Impala Publishers Blog Page

In his admirable site dedicated to the Cambridge Springs tournament of 1904, Steven Etzel wrote -

The American Chess Bulletin, Vol. I, No. 1, published in June 1904, was essentially the first "book" written about the tournament. The Bulletin mentions that "The eight sets of boards, pieces and clocks used by the competitors in the tournament, each accompanied by a certificate bearing the signatures of the sixteen players, were purchased by the following gentlemen:"

John Lindsay McCutcheon

-Hon. S. C. Shannon, Brockport, N.Y.
-John Lindsay McCutcheon, Pittsburg, Pa.
-Peter Toepfer, Milwaukee, Wis.
-Richard H. Johnson, Boise, Idaho
-Edward F. Johnson, Woburn, Mass.
-Charles L. Clark, Bangor, Maine
-John L. Emerson, Titusville, Pa.
-Jno. B. Smithman, Oil City, Pa.

I asked an expert in chess collectibles about these sets. To his knowledge, the whereabouts of these sets is not known. How unfortunate. (I have a personal connection to three of these cities; I was born in Oil City, have lived in Pittsburg(h) and now live in the Milwaukee area. As an aside, Titusville is the site where the first oil well was drilled in 1859, launching a booming oil industry that was a focal point of the region's economy for years to come.) In December 2003 I uncovered some information about some of these people. Of particular note is McCutcheon, for whom the McCutcheon variation of the French Defense is named.

In order to examine what the Cambridge Springs sets looked like, see here; described as -

CAMBRIDGE SPRINGS 1904
TOURNAMENT CHESS SET.
Kings are 3.75"and Staunton pattern, made the official US tournament size and style at the 5th US Congress in 1881. Pieces heavily weighted.

This piece appeared recently -

In the December 1995 issue of Chess Life, page 14, GM Andrew Soltis states "After the great tournament at Cambridge Springs, Pennsylvania, in 1904, the organizers tried to recoup some of their expenses by selling boards and sets, at $15. That stunned Mikhail Tchigorin who complained the cheap pieces weren't worth more than $2.50 -- and the poorly made paper boards only 10 to 15 cents. They sold out anyway."

Tchigorin (also 'Tschigorin' or 'Chigorin') lost on time to Fox after 41 moves in the only game of the tournament to feature the McCutcheon Variation - see here.

I wonder whether the McCutcheon set might still be in the possession of the family?

A.J. Goldsby has sent me this on the subject of McCutcheon -

If I still had my old ACB's ("American Chess Bulletins"), I would bet there was something in there on McCutcheon. I stored them with a relative while I was in the military. One cold winter night, he burned his house to the ground using a cheap, "space-heater" to keep warm. Unfortunately, his attic was full of my chess books and postal albums. (I had a small collection of books - about 50 with me.)

I also used to have a book on "Early American Chess." (It has also been lost over the years.) It talked about Ben Franklin and his passion for chess. I have now rebuilt my chess library. (over the last 30 years.) Its roughly 10-15 thousand books, plus a boxes of chess magazines and things.

... (When I moved) in 2007 ... I threw away about 50 boxes of chess magazines and clippings and other things that I had collected and that people have given me over the years. Sigh. I wonder if any of that material could have shed some light on McCutcheon.

A.J. Goldsby writes from Florida -

A while back you were doing a series on these two, here are a few web pages that I have done on their games:

http://www.worldchessacademy.com/MacDonnell-deLaBourdonnais.htm

http://www.ajschess.com/lifemasteraj/ts_labourd-macdon3.html

http://www.lifemasteraj.com/old_af-dl/macdon-labourd_rp1g0.html

http://www.ajschess.com/lifemasteraj/ts_labourd-macdon2.html

http://www.ajschess.com/lifemasteraj/ts_labourd-macdon1.html

I will let you know if I find any others.

AJ Goldsby writes from Florida -

Most people have heard or read about Rubinstein's greatest masterpieces. But I doubt if the average player has ever heard of Rubinstein's victory over Karel Hromadka.

And it's sad, as this was one of the greatest of all of Rubinstein's games!

http://www.lifemasteraj.com/old_af-dl/rubin-hromad_rp1g0.html

I estimate over 100 hours has gone into the analysis of this game, and the preparation of the web page, so I hope your chess readers will enjoy a peek at this one.

Ed: Thanks, AJ! "Rubin" is German for 'ruby' so that Rubinstein means 'ruby-stone', I presume. Compare this to Bernstein, the name of another great Jewish chess master of the same period, whose name means 'amber'.

Rabbi Akiba (or Akiva ben Joseph) was a great Talmudic scholar whose dates are (ca. 50 - ca.135). He lived in Palestine but voyaged around the Mediterannean basin.

The excellent historical novel ZUGZWANG (2008), written by Ulsterman Ronan Bennett, features a chess master modelled on Rubinstein - see Zugzwang Part 2, Monday, May 3. 2010. Bennett currently writes a weekly chess column for THE GUARDIAN in conjunction with GM Danny King.

On Rubinstein's games, I take up my father's copy of FIFTY GREAT GAMES OF MODERN CHESS (Bell, 1942), chosen and annotated by Harry Golombek. Golombek chose 6 of Rubinstein's games for his collection viz.

Game 6: Rotlewi-Rubinstein, Lodz, 1907
Game 7: Rubinstein-Marshall Lodz, 1908
Game 8: Rubinstein-Edmund Lasker, St. Petersburg, 1909
Game 9: Rubinstein-Capablanca, San Sebastian, 1911
Game 16: Rubinstein-Hromadka, Mährisch-Ostrau, 1923
Game 28: Rubinstein-Flohr, Roganska-Slatina, 1929

In his introduction to Game 6, Golombek wrote -"The greatest stylist of the game who ever lived was Akiba Rubinstein, who produced game after game at once full of fresh combinational ideas and subtle positional stratagems."

In his introduction to Game 16, Rubinstein-Hromadka, Golombek writes -"The King's Gambit has not been entirely neglected by modern masters and has been notably used by Spielmann and Rubinstein. Here is a game by the latter with a glorious finish."

Co-incidentally, Ray Keene publishes a King's Gambit in his chess column in today's TIMES. It's the first-round game in the current British Championship where Robert Eames chose to play the gambit against Michael Adams - see here.

ä ö ü Ä Ë Ö Ü ß ê î Î â  ă Ă Ş Ţ Ç ş šŠ ţ ç Á É Í Ó Ú á é í ó ú À à è Ő ő ű ñ ï ë Ł ź ¡ ć ï æ û
Αα Ββ Γγ Δδ Εε Ζζ Ηη Θθ Ιι Κκ Λλ Μμ Νν Ξξ Οο Ππ Ρρ Σσς Ττ Υυ Φφ Χχ Ψψ Ωω ᾲ ᾴ ῂ ῄ ὶ ί ῦ ώ ύ

To follow up from A.J. Goldsby's earlier post, Carl Schlechter has remained for me a chess hero of long standing, on whom I've written several times - see, for example, Carl Schlechter (1874-1918) Part 1, Monday, November 10. 2008.

One student summer in 1969 I visited the US to work, acquire money, and travel across the continent to the West Coast. I described the first part of my journey in DESTINATION SAN FRANCISCO Part 1 The East Coast, Tuesday, July 10. 2007. I omitted to add there that I visited the Marshall Chess Club in Manhattan, played a few games, and was then presented with a decorated tile showing the facade of the club as a keepsake. I hope that I still have that tile somewhere. Frank J. Marshall was the founder of the Marshall Chess Club and it was the location for many famous chess events, including the first game of the 1923 match for the US Championship between Marshall, holder of the title, and Edward Lasker, challenger, as related in Lasker's CHESS SECRETS (1952).

It was on Marshall's insistence that Capablanca was admitted to the strong San Sebastian tournament of 1911, even though Capa did not have the proper qualifications - in 1909 Capa had defeated Marshall decisively in a match. Capa confirmed Marshall's confidence by winning San Sebastian, Capa's first strong master tournament at the first attempt. Thus Capa emulated the feat of Harry Nelson Pillsbury who won the great Hastings tourney of 1895. Pillsbury took part in Cambridge Springs 1904 as well, but Pillsbury's health was already badly affected by the syphilis which, it is believed, he had contracted during the St Petersburg tournament of 1896.

A.J. Goldsby provides a link to a fine website created by Steven Etzel of Wisconsin and deevoted to the Cambridge Springs tournament. Etzel's site has many admirable images, one of which I reproduce . And he gives us information on each of the 16 players participating. Among them were 7 of the World's Top Ten including -

World Champion - Emanuel Lasker;
Russian Champion - Mikhail Chigorin;
Austrian Champion - Carl Schlechter;
French Champion - Dawid (David) Janowsky; and
U.S. Champion - Harry N. Pillsbury.

Marshall won Cambridge Springs undefeated, one of his greatest tournament victories. The tournament gives its name to the Cambridge Springs Defence to the Queen's Gambit viz. 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Nbd7 5. e3 c6 6. Nf3 Qa5

which the OXFORD COMPANION TO CHESS (1984) tells us is sometimes known as the Pillsbury Variation. The COMPANION goes on -

Introduced by LASKER in a game against Albert Beauregard Hodges (1861-1944) in 1892 and played by PILLSBURY in the Nuremberg tournament 1896, this defence was used frequently during the tournament held at Cambridge Springs, a spa in Pennsylvania. ALEKHINE made use of this defence five times in the World Championship match of 1927 (Ed: i.e. the famous match where Alekhine defeated Capablanca 6:3 with many draws)

See Etzel's page devoted to the Defence here, and Tim Harding's 'Kibitzer' article in ChessCafe.com.

[My copy of JUDAISM FOR DUMMIES (see Shield of David Part 2, Friday, July 16. 2010) has this -

Kibbitz. Here's another Yiddish word that has worked its way into the English language: To kibbitz means to butt in, to give advice, or to comment on, especially when it's none of youyr business. For example, it's almost impossible for a Jewish chess player to refrain from kibbitzing while watching two other people playing. The people doing the kibbitzing - whether from across the room or from the back seat of the car - is a kibbitzer. Note that if you're asked to make suggestions, you're an adviser, not a kibbitzer.]

I'm intrigued as well that Etzel, quoting the American Chess Bulletin Vol. 1 No. 1, mentions "John Lindsay McCutcheon, Pittsburg, Pa. " as buying one of the eight chess sets actually used in the tournament. This gentleman, a lawyer of Scotch-Irish descent, gave his name to another famous defence, the McCutcheon Variation of the French Defence, which I have wheeled out myself on occasion (see e.g. A GRANDMASTER DRAW, Monday, April 3. 2006). I'm planning DV soon to post on McCutcheon. My BOOK OF ULSTER SURNAMES tells me that MacCutcheon, along with Houston, Huston, Hutcheson, Hutchinson and MacQuiston, all derive ultimately from the personal name Hugh and were the names of septs of Clan Donald. One website names McCutcheon as a "patron" of the Cambridge Springs tourney. I'd hope to post more on McCutcheon and his Defence soon.

A.J. Goldsby writes from Florida:

A few years ago, I started out with the noble intention of annotating all the games from the Cambridge Springs, (1904) chess tournament.

... ... ... I never finished this grand undertaking.

Here is my latest effort, which continues this project, I hope you (and chess fans everywhere) will enjoy it.

Carl Schlechter - Frank J. Marshall; Cambridge Springs, 1904

Ed: Thanks very much to A.J. who adds this link to a website devoted to the great Cambridge Springs tournament. The website was created by Steven Etzel of Wisconsin and I take the photo of Hotel Rider, Cambridge Springs, site of the tourney, from Steven's site.

A.J.'s game annotations have shattered my view of Schlechter as solely a careful, positional player. The Vienese plays rather wildly until Marshall counter-sacrifices at an appropriate moment to leave the American clearly better. A defensive triumph, in short. Tim Harding here comments "Schlechter squandered his White against Marshall with a tactical open game whereas a strategic struggle would have been more testing for Black."

AJ Goldsby writes from Florida, USA;

A new web page on A. Lilienthal

I promised several friends that I would do a bit on my website on the great legend/player Andor Lilienthal when he sadly passed away last month. I just got around to posting it today.

http://www.ajschess.com/lifemasteraj/lili-capa_hastings3435.html

There is a crosstable of the event, a fair analysis of the game, Lilienthal - Capablanca; Hastings / England (UK) / 1934-1935. There are 13 diagrams, and many useful links. (I added a brief analysis of Euwe's win over G.A. Thomas from the same event.)

I included a brief biography and a few other details, I am hoping your (chess) readers will find it useful and entertaining.

Ed: Thanks, AJ! The annual tournament at Hastings, held over Christmas and New Year 1934/5, included three former and future World Champions.

José Raúl Capablanca, World Champion 1921-27, had retired from the game in 1931 after failing to secure a return match against his successor as World Champion, Alexander Alekhine. Hastings 1934/5 saw Capa's return to the lists and the great Cuban was understandably rusty. He was victorious over the 4 English tail-enders, but lost to Sir George Thomas as well as Lilienthal. Max Euwe (World Champion 1935-37) was in top form and went through the tournament smoothly and undefeated. Hastings 1934/5 saw the first appearance in the West of another future World Champion, the young Mikhail Botvinnik (reigned 1948-57, 1958-60, and 1961-63). Botvinnik had already won the Soviet Championship (1931 and again 1933); and he had drawn a match in 1933 with Salo Flohr. Hastings 1934/5 was, however, no triumph for Botvinnik, but rather a learning experience. He lost to Thomas and Euwe, while drawing with Flohr, Capa, Lilienthal and the English player Michell.

Sir George Thomas

Three players emerged as the joint winners of Hastings 1934/35; Euwe (mentioned above), Flohr and Thomas. Salo Flohr was one of the world's top players in the 1930s and in 1937 FIDE nominated Flohr its "official" challenger for the world title. Flohr went through Hastings 1934/5 undefeated, defeating four English tail-enders and drawing with Thomas and the other foreign players. Sir George Thomas (1881-1972) was the veteran English player who won the British Championship in 1923 and again in 1934 [and an expert badminton player as well!] so that Sir George Thomas was the reigning British Champion at Hastings 1934/5. This tournament would yield the English player his greatest-ever tournament victory. Although he lost to Euwe and the English player Michell, Thomas defeated Capablanca, Botvinnik and Lilienthal.

Blog Links

Andor Lilienthal: chess grandmaster, by Raymond Keene, Saturday, May 22. 2010

Ray Keene on Lilienthal's chess career, Tuesday, May 18. 2010

Andor Lilienthal (1911-2010):
- Part 1, Monday, May 10. 2010
- Part 2,Wednesday, May 12. 2010

Game 11: another fighting draw, Monday, May 10. 2010

ä ö ü Ä Ë Ö Ü ß ê î Î â  ă Ă Ş Ţ Ç ş šŠ ţ ç Á É Í Ó Ú á é í ó ú À à è Ő ő ű ñ ï ë Ł ź ¡ ć ï æ û
Αα Ββ Γγ Δδ Εε Ζζ Ηη Θθ Ιι Κκ Λλ Μμ Νν Ξξ Οο Ππ Ρρ Σσς Ττ Υυ Φφ Χχ Ψψ Ωω ᾲ ᾴ ῂ ῄ ὶ ί ῦ ώ ύ

A.J. Goldsby writes from Florida, USA;

Here is a new web page.
http://www.ajschess.com/lifemasteraj/wcc-2010_anan-topa__g12.html

One student asked what was taking so long. My response was like my Mom when she was baking ... some things are better not rushed. (Also - I examine several lines that - so far - have not been looked at by anyone else. Many nice links as well.)

AJ introduces his new page with -

The W(orld) C(hess) C(hampionship) 2010 ... game-by-game summary, as I see it.
I watched just about all of these games - as they were being played. Additionally, I visited almost every link or news story that had any analysis of the games themselves. So I thought you would be interested in a short description of the games ... a sort of "blow-by-blow," of the games themselves.

NOTE: Every game was a tough struggle, there was not a single GM draw! (Perhaps because of the "Sofia Rules" that were in effect?) However, it does not matter what the reason was, all that is really important is the end result. ALL of the games were fascinating to watch, not since Fischer-Spassky, 1972 has there been such a match where every game required monumental efforts from both players. (I also did not feel the need to analyze all of these games in detail, as both London's "Chess Centre" website and the "ChessBase" website often featured detailed analysis of the games themselves. Often - this analysis was posted - within just a day or two after the conclusion of each of the individual games.) Click HERE to see the page that has ALL of the ChessBase reports on this event!

I'd certainly agree with AJ that it was a fantastic match. Though short, it was crowded with surprising twists and turns, and much good chess. The heat of battle produced quite a few errors as well from the world's top players, reminded us of the game's psychological aspect (for humans at least).

In his chess column in the TIMES on Saturday, Ray Keene featured three critical positions from the match.

Ed: US Chess Lifemaster A.J. Goldsby sends his analysis of the "Soda-water Game", featured in "The soda-water game", Wednesday, April 14. 2010;-

Ludek Pachman - Ivstan Bilek [E82]
FIDE zt / Kecskemet, HUN; 1964.
[A.J. Goldsby I]

The famous "SODA-WATER" game ... (both players were strong GM's.).

1.d4 Nf6 ; 2.c4 d6 ;
Black obviously intends an K-Indian set-up ... meaning that he will fianchetto his KB.
.
3.Nc3 g6 ; 4.e4 Bg7 ; 5.f3 ,
The dreaded Samisch System. (I have written extensively about how
to play the King's Indian ... and even how to play the Samisch as well. See
a few of my annotated games that are available on-line - for more details.) [Standard would be: 5.Nf3 , (4P) leading to the main lines of the KID. ] .

5...0-0 ; 6.Be3 b6!? ;
Slightly unusual, and definitely off the beaten path.
{The main line here is: (>/=) 6...e5 ; 7.d5 c6 ; etc.
For more details, consult a resource like MCO-15. ] .
.
7.Bd3 Bb7!? ;
I have a feeling that this is one of those moves ... . If an amateur did this, {and lost}; it would be roundly condemned. (The Bishop looks to be "biting on granite" in this position.). When a master does this {and succeeds}; it is almost as if he knew that he was going to sacrifice his Bishop on d5! (To be fair, it is quite possible that much of what Bilek does here was prepared in advance.). [¹7...c5 ; - Fritz 12. ] .
.
8.Nge2 c5 ; 9.d5 e6 ;
Black's true intentions are now revealed, he wants a fight and begins opening lines.
.
10.g4!? ,
This move is wildly optimistic and also a clear violation of the basic opening principles. (Tals' idea!). Apparently, Pachman had played Tal the year before in the Capablanca Memorial Tournament - they drew. In their analysis of that game Tal had suggested this continuation to Pachman.
.
[A more solid approach would have been: RR10.0-0 exd5 ; 11.cxd5² , w/ a small edge for W. (This is the first choice of the computer and GM L. Szabo also used this idea.). A fairly recent example would be: D. Yevseev (2395) - V. Onoprienko (2295); KB Open / Pardubice, (R#7); CZH / 1996. {White won a sharp game, 1-0 in just 32 total moves.} ] .
.
10...exd5 ; 11.cxd5 Re8 ; 12.Qd2 Nbd7 ; 13.Kf2!? ,

This move is simply risky and should have been eschewed in favor of the simple castling. [¹13.0-0 Ne5÷] .
.
13...Ne5 ; 14.Ng3?! ,
This move is just plain wrong ... I would recommend that White play Kg2 in this position ... to run away from all of the ¤-forks. [¹14.Bb5 , - Fritz 12. ] .
.
14...Bxd5!! ; (Shocking!)
The famous incident where Pachman was so surprised by Bilek's move that he spilled his drink occurred here. (See the Impala blog for more details.)
.
[I spent several hours analyzing an interesting alternative here. The machines seem to prefer: 14...Nxd3+ ; for Black in this position. (Deep Junior, Rybka3 & Fritz-12.) The main idea seems to be ...Nd7; followed by ...Qh4. In one line, all of Black's pieces swarmed down the board like a cloud of angry bees. ] .
.
15.Nxd5 , (Maybe - '?')
White accepts the challenge, but technically this move is an error. [White could avoid serious damage with the continuation of: ¹15.g5! Bc4 ; 16.Be2 , etc. although White does drop a Pawn. ] .
.
15...Nxd5 ; 16.exd5 Qf6 ;
This might have been what Pachman missed.
.
r3r1k1/p4pbp/1p1p1qp1/2pPn3/6P1/3BBPN1/PP1Q1K1P/R6R w - - 0 17
.
Thanks to the double threat of ...QxP/f3+; and also ...NxP/g4+; White is now lost. The next series of moves is pretty close to being all forced. (Several programs prefer 17.Bf5 over the game continuation, but White is still quite lost ... no matter what.)

17.Be4 Nxg4+ ; 18.Kg2 Nxe3+ ; 19.Qxe3 Qxb2+ ; 20.Qe2 ,
This is probably best. [After the simple: <20.Kh3 f5 ; "-/+" Black regains the piece ... the WK remains exposed ... and Black has more threats than even the game. ] .
.
20...Qxe2+ ; 21.Nxe2 Bxa1 ; 22.Rxa1 b5 ;
White has two pieces for a Rook ... however, Black has three healthy Pawns, (and no weaknesses); so White is quite lost.
.
r3r1k1/p4p1p/3p2p1/1ppP4/4B3/5P2/P3N1KP/R7 w - - 0 23
.
23.Kf2 Re5 ; 24.Rd1 Rae8 ; 25.Nc3 a6 ; 26.Bd3 Kg7 ; 27.Bf1 Rh5 ; 28.h3 Rh4 ;
29.Ne4 Rhxe4! ;
The machine prefers 29...Re5; yet Bilek's technique is better because it completely denies White the chance for any real counterplay.
.
30.fxe4 Rxe4 ; 31.Rd3 b4 ; 32.Kf3 Re1 ; 33.Be2 a5 ; 34.Re3 Ra1 ; 35.Re7 Kf6 ;
36.Rd7 Ke5 ; 37.Rxf7 Rxa2 ; 38.Rxh7 a4 ; 39.Bd3 Ra3 ; 40.Ke2 g5 ; 41.Rg7 Kd4 ;
42.Bf5 Re3+ ; 43.Kd2 , and Resigns.
.
Pachman probably threw in the towel because he knew that Black's connected, passed Pawns, (esp. the a & b-buttons); are unstoppable.
.
I. Bilek's play was truly brilliant and could be considered a refutation of the plan laid out by the formal World Champion. (Tal) .
.
Copyright (c) A.J. Goldsby, 2010.
All rights reserved.

Csaba Gerencsér is a Hungarian who left a comment to "Lord Dunleath on McDonnell" Part 3, Thursday, July 31. 2008, a comment which I have only just noticed. Csaba Gerencsér wrote there -

Here is in my library a book where the writer wrote more pages about the match La Bourdonnais - McDonnell. He had a lot information about Alex McDonnell. I wrote this part of the book in Word file. If interest you I could send. It is in Hungarian, but the Google translator could help. The title of the book: The private life of the Chess King (edited dr. Emil Gelenczey). Interest me the match and the relations of McDonnell. W.G. Walker published the games in 1835 (only 84 games). There we can see that McDonnell won more games as it is in the publications. (+2)

I have an Irish friend in Cork.

Of course I'm interested in any more information on Alexander McDonnell, and the title of the book mentioned by Csaba Gerencsér is intriguing - although I would find it difficult to believe that any book in Hungarian would have more information on McDonnell than is already available in English.

I've mentioned the recent English-language book by Cary Utterberg published in the USA. In his book of 404 pages, Utterberg, a Fide Master, has not only given us his analysis of every game between the English and French champions, but he has addressed many of the puzzles and unresolved issues associated with the confrontation in 1834, which began modern chess.

De la Bourdonnais versus McDonnell, 1834: The Eighty-Five Games of Their Six Chess Matches, with Excerpts from additional Games Against Other Opponents, Cary Utterberg, McFarland & Company, Inc., North Carolina, USA, 2005.

(See McDonnell 2009 Part 8, Friday, November 6. 2009, with links to reviews of Utterberg's book by such as Lubomir Kavalek, Jeremy Silman and A.J. Goldsby.)

I'm now touch by email with Csaba Gerencsér. He tells me that he has already had a book on the American genius, Morphy, published in Hungary in 1995. For this he was helped by his friend, Grandmaster István Bilek.

Sadly, Bilek (1932-2010) has died just recently, on 20th March. He was Hungarian Champion three times (1963, 1965, and 1970). He played in the Interzonals of 1962 and 1964; and on the Hungarian team in nine Chess Olympiads (1958 to 1974), earning three individual medals: silver on board 4 in 1962, bronze on board 3 in 1966, and silver on board 2 in 1972.

Gerencsér has written another book on the La Bourdonnais-McDonnell matches. Analysis is given on each of the 85 known games, including analysis by Morphy (31 games), Bilek, and Attila Schneider (another former Hungarian Champion). The book is complete on his computer, but not yet published. Csaba Gerencsér has sent the score of the 62nd game with analysis by István Bilek. This is of course in the Hungarian language, but Csaba has added an English-language translation which is curious, to say the least.

The 62nd game is perhaps the most famous of the series. You can play through the game on ChessGames here. His teacher showed the young Garry Kasparov the remarkable final position. Kasparov wrote that the way in which the weak pawns overcome a mighty Queen struck him so forcibly that he has been unable to forget it.

62. játszma
Bilek István nk. nm. elemzése
McDonnell – La Bourdonnais
ECO "B32"
Szicíliai védelem
1.e4. c5 2. Hf3 Hc6 3.d4 cdx4 4.Hxd4 e5 6.Hxc6 bxc6 6.Fc4 Hf6 7.Fg5 Fe7 8.Ve2 d5 9.Fxf6 Fxf6 10.Fb3 0-0 11.0-0 a5! 12.exd5 cxd5 13.Bfd1 d4 14.c4 Vb6 15.Fc2 Fb7 16.Hbd2 Bae8
A megnyitáson másfél évszázad porát láthatjuk, de igaz¬ságtalanok lennénk, ha csakis mai tudásunk alapján értékel-nénk a játszmát. Az akkori időkhöz viszonyitva mindkét játékos eléggé "modern" felfogásban vezeti a küzdelmet. Őseink lovas¬bravúrjait sem illő összevetni a mai Forma-1-esek teljesit¬ményével.
17.He4 Fd8 18.c5 Vc6 19.f3 Fe7 20.Bac1 f5 21.Vc4+ Kh8 22. Fa4 Vh6
Érzésre hozott minőségáldozat szinte Tal stilusában ¬- mondhatnánk manapság, kellő tisztelettel. Valóban, a bonyo-dalmakat inkább csak sejteni lehetett, semmint kiszámítani jóelőre.
23.Fxe8 fxe4 24.c6 exf3! 25.Bc2
A b7-futót természetesen nem lehetett kiütni (25. cxb) Ve3+ és következményei miatt: 26.Kh1 fxg2+ 27.Kxg2 Bf2+, vagy még rosszabbul 25.gxf? mert erre is Ve3+ majd Vxf3+ végzett volna.
25… Ve3+ 26. Kh1 Fc8 27.Fd7 f2 28.Bf1 d3 29.Bc3 Fxd7 30.cxd7 e4 31.Vc8
McDonnell nyilván ebben a lépésben reménykedett, amely visszaszoritja, leszögezi a sötét tiszteket az alapsorra. Szerencsétlenségére azonban jelen kivételes helyzetben ennek semmi jelentősége nincs, és sötét kétféle módon is győz¬het. A kérdés csak az, hogy a La Bourdonnais által választott út szebb-é vagy a későbbi elemzés mutatta nyerés a káprázatosabb. Ízlés dolga. Ime: 31.-- Bd8 32.Bcc1 d2 33. Bcd1 Ve1 34.Vc3 e3 Bdxe1 dxeV 36. Bxe1 és most a váratlan Fb4!! dönti el a küzdelmet. Hm?!.
31… Fd8 32.Vc4 Ve1 33.Bcc1 d2 34.Vc5 Bg8 35.Bcd1 e3 36.Vc3 Vxd1! 37.Bxd1 e2 világos fel-adta. 0-1.

A befejező kombináció az egész rornantikus korszak egyik legragyogóbb teljesitménye. Ércnél maradóbb emléke a hires-nevezetes westminsteri csatának!

62nd game
Analyzing of grandmaster István Bilek
McDonnell – La Bourdonnais
ECO "B32"
Sicilian defense
1.e4. c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cdx4 4.Nxd4 e5 6.Nxc6 bxc6 6.Bc4 Nf6 7.Bg5 Be7 8.Qe2 d5 9.Bxf6 Bxf6 10.Bb3 0-0 11.0-0 a5! 12.exd5 cxd5 13.Rfd1 d4 14.c4 Qb6 15.Bc2 Bb7 16.Nbd2 Rae8

We can see the dust of one and half century on the opening, but we would be unjust if would value the game by our today knowledge. In proportion of that time both player direct the struggle in sufficiently „modern” comprehension. It is unseemly to make a comparison between the virtuosities on horse of our ancestors and the mileage today Formula One cars.

17.Ne4 Bd8 18.c5 Qc6 19.f3 Be7 20.Rac1 f5 21.Qc4+ Kh8 22. Ba4 Qh6

Sacrificed the quality by feeling almost in style of Tal – we could say nowadays with proper respects. Indeed, suspectingly the complications and not count those beforehand.

23.Bxe8 fxe4 24.c6 exf3! 25.Rc2

Of course the b7-bishop wouldn’t take (25.cxb) because of Qe3+ and its consequences: 26.Kh1 fxg2+ 27.Kxg2 Rf2+, or so much the worse 25.gxf? because for this also Qe3+ and Qxf3+ would have finish the game.

25… Qe3+ 26. Kh1 Bc8 27.Bd7 f2 28.Rf1 d3 29.Rc3 Bxd7 30.cxd7 e4 31.Qc8

Obviously McDonnell cherised hopes in this move which forces back the Black pieces and nails down for the base line. But most unfortunalety for him in this exceptional position is of no importance and Black can win of two alternative. Only that is the question whether the road is more beautiful which selected La Bourdonnais or the winning is more brilliant which revealed the later analyzing. Matter of taste. Behold!

31.-- Rd8 32.Rcc1 d2 33. Rcd1 Qe1 34.Qc3 e3 Rdxe1 dxe=Q 36. Rxe1

and now settles the fight the unexpected Bb4!! Well then?

31… Bd8 32.Qc4 Qe1 33.Rcc1 d2 34.Qc5 Rg8 35.Rcd1 e3 36.Qc3 Qxd1! 37.Rxd1 e2 White resigned. 0-1

The finishing combination is one of most brilliant accomplishments of complete romantic era. It is more permanent relic as ore from the famous and remarkable Westminster Battle!

Continued from Part 7 (Memorials of Dr Alexander McDonnell):

Reviews of Utterberg's book: Andrew Mulholland as subscriber

Cary Utterberg is the author of the recent and comprehensive book on the McDonnell-de la Bourdonnais series of matches viz.

De la Bourdonnais versus McDonnell, 1834: The Eighty-Five Games of Their Six Chess Matches, with Excerpts from additional Games Against Other Opponents, Cary Utterberg, McFarland & Company, Inc., North Carolina, USA, 2005.

Utterberg has a website CaryUtterberg.com, with links to reviews of his book by Lubomir Kavalek (Washington Post), Taylor Kingston (ChessCafe.com), Jeremy Silman (JeremySilman.com), Paul Kane (CompulsiveReader.com), John Elburg (ChessBooks.com) and sometime Impala contributor, A.J. Goldsby (amazon.com) - as well as Utterberg's own 'Errata and Punishment' (ChessCafe.com) .

It would be good one day to deal comprehensively with the points made by the reviewers, some of whom misunderstand Alexander McDonnell's place in society. But let me deal with just one who accuses Utterberg of failing to use as a source Diggle's article in the British Chess Magazine of 1934 marking the centenary of the confrontation viz.

THE LA BOURDONNAIS-MACDONNELL MATCHES OF 1834, G. H. Diggle, The British Chess Magazine, July 1934

I have a photocopy of this on file (possibly sent me by Ken Whyld) and quoted from it in my original article of 1987. Utterberg hasn't missed anything substantial, since Diggle's work was based largely on George Walker's article of 1843 (which you can read in its entirety in George Walker on the McDonnell-de la Bourdonnais matches, Monday, September 1. 2008).

Through the miracle of the internet, Cary Utterberg and I are now in touch. A few days ago he emailed me with a titbit of information relating to McDonnell.

A minor note regarding Andrew Mulholland: he is listed as a subscriber to Greenwood Walker's book (1836), under the heading "Belfast Chess Club". No McDonnells are listed as subscribers.

In his will (see Researching Alexander McDonnell Part 17 The Chess Master's will , Thursday, September 11. 2008) , the Chess Master McDonnell named Andrew Mulholland as one of his executors; and Andrew's children with his wife Eliza (whom we believe to be the Chess Master's sister) as beneficiaries through a trust. So it can scarcely be a suprise that Andrew Mulholland subscibed to William Greenwood Walker's book of the games with Bourdonnais. What may be more revealing is that Mulholland is named as associated with Belfast Chess Club. So perhaps Andrew Mulholland was a chessplayer and member of the Club?

A few days ago Cary Utterberg left a comment to McDonnell 2009: Part 1, Saturday, October 17. 2009. There's a debate as to whether the 6th and final match ended as planned or whether it was broken off premnaturely. Utterberg comments -

The House of Lords and Commons burned down on October 16, 1834. If we assume that McDonnell still had professional interests relating to Parliament, we might (speculatively) postulate this as the date that concluded the matches.

Continued from Part 2:

How strong was Alexander?

Ray Keene ended his TIMES series yesterday (h). But just how strong was C.H. O'D. Alexander as a chess player?

In a comment to an earlier post (i), AJ Goldsby suggested -

Hugh was a VERY strong player! Jeff Sonas estimates his rating at over 2600 at one point. (See the interesting web page of: http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/SingleEvent.asp?Params=199510SSSSS3S002251000000131100254500001110100 for more details.)

Thanks, AJ, but I'm somewhat dubious about how much such historic ELO ratings actually add to our understanding. For those unfamiliar with the ELO ratings now widely used in the chess world, 2500 would indicate an ordinary Grandmaster, 2600 a strong Grandmaster, 2700 a GM who might aspire to become a challenger for the World Championship, and a high 2700 that of a World Champion. Garry Kasparov's rating increased to over 2800. BUT it appears that the ELO ratings system has been subject to inflation in recent years.

Hooper and Whyld (j) tell us that Alexander became an International Master (1950) and an International Correspondence Chess Master (1970); and -

"From about 1937 to the mid-1950s [Alexander] was regarded as the strongest player in Great Britain, though he won only two (1938, 1956) of the 13 British Chess Federation Championships in which he competed: he played for the BCF [i.e. England:Ed] in six Olympiads from 1933 to 1958"

but that

"In spite of or because of his intense application at the board his tournament performances were erratic."

Alexander was, of course, an amateur. His daytime (often nighttime or round-the-clock) work during the War and afterwards was of national importance. And this period coincided with his prime as a player. It's understandable that Alexander never quite fulfilled the potential which, had he been a chess professional under the Soviet sysyem, he might have achieved. Nonethless, on his day, in an individual game, Alexander remained a threat even to a World Champion.

In the 1950s Jonathan Penrose (b 1933) was coming to the fore. Penrose was included in the BCF aka English team for the Chess Olympiad first in 1952. He won the British Championship for the first time in 1958. Then he repeated the feat five more times in succession (ie. 1958-1963). Penrose enjoyed a further run of four successive victories 1966-69 (k). Penrose, an amateur like Alexander, dominated British chess in the late 1950s and 1960s in a way that Alexander never managed.

In last Thursday's column, Keene wrote -

By contemporary standards C.H. O'D. Alexander could have become a strong grandmaster. His best results were easily within grandmaster parameters. However, as far as chess was concerned he was a dedicated amateur whose chief outings were in the Hastings Congress. His prime focus was his career as a senior intelligence officer within GCHQ.

As well as Alexander's achievement as a player, we should mention his longstanding contribution to the game as chess columnist in the SUNDAY TIMES and through his fine books on chess. He was the non-playing Captain of the BCF Olympiad team on at least one occasion. Alexander's entry in Wikipedia quotes his intelligence colleague, Peter Wright [author of SPYCATCHER] as suggesting that Alexander burnt himself out through overwork, contributing to his premature death in 1974, at the age of 64. A major figure in British chess.

A book - The Best Games of C.H. O'D. Alexander, Golombek and Hartston (1976) - is long out of print and second-hand copies available only at exorbitant prices. Nor, with that date of publication, could the authors have known fully the importance of Alexander's intelligence work.

Notes

(h) Keene's TIMES series on Alexander

Monday October 19: Alexander the Great

Tuesday October 20: World beater

Wednesday October 21: Secret service

Thursday October 22: Grandmaster touch

Friday October 23: Tribute to Alexander

(i) The Enigma of Hugh Alexander, by Dominic Lawson Friday, September 25. 2009

(j) The Oxford Companion to Chess, David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld, Oxford University Press, 1984

(k) Chess: The Records, Ken Whyld, Guinness Superlatives Ltd, Middlesex, 1986

To be continued

AJ Goldsby writes from Florida-

I often have analyzed older games of chess. One such case was Bobby Fischer vs. O. Panno, from the Buenos Aries tournament of 1970.

http://www.ajschess.com/lifemasteraj/fisch-panno_ts.html

(My original web page would be close to 20 years old. However, it was originally published on a URL that was part of the "Excite Group." They forever closed their doors in 1998 or 1999, I believe.)

Many times, when looking at these games, I was struck by some move ... yet the analysis of such a move was simply beyond me. I would simply get lost in the thicket of the variations.


Some 25 years ago (or more), at a U.S. Open I mentioned to Andy Soltis the possibility of a new move. I took out one of my little black notebooks, and set up the position. (Given below.)

Ed: Sorry, AJ, the Impala blogsite software can't incorporate chess positions, but the reader can find the position discussed through the link to AJ's website -

http://www.ajschess.com/lifemasteraj/fisch-panno_ts.html

White to play, introduced the thunderbolt of 29.NxP/h7!! However, I suggested to Soltis that 29.Nf5! might also win. We analyzed the position for a few minutes, then we had to abandon our work ... for the round was about to begin. (Soltis analyzed this game in his book, Bobby Fischer, Rediscovered (2003). However, no mention of this (Ed: AJ's) move was ever made.

Back then I was a MUCH weaker player, however - - - given days, or even weeks to push wood about - - - I could often come up with some convincing lines. However, PROVING the win was vastly more difficult!

Fast forward to today: with powerful chess engines and "Quad Four" Pentium processors, working out the win is almost "child's play" in these amazing times!!!


29.Nf5!! exf5;
30.gxf5 Qd7!?;

This seems like a natural move to me, the BQ stays on the second rank and appears (at a first glance) to have all the relevant squares covered in this line.

(White is also winning after the line:

30...gxf5;
31.Bxf5 f6;
32.Be6+ Nxe6;
33.exf6 Qd7!?;
To me, this looks like Black's best try - at least in this position.

{Fritz gives >/= 33...Qf7T; as being forced, however, this move is obviously losing for Black ... hence the try, 33...Qd7.}

34.Nxe6 Qf7;
35.Nd8 Qf8;
36.f7+, "+/-" & White wins.)

31.Bxd5! Qxf5[];
This is forced.

(If 31...Qxf5??; then simply 32.f5-f6, "+/-" and Black will not be able to prevent mate on g7.)

32.Bxf7+ Qxf7[];
Also forced!

(If 32...Kh8??; then White simply plays 33.QxN/f8#, and walks away.)

The rest is computer-generated analysis, if you don't believe mine, you can always check it for yourself. (Black - with three minor pieces for the Queen - seems to be doing OK. However, Black's pieces are un-coordinated, Black's King is under heavy pressure, and White's passed Pawns cannot be stopped.)

33.Nxf7 Kxf7;
34.e6+! Kg8!?;
Seemingly the safest square.

(Black is also lost after: "=" 34...Ke8; 35.d5 Nd6; 36.Qf4, "+/-" etc.)

35.Qg5 Nd6;
36.Qe5 Ne8;
37.h6!, "+/-" and White simply shoves his passers (up the board) to win.

Ed: You can play through the game online on ChessGames -

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044324

AJ seems to have proved his point with the aid of computers.

Bobby didn't include the brilliancy in his 60 Memorable Games for the good reason that Bobby's autobiographical book had been published in the previous year (1969).

Panno was no mean opponent, but then Fischer had reached his peak and would the following year whitewash 6:0 two Candiates (Taimanov and Larsen) on his way to winning the World Championship (in 1972).

A.J. Goldsby writes from Florida -

I don't know if you are a big fan of Andrew Soltis, but I am. I have read his column (in "Chess Life") for years.

He once postulated the theory that it was easier for a GM to lose with the White pieces, than with the Black pieces. I believe that his basic line of reasoning was that with the White pieces, you are more likely to take risks - believing you are better - than you would be inclined to do with the Black pieces.

How do you feel about this? Could you possibly get GM Ray Keene's opinion on this matter?

Here is a fairly short game that I just finished posting on the web. Maybe your readers might enjoy a look at this one. White ... the higher-rated player ... practically gets swept off the board. (Any feedback would be welcome.)

Ray Keene responds -

Nonsense - it's far harder with Black.

Ed: Thanks, AJ! I mentioned Soltis's book on Bobby Fischer in my series on the 1959 Candidates' Tournament (Part 3 and Part 5) in in my series Tal's Victory (Part 4 and Part 5). I don't subscribe to any chess magazines these days.

Link

Andrew Soltis

A.J. Goldsby writes -

Have you ever wondered what geniuses of chess the Super-GM's must be? I am talking about guys like Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand, Topalov, Ivanchuk, Shirov, Carlsen, etc.

Sure they lose chess games ... but most of the time you need Fritz, (a magnifying glass, a super-computer, an army of able-bodied analysts); and a lot of time to figure out where they went wrong.

Most of the time, it seems like their games are examples of nearly perfect chess. Brilliant combinations, perfectly played endgames, etc.

So when one of these giants of the 64 squares loses in 25 moves or less, you are always left wondering, (and asking yourself the question); "Where did they go wrong?" I think it can be both fun and downright educational to study these games.

Here (http://www.ajschess.com/lifemasteraj/miniature010.html) is my latest effort, I have spared no effort in bringing you this game. I easily spent 50+ hours in analysis, (although not all at once!); and it also took many hours of work to make the web page a reality. (My family even pitched in to help! - the details are on the bottom of the page.) I started on this project back in May, and since I also have a family, I basically had to work on it in my spare time.

I hope you enjoy my efforts, I am sure that even the seasoned player will find this information useful.

A.J. Goldsby I; USCF Original LIFE-Master

(http://www.lifemasteraj.com, http://www.ajschess.com or http://www.geocities.com/lifemasteraj)

A.J. Goldsby writes from Pensacola, Florida, USA;

Right after the conclusion of the World Championship Match, I began an immediate analysis of the games. My initial idea was to deeply analyze all of these games, and then publish all of them on my website ... in a timely manner. (Here is my analysis of game one.) However, I have not yet finished my analysis of all the games.

My life is so weird lately. We have a new cat, it only has three legs. (injury/amputation) Last Wednesday, a water main broke right in front of my house. Today, lightning came in a window and destroyed a TV. Of course, I am also a single Dad, trying to raise three girls. One of my daughters is severely autistic, and the challenges that this offers on a daily basis is sometimes not to be believed.

By the way, GeoCities will be closing all of its sites later this year. (I have about a dozen GC websites.) However, all is not lost, I have already purchased a new domain, and have begun the process of moving my better pages there.