Edward Winter
This general article on the chess opening 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 complements the following:
Why ‘Morphy’s Defence’?
The Marshall Gambit
The Berlin Defence (Ruy López).
***
As recorded on page 27 of Dale Brandreth’s edition of the Kemeri-Riga, 1939 tournament book, the Ruy López was played in that event only once in the 120 games. It will be surprising if a reader can quote a comparable case concerning this most popular of openings.
(1607)
Pages 78-80 of our 1989 monograph on Capablanca gave a translation of an article by the Cuban in the 31 July 1914 issue of Capablanca-Magazine (pages 89-91): ‘Some theoretical data on the Ruy López’ with the subtitle ‘Has the St Petersburg tournament shown that it is inadequate?’
As we mentioned on page 80, the copy of that issue held at the Bibliotheca Van der Linde-Niemeijeriana in the Royal Library in The Hague is signed by Capablanca: ‘The Ruy López has continued until now to be a powerful weapon. J.R. Capablanca. Mexico, 4 May 1933.’
Wanted: information about the origins of the ‘Noah’s Ark Trap’ in the Ruy López. So far the oldest specimen we have found is G. MacDonnell v J. Wisker, London, 1876 (Deutsche Schachzeitung, June 1876, pages 172-173), which began 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O d6 6 d4 b5 7 Bb3 Nxd4 8 Nxd4 exd4 9 Bg5 (‘Naturally White should not capture the d-pawn owing to 9…c5! and 10…c4.’).
Annotating a game on pages 355-356 of the August 1895 BCM, James Mason wrote after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 Qe2 d6 5 c3 Nge7 6 a4 ‘Simply by way of episode; or, reminiscent of Noah and his Ark!’, but when the name was first used for the Ruy López trap remains to be discovered.
(2206)
About 20 years ago we saw a game involving Josef Noa (1856-1903) which featured the trap and were struck by the Noa/Noah connection. Now, however, it is proving impossible to locate the game in question. Can any readers help?
(3042)
Dirk Gruijters (Leiden, the Netherlands) and Dennis Leong (Naperville, IL, USA) suggest that the game in question may have been Noa v Steinitz, London, 16 June 1883, in which there was an opportunity for the Noah’s Ark Trap to arise. The game began 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nge7 5 d4 exd4 6 Nxd4 Nxd4 7 Qxd4 b5 8 Bb3 d6. White now played 9 c4, which the tournament book (page 97) gave a question mark with the comment ‘9 c3 is much preferable’.
(3045)
See also other references to the trap in the Factfinder.
Discussing the Ruy López on page 359 of The Grand Tactics of Chess (Boston, 1905), Franklin K. Young had the following to say about 3…a6:
‘… bad, inasmuch as the left minor crochet is of no utility in a minor right oblique refused, nor in a full front unopposed by the major oblique echeloned.’
We have seen the light.
(Kings, Commoners and Knaves, page 168)
From page 126 of Modern Chess and Chess Masterpieces by H.E. Bird (London, 1887) comes a remark about 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nd4:
‘I sometimes play this, but not always; it depends upon the state of mind I am in, and whether I want a lively and critical game or a steady contest – one, in fact, in which my adversary considers that I treat him with becoming respect. A well-known and esteemed reverend gentleman once objected that I would not make so silly a move against one of the greatest players.’
(2984)
‘If you have Black, and your opponent plays 3 Bb5, your best move is to offer him a draw.’
This remark by Emanuel Lasker appeared in the Boston Transcript of 31 January 1903, an item quoted on page 130 of the March 1903 Checkmate. The Boston newspaper commented:
‘And although this was a bit of pleasantry, Dr Lasker did say in all seriousness that where the second player in almost any other opening might hope for a win, it was good judgment in the Ruy to hope for a draw. The suggestion that the chess world was waiting for some man who should begin an exhaustive analysis of the Ruy early enough in life to complete it, he dismissed with a deprecatory shrug. “I’m afraid he would have to continue it in the hereafter”, he said.’
(3058)
We have wanted to verify the Checkmate passage in the Boston newspaper and to add the page number, but so far only a similar, not identical, text has been found, on page 1 of the Boston Evening Transcript, 2 February 1903:
(12098)
‘Roy Lopez’ appeared on the front cover of lesson XV in Fred Reinfeld’s series A Course in the Elements of Modern Chess Strategy, but Richard Reich (Fitchburg, WI, USA) notes that some of the pamphlets were reprinted several times and that his copy has the correct spelling.
We had before us the ‘Second Printing, September 1938’:
Our correspondent also mentions that lesson XXIV invited subscriptions for an additional four issues, whereas Douglas A. Betts’ Annotated Bibliography (pages 197-199) indicates that XXIV was the last to be published. For our part, we have never seen any subsequent issues.
Lesson XXIV (‘First Printing, December 1938’) was devoted to the Tarrasch Variation in the Ruy López and included on pages 11-12 an early postal victory by Reinfeld:
Fred Reinfeld – Narraway
Correspondence, 1929
Ruy López
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Nxe4 6 d4 b5 7 Bb3 d5 8 dxe5 Be6 9 c3 Be7 10 Be3 O-O 11 Nbd2 Bg4 12 Nxe4 dxe4 13 Qd5 exf3 14 Qxc6 fxg2 15 Qxg2 Qd7 16 Rfe1 c5
17 Bh6 gxh6 18 e6 Qc8 19 exf7+ Kh8 20 Rxe7 Bh3 21 Qd5 Qg4+ 22 Kh1 Qg5 23 Rg1 Bg4 24 Rxg4 Resigns.
(4858)
In a letter dated 10 April 1922 on pages 226-227 of the June 1922 BCM C.S. Howell wrote regarding the Ruy López:
‘In very humble fashion, I will say that it is the only opening for which in some 25 years of attention to chess I have neither seen nor found an entirely satisfactory defence. My own unusual but considered opinion is that 2...Kt-QB3 is probably incorrect and permits on White’s part a reply that has something of the apparently illogical.’
Clarence Seaman Howell
(6795)
From page 195 of the Chess Amateur, April 1915:
(7093)
From Thomas Niessen (Aachen, Germany):
‘C.N.s 6941 and 7093 reported on suggestions that the Evans Gambit and Ruy López should be renamed the “German Game”, and I now note the following on page 423 of the eighth edition of von Bilguer’s Handbuch des Schachspiels (Berlin and Leipzig, 1922):
“v.d. Lasa spricht sich in der D. Schachz. 1873, S. 163 gegen die Bezeichnung ‘Spanische Partie’ aus und erklärt, die Eröffnung müsse ‘Deutsche Partie’ benannt werden, weil fast ihre gesamte Entwicklung das Werk deutscher Forscher sei. Cordel hat in seinem letzten Werk Theorie u. Praxis des Schachspiels (I, S. 4) die Umtaufe vollzogen. Deutschen Meistern gebührt das Verdienst, eine gute und zum Ausgleich genügende Verteidigung gefunden zu haben. Vor einem Jahrzehnt noch eine fürchterliche Waffe in der Hand von Großmeistern wie Tarrasch, Lasker u.a., hat die spanische Partie dank der Forschungen deutscher Meister heute ihre Schrecken verloren.”
To summarize, the Handbuch remarked that on page 163 of the 1873 Deutsche Schachzeitung von der Lasa had expressed opposition to the name “Ruy López”, believing that “German Game” would be correct for the opening because of the work of German researchers. Cordel used that name in his book Theorie und Praxis des Schachspiels. Only a decade ago, the Handbuch stated, the opening had been a terrible weapon in the hands of such masters as Tarrasch and Lasker, but it was now less feared, owing to the work of German researchers.’
Below is page 163 of the June 1873 Deutsche Schachzeitung (part of an obituary of Jaenisch written by von der Lasa):
(7258)
In C.N. 6926 (see Fischer’s Fury) a correspondent pointed out a mistake about Pilnik in the introduction to game four in My 60 Memorable Games. Nobody involved in the book ever seemed concerned that the game introductions have many errors, as in game 56:
At St Petersburg, 1914 Lasker’s victory over Alekhine in the Exchange Variation of the Ruy López was with the black pieces.
(9059)
On page 192 of the US edition of his book on Morphy (New York, 1859) F.M. Edge wrote that Anderssen ‘played that disgusting arrangement, the Ruy López’. A twentieth-century master who made surprisingly negative comments about that opening was E.A. Znosko-Borovsky, in an article on pages 105-108 of Le monde des échecs, May 1946. Below are the first page and the last two paragraphs:
(9298)
E.A. Znosko-Borovsky’s article in Le monde des échecs appeared in an English translation, ‘The Ruy López: A Bad Opening’, on pages 234-237 of Chess World, 1 December 1946. In his introduction C.J.S. Purdy wrote:
‘Even beginners know that the Ruy López has long been considered the strongest opening for White. This is therefore the most provocative article on chess theory ever published.’
See too ‘The Ruy’s Revenge’ by W. Ritson Morry on pages 17-19 of CHESS, October 1947; the second of two annotated games was Znosko-Borovsky’s (readily available) loss to K.P. Charlesworth at Harrogate in August 1947, on the black side of a Ruy López.
(9305)
A familiar trap in an unfamiliar game:
Source: Schweizerische Schachzeitung, December 1947, page 200.
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 Qe2 b5 6 Bb3 Be7 7 O-O d6 8 a4 b4
9 Qc4 O-O, and Black resigned on move 17.
The game was played in the Tournoi principal I in Neuchâtel in July 1947. The crosstable was published on page 124 of the August-September 1947 Schweizerische Schachzeitung, and this brief report was on page 347 of CHESS, September 1947:
(9741)
Staunton’s opening note, after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5, in the first game in his match against Horwitz (London, 2 February 1846), on page 89 of the Chess Player’s Chronicle, 1846:
‘Habituated to the giving odds in every game for the last two or three years, White labours under a temporary disadvantage in playing “even” games with a player thoroughly versed in, and daily practising, the “book” openings; he very prudently, therefore, begins in a way to throw each party on his own resources as much as possible.’
A reaction appeared on pages 125-126 of the March 1846 issue of Le Palamède (edited by Saint-Amant):
‘Ceci est un mauvais début, généralement condamné, et sur lequel nous avons eu déjà occasion de nous prononcer toujours dans le même sens, bien que l’ayant employé nous-même. M. Staunton cherche à expliquer ce vice de tacticien en se rejetant sur ce que contre un joueur aussi expert que M. Horwitz, qui débute d’après les livres, il fallait se jeter dans l’inconnu pour retomber chacun dans ses propres ressources. C’est modestement dire que, dans ce cas, l’avantage serait pour lui. Nous lui ferons fort poliment observer que le début qu’il a adopté n’est rien moins que du nouveau: c’est du vieux, et ce n’est pas du meilleur, voilà tout.’
This description of the Ruy López as ‘a bad opening’ will be an addition to Old Opening Assessments, which already has, inter alia, denunciations of many replies to 1 e4.
(9822)
From Achim Engelhart (Illerkirchberg, Germany):
‘After 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 many sources, such as pages 451 and 471-472 of Hooper and Whyld’s Oxford Companion to Chess (Oxford, 1992), distinguish between:
5 Qe2 as the “Wormald Variation”, and
5 O-O Be7 6 Qe2 as the “Worrall Attack”.
The naming of 5 O-O Be7 6 Qe2 as the “Worrall Attack” appears to originate from S. Tartakower, based on confusion of the similar names of T.H. Worrall (1807-78) and R.B. Wormald (1834-76, who was discussed in C.N. 3974), in an article in L’Echiquier November-December 1931, pages 1493-1496. Tartakower called both 5 Qe2 and 5 O-O Be7 6 Qe2 “L’attaque Worall” [sic], and on page 1494 he wrote, after 6 Qe2:
“Voilà!! Ce coup, introduit par Worall et analysé par Alapine, très volontiers appliqué, du reste, par les maîtres anglais Sir Thomas et Yates ...”
Given that Tartakower quoted Schlechter’s analysis (from page 498 of the Handbuch des Schachspiels, eighth edition, 1916, where 5 O-O Be7 6 Qe2 was given no name), it is likely that he simply misread the remark on page 492 about Wormald’s recommendation 5 Qe2:
“Dieser Zug, der schon von Wormald, Chess World II, S. 280 empfohlen wurde, ist bei weitem nicht so stark als 5 O-O und deshalb in der Praxis wenig gebräuchlich. In den letzten Turnieren hat ihn Alapin wieder mehrfach versucht.”
Later sources (starting with page 230 of the fifth edition of Modern Chess Openings, in 1932) attached the name “Worrall Attack” solely to 5 O-O Be7 6 Qe2, thereby cementing Tartakower’s error. It thus seems that T.H. Worrall had nothing to do with either of the variations, whereas the actual inventor, R.B. Wormald, played at least one game with 5 O-O Be7 6 Qe2 (against C. De Vere in the Glowworm Tourney, London, 1868). It was published on pages 369-370 of the 10/1868 issue of Chess World.’
(9847)
On page 164 of the Illustrated London News, 23 July 1955 B.H. Wood referred to ‘the “Mac-Lopez” – that deliciously-coined title for the variation of the Ruy Lopez which resembles the Scotch Game’.
Position after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 Bb5
From page 167 of 500 Master Games of Chess by S. Tartakower and J. du Mont (London, 1952):
Blackburne mentioned his remark in a note after 4 Bb5 on page 443 of the November 1904 BCM (in a game against W.C. Palmer in the British Championship Tournament at Hastings, 1904):
When the game was published on pages 359-360 of the Deutsche Schachzeitung, December 1904, reference was made to a game between Lange and Schierstädt (sic) in 1857 (sic):
That well-known Max Lange brilliancy was included on, for instance, pages 10-12 of The King-Hunt by W.H. Cozens (London, 1970), where Black was identified as von Schierstedt and the heading was ‘Exhibition Game, about 1856’. Various anything-will-do databases state – categorically, of course – either 1856 or 1857, without any venue, but when Max Lange himself annotated the game on pages 112-115 of his book Sammlung Neuer Schachpartien (Leipzig, 1857) he gave Black’s name as Herr von Schierstedt, with the information ‘gespielt zu Wörmlitz am 1. März 1855’.
In connection with another familiar (capped knight) game, see C.N. 3502 for a reference to ‘Fräulein Jenny von Schierstedt’.
(10327)
From page 33 of the December 1944 Chess Review, in an article by I.A. Horowitz:
(10407)
See also ‘When I am White ...’
On the subject of chess and television: books by which chess author appear in both Endeavour (Shaun Evans) and Poirot (David Suchet)?
The answer is below. (The episodes of these ITV programmes were entitled, respectively, ‘Game’ and ‘The Big Four’.)
The answer is E.E. Cunnington (1852-1942).
Near the beginning of the Endeavour episode, the eponymous detective briefly handled a copy of Chess Lessons for Beginners:
‘The Big Four’ (see Agatha Christie and Chess) has a short scene, also early on, in which Hercule Poirot was researching the Ruy López in a large-format book with a fictitious cover and title (The 50 Greatest Chess Problems – author’s name indistinct). The content fleetingly shown is identifiable as being from Cunnington’s Chess Traps and Stratagems.
Below are the pages from which fragments of text and diagrams can be seen, just about, in ‘The Big Four’, although the lay-out was altered:
(11057)
C.J.S. Purdy on pages 184 and 185 of Chess World, 1 August 1949:
‘Have you noticed that the López tends to win long games and lose short ones? There’s a reason. In the López White sacrifices development for long-term theoretical advantages. Sometimes Black’s advantage in development tells quickly.’
‘Boiling water is the most efficient for washing dishes but it will scald you if you’re not very careful. The López is like that. White has certain theoretical assets which he has purchased at the cost of development. He must try not to give Black a chance to capitalize his gain in development with a sharp attack – unless, as in the Marshall, he gets a pawn or something, with a good chance of holding it.’
After a reference to Capablanca v Marshall, New York, 1918, Purdy’s article (page 184) had a comment which is quoted on page 328 of our book on the Cuban:
‘Capablanca was the gambit-killer of all time.’
(11454)
In a blitz game on 6 September 2019 Magnus Carlsen played 3...g5 in the Ruy López, and Olimpiu G. Urcan (Singapore) asks whether we can offer a few historical jottings on the move.
It is commonly known as Brentano’s Defence, in view of a series of articles in the Wiener Schachzeitung by Franz Brentano under the title ‘Neue Vertheidigung der spanischen Partie’: April-May 1900, pages 97-104; February 1901, pages 38-45; January 1903, pages 7-14. Those articles can be viewed online, via the link to the magazine given in C.N. 7728.
Analytical responses were published by E. Schallopp (Der Schachfreund, May 1900, pages 21-23) and by J. Berger (Deutsche Schachzeitung, June 1900, pages 165-168).
Annotating the game H.A. Foxwell v W.S. Branch (‘Played recently in the Cup Tourney of the Cheltenham Club’) on page 76 of the February 1901 BCM, C.E. Ranken wrote of 3...g5:
‘It is, however, certainly a most puzzling counter-attack in an opening where the first player has been supposed hitherto to be able to keep his opponent on the defensive for a considerable time.’
The most prominent early game beginning 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 g5 occurred in a short match between Teichmann and Schlechter in Vienna. From page 44 of the February 1904 Deutsche Schachzeitung:
Below is a note about 3...g5 on page 429 of the Handbuch des Schachspiels (Berlin and Leipzig, 1922):
There was discussion of the opening in the BCM in 1922, April (pages 126-128) and May (pages 183-184), in an article on the Ruy López by W.J. Allnutt. His final paragraph:
‘I am not sanguine as regards present-day analysis, but I believe that P-KKt4 will eventually smash up what might be described as “a developmental gambit”.’
In a letter on pages 226-227 of the June 1922 issue, C.S. Howell (Madrid) wrote unfavourably about the opening, as did Thomas Kelly (Cheetham) on pages 227-228. Writing from Rio de Janeiro on pages 347-348 of the September 1922 BCM, W.J. Allnutt set out his disagreement with Howell’s comments.
Page 152 of CHESS, March 1949 had an article by H.G. (not ‘S.G.’) Schenk entitled ‘The Brentano Defence in the Ruy López (3...P-KKt4) put to the test’. The opening paragraph:
The two game-scores given were E.G. Sergeant v H.G. Schenk, Hastings, 30 December 1948, and D.M. Horne v H.G. Schenk, Hastings, 5 January 1949. The article ended with this remark:
‘May I, in conclusion, venture a guess? It is that we have not heard the last of Brentano’s Defence.’
In a letter on page 193 of the May 1949 CHESS W.J. Lush (Plumstead) asked for clarification about the exact purpose of 3...g5, and Schenk replied on page 217 of the July/August/September 1949 issue:
(11469)
A Vienna University webpage on Franz Brentano is pointed out by Michael Lorenz (Vienna).
(11482)
Asked by another C.N. correspondent whether he had researched all of Staunton’s Illustrated London News columns, G.H. Diggle replied in 1987 (see C.N. 1439):
‘Of course I have, and broken my shins on them.’
The days of grappling with bulky annual volumes in reference libraries have largely gone, home- or office-based electronic searches having transformed the task, or joy, of historical investigation. With Google Books alone much thirst for knowledge, whether serious or trivial, can be slaked in moments by entering key words or phrases.
If, for instance, a chess enthusiast wants to know about players of past centuries slaking their thirst in coffee houses, and wonders how the term became derogatory, innumerable citations can be found, perhaps beginning with Staunton’s remark on page 111 of the London, 1851 tournament book that his second game against Anderssen ‘would be discreditable to two third-rate players of a coffee-house’, and culminating in Fischer’s dismissal of Emanuel Lasker as ‘a coffee-house player’ in 1964. The words of Georg Marco will be found too: he considered that the game Pettersson v Nimzowitsch, Barmen, 1905 was ‘played in the worst coffeehouse style’.
In that game, the spectacle of Nimzowitsch replying to the Ruy López with 3...f5 may spark our interest in early analysis of that opening/defence/gambit/counter-gambit (commonly named after either of two players who died within a couple of months of each other, C.F. von Jaenisch and A.K.W. Schliemann).
To take Jaenisch as an example, Google Books painlessly leads to a run of Le Palamède. In the December 1847 issue, Jaenisch contributed a lengthy article (pages 530-560) on 1 e4 e5, which he termed ‘Le début royal’. Beginning on page 538 he analysed the ‘very interesting’ move 3...f5, with four options for White’s fourth move: d4, exf5, Bxc6 and d3. He explained on page 538 that he was temporarily holding back from readers of Le Palamède his suggestion of a winning method for White, but that December 1847 issue marked the abrupt end of the periodical’s run.
Again thanks to Google Books it can be seen how Jaenisch resolved the difficulty. In 1848 an abridged version of his original article was published in the Chess Player’s Chronicle (pages 216-221, 248-253 and 274-279). The move 3...f5 was examined on pages 220-221 and 248-249. In the 1849 volume (pages 362-366) Jaenisch provided a further article, incorporating the analysis intended for Le Palamède. (See too pages 313-315 and 344-345 of the Deutsche Schachzeitung, 1848.)
Leaving aside the awkward question of whether somebody nowadays writing a book on 3...f5 is likely to take account of Jaenisch’s detailed articles, we conclude these random musings with a curiosity highlighted by him on page 363 of the 1849 Chess Player’s Chronicle, where he gave a line which ...
‘... exhibits in the theory of regular openings the unique example of a triple pawn’.
Analysis after 11...bxc6
Jaenisch’s analysis continued this line to move 27.
(12023)
On page 117 of Historia general del ajedrez by Julio Ganzo (Madrid, 1973) a photograph of Blackburne was labelled ‘Chigorin’:
On pages 82 and 88 Ganzo’s book had pictures allegedly of Ruy López and Gioacchino Greco:
Do these illustrations have any historical basis?
(3239)
The following appeared in the first plates section of Şah de la A la Z by Constantin Ştefaniu (Bucharest, 1984):
Moreover, it may be recalled that a similar illustration was on a Cuban postage stamp in 1976. The picture may be contrasted with what appeared on a stamp issued by Guinea Bissau in 1988.
What is the original source of these depictions of Ruy López?
(4376)
Page 20 of Les échecs par la joie by Aristide Gromer (Brussels, 1939) asserted that Ruy López was Montaigne’s cousin. On what grounds?
(5188)
A paragraph entitled ‘Ruy López a Spanish priest’ on page 189 of the April 1915 Chess Amateur began:
‘Mr W.S. Branch has discovered that Ruy López was a Spanish priest, not, as is sometimes stated, a bishop ...’
What is the best source today, in any language, for biographical information on Ruy López?
(10933)
An early occurrence of the rule that the h1 and a8 squares should be light-coloured is shown from page 266 of the Chess Player’s Chronicle, 1842:
(11773)
From the document referred to in the previous item (page 269 of the magazine), a provision regarding the 50-move rule:
Guy Haworth (Reading, England) notes that a 50-move requirement was mentioned in Libro de la invención liberal y arte del juego del axedrez by Ruy López (Alcalá, 1561), page 68:
(11774)
From Chess Gambits:
The origins of the word ‘gambit’ have often been discussed in chess literature, and on page 813 of A History of Chess (Oxford, 1913) H.J.R. Murray wrote:
‘Another result of this visit [to Rome] was that [Ruy López] learnt a slang (originally a wrestling) term of the Italian players, and was afterwards instrumental in giving the word an international currency. This is the word gambit, of which López tells us in his chess work (108 a):
“It is derived from the Italian gamba, a leg, and gambitare means to set traps, from which a gambit game means a game of traps and snares, and it is used to describe this Opening because of all the Openings which Damiano gave, this is the most brilliant and trappy.”’
See also the entries on gambetto and gomito in the Dizionario enciclopedico degli scacchi by A. Chicco and G. Porreca (Milan, 1971).
To the Archives
for other feature articles.
Copyright Edward Winter. All rights reserved.