Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Hans Kmoch
Number of games in database: 198
Years covered: 1921 to 1948

Overall record: +65 -71 =60 (48.5%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games in the database. 2 exhibition games, blitz/rapid, odds games, etc. are excluded from this statistic.

With the White pieces:
 Orthodox Defense (12) 
    D63 D51 D54 D60 D50
 Queen's Pawn Game (11) 
    E00 D02 A40 A46 E10
 Nimzo Indian (10) 
    E24 E22 E34 E33 E32
 English (7) 
    A14 A13 A17 A15
 French Defense (7) 
    C01 C07 C02 C13
 Queen's Gambit Declined (7) 
    D30 D39
With the Black pieces:
 Ruy Lopez (13) 
    C77 C79 C90 C97 C84
 Nimzo Indian (12) 
    E33 E32 E36 E20 E24
 French Defense (7) 
    C01 C12 C00 C09 C10
 Orthodox Defense (7) 
    D63 D52 D51 D56
 Queen's Indian (7) 
    E17 E12 E19 E16 E18
 Sicilian (6) 
    B29 B40 B73 B30 B83
Repertoire Explorer

NOTABLE GAMES: [what is this?]
   G Nagy vs Kmoch, 1925 0-1
   Kmoch vs Prins, 1940 1-0
   A Brinckmann vs Kmoch, 1927 0-1
   Kmoch vs G Nagy, 1926 1-0
   Kmoch vs Rubinstein, 1930 1-0
   Yates vs Kmoch, 1927 0-1
   Kmoch vs Fine, 1936 1-0
   Kmoch vs L Steiner, 1925 1-0
   W Von Holzhausen vs Kmoch, 1928 0-1
   Kmoch vs Przepiorka, 1925 1-0

NOTABLE TOURNAMENTS: [what is this?]
   Debrecen (1925)
   Budapest (1928)
   Amsterdam (1936)
   Leningrad (1934)
   Kecskemet (1927)
   San Remo (1930)
   Semmering (1926)

GAME COLLECTIONS: [what is this?]
   Debrecen 1925 by Phony Benoni
   Budapest 1928 by Tabanus
   Giessen 1928 by suenteus po 147

   Nimzowitsch vs Systemsson, 1927

Search Sacrifice Explorer for Hans Kmoch
Search Google for Hans Kmoch

(born Jul-25-1894, died Feb-13-1973, 78 years old) Austria (federation/nationality United States of America)

[what is this?]

Johann (Hans) Joseph Kmoch, of Czech parentage, was born in Austria in 1894. He moved to the Netherlands in the 1930s and then settled in the USA in 1947. He was awarded the IM title in 1950 and became an International Arbiter in 1951. As a player he was 1st at Debrecen 1925 and played on the Austrian Olympiad teams of 1927, 1930 and 1931. However, he is best known for his work as a writer and author. He wrote regularly for the US 'Chess Review' and edited the Carlsbad 1929 tournament book. His main works are 'Die Kunst der Verteidigung' (1927) (The Art of Defence), 'Rubinstein gewinnt' (1933) (Rubinstein's Chess Masterpieces) and 'Die Kunst der Bauernführung' (1956) (Pawn Power in Chess).

He also served as the Secretary and manager of the Manhattan Chess Club in New York City from 1951 to 1973.

Wikipedia article: Hans Kmoch

Last updated: 2018-08-01 02:35:30

 page 1 of 8; games 1-25 of 198  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Kmoch vs L Zimpel 0-1261921Vienna-AB06 Robatsch
2. K Antosch vs Kmoch  0-1341921Vienna-AC55 Two Knights Defense
3. Kmoch vs J Krejcik  ½-½451921Vienna-AD02 Queen's Pawn Game
4. Kmoch vs S R Wolf  ½-½571921Vienna-AC02 French, Advance
5. Maroczy vs Kmoch  1-0341922ViennaC77 Ruy Lopez
6. Kmoch vs Alekhine 0-1201922ViennaD12 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
7. H Wolf vs Kmoch 1-0211922ViennaC84 Ruy Lopez, Closed
8. Kmoch vs Spielmann 0-1301922ViennaA43 Old Benoni
9. Reti vs Kmoch 1-0521922ViennaC86 Ruy Lopez, Worrall Attack
10. Kmoch vs Saemisch  0-1301922ViennaA07 King's Indian Attack
11. S Takacs vs Kmoch  ½-½341922ViennaD63 Queen's Gambit Declined, Orthodox Defense
12. Kmoch vs Gruenfeld 0-1331922ViennaC46 Three Knights
13. Bogoljubov vs Kmoch 1-0351922ViennaC77 Ruy Lopez
14. Kmoch vs Tarrasch  0-1601922ViennaC01 French, Exchange
15. V Vukovic vs Kmoch 1-0281922ViennaE11 Bogo-Indian Defense
16. Kmoch vs I Koenig ½-½261922ViennaC49 Four Knights
17. Rubinstein vs Kmoch 1-0331922ViennaA90 Dutch
18. Kmoch vs Tartakower  ½-½221922ViennaC01 French, Exchange
19. V Olexa vs Kmoch  0-1251923Vienna CC Schlechter vs Brno CCD00 Queen's Pawn Game
20. Kmoch vs Gruenfeld  1-0481925DebrecenA47 Queen's Indian
21. Kmoch vs Tartakower  ½-½211925DebrecenE17 Queen's Indian
22. V Vukovic vs Kmoch 0-1321925DebrecenD63 Queen's Gambit Declined, Orthodox Defense
23. P F Johner vs Kmoch 1-0201925DebrecenB18 Caro-Kann, Classical
24. Kmoch vs A Vajda  0-1471925Budapest-Vienna mC87 Ruy Lopez
25. Kmoch vs L Steiner 1-0251925DebrecenE60 King's Indian Defense
 page 1 of 8; games 1-25 of 198  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Kmoch wins | Kmoch loses  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Oct-12-13  Karpova: Blindfold Simul Tour in <Oberösterreich>:

Steyr: +9 -3* =0
Linz: +8 -1 =1
Wels: +6 -2 =2
Ebensee: +6 -4 =0
Braunau: +11 -0 =0

Overall score after 53 games: +40 -10 =3

* it says <(+9, 3)> but I deduced that it were 3 losses from the overall score

From page 109 of the April 1925 'Neue Wiener Schachzeitung'

Jun-06-14  NeoIndian: <"The advantage of controlling an open file consists mainly in the chance of penetrating the enemy position and switching to horizontal activity.">

This is my favourite chess quote of all time. I wonder whether he is smiling or groaning at us from up there.

May-03-15  TheFocus: <The battle for the ultimate truth will never be won. And that's why chess is so fascinating> - Hans Kmoch.
May-14-15  TheFocus: <The preparation for active rook play entails what is called the opening of lines, which largely depends on pawn play, especially on the proper use of levers> - Hans Kmoch.
May-17-15  TheFocus: <The battle for the ultimate truth will never be won. And that's why chess is so fascinating> - Hans Kmoch.
May-25-15  TheFocus: <Devastating moves are like dissonant sounds; they shatter the eardrums. Their appeal is to an atavistic brutality in our natures, not to our finer sensibilities. In contrast, a "quiet" move is the epitome of finesse. A soft answer turns away wrath, but its subdued quality makes it no less efficient> - Hans Kmoch.
Feb-13-16  TheFocus: Rest in peace, Hans Kmoch.
Jul-25-16  TheFocus: Happy birthday, Hans Kmoch.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Dijon15: In the Bio, do you think someone could replace 'Die Kunst der Verteidigung' with 'The Art of Defence?'
Jul-31-18  Stonehenge: I can do it but I don't know if 1929 is correct. Was the English translation first published in 1929? Die Kunst der Verteidigung is from 1927.
Jul-31-18  Olavi: Pawn Power in Chess was also originally Die Kunst der Bauernführung.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Telemus: "Die Kunst der Bauernführung" was published in 1956.
Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: Kmoch was living in the US in 1956 right?

So, was his <Pawn Power in Chess> first published in English or German?

London/Bell, NY/McKay (1959)

<Telemus> what ref did you use for your 1956 date?

Looking on <DNB> I could only find this 1959 version:

but maybe I got lost due to language limitations (on my part)?

(There was also this version:

Aug-01-18  Stonehenge: I checked

but it doesn't seem to be there.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Telemus: <z: <Telemus> what ref did you use for your 1956 date?> The book itself. More precise: the German edition of 1956 published by the Siegfried Engelhardt Verlag, Berlin-Frohnau. It has also two forewords, both dated September 1956; one by Kmoch and the other one by Herbert Engelhardt for the publisher.

The rights are described on an extra page. First there is a "All rights reserved" (in English), and then a selection of reseved rights follows in German, wherein translation is mentioned. It is not mentioned that this book is a translation itself. At the bottom of that page there is this text: "WorldCopyright [sic] 1956 by Siegfried Engelhardt Verlag" (again in English).

Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: <Telemus> thanks for that info, I thought it might be the case.

I'm disappointed in <>, which does have the 1956 entry, but makes it very hard to find via an internal search (almost impossible)...

(Search google for <"Die Kunst der Bauernführung" +> or google search <"Die Kunst der Bauernführung" 1956>)

Just to highlight's weirdness, click on "View all editions and formats" in the link above and one gets this:

where the 1956 edition is missing! And try to find the original German edition via a sense on the author - I went through 12+ pages without finding it.)

* * * * *

OK, it seems that Kmoch wrote, and published, the German edition first. Given his origins in Vienna, it all makes sense. I do wonder who did the English translation - perhaps Kmoch himself, like Samuel Beckett did (with Beckett publishing both in French/English vs. German/English).

<Telemus>, does your version have a dustcover, and a photograph of the author in a frontpiece?


Premium Chessgames Member
  Telemus: <z: does your version have a dustcover> No.

<and a photograph of the author in a frontpiece?> Yes.

Aug-02-18  Olavi: <zanzibar: <Telemus>>

I have the 1967 second German edition by Schach-Archiv Verlag. It has both 1956 forewords and a new one, commenting on the changes and corrections.

Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: I'm a bit of a nerd when it comes to books, even if I'm not a collector myself. It's nice to know the history of editions, so my thanks to <Telemus> and <Olavi> (and others over time).

It would be nice to get good scans of covers, frontpieces, copyright pages, and even prefaces...

(Which I think would qualify as "fair use").

Here's an example with Kmoch's picture and signature:

Premium Chessgames Member
  Telemus: <z: frontpiece/frontispiece> A little piece of etymology in and
Premium Chessgames Member
  zanzibar: Oh, <Telemus> I love etymology, and greatly appreciated your post.

I should point out that <frontpiece>, vs. <fontispiece>, is basically taking the word's evolution to its logical conclusion - albeit accidentally so, I must admit!

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: Recently an off-topic discussion started in Fischer vs Petrosian, 1971 concerning Hans Kmoch's "instructive composition" from his "Pawn Power in Chess" in the chapter "The Sealer and the Sweeper":

White moves and draws:

click for larger view

The "instructive composition" is by W.E. Rudolf from La Strategie 1912 and not by Hans Kmoch as I first thought. It was clearly off-topic for the Fischer vs Petrosian, 1971 game so I've posted the relevant links here even though, since it wasn't composed by Hans Kmoch, some may consider it off-topic for this page also. Here are the links in case anyone is interested in what preceded this post.

Fischer vs Petrosian, 1971 (kibitz #162)

Fischer vs Petrosian, 1971 (kibitz #165)

Fischer vs Petrosian, 1971 (kibitz #166)

Fischer vs Petrosian, 1971 (kibitz #167)

Fischer vs Petrosian, 1971 (kibitz #168)

Additional hopefully relevant posts to follow.

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <Sally Simpson> If you are still mildly curious and came to read this, I ran an additional analysis overnight and beyond with Komodo 12 MTCS using only 1 core out of my 4-core machine. Again, it stopped (no activity) at d=35 after running for about 7 hours even though I ran the analysis for more than 13.5 hours. To get to the important thing first, Komodo MTCS using 1 thread did not find the drawing line either. Sometimes it evaluated 1.Ba4+ as one of its top 3 moves and sometimes it even evaluated it as the best move. But most of those times it continued with 1...Kxa4 2.exf6, even though it occasionally continued 1...Kxa4 2.b3+ Kb5. But then it invariably continued with 3.exf6. So I don't know if it would ever continue with 3.c4+.

As far as the d=35 barrier, after reading <and understanding> the Komodo documentation, there is a formula that allows you to estimate the amount of time that you can run an MCTS-based analysis as a function of the amount memory you allocate to the MTCS table. And, if the MTCS table becomes full, the analysis just stops.

Sure enough, the number of nodes that it evaluated in all 3 MCTS-based analyses were about the same, so the MCTS table just got full. So, if I want the analysis to run to a greater search depth, I just have to make the MCTS table bigger. I just don't know how much bigger I can make it without the program starting to swap its code and data to disk and slow down to a crawl so I'll have to experiment. This might take some time.

Also mildly interesting and perhaps not surprising (but surprising to me), the analysis with 1 core required about 4X longer to reach d=35 than it took for the analyses using 4 cores. It was surprising to me because these multi-threaded algorithms do not typically scale linearly; in my computer an analysis using a "regular" engine with alpha-beta pruning (ABP) instead of MTCS takes roughly 2X as long with 1 core to reach the same search depth as the same analysis using 4 cores. Again, the Komodo 12 documentation alludes to this, saying that "we believe Komodo MCTS gains more than most normal engines from using multiple threads". I'm sure that they would be very interested in data that indicates that it benefits linearly rather than by a factor of SQRT(2).

Which then leads me to run more analyses to try to find out if:

(a) Komodo MCTS is deterministic just like Komodo "normal" when using only 1 core.

(b) Komodo MCTS can find the full drawing line, even if it doesn't declare the result a draw, if I increase the size of the MCTS table to the maximum that my computer will allow.

Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi AylerKupp,

Thanks. I suspected a super-duper box might toil because it is rather long - it has to get to the 50 moves marker to make a draw and there are quite a few pieces left on the board.

A reasonable human player can see within seconds it's a draw but the box has to calculate.

No harm done. It's a freak position as far as a computer goes.

Thanks - in this case humans:1

The super-duper Carlos Fandango computer: 0

Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> Yes, at this point I would say that it's humans:1, computers:0. But, frankly, Stockfish exceeded my expectations because I didn't think that it could find the drawing line at all, much less in a reasonable amount of time (if you consider 2 hours and 42 minutes "reasonable"), even though it didn't recognize it as the drawing line. I'm still puzzled how it selected 5.e6+ allowing 5...Kxd8 and leaving White B+2R behind instead of, say, 5.Bxa5 which after 5...Rxa5 would leave it "only" 2Rs behind. Well, there seemed to be only one way to find out.

So I started the analysis in the position after 1.Ba4+ Kxa4 2.b3+ Kb5 3.c4+ Kc6 4.d5+ Kd7

click for larger view

To my surprise, delight, and puzzlement, Stockfish selected 5.e6+ as its 3rd best move with an evaluation of [-15.27] at d=27 and 9 seconds of calculation and selected it as its best move with a [-15.28] evaluation at d=31 after 35 seconds of calculation, doable under classic time control conditions. After d=35 and a little bit over 8 minutes of calculations it evaluated 5.e6+ as the only move to avoid mate.

I'm puzzled why it did that. After 5.e5+ dxe8 6.f5 looking at its material deficit alone and using the classic piece values (Q=9, R=5, B=3, N=2, P=1) the evaluation would have been [-13.00] (down a bishop and 2 rooks) while after 5.exf6 exf6 6.Bxf6 its evaluation would have been [-9.00] (down two rooks but up a pawn). So, for some reason, it evaluated Black's positional disadvantage after 5.e5+ much less than after 5.exf6. I still have no idea why but that's a mystery for another day (and for another person!)

And, like I said, I hardly have a super-duper box. I did some more calculations and I projected that, in my computer, it would take Stockfish 9 about 1,250 hours or 52 days for it to reach d=57 and determine that the position is a draw. But after it evaluated all moves except 5.e5+ as leading to a forced mate, it began to reach additional search depths quicker. And after it passed d=60 I realized that I had made a foolish mistake. It's not a 50 <ply> draw rule, it's a 50 <move> draw rule. So instead of needing to reach d=57 it would need to reach d=114, and I projected that it would take about 850 hours on my machine for it to do that. No thanks, I don't have that much patience to wait to see if its evaluation of 5.e5+ would really be [0.00] at around d=114. So I pulled the plug at d=75 after about 15 hours of calculation. Maybe someone like <RandomVisitor> with his powerful hardware might be interested in seeing if he can get Stockfish 9 to run long enough to give 5.e5+ a [0.00] evaluation.

The other thing I did establish after another analysis run with Komodo MCTS is that, unlike "classical" chess engines which use handcrafted evaluation functions, and minimax-based move selection, combined with alpha-beta pruning, running Komodo MCTS with threads=1 is also non-deterministic. Which in retrospect should have been obvious since MCTS involves running game simulations (playouts) using a random number generator so it would have been <very> surprising if two successive analyses with Komodo MCTS of the same position would yield the same results. Still, it's good to have confirmation even though 2 analysis runs is hardly a statistical sample.

Oh well, there is a saying that "The more you run over a dead cat, the flatter it gets." I think I've gotten this dead cat as flat as I can get it so I'll stop. Thanks for your patience in reading all this useless junk.

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 4)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific player and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!

home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC