Blind Swine

Early this month, I wrote about the term "blind swine" as it is used in chess literature with links to Edward Winter's historical inquiries. Logically, it seems to me, rooks on the seventh rank that can find checks, but not checkmate are blind pigs (or swine). Two rooks who cannot find checkmate still might prove their worth as a drawing resource.

This morning, an opening blunder dropped some pawns and I struggled on, reaching a rook ending that should have been hopeless. 

White to move

35.Rb7

I prepared to double my rooks on the seventh. Black cannot prevent this, but can render my rooks ineffective several ways:

35...h5 creates checkmate threats

35...Kh8 allows Rg8 to defend the g-pawn

35...a5 protects on pawn and leaves open the possibility of meeting 36.Rcc7 with Rg4

35...e4??

My opponent made one of the few moves possible to throw away the win.

36.Rcc7 Ra2+ 37.Kh3

Black to move

Black can no longer prevent endless checks from my rooks and the game was drawn by repetition after 37...g5 38.Rg7+ Kf8 39.Rbf7+ Ke8 40.Re7+ Kf8 41.Rgf7+ Kg8 42.Rg7+ Kf8 43.Rgf7+ Kg8 44.Rg7+ Kf8

Checkmate Pattern: Two Pigs

The pattern that I call Two Pigs is usually referred to as the “Blind Swine Mate”. It is an unfortunate and illogical term that violates an unsourced quote credited to Dawid Markelowicz Janowsky (1868-1927). The unsourced quote has been in circulation at least since 1953, the original publishing date of The Art of Attack in Chess.

“The pair of rooks which “grunt out check” on the seventh rank but cannot get a sight of mate were once nicknamed ‘blind swine’ by Janowski” (Victor Vukovic, The Art of Attack in Chess [1993], 73).

If they are blind, they do not find checkmate.

I knew less about the history of this pattern name when I created my self-published A Checklist of Checkmates twenty years ago. The contents of page 15:

Edward Winter often has written about the appalling number of unsourced quotes in chess literature.* Regarding the Janowsky quote, see Chess Notes 3494, 3525, and 5160 (scroll down). The last of these was prompted by my correspondence with Winter, noting two instances when Janowsky had two rooks on the seventh rank and could manage only a draw. Although the quote is unsourced, one can imagine Janowsky grumbling about pigs that cannot see checkmate. However, in the game that I cited in A Checklist of Checkmates, his blind pigs saved an otherwise lost game.

Such was my idea in a blitz game yesterday, when blind to the advantage that I had, I set up a draw that was not forced until my opponent returned the favor.

White to move

39.Rff7??

39.Rc8+ Kd7 40.Rg8+- was the winning line.

39...b1Q??

After 39...Rxe4+, Black still gets a queen, while White's blind swine cannot force a draw.

40.Rfe7+ and the game was quickly drawn by repetition as Black cannot escape endless checks.

In another online game in July, I was on the receiving end of the Two Pigs checkmate, except that in this case another piece (knight or king) was needed, and so the pattern is not the same.

White to move

29.a6

This desperate try failed. 

29.Rxd5 was another possibility that fails.

29...b6 30.Rc1 Rg2+ 31.Kh1

31.Kf1 Ne3+ 32.Ke1 Rbe2#

This is a pattern that Raf Mesotten, The Checkmate Pattens Manual (2022) calls Vukovic's Mate (45-49). It appears to be an instructive book, but like every other book on the subject, it passes on common attributions grounded in bad history and unsourced quotes (see "Pillsbury's Mate"). To Mesotten's credit, he notes clearly that his sources for the pattern names were chessgames.com, Wikipedia, and Chess Tempo (7).

31...Rxh2+ 32.Kg1 Rbg2+ and I resigned as a knight-assisted "Ladder mate" was coming.

The Two Pigs Mate pattern appears in this game played on Internet Chess Club in 2001.

White to move

21.O-O?

White is much worse, but castling here gives Black a forced mate in three, which I promptly executed.

21...Rgxg2+ 22.Kh1 Rxh2+ 23.Kg1 Rcg2#

*I also have some articles on the topic and related topics, such as "Plagiarism and Related Crimes".

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.

Classic Bishop Sacrifice: Early History

Gioachino Greco (c.1600-c.1634) is usually credited with the discovery of the classic bishop sacrifice on h7, at least by those who bother to look into the matter historically. A few years ago some writers suggested the sacrifice was of more recent invention. These days, perhaps because Greco's games are better known, most writers have given up on such ideas.

Although the best known early example of the sacrifice comes from Greco, he appears to have learned the idea from Alessandro Salvio (c.1575-c.1640), who published some lines employing the sacrifice in Trattato dell' Inventione et Arte Liberale del Gioco Degli Scacchi (1604).

White to move

In 1996, Edward Winter posed the question in his column, "When was the Bxh7+/Ng5+ attack first played"?* He proceeds to demonstrate Irving Chernev's confusion on the matter, claiming Morphy -- Guibert, Paris, 1858 in Chess Review (April 1950) and in The Chess Companion (1968), while two pages later in this book Chernev suggests Paulsen -- Schwartz 1879. Winter asks, "what about Greco", noting that Chernev includes Greco's game in The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess (1955), where it is game 199 (90). 

The version of the game in Chernev's collection of miniatures is identical to the second variation of the twenty-third game in William Lewis, Gioachino Greco on the Game of Chess (1819) and game XXV, variation A in Professor Louis Hoffmann [Angelo Lewis], The Games of Greco (1900). Hoffmann's game and variations appear in David Levy and Kevin O'Connell, Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games, Vol. 1 1485-1866 (1981). This version, sans the variations in Lewis and Hoffmann, appears in  ChessBase Mega 2020. Chessgames.com has Lewis's twenty-third game, instead of his variation A.

A longer version appears in Francis Beale, The Royall Art of Cheese-Play (1656). In Beale's version, Black's bishop first checks from b4 and then retreats to e7 after White's c-pawn blocks the check.

None of these books or databases offer the whole of Greco's analysis evident in his manuscripts. Both the extent of Greco's analysis and that which preceded his work becomes clear in "Part II. Openings and Games of the Classical Era of Modern Chess" (439-530) in Peter J. Monté, The Classical Era of Modern Chess (2014). I first mentioned this definitive work on Chess Skills with "Monumental Scholarship" (June 2020). Monté offers an analysis tree that ends every line with the names of sixteenth and seventeenth century manuscripts where these lines appear. He also references a few later published books, such as Beale, that are grounded in manuscripts.

Jon Edwards, Sacking the Citadel: The History, Theory and Practice of the Classic Bishop Sacrifice (2011) came into my possession a few days ago and provoked my interest in creating this article. Edwards attempts to give Greco his due, while acknowledging that Giulio Cesare Polerio may have "discovered it first" (8). He offers an admirable effort to present a more detailed biography of Greco and some context to place Greco in his times. Edwards draws on a number of Renaissance histories to construct his narrative. Unfortunately, he seems a little too trusting of dubious accounts and does not source his claims well. Some information is clearly grounded to a text, but mostly the author presents only a general bibliography of sources at the back of the book.

As Edwards tells it, Greco read Salvio's Trattato and Ruy Lopez's text, showed promise, and began studying with Don Mariano Marano (13-14). The claim that Greco studied under Marano derives from Richard Twiss, Chess (1787) and was repeated by Lewis in his book on Greco's games mentioned above (vii). Monté notes a number of historians who have expressed doubts concerning Twiss's claim. Salvio states only that Greco met Marano twice. Monté states, "an early acquaintance with Marano is based only on a rather vague suggestion by Salvio" (319).

That Greco was in Rome in 1619-1620 is better attested. No less than four extant Greco manuscripts exist from this time and indicate Greco's presence in Rome. Two of these manuscripts are undated and two are clearly dated early 1620. "[A]ll approximately dated facts of Greco's life are exclusively provided by his manuscripts", according to Monté (321).

Turning now to Monté's 90 page opening tree and documentation, we find variations containing the classic bishop sacrifice absent from the standard texts containing Greco's games (Beale, Lewis, and Hoffmann).

1.e4 e6 2.d4 c6

This strange move is absent from all modern references to Greco's games, but appears in three manuscripts of unknown authorship classified by Monté as part of the Lopez-complex: Elegantia, Regole, and Riccardiana (146, 156ff, 518). The idea is to bring Black's queen out with check. The check only occurs after White plays c4, a move recommended by Lucena.

3.Bd3 Be7 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.h4 Kg8&Re8

Castling, as we know it today, is older than Greco, but was not universally adopted. There were local variations. Some places there was a range of choices a player could make as to the squares where the king and rook ended up during the move. The placement of the rook on e8 makes the bishop sacrifice to come less forcing as Black's king has an additional option after accepting the sacrifice, as well as a second square for refusing.

6.e5 Nd5 7.Bxh7+ Kxh7 8.Ng5+

Black to move

The three main options 8...Bxg5, 8...Kg6, and 8...Kg8 all appear in Salvio's Trattato (1604). Greco adds additional lines or extends them. Because 8...Bxg5 has more variations, I begin with the other two.

a) 8...Kg6 9.h5+

Salvio ends here. Greco adds:

9...Kh6 10.Nxf7+ K moves 11.Nxd8 with these moves appearing in the Orsini (1620) and Lorraine (1621) manuscripts.

b) 8...Kg8 9.Qh5 Bxg5 10.hxg5

This line is in Salvio, Orsini, and Lorraine.

c) 8...Bxg5 hxg5+

And now, Black has 9...Kg6, 9...Kg8 appearing in Salvio and two Greco manuscripts. I will not present all of this analysis. You can find it in Monté's book, and it reappears in the games of others in the twentieth century. Here Edwards' analysis shines.

Noteworthy is 9...Kg6 10.Qh5+ Kf5 11.Qh3+ Kg6 (11...Ke4 12.Qd3#) 12.Qh7# in Salvio, and two early Greco MSS. For 11.Qh3+, see below.

Lines with 3...Nc6 instead of 3...c6 do not appear in Salvio, but appear in a larger number of Greco manuscripts, beginning with Mountstephen (1623), one of the London MSS.

Game 1 in Edwards, Sacking the Citadel appears in ChessBase Mega 2020, Lewis, and Hoffmann.

1.e4 e6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Bd3 Nc6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.h4 0-0 6.e5 Nd5 7.Bxh7+ Kxh7 8.Ng5+ Bxg5 9.hxg5+ Kg6 10.Qh5+ Kf5

White to move

11.Qh7+

Edwards comments, "Chernev was the first to mention a quicker checkmate with 11.Qh3+" (96). He does not indicate where Chernev offers this analysis. Nonetheless, the sequence appears in Salvio, as noted above, albeit with the difference that Black played 3...c6 instead of 3...Nc6.

11...g6 12.Qh3+ Ke4 13.Qd3# 1-0

It appears that Greco's early manuscripts are almost completely lifted from Salvio with respect to the French Defense and the classic bishop sacrifice. By 1623, however, Greco was developing his own ideas and adding variations.

Did Salvio, rather than Greco, first discover the Bxh7+ sacrifice? Perhaps not. In the Doazan manuscript, there may be an earlier version. The MS was sold in 1827 and then offered for sale again in 1841, In 1843, its new owner, Gabriel Eloy Doazan introduced it in an article in Le Palamède. When Doazan died in 1864, it was sold again and lost. The bulk of its contents were transcribed by Tassilo von der Lasa in 1855. It is from these transcriptions that we know much of its content.

Doazan dated the manuscript to 1600, but not much credence is given by historians to his claims.

The manuscript is of unknown authorship and date, but may reflect the work of Polerio and his associates. Some of the games are credited to other players. A line credited to Giovanni Domenico contains the classic bishop sacrifice.

1.e4 e6 2.d4 Nc6 3.Nf3 Be7 4.c3 Nf6 5.Bd3 O-O 6.h4 d5 7.e5 Ne8

White to move

8.Bxh7+ Kxh7 9.Ng5+ Bxg5 10.hxg5+

It appears that is as far as the game goes, but we know the possible conclusions.

Greco's games, especially if more of them were made available in databases, remain the most detailed early analysis of the classic bishop sacrifice. He copied lines from Salvio, and may have been exposed to ideas from even earlier. Greco developed these lines further. 

*Winter's question appeared in Kingpin (August 1996), and then again in Chess Notes 7979 "Greek Gift", which references the republication of the Kingpin column in Kings. Commoners, and Knaves (1999).

Refuge from Havana's Sun

One hundred years ago today, Emanuel Lasker attempted to account for his first loss in the World Chess Championship match (see "Capablanca – Lasker, Game 5", part 1 and part 2). Lasker credited his blunder in a technically drawn position to his difficulties adjusting to the “fiery, very bright sun of Cuba” (Lasker 1922, 15). The previous Monday’s dispatch (28 March) had mentioned some difficulties of acclimatization. Dispatches over the course of the following month described in more detail Lasker’s physical difficulties, including foggy vision, headaches, and vertigo, all due to Havana’s weather.

On 4 April, Lasker stated the sun caused "a state of fatigue and dizziness". One week later, the claim was that, "the hot, glaring sunlight that makes it difficult to do hard mental work." He shifted attention to the style of play. Referencing his preference for combinations, he stated that balanced positions failed to "stimulate his imagination" (regten meine Phantasie). He claimed that he had achieved the ability to deal with such positions, but it had been difficult for a long time. The "heat and the dazzling shine of the April sun" makes him more prone to error in such positions. He resolved to train harder and smarter in preparation for the remaining games. He describes the temperature more specifically on 18 April: "a temperature of 32 degrees Celsius in the shade [89°F], when the nights are only slightly cooler and a mild south wind is blowing" (Lasker 1922, 15, 21, 24).

Abridged versions of Lasker’s dispatches to Amsterdam’s De Telegraaf were published in English in late April and throughout May in London’s Sunday Times (Winter 2019b). Then, Lasker reprinted his original German dispatches in Mein Wettkampf mit Capablanca (1922). These complaints in his book on the match provoked a reply from José Raúl Capablanca that was published in British Chess Magazine (October 1922).

Capablanca states that his reply is not “in the order of controversy,” but so, “chess historians will have true premises from which to work” (Capablanca 1922, 376). Capablanca’s retort was that such temperatures as Lasker claimed were reached only during the hot days of August, not April. He stated that with a northern breeze blowing from the water to the casino, which was near the beach, the temperatures were at or below 20°C (68°F). “In such cases one feels chilly. I remember that on two occasions we had to close the windows because the air was too cool, yet he claims it was too hot” (Capablanca 1922, 379).

Thanks to the extraordinary decades-long work of Edward Winter, today we have easy access to many primary sources from this match and post-match dispute. Winter also appends weather tables to his article, “Capablanca’s Reply to Lasker” (updated 6 August 2019);* Capablanca's article in BCM is also reproduced in Winter's book, Capablanca (1989, 112-115). We can discern from these tables that Lasker’s blunder in game five took place when the Havana temperature was just below 23°C (73.4°F). It had been 23.4°C at 8:00 pm 30 March, approximately when Lasker would have arrived at the playing venue for the resumption of game five. An hour into play at 10:00 pm, the temperature was 23.2°C, and then was 22.7°C at midnight.

As the blunder in game five was Lasker’s 45th move and the time control was 15 moves per hour, and Lasker states that he had fifteen minutes to think, the blunder likely took place a bit before 11:00 pm. The humidity was 77 at 10:00 pm and had risen to 82 at midnight. There was no appreciable breeze, having dropped from 3.0 kph from the east before game time to 1.4 kph at 10:00 pm, and then 2.4 kph from the SE at midnight. The breeze slowly increased to 6.0 kph through the morning of 31 March, but only began to come from the north when the records show 4.0 kph ENE at 2:00 pm.

From such data, we know that when Lasker blundered, the temperature was warm, the air was humid, and there was no breeze. Neither Lasker’s complaint, nor Capablanca’s reply, however, accurately describe the conditions at the critical moment. Lasker exaggerates the severity, while Capablanca dismisses it with minimizing inaccuracies.

 "La Playa Casino beach resort in Marianao." Ramiro A. Fernández Collection. Courtesy of Cuban Heritage Collection University of Miami Libraries, Coral Gables, Florida.

Capablanca’s reply in British Chess Magazine also highlight the “ideal conditions” of the playing venue (Capablanca 1922, 379). The Casino de la Playa (or Casino de Marianao) was, as he notes, near the beach and the room where they played opened up in that direction. In his introduction to Capablanca’s book on the match, journalist Hartwig Cassel described the playing conditions.

As regards the venue of action, I found it the most ideal for a chess match. The players were situated in an absolutely private room, nobody but the referee and seconds being admitted. The room, with a ceiling over twenty feet high, had an exit to the garden where the players could walk about when not engaged at the board and waiting for the adversary’s move. Refreshments of whatever sort were instantly furnished by a waiter, who was assigned to the players, referee, seconds, and reporters exclusively. In short, there never was a chess match played under more ideal surroundings, free from tobacco smoke and noises; the Doctor was so much pleased as to specially refer to the noiseless way in which the director, referee and umpires walked about, never a whisper disturbing either player in their studies at the board. (Capablanca 1977, 5-6)

Capablanca echoes the privacy, the garden, the waiter at their disposal, and, “windows in three sides” (Capablanca 1922, 379).

Lasker’s chauffeur, Angel Albear, recalled fifty years after the match that he would pick up the champion at 7:45 pm. Miguel A. Sánchez published an interview he conducted with Albear in Havana University’s Alma Mater (February 1971). Drawing on that interview, and notes from an unpublished interview conducted by Jesús S. Suárez also from 1971, he adds some information in José Raúl Capablanca: A Chess Biography (2015) that offers a clearer perspective. Sánchez notes that before the games, Lasker, “liked to sit and meditate on one of the benches in the garden, or simply chat with fans or personalities of the Havana Chess Club who were there” (244).

Albear's memories also include trips for the Laskers into the heart of Havana in mid-afternoon for meals. That would have been the heat of the day. Sánchez informs us that Lasker was first put up in the Hotel Trotcha, where north facing rooms never received direct sunlight. However, a few days later Lasker moved to a less-expensive guest house about a mile away, "owned by a Jewish lady whose surname, according to Albear, sounded similar to Lasker's: Laisker or Lasiher" (Sánchez, 242, 245). It seems that Lasker's trips into the business district in mid-afternoon was due to the quality of food at the guest house, which would have had a more limited kitchen than the hotel. One of Lasker's journeys into the business district was to a cigar factory founded by Hermann Upmann, credited with the innovation of packing cigars in cedar boxes.

As mentioned in my notes to Game 8, Cassel faulted Lasker's journalistic work as distracting him from the work at hand--playing chess. Cassel also stated that Lasker, "made it a practice to come to the business part of the city for luncheon when it is hottest in town, on the plea that the food given to him at the hotel was not palatable" ("Gratitude", 101). Cassel thought Lasker should rest during the day. He credits Lasker's level of activity during the heat of the day--both journalistic work and enjoying the hospitality of Havana--for his state of exhaustion late during the playing time. As noted in my other posts in this series, the playing time was 9:00 pm until 1:00 am.

Lasker would fire back as Cassel near the end of Mein Wettkampf mit Capablanca, blaming him for the violation of the copyright agreement that reserved publication of the game scores to the players. He even suggests that Cassel ruined William Steinitz's career in the United States as a chess journalist (Lasker 1922, 37). La Nación in Argentina paid in excess of 1000 pesos for the rights to receive daily reports of the moves of the game (Sánchez, 244). Lasker's attack on Cassel makes it seem likely that this money went to the journalist. Perhaps this verbal battle concerning chess journalism and copyright deserves a later post.

Part 14 of a series recognizing the Centennial of Capablanca – Lasker, World Chess Championship, Havana 1921. Access the whole series via WCC Havana 1921.

*Winter credits Yandy Rojas Barrios for finding these tables in the archives of the Climate Center of the Institute of Meteorology in Casablanca, Havana.

References

Capablanca, José Raúl. "My Reply to Dr. Lasker." British Chess Magazine, vol. 42, no. 10 (October 1922), 376-380.

_______. World's Championship Matches, 1921 and 1927. New York: Dover, 1977.

"La Playa Casino beach resort in Marianao." Ramiro A. Fernández Collection. Courtesy of Cuban Heritage Collection University of Miami Libraries, Coral Gables, Florida.

Lasker, Emanuel. Mein Wettkampf mit Capablanca. Berlin and Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter, and Co., 1922.

Sánchez, Miguel A. José Raúl Capablanca: A Chess Biography. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2015.

"The Gratitude of Cuba." American Chess Bulletin, vol. 18, no. 5 (May-June 1921), 99-101.

Winter, Edward. Capablanca: A Compendium of Games, Notes, Articles, Correspondence, Illustrations and Other Rare Archival Materials on the Cuban Chess Genius Jose Raul Capablanca, 1888-1942. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1989.

_______. "Capablanca's Reply to Lasker." Chess Notes. https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/capablancalasker.html, updated 6 August 2019.

_______. "Lasker on the 1921 World Championship Match." Chess Notes. https://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/laskerhavana.html, updated 6 August 2019.

Lasker -- Capablanca, Game 8

Part 13 of a series recognizing the Centennial of Capablanca -- Lasker, World Chess Championship, Havana 1921

The table of dates, openings, and move times in José Raúl Capablanca, World's Championship Matches, 1921 and 1927 (Dover 1977) states that this game was played over two nights on 3 and 4 April 1921. However the notes presented by Capablanca undermine this information, consisting only of the 30 moves played on 3 April. American Chess Bulletin (April 1921) has a 31st move for Lasker, a single date, and interesting notes by Basil Soldatenkov.

These notes take the form of a narrative of the game played, identification of 31.Ke1 as a sealed move, and a fantasy variation carried out to move 56 that begins with an alternative to 31.Ke1. Soldatenkov suggests that Lasker was not feeling well on the second night.

Who was Basil Soldatenkov? His interesting narrative on the game sent me searching for information.

ChessBase Mega 2020 has two games played by Vasily Soldatenkov. American Chess Bulletin (November 1917) in "Ending Between Russian Diplomats" (224) mentions Basil Soldatencov (note spelling) as a new member of the Manhattan Chess Club, indicating that he is attached to the Russian Embassy in Washington. Later in ACB (March 1918) the magazine spells his name Soldatenkoff. Edward Winter reproduced the article with the ending, and much else, in "Soldatenkov" Chess Notes (updated 30 December 2018). From the scraps of information that Winter assembled, a fair bit about the man comes to light, including two divorces, one after a marriage of less than ten years to an American woman 17 years younger than him.

Although Soldatenkov mentions the aborted resumption of this game "the next day" and Capablanca states, "having analyzed the game during the twenty-four hours' interval," Monday was ordinarily a rest day. Lasker used Mondays to produce his dispatches to an Amsterdam paper. There was a dispatch dated 4 April 1921 about which I will say more tomorrow.

In his summary of Lasker's activities during the match, Hartwig Cassel stated:

[Lasker] actually saw fit to engage in newspaper work, having contracted with two European papers to furnish the scores of the games, together with analytical work, and every Monday, when the players had an off day, he had to sit down for hours to come up to his contract. Will chess players, or, rather, masters, never learn the lesson that there is enough work to do, when having to play chess with strong opponents, that they should shun newspaper work and leave it to men who do that work exclusively?

This statement from an interview with Cassel was presented in "The Gratitude of Cuba," American Chess Bulletin (May 1921), 99-101. The previous page contains the "The Summary"--the table of dates, openings, results, and move times--exactly as it would reappear in Capablanca's book on the match.

Was Monday always a rest day? If so, it would seem that the players may have sat down to resume game eight on Tuesday, 5 April, and quickly agreed to a draw without making further moves. That notion accords with the dating of game nine as having been played on 6 April 1921.

The comments by Soldatenkov form a narrative that follows the game score in American Chess Bulletin, and conclude with the Russian's fantasy variation that he presents in support of his contention that Lasker had a superior position when a draw was agreed. I have broken up his narrative and inserted most of it in shorter fragments at appropriate moments in the game.

Lasker,Emanuel -- Capablanca,José Raúl [D12]
World Championship 12th Havana (8), 03.04.1921
[Capablanca/Lasker/Soldatenkov]

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 c6

"That works too" (Lasker).

Capablanca's choice is the most popular today in the position and is regarded as a solid response to the Queen's Gambit.

4.e3

"This allows Black to bring out the Queen's Bishop without any difficulty" (Capablanca).

"Too tame!" (Lasker)

"4.Nc3 is more aggressive. 4...Bf5 This move would not be possible now, because then 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Qb3 would run into trouble for Black" (Lasker).

4...Bf5 5.Nc3 e6 6.Bd3

6.Nh4 is more often the choice of masters today.

6...Bxd3 7.Qxd3 Nbd7 8.0-0

Black to move

8...Bd6

8...Be7 or Bb4 both seem preferable.

9.e4 dxe4 10.Nxe4 Nxe4 11.Qxe4 0-0

Everything so far looks akin to many of my own games with the Queen's Gambit, and these often continue 11...Nf6 12.Qe2

White to move

12.Bd2

12.Bg5 was played in nearly half of the 57 games in PowerBook 2020 that reached this position.

12...Qf6 13.Rad1

Only one other game in Mega 2020 has 12...Qf6. That game, played in 1999, continued with 13.Bc3.

13...Qg6

"Dr. Lasker compelled his opponent to an exchange of Queens and, in its early stage, the game assumed the character of an endgame" (Soldatenkov).

I do not see from the game score how Lasker compelled the exchange of queens. Rather, it seems to me that exchanging queens was Capablanca's intent with 12...Qf6.

14.Qxg6 hxg6 15.Bc3 Rfd8 16.Rfe1 Bc7

A literal translation of Lasker's words here read strangely. His point appears that he considers this position likely to reach a draw with best play. "Die Partie ist bei richtigem Spiele natürlich unentschieden" (Lasker).

White to move

17.Kf1 Nf8

"Thereupon took place highly strategical maneuvering,..." (Soldatenkov).

18.Bd2 f6 19.h4 Kf7 20.g3

"...in the course of which Dr. Lasker, after having insured his right wing against all possible attempts of his adversary,..." (Soldatenkov).

I tell students that they should refrain from placing ellipses at the beginning and end of a quotation. I violate this prescription here, because I want my readers to perceive the continuity in the comments I have placed at moves 17, 20, and 21.

20...Nd7 21.Be3

"...began a pressure on the Queen's side and, as it seemed, almost inadvertently to his opponent, obtained a distinct preponderance of pawn position there and then" (Soldatenkov).

Black to move

21...Nb6

"To this plan of campaign the Pan-American champion opposed a steadfast resistance and his maneuvering of the knight, which threatened to bring into play a combination of pawn and rook at various parts of the enemy's center, was not only purely defensive, but also aggressive at times. However, Capablanca did not succeed in breaking through anywhere ..." (Soldatenkov).

22.Rc1 Nc8 23.Re2 Ne7

All these maneuvers with the Knight are extremely difficult to explain fully. The student would do well to carefully analyze them. Black's position might now be said to be unassailable.

A poster on chessgames.com stated in response to this annotation: "Well I would...if I was positive Capablanca wasn't pulling my leg" (Petrocephalon, 17 Nov 2005).

24.Rc3 a6

"Black prepares b7-b5 to occupy c4 and win the point d5" (Lasker).

25.a4 Rab8 26.b4

Black to move

"White now threatens b5" (Lasker).

26...b5

"Best. Black wins rule over d5, White receives a strong passed pawn as compensation" (Lasker).

"26...Bd6 was better, as it gave Black some slight winning chances" (Capablanca).

27.cxb5 axb5 28.a5

"Dr. Lasker proceeded to gain advantage until, finally, he emerged with a passed pawn on the a-file, with only a slight pressure by his valorous opponent on his b-pawn to compensate the latter for said disadvantage" (Soldatenkov).

28...Bd6 29.Rb3 Nd5 30.Bd2 Rdc8 ½-½

Lasker 2:07 - Capablanca 1:48

"The game was given up for a draw, because having analyzed the game during the twenty-four hours' interval, we both came to the conclusion that it was impossible to win the game for either side" (Capablanca).

White to move

Adjourned/Final Position

It is noteworthy, perhaps, that neither Lasker's nor Capablanca's books on the match offer Lasker's sealed 31st move. The agreement that it was thus drawn after move 30, and Capablanca's comment suggests that they may have chatted before sitting at the board and agreed not to continue.

Soldatenkov's narrative describes the scene in the playing room, and the response of spectators. Who was his source?

Soldatenkov's Fantasy Variation

Soldatenkov wrote:

"The game was adjourned here, Lasker sealing his thirty-first move. I have strong grounds to believe that the Cuban master did not consider himself at his best that day and viewed the whole line of aggressive defense as a distinct, if imperceptible blunder, and his position at that stage of the game was was very inferior."

"The next day the game was resumed. Lasker's sealed move was 31.Ke1. A draw was agreed upon to the utmost astonishment of all, and I dare say, the amusement of Capablanca, who, I am sure, had he the White pieces, with his thorough knowledge of end games, his sporting and combative spirit, would have played it out to a finish and most probably won. However, Dr. Lasker, not feeling very fit and thus wanting to avoid heavy strain, consented to a draw!"

"Although I can not pretend to give an exhaustive of this intricate position, yet I will try to indicate for the benefit of readers of the Bulletin a tentative line of play the game might have followed and which, to my mind, clearly indicates how threatening and aggressive the position of the White pieces is, owing to the overhanging sword of Damocles, which White's a-pawn happens to be:"

31.g4

Naturally, the game could not have resumed with a move that differs from the one that Lasker sealed.

31...Re8 32.g5

Black to move

Analysis Diagram

32...e5

Of course, this move is a blunder, which I would not expect from Capablanca. The whole fantasy variation rests on unsound play by Black.

33.dxe5 fxe5 34.Re4

Soldatenkov also offers 34.Ne1 e4 35.f3

34...Re7 35.Ne1 Rh8 36.Nd3 Ke6 37.Rb1 Kf5 38.Rbe1 Bb8 39.Kg2 Bd6 40.Kf3 Bb8 41.Bc1 Nc3 42.Rf4+ exf4 43.Rxe7 Rxh4 44.Nxf4 Bxf4 45.Rf7+ Ke6 46.Rxf4 Rh3+ 47.Kg4 Rd3 48.Bb2 Nd5 49.Re4+ Kf7 50.a6 Rd2 51.a7 Nc7 52.Bxg7 Rxf2 53.Bf6 Na8 54.Re7+ Kf8 55.Rh7 Nb6 56.Bd4 and White is winning.

Rules for the World Chess Championship 1921

Part 3 of a series recognizing the Centennial of Capablanca -- Lasker, World Chess Championship, Havana 1921.

On 9 March 1921, Emanuel Lasker and José R. Capablanca met at the Union Club of Havana. They agreed upon the selection of Judge Alberto Ponce as referee. Dr. Rafael Pazos consented to act as Lasker's second, while Capablanca's second was Dr. Portela.

The players in consultation with Judge Ponce agreed to the following rules:

1. The match to be one of eight games, drawn games not to count, but if, after 24 games, neither player had scored eight games, then the player having the greater number of points to be declared the winner.
2. One session of four hours' duration. ... five play days per week.
3. Time limit: fifteen moves an hour.
4. Referee: Judge Alberto Ponce
5. The $20,000 purse to be divided as follows: Dr. Lasker to receive $11,000, Capablanca $9,000, win or lose or draw.
As presented in José Raúl Capablanca, World's Championship Matches, 1921 and 1927 (35).

These rules represent fulfillment of certain aspects of the agreement signed 23 January 1920 at The Hague, but with some modifications. The number of games are reduced to 24 from the original 30. This reduction had been made in the new agreement at The Hague, 10 August 1920 (see below). The original agreement had play six days per week.

Hartwig Cassel, who wrote this section of The World's Championship Chess Match Played at Havana between José Raúl Capablanca and Dr. Emanuel Lasker 1921 (New York, 1921),* states "the original agreement called for a second session of two hours after an interval of at least three hours." This requirement was not in the text of the January 1920 agreement as published by American Chess Bulletin (March 1920). There was some dispute regarding whether there should be one daily session or two in the discussions between Lasker, Capablanca, and Rubinstein in the years prior to the First World War. As the scheduled playing time for Capablanca -- Lasker was 9:00 pm - 1:00 am, a second session would be a burden to all.

However, the new agreement reached 10 August 1920 after Lasker's June 1920 concession of the title to Capablanca did specify two sessions per day.

Presumably, in the agreement worked out on this date one hundred years ago, such rules remain as the players retaining the rights and responsibilities to publish the games of the match. Indeed, Edward Winter cites a Cuban paper, Diario de la Marina (14 April 1921) as stating after game 11 of the match, "This game is the property of Lasker and Capablanca and cannot be reproduced" (Winter 1989, 111). Nonetheless, American Chess Bulletin and British Chess Magazine published the games as soon as they had copies of them. BCM regarded it as an obligation, even though the games were dull.

These games are perhaps models of accuracy, but are mainly incredibly dull, but as a matter of record we will publish them in the Magazine, beginning next month.
"The World's Chess Championship" BCM (May 1921)

The January rules also provided for three additional rest days at the request of either player.

Sources

Capablanca, José Raúl. World's Championship Matches, 1921 and 1927. New York: Dover, 1977.

Cassel, Hartwig. "Arrival of Dr. Lasker in Cuba." American Chess Bulletin 18, no. 3 (March 1921), 47-48.

"The Championship Match at Havana." American Chess Bulletin 18, no. 2 (February 1921), 21.

"The World's Championship." British Chess Magazine 40, no. 9 (September 1920), 283.

"The World's Championship." British Chess Magazine 41, no. 5 (May 1921), 184.

Winter, Edward. Capablanca: A Compendium of Games, Notes, Articles, Correspondence, Illustrations and Other Rare Archival Materials on the Cuban Chess Genius Jose Raul Capablanca, 1888-1942. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1989.

_______. Chess Facts and Fables. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2006.


*This limited edition book of 600 copies is reprinted in the 1977 Dover edition of Capablanca's two World Championship Matches.

Note: Sarah (aka Batgirl on Chess.com) published a new article on Capablanca that summarizes the events leading to this match. See "Lasker--Capablanca" (8 March 2021) at Sarah's Chess Page.

Lasker arrives in Havana

On this day in 1921, Emanuel Lasker arrived in Havana, Cuba for his World Championship Match with José Raúl Capablanca.

Accompanied by Mrs. Lasker, Dr. Lasker arrived on March 7, on the steamship Hollandia, and was met by Dr. Rafael de Pazos, president of the Club de Ajedrez, and many chess enthusiasts, who extended a cordial greeting to the great player who had traveled so far to meet his rival on his own ground.
Hartwig Cassel

Lasker departed Amsterdam 16 February 1921 directly for Havana on board the Hollandia. He had intended to travel to Cuba via New York, but the US State Department had denied his visa because, "technically a state of war still existed between [the US] and Germany", according to a report in American Chess Bulletin.* The US Secretary of State, Bainbridge Colby, was a chess player and formerly a member of the Manhattan Chess Club. The club president brought the matter to Colby's attention, and Lasker's visa was approved, but too late for Lasker to change his new plans.

S.S. Hollandia

The much anticipated match had been in preparation more than a decade. Capablanca had been mentioned as a possible challenger to Lasker as early as 1908, before the young Cuban had any significant tournament or match experience. Capablanca's decisive victory over Frank Marshall in 1909 brought him international recognition and invitation to a master tournament in San Sebastian, Spain in spring 1911. The event was otherwise limited to masters with a strong record of tournament success. Although some participants raised objections to his inclusion, these were silenced by his first place finish.

Seven months later, Capablanca sent a formal challenge to Lasker for a World Championship Match. Lasker accepted the challenge, and the two began negotiating the details. After several months of letters back and forth, and dispatches by both to the press, negotiations reached an impasse.

There was a chance that negotiations would resume when it appeared that hurt feelings between the two men were soothed when they both participated in the St. Petersburg chess tournament in 1914, but war soon broke out. The First World War disrupted chess activities and international travel, and also had a deleterious impact on Lasker's finances and his mental state. Lasker wrote to Walter Penn Shipley:

In chess I have become a "duffer", though with training I might learn the game anew. I am rather sick of war, famine, revolution, immorality and violence. Not that I despair of the world--not at all--but for the moment I should like to be out of the tempest; because my power of endurance is nearly used up, not physically, but morally.
American Chess Bulletin (November 1919), as rpt. in Winter, A Chess Omnibus

On 23 January 1920, Capablanca and Lasker, meeting at The Hague, concluded an agreement to play a match after 1 January 1921. Readers interested in the details of this agreement and subsequent controversies are referred to Edward Winter's definitive accounts in Capablanca (1989) and Chess Facts and Fables (2006), as well as updates in his Chess Notes.

Then, in June 2020, Lasker resigned the championship, making Capablanca the World Champion. In July, Deutsche Schachzeitung carried the headline, "Capablanca, der neue Schachweltmeister", but Deutsches Wochenschach disputed the title the following month (Winter 2006, 144). Capablanca went back to The Hague in August and a new agreement was worked out with Lasker, who maintained that he was now the challenger. 

Finally, in December, Lasker confirmed that he would travel to Cuba for a match to begin 10 March.

It is my intention to follow this match as it took place, posting updates on the centennial of their occurrence. The first game is scheduled for 15 March, due to Lasker's delayed arrival. 


Sources

Capablanca,José Raúl. World's Championship Matches, 1921 and 1927. New York: Dover, 1977.

Cassel, Hartwig. "Arrival of Dr. Lasker in Cuba." American Chess Bulletin 18, no. 3 (March 1921), 47-48.

"The Championship Match at Havana." American Chess Bulletin 18, no. 2 (February 1921), 21.

Linder, Isaak, and Vladimir Linder. José Raúl Capablanca: 3rd World Chess Champion, trans. Boris Belitsky. The World Champion Series. Milford, CT: Russell Enterprises, 2010.

Waxman, Matthew. "When Did World War I End?" Lawfare (11 November 2018). https://www.lawfareblog.com/when-did-world-war-i-end.

Winter, Edward. Capablanca: A Compendium of Games, Notes, Articles, Correspondence, Illustrations and Other Rare Archival Materials on the Cuban Chess Genius Jose Raul Capablanca, 1888-1942. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1989.

_______. A Chess Omnibus. Milford, CT: Russell Enterprises, 2003.

_______. Chess Facts and Fables. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2006.


*President Warren G. Harding signed on 3 March 1921, "Joint Resolution Declaring that certain Acts of Congress, joint resolutions, and proclamations shall be construed as if the war had ended and the present or existing emergency expired" (see Waxman).

Building a Lesson

A Partial DVD Review

I was stunned at seeing the number of instructive themes that Karsten Müller was able to extract from a short endgame played by Jose R. Capablanca as part of a simul. The lesson appears as part of the Fritz Trainer DVD, Master Class 04: Jose Raul Capablanca (2015). Then tracking down Müller's reference to Edward Winter revealed a fascinating history of the position as well, including some debate within Chess Notes that spanned more than a decade (see Edward Winter, "Capablanca v. Kalantarov", Chess Notes [updated 17 December 2019]).

Winter's story begins in 1988 with Chess Notes 1715. Ken Neat brought to Winter's attention a position that appeared in Isaak Linder, and Vladimir Linder, Kapablanka v Rossii (1988).* Linder and Linder reference an account by Peter Romanovsky that was published in Shakhmaty v SSSR (1959). Winter published Neat's translation. One of the later additions to Winter's notes present Romanovsky's entire article in three images. Those who read Russian might enjoy it.

Note 1715 inspired Rene Olthof to use the position in one of his training sessions, and he then sent in a note, which Winter published. Olthof found the position "nothing special". The first two notes were republished in Winter, Chess Explorations (1996) under the title, "Knight Ending" (25-26).

Twelve years later, Müller offered a refutation of Olthof's idea (Chess Notes 2402). As noted in the sequence of notes published by Winter over several decades and collated in the article, "Capablanca v. Kalantarov", Müller has published his analysis in The Chess Cafe Puzzle Book (2004). Encyclopedia of Chess Endings, vol. 5 (1993) also contains the position and some analysis, but not a key refutation of an error. Pal Benko also analyzed the ending in two issues of Chess Life.

The analysis begins with this position. We know from Winter that Capablanca's opponent was Kalantarov, about whom little is known, and that it was part of a thirty board simul in St. Petersburg in 1913. Capablanca scored +26-3=3. Romanovsky's story suggests that he and others were assisting Kalantarov.

White to move

The game concluded 46.Kf7 Ng5+ 47.Nxg5 fxg5 48.g4 Kh7 49.h4 Kh6 50.Kf6 Kh7 51.h5 a5 52.Ke5.

White wins because he has a protected passed pawn and his king is in the square of Black's passed pawn.

Müller's Diagram, Black to Move

Müller carries the analysis another twelve moves to show how White employs triangulation (although he omits this term) to regain the opposition and reach the point where outflanking will win Black's g-pawn.

Along the way, he presents several unplayed variations that lead to checkmate, even in one case allowing Black to promote first, but white plays a check, promotes with check, and then has the option of skewering the king to pick up Black's queen, or checkmate (the better option, of course).

White to move

After the move that Encyclopedia of Chess Endings missed, White also gets a supported passed pawn and stops Black's a-pawn. However, in this case, Black is able to maintain the distant opposition to keep the White king on the queenside, while at the same time staying in the square of the passed h-pawn.

Müller's Diagram, White to Move

Had Capablanca missed 48.g4, he could have lost the game because Black's outside passed pawn takes his king too far away and Black has time to round up White's pawns.

White to move

The DVD contains Müller's brief historical background, the note that with correct play Black should have drawn the game, and then finding 48.g4 is the first exercise. I made the same error as Olthof because I underestimated the complexity of the position. Following that error, however, I was able to play through the lesson and choose the correct answers. Capablanca's entire idea beginning with the surprising 46.Kf7 is an instructive breakthrough idea.

Inn addition to video lessons on the endgame by Müller, the DVD includes video lessons on strategy by Mihail Marin, tactics by Oliver Reeh, and openings by Niclas Huschenbeth. In addition to the videos, there are 103 games with training questions, and 14 endgames analyzed by Marin. The collection is enhanced by a biography of Capablanca with links to important games, and a database of 1223 Capablanca games. There are also opening trees for White and Black based on Capablanca's play.

*An English edition was published in 2009 under the title, Jose Raul Capablanca: Third World Chess Champion.

Howard Staunton

On the Origin of Good Moves Reading Log*

In The Chess-Player's Handbook (1847), Howard Staunton asserts, "in chess, as in modern warfare, one of the most important strategems is the art of gaining time upon the enemy" (48-49). This assertion could well be considered central to the foundation of the articulation of positional chess, but Staunton does not get such credit.

Time served as a "factor" in Siegbert Tarrasch's articulation of what many have taken to be a continuation of William Steinitz's modern theory. He stated, "Force, Space and Time work together at every move" (The Game of Chess [1935], 231). Later, pawn structure was added to Tarrasch's formulation, and these became the essence of "development" (see "Principle of Development: Early History"). These were the factors that I learned in my youth, and then found anew as I was returning to chess after about a decade of minimal play, and read some of Yasser Seirawan's exceptional "Winning" series published by Microsoft Press in the 1990s. I recall Wesley So telling Seirawan during one of the Wijk aan Zee broadcasts that these texts gave him his foundation.

Time remains vital to Dan Heisman's nearly iconoclastic Elements of Positional Evaluation, rev. ed. (1999), where he lists mobility, flexibility, vulnerability, center control, piece coordination, time, and speed. Heisman considers notions of space, pawn structure, and development as "pseudo-elements". In Heisman's brief synopsis of the history of positional theory, he claims that after Andre Danican Philidor, the next contribution to theory was the play of Paul Morphy, skipping over Staunton.

Who mentions time prior to Staunton? Research might reveal that it was Giaochino Greco, although I cannot point to a passage in his manuscripts where this is the case. I do vaguely recall the concept articulated in some annotations by William Lewis, and Staunton was certainly familiar with the works of Lewis. Following this assertion concerning time, Staunton suggests the relevance of the art of warfare for chess with reference to Traité de Grand Tactique (1805) by Antoine-Henri Jomini, who served under Napoleon as well as other leadership capacities elsewhere in Europe. Staunton's lessons from Jomini, the art of war:

...consisted in the proper application of three combinations--first, the art of disposing the lines of operation in the most advantageous manner; secondly, in a skillful concentration of the forces with the greatest possible rapidity upon the most important point of the enemy's line of operations; and thirdly, that of combining the simultaneous employment of this accumulated force upon the position in which it is directed. (49)

Staunton implies that the application of these principles of war to the game of chess ought to be self-explanatory. Perhaps this failure of elaboration is what excludes him from narratives of the development of chess theory. But, if so, why does Steinitz get so much credit? The Modern Chess Instructor (1889) is even more paltry in its elaboration of principles of positional play.

Willy Hendriks, On the Origin of Good Moves (2020) does not elevate Staunton's reputation as a theorist in his short chapter, which concentrates on the second match between Staunton and Pierre de Saint-Amant (76-88). He does, however, claim that Staunton's contribution to the development of chess skill among those who followed him were manifested in three ways. The first is the role of newspaper columns.

In the quiz that begins the chapter, Hendriks presents this position and an intriguing question.

White to move

His question is derived from a challenge that Staunton offered to his opponent in a battle of analysis in chess periodicals, Le Palamède edited by Saint-Amant and Chess Player’s Chronicle by Staunton. Would you be willing to take the Black side in a series of six games? How much would you be willing to bet on the outcome?

Saint-Amant asserted that Black has an attack and a clearly superior position. Staunton disagreed. Staunton did lose the game, but Hendriks suggests that his loss was due to a subsequent tactical adventure that led no where.

Edward Winter wrote about the controversy in "Staunton v. Saint-Amant", Chess Notes 5709 (10 August 2008). This article forms the source for annotations to this game in ChessBase Mega2020. Hendriks develops his narrative of the word wars through the work of Nick Pope at Chess Archaeology. The emergence of chess columns in newspapers, and then specialized chess magazines, in the first half of the nineteenth century, Hendriks asserts, began to improve the level of chess skill. Staunton's Chess Player's Chronicle is prominent among them, as was Le Palamède. Staunton's second contribution is found in his books. Then, in 1851, Staunton organized the first international chess tournament.

Hendriks core argument in the chapter disputes an assertion of Harry Golombek that the quality of play in the Staunton -- Saint-Amant matches was "much superior" to the McDonnell -- De Labourdonnais matches (77). Hendriks shows that there was an abundance of errors in the latter, as there had been the previous decade when the top French player met the top British player.

Hendriks' exercises at the start of the chapter and his analysis of the games from which they were derived sent me into the databases to play through with some rapidity all 27 games from the two matches. To be honest, I found that exercise to be a chore. Aside from a few interesting endgames, the play of neither gentleman inspired me. On the Origin of Good Moves extracts the most interesting moments. My criticism of the chapter is that Hendriks only vaguely references the fact that the match he focused on was the second between the two men. His assertions that Staunton was clearly the superior player should not overlook Saint-Amant's victory in the much shorter first match.

*See "On the Origin: Reading Journal".

Textbook Ending: Historical Considerations

This position arose twice in Fiebig -- Tartakower, Barmen 1905. It was reached after 58...Kc8 and again after 60...Kc8, at which point the game was agreed drawn.

White to move

Historical questions arise. What were the rules in 1905 regarding draw by repetition or by triple occurrence of position? What endgame books that should be known by aspiring masters of the time explain the technique of triangulation?

Fiebig missed an elementary win that is a textbook ending. Today, it is in many textbooks, but was it as well-known more than a century ago?

In "Pawn Ending" in Edward Winter, A Chess Omnibus (2003), 42-43, this position is reached after the first move from a diagram presented there. Winter references Das Endspiel im Schach (1917) as a source, noting that the score of the game Fahrni--Alapin has not been found. Winter notes the position from Fiebig--Tartakower, and that the game appears in the Barmen tournament book. Winter's article also appears at "Edward Winter Presents: Unsolved Chess Mysteries (14)" (2007).

Wilhelm Steinitz, The Modern Chess Instructor (1889) presents the rules that had been approved by the British Chess Association and many chess congresses. "When both players persist in repeating the same moves," is given as one circumstance that produces a drawn game. There is no reference to the number of repetitions necessary. I have previously written about the development of the Fifty Move Rule at "Max Judd's Draw Claim" (2016). Perhaps a narrative concerning the development of rules regarding repetition can be found somewhere. Winter states the game was "agreed drawn" (42).

J. Berger, Theorie und Praxis der Endspiele (1890) discusses opposition in a separate section within the larger portion devoted to kings and pawns (28-34), but I do not see any reference to triangulation--neither process nor terminology. As far as I am aware, Berger's was the standard endgame book of the time.

As I was playing through Fiebig -- Tartakower, I was certain that White should be winning after Tartakower blocked a check with his rook.

White to move

The game continued:

51.Kd4 b6

Hiarcs, running tablebases, likes 51...Kc6 52.b5+ Kc7 53.Rxd6 Kxd6 54.a4+-

52.Ke5 Rxd5+ 53.Kxd5 Kc7 54.a4 a6

54...Kd7 is more stubborn

White to move

According to Hiarcs, it is checkmate in nineteen moves.

55.a5

The second best move. White wins more quickly with 55.Ke5 Kd7 56.c5 Kc6 57.cxb6 Kxb6 58.Kd6

55...bxa5 56.bxa5 Kd7 57.c5 Kc7 58.c6 Kc8

The game has reached the position at the top of the post. After seeing how the game concluded, I opened my playing software and continued from the diagram against Stockfish 10. I checkmated the engine in sixteen moves.

59.Kc4

59.Kd6 was played by Fiebig.
59.Kd4 is given by Winter from Fahrni's book.

59...Kb8 60.Kd4 Kc8 61.Kd5

The diagram at the top of the post has been reached again, but the position has changed. Now, it is Black to move.

The rest was easy.

Pigs

Lesson of the Week

For reasons that are not entirely clear, rooks on the seventh rank (or second) are sometimes called pigs or swine. The term "blind swine" or "blind pigs" has been attributed to Dawid Janowsky (1868-1927) and Rudolf Spielmann (1883-1942) by several writers, but the origins remain unknown.* Rooks on the rank occupied by the opponent's pawns can gobble everything. Two pigs, or one pig working with a bishop, can be a decisive pair. Sometimes they can save an otherwise lost game, as Janowsky showed on at least two occasions. Sometimes they can deliver checkmate or gobble enough pieces to produce a decisive material advantage.

My advanced students this week saw three positions. The first is from a game played by Janowsky against Jackson Showalter in 1898 (see Chess Notes 5160).

White to move

The checkmate threat was obvious to my students.

34.Rf1 Re8 35.Rff7 Ra6!

The point of Showalter's move here was less obvious to the young players. The point is that now 36.Rc7+ loses because the king will find shelter from checks on a8. Then, White will be helpless against Black's queenside pawns.

36.Rb7 a3 37.Rhc7+ Kd8 38.Rd7+ and White's rooks force a draw by repetition.

The second position was from one of my own blitz games this week.

White to move

Had my opponent played 35...g5 instead of 35...Nb5, I would have lost the game. Now, however, I have a clear and simple win.

36.Rxg7+ Kh8 37.Rgxf7+ Kg8 38.Rg7+ Kh8 39.Rh7+ Kg8 40.Rcg7#.

I call this checkmate pattern "two pigs" in my "Checklist of Checkmates". Some books call it the blind swine checkmate.

The third position is quite challenging until you have seen it once. The solution is the famous "windmill" that Carlos Torre used to defeat former World Champion Emanuel Lasker in 1925.

White to move

It was my knowledge of this famous combination that guided me in setting up one final desperate attempt in the game above. My opponent, on the other hand, did not recognize the threat.

25.Bf6!

This move is the only one leading to advantage, according to chess engines.

25...Qxh5 26.Rxg7+ Kh8 27.Rxf7+ 

A series of discovered attacks force Black's every move. The rook first clears the seventh rank of all but one pawn, then goes after the queen.

27...Kg8 28.Rg7+ Kh8 29.Rxb7+ Kg8 30.Rg7+ Kh8 31.Rg5+ Kh7 32.Rxh5 Kg6

With this fork, Lasker wins back some of the material.

33.Rh3 Kxf6 34.Rxh6+ Kg5 35.Rh3+ and White went on to win due to his three pawn advantage.


My beginning students received instruction in the elementary checkmate of queen and king against a lone king. I worked with students one at a time. Parents can learn the technique from "Teaching Elementary Checkmates".


*See Edward Winter, Chess Notes 7003, which cites Francis J. Wellmuth, The Golden Treasury of Chess (1943) attributing the term to Janowsky; and Chess Notes 6108, citing attribution to Spielmann in I.A. Horowitz and Geoffrey Mott-Smith, Point Count Chess (1960).