Blundering in Aalborg, Denmark

We interrupt our regularly scheduled New York 1924 History tour to bring you the following ramblings of a sleep deprived chess addict.

It’s Tuesday, I must play chess!

Despite being on a business trip in Aalborg, Denmark, I woke up this morning in a cold sweat, craving chess. Like the junkie I am, I managed to discover the Aalborg Skakforening ( Aalborg Chess Club) which was a short walk from my Hotel.

Frist, I’d like to digress about this trip. I determined my trip this far is a bad exercise in sleep depravation supplemented by strong coffee. I flew out Saturday and determined that I was up for 32 hours straight including the Day Light Saving Time warp back home. Sunday I crashed for 5 hours woke up at 1:30 AM and finally fell back asleep at 4:30 only to wake up at 6. I must have drank an entire pot of coffee during the course of the day. But I am not talking about your average coffee maker size carafe, rather the volume of coffee was equivalent to what is found in church basements and AA meetings. I still felt like I had too much blood in the caffeine system as my head was in a cloud.

Speaking of which, I’ve determined that the weather this time of year here is varying shades of gray. Today started out dark gray with rain, followed by light gray with clearing, then a snap down pour of a bluish gray with hale ending with some sun. I hear in the summer it stays light until 11PM. Depsite being located on the 57 degree Latitude in the Northern Hemisphere, the grass was green, but the trees were bare still. No Snow!

I’m also in the land of Ikea because everywhere I look, the furnishings could probably be tracked to some isle number and bin location of the Swedish furniture chain. Hotel furnishings, the office furniture of the company I am visiting, even the sushi restaurant ( Hey, Denmark has good fish… this was a safe bet) all have that blond wood industrial décor. I’ll bet if I look hard enough I’ll find Swedish meatballs with that cranberry sauce.

So back to the chess adventure, the chess venue is part of the Aalborg University and right on the Fjord. I follow some older duffer into the building and say “ chess?” I was wearing my universal chess tee shirt. He looks at me, “yes”. I was pleased to see he spoke some English and proceeded to tell him I was ditching my colleagues for an exciting evening of chess. He looked at me puzzled, “ People don’t normally refer to chess as exciting.” I told him that’s Ok , I’m not normal.

I met the Club chairman who welcomed me. I was not to play in the regular serious event but allowed to hang out in the “social” area for a casual game. The club furnished wooden chess sets and boards with the Danish Skak Union logo on it. Nobody was speaking English. That was OK, I wanted to experience the club.

Chess is universal in my tired eyes. Several people were gathered around a board kibitzing about a game. I followed along and laughed when they did, nodded when it looked like a serious move and basically tried to blend in. Then I got ahead of myself. I thought I saw a better move. But with my tired sleep deprived eyes, I didn’t see the check I was walking into. More laughter, at least I brought some brevity with me. Man was I tired.

Then I here some muttering of the word “amerikaner” and pointing. I smile and gesture to a set. One guy wearing a NY Yankees shirt comes over. I gesture to his shirt and comment that it should read Boston Red Sox. I give a thumbs down and say “ Yankees”. He laughs, shakes his head no, and gives a thumbs up. He wanted to play some blitz, I really didn’t I wanted a much slower game. But I soldiered on. The game didn’t last all that long. I lost on time.

I played another person who was evenly matched. I missed his blunder which would have given me an even endgame if the clock didn’t run out. The next game he blundered again and I saw it…. And knew it was a blunder, he shrugged knowingly it was a bad move and commented I would probably win. I said, in my condition I wouldn’t count on me finding the right plan. Sure enough I missed a better move but still had enough of an attack to clean up on the king side and win before the flag fell. I realized I was just too damn tired to play. I checked out a few more games and headed back to my hole.

I’ll say this, unlike my club, there were no sign of children once the games really began. Apparently they were there an hour earlier and left soon after the adults games began. Then I realized why this was the Social chess club room. Once the last minor left the premises, a case of beer came up. For a few Krones, folks were playing and drinking beer. I should have had an advantage since I don’t drink, but being jet lagged I was evenly matched.

I recommend the Aalborg Skakfoerning for some fun chess if you are traveling in these parts. I wish I could have understood them a little but they sure made me feel like it was Tuesday night. Chess is universal on the 64 squares.

New York 1924: Jose Raul Capablanca, the Natural

Born November 19, 1888, much has already been written about this Cuban national’s prodigious beginnings. The short story is that he learned chess by watching his father at the age of 4, ( picture on right is Capablanca at age 10) pointed out an illegal move, then beat him twice. Being a mere hack of chess history, I will not even attempt a lame paraphrased lengthy bio about this grand champion. A player of this caliper deserves much greater articulation of the English language than an engineer as myself can only begin to scratch the surface.

What I will focus on, is what I learned about his reputation prior to New York 1924. Jose Raul Capablanca was on a roll. He entered the New York International event undefeated for 63 consecutive games spanning a period from February 10, 1916 to his one and only loss in the fifth round with another child prodigy, Richard Reti ( covered in this previous post with the game here) on March 21, 1924. As an Adult, he lost only 35 serious games, TOTAL! I lose that many in one year. Given his stellar reputation, it wasn’t any wonder that he was favored to be the winner of this event.

I’d like to take a short note about opening preparation at this event. With the eleven competitors, for the first half of the event, several seemed to have a prepared line. Most notably was Richard Reti and his Hypermodern style of none other than the Reti-opening. Capablanca however, held on to his positional style of play. A style which gets its roots from Steinitz and Tarrasch looking for incremental advantages but taking also being tactically sharp in open positions.

He didn’t prepare any special lines for this event. That is not to say he wasn’t prepared. Several of the top masters knew there was going to be a Hypermodern flavor to the event and tended to keep the cards close in the first half. During the 2 week break before the second half of the tournament resumed, the players had a chance to “reflect” on the games.

That is why we see Capablanca with a a rather cautious score of 5 draws three wins and 1 loss ( to Reti in round 5 if you recall).. His Draw to Alekhine in Round 4 was a quiet game that transposed to a French Defense from a 1.d4 beginning ending in an equal R+2P endgame.
Waking up after round 5’s reality check from Reti, he hits the ground running against Tartakower in round 6 where he turns a seemingly drawn game upside down in the endgame, sacrificing pawns to take advantage of a vicious R+P endgame with a mobile pawn mass.

In round 9, against Bogoljubow, he finds the one weakness of the Colle-Zuckertorte system and latches on right from the start. He piles up the pieces on the c-file and pulls this Knight Sacrifice to rip open the file and win the game:

The Most interesting game was his victory against Dr. Emanuel Lasker in round 14. Capablanca exchanges a knight for 3 pawns and the initiative during a strong attack. (Diagram 26.Nxd5!)

Capablanca’s “grudge match against Reti comes in round 21. A seemingly drawn endgame played conservatively by Reti gets blown away as Capablanca shows the power of having control of the center in the middle game as it transitions to an endgame advantage. Using distant opposition, Capablanca makes his one advantage, a passed pawn, his biggest priority.

He finishes the match with a score of 14 ½ ( +10, =9 and -1 ) to place second behind the elder statesman of the event Lasker ( at age 55).

Epilog

Part of Capablanca’s reign had to do with the “London Rule” he established in 1922 following the London 1922 event. Amongst other things, one of the conditions proposed by Capablanca was that the challenger would have to raise at least ten thousand dollars for the prize money There was an increasing number of strong chess players and it was felt that the world champion should not be able to evade challenges to his title, as had been done in the past. At this tournament, some of the leading players of the time, including Alexander Alekhine, Efim Bogoljubov, Geza Maroczy, Richard Reti, Akiba Rubinstein, Savielly Tartakower and Milan Vidmar, met to discuss rules for the conduct of future world championships.

Rubinstein and Nimzovitch both challenged Capablanca but were unable to raise the funds. Alekhine’s 1927 challenge was backed by a group of businessmen from Argentina as well as the president of Argentina! There was a sense of rivalry at this time between the two titans. In New York 1927, he beat Alekhine quite easily in a quadruple round robin event as well as Nimzivotch and Spielmann.
Later that year, the Argentinian funded World title match between him and Alekhine would have made Capablanca the safe bet. However, Alekhine, who was never able to defeat Capablanca prior, was well prepared and beat the champion in the first game. Capablanca came back and won games 3 and 7 but Alekhine held on in Buenos Aires and beat the champion in rounds 11 and 12 and three more time after a long series of draws ( for a total of 25 in the entire event).

Alekhine was quoted as saying:

How did it happen that he lost to me? I must confess that even now I cannot answer that question with certainty, since in 1927 I did not believe that I was superior to him. Perhaps the chief reason for his defeat was his over-estimation of his own powers arising out of his overwhelming victory at New York 1927, and his underestimation of mine.

Alekhine refused to play a rematch despite the precondition of the match. He decided to insist on the same London Rules of 1927. By then the collapse of the financial markets came in 1929 and Capablanca had a difficult time satisfying this condition. Contrary to the conditions, Alekhine did accept challenges by Bogoljubow twice. Throughout Alekhine's first tenure as champion (1927-1935), he refused to play in the same tournaments as Capablanca, and indeed was able to prevent Capablanca's participation in events which Alekhine himself wanted to play.

Despite Alekhine’s “shunning”, Capablanca continued to play strong in tournaments from 1928 to 1931 with several first place finishes and not one placing lower than third. Between 1931 -1934 he took a brief hiatus to serious chess, only playing at the Manhattan Chess Club and Simuls. He started playing seriously again in 1934 and placed fourth at Hastings 1934-35. It wouldn’t be until Nottingham 1936, tying with Botvinik for first place, that he played in a match with Alekhine.

This was Capablanca's first game with Alekhine since their great match, and the Cuban did not miss his chance to avenge that defeat. He had the worse position, but caught Alekhine in such a deep trap, luring him into giving up three pieces for two rooks. Their feud was still intense, so they were never seen seated together at the board for more than a few seconds. Each man made his move and then got up and walked around.

In 1938, his health took a turn for the worst as he suffered a stroke during the AVRO tournament. He ended up with the worst result of his career placing seventh out of eight. He seemed to bounce back in 1939 at Margate where he tied 2nd and 3rd place. His last tournament was the 1939 Chess Olympiad where he made the best score on the top board for Cuba.
On 7 March 1942, he was happily kibitzing a skittles game at the Manhattan Chess Club in New York when he collapsed from a stroke. He was taken to Mount Sinai hospital, where he died the next morning. The autopsy showed that there were numerous hemorrhages in his heart tissue related to the stroke. Remarkably, the Cuban's great rival, German-born Emanuel Lasker, had died in that very hospital only a year earlier.

Blunder-Dog

I will continue with New York 1924 in another day with my commentary on some of Capablanca’s games. I thought I’d take this time to review a recent game I had at the club where I blew the opening as Black but made the best of it despite dropping a pawn.

It was a mainline slav minus the your typical 5.a4. My opponent took an older route and allowed the gambit exchange. I ran into this only once before OTB and misplayed the b-pawn. This time, I knew I needed to advance b7-b5-b4 when the knight came out but didn’t know beyond that. I was up for the lesson and here it is:

(14) Duval,G - Poliannikov,O [D15]
Ground Hog swiss (4),
(My typical headline sensationalizing the key aspect of the game):

BLUNDER-DOG STRIKES AGAIN BUT ONLY AFTER BLOWING THE QUEEN SIDE GAMBIT ACCEPTED

Key Points:
1) When White allows 4... dxc4 5.e3, b5 6. a4 b4 7. Na2 in the Slav. The correct reply is 7...a5 remember it because as you give back the pawn ( bxc4) the kngiht on a2 is limited as to where it can go.
2) I ended up giving back the pawn with interest after advancing to b3
3) The only action I had was on the b-file therefore I had to put pressure on it.
4) This game worked out because my opponent exchanged down to an endgame favoring Black's position.

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e3 b5 6.a4 b4 7.Na2

Regrettably, I played 7...b3

I rarely get a chance to play this line where White allows me to take c4. Typically the mainline 5. a4 is played. I had to think on my feet. I recalled one game where I played the gambit accepted but got into trouble with the knight and lost. I remembered b4 was important. But I didn't see the a clear way to follow up. I knew I had to give up the pawn but didn't know where. Thus, the game continued: [7...a5 this is the correct move]

8.Nc3 Ba6 It's just a matter of time before I drop the pawn but the b3 pawn will fall now. 9.Ne5 e6 10.Bxc4 Bxc4 11.Nxc4 Bb4 12.Qxb3 Na6 13.0–0 Rb8 (Diagram on right )

Keep the pressure on the b-file. ( making lemonade) 14.Ne5 Bd6 15.Qc4 Nb4 16.Nd3 Qc8 17.Nxb4 Rxb4 18.Qd3 0–0 Castling before things get really out of hand. 19.Rd1 Qb8 20.h3 Rb3 21.Qc2 Rc8 22.e4 Be7 23.a5 Rd8 24.Ra4 Rb4 25.Rxb4 Qxb4 26.e5 Nd5 27.Nxd5 cxd5 28.a6 Qb5 29.Qd3 Rb8 30.Qxb5

I welcomed the Queen exchange. I knew I would have the better endgame, with my bishop and pawns color coordinated for maximum mobility. I just needed to get my king into the action. 30...Rxb5 31.Rd3 Ra5 First order of business is to equalize material. 32.Be3 Rxa6 33.b3 Ra1+

Second order of business is drive his king to the side of the board. 34.Kh2 Ra3 35.Bc1 Ra1 36.Be3 Rb1 37.Kg3 Bb4 Now that I blocked the advancement of the b-pawn, I can bring my king around onto the Queen's side. 38.Kf3 Kf8 39.g4 h6 40.h4 Ke7 41.Bf4 He has no real moves. 41...Kd7 42.h5 Kc6 43.Ke2 Rb2+ 44.Kf3 Rc2

This is critical. Now that the b-pawn is blocked and my king is within striking distance, I can now challenge white's rook. 45.Be3 Rc3 46.Ke2 Kb5 [46...Rxd3? 47.Kxd3 Kb5 48.Kc2 White has time to get his King in position. That's why I didn't initiate the exchange on d3] 47.Bf4 Rc2+ 48.Kf3 Be1 (Diagram on left) This is a sweet move.

It presents a threat as well as vacates b4 for my king. 49.Be3 Kb4 50.Rd1 Bc3 51.Rc1? This only entices the exchange and makes it favorable for Black. 51...Rxc1 52.Bxc1 Kxb3 53.g5 hxg5 54.Bxg5 Bxd4 0–1

I now have 2 passed pawns, an active bishop, an active king position with no way for White to defend my pawn march. White resigned in this position. In the parking lot, he was having a conversation with another of our Eastern European players and commented " I can't beleive he tried to keep the pawn in the QGA! " I said," It was the Slav and part of the main line ... but I misplayed it." I knew walking out of there where the game went wrong on move 7. Lucky for me I play in the class section where losing the opening is not necessarily a death sentence to the game! I can be a tenacious Blunder-dog!

Hope you got something out of this game. It isn’t pretty. It still shows I need to work on things, like my opening but I really don’t lose sleep because I feel I am having a better go with my middle and end game playing.

Only two more posts to finish the NY1924 series. Stay tuned next up Capablanca.

New York 1924: Alexander Alekhine, King of the Attack

Born in Moscow on Halloween ( October 31) 1892, he learned to play chess by his mother, an older brother Alexei, and older sister Barbara. He played at Moscow’s chess club as a youngster with some positive results at age 15 tying 11th -13th in the club’s autumn tournament. His older brother finished 4th-6th place. But I think sibling challenge boosted him to come back and win the event in the spring of 1908 at the age of 16 ( some argue he was only 14 but the exact date of Alekhine’s birthday seems to be 1892).

I don’t wish to re-hash his entire biography in this post since I really want to focus on the New York 1924 event. This event took place 3 years prior to his title championship as 4th World Championship which was currently being held by Capablanca at this event. He holds up well against the World Champion in rounds 4 and 12 when he draws both rounds. I have to admit, I had a hard time finding inspiration in either of these games. Round 4 was a transposition to a French defense that I felt Capablanca missed an opportunity to pick up a pinned piece. Capablanca plays 5. exd4 . I have a question to all you French Defenders: What not simply play 5.e5 where it seems like it picks up a piece? Alekhine mentions nothing in the Book and I don't see a refutation.

Round 12 was even less inspiring as this Quiet handling of the Slav defense lead to early exchanges and a bishops of opposite colors game.

In all, Alexander Alekhine had 12 draws in this event. I still have to overcome my urge to over look drawn games and value the balance in the positions and look for the inner struggles that neutralized over time. It left me felling anxious to move on. Sorry. I was hoping to see more of the attacking style of this master but instead I could not help feel that because he was commissioned to write the tournament book, perhaps his focus was too much on documenting the other events.

I do see some sparks in his rather short order wins against Yates and Janowski. In round 1, Yates ignores a natural looking bishop move in the Ruy Lopez that becomes the cornerstone of exploiting the very weakness of the position on His King’s side. In round 6 he eats up material from Janowski diffusing the power of his two bishops.

Maroczy in round 2 must have been just off that game because when Alekhine plays his signature defense, he proves how not going after his knight leaves Black with a nice attack.

Reti in round 8 was off his game as he losses a tempo allowing Alekhine too strong of a position. A weakness was created on d6 became the focus of a middle game attack that further weakened his Queenside. A King’s side pawn majority in the end game traps Reti’s rook.

Position after Alekhine plays 42. Bg5

I already covered Reti’s revenge round which was the only other loss suffered by Alekhine aside from Dr. Emanual Lasker which I will cover in the last post of this series.

He finished 3rd in this strong event with a score of 12 ( 6+, 12=, 2- )

Epilogue and the Nazi controversy:

What’s a chess blog without a controversy once in a while? Ok, there has been a lot written about Alekhine’s anti-Semitic remarks during world war II. In short, there were a series of articles that appeared under Alekhine’s name in the Pariser Zeitung, a German paper published in Paris as a propaganda by the occupying forces from Germany. Among other things these articles said that Jews had a great talent for exploiting chess but showed no signs of chess artistry. He goes on to site the hypermodern theories of Aaron Nimzovitch and Reti as a “cheap bluff and shameless publicity” and that his win against Max Euwe was a “triumph agaisnt the jewish conspiracy”.

After Paris was liberated, Alekhine publicly stated that he was forced to write these in order to grant him an exit visa. He claimed to have written purely scientific artlicles evaluating the hypermodern chess movement but they were re-written by the Germans. Ken Wylde looked into the authenticity of the articles and felt there were non conclusive evidence of the authenticity of the articles. In 1958, Jacques Le Monnier claimed to have seen the first article handwritten in a notebook provided by his wife after Alekhine’s death. Ed Winter, a british chess historian makes an observation of the misspellings of the masters referenced in these articles as an indication of a possible foregery or an attempt by Alekhine to signal he was being forced to write these articles. In reading “ The Book of the New York International Chess Tournament of 1924”, there is clearly no evidence of any anit-Semiticism as he references Dr. Em. Lasker with much respect and reverence. In any case, in January 1, 2017, under current French Copy right laws, Alekhine’s notebooks will become public domain. Perhaps then, this debate will finally be settled.

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.