Showing posts with label Zukertort (Johannes). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Zukertort (Johannes). Show all posts

28 December 2024

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.

11 March 2021

Sourcing a Classic Game

Ten years ago I was studying a game that appears in Rashid Ziyatdinov, GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000) and posted "Understanding Mayet's Thinking". Four years later, I found some discrepancies concerning its provenance while studying this game again. Ziyatdinov lists the game as Berlin 1851. In a video made in 2017, Kingscrusher has the game as Berlin 1859. In 2014, I checked David Levy and Kevin O'Connell, Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games, vol 1 1485-1866 (1981). Levy and O'Connell's book is an impressive work of scholarship. In the days before databases, it offered a greater selection of historic games than any other single book. The authors also source every game.

Unfortunately, checking Levy and O'Connell's source for Mayet -- Anderssen's miniature complicated matters. They have the game as Berlin 1859, but their source, Leopold Hoffer, and Johannes Zukertort, eds. The Chess-Monthly (1882) has London 1851, played "during the London International Chess Tournament" (212). I noted this contradiction in a comment on chessgames.com. The Chess-Monthly (March 1882) presents a game played in Jackson, Mississippi, which they reproduce from the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, and appends Mayet -- Anderssen as a note to that game (211-212).

The Chess-Monthly

The Chess-Monthly omits a piece of information that can be found in the Globe-Democrat's account of the game: it was played at odds of rook plus move. Chess Archaeology's Jack O'Keefe Project has digital images of most of the chess columns from the St Louis Globe-Democrat. This image is from 15 January 1882, and was the source for the game that appeared in The Chess-Monthly.



The game:

Hunter,Rev. Dr. -- Galbreath,John A.
Jackson, Miss. c.1882
[Mackenzie, George H.]

Remove the rook from a8.

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d3 b5 4.Bb3 a5 5.a3 Bc5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.c4 bxc4 8.Bxc4 d6 9.0-0 Bg4 10.h3 h5 11.hxg4

With this capture White's troubles begin.

11...hxg4 12.Nh2 g3 13.Ng4 Nd4

The commencement of a highly ingenious combination, which the Reverend Doctor may be pardoned for having failed to see through.

14.Be3 Nxg4

White to move

Up until this point, White had a winning position, but here he blundered.

15.Qxg4?? Ne2+

The termination is exceedingly piquant and interesting.

16.Qxe2 Rh1+ 17.Kxh1 Qh4+ and mates next move 0-1

On Monday this week, I won a miniature using the fishing pole trap, and that brought me back to The Chess-Monthly, Mayet -- Anderssen, and for the first time this interesting game in the Globe-Democrat. That led to a renewed search for the provenance of Mayet -- Anderssen. In turns out, the original publication of the game had been identified at chessgames.com two years ago. The game was published in Schachzeitung in February 1851, a Berlin magazine for which Adolf Anderssen served as one of the editors. Staunton's London 1851 tournament began in late April. Once again, Chess Archaeology had a link to Schachzeitung at GoogleBooks, actually two links--one at the Bavaria State Library and one at the Austrian National Library.


The game:

Mayet,C. -- Anderssen,A. [C64]
Berlin, 1851

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.Bxc6

As I noted ten years ago, this move is inconsistent with 4.c3.

5...dxc6 6.0-0 Bg4 7.h3 h5

Putting a fishing pole out to see if Mayet might bite.

8.hxg4 hxg4 9.Nxe5

Black to move

9...g3

9...Nxe4 and Black is winning. The lines are instructive, and at the end of the best sequence for both, I am able to beat Stockfish on my iPad with Black's second best move (engine assessed), but not with the best.

10.d4 Nxe4

White to move

11.Qg4

Hoffer and Zukertort offer two alternatives:

11.Nf3 gxf2+ 12.Rxf2 Rh1+ 13.Kxh1 Nxf2+ 14.Kg1 Nxd1; 

11.fxg3 Nxg3 12.Re1 Rh1+ 13.Kf2 Qh4 14.Rxh1 Nxh1+ 15.Kg1 Bd6 16.Be3 (16.Nf3 Qf2+ 17.Kxh1 0-0-0) 

11...Bxd4

The greatest representation of dash and brilliancy is not satisfied with the gain of a hostile Queen by 11...gxf2+, etc. (Hoffer and Zukertort)

12.Qxe4

12.Be3 gxf2+ 13.Bxf2 (13.Rxf2 Bxe3) 13...Bxf2+ 14.Rxf2 Rh1+; 
12.Nd3 Rh4 13.Bg5 Rxg4 14.Bxd8 Bxf2+ 15.Nxf2 gxf2+ 16.Rxf2 Nxf2 (Hoffer and Zukertort)

12...Bxf2+ 0-1

In Schachzeitung (Berlin, February 1851), the sole annotation follows this move: "Schwarz kunigt ein erzwungenes Matt in funf Zugan an" (Black announces a forced mate in five moves).

This morning I copied eight games from the February 1851 issue of Schachzeitung into a database. All of them are in ChessBase Mega 2020. However, the versions in CB extend the games to checkmate where that did not occur in Schachzeitung, and in one case the players' colors are reversed.

In a different Mayet -- Anderssen battle, Anderssen let a win slip away from this position.

Black to move

What would you play? Probably the move suggested in the notes to the game.



05 November 2018

Planning

In 1864, Johannes Zukertort reached a level in his chess skill high enough that Adolf Anderssen no longer gave him odds. That year, the two played a number of games. David Levy and Kevin O'Connell, Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games, vol. 1 1485-1866 lists eight games between these two players in 1864. Zukertort had White in all eight. Levy and O'Connell list their source for the games as Neue Berliner Schachzeitung (1867). Zukertort began serving as principal editor of this serial in 1867.

Anderssen's play reveals weaknesses that were less frequent in his tournament play of the time. These games offer a number of interesting positions for exploring the elements of chess strategy.

Black to move
After 12.Qe2
What are the plans for both sides?

Anderssen castled and went on to lose after several errors.


11 March 2015

Hitting the Books

Context

A distinctive element of GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000) draws in some readers and pushes many others away. Rashid Ziyatdinov's book contains diagrams without analysis. The author explains that the book is more of an exam than an instructional book. As such, it is an open book exam that can be taken and retaken until the desired score is achieved. Co-author Peter Dyson suggests that GM-RAM, "can be thought of as both a study outline and as an evaluation tool" (9).

Fifty-nine "classic games" are the source for 120 middlegame positions. Ziyatdinov addresses the definition of "classic". Games are not classic merely because they were played a long time ago. The games in GM-RAM:
...have been analyzed in great detail by many strong players from different periods, different schools of chess, and different ages and generations. It is only after a game has withstood these many different perspectives--these "tests of time"--that it can be considered a classic. (77)
Ziyatdinov directs his readers to analysis of these games by other writers. Alternately, he writes, "a chess trainer can help teach the necessary knowledge" (13). He provides a list of references. This list offers a secondary curriculum. Most, if not all, of the the endgame positions in GM-RAM can be found in Yuri Averbakh's Comprehensive Chess Endings, which comprises the bulk of the texts listed for endgame study.

The middlegame books listed are another matter. Most of the games are from the nineteenth century, but the recommended middlegame books include the two volumes of My Best Games of Chess by Alexander Alekhine; and Bobby Fischer, My 60 Memorable Games. Also listed are Averbakh, Chess Middlegames: Essential Knowledge; Paul Keres, and Alexander Kotov, The Art of the Middle Game; and Hans Kmoch, Pawn Power in Chess. There is minimal analysis of the games of Adolf Anderssen and Paul Morphy in these books.

Practice

For the past few months, I have been systematically working through Ziyatdinov's fifty-nine games at the rate of one each week. This past week, my game has been Bird -- Morphy, London 1858 (chessgames.com link). I have not done well on my study of this game. The week has been filled with activities that interfere with personal study, and an exciting new book arrived as well, Encyclopedia of Chess Combinations, 5th ed. (2014), putting my chess study time on another course. Hence, my study of this game will carry over another week. I will press on, though, adding this week's game: Morphy's Opera Game.

I have print editions of three good books on Paul Morphy: Philip W. Sergeant, Morphy's Games of Chess (1957); Macon Shibut, Paul Morphy and the Evolution of Chess Theory (2004); and Valeri Beim, Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective (2005). In addition, I have the Kindle edition of David Lawson, Paul Morphy: The Pride and Sorrow of Chess, new. ed. (2010) and access to older books, such as Frederick M. Edge's 1859 Paul Morphy: The Chess Champion, via GoogleBooks. Other books that contain analysis of Bird -- Morphy include Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, part I (2003); and Max Euwe, The Development of Chess Style (1968).

Kasparov's book offers a good entry point to the most important historical analysis and sometimes modern computer evaluation of this analysis. It behooves me to invest the time to work through the analysis of this week's and last week's games in all of these books.

Analysis

Ziyatdinov's GM-RAM contains two essential middlegame positions from Bird -- Morphy. These are separated by a single move. The positions are before 17...Rxf2 and after 17...Rxf2 18.Bxf2. Studying Kasparov's analysis last night focused my attention much earlier in the game.

White to move
After 5...d5
Kasparov credits Johannes Zukertort with having pointed out the improvement from this position that refutes Morphy's dubious opening choice. Bird could have gained an advantage had he properly applied knowledge from the ancient work of Pedro Damiano.

Euwe does not offer a source, but notes, "Nowadays it is known that the answer to Black's chosen variation is 6.Nxe5! dxe4 7.Qh5+, White getting an irresistable attack in return for the sacrificed piece" (29).

22 March 2013

Lesson of the Week

Wiliiam Steinitz became the first official World Champion in 1886 when he defeated Johann Zukertort in a match for that title. But after defeating Adolf Anderssen in a match in 1866, many began to refer to him as the World Champion.

Steinitz played in the reckless attacking style of his contemporaries until his play went through an observable change in the Vienna tournament of 1873, in which he tied for first with Joseph Henry Blackburne. Steinitz explained the principles of his new manner of play in his chess columns for The Field, and later for the International Chess Magazine, and in books, such as The Modern Chess Instructor (1889). He called his new ideas the Modern School, but sometimes it is called the Steinitz School today. Rather than a direct attack on the king from the beginning of the game, he advocated slowly building up an advantage and then striking at the optimum moment for attack.

This week's key position comes from a game in which Steinitz sacrificed a knight to gain two connected passed pawns on the queenside. It is from a game played in the Vienna 1873 tournament.


Steinitz,William -- Fleissig,Maximilian [C11]
Vienna Vienna (2), 29.07.1873

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.Nce2 c5 6.c3 Nc6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Nf3 Be7 9.Ng3 Nf8 10.Bd3 Bd7 11.Bc2 0–0–0 12.dxc5 Bxc5 13.Qe2 a5 14.a3 Qa7 15.Rb1 a4 16.Nh5 g6 17.Nf6 h6 18.Nxd7 Kxd7 19.Qb5 Ra8 20.Bxa4 Qxa4 21.Qxb7+ Ke8 22.b3 Qa6 23.Qxa6 Rxa6 24.a4 Ba7 25.Bd2 Nd7 26.Ke2 Ke7 27.Ra1 Na5 28.Rhb1 Rb8 29.b4 Nc4 30.a5 Rb7 31.Kd3 Nb8 32.Bc1 Kd7 33.Nd2 Nxd2 34.Bxd2 Kc6 35.c4 dxc4+ 36.Kxc4 Rb5 37.Rb3 Nd7 38.Rd3 Bb8

White to move 

39.Rxd7 Rxb4+ 40.Bxb4 Kxd7 41.Kb5 Ra8 42.a6 Ba7 43.Rd1+ Ke8 44.Kc6 Be3 45.Ra1 Kd8 46.Ba5+ Kc8 47.Bb6 Bxf4 48.Rd1 Bg5 49.a7 f5 50.Rd7 1–0


Beginning Tactics 18 (sample)

The final beginning tactics worksheet for 2012-2013 proved difficult. In each position, White's best move constitutes the correct answer.






09 November 2012

Footnote to Morphy's Mate

In "Morphy's Mate," I presented the sixth game from Paulsen -- Morphy, New York 1857. The critical position prior to Morphy's stunning queen sacrifice is the first problem in Anthology of Chess Combinations (1995), and it appears on the cover of Valeri Beim, Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective (2005). Morphy launched a blistering and memorable mating attack. But, he misplayed it.

Black to move

Morphy played 22...Bg2+, which wins. Beim writes,
As Zukertort later pointed out, another forced win was 22...Rg2! 23.Qd3 Rxf2+ 24.Kg1 Rg2+ 25.Kh1 Rg1#.
Beim, Paul Morphy, 46.
Beim's bibliography at the end of the book lists nothing by Johannes Hermann Zukertort. Nor is there any thing in the text that would lead a curious reader to a secondary source mentioning Zukertort's analysis, unless perhaps reading everything listed there. Publishers understand that footnotes and endnotes do not sell books, and thus they mak minimal demands upon authors to document their assertions.

In my history blog, Patriots and Peoples, I have written extensively about documentation. One text that I discuss with some frequency there has abundant references, but examination of these texts often reveals that they present information and arguments almost opposite what is asserted in the referring text. Historians must document their work--it is an expected professional standard, and they must do so with honesty and accuracy. Why may chess historians adhere to a lower standard? They should not do so. Good chess history must meet the standards of good history.

Despite Beim's failure to document, Google Books quickly offered help. A search for Zukertort as author turned up volume 8 of The Chess-Monthly (September 1886 - August 1887). The February 1887 issue contains an article by Zukertort, "The Morphy-Paulsen End-Game" (171-173). Zukertort mentions several discussions of Paulsen -- Morphy in the chess clubs of London, Vienna, and New York. Writing about one of the discussions at the St. George's Chess Club of London, he states:
On one of these occasions (about the end of 1880) I pointed out that Morphy, in his masterly tournament game with L. Paulsen, overlooked both a mate in six and then in four moves, with no desire to detract from the general play of the great master, but just to illustrate the carelessness of all his commentators of the past. (172)
He also claims that he showed it to Paulsen two years later, and that led to discussion among masters in Vienna.