A Diabolical KID

Main

Date: 28 Mar 2008 09:34:02
From: Chess One
Subject: A Diabolical KID

I like to trace origins in the development of openings in my column, and
started this one last week - noting the emergence of the opening, until Euwe
squashed it flat in the 1930s - then Bondarevsky picked it up again after
WWII.

What to Play? When the KID was really young. Continued from last week. Moves
and commentary draw on The King Hunt in Chess, W. H. Cozens. 1970.

White: A. Alekhine, Black: F. D.Yates

1.d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 0-0 5. Nc3 d6 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. d5 Nb8 8. e4
bNd7 9. 0-0 a5 10. Be3 Ng4

11. Bd4 gNe4 12. Nxe5 Nxe5 13. c5 [diag]

That's where we left the soon to become World Champion in 1923, after 13.
c5, and the result did the KID all sorts of good.

13. .dc

14. Bxc5 b6

15. Bd4 Ba6

16. Re1 [diag]

[threatening f4 then an exchange of dark square bishops leaving Alekhine to
prosecute his favorite attack against a weakened King position.

16. . Qd6! [this sets up a truly diabolical trap if white proceeds 17. f4.
Do you see it? Alekine did, and proceeded otherwise. So what was he afraid
of. continued below]

---------

Anyway -- can this forum's readers see the trap after 17. f4?

I'll post more moves in the game, and also the trap-line, when people have
had a chance to look at the tabia, above.

Phil Innes

Date: 01 Apr 2008 21:21:45
From: help bot
Subject: Re: A Diabolical KID

On Apr 1, 10:30 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> > That theory smacks of whiny excuse-making.
> > "I didn't win the title because I lacked technique,
> > though I was far more creative than the guy who
> > beat me." Sheesh. Why not settle for "I was
> > better looking" or "I am a much nicer guy"?
>
> Because you are a cynical cudda bin

Ad hom? The best you've got is ad hom?
(Sheesh-- how embarrassing for you.)

> who regularly contradicts very strong
> players' opinions

Look dufus: I've got Fritz, so I can contradict
*any* human, no matter how strong they may
/think/ they are!

-----------------------------------------------------------------
This far, I have seen but one position where
humans are vastly superior to computers:

White: Kd3, pe3
Black: Kd5, pe5, pf5

A 12 year old kid can see that it is a draw,
while 3000-rated programs calculate a 40-ply
crushing advantage for Black.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

> - reflexively and without thinking - its an emotional
> response not a considered one, in this case you merely contradict 2 W Ch
> candidates of the time.

Candidates, eh? Not good enough to win
the title, eh? Too good-rooking, perhaps?
Too creative, or too st or too...something.

By your ignoramus-methodology, we ought
to care more about what two *actual* world
champs think, since those two are weaker;
why waste time on what weaker players may
think? Go straight to the top-- ask GK or BF
or MB or MT about "creativity".

> Below, our resident reactor who can't even attest to his own name

More ad hom; have you considered seeing
a doctor about this problem?

> continues
> to rubbish even the idea that some generations were greater than others.

Precisely. I "rubbish" the idea because it
smacks of whiny excuse-making; it is a way
of excusing "failure", while maintaining the
delusion of superiority. Even finishing at #2
in the whole world somehow evokes a need
for lame excuses!

One thing I have noticed is that the very
word "creative" seems to pop up most often
when a writer is trying to prop up some
random player who has just failed. Is this a
mere coinkydink? I don't think so. Let's
first /define/ precisely what constitutes this
"creativity", and then *objectively* apply the
criteria to all players, regardless of their
failures or successes; that's the way, uh huh,
uh huh, I like it, uh huh, uh huh.

-- help bot

Date: 31 Mar 2008 20:06:02
From: help bot
Subject: Re: A Diabolical KID

On 31, 9:02 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> > I think Mr. IMnes missed my point: few readers
> > are going to set up a board next to their computers
> > to look at a half-game manually, which is why I
> > joked about including /a diagram/.

> I DID say it was in my column - with 3 or 4 diagrams at key moments...

But you did *not* include a link. A common
error, to be sure, but an error nonetheless.

> > IMO, Dr. Alekhine messed up by taking on
> > f1 with the Rook, so the real question should
> > be: "what the heck are you talking about?"
>
> Two corrections. Alekhine did not adopt his legal doctorate title until
> after he achieved it

Ah, so you are claiming that he did not yet
have a doctorate at the time this game was
played. From what I've read, the title is
disputed altogether, and my use of such
terms is merely a tool to poke and jab
lightly at those who would don false titles;
know around anybody here like that?

> and the second is chessic - so that if you propose an
> 18th move, do you declare that black is not better, and white is ok?

No, all I'm saying is that capturing the
wrong way makes the further course of
the game irrelevant insofar as "revealing"
hidden secrets about the move ...Qd6.

To me, the secrets of ...Qd6 can be
seen mainly in the course of correct
defense and correct attack.

> > Hey, I seem to have missed something;
> > where did you here trace the evolution of
> > the KID? As far as I can see, you did not
> > even give a single precursor or "stem game"
> > to this one, although you did mention
> > something about this one giving a boost to
> > the *popularity* of the KID.
>
> And every stem game has an even earlier one? So where to start?

Julie Andrews covered that in the movie,
the Sound of Music. One starts at the
very beginning -- a very good place to
start. (Lets move on before one of us
breaks into song... .)

> My point was
> that to score with black against the guy who would be W CH next year was to
> establish the variation at the top level, then to trace its fortunes.

Cool. I see a lot of flashback-style stuff
these days in the movies, but I still prefer
the cold logic of chronological-order, as
it avoids so many unnecessary issues.

> > Generally speaking, you need to tell us
> > the origins of the opening, or perhaps the
> > fianchetto idea itself, before laying such
> > claims.
>
> You personally? Who is "us"?

All of us here; we are many, while you (the
writer) are but one. We are those who read
your drivel, and although you don't deserve
it, we number in the hundreds!

> For sure you can regress 50 years and establish examples of hyper-modernism
> then, except lots of the games were daft, and black's prospects from his
> position not well worked out.

The plot thickens. It just seems a bit lame
to jump in at the 1920s, without a word said
regarding how Mr. Yates came to play this
line in the first place. As you said, it's a
flashback-style piece, so we cannot judge
until the fat lady sings.

> As it is, if you can't be bothered to shift the pieces around for 18 moves,
> then you will learn nothing if others do your thinking for you.

The chess board I use is on my computer;
hence, it makes sense to either have a link
to a graphic chessboard, or else to give us
a game score to import for viewing. Few
people will have a chess board set up next
to their computers, hoping for some half-
game from a lame-brain.

As for learning nothing from letting others
do one's thinking for you-- you seem to be
the world champion, so I will simply note
the fact and let you ponder why you feel
the need to project... .

-- help bot

Date: 31 Mar 2008 19:40:59
From: help bot
Subject: Re: A Diabolical KID

On 31, 8:05 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> This stimulus to investigate in the 60's and 70s, brought about perhaps not
> as high scoring Elo's as today, but necessarily greater creative play than
> current era players achieve.

That theory smacks of whiny excuse-making.
"I didn't win the title because I lacked technique,
though I was far more creative than the guy who
beat me." Sheesh. Why not settle for "I was
better looking" or "I am a much nicer guy"?

The reality is that there is no such correlation
between lower Elo ratings and creativity. As
we saw from earlier eras, sometimes the so-
called creative players lose due to blunders,
but sometimes the fact is that their superiors
are simply more creative than they are, if not
quite as eccentric. Idunno, but to me, one of
the most "creative" players of all time was
Paul Morphy-- the man who created wins, as
Black, out of moves like p-h3!

BTW, when I was playing a lot more than I do
today, the definitive source on opening ideas
was considered to be the German bis series,
not Russian stuff; that is to say, considered by
the top western writers. Yet when I came into
possession of some low-priced /Informants/
copycat publications out of Yugoslavia, I noted
that the games contained superior ideas to
those I was accustomed to seeing by western
authors. The Russian satellite area: Hungary,
Yugoslavia and others, was perhaps exposed
to ideas from both sides -- east and west -- to
some degree. Or maybe they were just
stronger, so their ideas simply made a better
impression.

All this nonsense about the greatest generation
and "my gen. is more creative than yours" is a
bunch of hooey, technically speaking. Every gen.
does the same thing, makes the same whiny
complaints, and it is only a matter of time before
even my generation starts doing it-- the fools.

-- help bot

Date: 01 Apr 2008 10:30:35
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: A Diabolical KID

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:cc3b4fa3-552b-46c5-a5f1-231a26da606a@d62g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 31, 8:05 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> This stimulus to investigate in the 60's and 70s, brought about perhaps
>> not
>> as high scoring Elo's as today, but necessarily greater creative play
>> than
>> current era players achieve.
>
>
> That theory smacks of whiny excuse-making.
> "I didn't win the title because I lacked technique,
> though I was far more creative than the guy who
> beat me." Sheesh. Why not settle for "I was
> better looking" or "I am a much nicer guy"?

Because you are a cynical cudda bin who regularly contradicts very strong
players' opinions - reflexively and without thinking - its an emotional
response not a considered one, in this case you merely contradict 2 W Ch
candidates of the time.

Below, our resident reactor who can't even attest to his own name, continues
to rubbish even the idea that some generations were greater than others.

He should call his local school and ask them about current literacy rates or
numeracy rates.

Or his art school and ask them after great american painters on the level of
the impressionsists.

Then call his hospital and ask about gonnorhea rates among 12 years olds.

Then maybe call his Congressman and ask if he thought he and his colleagues
were built on the same scale as the Framers?

And finally of all, if the subject is chess, call some real chess players
who can actually bother to set up a game and play 18 moves of it, instead of
writing 10x as much non-chess material in a thread as the original post, and
of such evident numbness, insincerity and plain laziness.

Phil Innes

> The reality is that there is no such correlation
> between lower Elo ratings and creativity. As
> we saw from earlier eras, sometimes the so-
> called creative players lose due to blunders,
> but sometimes the fact is that their superiors
> are simply more creative than they are, if not
> quite as eccentric. Idunno, but to me, one of
> the most "creative" players of all time was
> Paul Morphy-- the man who created wins, as
> Black, out of moves like p-h3!
>
> BTW, when I was playing a lot more than I do
> today, the definitive source on opening ideas
> was considered to be the German bis series,
> not Russian stuff; that is to say, considered by
> the top western writers. Yet when I came into
> possession of some low-priced /Informants/
> copycat publications out of Yugoslavia, I noted
> that the games contained superior ideas to
> those I was accustomed to seeing by western
> authors. The Russian satellite area: Hungary,
> Yugoslavia and others, was perhaps exposed
> to ideas from both sides -- east and west -- to
> some degree. Or maybe they were just
> stronger, so their ideas simply made a better
> impression.
>
> All this nonsense about the greatest generation
> and "my gen. is more creative than yours" is a
> bunch of hooey, technically speaking. Every gen.
> does the same thing, makes the same whiny
> complaints, and it is only a matter of time before
> even my generation starts doing it-- the fools.
>
>
> -- help bot
>
>

Date: 31 Mar 2008 06:22:08
From:
Subject: Re: A Diabolical KID

On 31, 8:05=A0am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:0c497fb6-6046-4095-935d-fc1b55578a74@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 29, 4:20 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:0327eb27-b62b-40ba-939e-978f1db14702@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...=

>
> > Phil, you wrote "from black's point of view you see, Max Euwe had
> > almost killed the KID." Not sure I understand what you mean.
>
> > **Black found it generally untenable to play the KID, since Euwe beat it=

> > up
> > so much with White.
>
> > Could you
> > amplify on that? As I recall, Euwe in his prime tended toward the Slav
> > as his main defense to 1.d4; I'm not aware that he had much impact on
> > KID theory.
>
> > **Cozens thought he did. Certainly it was way out of fashion in GM chess=

> > in
> > the late 30s in Europe.
>
> =A0 I found the statement you refer to. "It was Euwe who drove it [the
> KID] out of fashion in the 1930s, and probably Bronstein and
> Boleslavsky, in the late forties and early fifties, who did most to
> bring about the renaissance which still persists today." -- The King
> Hunt in Chess, page 51
>
> =A0 Checking my database, Euwe certainly does seem to have done well as
> White against the KID. In 16 games played 1920-1940 that began 1.d4
> Nf6 2.c4 g6, he scored +12 -3 =3D3 (though some of these are Gr=FCnfelds),=

> beating among others Alekine, Botvinnik, Mikenas, and yes, Yates.
>
> --
>
> Its also notable, therefore, that Russian efforts to revitalize the KID di=
d
> not show up in Europe in the years immediately before the war. Euwe was in=

> Russia in 1934 before any new KID material appeared - but even after the w=
ar
> the work by Korn, Griffiths and Sergeant, appearing in 1946 had no glimmer=

> of any analysis by Rauzer or Boleslavsky.

Quite right, Phil. The 1946 MCO does not even give the King's Indian
its own section, it's just one of many "queen's pawn games." Page 202
says of the KID that it has "practically disappeared from master
play ... The best line for White is the fianchetto of his King's
Bishop, coupled with an early P-K4. This leaves him in full command of
the centre, and Black's game in this variation is almost lost after
the opening."

> Similarly, Soviet theoreticians on
> the French Defence are entirely absent, and these would be from Botvinnik,=

> Konstantinopolsky, Belavenets, Rauzer and Kan.
>
> Similarly the Queen's Gambit and Indian defences lacks mention of Levenfis=
h,
> Bondarevsky, Ragozin, Makogonov &c.

Yes, any glimmer of that had to wait for the Soviets' "coming out
party" in 1946, and even then little of it got to the West.

> Now - the thing of it is, although these became a plaint by the Russians o=
n
> the worth of Western chess literature [and the poverty of its researches] =
it
> was nevertheless not a naive elimination - it was a deliberated one on the=

> part of the Soviets not to share information.
>
> This situation continued until approximately 1961, and even then Soviet
> publications on chess were hardly candid - suggesting some dead-end lines,=

> while ignoring ones with more prospect.

The old "salting the mine" trick. Even Kasparov has used it.

> If anyone really wants to comprehend the real stature of the chess-art or
> Robert Fischer - then they must appreciate this fact, that to very large
> degree Western chess literature was hardly sustainable at the GM level.
> Perforce, when more Soviets began to play in the West the cat was out of t=
he
> bag, and Western players were stimulated to look much deeper, indeed, to
> look directly at the Russian literature on chess. Not even the main ones,
> but those obscure little technical bulletins, signaling for internal use,
> that there was something worth exploring.
>
> This stimulus to investigate in the 60's and 70s, brought about perhaps no=
t
> as high scoring Elo's as today, but necessarily greater creative play than=

> current era players achieve.
>
> Cordially, Phil Innes

Date: 30 Mar 2008 22:53:49
From: help bot
Subject: Re: A Diabolical KID

On 29, 3:58 pm, [email protected] wrote:

> Phil, you wrote "from black's point of view you see, Max Euwe had
> almost killed the KID." Not sure I understand what you mean. Could you
> amplify on that? As I recall, Euwe in his prime tended toward the Slav
> as his main defense to 1.d4; I'm not aware that he had much impact on
> KID theory.

Here is how the standard translation reads,
as taken from gww.jibberishinterpreters.org:

"Max Euwe stomped all over the King's Indian
Defense, when playing the White pieces."

These guys(?) claim to be able to accurately
interpret the jibberings of even the lowliest human,
but then, what do they really know if they haven't
been to rgc?

-- help bot

Date: 30 Mar 2008 22:45:06
From: help bot
Subject: Re: A Diabolical KID

On 29, 12:29 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. Nc3 d6 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. d5 Nb8
> 8. O-O Nbd7 9. e4 a5 10. Be3 Ng4 11. Bd4 Nge5 12. Nxe5 Nxe5 13. c5
> dxc5 14. Bxc5 b6 15. Bd4 Ba6 16. Re1 Qd6 17. Bf1 Bxf1 18. Rxf1 18...
>
> well, thank you,
>
> but the point was for chess players to /look/ at the game position for
> themselves

I think Mr. IMnes missed my point: few readers
are going to set up a board next to their computers
to look at a half-game manually, which is why I
joked about including /a diagram/.

Personally, if I see a link I may click it and then
play over the moves up to point X, then stop to
have a think. Note that no chess engine is even
involved at this point.

> and see if they could find a couple of traps

The only traps I see are those which might net
White's b-pawn. The nonsense with smothered
mate is just too obvious to even consider, unless
this game involved, say, Rob Mitchell or the
GetClub program.

> not librarians

An obvious shot at Nick Bourbaki; get past
it, already!... life goes on... you can't dwell on
past injuries forever (or can you?).

> to anticipate the issue by posting the entire game-score without any sense of
> what is happening in it, which progresses no understanding at all

This is not a valid point here, since Dr.
Alekhine did not play well enough for us
to imagine the further course of the game
"revealed" anything hidden.

> i [laugh] cite this instance as yet another 'don't read books'
> illustration - since of course if someone tells you something then you never
> need work it out for yourself, and therefore, you do not improve

Nonsense. I had a look at ...Ng4, to deflect
White's Queen, and in just two minutes I found
the riposte: Bxg7!, winning. I'd say that is an
improvement, since I often lose to such moves
OTB. ; >D

> its tough to actually talk chess to its players in these newsgroups, and
> there are several 'shocks' to this position occuring earlier in the game
> which alekhine saw and avoided

Remember, we understand your difficulties
with communications. It's not everyone who
can type with a pen held between the teeth,
AND spell hard words, while sipping beer
through a straw at the same time.

> the first shock comes after 16. ... Qd6, if White proceeds, 17. f4

The obvious move is ...Nd3, but where is
this supposed "shock"?

Here is what I found a bit shocking: my
computer thinks Black is fine after all this
skipping around with the same Knight, to
and fro; normally, it considers a space
advantage to be of considerable value, but
not here.

> and the second ansd easier to spot shocker after 18. ... c5 - the question
> being, 'can white capture e.p.?'

IMO, Dr. Alekhine messed up by taking on
f1 with the Rook, so the real question should
be: "what the heck are you talking about?"

After such an error, the capture may be bad
but this involves accepting White's prior move
as a given, which is rather silly.

> the point of looking at the /evolution/ of an opening is to assess what
> those very early oppotunities did to encourage the understanding of serious
> players to deploy it

Hey, I seem to have missed something;
where did you here trace the evolution of
the KID? As far as I can see, you did not
even give a single precursor or "stem game"
to this one, although you did mention
something about this one giving a boost to
the *popularity* of the KID.

Generally speaking, you need to tell us
the origins of the opening, or perhaps the
fianchetto idea itself, before laying such
claims. Even a link to an article some-
where else could suffice (but bluster falls
a tad short).

-- help bot

Date: 31 Mar 2008 09:02:04
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: A Diabolical KID

"help bot" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:0a094393-8ec3-4083-a819-64948cbc663f@m71g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On 29, 12:29 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. Nc3 d6 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. d5 Nb8
>> 8. O-O Nbd7 9. e4 a5 10. Be3 Ng4 11. Bd4 Nge5 12. Nxe5 Nxe5 13. c5
>> dxc5 14. Bxc5 b6 15. Bd4 Ba6 16. Re1 Qd6 17. Bf1 Bxf1 18. Rxf1 18...
>>
>> well, thank you,
>>
>> but the point was for chess players to /look/ at the game position for
>> themselves
>
> I think Mr. IMnes missed my point: few readers
> are going to set up a board next to their computers
> to look at a half-game manually, which is why I
> joked about including /a diagram/.

This is a text medium - and I think for some, 'jokes' are anything requiring
work and actual chess insight.

> Personally, if I see a link I may click it and then
> play over the moves up to point X, then stop to
> have a think. Note that no chess engine is even
> involved at this point.

I DID say it was in my column - with 3 or 4 diagrams at key moments...
>
>> and see if they could find a couple of traps
>
> The only traps I see are those which might net
> White's b-pawn. The nonsense with smothered
> mate is just too obvious to even consider, unless
> this game involved, say, Rob Mitchell or the
> GetClub program.

Yet at least one of those players tries to work things out for themselves
;)
Not make after-the-fact predictions.

>> not librarians
>
> An obvious shot at Nick Bourbaki; get past
> it, already!... life goes on... you can't dwell on
> past injuries forever (or can you?).
>
>
>> to anticipate the issue by posting the entire game-score without any
>> sense of
>> what is happening in it, which progresses no understanding at all
>
>
> This is not a valid point here, since Dr.
> Alekhine did not play well enough for us
> to imagine the further course of the game
> "revealed" anything hidden.

The very point is that most people will not even appreciate any of the traps
that Alekhine avoided - never mind make facetious commentary on how well he
played.

>> i [laugh] cite this instance as yet another 'don't read books'
>> illustration - since of course if someone tells you something then you
>> never
>> need work it out for yourself, and therefore, you do not improve
>
>
> Nonsense. I had a look at ...Ng4, to deflect
> White's Queen, and in just two minutes I found
> the riposte: Bxg7!, winning. I'd say that is an
> improvement, since I often lose to such moves
> OTB. ;>D

A great move, no doubt, but when did it occur?

>> its tough to actually talk chess to its players in these newsgroups, and
>> there are several 'shocks' to this position occuring earlier in the game
>> which alekhine saw and avoided
>
>
> Remember, we understand your difficulties

If you cannot do better than trash all real chess threads, then perhaps you
should only instruct Sanny? And since that is computer chess, why not
transport yourselves over there. You will be able to get away with any
advice - since they don't know much chess. To stay here and be credible
about chess, means to at least attempt the subject matter.

> with communications. It's not everyone who
> can type with a pen held between the teeth,
> AND spell hard words, while sipping beer
> through a straw at the same time.
>
>
>> the first shock comes after 16. ... Qd6, if White proceeds, 17. f4
>
>
> The obvious move is ...Nd3, but where is
> this supposed "shock"?

I rather doubt the mate is so obvious to anyone, even after cueing people
that something is afoot!

> Here is what I found a bit shocking: my
> computer thinks Black is fine after all this
> skipping around with the same Knight, to
> and fro; normally, it considers a space
> advantage to be of considerable value, but
> not here.
>
>
>> and the second ansd easier to spot shocker after 18. ... c5 - the
>> question
>> being, 'can white capture e.p.?'
>
>
> IMO, Dr. Alekhine messed up by taking on
> f1 with the Rook, so the real question should
> be: "what the heck are you talking about?"

Two corrections. Alekhine did not adopt his legal doctorate title until
after he achieved it, and the second is chessic - so that if you propose an
18th move, do you declare that black is not better, and white is ok? Spell
it out for yourself first, then tell us.

> After such an error, the capture may be bad
> but this involves accepting White's prior move
> as a given, which is rather silly.
>
>
>> the point of looking at the /evolution/ of an opening is to assess what
>> those very early oppotunities did to encourage the understanding of
>> serious
>> players to deploy it
>
>
> Hey, I seem to have missed something;
> where did you here trace the evolution of
> the KID? As far as I can see, you did not
> even give a single precursor or "stem game"
> to this one, although you did mention
> something about this one giving a boost to
> the *popularity* of the KID.

And every stem game has an even earlier one? So where to start? My point was
that to score with black against the guy who would be W CH next year was to
establish the variation at the top level, then to trace its fortunes.

> Generally speaking, you need to tell us
> the origins of the opening, or perhaps the
> fianchetto idea itself, before laying such
> claims.

You personally? Who is "us"?

For sure you can regress 50 years and establish examples of hyper-modernism
then, except lots of the games were daft, and black's prospects from his
position not well worked out.

> Even a link to an article some-
> where else could suffice (but bluster falls
> a tad short).

If /you/ want to know something you can't do for yourself, being indigent,
then you could ask for what /you/ want, and not confuse that with other
things.

As it is, if you can't be bothered to shift the pieces around for 18 moves,
then you will learn nothing if others do your thinking for you.

Phil Innes

>
> -- help bot
>
>

Date: 30 Mar 2008 22:12:36
From: help bot
Subject: Re: A Diabolical KID

On 29, 11:39 am, [email protected] wrote:

> > > White: A. Alekhine, Black: F. D.Yates
>
> > Okay, I found the game (I think) and was
> > very surprised to learn that Mr. Yates had
> > twice beaten young Alekhine as Black in
> > these games.
>
> Yates, born in 1884, was about 8 years older than Alekhine. At the
> time of game Innes gives, from Carlsbad 1923, Yates was about 39,
> Alekhine about 31.
> Yates was Britain's best player for nearly 20 years, from around
> 1913 until his premature death in 1932. He won the BCF title six times
> in all 1913-1931. He was not of topmost international rank, but he had
> a knack for beating the very best, winning against such greats as
> Alekhine (twice), Rubinstein (3 times), Bogolyubov (also 3 times),
> Tarrasch, oczy, and Nimzovitch.
> The 1923 Alekhine KID is probably the most anthologized of Yates'
> games.

The commentary at www.chessgames.com
suggested that the two wins were actually
the same game, entered twice, with different
headers and some changes in the order of
moves and the point of resignation.

But one entry had Larry Parr jumping in to
say that Bobby Fischer's dismissal of the very
existence of such games was erroneous; that
they really happened, etc.

Still, there is the matter of which moves
were actually played, and in what exact order.
For instance, I found the idea of ...a5, played
*before* Black played ...N/b-d7, to be rather
lame. Black also tossed out an early ...b6 --
thereby fixing all his Queen-side pawns and
annihilating what is often called their "dynamic
potential" (or simply, flexibility), much like the
way I usually play, out of long-standing habit.
That, in conjunction with the ...Nc6-b8 thing
left my jaw gaping.

I do know this much: every time I looked up
one of the lesser-known players that GM
Alekhine defeated in this book, My Best
Games of Chess, I was surprised to find that
they were better than I had thought, and also
that AA had beaten them at their respective
peaks! This is the opposite of what I had
grown accustomed to.

-- help bot

Date: 29 Mar 2008 14:05:34
From:
Subject: Re: A Diabolical KID

On 29, 4:20=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:0327eb27-b62b-40ba-939e-978f1db14702@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> =A0 Phil, you wrote "from black's point of view you see, Max Euwe had
> almost killed the KID." Not sure I understand what you mean.
>
> **Black found it generally untenable to play the KID, since Euwe beat it u=
p
> so much with White.
>
> =A0Could you
> amplify on that? As I recall, Euwe in his prime tended toward the Slav
> as his main defense to 1.d4; I'm not aware that he had much impact on
> KID theory.
>
> **Cozens thought he did. Certainly it was way out of fashion in GM chess i=
n
> the late 30s in Europe.

I found the statement you refer to. "It was Euwe who drove it [the
KID] out of fashion in the 1930s, and probably Bronstein and
Boleslavsky, in the late forties and early fifties, who did most to
bring about the renaissance which still persists today." -- The King
Hunt in Chess, page 51

Checking my database, Euwe certainly does seem to have done well as
White against the KID. In 16 games played 1920-1940 that began 1.d4
Nf6 2.c4 g6, he scored +12 -3 =3D3 (though some of these are Gr=FCnfelds),
beating among others Alekine, Botvinnik, Mikenas, and yes, Yates.

Date: 31 Mar 2008 08:05:23
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: A Diabolical KID

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:0c497fb6-6046-4095-935d-fc1b55578a74@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On 29, 4:20 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:0327eb27-b62b-40ba-939e-978f1db14702@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Phil, you wrote "from black's point of view you see, Max Euwe had
> almost killed the KID." Not sure I understand what you mean.
>
> **Black found it generally untenable to play the KID, since Euwe beat it
> up
> so much with White.
>
> Could you
> amplify on that? As I recall, Euwe in his prime tended toward the Slav
> as his main defense to 1.d4; I'm not aware that he had much impact on
> KID theory.
>
> **Cozens thought he did. Certainly it was way out of fashion in GM chess
> in
> the late 30s in Europe.

I found the statement you refer to. "It was Euwe who drove it [the
KID] out of fashion in the 1930s, and probably Bronstein and
Boleslavsky, in the late forties and early fifties, who did most to
bring about the renaissance which still persists today." -- The King
Hunt in Chess, page 51

Checking my database, Euwe certainly does seem to have done well as
White against the KID. In 16 games played 1920-1940 that began 1.d4
Nf6 2.c4 g6, he scored +12 -3 =3 (though some of these are Gr�nfelds),
beating among others Alekine, Botvinnik, Mikenas, and yes, Yates.

--

Its also notable, therefore, that Russian efforts to revitalize the KID did
not show up in Europe in the years immediately before the war. Euwe was in
Russia in 1934 before any new KID material appeared - but even after the war
the work by Korn, Griffiths and Sergeant, appearing in 1946 had no glimmer
of any analysis by Rauzer or Boleslavsky. Similarly, Soviet theoreticians on
the French Defence are entirely absent, and these would be from Botvinnik,
Konstantinopolsky, Belavenets, Rauzer and Kan.

Similarly the Queen's Gambit and Indian defences lacks mention of Levenfish,
Bondarevsky, Ragozin, Makogonov &c.

Now - the thing of it is, although these became a plaint by the Russians on
the worth of Western chess literature [and the poverty of its researches] it
was nevertheless not a naive elimination - it was a deliberated one on the
part of the Soviets not to share information.

This situation continued until approximately 1961, and even then Soviet
publications on chess were hardly candid - suggesting some dead-end lines,
while ignoring ones with more prospect.

If anyone really wants to comprehend the real stature of the chess-art or
Robert Fischer - then they must appreciate this fact, that to very large
degree Western chess literature was hardly sustainable at the GM level.
Perforce, when more Soviets began to play in the West the cat was out of the
bag, and Western players were stimulated to look much deeper, indeed, to
look directly at the Russian literature on chess. Not even the main ones,
but those obscure little technical bulletins, signaling for internal use,
that there was something worth exploring.

This stimulus to investigate in the 60's and 70s, brought about perhaps not
as high scoring Elo's as today, but necessarily greater creative play than
current era players achieve.

Cordially, Phil Innes

Date: 29 Mar 2008 12:58:59
From:
Subject: Re: A Diabolical KID

Phil, you wrote "from black's point of view you see, Max Euwe had
almost killed the KID." Not sure I understand what you mean. Could you
amplify on that? As I recall, Euwe in his prime tended toward the Slav
as his main defense to 1.d4; I'm not aware that he had much impact on
KID theory.

On 29, 3:53=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On 29, 12:29 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:5b55f28b-8b71-4f2d-b1d8-a312bd9e7bf3@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...=

> > On 29, 5:41 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > If I analyze this entire game, I will be
> > > shocked if there was no escaping the
> > > loss for White near the end. After all, he
> > > had moves which threatened mate-in-one
> > > while still watching the e5 square and
> > > leaving the White Queen protected from
> > > loss to any fork.
>
> > Prepare to be shocked then, Greg. Starting with 33...Rxg4! White is
> > objectively lost, and Yates' play is very close to perfection.
>
> > > But there is no point if
> > > the actual, correct moves are unknown.
>
> > [Event "Karlsbad"]
> > [Site "Karlsbad"]
> > [Date "1923.??.??"]
> > [Round "?"]
> > [White "Alekhine, Alexander"]
> > [Black "Yates, Frederick"]
> > [Result "0-1"]
> > [ECO "E62"]
> > [Annotator "ChessBase"]
> > [PlyCount "100"]
> > [EventDate "1923.04.??"]
> > [EventType "tourn"]
> > [EventRounds "17"]
> > [EventCountry "CSR"]
> > [Source "ChessBase"]
>
> > 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. Nc3 d6 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. d5 Nb8
> > 8. O-O Nbd7 9. e4 a5 10. Be3 Ng4 11. Bd4 Nge5 12. Nxe5 Nxe5 13. c5
> > dxc5 14. Bxc5 b6 15. Bd4 Ba6 16. Re1 Qd6 17. Bf1 Bxf1 18. Rxf1 18...
>
> > well, thank you,
>
> > but the point was for chess players to /look/ at the game position for
> > themselves, and see if they could find a couple of traps, not librarians=

> > to
> > anticipate the issue by posting the entire game-score without any sense =
of
> > what is happening in it, which progresses no understanding at all
>
> =A0 Ah, sorry, Phil. I posted the game in response to help-bot's saying
> "But there is no point if
> the actual, correct moves are unknown."
>
> **ah! but did you think /he/ would bother to set up the position and
> actually /look/ at it, despite writing 3 times already? :)) =A0 It is very=

> easy to comment on strong players from the stronghold of complete ignoranc=
e,
> even if cued to a forced mating sequence at such and such a move. Admitted=
ly
> the first mate sequence was 6 or 7 moves, but the second was easier.
>
> > i [laugh] cite this instance as yet another 'don't read books'
> > illustration - since of course if someone tells you something then you
> > never
> > need work it out for yourself, and therefore, you do not improve
>
> =A0 Well, I could post the answer, but will refrain, to encourage others
> to work it out for themselves.
>
> **but did you work it out for yourself? That is the only point of these
> exercises. Anyone can post answers, but the question for players is can yo=
u
> figure it out yourself even if told there is something afoot - otherwise
> what's the point of knowing the game score if you don't understand what is=

> going on over the board? If you can't figure it out then there is no shame=
,
> if you /tried/ to do it. If you didn't then chess for you is from a
> spectator's point of view.
>
> > its tough to actually talk chess to its players in these newsgroups, and=

> > there are several 'shocks' to this position occuring earlier in the game=

> > which alekhine saw and avoided
>
> > the first shock comes after 16. ... Qd6, if White proceeds, 17. f4
>
> > and the second ansd easier to spot shocker after 18. ... c5 - the questi=
on
> > being, 'can white capture e.p.?'
>
> > the point of looking at the /evolution/ of an opening is to assess what
> > those very early opportunities did to encourage the understanding of
> > serious
> > players to deploy it
>
> =A0 Yates did a lot with the KID early on, then Bronstein, Boleslavsky
> and other Soviets really honed it in the 1940s and '50s.
>
> **Well, actually Cozens said Boleslavsky resurrected its fortunes which is=

> only true in a certain sense. I once asked Larry Evans if theorist Menchik=
,
> circa 1939 could possibly have surprised Alekhine with something from the
> KID, and he thought 'no'. I let it drop for a while, then from Russian
> contacts learned of 3 players who moved things along [from black's point o=
f
> view you see, Max Euwe had almost killed the KID] from 36 to 39. These
> researches then emerged in Europe after WWII via Boleslavsky and Bronstein=
-
> they exhibited the work of others, at a high level.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
> > phil innes
>
> > c5 19. Bxe5 Qxe5 20. Qb3 Rab8 21. Qb5 f5 22. Rae1 22... f4 23. Qd7
> > Rbd8 24. gxf4 Qxf4 25. Qe6+ Kh8 26. f3 Qg5+ 27. Kh1 Rd6 28. Qh3 Be5
> > 29. Re2 Rdf6 30. Nd1 Rf4 31. Ne3 Rh4 32. Qe6 Qh5 33. Ng4 Rxg4 34. fxg4
> > Rxf1+ 35. Kg2 Qxh2+ 36. Kxf1 Qh1+ 37. Kf2 Bd4+ 38. Kg3 Qg1+ 39. Kh3
> > Qf1+ 40. Rg2 Qh1+ 41. Kg3 Qe1+ 42. Kh3 g5 $1 43. Rc2 Qf1+ 44. Kh2 Qg1+
> > 45. Kh3 Qh1+ 46. Kg3 Qd1
> > 47. Rc3 Qg1+ 48. Kh3 Qf1+ 49. Kg3 Bf2+ 50. Kf3 Bg1+ 0-1- Hide quoted tex=
t -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Date: 29 Mar 2008 16:20:47
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: A Diabolical KID

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:0327eb27-b62b-40ba-939e-978f1db14702@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

Phil, you wrote "from black's point of view you see, Max Euwe had
almost killed the KID." Not sure I understand what you mean.

**Black found it generally untenable to play the KID, since Euwe beat it up
so much with White.

Could you
amplify on that? As I recall, Euwe in his prime tended toward the Slav
as his main defense to 1.d4; I'm not aware that he had much impact on
KID theory.

**Cozens thought he did. Certainly it was way out of fashion in GM chess in
the late 30s in Europe.

PI

On 29, 3:53 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On 29, 12:29 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:5b55f28b-8b71-4f2d-b1d8-a312bd9e7bf3@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > On 29, 5:41 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > If I analyze this entire game, I will be
> > > shocked if there was no escaping the
> > > loss for White near the end. After all, he
> > > had moves which threatened mate-in-one
> > > while still watching the e5 square and
> > > leaving the White Queen protected from
> > > loss to any fork.
>
> > Prepare to be shocked then, Greg. Starting with 33...Rxg4! White is
> > objectively lost, and Yates' play is very close to perfection.
>
> > > But there is no point if
> > > the actual, correct moves are unknown.
>
> > [Event "Karlsbad"]
> > [Site "Karlsbad"]
> > [Date "1923.??.??"]
> > [Round "?"]
> > [White "Alekhine, Alexander"]
> > [Black "Yates, Frederick"]
> > [Result "0-1"]
> > [ECO "E62"]
> > [Annotator "ChessBase"]
> > [PlyCount "100"]
> > [EventDate "1923.04.??"]
> > [EventType "tourn"]
> > [EventRounds "17"]
> > [EventCountry "CSR"]
> > [Source "ChessBase"]
>
> > 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. Nc3 d6 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. d5 Nb8
> > 8. O-O Nbd7 9. e4 a5 10. Be3 Ng4 11. Bd4 Nge5 12. Nxe5 Nxe5 13. c5
> > dxc5 14. Bxc5 b6 15. Bd4 Ba6 16. Re1 Qd6 17. Bf1 Bxf1 18. Rxf1 18...
>
> > well, thank you,
>
> > but the point was for chess players to /look/ at the game position for
> > themselves, and see if they could find a couple of traps, not librarians
> > to
> > anticipate the issue by posting the entire game-score without any sense
> > of
> > what is happening in it, which progresses no understanding at all
>
> Ah, sorry, Phil. I posted the game in response to help-bot's saying
> "But there is no point if
> the actual, correct moves are unknown."
>
> **ah! but did you think /he/ would bother to set up the position and
> actually /look/ at it, despite writing 3 times already? :)) It is very
> easy to comment on strong players from the stronghold of complete
> ignorance,
> even if cued to a forced mating sequence at such and such a move.
> Admittedly
> the first mate sequence was 6 or 7 moves, but the second was easier.
>
> > i [laugh] cite this instance as yet another 'don't read books'
> > illustration - since of course if someone tells you something then you
> > never
> > need work it out for yourself, and therefore, you do not improve
>
> Well, I could post the answer, but will refrain, to encourage others
> to work it out for themselves.
>
> **but did you work it out for yourself? That is the only point of these
> exercises. Anyone can post answers, but the question for players is can
> you
> figure it out yourself even if told there is something afoot - otherwise
> what's the point of knowing the game score if you don't understand what is
> going on over the board? If you can't figure it out then there is no
> shame,
> if you /tried/ to do it. If you didn't then chess for you is from a
> spectator's point of view.
>
> > its tough to actually talk chess to its players in these newsgroups, and
> > there are several 'shocks' to this position occuring earlier in the game
> > which alekhine saw and avoided
>
> > the first shock comes after 16. ... Qd6, if White proceeds, 17. f4
>
> > and the second ansd easier to spot shocker after 18. ... c5 - the
> > question
> > being, 'can white capture e.p.?'
>
> > the point of looking at the /evolution/ of an opening is to assess what
> > those very early opportunities did to encourage the understanding of
> > serious
> > players to deploy it
>
> Yates did a lot with the KID early on, then Bronstein, Boleslavsky
> and other Soviets really honed it in the 1940s and '50s.
>
> **Well, actually Cozens said Boleslavsky resurrected its fortunes which is
> only true in a certain sense. I once asked Larry Evans if theorist
> Menchik,
> circa 1939 could possibly have surprised Alekhine with something from the
> KID, and he thought 'no'. I let it drop for a while, then from Russian
> contacts learned of 3 players who moved things along [from black's point
> of
> view you see, Max Euwe had almost killed the KID] from 36 to 39. These
> researches then emerged in Europe after WWII via Boleslavsky and
> Bronstein -
> they exhibited the work of others, at a high level.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
> > phil innes
>
> > c5 19. Bxe5 Qxe5 20. Qb3 Rab8 21. Qb5 f5 22. Rae1 22... f4 23. Qd7
> > Rbd8 24. gxf4 Qxf4 25. Qe6+ Kh8 26. f3 Qg5+ 27. Kh1 Rd6 28. Qh3 Be5
> > 29. Re2 Rdf6 30. Nd1 Rf4 31. Ne3 Rh4 32. Qe6 Qh5 33. Ng4 Rxg4 34. fxg4
> > Rxf1+ 35. Kg2 Qxh2+ 36. Kxf1 Qh1+ 37. Kf2 Bd4+ 38. Kg3 Qg1+ 39. Kh3
> > Qf1+ 40. Rg2 Qh1+ 41. Kg3 Qe1+ 42. Kh3 g5 $1 43. Rc2 Qf1+ 44. Kh2 Qg1+
> > 45. Kh3 Qh1+ 46. Kg3 Qd1
> > 47. Rc3 Qg1+ 48. Kh3 Qf1+ 49. Kg3 Bf2+ 50. Kf3 Bg1+ 0-1- Hide quoted
> > text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Date: 29 Mar 2008 11:58:39
From:
Subject: Re: A Diabolical KID

On 29, 12:29=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:5b55f28b-8b71-4f2d-b1d8-a312bd9e7bf3@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 29, 5:41 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > If I analyze this entire game, I will be
> > shocked if there was no escaping the
> > loss for White near the end. After all, he
> > had moves which threatened mate-in-one
> > while still watching the e5 square and
> > leaving the White Queen protected from
> > loss to any fork.
>
> =A0 Prepare to be shocked then, Greg. Starting with 33...Rxg4! White is
> objectively lost, and Yates' play is very close to perfection.
>
> > =A0But there is no point if
> > the actual, correct moves are unknown.
>
> [Event "Karlsbad"]
> [Site "Karlsbad"]
> [Date "1923.??.??"]
> [Round "?"]
> [White "Alekhine, Alexander"]
> [Black "Yates, Frederick"]
> [Result "0-1"]
> [ECO "E62"]
> [Annotator "ChessBase"]
> [PlyCount "100"]
> [EventDate "1923.04.??"]
> [EventType "tourn"]
> [EventRounds "17"]
> [EventCountry "CSR"]
> [Source "ChessBase"]
>
> 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. Nc3 d6 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. d5 Nb8
> 8. O-O Nbd7 9. e4 a5 10. Be3 Ng4 11. Bd4 Nge5 12. Nxe5 Nxe5 13. c5
> dxc5 14. Bxc5 b6 15. Bd4 Ba6 16. Re1 Qd6 17. Bf1 Bxf1 18. Rxf1 18...
>
> well, thank you,
>
> but the point was for chess players to /look/ at the game position for
> themselves, and see if they could find a couple of traps, not librarians t=
o
> anticipate the issue by posting the entire game-score without any sense of=

> what is happening in it, which progresses no understanding at all

Ah, sorry, Phil. I posted the game in response to help-bot's saying
"But there is no point if
the actual, correct moves are unknown."

> i [laugh] cite this instance as yet another 'don't read books'
> illustration - since of course if someone tells you something then you nev=
er
> need work it out for yourself, and therefore, you do not improve

Well, I could post the answer, but will refrain, to encourage others
to work it out for themselves.

> its tough to actually talk chess to its players in these newsgroups, and
> there are several 'shocks' to this position occuring earlier in the game
> which alekhine saw and avoided
>
> the first shock comes after 16. ... Qd6, if White proceeds, 17. f4
>
> and the second ansd easier to spot shocker after 18. ... c5 - the question=

> being, 'can white capture e.p.?'
>
> the point of looking at the /evolution/ of an opening is to assess what
> those very early opportunities did to encourage the understanding of serio=
us
> players to deploy it

Yates did a lot with the KID early on, then Bronstein, Boleslavsky
and other Soviets really honed it in the 1940s and '50s.

> phil innes
>
> c5 19. Bxe5 Qxe5 20. Qb3 Rab8 21. Qb5 f5 22. Rae1 22... f4 23. Qd7
> Rbd8 24. gxf4 Qxf4 25. Qe6+ Kh8 26. f3 Qg5+ 27. Kh1 Rd6 28. Qh3 Be5
> 29. Re2 Rdf6 30. Nd1 Rf4 31. Ne3 Rh4 32. Qe6 Qh5 33. Ng4 Rxg4 34. fxg4
> Rxf1+ 35. Kg2 Qxh2+ 36. Kxf1 Qh1+ 37. Kf2 Bd4+ 38. Kg3 Qg1+ 39. Kh3
> Qf1+ 40. Rg2 Qh1+ 41. Kg3 Qe1+ 42. Kh3 g5 $1 43. Rc2 Qf1+ 44. Kh2 Qg1+
> 45. Kh3 Qh1+ 46. Kg3 Qd1
> 47. Rc3 Qg1+ 48. Kh3 Qf1+ 49. Kg3 Bf2+ 50. Kf3 Bg1+ 0-1

Date: 29 Mar 2008 15:53:44
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: A Diabolical KID

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 29, 12:29 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:5b55f28b-8b71-4f2d-b1d8-a312bd9e7bf3@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 29, 5:41 am, help bot <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > If I analyze this entire game, I will be
> > shocked if there was no escaping the
> > loss for White near the end. After all, he
> > had moves which threatened mate-in-one
> > while still watching the e5 square and
> > leaving the White Queen protected from
> > loss to any fork.
>
> Prepare to be shocked then, Greg. Starting with 33...Rxg4! White is
> objectively lost, and Yates' play is very close to perfection.
>
> > But there is no point if
> > the actual, correct moves are unknown.
>
> [Event "Karlsbad"]
> [Site "Karlsbad"]
> [Date "1923.??.??"]
> [Round "?"]
> [White "Alekhine, Alexander"]
> [Black "Yates, Frederick"]
> [Result "0-1"]
> [ECO "E62"]
> [Annotator "ChessBase"]
> [PlyCount "100"]
> [EventDate "1923.04.??"]
> [EventType "tourn"]
> [EventRounds "17"]
> [EventCountry "CSR"]
> [Source "ChessBase"]
>
> 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. Nc3 d6 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. d5 Nb8
> 8. O-O Nbd7 9. e4 a5 10. Be3 Ng4 11. Bd4 Nge5 12. Nxe5 Nxe5 13. c5
> dxc5 14. Bxc5 b6 15. Bd4 Ba6 16. Re1 Qd6 17. Bf1 Bxf1 18. Rxf1 18...
>
> well, thank you,
>
> but the point was for chess players to /look/ at the game position for
> themselves, and see if they could find a couple of traps, not librarians
> to
> anticipate the issue by posting the entire game-score without any sense of
> what is happening in it, which progresses no understanding at all

Ah, sorry, Phil. I posted the game in response to help-bot's saying
"But there is no point if
the actual, correct moves are unknown."

**ah! but did you think /he/ would bother to set up the position and
actually /look/ at it, despite writing 3 times already? :)) It is very
easy to comment on strong players from the stronghold of complete ignorance,
even if cued to a forced mating sequence at such and such a move. Admittedly
the first mate sequence was 6 or 7 moves, but the second was easier.

> i [laugh] cite this instance as yet another 'don't read books'
> illustration - since of course if someone tells you something then you
> never
> need work it out for yourself, and therefore, you do not improve

Well, I could post the answer, but will refrain, to encourage others
to work it out for themselves.

**but did you work it out for yourself? That is the only point of these
exercises. Anyone can post answers, but the question for players is can you
figure it out yourself even if told there is something afoot - otherwise
what's the point of knowing the game score if you don't understand what is
going on over the board? If you can't figure it out then there is no shame,
if you /tried/ to do it. If you didn't then chess for you is from a
spectator's point of view.

> its tough to actually talk chess to its players in these newsgroups, and
> there are several 'shocks' to this position occuring earlier in the game
> which alekhine saw and avoided
>
> the first shock comes after 16. ... Qd6, if White proceeds, 17. f4
>
> and the second ansd easier to spot shocker after 18. ... c5 - the question
> being, 'can white capture e.p.?'
>
> the point of looking at the /evolution/ of an opening is to assess what
> those very early opportunities did to encourage the understanding of
> serious
> players to deploy it

Yates did a lot with the KID early on, then Bronstein, Boleslavsky
and other Soviets really honed it in the 1940s and '50s.

**Well, actually Cozens said Boleslavsky resurrected its fortunes which is
only true in a certain sense. I once asked Larry Evans if theorist Menchik,
circa 1939 could possibly have surprised Alekhine with something from the
KID, and he thought 'no'. I let it drop for a while, then from Russian
contacts learned of 3 players who moved things along [from black's point of
view you see, Max Euwe had almost killed the KID] from 36 to 39. These
researches then emerged in Europe after WWII via Boleslavsky and Bronstein -
they exhibited the work of others, at a high level.

Phil Innes

> phil innes
>
> c5 19. Bxe5 Qxe5 20. Qb3 Rab8 21. Qb5 f5 22. Rae1 22... f4 23. Qd7
> Rbd8 24. gxf4 Qxf4 25. Qe6+ Kh8 26. f3 Qg5+ 27. Kh1 Rd6 28. Qh3 Be5
> 29. Re2 Rdf6 30. Nd1 Rf4 31. Ne3 Rh4 32. Qe6 Qh5 33. Ng4 Rxg4 34. fxg4
> Rxf1+ 35. Kg2 Qxh2+ 36. Kxf1 Qh1+ 37. Kf2 Bd4+ 38. Kg3 Qg1+ 39. Kh3
> Qf1+ 40. Rg2 Qh1+ 41. Kg3 Qe1+ 42. Kh3 g5 $1 43. Rc2 Qf1+ 44. Kh2 Qg1+
> 45. Kh3 Qh1+ 46. Kg3 Qd1
> 47. Rc3 Qg1+ 48. Kh3 Qf1+ 49. Kg3 Bf2+ 50. Kf3 Bg1+ 0-1

Date: 29 Mar 2008 08:48:23
From:
Subject: Re: A Diabolical KID

On 29, 5:41=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> =A0 If I analyze this entire game, I will be
> shocked if there was no escaping the
> loss for White near the end. =A0After all, he
> had moves which threatened mate-in-one
> while still watching the e5 square and
> leaving the White Queen protected from
> loss to any fork.

Prepare to be shocked then, Greg. Starting with 33...Rxg4! White is
objectively lost, and Yates' play is very close to perfection.

> =A0But there is no point if
> the actual, correct moves are unknown.

[Event "Karlsbad"]
[Site "Karlsbad"]
[Date "1923.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Alekhine, Alexander"]
[Black "Yates, Frederick"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "E62"]
[Annotator "ChessBase"]
[PlyCount "100"]
[EventDate "1923.04.??"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "17"]
[EventCountry "CSR"]
[Source "ChessBase"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. Nc3 d6 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. d5 Nb8
8. O-O Nbd7 9. e4 a5 10. Be3 Ng4 11. Bd4 Nge5 12. Nxe5 Nxe5 13. c5
dxc5 14. Bxc5 b6 15. Bd4 Ba6 16. Re1 Qd6 17. Bf1 Bxf1 18. Rxf1 18...
c5 19. Bxe5 Qxe5 20. Qb3 Rab8 21. Qb5 f5 22. Rae1 22... f4 23. Qd7
Rbd8 24. gxf4 Qxf4 25. Qe6+ Kh8 26. f3 Qg5+ 27. Kh1 Rd6 28. Qh3 Be5
29. Re2 Rdf6 30. Nd1 Rf4 31. Ne3 Rh4 32. Qe6 Qh5 33. Ng4 Rxg4 34. fxg4
Rxf1+ 35. Kg2 Qxh2+ 36. Kxf1 Qh1+ 37. Kf2 Bd4+ 38. Kg3 Qg1+ 39. Kh3
Qf1+ 40. Rg2 Qh1+ 41. Kg3 Qe1+ 42. Kh3 g5 $1 43. Rc2 Qf1+ 44. Kh2 Qg1+
45. Kh3 Qh1+ 46. Kg3 Qd1
47. Rc3 Qg1+ 48. Kh3 Qf1+ 49. Kg3 Bf2+ 50. Kf3 Bg1+ 0-1

Date: 29 Mar 2008 12:29:31
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: A Diabolical KID

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:5b55f28b-8b71-4f2d-b1d8-a312bd9e7bf3@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On 29, 5:41 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> If I analyze this entire game, I will be
> shocked if there was no escaping the
> loss for White near the end. After all, he
> had moves which threatened mate-in-one
> while still watching the e5 square and
> leaving the White Queen protected from
> loss to any fork.

Prepare to be shocked then, Greg. Starting with 33...Rxg4! White is
objectively lost, and Yates' play is very close to perfection.

> But there is no point if
> the actual, correct moves are unknown.

[Event "Karlsbad"]
[Site "Karlsbad"]
[Date "1923.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Alekhine, Alexander"]
[Black "Yates, Frederick"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "E62"]
[Annotator "ChessBase"]
[PlyCount "100"]
[EventDate "1923.04.??"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "17"]
[EventCountry "CSR"]
[Source "ChessBase"]

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 O-O 5. Nc3 d6 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. d5 Nb8
8. O-O Nbd7 9. e4 a5 10. Be3 Ng4 11. Bd4 Nge5 12. Nxe5 Nxe5 13. c5
dxc5 14. Bxc5 b6 15. Bd4 Ba6 16. Re1 Qd6 17. Bf1 Bxf1 18. Rxf1 18...

well, thank you,

but the point was for chess players to /look/ at the game position for
themselves, and see if they could find a couple of traps, not librarians to
anticipate the issue by posting the entire game-score without any sense of
what is happening in it, which progresses no understanding at all

i [laugh] cite this instance as yet another 'don't read books'
illustration - since of course if someone tells you something then you never
need work it out for yourself, and therefore, you do not improve

its tough to actually talk chess to its players in these newsgroups, and
there are several 'shocks' to this position occuring earlier in the game
which alekhine saw and avoided

the first shock comes after 16. ... Qd6, if White proceeds, 17. f4

and the second ansd easier to spot shocker after 18. ... c5 - the question
being, 'can white capture e.p.?'

the point of looking at the /evolution/ of an opening is to assess what
those very early oppotunities did to encourage the understanding of serious
players to deploy it

phil innes

c5 19. Bxe5 Qxe5 20. Qb3 Rab8 21. Qb5 f5 22. Rae1 22... f4 23. Qd7
Rbd8 24. gxf4 Qxf4 25. Qe6+ Kh8 26. f3 Qg5+ 27. Kh1 Rd6 28. Qh3 Be5
29. Re2 Rdf6 30. Nd1 Rf4 31. Ne3 Rh4 32. Qe6 Qh5 33. Ng4 Rxg4 34. fxg4
Rxf1+ 35. Kg2 Qxh2+ 36. Kxf1 Qh1+ 37. Kf2 Bd4+ 38. Kg3 Qg1+ 39. Kh3
Qf1+ 40. Rg2 Qh1+ 41. Kg3 Qe1+ 42. Kh3 g5 $1 43. Rc2 Qf1+ 44. Kh2 Qg1+
45. Kh3 Qh1+ 46. Kg3 Qd1
47. Rc3 Qg1+ 48. Kh3 Qf1+ 49. Kg3 Bf2+ 50. Kf3 Bg1+ 0-1

Date: 29 Mar 2008 08:39:25
From:
Subject: Re: A Diabolical KID

On 29, 5:41=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 28, 9:34 am, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I like to trace origins in the development of openings in my column, and=

> > started this one last week - noting the emergence of the opening, until =
Euwe
> > squashed it flat in the 1930s - then Bondarevsky picked it up again afte=
r
> > WWII.
>
> > What to Play? When the KID was really young. Continued from last week. M=
oves
> > and commentary draw on The King Hunt in Chess, W. H. Cozens. 1970.
>
> > White: A. Alekhine, Black: F. D.Yates
>
> =A0 Okay, I found the game (I think) and was
> very surprised to learn that Mr. Yates had
> twice beaten young Alekhine as Black in
> these games.

Yates, born in 1884, was about 8 years older than Alekhine. At the
time of game Innes gives, from Carlsbad 1923, Yates was about 39,
Alekhine about 31.
Yates was Britain's best player for nearly 20 years, from around
1913 until his premature death in 1932. He won the BCF title six times
in all 1913-1931. He was not of topmost international rank, but he had
a knack for beating the very best, winning against such greats as
Alekhine (twice), Rubinstein (3 times), Bogolyubov (also 3 times),
Tarrasch, oczy, and Nimzovitch.
The 1923 Alekhine KID is probably the most anthologized of Yates'
games.

Date: 29 Mar 2008 02:41:49
From: help bot
Subject: Re: A Diabolical KID

Date: 28 Mar 2008 22:04:06
From: help bot
Subject: Re: A Diabolical KID

On 28, 9:34 am, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:

> I like to trace origins in the development of openings in my column, and
> started this one last week - noting the emergence of the opening, until Euwe
> squashed it flat in the 1930s - then Bondarevsky picked it up again after
> WWII.
>
> What to Play? When the KID was really young. Continued from last week. Moves
> and commentary draw on The King Hunt in Chess, W. H. Cozens. 1970.
>
> White: A. Alekhine, Black: F. D.Yates
>
> 1.d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. g3 Bg7 4. Bg2 0-0 5. Nc3 d6 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. d5 Nb8 8. e4
> bNd7 9. 0-0 a5 10. Be3 Ng4
>
> 11. Bd4 gNe4

I think Mr. Yates must have been drinking;
the Knight cannot legally move from g4 to
e4 like this, but even if it could, AA could
win a piece via the clever riposte: Nxe4! --
(easily spotted by GetClub's Beginner
level in just under a minute).

> 12. Nxe5 Nxe5 13. c5 [diag]

Where? I see no diagram in my
browser; perhaps Mozilla Firefox
just isn't up to par.

> That's where we left the soon to become World Champion in 1923, after 13.
> c5, and the result did the KID all sorts of good.
>
> 13. .dc
>
> 14. Bxc5 b6
>
> 15. Bd4 Ba6
>
> 16. Re1 [diag]

Horizontal, actually.

> [threatening f4 then an exchange of dark square bishops leaving Alekhine to
> prosecute his favorite attack against a weakened King position.

The question is, was this A. Alekhine
fellow any good at attacking an exposed
King? Hmm... .

> 16. . Qd6! [this sets up a truly diabolical trap if white proceeds 17. f4.
> Do you see it?

No, but then I don't have a chess board
handy.

> Alekine did, and proceeded otherwise. So what was he afraid
> of. continued below]

I think he may have feared going bald
prematurely; or going insane, like so
many other chess players.

> Anyway -- can this forum's readers see the trap after 17. f4?

If you can get the diagrams to show up
properly in our browsers, I expect a few
of us can solve the mystery.

I /could/ go to www.chessgames.com
and search for AAA wins vs. FDY, but
there are likely a whole slew of them to
sort through and no losses to narrow
the field a bit.

> I'll post more moves in the game, and also the trap-line, when people have
> had a chance to look at the tabia, above.

My browser doesn't display those
either. Look, it is simply /insane/ for
this Mr. Yates to try and set traps for
his vastly-superior opponent to fall
into. Unless he was seriously ill or
drunk, Mr. Alekhine could beat that
poor fellow blindfolded.

In this particular game, thus far
Black has been playing like a duffer,
while White seems to have his act
together like Fred Astaire and
Ginger Rogers.

-- help bot