Lesson of the Week

All of my students this week saw this position with an opportunity to suggest the best move. Many succeeded. Some of my students saw the whole game, which is posted at "Botvinnik -- Capablanca, AVRO 1938".

White to move

Botvinnik -- Capablanca, AVRO 1938

A Strategic Masterpiece

As one of the most important games from one of the strongest tournaments ever held, it makes sense that Botvinnik -- Capablanca, AVRO 1938 should be highly regarded. The game is deceptively simple, which leads some critics to dismiss it as not worthy of consideration as one of the greatest games ever played. However, it is historically significant--a watershed event in the development of professional chess. It is also a rich strategic masterpiece. Early in the game, both players adopted clear plans that were clear to their opponent. Mikhail Botvinnik's plans succeeded, while Jose R. Capablanca's plans proved too slow.

What accounts for the difference? Surely, Botvinnik did not calculate to the end to realize that his plans were superior. Was his success the result of home preparation? An interesting statement by an unsigned annotator appears at the end of the game in the ChessBase PowerBook database:

Capablanca's resignation, in my opinion, symbolized the end of an heroic era of chess titans, dominating the field with their natural genius. Since this historic moment the professional touch has played a more and more important role as an integral part of chess, the path to ultimate success.
ChessBase PowerBook*

This game is one of two that received a perfect score from the editors of The World's Greatest Chess Games (1998)--Graham Burgess, John Nunn, and John Emms. That was sufficient for me to include it on my list of ten candidates for the "Best Chess Game Ever Played." After last week's Spring Break Chess Camp, I decided to spend more time with these ten games.

Over the past several days, I have repeatedly gone through this game on my iPad and with select students. On Sunday, I sat at the table in front of a chess board and played through the game with Botvinnik's annotations in One Hundred Select Games (1960). Then, I read the annotations in Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, Part II (2003); and in The World's Greatest Chess Games. I also watched videos by Kingscrusher, Jerry at ChessNetwork,  and A. J. Goldsby.

Botvinnik,Mikhail -- Capablanca,Jose Raul [E49]
AVRO Holland (11), 22.11.1938

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3

Lots of moves have been tried here, but this remains the most popular. Botvinnik's comment is interesting.

The Nimzo-Indian Defence is not to be refuted in this way, but recent practice has shown that it is doubtful whether there is any refutation.
Bovinnik, One Hundred Select Games, 154.

4...d5

Possibly dubious for reasons made clear in this game.

5.a3

5.Nge2 dxc4 6.a3 Ba5 7.Qa4+ c6 8.Qxc4 0–0 9.Ng3 Nbd7 10.f4 Nb6 11.Qd3 c5 12.dxc5 Qxd3 13.Bxd3 Bxc3+ 14.bxc3 Na4 and drawn in 33 moves. Euwe,M -- Capablanca,J, Amsterdam 1931.

5.Qa4+ Nc6 6.Nf3 0–0 7.Bd2 Bd7 8.Qc2 Re8 9.Rd1 Bd6 10.Bc1 a5 11.a3 a4 12.c5 Bf8 and White won in 57 moves. Eliskases,E -- Ragozin,V, Moscow 1936. One of the games that led to the name and principles of the Ragozin System.

5.Nf3 is the main line 5...0–0 6.Bd3 c5 7.0–0 Nc6 8.a3 Bxc3 9.bxc3 b6 10.a4 cxd4 11.cxd5 Qxd5 12.exd4 Bb7 13.Re1 Rfd8 and drawn in 42 moves, Alekhine,A -- Keres,P, Holland 1938. From the same tournament.

5...Bxc3+

5...Be7 is playable, but Black has given up a tempo to assist White's queenside expansion.

6.bxc3 c5

6...0–0 7.cxd5 exploits the inaccuracy of 4...d5.
6...c6.

7.cxd5 exd5

White has undoubled his pawns, casting doubt on the wisdom of 4...d5.

8.Bd3

8.f3 has become popular.
8.dxc5 was played in the previous game that reached this postion 8...0–0 9.Bd3 Nbd7 10.Ne2 Nxc5 11.Bb1 b6 and Black won in 52 movess, Landau,S -- Keres,P, Zandvoort 1936.

8...0–0 9.Ne2

When I was racing through this game quickly, this was the first move that caught my eye. As I began to understand this game, however, it became clear that this was a vital part of White's overall plan. Botvinnik understood the sort of position in which Philidor's famous advice was apropos. The knight must support and not impede the advance of the e- and f-pawns.

Black to move

Both players have clear middlegame plans rooted in their respective pawn majorities. White will expand in the center and kingside; Black will play on the queenside. In the ensuing battle, White's plan proves to be faster.

9...b6 10.0–0 Ba6 11.Bxa6

Giving up the bishop pair may seem odd, but this move gains a tempo or two.

11.Bc2 Botvinnik suggested that maybe he "should have" retreated the bishop (154), but it is worth noting that doing so did not work out so well for White two years earlier. 11...Nc6 12.Re1 Re8 13.f3 Rc8 14.dxc5 bxc5 15.Ng3 d4 16.exd4 cxd4 17.Rxe8+ Qxe8 18.cxd4 Nxd4 19.Ba4 Qe5 20.Rb1 Nd5 21.Bb2 Nc3 22.Bxc3 Rxc3 23.Kh1 h5 24.Bd7 Rd3 25.Qa4 Bb7 26.Ne4 Bxe4 27.fxe4 Nf3 0–1 Stahlberg,G (2531) -- Keres,P (2567), Bad Nauheim 1936.

11...Nxa6 12.Bb2?!

An inaccuracy, according to Botvinnik.

12.Qd3, provoking Qc8 was better.

12...Qd7!

Capablanca understands the light-squared battle ahead. This move also threatens penetration on the queenside.

13.a4

Necessary to prevent Qa4.

13...Rfe8?

"A surprising mistake for Capablanca to make" (Botvinnik, 155).

13...cxd4 14.cxd4 Rfc8 and Black is slightly better. "White would probably have sufficient resources available for his defence" (Botvinnik).

14.Qd3 c4? 15.Qc2

Black to move

Yellow, as in the game; or green (my suggestion)?

15...Nb8

Knowing how the game concluded makes it easier to find fault with Black's plan.

I like 15...Nc7 with the idea of employing the knight in defense.

16.Rae1! Nc6 17.Ng3 Na5 18.f3 Nb3 19.e4 Qxa4 20.e5 Nd7 21.Qf2 

21.f4? produces a useful tactics exercise

Black to move (analysis diagram)

21...Nbc5! 22.Qe2 Nd3 23.Rb1.

21...g6 22.f4 f5

Another exercise from this game. Does the student understand the strategic requirements of the position?

White to move

23.exf6

The only chance for an advantage.

23...Nxf6 24.f5 Rxe1 25.Rxe1 Re8

Yet another useful training position. I played out this position with a student on Monday. His 26.fxg6 presented some challenges at the rapid pace that we played. It does seem inferior to Botvinnik's move, however.

26.Re6! Rxe6 27.fxe6 Kg7 28.Qf4 Qe8 29.Qe5

29.Qc7+ has been suggested by several students, and appears to be as strong as Botvinnik's move in the game. 29...Kg8 30.Qe5 Kg7 31.Ba3.

Black to move

29...Qe7?

Botvinnik stated that this move was "inevitable" (156).

However, 29...h6 seems to be the best try. Burgess, et al. offer several detailed lines. I am presenting a fraction of these here with a few improvements made possible by stronger computers in the nearly twenty years since their book was published.

a) 30.Qc7+ Kg8 and the e-pawn needs protection, according to Burgess et al. Even so, Stockfish likes 31.Qd6 with a clear advantage for White.

b) 30.Ba3 Qd8 31.Qf4! is better than the suggestion in Burgess, et al. (31.Ne2) White seems to have the upper hand.

c) 30.Ne2 Na5 does not seem to lead to victory, as noted by Burgess, et al.

d) 30.h4 credited to Nunn in Burgess, et al. 30...Na5 31.Bc1! Qe7 32.Bg5

d1) 32...hxg5 is an important sideline that Burgess, et al. reject 33.hxg5 Nc6 34.gxf6+ Qxf6 35.Qxd5

After 35.Qxd5 (analysis diagram)

35...Ne7 seems to hold, according to Stockfish (Burgess, et al. have 35...Nd8)

d2) 32...Nc6 33.Bxf6+ Qxf6 34.Qxd5

After 34.Qxd5 (analysis diagram)

34...Nd8! (34...Qxh4 is suggested in Burgess, et al. It is the computer's third choice.) 35.Qd7+ Kf8 36.Qc8 and White seems to have a way to victory.

e) Stockfish likes 30.Qd6 30...Na5 31.Bc1 Nc6 32.Qc7+ Ne7 33.Qxa7+-.

Back to the game as played.

White to move

30.Ba3

The textbook deflection!

30...Qxa3

30...Qe8 31.Qc7+ Kg8 32.Be7 Kg7 33.Bd8+ Kf8 34.Bxf6+-.

31.Nh5+ gxh5 32.Qg5+ Kf8 33.Qxf6+ Kg8 34.e7 

34.Qf7+ also wins.

Black to move

For White's deflection to assure victory, he has to foresee this position and calculate to the point where Blaack runs out of checks.

34...Qc1+ 35.Kf2 Qc2+ 36.Kg3 Qd3+ 37.Kh4 Qe4+ 38.Kxh5 Qe2+ 39.Kh4 Qe4+

39...Qe1+ 40.g3 h5 41.Qg6+ Kh8 42.e8Q+

40.g4 Qe1+ 41.Kh5 1–0

Botvinnik won because his strategy was superior, and because he found the necessary tactics when they appeared on the board. This game is worthy of consideration as one of the best. Even so, Capablanca's surprising strategic errors in the late stages of the opening mar it somewhat.


*I suspect that whoever annotated this game for ChessBase MegaBase wrote these words, but I do not have MegaBase.

Researching a Rook Ending

A rook ending that came up in Chess Mentor on Chess.com sent me to the books. The first two moves were easy, but then I lost my way. Once I absorbed the basic idea and found the correct answer within Mentor, I tried it again against Stockfish on the iPad. I went down several blind alleys before finding the correct route.

After learning to win the position easily against the computer, I went in search of additional instruction on this ending in my books. I pored through ten endgame books, including three that are entirely about rook endings, and did not find the position.

It does not appear in Grigory Levenfish, and Vasily Smyslov, Rook Endings (1971 [1957]); in Nikolay Minev, A Practical Guide to Rook Endgames (2004); nor in John Nunn, Nunn's Chess Endings, vol. 2 (2010). I also checked endgame books by Yuri Averbakh, Mark Dvoretsky, Reuben Fine, Mikhail Shereshevsky, and Jeremy Silman. In addition, I checked Smyslov, Vasily Smyslov: Endgame Virtuoso (1997); and Karsten Mueller, and Frank Lamprecht, Fundamental Chess Endings (2001). The last of these had the nearest equivalent, a version of the Kan ending below, but with more work to be done by the stronger side as the pawn behind the rook has not yet moved. That position is from Ivanchuk -- Yusupov, Horgen 1995 (Mueller, and Lamprecht, 198). The solution, however, is completely different due to the exigencies of the position.

The position in Chess Mentor purportedly comes from a game Smyslov lost to Mikhail Botvinnik in their 1954 World Championship match. The first match game, Smyslov -- Botvinnik, Moscow 1954 reached this position after 52...Ra3.

White to move

Smyslov played 53.Kh3 and resigned five moves later.

Had play continued instead 53.Kf2 a4 54.Kg2 Ra1 55.Ra5 a3 56.Ra7, the game would have reached the position that I found in Chess Mentor. This lesson appears in "Rook and Other Endgames", a course created by Jeremy Silman. From the position in the photograph above, the student is presented with these directions.

This endgame would be confusing to most players, however a good understanding of Variations One and Two immediately tells you the dream positions that you would like to achieve. This shows that a working knowledge of basic situations allows you to easily solve otherwise difficult problems. In the position in question, Black must decide when to take on g5 and when to push his a-pawn to a2.
Silman, "Rook and Other Endgames," Chess Mentor, Chess.com

Silman's assertion that Botvinnik played this ending is thus somewhat misleading. That it did not occur in an actual game also serves to explain its absence from textbooks.

Some of the pitfalls that White must avoid are easily found in books. For example, after many moves, Black might threaten a skewer. Minev, A Practical Guide to Rook Endgames presents this position almost at the very beginning of the book (12).

White to move

In my database, I found another game played in the Soviet Union a few years before Smyslov -- Botvinnik that reached a final position where White could no longer avoid this skewer.

White to move

After 65...f4

In Rabinovich -- Kan, Moscow 1935, White resigned in this position. Silman's course offers several exercises almost identical to this position that guides the student to understanding why White chose to resign. White either blockades the pawn with 66.Kf3, allowing 66...Rf1+ and promotion of the pawn, or permits the skewer after 66.Kf2.

I did not initially see a final position like that in Kan's game from the position in Chess Mentor, but nonetheless understood that advancing the a-pawn first created such threats.

Chess Mentor Screenshot

After a couple of correct moves, Silman points out that Black has moved his king towards the center. His note refers the user to "Variation Five", a perplexing reference (see comments on Chess Mentor below). In any case, I was able to discern through trial and error the correct plan and complete the lesson. Then, I played it out against Stockfish with colors reversed.

Stripes,J -- Stockfish
30.01.2017

1.h7 Rh3+ (in Silman's lesson, White shuffled the king between a7 and b7) 2.Kxb4 Rh4 3.Kc3 Rh1 4.Kd3 Rh2 5.c5! bxc5 6.c4

Black to move

This position is "a well known theoretical win," according to Silman. Naturally, I thought it must be in some of my endgame books. In my battle with Stockfish, I tried getting my king to b5, which was possible. However, Black simply sticks the rook on h5 and shuffles the king between a7 and b7. I discovered that I needed to walk the other way.

In my second game against Stockfish, I set up the position with the colors as they are in the lesson.

Stockfish -- Stripes.J
30.01.2017

1...a2 2.Ra6+ Kxg5 3.Ra5 Kf6 4.Ra3 Ke6 5.Ra5 Kd6

This time I headed in the right direction even prior to advancing my f-pawn, a slight inaccuracy it would seem from Silman's lesson, but one that did not matter against Stockfish.

6.Ra8 f4 7.gxf4 f5 8.Ra5 Kc6 9.Ra8 Kb5 10.Ra3

Black to move

10...Kc4 11.Kh2 Kd4 12.Kg2 Ke4 13.Ra5

I unnecessarily expended time worrying about 13.Ra4+, thinking the rook could stay there. But, then I realized that White cannot plant the rook and shuffle the king because I can play Kf3 either forcing the rook to abandon protection of the pawn or walking into checkmate with Ka3.

13...Kxf4 14.Ra8 Ke5 15.Re8+ Kd6 16.Rd8+ Ke7 17.Rd2 f4 18.Rf2

Black to move

18...Rg1+ 19.Kxg1 a1Q+ 20.Kg2 Qc1 21.Ra2 Qe3 22.Rf2 Kf6 23.Rf3 Qe4 24.Kf2 Kf5 25.Rh3 

Black to move

At this point matters are quite simple. The exercise is over. However, Stockfish is not set to resign, so I play until checkmate or abandon the game. The rest of the game required only a few seconds.

25...Kg4 26.Rh8 Qd4+ 27.Ke1 Qxh8 28.Kd2 f3 29.Kc2 f2 30.Kb1 f1Q+ 31.Kc2 Qd4 32.Kb3 Qb1+ 33.Ka3 Qdb4# 0–1


Some Thoughts on Chess Mentor

Chess Mentor was developed several years ago as stand alone software. It remains available as such through their website. In addition, at some point several years ago, the owners of Chess.com purchased the rights to this product. The entire package is embedded within Chess.com's "Chess Lessons" (version three), where it was called "Chess Mentor" under versions one and two. It is available to premium members.

Embedding stand alone software into a web-based format was not accomplished seamlessly. Comments such as Silman's reference to "Variation Five" do not reference anything that can be found under that name in the web version. Sometimes, as in this particular exercise, the carefully crafted teaching modules of Chess Mentor break down.

The original Chess Mentor also offers a "hint" feature, but Chess.com's site design does not implement this feature.

In general, the lessons in Chess Mentor are well designed. I am finding it useful to go through elementary level lessons in search of ideas to use in my teaching, and more challenging lessons as an aid to my own improvement. The lack of an embedded hint feature often leads to blind trial and error until I stumble across the correct move. That groping in the dark can provoke frustration.

Chess.com also gives users a "Lessons" rating. One would not expect to gain rating points from a lesson rated far below one's current rating. However, I have made every correct move in dozens of easy lessons only to discover that I scored 94% and suffered a rating loss of 10 points. I care little enough for the rating, but the logic of 94% for a string of correct moves mystifies me.

It seems to me that Chess.com could invest some of the money it collects from premium users to hire people who can edit the comments to remove references that lead no where and to debug the rating and evaluation system. On the other hand, maybe the technical difficulties of such a task are overwhelming.

The "Lessons" on Chess.com are useful with a few caveats.

Problem of the Week

My advanced chess students this week made efforts to solve this position from Botvinnik -- Capablanca, AVRO 1938. Botvinnik's win over Capablanca's resourceful defense has been judged by many masters since as one of the best chess games ever played.

White to move

Mikhail M. Botvinnik wrote in One Hundred Selected Games that his move from this position was "forced". Nonetheless, it has proven difficult for my students. In the famous position ten moves later, however, where A.J. Goldsby states that his students have never found the winning move, several of my students succeeded.

A Fingerprint

While studying Mikhail Botvinnik's annotations to the second match game of the 1974 Karpov -- Korchnoi Candidates Final, I took an interest in annotations regarding a position that did not occur in the game. After Karpov's 16.Nde2, the position in the diagram below was reached.

Black to move

This position might serve as a fingerprint for the game, although the position after 19.Rd3 is more specific to this particular struggle, as it was Karpov's novelty (according to Informant 18--the move appears in two other games in 1974).

In the diagram position, Black faces a difficult choice. 16.Nde2 was first played in 1973, but had been analyzed following the fourth match game of Geller -- Korchnoi Candidates Quarter Final, 1971 where 16.Bh6 had been played. Korchnoi himself was the first to mention the move in Informant, suggesting it in annotations to Trofimov -- Nesis 1972 (15/407). It was relatively new when Korchnoi faced it over the board. Informant 17/461 presents the move as a novelty (the volume covering the first half of 1974) even though it had been played in a correspondence game the previous year.

Korchnoi played 16...Qa5, which is now given in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings as dubious with Karpov -- Korchnoi 1974 as the first of several reference games in the notes. The mainline (ECO B 78, line 13) is 16...Re8, which had been played twice by James Edward Tarjan in a tournament in Torremolinos, Spain. Perhaps Korchnoi was familiar with these games, both of which Tarjan lost, when he opted for 16...Qa5.


Debate in the Annotations

After 16...Re8, the annotations in Chess Informant become interesting.

In Martin Gonzalez -- Tarjan 1974, Black played the critical line after 17.e5. Botvinnik omits this line from his annotations to Karpov -- Korchnoi (Informant 18/433). Botvinnik gives 17.e5 dxe5 18.g5+/- as a note to the game. Enver Bukic annotated Martin Gonzalez -- Tarjan for Informant. There 17.e5 was met by 17...Ng4, which later became the critical line. In a note, Bukic gives 17...dxe5 18.g5+-. Thus, Botvinnik's annotation downgrades White's advantage in the position from decisive to substantial.

Neither Bukic nor Botvinnik comment on the merits of 17.e5. However, another game played by Tarjan appears in the next issue of Informant, this time a Black win. Dragoljub Minić annotated Informant 19/403, and gave the move 17.e5 an interesting (Tarjan's opponent, Planinic, played 17.Bh6) with the line 17.e5!? Nxg4 18.fxg4 Bxg4 19.exd6 evaluated as unclear.

Two years later, Milan Matulović followed Planinic's idea of playing e5 one move later against Tarjan, who seems to have a knack for getting into theoretical battles in this line of the Yugoslav Attack against the Sicilian Dragon. That game with Matulović's comments proceeded from the diagram position: 16...Re8!? 17.Bh6 Bh8 18.e5! Nxg4 (only move--18...dxe5 19.g5+-) 19.fxg4 Bxg4 20.exd6 (Informant 21/389). Matulović played an improvement suggested by Minic at move 24.

Tibor Florian carries the debate further in annotations to Bernei -- Schneider 1976 (Informant 22/482). Bernei played 17.e5, which Florian assesses as an error. In the notes, he presents Matulović's line, 17.Bh6 Bh8 18.e5! Also in Informant 22, Henrique Mecking presents a line following from 17.e5, but with no evaluation. Mecking's annotations appear in Tan -- Mecking 1976 (Informant 22/486), where 17.Bd4 was played.

Mecking presents without comment both Matulović's line (17.Bh6 Bh8 18.e5 Nxg4 19.fxg4 Bxg4 20.exd6 Qxd6 21.Qxd6 exd6 22.Rxd6 Bg7 23.Bxg7 Kxg7) and 17.e5 Nxg4 18.fxg4 Bxg4 19.exd6 Qxd6 20.Qe1 Qa6. Neither line is referenced, but the latter is from Martin Gonzalez -- Tarjan 1974. Is Mecking's lack of evaluation marks itself a comment concerning a lack of clarity concerning the merits of both lines?

Commenting on Beliavsky -- Filguth 1976 (Informant 23/439), Minic repeats his evaluation 17.e5!? That game continued as Matulović -- Tarjan until move 26. The debate in Informant concerning 17.e5 seems to have ended there, but ECO presents 17.Bh6 as the main line and gives several reference games following 17.e5?! in notes.

Other later moves also exhibit similar changes in evaluation from one issue to another. These games, and the debate concerning the merits of variations following 16...Re8 contribute to an understanding of what did not take place in Karpov -- Korchnoi 1974, second match game. This game, won by Karpov, was one of five decisive games in the twenty-four game match that chose the World Championship challenger to Bobby Fischer, and thus chose the new World Champion the year following the match.

Staunton Gambit

In a match with Bernhard Horwitz, London 1846, Howard Staunton met the Dutch Defense with the offer of a pawn on move 2.

1.d4 f5 2.e4

This line came to be known as the Staunton Gambit, and was dangerous enough that Mikhail Botvinnik opined "If Black wishes to play the Dutch Defence, [1...e6] is almost obligatory."* The Oxford Companion to Chess (1992) calls the Staunton Gambit "vigorous" (393) in their brief entry, giving a short illustrative game.

Tartakower -- Mieses [A82]
Baden-Baden, 1925

1.d4 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g4 d5 5.g5 Ng8 6.f3 exf3 7.Qxf3 e6 8.Bd3 g6 9.Nge2 Qe7 10.Bf4 c6 11.Be5 Bg7 12.Qg3 Na6 13.0–0 Bd7 14.Bd6 Qd8 15.Qf4 1–0

The Encyclopedia of Chess Openings (ECO) has the codes A 82 and A 83 for games beginning 1.d4 f5 2.e4. In many lines, White recovers the pawn quickly. But not always. Sometimes White's kingside pawns are tossed to the wind. Braslav Rabar played a line with an aggressive h-pawn push in the Yugoslav Championship of 1945.

Rabar, Braslav - Kostic, Boris [A83]
YUG-ch Novi Sad (13), 1945

1.d4 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 g6 5.h4 d5 6.h5 Bg7 7.h6 Bf8 8.f3 Qd6 9.Qd2 exf3 10.gxf3

Another game by Rabar in the Yugoslav championship three years later reached this position, but his opponent played 10...c6 instead of the 10...a6 that he faced in 1945. This latter game is not in the ChessBase database, but is line 2 of ECO A 83.

I have not played 2.e4 against the Dutch, but have faced it at least 22 times in online blitz. I've lost slightly more than half of those games.


Transpositions

Although I have not played the Staunton Gambit from the White side, I prepared the Raphael Dutch (ECO A 80) as a weapon for the Spokane City Championship in 2008 when I faced an opponent who was rated more than 500 Elo above me. I managed a draw against Hiarcs 10 in my training for this match, and then earned a draw in the third game of the match. The Raphael has continued as an occasional weapon for me.

The usual line is 1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5

Here 3...d5 is the most popular move with over 1500 games in my database, but 3...e6 often is played too. After 3...e6, White has the option of transposing into a line of the Staunton Gambit without the initial investment of a pawn.

My game against Jeremy Krasin in the Spokane City Championship Contenders yesterday took this route.

1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.Bg5 e6 4.e4 fxe4 5.Nxe4 Be7 6.Bxf6 Bxf6 7.Qh5+

I had looked at some games with this position during a correspondence game, and decided to give it a go. It forces a Black player who is hoping to go into a Stonewall to alter his plans.

My game continued with a line given as a variation on ECO A 83, line 3.

7...g6 8.Qh6 Qe7 9.Nxf6 Qxf6 10.O-O-O Nc6 11.Nf3 d6

My opponent did not play 11...d6, however, but 11...Ne7. As near as I can tell from the ChessBase database, 11...Ne7 has been played seven times before. Most of these ended in a draw. In my game yesterday, White gained a lasting initiative and the Black king remained in the middle of the board until the end. According to ECO, after 11...d6, Black has achieved equality.


M. M. Botvinnik, One Hundred Selected Games, trans. Stephen Garry (New York, Dover, 1960), 72.

Digging Through My Library

It has been a few years since I have counted my chess books, so I do not know how many sit on the shelves in my office. These days I acquire more electronic versions than printed, but even so, I have bought several new paperbacks in the past few months. In my office, one four shelf bookcase that is two feet wide contains only chess texts. Another wider bookcase has two shelves that are each more than 80% chess. Then, there are chess books tucked here and there in several other places in my office, such as my Chess Informants that sit atop some bookcases that contain mostly works in history.

I thought it might be interesting and potentially useful to take a look at a few of these more than 200 books that have been doing little more than gathering dust.

Starting on the left of the top shelf of the wholly chess bookcase, there is a book that came to me when I had ordered something else and the order was botched. Dragoslav Andric, Sahovski Zabavnik (Beograd: Sahovski Informator, 1985) is in Serbian (I think). This text appears to have many interesting curiosities that are inaccessible to me because I cannot read the language. However, the universality of chess notation, abundant diagrams, and the help of Google Translate opens up some possibilities. The book is a compendium of short articles. In the first, a miniature is presented with a diagram showing the final position.

Edwards - Amateur [C35]
ENG corr England, 1963

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Be7 4.Bc4 Bh4+ 5.g3 fxg3 6.Bxf7+ Kxf7 7.Ne5+ Ke6 8.Qg4+ Kxe5 9.0–0 gxh2+ 10.Kh1 Bf6 11.d4+ Kxd4 12.Be3+ Kxe3 13.e5 Bxe5 14.Re1+ Kf2 15.Qg2+ Kxe1 16.Nc3# 1–0

Remarkably, the game continues 16...O-O-O! 17...Kxb2 18.Rb1+ Kxc3 19.Qe4! with the idea of 20.Qd3#

There are many more fantasy chess illustrations in this book and much text requiring translation. It appears to be an interesting book with at least as much wit in evidence as in the next book on the same shelf.

Andrew Soltis, Karl Marx Plays Chess (New York: David McKay, 1991) is a first edition paperback. It is a compendium of the author's favorite "Chess to Enjoy" columns that he wrote for Chess Life beginning in 1979. The column was popular among many readers, and the topics are quite varied: "whatever chess subject tickled [his] fancy," Soltis tells us in the Introduction. The section "Hooked on 'Book'" (230-257) gathers together several columns on the opening. In one, Soltis reveals how to discover a theoretical novelty: "The secret is to look for bad moves.... I mean those that are so obviously bad that no one ever takes the time to prove their awfulness" (231).

The next two texts are Edward Winter, Kings, Commoners and Knaves (Milford, CT: Russell Enterprises, 1999), and A Chess Omnibus (Milford, CT: Russell Enterprises, 2003). I recall browsing A Chess Omnibus in the bookstore after the cover caught my eye. It shows a fine House of Staunton chess set and a felt-lined wooden box. Around that time, I had recently purchased the much less expensive Reykjavik II set from the House of Saunton. It is an elegant wooden set that I am happy to own, and that I carry to tournaments. However, it has never seen a blitz game. For one reason or another, I was ignorant of the work of Edward Winter at the time that I found this book. Browsing through the text in the bookstore, it quickly became obvious that this text would not sit on the shelf unused. Nor does it today. Hardly a month goes by when I am not pulling one or both of these texts off the shelf to browse, or to read something that Winter's fine chess site informs me has been printed there. Winter's other books are on my list of wants.

Winter's books are compendiums of his Chess Notes, which have been published through several outlets. For the past few years, the Notes first appear on his website. Many of Winter's Chess Notes have instructive value for the chess student looking to improve his or her game, but the emphasis in his work seems to be getting details of chess history accurately presented and well-sourced from primary materials. Readers of my other blog, Patriots and Peoples, should be well-aware of my views concerning sourcing in history.

After these four books at the left end of the top shelf, the instructional materials begin. First, there is Graham Burgess, John Nunn, and John Emms, The World's Greatest Chess Games (New York: Carroll & Graf, 1998). My copy has yellowing pages and the spine seems fragile. It is the first American edition, and published the same year as the British original.

Next are two books by Irving Chernev: The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess (1955) and The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played (1965). I wrote about the former back in March in "My First Chess Book." Next along the shelf to the right are a series of tournament books, followed by books concerning specific players. First in the row of tournament books is David Bronstein, Zurich International Chess Tournament 1953, translated by Jim Marfia (1979). Other tournaments and several World Championship matches are represented, including Mikhail Tal's classic Tal Botvinnik 1960.

Perhaps it is time to put the computer away, get out a chess set, and do some serious reading.

Mate in Ten

In the Absolute Championship of the Soviet Union, 1941, Vasily Smyslov has just played 40.hxg6. Mikhail Botvinnik found the mate in ten. Can you?

Black to move