New York 1924: Frank Marshall, the Gentleman Swindler

Born August 10, 1877 lived in Montreal in his formative years. He learned how to play chess at age 10 and was one of the leading players in Montreal by 1890. He didn’t make it to Hastings 1895 though he would have been 18. I think this is because he didn’t have enough international exposure despite giving William Steinitz a run for his money during an simultaneous exhibition in 1893 who remarked: “had never met an amateur of his age who had given him so much trouble,” adding also a prediction of “a brilliant future for him if he continues to play chess.”

His family moved back to New York in 1895. We really don’t see his rise until the turn of the century when he won the US championship in 1904 but never accepted the title because the defending champion, Harry Nelson Pillsbury, didn’t compete ( due to illness). In 1906 Pillsbury died and Marshall again refused the championship title until he won it in competition in 1909.

He took some thrashings from Capablanca and Dr. Lasker during this period but I think it only made him stronger. He came back strong in 1914 at St. Petersburg finishing fifth ahead of players like Nimzovitch, Janowski, and Rubenstein.

He filled a void in American Chess after Pillsbury death. He started the Marshall Chess Club in 1915.

He got a reputation as a Swindler for several come from behind wins. I always like an underdog story because it rings close to home. At New York 1924, his reputation made his stronger opponents more cautious. Take his draws against Alekhine in rounds 7 and Round 20. Alekhine comes out and admits to being cautious in round 20 and “not accepting a Grecian gift” and later giving back material after Marshall’s positional sacrifice in the game. Alekhine’s only salvage was to provide a perpetual check.

He draws Capablanca twice in rounds 10 and 16 with the former champion. Marshall demonstrates he’s an equal match in the Capablanca’s endgame especially in the game in round 10 where, despite being down a pawn in the endgame, Marshall is able to hold on for the draw.

The game I want to go into detail is the one that gave him a Brilliancy prize at the event in the round 18 Marshall versus Bogoljubow game. ( Note: AA means remarks by alexander Alekhine from the tournament book)

(89) Marshall,F - Bogoljubow,E [D52]
New York New York (18), 03.1924

THE SECOND BRILLIANCY PRIZE GOES TO MARSHALL

Key Points:
1) The Spirit of Pillsbury is in this game
2) Bogoljubow appeared to not play well cooredinated.
3) Marshall plays a strong central attack and aggressively goes after the weakened King's side
4) Offering both his rooks, Marshall's Queen and Bishop prove deadly on the weak king.

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 Marshall plays in the spirit of Pillsbury. 3...d5 4.e3 Nbd7 5.c4 c6 Bogoljubow plays a Slav-Meran defense. The c6 move actually prepares movement for the Queen to attack White's vulnerable b-pawn and Queen's side.6.cxd5 exd5 7.Nc3 Qa5 AA: The beginning of Bogoljubow's demise. Better ( according to Alekhine) is: [7...Be7 8.Bd3 Ne4 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Bxe4 dxe4 11.Nd2 Nf6 12.Qc2 Bf5 13.0–0 0–0 14.f3 Rfe8] 8.Bd3 Taking care of e4 is important. Unless Black plays Bb4 this is important. 8...Ne4 9.Qc2 Nxg5 10.Nxg5 h6 (Diagram)

AA: Unnecessarily weakens the King's position. [AA: worse is his line: 10...Be7 11.Nxh7 g6 12.Bxg6 fxg6 13.Qxg6+ Kd8 14.Ng5 Bxg5 15.Qxg5+ Kc7 16.h4; AA: More solid: 10...Nf6 11.0–0 Be7] 11.Nf3 Be7 Stronger would have been to play the bishop to b4.

But Bogoljubow appears to want to hold on to a bishop pair.AA: Why not Bd6? 12.0–0 0–0 13.a3 Qd8 14.Rae1 This was hard to see. Why does Marshall play the Queen's rook here and not on the semi-open c-file or set up a minority attack with Rab1? He's preparing to push the f-pawn and wants rooks on both e- and f-files.

14...a5 Looks like a little preventative for the possible Minority attack. But Alekhine says " Loss of tempo, no need for prevention here" 15.Qe2 Nf6 AA: Still would like to see Bd6 ( been pushing this for the last three moves as saving Bogo's position.) 16.Ne5 Again, in true Pillsbury style, Marshall plays to e5. a strong position for the knight. 16...Bd6 17.f4 c5 18.Bb1 (diagram)

He has all the makings for a Pillsbury attack and plays this preventative move to keep the pressure on the diagonal. 18...Bd7 19.Qc2 Bc6 20.dxc5 Bxc5 21.Kh1 When the f-pawn is advanced, moving the king off the a7-g1 diagonal is wise. Alekhine sees a doubel threat of e4 adn Ng4 21...Re8 (Big diagram)

22.e4! The genious behind this move is to ultimately displace Black's knight on f6.

22...Bd4 [AA: 22...dxe4 23.Nxc6 bxc6 24.Nxe4 Nxe4 25.Rxe4 Rxe4 26.Qxe4 g6 27.f5 Qd5] 23.Nxc6 bxc6 24.e5 Ng4 25.Qh7+ Kf8 26.g3 Qb6 27.Bf5

To play 27.Qh8+ right away runs the risk of the king escaping. Patching the escape hatch with Bf5 is worth the hassle White has to endure with the weak attack by Black. 27...Nf2+ 28.Rxf2 He has to take the knight with the rook. This weakens Black's attack and returns the needed initiative. [AA: 28.Kg2 Ne4 29.Nxe4 dxe4 30.Qh8+ Ke7 31.Qxg7 Qxb2+ 32.Kh1] 28...Bxf2 29.Qh8+ Ke7 30.Qxg7 Kd8 [GD: 30...Bxe1 31.Qf6+ Kf8 32.Nxd5! with mate to follow. Bogoljubow must have seen this line.] 31.Qf6+ Re7 32.e6 Bd4 Diagram [32...Bxe1 33.exf7 Bxc3 34.Qd6+ Rd7 35.f8Q#] 33.exf7 Bxf6 34.f8Q+ Kc7 35.Rxe7+ Bxe7 36.Qxa8 Kd6 37.Qh8 Qd8 38.Qe5+ Big DiagramMarshall announces Checkmate in 5. 1–0

He draws Dr. Em Lasker in round 9 with a very dynamic game as he sacs a rook to create dynamics. Lasker gets resourceful and returns the material at the right moment.

In round 15, against Reti, he drops two pawns for a killer king side attack. I could go on about this attacking player who sets up these swindles but this post is already rather long.

Epilogue:

He held on to his US chess Champion title for 29 years until 1936 when he handed it over to Samuel Rechevsky. He was captain of the American chess teams at the first 5 Chess Olympiads. In his later years, he wrote a couple books ( MY fifty Years of Chess) and played bridge and Bingo.

On November 9, 1944, Marshall was returning home from Jersey City where he had gone for an evening of bingo. He collapsed while walking on Van Vorst Street and died. Three-hundred people attended his funeral at the Greenwich Presbyterian Church on November 13. His friend Napier said, “It seems to me that an epoch began with this man.”

A litmus test. Blunder Vs. Count Draw-cula

We interrupt our regularly scheduled posting of New York 1924 tournament analysis to bring you this blunderful report from the trenches of club tournament games.

I haven’t posted about any of my games in a while. Rather than showcase the win I had last night that was full of central control with activity on both wings that finished with a double threat on a queen and mate threat, I’d rather walk you through one of my recent losses against a person I will nick name “Count Draw-cula” to keep his identity anonymous for this demonstration. Besides the kid I beat last night was 200 points lower rated. As satisfying as it may be to play dynamic chess and create combinations that confuse the tactically challenged, I’d rather go over this loss where both players were more equally matched.

Blunderprone Vs Count Draw-Cula

MCC January Swiss (4), This was a Queen's Indian: ( E12 as the ECO books would have it) and Rybka blasts me right away with “Unusual White 4th moves”, Whether its my games or one I am studying from the time machine, After I analyze the game I give it a “headline” and a few key points to provide a memory marker as well as grab the reader’s interest.. which is typically only me…and being easily distracted, I find this method effective in catching my attention as I multitask my way to chess improvement. ( Curse You ICC)
So the headline for this folly reads:

PIECE SACRIFICES REQUIRES EXACT PLAY

I out line the key points to set the mood and what to watch for:

1) White gains space on the Queen's side and Black attempts space on the King's side weakening the safety
2) An piece sacrifice was decided over a passive game.
3) The knight sacrifice was sound due to the fact that Black's King's side was weak and his queen's bishop was hemmed in.
4) When behind in pieces hold on to your material to keep the attack.

The game commenced as follows: 1.d4 e6 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nf3 b6 4.Bg5 ( Rybka didn’t like this gem though I stole it from none other than my American hero, Harry Nelson Pillsbury)
4…Bb4+ 5.Nbd2 h6 6.Bh4 (See diagram on left)
I considered Bf4 actually but I wanted to test out what the drawback was in holding on to the pin. Rybka showed me a line with the exchange that was drawish [6.Bxf6 Qxf6 7.g3 Bb7 8.Bg2 0–0 9.0–0 Bxd2 10.Qxd2 d6 11.Rfc1 c5 12.b4 Rd8 ½–½ Mateo,R (2408)-Roeder,M (2413)/Santa Clara 2000/CBM] but I don't prefer to exchange at this point. I'll consider this in future outings of this opening. I realize now that the long term prospects of holding the pin at this point is useless as will be seen later that my bishop gets displaced. Truer to Pillsbury, Focusing on e5 is more thematic. Though at Hastings, Pillsbury was faced with a bishop on e7. 6...0–0 7.a3.Be7 8.e4 Expanding in the center seemed like a good plan. [8.e3 c5=] 8...Bb7 9.Bd3 d6 10.0–0 Nbd7 11.b4
(see Diagram to right)

I was looking at advancing d5 and really didn't want him to get a knight on c5 11...e5 12.d5 Kh8 A waiting move! I had the start of a Queen's side space advantage. I felt it was time to pull in a little reinforcement. Rybka sees 12...a5 13.Qc2= as equalizing for Black. 13.Rc1 Rg8 It seemed Black was preparing a King side push to open the game. But looking at the pawn formations now, I can see where he could come up with that conclusion. I wanted to limit his knight from g5 and looked at pushing g4 next so I played:14.h3 g5 15.Bg3 Nf8

This was the position I reached when I looked at the game and decided to do a piece sacrifice with 16.Nxe5 Faced with further passive action of my King's side encampment, after 20 minutes of deep thought, I decided to take this risk and play a piece sacrifice. The adrenaline was pumping through my veins as the excitement of even considering such a move. Rybka was a lot more conservative and suggests [16.c5!?±] but I was surprised that the evaluation for Black after the recapture was equality. 16...dxe5= This lead me to believe that the sacrifice was sound. 17.Bxe5 Black wins a piece but I have two bishops on key diagonals and much more active pieces. Black’s Queen’s bishop is out of play. If this were Hockey, I would have what is called a “power play” on the King’s side. 17...Ng6 18.Bc3 Nf4 19.Bb1 Ng6 20.Qh5 White has a mate threat. Yes as Fritz points out there is a mating threat. I have strong control of the diagonals and a good attack. But I screw it up.

(position after Count Draw-cula plays 20...Kh7?) I get all fetched up and misplay this position totally. I decided to forget Reubin Fine’s axiom of “ when behind pieces, exchange pawns but not pieces” and decided to commit suicide with 21.Bxf6?? Rybka blasts me with “White lets it slip away” This was not the time to simplify. The Bishops are strong and I should fight to keep them on board. Better was [21.Qf3±] 21...Bxf6 Black wins a piece and the game goes down hill from here. I lost my nerves of steel and tumbled down in a true blunderful way. 22.Nf3 Kg7 23.Rfe1 Nf4–+24.Qg4 Bc8 25.Qg3 Nh5 26.Qh2 Bb2 27.Rc2 Bxa3–+ 28.Qe5+ Qf6 29.Qxc7 Bxb4 30.e5 Qd8 31.Qc6? Bd7 32.Qxa8 Qxa8 33.e6 Bxe1 34.exf7 Bxf2+! 35.Kxf2 Rf8 36.Ne5 Bf5 37.Rc1 Bxb1 38.Rxb1 Qb8 39.Re1 Qd6 40.Re3 a5 0–1

I felt it was better to take that risk and play the piece sacrifice against a strong player, over the passive position I was about to inherit. How else am I going to learn to play difficult positions like this than a true OTB experience. I learned that my instincts were dead on! I just didn’t have the right technique when I went for the simplification on move 21. Had I played 21Qf3, the game would have been just as instructional but in a way, I think I learned more from the fall. Besides, Draw-cula only suck a total of 8 rating points after everything was done. I had some previously good rounds with nothing to lose really.

Next week I continue with the American, Frank Marshall at the New York 1924 event. I hope you didn’t might this diversion. I wanted to show you how my game is doing these days as a result of this study.

Editor's Note: Corrected the use of the term exchange sacrifice to just piece sacrifice per clarification in comments.

New York 1924: Richard Reti, The Hypermodern Master

I apologize for the lead-in photo as my scanner is not working in my new setup and I had to resort to creative measures to get this rare photo taken of Mr. Reti at the event. The limitations of the web leaves mainly the photo from Wiki. I felt this post deserved a little more than that.

Born May 29, 1889 in Slovakia ( part of Austria- Hungary at the time), he came on the chess scene in the 1910’s playing in the Romantic Style with Gambits. His style changed rapidly following the First World War as he became one of the Hypermodern revolutionists.

In his book written in 1923, Modern Ideas, he essays the evolution of the great players I’ve been covering plus some before coming to the chapter on Hypermodernism. He talks about the evolution of combinative play from the days of Morphy and Anderssen utilizing rapid development and open positions to deliver the flare. He points out how the teachings of Steinitz and Tarrasch made remedy of the tactical melee with positional maneuvering for closed positions with the goal of small yet tangible goals that could translate to a win in the end.

In his book, he mentions how at the turn of the century, chess sort of fell into a stagnation with drawn matches being all too common at the top level who followed the prescribe principles. In the section on “Storm and Stress” He speaks of young masters at the time who found gambit lines in established openings played in vogue at the time. ( Still talking Pre-WWI with lot’s of Ruy Lopez and Queen’s Gambits )

One person he mentions is Akiba Rubinstein who rose with the Storm and Stress players ( Alekhine and Nimzovitch) but still played in the “scientific method” of his recent predecessors ( Tarrasch and Steinitz). Yet his formula for dealing with closed positions was best described as follows:

“He developed the pieces in closed positions not so that they should be immediately effective and have open lines, as was formerly done, but so that they should become ultimately effective in the event of a possible breakthrough, which should take place with the dissolution of the closed position.”

I am taking extra time in the explanation of Reti’s style as he was the first in my study at this event who really was an example of the Hypermodern movement playing his signature opening every chance he got. Reti proudly proclaims that “ Hypermoderns are the greatest opponents of routine play”. Born out of the positional nurturing of Dr. Tarrasch and Steinitz, along side of the American ideas of “overcoming struggles in hostile positions” with Pillsbury, Hyper-modern chess got it’s last formidable genetic kick from Rubinstein’s positional ideas of handling closed positions by being prepared for the inevitable.

In chess, rules are meant to be broken. Should openings be control of the center? We will see in the sample games from New York 1924, that Reti was a good rebel yet conscientious of Romantic, Scientific and Hypermodern ideas.

Here is the score sheet of the famous Capablanca Defeat by Reti:

Capablanca was in the midst of an eight year long 63 game unbeaten streak (his last loss was to Chajes at New York 1916). Reti ended this run in the fifth round, when Capablanca went badly wrong on the black side of a hypermodern Reti opening. He got his queen stuck in the mud. Experts say this was the wake up call he needed and came back fighting for the remaining rounds.

In round 11, again we have a Reti opening against Tartakower. This game demonstrates Reti’s respect from Scientific style of play along with Hyper-modern as both sides get good control of the center right through the middle game where the games shifts to a battle on the King’s side with advancing pawns. Sharp play leads to an unstoppable exchange leading to a permanent advantage into the endgame.

In round 12, against Bogoljubow, he wins the top brilliancy prize of the event with a beautiful move on move 19 in this position: (Don't scroll past here if you want to guess the move)

19: Bh5 is a maneuver that leads to series of forced moves ending with a back rank mate.

Round 13, he beats Alekhine with a London System, named as such by Alekhine identifying similar games played in London 1922. Alekhine explained he merely employed the wrong plan of a King’s side advance in a position that required something different. But on move 21 black seems to make a blunder which allows Reti a Knight fork.

Lastly, the game in round 17, he defeats Tartakower again, quite decisively with an exchange sacrifice in this position:

( scroll break)

Move 22; … Rxd2. Reti goes for the jugular. The heart of White's problems are the dark squares. Lining up pieces on the a5-e1 diagonal can't be all that good. Why this Rook sacrifice works:
1) White has a bad King's position
2) White has a serious weakness on the Dark squares
3) The Bishop is the key to holding White's Queen's side.
4) Weakening both King's and Queen's sides is a strategic advantage.

So there you have it. A marvelous example of how a Hypermodern breaks rules in the opening when its right. Reti was able to conjure up ideas from his predecessors and contemporaries to finish 5th in this strong event.

Brief Epilogue:
He set the record in 1925 for playing 29 consecutive blindfold games winning 21 drawing 6 and only losing 2. He dies of Scarlet Fever in 1929 but still has a second book published posthumously in 1933, titled, Masters of the Chess Board.

New York 1924: Geza Maroczy, The great defender

Born in Sveged, Hungary on March 3, 1870, would have made him 54 for this New york event. But this also made him at the prime age for Hastings 1895. Indeed, he played at Hastings and won the minor tournament which was equivalent to winning today’s under 2200 section. At the turn of the last century, he had several successful events between 1902-1908. In 1906, he was to play a match against Emanuel Lasker for a World Championship but political problems in Cuba ( the venue where this was to be played) caused the match to be canceled.

Geza Maroczy was semi-retired from playing in 1908 and returned as a clerk and auditor at the Center of Trade Unions and Social Insurance. At one point, he was the chief auditor at Educational Ministry but that was short lived after the Communist government was overthrown. He had a hard time finding a job and made a return to chess after WW I.

At New York 1924 he came in 6th place with a strong defensive style of play and demonstrating his Queen ending skills. None of the games had his signature “Maroczy Bind” against the Sicilian. I had a hard time sitting still through his games as attacking players seem to make more interesting games. At first his style didn’t make much sense. That’s not to say that Maroczy’s games in NY1924 aren’t’ interesting. Rather, the strong subtle nature of his play can be appreciated. It took me a little while with the first game to wrap my brain around the style of play. But once I did, I grew an appreciation for this style of play.

In reviewing Geza Maroczy’s games, I learned that defensive play doesn’t necessarily mean passive play. In round 6 against an attacking player like Frank Marshall for instance, has White playing a reverse Ruy Lopez style and simplified the position before harsh attacks could surface. The exchange to simplify almost seemed to be a fault though as the game looked drawish after this exchange on move 15. But as the game continues, Maroczy focused on opening up the e-file while Black made action on the King side with his pieces. The defense holds out for White and now he has a pawn majority on the queen side. The sharp play with the queen ending is another subtle strength of this player as he out maneuvers Marshall in the endgame.

In round 9 with the Black pieces against Yates, he allows a structural weakness of pawn islands in the middle game only to be well defended and use as an advantage in the endgame with Queens and Knights. Hitting on White’s defenseless pawns, he creates an endgame that looks like a classic “space invader” situation with 3 passed pawns raining down on Yates.

In round 21, he cramps Bogoljubow’s position with a pawn on e4, again well defended. At one point he offers three pawns for the taking with a crushing forcing sequence of moves that nets a rook. ( Which pawn to take or none? Move 23 for white)

He Draws in a lost position against Alekhine in round 14 after inheriting an IQP position. He has a hard time making the best of c-file and drops the a-pawn in order to gain control of the c-file. His strong queen counter-play drops 2 more pawns but allows a perpetual check much to the chagrin of Alekhine who claims his Alibi is the fact that at a critical moment in the game, he was too focused on the match between Capablanca and Lasker ( to be covered later) and made a hasty move.

His draw with Capablanca in round 8 where Jose Raul Capablanca plays a London System, Maroczy immediately plays to the weakness of the system and targets b2 and e4. It was Capablanca that simplifies first in this game and makes a positional misjudgment on move 14. ( 14 Bg5). Capablanca plays to a safe draw through 3 move repetition in a middle game where neither side was giving up any ground to give the other a favorable endgame.

Overall, the recipe that Maroczy seemed to be most successful was the following:
1) concede a weakness that can be defended if you gain initiative and play
2) A solid defense can cause your opponent to take too many risks
3) Control of e4 as black was a successful strategy
4) Knowing how to control the Queen in the endgame meant knowing which color complex was stronger and targeting your opponent’s weaker squares

After his win at Hasting’s 1895 amateur event, he was titled Master. It wouldn’t be until 1951 when FIDE grants Geza Maroczy with the title of Grand Master. He passed away on May 29, 1952.

New York 1924: Efim Bogoljubow, A winning formula

Bogoljubow is endlessly optimistic. He always hopes to find new strength for his creative endeavors deep in his rich natural talent. – Alexander Alekhine

Born in the Ukraine, on April 14,1889, he soon became known as a strong player in Russia after tying for first place in 1911 in Kiev. Since I don’t have any printed biographies on Efim Bogoljubow, I have no further insight on how he began playing chess. Little is available on the internet.

I will say that he was a strong player in the 1920’s and 1930’s showing up at most of the international events. His biggest rival being Alexander Alekhine , but more on this later. He is best known for an opening defense to the Queen’s Gambit Declined, called the Bogo-Indian Defense 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3. Nf3 Bb4+ which arises from those wishing to avoid the Nimzo-Indian (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4). To my surprise, no Bogo-Indians were harmed in the making of this tournament.

Mr. Bogoljubow demonstrates a hypermodern aptitude quite eloquently in this event being well rounded with deep calculations that keeps an eye for a favorable endgame.

In round 3 against Frank Marshall, central control of the dark squares becomes a focus in the opening stage after the dark squared bishops are exchanged off the board. Marshall wastes a few moves attempting to get his queen to control these squares that Bogoljubow already controls with a couple pawns. The concession he receives with a doubled pawn is advanced development and eventually e5. He launches a king side attack beginning with Ne5. As Black tries to defend, weakens the King’s cover. Then, Bogoljubow uses the formula of simplification to reveal the weakness and maximize his advantage.

In round 4, Reti falls prey to a similar formula. In a variation of the MacClucheon French defense, Bogoljubow plays 5.Nge2 as a means to gain control of the center. After posting the knight on e4, Reti wastes 3 moves with a Bishop to remove this piece. Ahead in development, initiative and still gets to post a knight on e4! Then, looking ahead, he sees a bishop’s of opposite colors endgame that is actually favorable to his bishop given the semi-closed pawn structure in the center simplifies with a queen trade.

Applying the same formula in Round 5 against Maroczy, he defends a Colle-Zuckertorte by controlling the center. This time his opponent didn’t waste precious opening tempo to usurp any advanced control. Rather, Maroczy begins an attack on the kingside. Bogoljubow sees through the ploy and determines deep down that if if can control the c-file with a flank attack, that he would have a better endgame once he simplifies. His plan works leaving him with an advanced passed pawn into the endgame.

With Yates in round 10, we see the formula again. In hypermodern approach to handling the Ruy Lopez, Bogoljubow allows Yates to over extend a pawn center and quickly hits back with control and weakens Yates’ Queen’s side. The pawns fall and the simplification makes for an easy win.

Against Ed Lasker in round 14, he quickly takes advantage of an opening weakness, controls the center, converts it to an advantage for the endgame.

Tartakower puts up a good fight in round 15 as both hypermodern geniuses wrestle indirectly for the center. The Stonewall pawn formation was chiseled away at the e6 point. Using the law of two weaknesses, Bogo hammers on both the e6 and the weak spots on the Queen’s side. Tartakower holds out for a while. Bogo’s only chance to break through for a win comes in a pawn sacrifice entering the endgame.

The sacrifice gives him the initiative and control of the c-file for the rook where he can muster some play and penetrate Tartakower’s defense. This was a remarkable game with solid defensive maneuvers by Black only to be broken through by clever tactics and heavy calculations!

Alekhine had trouble securing any full points from Bogoljubow. Both games were drawn. Their second encounter in round 17 had the swords of both attacking players deflecting sparks. This was a remarkable game given the fact that Bogoljubow again employs the 5.Nge2 variation of the MacCucheon French against a very savvy Hypermodern attuned to central control. Surprisingly, Bogo may have missed an opening move pawn advance that would have secured a long term goal in the endgame. Instead he plays a developing move which gave Alekhine a chance to develop a plan to secure the Bishop pair. A bloody middle game exchange leaves the imbalance of Bogo’s
two rooks and a queen to fight off Alekhine’s bishop pair, Rook and queen. As long as the Stonewall pawn formation stayed in tact, Bogo could see he had the more active pieces. Alekhine fought hard to break through but White simplified down trying for a win as well. The draw came exhaustively after 85 moves with no hopes of penetration from either side barring a three move repetition.

He finished with a score of 9 ½ placing him in 7th . ( 8+ 3= 9-)

After studying Efim Bogoljubow’s games in the New York 1924 tournament, I am left with inspiration of how to turn a temporary advantage like initiative into a permanent one of material or positional for an endgame. This is exactly what Silman tries to cover in HTRYC. How to win a game is purely made simple by the demonstrations of this man’s formula of the following boiled down steps ( not to oversimplify)

1) central control
2) use initiative to create weaknesses
3) Simplify to exploit the weakness

Epilogue:

Efim Bogoljubow was living in Germany at the time of New York 1924 since World War I. He went back to Russia for a couple years and twice won the Soviet Championships, Breslau 1925 and finished ahead of Dr. Emanual Lasker and Jose Raul Capablanca at the Moscow 1925 chess Tournament. In 1926 he emigrated back to Germany and beat Rubinstein in Berlin 1926. Alekhine and Bogoljubow sparred for the World Championship in 1929 and again in 1934 losing in both instances. He continued to play in competitions through the 1930’s and 40’s finally drawing a min-match against his friendly adversary Alekhine in Warsaw 1943. In 1951, the World Chess Federation (FIDE) awarded him the title of International Grandmaster. One year later he died on June 18, 1952

Editor's note: Please don't razz me for some formating issue on this post. Blogspot seemed to have had a cold today and I had extreme trouble with the formatting for some reason on this post. It was randomly cutting off sentences and inserting new lines though the edit window shows no such thing. I wasn't about to retype the entire post.

New York 1924: Savielly Tartakower and the Bronx Zoo

First, Happy New Year and best wishes for all my readers in 2009.

Savielly Tartakower was born on February 22, 1887 in Russia by Austrian parents. How he came to represent France for the New York 1924 event requires a little explanation as he changes citizenship four times in his life. Though his parents were Jewish, he was christened at birth, his parents having adopted Christianity some time earlier. Jews in czarist Russia took that protective step to avoid persecution, but it failed to save Tartakower’s parents, who were murdered in a pogrom in Rostov-on-Don in 1911.


He attended college in Geneva and Vienna where he studied Law ( received his doctorate) but discovered the crippling addictive powers of chess and started attending chess meetings in various cafés for chess players in Vienna. During World War I, he was recruited by the Austo-Hungary army. After the war, he setttled in Paris. Thus he represents France in New York 1924. Eventually, he accepts citizenship to Poland after they gain their independence.in 1918 and became one of the most prominent honorary ambassadors of Poland abroad.

More on the migration of Dr. Tartakower later, as it was in Paris, where he played most of his chess. He decided to become a chess professional and wrote for many chess related magazines. He published his most famous book, Die Hypermoderne Schachpartie in 1924 and to this day, I wish an english translated version were available on ebay.

The first few rounds at New York 1924 were very strong for Tartakower. He was in first place by round 4 and held on until round 6. Against Bogoljubow in round 1, he plays a Kings gambit with his own variation ( 3.Be2) meant to address Black’s desire to hold on to the pawn. Tartakower enters an IQP game comfortably but allowed him a nice kingside attack giving him the edge in a Rook and pawn endgame.

He draws against Frank Marshall in round 2 despite being down 2 pawns. He exposes Frank’s overworked queen and puts on the pressure to save the game.

In round three he soundly beats Mr. Yates starting with a Bishop sacrifice against an overworked rook in this position. The nuances in this game are quite complex and Alekhine points out where I was over looking. In the game notes, I tried to included these variations as much as possible.

At one point, during an off day, Dr. Tartakower visited the Bronx’s Zoo’s Monkey house. Aparently, Tartakower walked by the cage where an orangutan was housed. The orangutan, named Susan, moved closer to Tartakower when Tartakower got closer to the cage. Tartakower, in jest, asked the orangutan what opening should he play in the next round, and showed the orangutan a chess set. The orangutan suggested somehow to Tartakower to play 1.b4. Since the climbing movement of the pawn to b4 and then to b5 reminded Tartakower of the climbing movement of the orangutan, he called it the Orangutan, and the name stuck. Thus the original Oragutan opening had its startling debut in international competition in round 4 against an unsuspecting Maroczy. Alekhine comments “ an odd move, the chief drawback of which is the fact that White discloses his intentions before knowing those of his opponent. “ I don’t know, I think it shows some insight to his witty sense of humor. He drew this game.

He continues his undefeated momentum in round 5 drawing against Dr. Lasker in a very conservatively played game playing a Paulsen variation of a Sicilian defense. A rapid liquidation leaves both sides in a neutralized Bishop verus Knight endgame with no hope to break through.


His loss in round 6 agaisnt Capablanca will be covered later but breaks the momentum. He almost beats Alekhine in round 9 as he has a very strong attack. Alekhine had to get resourceful and found a perpetual check opportunity to salvage a draw.

He picks up two more wins as white against Frank Marshall in round 14, and his other France compatriot, Dawid Janoski in round 16. Overall, he finishes in 8th place with 4 wins, 8 draws and 8 losses.

Epilogue:

His strongest events were yet to come as he finished in first place at Hastings in 1927 and 1928. He continued to finish in the top tier of other events through 1930. He represented Poland in 9 chess olympiads through the 1930’s. When WWII broke out he joined forces with the Allies and later ended up in Beunos Aries, Aregentina. He returned to Europe after the war and eventually gained citizenship in France. He represented France at the 1950 Chess Olympiad. FIDE instituted the title of International Grandmaster in 1950. He won the French Championship in 1953. He died February 4, 1956.