The Education of a Chess Player

Source: see below

Note: updated 21/6/2019.

Above, we see a page from Israel Rabinovich-Barav's notebook of annotated games, which he kept as a young man. The notebook was loaned to me by his son, Ami Barav. The games are mostly famous ones from the 19th and early 20th century, of which the first, Schiffers vs. Chigorin, St. Petersburg, 1897, is a typical specimen. The game above is Blackburne vs. Marco, Monte Carlo, 1901.  

There are also some games where one of both of the opponents are unnamed, and one curiosity: a game allegedly by J. J. Rousseau (vs. an unnamed opponent, given in other sources as prince Conti). Barav understandably didn't know that this game, widely circulated in various sources from the mid-19th century onward, was proven by the chess historian H. J. M. Murray to have been a forgery as early as 1908, as shown by Edward Winter in a definitive article about Rousseau's chess career. 

Why did Barav copy out famous games when he could just read them in a book? The reason is obvious. Barav uses the tried-and-true method that (almost) all strong players used to get better: learning from game collections of other players, and trying to understand what both players were doing, each side's plan, where the crucial mistake was made, why it was a mistake, etc.

For this purpose, Barav annotates on his own many of the games, sometimes in great depth. His annotations are sometimes made at great length; e.g., a Tarrasch - N.N. brilliancy is annotated in five whole pages (10 columns), almost own his own.

In the Blackburne-Marco game sample page above, he notes, for example, that 5...Bxe3 is bad since it 'opens the f-file for the [white] rook', and similarly that 10,,,Nxb3 is weak since 'Black wants to gain the upper hand on the queen's side, but by this weakens the king's side'.

Opening Novelties and Witty Annotations

The following game was played between Yisrael Yosef Kniazer and Moshe Czerniak in the Jerusalem - Haifa Match, 1938. The annotations are by Raafi Persitz in his Book, Ha'Derech Le'Nitzachon Be'Sachmat [The way to Chess Victory], a collection of Kniazer's games (Tel Aviv: Torat Ha'Sachmat Press, 1959), pp. 27-30. Persitz's annotations, of which I give only a selection, are very amusing.

The game started following Tarrasch - Alekhine (1926), with: 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.e3 c5 4.b4 g6?! 5.Bb2 Bg7 6.bxc5 e5?! Here Kniazer saw an improvement to Tarrasch's 7. exd4, based on Black's Achilles heel -- the d6 square -- and continued:

 7.Na3! Going to d6! 7...a6 8.Qa4+! Bd7 9.Nb5!

A self-pin of the knight, but the a6 pawn is "even more" pinned. 9...Nc6 [9...Kf8 10.Qa3 followed by Nd6. ] 10.Nd6+

"He doth neither slumber nor sleep" [Psalms 121:4 -- A. P.] 10...Kf8 11.Qa3 Better than  11.Nxb7 Qc7 12.Nd6 Rb8 and Black may fish in troubled water. 11...a5 12.Be2 Again refusing the pawn. 12...g5 13.0–0 h5 Nine pawn moves out of 13 -- such luxury is expensive. 14.Ne1 Nh6 Offering h5 as well! 15.f4! exf4 16.exf4 g4 17.Nd3 Nf5 18.Ne5 Be6 Of course taking on e5 is out of the question. 19.Nexf7!

19. Bd3, increading the pressure, is also good, but apparently White was under doctor's orders to take a pawn every 45 minutes. 19...Bxf7 20.Nxf5 Bf6 21.Nd6 The horse returns to his stable.  21...Nb4 22.Qb3 

From now on both sides, for some reason, start playing "Shatranj", the old game in which the pieces could move only slowly.  22...Qc7 23.a3 Nc6 24.Rab1 Rb8 25.Qd3 Qd7 26.Qe4 Rg8 27.Bd3 Bg6 28.Qe2 Bf7 29.Bf5 Qe7 30.Qd3 Qc7 31.Rfe1 Rg7 32.Nxf7 Kxf7 33.Be6+ Kf8 34.Qf5 Qd8 35.Bd5 h4 36.Re6 Rf7 37.Rd6 1–0 A strange and extraordinary game in all its phases.  

Yet another game from the Same Match -- A Very Interesting Tactical Struggle

Is is very interesting how Kniazer refutes Marmorosh's threats of back-rank mate with a winning counter-attack.

Event: Haifa Match, 1931.
Site: Haifa
Date: May 5th, 1931
White: Marmorosh
Black: Kniazer
ECO: C32
Annotator: Marmorosh
Source: Davar, 16/7/1931, p. 4.

1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 e4 4. d3 Nf6 5. dxe4 Nxe4 6. Nf3 Bc5 7. Qe2 A move that leads to many interesting complications. 7... Bf5!! With this move, Tarrasch brilliantly defeated Spielmann in Ostrau, 1923. Very interesting is 7... Bf2+ 8. Kd1 Qxd5+ 9. Nfd2!! f5 10. Nc3. 8. Nbd2 8. g4? O-O!! 9. gxf5 Re8 -+ 8... Qxd5 9. g4?? A gross blunder.

9... Bf2+!10. Kd1 Bxg4 11. Bg2 f5 12. c3 O-O 13. Kc2 Bb6 14. Nxe4 fxe4 15. Qd2! Qh5 16. Ng5 e3 17. Qd5+? 17. Qe1! was better. 17... Kh8 18. h3 Bf5+ 19. Be4 c6! 20. Qc4 Na6 21. Bxf5 Rxf5 22. Re1 Qh4 23. Bxe3 Bxe3 24. Rxe3 Rxg5! 25. Qe4 With this move, White thought he would win the exchange, but Black's reply refuted him. On the other hand White could have played 25. Rae1 Rf5 26. Re8+ Rf8 27. Qf7 and make a draw more likely [sic].

25... Rf5!! 26. Rae1 26. Qxf5 will not work: 26... Qf2+ 27. Kd3 Rd8+ wins back the rook. 26... Rxf4! 27. Qe8+ Rf8 28. Qe7 28. Qxa8? Qf2+! 29. R3e2 Qxe2+ 30. Rxe2 Rxa8. 28... Qh5 29. Qxb7 Qf5+! 30. Kc1 Nc5 31. Qxa8 Nd3+! 32. Kd2 Nxe1 33. Qxc6 Qc2+ 34. Kxe1 Qf2+ And mate in five (0-1). Black handled this game beautifully.

War Chess 1939-1945

Credit: see below.

Paweł Dudziński had kindly sent us his book Szachy wojenne 1939-1945 [War Chess], which is about just that: chess during WWII, mostly in Poland by Poles (especially Jewish Poles), Germans, and others, e.g. the Russian-French Alekhine. It also has a large section about games among Poles elsewhere, e.g., in Russian gulags, the Buenos Aires Olympiad, or the Middle East (e.g., Aloni, who was a member of Anders' army), and so on.

How many people who are reading this can name a single game played during that time by Polish players or in Poland? The book has well over 100 such games, and the games themselves are only a small part of the history covered in the book. The book tells us of over-the-board players, correspondence players, and problemists; of male and female players; of (to repeat) Poles, Germans, and others; of games played in private and in tournaments, in Olympiads and in ghettos; and much more besides. It has numerous rare photographs, not only of the players or of tournaments but of diplomas, personal effects, newspaper clippings, etc.; to name one particularly startling example, it has a collection of photos of chess sets made by inmates in the death camps.

The book's research and erudition puts that of most "serious" history books, let alone "mere" chess history books, to shame. I am giving only one example. Above is p. 295 from the index -- a perfectly typical page out of 20. It names, on that single page, dozens of people, including not only Tarrasch and Tartakower (noting the latter's nom de guerre 'Georges Cartier'), but also -- for example -- Jürgen Stroop, who destroyed the Warsaw ghetto, and a player we have met before on this blog -- Marek Szapiro. Need it be said that the sources I credit in the blog entry about Szapiro, as well as many others I did not use (or, for that matter, were aware of), are all used in War Chess's writing about Szapiro -- a fact easy to verify, since the book, naturally, gives full credit to all the sources used? 

Early Mentions of Chess in the Hebrew Press: Lasker - Steinitz 1894

Credit: see below.

In what is an early mention of chess in the Jewish press, on 6/6/1894 (new style -- the paper's cover uses the old style and Hebrew dates), Ha'Zefira (Warsaw) mentions (p. 2) the Lasker-Steinitz match. In the usual dramatic language of the time, the paper notes:

About the game of chess it is proverbially said that it is too serious for a game and too much of a game for a serious occupation. Be that as it may it is remarkable that many of the masters in this wise occupation are Jews, which is evidence that this game agrees with our national talent. It is now much spoken about in the chess world about the latest war between Steinitz and Lasker. Steinitz has been considered until now an unbeatable hero on the chess board, an incomparable old hero. But this Goliath was defeated by the little David, Lasker, about 26 years old, who battled with him in a match and beat him. They are both Jews, and Lasker is a relative of the late political leader [Eduard] Lasker, and is also known for his engineering [perhaps "scientific" or "technical" is a better translation in context -- A.P.] What does chess have to do with Jews? Intelligence, hard work, study -- these are the qualities which the Jews have always excelled in. The history of the Jews and their war with their enemies are very similar to chess, and the Jews are the player which no opposing peace can beat. 

Obviously the love of non-playing writer's penchant for cliches about Jews and chess, or chess and war, had not changed much in the last 120 or so years; nor does the writer bother to give any details apart from the mere fact that Lasker won, or shows any awareness that Lasker's young age was a significant advantage, not a disadvantage, in his match against Steinitz. (Tarrasch allegedly quipped, "the old Steinitz is no longer the Steinitz of old".) It is also curious that Lasker is assumed to be known, if at all, as a cousin of a German politician.

P.S.

While Tarrasch's pun would work equally well in German, presumably the original language, does anybody have an exact -- original -- quote? Tarrasch is the chess world's Mark Twain, a man which any witty remark could safely be attributed to without any need for verification.

Tarrasch Illustrated and Steinitz Libeled

The above picture of Siegbert Tarrasch is probably the first portrait of a chess player printed in a Hebrew-language newspaper, Ha'Melitz, on April 2nd, 1903. It is part of a long article about chess, appropriately titled "What have the Jews been Doing" (ישראל מה פעל), as every player mentioned in it is a Jew. This article was pointed out to me by our frequent correspondent, Moshe Roytman, who usually posts on the excellent Chess-il forum (in Hebrew).

Most of the article deals with Tarrasch's biographical information and chess career. But, alas, the paper already libels Wilhelm Steinitz, claiming that 'poor Steinitz' could not stand his 'humiliation and distress' due to losing the world title (rematch) to Emanuel Lasker in 1896, and therefore 'went insane' and died in 1899 (actually 1900).

It is true that Steinitz was, in fact, hospitalized in a mental hospital in the end of his days, but it is at the very least extremely doubtful that the loss of the world championship to a much younger Lasker was the cause. It is sad to see this myth, which smeared Steinitz's memory every since, has been going on for so long.

Two "Firsts" and Some Musings

In July 1922, Doar Ha'yom ("Daily Mail"), a local Jerusalem paper, started to published a weekly chess column edited by Aryeh Leob Mohilever, of the newly-established Lasker Chess Club in the city (Source: 'The Jerusalem Chess Club is 35' [Ha'Moadon Ha'Yerushalmi ben 35], 64 Mishbatzot, no. 5-6 [May-June 1957], pp. 233-235.) 

This column was the first chess column published in a daily newspaper (as opposed to the previous column in the weekly The Palestine News which started in 1918, as seen elsewhere in this blog). On 13.8.22, it featured the first locally-played game ever to be published (to my knowledge) in Palestine or Israel, between Mohilever himself (black) and Dr. A. Tauber. (0-1). Above is the column as it appeared in the paper (click for a larger version); below is the game, with annotations by Mohilever and my colleague and strong player Shahar Gindi (in Italics). Below, a picture of Mohilever (standing top left) and others in the Lasker club from the same period (1924) (source: 64 Mishbatzot, May-June 1957, p. 233).

A few comments, if I may...

1). Bizzarely, while the date -- 13.8.1922 -- was a Sunday (a regular working day for a Herbew-language newspaper in Palestine or Israel), the column was actually published the previous Friday, 11.8.1922, in the enlarged (six pages!) weekend edition. It was only dated 13.8. Yes, Doar Ha'yom was a daily newspaper which was "pre-dated" one issue: that is, one bought on Monday a paper with Tuesday's date, and on Friday a paper with the following Sunday's date (no paper was published on Saturday). Ever heard the contemptous expression, 'this newspaper can't even get the date right'? In Doar Ha'yom's case, it was literally true.

2). Naturally Gindi's analysis (as checked by a computer) is much more accurate, but as he told me, it was certainly a publishable game even with the oversights in the game itself or in the analysis.

3). I must add that to me, as a weak player, Mohilever's analysis made more sense: it looked like a case of "crime and punishment", with White being punished for losing tempos with his queen for no good reason. Gindi (as well as the computer) saw deeper, and disabused me of this notion. Once more we see that actual variations and moves are far more important than general strategic considerations in most situation: in particular, white could have won by playing e6 at the right moment, despite all his "lost tempos".

As Tartakower allegedly said, 'strategy, schamttegy -- checkmate ends the game'; or, as Tarrasch actually did say (to Napier -- as usual, Edward Winter has the goods, see quote #72 in the link), '[I]t is never enough to be a connoisseur of chess; one must also play well'. All this is not said to tell amateurs not to study strategy, but to not think it is more important on their level than it actually is.

What knowing chess strategy does help the amateur a lot with is in organising his thoughts: trying to have some idea of what a "plan" is, an idea of "what should I do?" in a position instead of just checking random moves, etc. This is necessary if the amateur is ever to improve. But the improvement itself has a lot more to do with knowing tactics, basic endings and openings, etc., well, not with knowing strategy more deeply. Strategy can guide tactical thought, not replace it. This is what is meant by the old saying (not actually Capablanca's, as C.N. 4209 in this link to Winter's Chess Notes notes) that chess books should be used to "assist" and not "confer" sight.

4). We see the influence of the European, as opposed to the British, influence when translating chess terms into Hebrew. The queen is called a gvira [גבירה] -- "dame" (as in French or German); and White's resignation is translated as Lavan mevater [לבן מותר] -- "White gives up", literally from the German term from resignation, gibt auf. Today in Hebrew the terms used are from the English: malka [מלכה] -- queen, and Lavan nichna [לבן נכנע] -- "White resigns" (lit. "surrenders"). There is, by the way, a web page with chess terms in 73 languages -- although I cannot vouch for its accuracy, it is at least correct in the languages I know...

(13) Tauber,A - Mohilever,Aryeh [C55]

Lasker Club, 29.07.1922

Annotations: Mohilever and Shahar Gindi (Italics).

Source: Doar Hayom, 13.8.1922

C55: Two Knights and Max Lange Attack

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.d3 d5 5.exd5 5...Na5? 

Better and simpler was Nxd5. 

6.Bb3 

Losing a tempo. There is no need to fear NxB since dxN will strengthen the d5 pawn. 

6...Bd6 7.Bg5 Bg4 8.0–0 

Fortifying the d5 pawn with Nc3 was better. 

8...h6 9.Bh4? 

White can maintain the material advantage by playing Bxf6 or Ba4+. 

9...Nxb3 10.axb3 g5 11.Bg3 Nxd5 12.h3 Bh5 13.Nbd2 Nf4 14.Bxf4 gxf4 

Opening the g-file for the rook. 

15.Qe1! 

Nice maneuver to bring the queen to the center.  

15...f6 16.Qe4 

Good centralizing move. 

16...Qc8 

Now White gets the edge again [Gindi].
Protects b7 and prepares and attack on h3 [Mohilever]. 

17.d4 f5 18.Qd5 Bf7 19.Qb5+ c6 20.Qa4 e4 21.Rfe1 Rg8 22.Ne5? 

Inappropriate in this situation. A defensive move was called for, like Kh2; only after black moves the king should white have moved the knight. 

22...Bxe5 23.dxe5 f3 

A very natural move, but there is a better one: 23...Qd8! 24.Nc4 Qg5 and there is no good way to defend g2. 

24.g3 f4 25.g4? 

25. e6! and the tables are turned. 

25...Rxg4+! 

A trivial sacrifice.  

26.Kh1 Rg1+! 

If 26. ...Rg2 27. e6! Followed by Rxe4. 

27.Kxg1 Qxh3 28.Nxf3 exf3 0–1

Hon's "Chess Openings"

Image Credit: A.P.

Shaul Hon's book Ptichot be'Sachmat (1957) [Chess Openings] was a very popular book in Israel -- it reached a fourth edition in 1968, unprecedented for a Hebrew-language chess book. It is notable for a few things:

1). Its first section (pp. 3-40 in the 1968 edition) give a very interesting, if by today's standards somewhat inaccurate, history of chess in the world in general and among Jews (whether in Israel, Palestine, or elsewhere) in particular. Specifically, Hon actually asked and received a reply from Israel's chief rabbi in 1957, 'The honorable Rabbi Dr. Itzhak (Isaac) Ha'Levi Herzog', as Hon calls him, about chess in Judaism. The Rabbi's reply was that despite certain rabbis who forbade chess, most authorities in Judaism do not forbid (and often even encourage) chess playing, so long as it satisfies certain conditions -- e.g., not playing for money, not on the Shabbath, it does not become an obsession that stops one from studying the Torah, etc.

2). He has an interesting theory (pp. 49-55, ibid) about why the chess pieces are placed or move as they are -- e.g., that rooks are in the corners since that's where the heavy forces would be in the battle, etc. He thinks that pawns capture diagonally because archers would try to hit armored men from the side!

3). The cover for the 1968 edition was by the well-known Israeli caricaturist "Dosh" (Kariel Gardosh).

4). The book, like many books at the time printed in Israel, tried to "Judaise" chess a little bit -- emphasizing the importance of Jewish masters over that of non-Jewish ones, especially those like the anti-semitic Alekhine. E.g., about 1. e4 Nf6 Hon writes (my translation, p. 113 ibid):

This defense is mistakenly named after Alekhine... in reality it was already practiced in the 1880s, but achieved no success. Only after the Jewish Aron Nimzowitsch published a series of articles before WWI calling for the development of pieces over pawns in the opening [i.e., the hypermodern school -- A.P.] -- only then did this defense's time arrive. Alekhine used it successfully in the international tournament in Budapest 1921 and it received his name, but in reality Alekhine mixed the tactical form of this defense with Nimzowitch's strategic ideas. 

Whenever any Jewish player is mentioned, their Judaism is emphasized. E.g., when Tarrasch is mentioned, his Judaism is emphasized, but not, of course, his conversion to Christianity in 1909 (as when discussing 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2, p. 104); and Hon even divided chess history as a whole into the 'romantic stage', the 'strategic stage' -- 'starting with the appearance of the Jewish Steinitz' -- and the 'modern stage' -- developed 'mostly by Jews: Nimzowitch, Reti, Breyer, Dr. Tartakover -- joined later by non-Jews' (p. 24).  

Jews contributed a lot to chess, true, but saying chess would, in effect, be still in the 19th-century romantic school if it weren't for them (as Hon is implying) is hardly established fact.