Chess Explorations (3)
By Edward Winter
A number of Chess Notes items have discussed the old masters’ nominations
for their best games, and we summarize here the various choices made. Readers
should have no difficulty in finding the games cited.
On page 221 of the first volume of his Best Games collection, published
in 1953, Tartakower wrote:
‘An investigation carried out some years ago by the eminent editors
of the Cahiers de l’Echiquier Français (MM Gaston Legrain and
then François Le Lionnais) dealt with the presentation to the public, in so
far as the leading contemporary players were concerned, of the games they
were most proud of.
As for me, it is usually my victory with White against Schlechter at St Petersburg,
1909, or else that with Black against Maróczy at Teplitz-Schönau, 1922, that
writers think fit to commend most to the attention of their readers.
Nevertheless, I derive most pleasure from the present short but expressive
game’ (Tartakower v Przepiórka, Budapest, 1929).

Savielly Tartakower
On a number of other occasions Tartakower picked out his best/favourite, etc.
game:
-
In Marshall’s Chess Masterpieces (pages 41-47) he stated that
his win over Maróczy at Teplitz-Schönau, 1922 was his best game. (His exact
words are quoted later in the present article.)
-
On pages 241-244 of CHESS, 14 March 1939 he gave his draw against
Capablanca at London, 1922, calling it ‘the most terribly pulse-stirring
flight [sic] of my whole chess career’.
-
In Chess Review, June 1951 (pages 170-171) he wrote that his favourite
game was his win over Vidmar at Vienna, 1905. (The score was given on pages
4-6 of his first Best Games book.)
Here are some other masters’ selections, taken from the 1930s series
in Les Cahiers de l’Echiquier Français referred to by Tartakower:

Dawid Przepiórka
- E. Grünfeld: Grünfeld v Spielmann, Vienna, 1929 (volume 3, pages
165-167). (We gave an English translation of Grünfeld’s annotations
in C.N. 1586; see pages 71-73 of Chess Explorations.)

Ernst Grünfeld

Frank James Marshall
For Marshall’s book Chess Masterpieces (New York, 1928), the
world’s leading masters (and a few others) nominated their best game:
-
R. Spielmann: Spielmann v Vidmar, Semmering, 1926 (page 1)
-
A. Nimzowitsch: ‘The one I played in the Dresden Tournament
in 1926 against Rubinstein, who is, as you know, an extremely dangerous
antagonist. I do not know any other of my important games which so well
illustrates the principle of effective hindrance of the adversary’s
forces, while at the same time securing the mobility of one’s own
forces.’ (page 6)
-
M. Vidmar: Vidmar v Nimzowitsch, New York, 1927 (page 12)
-
F.J. Marshall: ‘I think that my best game was the one against
Bogoljubow in the 1924 New York International Tournament. It is rarely that
a mate in five moves is announced against a grand master in an important
tournament.’ (page 18)
-
J.R. Capablanca: ‘It is difficult to say; so much depends
on the point of view. There are three possible types of best game –
a fine attack, a brilliant defence, or a purely artistic treatment. ...
I think my most finished and artistic game was the one I played against
Dr Bernstein at Moscow on 4 February 1914.’ (page 24)

José Raúl Capablanca
-
G. Maróczy: Maróczy v Chigorin, Vienna, 1903 (page 30)
-
A. Alekhine: Réti v Alekhine, Baden Baden, 1925 (page 35). (When
annotating it in his second Best Games collection (published in 1939)
Alekhine wrote: ‘I consider this and the game against Bogoljubow at
Hastings, 1922 the most brilliant tournament games of my chess career.’)

Alexander Alekhine
-
S. Tartakower: ‘I consider [Maróczy v Tartakower, Teplitz-Schönau,
1922] to be my best game, because it was played against a master of the
highest rank, and victory was not obtained through a serious blunder by
my opponent, and because the sacrifice which I made at the 17th move, when
subsequently analysed in all the variations, was proved to be perfectly
sound.’ (page 41)
-
Edward Lasker: Torre v Ed. Lasker, Chicago, 1926 (page 48)
-
F.D. Yates: ‘I have selected [Yates v Takács, Kecskemét, 1927]
because it is one true to type - that is to say, typical of my own style
of play ... Of my own games I like this one best, as it has sound sacrificial
combinations and was played in an important match.’ (page 55)
-
Emanuel Lasker: ‘I think the game I won against Pillsbury
in the St Petersburg Tourney in 1896 to be the best I ever played. I was
just able to ward off a furious attack and then succeed in carrying my own
counter-attack through. It is true that I missed the logical continuation
at one point, owing to fatigue and time pressure, and so had to win the
game twice; but then the sacrificial termination has some merit.’
(page 60)
-
J. Barry: Barry v Pillsbury, Boston, 1899 (page 67)

John Finan Barry
-
W. Winter: ‘I consider [Winter v Vidmar, London, 1927] to
be my best game partly on account of the eminence of my opponent and partly
because of the importance of the occasion on which it was played, and also
because on three occasions in which the situation was extremely complicated,
I was fortunate enough to discover the only continuation which not only
was necessary to secure victory, but to actually save the game.’ (page
72)
-
M. Euwe: ‘I consider [Euwe v Alekhine, 8th match game, 1926-27]
to be my best game principally because I like it best myself. From your
point of view it may not fulfill all requirements, there being no sacrifices
or brilliancies, but, when it is considered that it was played against the
player who shortly afterwards became the world’s champion, and that
I had the temerity to go in for what might be termed an audaciously novel
opening, I think you will agree with me that I have a certain justification
for making this selection.’ (page 78)
-
E. Colle: ‘I have not played such a lot of fine games as to
make the selection really difficult, but still it is not easy to define
accurately what is really one’s best game. One of the reasons - not
a very good one, but still a reason – for selecting [Colle v Grünfeld,
Berlin, 1926] is that it was awarded the first brilliancy prize.’
(page 83)
-
Sir George Thomas: ‘I find it uncommonly difficult to pick
on a game to send you. To be honest – I have never played a game that
completely satisfied me. However, I enclose a game [Alexander v Thomas,
London, 1919] which has the merit of a rather entertaining combination,
which was subsequently proved to be thoroughly sound. The play on both sides
in the earlier stages of the game probably leaves much to be desired, but
the long period in which the rook remains en prise is rather amusing.’
(page 88)
-
A. Rubinstein: Rubinstein v Lasker, St Petersburg, 1909 (page 94)
-
C. Howell: ‘I have hesitated to send you this game [Howell
v Ford, New York, 1904] as the casual chessist may find it dull and it is
not a masterpiece. Strictly speaking I don’t think I have ever perpetrated
a masterpiece. As you know I have always played to win, and the few brilliancies
I have had were due to the feeble play on the part of my opponents, and
therefore gave me no satisfaction. The game I now send I like because it
has some lessons for an earnest student.’ (page 101)

Clarence Seaman Howell
-
A.B. Hodges: ‘As my chess career began nearly 50 years ago,
I find it somewhat difficult to decide on my best game. To be worthy of
inclusion in the series you are compiling, I think that there are certain
essentials to be considered. The opponent must have been a prominent figure
in the chess world, and there must be no flagrant error in his play. With
these factors in mind, I think that my game with Dr Emanuel Lasker was my
best effort. It was played in New York in 1892 ...’ (pages 107-108)
-
W. Napier: ‘I consider the best game I ever played was against
Dr Lasker at Cambridge Springs in 1904. I was particularly anxious to win
this game, as I knew it would help you (not that you required any help)
to clinch first prize. At one period of the game, the Doctor had to make
nine moves in three minutes, and I felt that my game was safe. He made these
moves however with such diabolical cunning and precision that I lost the
game. I don’t suppose however this is what you want, so I send you
my game with Chigorin in the Monte Carlo Tournament of 1902. It may be some
justification for my selecting this game that it was awarded the Rothschild
Brilliancy Prize.’ (pages 115-116)
-
J. Sawyer: the drawn game Marshall v Sawyer, Montreal, 1928. (page
120)

Joseph Sawyer
- J. Finn: Finn v Nugent, New York, 1898 (page 125).
Few writers have presumed to nominate the best chess game ever played by anyone,
though Irving Chernev’s choice of Bogoljubow v Alekhine, Hastings, 1922
is familiar. (See pages 281-283 of his 1968 book The Chess Companion.)
Another instance is to be found on page 3 of G.A. MacDonnell’s Chess
Life-Pictures (London, 1883). ‘No grander battle has ever, in my opinion,
been recorded in chess annals’ was the exuberant MacDonnell’s description
of the well-known consultation game between Anderssen, Horwitz and Kling (White)
and Staunton, Boden and Kipping (Manchester, 6-7 August 1857).
In the
Pittsburgh Dispatch of 18 November 1902, Napier wrote of Steinitz
v von Bardeleben, Hastings, 1895 that there was ‘no finer game extant’.
Source:
Napier The Forgotten Chessmaster by John S. Hilbert (Yorklyn, 1997),
page 62.
The Strand Magazine seldom had articles on chess, but one such was published
on pages 722-725 of the December 1906 issue, headed ‘The Best Games Ever
Played at Chess by J.H. Blackburne, British Chess Champion [sic]’.
He wrote:
‘I will now proceed to consider three games which stand on record as
perhaps the most brilliant in the annals of chess.’
The three were Anderssen’s Immortal Game (‘This is considered by
many to be the most beautiful ending ever played’), Zukertort v Blackburne
at London, 1883 and Morphy’s ‘brilliant little gem’ against
the Duke and Count at the Paris Opera, 1858.
Paul Charles Morphy
The Morphy game is a popular choice. In C.N. 2287 Yasser Seirawan wrote to
us:
‘Regarding the best game of chess ever played, certainly none of
my own games spring to mind. Morphy v the Duke and Count is arguably the most
quoted game of all time and has much that is special about it. It is fair
to say that no other game has brought so much pleasure to so many. The best
game of chess ever played? Can there be such a thing? Would a perfect game
not be boring? Can a mere off-hand game be the best ever? I don’t know
the answers, and in spite of the questions, Morphy v the Duke and Count gets
my vote.’
Subsequently (see page 148 of A Chess Omnibus) we quoted a contrasting
view, from pages 4-5 of Learn Chess by John Nunn (London, 2000):
‘It’s not an especially good game, as one might expect when the
strongest player of his day confronts two duffers.’
On such matters, of course, there can be no consensus, or any reason for one.
Even terms like ‘best’, ‘greatest’ and ‘most beautiful’
could be debated ad infinitum. And then there is the adjective ‘perfect’.
On pages 334-335 of the October 1919 BCM B. Goulding Brown described
the game H.E. Atkins v J. Barry (in the 1910 Anglo-American cable match) as
‘the nearest that I know to perfection’, and The Golden Treasury
of Chess by Francis J. Wellmuth (New York, 1943) gave it on pages 172-173
with the heading ‘The Perfect Game’. Atkins’ victory was also
highly praised by Emanuel Lasker in his annotations in the New York Evening
Post, which were reproduced on pages 75-76 of the American Chess Bulletin,
April 1910. The world champion concluded:
‘Mr Atkins must be congratulated upon this game, in which every move
he made, starting with his eighth, is beyond criticism.’
That assessment was quoted by Fred Reinfeld when he gave the game on pages
70-72 of A Treasury of British Chess Masterpieces (London, 1950). Lasker
had preferred 7 Qd2, on the grounds that 7 Nb5 ‘puts the white knight
out of play’, but Reinfeld regarded this as ‘carping criticism’
and concluded:
‘Had Lasker omitted the qualifying phrase, he would have been more
just as well as more generous.’
Henry Ernest Atkins
Other documented nominations of the kind discussed above continue to be sought.
Copyright to all historical pictures and scans: Edward Winter
Submit information
or suggestions on chess explorations
All articles by Edward
Winter
Edward
Winter is the editor of Chess
Notes, which was founded in January 1982 as "a forum for aficionados
to discuss all matters relating to the Royal Pastime". Since then over
5,600 items have been published, and the series has resulted in four books by
Winter: Chess
Explorations (1996), Kings,
Commoners and Knaves (1999), A
Chess Omnibus (2003) and Chess
Facts and Fables (2006). He is also the author of a monograph
on Capablanca (1989).
Chess Notes is well known for its historical research, and anyone browsing
in its archives
will find a wealth of unknown games, accounts of historical mysteries, quotes
and quips, and other material of every kind imaginable. Correspondents from
around the world contribute items, and they include not only "ordinary
readers" but also some eminent historians – and, indeed, some eminent
masters. Chess Notes is located at the Chess
History Center. Signed copies of Edward Winter's publications are
currently available.