|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Nov-05-19
 | | Sally Simpson: ***
'Fred Reinfeld: The Man Who Taught America Chess, with 282 Games'
by Alex Dunne.
(that is 282 games played by Fred Reinfeld, not Fred Reinfeld teaching America how to play chess with 282 games.) https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/co... Review here on page 53 (8 of 10) of this CHESS sample https://www.chess.co.uk/downloads/c... *** |
|
| Oct-16-20 | | login:
Chess wisdom
'.. “Mr. Reinfeld crams into his new books a large amount of chess wisdom,” Dana Brannan wrote in The New York Times in 1949, referring to “How to Play Better Chess” and “Relax With Chess,’ “If the amateur will keep these books within reach and remember what he reads, he will soon be surprising his chess friends—and enemies.” Mr. Reinfeld did not confine his writings to chess, however. He was the author of “Coin Collections’ Handbook,” “Uranium and Other Miracle Metals” and “What’s New in Science.” He possessed a phenomenal memory and was able to compete research on as many as 13 books a year and then write them often without revising more than a few sentences. A book that he had, however, completely revised recently was “A Catalogue of the World’s Most Popular Coins,” which the Sterling Publishing Company published in 1956 and plans to reissue in the fall. Among his popular books were “Miracle Drugs and the New Age of Medicine” and “They Almost Made It,” which is a documented account of the many inventors who were forerunners of those to whom history gives credit for their inventions. His works have been translated into several languages and used by the United States Information Service. They have been published by most of the leading book companies, may in paperback, editions. Mr. Reinfeld, a graduate of City College, taught chess at New York University. In 1959 he received the Thomas Alva Edison Foundation Award for his historical work “The Great Dissenters.” He was an editor of the Chess Review and he wrote for the Encyclopedia Britannica. Surviving are his widow, the former Beatrice Levine; a son, Don; a daughter, Judith, and a sister, Mrs. Lillian Blake. A funeral service will be held at Gutterman’s Chapel in Rockville Centre on Sunday at 10 A.M. ..' http://nebraskachess.com/wp-content... from obituary excerpts in 'Great Moments in Chess' by Kent Nelson, July 2015 Link also contains a varity of themes all included in the special issue of 'The Gambit' a recap of most of Nebraska chess in 2014. Courtesy of Editor Kent Nelson. |
|
Oct-17-20
 | | fredthebear: Thank you <Kent Nelson>! Most members do not know Kent Nelson, but I've had the pleasure of meeting Kent at various times over the years (combining my trips to visit family and play chess tournaments), and watching him deal squarely with others. Kent Nelson is a kind, helpful, fair, honorable man; he walks tall! He's a steady competitor, yet humble and gracious. You cannot tell if he won or lost. He's an excellent organizer of various chess functions over the years, sometimes stepping in to save the day when others couldn't/wouldn't. I think of Kent Nelson as having become the "Dean of Nebraska Chess" this century but perhaps others unknown to me might be deserving of that title too. (As a visitor, it's not my place to bestow such an honor, but it's what I think of him.) Certainly, Kent is The Informant of Nebraska chess, having edited The Gambit publication for many years, benefitting so many in the area. Without going into details, I can think of a handful of ways Kent took the time to help other competitors, many that he did not know, including myself. Kent does not seem to be an outgoing socialite, but clearly a person of principle. There's a right way to do things, and he subscribes to this consistently. This is my A1 Blue Ribbon Award. I know nothing of Kent Nelson's personal life other than he lives in Lincoln, NE. Through chess, Kent Nelson has consistently set a good example for all of us to follow year after year, decade after decade. Kent Nelson -- THANK YOU for your service, and your gentleman presence!! (Kent is not thrilled by being put in the spotlight, but he's more than earned my compliments.) May we all be a little more like Kent! |
|
| Jun-20-25 | | Petrosianic: Anybody ever wonder what Fred Reinfeld's rating was? The only rating I've ever seen for him appeared on USCF's first ever rating list, a list which was unique in listing "Inactive" players. This list put Fred at #6 in the US. 2817 Reuben Fine
2770 Sammy Reshevsky
2610 Alexander Kevitz
2598 Arthur Dake
2596 Albert Simonson
2593 Fred Reinfeld
2575 Arnold Denker
2574 Isaac Kashdan
2558 I.A. Horowitz
2530 Abraham Kupchik
Reshevsky, Simonson, Reinfeld, and Kupchik were all listed as Inactive. |
|
| Jun-20-25 | | Olavi: Reinfeld may have been better than I always thought... but ahead of Denker and Kashdan?! Horowitz too. |
|
| Aug-01-25 | | Petrosianic: Here's an example of why I have kind of a Love/Hate relationship with Reinfeld. Here's the first game in his book "How to Win Chess Games Quickly", and the whole book is games like this: <PHILIDOR DEFENSE
Black's mistake: Black opens up the game prematurely with 3...f5?? (instead of the safe developing move 3...Nf6!)White's refutation: Realizing that Black's King is fatally exposed to attack, White thrusts powerfully at the center (4. d4!) and then hits out at the weak spot, f7, with 7. Ng5! 1. d4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. Bc4 f5??
Enormously extending the range of White's King Bishop. 4. d4! Nf6 5. Nc3 exd4 6. Qxd4 Bd7 7. Ng5! Nc6 Thanks to Black's mistaken policy of exposing his King to attack, White can now execute a forced mate in five moves! 8. Bf7+ Ke7 9. Qxf6+!! Kxf6
On 9...gxf6 Nd5++
10. Nd5+ Ke5 11. Nf3+ Kxe4 12. Nc3#>
Now, what do we make of this? Well, the introductory comments are great. They tell you what went wrong and why without getting bogged down in variations. I'm ambivalent on the idea of basing a whole book on winning quickly. Win surely, not quickly. On the other hand, it's true that a LOT of opportunities present themselves early on, especially at the beginner level. So, I'll give this a qualified Thumbs Up. It's good for a beginner to see lots of games like this, so they can soak up the various kind of themes they might see. But we want to teach people how to do this same trick at home, and the notes are a bit sparse for that. For example, the first question the beginner will have after 4. d4 is "Why not fxe4?", which seems to be the whole point of f5, after all. Well, after 4...fxe4, White has 5. Nxe5!, and if Black takes the Knight, it's like a Damiano Defense for White. But the Beginner isn't going to see this for themselves without a little nudge. The Beginner would probably play 5. Ng5 here. After 5. Nc3, they will again ask why not fxe4? No answer, but this time Ng5 is actually good. But it doesn't lead to a forced mate or anything. A little explanation would be nice here. 6...Bd7 is a weak move, but the book gives you no indication of this, and makes it sound like the damage has already been done. Black should be trying to play catch-up here, with Nc6. While he's still much worse, it's not nearly as bad as after Bd7. And 7...Nc6 is the move that makes this game a miniature. Black is dead lost at this point, but needn't go down in 12 moves with better play here. 9. Qxf6+ is great, but Fred makes it sound too routine, like a move that anybody should have seen at a glance. It could have used some explanation here about how the point is to remove the defender guarding d5. Even so, although Black is definitely doing the King Walk at this point, it's not obvious that White has a forced mate. He does make it onto White's side of the board before the axe falls. So, how is the beginner supposed to know that this Queen sack is sound? I'm not sure if there's any easy way to explain that, other than working it out by brute calculation. But you can definitely explain why the Queen sack should have been an obvious thing to <consider>. But if the Beginner can't take advantage of these kind of errors without playing advanced Queen sacks, I'm not sure how well the book is serving its purpose. To be sure, there are other Reinfeld books that are a lot more discursive than this one. |
|
| Aug-02-25 | | FM David H. Levin: <<Petrosianic>: [...snip...] I'm ambivalent on the idea of basing a whole book on winning quickly. Win surely, not quickly. On the other hand, it's true that a LOT of opportunities present themselves early on, especially at the beginner level.> I can see the appeal of such a book to someone who wants to win more at chess without having to expend much effort in learning the game. I recall reading somewhere that Fred quickly discovered that he could make a lot more money if his chess books were gimmicky and quick to write rather than deeper and slower to write. |
|
| Aug-02-25 | | Petrosianic: <FM David H. Levin>: <I can see the appeal of such a book to someone who wants to win more at chess without having to expend much effort in learning the game.> Yeah, on the whole I like Fred. He taught a lot of people how to play chess, and was a bit of a Renaissance Man, who wrote on a lot of other subjects as well. The gimmicky books are a good hook to make them stand out from other beginner's books. Maybe some day someone will go through all his books and pick out the best ones. |
|
Aug-02-25
 | | perfidious: My first contact with the game was through <The Complete Chess Course>. |
|
Aug-02-25
 | | Dionysius1: I wasted too much of my prime chess life (such as it was), winning quickly through opening traps when I could have been learning about strategy and many more of the joys of chess. My great nephew has the right attitude, for now at least. He doesn't mind losing as long as he's learning. And boy, does he learn! |
|
| Aug-02-25 | | Granny O Doul: "How to Win Chess Games Quickly" was the chess book we had in the house when I was a kid. My father even had the book open while I was playing him but I was too timid to say anything. |
|
| Aug-02-25 | | Granny O Doul: Speaking of gimmicky, though, I remember another Reinfeld book that had the subtitle "300 immediate checkmates that your opponents cannot escape". |
|
| Aug-03-25 | | Petrosianic: <Granny O Doul>: <Speaking of gimmicky, though, I remember another Reinfeld book that had the subtitle "300 immediate checkmates that your opponents cannot escape".> Fred was ahead of his time. He invented click bait before there was an internet. |
|
| Aug-05-25 | | Petrosianic: Here's the second game in How To Win Chess Games Quickly, and there's a rather unfortunate flaw in this one: <REINFELD:
King's Gambit
Black's Mistakes: Black grabs too many pawns and loses priceless time with 6...Bg3?? (instead of 8...d5! 9. Bxd5 Nf6!).White's refutation: Relying on his superior development, White sacrifices piece after piece for a brilliant mate. 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 d6 3. f4 exf4 4. Nf3 Be7 5. Bc4 Bh4+ 6. g3 fxg3 7. O-O gxh2+ 8. Kh1 Bg3?? 9. Bxf7+! Kxf7 10. Ne5+ Ke6 11. Qg4+! Kxe5 12. d4+! Kxd4 13. Be3+! Kxe3 14. Rad1!! White threatens no less than six different checkmates! Naturally Black cannot parry all the threats. 14... Bxg4 15. Rd3#>
Nice... but unsound. Why does Black play 10...Ke6 here, instead of trying to head back home to safety? 
click for larger viewFred probably didn't look at 10...Ke8, assuming that 11. Qh5+ must be devastating. It looks like it, but 10...Ke8 11. Qh5+ g6 12. Nxg6 Nf6! is just fine. Goodness knows I've lost games as White against that kind of thing before. I didn't trust my judgment on this, so I consulted Stockfish. It agrees with Fred that 8...Bg3 is a bad move. But sure enough, it shows an eval of -1.49 after 10...Ke8!, as opposed to Mate in 5 after 10...Ke6?? As a result, it doesn't like 9. Bxf7+! at all, as it drops the eval from +2.31 to -0.64 after White plays it. This is actually a very interesting game, because it's the kind of thing that happened to a lot of Fred's readers when they tried to emulate games from his books. Bxf7+ looks so natural, and so many books show games like this, and Fred gives it a !, that it must be the thing to do, right? Nope, it puts White in a hole if Black plays right. This is the kind of thing the readers needed to see; examples of how easily natural-looking attacks like this can go wrong. But at the same time, Fred is right. Black does go pawn grabbing, and does lose time with Bg3. Those are both mistakes, just like he says. So, what should White do? According to Stockfish, the move 9. d4 leads to a +2.44 advantage. A simple developing, center-grabbing move. But where's the smashing combination that leads to a quick mate? Um... it doesn't look like there is one. 9. d4 Nf6 10. Ng5 O-O 11. Qf3, and Black's Bishop is cut off behind enemy lines. White has a nice initiative on the Kingside, and is bound to win material quickly. But no King Hunt mates if Black plays it right. Meanwhile, if Black plays it right, 9. Bxf7+ Kxf7 10. Ne5+ Ke8!, then what? 11. Qf3 Qf6! No good.
11. Nf7 Qh4 12. d4 Nc6 13. Bg5 Qg4, and Black has the initiative, despite losing the castling privilege. White has to lose time to avoid the Queen exchange, and Black's development isn't so bad. Stockfish says -1.50, and that seems about right. If looked at in the right light, this game is really a very instructive example of how intuitive looking attacks can miscarry. I assume it's a real game in the database, even though Fred usually didn't like to name names. The reader also might like some comments on moves like 6. g3, and 8. Kh1, and why White seems so unconcerned about lost pawns, and almost eager not to recapture them. We know it's because the White King wants to use the Black h pawn as a shield, but that may not be obvious to the reader. |
|
Aug-05-25
| | Sally Simpson: What you could do <Petrosianic> if find a trap that Reinfeld mentions and then a game on here where someone has fallen for it. Fred with his win quickly for White and for Black etc pot boilers must have introduced thousands of people to chess. He is in the American Chess Hall of Fame primarily for his writing. The trivial pursuit Reinfeld questions is: 'What was last book Fred Reinfeld published.' It must be 'Morphy Chess Masterpieces' (first published 1974) with Soltis. Fred had been dead for 10 years when it came out and yet the back of the book blurb tells us Fred died in 1973. Edward Winter mentions a 1952 Fred Reinfeld advert ' ‘Paul Morphy, King of Chess (in preparation)’ https://www.chesshistory.com/winter... 'King of Chess' never appeared so it is possible they brought in Soltis to finish it. A Gligoric game from 1971 is mentioned in the notes to one of the games so we know for sure Soltis added his bit. It is quite good. Does it's job.
These are the 40 games in the book.
Game Collection: Morphy Chess Masterpieces |
|
| Aug-06-25 | | FM David H. Levin: <<Sally Simpson>: What you could do <Petrosianic> if find a trap that Reinfeld mentions and then a game on here where someone has fallen for it.> Hi, Geoff. I'd think such a game would more likely be found at a site such as Red Hot Pawn dot com whose database seems to cover a much wider span of player strengths than does CG's. (If you refrained from mentioning this to avoid your getting roped into making your local RHP games database available for this task, consider the beans spilled. 8^) ) |
|
Aug-06-25
| | Sally Simpson: Hi David,
Every now and then I highlight an old trap to discover how many RHP players have fallen into it but this database too has players from this century falling for the; 'The Elephant Trap' in the QGD. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/che... The Noah's Ark https://www.chessgames.com/perl/che... And that Black pawn grab in the Alapin; https://www.chessgames.com/perl/che... Three fairly famous traps. There is even a Legall's Mate from 2001. O Bjarnason vs V Dittler, 2001 (which just reminded of the spelling of his name. Legal or Legall. The Oxford Companion has Legall. Edward Winter has Legall C.N. 5720 - here it is Legal but in his bio it is Legall Kermur Sire De Legal) |
|
Aug-06-25
| | perfidious: What has long astonished me is how a great player twice fell for variants of the same trap in the Orthodox QGD: Euwe vs Rubinstein, 1928 and
Alekhine vs Rubinstein, 1930 |
|
| Aug-06-25 | | Olavi: And another grandmaster against the same opponent: C van den Berg vs J H Donner, 1965 |
|
| Aug-07-25 | | Petrosianic: A short blurb on Fred's career, provided by the Sterling Publishing Company: <Fred Reinfeld began to write in 1932 on chess and not only produced a great many books on chess but between 1950 and 1964 also became an expert on numismatics and wrote 14 books on coin collecting, all of which were extremely successful. He became the author of five popular science books on such subjects as geology, medicine and atomics and electronics, all chosen for listing by the American Association for The Advancement of Science.Besides this, he wrote historical works and biographies, of which The Great Dissenters won a Thomas Alva Edison Foundation Award in 1959. In his 'spare time,' he participated in hook discussions and gave talks on coins. To foster a love for chess among young people, he was always available for simultaneous exhibitions at local schools and was among the most popular visitors on these occasions. He wrote articles for The World Book Encyclopedia and was author of a chess program in the form of a teaching machine for the Encyclopedia Britannica. He was also a consultant for the Random House American College Dictionary. Because of his phenomenal memory and writing ability. Reinfeld was able to write most of his manuscripts directly from rough notes instead of having to prepare a preliminary draft, and his editors seldom revised more than a few words.> |
|
| Aug-07-25 | | Petrosianic: CHESS REVIEW: <Far from being a pedant. Fred was at his liveliest in the thick of things and of people. Yet, one and together, his memory and his writing ability were almost incredible. Often, when the writer studied a position and Fred happened in, he would call off the players, the tournament, the round number and the outcome at a glance -- and discuss the merits of the play. And, just a couple of weeks before Fred died, Len Lyons' column named him the most prolific of living authors, not of chess authors but of all authors. Of Fred's great output, the writer feels a few words need to be said. The New York Times in a moderately generous obituary said he wrote "more than 100 books." This writer counted more than 250 titles under Reinfeld when curiosity prompted him to count them in the catalog of the Brooklyn Public Library in the '40s: these were all chess books and ones which, Fred said, brought him very little return. Those books served, however, at a time when there were few books to do so, to make chess intelligible to the average player and the beginner. And, from the '40s on, Fred pushed vigorously in this direction, and he was superbly competent in explaining elementary points to the novice. In short, Fred did a great deal toward making chess popular. He wrote these books for a profitable market, the beginner, but he gave the beginner tools by which to learn and thus to like chess. Nor were all Fred's books elementary ones. His book on Keres, to cite one, is a very fine one, and his books in collaboration with Irving Chernev, "Winning Chess" and "The Fireside Book of Chess", are each the finest of their types. As a player, Fred "retired" early. Before he did, however, he had amply made his mark. He became national collegiate champion in 1929 and, two years later, at 21, he won the New York State title. He won the state championship again in 1933 and, in 1935, the championship of the Marshall Chess Club and, in 1942, he tied with Sidney Bernstein for the title of the Manhattan Chess Club. He was also highly regarded as a teacher of chess at New York University. For those who knew him at Chess Review, Fred had a warm heart and a delightfully roguish sense of humor. A young assistant eyed him inquisitively when he was visiting the writer and accosted him as he was leaving: "You're Reuben Fine?" Fred pursed his lips, rolled his eyes, then "First guess!" he replied as in pleased surprise and strode jauntily off. Fred's favorite game is the following - at least, he published it the most of all his games.> F Reinfeld vs J Battell, 1940 I'm not sure who "this writer" is, but probably I.A. Horowitz. No mention is made here of the fact that Fred was famous at one time for being almost the only American with a winning score against Reshevsky (+2-0=3, with both wins coming in 1932, and their final game in 1940). Fred also played in the 1938 US Championship, scoring +3-6=7, and the 1940 US Championship, scoring a respectable +1-2=13. He drew with Reshevsky in both tournaments. |
|
| Aug-11-25 | | Petrosianic: Here's a Reinfeld game that gave me problems once upon a time. To hear him talk, you'd think that what was a main line of the Sicilian even when he wrote it is almost unplayable. I soon figured out what he really meant. Namely that he didn't want beginners playing this line, as indeed it's very easy to lose fast if you don't know what you're doing. But what Fred didn't make clear was that if someone ELSE played this AGAINST you, it didn't necessarily mean that they were about to fall apart. It might just mean that they know what they're doing. __________
[Event "Improving Your Chess"]
[Site "pp. 55-58"]
[Chapter "How to Play the White Pieces - How To Exploit Your Superior Mobility"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4
White has a well centralized Knight established at d4. Black cannot imitate this maneuver. Note also that White controls the important center square d5 with his e pawn. On these two grounds it seems likely that White will dominate the center and will therefore enjoy superior mobility. 
click for larger view<There are already strong indications that White may achieve an overwhelming plus in mobility.> 4... Nf6 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Be2 e6 7. Be3 Be7 8. O-O
How has the situation developed as regards mobility? Both White Bishops have free diagonals; both Black Bishops are hemmed in by Pawns. The outlook for Black's game is very unpromising. In such positions White always has a practical problem: <how can his superior mobiity be increased still further?> White solves this problem by a general advance of his King-side Pawns, which will achieve the following: 1. He will congest Black's position more than ever. 2. He will drive away Black's King Knight - his best defensive piece - from f6. 3. He will subject Black's position, already cramped unbearably, to a devastating Pawn-storming attack. 8... O-O 9. f4 Qc7 10. g4! a6 11. g5 Ne8 12. f5 Qd8 13. h4 Nxd4 14. Qxd4 White's plan has made considerable progress. As a result of Black's unpromising opening line of play, White has deprived Black of any constructive plan. 
click for larger view<The formidable centralization of White's Queen provokes Black to lose his foothold in the center.> 14... e5?
Very shortsighted. He drives away the Queen, but at the cost of permanently losing Pawn control of the d5 square. This vital center square now becomes a "hole," completely at the mercy of the White pieces. 15. Qd2 Nc7 16. Bb6! Qd7 17. Rf2 Bd8 18. Raf1
White menaces a decisive breach with 19. f6 g6 20. h5. Black stops this, but White penetrates in a different way. 18... f6 19. Bc4+ Kh8 20. g6! h6 21. Bf7 Qc6
White can now win by 22. Be3 and 23. Bxh6! He plans a much more striking finish. 
click for larger view<There is no defense against White's coming attack.> 22. Bxc7 Bxc7 23. Rg2! d5
Desperation.
24. Qxh6+!! 1-0
For if 24... gxh6 25. g7+, Kh7 and now White captures the Rook, promoting to a Knight (!) and giving checkmate after 26...Kh8 27. Rg8#! The games in this chapter teach a lesson of the greatest practical importance - that when White gets the initiative through superior mobility, he has a lasting advantage that he can increase systematically until he achieves victory. The first step is to pinpoint Black's faulty strategy. Once you see how he has committed himself to a cramped position you can find ways to increase your command of the board. You must not swerve from your determination to keep him in a vise; one thoughtless move will often allow the enemy to escape. All five games in this chapter show how you maintain and increase the pressure until Black's position collapses. |
|
| Aug-11-25 | | Petrosianic: So, how are Fred's notes in the above game?
Well, on Move 8, when Fred gives his detailed evaluation of how great the position is for White, it's still actually more or less equal, given best play. And in fact, Fred's recommended 10. g4! isn't the best. 10. g4 Nxd4 11. Qxd4 e5 12. Qd1 exf4 13. Bxf4, and the game is still about equal. This is the kind of way Black can counter-punch in these type of openings, instead of just letting himself be rolled into a little ball, as happens here. 11...Ne8 instead of Nd7, and then 12...Qd8 is just ugly. Is Black setting up the pieces for the next game? 13...Nxd4?. White and Black each spend 1 move, but at the end of it, Black has one less piece developed, while White stays the same. Fred's right about 14...e5? Black is giving White more space at the same time that he's giving himself less. After 14... e5, it's hopeless, and everything Fred says is right. But the situation isn't nearly as bleak on Move 4 as he makes it sound. In particular, that word "overwhelming" under the first diagram, gives the reader a very misleading impression. I think now that Fred was operating under the idea that the reader is a beginner, who will be playing against other beginners, in which case what he says here is pretty much right for that level. The reader is unlikely to be playing someone who knows what they're doing in this line. But still, the eval on Move 4 is something that has to be partially unlearned later, if you go any farther in chess. |
|
Aug-11-25
| | perfidious: In <100 Instructive Games of Alekhine>, Reinfeld's annotations to E Schultz vs Alekhine, 1914 query White's fifth move, stating that 5.c4! gives him the Maroczy Bind, with practically a won game, though by the time of Spassky vs Petrosian, 1969, the line had been largely shorn of its terrors, while it must be admitted that Black has few, if any winning chances. |
|
Aug-11-25
| | Sally Simpson: <Hi Petrosianic> In the books 'How to play the White Pieces' and 'How to play the Black pieces.' The players names are not given but as far as I can tell these are real games. The game you gave above is F Olafsson vs J Gudmundsson, 1953 (Game 12 in 'How to play the White Pieces' ) Game One in 'How to play the White Pieces' is C J Corte vs M Luckis, 1949
Game two is Niephaus vs P Schmidt, 1950 Game 7 which I seem to have taken an interest in as I've added notes all over it. Stahlberg vs J Sefc, 1949 Game One in 'How to play the Black Pieces' is Martinez vs C Guimard, 1948 (see the kibitzing in that game.) So both books are actually a collection of lesser known instructive games with very basic, though perfectly adequate notes. I'll have to go through those books again, I'm sure he looks at an opening in one book and says it's good for White. And yet in the other book the same opening is OK for Black. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
