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.

Morphy Defense: First Book Lines

Before Paul Morphy played 3...a6 in response to Adolf Anderssen's Spanish Opening, or Ruy Lopez, published analysis had appeared in Handbuch des Schachspiels (Berlin, 1852).

The Handbuch, often called the German Handbook in English publications set the standard for opening reference in the nineteenth century and was still in use well into the twentieth century. It went through eight editions: 1843, 1852, 1858, 1864, 1874, 1880, 1891, and 1912-1916. It's first editor, Paul Rudolf von Bilguer (1815-1840) died before the first edition was published. Tassilo von Heydebrand und der Lasa (1818-1899) saw the first five editions through publication, retaining Bilguer's name as editor.

The 1852 edition was the first to include what would come to be known as the Morphy Defense. The lines presented in the Handbuch (1852) are reproduced here. There are two notes to line 3 that I have not yet translated, but that I may add later.

After 3...a6

Line 1.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6* 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.Nxe5 Qd4 6.f4** Qxe4+ =

Line 2.

-- -- -- -- 5.0–0 Bd6 6.d4 exd4 7.Qxd4 f6 8.Re1 Ne7 9.e5 fxe5 10.Nxe5 0–0 11.Bg5*** Qe8 12.Nc4 Nf5

White to move

13.Rxe8 Nxd4 14.Rxf8+ Kxf8 15.Nxd6 Nxc2 16.Nxc8 Rxc8 17.Na3 Nxa1 =/+

Line 3.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 13.Qc3 Qg6 14.Nxd6 cxd6 =

Line 4.

White to move

Position for Lines 4 and 5

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 12.Nd2 Nf5 13.Qc3 Qh5 =

Line 5.

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 12.Bxe7 Qxe7 13.Nd2 Be6 =

Line 6.

[1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6] 4.Ba4 Bc5 5.c3 b5 6.Bb3

After 6.Bb3 in Lines 6 and 7

6...d6 7.d4 exd4 8.cxd4 Bb6 9.Bd5 Nge7 10.Nc3 Bg4 11.Be3 Bxf3 12.gxf3 =

Line 7.

6...Qe7 7.a4 Rb8 8.axb5 axb5 9.0–0 Nf6 10.d4 Bb6 11.Bg5 d6 12.Qd3 Bd7 =

Line 8.

-- -- -- - 4...Nf6 5.d3 b5 6.Bb3 Bc5 7.c3 d6 8.d4 Bb6 +/=

White to move

*This move, described by Anonimo Modenese [that is, Domenico Ercole del Rio; see "Morphy Defense: Early History"] could possibly occur. But if White would take Nc6 immediately, Black then will be a bit better developed with 3. Ng8 to f6 instead a7 to a6 because of his threat towards e4.

** White also can play the knight to d3, f3, or g4 with the same result.

*** Reference to Cozio ending here with the remark that White has a beautiful game. The game, however, as shown in the following lines is not unfavorable for Black.

Opening Subtelty: An Historical Transposition

While preparing last week's "Lesson of the Week," I sought to identify where things started to go wrong for Thomas Wilson Barnes. Valeri Beim (Paul Morphy: A Modern Perspective) offers reference to an instructive later game, but more can be said in comparison.

Barnes,Thomas Wilson -- Morphy,Paul [C77]
London m1 London, 1858

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6

As Beim notes, this game was the first time that Paul Morphy played what came to be known as the Morphy Defense. The move had been played twice previously by Charles Henry Stanley in the first U.S. Championship, which was held in New Orleans in Morphy's youth. Stanley lost both games. The move was played a few other times between those games and this one with two Black wins.

White to move

4.Ba4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Nd5

Black to move

6...b5

Beim marks Morphy's sixth move as dubious. He recommends 6...Ba5 and references Tarrasch -- Chigorin, St. Petersburg (m7), 1893. However, 6...Ba5 was also played in the fifth game of that match, which Tarrasch won in 26 moves. Chigorin won game 7. In game 7, Chigorin omitted 7...b5.

In his comments on game 5, Siegbert Tarrasch recommends 6...Be7, "as on a5 this Bishop will remain inactive throughout the game" (Three Hundred Chess Games: Dreihundert Schachpartien, trans, Sol Schwarz, 285).

I recall Dennis Monokrousses mentioning in one of his videos that Black should play b5 only after White protects the e-pawn. Only then is there a credible threat to win Black's e-pawn by exchanging the light-squared bishop for the c6 knight. That has been my rule of thumb.

The diagram position has been rare (49 games in ChessBase Online). Tarrasch's recommended 6...Be7 has been the most frequent move (16 games), while 6...Bc5 (15 games) has been the most successful (46.7% score for White). The number of games, most of which are not from master play, is too small to draw conclusions from statistics.

7.Bb3 d6 8.0–0 Bg4 9.c3 Ba5

White to move

This position already seems difficult for White. While the comments in my two reference books focus upon inaccuracies in Black's play, White also has some problems. The pin on the knight is a source of irritation. In the Italian Opening and some lines of the Spanish, White plays h3 after Black's d6 to prevent such a pin. White's undefended e-pawn also draws attention.

In the Lesson of the Week, Black's misplaced dark-squared bishop asserted an important pin along the a7-g1 diagonal. Morphy's final maneuver to f4 with this piece was central to the lesson. Of course, that finish remains a long way off from the opening position. Knowing the conclusion of even a short game does not answer questions concerning the advantage at this stage.

Nonetheless, I did not like Barnes' move here, and I sought to find an improvement.

10.d4?

We know the rest of Barnes -- Morphy from the Lesson of the Week.

When I found 10.d3!, I discovered to my surprise a transposition to a later game: the fifth match game of Tarrasch -- Chigorin. Tarrasch played 9.d3 and 10.c3.

The position differs after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Nd5 Ba5 7.0–0 b5?! (see comments above) 8.Bb3 d6, where Tarrasch played 9.d3. Nonetheless, his comment has bearing on consideration of Barnes -- Morphy.

9.d3 "is better than 9.d4, which is recommended by the Handbook.* After 9.d4 Bg4! 10.c3 Qd7, White's game is not as comfortable as after 9.d3" (Three Hundred Chess Games, 285).

Black to move

We now shift to game 5 of Tarrasch -- Chigorin.

10...Ne7

Tarrasch calls this move the decisive error, recommending 10...Nd7 "although even then White's position is more solid" (285).

11.Nxe5! dxe5

Black must leave the queen alone 11...Bxd1 12.Nxf6+ gxf6 13.Bxf7+ Kf8 14.Bh6# is the line given by Tarrasch.

12.Nxf6+ gxf6 13.Qxg4

What a contrast this game offers to Barnes -- Morphy. In the earlier game, White's castled king suffered the opening of the g-file. In this game, a half-open g-file helps keep the Black king in the center.

Black to move

13...Ng6 14.Bd5 Rb8 15.f4 c6 16.Bxc6+ Ke7 17.Bd5 b4 18.fxe5 Qb6+ 19.Kh1 Nxe5 20.Qh5 Ng6

White to move

21.Rxf6 Kxf6 22.Bg5+ Kg7 23.Qh6+ Kg8 24.Rf1 Rf8 25.Bf6 Qxf6 26.Rxf6 1–0

Although both games offer errors aplenty, it is worth remembering that by playing 10.d4, Barnes missed a key opportunity to transpose into the future. Had he done so, he might have left history with a very different model game for Paul Morphy's initial use of the Morphy Defense.


*Tarrasch refers to Handbuch des Schachspiels, edited by Tassilo von der Lasa. See "Learning from Errors: Adolf Anderssen".

Learning from Errors: Adolf Anderssen

Prodigal Pawn laments the absence of well-annotated game collections focused on many players of the past, and present. He issues a call to such chess writers as John Nunn, Andrew Soltis, Nigel Davies, Neil McDonald, and others to write books on such chess greats as Adolf Anderssen, Harry Pillsbury, William Steinitz, and others.

My skills are far below Nunn and company, but I did write a pamphlet on Adolf Anderssen last year. Each year for the past several, I put on a brief chess camp for elementary chess players. In order to keep the camp fresh, and to give the participants something to take home, I change the theme each year. In 2010, the theme was "Attacking with Anderssen". I spent many hours poring through Anderssen's games looking for simple skewers, forks, decoys, and other tactical motifs in order to create problem sets. I also sought games to illustrate strategic themes, and other useful elements in Anderssen's chess career.

Last summer, the theme was "Studying with Smyslov" and we did some strong work on the endgame.

What follows was printed in the first three pages of instruction in the 2010 camp workbook.


Learning from Errors

Anderssen's first important match was against Tassilo von der Lasa. Von der Lasa was a Prussian diplomat who spent his spare time with chess. He accumulated an impressive library of chess books and also finished work begun by Paul Rudolf von Bilguer, editing Handbuch des Scachspiels (Handbook of Chess). The Handbuch became the dominant opening reference until the twentieth century.

Anderssen's six game match with Von der Lasa took place 1845-1846. Anderssen suffered some instructive losses in the beginning. As White, he favored the King's Gambit, an immensely popular opening in his day.

Match with Von Der Lasa
Game 1

Anderssen, A -- Von der Lasa, T [C38]
Breslau, 1845

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

White to move


4.Bc4

For 4.h4 see Anderssen -- Von der Lasa, Berlin 1851 (also included in the workbook).

4...Bg7 5.d4 d6 6.c3 h6 7.Qb3?

7.O-O transposes into a line with some popularity, but that favors Black.


Black to move


White has pressure against f7 with the battery, but Black's kingside is secure. This error looks logical. However, on b3 the queen might become hemmed in by her own pawns--loss of mobility. She also could become vulnerable to attack.

7...Qe7 8.O-O Nd7 9.Na3

Thirty years later, Anderssen would try 9.a4 Anderssen -- Riemann, Breslau 1875.


9...Nb6 10.Bd2 Bd7 11.Rae1 Ba4 12.Bb5+ forced 12...Bxb5 13.Qxb5+ c6 14.Qa5

Black to move


The queen has no scope. Black's problem was not that 14.Qa5 was an error, but that this move is a consequence of a bad plan. 7.Qb3 brought the queen out where its vulnerability led to poor mobility. Even before then, Anderssen played moves that gave him minimal prospects of success.

14...Qd7 15.e5 d5

White to move


16.e6?

Anderssen offers a clever sacrifice that leads to a material imbalance, but one that favors Black. He should have hunkered down and tried to defend. Let Black play the aggressor. He might have sought better squares for his queen and the a3 knight.

16...fxe6 17.Rxe6+ Qxe6 18.Re1 Qxe1+ 19.Nxe1 Nf6

White to move


Black's pieces are better placed; the White queen has far less potential in this position than the Black rooks.

20.Nd3

Alternatives are worse: 20.Qc5 Ne4-+; 20.Qb4 Ne4 21.Bc1 O-O-O-+.

20...Ne4 21.Be1 O-O 22.b3 Rf7 23.Nc2 g4 Black's pawns are potent 24.Qa3 g3 25.Qc1 The misplaced queen arrives back in action too late. 25...Raf8 26.Bd2 f3 27.gxf3 Rxf3 28.Nce1 28.Ne3 might be better.

Black to move


Now, Black converts his advantage. He trades the greater mobility and coordination of his forces for a clear material advantage and an easy endgame.

28...Rf1+ Black has a forcing combination 29.Kg2 Nxd2 29...R1f2+ may be stronger 30.Qxd2 R1f2+ 31.Nxf2 Rxf2+ 32.Qxf2 gxf2 White is down a piece 0-1

Anderssen's positional error in the placement of his queen was as significant as tactical blunders. He squandered the initiative early and never recovered. In the middlegame, he initiated a forcing combination that gave his opponent a clear advantage.