IRLchess

I had never seen the original article in “the Irish chess magazine” that Golz and Keres quoted, but now it has been supplied by David McAlister, for which many thanks. The article appeared in Chess in Ireland, September 1959, p. 7. The author isn’t listed, but J. J. is listed as the general editor of the magazine, so it’s reasonable to assume he wrote this article.

The content of the article came as a surprise to me. I had always assumed from the description in Chess Combination as a Fine Art that the analysis in the original source was faulty, and that the solution given by Golz and Keres corrected the errors. That’s not stated explicitly, perhaps, but I had always read it as implied.

But as we see from the full text above, the analysis given by Golz and Keres was in fact taken entirely from the original article by J. J. Walsh. Their only further reference to the original comes at the end of their solution (pp. 236-7):

“This instructive endgame shows the uselessness of the knight in a defensive role!,” comments Chess in Ireland. Yes, but at the same time its skilful application in attack!

It’s not explicitly claimed that the original missed both stalemate and improvement, but that would be consistent with what is quoted.

There is one other point that struck me as unusual. The question as posed by Golz and Keres (see clipping two posts back) comments that the endgame “is particularly interesting because of the number of mistakes it contains”. But according to their own solution, there were two errors (1. … Ne4+? and White’s resignation). Tablebases have shown the modern reader that multiple errors are commonplace even at the very highest levels, but even without this information, would a pair of errors really seem so unusual? It seems a rather sour comment to make.

J. J. Walsh has scorebooks covering all of his games, going back to the late 1940’s, and in the collection is included the full score of the game from the last two posts. White was Barney O’Sullivan, and the event was the Leinster Championship.

Most of the game was unremarkable: O’Sullivan tamely lost a pawn in the opening, and everything simplified quickly to a knight ending. It could have been a routine win, but instead turned into something much more interesting right at the end. Winding back a few moves from the widely publicised ending, the position below was reached after White’s 60th move.

This ending is within range of the 7-man Lomonosov tablebases (subscription required), which show that Black has the unique winning move 1. … Nb4!!.

With the various solutions to the puzzle given in the earlier posts to hand, the reason is clear enough: from either b4 or c5 the knight is poised to come to d3, but from b4 the knight additionally covers d5, cutting out the drawing line given by van Perlo: after 2. Nf5+ Kxh3 3. Kf2 Kg4 4. Ne3+ Kf4 White has no useful checks.

One exclamation mark or two? Without the benefit of the solution to the later puzzle, it seems an exceptionally difficult puzzle, so the double exclamation seems justified.

[Click to reply the full game.]

In the puzzle in the last post, White must not play 1. Ke3?, which loses: after 1. … c1=Q+ 2. Nxc1 Kxc1 3. Ke4 Kd2 4. Ke5 Ke3 5. Kxe6 Kf3 6. Kf6 White is one move too late.

The right way is 1. Kd2!, and after 1. … e5 (since there is nothing else), only then 2. Ke3!, which now wins, since after 2. … c1=Q+ 3. Nxc1 Kxc1 4. Ke4 Kd2 5. Ke5 Ke3 5. Kf6 it is Black who is a move too late. (As a study this would leave something to be desired, since White would also win easily after 2. Nc1 followed by 3. Ne2, 4. Ke3, etc.)

The position is from Hogarty-Green, European Boys U18 Team Championship 2006. In a small and very strong event of just 13 teams, Ireland entered an A and a B team, and predictably enough the B team had a difficult time of it, with an overall score of +1 =4 -19, where the win was against Ireland A. The late Philip Hogarty, playing board 1, was heavily outrated in all games, by between 250 and 900 points.

This game should have been a second win for the team, but mysteriously was instead a missed opportunity. The game continued 1. Kd2!, but then ½-½??.

The records I have shed no light on the reasons for this. It may have been that time trouble contributed, of course, but another possibility is that after having the worst of it for most of the game, the sense of relief at not having a losing position induced White to offer an immediate draw. Does anyone have further information?