Gerry McCurdy 1946-2016

I’d posted here a couple of years ago about Gerry McCurdy, originally from Belfast, who was a strong player in Ireland in the 1960’s, and who had recently returned to chess after a gap of decades with much of his old strength intact, no easy task. He was living in Prayssac in southwest France.

Gerry McCurdy (St. Mary's, Blackpool)

I’m sorry to have to report that he died last week (Tuesday, January 26). One of his former students broke the news (see comments on the page above), and now David McAlister has provided confirmation in a notice from the school he taught at in Blackpool in England (whence the photo above).

He represented Ireland in the Student Olympiads at Örebro 1966 and Harrachov 1967 and earlier at the 1964 Glorney Cup. He played in four Irish championships, 1966, ’70, ’71, and ’72, scoring 5½/8, 5½/9, 5/9, and 4½/9 respectively, finishing equal 3rd in 1966, a point behind Moles, and was runner-up in two Ulster championships, in 1968 and 1970.

Posted in Players | 1 Comment

Enniscorthy Congress 2016

On this web site we’re interested in chronicling all tournaments, no matter how old. But it’s always nice to have an entirely new event to report, and the organisers of the Enniscorthy Congress are to be congratulated on their inaugural event, which concluded today.

Live boards carried the top 4 boards in the Masters section (out of 6 overall), but unfortunately I was able to grab only three rounds’ worth. However these have now been compiled into a tournament report, and there’s also a new Enniscorthy Congresses page.

In this year’s top event David Fitzsimons and Oleg Korneev finished equal first on an undefeated 5/6, drawing with each other and also both with Alex Baburin. (It’s not clear on the information available whether a tie-break was used to declare a sole winner.)

Well done also to David Fitzsimons for reaching 2400 in the January 2016 FIDE list, thereby satisfying one of the requirements for an IM title. I don’t recall seeing mention of him having achieved this before.

Posted in Enniscorthy Congresses, Tournaments | Leave a comment

Gonzaga Masters 2012

The 15th Gonzaga Classic concluded today; congratulations to David Murray who won the top event, and for the first time.

Apparently there will be no games available from this year’s event, but I’ve reorganized the Gonzaga Classics page here to add details of the top event in all years.

I’ve also added a full tournament report on the Gonzaga Masters 2012, for which all games are available. David Fitzsimons won for the third consecutive year, in what became a four-in-a-row sequence the following year.

Bermingham-Fitzsimons, Gonzaga Masters 2012The deciding game Bermingham–D. Fitzsimons from the last round showed yet again how difficult queen endings are. The diagram shows the position after White’s 62nd move. After the game continuation 62 … Qxh3 the position is within the range of the Nalimov endgame tablebases, which show that with best play the position is … a draw!

As it was Bermingham was unable to hold the game, due to a single inaccuracy. After 63. Qf2+ Qg2 64. Qh4+ Kg1 65. Qd4+ Kf1 he went astray with 66. Qf4+? after which the black king was eventually able to find safety on h7. Instead either 66. Qd1+ or 66. Qa1+ would have maintained the drawn-with-best-play evaluation.

If after 66. Qf4+ the white king stood on g8, h7, or h8, the position would (apparently) still have been drawn: I assume because the black king would no longer have the bolthole on h7.

But here’s a puzzle to conclude. Returning to the diagrammed position, in which it’s Black to play. Can Black win? Answer (based on the 7-piece Lomonosov tablebases) in a couple of days.

[Update, January 26, 2016: see comment below for solution.]

Posted in Games, Gonzaga Classics, Tournaments | 2 Comments

From John Moles’ The French Defence Main Line Winawer

John Moles’ book The French Defence Main Line Winawer (Batsford, 1975) has been widely praised but even still Wolfgang Heidenfeld’s assessment ‘perhaps the best of all chess opening monographs’ (see the last post) is startling, I confess. On the other hand a quick search turns up a comment by John Cox from recent years that includes the book as one of his all-time top three, so this opinion is not an outlier. Some of you may wonder what could possibly justify such an evaluation.

The chess world of September 1974, when the writing was finished, is so far removed from today’s that it’s easy for the modern reader to be misled by Moles’ description of the book’s scope: ‘as complete and up-to-date a survey as possible of the main lines of the Winawer’. He set out to cover not only the full list of variations in the main line (1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 e5 c5 5 a3 Bxc3+ 6 bxc3), itself a daunting task, but also to include all relevant games, and reflecting all associated analysis and commentary: a “complete” survey indeed. This required a herculean research effort even then, with ‘countless [the inside front jacket says over 3,000] theoretical hand-books, game collections, tournament books and bulletins and magazines’ consulted. The results surpass modern databases in many variations.

The insistence on coverage of all the possibilities, coupled with Moles’ willingness to delve deeper than his contemporaries, often generated conclusions that contradicted the prevailing wisdom of the day. Here is one example.

In the main line Poisoned Pawn, after 6 … Ne7 7 Qg4 Qc7 8 Qxg7 Rg8 9 Qxh7 cxd4, the rare but sharp and critical line 10 Kd1 Nbc6 11 Nf3 dxc3 12 Ng5 Nxe5 13 f4 (see diagram below) leads to a position on which Emanuel Berg, in his Grandmaster Repertoire 15: The French Defence Volume 2 (Quality Chess 2013) spends ten full pages (46-56). The important point for Black to remember here is to avoid the natural, thematic, and tempting 13 … Rxg5!?, and instead play the odd-looking 13 … f6!.

It’s no exaggeration to say that 10 Kd1 is rare today in significant part because Black has 13 … f6 here.

Anyway, here’s what Moles has to say:

moles-p49r1

And that’s it, other than a line at the end of chapter giving 13 … f6! as ‘the sounder choice’.

There the matter rested for five years until Popovych–Watson, Bar Point International, New York 1980, in which White was demolished (0-1, 25). This was the first over-the-board trial of 13 … f6! (there had been two unpublished correspondence games in the late 1960’s) and the first of any type featuring the analysis in Moles’ last paragraph, which is now the main line. The game received wide publicity, appearing in both Europe Échecs (September-October 1980) (Caminade) and Chess Life (December 1980) (Benko).

The game featured in Watson’s Play the French (1984), along with two more of his own games, and then in two games in 1985 that appeared in Informator. From there was included in virtually every openings book as the (or at the very least a) standard response, which is the status it enjoys today.

Other books of the era missed this. Only Zeuthen & Jarlnæs (1971) mentioned it at all, giving Euwe’s analysis, i.e., 13 … f6 (14 Bb5+ Kd8 ∞), and saying it had never been played. It’s missing entirely from the books by Keres (1969 and 1972), Gligorić & Uhlmann (1975), Suetin (1982) and Zlotnik (1982), and from Encyclopedia of Chess Openings C (1974 and 1981). And similarly for periodicals.

There’s a twist to this story that has never been commented on. Contra Moles, I believe that Uhlmann never suggested 13 … f6. Instead it was Trifunović who recommended it in 1967 Chess Review 35/12, December 1967, pp. 380-81, considering only the (weaker) 14 Bb5+, and giving the analysis that Moles credits to Uhlmann. And when Trifunović later considered 14 fxe5, he promptly withdrew his original recommendation: ‘13 … f6, suggested by this writer, leads to a quick loss after 14 fxe5 fxg5 15 Qh5+!’ Chess Review 36/10, October 1968, p. 307. Euwe’s two items in Archives (December 1967 and February 1968) go no further than his analysis as cited by Moles; the second cites Trifunović. (There’s other evidence as well.)

Whether on the basis that there must be something there if Uhlmann recommended it, or because of Moles’ general policy of searching deeply and exhaustively in all variations, I believe he looked further and found the inspired 15 … Kd8! and 16 … Qc5!.

On this reading, note the final paragraph above, which must have come entirely from Moles: he goes counter to the weight of virtually all preceding theory, introduces an excellent innovation that changes the evaluation of the variation, and provides all the essential ideas and analysis. Incidentally the ten pages provided by Berg on this line are excellent, as are the three in Watson’s Play the French, 4th edition (2012). But it’s nevertheless fair to say, I believe, that they confirm Moles’ account rather than contradicting it in any way. If you had to summarise the entire variation in one paragraph I don’t believe you could do better, even now.

And that’s one paragraph in a 258-page book …

Posted in Books | Leave a comment

More on John Moles

A long, detailed, and very interesting obituary of John Moles appeared in the December issue of Histos, an online academic journal co-founded by him, written by a close and long-time academic colleague who knew him over decades.

I never met Moles myself–he was ending his chess career just as I was starting–but I was curious to see how the rounded person matched the impressions I had formed of him from his book The French Defence Main Line Winawer (Batsford 1975): someone of strongly held opinions, forcefully expressed, who relished in argument and debate, and an unusually incisive thinker with a tremendous capacity and appetite for hard work.

He seems to have been all that, but much more besides. See A. J. Woodman, Professor J. L. Moles, Histos 9 (2015) 312-18 (via the Wayback Machine).

The obituary also includes another recent photograph of Moles, on holiday in Crete in 2014:

John Moles, Crete 2014

Posted in Irish champions, Photos, Players | Leave a comment

John Moles 1949-2015

I was very sorry to hear of the sudden death of John Moles, one of the most talented players Ireland has ever produced, on October 4. He was twice Irish champion and played in two Olympiads, and wrote an outstanding and widely acclaimed book on the French Winawer. He gave up the game in his mid 20’s and went on to a distinguished academic career. At the time of his death he was Professor of Latin at the University of Newcastle, but still resident in Durham, where earlier in his career he had been Professor of Classics. He was working in the library at Durham University on Sunday, October 4 when he collapsed.

I had intended posting before now, but somehow didn’t feel I had the right material for an appropriate item. But I have just noticed two items in the Durham City Chess Club Newsletter, from October 12 and November 8 (the writer is not named, but after looking through other issues I think he’s Ken Neat, whom many of you will remember as a translator of Russian chess books):

“he lived in Durham close to our club’s current venue, and he would occasionally call in for a friendly game, in which he still demonstrated considerable skill, although he resisted any attempts to persuade him to take up competitive chess again. Latterly I met John socially and greatly enjoyed his company when, with his wife Ruth, their son Tommy and their dog Owen, he joined the informal walking group of which I am a member. I took the picture below on the last such occasion, a walk in January this year in the countryside around Cassop.”

John Moles, Durham, January 2015

David McAlister has posted a chess biography at the Ulster Chess History web site, as well as a game that is missing from the databases, a win against Wolfgang Heidenfeld in the last round of the 1968 Ballyclare Open, a couple of weeks before Moles’ 19th birthday, annotated by Moles in the tournament bulletin.

Posted in Irish champions, Photos, Players | Leave a comment

Quigley-Duignan, Irish championship 1946

Happy New Year, and best wishes for 2016!

For this first post of the new year, let’s turn to the next ‘new’ game from J.J. Walsh’s unpublished manuscript of selected Irish games 1896-1967. It’s an historic one, as a matter of fact, having played a decisive role in deciding the 1946 Irish championship.

The 1946 championship was the first since 1940, and was constructed as a 14-player all-play-all, with two games per day. Oscar Quigley, who had narrowly lost a playoff match for the title in 1937, had lost his first-round game against the defending champion J.J. O’Hanlon, but had proceeded to score 11 points from the next 12 games 11 consecutive wins. He led by half a point from Barney O’Sullivan, the 1939 champion, heading into the last round, with all others too far back to have any chance [but see below].

Quigley had White against Paddy Duignan, the Leinster champion, while O’Sullivan had Black against the reigning Ulster champion William Minnis.

Quigley-Duignan, Irish championship 1946O’Sullivan won, but Quigley lost in a game that won the Brilliancy Prize. In a Marshall, Quigley erred with 18. Bf4? and was thereafter in trouble all the way. In the diagrammed position he would still have been in the game with the natural 25. Qd2, but instead after the weak 25. Be6? he lost quickly.

[Click to play through the full game.]

Barney O’Sullivan thus won his second and last Irish championship by the narrowest margin. Oscar Quigley never won an Irish championship.

Update, January 3, 2016: Many thanks to David McAlister, who spotted some inaccuracies in the account above as originally given. Quigley’s run was 11 consecutive wins, not 11 points from 12 games: I’m not used to 14-player all-play-alls! Also, though the Irish Times at the time said that only Quigley and O’Sullivan had any chance heading into the last round, in fact Paddy Duignan still had two adjourned games, which later gave him 1½ points (Irish Press, Wednesday, May 29, 1946, p. 9): thus he had an outside chance of ending in a 2- or 3-way tie heading into the last round.

Posted in Games | Leave a comment

Kilkenny Masters 1998

This weekend sees the annual Kilkenny Congress, which reminds me that up to now there have been no tournament reports here on any of this highly successful series of events. So here’s one: the 1998 top event, technically the IONA Technologies International Masters 1998, won by Stuart Conquest on tie-break ahead of Bogdan Lalić and Luke McShane, in a field that was strong enough that Sergei Tiviakov, then rated 2655, could only manage 3½/6.

We’re fortunate to have all games from the event, and even full details of byes, from TWIC and from BritBase; that’s rare even still.

Hebden-O'Cconnell, Kilenny Masters 1998There were many interesting games, one of which was a first-round letoff for Mark Hebden against Gerard O’Connell. In the diagrammed position, Gerard played 43. … Qxe6? and had to resign immediately after the recapture. Time trouble must have been a factor as otherwise he could hardly have missed 43. … Bxg3+ 44. Kf3 e1=N+ winning, since 45. Kxg3 Rg2 is mate, leaving only the equally unpleasant alternatives 45. Ke4 Re2+ and 45. Kg4 h5+.

[Click to replay the full game.]

(It took a while but some measure of retribution was eventually exacted.)

It’s interesting that 11 of the 35 participants from all those years ago also appear in the entry list for this year’s event.

Posted in Kilkenny Congresses, Tournaments | Leave a comment

At the cutting edge of theory

At one time the Winawer made regular appearances at the highest levels, even in World Championship matches (Smyslov-Botvinnik, Tal-Botvinnik) but these days it’s a relatively rare occurrence. It’s therefore a delight to see two 2600+ grandmasters battle it out in a major tournament, and indeed in one of the wildest and most obscure lines of the Posioned Pawn variation. Hot off the presses (the game was played yesterday as I write) comes Perunović–Édouard, European Teams Championship, Reykjavik 2015.

Perunovic-Edouard, European Teams Championship, Reykjavik 2015After 10. Kd1 Nd7!? Nbc6 11. Nf3 Nxe5 12. Bf4 Qxc3 13. Nxe5 Qxa1+ 14. Bc1 (see The New Winawer Report issues 7 and 10), Édouard tried 14. … d3?!, introduced in Bronstein–Uhlmann, United Nations Peace Tournament, Zagreb (April-May) 1965 (better 14. … Rf8). After 15. Qxf7+ Kd8 16. Qf6 dxc2+ the game reached the diagrammed position.

In issue 10, I argued that the less common 17. Kxc2! is best, leading to a clear advantage, though falling short of a forced win. But Perunović chose the older 17. Kd2. The continuation was 17. … Qd4+ 18. Bd3 Qc5! 19. Ke2 Bd7 20. Be3 d4? 21. Bxd4. All this is as in B. Stein-Beliavsky, Lloyds Bank Masters 1985 (later agreed drawn in a winning position for White): I think Black is already lost. The improvement 20. … Qxa3!?, which I think was suggested by Stein and Andrew Martin in the tournament book, seems to allow Black to survive.

Though I believe Black has objective equality after 17. Kd2?, in practice the position is very difficult to hold. You might try considering what happens after the (all tried in practice) alternatives in this sequence 17. … d4, 17. … Qb1, 19. Bb2, and 20. Bf4.

[Update, same day: the conclusions above were based on analysis I did around three years ago. Re-evaluating now, with a better engine of course (Houdini 4.0), it seems that 20. … d4 21. Bxd4 Qxa3 is also fine for Black (=, with a perpetual in the main line). White is better after 20. … Qd5, but it’s less than clear whether it’s a win.]

[Update, November 20, 2015: At ICC, this game features in GM Joel Benjamin’s Game of the Week video (about 35 minutes; subscription required; 5-minute preview available). Even if you are not especially interested in this line, Benjamin gives some fascinating variations. These include some new analysis of 20. … Qxa3 far out, leading to a position where ‘White is better but Black is still hanging around’. Highly recommended!]

[Update: November 21, 2015: If 20. … Qxa3, Benjamin gives 21. Ra1!, which causes Black some difficulties. So after thinking about it some more, I think the best course for Black is 20. … d4! (after all) 21. Bxd4 Qxa3!. One point is that the bishop no longer covers c1, so that 22. Ra1? is met by 22. … Qxa1 23. Bxa1 c1=Q, winning. Another is that compared to the alternative 21. … c1=Q? (from B. Stein-Beliavsky above), the black queen covers d6, preventing White’s Nf7+-d6xb7 manœuvre. White appears to stand worse in all lines except for 22. Nf7+ Ke8 (or 23. … Kc8 24. Qe5 c1=Q 25. Rxc1 Qxc1 26. Nd6+ with a perpetual) 23. Be5 Nf5 23. Bxf5 Bb5+ 24. Kd2 Qb4+ 25. Kc1 Qb1+ 26. Kd2 Qb4+=.]

Posted in Games | Leave a comment

Munster championship 2015–II

O'Connell-O'Brien, Munster championship 2015This year’s Munster championship provided a return to a separate event and live boards for the top two games, both welcome decisions. (See the recent post here.)

In an even more welcome development, the Munster Chess Union has now followed up by providing almost all of the remaining games, keyed in by Eric Salsac. These have now been added to the updated report on the Tournaments page here.

Here’s one interesting moment, from O’Connell-O’Brien in round 3, with White to play his 35th move. What’s your evaluation of 35. Rxh5+ gxh5 36. Qxh5+ Kg8 37. Re3 (as played in the game)?

Update, November 13, 2015: see my solution in the comments section.

[Click to replay the full game.]

Posted in Games, Munster championships, Tournaments | 1 Comment