CHESS

Evening Star, Issue 19782, 4 February 1928, Page 15

CHESS

[Conducted by L.D.G.J ‘ The Otago Club meets for f.lay at the rooms, 21 George street. Hannah’s Buildings, every Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday evenings, at 7.30 o'clock. TO CORRESPONDENTS. • F. (Wellington).—Papers , received. Thanks. . D.H.H. (Sl.' Hilda).—Thanks for contribution. - T , ' , , J.J.JI (Musselburgh).—l am pleased to note your appreciation of No. 1,446. LID.C. (St. Clair).—Thanks for letter and compositions. ~ , , . . Dr C. (Portobellop—Letter appreciated. I hope that you have a good holiday. T.J.It. (Dunedin).— Pleased to receive composition, No. 2. G. (Port Chalmers).—Your solution to problem No. 1,444 is correct. Correct solutions to problems No. 1,445 and 1 446 received from J.A.8., J.C., JJM S.S.M., Dr C., G.S.M.M’D., R F.R.M’D.. R.M.. T.P.W., W.G. IWc invite communications on ail matters concerning chess. Solutions of problems, games,_ and analyses will 'receive our attention, and if of sufficient merit will be inserted. All communications to be addressed, “Chess Editor.” ‘Evening Star.’) SOLUTION TO PROBLEM No. 1,445: Q-B 3. SOLUTION TO PROBLEM No. 1,446: K-Kt, 2. PROBLEM No. 1,447. By L. D. Coombs (Dunedin). Black, 3 pieces.

PROBLEM-No. 1,448. By T. J. Rossbotham (Dunedin) Black, 7 pieces.

SEVERN E v. MDERMID. The following interesting game was played in the New Zealand championship, 1927-28, between Messrs R. M.'Derrriid (Otago) and E. H. Seyerne (Nelson). The Otago representative by clever play in the end game enabled him to secure a drawn game against his strong .opponent : —Four Knights 1 Game.— White, B. H. Severne (Nelson); Black, R. M'Dermid (Otago). 1 P-K 4 P-K 4 2 Kt-K. B 3 Kt-Q B 3 3 KLQ B 3 B-8.,4 ■ 4 B-B 4.1.. P-Q 3 ' 5 P-K R 3 Kt-B 3 6 Castles Castles 7 P-Q 3 P-K R 3 8 B-K 3 B-Kt 3 9 P-Q R 3 Kl-K 2 10 Q-Q 2 Bx B 11 P x B B-K 3 12 B-R 2 B. x B 13 P. x B Kt-R 2 14 Kt-K R 4 Q-Q 2 15 Q R-Q R 1 P-Q R 3 16 R-B 2 P-K B 4 17 Kt x P Kt x Kt 18 R x Kt R x R 19 P x R Q x P 20 Kt-Q 5 Q-Q 2 21 Q-B 3 Kt-Kt 4 22 Q-Kt 3 K-R 2 23 Q x P...:.,R-K B 1 24 R-K B 1 R x B ch 25 Kx R Q-B 2ch 26 K-Kt 1 Kt, x P ch 27 P x Kt Q-B 6 28 P-B 4 Q-Q Bch 29 K-B 2 Q-Q 7ch Draw.

LONDON INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS, 1922. —Capablanca v. Vidmar.— Queen’s Gambit Declined. Capablanca Vidmar. ' 1 P-Q 4 P-Q 4 2 Kt-K B 3 Kt-K B 3 3 P-B 4 P-E 3 4 Kt-B 3 B-K 2 . 5 B-Kt 5 Q Kt-Q 2 6 P-K 3 Castles 7 R-B 1 P-B 3 8 Q-B 2 Px P (a) 9B x P Kt-Q 4 10 B x B Q x B 11 Castles P-Q Kt 3 (b) 12 Kt x Kt B P x Kt 13 B-Q 3 P-K R 3 14 Q-B 7 Q-Kt 5 15 P-Q R 3! (c) Q-R 5 16 P-R 3 Kt-B 3 17 Kt-K 5 B-Q 2 (d) 18 B-B 2 Q-Kt 4 19 P-Q E 4 QxKt P 20 Kt x B Q R-B 1 21 Q-Kt 7 Kt xKt 22 B-R 7 ch K x B 23 R x R R x R 24 Qx R Kt-B 3 25 R-B 1 Q-Kt 5 26 Q-B 2 ch......K-Kt 1 27 Q-B 6 Q-R 6 28 Q-R Bch K-R 2 29 R-B 7 Qx R P 50 Rx B P Q-Q Bch 51 K-R 2 Q-R 4 32 Qx R P Q-Kt 3 33 R-B 8 Q-B 4 34 R-B 7 Q-Kt 3 35 R-Kt 7 Kt-K 5 36 Q-R 2 P-B 4 57 Qx P Px P 38 R-Kt 8...K1-B 3 39 Qx P Q-B 4 40 Rx P Qx P 41 Q-Q 3ch K-Kt 1 42 E-Kt Bch Resigns (e) (a) 8... R-K 1: 9 B-Q 3, P-K R 3; 10 B-R 4. and afterwards P x P is to be preferred. (b) A mistake. The correct continuation was 11... Kt x Kt, then 12... P-Q Kt 3. After this omission the ex-world’s champion occupies the important diagonal by exchanging the Kt, which advantage he utilises in quite classical style till the end. ■ (c) A fine sacrifice which Black could not accept, because after 15... Q xKt P; 16 R-Kt 1, Q x R P; 17 B-Kt 5! Kt-B 3; 18 R-R 1, Q moves; 19 K E-Kt 1, the Black Q has no move, and after 17... Q-K 2; 18 B-B 6, R-Kt 1; 19 Kt-K 5, R-Q 1!;. 20 B x Kt, B x B; 21 Kt-B 6, Black is obliged to resign. (d) In consequence of this mistake the exchange is lost, but it was already difficult to defend the Black position because the B could not be developed. If, for instance, 17...8-E 3, then,lß P-Q; Kt 3, Q-R 4; 19 Kt-B 6, and wins the B after Q x P, by 20 R-R 1. (e) This game is one of the most beautiful games played, in London, and it proves that Capablanca is not only a fine position player, but that he is also a .fine combinative payer, when ocasion demands.

CHAMPIONSHIP.; OP'THE WORLD. The ; New. York Times,’ in its issue of December 4, has the following very interesting comments under the heading ‘Chess Title Change Stirs Controversy.’ The passing of a world's champion always is a dramatic moment in every line of sport, and chess ha* provided no exception. It doubt- 1 ks* will be many weeks before : students

of the ancient game fully recover from the shock of{ seeing the hitherto invincible Jose R. Capablanca, who in fourteen years had lost only three tournament games, vanquished six times by Dr Alexander Aljechin and shorn of his title. 'As is usually the ease in startling upsets such, as this, -e hears on every side the customary comment, in the wake of the Buenos Aires match. Was Capablanca at his best? Staunch supporters of the former champion, who for years had regarded him as the last word in the development in modern chess technique, are positive he was not. They point to the fact that, unlike the passing of the title from Lasker to Capablanca’ in 1921, and from Steinitz t» Lasker in 1894, this was not an instance of - a much older man giving way to a youthful rival with fresher and newer ideas. Capablanca is scarcely four years older than Aljechin, and the international careers of the two have been practically contemporaneous. Capablauca’s admirers, therefore, are positive that the Cuban master merely experienced one of those form reversals from which not even chess masters ave immune.

Aljechin eutlisuiasts, however, will have none of this. They are convinced that Capablanca performed as well as he ever did, and that his defeat was duo solely U the fact that for the first time, in his career be found himself opposed by a player as well versed as he was in the technique of the game, and who in addition combined greater imaginative powers, alertness, and a deeper insight into position play. So the discussion will rage for some time to come, and unbiased critics, iu fact, ace convinced that it never will be. answered definitely until the two meet again in a return match, which seems reasonably assured for 1929. The latter group, indeed, hold that it is futile to attempt to pass judgment on the form of ihe two players, for, after all, Aljechin and Capablanca must be accepted as the two greatest exponents of. the game, and only another great master, such as Ur Lasker, oould be fully qualified to grasp the full import of their play. It is simple enough, it is pointed out, for annotators to criticise certain moves of Capablanca which led to his six defeats. But at the same time it must be held in mind that Capablanca himself knew the full weaknesses of these moves, and doubtless made them in an effort to avert more serious disaster, which possibly lay behind Aljechin’s subtle manoeuvres, which the Cuban alone had been able to detect. Far more interesting at the present time seems to be the discussion coming in the wake of Capablanca’s reiteration of bis stand that chess has become too drab, and that for master play it is in serious need of modification iu order to break the monotony of drawn games, of which the Buenos Aires match had more than its share. He contends that the technique of the openings has been so highly developed that a draw between two master players is inevitable unless the one chooses to embark on hazardous lines of play that are very apt to bring about defeat. However, the chess public in general does not appear quite ready to accept’ Capablanca’s view, and doubtless it will take another match with Aljechin to settle this point as we. If .Capablanca, as be intimates can be done, succeeds in drawing indefinite!; , then it will have to be admitted that' bo has stalemated the game, and made it necessary to bring about a change. T'h« mere fact that the Buenos Aires match went thirty-four games before a decision of six victories was reached is not quite sufficient grounds to condemn the game as it stands at present. Capablanca, it is pointed out, * has been a genius at holding , balanced positions, playing upon sliiut positional weaknesses of his opponents, and always having at hand an almost impregnable defence to ensure himself of a draw if he failed to win. it therefore seems nothing at all unusual that a master of such a type would carry on to a long and mighty struggle before going down to defeat in match play. There is a feeling that were Aljechin to play some other master of first rank, such as Dr Lasker or Dr Max Euwe, the Hollander, a _ decision would be reached in far shorter time, and not necessarily in Dr Aljcchin’s favor. At all events, (he conquest of Capablanca by Aljechin seems to have aroused more interest in chess than any event since the last title match in 1921. Doubtless, as the weeks roll by, comments of rival schools of chess will become more acrid and caustic. That seems to be of the chess world. When Lasker dethroned Steinitz iu 1834he precipitated a merry war among the experts. The majority held that all of Steinitz’s pet scientific theories had been smashed, and it was only, years later that the startling discovery was made that Lasker won chiefly because he had absorbed all that Steinitz had taught and had added a little rapre to it. Severe criticisms of champions once securely enthroned also seems to be a pet byplay of the ancient game. Steinitz was said ts have taken all the beauty out of chess by reducing it “to a mathematical science ”; Lasker was berated for "founding no new school” and doing nothing in particular except winning, while Capablanca in turn was accused of spoiling the game completely by introducing " a superior sort of wood-shifting ” that no one seemed able to fathom —at least_ not until Aljechin came along. Very likely Aljechin will come in for his full share in due time. CHESS ITEM. A chess match was in progress between Loudon and Edinburgh. The members of the Edinburgh Club, by way of explanation and apology for some little delay in sending their moves, have just transmitted to their London opponents a box containing twelve brace of very fine grouse which they beg to be considered a kind of intercalary This match has been going on for three years and four months.—London ‘Times,’ August 23, 1827.