The Chess Board.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLIX, Issue 4, 22 January 1913, Page 10

The Chess Board.

Correction. In the Forsyth notation at foot ot fast week’s Problem (No. 194), *‘4k3” should read *’3k2.” The diagram is correct. Answers to Correspondents. h SCHACH.” —Thanks for letter. Problem No. 195. By G. Sardotsch. (First Prize in ‘*l/Italia Schacchistica.”) Black: Nine pieces.

White: Ten pieces. 8. splß, IP3Q2. 4plPl. IBlbBKl, 2ppkp2. ISIsbRIR, IS6. White to play and mate in two moves.

The following highly interesting article is from the November ‘’British Chess Magazine": — Is Rubinstein a Genius ? According to Dr. Tarrasch, Rubinstein, the victor of San Sebastian. Post yen. and Breslau, is a chess genius of a very high order. His distinction is due to an imperturbable temperament, and a remarkably clear.’ deep and sound appraisement of position. ”His play." says the doctor, "is to every expert, as, for example. to myself, a matter for admiration. Dr. Lasker, also, does not withhold his praise of the Russian champion, and characterises his games as marvellous." Leonhardt. however, thinks otherwise, ami in the ‘’Hamburger Nachrichten" discounts the utterances of these two high authorities. Dr. Tarrasch’s praises are bestowed, he contends, patronisingly, with the idea of claiming Rubinstein as a pupil of his own; and drawing a reflected glory for himself in the fact. "In pleasant contrast to Dr. Tarrasch." continues Herr Leonhardt, ‘’one must concede mat ter-of-factness in the champion, which is evidenced by the manner in which he keeps his personality in the background. If he now' makes exaggerated declamation in honour of Rubinstein, the reason is not far to seek. A match between him and Rubinstein is only a matter of time, and he would like to smooth its way and bring it into the best relief. Lasker recognises bettor than anyone the individual weaknesses of an opponent, ami knows better bow to profit by them, and it is incredible that he should con eider Rubinstein his equal, to sav nothing of his superior. (nless, of course, he feels age is creeping on him. "The particular weakness of Rubinstein is no longer a secret. After Spiel - inann had demonstrated the ease with which Rubinstein could be upset bv decoying him on to unknown ground, ami pestering him with attacks, newcomers such as Barasz and Lowtzky resorted in t he Breslau tourney to t he satin* tactics. Lowtzky. by help of this recipe, was completely successful in disconcerting the Russian muster, ami won a game from him that even Dr. Tarrasch described as very weakly played' by Rubinstein. Ami Bar.isz. by similar, but in this case much looser and more unsoundly conducted tactics, succeeded in so upsetting Rubinstein’s equanimity that he. played like a novice, overlooked a winning position, and only won be cause his opponent finally tried to force the game. Ndw ‘very weak* games of this character by Rubinstein are bv no means so infrequeWE Hi* gave Xwo farftancpß of very tfwak play’ t against

Frey man n and Alapuu at the all Russian tourney in Vilna. As sobn as he is on unfamiliar ground he shows surprising weakness bolh in the management of the game and in its tactical conduct. . . . He has a wonderful eye for the microscopic in chess, but his pupil is too weak to see at a distance. He therefore confines himself to a few openings, and is a specialist in endings.

. . . Rubinstein himself, who is possessed of a clear head, and who is averse to egoculture a la Tarrasch, and well knows the bounds of his talents, would be quick to disagree with Tarrasch’s appraisement of him as a genius, Genius is creative, sees and combines visions, is original and catholic, so far as possible. If one may speak of genius in connection with chess, then you may concede it to Morphy, Steinitz, Pillsbury, Loyd. But to call Rubinstein a genius is a perversion of words. Rubinstein has a reproductive, eclectic and critical talent, by means of which, aided by immense industry, an iron will and a suitable disposition, he has climbed to the summit of success. To speak of him as a genius is nothing less than sheer thoughtless worshipping l of success.” ,

In proof of his contention that Rubinstein’s power is an expression of technical knowledge, and not of genius. Leonhardt cites and annotates the two following games—the first from the recent Breslau International Tournament, and the other from the all-Russian master tourney at Vilna in September, from which again Rubinstein emerged victor, (lu the first game we have added a few notes taken from Mr. ]•’. I). Yates’ column in the Yorkshire Weekly Post.”)

Played in the first round of the Breslau International Tournament. Q.P. Opening—lrregular Defence. White. Black Rubinstein. Barasz. 1. P-Q4 I’—Q3 2 P—K4 Kt—Q2 3 IP—KKt3’(a) P—K4 4 Kt—K2 P—KKt3(b) 5 B—Kt2 B—Kt2 6 Castles . . . . P—-KR4?(c) 7 P—KR3(d) < Kt—K2 8 P—KB4 I’xQP(e) 9 KtxP .... Kt—Biff) 10 Kt—Qß3 B—Q2 11 B—K3 i... Q —Blfg) 12 K R.2 . P—KB4 13 I’xP I’xU 14 P—KR4 K—QI (k) 15 R—KI B—QB3 lt> Ktxß ch P.xKt(i) 17 ,B—Q4 B.xß 18 Qxß R- KKtl 19 Q B 6 Q__Q 2 .(j) 20 R - K3??(k) Kt Kt 3 21 QR—KI Q —Kl’(l) 22 KtK t-5! (m) .. : Q —Bl (n) 23 Q—KO Q—Kt2 24 KtxQP! (o) PxKt 25 QxP ch . K— Bl(p) 20 BxP?(q) R—QI 27 B—Kt7 ch(rt Kxß 28 R—Kt3 ch.’tfs) K—Bl 29 Q—Bscli K—Q2 30 Q—Kts eh K—Q.3 31 R—Q3 ch K-B2 32 Q—R5 ch K Kt2 33 R—Kt3 ch K —Bl 34 Q-B5 eh K—Q2 35 Q Kts ch K—Q3(t) 36 Q Kt7(u) Q—Qsfv> 37 RiKt3) K 3 Q —Q4 38 R Q3(w) QxR h 9 PxQ QR Ktl 40 QxP R.xPch 41 K—R3 R(Q1) — QKt I 42 Q K. 3 R( Kt 7) B7(x) 43 Q Q4eh Kt -Q4??(y) 44 R—K5! R(Ktl) —Kt 7 45 QxKt eh K—B2 46 Q —<B7 ch . Kesignstz) (a) A colourltws move. The proper corrtinu,fHon was Kt KR.3. After 3 Kt K 83,1 B QB4, Black would be involveil in the no longer playable Hanbam variation. (Leonhardt.) (b) I’ KIM is to be considered here. (L.) (c) Tlie sense of this move is, of course, no more thin thit of a sa'liYerattling demount ration, intended to upset Rubinstein’s equanimity. Lowtzky also bluffed Rubinstein by I’--KR4. (L.y (<lj Providing against P—RS. (Yates), (e) The exchange prevents the opening of the Bnhop’s (He. -(Ystes.)

(f) Kt -QH4 Was certainly better. (L.)

(g> Black plays an extremely biz.ir.e game. But he is obliged to move conI- Irainedly, for there 'are no simple- an I ■sound moves open. No wonder Black’s petition in a few movcis chould become untenable. (L.) Black has come out of the opening stage with the inferior guile. Q—Bl further cramps the Black pieces, as well as retards castling Q, which was the only safe course. (Yates.)

(h) His slight attack being now neutralised, Black inuist' do something for the ■safety of Iris King, for the King’s file will soon be in the line of fire. (L.) (if In order to bring the QR into operation on the Kt’s file, but the move creates a new weakness, avoidable bv KtxKt. ■ (L.) (j> Kt — Kt 3 would have led to 20. B—B3. But a niirhap should have attended the text move. (L.)

(The position after this move is: — r2klsrl, p.lpqs3, 2ppiQ2. splp, 51’11’, 2S3PI. PPP3BK, R3R3.)

(k) Ihe move is of course quite good. But why White failed to end the game by 20. BxP, Qxß; 21. QxKt ch, K—Bl; 22. Q —B7, R—RI; 23. Q —Kt7, or Kt — Q 5 is a puzzle to us. But stranger things follow. (L.)

(l) Inexplicable! R—QKt sq was plain enough. (L.) (m) A combination at last! Black’s miserable position cried out for annihilation. KtxßP and Kt—Q4 are now both threatened. (L.) (n) Q —Q2 would have evoked Kt—Q4: and R—B sq, KtxßP. The text move is only temporarily helpful. (L.)

(of Removes the Pawn guard, and should render mate easy (1..). A sound sacrifice. White obtains three Pawns for the piece, and brings the King into a hopelessly exposed position. (Yates.)

(p) If K—KI, a Rook is lost. (L.) (The position after this move is: — rlk3rl, p.3slql, 2pQ2sl, splp, 51’11'. 4RIPI, PPP3BK. 4R3.)

<9l Again White lets slip the strongest continuation. If Rubenstein had anv combinative ability, he would not have missed the opportunity of announcing mate in at most seven moves! —i.e., 26. B—B sq, R—QKt sq (26. . . . P—RI; 27. R—Kt 3. etc.); 27. B—R6 ch, R -Kt2; 28. BxR ch. Kxß: 29. R —Kt3 ch, K—R sq; 30. Q—B7. Kt—Q4; 31. QxBP ell. Q — Kt2; 32. QxQ ch. However the text move spoils nothing. (L.)

IWe must protest against Leonhardt’s conclusion, which has for its main premiss the assumption that combinative placers made no oversights.—Editor 8.t’.M.1"

(r) Again missing the nail! On Q—Bs the mate was easy, for BxR and B—R4 were both threatened. Black would have had nothing better than 27

R—Q7 ch: 28. K— R sq, Q—Q5; 29. QxQ RxQ; 30. BxR, and would have certainly resigned (L.).

(s) Knocks the bottom out of the bucket! After 28. RxKt ch. Kt.xß; 29. RxKt ch, QxR; 30. QxQ ch. K—B3; 31. Q—K6 ch, followed by QxP, the game might still have been slowly won bv help of the surplus Pawns. But the text move seems to finish \\ bite’s powder, for it is not easy to see now how a win can be forced. (L.)

(t) Che same position as after the 30th

(u) Despite his weakness in material White decides to play again for a win, The text move threatens R—Q3 ch, win ning the Queen or mating. (L.) (r) Necessary, or further disasters ensue. (L.)

(w) Its no use: there, is .no mate- in sight, and White must take what is to be had. (L.)

(x) Black has got bold, ami -plays to win. But from this standpoint the move is a mistake, as the sequel shows. Black should have kept tlm Rooks togetln-r a while, and ensured the safety of his King. It iuiglit have-been possible to do something for him then. Probably, however, the correct outcome is a draw in any ease (L). A longer resistance might have been made by K—B2. though 'Black’s pieces are so disorganised that loss ’ was unavoidable (Yatesl. (y) A bad blunder. A draw results from 43 K—B2; 44. RxKt, Ktxß; 45. Q —K5 ch. K—Bl; 46. QxKt, R (Ktl) —Kt 7; for White is forced to give perpetual cheek (L). (z) If an expert were shown this game without being told who the players were.' J think he would ascribe it to a second class uiurney. (L.) French Defence. White. Blank. Rubinstein Von Krey-mann (la>dz) (St. Petersburg). 1- I’— Q4 P—K3

2- P—K4 P—Q4 3. Kt—Qß3 Kt—Kß3 4. B— KKt5 B—Kts(a) 5 - P—K5 P—KR3 6. B—R4(b) P—KKt4 7. B—Kt.3 Kt—Ks 8. Kt—K2 P—QB4 9.. P— QR3 B—R4?(e) 10 - p xP KtxKt 11. KtxKt BxKtoh 42. Pxß Q—R4 13. Q —Q2 Kt—Q2 !4- p— KR4! KR—Ktl(d) I-’- PxP I’xP 16. P—QB4! QxßP(e) 17. R—R,» p x p 18- KxP . R—Rt 19 - R QU P—Kt4 20. B—R4(f) q_R2Q 4> 21. P—Kt3’(h) B— Kt2 22. Q—Kt4(i) Q—B4 23. QxQ KtxQ 24. B— K2 B— KA! (j) 25. K—Q2 C astles QReh 26. K—Bl Rkßcli 27. BxR K-B2 28. R—R5 .. : ll ( k ) 29. B—K7 K—Kt3 30. 'R— R 4 B—Q4! (l) 31. R—:R7 . . 1’ —R 4 32. RxP p_Kts 33. PxP pxP 34. K—Q2(m) R—RB! 35. B—K2 R—R7 36. BxKtch Kxß 37. K—Bi P—B6! 38. K—Ktl R—Kt7ch 39. Resigns. Notes by Herr Leonhardt. (a) Ihe so-called McCutcheon variation of the French. No ele ir judgment in respect to it has been formed up to now. (b) Preference has lately been given to this old method of handling it. (c) 9. . . , BxKt ch is better, with the continuation 10. Ktxß, KtxKt; 11. PxKt. Q—R4; 12. Q—Q2. I’xP (or 12. . . . , Kt—B3). . - . (d) Yields the R file to White, and exposes himself to powerful attacks from his opponent’s Rook. Hence. P—Kts was quite necessary, although certain disadvantages result from it. (e) Black will not exchange Queens, for the end-game would be favourable to White; moreover, the Knight could have developed to 83. (f) Very good! Black cannot take the B, as either mate or loss of Q follows. Ip to this point Rubinstein lias played the game excellently, and has acquired -such a decided superiority of position that it is difficult to understand how lie could throw away the game.

(The position after this move is- — rlblk2r,p2 s 1 p 2, 4 p 3, 1 p q 1 P 1 R 1. 2p48. P 7, 2PI)IPPI, 3RK82.)

(g) Black is quite crippled. JTa would na-turall.v like to plav the B to Kt2 in order to block the Queen's file at Q 4. He can only thank his opponent for allowing the manoeuvre to-succeed. (h) A glaring instance again in pi-oof of Rubinstein’s subordinate talent for combination. Who would have misused the decisive move of Q —Kt4. Black must have resigned at once, for against the threat’ of R—KtBcli, with Q—K7 mate, there is no remedy. If Blailk play Kt or Q to 84. the piece is simply taken, for mate follows on QB. And if Black seeks defence in Kt—Bsq, then 22. R—KtB, RxR (22. .. , QxKPch; 23. B—K2 ); 23'. QxßPch!! and Black loses the Q. Rubinstein's blunder -has changed the whole situation at one stroke.

(i) Too late! Now that Q 8 is covered, Black can parry the attack. (j> The tables are turning! (k) A very good move. Black wants to get through with his Pawns on the QueCn's side. (l) He leaves his BP to force the game on the Queen’s wing. ( m) P—B6. with a mating combina.tion, was threatened.

Solutions of Christmas Batch of Problems. No. 183 (Carpenter).—I. R—-Kt7. •No. 184 (Heathcote).-‘-1. B— 85. No. 185 (Roegner.)—l. K—-Kt2. ■No. 180 (Iversen). —1. B—B3. (No. 187 (Schosc-hin).—l. B—Bs. No. 188 (Teed).—). R—QBsq. No. 189 (Mach).—l. Q-Qf>. No. 190 (Abbott).—l. Q X|Kt7. No. 191 (Shinktnan).—l. Q—QR 3. ■ Solution of Problem Me. 193. (Schuster). 1. P— Q 4.