[what is this?]

[what is this?]

<< previous | page 2 of 5 | next >>

Bronstein - Boleslavsky Candidates Playoff 1950 <The participants>: Isaac Boleslavsky was 31 and David Bronstein 26 years old. They were leading representatives of an extremely strong generation of Soviet talent that had emerged in the 1940's. They were pillars of "Kiev School" of Ukrainian chess, personal friends and were innovative and sharp players. Boleslavsky and Bronstein, along with fellow Ukranian Efim Geller , were particularly important in the development of the Kings Indian defence in the 1940's and 1950's. According to Chessbase's "Big Database (2013)", they had played each other seven times, the only decisive game having being won by Boleslavsky - Bronstein vs Boleslavsky, 1947 Bronstein wrote of his approach to the game: "When I play chess...I always try to vary my openings as much as possible, to invent new plans in attack and defence, to make experimental moves which are dangerous and exciting...I believe that my greatest quality in the chess world is that I have never played routine games...” [1] Boleslavsky too had a well-defined credo: "In playing I did not strive for victory just for the sake of points, and considered that the only win of a consistently played game could give real satisfaction...the game of chess is a struggle, but in the first place a struggle of ideas, and therefore the winner, if he wants to prove the value of his victory, ought to prove the correctness of his ideas". [2] In this match, they played consistently sharp and innovative chess. Both players were at the peak of their form. Bronstein had twice come joint first in the USSR Championship (1948) (with Alexander Kotov) and USSR Championship (1949) (with Vasily Smyslov whilst Boleslavsky had been Russian Federation Champion in 1946, was third in the extremely strong Moscow (1947) and shared the second place in the USSR Championship (1947) They had been selected by FIDE as part of a cohort of the strongest Soviet players to participate in the Candidates at Saltsjobaden Interzonal (1948), where Bronstein had come first and Boleslavsky third. <The background to the match>: This match took place as David Bronstein and Isaac Boleslavsky had tied for first place at the Budapest Candidates (1950) two points clear of Vasily Smyslov in third place. With two rounds left to play, Boleslavsky was in undisputed first place a full point ahead of Bronstein. Boleslavsky took short draws in his last two games, but Bronstein won both of his games and thus finished equal first with Boleslavsky. Boleslavsky had not lost a single game in the tournament. It has been stated in Bronstein and Furstenberg's book "Sorcerer's Apprentice", (Cadogan 1995) that Boleslavsky purposefully "slowed down" to facilitate the tie. The idea being was to then hold a three man tournament with the world champion Mikhail Botvinnik . Boleslavsky had a very poor record against Botvinnik and this seemed to be the best chance to dethrone him. According to Chessbase's "Big Database (2013)", at the time Boleslavsky's record against Botvinnik was: 7 loses, 4 draws and no wins. Bronstein's score was better: a win and a draw in his favour. The proposal for a three person match was not accepted by the Soviet federation. Instead, the joint winners of the Candidates tournament would play an elimination match to resolve the tie. The winner would be the next (1951) challenger to Mikhail Botvinnik for the world championship. The match was planned to be of 12 games, but if it was tied at the end of this, two further games were to be played. If the match was still undecided, it would go to a sudden death with the first win being decisive. The chief arbeiter was Nikolay Zubarev and FIDE's representative was its Vice-President Viacheslav Ragozin. The match was played at a culturally prestigious venue: "Railwaymen's Central Hall of Culture", Komsomolskaya Square, Moscow, between July 31st 1950 and August 27th 1950. This grand building, built in 1927, had a 1,000 seat theatre. [3] table[ ................1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Bronstein...IGM 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 7½ Boleslavsky.IGM 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ 0 6½ ]table <Progress of the match:> <Game 1:> Bronstein as White used a sharp sacrificial novelty which he had previously played against Boleslavsky in Round 7 of the Candidates tournament. click for larger view Bronstein had studied the position and found an improvement on move 17. He gained two pieces for a rook and won powerfully in short order. This line, which is still topical, appears to have been originated in Ukrainian chess circles. In a slightly different variation, it was used in [bad chessgames.com link] , Semi Finals 13th USSR Championship, Omsk. [4] "We were both playing extremely hard and showing the greatest respect for each other. It seems the only occasion in the history of chess contests when players have exchanged bouquets of bright flowers before the first move of the first game!". [5] <Game 2:> After some contemplation, Bronstein defended with Alekhine's Defence, which was not one of his usual defences. Boleslavsky achieved a spatial advantage but agreed to a draw on move 30. <Game 3:> Boleslavsky avoided the Grunfeld and Bronstein's opening preparation. Instead, a carefully classically played game unfolded in which Boleslavsky equalized without much incident. After 11 moves, the game had transposed into a turn of the century QGA - Pillsbury vs Blackburne, 1896 . <Game 4:> Boleslavsky played the White side of the Ruy Lopez extremely proficiently to build up a strong K-side attack. In a sharp tactical contest, Boleslavsky ran short of time and Bronstein was rather fortunate to achieve a draw. "A perfect model for those studying the Ruy Lopez attack!...Also deserving acknowledgement is Boleslavsky's courage, when in the endgame and still the exchange down, he nevertheless refused the draw that was offered him". [6] <Game 5:> Bronstein outplayed his opponent in the late middlegame and achieved an advantageous ending with active pieces, but on resumption after the adjournment Boleslavsky put up strong resistance. Later analysis found a win for Bronstein, but at the board he could not break through. This time it was Boleslavsky who was fortunate to secure a draw. <Game 6:> Bronstein played aggressively against Boleslavsky's Ruy Lopez, using the Marshall Attack. Once again, Bronstein was following deep into a previous game of his opponent. Boleslavsky had to be alert against another dangerous theoretical improvement from his opponent. Up to move 16, the game followed Boleslavsky vs Szabo, 1950 . Boleslavsky held the attack off but did not establish any advantage. Boleslavsky, however, had faith in this system of defence as he deployed it again Boleslavsky vs V Saigin, 1951 and Boleslavsky vs R Nezhmetdinov, 1954 <Game 7:> Bronstein extended his lead to 2-0 lead with five games to go. Unlike Game 2, Boleslavsky chose a more complex variation, but Bronstein gained a clear spatial advantage and Boleslavsky was besieged. Bronstein maintained his advantage through to a win in a complex Rook ending despite Boleslavsky's tough defence. <Game 8:> Bronstein as Black against the Ruy Lopez and ahead in the match, chose a very different defence to that of Game 6. He adopted a more solid but passive approach with an old-fashioned Berlin defence. Both players strove hard to win and ran short of time, but it was Boleslavsky who won, and won artistically, to pull up to a single point behind. "Note carefully the amazing manoeuvres by the white pawns in the middlegame and the sudden composition-study-like finale to the ending, where the heroes were no longer the pawns, but the knight and the rook". [7] click for larger view <49.g6!> Re6 50. g7! <Game 9:> Boleslavsky (most probably unwittingly in view of his slow rate of play) followed a brilliancy of a great Ukranian forebear Efim Bogoljubov -Rotlewi vs Bogoljubov, 1910 . Bronstein's technique was superior to Rotlewi's but he too failed to achieve an advantage as White. He offered and Boleslavsky, who was short of time, accepted a draw on move 20. Boleslavsky's uncertainty in the opening gives the impression of an apparently impromptu manner in this game. <Game 10:> Boleslavsky as White needed to win this game, as with only two games left of the regular match, Bronstein had a one point lead. Bronstein adopted a solid Caro-Kann defence. Boleslavsky opened the <f> file and had considerable pressure against Bronstein's <f> pawn. Bronstein defended well and managed to hold the draw. <Game 11:> Boleslavsky had to win this game with the Black pieces and he played a King's Indian system he had pioneered http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches.... It was a system to which both he http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... and Bronstein http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... had contributed significant developments and were regularly using. Bronstein played ambitiously and set up a broad centre, but then played inaccurately. Boleslavsky gained the initiative, but then allowed the ingenious Bronstein to fight his way back into the game. Boleslavsky then had to navigate his way to victory through a difficult Queen and Rook ending full of traps and snares to tie the match. <Game 12:> Bronstein played a sharp variation of the French and sacrificed a pawn. Boleslavsky regarded the variation as incorrect, [8] but played slightly inaccurately and Bronstein was able to instigate a very imaginative King-side attack. Rather than have an uncertain fight through this onslaught, Boleslavsky took a perpetual check. The match then went into its extra-time of two games. <Game 13:> A very sharp game that either player could at one point could have won; Bronstein rejected a forced draw and later analysis showed that he could have lost if Boleslavsky had found a key move. click for larger view <55..Kf7!> <Game 14:> Bronstein repeated the same variation of French defence as in Game 12. Boleslavsky was out-prepared and outplayed in this game. Bronstein pocketed two pawns and then won efficiently. Boleslavsky shook his hand and wished him luck in his forthcoming battle with Botvinnik. <Outcome:> Bronstein advanced to play a world championship match against Botvinnik in March 1951 - Botvinnik - Bronstein World Championship Match (1951) . Boleslavsky played in the USSR Championship (1950) (November 11th to December 11th, 1950) where he came 7-10th, and then assisted his friend as his second in the world championship match. <Sources:> Compiled from the original games collection - Game Collection: WCC Index (Bronstein-Boleslavsky 1950) - created by User: Hesam7 . Match dates from Golombek's report in the "British Chess Magazine" as reproduced in "World Chess Championship Candidates' Tournament Budapest 1950", E.G.R. Cordingley, p.177, Hardinge Simpole. [1] "Sorcerer's Apprentice", Bronstein and Furstenberg, Cadogan 1995, p.18. [2] Isaac Boleslavsky, "Selected Games", Caissa Books, 1988, p.18-19. [3] http://xn--d1ael0c.xn--p1ai/index.php [4] "World Chess Championship Candidates' Tournament Budapest 1950", E.G.R. Cordingley, p.65, Hardinge Simpole. [5] "200 Open Games", David Bronstein, Courier Dover Publications, 1991, p.95. [6] “200 Open Games", David Bronstein, Courier Dover Publications, 1991, p.96. [7] "200 Open Games", David Bronstein, Courier Dover Publications, 1991, p.95. [8] Isaac Boleslavsky, Caissa Books, 1988, "Selected Games" p.142. 14 games, 1950 Burn - Bellingham <Introduction> This was a match between Amos Burn (Liverpool) and George Bellingham (Dudley) played at irregular intervals at the convenience of the participants. The first eight games were played in Liverpool and Dudley, England in February and perhaps early March 1900. The deciding game was the first of their two games in the Craigside tournament Llandudno, Wales, in January 1901. As such, the match took almost a full year to be finally resolved in Bellingham's favour. "With the object of having some strong practice for the cable contest of this year between England and America, Mr George Bellingham, of Dudley, and Mr Amos Burn, of Liverpool, recently arranged to play a friendly match, the best of nine games, draws to count one half to each player, and with a small stake on each game, and also a small stake on the match. The earlier games were played at Liverpool and the later were to be played at Dudley." [(1)] The 5th Anglo-American Cable Match (1900) took place on March 23rd - 24th. Bellingham lost to Albert Hodges on board 4. Burn himself did not play in the telegraph match and despite his strength, he had not participated in the annual match since 1898. "In the Llandudno Chess Tournament yesterday (2nd January 1901 - e.d.) Bellingham met Burn in a double event. The game between these two players will also count as the deciding game in a match played at Liverpool last spring, the result which is still pending. The opening was a Lopez, in which the Dudley player adopted an indifferent variation, but obtained a good game, which is still unfinished." [(2)]. The game was drawn, so giving the match to Bellingham by 5 games to 4. Burn vs G Bellingham, 1900 a county match game in March 1900 was not part of the match. <The players> Neither was a full-time professional player. Burn was a sugar merchant [(3)] and Bellingham was beginning a career as a solicitor. Burn (aged 51) was considerably older and more experienced than Bellingham (aged 25). His international career had begun in the 1880s and he had played in some of the greatest tournaments of his day including, 5th DSB Congress, Frankfurt (1887), 6th American Chess Congress, New York (1889) and Hastings (1895). Bellingham had only played in three international events the 2nd Anglo-American Cable Match (1897), 3rd Anglo-American Cable Match (1898) and 4th Anglo-American Cable Match (1899), scoring two draws and a loss. His reputation to date was as a strong county champion rather than a master player. . <Progress of the match> Bellingham had white in the odd-numbered games. table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total Burn 0 0 0 1 0 ½ 1 1 ½ 4 Bellingham 1 1 1 0 1 ½ 0 0 ½ 5 ]table . <Progressive scores:> Bellingham won the first three games and by game 5 was 4 to 1 up. table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Burn 0 0 0 1 1 1½ 2½ 3½ 4 Bellingham 1 2 3 3 4 4½ 4½ 4½ 5 ]table It is difficult to account for Burn's poor form, especially as he had otherwise good results in two extremely strong international tournaments in 1900. In May, he came fifth in at Paris (1900) scoring +11 -5 =0. Later in the year, he was fourth at the Twelfth German Chess Federation Congress held in July and August, 12th DSB Congress, Munich (1900) scoring +9 -3 =3. Nor can it be said that he was out of practice. The previous three years had been his most active period since the late 1880s. Chessmetrics calculates his performance as putting him eighth in the world rankings at the time of this match. [(4)] <The Games> [[Game 1]] Burn defended with the MacCutcheon variation of the French Defence and achieved an equal but blocked position. A long period of manoeuvring behind the lines achieved little. click for larger view Bellingham then sacrificed a Bishop for two Pawns eventually winning a third. Burn should have been able to hold position but blundered by trying for too much click for larger view with <a3?> seeing the mate on <b2>. Burn was then surprised by the sacrificial interpolation <Rb5!>. This immediately won the game for his opponent by both meeting the mate threat and ensuring that one of White's passed pawns would Queen. [[Game 2]] click for larger view Burn played the opening poorly by again over-pressing or as Mason put in his notes <"White offers a sort of Gambit, abandoning a valuable Pawn, in quest of some hoped-for extraordinary advantage in opening position. A very doubtful manoeuvre, probably indulged in by way of further experiment".> [(5)] Burn then compounded this by losing a piece with <16. Nd5?>, overlooking that his Queen would be trapped on the King-side. [[Game 3]] Burn, as Black in the Ruy Lopez, played for an early <f5> which compromised rather than relieved the defence. Bellingham played the ending well and Bird had now lost three games in succession against an opponent who was not an established master. [[Game 4]] In a sharp variation of the Vienna Game, Bellingham captured Burn's <e> pawn in the apparent belief that he would win a piece back due to a pin. click for larger view Bellingham castled but then found himself a tempo short. As Burn's King was still in the centre, Bellingham sacrificed the exchange to try to keep it vulnerable in the centre of the board. His enterprising efforts extended the game, but did not save it. [[Game 5]] Burn's Berlin Defence to the Ruy Lopez led to a double rook ending. Burn allowed his opponent two powerful passed Pawns on the King-side which through Bellingham's accurate play quickly proved decisive. Bellingham had probably benefitted from his experience of this variation in G Bellingham vs C Newman, 1899. Burn was now four games to one down in the match. There was nothing to indicate that his poor form would quickly dissipate. [[Game 6]] Burn played the first Queen's opening of the match. Having established an advantage he twice failed to find the winning continuation click for larger view <"The obvious <25.Qf6> would preserve if not increase White's advantage. Against that, Black would have to take care of his Rook, somehow; and then the opportune <Qxe5>, if nothing better, would be good enough for winning. Black could not venture on the check which Mr Burn apparently apprehended; <25. Qf6> Qb1+ 26. Rd1, and whatever the continuation, White easily come off with a winning superiority."> [(6)] click for larger view With <36. Rf6> Bxc4 37. Rxf8 Qd6 38.Re1, Black's passed <e> Pawn is insufficient compensation for the exchange. [[Game 7]] Bellingham was slowly pushed back playing White in a Ruy Lopez. Eventually, most probably exhausted by the demands of a difficult defence, he lost a piece by a straightforward blunder with <Kf1??> click for larger view [[Game 8]] In another long game of manoeuvring, Bellingham lost the exchange and was finished off by <54. Rxf5!>. click for larger view With this second win in succession, Burn had pulled back to a one-point deficit. With a win as Black in the final game, he could still draw the match. [[Game 9]] Burn's Berlin defence to the Ruy Lopez led to a rapid exchange of material. Burn's play thereafter seemed to be predicated on the hope he would outplay Bellingham in an ending. Burn played sharply and took risks particularly on the King-side which could have easily rebounded on him. Bellingham either played safely or did not see several advantageous continuations. The resulting draw secured the match for Bellingham. <Contemporary reaction> "Mr Burn evidently rated his youthful antagonist too lightly. He will most probably play a return match with the opposite result. But he will find that he has no easy task to accomplish. Mr Bellingham is a high-class player, and after the present contest he may fairly claim to rank as a master." [(7)] . <Notes> [(1)]. "The Australasian" (Melbourne, Australia), Saturday 24th March 1900 p.67. [See also: "A match, the best-of-nine games, is now in progress between Messrs. Burn and Bellingham, the latest score being Bellingham 4½, Burn 1½. By winning the balance of three games Burn can only draw." - "Westminster Gazette", Saturday 24 February 1900, p.3; and "A match progress between Messrs. G.E. Bellingham, of Dudley, Burn, of Liverpool, best of nine games, draws counting, with a small stake on each game and on the match." - "Northern Whig", Thursday 15 February 1900, p.7.] [(2)]. "Lancashire Evening Post", Thursday 3rd January 1901, p.5. [(3)]. Tim Harding "Eminent Victorian Chess Players: Ten Biographies" p.263. The 1901 census records him as a retired sugar merchant. [(4)]. http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/.... http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... [(5)]. "British Chess Magazine", March 1900, p.108 [(6)]. "British Chess Magazine", March 1900, p.114; [(7)]. W.H.S.Monck, "Commmon Sense", April 1900, p.64. Game 1, "British Chess Magazine", March 1900, p.107 Game 2, "British Chess Magazine", March 1900, p.108; "Pall Mall Gazette", Friday 9 February 1900, Game 3, "British Chess Magazine", March 1900, p.109; "The Field", Saturday 17 February 1900, p.223. Game 4, "British Chess Magazine", March 1900, p.110; "The Field", Saturday 17 February 1900, p.223. Played Tuesday 13th February. Game 5, "British Chess Magazine", March 1900, p.111; "Field" - Saturday 24 February 1900 Game 6, "British Chess Magazine", March 1900, p.113; "Field" - Saturday 24 February 1900 Game 7, p.465 "British Chess Magazine", November 1900 The first seven games were annotated by James Mason. Unfortunately, the remaining games never appeared in the magazine. Instead, the British Chess Magazine found space for an abstruse and lengthy article about the algebraic description of the "The 'n' Queens Problem" [User: MissScarlett - original collection. User: Chessical - text. ] 9 games, 1900-1901 Canal v Rosselli del Turco <Introduction> This match took place in the costal resort of Viareggio in northern Tuscany, Italy. The date of this match has been given either as 1921 (Di Felice, "Chess Results, 1921-1930" , page 24 ) or 1924 (Feenstra Kuiper, "Jahre Schachzweikämpfe. Die bedeutendsten Schachzweikämpfe 1851 - 1950" , page 50.) They agree that the match took place from 25th March to the 28th March.[(1)] Esteban Canal was a Peruvian who as a student came to Europe. In 1916, he won the championship of Leipzig. It is stated in his Wikipedia biography that he took permanent residency in Italy in 1923, but much of his apparently colourful life is obscure. It is known that he settled in Turin and then Venice where he established a reputation as a strong player. Canal's first international tournament was Trieste 1923 where he came second and he played in several of the most important tournaments of the 1920's and 1930's. His best achievements were in the 1930's when he played in Hungary, but then came a hiatus during which he returned to Peru. He did not compete again until the late 1940's. Stefano Rosselli del Turco was twice Italian Champion, in 1923 and 1931. He played in several important tournaments of the 1920's and 1930's, his best results being in Baden-Baden (1925) and Nice 1931. In these years he could occasionally defeat top flight masters, Siegbert Tarrasch had a particularly unfortunate score against him. He was a leading figure in Italian chess, founding the magazine "Italia Schaccistica" and contributed to it for the whole of his active life. . <Progress of the match> Rosselli del Turco had White in the odd numbered games. All of the games in this short match were hard fought with no short draws. Rosselli del Turco had significant advantages in Games 3 and 4 but missed tactical opportunities. table[ Round 1 2 3 4 Total Canal 1 0 ½ ½ Rosselli del Turco 0 1 ½ ½]table . <Progressive scores> table[ Round 1 2 3 4 Canal 1 1 1½ 2 Rosselli del Turco 0 1 1½ 2]table . <The Games> [[Game 1.]] Rosselli del Turco had White and the opening became a Colle versus a Dutch structure. Canal played energetically and outcombined his opponent to win the exchange. In a sharp game, both players made mistakes but Canal dealt better with the tactics and took the point. [[Game 2.]] Canal had his first White already one point ahead in the match. Rosselli del Turco defended the Ruy Lopez with the Berlin Defence, Rio de Janiero variation. The game was sharp but balanced until Canal in playing too ambitiously blundered on the ending with <42. Kd6?> click for larger view and soon lost after <42...e4>. The score in the match was now level, with both players having lost with White. [[Game 3.]] After two combative games, Rosselli del Turco attempted to slow the pace down by playing the Exchange version of the French. Canal sharpened the play by castling Queenside, but soon was in an inferior position. Rosselli missed several opportunities and Canal was lucky to secure a draw. click for larger view <45.Bxd5> would have won immediately, instead Rosselli del Turco played 45.c6. [[Game 4.]] Canal opened with the second Ruy Lopez of the match. Rosselli del Turco defended with the solid Berlin Defence. Once again Roselli del Turco had the superior position in the middle game, but he was unable to translate this advantage into a win in a long endgame. . <Note> [(1)]. Santo Daniele Spina (compiler), "I giocatori di scacchi in Sicilia 1500-1978" (Raleigh 2013), p. 111, says Viareggio 25-28 May 1921.Found by User: Tabanus. User: Chessical - original text and compilation. 4 games, 1921 Candidates Final Match: Karpov - Sokolov <Introduction:> This match took place in Linares, Spain from Tuesday, February 24th to Thursday, March 26th, 1987. It was a FIDE Candidates Final Match to decide the world championship challenger for 1987 who would face Garry Kasparov. The experienced Spanish master Antonio Medina Garcia, was the arbeiter. Lots were drawn on Monday, 23rd February. The purse was 5,250,000 pesetas for the winner and 3,150,000 pesetas for the loser. [1] This was to become a match of a comet versus a star. <The players:> Aged 23, Sokolov was 12 years younger than Karpov. He had risen exceptionally quickly winning the 1982 World Junior Championship in Copenhagen, and the 51st Soviet Championship (+8,-0, =9; 2nd–28th April 1984) so becoming the third-ranked player in the world. Perhaps, only Mikhail Tal and Kasparov can compare with the speed and accomplishments of his emergence into the elite. In 1985 he tied for first in the Montpellier Candidates (1985) , France. Then Sokolov fought his past leading representatives of both his own and the predeeding generation of strong posts-war Soviet players. Both of these opponents were then enjoying their peak years of performance. In these Candidates matches Sokolov had first dispatched the 34 year old Rafael Vaganian (+4, =4, -0). Then he defeated his contemporary the 26 year old Artur Yusupov , Game Collection: WCC Index (Sokolov-Yusupov 1986) (+4, =7, -3). Despite Sokolov's rapid and impressive achievements, the ex-world champion Karpov, aged 35, was generally shaded to be the favourite due to his playing strength, technical ability and and vast experience. It was felt, however, that it would be a tough match. Kasparov stated: "A year ago I would have bet on Karpov without hesitation, but now it is not so clear, Sokolov usually plays the opening aggressively, which may cause problems for Karpov". [2] "A recent poll among grandmasters for the French chess magazine gave Karpov a 60 per cent chance to beat Sokolov and face Kasparov for a fourth time.But Sokolov said in an interview in the magazine: <'I've won all the matches where I was not the favourite. If these prognostications are the same, then the result will be the same.>'' [3] Karpov was supported by long-term trainer Igor Zaitsev, as well as having new seconds in his team: Elizbar Ubilava and Mikhail Podgaets. Sokolov's coach was the experienced Soviet Grandmaster [unknown player], who had come third equal in the USSR Championship 1972 and second equal in the in 1973. The players examined the playing hall but were not particularly pleased initially. "Both raised identical problems: the narrowness of the playing table and the colour of the carpet, a green judged to be too shrill and therefore unsuitable for calm concentration....During yesterday morning, the two main contenders visited town's furniture store in search of seating more to their liking and both were satisfied with what they found". They also rejected the clocks demanding the German "Garde" brand clocks and threatened to not play if the organisers did not provide this equipment [4] <Score:> table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Karpov, Anatoly ... ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 1 ... 7½ Sokolov, Andrei ... ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 0 ... 3½ ]table <Progressive Scores:> table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Karpov, Anatoly ... ½ 1½ 2 2½ 3 4 4½ 5 5½ 6½ 7½ Sokolov, Andrei ... ½ ½ 1 1½ 2 2 2½ 3 3½ 3½ 3½ ]table <Contemporary reaction:> Raymond Keene - "Before the Candidates' super-final match started in Linares, Spain, I had expected Andrei Sokolov to put up a stern fight against Anatoly Karpov, perhaps even win. After all, Sokolov, just a few weeks older than Kasparov, has had a meteoric rise to the top and he has the distinction of never having failed in his major aims. He won the USSR championship when he had to, at the age of 20, then came out at the head of his Interzonal and the Montpelier Candidates' toumament. Finally, he disposed of Vaganian and Yusupov in Candidates' matches. But Karpov's subtlety is proving too much for him. With White, Sokolov has been making no impression, conceding draw after draw, while, as Black, his Queen's Indian Defence is almost imperceptibly failing to equalise. In fact, Sokolov is hardly putting up any kind of fight...It is all highly reminiscent of the way Kasparov failed to adjust to Karpov's methods in the opening nine games of their first match. [5] [unknown player] - "The 35-year-old Karpov won three of the five games in which he played White by capitalizing on a vastly superior grasp of the endgame. He carefully stopped the 24-year-old Sokolov every time he had Black, and in the 11th game of the 14-game series refuted a wild, desperate attack to take the final point with Black". [6] <Summary:> Sokolov never came to terms with Karpov's style in this match. It became apparent that Sokolov suffered from a narrow opening repetoire whose positions were unfortunately to the taste of his opponent. Furthermore according to Zaitsev (Karpov's trainer) they purposefully avoided sharp positions and relied on Karpov's mastery of positional technique and endgame viruosity.[7] ... <Notes:> Original collection: Game Collection: 0, compiled by User: TheFocus [ This text by User: Chessical ] [1] http://elpais.com/diario/1987/03/27... [2] http://elpais.com/diario/1987/02/24... [3] http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1987/K... [4] http://elpais.com/diario/1987/02/24... [5] http://archive.spectator.co.uk/arti... [6] http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/31/n... [7] Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, vol 5. page 411. 11 games, 1987 Chajes v Janowski Match This match was one of several David Janowski played against the top East-coast American players in 1916 - 1918. At this time, the leading players in New York area were: Frank Marshall, Oscar Chajes, Charles Jaffe and Abraham Kupchik. After the death of Harry Pillsbury (1906), Marshall was the sole American grandmaster. <Janowski:> Although Janowski's best years were in the first decade of the 20th century, and he had resoundingly lost a championship match to Lasker in 1910 Lasker - Janowski World Championship Match (1910) (+0 -8 =3), he was still seen a leading master. The newspapers habitually described the "Parisian" master as the "French Chess Champion". This appears to have meant that he was the predominant French player as there would be no official French championship until 1923. Deprived by the First World War of regular international tournament chess income, Janowski had to fund himself largely through exhibitions and matches. Janowski managed to get to the United States from war-torn Europe disembarking at New York on Tuesday, January 11th, 1916. He saw no possibility of making a living in Europe, and considered that "international chess in Europe was dead for at least twenty years to come". [1] He joined Jose Raul Capablanca, Borislav Kostic as one of the three leading foreign players resident in the United States. On the 25th February 1916, he began a match with Jaffe at Marshall's Chess Divan, but this appears to have been an intermediary step in a greater plan to quickly establish himself in the USA. That very day, Janowski wrote to Capablanca: <"My dear Mr. Capablanca - I have the honor to challenge you to a set match at chess of ten games up, drawn games not counting... with regard to the purse and stakes, time and place, and other details, I shall be glad to receive word from you at an early date".> [2] Nothing came of the challenge, perhaps because of Janowski's uninspiring performance against Jaffe. Janowski appears to have badly under-estimated "the Crown Prince of East Side Chess" and had to struggle to win a very close match winning 7 to 6. In June 1916, Janowski lost a match to Marshall - Janowski - Marshall, 5th Match (1916) at the Manhattan Chess Club. In December 1916, Janowski decisively defeated the former American Champion Jackson Showalter - Janowski - Showalter, 4th Match (1916) . Once again, he challenged Marshall: "Immediately after the conclusion of the game Janowski drew up a challenge, addressed to F.J.Marshall, the United States champion, for a match of twenty games, draws not counting, for a purse of not less than $500" [3] The match did not come to fruition. Instead, Janowski again challenged Jaffe, but in December 1917 the Parisian master was much more successful winning by 11 to 5. The last five games were won by Janowski which gave the impression of an absolute crushing victory. <Chajes:> Chajes was probably best known for his defeat of Capablanca O Chajes vs Capablanca, 1916 and for having won the 1917 New York State championship in Rochester. Chajes challenged Janowski. It was the best available way to achieve international recognition as a master. Chajes had aborted a match with Capablanca in 1912 after losing the first game: "Both Jaffe and Chajes, two of the leading players of USA, felt aggrieved that they had not been selected to play in the Havana (1913) tournament. To settle the question Capablanca offered to play a match of three games against each of them...Jaffe finished his match, but Chajes chickened out after one game." [4] A second match was unlikely to be of any interest Capablanca. Challenging Marshall, the US Champion, needed an intermediary step. Chajes and Jaffe (who had a parallel career) had trailed Marshall and Duras in the Quadrangular Masters (1913). Chajes had a dismal record against Marshall (he had never won a game against him). The match against Janowski was a match against a grandmaster was such a step. Chajes was taking a significant risk. Chajes was 44 years old whilst Janowski was 49 years old. Janowski was vastly more experienced; Chajes only twice played outside of the United States. He shared last place at Karlsbad (1911) and at Havana (1913) he came fourth of eight. Janowski and Chajes had played a short three game match at the Progressive Chess Club, New York, in April 1913. "After the recent tourney at New York a small exhibition match of three games was arranged between Janowski and Chajes. The former won two games, and the other was drawn." [5] Since then, to his credit, Chajes had scored well and came in a mere half a point behind Janowski in the Rice Memorial (1916) . <The Match's conditions> The winner would be the first to win seven games. Draws were not counted. [6] "Oscar Chajes, champion of New York State Chess Association, has challenged David Janowski of Paris who recently defeated C.Jaffe by 10 to 4 to a match of seven games up, and the articles will probably be signed tomorrow. Most of the games will be played at the Manhattan Chess Club, and one each at the New York Press Club and the Hotel Ansonia (2109, Broadway, New York- ed)." [7] According to the "New York Times" of January 20, 1918 the articles were signed on the 20th January. The purse was $500 [8] (about $8,500 in 2015 value - e.d.). "Following closely upon the heels of the State Masters tournament, the honors of which were divided between Oscar Chajes and A. Kupchik , with Alfred Schroeder and Roy Black fourth, comes the match of seven games up between Chajes and David Janowski of Paris, which should produce many a hard-fought contest for the delectation of those who delight in the perusal and study of masters' games. Play in the first game will begin at the Manhattan Chess Club, Hotel Sherman Square, Manhattan, on Saturday afternoon, and a large gallery may be expected. Naturally, Janowski, after his decisive defeat of Jaffe rules a strong favorite, but Chajes is at the top of his form and will assuredly give a good account of himself. The second game has been scheduled at the Hotel Ansonia and will be under the patronage of Mrs. Isaac L. Rice, widow of the late president of the New York State Chess Association. The third game will go to the I.L.Rice Progressive Chess Club, at its new rooms, 201 Second Avenue Manhattan. Most of the remaining Chajes games will be played at the Manhattan Chess Club." [9] Women were now able to watch this match in the rooms of the Manhattan Chess Club. It had just been decided by the club's committee to allow in women chess players. [10]. This was in response to woman in New York state gaining voting rights on 6th November 1917. <The games:> Played in New York from Saturday, 16th March to Tuesday 7th May, 1918, this was a match of 22 games. 1st game - Saturday, 16th March 2nd game - Wednesday, 20th March 3rd game - Thursday, 21st March 4th game - Saturday, 23rd March 5th game - Monday, 25th March 6th game - Tuesday, 26th March 7th game - Saturday, 30th March 8th game - Sunday, 31st March 9th game - Wednesday, 3rd April 10th game - Thursday 4th April (est.) ended 6th April. "This game took "three sittings and two adjournments" [11]. 11th game - Tuesday, 9th April 12th game - Thursday, 11th April 13th game - Saturday, 13th April 14th game - Tuesday, 16th April 15th game - Thursday, 18th April 16th game - Saturday, 20th April 17th game - Tuesday, 23rd April 18th game - Thursday, 25th April (est.) 19th game - Wednesday, 1st May 20th game - Friday, 3rd May 21st game - Saturday, 4th May 22nd Game - Tuesday 7th May [The dates of the individual games are from contemporary newspaper reports. Some games have not yet been corroborated by finding relevant articles in the press. These are shown as (est.) based on the pattern of the match and public holidays.] table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Janowski ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ 1 0 ½ ½ 1 1 ½ 0 0 ½ 1 ½ ½ 0 1 0 - 10 Chajes ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 0 1 ½ ½ 0 0 ½ 1 1 ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 0 1 - 12 ]table Janowski had White in the odd-numbered games. "After twenty-two game of the Janowski - Chajes match, Chajes was declared winner by 7 to 5, with 10 drawn." [12] <Progress of the match:> This was a hard fought match with the games averaging 54 moves, and over half of the games being decisive. “It required 22 games to determine the question of supremacy between Oscar Chajes, New York State champion, and David Janowski, of Paris, in their match of seven games up at the Manhattan Chess Club, and then, when the final count was taken, the verdict favored not the international master of world renown, who has long been known as the chess - champion of France, but the genial secretary of the Isaac L. Rice Progressive Chess Club of New York, who made his reputation first as champion of Chicago and the Western Chess Association and later as participant in several national tournaments, the Carlsbad congress of 1911, and the Havana tournament of 1913. With few exceptions the games lasted two days. The tenth game, which went to 80 moves, needed three sittings of five hours each. Result:-Chajes, 7; Janowski,5; drawn, 10.” [13] Janowski made a slow start as he had done in his first match with Jaffe. It seems that he may have underestimated his opponent, he was also talking about a 10 game match at odds with Kupchik at the time. [14] Janowski was never to be ahead in the match. Overall, he was behind for 18 of the 22 rounds, and two games behind on eight occasions up to losing the last game. Janowski was a fighter and he rallied with wins in Games 11 and 12 to even the score but he could not establish a winning momentum. By losing Games 14 and 15 in succession, it would have then been an exceptional feat to go onto win the match. Janowski was saved several losses by his opponent's lack of endgame technique. In Games: 1, 2 and 13, he escaped defeat in positions that his top rivals: Marshall or Duras (not to mention Capablanca) would have surely taken the point from him. <The openings:> This match pitted the <1.e4> of Chajes against the <1.d4> of Janowski. Two openings dominated the match - nine Queens Pawn games(Queen's Pawn Game (A46)) and seven Four Knight's (Four Knights (C48)). Chajes was White in all of the Four Knight's games and he achieved a remarkable +3=4-0 (71.4%) with this opening. Janowski, despite his greater experience and talent, too often was slapdash in the opening. Chajes won four games with Black, but Janowski could only win one game as Black, (Game 12) and that was one in which Chajes had missed a winning opportunity. Chajes +7/=10/-5 - 54.5% Janowski +5/=10/-7 - 45.5% Chajes as White +4/=6/-1 - 63.6% Chajes as Black +3/=4/-4 - 45.5% Janowski as White +4/=4/-3 - 54.5% Janowski as Black +1/=6/-4 - 36.4% <The endgames:> These were not the highlights of the match. Both players' endgames in this match were often marred by inaccuracies. Although in Game 16 Janowski, as Black, should have won the ending, overall he benefited from such blunders. He could have been two down after the first two games had not Chajes misplayed each ending. <Highlights> “Oscar Chajes, the State Champion, has not measured up to his opportunities in the first two games of his match with D. Janowski of Paris, both of which, with correct play at the critical junctures, he should have won. Instead, both games were drawn. In the first encounter Janowski played far beneath his form in the opening, and deservedly got the worst of it. Chajes finishing the first session with a clear "exchange" ahead. Little by little, however, this advantage was permitted to slip through his fingers and in the end, Janowski with a knight against two widely separated pawns, barely managed to force a draw." [15] <Game 1> Janowski as White loosened his position in the opening, and fell into a poor middlegame. He underestimated a defence which Chajes seems to have prepared for this match (playing it in Games 1,3,5,7, and 9). Janowksi had no convincing line of play against this Chigorin-like <d6+Nf6+Nbd7> defence. Ironically, Chajes had faced the same defence when playing against Janowski, O Chajes vs Janowski, 1916 , at the Rice Memorial (1916) , and had then used this system to defeat Kostic Kostic vs O Chajes, 1916. Chajes, was able to win the exchange and should have won the ending. click for larger view [<63...b4> wins] <Game 2>, was drawn after a problem with the clocks being incorrectly set up at the resumption. Chajes had a winning position "In the second game Chajes again obtained the upper hand by means of a strong attack in the Ruy Lopez. His sealed move was <32. Nxg6>, when he might have won with <hxg6>. After that, Janowski again outplayed him and had a win in hand when he consented to have the game declared drawn because of an error in setting the clocks after resumption of play. This cause Chajes to get into time difficulties, and naturally he aired his grievance when the time was ripe. For match chess of this importance, the incident was quite without precedent... Janowski consented to call the game drawn (in a winning position for him - e.d.) , because Chajes at this point was under time limit pressure and upon compliant of the latter, it developed that, in starting the clocks for the second sitting, he had been deprived of ten minutes through erroneous adjustment of the time on his clock." [16] click for larger view [<32.hxg6> fxg6 (or <32... b5> 33. R6f5 Qxe7 34. Nh5+ Kg8 35. Nf6+ Kg7 36. Rxe5 dxe5 37. Qxe5 fxg6 38. Nd5+ and wins) 33. Rxg6+ Qxg6 34. Nxg6 Rxf1+ 35. Nxf1 Kxg6 36. Nh2 Kf6 37. Nf3 and wins] <Game 3>, was won by Chajes. Again poor opening play against the <d6+Nf6+Nbd7> defence by Janowski left him with a difficult position. Once again, he lost the exchange. <Game 4>, Chajes had persistent pressure against his opponent's backward <d> pawn. A methodical game then descended into chaos as both players traded a succession of blunders towards the end of the session. In the end, Chajes made the fatal last blunder and lost. <Game 5> Janowski opposed his opponent's <d6+Nf6+Nbd7> defence with an early <c> instead of trying his earlier London system approach. He achieved a solid position from the opening, but overestimated his chances on the Q-side. This allowed Chajes to build up a winning K-side attack. Janowski had now lost with White twice in succession. <Game 7> Chajes had a spatial plus for most of the game but could not break through. Wearied, he gave Jansowski an opportunity to win but his opponent also missed the simple tactic. click for larger view [<51.Qxh5!>] <Game 8> Janowski had to endure another loss. Worse still, Chajes incorrectly announced a forced mate and this was then headlined in The "New York Times" of the 2nd April 1918: <"Chajes checkmates rival - Announces victory over Janowski four moves ahead."> The article was hyperbolic: "By far the most brilliant chess yet exhibited in the match between D. Janowski of Paris and Oscar Chajes, the New York State Champion was witnessed in the eight of the series.." click for larger view [<31. Nxg5> fxg5 32. Qxg5 Ne5 33. Rf1 Rad8 34. Nf6+ Kf7 35. Qg6+ Nxg6 36. fxg6+ Ke7 37. Re3 mate.] <Game 10> Janowski used the Sicilian defence, and Chajes kept an edge. Eventually, Janowski held a draw with a Q against two Rooks in a long endgame. Once again, Chajes did not have the exact technique to make more of an advantage accrued in the middle game. <Game 11>, Chajes made a simple error in the late middlegame which resulted in his Queen being trapped. <Game 12>, Once again this was a hard fought game with the final stage being marred by mutual blunders. Chajes held the advantage of most of the game, but missed his opportunity to win the game and then played poorly and then lost on short order click for larger view [<37.Ra5!> wins 37...Qe6 38. Qxe6 Nxe6 39. Ne5 Bc8 40. b5] <Game 14>, After having persistent positional plus in Game 13 but only securing a draw, Chajes mounted a K-side attack and overwhelmed Janowski whose defence was less than accurate. <Game 15> Janowski completely miscalculated a combination in the late middlegame and his position collapsed. <Game 16> Janowski, as Black, misplayed an advantageous ending. Having just lost two games in succession, he could not afford to squander such opportunities. <Game 17> Chajes lost a piece in an unusual fashion: click for larger view [<38. e7!>] <Game 20> This was a disastrous loss for Janowski who resigned after only 25 moves. Game 19 had been the steadiest of the match, and although 5-4 down his position in the match was not hopeless. Unfortunately, Janowski appears at this point to have completely lost his head; playing wildly as Black he loosened the position around his King and Chajes pieces flooded in with fatal effect. click for larger view Janowski was in Edward Lasker 's opinion temperamentally unsuited to match play. Janowski's reckless play here goes some way to support this assertion. [17] Chajes now only needed one more win to take the match whilst Janowski needed three. <Game 21> With only one game required to win the match, it was Chajes who now let his nerves affect his play. He achieved a good position with the Black pieces, but then made a succession of errors in trying to force the win. <Game 22> Janowski played solidly, and a draw seemed a likely result. This would have given him White in the next game. Instead, Janowski tried to make something out of nothing and only succeeded in damaging his own position. Chajes was able to break up Janowski's king-side, and then wrap the match up with a flourish. click for larger view [<60. Rh4+!> (60... Nxh4+ 61. Qxh4+ Kg7 62. Qe7+ Kh6 63. Rf6+ Kg5 64. Qg7+ Kh5 65. Rh6+ Rxh6 66. Qg4 mate) 60...Kg7 61. d6 Ra7 62. a5 Rxd6 63. b6 and wins.] <Contemporary reaction:> This match was to be Chajes' best competitive performance. [18] "By losing but one of the first ten games of his match with Janowski at the Manhattan Chess Club Oscar Chajes has covered himself with distinction and, although he has a long road to travel before he can obtain the necessary seven wins to be declared winner of the match, he has enhanced his reputation appreciably and this holds good even though he should lose out in the long run. [19] "The victory of Chajes was unexpected, but the French champion was rarely at his best, and on several occasions played far below his real form." [20] "Full credit is due to the State Champion for his really brilliant performance, but Janowski, besides underrating his opponent, was far from being in his best form." [21] (Hermann Helms) <Outcome of the match> Janowski had lost the match and had made heavy weather of many of the games. The games were long and there was little sense of ease in the play of the ex-world championship contender. There was poor opening play and too many blunders, especially in the endgame, for a top-rank player. The match was a symptom of his progressive decline from the top rank of chess. In his fifties he could no longer represent a threat to the top players although he still showed brilliant sparks of attacking verve - J Davidson vs Janowski, 1926. In his final international tournaments his results were poor. He was last at New York (1924) (+3 -13 =4) ; 14th out of 16 at Marienbad (1925) (+3 -7 =5); 7th out of 10 at Hastings (1925/26) (+1 -4 =1) and 10th out of 18 at Semmering (1926) (+7 -7 =3). In 1913, Lasker had given an astringent sketch of Janowski to a newpaper: <"Janowski's courage remains unbroken despite his misfortune in tournaments and matches; and it must be conceded that his style is far better than its low level of success may suggest. The French warhorse sniffs out subtleties, with which he knows how to masterfully achieve small advantages. He only seems to be lacking in resolution. Maybe he dislikes tactics. At least, he anxiously avoids leaving himself wide open. This, however, naturally depletes his attack of vitality. Every now and then , however, his strategy leads to victory creating a powerful aesthetic impression."> [22] Those comments may have reflected Janwoski's play against the grandmaster elite. In this match, however, Janowski, too often had left himself vulnerable. The overall impression is that he had too little regard for his opponent and then kept gambling he could win by overwhelming Chajes. Chajes felt emboldened by the unexpected victory and challenged Marshall to a match (but this initiative floundered as they could not agree terms). "We understand that Mr F. J. Marshall, the American champion, has been challenged to a match Mr Oscar Chajes who recently beat Mons. D. Janowski the French master. Mr Marshall has accepted on condition that, his championship title is challenged in such a match, the stake shall be 2,000 dollars, with not less than six hours’ play each sitting, unless, of course, the game is finished within that time. This means that the games are evidently at a rate of something rather less than 20 moves per hour; and that Marshall desires to eliminate “adjournments’’— in which he is quite right." [23] "The American Chess Bulletin" stated that Marshall wanted the winner to be the first to win 8 games, draws not counting, and that the purse should not be less than $2,000 (about $34,000 in 2015 value – e.d.). The time limit would be 30 moves in the first 2 hours, then 15 moves per hour after that. [24]. Chajes was not able to break into international chess after the First World War. There was relatively little opportunity for international master chess in America, and his invitation to Karlsbad (1923) only saw him outclassed, again he came bottom of the tournament table. Chajes was able to win brilliancies and defeat the top players occasionally but his overall technique and game fell short of grandmaster level. He died in 1928, aged 55, just over a year after Janowski. <Notes:> [1] . "The Brooklyn Daily Eagle", 12th January 1916, p.20. [2]. "The Brooklyn Daily Eagle", 25th February 1916, p.24. [3]. "The Brooklyn Daily Eagle", 22nd March 1916, p.8. [4]. "The Unknown Capablanca", Hooper, D. & Brandeth, D., Dover, 1993, p.55 & “Jose Raul Capablanca, Games 1901-1926.”, p.91. [5]. "Sunday Times" (Sydney, Australia), 29th June 1913. [6]. "Referee (Sydney, Australia), Wednesday 24th July 1918, p.11. [7]. "The Brooklyn Daily Eagle", 13th January 1918, p.36 [8]. "Leader" (Melbourne, Australia), 25th May 1918, p.54. [9]. "The Brooklyn Daily Eagle", 4th March 1918, p.6. [10]. "The Brooklyn Daily Eagle", New York, April 7th 1918, p.3. [11]. "The Brooklyn Daily Eagle", 7th April 1918, p.3. [12]. "The Brooklyn Daily Eagle", 19th May 1918, p.36. [13]. "American Chess Bulletin." quoted in the "Leader" (Melbourne, Australia), 27th July 1918, p.54. [14]. "The Brooklyn Daily Eagle", 23rd September 1917, p.34 [15]. "The Brooklyn Daily Eagle", 21st March 1918, p.26. [16]. "The Brooklyn Daily Eagle", 21st March 1918, p.26. [17]. "Chess Secrets I Learned from the Masters" Edward Lasker, McKay, 1951, p. 115. [18]. http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... [19]. "The Brooklyn Daily Eagle", 11th April 1918, p.2. [20]. "Weekly Times", (Victoria, Australia), 3rd August 1918 [21]. H.Helms in "The Evening Post", New York, 11th May 1918, p.13. [22]. Dr. Emanuel Lasker, January 9th 1913 quoted in "Pester Lloyd", Berlin, January 12th 1913 p.8. [23]. "Falkirk Herald", (Falkirk, Scotland) 7th August 1918, p.4. [24]. "American Chess Bulletin", 1918, vol. 15., p. 138. The source for Games 21 and 22 was "The Brooklyn Daily Eagle", 23rd May 1918, p.2. #### Thanks to: User: Tabanus for researching newspaper reports to provide the missing match dates. User: Karpova who originally unearthed the "Pester Lloyd" quote . see David Janowski (kibitz #76) . I have slightly altered his translation. 22 games, 1918 Charousek - Maroczy <Introduction> Rezso Charousek (aged 22) vs Geza Maroczy (aged 25), Budapest, Tuesday 12th November 1895 - Thursday 19th December 1895 [(1)], which is 14 games in 38 days. <Maroczy> Maroczy had come to international attention by winning the Hastings Minor tournament (7th British Amateur Championship) in 1895. He and Charousek were emerging as the leading Hungarian players. In 1893, they crossed swords in the first Hungarian correspondence chess championship tournament, organised by the newspaper "Pesti Hirlap", in which they shared first prize - Charousek vs Maroczy, 1893. When later they both became members of the Budapest chess club they played casual games together. This was the second match between these two young and emerging Hungarian masters. In April 1895, they had played a short match comprising of three games which Charousek won by two games to one (+2 -1 =0). [(2)] <Charousek> This second match prefigured the major accomplishments of Charousek's five-year career which was cut short by his death from tuberculosis at the age of 26. Charousek abandoned his legal studies in 1893 and moved to Budapest to pursue a career as a professional player. There he played matches against local masters (such as Moritz Englander, Gyula Makovetz and Gyozo Exner) before he received his first tournament invitation: + Nuremberg (1896) -12th (8.5 /18), but defeated the world champion Emanuel Lasker. + Budapest (1896) - equal first with Mikhail Chigorin (8.5 /12) ahead of Harry Pillsbury, but Charousek lost the playoff 3-1. They also were playing in the Hungarian correspondence chess championship, where Charousek won the first prize ahead of Maroczy. [(3)] + Berlin (1897) - first (13.5 /18) ahead of Carl Walbrodt and Joseph Blackburne. + 11th DSB Congress, Cologne (1898) - equal second with Chigorin and Wilhelm Cohn. + Budapest 1898 (Nagy-Teteny Tournament), first (8.5 /12) ahead of Maroczy. Charousek was quickly recognised as a player of undoubted talent: "Charousek (pronounced Karooshek), a Hungarian player, of Bohemian origin, twenty-two years of age. Charousek is a personified "Handbook". He has the theory of the openings and a stock of the best games played in any match or tournament at his fingers' ends; plays with lightning rapidity, and, above all, he has unlimited confidence in himself." [(4)] "Mr Blackburne gave his opinion about the Tournament (Budapest 1896 - e.d.) and the players, paying a high compliment to the young Hungarian who carried off first honours. No doubt Charousek is one of the most talented players of our time. We gave in the Westminster Gazette of September 5, 1896, his portrait and biography, and said then that "since Paul Morphy and Ignatz von Kolisch no more promising chess player has risen." At the recent tournament, he not only played his own game but the whole round quasi simultaneously. No sooner has he made his move than he wanders from board to board, and by the end of the seance he knows the positions of every single board by heart." [(5)] <Progress of the match> It is notable that they remained very competitive when playing each other over the board. After this match, all their tournament games together were decisive. Maroczy had white in the odd-numbered games. table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Charousek 0 1 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 1 ½ 0 ½ 0 0 5 Maroczy 1 0 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 9]table <Progressive scores:> table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Charousek 0 1 1 1½ 2½ 2½ 3 3 4 4½ 4½ 5 5 5 Maroczy 1 1 2 2½ 3 3½ 4 5 5 5½ 6½ 7 8 9 ]table Although Maroczy was never behind in this match, the contest was balanced to Game 10 with Maroczy a single game ahead. The final third of the match was a catastrophe for Charousek, who lost three out of four games and managed only a single draw. <The Games> [[Game 1]] Maroczy as white built up a K-side attack with White in a Ruy Lopez. He tripled in the <f> file before sacrificing the exchange to break through with mating threats. [[Game 2]] Maroczy defended with the French Defence and established a good position against Charousek's over-aggressive and loosening opening play: click for larger view Maroczy then made an extremely uncharacteristic blunder with <12...Bxf2?>, overlooking that Charousek could provide support for both of his attacked pieces after the simple<14.Kd2>. [[Game 3]] The white pieces won again, this time with Maroczy triumphing against the Queen's Gambit Declined. Charousek played too aggressively. Although he eventually ended up with a passed pawn on <d2> it was moribund whilst his opponent's passed pawn on <a6> could be forced through. [[Game 4]] Maroczy defended with a Scandinavian Defence. This was outside his usual repertoire and an earlier casual game he had played against Charousek had been a disastrous loss - Charousek vs Maroczy, 1893. This time, Maroczy established a better position from the opening bearing down on his opponent's weak <d> pawn. Despite this, he was unable to capitalise upon his advantage and the game was drawn. [[Game 5]] Defending a Four Knights Opening, Charousek made some minor errors that Maroczy did not exploit, and the game was drawn without much incident. [[Game 6]] Charousek played inventively for a vigorous King-side attack against Maroczy's French Defence. Charousek did not find a way to break through and with exchanges, his advantage slowly diminished into a drawn ending. [[Game 7]] Charousek defended against the English Opening using a King-side fianchetto. Maroczy missed a win in the ending after Charousek played <36...a6?> click for larger view Instead of Maroczy's move <37.Rc7?>, <37.Rb8!> would have won as Black could eventually check with the Rook to Queen the <b> pawn. [[Game 8]] For the second game in a row, Charousek blundered in the ending click for larger view Maroczy defended with the Classical variation of the French Defence and had equalised. Charousek completely misplayed the position beginning with <50.Kg4?> and Maroczy's <c> pawn was faster than his own <h> pawn. [[Game 9]] Maroczy offered an Evans' Gambit which Charousek accepted. The game followed old theory - W Paulsen vs Anderssen, 1869 - for twenty moves. Charousek was able to consolidate the pawn and eventually won the game by forcing his <a> pawn to queen. [[Game 10]] Charousek, as White, played against the French Defence in the style of Mikhail Chigorin with an early <Qe2> and a Kings-side fianchetto. Despite being known for his knowledge of gambit play, Charousek also chose to use fianchetto systems in this match, also see games 11 and 13. [[Game 11]] Charousek defended using a Modern Defense and Maroczy chose the direct Three Pawns Attack in response. Charousek hit out against his opponent's centre very quickly with <e5>. click for larger view Maroczy achieved an appreciable advantage, but he could not find an immediate win, click for larger view With <17.e5!> the advance of this pawn should have been decisive for Maroczy. Instead, Charousek fought on into an inferior endgame, but Maroczy did not give him a second chance. [[Game 12]] Charousek's opening was the quiet Italian Game with <d3>. His plan was to build up a King-side attack whilst the centre was closed. He advanced his <g> and <h> pawns against Maroczy's castled King. Maroczy played carefully and methodically showed up the weakness of Charousek's position as pieces were exchanged. Maroczy came close to winning the ending but had to finally concede a draw. [[Game 13]] Maroczy played Bird's Opening which we can be reasonably believed not to have been anticipated by his opponent. Maroczy had played this opening in at least one casual game against Charousek, but it was never a significant part of his repertoire. Charousek used a King's-side fianchetto development and had come close to equalising. He then underestimated his opponent's potential for a King's-side attack and Maroczy was able to storm his king. click for larger view Charousek resigned because of :<30...fxg6> 31.Qh3 Kh8 32.Nxh6 Qe8 33.Qf3 Re6 34.Qxd5 [[Game 14]] For the fourth time, Marocy defended with the French Defence having had an equal score with it so far in the match (+1=1-1). Charousek played to win from the opening of the game, aggressively advancing his <g> and <h> pawns against Maroczy's castled king. Charousek's impetuosity overstepped the mark. Despite sacrificing a bishop in a desperate attempt to reach Maroczy's king, Charousek's attack quickly burnt out. <Notes> [(1)]. Di Felice, "Chess Results, 1747-1900", page 160. [(2)]. Di Felice, "Chess Results, 1747-1900", page 161. [(3)]. "The Standard", (London, UK), Monday 7th September 1896. [(4)]. "Westminster Gazette", (London, UK), Saturday 25th July 1896. [(5)]. "Westminster Gazette", (London, UK), Saturday 16th October 1897. [User: Chessical- original collection and text. Textural improvements suggested by User: jessicafischerqueen ] 14 games, 1895 Chessical's favorite games Janowski v Esser 1 game, 1910 Chessical's favourite games I particularly like the style of the first two decades of the twentieth century. The idea that masters played quiet lines and drew with each other is wrong. Many games were sharply fought and whilst being on positional basis are easier for amateurs like myself to understand and learn from than the heavy theory based games of modern top grandmasters. In this collection I have put in lesser known games which I consider worthy of being seen today. 7 games, 1907-1988 Chessical's Instructive Endgame Collection This collection contains analysis of various instructive K+Ps and R+Ps endgames. 24 games, 1849-1998 Chigorin's bête noire Опасно! Волк! Chigorin the great Russian world championship candidate seems to have been unable to play against the Viennese master Heinrich Wolf. Wolf was undoubtedly a strong player, but as his scores against Chigorin's peers shows he had disproportionate success against the Russian champion. Pillsbury beat Wolf 4 to 0, with 2 draws. Maroczy beat Wolf 11 to 1, with 4 draws. Tarrasch beat Wolf 5 to 0, with 6 draws. Schlechter beat Wolf 10 to 0, with 6 draws. So why did Chigorin fare so badly against Wolf? Chigorin's alcoholism and poor health (diabetes) must have contributed to the sharp decline in his powers evident from 1904, but even so his record against Wolf is extraordinarily bad. 6 games, 1902-1907 Chigorin-Gunsberg Match <Introduction> This match (January 1st - February 17th 1890) was the precursor to a world championship match against Wilhelm Steinitz, it was not, however, a candidates’ tournament. The challenger was originally supposed to be the winner of the Game Collection: New York 1889 but there had been no outright winner. [1] Instead, the third place player, Isidor Gunsberg , challenged the tournament’s co-winner Mikhail Chigorin . [2] There was little doubt that the winner of this match would be generally considered at Steinitz’s legitimate challenger for the world crown. The match was arranged by the Havana Chess Club and played in Havana. It was for ten games up, draws not counting, with stakes of £200 a-side. [3] [4] <The participants> <Chigorin> Chigorin (39 y.o.) made his international debut at 2nd DSB Congress, Berlin (1881) , taking 3-4th place, but he made his reputation in London (1883) , in the next six years Mikhail Chigorin only had the opportunity to play a single match (Jules Arnous de Riviere in 1883) but no tournaments. Instead he concentrated on popularising chess in Russia and playing correspondence games. From January 20th to February 24th 1889, Chigorin had fought but lost a world championship match against Wilhelm Steinitz by 10½–6½ (+6-10=1) - Steinitz - Chigorin World Championship Match (1889). Only a few weeks later, on March 29th, he was playing in and then tied for first with Max Weiss in the extremely strong and large New York 1899 tournament. "Chigorin did not have a solid sports background, nor any resounding international victories (except taking fourth place in the London tourney of 1883)... favouring the Russian champion was the incontrovertible fact that thanks to his vehement research, the study of openings had reached a profound height of interest... (he) directed several chess magazines in his native country, and he flooded them with his profuse commentaries...” [5] Chigorin's best results were to come in the 1890s ( see - http://www.edochess.ca/players/p388... ) when regular strong international tournaments became a yearly occurrence rather than once in a decade. He was the third or fourth rated player throughout the 1890s. He tied a match with Tarrasch Chigorin - Tarrasch (1893) and his greatest tournament victory was to come at Budapest (1896) . <Gunsberg> Isidor Gunsberg 's career reached its peak at the end of the 1880's, with impressive results in Game Collection: New York 1889 and Manchester (1890) (second behind Tarrasch). He went onto give a good account of himself in the Steinitz - Gunsberg World Championship Match (1890) by 8.5 to 10.5. According to Chessmetrics, he was 2-5th in the world 1886-90. [6]; whilst EDO Chess estimates Gunsberg to have been 2nd-7th for the same period. [7] At New York Gunsberg came third. He beat Chigorin 2-0, but lost to Weiss by 0.5 to 1.5. Gunsberg then seized an unexpected and sudden opportunity. With the joint tournament winners Chigorin and Weiss declining to play a match to select a challenger to world champion Steinitz, Gunsberg challenged Chigorin. At the time of the match Gunsberg was 35 year’s old, four year’s younger than his opponent. Gunsberg had struggled for his place in the limelight. He had never been seen as the preeminent British player and was usually eclipsed by Joseph Blackburne .Gunsberg had emerged in the third German Chess Congress 1883. Gunsberg was 17th with 5/18 whereas Blackburne won with 13.5/18. At the fourth German Chess Congress, Hamburg July 13th - 25th 1885, Blackburne again won on a tie break followed by James Mason. Gunsberg improved his standing to 5th only half a point behind the winner. At Hereford, August 4th – 12th, 1885, Blackburn won and Gunsberg was fifth equal, whilst at the Second BCF championship London 1886, July 12th – 29th, he was third equal with Taubenhaus behind Blackburne and Burn. At the fifth German Chess Congress, Frankfurt July 17th - August 2nd, 1887, Blackburne was fourth and Gunsberg was far back in 14-16th place. He scored only two points against the top ten players. The Third BCF Congress London 1887, November 29th - December 12th, improved his status. Gunsberg was first equal with Burn ahead of Blackburne by 1 1/2 points; and at the Fourth BCF championship in Bradford, August 6th – 18th 1888, Gunsberg won, 1 1/2 points ahead of all his important British rivals including: George Mackenzie, Mason, Amos Burn , Blackburne and Henry Bird. In 1887, Blackburne - Gunsberg (1887), Gunsberg defeated Blackburne in a match , played in Bradford and London, 26th September – 9th November 1887 scoring +5 -2 =6. Having tied for first in 1887 and won the title outright in 1888, and at least temporarily drawn ahead of his most obvious rival, his victory in this match gave him the status as a credible challenger to Steinitz for the world championship. "The difference in style between the two players has been very well brought out in the present match. Gunsberg is impetuous and Blackburne is careful, but both have a wonderful power of combination, and are capable, of very brilliant strokes." [8] Gunsberg's problem was that he was not consistent. At 6th DSB Congress, Breslau (1889) , 15th – 26th July 1889, he was equal fourth, but Tarrasch eclipsed all the other participants with a magnificent +9. At Amsterdam (1889) , 26th August – 1st September 1889, he came only half-way up the field (+2 -2 =4). <Background to the match> Blackburne had defeated Johannes Zukertort Blackburne - Zukertort (1887) – (7th May – 9th June 1887). It was effectively a match between the second and third players in the world behind Wilhelm Steinitz. Blackburne dominated, winning by 5 to 1 with 8 drawn games "I hear that an effort is being made by the leading members of the British Chess Club to arrange a match between Blackburne and Steinitz. The superiority shown by the former over Zukertort in the match now concluded was so decided that friends of the English champion are convinced that he is able to lower the colours of that redoubtable player." [9] Zukertort died 20 June 1888 (aged 45). The question was now who would be the new Challenger? “There is a pretty firm conviction at the clubs that that Gunsberg, especially since the death of Zukertort, is the strongest and hardiest of the professional masters of the game, and that in his present condition he can be more trusted than anyone else to play up to his best form over a fortnight's course….It will soon be time, by the way, to demand a match between Gunsberg and Steinitz -the old Achilles who sulks on his reputation in America. Mr Steinitz is giving us time enough in England to forget his prowess, and people already say that his victory over Zukertort, when the decline of the doctor's powers had manifestly set in, was not of sufficient importance to provide him with laurels for the remainder of his life. No doubt, this is said partly by way of defiance, and in course of time it is pretty certain that the champion will have to descend into the lists again, and try conclusions with Mr Gunsberg.” [10] Steinitz saw Chigorin as his most credible challenger and chose to defend his world championship title against Chigorin in Havana (20th January 1889 - 24th February, 1889). Steinitz defeated his Russian challenger by 10-6, Steinitz - Chigorin World Championship Match (1889) <Gunsberg takes his opportunity in New York> The Sixth American Chess Congress New York 1889, commenced on Monday, March 29th , 1889 and was originally to allow a fresh challenger for the world championship to emerge. "It is the purpose of the Committee to make the Tournament a contest for the real championship of the world, thus avoiding the controversies and disputes that have so often arisen at the end of tournaments, which, owing to the absence of a regulation providing for a match, have rendered them fallacious tests of superiority. In addition to the First Prize which will be $1,000, minimum, (approx. £22,400 in 2016 value) a trophy representing such championship will be provided and held subject to challenge under fair and equitable conditions, thus combining the advantages of a tournament and a championship match, to consist of at least seven games up, forming part of the tournament, and to be incorporated in the Book of the Congress. [11] “The winner of the Tournament shall be bound to play the Championship Match if duly challenged. He shall not be obliged to play for stakes, but may insist upon a maximum of $1,500 a side. To ensure compliance with this rule, one-fourth of the amount of the First Prize shall be held as a forfeit until the Championship Match is completed or the time for challenge has expired.” [12] But whilst Steinitz edited the tournament book and had been one of the principal organizers, he did not choose to play: “In that connection it is due to mention that the non-participation of Mr. Steinitz was a great disappointment to the majority of Chess amateurs. The Committee beg to say on this subject that they would have been highly gratified if Mr. Steinitz had been one of the contestants” [13] Steinitz’s explanation was: "I was one of the chief organizers and therefore could not well compete..." [14] Mikhail Chigorin and Max Weiss tied for first with a score of 29 but Chigorin defeated Weiss in their individual game. They then drew all four games of a playoff. “At the end of the tournament there was a tie between M. Chigorin, of St. Petersburg, and Herr Max Weiss, of Vienna. Both these masters expressed a desire not to be compelled to play a championship match, as provided by the rules, and as there was no other challenge for the title and the prizes offered for the purpose, the Committee decided that this contest should not take place.” [15] The Committee gave way, probably influenced by the fact that the congress had lost money and subscribers had not paid and spectators were fewer than anticipated. Although Weiss was not interested in playing a championship match, Gunsberg, as the third place finisher, exercised his right and challenged Chigorin to a World Championship candidates match. “7. The right of challenge shall belong to the prize winners in the order of their score” [16] It also buttressed his claim that he had won the tournament’s best game prize - Mason vs Gunsberg, 1889 Weiss’ reticence may have been due his decision to leave chess for the greater certainty and remuneration of a banking career. He had also just played 49 games including a tied mini-match with Chigorin to try to decide the tie for first place. For Chigorin a match against Gunsberg would be a welcome pay-check and was an offer on the table whereas Steinitz had not made any move to play the winner of New York. “One of the usual results of a great tournament is that after its conclusion various rumours arise of projected matches between the combatants. There is generally a feeling among some of the competitors that they did not do themselves justice, or that they had bad luck in particular games, and there is a desire to prove themselves not inferior to those with whom they had lost. Challenges are therefore issued very freely by the losers, though they are not always accepted by the winners. The New York contest has been no exception to the general custom, and already there are many matches in the air. Gunsberg, who is well known to be one of the most enterprising of chess players, is stated to have challenged Chigorin, and it is anticipated that if he proves victorious he will afterwards play Weiss. A contest between Gunsberg and Burn is also in contemplation. A match between Gunsberg and Chigorin would be of the greatest interest, for these two players are undoubtedly the leading representatives of the modern school. Both are well gifted with imagination, and their games exhibit a boldness and chivalry of style which even if not invariably successful, is always certain, at any rate, to command admiration. Mr. Steinitz's so-called "modern theory," however successful it maybe in his hands, is not of a kind to make chess more popular, nor to excite the admiration of rising players. The style of chess that in our opinion can be justly designated as the "modern school" combines the clash and enterprise of Labourdonnais and Macdonnell with improved scientific accuracy. It is this method that has been successfully adopted by both Gunsberg and Chigorin…" [17] “CHESS CHALLENGES. Before leaving New York Mr Gunsberg challenged M. Chigorin to a match at chess, if the Russian champion would come to London to play. The contest might be easily arranged. Another match is talked of between Herr Steinitz and Gunsberg, and could the great Bohemian champion be prevailed on to cross the water, this most interesting event might also be negotiated. A set match for the championship of the world was to follow the late New York tournament. "T'were a consummation devoutly to be wished" and nothing would wanting on the part of English amateurs to bring it about.” [18] “MATCH BETWEEN GUNSBERG AND CHIGORIN. Mr. Gunsberg has been challenged (sic), and has accepted the challenge, to play a match against Mr. Chigorin. The following are the conditions : 1. Ten games up, draws not counting. 2. Time limit 15 or 20 moves an hour. 3. Four games a week. 4. Play to commence between the 15th of December and 1st of January next. Chigorin's friends propose a stake of £200, and Gunsberg, who has no wish to play for any heavy amount, is not likely to make any difficulties in matters of detail.” [19] “The Havana Chess Club has arranged another great match to take place in "that El Dorado of chess players" between M.Chigorin of St.Petersburg and I.Gunsberg, of London". [20] Gunsberg quickly attracted the financial support from British players: “THE GUNSBERG - CHIGORIN MATCH. The conditions which Gunsberg proposed to Chigorin in connection with this encounter have been accepted by the latter, and we may therefore look upon the contest as a fixture. As before stated play is to commence in Havana, between the 15th December and 1st January next. A circular has been issued by a committee, acting on behalf of Mr. Gunsberg, in which Chess players of this country are invited to provide the stakes, and give their representative that national support which will enable him to cope successfully with his powerful antagonist in the great struggle for Chess supremacy between England and Russia. The Committee is composed of the following gentlemen: Wordsworth Donisthorpe (Vice President British Chess Club), F. Anger (Vice President City of London Chess Club), J. W. Hunt, M.D. (President North London Chess Club), L. Hoffer (Hon. Sec. British Chess Association), A. Mocatta, A. Hunter, Thos. Schofield, W. Montague Gattie, &c.” [21] "CHESS CONTESTS IN HAVANA. The chess news from Havana is interesting. Extensive preparations are being made for a series of match games between Herren Chigorin and Gunsberg, and an engagement of five weeks has been offered to Capt. Mackenzie to take part in a contemplated tournament. In addition to guaranteeing the passage money from their places of residence in Europe and return, the sum of $250 for hotel expenses will be paid to each on arrival in Havana. In addition, $20 will be paid to the winner and $10 to the loser at the end of every game, and in case of a draw $10 will be paid to each player up to five games. The winner of the ten-game match will also receive a purse of $1,000, this sum having being subscribed by the backers of Herr Chigorin. A similar amount is expected to be raised by the followers of Herr Gunsberg. “ [22] “…Mr Gunsberg travelled from London via New York, arriving at Havana about the middle of December. Herr Chigorin left Russia in the latter part of November, and proceeded via Paris to New York, reaching that city on the day of Mr Gunsberg's arrival in Havana. Herr Chigorin completed his journey in time to allow to the playing of the first game of the match on New Year's Day”. [23] "Gunsberg arrived at Havana on December 16th, and Chigorin at New York on the same day, having been prevented by a attack of influenza from leaving St.Petersburg till November 24th. After some preliminary play with the Havana players by Gunsberg, the great match began at the Casino Espanol, at 2 p.m., on New Years's Day. Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday are the days for play..." [24] <Conditions> “Further communication from Senor Adolfo Moliner states that Mr. I. Gunsberg has cabled his acceptance of the offer to play at Havana against Chigorin according to the proposed terms and rules, and that Chigorin, through his representative, Mr. de Beon, accepts also. <RULES GOVERNING THE MATCH BETWEEN MESSR. GUNSBERG AND CHIGORIN> 1. Ten games up, draws not counting. 2. Time limit, 15 or 20 moves per hour. 3. Four games a week. 4. Play to begin between the 15th Dec. and the 1st of January. 5. Either player to have the right to abstain from play three times during the match, provided he give notice to that effect previous to the time fixed for the beginning of the game. 6. Play begins at 3 p.m. and proceeds up to 6 p.m. It is resumed at 8 p.m, until 11 p.m. During dinner adjournment the two players remain together. 7. The time will be measured by stop- clocks. Either player not appearing, his clock will be set in motion at 3.05 p.m., and should he fail to arrive after two hours he forfeits the game. 8. At any adjournment the first player writes down his move and hands it over in a closed envelope to the Hon. Secretary or to any person appointed for the purpose by the latter. 9. If the same move be repeated six times the opponent may claim a draw. The winner will be he who first scores ten games. 11. The London International Rules of Play will govern the match. 12. Umpires not to be backers of either party, and shall be elected by each, subject to the approval of the other side, and the two players shall elect a Referee. 13. The right of publishing the match games belongs to both players and the club.” [25] "It seems that the invitations of the Club to the two Champions include a request that the openings might be varied as much as possible. Clearly they had enough of the monotonous sticking to favourite openings in the Steinitz-Chigorin match. ..." [26] “Mr. Gunsberg has sailed from Liverpool on the Alaska to fulfil his engagement at Havana, where he will fight a match with Chigorin, the Russian player, for the chess championship. The match, which is expected to commence about Christmas, is to be one of 10 games up, draws not counting, stakes £200 a-side, the entertaining club giving in addition a fixed sum to the winner and loser of each game played.” [27] “All preliminaries have now been arranged for the chess match Gunsberg versus Chigorin, play in which will be commenced on Wednesday next.” [28] “The regular days of play are Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday of each week. The time limit agreed upon requires the completion of 30 moves by each player within the first hour and three-quarters, after which the stipulation is 15 moves per hour.” [29] The match was held in the Casino Espinol [30]. This was probably the the ‘Casino Espanol’ built next to the Havana Yacht Club on the waterfront off Avenida 5ta. It appears to have been abandoned and its main building has now collapsed. The current building known as the ’Casino Espanol’, or more recently as the ‘Palacio de los Matrimonios’, was built later in 1914. <Timetable> Game 1 - January 1st 1890 - Chigorin v Gunsberg Game 2 - January 3rd 1890 - Gunsberg v Chigorin Game 3 - January 5th 1890 - Chigorin v Gunsberg Game 4 - January 7th 1890 - Gunsberg v Chigorin Game 5 - January 8th 1890 - Chigorin v Gunsberg Game 6 - January 10th 1890 - Gunsberg v Chigorin Game 7 - January 12th 1890 - Chigorin v Gunsberg Game 8 - January 14th 1890 - Gunsberg v Chigorin Game 9 - January 15th 1890 - Chigorin v Gunsberg Game 10 - January 18th 1890 - Gunsberg v Chigorin Game 11 - January 21st 1890 - Chigorin v Gunsberg Game 12 - January 22nd 1890 - Chigorin v Gunsberg Game 13 - January 24th 1890 - Gunsberg v Chigorin Game 14- January 26th 1890 - Chigorin v Gunsberg Game 15 - January 28th 1890 - Gunsberg v Chigorin Game 16 - January 31st 1890 - Chigorin v Gunsberg Game 17 - February 2nd 1890 - Gunsberg v Chigorin Game 18 - February 4th 1890 - Chigorin v Gunsberg Game 19 - February 5th 1890 - Gunsberg v Chigorin Game 20 - February 10th 1890 - Chigorin v Gunsberg Game 21 - February 12th 1890 - Gunsberg v Chigorin Game 22 - February 14th 1890 - Chigorin v Gunsberg Game 23 - February 17th 1890 - Gunsberg v Chigorin <The progress of the match> Chigorin was White in the even numbered games. table[ Chigorin - 1 1 0 ½ 0 1 ½ 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 0 1 0 - 9 Gunsberg - 0 0 1 ½ 1 0 ½ 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 ½ 1 ½ 0 ½ 0 1 0 1 - 9 ]table Progressive scores - draws do not count table[ Chigorin - 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 Gunsberg - 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 9 ]table The match rolled heavily one way then the other. Chigorin went two points into the lead, and then lost four in a row from Rounds 7-10. Chigorin was ahead in seven of the first eight rounds, Gunsberg then took the lead for the next nine rounds. The score was tied at seven wins each at round 18. Chigorin was a point ahead with the last game to play but Gunsberg won the 23rd game and tied the score. Both players were more successful with the Black pieces in this match. Chigorin was the most successful as Black (+6,=1,-4), winning his last four wins with the Black pieces, yet he had a crisis mid-match when from rounds 8-14 he lost four times in a row with Black. Chigorin won three times with White, and lost five times. He lost with White four times in the first nine games. Gunsberg won five games with Black, and four with White (all these wins being in succession from Rounds 8-14). After Round 14 he did not win with White again. <Contemporary accounts> “THE RIVAL CHESS PLAYERS. FEATURES OF THE MATCH BETWEEN MESSRS. GUNSBERG AND CHIGORIN. HAVANA, JAN. 23. The eleventh game in the championship match was played yesterday, when Mr. Chigorin played the Ponziani Opening, a mode of attack he adopted in the first game of the series. The Russian, as in the first game, obtained an advantage in the opening, which he materially increased by subsequent good play, while in the end game he really surpassed himself, conducting it with great brilliancy, which was much admired by the numerous spectators. Mr. Gunsberg resigned at the v thirty-fourth move, after about three and one-half hours' play. The score now is: Gunsberg, 5 ; Chigorin, 4, and 2 games drawn. The first ten games of the Chess match now being played at Havana have been the subject of much discussion among the Cubans and Chess-players in this country. A summary of these games will therefore be timely. On January 1st, when the champions faced each other for the first time in Havana, both were in excellent health and spirits. It will be remembered that this is Mr. Chigorin's second visit to the famous Cuban Chess centre, while Mr. Gunsberg, in order to thoroughly accustom himself to the climate, arranged to arrive a fort night before his famous antagonist. Mr. Chigorin, in the first encounter, played with all the dash and brilliancy for which he is celebrated, and succeeded in out playing Mr. Gunsberg at every point in the first game, this being a fine specimen of modern Chess and a well-deserved victory. It cannot be said that Mr. Gunsberg overcame the moral effects of a defeat in the second game. His play, although full of line strategy, lacked finish, and again the Russian succeeded in adding another victory to his score by a brilliant combination in the end game. Although Mr. Gunsberg was handicapped in the third game by a slight attack of fever, he scored his first win in spite of having chosen the French game as his defence. Mr. Gunsberg often falls back upon this safe defence, when either wishing to check the victorious career of his antagonist or when feeling out of sorts. If Mr. Gunsberg was beaten in the first and second games, Mr. Chigorin had to put up with a defeat in the third game, for which great credit is due to Mr. Gunsberg, in as much as he entirely outplayed his rival by introducing a novelty which the Russian failed to offset. In the fourth game, a short battle of thirteen moves, neither player had a chance throughout the contest. It was a Four Knights Game, where exchanges were the principal feature, and after a most uneventful and short struggle the first drawn game was recorded. For the first time in the match the Russian essayed the Evans Gambit in the fifth game. It is a generally acknowledged fact that Mr. Chigorin' ranks among the most renowned masters as an exponent of this mode of attack. Mr Gunsberg conducted the defence very cleverly and ought to have won the game right out, but Mr. Chigorin played the middle game in splendid style and regained the ground lost in the opening. Mr. Gunsberg, however, was equal to the occasion, and when it looked as if honours would be divided the Russian fell off in play, and, overlooking safe continuations, he fell a victim to Gunsberg's tactics and lost. This was a very sensational battle. In the sixth game Mr. Gunsberg was again defeated, the Russian's brilliant dash being too much for his adversary, who played a game so tame and inconsistent that Mr. Chigorin was enabled to once more show his inimitable style of attack, to which Gunsberg fell a prey. The game was a Two Knights Defence. Mr. Gunsberg, in the 7th game, when playing the French Defence, got on even terms with the Russian, who tried hard to score. Mr. Gunsberg played this game in classical style, and at one time he ought to have got the better position, but he missed his chance, the game being finally drawn. Zukertort's Opening was the plan of battle in the eighth contest. Here the Russian, who conducted the defence, was altogether outplayed by his rival throughout the game, and by a really artistic finish Mr. Gunsberg scored. The writer has seen many surprises over the boards. He saw the veteran Bird miss a mate in two and all sorts of oversights, which are now being termed hallucinations. But how Mr. Chigorin, a brilliant and quick-witted player, could miss a mate twice in one game can scarcely be understood, and these oversights have to be registered in the annals of Chess history as hallucinations of the first magnitude. In this game Gunsberg fell into a beautifully laid trap, but for reasons given above he scored after all. The tenth game, a P—Q4 opening variation known as the Steinitz vs. Potter, was also remarkable, as Mr. Chigorin again lost through an oversight, this time committed in the end game. But for this a really magnificently contested game would have ended in a draw. Altogether the promoters of this match and the Chess world at large have every reason to be satisfied with the results so far recorded. We have pleasure in giving credit for this excellent report to the Sun, N. Y., a paper fully alive on all the amusements that interest humanity.” [31] “THE RIVAL CHESS PLAYERS. FEATURES OF THE MATCH BETWEEN MESSRS. GUNSBERG AND CHIGORIN. HAVANA, JAN. 29. The committee of the Havana Chess Club expressed a wish previous to the beginning of the Gunsberg vs. Chigorin match that the same opening or defence should not be played more than twice by each player, in order to get a greater variety and resumed Mr. Gunsberg easily forced a win, the Russian having to resign after sixty-five moves. Although the interest in local circles has not in any way abated, the fifteenth game in the match gave a stimulant, if at all required. This game will rank among the finest specimens of modern Chess. Chigorin had the move and Gunsberg adopted the Centre Counter Gambit (Blackburne's variation). The Russian really excelled himself, for his brilliant attacks and combinations surpassed anything ever shown by this expert. On the other hand a really masterly defence was shown by Gunsberg. Frequently it looked heavy odds against the Britisher, but he always managed to avert a catastrophe, and after a highly interesting contest of fifty moves play was adjourned. On the following day the battle was resumed. Beautiful strategic movements were shown on either side and loud applause and cheering greeted the masters when a really magnificently played game was drawn. So far, this has been the finest game in the match. — The Sun, N. Y. As will have been seen from the summary of the first ten games published last week, both masters have so far respected the desires of the Havana Club. In glancing at the openings of games 11 to 15, it will be found that five distinct openings or defences, respectively, have been selected by the champions in these games. Mr. Chigorin, who had the move in the eleventh game, for the second time in the match selected the Staunton Opening, and, as in the first game, in which he played the same attacking combination, he succeeded in altogether outplaying his antagonist. This can only be explained by the fact that Mr. Gunsberg adopted too original a defence, which probably was weak, and the Russian, taking full advantage, scored a beautifully played game after thirty-four moves. Mr. Gunsberg also essayed the same opening for a second time in the twelfth game, namely, P—Q4. It will be remembered that the Hungarian in the tenth game, in which this opening was played by him, entirely outwitted his rival from the very beginning of the game. In this Mr. Gunsberg did not again succeed. On the contrary, Mr. Chigorin made a very bold front, and the game was perfectly even until the end-game stage was reached, when Mr. Gunsberg showed better staying power. Little by little he gained ground, and his opponent falling off in play, Gunsberg proceeded with an irresistibly and finely planned combination, and Mr. Chigorin fell an easy prey after forty moves. I never to have refused a gambit, and it was therefore a matter of general surprise when the news came that he had declined the King's Gambit offered by Mr. Chigorin in the thirteenth game. Moreover, the defence selected was weak, and Chigorin, being in splendid form, smashed up his adversary's position in no time, and gained a very creditable victory after forty-nine moves. A very tough battle was the outcome of the fourteenth game, in which Mr. Gunsberg played the Zukertort Opening. This will be found a very instructive game to Chess-players. At first the Russian defended very steadily, while Gunsberg; slowly developed his pieces in order to place them in proper battle order, a manoeuvre also, but not so neatly, executed by his antagonist. In the middle game, however, Gunsberg forced the pace. He gained first one Pawn, then another; but the general exchange of pieces which followed resulted in Bishops of opposite colours remaining on the board. This, at one time, relieved the anxiety of Mr. Chigorin's friends, inasmuch as a victory for Gunsberg did not look probable under these circumstances. After sixty-two moves, in six hours' play, the contest had to be adjourned. When the game was won, the Russian having to resign after sixty-five moves. Although the interest in local circles has not in any way abated, the fifteenth game in the match gave a stimulant, if at all required. This game will rank among the finest specimens of modern Chess. Chigorin had the move and Gunsberg adopted the Centre Counter Gambit (Blackburne's variation). The Russian really excelled himself, for his brilliant attacks and combinations surpassed anything ever shown by this expert. On the other hand a really masterly defence was shown by Gunsberg. Frequently it looked heavy odds against the Britisher, but he always managed to avert a catastrophe, and after a highly interesting contest of fifty moves play was adjourned. On the following day the battle was resumed. Beautiful strategic movements were shown on either side, and loud applause and cheering greeted the masters when a really magnificently played game was drawn. So far, this has been the finest game in the match. — The Sun, N. Y.” [32] <A review of the games> [[Game 1]] Gunsberg lost the first game of the match as Black after making a simple blunder. He had almost equalised against Chigorin's Ponziani Opening but overlooked a very simple tactic. Instead of <21...g6!>, Gunsberg played <21...Nd5> click for larger view oblivious to <22.Qxf8!>. “A difficult position occurred at a time when the hands of the clock were dangerously near the hour, and Gunsberg , under time pressure , made some hasty moves” - [33] [[Game 2]] Gunsberg allowed Chigorin to build up a threatening K-side attack as Black. click for larger view 35.Rh1 Rxf3! 36. Qd2+ 37.Kg1 Bf2+!! (37...Qxb2? 38.Rf1 Qd4+ 39.Kg2=) 38.Kf1 Nd4 39.Bxd4 Qxc1+ and wins. [[Game 3]] This was Gunsberg’s first win of the match and was achieved with Black after two thumping losses. Chigorin misplayed and lost the exchange for a Pawn. The simple error contrasted starkly with his splendid combinational vision in the first two games. [[Game 4]] Gunsberg as White, made no effort to win in a Four Knight’s Opening, and a draw followed in only 13 moves. [[Game 5]] Chigorin offered and Gunsberg accepted an Evan’s Gambit. Chigorin attempted to break through in the centre but Gunsberg held onto the Pawn. Later inaccurate play by Gunsberg allowed Chigorin to claw his way back to equality. In a long Rook and Pawns endgame, Chigorin’s technique let him down and he lost. The players later repeated the opening to move 12 at Hastings 1895 with Chigorin winning. [[Game 6]] Gunsberg's inaccurate play allowed Chigorin to build up a strong K-side attack with Black in a Two Knights Defence. Chigorin broke through his opponent's defences with an inspired Rook sacrifice; click for larger view <34...Rxh4!!> 35. gxh4 g3!! [[Game 7]] Chigorin met Gunsberg's French Defence with <3.exd5>, and achieved nothing with the White pieces. In the late middle game Chigorin played inaccurately and Gunsberg could have accrued a positional advantage. Both players then lost the thread of the game and it was drawn. [[Game 8]] This was one of Gunsberg's best games of the match. Chigorin miscalculated and allowed his opponent to tear open his King side defences. After click for larger view <28.Rxe6!> Chigorin was caught in a mating net. [[Game 9]] This game was a disaster for Chigorin yet it all began very well. He played an Evan's Gambit and his determination to win was shown on move 11 when he sacrificed his Bishop for his opponent's <f> Pawn and attacking chances. Later analysis established that this should have resulted in a draw, but Gunsberg made an extraordinary decision and exposed his King to a prolonged assault click for larger view with <14...Kg6?> Chigorin pursued his opponent’s King across the board to the Queen-side. He seemed at a loss how to proceed. There was a three-fold repetition which was ignored and then Chigorin blundered and let Gunsberg's King escape. With the tables turned, Gunsberg's play improved considerably and with an ending in which he had a Rook, two Bishops and a Knight for his Queen he won the ending efficiently. [[Game 10]] Gunsberg established a winning endgame only to let victory slip through his fingers due to poor technique click for larger view with <62.d5?> instead of <62.Re7>. With <62...b5> Chigorin reached a technically drawn position. Gunsberg, apparently, wanted to be shown and his persistence paid off. After an accurate defence Chigorin suddenly made a gross blunder with click for larger view <77...Rxb7> and after <78.Rh1> he could not avoid mate. This was the second loss in a row due to a simple blunder by Chigorin. [[Game 11]] Despite the setbacks of the previous two games, Chigorin rallied to show that his combinational ability was still intact. Gunsberg played lackadaisically and did not see the danger to his King. click for larger view <24.Re6!!> [[Game 12]] Gunsberg played another good attacking game. Chigorin allowed his opponent’s Queen to penetrate his Q-side and weave a mating net around his King. [[Game 13]] Gunsberg as Black in a Vienna Game, allowed his King to remain in the centre for too long. Chigorin broke through in the centre and again sacrificed his Bishop on <f7>. Although he missed some quicker finishes, the issue was never in doubt. [[Game 14]] Chigorin defended with a Dutch defence but misplayed it very badly. He ended up two Pawns down and whilst Gunsberg could have made some better moves, he did not dissipate his advantage. [[Game 15]] Chigorin established a significant spatial advantage against Gunsberg’s Scandinavian Defence. It seemed only a matter of time until he broke through to his opponent’s cramped King. Chigorin once again lost his way. click for larger view <44.Qxh7!> would have won. Instead, Gunsberg was left with a winning position which he then blundered away in return and the game was drawn. [[Game 16]] Gunsberg attempted a Pawn storm on the King-side, but lost through carelessness in the opening click for larger view after <15.c5?> (15. dxe5 =) he was rocked back by <15...Nd3> 16. Bxd3 (if 16. cxd6 Qxd6 17. Bxd3 Qg3+ 18. Kh1 Qxh4+) [[Game 17]] Chigorin’s Vienna opening yielded him no advantage and opposite coloured Bishops led to a draw. “Feb. 3. Yesterday's game in the contest between Messrs. Gunsberg and Chigorin was commenced with the Vienna Opening. Gunsberg obtained an advantage, but by somewhat relaxing his attention later on, he enabled his opponent to equalise matters, the result being a draw on the 47th move.“ [34] [[Game 18]] Gunsberg played carelessly with click for larger view <31.Nd5?> and after <31…Bf5!>, he sacrificed the exchange in the forlorn hope of some attacking chances. Chigorin made no mistake and pocketed the exchange with impunity. [[Game 19]] Gunsberg equalised efficiently as Black in a Ruy Lopez. Having little prospect of any advantage, Chigorin conceded a draw in 22 moves. This was the second shortest game of the match, but it was to be followed by four decisive and hard-fought games. [[Game 20]] Chigorin, defending a Ruy Lopez, created a tremendous attack on the K-side in the late middle game. Transferring his heavy pieces across from the Q-side with great skill, he finished in splendid combinational fashion. [[Game 21]] Chigorin blundered with <25.Qg4?> click for larger view leaving Gunsberg with a much superior ending after <25...Re1!>. In the endgame, he made a gross error and lost quickly. [[Game 22]] Chigorin equalised with the Two Knight's defence and then began to develop a mild initiative on the King-side. Gunsberg, completely lost the thread of the game and Chigorin’s clever play, especially with his Knight, won the game. [[Game 23]] "The 23rd game in the contest between Messrs. Gunsberg and Chigorin has once more placed the two players on an equality. They now stand nine wins each out of the necessary ten. In yesterday's game Chigorin had the move, and a Centre Gambit resulted. Gunsberg obtained an advantage in the middle came by clever and well-directed play, and, maintaining his superiority, he won on the 41st move. The enthusiasm here is unbounded, and it is safe to say that no previous chess match has ever caused such excitement." [35] 'I thoroughly know that opening,' said Gunsberg afterwards, 'for I played it frequently in the Hamburg tournament of 1885, and first adopted the defence I need against Chigorin in a game I believe against Johannes Minckwitz, played in that tournament (J Minckwitz vs Gunsberg, 1885). I knew at once that I would either win or draw the game.' Chigorin in his turn had indeed at this decisive moment fallen a victim to one of the rules governing the match that each opening should not be played more than twice by each player. Being compelled to choose a fresh opening he had selected one about which his opponent for once knew more than he did. The game had hardly proceeded five or six moves when Chigorin must have discovered by the rapid and confident play of his opponent that he had made a mistake. Gunsberg got the attack in hand, and soon drove all the first player's pieces back to the eighth rank. Chigorin had, as usual in the opening, castled on the Queen's side, and was subjected to an attack in that quarter. Matters soon assumed a critical aspect, and the spectators thought a speedy termination in Black's favour not unlikely. Chigorin, however, defended well, and Gunsberg probably still played under the restraint imposed upon him by the state of his score. Between about the 25 and 35th move it seemed that, although Gunsberg had somewhat the better position, his opponent might yet be able to equalise matters, but a mistake on the part of the Russian in playing his Knight to B2 instead of to K3 deprived him of his last chance, and by a few clever and well-directed moves Gunsberg knocked the ground from his feet, thereby scoring his ninth win, and at the same time saving the match. It must be admitted here that even Chigorin's backers joined in the general congratulations which rewarded Gunsberg for his victory, for they admired the pluck displayed in the game, and honoured the player who could hold his own so evenly..” [36] “The next question was what was to be done now. The committee of the club and those members who had liberally contributed towards this match felt it would be absurd indeed to stake the issue of a great match on a single game when 23 games had been played between the same players with an even score. The committee met on Tuesday, and asked Gunsberg what his views were. Gunsberg replied that he would like to play out the match, but as it would be unfair that the loser, after having made such a good fight, should sacrifice everything over one game, he proposed the committee should offer a sum of 100 dollars to the loser of the game. The committee, however, intimated that they would prefer the match to be drawn, although they declared their willingness to accept Gunsberg's proposal in a modified form, in case Chigorin refused to agree to draw. Upon this Gunsberg placed himself unreservedly in the hands of the committee. Chigorin did not put in an appearance till nearly 2 o'clock on Wednesday — the time for resuming play— when Senor Golmayo acquainted him with the desire of the committee, Chigorin offered to play three or five games to decide the match, but Gunsberg said he would either play the final game or draw the match, but would not on any account prolong the contest. After this declaration, Chigorin agreed to the request of the committee, and the match was abandoned as a draw. “ [37] <Aftermath> Gunsberg was keen to maintain his momentum and establish his position as a leading player. He made energetic attempts to secure another match against another leading player. "Dr. Tarrasch is unable, on account of other business engagements, to accept the invitation of the Havana Club to play Herr Steinitz. A match between Herr Steinitz and Mr. Gunsberg will be played at New York in December." [38] "THE HAVANA CHESS CLUB AND MR.GUNSBERG. Mr. Gunsberg telegraphed to the Havana Chess Club on October 5 asking that a match should be arranged there between himself and Mr. Blackburne in January. The Havana Club, however, declined to comply with this request." [39] He was able to secure an opportunity to play for the world championship “THE CHAMPIONSHIP.—GUNSBERG V. STEINITZ. “Further details are now to hand respecting the proposed match between Gunsberg and Steinitz. It appears that on Mr. Gunsberg's arrival in New York, from Havana, great enthusiasm was manifested towards him by the local players, and a proposal was at once made that he should fight a match with Steinitz. Gunsberg, however, was very anxious to have another trial of strength with Chigorin and this, meeting the approval of the New York players, the Manhattan Club, of that city, at once started preparations for the contest. The proposed conditions were a match of live games up for the same stakes as in their previous encounter, with the addition of a substantial purse to cover the expenses—this latter being subscribed by the local players, who came forward with most liberal donations. On Chigorin's arrival in New York he was approached on the subject when, much to the surprise and disappointment of everyone, he refused to play again, on the ground that he intended to arrange a match on a large scale at St. Petersburg. The directors of the Manhattan Chess Club thereupon met and decided to promote a match between Gunsberg and Steinitz, to take place as soon as possible. Mr. Gunsberg proposed to start play on 1st May, he desiring a short rest and wishing to spend a few weeks in England. Steinitz could not agree to this date, as it would interfere with his other engagements, and the start was therefore postponed until the autumn. A committee of the Manhattan Club was appointed and entrusted with the task of carrying out the necessary arrangements, and they are maKing active progress with their work. Already large sums have been subscribed towards the stakes, and Mr. Steinitz has given his assent to the proposal. Great things are expected of the contest, which will be one of the most interesting Chess struggles of modern times. The Yankee enthusiasm has been thoroughly aroused, and no doubts are entertained as to their ability to bring the match to an issue.” [40] Steinitz played Gunsberg for the world title - Steinitz - Gunsberg World Championship Match (1890) This was Gunsberg’s swan-song. The 1890’s were to be the decade which marked the emergence of Seigbert Tarrasch and Emmanual Lasker. Gunsberg could not keep up with these two great players. At 6th German Congress, Breslau, July 15th - 28th 1889, then at the 6th British Congress, Manchester, August 25th - September 8th 1890, Tarrasch was far ahead of his rivals including Gunsberg, Mason and Blackburne. As for Lasker, he demolished the leading British masters who would play him. The contenders of the previous decade had been overtaken: Lasker - Bird (1890), Lasker - Blackburne (1892) and Lasker - Bird (1892) <Notes:> [1] <“The book of the Sixth American Chess Congress: containing the games of the international chess tournament held at New York in 1889.> Edited by W. Steinitz (1891), Committee report page, xii [2] "Shields Daily Gazette" - Monday 17th June 1889, p.2. The quote is from "Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. [3] Columbia Chess Chronicle, Vol.5, October 15th 1889, No.17, p.75. [4] The Argus (Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) Friday 21st Game 1 - February 1890, p.5. [5] <“José Raúl Capablanca: A Chess Biography”>, Miguel A. Sánchez, p.39. [6] http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... [7] http://www.edochess.ca/players/p417... [8] Morning Post - Monday 10th October 1887, p. 2. [9] Sheffield Evening Telegraph - Monday 20th June 1887, p. 2. [10] Bristol Mercury - Tuesday 21st August 1888, p.8. [11] <“The book of the Sixth American Chess Congress: containing the games of the international chess tournament held at New York in 1889.> Edited by W. Steinitz (1891), Committee report page, xii [12] <“The book of the Sixth American Chess Congress: containing the games of the international chess tournament held at New York in 1889.> Edited by W. Steinitz (1891), Committee report page, xx. [13] <“The book of the Sixth American Chess Congress: containing the games of the international chess tournament held at New York in 1889.> Edited by W. Steinitz (1891), Committee report page, xxi [14] Letter from Steinitz to the publishers "George Routledge and Son, April 3rd 1890. Quoted in <"The Steinitz Papers: Letters and Documents of the First World Chess Champion">, p.115. [15] <“The book of the Sixth American Chess Congress: containing the games of the international chess tournament held at New York in 1889.> Edited by W. Steinitz (1891), Committee report, page xxiii [16] <“The book of the Sixth American Chess Congress: containing the games of the international chess tournament held at New York in 1889.> Edited by W. Steinitz (1891), Committee report page, xx. [17] Morning Post - Monday 17th June 1889, p.2. [18] "Shields Daily Gazette" - Monday 17th June 1889, p.2. [19] Nottinghamshire Guardian - Saturday 5th October 1889, p.3. [20] The Brooklyn Daily Eagle (N.Y), 13th October 1889, p.14. [21] The Chess Player's Chronicle - Saturday, 19th October 1889. p89. [22] New York Times - Saturday, November 9th, 1889, p.3. [23] The Argus (Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) Friday 21st Game 1 - February 1890, p.5. [24] The British Chess Magazine, January 1890, p.45. [25] Columbia Chess Chronicle, Vol.5, October 15th 1889, No.17, p.75. [26] The British Chess Magazine, February 1890, p.112. [27] Canterbury Journal, Kentish Times and Farmers' Gazette - Saturday 30th November 1889, p.6. [28] Belfast News-Letter - Saturday 28th December 1889, p.7. [29] Morning Post - Thursday 23rd January 1890, p.5. [30] Belfast News-Letter - Thursday 27th February 1890, p.3. [31] Columbia Chess Chronicle, Vol.5, January 15 1890, No.12 & 13, p.142 and 143. [32] Columbia Chess Chronicle, Vol.5, Game 1 - February 1st 1890, No.14. p.162 – 163. [33] The Scotsman - Saturday 4th January 1890. [34] Morning Post - Tuesday 4th February 1890, p.3. [35] Morning Post - Wednesday 19th February 1890, p.4. [36] South Australian Chronicle (Adelaide, South Australia, Saturday 3rd May 1890, p.16. [37] South Australian Chronicle (Adelaide, South Australia, Saturday 3rd May 1890, p.16. [38] York Herald - Tuesday 7th October 1890, p.4. [39] Manchester Evening News - Thursday 16th October 1890, p.2. [40] The Chess Player's Chronicle - Saturday, 22nd March 1890. p.97. A contemporary match book was published: "Match: Gunsberg - Tschigorin (Paris, N.Preti) according to The British Chess Magazine, August 1890, p.329. <Acknowledgment> User: zanzibar for editorial suggestions, and User: OhioChessFan for proof reading and improving the text. Games cloned from User: keypusher 's original collection with his agreement. I have, however, altered several of the dates to match my own sources. 23 games, 1890 Donner - Euwe Championship Match <Introduction> A match between Max Euwe and Jan Hein Donner for the championship of the Netherlands. This ten-game match for the Dutch Championship took place from 27th December 1955 to 7th January 1956. It was housed in the "Dagblad Het Binnenhof" newspaper's offices at 42 Prinsegracht in the centre of The Hague, Netherlands. It was played in an office on the first floor with a large glass front with both players clearly visible to the pedestrians below. On the ground floor, windows were large demonstration boards for the spectators milling around on the pavement. [(1)][(2)] Euwe had lost the national championship narrowly to Donner in 1954. This match was one of youth versus experience; a challenge to the established order. The Dutch press treated it as a national event, and the radio stations provided a dedicated radio programmes on the match days. Donner would become Dutch Champion again (in 1957 and 1958). In 1958, he narrowly failed to qualify for the Portoroz Interzonal (1958) losing a match against Bent Larsen for the last qualifying place from the Wageningen Zonal (1957) - Donner - Larsen Zonal Playoff (1958). In 1958, Donner would become the second Dutch Grandmaster after Euwe. Euwe, as the ex-world champion still considered himself as the premier Dutch player. He had bestrode the Dutch chess world as a Colossus for three decades. "Understandably, Euwe did not take the loss of “his” national title lying down. The revenge mechanism devised for these situations was invoked and sponsors materialised out of nowhere. ...Donner, normally not given to admiring the feats of his opponents, was remarkably modest: <“My position was a bit like the pupil playing his teacher, of course, with desperate thoughts along the lines of what do I know that this man doesn’t? Which is not exactly the required fighting spirit.”> Donner continued: . <“Another reason why I couldn’t do anything against him was that I had been brought up as a Euwian...”>"[(3)] <Progress of the match> Euwe had white in the odd-numbered games. Donner did not win a single game. table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Euwe ½ 1 1 ½ ½ 1 1 ½ ½ ½ 7 Donner ½ 0 0 ½ ½ 0 0 ½ ½ ½ 3 ]table . <Progressive scores:> table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Euwe ½ 1½ 2½ 3 3½ 4½ 5½ 6 6½ 7 Donner ½ ½ ½ 1 1½ 1½ 1½ 2 2½ 3 ]table . <Photograph of the match> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/... http://www.haagsetijden.nl/entry/49... <The Games> "All chess lovers in the country will be staying up a bit later than usual in the evening in order to follow the course of the chess match between Euwe and Donner into the late hours. It praiseworthy of the radio broadcasting associations that they have decided to jointly broadcast this national event. It is also interesting that Dr Euwe ... is willing to comment on his games, if the battle on that day has already concluded by eleven o'clock ... it is a pleasure to hear the master speak about the game, in which he sometimes honestly reproaches his play, sometimes expresses his satisfaction, but he is always extremely sportsman-like in his assessment." [(4)] [[Game 1]] A Queen's Gambit Exchange with Euwe as White. Euwe played vigorously and initiated a King-side attack. Donner defended accurately and after 24 moves a draw was agreed. [[Game 2]] Donner defended with an Open Spanish, a long established favourite despite his problems with this defence in 1948. Donner used the <9. Qe2> variation which Keres had used so effectively against Euwe in that tournament. Donner played aggressively but was tactically outplayed. "2nd Game DONNER-EUWE THE HAGUE, 28 Dec. - The second match of the two-camp J.H. Donner - Dr M. Euwe was won by Dr Euwe. Donner, who played white, resigned the game at the 34th move. Dr Euwe now has the lead with a one-and-a-half point against Donner's half a point." [(5)] "(From our chess correspondent, Dr M. Euwe). My second game against Donner was finished well within the allotted time last night ... Donner opened with the King's pawn and I defended myself with the open version of the Spanish game, a continuation, which has an aggressive character and was warmly recommended half a century ago by Dr Siegbert Tarrasch. Since then, theorists from all countries have constantly examined this "variation" with the result that the Tarrasch continuation has practically disappeared from the tournament game of the masters. This is not surprising: it should not befit the black player to take the initiative, however, the open game remains an overwhelming weapon and as such, I used it today in the second game of the match. Donner chose a Russian variation and his eleventh move was a recommendation of Vasily Smyslov, but I was prepared for it. click for larger view [Position after Euwe's (black) 13th move <13...Na5>] My thirteenth move was a novelty, a pawn sacrifice which Donner did not dare to accept. The result of this was that he had then to cope with complications which he could not ultimately resolve. Donner's nineteenth move was a mistake and cost two pieces for a Rook after interesting complications. There was still play in the position but after the 25th move the danger was finally neutralised and then the remaining moves were only a matter of technique ..." [(6)] [[Game 3]] Euwe once again played the Queen's Gambit Exchange variation. He maintained a slight advantage, and his precise play kept Donner under pressure. Donner was left with a weakness on <c6> which Euwe very effectively exploited. "Euwe-Donner The third match of the two-championship chess between Dr M. Euwe and H. Donner for the championship of the Netherlands was won by Euwe after 38 moves. The fourth match ended on the 30th move, on Donner's proposal as a draw. Euwe now leads with 3-1." [(7)] [[Game 4]] Donner reprised his <1. e4> opening and a second Spanish Open followed. Both sides played accurately and a draw was agreed on move 30. “The fourth game of the H. Donner - Dr M. Euwe match has ended in a draw at the suggestion of Donner after the 30th move. Dr Euwe is now leading 3 - 1 after four games. Would the arrears of two points discourage Donner? That was the question that many posed after the two victories by the former world champion; the answer to this imponderable soon appeared. The numerous attendees in the press room on the first floor, separated by a glass wall from the player's room, in the lower hall and in front of the building of "Het Binnenhof" this time had an exciting duel. For this fourth game, Donner again chose the Spanish Opening, but on the fourteen he deviated from the second game. What he played forced Euwe to find a very accurate defence. At his nineteenth move the ex-world champion thought for an hour, and with success, because after that any advantage for Donner was presumed to be lost. Incidentally, this was only after breathtaking manoeuvres - a nice game that shows that Donner does not intend to lay down his arms.” [(8)] [[Game 5]] Whilst Euwe opened with <1. d4>, Donner transposed into a Caro-Kann defence. The game followed Furman vs Korchnoi, 1954, but unlike Furman, Euwe swapped material off and a draw was agreed in 19 moves. Euwe was in the lead in the match and it was clearly up to Donner to force the pace of the match. [[Game 6]] Donner for the first time in the match opened <1. d4>. Euwe played a King's Indian Defence. Donner took a risk click for larger view with <15. f4> but this proved disastrous. Euwe saw the weaknesses created in his opponent's King-side. Donner was tactically outplayed and resigned after only 22 moves. The 6th game took place on the on 3rd January 1956 [(9)] "Euwe-Donner 4½-1½ The state of the chess match between Dr Euwe and champion. Donner is after six matches 4½ - 1½ in favour of Dr Euwe. Three games ended in a draw and three were won by Dr Euwe. There are now four games to be played; from which Euwe only needs to get one point, to recapture the Dutch chess champion's title." [(10)] "<Sixth game is decisive for the match. Dr Euwe's brilliant victory is another point towards the title. Donner completely lost after 22 moves.> (From our special reporter) The Hague, Jan 3. - In his column Donner yesterday, after the fifth game, announced, that the experiment playing without seconds in the second half of the match could still be discussed. We have been spared from working through the night by the remarkable speed with which either a decisive decision was reached or a draw has been agreed. The average number of moves of the first five games has been far below, for example, the ten games against Alekhine in 1927 (December 1926 - January 1927, Alekhine - Euwe Training Match (1926) - e.d.) which instigated Euwe's career as a grandmaster. Was Donner planning to have extra provisions, extra smoking and writing utensils and a blanket to be prepared for all possible contingencies? In any case, he had excited the curiosity of the Hague audience: not only was downstairs room crowded at half past seven, but people were also pushing outside in front of the spectacle and staring hypnotised at the demonstration board. Then there was something great to see! The direct attack continues with a full Rook less. The most amazing thing was that he could have avoided this second sacrifice; with <18. Bg7> instead of <18...Rxe4>, Black would still have a certain win. click for larger view "A duplicate solution," said Euwe, smiling after the game, "but I wanted somewhat more ..." The continuation was not that difficult anymore and was therefore found in many different versions by the experts. But not only Donner but also us experts had been given our lesson, by the 22nd move when White resigned in a totally lost position. Euwe thought for an hour before he made his first sacrifice. That he was brooding on something was clear, but he surely would not come up with the unhappy idea <16.Bxh3>? That's how the whole press thought; the spectre of the time scramble was invoked, Donner's counter-chances were widely considered - but not deeply - and in the chorus, the evidence was provided that the entire Dutch chess world consisted of little children in comparison with a Euwe. ...In the analysis between Donner and Euwe after the game, the masters agreed that Donner's real mistake had been <15.f4>... In short, Euwe had seen everything from Donner's pawn sacrifice and his splendid conception...There is no doubt that this sixth game is decisive. Not only for the score but for the profound impression that a so magisterial game has made his opponent. A game of this class, played by a 54-year-old, is unique in the so rich chess literature." [(11)] [[Game 7]] Donner now three games down in the match, equalised as Black playing a Grunfeld Defence. He played a pawn sacrifice which Euwe accepted. Donner could not build an initiative and in the end lost a second pawn and soon after the game. Euwe had now won the match, although the remaining games were played out. click for larger view Euwe played <42.Bc6!>, Black has severe difficulties protecting his Rook; if <42...Bg6> then 43.c5! "<Donner resigns after six hours.> (From our chess editor, Dr M. Euwe). Finally the night session. After a fierce battle of five hours, an endgame came into being, in which I possessed an extra pawn. After another hour of play, I finally succeeded last night in converting the advantage which I had gained in the first session. It was a King's Indian opening in which I gained some spatial advantage. Given the state of the match, I did not want to take any risks and took the first opportunity (<12.d5>) to wrap up the game. Notwithstanding the simplification, I kept sufficient pressure on Donner's position and as he does not feel so at home in purely defensive positions, Donner sacrificed a pawn (<17 ... Be6>) in the hope of taking over the initiative. click for larger view However, this only succeeded in part; I continued to have small and large threats and it looked like I would win a quick victory. Donner, however, defended himself excellently and as the playing time passed, it became clear that no decision would be made before the adjournment. The game was adjourned in a critical position. After the break, it soon became apparent that Donner had to give up a second pawn in order to escape immediate defeat. There was then a rook endgame of three pawns against one, which although it still posed problems, in the long run, was unsustainable for Donner. Donner resigned at about half past one. That is to say, I have retaken the championship title. The remaining three matches will be played on the next three days." [(12)] "(From our special reporters) THE HAGUE, Wednesday. It was busy at the "Binnenhof" building on the Prinsengracht in The Hague, when the match between Jan-Hein Donner and his challenger, Dr Max Euwe, entered its decisive phase. Many prominent figures from the chess world had come to watch. They saw what they should expect: Donner, lighting one cigarette with another...the former-world champion eating fruit and nut mix. Jan-Hein played under the pressure of his previous losses, he lost a pawn after weak defensive play and Euwe did not let the chance slip away. <"Not unique"> What I want to say', Herman Pilnik said,'in the Dutch newspapers you reads that the grandiose attack and sacrifice, as Euwe played Tuesday, is unique for a grandmaster at the age of 54. That is certainly not correct. Just think of the old Emanuel Lasker and the magisterial victory of 80-year-old Dr Ossip Bernstein against my compatriot Najdorf, recently in a South American tournament (O Bernstein vs Najdorf, 1954 - e.d.). Pilnik discussed the game along with Fenny Heemskerk, the Dutch ladies champion, and had a lively discussion with her about the advantages and disadvantages of a championship match against a tournament. <"Expert"> One of the most expert and interested spectators in the warm, smoky upper room was the German-Argentinian grandmaster Herman Pilnik, just arrived from Iceland, to participate in the Hoogovens tournament in Beverwijk. (Pilnik) immediately equipped himself with a pocket chessboard, and carefully examined the position between Euwe and Donner. "Yes", he concluded in an amiable tone, "by <12.d5> Euwe can play without any significant risk of losing." The transformation to the endgame on the next moves is then almost forced and then Donner's wing will be exposed to an annoying pressure. " Indeed, the entire variant predicted by Mr Pilnik came on the board a little later." [(13)] "It would be an exaggeration to say that the Prinsegracht, where the "Het Binnenhof" building is located, was filled by the public of the Euwe - Donner match, but there were hundreds of chess players crammed together by the end of the game at half-past ten to learn that Donner had resigned the seventh match against Euwe on the 54th move, the 54 - year - old Dr Max Euwe had deprived his old rival of the title of Dutch champion. As you know, Donner had seized the national title two years ago in a tournament. In a game that lasted longer than one of the previous six, the Dr Euwe very quickly gained an advantage. Donner played relatively weakly and only when the battle seemed hopeless did he move up a gear, but this, however, proved futile. When Euwe, after analysis and filming, came out at one o'clock, an enthusiastic applause of the crowds echoed on the street, which proved how popular the "new" champion among Dutch chess players is." [(14)] [[Game 8]] Having decisively lost this match, Donner played an English opening but had little appetite to try to score a consolation point with White. The game was drawn at move 16. [[Game 9]] Donner replied ton Euwe's <1.d4> with a Czech Benoni. It seems his fighting spirit had returned after the previous game. Despite this, Euwe maintained an advantage in space and was never troubled. [[Game 10]] Donner played a know drawn line against Exchange Slav and followed a previous game, Botvinnik vs P Trifunovic, 1947, even up to the same draw on the 13th move. <Conclusion:> This was a decisive victory for the 54-year-old Max Euwe against 28-year old Jan Hein Donner. Afterwards, a formal dinner took place with the mayor of The Hague F.M.A. Schokking presenting both players with a book. Donner graciously congratulated Euwe on his victory. "<Ex-world champion was well prepared.> Why did Euwe win? First of all, we can see that the ex-world champion was better prepared than Donner, which emerged from the novelties in the first, second and third games. Donner was able to recover — in the fourth game, he came up with a novelty, which probably means the refutation of Euwe's idea in the second game — but Donner was forced to have to choose alternative openings with both white and black." [(15)] Surprisingly, they would only play once more after the match despite being their era's leading Dutch players. <Notes> [(1)]. Newsreel film of the event: Eerste NTS-Journaal (5th January 1956) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYy... [(2)]. Newsreel film of the event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3a... [(3)]. "Max Euwe: The Biography", Munninghoff, Alexandr. New in Chess. Chapter 12 [(4)]. "De Telegraaf", Dutch newspaper, 5th January 1956. [(5)]. "Limburgsch Dagblad", Dutch newspaper, 29th December 1955. [(6)]. "Het vrije volk", Dutch newspaper, 29th December 1955. [(7)] "Java-bode", Dutch newspaper, 2nd January 1956. [(8)] "Utrechtsch Nieuwsblad, Dutch newspaper, 31st December 1955. [(9)] "Limburgsch Dagblad", 4th January 1956. [(10)] "De Nieuwsgier", Dutch newspaper, 5th January 1956. [(11)]. "De Volkskrant", Dutch newspaper, 4th January 1956. [(12)]. "Het Vrije Volke", 5th January 1956. [(13)]. "De Telegraaf", 5th January 1956. [(14)]. "Utrechtsch Nieuwsblad", Dutch newspaper, 5th January 1956. [(15)]. "Utrechtsch Nieuwsblad", 9th January 1956. The attribution of the photographs of the match: 1. Daan Noske / Anefo [CC0], via Wikimedia Commons 2. Haagse Tijden This text and original research by User: Chessical. Thanks to: User: OhioChessFan for textural improvements and also to User: sneaky pete for information about the "Dagblad Het Binnenhof" newspaper. 10 games, 1955-1956 Donner - Larsen Zonal play off <Introduction:> This was a four-game playoff match to decide who would take the final Wageningen Zonal Tournament qualifying place and participate in the Portoroz Interzonal (1958), which would be held in August -September 1958. The match took place between 14th -19th April 1958, in the Dutch city of The Hague. [(1)] It arose as Jan Hein Donner and Bent Larsen had tied for 3-4th at the Wageningen Zonal Tournament. Despite the protestations of the Dutch Chess Federation, a play-off match was announced at the closing ceremony of the Wageningen tournament. [(2)] The match took place in the offices of the newspaper "Het Binnenhof", at the Prinsegracht. The match director was Dr M. Euwe, who was assisted by Mr H. de Graaf. [(3)] <The players:> Larsen was 23 years old Danish student but was already a Grandmaster (1956). Donner was 30, he was the Dutch champion and an International Master. <“(Wageningen) was strong and I just managed to share third place with Donner, whom I beat in the tie-break and thus I qualified for the Interzonal … but my games weren’t brilliant; I often got into trouble, although I managed to squeak through a number of times thanks to my reserves of energy and resourcefulness …”> [(4)] They had played twice before, a draw B Larsen vs J H Donner, 1956 and Donner had defeated Larsen at Wageningen - J H Donner vs B Larsen, 1957 in a very sharp game. Larsen was 21st on Chessmetric’s January 1958 rating list and Donner 61st. [(5)] <The necessity for a playoff:> The Dutch Chess Federation, led by the ex-world champion Max Euwe, did not want a playoff, especially as Donner would be disadvantaged by his inferior Sonneborn–Berger at the Zonal Tournament. This meant he had to score 2.5 points to win the match whilst Larsen needed 2 points. [(6)] <"It is not impossible that Both Larsen and Donner who tied for the third qualifying place may be placed in the Interzonal Tournament. The FIDE has received a request to admit four, instead of three, from the Wageningen Tournament because the participation in the latter was so much stronger than that in Dublin and the Sofia Zonal tournaments".> . [(7)] Euwe's opinion is contentious. An examination of the three Zonal Tournaments indicates that the Wageningen Zonal Tournament was of similar strength to that of Sofia, although both were significantly stronger than the Dublin Zonal. The players who had already qualified from the European zonal tournaments were: Fridrik Olafsson and Laszlo Szabo (Wageningen), Ludek Pachman, Pal Benko and Svetozar Gligoric (Dublin), and Aleksandar Matanovic, Oleg Neikirch and Miroslav Filip (Sofia). These were the highest rated players in their respective tournaments and they all had higher gradings than Donner (with the exception of Neikirkh). FIDE rejected the Dutch Chess Federation's request to allow Donner as well as Larsen to enter the Interzonal tournament in Portoroz. . . . <Donner on Larsen> “Character, endurance, self-confidence and aggressiveness determine who will be the greatest among the grandmasters. Let me introduce Larsen who in this respect has a very happy disposition. He has one characteristic, which is particularly striking and rarer than one would think of chess players: he clearly enjoys chess … One clearly understands that Larsen takes the game very seriously. He is obsessed with chess …” [(8)] . . . <The itinerary:> "The match program is as follows: 14 April, first game; 15 April second game; 16 April playing out of adjourned games; April 17 third game; 18 April possible continuation of third game; April 19th fourth game. " [(9)] <Photograph of the first game:> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7wn8kC... Larsen sits to the left and Donner to the right. Mayor Hans Kolfschoten makes the first move whilst Euwe peers over Donner's shoulder. . . . <The progress of the match:> "Since Larsen's result in Wageningen was somewhat more favourable than that of Donner according to the Sonneborn–Berger system, he only needs two points from the four games of the match to qualify. Donner will have to earn 2.5 points for that." [(10)] Donner was White in the odd-numbered games. table[ 1 2 3 4 Donner ½ 0 0 ½ - 1 Larsen ½ 1 1 ½ - 3 ]table Progressive score: table[ 1 2 3 4 Donner ½ ½ ½ 1 Larsen ½ 1½ 2½ 3]table . . . <The games> . <Larsen klopt Donner> [[Game 1]] The game was played in a first-floor room in "Hef Binnenhof’s” offices, Dr Euwe and other notable Dutch personalities watched the proceedings through a glass partition wall. Mayor Hans Kolfschoten, the Mayor of The Hague and prominent Dutch politician, made the opening move for Donner. A newspaper report of this game described Donner as being “hyper-nervous”. [(11)] “The opening phase (Donner) played skilfully. He won the initiative and also played much faster than Larsen. Around the fifteenth move, Donner had spent half an hour less thinking time than his opponent. When Larsen left the glass room for a moment, he stated: "I like the playing area but my position rather less." Donner, who is thoroughly familiar with such positions which was also evident during the analysis afterwards, in which Larsen showed an affable objectivity. Larsen had not thought for a moment that he would achieve more than dividing the point. The investigations of the experts together with the players showed that Donner had missed the strongest continuation on the 21st move click for larger view <21.Nc6> instead of <21.Nc4>. Donner was quite right when, on immediately realising the consequence of his weaker continuation, he then offered a draw." - [(12)] . . . [[Game 2]] A vigorous game in which Larsen as White sacrificed a pawn for lasting pressure on the K-side in a King's Indian. <Donner has lowered his colours after Larsen’s sledgehammer blows.> (From our chess editor, Dr M. Euwe) The second Larsen - Donner party was also characterized by an enterprising approach by both sides. This could only be pleasing for Donner, because the fiercer the battle, the greater the chance that his opponent could stumble. After all, our champion must win at least one of the remaining games to pave his way for the Interzonal Tournament in Portoroz. Of course, Donner also runs the risk of miscalculating when the game gets complicated, but he has to take this risk and it was nice to see that Larsen also fully accepts the risks of a fight. The chosen variation involved castling on opposing sides, which usually involves a hard battle for the initiative. Larsen had the open <g> file, focused on the heart of the King’s position, Donner had, the open <c> file, which faced white’s King on the Queen-side. Major operations were not undertaken until a number of minor pieces were placed in order to clearly define each other's area of influence. For a moment it seemed as if Larsen made a mistake in these preparatory measures. Donner was able to win a pawn, but rightly our champion saw through it, as this material gain would have been at a significant positional cost. <Highly demanding> The consequence of this, however, was that Larsen had the initiative. He was already manoeuvring along the open g-file, whilst Donner had yet to initiate his counter-play on the other wing. Donner did not do this at all. He concentrated on defending his position. Now whilst Donner is a strong defender, this put very high demands on his defensive skill. Larsen sacrificed a pawn to get a Knight onto a strong square and Donner's position became completely constricted. click for larger view There was, however, no immediate winning line for the Dane. At one point, Donner saw the opportunity to free his position, and suddenly it looked much better for him. A far too optimistic pawn manoeuvre, however, then altogether spoiled his position. click for larger view (Donner played <36...e4?> instead of <36...Kh7> =) and lost after <37.Qe8+> - e.d. The situation was very tense as Larsen was extremely short of time and Donner appears to have sought to create tactical complications in his opponent's time pressure.) Larsen managed to regain the initiative with a crushing blow, and he went onto wind matters up flawlessly. Donner lost some of his most critical pawns and had to strike his flag on the 38th move.” [(13)] . . . [[Game 3]] (From our chess correspondent, Dr M. Euwe) The third match game has suddenly and for Holland disappointingly brought to an end to this short match. Larsen also won the third game and thus achieved a tally of two wins, and Donner cannot now catch up. And even a draw would have been insufficient, as mentioned earlier - Larsen already had enough points to draw and still go through to the Interzonal Tournament. That was the big handicap for Donner from the start of the match. He had to win to retain his prospects. After our champion had lost in the second game how much more pressure was he under in the third game? Initially, things did not go too badly for Donner. He came out of the opening using the standard variant of the Nimzo-Indian, which was not surprising since Donner has made a special study of this variant. The moves followed each other in quick succession and only Larsen was looking worried from time to time. For the first 21 moves, the Dane had used a full hour, compared to Donner who had used barely ten minutes. Larsen had accepted a doubled pawn to cope with the gradually growing difficulties and then it looked promising for Donner. He was practically a pawn up and only the presence of Bishops of the opposite colour reduced his chances of winning to some extent Cornered Larsen, did not, however, bother with his double pawn but concentrated on manoeuvring his pieces to good positions. With a few fine moves, he was able to drive Donner into the King-side corner and the best he had was then a draw due to the repetition of moves. This, however, had no attraction for our champion, because in that case, Larsen would have achieved the required two points and for Donner, the chance of playing at Portoroz would have disappeared. Donner, therefore, played on and this proved to be extremely risky. click for larger view (Donner blundered with <31.Nf1?> allowing Larsen to create a mating net with <31...Rc1>. <31.e6> would have at least kept Donner in the game. - e.d.) Larsen skilfully constructed a mating net and Donner resigned on the 33rd move. The score is now 2.5 – 0.5 in Larsen's favour. The fourth and last game, which is no longer of any importance to the match’s result, nevertheless begins Saturday afternoon at one o'clock.” [(14)] . . . [[Game 4]] Larsen with the White pieces played carefully in response to Donner's King's Indian Defence. All the minor pieces were exchanged off leaving a drawn Queens and Rooks ending. The game was drawn in 24 moves the match already having been decided in the previous game. . . . <Conclusions:> "..Donner had done so well in the Wageningen (Zonal) Tournament and shortly thereafter in the Beverwijk Tournament. That is not to say that Larsen's victory was undeserved. From from that. The young Danish grandmaster demonstrated in the match that he clearly was the stronger player. Not for a moment was he in serious danger, and he utilised his chances excellently. Still, his match result, 3-1, is somewhat flattering and undoubtedly the result of the fact that Donner would be eliminated in the event of a tied score. Repeatedly, Donner was compelled to play for a win, which was not justified by his position. Moreover, Larsen had just returned from the Mar del Plata Tournament and was in much better form than at Wageningen. Had the match taken place immediately after the latter, the result might have been different...the second game was the most interesting. This game, in fact, decide the match. Thereafter, Larsen needed only half a point out of two games. In spite of time trouble, Larsen surprised Donner with a Queen manoeuvre, and won shortly thereafter". [(15)] Larsen qualified for the Interzonal but performed poorly (+5 -8 =7). This drew a line after a succession of good performances such as winning the gold medal at the Moscow Olympiad. Larsen entered a period of a relative slump until the mid-1960's. Donner became a Grandmaster in 1959. Wageningen was one of his greatest performances as a player. In the Madrid Zonal on 1960 he came equal first, but came last in the playoff with Svetozar Gligoric, Lajos Portisch and Arturo Pomar. <Notes:> [(1)]. "De Tijd", 4th February 1958. [(2)] . "During the prize-giving ceremony after the end of the international round-table tournament in Wageningen yesterday it was announced that a match between Donner and Larsen is provisionally scheduled for next spring." - "Het Vrije Volk", 28th November 1957 - Also see "De Telegraaf", 28th November 1957. "Because Donner and Larsen are now tied in third place a tie-breaking match will be required, which according to the regulations must be of four games, <unless FIDE agrees with the request of the Royal Dutch Chess Federation to also award four players places from this zonal tournament>..." - "Het Vrije Volk", 27-11-1957, also see "De Volkskrant", 28th November 1957, "...pending the decision on the request to classify both chess masters for the interzonal." [(3)]. "Het Vrije Volk", 25th February 1958. [(4)]. "Bent Larsen's Best Games: Fighting Chess with the Great Dane", Bent Larsen, p.52. [(5)]. http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... [(6)]. "Het Vrije Volk", 25th February 1958. [(7)]. Max Euwe in "Chess Review", vol.26, no.3 March 1958, p.72 [(8)]. Donner in "De Tijd", 1st February 1958. [(9)]. "De Telegraaf" 25th February 1958. [(10)]. "Het Vrije Volk", 25th February 1958. [(11)]. "De Telegraaf" 15th April 1958. [(12)]. "De Telegraaf" 15th April 1958. [(13)]. "Het Vrije Volk", 8th April 1958. [(14)]. "Het Vrije Volk", 18th April 1958. [(15)]. Max Euwe in "Chess Review", vol.26, no.7 July 1958, p.200. [ This text and original research by User: Chessical. Thanks to User: sneaky pete and User: OhioChessFan for their proof reading and suggestions now incorporated into the text.] 4 games, 1958 Dublin Zonal 1957 This was one of three European Zonals held in 1957, the other two being Wageningen (Netherlands) and Sofia (Bulgaria). GMs Pachman and Gligoric were the favourites. Pachman won their individual encounter (Round 2) and went through the tournament without a loss. table[ 1 Pachman g x ½ 1 ½ ½ 1 1 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 1 ½ 1 1 1 14½ 2 Benkő g ½ x 0 ½ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 0 1 1 13 3 Gligorić g 0 1 x ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 0 1 ½ ½ 1 1 1 1 1 13 4 Schmid m ½ ½ ½ x ½ ½ 1 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 12½ 5 Alexander m ½ 0 0 ½ x ½ ½ 1 1 ½ ½ 1 1 ½ ½ 1 1 1 11 6 Giustolisi 0 0 ½ ½ ½ x ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 0 0 1 1 1 9 7 van Scheltinga m 0 0 0 0 ½ ½ x 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 1 ½ 1 1 9 8 Lladó Lumbera 0 0 0 0 0 ½ 1 x 1 1 1 0 ½ 1 1 ½ ½ 1 9 9 Walther ½ 0 0 ½ 0 0 ½ 0 x 1 1 1 ½ ½ 1 1 1 0 8½ 10 Stenborg 0 0 1 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 0 x ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 8 11 Dunkelblum 0 0 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 0 ½ x 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 8 12 Plater m 0 ½ ½ 0 0 ½ 0 1 0 0 0 x ½ ½ 1 1 1 1 7½ 13 Fairhurst m 0 0 ½ 0 0 0 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ x 0 1 1 1 1 7 14 Durão 0 ½ 0 0 ½ 1 0 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 x ½ 1 ½ 0 6½ 15 Dreyer ½ 0 0 ½ ½ 1 0 0 0 ½ ½ 0 0 ½ x ½ ½ 1 6 16 Catozzi 0 1 0 0 0 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 0 0 0 ½ x 1 1 5 17 Conrady 0 0 0 ½ 0 0 0 ½ 0 0 ½ 0 0 ½ ½ 0 x 1 3½ 18 O’Sullivan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 x 2 ]table <Introduction:> The Irish Olympiad player and Irish Chess Union secretary Enda Rohan was the driving force behind the tournament. Rohan began to plan for the tournament in 1954. He approached the Bord Fialte (Irish Tourist Board - ed.) to provide the bulk of the sponsorship. In 1955 they agreed to incorporate chess as part of their wider strategy to promote Irish culture and tourism. Even so, FIDE still had a rival bid to consider, according to Rohan, "While in Gothenberg at the FIDE congress I expected confirmation from them but instead I got a cable saying the matter had not yet been decided. In any case, I made a conditional claim to the FIDE meeting but unfortunately so did Spain, so it was decided to defer a decision until the next FIDE meeting in Moscow. Soon after my return I received positive approval from Bord Fialte and passed the news to FIDE headquarters in Stockholm. Later I got a strong indication that the French vice-president of FIDE was trying to get the Zonal for the Spanish so I immediately wrote to the president pointing out that the decision had to await the congress in Moscow. That put a stop to any such shenanigans. I also wrote to all the delegates asking for their support for Ireland. In the end, the Moscow congress decided to draw lots and Ireland won." [1] The venues were the Four Courts Hotel, first two weeks, (15-17 Merchants Quay, Dublin - ed.) and Newman House (85–86 St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin - ed.) <The tournament:> "Alongside opera, ballet dancing, folksong, Ireland’s An Tostal spring festival is again featuring chess. Last Sunday, there started in Dublin the biggest chess event Ireland has ever had. No fewer than eighteen different countries (seventeen European and South Africa) are represented in a tournament which may set any of the players on the road to the world championship. Each contestant is meeting each of the others once. From France comes Catozzi; from Spain, Llado ; from Yugoslavia, Gligoric, who has just won the tournament at Bognor Regis. Portugal sends Durao, who was also there ; Holland, Van Scheltinga ; Belgium, Dunkelblum; Luxemburg, Conrady; Czechoslovakia, Pachman; Western Germany, Schmid; Poland, Plater; Switzerland, Walther; Italy, Giustolisi; Sweden, Stenborg; Hungary, Benkd. C. H. O’D. (for O’Donnell) Alexander, England’s nominee, is Connemara-bom, son of a Cork professor. Like Thomas Moore, G. Bernard Shaw, and a few hundred distinguished Irishmen before him, he opted for his fame across the water. He has even played for Britain in team tournaments vis-d-vis Irishmen. Scotland’s nominee, W. A. Fairhurst, is English-bom ! A bridge designer living in Glasgow, he has won the Scottish Championship repeatedly. Ireland’s own man, quiet, likeable D. J. O’Sullivan, was down with pneumonia barely a week before the start. He is now convalescing. His doctor, a chess player himself, has pronounced will be fit! Those who have seen seasoned campaigners lose half a stone in a fortnight’s master play, which may mean ten hours’ concentrated brainwork a day, are worried about him, for he is not of robust physique. Ireland gained the right to stage this zonal tournament after a tug-of-war in international chess federation councils with Spain. Other zonal tournaments are being held in Amsterdam and Sofia. The three top players from each join issue with similar qualifiers from other zones (the U.S., the U.S.S.R., South America, etc.) in an interzonal tournament in 1958. The most successful from this inter-zonal compete in a World Championship Candidates’ Tournament in 1959, the winner of which becomes official challenger to a match with the world champion in 1960. Smyslov, who has just taken the world championship from Botvinnik, qualified to challenge him in just this way, by winning a Candidates’ tournament. The lone South African, Kurt Dreyer, from Johannesburg, is there because Africa has too few national chess federations to form a zone of its own. Only South Africa and Egypt were officially organised by the time of closing date for entries. Since then the Ghana Chess Federation has come into being actually before Ghana was itself officially inaugurated as a nation! That Ireland has secured this important event is a tribute firstly to the Irish Chess Union’s secretary, Enda Rohan, and the group of young men around him. Their enterprise is unbounded; as I once mentioned in these Notes, when told Ireland could not possibly support a printed chess-players’ magazine, they bought an amateur printing outfit and set one up by hand! And secondly, to the Tostal festival council, who are footing most of the £1,3OO cost." [2] The equivalent cost in 2020 would be £31,550/$41,200. Notes: [1] https://www.icu.ie/articles/73 [2] "Illustrated London News", Saturday 25 May 1957, "Chess Notes" by Baruch H. Wood. 50 games, 1957 Eliskases - Fairhurst <Introduction:> This was a match between Erich Eliskases, a young up-and-coming Austrian master, and William Albert Fairhurst, the Scottish champion, whose primary career was that of a civil engineer. Several months before, Eliksases had defeated the veteran grandmaster Rudolf Spielmann in a match. It seemed that this Glasow match would be in the nature of a one-sided exhibition, but that was not to be the case. This match comprised of six games. It took place in the Central Chess Club, Glasgow, Scotland, from 21st October to 7th November 1933. The match was nearly scuppered by the over-zealous application of immigration rules which led to Eliskases being turned back when he first landed in England. <"CHESS PLAYER'S SCOTS TRIP OFF - LANDING PERMIT REFUSED BY HOME OFFICE.> The Home Office refused to give a landing permit to Eliskases, a well known Austrian chess player, when he arrived at Folkestone yesterday on his way to Glasgow to take part in a series of exhibition games there. He was sent back on a later boat. Eliksases was one of the players taking part in the world chess tournament at Folkestone a few months ago. He had arranged to prolong his visit for a brief while after the Glasgow exhibition. The action of the Home Office is believed been taken on the grounds that there are chess players in this country able to give such exhibitions, and that the labour situation here it was unnecessary for foreign players to come to Britain for such purposes." [(1)] <Eliskases:> Eliskases emerged onto the international scene in the early 1930's. He had learned chess at the age of 12 with the support of local master Carl P. Wagner. Eliskases then progressed rapidly until in 1928 Eliskases became Tyrolean champion and so qualified for the championship of the Austrian Chess Federation in Innsbruck 1929. There he came first equal with Eduard Glass. In 1930, Eliskases played for Austria at the Chess Olympiad in Hamburg (+8, -1, = 6). In late 1931, Eliskases moved to Vienna, where he studied at the Hochschule für Welthandel (College of World Trade) in Vienna, In October 1932, he defeated Rudolf Spielmann in a match (+3, =5, -2). He then defeated Spielmann in match play in 1936 (+2, =7, -1), and again in 1937 (+2, =8, -0). In January 1933, Eliskases won a chess tournament in Vienna with 10.5 of 13 points ahead of Ernst Gruenfeld. <Fairhurst:> William Albert Fairhurst was 31 years old and a strong amateur player who dominated Scottish chess in the 1930s. As a civil engineer specialising in the construction of bridges, [(2)] he had limited opportunities for international chess and his only experience had been in Scarborough 1927 (defeating Efim Bogoljubov and Edgard Colle) and at the Folkestone Olympiad that year. Despite this lack of top-level practice, he was the current Scottish Champion (he would be champion eleven times) and then in 1937, he became the British Champion. [(3)] The two players had first met at the Folkestone Olympiad - W Fairhurst vs Eliskases, 1933. It appears that Fairhurst invited Eliskases to Glasgow for a match. <Time-line> Eliskases had to bear the weight of a heavy commitment to lectures (given in English) and simultaneous displays in Glasgow, Dundee, and Aberdeen during the match. Whilst Fairhurst as an amateur also had his professional responsibilities, it seems the most likely that the more onerous load fell on the Austrian and may have affected his performance. Eliskases arrived in Glasgow on the 17th October - "The well-known young Austrian chess master, E. Eliskases began last night a three weeks' engagement with the Glasgow Club. The opening night was devoted to consultation games." [(4)] "On Tuesday evening (24th October - e.d.), Mr. Eliskases played two games against groups of members (of Glasgow C.C - e.d.) in consultation. One game ended in rather a neat draw; the other also looked very drawish, too, but in the end, the allies lost...On Thursday evening (26th October) simultaneous chess, playing against 16 members. He won 14 games, drew 1, and lost 1, in about 2½ hours’ play... This week’s programme includes a lecture on Monday evening 30th October; simultaneous games on Friday, 3rd November, with consultation chess on Tuesday, 31st October. Mr. Eliskases is playing much off-hand chess with members." [(5)] At the Bon-Accord Chess Club, Aberdeen. "Speaking English extremely well, Eliskases gave an interesting lecture, illustrated from games of his own. Later the master played three consultation games against teams of the club...Eliskases then played fourteen members of the club simultaneously, including most of the strongest players, winning ten and drawing four. " [(6)]. <Results> Eliskases had White in the odd-numbered games. table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 Eliskases ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 ½ 3 Fairhurst ½ 1 ½ ½ 0 ½ 3 ]table <Progressive score:> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 Eliskases ½ ½ 1 1½ 2½ 3 Fairhurst ½ 1½ 2 2½ 2½ 3 ]table . . . <The Games> [[Game 1]] A carefully played and correct opening game in which Eliksases played cautiously against the Petroff Defence, allowing Fairhurst to quickly equalise. Although Eliksases doubled his opponent's <f> pawn in front of his King, he was not able to make anything of this weakness. . . . [[Game 2]] Fairhurst scored the first win of the match. Eliksases defended with the solid Slav Defence but Fairhurst achieved some advantage. Eliksases then made a tactical error which Fairhurst proficiently exploited to win the exchange. click for larger view <26.Bd6!> . . . [[Game 3]] Eliksases changed to a Queen-side opening but made little headway against Fairhurst's Nimzo-Indian defence. Indeed, his position progressively deteriorated and Fairhurst had chances to enter a very favourable ending: click for larger view <27...Nd3!> instead of e5 as played. . . . [[Game 4]] One game behind with half the match already gone, Eliksases sharpened his play with a King's Indian Defence. Fairhurst overlooked a tactic and it seemed that Eliksases would level the match, but he missed the critical continuation and could only draw. Fairhurst played <31.Re2?> only to be rocked back with <31...e3!!> (then threatening <Be5>). After <32.f4> g5!! would have won. . . . [[Game 5]] In the his last game with White, and one point behind in the match, Eliksases changed his opening to the English, but it soon transposed into a QGD. Eliksases began to slowly apply pressure and improve his position. Fairhurst voluntarily gave up a Rook for a Knight on <e5> and Pawn but whatever compensation he had counted for never materialised. Eliksases' Rooks broke through on the King-side and he won the game levelling the match score. . . . [[Game 6]] In the final game, with Fairhurst as White, Eliksases offered his opponent the chance to transpose to the French Defence. Instead, an unadventurous Queen's Indian arose, material was exchanged and the game was quickly drawn in 25 moves, resulting in a drawn match. <"ELISKASES v. FAIRHURST GLASGOW MATCH DRAWN.> The sixth and final game of the match between Eliskases, the young Austrian master, and Fairhurst, the Scottish champion, was played last night in the Glasgow Chess Club. Fairhurst had the move and opened with his favourite Queen's Pawn. The Austrian defended on somewhat unusual lines but got a good open game. Twice he offered to exchange queens, but Fairhurst declined. Some fencing for position followed and a minor piece each was changed off, leaving Fairhurst with Queen and Knight against Queen and Bishop with level pawns. A draw resulted. Scores: Eliskases, 1; Fairhurst, 1; drawn 4" [(7)] <Conclusion:> Eliskases had a heavy commitment with lectures (given in English) and simultaneous displays in Glasgow, Dundee, and Aberdeen during the match. Whilst, Fairhurst as an amateur also had his professional responsibilities, it seems the most likely that the more onerous load fell on the Austrian and may have affected his performance. After completing his itinerary of simultaneous exhibitions, Eliskases' next engagement was Hastings (1933/34). Fairhurst played solidly and provided stiff resistance. The mid-1930's were to be his peak years in which he dominated Scottish chess and also won the British Championship in 1937. <Notes:> [(1)] "Dundee Courier", Tuesday 10th October 1933, p.6. [(2)]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willi... [(3)]. An appreciation of Fairhurst is given in http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/c... [(4)]. "Edinburgh Evening News", Wednesday 18th October 1933 p.17. [(5)]. "Linlithgowshire Gazette", Friday 3rd November 1933, p.8. [(6)]. "Aberdeen Press and Journal", Tuesday 31st October 1933, p.4 [(7)]. "The Scotsman", Wednesday 8th November 1933, p.18. Game 6: submitted to database. Game dates (October 21, 23, 27, November 2, 4, 7) are from "Falkirk Herald" [ This text and original research by User: Chessical. Proof reading and improvements suggested by User: OhioChessFan ] 6 games, 1933 Euwe - Bogoljubov <Introduction> Efim Bogoljubov (51) challenged Max Euwe (39) who won. This match was played in July - August 1941, at Karlsbad (Karlovy Vary) a spa town in western Bohemia with a rich history of international chess tournaments. This was a contest between Alexander Alekhine 's two previous challengers for the world chess championship – Efim Bogoljubov , the man who had been twice defeated (Alekhine - Bogoljubov World Championship Match (1929) and Alekhine - Bogoljubov World Championship Rematch (1934) ) against Max Euwe who had briefly snatched the world champion then lost it again to Alekhine (Alekhine - Euwe World Championship Match (1935) and Euwe - Alekhine World Championship Rematch (1937) ). News of the match appeared in the Dutch press in June 1941: "Amsterdam, Monday. As we know, there is serious talk of a match between Dr. Max Euwe and Bogoljubov . A match of 12 games (sic) will be played in mid July to early August at Karlsbad. The last time that Dr. Euwe in a match against Bogoljubov played was in 1929. Our compatriot lost when 5½ to 4½." [1] Where the funds to stage the match came from is unclear. It may have come from the Nazi propaganda coffers as Bogoljubov certainly was not rich. Aside from chess (for which there was little remuneration in wartime) his main income came from a bed and breakfast business. [2] Euwe had contested two previous matches against Bogoljubov, losing both: Bogoljubov - Euwe: First FIDE Championship (1928) and Bogoljubov - Euwe: Second FIDE Championship (1928) Playing a match in Nazi occupied Europe was a contentious decision. The match would take place in the "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia". Established by the Reich's annexation of Czechoslovakia on 16th March 1939, it was a Nazi police state. The opportunity to expunge the memory of the two previous defeats, however, seems to have overcame any ethical doubts Euwe may have experienced. <"Of course this caused problems in Holland. Not everyone agreed that I should go and play in Czechoslovakia. This was occupied territory, but many people forget that Holland was also occupied territory. You could have said that I should not have played in Holland either, since the Germans were also occupying Holland. I thought that this was taking things a bit far. Besides, I had a bone to pick with Bogoljubov. I got several more invitations in those days, but I only accepted this one for personal reasons to do with Bogoljubov. And I also wanted to see with my own eyes how things stood in Karlsbad."> [3] After this match, however, Euwe avoided playing in any further events in Nazi occupied Europe, although he kept playing in local Dutch tournaments. For instance, he did not play in Munich (1941) - "Europaturnier" - (8-21 September, 1941) citing "occupational obligations" [4] despite the participation of both the world champion Alexander Alekhine and Bogoljubov. Nor did he participate in: Salzburg (1942), Munich (1942) or Salzburg (1943) The cause of the “occupational obligations” appears to be that he moved into business: <"A few days ago we published in our magazine a report on the resignation of our national chess champion Dr. Euwe from the Municipal Girls' Lyceum in Amsterdam. We understood this resignation to be in connection with the wish of Dr. Euwe to move to professionalism. Now we hear from well-informed source that Dr. Euwe was on July 1st this year, appointed director of a major food company in the capital..."> [5] His next match against a grandmaster opponent would not be for another eight years - Euwe - Pirc (1949) <Euwe> "Euwe is an extremely impetuous, active player...He exploits mistakes excellently ...In general he is a very good tactician. He knows the openings very well." [6] Euwe had played a match against Paul Keres (December 24th, 1939 to January 15th, 1940), which he had lost 6½-7½ (+5 =3 -6), and then won Game Collection: Budapest 1940 (“Maroczy Jubilaeum”). At that point, the deprecations and confusion of the war in Europe effectively ended top level chess for a year. He prepared for the forthcoming contest with a training match in May 1941 with Haije Kramer which he won convincingly (+6=2-0). [7] . <Bogoljubov> "(Bogoljubov's) play was sound and his style primarily positional. In addition, he had a tactical talent which came into its own especially when the opponent had been outplayed strategically. His weak point lay in his optimism and lack of objectivity". [8] Bogoljubov had renounced his Soviet citizenship in 1927 and became a naturalised German of the Weimar republic. Although, he had been a world championship contender - playing two World Championship matches against Alekhine, Alekhine - Bogoljubov World Championship Match (1929) and Alekhine - Bogoljubov World Championship Rematch (1934), since 1936 Bogoljubov had been playing with generally mediocre results in top-class international tournaments. He had been only 10th out of 15th at Nottingham (1936), 3rd of 4 in the Bad Nauheim-Stuttgart-Garmisch (1937), and 5th of 10 at Noordwijk (1938). Whilst there was some successes, such as winning the strong Stuttgart tournament (May 1939), this appears to have been a period of on-going and ineluctable fall away from the chess elite. [9] <Results> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Bogoljubov 0 ½ 1 0 0 0 ½ ½ 0 1 - 3½ Euwe 1 ½ 0 1 1 1 ½ ½ 1 0 - 6½ ]table Progressive score: table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Bogoljubov 0 ½ 1½ 1½ 1½ 1½ 2 2½ 2½ 3½ Euwe 1 1½ 1½ 2½ 3½ 4½ 5 5½ 6½ 6½ ]table . <Timetable> The match was confirmed to the public on 17th July 1941 [10] and began on 20th July 1941. [11]. Euwe left for Czechoslovakia on 15th July. [12] The match was originally scheduled to last for three weeks [13] This is a reconstruction of the dates for the games in the match based on newspaper reports. 1st game - Sunday, 20th July, 1941 2nd game - Monday, 21st July, 1941 3rd game - Tuesday, 22nd July, 1941 4th game - Thursday, 24th July, 1941 5th game - Sunday, 27th July, 1941 6th game - Monday, 28th July, 1941 7th game - Wednesday, 30th July, 1941 8th game - Thursday, 31st July, 1941 9th game - Friday, 1st August, 1941 10th game - Saturday, 2nd August, 1941 <The games> Bogoljubov often tired towards the end of the playing session and then the quality of his play declined. Euwe was tactically sharp and usually took full advantage of his opponent's blunders. <Game 1> Bogoljubov with White played a variation new to his repertoire - Caro-Kann, Two Knights, 3...Bg4 (B11). He played aggressively, castling on the Q-side and advancing his <g> pawn. Euwe remained calm and avoided early castling into an attack. Bogoljubov's weakened K-side became a source of problems and he lost a pawn. "The game was adjourned after the 41st move." [14] Despite the presence of opposite coloured Bishops, Euwe made progress aided by errors by Bogoljubov in the long endgame. By winning a second pawn Euwe assured himself of victory. <Game 2> [15] The players followed latest master practise following J Podgorny vs K Treybal, 1940. Bogoljubov equalised as Black, but towards the time control began to play imprecisely. Euwe had a chance to exchange Queens on move 38 with a very advantageous ending, but chose another path and the game was drawn. <Game 3> Being a point down, and having the worst of the first two games, the renowned optimist Bogoljubov came back fighting and defeated his opponent in shortest game of this match. [16] Bogoljubov chose a highly tactical, but probably dubious, side line of Two Knights (C58) . Euwe sacrificed the exchange for counterplay and was on his way to equality when on move 15 he lost his way in the complications. click for larger view The sharp <15...Nxg2> as played by Euwe loses, <15...Ne2> was later found to be necessary. <Game 4> “On the 27th move our national champion played an instructive pawn sacrifice, putting the black King's position significantly at risk (although) the White Queen-side seemed doomed. Dr Euwe, however, found on the 36th move a beautiful Knight-sacrifice, that should have ended the game as a draw, if not shortage of time had induced Bogoljubov to decline the sacrifice. Repeatedly threatened by mate the German master, had to resign on move 39." [17] Bogoljubov blundered away a draw as Black, Euwe had weaved some tactical threats around his King and Bogoljubov missed a key threat just short of the time control click for larger view with <36...Re3?> which lost immediately to <37.Rh4>. <Game 5> [18] Euwe's defended with his favourite Spanish Open defence. Bogoljubov allowed Euwe to build up an attack on the K-side, and Euwe smashed through to Bogoljubov's King with an excellent combination. Bogoljubov's King fled from <g1> to <a4> but there it perished. click for larger view <6th Game> [19] Euwe played an Exchange QDG and castled on the Q-side. Euwe played aggressively from the opening and broke up Bogoljubov's King's pawn shield. In a very sharp position, Bogoljubov defended successfully right up to the time control. Probably tired through the intensity of the struggle, the elder grandmaster then made a losing blunder by overlooking an ingenious sacrifice of pawn by Euwe. This pawn Queened with check giving its life to allow Euwe's Rook into the attack on the opposing King which now had no safe shelter. <Game 7> [20] "In the next game, the opening (Italian Game) Bogoljubov demonstrated an admirable novelty by which he assured himself of a superior end game. Dr. Euwe’s defence, however, in the rook endgame was so masterful that the game ended in a draw after the 34th move..."" [21] <Game 8> [22] Bogoljubov's attempt to get out of the books with an irregular defence simply led to an inferior position. Euwe being 2½ points ahead in the match had the luxury of being able to offer a draw when a pawn to the good in probably won position "In the eighth game in chess match between our champion Dr. Max Euwe and the German champion Bogoljubov, our countryman opened with <d4> and then Bogoljubov move replied with the uncommon <Nc6>. On his tenth move, our countryman advanced his <e> pawn to <e6>, which put his opponent under pressure. White retained the better game, but, even so, he made an offer of a draw on the 26th move to which naturally Bogoljubov immediately agreed. The score after the eighth game is today. Dr. Euwe 5½ point compared Bogoljubov 2½ pts." [23] <Game 9> [24] "Dr.Euwe wins again against Bogoljubov - The ninth game in the chess match between Dr. Euwe and Bogoljubov was a Queen's Gambit opening by Bogoljubov. It seemed at first as if Bogoljubov had an advantage, but despite this our compatriot who, because of a series of well - thought out and interesting defensive moves, succeeded after the 33rd move to seize the initiative and the attack. Bogoljubov saw the imminent danger late and gradually lost in a hopeless position, as Dr. Euwe succeeded in penetrating (Bogoljubov's position) with his Queen and a Bishop. After a meticulously executed attack, our compatriot finally won after 49 moves. The position after the latest game is Dr. Euwe has 6 points against Bogoljubov's 2 points." [25] Euwe won Bogoljubov's Queen: click for larger view after the spectacular <49....Rh3!!> <Game 10> [26] Bogoljubov rallied and won the last game of the match. This was probably his best game of the series. Euwe played a careless 17th move as White. This lost a Rook and a pawn for two minor pieces in a position where they dominated the Rook. Despite Euwe's determined efforts, Bogolubov forced through his <b> pawn to Queen and so won the game. <In celebration> "He who writes prose builds his temple to Fame in rubble; he who writes verses builds it in granite." [27] The match inspired a poem: <“Again four little horses Without little tails Two ladies without flesh, Manoeuvring Many times In Karlsbad, so I read Again (pieces are) being taken All day. And there is a large audience, That wants to think along. It is full of hints And chequered board comments They sit quietly, Playing chess eagerly And puzzle very happily On many squares, These heroes. The chess world follows it all with interest”.> [28] <Notes> [1] “Het Volk”, of the 30th June, 1941. [2] “Bogoljubov, the fate of a chess player”, Solovoiv, p.30. [3] Max Euwe: The Biography", Alexandr Munninghoff, p.241. [4] http://www.endgame.nl/salz1942.htm [5] "Dagblad Nieuwe Hoornsche Courant" of the 2nd August, 1941. [6] Botvinnik quoted in "My Great Predecessors. Part 2". Kasparov, p.110. [7] Max Euwe: The Biography", Alexandr Munninghoff, p.241. [8] Euwe in his book the "The Development of the Chess Style" (1968) quoted in "The Oxford companion to chess", David Hooper, Kenneth Whyld, p.50. [9] (http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/...) [10] "Leeuwarder Nieuwsblad" of the 17th July, 1941. [11] "Leidsch Dagblad" of the 21st July, 1941. [12] "De Tijd" of the 15th July, 1941. [13] "Leeuwarder Nieuwsblad" of the 17th July, 1941. [14] "Leidsch Dagblad" of the 21st July, 1941. [15] "Het Volk" of the 23rd July, 1941. [16] "De Amersfoortsche Courant" of 23rd July, 1941 states that the game did not continue on into 23rd July, 1941. [17] The fourth game is reported in the "Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad" of 25th July, 1941. The article states that the game was "yesterday" (24th July). [18] The fifth game is by-lined “Karlovy Vary, July 27 (Reuters)” in a report in "De Standaard of 28th July, 1941 [19] The sixth game featured in an article in the “Nieuwsblad van het Zuiden” by-lined ”Karlsbad, July 28 (ANP)” See also the "Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad" edition of 29th July, 1941. [20] The seventh game is by-lined "Karlovy Vary, 28 July. (Reuters)" in "De courant Het nieuws van den dag" of 30th July, 1941. 30-07-1941. The seventh game is also reported on in "De Standaard" of the 29th July, 1941 which has a Dutch news agency (ANP - Algemeen Nederlands Persbureau) dispatch headed: "CHESS Euwe - Bogoljubov 5-2. The seventh game is drawn. Karlovy Vary, 28th July." [21] "De Residentiebode" of the 29th July, 1941. [22] Report in several newspapers of an ANP report which indicates that the eight game took place on the on the 31st July. [23] "Provinciale Overijsselsche en Zwolsche Courant" of the 1st August 1941. [24] “Oprechte Haarlemsche Courant” 1st August, 1941 quotes an ANP report dated 1st August, and the "Nieuwsblad van het Noorden", 1st August, 1941 also reports the game. [25] "De Tijd" of the 2nd August, 1941. [26] "Deutsche Zeitung in den Niederlanden" 5th August, 1941, reports the last game occurring as "Last Saturday". There is also a report in the "Haagsche Courant" and "Noordbrabantsch Dagblad het Huisgezin" editions of 4th August, 1941. [27] "Caxtoniana", Volume 2", Edward Bulwer-Lytton, p.310. [28] Translation provided by User: Stonehenge of a poem by “JEMO” in the "Oprechte Haarlemsche Courant" of 25th July, 1941. Two minor amendments to the English text have been made. ["Euwe - Bogoljubov. Weer zijn view paardjes Zonder staartjes, Twee dames zonder vleesch, Aan't manoeuvreeren Vele keeren In Karlsbad, naar ik lees Weer wordt geslagen Alle dagen. En er is veel publiek, Dat mee wil denken. 't Zit vol wenken En ruitenbordcritiek. Ze zitten rustig, Schaken lustig En puzz'len heel tevree Op vele velden, Deze helden. De schaakwereld leeft mee!"] 10 games, 1941 Euwe - Flohr <Introduction:> In 1932, Max Euwe and Salomon Flohr were among the best young players in the world; as such they had a credible prospect to become the next challenger to Alekhine for his title of World Champion. This match took place in two venues, Amsterdam and the Czech spa town and chess centre of Carlsbad (Karlovy Vary) with a four month hiatus between the first eight games in Holland and the conclusion in Czechoslovakia. The reason for this two stage match is not clear. Perhaps, it was the necessity to secure sufficient funds for the match. "Tidskrift För Schack" speaks of "a return match in the summer" [(1)] , but the contemporaneous "New York Times" report from Amsterdam (date-lined April 7th) stated: <“EUWE, FLOHR IN CHESS TIE - Each Victor in Two Games During First Half of Match.> Dr. Max Euwe of this city and Salo Flohr of Prague, Czechoslovakia, both winners of international tournaments held at Hastings, today completed the first half of a match of sixteen games to settle the question of supremacy between them. The score reads: Dr. Euwe, 2, Flohr, 2, draws, 4. The remaining eight games will be contested at Carlsbad during the Summer." [(2)] It seems that this was one match from Dr Euwe's comments and contemporary press reports. Furthermore, he match was funded by the Dutch newspaper "Het Volk", which supported both legs of the match. [(3)] <The Contenders:> Several very strong players established themselves as world class in the early 1930's. With the two strongest players World Champion Alexander Alekhine (39 y.o.) and his predecessor Jose Raul Capablanca (43 y.o.) seemingly irreconcilable, the established challengers were Efim Bogoljubov (42 y.o.), Nimzowitsch (45 y.o.) and the new pretenders to the throne. “United States. – Dr Alexander Alekhine, before leaving New York for Europe on 5th September, told an interviewer that he regarded as specially likely future opponents Isaac Kashdan, Reuben Fine and Flohr, with the first-named the most probable. “America’s chances of possessing the next champion”, he said, “are excellent”.” [(4)] In, January 1932, by age and world ranking, Chessmetrics data [(5)] reveals four younger outstanding players: Isaac Kashdan - (26 y.o.) - #3 in the world rankings. Max Euwe - (30 y.o.) - #6 in the world rankings. Salomon Flohr - (23 y.o.) - #7 in the world rankings. Sultan Khan - (27 y.o.) - #10 in the world rankings. Euwe and to a lesser extent Flohr, both enjoyed support from their home countries that the other two lacked and so were seriously disadvantaged in the long term. Sultan Khan won the British Championship three times in four attempts (1929, 1932, 1933), but his career ended in 1933. He was a grandmaster but this did not free him from being a bonded labourer on the estate of Major General Sir Malik Mohammed Umar Hayat Khan (1875–1944), and when the Major General returned to India, Sultan Khan was lost to the chess world. Kashdan's career was severely handicapped by the lack of any realiable financial backing in the USA other than invitations to play simultaneous displays. After attempting to be a chess professional travelling in Europe (1930-31), he found that even success in European tournaments could not pay the bills. In a hard headed manner, he instead concentrated on a career in insurance agent for the sake of his family. His position on the world rankings fell away from 1935. <Run up to the match:> Euwe and Flohr had only met once before at Hastings 1931/32. Euwe had come close to defeat in a very sharp game but Flohr let him off the hook and the game was drawn: Flohr vs Euwe, 1931 Euwe and Flohr had burnished their reputations by playing extremely strong opponents. Including their own match, these would be the most highly rated matches held between 1930 and 1933 [(6)]: Capablanca - Euwe (1931) match (Amsterdam, The Hague and Rotterdam), July 1931. Euwe lost 4-6 in a close match. Flohr-Sultan Khan Match (London), February 1932. Flohr won by 3½–2½. This match was between the two most likely challengers from the rising generation in terms of ability and the potential to raise the funds necessary to finance a world champion match against Alekhine. Flohr (7) - Sultan Khan (10) Match (London), February, 1932 Flohr won 3.5 to 2.5 <Euwe:> At 30, this was a pivotal moment for Euwe. He had to decide whether chess, mathematics or a career in business would be his future. "By way of practice, Euwe plays a living-room match in Amsterdam against the peripatetic Spielmann, whom he defeats 3-1 (+ 2-0 = 2). This is followed by the showdown with Flohr: eight games in Amsterdam (+ 2 -2 = 4), followed by a break of a few months and a second leg in Carlsbad in August. Although Euwe wins his tenth game in great style there (a real licking), the talented Czech again manages to draw level (+ 1 -1 = 6)." [(7)] <Flohr:> Flohr is a grandmaster whose style and image changed greatly within the space of a few years. In the early 1930's his progress was meteoric. He was energetic and known for his computational ability. He attended Berlin 1928 as a reporter and won a large amount of money form the assembled grandmasters in blitz matches. At the end of the 1930's he became FIDE's chosen challenger for Alekhine. Flohr had emerged from a newspaper office in Prague to very rapidly become a leading master. His first international tournament had only been three years before this match in 1929 at the Rogaška Slatina, where he finished second to Akiba Rubinstein. Flohr had only been admitted due to the representations of Aron Nimzowitsch [(8)] <"The sensation of the tournament is the great result of the 20-year-old S. Flohr (Prague), who was accepted into the tournament only on the intercession of Nimzowitsch. "> [(9)] Flohr has taken on masters in the Berlin (1928) tournament and beaten them at blitz for money. Flohr's ascent to grandmaster status had no setbacks as he established himself in the ranks of the European masters. Flohr represented Czechoslovakia at the Hamburg Oympiad of 1930 on board one, scoring 14½/17 then again at Prague 1931 scoring 11/18. He then had a continuous roll of good results against significant opponents: [[Hastings 1930-31]] – clear 1st ahead of Rellstab, Koltanowski, Noteboom, and Alexander. [[Bled 1931]] – tied for 4th through 7th behind Alekhine, Bogoljubow, Nimzowitsch. [[Hastings 1931/32]] – 1st ahead of Euwe. [[Bad Sliac 1932]] – tied for 1st with Vidmar. [[Bern 1932]] – tied for 2nd with Euwe. [[London 1932]] – 2nd behind Alekhine. Flohr’s peak period was to be the second half of the 1930's [(10)] when he was between second to fifth rated in the world. "Among the few chess chess masters who are constantly active despite the economic crisis master chess is above all the young Prague Grandmaster Salo Flohr. Not only does he participate in every major championship tournament...but meanwhile, he undertakes tours with a comprehensive programme of simultaneous demonstrations, serious games and other chess productions. The reason for this is that his popularity lies in his immense skill...but equally in his winning personality... As a simultaneous player, Flohr stands at a height that only a few have reached. So he has this year after the end of the Hastings tournament in England and Holland, he played a total of 322 simultaneous games winning 290, 30 were drawn and 2, literally two, lost...." [(11)] In 1932, Flohr was seen as being a sharp and tactical player. Yet in only a few years, Flohr had become a predominantly positional player and a technical perfectionist. Indeed his style was attacked in 1937 by the magazine “Chess in the USSR”: < "Soviet chessmen can fight and create completely freely. A Damocles' sword of material reasons and considerations is not hanging over them, a pressure which is so well known to the bourgeois professional. Stereotypical play, routine and mere technique, all that Romanovski justifiably classes as the “neo-Fine-Flohr style ", is essentially alien to the creative impulse of Soviet masters."> According to Reuben Fine: <"In the years from 1929 to 1933, when Alekhine was at his peak Flohr was universally recognised as his most serious challenger. Although he did poorly in individual games with Alekhine, his results were outstanding against the others … In 1929, when he was only 20, he won second prize behind Rubinstein at Rogaška Slatina. The he began a long string of tournament successes which placed him second only to Alekhine. This period lasted until about 1935, when his style underwent a considerable change and his play fell off somewhat. He became increasingly cautious, avoiding complications and steering for the endgame as soon as possible…he became more and more a drawing master…the roots of his frantic emphasis on “safety first” are not hard to discover. In 1936, Czechoslovakia, his second homeland, was faced with a growing threat from Nazi Germany… (and) with his support endangered, Flohr found it impossible to concentrate on his own growth as a chess master”> [(12)] Flohr warmed up for the match by defeating the Dutch master Johannes van den Bosch (+4 -0 =4), [(13)] and Salo Landau (+1 –0 =3) [(14)]. He also covered some of his expenses with simultaneous exhibitions in Rotterdam and Breda <The venues:> The venue in Amsterdam was the “Odd Fellows Huis”, [(15)] and the Střelnice Hotel, in Carlsbad - [(16)] <Photographs of the match:> The opening watched by Rudolf Spielmann (to the immediate right of Flohr) http://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/vi... http://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/vi... <"The two knights study the pieces."> http://web.inter.nl.net/hcc/rekius/... http://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/vi... <Match Score:> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Pts 1 Euwe 0 1 ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 8 2 Flohr ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 0 ½ 0 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 8 ]table Cumulative score: table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Euwe 0 1 1½ 2 2½ 2½ 3 4 4½ 5 5½ 6 6½ 7 7½ 8 2 Flohr 1 1 1½ 2 2½ 3½ 4 4 4½ 4½ 5½ 6 6½ 7 7½ 8 ]table <Euwe's views on the match:> In the following newspaper interview, Euwe talks about the Flohr of the early 1930's. It is notable that Euwe concentrates on Flohr's tactical ability and vision. <Dr. Euwe speaks about his opponent Flohr who plays combinations beautifully.> "Everyone knows that the first half of the two-part match, consisting of 8 games, ended in a 4-4 tie. We wrote previously that Dr. Euwe in the 7th and 8th games had to pull out all the stops as he did not want to lose the Dutch section of the match. In the 7th game, the Dutch Chess Matador failed to get more than a draw, which meant that he had go for a win in the 8th game. It is interesting to review what Dr. Euwe wrote about his adversary in "The People, for whom Dr. Euwe is the Chess Editor: <Flohr is is stronger, but ...> "The first half of the match with Flohr is over, so I can start with a clean score in August", said Dr Euwe. "Indeed, I am totally satisfied with the course of the match. A 4-4 position is more than I could expect and I do not give up, even though I felt that Flohr had the advantage at several different points in my match. What factors are basic to Flohr's strength and how it is possible, despite this, for me to hope for a victory, I can explain with a popular example. If we have three beans, we immediately know how many there are without counting. If we take ten beans, counting is generally necessary, but once we have done that, we are also certain of the number. It becomes a completely different situation, if we have more beans, say one hundred. We can count and recount, but we will never get absolute certainty if we can not touch the beans and they are not in any kind of order. We are now looking at some complicated chess position: we analyse and create different variations by thinking long and carefully weighing the outcomes. But we still cannot be sure that we have not overlooked a certain finesse. <Phenomenal insight:> Not so Flohr, he calculates much faster than I and has learnt to discern the truth with decisive certainty. Whilst I am assessing the possibilities of a number of variations with equivalent complexity to counting one hundred beans, for Flohr it is as if there are only ten beans! For some variations, which are advantageous to him, a single glance is sufficient; just as if there were only three beans! It is clear that this ability has a double advantage: Flohr has need of less time in complicated positions, which is to his benefit later. Secondly, Flohr knows when to finish his calculations, whilst I either proceed more deeply into lines or quit the investigation. This can result in either a waste of time and energy through over-thinking or a potentially unpleasant surprises if one does not think long enough. A typical example of this occurred in the during sixth game: Position after Blacks' 18...<Bxb2>: click for larger view I looked at: <19 Bxb4> and came to the conclusion that <19 ... Ba3> 20. Bd3 Bxb4+ 2l. Ke2; put me in a position which I may be able to draw, but in which loss has is still far from being out of the question. Now if: <19. Rb4> axb4 20.Qxb2 Rxa4; then I have two Bishops against a Rook and two Pawns, which is generally not unfavourably balance of material, but the White King is not yet safe and it is very questionable if I will manage to castle short in good time. If I could castle, I would be better off, especially since the Black King on <e8> is not very favourably situated, partly in connection with a possible <Qh8+>. So I have to calculate many lines. Soon I was dizzy as I already fought for three hours in this game - and after I had seen the variation: <21.Bc4> b3 22. Bxb3 Rb8 23. Qh8+ Kd7 24. Qxb8 Qxb8 25. Bxa4 Qb1+ 26. Bd1, with a few more variants checked, I think that's enough and decide upon <19.Rxb4> A couple of moves later, I notice that I overlooked <24... Ra1+!> click for larger view <25. Ke2> Qxb8: 26. Rxa1 Qxb3. Flohr is therefore the better combinational player. If I want to succeed, I will have to avoid so many combination-rich positions in the first place. Secondly, I will be sure to be cautious if these positions arise. .... <Flohr's large-scale plans.> Salo Flohr has great plans for the future. He wants his countryman Bata, a renowned millionaire shoe manufacturer, to underwrite the biggest and most important International Schedule Tour of all time. Of course Alekhine, Capablanca and ... Dr. Lasker must not be missing. Such a tournament will certainly not be cheap, but Bata can overlook a few hundred thousand crowns, if he gets good publicity to promote his shoe factory city. [(17)] <Highlights of the match> Flohr had white in the odd-numbered games. [[Game 1]] Flohr outplayed Euwe in a Queen's Gambit Exchange variation. Euwe lost a pawn defending against a Queen-side minority attack after his efforts to attack on the K-side had been neutralised. [[Game 2]] Euwe immediately equalised the match. In a passive position, Flohr sacrificed a pawn for a K-Side attack, but Euwe held his nerve better and played the more accurately. After click for larger view <42.Qf6!> he won the game quickly. [[Game 3]] Was another hard fought game, Euwe held the ending whilst being the exchange down for a pawn. [[Game 5]] Flohr played an unchallenging opening and agreed a draw with White in only 15 moves. It seems that day he very much wanted a rest, and was prepared to surrender the opening advantage. For in the next game, with Black, he played extremely dynamically. [[Game 6]] After two successive draws, Flohr introduced a new defence into the match - the Grunfeld. As described by Euwe, above, he outplayed the Dutch champion in the tactical complications. [[Game 8]] In the last of Dutch section of the match, Euwe managed to draw level (4-4). Flohr lost valuable time winning a pawn. Euwe's consequent rapid offensive smashed through his opponent's defences. click for larger view 25. Nxh71 Rfd8 (25... Kxh7 26. Bxg6+) 26. h4 Rd7 27. h5 Qd8 (27... gxh5 28. Qg5+ 28. h6 1-0 (if 28...Qxf6 then 29. Nxf6+ Kf8 30. Nxd7+ Ke7 31. Nb6) [[Game 9]] For the first Carlsbad game, Euwe chose to play a King's Indian, showing he was confident to play cutting edge theory. The game was drawn. [[Game 10]] This was probably Euwe's best game of the match. He once again unleashed a strong K-side attack when Flohr mistakenly left his King on that weakened wing. [[Game 11]] Euwe layed the Tarrasch Defence for the second time in the match. In sight of equality, Euwe miscalculated and lost a pawn in the middle game. He was then ground down and resigned two pawns adrift. [[Game 14]] Flohr again played the French Defence despite his violent loss with the same variation in Game 10. This time, he played more precisely and secured a draw without running any great risk. The last two games were careful and short draws leaving the match tied. <After the match:> The match result being inconclusive there was no immediate momentum to support a challenge to Alekhine. The Soviets chose Flohr to play their champion and best hope Mikhail Botvinnik - Botvinnik - Flohr (1933), November to December 1933. Flohr was elected by the FIDE General Assembly in August 1937 as their official challenger for the world championship. Alekhine, however, controlled the title and did not offer Flohr any match. Alekhine, having exhausted the credibility of Bogoljubov as a world championship challenger - Alekhine - Bogoljubov World Championship Match (1929) and Alekhine - Bogoljubov World Championship Rematch (1934), cast around for another challenger who was credible but not Capablanca. He chose Euwe in the certainty that both Euwe could raise the funds and that he would defeat his Dutch adversary - Alekhine - Euwe World Championship Match (1935) <Notes:> [(1)]. "Tidskrift För Schack", April 1932, p.72. [(2)]. "The New York Times", April 8th 1932, p.29. [(3)]. "Het Volk", 22nd August 1932, p.3. [(4)]. "British Chess Magazine", November 1933, p.477. [(5)]. http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... [(6)]. http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... [(7)]. "Max Euwe: The Biography", Alexandr Munninghoff, New in Chess. [(8)]. http://www.nss.cz/ostatni/salomon-f... - [(9)]. “Czechoslovak Republic”, 13th October 1929. [(10)]. http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... when he was between second to fifth rated in the world. [(11)]. "(New) Wiener Schachzeitung", No.7., April 1933, p.103. [(12)]. Reuben Fine, “The World’s Greatest Chess Games” p. 166-167. [(13)]. "The Sumatra Post", 9th May 1932 p.2. [(14)]. "Bataviaasch newspaper", 4th May 1932 p.4. [(15)]. "Utrechts Nieuwsblad", 26th March 1932, p. 6. [(16)]. http://www.tietz.cz/tietz/index.php... [(17)]. "The Sumatra Post", 9th May 1932, p.2. Original collection and text by User: Chessical. 16 games, 1932 Euwe - Keres <Introduction> A match of 14 games between Max Euwe and Paul Keres staged in various cities in Holland (Amsterdam, Hilversum, The Hague and Rotterdam) between, 24th December 1939 and 15th January 1940. Prior to this match, Euwe and Keres had played five times since their first meeting in 1936. The score was +2=2-1 in favour of Euwe. This was a hard fought match with only three draws which went one way and then the other. Euwe establishing an early two point lead, but Keres fought back and overtook him scoring +5-1=0 in games 5 through 10. The late 1930s were a period of transition with the world champion Alexander Alekhine being unable to maintain the overwhelming dominance he enjoyed in the earlier part of the decade.[1] Keres was FIDE's challenger to Alekhine for the world championship (but the Champion still had the final say against whom he wished to play). This match was an opportunity for Keres to reinforce his claim to be the primary challenger for the world championship crown by playing Euwe who had been the world champion of 1935-37. Keres wrote: “The encounters with the leading masters in Nottingham (1936) and in the AVRO (1938) had proved that Alekhine’s “superclass” no longer existed, and that he would have to fight as hard for his place as any of the candidates... It might be argued that Alekhine’s playing strength has declined somewhat as compared with the period of his greatest ascendancy, while that of his rivals has risen, resulting in the disappearance of the “superclass”. However, Alekhine is not weaker than any one of the seven claimants. Possibly the decline of his strength is to be explained by approaching old age, fatigue, or analogous reasons; yet his original ideas, fighting temperament, colossal resourcefulness, ingenious combinations – all these have remained almost at the same level... ...I can freely declare that none of his seven rivals possesses his resourcefulness, his most subtle grasp of positions, and his experience. The weapons with which he may be conquered consist of fundamental theoretical knowledge, accurate play and, above all, greater endurance and stronger nerves...a match between Alekhine and any one of the seven candidates will constitute a chess event of exceptional interest, the outcome of which cannot be determined in advance.” [2] <Preparation> From, the foreword to "Euwe - Keres 1939/1940" by Mr. M. Levenbach: "After his successful winning spurt in the second round of the major AVRO tournament in the autumn of 1938 Dr. Max Euwe immediately devised a new project. He worked in cooperation with the Euwe committee and there was extensive consultation with the executive board of the Dutch Federation. The Euwe Committee consisted of Messrs A. de Bruyn, P. Jungman, Th. M.E Liket, K.J Nieukerke and Mr. M. Levenbach, with the tireless G. v. Harten as active secretary-treasurer. Full of enthusiasm, the Committee took up its duties, and considered two projects: a match against Paul Keres or against Reuben Fine, both winners of the above mentioned tournament. Keres had, under the provisions of this tournament, been given the right to a title fight with the world champion, Dr. Alekhine. Consequently, as Dr. Euwe and the Committee did not want to interfere with this, Fine was invited to play a 14 game match against Dr. Euwe in the summer of 1939. Fine, who was then in America, accepted the invitation, but declined in the spring of 1939 due to the international tensions. Meantime negotiations were between Keres and Alekhine about the battle for the world championship floundered. This allowed the Committee to now feel themselves free to address an invitation to Keres, who was immediately prepared to play... The course of the match caused us some disappointment, because Dr. Euwe, albeit at the smallest possible margin, lost the match. The match itself has had an exciting course and chess literature was enriched with many games of theoretical interest and of great beauty."[3] <Contemporary reaction> “<Euwe- Keres, a test of strength of special significance - Is Keres also a match player? - Upward trend in Euwe's performance.> Keres, travelling by airplane from Stockholm, arrived in Amsterdam on Friday (22nd December), and on Sunday his duel with the former world champion, Dr. Euwe will commence. This match is viewed by the national and international chess communities with great anticipation. After all, this meeting will probably provide an answer to the question of whether Dr. Euwe has returned to a form which could entitle him to challenge the world champion Dr. Alekhine to a new title fight, or whether Paul Keres at fourteen year's younger, who many in the chess world see as a future world champion, would be the most eligible. Euwe has already played two title matches, Keres, however, has not had the opportunity to prove that he is a world championship contender. ... Keres has actually only played in one match against in 1938 in Gothenberg against Gideon Stahlberg (Sweden), which ended in a tie (two wins, two losses, four draws). Everybody understands, however, that being an excellent tournament player - which Keres has proven to be - by no means guarantees that he will be an ace in match play. The reverse is of course also the case. Keres in the upcoming match against Euwe, may now have to demonstrate that he is equally as fearsome in match play as he has been in his tournament play in recent years. If so, then rightfully the Estonian may fully cherish world championship aspirations. A second question, which could be raised before the start of the contest is: in what direction is Keres' style evolving? Playing successfully in international tournaments his style is most impressive. He is full of enterprising spirit, has a marked preference for gambits developed and almost always played an attacking type of game. As some experts put it, in "the wild" style. But despite this attacking game Keres does not neglect the defence; he is perfectly aware of opening theory, he has already made a special study of opening variations and is an artist in endgames... Generally, however, it has been assumed that Keres would play eventually adopt a quieter, safer, yes, one might even say, sedate style.... For Euwe, there is a lot at stake. After the second match for the world championship (1937) there was a major slump in his form, but in November 1938, in the second part of the AVRO tournament, our compatriot regained his old form. That is, he recaptured an inner certainty with the confidence in his own abilities returning again, which is not to be underestimated psychologically, because one may be technically very skilled, but without those attributes, the master will never reach peak performance. This upward trend has been maintained in the past year and Euwe has been unassailable in his match against Landau. Not only because he defeated his fellow competitor by a large margin, but in particular in the manner in which he proved that he completely overcome his slump. In this context, it was seen as beneficial for the Euwe Committee to organize a match against Keres. The result will matter a lot, to the extent of whether Euwe will again be allowed to make a bid for the highest title in the foreseeable future..." [4] <The players> . <Euwe> Euwe had briefly won the world champion then lost it again to Alexander Alekhine (Alekhine - Euwe World Championship Match (1935) and Euwe - Alekhine World Championship Rematch (1937) . Since losing his title, Euwe had twice been outdistanced in tournaments by Keres. Euwe came forth in Noordwijk (1938) in which Keres had come second, and at AVRO (1938), 6th to the 27th of November 1938, he had shared fourth place with Alekhine and Samuel Reshevsky . Euwe came second to the Hungarian champion Laszlo Szabo in a middle ranking tournament at Hastings (1938/39) over the New Year 1937-39. Euwe was Dutch champion in 1938 and 1939, decisively beating Salo Landau, who had been the 1936 Dutch champion, in a match for the 1939 championship (+5 –0 =5). Apart from his victory at Bournemouth (1939) ahead of Ernst Ludwig Klein and Salomon Flohr, (August 1939), Euwe restricted himself to only local tournaments in Holland before this match. His victories included Amsterdam (VARA) in May 1939, Baarn (A), and Amsterdam (KNSB), won jointly with Laszlo Szabo Salomon Flohr . <Keres> Keres and Reuben Fine had won AVRO (1938), a tremendously strong tournament which included Alekhine and Jose Raul Capablanca in its stellar line-up of eight of the top ten players in the world. Keres won on tiebreak having defeated Fine 1½–½ in their individual two games. This tournament, with the participation of world champion Alekhine, should have created the next FIDE challenger and so determined the next world title challenger. A new cohort of players were entering the elite, and Keres was seen as a potential world champion. According to Jose Raul Capablanca : "Amongst the new talents there are two who stand out more as great masters than the others: Mikhail Botvinnik, on a secondary level, Keres. Also Alekhine, of course; but he is not new; he is old like me. Keres plays admirably well; his sense of fantasy is enormous, his imagination fiery. But his judgment is unsteady. He does not always know if the game in front of him is won, lost or drawn; and when it is won it also sometimes happens that he does not know for sure why and how it is won". [5] After AVRO, Keres played against Gideon Stahlberg in a match (Gothenburg), 20th April - May 1938 which ended with a draw +2=4-2. [6] Keres was living a very demanding life. From 1937 to 1941 apart from his burgeoning chess career, Keres studied mathematics at the University of Tartu, and after his great victory at AVRO, Keres was feted in municipal celebration across his native Estonia. With too little time to rest and prepare, Keres played indifferently in the Leningrad / Moscow training (1939), January 3rd - February 1st 1939, first: 1. Salomon Flohr - 12 out of 17 ; 2. Samuel Reshevsky - 10.5; ...12-13. P. Keres and Vasily Smyslov – 8. In the spring of 1939, he won the tournament in Margate (1939) ahead of Capablanca. Keres then played for Estonia at the Chess Olympiad in 1939 in Buenos Aires, August 21st to September 19, 1939, on top board, (+11 −5 =3); the Estonian team winning the bronze medal. During this Olympiad, on the 1st September 1939, Germany invaded Poland; Britain and France declared war on Germany two days later. All the members of German team, including their strongest player Erich Eliskases, chose to remain in Argentina, as did the other elite players such as: Miguel Najdorf and Gideon Stahlberg. Despite the outbreak of war, Keres did not stay in Argentina. Keres played in Buenos Aires (1939) - from August 21st to September 19th 1939, sharing first with Miguel Najdorf. He then returned home to Estonia. In this dangerous and turbulent period, he accepted the Dutch invitation to play Euwe, and travelled to Holland rather than undertake a previously contemplated tour of the USA. . <Timetable> Game 1 - 24th December 1939 --- Amsterdam Game 2 - 25th December 1939 --- Amsterdam Game 3 - 27th December 1939 --- Utrecht Game 4 - 29th December 1939 --- Amsterdam Game 5 - 30th December 1939 --- Amsterdam Game 6 - 1st January 1940 ------- The Hague Game 7 - 2nd January 1940 ------ The Hague Game 8 - 3rd January 1940 ------- Amsterdam Game 9 - 5th January 1940 ------- Rotterdam Game 10 - 6th January 1940 ------ Rotterdam Game 11 - 7th January 1940 ------ Rotterdam Game 12 - 10th January 1940 ----- Amsterdam Game 13 - 13th January 1940 ----- Hilversum Game 14 - 14th-15 January 1940 -- Amsterdam The match almost collapsed at the last moment. Keres, after the Olympiad in Buenos Aires returned to Tallinn via Gibraltar, Genoa and Berlin. He had had planned to then travel to Amsterdam by train. He, however, had to contend with visa difficulties, so the trip had to commence from Stockholm, but the ferry to Stockholm was over-booked. Keres was about to telegraph the Euwe Committee that the match would not take place, when he heard that a group of people in Riga had arranged a private aeroplane charter from Stockholm. He managed to persuade them to give him a seat. These travel problems could not have helped his frame of mind or physical preparation for the match. [7] The official opening of the match was held on the 23rd December at the Hotel Gooiland, in Hilversum. Keres gave a short speech. He said that he was very happy to be back in the Netherlands, where he felt totally at home, thanks to his three previous visits, namely Zandvoort (1936), Noordwijk (1938) and AVRO (1938). He stated that the task that awaited him would be very onerous as Dr Euwe was one of the best match players in the world. Keres expressed his hopes that the quality of the games would be high and gallantly wished that the best man would win. [8] Euwe also spoke and stating his belief that the "very young Keres" would undoubtedly be a future world champion, but the Dutch champion wryly hoped that this would happen "only in ten or fifteen years’ time". [9] <The Games> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Euwe ½ ½ 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 ½ 1 - 6½ Keres ½ ½ 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 ½ 0 - 7½ ]table Progressive score: table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Euwe ½ 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5½ 6½ Keres ½ 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 6 7 7½ 7½ ]table [[Game 1]] Later analysis established that Euwe had an opportunity to gain an advantage from the opening, but instead mass exchanges on the Q-side eventually led to a drawn position. [[Game 2]] Euwe defended using his favourite Open Spanish and the game followed Keres- Euwe , Stockholm in 1937,. Keres introduced an innovation <11. Qe1>, but it proved ineffective. Euwe was able to equalise with little trouble. [[Game 3]] Keres played a pawn sacrifice which gave him little compensation against Euwe’s accurate play. In the third successive Spanish opening, Euwe scored the first win of the match. The game followed the theory of the times for 17 moves with Keres sacrificing a pawn for activity. Keres then was outplayed and his defence was marred by several blunders. He resigned in a hopeless position faced with an inevitable mate. [[Game 4]] Keres again played the Spanish, but in this game Euwe payed a closed variation. After a long struggle, in which neither player had gained the advantage, Keres miscalculated. He sacrificed a pawn to allow his <b> pawn to advance, but Euwe found a tactical refutation for this scheme and ended three pawns up. [[Game 5]] Despite his success with the Spanish (+2=2-0), Euwe chose to open with a <d> pawn opening. Keres may have been surprised but he was not unduly disturbed, Euwe soon had the worst of it. Keres played very well to establish a Rook on Euwe’s second rank. Keres won a pawn and went into an ending in which he won despite the presence of opposite coloured Bishops. [[Game 6]] Euwe found himself in an inferior position from the opening. He then managed to effect some simplification but remained under positional pressure. Keres gained space on the K-side, but was still not clearly winning until Euwe sealed a poor 43rd move. This left the Dutch champion him in a cramped position. Keres played extremely accurately in the ending to break through on the Q-side and win. [[Game 7]] The first eleven moves followed Game 1. Keres built up a promising position, having compromised his opponent's King-side defences, but then he carelessly blundered a piece away. click for larger view After <30.Bc4!> Kh8 31.Rxe4! wins the piece as recapture allows an instant mate. [[Game 8]] In a Slav Defence, both players chose sharp attacking lines. Keres as White emerged with the advantage. With Keres’ King still in the centre, Euwe sacrificed a Knight on <e5> for two central pawns creating a highly tactical position. In the ensuing melee of attack and counter-attack, Euwe had a chance of snatching a draw, but and his King was chased down the K-side into a mating net. [[Game 9]] Keres 23rd move was a: “breathtakingly brilliant positional sacrifice of the Queen. This game…was later called “The Ninth”, in reference to Beethoven’s last symphony.” [10] Keres commented that: "Euwe played the opening inaccurately and lost a pawn, obtaining in return only highly problematic counter-chances on the K-side. In order to eliminate these possibilities, I offered a positional Queen sacrifice , after the acceptance of which, Black's Rooks and Bishops began operating with destructive power" [11] Keres sacrificed as pawn <22.d3> in order to then play a terrific Queen sacrifice taking the <Rd3> click for larger view [[Game 10]] Euwe had almost equalised as Black when he overlooked a sharp tactical pawn sacrifice by Keres on move 16. Taking the pawn lost so instead Euwe, in his own words,"gave up two pawns, hoping for counter-play on the K-side"...but his threats proved insufficient and despite both players being short of time "the ending (was) untenable". [12] [[Game 11]] Keres played a rare line in the Slav with <6… Qa5>. This variation was practically refuted by Euwe’s successful opening plan which was later adopted by Botvinnik vs Denker, 1945 (radio match 1945). After these two sharp defeats, this variation has rarely been tried. click for larger view Euwe’s <21. Nh5> (Re1! being the solid alternative to maintain the advantage) may have been too sharp. Instead of Keres’ <21...f6>, the move <21…Be2> which was suggested during the game seems to lead to a forced draw. 21...Be2 22.Nf6+ gxf6 23.Rg3+ Kh8 <24.f3!> (better than 24.Bh6 suggested at the time) 24…Rg8 25.Rxg8+ Kxg8 26.Bh6 Qc8 27.Qb2 Bc4 28.Qf2 Kh8 29.Qh4 Qd8 30.Qg4 Qg8 31.Qf4 Qg6 32.Qb8+ Euwe won prettily with: click for larger view <31.Qd8> after which Keres resigned [[Game 12]] "...in the twelfth game Euwe was simply unrecognisable and lost almost without a fight..." [13] Keres played a Reti opening which Euwe invited him to transpose into a Queen's Gambit Accepted. Euwe on the 6th move weakened his Q-side gravely and unnecessarily with <6...b5> click for larger view apparently fixated with typical Queen Gambit manoeuvers: "This move, which can be very strong in the Queen's Gambit, is out of order in the present and quite different circumstances. The advanced pawns are soon subjected to an attack which proves embarrassing for Black. Correct was <6...Nc6> and <7..e6> to be followed by normal developing moves." (Euwe) ". [14] In the remainder of this short game, Euwe was dispirited and played poorly. He lost the right to castle and soon had "practically no moves left" and Keres playing "relentlessly" won in 23 moves. The game was later followed as far as move 16 with Deep Thought as Black against Unzicker (Hanover 1991). Deep Thought varied with <16...b4> but still lost. [[Game 13]] "In the thirteenth game, Euwe played so nervously for the offensive that that he soon found himself with a very inferior game and was only too glad to accept his opponent's offer of a draw". [15] Euwe could not gain any advantage against Keres’ Queen Indian. He sacrificed a pawn which gave him positional compensation but still no tangible advantage. Euwe then, probably more mindful of the state of the match score than the objective requirements of the position, made a superficial attacking move. This gave Keres a superior game and Euwe was glad to agree to his proposal of a draw. [[Game 14]] "...Euwe's best achievement in this uncompromising encounter…" [16] Euwe defended with a QGA and the game followed contemporary theory until move 13. Keres played passively and this allowed Euwe to develop a significant initiative. With his two bishops and his Queen raking his opponent's King-side, Euwe won the exchange. Euwe had to overcome Keres' determined defence in a complex ending. His eventual victory attracted praise for the quality his endgame technique. <Postscript> "at the insistence of the Euwe Committee, an arrangement was made for a return match against Keres immediately after the end of the first match. It was to take place in 1941..." [17] [18] Unfortunately this was not to be. The day after the conclusion of the match, the "Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad" newspaper lead with the following headlines: "The (Dutch) Motor Vessel Arendskerrk torpedoed by German submarine." "The war enters Finland. Russian terror from the air." Germany was to invade the Low Countries and the Dutch forces surrendered on the 14th May 1940. Soon afterwards, on 6th August 1940, Estonia too was occupied by the Soviet Union. The fates of Euwe and Keres were to be determined not by any civilised competition but in the chaos and suffering of a world war. <Match Books> Euwe wrote a match book in Dutch: "Dr. Max Euwe, Euwe - Keres 1939/40", published by "De Schaakwereld" in 1940. Emanuel Lasker wrote, "The 14 games played in the match between Paul Keres and Max Euwe (Holland 1939/40)", New York 1940. [19] <Notes> [1] See http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/cm2/... [2] Keres in "Chess Review", March 1941, p. 51-53. [The rivals mentioned (apart from Keres) being: Botvinnik, Capablanca, Euwe, Fine, Flohr and Reshevsky.] [3] "Euwe - Keres 1939/1940", Euwe (in Dutch) [4] "Zaans Volksblad", 23rd December 1939. [5] Capablanca quoted and translated by Winter. [ A translation of an interview with Capablanca published in the Buenos Aires magazine "El Gráfico", 1939 and reprinted on pages 103-107 of "Homenaje a Capablanca" (Havana, 1943).] See -http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... [6] See - http://www.schack.se/tfsarkiv/histo... [7] "De Residentiebode", 23rd December 1939. [8] "De Telegraaf", 24th December 1939. [9] "Het Vaderland", 24th December 1939. [10] "Paul Keres’ Best Games", vol.1. , Egon Varnusz, p.102. [11] Keres quoted in "My Great Predecessors, Part 2", Kasparov, p.78. [12] "The Keres-Euwe Match" quotes taken from notes by Euwe, "Chess Review", April 1940, p.65. [13] "My Great Predecessors, Part 2", Kasparov, p82. [14] "The Keres-Euwe Match", "Chess Review", May 1940, p.90. [15] "The Keres-Euwe Match" by Fred Reinfeld, "Chess Review", January 1940, p.27. [16] "My Great Predecessors, Part 2" Kasparov, p82. [17] "Max Euwe: The Biography", Alexandr Munninghoff, p.241. [18] "Het Volksdagblad", 16th January 1940. [19] Books by Emmanuel Lasker quoted in Bibliography of "Emanuel Lasker: Second World Chess Champion", By Isaak Linder 14 games, 1939-1940 Euwe - Pirc match (1949) <Players> Euwe was 47 year's old, and Pirc 41. On Chessmetrics January 1949 rating list they are respectively 18th and 26th in the world ranking. They had played each other three times before the war, each game had been drawn. This was Max Euwe 's first full-length match since his victory over Efim Bogoljubov Karlsbad 1941. Euwe avoided playing in Nazi sponsored tournaments during the war years. At first he played successfully after liberation, at Groningen (1946) (August - September 1946) he was second (+11,=6,-2) in a very strong field half-a-point behind Botvinnik and 1.5 points ahead of Smyslov and Najdorf) and at Venice (October 1948) Euwe was 4th (+5=6-2); but the ex-world champion had recently suffered one of the worst results of his career (+1 -13 =6)in the FIDE World Championship Tournament (1948) (March - May 1948). 1949 had been busy and tiring for Euwe. He had undertaken an extensive chess tour which included the United States and Canada. After playing in New York in the Manhattan Club international tournament in December 1948, Euwe embarked on a long series of simultaneous displays in: Detroit, Chicago, Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg and San Juan (Puerto Rico) [1]. It was reported that he was remaining in Americas as he would participate in the upcoming and strong Mar del Plata tournament but instead he returned to Holland. This match was to be one of Euwe's last major events before he returned to teaching as his principal occupation. From here on, Euwe tended to concentrate on Dutch tournaments and team events and whilst a solid grandmaster he fell back from the elite. His last involvement in world championship chess was at Zuerich Candidates (1953) when he faded to second to last. Vasja Pirc was the third ranked Yugoslav player after Svetozar Gligoric (the 1949 Yugoslav champion) and Petar Trifunovic (with whom he had been joint 1948 Yugoslav champion). He was playing high level chess as European chess revived after the war. He had been placed 11th equal with Gligoric just behind Trifunovic at the Saltsjobaden Interzonal (1948). A strong grandmaster and five times champion of Yugoslavia; his top flight career began in the 1930's and faded from the mid 1950's. In the decade after the war, limited opportunities in chess led him to supplement his income as a school teacher and then a official for the chess section of the Slovenian Committee for Physical Culture. In this period, he was still able to develop his interest in opening theory and write several tournament and opening books. <Duration:> Commenced: Wednesday 15th June 1949[2], in the lake resort of Bled, Slovenia (then a federal republic of Yugoslavia). The first session of Game 6 and the final game were played in Ljubljana, the near-by capital of Slovenia, [2, 3 & 4]. According to the introduction to the tournament book by Edo Turnher, the President of the Slovenian Chess Association, the match had been supported and promoted by the Yugoslav Communist authorities to highlight: "the profound social changes in our country, the revolutionary struggle for socialism...chess can be enjoyed by us through so much support from the national governments and within a plan of work to elevate the economic and cultural level of our homeland".[5] <Schedule:> Game 1 - Bled - Wednesday, 15th June 1949 Game 2 - Bled - Thursday, 16th June 1949 Game 3 - Bled - Saturday, 18th June 1949 Game 4 - Bled - Sunday, 19th June 1949 Game 5 - Bled - Tuesday, 21st June 1949 Game 6 - Ljubljana and Bled - Thursday, 23rd & Saturday, 25th June 1949 Game 7 - Bled - Saturday, 25th June 1949 Game 8 - Bled - Sunday, 26th June 1949 Game 9 - Bled - Monday, 27th June 1949 Game 10 - Ljubljana - Wednesday, 29th June 1949 <Progress:> Pirc was White in the odd numbered games. table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Euwe 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 0 ½ ½ 1 5 Pirc 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 1 ½ ½ 0 5]table Progressive scores: table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Euwe 0 ½ 1 1½ 2 3 3 3½ 4 5 Pirc 1 1½ 2 2½ 3 3 4 4½ 5 5]table <The games:> As usual, Pirc played queen pawn openings exclusively, whilst Euwe played both <d> and <e> pawn openings. Their openings were the staples of grandmaster play of the 1930's: three Queen Gambits, three Queen's Gambit Declined Slav (D12) , two Nimzo Indians, and two Sicilian (B56). Euwe twice came from behind in this match and had to win the final game to level the scores. Euwe's end-game technique proved especially valuable. Pirc made subtle but losing errors in his endgame play in Game Six - Euwe vs Pirc, 1949 - ( http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...) [6] and exchanged into a lost ending Game Ten - Euwe vs Pirc, 1949. Pirc won both games 1 and 7 through precision in the middle-game, the latter being probably his best game of the match. Overall, this was a match of careful openings in which the players did not attempt to avoid multiple exchanges of pieces leaving only minimal advantages. Pirc twice had a one-point advantage but neither he nor Euwe sought to play in a way which unbalanced the position simply for the sake of complications. Euwe seemed more inclined to play on having twice fallen behind, but despite being an openings expert he did not seek to sharpen the struggle from the opening moves. Consequently, after Euwe's loss in Game 1 when he got his pieces tied up on the Q-side and lost two pawns and the game, Game 2 saw Euwe castling on the opposite side to his opponent, but without any of his pieces developed this did not lead to complications! Pirc as black equalised easily and a perpetual check resulted in 25 moves. Game 3 was a very solid opening Slav well known to Pirc with an early <e3>. He broke up Blacks' kingside pawns but was left with only a minimal advantage and again a draw in 25 moves. Game 4 was the first kingside opening of the match, and was sharper with Pirc playing a Sicilian in a manner favoured at the time by Gligoric. Euwe once again adopted a positional treatment with <7.Bg2> and K-side castling. Euwe built up pressure against Pirc's backward K-pawn, but it was not enough to ensure an advantage. Euwe could have played on but it seems that he judged he would be better to preserve his energy as his opponent would be quite capable of holding the position. Game 5 Pirc played his solid system with an early <e3> against Euwe's Slav and emerged from the opening with a better pawn structure but with multiple exchanges leaving only two minor pieces left for each player Euwe was never in any serious danger. In Game 6, Euwe won a pawn and played onto realise his slender advantage. In a very instructive K+Ps endgame, Pirc won the pawn back but then made a technical error and lost when with best play he could have held the draw. After winning Game 7, Pirc once again defended with a Sicilian. Euwe played the opening a in slow fashion that allowed his opponent to improve on known theory with a rapid <d5> and gain quick equality. In Game 9 Pirc played a QGD very carefully taking no chances and after multiple exchanges a draw was agreed in 25 moves. The final game was decided by Euwe's technique. Pirc came near to equalising as Black. He had a IQP to defend but liquidated it leaving a Q, R and minor piece ending. He then exchanged Queens into what, at first glance, seemed to be a routine drawn ending click for larger view but underestimated Euwe's skill in exploiting his superior Bishop. "This pawn formation, which in itself is bad for Black since his majority is crippled by backwardness, offers the Bishop fine targets and invites White's King to penetrate on either side". [7] <Photograph:> https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.... <Literature:> The players wrote a 90 page book of the match: "Meč Pirc-Eve 5:5 : Bled-Ljubljana, 1949 /​ sa komentarima M. Evea i V. Pirca". Published by Šahovskog Saveza Jugoslavije,1951. <Notes> [1] Chess Life, Vol.3, no.1. February 5th 1949, p.1; and Vol.3, no.14. March 20th 1949, p.1 [2] Dates and locations for the games from "Meč Pirc-Eve 5:5 : Bled-Ljubljana, 1949". [3] Tidskrift for Schack, no.7, July-August 1949, P.182. [4] "The duel between the South Slavic chess master Pirc and our countryman Dr. Euwe has ended in a tie (5-5)." - <Het Vrije Volk - Thursday, 30 June 1949, p.3.> [5] "Meč Pirc-Eve 5:5 : Bled-Ljubljana, 1949", p.6. [6] Note that this was game 6 and not 5 which is erroneously given in the source. [7] Hans Kmoch, "Pawn Power in Chess", Dover Books, p.66-68. <Contributions> [User: zanzibar (for suggestions for further research); User: Tabanus (checking Dutch sources); User: crawfb5 (information about Euwe's career at this point) User: Paint My Dragon (information from the Swedish periodical "Tidskrift for Schack"). Many thanks to <The National Chess Library>, University of Brighton in Hastings (Sussex, UK), for access to their copy of "Meč Pirc-Eve 5:5 : Bled-Ljubljana, 1949" - http://about.brighton.ac.uk/hasting... ] 10 games, 1949 Fine - H.Steiner <Introduction:> Reuben Fine and Herman Steiner contested this match in March 1944 at the The Washington Social Chess Divan [1], Parkside Hotel, Washington D.C. [2], 14th and Eye Sts (now demolished). Although the March edition of "Chess Review" states "last month" , Herman Helms reported on Games 1 and 2 on Thursday 23rd March 1944 [3]. The exact dates of the match are as yet unconfirmed, but it seems most likely that it took place in week commencing Sunday 19th March 1944, and was finished by the end of same week. <Steiner> Herman Steiner was the dominant Californian player of the time. He was also an important West Coast chess organizer, the contemporaneous Los Angeles Times chess columnist and had founded and ran a chess club that was frequented by Hollywood stars. <Steiner had an infectious and irresistible personality that complemented his good looks, and all this suited both his entrepreneurial chess ventures and the Hollywood scene.> [4] Steiner was a strong master. He had previously lost a close match to Fine by 5½–4½ (New York 1932). Steiner tied for first place with Daniel Yanofsky in the Game Collection: US Open 1942, Dallas , and had come fifth in the 1942 US Championship. In 1943, he had dominated the California Open State Championship with the score of +17. <Fine> Reuben Fine was the challenger to the supremacy over American Chess of Samuel Reshevsky. "Fine's greatest success came in the AVRO (1938) tournament in Holland in 1938. This event, comprising the top eight players in the world, was generally accepted as a contest to decide who had the best credentials to challenge Alexander Alekhine for the world championship. Fine shared first place with Paul Keres, ahead of four past, present or future world champions. On the strength of that result, Fine later described himself as 'World Champion 1946-48' on the grounds that he had best claims to that title between Alekhine's death in 1946 and Mikhail Botvinnik accession to the throne in 1948." [5] <Progress:> Steiner was White in the odd numbered games. table[ Round ..1 2 3 4 Fine ...1 1 1 ½ Steiner.0 0 0 ½ ]table . <Games:> Fine's victories came from better calculation, Steiner twice went into variations that Fine refuted by seeing inter-mezzo moves (Games 2 and 3). In the first and in the final game, Steiner had promising attacks but he was unable to land the coup de grâce. <Game 1> "The most exciting game of chess ever to be played in Washington between two master players was the first in the four-game match by Herman Steiner and Reuben Fine." [6] Steiner sacrificed his <g> pawn for an attack after an opening in which the opponents castle on opposite sides. He then gave up the exchange for an attack which was probably unsound. Fine did not find the best defence and a level game ensued, but then Steiner blundered and Fine did not squander his second chance. <Game 2> Fine attacked on the K-side and kept the initiative for most of the game. Steiner defended well, but blundered late in the game and shed material. <Game 3> Steiner miscalculated and appears to have thought that he was winning a pawn in an equal position. Fine had seen further and created a very powerful passed pawn which won the game. Fine's notes to Game Three appears in "Chess Review" of March 1944 as "Game of the Month" column. <Game 4> This was the only <e> pawn opening of the match. Steiner as black developed a powerful attack and came very close to victory. Unfortunately for Steiner, he got his Queen trapped in a forced repetition and Fine saved the point. <Postscript> Both players then took part in the 1944 US Championship in New York (ending May 7th). In the absence of Samuel Reshevsky, Fine was expected to take his first title but the exceptional form of Arnold Denker (+14=3-0) relegated him to second place (+13=3-1). Steiner tied with Israel Albert Horowitz for third half a point behind Fine. <Notes> [1] "Reuben Fine defeated California's Herman Steiner by 3½ to ½ in an exhibition match at the Washington Chess Divan last month. Steiner was the guest of the Divan for two weeks... "Chess Review", March 1944, p.10. [2] "Chess Review", June-July 1944, p.8 [3] "Brooklyn Daily Eagle", 23rd March 1944, p.16 [4] NM Andy Sacks, http://www.chessdryad.com/articles/... [5] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p... [6] Willard Mutchler in "The Washington Post", March 26th, 1944. 4 games, 1944

<< previous | page 2 of 5 | next >>