Chess Mail

Already with a clear plus for Black
says Nunn.
11 £h5 d5! 12 ¥xd5
XIIIIIIIIY
9r+l+ktr-+0
9zppzp-+Nzpp0
9-+n+-+-+0
9+-+Lzp-+Q0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-wq-0
9PzPPzP-+-+0
9tRNvL-+K+R0
xiiiiiiiiy
12...¤d4
12...¤b4! is recommended for Black
by Heisman.
13 £h2 £g4 14 £xe5+ ¥e6 15 ¥xe6
£f3+ 16 ¢g1 ¤e2+ 17 ¢h2 £f2+ 18
¢h3 £f3+ 19 ¢h4 £f2+
19...£xh1+ 20 ¥h3+ ¢xf7 21 £e6#!.
20 ¢h5?
After 20 ¢h3! the game should have
ended in perpetual check.
20...¦xf7 21 ¥xf7+ ¢xf7 22 ¦h2
£f3+ 23 ¢h4 g5+ 24 £xg5 ¦g8 25
£h5+ £xh5+ 26 ¢xh5
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+r+0
9zppzp-+k+p0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+K0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9PzPPzPn+-tR0
9tRNvL-+-+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
Now Heisman has the end of the game
mixed up.
26...¤g3+? 27 ¢h6 ¤f5+ 28 ¢xh7
¦g7+ ½–½.
www.chessmail.com
(See Grodzensky & Romanov, “Khod
v Konverte”, page 145. This was the
actual finish but Heisman has it only as
a variation.)
Moscow schoolboy Vadim Brodsky
later showed that Tal had missed a win:
26...¤f4+! 27 ¢h6 (27 ¢h4? h5!) 27...¦g6+
28 ¢xh7 ¦g7+ 29 ¢h6 (According to
Heisman, this position was called a draw
by GM Soltis in the January 16, 2000
“New York Post’; not 29 ¢h8 ¤g6#)
29...¢g8! and Black will finish ...¦g6#.
(Heisman has only rediscovered a win
which Brodsky found 30 years earlier.).
Can anyone clarify the circumstances
of this game? I think it was a CC consultation
game in the USSR. Heisman just
calls it Readers v Tal. We have also seen
White given as “White Rook Youth Club”
and as “Chitatelj” (a transliteration of the
Russian word for Readers).
The mating position in Brodsky’s
variation is an echo of Rotlewi’s win
against Fahrni at Karlsbad 1911:
XIIIIIIIIY
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+-+k0
9-+-+-mK-+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9p+-+-sNR+0
9+-+-+-+-0
9-+-+-+-+0
9+-+-+r+-0
xiiiiiiiiy
79...a3?? (79...¦b1) 80 ¢f7 ¢h6 81
¢g8 1–0.
In part 2 (our next isue), we shall look
at the most critical line, 5 ¤xf7 ¥xf2+
6 ¢f1 where major improvements for
White have been found recently.
49