Max Judd's Draw Claim

Mikhail Chigorin threatened to leave the tournament. Max Judd had demanded, seemingly within the rules, that Chigorin checkmate him within fifty moves. Fifty moves had transpired and Judd had claimed the draw. Along the way, Chigorin had missed a simple win and Judd had missed a line offering stronger prospects for equality.

At the end of the fifty moves, Judd's position was clearly worse. The umpire ordered Judd to continue, but he refused. The game was adjourned while the umpire considered his decision.

The umpire initially ruled in favor of Judd, then the decision went to a jury for reconsideration. The jury confirmed the umpire's decision, but Chigorin then appealed to a panel of judges. During this battle Chigorin lost a game to James Mason on time for refusing to appear at the board during the day's second playing session. On appeal, the judges reversed the umpire's position and ordered the game with Judd continue. The whole process took several days.

William Steinitz offers a synopsis of the final result in The Book of the Sixth American Chess Congress (1891).

Mr. Judd stated afterward that he played the greater part of this ending in reliance on his having the legal right of claiming a draw if he could only extend the game to fifty moves after he had claimed the count without being mated. Having accomplished his object he refused to go on with the game, which he might have done under protest without damaging his rights. But his interpretation of the rule was not sustained on appeal, and Mr. Judd was also adjudged to have forfeited the game on the ground that he did not abide by the decision of the umpire to proceed with the same. (33)

The best account of the full controversy that I have been able to locate is in Stephen Davies, Samuel Lipschutz: A Life in Chess (2015). Lipschutz was one of the players at the Sixth American Chess Congress in New York in 1889. Davies, who tells the story based upon the tournament book, the New York Times, and The Sun, offers specifics. The game was played on Saturday, 30 March 1889. The umpire's decision on behalf of Judd and the jury's confirmation of this decision took place on Monday. According to Davies, the judges were reported as overturning the decision on Thursday, 4 April. The game resumed on 13 April. Both players refused to play, but Judd's clock was started. When his time expired, Chigorin was awarded the win.

Two versions of the Fifty Move Rule existed in the 1880s. The Sixth American Chess Congress employed the rule as printed in the Book of the Fifth American Chess Congress (1881). Following the Chigorin -- Judd dispute, according to Davies, the judges and players agreed that the rule observed in the London 1883 tournament would be enforced for the balance of the event. The London rule, which is the precursor to the rule today, resets the count with each pawn move or capture.

In The Book of the Sixth American Chess Congress, Steinitz also points out Chigorin's easy win and Judd's missteps.

After 46.a4, Judd requested the fifty move count begin.

Black to move

46...b6 47.b3 a5

Steinitz observes:

Black impetuously throws away a sure win in a short number of moves. He could easily gain the opposition and throw the onus of moving on the opponent by 47...Kf4 48.Kh3 Kg5 49.Kh2 Kg4 White's pawn moves on other wing could then be easily exhausted, and Black's King would gain entrance at g3, followed by ...h4-h3, winning easily. (33)

His analysis baffles me. Why 47...Kf4? Why not the immediate 47...Kg4?

48.bxa5 bxa5

White to move

49.b4!

Steinitz speculates that Chigorin had overlooked this move. Black still has an advantage, but White's drawing prospects have improved dramatically after Chigorin missed 47...Kg4, or even Steinitz's suggestion to the same effect.

49...axb4 50.a5 b3 51.a6 b2 52.a7 b1Q 53.a8Q

Black to move

Black can win if the c-pawn successfully advances or if the queens can be swapped. To accomplish either, the Black king needs refuge from checks.

53...Qb5

Chigorin guards the c-pawn with the intention of walking his king over to the queenside where it may employ the pawn as a guard, and perhaps walk together towards c1.

Steinitz suggested that 53...Qg6 was "better adapted to keep everything safe and to lead the King over to the queenside" (33). My engines, including one running with tablebase support, find 53...Ke4 best, but otherwise concur with Steinitz.

I tried playing this position against Stockfish 7 beginning with 53...Qg6 and was not successful at avoiding a draw. It is one thing to play such a position correctly when you can see more than four million positions per second and quite another to work it out as a human. Of course, two humans facing one another are equally ill-equipped.

54.Qg8+ Kf4 55.Qd8 Kg4 56.Qd7+ Kg5 57.Qg7+

Steinitz asserts that 57.Qd8+ was better, but Stockfish 7 sees no difference between this move and the text.

57...Kf5 58.Qf7+ Ke4 59.Qf3+ Kd4 60.Qf2+ Kc3

White to move

61.Qe1+

Steinitz suggests:

Simply capturing the h-pawn that hampered the advance of his King, gave him much better prospects of drawing, as Black's c-pawn could not advance far without giving White again many checking opportunities that would have impeded its progress. (33)

However, the engines find Judd's move best. Capturing the h-pawn changes the evaluation to nearly -2.00, but playing out the suggested engine moves leads to repetition once the c-pawn begins to advance.

Even the engines do not find it a simple matter to deliver a win with Black.

61...Kb2 62.Qd2+ Ka3

White to move

63.Qe3+

As a rule in such positions, the closer to the adverse King the checks are given the more effective they are. 63.Qc3+ was the right play, and whatever Black might do either the checks would continue or the adverse Queen could only interpose in a manner that left his c-pawn unprotected, which gave additional chances of a draw for White. (Steinitz, 33)

This principle is worth remembering.

63...Ka4 64.Qd4+ Qb4 65.Qa7+ Kb3 66.Qe3+ Qc3 67.Qb6+ Kc2 68.Qf2+ Kd3 69.Qf3+ Kd2 70.Qf4+ Kd1 71.Qf1+ 

71.Qxh4 is no good. 71...Qe5+ 72.Kh3 c5 and with the pawn one square further towards promotion, White's drawing prospects diminish.

71...Kd2 72.Qf4+ Ke2 73.Qe4+ Kd1 74.Qf3+

Black to move

74...Kc2

As Steinitz notes, Black's king is now out of position for exchanging queens. The resulting pawn race would give both players queens once again, but this time with an easy draw.

75.Qf2+ Kc1 76.Qf1+ Kb2 77.Qf2+ Qc2 78.Qb6+ Ka3 79.Qa5+ Qa4 80.Qc5+ Kb3 81.Qe3+ Kb4 82.Qd2+ Kb5 83.Qb2+ Qb4 84.Qe2+ Kb6

White to move

85.Qe3+?

85.Qe5 was White's best chance, according to the engines. Now, matters are finally beginning to return to a clear advantage for Chigorin. After 85.Qe5, 85...c5 would concede the draw.

85...c5!

The pawn can now advance. Black's queen and king are now well coordinated to assist the pawn with an advance of one square every half dozen moves or so.

86.Qe6+ Ka5

A necessary finesse. The point is to move the king to b5 when the White queen cannot check from the rear.

87.Qa2+ Kb5 88.Qd5 Qf4+

The queen's mobility along the fourth rank is a critical element.

89.Kh1 Kb4

White to move 

Now, White can again check from the rear, but these checks only delay the pawn's advance. They can no longer prevent it.

90.Qb7+ Kc3 91.Qg7+ Qd4 92.Qe7 c4 93.Qa3+ Kd2 94.Qb4+ 

Black to move

94...Ke2

94...Kc1 leads to a quicker win. 95.Qa3+ Qb2

95.Qb5 Kd2 96.Qb4+ Qc3 0–1

At this point, Judd's fifty move count having been reached, he refused to go on. The dispute began. When he originally asked for a draw, his position was lost. However, Chigorin missed an easy win and overlooked White's resource on the queenside. In the ensuing maneuvering, Judd made a couple small inaccuracies.


The Rules

The Rule from the Fifth American Chess Congress

If, at any period during a game, either player persist in repeating a particular check, or series of ckecks, or persist in repeating any particular line of play which does not advance the game; or if "a game ending" be of doubtful character as to its being a win or a draw, or if a win be possible, but the skill to force the game questionable, then either player may demand judgement of the Umpire as to its being a proper game to be determined as drawn at the end of fifty additional moves, on each side; or the question: "Is, or is not the game a draw?" may be, by mutual consent of the players, submitted to the Umpire at any time. The decision of the Umpire, in either case, to be final. 

And whenever fifty moves are demanded and accorded, the party demanding it may, when the fifty moves have been made, claim the right to go on with the game, and thereupon the other party may claim the fifty move rule, at the end of which, unless mate be effected, the game shall be decided a draw.
Charles A. Gilberg, The Fifth American Chess Congress (New York: Brentano's Literary Emporium, 1881), 167-168.

Judd would seem to have staked his claim on the language: "if 'a game ending' be of doubtful character as to its being a win or a draw."

The British Chess Association Rule printed in the book of the London International Chess Tournament 1883

A player may, at any time, call upon his adversary to mate him within fifty moves (move and reply being counted as one). If, by the expiration of such fifty moves, no piece or pawn has been captured, nor pawn moved, nor mate given, a draw can then be claimed.

When to Resign

When do you resign?

I resign when I know that I could flip the board around and beat Magnus Carlsen. At that point, there is nothing left for me to learn from playing on.

There are times when I might resign early, and other times when I might resign late. In online blitz and bullet, for example, I often play to checkmate or one move prior, especially when my opponent is short of time. In a tournament game at the Spokane Chess Club a few years ago, my early resignation shocked my opponent.

Cambareri,M -- Stripes,J

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Nfd7 6.Bxe7 Qxe7 7.f4 c5 8.Nb5 1-0

I had suffered long in a somewhat better French than this one against Michael several months prior to this game. My confidence in his ability to torture me for two hours and bring home the full point provoked my resignation. I went home to share a bottle of wine with my wife and watch some television.

In contrast, another game several years before this, I fell for a poisoned pawn on b2 and had to give up my queen for a rook. I played on until my opponent checkmated me with two queens. I did set one small stalemate trap a couple of moves before the end.

At the Sixth American Chess Congress, New York 1889, Joseph Henry Blackburne resigned early to Mikhail Chigorin.

Black to move

After 38.Nxf5

Black resigned.

In The Book of the Sixth American Chess Congress (New York, 1891), William Steinitz commented, "Black's game was lost. Still the resignation is chivalrous at this point, for he could have held out for very long" (14).

It is courteous to resign when lost, but there is no rule stating that a player must do so. The determination that a player is lost may be subjective. Sometimes players resign because they have overlooked a resource. There are numerous examples in books of players resigning when the game was still equal.

Outplay Chigorin

A Tough Position

I have shown this position to most of my chess students during the past two weeks. None have solved it, although several have seen checkmate patterns that look promising. The position arose in the thirteenth match game Schiffers -- Chigorin, St. Petersberg 1897.* It also appears in Encyclopedia of Chess Combinations, 5th edition (2014) as number 2386. It was brought to my attention two weeks ago via Renaud and Kahn, The Art of the Checkmate (1953).

Black to move

Mikhail Chigorin played 24...b6 and the game was drawn by repetition ten moves later. Renaud and Kahn point out that Chigorin missed a checkmate in five, and their solution is identical to that given in ECC. However, White has a defensive resource that delays checkmate one move, so it is actually a checkmate in six.

Knowing there is a forced checkmate, I was able to work out the five move solution in a few minutes. The computer showed me the additional defensive resource.

Several of my students found the first move easily, but because they could not find the second move, they revised their first move. Alas, all other first moves by Black allow White to unleash an attack.

I think the final checkmate pattern is hard to imagine from this position and that is why Chigorin and my students missed the combination. The solution was pointed out shortly after the game by R.J. Buckley, according to James Mason, The Art of Chess (1905), 210, where the position was represented by a diagram missing the c2 pawn (see Edward Winter, "Schiffers v Chigorin," Chess Notes 7932 [13 January 2013]).


*This game was Chigorin's foray with Damiano's Defense (see "Opening Disaster: Damiano's Defense").

Chigorin -- Davidov 1874

Early this summer, I faltered in my 2015 goal to work through one game each week from the selection in GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000) by Rashid Ziyatdinov. To some extent my training shifted when Chess Informant 124 arrived, but I also have wasted far too much time playing bullet and blitz. Last Sunday, I resumed my course through Ziyatdinov's book.

I spent several hours Sunday morning going through Chigorin -- Davidov, St. Petersburg 1874. Chigorin played a Muzio Gambit, quickly brought all of his pieces to bear in the attack, and succeeded in checkmating his opponent's king. Davidov's queen's rook was a spectator. Despite White's knight sacrifice, he always had a material advantage in the battle.

Chigorin,Mikhail -- Davidov,Mikhail [C37]
St Petersburg, 1874

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5

How many White moves are playable here? Is one better than the others? 4.Bc4 Seems sensible as it directly attacks f7. It usually leads to the Muzio Gambit with a knight sacrifice, however.

4.h4 has lots of theory.
4.Nc3 is recommended by John Shaw for players seeking a line with less theory.
4.d4 seems playable.

4...g4

4...Nc6 is recommended by John Shaw, The King's Gambit (2013). He thinks that White should not play 4.Bc4, and that Black should not reply 4...g4.

5.0–0

White gives up a knight for rapid development.

5.Ne5 Qh4+ (5...d5) 6.Kf1 saves the piece. (6.g3 fxg3) 6...Nh6.

5...gxf3 6.Qxf3 Qf6

6...Qe7

7.e5 Qxe5

White to move

8.d3

8.Bxf7+ is considered the principled move in the Muzio. However, the text is favored by 1/2 pawn by Stockfish 6, and more than 1/2 pawn by Komodo. 8...Kxf7 9.d4 Qf5 and Black is better, according to Shaw.

Shaw gives a reference game that I found in my database and also identified as of theoretical interest: 10.g4 Qg6 11.Nc3 Nf6 12.Bxf4 d6 13.Bg3 Kg7 14.Nd5 Nxd5 15.Qxd5 Nc6 16.Qc4 d5 17.Qxd5 Be6 18.Qb5 Be7 19.Qxb7 Qe4 20.Rae1 Qxd4+ 21.Rf2 Bd7 22.Qxc7 Bc5 23.Kg2 Qd5+ 24.Rf3 Rhf8 25.Bf4 Rac8 26.c4 Qxf3+ 0–1 Showalter,J--Taubenhaus,J, New York 1889.

8...Bh6 9.Nc3

9.Bd2 was also popular in the nineteenth century.

9...Ne7 10.Bd2 Nbc6 11.Rae1 Qf5

All of White's pieces are mobilized.

White to move

12.Nd5

In my database is a reference game that led to a long struggle and eventually a victory for Black. 12.g4 Rg8 13.h3 Nd4 14.Qf2 Ne6 15.d4 c6 16.Bd3 Qf6 and Black won in 81 moves, Anderssen,A--Neumann,G, Berlin 1866.

12...Kd8

Forced.

13.Bc3 Re8

13...Rg8 was played in two earlier games, and it would not be unreasonable to suppose that Chigorin knew these games. Davidov, too, probably had studied them. 14.Bf6 Bg5

(14...Bf8 led to catastrophe 15.Qe2 Qe6 16.Nxe7 Qxe2 17.Nxc6+ Ke8 18.Rxe2+ 1–0 Cochrane,J--Mahescandra, Kolkata 1854)

15.Rxe7 Bxf6 16.Re4 Bg5 17.g4 Qg6 18.h4 Bxh4 19.Qxf4 d6 20.Qxf7 Qxf7 21.Rxf7 Ne5 22.Rxh7 Nxc4 23.Rxc4 c6 24.Nc7 Rb8 25.Rf4 Be7 26.Rff7 Kxc7 27.Rxe7+ Kb6 28.Rhg7 Rxg7 29.Rxg7 Be6 30.Rg6 Bxa2 31.Rxd6 Rg8 32.Kf2 Rxg4 33.Ke2 Rg2+ 34.Kd1 Bb1 35.c3 Rxb2 0–1 Kolisch,I--Paulsen,L, London 1861.

14.Bf6 Bg5

Perhaps Davidov was remembering the Paulsen win above, but the position is different. Paulsen played 14...d6 is this position. That game went on 15.Bb5 Be6 16.Bxc6 bxc6 17.Bxe7+ Rxe7 18.Nxe7 Qc5+ 19.d4 Qxd4+ 20.Kh1 Kxe7 21.Qxc6 Rc8 22.c3 Qb6 23.Qe4 Rg8 24.Qxh7 Rg6 25.Re2 Qc5 26.Qh8 Kd7 27.Qa8 Qc6 28.Qxc6+ Kxc6 29.b3 Kd7 30.c4 Bf5 31.Rfe1 Re6 32.Kg1 Bg4 33.Re4 Bf5 34.R4e2 Bd3 35.Rxe6 fxe6 36.Kf2 e5 37.g3 fxg3+ 38.hxg3 e4 39.Rh1 Bd2 0–1 Schallopp,E--Paulsen,L, Berlin 1864.

White to move

The game has reached one of the middlegame positions in Ziyatdinov's text.

15.g4 Qg6 16.Bxg5 Qxg5 17.h4 Qxh4 18.Qxf4 d6 19.Nf6

Black to move

Ne5?

19...Rf8 defends against White's short-term threats.

20.Rxe5

With the exchange sacrifice, White falls further behind in the material on the board. However, he maintains an edge with the material in the battle balanced and Black's pieces tied down. Despite the absence of a pawn shield for the White monarch, Black's king is the one under pressure.

One of my students was able to find 20.Rxe5 rather quickly, although he credited the understanding that came from my suggestion that Black should have played 19...Rf8. In training, we often know that a decisive position has been reached in the game we are examining. While playing, these moments are less clear.

20...dxe5 21.Qxe5 Bxg4

21...Bd7 may hold.

22.Qd4+ Kc8

White to move

This position also appears in GM-RAM.

23.Be6+ Kb8

23...Bxe6 24.Qxh4.
23...fxe6 24.Qd7+ Kb8 25.Qxe8+ Nc8 26.Nd7#.

24.Nd7+ Kc8 25.Nc5+ Kb8

25...Bxe6 26.Qxh4.

26.Na6+ bxa6 27.Qb4# 1–0

I found some tactical positions in this game that I was able to use with my students, advancing their knowledge as well as my own. Cochran's miniature and Paulsen's two games offer additional study material and training positions.

The next in the series is Steinitz -- Blackburne, London 1876, first match game.

Some Miniatures

Playing Against Steinitz

Wilhelm Steinitz offered a pawn to Serafino Dubois in their game during the London International Chess Congress,  1862. Johann Lowenthal comments in the tournament book that Dubois "was not to be tempted" (The Chess Congress of 1862 [1864], 102). I was less keen to the dangers while I was reviewing Dubois -- Steinitz in the early morning last week and proceeded to play this move against Hiarcs on the iPad. I lost, but not in a manner that confirms the general consensus concerning the dangers.

Dubois -- Steinitz begins:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc4 4.O-O d6 5.d3 Nf6 6.Bg5?! h6 7.Bh4 g5 8.Bg3

At this point, we have Middle Game Position 168 in GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000) by Rashid Ziyatdinov, which I have been working through since December (see "Game of the Week").

Black to move

GM-RAM Position 168

8...h5!

Steinitz offered a pawn here.

Nineteenth century commentators and Stockfish 6 agree that 9.h4 is best, and that is what Dubois played. ChessBase database has eleven games with 9.Nxg5--all Black wins. The statistics certainly seem grim for snatching the pawn.

The earliest game is Knorre -- Chigorin, St. Petersburg 1874.*

Knorre,Victor -- Chigorin,Mikhail [C50]
St Petersburg, 1874

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.0–0 Nf6 5.d3 d6 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bh4 g5 8.Bg3

Diagram above.

8...h5 9.Nxg5 h4 10.Nxf7 hxg3 11.Nxd8 Bg4 12.Qd2 Nd4

White to move

13.Nc3

There are two games in the ChessBase database with 13.h3. Another game referenced in T.D. Harding and G.S. Botterill, The Italian Game (1977) is absent from this database.

13...Nf3+ 14.gxf3 Bxf3 0–1


Ashley -- Tollit, Birmingham 1923 continues from the diagram with 13.h3

13.h3 Ne2+ 14.Kh1 Rxh3+ 15.gxh3 Bf3# 0-1

This is the game played more recently on at least two occasions (1996 and 2005).

Perhaps, 14.Kh1 is the critical error, however, in this last example. White could have played

14.Qxe2!.

Black to move

After 14...Bxe2 15.Ne6, Black still appears to have an edge, but checkmate no longer seems imminent.

Although the database offers only losses for White after 9.Nxg5, engine analysis of these miniatures and of my play against the iOS version of Hiarcs leaves me wondering whether capturing the offered pawn is a mistake, as asserted by Lowenthal.

James Stripes -- HIARCS [C50]
Spokane, 31.03.2015

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.0–0 d6 5.d3 Nf6 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bh4 g5 8.Bg3 h5 

Position from Dubois -- Steinitz, 1862

9.Nxg5

Black to move

9...Bg4

9...h4 is the critical line in most commentaries. 10.Nxf7 Qe7 11.Nxh8 hxg3 12.Kh1 with an advantage for Black

10.Qd2 Qe7

10...h4

11.Bxf7+ Kd7 12.h4

12.Bh4 might be better.

12...Raf8 13.Bb3

13.Bc4

13...Kc8 14.Nc3 Bb6 15.a4 Bc5

White to move

16.a5

16.Nd5 with a two pawn advantage, I should seek to exchange pieces.

16...Nd4 17.Kh1 Nxb3 18.cxb3 Rhg8

White to move

19.f4

19.a6 may be better, as is 19.f3.

19...Bd7 20.fxe5 dxe5 21.Bf2 Kb8 22.Na4 Bxf2 23.Rxf2 Ng4 24.Rxf8+ Qxf8

White to move

25.Qe2?? Qf4 0–1

Difficult positions provoke errors. On the other hand, a move cannot be deemed an error merely because it invites difficulties. It may be possible to learn to defend such a position. Having an advantage of two pawns often is worth something.


*See Edward Winter, "Confusion," Chess Notes (updated 14 March 2014) for another early instance of this game, and for discussion of problems regarding the game score of Dubois -- Steinitz 1862.

Lesson of the Week

There are some instructive tactics in the game that I chose to highlight for students this week. Most young players will see this game beginning with White's eleventh move.

Charousek,Rudolf Rezso -- Chigorin,Mikhail [C33]
Budapest Budapest (7), 13.10.1896

1.e4 e5 2.f4

The King's Gambit was among the most popular openings in the nineteenth century. It is less popular among top players today, although many Grandmasters play it on occasion. I recommend that beginning players give it a try after they have played the Italian and Spanish openings with some regularity.

2...exf4

This pawn capture is the King's Gambit Accepted. Black has alternatives. The Falkbeer Countergambit (2...d5) is popular among top players.

3.Bc4

3.Nf3 seems the safer approach. But then, the player of the King's Gambit is not looking for safety. Rather aggressive and wild tactical struggles are the norm in this opening.

Nc6

This game was the first with this move.

3...Qh4+ remains among the most popular moves today, as it was when this game was played.
3...Nf6 is fine.

4.d4 Nf6 5.e5 d5 6.Bb3 Bg4

6...Ne4 maye be better.

7.Qd3 Nh5 8.Nh3

The f4 pawn is and will remain a target.

8...Nb4

Black should have considered 8...f3 9.Nf2 fxg2 10.Rg1 Be6.

9.Qc3 Na6?

Chigorin's first real mistake. 9...Qh4+ 10.Nf2 or 9...f3 offer Black better prospects of an equal game.

10.0–0 Be2??

A serious error that offers White a strong attack. Black should have played 10...c6.

White to move

The demonstration board in my clubs will have this position when students arrive.

11.Ba4+! c6

11...Ke7 was a possibility with several branching variations:
12.Nxf4 Nxf4
 (12...Bxf1 13.Nxh5
[13.Qa3+ c5 14.Nxh5]
 13...h6 14.Kxf1
[14.Qa3+ c5 15.Kxf1]
 14...c6)
13.Rxf4

12.Bxc6+

This move may be harder to spot than the previous move. White sacrifices a bishop for two pawns and a decisive attack.

12...bxc6 13.Qxc6+ Ke7 14.Nxf4

14.b3 may be more accurate.

The knight on f4 threatens to capture d5 with check, forcing Black to give up the queen.

14...Nxf4 15.Bxf4

Black to move

15...h6

Preventing the threatened Bg5+.

Black might have tried 15...Bxf1, resulting in 16.Nc3 Bxg2 17.Kxg2 Nb4 18.Bg5+ f6 19.Qb7+ Ke6 20.exf6 Nxc2 21.Rf1±. White has a clear advantage, although it may not be decisive yet.

16.Nc3 Bc4

16...Qc8 may have been better defense 17.Qxc8 Rxc8 18.Nxe2±.

17.e6

Threatens Bd6+. 17.Bg3 opens the f-file.

17...Rc8

17...fxe6 was a better try.

18.Bc7

Black to move

18...fxe6

18...Qxc7 19.Rxf7+ Kd8 20.Rd7+ Ke8 (20...Qxd7 21.Qxd7#) 21.Rxc7+ Kd8 22.Qd7#.
18...Bxf1 19.Bxd8+ Rxd8 20.Re1 f5 21.Qb7+.

19.Bxd8+ Rxd8

19...Kxd8 20.Qxe6 Bxf1 21.Rxf1.

20.Qb7+ Rd7 21.Rf7+ Kxf7 22.Qxd7+ Be7 23.Re1 Re8 24.b3 Kf8 25.bxc4 1–0

Pillsbury -- Lasker, St. Petersburg 1895

Following Harry Nelson Pillsbury's debut at Hastings 1895, winning his first master tournament, he joined three other top players for a six week event in St. Petersburg, Russia. Pillsbury, World Champion Emanuel Lasker, recently deposed World Champion Wilhelm Steinitz, and Mikhail Chigorin each played six games against each of the others. Pillsbury started well, smashing Lasker the first day from the Black side of a Russian Defense.

At the half-way point Pillsbury led Lasker by one-half point. Steinitz was another point behind. Then, in the fourth round, Lasker busted Pillsbury's Queen's Gambit and sent the youth into a slump, losing five of the next eight games. Lasker went on to win the tournament, and Steinitz passed Pillsbury for second place. Pillsbury finished the event with a plus score against Lasker 3 1/2 - 2 1/2, and the same score against Chigorin, but a terrible 1 - 5 against Steinitz.

While going through the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings C67 classification, I grew interested in the second cycle game Pillsbury -- Lasker. It is the main reference game for line 5 of C67.

Opening study provoked my interest in this game, but the endgame sustained it.

The opening line in ECO ends with equality, but Pillsbury outplayed Lasker in the endgame. Lasker had a bishop for Pillsbury's knight, and there were pawns on both sides of the board. Lasker's bishop was rendered impotent through Pillsbury's precise play and a few errors by Lasker. The ChessBase Monograph CD World Champion Emanuel Lasker (2002) has this game annotated (in German) by Karsten Müller.

As near as I can tell, Steve Meyer, Bishop Versus Knight: The Verdict (1997) lacks analysis of this game. Nor can I locate a reference to it in Karsten Müller, and Frank Lamprecht, Fundamental Chess Endings (2001). Nonetheless, it is an important and instructive ending.

Pillsbury,Harry Nelson -- Lasker,Emanuel [C67]
St Petersburg 1895-1896, St Petersburg (2.3), 25.12.1895

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0–0 Nxe4 5.d4 Be7 6.Qe2 Nd6 7.Bxc6 bxc6 8.dxe5 Nb7 9.b3 0–0 10.Bb2 d5 11.exd6 cxd6 12.Nbd2 Bf6 13.Bxf6 Qxf6 14.Rfe1 Nc5 15.Ne4 Nxe4 16.Qxe4 Bd7 17.c4 Rfe8

White to move

From this point, ECO continues to move 20 in the notes, giving equality for the diagram, and for the end of the quoted line. No other game in ChessBase online continues with 12...Bf6, and only two continue with 12...Re8. Müller notes that 6.Qe2 is played only sporadically in our era, although it was popular in the late nineteenth century. The ChessBase database reveals that 9.b3 is a rare move, even though that move is commonly found in lines of the Berlin Defense that contain 5...Be7.

18.Qd4 Rxe1+ 19.Rxe1 Qxd4 20.Nxd4 Kf8

According to Müller, "the resulting endgame should be balanced."

21.Kf1

Black to move

21...a5

Andrew Soltis, and Ken Smith, Pillsbury the Extraordinary (1990) offer brief comments on this game, which the authors note, is "not published often due to four slight mistakes by Lasker" (27). Soltis, Why Lasker Matters (2005) does not mention this game, but offers Lasker's critical win over Pillsbury at the start of the fourth cycle. Soltis and Smith opine that 21...a5 was Lasker's second mistake, noting "this pawn will become weak" (27). They do not offer an alternative.

Should Black have tried 21...a6, placing the isolated pawn on a square where it can be protected by the bishop? Perhaps the immediate 21...Re8 is better.

Black's bishop has no targets, and there is no way for him to fix a chain of White pawns on light squares. Is Black already worse in this ending?

Lasker's move threatened a5-a4, when he might be able to swap off his weakest pawn. Pillsbury quickly put an end to this plan.

22.a4 Re8 23.Rxe8+ Kxe8

White to move

Now the rooks are gone.

24.Ke2 Kd8 25.Kd2 Kc7 26.Kc3 Kb6 27.f4

Müller notes that 27.b4 would have been a blunder.

27...h5 28.h3 Kc5

White to move

While Soltis and Smith find fault with Lasker's 27...h5, Müller begins his serious analysis with move 29.

29.f5 g6

Müller, "Vermutlich unterschätzte er die Wendigkeit des weißen Springers." Lasker probably underestimated the maneuverability of the white knight. Müller marks White's 29.f5 as dubious, but offers no alternative. 29...g6 is an error. After 29...d5! Black can play for a win, according to Müller.

30.f6 d5 31.cxd5 Kxd5

Müller suggest 31...exd5, offering a line in which both Black's a-pawn and White's f-pawn are destined to promote on the same move. He evaluates the line as equal.

32.Nf3 Ke6 33.Nd2 Kxf6 34.Nc4

Black to move

34...h4

Müller marks this move as dubious, suggesting 34...Kg5 as more accurate. Playing out his suggestion against Stockfish 3, I was able to find 35.Nb6 Bf5 36.b4 axb4+ 37.Kxb4 c5+ (an essential clearance sacrifice) 38.Kxc5 Be4 (a critical fork) 39.g3 h4 40.gxh4+ Kxh4 41.Nd5 (as in the game, attempting to obstruct the bishop's efforts) 41...f5 (if White's pawn cannot be stopped, Black's, too, will promote) 42.a5 Bxd5 43.Kxd5 f4 44.a6 f3 45.a7 f2 =.

35.Nxa5 Ke5?

This error allows White's knight to gain a tempo attacking the king. In pawn races, tempo can be everything (as everyone knows who reads Mark Dvoretsky, Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual).

After 35...Kg5, Müller gives 36.Kd4 Kf4 37.Nc4 Kg3 38.Nb6 Bg4 39.a5 Be2.

36.Nc4+

White has a decisive advantage.

Black to move

36...Kf4 37.Nb6

The knight harasses the bishop, gaining time.

Bf5 38.Kd4 Be4 39.a5 c5+ 40.Kxc5 Bxg2

White to move

The bishop appears helpless to stop White's a-pawn, while Black's pawns have too far to go.

41.a6 g5 42.Nd5+ Ke5 43.Ne3 Bf3 44.b4

Black to move

44...Ke6

44...f5 seems like the best try. However, after 45.b5 g4 46.Nxg4+! fxg4 47.b6 g3 48.b7, and Black's king must step out of the coming check, which gives White time to cover g1.

45.b5 Be2 46.Nd5 1–0

In Lasker's Manual of Chess, the World Champion wrote about his loss of time in the opening (a French Defense) in another instructive loss to Pillsbury: Pillsbury -- Lasker, Nuremburg 1896. That game is frequently annotated. This less well-known game, however, is an excellent illustration of time in an ending of bishop versus knight. The bishop's ability to waste time is often an advantage, but here Lasker's errors in the placement of his king rendered his cleric impotent.

Opening Subtelty: An Historical Transposition

While preparing last week's "Lesson of the Week," I sought to identify where things started to go wrong for Thomas Wilson Barnes. Valeri Beim (Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective) offers reference to an instructive later game, but more can be said in comparison.

Barnes,Thomas Wilson -- Morphy,Paul [C77]
London m1 London, 1858

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6

As Beim notes, this game was the first time that Paul Morphy played what came to be known as the Morphy Defense. The move had been played twice previously by Charles Henry Stanley in the first U.S. Championship, which was held in New Orleans in Morphy's youth. Stanley lost both games. The move was played a few other times between those games and this one with two Black wins.

White to move

4.Ba4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Nd5

Black to move

6...b5

Beim marks Morphy's sixth move as dubious. He recommends 6...Ba5 and references Tarrasch -- Chigorin, St. Petersburg (m7), 1893. However, 6...Ba5 was also played in the fifth game of that match, which Tarrasch won in 26 moves. Chigorin won game 7. In game 7, Chigorin omitted 7...b5.

In his comments on game 5, Siegbert Tarrasch recommends 6...Be7, "as on a5 this Bishop will remain inactive throughout the game" (Three Hundred Chess Games: Dreihundert Schachpartien, trans, Sol Schwarz, 285).

I recall Dennis Monokrousses mentioning in one of his videos that Black should play b5 only after White protects the e-pawn. Only then is there a credible threat to win Black's e-pawn by exchanging the light-squared bishop for the c6 knight. That has been my rule of thumb.

The diagram position has been rare (49 games in ChessBase Online). Tarrasch's recommended 6...Be7 has been the most frequent move (16 games), while 6...Bc5 (15 games) has been the most successful (46.7% score for White). The number of games, most of which are not from master play, is too small to draw conclusions from statistics.

7.Bb3 d6 8.0–0 Bg4 9.c3 Ba5

White to move

This position already seems difficult for White. While the comments in my two reference books focus upon inaccuracies in Black's play, White also has some problems. The pin on the knight is a source of irritation. In the Italian Opening and some lines of the Spanish, White plays h3 after Black's d6 to prevent such a pin. White's undefended e-pawn also draws attention.

In the Lesson of the Week, Black's misplaced dark-squared bishop asserted an important pin along the a7-g1 diagonal. Morphy's final maneuver to f4 with this piece was central to the lesson. Of course, that finish remains a long way off from the opening position. Knowing the conclusion of even a short game does not answer questions concerning the advantage at this stage.

Nonetheless, I did not like Barnes' move here, and I sought to find an improvement.

10.d4?

We know the rest of Barnes -- Morphy from the Lesson of the Week.

When I found 10.d3!, I discovered to my surprise a transposition to a later game: the fifth match game of Tarrasch -- Chigorin. Tarrasch played 9.d3 and 10.c3.

The position differs after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Nd5 Ba5 7.0–0 b5?! (see comments above) 8.Bb3 d6, where Tarrasch played 9.d3. Nonetheless, his comment has bearing on consideration of Barnes -- Morphy.

9.d3 "is better than 9.d4, which is recommended by the Handbook.* After 9.d4 Bg4! 10.c3 Qd7, White's game is not as comfortable as after 9.d3" (Three Hundred Chess Games, 285).

Black to move

We now shift to game 5 of Tarrasch -- Chigorin.

10...Ne7

Tarrasch calls this move the decisive error, recommending 10...Nd7 "although even then White's position is more solid" (285).

11.Nxe5! dxe5

Black must leave the queen alone 11...Bxd1 12.Nxf6+ gxf6 13.Bxf7+ Kf8 14.Bh6# is the line given by Tarrasch.

12.Nxf6+ gxf6 13.Qxg4

What a contrast this game offers to Barnes -- Morphy. In the earlier game, White's castled king suffered the opening of the g-file. In this game, a half-open g-file helps keep the Black king in the center.

Black to move

13...Ng6 14.Bd5 Rb8 15.f4 c6 16.Bxc6+ Ke7 17.Bd5 b4 18.fxe5 Qb6+ 19.Kh1 Nxe5 20.Qh5 Ng6

White to move

21.Rxf6 Kxf6 22.Bg5+ Kg7 23.Qh6+ Kg8 24.Rf1 Rf8 25.Bf6 Qxf6 26.Rxf6 1–0

Although both games offer errors aplenty, it is worth remembering that by playing 10.d4, Barnes missed a key opportunity to transpose into the future. Had he done so, he might have left history with a very different model game for Paul Morphy's initial use of the Morphy Defense.


*Tarrasch refers to Handbuch des Schachspiels, edited by Tassilo von der Lasa. See "Learning from Errors: Adolf Anderssen".

French Defense: King's Indian Attack

The Modern French: A Complete Guide for Black (2012) by Dejan Antic and Branimir Maksimovic begins with the King's Indian Attack. I have had a few memorable games on the Black side of this opening. All of them required more than the usual amount of work through the first ten moves. Nonetheless, my results have been reasonable. In four games, I have one loss and three draws. Two draws were against substantially higher rated players. My rating average through the four games was 1707; my opponents' average was 1861. Now that I am 1970, however, it becomes time to convert those draws into wins. The first ten moves must become easier.

Before diving into Antic and Maksimovic's work, it seems worthwhile to orient myself to the main lines of theory through Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (ECO). The code C 00 covers several moves other than 2.d4 against the French. 2.Qe2 is covered in lines 7-8. Michael Hosford, Steve Merwin, and Scott Smyth all played that line against me. I responded each time with 2...Be7, which ECO gives in the notes. 2...c5 is the main line. The Modern French does not address 2.Qe2.

In my game against Merwin, he opted for an old line employed by Mikhail Chigorin in the 1890s, and I shifted from a French to a Sicilian in my plans. He launched a strong assault on my king, misplayed the attack, and let me escape with a draw.

Black to move

ECO gives Chigorin -- Tarrasch, Petersburg 1893, 14th match game, which continued 3...d5 4.Bb2 Bf6 5.e5 Be7.

My game with Merwin (Collyer Memorial, Spokane 2009) continued 3...c5 4.Bb2 Nf6 5.Nf3N.

Hosford and I (Collyer Memorial, Spokane 2006) reached a position after move six that is given in line 12 of ECO.

1.e4 e6 2.Qe2 (2.d3 d5 3.Qe2 Nf6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.g3 c5 6.Bg2 Nc6 is the move order in ECO) 2...Be7 3.Nf3 d5 4.d3 Nf6 5.g3 c5 6.Bg2 Nc6.

This line is the first one examined in The Modern French. I lost the game against Hosford. My study today begins with this position.