CHESS.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLIV, Issue 10, 9 March 1910, Page 10

CHESS.

All communications to be addressed to the Chess Editor, “The Weekly Graphic and New Zealand Mail," Auckland.

Answers to Correspondents.

A.G.F.—Thanks for score of game. J.W. —The King may not Castle: — (1) If either the King or the Castling Rook has been previously moved. (2) If there be any Piece on the rank between the King and the Castling Rook. (3) If the King be attacked or in check at the time; or if either of his squares of movement be commanded by an adverse force. In other words, Castles must be the first move of both King and Rook; the line between them must be clear —no capture may be made; the King must neither be in check nor go into check, nor pass a square commanded by the enemy. But the Castling Rook may move out of attack, and may also cross an adversely commanded square. J.W.W.—Thanks for communication. Am sending you S. S. Blackburne’s book about Problems, etc., being the second prize won by you in solving tourney. G. COLE.—WiII be pleased to hear from you again.

Position No. 31.

The grand old Blackburne, touring in Scotland, and playing simultaneously at Glasgow, had the following ending against Mr. W. Gibson, one of Scotland’s champions. Note the accuracy of play, the grasp of complicated combination, the profundity of idea displayed by the veteran, and then, reflecting alike on the efflux of his years and strenuous chess career, you will wonder that so much intellectuality remains. Black (Mr. W. Gibson).

1. R-R6 Q-Kt 2. QxQ RxQ 3. BxP R-Kt2 4. P Kt. 6 Kt-B3 5. B-QKIS R-QB 6. B-R4 P-B5 7. R-R7 RxP 8. KRxKt RxP 9. RxP P-B6 10. RxP, ch K-R 11. B-K5 ‘ R-KlB, ch 12. K-R2 P-B7 And White mates in three moves.

World’s Championship.

The first of the ten games played in the recent match between Dr. Lasker, and. Karl {Schlechter

RUY LOPEZ. White. Black. Schlechter. ' Lasker. 1. P—K4 P—K4 2. Kt—Kß3 Kt—Qß3 3. B—Kts Kt—Kß3 4. Castles P—Q3 5. P—Q4 B—Q2 6. R—K sq PxP 7. KtxP B—K2 8. Kt—Qß3 Castles 9. BxKt Pxß 10. B—Kts R—K sq 11. Q—B3 P—KR3 12. B—R4 Kt—R2 13. Bxß Qxß 14. QR —Q sq Kt—B sq 15. P—KR3 Kt—Kt3 16. Q—Kt3 Q—Kt4 17. QxQ PxQ 18. P—KB3 P—KB3 19. K—B2 K—B2 20. Kt(Q4) —K2 P—R4 21. P—QKt3 KR—QKtsq 22. KKt—B sq B—K3 23. Kt—Q3 P—QB4 24. Kt—Kt2 Kt—K4 25. Kt—Qs R—Kt2 26. R—K3 Kt—B3 27. R—B3 P—Kt3 28. P—QR 4 P —B4 29. Kt—K3 R—K sq 30. Kt (K 3 —B4 R—R2 31. R—K sq BxKt 32. Ktxß K—B3 33. Kt—K3 Kt—K4 34. PxP PxP 35. P—KKt3 R—KR sq 36. P—KB4 PxP 37. Kt. —Q 5 ch K —B2 38. KtxKBP R—Kt2 39. K—Kt2 P—QBS 40. PxP R—QKt5 41. P—QBS RxRP 42. PxQP PxQP 43. R—B7 ch K—B3 44. Kt—Qsch K—Kt4 • 45. P—R4 ch K—R3 46. Kt—K7 R—B sq 47. R—Q sq R—B2 48. RxPeh K—R2 49. R—K6 Kt—KKt3 50. RxKt RxKt 51. R(Kt6) —QB6 RxR 52. RxR ch K—Kt3 53. R—B6ch K—Kt2 54. K—B3 R—K5 55. R—Bs K—B3 56. RxRP R—QBS 57. R—R6 ch K—K4 58. R—R5 ch K—B3 59. R—R6 ch K—K4 60. R—R5 ch K—B3 61. R—R2 K—K4 62. R—Kt2 R—B6ch 63. K—Kt2 K—B3 64. K—R3 R—B3 65. R—KtS RxP 66. R—KtlJch K—Kt2 67. P—R5 R—Bs 68. P—R6 ch K—R2 69. R—KB6 R—QRS Drawn game.

Dreihnndert Schachpartien.

(By

Dr. Tarraseh.)

Continued.

In the autumn of 1892, wc find the doctor studying at the University of Halle, where the special temptations that beset him in Berlin were absent. He joined the Halle Chess Club, and when, in 1883, the date of the third Congress of the German Sehachbund approached, 'he felt impelled to take part in it. He was successful, carrying off the first prize in the Haupturnier, and thus winning the coveted title of “Chess Master,” with the right to compete henceforth in “Master” Tournaments. His delight was unbo-unded, but lie had the good sense to eschew tournament play thereafter until he had secured his diploma as a Doctor of Medicine. This came in due course, and left him free to compete in the Hamburg Tourney of 1885, in which there were eighteen contestants, among them being Bird. Blackburne. Gunsberg. and Mason, from Englund. The excitement under which he laboured, and the rising exultation that swept him off his balance, stand out clearly in his narrative of this encounter: I was all the more astonished, and finally almost dazed as I won nearly one game after another and stood, at the end of the first week’s play, next to Mason, whose score was 7, while mine was 6 out of 8 games played. And in the second week the same thing happened up to Wednesday, when I caught up to Mason, and we stood together at the top, with 91 points each, closely followed by Blackburne, Gunsberg, Englisch. and Weiss. When next day I 'beat my dreaded rivals, it seemed almost certain, for

there were only three more rounds to play, that the first prize must fall to roe. But -my unexpected success ihad really intoxicated me. I could not explain it. I felt that I lived in a dream. My excitement was such that I could not maintain the continued attentiveness so necessary in tourney play. Hence Mackenzie defeated me in a very fine game. But in the next round I beat Schottlander,. which brought me again to the top. In the penultimate round of this remarkable tourney, the position of the six leaders was as follows:—Tarraseh, 111; Mason, Gunsberg, Englisch, and Weiss, 11; Blackburne. 10J points. Thus in my last game, against Blackburne, I was playing for the first prize. This game, after a sound opening, I threw away by a gross blunder, due to time difficulties and agitation. Thus I took second place with Blackburne, Mason, Englisch, and Weiss, each of whom scored 111 points, while Gunsberg, really primus inter pares, carried off the first prize by J a point more. I was delighted at the success and satisfied with my play. I had won eleven for the most part wellplayed games, had drawn only one—against Berger—and had five, not through lack of power, but through, weaknesses arising from my age and temperament. Thus I lost to Englisch and Mincwitz through respect for authority. against .Gunsberg through bravado, against Mackenzie through carelessness in the opening, against Blackburne through lack of composure. Wary optimism, such as is here revealed. which recognises a defeat, but to explain it away and to guard against its recurrence is a never-failing source of strength in a fighting man. “Beaten me?” we seem to hear Dr. Tarraseh say. “Not at all, my dear fellow. You are just a stone against which I have tripped through a little carelessness in walking. You wait a moment while I ponder which is the particular weakness of mine responsible for it. You’ll not trip me again, then.”

Shortly afterwards, in 1886, he accepted a situation in an obscure industrial village in Bavaria, where he had no opportunity of indulging in his favourite game. However, to quote Heyse. “Mussiggang ist aller Liebe Anfang”—it was Cupid this time who found work for idle hands to do—and in May. 1887. after a short courtship, he conducted his young wife to his new home in Nuremberg, where he had determined to settle down as a doctor on his own account. He had hardly had time to turn round in his new surroundings before an invitation reached him to take part in the Frankfort tourney of 1887. There were 21 competitors, and Tarraseh had to be content to divide the fifth and sixth prizes with Berger. He says: “The chief reason why my success was so far below that of the Hamburg tournament lay in the fact that I had not grown accustomed to my new surroundings. and was in a state of mental perturbation. I could not concentrate my mind fully on chess, and often played abstractedly. If I played one game well. I was sure to play the next badly. It was not till my. chances of a prize seemed to have vanished that I played with any degree of steadiness.” (To be continued.)

Notes.

The next quarterly meeting of the Council of the New Zealand Chess Association will take place in Wellington on Monday. 28th inst. Clubs having any business to bring forward 'are requested to notify their delegates.

At the Wellington Chess Club rec?ntly Messrs, Barnes, Fell, and Kelling, in consultation, played a “Danish Gambit” against Messrs, W. ,E. and J. Mason and P. Still, the hitter combination resigning on the 19tli move!

The suggested match to decide the tie left over from the Ostend tournament of 1907 between Dr. Bernstein and A. Rubinstein will probably now be abandoned in favour of a match between these two players for the championship of Russia. The gold medal forwarded to Russia by Mr. L. Hoffer, in whose charge it has been, will go to the winner of this match.

Writing on his championship against Herr Schleehter. after the third game in the match, Dr. Lasker says that Schlechter"s style is quite different from that of his previous opponents, Steinitz, Marshall, Tarraseh, and Janowski, who had all a tendency to take the initiative, whereas the Austrian champion attaches more importance to safety. The gain must be clear and success certain before he will consent to remove his forces from

their base. A mere prospect of gain «»n---not seduce him, and it is as though he said to his opponent, “Beat me if you can.” Dr. Lasker admits that in the first game Schlecliter took advantage of his incautious attack to make a tremendous counter-attack that nearly brought success. This counter-attack, he says, covered 40 moves, during the whole of which time Schlechter never exposed himself once. He only permitted his pawns to be scattered because he could not otherwise have carried out his plan. Schlechter, concludes Dr. Lasker, after a detailed analysis of the first two games, “is inaugurating a new and altogether modern problem. How can one beat a man who meets offers of sueyess and threats of an ’apparent attack with equal calm, thinks first of all of his own safety, and pursues this aim scientifically, and, when necessary, with acumen and ‘flair’’ The answer to this question is for the moment unknown, but, theoretically, it can be said that if initiative in the right place were combined with such strategy, the perfect style would be attained, and Schlechter invincible.” Dr. Lasker consoles himself with the reflection that no mortal is absolutely infallible, and says it will be his task in the remaining games to make the first attempt to solve the Schlechter problem.