october 19 2010

Daniel's word

the Master Greffier was absent. Now retired on his land, he is currently a victim of the scarcity of stagecoaches combined with the strike of the picotin distributors.
Unable to match the master, we will do our best without ambition.
Note to Remy: this email is indeed addressed to your usual list, but in CCI.

Once again, the session boasted a large and quality audience, which was unhoped for given the circumstances described above. In particular, we welcome the return of the great Ricou, information that can only delight his many admirers who have been without news for too long.

To begin with, a word about the great Bernhard Horwitz (for once not Klingant), a well-known composer of etudes who reached the rank of third player in the world, which is less well known. He lost a match against Staunton, losing 14 times, but still winning 7 times.

Cours2010101901
W(3): Kh6, Qb6, Bd2    B(2): Ke4, Qf7. White to play and win.
The rest is almost automatic, but the second move is accurate and only differs from the other candidate move on the seventh move.
 
 
 
 

The saboteurs of the SNCF (a dwarfed sect of screwballs) and the RATP (an aberrant collection of putrid freaks) seemed to have made a mistake in their calendar of sinister deeds, programming the paralysis, against all odds, between two Saint-Lazare yards. But this was to overestimate them. Their malfeasance did not fail to manifest itself today, as is only natural.

LobusovBehting j

Three helpmates, including a rather tough 3#, and by contrast a childish 6# and 7.5#. Will you find the 2# obvious or... intractable? A tribute to Andrei Lobussov who has passed away: four superb 3#s, one of which is a cyclic, posthumously dedicated to the writer Vladimir Nabokov. Which one is it? Finally a fascinating long problem and a superb selfmate by the irreplaceable Gamnitzer.


A Q+B/Q simpler than those of Vandiest. A magnificent Latvian find with an extreme "zugzwang" and above all, a very rare case, seven unique moves in a row not to lose! Finally a curious rescue from the great fortress specialist.

Spassky 4Beliavsky 2

A world champion plays well even when he plays badly. More precisely, even when he is not in dazzling form, he instinctively plays good moves but, finding himself on a bad day, does not live up to the excellent moves he has played and the complex position he has achieved. An example that even abuses the winner, and commentator, of the game.

See you, God willing, in a fortnight time, on 2 November.
Have a good time.

AV

 
We continue with a study of Johann's Behting, also a well-known composer but also a famous player on the chessboard, to whom we owe the variation that I practised in a troubled youth (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 3.Bc4 fxe4 4.Nxe5 Qg5 5.Nf7 Qxg2 6.Rf1 d5 7.Nxh8 Nf6) In another era, such things would not be allowed today without being admonished.
Cours2010101902
W(3): Kf3 Bh4, Pf2.    B(4): Kd5 Pc6,d3,f4. White to play and win
To learn what zugzwang is. If you think you can find a solution with a few ZZ's, then dig down and find at least twice as many and you'll get closer to understanding the position.
 
To finish the warm-ups, a Simkhovich study which is not actually very difficult but which presents some false leads whose refutations are interesting and a solution whose last move is very pleasant. The idea comes more easily when one notices the presence of w-pawns, especially Pg2. But unless you are a genius, you have to go through the solution first.
Cours2010101903
W(7): Kb2, Rd2,f6, Bc3, Pe2,f2,g2.    B(7): Ke4, Qg1, Re8,f8, Pd6,d5,h2.    7à7, draw.
 
To conclude the official session, a game that aroused a great deal of theoretical interest in the audience, which was very keen on the opening (well, not me, of course).
1:d4 Nf6; 2:c4 g6; 3:Nc3 d5; 4:cd Nd5; 5:e4 Nc3; 6;bc Bg7; 7:Bc4 c5; 8:Ne2 0-0; 9:0-0 Nc6; 10:Be3 cd; 11:cd Bg4; 12:f3 Na5 Here a responsible choice has to be made. Beliavsky, who has Black and comments, says that 13:Bxf7! Rxf7; 14:fxg4 Rxf1 15:Kxf1 will be played 12 years later in Seville between Karpov and Kasparov, which was strongly criticized in the assembly (and I suppose rightly so) arguing that in Seville the P "c "s had not been exchanged. Another possibility is here 13:Bd3 Be6; 14:d5 Bxa1; 15:Qxa1 as Topalov did to Shirov and which, again according to the experts present, is decisive for White. Without knowing, I am for it (on principle).
Spassky being not just anyone, he had to be creative ... which he did six moves later.
13:Bd5 Bd7. Again a responsible move. Here Kortchnoi played 13:...Bc8, which seems very logical since the answer 14:Rb1 must be considered and thus Pb7 being defended B can execute their idea to seize the W's B by e6.
14:Rb1. So what is the B's idea? Knowing that both Rb8 and Bc6 would be bad?
Answer: capture Bd5, then play Bb5 and go after d4. 14:..a6; 15:Bxb7 Ra7!; 16:Bd5 Bb5 (e6 immediately seems more accurate) 17:a4 Be2; 18:Qe2 e6. W's can stay with a slight advantage after 19:Bc4 Bd4; 20:Rfd1 Be3; 21:Qe3 Rd7; 22:Be2 Re1; 23:Re1 Qc8.
But here Spassky (to whom we wish all the best) showed a beautiful creativity. 19:Bxe6. Note that a priori the continuation is not necessarily impressive, and I even suggested it in view of 19:...fxe; 20:d5 attacking Ra7 followed by Bb6 attacking D and Na5. I won't say "the difference between Spassky and me ...", but ONE difference between Spassky and me is that I didn't see when I suggested Bxe6 that the Q could defend Na5 by a check threat on c5 while he did.
19:..fxe6; 20:d5 Ra8 (20:..Rb7 21:Rb7 Nb7; 22:Qa6) 21:Bb6 Qd6; 22:Rfc1 Rab8; 23:Qf2 (23:Qe3? Bh6! or 23:Qxa6? Bd4! and Bxb6) 23:..Rxb6 24:Rxb6 Qa3 25:Rcb1 Qd3; 26:R6b4 Bc3! Have the Ws been mystified or do they have a trick up their sleeve ? 27:Qb6! Bxb4?! (27:..exd5 from the electro monster) 28:Rxb4 Nc4 29:Qe6 Kh8; 30:h4 Qe3; 31:Kh2 Qf4 32:Kh3 Ne3. Here again the position is critical and you have to play very precisely to save yourself. Let us make a quick point.  B threatens 33:...Nf1 after which mate will be inevitable and 33:...Nxg2 with about the same outcome. What are the candidate moves? Spassky saw both, but rejected one (the right one) which he felt led to a hopeless position as he had no time to see the saving point.
The Ws played 33:g3?

and lost after 20 endgame moves (which were not discussed in the meeting). 
What to play: 33:Rb1! Nxg2; 34:Qg4! (and not Kxg2, which lost narrowly and in a nice way).
Then followed an analysis of the Master of more than 20 moves which was quite convincing but in the notation of which I got stuck. 

And now, the full report of the Master having arrived in my box, here it is with its electronic attachment.

Add a comment

Anti-spam