Olaf This year marks the 100th anniver-
sary of the birth of one of America’s least known stars. Olaf Ulvestad won no titles higher than Washington state champion but amassed an impressive record over 40 years that included wins over Lajos Portisch and David Bronstein and a tie for third place in the 1948 U.S. Cham- pionship. The Two Knights Defense line that runs 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 b5!? could be known as the Ulvestad Variation, thanks to his extensive analysis. The Chessmetrics website figures he was the 81st strongest player in the world at his peak, in 1946. Ulvestad, who spent his later years in Spain, pro- vided us with games for this month’s quiz. In each of the following posi- tions you are asked to find the fastest winning line of play. This will usually mean the forced win of a decisive amount of material, such as a rook or minor piece. For solutions, see page 71.
Problem I
Olaf Ulvestad Al Horowitz
-+-+-+k+ zpL+-zpp+p Pzp-trl+p+ +-+-+-+- -zP-+-+-+ +-+-vL-zPn -+-+-zPKzP +-tR-+-+- White to play
Problem IV Olaf Ulvestad Arpad Elo
lsn-+kvl-tr +-+p+pzp- -+-+-+-zp +LzpPzP-+- -wq-+-+-+ +Q+-+N+- -+-sN-zPPzP +-+-+RmK- White to play
7. cxd4 Nc6 8. e3 Nb4. So he tries to escape with 7. Bxb8.
rvLl+kvl-tr +p+pzppzpp -zp-+-+-+ +-+-+-+- -+-zpn+-+ +-zP-+-+- PzP-+PzPPzP tRN+-mKLsNR
After 7. Bxb8 But now 7. ... dxc3! threatens to queen
after 8. ... cxb2. White can stop that with 8. Be5 but then 8. ... Rxa2! won in sev- eral master games. If the idea seems familiar it’s very similar to what might have happened in a celebrated game of Karl Schlechter’s back in 1911. A Russian master named Vladimir Doroshkevich explained how he became one of the victims of a trap that begins 1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 f5. He was white in a Soviet championship game in 1970 and recalled that 4. d4 and then 4. ... e4 5. Bg5 had been played before. But his memory gave out when Black replied 5. ... Nf6. Doroshkevich spent 15 minutes trying to recall whether the right response was
uschess.org
Problem II
Larry Yeager Olaf Ulvestad
-+-+rtrk+ zppzp-+pzpp -+-vl-wq-+ +-+-+-+- -+Lsn-+-+ +P+-sN-+P P+-wQ-zPP+ tR-+-+RmK- Black to play
Problem V Olaf Ulvestad Herman Steiner
-+q+-trk+ +-+ntRp+p -+-zp-+p+ +-zp-+-wQP -zp-zP-+-+ +L+-+-+- -zPP+-zPP+ +-+-+-mK- White to play
6. Nd2 (and then 6. ... Nxd4 7. Ndxe4) or something else. He decided to play more sharply and looked at 6. d5. The point is that 6. d5 exf3 7. dxc6
fxg2 seems to win material (8. Bxg2 bxc6) but White can avoid that by inserting a check, 8. cxd7+. “Instantly I played the moves. In my cal-
culation I supposed that after 8. ... Qxd7 or 8. ... Bxd7 I’d get the better endgame,” he wrote in Shakhmaty v SSSR. “As soon as my hand released the pawn I realized with horror that it loses.” Black won a piece after 8. ... Nxd7!,
threatening both 9. ... Qxg5 and 9. ... gxh1=Q. He was more upset when he realized the trap had occurred in another Soviet event that year. (In fact, two of them.) What makes some modern traps so
diabolical is that you can fall into them via different move orders. That didn’t happen much with old-style traps, which typi- cally began with 1. e4. But it occurs a lot in today’s 1. d4 games. For example, check out this position.
(see diagram top of next column) Seems routine, right? Wrong. Black is
better after 6. ... e5! as Reuben Fine learned when he lost a miniature as White after 7. Ndb5 a6 and then 8. Nxd5? axb5 9. Nxf6+. He expected to win after 9. ... gxf6 10. Qxd8+ and 11. Bxf6+. But 9. ... Qxf6!
Problem III Olaf Ulvestad
Anthony Santasiere
-+-tr-+-+ zpl+-vl-mk- -zpq+p+-+ +-zp-zP-+Q -+-+-zP-+ zP-+-vL-mK- -zPP+-+-+ +-+-+R+- White to play
Problem VI Herman Hesse Olaf Ulvestad
r+-wq-trk+ +-zp-+p+- p+n+-+pzp +p+-+-zP- Pvl-+-+nzP +PsNp+N+- -zP-+-zP-vL +-+RwQK+R Black to play
rsnlwqkvl-tr zpp+-+pzpp -+-+psn-+ +-+p+-vL- -+PsN-+-+ +-sN-+-+- PzP-+PzPPzP tR-+QmKL+R
Black to play
10. Bxf6 Bb4+ turned the tables. Fine’s game began 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3.
Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c5 5. Bg5? cxd4 6. Nxd4 and the moral seemed to be that White just had to avoid his faulty fifth move. But there have been dozen of victims of
6. ... e5 since Fine—because they kept reaching the diagram by other sequences: Some fell into it via 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6
3. Nc3 d5 4. Bg5 c5 and now 5. Nf3? cxd4 6. Nxd4 e5. Others got there via the Benoni, 1. d4
Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 c5 and now 4. Nc3 cxd4 5. Nxd4 d5 6. Bg5? e5. And in a 1984 match, Sammy
Reshevsky began a game with 1. d4 e6 2. Nf3 c5 3. c4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d5 6. Bg5?—and was punished by Larry Christiansen’s 6. ... e5!.
. Read Chess Life Online’sdaily news updates. Chess Life — February 2012 17
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76