Torre won the other "constructed" game, also a shorty: Carlos Torre vs E Z Adams, 1920

With 1 win apiece, their lifetime record is a Mexican standoff

After 20...Qe7 white can play 21.Rxe7 Bxe7 (what else?) 22.Rxe7 with back rank mates tactics still at work.

<Also 22. ... Bd4 sacrifice seems a posible option.>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henny_...

Also, the culminating combination does appear in the "Encyclopedia of Chess Middlegames", also known as the black book.

With that said, it is instructive from the "back rank weakness" point of view

Beautiful game.

"9. No games of which the authenticity is questionable."

Evidence is pointing towards it was played but the Queen sacs were analysis. So keep it in. The Queen Sacs are analysis.

The Mystery.

From Edward Winter's site:

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/...

'The Life and Games of Carlos Torre' by G. Velasco.

"...the game in fact was never played; rather the whole idea had occurred to Torre after analysing a skittles game."

If you read just the first part of the Edward Winter link you will see a photo-copy of the game with notes by Torre himself. (rare to find a loser submitting a game, not unheard of, but very rare.)

Note C after 15...Rc8.

click for larger view

"...White will now <demonstrate> in a manner that is masterly as is it pleasing. The coming moves are a <study>."

A demonstration...A study...? (Winter too query's the <study> thinking it is a clue. I've gone a bit further.

Now the note D after 17...Bxf6

"After 17...gxf6 18.Rxe7 But of course aside from this the game could not be held."

Some are reading this as Torre's mistake in analysis. Let's look at it if Black had played 17...gxf6.

click for larger view

18.Rxe7 Rxe7 19.Rxe7 Qxe7 20.Qg4+ spears the c8 Rook.

But

18.Rxe7 Qxe7!. White cannot take back on e7 because of Rc1+ mating.

Torre does not give any further analysis after 18.Rxe7 and his note:

"But of course aside from this the game could not be held."

Can be read as the only way Black can win or save the game is if White plays 18.Rxe7.

The main theory runs is that Adams lost the skittle game, Torre showed him how it could have been won.

It's not impossible to think that 17...gxf6 was played and Adams played 18.Rxe7 and Black played 18...Qxe7 and went onto to win.

Torre then showed Adams, or more likely discovered later, the win if he had played 17...Bxf6.

Would Torre have played 17...gxf6. Well he was a tricky player, this was skittles game and he liked to set traps v weaker players. 17...gxf6 does invite the blunder 18.Rxe7.

Is the blunder 18.Rxe7 a plausible blunder? Yes I've seen similar blunders in the same set up. And the blunder with the wrong analysis has gone into print from another author.

Chernev in "The Bright Side of Chess" gives the full faulty line. If 17...gxf6 18.Rxe7 Rxe7 19.Rxe7 Qxe7 20. Qg4+ winning the c8 Rook.

If this classic game was removed, someone would wonder where it was and submit it again. Then someone else would ask for it to be removed, etc. I believe "probably analysis" up top covers it.

I'm with you, let us leave it in.

It is reading like it was a thank you from a great player to a player who he owed a great deal to. Torre as the loser published it.

<"Sirs:

"Allow e to thank you for the very complimentary remarks in CHESS REVIEW (January 1943) on my game with my little Mexican friend Carlos Torre.

"Three of my sons are now in service of their Country and I would like to have you send each of them a copy of your January issue, so that they can show the game to their friends and say "That's my Pop."

E. Z Adams
New Orleans, LA>