Download - London Chess Centre

Bent Larsen
- The Fighter
1935 – 2010
Tournament
Reports:
Arctic Securities,
Biel, Mainz and
NH Youth Vs
Experience
www.chess.co.uk
Volume 75 No.7
October 2010
£3.95 UK $9.95 Canada
Interview:
Nakamura
75th Anniversary:
Koltanowski on
Blindfold Chess

Chess
Chess Magazine is published monthly.
Founding Editor: B.H. Wood, OBE. M.Sc †
Editor: Jimmy Adams
Acting Editor: John Saunders
Executive Editor: Malcolm Pein
Subscription Rates:
United Kingdom
1 year (12 issues) £44.95
2 year (24 issues) £79.95
3 year (36 issues) £109.95
Europe
1 year (12 issues) £54.95
2 year (24 issues) £99.95
3 year (36 issues) £149.95
USA & Canada
1 year (12 issues) $90
2 year (24 issues) $170
3 year (36 issues) $250
Rest of World (Airmail)
1 year (12 issues) £64.95
2 year (24 issues) £119.95
3 year (36 issues) £170
Distributed by:
Post Scriptum (UK only)
Unit G, OYO Business Park, Hindmans Way,
Dagenham, RM9 6LN
Tel: 020 8526 7779
LMPI (North America)
8155 Larrey Street, Montreal (Quebec),
H1J 2L5, Canada
Tel: 514 355-5610
Printed by:
The Magazine Printing Company (Enfield)
Te: 020 8805 5000
Views expressed in this publication are not
necessarily those of the Editor.
Contributions to the magazine will be published at
the Editor’s discretion and may be shortened if
space is limited.
No parts of this publication may be reproduced
without the prior express permission of the
publishers.
All rights reserved. © 2010
Chess Magazine (ISSN 0964-6221) is published by:
Chess & Bridge Ltd, 44 Baker Street, London,
W1U 7RT
Tel: 020 7388 2404 Fax: 020 7388 2407
info@chess.co.uk – www.chess.co.uk
FRONT COVER:
Bent Larsen (1935-2010), shown around the time he
had his fateful meeting with Bobby Fischer in their
1971 match. Photo: CHESS Magazine Archive
US & Canadian Readers – You can contact us
via our American branch – Chess4Less based
in West Palm Beach, FL. Call us toll-free on
1-877 89CHESS (24377). You can even order
Subscriber Special Offers online via
www.chess4less.com
Contents
Editorial
Malcolm Pein on the latest developments in chess
Obituary: Bent Larsen (1935-2010)
John Saunders pays tribute to the popular, inventive and
brilliant Danish grandmaster, who has just died
Arctic Securities Chess Stars
Vishy Anand and Magnus Carlsen clash in Norwegian rapid
Tournament Report: Biel Young GMs
David Howell featured in the prestigious event in Switzerland
Tournament Report: NH Rising Stars v Experience
Boris Gelfand in top form but the youngsters triumphed
Mainz Chess Classic
Malcolm Pein was in Germany to sample the monster rapidplay
Arctic Chess Challenge, Tromso
Another visit to the Arctic! Chris Briscoe was one of an
intrepid party of Brits who ventured to this splendid event
How Good is Your Chess
Daniel King features a game from the French Championship
A Question of Authorship by Amatzia Avni
Should we credit a computer for its compositional creativity?
Anatoly Karpov Fund-Raiser in London
Karpov, Kasparov and Short campaigning in London
Readers’ Letters
It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad chess world! Readers have their say
Interview: Hikaru Nakamura
The volatile American star talks candidly to Janis Nisii
Retrograde Analysis by Jesús García Pacheco
Look back in puzzlement! How did we get to this position?
CHESS Magazine: 75 Years Young...
A leaf through the archives: George Koltanowski on blindfold chess
Find the Winning Moves
Three pages of tactical teasers, including Larsen’s best finishes
Half A League Onward!
Where have all the players gone? Mike Hughes takes stock
Positional Exercises
GM Jacob Aagaard tests your positional IQ - tricky but rewarding
Problem Album
Colin Russ pays tribute to Robin Matthews who died recently
Tournament Listings
A Calendar of Congresses
New Books in Brief
The low-down on the latest releases
Solutions
The answers to Find the Winning Moves and Problem Album
News Round-Up
All the latest tournament news, and a selection of recent games
www.chess.co.uk 3
4
7
10
12
16
21
24
27
30
33
36
37
40
43
46
49
52
52
53
54
56
57

Magnus Carlsen
Conquers
the World
Magnus Carlsen’s career as a fashion model has really taken off. I can’t
describe how disconcerting it was to see him staring at me from a huge wall
poster at King’s Cross Station on my way in to work. The campaign for
G-Star clothing, is also very prominent in New York with posters on buses.
New York City was the venue for Magnus to take on the world in the ‘RAW
Chess Challenge’, an online contest which, like every such event before it,
put the internet servers it was being powered by under enormous strain.
This did not prevent it being a great success.
It was quite a nice game and I recommend watching the video at TWIC
(www.chess.co.uk/twic). The World were assisted by Maxime Vachier-Lagrave
of France, a former World Junior champion, Hikaru Nakamura, the US number
one, and Judit Polgar, the greatest ever female player. Judit summed up the
world’s dilemma: “There were too many cooks in the kitchen,” she said.
Photos: G-Star RAW
The World’s Team (from left to right) Hikaru Nakamura, Judit Polgar and Maxime Vachier-Lagrave
Photo: G-Star RAW
The three cooks in the kitchen: The World team work in isolation to offer their suggestions to the public
Photo: G-Star RAW
Top of the class: Magnus with his mentor , Garry Kasparov,
and his fellow G-Star model, actress Liv Tyler
Magnus Carlsen - The World
RAW World Chess Challenge, New York
Kings Indian Def. Uhlmann Variation
1 d4 ¤f6 2 c4 g6 Narrowly beating
2...e6 in the vote. 3 ¤f3 ¥g7 4 g3 0–0
5 ¥g2 d6 6 ¤c3 ¤c6 7 0–0 e5 The
Uhlmann Variation; 7...a6 is the Panno
Variation. 8 d5 ¤e7 9 e4 c6 Opening the
queenside favours White; I would play
¤d7 or ¤e8. 10 a4 ¥g4 11 a5
11...cxd5? Do not open the queenside!
This gives White the c4 square. After the
game, both Carlsen and Nakamura felt
this was a big mistake preferring, £d7.
12 cxd5 £d7 13 ¥e3 ¦fc8 Commentary
on the official site crashed and Maurice
Ashley was talking to himself, but not for
long. This has happened at every big
chess internet match since Deep Blue
1997. I remember that one well - I was in
the web room. 14 £a4 ¤e8 15 ¤d2 £d8
16 £b4 ¤c7 17 ¤c4 I suspect Magnus
www.chess.co.uk 5

6
chose not to play the crushing 17 f3! ¥d7
18 £xd6. The queen cannot be trapped:
18...¤f5 19 exf5 ¥f8 20 £xe5. 17...¤a6
18 £xb7 ¦xc4 19 £xa6 ¦b4 20 f3 ¥c8
21 £e2 f5 22 £d2 ¥a6 23 ¦fc1 £b8 24
¤a4 ¦b3 25 ¦c3 ¦b4
26 ¦ca3! With the idea of ¤b6! winning
the exchange. 26...f4 27 ¥f2 27 gxf4 exf4
28 ¥xf4 might give Black some
counterplay. 27...¥h6 28 ¤b6!?
An interesting moment and the only
occasion when Kasparov disagreed with
Magnus. Garry wanted to keep total
control with 28 g4 "and the game is over".
Photo: G-Star RAW
28...fxg3 29 £xb4 gxf2+ 30 ¢xf2 ¥c8?
30...¥f4 was Magnus' suggestion here
with some chances against White's king;
30...axb6 31 axb6 ¥b7 32 ¦xa8 ¥xa8 33
¥h3 wins. 31 ¦b3 axb6 32 £xb6 £a7 33
a6 ¢f7 34 £xa7 ¦xa7 35 ¦b6 White's
passed pawns are decisive in the
endgame. 35...¢e8 36 ¦xd6 ¥f8 37 ¦b6
¤xd5 38 ¦b8! ¥c5+ 39 ¢g3 ¤e7 40
¥h3 ¢d8 41 ¥xc8 ¤xc8 42 ¦c1
"Resign!" said Kasparov but that was
because he had a bet on with Maurice
Ashley on how long the game would last!
42...¦c7 43 ¦xc5! ¦xc5 44 a7 1-0
The Commentary Team: GM Maurice Ashley and actress / model Liv Tyler
Photo: G-Star RAW
To the victor go the spoils: Triumphant Magnus holds aloft the RAW World Challenge Trophy (pictured top-left)
Bent Larsen
(1935-2010)
This month’s cover is of course devoted
to Bent Larsen who died in Buenos Aires
last month. Larsen’s uncompromising
style, creativity and charm endeared him
to the entire chess world. He defeated
seven post-war world champions: Mikhail
Botvinnik, Vassily Smyslov, Mikhail Tal,
Tigran Petrosian, Boris Spassky, Bobby
Fischer and Anatoly Karpov, and nearly
always refused draws. He reached the
Candidates’ semi-finals three times, only
to be eliminated by Tal, Spassky and
Fischer. Just recently Yasser Seirawan,
in a lecture at our shop on Baker Street,
was reflecting on how his recent book
Chess Duels with the Champions was
incomplete because he had so many
more stories to tell about players who did
not become world champion like… Bent
Larsen! Larsen’s fearless will to win is
matched by few nowadays. Perhaps
only Veselin Topalov plays with such
determination.
Tickets are now on sale for the 2nd
London Chess Classic and I look forward
to meeting many readers there. Last year
we were sold out at the weekends, so
please book early. There are many side
events to play in. Last year the weekend
events were also full, so please register
as early as you can.
Please go to our online webshop or
www.londonchessclassic.com for tickets
and tournament entries. At time of writing
the Viktor Korchnoi simuls were nearly
full, so please do not delay if you want to
play a chess legend.

The UK’s Strongest
Chess Tournament EVER
GM Michael
Adams (ENG)
2706 elo
The UK’s
Number 1
GM Nigel
Short (ENG)
2690 elo
The UK’s
Number 2
GM Luke
McShane (ENG)
2624 elo
The UK’s
Number 3
GM David
Howell (ENG)
2616 elo
The UK’s
Number 4
The London Chess Classic Schedule
Wednesday 8th December Round 1 2.00pm
Thursday 9th December Round 2 4.00pm
Friday 10th December Round 3 2.00pm
Saturday 11th December Round 4 2.00pm
Sunday 12th December Round 5 2.00pm
Monday 13th December REST DAY
Tuesday 14th December Round 6 2.00pm
Wednesday 15th December Round 7 12.00pm
* Juniors must be under 16 on 08/12/2010 and accompanied by a paying adult. Proof of age may be required
Purchasing an adult ticket gives you the following benefits:
GM Magnus
Carlsen (NOR)
2826 elo
The World
Number 1
GM Vishy
Anand (IND)
2800 elo
The World
Champion
TICKETS ON SALE NOW
Auditorium and GM Commentary
(per day)
Auditorium and GM Commentary
Season Ticket (All 7 days)
GM Vladimir
Kramnik (RUS)
2790 elo
Former World
Champion
ADULT
£10 weekday / £15 weekend
JUNIOR *
FREE for all days
ADULT
£50
JUNIOR *
- Admission to the London Chess Classic 2010 - Full access to the auditorium throughout the day’s play. Moves will be displayed on a
giant screen - Access to the Grandmaster commentary room. Commentators will include: Former British champion GM Julian Hodgson,
plus GM Stephen Gordon, IM Lawrence Trent and IM Malcolm Pein. Commentary line-up subject to change.
FURTHER INFORMATION AT WWW.LONDONCHESSCLASSIC.COM
GM Hikaru
Nakamura (USA)
2729 elo
The American
Number 1
ORDER ONLINE: WWW.CHESS.CO.UK/SHOP OR CALL 020 7486 8222
Olympia Conference Centre, Kensington, London, W14 8UX
N/A

Just as we were preparing to go to
press, the desperately sad news
reached us that Bent Larsen had died.
He is an important and muchcherished
figure in chess and we will
be devoting further pages to him in
the November issue of the magazine.
But we could scarcely let a month
pass without publishing a shorter
tribute to this remarkable chessplayer.
Jørgen Bent Larsen (4 March 1935 - 9
September 2010) was born in north-west
Jutland in a country scarcely known for
its chessplayers, except as the adopted
home of the Latvian player and writer
Aron Nimzowitsch, who died in
Copenhagen just eight days after Larsen
came into the world. Denmark can thus
proudly claim to have been home to two
of the finest players and most original
thinkers ever to have graced chess.
Naturally, Larsen’s earliest inspiration
was fellow Dane Nimzowitsch and his
great work My System.
BEGINNINGS
Larsen learnt chess aged six but, as he
cheerfully admitted himself, he was not a
prodigy. He was still very raw when, aged
16, he made his first adventure into
international chess at the inaugural World
Junior Championship in Birmingham in
1951. He lost in the first round and later
to the English representative, Malcolm
Barker, and the eventual runaway winner,
Borislav Ivkov, to finish in a tie for fourth
place, but this was actually a pretty good
result considering his lack of experience.
He finished eighth in the 1953 World
Junior Championship but then made a
big decision: to put his civil engineering
studies on hold. A breakthrough followed
in 1954 when he was chosen to play on
board one for Denmark at the
Amsterdam Olympiad and scored +11,
=5, -3, which was the third best score on
top board and enough to secure the IM
title. He won the Danish title for the first
time in the same year and repeated the
performance every time he played in his
national championship (six in all).
The 1956 Moscow Olympiad took him
from IM to GM and this time he secured
the best score on top board ahead of
world champion Botvinnik - +11, =6, -1.
The loss, perhaps surprisingly, was to
Scottish board one Fairhurst but he
made up for it with wins against the likes
of Gligoric, Padevsky, Porath, Prins,
Czerniak, Blau and Golombek, and
draws against Botvinnik, Szabo and
Najdorf. Larsen’s comment on his
Olympiad result is typical of his eternal
optimism as a player but witty selfdeprecation
as a writer and
commentator: “This is the only
tournament in which I have played better
than I expected to do or thought possible
beforehand!”. That winter he was able to
return to England, five years after his
mediocre Birmingham result, and share
first place with Gligoric in the Hastings
Premier. Larsen himself ascribed his
success to a very good result at the
Danish Championship which preceded it,
where he won his first seven games in a
row and romped home.
Larsen himself regarded 1956 as his
breakthrough year but his career was to
have its ups and downs - a self-aware
man, he made ‘ups and downs’ the title
of the next chapter in his chess
autobiography. He qualified for the 1958
Portoroz Interzonal and travelled there
expecting to qualify as a candidate but
Photo: CHESS Magazine Archive
Bent Larsen in London in 1973, giving move-by-move commentaries with Leonard Barden (left) during the
Enfield weekend tournament organised by Edward Penn and which drew 612 players!
he made a minus score, finishing a lowly
16th out of 21. Writing about it ten years
later, he could only say: “it was the
greatest failure of my career. I cannot
explain it.”
This disappointment caused Larsen’s
progress to stall somewhat for a number
of years, as his career was interrupted by
military service, a disagreement with his
federation and a further flirtation with
engineering studies. But he used his time
sensibly, building his repertoire round
more unorthodox openings, and came
roaring back in 1964, sharing first place
at the 1964 Amsterdam Interzonal.
Hitherto he had not had many close
encounters with the major Soviet stars
but here he downed both Bronstein and
Spassky. This took him into his first
Candidates’ competition, now decided by
matchplay. He did perhaps better than
expected, beating Ivkov quite comfortably
and only just losing out to Mikhail Tal in
an exciting match in the semi-final. He
later beat Geller in a play-off match for
third/fourth place. This nine-game match,
played in Copenhagen in 1966, is
practically forgotten today, but it marked
a milestone - it was the first time a Soviet
grandmaster had lost a match to a
‘foreigner’.
www.chess.co.uk 7

8
In 1966 Larsen took part in the
Piatigorsky Cup in Santa Monica,
alongside Spassky and Fischer, whose
rivalry was gradually building as the
finest tournament players of the era (the
then world champion Tigran Petrosian did
better in matches and team
tournaments). After the first cycle, Larsen
shared first place with Spassky on 6/9,
with the American languishing in second
to last place on an appalling 3½/9. But
Fischer showed that chess, like football,
can be a “game of two halves”, roaring
back with 7½/9 in the second cycle, while
Larsen could only muster 4/9. It wasn’t
enough to catch Spassky but he finished
a point clear of Larsen who took third.
1967 AND ALL THAT
At that time most chess fans around the
world saw Bobby Fischer as the man
most likely to loosen the Soviet
stranglehold on the world title, but some
remarkable results in 1967 transformed
Larsen’s fortunes and status, making him
a credible rival to Fischer when it came
to the unofficial of ‘world’s best non-
Soviet chessplayer’.
Actually, it was really not much more than
five months as Larsen’s results in the first
half of 1967 were only so-so. He began
one of the world’s greatest tournament
streaks in Cuba in the middle of August.
By the time he saw his home in Denmark
again, just before Christmas, he had won
four very strong tournaments - the
Capablanca Memorial in Havana (ahead
of Taimanov, Smyslov, Polugaevsky,
Gligoric, etc - a monster 20-player event);
Winnipeg (ahead of Keres and Spassky,
tied with Darga); the Sousse Interzonal
(ahead of Geller, Korchnoi, Gligoric,
Portisch and many other super-GMs in a
gargantuan 24-player field); and finally
Palma de Mallorca (ahead of Smyslov,
Botvinnik, Portisch, Gligoric, etc). As
Larsen summarised it: “a total of 66
tournament games in four months. I must
repeat that this is absolutely crazy, and I
shall probably never do it again. But it
went fantastically well.”
Crazy or not, this unprecedented streak
changed the perception of who were the
likely challengers for the world title held
by Petrosian. Fischer, meanwhile, had
also been playing exceptionally well but
then sensationally absented himself from
the Sousse Interzonal in a dispute over
nothing in particular, thus ruling himself
out of a world championship challenge
for the next three years. Whether he liked
it or not, Larsen was now the unofficial
non-Soviet people’s champion.
Larsen’s hot streak rumbled on into 1968.
He won the Monaco tournament in April
with a round to spare, ahead of Botvinnik
and Smyslov, and went on to defeat
Portisch in his Candidates’ quarter-final.
However, his challenge foundered at the
next fence as he lost to Spassky in the
semi-final. Larsen blamed poor playing
conditions in Malmö but, nothing daunted,
went on to win the US and Canadian
Opens in the summer of that year.
Perhaps this is a good point at which to
break, as Larsen had established himself
as one of the best, if not the best,
tournament players in the world. We’ll
pick up the thread next month, with a
wider look at Larsen’s later career, his
writings, style of play and a wider
selection of games.
Zagreb 1965
B.Larsen - A.Matanovic
Catalan Opening
1 c4 ¤f6 2 g3 e6 3 ¥g2 d5 4 ¤f3 ¥e7
5 0–0 0–0 6 d4 ¤bd7 7 ¤bd2 c6 8 b3 b6
9 ¥b2 ¥b7 10 ¦c1 10 £c2 and 10 ¤e5
are frequently seen here. 10...¦c8 11 e3
dxc4 12 ¤xc4! c5 13 £e2 cxd4 This
seems to give White too much play. When
Matanovic returned to this line a few
years later, he tried 13...b5!? 14 ¤ce5 a6
and went on to draw (against Lengyel in
1970). 14 ¤xd4 ¥xg2 15 ¢xg2 ¤c5 16
¦fd1 £d5+ 17 f3 ¦fd8 18 e4 18 ¤b5?
runs into 18...¤d3! and the position is
about equal. 18...£b7 19 ¤e5 ¥f8 20
¦c2 ¦e8 If 20...¤fd7, White has 21 ¤dc6!
¦e8 22 b4! ¤xe5 23 ¤xe5 and White will
invade on d7. 21 ¦dc1 ¤fd7 22 ¤g4
White does not want to free Black’s game
with exchanges. 22 ¤c4!? is another
option to maintain pressure, but Larsen is
starting to look pointedly at Black’s
kingside. 22...¤a6 Black could of course
kick the knight away with 22...h5 but he
might live to regret the break-up on his
kingside pawn structure. 23 a3 At the time
Larsen thought 23 ¦c4 was better but on
reflection decided that it wasn’t, after
23...¦xc4 24 £xc4 ¤ac5 25 b4 h5!, etc.
23...¤ab8 24 ¦c4 a6 25 £c2 ¦xc4 26
£xc4 b5 27 £c3! Larsen couldn’t find
anything after 27 £c7 £xc7 28 ¦xc7 ¥d6,
so he resumes his gaze at the kingside.
27...b4 28 axb4 ¥xb4 29 £e3 ¥e7
Understandably Black doesn’t want the
white queen arriving on g5. 30 ¦c4
30...¦c8?? Larsen thought 30...¤f6 was
the best defence, and that even; 30...h5!?
was possible. The text move he put down
to Matanovic’s tiredness after four hours’
work and an excessive eagerness to be
rid of the pair of rooks. We must
remember that the standard time control
was 40 moves in 2½ hours in those days.
It was good to have the extra thinking
time but the strain of defending a difficult
position over a long period could take its
toll. 31 ¤xe6!? Computers find an
alternative (and slightly more forceful)
way to win: 31 ¤f5! ¦xc4 (31...exf5 loses
to 32 £c3 as in the next note) 32 ¤xe7+
¢f8 33 ¥xg7+! ¢xe7 34 £g5+ ¢e8 35
bxc4 wins. 31...¦xc4? The text allows a
very pretty finish. 31...f6!? 32 ¦xc8+
£xc8 33 £d2 leaves White a clear pawn
up with a better position; 31...fxe6? 32
£c3 threatens both £xg7 mate and
¦xc8+, so wins immediately. 32 ¤h6+!!
1–0 32...¢h8 33 ¥xg7 mate; 32...gxh6 33
£xh6 leads to mate.
Photo: CHESS Magazine Archive
Bent Larsen playing André Muffang of France at the Moscow Olympiad, 1956

SUBSCRIBING IS AN EASY MOVE TO MAKE...
SUBSCRIBE
SAVE
Edited by Jimmy Adams. Contributors include:
Danny King, Malcolm Pein, Neil McDonald, Jacob Aagaard,
Richard Palliser, Gary Lane, Yochanan Afek, Chris Ward, Andrew Greet,
Amatzia Avni, Gareth Williams, Chris Ravilious and many more.
AND
AS A SUBSCRIBER YOU RECEIVE 10% DISCOUNT ON ANY CHESS ITEM
Subscribe online at www.chess.co.uk/shop
Call us on 020 7388 2404
Fill in this page and fax it to 020 7486 3355
Post this page back to us - address details below
(12 issues per year) 1 year (12 issues) 2 Years (24 issues) 3 Years (36 issues)
United Kingdom £44.95 £79.95 £109.95
Europe £54.95 £99.95 £149.95
USA & Canada $90.00 $170.00 $250
Rest of World (Airmail) £64.95 £119.95 £170
COVER PRICE OF EACH ISSUE - £3.95
Name............................................................................................
Address........................................................................................
........................................................................................................
............................................Postcode.........................................
Telephone (dayime).....................................................................
Total amount payable £/$ ........................... enclosed*
or please charge my credit card number shown.
* cheques made payable to Chess & Bridge Ltd
Visit us online:
www.chess.co.uk
Card Number .........................................................................
Card Type (please check as appropriate)
Note: We accept all major credit and debit cards
Visa Mastercard Amex Switch Other
Switch
Issue No.
Expiry
Date
Chess & Bridge Ltd - 44 Baker Street - London - W1U 7RT
Tel: 020 7486 8222 Fax 020 7486 3355
September 2010 August 2010
July 2010 June 2010
Security
Code *
* The security number is the LAST 3 digits printed in the signature area of
the back of the card - we cannot charge your card without this number!
Email us:
info@chess.co.uk

30
YEARS AGO, in the Pre-Fritz era,
people had to analyse chess
positions by themselves. That is
true, children: preparation before a game
was performed by humans.
Admittedly, already in those distant days,
some chess players did not rely
exclusively on their own brains and opted
for assistance from others. So, when a
player won a game with a strong opening
novelty or through deep adjournment
analysis (another bygone phenomenon),
it wasn't always clear if success was
entirely the result of his own efforts.
In the present computer age, combined
effort in preparation for serious games
has become an established norm. In the
recent world championship match
between Anand and Topalov (2010), the
Bulgarian GM won the first game with 24
¤xf6!, a move he had prepared at home
with both human helpers and the backing
of computer analysis.
In one of his How Good is Your Chess
columns, GM Daniel King presented the
following game:
Prié - Svetushkin
French Team Championship 2009
1 d4 ¤f6 2 ¥f4 e6 3 e3 c5 4 c3 ¤c6
5 ¤f3 d5 6 ¤bd2 ¥d6 7 ¥g3 0-0 8 ¥d3
£e7 9 ¤e5 ¤d7 10 ¤xd7 ¥xd7?!
11 ¥xd6 £xd6 12 dxc5 £xc5?!
13 ¥xh7+!! (An astounding sacrifice,
which apparently springs from nowhere)
13...¢xh7 14 £h5+ ¢g8 15 ¤e4 £c4
(15...g6 16 ¤xc5 gxh5 17 ¤xd7) 16 ¤g5
¦fd8 (16...£d3 17 e4!) 17 £xf7+ with a
very strong attack (1-0, 35 moves. See
CHESS, September 2009, p. 6-9).
An impressive finding, isn't it? But now,
consider the following:
¢ At www.chesspub.com on 11/11/2008,
a user named AlanG proposed the
same continuation, commenting after
White's 15th move: "Analysing this
with Fritz suggests White has a clear,
maybe winning, advantage";
¢ Three days later, GM Eric Prié
responded on the same site: "Thanks
a lot AlanG! This is an incredible trap";
¢ Later it was found that all this had
already happened In a
correspondence game Kogler-Matheis,
2007.
So, Prié took the idea from another
source, analysed it before the game and
did it surely with the help of software.
Now, in his game versus Svetushkin, Prié
later found some brilliant moves ("The
attack was pressed home with great
vigour" - King), for which he should be
praised. However, regarding only and
specifically his 13 ¥xh7+, based on the
previous information, I am reluctant to be
impressed.
Practical chess today is more a sport
than art. Hence, all this doesn't matter
much to tournament players. My idea,
your idea, a computer move, whatever;
as long as a point is gained, we are
happy. However, things are different
when it comes to the field of chess
composition. Here, the question of the
author's identity, the owner of the original
idea, is very important. And it is here that
computer advancement creates a
difficulty.
Consider the following example:

Amatzia Avni
WHITE TO PLAY AND WIN
This is a scheme that I toyed with a
decade ago, the idea being 1 ¥c8+
(1 ¥xd5?? £a1+) 1...¥e6 2 ¦xe6! Now, if
(a) 2...£xc5+, then 3 ¦e3 when the double
check by White's two undefended pieces is
also a mate. Black improves with (b)
2...¥f2+! (2...£a1+? 3 ¦e1+) when victory
is achieved only by 3 ¢f1! ¥xc5 when
4 ¦e3+ is no longer mate (4...¢h4) but, as
the h-file is cleared, White has 4 ¦h6++!
¢g3 5 ¦h3 mate up his sleeve.
I liked this idea but in order to turn it into
a serious study there had to be an
additional refinement. Besides which, it is
a blemish that the only function of §b4 is
to avoid the alternative win 1 ¦b3+.
As I couldn't find a decent introduction, I
searched for gold in the variation 3...fxe6
(instead of 3...¥xc5). But White soon wins
with the mundane 4 £h5+ ¢g3 5 £g5+
¢f3 (to avoid mate) 6 £g2+ ¢e3 7 £xf2+.
I added a black pawn on h6 (to prevent
£g5+) and strove to add another black
pawn "somewhere". I put the work to
Fritz. I was hoping for a unique winning
line (otherwise the study would be
unsound) and an "interesting" one. What
exactly would make the line interesting, I
had no idea. This is the most primitive
use of computer for study composition -
trial and error. Add a piece, move a file,
change colours, let the machine analyse
and deliver its verdict.
In this particular case I was lucky. After
only a few tries, I presented the following
diagram for the machine's scrutiny:
Now, after 1 ¥c8+ ¥e6 2 ¦xe6! ¥f2+!
3 ¢f1! fxe6 4 £h5+ ¢g3, Fritz found
that White has a unique, long, and
peculiar winning line:
5 £g6+ ¢h4 6 £xh6+ ¢g4 7 ¥xe6+
¢f3 8 £h5+ ¢e4 9 £d5+ ¢e3 10 £e5+!
¢f3 (10...¢d2 11 £b2+! wins on the
spot) 11 ¥d5+ ¢g4
12 ¢g2! (A surprisingly quiet move in the
midst of all these checks. Black is
defenceless) 12...£e3 13 ¥e6+ ¢h4
14 £f6+ ¢h5 15 ¥f7+ ¢g4 16 £g6+
¢h4 17 £h5 mate
This study took 3rd commendation in The
Problemist tourney for 2002-3. Who is
the composer of this study? I published
it under my own name, but in retrospect,
naming the composers "Avni & Fritz"
would probably have been more
appropriate. I envisaged the first part, but
from the fifth move on, I was just
following the computer's analysis. The
long and unique variation, the 12th quiet
move - was entirely Fritz's contribution,
not mine. Copying a line from a
computer's screen can be described in
various ways; one thing I'm sure, though:
composing - it is not. The act of creation,
using one's brain and imagination, is
certainly not involved here.
Some might argue that Fritz only
facilitated my job and that in its absence I
would have analysed this line and found
its worth anyway. Maybe I would; more
likely, I'd have given it up.
Of course, chess software and databases
enable smarter techniques than I have
just described. Nalimov tablebases allow
modern composers to get the verdict to
all sub-seven piece endgames in an
instant, and there are programs which
make it possible to extract further
information. Witness the following case:
WHITE TO PLAY AND WIN
1 ¥h1! (A startling winning move)
1...¢c7 2 ¥f3 and White wins eventually,
the position being a mutual zugzwang.
Endgame expert John Beasley writes: "I
have asked the then new database
mining program "Wilhelm" (in 2003) to go
through the definite database of ¢+¥+¤
vs. ¢+¤ and to give me all the positions
where ¥g2-h1 was the only winning
move..." [the above diagram was one of
those positions]. "I did not enter these
positions for a formal tourney... I obtained
(them) with no effort beyond the giving of
a few commands to a machine." (ESBN
6/2008)
... and what do you think of the next
position?
WHITE TO PLAY AND WIN
In order to win White must perform a
remarkable manoeuvre:
1 ¢b3! ¦b1+ 2 ¢c2 ¦b2+ 3 ¢d1 ¦b1+
4 ¢e2 ¦b2+ 5 ¢f1 ¦b1+ 6 ¢g2 ¦b2+
7 ¢h1 and the white king stays on this
square for the next 105 moves, White
capturing a black piece after a further 92
moves. Great stuff, only it is 100%
computer-generated, with no human
intervention (analysis presented by
www.chess.co.uk 31

32
Bourzutschky & Konoval, 7-man
Endgame Databases, in EG 159-162,
2006). So, computers are capable of
'composing' complete studies.
Some people think that it doesn't matter
how a study is composed. Their motto is
"a good study is a good study is a good
study". Others do not realise what all the
fuss is about. For instance, GM John
Nunn says "I feel that database-assisted
study composition and traditional studies
should be judged side by side in the
same tourneys" (from his book
Grandmaster Chess Move By Move,
2005); "My simple and logical solution: all
studies, however composed, should be
considered on an equal footing. End of
problem". (EG 159-162, 2006)
With all due respect, this view is very
hard to accept. Imagine two football
strikers about to shoot a free kick. One
striker does it the traditional way: he
retreats a few metres, sprints to the ball
and directs a powerful and precise kick
into the corner, leaving the goalkeeper
helpless. A great goal. The other striker is
an alien from Mars. He doesn't stare at
the ball, nor does he touch it. He just
rubs his ear and, before you know, the
ball is flying at lightning speed into the
net. Another great goal, but are these
goals comparable? Surely they are not. I
also don't believe one should compare a
painting by Van Gogh with a performance
by software which throws colour onto a
canvas. These are totally different things,
created by different entities using
different methods.
Years ago I witnessed the following
episode:
WHITE TO PLAY (ScHEmE)
This was a friendly game between two
amateurs. White played his queen to g7
and announced "mate!". No misprint
here, you got it right: 1 £b1-g7 mate!
Black protested strongly that his
opponent's move was illegal. The white
player pondered and came back with an
evergreen response: "a mate is a mate,
and it comes before any other
consideration!". In a nutshell, this episode
demonstrates the folly of looking only at
the end result while disregarding the
process.
Readers might suspect that the problem
of authorship is more subtle and complex
than described until now, and they would
be right.
The celebrated John Roycroft began the
argument long ago and it refuses to die
away. There is a constant discussion in
composition circles about artists versus
computer guys, of composers versus
discoverers, of concepts like "integrity"
and "honour". But the fact is that the
majority of study composers who use
software or databases do demonstrate
plenty of imagination and skill. For most
of them, the computer's role is only
minor. Such composers get offended by
the implicit assumption that they cheat or
behave in an unethical manner, and they
justly feel insulted. This is a major reason
why the discussion among study
composers about the proper use of
computers is generally heated and
emotional, in an unhelpful manner.
The PCCC (FIDE’s Permanent
Commission for Chess Compositions, the
governing body of chess problemists) has
directed judges to treat studies as if they
were composed in a computer-less world.
This decision has been described by
Beasley as "absurdly unrealistic". Someone
other than a well-mannered Englishman, in
my view, might have used other words,
probably of the unprintable variety.
Computers are here to stay. Their use,
without doubt, benefits composition
hugely. Looking at distinguished studies
from the last decade, one feels that they
are deeper, more sophisticated and on a
higher level than ever before.
Nevertheless, there is a crisis in the
studies world regarding the evaluation of
computer-assisted studies. The solution
is yet unclear, but that doesn't mean that
the problem will resolve itself. When
emotions calm down, perhaps a rational
way forward will be found.
Before we part - let us look at a beautiful
study. Although it leaves only six pieces
on the board after White's second move
(which means that theoretically it can be
mined from a database), it reflects the
human mind, with its emphasis on
subtlety and 'point'.
Eduardo Iriarte, Argentina
Variantim 2009
WHITE TO PLAY AND WIN
To achieve victory, White must win a
piece and still keep his pawn. 1 ¤c3!
¤d3!! (1...¤c6 2 ¥xf8 ¢d2 3 ¥g7)
2 ¥xf8! (avoiding a vicious trap: 2 exd3?
¤e6! 3 ¥c1 - against 3...¢d2 or 3...¤f4+
- 3...¤f4+! 4 ¥xf4 stalemate!) 2...¤f4+
3 ¢f3 ¤e6 (now the bishop is
embarrassed: 4 ¥e7/d6/h6 ¤d4+ 5 ¢e3
¤f5+, or 4 ¥b4 ¤d4+ 5 ¢e3 ¤c2+. That
leaves the next wonderful switch-back
text move) 4 ¥a3!! ¤d4+ 5 ¢e3 ¤c2+
6 ¢d3 ¤xa3 7 e4 1-0 (the black knight
is dominated and the e-pawn promotes
unhindered)
__________________
Amatzia Avni is a FIDE Master
in both OTB chess and composition

40
Is there anyone among us who hasn’t
tried their hand at solving a chess
problem? Or enjoyed working through a
marvellous endgame study? I imagine
we’ve all indulged in this pleasure.
However, as well as puzzles which invite
you to work out how a game ends,
exploiting particular tactical motifs and
the wonderful imagination of the
composer, there are other types of
problem which are perhaps less well
known but every bit as ingenious as
conventional ones. Among these is the
problem category known as retrograde
analysis.
The difference between a retrograde
analysis problem and a typical chess
problem lies in the fact that the solver is
not just looking for how the game should
end. The various ‘unknowns’ to be
worked out in such problems include the
following:
What were the previous x moves?
All the moves of the game leading up to
the current position.
Work out the colour of the pieces.
Mate in x moves.
Where is piece x?
One important aspect of such problems:
you have to take into account that the
legality of the position is a key element.
Here we would have to define a legal
position as: “any position which could
have come about in a normal game of
chess with legal moves, but without
reference to how good or bad the moves
were”. This means that you can’t
compose a problem in which all the
pawns were on their original squares but
the king was somewhere in the middle of
the board. However, it is possible to have
positions where some of the moves could
only have been played if the players had
had a few drinks too many.
To solve such problems, you don’t
necessarily have to be a high-grade
chessplayer or make a detailed analysis
of the position. You have to apply logical
reasoning to find how the position came
about. That said, you need to know the
basic rules of chess and how the pieces
move. The rest is a question of
deduction.
Although this type of problem is not well
known to the general public, there are
some books which deal with them, such
as Raymond Smullyan’s Chess Mysteries
of Sherlock Holmes and Chess Mysteries
of the Arabian Knights. We should also
mention Arturo Pérez-Reverte who uses
a retrograde analysis position in his novel
The Flanders Panel in order to resolve
the plot of his narrative.
After this brief introduction, let’s have a
look at some examples:
WF von Holzhausen, 1901
Mate in 1
We are asked to find ‘mate in one’ but if
we analysis the position as we would a
normal problem we soon conclude that
mate in one is impossible. But this is a
retrograde analysis problem so it is a
case of discovering the logic behind the
problem.
We soon notice that Black has no legal
last move so it must have been White
who moved last. As we saw in the
introduction, the position must have
arisen via legal moves. Once we’ve
established that, we can see that White
will have mate in one against all three of
Black’s legal moves...
1...¢xc7+ 2 bxa8¤#, 1...¢xa7+ 2 b8¤#
or 1...¦xa7 2 ¦c8#
In the second position (top of next
column), there is no solution to the
position as a conventional problem until
one thinks about Black’s last move. It can
only have been g7-g5. Once that is
established, there is a solution:
F Amelung, 1897
Mate in 2
1 hxg6 ¢h5 2 ¦xh7 mate
Gianni Donati, 2000
Position after White’s 4th move - how
was this position reached?
In this problem, which provides a simple
initiation into this type of puzzle, we have
to find the sequence of moves that led to
the position shown.
At first sight we observe that Black has
only moved his knight and reached b3 in
three moves. White has only moved dpawn
and bishop. We soon arrive at the
conclusion that there are two ways to get
to the position shown:
1 d4 ¤a6 2 ¥d2 ¤c5 3 ¥a5 ¤b3 4 ¥b6
1 d3 ¤c6 2 ¥e3 ¤a5 3 ¥b6 ¤b3 4 d4

Gideon Husserl, 1986
Determine the colour of the pieces
Gideon Husserl, 1966
1. Determine the colour of the pieces
and work out what the last move was.
TR Dawson, 1914
2. Mate in 2
Richard Mueller, 1985
3. Position after White’s 7th move. Find
the moves leading to this position.
The first thing that can be inferred from
this position is that one of the kings is in
double check from the queen and rook,
otherwise the position could not be legal.
The next deduction is that this could not
have come about by a move of the
pieces, but only via the promotion of a
pawn with a capture on h8. In that way
we can work out that the queen, rook and
king on h6 are white, and the king on g8
black.
Below are a few retrograde analysis
puzzles for readers to test their
powers of deductive reasoning.
Bengt Giobel, 1946
4. Place the white queen on a square to
give a mate in 1
Dr. Niels Hoeg, 1924
5. What were the last two moves?
N Petrovic, 1954
6. What were the last six moves?
Michael Grushko, 2005
7. Position after Black’s 7th move. Find
the moves leading to this position.
Itamar Faybish, 2005
8. Position after White’s 10th move. Find
the moves leading to this position.
Frolkin and Liubashevski, 1988
9. Position after Black’s 20th move.
Assign the correct colour to pieces and
find the moves leading to the position.
www.chess.co.uk 41

42
SOLUTIONS TO THE RETROGRADE
ANALYSIS PROBLEMS (previous page)
1. Husserl, 1966
The queen on c6 and rook on d8 are
located such that they ‘attack’ both kings.
This is only possible if the rook is a pawn
which has promoted via the move c7xd8¦.
So the king on c8 is black and the one on
d6 is white. For the same reason, the rook
on d8 is white, as is the queen. Since the
d6 king is white, neither the knight on e8
nor the rook on f6 can be black or the
position would be illegal. The pawn on b7
has to be black for the reason inferred
previously. As regards the bishop on a8,
since the pawn on b7 is black, it can only
be white via the promotion of a pawn. For
the same reason, the pawn on a7 must be
white. As regards the last move played, we
already know that the pawn that had
resided on c7 has captured and been
promoted on d8.
But can go further and work out what piece
it must have taken. It couldn’t have been a
queen or a rook as there is no way of
explaining how it could have delivered
check to the king on the previous move. If it
had been a bishop, Black wouldn’t have
had a legal move on the previous move.
Therefore we arrive at the conclusion that
the piece on d8 had been a knight, and so
the last move was actually 1 cxd8¦+
capturing a knight.
2. Dawson, 1914
The black king cannot have made any
move on the previous turn. The only
possibility is that Black played d7-d5 or f7f5.
In both cases capturing en passant
would produce mate in two. But analysing
further, it is possible to reach the conclusion
that the d-pawn must have moved at some
point in order to let the light-squared bishop
out. Although the first impression might be
that the bishop need not have moved (it
could have fallen victim to a knight), this
supposition is flawed. If you study the
position a little more, the pawn structure is
a little peculiar. The pawns on e3, f4 and g5
came from f2, g3 and h4 respectively, each
capturing a black piece. The pawns on e6
and e7 came from b3 and a3. The e6 pawn
has captured three pieces, and the e7
pawn, four. The total number of pieces
captured by the pawns comes to ten. Six
black pieces remain on the board, which
tells us that all the other pieces were
captured by pawns. So we know that the
bishop must have emerged from its initial
square in order to be captured by a pawn.
So, finally, we can conclude that Black’s
last move was f7-f5, giving us the correct
move 1 gxf6 and mate next move.
3. Mueller, 1985
They say that ‘appearances are deceptive’
and that is definitely true here. The big
surprise about this problem is that the
queen on d1 is not the one that was there
at the start of the game - it’s a promoted
pawn! The reader can try to find another
solution but I don’t think it can be found. 1
a4 d6 2 a5 ¥g4 3 a6 ¥xe2 4 axb7 ¥xd1 5
bxa8£ ¥g4 6 £f3 ¥c8 7 £d1
4. Giobel, 1946
The first thing that stands out about this
position is that the white pawns haven’t
moved. So the queen cannot have left the
first rank and has only three legal squares:
a1, b1 and c1. Having worked this out, we
only have to find which one allows us to
strike a blow. The queen sits on a1 and
gives mate with 1 b3.
5. Hoeg, 1924
Black cannot have made the last move and
White can only have moved his bishop. This
tells us that the bishop was on a2. With the
bishop on that square, Black still didn’t have
a legal move with the pieces available to
him. So we know that the bishop on a2 must
have captured something on b1. The only
piece which could have been on b1 and had
a legal move on the previous turn is a knight,
which could have moved from c3 to b1. It
couldn’t have been a rook on b2 or the
previous moves couldn’t have led to this
position. So the solution is 1...¤c3-b1 2
¥a2x¤b1
6. Petrovic, 1954
The position below shows the solution. The
first thing that had to be worked out is how
the bishop on a1 can be giving check. The
pawn cannot have advanced because it
would have been giving check on e5. The
only possibility is that the pawn has
captured en passant. So, giving the moves
in reverse, we have 1 d5xe6 e7-e5 2 d5-d4.
In this new position, the king is surrounded
by squares which it cannot have come from
as they are under double, or even triple
attack, so the only possibility is another en
passant capture. The complete solution is
1...f5 2 exf6+ ¢xf6 3 d5+ e5 4 dxe6+ from
this initial position...
7. Grushko, 2005
1 c4 ¤f6 2 £b3 ¤d5 3 £b6 axb6 4 h4
¦a3 5 ¦h3 ¦xh3 6 cxd5 ¦c3 7 d6 ¦xc1#
8. Faybish, 2005
1 ¤f3 e6 2 ¤e5 £g5 3 ¤xd7 f6 4 ¤xb8
¥d7 5 ¤c6 ¦d8 6 ¤e5 ¢e7 7 ¤f7 ¥e8
8 ¤xh8 ¦d5 9 ¤g6+ ¢d6 10 ¤e5
9. Frolkin and Liubashevski, 1988
1 h4 h5 2 ¦h3 ¦h6 3 ¦b3 ¦a6 4 g3 g6 5
¥h3 ¥h6 6 ¥e6 ¥e3 7 dxe3 dxe6 8 ¥d2
¢d7 9 ¥b4+ ¢c6 10 ¤c3 £e8 11 £d8
¤d7 12 0–0–0 ¤df6 13 ¢b1 £d7 14 ¢a1
¤e8 15 ¦b1 £d1 16 ¤d5 ¢b5 17 ¥d6+
¢a4 18 ¦b6 ¥d7 19 ¤b4 ¥b5 20 b3+
Solutions to
Problem Album
RCO Matthews Probleemblad 1983
1.¦f7 (threats 2 Rg8 and 3 Rg5++)
1...¦xd3
or 1...¥f8 2.£xf4+ ¦xf4 (2...£xf4 3.¥xe6#) 3.¦xf6#
or 1...£d8 2.¦xf6+ ¥xf6 (2...¢xf6 3.£xf4#) 3.¥xe6#
2.¥xe6+ £xe6 3.£xf4#
or 2...¢xe6 3.¦xf6#
RCO Matthews & B Burger Diagrammes 1993
1.¤f5 (threat 2 Ng3++)
1...d1£
or 1...d1¤ 2.¤e4 and 3 Nfg3++
or 1...¦ any 2.¤g3+ ¢e1 3.¦e4#
2.£xb4 and 3 Ng3++
White's responses to the promotions have traded
places with one another ("reciprocal change").
RCO Matthews L'Italia Scacchistica 1953
1.£xf6 (threat 2 Qa6++)
1...¤d3 2.¤e3#
or 1...¦c5 2.¤b6#
or 1...¦xb7 2.£c6#
or 1...¦xe7 2.£c6#
or 1...¦c6 2.£xc6#
or 1...¤c3 2.£d4#
or 1...¤d4 2.£xd4#
The white queen's change of place at the
start nullifies the diagram's promises of
1...Nc3 2 Ne3++/1...Nd4 2 Nb6++, though
these two mates will appear in other
contexts ("changed defences" or mate
transference"). Now it is other black pieces
which move to occupy squares wanted by
their king (first two variations).

CHESS is 75 years old!
We published our first edition in 1935.
To celebrate, we are dipping into our
archives to present readers with
material from our early days. One of
our regular collaborators in the 1930s
was the famous columnist and
blindfold player George Koltanowski
(1903-2000). This slightly abridged
article is from CHESS, October 1936,
in which he tells the story of how he
first started to play blindfold chess.
How it started? Well, that's a funny story.
Years ago - I was in my teens at the time,
sweet seventeen! - I went with Sapira
(Emmanuel Sapira 1900-43, a Belgian
chess master - ed) to Ghent to watch the
Serbian player, Tschabritch (unidentified -
have readers any idea who this was? -
ed), play two games blindfold. We thought
it to be impossible.
Thinking ourselves very wise, we asked if
we could take the two boards against
Tschabritch. We did not trust the players
there and thought that the whole thing
might be a put-up job, with the games
rehearsed beforehand. To our surprise, we
were accepted, and to our even greater
surprise we found ourselves in difficulties
almost from the beginning. I can't recall
the result with certainty, but I think both
games ended in draws and I know we had
a very hard job not to lose. We were
convinced and we were stricken!
Later I asked the Serbian how he learned to
play blindfold. "Quite easy," he answered.
"I merely drew a chess board on the ceiling
of my bedroom. Then every morning when
I awoke I played over an opening on the
board in my imagination and soon I found
I could visualise the board with my eyes
shut and go through whole games."
This impressed me enormously. When we
got back to Antwerp, we talked about this
wonderful thing for days on end; in fact,
whenever we were anywhere near
anybody who understood chess. Then
someone challenged me to play them one
game blindfold. I accepted... but after ten
moves I had to confess that I had lost
track of the position.
This disgusted me. I was young and
foolish, and made up my mind I would
not let blindfold play get the better of me.
I started to draw a big black-and-white
chess board on the ceiling of my
bedroom, but my father came and caught
me in the act and succeeded in impressing
on me pretty forcibly that if I could not
work out some system not based on
ruining a ceiling I had better drop the
whole thing altogether.
Whilst I was considering whether to tie up
a board on to the ceiling instead of drawing
it, another possible way of tackling the
problem occurred to me. I was just
beginning to realise how important, as an
aid to visualisation, the colours of the
squares were. Once you know, almost by
second nature, which squares are white and
which black, half the battle is over. You
can then never be just one square out in
your reckoning, for it would be the wrong
colour; and you are seldom two squares
out, so you must be just right. Get me?
Also, you work down diagonals, etc.
I cut a paper chess board into four parts
like this:
Rather strangely, I found it easier to
remember the colours then, and I find it
easier to remember moves and positions
now, on four little boards like this than on
one big one. Try it yourself. Perhaps
psychologists can explain. Anyway, I
spent about half-a-day learning the board
by heart and after that you had only to
give me the name of a square, say, KB2,
or Q6, or Q7, for me to tell you its colour
without a second's hesitation.
At once, after this preparation, I found I
could conduct a single blindfold game with
ease. One day I offered to play three boards
simultaneously blindfold at the club. The
offer was accepted and, to my delight, I got
through the ordeal successfully. After that it
was only a matter of practice, though I
must add that I did not start playing on
more than six boards until after I had won
the Belgian championship.
Naturally, once I found myself on safe
round I accepted every invitation for
blindfold displays on six or eight boards
that came. I soon had given displays in
Holland, Germany and England as well as
Belgium. I was once on my way to give a
display when I arrived at a little junction
town, only to find that the train I should
have caught had departed and that I was
stranded there until the next morning. This
would not have mattered if I had had any
money on me, but I had only a few cents;
I had not bothered particularly about
having any money with me as I knew
there would be adequate hospitality at the
place where I was to give the display.
I walked round the little town about five
times and was just beginning to resign
myself to a hungry and sleepless night,
when I happened to see, through the
window of a café, two men playing chess
and a third watching. In I went, watched
them for a while and when they had
finished I said I would play all three of
them blindfold. They could not quite
understand what I meant at first, but after
a bit of explanation they began to
understand and became very keen to see
me achieve the "impossible." To cut a
long story short, I won all three games
quickly and after that I could have had
anything I wanted. A splendid supper and
a fine bed. That was the only time I have
really “sung for my supper"!
Simultaneous blindfold displays have their
awkward side, and two classes of people
are the bane of my life; good players who
won’t take a board against me, but go
round advising the others, and bad players
who never resign. I would far rather a
good player sat down and played against
me. You see, as soon as I realise a player
www.chess.co.uk 43

44
at a certain board is weak, I go all out for
him, aiming at a quick mate or big
material win. Forcing the game is always
dangerous, and it is just where I have the
weak player wavering between ten losing
lines that the good player seems to take a
fiendish delight in coming up and pointing
out to him the single subtle win.
The worst result I ever had was at Ghent one
night. I was playing eight boards and a
messenger was constantly taking the moves
into the next room where eight positions
were set up identical with those in my room,
with crack players analysing for all they
were worth. Then he would rush back with
moves to be made by my opponents and
take a fresh batch of my moves back with
him, I scored about fifty per cent, and, whilst
bandages were being unwrapped from eyes,
I was beginning to wonder whether I had
better give up blindfold play in future and to
fear that I had permanently overstrained my
brain. Perspiration was streaming down my
face and I expected everybody to start
hissing at any moment. Instead, there were
loud cheers... and it was then that the
horrible practical joke was explained to me,
and I learned that I been playing against the
whole team of contestants in the current
Belgian Championship!
Blindfold play is a great attraction, but
should not be regarded as anything more.
It usually gets onlookers and contestants
excited and is good value for money. But
if a player continues to play on, a queen
or two rooks down in the hope that the
blindfold player will tire and make a slip,
then all enjoyment goes, for the spectators
as much as for the blindfold player. In one
display, at Manzanares (Spain), I started at
11 o’clock at night on eight boards. At 1
a.m. I was a queen up on four boards, yet
nobody was thinking of resigning. At two
o’clock I had won three games and drawn
one, but these four wood-shifters were
plodding on and still they were each a
queen or more to the bad. I had to give a
display in another town the next day, and
as my train left at six a.m.: “You are good
Spaniards!” I addresses them: "You may
be caballeros or picadors, you may have
knives in your belts: but just here and now
I am going to be rude to you. I am going
to sleep.” And I did.
I awoke at 5-15 a.m. and. they were there.
So I resumed, mating one on the second
move and the others a little later. Were
they wild? Was I wild? But I did not know
then what a Spanish revolution was like -
that is a story I shall have to tell you later.
In 1923 I played sixteen games blindfold,
with a good result, thus establishing a
Belgian record. Then I had to become a
soldier. (I can imagine you smiling at that.)
There is, of course, conscription in
Belgium. It was the hospital service into
which I was drafted and the job in which I
specialised was peeling potatoes, definitely
not an inspiration to the blindfold chess
player. For the last three months of my
year's service I was transferred from the
occupied Rhine to Namur, and it was
goodbye to potato-peeling then, for by a
stroke of good fortune my captain was the
president of the local chess club.
The day my army service ended, I set off
for my home town, Antwerp. Thoroughly
tired, resolved to do just nothing for a
fortnight. Luxuriously relax. Laze and
smoke and read.
As soon as I stepped out of the station, I
saw glaring at me a great placard on the
wall of the street:
G. KOLTANOWSKI,
Chess Champion of Belgium,
will play next Sunday afternoon, at 3-30,
twenty games simultaneously blindfold.
It almost knocked me over, and I felt too
weak to read any more. Not a scrap of
warning, with me totally out of training.
And on a Sunday of all days, so that a
wonderful "date" had to be sacrificed!
There was nothing to do but face up to it,
so I went into training at once, sleeping
till 11 o'clock each morning, drinking milk
and going off early to bed.
On Wednesday morning, however, my
sergeant comes to me and asks me to do
him a little favour. "Certainly!" I
answered, little dreaming what it was
going to lead me into. "Well, you see, it's
like this!" he explained, "An old aunt of
mine keeps a delicatessen shop in Namur
and they have a visit from their local
preacher every Wednesday evening. This
man thinks he can beat anybody at chess
and is becoming insufferable, and you
would do us all a great favour if you
would come down and beat him a few
times." "By all means!" I said, and went.
We arrived before the vicar and we
arranged that I was to be a distant relative
of the Sergeant from Courtrai. When the
vicar arrived we said nothing about chess
for awhile, so as not to make him
suspicious. Suddenly: "Have you seen the
placards?" he asked: "Somebody is going
to play twenty games simultaneously
blindfold! Just as if it were possible! All a
put-up job in my opinion! I'd like to play
that Johnny - I bet I would beat him."
"Are you talking about chess?" I asked,
simply. "Yes, do you play?" "I have a
game or two now and then in Courtrai." "
"Very well," said the Vicar, delightedly,
“pull out the board and men and I'll have a
game with you!"
It did not take me long to find out that the
Vicar was a very bad player indeed. I did
not rush things, just won quietly in the
first game. "Bah!" he exclaimed, "It was
simply that I did not concentrate. Let us
have a stake on it. I can only play with
some incentive. Everybody then suggested
as they always do, that the loser should
pay for drinks all round. The vicar
consented, and I, though I remembered
rather nervously that I was in training,
dare not do anything but agree. The
glasses were brought out and filled and I
started: 1 e4 e5 2 ¥c4 ¤c6 3 £h5 ¤f6
4 £xf7 mate. "Your health!" I said.
"Eh?" he said "that was a trick, here, we
must have another. Drink up your glass,
man!" he continued testily, replacing the
pieces in their original positions.
He was a man of spirit, I will say that for
him. We played on and on into the night
and no sooner had he lost one game than he
insisted on starting another, paying up the
"stake" and making me drink up. After the
fifth bottle I started to feel bad. I arose
rather clumsily and before saying goodnight
to all I handed my card to the vicar. "Oh !"
he explained, "for heaven's sake don't tell
anybody about this, it will make me the
laughing stock of Namur." "Not at all," I
said, "you have played like a gentleman!"
and I tried to persuade him to let me divide
the "stakes" after all, but he would not.
Next morning, I was on the sick list. I had
a "hang-over" till Saturday, for I hardly
ever drink as a rule, but on Sunday
morning I felt my will-power (which is
really all that carries me through these
blindfold exhibitions) surging back again
and in the morning I won the blindfold
championship of Belgium, and in the
afternoon I played twenty games blindfold
against players from all over Belgium,
with a good result. The vicar was there
and ever since he has been one of my
staunchest supporters!
Years afterwards I was sitting in a café
which is a favourite haunt of the members
of the Flemish chess club at Antwerp with
my friends, Jacobs, Perquin, Van Weerdt.
"Let's have a round on you," said someone
to Perquin. "OK" replied Perquin,
genially, "if..... " and his eyes came round
to me with a nasty twinkle: "Koltanowski

here will play thirty games blindfold,
beating the world's record." "Pay up,
Perquin! " I said, "I'll do it."
In that care-free fashion, it all started. Once
I had made my promise, the Flemish Chess
Club began to make serious preparations,
and there was nothing for it for me but to
go into hard training. Besides working out
a detailed and absolutely infallible method
of remembering the boards, I had to see to
it that I should be physically fit for such an
effort, in view of the fact that such a largescale
business could not possibly take less
than ten hours. The physical side of my
training was every bit as Important as the
mental.
My system was as follows: Into bed each
day at 7 p.m. Up at 6 a.m. and out for a
long walk. Breakfast at 8 a.m., then out for
another long walk. Lunch at 12, followed
by a rest. Then at 3 p.m. I would practise
out three moves on each of thirty boards.
The thirty opening moves I decided to
arrange in the following manner: Board 1,
e4; Board 2, d4; Board 3, e4; Board 4, d4;
Board 5, f4. Then the variations,
according to my opponents' replies: to the
first French defence I should reply on the
third move exd5; to the second, Nc3; to
the third, e5, and so on. I had similar
replies ready for the Sicilian defence, the
Caro-Kann and the Ruy Lopez.
The great difficulty in big displays like
this is to get the games all following
different trends early on; they then
become easier to remember. After four or
five moves there may be four games, say,
those at boards 2, 7, 22 and 27, at which
the positions are still identical. If my
opponents do not then go off along
different lines, I make a point of doing so
myself, so that soon every game has a
quite characteristic position. Once this is
achieved things become easier. People
have been surprised to learn from me that
this business of getting the boards apart
from each other is the most difficult part
of the job, but that is the truth.
Whenever I think back to that Sunday
morning in May, 1931, my heart gives a
flutter. Would my method hold?
Supposing after four hours' play I
suddenly lost track of a game and, in
worrying over it, lost another and another!
What if I mixed up the boards? Brrrrrr... I
still shiver at the thought! I felt terribly
nervous that morning.
Once in the hall and with action near, my
confidence began to return. At one o'clock
exactly I started and with a clear voice (I
Koltanowski made a two-month UK tour in 1937, giving blindfold displays, ordinary
simuls and lectures. The photo shows him in action on 15 February 1937 at Harrow
Chess Club where he scored +5, =4, -1 in a blindfold display.
can hear it now!) I called out "Board one,
e4; Board two, d4; Board three, e4... Board
seventeen, d4..... Board twenty-nine, d4;
Board thirty, f4." Then I listened. Back
from the teller came the announcement:
"Board one plays e5." "2, Nf6," I replied
immediately. And now we really were in
the thick of the conflict.
How did I do it? As soon as I had
answered one board, the position (which I
don't so much see as feel) slid away and
the next one was there. Only two boards,
numbers eight and twenty-three, caused
me trouble. I could not remember them
any too well; when the number was called
there was simply a blank in front of my
eyes instead of the position. So I kept on
repeating to myself the moves made on all
the boards, so as to keep the whole thing
firmly under control. And to my joy, after
the sixth move, even these two boards
came back before my eyes.
At five o'clock, there was a pause of halfan-hour,
so that everybody could partake of
refreshment. I had won two games by then
and was beginning to feel confident. I ate
under the watchful eyes of six stewards,
each from a different town. I repeated the
position on each of the thirty boards before
resuming, causing a great sensation among
the players and spectators.
At six I felt sick. I was developing a bad
headache. I asked for a five minutes'
pause and, under supervision, took a short
stroll out in the street, so as to get some
fresh air. Many people (I learnt
afterwards) thought I was finished. But
back I came like a lion refreshed, and as
people began to resign and the ranks of
the opposition thinned out, my task
became progressively easier. Suddenly I
realised I was not going to lose a game!
What a record! At 11 p.m. I announced
mate on board sixteen, the last of the lot! I
had won twenty games out of thirty and
drawn the remaining ten!! I had done it!
The Club published a special book, in
which the score of every game played was
given in full. The event was talked about
in Antwerp, and indeed all over Belgium,
for weeks.
The reaction was bound to come. It came
in the strangest way, and lasted exactly
half-a-minute. It came in the street as I
was walking along with a friend; he was
taken completely by surprise, for I
suddenly went white as a sheet and clung
to his arm like grim death. Since then, and
apart from that, my tremendous efforts at
blindfold play have not affected me one
jot. Alekhine has played thirty-two games
at once under these conditions, but as he
lost about five games and drew several
others against opposition certainly no
stiffer than that I encountered at Antwerp,
I am sure he will be the first to admit that
he did not achieve as good a result.
I think you will agree with me that
blindfold chess has a queer fascination,
both in the playing and in the recounting.
One thing I can state with conviction: I am
quite certain that I could smash my existing
record completely, given a spell of quiet
preparation and practise. When that can be
arranged, I shall be willing to go up to
forty boards - and not only willing, but
able. Perhaps I sha make the attempt in
England as a finale to the series of
exhibitions I shall be giving in the course
of this coming spring. Who knows?
www.chess.co.uk 45

IRELAND - The Dun Laoghaire Masters
(20-29 August) featured two events
offering GM and IM norm chances for
Irish players. The winner of the GM
tournament was English GM Mark
Hebden, with 6/9, followed by 2 Mark
Quinn 5½, 3-6 Alex Baburin, Alex Lopez,
Mark Heidenfeld, Federico Manca (ITA)
5, 7 Klaus Bischoff (GER) 4½, 8 Valery
Atlas (AUT) 3½, 9 Sam Collins 3, 10 Yury
Rochev (RUS) 2½. The IM event was
won by Simon Ansell with 7/9, followed
by 2 Rafael Rodriguez Lopez (ESP) 5½,
3-4 Pavel Cech (CZE), Stephen Brady 5,
5-7 Colm Daly, David Fitzsimons, Povilas
Tvarijonas (LTU) 4½, 8 Eric Moskow
(USA) 3½, 9 Philip Short 3, 10 Ryan-
Rhys Griffiths 2½ (Irish unless otherwise
indicated). The organisers achieved their
objective as Alex Lopez scored an IM
norm, beating German GM Klaus
Bischoff in the last round.
Dun Laoghaire Masters 2010
A.Lopez - S.Collins
KP Irregular
1 e4 d6 2 d4 ¤f6 3 f3 e5 4 ¤e2 c6 5 ¥e3
¤bd7 6 ¤bc3 ¥e7 7 £d2 0–0 8 0–0–0 b5
9 ¤g3 ¤b6 10 dxe5 dxe5 11 £xd8 ¦xd8
12 ¤f5 ¦xd1+ 13 ¤xd1 ¥f8 14 ¥g5
¤bd7 15 ¤f2 g6 16 ¤h6+ ¢g7 17 ¥e2
¤c5 18 ¦d1 ¥e6 19 ¢b1 ¤fd7 20 g4 f6
21 ¥c1 ¥e7 22 h4 ¤b6 23 b3 ¦d8 24
¦g1 ¥c8 25 g5 fxg5 26 hxg5 ¤e6 27
¤d3 ¤d7 28 f4 ¤xf4 29 ¤xf4 exf4 30
¥xf4 ¦f8 31 ¥c1 ¤e5 32 ¥b2 ¥d6 33
¦d1 ¥b8 34 ¥g4 ¥xg4 35 ¤xg4 ¦e8
36 ¦d7+ ¢h8 37 ¦b7 ¥d6 38 ¤f6 1–0
MANCHESTER CONGRESS - The
Manchester Congress (Woolton Hall,
Manchester University, 3-5 September)
attracted 87 competitors with a strong
turnout in the Open. The change to an
autumn date (because of the clash with
the World Cup) had no ill effect and may
become permanent. Leading scores,
Open: 1 Adam Ashton (3Cs) 4½/5, 2-3
Mike Surtees (Bolton), Hope Mkhumba
(Chorlton) 4, U185 GP Chris Vassiliou
(Chorlton). Major: 1 Pete Kobryn (Gt.
Lever) 5/5, 2-5 David Bryan (Chester),
Nigel Holroyd, Michael Connor (Gt.
Lever) and John Cawston (LAM York)
3½, U145 GP John Bowers (Caernarfon).
Knights: 1 Tim Hilton (3Cs) 4½/5, 2-3
Dave Dunne (Dark Horses) and Dave
Watson (Costorphine) 4, U110 GP Jack
Virgin (Worsley).
OBITUARIES - (Louis) Alan Edwards
(20 July 1950 - 7 September 2010) was a
strong Leicestershire player. Alan played
for England in the Glorney Cup in 1967
and won the Northern Junior
Championship later that year. Sadly, he
became ill around that time and remained
so throughout his life. Nevertheless, he
still managed to play good chess, winning
Midlands and Leicestershire
Championships and appearing in the
British Championship in the 1970s. Two
Hampshire stalwarts also died recently:
Peter Marshall died on 8 September,
aged 87, and his friend Len Walters died
some six weeks earlier. Both were longstanding
members of Southampton Chess
Club and Peter had been president of the
West of England Chess Union. They were
also strong players on high boards for
Hampshire, and were jointly instrumental
in bringing the British Championship to
Southampton in 1986.
PAIGNTON - The Diamond Jubilee (60th)
Paignton Congress was held as always
at the Oldway Mansion, from 5-11
September. The name of the winner of
the Ron Bruce Premier is almost as
traditional: GM Keith Arkell, who now
lives locally, won for the 16th time
(including a number of shared firsts).
Leading scores, Premier: 1 Keith Arkell
(Paignton) 6½/7 (Tyson Mordue held him
to a draw in the last round), 2 Richard
Almond (Hastings) 5, 3-9 Martin Simons
(Southbourne), Neville Gill (Isle of Man),
Dirk Jordan (Dresden), Tyson Mordue
(Braille CA), Ed Hurwitz (Rose Forgrove),
J McKenna (Cowley), B Jenks (Wessex)
4½. Challengers U180: 1-5 Chris Archer-
Lock (Maidenhead), Andrew Footner
(Yeovil), Brian Hewson (Exmouth), Martin
Page (Insurance), Andrew Price
(Leamington) 5/7. Intermediate U150: 1
Paul Smith (Hastings) 5½/7, 2-4 Peter
Hannan (Charlton), Dinah Norman
(Wokingham), David Walshaw (Jesmond)
5. Minor U125: 1 Chris Long (Truro)
5½/7, 2-3 Chris Constable (Coulsdon),
Geoff Naldrett (Insurance) 5. American: 1
Nigel Dennis (Maidenhead) 7/7, 2 Geoff
Harrison (Gosforth) 5½, 3-4 Clifford
Oliver (Cheltenham), Omer Namouk
(Hastings) 3½. Morning U180: 1 Richard
Bryant (Chester) 4½/5, 2-6 Andrew
Footner (Yeovil), Eric Key (York),
Brendan O’Gorman (DHSS), David
Patrick (Courier Halifax), Barry
Sandercock (Chalfont St Peters) 4.
On the evening of Tuesday 7 September,
England number one Michael Adams gave
a 31-board simultaneous display at the
Oldway Mansion. He scored +26, =4, -1.
The four draws were with Brendan
O’Gorman, William Taylor, Jonathan C
Wells and Chris Archer-Lock, and the loss
was to Robert Thompson of Newton Abbot.
Paignton Premier 2010
M.Simons - K.Arkell
Caro Kann Defence
1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 f3 e6 4 ¤c3 ¥b4 5 ¥d2
¤d7 6 ¥d3 ¤e7 7 a3 ¥a5 8 £e2 0–0 9
¤h3 ¥b6 10 ¥e3? A seemingly innocuous
move but which loses material.
10...e5! 11 £f2 11 dxe5 d4 wins a piece.
There are ways to lose only a pawn here
but they would leave White without viable
play. 11...exd4 12 ¥xd4 c5 13 ¥xg7
¢xg7 14 exd5 ¤g6 15 ¥xg6 hxg6 16
0–0–0 c4 17 £e2 ¦e8 18 £xc4 ¤e5 19
£f4 ¥xh3 20 gxh3 £f6 21 £xf6+ ¢xf6
22 d6 ¢g7 23 ¤d5 ¤xf3 24 ¦d3 ¤e5
25 ¦b3 ¤d7 26 ¦b5 ¦ab8 27 ¦d1 ¦e2
28 c4 ¦c8 28...¥c5! is very strong here.
29 b3 ¦c6 30 a4 ¦xd6?
Black blunders back the piece. 31 ¤xb6
¦xb6 32 ¦xd7 ¦f6 33 ¦d2 ¦e1+ 34 ¦d1
34 ¢c2 is better. 34...¦e7 35 ¦bd5 ¦f3
36 ¦5d3 ¦ee3 37 ¦xe3 37 ¢c2 first is
www.chess.co.uk 57

58
Photo: Brendan O’Gorman
GM Keith Arkell won the Premier section of the Paignton Congress
better. 37...¦xe3 By a rather unorthodox
route, Keith Arkell has reached the
endgame he is famous for - rook and
pawns! 38 ¢c2 ¦xh3 39 ¦d2 a5 40 ¢b2
40 ¦d7!? probably has to be tried. 40...g5
41 c5 g4 42 ¦g2 f5 43 b4 White was
already in dire straits. 43...axb4 44 a5
¦a3 45 a6 ¦xa6 46 ¢b3 ¢f6 47 ¢xb4
¢g5 48 ¢c4 ¦f6 49 h3 b6! Resolving the
position down to a known win. 50 cxb6
¦xb6 51 hxg4 fxg4 52 ¢d4 ¦e6 0–1
SUNNINGDALE - The e2e4 Sunningdale
Congress (De Veres Sunningdale Hotel,
Ascot, 10-12 September) featured a very
strong FIDE-Rated Open which was won
by GM Aaron Summerscale with 4½/5.
Second equal were GMs Nick Pert, Simon
Williams and IM Gavin Wall (Ireland) on 4.
GM Gawain Jones could only score 3/5,
losing to Williams and Summerscale in the
final two rounds. Other results - Major: 1-2
Daniel Staples, Christopher Kreuzer 4½/5,
3 Vladimirs Bovtramovics 4. Minor: 1
Kishan Pattni 4½/5, 2-3 Stephen Thacker,
Marek Biernacki 4.
Sunningdale 2010
G.Jones - A.Summerscale
French Tarrasch Defence
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 ¤d2 c5 4 ¤gf3 ¤f6 5
e5 ¤fd7 6 c3 ¤c6 7 ¥d3 ¥e7 8 0–0 g5 9
dxc5 g4 10 ¤d4 ¤dxe5 11 ¤2b3 This is
risky as Black gains a big centre and of
course the two bishops. 11 ¥b5 and 11
¥e2 are safer alternatives. 11...¤xd3 12
£xd3 e5 13 ¤xc6 bxc6 14 £e2 f6 15 c4
¥a6 16 £xg4 ¥xc4 17 ¦d1 d4 18 £h5+
Black is soon well on top after this. 18
¤xd4!? is interesting but Black will
probably get good play for his two
bishops, , e.g. 18...h5! 19 £g6+ ¥f7 20
£e4 £d5 21 £xd5 cxd5 22 ¤b3 a5 23
¥d2 a4 24 ¤a5 ¥xc5 , etc. 18...¥f7 19
£e2 £d5 20 f3 0–0 21 ¥h6 ¦fe8 22 f4
¢h8
23 ¢h1? This wastes a vital tempo. 23
fxe5 fxe5 24 ¦e1 ¥f6 25 ¦f1!? gets some
play for White. 23...¦g8! 24 fxe5
Otherwise 24...¦g6 will trap the bishop on
h6. 24...¥h5! A deadly intermezzo. 25 £f2
¥xd1 26 ¦xd1 fxe5 27 ¥d2 ¦af8 28 £g1
¦f6 29 ¦e1 ¦fg6 30 ¦e2 d3 31 ¦xe5 31
¦f2 ¥h4 is decisive. 31...¦xg2 0–1
SWITZERLAND - The 11th World
Universities Championship (Zurich, 5-11
September) was played as a nine-round
individual Swiss. The winner of the
men’s/open championship was Wang Yue
and, of the women’s championship,
Batkhuyag Munguntuul. The Chinese
grandmaster was top seed and ran away
with the open event, securing first place
with a round to spare. His score of 8½/9
amounted to a TPR of 2957. Second
place went to GM Anuar Ismagambetov
(Kazakhstan) and third place to IM Davit
Benidze (Georgia), both on 6½ points.
The women’s tournament was more
closely contested but in the end the top
seed also prevailed though she needed
to win her last game to be sure of the
title. Silver and bronze medals went to
Ljilja Drljevic (Serbia, WGM norm) and
Sopiko Guramishvili (Georgia).
In the combined nations’ ranking (one
man and two women or vice versa), the
result was 1 Mongolia 19, 2 Georgia 18½
(113) and 3 Russia 18½ (101).
Davit Benidze (Georgia) achieved a GM
norm and there was an IM norm for
England’s Peter Poobalasingam. He
scored 4½/9 against a strong field,
including three grandmasters, and
secured his norm with a round to spare.
The other members of the English squad
were: Vedantha Kumar (3/9), Sarah
Hegarty (4/9) and Hannah Dale (3½/9).
All benefited from the presence of IM
Lorin D’Costa as manager and coach.
World Universities’ Championship 2010
P.Poobalasingam - M.Sulashvili
Queen’s Gambit Declined
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 ¤f3 c6 4 e3 ¤f6 5
¤bd2 c5 6 cxd5 exd5 7 dxc5 ¥xc5 8 a3
0–0 9 b4 ¥e7 10 ¥b2 a5 11 b5 ¤bd7 12
¥e2 ¤c5 13 0–0 ¥f5 14 ¤e5 ¦c8 15
¤df3 ¥d6 16 ¤d3 ¤ce4 17 ¦c1 ¦xc1
18 £xc1 £e7 19 £a1 ¥g4 20 ¦e1 ¦c8
21 ¤f4 ¦e8 22 ¤d3 ¦c8 23 h3 ¥d7 24
a4 ¦e8 25 ¥d1 h6 26 ¥e5 ¥f5 27 ¥xd6
¤xd6 28 ¤f4 ¥e4?! Black was equal to
here but he has cause to regret allowing
his bishop to be exchanged. 29 ¤d2 ¤c4
30 ¤xe4 dxe4 31 ¥b3 ¤e5 32 £c3
White takes the initiative. 32...b6 33 ¦d1
¤fd7 34 ¤d5 £c5 35 ¦d4 ¤d3?
35...¢f8 or 35...¢h8 are better. 36 ¦c4
£d6 37 ¦c6 £b8 38 ¤c7 ¦f8? 38...¦e7
is better. 39 £d4 ¤7e5 40 ¦c3 ¦c8?
It’s all over now. 41 ¤a6 £b7 42 ¥d5!
£d7 43 ¥xf7+! 43 ¦xc8+ £xc8 44 ¥xe4
is also very strong. 43...¢xf7 44 £xd7+
¤xd7 45 ¦xc8 ¤b2 46 ¦c7 ¢e6 47
¦c6+ ¢e5 48 ¤c7 ¤xa4 49 ¦e6+ ¢f5
50 g4+ ¢g5 51 ¢g2 ¤dc5 52 ¦d6 ¤b7
53 ¦d7 g6 54 ¤e8 ¤ac5 55 ¢g3 1–0
WOMEN’S WORLD BLITZ - Kateryna
Lahno won the second Women’s World
Blitz Championship (Moscow, 15-18
September). Leading scores: 1 Kateryna
Lahno (UKR) 20/30, 2 Tatiana Kosintseva
(RUS) 19, 3 Valentina Gunina (RUS)
18½, 4-5 Antonaneta Stefanova (BUL),
Humpy Koneru (IND) 17½, 6 Alexandra
Kosteniuk (RUS) 17, 7-8 Inna
Gaponenko (UKR), Nadezhda Kosintseva
(RUS) 15½, 9-10 Marie Sebag (FRA),
Anna Muzychuk (SLO) 15, etc.

Gibraltar welcomes you to the world’s foremost open tournament
Monday 24 th January - Thursday 3 rd February at The Caleta Hotel, Gibraltar
£126,000 purse prize money
£17,500 Top prize
Confi rmed participants:
Vassily Ivanchuk, Viktor Korchnoi, Michael Adams and
fi ve of the six highest rated woman players in the world
“By far the best annual Open under the jurisdiction of the ECF”
Jon Speelman, Observer
“One of the world’s leading Open tournaments”
Raymond Keene, The Times
“The tournament remains one of the highlights of the chess calendar”
Malcolm Pein, Daily Telegraph
Enter today at: www.gibraltarchesscongress.com
Gibraltar Junior International Chess Festival 18th to 23rd August 2011
for more info contact Sharon Whately at sjw2911@hotmail.co.uk