Informant 162

I’ve been a fan of Chess Informant nearly 30 years and have been a subscriber for more than a decade. Sometimes the book gathers dust unread. Other times, I go through many of the games or study an article or two. Since Informant 162 arrived on Monday, I’ve been reading the articles and looking at some games.

I watched some of the World Championship live and looked through all the games, usually the day they were played. Now, with the first article in Informant 162 devoted to the match, I have been revisiting the games. Following a two page synopsis of the ups and downs of the dramatic match by Igor Žveglić, Ivan Ivanišević offers additional narrative and annotated the games.

Ding Liren’s match losing blunder is presented as an exercise: “The position is a draw, but Ding successfully ‘composed’ the loss! Guess how?” (35) Four other positions are presented as exercises.

The second article concerns the European Championship and has seven games or game fragments. I spent a bit of time marveling at the ending in Derakhshani,B.—Ivanišević,I. After 53…d2, this position was reached.

White to move

In the end, Black's five passed pawns were more than White's extra rook and bishop could cope with.

The next two articles concern openings: a reasonably thorough exploration of White’s options in the Budapest Gambit and one on the Makogonov variation of the King’s Indian Defense, again with suggestions for the White player looking for a comfortable game.

“Michael’s Musings” by Michael Prusikin looks at long king walks and will command my attention sometime in the next couple of days.

Ivan Martić offers a brief article about Roman Shogdzhiev, who turns ten years old this year, and at the time of writing has met the requirements for the FIDE Master title and has one IM norm. There are four games.

Ian Rogers looks back on Garry Kasparov’s international debut and his own performance in the same event. He includes his loss to Kasparov late in the event. I’ve only started the article. I usually read Rogers’ articles when each new issue arrives.

I have not yet read the article on correspondence chess, nor looked at the usual elements that are standard in Informant: best game of the previous volume, most important novelty of the prior issue, studies, combinations, endings, and 200 games.

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.

Plagiarism and Related Crimes

Chess writers are notoriously lax with documentation. Many books contain none at all. Some highly regarded instructional manuals use positions from historic games, but do not name the players who produced the position through play. Knowing that Jose Capablanca won a particular endgame is not necessary to learn how a specific position that he played should be played. Even so, offering that information improves the instructional value by hinting at a direction for further study. Here, I am thinking of Jeremy Silman, Silman's Complete Endgame Course (2007), 294-296.

Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, 5 vols. (2003-2006) serves as a terrific anthology of analysis of great games throughout chess history. Early volumes were criticized for poor documentation. Kasparov responded by including a partial bibliography at the end of volume 5. This reference list fails to address the sloppy practice of offering no more than a surname for most quotes from prior works, but at least acknowledges part of the problem in the early volumes.

Edward Winter has exposed many cases of lax sourcing as well as several of explicit plagiarism. See Chess Notes (search for plagiarism). Among the consequences of indiscriminate copying that he notes is the perpetuation of error. When one writer gets a date, location, players, or game score wrong, others will follow. It is the same with chess quotes. I'm tempted to speculate that fake chess quotes could be more frequent among chess enthusiasts than among politicians.

Chess Skills has previously noted errors in the history from which we get the name Pillsbury's Mate. Nonetheless, I often recommend Georges Renaud and Victor Kahn, The Art of the Checkmate (1953) for its pedagogical value despite sloppy sourcing (the Pillsbury Mate error may originate with the authors). Irving Chernev, The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess (1955) was instrumental in my growth as a chess player, but I criticized its sloppy history in my Amazon review of the book. Some readers have criticized my review.

For most chess players, instructive value is all that matters. Who cares if sources are cited? Who cares whether games are properly referenced? 

Social Media

Everything is free on the internet. Content creators find their work presented by others with no reference to who created it. Someone creates a puzzle from a game they are reviewing, but others have created the same puzzle from the same game before. Does it matter where you found it? Go ahead and share as if you were the one reading the book. 

A Facebook group that offers dozens of puzzles most days featured a puzzle from a game I was reviewing that morning. I shared it to the page. My post was presented under the name of the group’s administrator.

Two hours later, my original post was approved, placing that puzzle twice in that group’s feed. When I suggested that the administrator should have noted his source, we engaged in a heated discussion. He even claimed to have added the source information to the puzzle, although it is obvious that he copied and pasted. Note the proper use of a dash where 99.9% of everyone places a hyphen.* He even copied a typo in the book’s date of publication, which should be 1955. Copying replicates errors.

A few days later, he removed me from the group.

Several weeks earlier, I shared a different puzzle from an earlier game in the same book. I used a screenshot from chessgames.com to present the position and the names of the players. I did not mention chessgames.com. A comment accused me of plagiarism. I edited the post after some discussion with the accuser. Although I did not view sharing a screenshot from another site as plagiarism, providing a reference to chessgames.com did seem appropriate.

Some people care. Things on the internet are still protected by copyright.

*A hyphen is a unit of spelling. A dash is a unit of grammar. Adversaries in a contest should be separated by a dash. Such usage is extremely rare. Even so, my 99.9% is hyperbole.

Ten Books to Achieve 1800+

Having seen many lists of top ten chess books recommended for players at different levels, I thought it time to reflect on how books contributed to my rise from C Class to A Class. My first non-provisional rating was 1425 when I was in my mid-30s. I played chess competitively many years earlier, but no events were rated. In the late-1970s, I had a USCF correspondence rating. But when I returned to active play after graduate school, the USCF had lost the records of my postal chess.

I rejoined the Spokane Chess Club in late 1995 and played in my first rated OTB event in March 1996. In October, I played my sixth event and no longer had a provisional rating. By the end of the year, my rating had risen to 1495, but would not rise above that point until 2002. I remained in C Class until fall 2006. While on this plateau, I was gaining both knowledge and skills, but rating progress was slow. Too much online blitz may have held me back.

My journey from wholly ignorant beginner in the late-1960s, to competitive high school player in the late-1970s, to active C Class club member in the mid-1990s involved a lot of book study. Further progress from C Class in my 30s to high A Class in my early 50s included many books, active play, private lessons, chess videos, and I also started coaching elementary students in 2000.

It is no easy matter to choose ten books. By the time I reached A Class, I owned close to 300 chess books and there are very few I had not spent some time reading. At the same time, there are also very few that I read wholly. Some books, or my manner of reading them, may have held me back (just as hundreds of three minute blitz games every month may not have helped me).

The Ten

In November 1996, I played in the Washington Class in Federal Way. There was a book seller set up in one of the rooms near the playing hall. I spent a bit of time there talking with David Weinstock, owner of ChessMate. In our discussions, he recommended a book to me. I was skeptical. The title sounded more basic than my own self-assessment of my needs. Nonetheless, when I found the book at Auntie’s Bookstore when I was back in Spokane, I bought it and started to read it. It was transformative.

Consider my list of ten, pictured above and described below, as a provisional suggestion rooted in experience. What worked for me may or may not work for you. Read all recommendations with skepticism, but also with openness to trying something that might help. There are no magic books guaranteed to improve your chess, but only a few will fail to teach you something of value.

1) Georges Renaud, and Victor Kahn, The Art of the Checkmate (1953) was the book David suggested, and is my first recommendation. Having spent many hours in the 1970s learning the basic checkmates with heavy pieces and even two bishops, and having delivered many fine checkmates in many games, it was hard to believe there was much I could learn from such a book. Reading it, however, exposed me to new checkmate patterns, including some that I had seen, but not absorbed, from a book I studied in 1975: Irving Chernev, The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess (1955). Renaud and Kahn not only taught me new patterns, but they gave me a framework for thinking about checkmate and checkmate threats.

As David Weinstock had, I began to recommend The Art of the Checkmate to any and all who would listen, and also to many who ignore what I say. I still do. This book helped me, and it can help you. But there are other books that could substitute, and might be even better. Victor Henkin, 1000 Checkmate Combinations (2011) takes a slightly different approach. It also teaches an abundance of vital checkmate patterns and greatly exceeds Renaud and Kahn in the amount of study material. Antonio Gude, Fundamental Checkmates (2016) is another option. It is comprehensive and to an extent combines the approaches of Henkin with that of Renaud and Kahn. One can find dozens of other books on checkmate patterns, but these three stand above the others. Get one of them, or even all three.

Vital

2) For a year or longer, Lev Alburt, Chess Training Pocket Book: 300 Most Important Positions and Ideas, 2nd ed. (2000) was my bedside reading. I read it cover-to-cover twice. Alburt’s book was the only tactics book I finished prior to early 2023 when I finished all 1320 exercises in Sergey Ivashchenko, The Manual of Chess Combinations (1999). It is not an ordinary tactics book for practicing basic ideas, but rather, a small set of carefully chosen positions with tactical and positional concepts. It also has a small number of vital endgame positions.

Many grandiose claims have been made by different authors about the legendary 300 positions, but there should be no doubt that careful and deliberate study of a small number of carefully selected positions will take your game up a notch. Alburt’s book helped me. A few years after completing it, I began study of another book focused on 300 carefully selected positions: Rashid Ziyatdinev, GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000). More recently, Thomas Engqvist has gained my attention, now with a trilogy of books containing 300 in the title.

An Idea Worth Considering

3) Quantity matters, too, when it comes to tactics training. A classic that has lifted the skills of generations of chess players has also been part of my training. Fred Reinfeld, 1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations (1955) deserves a place in every chess player’s library. In 2008, I spent quite a bit of time playing these positions against the computer. Often I could find the tactic, achieve a clearly superior position, and yet still fail to defeat HIARCS (see "Where the Rubber Meets the Road"). Reinfeld organizes the chapters by themes—forks, pins, double attacks, and so on. I set my database containing these positions to open randomly so I did not know which theme to look for. But I also use the book, either solving from the diagrams or sometimes setting up the positions on a board.

Endgames have been vital to my success. In 2007-2008, I invested a lot of time teaching some elementary rook endings to my top student, the strongest third grader in my city. That summer, in the Spokane City Championship, I played two rook endings against FM David Sprenkle, drawing one game.

Currently, I’m on a collector’s quest to have 64 endgame texts in my personal library. The quest stems from my enjoyment studying positions with few pieces, my conviction that endgame knowledge is vital for all skill levels, and my involvement in an online community of book lovers, Chess Book Collectors on Facebook. During my rise from the 1500s in 2002 to high-1900s in 2012, much time was invested in endgame study.

4) The endgame book that did the most for me was Mark Dvoretsky, Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual (2003). As one of ten books to recommend to class players, Dvoretsky is a controversial choice. Many players find it too difficult for anyone below master. Poppycock! Chess books are not novels. One does not read every word. Read the part that makes sense and push through a bit that stretches and challenges you. I have read the long chapter on pawn endings in Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual several times and have flash cards containing the 48 blue diagrams that I use for review, study, and teaching (see "Pawn Endings Flash Cards"). I’ve struggled through perhaps half of the chapter on rook endings and made flash cards for the first 24 blue diagrams. Other chapters I have dipped into from time-to-time.

During the years spent studying Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual, other books have also supplemented my work. These include, Bruce Pandolfini, Pandolfini’s Endgame Course (1988); Jeremy Silman, Silman’s Complete Endgame Course (2007); Karsten Müller and Frank Lamprecht, Fundamental Chess Endings (2001); and several others. My top recommendation for those looking to begin endgame study is Yury Averbakh, Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge (1993). There are many choices. Choose that one that you like, but do not neglect the endgame. Make endgame study a priority if you want to play better chess.

Splurge

5) Jacob Aagard, Excelling at Technical Chess (2004) also concerns the endgame. However, it is distinct from the endgame manuals listed above. The core of the book focuses on “seven technical tools”—schematic thinking, weaknesses, domination, do not hurry, passed pawns, how to arrange your pawns, and freaky aspects. Aagaard develops each of these ideas with compelling prose and detailed game analysis. As he states in the beginning, this book follows an approach that has made Mikhail Shereshevsky, Endgame Strategy so highly regarded. The technical tools are worthy of detailed attention, and I hope to find time to explore them in more detail. I blazed through this book is a couple of days, reading all the prose and glancing superficially at the game analysis. However, this superficial reading was enough to transform my game. My endgame play became more resilient. Formerly, I would often offer or accept a draw in seemingly equal positions. After reading the book, I play out most positions to the end, often lone kings. If there is any reason to play on—an imbalance, a weakness of any sort in my opponent’s position, even a better king position—a draw is anathema unless it secures a tournament victory.

Annotated games have always been a regular part of my chess study. In my youth, I spent many hours playing through games from three GM tournaments that resulted in books that I purchased: San Antonio, 1972; Leningrad, 1973 (the 42nd Soviet Championship); and Wijk aan Zee, 1975. In addition, I bought and still have two books by David Levy that were collections of games by specific players: Karpov’s Collected Games: All 530 Available Encounters, 1961-1974 (1975); and Gligoric’s Best Games, 1945-1970 (1972). All these books influenced my play as a teenager as I sought to imitate the play of the world’s elite.

6) In my 40s, I had many more chess books to choose from and studied annotated games from many of them. One source of such games that I returned to frequently is Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, 5 vols. (2003-2006). Kasparov culls some of the best insights from many years of chess literature and presents many of the most important games of every world champion before him, as well as many contenders for that title who fell short. Chess history offers a reliable foundation for the development of chess skill. Although Kasparov does a poor job of documenting his sources (see my Patriots and Peoples blog for examples of sourcing problems in the writing of US history), the series remains an important practical overview of chess history.

7) Paul Morphy’s games are particularly useful to chess players who want to play well. Perhaps one day I will be able to report that I have played through every one of his available games. So far, I have been through at least one-third of them, some of them many times. His eighteen tournament games have been imposed by me on some two dozen students, who have been through all of them. I’ve shown the Opera game to students at least one hundred times and of course know it fully. For insights into Morphy’s play, few books are in league with Valeri Beim, Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective (2005). This book has enriched my study.

8) Chess Informant was long the indispensable source for current master games from before I took up the game in the 1960s into the twenty-first century. Now, of course, these games are readily available from many sources. In 1996, as I was coming back to chess with some seriousness of purpose, I was curious about Informant, which I had seen only in the USCF sales catalog. At the Washington Class, however, David Weinstock had some on the table. He allowed me to look at them and we talked about how they were organized. A month or so later, I included Informant 64 in an order of books from USCF sales. It aided my correspondence play in a concrete way (see "Playing by the Book"). More importantly, learning the Informant system of codes changed my thought processes during play. There are so many things that one contemplates during a chess game while looking for the right moves or the correct plan. Sometimes these thoughts are noise that interferes with clear focus on what matters. To an extent, the limited analytical possibilities in the Informant codes distills chess down to things that really matter in the quest for advantage.

As I grew as a player, Chess Informant was a useful tool. Today’s Informants are changing with the information explosion and are oriented more towards the needs of class players than they were in the past. Give them a try.

A Growing Collection

Of course, I did not rise from C Class to strong A Class without studying the works of Jeremy Silman. His endgame book is already listed above, although it was less useful to me than Dvoretsky. In fact, the day I bought it, I read everything through the section on B Class, finding very little that I did not know. Silman’s endgame book has done more for my teaching than for my own progress as a player. That’s plenty! His writing is compelling and many of his metaphors and personal anecdotes are unforgettable.

I bought and read (partly, of course) How to Reassess Your Chess, 3rd. ed. (1993); The Reassess Your Chess Workbook: How to Master Chess Imbalances (2001); The Amateur’s Mind: Turning Chess Misconceptions into Chess Mastery, 2nd ed. (1999); and The Complete Book of Strategy: Grandmaster Techniques from A to Z (1998). When it finally came out, I added How to Reassess Your Chess: Chess Mastery through Chess Imbalances, 4th ed. (2010), but my rating had risen above 1800 before then.

9) Of these books, Reassess Your Chess and the companion workbook were most useful in helping centralize imbalances in my thinking. When I need to win a tournament game, seeking imbalances from the very first move often proves vital.

The Complete Book of Strategy did nothing for my game and very little for my teaching. Its usefulness has been so slight that I struggle to show proper supportive enthusiasm when a young student has shown me that they just acquired it. I must remind myself that there is a difference between this book’s presence in a chess library of more than 400 volumes that includes several dictionaries and encyclopedias, and a chess library for which this book is the first book acquired. It is a good book, even though it does not meet my needs.

What about the Opening?

In high school, I spent many hours studying lines in I. A. Horowitz, Chess Openings: Theory and Practice (1964). In the 1990s, Walter Korn, and Nick DeFirmian, eds. Modern Chess Openings, 13th ed. (1990) took its place. Even more time was spent on opening monographs, including several on two related variations of the Sicilian Defense that feature an early e5 push by Black. There is some evidence this study hurt my game, or at least retarded my improvement. I tried to memorize lines and often faltered when my opponents deviated from the lines that I knew.

Use at Your Own Risk

In 2003, I began to switch from the Sicilian to the French as my primary defense against 1.e4. The French Defense is not superior to the Sicilian. It might even be a worse choice, but for me it marked a shift in how I approached opening study. Rather than grinding through lines in a book, I sought understanding of the principles, of basic concepts, such as one finds articulated clearly in José Capablanca, Chess Fundamentals (1921), of the ideas behind the moves. Unquestionably, I learned many lines, but when my opponents deviated from these, I was prepared. My play improved.

Detailed opening study and learning concrete lines has aided my preparation for specific opponents in several cases. At a crucial moment while still a B Class player, I won the Spokane Contender’s tournament, earning a shot at the title of Spokane City Champion. Expectations of victory were nearly non-existent. No one expected a B Class player rated in the 1730s to prevail over FM David Sprenkle, rated in the 2250s, down considerably from his peak. As preparation, I spent close to 40 hours on two semi-obscure variations: the Raphael variation against the Dutch Defense for when I had the White pieces, and a seemingly risky Nh6 idea for Black in the French Advance. It took Sprenkle 72 moves to compel my resignation in the French, and I drew my second game with White. It was a very good day.

Most of the time in tournament play, however, such extensive opening preparation is more of a crap shoot. Unless an opponent walks into your pet line, where is the benefit? Tactics win and lose games. Endgames keep chances alive as players grow weary or hungry.

10) Hence, my tenth recommended book is one that I’ve read very little, but that exemplifies how I have come to believe opening study should be pursued. Reuben Fine, The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings (1943) is out of date in terms of the line presented, as should be expected. But, players of the French Defense well-know that White’s pawn on d4 is always a target. The Sicilian Defense is always grounded in creating pawn imbalances and active piece play in the quest for equality and even winning chances.

Other Books

Many other books helped me in my successful quest to reach A Class, and remain there for fourteen years so far, as well as my quest to rise into Expert Class, falling just short and less a goal in my 60s than it was in my mid-50s. Learning drives me. My knowledge continues to grow even as my performance in competition is less consistent.

Capablanca -- Lasker, Game 5 (continued)

Part 10 of a series recognizing the Centennial of Capablanca -- Lasker, World Chess Championship, Havana 1921. Part 9 has the game up to the diagram position below.

On 30 March 1921, José Raúl Capablanca took his position across a historic table from Emanuel Lasker in a room of the Casino de la Playa. Lasker's sealed move from the previous night's play was revealed on the board and game resumed.

Capablanca,José Raúl -- Lasker,Emanuel [D63]
World Championship 12th Havana (5), 29.03.1921

Black to move

After 31.h4

31...gxh4

I have sequenced the comments to reveal the changing assessments of the sealed move over time.

"[A]pparently the best." (Janowski)

"This was not good. Better 31...Kg6 32.hxg5 Ne4 33.Qd3 Qg4+ 34.Rg2 Qh4 35.Qb1 Kg7. The g5 pawn falls and Black is secure." (Lasker)

In British Chess Magazine (July 1921), George A. Thomas mentioned Lasker's suggestion, adding, "threatening perpetual check" after 34...Qh4.

"This was Lasker's sealed move. It was not the best. His chance to draw was to play Kg6. Any other continuation should lose." (Capablanca)

Myers: "This move (Kg6), Capablanca and Lasker agree, is Black's best chance. Not so. It loses just as readily as the move played in the game, which plainly does not solve Black's problems either."

The ChessBase DVD: Master Class, vol. 04: José Raúl Capablanca (2015), my source for Myers' annotation, also has a question mark after Kg6. Myers, I believe, is NM Hugh Myers (1930-2008), who is best known for innovative opening analysis. The DVD is an excellent resource, but it lists the annotators only by surname, and nothing by Myers is listed in the bibliography.

Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, Part 1 (a book wholly lacking a bibliography) offers more:

It is usual to attach a question mark to [the text move--Kasparov then presents Lasker's analysis, and then:] At first sight here it is indeed impossible to convert the exchange advantage: the White king is exposed, and Black's queen and knight dominate. And yet White has a way to gain an advantage: 36.Qd1! Kg6 37.Qf3! (threatening Qf4) 37...Nxg5 38.Qg3 with good winning chances. So that 31...Kg6 was by no means better than the move in the game. (266)

32.Qxh4 Ng4 33.Qg5+ Kf8

White to move

34.Rf5

Capablanca and Lasker both stated in their books on the match that 34.Rd2 was strong: "quite strong" (Lasker) and "would have won" (Capablanca). Stockfish 13 prefers the text until it has longer to think, when it finds both moves equally strong.

34...h5

"Making use of the slight respite, Black unexpectedly creates counterplay." (Kasparov)

Not 34...Qxe3 35.Qxe3 Nxe3 36.Rf2 and 37.Re2 and White wins. (Lasker)

I. Linder and V. Linder, José Raúl Capablanca: 3rd World Chess Champion add the explanation that the rook, "would cut off the Black king from the queenside and help advance his own king towards the center" (82).

35.Qd8+ Kg7 36.Qg5+ Kf8 37.Qd8+ Kg7 38.Qg5+ Kf8

The triple occurrence of position would be a draw by today's rules. Linder and Linder state, "Black could have claimed a draw". I am not certain that he could. What was the rule in 1921? You will not find the rule in the FIDE Handbook. FIDE was created three years later. 

The rules for the London International Tournament of 1883 specified three-fold repetition of moves, and after the event, it was suggested to modify this to three-fold repetition of position (the modern rule). However, the Fifth American Chess Congress (1889) mentioned six-fold repetition, and William Steinitz's is not explicit about a draw by repetition in The Modern Chess Instructor, published that year. He mentions both perpetual check and repetition of moves.

Edward Winter, "Repetition of Position or Moves in Chess", Chess Notes (updated 30 July 2020) offers some of the critical detail concerning development of the rule, including references to rules governing other World Championship Matches that reference the German Handbuch. The rules for the match in Havana do not reference the Handbuch, nor any other set of general rules.

White to move

39.b3

Stronger was 39.Qxh5 (Kasparov).

The theme of Kasparov's annotations on this game is that Capablanca failed to put forth enough effort to make "detailed calculation of 'dangerous' variations", and that "slight inaccuracies harboured the germ" of his defeat by Alekhine (267).  

39...Qd6 40.Qf4 Qd1+ 41.Qf1 Qd7

White to move

Due to a notation error in Linder and Linder (they have 41...Qd2), they see a mate in nine that Capablanca overlooked. Capablanca's game score in his book on the match has 41...Q-Q2, which matches Lasker's Dd1-d7. 41...Qd7, that is.

42.Rxh5 Nxe3 43.Qf3 Qd4 44.Qa8+ Ke7 45.Qb7+

Black to move

45...Kf8??

What was the status of Lasker's clock?

Capablanca: "A blunder, which loses what would otherwise have been a drawn game. It will be noticed that it was Dr Lasker's forty-fifth move. He had very little time to think and, furthermore, by his own admission, he entirely misjudged the value of the position, believing that he had chances of winning, when, in fact, all he could hope for was a draw."

Lasker: "A terrible mistake. The assumption has been made on various occasions that my gross mistake was the result of a lack of time. But that was by no means the case. I had fifteen minutes to think about it, but I was unable to."

46.Qb8+ 1-0

Following this game, the Cuban Tourism Commission sweetened the prize fund for the match by 5,000 pesos (equal to $5,000 because President Mario García Menocal set the exchange rate of dollars to pesos at 1:1). This detail courtesy of the additional source that arrived in yesterday's mail. Miguel A. Sánchez, José Raúl Capablanca: A Chess Biography (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 2015), 247.

Greco's Database

For many years I have found the games credited to Gioachino Greco useful in both study and teaching. His games have been praised by strong players throughout history, most notably by Domenico Lorenzo Ponziani, Mikhail Botvinnik, and Max Euwe. Botvinnik is often quoted as saying the Greco was the first chess master. A selection of his games, almost certainly composed, are available in ChessBase Mega 2020 (82 games), as well as online collections that are mostly derived from earlier versions of the ChessBase database. Chessgames.com has 79 games; 365Chess.com has 75--that one game lists "Analysis Analyze" as the Black player is a dead giveaway that ChessBase is their source.

However, there are more games, or variations of these games that can be credited to Greco. I started looking outside the databases eight years ago when I encountered a line credited by Garry Kasparov (or his ghostwriter) to Greco, but failed to find it in ChessBase (see "Tracking Down Greco's Games"). A few months later, I began the slow process of entering into a database the games and variations in William Lewis, Gioachino Greco on the Game of Chess (London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1819). Lewis has 168 variations arranged into 47 games. His source was a French edition of Greco's games, which was probably based on the last manuscripts Greco created (1625 in Paris). The games presented by Lewis were rearranged by another Lewis--Angelo Lewis, writing under the pseudonym Louis Hoffmann (1900). Hoffmann's collection increased the number of games to 77, reducing the number of variations on each game (see "Gioachino Greco on the Game of Chess"). My chess camp workbook that summer was derived almost entirely from games in Lewis 1819. Unfortunately, my hard drive crashed later that summer, and the last backup had been in February. 

When I started using the ChessBase database (2004), it had been in the works for more than two decades. According to the article "ChessBase is 25" (19 May 2011), Matthias Wüllenweber created the first database on an Atari ST and sent a disk to Kasparov in 1984. ChessBase came out with their first commercial version of the database in January 1987. The article does not identify Wüllenweber's sources for games, which must have been many. However, one print book that would have been an exceptional beginning sits on my shelves.

David Levy, and Kevin O’Connell, eds. Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games, vol. 1 1485-1866 (1981) lists sources for every game included, a practice that should be more common among publishers of chess books (and software). In the past week, I have created a spreadsheet that lists the 77 Greco games in Levy and O'Connell (Hoffmann is their sole source) and whether each one is in Mega 2020, chessgames.com, and 365chess.com. Levy and O'Connell annotate 34 of the games, crediting Greco with the annotations. Presumably these annotations correspond to Hoffmann's variations (confirming this hunch may be the next step in my research work).

Two weeks ago I finished a project that had taken a couple of years because I would work on it for an hour once or twice a year. I now have a database with all of the games from Francis Beale, The Royall Art of Chesse-Play (London 1656). Nine of these are in ChessBase Mega 2020. Beale carries three of these beyond the endpoint in the database. I suspect that many or most of them appear as annotations in Levy and O'Connell.

Byrne -- Fischer, New York 1956

"Game of the Century"

It was quite an experience to watch [Bobby Fischer] during the critical stage of the game. There he sat like a little Buddha, showing his moves with the calm regularity of an automaton.
Hans Kmoch, "Game of the Century," Chess Review (December 1956)

Hans Kmoch, as manager for the Manhattan Chess Club, directed tournaments there. The Third Lessing J. Rosenwald Trophy Tournament took place 7-24 October 1956 at the Manhattan Chess Club and the Marshall Chess Club. Fischer was invited because he had won the U.S. Junior Championship in July, the youngest player ever to do so. The Rosenwald tournament was the first time that he played against the top masters in the United States. His round 8 win against Donald Byrne won the tournament's brilliancy prize and was dubbed the "game of the century" by Kmoch.*

Kmoch wrote that the game, "matches the finest on record in the history of chess prodigies" (Kmoch, Chess Review, rpt. in Bruce Pandolfini, The Best of Chess Life and Review, vol. 1, 1933-1960 [1988], 525).

This game has been annotated many times. For my annotations, I went through the game several times. At several critical positions, I wrote my anticipated variations without moving the pieces. After recording these lines, I checked mine against Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, part IV Fischer (2004). I then checked some of my lines with Stockfish 7.

This game strikes me as a good one for honing a player's calculation skills. It is among my candidates for "best game ever played."


Byrne,Donald -- Fischer,Robert James [D97]
New York Rosenwald New York, 1956

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.d4 0–0 5.Bf4 d5 6.Qb3 dxc4 7.Qxc4 c6 8.e4 Nbd7 9.Rd1 Nb6 10.Qc5?! 

10.Qb3 seems better.

10...Bg4 11.Bg5?

11.Be2 seems necessary.

11...Na4!

This move stunned me when I was playing through the game on a chess board last week. On the one hand, it is a simple deflection combined with a threat to remove the guard of the e4 pawn. On the other hand, Black cannot win a pawn, but rather offers an exchange sacrifice. Fischer had to calculate several lines. In all of these, the vulnerability of White's king proved decisive.

White to move

This position was on my board at the dining room table for most of the weekend. I returned to it several times to study and record possible variations.

12.Qa3

Alternatives begin with 12.Nxa4 Nxe4 and then:

a) 13.Bxe7 was the first line I recorded in my notes. 13...Re8 is the computer's second choice (The engine prefers 13...Qc7 14.Bd6 Nxd6) 14.Bxd8 Nxc5+ (Kmoch has this line, but revereses the order of the previous two moves) 15.Be2 Nxa4 16.Bh4 Nxb2 and Black is clearly better.

b) 13.Qxe7 was my second line. 13...Qxe7

My analysis falls short here. The engine prefers 13...Qa5+ 14.b4 Qxa4 15.Qxe4 Rfe8 16.Be7 Bxf3 17.gxf3 Bf8 Garry Kasparov credits Sergei Shipov with this line. Clearly Black is winning.

Continuing my line: 14.Bxe7 Rfe8 15.Be2 (The engine prefers 15.Bd3 ) 15...Rxe7 16.0–0 (The engine prefers 16.h3 ) 16...b5 17.Nc3 Nxc3 18.bxc3 Rxe2 Black is ahead a piece.

c) 13.Qc1 Qa5+ 14.Nc3 Bxf3 15.gxf3 Nxg5 is offered by Kasparov. I did not look at this line.

d) 13.Qb4 Nxg5 14.Nxg5 Bxd1 15.Kxd1 Bxd4–+ Kasparov. Another line that I failed to examine.

My third line continued:

e) 13.Qa3 Nxg5 14.Be2 Nxf3+ (Stockfish prefers 14...Bxf3 15.Bxf3 Qa5+ 16.Nc3 Qxa3 17.bxa3 Nxf3+ 18.gxf3) 15.Bxf3 Bxf3 16.Qxf3 and Black is winning.

12...Nxc3 13.bxc3 Nxe4 14.Bxe7 Qb6

White to move

15.Bc4

What if White accepts the exchange sacrifice?

15.Bxf8 Bxf8 16.Qc1

I also considered 16.Qb3 Qxb3 (Kasparov gives 16...Nxc3, attributing the suggestion to Yuri Averbakh) 17.axb3 Nxc3 18.Rd2 Re8+ 19.Be2 Bb4-+

16...Re8 17.Be2 Nxc3

Analysis diagram after 17...Nxc3

I spent a lot of time trying to find a defense for White here. Instead, I found only lines leading to checkmate or to an overwhelming material advantage for Black.

18.Rd2

(Stockfish prefers 18.Qxc3 Bb4 and there was no doubt in my mind that Black was winning here)

18...Rxe2+ 19.Rxe2 Nxe2 20.Kxe2 Qb5+ 21.Ke1

(21.Kd1 seems best 21...Qd3+ 22.Qd2 Bxf3+ 23.gxf3 Qxf3+ 24.Kc2 Qxh1-+)

21...Bb4+ 22.Kd1

(22.Qd2 Bxd2+ 23.Kxd2 [23.Nxd2 Qe2#])

22...Qd3+ 23.Qd2 Qxd2#

15...Nxc3 16.Bc5

I considered 16.Qxc3 Rfe8 17.0–0 is Stockfish's choice, as it was mine (I did not look at Kasparov's line 17.Bxf7+ Kxf7 18.Ng5+ Kxe7 19.0–0 Bxd1 20.Rxd1) 17...Rxe7 and Black has a clear edge.

16...Rfe8+ 17.Kf1 Be6!!

White to move

18.Bxb6

After the possible 18.Bxe6, I spent a lot of time looking at complex and unclear lines before I saw Fischer's plan: 18...Qb5+ 19.Bc4 Qxc4+ 20.Kg1 Ne2+ 21.Kf1 Ng3+ 22.Kg1 Qf1+ 23.Rxf1 Ne2#.

I also saw 18.Qxc3 Qxc5 19.dxc5 Bxc3 20.Bxe6 Rxe6.

After Fischer's queen sacrifice, the moves seemed rather forcing and I did not look at variations again for many moves.

18...Bxc4+ 19.Kg1 Ne2+ 20.Kf1 Nxd4+ 21.Kg1

I did not examine 21.Rd3 axb6.

21...Ne2+ 22.Kf1 Nc3+ 23.Kg1 axb6 24.Qb4 Ra4 25.Qxb6 Nxd1

White to move

26.h3

I did not examine 26.Qxb7 Bd5 27.Qd7 Re2.

26...Rxa2 27.Kh2 Nxf2 28.Re1 Rxe1 29.Qd8+ Bf8 30.Nxe1 Bd5 31.Nf3 Ne4

Here it seems to me that White is running out of moves. He has not been in the game since capturing Fischer's queen. In fact, he was lost before that. His role is to make the moves that permit the young Fischer to demonstrate his skill.

32.Qb8 b5

Kasparov mentions 32...Kg7.

33.h4 h5 34.Ne5 Kg7 35.Kg1 Bc5+

White to move

36.Kf1

I knew that 36.Kh2 would lose quickly, but my Ra1 is inferior to 36...Nd2!

I saw 37.Qc7 (37.Nf3 Bd6+) 37...Bg1+ 38.Kh1 Nf2#.

36...Ng3+

36...Bc4+? 37.Nxc4.

I found another checkmate as fast as Fischer's: 36...Rf2+ 37.Ke1

37.Kg1 loses faster 37...Rf4+ 38.Kh2 Rxh4#.

37...Bb4+ 38.Kd1 Bb3+ 39.Kc1 Rc2+ 40.Kd1 (40.Kb1 Nc3+ 41.Ka1 Ra2#) 40...Nf2#.

37.Ke1 Bb4+

Kasparov points out a faster checkmate: 37...Re2+ 38.Kd1 Bb3+ 39.Kc1 Ba3+ 40.Kb1 Re1#.

38.Kd1 Bb3+ 39.Kc1 Ne2+ 40.Kb1 Nc3+ 41.Kc1 Rc2# 0–1

After this game, the world noticed Bobby Fischer. Within a few years, he became a leading candidate for a future World Championship match. When he finally reached the summit, he gave up on chess. Of course, there were reasons. He set conditions that were not met wholly.


*For some of the historical details concerning this tournament, I am indebted to John Donaldson, and Eric Tangborn, Bobby Fischer: The Early Years: 1943-1962 (Amazon Digital Services, 2017).

Bogoljubov -- Alekhine, Hastings 1922

Alexander Alekhine gave up three queens to beat Efim Bogoljubow in their last round game at Hastings Six Masters in 1922. The game featured some spectacular tactics and a textbook finish with a near zugzwang position giving way to an elementary pawn ending. Many chess enthusiasts consider it one of  the greatest games ever played. I included it among my ten candidates in the list created for my Spring Break Chess Camp class on the subject of the best game ever played.

Alekhine needed a win to finish first in the tournament as he was tied with Akiva Rubinstein going into the last round. This need drove his choice of the Dutch Defense, which he characterized as risky. Many recent accounts of this game confuse this event, held September 1922, with the Hastings International Chess Congress, held December 1922 -- January 1923. Rubinstein won the latter. Alekhine did not participate. The Six Masters event was a double round robin featuring two British masters--George A. Thomas and Frederick Yates--and four of the leading masters from outside Britain--Alekhine, Rubinstein, Seigbert Tarrasch, and Efim Bogoljubow.

The round-by-round results with links to the games are posted on Chessgames.com. I looked at crosstables for this event and for the Hastings Chess Congress in John Donaldson, and Nikolay Minev, The Life and Games of Akiva Rubinstein, vol. 2: the Later Years, 2nd. ed. (2011).

A. Alekhine from Wikimedia Commons*

Alekhine considers this game against Bogoljubow, alongside his win against Richard Reti (Baden-Baden 1925), as "the most brilliant wins of [his] chess career" (Alekhine, My Best Games of Chess, 1924-1937 [1965], 13). Irving Chernev also calls this game, "the most brilliant game ever played" (The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played [1965], 67). Chernev annotates this game in The Chess Companion (1968) and in Twelve Great Players and Their Best Games (1976). The former is quoted on the website Master Chess Open:

Alekhine's subtle strategy involves manoeuvres which encompass the entire chessboard as a battlefield. There are exciting plots and counterplots. There are fascinating combinations and brilliant sacrifices of Queens and Rooks. There are two remarkable promotions of Pawns and a third in the offing, before White decides to capitulate.
Chernev, The Chess Companion (as quoted at Master Chess Open).

Andrew Soltis lists this game as number four in The 100 Best Chess Games of the 20th Century, Ranked (2006).

Despite such praise, Bogoljubow -- Alekhine, Hastings 1922 is absent from Graham Burgess, John Nunn, and John Emms, The World's Greatest Chess Games (1998). Burgess does include it in Chess Highlights of the 20th Century (2000), but that book contains 270 games. The editors of The World's Greatest Chess Games carefully culled their list to one hundred. Their criteria were:

Quality and brilliance of play by both contestants.
Historical value.
Historical significance.
Burgess, Nunn, and Emms (1998), 7.

Bogoljubow's play falls short of this standard. He makes several positional errors in the opening and middle game, which Alekhine then exploits brilliantly. Even then, however, Alekhine may have eschewed the clearest path to victory in favor of artistic chess.

Annotations to this game are found in many books, websites, and YouTube videos. Most annotators start with Alekhine's own comments in My Best Games of Chess, 1908-1923 (1927) or in W.H. Watts, The Book of the Hastings International Masters' Chess Tournament 1922 (1924). A. J. Goldsby offers detailed annotations on his website and also a YouTube video. While going through this game, I studied annotations in S. Tartakower, and J. DuMont, 500 Master Games of Chess (1975); Max Euwe, From Steinitz to Fischer (1976); and Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, Part 1 (2003). The game without annotations is included in Rashid Ziyatdinov, GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000), which I mention frequently on Chess Skills. There are three middlegame positions in GM-RAM from this game.

In my annotations, I aim to highlight the critical moments of this game, rather than creating a compendium of all that has been said by others.


Bogoljubow,Efim -- Alekhine,Alexander [A90]
Hastings Six Masters, Hastings, 21 September 1922

1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Bb4+ 5.Bd2 Bxd2+ 6.Nxd2

6.Qxd2 offers White much better prospects. This game well-illustrates how this capture leads to a misplaced knight and reduces White's influence in the center. As long as this knight stands on d2 it prevents White's rooks from controlling the d-file and it stands as a potential target should Bogoljubow seek exchanges in the center. Tartakower suggests 6.Qxd2 and Nc3. Kasparov concurs.

6...Nc6 7.Ngf3 0–0 8.0–0 d6 9.Qb3 Kh8

White to move

While running a youth chess tournament at the end of our Spring Break Camp, I spent my idle moments going through this game. The position in the diagram above was on my board for much of the day. I asked many of the youth players and coaches whether they agreed with Alekhine's assessment that Black already has the upper hand. The first youth to face this question suggested 10.d5 and thought White was better. Tartakower also prefers 10.d5 to the move Bogoljubow played in the game.

Black's queen knight on c6 is more active than its counterpart on d2. White's queen is temporarily more mobile than Black's, but knowing how the game continued makes it hard to evaluate the position objectively. Black's queen proved to have more influence in the game. Perhaps the White queen is somewhat misplaced on the queenside. White's rooks are connected. Many youth players suggested that White has a lead in development and cannot be worse.

Alekhine annotated this game from the perspective of having won a brilliant victory. He might not have been particularly objective in his assessment of the game up to this point. We know that Black's queen made a foray to the kingside, where it provoked weaknesses, then returned to e8 to support action in the center and on the queenside. From the standpoint of the game's whole, Black's queen proved much more flexible and effective.

After 9.Qb3, Alekhine wrote, "This manoeuvre does not prevent Black from realising his plan, but it is already difficult to suggest a satisfactory line of play for White (Alexander Alekhine's Best Games [2012], eBook, loc 2665). Presumably, it is this comment that Euwe translated into the Informant symbol for Black has the upper hand in From Steinitz to Fischer. But, it seems to me that Alekhine might be annotating by result.

Tartakower and DuMont, 500 Master Games of Chess offer several improvements to White's play over the next several moves. Most of these suggestions are repeated by Kasparov in My Great Predecessors. I think the game is still balanced at this point, but that Black has a clear edge after move 18. Kasparov quotes Alekhine's "already difficult ... for White," adding "Why?"

10.Qc3

After 10.d5, Kasparov offers two lines that the young players and I examined at the youth tournament.

10...Na5 11.Qc3 c5
10...exd5 11.cxd5 Ne7

In both cases, it does not seem that Black has an advantage. Kasparov states, "Black would have faced a thankless defence" (365).

10...e5 11.e3

Alekhine points out the vulnerability of White's knight on d2. If 11.dxe5 dxe5 12.Nxe5 Nxe5 13.Qxe5 and the knight on d2 is en prise. Tartakower, Euwe, and Kasparov all repeat this line.

11...a5

Upon seeing this move, I might agree that Black has a slight edge after White's failure to play 10.d5.

White to move

12.b3 Qe8 13.a3 Qh5

At this point, Kasparov quotes Alexander Kotov, "The start of a deep strategic plan. First of all Black creates threats on the kingside and provokes a weakening of the opponents pawns" (Kasparov, 365).

A defect of My Great Predecessors is the absence of documentation. The whole series is full of quotes from other chess writers. Parts IV and V offer bibliographies, but not the sort of documentation that is desirable for a work that is so much a digest of the work of others. The first three parts offer less.

Kotov wrote several books about Alekhine in Russian (I saw the number six somewhere). One book exists in English, put out by R.H.M. Press: Alexander Kotov, Alexander Alekhine, tran. K. P. Neat (1975). I am tempted to buy this book. There are used copies floating about, and also an Ishi Press reprint.

14.h4

Alekhine writes, "A good defensive move, which secures new squares for his f3-knight and revived the threat of 15.dxe5" (loc 2682). I do not see why 14.dxe5 was not possible. Tartakower rejects it because after 14...dxe5 15.Nxe5 drops a piece. It seems to me that White could open the center and does not need to follow-up by blundering away a knight. The h2-h4 push can be played later.

I considered 14.Rab1 to support b3-b4. The immediate 14.b3-b4 drops a pawn because after 14...e4 15.Ne1, the rook is skewered through White's a-pawn.

14...Ng4 15.Ng5 Bd7

White to move

16.f3

Alekhine sought to provoke a weakening of White's kingside, and did so. But, Bogoljubow might have been a little too cooperative. I am tempted to regard 16.f3 as a mistake. Alekhine suggested in comments to 15.Ng5 that 15.b4 was preferable. Kasparov repeats Alekhine's suggestion.

Here Alekhine offers a tactical line that is even worse for White: 16.Bxc6 Bxc6 17.f3 exd4 18.fxg4 dxc3 19.gxh5 cxd2 with a better endgame for Black.

16...Nf6 17.f4

Black threatened 17...f4, which would have pried open White's pawn shield.

e4 18.Rfd1

18.d5 was White's last chance to be slightly worse.

18...h6 19.Nh3 d5

White to move

Black clearly has the upper hand now, in my view. Where did White fail? On moves 10-18, Bogoljubow had several opportunities to open the center and possibly create a balanced struggle. He opted instead to close the kingside and close the center. As a consequence, his pieces lost their mobility and became passive. His long-term plan seemed oriented towards action on the queenside, but the game's subsequent course revealed surprising resources for Black there.

Kasparov offers another juicy quote from Kotov, which highlights the success of Alekhine's long-term strategic plan. Kasparov's note preceding the game highlights the centrality of Kotov's commentary.

The last of the wins is one of the most grandiose Alekhine canvases. It once again shows that his amazing combinations did not arise out of thin air, but were the fruit of very deep strategic preparation.
Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, 364.

20.Nf1

This position is the first of the three in GM-RAM from this game.

Ne7 21.a4

This position is the second in GM-RAM from this game.

Now, Boguljubow weakens his queenside, offering Black a nice outpost for his knight. Could he have tried to close matters there, too, and then hunkered down inside a fortress? To wit, 21.c5 Qg6 22.Qe1 Neg8 23.Kh2 Nh5 24.Ng1 Ngf6. White has no play, but how will Black break through?

21...Nc6 22.Rd2 Nb4 23.Bh1

This bishop could be useful preventing Black's knight for employing d3 as an outpost. Alas, there is no way to maneuver the bishop to such a useful square so long as the knight on f1 must guard the weak g-pawn. Perhaps White could redeploy his knights to h1 and h2 to guard g3 and g4? Surely, that would offer Black some opportunities elsewhere on the board.

Maybe 23.c5 is no worse than White's other choices. the tension between c4 and d5 only benefits Black. 23.cxd5 looks suicidal.

23...Qe8!

White to move

Now, c4-c5 is not possible due to b6. The problems with 24.cxd5 are worse than before.

24.Rg2 dxc4 25.bxc4 Bxa4

Alekhine has won a pawn. More significant than the pawn, however, is the preponderance of force for Black on the queenside as things open up. Half of White's army is sitting in the bleachers with their monarch, watching the game.

26.Nf2 Bd7 27.Nd2 b5 28.Nd1 Nd3

Alekine rejected 28...bxc4 because it would bring a White knight to e5.

29.Rxa5

White has won back the pawn, but his position is now much worse than it was a few moves ago. Now the game enters the phase where Alekhine's flashy tactical brilliance shines. Black has several ways to win, but the manner he chose elevates this game in the opinions of many chess students.

29.cxb5 and Alekhine offers 29...Bxb5 30.Rxa5 Nd5 31.Qa3 Rxa5 32.Qxa5 Qc6 with a winning attack for Black.

Black to move

29...b4! 30.Rxa8

Ziyatdinov's third position in GM-RAM from this game has now been reached.

30...bxc3!! 

This brilliant move was not necessary to win. 30...Qxa8 31.Qb3 (Alekhine's suggestion) 31...Qa1 (Kasparov's improvement over Alekhine's 31...Ba4) 32.Qb1 Ra8 and Black has a technical win.

31.Rxe8 c2 

The point of Black's last few moves.

32.Rxf8+ Kh7 33.Nf2 c1Q+ 34.Nf1 Ne1

Threatening smother checkmate.

35.Rh2 Qxc4 36.Rb8 Bb5 37.Rxb5 Qxb5

White's moves 30-37 are the computer's top choice. Alternatives lose much quicker.

White to move

38.g4 Nf3+ 39.Bxf3 exf3 40.gxf5 Qe2

White to move

What can White do? He is in zugzwang. Pawn moves delay the end.

41.d5

41.Nh1 Ng4 42.Rxe2 fxe2 and after sacrificing two queens. Black will gain one more to sacrifice.

41...Kg8 42.h5 Kh7 43.e4

Now White's remain pawn moves lose pawns.

43...Nxe4 44.Nxe4 Qxe4

White to move

45.d6 cxd6 46.f6 gxf6 47.Rd2 Qe2

Alekhine threatens checkmate in one.

48.Rxe2 fxe2 49.Kf2 exf1Q+

Alekhine's third queen sacrifice in this game.

50.Kxf1 Kg7 51.Kf2 Kf7 52.Ke3 Ke6 53.Ke4 d5+ 0–1

There is not much to criticize in Bogoljubow's moves after about move 20. But, his inaccurate play in the early game deprives this game of some of its merit. Alekhine's strategic preparation and tactical execution deserve study.


*George Grantham Bain Collection (Library of Congress) derivative work: Jesus Angel Rey, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16985493.

The Best Chess Game Ever Played

What is the best chess game ever played? What criteria determines this choice? Do we favor players whom we like?

At Inland Chess Academy's Spring Break Camp today, I am presenting a class called the "best chess game ever played." But, I do not have an answer to my questions.

My students will receive a list with ten candidates. The list is incomplete. It has no games by the best player who ever lived, Magnus Carlsen. The class lasts fifty minutes. If we go through two of these games, we will need to rush through them. Every game on this list deserves several hours of study. Over the next few weeks, I plan to annotate these ten games and post them on Chess Skills.

Black to move

Vishy Anand lost this game and annotated it for Chess Informant. It received more first place votes than just about any other game published. However, the game that won two Informant Reader's Contests received more. It, too, is on this list.

The Greatest Chess Game Ever Played
My Candidates in Chronological Order (links are to my annotations)

(1) Bogoljubow,Efim -- Alekhine,Alexander [A90]
Hastings Six Masters Hastings, 1922

1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.g3 e6 4.Bg2 Bb4+ 5.Bd2 Bxd2+ 6.Nxd2 Nc6 7.Ngf3 0–0 8.0–0 d6 9.Qb3 Kh8 10.Qc3 e5 11.e3 a5 12.b3 Qe8 13.a3 Qh5 14.h4 Ng4 15.Ng5 Bd7 16.f3 Nf6 17.f4 e4 18.Rfd1 h6 19.Nh3 d5 20.Nf1 Ne7 21.a4 Nc6 22.Rd2 Nb4 23.Bh1 Qe8 24.Rg2 dxc4 25.bxc4 Bxa4 26.Nf2 Bd7 27.Nd2 b5 28.Nd1 Nd3 29.Rxa5 b4 30.Rxa8 bxc3 31.Rxe8 c2 32.Rxf8+ Kh7 33.Nf2 c1Q+ 34.Nf1 Ne1 35.Rh2 Qxc4 36.Rb8 Bb5 37.Rxb5 Qxb5 38.g4 Nf3+ 39.Bxf3 exf3 40.gxf5 Qe2 41.d5 Kg8 42.h5 Kh7 43.e4 Nxe4 44.Nxe4 Qxe4 45.d6 cxd6 46.f6 gxf6 47.Rd2 Qe2 48.Rxe2 fxe2 49.Kf2 exf1Q+ 50.Kxf1 Kg7 51.Kf2 Kf7 52.Ke3 Ke6 53.Ke4 d5+ 0–1


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

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e3 d5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.cxd5 exd5 8.Bd3 0–0 9.Ne2 b6 10.0–0 Ba6 11.Bxa6 Nxa6 12.Bb2 Qd7 13.a4 Rfe8 14.Qd3 c4 15.Qc2 Nb8 16.Rae1 Nc6 17.Ng3 Na5 18.f3 Nb3 19.e4 Qxa4 20.e5 Nd7 21.Qf2 g6 22.f4 f5 23.exf6 Nxf6 24.f5 Rxe1 25.Rxe1 Re8 26.Re6 Rxe6 27.fxe6 Kg7 28.Qf4 Qe8 29.Qe5 Qe7 30.Ba3 Qxa3 31.Nh5+ gxh5 32.Qg5+ Kf8 33.Qxf6+ Kg8 34.e7 Qc1+ 35.Kf2 Qc2+ 36.Kg3 Qd3+ 37.Kh4 Qe4+ 38.Kxh5 Qe2+ 39.Kh4 Qe4+ 40.g4 Qe1+ 41.Kh5 1–0

(3) Byrne,Donald -- Fischer,Robert James [D97]
New York Rosenwald New York, 1956

1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.d4 0–0 5.Bf4 d5 6.Qb3 dxc4 7.Qxc4 c6 8.e4 Nbd7 9.Rd1 Nb6 10.Qc5 Bg4 11.Bg5 Na4 12.Qa3 Nxc3 13.bxc3 Nxe4 14.Bxe7 Qb6 15.Bc4 Nxc3 16.Bc5 Rfe8+ 17.Kf1 Be6 18.Bxb6 Bxc4+ 19.Kg1 Ne2+ 20.Kf1 Nxd4+ 21.Kg1 Ne2+ 22.Kf1 Nc3+ 23.Kg1 axb6 24.Qb4 Ra4 25.Qxb6 Nxd1 26.h3 Rxa2 27.Kh2 Nxf2 28.Re1 Rxe1 29.Qd8+ Bf8 30.Nxe1 Bd5 31.Nf3 Ne4 32.Qb8 b5 33.h4 h5 34.Ne5 Kg7 35.Kg1 Bc5+ 36.Kf1 Ng3+ 37.Ke1 Bb4+ 38.Kd1 Bb3+ 39.Kc1 Ne2+ 40.Kb1 Nc3+ 41.Kc1 Rc2# 0–1

(4) Polugaevsky,Lev -- Nezhmetdinov,Rashid [A53]
Sochi, 1958

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 e5 4.e4 exd4 5.Qxd4 Nc6 6.Qd2 g6 7.b3 Bg7 8.Bb2 0–0 9.Bd3 Ng4 10.Nge2 Qh4 11.Ng3 Nge5 12.0–0 f5 13.f3 Bh6 14.Qd1 f4 15.Nge2 g5 16.Nd5 g4 17.g3 fxg3 18.hxg3 Qh3 19.f4 Be6 20.Bc2 Rf7 21.Kf2 Qh2+ 22.Ke3 Bxd5 23.cxd5 Nb4 24.Rh1 Rxf4 25.Rxh2 Rf3+ 26.Kd4 Bg7 27.a4 c5+ 28.dxc6 bxc6 29.Bd3 Nexd3+ 30.Kc4 d5+ 31.exd5 cxd5+ 32.Kb5 Rb8+ 33.Ka5 Nc6+ 0–1

(5) Fischer,Robert James -- Stein,Leonid [C92]
Sousse (izt) 4/336, 1967

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0–0 9.h3 Bb7 10.d4 Na5 11.Bc2 Nc4 12.b3 Nb6 13.Nbd2 Nbd7 14.b4 exd4 15.cxd4 a5 16.bxa5 c5 17.e5 dxe5 18.dxe5 Nd5 19.Ne4 Nb4 20.Bb1 Rxa5 21.Qe2 Nb6 22.Nfg5 Bxe4 23.Qxe4 g6 24.Qh4 h5 25.Qg3 Nc4 26.Nf3 Kg7 27.Qf4 Rh8 28.e6 f5 29.Bxf5 Qf8 30.Be4 Qxf4 31.Bxf4 Re8 32.Rad1 Ra6 33.Rd7 Rxe6 34.Ng5 Rf6 35.Bf3 Rxf4 36.Ne6+ Kf6 37.Nxf4 Ne5 38.Rb7 Bd6 39.Kf1 Nc2 40.Re4 Nd4 41.Rb6 Rd8 42.Nd5+ Kf5 43.Ne3+ Ke6 44.Be2 Kd7 45.Bxb5+ Nxb5 46.Rxb5 Kc6 47.a4 Bc7 48.Ke2 g5 49.g3 Ra8 50.Rb2 Rf8 51.f4 gxf4 52.gxf4 Nf7 53.Re6+ Nd6 54.f5 Ra8 55.Rd2 Rxa4 56.f6 1–0

(6) Fischer,Robert James -- Spassky,Boris V [D59]
Reykjavik (m/6) 14/547, 1972

1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 0–0 6.e3 h6 7.Bh4 b6 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Nxd5 exd5 11.Rc1 Be6 12.Qa4 c5 13.Qa3 Rc8 14.Bb5 a6 15.dxc5 bxc5 16.0–0 Ra7 17.Be2 Nd7 18.Nd4 Qf8 19.Nxe6 fxe6 20.e4 d4 21.f4 Qe7 22.e5 Rb8 23.Bc4 Kh8 24.Qh3 Nf8 25.b3 a5 26.f5 exf5 27.Rxf5 Nh7 28.Rcf1 Qd8 29.Qg3 Re7 30.h4 Rbb7 31.e6 Rbc7 32.Qe5 Qe8 33.a4 Qd8 34.R1f2 Qe8 35.R2f3 Qd8 36.Bd3 Qe8 37.Qe4 Nf6 38.Rxf6 gxf6 39.Rxf6 Kg8 40.Bc4 Kh8 41.Qf4 1–0

(7) Karpov,Anatoly -- Kasparov,Garry [B44]
Moscow (m/16) 40/202, 1985

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6 5.Nb5 d6 6.c4 Nf6 7.N1c3 a6 8.Na3 d5 9.cxd5 exd5 10.exd5 Nb4 11.Be2 Bc5 12.0–0 0–0 13.Bf3 Bf5 14.Bg5 Re8 15.Qd2 b5 16.Rad1 Nd3 17.Nab1 h6 18.Bh4 b4 19.Na4 Bd6 20.Bg3 Rc8 21.b3 g5 22.Bxd6 Qxd6 23.g3 Nd7 24.Bg2 Qf6 25.a3 a5 26.axb4 axb4 27.Qa2 Bg6 28.d6 g4 29.Qd2 Kg7 30.f3 Qxd6 31.fxg4 Qd4+ 32.Kh1 Nf6 33.Rf4 Ne4 34.Qxd3 Nf2+ 35.Rxf2 Bxd3 36.Rfd2 Qe3 37.Rxd3 Rc1 38.Nb2 Qf2 39.Nd2 Rxd1+ 40.Nxd1 Re1+ 0–1

(8) Ivanchuk,Vassily (2735) -- Jussupow,Artur (2625) [E67]
Brussels (m/9) 52/592, 1991

1.c4 e5 2.g3 d6 3.Bg2 g6 4.d4 Nd7 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.Nf3 Ngf6 7.0–0 0–0 8.Qc2 Re8 9.Rd1 c6 10.b3 Qe7 11.Ba3 e4 12.Ng5 e3 13.f4 Nf8 14.b4 Bf5 15.Qb3 h6 16.Nf3 Ng4 17.b5 g5 18.bxc6 bxc6 19.Ne5 gxf4 20.Nxc6 Qg5 21.Bxd6 Ng6 22.Nd5 Qh5 23.h4 Nxh4 24.gxh4 Qxh4 25.Nde7+ Kh8 26.Nxf5 Qh2+ 27.Kf1 Re6 28.Qb7 Rg6 29.Qxa8+ Kh7 30.Qg8+ Kxg8 31.Nce7+ Kh7 32.Nxg6 fxg6 33.Nxg7 Nf2 34.Bxf4 Qxf4 35.Ne6 Qh2 36.Rdb1 Nh3 37.Rb7+ Kg8 38.Rb8+ Qxb8 39.Bxh3 Qg3 0–1

(9) Kasparov,Garry (2812) -- Topalov,Veselin (2700) [B07]
Wijk aan Zee 74/110, 1999

1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.Be3 Bg7 5.Qd2 c6 6.f3 b5 7.Nge2 Nbd7 8.Bh6 Bxh6 9.Qxh6 Bb7 10.a3 e5 11.0–0–0 Qe7 12.Kb1 a6 13.Nc1 0–0–0 14.Nb3 exd4 15.Rxd4 c5 16.Rd1 Nb6 17.g3 Kb8 18.Na5 Ba8 19.Bh3 d5 20.Qf4+ Ka7 21.Rhe1 d4 22.Nd5 Nbxd5 23.exd5 Qd6 24.Rxd4 cxd4 25.Re7+ Kb6 26.Qxd4+ Kxa5 27.b4+ Ka4 28.Qc3 Qxd5 29.Ra7 Bb7 30.Rxb7 Qc4 31.Qxf6 Kxa3 32.Qxa6+ Kxb4 33.c3+ Kxc3 34.Qa1+ Kd2 35.Qb2+ Kd1 36.Bf1 Rd2 37.Rd7 Rxd7 38.Bxc4 bxc4 39.Qxh8 Rd3 40.Qa8 c3 41.Qa4+ Ke1 42.f4 f5 43.Kc1 Rd2 44.Qa7 1–0

(10) Topalov,Veselin (2778) -- Anand,Viswanathan (2785) [E15]
Sofia 93/439, 2005

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 4.g3 Ba6 5.b3 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 Be7 7.Nc3 c6 8.e4 d5 9.Qc2 dxe4 10.Nxe4 Bb7 11.Neg5 c5 12.d5 exd5 13.cxd5 h6 14.Nxf7 Kxf7 15.0–0–0 Bd6 16.Nh4 Bc8 17.Re1 Na6 18.Re6 Nb4 19.Bxb4 cxb4 20.Bc4 b5 21.Bxb5 Be7 22.Ng6 Nxd5 23.Rxe7+ Nxe7 24.Bc4+ Kf6 25.Nxh8 Qd4 26.Rd1 Qa1+ 27.Kd2 Qd4+ 28.Ke1 Qe5+ 29.Qe2 Qxe2+ 30.Kxe2 Nf5 31.Nf7 a5 32.g4 Nh4 33.h3 Ra7 34.Rd6+ Ke7 35.Rb6 Rc7 36.Ne5 Ng2 37.Ng6+ Kd8 38.Kf1 Bb7 39.Rxb7 Rxb7 40.Kxg2 Rd7 41.Nf8 Rd2 42.Ne6+ Ke7 43.Nxg7 Rxa2 44.Nf5+ Kf6 45.Nxh6 Rc2 46.Bf7 Rc3 47.f4 a4 48.bxa4 b3 49.g5+ Kg7 50.f5 b2 51.f6+ Kh7 52.Nf5 1–0

I expect to show the students games four and ten from the list after describing each of the ten briefly, but the students might want to see one of the others. I will be flexible.

The Spirit of Greco

Should aspiring chess players study the games of players who have been dead for more than a century? In an interview conducted while he was World Champion, Vladimir Kramnik answered in the affirmative.

I think that if a player wants to achieve much, he should live through the entire history of chess in his thoughts. I can't explain it from a purely logical standpoint, but in my opinion, you have to experience the entire history.
Vladimir Kramnik, 2004*

The interviewer probed further, asking whether it was useful to go back as far as Gioachino Greco. Kramnik did not think Greco was necessary because Greco's games are only the basics of chess, but he thought aspiring players should know the games of Philidor, Anderssen, and Morphy.

Max Euwe expressed a similar view of the importance of chess history. He asserted in The Development of Chess Style (1966) that an individual player's development and chess history follow parallel courses. The longest and most difficult is the first stage, which Euwe characterizes as "excursions with the pieces" (1). Players succeed when they take advantage of the opportunities presented by opponents, "such as winning a piece" (1). Greco embodies this first stage, he suggests.

Euwe annotates two of Greco's games. In another 300+ volumes in my library, I look in vain for annotations of Greco's games. Several books make passing reference to his collections, usually by noting that some tactical idea or opening move "has been known since Greco." Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, Part I (2003) is a notable exception. On the first page of chapter 1, he presents a synopsis of Euwe's argument (without attribution) and four Greco games. In two of the games, he offers a small number of suggested improvements. But Kasparov offers no verbal annotations, no detailed analysis.

Euwe also offers one game by Andre Philidor. Philidor's games, too, are mostly absent from other books. In Philidor's case, however, many more writers mention his contribution towards understanding the centrality of pawns to chess strategy. Kasparov offers one game fragment from Philidor with annotations. His views align well with Kramnik's concerning the merits of Philidor.

Last week, however, DHL brought an exciting new book hot off the presses that offers fresh annotations of the second of the two Greco games featured in Euwe's classic. This new book is Chess Informant 124. In this volume is the tenth installment of Mihail Marin's column, "Old Wine in New Bottles."**

Marin sets out to contextualize the explosion of information that we observe in this era of computers. He challenges a common belief that this explosion is without precedent. He recalls similar claims in opening monographs of the 1970s and 1980s. Even the first systematic opening reference, Handbuch des Schachspiels (1843) describes an explosion of information in its day.

Marin does not stop at simply challenging perceptions that our age is unique due to a massive increase in the information available to us. He also traces the development of new ideas with the point of showing that they are not so new after all. Tracing the continuities between old and new offers an affirmation of the value of studying classic games.

In every game, there comes a moment when a novelty inevitably pops up, but one cannot be sure that the idea behind it has not been played before.
Mihail Marin, Informant 124, 82.

Marin's focus in Informant 124 is the Italian Opening, particularly the Giuoco Fortissimo. He begins with Nakamura -- Giri, Khanty-Mansiysk 2015.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+

White must either Block the check or move his king. Greco blocked with 7.Nc3 and these days 7.Bd2 is preferred. Nakamura, however, played a relatively rare move: 7.Nbd2, which sacrifices a pawn. I can find approximately one hundred instances of this move in my database.

Black to move

After 7...Nxe4, Nakamura shows that he is playing in the spirit of Greco with 8.d5, "fighting for space and an advance in development" (83).

After Nakamura -- Giri, Marin offers analysis of one of Greco's best games. Then, there is another game from Khanty-Mansiysk. Jobava -- Grischuk featured 6.e5 d5, which the author notes is reminiscent of several games played by Morphy and Anderssen. Jobava repeated his opening experiment in a later round of the same event, and Marin refers readers to the column by Sarunas Sulskis, where that game in analyzed in depth.

"Old Wine in New Bottles" continues with an instructive game when Marin lost on the Black side of the not so quiet Italian Game, and then a World Championship game where Karpov employed the quieter line with 5.d3 for the purpose of torturing Korchnoi. But this quieter line still permitted fortissimo in Bologan -- Marin, Bucharest 1990 (a friendly blitz game). Marin finishes the article with a third game of his own and then Dubois -- Steinitz, London 1862, which had been one of my study games a few months ago (see "Some Miniatures").

Marin's column offers a good mix of old and new, of famous games and those less well-known. His ongoing column builds the logical argument that Kramnik deferred in his 2004 interview.



*The interview in Russian in available at e3e5.com. There are several English translations online. Because the English is smoother, I have employed the one posted by Spektrowski on Chess.com.

**Marin's column first appeared in Informant 114 and has appeared in every issue except 121 since.