|
Correspondence Chess on
the radio
By Eric RUCH
The
internet area has seen the development of correspondence
games played
between a coalition of amateurs against a
grand-master, as for example the games
played on the ICCF
webserver by the former World Champion Tunc Hamarat against
the worldwide CC community. In the past some games have also
been played through some chess magazines and I remember that
some of the early moves I have sent on a postcard were in a
game played by the Europe Echecs readers against
Victor Korchnoï in the beginning of the 80s.
The game
on which I will focus now is much older and much more
surprising;
it was played almost 60 years ago and is, as far
as I know, the only game of this type
that has ever been
played on the radio (If someone has information about a
similar game
I will be glad to read about it). Of course
everybody knows the games played by radio
between the USA
and the USSR between the 1st and 4th
September 1946, won by the
USSR by 15½ to 4½ , and all the
other matches played during these days in 1946, 1954 and
1955. Probably, the record of the longest distance in CC
match played by radio, belongs to the
match Australia vs
France in 1946, in which the Australians defeated the French
team
by 5½ to 4½. But the games in these matchs were played
on boards ....
M.
Jeanton – Lamarche was the producer of a weekly chess
chronicle on Radio Limoges
(a medium size city located in
the central part of France) and he proposed to played a
CC
games against the listeners of his magazine, playing one
move every week.
For a reason, I do not know, the game has
to be adjudicated, and the analysis were done
by the master
Eugene Znosko Borovsky.
The whole
story, included the games, the adjudication analysis and an
interview
of Znosko Borovsky, were published in 1949 by
Jeanton-Lamarche in a small 20 page booklets, that I had the
chance to find almost by accident....
The Chess on the waves
Radio Limoges against the
listeners or a variation of the Ruy Lopez
3 December 1948 – 12
August 1949
Listened
Every Thursday
On 19h50
On Radio Limoges (463m)
of
J.-M. Jeanton – Lamarche
Foreword by J.M. Jeanton-
Lamarche
When on
October 29th, 1948, I started my fist chess
magazine on Radio Limoges,
my sole ambition was to provide
chess new to all amateurs of the Chess League of
Limousin (a
region located in the central part of France. Eric Ruch). I
had only 5 minutes
to give the most important information of
the local chess activity.
But the
100 kW power of the emitter of Nieul, allowed a much larger
diffusion
of the magazine, much beyond the border of our
province, and I got many answers,
some coming from very far
away, to the chess problem on November, 19th. I
has then the
idea to play a correspondence game against the
listeners.
I may
add, that I have preferred to start on the waves with such a
game,
rather that a problem or an study tourney, because I
had the feeling that a
consultation game was more
spectacular and that it could be a wonderful way to
advertise the chess game and the 1494 letters I have
received from France, Algeria and
Belgium were the clear
demonstration that I was right.
November
1949.
J.M. Jeanton-Lamarche – Listeners of Radio Limoges [C82]
Analysis by Eugene Znosko Borovsky
1.e4 e5 2.¤f3
¤c6 3.¥b5 a6 4.¥a4 ¤f6 5.0-0 ¤xe4 6.d4 b5 7.¥b3 d5 8.dxe5
¥e6 9.c3
The current
trend is
9.£e2
9...¥c5
This move
has been played quite frequently since the end of the war,
but seems now to be regularly replace by the more solid :
9...¥e7
10.¤bd2
The Motzko
variation:
10.£d3 was once considered as the refutation of the
early development of the bishop
¥c5, but is now considered harmless.
10...0-0 11.¥c2
f5
The
Dillworth variation11...¤xf2
12.¦xf2 f6 quite popular after the war, is almost
completely forgotten nowadays.
12.¤b3
White could
have played
12.exf6 in order to avoid future complications,
12...¥b6
13.¤bd4 ¤xd4 14.¤xd4 ¥xd4 15.cxd4 f4 16.f3 ¤g3
This nice
combination is known since 1882 and the game Flessig –
Mackenzie, and is very popular since the game Smyslov –
Reshevsky, radio match USSR – USA, 1945.
17.hxg3
It seems
quite mandatory to accept the sacrifice.
17.¦e1 £h4
is not quite satisfactory (Isbinski - Wiakhirev, 1909).
17...fxg3
18.£d3 ¥f5
Black
captures the Queen, but its attack is stopped. But he cannot
play 18...£h4
due to
19.£xh7+; nor:
18...g6
in due to
19.£e3 £h4 20.£h6 with advantage to White.
19.£xf5 ¦xf5
20.¥xf5 £h4 21.¥h3 £xd4+ 22.¢h1 £xe5
The real
fight starts now, because it is not clear up to now, who has
the better position, and how White should continue the game.
It is
generally played
22...£xe5
23.¥d2 c5 24.¦fe1 (better than
24.¦ae1
) 24...£xb2
25.¥e6+ etc.
White has
to demonstrate the strength of its four pieces, before Black
can move its pawns by taking the adverse g3 pawn as soon as
possible to get rid of the checkmate threat.
23.¦b1
The idea to
protect the b2 pawn is not bad and surely worth the tempo it
requires.
23...c5 24.¥d2
¦f8 25.f4
One could
prefer 25.¦fe1
that might seem risky at a first glance, in view of Black’s
answer:
25...£h5 (25...£d4 26.¥c3; 25...£f6 26.¦e6 £h4 27.f4) 26.¢g1
(White could play:
26.f4
threatening
26...-- 27.¦e5 doubling the rooks.)
26...¦xf3
27.gxf3 £xh3 with Queen and seven pawns against two
Rooks, Bishop and three pawns.
In these
variations, the g3 pawn cannot be taken. Maybe, White has
just played the text move in order to capture it by
¦f3?
But White’s
plan is more subtle. They create a strong position for the
Bishop and they have to decide between different strategies.
25...£e2 26.¥a5
I remember
that I have already seen this move, but I cannot give more
details.
26...b4
This move
seems useless, because the Bishop will never try to come
back. Nevertheless, it allows the Queen to come to d2 after
White rook’s attack.
¦f8
could have been played.
d5-d4
would be a mistake, due to the reply
27.¥b6
et 26...c4
à cause de
27.¥c3. But
¦f6
would not be a bad idea. Here also, different strategies
could be adopted.
27.¥c7
White’s
plan becomes clear. The Bishop will move to e5 where he
becomes very powerful. Black has to find a way to counter
White’s plan, since the pawns are stopped.
27...£e7
If Black
plays immediately:
27...g5
then
28.¦fe1
£h5 29.fxg5 £xg5 30.¥d6
28.¥e5 g5
A
courageous move, that destroys the superiority of White’s
pieces, but leads to an endgame which is not in Black’s
favor.
29.¦be1 gxf4
30.¢g1
If:
30.¥xf4 ¦xf4
30...¦e8
If:
30...£h4
31.¥e6+ ¦f7 32.¥xf7+ etc.
31.¦xf4 £xe5
Wisely
played, because otherwise White’s pieces would attack the
Black King as did Smyslov in his win against Reshevsly.
32.¦xe5 ¦xe5
33.¦g4+ ¢f7 34.¦xg3 c4 35.¢f2 d4 36.¦f3+ ¢e7
An easy
endgame at first sight, but very difficult to adjudicate. It
is necessary to analyse very deeply each variation and after
more than 20 moves, one get a new endgame Rook + Pawn vs
Rook for instance, but which outcome is again not very
clear.
Every
player has at each move, a lot of a good candidates moves,
and it seems not possible to give a final verdict. And many
possible variation will be missed!
One may
think that, if the game would be played on the board, White
would have good chance to win, and maybe would have tried to
win, I do not forget what Tartakower told me while looking
at this position : “ they could also lose as easily”
Anyway,
here are the analysis I submit to all chessfriends, and I
congratulate the listeners of Radio Limoges, although I do
not know if they were playing Black or White). Their main
problem was that the move was decided by the majority of the
votes, and they have never made a gross blunder and have
followed a plan without losing the track.
Start of the adjudication analysis
FISRT TRY
37.¦f4 ¦d5
38.¦e4+ ¢f6 (38...¢d8 39.¥e6) 39.¦e6+ ¢g5 40.¦xa6 d3 41.¢e1
c3 42.bxc3 bxc3 43.¦c6 d2+ 44.¢d1 ¦d3
(threatening
¦e3 et
¦e1+)
45.¦c5+ ¢f4
46.¦c4+ ¢g3 47.¥g4 ¢xg2
48.a4
48.¢c2 d1£+
49.¥xd1 ¦d2+ 50.¢b3 (50.¢c1 ¦xa2 draw.)
50...¦xd1
51.¦xc3 draw.
48...h5 49.¥xh5
¦h3 50.¥e2 ¦h1+ 51.¢c2 ¦c1+ 52.¢b3 d1£+ 53.¥xd1 ¦xd1 54.
¦xc3 and White seems to have secured the win
because Black’s King is cut and far away from the passed
pawn.
FIRST VARIATION
37...d3 38.¦xc4
¦e2+ 39.¢f3 ¦xb2
40.¢e3 d2 (40...¦xa2
41.¦xb4) 41.¢e2 a5 42.¥f5 ¦xa2 (42...h6 43.¦c2)
43.¦c2 (43.¥xh7 d1£+ 44.¢xd1 ¦xg2) 43...b3 44.¦xd2 a4
45.¥xh7 a3 and Black wins.
On this
variation, White has to aim for a draw, they can easily get
by playing
40.¥f5 40...d2
41.¢e2 ¦xa2 42.¦xb4 d1£+ 43.¢xd1 ¦xg2 draw.
SECOND VARIATION
37...¦a5 38.a3
bxa3 39.bxa3 ¦xa3 40.¦xd4 c3 41.¦c4 and White
seems to be able to play for a win?
SECOND TRY
37.¦f5 ¦e4
(37...¦xf5+ 38.¥xf5 h6 39.b3 and wins.)
38.¦d5 d3 39.b3
¦e2+ 40.¢f3 ¦xa2 41.bxc4 b3 42.¦xd3 b2 43.¦d7+ ¢f6 44.¦b7 a5
45.c5 a4 46.c6 ¦a3+ 47.¢f4 ¦b3 48.¦xb3 axb3 49.¥f5
wins.
FIRST VARIATION
PREMIERE VARIANTE
40...c3 41.¦xd3
¦xa2 42.¦d7+ (42.¥f5
c2 43.¦d7+ ¢f6) 42...¢f6 43.¦xh7 ¦a3
44.¦h6+ ¢g7 45.¦b6
a5 46.¦b5 (46.¥e6 a4 47.bxa4 c2+) 46...¦xb3 47.¦xa5 c2+
and wins. It is dangerous to capture the h7 pawn on move 43.
Instead of
that move, White should play:
43.¢e3 43...¦b2
44.¦xh7 ¦xb3 45.¦h6+ ¢e5
46.¦xa6 ¦a3 47.¦b6 (47.¦c6
b3 48.¦xc3 b2 49.¦xa3 b1£) 47...b3 48.¦b5+ ¢f6 49.¥f5 c2
50.¢d2 ¦a1
51.¥xc2 bxc2
52.¢xc2 ¦a2+ 53.¦b2 ¦xb2+ 54.¢xb2 ¢g5 55.¢c2 ¢g4 56.¢d2 ¢g3
57.¢e2 ¢xg2 draw.
SECOND VARIATION
38.g3 d3 39.¥f1
d2 40.¥e2 ¢d6
(40...c3 41.bxc3 bxc3 42.¦c5) 41.¦f4 c3
42.bxc3 bxc3
43.¥d1 (43.¦xe4 c2) 43...¦e1 44.¦c4 ¦xd1 45.¦xc3 ¦f1+
wins.
But
41.¦f8
(threatening
¦c8) will force Black to repeat the moves
41...¢d7 42.¦f5
¢d6 etc.
These are
only a very limited number of variations I have analyzed and
each of them
has a multitude of branches. In view of this
huge number of possibility, it was
impossible to draw a
definite conclusion and I had to declare a draw.
I ask all
chess amateurs, to analyze this endgame more deeply that I
have done,
and to publish their analysis in the chess
magazine....
Eugene
Znosko Borovsky. |
