi’s book Chess is my Life (London,
1977). See also the third-person biographical notes in Viktor
Korchnoi’s Best Games (London, 1978) and Korchnoi’s
400 Best Games by V. Korchnoi, R.G. Wade and L.S.
Blackstock (London and New York, 1978).
We note that the mix-up was discussed in a report by
Harry Golombek on the Korchnoi v Petrosian Candidates’
match on page 279 of the May 1980 BCM:
The ‘Russian dictionary’ was Shakhmatny slovar
(Moscow, 1964); see page 257.
In 1981 Golombek brought out a paperback edition of his
Encyclopedia. The Korchnoi entry duly corrected
his date of birth from 23 July 1931 to 23 March 1931.
7047.
Examination paper
From page 165 of the July 1935 Chess Review:
These responses by Tarrasch to an ‘examination paper’ are
well known, having been reproduced by Fred Reinfeld on
pages 291-292 of The Treasury of Chess Lore (New
York, 1951) and on page 283 of The Joys of Chess
(New York, 1961).
Where, though, did the item first appear?
A particularly dubious suggestion for pronouncing
‘Euwe’ was given on page 274 of the December 1935 Chess
Review:
The proposal was repeated on page 262 of the magazine’s
November 1937 issue.
On page 232 of the August 1970 BCM Wolfgang
Heidenfeld wrote:
‘... a phrase like “Alekhine’s Best Games” is really
ambiguous: it may mean two entirely different things,
viz. (a) the games Alekhine played best and (b) the
objectively best games in which Alekhine was a
participant (in which the standard of the game is
achieved by both partners) – thus he need not
necessarily have won them. This, in fact, is the basis
of my anthology Grosse Remispartien.
In fact, it is little short of ludicrous that
Alekhine’s Best Games does not contain his
draw against Marshall at New York, 1924, where a most
original and new strategic conception by Marshall is
met by an amazing tactical finesse of Alekhine’s, the
whole (drawn) game being one of the greatest ever
played. It is similarly ludicrous that Golombek’s
anthology of Réti’s Best Games is without his draw
against Alekhine at Vienna, 1922 – which has been
christened the Immortal Draw and which even Alekhine
does not pass over in his own collection. Similarly
some game collections of Tal’s are deprived of the
fantastic draw against Aronin at the 24th Soviet
championship (Moscow, 1957) – a game of which Keres
stated in a much-acclaimed article that one could not
do justice to Tal’s achievement in that tournament
without coming to grips with it.’
7050. Tarrasch v the Allies (C.N.s 5162
& 6279)
White played 31 Bc7
Richard Forster (Zurich) points out that the game was
given with Tarrasch’s notes on page 4 of the second part
of the Züricher Post, 22 March 1914:
Complete
chess column
In a letter on page 7 of the January 1937 Chess
Review Herbert Harvey proposed a rule change
whereby a pawn would ‘become by promotion automatically
the piece appropriate to the file on which it is
promoted’. A choice of pieces would exist only in case
of promotion on the king’s file.
On page 29 of the following month’s issue Paul H.
Litwinsky (later: Paul H. Little) related an ‘offhand
remark’ by Capablanca at Nottingham, 1936, regarding
stalemate:
Tony Bronzin (Newark, DE, USA) has
found that the wholesale copying perpetrated by Combination
Challenge! was briefly mentioned in a contribution
by Gary Crum to Larry Evans’ column on pages 18-19 of the
December 1994 Chess Life:
From ‘Chernev’s Chess Corner’ on the inside front cover
of the October 1951 Chess Review:
A correspondent (Edward J. Tassinari, Scarsdale, NY,
USA) referred to Irving Chernev’s feature in C.N. 966
(see page 152 of Chess Explorations). The sixth
edition of Modern Chess Openings was published
in 1939; as pointed out on page 144 of Reuben Fine
by Aidan Woodger (Jefferson, 2004), Fine correctly named
himself as White in his later book Practical Chess
Openings (Philadelphia, 1948). See page 189.
(Page 147 of Woodger’s book published, with notes by
Yudovich, the complete score of Fine v Yudovich, which
ended 43 Kg5 Ke5 44 White resigns.)
We add that Fine also gave an accurate attribution of
the game in an article ‘My Moscow Impressions’ on pages
102-103 of the May 1937 Chess Review (a
translation from 64):
7054. ‘The Little Capablanca’ (C.N.
6365)
When Reuben Fine won the 1944 US Lightning Championship
(playing, at ten seconds per move, 22 games in a single
day), he dropped only one point, in this game:
Julius Partos – Reuben Fine
New York, 25 June 1944
King’s Indian Defence
1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 Nf3 O-O 5 e4 d6 6 Bd3 Nbd7 7
O-O e5 8 dxe5 dxe5 9 Bc2 c6 10 Bg5 h6 11 Bh4 Qe7 12 Qe2
Nc5 13 Bg3 Nh5 14 Rad1 Ne6 15 Qd2 Nd4 16 Nxd4 exd4 17 Ne2
Rd8 18 Bd3 Be6 19 f4 Nxg3 20 Nxg3 Bg4 21 Rde1 Bd7 22 e5
Re8 23 Ne4 c5 24 Nd6 Reb8
25 f5 Bxe5 26 fxg6 Qxd6 27 Qxh6 Be6 28 gxf7+ Bxf7 29 Qh7+
Kf8 30 Qxf7 mate.
Source: Chess Review, June-July 1944, page 12.
Partos, who finished sixth in the tournament, also
inflicted defeats on Kevitz and Denker, as well as drawing
with Kashdan. See the coverage on pages 53-69 of The
Year Book of the United States Chess Federation 1944 edited
by Montgomery Major (Chicago, 1945). Page 58 commented
regarding Partos v Fine:
‘Fine’s only loss; and seldom has the Champion been so
completely outgeneraled.’
The game was also given in Partos’ obituary on pages
148-150 of the May 1969 Chess Review. He was
described as a ‘phenomenon’ who was playing chess at the
age of five (‘sometimes with Mrs Mary Bain, who was then
living in the same apartment house’) and performed his
first simultaneous exhibition when only 11. In blitz
chess, the obituary suggested, he was second only to Fine.
A snippet regarding Chicago, 1937, from page 203 of the
September 1937 Chess Review:
‘The supreme note of self-confidence was struck by
Partos, who sat through a rook and pawn ending blithely
reading a tabloid newspaper while Barnie Winkelman, only
the author of Modern Chess Endings, tackled the
position. For this feat Partos received the epithet of
“Little Capablanca”.’
The Chess Review obituary in 1969 gave Partos’
birth-date as 26 January 1915, and that information
appeared in Jeremy Gaige’s A Catalog of USA Chess
Personalia (Worcester, 1980). However, Chess
Personalia (Jefferson, 1987) had 26 July 1916, and
the privately-circulated 1994 version made another change,
to 26 July 1915.
Partos’ best-known game is probably his win over V.
Harris in the 1951 Colorado State Championship, being
featured on pages 225-227 of Pawn Power in Chess
by Hans Kmoch (New York, 1959).
The concluding paragraph of Jack Straley Battell’s
tribute to Partos on page 148 of the May 1969 Chess
Review stated:
‘Also, Julius composed a special brand of chess
problem, “Reconstructions”. In it, he gave the solution
to a composed endgame, and the “problem” was to
reconstruct the problem position.’
C.N. 847 asked about the exact moves of the famous game
Alekhine v Keres, Munich, 1942. After 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 b6
3 c4 Bb7 4 g3 e6 5 Bg2 Be7 6 O-O O-O 7 b3 d5 8 Ne5 c6 9
Bb2 Nbd7 10 Nd2 ...
... the question posed was whether play went 10...c5 11
e3 Rc8 12 Rc1 Rc7 (Gran Ajedrez, 107 Great
Chess Battles, Alekhine’s Best Games of Chess
1938-45) or 10...Rc8 11 Rc1 c5 12 e3 Rc7 (books on
Alekhine by Kotov and Müller/Pawelczak).
On page 268 of Chess Explorations we remarked
that when annotating the game on pages 143-144 of the 1
October 1942 issue of Deutsche Schachblätter Alekhine
gave 10...Rc8 11 Rc1 c5, contrary to the move order in
his (posthumous) book Gran Ajedrez. Moreover, in
the German magazine Alekhine stated that the opening
moves were 1 Nf3 Nf6 2 c4 b6 3 d4 Bb7, whereas Gran
Ajedrez indicated 1 d4 Nf6 2 Nf3 b6 3 c4 Bb7.
This photograph of Alekhine and Keres was taken a few
months earlier, at Salzburg, 1942:
Source: Alt om Skak by B. Nielsen (Odense,
1943), page 273.
‘The following excellent position, we understand, is
the first production of Herr N. Falkbeer, of Vienna, a
brother of the celebrated chessplayer.’
Mate in three. Key move.
Source. Page 60 of the Chess Player’s Magazine,
August 1863.
When the problem was given on page 247 of the August 1863
Deutsche Schachzeitung, the forename Nicolaus was
provided. Elsewhere, the spelling Nikolaus is found. See,
for example, page 1 of volume one of Schachmeister
Steinitz by L. Bachmann (Ansbach, 1925), which
stated that he was a tax officer: ‘der Steuerbeamte
Nikolaus Falkbeer (Bruder Ernst Falkbeers)’.
7057. The Lasker odds anecdote
For insouciant story-telling purposes there exists an
ideal anecdote: the oft-related one about how Emanuel
Lasker, unrecognized, intentionally lost one or more
handicap games to N.N. but then turned the tables, thereby
convincing his opponent that giving odds is an advantage.
The setting and dialogue can be whatever the story-teller
wants, in the interests of A Fun Read.
The yarn appeared on, for instance, pages 200-201 of Total
Chess by David Spanier (London, 1984), but we are
particularly intrigued by the wording on pages 4-5 of The
Bright Side of Chess by Irving Chernev
(Philadelphia, 1948):
As Alan Slomson pointed out on page 145 of the 30
December 1969 CHESS, the following contribution by
Antony Guest appeared on page 111 of The Chess Bouquet
by F.R. Gittins (London, 1897):
Alan Slomson commented:
‘Guest says this happened “some 14 years ago”, when
Lasker would have been only 15 years old.’
The similarity of the wording in the Chernev and Guest
texts prompts a basic question: when was Lasker’s name
first introduced into the story?
7058. Euwe letters to Capablanca
Our archives contain copies of five letters written by
Euwe to Capablanca in 1936:
7059. Janowsky pearl
C.N. 6683 referred to the Pearl of Zandvoort, but a less
familiar term occurs on page 61 of One Move and You’re
Dead by Erwin Brecher and Leonard Barden (London,
2007). The conclusion of Janowsky v Schlechter, London,
1899 is given, with the comment that White ‘forced
checkmate with such an impressive move that they called it
The pearl of St Stephen’s after the London hall
where the tournament was played’.
Wanted: other sightings of the term.
The game ended 34 Qxh7+ Kxh7 35 Rh5+ Kg8 36 Ng6 Resigns.
We are grateful to a number of readers who attempted to
identify the figures in the airport photograph. The key
is provided by a cutting in our archives from the Dutch
newspaper De Telegraaf in November 1938 (exact
date unavailable):
Russell Miller (Vancouver, WA, USA) reports that he has
found the Partos family in the United States Federal
Census of 1920 and 1930. In the latter case, the
spelling throughout was ‘Bartos’. The family was
resident in New York, but Julius’s father, Joseph, was
born in Hungary circa 1878.
The censuses indicated Julius’s age as five and 15
respectively. Mr Miller comments that, since 2 April
1930 was the date of the latter census, 26 January 1915
is the most probable birth-date of the three cited in
C.N. 7054.
Another game:
A.N. Towsen (London Terrace Chess Club) – Julius
Partos (Queens Chess Club)
New York Metropolitan League, 1947
Queen’s Gambit Declined
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bg5 Be7 5 e3 O-O 6 Nf3 Nbd7
7 Rc1 b6 8 cxd5 exd5 9 Qa4 c5 10 Qc6 Rb8 11 Nxd5 Nxd5 12
Qxd5 Bb7 13 Bxe7 Qxe7 14 Qc4 Bxf3 15 gxf3 cxd4 16 Qxd4
Ne5 17 Be2 Rbd8 18 Qa4 Qf6 19 f4 Nd3+ 20 Bxd3 Rxd3 21
Rc2 Qg6 22 Ke2 Rfd8 23 Re1
23...Rxe3+ (‘24 Kxe3 and 24 fxe3 both run into quite
unusual epaulette mates.’) 24 Kf1 Rxe1+ 25 Kxe1 Qg1+ 26
Ke2 Qd1+ 27 Ke3 Qd3 mate.
Source: Chess Review, May 1969, pages 148-149.
Information is sought on this game:
The finish was 1 Nf5 Qxh4
2 Qh5 and Black resigned.
Page 125 of The Fireside Book of Chess by I.
Chernev and F. Reinfeld (New York, 1949) merely stated
that ‘Vuković won this from an amateur, in 1937’. Walter
Korn gave the position on page 69 of The Brilliant
Touch (London, 1950) with the heading
‘Simultaneous, 1937’.
So far we have not found a reference to the venue, let
alone the identity of Black and the full game-score.
Chess Notes Archives
Copyright: Edward Winter. All
rights reserved.
|