Chess Archives - Chess Marginalia

Lindehn and the Danish Gambit

By admin | April 26, 2022 | Comments 0 Comment

Lindehn was important for the development of a new opening, the Danish Gambit. In the period 1856-1879 many of his games were published in various magazines and newspapers with annotations by Staunton, Steinitz, Mackenzie and Blackburne among others, including victories against prominent masters such as Steinitz, Kolisch and Mackenzie.

He never played in any serious tournaments or matches, and that might explain why he is largely forgotten today.

Hans Anton Westesson Lindehn was born 26 February 1826 in Knislinge, Sweden. His father, Hans Westesson (1784-1825), died three months before Lindehn’s birth. His mother was Catharina Westesson neé Andersson (died 1862). Westesson senior was a church warden and his death must have been a severe financial blow to the family. Despite this Lindehn was able to study at the Lund University from 1843, at first religion but he abandoned that and chose philosophy instead. He graduated in 1853, becoming a doctor of philosophy, then worked as a teacher in Uppsala.

A small note in Schachzeitung 1856 p. 306 was the first documentation of Lindehn as a chess player.

“From Upsala, we have received a letter from Mr. Lindehn, in which he imparts an opening that to our knowledge has never been analyzed. 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4. If Black now captures on b2 with his pawn on c3 White gains a strong attack with Bxb2, which resembles the so-called ‘very compromised game’.” The ‘very compromised game’ is referring to a variation in the Scotch Gambit, 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Bb4+ 5. c3 dxc3 6. 0-0 cxb2.

Lindehn himself later wrote: “The character of this opening, such as we imagined it, is that 3. c3 dxc3 should be followed immediately by 4. Bc4. If 3.c3 is answered by something else than 3… dxc3 then the character of the game will be different, but White will always be able to advantageously take control of the center with cxd4.” (J. G. Schultz: Undervisning i schackspelet, 1869 p. 116)

We have already established that the Danish player Dreier invented the Danish Gambit, but no games or analysis of his were ever published. Could Lindehn have (re-)invented it without knowledge of his predecessor? Lund, where Lindehn studied from 1843 to 1853, is located close to Copenhagen and it is likely that he visited that city and even played some chess there. But this is just speculation, of course. However, he must have known the first published Danish Gambit which was played between two Swedish players. It was a game played by correspondence and it went 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. bxc3 etc. The 3rd move, according to the White player, Kindblad, was a clerical error. He meant to play 3. Bc4, and presumably if 3… Bb4+ then 4.c3, a popular variation at the time. The Black player, Svanberg, annotated the game for Schachzeitung, 1849 p. 143. And Lindehn knew Svanberg well, we even have a game between them where Lindehn plays his gambit.

Did Lindehn himself claim to be the inventor? His friend J. G. Schultz in his book Undervisning i schackspelet (1869) acknowledged a Danish predecessor without mentioning Dreier by name, but argued that someone “playing a move by chance” shouldn’t count for much. Lindehn might not have addressed this subject in writing, but J. B. and E. M. Muñoz in the Brooklyn Chess Chronicle 1885 p. 57 wrote “A favorite opening of the Doctor’s, and one, we believe, of which he claimed to be the originator.”

From this period, 1856-1861, 6 games where Lindehn played the Danish Gambit have been preserved.

White: H. A. W. Lindehn
Black: Adolf Ferdinand Svanberg
Uppsala 185?
Annotations by Max Lange(?)
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3
This attack is stronger than previously suspected. However, the correct reply to 3… dxc3 is 4. Bc4, not the earlier played 4. bxc3 or 4. Nxc3.
4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2 Bb4+ 6. Nd2 Qg5 7. Ngf3 Bxd2+ 8. Nxd2 Qxg2 9. Ke2 d6
9… d5 came into consideration, a sample line is 10. Qa4+ Bd7 11. Bb5 c6 12. Rhg1 cxb5 13. Rxg2 followed by Bxg7.
10. h3 Bxh3 11. Rxh3 Qxh3 12. Nf3 Qg4

13. Bxf7+
13. Qd5 is also interesting.
13… Kxf7 14. Qd5+ Ke7 15. Rg1 c6 16. Rxg4 cxd5 17. Rxg7+ Ke8 18. Rxb7 dxe4 19. Ng5 Ne7
Trying to save the exchange by 19… Nf6 would lead to mate in 4 moves. [presumably 20. Bxf6 Rg8? 21. Re7+ Kd8 22. Ne6+ Kc8 23. Rc7#. Ed.]
20. Bxh8 d5 21. Nxh7 Nbc6 22. Ng5 Rc8 23. Bf6 Nf5 24. Rh7 Ncd4+ 25. Kf1 Rc1+ 26. Kg2 Ne2 27. Rxa7 Rg1+
27… Nf4+ should be preferred.
28. Kh2 Rf1 29. Kg2 Rd1 30. Ra8+ Kd7 31. Rd8+ Kc6 32. Rc8+ Kb5 33. Rc2 Nf4+ 34. Kh2 Nd3 35. Ne6 Ne1 36. Rc5+ Ka4 37. Bc3
and after a number of fruitless checks Black resigned. 1-0.
Schachzeitung 1859 p. 167

White: H. A. W. Lindehn
Black: NN
Stockholm 185?
Annotations by Søren Anton Sørensen
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2 Nf6 6. e5 Bb4+ 7. Nc3 Qe7
When White attacks with 6. e5 then Bb4+ followed by Qe7 is the best defence.
8. Nge2 Ne4 9. O-O Nxc3 10. Nxc3 Bxc3 11. Bxc3 O-O
These moves can be found in Handbuch des Schachspiels, 5th edition, and von der Lasa stops the variation here remarking: “The complete development of the black game is possible, but not easy.” The following continuation confirms these words, and even if the attack is led by Lindehn with clarity and without many chances wasted, we have been able to pinpoint the moment where Black could have exploited his superior forces.
12. Kh1 Nc6 13. f4 d6 14. exd6 Qxd6 15. Qc2 Be6 16. Rad1 Qe7 17. Bd3 f5 18. Rf3 Nb4 19. Qb2 Nxd3 20. Rfxd3
It is not better to take with the d1-rook.
20… Rad8 21. Bxg7 Rxd3 22. Rxd3

22… Qxg7
Black has played well until now, but here he overlooks the saving move: 22… Bc4! If White covers the threatening mate with the rook, then the bishop on g7 is immediately lost, and if 23. h3 or 23. Qc3 then 23… Bxd3 24. Bxf8 Kxf8! and White can’t save the game.
23. Rg3 Rf7 24. Rxg7+ Rxg7 25. Qxb7 Bxa2 26. Qc8+ Kf7 27. Qxf5+
and White wins. 1-0.
Schachzeitung 1858 p. 459
Nordisk Skaktidende 1875 p. 71

White: H. A. W. Lindehn
Black: J. I. Elfving
Stockholm 1858
Annotations by H. A. W. Lindehn
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2 Nf6 6. e5 Qe7
We don’t believe this is the best move. The queen obstructs the bishop and is badly placed in front of the king in case of very likely rook attack. Instead, von der Lasa analyses 6… Bb4+ 7. Kf1 and he concludes that Black is better and that the opening is disadvantageous for White. However, we believe that 7. Kf1, which loses the right to castle and imprisons the rook, is a bad move, and instead White should reply with 7. Nc3, and if 7… Ne4 then 8. Nge2.
7. Nd2 d6 8. Ngf3 Nbd7 9. O-O Nxe5 10. Nxe5 dxe5 11. Bxe5 Be6 12. Re1 Qd8
Moves the queen away from its compromised position in front of the king.
13. Qb3 Be7
If 13… Qxd2 then 14. Bxf6 which loses for Black.
14. Bxe6 fxe6
Maybe 14… Qxd2 would have been better.
15. Qxe6 Qd7

16. Qb3 Qxd2 17. Bc3 Qd5 18. Rxe7+ Kxe7
Better was 18… Kf8, however White could 19. Bxf6 Qxb3 20. axb3 gxf6 21. Rxc7 winning another pawn.
19. Bxf6+ Ke6 20. Re1+ Black resigns. 1-0
Schultz: Undervisning i Schackspelet (1871) p. 115

White: H. A. W. Lindehn
Black: J. I. Elfving
Stockholm 18??
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2 Qe7 6. Nd2 f5 7. Ngf3 fxe4 8. O-O c6 9. Re1 Nf6 10. Bxf6 Qxf6 11. Nxe4 Qf4 12. Nd6+ 1-0
Schultz: Undervisning i Schackspelet (1871) p. 116

White: H. A. W. Lindehn
Black: J. I. Elfving
Uppsala 185?
Annotations by Max Lange(?)
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. c3 dxc3 5. Ne2 Bc5 6. e5 d5 7. exf6 Qxf6 8. O-O dxc4
If 8… cxb2 then 9. Bxb2 Qxb2 10. Qxd5 Be6 11. Qxc5 Bxc4 12. Qxc4 Qxa1 13. Qb5+ with advantage to White.
9. Nbxc3 O-O 10. Nd5 Qd8 11. b4 cxb3 12. Qxb3 Be6 13. Nef4 Nc6 14. Bb2 b6 15. Rad1 Bd6 16. Qg3 Ne5 17. Nh5 Ng6

18. Ndf6+ Kh8
If 18… gxf6 then 19. Rxd6 still decides for White.
19. Rxd6 Qxd6 20. Qg5 h6 21. Ne4 Kg8 22. Bxg7
and White won. 1-0
Schachzeitung 1860 pp60-61

White: H. A. W. Lindehn
Black: Severin Bergh
Stockholm 18??
Annotations by Gustaf & Ludvig Collijn
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 Nc6 4. Bc4?
Better is 4. cxd4.
4… Nf6 5. Nf3 Nxe4 6. O-O d5 7. Bd3 Be7 8. Re1 f5 9. cxd4 O-O 10. b3 Qd6 11. Bb2 Qh6 12. Ne5 Bd6 13. Re3
This move and the following are weak, and Black gets a clear advantage. Better was 13. f3 followed by Bc1 and Nc3.

13… f4 14. Bxe4
Better was 14. Rxe4. If 14… dxe4 then 15. Bc4+ and White regains the exchange as 15… Be6? is followed by 16. Bxe6+ Qxe6 17. d5.
14… fxe3 15. Bxd5+ Kh8 16. f3
Black had clearly missed that he couldn’t play 16. Nf7+ because of 16… Rxf7 17. Bxf7 e2!
16… Nxe5 17. dxe5 Bc5 18. Qe2 c6 19. Be4 Bf5 20. Nc3 Rad8
Threatening Rd2.
21. Rd1 Rxd1+ 22. Nxd1 Bxe4 23. fxe4 Qf4!
The beginning of the end.
24. Bc3 Qf1+! 25. Qxf1 e2+ 26. Nf2 exf1=Q+ 27. Kxf1 Rxf2+ 28. Ke1 Rxg2, White resigned. 0-1
Tidskrift för Schack 12/1906 pp. 346-347
Collijn: Lärobok i Schack (1921) pp. 238-239

There doesn’t seem to exist any photos or drawings of Lindehn but there is an unflattering and slightly sarcastic description of his character by a contemporary: “Lindehn thought highly of himself and his playing strength and would only play lesser mortals with a rook handicap. Once, insignificant me had the honour of playing a three-game match under those conditions and were lucky to defeat the great Lindehn. The owner of the café [La Croixs Café in Stockholm. Ed.] W. de la Croix, who didn’t like the arrogant doctor, was so elated over the result that he gave a round of free punch to everyone.” Robert Sahlberg in Tidskrift för Schack 12/1906 p. 332.

European travels

Between 1862 and 1865 Lindehn travelled through Europe visiting several countries but mainly staying in the two important chess cities London and Paris. It is not known why he decided to leave Sweden, but one source speculates that it was to further his education and learn new languages. This gave him a chance to play his gambit against some of the world’s best chess players, and maybe that was part of the motivation as well.

Lindehn’s first stop was Copenhagen in the spring of 1862. A report by Balduin Sørensen in Schachzeitung (1862 p. 222) gives his results against the Danish players: he played 3 informal matches, defeating Govert Nielsen 7-6 with 2 draws, and Balduin Sørensen 7-5 with 1 draw, but was clearly outmatched against Martin Severin From losing 2-10 with 1 draw. Lindehn also played single games against Pritzel, Lorck, Hemp and S. A. Sørensen “with various luck”.

White: H. A. W. Lindehn
Black: Martin Severin From
Copenhagen 1862
Annotations by Søren Anton Sørensen
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 d3
That From declines the offered gambit shows his faith in the strength of this opening. But he probably also took into consideration that the Swedish master knew more than most about the labyrinths of the Danish Gambit.
4. Nf3 d5 5. Bxd3 dxe4 6. Qa4+
White avoids the queen exchange.
6… Nc6 7. Bxe4 Bd7 8. Qd1 Bd6 9. O-O Nf6 10. Bg5 h6 11. Qe2

11… hxg5
Lindehn hardly expected Black to expose himself to a discovered check, losing his right to castle. From’s move is excellent, however. Black gets a strong attack against the enemy king.
12. Bxc6+ Kf8 13. Bxd7 Qxd7 14. h3 g4 15. Nd4 gxh3 16. Qf3 h2+ 17. Kh1 Re8 18. Qf5 Qxf5 19. Nxf5 Ng4 20. Ne3
If White takes the bishop he is mated in 3 moves. After the text move Lindehn lost another pawn and eventually the game. 0-1
Skakbladet 11/1905-06 pp. 63-64

White: Martin Severin From & Balduin Sørensen
Black: H. A. W. Lindehn & Govert Nielsen
Copenhagen 1862(?)
Annotations by Søren Anton Sørensen
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2 Nf6 6. e5 Bb4+ 7. Kf1
7. Nd2 is also a good move.
7… d5 8. Bb5+ Bd7
Both the spokesmen for the Danish Gambit [Lindehn and From, Ed.] are squaring up against each other. The game doesn’t excel in surprising turns but is well played and has the added interest that the Swedish master tries to organize the defence by sacrificing a piece for 3 pawns.
9. Qa4 Be7 10. exf6 Bxf6 11. Nc3 c6 12. Bd3 O-O 13. Nge2 b5 14. Qc2 g6 15. Nf4 Na6 16. a3 Nc5 17. h3 Nxd3 18. Qxd3 Bf5 19. Qf3 Be4
Black gains a couple of tempi, but the question is whether the price of exchanging the valuable bishops is too high.
20. Qd1 Qb8 21. Qd2 Bg7
To advance the f-pawn.
22. Nxe4 Bxb2 23. Qxb2 dxe4

24. Qf6
The decisive move. Black is prevented from moving his f-pawn and the strength of the pawns becomes an illusion.
24… Re8 25. Rc1 b4 26. axb4 Qxb4 27. Kg1 c5 28. Kh2 Qd4 29. Qg5 Re5 30. Qg3 c4
Black dare not move the f-pawn, Nxg6 and Rhd1 would follow and White penetrates Black’s position with devastating result.
31. Rhd1 Qc5 32. Qc3 Rf5 33. Qe3 Rc8
Exchanging the queens would lose the c- or e-pawn.
34. Rd4 c3 35. Qxe4 a5 36. Nd5 Qd6+ 37. f4 Kf8 38. Nxc3 and wins. 1-0
Nordisk Skaktidende 1873 pp. 357-358
Deutsche Schachzeitung 1874 pp. 85-86
This consultation game was published undated but is likely from Lindehn’s 1862 visit to Copenhagen.

More games from this period:

White: H. A. W. Lindehn
Black: George Henry Mackenzie
Annotations by Francis Joseph Young
London 1862
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. e5 d5 6. Nxc3 dxc4 7. Qxd8+ Kxd8 8. exf6 gxf6 9. Bf4 Bf5 10. O-O-O+ Bd3 11. Nb5 Nd7! 12. Bxc7+ Kc8
Best. If 12… Ke8 13. Re1+ Be7 14. Bd6 Ne5 15. Bxe7 Kxe7 16. f4 winning a piece.

13. Bd6
A natural move, but turning out badly; 13. Bf4 was probably safest.
13… a6! 14. Bxf8 axb5 15. Bd6 Rxa2 16. Nf3 Rg8 17. Bg3
Of course, if 17. g3 Be4 is the reply.
17… Nc5 18. Kd2
Black threatened mate by Nb3. If 18. Nd4 Rd8 wins.
18… Rxb2+ 19. Ke3 Re2+ 20. Kd4 Nb3+ White resigned.
For if 21. Kd5 (the only move to prevent mate) Rd8+ 22. Bd6 Re6 etc.
The British Chess Magazine 1898 pp. 330-331

In connection with the following game, the editor of La Nouvelle Régence, Paul Journoud informed his readers that Lindehn had played this opening with great success in both Germany and Belgium. Lindehn’s opponent was from Gent so the game was probably played there.

White: H. A. W. Lindehn
Black: Metdepenningen
Gent(?) 1863
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 c2 5. Qxc2 c6 6. Qb3 Qe7 7. Nc3 Nf6 8. Nge2 b5 9. Bd3 Ng4 10. O-O Qh4 11. h3 h5 12. Bf4 Nh6 13. Bg3 Qd8 14. e5 g5 15. Ne4 Be7 16. f4 g4 17. h4 Nf5 18. Ng5 Nh6 19. Kh1 Na6 20. Qc3 b4 21. Qc2 Nc5

22. Bg6 Ba6 23. Rae1 Qa5 24. e6 dxe6 25. Nxe6 fxg6 26. Qxg6+ Kd7 27. Nxc5+ Qxc5 28. Rd1+ Kc7 29. f5+ Kb7 30. Rd7+ Kc8 31. Rc7+ 1-0
La Nouvelle Régence 1863 pp. 211-212

White: H. A. W. Lindehn
Black: Ignaz Kolisch
Paris 1863(?)
Annotations by Gustaf & Ludvig Collijn
1 e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2 Bb4+ 6. Nd2
Lindehn usually played the knight to d2. Later Nc3 has been found to be stronger.
6… Bxd2+
Helping White’s development.
7. Qxd2 Nf6 8. e5 Ne4
8… d5 was better.
9. Qd4 Ng5 10. Ne2 Nc6 11. Qf4 Qe7 12. O-O Ne6 13. Qg3 O-O 14. Kh1
To play f2-f4.

14… Qg5
[Black can force an exchange of queens with 14… Qb4! and White doesn’t have enough compensation for his pawns. Ed.]
15. Qc3 b5
Sacrificing to find counter play.
16. Bxb5 Bb7 17. f4 Qg4 18. Rf3 f5?
Weakens the king’s position. Black is clearly still dreaming of an attack.
19. exf6 Rxf6 20. Rg3 Qh4

21. Qxf6
Winning a piece and the game.
21… Qxg3 22. Qxe6+ dxe6 23. Nxg3 Ne7 24. Bd7 Bd5 25. Nh5 Rd8 26. Ba4
If 26. Bxg7 then Nf5. [But after for example 27. Be5 Black can’t take the bishop anyway. Ed.]
26… Nf5 27. Kg1 Bxg2 28. Be5 Bf3 29. Bb3 Kf7 30. Ng3 Ne3? 31. Kf2 Black resigned. 1-0
La Nouvelle Régence 1863 p111
Tidskrift för Schack 12/1906 pp. 337-338 and 10/1971 p. 331

Lindehn’s victory against Maczuski is his most widely published game by far. It began to make the rounds in 1869 when Schachzeitung picked it up from the Swedish weekly magazine Ny Illustrerad Tidning (March 6). It has since been published in magazines, newspapers and books over and over again. Just to mention a few of the books:
Ellis: Chess Sparks (1895) p. 53
Kagan: 300 kurze Glanzpartien (1916) p. 92
du Mont: 200 Miniature Games of Chess (1941) p. 83
Roisman: 400 Kurzpartien (1980) p. 19
Watson: Mastering the Chess Openings. Volume 4 (2010) p. 135

And it is a charming little game, where Lindehn first sacrifices 4 pawns and then his queen.

White: H. A. W. Lindehn
Black: Ladislas Maczuski
Paris 1863
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2 Bb4+ 6. Nc3 Nf6 7. Nge2 Nxe4 8. O-O Nxc3 9. Nxc3 Bxc3 10. Bxc3 Qg5 11. Re1+ Kd8 12. f4 Qxf4 13. Bxg7 Rg8

14. Qg4 Qd6 15. Bf6+ Black resigned. 1-0
Schachzeitung 1869 pp. 144-145

The next game follows the same line as the Maczuski game, but is mainly interesting because of Blackburne’s notes to the opening. He would later go on to use the Danish Gambit as a weapon to weed out the weaker players at his many simultaneous exhibitions.

White: H. A. W. Lindehn
Black: NN
Paris 18??
White gave the odds of a rook (Ra1)
Annotations by Joseph Henry Blackburne
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3
This line of attack is not mentioned in any of the “books”, instead of which they give 3. Bc4 as best. The move in the text was first introduced some years ago, and it is still strongly recommended by Dr. Lindehn; it has also lately been adopted by Paulsen, the famous blindfold player; we, however, are unable to express an opinion upon its merits, if any, not having examined it, but at some future time we may give a short analysis of this new move; in the meantime, we propose to name it the “Lindehn Gambit”.
3… dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2
These moves are not to be recommended, because they only facilitate the development of White’s forces.
5. Bxb2 Bb4+ 6. Nc3 Nf6 7. Nge2 Nxe4 8. O-O Nxc3 9. Nxc3 Bxc3 10. Bxc3 d6
Perhaps his best move, for if he had castled, White would have played Qg4, winning easily.
11. Bxg7 Rg8 12. Re1+ Be6 13. Qg4 Qf6 14. Bxe6 Qxg7
If 14… Rxg7, White mates in two moves.

15. Bxf7+
Very well played, for if 15… Kxf7, White plays 16. Qe6+, mating next move.
15… Kd8 16. Qh4+ Kc8 17. Qh3+ Nd7 18. Bxg8 Qxg8 19. Re7 Qd8 20. Rxh7 Kb8
The only move to save the queen.
21. Rh8
Better than taking the knight. The game is played throughout by Dr. Lindehn with uncommon ability.
21… Nf8 22. Qh4 Qe8 23. Qe4
It is obvious the queen cannot be taken. [Echoes the queen sacrifice in the Maczuski game. Ed.]
23… Qf7 24. Qf3 Qxf3 25. gxf3 b5 26. Rxf8+ Kb7 27. Rxa8 1-0
And wins, because Black cannot stop the h-pawn from queening.
Household Chess Magazine, February 28 1865 p. 25

The game against Steinitz was first published in Ny Illustrerad Tidning in 1865 with Lindehn’s notes. But it seems to have been forgotten until Tidskrift för Schack picked it up in 1906 and then it found its way into the opening manuals, for example Cordel’s Theorie und Praxis des Schachspiels (1912) and the famous 4th edition of Lärobok i schack (1921) by the Collijn brothers.

White: H. A. W. Lindehn
Black: Wilhelm Steinitz
London 1864
Annotations by H. A. W. Lindehn
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. Nxc3 Bb4 6. Nge2 O-O
6… Nxe4 would have been unfavourable for Black.
7. e5 Ne4 8. O-O Nxc3 9. bxc3 Bc5 10. Ng3 Nc6 11. Qh5 d6
If 11… g6 then 12. Qh6 with a persistent attack.
12. Bg5

12… Qe8
Steinitz believed that this move lost him the game and that he should have played 12… Qd7 instead. But after 13. Bd3 White has a definite advantage in all the variations I have been able to find.
13. exd6 cxd6 14. Rfe1 Ne5 15. Re4 Be6 16. Rh4 h6 17. Bxh6

17… Ng6
[Only this was the decisive mistake. Steinitz could have defended himself with 17… g6! 18. Qg5 f6! Ed.]
18. Bxg7! Kxg7 19. Qh6+ Kf6 20. Ne4+ Ke7 21. Bxe6 fxe6 22. Qg5+ Kd7 23. Nxc5+ dxc5 24. Qxc5! Qc8
Obviously mate is threatened so the rook on h4 couldn’t be captured.
25. Rd1+ Ke8 26. Qh5 Rg8 27. Qh7 Ne7 28. Rf4 Black resigned. 1-0
Tidskrift för Schack 12/1906 p. 339

White: H. A. W. Lindehn
Black: George Alcock MacDonnell
London 1865
Annotations by Howard Staunton
1 e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3
A pardonable deviation from the routine course in ordinary play, though hardly commendable in a match game. [The great Staunton was not impressed by the Danish Gambit! Ed.]
3… dxc3 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. Ne2 d5 6. exd5 cxb2 7. Bxb2 Bb4+ 8. Nbc3 O-O 9. O-O Bf5 10. Nd4 Bg6 11. Nce2 Nbd7 12. Ne6
A move good in style and conception.
12… fxe6 13. dxe6 Kh8 14. exd7 Qxd7 15. Qb3
He could have won a pawn here by capturing the knight; but perhaps the move in the text is preferable.
15… Bd6 16. Be6 Qe7 17. Nd4 Bc5 18. Nf3 Rae8 19. Rae1 Qd6 20. Ne5
The position now is highly interesting, and the play on both sides very clever.

20… Bc2 21. Qxc2 Rxe6 22. Ng6+ hxg6 23. Rxe6 Qxe6 24. Qxc5 Qd6 25. Qxa7 Ng4 26. g3 b6 27. Qa4 Qe6 28. Bc3
To prevent the capture of his f-pawn by rook or knight. For this purpose, however, playing 28. Qd4 appears to be equally effective and more expeditious.
28… Qf5 29. Qd4 Nf6 30. Re1 c5

31. Qh4+
Had he played 31. Qd6, Black might have taken the f-pawn, checking, and, when his queen had been captured, have given double check, by Ne4+, etc. [Staunton missed that 31. Qd6 loses immediately to 31… Nd5 threatening both f2 and the bishop. Ed.]
31… Qh5 32. Qf4 Qf5 33. Qxf5 gxf5 34. Re6 Nd5 35. Be5 b5 36. Rd6 Nb4 37. a3 Nc2 38. Rc6 c4 39. Rc7 Re8 40. Bxg7+ Kg8 41. Bb2 Re1+ 42. Kg2 Rb1 43. Be5 Nxa3 44. Rg7+ Kf8 45. Rc7 b4 46. h4 c3 47. h5 Nc2 48. h6 Ne1+ 49. Kh3 Nf3 50. Bf4 Kg8 51. g4 Rg1 52. gxf5 b3

53. Rxc3
A fatal mistake; at the very instant, too, if we are not deceived in our calculation, when he might have drawn the game at least: e. g.: 53. h7+ Kh8 (best) 54. f6 Ng5+ 55. Bxg5 Rxg5 56. Rxc3 Rf5 (any other move would lose Black the game.) 57. Rxb3 Rxf6 or 57… Rxf2 and the game must be drawn.
53… b2 54. Rc8+ Kf7 55. Rc7+ Kf6 56. h7 Rh1+ 57. Kg4 b1=Q and White resigned. 0-1
Illustrated London News, April 1 1865

Back to Sweden

In spring 1865 Lindehn settled in Gothenburg where he had found a job as school headmaster. A small ad in a local newspaper (Göteborgsposten 31 March 1865) gives some insight:

The school was S. A. Lefflers privata Elementarskola which would start its lessons in October. An elementarskola was a school that prepared its students for university or other higher education. Lindehn informs potential students that he will add “living languages” to the subjects, probably in contrast to languages such as latin and ancient Greek.

Within a month of this ad another notice (Post och Inrikes Tidningar 20 April 1865) declared Lindehn bankrupt, and his financial troubles would later lead him to take a drastic life changing decision.

Lindehn’s arrival in Gothenburg led to a brief flourish of the local chess scene, but a chess club was only founded years after he had left the city. There are no games from this period, he only met local players with a rook handicap. At some point Lindehn founded his own private school for boys, Lindehnska skolan, and bought a house which he also used for his school. After another bankruptcy in 1870 (Post och Inrikes Tidningar 5 September 1870) he had to sell the house, and the school was sold to another school, Göteborgs Lyceum. It’s not clear whether Lindehn continued to teach at the new school or if he had other employment, but in late 1873 he suddenly disappeared. Not even his closest friends knew where he was.

The new world

Lindehn had left Sweden for the US. He lived in New York until 1875 when he settled in Philadelphia. He was appointed the Swedish commissioner at the Centennial International Exhibition which took place a year later. In connection with this job he wrote a 160-page guide for the Swedish visitors to the exhibition, and it was mainly as a journalist, translator and writer that he made a living.

Lindehn was a correspondent for two Swedish newspapers, Göteborgs Handels- og Sjöfartstidning and the Stockholm paper, Aftonbladet. He became a close friend of the economist Henry Charles Carey, a former chief economic adviser to the US president Abraham Lincoln, and was translating his 3-volume work, Principles of Social Science. It was never published in Swedish, however, maybe because Carey died in 1879. Another project was writing a short biography of Viktor Rydberg for an English translation of the book, Roman Days. Rydberg was a close friend of Lindehn from Gothenburg.

In 1877 Lindehn visited Sweden for a brief, final visit. He took contact with the editor of Nordisk Skaktidende, S. A. Sørensen, and started to provide the magazine with news and games from America. In 1881 the editor thanked him for a new bunch of games, but decried that none of them were played by Lindehn himself. He seems to have stopped playing, maybe because at this point he suffered from a severe nerve disease which eventually caused his death on 10 July 1884.

Some Danish Gambits from his time in the US:

White: H. A. W. Lindehn
Black: Eugene Delmar
New York 1873
Annotations by Søren Anton Sørensen
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 d5 5. exd5 Bc5 6. Nf3 Nf6 7. Nxc3 O-O 8. O-O Bg4 9. Qd3 Nbd7 10. Bg5 Bxf3 11. gxf3! Ne5 12. Qe2 Nxc4
This exchange is hardly advantageous for Black.
13. Qxc4 Be7 14. Kh1 Qd6 15. Rg1 Qd7
An unfortunate queen maneuver. White gains an important tempo for the attack.
16. Qh4 Qf5 17. Rg3 Bd6 18. f4 Nxd5 19. Bh6 Nxf4
This careless move should have cost the game immediately. There was no other way but 19… g6.
20. Rxg7+ Kh8

21. Rg5
Delmar pointed out that White could have decided the game with 21. Rxh7+ Qxh7 22. Qf6+ Kg8 23. Bxf4.
21… Ng6! 22. Qh5
A simple exchange. 22. Rxf5 Nxh4 23. Rh5 and 24. Bxf8, or 22. Qd4+ would probably have been better.
22… Qxf2 23. Bxf8 Rxf8 24. Rag1 Re8 25. Rf5 Re5!
And the game eventually ended in a draw. ½-½
[White should have good winning chances in the endgame after 26. Qxh7+. Ed.]
Nordisk Skaktidende 1874 pp. 85-86

White: H. A. W. Lindehn
Black: George Henry Mackenzie
New York 1873
Annotations by Wilhelm Steinitz & William N. Potter
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3
This move may bear the test of analysis, but seems to require further examination before an authoritative decision upon its merits can be come to. Those who wish to avoid complications may adopt 3… d5. White’s best reply in that case seems to be 4. Qxd4, upon which Black plays 4… dxe4, with at least an equal game.
4. Bc4 Nf6
Taking the b-pawn at this point may be defensible, but it leads to difficult and hazardous variations.
5. e5
This move cannot be commended. 5. Nxc3 would have been much better. As it is, an exchange of queens takes place, leaving White with two pawns behind, of which only one can be subsequently recovered. Black, it is true, is prevented from castling, but White evidently gains nothing in position on that account.
5… d5 6. Nxc3 dxc4 7. Qxd8+ Kxd8 8. exf6 gxf6 9. Bf4 Bf5 10. O-O-O+ Bd3 11. Nd5 Na6 12. Nxf6 Bd6 13. Be3
A weak move; the only chance White had in this position was to take the bishop, and then bring out the knight to h3.

13… Nb4
Well played; after this White’s game is hopeless.
14. a3 Na2+ 15. Kd2 Be5 16. Nd5 Bxb2 17. Bg5+ Kc8 18. Ne2 c6 19. Nb4 Nxb4 20. axb4 a5 21. Nf4 Bf5 22. Ke3 axb4 and after a few more moves White resigned. 0-1
Mr. Mackenzie, in sending this game, states that Dr. Lindehn (who is well known in London chess circles) had only lately arrived from Europe, and had, probably, not recovered from the effects of the voyage, which accounted for his play being below his usual strength.
The City of London Chess Magazine 1875 pp. 15-16

White: H. A. W. Lindehn
Black: George Henry Mackenzie
New York 1874(?)
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 d5 4. exd5 Qxd5 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. Qa4+ Nc6 7. Nxd4 O-O-O 8. Be3 Nf6 9. Nd2 Bc5 10. Nxc6 Bxe3 11. Ne7+ Kb8 12. Nxd5 Bxd2+ 13. Kxd2 Rxd5+ 14. Ke3 Bd7 15. Qc4 Re8+ 16. Kf3 Rf5+ 17. Kg3 Ne4+ 18. Qxe4 Rxe4 and Black won. 0-1
The Chess Players’ Chronicle 1874 p. 74

White: H. A. W. Lindehn
Black: George Henry Mackenzie
New York 1874
Annotations by George Henry Mackenzie
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 d5 4. exd5 Qxd5 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. Qa4+ Nc6 7. Nxd4 O-O-O 8. Be3 Nf6 9. Nd2 Nxd4
[Mackenzie improves on his play in the earlier game. Ed.]
10. cxd4 Kb8 11. Rg1 Bd6 12. Bc4 Qh5 13. d5 b6 14. h3 Bd7 15. Qb3 Rhe8 16. a4

16… Rxe3+
Probably the best move, as it throws White at once on the defensive and prevents the dangerous advance of the a-pawn.
17. fxe3 Bg3+ 18. Kf1 Qf5+ 19. Nf3 Ne4 20. Ke2 Nc5 21. Qc3 Re8 22. Rgf1 Bf4 23. Nd4 Qg5 24. Rxf4
If 24. Rf3 then follows 24… Qxg2+ 25. Rf2 Qxf2+ 26. Kxf2 Ne4+ etc.
24… Qxf4 25. Rf1 Qg3 26. Rg1 f5 27. Ne6 Bxe6 28. dxe6 Nxe6 29. Kd1 Nc5 30. Re1
A fatal error, involving the loss of a clear rook.
30… Rd8+ 31. Kc2 Ne4
And Black wins. 0-1
The Chess Player’s Chronicle 1874 pp. 72-74

White: H. A. W. Lindehn
Black: Frederick Perrin
New York 1874
Annotations by Søren Anton Sørensen
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. Nxc3 Bc5?!
This bishop belongs on b4, from where it pins the knight. With the bishop c5 it resembles a bad Scotch Gambit, and already by move 9 we can see that Black’s position is greatly cramped.
6. e5 Qe7 7. Nf3 O-O 8. O-O Ng4 9. Bg5 Qe8 10. Nd5
The opening is excellently played by White.
10… Bb6 11. Be7 Nc6 12. Bxf8 Qxf8 13. Ng5

13… Nxf2
If Black plays 13… Ncxe5, which Mackenzie recommends, then Lindehn had an interesting and safe continuation: 14. Nxf7 and then a) 14… Nxf2 15. Nxb6! wins or b) 14… Bxf2+ 15. Rxf2 Nxf2 16. Nxe5 Nxd1 17. Ne7+ Kh8 18. N7g6+ hxg6 19. Nxg6+ and wins or c) 14… Nxf7 or 14… Nxc4 15. Qxg4 with a superior game.
14. Qh5 Nh3+ 15. Kh1 Nxg5 16. Qxg5 h6 17. Qg3 Nd8 18. Rf6 Kh8 19. Qh4 Ne6 20. Raf1 Ng5 21. Ne7
Very elegant!
21… gxf6 22. Rxf6 Qxe7 23. Rxh6+
White could have mated in three moves. [There is a mate in four with 23. Qxh6+ Nh7 24. Bd3 Kg8 25. Qxh7+ Kf8 26. Qh8#. Ed.]
23… Kg7 24. Rh8 Kg6 25. Bd3+ f5 26. exf6+ Kxf6 27. Qh6+ Ke5 28. Qg6 Ne6 29. Rh5+ Kd6 30. Qg3+ Kc6 31. Bb5# 1-0
Nordisk Skaktidende 1874 pp. 86-87

A game snippet from Bird to illustrative how to defend against the Danish Gambit:

White: H. A. W. Lindehn
Black: Henry Edward Bird
Philadelphia 1876
Annotations by H. E. Bird
I had the pleasure of defending a few attacks at this opening at Philadelphia in 1876 against Dr. Lindehn, a very strong Swedish amateur. It is dangerous to inexperienced practitioners, but properly met quite unsound.
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2 Bb4+ 6. Nc3
I have in this position played 6. Kf1 and h4, which, I think, yields a more enduring attack.
6… Nc6 7. Nf3 d6 8. O-O Bxc3 9. Bxc3 Nf6 10. Ng5 O-O 11. f4 h6
Remaining five pawns ahead with a safe game.
H. E. Bird: Chess Practice (1882) p. 86

White: H. A. W. Lindehn
Black: Jacob Elson
Philadelphia 1877
Annotations by Søren Anton Sørensen
1 e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 Nc6 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. Bxf7+
Well-known from the Scotch Gambit, this maneuver almost always ends with White losing the initiative.
5… Kxf7 6. Qh5+ g6 7. Qd5+
To check or not before capturing the bishop is the ever disputed question. Here we should be more inclined to skip it.
7… Kg7 8. Qxc5 d6 9. Qc4 Qe7! 10. Nd2 Nf6 11. Qd3 d5 12. cxd4 dxe4 13. Qc3 Nd5 14. Qc5 Qe6
It is of course tempting to not weaken the powerful attack by exchanging queens, but Black would also have a superior position after 14… Qxc5 15. dxc5 Nd4 etc.
15. Ne2 e3 16. Nf3 exf2+ 17. Kxf2 Ncb4 18. Qc4 b5! 19. Qb3

19… a5
Strong as this seems, it is hardly the correct continuation as White can develop his rook. 19… Qe4! should have been played immediately.
20. Re1 a4 21. Qd1 Qe4 22. Kg1
White’s retreat has been motivated by fear, but strangely he now has the best position!
22… Bf5 23. Ng3 Qg4 24. Nxf5+ Qxf5 25. Re5 Qd7 26. Ng5 Rae8
He should have used the other rook.
27. Qe2 Nc6
The roles have been completely switched, Black is now the one retreating.
28. Ne6+ Rxe6
Gives the exchange to ensure Rh8 isn’t locked in.
29. Rxe6 Nxd4 30. Qe5+ Kf7 31. Qxh8 Qxe6 32. Qxh7+ Ke8 33. Qh8+ Kd7 34. Bd2 Nc2 35. Rf1 Nde3? 36. Rf6 Qc4 37. Bc3 Ng4 38. Qh3 Qc5+ 39. Kh1 Nce3 40. Rf4 Qd5 41. Rd4 and White wins. 1-0
Nordisk Skaktidende 1878 pp. 9-10

White: H. A. W. Lindehn
Black: NN
New York (Café International) 1877
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2 Qe7 6. Ne2 c6 7. Nd2 d6 8. O-O Be6 9. Bd3 Nh6 10. h3 Nd7 11. f4 f5 12. Nd4 fxe4 13. Nxe4 O-O-O 14. Qa4 Nc5 15. Nxc5 dxc5 16. Nxc6 bxc6 17. Qxc6+ Qc7 18. Ba6+ Kb8 19. Be5 and wins. 1-0
Nordisk Skaktidende 1877 p. 267

White: H. A. W. Lindehn
Black: NN
New York (Café International) 1877
Annotations by S. Hertzsprung
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2 Nf6 6. Nc3 Bb4
One of Black’s best defences.
7. Nf3! O-O
It’s too early to castle, the best move was 7… Nc6.
8. O-O Nc6?
Now it’s too late, there is no time to play d6 to open up for the bishop. Black’s subsequent play is hampered by this bishop’s immobility.
9. Nd5 Nxd5 10. exd5 Ne7

11. Ng5
[White can win a piece with 11. Qd4! Nf5 12. Qg4 g6 13. Bd3. Ed.]
11… d6
To stop d6, but mainly to get the bishop out. White immediately takes advantage of the lost tempo.
12. Bd3 Bf5 13. Bxf5 Nxf5 14. Qg4
Threatening Ne6.
14… g6 15. h4 Bc5 16. h5

16… Ng7
This must be a weak move, it later costs Black a piece. If instead the knight goes to h6, then the queen must leave the g-file and go to f4 – only move to keep the knight protected – and Black wins a tempo which can be used to play Qd7 with a much easier and stronger game. [At the end of this line White has Qf6 forcing mate. Black’s only defence is 16… Bd4! and after 17. Bxd4 Nxd4 18. Nxh7 Kxh7 19. hxg6+ fxg6 20. Qxd4 White has just enough compensation for the missing pawn due to Black’s weak king. Ed.]
17. hxg6 fxg6 18. Bxg7 Qc8 19. Ne6 Rf5
Black has been forced to play these passive moves after 17… fxg6, and had he taken with the h-pawn instead then the White queen would have brought devastation down the h-file. It seems that all this could have been avoided by playing the move mentioned in the previous note.
20. Qe4 c6 21. Bb2
After a successfully completed mission!
21… cxd5 22. Qe1 Qd7 23. Qc3 d4 24. Nxd4
The decisive move! White now forces a decision in a truly elegant and surprising way.
24… Rc8 25. Nxf5 Bxf2+ 26. Rxf2 Rxc3 27. Nh6+ Kg7 28. Rf7+ and wins. 1-0
Nordisk Skaktidende 1877 pp. 267-268
Nationaltidende 21/12 1879

White: H. A. W. Lindehn
Black: Houghton
Chicago 1878(?)
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2 Bb4+ 6. Nc3 Nc6 7. Nge2 Nf6 8. O-O Na5 9. Bd3 O-O 10. e5 Ng4 11. h3 Nxe5 12. Bxh7+ Kxh7 13. Nd5 Nec6 14. Nf6+ gxf6 15. Qd3+ Kh8 16. Qg3 Ne5 17. Qh4+ Kg7 18. Ng3 Bd2 19. Nh5+ Kg6 20. f4 f5 21. Qg3+ Kxh5 22. Qg7 and Black resigned. 1-0
Nordisk Skaktidende 1878 p. 268

White: H. A. W. Lindehn
Black: Gräff
Philadelphia 1879(?)
White gave the odds of a rook (Ra1)
1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 5. Bxb2 Qg5 6. Nf3 Bb4+ 7. Nc3 Bxc3+ 8. Bxc3 Qg6 9. O-O Nh6 10. Ne5 Qd6 11. Qb3 O-O 12. Kh1 Nc6 13. f4 Nxe5 14. Bxe5 Qe7 15. Qg3 g5 16. fxg5 Ng4 17. Bf6 Qxe4 18. Bd3 Qe3 and White mates in 6 moves beginning with 19. Bxh7+. 1-0
Nordisk Skaktidende 1879 p. 245

Further sources:
C. R. A. Fredborg: Det gamla Göteborg (1919) p. 263
Carl Sjöström: Blekingska nationen, 1697-1900 (1901) p. 285
Carl Sjöström: Skånska nationen, 1833-1889 (1904) p. 94
Tell G. Dahllöf: Swedish American Genealogist, December 1982 pp. 157-158
Göteborgs Handels- og Sjöfartstidning, 18 November 1899
Göteborgs-Posten, 31 July 1884
Nordisk Skaktidende 1881 pp. 52-53
Tidsskrift for Skak 1/1900 pp. 8-10
Börje Norén: Tidskrift för Schack 9-10/1947 pp. 255-256
Hjalmar Mandal: Tidskrift för Schack 5-6/1953 pp. 129-130
Sthig Jonasson: Tidskrift för Schack 10/1971 p. 331
Johan Gustaf Schultz: Undervisning i Schackspelet (1871) pp. 115-117 & 136

Who invented the Danish gambit?

By admin | November 22, 2021 | Comments 0 Comment

This is an interesting example of often made mistakes in chess history research. The unwillingness or inability to find or read the original sources and blindly repeating faulty research.

But let us first answer the question. According to both German and Danish sources the inventor was the Danish player Vilhelm Henrik Dreier (1798-1865). He was born in Copenhagen, studied law and graduated in 1820. He worked as a lawyer and later became a judge, but had to resign in 1843 due to a mental illness. The last 18 years of his life was spent in an asylum in Slesvig (or Schleswig). (Birka: Dansk Biografisk Lexikon (1890), vol. 4, pp. 336-337)

Sources

In 1867, Von der Lasa addressed a controversy about the naming of the gambit. The Swedes claimed the gambit for themselves but von der Lasa sided with the Danes and pointed to Dreier. (Schachzeitung, July 1867 p. 203)

And in 1873, S. A. Sørensen elaborated on this: “Dreier was a very eccentric but also clever player. He especially cultivated the gambits – and the wilder, the better. He loved the Cunningham gambit [1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Be7 4. Bc4 Bh4+ 5. g3 fxg3 6. 0-0 fxg2+ 7. Kh1, Ed.]. Chess theory owes him a new opening, 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Bc4 cxb2 etc., a pawn sacrifice similar to the Cunningham gambit, but on the queenside instead of the kingside. For many years this was called Dreier’s gambit, or even more popular, Justice gambit, because of Dreier’s occupation as a judge.” (Dagens Nyheder, 9/2 1873)

This is also confirmed by Hartvig Nielsen (1965) in his deeply researched work on Copenhagen chess, Skak i tusind år pp. 43-44.

The grandson

The only English-language source pointing to Dreier I have found is obscure, but interesting. In november 1903 Jacques Mieses visited the Manhattan Chess Club and played an exhibition game against Julius Finn. Mieses played the Danish gambit and won brilliantly. The next day Herman Helms wrote: “The play of Mieses created a decided sensation among the members of the club who watched the game. One of the spectators was Carl Dreier, a grandson of the player of that name, who originated the Danish gambit and played it against the famous Baron von der Lasa.” (The Brooklyn Daily Eagle 6/11 1903)

Carl Dreier (1852-1911) was indeed Vilhelm Henrik Dreier’s grandson. Carl’s father was Frederik Henrik Hennings Dreier, Vilhelm’s oldest son. Carl Dreier emigrated to the United States when he was just 17 years old and made a career as a banker and stockbroker. (Henrik Cavling: Fra Amerika (1892) pp. 114-116)

Let’s look at Carl Dreier’s claim that his grandfather played the Danish gambit against von der Lasa. Around the turn of the year 1846-47 von der Lasa stayed in Copenhagen for three days. He met the local players, Blankensteiner, Holm, and Dreier, and played altogether 14 games against them. No games were published but in his report of the visit, von der Lasa writes that he played 5 games against Blankensteiner and 4 against Holm. That leaves 5 games, which von der Lasa doesn’t account for. (Schachzeitung, March 1847 pp. 86-88)

So it is possible that Dreier had the opportunity to play his gambit against the famous German, but von der Lasa would probably have mentioned such a novel opening idea in his report.

Bad information

However, English-language literature point to another Danish player. This is based on a single line by the historian H. J. R. Murray in the British Chess Magazine, 1899 p. 54: “the so-called Danish Gambit was played by a Danish Justice Blankensteiner, in Jutland, in the 1830s (…)”. This information is based on a bad translation of the 1867 von der Lasa piece mentioned above. Blankensteiner was von der Lasa’s source and had nothing to do with inventing or analyzing the opening.

But this single line of misinformation has been repeated for more than a century by many writers and few questioned this.

An incomplete list:

1951: I. A. Horowitz in The Chess Review p. 14. He quotes Murray without mentioning Blankensteiner, however.

1984: David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld in The Oxford Companion to Chess p. 85. They give no source, but are clearly quoting Murray.

1992: W. John Lutes in Danish Gambit p. 6. Gives Hooper and Whyld as his source.

1999: Nick de Firmian in Modern Chess Openings 14 p. 137. He quotes Lutes. Repeated in MCO 15 from 2008.

2015: John Watson and Eric Schiller in Taming Wild Openings p. 121 (e-book). They also quote Lutes.

The exception are the two German writers Karsten Müller and Martin Voigt in Danish Dynamite (2003) p. 81. Under the headline “Remarks on the History of the Danish Gambit” they translate part of von der Lasa’s piece, giving Blankensteiner his correct role as a source. But they strangely omit the part where Dreier is mentioned.

Another chess historian, Tim Harding, chooses to sidestep all this in his recent book, Steinitz in London (2020) p. 104. Here he instead quotes Löwenthal who points to the Swedish player Lindehn. Harding calls him the probable inventor pointing to 2 games from 1858 and claims that the gambit “was pioneered by Swedish players.” I don’t know which Swedish players besides Lindehn he is referring to and also as mentioned above both von der Lasa and S. A. Sørensen categorically point to Dreier, who was active in Copenhagen chess circles until the mid-1840s which predates Lindehn’s games from 1858. [Just noticed that Harding corrected his mistake a few weeks before I published this.]

Even if Lindehn didn’t invent the Danish gambit he was very important in the development of the opening. On his journeys through Europe he used it to defeat strong players such as Steinitz and Kolisch. I will return to Lindehn in much greater detail in a later blogpost.

How to pronounce ‘Alekhine’

By admin | February 26, 2021 | Comments 2 comments

The best way to decide is to ask the man himself. From the Chess Review 1938 no. 2 page 30:

Alekhine mystery solved (sort of)

By admin | December 23, 2020 | Comments 0 Comment

Kimuto & Allies – Alexander Alekhine
Tokyo (blindfold simul), January 20, 1933
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. Nc3 Bb4 5. O-O O-O 6. d3 d6 7. Bg5 Bxc3 8. bxc3 Qe7 9. Re1 Nd8 10. d4 Ne6 11. Bc1 Rd8 12. Nh4 Nf8 13. Qe2 Ne8 14. Nf5 Bxf5 15. exf5 f6 16. f4 c6 17. Bd3 Nd7 18. g4 Kh8 19. c4 b6 20. g5 Nc7 21. g6 h6 22. fxe5 dxe5 23. Qh5 Re8 24. dxe5 Nxe5 25. Rxe5 Qf8 26. Rxe8 Rxe8 27. Bf4 Na6 28. Kh1 Rd8 29. Rg1 Rd7 30. c5 b5 31. Bd6 Qe8 32. Qf3 Rd8 33. Be4 Rc8 34. Rg2 Qd7 35. Re2 Nb4 36. a3 Nd5 37. Bxd5 cxd5 38. Qxd5 Re8 39. Rxe8+ Qxe8 40. Qe6 Qa8+ 41. Kg1 a5 42. Qf7 1-0

This game can be found in Donaldson, Minev and Seirawan’s 1993 book Alekhine in Europe and Asia, p. 80. However, they were suspicious and wrote:

“This game is given as it appears in Caparrós and Lahde [The Games of Alekhine (1992). Ed.]. We believe that Alekhine was most certainly White. One, because he almost always took that color in exhibitions. Two, because the style of play – White makes several small combinations – seems more like Alekhine. Three, the score we have for Alekhine from Tokyo, given in Revista Mexicana de Ajedrez, 1933, p. 247, is 14 wins, no draws, no losses.”

Skinner and Verhoeven, in Alexander Alekhine’s Chess Games, 1902-1946 (1998), investigated further and reached a different conclusion:

“The circumstances in which the (…) game was played are not known. Kimuto is not listed as one of Alekhine’s opponents in the display at the Imperial Hotel, neither does any source indicate that consultation partners were involved in that event. Furthermore, no Alekhine loss was mentioned in the contemporary reports. Whether the game was from another unreported event in Tokyo, or was played informally, can only be a matter of speculation. It was quite common, for instance, for Alekhine to play a few light hearted blindfold games for entertainment purposes while attending a social function (…). Another possibility and probably the most likely, is that the source might be in error and the game may actually have been played in Shanghai, where he did play blindfold against consultation partners and also had to concede three losses.”

The same game, move for move, was published by Deutsche Schachzeitung … in 1907!

Deutsche Schachzeitung, December 1907 pp. 364-365.

So this game was not played by Alekhine. Skinner and Verhoeven gave a contemporary source, Schach-Hochschule 1934, pp. 152-154, but I don’t have access to that magazine and the investigation stops here until further notice.

Ståhlberg’s lecture

By admin | December 10, 2020 | Comments 2 comments

On his way back to Sweden from the 1931 Prague olympiad 23-year old Gideon Ståhlberg visited the Aros chess club in Aarhus, Denmark on July 30th. He gave a lecture and showed the club members 5 of his games from Prague, wins against Cruusberg, Weenink, and Erdélyi, a draw against Bogoljubow and a loss against Alekhine. After the lecture he gave a simul with 25 wins, 2 draws, and 3 losses.

The next day the local newspaper Demokraten published a photo of Ståhlberg in front of a demonstration board.

“Gideon Ståhlberg in Amalie Street last night.”

Ståhlberg annotated 3 of the games from the lecture in Tidskrift för schack for August-September 1931. The notes are translated from swedish:

Efim Bogoljubow – Gideon Ståhlberg
Prague olympiad 1931, round 12
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Nc3 O-O 7. Rc1 c6 8. Bd3 dxc4 9. Bxc4 Nd5 10. Bxe7 Qxe7 11. O-O Nxc3 12. Rxc3 e5 13. Bb3
Bogoljubow chose the same continuation in an earlier game in Prague against the Romanian Erdelyi. The latter continued 13… e4 but got the worst of it. The text move is preferable.
13… exd4 14. Qxd4 Nf6
Besides this move 14… c5 came strongly into consideration.
15. Rc5 Bg4 16. Re5 Qd7 17. Qf4 Bxf3 18. gxf3 Qc7 19. Kh1 Rae8

Black simplifies into an endgame where white has more space, so black must play accurately to hold.
20. Rxe8 Nxe8 21. Qxc7 Nxc7 22. Rd1 Na6! 23. Rd6
After 23. Rd7 Nc5 24. Rc7 Nxb3 25. axb3 Rb8 the rook endgame is drawn with correct play. In the worst case scenario black can exchange his 3 queenside pawns against white’s 2, when white’s damaged pawn formation on the kingside doesn’t give him any real winning chances.
23… Nb8 24. f4 Re8 25. e4 Kf8 26. e5 g6
This amounts to a pawn sacrifice which seems to be perfectly correct. 27. Rf6 Re7 28. e6 Kg7 29. exf7! Nd7 30. Rd6 Nf8 with a safe position and threatening Re4 and Re2.
27. h4 Re7 28. Kg2 Nd7

Black seems to have completely secured his position. The great optimist Bogoljubow declined a draw offer, however, thinking that he could force his way through.
29. f5
An assault in Bogoljubow’s typical style. At first it looks very threatening for black, if 29… Nxe5 then 30. f4 Nd7 31. f6 winning a piece or 30… Ng4 31. f6 Re8 32. Rd7 and white wins.

Efim Bogoljubow (from Pariser Zeitung, 3/9 1941)

29… Nxe5! 30. f4 Nd7 31. f6 Nxf6 32. Rxf6 Rd7!
An unpleasant surprise for white! Black now threatens Kg7, but luckily for Bogoljubow he can save the game.
33. Be6!
Black can regain the piece with 33… Rd2+ 34. Kf3 Ke7 35. Rxf7+ Kxe6 but after 36. Rxb7 the rook ending is drawn. Black decides to force the draw in a simpler way.
33… Rc7 34. Bb3
Of course not 34. Bh3 because of 34… Ke7.
34… Rd7 draw agreed.
Source: Tidskrift för Schack 8-9/1931 pp. 145-146.

Gideon Ståhlberg – Stefan Erdélyi
Prague olympiad 1931, round 15
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 Nbd7 5. e3
The closed Queen’s Gambit has recently become fashionable mainly because it has not been analyzed to death.
5… Be7 6. Bd3 a6
Can hardly be recommended because it loses a tempo and slightly weakens the pawn formation.
7. b3 c5 8. O-O Bd6
Loses another tempo and gives white the initiative. To develop the bishop to e7 and then move it to d6 is admittedly quite common in similar positions but is basically a sign of weakness.
9. Bb2 b6 10. Qe2 Bb7 11. Rad1
Instead of this standard developing move white should have played 11. cxd5!, for example 11… exd5 12. e4 or 11… Nxd5 12. Nxd5 exd5 13. dxc5! with advantage to white.
11… O-O 12. h3
Preparing e4 which doesn’t work immediately because 12… cxd4 13.Nxd4 dxe4 14. Nxe4 Nxe4 15. Bxe4 Qh4 would liberate black’s game. With the following aggressive counter manouvre black crosses white’s plans. 12. Qc2 would give white better chances.
12… Ne4! 13. dxc5
White decides to give black the famous hanging pawns which is quite risky here because black obtains free piece play.
13… Nxc3 14. Bxc3 bxc5 15. Bb1 f5 16. cxd5 exd5

17. Rd2!
Prepares the following exchange sacrifice. With passive play by white, black would get serious attacking chances.
17… Qe7 18. Qd1 Bc7 19. Rxd5! Bxd5 20. Qxd5+ Qf7
As expected by white. But even after 20… Kh8 21. Bxf5 white is better because he has two pawn and the bishop as compensation for the exchange.
21. Qxf7+!
Black had probably underestimated this endgame. White wins an extra pawn for the exchange.
21… Rxf7 22. Ng5 Re7
If 22… Rff8 then 23. Ne6 wins.
23. Bxf5 Nf8 24. Bd3 h6 25. Bc4+ Kh8 26. Nf3 Ng6
26… Rd7 would be better but still very difficult.
27. Rd1 Ne5 28. Nxe5 Bxe5

29. Be1!
White keeps the bishop pair making it hard for black to cover his pawns.
29… Bf6 30. Kf1 a5 31. a4 Bb2
To play the bishop to b4 and free the a8-rook from the tedious task of guarding a5.
32. Rd6! Ba3 33. Bc3
Threatens mate and helps the e-pawns march forward.
33… Kh7 34. e4! Bb4 35. Bb2 Rae8
Black wants to return the exchange after e4-e5, but white is not in a hurry.
36. f3 Rc8 37. e5 Rf8 38. e6 Rf4 39. Rd7
Black has no defence against white’s manouvres.
39… Rxd7 40. exd7 Rf8 41. Ke2!
Stops Bd2.
41… Rd8 42. Be6 and black resigned.
The only way to stop the threatened Bb2-e5-c7 is to sacrifice the c-pawn which gives white an easy win (42. Be6 c4 43. bxc4 Be7 44. Bd4 Rb8 45. c5 Rb4 46. c6!
An interesting game throughout.
Source: Tidskrift för Schack 8-9/1931 pp. 151-152

Gideon Ståhlberg – Axel Cruusberg
Prague olympiad 1931, round 17
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 Nbd7 5. e3 c6 6. Bd3 Bd6
Besides the so-called Meran Defence (6… dxc4 7. Bxc4 b5) even 6… Be7 is regarded as perfectly satisfactory for black. The text move has disappeared from the grandmaster’s repertoire, however, since it has been shown that white gets a freer game after 7. e4.
7. e4 dxe4
If 7… dxc4 then white gets the advantage efter 8. Bxc4 e5 9. dxe5 Nxe5 (or 9… Bxe5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. Qxd8+ Kxd8 12. Be2!) 10. Nxe5 Bxe5 11. Qxd8+ Kxd8 12. Bxf7 Bxc3+ 13. bxc3 Nxe4 14. O-O Nxc3 15. Bb2 Rf8 16. Bb3 Ne2+ 17. Kh1 g6 18. Rad1+ Kc7 19. Be5+ etc. according to an analysis by Grünfeld.
[This analysis is from the Bad Pistyan 1922 tournament book, p. 45. Ed.]

8. Nxe4 Nxe4 9. Bxe4 Bb4+
This simplification is probably black’s best chance. After 9… O-O 10. O-O Qc7 11. Bc2 white has good attacking chances.
10. Bd2 Bxd2+ 11. Qxd2 O-O 12. O-O Nf6 13. Bc2 b6 14. Rad1 Bb7 15. Qf4
Basically a rash attacking attempt. More solid was 15. Rfe1.
15… Qe7 16. Qh4 h6 17. Rfe1 Qb4!
Black gets the opportunity to completely free his position.
18. b3 c5 19. Ne5 Rad8 20. Re3

20… Rd6?
Gives white a valuable tempo for his attack. After 20… Rxd4 21. Rxd4 cxd4 22. Qxd4 black had nothing to fear.
21. a3!
Not the immediate 21. Rg3 because of 21… Rxd4.
21… Qxa3
If 21… Qa5 then 22. b4!.
22. Rg3 Kh8 23. Rxg7! Kxg7 24. Qg3+ Kh8 25. Qf4

25… Kg7
White has a forced win after this move. The task is much more difficult after 25… Nh7 and 25… Ng8. The white attack seems to break through, though.
A. 25… Nh7 26. Nxf7+ (if 26. Qxh6 then there is the parry 26… f5) 26… Kg7! 27. Qe5+ (leading to new complications are 27. Qxh6+ Kxf7 28. Qxh7+ Ke8 29. Qxb7 Qb2! 30. Bg6+ Kd8 31. Qb8+ Ke7) 27… Kxf7 28. Qxd6 Kg7! 29. Qg3+! Ng5 (if 29… Kh8 then 30. Qg6 Nf6 31. Qxh6+ Kg8 32. Qg6+ Kh8 33. g4! and white wins) 30. h4 Qb2 31. Bb1.
B. 25… Ng8 26. Nxf7+ Kg7! 27. Qxd6 Rxf7 28. Qg3+ Kh8 (28… Kf8 29. dxc5) 29. Qe5+ Nf6 (29… Rf6 30. dxc5 Qxc5 31. Qxc5! bxc5 32. Rd7) 30. Qxe6 Kg7 31. d5! and black doesn’t seem to have a satisfactory defence.
[Looking over this analysis with an engine is not flattering for Ståhlberg. Best play is 25… Ng8! 26. Nxf7+ Kg7 27. Qxd6 Rxf7 and now not 28. Qg3+? Kh8 29. Qe5+ because 29… Rg7! is winning for black. Instead white has to take the perpetual with 28. Qe5+ Nf6 29. Qg3+ Kf8 30. Qd6+ Kg7 31. Qg3+. Ed.]
26. Qg3+
White repeats the position to get out of time trouble.
[This differs from the version of the game in various databases, which omits the repetitions beginning at move 26 and at move 31. Ed.]
26… Kh8 27. Qf4 Kg7 28. Ng4! Nxg4 29. Qxg4+ Kf6
If 29… Kh8 then white wins with 30. Qf4 Kg7 31. Qg3+! followed by Qxd6.
30. Qh4+ Kg7 31. Qg4+ Kf6 32. Qh4+ Kg7 33. Qg3+ Kf6 34. Qxd6 Qb2
If 34… Rg8 then 35. Qe5+ and Qc7+. If 34… Rc8 then 35. Qe5+ Ke7 36. d5.
35. Qxf8 Qxc2 36. Qxh6+ Ke7 37. Qd2 Qxb3
37… Qg6 would have offered longer resistance but still wouldn’t have been difficult for white to win.
38. dxc5 bxc5
Black was in severe time trouble which explains the text move.
39. Qd8 mate
Source: Tidskrift för Schack 8-9/1931 pp. 155-156.

In his autobiography Ståhlberg wrote: “My achievements at the 1931 chess olympiad strengthened my confidence. I had more and more switched from open to closed openings and the results in Prague indicated that I was on the right path even if my development was far from finished.”
I kamp med världseliten (1958) p. 21.

Notes on Lilienthal-Capablanca, Hastings 1934-35

By admin | June 7, 2018 | Comments 0 Comment

Andor Lilienthal’s queen sacrifice is too well-known to go into detail with here, but the stories surrounding the game are quite interesting. First the game:

Andor Lilienthal – José Raúl Capablanca
Hastings, 1 January 1935
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 b6 6. f3 d5 7. Bg5 h6 8. Bh4 Ba6 9. e4 Bxc4 10. Bxc4 dxc4 11. Qa4+ Qd7 12. Qxc4 Qc6 13. Qd3 Nbd7 14. Ne2 Rd8 15. O-O a5 16. Qc2 Qc4 17. f4 Rc8 18. f5 e5 19. dxe5 Qxe4

20. exf6 Qxc2 21. fxg7 Rg8 22. Nd4 Qe4 23. Rae1 Nc5 24. Rxe4+ Nxe4 25. Re1 Rxg7 26. Rxe4+ Kd7 and Black resigned.

All the contemporary sources conclude the game after White’s 26th move, but Lilienthal later revealed that Capablanca played 26… Kd7 and resigned with a smile when he saw that White wins after 27. Re7+ Kd6 28. f6 and 29.Bg3+.

There doesn’t seem to be any published photographs of the game, but a couple of days before, on 28 December, a photographer visited the tournament.

From Capablanca’s 2nd round loss to Thomas.

Lilienthal drew his 2nd round game with Flohr.

The missing autograph

Lajos Steiner gave some background in his book, Kings of the Chess Board (1948):

I was not really surprised when, before the Hastings Christmas Tournament of 1934, Lilienthal half jokingly told me that he would beat Capablanca with a Queen sacrifice, then he would give Capablanca his autograph. Lilienthal could never forget that in Paris a few years previously Capablanca refused to give him his autograph. And, to the surprise of the spectators, Lilienthal’s prophecy came true! Never in his life was Capablanca so crushingly defeated by a Queen sacrifice.

Steiner defeated Lilienthal in a training match in December 1934, shortly before Lilienthal left for Hastings.

In his autobiography, Lilienthal wrote about his first meeting with Capablanca. Some of the details are different from Steiner’s account, though. Translated from the German edition of Lilienthal’s autobiography, Schach war mein Leben (1989):

I was wandering the streets of Vienna when a poster with oversized letters announced: “Capablanca, the world famous Cuban chess master, will play a simultaneous exhibition today at 6 pm in Café Schönbrunn. Admittance 5 Schilling, to play 10 Schilling.” I only had that exact sum, but thought that it would be a long time before another opportunity to encounter a world star would present itself. So I ran to be in time to play the world famous Cuban. I was astounded when I noticed that the majority of the spectators were women. I have never before or after seen that many women at a simultaneous exhibition. Capablanca was a very attractive man and I think that the women were not mainly interested in chess.

The great “Capa” played very quickly and gave his opponents little time to think. Even though I was very excited I played well and in the middlegame won a piece for two pawns. In the end, I was the last player left. The famous grandmaster looked at me in a way that made me lose my nerve, and with a trembling voice I offered a draw. Capablanca accepted so quickly that when I clumsily asked for his autograph on the score sheet, he had already turned towards a pretty woman and hurried off with her.

Lilienthal on the game

Lilienthal annotated the game extensively and also had some comments on Capablanca’s reaction to the loss:

The traditional tournament in Hastings was stronger than the year before. Capablanca, who I played at the memorable Vienna simul, was there. He didn’t remember the then 18-year old Lilienthal. But I longed for revenge; back then I took half a point from the Cuban, and now I wanted to defeat him in a tournament game. (…)

I still recall that his expression and his eyes showed no sadness as he resigned the game. The Cuban was as always elegant, casual, and proper. He congratulated me with a smile and wished me further successes.

The next game

Capablanca and Lilienthal met again two weeks later in the Netherlands, where they gave simultaneous exhibitions and played a consultation game for Dutch radio.

The consultation game was played on 16 January at the VARA studios in Hilversum. Capablanca was paired with Hans Kmoch and Lilienthal with Max Euwe, who also played in Hastings. The game began at 8 pm and at 11.30 pm the broadcast started with Euwe explaining the moves for the listeners at home.

Capablanca & Kmoch – Lilienthal & Euwe
Hilversum, 16 January 1935
1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 c6 3. b3 Bf5 4. Bb2 e6 5. g3 Nf6 6. Bg2 Nbd7 7. O-O h6 8. d3 Bc5 9. Nbd2 O-O 10. Rc1 Bh7 11. a3 a5 12. d4 Be7 13. Ne1 b5 14. c5 Ne4 15. Ndf3 Qc7 16. Nd3 Rad8 17. Nfe5 Nxe5 18. Nxe5 Rfe8 19. Nd3 Bg5 20. e3 Be7 21. Qe2 Bf8 22. f3 Ng5

23. e4 dxe4 24. fxe4 f6 25. e5 Bxd3 26. Qxd3 fxe5 27. Qg6 e4 28. h4 Nf3+ 29. Bxf3 exf3 30. Rxf3 Qd7 31. b4 axb4 32. axb4 Qd5 33. Rcf1 Re7 34. Rf4 Qb3

The game had to be stopped here because of the late hour, and the players later agreed to a draw.

The next day, 17 January, at Hotel Carlton in Amsterdam Dutch chess friends celebrated Euwe’s victory in the Hastings tournament.

The Euwe celebration. Left to right: Hollander, Euwe, Kmoch, Lilienthal, and Capablanca.

Rotterdam’s chess federation was celebrating their 40th anniversary, and they invited Capablanca, Lilienthal, and Tartakower to give simultaneous exhibitions on 19 January, each master playing 30 opponents. Lilienthal went down in flames against Mühring, who was strong enough to play for the Dutch team at the unofficial Olympiad in Munich just a year and a half later.

Andor Lilienthal – Willem Jan Mühring
Rotterdam, 19 January 1935
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Bd3 Nc6 7. Nxc6 dxc6 8. O-O e5 9. Bg5 Be6 10. Kh1 h6 11. Bh4 g5 12. Bg3 Qc7 13. Qf3 Be7 14. Qe2 O-O-O 15. a4 h5 16. h4 gxh4 17. Bxh4 Ng4 18. Bg3 h4 19. Bh2 Bc5 20. f3 Nxh2 21. Kxh2 Rdg8 22. Nd1

22… Qe7 (The beginning of an attractive queen maneuver) 23. Ne3 Qg5 24. Ng4 Qf4+ 25. Kh1 Qg3 26. Qe1 Bxg4 27. fxg4 Rxg4 28. Rg1 h3 0-1
Source: De Telegraf, 21 January 1935

Tartakower, Lilienthal, and Capablanca at the simultaneous exhibition in Rotterdam, 19 January 1935.

Lilienthal stayed in the Netherlands until early February when he left for Moscow and another meeting with Capablanca. Finally a game from another simultaneous exhibition, this time a win for Lilienthal:

Andor Lilienthal – Paul van’t Veer
The Hague, 24 January 1935
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Nf3 O-O 7. Bd3 c6 8. O-O h6 9. Bf4 dxc4 10. Bxc4 Nd5 11. Qe2 N7f6 12. Bg3 Nxc3 13. bxc3 Nd5 14. Rac1 b5 15. Bd3 Bb7 16. e4 Nb6 17. Rfd1 Nd7 18. e5 Re8 19. Nd2 f5 20. c4 a6 21. c5 Nf8 22. Nf3 Bg5 23. Nxg5 Qxg5 24. f4 Qg6 25. Bc2 Qf7 26. Bb3 Rac8 27. Be1 h5 28. Bh4 g6 29. Rd3 Qd7 30. Rcd1 a5 31. Rg3 a4 32. Bc2 Kh7 33. Bf6 Qf7 34. Rh3 Nd7 35. Bg5 Kg7 36. Rdd3 Ra8 37. Rhg3 Kh8 38. Bh4 Rg8 39. Rg5 Rg7 40. Be1 Nf8 41. a3 Nh7 42. Rgg3 Qd7 43. Rh3 Qf7 44. Bb4 Qd7 45. Bb1 Rc8 46. Rd1 Qe8 47. Ba2 Rcc7 48. Rc3 Nf8 49. h3 Qf7 50. g4 fxg4 51. hxg4 Qxf4 52. Rf3 Qxg4+ 53. Kh2 Rcf7 54. Rdf1 Qh4+ 55. Rh3 Qxd4 56. Rhf3 Qd7 57. Rf6 Rxf6 58. exf6 Rf7 59. Bc3 Kg8 60. Rd1 Qc7+ 61. Be5 Qc8 62. Rd6 Ba6 63. Qd2 Kh7 64. Rd8 Qb7 65. Rb8 Qd7 66. Qg5 Bc8 67. Bb1 Kg8 68. Bxg6 Nxg6 69. Qxg6+ Kf8 70. Bd6+ 1-0
Source: Het Vaderland, 3 February 1935

Lilienthal at the simultaneous exhibition in the Hague, 24 January 1935.

Caricatures from Haifa 1976

By admin | April 22, 2018 | Comments 2 comments

The daily bulletin of the 1976 Chess Olympiad in Haifa was pretty bare-boned. It had little besides games and results, but occasionally a caricature broke the monotony. Here follows a collection of the best and most interesting sketches.

The Philipines vs. Israel. Samuel Estimo and Nathan Birnboim in front. Behind them is Cesar Caturla and Shimon Kagan. Israel won the match 3-1.

90-year old Edward Lasker, who visited the Haifa Olympiad as a kibitzer.

Robert Byrne scored 7/10 on 1st board for the winning American team.

Vladimir Liberzon, 1st board for Israel.

Ludek Pachman representing West Germany. This was his first and only Olympiad for his new home country. He had previously played 8 Olympiads for Czechoslovakia.

Genna Sosonko scored 6/8 for the Netherlands and won a prize for best 2nd board player.

The Netherlands defeated Scotland 2½-1½ in the 2nd round. Craig Pritchett and Jan Timman on board 1 was a draw.

Bogoljubow’s psychological trick

By admin | April 3, 2018 | Comments 0 Comment

From Prager Tagblatt, 13 August 1933:

Played in the 15th and last round of the German Championship on 11 July 1933 at Bad Pyrmont.

Jakob Adolf Seitz – Efim Bogoljubow
Notes by Seitz
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 b5
Half Indian, half Polish. Sämisch played like this against Thomas at the 1925 Marienbad tournament.
3. a4 b4 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 e6 6. O-O c5 7. c4 Be7 8. d5
This move is seen in similar positions, not only in the Queen’s Indian defenses but also in the Dutch defense. The pawn is usually only sacrificed temporarily.
8… exd5 9. Nh4 d6 10. Nf5 O-O 11. Re1
A somewhat odd-looking move which, however, is positionally justified.
11… Nbd7 12. Bf4

Bogoljubow gave this move a huge question mark on his score sheet. Maybe he worships the materialistic chess view – indeed the move gives up on recovering the pawn – or maybe he wanted to intimidate his opponent. (Seitz and Bogoljubow knew each other well. Seitz was Bogoljubow’s second at Moscow 1925. Ed.)
12… Nb6 13. b3 a5
To stop a4-a5.
14. Nd2 Ra7!
A fine unpinning maneuver which also covers Be7 an extra time.
15. e4!
This ingenious move cost my Grandmaster opponent a lot of time on the clock. Indeed the position is still unclear.
15… dxe4
After 15… dxc4 White would get pressure against d6. Maybe 15… d4 was better, but then White would have fine attacking play.
16. Bg5 Nfd5
A brilliant freeing attempt.
17. Nxe7+ Nxe7 18. Nxe4 Bxe4 19. Bxe4 h6 20. Qh5 Nbc8 21. Rad1

21… f5?
Loses immediately, but the white attack was already very strong.
22. Bd5+ Kh7 23. Re6
Threatening a brutal mate beginning with Rxh6+. Instead of resigning, a queen sacrifice happens.
23… Nxd5 24. Bxd8 Nc3 25. Rde1 Raf7 26. Qg6+ Kg8 27. Be7 Nxe7 28. Rxe7 Ne4 29. Rxf7 Rxf7 30. f3 Nf6 31. Qxf5 Rd7 32. g4 Kf7
And at the same time, Bogoljubow stopped the clock. Further material loss would be unavoidable. A difficult struggle!

Jakob Adolf Seitz. From a group photo at Nice 1931.

B. H. Wood on Alekhine

By admin | March 16, 2018 | Comments 0 Comment

Baruch H. Wood (1909-1989) is mainly known as publisher and editor of Chess for more than 50 years. But he also wrote an interesting weekly column for Illustrated London News from 1949 to 1979. This is a collection of Wood’s recollections and observations on Alexander Alekhine and his personality from Illustrated London News.

Alekhine loses

Alekhine dominated chess like a Colossus for years. Wherever he went, he received first-class hospitality and travelling expenses, on top of which he must have squandered the best part of £10,000 yearly – largely on champagne. He had less real showmanship than Capablanca, who made a great name out of hardly ever losing. Alekhine’s method was the cruder but terribly wearing one of winning, and winning again, and continuing to win again. Few people realise how the odds lengthen against a champion in all he does. Wherever he goes, his opponents are putting forward the effort of a lifetime. They have nothing to lose, for nobody expects them to win; and they have everything to gain, for if they do achieve the miraculous, they will “hit the headlines.” Alekhine could play and win twenty perfect games without arousing more than a ripple of interest. Then he would, in the very nature of things – perhaps through sheer staleness or boredom – lose a bad game, inferior in quality to any of the others; and the very fact that it was a loss by Alekhine would shoot it straight into a thousand newspapers all over the world. He felt this quite keenly, I know from conversations with him; he could never reconcile himself to the fact that it is an inevitable cruely which all who attain to the heights must suffer.

When Alekhine gave a simultaneous display, he faced not the usual twenty or so players, of whom half are normally fairly weak, but forty or more picked players, each out to make a supreme effort. In fact, the organisers were forced to pack the opposition with extremely keen players, for Alekhine would not consider such an engagement at less than about 20 guineas. When he played in a seaside congress, apart from first-class travelling and accommodation and free facilities of every kind, he demanded an appearance fee for which £50 was an absolute minimum, and the chance of a reasonable first prize. But (and this was the other side of the picture!) if, through playing just a little below form, he failed to take that first prize, the committee would look askance, and all over the world the writers would be demanding “Is Alekhine on the decline?”

All these nastier concomitants of fame contributed to making Alekhine a hard man, unloved and unloving. “A terror to hotel waiters,” I have heard him called. I present the majority verdict, though I must confess that my personal impression of him was a little kindlier.
(June 4, 1949)

Alekhine resigns

One of the tardiest resigners was the great Alekhine himself. He once adjourned a game against Tartakower in such a hopelessly lost position that it hardly seemed worth while to make out the diagram. Pressed repeatedly to throw up the sponge during the two days before resumption of play, he stubbornly refused, yet, on arriving at the rendesvouz and finding his opponent there, waiting for him, hale and ready for action, he resigned without even sitting down. The only possible inference, as Tartakower says in relating the incident, was that he had been hoping against hope that Tartakower would meet with some accident, or fall ill, and have to let the game go by default. [The game is Alekhine-Tartakower, Folkestone 1933. Ed.]
(June 25, 1949)

Alekhine writes

My first approach to Alekhine came when I asked him, as World Champion, for a series of articles in a chess magazine I was founding. He named a staggering figure, from which he would not bate one halfpenny; I accepted. Within three moths he had (by common knowledge) drunk away his title, and these expensive articles were no longer from the pen of a World Champion. His fall was a terrible shock to him; worse than the defeat even, was the attitude of the world of chess. Never greatly liked, he had made enemies everywhere and, restrained hitherto by his renown, they now emerged like rats from their holes to revile and belittle him.

He retired to his château in France, and for weeks I could not get a word out of him. Finally, I had to issue my magazine without the article from his pen that everybody had been promised. The time came to send off his monthly cheque. What to do? I deliberated a while, then sent it off as usual. I was sorry for him. Within a few days came two such articles as I have never printed before or since; they were the talk of the chess cafés for weeks.
(July 9, 1949)

Alekhine marries

Alekhine was a highly-strung and irritable man and could not easily have found a companion so supremely able to humour and control his vagaries as the American lady who helped him to regain his World Championship in 1937. On first impressions she was rather uninteresting. Only lengthier acquaintance revealed her quiet charm and remarkable strength of character. Alekhine would probably have been astonished if anybody had told him how much her ability to put up with his temperamental ups and downs had helped him.
(July 1, 1950)

Alekhine plays

The great Alekhine, who himself confessed that he was more interested in exceptions than rules, who would always try any bizarre move once, even in a World Championship match, was […] a rewarding study. His every movement was infused with a sort of suppressed volcanic energy. He would chain-smoke through a five-hour session, plucking his cigarette from his lips with almost explosive violence. Having made his move, he would snatch (“take” is an inadequate word) a cup of coffee, drain it at a gulp, leap to his feet, stride to and fro like a caged lion, occasionally (more like a panther now) steal up and peep over his opponent’s shoulder from behind to see how the position looked the other way round.
(September 29, 1951)

Alekhine smoking during the 1935 World Championship match against Euwe. From gahetna.nl.

Alekhine and the man who stares

By admin | March 9, 2018 | Comments 0 Comment

The Portuguese champion Francisco Lupi told a bizarre story in Chess, April 1947:

We arrived at Cáceres, a little Spanish town, Dr. Alekhine and I, at the beginning of December, 1945. We were strolling down a road, when he suddenly stopped as if he had seen a demon: “I’m done for!” he said, “It is the man who stares!”

He tried to conceal his six feet behind my four feet six inches. A short distance ahead, a little man with a large smile was waving his umbrella.

I learnt the story. This man followed Alekhine about gazing earnestly into the champion’s eyes, practically from the end of Alekhine’s nose, in cafés, bars, hotels, tournaments, everywhere! He had watched Alekhine playing fifteen games simultaneously blindfold some months before and he had been so impressed that he had been practically unable to sleep ever since. He had become obsessed with the idea that the “trick” had something to do with Alekhine’s eyes which must act by radar or something of the sort; and in trying to explore this theory he nearly pestered Alekhine to distraction.

Alekhine - Pariser Zeitung 1941-02-16 — Alexander Alekhine (Pariser Zeitung, February 16 1941)