Staunton and Portisch- Winning Against the Closed Sicilian
My good friend Simaginfan has introduced me to quite a few great chess players. One of these is Howard Staunton:
HOWARD STAUNTON
(1810-1874) United Kingdom
"Howard Staunton was born in Westmorland, Northern England. Learning the game in 1830, he took it up seriously in 1836 and by 1840 was among the world's best players.
In April 1843, after losing a short but hard-fought match to visiting Frenchman Pierre Charles
Fournier de Saint Amant (+2 =1 -3), he issued a more formal challenge. This second match, in
November-December 1843, was convincingly won by Staunton (+11 =4 -6) and broke the century-long domination of the game by French players.
In the 1840s and 50s Staunton did a great deal for chess. He founded and edited "The Chess Player's Chronicle" (1841-1854), organized the first International tournament (the London (1851) knock-out format), made efforts to unify the laws of chess, wrote books and sponsored the design by Nathaniel Cook for chess pieces that has since become the standard pattern.
The only blotch on this splendid record was his continual evasion of a match with visiting American master Paul Morphy in 1858. Staunton died in London in 1874."
Notes: Howard Staunton played two consultation games with Paul Morphy, but was on the team of Staunton / Owen.
Consultation games: Anderssen / Horwitz / Kling vs Staunton / Boden / Kipping, 1857
Wikipedia article: Howard Staunton
Recently I bought a wonderful book by Yakov Estrin, titled "The World Champions Teach Chess"
It is a wonderful book, and I highly recommend it. In each chapter about the World Champions, each Champion is quoted extensively.
In the Bobby Fischer chapter, Fischer writes about some of the greatest players of the past, and one he speaks very highly of is Howard Staunton:
"....But when Staunton fianchettoed his king's bishop on the Black side of a Closed Sicilian Defence his opponents had no conception of what he was doing, and consequently were generally wiped off the board. These were not just "fish" but the best players of his day. Staunton's right to be on a list of the ten greatest players of all time is firmly founded in the profundity of his insights, especially in the opening, and the great wealth of book knowledge that was his."
When I read this, it sparked some memories. Smyslov and Spassky were exponents of the Closed Sicilian with White.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before I go on, let me point out a structure that is good for Black, both against the Closed Sicilian, and also in the Grunfeld (without the d pawn.....)
For White, please notice the strength of this structure....the b3 and d3 pawns support the c4 pawn, which controls the centre square d5. In the Knigside, the g3 and e3 pawn support the f-pawn, which controls e5.
For Black, the b6 and d6 pawns support the c5-pawn, which controls d4. On the Kingside, the g6 and e6 pawns support the f5-pawn, which controls e4.
The strength of this structure should not be underestimated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an example of the critical nature of making or not making the move ....f5 in this type of positions, I offer the game Geller-Smyslov, 1965:
On move 13, instead of playing ....b6, Black had to play ....Na5 followed by ...f5.stopping White's advance, arriving at the following position:
Chess is so hard! Even if you make the right moves, you might be outplayed.....Spassky beat Fischer in the Siegen 1970 Olympiad from the White side of a Grunfeld, even though Fischer played the necessary ...f5 move! It wa an exciting game:
In his career, Spassky played the Closed Sicilian with White 96 times, winning 36 games, losing 11, and drawing the rest.
Smyslov played the Closed Sicilian with White 62 times, winning 22, losing 12, and drawing the rest.
I remember, looking at Spassky's results in this opening, noticing that he lost twice to Portisch in this opening.
In the 1968 Candidates Quarterfinals against Geller, Spassky won two critical games using the Closed Sicilian with White, although Geller had a won position in both games. But Spassky gambled, because his coach, Bondarevsky, had discovered a chink in Geller's armor: Geller felt uncomfortable when his king was attacked.
Game 2:
Game 4:
Game 6:
In 1977 Portsich and Spassky played a Candidates' Semifinal.
. Portisch-Spassky, Candidates Semifinal 1977
In the only Closed Sicilian played, Spassky won. Portisch chose a system which gave Spassky too much freedom....
In 1980, Spassky and Partisch played a Candidates Quarterfinal match. This time, Portisch played a different system, a Tabiya......
...and won the game!
Here is the Tabiya that Black uses , with colors reversed, successfully.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shatranj
In 1982, in the Toluca Interzonal, Portisch again used the utra-solid system, and outplayed Spassky in the middlegame!
Now, some notes about John Cochrane.....
| JOHN COCHRANE (born Feb-04-1798, died Mar-02-1878, 80 years old) United Kingdom Scottish barrister John Cochrane became a leading London player in the early 19th century. In 1821 he went to France and played an odds match (a pawn and two moves) against Alexandre Deschapelles and a level terms match against Louis Charles Mahe De La Bourdonnais and lost both. He went to India in 1824 and remained there until his retirement in 1869, but he took leave in 1841-43 and returned to London. During this period he played hundreds of casual games against Howard Staunton (losing the majority) and a match (which he won (+6, =1, -4)) against Pierre Charles Fournier de Saint-Amant. His name is associated with a variation of the Petroff Defense, the Cochrane Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.♘f3 ♘f6 3.♘xe5 d6 4.♘xf7!? |
In the casual games against Staunton's Sicilian, Cochrane tried different systems.
One game ended up being more of a King's Gambit!
In the next game, Cochrane tries a more solid approach, with the pawn chain c4, d3, e4, f4. Black counters by playing Nge7-g6, and developing the bishop via Be7-f6. One tactical mistake by Cochrane enables Black to gain a pawn, and this proves decisive in the end.
In this last example between Cochrane and Staunton, White tries a kind of reversed Scandinavian, and Staunton demonstrates his higher understanding of the centre....
Now, some notes about Staunton's next opponent, Saint-Amant
| PIERRE CHARLES FOURNIER DE SAINT-AMANT (born Oct-04-1800, died Oct-28-1872, 72 years old) France |
|
|
"Pierre Charles Fournier de Saint-Amant was a regular player at the Cafe de la Regence and studied under Alexandre Deschapelles and Schlumberger. He was the editor of the chess periodical Le Palamede. He lead the Paris team in their +2 victory over the Westminster club in 1836 and whilst visiting England in 1843 he lost a casual match to John Cochrane (+4, =1, -6) but beat Howard Staunton (+3, =1, -2). Later in November of that year a more formal match took place, Staunton - Saint-Amant (1843). Saint-Amant lost (+6, =4, -11) thus ending 100 years of French supremacy. He later played in Birmingham 1858 losing to Ernst Falkbeer (+1, =0, -2). He retired to Algeria in 1861. Mons. St. Amant, when young, filled a situation as Clerk to the Colonies, in which he remained a few years. Finding such occupation monotonous, he returned to Paris, joined the theatrical profession, and appeared at the Theatre Francais as a comedian. After two or three first appearances he abandoned this line of life, and subsequently became, and is now, a wine-merchant. It is not until after he had fretted his hour on the stage that he applied himself studiously to chess. (1) Sources |
|
In this first St. Aman-Staunton game, St. Amant commints a small mistake (10. 0-0), which leads to a difficult position. With great difficulty he is able to maintain the material balance, but the resulting position is better for Black. Eventually, Black is able to be a pawn up in the ending. Fighting courageously, White regains the pawn, but in the resulting pawn race, Black is faster.
The next game transposes into a French Defense, similar to the ones played in 1834 between McDonnell and La Bourdonnais.....
Here is one such game, with comments by Morphy!
The next game makes me feel that Staunton was ahead of his time! In a French-type position, he demonstrates a mature, modern interpretation of this opening.....I will show this game, and then a game by Planinc, to show the similarity (....g5!). Games like this show the importance of knowing the games of the great Masters of the past...... Here we go....
Here is the Planinc game.....
See the similarity? 122 years apart!
Staunton's next opponent in these Sicilian battles, Horwitz!
| BERNHARD HORWITZ (born May-10-1807, died Aug-29-1885, 78 years old) Germany (federation/nationality United Kingdom) |
|
|
"Bernhard Horwitz was born in Neustrelitz, and went to school in Berlin, where he studied art. From 1837 to 1843, he was part of a group of German chess players known as "The Pleiades". Arriving in London from Hamburg in 1845 with a notable reputation, he plunged into chess life, contesting three high-level matches in 1846, but lost them all - to Staunton, Kieseritzky and Harrwitz. He would settle permanently in England. At London (1851), he beat Bird before being knocked out by Staunton. That year marked the start of a fruitful partnership with Josef Kling. They published the classic book Chess Studies - Horwitz's true forte were endgames and problems - and started a magazine, the Chess Player, which ran for four volumes. He was the winner of the first study composing tourney in 1862." |
|
In this next game, Staunton finally develops his Bishop on g7, and by move 22 he has the advantage of the two bishops. This proves decisive. Note also the Shatranj Tabiya-type pawn structure that Black has by move 10!
In the next game, Horwitz achieves a dominating position on the Kingside, but it unable to deliver the knockout blow. As it happens in such cases, his game collapses.
In the next game, Horwitz plays weakly and Staunton has a superior game right form the opening....the rest is history!
The next game is dramatic, and by move 14 Black has a clearly superior position....this game testifies to the truth of Fischer's statement!
"....But when Staunton fianchettoed his king's bishop on the Black side of a Closed Sicilian Defence his opponents had no conception of what he was doing, and consequently were generally wiped off the board. These were not just "fish" but the best players of his day. Staunton's right to be on a list of the ten greatest players of all time is firmly founded in the profundity of his insights, especially in the opening, and the great wealth of book knowledge that was his."
Peace.
