Chess Room Newsletter #439

Garry Kasparov talking to the media in India in early March 2009.

---

1) Mechanics Institute Chess Club News
2) IM Sam Shankland Wins Final 2009 U.S. Chess Championship Spot by John Henderson
3) Louis Paulsen: "The Father of Hypermodern Chess" by Imre König - Part I
4) Here and There

---

Congratulations to 17-year-old Sam Shankland who qualified for this past weekend for the US Championship and will make the trip to Saint Louis with fellow MI member Josh Friedel this May.

George Sanguinetti solidified his newly recovered Expert's rating by winning the Walter Lovegrove Senior Open this past weekend at the Mechanics' with a score of 3.5 from 5. Sanguinetti, who was rated an Expert for all of the 1990s - reaching as high as 2175 - has been below 2000 for all of this decade until recently. Finishing second in the small, but strong, field was Expert Larry Snyder with 3. Top seed IM Walter Shipman, NM Keith Vickers and Class B player John Chan shared third place but it was Chan that attracted the most attention defeating two A players and holding Sanguinetti at bay for several hours before trying a misguided winning attempt. Chan gained 77 rating points for his efforts.

International Master Walter Shipman, one of the great gentlemen of American chess, turns 80 on April 18th.1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bg5 Nbd7 4.Qd3 h6 5.Bh4 c6 6.e4 dxe4 7.Nxe4 Nxe4 8.Qxe4 Qa5+ 9.c3 Nf6 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Bc4 Qf5 12.Qxf5 Bxf5 13.Ne2 Rg8 14.Ng3 Bg6 15.0–0 h5 16.Rfe1 h4 17.Ne4 0–0–0 18.Rad1 f5 19.Ng5 Rg7 20.f4 Bh5 21.Be2 Bxe2 22.Rxe2 e5? 22...e6 would have held the balance. The text is tactically ingenious but unfortunately for Black, White can decline the poisoned pawn very effectively. 23.Nf3! exd4 24.Nxh4 Bc5 25.cxd4 Bxd4+ 26.Kf1 Rg4 27.g3 Rd5 28.Nxf5 Rxf5 29.Rxd4 Rg8 30.Re7 Rd5 1–0 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 g5 4.g3 g4 5.Nh4 Nxe5 6.Bg2 d5 7.0–0 Ne7 8.d4 N5g6 9.Bg5 Bg7 10.Nc3 c6 11.Qd3 Qd6 12.Rad1 Nxh4 13.gxh4 f5 14.Qe3 Qe6 15.Qg3 h6 16.Bxe7 Kxe7 17.e3 Qd6 18.Qf2 Be6 19.Ne2 Rhf8 20.Nf4 Bf7 21.h5 Bf6 22.c4 Bg5 23.cxd5 cxd5 24.Nd3 Bxh5 25.Rc1 b6 26.Ne5 f4?? Some of Black's previous moves were a question of taste but here he goes too far. Instead 26...Be8 kept the balance. 27.Rc6 fxe3 28.Qc2 Rxf1+ 29.Bxf1 Qd8 30.Qh7+ Kf8 31.Qh8+ Ke7 32.Qg7+ Ke8 33.Qg8+ 1–0 Oleg Shaknazarov defeated Igor Traub to grab the lead at the midway point of the Spring Tuesday Night Marathon. A half point back at 3.5 from 4 are William Gray, Hayk Manveleyan, Steven Krasnov and San Francisco teenager Evan Sandberg who knocked off former SM Igor Margulis last night. 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.Bd3 Bd7 7.dxc5 Bxc5 8.0–0 a5 9.a4 Nge7 10.Qe2 Ng6 11.Na3 Rc8 12.Nb5 0–0 13.h4 f6 14.exf6 Rxf6 15.Bxg6 Rxg6 16.Bf4 Rg4 17.g3 Rf8 18.Bc7 Qxc7! The text is strong and forced as 18...Qa6 is met by 19.Ng5 . Traub had to see the Queen sacrifice a few moves back but unfortunately does not follow up correctly. 19.Nxc7 Rxg3+ 20.Kh1 Rgxf3 21.Nxe6 Bxe6?? 21...Rh3+ 22.Kg2 Rf6 23.Kxh3 (23.Nxc5?? Rg6+) 23...Rxe6 24.Qd1 Re1+ 25.Kg2 Rxd1 26.Raxd1 Ne7 gives excellent play with two Bishops and a Knight for two Rooks. 22.Qxe6+ Kh8 23.Qxd5 and White went on to win. 1–0 Congratulations to the following Mechanics' members who were recently named to the 2009 Trophies Plus All-America Team. The players are honored according to a formula based on their age and rating. For example for players age 18 they must be a minimum of 2450 USCF.

Age 16 - Sam Shankland

Age 12 - Daniel Naroditsky and Greg Young

Age 10 - Yian Liou

Age 9 - Nicholas Nip

There were 42 members named this year with over half coming from three states - California with 8 and New York and Texas at 7 apiece.

San Francisco had several active chess clubs right before the Civil War, including the Mechanics' Institute. Here, William Schleiden, President of the German Chess Club, San Francisco, does battle with the Hon. A. B. Meek, President of the Mobile Chess Club, who was one of Morphy's early victims at the 1st American Chess Congress. Played at the New York Chess Club September 29, 1859. 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 h5 This move is now considered inferior to 5...Nf6 . 6.Bc4 Nh6 7.d4 d6 8.Nxf7 This sacrifice, which has first introduced by Mr. Oliver, although it certainly gives the first player a very strong attack, can scarcely be called sound. It is frequently made after the defense has played ...Rh7 instead of ...Nh6, in which case there is more of a quid pro quo. 8...Nxf7 9.Bxf7+ Kxf7 10.Bxf4 Bh6 11.0–0 Bxf4 12.Rxf4+ Ke8 13.Nc3 Qxh4 Mr. Schleiden ought to have been satisfied with the advantage of a piece, and should have endeavored to develop his forces without the least delay. 14.Nd5 Na6 15.Nf6+ Kd8 16.e5 Qg3 17.Qd2 b6 18.Re1 Bb7 19.d5 Nc5 20.e6 Ke7 21.Rf5 Qh4 To prevent Qg5, and threatening ...g3. 22.Ref1 Raf8 22...g3 would have broken up the attack and forced some exchanges. 23.Qf4 c6 24.dxc6 Bxc6 Upon 24...Nxe6 White plays 25.Nd5+ Ke8 (best) 26.Qxd6 and wins. 25.Nd5+ Bxd5 26.Rf7+ Kxe6 27.Qf5# 1–0 The Gambit 1859, p.80

---

"Meet Me in St. Louis," says a smiling IM Sam Shankland, 17, from the San Francisco suburb of Orinda, because that's where one of the new rising stars of the American chess scene is heading to after winning the U.S. State Champion of Champions title hosted online at the Internet Chess Club last Sunday.

In a pulsating East vs West finale to a week-long series of qualifiers - that saw state champions from Alaska through California to Hawaii and from Maine down to New York, Tennessee, North Carolina and Texas come together in a unique online tournament - Shankland, the North California champion, beat 21-year-old NM Mackenzie Molner, the New Jersey champion, 3-2, after their match went to the wire of a final armageddon decider to determine the final spot in the 2009 U.S. Championship, hosted May 7-17 at the Scholastic Center and Chess Club of St. Louis.

The past year has proved to be a big breakthrough one for Shankland. His rating took a seismic leap from 2200 to over 2450 FIDE, he played in his first U.S. Championship, achieved the International Master title, and tied for first place and the bronze medal in the World Under 18 Championship in Vietnam. Now, he's been crowned the "U.S. State Champion of Champions" and will join an elite field of former U.S. Chess Champions in St. Louis that includes Gata Kamsky, Hikaru Nakamura, Alexander Onischuk, Alexander Shabalov, U.S. Hall of Famers Larry Christiansen and Joel Benjamin, and not forgetting defending champion Yury Shulman.

For further information:

John Henderson
ICC Director of Chess Content
[email protected]
Cell: 847-347-9593

---

The late Imre König made his home in San Francisco from the early 1950s to around 1970. He was the first International Master to grace the Bay Area with his presence and did much to raise the level of chess culture in Northern California. He is perhaps best known for his book Chess from Morphy to Botvinnik: A Century of Chess Evolution which was published in 1950 and traced the development of such classic openings as the Ruy Lopez and Queen's Gambit. Praised by many chess aficionados from the chess historian and bookseller Fred Wilson to former Candidate Kevin Spraggett, the book has gone through several editions, with improbably enough the Dover paperback edition the hardest to find. One of the openings not covered in Chess from Morphy to Botvinnik was the Sicilian which König planned to cover in a successor volume. He never completed this second work but he did write a series of articles that were first serialized in The Chess Correspondent and later The California Chess Reporter.


Would Nimzovitch turn in his grave if he heard that the title he fought so hard to earn had been given to Louis Paulsen, whose chess career pre-dated his own by more that half a century? Paulsen’s career started with that of Paul Morphy, who beat him in a match in 1857. After that he slowly climbed to success, but never did he gain full recognition and he was not even considered to belong to Steinitz "Modern School." Nimzovitch’s career started well before the first World War but it was not until 1924 that Dr. Tartakover called him "The Father of Hypermodern Chess." Can this title be disputed by a man who lived long before him, and long before the "Hypermodern School" was even thought of?And how is it that Louis Paulsen’s name remained so long in obscurity? It is because we still labor under preconceived ideas, and in the beginning of his chess career – when the "Romantic School" flourished – he stood apart, preferring defense to attack. He did this when Morphy and Anderssen lived, when brilliant combinations and fierce attack characterized the mode of play. The principles of modern chess had not yet been laid down, and to be on the defensive meant to wait for the unexpected onslaught. In Paulsen’s time a player who worked hard over the board to cope with the problems of position in a game was considered the antithesis of a genius. Paulsen therefore never recovered from the prejudice of his contemporaries even after he became successful against Anderssen, with whom he drew one match and from whom he later won two short ones.

Schools of chess, to characterize a period of chess thought, are no new invention; and when the "Romantic School" represented by Morphy and Anderssen was superseded by the "Modern School" founded by William Steinitz, there seemed a new chance for Louis Paulsen. Some of his opening ideas were at last adopted – his defense to the King’s Gambit Accepted appeared to have dealt a death blow to this most favored opening of those times. Yet all he gained was the title "Master of Defense"; he still was not recognized as a founder of a new school. Was it a consolation to him that even Steinitz was recognized only much later after having a long unsuccessful fight for recognition? How could Paulsen have expected to win fame when even Steinitz misjudged him? Not until 31 years later did the latter pay tribute to Paulsen’s genius, when in his obituary of Paulsen he wrote:

"Herr Louis Paulsen was a genius of an order which is now becoming generally recognized after having passed through the usual transition period of public derision and depreciation. He was one of the chief pioneers of the modern school which has been so much decried during its advance, but has established itself victoriously after a hard struggle against a sort of sentimental opposition. So far from my wishing to be intolerant against the adverse critics of the modern principles, I freely beg to state that in the early part of my chess career I myself was an absolute believer in the old system, and I well recollect that when I first met Kolisch and Anderssen I expressed myself in very derogatory terms about Paulsen’s style of play. But both those players warmly defended Paulsen against my general criticism and this set me thinking."

Steinitz at least gave posthumous credit to Paulsen’s pioneer work – but how about his other contemporaries? Dr. Tarrasch paid tribute to his deep play but did not recognize him as an inventor of new ideas in chess. The main inheritance left to us is the Paulsen variation of the Sicilian Defense, but this was possible as much the invention of his brother, Wilfred Paulsen, as it was his own. On the other hand his contribution to the French Defense (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6) later adopted by Steinitz and Nimzovitch, has only lately been credited to him by the resurrection of his old forgotten move 6.a3! -- giving new life to this variation.

Time passed; the "Modern School" too became obsolete; the "Hypermodern School" arrived and in its turn was transformed. Two world wars left their marks on chess and when a new unprejudiced approach to the game came into being, the Russians announced the birth of a new defense: The Boleslavsky Variation of the Sicilian Defense. Such antipositional looking moves as 6. …, P-K4 had been played before but they were usually refuted and no further attention was paid to them. This time, however, Botvinnik came to the support of the move, calling it "one of Boleslavsky’s shrewd opening inventions." The fact that the move was played frequently by Paulsen 50 years ago was forgotten. The Tarrasch-Louis Paulsen game, Breslau 1899 was published in Tarrasch’s 300 Schachpartien and is well know. It was perhaps thought that a single game gave a player no right to claim authorship of the variation – but Paulsen repeatedly adopted it with success, and that fact should have provoked some thought.

Was this variation a momentary impulse on the part of Louis Paulsen or was it the outcome of a new approach to the openings? Steinitz may have given us the answer when he wrote: "Morphy with all his mighty powers never ventured on a single experiment in the early part of the game, and he faithfully followed the track laid out by his predecessors. Paulsen, on the other hand, struck at the root of the game in different openings, and in an original manner paved the way to the development of principles in the middle game and in the ending which generated position judgment and helped to dispense with mere combination tactics."

The fact that these games were played between 1883 and 1889, all within six years, should have indicated that during the last decade of his chess career Louis Paulsen had arrived at conclusions on opening problems far ahead of his time and if understood, these could have given rise to new opening thought. Alas, his conclusions were not recognized and the chess world had to wait another fifty years to catch up with such advanced thought. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 d6 6.Be2 e5 Tarrasch remarked that this move created two bad weaknesses (on Black's d6 and d5) while Botvinnik in commenting on his game against Boleslavsky (Sverdlovsk 1943) claimed this to be one of Boleslavsky's shrewd opening innovations.7.Nf3Botvinnik continued with 7.Nb3, followed by f4. Tarrasch considered the "natural" 7.Nf3 more effective, but even present day theory has not decided on the best move. That Louis Paulsen was also prepared to meet 7.Nb3 is proved by the game Gunsberg-Paulsen, Frankfurt 1887 which continued 7...Be7! 8.Be3 0–0 9.g4 (quite modern, aiming at taking control of his d5 square, this move has been analyzed lately.) 9...Be6 10.g5 Ne8 11.Rg1 Nc7 12.Nd5 Nb8!! 13.Qd2 Nxd5 (This explains Black's odd looking move 12...Nb8. Even today it is considered preferable to exchange the Nd5 with a Knight to the Bishop.) 14.exd5 Bf5 with the better game for Black. It is worth noting that Paulsen realized that Black must either force the freeing move ...d5 or if unable to do so because of the blockading Knight at d5, he must exchange this piece. He prepared this in a masterly fashion dispensing with the move 7...h6, which is unnecessary when the White Knight has retreated to b3, as 8.Bg5 is met by 8...Nxe4. The exchange of the Knight on d5 is prepared by the unbiased ...Nb8!!, a move not unusual today but one showing a very advanced approach for 1887! 7...h6!Now necessary since, on 7...Be7, 8.Bg5 cannot be answered by 8...Nxe4, because of 9.Nxe4 and White's QB is adequately protected. 8.0–0 In an earlier game between J. Berger and L. Paulsen, Nurnberg 1883, White continued with 8.Be3 Be7 9.Qd2 Be6 10.Rd1 a6 11.0–0 0–0 12.h3 Qc7 13.Ne1 (If 13.Nh2, as played today, then 13...Na5 14.Ng4 Nxg4 15.hxg4 Nc4) 13...Rad8 14.Bf3 Bc4! 15.Nd3 d5! and Black obtained a good game. 8...Be6 Tarrasch praises this move which aims at preparing ...d5, and for a long time it was a standard move. At present, however, it is considered better to defer it and continue with 8...Be7 9.Re1 0–0 10.h3 a6 11.Bf1 b5 12.a3 (Now on 12.Nd5 Nxd5 can follow. This is the idea of delaying the development of the Bishop.) 12...Bb7 13.b3 Rc8 14.Bb2 Rc7 15.Nb1 Qa8 16.Nbd2 Nd8 Unzicker-Taimanov, Saltsjobaden 1952 9.Re1 Be7 Not 9...d5? 10.exd5 Nxd5 11.Nxd5 Bxd5 12.Nxe5 Nxe5 13.Bb5+ winning a pawn. 10.Be3 According to Tarrasch, stronger was 10.Bb5 followed by Ba4 and Bb3, to exert more effective control on his d5 square. The idea of bringing the Bishop was tried out by Stoltz against Boleslavsky in Groningen 1946, without success however. 10...0–0 10...d5 would have equalized the game. 11.Qd2 Ng4 Paulsen wants to play a fighting game, believing that he will be able to force the freeing move ...d5 later under more favorable conditions. Today this move is considered too committal for Black. 12.Rad1 Nxe3 13.Qxe3 Qa5 14.a3 Qc5 15.Qd2 a6 16.b4 Qa7 17.Nd5 Bd8 Very important. The Bishop must be preserved to guard the important d3 and b3 squares. 18.c4 Rc8 19.Qe3 b6!Securing the second rank for the Queen for free maneuvering and also covering the weakness of the b6 square. Today we know that Black can afford to make such a move as White has no Black Bishop to take advantage of it, but even much later when Nimzovitch made such moves, he earned only derision.20.Qd2 Qb7 21.h3 Ne7At last Paulsen's fine strategy is manifest! White's strong Knight is driven away, since Black threatens ...Nxd5 and after cxd5 Black's weakness on d6 would disappear and the two Bishops would become effective. 22.Ne3!An effective reply.22...Bc722...Qxe4 23.Qxd6 wins a pawn.23.Bd3 Ng6 24.Nd5 Bd8 25.Kh2 Qd7!Again a fine move! Its significance will be seen in the sequel.26.Qe3 Bxd5!At last Black has found the right moment for exchanging the Knight.27.exd5Now White cannot retake the Knight with 27.cxd5 Rc3 28.Qd2 Rxa3 29.Qb2 Qa4 30.Ra1 Rb3 would give Black the advantage. This preparation of this maneuver by ...Qd7 shows what a master of positional play Paulsen was. 27...f5 28.Bf1 Qa4 29.Rb1 Qe8 A mistake in time pressure. 30.Nd4 Nf4 31.Nc6 Stronger was 31.g3 Ng6 32.Ne6 Rf7 33.c5 b5 34.c6 31...Bc7 32.Qf3 Qf7 33.g3 Ng6 34.a4 Ne7 35.b5 a5 36.Be2 Nxc6 37.bxc6 e4 38.Qh5 Qf6 39.Bf1 Rce8 40.Bg2 Qd4 41.Qe2 Re7 Better was 41...f4 at once, as on 42.Bxe4 (Even the stronger 42.Rbd1 Qc5 43.gxf4 Rxf4 44.Qe3 Rxf2 45.Qxc5 bxc5 46.Kg3 e3 would have given Black the better game.) 42...fxg3+ 43.Kxg3 Rxe4 44.Qxe4 Qxf2+ 45.Kg4 Bd8 wins.42.Rbd1 Qf6 43.Qd2 Rfe8 44.Re2 Re5 45.Rde1 g5 46.Kg1 h5 47.Qd4 g4 48.h4 Kg7 ½–½ First published in The Chess Correspondent, September 1954, pp.97-98 and later The California Chess Reporter August-September, 1960 pp. 18-20.

---

Check out the new look of GM Lubos Kavalek's column in the Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/02/AR2009040203613.html

The column appears safe for the moment but letters of support are most welcome and should be sent by either e-mail: [email protected], phone: 202-3344775; or letter to Comics Feedback, The Washington Post, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071.

The website Chess Dryad (www.chessdryad.com), devoted exclusively to California chess, has long been a template for how each state should preserve its heritage with tens of thousands of games, thousands of photographs, hundreds of articles and more. Now the Pacific Northwest ( Washington and Oregon) has its own rapidly growing site at http://www.nwchess.com led by webmaster Eric Holcumb and chief historical researcher Rusty Miller.