Down a Rabbit Hole

My plans to race through 300 chess positions in 60 days took a detour this morning. At 5:50 am, I started the coffee and opened 300 Most Important Chess Positions to number 6. My study of this position did not cease until 8:00 am.

Although this position, like those from Paul Morphy’s games that I looked at yesterday, is one I’ve examined in previous partial readings of Thomas Engqvist’s book, today it raised questions that kept me hunting for more.

The position arose after Black on move 4 brings the bishop to f5, “(too) early”, Willy Hendriks wrote in The Ink War: Romanticism versus Modernity in Chess (2022), 338. Hendricks speculates that William Steinitz may have expected 5.c5, similar to game one via a different move order. But Johannes Zukertort sought to punish the inaccuracy with 5.cxd5 and Steinitz soon brought the bishop back to its starting square.

As late as 2011, Cyrus Lakdawala in The Slav: Move by Move asserted that 4…Bf5, the Reversed London, was unplayable after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 because of the problems Black faced in Zukertort — Steinitz, New York 1886, the fifth game of the first official world championship. Lakdawala notes, "Black experiences difficulties defending both b7 and d5." He offers four options and concludes that 6...Bc8 is best.

But, no less than three high level games were played in 2012 with a move that Lakdawala did not mention. With this “revolutionary improvement” that Engqvist presents vie Wojtaszek — Wang Yue, White’s queen snatches a pawn and then gets driven back to its starting square. “Black has good compensation since he is ahead in development and has seized the initiative” (16).

While taking the first sip of yesterday’s microwaved coffee (before the fresh pot of French press was ready), I decided correctly on Black’s initial move from the position, but then found the errors in the first line that I considered to chase the queen back. In both the line I began with and the one played by Wang Yue and other masters, the bishop retreats from f5.

5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3

Position 6 in Engqvist

6…Nc6!

This move is the improvement over the old main line, 6…Bc8.

7.Qxb7 Bd7

7…Na5, which I considered first, has not been played, but not by masters. I saw 8.Bb5+ Bd7 9.Bxd7+ Nxd7 10.Qxd5 and it is clear that dropping two pawns was not Black’s idea.

8.Qb3 Rb8 9.Qd1 e5!

White to move

This is where Engqvist’s analysis ends. I could have stopped there, but the sequence leading to the position first grabbed my interest, then the lines played prior to 2012 sent me searching through books and databases. During two hours, I explored the opening tree and several games on chessgames.com, utilized the ChessBase iPad app, and then turned on my computer where I have three ebooks on the Slav Defense resident within ChessBase.

I looked at several games with the bishop retreating to c8. I explored move order nuances reaching the initial position. There is much to learn even though the basic concept Engqvist wants the reader to see is simple: through a somewhat logical developing move in what seems a difficult position, Black sacrificed a pawn for the initiative.

Wojtaszek — Wang Yue was played in October 2012. In May, Sabino Brunello was the first to play Black’s idea. In the Italian Team Championship, Black got a lasting initiative and prevailed through a tactical melee against Csaba Horvath. John Shaw also played Black’s idea in August at the Istanbul Olympiad against Luc Winants. Wang Yue was at that event.

The other four positions that I hope to examine today are all among those I have examined in the past. I recall that one or two of the others have also sent me down some rabbit holes. There is wisdomn in Engqvist's suggestion that the reader study five positions per week, rather than race through the book the way I am struggling to achieve.

Unsourced Quote

Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, Part 1 offers a quote that he attributes to Lasker. He does not indicate whether Emanuel or Edward. Nor does he indicate the text where the quote appears. The brief reference list in Part V lists nothing by either Lasker. Two weeks ago I noted criticism of Kasparov's My Great Predecessors for poor documentation in "Plagiarism and Related Crimes".

The quote comes at the end of Kasparov’s brief discussion of Gioachino Greco, where he presents four games with light annotations to the fourth.

The masters of that time found a sound and fruitful plan: disregarding pawns, achieve a rapid development of the pieces for a swift attack on the enemy king. To oppose this, a counter-plan was worked out: develop the pieces in solid positions, accept the sacrifices and then win thanks to material superiority. The masters of the first type found and carried out brilliant combinations, whereas the second type discovered the Giuoco Piano, the fianchetto and the Sicilian Defense. (12)

It is an interesting narrative that would benefit from some illustrative examples.

I would like to locate the original source of this quote. Was it in an article or a book? I do not recall seeing this sort of historical discussion by Emanuel Lasker in Common Sense in Chess nor in Lasker’s Manual of Chess, although the assertion does seem preliminary to Lasker’s purpose in the latter to explicate and build upon ideas of positional play credited to William Steinitz.

Can anyone help?

Edit:

Eight hours after posting I found a version of the quote. No doubt, Kasparov is working from a Russian translation of Lasker’s original German. I am working from Lasker’s English edition, which he wrote because he thought a translation would be too literal to remain faithful. The quote derives from Lasker’s Manual of Chess (1947). I am using the 1960 Dover paperback edition.

The modern history of the art of planning began at the time of the Renaissance in Italy. The Italian Masters of that period conceived a fertile and sound plan: to get the pieces rapidly into play, to leave the pawns out of consideration and to institute a sudden and vehement attack against the king. The counter-play on its part did not fail in evolving an antagonistic plan: to develop the pieces and post them at safe points, to accept the sacrifices and to exchange the threatening pieces of the opponent, add to win by superiority in material force. The masters of the attack invented the brilliant combinations which began by cramping the king and proceeded to sacrifices in order to gain time and space for a direct assault on the king. The masters of the defense invented the systematic exchange of pieces which decreases the vigour of the hostile onslaught and at last breaks it. The masters of the fierce attack, discovered the Gambits, those of the defense the Giuoco Piano, the Fianchetti Openings, and the Sicilian Defense. (179-180)

Even accounting for differences in translation, it appears that Kasparov edited the passage slightly.

Progressing Through

After announcing in "Try, Try, Again" my resolve to play through the whole of the games section in Chess Informant 152, I have felt a sense of responsibility. Initially, I was racing through the games as Jeremy Silman appears to advocate, but I slowed down (see "Quality"). My routine has developed into one that satisfies me. I play through the games quickly, but with enough attention that I can write a few words in the margins of the print text for later review. I have also extracted key positions from a number of games that became lessons for my students.

This morning I compiled some data on my progress.

The numbers on the spreadsheet are approximate and low. They were compiled mainly through ChessBase's history feature. They do not include games that I played through on Lichess, Chess.com, or Chessgames.com. I used all of these sites, as well as FICS Database while writing my article yesterday on a Greco game that I know well (see "Following Greco").

Since 7 September, I have been through the first 80 games (there are 201) in Informant 152. With annotations that are full and partial games, that includes at least the opening phase of 113 games. In addition, I have been through 133 other games from books or database search. I have also looked at a considerable number of my own games, although the vast majority was only a specific endgame position in the game.

The principal reason I have not successfully completed the project of playing through all games in any given Informant in the past is that other projects crowd in. The past few days I have again begun a project of playing through all of the games in Irving Chernev, The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess (1955).

Last night I downloaded a PGN file of the games in Chernev's book for playing through on my iPad. I play through a game and then read what Chernev wrote. I went through 40 games in this manner last night and another 10 this morning. I expect to create this week's chess lessons for my students from Chernev's collection off miniatures.

After starting with Chernev, I spent half an hour or so going through games 76-80 in Informant 152.

I go through each game without seeing the game score or annotations. Often I am trying to predict the moves. For some games, I then go through the game again with notation visible and play through some or all of the analytical variations. After recording a thought or two in the margins of my print copy, I move on to the next game.

The game Inarkiev -- Sakaev, Russia 2022, 152/80 received my comment, "reminds me of a line by Steinitz". I'm thinking of his comment that the king can take care of himself. The game was drawn.

After 27.Kf3

Outpost

The concept of an outpost square in chess varies somewhat in chess literature. Aron Nimzowitsch often gets credit for introducing the  concept in My System (1925).* For Nimzowitsch, outposts are connected to play on open files. He presents the following position.

White to move

The key move, Nimzowitsch writes, is Nd5, "and the knight here placed we call the outpost; by which we mean a piece, usually a knight, established in an open file in enemy territory, and protected (of course by a pawn)" (32). This move provokes black to drive the knight back with c6, a move which weakens the d-pawn.

A contrasting definition of outpost is given by David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld in The Oxford Companion to Chess (1992). In their definition, an outpost is a square, "guarded by a pawn but cannot be attacked by an enemy pawn, especially such a square on an open file" (285). That the square cannot be assailed by an enemy pawn is central to Peter Romanovsky's description of the "eternal knight". In Chess Middlegame Planning, trans. Jimmy Adams (1990), Romanovsky suggests conditions when a piece might be placed permanently on a weak point in the opponent's position:

And so the potential weakness of a square arises as a result of the impossibility of attacking it with pawns. However, such a square should only be considered a real weakness when an enemy piece, which it will not be possible to drive away or eliminate by an exchange, threatens to take up a position. (37)

Such a position was reached in a game presented by Romanovsky, Izmailov -- Kasparian, Moscow 1931. After 25...Nd4, Black's knight is unassailable.

White to move

The knight does not sit on an open file, as Nimzowitsch's definition would lead us to expect. Romanovsky does not employ the term outpost, but highlights the concept through "weak squares" and the "eternal knight".

Hooper and Whyld also refer readers to their entry on the concept of "hole", "a square on a player's third rank or beyond that cannot be guarded by a pawn" (175). The concept, they state originates from the writing of Wilhelm Steinitz. He writes in The Modern Chess Instructor (1889) that he first used the term in The International Chess Magazine (November 1886). In Steinitz, we find the concept of an outpost square, albeit without the term later used by Nimzowitsch:

...not alone the weakness on one single pawn but also that of one single square into which any hostile man can be planted with commanding effect, will cause great trouble, and often the loss of the game, and that by proper management of the pawns such points of vantage need not be opened for the opponent. (xxxix)

Steinitz gives the opening moves 1.e4 e5 2.c4 as creating permanent weaknesses for White on d3 and d4, even anticipating Nimzowitsch's focus on open files: "A hole or a weak square are still more troublesome when the opponent is enabled to open the file on which they are situated for his queens and rooks" (xxxix).

The Lesson

Several of my students this past week were presented a lesson concerning outposts that I extracted from Michael Stean, Simple Chess (1978). Stean offers a nuanced definition: "a square at the forefront of your position which you can readily support and from where you can control or contest squares in the heart of the enemy camp," mentioning both a supporting pawn and that the opponent cannot attack the position with pawns (13). He offers five illustrative games with informative annotations. I selected one position from each game, presented the position to my students, and we played from there. Then we looked at the game as played.

In Stean's first illustrative game, Tal -- Bronstein, Tbilisi 1959, Black contested White's efforts to establish a knight on d5. When the knight went there anyway, it provoked a series of exchanges that led to a superior endgame for Tal. The second game, Benko -- Najdorf, Los Angeles 1963, offers a well-placed forward knight on f5 and an open h-file for White's heavy pieces.

White to move

Benko opened a line for the queen to join the rooks on the h-file with 24.f4! Najdorf resigned a couple of moves later. A couple of my students tried 24.Rh7, and one was able to beat me in a queen and pawn ending after quite a few moves.

Stean's selection shows a range of tactical opportunities that were facilitated through battles focused on outposts and concludes with Unzicker -- Fischer, Varna 1962 where Fischer successfully prevented Unzicker's efforts to deploy a knight to a d5 outpost.

*I am using the 1947 David McKay edition, translated by Philip Hereford and revised by Fred Reinfeld.

The Tarrasch Trap

I mentioned the "Tarrasch Trap" in annotations to Capablanca -- Lasker, game 3 in the World Championship match in Havana, March-April 1921. This possibility was noted by American Chess Bulletin as something that Lasker had to avoid in that game. There are, in fact, two Tarrasch Traps in the Spanish opening. The one that is our concern here is sometimes called the Dresden Trap because Siegbert Tarrasch played it against Georg Marco there in a tournament in summer 1892.

In Tarrasch's annotations to this game in Dreihundert Schachpartien (1896), he noted, "it is an exact copy of the analysis given by me in the February edition of the Schachzeitung" (248).* The referenced analysis was in the form of an annotation on the second game of the 1891 World Championship match between Isidor Gunsberg and Wilhelm Steinitz. This was published as "Partieen aus dem Wettkampf Gunsberg-Steinitz", Deutsches Schachzeitung 46, no. 2 (February 1891), 41-56.

Gunsberg,Isidor -- Steinitz,William [C60]
World Championship, New York (2), 11.12.1890
[Tarrasch]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6

The Spanish game is, theoretically at least, difficult to defend, because in most variants White has the advantage that his king's bishop is better than Black's. Steinitz currently considers the present defense to be the best; However, it gives the player a rather cramped and pressed game, which is why I prefer the usual move Nf6.

4.c3

A stronger attack is 4.d2-d4; if Black takes the pawn, attractive play develops after Nd4: with Nc3, O-O and Bb2!, which gives White an excellent game (cf. the game Tarrasch - Blackburne, Schachzeitung, November 1890). It is best to omit the exchange on c6 completely in order not to remove the tension, but can also (exceptionally) take advantage of the king's bishop, because in this type of game the knights will prove to be very strong--occasionally one gets to f5 and from there already threatens the position of the Black king, which is also threatened by the open line of the queen's bishop.

But if Black avoids the pawn swap in the fourth move, then, according to Steinitz, the following swap itself leads to a position that is advantageous for White: 4...Bd7 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.0-0 Be7 7.Bxc6.

This variant can be made even more compelling 7.Re1! 0-0 8.Bxc6 Bxc6 9.dxe5 dxe5 10.Qxd8 Raxd8 11.Nxe5 Bxe4 12.Nxe4 Nxe4 13.Nd3 f5 14.f3 Bc5+ 15.Nxc5! Nxc5 16.Bg5 and White wins the exchange through the threat Be7.

Also through 16...Rd5 nothing is to be changed because of 17.Be7 -- with the idea 18.c4. Tarrasch offers detailed analysis after 15.Kf1 instead of 15.Nxc5: 15...Bb6 16.fxe4 (16.Nf4 Nd2+) 16...fxe4+ 17.Nf4 g5 18.Rxe4 gxf4 19.Ke2 (19.Bxf4 Rd2; 19.Rxf4 Rd1+ 20.Ke2 Rxf4 21.Kxd1 Rf2 and Black is better) 19...Rfe8 20.Rxe8+ Rxe8+ 21.Kf3 Re1 22. -- threatening Be3.

The rest of Gunsberg -- Steinitz is not our present interest. Nor are Tarrasch's annotations to the rest of this game, which are detailed.

7...Bxc6 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.Qxd8+ Rxd8 10.Nxe5 Bxe4 11.Nxe4 Nxe4 12.Re1] 4...Bd7 5.0-0 Nge7 6.d4 Ng6 7.d5 Nb8 8.Bxd7+ Nxd7 9.Na3 Be7 10.Nc2 Nc5 11.Qe2 Qd7 12.b4 Na4 13.Bd2 0-0 14.c4 f5 15.exf5 Qxf5 16.Rac1 Rae8 17.Nfe1 Bg5 18.g3 Nc3 19.Bxc3 Bxc1 20.Ng2 Qf3 21.Qxf3 Rxf3 22.Nge3 Bxe3 23.Nxe3 Ref8 24.Kg2 c6 25.Bb2 cxd5 26.Nxd5 Rd3 27.Bc1 b5 28.Ne3 bxc4 29.Nxc4 Rd4 30.Ne3 Rxb4 31.Rd1 Rb1 32.Ba3 Rxd1 33.Nxd1 Rd8 34.f3 d5 35.Nc3 d4 36.Ne4 Rb8 37.h4 h5 38.Kf2 Rb1 39.Bd6 Rb2+ 0-1

We now look more closely at the annotations in Deutsches Schachzeitung through Tarrasch -- Marco, Dresden 1892, a game played eighteen months after the analysis was published. This game followed the main line of Tarrasch's 1891 annotations, and he later reproduced the variations mentioned in 1891 in Dreihundert Schachpartien.

Tarrasch,Siegbert -- Marco,Georg [C66]
DSB Kongress-07 Meisterturnier Dresden (7.3), 22.07.1892
[Tarrasch]

Annotations are from Dreihundert Schachpartien, except two references to Chess Informant's Encyclopedia of Chess Miniatures.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.d4 Bd7 5.Nc3 Be7 6.0-0 Nf6 7.Re1

Black to move

7...0-0

After this move Black is lost. Better is 7...exd4 but it is not good enough to equalize. Annotations of this game in Encyclopedia of Chess Miniatures (2015) continues: 8.Nxd4 0-0 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Bf1with a slight advantage for White.

8.Bxc6 Bxc6

8...bxc6 Black loses a pawn.

9.dxe5 dxe5 10.Qxd8 Raxd8

10...Rfxd8 11.Nxe5 Bxe4 12.Nxe4 Nxe4 13.Nd3 f5 14.f3 Bc5+ 15.Kf1 White would have a plus (see below at annotations to move 15). Encyclopedia of Chess Miniatures offers this line as concluding with a decisive advantage for White.

11.Nxe5 Bxe4 12.Nxe4 Nxe4

White to move

13.Nd3 f5 14.f3 Bc5+

White to move

15.Nxc5

15.Kf1 would yield no advantage because of 15...Bb6 16.fxe4 (Or 16.Nf4 Nd2+) 16...fxe4+ 17.Nf4 g5 18.Rxe4 gxf4

Analysis diagram

19.Ke2 (19.Bxf4 Rd2; 19.Rxf4 Rd1+ 20.Ke2 Rxf4 21.Kxd1 Rf2) 19...Rfe8 20.Rxe8+ Rxe8+.

15...Nxc5

White to move

16.Bg5 Rd5 17.Be7

 Not 17.c4 at once because of 17...Rd7 18.Be7 Nd3

1-0 Black resigned here as on 17...Re8 (or 17...Rf7) White wins the exchange by 18.c4. This game is an important contribution to the refutation of Steinitz's 3...d6. It is an exact copy of the analysis given by me in the February edition of the Schachzeitung.

As noted in Friday's post, other books offer annotations of this game. There was also a lively discussion several years ago at chessgames.com.

*Siegbert Tarrasch, Three Hundred Chess Games (Dreihundert Schachpartien), trans. Sol Schwarz (1999).

Howard Staunton

On the Origin of Good Moves Reading Log*

In The Chess-Player's Handbook (1847), Howard Staunton asserts, "in chess, as in modern warfare, one of the most important strategems is the art of gaining time upon the enemy" (48-49). This assertion could well be considered central to the foundation of the articulation of positional chess, but Staunton does not get such credit.

Time served as a "factor" in Siegbert Tarrasch's articulation of what many have taken to be a continuation of William Steinitz's modern theory. He stated, "Force, Space and Time work together at every move" (The Game of Chess [1935], 231). Later, pawn structure was added to Tarrasch's formulation, and these became the essence of "development" (see "Principle of Development: Early History"). These were the factors that I learned in my youth, and then found anew as I was returning to chess after about a decade of minimal play, and read some of Yasser Seirawan's exceptional "Winning" series published by Microsoft Press in the 1990s. I recall Wesley So telling Seirawan during one of the Wijk aan Zee broadcasts that these texts gave him his foundation.

Time remains vital to Dan Heisman's nearly iconoclastic Elements of Positional Evaluation, rev. ed. (1999), where he lists mobility, flexibility, vulnerability, center control, piece coordination, time, and speed. Heisman considers notions of space, pawn structure, and development as "pseudo-elements". In Heisman's brief synopsis of the history of positional theory, he claims that after Andre Danican Philidor, the next contribution to theory was the play of Paul Morphy, skipping over Staunton.

Who mentions time prior to Staunton? Research might reveal that it was Giaochino Greco, although I cannot point to a passage in his manuscripts where this is the case. I do vaguely recall the concept articulated in some annotations by William Lewis, and Staunton was certainly familiar with the works of Lewis. Following this assertion concerning time, Staunton suggests the relevance of the art of warfare for chess with reference to Traité de Grand Tactique (1805) by Antoine-Henri Jomini, who served under Napoleon as well as other leadership capacities elsewhere in Europe. Staunton's lessons from Jomini, the art of war:

...consisted in the proper application of three combinations--first, the art of disposing the lines of operation in the most advantageous manner; secondly, in a skillful concentration of the forces with the greatest possible rapidity upon the most important point of the enemy's line of operations; and thirdly, that of combining the simultaneous employment of this accumulated force upon the position in which it is directed. (49)

Staunton implies that the application of these principles of war to the game of chess ought to be self-explanatory. Perhaps this failure of elaboration is what excludes him from narratives of the development of chess theory. But, if so, why does Steinitz get so much credit? The Modern Chess Instructor (1889) is even more paltry in its elaboration of principles of positional play.

Willy Hendriks, On the Origin of Good Moves (2020) does not elevate Staunton's reputation as a theorist in his short chapter, which concentrates on the second match between Staunton and Pierre de Saint-Amant (76-88). He does, however, claim that Staunton's contribution to the development of chess skill among those who followed him were manifested in three ways. The first is the role of newspaper columns.

In the quiz that begins the chapter, Hendriks presents this position and an intriguing question.

White to move

His question is derived from a challenge that Staunton offered to his opponent in a battle of analysis in chess periodicals, Le Palamède edited by Saint-Amant and Chess Player’s Chronicle by Staunton. Would you be willing to take the Black side in a series of six games? How much would you be willing to bet on the outcome?

Saint-Amant asserted that Black has an attack and a clearly superior position. Staunton disagreed. Staunton did lose the game, but Hendriks suggests that his loss was due to a subsequent tactical adventure that led no where.

Edward Winter wrote about the controversy in "Staunton v. Saint-Amant", Chess Notes 5709 (10 August 2008). This article forms the source for annotations to this game in ChessBase Mega2020. Hendriks develops his narrative of the word wars through the work of Nick Pope at Chess Archaeology. The emergence of chess columns in newspapers, and then specialized chess magazines, in the first half of the nineteenth century, Hendriks asserts, began to improve the level of chess skill. Staunton's Chess Player's Chronicle is prominent among them, as was Le Palamède. Staunton's second contribution is found in his books. Then, in 1851, Staunton organized the first international chess tournament.

Hendriks core argument in the chapter disputes an assertion of Harry Golombek that the quality of play in the Staunton -- Saint-Amant matches was "much superior" to the McDonnell -- De Labourdonnais matches (77). Hendriks shows that there was an abundance of errors in the latter, as there had been the previous decade when the top French player met the top British player.

Hendriks' exercises at the start of the chapter and his analysis of the games from which they were derived sent me into the databases to play through with some rapidity all 27 games from the two matches. To be honest, I found that exercise to be a chore. Aside from a few interesting endgames, the play of neither gentleman inspired me. On the Origin of Good Moves extracts the most interesting moments. My criticism of the chapter is that Hendriks only vaguely references the fact that the match he focused on was the second between the two men. His assertions that Staunton was clearly the superior player should not overlook Saint-Amant's victory in the much shorter first match.

*See "On the Origin: Reading Journal".

On the Origin: Reading Journal

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested; that is, some books are to be read only in parts; others to be read, but not curiously; and some few to be read wholly, and with diligence and attention.
Francis Bacon, "Of Studies" (1625)

Willy Hendriks, On the Origin of Good Moves (2020) arrived yesterday. I spent an hour last night and a bit more than an hour this morning leafing through the whole book, reading a few pages here and there. Then I reread the chapter on Greco. I had read the Kindle sample in June after Brian Karen asked me about this book in reference to my post on the Chess Book Collectors's Facebook page concerning Peter J. Monté, The Classical Era of Modern Chess (2014). Do look at "Monumental Scholarship: Notes Toward a Book Review" for my initial assessment of Monté's text. Hendriks' book looked interesting, so I preordered the paperback. It shipped Tuesday on the date listed by Amazon as the publication date.

Although I use almost every one of my nearly 400 chess books principally as reference works and rarely read one all the way through, On the Origin of Good Moves may join the small rank of exceptions. In order to encourage myself to keep at it, this post begins a reading journal on my progress.

Hendriks has an ambitious agenda to challenge the common notion that William Steinitz initiated the modern notions of positional play. This myth, he argues, is the work of Emanuel Lasker. He states that he wanted to write a whodunnit, but self-deprecates his writing abilities and so identifies the culprit immediately (10). Even so, Hendriks's take concerning the development of chess history is about the details more than the plot.

He also begins by noting the recapitulation theory of chess development offered by Max Euwe, Garry Kasparov, and others. I summarized this view in my 2013 workbook for students in my summer chess camp, "Dragon Chess Camp 2013: Learning from the First Chess Masters":

No one is born a chess master. Euwe suggests that an individual player's growth from beginner to master follows the pattern of chess history. First players learn to play like Greco. Then, as Philidor, they discover the importance of pawns and begin to think positionally. Individual growth moves through attacking play in the style of Adolph Anderssen and Paul Morphy to learning to accumulate small advantages in the manner of Wilhelm Steinitz. (26)

I went on from there, but this excerpt serves to illustrate that I have found Euwe's concept compelling at least pedagogically. Hendriks correctly links the recapitulation theory to Ernst Haeckel: "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" (9, 411). The structure of On the Origin of Good Moves--a title clearly derived from Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859)--follows the pattern evident in Euwe, The Development of Chess Style (1968), but in a manner that interrogates with skepticism the central claims that have been advanced by many chess writers along the way.

Journal: "Footnotes to Greco"

The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.
Alfred North Whitehead (1979)

Hendriks notes that Greco has not received the same honor given to Plato that all of chess theory is a series of footnotes to his original work, although a few months ago I wrote, partly in jest, in a chess forum, "Greco is the originator; all others are imitators." I have taken the work of Greco seriously for some time, found Euwe's annotations of two Greco games useful and inspiring, have played at least three games online that almost wholly follow one of Greco's masterpieces (see "Near Perfect"), and have been convinced since at least 2013 that the best parts of Greco remain unknown to most chess players.

As I had read Hendriks' chapters on Greco several weeks ago, it should not be surprising that I scored 100% on the two quizzes from Greco's games this morning. I missed the second one, however, in June because I chose Greco's move and Hendriks was looking for the improvement. When I took that quiz in June, the game from which exercise 2 was extracted had been part of my lesson with my chess students the previous week. However, I was using a version of the game that was not in any databases, but can be found in Francis Beale's 1656 text. Chessgames.com has it now because I submitted it after researching the game score in Monté. In June, I finished a project of entering all 94 of Beale's selections from Greco into a database.

Black to move

This position appears in five games in ChessBase Mega 2020. Four are Greco's games. 10...Kd7 appears in two Greco games in the database, 10...Kd8 appears in one, and as Hendriks notes, 10...Kf8 appears in one of Greco's games in the database (19-20). The position after 10...Kf8 is Hendriks second exercise. In this one, and one in the second set, Greco's move is not the best move.

The version of the game given by Hendriks ended with checkmate in 14 moves. The version of the game in Beale, however, continues with much more stubborn defense. Monté's research reveals that the better game appears in several of the London manuscripts created in 1623 by Greco. The better version also appears in William Lewis, Gioachino Greco on the Game of Chess (1819).

All this is to say that Hendriks' historical questions differ from mine. While I can spend many hours tracking down minutiae through original sources, or secondary works that are grounded is such sources, Hendriks builds his assessment of Greco on readily available databases. What do Greco's games offer the aspiring chess player? More than he usually gets credit for, Hendriks argues.

Despite approaching work on Greco from a somewhat different perspective regarding the nature of historical research, I am encouraged by the assessment in On the Origin of Good Moves: "Greco's legacy is really impressive" (23). I agree.

There are two chapters and two quizzes on Greco in Hendriks's book. This position is number 8--the second exercise for chapter 2: "The Nimzowitsch of the 17th Century" (27-38).

Black to move

This position is from Greco's longest game, and one of the few that Hendriks thinks might represent actual play. His annotations on this game are brief but highlight the critical point: Philidor's reputation for discovering the importance of the pawns is but a footnote to Greco.

Positions from Recent Lessons

[T]actics flow from a positionally superior game.
Bobby Fischer, My 60 Memorable Games (1969)

My posting here has been sporadic lately. Between work and home maintenance, I've barely had enough time in the woods for hunting. As a consequence, there is no time for writing. Nonetheless, I've been teaching several individual students and running an after-school chess club. The positions below are from some classic games that were part of my instruction in October.

White to move

William Steinitz (still spelled Wilhelm at the time) did not make the computer's choice here, but it was a decisive move that forced matters. It also set up the theme for the next two positions. From Steinitz -- Mongredien, London 1862.

White to move

From Steinitz -- Mongredien, London 1863.

White to move

This was the position where Fischer made the comment in the epigraph above. From Fischer -- Sherwin, 1957.

Reiner -- Steinitz

William Steinitz moved to Vienna from his hometown of Prague in 1858, and in 1859 placed third in the city's chess championship. Databases contain three of his games against Reiner from 1860. This game cropped up in a search for examples of Arabian checkmate. White could have delayed checkmate, but he was effectively lost quite early in the game. It is a good example of a risky gambit going horribly wrong.


Reiner -- Steinitz,William [C44]
Vienna, 1860

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5 5.0-0

5.Ng5 Nh6 6.Nxf7 Nxf7 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxc5 d6 10.Qb5 Re8 Black won in 21 moves Meek,A -- Morphy,P, Mobile 1855. See Meek--Morphy

5.c3 is the main line, but even here Black scores well

5...d6 6.c3 Bg4

White to move

7.Qb3

7.Bb5 dxc3 8.Nxc3 Nge7 9.h3 Bd7 (9...Bh5) 10.Bf4 (10.a3) 10...a6 11.Bc4 Ng6 12.Bg5 Qc8 White won in 40 moves Lapshun,Y (2479) -- Berczes,D (2450), Budapest 2007.

7.Bxf7+ fails 7...Kxf7 8.Ng5+ compounds White's problems 8...Qxg5 9.Bxg5 Bxd1 10.Rxd1-+;

7.Bg5 Nge7

7...Bxf3 8.Bxf7+ Kf8 9.Bxg8

9.gxf3 seems White's best chance. 9...Nf6 10.Bc4=

9...Rxg8 10.gxf3 g5

Black is better, although one master game that reached this position was won by White.

White to move

11.Qe6

11.Nd2 seems useful. White's pieces must get into the game. 11...Ne5 12.cxd4 Bxd4 13.Nc4 Qf6 (13...Qc8? 14.Nxe5 Bxe5 15.Kg2 White won in 42 moves Kopetzky,K -- Spielmann,R, Vienna 1933) 14.Nxe5 Bxe5 and even with the reduced material, White's king is vulnerable.

11...Ne5

White's opening must be judged a failure. A pawn was sacrificed for mobilization, but Black's pieces are better mobilized.

11...Rg6 12.Qf5+ Kg7 13.Kh1 Qe7 14.Rg1 Rf8 15.Bxg5 Rxf5 16.Bxe7 Rh5 17.b4 Bb6 18.Bxd6 cxd6 Black won in 25 moves Karaklajic,N (2405) -- Barle,J (2425), Caorle 1988.

12.Qf5+ Kg7 13.Kh1

13.Bxg5 Nxf3+ 14.Qxf3 Qxg5+ 15.Kh1 Kh8 16.Nd2 Raf8-+;

13.f4 gxf4 14.Bxf4 Kh8+ 15.Kh1 Ng4-+.

13...Kh8 14.Rg1

14.cxd4 Bxd4 15.Nc3 g4-+

14...g4

White to move

15.f4

15.fxg4 Qh4 (15...Rg5 16.Qf4) 16.Bf4 Nxg4 17.Rxg4 (17.Rf1 Raf8) 17...Qxg4 18.Qxg4 Rxg4 19.Bh6 Rxe4-+;

15.Bf4 Qe7 16.Bxe5+ dxe5-+.

15...Nf3

15...Nd3!

16.Rxg4?

16.Nd2 Nxg1-+;
16.Rg2 Nh4-+

White to move

This position is one of the exercises I prepared for my students. I'm sure that it appears in many tactics sets in print and online.

16...Qh4! 17.Rg2

17.Qf6 delays the end.

17...Qxh2+ 18.Rxh2 Rg1# 0-1

Textbook Ending: Historical Considerations

This position arose twice in Fiebig -- Tartakower, Barmen 1905. It was reached after 58...Kc8 and again after 60...Kc8, at which point the game was agreed drawn.

White to move

Historical questions arise. What were the rules in 1905 regarding draw by repetition or by triple occurrence of position? What endgame books that should be known by aspiring masters of the time explain the technique of triangulation?

Fiebig missed an elementary win that is a textbook ending. Today, it is in many textbooks, but was it as well-known more than a century ago?

In "Pawn Ending" in Edward Winter, A Chess Omnibus (2003), 42-43, this position is reached after the first move from a diagram presented there. Winter references Das Endspiel im Schach (1917) as a source, noting that the score of the game Fahrni--Alapin has not been found. Winter notes the position from Fiebig--Tartakower, and that the game appears in the Barmen tournament book. Winter's article also appears at "Edward Winter Presents: Unsolved Chess Mysteries (14)" (2007).

Wilhelm Steinitz, The Modern Chess Instructor (1889) presents the rules that had been approved by the British Chess Association and many chess congresses. "When both players persist in repeating the same moves," is given as one circumstance that produces a drawn game. There is no reference to the number of repetitions necessary. I have previously written about the development of the Fifty Move Rule at "Max Judd's Draw Claim" (2016). Perhaps a narrative concerning the development of rules regarding repetition can be found somewhere. Winter states the game was "agreed drawn" (42).

J. Berger, Theorie und Praxis der Endspiele (1890) discusses opposition in a separate section within the larger portion devoted to kings and pawns (28-34), but I do not see any reference to triangulation--neither process nor terminology. As far as I am aware, Berger's was the standard endgame book of the time.

As I was playing through Fiebig -- Tartakower, I was certain that White should be winning after Tartakower blocked a check with his rook.

White to move

The game continued:

51.Kd4 b6

Hiarcs, running tablebases, likes 51...Kc6 52.b5+ Kc7 53.Rxd6 Kxd6 54.a4+-

52.Ke5 Rxd5+ 53.Kxd5 Kc7 54.a4 a6

54...Kd7 is more stubborn

White to move

According to Hiarcs, it is checkmate in nineteen moves.

55.a5

The second best move. White wins more quickly with 55.Ke5 Kd7 56.c5 Kc6 57.cxb6 Kxb6 58.Kd6

55...bxa5 56.bxa5 Kd7 57.c5 Kc7 58.c6 Kc8

The game has reached the position at the top of the post. After seeing how the game concluded, I opened my playing software and continued from the diagram against Stockfish 10. I checkmated the engine in sixteen moves.

59.Kc4

59.Kd6 was played by Fiebig.
59.Kd4 is given by Winter from Fahrni's book.

59...Kb8 60.Kd4 Kc8 61.Kd5

The diagram at the top of the post has been reached again, but the position has changed. Now, it is Black to move.

The rest was easy.

Find the Error

Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.
                                                                    Seneca

Wilhelm Steinitz famously claimed, "by best play on both sides a draw ought to be the legitimate result" (The Modern Chess Instructor [1889], xxxi). I introduced to my students in an after school club this week the notion that a game of chess can only be won one way: someone must make an error. The good news is that their opponents all make errors. The bad news is that they also do so.

We then proceeded to examine this game. First we went through all of the moves on the demo board without comment. Then, after resetting the pieces, I asked students for their ideas concerning Black's decisive error.

After some discussion, we went through the game again considering the consequences and alternatives where they thought they perceived error. A student earned a chess pencil for suggesting the move given a question mark by John Donaldson and Nikolay Minev, Akiba Rubinstein: Uncrowned King (1994).

Rubinstein,Akiba -- Heilmann,Ernst [D40]
Hauptturnier-A Barmen (2), 1905

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4 c5 4.e3 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.a3

Black to move

6...b6

This move's weakening of the c6 square does not look so bad until Rubinstein demonstrates how to exploit it. Even so, it had been employed by Staunton and a few others prior to this game, and has appeared since in dozens more.

After claiming that chess is a draw with best play, Steinitz lists several types of errors that can be fatal, including "the mere weakness of any square on any part of the board" (xxxi).

7.cxd5 exd5

7...Nxd5 fares somewhat better for Black than the text, but White still wins a substantial percentage.

8.Bb5

Black to move

8...Qd6

This move was another of our candidates for the decisive error, but it was my suggestion rather than that of a student.

P. De Saint Amant -- H. Staunton, Paris 1843 continued 8...Bb7 9.Ne5 Rc8 10.Qa4 Qc7 11.Qxa7 In analysis with the youth players, I took it as far as Black's tenth move and suggested that Black was not in as bad of shape as Heilmann found himself.

9.e4 Bd7 10.e5 Qe7 11.0–0 Ng8

One student criticized this move, but every alternative we examined seemed worse. By this point, White has a decisive advantage.

White to move

12.Nxd5 Qd8 13.Qa4 Rc8 14.Bg5 Nge7 15.dxc5 bxc5 16.Rad1 a6 17.Qxa6 Nd4 18.Nxd4 cxd4 19.Rxd4 1–0

Rubinstein was given an opportunity, but it was one that could have been overlooked had he not been prepared.

Develop Your King

In one of my many blitz games this morning, I had one of those many experiences when I realized that I was playing poorly and now seemed to be losing material.

Stripes,J (1806) -- Internet Opponent (1852) [D06]
Live Chess Chess.com, 16.05.2017

1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 Bf5 4.Bf4 e6 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.e3 Nb4

White to move

In my despair, I remembered the words of Wilhelm Steinitz:

[W]e consider it established that the king must be treated as a strong piece both for attack and defence. This means that so far from requiring great protection early in the game a few simple precautions which we shall further explain, will render him so safe that any attampt at attacking his wing will be more dangerous for the opponent than for himself.
Wilhelm Steinitz, The Modern Chess Instructor (1889).

Steinitz was concerned with the king's role in self-protection on the king's side, when the king itself is the target. My opponent was angling for my rook, winning an exchange.

7.Kd2! Bc2

My opponent might have tried 7...Ne4+ 8.Nxe4 dxe4 9.Ne1 (9.Ne5? f6)

8.Qc1 Ne4+ 9.Nxe4 dxe4 10.Ne1

Black to move 

10...Nd3

10...Ba4 seems to be a better effort to take advantage of the king in the center.

a) 11.a3 Nc6

11...Nd3 is as in the game 12.Nxd3 exd3 13.Bxd3 f6 White has a one pawn advantage.

a1) 12.Bg3 (12.Qc3 e5 appears dangerous). 12...e5 13.d5 Na5 and White is losing at least an exchange.

a2) Nc2

b) 11.b3 is probably safest.

11.Nxd3 Bxd3 12.Bxd3 Bb4+ 13.Ke2 exd3+ 14.Kxd3

Black to move

14...0–0 15.a3 Be7 16.Rd1 f6 17.Ke2 Qe8 18.Bg3 h5 19.h4 and I went on to win the endgame.

Principle of Development: Early History

Morphy is sometimes credited with inventing the concept of development, or at least understanding it better than anyone else before those who followed him began to articulate it in their books and articles.
James Stripes, "Chess at the Opera" (2 February 2017)

Development Theory

Paul Morphy (1837-1884) is often credited with having been the first chess master to comprehend the principle of development. Richard Reti seems to credit him with practically inventing the concept.

[T]his is Morphy's most important discovery--it is essential to develop he pieces without delay, to bring them quickly into action and not to lose any time. Morphy's contemporaries on the contrary indulged all too frequently in premature attacks with their forces insufficiently developed, or in unnecessarily timid defensive moves.
Reti, Masters of the Chessboard (2012), 20.

Max Euwe expresses the point with slightly more nuance, and filtered through the writings of Wilhelm Steinitz.

Development, the centre, open lines; these, according to Steinitz, were the three leading principles which Morphy followed. They were for him prime objectives, absolutely fundamental factors in the battle, whereas for Anderssen they had real significance only insofar as they furthered some previously selected aim.
Euwe, The Development of Chess Style (1966), 23.

In Paul Morphy and the Evolution of Chess Theory (1993), Macon Shibut challenges Reti's claim, echoed by Euwe. Shibut analyzes Morphy's games with Anderssen, and Reti's analysis of them, demonstrating a tendency by Reti to force the facts of the games to conform to his thesis. Morphy's development was systematic and intentional. Anderssen's development was haphazard and incidental. Shibut argues that their games reveal otherwise.

Shibut states, "Whatever the date of its first explicit formulation, the principle of development was certainly understood in a practical sense long before Morphy" (29). Shibut advocates examining carefully eighteenth and nineteenth century master games. His view is that these games "at least manifest the principle of development" (29).


History of Development

The explicit formulation of this principle of development, as is well known, occurred after Morphy had given up chess. Wilhelm Steinitz gets credit. Hence, his name is associated with the Modern School, chess as a scientific enterprise with laws of strategy. Articulation of development in the late nineteenth century gave chess theory a solid foundation upon which to build, and thereafter the games of the masters before Morphy lost their instructive value.

Previously on Chess Skills, I have inquired into the origins and meaning of this term, development. In my reading of old classics of chess literature, I have attempted to trace how the term has been understood. I also have sought its first articulation in the writings of Steinitz and his predecessors. Two previous posts offers snippets of this ongoing research: "Thinking about Development" (August 2015) and "What is Development" (July 2016).

This morning's reading, however, revealed that articulation of the concept of development precedes Morphy's birth by more than half a century. It is found in an 1820 English translation of an 1869 Italian text. The Italian text is Il Giuoco Incomparabile degli Scacchi by Domenico Lorenzo Ponziani (1719-1796), but Ponziani's name does not appear in the English translation, which credits Dr. Ercole dal Rio (1718-1802) with authorship. The English book is by J. S. Bingham, a pen name for J. B. Smith, an English naval officer, according to David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess (1996), 314.

Here, then, might be the earliest clear formulation of the principle of development. Credit the Modenese Masters--Dominico Ercole del Rio, Ponziani, and Giambattista Lolli (1698–1769). Ercole del Rio published La Guerra degli Scacchi (The War of the Chessmen) in 1750. Lolli expanded this work as Osservazioni Teorico-pratiche Sopra il Giuoco degli Scacchi (Theoretical-practical Views on the Game of Chess) in 1863, and then Ponziani's text appeared in 1769. A second edition of Ponziani's text appeared in 1782 and included his name. Nonetheless, Smith chose to translate Ponziani's earlier version and credit it to Ercole del Rio.

One hopes that Smith was a better linguist than he was a historian.

Whether the principle of development was articulated in earlier works by Ercole del Rio and Lolli must await further reading. Of course, some of my readers may be well ahead of me on this matter. Ercole del Rio's La Guerra degli Scacchi was translated into English by Christopher Becker and published alongside the Italian thirty years ago.

Here, then, is Ponziani's articulation of the principle of development, as translated by Smith.

The opening of the game ought to be made with the greatest possible development: that is to say, it is to be executed by the shortest method, chusing those moves which put in action the greatest number of combatants; that one Piece does not impede another, but can act with due promptitude; and that every Piece be so situated, that the adversary cannot annoy it, without danger to himself, or loss of time.--Whoever, at the beginning, has brought out his Pieces with greater symmetry, relatively to the adverse situation, may thence promise himself a fortunate issue in the prosecution of the battle.
Bingham, The Incomparable Game of Chess (1820), 32.

This formulation of the principle of development certainly bears a strong resemblance to the principle that guided Morphy's play, as Valeri Beim expressed it in Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective (2005), he "sought the move that followed the principle of bringing into play the greatest number of pieces in the shortest possible time" (emphasis in original, 16).

Patterns: Some Evidence

Working through a lesson series called "Advanced Tactics" on Chess.com, I came across this problem.

Black to move

The diagram is upside down (Black on bottom).

This lesson series was created for Chess Mentor by Thomas Wolski. It contains many lessons from the games of Wilhelm Steinitz. In addition to enjoying the tactics practice, I am becoming impressed with Wolski's ability to extract lessons from Steinitz's play. I am beginning to think that a more sustained study of the first official World Champion's games might be in my future.

I spotted the first several moves of this combination in one second, that is, instantly. This instant recognition of most of the solution, and the confidence that the rest would be forthcoming stemmed from having seen essentially the same ideas in two other problems that I put in front of youth players in the past two weeks. See "Carlsen's Queen Sacrifice," problems 3 and 6.

This instant recognition strikes me as evidence of pattern recognition as an element in the development of chess skill (see "Patterns and Calculation").

Converting the Advantage

The most difficult part of chess is to win a won game.
Wilhelm Steinitz*

I might have won my last round game in the Eastern Washington Open on Sunday, which would have given me an even score for the event. My game had been comfortable throughout and my position was never worse. My confidence was also strong.

Courtney,Caleb (1466) -- Stripes,James (1794) [C02]
Eastern Washington Open (5), 02.10.2016

Black to move

After 39.f4

I was certain that I was winning at this point in the game.

39...Rb1

Thinking the a-pawn would be easy to stop without a serious concessions, I chose to force the rooks off the board immediately.

39...Rb2 wins more easily. One possible line might be 40.Rf1 Rxa2 41.Rf2 Ra1+ 42.Rf1 Rxf1+ 43.Kxf1 d4 44.Ke2 Ke6 45.Kd2 Be4.

40.Rxb1 Bxb1 41.a4 Ke6 42.Kf2 Be4?

I also considered 42...Bf5 and  42...d4. Bf5 is no better than Be4, but 42...d4 is best, according to Stockfish. I imagined my bishop and pawn standing side-by-side on e4 and d4, barring entry of the White king into action. I did not look at the two pieces accomplishing the same standing on d3 and d4.

Earlier in the game, I felt that I had pushed my c-pawn too soon, rendering the win more difficult. Now, I was reluctant to push the d-pawn before preparation. Unfortunately, White's drawing chances are now very good.

43.g3?

My opponent thought this move was forced, but as long as the king remains on f2, it can be delayed. First, White needs to reduce the bishop's mobility by forcing it to remain on the long diagonal,

43.a5! d4 44.a6 h5 45.a7 Kf5 46.g3 g5=

43...h5?

Again, I considered 43...d4, which had been the only winning move.

44.Ke3 Bf5 45.Kd4 Bh3 46.a5 Bf1 47.h3

47.f5+ Kxf5 48.Kxd5 g5 49.e6 Kf6 50.Kd6 Bb5!

47...g6 48.g4?

48.Kc5 Bc4 49.Kb4 Be2=

Black to move

Now, thinking that I could very easily lose, I spend ten minutes on this position. I worked out pretty much the line that the game followed where both players promote on the same move, but also thought that I might still have some winning chances.

48...h4! 49.f5+

49.g5 creates problems for Black, but Ke7 leaves White practically in zugzwang.

49...gxf5 50.gxf5+ Kxf5 51.Kxd5 Bxh3 52.Kd6 

Black to move

52...Kf4??=

I played this move almost without hesitation. I felt that I had solved my problems and could secure the draw. Alas, I was still winning and could have easily invested half of my remaining sixteen minutes discovering how. White's problem in the race between his e-pawn and my h-pawn is that his king must also move.

After the game, we looked at 52...Bg2 53.e6 Kf6 54.Kd7 h3 55.e7

Analysis diagram after 55.e7

55...Bc6+! 56.Kxc6 Kxe7 57.a6 h2 58.a7 h1Q+ and Black wins.

Even better is 52...Bf1 53.e6 h3 54.e7 Bb5 55.a6 h2 56.a7 h1Q with an easy win.

Before playing 48...h4, I had examined 52...Kg6, and worked out that it was losing, missing that after 53.a6, 53...Bg2 kept the win in hand.

53.a6 Bg2 54.e6 h3 55.e7 h2 56.e8Q h1Q 57.Qe5+

My opponent offered a draw here, stating that he had a perpetual. I said that I did not disbelieve him, but wanted to see the proof.

57...Kg4 58.Qg7+ Kf3 59.Qf6+ Kg3 60.Qg5+ Kf2 61.Qd2+ Kg1 62.Qe1+ Bf1 63.Qg3+ ½–½

Even at the end, I thought I might play on 63...Qg2 64.Qxg2+ Bxg2 and let the game end when my bishop captures his last queen.

It was a disappointing tournament, as were all my others in 2016. Nonetheless, I enjoy learning from my errors in this game. Perhaps next time I play chess in a weekend Swiss, I will play with determination and creativity, finding every win that presents itself even after making depressing errors.

One more tournament like those that I played this year and I will be at my rating floor, down almost 300 from my peak in 2012.


*This quote and others that are similar have been attributed to several chess masters, most often Emanuel Lasker or Frank Marshall. Electronic searches of Lasker's Common Sense in Chess and Lasker's Manual of Chess fail to turn it up, however. Edward Winter, who continually labors to source such expressions, offered in A Chess Omnibus (2003) Adolph Albin, Schach-Aphorismen und Reminiscenzen (1899). Albin lists it among a sequence of chess aphorisms.

Then, in Chess Note 5349 (26 December 2007), Winter notes that the saying appears in Chess Player's Chronicle (13 December 1890), where it is attributed to Wilhelm Steinitz. Winter requests earlier attributions.

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.