Category Archives: Level

Blumenfeld’s rule

Posted on by

Just done a quick whizz through the site to patch up all mentions of Blumenfeld’s advice (which was passed on by Kotov and Webb in their best known books).  The advice is:

Blumenfeld’s rule:

“It often happens that a player carries out a deep and complicated calculation, but fails to spot something elementary right at the first move. In order to avoid such gross blunders, the Soviet master B. Blumenfeld made this recommendation:-
When you have finished your calculations, write down the move you have decided upon on the score sheet. Then examine the position for a short time ‘through the eyes of a patzer’. Ask whether you have left a mate in one on, or left a piece or a pawn to be taken. Only when you have convinced yourself that there is no immediate catastrophe for you should you make the planned move.“

— KOTOV
However, in the last FIDE revision of the rules, this practice is now considered note-taking, and is forbidden.  I don’t know how many players are complaining about it, nor how many controllers coming down on it (after all, this is a habit of some years’ standing for many players)… but it is illegal.  So what can we do instead?
Well, the idea is, to take a fresh look.  As long as you can make that last-minute check without the aid of props, you should do so.  Ways of producing a physical prompt or routine that don’t require pen and paper include:

  • shut your eyes for a second or two
  • walk around your chair
  • look at the board next to you then look back
  • go and stand behind your opponent and see how it looks from their side
  • slap yourself firmly (it works for TVs, right?)
  • visit your private toilet facility

I wish everyone a happy and blunder-free New Year, although yesterday I managed to get the order of moves reversed, with dire consequences… Physician, heal thyself!

P.S.

Contemporaneous comments from DrDave:

“You’ve all seen people do this. I’ve also seen people do it badly. The idea is to snap yourself out of the trance of analysis and take a fresh look. there are two basic ways of mishandling the method:

  I have seen players write down a losing move while nodding and smirking, look over the board again still nodding, and then play the move. Useless – just going through the motions. I guess they were just revising their latest thoughts on the position. You must jump! snap! start! your thinking again, to see if you have overlooked anything at the start of your thinking. You are not checking conclusions – you are checking assumptions. [If they had genuinely re-started their thinking there would have been a change in body language – not a smooth progression from choosing to writing to blundering, nodding all the while.]

 The second useless way of implementing Blumenfeld’s rule is to carry on thinking about the position. You see players with two, three, maybe four moves written down and crossed out over the course of fifteen minutes. This is hopeless indecision. You write the move down once you have decided on it. You then check it in case it is a blunder – not to see if you prefer another move. If there is nothing obvious tactically wrong with it, you must play it or you will run out of time. If you use the time to think about other moves you are not only wasting time, you are not even safeguarding yourself against blunders!”

The pieces at their best

Posted on by

How pawns make life easy (and hard) for pieces.

The best B Q K N R P ever!

Also, the best pieces and the worst pawns…

The Art of Analysis, Part 1

Posted on by

Let us begin with a mistake – what we might call
positional mistake:

“Positional sense should free you from the slavery
of `variations’.” – Nimzovitch

Statements like this, and one or two other factors, led me to
neglect the analysis of variations – instead preferring to develop
positional assessments – for many years. It is possible to consider
positional judgement and planning as somehow a higher calling,
which avoids the need for grubby heavy analysis. This, however, was
a mistake on my part.

Here is some treatment for people suffering from the same
condition:

“What is the essence of the chess master’s art?
Fundamentally it consists of the ability to analyse chess
positions.

“Home analysis has specific features of its own: you are
not restricted by time, and you can move the men freely. Despite
this difference between home analysis and practical play, there is
much in common between them. It is a well-known fact that almost
all the outstanding chess-players have been first-class analysts.
(…)

“It is useful to publish your individual analytical work.
Then you are subject to objective criticism.” – Botvinnik, 100
SELECTED GAMES.

“So I began to analyse games…” – Timman, THE ART OF
CHESS ANALYSIS

“I got to know Mark (Dvoretsky) at the very beginning of my chess
career, at one of the sessions of Botvinnik’s chess school in 1974;
in those days, Dvoretsky was Botvinnik’s assistant. (…)

“We are adherents of the same, analytical, way, and we
believe in the triumph of analytical penetration into the secrets
of a position” – Kasparov, Preface to Dvoretsky’s SECRETS OF CHESS
TRAINING (FIRST PUBLISHED IN RUSSIA AS “THE ART OF ANALYSIS”).

“I selected from tournament books those games in which the greatest
complications had arisen. (Then) set myself the task of thinking
long and hard so as to analyse all the possible variations. I would
sometimes … write down the variations I had examined and then I
would compare them with those of the annotator. (…)

“Great help can be got from solving studies from a
diagram without setting up the position on the board.” – Kotov,
THINK LIKE A GRANDMASTER

“Analysis, if it is really carried out with a complete
concentration of his powers, forms and completes a chess
player.” – Polugayevsky

“Many players, even of a high calibre, will assert,
half jokingly and half seriously, that a difficult labour of
analysis can be replaced by intuition. ‘I played this move in a
flash – it was obvious it couldn’t be bad‘ is the sort of
thing we often hear in a post-mortem.
“Criticising such a policy is not simple – not after it has just
been successful! <…> Instead of appraising the state of struggle
on the basis of precise calculation, Black makes a move, which on
general considerations, is wholly in the spirit of the position – a
flank attack is countered by a break in the centre. Yet in chess
there are no axioms.”

— ZAK, Improve your chess results.

Two sorts of games should hold a special place in your own study:
(a) Analysis of master games, and (b) analysis of your own games
(especially losses). So, I have an exercise which involves
neither…

I have been privileged to obtain a copy of the six games
from the first match of the Exeter `A’ team this season. I propose
to analyse each game with the coaching group during a session in
the New Year, but I would like you to have a go at analysing them
first. Then we can compare notes…

How do you analyse a chess game?

If it’s someone else’s:
(1) Play through the whole game fairly quickly, seeing what ebb and
flow the game had.
(2) Divide the game up into episodes, even if they are only opening
middlegame and endgame, and try to describe what happened and who
if anyone had the advantage.
(3) Try and find the critical steps, where one or other side made
an important choice (even if it was only to overlook
something!).
(4) Put your account aside for a few days and have a fresh look
later. What other ideas now occur to you? Did you make a too-smooth
moral fable out of a more fluctuating scrap?

If it’s your own:
(1) write down as much as you can remember about what you thought
about at the time, and
(2) any thought your opponent shared during a Post Mortem.
(3) Leave it for a few days and come back fresh, then analyse it as
you would somebody else’s. Be particularly wary of self-serving
interpretations, especially of the “I was winning all the way
through” variety. What did you miss?

Below, Round numbers are board numbers. The Exeter players
(White on even boards) hold BCF grades this year between 171 and
156; Teignmouth between 180 and 130. These are roughly between 2000
and 1600 ELO.

N.B. Games 2 and 5 feature an early loss of material; to
analyse past this point, in Game 5 at least, may not be very
profitable.

Click […] for list of games

Our analysis: https://devonjuniorchess.co.uk/wp/drdaveexeter/2026/09/21/the-art-of-analysis-part-2-2/

“To take is a mistake”

Posted on by

I’ve heard this a lot recently — is it true?
(SPOILER: often but not always)

Clarity and anxiety in junior chess

I see this played quite a lot in the Scotch Game at the junior club:

White’s Queen occupies a fine central square and cannot be bothered by
Black’s minor pieces.

Why do juniors swap so readily? I think the tension gets to them. They
have learned that an unresolved tension (Nd4-Nc6) might be overlooked
later on (Qf3?? Nxd4 or Nc3 d6; Bc4 b6??; Nxc6+ or Bc5 Be3 Nge7?? Nxc6).
But swapping can also be a mistake. I think 4…Nxd4? just gives White
better chances, but I also think 3…exd4 is more or less forced. So,
how do you judge when to keep, and when to release, the tension? When
do you seek to swap, and when to hold steady?

The ability to create and to control the tension of battle is perhaps
the principal attainment of the great player. — Savielly Tartakower

To take is a mistake – definitely!

Opposed Rooks

Swapping a developed piece

Remember the start of the Opera Box Game?

Assessing exchanges

Some related examples from recent junior matches:




Don’t simplify against Capablanca!,

… I keep telling them at the office. (CHERNEV)

If Black hopes to swap their way to a draw in the Ruy Lopez exchange variation, they are mistaken! Every swap brings White closer to a won Pawn endgame.

Capa was master of the advantageous exchange, allowing the opponent to
weaken their position with every tempting swap.

To take is a mistake – well, sometimes!

Exchanging to victory:




Another tense formation (NID):

Many top-level opening choices have some sort of unresolved tension like
this. In fact, following Carlsen, the aim of the opening may not be a
fruitless search for an advantage as White or equality as Black, but
a position which gives you chances to outplay your opponent.

The whole concept has changed! Now the main concept is “to get a

layable position and maintain the tension”. – Sergey Karjakin

‘Release and strike’

Compare, exhibit A, getting into trouble in the Slav:

And Exhibit B, a modern main line:

Similarly:


And lastly:


Compare this
equalising line in the Queen’s Gambit Declined, Orthodox Variation:

You see exchanges used brilliantly in so many of Capablanca’s games,
either to consolidate a plus or to step aside neatly out of pressure.
It’s easy to appreciate, hard to do!

Never make a good move too soon – James Mason

The threat is stronger than its execution. Nimzowitsch

Sometimes the hardest thing to do in a pressure situation is to allow
the tension to persist. The temptation is to make a decision, any
decision, even if it is an inferior choice. — Garry Kasparov

A swap is rarely neutral – it will favour one side or the other.
So make sure it’s you! — Me

Free chess coaching videos online

Posted on by

I’ve been slow to tune in to what’s available on places like YouTube for chess instruction, but here’s a start, and I’ll add to it over the while.

Comments and recommendations welcome; if there’s an obvious gap I might have a go myself.

Lessons in Philidor’s Defence

Posted on by

Coaching Zone at East Devon Congress 2026

Posted on by

Thanks to all those who attended, shared games, contributed comments and heckled; I hope you got something out of taking part.

LINK to Lichess study for Saturday game analysis: https://lichess.org/study/6WyVNXpv/

LINK to Lichess study for Sunday game analysis: https://lichess.org/study/QIirDybT

Short talks

Not all the talks actually happened but here are the intended slides; the slides were designed to support a talk and not to stand alone.

AnalyseYourGamesDownload
BoardsightVisualisationDownload
Blunder-proofingDownload
CandidateMovesDownload
ElementsEvaluationDownload
EndgamesTipsResourcesDownload
MistakesMinorDownload
MistakesMajorDownload
PlanningDownload
OpeningsQ&ADownload
UsingComputersDownload

Lessons from the lost No.1s

Posted on by

The FIDE Elo rating system began in 1971. Elo did a bit of study trying to work the ratings backwards, but the chief scholar in this regard is Jeff Sonas http://chessmetrics.com/cm/. Jeff devised his own rating system, however — using an ‘absentee’ penalty for periods of non-playing. This leads to odd-looking results like Lasker’s repeated plummets and recoveries here:

ChronoGraph-1840-2005.gif

Anyhow, whatever the merits of his system, it has yielded some intriguing results, including a month-by-month tracking of who is the world No.1-rated player. Apart from the world champions, you can see above that Zukertort and Korchnoi both broke the surface at some point, and there are other non-champions in the lists.

  • Kieseritzky
  • von der Lasa
  • Harrwitz
  • duBois
  • Morphy [https://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/lessons-morphy]
  • Paulsen
  • Suhle
  • Kolisch
  • Neumann
  • Gunsberg
  • Zukertort
  • Pillsbury
  • Maròczy
  • Rubinstein [https://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/lessons-rubinstein]
  • Fine
  • Bronstein
  • Reshevsky
  • Korchnoi [https://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/lessons-korchnoi]

Anyhow, with nothing much better to do, I thought I would pull together some instructive games from each player who hadn’t yet had the ‘Lessons from…’ treatment.

    Kieseritzky

    The name of Kieseritzky is known as to most as the loser of one of Anderssen’s brilliancies, and to players of gambits — he gave his name to the main variation of the King’s Gambit and the Boden-Kieseritsky Gambit. He defeated everyone at some point, did well in matches and enjoyed more than one period at the top of the ChessMetrics league table. He also makes an early bid for the largest collection of names.

    von der Lasa

    One of the Berlin ‘Pleiades’ (including
    Paul von Bilguer,
    Ludwig Bledow,
    Wilhelm Hanstein,
    Bernhard Horwitz,
    Carl Mayet and
    Carl Schorn). No slouch in the name department, von der Lasa was a player of the first rank but never played a formal match or tournament. Yet in series of casual games he outscored Staunton twice and apparently Anderssen too. Not sure ChessMetrics should be including casual games.

    Harrwitz

    Remembered often as Morphy’s first match victim in Europe, Harrwitz was certainly a worthy candidate for a match, even if Morphy made short work of him. The opening he used to defeat Morphy in their first game still bears his name.

    duBois

    An Italian player who rarely left his country, I think he crept to the top in the late 1850s by a big score in matches, but it’s not clear.

    Paulsen

    Stereotyped as the first great master of defence, he was also a fine attacking player. And of course, to win the game, eventually the defender must become the attacker.

    Suhle

    Suhle’s brief appearance among the No.1s seems to arise from his demolition of his fellow Berliner, Paul Hirschfield, in a match, at a time when other top players were relatively inactive.

    von Kolisch

    von Kolisch abandoned chess for the pursuit of money, at which he turned out to be equally adept.

    Neumann

    Another Berliner, his great achievement was a storming performance at Dundee.

    Zukertort

    Zukertort contested the World Championship more than once, at great cost to his health. His own ‘Immortal’ is a real gem:

    Gunsberg

    Gunsberg’s reign at the top of the lists was just one month! But no fluke — he contested a close match with Steinitz in 1890, losing 4-6. Steinitz’ famous stubbornness in accepting the gambit pawn and hanging on for dear life may have made the score a little generous.

    Pillsbury

    Pillsbury’s name is more familiar than many on this list, and he has given his name to opening variations. His dazzling triumph at Hastings in 1895 make him the next great American conqueror; his short life the next tragedy.

    Maròczy

    Maròczy played chess at the top level at the turn of the century, took some time off, then returned as strong as ever. He edged out Pillsbury at Monte Carlo in 1902.

    Bogoljubow

    The burly Bogo is often regarded as being a punchbag and figleaf while Alekhin was ducking Capablanca’s challenge. We’ll never know what would have happened if Capa had ever come up with the same amount of prize money he demanded from Alekhin (following the stock market crash, this was a big ask), but while Bogoljubow wasn’t a match for Alekhin, he was no pushover, and had a couple of months at the top of the Chessmetrics lists. His legacy is strongly defended in a couple of recent books by Bogdanovich.

    Fine

    Fine gave up chess for psychoanalysis — ‘a loss for chess and at best a draw for psychoanalysis’, someone quipped. The war years interfered with his career but he could beat anybody on the day and had a plus score against Botvinnik:

    Bronstein

    The ‘co-World Champion’ and possibly the world’s grumpiest loser was the author of some fine and charming books, in which it is straightforward and a pleasure to find instructive moments. This is a bravura attacking game:

    Reshevsky

    Reshevsky is notable for his early promise and his longevity in the top ranks of chess, despite his amateur status in the modern era (he was an accountant). However, some of his best years coincided with war, and he never was able to break through to be a challenger in the 1950s — possibly because of collusion between Soviet players at Zurich 1953, at about which time he tops the Chessmetrics rating list. He qualified for the Candidates’ for the last and sixth time in 1967.

Opening inspiration

Posted on by

I have produced a bunch of short booklets with illustrative games as a ‘starter kit’ to introduce young players to an opening system or defence, like the one on the Colle System.

The other booklets and their accompanying PGN files are not public, but I put together a collection of illustrative games for each booklet, and these are available as Lichess studies, linked below.  Use CTRL_F to find the name you are after:

1.d4 Black Death inspiration
1.e4 odds inspiration
Accelerated Dragon Inspiration
Alekhin Inspiration
All-purpose System Inspiration
Anti-Sicilian inspiration
Arkhangel inspiration
b4 vs Indians inspiration
Benko Inspiration
Benoni inspiration
Benonis2 repertoire
Bg5 vs Indians inspiration
Black 1.e4 e5 inspiration – Others
Black 1.e4 e5 inspiration: Spanish Italian
Cambridge Springs Inspiration
Caro-Kann inspiration
Classical Nimzo Endgames inspiration
Classical Nimzo-Indian 4.Qc2 inspiration
Colle system inspiration
Colle-Zukertort inspiration
Colle-Zukertort inspiration  (Clone)
Danish Gambit Inspiration
Dutch Inspiration
Evans Gambit Inspiration
Evans repertoire
f3 vs Indians inspiration
Forward f4 inspiration
French inspiration
French Tarrasch inspiration
G for Gambit inspiration
GK inspiration: KID
GK inspiration: Scheveningen
GK inspiration: Scheveningen (2)
Grand Prix Attack Inspiration
Grunfeld Exchange Inspiration
Grunfeld inspiration
HeavyMob inspiration  (English, Reti, Catalan)
Hungarian KID inspiration
IQP inspiration
Italian inspiration
Karlsbad inspiration
King’s Indian Attack Inspiration
King’s Indian Inspiration
London System inspiration
Modern Defence Inspiration
Morra Gambit inspiration
Nimzo-Indian Inspiration
Old Indian inspiration
Petroff inspiration
Pirc inspiration
Queens Gambit Inspiration
Queen’s Indian inspiration
Repertoire Danish & Goring Gambits Inspiration
Ruy Lopez Inspiration
Samisch KID inspiration
Scandinavian inspiration
Schliemann inspiration
Scotch Inspiration
Secret Weapons vs Indians inspiration
Semi-Slav Inspiration
Sicilian Dragon inspiration
Sicilian English Attack inspiration
Sicilian Inspiration
Sicilian Scheveningen inspiration
Sicilian Sveshnikov inspiration
Slav inspiration
Swiss Inspiration
Tarrasch Defence inspiration

Lessons from Tartakower

Posted on by

Savielly Tartakower was the wittiest of masters, and, it was said, “too in love with chess to ever become world champion”. According to his translator, Golombek, he would reject a simple advantageous line in the hope of creating something more worthwhile with a more complex line. This is undoubtedly an expression of Tartakower’s taste: less for him could mean only less, and Capablanca’s trademark efficiency and elegance had no personal appeal for SGT.

He was regarded as world champion journalist, and his best games collections from Bell (published as a single volume by Dover, superb value as long as you speak descriptive) are peppered with anecdotes, bon mots , and provocative observations. For example, he throws away in a footnote one of the best definitions I have seen of a game that would qualify for a beauty prize. His epigrams, or Tartakowerisms, as they were called, are a splendid source of entertainment for the armchair player.

The chessplayer’s proof of existence: “ Erro ergo sum ” (I err, therefore I am).

“Some part of a mistake is always correct.”

“The blunders are all there on the board, waiting to be made.”

“An isolated Pawn spreads gloom over the whole chessboard”

“A chess game is divided into three stages: the first, when you hope you have the advantage, the second when you believe you have an advantage, and the third… when you know you’re going to lose!”

“A draw can be obtained normally by repeating three moves, but also by one bad move.”

“The winner of the game is the player who makes the next-to-last mistake.”

The Dover book also records some of his favourite quips: he was once scolded by Capablanca: ”

‘You have no solidity’
 ‘That is my saving grace’ ,” he replied.

In these volumes, and his famous annotated collection of games edited with duMont, he emphasises the didactic qualities of each game, pointing out which chess concepts the games exemplify.

But the chess is superb too. He was a tireless experimenter in the openings, a true hypermodern, a fearless attacker and a man regarded by Nimzovitch as one of the top endgame players in the world at the time (in the rather teasing statement “the third best endgame artist of all the living masters”). His style matured, from early heroics and later love of complexity (‘a system consisting in the lack of system”), into a player who could really play any sort of position well – a hallmark of all the great masters.

Opening

Tartakower Saviely – Mieses Jacques [A82], Baden-Baden, 1925

SGT titles this game, “The miniature blockade”. Before this game had drawn five games in a row, and his opponent teased him:

“Have you had sufficient preparation for obtaining your 6th draw?”.

1.d4 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g4 A hypermodern touch, considered by modern theory as over-doing things a bit. 4…d5 5.g5 Ng8 6.f3 exf3 7.Qxf3 e6 8.Bd3 g6

After just eight moves, Black is riddled with dark-square holes. 9.Nge2 Qe7 10.Bf4 c6 11.Be5 Bg7 12.Qg3 Na6 13.0-0 Bd7 A gesture towards development. 14.Bd6 Qd8 15.Qf4

A fine example of a weak colour-complex. 1-0

Tartakower Saviely – Przepiorka Dawid [B12] Budapest (Hungary), 1929

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3 “New and good”, claimed SGT; this offshoot is enjoying a current fashion among English GMs. 3…dxe4 4.fxe4 e5 5.Nf3 “Stimulates the game to fresh activity” SGT 5…exd4 6.Bc4 Be6

Offering an exchange, of which GM Tartakower is not too shy. 7.Bxe6 fxe6 8.0-0 Be7 9.Nxd4 Qd7 10.Qh5+ Kd8 11.Be3 c5 12.Rd1! A sacrifice! 12…cxd4 13.Rxd4 Bd6 14.e5 Nf6 15.exf6 gxf6 16.Nc3 This game, says SGT, with its varied motifs, gives him the most pleasure of all his creations. 1-0

Middlegame

Maroczy,G – Tartakower,S Teplitz-Schonau, 1922

1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5

This is an important bit of move-order: the option of …Bb4(+) gives Black several nice ways of avoiding the main lines of the Dutch. 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.a3 Be7 5.e3 0-0 6.Bd3 d5 7.Nf3 c6 8.0-0 Ne4 9.Qc2 Bd6 10.b3 Nd7 11.Bb2 Rf6 12.Rfe1 Rh6 13.g3 Qf6 14.Bf1 g5 15.Rad1 g4 16.Nxe4 fxe4 17.Nd2

17…Rxh2

Spielmann remarked that when you see a player make a sacrifice of a Rook, you can also see the immediate concrete threats that motivated it. The only exception to this he knew was this extraordinary sacrifice of Tartakower, where tactical threats manifest themselves only later.

18.Kxh2 Qxf2+ 19.Kh1 Nf6 20.Re2 Qxg3 21.Nb1 Nh5 22.Qd2 Bd7 23.Rf2 Qh4+ 24.Kg1 Bg3 25.Bc3 Bxf2+ 26.Qxf2 g3 27.Qg2 Rf8 28.Be1 Rxf1+ 29.Kxf1 e5 30.Kg1 Bg4 31.Bxg3 Nxg3 32.Re1 Nh5 33.Qf2 Qg5 34.dxe5 Bf3+ 35.Kf1 Ng3+

If this sacrifice looks more routine now – like one of Tal’s – it is a tribute to the influence this game has had on sacrificial technique. Once SGT had shown that this sort of thing can work, other players felt brave enough to have a go. But you can search the games of earlier masters of attack like Morphy and Andersson and find nothing like it. Fabulous. 0-1

Tartakower Saviely – Tarrasch Siegbert [A52] It, Semmering , 1926

“My Best Game”.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4

A curiosity: the austere Tarrasch ventures this gambit of the hypermoderns Breyer and Abonyi, while Tartakower replies in the style of… Dr.Tarrasch. Critics of Tartakower often dismissed his style as trappy, and suggested he won only games that his opponents contrived to lose; but Tartakower says of his opponent’s play in this game that it is remarkably free from errors.

4.e4 Nxe5 5.Nc3 Bb4 6.Nf3 Bxc3+ 7.bxc3 Qe7 8.Be2 0-0 9.Nd4 d6 10.0-0 Na6 11.f4 Nc6 12.Re1 Nxd4 13.cxd4

White offers a Pawn, which there is no point in declining.

13…Qxe4 [13…Bd7 14.Bd3 Nb4 15.Bb1 Rad8 16.a3± SGT] 14.Bf3 Qg6 15.Ba3 Qf6 16.Qd2 c6 17.d5 c5 18.Bb2 Qd8 19.Qc3 f6 20.Re3 Bd7 21.Rae1 Rf7 22.g4 Nc7 23.g5

Tartakower’s strategy is all straight lines and moral rectitude, lofty ideals that triumph over the material Pawn deficit.

23…Ne8 24.f5 fxg5 25.Bh5 Nf6 26.Bxf7+ Kxf7 27.Qd2 Ng8 28.Qe2 Bxf5 29.Rf3 Nh6 30.Rxf5+ Nxf5 31.Qe6+ Kf8 32.Qxf5+ Kg8 33.Qe6+ Kh8 34.Rf1 1-0

“You really have confidence in your pieces”, commented Tarrasch. “Rather, my pieces have confidence in me”, replied SGT.

Tartakower,S – Colle,E [A00] Bartfeld, 1926

1.b4

“The ultimate truth in chess?” SGT

1…e5 2.Bb2 f6 3.e4 Bxb4 4.Bc4 Ne7 5.f4

A hearteningly fresh angle on this opening, although again, by modern standards, again over-doing things a bit. Why Capablanca was whingeing that chess openings had been played out is a mystery, though…

5…d5 6.exd5 exf4 7.Qf3 Bd6 8.Ne2 Ng6 9.d4 Qe7 10.Bc1 Bf5 11.Bd3 Bxd3 12.Qxd3 0-0 13.0-0 Re8 14.Nxf4 Nxf4 15.Bxf4 Bxf4 16.Rxf4

Tartakower reflects here that his opening has not been much of a success.

16…Na6 17.Nd2 Qe3+ 18.Qxe3 Rxe3

19.Rb1 Rc3 20.Rb2 b6 21.Rf3 Rxf3 22.gxf3

Now White is better placed to make use of his advantages. He will create a passed d-Pawn.

22…Rd8 23.c4 Nb8 24.Kf2 Kf7 25.a4 c6

A sign of distress: Black helps White with his main plan, for fear of making more concessions trying to do something to stop it.

26.dxc6 Nxc6 27.d5 Na5 28.Ke3 Nb7 29.Kd4 Rc8 30.Ne4 h6

31.a5!

The Black knight is tied to d6.

31…f5 32.axb6 fxe4 33.bxa7 1-0

Lowcki,N – Tartakower,S [C41] Jurata, 1937

“A bizarre ending”.

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 Be6 4.Bxe6 fxe6 5.c3 Nc6 6.Qb3 Qc8 7.Ng5 Nd8

A curiously cramped system to adopt. 8.0-0 [8.d4] 8…Be7 9.d4 Bxg5 10.Bxg5 Nf7 11.Bh4 c6 12.Nd2 Qd7 13.Rad1 exd4 14.cxd4 Ne7 15.f4 0-0 16.Bxe7 Qxe7 17.f5

White is determined to make something stick.

17…Nd8 18.Rde1 Kh8 19.d5 cxd5 20.exd5 e5 21.Ne4 Nf7 22.Qe3

22…Qh4 Finally, counterplay is sought. 23.Rf3 Rac8 24.Rh3 Qf4 25.Qxa7 Rc1 26.Qe3 Rxe1+ 27.Qxe1 Ng5 28.Rh4 Qxf5

Among SGT’s craftier traps: “devilish”, he claims.

29.Nxd6 Qg6 30.Rg4 Qxd6 31.Rxg5

White has a Pawn, Black the initiative.

31…Qb6+ 32.Kh1 Qb5 33.Kg1 Qc5+ 34.Kh1 Qc4 35.Kg1 Qd4+ 36.Kh1 Qe4 37.Qc1 Qd3 38.Kg1 Qd4+ 39.Kh1 Qd2

A piquant finish to exploit the back rank, reminiscent both of the composed game Adams-Torre, and the genuine brilliancy Bernstein-Capablanca. 0-1

Endgame

Capablanca,J – Tartakower,S [B42] Vienna (2), 1914

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 a6 5.Bd3 Nf6 6.0-0 d5 7.exd5 Nxd5 8.c3 Bc5 9.Nf3 Nd7 10.Nbd2 N7f6 11.Ne4 Nxe4 12.Bxe4 Nf6 13.Qxd8+ Kxd8 14.Bc2 Ke7 15.Ng5 h6 16.Ne4 Nxe4 17.Bxe4

“What a really great virtuoso of the game of chess Senor Capablanca must have been, to have been able to inflict on his adversary – by means so simple and with such reduced material – these development troubles! A miniature type of art, but _art_ all the same.”

SGT grabs some space on the King’s-side, refusing the White Bishops space, and when White tries the same on the Queen’s-side, he takes the chance to swap off Pawns and pieces.

17…f5 18.Bc2 g5 19.Re1 Kf6 20.b4 Bb6 21.Bb2 Rd8 22.Re2 a5 23.Rae1 axb4 24.Bb3 bxc3 25.Bxc3+ Bd4 26.Bxd4+ Rxd4 27.Bxe6

The White Rooks cannot be denied an entry to e7, but after that?

27…Rd6 28.Bb3 Bd7 29.Re7 Kg6 30.h3 Rf8 31.R1e2 h5 32.Bc2 g4 33.Kh2 Rc8 34.Bb3 Rf8 35.Bc2 Rc8 36.Bb3 Rf8 37.Bc2 1/2-1/2

Sergeant,E – Tartakower,S [B02] Hastings (6), 1945

“Once demobilised and returned to civilian life, what could a chessmaster of more than fifty-eight years of age do except… continue. ”

“I tried to create for myself a new style which I may term ‘neo-pragmatic’, trying to obtain maximum effects from the reasoned co-ordination of all the four factors in chess: time, space, material and force.” SGT

Tartakower was proud to win this tournament, the first to be held after the war.

1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4.c5 Nd5 5.Bc4 e6 6.Nc3 Nxc3 7.bxc3 d5 8.cxd6 cxd6 9.exd6 Bxd6 10.d4 0-0 11.Nf3 Qc7 12.Qd3 Nd7 13.0-0 b6 14.Bb3 Bb7 15.h3 e5 16.Ng5 Nf6 17.dxe5 Bxe5 18.Ba3 Rad8 19.Qc4 Bh2+ 20.Kh1 Qxc4 21.Bxc4 Bd6 22.Bxd6 Rxd6 23.Rad1

“…the endings procured for me many an additional half-point”.

White has weaknesses on the Queen’s-side.

23…Rc6 24.Bb3 Rxc3 25.Rfe1 Rc7 26.Nxf7 Rcxf7 27.Re7 Bd5 28.Bxd5 Nxd5 29.Rxf7 Rxf7 30.Rxd5 Rxf2 31.Rd8+ Rf8 32.Rd7 a5 33.Rb7 Rf6 34.Kh2 h5 35.Kg3 Kh7 36.Kh4 Kh6 37.g4 g5+ 38.Kg3 h4+ 39.Kg2 Kg6 40.a4 Re6 41.Kf2 Kf6 42.Kf3 Kg6 43.Kf2 Rc6 44.Ke3 Rc3+ 45.Kd4 Rxh3 46.Rxb6+ Kf7 47.Rb5 Rf3 48.Rxa5 Rf4+ 49.Ke5 h3 50.Ra7+ Kg6 51.Ra6+ Kg7 52.Rb6 Rxg4 53.Rb1 Rxa4 0-1

Thomas,G – Tartakower,S [C11] Hastings (2), 1945

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Bg5 Be7 6.Nxf6+ Bxf6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6 8.c3 0-0 9.Bd3 Nc6 10.Nf3 e5 11.dxe5 Nxe5 12.Nxe5 Qxe5+ 13.Qe2 Qxe2+ 14.Bxe2

Another “… additional half-point” is in the offing. I can imagine this game being given up as a draw here at our club, and in loftier arenas too.

14…Be6

Here is the first clue: White is not yet free to develop as he wishes.

15.0-0 Rfd8 16.Rfd1 Rxd1+ 17.Bxd1 Rd8 18.Bf3! Kf8 19.b3 b6 20.Rd1 Rxd1+ 21.Bxd1 Ke7 22.Bc2 a5 23.a4?

Weakening. Leave your Pawns alone! [23.Kf1; 23.Bxh7?? g6]

23…Kd6 24.f3 Kc5 25.Kf2

White still looks solid enough, but Black can break through on the Queen’s-side.

25…c6 26.Ke3 b5 27.axb5 cxb5 28.g4 Now the Ph7 is vulnerable.

28…h6 29.h4 Bd7 30.g5 hxg5 31.hxg5 a4 32.Kf4 a3 33.Bb1 b4

“Such victories, achieved by imperceptible means, show no surface brilliance, but are all the same rich in instruction”. SGT 0-1

Gruenfeld,E – Tartakower,S [D21] Semmering, 1926

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 Bg4 4.Ne5 Bh5 5.Nxc4 e6 6.Qb3 Nc6 7.e3 Rb8 8.Nc3 Nf6 9.Be2 Bxe2 10.Nxe2 Bb4+ 11.Nc3 0-0 12.0-0 Nd5 13.Nxd5 Qxd5 14.Qc2 e5 15.Nxe5 Nxe5 16.dxe5 Qxe5 17.Bd2 Bxd2 18.Qxd2 Rfd8 19.Qc2 Rd5 20.Rad1 Rbd8 21.Rxd5 Rxd5 22.Rd1 g6 23.Rxd5 Qxd5

A delicate Queen ending has arisen. Black can count three advantages: the distant majority, the open file, and more active (centralised) Queen.

24.a3 c5 25.h3 b5 26.Qc3 c4 27.f4?! [27.f3! f5!] 27…Qe4! 28.Kf2

Black’s manoeuvres are succeeding; White attempts a blockade.

28…a5!

The delicacy goes out of the position, and a more forceful phase supersedes.

29.g4 [29.Qxa5 Qc2+ 30.Kf3 Qxb2-+] 29…h6 30.h4 Qh1 31.Kg3 Qg1+ 32.Kf3 Qh2 33.g5 h5 34.Ke4 Qxh4 35.Qxa5 Qh1+ 36.Ke5 Qc6 37.Qa7 h4 38.f5 gxf5 39.Kxf5 Qf3+ 40.Ke5 h3 41.Kd4 Qg4+ 0-1

Play-through versions of the games