< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
|Dec-26-14|| ||TheFocus: <Sultan Khan had become champion of India at Indian chess and he learned the rules of our form of chess at a later date. The fact that even under such conditions he succeeded in becoming champion reveals a genius for chess which is nothing short of extraordinary> - Capablanca.|
|May-07-15|| ||zanzibar: <In the BCM a letter to the editor which was published in 1966, Mohammed Yusuf from Lahore, West Pakistan, wrote: |
<I have known Sultan Khan since 1918. He lives as a small landowner in Sargodha District in the old Punjab. The reason for his disappearance from the chess world is that his patron, Sir Umar Hayat Malik is Khan Tiwana died in 1944. Since then he has had no opportunity to to meet any of the players scattered all over the country. It well known that the English language skills of Sultan Khan hardly surpassed his writing skills. The secretary of the late Sir Umar usually helped him to read game records. Today, he has no one who could help him with chess. But yet, he is surely still the best player in Pakistan, and probably India.
He's a genius.
In 1966 Sultan Khan died in the same district in which he had once been born. Sultan Junior, his eldest son, remembered that his father did not want to teach chess to his grandchildren; for he said, they should discuss with their life something more sensible right from the start.>>
I translated this back from <Fateful Moments in Chess History> by Ehn and Kastner.
Perhaps somebody could supply the original material from teh 1966 BCM article?
|May-08-15|| ||zanzibar: Found this on Spraggett's site on Tartakower (= "he" in the following):|
<From his match with Sultan Khan’s slave (he lost narrowly) He blamed ”excessive optimism”>
1) Does anybody know Spraggett well enough to shoot him a note that Sultan Khan != Sultan Khan's slave?
2) What is the source for Tartakower's statement about "excessive optimism"?
|May-08-15|| ||zanzibar: Sultan Khan's amazing, but all too brief, meteoric rise to the upper reaches of the chess world is nicely demonstrated in his chessmetrics rating graph:|
It shows the progress he made during his first two years of exposure to the opening play of the Europeans etc.
And, after reading through the previous comments - it should be said that Sultan Khan should be considered one of the top-10 players in the world before his return to Punjab.
|Dec-22-15|| ||ketchuplover: Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan !|
|Apr-04-16|| ||offramp: What was his name?|
|Jun-18-17|| ||thegoodanarchist: <He passed away in Sargodha, Pakistan in 1966.>|
SK passed away in '66, according to the bio, but FSR puts the year at 1965.
Can someone please confirm the correct year?
|Jun-18-17|| ||FSR: <thegoodanarchist> The Wikipedia article on him, which was largely written by me, lists three sources and says April 25, 1966. When I wrote that comment saying that he died in 1965, I was probably just going off my memory.|
|Aug-11-17|| ||KnightVBishop: Would he of been champion of his time if not for European racism at the time?|
|Aug-12-17|| ||Boomie: According to Chessmetrics, Khan and Flohr were at about the same strength from about 1930-1935. Then Khan plateaued at around 2700 and Flohr leveled off at 2750. http://chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/Summ... 2700 is an awfully nice place to plateau. Clearly Khan would have become a respected professional. He was about 150 rating points behind Alekhine, so he had a bit of a chore ahead of him to go all the way. |
As to the question of racism, we can only guess what it meant to them. On the surface it appears that England oppressed India. But the cultures benefitted each other in many ways. By the time of the 1930's the relationship between the English and the Indian cultures was quite close and extremely complex.
|Aug-12-17|| ||perfidious: Great, great talent; it is pointless to speculate as to what might have been, while remembering such beautiful games as this formidable player's win over Capablanca.|
|Aug-12-17|| ||Howard: The Oxford Companion to Chess (1992) states that he may have been the greatest natural player in the history of chess....|
...though the late Larry Evans said the same about Capablanca in a mid-70's column.
|Sep-20-17|| ||jith1207: From his perception of Chess in his later years, it looks like Sultan Khan did not live with any regret of not having chance to get back to British soil to play the game. It is probable that he was starving for family, food and companionship when we was away from home. Here is to hoping that he lived his life to the fullest, having given a glimpse of that natural talent to all of us.|
|Jan-06-18|| ||WilhelmThe2nd: |
From London’s 'Daily Mail' newspaper, Tuesday, April 30th, 1929, page 14 (with descriptive notation changed to algebraic notation):
< CAPABLANCA PLAYS 35 OPPONENTS.
Señor J. R. Capablanca, the former world chess champion, played 35 games simultaneously with members (and their friends) of the Maccabeans' Club—a club composed of Jewish professional men—at the Montefiore Hall, St. John's Wood, N.W., on Sunday. He won 29 of these, drew three, and lost the other three.
The winner of one of these games was M. Sultan Khan, one of the best chess players in India and a member of the staff of Col. the Hon. Nawab Sir Umar Hayat Khan (Councillor of State). The moves in this game were: —
White. Sr. Capablanca. Black. M. Sultan Khan.
1. d4 Nf6
2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 d5
4. Bg5 Be7
5. e3 a6
6. cxd5 exd5
7. Bd3 Be6
8. Nge2 h6
9. Bh4 c5
10. dxc5 Bxc5
11. O-O Nc6
12. Nf4 g5
13. Nxe6 fxe6
14. Bg3 Ke7
15. Rc1 Bd6
16. f4 Qc7
17. Ne2 Ng4
18. Nd4 Nxe3
19. Qe2 gxf4
20. Bh4+ Kd7
21. Qh5 Raf8
22. Qg6 Qb6
23. Qxe6+ Kc7
24. *Qxd5 Nxd5
*Queen takes Queen's pawn was an obvious oversight on the part of the ex-world champion—a blunder always possible when so many players are being opposed simultaneously. Without the mistake the game might have been drawn, as Black does not appear to be at any disadvantage.>
|Jan-06-18|| ||MissScarlett: Remarkable find....how did this game not turn up before? Submitted?|
|Jan-06-18|| ||zanzibar: <WilhelmThe2nd> - your profile mentions your work can be found at this link:|
Unfortunately, the link is stale. Do you have an updated site?
|Jan-06-18|| ||WilhelmThe2nd: |
<Miss S> I had no luck submitting games in the (distant) past. So I have not attempted to submit this one.
<Z> Regrettably, no. The old site can still be viewed on the Internet Archive, minus the images that appeared in it.
|Jan-07-18|| ||todicav23: <Howard: The Oxford Companion to Chess (1992) states that he may have been the greatest natural player in the history of chess....|
...though the late Larry Evans said the same about Capablanca in a mid-70's column.>
Based on what? He was a top 10 player in the world at his best and nothing more.
He learned to play indian chess (very similar with chess) at 9. By contrast, Pillsbury learned to play chess at 16 and he was far more successful. Morphy, Pillsbury, Capablanca (just to name a few) were more talented than Sultan Khan.
Sultan Khan is just like Ramanujan in mathematics. Ramanujan is extremely popular and considered somehow the ultimate genius despite the fact that other mathematicians had much greater impact.
|Jan-07-18|| ||MissScarlett: <I had no luck submitting games in the (distant) past. So I have not attempted to submit this one.>|
Patience, my little man. Things have notably improved. But, in this case, allow me.
|Jan-07-18|| ||zanzibar: Thanks <WilhelmThe2nd> for the reply. Unfortunate how often the net devolves.|
* * * * *
<MissS> such a true little woman, always ready to come to the aid, and with a kindly word or two.
|Apr-14-18|| ||zborris8: <Submitted> Khan's simul game vs Aitken - this is a newly corroborated score. It is no.83a in Aitken's Chess Scorebook which is at the Edinburgh Chess Club. |
[White "Sultan Khan, Mir"]
[Black "Aitken, J."]
1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 d5 4. exd5 Nf6 5. c4 c6 6. dxc6 Nxc6 7. d4 Bb4+ 8. Nc3 O-O 9. Bxf4 Bg4 10. d5 Re8+ 11. Be2 Qb6 12. dxc6 Rad8 13. Bd2 Bxc3 14. bxc3 Ne4 15. Nd4 Bxe2 16. Qb3 Bxc4 17. Qxb6 axb6 18. O-O-O Nf2 19. cxb7 Bd5 20. Bg5 f6 21. Bf4 Bxb7 22. Bc7 Rd7 23. Bxb6 Nxh1 24. Rxh1 Bxg2 25. Rg1 Bd5 26. a4 Re3 27. Rg3 Rxg3 28. hxg3 Kf7 29. a5 Bc4 30. Kb2 h5 31. Ka3 g5 32. Kb4 Ba6 33. Nb3 Rd6 34. Nc5 Bc8 35. Bc7 Rc6 36. Bb8 Ba6 37. Ba7 h4 38. gxh4 gxh4 39. Bb8 h3 40. Bh2 f5 41. Nxa6 Rxa6 42. Kb5 Ra8 43. a6 Kg6 44. Kb6 Kg5 45. Kb7 Rxa6 46. Kxa6 f4 47. c4 f3 48. c5 f2 49. c6 f1=Q+ 50. Kb7 Qb5+ 51. Kc7 Kf6 52. Kd6 Qd3+ 53. Kc7 Ke7 54. Kc8 Qe2 55. Bb8 Qa6+ 56. Kc7 h2 0-1
|Apr-14-18|| ||MissScarlett: <[Event "Simul, 14b"]
[Site "Oxford ENG"]
Sure of the date? The <Hastings & St. Leonards Observer> of December 2nd gives November 25th.
|Apr-14-18|| ||zborris8: <MissScarlett> Khan participated in a London tournament on November the 25th, 1933. |
[Event "Imperial CC v Cambridge University"]
[White "Sultan Khan, Mir"]
[Black "Craddock, James Marston"]
[Source "John Saunders"]
[WhiteTeam "Imperial CC"]
[BlackTeam "Cambridge University"]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. h4 a6 7. Qg4 h5 8. Qf4 c5
9. dxc5 f6 10. exf6 gxf6 11. Bh6 e5 12. Qd2 Nxc5 13. Be2 Bg4 14. f3 Be6 15.
O-O-O Nc6 16. g4 d4 17. Ne4 Nxe4 18. fxe4 hxg4 19. Rf1 Rc8 20. a3 Qb6 21. Bg7
Na5 22. Qd3 Rg8 23. Bh6 Nb3+ 24. Kd1 Nc5 25. Qd2 Nxe4 26. Qd3 f5 27. Bc1 Bc4
28. Qxc4 Rxc4 29. Bxc4 Rh8 30. Rh2 f4 31. Re1 g3 32. Rhe2 Nf2+ 33. Kd2 e4 34.
Rxe4 Nxe4+ 35. Rxe4 d3 36. Nh3 Rxh4 37. Ng5 Rh2+ 38. Kxd3 Qd6+ 39. Kc3 Qf6+ 40.
Kb3 Qxg5 41. Bxf4 Qg4 42. Bd6 Qd1 0-1
<Source: Times Literary Supplement, 7 Dec 1933.>
|Apr-15-18|| ||MissScarlett: Now I'm up to speed with the English Chess Forum discussion about this game. The link won't post properly for some reason.|
There's no need to post the full score of submitted games.
|Apr-23-18|| ||Chessinfinite: Not surprisingly, Khan's page is swarming with Brits, just like it must have been when he beat Tartakower or when he won the British Championship..|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·