12262. Check
and checkmate
White played 39 Bxh6
Be5+ 40 Bf4 mate.
As discussed in Check
and Checkmate, Bogoljubow v Trott, Southsea,
1950 was depicted in the animated film War
Is Over!, written and directed by Dave
Mullins.
Peter Trott (Paddock Wood, England) has sent us his
father’s score of the game:
1 e4 c5 2 Ne2 Nc6 3 Nbc3 d6 4 g3 g6 5 Bg2 Bg7 6 d3 e6
7 Nf4 Nge7 8 O-O O-O 9 Re1 Rb8 10 Nce2 b5 11 c3 Qa5 12
a3 b4 13 Bd2 bxa3 14 Rxa3 Qb6 15 Bc1 Bd7 16 Ra2 Rfc8
17 g4 Na5 18 h3 Nb3 19 Be3 e5 20 Nd5 Nxd5 21 exd5 f5
22 gxf5 Bxf5 23 Ng3 Rf8 24 Kh2 Rb7 25 Rg1 Kh8 26 Ra3
Bd7 27 Ne4 a5 28 Bf3 Be8 29 Rg2 h6 30 Be2 a4 31 Qg1
Nd4 32 cxd4 Qxb2 33 dxc5 Qxa3 34 Nxd6 Rb8 35 Nxe8
Rfxe8 36 Rxg6 Rg8 37 Qg4 e4 38 Qh5 Rge8 39 Bxh6 Be5+
40 Bf4 mate.
We are also grateful to Peter Trott for this
photograph taken shortly after the game started:
See too Efim
Bogoljubow.
An earlier photograph courtesy of our correspondent:
From left to right:
A.H. Trott, H. Meek, O. Penrose
London Boys’ Championship, January 1947
Addition on 3 January 2026:
Two further photographs of his father from Peter
Trott:
The board position occurs a number of times in
databases, the earliest game being Richter v Engels,
Bad Oeynhausen, 1938.
Regarding this shot taken on Southsea pier (in, we
believe, April 1951), Leonard Barden (London) informs
us:
‘The man on the right is Donald G. Mackay, and
the one in the centre looks like Stephen Hawes.
Trott’s chess career effectively terminated at
Beverwijk, 1953, where he finished joint last on
1/11, including a particularly brutal defeat by
Donner. After that his name virtually disappeared
from competitive chess.’
12263.
Alekhine v Lilienthal (C.N. 3348)
From Michael Sharpe (Toronto, Canada):
‘C.N. 3348 discusses the game Alekhine v
Lilienthal, Hastings, 1933-34 and its possible
significance in encouraging Euwe to challenge
Alekhine for the world championship title. The
moves of Alekhine’s winning combination in that
game are of interest:
Position after 50
Rf6-h6
In his 1969 autobiography, Zhizn shakhmatam,
pages 30-32 Lilienthal gives the concluding moves
as 50. ... Kf5 51 Rh4! Kg6 52 Rc8 Qxc8 53 h8(Q)
Qe6+ 54 Kb1 Qe1+ 55 Kc2 Qe2+ 56 Kc3 Resigns. That
continuation also appears in the Hungarian version
of his autobiography, Életem, a sakk (page
65), the German translation Schach war mein
Leben (pages 45-46) and in the English
translation published in 2024, Chess Survivor
(pages 48-49).
However, in their book Alexander Alekhine’s
Chess Games, 1902-1946 (1998), pages 482-483,
Skinner and Verhoeven give the conclusion as
50...Kf4 (rather than 50...Kf5), followed by 51
Rc8 Qxc8 52 Rh4+ Kg5 53 h8(Q) Qe6+ 54 Kb1 Qe1+ 55
Kc2 Qe2+ 56 Kc3 Resigns. Their book provides a
number of sources for the game, including The
Times, 30 December 1933 (quoted in Britbase) and
Tarrasch’s Schachzeitung, 15 January 1934,
pages 119-123. Additional sources which I have
located: F. Reinfeld (Chess Review,
January-February 1934, pages 13-14; Deutsche
Schachzeitung, January 1934, pages 21-22 (notes
by M. Blümich); BCM, February 1934, pages
84-85 (notes by J.H. Blake); L’Echiquier,
February 1934, pages 396-397, as well as several
Hungarian sources: Budapesti Sakkujság, 15
February 1934, page 10, and Magyar Sakkvilág,
February 1934, page 44. Budapesti Sakkujság
was a magazine to which Lilienthal contributed at
least one annotated game in 1934 (1 May 1934
issue, pages 92-93). Endre Steiner annotated the
Alekhine v Lilienthal game in the chess column in
Magyar Hirlap, 21 January 1934, page 28. All
these sources give the moves indicated by Skinner
and Verhoeven, i.e. 50...Kf4 (rather than
50...Kf5), followed by 51 Rc8 Qxc8 52 Rh4+ Kg5 53
h8(Q) Qe6+ 54 Kb1 Qe1+ 55 Kc2 Qe2+ 56 Kc3 Resigns.
Alekhine’s attacking line beginning with 51 Rc8
was flawed, as Lilienthal could have drawn, after
51...Qxc8 52 Rh4+, with 52 ... Kf3!, whereas
52...Kg5 as played in the game loses. I am not
sure when the drawing resource of 52...Kf3 was
first published – none of the above sources has
that variation in the notes – but page 418 of the
2002 book Alexander Alekhine II Games
1923-1934 gives the variation 52...Kf3 53 h8(Q)
Qe6+ 54 Kb1 Qe1+ 55 Kc2 Qf2+ 56 Kc3 Qc5+ 57 Kd2
Qf2+ 58 Kd3 Qe3+ as drawing.’
12264.
Assiac/Heinrich Fraenkel
From the ‘William Hickey’ column on page 6 of the Daily
Express, 1 May 1935:
12265.
Morphy cartoons in Le Charivari
Jean Fontaine (Montreal, Canada) refers to page 170
of the New York edition of F.M. Edge’s 1859 book on
Morphy:
Page 152 of the London edition is almost identical.
Mr Fontaine comments:
‘Gallica’s
digitized archives of Le Charivari cover
the months of Morphy’s first stay in Paris. I have
found five Morphy-related cartoons by the French
caricaturist Cham (a pseudonym of Charles Amédée
de Noé, 1818-79), including both pictures
described by Edge:
1
November 1858, page 3
14
November 1858, page 3
21 November 1858, page 3
28 November 1858, page 33
16
January 1859, page 3
What Edge calls “cuts” seem to be lithographs.
Cham apparently had only a vague idea of Morphy’s
looks, name (misspelled Morphi and Murphy) and
fast play (the mandatory joke about chess being a
slow game). His humour sometimes involves French
wordplay, exploiting the double meaning of “échecs”,
“dame” and “battu”.’
12266.
1960
Ross Jackson (Raumati South, New Zealand) sends the
following (Punch, 3 February 1960) from his
collection:
The cartoon, by Norman Mainsbridge (1911-93), is
being added to From
Former Times (Chess).
12267. Milan
Vidmar
Thomas Herbst (Nuremberg, Germany) recommends
publication of an English edition of the chess
autobiography Goldene Schachzeiten by Milan
Vidmar (Berlin, 1961). Pages 242-243 are shown
in C.N. 8293.
It is a longstanding need (mentioned in our 1999
article Wanted),
and
an enterprising publisher might even combine the
German volume with Vidmar’s Pol stoletja ob
šahovnici (Ljubljana, 1951).
12268.
Skittles and speed
Earliest
Occurrences
of Chess Terms includes an entry for ‘Skittles’,
together with ‘Skittling’; an addition regarding the
latter is an article on page
87 of the Westminster Chess Club Papers,
November 1868.
In a letter on page 3 of the Daily News, 30
May 1894 Samuel
Tinsley wrote:
‘There is, as every experienced chessist knows, all
the difference in the world between what is known as
off-hand play or “skittles” and chess. Multitudes
can enjoy the set-’em-up-and-knock-’em-down game;
not everyone can play games that will in the main
bear after analyses, and afford intellectual
pleasure to the student as years go by; and
certainly no-one can play good chess at less than
the now well recognized 15 or 20 moves an hour.’
Tinsley’s letter was in a series of four published by
the Daily News (London) in 1894 on the subject
of fast
chess:
29 May 1894, page 2
30 May 1894, page 3
31 May 1894, page 7
Bird’s first letter was also published in the Evening
Standard, 29 May 1894, page 6.
See too pages 8-9 of Hans Renette’s monograph on Bird
(Jefferson, 2016), which gave the first letter and
mentioned the second and third ones.
The title ‘Senior Chess Master’ had been used in
connection with a Bird letter on page 3 of the Morning
Post, 4 September 1893 about draws
and stalemate:
The heading of a brief notice on page 32 of the St
James’s Budget, 17 April 1908:
12269.
Errol Flynn
Olivia de Havilland
and Errol Flynn
From page 5B of the Sunday Sun (San Diego),
29 August 1937:
In many other newspaper paragraphs on the topic that
year, Errol Flynn was called ‘Anglo-Irish’, a twofold
error.
Chess
and Hollywood has so many references to his
reputed interest in chess that we have just produced a
separate feature article, Errol
Flynn and Chess.
12270.
The Encyclopaedia of Chess by Anne Sunnucks
The conclusion of B.H. Wood’s column about the first
edition of Sunnucks’ encyclopaedia on page 42 of the Illustrated
London News, 30 May 1970:
‘Of course there is scope here for divergencies of
opinion and you may well disagree with me. Perhaps
the Women’s World Championship really does deserve
more than three times as much space as the World
Championship itself. Perhaps Lisa Lane merits more
space than Spassky or Smyslov ..!
Yet Miss Sunnucks has assured herself of
immortality, for her Encyclopaedia will
undoubtedly be in print, its inadequacies rectified
and its faults eliminated, a century hence, by then
the accepted standard work of reference on the
subject. This thought may console her for some of
the criticism this first edition will receive.’
Wood wrote similarly in his first reaction to the
book on page 288 of CHESS, 12 May 1970, as
quoted in C.N. 9280:
‘... the book provides pleasant browsing for many
an evening and, its faults rectified, will probably
be in print a century hence.’
The prediction
was wisely omitted from his column on page 11 of the Daily
Telegraph, 18 March 1978, which gave an overview
of chess encyclopaedias. The highest praise was
awarded to Shakhmatny Slovar (Moscow, 1964).
Anne Sunnucks’ The Encyclopaedia of Chess (a
‘grandiose title’) was deemed ‘a worthy though uneven
production’ which was ‘only partially revised’ in
1976:
‘Her extraordinary achievement of allocating the
women’s world championship more than twice as much
space as the world championship itself remains
unaltered though these two sections follow
consecutively so that the imbalance could have been
rectified.’
Turning to the most recent (1978) single-volume
reference work, Wood commented:
‘To give his book the same title: The
Encyclopaedia of Chess (Batsford, 1977) ...
struck me as confusing and a little unkind on Harry
Golombek’s part.’
The titles of Sunnucks’ Encyclopaedia and
Golombek’s Encyclopedia differed by one
letter, both spellings being acceptable in British
English.
The Daily Telegraph column also mentioned the
Dictionnaire des échecs (Le Lionnais and
Maget), the Dizionario enciclopedico degli scacchi
(Chicco and Porreca) and An illustrated Dictionary
of Chess (Brace); six in all, ‘with a seventh by
Paul Langfield on the way’. (That one never
materialized, but see C.N.s 23 and 74 in The
Chess
Chamber of Horrors.) Wood made errors in the
title and date of the Russian volume and in the date
of the Italian one.
From the final paragraph of his 1978 article:
‘It is strange how all the authors have started
from scratch. You would expect them to consult their
predecessors, each building on the work that has
gone before. This would not be plagiarism, but just
natural efficiency. Instead, they more or less
ignore each other. The result is big gaps and even
steps backward.’
‘Building on’ is not the term to convey what Nathan
Divinsky did to Golombek’s book in 1990.
See also our recent feature article Wolfgang
Heidenfeld, as well as Chess
and
Women.
12271.
Internet chess broadcasters
As shown in Chess
Broadcasts on the Internet, C.N. 9085 gave our
choice of the five best online chess hosts/presenters
in English. Eleven years on, a new list is now offered
(in alphabetical order): Jan Gustafsson, Jovanka
Houska, Yasser Seirawan and Peter Svidler. How we wish
that a fifth name could be added: Daniel
Naroditsky.
12272.
Unchessy
‘Chessy’
exists, but so does ‘unchessy’. Donald Whitlock
(Solihull, England) notes that the word appears in
Alekhine’s second Best Games volume (Alekhine
v Lundin, Örebro, 1935 – page numbers vary), in
connection with the possibility of 7...Qb6:
‘This counterattack aims at an immediate material
win at the cost of time and, eventually space – a
dangerous and, to my mind, unchessy idea ...’
The original language of Alekhine’s annotations is
often uncertain.
12273.
Emanuel Lasker on blindfold chess
‘The impression that one gathers from the perusal
of the games [a series between Schlechter and
Mieses] is a disappointment. Chess sans voir
cannot compare, in brilliance or profundity, with
the chess played before the board. The fact cannot
surprise. Why should man, in his enterprises, not
employ the most favourable conditions that he can
procure? There are enough tasks to be performed only
with extreme effort, and hardly then. To surmount
difficulties artificially created is a trick, a
“tour de force”, a waste of good energy, and, in a
measure, irreligious.
Men born blind often find happiness in playing
chess by the sense of touch. Let playing sans
voir be reserved for them and for tyros, who
do not matter! The chessmaster should indulge in it
only on insignificant occasions.’
Source: New York Evening Post, 5 February
1909, page 6.
12274.
Health
From Lasker’s column on page 9 of the 17 April 1909
edition of the New York Evening Post:
‘Chessmasters, as a rule, do not sufficiently
consider their health. The brain has not, as yet,
developed an organ to give warning of overstrain;
probably because in previous ages the brain had a
leisurely life. Fatigue of the body makes pain and
forces you to seek rest; fatigue of the brain shows
itself merely by an indisposition to think and,
perhaps, by depriving you of sleep. The brain worker
must therefore use the intellect in order to keep
himself efficient, whereas he who works with muscle
is protected by instinct.
If chessmasters, in more instances than one should
expect, have failed to show a wise regard for their
health, part of the blame falls upon the chess
world. Chess amateurs are invariably astonished when
a master refuses an invitation to play, and they are
hurt when the master makes a habit of refusing. I
remember that there was a general outcry in the
chess press against me when, at Havana, in 1893, I
did not accept a match with Walbrodt; no-one said
that I had had an uninterrupted course of hard
chess, two tournaments in London, a match with
Blackburne, another with Bird, many match-games in
the United States, also much travelling, all between
March and December 1892. Other chessmasters have had
similar experiences, for instance Harwitz [sic],
whose chess life was a lot of work and of abuse with
little pay. He retaliated by abandoning chess. The
strongest opponent of Morphy lived the last 25 years
of his life out of sight of the chessboard.
Let the chess world ask less, even, if need be,
admire less, but be more ready with sacrifice; let
the chessmaster be allowed as much leisure as an
artist. Then he will bring forth conceptions subtle
and strong.’
12275.
Supremacy
An article on page 8 of the New York Evening Post,
19 December 1908:
‘Chess is an old game, yet all the paraphernalia of
tournaments, matches, magazines, and chess columns
in the newspapers is a modern development. The first
notable chess match, that between [McDonnell] and
Labourdonnais, took place less than 100 years ago;
the first international chess tournament took place
in London less than 60 years ago, and the first
periodical (the Illustrated London News) to
deal regularly with chess commenced about the same
time.
Although Hebrew literature is studded with
allusions to chess, there is nothing to indicate the
comparative ability of Jewish and Gentile players.
For all practical purposes, modern chess began with
the 1851 tournament. Since then, many others have
taken place, many matches have been played; all the
records have been kept, and the relative and
comparative merits of the principals are well
understood.
In the first tournament several Jews took a
prominent part, the most notable being Szén,
Harowitz [sic – and Harrwitz was not a
participant] and Horwitz. Soon after, the Jewish
players asserted unmistakable superiority over the
players of the rest of the world, and have
maintained that position almost unchallenged. In
1866, Steinitz wrested the title of chess champion
of the world from Professor Anderssen, and retained
it for 28 years. Before Steinitz became a
chessplayer he was a student in a Jewish seminary,
with the evident intention of becoming a rabbi. His
most dangerous challengers were coreligionists –
Zukertort and Gunsberg.
Emanuel Lasker, a German Jew, defeated Steinitz in
1894, and now he has more firmly established his
title by his success over Siegbert Tarrasch, another
German Jew, the only player whom the chess world
considered to be a dangerous challenger. In order to
firmly establish the idea of the pre-eminence of
Jews in chess it should only be necessary to mention
Szén, Löwenthal (Morphy’s editor), Horwitz (author
of end-games), Harowitz [sic], Steinitz,
Zukertort, Rosenthal, Winawer, two Laskers,
Tarrasch, Janowsky, Schlechter, Bernstein,
Rubinstein, and Gunsberg. Of equal eminence the rest
of the world can only point to Morphy, Pillsbury,
Anderssen, Maróczy, Marshall, Blackburne and
Staunton.
The supremacy of Jews in chess might be
demonstrated in another way. An international
tournament today without Jews would not be
recognized or acknowledged, while one composed
entirely of Jews would only miss Maróczy and
Marshall. How is this supremacy to be accounted for?
First and foremost, I believe it is due to the
general abstemiousness of the race. I do not mean
merely the abstinence of the present or past
generation, but the inherited effect of the
abstinence which has prevailed among all the
Oriental races. I attach the utmost importance to
this because, obviously, where and when the strain
is great, every resource of mental reserve counts.
If it is true that we are more abstemious, and it is
an uncontested claim, then we have an undoubted
advantage. Upon this phase of the subject I am not
conjecturing, but am very much impressed by personal
experience and contact with the greatest players of
the day.
Temperance is not the only beneficial factor which
Jews inherit. I attach great importance to the
peculiar faculty for dialectics which Jews possess.
By this I mean the ability to distinguish minute
differences. This faculty has been acquired through
association with the Talmud and its commentaries. I
would not be surprised if upon investigation the
supremacy of Jews in high finance were traced to the
same cause.
Chessplayers know to what an extent the process of
refinement has been going on. This faculty enables
the possessor to estimate correctly the finest
points that come up for argument: bishop or knight
of about equal value, when one is preferable; the
doubled or isolated pawn, when it is and when it is
not a disadvantage, etc.
Closely allied to this faculty in dialectics is a
superior psychological instinct which enables Jews
to forecast more successfully the nature of the
strategy which they will have to encounter. This
instinct has been produced by the political and
social conditions of the past and present. Even in
an out-of-the-way book like Smith’s Wealth of
Nations we find the assertion that cunningness
and superior mental qualities are nourished and
developed whenever and wherever physical conditions
are insuperable or political and social conditions
are harassing and unfair.
The causes which militate against America and
England producing the greatest chessplayers are the
causes of Russia, Germany and Hungary giving to the
world the foremost players of the day. And as the
Jews are always worse off than the people round
them, they naturally turn for supremacy to fields
where there are no arbitrary obstacles.
The study of chess needs neither university nor
professor. The man who has the ability can
demonstrate it to the world without possibility of
quibble or question. And this is how the Jews obtain
revenge for the unfairness with which they have to
contend in the affairs of the world. Those who are
jealous of this supremacy and wish to remove the
cause must confine themselves to removing the
obstacles which stand in the way of the development
of the Jews. Those who think it is a pity that such
splendid talent should be spent on a game rather
than on things which might benefit mankind
materially must concentrate their energies in seeing
to it that the Jews shall enter into the affairs of
the world confident of fair and just treatment.
In America and England, Jews have not much to
complain about. Neither country has produced a great
Jewish chessplayer. Yet they are producing their
share of useful men in all walks of life. If what I
have asserted is true, it is an extraordinary fact
that in two fields in which Jews are pre-eminent,
finance and chess, the qualities which contribute
towards success are the same. And to nullify the
assertion that Jews only concern themselves in
subjects offering material gain, in the sordid
affairs of life, we can point to the poor chess
master, endowed with the finest talent, pursuing an
ideal, demonstrating principles, amusing and
interesting the chess world while suffering poverty
in inverse ratio to his eminence and worth.’
Information about Harry Rosenbaum (1876-1951), who
later took the surname Rowson, is given on pages 75-77
of the final volume (Berlin, 2022) of the Emanuel
Lasker trilogy by Richard Forster, Michael
Negele and Raj Tischbierek.
See also Chess
and Jews, which covers a few points of detail in
Rosenbaum’s article.
|
