en passant - pittsburghcc.orgBut not only that, WGM Tatiana Shadrina, from Russia, submitted her unpublished, exclusive for the En Passant game of the Russian Superfinal against WGM

June 2018 Vol. 74 No. 2 Editor: John Barroso

en passant

Journal of The Pittsburgh Chess Club

5604 Solway Street, Suite 209 - Squirrel Hill

Pittsburgh PA 15217 (412) 421-1881

www.pittsburghcc.org

Facebook: pittsburghchessclub

Twitter: #pghchess

WGM Tatiana Shadrina Russia, Women’s Superfinal Annotated game Exclusive for the En Passant

Life Master Tom Magar Career, Games, and Philosophy of a captivating Chess Master

“What is the point of winning if you lose your self? ...My focus shifted to service rather than accomplishment over the board”

Fide Master Carsten Hansen Fighting Howitzers

Exclusive for the En Passant

Prodigy Evan Park, 10 Beats his first GM Annotated game

Exclusive for the En Passant

GM Timur Garayev The King of Blindfold

The most Beloved Chess Master in town

En Passant

Chess Journalists of America Award

Best Club Bulletin 2004, 2005, 2006

Best Club Bulletin Cover, 11/2004

Best USA Club Newsletter, CJA 2016

Best USA Club Newsletter, CJA 2017

En Passant Editor: John Barroso

[email protected]

Pittsburgh Chess Club Board Members:

OFFICERS:

President Boyd Reed

Vice-President Melih Özbek

Treasurer James Szurek

Secretary Ashley Priore

Board Members:

John Barroso

Steven Plato

Jerry Meyers

Mike Stephan

*one vacant seat

Club Hours: Wednesdays: 1pm to 9pm

Saturdays: noon to 5pm

and 7 to 9pm

Find us! Like us! Post messages!

at pittsburghchessclub

Follow us on Twitter

#pghchess

Volunteers needed: to steward on Wednesdays and Saturdays

[email protected]

Interesting game? Interesting endgame?

Interesting position or move?

Awesome chess story?

Send to us!

Editor’s Notes

An splendid quarter! Evan Park rose impressively quick to

beat his first Grandmaster by age ten! Then, the same day

he played in the Conic (USCF online tournament) GM Ti-

mur Gareyev, the King of Blindfold chess, played against

fifteen oponents in the Pittsburgh Chess Club auditorium.

But not only that, WGM Tatiana Shadrina, from Russia,

submitted her unpublished, exclusive for the En Passant

game of the Russian Superfinal against WGM Ekaterina

Polovnikova. And to complete the grand moment, Danish

Fide Master (and author of many books) Carsten Hansen

submitted a long, very well written article that only increas-

es the worthiness of reading the En Passant. Tiago Ro-

drigues, an Expert from Brazil, once again submitted his

game against Magnus Carlsen (Simultaneous) and Steve

O’Connor submitted very informative (as always) write-up

on the “Father of Positional Chess”, Wilhelm Steinitz. And

our very own, “made in Pittsburgh” Tom Magar courteous-

ly agreed to be the cover for this issue, a true privilege for

us to have him. With all the above said, the editor needs to

say nothing else except that there may be no other lucky

chess editor on earth! Enjoy

reading our En Passant once

again.

MEMBERSHIP QUESTIONS? [email protected]

TOURNAMENT QUESTIONS?

[email protected]

John Barroso,

Membership Director and

En Passant Editor

1

Tom Magar, Life Master, President of the

Pittsburgh Chess League for twenty-eight years

Known to all, Tom is a charismatic Chess Master beloved by

children and adults alike. His captivating personality and relaxed

tone of conversation draws beginners and advanced players to

him alike. Here is a bit about Tom’s chess career.

EP: How did you start playing chess?

TM: I was six years old, my brother received a chess set gift for Christmas. It was a time of Sputnik and such games became popular.

EP: Which was your first tournament and how many tournaments have you played?

TM: It was a 30-30 tournament (thirty moves in thirty minutes). I have played over 150 rated, regular tournaments and over 70 rated,

quick games tournaments.

EP: When did you realize you might become a Chess Master?

TM: After defeating NM Richard Abrams a couple of times and tying for first in

an invitational sponsored by Richard Baldock.

EP: Which game gave you the Master title?

TM: It was a game against Fred Foreman, Pittsburgh Chess Club Champion in

1964 and still attending the Pittsburgh Chess Club. He is a dangerous tactician. I

also defeated Vivek Rao and Chris Avery, who became a NM shortly later.

EP: After you became a Master, did you fear losing rating points and falling

below Master level again?

TM: No. I was working hard on my games. Fear is not much of a motivator. You

can’t fear losing if you want to learn and get better.

EP: What do you recommend for someone who wants to improve their chess

rating?

TM: Lots of puzzle work on checkmates, combination motifs, strategic

positions, and endgame. Study games from the greats of the past and play a

lot.

EP: Can you list some books that influenced and helped you?

TM: Chess the Easy Way, by Ruben Fine. Modern Chess Strategy by Ludek Pachman. Pawn Power in Chess by Hans Kmoch, and

Excelling in Chess by Jacob Aagaard.

EP: What type of reading do you recommend to someone who wants to improve their chess strength?

TM: Read widely on materials about chess thinking and how the brain process materials, about calculation processes and chess

psychology. Since I am history-oriented I also learned a lot about the history of the game.

EP: What kinds of interesting or unique things have you seen in your chess career?

TM: I did not discover chess books or tournaments until I was sixteen. I was asked to take our school chess team roster to the

Pittsburgh Chess Club to register us for the WPICL. When I arrived at the Club I met an older gentleman, Abel Bomberault, pottering

about with library cards. I asked him where the club was and he pointed to all the cabinets of books. I remember asking him “there are

books on chess”? He opened all the cabinet doors. I was like opening a treasury. After the WPICL meeting, I hung around and

watched older gentlemen, the titans of the club playing, laughing, and teasing each other. They included Robert Bornholz, Brad

Grambrell, Alex Spitzer, Adam Bert, and others. I watched and learned. They led me into playing in the unrated Saturday tournaments

and later into USCF rated events. These older guys became mentors and friends. Ed Dollard introduced me into tournament director. I

learned a lot from him how to handle technical details and how to deal with people. I also learned from Fred Sorenson, William

Byland, Bobby G. Dudley, Earl Clary, and even from Clyde Wilson, a real character. Step by step, I became involved in all aspects of

chess, mostly through the Pittsburgh Chess Club.

EP: What stories can you share with us over these thirsty or so year?

Tom by his influential relics: Master Titles, influential

books, unique trophies and a famous clock.

Life Master Certificate from USCF. Achieved after playing

300 games as a Master without falling below 2200.

2

TM: Richard Abrams told me I would become a Master. I was only 1800+ rated and twenty

years old at the time. He said, “But what type of Master do you want to be? The type who

gained the rating by beating lots of 1700 and 1800 rated player or one who takes risks, plays

the best players and takes horrible beating to learn how to win?”. Kimball Nedved told me that

I did not analyze deeply enough. A cutting criticism. I decided to use it to improve my tactics

and positional play.

One older player told me that to get good you had to have a rival or enemy to beat. You had to

learn to hate and use it to focus your energy and work to win. I have thought about that for a

long time. In the end I rejected the idea as it leads to jealousy, a lack of empathy, and a sadistic

glee in observing others fail. That type of attitude would infect everything good and is

unworthy of the mastery. What is the point of “winning” if you lose your self? Today, I teach

kids to become good players and good people.

Over the years I expanded my interest in chess into directing, organizing, governance and

teaching. My focus shifted to service rather than personal accomplishment over the board.

Even so, I have won more than my fair share of tournaments while developing many

friendships.

Young Magar beats World Champion Tiger Petrosian Simultaneous Exhibition, March 1976, at the old Pittsburgh Chess Club

when it was at the Golden Triangle YMCA.

Tigran Petrosian (2640 FIDE) vs. Thomas Magar (1902 USCF)

There were about 30 entrants for the exhibition. Petrosian was coming off wins at the USSR Championship and the Lone Pine

tournament in California. After the latter event, he made a tour of the US with his wife Rona. As I recall, he lost 3 games and drew

several others. The event in Pittsburgh was one of his toughest exhibitions. His wife was not happy about his result. It was interesting

to see his wife there as the Soviet Union would not allow relatives to travel with their top GM’s due to fear of defection. Her sheer

presence may indicate how involved Petrosian may have been with the Communist Party. The following game was one of his losses.

1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be2 e5 7. Nb3 Be7

The Najdorf Variation with this move order was popular at the time.

8. f4 Qc7 9. O-O b5

This may be slightly inaccurate. It is the move you would like to play, but is risky because of moves like a4 undermining the Black

queenside. Today it is more usual to play ….b6.

10. Kh1 Bb7 11. Bf3 Nbd7 12. a3 Nb6

I looked at 12. a3 as being a bit passive but easy for the exhibitor to make to avoid complications. My move is a precursor to modern

play, but jeopardizes my white square bishop.

13. Na5 Na4 14. Nxa4 Qxa5

Had he played 14. Nxb7 I had planned to play 14…..Nxc3 15. Nxd6+ Bxd6 16. bxc3 and the White queenside position is weakened for

the win of the pawn. This is not the sort of thing that Petrosian would normally allow.

15.Nc3 Qc7 16. Be3 Rc8 17. f5 Qc4

A counterattack. I expected him to play 18. Be2 Qc7 and either 19. Bd3 or 19.Qd3 with a roughly equal position. His next move is

speculative and a sharpening of the position. He started to take more time on his moves from this point on.

18. Bg5 Nxe4 19. Bxe4 Bxe4 20. Bxe7 Kxe7 21. Qg4 Bb7 (Diagram 1, after 21……Bb7).

Controlling the long diagonal was better than taking the pawn on c2. Now taking the g-pawn by 22. Qxg7 would backfire as 22.

….Rag8 23. Qa6 Bxg2+ would win the exchange at the very least.

22. Qg3 h5 (Tickling the Queen).

23. h3 h4 24. Qg5+ f6 (Giving the pawn back to trade queens and go into a better endgame.)

25. Qxg7+ Qf7 26. Qxf7+ Kxf7 27. Rad1 Ke7 28. Rf2 Rc5 (To keep the N out of d5)

29. Kh2 Rg8 Prophylactic play in the spirit of Aron Nimzovich and his greatest exponent,

Tigran Petrosian. He gave a sour face when he saw this move.

30. Rdd2 Rg5 31. Nd1 d5 32. Ne3 d4

I looked on 32. Ne3 as an error and expected 32. c3. Petrosian tries to play actively rather

than be tied down to a passive position. He took longer on his moves.

33. Ng4 Bc8 34. Rfe2 Bxf5 35. Rxd4 Rxc2 36. Rxc2 Bxc2 37. Rd2 Bf5

Black is up a pawn and controls the center. The win is a matter of careful technique.

Tom behind a chess set given to him by

his father. Displayed are his four most

influential chess books.

3

38. Ne3 Be6 39. Nd5+ Bxd5 40. Rxd5 e4 (Diagram 2 after 40…..Re5):

White’s best chance is to draw the Rook ending, but I felt that I stood much better in this

position.

41. Rd4 Re5 Most accurate. If I had played ….. e3, Petrosian could have flipped the

game in his favor by 42. Kg1 Rf5 43. Rxh4 e7 44. Re4+. In looking at some Petrosian

games before the event, I noted how skilled he was in pushing pawns in the endgame

42. Kg1 Ke6 43. Kf2 f5 44. Rd8 Rd5 45. Re8+ Kf6 46. Ke2 Kg5 47.Rg8+ Kf4

48. Rh8 Rc5 49. Rxh4+ Kg3 50. Rh5 Kxg2 51. h4 Kg3

and Petrosian resigned.

After the game, I asked him to autograph a book that I had of his games. He grunted, gave

a wry smile and signed it in Cyrillic. I was about to permanently give up playing chess to

focus on getting into graduate school. How can one stop playing when you have just defeated a former World Champion? Within a

few years, in 1984, I earned the master title.

Prodigy

Evan Park

has big win against GM Maryland Open, May 5, 2018.

Evan Park (2139),

GM Larry Kaufman (2360)

Twice PA Scholastic Champion

USCF #1 for his age in the USA

US Delegation to World Cadets 2018

1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Bd3

I have played this line my entire life against the Pirc

3... e5 [The idea is 3... g6 4. Nf3 Bg7 5. O-O O-O 6. Re1 c5 7. d5 b6

8. h3 +=]

4.Nf3 Nbd7 [4... Bg4 5. d5]

5. c3 Be7 6. O-O c6 7. Re1 O-O 8. Nbd2 Re8 9. b3 Qc7 10.Bb2 Nf8!?

11. c4 Ng6 12. Bf1!? I just wanted to get my bishop out of the way of

the knight soon to be on f4

12... Bf8?! copying me? This was a useless move. [12... exd4] [12...

c5]

13. c5? bad move, but I wanted to complicate things [13. Qc2 +=]

13... exd4 [13... dxc5! 14. dxe5 Ng4 15. h3 N4xe5 16. Nxe5 Nxe5 17.

f4! Ng6 18. g3 =/oo [18. f5 Ne5 19. a4 =/oo]]

14. cxd6 Bxd6 15. Bxd4 Ng4 16. h3 N4e5 17. Nxe5 Bxe5 18. Nc4 Bxd4

19.Qxd4 Rd8! Temporarily stopping me from playing Nd6

20. Qc3 [20. Qc5!? A good move to try and keep the Queen active]

20... Nf4?! What was he doing? He should be getting his pieces out

21. Rad1 Fighting for the open file and threatening Qe5, but also

allowed black to simplify on the open d-file in the future. [21. Qg3

pinning the knight would be more accurate 21... b5 22. Ne3 Bd7 23.

Rac1 +=]

21... Be6 [21... b6]

22. e5 I wanted to place a knight on d6, so

22... Rxd1 [22... Bxc4 23. Bxc4 Rxd1 24. Rxd1 Rd8 = would equalize

and prevent this idea.]

23.Rxd1 Rd8 24. Nd6? [24. Rxd8+! Qxd8 25. Qe3 Qg5 26. h4! Qxh4

27. g3! Nh3+ 28. Kh2 Qh5 29. g4! Bxg4 30. Bxh3 +/-]

24... Ng6 25. Bd3! Nf4 26. Qd4 Nxd3 27. Rxd3 Qa5

28. a4 Rd7 29. Rg3 g6 30. Qf4 Qd8 31. Ne4?

allowed counterplay and it is nowequal

31... Rd1+ 32. Kh2 Kg7 [32... Qd4!? =]

33.Nf6?! Qd4! 34. Nh5+ Kf8 35. Qh6+ Ke7!

36. Qg5+ Kd7 [36... Kf8]

37. Nf6+?! Kc8?! Kc7! and suddenly white was

struggling! 38. Re3 Rd2? 39. Ne4! h6? [39... Qd8!! 40. Qh6 Rd1

41. Qxh7 +/-]

40. Qf6 Rd3?

He was in time trouble to make 40th move and keep

making mistakes, now I was completely winning.

41. Nd6+ Kc7 42. Qe7+ Bd7 43. Rxd3 Qxd3

44. Nxf7 Kb6 45. Qb4+ Ka6 46. Nd6 b6 47. a5? c5!

48. Qa3 Be6 49. axb6+ Kxb6 50. Qa4 Qxb3

51. Qe8 Ka5 52. Qc6?? Kb4?? [52... Qb6! =]

53. Qb5+! Ka3 54. Qxc5+ Kb2 55. Qxa7 Qc3 56.

Qe3 Qxe3 57. fxe3 Kc2 58. Kg3 Kd3 59. Kf3 g5 60.

Ne8 Bd5+ 61. Kf2 Bc6 62. Nc7

Black resigned with 1minute left. 1-0

Final position before GM Larry Kaufman resigned:

4

GM Magnus Carlsen (2849), Tiago Rodrigues (2150) [A45]

Simultaneous Exhibition,

State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, March 7th, 2014.

Game annotated and sent by Expert Tiago Rodrigues, from Taubaté, State of São Paulo, Brazil

with the following note:

“It is a pleasure to face the greatest chess player of all times World Champion Magnus Carlsen.

The reader will see that the one who makes the second to last mistake wins the game”.

1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 d5 [To complicate things one can play 2...g6; ou 2...e6 3.e4 h6 4.Bxf6 Qxf6]

3.e3 Ne4 [another option would be 3...c5 4.Bxf6 gxf6 5.dxc5 Nc6 6.Bb5 e6 7.c4 dxc4 8.Nd2 Bxc5 9.Ngf3 0–0 10.0–0 Na5 11.Rc1 Be7

½–½ (42) Carlsen,M (2857)-Karjakin,S (2769) New York 2016]

4.Bf4 4...c5 [4...Nd7 5.f3 Nef6 6.c4²; 4...e6; 4...Nc6]

5.Bd3 Qb6 [Black threaten to win material with Qxb2] [5...Nc6 6.Bxe4 dxe4; 5...e6; 5...cxd4]

6.Nc3 [6.Bxe4 Qxb2 (6...dxe4) 7.Nd2 dxe4 8.Ne2 cxd4 9.exd4 and white has good development.]

6...e6? [a huge mistake. Why not take the knight and double Carlsen pawns? It was better to keep the pressure]

[6...Nxc3 7.bxc3 c4 (7...Nc6 8.Nf3 c4 9.Be2 Bg4 10.Rb1 Qa6) 8.Be2 Qb2 ½–½ (25) Tosic,S (2323)-Cvetkovic,S (2406) Belgrade 2010

9.Kd2]

7.Bxe4 [7.Nxe4!? dxe4 8.Bxe4 cxd4 9.Qxd4±]

7...dxe4 8.Nxe4 Qxb2 [8...cxd4 9.Qxd4 Qa5+ (9...Qxd4 10.exd4 Nc6) 10.c3]

9.Nf3 [Carlsen continues to activate his pieces] [9.Ne2 Qb4+ 10.N2c3±; 9.Nxc5 Bxc5 10.dxc5 Qb4+]

9...cxd4 (?) [9...f5!? an interesting idea: 10.Rb1 Qxa2 11.Nxc5 Bxc5 12.dxc5 Qa5+ 13.Nd2 Qxc5 14.Qh5+ g6]

10.0–0 Nc6 [capturing the pawn would be dangerous 10...dxe3? 11.Ne5 with decisive attack by the open lines]

11.exd4 Be7 12.Nd6+ Kf8 [?'] [12...Bxd6 13.Bxd6 Qb5+–]

13.c4 g5?? [Here I tried to confuse Carlsen. The position was already lost so I tried my last resource]

[13...e5 14.Bxe5 Kg8+–] 14.Nxg5 [14.Rb1+–]

14...Qxd4 15.Qf3?? [See diagram after 15. Qf3]

[Here he thought for thirty seconds and played to equalize the position at the cost of a piece!] .

[15.Nge4 Qxd1 16.Bh6+ (16.Raxd1?! h6²; 16.Rfxd1?! Kg7²) 16...Kg8 17.Raxd1±]

15...Nd8?? [paying back with a mistake ]

[this line would save the game: 15...Bxg5 16.Bxg5 (16.Rac1 Qxf4) 16...Qxd6 17.Rad1 (17.Qf6

Rg8 18.Rfd1 Qc7 19.Bf4 e5 20.Bxe5 Qxe5 21.Rd8+ Nxd8 22.Qxe5 Nc6 23.Qc5+ Kg7=) 17...Qc7

18.Qf6 Rg8 19.Qh6+ Ke8 20.Qxh7 Rxg5 (20...Rf8 21.Bh6²) 21.Qh8+ Ke7 22.Qh4 Ne5 23.Qxg5+

f6 24.Qg7+ Nf7=]

16.Ngxf7+– [here the position is already lost]

16...Bxd6 [16...Nxf7 17.Bh6+ Kg8 (17...Qg7 18.Qxf7#) 18.Qxf7#]

17.Bxd6+ Ke8 18.Be5 Qc5 19.Nd6+ Kd7 20.Rad1

1–0

The Insane Corner, Edition 3, by John Barroso

It is white to move. What are the next two moves by white?

Alexander Alekhine vs. Samuel Reshevsky, 1937.

*Note that black has three major pieces attacking the white king.

Solution on page 8. :

5

Carsten Hansen is a Danish FIDE Master & FIDE Trainer with 20 books

on chess to his credit, including the Amazon-bestselling series Catastrophes

& Tactics in the Chess Opening.

Fighting Howitzers with Handguns

Coming up against a strong, sometimes much stronger opponent will happen to all of us with some frequency. It is easy to become

intimidated, unsure what to do, which opening to play, fearing that they will know more and better theory than you, leaving you lost

right out of the opening. A rule I learned a long time ago is that you should be yourself, play your own openings, after all, how likely

is it that your particular opponent knows all your little specialty lines, much less have something prepared against them? Also, be

unafraid to take the higher-rated opponent on in complications, remember that they have more to lose than you, they are expected to

win. So, what the meaning with the headline? Well, the below game is a good example of all of what I have described above: Black is

a strong grandmaster (the Howitzer) and White, while no shrinking flower, is a veteran international master who can play mainstream

chess very well but he loves unorthodox openings (the handgun).

IM Jens-Ove Fries Nielsen (2359) – GM Adrian Demuth (2551) C42

GRENKE Chess Open (Karlsruhe) 2018

1.e4 e5 2.Ne2 [diagram 1]

Alapin's Opening, named after Semyon Alapin who played the opening against such greats as

Lasker, Chigorin, Pillsbury, Blackburne and other top players around the end of the 19th and

beginning of the 20th century. It's awkward-looking development of the knight will never make it

a favorite among top players, but occasionally strong players pull it out of the bag to surprise an

opponent. Most recently and famously, Ivanchuk used the move twice in the Leuven 2017 (a rapid

tournament) to beat Anand and to lose to Carlsen. Neither result was a result of the opening.

Our hero behind the white pieces has used the move with some regularity, although most of those

games have not made it into traditional databases. Needless to say, White knows the opening a

lot better than his much higher-rated opponent.

2...d6 The text move will certainly not qualify as the most critical move, but in my humble

opinion, it is much too reserved to qualify even as the best move. Perhaps Black was trying to seek a normal position. Some of the

alternatives are:

a) 2...d5 3.exd5 Nf6 4.d4 exd4 5.Qxd4 (note that Anand played 2...Nf6 and then eventually transposed to this position), and now:

a1) 5...Nxd5 6.Nbc3 Be6 7.Nf4 (White can obtain a tiny initiative after 7.Nxd5 Qxd5 8.Qxd5 Bxd5 9.Bf4 , e.g., 9...c6 10.Bg3 Nd7

11.Nf4 Bd6 12.0–0–0 Bxf4+ 13.Bxf4 0–0–0 14.b3 although I suspect that this would not be sufficient to win against Anand, even if

your name is Ivanchuk) 7...Nc6 8.Bb5 Nxf4 9.Qxd8+ Rxd8 10.Bxf4 Bd6 11.Bxd6 Rxd6 12.Ne4 Rd5 13.Bxc6+ bxc6 14.Nc3 Rd6 with

a position that my computer assesses as only fractionally better for White, but I think it is rather more than that and that the computer

possibly overestimates the value of the bishop (with pawns on two wings) a little too highly; the black pawn structure is rather weakened

and is most certainly a serious problem and in the end White ended up winning the game, Ivanchuk-Anand, Leuven 2017.

a2) 5...Qxd5 6.Nbc3 Qxd4 7.Nxd4 Bc5 8.Ndb5 Na6 9.Bf4 0–0 10.f3 Re8+ 11.Be2 Be6 12.0–0–0 Bxa2! (a brave decision which

obviously required some precise calculation) 13.Rhe1 (13.b3 c6 14.Kb2 (but not 14.Nd4?? Ba3+ 15.Kd2 Rad8 which loses quickly for

White; 14.Nd6 Ba3+ 15.Kd2 Rad8 16.Bxa6 bxa6 17.Nxa2 Bxd6 18.Bxd6 Rxd6+ 19.Kc1 Rxd1+ 20.Rxd1 is about even) 14...Bxb3

15.cxb3 cxb5 16.Bxb5 Red8 17.Bxa6 bxa6 with an endgame which, if anything, is marginally better for Black, the extra pawn isn't of

any direct value) 13...Nh5 14.Bd2 Be6 15.Ne4 Be7 16.Nd4 Bd7 17.Bxa6 bxa6 18.Bg5 Bxg5+ 19.Nxg5 Nf6 and Black had a tiny

advantage which he eventually converted to a full point, Ivanchuk-Carlsen, Leuven 2017.

b) 2...c6 3.d4 (3.Ng3 d6 4.d3 Nd7 5.Nd2 Nc5 6.Nb3 Ne6 7.Ne2 Nc5 8.Nc3 Ne6 9.g3 Nf6 10.Bg2 Be7 11.0–0 0–0 12.f4 and draw agreed,

½–½, doesn't tell us much, but Black seems to be doing fine after White numerous knight moves - without any real improvement, I

might add - Palac-Zelcic, Marija Bistrica 2011) 3...d6 4.c4 (4.Nbc3 Nf6 5.f4 Nbd7 6.h3 Nh5 7.Rg1 exf4 8.Nxf4 Qh4+ 9.g3 Nxg3 10.Ng2

Qh5 11.Qd3 Nxf1 12.Rxf1 Nb6 where White has some compensation for the sacrificed pawn but whether it is quite enough is an entirely

different question, Lerch-Le Roux, Wasselonne 2017) 4...g6 5.Nbc3 Bg7 6.Be3 Nf6 7.f3 0–0 8.Qd2 exd4 9.Nxd4 d5 10.cxd5 cxd5 11.e5

Ne8 12.f4, and here: [diagram 2]

6

b1) 12...Nc6?! 13.Bb5 Ne7 14.0–0 Nc7 15.Rac1 f6 16.exf6 Bxf6 17.Ba4 Kh8 18.Bb3 with a clear

advantage for White, Smirin-Burmakin, Stockholm 2016.

b2) 12...f6!? 13.exf6 Nxf6 14.Be2 Nc6 15.0–0 Re8 which has been played several times in games

between strong players, for instance most recently in Hambleton-J.Van Foreest, Reykjavik 2017,

the chances are about even.

c) 2...Nc6 3.Nbc3 (now we transpose to a Vienna Game of some sort) 3...Bc5 4.g3 d6 5.Bg2 a6

6.d3 h5 7.h3 Nge7 8.0–0 Nd4 9.Kh2 Be6 10.Nxd4 Bxd4 11.f4 f6 12.Nd5 c6 13.c3 Ba7 14.Nxe7

Qxe7 15.d4 0–0–0 16.d5 cxd5 17.exd5 Bd7 18.fxe5 fxe5 with chances to both sides, Bachmann-

Zarnicki, Turin Olympiad 2006.

3.f4!? This looks like a rather ridiculous King's Gambit where White put his knight on e2

instead of f3. Objectively speaking, this shouldn't worry Black at all, but he can't afford to be too

complacent either because White is adopting a rather aggressive stance.

3...Nc6 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nbc3 exd4 6.Nxd4 Nxe4?! Black is trying to take advantage, tactically, of White's opening play. The normal more

is 6...Be7 which gives White an easy game, for instance, 7.Be2 (7.Nxc6 is less critical but did well in one of the earliest games with the

opening: 7...bxc6 8.Bd3 Bg4?! 9.Qd2 d5 10.e5 Nh5 11.Qf2! was comfortably better for White; the game continued as follows: 11...f6

12.h3 Bd7?! (12...Bc8 was better although still very unpleasant for Black) 13.e6! Bxe6 14.f5 Bd6 15.Qe2 (Now White wins material)

15...Ng3 16.Qxe6+ Kf8 17.Rf1 Nxf1 18.Kxf1 Qb8 19.Bd2 Qxb2 20.Re1 Qb8 21.Qd7 Qb6 22.Re6 h5 23.Be3 and the future world

champion resigned, 1–0, Alapin-Lasker, Berlin 1890) 7...Nxd4 8.Qxd4 c6 9.Be3 0–0 10.h3 Re8 11.Bf3 Nxe4 (or 11...d5 12.exd5 Nxd5

13.Nxd5 cxd5 14.0–0–0 with an obvious advantage for White) 12.Nxe4 d5 13.Ng5?! (this isn't particularly good; instead, 13.0–0–0

dxe4 14.Qe5 Bd7 15.Bg4 Bf6 16.Rxd7 Bxe5 17.Rxd8 Bxb2+ 18.Kxb2 Rexd8 19.Be2 would have offered an interesting endgame where

White with his bishop pair should have the better chances) 13...Bf6 14.Qd3. [diagram 3]

What is Black's best move?

14...Bxg5?? (A tremendous blunder; instead, he had the amazing 14...Bf5!! available, e.g.,

15.Qxf5 Rxe3+ 16.Kf2 g6 17.Qg4 Qb6 18.Kg3 h6 when Black wins his piece back with the clear

better chances. Admittedly this required a decent amount of tactical vision to see this line to the

end, but Black, an international master, should have been able to accomplish that, but clearly he

wasn’t having a particularly good day) 15.fxg5 d4 16.0–0–0!, and Black resigned, 1–0, Zelcic-

Mestrovic, Belisce 1999.

7.Nxe4 Qe7 This is the tactical justification for Black's previous move, he wins back the piece.

However, in return, and Black failed to properly consider this, White gets a strong initiative, easy development while Black's king and

queen precariously are stuck in the center on the same open file.

8.Bb5 Qxe4+ 9.Kf2! [diagram 4]

9...Bg4 Or 9...Be6?? 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.Re1 and it was already game over for Black who cannot

play 11...Qd5 because after 12.Qxd5 he can't recapture on d5 because both the bishop on e6 and

the pawn on c6 are pinned, Nowicki-Kos, IECC email 2000.

10.Qxg4!? Unafraid to sacrifice material, the Danish international master throws an extra

pawn on the fire to get the remaining pieces developed. Considering the outcome of the game, it

is hard to argue against its effectiveness, however, the more precise move is 10.Re1 Bxd1

11.Rxe4+ Kd7 12.Bd2?! (12.Ba4! intending 13.Nxc6 bxc6 14.Rc4 is very unpleasant for Black)

12...Bh5 13.c4 a6 14.Ba4 f5 15.Re3 Bf7 16.Bc3 Bxc4 17.Nxc6 bxc6 18.Bc2 Re8 19.Bxf5+ Kd8

20.Rxe8+ Kxe8 and while Black still has an extra pawn, White's active pieces more than

counterbalance this matter, Podlesnik-Kos, Bled 2000.

10...Qxd4+ 11.Be3 Qxb2 12.Rab1!? 12.Ba4!? is once more an attractive idea, keeping

the pin on c6 alive while simultaneously protecting the pawn on c2. The idea for White is, of course, to play Rab1 and capture on b7,

recouping one of the sacrificed pawns. But the viking behind the white pieces was feeling inspired and let go of the third(!) pawn.

12...Qxc2+ 13.Be2 f5 Black is understandably getting a bit nervous about only having his king stuck in the center and is

trying to let him castle queenside. Additionally, Black has to start thinking about finding a good retreat square for the queen.

7

14.Qf3 0–0–0 [diagram 5]

The king is away from the center and in safety... right? Not so fast! Now the next level of trouble

is about to start...How should White best continue?

15.Rhc1 Qe4 16.Qxe4! Yes, White is three pawns down and exchanging queens!

16...fxe4 17.Bg4+ Rd7 Even though Black has three extra pawns, 17...Kb8 18.Rxc6 isn't a

particularly attractive option as White's bishop pair is very strong.

18.a4!? White is in no hurry to capture on d7 to restore some the material imbalance because

after 18.Bxd7+ Kxd7 19.Rxb7 d5 20.Rd1 Nb4 21.Rb8 c5 Black is back in the game. Instead,

White chooses to increase the pressure while not letting Black out of his iron grip.

18...a5 19.Rb5! This prevents Black from playing ...d6–d5 and prepares to double the rooks on

the b-file to provoke a black ...b7–b6.

19...Be7 20.Rcb1 b6? [diagram 6]

How should White continue?

Black should have tried something like 20...Rf8 21.Ke2 Rf6 although White has more than

adequate compensation for the sacrificed pawns after 22.Rh5 h6 23.g3 when Black continues to

be tied up in a dreadfully passive position, but White will not have the immediate, decisive

breakthrough that Black undoubtedly overlooked in the game.

21.Bxb6!! Rf8 After 21...cxb6 22.Rxb6 , Black's position completely collapses.

22.Ba7! White is threatening to mate Black with Rb8+.

22...Bh4+ 23.g3 Kd8 Of course, 23...Rxf4+ is possible, but after 24.Ke3 Black can capture the bishop on g4, but the mate on b8 still

works.

24.Rb8+ Ke7 25.Rxf8 and Black resigned. 1–0

The books below can be found at www.amazon.com

8

Unpublished game:

WGM Ekaterina Polovnikova vs. WGM Tatiana Shadrina,

Russia.

2004, Kazan, Russia: Russian Women’s Superfinal.

Tatiana Shadrina became a WGM in 1998.

Silver and Bronze medals in the Russian Women’s Higher League several times

Silver Medal in the European Club Championship in 2013 with the Ugra Team

3rd place in Individual European Championship in 2009 in St. Petersburg

Currently, Chess Coach at the Kstovo Chess School

Tatiana coaches chess over Skype at affordable rates:

Contact: [email protected]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 dxc4 5.Bg2 c5 (starting a sharp fight. At that time, I enjoyed immensely the crazy dynamic which

soon arose).

6.O-O Nc6 7.Ne5 Bd7 8.Na3 cxd4 9.Naxc4 Be7 (Until that now it was all a theoretical line where white sacrificed a pawn to get the

initiative )

10.Qb3 Qc7! (a strong, audacious idea to comfortably develop the queen as if inviting the bishop to f4

followed by a nice minor pieces’ firefight, the core of which would be on move 14).

11.Bf4 Nh5! 12.Nxc6 Nxf4 13.Nxe7 Nxg2 14.Kxg2 b5! (14...Kxe7 15.Qb4+ = ).

Below, Diagram 1 before 14....b5!

15.Nd2?! (better was intermediate15.Nd5! exd5 16.Nd2 ± )

15...Kxe7 (now black has got a very pleasant position while still keeping an extra pawn. Only

some consolidation is needed) 16.Rac1 Qd6 17.f3 f5 18.e3 Rac8 19.Rcd1 Bc6 20.Rfe1 Bd5! (abandoning b5 pawn but getting

very "comfortable homes" for pieces instead )

21.Qxb5 dxe3 22.Rxe3 Rc2 23.Qa5 Rhc8 24.Kh3?! (a good chance to hold though seemingly

dangerous 24.Qxa7+ R8c7 25.Qa3! )

24...a6! (this harmless looking quiet move in reality contains an amazing tricky idea)

25.Nc4?? (getting into the trap)

25...R8xc4 26. Rxd5 Rh4+!!

Diagram 2 before 26….Rh4+!!

White resigned due two checkmate in two moves (if 1. Kxh3 Rxh2+ 2. Kg5 Qxg3# and if

1.gxh4 Qxh2#) 0-1.

SOLUTION TO THE INSANE CORNER, Edition 3, by John Barroso

1. Rxb8+ Kxb8 2. Qxe5+ and Reshevsky resigned in view of

a) 2….fxe5 3. Rf8 Qe8 4. Rxe8+ Rd8 5. Rxd8#

b) 2….Ka8 3. Ra1+ Ra2 4. Rxa2#

c) 2.....Kc8 3. Qc7#

BELOW IS THE WHOLE GAME:

Alekhine vs. Reshevsky, Kemeri (LVA), June 25, 1937.

1. e4 Nf6 2. e5 Nd5 3. d4 d6 4. Nf3 Bg4 5. c4 Nb6 6. Be2 dxe5 7. Nxe5 Bxe2 8.

Qxe2 Qxd4 9. O-O N8d7 10. Nxd7 Nxd7 11. Nc3 c6 12. Be3 Qe5 13. Rad1 e6

14. Qf3 O-O-O 15. Bxa7 Qa5 16. Bd4 Qf5 17. Qg3 e5 18. Be3 Bb4 19. Na4 Ba5

20. f4 Bc7 21.b3 f6 22. fxe5 Qe6 23. h3 Rhg8 24. Bd4 Nxe5 25. Qc3 Nd7 26. c5

Rge8 27. b4 Nb8 28. Nb6+ Bxb6 29. cxb6 Qxa2 30. Qg3 Rd7 31. Bc5 Qf7 32.

Ra1 Qg6 33. Qh2 Re5 34.Ra8 Rd2 35. Rxb8+ Kxb8 36. Qxe5+ 1-0

9

A game by late Alex Milson vs.

Jerry Meyers, Pittsburgh Chess League,

Jan. 15, 1989. Submitted and annotated by Jerry Meyers.

1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. Nbd2 {Aiming for a Colle system after

3...d5} c5 4. dxc5

Na6 {Qa5!?} 5. e4 Nxc5 6. e5 Nd5 7. c4?! {White would get a

slight edge out

of the opening with 7.Nc4 or 7.Nb3. Now the d3 square is

weakened, and e5

looks a bit overextended.} Nb4 8. Nb3 Ne6 9. Bd2 Nc6 10.

Bd3? (10. Bc3 Bg7

11. g3 a5 12. a4 Qc7 13. Qe2 b6 14. Bg2 Ba6 {looks slightly

better for Black

due to White's pawn weaknesses and somewhat misplaced

pieces. But, he would

maintain equal material. 10.Bd3 is going to cost him a pawn.})

10... Bg7 11.Qe2 Qc7 12. O-O (12. Bc3 Nf4) 12... Nxe5 13.

Rab1 Nxd3 14. Qxd3 O-O 15. Ng5 d6

16. Ne4 b6 17. Bc3 Ba6 18. Nbd2

(Diagram):

(18. Bxg7 would

just lose another

pawn. Black

captures c4 before

recapturing on g7.}

18...Bxc4 19. Qc3

Nxg7 20. Nbd2

Rac8 21. Rfc1 d5

22. b3 dxe4 23.

bxc4 f5) 18... Nf4

19. Qe3 e5 20. g3

Ne6 21. f4 f5 22.

Nf2 Rfe8 23. fxe5

dxe5 24. Rfe1 Bb7

25. Qe2 (25. Bxe5

Qc6) 25... Qc6 26. Qf1 Rad8

27. Rbd1 Ng5 28. h4 {insert diagram} (28. Re3 f4) 28... Rxd2

29. hxg5 (29. Rxd2 Nf3+)

29... Rxf2

{White resigned.

It's mate in 3 after

30.Kxf2, Qf3+

31.Kg1, Qxg3+

32.Qg2, Qxg2# 0-1

◼

WILHELM STEINITZ By Steve O’Connor

Pittsburgh Chess Club

Wilhelm Steinitz was born on May

17, 1836, in the Jewish ghetto of

Prague. The youngest of a tailor's

thirteen sons to survive, he learned

to play chess at age 12. He began

playing serious chess in 1857 at the

Vienna Polytechnic. Steinitz spent two years at this university.

Steinitz improved rapidly in chess during the late 1850s,

progressing from third place in the 1859 Vienna City

championship to first in 1861, with a score of 30/31. During

this period he was nicknamed "the Austrian Morphy".

Steinitz was then sent to represent Austria in the London 1862

Chess Tournament. He placed sixth, but his win over

Augustus Mondigren was awarded the tournament's brilliancy

prize. He immediately challenged the fifth-placed contestant,

the strong veteran Italian Master Serafino DuBois, to a match,

which Steinitz won. This encouraged him to turn professional,

and he took up residence in London. In 1862–63 Steinitz

scored a crushing win in a match with Joseph Henry

Blackburne, who went on to be one of the world's top ten for

20 years. Steinitz then beat some leading UK players in

matches. This charge up the rankings had a price: in March

1863 Steinitz apologized in a letter to Ignatz Kolisch for not

repaying a loan, because while Steinitz had been beating

Blackburne, Daniel Harrwitz had "taken over" all of Steinitz's

clients at the London Chess Club, who had provided Steinitz's

main source of income.

Adolf Anderssen was recognized as the world's top player

until 1866, when Steinitz won a match against him.

In the years following his victory over Anderssen, he beat

Henry Bird in 1866. He comfortably beat Johannes Zukertort

in 1872 after Zukertort had proved himself one of the elite by

beating Anderssen by a large margin in 1871.

It took longer for Steinitz to reach the top in tournament play.

In the next few years he took: third place at Paris and second

place at Dundee in 1867, and the Baden Baden 1870 Chess

Tournament; behind Anderssen but ahead of Blackburne,

Louis Paulsen and other strong players. His first victory in a

strong tournament was at the London 1872 tournament, ahead

of Blackburne and Zukertort; and the first tournament in

which Steinitz finished ahead of Anderssen was Vienna 1873,

when Anderssen was 55 years old.

Although Steinitz became the world’s top player by winning

in the all-out attacking style that was common in the 1860s, at

the Vienna Tournament in 1873, he unveiled a new positional

style of play, and demonstrated that it was superior to the

previous style. His new style was controversial and some even

10

branded it as "cowardly", but many of Steinitz's games

showed that it could also set up attacks as ferocious as those of

the old school.

Steinitz was also a prolific writer on chess, and defended his

new ideas vigorously. The debate was so bitter and sometimes

abusive that it became known as the "Ink War". Steinitz was

the target of anti-Semitic abuse, and he moved to the United

States to escape this. By the early 1890s, Steinitz's approach

was widely accepted, and the next generation of top players

acknowledged their debt to him, most notably his successor as

world champion, Lasker.

Between 1873 and 1882 Steinitz played no tournaments and

only one match (a 7–0 win against Blackburne in 1876). His

other games during this period were in simultaneous and

blindfold exhibitions which contributed an important part of a

professional chess-player's income in those days.

Instead, Steinitz concentrated on his work as a chess

journalist, notably for The Field, which was Britain's leading

sports magazine. Some of Steinitz's commentaries aroused

heated debates, notably from Zukertort and Leopold Hoffer in

The Chess Monthly (which they founded in 1879) This "Ink

War" escalated sharply in 1881, when Steinitz mercilessly

criticized Hoffer's annotations of games in the 1881 Berlin

Congress. Steinitz was eager to settle the analytical debates by

a second match against Zukertort, whose unwillingness to play

provoked scornful comments from Steinitz.

As a result of the "Ink War", traditional accounts of Steinitz's

character depict him as ill-tempered and aggressive; but more

recent research shows that he had long and friendly

relationships with some players and chess organizations. Most

notably from 1888 to 1889 he co-operated with the American

Chess Congress in a project to define rules governing the

conduct of future world championships.

Steinitz's long lay-off caused some commentators to suggest

that Zukertort, who had scored some notable tournament

victories, should be regarded as the world chess champion.

Steinitz returned to serious competitive chess in the Vienna

1882 tournament, which has been described as the strongest

chess tournament of all time at that point. Despite a shaky start

he took equal first place with, Simon Winawer ahead of James

Mason, Zukertort, Blackburne, Paulsen and Mikhail Chigorin

and drew the play-off match

Steinitz visited the US, mainly the Philadelphia area, from

December 1882 to May 1883. He was given an enthusiastic

reception. Steinitz played several exhibitions, many casual

games. He also won three more serious matches with two New

World professionals, Alexander Sellman and the Cuban

champion Ceslo Golmayo Zupide. The match with Golmayo

was abandoned when Steinitz was leading (eight wins, one

draw, one loss).

Later in 1883, Steinitz took second place in the extremely

strong London 1883 chess tournament behind Zukertort, who

made a brilliant start, faded at the end but finished 3 points

ahead Steinitz finished 2½ points ahead of the third-placed

competitor, Blackburne. Zukertort's victory again led some

commentators to suggest that Zukertort should be regarded as

the world chess champion, while others said the issue could

only be resolved by a match between Steinitz and Zukertort.

In 1883, shortly after the London tournament, Steinitz decided

to leave England and moved to New York, where he lived for

the rest of his life. This did not end the "Ink War": his enemies

persuaded some of the American press to publish anti-Steinitz

articles, and in 1885 Steinitz founded the International Chess

Magazine, which he edited until 1895. In his magazine he

chronicled the lengthy negotiations for a match with Zukertort.

He also managed to find supporters in other sections of the

American press including Turf, Field and Farm and the St.

Louis Globe-Democrat both of which reported Steinitz's offer

to forgo all fees, expenses or share in the stake and make the

match "a benefit performance, solely for Mr Zukertort's

pecuniary profit".

Eventually it was agreed that in 1886 Steinitz and Zukertort

would play a match in New York, St. Louis and New Orleans,

and that the victor would be the player who first won 10

games. At Steinitz's insistence the contract said it would be

"for the Championship of the World". After the five games

played in New York, Zukertort led by 4–1, but in the end

Steinitz won decisively by 12½–7½ (ten wins, five draws, five

losses). The collapse by Zukertort, who won only one of the

last 15 games, has been described as "perhaps the most

complete reversal of fortune in the history of world

championship play."

In 1887 the American Chess Congress started work on

drawing up regulations for the future conduct of world

championship contests. Steinitz actively supported this

endeavor, as he thought he was becoming too old to remain

world champion – he wrote in his own magazine "I know I am

not fit to be the champion, and I am not likely to bear that title

forever”.

In 1888 the Havana Chess Club offered to sponsor a match

between Steinitz and whomever he would select as a worthy

opponent. Steinitz nominated the Russian, Mikhail Chigorin

on the condition that the invitation should not be presented as

a challenge from him. There is some doubt about whether this

was intended to be a match for the world championship: both

Steinitz's letters and the publicity material just before the

match conspicuously avoided the phrase. The proposed match

was to have a maximum of 20 games and Steinitz had said that

fixed-length matches were unsuitable for world championship

contests because the first player to take the lead could then

play for draws; and Steinitz was at the same time supporting

the American Chess Congress' world championship project.

Whatever the status of the match, it was played in Havana in

January to February 1889, and won by Steinitz (ten wins, one

draw, six losses).

11

Around this time Steinitz publicly spoke of retiring, but

changed his mind when, Emmanuel Lasker 32 years younger

and comparatively untested at the top level, challenged him.

Lasker had been earlier that year refused a non-title challenge

by fellow German, Dr. Siegbert Tarrasch, who was at the time

the world's most dominant tournament player.

The match was played in 1894, at venues in New York,

Philadelphia and Monrteal, Quebec, Canada. The 32-year age

difference between the combatants was the largest in the

history of world championship play, and remains so today.

Steinitz had previously declared he would win without doubt,

so it came as a shock when Lasker won the first game. Steinitz

responded by winning the second, and was able to maintain

the balance until the sixth. However, Lasker won all the games

from the seventh to the 11th, and Steinitz asked for a one-

week rest. When the match resumed, Steinitz looked in better

shape and won the 13th and 14th games. Lasker struck back in

the 15th and 16th, and Steinitz was unable to compensate for

his losses in the middle of the match. Hence Lasker won with

ten wins, five losses and four draws. Some commentators

thought Steinitz's habit of playing "experimental" moves in

serious competition was a major factor in his downfall.

After losing the title, Steinitz played in tournaments more

frequently than he had previously. He won at New York 1894,

and was fifth at Hastings 1895, he took second place. Later his

results began to decline: 6th in Nuremberg 1896, 5th in

Cologne 1898, 10th in London 1899.

In November, 1896 to January, 1897 Steinitz played a return

match with Lasker in Moscow, but won only 2 games,

drawing 5, and losing 10. This was the last world chess

championship match for eleven years. Shortly after the match,

Steinitz had a mental breakdown and was confined for 40 days

in a Moscow sanatorium.

The book of the Hastings 1895 chess tournament, written

collectively by the players, described Steinitz as follows:

Mr. Steinitz stands high as a theoretician and as a writer; he

has a powerful pen, and when he chooses can use expressive

English. He evidently strives to be fair to friends and foes

alike, but appears sometimes to fail to see that after all he is

much like many others in this respect. Possessed of a fine

intellect, and extremely fond of the game, he is apt to lose

sight of all other considerations, people and business alike.

Chess is his very life and soul, the one thing for which he lives.

By the time of his match in 1890–91 against Gunsberg, some

commentators showed an understanding of and appreciation

for Steinitz's theories. Shortly before the 1894 match with

Emanuel Lasker, even the New York Times, which had earlier

published attacks on his play and character, paid tribute to his

playing record, the importance of his theories, and his

sportsmanship in agreeing to the most difficult match of his

career despite his previous intention of retiring.

By the end of his career, Steinitz was more highly esteemed as

a theoretician than as a player. The comments about him in the

book of the Hastings 1895 chess tournament focus on his

theories and writings, and Emmanuel Lasker was more

explicit: "He was a thinker worthy of a seat in the halls of a

University. A player, as the world believed he was, he was

not; his studious temperament made that impossible; and thus

he was conquered by a player ..."

As a result of his play and writings Steinitz is considered by

many chess commentators to be the founder of modern chess.

Lasker, who took the championship from Steinitz, wrote, "I

who vanquished him must see to it that his great achievement,

his theories should find justice, and I must avenge the wrongs

he suffered." Vladimir Kramnik emphasizes Steinitz's

importance as a pioneer in the field of chess theory: "Steinitz

was the first to realise that chess, despite being a complicated

game, obeys some common principles. ... But as often happens

the first time is just a try. ... I can't say he was the founder of a

chess theory. He was an experimenter and pointed out that

chess obeys laws that should be considered."

"Traditional" accounts of Steinitz describe him as having a

sharp tongue and violent temper, perhaps partly because of his

short stature (barely five feet) and congenital lameness, he

admitted that "Like the Duke of Parma, I always hold the

sword in one hand and the olive branch in the other", and

under severe provocation he could become abusive in

published articles. He was aware of his own tendencies and

said early in his career, "Nothing would induce me to take

charge of a chess column ...Because I should be so fair in

dispensing blame as well as praise that I should be sure to give

offence and make enemies.

Steinitz strove to be objective in his writings about chess

competitions and games, for example he attributed to sheer

bad luck a poor tournament score by Henry Edward Bird,

whom he considered no friend of his, and was generous in his

praise of great play by even his bitter enemies. He could poke

fun at some of his own rhetoric, for example "I remarked that I

would rather die in America than live in England. ... I added

that I would rather lose a match in America than win one in

England. But after having carefully considered the subject in

all its bearings, I have come to the conclusion that I neither

mean to die yet nor to lose the match." At a joint simultaneous

display in Russia around the time of the 1895–96 St.

Petersburg tournament, Emmanuel Lasker and Steinitz formed

an impromptu comedy double act.

Although he had a strong sense of honour about repaying

debts, Steinitz was poor at managing his finances: he let a

competitor "poach" many of his clients in 1862–63, offered to

play the 1886 world title match against Zukertort for free, and

died in poverty in 1900, leaving his widow to survive by

running a small shop.

12

Pittsburgh Scholastic City Championship Winners - 2000 - 2018

by Jerry Meyers - 5/10/18 www.youthchess.net

I have been running scholastic tournaments in Pittsburgh since 1994. I started a scholastic version of the City Championship in 2000.

The tournament has been running for 16 years. In the early years, the sections were divided by grade and rating. In more recent

years, there has just been one championship section for K - 12. Here are the winners of the top sections.

2000 Pittsburgh Scholastic Chess Championship - 2/19/00

Grade 6-12 Premier - William Surlow

Grades K-5 Premier - Matthew Barbara


Grade 6-12 Advanced - Mike Opaska

Grades K - 5 Premier - Gabriel Petesch


Grade 6-12 Championship - Ezra Jampole

Grades 2 - 5 Championship - Alexander Heimann

Grades K - 1 Championship - Prem Rajgopal


Grades 6-12 Championship - Eric Guffey

Grades 4 -5 Championship - Richie Weaver

Grades K - 3 Championship - Ben Stern


Grades 6-12 Championship - Kris Meekins

Grades 4 -5 Championship - Randall Gough

Grades K - 3 Championship - Andrew Linzer


Grades 6-12 Championship - Luka Glinsky

Grades K -5 Championship - Randall Gough


Grades 6-12 Championship - Michael Hickman

Grades K -5 Championship - Prem Rajgopal


Grades 6-12 Championship - Grace DorohovichGrades K -5

Championship - Ben Molin


Grades 6-12 Championship - Jimmy Yuan

Grades K -5 Championship - Ryan Tsai


Grades 7- 12 Championship - Daniel Priore

Grades K -6 Championship - Rahul Ghai


Championship - Jack Mo


Championship - Ben Molin


Championship - Mike Samo






Championship - Allen Gao


Championship - Jason Briegel


Championship - Adam Collier


Championship - Matthew Bandos

Players who peaked over 2000, listed by the year(s) they won

2000 - Grade 6-12 Premier - William Surlow - T-2108/R-

2029/H-2207

2001 - Grades K - 5 Premier - Gabriel Petesch - T-1121/R-

2364/H-2379

2001 - Grade 6-12 Advanced - Mike Opaska - T-1396/R-

2038/H-2154

2002 - Grades 2 - 5 Championship - Alexander Heimann - T-

1515/R-2374/H-2375

2004 - Grades 6-12 Championship - Kris Meekins - T-1434/R-

2277/H-2354

2005 - Grades 6-12 Championship - Luka Glinsky - T-1553/R-

2032/H-2096

2010 - Championship - Jack Mo - T-1685/R-2122/H-2137



The top 3, by peak rating, are:

Gabriel Petesch 2379,

Alexander Heimann 2375,

Kris Meekins 2354

The King of Blindfold: strength and intriguing mental powers

GM TIMUR GAREYEV makes history in Pittsburgh

In 1858 Paulsen played ten boards (W6, L6)

while blindfold. In 2007 Christiansen played

ten boards (6W, 4L) while blindfold and in

2010 Sadvakasov played two boards (2W) at

Duquesne University. But Timur played fifteen

boards while blindfold, a record for Pittsburgh.

Grandmaster Timur hold the World Guinness

record for playing 48 boards while blindfold in

2016. All his blindfold exhibitions are done

while he paddles an exercise bike which,

sometimes total the equivalent of riding fifty

miles.

Some of the previous blindfold games by Ti-

mur are a jewel of chess art and combination.

Timur has won many major tournaments and

became a Grandmaster in April 2004.

His Pittsburgh Blindfold Simul Exhibition at

the Pittsburgh Chess Club had the following

impressive result: 13.5 out of 15 (13wins, 1

draw, 1 loss).

Documents

en passant - pittsburghcc.orgBut not only that, WGM Tatiana Shadrina, from Russia, submitted her unpublished, exclusive for the En Passant game of the Russian Superfinal against WGM