They felt that life was fleeting; they knew not that art was long,
That though they were dying of famine, they lived in deathless song.
They asked for a little money to keep the wolf from the door;
And the thirty million English sent twenty pounds and four !

They laid their heads together that were scarred and lined and grey;
Keen were the Russian sabres, but want was keener than they;
And an old Troop-Sergeant muttered, “Let us go to the man who writes
The things on Balaclava the kiddies at school recites.”

They went without bands or colours, a regiment ten-file strong,
To look for the Master-singer who had crowned them all in his song;
And, waiting his servant’s order, by the garden gate they stayed,
A desolate little cluster, the last of the Light Brigade.

They strove to stand to attention, to straighen the toil-bowed back;
They drilled on an empty stomach, the loose-knit files fell slack;
With stooping of weary shoulders, in garments tattered and frayed,
They shambled into his presence, the last of the Light Brigade.

The old Troop-Sergeant was spokesman, and “Beggin’ your pardon,” he said,
“You wrote o’ the Light Brigade, sir. Here’s all that isn’t dead.
An’ it’s all come true what you wrote, sir, regardin’ the mouth of hell;
For we’re all of us nigh to the workhouse, an’ we thought we’d call an’ tell.

“No, thank you, we don’t want food, sir; but couldn’t you take an’ write
A sort of ‘to be continued’ and ’see next page’ o’ the fight?
We think that someone has blundered, an’ couldn’t you tell ‘em how?
You wrote we were heroes once, sir. Please, write we are starving now.”

The poor little army departed, limping and lean and forlorn.
And the heart of the Master-singer grew hot with “the scorn of scorn.”
And he wrote for them wonderful verses that swept the land like flame,
Till the fatted souls of the English were scourged with the thing called Shame.

They sent a cheque to the felon that sprang from an Irish bog;
They healed the spavined cab-horse; they housed the homeless dog;
And they sent (you may call me a liar), when felon and beast were paid,
A cheque, for enough to live on, to the last of the Light Brigade.

O thirty million English that babble of England’s might,
Behold there are twenty heroes who lack their food to-night;
Our children’s children are lisping to “honour the charge they made – “
And we leave to the streets and the workhouse the charge of the Light Brigade!

—-

Click HERE for edited version, with comments.

The Art of Bisguier Volume Two
One Hundred Selected Games 1961 – 2003
© 2008; 267 pp.; figurine algebraic

The introduction by Berry is atrocious. He is incredibly egotistic and stupid and not qualified to make any comment about master play, much less grandmaster play. He is especially insulting by saying: “Lubosh certainly must have thought …” I hate damn mind-readers. He is a very poor writer: “One possible move” instead of “one legal move”.

There are too many draws, which are dull and uninteresting, as usual.

Why did Bisguier lie? “I won the U.S. Open outright three times (1950, 1956 and 1959).” I said in my review of Vol. One that in 1956 Busguier tied for first with James Sherwin. I sent copies of my review to Bisguier and Berry.

The proof reading is poor and there are many more factual errors, for which the two moronic “Researchers: Allen Becker & David Granik” should be shot.

Art is a poor writer, using insulting childish words: “horse” & “cavalier” instead of knight, “infantryman”, “fortress”, “monarch”, and assorted garbage, “his own king” and the incredibly stupid “three-fold repetition.”

Art makes the asinine mistake of reciting the list of “best players” as compiled by Keene and Divinsky, which is insane crap. He also makes the inane mistake of mentioning analysis by computers, which proves he is lazy and incompetent. “Fritz says Black has the advantage, but I think he’s wrong.” WHO CARES? NO INTELLIGENT PERSON!

“Benko and Robert Byrne tied for first in the 1966 U.S. Open.” With Milan Vukcevich, who beat Bisguier in their game.

“Boris Spassky trained first with Tolush and then Bondarevsky.” WRONG! His first trainer was Vladimir Zak.

“Tony Miles played an entire tournament lying flat on his back.” WRONG! At Tilburg 1985 Miles scored 4-3 while sitting in a chair. Persistent back pain caused him to ask the organizers for help. From round eight on he lay on his stomach while playing and tied for first with 8-1/2 – 5-1/2.

“I collaborated with Soltis on the book American Masters from Morphy to Fischer.” Soltis says Bisguier was so lazy and irresponsible he did not write ONE word of that book, which is an abomination.

1 PK4 PK4; 2 NKB3 NQB3; 3 BN5 NB3; 4 O-O NxP “The Rio de Janeiro Variation.” WRONG! That can come later but Art NEVER played it.

“Two Knights Opening” instead of “Two Knights Defense”.

“David Bronstein’s play is very careful and cautious, hoping that his opponents will become careless or too aggressive.” Bisguier is a damn imbecile. That is exactly the opposite of Bronstein’s style. He was the greatest combinational player of his time with a very risky, daring, creative style.

A serious defect is the lack of lists of Bisguier’s tournament and match results. Volume One ends with Log Cabin 1960. The photo-copy of one of Art’s columns from Chess Review has print so tiny it is worthless.

Why are there so many mistakes in this book? Bisguier is notorious for being indifferent to the truth. Berry is a terrible editor. If ignorance is bliss, he must be ecstatic. The “researchers” are hopelessly ignorant and stupid. Hanon Russell is a selfish ego-mainiac who is ultimately responsible for all errors. He refused to put “Volume Two” as part of the title. That is insulting to Bisguier and to Berry, the publisher of Volume One. Hanon Russell is a jackass.

The quality of play and players is much higher than in Volume One. Art is more creative and his moves are hard to predict and you should NOT try to copy most of his play in openings.

Of great interest is the comments Art makes about the various players.

:”A Los Angeles County doctor, Anthony Saidy is an International Master who won the American Open twice, in 1967 and 1992, a quarter-century apart.” Typically inane writing. TWENTY-FIVE YEARS, which is no where near one hundred years. “Dr. Saidy also authored a couple notable books: The March of Chess Ideas and The World of Chess.” WRONG! The first book is good but The World of Chess is completely worthless garbage. Saidy once won a tournament game from Samuel Reshevsky.

Arthur Bisguier won the 1950 U.S. Open and the 1954 U.S. Championship and became a grandmaster when there were only 40 in the world. He’s an amateur who has been successful in international chess. His style in these games is aggressive and tactical, but with a strong emphasis on positionally safe moves, based upon much experience. An excellent book.

© 2008 James Schroeder

Selected from Confidential Chess Lessons

To get this book, send $30 (post paid) to:

James Schroeder
3011 E. 9th St.
Apt. #15
Vancouver, WA 98661

In addition to sending $2,000 worth of chess sets to prisons in 2007, I sent boxes of books to: Attica, NY; Amarillo, TX; Abilene, TX; Adeelanto, CA; Auburns, NY; Beeville, TX; Creighton, ND; Crescent, CA; Camp Hill, PA; Corcoran, CA; Central, AR; Coleman, FL; Canton, IL; Coxsackie, NY; Dallas, TX; Dannemora, NY; Delaon, CA; Diboll, TX; Ed Doraco, KS; Estelle, SC; Fairton, NC; Florence, AZ; Green Bay, WI; Huntsville, TX; Houtzdale, TX; Ione, CA; Iona Park, TX; Kenedy, TX; Lawton, OK; La Bell, PA; LaMesa, TX; Lovelock, NY; Malvern AR; Munsining, MI; Michigan City, IN; Newport, AR; Mapanoch, NY; Mt. Stearling, IL, Osining, NY; Pine Knot, KY; Pine City, NY; Portsmouth, VA; Perry, FL; Represa, CA; Reidsville, GA; Spruce Pine, NC; Sioux Falls, SD; Selma, CA; Southport, NY; Stormville, NY; Susanville, NY; Stanley, WI; Somerset, PA; Tivion, GA; Tell City, IN; Woodville, TX; Woudbourne, NY; Wallkill, NY; Youngstown, OH; Morgan, GA; Tallahasee, FL; Simponsville, SC; Perry, SC; Balfair, WA; Cedar Creek, WA; Monroe, WA; Walla Walla, WA; Yacolt, WA; Littlerock, WA. I also send books to hundreds of individual inmates. I spent more than $5,000. Still on the list: Helena, GA; Rusk, TX; San Antonio, TX; San Luis, AZ; Lillington, NC; Navasota, TX; Clermont, FL; San Diego, CA; Waynesburg, PA; Morgan, GA; Marienville, PA; Smyrna, DE; Watertown, NY; Waynesburg, PA; Yuma, AZ; Huntington, PA; Boscobil, WI; Midway, TX; Sayre, OK; Centralia, IL. I need a lot of money. Please publicize and make checks payable to:

James Schroeder
3011 E 9th St
#15
Vancouver, WA 98661. More news by category Topic -: Tramadol hydrochloride tablets Safety of phentermine Pyridium Generic viagra cialis Cialis generic india Information about street drugs or xanax bars Snorting phentermine Hydrocodone overdose Lithium Amiodarone Imiquimod Tramadol next day Pfizer viagra sperm Vidarabine Prevacid Viagra cialis levitra comparison Dutasteride Lisinopril Thiotepa Female spray viagra Black market phentermine Betamethasone Cialis forums What does xanax look like Loss phentermine story success weight Viagra alternative uk Mecamylamine Eulexin Viagra xenical Xanax in urine Macrodantin Epivir Ditropan Woman use viagra Cialis erectile dysfunction Xanax withdrawl message boards Atorvastatin Generic ambien Is phentermine addictive Next day delivery on phentermine Ethanol Natural phentermine Avandamet Xanax long term use Information medical phentermine Cialis experience Phentermine no perscription Compare ionamin phentermine Viagra cialis levivia dose comparison Noroxin Effects of viagra on women Viagra shelf life Hydroxyurea Dog xanax Viagra class action Hydrocodone cod only Nicoumalone Phentermine snorting Mirtazapine Quazepam Isradipine Xanax look alike Moxifloxacin Viagra experiences Piroxicam Nicorette Sotalol Cash on delivery shipping of phentermine How do i stop taking phentermine Niacinamide Phentermine weight loss Phentermine

by James Schroeder

My first Brilliancy. Julius Geodman – James Schroeder; Ohio Championship 1949

[Click HERE for game board.]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e3 O-O 5. Qc2? c5 6. dxc5 Nc6 7. Nf3 Bxc5 8. a3 b6 9. Be2 d5 10. O-O dxc4 11. Bxc4 Bb7 12. b4 Bd6 13. Rd1 Qe7 14. Ba2 Ne5 15. Nd4 Ng6 16. Bb2 Bxh2+ 17. Kxh2 Ng4+ 18. Kg1 Qh4 19. e4 Qh2+ 20. Kf1 Nf4 21. Ke1 Nxg2+ 22. Kd2 Qf4+ 23. Kd3 Nxf2+ 24. Ke2 Ng4 25. Qd2 Qf2+ 26. Kd3 Ne5+ 27. Kc2 Ne3+ 28. Kb1 Nxd1 29. Qxd1 Rfd8 — I was disappointed that the Black King got away, but watch what happens. 30. Nce2 Bxe4+ 31. Kc1 Rac8+ 32. Bc3 Rxd4 33. Qxd4 Qxd4 34. Nxd4 Rxc3+ 35. Kb2 Rc8 36. Nb5 Nd3+ 37. Kb3 Bd5+ 38. Ka4 Nb2 checkmate

Al Horowitz published that game in Chess Review and called me Shredder Schroeder, which added a great amount to my results, as my opponents feared me. Actually, I was not a good attacking player, but nobody could miss that one.

Selected from Confidential Chess Lessons — © Copyright 1990 James Schroeder

Click HERE for CCL subscriptions and books for sale from James Schroeder.

Robert Fischer, March 9, 1943, Chicago, Illinois – January 17, 2008, Reykjavik, Iceland. A tormented genius who won the 1957 US Open, Cleveland, Ohio; USA Championships 1957/58, 1958/59, 1959/60, 1960/61, 1962/63, 1963/64, 1965/66, 1966/67. Won the World Championship Match in 1972 from Boris Spassky: W7 L3 D11. FIDE declared Anatoly Karpov world champion after Fischer refused to defend his title in 1975. Fischer defended his title in 1992 by winning a match from Boris Spassky in Yugoslavia: W10 L5 D15. Before the match there were two other “World Championship” Matches scheduled: Karpov – Timman and Kasparov – Short. Kasparov said that the winner of the match with the most prize money should be considered the “real” world champion. Fischer won more money than Kasparov and Karpov combined. That was Fischer’s only serious chess as world champion. Because he had achieved his one goal in life, he could not play any more serious chess because he might lose. It’s amazing that a person who was irrational to the point of being insane could be one of the best players of all time. You must understand that the object of the game is to out-wit your opponent and take advantage of his weaknesses. Fischer’s strategy was to take advantage of each individual opponent’s weaknesses. His opening play was forceful and creative, but he wasn’t trying for a theoretical advantage. Like Emanuel Lasker he was trying to out-wit his opponent and said that accuracy in a winning position was the most important factor in chess. He wasn’t perfect and like Lasker played poorly against the French Defense. After obtaining an advantage in every tournament game against Botvinnik and Spassky he only drew with Botvinnik and drew two and lost three to Spassky. The self-imposed pressure of trying to win caused him to make mistakes. Surprisingly, Fischer also misplayed many endings and lost or drew when he could have won. Let us forgive his bizarre behavior and remember him as a great player who did a great service for professional players by demanding better playing conditions and more prize money. He did not ask more money for himself, but for the winner of the tournaments and matches when he played. When the prize money for the 1972 World Championship Match was doubled from $125,000 to $250,000 that meant that the winner, who received $156,200, could have been Spassky. For the past twenty years World Champions Garry Kasparov (1985-2000) and Vladimir Kramnik (2000-2007) have been incredibly greedy and selfish, demanding huge amounts of money for “appearance fee”. When they get fifty thousand dollars just for playing it means there is a lot less prize money for other players.

Fischer’s behavior when playing chess was impeccable, as was his dress after he became a grandmaster and he would buy tailor-made suits, shirts, shoes, etc. I met Fischer at the 1957 US Open when he was tall, skinny, “gawky” and nervous. I met him again in 1964 and he had a marvelous physique, eating steak, working out at a gym and doing a lot of swimming. He and Mark Spitz, the great Olympic swimmer, were on the Bob Hope TV show together and it was Fischer who looked like Superman! Unfortunately, he didn’t take care of himself and in 1992 looked horrible. In recent years he had a full white beard, neatly trimmed, and looked like Old Man Mose.

Let us remember that Fischer gave free simultaneous exhibitions in prisons and was a gentle, non-violent man, despite his violent outbursts of obscene language. Arnold Denker from The Bobby Fischer I Knew and Other Stories: “In 1969 I asked Bobby to play for the Manhattan Chess Club against arch-rival Marshall Chess Club and in the process inquired about his fee. He never hesitated and said: ‘I wouldn’t charge you anything because you’re a friend.’ Knowing chess professionals all too well, I was stupefied.” Fischer won his game from Anthony Saidy.

Because of severe life-time mental illness it would have been best if Fischer had died after becoming world champion, as he had no other reason to live.

© Copyright 2008 James Schroeder

Reviewed by Dave Davis

This is a collection of 110 problems in geometry, algebra, and combinations based on the moves of the chess pieces. The only chess knowledge required is the rules of the game. The amount of mathematical skill needed is considerable.

The preface states: “Almost none of the problems and puzzles, from the very old ones to the newest ones, involving computer procedures, exceed a high school level of difficulty; advanced mathematics is excluded”.

This is certainly-not true of an American High School education. The author is Yugoslavian and this may be so over there, where a “High” school is equivalent to a Junior College in the United States.

The problems are divided into six chapters, with solutions at the end of each chapter. The first chapter contains almost nothing directly related to chess, but calls on the reader to solve recurrence relations, add probabilities, understand the binomial distribution, supply proof by mathematical induction, and evaluate 8 x 8 determinants.

The subject level is that of a course in Foundations of Mathematics as studied by Math Majors, or Discrete Structures as studied by computer science majors. If these are not your fields, you will get very little from these problems.

The second chapter involves a little more chess. Problem 2.3 requires White, with King and Queen, to checkmate the lone Black King without moving White’s King.

This is a good exercise for novices because it requires visualization of mating patterns and using the Queen alone to drive the Black King to a square where it will be checkmated. However, this is the only problem I could find of any value to a chess player.

Many problems are ill-posed. Problem 2.20 involves an interesting piece dalled a “Destroyer”, but it never tells you that a Destroyer moves like a King. Why not use a King?

Problem 2.14 goes to great length explaining hos a “Beetle” moves, but it actually simply moves like a Bishop.

Chapter tnree gives a wonderful description of the Knight’s Tour problem. (A Knight is moved so that it lands on each of the 64 squares only once.), and it mentions that the famous mathematicien Euler was interested in this problem, but I am disappointed that his solution is not given.

Chapters four, five and six are all geometry and pencil and paper type problems and most of them can be solved by any avid puzzle fan, but the problems in chapter four require that you remember the formulas from geometry and trigonometry.

The solutions rarely give details of what mathematics is needed to reach them, and four problems have computer programs written in four different programming languages. These seem pointless because anyone who understands them will code them in Visual Basic, or C++, or some other currently fashionable platform.

Some of these problems may be interesting for players interested in Fairy chess with unusual pieces, and there is one fine Retrograde chess problem (2.2), but this book was clearly written for the mathematical enthusiast and not for chess players.

~ ~ ~

_ _ _ _ _ k _ _ 8
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 7
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 6
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4
_ _ K _ _ _ _ _ 3
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2
_ Q _ _ _ _ _ _ 1
a b c d e f g h

Problem 2.3.
White checkmates without moving White King.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 9
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 8
_ _ _ _ _ Q _ _ _ 7
_ _ Q _ _ _ _ _ _ 6
_ _ _ _ Q _ _ _ _ 5
_ _ _ _ _ _ Q _ _ 4
_ _ _ Q _ _ _ _ _ 3
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1
a b c d e f g h i

Problem. 2.6.
Five Queens command every square on a 9 x 9 board. Note that four Queens are a Knight’s move from the central Queen: A typical solution for that type of problem.

Copyright 2000 – David Davis – USA

“The Art of Checkmate” by George Renaud. and Victor Kahn, former champions of France, is yet another demonstration of how very suited the French literary tradition is to chess exposition. The close attention to the order and neatness of presentation makes study of most of the French chess writers a pleasure. In this case, a clumsy translation has succeeded in making merely delightful what could have been made super-delightful. It is a magnificent exposition of that vital department of chess skill, the mating combination.

The original was “L’Art de Faire Mat,” of which my copy—I don’t know if a nicer edition was printed— is on poor paper and very unattractive to the eye. Bells have produced an English edition in their usual style—well-nigh impossible to better as far as the appearance goes.

The excellence of the presentation is still there, too—the order, the neatness, and the pleasing system of classification according to names, which makes everything so easily remembered, e.g., Legal’s Pseudo-Sacrifice, Greco’s Mate, Anastasia’s Mate, Boden’s Mate, Blackburne’s Mate, Anderssèn’s Mate, Pillsbury’s Mate, Damiano’s Mate, Morphy’s Mate, the Arabian Mate, and so on. All these mates—the student discovers—are typical mates that occur daily. They are not ephemeral flights of genius recalled only in print, but part of the stock in trade of every expert player; but a book like this that codifies them so elegantly and interestingly gives even an expert a far better grip of them, so that his chances of scoring a vital extra point in a tournament are appreciably increased. Over and over again, the authors quote instances of forced mates missed by masters in the heat of battle. And for the average player, from now on we list this as a MUST book.

I am strongly opposed to the view that skill in chess can be attained only by hard work. I once studied a book on the differential calculus that was written quite flippantly, and yet gave a newcomer to the calculus a much better idea of its mysteries than the ponderous school texts I was supposed to be using. A chess book that is interesting and entertaining and yet has the subject all sewn up—that’s the ideal, and Renaud and Kahn have hit the jackpot.

They could, however, institute a lawsuit against the translator. I really must comment on this aspect in the hope that chess publishers may exercise more care in the selection of people for this work. Previously, I railed at some faults in translations of books by Botvinnik—faults that were obvious without knowing Russian. But the translation of Renaud’s and Kahn’s work reaches what I sincerely hope is an all-time low. I am no French scholar, but any fourth-former could fault this stuff.

In almost every page one finds sentences that are not translations at all, or even paraphrases. They contain as much of the original as the pathetic skull of Yorick contained of the soul of that lively jester, and the bones are padded out not with the thoughts of Renaud and Kahn but, rather, thoughts of the translator’s own which he seems—for no valid reason—to prefer.

For example, after saying that Tartakover’s most famous work is “The Hypermodern Game of Chess” —this already commits one of the worst offences in the criminal code of translation, namely, the rendering of a book-title in a language into which the book has not been translated—the translator was faced with the simple task of giving the authors’ comment on the work—”La vivacite de see notes et commentaires en font une lecture agreable”—sorry we can’t print accents. A fair stab would be, “The liveliness of his notes and comments makes it enjoyable reading”— for “pleasant” in this context is a shade weak, and “delightful” a little strong. The translator says, “His brilliant style adds to the joy of his comments.” The authors did not mention a brilliant style, nor did they say the comments were joyous. Their remark was grammatically loose, but not hysterical.

The authors are made to appear offensive and patronising where they were really their normal urbane selves—yes, urbanity is their hallmark, especially of Georges Renaud, who has written many charming essays on various aspects of the game. The translator makes them say, “The following game was played between two second-rate players who, nevertheless, seem to be pretty well versed in the opening theory (‘the’ should be omitted, of course, a typical bit of slovenliness, this), as the first sixteen moves will show.”

“Second-rate” is always offensive. The authors said, “. . . Amateurs of the second rank—but amateurs of some erudition, for, as we are about to see, White’s first sixteen moves are all ‘book.’” The translator has made no attempt to preserve the little echo between “erudition” and “book.”

Again we are told that Taubenhaus was a “second-rate” master,” which in English is a contradiction in terms, in view of the slight implied in “second-rate.” The authors wrote “maitre de deuxieme plan,” which you can translate as “second-rank master” or, better, to conform to English usage, “minor master.”

The translator also tells us that Fred Lazard “was the most all-round master in France.” A school pupil who perpetrated that would have it read out to the class to draw a laugh. You cannot be more all-round or most all-round. The authors said Lazard was “the most complete of French players,” and incidentally, “in France” does not necessarily mean “French.” The context shows that “most versatile of all French players” would be a fair rendering.

These are only a few samples—no need to pile on the agony.

by Gabriel Velasco; Russell Enterprises; published 2000; 301 pp; limp cover; excellent printing and diagrams.

More than 103 games in figurine algebraic notation but too many are poorly played and/or horrible exhibition games.

Born November 23, 1904 in Merida, Yucatan province, Mexico, his family moved to New Orleans when he was eleven years old and that’s where he read The Principles of Chess by James Mason (a great book that should be re-printed) and The Art of Chess by Mason (a book of combinations).

There is a lot of worthless “analysis” and Velasco is a very poor writer who insults the reader with his “explanations” and advice. Even worse he is an “apologist” who makes inane comments: “Skeptical readers might say ‘True, but Karpov had played many games as good or better.’” So I use, for the first time: COMPARISONS ARE ODIOUS. To make it worse, Velasco is WRONG! Karpov never played a game such as Torre – Banks, Chicago 1926, because White had Queen, Rook and Knight while Black had Queen, Rook and Bishop. Velasco is a self-appointed critic who is so dense he can’t see that Karpov almost never combined with Knights.

Velasco makes it interesting by adding historical comments: “Boris Verlinsky (1888 – 1950) Victories in the 1928 Moscow and 1929 Soviet Championship made him the first to receive the title: Grandmaster of Chess of the USSR. He was later stripped of it so that Botvinnik would officially be the ‘first’. Soltis only says: ‘The title was temporarily abolished 1931 – 1935.’ Nearly deaf, Verlinsky understood speech by lip-reading, but attended the symphony and played the violin.“

“Yakov Rokhlin (1905 – 1996) In illogical but true Marxist style wrote: ‘Chess is a true weapon and living piece of propaganda against religious delusions.’” That is WRONG. Religion teaches people to act without thinking, but chess teaches them to think before acting. You can quote me!

Torre had great aptitude and quickly improved by playing at the Manhattan and Marshall Chess Clubs in New York City. His style is universal and he tried everything and anything but is famous for his “Torre Attack” — 1 PQ4 NKB3; 2 NKB3 PK3; 3 BN5, and he continued with PK3, PQB3, etc.

Concerning the game Torre – Lasker, Moscow 1925, Velasco makes the mistake of repeating the idiotic excuse of Hannak: “Lasker received a telegram with good news.” Another game that Lasker lost Hannak said: “Lasker received a telegram with bad news.” When Lasker received a telegram with no good or bad news he offered a draw! That’sa joke!

Torre’s weakness was that he was a coward who feared losing, so he offered draws when he had an advantage. Some persons offer the excuse that he was an “artist” who played for beauty instead of points, but that doesn’t make any sense. Bronstein, Santasiere and others who were artists did NOT offer draws but continued playing, for art’s sake, and didn’t fear losing.

Torre offered the feeble excuse that he offered draws when he was winning because he was “inexperienced”. However, he did suffer from chronic illness and probably felt very tired after a few hours of play.

Torre played in four international tournaments: W25 L11 D31, winning from Grunfeld, Yates, Reti, Opocensky, Lasker, Marshall and Maroczy, among others, but it is ridiculous to speak of him as a “future world champion”. “He who does not take risks does not drink champagne.”

book review by James Schroeder

What a delight! 220 PACKED pages. Includes 18 page chapter written 2001. Superb format: long-algebraic, bold type for game moves; short-algebraic, light type for analysis. Perfect diagrams.

There are three types of gambits by Black: those which are theoretically sound, those which are risky but worth trying, and those which are inspirations over the board. The fourth type are garbage, such as the Greco Gambit: 1 PK4 PK4; 2 NKB3 PKB4?? Harding doesn’t make the mistake of trying to prove that all gambits are good, or safe. He gives his truthful opinions and gives many games where Black loses. Not all of his analysis is correct, but that’s not important. You must always do your own analysis.

There are 75 complete games in long algebraic and many more complete games in analysis.

1 e4 e5; 2 Nf3 d6; 3 d4 Bg4; 4 PxP Nd7. Harding says that was played in Pollock – Blackburne, Hastings 1895, but does NOT say it was played in van Vliet – Lasker, Amsterdam 1889.

1 e4 e5; 2 Nf3 Nc6; 3 Nc3 Nf6; 4 BB5 Nd4. Harding says this is the “Rubinstein Variation”, and then says it was “the idea of Frank Marshall, who played it against Tarrasch at Monte Carlo 1903.” UNFORGIVABLE MISTAKE! It was played by James Mason at Nuremberg 1883.

Enthusiastically recommended! Please buy this book from me. MINIMUM ORDER $20.00. See Dover list with reviews HERE.