Edward Winter
Friedrich (Fritz) Sämisch in 1925. See C.N. 12173 below.
Friedrich Sämisch (1896-1975) is best remembered for his short loss to Nimzowitsch, Copenhagen, 1923 (see Zugzwang). From page 498 of Alt om Skak by B. Nielsen (Odense, 1943):
Copenhagen, 1923. Seated from left
to right: A. Nimzowitsch, R. Spielmann, J.
Møller, F. Sämisch
Standing: S. Tartakower, O. Rützou, E.
Jacobsen. (See C.N.s 7235 and 7242.)
The following game against Hans Frank, from a ten-game blindfold exhibition by Sämisch, was published on pages 87-88 of Deutsche Schachblätter, 15 March 1936, with annotations by White:
Friedrich Sämisch – Hans Frank
Berlin, 2 March 1936
Giuoco Piano
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 d3 Bc5 5 Nc3 d6 6 Be3 Bb6 7 Qd2 h6 8 Nd5 Be6 9 Nxf6+ Qxf6 10 Bxe6 Qxe6 11 Bxb6 axb6 12 a3 O-O 13 O-O f5 14 Qe2 f4 15 c3 g5 16 Ne1 g4 17 f3 h5 18 Kh1 Kf7 19 Nc2 Rg8 20 Rae1 Qf6 21 Nb4 Ne7 22 Nd5 Nxd5 23 exd5 Raf8 24 c4 Rg7 25 d4 Rg5 26 dxe5 Rxe5 27 Qd2 Rxe1 28 Rxe1 Re8 29 Rxe8 Kxe8 30 Qe2+ and Sämisch’s offer of a draw was accepted by the Reichsminister.
From the same year comes this inscription by Sämisch in our copy of Der Michel Angelo des Schachspiels by J. Hannak (Vienna, 1936):
The text appears to read, ‘Dem glücklichen Schachehepaar Hans und Annemarie [Lobbenberg?] mit herzlichsten Grüssen aus Karlsbad’, but the recipients’ surname is unclear.
(3527)
From Peter Lobbenberg (London):
‘In C.N. 3527 you reproduced a note from Fritz Sämisch to “dem glücklichen Schachehepaar Hans und Annemarie Lobbenberg [?] mit herzlichsten Grüssen aus Karlsbad” and you added that the recipients’ name was unclear. I confirm that Hans and Annemarie were my parents, and you have indeed read the surname correctly. Sämisch was my father’s best man at their wedding in Berlin in 1934. There is some further information on my father at http://www.shropshirechess.org/History/1940s.htm.’
(3553)
Addition on 16 May 2026:
From Ulrich Schimke (Cologne, Germany):
‘A WikiTree webpage states that Hans Lobbenberg’s factory “was one of the most successful British corsetry companies in the second half of the twentieth century”. His wife Annemarie (née Rabl) was born in Carlsbad according to another page (under the tab “Family”).’
Can any reader throw light on the passage below about Fritz Sämisch which comes from page 87 of George Koltanowski’s TV Chess?
‘When he started in his first important tournament in Berlin, 1920, he took an hour for his first move, 25 minutes for his second move, 15 minutes for his third move, ten minutes for his fourth move, five minutes for his fifth move, and from then on, he would play the rest of the game in rapid-transit style, having only five minutes left for 35 moves.
Most of his opponents used to go beserk [sic], waiting around for him to move. They wondered if he was up to something deep, or new, or was just balmy. But when Sämisch started to play rapid-transit chess, they would follow suit, because they felt Sämisch did not have much time on his clock. They were sure that if they played fast, he would soon blunder.
But Fritz didn’t blunder. In fact, he was in his element and could outsmart most of the opponents in rapid play. Outcome? He would end up winning with great ease, with his opponent having something like an hour and 50 minutes left on his clock and a red face! Soon after his debut, participants would turn up with a detective book to calm their nerves while waiting for Sämisch to move and really slowed up when Sämisch started to rush matters! ...’
(4507)
Charles Milton Ling (Vienna) draws attention to a paragraph by R.G. Wade on page 278 of Chess Treasury of the Air by T. Tiller (Harmondsworth, 1966):
‘I remember playing the German master Sämisch in a tournament in Germany in 1949. After 22 moves he had used up so much time that he had only two minutes left for his next 18 – which he was capable of in his tensed-up state, amid the excitement of craning spectators. I viewed the difficult position (and the spectators) sourly; but I noted that I had an hour and a half for my own moves. My reaction? I ordered tea, waited till it came (while my clock ticked), slowly stirred it and drank it, and slowly pondered; and did not move for an hour. The frustrated spectators had long before moved on to more exciting games. My opponent could not stay at the pitch of intensity to which he had raised himself an hour before; his thinking slowed and wandered, and he became visibly relaxed. After I had moved, he actually only made a couple of moves before overstepping the time, and thus losing. I had learnt a valuable lesson.’
The game (1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Nc3 c6 5 e3 Nbd7 6 Bd3 dxc4 7 Bxc4 b5 8 Bd3 a6 9 e4 c5 10 e5 cxd4 11 Nxb5 axb5 12 exf6 Qb6 13 fxg7 Bxg7 14 O-O Bb7 15 Re1 Nc5 16 Bf4 Nxd3 17 Qxd3 Bxf3 18 Qxf3 O-O 19 Qg3 Kh8 20 Rac1 Rxa2 21 Re5 Qa5 22 h4 Ra1 23 Rec5 Rxc1+ 24 Rxc1 b4 25 Qb3 Rg8; Black won on time) occurred in the tournament in Oldenburg in June-July 1949, and on page 217 of its July/August/September 1949 issue CHESS commented:
‘Sämisch was a side-show all on his own. With unfailing regularity he got into the most atrocious time-trouble. It was nothing to him to have to make 20 or 25 moves in one or two minutes; sometimes he would manage it and preserve a tenable game, but more often the flag would finally fall when he was still five or six short. Against Walther his flag was trembling on the brink, ready to fall, with 16 moves to go. He had a defensive position but managed to make all 16 moves in what must have been at most only three or four seconds.’
The photograph of Sämisch below comes from page 87 of Kagans Neueste Schachnachrichten, 1 January 1925:
(4533)
Can readers point out any articles by, or interviews with, Sämisch in which he explained his handling of the chess clock?
(4542)
Stories about Sämisch’s time-trouble are numerous, but facts remain elusive. A curiosity pointed out by Martin Weissenberg (Savyon, Israel) is a brief report about Flensburg, 1947 on page 352 of the Revista Română de Şah, November-December 1947; it states, without further particulars, that for the first time in his career Sämisch was not in time-trouble.
(4678)
Chess literature has many references to F. Sämisch’s results at Büsum (Germany) in May 1969 and at Lidköping (Sweden) in July-August 1969, and especially concerning the quantity of games he lost by exceeding the time-limit.
Can the key facts be summarized?
(8228)
Under the heading ‘For whom the bell tolls – 15 times’ Irving Chernev wrote on page 49 of Wonders and Curiosities of Chess (New York, 1974):
‘Sämisch lost all 15 of his games in a tournament held in Berlin in 1969. Others before him have lost every game they played in a tournament, but not in the way Sämisch did. He lost every game on time limit.’
‘Berlin’ should, of course, read Büsum.
Bent Kølvig (Rødovre, Denmark) notes that according to Bent Larsen’s report on the Büsum tournament on page 156 of the July 1969 Skakbladet, Sämisch lost all 15 of his games on time (‘probably a kind of world record’, Larsen commented) and participated only because a Bulgarian grandmaster did not arrive.
Below is the crosstable from page 155 of the Danish magazine:
Page 215 of the October 1969 issue gave the crosstable of the tournament in Lidköping:
The accompanying report by Ole Jakobsen gave no details about Sämisch’s handling of the clock.
We note a brief item on page 180 of the August 1969 Tidskrift för Schack:
After referring to Sämisch’s performance in Büsum it states that in Lidköping he did not manage to make more than about half the requisite number of moves before, often in an equal or even superior position, he exceeded the time-limit. However, it is not specifically stated that he lost all his games on time.
(8237)
Miquel Artigas (Sabadell, Spain) writes:
‘I have checked the tournament booklet published by the Chess Player (undated but it appeared in 1969). On page 1 M.H. Horton states:
“Sämisch still counts as an IM towards tournament classifications and so he was brought in as a last minute substitute. He made chess history by losing every game on time. Nevertheless, he achieved some good positions.”
The booklet includes all the games from the tournament, and after each of Sämisch’s it is specified that the loss was “on time”.’
(8241)
It is proving difficult to find particulars concerning Sämisch’s performance at Lidköping, 1969.
Calle Erlandsson (Lund, Sweden) notes a report on page 182 of the August 1969 Tidskrift för Schack that Sämisch overstepped the time-limit against Åke Olsson after only 12 moves.
(8242)
Roger Mylward (Lower Heswall, England) notes that Sämisch’s games from the two 1969 tournaments are available in the ChessBase Mega database 2013 and at the 365Chess.com website.
(8255)
This famous position occurred in the game between Sämisch and Capablanca at the Carlsbad, 1929 tournament. All kinds of stories have been woven around the blunder 9...Ba6, such as this passage about Capablanca on page 31 of The Chess Scene by David Levy and Stewart Reuben (London, 1974):
‘In addition to being a chessplayer of genius he had a charming personality and was a great favourite with the ladies. This contributed to the break-down of his first marriage. While playing at the Carlsbad tournament in 1929, Capa had found himself a local mistress. This increased his enjoyment of an event in which he was playing well and he was looking forward to taking first prize even though the opposition was extremely strong. During his game with Sämisch (one of the tail-enders), Capablanca glanced up from the board and could hardly believe his eyes when he saw his wife, who had decided that it would be a nice surprise if she were to visit her spouse. Capablanca’s blunder in that game was possibly the worst of his career. He asked a friend, “Can I really continue a piece down?” His friend replied, “It is my responsibility that you play on”. He struggled for many hours but eventually lost and thus finished in a tie for second place, only half a point behind the winner.’
The anecdotists give no source for their account, and in particular it may be asked why this friend, conveniently unnamed, would have been consulted by Capablanca during the game and would have replied ‘It is my responsibility that you play on’. Moreover, is any historical narrative likely to be credible when it purports to quote direct speech?
The story also cropped up on page 330 of ‘Garry Kasparov on My Great Predecessors Part I with the participation of Dmitry Plisetsky’ (London, 2003):
‘The secret of this “blunder of the year” was revealed by the victim himself. It turns out that before Capa’s ninth move a beautiful brunette appeared in the hall – his wife Gloria, who had turned up out of the blue from Havana. This “opening surprise” shocked the master: he was having an affair with a beautiful blonde ...’
Since it is affirmed by Kasparov-with-the-participation-of-Plisetsky that ‘the victim himself’ revealed what happened (with corroborative detail about hair hues), it is a pity that no further details were provided. In the Carlsbad, 1929 tournament book (page 309) A. Becker merely stated in his note to 9...Ba6 that after the game Capablanca explained that he had momentarily considered it possible to answer 10 Qa4 with 10...Na5 (‘Nach der Partie erklärte er, bei diesem Zuge momentan im Glauben gewesen zu sein, auf 10 Da4 mit Sa5 antworten zu können ...’). In other words, the Cuban thought that he had already castled.
When was feminine distraction first suggested? The earliest account we have found is by a participant in Carlsbad, 1929, Esteban Canal, in an article entitled ‘Il virtuoso Capablanca’ on page 127 of the June 1958 issue of L’Italia Scacchistica:
‘A questo proposito posso raccontarvi una sua tragicomica avventura della quale fui testimone e che pochi conoscono. Si svolgeva il torneo di Karlsbad 1929, uno dei più famosi del secolo, per lui importantissimo perché una sua vittoria gli avrebbe spianato la via della rivincita con Aljechin. Però invece di concentrare tutte le sue forze al raggiungimento dello scopo, alternava, lui quarantenne, le battaglie scacchistiche a schermaglie galanti, e ognuno sa quanto male vadano d’accordo la dama e il giuoco degli scacchi. Per colmo di mali le cose si complicarono di repente. Da alcuni giorni, verso la fine del torneo, egli aveva preso l’abitudine di appartarsi in dolce colloquio con una ragazzetta svenevole di buona famiglia, che era venuta coi genitori per la cura delle acque termali; il convegno avveniva in uno stanzino sperduto nel labirinto di sale, saloni e salotti del grande albergo, lontano da sguardi indiscreti. Una sera, mentre stavo per uscire a spasso, vedo una signora bruna nell’atrio fra un cumulo di valigie, con due marmocchi in calzoncini, che chiede di Capablanca al portiere. Intuisco la situazione, si tratta certamente della moglie che ha voluto preparare una lieta sorpresa arrivando così senza preavviso. Ho avuto sempre molta comprensione delle disgrazie del prossimo, eppoi gli ero molto amico, cosicché mi precipitai a dare l’allarme, spiegai le cose in fretta e furia, presi il suo posto accanto alla donzella, mentre egli si metteva a passeggiare di fronte a noi come se mi avesse scovato per caso in quel momento e volesse dirmi qualcosa di molto importante. La commedia era stata opportuna e tempestiva, perché subito dopo entrò in campo il nemico cioè la consorte e i ragazzi. Passato il primo momento delle effusioni, salutarono e uscirono con lui. Dallo sguardo che mi aveva gettato la buona donna io compresi che la finta non era riuscita, e infatti ho saputo più tardi che quella notte fu tempestosa per il cubano, un vero tornado delle Antille gli si era scatenato addosso. Il giorno dopo egli apparve nella sala di torneo compito e sorridente come al solito, però nella partita sua contro Sämisch si notarono le conseguenze del temporale: dopo solo nove mosse egli perse un pezzo, e così anche la partita e il primo premio. Questo e il piccolo tributo che l’uomo felice deve rendere ogni tanto agli invidiosi dei.’
In short, Capablanca was in the company of a young girl at the hotel in Carlsbad when his wife and two children unexpectedly arrived there. Canal tried to help Capablanca cover his tracks, but unsuccessfully. That night the Cuban faced his wife’s fury, and the following day he blundered against Sämisch. This article was reproduced on pages 102-104 of Esteban Canal by Alvise Zichichi (Brescia, 1991).
However, an altogether different version was attributed to Canal in an article by Román Torán on pages 8-9 of Ocho x Ocho Especial (April 1995). Torán stated that at a tournament in Venice in 1952 (we believe that he meant 1953) Canal gave him the following account of what happened at Carlsbad in 1929:
‘Paseaba por la sala esperando la jugada de mi adversario cuando, súbitamente, vi entrar a la acompañante de Capablanca de los últimos meses. Ajeno a su llegada, Capablanca conversaba con una joven en una salita del casino escenario del torneo. Quise evitar un incidente y me di buena prisa en advertir a Capablanca. Con su rapidez de reflejos me dijo: “Siéntate ahí”, de forma que la señorita quedase entre los dos y no se pudiera saber quién le acompañaba. Pero esta maniobra no convenció a la recién llegada, que armó un buen escándalo. Capablanca se reincorporó a la partida y cometió un grave error que le costó una pieza. Normalmente, hubiera abandonado, pero quería que se calmase el enfado de su acompañante, por lo que continuó jugando y, ante el asombro general, a punto estuvo de salvarse.’
This version refers only to a lady companion and a young girl, with no mention of Capablanca’s wife and children; nor was there any night of recriminations, since the incident is stated to have occurred during the Cuban’s game against Sämisch. The Ocho x Ocho article has been drawn to our attention by Christian Sánchez (Rosario, Argentina). Whether the account is faithful to what Canal had told Torán four decades previously is impossible to say.
Two other reports may be noted. The first was by Hans Kmoch, in an article entitled ‘My Personal Recollections of Capablanca’ on pages 362-363 of Chess Review, December 1967:
‘In 1929, Capablanca participated in the fourth Carlsbad tournament. But I had little contact with him there. When his wife (the first one) arrived, he lost to Sämisch, blundering away a piece in the opening, much to the satisfaction of Alekhine, who attended the contest as an observer.’
Alekhine was reporting on the tournament for the New York Times. [See Alekhine on Carlsbad, 1929.]
Further confusion was created when Salo Flohr wrote an account in the 9/1980 issue of 64. A translation of his article (‘El idioma materno de Capablanca’) was published on pages 28-30 of the 3/1981 issue of the Cuban magazine Boletín Ajedrez. Claiming that the ‘secret’ of what had happened in Sämisch v Capablanca had come from the latter’s own words (no source), Flohr asserted that while the Cuban was contemplating move nine his wife unexpectedly entered the tournament hall. According to Flohr, this displeased Capablanca because he was then frequenting another woman, Olga Chagodaef, whom he later married. As noted on pages 252 and 325 of our book on Capablanca, this is incorrect because he did not meet his second wife until 1934.
Taken jointly, the narratives by Canal, Kmoch and Flohr suggest that something involving one or more women occurred in the context of Capablanca’s loss to Sämisch. The unresolved questions are what, who, where and when.
(4712)
From page 8 of Capablanca move by move by Cyrus Lakdawala (London, 2012):
‘So difficult was Capa to beat that he went ten years without losing a tournament game, from the St Petersburg tournament of 1914 to New York 1924, where he finally lost a game to Réti. (It was believed the only reason for that defeat was loss of composure when Capa’s rumoured mistress walked into the tournament hall while Capa’s wife – and the press! – also attended!)’
(7742)
When did F. Sämisch begin playing the Sämisch Variation in the Nimzo-Indian Defence (1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 a3) and did he ever write about his involvement with that opening?
On page 207 of the July 1965 BCM Bruce Hayden noted an early occurrence of 4 a3: G.M. Norman played it in the 1923-24 Hastings tournament (against R.P. Michell):
‘The idea caught the eye of the German master Fritz Sämisch and he adopted it thereon. And thereon, as is the way of chess fashion, his name was bestowed on the variation which was to play such a great part in master practice in the years to come ...’
Although usually dated ‘1923’ the Norman v Michell game was played on 3 January 1924 (page 43 of the February 1924 BCM). Michell, who won, annotated it on pages 77-78 of the same issue.
(4974)
C.N. 4974 asked whether F. Sämisch ever wrote about his involvement in the opening 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 a3. Peter Anderberg (Harmstorf, Germany) shows that Sämisch explicitly rejected the notion that 4 a3 was his invention:
‘After the death, on 10 January 1934, of the Silesian master Adolf Kramer, F. Sämisch wrote as follows in his chess column in Berliner illustrierte Nachtausgabe of 23 February 1934:
“Zur Erinnerung an A. Kramer
Die vorliegende Partie ist die Prioritätspartie der bekannten Variante 1 d4 Sf6 2 c4 e6 3 Sc3 Lb4 4 a3!?, die fälschlich als meine Erfindung ausgegeben wurde [our emphasis]. Die erstmalige Anwendung dieser Spielweise geschah aber durch A. Kramer, nur ist diese Partie vergessen worden, weil sie in einem Provinzturnier gespielt wurde.Adolf Kramer – Gottlieb Machate
Gespielt im schlesischen Meisterturnier zu Bad Altheide, 1926. 1 d4 Sf6 2 c4 e6 3 Sc3 Lb4 4 a3 (Die Anhänger dieses Zuges haben gute Erfolge zu verzeichnen, obwohl er objektiv betrachtet minderwertig ist.) 4...Lxc3+ 5 bxc3 d6 (Am besten geschieht entweder d5! nebst c5!, wie Kmoch empfiehlt, oder b6 und auf 6.f3 d5!, wie Eliskases in Hastings gegen Dr. Alechin spielte.) 6 f3 O-O 7 e4 e5 8 Lg5 Te8 9 Ld3 Sbd7 10 Se2 Sf8 11 Dd2 Se6 (Auch bei anderen Zügen steht Schwarz nicht gut, da er keine Gegenchancen besitzt und dem drohenden Königsangriff nicht ausweichen kann.) 12 Le3 Sf8 13 O-O Sg6 14 Sg3 Kh8 15 Tab1 De7 (Um einer neuerlichen Fesselung zu entgehen, wäre besser 15...Sd7 geschehen.) 16 Lg5! h617 Sf5! Df8 (17...Lxf5 18 exf5 ist noch schlechter für Schwarz.) 18 Sxh6 Sh5 (Bessere Chancen bot 18...Sh7 nebst Sxg5 und Sf4.) 19 Sf5 f6 20 Le3 b6 21 g3 Df7 22 Dg2 Sf8 23 Dh3 Sh7 24 g4 Sf4 25 Lxf4 exf4 26 Sh4 Kg8 (Besser geschah sogleich 26...g5 .) 27 Sg2 g5 28 Dh6 Dg7 29 Dxg7+ Kxg7 30 Kf2 La6 31 h4 Th8 32 Th1 c5 33 hxg5 Sxg5 (Auf 33...fxg5 gewinnt 34 Th5 nebst Tbh1 mit der Drohung e5.) 34 Sxf4 Der Sieg von Weiß ist nun keine Frage mehr. Es folgte noch:) 34...Tac8 35 Sh5+ Kf7 36 f4 Se6 37 d5 Sd8 38 Sg3 Sb7 39 Sf5 Tcd8 40 Th6 Txh6 41 Sxh6+ Kg6 42 e5+! Kg7 (42...Kxh6 scheitert an 43 exf6 nebst Th1 matt.) 43 Sf5+ (und Schwarz gab auf. Eine von Kramer ganz hervorragend gespielte Partie!)”
Sämisch won the Bad Altheide tournament as an unofficial competitor. Obviously, he did not know the game Norman v Michell as he wrote that Kramer v Machate was the stem game. It had previously been published in Breslauer Neueste Nachrichten (28 October 1926) and on pages 11-12 of A. Babel’s book, Der Schachkongreß in Bad Altheide (Breslau, 1927), but not in either Deutsche Schachzeitung or Deutsche Schachblätter.
Chessbase’s MegaBase 2007 has a game Ferrari-Stalda (“Trieste-chB 1923”) with 4 a3, played some months before Norman v Michell.’
(4981)
We note an occurrence of the Sämisch Variation, by transposition, which predates the specimens discussed in C.N.s 4974 and 4981: a correspondence game between E. Voellmy and O. Procházka played in 1918-19 and published on pages 120-122 of the September-October 1919 Schweizerische Schachzeitung. It began 1 c4 e6 2 d4 Nf6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 a3, and the full score can also be found on pages 26-28 of Erwin Voellmy by Paul Müller-Breil (Zurich, 2005).
(5682)
Per Skjoldager (Fredericia, Denmark) draws attention to the conclusion of the game Sämisch v Vidmar, Carlsbad, 1929. Below is the position after Black’s 42nd move, followed by the account by Alfred Brinckmann on page 60 of the tournament book:
In short, Sämisch could have won a clear rook with 43 Bg8+. After 43...Qxe4 he claimed that Vidmar had overstepped the time-limit, but the latter disagreed. Before the controller arrived, Vidmar offered a draw, which Sämisch accepted. Brinckmann noted that after 44 Rxe4 Rxd8 45 Re6 Rd1+ 46 Kf2 Ra1 47 Rxc6 Rxa5 Black would have had a clear advantage.
Mr Skjoldager has found a slightly different account of the game’s conclusion on page 5 of Bohemia, 2 August 1929:
‘Das Damengambit Sämisch-Dr. Vidmar ergab einen sonderbaren Zwischenfall. Durch eine schöne aber nicht vollkommen korrekte Kombination gewann Sämisch eine Figur. Als er auch noch einen Turm gewinnen könnte, machte Sämisch einen grossen Fehler und stand glatt auf Verlust. Da warf er einem Blick auf die Kontrolluhr und sah, dass Dr. Vidmar die Zeit um zwei Minuten überschritten hatte. Sämisch reklamierte wegen Zeitüberschreitung. Bevor aber der Spielleiter Tietz eine Entscheidung treffen konnte, hatte Dr. Vidmar seinen Gegner Remis angeboten, das Sämisch annahm, so dass der Turnierleiter bereits keine weitere Entscheidung treffen konnte. Die Partie dürfte jedoch noch vor das Schiedsgericht kommen, weil sich die übrigen Spielteilnehmer mit dem Remis nicht einverstanden erklären wollen.’
Our translation:
‘The Queen’s Gambit between Sämisch and Dr Vidmar resulted in an unusual incident. By means of an attractive, though not entirely correct, combination Sämisch won a piece. When he was in a position to win a rook as well, he made a glaring error and found himself on the verge of losing. He then glanced at the clock and saw that Dr Vidmar had exceeded his time by two minutes. Sämisch claimed the game on time. However, before the controller, Tietz, could make a decision, Dr Vidmar offered his opponent a draw, which Sämisch accepted, so that no further decision by the controller could be taken. Nonetheless, the game will probably go before the appeals committee because the other players did not wish to give their agreement to the draw.’
(5060)
Charles Sullivan (Davis, CA, USA) refers to a position in Alexander Alekhine’s Chess Games, 1902-1946 by Leonard M. Skinner and Robert G.P. Verhoeven (Jefferson, 1998): Sämisch v Alekhine, Prague, 15 December 1942 (page 696):
The continuation is given in the book as 26 Nxa7 Bg5, and Mr Sullivan asks if both players really missed 26...Ra8, which wins the knight.
The source specified by Skinner and Verhoeven was page 51 of the Lachaga booklet Prag, 1942 (Martínez, 1973). We have checked the score in another book (also listed in the bibliography, on page 790): Durasův turnaj – Praha 1942 by Karel Průcha (Prague, 1943). It too had the same sequence (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 Nd7 4 Bc4 c6 5 a4 h6 6 Nc3 Be7 7 O-O Ngf6 8 Qe2 Qc7 9 Rd1 Nf8 10 dxe5 dxe5 11 Ne1 Ne6 12 Bxe6 Bxe6 13 Nd3 O-O 14 Be3 b6 15 h3 c5 16 f4 exf4 17 Nxf4 Qe5 18 Nd3 Qh5 19 Qxh5 Nxh5 20 g4 Nf6 21 Nf4 Rad8 22 Rxd8 Rxd8 23 a5 Bc8 24 Nb5 Nxe4 25 a6 Bd7 26 Nxa7 Bg5). Before concluding that there was indeed a double blunder by Sämisch and Alekhine, we should like to know what moves were given in any other publications of the time. The game (drawn at move 41) is absent from the various Czech and German sources currently available to us.
(5333)
The question has been taken up by Peter Anderberg in an article ‘Der junge Sämisch’ on pages 52-73 of the April-June 2010 issue of Kaissiber. He reports that Sämisch gave the game in the chess column of the Berliner Lokal-Anzeiger, 16 January 1943 and that after 22 Rxd8 ...
... the reply was 22...Bxd8, and not 22...Rxd8. Thus in the Berliner Lokal-Anzeiger version of the score (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 Nd7 4 Bc4 c6 5 a4 h6 6 Nc3 Be7 7 O-O Ngf6 8 Qe2 Qc7 9 Rd1 Nf8 10 dxe5 dxe5 11 Ne1 Ne6 12 Bxe6 Bxe6 13 Nd3 O-O 14 Be3 b6 15 h3 c5 16 f4 exf4 17 Nxf4 Qe5 18 Nd3 Qh5 19 Qxh5 Nxh5 20 g4 Nf6 21 Nf4 Rad8 22 Rxd8 Bxd8 23 a5 Bc8 24 Nb5 Nxe4 25 a6 Bd7 26 Nxa7 Bg5 27 c4 Ra8 28 Nb5 Bxb5 29 cxb5 Nd6 30 Nd5 Bxe3+ 31 Nxe3 Nxb5 32 Nd5 Ra7 33 Ra4 f6 34 Nxb6 Nc7 35 Nd7 Rxa6 36 Nxc5 Rc6 37 Ra5 Rb6 38 b3 Rd6 39 Ra7 Rc6 40 Ra5 Rd6 41 Ra7 Drawn) no opportunity to win the white knight with ...Ra8 arose at move 26. The article in Kaissiber includes Sämisch’s annotations to the game (see pages 72-73).
(6553)
Thomas Olsson (Lund, Sweden) notes that surprisingly little biographical information is available about Friedrich Sämisch.
He certainly deserves more detailed treatment than that provided in the 63-page booklet Schach- und Lebenskünstler Friedrich Sämisch by Helmut Wieteck (Nuremberg, 1987).
Friedrich (Fritz) Sämisch
(6272)
See Blindfold Chess.
Pages 14-15 of 100 Classics of the Chessboard by A.S.M. Dickins and H. Ebert (Oxford, 1983) gave Alekhine v Sämisch, Berlin, 1923 under the heading ‘The Classic Blindfold Game’. The co-authors claimed:
‘Happening to meet in Berlin, the two players decided to take the opportunity of playing each other blindfold, creating as a result this astonishing brilliancy.’
The book added that Sämisch called Alekhine’s victory ‘the most brilliant game I have ever seen’. The moves: 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Be2 e6 4 O-O d6 5 d4 cxd4 6 Nxd4 Nf6 7 Bf3 Ne5 8 c4 Nxf3+ 9 Qxf3 Be7 10 Nc3 O-O 11 b3 Nd7 12 Bb2 Bf6 13 Rad1 a6 14 Qg3 Qc7 15 Kh1 Rd8 16 f4 b6 17 f5 Be5 18 fxe6 Bxg3 19 exf7+ Kh8 20 Nd5 Resigns.
It is one of Alekhine’s most spectacular miniatures, number 97 in his first collection of Best Games (London, 1927). The heading was ‘Exhibition Game played at Berlin, February 1923’. The book did not suggest that either master was blindfold. Nor did the German translation, Meine besten Partien 1908-1923 (Berlin and Leipzig, 1929), although we have one later edition in German (Berlin, 1983), which states ‘Beiderseits ohne Ansicht des Brettes’. Various editions of the book Meisterspiele by Rudolf Teschner say that both players were without sight of the board, and Sämisch’s praise of Alekhine is quoted:
‘“Die genialste Partie, die ich je gesehen habe”, äußerte Sämisch voll Bewunderung für seinen Gegner.’
As shown below, Tartakower cited Sämisch when he published the game (a ‘Gastkampf’ , which Tartakower dated 1921, instead of 1923, with no intimation of blindfold play but with an additional move at the end) on page 276 of Die hypermoderne Schachpartie (Vienna, 1924):
January, rather than February, 1923 was specified when the game appeared on pages 218-219 of the second volume of Complete Games of Alekhine by V. Fiala and J. Kalendovský (Olomouc, 1996). The co-authors asserted that the game was first published on page 16 of the Observer, 4 March 1923. In neither that volume nor in the Skinner/Verhoeven book on Alekhine (see page 184) was it suggested that Alekhine or Sämisch played the game blindfold. Moreover, the score was not included in Blindfold Chess by E. Hearst and J. Knott (Jefferson, 2009).
The brilliancy is absent from all the chess magazines of 1923 that we have consulted so far.
(6741)
The obituary of Salo Flohr on page 8 of the November 1983 Ajedrez de Estilo stated that in 1923 he was defeated in 15 moves by Friedrich Sämisch in a simultaneous blindfold display.
Further information is sought.
(7080)
A widely-published blindfold game won by F. Sämisch against N.N.:
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 e5 c5 5 Bd2 cxd4 6 Nb5 Bc5 7 b4 Bb6 8 Qg4 Kf8 9 Nf3 Nc6 10 Qf4 f6 11 exf6 Qxf6 12 Nc7 Bxc7 13 Qxc7 h6 14 b5 d3
15 Bxd3 Qxa1+ 16 Ke2 Qf6 17 bxc6 Qe7 18 Bb4 Qxb4 19 Qd8+ Kf7 20 Ne5 mate.
Wanted regarding this game-score: the oldest possible citations from magazines and columns of the time. But when was ‘the time’? ‘Aachen, 1943’ was the heading when the game was published on pages 174-175 of The Joys of Chess by Fred Reinfeld (New York, 1961), but other books tend to give the date as 1934. See, for instance, pages 363-364 of Irving Chernev’s Best Short Games collection, which introduced the game as follows:
‘“Of all the modern masters that I have had occasion to observe playing blindfold chess, it is Sämisch who interests me the most; his great technique, his speed and precision have always made a profound impression on me.” So said Alekhine, himself one of the most magnificent exponents of the art.’
Alekhine made the remark on page 19 of Auf dem Wege zur Weltmeisterschaft (Berlin and Leipzig, 1932):
‘Von allen modernen Meistern, die ich beim Blindspiel zu beobachten Gelegenheit hatte, gefiel mir Sämisch am besten; seine große Technik, seine Schnelligkeit und Sicherheit haben mir imponiert.’
The French version, from page 270 of Deux cents parties d’échecs (Rouen, 1936):
‘De tous les Maîtres modernes que j’ai eu l’occasion d’observer au jeu à l’aveugle, c’est Sämisch qui m’intéresse le plus; sa grande technique, sa rapidité et sa sûreté m’ont toujours fait une profonde impression.’
(7683)
Peter Anderberg (Harmstorf, Germany), Hans-Georg Kleinhenz (Munich, Germany) and Alan McGowan (Waterloo, Ontario, Canada) note that the game was published on page 304 of Deutsche Schachblätter, 1 October 1934:
The display, which took place in Aachen on 28 May, was mentioned on page 190 of the 15 June 1934 issue, with the information that Sämisch won all ten blindfold games within five hours:
Mr Kleinhenz adds:
‘The handwritten chronicle of the Aachener Schachverein 1856 (the organizer of the German Championship) does not contain a detailed report of the exhibition but mentions that some were consultation games:
“Saemisch spielt anl. der Dt. Meisterschaft an 10 Brettern blind. Zum Teil Beratungspartien. S. gewinnt alle Partien.”’
Furthermore, Mr Anderberg notes that the game-score was published in Chemnitzer Wochenschach, 10 June 1934:
(7690)
Ronald Spurgeon (Sutton, England) draws attention to a feature on page 169 of the November 1923 American Chess Bulletin:
Our correspondent asks whether anything further is known about the rapid transit tournaments and about the Lasker v Sämisch game given by the Bulletin.
We have found the score on page 6A of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 21 June 1923:
Emanuel Lasker – Friedrich Sämisch
Carlsbad, 1923
King’s Pawn Opening
1 e4 e5 2 d3 d5 3 exd5 Qxd5 4 Nc3 Bb4 5 Bd2 Qd8 6 Nf3 Nc6 7 Be2 f6 8 O-O Nge7 9 Ne4 Bd6 10 d4 Be6 11 Bc3 exd4 12 Nxd6+ Qxd6 13 Nxd4 Nxd4 14 Qxd4 Qxd4 15 Bxd4 Kf7 16 Rfe1 Rhd8 17 Bc5 Ng6 18 Bf3 Bd5 19 Bh5 Rd7 20 Rad1 Re8 21 Bxa7 Rxe1+ 22 Rxe1 Be6 23 Be3 Bf5 24 Bf3 c6 25 Bd1 Ne5 26 f3 Nc4
27 Bc1 b5 28 Kf2 g5 29 b3 Nb6 30 g4 Bg6 31 f4 gxf4 32 Bxf4 Nd5 33 Bd2 Ra7
34 a4 bxa4 35 c4 axb3 36 Bxb3 Ne7 37 Bf4 Rb7 38 Re3 h5 39 c5+ Nd5 40 Bxd5+ cxd5 41 c6 Rb2+ 42 Kg3 Rc2 43 gxh5 Be4 44 c7 f5 45 Rb3 Rg2+ 46 Kh3
46...Rg8 47 h6 Resigns.
Regarding rapid transit games in Carlsbad, C.N. 1050 (see page 9 of Chess Explorations) gave the conclusion of Tartakower’s win against Alekhine on 8 May 1923.
(8000)
The front cover of Caïssa, 1 May 1950 has been forwarded by Alan McGowan (Waterloo, Canada):
The magazine gave no explanation (concerning the context, for instance, or the rotation of the chessboard), but Mr McGowan notes that, as mentioned on page 129 of the issue, the Candidates’ tournament in Budapest was in progress. One of the games between Bronstein and Kotov was drawn in 15 moves.
(8437)
Charles Milton Ling asks whether a reliable source is available in support of his recollection that the phrase ‘Genug des Stumpfsinns, Remis!’ (‘Enough tedium, draw!’) has been attributed to Richard Teichmann, who wished to attend a wrestling event rather than play chess.
We can offer a passage about Teichmann from page 58 of Ein Rundflug durch die Schachwelt by Rudolf Spielmann (Berlin and Leipzig, 1929):
‘In einer Wettkampfpartie mit Sämisch begab sich folgendes: Etwa 15 Züge waren geschehen. Sämisch glaubte nach allen Regeln moderner Schachkunst eine aussichtsreiche Stellung erlangt zu haben und war eben eifrig dabei, einen geeigneten Schlachtplan auszuhecken. Während er angestrengt nachdenkt, zieht plötzlich Teichmann die Uhr, steht auf, schiebt die Steine zusammen und bemerkt einfach: “Genug des Stumpfsinns, Remis!” Empfiehlt sich und geht in den Zirkus. Er war höchste Zeit, denn die Ringkämpfe hatten eben begonnen!’
Is it possible to find a match-game between Teichmann and Sämisch which fits this account (i.e. after about 15 moves Sämisch had an apparent advantage, but Teichmann suddenly broke off the game as a draw since he wished to watch wrestling at the circus)?
Page 43 of the February 1922 Deutsche Schachzeitung reported that a brief match between the two masters had taken place in Berlin. Teichmann won with one victory and three draws.
(8449)
Concerning the remark ‘Genug des Stumpfsinns, Remis!’ (‘Enough tedium, draw!’) attributed to Richard Teichmann, Birger Flindtholt (Randers, Denmark) has found the following (Caïssa, January 1952, page 29):
(8836)
Concerning lengthy reflection at the board, is it true that after Nimzowitsch played 1 b3 against Sämisch at Carlsbad, 1929, Black thought for 40 minutes? Such a suggestion was made on page 4 of the Sunday Times, 17 November 1929:
(8537)
A Sämisch blindfold brilliancy
1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 Bb5+ Bd7 4 Bxd7+ Qxd7 5 O-O Nc6 6 d4 cxd4 7 Nxd4 e6 8 c4 Nf6 9 Nc3 Be7 10 b3 O-O 11 Bb2 Rfd8 12 Qd2 Ne8 13 Rad1 a6 14 Nc2 Qc7 15 Ne3 Qb8 16 Qe2 b5 17 Rd2 Ne5 18 f4 Ng6 19 Qf2 Qb6 20 f5 Bg5
21 Ncd5 exd5 22 Bd4 Qb7 23 fxg6 hxg6 24 Nxd5 Bxd2 25 Qxd2 Rab8 26 Qg5 Rd7 27 Rf3 bxc4 28 Rh3 cxb3
29 Nf6+ Nxf6 30 Qxf6 gxf6 31 Bxf6 Resigns.
The above is page 243 of Ajedrez a la ciega by Benito López Esnaola (Madrid, 1989); see too page 385 of Blindfold Chess by Eliot Hearst and John Knott (Jefferson, 2009). The reference in the game heading to April 1949 is incorrect, as shown below.
The score was not published in the main Swiss chess periodical of the time, the Schweizerische Schachzeitung, although page 110 of the July 1949 issue had a brief report on Sämisch’s display in Berne:
Richard Forster (Zurich) has forwarded us two chess columns by Erwin Voellmy in the Basler Nachrichten, the first dated 29 January 1949:
Thus, owing to the late hour Sämisch had no opportunity to play the combinative finish against his unidentified opponent. The game was adjudicated at move 27 (after Rf3).
The second column (Basler Nachrichten, 5 February 1949) had a small correction concerning the number of games broken off:
The brilliancy can be found in a number of publications with Black identified as Koller. For instance, it is game 25 in 60 champions ... 60 parties by Alain Benlolo (Nice, 1992), a booklet subtitled ‘les plus belles parties d’échecs de tous les temps’. Certainly there was a player in Berne named Koller – in another context he was mentioned, for example, on page 45 of the March 1949 issue of the Schweizerische Schachzeitung – but when was the name Koller first attached to the Sämisch game?
(9373)
From Max Euwe’s ‘Game of the Month’ column on pages 74-75 of Chess Review, March 1952:
‘Masters of the future may differ from the older ones in paying less attention to material advantages. In this connection, Sämisch has made one of the most telling comments I have ever encountered on the subject: he remarks that he finds it easier to sacrifice in a blindfold game than in a regular game – because in a blindfold game he finds it easier to ignore purely material considerations.’
(10276)
Jan Kalendovský (Brno, Czech Republic) has found these photographs (Pistyan, 1922) at the Moravská zemská knihovna website:
Světozor, 25 May 1922, page 428
Světozor, 25 May 1922, page 429
(10277)
A lengthy autobiographical article by N.T. Whitaker was published on pages 502-504 of the December 1969 Chess Life & Review.
The chess accomplishments related included this curiosity (about which more information is sought):
‘In Hamburg, in May 1960, I drew a hard-fought six-game match with Grandmaster F. Sämisch, for stakes. We each won a game, with four draws. He is tough, as expected of a veteran master; he once defeated the dreaded Capablanca.’
(11213)
C.N. 11213 asked for information about a contest referred to by N.T. Whitaker on page 503 of the December 1969 Chess Life & Review:
Peter Anderberg reports that he has traced no reference to such a match in either the Deutsche Schachzeitung or Schach-Echo of the time.
(11218)
Olimpiu G. Urcan (Singapore) provides this photograph of Fritz Sämisch and Petr Romanovsky, courtesy of the Russ-Photo Archive (a Moscow photograph agency of the 1920s):
It may have been taken during Moscow, 1925, though it is without relevance to their game in the tournament.
(12173)
Javier Asturiano Molina (Murcia, Spain) points out that the photograph was on a postage stamp issued by the Republic of Djibouti in 1980. It can readily be found online and is also on page 55 of Petr Romanovsky by Isaak Z. Romanov (Moscow, 1984):
(12223)
To the Archives
for other feature articles.
Copyright Edward Winter. All rights reserved.
