[what is this?]

[what is this?]

<< previous | page 3 of 5 | next >>

Fine - Najdorf <Introduction>. Reuben Fine and Miguel Najdorf played a match from Saturday, January 15th to Wednesday, January 26th, 1949 in New York and New Jersey at: Manhattan Chess Club, Marshall Chess Club and a private address in Englewood. N.J. The match had a prize fund of $1,600 [1] (approx $16,000 in 2016 value) and Dr Edward Lasker acted as the director of play [2] Fine and Najdorf had only played once before in the New York tournament of 1948 - Fine vs Najdorf, 1948. Najdorf lost their individual game and took second place in the tournament with 6/9, two points behind Fine. <Fine> Fine was recognized as the number two American player behind Samuel Reshevsky. During the war he had worked for the Department of the Navy and from August 1941 he had very limited opportunity for master-class tournament play. Fine won the 1942 Washington, D.C. Chess Divan tournament and took the US Speed championships in 1942, 1943 and 1944. In February 1944, he defeated Herman Steiner 3½ to ½ in an exhibition match at Washington Chess Divan (Game Collection: Fine - H.Steiner). [3] His prospects, however, had been damaged by his on-going failure to win the U.S. Championship. Fine managed to get time off work to compete in the Fifth US Championship (April-May 1944) and played very successfully (scoring +12). Unfortunately, Arnold Denker scored an unprecendented +14 score (which was the largest winning score yet in the Championship). Fine was also a prolific chess author and journalist. Over the preceding decade - "Basic chess endings" (1941), "Chess the easy way" (1942), "The ideas behind the chess openings" (1943), "Chess Marches on" an analysis of 50 games played by leading masters during the period 1941-1944 (1945), "Practical chess openings (1948). Post-war, Fine had to decide on his future. Whilst preparing his doctoral thesis in psychology, he played in the Pan-American tournament held in Hollywood in 1945 finishing undefeated but second 1½ points behind Reshevsky. His strongest rivals Reshevsky and Isaac Kashdan were only part time professionals as there were few opportunities in the US for a secure income based on chess. Thus, whilst Fine’s academic work and lack of tournament practice did not appear to damage his chess strength he took a hard-headed decision to move on from grandmaster chess. <At the end of the war, he was faced with a difficult choice between his two careers. In 1948, he was invited to participate in a select six-man event for the world championship. Realising first that the Soviet players had improved greatly since the pre-war years, and secondly that a career in chess offered no financial security, Fine preferred to concentrate on his final examinations in psychoanalysis.> [4] Fine participated in the USSR - USA Radio Match (1945) where he lost ½ - 1½ to Isaac Boleslavsky and in the 1946 US-Soviet match in Moscow against Paul Keres which he lost ½ - 1½ [5] This may have also contributed to his decision that grandmaster chess would be a precarious profession as he would inevitably have had to compete with the emergent state sponsored players from the Soviet Union. Fine had already publicly stated that there was a lack of support and chances for international competition for American masters. Thus, whilst he had a career best in New York 1948 tournament (ahead of Najdorf and Max Euwe), after he received his Ph.D he set up in private practice as a psychoanalysist [6]. During the match Fine was consequently working as a doctor [7]. Fine was seeded into the Budapest Candidates (1950), but declined his place, and he was only to play one further tournament, Wertheim Memorial, New York 1951. <Najdorf> . <‘Najdorf is a born chess genius and, with a little of the self-discipline which he so strikingly lacks, capable of winning any world championship>. [8] Najdorf was extremely active to establishing himself as an elite player after the war, despite the difficulties involved with the expense and travelling. His efforts paid off, the post war to mid 1950's was to be Najdorf’s peak period (http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... ) in which he remained in the top ten of world players. In Argentina, Najdorf had come first a half point ahead of Ståhlberg at Mar del Plata (1947), second a half point behind Ståhlberg at Buenos Aires/La Plata (1947), second a half point behind Ståhlberg at Buenos Aires (1948), first at Buenos Aires/La Plata (1948). He had made his way to Europe to play in the few international tournaments available to western players. <"CHESS printed a report on an interview in the January 1947 issue of El Ajedrez Español in which Najdorf had declared: ‘I believe that I am inferior to none of the players who are to participate in the next world championship, Botvinnik, Fine, Reshevsky, Keres, Euwe. …None of these have a better record than I. I have played much less than they have, admittedly, but I am satisfied with my results.’"> [9] “By winning the Treybal Memorial tournament in Prague (October 1946), he had qualified for the forthcoming world championship tournament under the conditions laid down at the Winterthur Congress (17th FIDE Congress, July 1946)” [10] Yet, he was unexpectedly denied his candidate’s place when the FIDE congress at The Hague, (30th July - 2nd August 1947), changed the regulations for qualification to the FIDE World Championship Tournament (1948). Nadjorf came sixth equal at the Saltsjobaden Interzonal (1948) and this match with Fine reinforced his credentials as a world-class player. At the Budapest Candidates (1950) (April 7th - May 18th, 1950), Nadjorf at fifth, was the highest scoring non-Soviet player. <Match Schedule> Game 1 - Saturday, January 15th, 1949 Game 2 - Sunday, January 16th, 1949 Game 3 - Thursday, January 20th, 1949 Game 4 - Friday, January 21st, 1949 Game 5 - Saturday, January 22nd, 1949 Game 6 - Sunday, January 23rd, 1949 Game 7 - Tuesday, January 25th, 1949 Game 8 - Wednesday, January 26th, 1949 <Progress:> Fine was White in the odd numbered games. table[ Round ..1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Fine ...1 1 0 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ Najdorf.0 0 1 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ]table Progressive score : table[ Round ..1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Fine ...1 2 2 2 2½ 3 3½ 4 Najdorf.0 0 1 2 2½ 3 3½ 4 ]table . <The Games> Overall, Fine should have won the match, but he allowed Najdorf to recover after being two down. He lost Game 3 by superficial analysis of a drawn ending, and should have won Game 7 with a simple combination. <Game 1> "The start of the eight game slugfest was anything but promising for Najdorf. The first game was played at the Manhattan Chess Club, January 15th, under the sponsorship of club president Maurice Wertheim. The result was a forty move victory for Fine.” [11] click for larger view Najdorf played <20...Qe7>, Savielly Tartakower commented "Black has managed to get a satisfactory position, but now he shows a pacifism which will bring its own retribution. By playing <20...b5>...he could have established a lasting equality". [12] After Fine's <21.Na4!> he dominated the Q-side and the game. <Game 2> "The second game, also at the Manhattan Chess Club, this time sponsored (by) Don Luis Salmon of Bogota, Columbia, was even more shocking: Fine scored in 27 moves! It was his third consecutive win (the first being in a recent tourney) over the man, who according to his own statement (made two years ago in a Spanish magazine), will one day be world champion. Najdorf had played incredibly lackadaisical chess and even he was at a loss to explain some of his moves." [13] <Game 3> The third game took place at the Marshall Chess Club, January 20. It was adjourned after forty moves with Najdorf a pawn ahead but Fine confident that the ending was only a draw. [14] click for larger view <64. h3?> "The correct move was <64.Nf2>...(Fine) offered a draw. I wasn't keen to agree since I had an extra pawn. The he informed me of a similar ending had occurred in the Anderssen-Steinitz match of 1866 (see - Anderssen vs Steinitz, 1866 he had included the position and analysis in his own ending handbook. 'It's an obvious draw", Fine added. I looked at the positions and compared them, and I didn't agree with my opponent's verdict. I played on and won the game". <65...Nc2!!> (The threat is 66...Ne1 67. Nd2 h5, creating zugzwang) [15] <Game Four> "The fourth game was also adjourned. It had been played at the home of Morris Cohen in Englewood. N.J." [16] Game 4 - "Rarely do we witness a player pushed into a loss without making a perceptible error. It does happen, however...Cramped right from the opening, Black gradually crumbles under the pressure of White's artful manoeuvres". [17] With hindsight and away from the heat of battle, it appears that Fine only blundered late in the game in a cramped but defensible position. The next two games were at the Marshall Chess Club. Which were drawn. The two adjourned games were played off. [18] <Game 5> Fine was unable to make his passed <a> pawn a decisive factor, and the game was drawn. <Game 6> A careful positional game, which became established theory, Fine methodically equalized as Black. <Game Seven> “The seventh game was an all-out tactical battle in which Fine sacrificed two Knights and ended ...in a perpetual check.” [19] Fine had grabbed a hot pawn and came under a strong attack, but in a sharp position he outplayed Najdorf. Under heavy attack, Najdorf played his Bishop rather than his Knight to <g6>. click for larger view Fine continued with <37.f7!> and should have won after <37...Kg7> click for larger view with <36.Qxd8!> <Game Eight> The final game, played at the Marshall Chess Club, eight was a careful draw. "Najdorf was warmly congratulated upon the success of his uphill struggle. In the opinion of Dr Edward Lasker, who acted as the director of play, Najdorf justified his claim to a place in the forthcoming tournament of challengers for the world title." [20] <Notes> [1] "Najdorf: Life and Games", Adrian Mikhalchischin, Tomasz Lissowski and Miguel Najdorf, p.33. [2] "New York Times", January 27, 1949, p.28. [3] “Chess Review”, March 1944, p.10. [4] William Hartston (1993) - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p... [5] “Chess Review”, March 1944, p.5-6. [6] He had a private practice of psychoanalysis in New York at 72 Barrow Street, New York City, “Chess Review”, February 1949, p. 36. [7] "Najdorf: Life and Games", Adrian Mikhalchischin, Tomasz Lissowski and Miguel Najdorf, p.33. [8] - <B.H. Wood, CHESS, November 1944, p.19. [9] Quoted by Edward Winter, http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... [10] "Najdorf: Life and Games", Adrian Mikhalchischin, Tomasz Lissowski and Miguel Najdorf, p.27. [11] - "Chess Review", February 1949, p.34. [12] "100 Master Games of Modern Chess, Tartakower and Du Mont", p.140. [13] - "Chess Review", February 1949, p.34. [14] "Chess Review", February 1949, p.34. [15] "Najdorf: Life and Games", Adrian Mikhalchischin, Tomasz Lissowski and Miguel Najdorf, p.33. [16] "Chess Review", February 1949, p.34. [17] Hans Kmoch – quoted in "Chess Review", April 1949, p.108. [18] "Chess Review", February 1949, p.34. [19] "Chess Review", February 1949, p.34 [20] "New York Times", January 27, 1949, p.28. 8 games, 1949 Flohr - Sultan Khan <Introduction> This was a six-game match played in London, 22nd-27th February 1932, between Salomon Flohr and Sultan Khan. The games were played at the private Langford Club, in St John's Wood, an affluent north London suburb. [(1)] The match was held with the unusual condition that it was a "combined match" of British versus foreign players. The individual scores being cumulated to give an overall outcome. "A match of six games has been arranged between S.Flohr, who won the Hastings Christmas tourney (Hastings (1930/31)) and was second to Alexander Alekhine in the recent London Tournament (London (1932)), and Sultan Khan, the Indian Champion and ex-British Champion." [(2)] "The match of six games between S.Flohr and Malik (sic) Sultan Khan at the Langford Club, London, was closely contested and was won by Flohr with a score of 3½ to 2½. Victor Buerger beat Salo Landau , the Dutch player, by 4½ to 1½ , and, as arranged, the two British scores added won the combined match." [(3)] "With his close victory over Sultan Khan in a series of six games, Flohr has achieved three impressive successes this year, including a first at Hastings and a second to Alexander Alekhine, and it seems likely that he will be soon among the from whom the contenders for world supremacy at chess are selected. The last series of games tested him thoroughly, and ... he only just got home". [(4)] <The progress of the match:> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 Flohr 1 ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 3½ Sultan Khan 0 ½ 1 ½ ½ 0 2½ ]table Progressive score: table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 Flohr 1 1½ 1½ 2 2½ 3½ Sultan Khan 0 ½ 1½ 2 2½ 2½ ]table Sultan Khan had White in the odd-numbered games. <The Players> Up to this match, their scores were tied at 1½ points each (+1 =1 -1). <Sultan Khan> Sultan Khan had won the British Championship in 1929; he would do so again in 1932 and 1933. He was Britain's strongest player and played first board for England in the Chess Olympiads at Hamburg 1930, Prague 1931 and Folkestone 1933. His reputation had recently been enhanced with his defeat of Savielly Tartakower in a match of twelve games in January 1931 - Sultan Khan - Tartakower (1931) (+4 -3 =5). Despite this, his opportunities were ultimately circumscribed by being a bonded servant of the Indian landowner and soldier Major-General Sir Malik Mohammed Umar Hayat Khan (1875–1944). When the Major General returned to India in 1933, this effectively ended Sultan Khan's chess career. <Flohr> Flohr's rise to becoming a leading master began three years before this match, in 1929, at Rogaška Slatina, where he finished second to Akiba Rubinstein. Flohr, who was making a living as a journalist, had only been admitted due to the commendation of Aron Nimzowitsch [(5)] Flohr had scored well for Czechoslovakia on board one at the Hamburg Olympiad of 1930 and at Prague 1931. In tournaments, he had also scored well: [[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. Flohr had ambitious plans: "The 'Birmingham Post' also notes later project of importance thus: 'Herr S. Flohr informs us that it is proposed to hold large-scale tournament next October at Zlin, Czecho-Slovakia on the lines of the big congress at Carlsbad in 1929. There are to be twenty-two to twenty-four competitors. and Dr. Alekhine and Senor Jose Raul Capablanca" [(6)] Later in 1932, he would tie a match with Max Euwe, (+3 -3 =10) Euwe - Flohr (1932) and in 1933 tie a further match with Mikhail Botvinnik (+2 -2 =8) - Botvinnik - Flohr (1933). In this period, Flohr was undoubtedly a contender for the world championship. <The games> [[Game 1]] - Sultan Khan lost the first game of the match despite having the White pieces. Even worse for him was that he lost through a blunder: click for larger view <28. Qc2?> allowed Flohr to whip up a King-side attack with his Queen and Knights and win the game in short order. [28.Qc2? Qxh2 29.Qxc4 Ng5 30.Qf1 Nh5 31.f4 Ne4+ 32.Ke1 Nexg3 0-1] [[Game 2]] - Having lost the first game, Sultan Khan defended carefully and accurately. In a long minor pieces endgame, he won a pawn. Despite this, Flohr managed to fight his way to a draw. [[Game 3]] - The tide of the match seemed to be turning in favour of Sultan Khan. Flohr was under pressure for most of the game before overlooking a tactical finesse: click for larger view Flohr played <55...Kd7> only to be rocked back with <56.Rxf7+> and his King-side pawns soon disappeared. Even more effective would have been <56. Rc4!!>, as taking the pawn would walk into a mating net. [[Game 4]] - Flohr tried hard to press for an advantage against his opponent's Queen's Gambit Declined. Sultan Khan had an Isolated Queen's Pawn but was compensated by control of the <c> file. The game was drawn. [[Game 5]] - Flohr defended with a Nimzo-Indian, Samisch (E24). Sultan Khan opened up the <h> file but Flohr was able to defend his King by swapping off all the Rooks. The position was left blocked and equal was soon abandoned as a draw. The match was now poised at 2½ points each with only one game remaining. In the final game, Flohr would have the advantage of the White pieces. [[Game 6]] - Flohr had the advantage in space for most of the game. Sultan Khan was cramped and on the defensive and had no margin for inaccuracy. click for larger view <36.Bxd5!> was the winning blow that gave Flohr victory in this match. <Notes:> [(1)]. "The Observer", (London), 28th February 1932, p.25. [(2)]. "The Guardian", (London), 26th February 1932, p.3. [(3)]. "The Guardian", (London), 29th February 1932, p.3. [(4)]. "The Guardian", (London), 1st March 1932, p.3. [(5)]. See http://www.nss.cz/ostatni/salomon-f... and “The Czechoslovak Republic”, 13th October 1929. [(6)]. "Linlithgowshire Gazette", 26th February 1932, p.8. <Contemporary Game Sources:> All the games in this collection were already in the Database. [[Game 1]] - Score given in in "The Guardian", (London), 26th February 1932, p.3. matched the CG score. Also it can be found in "The Observer" (London) 28th February 1932, p.25. [[Game 3]] - Score up to move 46 (adjournment) given in "De Telegraaf", (Holland), 26th February 1932, p.2. [[Game 4]] - Score given in "Algemeen Handelsblad", (Holland), 27th February 1932, p.2. [[Game 5]] - Score given in "Algemeen Handelsblad", (Holland), 1st March 1932, p.2. [[Game 6]] - Score given in "The Guardian", (London), 1st March 1932, p.3. matched the CG score. Thanks to User: Telemus for sourcing the scores in the Dutch newspapers and to User: Paint My Dragon. 6 games, 1932 Flohr - van den Bosch <Introduction:> As part of his preparation for his match against Max Euwe, Salomon Flohr played a short match in April 1932 against the 26 y.o. Dutch master Johannes van den Bosch. Van der Bosch was a strong amateur, who had just came second place with Conel Hugh O'Donel Alexander in a small British tournament at Cambridge, England, in March 1932, behind Sultan Khan. He was thought sufficiently strong to represent Holland in the first three Olympiads. Van der Bosch had previous experience of playing a top grandmaster one-to-one, he had lost a short match to Akiba Rubinstein (+0 =0 -3) in 1930. The match was delayed by a difficulty in finalising the funding. [(1)] The match lasted from 15th to 23rd April 1932 and was played in The Hague. <Match Score:> Van den Bosch had White in the odd numbered games. Flohr won (+4 -0 =4) [(2)], but he came close to defeat in Game 3 and his opponent played sharply and with aggression. Flohr was superior in noting and seizing tactical opportunities. Van den Bosch lost material three in three games (1,4 and 7) due to overlooking short sharp combinations. table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Pts 1 Flohr 1 ½ ½ 1 1 ½ 1 ½ 6 2 van den Bosch 0 ½ ½ 0 0 ½ 0 ½ 2 ]table Cumulative score: table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Flohr 1 1½ 2 3 4 4½ 5½ 6 2 van den Bosch 0 ½ 1 1 1 1½ 1½ 2 ]table <Highlights of the match> [[Game 1]] Flohr as Black outplayed van den Bosch in the late middlegame. Van den Bosch had played very aggressively against Flohr's Caro-Kann defence. Flohr weathered the storm, and in a position whose outcome seemed to be a probable draw, was alert to the possibility of a tactical coup, click for larger view van den Bosch had played <29...Qd2> to prevent the advance of the <f> pawn but Flohr saw he could push the pawn through as <30.Bxf4?> lost to Qe4 attacking two pieces. The release of Flohr's King's bishop aginst his opponent's black square weaknesses soon decided the game. [[Game 2]] Despite his loss in the first game, van den Bosch again played a sharply using the new hyper-modern Grunfeld Defence. He emerged with an advantage out of the opening but missed the win of a pawn by: click for larger view <20...Qxb2!> instead of the actual 20...Rd2. This allowed Flohr to equalise and a draw was soon agreed. [[Game 3]] Flohr defended with an Old Indian Defence but drifted into an inferior position. In the middle game, van den Bosch missed at least one winning opportunity. Flohr defended poorly against his oponent's attack upon his King. The culmination of the attack should have led to victory for van den Bosch: click for larger view <34. Nh6+!> Kh8 35. Qxf6+ Bxf6 36. Rxf6 Nd7?! and now with an extra piece for a pawn he should have been able to win but could only draw. [[Game 4]] Van den Bosh blundered a piece straight out of the opening to one move coup: click for larger view played <18...Rd7?> overlooking the toxic <Nb5!> winning a piece. [[Game 5]] Once again van den Bosch played energetically in the opening. He castling on the opposite side and throwing his K-side pawns up the board towards Flohr's King. Despite Flohr bing left with no pawns in fornt of his King, he steered through the complications and then won the game with a neat combination: click for larger view <27...Rxe3!> 28.fxe3 Rc2 [[Game 6]] Was a QGD, which van den Bosch, as Black, drew with a Bishop sacrifice for perpetual check. [[Game 7]] Faced with Flohr's Caro-Kann, Van den Bosh sacrificed a pawn to displace the Black King but he could not exploit this. His pieces were driven back and his game collapsed when he lost a piece stranded deep in his opponent's territory. [[Game 8]] The final game was the second QGD, pieces were quickly exchanged and draw was agreed in only 23 moves. <Notes:> [(1)]. "The Telegraph", 12th April 1932 p.2. [(2)]. "The Sumatra Post", 9th May 1932 p.2. 8 games, 1932 Frankfurt am Main 1887 <Background> This was the Fifth German Chess Congress of the Deutschen Schachbund (DSB - German Chess Federation). It took place in Frankfurt am Main in 1887, the venue being the Assembly Rooms of the Zoological Gardens [(1)] German chess benefitted from the rapid expansion of the economy after 1880, the period known as "Gründerzeit" (Founding period) in which many large and soon to be prominent industrial companies were created such as: Krupp, Stinnes, Hoesch and Thyssen. A period of economic prosperity extending until the First World War provided the means for German chess to stage large international tournaments. For our chess masters, Frankfurt would have been prosperous and confident city, it had built a new Stock Exchange (1879), an Opera House (1880), and its large new Central Station (1888) was nearing completion. [(2)] <Significance> Using Chessmetrics' data, the Fifth German Chess Congress was the strongest tournament held between 1885 and 1895 [(3)]. With the exceptions of Wilhelm Steinitz (1st) and James Mason (8th), it involved all the ten top players of the time [(4)]. The next-strongest tournaments in this period, were New York 1889 and then Bradford 1888. The strength of Frankfurt’s assemblage of leading masters was not surpassed until 1895 by Hastings (1895) [(5)]. <The Congress> The tournament comprised: a Master Tournament, a Major Tournament ("Hauptturnier"), a First-Class Tournament, a Second-Class Tournament and a "Free tournament" for "for participants in the major and minor tournaments". Due to a small number of players, the Hauptturnier was divided into two preliminary groups, the top players of each group then progressing into the final "Siegergruppe" (Winning group). Bauer won the Siegergruppe and so won the Hauptturnier. There were also both Problem Composing and Problem Solving Tournaments, as well as Consultation Games [(6)]. The Congress was also significant as it functioned as the administrative congress for German Chess. The financial and bureaucratic issues of developing chess within the German Empire, were debated during the Congress. Happily, it was not all administration and regulations. There were many lively social events connected to the Congress. <The social life of the Congress> Despite a schedule of two games a day on most days, there was also a carefully organized social aspect to the congress. "On Thursday, 21st, the unfinished games were played and Alexander Fritz gave his blindfold exhibition, in which he won 7, drew 2 and lost only one game." [(7)]. "Besides the many entertainments which have been arranged for the participants and visitors to this great gathering of chess players there will be a blindfold exhibition by one of the German Masters, who will play ten games without sight of board or men. And for the lovers of chess poetry there is provided a Problem and a Solution Tourney with prizes. Before the contest begins, a social festival will be held by the players and visitors at the Frankenbraeu, Goetheplatz, on Saturday, July 16th..." [(8)]. “On July 18, in the evening, a great banquet was held. The usually unpretentious Congress Room now offered a very different appearance. The numerous small tables where the chess master had spent their days in battle were deployed, and the sobriety of the battle field yielded to the Hall’s festive decoration. The hall was resplendent in festive splendour. Four long, horseshoe shaped tables, with their dazzling white covers; flowers and enticing Mediterranean fruits invited guests to the banquet, while the most beautiful Rhine wines were agents of reconciliation for adversarial minds, and composure for those who had already suffered defeats. They peered out, their coloured caps emerging from the ice buckets wishing to make the further acquaintance of chess players”. [(9)] Time was set aside for sight-seeing trips: "Saturday the 23rd of July...In the afternoon: free for the end of the unfinished games. In the evening: Cosy gathering in the Palmengarten or the Forsthaus. Sunday, July 24th. Excursion to the Rhine and the Niederwald [(10)]. "July 24th, being Sunday no play occurred Instead an excursion was made to Bingen, and in the evening a banquet was held at Frankfort, during which the (Congress- e.d) Secretary Zwanzig proposed the health of Johannes Zukertort. In his toast, he prominently mentioned the great efforts shown by Zukertort in the advancements made in chess during the last twenty years, encouraging him to be of good cheer, and not to be disheartened by the suffering caused by his bodily affliction." [(11)] "Sunday, July 31st. Morning: sightseeing. In the afternoon: an excursion to the countryside around Frankfurt." [(12)] <The opening of the Congress> This was a prestigious event. "Officially, the Conference was opened Sunday, afternoon 4 p.m., in the sumptuously decorated Hall of the Zoological Garden with a warm, cordial welcoming speech of the President of the local Committee, Mr J. Günther, who gained lively applause from the packed meeting. Matters closed with the draw for the Masters tournament." [(13)] It was also obviously a tournament of the leading players of the time, which dissuaded some minor masters from endangering their reputations by participating. "There was a proud number of ear-catching names. Never before had so many standard bearers from all nations flocked to a tournament. Dr. Schmid from Blasewitz, who was present, nevertheless preferred, not to join in the struggle. Similarly, Johannes Minckwitz and Arnold Schottlaender both for reasons of health, and in view of the prolonged length of the tournament, declined to play. The two Russian players, as well as Theodor von Scheve, had to be put to a ballot of the masters as to whether the provisions of the German Chess Federation allowed them to be admitted to the Masters Tournament. The other masters, of course, did not hesitate to give their consent, Master Mikhail Chigorin from Petersburg by letter, and Zukertort by announcing it directly. Moreover, they readily agreed to Mr.v. Scheve in view of his recent and favourable results in particular in German tournaments Dr. Josef Noa, who was not yet present, had signalled his impending arrival by telegraph, so that the draw could be readily held. Twenty one master thus came to gallantly fight." [(14)] <Itinerary> "The official opening of the tournament was June 17th, 1887, but play did not begin until June 18th. The games were played between 9am and 1pm and then resumed after lunch from 4pm to 8pm. Alternate afternoons were left for adjourned games to be played out...The rate of play was 20 moves per hour. [(15)] Sunday, July 17th. In the afternoon at 4 o'clock: Assembly of the participants in the congress hall in the Zoological Society Garden, issue of the congress tickets, welcoming of the guests, draws for the Master and Major tournaments..." [(16)] The schedule was taxing, and certain players flagged conspicuously in later rounds: Berthold Englisch, 7½ at Round 10 and 11½ at the end of the tournament, Jean Taubenhaus 5 and 6½ and Curt von Bardeleben 8 and 13. <Provisions for the tournaments> <Master Tournament> Each participant had to play all his games against the other masters. After paying an entrance fee of 25 marks, each master made a further deposit of 25 marks (about £123/$153 in 2016 values). This was their guarantee to the organizers against defaulting. It would only be returned to them after the completion of all their games. 1st prize: 1,000 Marks. 2nd prize: 750 Marks. 3rd prize: 500 Marks. 4th prize: 300 Marks. 5th prize: 200 Marks. 6th prize: 150 Marks. A special prize "for the most beautiful game" of £5, donated by Mr. Frederic Lewis in London. [(17)] <Hauptturnier> "The Major Tournament was completed on the 27th, Mr. Johann Hermann Bauer winning the first prize of 300 mark and the mastership title... Mr. Bauer is 26 years old, and has proved to be a strong player only during the last two years. He won the first prize in two local tournaments (Vienna and Prague) in 1885. In the tournament of the Vienna Chess Club of 1886 he won the second prize, and in the tournament of the same club he won first prize in 1887." [(18)] <The Masters in the Master Tournament> "The appearance of the Englishman Amos Burn, an unknown personality in Germany but the winner of two English tournaments, was especially anxious. He had arrived worn out to exhaustion, he had walked from Cologne to Frankfurt (approx. 172 kms/107 miles e.d.) and could have to walk back. His prospects for success in the tournament, if not now impossible, had thereby deteriorated significantly." [(19)] "Many are the gallant Knights who have entered the list. There is Louis Paulsen, the bellicose giant; Fritz and v. Scheve, the coming champions; Emil Schallopp, who split his lance in times of old with Adolf Anderssen and Ignatz von Kolisch. He is one of the greatest of blindfold players and a dangerous antagonist, but lacking steadiness which is indispensable to achieve the highest honours in tournament play. Curt v. Bardeleben, the Victor in the Vizayanagaram, London (1883) and Editor of the German Schach-Zeitung. Hermann von Gottschall, his co-editor the son of the Poet and problem composer. Johannes Metger, from Kiel, a chess veteran of more than mere local fame, and Max Harmonist, one of the most promising Berlin players. Dr.Siegbert Tarrasch, who came near winning the first prize in the Hamburg Tournament, and who may be better favoured by fortune now, and last but not least the genial, but eccentric Schottlander. From allied Austria there is Berthold Englisch, the "Great Drawing-Master", one of the strongest players in the world. The renowned Analyzer and Problemist, Prof Johann Berger, and also Max Weiss, who, easily satisfied with a draw, is dangerous to competitors with higher aims. From Hungaria (sic) the only player is the chivalrous Dr. Noa He fights for sheer love of conquest. In two tournaments he played in the first round only, being too busy to play in the second, showing that he does not play from pecuniary motives. He is a dashing and brilliant player and some gems may be anticipated. The English contingent is strong both in number and in calibre. Joseph Blackburne, the pride of "Haughty Albion", fresh with laurels from his recent victory; Zukertort, who has made the most wonderful record in tournament play in the London (1883) and although he had to lower his flag to both Steinitz and Blackburne, he may again force victory to his side. "Mephisto" Isidor Gunsberg may repeat his Hamburg triumph, and Amos Burn will, no doubt, prove a formidable opponent, as will Bird and Mason. America is represented by your gallant Capt. George Mackenzie. Russia by her second strongest player, Semyon Alapin and by Emmanuel Schiffers. And France by Taubenhaus, who won the brilliancy prize in the 4th DSB Congress, Hamburg (1885). Since Chess Congresses have been held none has been so important, and it may be safely predicted that in view of the number and the strength of the participants in the present Tournament, it will be the most eminent of all that have yet taken place, not only in Frankfort, nor in Germany alone, but surpassing all that have hitherto been held." [(20)] <Prizes> Mackenzie won the first prize of 1,000 Marks which in 2016 value represents £4,914.00/$6,100 [(21)]. Despite the prestige of the tournament, the prize was modest. For Mackenzie, this would give him $238 (1887 value) dollars. As a rough comparison, an American plumber in 1890 would earn about $3.37 a day, so this prize would represent about 71 days of an average plumber's wages. [(22)] Blackburne and Weiss shared second and third prizes of 750 + 500 Marks. Von Bardeleben fourth prize - 300 Marks. Berger and Tarrasch shared fifth and sixth prizes of 200 + 150 Marks. Englisch seventh prize - 100 Marks. Paulsen and Schallopp shared eight prize of 80 Marks. <Conclusion> "In the banquet in honour of the victors President Günther the health of the successful masters. Capt. Mackenzie responded to the Toast of the Committee of the Congress, but the sensation of the evening was brought on by Secretary Zwanzig taking the floor and challenging, in the name of the German Chess Association, England to play a Team Match; 30 players on a side, and the match to be played on neutral ground, either in Belgium or in Holland, and to be fought for the glory attending victory, and the intrinsic value of the prizes to be of secondary consideration." [(23)] <Rounds> [ [[1st Round]]. Monday, July 18, morning. Dr. Tarrasch had the bye [[2nd round]]. Monday, July 18, afternoon. Schiffers had the bye [[3rd round]]. Tuesday, July 19, morning. Scallopp had the bye [[4th round]]. Wednesday, July 20, morning. Metger had the bye [[5th round]]. Wednesday, July 20, afternoon. Mackenzie had the bye [[6th round]]. Thursday, July 21, morning. Weiss had the bye [[7th round]]. Friday, July 22, morning. Alapin had the bye [[8th round]]. Friday, July 22, afternoon. v. Scheve had the bye [[9th round]]. Saturday, July 23, morning. Berger had the bye [[10th round]]. Monday, July 25, morning. Dr. Noa had the bye [[11th round]]. Monday, July 25, afternoon. L. Paulsen had the bye [[12th round]]. Tuesday, July 26, morning. Burn had the bye [[13th round]]. Wednesday, July 27, morning. English had the bye [[14th round]]. Wednesday, July 27, afternoon. Taubenhaus had the bye [[15th round]]. Thursday, July 28, morning. v Bardeleben had the bye [[16th round]]. Friday, July 29, morning. V. Gottschall had the bye [[17th round]]. Friday, July 29, afternoon. Blackburne had the bye [[18th round]]. Saturday, July 30, morning. Zukertort had the bye [[19th round]]. Monday 1st August morning. Gunsberg had the bye [[20th round]]. Monday, August 1, afternoon. Harmonist had the bye [[21st round]]. Tuesday, August 2, morning. Fritz had the bye ] [(24)] table[ M B W B B T E P S S A B N G M Z V V T F H Mackenzie,George X 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 ½ 1 1 1 0 1 15 Blackburne,Joseph 0 X 1 0 ½ 1 1 0 ½ ½ 1 1 1 1 ½ 1 1 1 1 ½ 0 13½ Weiss,Miksa ½ 0 X 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 0 1 1 ½ 1 1 13½ Von Bardeleben,Curt ½ 1 0 X ½ ½ 0 1 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 ½ 1 13 Berger,Johann ½ ½ ½ ½ X ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 1 ½ ½ 1 0 ½ 1 1 1 12 Tarrasch,Siegbert 0 0 0 ½ ½ X 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 12 Englisch,Berthold 1 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 X 0 0 0 ½ 1 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 1 ½ 0 1 11½ Paulsen,Louis 0 1 0 0 ½ 0 1 X 1 1 ½ 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 11 Schallopp,Emil 0 ½ 0 0 ½ 1 1 0 X 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 ½ ½ 1 1 0 11 Schiffers,Emanuel 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 0 1 0 1 X ½ 0 0 1 0 1 ½ 1 0 ½ 1 10 Alapin,Simon 0 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ X 1 ½ 0 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 9½ Burn,Amos 0 0 0 ½ 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 X 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 9½ Noa,Josef 1 0 ½ 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 ½ 0 X 0 ½ 1 1 0 1 ½ 1 9 Gunsberg,Isidor 0 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 0 0 1 1 1 X ½ ½ 1 0 ½ 1 0 8½ Metger,Johannes 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 0 1 1 0 ½ ½ X 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ 8½ Zukertort,Johannes ½ 0 1 ½ 0 0 ½ 0 0 0 ½ 0 0 ½ 1 X 1 0 1 1 1 8½ Von Gottschall,Hermann 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 ½ ½ 0 1 0 0 ½ 0 X 1 ½ 1 1 8 Von Scheve,Theodor 0 0 0 0 ½ 0 0 1 ½ 0 ½ 0 1 1 1 1 0 X 0 1 ½ 8 Taubenhaus,Jean 0 0 ½ 0 0 0 ½ 1 0 1 0 0 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 X 1 0 6½ Fritz,Alexander 1 ½ 0 ½ 0 1 1 0 0 ½ 0 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 0 0 0 X ½ 6 Harmonist,Max 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 ½ 0 0 ½ 1 ½ X 5½ ]table Progressive score for the tournament: table[ R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 R11 R12 R13 R14 R15 R16 R17 R18 R19 R20 R21 Mackenzie ½ 1½ 2½ 3½ 3½ 4½ 5 6 6 6½ 7½ 8½ 8½ 9½ 10½ 11 12 12 13 14 15 Blackburne 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 8 8½ 8½ 9½ 10 10 11 11 11 12 12½ 13 13½ Weiss 0 ½ 1½ 2 2½ 2½ 3½ 4 5 5½ 6½ 6½ 7½ 8½ 9½ 10 11 11 12 12½ 13½ Von Bardeleben 1 2 2½ 3½ 4½ 5 6 6½ 7½ 8 8½ 9 10 10 10 11 11½ 12 12½ 13 13 Berger 1 1 2 3 3½ 4 4½ 5 5 5½ 6 6½ 7 7½ 8½ 8½ 9 9½ 10 11 12 Tarrasch 0 0 0 1 1½ 2½ 2½ 3 3 4 4 5 6 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 12 Englisch 1 2 2½ 3½ 4 5 6 6 7 7½ 8 8 8 9 9 9½ 9½ 9½ 10 10½ 11½ Paulsen 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 4½ 5 5 6 6 7 8 9 10 10 10 10 11 Schallopp 0 1 1 1 2 2½ 2½ 3½ 3½ 4 5 6 6 7 7 7½ 7½ 8½ 9½ 10 11 Schiffers ½ ½ ½ 1 2 2 2 2 2½ 3½ 4½ 4½ 5½ 5½ 6 7 7 8 8½ 9 10 Alapin 1 1½ 2½ 2½ 2½ 2½ 2½ 3 3½ 4 4½ 4½ 4½ 5½ 6 6 6½ 7 7½ 8½ 9½ Burn 0 0 ½ ½ ½ 1½ 2½ 3½ 3½ 4½ 5½ 5½ 6½ 6½ 7½ 8½ 9½ 9½ 9½ 9½ 9½ Noa 0 0 0 0 ½ 1½ 2 2½ 2½ 2½ 2½ 3½ 4½ 5½ 6½ 6½ 7½ 8½ 9 9 9 Gunsberg ½ 1 1 2 3 3½ 4½ 5 5 5 5 5 6 6½ 6½ 7 7½ 7½ 7½ 8½ 8½ Metger ½ 1 2 2 2½ 2½ 3 3 3½ 4 4 4½ 4½ 4½ 4½ 5½ 6 7 7½ 8 8½ Zukertort ½ 1 1 1 1½ 2 2 2½ 3½ 3½ 4½ 5½ 5½ 5½ 5½ 6½ 7½ 7½ 8½ 8½ 8½ Von Gottschall 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3½ 4 4 5 5 6 6½ 6½ 6½ 7½ 7½ 8 8 Von Scheve 0 0 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5½ 5½ 6 6 6½ 7 8 8 Taubenhaus 0 1 1½ 1½ 1½ 2 3 4 4½ 5 6 6 6 6 6½ 6½ 6½ 6½ 6½ 6½ 6½ Fritz ½ 1 1 1 1½ 1½ 1 1½ 1½ 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5½ 6 6 6 Harmonist 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3½ 3½ 4 4 4½ 4½ 4½ 5½ 5½ 5½ 5½ 5½ ]table . In this tournament, 71% of the games were decisive. White won 42% of the games, 30% were drawn and Black won 28%. Tarrasch's score is notable. After a very poor start, he played with great determination to come in with the second highest tally of wins (11) along with Blackburn. His loses, meant, however, that he could only secure a share of fifth and sixth places. Similarly, Paulsen with 10 wins and 8 losses could only come in to share eighth prize. Outside of the prize list, Burn had 9 wins but 10 loses. table[ "+" "=" "-" Mackenzie 13 4 3 15 Blackburne 11 5 4 13½ Weiss 9 9 2 13½ Von Bardeleben 8 10 2 13 Berger 6 12 2 12 Tarrasch 11 2 7 12 Englisch 8 7 5 11½ Paulsen 10 2 8 11 Schallopp 9 4 7 11 Schiffers 7 6 7 10 Alapin 5 9 6 9½ Burn 9 1 10 9½ Noa 7 4 9 9 Gunsberg 5 7 8 8½ Metger 3 11 6 8½ Zukertort 6 5 9 8½ Von Gottschall 6 4 10 8 Von Scheve 6 4 10 8 Taubenhaus 4 5 11 6½ Fritz 3 6 11 6 Harmonist 4 3 13 5½ ]table <Analytics> . <Openings> The openings were predominantly King-Pawn, the most popular variations being: Played in 12 games: Ruy Lopez (c77) Played in 10 games: Ruy Lopez, Berlin Defense (c65) Vienna (c25) French, Classical (c14) Played in 7 games: French, Exchange (c01) Four Knights (c47) Played in 6 games: Sicilian, Accelerated Fianchetto (B34) Queen's Pawn Game (D05) <Themes> This represents an analysis using SCID [(25)] of the recorded games : Same side castling - 61% Opposite side castling - 10% Kingside pawn storm - 9% Queen exchanged - 51% Only one side has bishop pair - 7% White isolated Queen pawn - 6% Black isolated Queen Pawn - 12% White pawn on 5/6/7/th rank - 54% Black pawn on 5/6/7/th rank - 37% Open c/d/e/ file - 44% <Shortest games> Tarrasch-Zukertort 1-0 (17) Harmonist-Englisch 0-1 (15) Harmonist-Burn 0-1 (17) Metger-Mackenzie 0-1 (19) The tournament book by Von Gottschall is incomplete. The tournament book states that various unspecified issues had delayed its timely publication. The following seven games are missing without explanation from the tournament book: table[ Game: Result: Round: Blackburne vs. Burn 1-0 4 Englisch vs. Tarrasch 0-1 7 Metger vs. Taubenhaus ½-½ 9 Weiss vs. Von Gottschall 1-0 11 Harmonist vs. Von Scheve ½-½ 14 Noa vs. Harmonist 1-0 15 Blackburne vs. Schiffers ½-½ 20 ]table A fragment of Burn vs.Blackburne (r.4.) has been preserved in contemporary publications. click for larger view [<41...g4> 42.Rfc2 g3 43.h3 Kxf5 44.Rb5 g5 45.Kg2 Rxh3 46.Kg1 Rh6 47.c5 Be5 48.Rc4 Bf4 49.Rb3 e3 50.d6 Rch8 51.Bg2 e2 52.Re4 Rh1+ 53.Bxh1 0-1] . [(26)] <Highlights of each Round> [[1st Round]] In a winning position, Schallopp panicked himself into playing <28. Rfe2?>believing he was in danger of being mated by Harmonist. click for larger view Instead, after <28. Rf3> Rh1+ 29. Kf2 Rxe1 30. Qxe4 Rxe4 31. Kxg3, he has won the game. click for larger view After a careless by Von Scheve, Von Bardeleben played the crushing <22. Ng4!> [[2nd round]] After a 99 move loss in Round One, and no doubt still tired from his epic journey to the tournament, Burn played <30.Rh2?> only to further walk into a magnificent combination: click for larger view [30... Nfxd3+!!> 31. Bxd3 Nxd3+ 32. Qxd3 e4 33. Qxe4 Qxh2 winning.] click for larger view Von Gottschall was in good combinational form against Berger, <32. Qxe6+!!> Rxe6 33. Rd8+ Qf8 34. Rxf8+ Kxf8 35. gxh7 1-0 [[3rd round]] Tarrasch lost a Bishop to Mackenzie by missing a simple two move combination. The game is interesting in that Tarrasch played an Accelerated Dragon in a very modern fashion. Gunsberg also lost to a one move oversight, but some combinations have the recommendation of being less than obvious. click for larger view Blackburne played <25. Rxd6!> with the point that <25...Rxd6> would be answered by 26. gxf4 exf4 27. Qe5+ [[4th round]] Schiffers oblivious to the fact that he had a winning position offered Weiss a draw. Gunsberg sacrificed a Rook to mate Noa, click for larger view and Tarrasch found a neat way to win a piece. click for larger view [[5th round]] Blackburne again showed his imaginative powers click for larger view but was inaccurate in his execution: <34. Rxg6!> hxg6 35. Bxf4+ Kg8 36. Be5?! (36. Rxg6+ is stronger) as after <26...Rg7> Taubenhaus should have be able to draw. [[6th round]] This round was marked by several egregious blunders deciding the games. Harmonist left a Rook en prise and lost as White to Englisch in only 15 moves. Noa too allowed his opponent, Schiffers, to win a piece in an otherwise equal position. Schallopp sacrificed a rook against Berger but then played imprecisely and could only draw when he should have won. Paulsen put his Queen in danger and had to give up two pawns to extricate her. [[7th round]] Zukertort's poor form continued when barely out of the opening he blundered to a loss against Blackburne. click for larger view After <23...Qd6?> he was felled by 24. Bxh7+! Kxh7 25. Ng5+ Gunsberg too was on form to call Von Gottschall's errors to account: click for larger view [24. Rxh5!! Bg4 (24...gxh5 25. Qg5+) 25. Rxh8+ 1-0 (25...Kxh8 26. Qh6+ Kg8 27. Qg7 mate)] Harmonist lost suddenly to Von Bardeleben by grabbing a pawn with unexpected but elegant consequences: click for larger view [30... Qxc4? 31. Qxe4!! (31. Qxe4 Qxe4 32. Ng5+ Kg7 33. Nxe4 ) 1-0] Burn won an effective attacking game against Metger, as did Mackenzie against Paulsen. [[8th round]] Blackburne's run of seven successive wins suddenly ground to a halt. Surprisingly, this was at the hands of the back-marker Harmonist who had lost seven games in a row. Schiffers blundered a won ending into a draw against Von Gottschall. [[9th round]] Blackburne showed his resilience and recovered from his unexpected loss in the previous round to win against Tarrasch using a trap he had through up over breakfast [(27)]. Englisch outplayed Mackenzie in a long game consistently targeting his opponent's weak pawns. Gunsberg and Harmonist played a game of successive blunders. Harmonist won his second successive game as Gunsberg saw phantoms and allowed his King to be driven to <e5> where it shortly expired. Thus, Harmonist won his second successive game after a disastrous start. Schiffers should have beaten Von Gottschall in the ending: click for larger view <g4 would cover <f2> and also win the <h> pawn. Instead, Schiffers played Kg6 allowing Von Gottschall to play his Rook to <a8> and draw. Von Bardeleben neatly liquidated into a won ending against Schallopp with: click for larger view [42.Qxd5!] [[10th round]] Noa defended with a Modern defence, he achieved a good position, but did not how to play, it and so collapsed ignominiously in only 20 moves. The game of the round ws Tarrasch's ferocious attack against Gunsberg piling his Rooks up against the pawns sheltering Gunsberg's King [[11th round]] Blackburn (8½) lost to his rival Mackenzie (6½) despite having an appreciable advantage out of the opening. Late in the game, Blackburne allowed his pieces to lose control of key squares and his games rapidly fell apart. "The very strong German Chess Federation Congress at Frankfurt-am-Main became the greatest success of G.M.Mackenzie's career. Yet until half-way Blackburne looked like winning first prize. He began with seven straight wins before losing to Harmonist. He recovered and beat Tarrasch and it was his heartbreak game with Mackenzie that spoilt his result; after that he lost two more games..." [(28)] In contradistinction to his scintillating play in the previous round, Tarrasch obtained a miserable position with Black in a French defence and lost against Fritz. Metger presented Zukertort with an easy point by overlooking an obvious Knight fork. Harmonist believed he had won the exchange from Schiffers but overlooked that is so doing he exposed his King to an ineluctable attack. Taubenhaus played a splendid combination against Von Scheve click for larger view [28...Rxb2+!! 29. Kxb2 Ba3+ !! 30. Kxa3 Qxc2 and wins.] [[12th round]] MacKenzie overwhelmed Gunsberg with a King-side attack culminating in mating sequence. Englisch, who had gradually lost impetus after a good start, lost a Bishop to Paulsen by underestimating the vulnerability of his King. Fritz allowed Schallopp's Queen to penetrate his King side late in the game and force a mate. Schiffers held Tarrasch for a long time but overlooked a perpetual check and then lost. Taubenhaus sacrificed a Knight for two pawns and an attack, but misplayed and lost against Noa. Weiss lost to Zukertort in a long hard manoeuvring game. Burn once again played an effective King-side attack against which Taubenhaus could not stop the onrush of heavy pieces against his King. [[13th round]] The surprise of the round was Fritz breaking through Mackenzie's Sicilian Defence to win in only 27 moves. Gunsberg stormed Alapin's French defence, and won his Queen for a Rook and a Knight which could not hold Alapin's position together. Tarrasch established a pawn on <d3> as Black against Metger. Instead of neutralising this advanced pawn Metger thought he had time to hunt another, allowing Tarrasch to win in short order. Noa defeated Von Gottschall whose King became trapped behind advancing <d> and <e> pawns which reached the 7th rank. Schallopp lost a drawn R+P ending to Schiffers by not knowing the theory. Zukertort listless performance continued, he was outplayed by Von Scheve and lost a Knight. [[14th round]] Blackburne lost to Paulsen by pushing too hard for a win. Tarrasch lost with White against Weiss, from a promising position Tarrasch was outplayed; after losing a pawn he could not hold the endgame. Zukertort blundered and allowed Noa a passed <f> pawn which he then found he could not blockade. [[15th round]] Blackburne neatly mated Englisch click for larger view [34. Rxg6 fxg6 35. Rh4+ Kg8 36.Rh8 mate.] Zukertort's poor form continued and he lasted only 19 moves against Burn. As in his game with Blackburne he overlooked a tactical threat to his King-side. Gunsberg attempted, as White, to storm Paulsen's King in a sharp Sicilian defence. Paulsen managed to swap off material to enervate the attack and then won the endgame. Metger self-mated himself against Mackenzie just out of the opening. Von Gottschall was content to draw a very advantageous position against Taubenhaus [[16th round]] In a losing position, Berger overlooked the immediate loss of a Knight when he moved its guardian Rook away. Englisch let Gunsberg off the hook most probably under the mistaken impression he was winning a piece. Instead, he overlooked a subtle retreat and Gunsberg secured a draw. Burn,as Black, destroyed Harmonist with a subtle but powerful combination. click for larger view [13...Bh3!! 14. Kf1 (if 14. gxh3 Qf3 15. Rg1 Nxd3+) 14... Bxg2+ 15. Kxg2 Qf3+ 16. Kg1 Qg4+ 17. Kf1 Qh3+ (17...Qh3+ 18.Ke1 Nf3 mate) 0-1] Schallopp missed his way in a winning ending and allowed Von Scheve to draw. Blackburne miscalculated and lost by playing a completely unsound Bishop sacrifice against Von Bardeleben. [[17th round]] Burn beat Tarrasch in a game that swung wildly between the players. Tarrasch mishandled his King-side attack and Burn was able to smash his way through to Tarrasch's King on the opposite wing. Taubenhaus lost to Harmonist after misplaying a King-side attack and then completely losing the thread of the game. Zukertort found some of his old form to defeat Von Gottschall in a proficient style as Black. MacKenzie also won as Black after Von Scheve sacrificed a Bishop for a King-side initiative which never materialised. [[18th round]] This was the round of the great controversy concerning - Blackburne vs Gunsberg, 1887. "The whole Meistertürnier (Masters' tournament - e.d.) proceeded without a major disruption. A small difference between Prof. Berger and Burn - Burn vs J Berger, 1887 - was of no great significance. The only discernible dissonance was the unexpected outcome of Blackburne vs Gunsberg, 1887 Gunsberg wasted a big advantage from his adjourned game under aggravating circumstances, whereby Blackburne received a better chance of a prize. There has been much debate about this incident, the matter can in any case allows for manifold interpretation." [(29)] It seems quite clear that the Germans believed that Gunsberg threw his game in favour of Blackburn, so that the latter could secure a top prize. Gunsberg quickly dissipated an advantage, despite having an adjournment to study the position. He then blundered into a straightforward perpetual check, but still lost the game with a further blunder. The authors of the tournament book decide to use comments taken from "Deutschen Schachzeitung" ("German Chess Magazine") which are acid in tone: click for larger view "There now follows a series of inept moves of Gunsberg. It is hardly necessary to mention that the black game is easily won even for a far weaker players than Gunsberg. The unexpected result of this game and the way it ended created a stir, as Blackburne by winning this game now had a chance for a prize, had he drawn with Gunsberg at the time, (18th round), he had no chance for a prize at all.... click for larger view . <Move 44> Rde1 "The rook move is actually a severe error. If Blackburne ever wanted to continue playing at all, he had to take the Rook on <c7>, he, however, seems to have been inspired by some higher influence and to have suspected that his opponent would make the worst possible response. It is difficult to find the appropriate epithet for such an error. The obvious move <44...Re5> would have secured the second player the material superiority of Rook and knight with good position. Even <44....Qf7> would have won the game". [(30)] Blackburne's score sheet stated: "Black having touched the rook must interpose it at <b7> where upon mate follows in 3 moves." [(31)] "In October's issue of the "International Chess Magazine" Steinitz published the Blackburne-Gunsberg game from the Frankfurt tournament...on page 41. Steinitz gives the comments of the "Deutschen Schachzeitung" in literal translation and then adds, that in his view, it should not be not permitted that any player, even if he has made the grossest blunders should then be suspected of a lack of fair play...i.e. the facts that Gunsberg resigned a drawn game, and that Blackburne himself had sought to clarify this by means of a written declaration on his scoresheet that Gunsberg had "touched a piece", a claim, contrary to the perceptions of the very large number of spectators gathered around who believed the direct opposite. On another page in the same issue (p. 297), Steinitz notes that the game Blackburne-Gunsberg was lengthy and finds that Gunsberg's weak play was only due to his excessive effort. On this occasion, Steinitz takes recourse to a comparison which is so strange that we cannot avoid mentioning it. He thinks that the game Blackburne-Mackenzie has an almost equivalent number of serious mistakes on Blackburne's part to those Gunsberg made in the Blackburne-Gunsberg game. Steinitz is an authority of the first rank in chess... (but) even with the best will, we cannot endorse Steinitz's opinion..." [(32)] In the other games, the flagging Englisch was dispatched by a stylish Bishop sacrifice by Schiffers. Von Gottschall played very inventively to destroy Harmonist in only 22 moves. Burn and Schallop attacked each other furiously, until Burn overlooked a Queen sacrifice and Schallop forcing mate. Taubenhaus blundered away a won then a drawn endgame against Tarrasch [[19th round]] Blackburn missed a win against Fritz, just when every half point counted. Mackenzie sacrificed his Queen for a rich harvest of a Rook and two minor pieces against Burn.Von Bardeleben agreed a draw in a completely winning position against Schiffers. Tarrasch allowed Von Gottschall a fleeting chance to draw in the ending, but the opportunity was missed. Zukertort defeated Harmonist in a brisk attack and Weiss played a beautiful combinational break-through attack against Paulsen: click for larger view [39. g5! fxg5 40. f6! Ra7 41. Rf1 41. fxg7+ Qxg7 42. Rxh6+ Kg8 43. Qe8+ Qf8 44. Rh8+!!] [[20th round]] Burn lost with three pawns against a rook, he could have drawn but click for larger view but pushed the wrong pawn letting Alapin's King in. Berger sacrificed the exchange to leave Noa without any useful moves. Fritz sacrificed a Knight against Gunsberg only to discover he had no resulting attack. Von Scheve broke through on the King-side to skewer Paulsen's Queen to his King. Zukertort's recovery of form proved to be transitory as he blundered a piece away on move 11 to Tarrasch by <11...Qd7?> click for larger view [12. Nxe6 fxe6 (12...Qxe6 13. Rxe4) 13. Rxe4] [[21st round]] Burn made one careless move and Noa took immediate and decisive advantage click for larger view [35...Nd3!] Harmonist once again went wrong in opening but Tarrasch made heavy weather of winning the game. Taubenhaus too went badly wrong in the opening and Schiffers won in elegant fashion with his Knights. Zukertort's miserable tournament ended with a defeat at the hands of Schallopp click for larger view [18...Ne3!!] MacKenzie defeated Von Gottschall and so become the first American chess player to win an international tournament. <Problems> "The above two problems were presented to the solvers of the Frankfort International Tournament. The three-mover was first solved by H. v. Gottschall and the four-mover by Jacques Mieses, after laborious work of one hour and twenty minutes." "Mate in 3" click for larger view This is actually a mate in 5 [1. Qe6 Bb8 2. d6 Bxd6 3. Bxd6 exd6 4. Qxd6+ Ke4 5. Qxe5 mate] "Mate in 4" click for larger view [1. Bxa3+ Kd4 2. Nb4 Be4 3. Nxe4 Ke5 4. Qd5 mate] [(33)] <Conclusion> "The victory of Capt.Mackenzie at Frankfort is of course very popular in America , as it is also in Europe. Mr.Steinitz in his magazine seems rather annoyed at the title of "Champion" being applied to the Captain and challenges him for a match of then games up for a minimum of $1,000 a side, allowing him two games to start with." [(34)] Zukertort, was in obvious decline. He had lost a match to Blackburne just before Franfurt Congress - Blackburne - Zukertort (1887) "It is only five years ago that, after winning the London International Tournament, Dr. Zukertort was universally admitted to be pre-eminent as a chess player. The great strain of that contest, however, undoubtedly had an injurious effect upon his delicate constitution, and this effect was increased by the match he played with Steinitz in 1885. He engaged in this contest in spite of urgent medical advice to the contrary, and he returned from America after his defeat in a seriously debilitated state of health. After that time he showed a marked falling off in his powers of chess combination..." [(35)] On the 20th June,1888, Zukertort collapsed and died suddenly at the age of only 46. "...Dr. Frank Jeeves...had since made a post-mortem examination, and found that death was due to cerebral haemorrhage. The kidneys of the deceased were slightly unhealthy ...and the arteries and the base of the brain were diseased....the jury accordingly returned a verdict of death from natural causes."[(36)] Blackburne and Gunsberg returned to England and in September fought out a match - Blackburne - Gunsberg (1887) - which Gunsberg won 8-5. This was an important step on his progress to a world championship match with Steinitz - Steinitz - Gunsberg World Championship Match (1890) Frankfurt was an early sign of the emergence of a new generation of players. The greatest progress was to be made by Tarrasch. The next few years were to be a peak period of success for him - as he won four consecutive international tournaments: 6th DSB Congress, Breslau (1889) , Manchester in 1890, Dresden (1892) and 9th DSB Congress, Leipzig (1894). <Notes> [1]. See “British Chess Magazine”, 1887, p.339. The modern address for the Zoological Gardens is: Bernhard-Grzimek-Allee 1, 60316 Frankfurt, Hesse, Germany. [2]. http://www.frankfurt.de/sixcms/deta... [3]. http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... [4]. http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... [5]. http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... .See also http://www.edochess.ca/tournaments/... [6]. “Der Fünfte Kongress Des Deutschen Schachbundes, Frankfurt A. M. 1887. Herausgegeben (edited by) Von С. V. Bardeleben, H. V. Gottschall und J. Mieses. Leipzig, Verlag Von Veit & Comp. 1889”, p. 5-6. (Hereafter referred to as the “Tournament Book”). [7]. “Columbia Chess Chronicle”, Vol. 1. Saturday, August 6, 1887. No. 6, p.42. [8]. “Columbia Chess Chronicle”, Vol. 1. Saturday, July 30, 1887. No. 5, p.34. [9]. Tournament Book, p.25. [10]. Tournament book, p.4. The Niederwald park, was then famous for its recently completed monument to commemorate the Unification of Germany, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niede... [11]. “Columbia Chess Chronicle”, Vol. 1. Saturday, August 6, 1887. No. 6, p.50.) [12]. Tournament Book, p.4. [13]. Tournament Book, p.7. [14]. Tournament Book, p.8. [15]. "British Chess Magazine", vol. 7, August 1887, p.339. [16]. Tournament Book, p.3. [17]. Details provided in the Tournament Book, p.3. [18]. “Columbia Chess Chronicle”, Vol. 1. Saturday, August 13 1887. No. 7, p.50. [19]. Tournament Book, p.7. [20] “Columbia Chess Chronicle”, Vol. 1. Saturday, July 30th, 1887. No. 5, p.33-34. [21]. £1 being valued at 20.43 goldmarks = £49 at the contemporaneous exchange rate. . See "Currency Conversion Tables" R L Bidwell p.22 - 23. see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germa... The exchange rate for pound to dollar in 1887 was about $4.864 to the pound. See "Handbook of World Exchange Rates 1590 - 1914", Marcus A Denzel p.420. A 2016 value is £4,914.00 using the percentage increase in the RPI from 1887 to 2015. See - https://www.measuringworth.com [22]. Earnings data from "Wages and Earnings in the United States, 1860-1890", Clarence D. Long. Princeton University Press (1960). See - http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2500 [23]. “Columbia Chess Chronicle”, Vol. 1. Saturday, August 20th, 1887. No. 8, p.64. [24]. Tournament Book p. 9-11. [25]. "Shane's Chess Information Database" (Scid) is an open source chess database management system. [26]. Source "Harding - Blackburn G-522, p.247. / "The Field" 1887.08.06 / Graham G-228" [27]. "Blackburne's Chess Games", Dover, p.114. [28].“Joseph Henry Blackburne: A Chess Biography”, Tim Harding p.246. [29]. Tournament book, p.12. [30]. Tournament book, p.211-214. [31]. "Deutsche Schachzeitung", No.12, December 1887, p.377 - 378. [32]. "Deutsche Schachzeitung", No.12, December 1887, p.377 - 378. [33]. “Columbia Chess Chronicle”, Vol. 1. Saturday, August 20th 1887. No. 8, p.64. [34]. "British Chess Magazine", "Foreign News", vol. 7, October 1887, p.381. [35]. "Morning Post", Thursday 21st June 1888, p.3. [36]. "Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser", Monday 25th June 188, p.8. . . . . <Text> Original text and tables by User: Chessical This collection was compiled by cloning a previous game collection of User: suenteus po 147 - this significant work is acknowledged and greatly appreciated. One further game E Schallopp vs J Metger, 1887 has been added. 203 games, 1887 Gligoric - Ståhlberg match <Introduction:> The match of twelve games took place in May 1949 in Split and Belgrade, Yugoslavia. It was announced in January 1949 in the Swedish magazine "Tidskrift för Schack" (Journal of Chess) - "Ståhlberg meets Gligoric - A definitive agreement has been reached with regards to a match between Ståhlberg and the Yugoslavian master Gligoric. It is to be played in Belgrade in May and is to be of twelve games. We confine ourselves to pointing out how fearsome the energetic and ambitious Yugoslavian will be on home turf".[1] The match commenced on Friday, May 20th and ended on Thursday, June 9th, 1949 [2] The match was keenly followed in Yugoslavia: "The public's interest was very great, the competition hall was filled to overflowing, and outside several hundred spectators followed its progress by way of the game's large demonstration boards. The Yugoslav Chess Federation showed the greatest hospitality, and the press devoted considerable space to the match. At the conclusion Gligoric as well as Stahlberg were acclaimed in lively fashion." [3] The first eight games were played in Croatian port of Split, with the last four games played 530 kms away in the Serbian and Yugoslav capital Belgrade. [3] <Schedule:> Game 1 - Split, Friday, 20th May, 1949 Game 2 - Split, Saturday, 21st May, 1949 Game 3 - Split, Sunday, 22nd May, 1949 Game 4 - Split, Wednesday, 25th May, 1949 Game 5 - Split, Thursday, 26th May, 1949 Game 6 - Split, Friday, 27th May, 1949 Game 7 - Split, Sunday, 29th May, 1949 Game 8 - Split, Tuesday, 31st May, 1949 Game 9 - Belgrade, Sunday, 5th June, 1949 Game 10 - Belgrade, Monday, 6th June, 1949 Game 11 - Belgrade, Wednesday, 8th June, 1949 Game 12 - Belgrade, Thursday, 9th June, 1949 [2] <The players:> This was match between Ståhlberg an established grandmaster at his peak and ranked fifth in the world, and a rising star ranked 17 [4] Ståhlberg vied with Max Euwe in the late 1940's and early 1950's to be the pre-eminent grandmaster in Western Europe. His best results were in the decade after World War Two: Saltsjobaden Interzonal (1948) (6th, qualifying as a Candidate), the Budapest Candidates (1950) 1950 (7th of 10), Amsterdam (1950) (3rd out of 20), and the Stockholm Interzonal (1952) where he again qualified as a Candidate. Unfortunately, at the Zuerich Candidates (1953) he came 15th and last. As Ståhlberg recognised in his book "I kamp med världseliten" (1958)[5] this marked the end of his career at the summit of the chess world, although he remained a strong grandmaster. Gligoric at 26 year's old, was a rapidly rising star of Yugoslav chess. Gligoric had dominated the Yugoslav championship since the war (joint winner 1947, 1948, winner 1949). He was also coming to be recognised as a major force in international tournaments. In the strong tournaments in Warsaw 1947 (defeating Smyslov - Smyslov vs Gligoric, 1947) and in Budapest 1948, he came 1st and 2nd respectively. He shared 11th-13th places in Saltsjobaden Interzonal (1948). In the first post-war Olympiad, at Dubrovnik 1950, Gligoric played top board for the Yugoslavian team which was to win the gold medal. After this match, Gligoric continued to progress becoming an International Master in 1950 (although a photograph of the players in the match book clearly shows a sign with "International Master" against his name) and a Grandmaster in 1951. This was a real achievement at a time when international opportunities were scare and titled players few in number. <Style:> The openings were those heavily used in the 1930's. Although Gligoric became one of the leading contributers to the Kings Indioan Defence (http://www.chessgames.com/perl/ches... ), in this match he relied on the Queen's Gambit with the Slav and a single Nimzo Indian defence as his second strings against <1.d4>. Gligoric chose games 8 and 9 for inclusion his best games collection of 1952, "100 partija Svetozara Gligorića" (pages 79-80). Ståhlberg was recognised as a leading expert on the French Defence and used it the three times Gligoric opened <1.e4>, against <1.d4> in this match and throughout his career he almost invariably prefered the Queen's Gambit to a hypermodern defence. <Result:> Gligoric was White in the odd numbered games. It was a closely fought contest which was tied at one win each until Game 8 when Gligoric pulled ahead and remained so until the end of the 12 game match. table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Total Gligoric ½ 0 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ 6½ Ståhlberg ½ 1 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 5½ ]table Progressive scores: table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Gligoric ½ ½ 1½ 2 2½ 3 3½ 4½ 5 5½ 6 6½ Ståhlberg ½ 1½ 1½ 2 2½ 3 3½ 3½ 4 4½ 5 5½ ]table <Match book:> Both players annotated the games in a book, "Meč Gligorić-Štalberg 6½:5½, Beograd-Split", published in Belgrade in 1949 by Šahovskog saveza Srbije <Photograph:> http://sah.hr/forum/index.php?actio... ... <Notes:> [1] Page 35, Tidskrift för Schack, No. 2, Feb 1949 [2] "Meč Gligorić-Štalberg 6½:5½, Beograd-Split" [3] Page 128, Tidskrift för Schack, No. 6, June 1949 [4] http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... [5] "In Battle against the World Elite" ... [Thanks to the following for their contributions to this introduction: User: zanzibar for research into sources and User: Tabanus for sources and links to the photograph. ] 12 games, 1949 Hastings (1980/81) <Introduction:> The 56th Hastings Premier Tournament was of fifteen rounds/120 games duration and was held in the White Rock Pavilion (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place...) between Monday, December 29th, 1980 and Thursday, January 15th, 1981. The tournament was a fight between Andersson, Torre and Lein for the first prize of £1,000 [1](approximately £3,300/$5,600 in 2014 values). <The participants:> The premier event of sixteen players included seven grandmasters and eight international masters. The average ELO was 2476 which made this a Category 10 tournament, with a GM norm at 10 points and an master norm at 7. All the players were aged in their twenties apart from the trio of experienced ex-Soviet grandmasters: Lein (49), Alburt (35) and Liberzon (43). The tournament organiser William Ritson-Morry had to work hard and to the last minute to maintain the category of the tournament. The Yugoslav player Slavoljub Marjanovic (GM, 2515) could not attend due to military service and was replaced by Petar Popovic (IM, 2490). Relations with the Soviet Chess Federation had deteriorated to a point where they would not provide the details of their nominated players until the very last minute causing publicity and organizational problems for the Congress' management. There was also a perception that the Soviet authorities were no longer inclined to send their top players, and those they did send tended to do just enough without troubling themselves playing particularly interesting chess. The late offerings of Adrian Mikhalchishin (GM, 2535) and Evgeny Sveshnikov (GM, 2535) were declined. The rift was temporary, and Soviet players won the next three tournaments, including the spurned Sveshnikov in 1985. Perhaps both sides thought better of it. There was still prestige in winning Hastings, whilst without the Soviets there was a danger that the tournament would become stale. Speelman and Mestel were participating for a fourth successive time, whilst for Andersson it was the third and for Lein it was the second. <The prizewinners:> This was Andersson's third Hastings's victory in a row; albeit in the previous year he had shared first prize with John Nunn . Eugenio Torre won his last game to gain undivided second place in great style with a Queen sacrifice, whilst Lein choosing to use white for a quick and blood less draw in 13 moves against Andersson to be certain of the third prize. The early 1980s were a breakthrough period for Torre. At the 1980 Malta Chess Olympiad, he was bronze medalist on first board (+9,=4,-1). He went on to come second (due to a tie break) at Game Collection: Toluca Interzonal 1982 Anatoly Lein was late to arrive and his Round 1 and Round 2 games were both postponed and played on rest days. Torre-Lein (rd. 1) was played on 1st January, and Peters-Lein (rd. 2) was played on the 14th January (two weeks after the rest of the round). Lein won a special prize for the best played endgame of the tournament against Littlewood, and gained the third prize. <The other contestants:> Lev Alburt who had defected from the Soviet Union in 1979, won his first four games could only win one further game. His progress slowed after losing to tail-ender Brito in Round 8, when he paid the price for over-enthusiastic pawn grabbing. He finally fell out of contention in Round 12 losing to Andersson who had sacrificed the exchange for lasting positional pressure. The tournament had an English contingent of four players. Jonathan Speelman and Jonathan Mestel were regular England team members. Paul Littlewood had gained the IM title in 1979 and he would win the British Championship in 1981. Robert Bellin was the 1979 British champion. Apart from Littlewood, they all underperformed their ratings. Jozsef Pinter, the Hungarian champion in 1978 and 1979 disappointed. He could not recover from a slow start. Brazil was represented by its new star and champion Jaime Sunye Neto (IM, 2415) who had come to the chess world's attention with his surprise fifth equal placing at the Rio de Janeiro Interzonal (1979). His compatriot, however, Luismar Jorge de Brito (2255) was the unknown player of the tournament. He had shared second and third prize in Brazilian championship in 1979, and secured his place at Hastings by going onto win the Challenger's Tournament, but he was handicapped by a relatively weak opening repertoire. If he could surmount this, he showed he was capable of energetic and imaginative chess as against Bellin in Round 2. Although he came last, Brito still improved his rating by 89 points. <Notable games:> Torre won the brilliancy prize in the last round with a Queen sacrifice - E Torre vs J Peters, 1981 The prize winner for the best played ending A Lein vs P Littlewood, 1981 An enterprising exchange sacrifice - Alburt vs Andersson, 1981 Attacking play against the Grunfeld - P Littlewood vs Ftacnik, 1980 The Marshall Attack breaks through! - L Brito vs P Littlewood, 1980 An unusual piece sacrifice - R Bellin vs L Brito, 1980 ... <The final standings and cross-table:> The pace of the tournament slackened towards the end, and the number of short draws increased markedly. "Leonard Barden suggested that players were conserving their energies for the Hoogoven Tournament..which started immediately after". [2]. Andersson and Torre were, however, the only two Premier players participating in both tournaments. table[ Andersson,Ulf 2590 * ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 10.5 Torre,Eugenio 2520 ½ * ½ ½ 1 1 ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 0 1 1 ½ 1 10.0 Lein,Anatoly 2520 ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 0 1 ½ 1 1 9.5 Alburt,Lev 2515 0 ½ ½ * 1 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 ½ 1 ½ 0 8.5 Sunye Neto,Jaime 2415 ½ 0 ½ 0 * ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 8.5 Ftacnik,Lubomir 2470 0 0 ½ 1 ½ * 1 ½ ½ ½ 0 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 8.5 Liberzon,Vladimir 2545 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 0 * ½ 1 1 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 8.0 Popovic,Petar 2490 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 7.5 Speelman,Jonathan 2490 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ * ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 0 7.0 Chandler,Murray 2450 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ * 0 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 7.0 Littewood,Paul 2440 0 ½ 0 0 0 1 0 ½ 0 1 * ½ 1 1 ½ 1 7.0 Mestel,A Jonathan 2485 0 1 1 0 0 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ * ½ ½ ½ 1 6.5 Peters,Jack 2465 ½ 0 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ * 0 1 ½ 6.0 Pinter,Jozsef 2535 ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 0 ½ 1 * ½ 1 6.0 Bellin,Robert 2440 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ * 0 5.0 Brito,Luismar 2255 0 0 0 1 0 0 ½ ½ 1 0 0 0 ½ 0 1 * 4.5 ]table <Notes> [1]. Golombek in "The Times", January 16, 1981, page 14. [2]. Introductory material and round details based on information from: "Chess Magazine", vol.45, nos 849-50, January 1981. <Thanks> To <User: Tabanus> for the rescheduled dates for Lein's games and the prize money details from Golombek's reports in "The Times". 120 games, 1980-1981 Hastings (1981/82) <Introduction> The 57th Hastings International Congress [1] took place at the White Rock Pavilion (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place...) between 28th December 1981 and 12th January 1982. The tournament was won outright by the 32-year-old Viktor Kupreichik who remained in first place from Round 1. Half of Kupreichik's games in this tournament were decisive. He started with 5/6 and lost only one game (Short vs Kupreichik, 1982) after an uncharacteristic blunder in the penultimate round. His first prize brought him £1,200 (approximately £4,000/$6,700 in 2014 values). <The participants:> The tournament had fourteen participants, comprised of eight grand masters and six masters. This was a Category 11 tournament with the GM norm at 8.5 points and the IM at 6. The average ELO was 2511. There was increasing tension between the Soviet bloc and the West over the recent imposition of martial law in Poland (13th December 1981). Although a dispute with the organizers the previous year resulted in no Soviet player being accepted to play in Hastings 1980-81, the Soviet Chess Federation was now represented by an ex-world champion and a new grandmaster who was riding a notable upwards trajectory: Vasily Smyslov and Viktor Kupreichik. The British players did better than expected. Jonathan Speelman , who had been awarded the GM title in 1980, lost only one game and came equal second with Smyslov. Jonathan Mestel was only one point short of a grandmaster norm, and he continued to play strongly, qualifying for the Las Palmas (Interzonal), July 1982, where he shared an 8th-10th place. The British Champion Paul Littlewood won his first four games, but then losses set in as he encountered the players who were to come in the top half of the tournament table. This tournament was 23 years old Shaun Taulbut 's best individual performance with a 2604 ELO result. He had been European Junior Championship in 1977-78 but within a year he was to give up professional chess. As one promising British player left the field of battle, another announced his presence. This was 16-year old 's Nigel Short 's best performance (ELO 2624) to date and can now be seen as the beginning of his steady rise into the world's top five by the end of the decade. 21-year-old Manuel Rivas Pastor had qualified from the previous year's Challengers Tournament. He had been awarded the IM title in 1980 and was the Spanish Champion in 1978, 1979, 1981 and would be again in 1991. The early 1980's were to be his best period, and at Hastings, he achieved a better result than most previous Challengers' winners. He had realistic hopes of a GM norm until Round 11, and he showed he could also defend - L Christiansen vs M Rivas Pastor, 1982 The three grandmasters at the bottom of the tournament table were completely out of form. Laszlo Szabo at 64 years old was a three-time winner of this tournament in 1938/39, 1947/48 and 1949/50. Now his play showed only sparks of his former strength; he lost to Kupreichik in only 18 moves (Kupreichik vs Szabo, 1981), but he kept on fighting and defeated Short and Christiansen in sharp games. Larry Christiansen had come second at the very strong Linares tournament behind Karpov in January 1981 and then had qualified for the Moscow Interzonal (1982) at the American Championship and zonal tournament at South Bend in July 1981. At Hastings, he could only win one game and that against fellow tail-ender Ree. Hans Ree, who had been awarded the GM title in 1980, gave no indication of the form which he displayed in winning the 1982 Dutch championship. He suffered five successive losses between Rounds 4 and 8 and never recovered. <The prizewinners:> First prize £1,200, second £850, and third £600. Sponsored by a British computer company ICL, the first prize was 20% greater than the previous year's, and the tournament was stronger at Category 11 as compared to Category 10. The tournament's winner Kupreichik had been awarded the GM title in 1980, but he was relatively unknown outside of the Soviet Union. Running up to Hastings, he strung several successful tournament results together. In the 1979 USSR Championship he was fifth through seventh of eighteen players - Game Collection: USSR Championship 1979 - (having been last in three previous championships). In 1980, he had taken the first prizes at Medina del Campo and Reykjavik and in the 1981 Rubinstein Memorial he was second out of fourteen. Vasily Smyslov had won Hastings twice before, in 1954/5 (with Paul Keres) and outright in 1968/69. The early 1980's were a swan song period for Smyslov after a long but gradual period of decline in the 1970's. In July 1982 at the age of 61, he was to come second at Las Palmas Interzonal (1982)), and from there he reached the Candidates final against Garry Kasparov in 1984 defeating Robert Huebner and Zoltan Ribli on the way. In this tournament he played cautiously, winning only three games and drawing the remaining ten. It could have been Ulf Andersson 's fourth consecutive victory at the Hastings Premier. Andersson drew all but two of his games and often in very short order. After two wins, he was content to draw eight times in succession. He explained, "I do not believe in straining for these things, I take each game as it comes. This is a much stronger tournament than the others" [2]. <Notable games:> Kupreichik vs L Christiansen, 1981 - White breaks through to Black's King. Szabo vs Short, 1981 - Black's king flees but cannot escape. A Lein vs Short, 1983 - Attack and counter-attack. A Lein vs Kupreichik, 1981 - Black sacs the exchange for an attack. P Littlewood vs Chandler, 1981 - White gives up two pawns for a King hunt. Szabo vs L Christiansen, 1981 - Violent Benoni <The final standings and cross-table:> table[ Kupreichik,Viktor 2580 * ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 1 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 1 1 9.0/13 Smyslov,Vassily 2580 ½ * 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 8.0/13 Speelman,Jonathan 2520 ½ 0 * ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 8.0/13 Andersson,Ulf 2600 ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 7.5/13 Mestel,A Jonathan 2475 ½ ½ 0 ½ * 1 0 ½ ½ 1 1 ½ ½ 1 7.5/13 Short,Nigel 2440 1 ½ ½ ½ 0 * 1 ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ 1 0 7.0/13 Rivas Pastor,Manuel 2470 0 ½ ½ 0 1 0 * 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ ½ 7.0/13 Lein,Anatoly 2510 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 * ½ 1 1 ½ 1 ½ 7.0/13 Taulbut,Shaun 2420 ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 ½ ½ * 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 6.5/13 Littlewood,Paul 2435 0 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 0 1 * 1 ½ 1 1 6.0/13 Chandler,Murray 2530 ½ ½ ½ ½ 0 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 * 1 0 1 5.0/13 Christiansen,Larry 2575 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 * 1 0 4.5/13 Ree,Hans 2510 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 1 0 * ½ 4.0/13 Szabo,Laszlo 2510 0 0 0 ½ 0 1 ½ ½ 0 0 0 1 ½ * 4.0/13 ]table <Notes> 1. Introductory material and round details based on information from: "Chess Magazine", vol.46, nos 869-70, p. 307 - 334, January 1982. 2. Quote from "Chess Magazine", vol.46, nos 869-70, p. 298-299, January 1982. [This text and original research by User: Chessical. ] Thanks to User: OhioChessFan and User: Paint My Dragon for suggesting improvements to the text. 91 games, 1981-1982 Hastings 1969/70 (1970) <Introduction> The 45th Hastings Christmas Chess Festival was held between Monday December 29th 1969 and Wednesday January 7th 1970. The premier event of ten players included: former world champion Vasily Smyslov, Svetozar Gligoric, Lajos Portisch and the promising 17 year old Dutch player Jan Timman This was a tournament with a large number of past winners: Wolfgang Unzicker champion in 1950/51; Svetozar Gligorić, five times champion - 1951/52, 1956/57, 1959/60, 1960/61, 1962/63 (jointly); Medina Garcia, champion in 1952/53 (jointly); and Smyslov, twice champion in 1954/55 (jointly) and 1968/69. The Chess editor of "The Times",Harry Golombek had the task of judging the Premier games. He gave Medina Garcia the brilliancy prize for D Levy vs A Medina Garcia, 1969 ; Gligoric the prize for the best-played ending (double bishops) A Medina Garcia vs Gligoric, 1970 and Portisch and Gligoric won a prize for playing the best draw - Portisch vs Gligoric, 1970 Other notable games were Littlewood's victory over the 1969 British under-18 champion Corden - M Corden vs J Littlewood, 1970 - which was in contention for the brilliancy prize, and Drimer's demolitions of Littlewood - D Drimer vs J Littlewood, 1970 -and Levy - D Drimer vs D Levy, 1970 . The British representatives included the promising 1969 British under-18 champion Martyn Corden, who had also come equal second in the 1969 British Championship. John Littlewood had played three times before in the Hastings Premier tournament and had represented England at the Varna Olympiad (1962). He had also recently come second equal in the 1969 British Championship. David Levy had represented Scotland at the Lugano Olympiad (1968) and had come 5th at the Praia da Rocha Zonal Tournament (1969) with 11.5/17 The new chief-organizer L.A.J.Gluyde would have been pleased with the "fighting spirit which pervaded and inspired the players from the top to the bottom of the list" (Golombek). Of the 45 games only 17 were drawn. Smyslov failed to repeat his previous tournament victory at Hastings, this would have given him the golden knight trophy. He appeared to be nervous and his surprise loss to the young British player Corden - M Corden vs Smyslov, 1970 - was put down to trying to win too hard "Having watched both players from a ringside seat, I am sure that Smyslov lost this game because he had the fixed idea that he had to win at all costs to keep in the running for the first prize". (Bernard Cafferty, Birmingham Mail) Portisch was the undefeated winner on 7 points/+5, with Unzicker a fraction behind on 6.5/+4. The final standings and cross-table: table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Pts 1 GM Portisch * ½ ½ ½ ½ 1 1 1 1 1 7 2 GM Unzicker ½ * 1 ½ ½ 1 1 1 ½ ½ 6½ 3 GM Gligoric ½ 0 * ½ 1 1 1 1 ½ ½ 6 4 GM Smyslov ½ ½ ½ * ½ ½ 0 1 1 1 5½ 5 IM Timman ½ ½ 0 ½ * 0 1 1 ½ 1 5 6 IM Drimer 0 0 0 ½ 1 * ½ 0 1 1 4 7 Corden 0 0 0 1 0 ½ * ½ 1 0 3 8 IM Medina 0 0 0 0 0 1 ½ * 1 ½ 3 9 IM Levy 0 ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 0 0 * 1 2½ 10 Littlewood 0 ½ ½ 0 0 0 1 ½ 0 * 2½ ]table <Video> British Pathe news filmed the opening speech by Lieutenant-General Sir John Bagot Glubb and the players in round one: http://www.britishpathe.com/video/h... <Notes> Introductory material and round details taken from "Chess Magazine", Vol.35, nos. 597-8, February 1970. 45 games, 1969-1970 Heinicke - Wagner match <Introduction> A match of 12 games duration, between Herbert Heinicke and Heinrich Wagner held in Hamburg, Germany in 1930. Heinicke (aged 24) had made his entrance to master chess winning the Hamburg 1927 tournament. At first, he only slowly grew in strength, but then significantly improved in the German tournaments in the period 1936 - 1948 [(1)]. Wagner (aged 41), was at his peak in the mid-1920s [(2)]; his best performance was to be his joint third at Breslau (1925) (24th DSB Congress). He remained a strong master until his withdrawal from chess due to his distaste for the Nazi regime. <Progress of the match> Wagner had white in the odd-numbered games. The match had a disastrous start for Heinicke who was five points down before he scored his first win. Heinicke's stubborn persistence with the French, Exchange (C01), despite Wagner's mounting and rapid score of victories as white, cost him dearly. Heinicke lost five points and only made one draw with the defence in this match. He tended to emerge with a small disadvantage from the opening, and then, in defending a passive position, fall victim to a tactical shot. table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Heinicke 0 0 ½ ½ 0 0 0 1 0 ½ 0 1 3½ Wagner 1 1 ½ ½ 1 1 1 0 1 ½ 1 0 8½]table . <Progressive scores:> table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Heinicke 0 0 ½ 1 1 1 1 2 2 2½ 2½ 3½ Wagner 1 2 2½ 3 4 5 6 6 7 7½ 7½ 8½ ]table . <The Games> [[Game 1]] Heinicke had almost equalized on the black side of a French Exchange variation when he fell into a trap click for larger view <26...Nd5> seems a natural move (<26...Na8> was necessary), but Heinicke overlooked that his opponent's two bishops and <d> pawn could weave a subtle mating net. <27. Bc4> forced an immediate resignation as , for example, <27...Nb4> 28. Bc5 Nc6 29. d7+ Ne7 30. d8=Q mate. [[Game 2]] Wagner employed an Old Indian defence, which he would use three further times in the match. In a game of opposite wing attacks, Heinicke was breaking through to Black's king when in a winning but tactically sharp position he blundered away a piece. [[Game 3]] Wagner as White played a passive variation of the French Exchange variation with a very early <h3>. With no advantage for white, the game was drawn at move 17. [[Game 4]] Having nearly lost using the Old Indian defence in Game 2, Wagner reverted to a Queen's Gambit Declined. Heinicke was content not to press too hard and to draw with the White pieces. After a disastrous start, Heinicke had made two successive draws. [[Game 5]] As in Game 3, Wagner played the French Exchange variation with a very early <h3>. click for larger view Heinicke blundered with <20...f6?> and White broke through after <21.Nc5!> with his domination of the <e> file. He was now three games down in the match. [[Game 6]] Wagner returned to an Indian defence, having put it to the side after his fright in Game 2. This time he fianchettoed his King's bishop. Heinicke played passively swapping off pieces and then began to make mistakes culminating in the loss of a piece. click for larger view [<48...Rxg4+> threatening to skewer the King against the Rook with 49...Rg8+] [[Game 7]] This was a very similar disaster for Heinicke to Game 5. He continued to play the French after being crushed twice. Perhaps he saw no problem only random miscalculations, rather than the positions he had to defend playing to his opponent's taste whilst emphasizing the flaws in his own play? Heinicke played more positively, but then a series of inaccuracies led to a final denouement, click for larger view [<24.Nxe4!!> allows the overloading of the black Queen with <Re5>.] [[Game 8]] Finally, Heinicke won his first game of the match. Wagner defended with the Old Indian Defence. [[Game 9]] Another French Exchange variation and yet another disastrous short loss for Heinicke with the black pieces. This was the shortest decisive game of the match. Heinicke allowed White immense pressure against his King-side for no counterplay and was quickly overwhelmed. [[Game 10]] Wagner again defended with an Old Indian defence having won Game 6 with it. This was to be the longest game of the match in which neither player established any significant advantage. This was the most accurate game of the match. [[Game 11]] Heinicke maintained his costly predilection for the French Exchange variation. He finally established near equality from the opening but then blundered losing a pawn to his very tactically aware opponent. click for larger view [After <28 ... Qe6?> 29. Bxh6! wins a pawn as after 29...gxh6 30. Bf5 overloads the Queen which cannot protect both black Knights.] [[Game 12]] Despite being 2½ - 7½ down, Heinicke managed to win this last game of this match. Wagner remained faithful to the Old Indian defence, although again he varied the disposition of his pieces in the opening. Wagner blundered in a complex ending allowing his opponent two connected passed pawns which proved to be a decisive advantage <Notes> [(1)]. http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... [(2)]. http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... User: Chessical - original text and compilation. 12 games, 1929-1930 Horowitz - Kashdan, Play-off <Introduction> Isaac Kashdan and Israel Israel Albert Horowitz played a match for the title of Champion of the American Chess Federation for 1938. This match took place following Game Collection: US Open 1938, Boston = 39th ACF Congress (11th-23th July, 1938) where both players had tied for first prize. The match to resolve the tie was delayed until mid-October in order to raise sufficient funds. <The players> At the commencement of the match, Kashdan was 32 years old; Horowitz was 31 years old. Horowitz and Kashdan had played four times prior to this match. Kashdan led by 3 games to 1. Using “Chessmetrics’” data, Horowitz was 45th and Isaac Kashdan was 9th on its January 1938 rating list. The leading American players were Reshevsky at 6th and Fine at 7th. [1] Kashdan emerged as a Grandmaster in the early 1930s but during the second half of the decade he scaled back his chess to concentrate on his profession in insurance which offered more reliable remuneration. <“Kashdan was the strongest American player for three of four years (in the early 1930's - ed.); then he was outdistanced by Reshevsky and Fine. His play was solid, unspectacular, yet thorough. What he lacked was knowledge of the openings and the willingness to risk tactical adventures; eventually in spite of his comprehensive grasp of the game, his over-cautioness began to take its toll. At his best Kashdan was nicknamed "The Little Capablanca" because of his great emphasis on positional play and end game technique".> [2] Horowitz was a full time professional and editor in chief of "Chess Review". Horowitz won three Us Open Championships, but he lacked the tournament opportunities of European players. He had only played outside of the United States in the Olympiads of 1931, 1935 and 1937. It was unfortunate that this match was overshadowed by the exceptionally strong AVRO (1938) tournament which ran from 6th to the 27th of November 1938. World Champion Alexander Alekhine faced every one of his major challengers, this including America's two top players Samuel Reshevsky and Reuben Fine. It was widely believed that AVRO would be a world championship selection tournament. [3] As a result, the interest shown in the match by "Chess Review", the premier American chess magazine, tailed off. This report is extensively based on contemporaneous <Chess Review> articles. Both Horowitz and Kashdan provided material on the opening games, but the magazine's final report of the match was cursory, the games from the second half of the match being barely annotated. "It has been our intention to annotate all the games, but the demands of the AVRO tournament for space, made this impossible"[4] <Venues and match arrangements> The match was of ten games duration. It began on Saturday, October 15th 1938 and concluded on Saturday, December 31 1938. Mr L. Walter Stevens, later to become the Vice President of the U. S. Chess Federation, was the match referee. [5] The match dates followed an irregular schedule with significant gaps between the games. This may have been due to the outside responsibilities and business interests of the players. Play took place at various venues in New York (including a private residence): Hotel Alamac (160 W 71st St, New York), Manhattan Chess Club, the residence of Maurice Wertheim (President of the Manhattan Chess Club), Queens Chess Club, and the Marshall Chess Club. <The progress of the match> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Horowitz 1 0 1 ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ ½ 5.0 Kashdan 0 1 0 ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ ½ 5.0 Kashdan was White in the odd numbered games. ]table <Progressive score:> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Horowitz 1 1 2 2½ 3 3½ 3½ 4 4½ 5 Kashdan 0 1 1 1½ 2 2½ 3½ 4 4½ 5 ]table Many of the decisive games resulted from both players making unforced errors, and those errors radically changed the flow of play. Kashdan lost the first game from an advantageous position and Horowitz returned the favour in Game 2. Game 3 was the first game to be won by a player who had held the initiative for most of the game. "...games (4-6) were drawn - and not one of them should have been. Kashdan missed an easy win in their 4th game and a hard win in the sixth game, while Horowitz overlooked a beautiful Queen sacrifice in the 5th game. As a result, White has still to win a game in the match! Truthfully speaking, neither player has been seen to advantage. Kashdan appears to be too busy with his work to give of his best, and Horowitz has been too preoccupied with the details of his forthcoming trans-continental tour to concentrate hard enough to capitalize on his opportunities." [6] In Game 8, Horowitz missed a win and in Game 9 Kashdan should have won, but both made errors in the endings. <The games> [[Game 1]] - Hotel Almac, New York, Saturday 15th October. [7] "That Kashdan should play 1.e4 against Horowitz, who specializes in King's Pawn Openings, was a surprise. That it surprised Horowitz ...is indicated by his play. Kashdan obtained a winning advantage - and proceeded to throw it away." [8] Kashdan played aggressively as White, and offered a Pawn sacrifice on his thirteenth move. Horowitz declined this but in his notes he later regretted the decision: "...one should be able to stand a bit of abuse for a Pawn". [9] Kashdan had a solid advantage, but then overlooked a tactical threat by allowing Horowitz to post a Rook on his second rank. click for larger view <32...Bh4!!> and Kashdan resigned. "Accurate play on the part of Kashdan netted him a Pawn after twenty moves. Horowitz was left with sufficient force to plan a strong attacking movement against his rival's King, for which Kashdan failed to make adequate preparation. Horowitz therefore turned the tables and scored when Kashdan was confronted by the threat of checkmate." <"New York Times", p.92, Sunday 16th October.> [[Game 2]] - Manhattan Chess Club, New York, Sunday 16th October 1938. Adjourned at move 41. [10]. Completed on Thursday 20th October 1938. [11]. "The second game saw Horowitz start off with 1.d4. Apparently he intended to do a little surprising of his own. He maneuvered Kashdan into a prepared variation but went astray on his 14th move. Thereafter he played indifferently and tossed away several drawing opportunities." [12] Horowitz obtained an active position, but in fact Kashdan held his own as Black in a Slav Defence. Although Horowitz had two apparently active Bishops he could not do anything with them. He lost a Pawn and then misplayed the ending. Kashdan won the game with an elegant little combination click for larger view <69...g5!!> (he cannot take the pawn because of the Knight fork) 70. Bg3 Ne2 and Horowitz resigned in view of 71.Be5 g4. [[Game 3]] - 33 East Seventieth Street, New York, 30th October 1938. This game was played at the home of Maurice Wertheim. [13] [14] Horowitz, with Black, outplayed Kashdan from an equal position. Horowitz kept his opponent tied down by pressure on the Q-side and eventually, after a long endgame, he forced two connected passed pawns through, making Kashdan's resignation inevitable. "...Kashdan played the White pieces in a Queen's Gambit Declined which was developed along normal lines. He attempted to build up an attack against the Black King, but Horowitz established a passed Pawn on the Queen's-side of the board and eventually obtained control of the open <c> file. That was the turning point. Kashdan could not prevent the loss of a Pawn, leaving Horowitz with two connected passed Pawns. Queens remained on the board in an ending which had to be carefully handled." [15 ] [[Game 4]]- Queens Chess Club in Woodside New York, 5th November 1938. [16] Horowitz played an irregular line with an early <a4> against Kashdan's Closed Ruy Lopez defence. Kashdan took the initiative on the Q-side and won a Pawn, but then played poorly. He should have been able to promote a pawn and win the game but instead miscalculated allowing Horowitz to hold an opposite Bishop ending. "Kashdan on the Black side of a Ruy Lopez, captured a pawn on the twenty-second move, which gave him winning chances. However, in an ending with Bishops commanding different colours, he failed to find the correct continuation and Horowitz forced the draw in 55 moves." [17] [[Game 5]] - Marshall Chess Club, 19th November 1938. The first English opening of the match; Horowitz played energetically and Kashdan was soon on the defensive. Both players missed an immediate win for Horowitz after Kashdan played <35.Qc5?> click for larger view <34...Bxf1+!!> 35. Qxh5 Rxf2+ 36. Kh1 Bg2+ 37. Kh2 Bf3+ 38. Kh3 Bxh5 [[Game 6]] - Manhattan Chess Club, 4th December 1938. Horowitz played an English opening and should have won the game. Kashdan weakened his K-side, but the resultant tactical chances should have favoured Horowitz. With the straightforward: click for larger view <29.Bxg7> Kxg7 30. Nxc7 Re7 31.Nd5, he would have been two Pawns up with the better position. Instead, with <29.Qf2?> the initiative should have swung to Kashdan but he could only draw. [[Game 7]] - Manhattan Chess Club, New York, 15th December 1938. [18] Horowitz defended a QGD. Kashdan was building up a promising attacking position when Horowitz walked into a powerful K-side attack click for larger view by playing <19...Kh7?> and meeting with <20.f5!>. [[Game 8]] - Marshall Chess Club, New York, 16th December 1938. Game adjourned and then completed Tuesday 20th December 1938. [19] Horowitz missed a win in a long Rook and Pawn ending. click for larger view Kashdan blundered with <79...Rc1?> instead of Ra8 and now Horowitz could have played <80. a7!> winning. [[Game 9]] - Manhattan Chess Club, New York, 24th December 1938. [20 ] This was game Kashdan should have won, but he misplayed an advantageous Rook and Pawn ending and lost his advantage "White (Kashdan - e.d.) did not make the most of his opportunities in the middle game and the ending." [21] [[Game 10]] - Marshall Chess Club, New York, 31st December 1938. [22] In the final game, Horowitz played an exchange variation of the Queen's Gambit. Kashdan effectively equalised and Horowitz was left with an isolated Queen's Pawn but little initiative to accompany it. Kashdan won a Pawn but Horowitz played accurately to hold the draw. <Conclusion:> According to "Chess Review" which was edited by Horowitz: <"Looking back at the match, it appears as though the final result is just about right. The two contestants were so evenly matched that the slightest bit of luck would have tipped the scales one way or the other... There will be no further play off and the title of Champion of the American Chess Federation for 1938 will be shared jointly by both players."> [23] <Notes:> [1]. http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... [2] Fine "The World's Greatest Chess Games", p.174. [3]. But this was not so. According to the "British Chess Magazine", p.509, November 1938: [‘… since there have been all sorts of rumours as to a world championship match resulting from this tourney we have been permitted by Dr. Alekhine to publish the clause in his contract with AVRO dealing with this question. It runs as follows: “Dr. Alekhine declares himself ready to play a match for the world championship against the first prize winner of the tournament upon conditions and at a time to be arranged later. However, Dr. Alekhine reserves the right to play first against other chess masters for the title.”] [4]. "Chess Review" p.293, December 1938. [5]. "Chess Review", p.259, November 1938. [6]. "Chess Review", p.293, December 1938. [7]. "New York Times", p.92, Sunday 16th October. [8]. "Chess Review", p.256, November 1938. [8]. "Chess Review", p.256, November 1938. [9]. "Chess Review", p.257, November 1938. [10]. "New York Times", p.21, Monday 17th October. [11]. "New York Times", p.30, Friday 21st October. [12]. "Chess Review", p.256, November 1938. [13]. "Chess Review", p.259, November 1938. Maurice Wertheim was a wealthy American investment banker and president of the Manhattan Chess Club. [14]. "New York Times", p.21, Monday 31st October. [15]. "New York Times", p.21, Monday 31st October. [16]. "New York Times", p.96, Sunday November 6th 1938. [17]. "New York Times", p.96, Sunday November 6th 1938. [18]. "New York Times", p.35, Friday 16th December 1938. [19]. Game adjourned and then completed Tuesday 20th December 1938. "New York Times", p.33, Wednesday 21st December 1938. [20]. "New York Times", p.59, Sunday December 25th 1938. [21]. "Chess Review", p.19, January 1939. [22]. "New York Times", p.33, Monday January 2, 1939 [23]. "Chess Review p.18, January 1939. [Original collection based on the work of User: Phony Benoni, text by User: Chessical. Thanks to: User: offramp, User: zanzibar and User: OhioChessFan for their improvements to the original text.] 10 games, 1938 Jaffe - Janowski <Jaffe> Charles Jaffe had emigrated from Russia to the United States in 1896, and settled in New York City. At the age of 31, he became a professional chess player having previously worked in silk manufacturing, a branch of trade known for low wages and exploitative use of immigrant labour [1] "The Crown Prince of East Side Chess was and still is Charles Jaffe. It is impossible to convey the weird type of game he used to play and the respect it won him among the cohorts along the avenue. If ever a man held court around a table, it was this very dark, slender, cigarette-smoking gypsy...Jaffe kept up a running fire of caustic badinage and could give amazing odds to the potzers... The ability to play coffee-house chess was one in which Jaffe surpassed any master. Coffee-house chess depends on an alert ingenuity in waylaying the opponent through subtle little traps or swindles... Unhappily, once the crown prince left the avenue he was not so invulnerable. Invite him to a tournament among his peers, take away his magic banter and force him to face sound, scientific chess, and his traps proved of little avail. Traps were often his own undoing. What we call playing for position—a damnable modern invention—was something his valiant combinations couldn't penetrate. The extreme caution of modern chess wore down his temperamental inspirations." [2] In 1909-10, Jaffe began a concerted attempt to build a professional chess career. In February 1909, he challenged Marshall to a match losing by 3.5 to 5.5 - Marshall - Jaffe (1909) . He came third in the 22nd New York State Chess Association Championship (1909), July 26-30, 1909, where he defeated Marshall - Marshall vs C Jaffe, 1909. He was third equal behind Capablanca and Marshall Game Collection: 1911 New York Masters (January 1911), but then his deficiencies were painfully laid bare in his first taste of elite grandmaster chess at Karlsbad (1911) . Having raised his fare by a public subscription, he found himself was outclassed, sharing last place with (+8 -16 =1). Jaffe was undeterred. He had a great faith in his own ability and lacked respect for many of his contemporaries. In a court case, soon after the end of this match, "Jaffe was asked to give his estimate of a number of noted experts...with evident reluctance...(he) admitted grudgingly that they were either "pretty good players" or "fairly good" [3] In October 1912, he lost a three game match against Capablanca by 0.5 to 2.5. This defeat was but a trifle in comparison to grave damage Jaffe's putative career was about to receive from the same Capablanca. The Cuban maestro made a public allegation that at the Havana (1913) tournament Jaffe had thrown a game - C Jaffe vs Marshall, 1913 . This point had enabled Marshall to win the tournament. Capablanca thereafter refused to play in any tournament where Jaffe was entered as a contestant and Capablanca's powerful supporters in the East Coast American chess establishment, Hartwig Cassell and Hermann Helms, concerted this embargo on Jaffe. Marshall, however, "employed him as an instructor at ... Marshall's Chess Divan..." [4]. Despite, his ongoing problems with Cassell and Helms, in 1916, Jaffe raised sufficient funds to challenge David Janowski to this match. <Janowski:> The 47 year old David Janowski had been stranded in 19th DSB Congress, Mannheim (1914) at the start of the First World War. Still holding a Russian passport, the German authorities interned him as an enemy alien. He had eventually made his way to Lausanne, Switzerland, and then persuaded a sympathetic Russian consul to grant him travel papers to the United States as he had a life-line - an invitation to the Rice Memorial (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". [5] He disembarked at New York on Tuesday, January 11th, 1916 and within a week was playing in the above tournament. After a two week break, on the 25th February 1916, he began this match. Jaffe and Janowski had only played twice before, in Havana 1913. Both games were drawn although Janowski had squandered a winning position with White. <"If, you receive second prize," said Jaffe to Janowski during the progress of the recent Rice Memorial Tournament; "I shall challenge you to a match." and sure enough, the day after the tourney was over and Janowski had secured second place to Capablanca Jaffe opened up negotiations, the result being a match of five games up, draws not counting, for a purse of $400.> [6] This would be about $7,000 in 2015 values. It seems that Janowski did not take Jaffe too seriously as a opponent. He was to pay the price with his reputation being diminished by the close result. Before the match with Jaffe had even begun, Janowski had already assumed his victory. On the day of the match's first game, he had challenged Capablanca and then put the letter out in the press: <"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".> [7] Janowski was unsuccessful in eliciting any such commitment from Capablanca. Instead, in June 1916, Janowski challenged and lost a match to Marshall - Janowski - Marshall, 5th Match (1916) but then defeated the former American Champion Jackson Showalter - Janowski - Showalter, 4th Match (1916). Jaffe was given a second opportunity in November 1917. Janowski, apparently burning to expunge his unexpected defeat, agreed to concede his opponent odds of four games up in a match of ten. This time with his reputation at stake, Janowski overwhelmed Jaffe. <The match:> The venue was Marshall's Chess Divan at Keene’s Chop House, 70 West 36th Street, New York. "The conditions of the match are that the one who first wins five games, drawn games not to count, shall be the victor. The games are to be played at a rate of thirty moves an hour, and then a rate of fifteen moves to the hour. One game is to be played every second day, but in the case of a game being adjourned, it is to be concluded on the following day. The match is for a purse of $400." [8] <Felix E. Khan is stakeholder, the seconds being Robert Raubitschek for Janowski and George B. Sturrock for Jaffe. Jacob Bernstein is the director of play.> [9] Jaffe had White in the odd numbered games. table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Janowski 1 0 0 0 1 1 ½ ½ ½ 1 ½ 0 1 - 7 Jaffe 0 1 1 1 0 0 ½ ½ ½ 0 ½ 1 0 - 6 ]table <The games:> 1st game - Friday, 25th February, 1916. 2nd game - Sunday, 27th February, 1916. 3rd game - Tuesday, 29th February, 1916. 4th game - Thursday, 2nd March, 1916. 5th game - Saturday, 4th March, 1916. 6th game - Monday, 6th March, 1916. 7th game - Wednesday, 8th March, 1916. 8th game - Friday-Saturday, 10th-11th March, 1916. [Game reported as finished on the 11th] 9th game - Sunday, 12th March, 1916. 10th game - Tuesday, 14th March, 1916. 11th game - Thursday, 16th March, 1916. 12th game - Saturday, 18th March, 1916. 13th game - Monday-Tuesday, 20th-21st March, 1916. [Game reported as finished on the 21st] [10]. The initial pace was frenetic with the first six games being decisive. Janowski had a dreadful start being 3-1 down and he did not manage to take the lead until Game 10. He was only ahead twice in the match before the final game. The average length of the games in this match was 66 moves, with nine of the thirteen games being over 50 moves. <Game 1> was a scrappy game which Janowski won as Black. Jaffe tried to offer a coffee-house N sacrifice which Janowski simply ignored. <Game 2> was more substantial with a well played opening leading to complications. Jaffe blundered with <25...Rg8> click for larger view allowing Janowski to play <26.Ng5!> which should have won. Instead, he miscalculated, and then blundered again to lose in the middle game in which he had three connected passed pawns for a piece. <Game 3> This was a long and equal game until Janowski made a very simple error in a K+P endgame and lost. click for larger view [Janowski played <66...a4> when <66... c4> would have held a draw 67.bxc4 a4 68. h5 a3 69. h6 a2 70. h7 a1=Q 71. h8=Q Qa8+ 72. Kh7 Qxf3 73. Qg7+] <Game 4> Jaffe outplayed Janowski in the late middlegame and a passed pawn cost his opponent a piece and soon after the game. <Game 5> Having lost three games in a row, this was a must win game for Janowksi. The game swung one way and then the other until click for larger view when Janowski found <31...Ne3!> to obtain a winning advantage. <Game 6> Late in the middle game, Jaffe first passed over a probably winning exchange sacrifice and then lost by allowing his opponent a simple but fatal tactic in an equal position. "After a lucky escape from a position in which his adversary had a certain win, but did not see it, Janowski of Paris defeated Jaffe ... Jaffe's chance came at the forty-second move, where, instead of playing RxN, giving up an exchange for a pawn and establishing a passed pawn, he retreated his knight and allowed Janowski to slip out of his tight fix...The ending, with a Knight apiece and pawns on the board was an interesting study, and Janowski gave an artistic demonstration of winding up the game..." [11] <Game 7> A long game in which neither player could establish any advantage in a minor piece endgame. "In the ending Jaffe was left with a Knight against a Bishop, but, after vainly trying to accomplish something , the players agreed to a draw in fifty-eight moves..." [12] <Game 8> Janowski had a promising position, but could only achieve a drawn Q+P endgame. <Game 9> Janowski missed the key move to achieve a simple win of a piece after Jaffe had unwisely snatched a pawn in another lengthy ending click for larger view [He played <65...Bb5?> instead of <65...Bg4!> 66. Re1 Ke4 67. Kd1 Rxe2 68.Rxe2+ Kd3] <Game 10> Janowski played carelessly and allowed Jaffe to use his coffee house honed tactical skills to the full with a crushing attack on the king. This was Jaffe's best game of the match and also its shortest. <Game 11> An ending of a Jaffe's Bishop against three pawns was indifferently played by both players, and exhausted itself into a draw. <Game 12> Janowski worked up a winning attack and then dissipated his advantage. In an equal ending, he lost the thread of the game and went down to a loss. <Game 13> Janowski broke through on the Q-side and won material. Jaffe played out a hopeless endgame looking for tricks but Janowski took the point the exchange and four pawns up. <Contemporary reaction:> Neither player emerged with credit they could have hoped for from this match. <Fans are disappointed at the Jaffe-Janowski Match Games> "Supposing that Charles Jaffe had really accomplished the feat of defeating David Janowski of Paris, the winner of several European International tournaments, and at one time during the progress of the contest it really looked as if he would easily win the match, the glory and the stakes, for he was then leading his adversary with three points to one, those who followed the contest game by game and who took the trouble of playing over the scores and also indulging in analysis, were utterly disappointed in every respect. They could not believe that the famous Janowski, who had only recently won the first brilliancy prize in the Rice memorial Masters’ Tournament did play these games, overlooking win after win, and neither could they believe that Jaffe played up to his real form, for he too missed chance after chance, lost games which he should have won….Under the circumstances it cannot be said that the match was instrumental in contributing much to the theory of the game. It did not produce anything in the shape of originality, beauty or soundness, maybe with one or two exceptions… However, there is a lesson being taught to both of the players. Janowski must by this time have seen that even a reputed master player cannot afford to look down upon local talent for which he generally use the term “coffee-house player”. He ought to remember that Charles Jaffe beat Jacques Mieses once a famous German expert [13] , while Jaffe should be reminded not to look upon Janowski as “Jachnetschik”, a player whom he could “sink” like a fisherman or could “tear like a fish”. [14] <Notes:> [1] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1913_... [2]. "Chess Reclaims a Devotee" by Alfred Kreymborg, "The American Mercury", August, 1930, pp. 446-453 - PDF available at http://www.unz.org/Pub/AmMercury-19... [3]. "The Brooklyn Daily Eagle", 5th April, 1916, p.23. [4]. "The Brooklyn Daily Eagle", 5th April, 1916, p.23. [5]. "The Brooklyn Daily Eagle", 12th January, 1916, p.20. [6]. "The Australasian", (Melbourne, Australia), 22nd April, 1916, p.58> [7]. "The Brooklyn Daily Eagle", 25th February 1916, p.24. [8]. "New York Times", 21st February, 1916. [9]. "American Chess Bulletin", vol.13-15, p.78. [10]. Dates of Games 1-10 from the "American Chess Bulletin", vol.13, April 1916, No.4., p.78,"American Chess Bulletin", Vol.13 May-June 1916, No.5.,p.126. and from contemporary newspaper reports. [11]. "Brookyln Daily Eagle", 16th March, 1916, p.20. [12]. "New York Times", 9th March, 1916. [13]. Jaffe beat Mieses (2.5 - 0.5) in three "exhibition" games in New York in 1907. It is questionable if whether to Mieses this constituted a serious match between masters. See "New York Times" December 31st, 1907. [14]. "New York Sun", (New York), 19th March, 1916, p.11. 13 games, 1916 Jaffe - Janowski (2) A return match, November 1917 to January 1918, after Janowski's narrow and therefore embarrassing "victory" in Game Collection: Jaffe - Janowski in February - March, 1916. David Janowski was willing to suffer a hard bargain in order to restore his reputation. "D.Janowski, pride of Paris and not exactly an outcast from the affections of D.Janowski, is having his exalted emotions sorely harassed these days by the renowned "coffee-house" expert, Charles Jaffe...So overwrought are the French Champion's nerves from this inexplicable defeat (sic) that he has issued a sweeping challenge to Jaffe and Kupchik, offering to play a match for $500 a side , ten games up, draws not to count, and giving the odds of five games to start with. Now , if someone will only lend Jaffe $500 the East side hero may be depended upon to give a fine exhibition of the ancient pastime of "spoiling the Egyptian". [1] The quoted phrase seems to refer to Exodus 12:36 in that Jaffe could be expected to take what was due to him. If so, it indicates that Janowski's reputation had suffered a considerable blow after their first match. "David Janowski, French chess champion, and Charles Jaffe of this city have agreed to play a match of ten games up in which the foreign master undertakes to concede four games to his opponent as a start, play to begin at the rooms of the New York City Chess Club on Nov.11. The winner of the match will be the one who first has ten games to his credit, draws not counting. Under the special provision accepted by the French master Jaffe will need to win only six games to his adversary's ten. The last times these experts were opposed in a set match was in March 1916, when Janowski barely won, with the score 5 to 4 and 4 drawn". [2] In the end, the stake was $200 a side (about $3,400 each in 2016 value). This would either seem to have been another concession by Janowski in order to get his revenge match, or perhaps as an emigre fleeing war torn Europe he simply needed the money. Sidney Rosenzweig (who played for the Manhattan Chess Club)[3] was the stakeholder. The match was played at the premises of the "League of Foreign Born Citizens", in New York City. [4] This is a four story brick grand Federal house at 138 Second Avenue which now appears to be occupied by the "Fresco Gelateria". The League was a “non-racial, non-sectarian organization, founded in 1913, for the purpose of interesting the immigrant in civic affairs and inspiring those who had not been naturalized to take steps towards making themselves American citizens". [5] <Match conditions> The referee was Harold Phillips and Jacob Bernstein was the match manager [6] The time limit was 30 moves in the first two hours and then 15 moves an hour. [7] <Results> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Janowski ½ ½ 1 1 1 0 ½ 1 0 1 0 ½ 0 1 1 1 1 1 - 10 Jaffe ½ ½ 0 0 0 1 ½ 0 1 0 1 ½ 1 0 0 0 0 0 - 8 ]table With his four game handicap, Janowski did not take the lead until his victory in Game 15 as can be seen from the table of games won which includes the handicap into Jaffe's score: table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Janowski 0 0 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 7 8 9 10 Jaffe 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 ]table [Draws did not count towards the score.] ... <The games> One of the games is apparently unrecorded: Game 13 a 123 move Ruy Lopez won by Jaffe. 1st game - Sunday, 11th November, 1917. 2nd game - Wednesday, 14th November, 1917. 3rd game - Thursday, 15th November, 1917. 4th game - Sunday, 18th November, 1917. (Est.) 5th game - Tuesday, 20th November, 1917. (Est.) 6th game - Thursday, 22nd November, 1917. 7th game - Sunday, 25th November, 1917. 8th game – Wednesday 28th November, 1917. 9th game - Sunday, 2nd December, 1917. 10th game - Wednesday, 5th December, 1917. 11th game - Friday, 7th December, 1917. 12th game - Sunday, 9th December, 1917. 13th game – Wednesday 19th December, 1917. 14th game - Friday, 21st December, 1917. 15th game - Sunday, 23rd December, 1917. 16th game - Monday, 24th December, 1917. (Est.) 17th game - Tuesday, 1st January, 1918. 18th game - Saturday, 6th January, 1918. [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.] ... <Highlights> Game 1 - Jaffe was unable to establish any advantage with the White pieces. Janowski then took unwarranted chances, and in doing so presented Jaffe with a winning combination. Jaffe missed his opportunity and the game was drawn. Game 2 - "Jaffe established two connected passed pawns in the center of the board. Janowski, however, cleverly sacrificed a piece for these pawns and forced the draw". [8] Game 3 - Janowski sacrificed a Knight for three Queen-side pawns. This unbalanced the position and Jaffe replied inaccurately and lost what had been an equal game. "These are sad days for custom and precedent. Even so regular an institution as Jaffe's "goat" is no longer to be relied upon. For then years this animal has faithfully thrown its rider in the homestretch, and in the homestretch only, but in the little East Side hero's present race with Janowksi his emotional mount has bucked from the drop of the flag. Of the first three games played Janowski has won two and drawn one after Jaffe had established a winning position in each contest (sic)." [9]. Game 6: - "Honors were even at the tie of the adjournment, but Jaffe was left with a Knight against a Bishop for the ending. After resumption, Jaffe played so well that he forced the Frenchman to give up his Bishop for a pawn...". [10] Game 8 - "Jaffe held his own well until the ending, in which Janowski had two Bishops against a Knight and a Bishop. The French master was able to win a pawn, which gave him the victory". [11] Game 11 - "After a remarkable struggle lasting nine and one-half hours and extending over 93 moves, Charles Jaffe of New York succeeded in winning another game from David Janowski of Paris in their chess match in the rooms of the New York City Chess Club yesterday...The end was reached with Bishops of opposite colors on the board, and a draw seemed imminent, when Janowski sacrificed "the exchange" thinking to get two pawns in return. The combination proved to be unsound and Jaffe obtained the upper hand. Janowski made a stubborn resistance, but had to yield in the end." [12] Game 12 - "Missing an opportunity to establish a winning position in the ending, David Janowski...had to be content with another draw..." [13] Game 13 - "The players made 123 moves before David Janowski resigned the difficult Knight and Pawn ending. The opening was a Ruy Lopez..." [14] "The referee Mr M.H.Phillips had to be called in to settle a point of dispute in the ending. It was merely a question of the fifty move rule, and finally the official required Jaffe who was a pawn ahead to demonstrate a win in twenty-five moves. This Jaffe succeeded in doing somewhat to the disgust of the French Champion..." [15] Game 14 - "As early as on the seventeenth move Jaffe's doom seemed practically sealed. Janowski continuing to play with great energy and circumspection, threatened a mate on the thirty-third move when Jaffe resigned." [16] Game 18 - Jaffe equalised as Black into a Rs+Ps ending avoiding a threefold repetition, but then lack of technique led him to lose a tempo which allowed Janowski's Rook and King to penetrate his position. "Janowski, scoring the last five games in succession, won easily by 10 to 4, with 4 drawn. In addition, Janowski won the third, fourth, fifth, eighth and tenth games, drew the first, second, seventh and twelfth, and lost the sixth, ninth, eleventh end thirteenth after a great struggle which lasted 123 moves. It will be recalled that Janowski conceded the odds of four games to his opponent, but at no stage did he have any reason to feel perturbed concerning this odd feature of the match." [17] <After the match> Janowski was challenged by another leading New York player Oscar Chajes. According to the New York Times of January 20th, 1918 the articles were signed that day for a purse of $500 (about $8,500 in 2016). This match Chajes - Janowski (1918) took place in March to May, 1918 and once again illustrated Janowski's decline as he lost to player who was not of grandmaster standard. Jaffe did not progress in strength from this match. At the Rye Beach Tournament (July 1918) he was equal third behind perennial rivals Chajes and Kupchik. Although he won the 1920 Rice Progressive Chess Club Championship ahead of Chajes and Kupchik, and then took second place to Marshall at the Atlantic City Tournament (July 1920), he was never a rival to Marshall. ... <Notes> The thirteen game of this match was 123 moves long. I have been unable to locate a copy of its score. I suspect that due to its length it has never been published. If anyone can find a copy, please note it in the Biographers Bistro. Thank you. [1]. "Evening Star", (Washington, D.C.), 1st October, 1917, p.17. [2]. "New York Times", 21st October, 1917. [3] "New York Times", July 15th, 1920. [4]. "New York Times", November 16th, 1917. [5]. see http://6tocelebrate.org/site/138-se... [6]. "The Brooklyn Daily Eagle", 9th November 1917, p.9. [7]. "American Chess Bulletin", vol. 14. 1917 p.250.; and American Chess Bulletin, Volume 14, Number 9, December 1917, p.250. [8]. The second game took place on the 14th November, 1917, "New York Times", 15th November, 1917. [9]. "The Sunday Star" (Washington D.C), November 25, 1917, p. 5. [10]. The sixth game took place on the 22nd November, 1917, "New York Times", 23rd November, 1917. [11]. The eight game took place on 28th November, 1917, "New York Times", 29th November, 1917. [12]. The eleventh game took place on 7th December, 1917, "New York Times", 8th December, 1917. [13]. The twelfth game took place on 9th December, 1917, "New York Times", 10th December, 1917. [14]. The thirteenth game took place on 19th December, 1917, "New York Times", 20th December, 1917. [15]. "The Brooklyn Daily Eagle", 20th December 1917, p.20. [16]. The fourteenth game took place on 21st December, 1917, "New York Times", 22nd December, 1917. [17] "American Chess Bulletin", vol.15 (1918), p.35. <References of the dates of the other games> The first game took place on November 11th, 1917,"Evening Star", (Washington, D.C.), 1st October, 1917. The third game took place on November 15th, 1917, "New York Times", 16th November, 1917. The seventh game took place on 25th November, 1917, "New York Times", 26th November, 1917. The ninth game took place on 2nd December, 1917, "New York Times", 3rd December, 1917. The eleventh game took place on 7th December, 1917, "New York Times", 8th December, 1917. The twelfth game took place on 9th December, 1917, "New York Times", 10th December, 1917. The thirteenth game took place on 19th December, 1917, "New York Times", 20th December, 1917. The fourteenth game took place on 21st December, 1917, "New York Times", 22nd December, 1917. The fifteenth game took place on 23rd December, 1917, "New York Times", 24th December, 1917. The sixteenth game took place on reported on 26th December, "New York Times", 26th December, 1917. The seventeenth game took place on 1st January, 1918, "New York Times", 2nd January, 1918 and "New York Tribune", 2nd January, 1918. The eighteenth game took place on 6th January, 1918, "New York Tribune", 7th January, 1918. Acknowledgements: The 18th game was found by User: zanzibar . 17 games, 1917-1918 Janowski - Mieses <Introduction:> David Janowski - Jacques Mieses, Paris, 8th January to 4th February 1895. Mieses was approaching his 30th birthday and Janowski was 26 year's old. This was a match of uncompromising chess only two of the fourteen games played were drawn, and one of those was a stalemate. Paris had hosted little master chess since Paris (1878). The Polish emigre Stanislaus Sittenfeld had played matches against Jean Taubenhaus and David Janowski in 1891-3, but apart from that there had only been national competitions hosted by the Café de la Régence. Mieses had drawn a match against Carl Walbrodt (+5 =3 -5) in May-June 1894 [(1)] and then went onto a lengthy tour of Russia. Janowski had not played competitively since September 1894 at 9th DSB Congress, Leipzig (1894), where he had come sixth (+10 -6 =1) ahead of Mieses (+7 -7 =3) who was tenth. "The match between Messrs. Janowski and Mieses began at the Café de la Régence, Paris, on January 2nd, and at first was all in favour of the former player, who began by winning 3 games to 1, and drawing 1. In the sixth game, however, Herr Misses began to improve, and won it in good style. The games are, so far, disappointing on the whole, there being a good many mistakes. At the time of our going to press the scores were Misses 5, Janowski 3, drawn 1." [(2)] But in the same issue ("British Chess Magazine", February 1885, p.88.) it is stated that it commenced on January 8th. The "Deutsche Schachzeitung" explained that there had been a postponement: <The terms:> "Paris. The Mieses — Janowski match, which was postponed a week, started at the 8th of the Café de la Régence. The match rules are as follows: 1). The winner is who first to win seven games. The first four draws do not count, thereafter each additional draw counts as a half point. 2). The time limit is 18 moves per hour. 3). (Play will be from)...noon to 6:15 o'clock. There will be play in the evening with the exception of Tuesdays and Sundays, (except Tuesday January 8th). 4). The stake is 800 FRCS." [(3)] "Paris. The Mieses-Janowski match ended on Monday, February 4th. Both players had won six games whilst two games were drawn. The match was therefore drawn." [(4)] <The progress of the match:> Using dates given in the reports of the "British Chess Magazine" and the "Deutsche Schachzeitung" most of the games can be dated. Some, as indicated, need to be corroborated: Game 1 - Tuesday, 8th January 1895 Game 2 - Wednesday, 9th January 1895 Game 3 - Thursday, 10th January 1895 Game 4 - Friday, 11th January 1895 Game 5 - Saturday, 12th January 1895 Game 6 - Monday, 14th January 1895 Game 7 - Thursday, 17th January 1895 Game 8 - Friday, 18th January 1895 (?) Game 9 - Monday, 21st January 1895 Game 10 - Wednesday, 23rd January 1895 (?) Game 11 - Saturday, 26th January 1895 Game 12 - Friday, 1st February 1895 Game 13 - Saturday, 2nd February 1895 (?) Game 14 - Monday, 4th February 1895 Game 8 with its 91 moves was most probably adjourned and finished on Saturday, 19th. Game 10, following the match rules, should have begun on Wednesday, 23rd January. The game was 137 moves long according to James Mason in "British Chess Magazine". This seems to account for why the next game did not start until the next Saturday (26th). Game 10 most probably was adjourned twice, on the Thursday and completed on Friday. <Score> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Mieses 0 0 1 0 ½ 1 1 1 1 ½ 0 0 0 1 7 Janowski 1 1 0 1 ½ 0 0 0 0 ½ 1 1 1 0 7 ]table Mieses had White in the even numbered games. <Progressive score:> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Mieses 0 0 1 1 1½ 2½ 3½ 4½ 5½ 6 6 6 6 7 Janowski 1 2 2 3 3½ 3½ 3½ 3½ 3½ 4 5 6 7 7 ]table After the first five games, Janowski was three games up. He then suffered a collapse losing four games in succession. After a draw in game 10, the score was 5 wins to 3 in Mieses' favour. Mieses now needed only two games to reach the seven required to take the match (the first four draws did not count according to the match rules) , but he then lost three games in succession. The 14th game could have won the match for Janowski but he lost and both players then agreed to terminate the match as a draw. The last four games had been decisive. <Contemporary reaction:> "On January 8, the match between J.Mieses and J.Janowski began in Paris and it ended on February 4th, this match has brought together two players who have an unmistakable similarity of playing style. Both have a naturalistic trait, caring little about the principles established by the theory, but instead they love to follow their own path. Consequently, Janowski has with tough persistence stuck with the Vienna Opening in a manner manifestly contradictory to theory - we mean by using the defence, or more-precisely the the counter-attack by means of <6. g7-g5> and then <7. h6-h5>. Mieses diverged in the Spanish Game with <4...d7-d6> and later <Ng8-e7> instead of <Ng8-f6>, and thus encountered difficulties. In the second game, the opening chosen by Mieses proved very unfavorable from the outset and gave any advantage away immediately. We cannot understand why in the second game Mieses played <Ng1-e2>, especially after he had lost the first game. Semyon Alapin a few years ago recommended the move which is nothing but a product of an addiction to constant novelty and it is not suitable for high-level competitions... Likewise, both players prefer lively combinational and attacking play, in which respect they are completely old school. Janowski and Mieses play a great deal but they do not feel comfortable in defending, and seek habitually salvation through a bold counter-attack. In the latter respect, the performance of the German champion in eleventh game is quite characteristic, in the former the fourteenth and last game Mieses attacked in his characteristic masterly and elegant style. Unfortunately, Mieses is not free from making gross errors, as the first, second and twelfth games show, whilst Janowski tends to avoid blatant errors." [(5)] "It should be said that the quality of the play in this match is not such as to exalt the reputation of the players. The number of misjudgements of one sort or another is unduly great; and the prevalence of these seriously detracts from the record - considered as one of first-class chess." [(6)] <Highlights:> [[Game 2:]] Mieses played carelessly and lost a piece with <8.f3??> after <8...d5!> click for larger view Unforced errors such as this marked his play and rather discredited the match. [[Game 5:]] Janowski missed a clear win: click for larger view <43.Rf8+!> Ke5 44. Rf4 Rxf4 45.gxf4+ Kxf4 46.Kd4 and wins. This seems to have affected Janowski badly as he now lost four games in a row. [[Game 8:]] In the ending, Janowski with R+2 pawns could not hold out against Mieses' R+B. [[Game 9:]] Both players made multiple errors in a B+P ending [[Game 10:]] This was a 'make or break' game for Janowski who was seeing the match rapidly sliding away from him. The tension was heightened by a possible loss on time by Janowski and then a dispute over the 50 move rule (or was it the 60 move rule in France?) In an unusual ending, Janowski had two Knights against Mieses' two pawns. click for larger view Mieses with some help from his opponent managed to draw the game. "In the tenth game of this match, there occurred a position of great interest as bearing upon the difficult and improperly defined subject of the fifty-move rule. At the sixty-fifth move, M.Janowski had nothing left but two Knights, and his opponent only two isolated pawns; whereupon, according to the rule, Herr Misses claimed that M. Janowski must mate him in fifty more moves. The latter at once protested, the rule in France being to allow 60 instead of 50 moves under such circumstances. The referees decided that the moves should be counted, and the question reserved for the umpire's judgment. The game then proceeded, and at the 78th move, M.Janowski having taken a Palm, the counting, according to the rule, began afresh from that point. At the 37th move, that is to say 59 moves from the re-commencement of counting, the game was adjourned, and as from the position it could only be a draw, there was no difficulty." [(7)] [[Game 12:]] Mieses badly miscalculated in the opening <12.Nxe5?> and lost material when he could not maintain a pin. click for larger view [[Game 14:]] Mieses' King-side attack crashed through and he forced a mate in 7 with <29.f6!>: click for larger view <Postscript:> Mieses continued on his busy European travel schedule with two further matches in short sequence: Mieses - Teichmann (1895) and then Mieses - Taubenhaus (1895) before playing in Hastings (1895) Janowski too played in Hastings (1895) and from there on he was a regular participant in the pre-war grandmaster tournaments. <Notes:> [(1)]. [["London Evening Standard"]], Monday 4th June, 1894, p. 7. [(2)]. [["British Chess Magazine"]], February 1885, p.66. [(3)]. [["Deutsche Schachzeitung"]], No.1, January 1895, p.27. In 1895, 800 Francs = approximately £32 pounds. In 2017 values this would be about £4,000/$5,120. http://www.historicalstatistics.org... https://www.measuringworth.com/exch... [(4)]. [["Deutsche Schachzeitung"]], No.2, February 1895, p.59. [(5)]. [["Deutsche Schachzeitung"]], No.3, March 1895, p.91. [(6)]. [["British Chess Magazine"]], March 1895, p.144. [(7)]. [["British Chess Magazine"]], March 1895, p.132. See also: http://www.edochess.ca/matches/m106... Original collection and text by User: Chessical. 14 games, 1895 Judd - Mackenzie <Introduction> This chess match between George Mackenzie and Max Judd of 13 games was held in St. Louis, Missouri commencing on the 31st of January 1881 [(1)] and concluding on 30th of April 1881 [(2)] This was a match between Mackenzie, the pre-eminent active American player [(3)] and three-times US Champion and Judd, the strongest player in St Louis. Both had competed in the 5th American Chess Congress, New York (1880), and according to Chessmetric's analysis: Mackenzie was 3rd and Judd eleventh on its March 1881 rating list. [(4)] Mackenzie (43 y.o.) and Judd (29 y.o.) played the match in a relaxed manner. There was an interruption to the match and the fourth game was adjourned “for some weeks on account of the departure of Captain Mackenzie from St. Louis on a visit to New Orleans, the birthplace and present abode of Paul Morphy "[(5)] At the time, the chess scene in St. Louis was noted to be thriving under the direction of Mr Judd, its chess and whist club having 400 members [(6)]. This was a reflection of the city's growing economic power. St. Louis enjoyed rapid growth after the Civil War, becoming the fourth largest city in the United States "We learn from the St. Louis Globe-Democrat that a match has been arranged between Captain Mackenzie and Max Judd, under the following conditions: the winner of the first seven games to be the victor; drawn games not to count; time limit, <15 moves per hour>; play to take place twice a week, <Monday and Saturday evenings>, as both players are engaged in business during daytime. The stakes are provided by members of the St. Louis Chess Club, who were very anxious to see a contest between the American and the Western champions. The first game was commenced at the Mercantile Library Chess Room on the 31st of January last." [(7)] The match took place in the chess room of the St. Louis Mercantile Library, the largest subscription library west of the Mississippi. [(8)] <Status> It has been claimed that this match was for the US chess championship [(9)], but this is not evidenced by the contemporary sources. What is known is that the 5th American Chess Congress, New York (1880), held in New York on January 6th–26th, 1880 had been discredited. Mackenzie had won on a tie break over James Glover Grundy, whilst Judd was fifth. There was a scandal when newspapers ran reports that Grundy and Preston Ware fixed their game in that tournament. Ware provided written testimony to the tournament committee that in the final round opponent, Grundy, offered him $20 if he agreed to play for a draw so guaranteeing Grundy the second place prize money. Ware agreed, but complained that Grundy had instead beaten him, and by doing so, Ware had tied for first with Mackenzie. "A meeting of the Chess Association of the United States was held last evening at No. 60 East Fourteenth-street, to receive the report of the committee appointed to investigate charges of collusion against Messrs. Grundy and Ware, two of the contestants in the late chess tournament held in this City...Mr Grundy...denied the allegations made by Ware, and he said there was a conspiracy against him, in which one of the prominent members of the congress committee was implicated. The committee reported that...it believed the charges to be true..." [(10)] The tournament book states he "was given the benefit of a technical doubt, and a verdict of 'not proven' [(11)] was entered..." due to the conflicting testimony from the two parties, but Grundy's reputation was effectively ruined. [(12)] [(13)] There is neither evidence nor good reason why this match would have been a title match. Mackenzie had not been implicated in any wrongdoing which could have opened his title up for question. If any such match had been necessary, Charles Moehle, of St Paul, Minnesota and Alexander Sellman ,of Baltimore, who had been placed in third and fourth, ahead of Judd, would both have had a superior claim. Apart from the leading chess journals failing to mention the question of the national title bring at stake, the leisurely conduct of the match, with Mackenzie taking time away for a trip to New Orleans, would suggest that this was not a title match. Instead, Judd may have arranged the match in part for Mackenzie’s benefit. Judd was a successful businessman and according to William Pollock “Max Judd’s generosity to chess-payers and others who have tingled with the buffets of Schoolmistress Fortune will never be known … He has assisted chess-players pecuniarily whenever their wants could be conveyed to him … and he has a delicate way of doing these good deeds. The later Captain Mackenzie when in adverse circumstances at St. Louis earned a very handsome reward by his match with Judd, his opponent hedging for both sides and arranging matters so that Mackenzie neither was, nor felt himself to be in his benefactor’s debt.” [(14)] The American champion could not support himself by chess alone: "'The Turf, Field and Farm' makes the unexpected announcement that Capt. Mackenzie has left New York and established himself permanently at St. Louis, <where he is engaged in a printing office and in giving lessons in chess>..." [(15)] <The circumstances of the match> Contemporary sources agree on the arrangements for the match, but do not specify the purse. “The conditions are that the player who first wins seven games is to be the victor; draws not to count; time limit 15 moves per hour; play to take place every Monday and Saturday between the hours of 7.30 p.m. and 12 p.m. It is stated that of 13 games contested between these players since 1871, Capt. Mackenzie has won 8½ and Mr. Judd 4½, but it is supposed that the latter has improved considerably since. Play was to commence on Monday, the 31st of January." [(16)] "A great chess match has been commenced at St. Louis. U.S.A., between Captain Mackenzie, the American champion, and Max Judd, also a very fine player. Conditions, seven decisive games, time limit, <15 moves per hour>. The money prize for when they play is subscribed by the St. Louis players. The “Globe Democrat” says Mr. Judd expects to put on the whole chess armour, and has polished it up for the fray, for he well knows should he defeat the American champion, it would be a feather in his cap..." [(17)] <Previous encounters> "Captain Mackenzie, the American chess champion, visited St. Louis on Nov. 30 last (1878 - e.d.), and played against eleven members of the local chess club simultaneously, winning nine and losing two. In the course of his visit Captain Mackenzie played four games against Mr. Max Judd, of St. Louis, and each player scored two games." [(18)] For a retrospective comparative analysis of their strength see - http://www.edochess.ca/matches/m787... On the 15th of January, the opponents played an " off-hand" game in Mercantile Library Chess Room, which Mackenzie won. It is not clear whether this was as a "warm-up" or an incidental game. [(19)] <Judd> Judd was an extremely strong amateur player, having decided that a career in business, and for a time diplomacy, was a more secure option than playing chess for a living. “In 1871 he won fourth prize at the Cleveland International Tourney; third at Chicago, in 1874; second at Philadelphia, in 1876; fifth at New York, in 1880…For several years he was President of the St. Louis Chess Club…In none of his matches against St. Louis players was Mr. Judd ever defeated. In 1874 he won a match from the then well-known Italian master, Edward Alberoni, by the score of six games to three… Taking into account all the characteristics of Mr. Max Judd's play — its solidity, its depth, its quick grasp of the strategic possibilities of a position, and so, too, its frequently manifested capacity for the achievement of the brilliant in the game — there could be no question but that he belonged to the ranks of the undoubted masters..." [(20)] Judd had competed in four successive American Chess Congresses achieving solid results, 4th in a field of 9 in Second, 3rd of 8 in the Third, 2nd of 9 in the Fourth and 5th of 10 in the Fifth. Pollock, himself a strong master, gave his assessment of Judd’s style in 1892: "His style is classical, solid, profound, deeply analytical and uniformly cautious, often too far-seeing to admit of brilliancy or dazzling speculative plunges into depths beyond mere mortal ken. His knowledge of the Openings is extensive, and he has not played enough "bad chess" to weary of the beauties of the strongest and most familiar methods of debut, consequently we do not find him indulging in freakish innovations, " corkscrew " gambits, weak early moves adopted for the sake of stimulating his genius to fight against self-inflicted odds, Balaclava charges, double gambits, "rat-hole" defences, improvisations or empiricisms. He is a beautiful end-game player, and there is plenty of "Polish" in his finishing and finished touches." [(21)] <Mackenzie> In 1863, Mackenzie had emigrated from the United Kingdom to the United States. After fighting in the Civil War for the Union, he became a professional chess player. He was to dominate American tournaments for the next thirty years. Mackenzie won the first prize at 2nd American Chess Congress, Cleveland (1871) , the 3rd American Chess Congress, Chicago (1874) and the 4th American Chess Congress, Philadelphia (1876) . <"It will be seen...that the champion has not snatched his laurels by the grace of any mere freak of fortune... His success has been gained, rather, as the fruit of long and patient effort..."> [(22)] It can be seen from the newspaper reports quoted here, that being a chess professional in America at this time was a difficult and precarious existence, and Mackenzie had to take miscellaneous jobs to subsist. Tournaments were irregular and the prizes were not especially generous. Chess was regarded as the preserve of a 'gentleman', but Mackenzie’s prize at the Fifth American Chess Congress (1880) was less than the annual wage of a skilled tradesman in regular employment [(23)]. He had to rely on winning staked matches, writing chess columns for newspapers with sympathetic editors, private pupillage and exhibitions. <The match> This match was hard fought, with only one draw. Judd had White in the odd-numbered games. table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Total Judd 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 ½ 1 1 0 0 0 5½ Mackenzie 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 ½ 0 0 1 1 1 7½ ]table Progressive scores Mackenzie led for seven rounds, Judd for one (10th). table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Judd 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 3½ 4½ 5½ 5½ 5½ 5½ Mackenzie 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4½ 4½ 4½ 5½ 6½ 7½ ]table Mackenzie's first four victories were with Black, and Judd's first three. Up to Round 8 both players had lost four times in a row with White. <"Chess in America - Mackenzie vs. Judd Match. The opponents in this contest seem to be so evenly matched that it promises to be one of the closest on record. Up to the ninth game, with the exception of one draw, the players won alternately, Mackenzie having the start. The tenth was, however, scored by Judd who for the first time led - but the captain by winning the eleventh again got on even terms with his opponent. On the 29th of April the score stood: — Mackenzie 5, Judd 5, drawn 1."> [(24)] <The games> [[Game 1]] In the first game, Judd sacrificed his <e> pawn in the opening for a developmental advantage. <"Mr. Judd probably leaves the KP en-prise for the purpose, should it be taken, of more rapidly developing his game."> (Mackenzie) [(25)] It seems that Judd was up for a fight from the first moves of the match. Mackenzie managed to hang onto the pawn, and consolidated his position. Judd continued to try to complicate the game but to no avail. In a Rook and Pawn ending he miscounted and exchanged off his final Rook into an irrevocably lost pawn endgame. This game lasted 7½ hours. [(26)] [[Game 2]] Judd dictated the opening by selecting the French Defence. Mackenzie played imprecisely leaving his King to be stranded on <e1>. He struggled to develop his position and had to shed a pawn. Judd played a resulting minor piece ending precisely and Mackenzie lost a game in which he had always been long on the defensive despite having White. "...the ‘St. Louis Globe Democrat’ says :- "When Mr. Judd sprung this debut (French defence) on his opponent, the latter disliked it so much that he followed a not approved of line of attack, in consequence of which at the end of the thirty-eighth move the St. Louis champion had won a pawn and had a winning position." [(27)] [[Game 3]] Judd again opened with a Scotch, but Mackenzie played precisely and equalised. Judd, in a final effort to win, made a now famous error in the endgame: click for larger view by playing <50.Kg1?>, he was attempting to set up what is now a well-known trick to force through his <h> pawn to queen. The trick misfired, Mackenzie had calculated the further! <50. Kg1> Kf3 51. Bxg7 Nxg7 52. h6 Nf5! 53. h7 Nd4 54. h8=Q Ne2+ 55. Kf1 g2+ 56. Ke1 g1=Q+ 57. Kd2 Qc1+ 58. Kd3 Nf4+ 59. Kd4 Qa1+ 0-1 <"The accuracy, brilliancy, and depth of Capt. Mackenzie's calculations in this lovely finish are beyond all praise"> [(28)] [[Game 4]] Judd played a Dutch Defence and the position soon resembled trench warfare. click for larger view "White misses here (move 14 - e.d.) the opportunity to establish a powerful attack. We have pointed out repeatedly the importance of carrying on operations on the Queen's flank instead of wasting time with barren attempts to storm the hostile fortress directly. This advice, however, may be followed too frequently, and to discern rightly which modus operandi is the appropriate one depends in every instance upon the judgment of the player himself. Here, we think, White would obtain speedily a decisive advantage with: <14. f3> Nd7 15. e4 fxe4 16. fxe4 Qa5 17. Qd2 Qh5 18. Rf4 Rad8 19. e5 f5 20. Qf2 &etc." (Hoffer and Zukertort) [(29)] Mackenzie could not gain an advantage and with a probable draw in sight played recklessly click for larger view with <33. axb5?> instead of the solid <33.f4>. His King was harassed across to the Queen side where it expired. "The fourth game in the Judd-Mackenzie match has been left unfinished and the match adjourned for some weeks on account of the departure of Captain Mackenzie from St. Louis on a visit to New Orleans, the birthplace and present abode of Paul Morphy." [(30)] This strange interruption, apparently accepted without comment by his opponent, may have been because Mackenzie had already been engaged for simultaneous displays in New Orleans prior to this match. This is further circumstantial evidence suggesting that this was to a title match. [[Game 5]] "Capt Mackenzie has returned to St. Louis, and had played two more games with Mr. Judd, of which each scored one. The score now stands Mackenzie 3, Judd 2. Consequent on his settling down finally in St. Louis it is announced that he has undertaken the editorship of the chess column of the 'Globe Democrat', Mr. B. Foster having resigned that post in his favour. It is also stated on authority that, after his match with Mr. Judd, the captain purposes to retire from the chess arena." [(31)] Judd abandoned <e4> for an English Opening which came to resemble a Queen's Indian. Mackenzie, with Black, achieved a solid position. He played for the initiative on the Queen-side. Judd did not successfully blockade Mackenzie's advancing pawns and Mackenzie managed to force through a passed pawn winning the game. [[Game 6]] Having been successful with the Dutch, Judd applied this defence again. Once again, Mackenzie failed to any advantage against his slow manoeuvring style of defence Mackenzie, still had a draw in hand when he blundered click for larger view with <37.Rf2?> allowing his opponent's Rooks to penetrate his position. After <37.h4> he could have reasonably expected a draw. [[Game 7]] This game was the shortest of the match so far, and less than half the moves of the average for games so far. Despite a conspicuous lack of previous success Judd chose the Scotch for the third time in this match. In the opening, Judd then lost a piece by playing a routine move without properly inspecting the position. click for larger view After <12.N(a)c2?> he found that his Bishop on <b5> would be subject to a revealed attack and that he had blundered away a piece. <"The seventh game, a Scotch, lacks all interest. Mr. Judd opened it indifferently, and then committed on the 12th move a blunder which cost a clear piece. A dozen moves afterwards, the further loss of an exchange and resignation followed."> [(32)] [[Game 8]] Judd again played a Dutch Defence, but this time Mackenzie had prepared a new system. Instead of relying on the inoffensive <e3 and Bd3> systems which had so far brought him little success, he deployed a double fianchetto system. Judd played aggressively but allowed his Rook to be trapped: click for larger view At his 16th move, Mackenzie 'saw ghosts'; fearing for the safety of his King he did not take the exchange. Judd should have made more of his chances on the King-side, but eventually the opponents agreed a drawn in a blocked position. [[Game 9]] Judd substituted the Scotch for a new opening in this match - the Ruy Lopez. Mackenzie responded aggressively with Schliemann's defence pushing forward his <f> pawn on move 3. Whether due to a momentary lapse over the board, or faulty analysis before the game, Mackenzie committed himself to a completely unsound attack with his Knight. click for larger view <"The first move (move 9 - e.d.) in an unsound combination: Captain Mackenzie informs us that planning the following sacrifice, he entirely overlooked the power of White's 12th move."> The game continued: <10.h3> Qh4 (diag.) 11. hxg4 Bxg4 <12. Re4!> [(33)] Such a "coffee-house" style did not disturb his opponent who pocketed the proffered material and won efficiently. [[Game 10]] Another Dutch Defence and Mackenzie kept faith with his new system introduced in Game 8. Mackenzie lost the game by overlooking a subtlety click for larger view <29.Rxc5?> - has Judd overlooked that if he recaptures his Rook will be skewered? No! As after: <29...Rxc5> 30. Bb4 Nd7 31. Kd4 <d2!!> (Decoy) 32. Bf3 (32. Bxd2 Rc2) and Mackenzie loses a piece. Judd was now in the lead in the match for the first time with 5½ to 4½ points. The match had reached a crescendo, all the games from this point on would be decisive. [[Game 11]] Mackenzie again defended against the Ruy Lopez, but this time he chose a more respectable line with the Open Defence. Having equalised, Mackenzie chose a risky line opening up his King-side. Judd failed to take his opportunities, hampering himself by running short of time [(34)], but Mackenzie took his by forcing through passed pawns on the Queen-side to win. The scores were now equal at 5½ - 5½. [[Game 12]] Judd defended with a French Defence. Mackenzie chose the Exchange Variation, but did not do so with the intention of a draw. In a sharp game, he developed a King-side attack and won the exchange but Judd had compensation for his loss. Staving off his opponent's attack wore heavily on Judd and he blundered allowing Mackenzie to pierce his King's defences. click for larger view The attractive and decisive <40. Rg6!!> featured in many contemporary magazines. <White carries now the day by direct assault, played in Captain Mackenzie's well-known vigorous style.> (Hoffer and Zukertort) [(35)] [[Game 13]] Judd was now a point behind with his opponent needing only one more victory game to take the match. He had the White pieces and played carefully in a closed Ruy Lopez. Ironically, his opponent was to give him a chance to level the match when he played aggressively but carelessly with click for larger view <21...g5?>. Judd could have doubled his Rooks against the <a> pawn and won it: <22. Ra5> g6 23. R(f)a1 f5 24. Rxa6 Rxa6 25. Rxa6 fxg4 26. Ra8+ Kf7 27. Rxh8 Qxh8 28. hxg4 Kf6 Instead, he played defensively and lost the fleeting opportunity. In a Rook and Pawn endgame, Judd should have drawn but made a simple blunder which allowed Mackenzie to push his <f> pawn through and win the match. <“Mr. Judd's play lacks energy all through this game. His faculties were impaired, we suspect, by the dangerous state of the score…”> [(36)] “The match between Captain Mackenzie and Max Judd is concluded, the final score being: Mackenzie 7, Judd 5, and 1 draw. We congratulate the winner on his success in maintaining the position of American Champion. Great praise is likewise due to Mr. Judd, who so gallantly encountered such a formidable opponent, and kept the balance even up to nearly the close of the match.” [(37)] <Contemporary descriptions:> "The present indications are that there will be an immense attendance, and that the chess room will barely hold the spectators. All are cordially invited to be present and witness the great match, which will be a notable event in the history of chess in St. Louis..." [(38)] "There was a magnificent attendance of chess players of the city and the vicinity, the room being filled, and all taking an absorbing interest in the match. There was no charge for admission, and a general invitation is extended to everybody to come and see the greatest contest of the kind that has ever occurred in the West." [(39)] "On every night of play there have been from 50-60 players as spectators and a more orderly and intelligent assemblage it has never been our lot to observe. Well known merchants and prominent citizens from all the professions were seen in attendance most of them encircled the two players and were joyful or sadly affected alternately according as their favourite secured the advantage or lost it; some were seated at other table analyzing the profound moves as they were made by the two experts, and what to us was considered laughable, a very ordinary player could often be observed to sit on judgement on the moves. On leaving, however, everyone felt he had spent not only a pleasant but a profitable time". [(40)] <Notes> [(1)] "The Chess Monthly", 1881, p.198 and Game 124, p.213 [(2)] The "British Chess Magazine", June 1881, p.206. states that the match "terminated 30th April" (1881). [(3)] Paul Morphy had not played since 1858. [(4)] http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... [(5)] "The Chess Monthly", 1881, p.281. Fourth game commenced Feb 24th and on the 46th move was adjourned to March 13th. Mackenzie then left St Louis Feb 26th for New Orleans. [(6)] The "British Chess Magazine", March 1882, p.125. [(7)] "The Chess Monthly", 1881, p.198. [(8)] http://www.umsl.edu/mercantile/abou... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._L... [(9)] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max... [(10)] "New York Times", 8th March 1880, p.3. [(11)] There was insufficient evidence for an absolute finding of guilt but the committee was not sufficiently convinced of Grundy's innocence to exonerate him. He never played again in any tournament of consequence, and Ware himself later experienced difficulties whilst entering for Vienna (1882) (see "British Chess Magazine", June 1882, p.213.) [(12)] "The Fifth American Congress", ed Charles A. Gilberg (1881), p.150-151. [(13)] See "The Brooklyn Daily Eagle", 8th March 1880, p.7. http://bklyn.newspapers.com/image/6... http://web.archive.org/web/20090530... and http://web.archive.org/web/20061027... [(14)] "British Chess Magazine", July 1892, p.241. [(15)] "Leader" (Melbourne, Australia), 2nd April 1881, p.6. [(16)] "Leader" (Melbourne, Australia), 2nd April 1881, p.6. [(17)] "Australian Town and Country Journal", (Sydney, Australia), 16th April 1881, p.29. [(18)] "Illustrated London News" - Saturday 4th January 1879, p.23 [(19)] "The Chess Monthly", 1881, Game 123, p.211. The "St. Louis Globe-Democrat", 23rd January 1881, reports the game to have lasted only "30 minutes" and to have been an "off hand game" taking place on January 15th 1881. [(20)] "British Chess Magazine", July 1906, p.287. [(21)] "British Chess Magazine" June 1892, p.241. [(22)] "Brooklyn Daily Eagle", 3rd March 1888 [(23)] The first prize at the Third American Chess Congress (1874) was $225 (“Chicago Daily Tribune”, July 17th, 1874 p.3.) The first prize at the Fifth American Chess Congress (1880) was $500 ("The Fifth American Congress", e.d. Charles A. Gilberg (1881), p.502.) [In 1870, the weighted mean wage of a skilled tradesman in the United States was $2.61 a day. In 1880, it was $2.26 a day (National Bureau of Economic Research: "Wages and Earnings in the United States, 1860-1890: Wages by Occupational and Individual Characteristics" - see http://www.nber.org/chapters/c2500.... ). Assuming 6 paid days a week = 312 days - 6 Federal (assumed unpaid) holidays and 51 unpaid Sundays (assuming one day to be coincidental with a Federal holiday) = 255 working days a year. 255 x $2.61 = $665.55 p.a. or $55.46 per month. 255 x $2.26 = $576.30 p.a. or $48.03 per month. In comparison, the manager of “Hunter & Springer's” pig iron furnaces in Chambersberg, Pennsylvania earned $170 a month ("Report on the statistics of wages in manufacturing industries", Jos. D. Weeks. Department of the Interior, (1886), p.133). See https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt... ] [(24)] "Leader", (Melbourne, Australia), 11th June 1881, p.6. [(25)] “Australian Town and Country Journal”, (Sydney, Australia), 23rd April 1881, p.29 - with notes by Mackenzie [(26)] “Australian Town and Country Journal” (Sydney, Australia), 15th October 1881, p.29. [(27)] “Australian Town and Country Journal (Sydney, Australia) 16th April 1881, p.29. [(28)] "British Chess Magazine", June 1881, p.168. [(29)] "The Chess Monthly", 1881, p.271. [(30)] "The Chess Monthly", 1881, p.231. [(31)] "Leader" (Melbourne, Australia), 28th May 1881, p.6. [(32)] "The Chess Monthly", 1881, p.302. [(33)] “The Chess Monthly”, Game 140, notes on p.304. [(34)] "The Chess Monthly”, 1881, p.338. [(35)] "The Chess Monthly", 1881, Game 149, p.341. [(36)] "The Chess Monthly", 1881, p.342. [(37)] "The Chess Monthly", 1881, Game 149, p.294. [(38)] "St. Louis Globe-Democrat", 30th January 1881. [(39)] "St. Louis Globe-Democrat", 6th February 1881. [(40)] "St. Louis Globe-Democrat", 13th February 1881. <Contemporary sources for the games> The following are scores I could access on-line. They do not represent an exhaustive list of all the relevant reports. Nearly all sources attribute the scores to the <"St. Louis Globe-Democrat"> and make heavy use of its material. This was a daily newspaper based in St. Louis from 1852 until its closure in 1986. Its archive, whilst preserved at The Saint Louis Mercantile Library at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, is not yet available on-line. The chess columns of the <"St. Louis Globe-Democrat">, however, have been put on-line by Joost van Winsen at the "Chess Archaeology" web-site: http://www.chessarch.com/excavation... The dates of the games are difficult to determine, it is obvious that the original schedule was abandoned and it appears that several weeks were lost with Mackenzie's visit to New Orleans half way through game 4. [[Game One]] opened and was adjourned on Monday 31st January and was completed on Saturday 5th February. [[Game Two]] opened and was adjourned on Monday 7th February and was completed on Tuesday 8th February. [[Game Three]] opened and was adjourned on Saturday 19th February and was completed on Monday 21st February 1881. [[Game Four]] opened and was adjourned on Thursday 24th February and was completed on Sunday 13th March. Mackenzie left for New Orleans on Saturday 26th February. ("British Chess Magazine, April 1881, p.125 ") [[Game Thirteen]] The match concluded on Saturday 30th April 1881 ("British Chess Magazine", June 1881, p.206.) [ <Game 1> (1). "The Chess Monthly", 1881, p.198 states: "First match game, played on the 31st of January and 5th of February, 1881". The game score is given in "The Chess Monthly", Game 124 p.213 (2). "British Chess Magazine", April 1881, p.125. (3). "New York Clipper, 2nd April 1881" p.25. (4). "Australian Town and Country Journal (Sydney, Australia), 15th October 1881, p.29. <Game 2> (1). "The Chess Monthly", 1881, Game 126 p.240. Played on the 7th and 8th February 1881, "The Chess Monthly", 1881, p.198. (2)."British Chess Magazine", April 1881, p.128. (3). "Leader" (Melbourne, Australia), 23rd April 1881, p.6. with notes by Judd, played on the 6th and 12th February. http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/a... <Game 3> (1). "The Chess Monthly", 1881, Game 127 p.243 - "Third match game, played on the 19th and 21st of February, at the Mercantile Library Chess Room, St. Louis." (2). "British Chess Magazine", June 1881, p.168. <Game 4> (1). "The Chess Monthly", 1881, Game 131 p.270. (2). "New York Clipper, 30th April 1881" p.92. http://idnc.library.illinois.edu/cg... <Game 5> (1). "The Chess Monthly", 1881, Game 132 p.272. (2). "British Chess Magazine", July 1881 p.206. <Game 6> (1). "The Chess Monthly", 1881, Game 138 p.299. (2). "British Chess Magazine", July 1881, p.241. <Game 7> The game score not given by "The Chess Monthly". “The seventh game, a Scotch, lacks all interest. Mr. Judd opened it indifferently, and then committed on the 12th move a blunder which cost a clear piece. A dozen moves afterwards, the further loss of an exchange and resignation followed." "The Chess Monthly", 1881, p.302. <Game 8> (1). "The Chess Monthly", 1881, Game 139, p.301. <Game 9> (1). "The Chess Monthly", 1881, Game 140, p.303. (2). "British Chess Magazine", November 1881, p.349. (3). "Leader" (Melbourne, Australia), 9th July 1881, p.6. http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/a... <Game 10> (1). "The Chess Monthly", 1881, Game 141, p.304. (2). "Leader" (Melbourne, Australia), 9th July 1881, p.6. <Game 11> (1). "The Chess Monthly", 1881, Game 148, p.337. (2). "British Chess Magazine", July 1881, p.243. <Game 12> (1). "The Chess Monthly", 1881, Game 149, p.339. (2). "British Chess Magazine", November 1881, p.349. (3). "New York Clipper”, 30th July 1881, p.300. <Game 13> (1). "The Chess Monthly", 1881, Game 150, p.341. ] 13 games, 1881 Kashdan - L. Steiner 1930 This match was played in the Manhattan Chess Club [(1)], New York, from 19th April to 4th May 1930. It was for the best of 12 games, with the winner the first to accrue five wins; drawn games did not count. [(2)] The 26-year-old Lajos Steiner had come to the United States to participate in the Bradley Beach (1929) tournament, where he had come a close second to world champion Alexander Alekhine. Isaac Kashdan was 24-years-old, the 1929 Manhattan Chess Club champion and the rising star of American chess. He had been the first board of the American team at 1928 Chess Olympiad scoring an impressive +12 - 1 =2. <Progress of the match> Kashdan had white in the odd-numbered games. table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Kashdan ½ 0 1 0 1 1 1 ½ 0 1 6 Steiner ½ 1 0 1 0 0 0 ½ 1 0 4 ]table <Progressive scores:> table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Kashdan ½ ½ 1½ 1½ 2½ 3½ 4½ 5 5 6 Steiner ½ 1½ 1½ 2½ 2½ 2½ 2½ 3 4 4]table <The Games:> This was a hard-fought match with only two draws in ten games. [[Game 1]] Kashdan as white gained no advantage in the opening. Kashdan then illustrated he had the technique to hold an unfavourable rook and pawn ending. click for larger view By taking on <g2> immediately, rather than advancing his King, Steiner may have squandered his opportunity. <"Kashdan played a Four Knight’s Opening. The Manhattan champion forced the fight from the start, sacrificing a pawn for the attack and later another pawn. The defence, however, was ably managed by the Hungarian player. The endgame, a Rook and Pawn ending with Steiner two pawns to the good, was probably theoretically a win, but due to Kashdan’s ably handling his pieces a draw resulted”> [(3)] [[Game 2]] From a promising position as Black, Kashdan blundered away his Queen. click for larger view With <35...Rxd4?> Kashdan allows the White queen to penetrate his position and his queen to be eventually taken by a discovered check. Instead <35...Bxg4> should have won. <” Game 2 was a Petrov resorted to by Kashdan. Again Kashdan sacrificed a pawn for a desperate Queenside attack. Steiner, however, was able to bring about an exchange of pieces and with the exchange won in good form.”> [(3)] [[Game 3]] Steiner equalised as Black using the QGD Cambridge Springs defence. Through miscalculation, he then allowed Kashdan to push his <d> pawn through, costing Steiner the exchange and then the game. click for larger view [[Game 4]] Kashdan changes his defence to the French. He played aggressively on the queens-side but at the expense of leaving his King in the centre. A mistaken combination exchanging his queen for two rooks misfires and allows Steiner's queen to break in and mate Kashdan's vulnerable monarch. <"After four games and with Steiner leading by 2-1, the match took a surprising turn and Kashdan annexed the next three games right off the reel. Sterling chess, such as enabled him to capture the Manhattan title, produced this somewhat unlooked-for result. However, the New Yorker is not yet out of the woods and may look for sturdy opposition from the Hungarian expert from now on. Steiner’s defeat in the seventh game was due to a slip in the opening which cost him a pawn. This is not apt to happen again. On the other hand, Kashdan has succeeded in sizing up his opponent thoroughly and is playing with the utmost confidence."> [(2)] [[Game 5]] Game 5 was described as a "slap-bang" fireworks game" [(1)] It was the start of a series of three consecutive wins for Kashdan which were all fighting games. Characteristically, this was an up and down game. Steiner played inaccurately in the opening but Kashdan let him off the hook. In the end, Kashdan's passed <f> and <g> pawns beat Steiner's passed <c> pawn. [[Game 6]] This was a very sharp game. Steiner defended a Spanish using the Chigorin Defense. He had two passed pawns on the queenside against Kashdan's build-up of forces on the opposing wing. Kashdan broke through with a rook sacrifice to harry Steiner's king and then always found the moves to keep his attack going towards victory. [[Game 7]] Steiner having lost two consecutive games and now playing Black took the decision to play aggressively. Defending a Spanish, he loosened his Kingside but gained nothing substantial in return. Kashdan could have won more quickly but Steiner could not overcome the disabilities of his position. [[Game 8]] Kashdan defended with the Petrov and equalised out of the opening. This was the most 'correct' game so far in the match. The score was now 5-3 in favour of Kashdan who had White in the next game. [[Game 9]] Kashdan opened with the Spanish and had some advantage. Rather than play for a draw, he attacked but then overpressed by sacrificing a knight for a Kingside pawn attack. Steiner counter-sacrificed a bishop and turned the tide of the attack. He was now only one point behind and it was his turn to have White in the next game. [[Game 10]] Once again the opening was a Spanish with Kashdan who defended with the Chigorin defence. Steiner made little progress in developing a kingside attack. Instead, Kashdan broke through on the queenside with his knights galloping lethally through Steiner's position. The match was Kashdan's by a margin of two games. In June 1930, Kashdan showed that this was not a fortuitous result by crushing Jaffe in very short order, <I. Kashdan, Champion of the Manhattan Chess Club, continues his fine work. He completed his match with Jaffe, one of New York’s strongest veteran players, by winning three straight games.> [(4)] In September 1930, he came second to Aron Nimzowitsch at Frankfurt (1930) which was to be his best individual performance. [(5)] Kashdan according to Chessmetrics was the number two graded player in the world between November 1932 and June 1934. He, concluded, however, that he could not support his family on his chess earnings and instead held down a full-time job in insurance. <Notes:> [1]. "The Cincinnati Enquirer", (Cincinnati, Ohio), 18th May 1930, Section 6, p.70. [2]. "The Brooklyn Daily Eagle", (Brooklyn, New York), 1st May 1930, p. 27 [3]. "The Philadelphia Inquirer", (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), 11th May 1930, p. 80. [4]. “The Philadelphia Inquirer”, (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), 29th June 1930, p. 16. [5]. http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... The original collation of the games of this match was completed by User: User: Phony Benoni Text by User: User: Chessical. 10 games, 1930 Kavalek - Larsen <Introduction> This match between Grandmasters Bent Larsen and Lubomir Kavalek was of eight games up. It was played in Solingen, a city in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, from 30th May to 7th June 1970. The match was sponsored by the Solingen Chess Club. Solingen was one of the top German chess clubs, supported by a rich sponsor. In 1971, they would become the winner of the West German club championship. [1]. Larsen's 5-1 victory over a strong grandmaster has been generally forgotten, but it is an example of his fighting play when in his best form. <The players> Larsen was 34 years old and Kavalek 26. Larsen was the fifth equal with Petrosian (2650) and Kavalek was 58th (2510) on the contemporaneous ELO rating list issued in July 1971. [2] <Larsen> The period 1967-1971 saw Bent Larsen at the peak of his form and he was considered as a serious world championship candidate. [3]. In a consecutive run of ten very strong grandmaster events between August 1967 and March 1970, Larsen only had twice failed to win first prize at Palma de Mallorca (1968) coming second equal with Spassky behind Viktor Korchnoi. His only other setback was to lose the Spassky - Larsen Candidates Semifinal (1968) (Malmö, July 1968). Larsen's chain of victories in strong tournaments was: Havana 1967, ahead of Mark Taimanov and Vasily Smyslov Winnipeg (1967) shared with Darga ahead of Paul Keres and Spassky; Sousse Interzonal (1967), ahead of Viktor Korchnoi, Efim Geller and Svetozar Gligoric Palma de Mallorca (1967) ahead of Mikhail Botvinnik, Vasily Smyslov, and Lajos Portisch Monte Carlo (1968) ahead of Mikhail Botvinnik, Vasily Smyslov, and Vlastimil Hort US Open 1968 ahead of Pal Benko and Walter Browne Büsum 1969, Palma de Mallorca (1969) ahead of Petrosian, Viktor Korchnoi and Boris Spassky, and Lugano (1970) a point ahead of Fridrik Olafsson and 3½ points ahead of Kavalek in 7th place. In this period he also defeated Lajos Portisch - Larsen - Portisch Candidates Quarterfinal (1968) (Poreč 1968) and Tal (Third place Candidates Playoff - Eersel 1969) in the Candidates' series and was joint 2nd-4th with Hubner and Geller behind Fischer at the Palma de Mallorca Interzonal (1970), being the only player able to defeat Fischer in the competition - Fischer vs Larsen, 1970. "Living on his nerves ... Bent Larsen of Denmark added one more excellent first prize to his laurels when he outdistanced at Palma de Mallorca in December a field containing the last two world champions and 15 other masters and grandmasters of high calibre. The manner in which he won was very typical. His method is in complete contrast to that of almost all the other leading players of the world. The 12 points he scored were made up of ten wins, four draws and three losses. Compare this score with the two world champions. Both went through unbeaten. Petrosian (the "ex”) had six wins, eleven draws. Spassky, the world champion today, had three wins and fourteen draws! To lose three games in a tournament of this calibre yet finish first, is a fantastic feat...The shock of seeing victory, virtually earned, by mental toil spread over two days, turned into defeat in a moment, would stun most players. It only seems to make Larsen play better. It is not that he lacks feeling - I have witnessed the pain in his eyes — but he has a marvellous spirit of determination, a gift for summoning up the very best in himself, in the teeth of adversity. Anyway, at Palma, as so often, he came back, time and time again, to thrash opponents..." [4]. Larsen was working hard. (After losing to Boris Spassky at Leiden) Larsen replied: 'I have to sleep, for at least three months'. That is what his wife also declared to us, albeit Larsen plans to play a match against Grandmaster Kavalek at the end of May. Then he wants to take a holiday until the Olympiad, which is held in September in Siegen." [5]. Larsen having qualified for the Candidates Quarterfinals, his opponent would be Wolfgang Uhlmann in Las Palmas (13-30 May 1971) Larsen - Uhlmann Candidates Quarterfinal (1971). Larsen took first board ahead of Fischer in the USSR vs. Rest of the World (1970) (March 29th and April 4th, 1970) tying with Boris Spassky and defeating substitute Leonid Stein, but lost 6-0 to Fisher in Denver, July 1971. <Kavalek> Kavalek had fled Czechoslovakia after the Warsaw Pact invasion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsa...) and had been stateless since August 1968. "...Ludek Pachman is languishing in a Czech gaol for the offence of campaigning against the occupation of his country by Russian, Polish and other forces ... Another Czech Grand Master Kavalek went with Pachman to the chess Olympiad at Lugano. Each of them declined to play in the Czech national team there, because of the situation in their country. Kavalek went on to Holland, where he has played with success in matches and tournaments and is no doubt reasonably happy. Pachman went back to Czechoslovakia ..." [6]. These were difficult times for Kavalek, The Czechoslovak Chess federation purposefully made life difficult for him protesting that he still played under the Czechoslovak flag. After leaving Czechoslovakia, Kavalek lodged in Munich and was played in Holland and West Germany. He defeated the Dutch Champion Hans Ree 7-3 (Eersel 1969) in a match and had achieved some solid if unspectacular results against top-class competition. He had been 9th at Amsterdam IBM 1969, 10th at San Juan, 1969 and 4th at Game Collection: Wijk aan Zee Hoogovens 1970. Kavalek was re-establishing his life and career. In July 1970 he emigrated to the USA to live in Washington D.C. His rating made him second to Fischer in the American lists and by the mid-1970's he would rise into the top twenty in world rankings. Despite losing this match, Kavalek began to achieve better results as he created a new life in the West. At his next tournament, Caracas 1970 (June-July 1970), he represented the USCF, "When you...have no country to go home to, you feel all at sea. But when I came out of the sea to Caracas and saw the American flag on my chess table, I knew I was firmly on the ground". [7]. <Progress of the match> "Larsen proved much the superior in a slugging encounter in which both players were out to win every game." [8]. table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Kavalek 0 ½ 0 0 0 1 0 ½ 2 Larsen 1 ½ 1 1 1 0 1 ½ 6]table Progressive score: table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Kavalek 0 ½ ½ ½ ½ 1½ 1½ 2 Larsen 1 1½ 2½ 3½ 4½ 4½ 5½ 6]table Larsen had White in the odd-numbered games. <The games> [[Game 1]] - Larsen came out of the opening in which his opponent defended with a Sicilian Kan, with an edge that persisted in the middlegame. Larsen had good piece play with a Rook and two Bishops for a Queen and two pawns. Close to the time control, Larsen blundered and should have lost, but Kavalek missed his chance and blundered in return to lose the first game of the match. click for larger view Larsen played <37.Ke1?> which could have allowed <37...Qf3!> winning. [[Game 2]] - Larsen, defending his first Black of the match, chose the Caro Kann. This did not indicate that he planned to play conservatively and sir on his one-point lead. Instead, he played a sharp line castling on the Queen-side despite knowing that his pawns would be shattered in front of his King. Larsen single-mindedly pursued a King-side attack, but Kavalek held his nerve and the game ended in drawn Rook and Pawn ending in which Larsen was a pawn up. [[Game 3]] - "The difference in strength between a world-class player and an international grandmaster was clear in the recent Larsen- Kavalek match... One of the best games in this match was the third game in which both masters suffered from chess blindness in the critical position. Kavalek, who had built up his position out of the opening, then spoiled all his chances with a single move, and Larsen was there as quick as a flash with his response." [9]. click for larger view [[Game 4]] - Larsen defended with an Alekhine Defence, but transposed into it from <1...Nc6>. It seems that two points up he was feeling confident enough to put psychological pressure on his opponent. Larsen achieved a good position from the opening and won a pawn. Towards the end of play, Larsen became careless. Whilst playing in an aggressive fashion, he overlooked or discounted several promising lines for Kavalek. click for larger view Here Larsen has just played <33...Qh4> now <35.Bxg6!> is very strong, 34. Bxg6 Nxg6 35. Rxg6+ Kh7 36. Bg5 Qe4 37. Rh6+ [[Game 5]] - This was Larsen's forth win of the match and was voted as the tenth best game in Informator Volume 9. Larsen played aggressively against his opponent's Kings Indian Defence. On move 10, Larsen sacrificed a pawn for an open <h> file. Kavelek's King side disintegrated in front of his King. Larsen established Rooks on <g1> and <h1> with his Queen menacing the Black monarch. click for larger view [Position after White's 17th Move] Larsen play was an onslaught in which he temporarily sacrificed his Queen. Kavelek managed to swap off material but was left with a cramped position and Larsen's dangerous passed <h> pawn. It was this pawn that eventually led to Kavalek's defeat, as he could not oppose its advance to the Queening-square. [[Game 6]] - Having lost three successive games and only having scored one draw so far in the match, Kavalek gathered himself and won the sixth game with White. Kavalek's first win of the match was a well played and one in which he fully exploited Larsen's carelessness in an equal position. With little material remaining, Kavelek sacrificed a Pawn for control of the Black squares around his opponent's King. Larsen, a piece down, made a final and desperate effort to queen his <d> pawn click for larger view but he could not achieve his goal as Kavalek's threats against his King were too strong and immediate. [[Game 7]] -"Time trouble was probably the factor that contributed most to Kavalek's defeat in the Rook and Pawn ending of the seventh game but it cropped up in most of the other games too." [10]. click for larger view [Position after Black's 34th Move] [[Game 8]] - Kavalek played cautiously and Larsen after playing his defence in an innovative fashion to equalise did not feel any need to unbalance the position and so ended the match four points ahead. [11]. <Notes:> [1]. "Chess", September 1971, vol.36, p.379. [2]. http://www.olimpbase.org/Elo/Elo197... [3]. http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... [4]. "Illustrated London News", 21st February 1970, Baruch Wood, p.41. [5]. "De tijd : dagblad voor Nederland", 29th April 1970. [6]. "Illustrated London News", 15th November 1969, Baruch Wood, p.43. [7]. "Chess Life and Review", September 1970, p.483. [8]. "Los Angeles Times", 6th September 1970. [9]. "Trouw", 5th December 1970. [10]."Chess", vol.36,September 1970. [11]. See Game 58: Garry Kasparov - Part One: Revolution in the 70s". [This text and original research by User: Chessical. Game 7 added to Database to complete the collection.] 8 games, 1970 Keres - Stahlberg <Introduction> Paul Keres (22 y.o.) played against Gideon Stahlberg (30 y.o.) in a match (Gothenburg), 20th April - 1st May 1938 which ended in a draw at +2=4-2. [1] [and] [2] <Keres> In the late 1930's, Keres gained recognition as an up and coming great chess talent. He had been one of the top scorers in the 1935 Chess Olympiad and then come first in two elite tournaments: at Bad Nauheim (1936) where he shared first prize with Alexander Alekhine and then being the sole winner of Semmering/Baden (1937). This match was practise against a strong grandmaster and excellent preparation for Keres for the forthcoming AVRO (1938), 6th to 27th of November 1938, a tremendously strong tournament which included Alexander Alekhine and Jose Raul Capablanca. By winning this tournament, Keres became the preferred FIDE world champion candidate. The match was arranged by the by the Gothenburg Chess Federation, and the match referee was Helge Westerberg. [1] First meeting in 1935, prior to this match Keres and Ståhlberg had played seven times with Keres having a positive score (+4=1-2). <Ståhlberg> Ståhlberg was Sweden's strongest player in the 1930s and twice a world championship candidate (in 1950 and 1953). He had made his name with two matches against giants of the previous generation Rudolf Spielmann (Stockholm, February 1933) and Aron Nimzowitsch, (Gothenburg, January 1934). He defeated both masters by the same margin of 5 games to 3. Nimzowitsch was impressed: <"He is in fact a brilliant technician in the opening...(and) his endgame pressure is uncommonly strong".> [3] Ståhlberg was strong enough to attract the competitive interest of another young rising star Fine. Stahlberg’s supporters raised the funds for a match (Gothenburg, January - February 1937) which Ståhlberg lost by +2 -4 =2. [4] [5] In the late 1930’s, Ståhlberg was playing consistently and successfully. His best results included: third equal at Dresden (1936), forth at Podebrady (1936), and tying for second with Keres at Parnu (1937). <Timetable> All the games were played in Gothenburg Game 1 - Wednesday, 20th April 1938 Game 2 - Thursday, 21st April 1938 Game 3 - Friday, 22nd April 1938 Game 4 - Monday, 25th April 1938 Game 5 - Tuesday, 26th April 1938 Game 6 - Wednesday, 27th April 1938 Game 7 - Thursday, 28th and Friday, 29th April 1938 Game 8 - Saturday, 30th and Sunday, 1st May 1938 [3] <Photograph of the contestants> http://www.schack.se/tfsarkiv/histo... <The progress of the match> The match was close with first Ståhlberg then Keres taking the lead. It was hard fought and the general standard of the games were high. The match was one of closed openings. Keres did not use any of his king pawn pawn openings but preferred hyper-modern systems in which he fianchettoed his King's Bishop early. table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Keres 0 ½ ½ 1 ½ 1 0 ½ - 4 Ståhlberg 1 ½ ½ 0 ½ 0 1 ½ - 4 ]table Progressive score: table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Keres 0 ½ 1 2 2½ 3½ 3½ 4 Ståhlberg 1 1½ 2 2 2½ 2½ 3½ 4 ]table . <The Games> <Game 1> Keres had White in the first game and opened with <1.c4>. Ståhlberg defended with a Semi-Tarrasch defence, and both players played sharply but accurately creating a book line (see Kholmov vs Antoshin, 1956 and Benko vs J Peters, 1975 for high level games which followed this game for 17 moves). Ståhlberg had equalised, but neither player sought an early draw. Ståhlberg began to make something out of nothing in a same colour bishop and single rooks ending. Keres sacrificed a pawn for counter-play but Ståhlberg sharpened the play still further with an enterprising sacrifice of the exchange for pawn. He now had two pawns for the exchange in the ending. Keres then in winning back one pawn, pulled his Rook away from Ståhlberg's passed King-side pawns, only to find that he was then unable to stop their advance. <Game 2> Ståhlberg played a favourite line Nimzo-Indian, Spielmann Variation (E22) , which was popular in the 1930's at the highest level but which has since become a rarity in tournament practice as drawing lines were quickly discovered. Keres equalised and began to threaten to take the initiative. Ståhlberg began to trade pieces towards a draw, but Keres avoided an exchange of Queens. Ståhlberg was now under pressure but Keres could not force any advantage. Instead, Keres now ensured a draw. He went into a Bishops of the opposite colour and pawns ending at the cost of being a pawn down but with a passed pawn on <e2>. He played accurately to hold the draw despite Ståhlberg pressing on in a long endgame. <Game 3> In the third game, Ståhlberg quickly and cleverly equalised against Keres' Catalan. By a clever pseudo-sacrifice of a Knight, he trapped Keres' Queen into a forced repetition. So far in this match, the balance of the struggle had been with Ståhlberg. <Game 4> This could have been a superb opportunity for Ståhlberg to gain a significant advantage in the match. By winning it he would be two games up with four to play. Stahlberg as White remained faithful to Nimzo-Indian, Spielmann Variation (E22) , but once again he did not achieve any advantage from the opening. The ensuing single rook and pawns ending should have been drawn by Ståhlberg, but inaccurate play cost him a pawn and inevitably the game. <Game 5> Keres played a topical line of the Catalan but Ståhlberg played accurately and equalised. In a long game, neither player could seize the initiative. <Game 6> Keres played a sharp defence to which Ståhlberg replied in an aggressive but not the most accurate fashion. Keres then offered an imaginative sacrifice of the exchange. Ståhlberg correctly declined to accept the sacrifice but his still left Keres with the initiative. With his King under attack, Ståhlberg made a subtle blunder and lost a pawn. Keres was then able to force through his <c> pawn to win. <Game 7> Keres played a Reti opening aggressively sacrificing his <b> pawn. His scheme proved over-ambitious and his King was left without secure shelter. Ståhlberg soon broke through winning material. This was, however, to be the longest game of the match with Keres vainly attempting to hold an endgame three pawns down. <Game 8> Ståhlberg gained no advantage with White and for a long time the game was even. He then miscalculated and Keres came close to winning this game in the endgame. click for larger view <50...b4!> 51.h4 b3 52.Kg3 Rb4 53.Rb2 Kc5, but as Keres missed this line, Ståhlberg was then able to hold on for a draw. . <Notes:> [1] http://www.schack.se/tfsarkiv/histo... [2] http://www.schack.se/tfsarkiv/histo... [3] "Aron Nimzowitsch 1928-1935: Annotated Games & Essays by Aron Nimzowitsch", p.282-283. [4] "Chess Review, April 1958, p.110. [5] "New York Times", 9th February 1937. 8 games, 1938 Keres - Unzicker <Introduction:> This match between Paul Keres and Wolfgang Unzicker played in Hamberg, Federal Republic of Germany, in May and June 1956. The match was organized by the Schachklub BUE von 1906 on the occasion of its 50 anniversary, and the games were played in the Restaurant Grün, Hansaplatz 1, Hamburg. [(1)] The club was one of the leading German chess clubs of the 1950s. In 1950, Schachklub BUE von 1906 became German team champions and in 1955 they were runners-up. [(2)] A match between a Soviet grandmaster and a western grandmaster outside of the world championship structure was an extremely rare event. Later, potential matches between Fischer and Leonid Stein or Mikhail Botvinnik were talked about but never came to fruition. The match is further remarkable in that all of the games were the same opening (Ruy Lopez) without prior arrangement. This position, after 13 moves, was seen in three successive games of the match: click for larger view Both players were experts in the Spanish opening. GM Egon Varnusz wrote, <"Paul Keres was... at his best in open games and it was his all-round mastery and supreme artistry here which prompted contemporaries to name him - recalling the exploits of the great Paul Morphy - Paul II... This is not to deny that a mature player, after 1.e4 e5, should aim to play the Ruy Lopez. Keres...became a virtuoso of this opening as well, playing either Black or White. There cannot have been more than four or five players throughout the whole history of the game who achieved such mastery of any opening with both colours and with such perfection."> [(3)] . That is not hyperbole. Using the Chess Base database, Keres had played 150 Ruy Lopez openings with either colour to the end of 1955. His score per colour was: [[ Won with White - 53 games/66.3% Drew with White - 20 games/25.0% Lost with White -7 games/8.8% Won with Black - 41 games/58.6% Drew with Black - 21 games/30.0% Lost with Black - 8 games/11.4% ]] Nearly all of these games were against elite players, so a win rate of 62.7% with this opening was outstanding (to the end of 1955 his win rate across all openings was 55.8%). Unzicker's corresponding totals in Ruy Lopez games were: [[ Won with White - 26 games/61.9% Drew with White - 13 games/31.0% Lost with White - 3 games/7.1% Won with Black - 7 games/28.0% Drew with Black - 13 games/52.0% Lost with Black - 5 games/20.0% ]] His win rate in this opening was 49.3%; to the end of 1955 his win rate across all openings was 47.1%. Until this match, Unzicker had only lost 8 of 67 Ruy Lopez games. These defeats included two recent, and only games to date with Keres, - Unzicker vs Keres, 1955 and Unzicker vs Keres, 1955). <The players> Unzicker (30 y.o.) was the leading West German player. He had been awarded the Grandmaster title in 1954 and had won the West German Championship in 1948, 1950 and 1952. Despite his obvious strength, Unzicker played relatively infrequently as he concentrated on his career as a lawyer. <“I never had the desire to become a professional chess player – this seemed to be a risky proposition in the Western World. Also, I did not want to dedicate my entire life to chess”.> [(4)] Unzicker was described by Nadjorf, "The German grandmaster is a Classical player and prefers the older lines...Unzicker is not fond of complicated variations..." [(5)], yet when looking back at his career, "Unzicker considered himself to be a tactical fighter rather than a cool strategic player." [(6)]. He had played relatively few games in the preceding year, his only international tournament being Gothenburg Interzonal (1955) (August to September 1955) where he finished down the field in sixteenth place. Keres (40 y.o.) had finished second in the Gothenburg Interzonal (1955) and his good form extended into this match. Keres had the services of his long-term coach Vladas Mikenas as a second for this match. [(7)] According to Chessmetrics, Keres was number two in the world rankings and Unzicker twenty-second. [(8)]. <Progress of the match> Unzicker had white in the odd-numbered games. table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Keres ½ 1 ½ 1 1 ½ 1 ½ 6 Unzicker ½ 0 ½ 0 0 ½ 0 ½ 2]table <Progressive scores:> table[ Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Keres ½ 1½ 2 3 4 4½ 5½ 6 Unzicker ½ ½ 1 1 1 1½ 1½ 2 ]table <The games> [[Game 1]] Keres defended against the Ruy Lopez with the system he had used in the previous Candidates' tournament - Averbakh vs Keres, 1953. Both players followed theory and the game was drawn without incident. [[Game 2]] Unzicker chose the Berlin Defence against the Ruy Lopez and followed old theory. Unzicker grabbed a pawn and allowed Keres a King-side initiative. With <23.Nxg7!!>, Keres smashed his way through to victory. click for larger view [[Game 3]] Unzicker played an early <d4> advance in the Ruy Lopez. Keres managed to dissolve the centre and quickly achieved equality. Many years later Unzicker lost very quickly in exactly the same opening -Unzicker vs Smejkal, 2000 [[Game 4]] Unzicker defended with the mainline Chigorin (Ruy Lopez, Closed, Chigorin (C97)) which was new to his repertoire as Black. As White, he had recently won very effectively against this line - Unzicker vs J H Donner, 1955. Unzicker would adopt this defensive setup from the mid-1960s, but he never achieved a victory using it. Keres' play in this game was extremely accurate and tactically efficient. He finished off his opponent handsomely by: click for larger view [33.e6! f6 34.Bxf6!] [[Game 5]] Keres used the same Chigorin defense to the Ruy Lopez as Unzicker in the previous game. This may have been psychologically motivated to use the same line as Unzicker, or it may be simply using the preparation he had already revealed in Game 1. Unzicker had a very promising position but lost the initiative through being distracted by minor material gains on the Queen-side. Keres returned the piece to launch his own King-side attack using the <g> file which Unzicker had opened. Unzicker defended poorly and Keres won a second game in succession. After 5 games, Unzicker was three games down. [[Game 6]] Having suffered three defeats, Unzicker refreshed his opening strategy and changed over to the Open Variation of the Ruy Lopez. Although he had regularly used this defence in the late 1940s and early 1950s, it had gradually fallen out of his repertoire. This game followed the well-known Botvinnik vs Euwe, 1934 before Keres deviated at move 21. Unzicker quickly established and maintained equality with the Black pieces and the game lasted only 28 moves before a draw was agreed. [[Game 7]] This game was Keres' second win with Black in the match. Unzicker, through an unnecessary exchange, allowed Keres to invade his back rank. Unzicker's King soon succumbed. [[Game 8]] Having lost heavily in the match using the closed variation Unzicker returned to the Open Variation and again secured equality. After 25 moves, the players agreed to a draw and Keres won the match undefeated. <Notes> [(1)]. Information provided by User: Telemus, see Keres vs Unzicker, 1956 (kibitz #28). [(2)]. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hambu... [(3)]. "Paul Keres Best Games vol. 2" p vii., Egon Varnusz, Pergamon Press, 1980. [(3)]. https://en.chessbase.com/post/wolfg... [(4)]. https://en.chessbase.com/post/wolfg... [(5)]. Najdorf in his annotations to Najdorf vs Unzicker, 1966, "Second Piatigorsky Cup, edited by Isaac Kashdan", Dover Publications 1977, p.46. [(6)]. https://en.chessbase.com/post/wolfg... [(7)]. "Chess Review", July 1956, vol.24. no.7, p.195. [(8)].See http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... [User: Chessical- original collection and text.] 8 games, 1956 Korchnoi-Reshevsky Candidates Quarterfinal 1968 <Background:> Reshevsky was 56 years old, Korchnoi was 37 years old. They had only met twice before, in 1960 and at the preceding Interzonal, both games being drawn. The Sousse Interzonal (1967) had produced a tie for the last Candidates place with Samuel Reshevsky, Vlastimil Hort and Leonid Stein, sharing sixth place. A playoff was held in Los Angeles, 18th February - 2nd March 1968, which was also tied. Although he had not won a single game in the play-off, Reshevsky, by virtue of his superior Sonneborn-Berger score from the Interzonal, secured the final Candidates place. [1] Korchnoi qualified for the Candidates in a more straight-forward manner, he shared 2-4th places at Sousse with Bent Larsen and Efim Geller. This would be Korchnoi's first ever match! <A Novosti press release> - an indication of the Soviet perspective - Mikhail Botvinnik advised Korchnoi not to play in the US as this gave Reshevsky an advantage. "Appraising the power of the American, the former World Champion stated that it is becoming more difficult for Reshevsky to play because this grandmaster's forte is fast and exact calculations of variations. As the years pass...this ability is gradually blunted. Nevertheless, Botvinnik considers Reshevsky a formidable fighter...As for the duel between Korchnoi and Reshevsky, Botvinnik thinks anything can happen...Korchnoi is inconsistent..." [2] The match commenced in Amsterdam, Holland, on the 7th May, 1968 [3] and concluded on the 20th May. [4] The match was organized by the Royal Dutch Chess Federation, and the arbiter was Mr. Van Maastright. [5] <The strategy of the match:> Despite a scare in Game 1, Korchnoi managed to dictate the type of position and avoided combinative open positions. "Whilst preparing for this match, Korchnoi (and his second International Grandmaster Semyon Furman, one of the USSR's leading theoreticians) decide that Reshevsky's opening repertoire is somewhat limited and it therefore almost possible to foresee what the position will be after ten or fifteen moves. Korchnoi judged that the styles of the players are in many ways similar , and in tactical and combinatitive play they are approximately equal in strength. It is also well known that both players share a love for the defence. However, in positions where mere concrete calculations will not suffice to solve the problems on the board, the advantage will be Korchnoi's. Therefore according to Furman, it was decide to strive basically for closed positions, where the role of strategy, as opposed to tactics increases. The repetition of an opening line would make Reshevsky's task easier ...(hence) Korchnoi's constant change of opening choice". [6] "In preparing for Reshesvky, I pinned my hopes on my better practical know-how, an on my superior knowledge of modern opening theory. I realised that I was up against a subtle strategic player, whose knowledge of the subtleties of the game was probably superior to mine". [7] Reshevsky had the support of former Candidate and International Grandmaster Pal Benko , "...Benko will be his teacher and sparring partner for about seven days". [8] <The games:> table[ ..........1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Korchnoi ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ 1 ½ ½ 5½ Reshevsky ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ 0 ½ ½ 2½ ]table "(the match) was essentially decided in the first two games.." (Korchnoi). [9] <Game 1> Reshevsky had White; "in the opening he outplayed me, and obtained a strategically won position. But he evidently underestimated my tactical ability, played too sharply, and made a couple of tactical mistakes, so I was able to save the half point" (Korchnoi). [10] <Game 2> Korchnoi played a prepared line and at 18 moves he had used only 1 1/2 minutes on his clock to Reshevsky's hour. Reshevsky "became nervous, began playing more quickly, and, on emerging from the opening, he blundered away a pawn..." (Korchnoi).[11] <Game 3> Korchnoi very effectively blunted Reshevsky's opening and the game was drawn in 23 moves. This was a significant blow to Reshevsky as he had been unable to make use of White due to Korchnoi's and Furman's careful preparation. <Game 4> Korchnoi used another of his specially prepared openings, Reshevsky used a lot of time and again began to play more quickly, only to blunder fatally in the ending. <Game 5> Reshevsky used a Closed Sicilian set up new for him, but successfully employed by Spassky in his Candidates match against Geller. Korchnoi, however, held the draw. <Game 6> Korchnoi as White established a nagging advantage. Reshevsky should have been able to draw but overlooked a tactical trick, when a temporary Bishop sacrifice by his opponent netted two Pawns. click for larger view <33.Bxf6!> <Game 7> Once again, Reshevksy with White achieved no advantage from the opening. It was now apparent that he had nothing in his opening preparation with which to trouble Korchnoi. <Game 8> A short draw, Reshevsky was too dispirited to continue the fight. He was also too upset to attend the end of match ceremony, according to Korchnoi. Another contributing factor to Reshevsky's absence was that the prize fund was described as "decidedly low". Benko made a short impromptu speech on behalf of Reshevsky to smooth over his absence from the proceedings.[12] <Outcome:> Korchnoi advanced to the Candidates Semi - Finals Game Collection: Korchnoi - Tal Candidates Semifinal 1968 where he played Mikhail Tal . <Sources:> Original collection Game Collection: WCC Index ( Korchnoi - Reshevsky 1968 ) compiled by User: Benzol User: crawfb5 provided the dates for the games from the "New York Times". User: Stonehenge provided the "Nieuwsblad van het Noorden" article and translated a section. User: Tabanus provided the "Het vrije volk" article. [1] "Chess Life and Review", April 1968, p.115. [2] "Chess Life and Review", May 1968, p.163. [3] "Chess Life and Review", August 1968, p.286. [4] "Korchnoi's 400 best games", Korchnoi, Wade, Blackstock, p.159. [5] "Het vrije volk : democratisch-socialistisch dagblad", 15th May 1968, p.9 [6] "Chess Life and Review", August 1968, p.286. [7] Korchnoi "Chess is my Life" p.60. [8] "Nieuwsblad van het Noorden, 7 May 1968, p9. [9] Korchnoi "Chess is my Life" p.60. [10] Korchnoi "Chess is my Life" p.60. [11] Korchnoi "Chess is my Life" p.61. [12] "De Telegraaf", 21 May 1969, p.15 8 games, 1968 Larsen - Geller 3rd place Candidates Playoff (19 <Background:> Both Geller and Larsen had qualified to play in the Candidates series from the Amsterdam Interzonal (1964) which had been held in May and June 1964. They had both been defeated in their respective semi—final matches, Geller losing to Boris Spassky and Larsen to Mikhail Tal. Tal - Larsen Candidates Semifinal (1965) Spassky - Geller Candidates Semifinal (1965) FIDE decreed that the third place in the 1963 to 1966 Candidate Cycle had to be categorically resolved as it did not want both players to qualify for the next Candidates' Tournament (1). A match was therefore necessary to decide third place, the winner of this match would be seeded into the next Interzonal. According to the commentary in February 1966’s “Copenhagen Chess Union News sheet”, if Larsen won the match, he would not need one of the Danish Chess Union’s zonal places, and they would be able to send two other players, as Larsen would already be qualified by right of this match (2). Consequently, this third-place play-off was arranged in Copenhagen, Denmark in March 1966. <Participants:> The Danish GM Bent Larsen (31) and the Soviet GM Efim Geller (41). Geller was ranked 8th in the world as opposed to Larsen’s 16th on the Chessmetrics January 1966 rating list (3). They had played only once before and Larsen had won; he considered the game one of his best according to an interview in "Chess Life" (December 1968, pages 436)- Larsen vs Geller, 1960. The late 1960’s was the period of Larsen’s ascendancy in which he challenged Fischer as the number one Western player. Larsen turned in a series of career bests from the time of this match: third Second Piatigorsky Cup (1966), first Winnipeg (1967) , first Sousse Interzonal (1967), first Palma de Mallorca (1967) , first Havana (Capablanca Memorial), 1967, second Palma de Mallorca (1968) , first Monte Carlo (1968) , first Palma de Mallorca (1969) , 5.5 – 2.5 victor in Game Collection: Larsen - Tal 3rd place Candidates Playoff 1969 , second Palma de Mallorca Interzonal (1970). Geller had participated in all the Candidates series since 1953, and was an elite Soviet player. He was playing very successfully around the time of this match. Geller was equal first with Lajos Portisch at Beverwijk 1965, second in Havana (1965) , first at Kislovodsk 1966, second in USSR Championship (1966/67) , (Tbilisi) , and first at Gothenburg 1967. <Personnel:> The German master Alfred Brinckmann was the arbiter. Geller had the experienced grandmaster Flohr as his second, but Larsen chose not to have a second. (2) ‘If there is time enough for both adjournment analysis and sleep, I find seconds only useful as life guards (keeping disturbances away), shoe shiners and errand boys. I would not like to rely on analysis by somebody else.’ (4) <Organization:> The match was sponsored by the Copenhagen Chess Association as part of their 100 year jubilee celebration. The match took place in Central Copenhagen in an office building of the Gutenberghus publishers at their offices in Montergade 5, 5 sal., Copenhagen. The match was advertised as being between 10th – 25th March 1966. It was to be the best of eight games (2)(5). If the match was then tied at 4-4, it would then go into a further four games “sudden death” period. The first player to win a game would win the match. If these games were all drawn, the drawing of lots would decide the third place in the Candidates series (2). <Schedule:> Game 1 - Thursday 10th March, 1966 Game 2 - Friday 11th March, 1966 Adjournments - Saturday 12th March, 1966 Game 3 - Sunday 13th March, 1966 Game 4 - Monday 14th March, 1966 Adjournments - Tuesday 15th March, 1966 Free day - Wednesday 16th March, 1966 Game 5 - Thursday 17th March, 1966 Game 6 - Friday 18th March, 1966 Adjournments - Saturday 19th March, 1966 Game 7 - Sunday 20th March, 1966 Adjournments - Monday 21st March, 1966 Game 8 - Tuesday 22nd March, 1966 Adjournments -Wednesday 23rd March, 1966 (2) It seems that in a deviation from the published schedule, the 8th game took place a day early on the 21st March. This is shown on the envelope used for the adjournment of that game on 21/03/1966. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F... After the match, a consultation game took place on Danish radio between Bent Larsen and Jens Enevoldsen Efim Geller and Salomon Flohr. (6) <Progress of the match:> table[ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Pts 1 GM Larsen 1 0 ½ ½ 1 ½ ½ 0 1 5 2 GM Geller 0 1 ½ ½ 0 ½ ½ 1 0 4 ]table This was a very tight and closely contested match. Larsen took the lead twice and overall he seemed to have the initiative throughout the match. He was very careful in his choice of the openings, using non-theoretical lines as White, and unexpected defences as Black. <Game One> – Larsen innovated, avoiding all the open Sicilian main lines by avoiding an early <d4>. He had used this set up once before in the Larsen vs G Tringov, 1964 . Brinkmann, the match referee, reported that Geller thought about his 14th move for almost an hour. (7) Geller was under persistent pressure, and on move 22, he lost a piece through a tactical oversight. click for larger view In playing <22.R(e)d8>, Geller overlooked <23.f3> winning. He continued to play on with a Pawn for a Bishop in what was a technical exercise for Larsen until mate was inevitable. <Game Two> – In contrast, the second game was main line theory, a Sicilian Richter-Rauzer. Once again, it was not an established part of Larsen’s tournament repertoire. Geller was familiar with the system as Black and his experience told as he created pressure against the Black centre. This time, in a sharp position, it was Larsen who blundered by overlooking a tactic. <Game Three> – The third game was more steadily played; a Closed Sicilian which was drawn at the time control. <Game Four> – Geller then took an early draw as White in Game four, which was a main-line theory Open Spanish. Geller was probably both shocked and unprepared for this opening. Larsen very rarely played the Open defence with either colour, and would not play this variation again until Ljubojevic vs Larsen, 1981 . Geller did not have this variation in his regular repertoire either, had only played the position once before with any colour, achieving a draw as Black against Alexey Suetin in the 25th Soviet Championship - Suetin vs Geller, 1958 . <Game Five> – The rest seemed to help Larsen more. He won the fifth game by once again using a non-theoretical system, a Reti with a K-side fianchetto, which he had never employed before. At move 41, Geller offered a draw, which Larsen declined (8). Larsen proceeded to outplay Geller in a R v N with pawns endgame. He eventually forced resignation after he won Geller's knight. <Game Six> – Geller again played <9.Qe2> against Larsen’s Spanish Open defence, and a hard fought game ended with a draw in a R+P endgame. According to the Danish player Eigil Pedersen, <“Now Larsen was due to have Black again, but in the meantime, I had a brief conversation with Grand Master Larsen about the Open variation of the Spanish game and had referred him to Ekstrom's analysis in “Tidskrift för Schack” 1965. I sent that issue of the magazine to him; he liked the variation and used it in the Sixth game.”> (8) <Game Seven> – This was a second successive draw, this time with Geller equalising quickly as Black in a King’s Indian. Larsen, using a system occasionally used by Viktor Korchnoi , traded a B, R and a P for his Q but Geller was never in danger of losing. <Game Eight> - This was a long drawn out QGD. Larsen played a rare line of defence, but played it imprecisely. Geller eventually broke through on the Q-side and Larsen resigned, unable to prevent his opponent queening his <b> pawn. <“But in this game, Larsen was a little too satisfied for only a draw, and after a mere 15 moves he stood poorly and then after an unfortunate Queen move he lost several pawns. Admittedly, he continued playing until the game was adjourned, but it was hopeless.”> (8) The score was now equal with Geller to have the White pieces in the ninth game. Tied at 4-4, the match now entered a “sudden death phase”. <“Thus, the score was equalized at 4-4, and good advice was in short supply. The players first tried to get the World Chess Federation's concession that both players would move on to the Interzonal tournament by sharing third place, but this suggestion was, of course, rejected. There was now a playoff so that each successive game was decisive. The players drew lots for colour. Geller drew white for the ninth game, and this could of course could give the Danish player goose-bumps all over his chess body. However, strangely enough Geller had become tired of playing <1.e2-e4> (due to the Swedish analysis of the Spanish?) Instead, he chose the Catalan system, but it suited Larsen perfectly, who during the time when he was studying to become a grand master did not play anything else! It was an exciting game, where Geller felt obligated to play for the win, while Larsen played solidly, but when Larsen finally got the chance of counter-play, he hit hard. At the time-control, the game was as good as settled as a Danish victory at 5-4. Geller played on for a few more moves in a hopeless position and could thereafter be the first to congratulate Bent Larsen as the winner of the third place in the Candidates with the right to progress directly into the next inter-zonal tournament.”> (8) <Game nine> - This was the first "sudden death" game, albeit at the same time control. It was a Closed Catalan, and a game of manoeuvre. For once Geller was playing a system he had used previously, but he did not achieve any advantage. The game was actually decided by one blunder. Geller made a simple mistake in time pressure at the time control (he had about half-a-minute left on his clock). His second, Flohr, was heard to exclaim “It’s all over!” immediately seeing the forced continuation which would win Larsen a pawn and then then game in short-order. (9) Larsen had won by 5-4. This was the first time a Soviet grandmaster had lost a match to a Western player. <World championship progress:> In the following 1966 to 1969 Candidate Cycle, both players in this match were decisively beaten by Spassky on his way to the world championship: Spassky - Geller Candidates Quarterfinal (1968) Spassky - Larsen Candidates Semifinal (1968) <Match book:> Salo Flohr, "Petrosjan bleibt Weltmeister!: die Zweikämpfe Larsen-Geller und Petrosjan-Spassky." (Petrosian remains world champion!). Publisher: W.Ten Have, Amsterdam 1967. <Notes:> [ (1). “The Canberra Times”, Wednesday 29 June 1966 – p.21. (2). K.S.U. – Nyt Nr 2 (83) February 1966 (Copenhagen Chess Union News sheet) - http://www.kobenhavnsskakunion.dk/k... (3). http://www.chessmetrics.com/cm/CM2/... (4). C.H.O’D. Alexander interview with Larsen on pages 86-94 of “A Book of Chess”, London, 1973. (5). “Chess Results”, 1964-1967: A Comprehensive Record with 1,204 Tournament p.322, McFarland, 30 May 2013. (6). “Visir”, (Iceland) – 10th September 1966, p. 206. (7). “De Telegraaf”, (Holland) - 28th May 1966, p.35. (8). “Tidskrift för Schack” - April – May 1966, match report of Eigil Pedersen, p.102-103. (9). “Tidskrift för Schack” April – May 1966, p.112.] 9 games, 1966

<< previous | page 3 of 5 | next >>