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.

The Grob for Beginners

Beginners should not play the Grob.

Some may object to such a prohibition. Asserting it brings to memory my negative reaction to reading, “I cringe whenever I see 1600-players wheeling out the King’s Indian Attack” (3) in John Donaldson, A Strategic Opening Repertoire (1998). As a sub-1600 player with affection for the Reti Opening when I read this twenty years ago, Donaldson’s harsh words about the KIA seemed aimed at me, too. He states, "everyone should start with 1.e4 and 1.d4 and play classical chess at the beginning of his career” (3). My problem was that I had been playing chess thirty years and was still C-Class. Having learned the moves at age eight and started playing seriously at 15, I was hardly at the beginning of my chess career in my 40s. I thought I should be able to play openings that interested me.

My initial negative response to Donaldson's words were temporary. I agree with him. In fact, I find the so-called "recapitulation theory of chess development" useful pedagogically, even if it does not hold up as a description of most player biographies. See "On the Origin: Reading Journal" (2020). In several forum posts, I have offered the advice that a beginner should only play openings found among the games of Gioachino Greco--with White, that's the Italian, King's Gambit, and Queen's Gambit.

Beginning a game of chess with 1.g4 is clearly risky. The move has gone by many names, but today is most commonly called the Grob in honor of Swiss International Master Henri Grob (1904-1974) who advocated the opening in Angriff (1942) and employed it in correspondence games. The notorious criminal Claude Bloodgood (1937-2001) also employed it in correspondence chess and authored The Tactical Grob (1976).

A few days ago, a beginner played the Grob against me. The beginner in question favors 1.g4 and 1.Nf3 and was under 1200 after nearly 12 years and more than 8000 games on chessdotcom, although the player’s peak rapid rating is 1368.

Chessdotcom does not keep Explorer up-to-date. This data reflects a small portion of the player's games. Nonetheless, it serves to suggest that the Grob has not served him well.

One might object to the term “beginner” for someone who has been active on a chess playing site more than ten years. Although I use that term for everyone under 1200, regardless of how long they have been playing, I also have more than a few losses to such players.* Perhaps novice is a better term. This opponent, 1308 at this writing, is in the top 8% of players in chessdotcom’s pool. From another point of view, the player might be considered quite strong. Certainly he or she should have a plus score against those near the average rating on the site (the average rapid rating on the site today is 618).

Perhaps my advice should be modified somewhat. For a 1200 rated player, the Grob is not an ideal choice for developing the skills needed to rise above 1400. Nor is it a particularly good choice against a player rated hundreds of points higher. The Grob immediately gives Black a slight advantage. Nonetheless, it can be useful against an unprepared player who overestimates this slight advantage.

Here, then, is the game.

Internet Opponent — Stripes, J. [A00]
Live Chess Chess.com, 29.11.2024

1.g4 c6

My reply is not common and is not my usual response, but I have played it once before. I was thinking of a partially remembered line in Bloodgood's book where this move was played a few moves later. Bloodgood shows that it fails as an effort to protect d5 in that line.

Twelve years ago, I had the White side of this position. That game continued 2.e4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.Bg2 Nc6 5.d4 g6 6.c3 Bg7 7.Qb3 Nf6 8.g5 and I won the d-pawn, eventually converting the advantage.

2.a3

This move does nothing for White's position.

2...e5 3.Nc3

In Bloodgood's line, both c4 and Qb3 are commonly combined with placing the bishop on the long diagonal. This move interferes with White's normal plans. The evidence so far is that White has chosen an offbeat opening, but has not taken the time to learn the principal ideas behind the initial move.

4...d5

White to move

Black has a strong center.

4.g5

White has a plus score on Lichess with this sacrifice.

4...Qxg5 5.d4

Perhaps many of those games on Lichess were played by players oblivious to the discovery.

5...Qh5!?

5...Qe7 is played more often here, but I like discouraging the move that White should have begun with.

6.dxe5 Bc5?!

Why not 6...Qxe5? Now, I'm trying to provoke 7.e3 to exchange queens. But also, 1.g4 weakens the e1-h4 diagonal, and I'm speculating that I might be able to use that. That I was able to shows that White's tactical sense needs considerable work--something that develops more rapidly when most games begin 1.e4.

White to move

7.Nf3

7.Bf4! secures the pawn and prepares Bg3, putting an end to my kingside fantasies. As with any opening, the board position makes demands to which the players must attend. My speculative sixth move looks silly if White responds appropriately.

7...Bg4 8.Rg1?? Bxf3-+ 9.exf3

Black to move

9... Qxh2

This fork picks up the e-pawn with tempo.

10.Rg2 Qxe5+ 11.Be2 Nd7 12.Rg5?

12.f4 at least chases the queen back instead of provoking Black to threaten checkmate.

12...Qh2 13.Bf1

13.Qd3 avoids immediate checkmate.

13...Qxf2# 0-1

If you are a novice or even stronger and want to play the Grob, at least do yourself the favor of looking at Bloodgood's pamphlet, The Tactical Grob. Also be aware that trotting out this opening against a much higher rated player means that you could be playing someone who knows the opening better than you.

*As many as 1/3 of them showed evidence of using assistance. 10% have been banned.

Some Books

Some people read one book at a time, finishing it before starting another. Some people never read. Some people start things they never finish. Sometimes I read several related books in parallel. Sometimes I read a book clear through in a day or three. I always have as many as two dozen books that I call my active reading. This number includes chess books and books on other subjects.

The image on the right shows some of my current chess reading, but I tend to finish more when I have them as ebooks. Current active ebooks that I read in ChessBase include Nepomniachtchi: Move by Move (2021) by Cyrus Lakdawala, which I was reading more actively when it first came out than now. Another that I made substantial progress through before stalling (or taking a more active interest in other texts) is Alexander Raetsky, and Maxim Chetverik, Boris Spassky: Master of Initiative (2006). Vladimir Vukovic, The Art of Attack in Chess (1993) sat on my shelf many years and I read a couple of chapters, often referring back to these for review. When in early 2021 I acquired the new edition (2008) with corrections by John Nunn in ChessBase format, I read through the whole book in a little more than a month, using both ebook and print editions in tandem.

During a holiday sale last month, I added ebook versions of Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors (5 vols) and Kasparov on Kasparov (3 vols) to ChessBase. I have the print edition of My Great Predecessors and often read portions.

My shelf containing Chess Informants is nearly full. I have been a subscriber since 2015, getting each issue in print and CD format. I read the articles in the print edition and play through the games on screen. I also use the print edition for making notes (always in pencil). Informant first captured my interest in 1996 shortly after returning to active play at the Spokane Chess Club after more than 15 years away. I also took up postal chess again during that time. At the Washington Class Championships in Federal Way, my time between rounds put me in contact with David Weinstock, a bookseller. He had some Informants and showed me how the system of codes worked. Over the next several years I would sometimes buy an issue that was being sold at a discounted price because several newer editions were out. Then, early this century I bought a few electronic editions of multiple volumes that could be read in Informant’s propriety software. The company eventually stopped developing their own software and made their publication more compatible with ChessBase. Around this time, my ebook collection became complete (at least the games therein) and I maintain it as such through subscription (see “The New Informants”).

It is unlikely that I will ever finish László Polgár, Chess in 5333+1 Positions (1994), but recently have been going through portions of the 600 miniatures in the back of the book. These include some of the same games found in Irving Chernev, The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess (1955), which was instrumental in transforming me into a chess player (see “My First Chess Book”). Since September, my progress through this book has been steady and consistent. The recent article, "Bramley -- Burgess 1946", developed from this project. This week, many of my students saw the game, Steinitz -- Pilhal 1860, which is number 518 in Chernev.

After reading Edward Lasker, The Adventure of Chess (1959) in December, I bought Chess Secrets I Learned from the Masters (1951), which I intend to read soon. I acquired it the day after Willy Hendricks, The Ink War: Romanticism versus Modernity in Chess (2022) arrived, a book that I dove into instantly. Hendriks' writing never fails to entertain as well as instruct.

In July, I am scheduled to give a presentation on chess pieces and history. Naturally, my knowledge must expand prior to then. The Art of Chess (2002) by Colleen Schafroth is a good book with excellent images, mostly from the collections at the Maryhill Museum of Art. A.E.J. Mackett-Beeson, Chessmen (1973) is a smaller book and less accurate in some historical matters. Two claims early in the book set me into verification and refutation mode at the outset. First, the author makes the common error of contending that an ancient Egyptian image of two people playing a board game—almost certainly senet—to be an early depiction of chess. And then, illogically, begins the narrative on the history of chess with a more plausible, but seemingly inaccurate description of chaturanga. Seeking a more accurate rendering drove me back into H.J.R. Murray, A History of Chess (1913), a book I read in-part, and often revisit.

Adriaan D. De Groot, Thought and Choice in Chess, 2nd. ed. (1978) is a classic text on memory, pattern recognition, and the relationships between playing chess well and what people try to define as intelligence. Last month, I finished reading Scott Barry Kaufman, Ungifted: Intelligence Redefined (2013), which I had started in October. The book came to my attention while writing an article about chess talent in which I argued that capacity for hard work was more vital than any sort of so-called natural ability. A magazine article by Kaufman on the nature of talent brought his work to my attention.

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".

The Soul of Philidor

On the Origin of Good Moves Reading Log*

"[Pawns} are the very Life of this Game: They alone form the Attack and the Defense...". Many a contemporary chess enthusiast must have been amazed to read this solemn statement by Philidor, bestowing such honours on the modest pawns, of which Philidors's famous predecessors, Greco and the Italian chess school, thought so little.
Dražen Marović, Understanding Pawn Play in Chess (2000)

The first paragraph of Understanding Pawn Play in Chess is typical of the credit offered to Philidor for his innovative ideas presented through a handful of composed games that he published in Analyse du jeu des échecs (1849). Willy Hendriks challenges conventional understanding in On the Origin of Good Moves (2020). Consider these two positions from quizzes in Hendriks's book (25, 57).

Black to move

Black to move

Both exercises offer the same choice: dxc4 or bxc4. There are three questions. How would you play each position? How would Greco play? How would Philidor? The answers may surprise you.

In a USCF online rated blitz tournament yesterday, I had this position.

White to move

I played the move that Greco would have selected. Ironically, this choice helped me play somewhat in the manner advocated by Philidor, but only after I spurned his general principle for pawn captures. I even sacrificed a knight to get my pawns rolling.

The short version of what On the Origin of Good Moves has argued through the first four chapters is this: Greco is somewhat underrated by chess writers and may be worth more attention. Philidor, on the other hand, gets a free pass concerning egregious errors in his analysis. His reputation for making an original contribution to chess theory might be somewhat greater than deserved.

The first two quiz questions at the beginning of the first chapter on Philidor offer positions from his games. ChessBase Meg 2020 and many books endorse Philidor's evaluation of the position. Willy Hendriks and Komodo 15 disagree.

*See "On the Origin: Reading Journal".

Improve the Defense

A passing reference to Three Hundred Chess Games in On the Origin of Good Moves sent me back into Siegbert Tarrasch's terrific collection of his games. Although Tarrasch's suggested improvement for his opponent in one game seems reasonable, I was not convinced that Black was already lost at that early point in the game. An hour with the game in question led me to an improvement, and then some time with Komodo revealed an even better idea.

I'm happy that I found the critical position without engine assistance, but even after that point, Black could have given White a tougher task proving the advantage.

Tarrasch,Siegbert -- Mendelsohn,Jozsef [C51]
Breslau, 1879

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Bc5 6.0–0 d6 7.d4 exd4 8.cxd4 Bb6 9.d5 Na5 10.Bb2 Ne7 11.Bd3 0–0 12.Nc3 Ng6 13.Ne2 c5 14.Kh1 Rb8 15.Ne1 Bc7 16.f4

Black to move

16...b5

Tarrasch recommends 16...f6. Komodo would have played the text move.

17.f5 Ne5 18.f6 gxf6

I took a look at 18...g6, but could not find a defense to White's obvious attack. 19.Qd2 Kh8 20.Qh6 Rg8 21.Bxe5 dxe5 22.Nf3 +-.

19.Qc1

Black to move

19...Kg7?

19...f5!? 20.exf5 f6

There was still time for Tarrasch's antidote. Here 21.Qh6 offers White no prospects of victory, but 21.Nf4 maintains an advantage.

Komodo's line, however, shows that Black still had an abundance of resources.

19...c4! 20.Qh6 cxd3 21.Rxf6 dxe2 22.Nf3 Re8 (22...Qxf6 23.Qxf6 Nac4 24.Bxe5 dxe5 and White can force a draw) 23.Ng5

Black to move

Analysis Diagram

23...Qxf6! 24.Qxf6 Bd8 25.Qh6 Nac4 and Black is slightly better.

20.Ng3 Rg8 21.Nh5+ Kh8 22.Nxf6 Rg6 23.Qf4 c4

23...Rxf6 24.Qxf6 Qxf6 25.Rxf6 Kg7

White to move

Analysis Diagram

White is better, but the win is not elementary.

24.Be2 b4 25.Qh4

Black to move

25...Rg7?

25...Rxf6 is more stubborn.

26.Bc1+-

Only now does White have a clear and decisive advantage.

26...Bg4 27.Bxg4 Nxg4 28.Bg5 h6 29.Bxh6 Nxf6 30.Bxg7+ Kxg7 31.Qg5+ Kf8 32.Rxf6 b3 33.axb3 cxb3 34.Nd3 b2 35.Raf1 Qe7 36.Qg6 b1Q 37.Rxf7+ Ke8 38.Rf8+ Kd7 39.Qf5+ 1–0

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.