Some Miniatures

Playing Against Steinitz

Wilhelm Steinitz offered a pawn to Serafino Dubois in their game during the London International Chess Congress,  1862. Johann Lowenthal comments in the tournament book that Dubois "was not to be tempted" (The Chess Congress of 1862 [1864], 102). I was less keen to the dangers while I was reviewing Dubois -- Steinitz in the early morning last week and proceeded to play this move against Hiarcs on the iPad. I lost, but not in a manner that confirms the general consensus concerning the dangers.

Dubois -- Steinitz begins:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc4 4.O-O d6 5.d3 Nf6 6.Bg5?! h6 7.Bh4 g5 8.Bg3

At this point, we have Middle Game Position 168 in GM-RAM: Essential Grandmaster Knowledge (2000) by Rashid Ziyatdinov, which I have been working through since December (see "Game of the Week").

Black to move

GM-RAM Position 168

8...h5!

Steinitz offered a pawn here.

Nineteenth century commentators and Stockfish 6 agree that 9.h4 is best, and that is what Dubois played. ChessBase database has eleven games with 9.Nxg5--all Black wins. The statistics certainly seem grim for snatching the pawn.

The earliest game is Knorre -- Chigorin, St. Petersburg 1874.*

Knorre,Victor -- Chigorin,Mikhail [C50]
St Petersburg, 1874

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.0–0 Nf6 5.d3 d6 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bh4 g5 8.Bg3

Diagram above.

8...h5 9.Nxg5 h4 10.Nxf7 hxg3 11.Nxd8 Bg4 12.Qd2 Nd4

White to move

13.Nc3

There are two games in the ChessBase database with 13.h3. Another game referenced in T.D. Harding and G.S. Botterill, The Italian Game (1977) is absent from this database.

13...Nf3+ 14.gxf3 Bxf3 0–1


Ashley -- Tollit, Birmingham 1923 continues from the diagram with 13.h3

13.h3 Ne2+ 14.Kh1 Rxh3+ 15.gxh3 Bf3# 0-1

This is the game played more recently on at least two occasions (1996 and 2005).

Perhaps, 14.Kh1 is the critical error, however, in this last example. White could have played

14.Qxe2!.

Black to move

After 14...Bxe2 15.Ne6, Black still appears to have an edge, but checkmate no longer seems imminent.

Although the database offers only losses for White after 9.Nxg5, engine analysis of these miniatures and of my play against the iOS version of Hiarcs leaves me wondering whether capturing the offered pawn is a mistake, as asserted by Lowenthal.

James Stripes -- HIARCS [C50]
Spokane, 31.03.2015

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.0–0 d6 5.d3 Nf6 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bh4 g5 8.Bg3 h5 

Position from Dubois -- Steinitz, 1862

9.Nxg5

Black to move

9...Bg4

9...h4 is the critical line in most commentaries. 10.Nxf7 Qe7 11.Nxh8 hxg3 12.Kh1 with an advantage for Black

10.Qd2 Qe7

10...h4

11.Bxf7+ Kd7 12.h4

12.Bh4 might be better.

12...Raf8 13.Bb3

13.Bc4

13...Kc8 14.Nc3 Bb6 15.a4 Bc5

White to move

16.a5

16.Nd5 with a two pawn advantage, I should seek to exchange pieces.

16...Nd4 17.Kh1 Nxb3 18.cxb3 Rhg8

White to move

19.f4

19.a6 may be better, as is 19.f3.

19...Bd7 20.fxe5 dxe5 21.Bf2 Kb8 22.Na4 Bxf2 23.Rxf2 Ng4 24.Rxf8+ Qxf8

White to move

25.Qe2?? Qf4 0–1

Difficult positions provoke errors. On the other hand, a move cannot be deemed an error merely because it invites difficulties. It may be possible to learn to defend such a position. Having an advantage of two pawns often is worth something.


*See Edward Winter, "Confusion," Chess Notes (updated 14 March 2014) for another early instance of this game, and for discussion of problems regarding the game score of Dubois -- Steinitz 1862.

Posers and Provocateurs

Of making books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
Ecclesiastes 12: 12

Some writers pump out books and articles as if writing is as easy as breathing. But not all these prolific writers put out good quality. It is well known in many circles, for example, that the great quantity of texts put out by Eric Schiller could use improvement in quality. His reputation is such that John Watson prefaced positive comments regarding a Schiller authored CD with the phrase, “At the risk of being controversial” (Chess CDs: Coming of Age?). Edward Winter’s criticism is more strident: he lists a Schiller text (written with Raymond Keene) among the “five worst chess books” (ChessBase News), and in “Copying” documents evidence of plagiarism in his books. Schiller’s The Big Book of Combinations (1994) not only originates almost in its entirety from The Encyclopedia of Chess Middlegames (1980), it reproduces errors from the original.

Bill Wall is another prolific writer whose work in chess history is nearly endemic in cyberspace. In the Endless Quiz at chess.com, for example, one of the top scorers has a mediocre percentage of correct answers, but has submitted a great many questions that appear to originate from Bill Wall’s Geocities site. Tryfon Gavriel asked about the accuracy of Wall’s “Correspondence (Postal) Chess” at The Correspondence Chess Message Board and received from Tim Harding the reply, “i would warn all readers that the byline on that page is not a guarantee of quality, rather the reverse in my opinion.”

Another category of “poser” might include the one book wonder, Michael de la Maza. His Rapid Chess Improvement (2002) is regularly stocked in bookstores, and has stimulated numerous clubs, blogs, and forum discussions. Jeremy Silman points out the grandiose nature of some of the claims of MDM (as he is often called in online forums), and notes that there is nothing new in MDM’s point that “tactical skill acquired by hard work will make you much stronger” (Review of Rapid Chess Improvement). It doesn’t take long looking at Michael de la Maza’s Member Details page at the USCF to notice a couple things. His claim that he started in the 1100s is misleading. His initial established rating was 1344, and he had some results that would suggest he might be stronger than that to start out. Many of his losses were to unrated or provisionally rated players that quickly rose into the B and C classes. De la Maza, for his part, rose quickly it would seem not only because he worked at chess an average of three hours per day, but because the level of his competition taught him many things. There’s no reason to believe he had acquired the bad habits that most adult players must correct in order to improve (the sort that online blitz reinforce, further hindering progress). Moreover, de la Maza no longer competes at chess—this fact alone should give pause to all those that wish to imitate his rise.