Showing posts with label ChessBase. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ChessBase. Show all posts

14 May 2025

Tough Choices

Reading is central to my life. Last night, I finished John Steinbeck, Tortilla Flat (1935) and placed an order for In Dubious Battle (1936). I am working through all of Steinbeck's books in order of publication. Herman Melville, The Confidence-Man: His Masquerade (1857), which I started appropriately on 1 April, is slower going.

I also read chess books and usually more than one at a time. I bought the first edition of Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual (2003) within a year of its first publication and later acquired the second edition on my Kindle app, a second copy of the first edition in Chessbase format, and the fifth edition. Dvoretsky's book has served as an indispensable endgame resource and frequently the first of my many endgame books that I open when I want to understand something. As I wrote in late-April, the chapter on rook endings is part of my regular work at present (see "Working through Dvoretsky").

After racing through 300 Most Important Chess Positions (2018) in 74 days from December to March, the sequel, 300 Most Important Tactical Chess Positions (2020) has on a table in the living room, on my desk, or in a chess bag as I am beginning a slower process of working through it.

Some newer books are offering me tough choices or distractions from focus.

Think Like a Super-GM (2022) by Michael Adams and Philip Hurtado joined my chess book collection on 1 May. I took it with me on a trip that weekend (see "Think Like a Super-GM"). When I returned home, I set up the second position on the dining room table, looked at it some with neither a note pad nor discipline and focus. I had to remove it from the table in preparation for hosting a family get together on Mother's Day.

I remain a subscriber and occasional reader of Chess Informant, which now serves class players as well as it served masters in the days before ready access to recent games that came with the internet. I referenced an opening article from CI 162 in "When preparation meets opportunity", showing a game where I beat a player gambling with the Budapest.

At Spring Break Chess Camp, Jim Maki was using a lot of challenging checkmate problems with the young players. In a conversation about sources for such exercises after one of the sessions, I immediately remembered Anthology of Chess Problems, 2nd ed. (2021), a reissue of the anthology published in the 1990s by Milan Velimirovic and Marjan Kovacevic. I took it to camp the next day to show Maki, and brought it again to the youth tournament that Saturday when Maki and I were working the analysis table. It was with me during chess lessons with young players the following week. The mate in twos that begin the book are challenging enough to keep me busy far longer than I am likely to invest in the effort.

Two days ago, another book arrived that I bought not only because the topic is interesting, but also because I really liked the cover art by Kallia Kleisarchaki.

Cyrus Lakdawala takes on the task of ranking chess players past and present in The Greatest (2025). No one will agree with his rankings, of course, because the topic remains more interesting so long as chess enthusiasts enjoy arguing with any and every list ever constructed.

Naturally, I immediately found fault with his chronology that begins with Philidor. Giulio Cesare Polerio's innovations and Gioachino Greco's improvements on those innovations remain underappreciated in chess history. Nonetheless, I find no fault either with his top four, nor with the sequence he offers. I also find his defense of the arrangement logical and compelling. Numbers five and six were the focus of Chess Skills for two months in 2021. 

After his "Classical Era Top Tier List", Lakdawala lists twenty criteria that informed his list. The Greatest will be earning more of my attention in the coming days and weeks and I work through at least some of the 80 games that Lakdawala selected to develop the theme of chess greatness.

From time to time, I am still also working through P.H. Clarke, 100 Soviet Chess Miniatures (1963). It might be how I take my coffee in the morning if not for always playing at least two words games with my wife on our iPads--Scrabble and Words with Friends.

04 November 2024

Halloween Gambit: Early History

For more than a century, the line known today as the Halloween Gambit was an entertaining option in casual play, but received minimal attention. Wikipedia notes that it appeared in a brief note in an 1888 publication as Gambit Müller und Schulze (not the names of specific people, but rather anyone or everyone). The article relies for historical details upon a article by Tim Krabbe for Chess Cafe (March 2000) and now hosted elsewhere. Krabbe's article is entertaining and the central facts are verifiable. He was prompted to write it after losing to a Crafty clone on ICC named Brause. Brause was the work of Steffen Jacob who coined the name The Halloween-Attack in the Four Knight's Game.

Although Krabbe goes back as far as Oskar Cordel, Führer durch die Schachtheorie: Ausführliche Tabelle der Spiel-Eröffnungen auf Grundlage neuester Forschung (1888), there were at least two games published in magazines prior to Cordel's text. Cordel notes that the opening had been played in Leipzig and a game played there in 1874 is the oldest in ChessBase Mega 2024.
The annotation in Deutsche Schachzeitung (July 1874) of the game between an unnamed player who played the gambit against Johannes Minckwitz, editor of the publication, offers what remains today an apt assessment of the gambit: it is unsound, but in practical play White gets a dangerous attack.

I offer the original annotations, which were in German, translations, and some of my own comments.

NN -- Minckwitz,Johannes [C47]
Leipzig, 02.05.1874

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5

Dieses Opfer ist zwar incorrect, gewährt jedoch einen im practischen Spiele sehr gefährlichen Angriff. This sacrifice is indeed incorrect, but grants a very dangerous attack in the practical game.

4...Nxe5 5.d4

Black to move
5...Ng6

5...Nc6 is the principal alternative.

6.e5 Ng8 7.Bc4 Bb4 8.0–0 Bxc3 9.Qf3 Qe7 10.bxc3 Nh6 11.a4 Nh4 12.Qe4


Black to move
12... d5

Schwarz ist hierzu genöthigt, da er sonst auf keine Weise zur Entwickelung gelangen kann.
Black is compelled to do this, because otherwise he cannot achieve development in any way.

13.Bxd5 c6 14.Bxc6+!

Diese Fortsetzung fällt zu Gunsten von Schwarz aus. Die Combinationen sind sehr interessant.
This sequel is in Black's favor. The combinations are very interesting.

14...bxc6 15.Qxc6+ Qd7 16.Qxa8 0–0

White to move
17.Bxh6

This move gives Black opportunities. Better would be 17.Ba3 or 17.Rb1.

17...Bb7 18.Qxa7 Ra8 19.Qb6

19.Qc5 Qg4

19...Ra6?
White to move
 20.Qb5??

20.e6!! Qd5 21.exf7+ Kf8 22.Qb4+ Kxf7 23.f3 and White should prevail. The move played walks into a mate in four, which Minckwitz finds.

20...Nf3+ 0-1 

21.gxf3 Rg6+
21.Kh1 Rxh6 22.h3 Rxh3+

Ten years later, the second game in the database was played and published. It was part of a blindfold exhibition in St. Petersburg. Ernst Falkbeer provided annotations.

The White player is not well-known. Sarah Cohen (aka batgirl) described him as a strong amateur in "The Prince of Mingrelia, Part 1" on chess.com. The game was published in a Vienna newspaper: Wiener Hausfrauen-Zeitung (1885), which I was able to find online.

De Marcovan,M - NN [C47]
Blindfold Exhibition M de Marcovan St Petersburg, 1884
[Falkbeer,Ernst Karl]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5

Ein ganz neues und geniales Opfer des Blindspielers, um die Partie interessanter zu machen.
A completely new and ingenious sacrifice of the blind player to make the game more interesting.

4...Nxe5 5.d4 Ng6 6.e5 Ng8 7.Bd3 d6 8.f4 dxe5 9.fxe5

Black to move
9...Bb4

Augenscheinlich darf die Dame den Bauer auf d4 nicht schlagen, weil sie sonst durch 9...Qxd4 10.Bb5+ verloren ginge.
Apparently, the queen must not capture the pawn on d4, otherwise she will pass through (discovered attack) 9...Qxd4 10.Bb5+ was lost.

10.0–0! Qxd4+ 11.Kh1 Bxc3 12.bxc3 

Black to move
12...Qxc3

Schwarz hätte den Bauer auf c3 nicht schlagen, sondern die Dame nach 12...Qd8 zurückziehen sollen.
Black should not have captured the pawn on c3, but should have withdraw the queen with 12...Qd8.

13.Qf3

Ausgezeichnet gespielt. Weiß droht jetzt zu gleicher Zeit das direkte Schach auf f7 und das Abzugsschach, respektive den Gewinn der Dame durch 14.Lb5+.
Excellently played. White is now threatening direct check on f7, or winning the queen by 14.Bb5+.

13...Qxe5

Es war schon gar nichts mehr zu machen.
There was nothing more to be done.

Wenn die Dame den Turm nahm, so folgte 13...Qxa1 14.Qxf7+ Kd8 und dann 15.Bg5+
If the queen took the rook, then 13...Qxa1 14.Qxf7+ Kd8 and then Bg5+.

14.Qxf7+ Kd8 15.Bxg6 hxg6

White to move
16.Bg5+

Ein schönes Endspiel dieser reizenden kleinen Partie.
A beautiful endgame of this charming little game.

16...Ne7 17.Rad1+ Bd7

Weiß setzt in zwei Zügen matt:
White mates in two moves:

18.Qf8+ Rxf8 19.Rxf8# 1-0


21 October 2024

Greco’s Study Method

This position appears in Checkmates and Tactics (2019), a book that consists of exercises that I have used with scholastic players since 2006. It is doubtful that my creation of this exercise from a game credited to Gioachino Greco is original. The small selection of games credited to Greco that are found in ChessBase, chessgames.com, and other aggregations are well-enough known that others undoubtedly have put this position before their students.

White to move

Digging deeper into Greco’s output through Professor Hoffman, The Games of Greco (1900) and William Lewis, Gioachino Greco and the Game of Chess (1819), shows that Greco had improved upon Black’s play in some variations on the game that led to this position.

Those improvements were the subject of my chess lesson with some students earlier this month. Greco’s variations in this and other games lead one to suspect that he methodically sought to improve the defense in the short miniatures by which he is principally remembered. But, as I have noted in prior posts, these variations—better games—are absent from databases, although present in the books by Lewis and Hoffman.

Further study since presenting the lesson to my students has revealed that the exercise in Checkmates and Tactics was presented to Giacomo Buoncompagno, the Duke of Sora, by “an exceptional player” (more than likely Giulio Cesare Polerio). A Spanish manuscript kept in the Biblioteca Riccardiana in Florence dated in the last quarter of the sixteenth century presents the position and a comment about its presentation to the duke. Two Italian manuscripts (Elegantia and Regole) from the same time period offer the game, but only Riccardiana has the story.

The sixteen move game, thus, should be considered the work of Polerio, not Greco. It would take much time and travel to examine these manuscripts, but others have done so. Their work has been compiled into a useful table: "Openings and Games of the Classical Era of Modern Chess," in Peter J. Monté, The Classical Era of Modern Chess (2014), 439-530; the game in question here appears on 503.

At some point in Rome, Greco had access to some manuscripts containing Polerio’s work and made copies. In his 1620 manuscript dedicated to an unnamed cardinal of Casa Orsini, Greco wrote that Black had an alternate defense in this game. Improvements to Black’s play appear in four manuscripts a few years later—Grenoble (1624), Paris (1625), Orleans (undated), and Godolphin (undated, but possibly 1623).

As I have repeatedly emphasized on Chess Skills, Greco's games are poorly known because his best work does not appear in databases. In this case, Greco is credited with a composition by Polerio that he criticized and improved in his own work.

Here, then, is Greco's main (best) game from this opening with Polerio's and Greco's other work as variations.

Greco, Gioachino
Analysis, London? c.1623

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4

4.Nc3 c6 5.Bc4 h6 6.d4 d6 7.h4 Bg7 is the sequence in Polerio's mss--see move 15.

4...Bg7 5.d4 d6 6.Nc3 c6 7.h4 h6 8.hxg5 hxg5 9.Rxh8 Bxh8

The last move in Primo, an undated Greco manuscript (likely 1619). Greco notes that Black remains with a pawn up.

10.Ne5

Several posters on chessgames.com have noted that this move is an error, giving Black a clear advantage

10...dxe5 11.Qh5 Qf6 12.dxe5 Qg7

12...Qg6 offers Black chances, too, but the text is better.

13.e6 Nf6

13...Bxe6 is suggested on chessgames.com

14.exf7+

This position appears as a diagram in Lewis 1819

Black to move

Having inherited this miniature from Polerio's writings, Greco sought to improve Black's defensive efforts. He offers two better moves for Black--Ke7 and Kd8 and carries each forward with a plausible line.

a) 14...Ke7

14...Kf8?? leads to the diagram at the top of the article.

15.Bxf4 Nxh5
15...gxf4 16.Qc5# appears in Polerio's manuscripts.
15...Ke7 is still possible 16.Bxg5+-.

16.Bd6# Is the line in the databases and the main game in Hoffman and Lewis.

15.Qe2 Be6

Black has better moves, such as Bg4, but most of Greco's line offers the best moves for both sides.

16.Bxe6 Kxe6

So far, Black is slightly better, but White has active play against a vulnerable king.

17.Qc4+ Ke7 18.Qb4+ Kxf7 19.Qxb7+ Nbd7 20.Qxa8

Three of Greco's extant manuscripts end here, as do Lewis and Hoffman. David Levy & Kevin O'Connell, Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games, Vol. 1 1485-1866 (1981) makes the contents of Hoffman accessible in algebraic notation. Francis Beale, The Royall Art of Chesse-Play (1656) also ends here.

Perhaps Greco thought that the win of the rook was sufficient for the line. However, he extended analysis five moves longer in what became one of his more obscure manuscripts. According to Monté, the manuscript was believed to have been dedicated to Sir Francis Godolphin. Tassilo von der Lasa acquired it in 1856 and still had it in 1897, but after his death, its whereabouts became unknown until Alessandro Sanvito found it in a collection in Poland.

Black to move

20...Qh6 21.Qxa7 Qh1+ 22.Ke2 Qxg2+ 23.Qf2 Qxf2+

23...f3+ Black is slightly better.

24.Kxf2

Only now White is better, although what Greco thought is not clear. As the Godolphin manuscript would likely have been created in London, and is the most length analysis, a date of 1623 seems plausible.

With such a game, modern chess players armed with the latest Stockfish might still find faults in his analysis, but it should be clear that his strength exceeds the conclusions that are drawn when we associate him with Polerio's unacknowledged work.

Variation b is more clearly dated to 1624.
 
b) 14...Kd8

In this line, Greco's analysis is less precise. Although 14...Ke7 appears to give Black an advantage, with best play 14...Kd8 is equal.

White to move

15.Qxg5

A nice deflection!

15...Qxg5 16.f8Q+ Kd7?

An error.

16...Kc7=

17.Qxh8

17.Bxf4!! Stockfish 17...Qxf4 18.Rd1+ Nd5 19.Qxf4

17...Qxg2 18.Qxf6 f3

White to move
Black has threats, but White has a forced mate. Neither side plays the best moves in the conclusion of this variation.

19.Qf7+

19.Be6+!

19...Kd6

19...Kd8 is more stubborn.

20.Bf4+

20.e5+ Kc5 21.Be3+ Kb4 22.a3+ Ka5 23.b4# appears in Antonius van der Linde, De Kerkvaders der Schaakgemeente (1875).

20...Kc5 21.Na4+ Kb4

21...Kd4 22.c3+ Kxe4 23.Nc5# variation in Greco

22.Bd2+ Kxa4 23.b3+ Ka3 24.Qe7+ Kb2 25.Qe5+ Ka3

25...Kxc2 26.Rc1# variation in Greco

26.Bc1+ Kb4 27.c3#

This line and variations appears in two Paris manuscripts: Grenoble (1624) and Paris (1625), as well as the undated Orleans manuscript that appears to be copied from the Paris ms. While less precise, I could see extracting some checkmate exercises for my students from this variation.

30 June 2024

Place a Rook

In the following diagram, where can White place a rook in order to have a drawn position with Black to move?

I found a game with this position and a White rook on h8 using the report feature of ChessBase 17. I had been playing with a position derived from Ending 57 in 100 Endgames You Must Know by Jesus de la Villa. Aside from the position that he presents, I wanted to understand where else the rook might be placed and still draw.

De la Villa's Ending 57 has this position with White to move.

After 1.Rd8, Black has two moves that hold a draw.

Before looking at de la Villa's solution, I placed Black's rook on a1 and made White's move Rd8. Then, I played Black against Stockfish on my iPad, trying a couple of variations. Then, I checked my ideas with ChessBase.

This was one of the resulting positions.

Black to move
4...Ke6 is the only drawing move.

This was another position in my play against the engine.

Black to move
Here, the side check is Black's only chance. 2...Ra7+

Using the report > similar endgames feature of ChessBase turned up far more games than I have time to look through. I favored those that were decisive, certain that I could find examples of games where a player who could have drawn instead lost.

No doubt both players were in considerable time pressure when Black erred from this winning position.

Black to move
Black played 110...Rf1?? 

110...d2 wins. To wit, 111.Re8+ Kf4 and White soon runs out of checks.

Nonetheless, Black won the game because his young opponent missed the drawing idea.

In the diagram at the top of this post, where must White place the rook?

15 May 2024

Self-propelled Pawns

For several years, I have used the term "self-propelled pawns" for two connected passed pawns in rook endings. I do not know whether I made up the term or read it in a book. Nonetheless, it is usually fairly easy to win such positions. Reuben Fine, Basic Chess Endings (1941) wrote, "connected pawns always win unless they are blockaded" (317).

During the 25% off sale earlier this week, I took the plunge and upgraded from ChessBase 15 to ChessBase 17. The new version lacks a feature that I regularly use: endgame keys. However, the help files suggest a different method of finding particular types on endings: similar endgames under report (see image).

I tried the new method this morning and was not surprised that Megabase 2024 contains many thousands of games with two connected passed pawns in rook endings. Naturally, I started looking for games when the stronger side failed to win. In most cases, the ending was misplayed.

I had the position above a year ago in a 16 minute game on Playchess. I finished the game checkmating my opponent 20 moves later using 3 seconds per move or less on all but five moves. 9 seconds was the longest.

I do not have access to the time per move nor time remaining for those games that were drawn, although winnable. Even so, perhaps the errors are instructive.

Black to move
This position was reached in a game played in 1998. Black, rated 1355, played 69...f4 and the game was drawn after 70.Rf8. 69...Kg4 would have been my choice and Stockfish confirms that Black is winning.

In a game played in 2003 between two 1500s, the two pawns plus rooks ending was reached on move 47. Black made progress advancing his pawns over many moves. Even here, after 87.Rd5+, Black was winning.

Black to move
87...Rd3 88.Rxf5 Rf3+

This move throws away the win. 88...e3 was the only way to keep the win in hand.

Black to move
Black, rated 1598, spoiled the win with a move that reminded me of a position from Kling and Horwitz (1851) and posted as "Elementary Technique" a month ago.

62...Re5+

I would have played 62...Re1, which is one of several winning moves.

63.Rxe5 fxe5 64.Kxg5 and drawn.

White could have erred with 64.Kxe5, when the idea in Kling and Horwitz would secure the win for Black.

The final example is from a 2010 game between two stronger players in the championship of Chili.

Black to move
55...Kg8

There is nothing wrong with the move in the sense that it does not spoil the win. However, 55...h4 can be played. However, 56.Ra7 forces Kg8. 57.Rg7+ Kf8 58.Rh7 Ke8 and this line begins to resemble the game as played.

56. Rg7+ Kf8 57.Rh7 Ke8 58.Ke6 Kd8 59.Kd6 Kc8 60.Kc6 Rc4+ 61.Kd5

Black to move
61...Rc7 spoiled the win, which is not entirely simple. Tablebases assure us that 61...Rf4 leads to checkmate in 42 moves. Black's king is still cut off, though.

White found 62.Rh6! and a draw was agreed.

Exchanging rooks leads to an elementary winning pawn ending, while 62.Rh8 allows the Black king to become active.






08 August 2023

TWIC 1500!

Yesterday, Mark Crowther released the 1500th issue of The Week in Chess. His database now contains 3,581,971 games. Kudos to Crowther for dedication and consistency for 29 years! A couple of years ago, I filled in gaps in my own collection through a donation to TWIC. Crowther sent a link to download his personal copy. Now is a good time to do this if you have not already.

My copy exceeds Crowther's number by almost 3000 because I do a poor job of clearing duplicates. If my settings are wrong in the "find duplicates" feature of ChessBase, I could lose some of the sixteen games mentioned in "A Glass of Scotch". The moves may be the same, but the players, dates, and a events differ. Duplication is part of the historical record. I've also corrupted enough databases to be wary of changing large databases beyond simply adding more games.

I've been using The Week in Chess since I first discovered it twenty years ago. Crowther gathers all the games from the most important tournaments. These are then made available free. Someone who purchases ChessBase and pays an annual fee for updates should be able to get the same games. ChessBase is getting them from Crowther, I suspect.

I prefer keeping ChessBase Mega as it came from ChessBase without modification, and then use TWIC for games played in the past few years.

04 August 2023

A Glass of Scotch

Isn't this a forced draw?
Ryan Ackerman

Computer moves.
Cam Leslie

Black to move
After 10.Ba3

After a game at the Spokane Chess Club where this position arose, there was some discussion among the top players, experts Ryan Ackerman and Cam Leslie. I looked up the position in ChessBase's iPhone app, finding quite a few games that followed Ackerman's recommendation.

10...Nb4! 11.Bb2

11.g3 has been played. The computer says Black is better, but White has managed to draw at the top levels.

11...Bg7 12.a3

12.f4 is another try the engine finds dubious where White managed to draw among players rated over 2400.

12...Nd5 13.Nd2 O-O 14.O-O-O Rfe8

White to move

15.Qf3 Nb6 16.Ne4 Bxe5

16...d5 would be a novelty, but also leads to a draw if players can find the engine's moves.

17.Bxe5 Qxe5 18.Nf6 Kf8 19.Nxe8 Qa1+

White to move

Checking The Week in Chess finds fifteen games that have followed this line, all drawn. This line may be a forced draw at the top levels, but a few inaccurate options for White could serve to complicate matters at the club level.

In my game from the diagram at the top of the post, my opponent played 10...Qe6. He resigned after 11.cxd5 cxd5 12.Qxa6

After returning home, I drank a glass of Scotch.



20 January 2023

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.

10 September 2022

Try, Try, Again

Reading chess books is an almost daily activity for me, but finishing one is rare. In 2021, my embrace of ebooks, especially Everyman Books in Chessbase format, altered an old pattern. Prior to 2021, I could count on my fingers the number of chess books that I had read from cover-to-cover. The first four months of that year, I ran out of digits. This was not due to amputation, but rather to finding that I could look at every move in every chess game in a book much faster and with more enjoyment by viewing it on my computer screen.

Nevertheless, I still have not played through every game in any issue of Chess Informant, even though I have been getting the ebook version since Informant 113, and the ebook and print edition together since 124. In "Determination" (2016), I wrote about my resolve to go through all of Informant 128. I failed.

A couple of days ago, I worked through all of the games classified ECO A that were published in the games section of Informant 152. I ran through the games quickly in two sittings and made few notes in the print edition. I noted in the margin next to Mamedyarov -- Keymer, Berlin 2022 152/22 that the game contained "interesting imbalances".

Starting the B section, I am moving slower. The first game in the section, Ali Marandi -- Hungaski, Saint Louis 2022 152/30 sent me to The Week in Chess for more games with 4.b4 against the Scandinavian. I went through 28 of the 141 games in that database this morning, then a few more in ChessBase Mega 2020. Emanuel Lasker appears to have been the first player to try the move, employing it in two simuls in 1905 and 1908. The only prior game published in Informant with 4.b4 was a rapid game played on chess24, Nakamura -- Firouzja 144/24, which White won in 16 moves.

After relishing the tactical blow that ended Maurizza -- Pelletier 152/35, I took a moment to create this post. Now, it is time for me to resume the effort to succeed where I have failed so many times in the past.

24 October 2021

Greco Attack Before Greco

The first game with the Greco Attack in David Levy and Kevin O'Connell, Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games, Volume 1 1485-1866 (1981) is the first game therein credited to Gioachino Greco (1). Levy and O'Connell annotate this game according to variations presented in their source: Professor Hoffmann, Games of Greco (1900). Nearly the same game, but deviating with Black's move 18, appears in ChessBase Mega 2020 as games 47 and 99, the latter offering variations and a different date.

Eight of the seventeen games that precede the first of Greco's in the Oxford Encyclopedia feature the Italian Opening.

Greco,G - G-1 OECG [C54]
Europe, 1600

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6

4...Qe7 is credited to Lopez in OECG, and also played by Boi, Polerio (four games), Lorenzo (against Polerio), and an unnamed player against Busnardo.

5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Nxe4 8.0-0 Nxc3 9.bxc3 Bxc3 10.Qb3

ChessBase Mega 2020 offers: "Greco invented free play with the pieces. Free pieces will win: free diagonals for the bishops, free files for the rooks!!" But, in fact, as will be shown below, all of these moves precede Greco.

Black to move
10...Bxa1

10...Bxd4 is Greco no. 2 in OECG; Also Game 2 in Hoffmann; third and fourth variations to game 1 in William Lewis, Gioachino Greco on the Game of Chess (1819).

11.Bxf7+ Kf8 12.Bg5

Black to move
12...Ne7

12...Nxd4 13.Qa3+ Kxf7 14.Bxd8 Rxd8 15.Rxa1 Nc2 16.Qb3+ Kf8 17.Qxc2+- Game 1, var. B in Hoffmann. Also second variation in Lewis. Absent as a Greco game from ChessBase Mega 2020.

13.Ne5 Bxd4

13...d5 14.Qf3 Bf5 15.Be6 g6 16.Bh6+ Ke8 17.Bf7# Game 1, var. A in Hoffmann. Also first variation in Lewis. Absent as a Greco game from ChessBase Mega 2020.

14.Bg6 d5 15.Qf3+ Bf5 16.Bxf5 Bxe5 17.Be6+ Bf6 18.Bxf6

Black to move
18...gxf6

18...Ke8 19.Bxg7 Is given as the conclusion in two Greco games in ChessBase Mega (both identical but one analyzed).

19.Qxf6+ Ke8 20.Qf7#

This is Game 1 in Professor Hoffmann, ed. Games of Greco (1900). Also Game 1 in Lewis, Gioachino Greco on the Game of Chess (1819). 

Peter J. Monté, The Classical Era of Modern Chess (McFarland 2014) lists eight Greco manuscripts containing this entire game, and another ending with 17.Be6+. He also notes that it appears as Gambett VI in Francis Beale's 1656 compilation of Greco's games (463). Monté does not mention the conclusion given in ChessBase Mega 2020.

Reading Monté last night and this morning, I returned to a book he mentioned and that I had downloaded from GoogleBooks several years ago: J.A. Leon, Forty-Six Games of Chess: by Giulio Cesare Polerio, rpt. from British Chess Magazine (1894). The BCM article appeared in August 1894 and was reprinted in Leeds by Whitehead & Miller. Following 24 King's Gambits, Leon offers the game that Monté notes, "presents the first Greco Attack" (224).

Polerio,Giulio Cesare [C54]
Rome, c. 1581

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Nxe4 8.0-0 Nxc3 9.bxc3 Bxc3 10.Qb3 Bxa1 11.Bxf7+ Kf8 12.Bg5 Ne7

White to move
13.Re1

Leon's Polerio manuscript ends here with the note that White wins the queen and thus the game.

Monté lists two other lines from the Doazan manuscript, which has not been definitively dated, but precedes Greco.

Three alternatives to 13.Re1 appear in seventeenth century manuscripts.

1) 13.Rc1 Credited to Don Antonio in the Doazan MS (463). It is the only game attributed to Don Antonio, whom Monté believes was Don Antonio Mancino (270).

2) 13.Rxa1 Last move in Greco's Lorraine MS (1621)

13...h6 14.Bh5 d5 15.Bxe7+ Kxe7

White to move

16.Re1+ Kf6 17.Qe3 Qd6 18.Ne5 Bf5 19.Qf4 g5

White to move
20.Qf3 1-0

Contrary to the claim in the ChessBase database, Polerio should be the one credited with inventing "free play with the pieces". He likely originated the Greco Attack.


3) Greco improved Polerio's line with 13.Ne5.

Black to move
Greco's Innovation: 13.Ne5!

Polerio, as Greco, is poorly known by today's chess players (see "The Unknown Greco"). Much of what players learn from Greco was derived by him from the work of Polerio.

22 October 2021

The Unknown Greco

ChessBase Mega 2020 contains 82 games credited to Gioacchino Greco, most dated 1620 (which seems an arbitrary date). At the time of this writing, Chessgames.com has 90 games credited to the famous Calabrese. In "Gioachino Greco on the Game of Chess" (2013), I wrote about the abundance of Greco's variations that can be found in William Lewis's 1819 text of that name. The better known and more accessible (the notation is standard English descriptive) 1900 text by Angelo Lewis, writing under the penname Professor Hoffmann, also has variations that are absent from databases.

Peter J. Monté, The Classical Era of Modern Chess (McFarland 2014), which I described in "Monumental Scholarship" (2020), offers far more detail from Greco's manuscripts, and also permits the diligent reader to separate Greco's contributions from lines he learned from others. In Part I of the book, Monté describes manuscripts and history from Lucena to Greco, concluding with a discussion of the development of castling and the pawn's leap. Part II. Openings and Games of the Classical Era of Modern Chess is a thoroughly documented move tree (439-530). The so-called Greco Attack is documented across four pages (462-465).

The Greco Attack begins with the moves 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 (In some of Greco's manuscripts 2.Bc4 Bc5 is played, and the knights deployed on the following move) 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3.

Black to move

Play continues:

7...Nxe4 8.O-O Nxc3

8...Bxc3 is the mainline today, and offers a very good reason not to play the Greco Attack.

9.bxc3 Bxb3

9...d5 or 9...Be7 have been recommended.

10.Qb3

A fine miniature that I learned from Leonard Barden and Wolfgang Heidenfeld, Modern Chess Miniatures (1960) continued with 10.Ba3. See Corte -- Bolbochán 1946 (2016).

10...Bxa1

Greco also has games that continue with 10...Bxd4.

11.Bxf7+ Kf8  12.Bg5

Black to move

In the ChessBase database, Greco's games all continue with 12...Ne7. Chessgames.com, however, has one game that continues with the line I present below.

12...Nxd4

This move was played against me in a rapid game on Chess.com on Sunday, and I had faced it at least four times prior.

13.Qa3

13.Qb4+? is a blunder that appears in the ChessBase database in ten games played 1996-2016.

13...Kxf7 14.Bxd8

Black to move

In 1619, Greco had access to a manuscript known today as Boncampagno -3, which contains the following variations (Monté, 277, 463). This manuscript is among those classified as the Polerio Complex. Monté dates it between 1594 and 1619. Authorship is uncertain.

A.
14...Rxd8 15.Ng5+ Kf6 (or Kg6) 16.Rxa1 Kxg5 17.Qe7+

B.
14...Nxf3 15.Qxf3+ Bf6 16.Bxc7

Black to move

Greco's original contribution to this line begins from this position and appears in two manuscripts from his sojourn in England, the Mountstephen manuscript (1623) and the Grenoble manuscript, which is undated, but believed to precede Mountstephen.

16...Re8 Qh5+ Kf8 18.Bd6+

Mountstephen ends here.

Black to move

18...Be7 19.Re1 h6 20.Rxe7 Rxe7 21.Qe5 and Qxe7 follows.

Not everything credited to Greco was his own work, and yet much of his work remains unknown to most chess enthusiasts.

22 June 2021

Is Less More?

Capablanca was strangely poor at explaining and annotating his own games. Possibly this was because he assumed immediate comprehension on the part of the reader of moves that really demanded considerable explanation.
Harry Golombek, Capablanca's 100 Best Games of Chess (1947)
In My Chess Career (1920), José Raúl Capablanca annotated two of his games from his match with Juan Corzo. Harry Golombek begins Capablanca's 100 Best Games of Chess with the same two games. There is no question that Golombek's annotations are more extensive, but are they more useful?

Let's examine the annotations to the first of these.

Corzo y Prinzipe,Juan -- Capablanca,Jose Raul [C25]
Havana match Havana (8), 06.12.1901
[Golombek and others]

1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.f4 exf4 4.Nf3 g5 5.h4 g4 6.Ng5

Black to move

At this point, Golombek inserts his first note identifying the Hamppe-Allgaier Gambit, noting, "it is not sound" (21). He describes Corzo's strategy as an effort to take advantage of Capablanca's lack of book knowledge. This insight merely repeats what Capablanca wrote in My Chess Career: "Corzo knew my complete lack of book knowledge, consequently he tried repeatedly to play gambits of this sort where it would be difficult for me to find the proper answer" (7).

Golombek goes on to state that Capablanca, "does diverge from the book of the time--but only to find a better continuation for Black" (22).

6...h6 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.d4

Black to move
8...d5

Golombek  gives the line 8...d6 9.Bxf4 Bg7 10.Bc4+ with an attack, and the reader is left wondering if 8...d5 was Capablanca's improvement. A glance at a modern database does not resolve the question. ChessBase Mega 2020 lists seven games preceding this one that reached the position after 8.d4. One was game 6 of this match. The other six have three games with 8...d5, two with 8...f3, and one with 8...d6. Five of these games were won by White. In the exception, Taubenhaus -- Lipschuetz, New York 1889, 8...f3 was played.

Of course, Golombek had no databases with which to work. Nor are the databases particularly complete as shall be shown below.

Capablanca is more helpful: "Afterwards Corzo told me that the book recommended 8...d6" (7). The "book" would have been Handbuch des Schachspiels, 7th edition, published in 1891 under the editorial direction of Emil Schallopp.

Handbuch (1891), 8...d6 underlined

There are no games in PowerBook 2020 with 8...d5, but there are eight games with 8...d6. 

9.exd5

9.Bxf4 Bb4 is good for Black (Golombek). Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, 3rd ed. gives this line continuing 10.Be2 Bxc3+ 11.bxc3 Nf6 with a better game for Black.

9...Qe7+

White to move

Capablanca offers a comment here that reveals how, even at the age of 13, he prepared for games through the course of the match with Corzo. He notes they had played this variation previously, but omits the detail that it had been only one week earlier in the sixth game of the match.

10.Kf2

10.Be2 was played in game six.
The game ended in a draw, but I should have won. Corzo analyzed the position and told someone that he should have played 10.Kf2. When I heard this I analyzed the situation myself and decided to play it again, as I thought that Black should win with the continuation which I put into practice in the game.
Capablanca, My Chess Career (8).
Capablanca offers no further comments on the game.

10...g3+ 11.Kg1

Golombek offers a diagram here, notes the vulnerability of the White king, and lauds Capablanca's return of the sacrificed piece. "White is continually harassed by mating threats" (22).

11...Nxd4! 12.Qxd4

12.Bxf4 Qf6 (Golombek).

12...Qc5 13.Ne2

Black to move

13...Qb6!

Golombek states, "An original and pleasing touch and much more powerful than the humdrum 13...Qxd4+ 14.Nxd4 Bc5 15.c3 Now Black's threat of Bc5 forces White to exchange queens thereby allowing Black to bring the queen's rook into the game at once" (22).

The ChessBase DVD Master Class 04 José Raúl Capablanca (2015) notes that Isaak and Vladimir Linder, José Raúl Capablanca: 3rd World Chess Champion (2010) gives 13...Bg4 14.Be3! fxe3 15.Qxg4. A correspondence game in the nineteenth century continued with 13...Bg4 14.Be3 Qxd4 15.Bxd4 Bxe2 16.Bxe2 Bg7 (Deutsche Wochenschach 46 [17 November 1889], 402, points out that 16...Nf6 is better here. Miguel A. Sánchez, José Raúl Capablanca: A Chess Biography (2015), 80, points out the game in Deutsche Wochenschach, and also shows that White is still better after 16...Nf6. This game may be in ChessBase's Correspondence database, but it does not appear in Mega 2020. I did find it in the online version.

Deutsche Wochenschach

Sánchez is the only annotator, it seems to me, who does justice to Capablanca's comments about how he prepared for this game, asking whether he might have known about the game published twelve years earlier. It would not seem likely that a thirteen year-old player with no book knowledge would be reading a German magazine that was published near the time of his first birthday.

14.Qxb6 axb6 15.Nd4 Bc5 16.c3 Ra4

Golombek points the threat of Rxd4 wins another pawn.

White to move

17.Be2 Bxd4+ 18.cxd4 Rxd4 19.b3

"White has been relying upon this maneuver to pull the game round to his favour by exploiting the risky position of Black's queen rook. It soon becomes apparent that Black has seen further into the position than White." (Golombek, 22) 

19...Nf6 20.Bb2 Rd2

Does Golombek offer much value pointing out 20...Rxd5? 21.Bc4+-?

21.Bh5+

Black to move

21...Nxh5!

"Hoping for 21...Kg7 22.Bc3 Rc2 23.Be5 with distinct counter-chances but Black now finishes off the game in the best style" (Golombek, 22).

22.Bxh8 f3! 23.gxf3

23.Bc3 f2+ 24.Kf1 Bf5 25.Bxd2 Bd3# (Golombek)

23...Nf4 24.Be5

Golombek points out another checkmate threat: 24.Re1 Rg2+ 25.Kf1 Rf2+ 26.Kg1 Bh3-+ 27.Bc3 Rf1+ 28.Rxf1 Ne2#.

Black to move

24...Rg2+ 25.Kf1 Rf2+ 26.Ke1 Nd3+ 0-1

Golombek is certainly more thorough in pointing out some tactical threats, but Capablanca's very brief annotation offers the important story of this game. Golombek might have done more to explain why he thinks Capablanca's divergence from the book line was an improvement.