Saavedra position

As Saavedra study one of the most famous chess studies is called. The compound containing only four stones chess composition first appeared in the Weekly Citizen on May 4, 1895 as draw study by Georges Emile Barbier, but Fernando Saavedra discovered a Barbier did not recognize win for White.

The study

The diagram shows the Saavedra study in published form since 1902. Since the study was originally intended to show a way to draw for Black, it was first published in black and white train right Bauer already on c7. It first appears obvious that Black can only be achieved draw if he can abtauschen his tower against the white farmers. Variants in which the white pawn passes unmolested, lead to the final match against Dame tower, which would be obtained in the cases considered here for White. The variant of Saavedra study with 6.c8D forms an exception to this.

After the train

Black can only prevent the conversion of the pawn by continuously offers chess:

The White King, because of the bondage 2 .. td7 not enter the 7th row. Because 2 .. Td1! 3.c8D together with spit by 3 .. Tc1 and the c-file is denied. In order to play for a win to the White Potter maneuver served:

Now Black can offer no more chess without losing the tower. However, it can still provide a stalemate trap:

It threatens 6 .. Tc4 , and after 6.c8D Tc4 7.Dxc4 Black is stalemate, as was originally intended by Barbier. The trains 6.Kb3 Td3 or 6.Kc3 Td1! 7.Kc2 Td4 lead to the repetition of position. Saavedra was the to a win:

White performs a sub- transformation into a tower and threatens mate on a8. Although a material balance is present, Black has no defense. Since the tower, unlike the lady can not move diagonally, is 6 .. Tc4 7.Txc4 no stalemate. The only defense against the threat of Matt 's:

With the departure of the king of the c- line

White leads now brought a double attack. The double threat 8.Kxa4 and 8.Tc1 matt lead to win the black tower, after which White wins elementary. Besides the famous endgame study with the Réti maneuver this is one of the most famous chess compositions ever.

The task was first published on 4 May 1895 as draw study, but the solver Fernando Saavedra made ​​a few days after the publication of the solution on May 11, the authors Barbier points out that one to a win is possible. Barber then printed on May 18, again the position, but this time with earnings call, and from published their solution on 25 May 1895.

History

The authorship of the study was unknown for a long time before they could be reconstructed by John Selman, according to the eyewitness Archibald Neilson. Selman also explored their dissemination in the early years.

Formation

Starting point for the study was a match between Richard Fenton (white) and William Potter. In the default game in which Potter f7 farmers and had a train set, came after 56 moves in a position that has been agreed as a draw, although the Potter maneuver would have won. Barbier was a spectator in this game.

The counterparties have agreed after 56 .. Ta6 , or other reportedly already in this position, draw, although that would have obtained from a study by Kling and Horwitz maneuver known (see precursor ): 56 .. Ta6 57.Kc5 Ta5 58. KC4 Ta4 59.Kc3 Ta3 60.Kb2 won, such as Johannes Zukertort proved in the City of London Chess Magazine.

After Potter's death on March 13, 1895 Barber wrote an obituary, which was published on 27 April 1895. He also stated that game position, but with incorrect details. In particular, the farmer stood a row to the right, king and tower had replaced the lines. That did the solution with the Potter - maneuver not impaired, however. According to Selman barber had reconstructed the position itself flawed from memory; However, later it turned out that this diagram was given seven weeks ago of H. W. Hawks in his column in the Newcastle Weekly Courant of 9 March 1895 as the game position.

When analyzing the position barber noticed a stalemate opportunity for black when the black king is on a1, instead of h6 as in the diagram incorrectly reconstructed. He published this position on 4 May 1895 task that Black should hold draw, and described it as a deal of his own compositions on the basis of the lot Fenton Potter.

One of the readers of barber chess column was the Spanish -born Reverend Fernando Saavedra, the study sparked between the publication on 4 May 1895, the appearance of the solution on May 11, 1895, however, a few days later she looked again and there discovered the winning move. Shortly after the May 11, 1895 ( in a later draft article was Selman from psychological considerations 13 May 1895 as a probable date ) went Saavedra in the Glasgow Chess Club and showed the three members present Archibald Johnson Neilson, Georges Emile Barbier and Hector Rey the to a win. Barbier printed on May 18, the task with the income requirement for white again from, naming Saavedra as a finder's profit guidance. On May 25, he published the solution.

Dissemination

The Saavedra study was known around 1902 to a wider chess public, as Richard Teichmann she demonstrated to Monte Carlo with the Master tournament and Emanuel Lasker used the task in the same year in lectures, which is why they often Lasker was awarded. However, this was during his lectures the Glasgow Weekly Herald as the source. The Viennese chess newspaper printed in the second part of a two-part article, the Saavedra study with the white pawns on c6 and the heading off of a lot Potter - Fenton from. In a footnote they stated that Saavedra had shown winning the draw as a given game position, was printed in the Glasgow Weekly Citizen 1895.

On September 25, 1910 and on June 11, 1911, authored by Otto Dehler article in the Hamburger Nachrichten (1910 ), respectively, in the Viennese chess newspaper was published. In the article Dehler writes: The ' Viennese chess newspaper wants to specify the name to know and call a Rev. Saavedra, who has this gain guiding in a game, which draw was given proved. In a footnote to Georg Marco pointed to the above article the impression in Viennese chess newspaper. He stated in addition that Emanuel Lasker had this in a lecture at Manhattan Chess Club as the source. On June 15, 1929 Henri Weenink published a short article in the 50th edition of his column about famous chess studies, in which he referred to as Saavedra Swedish vicar. He also named the Saavedra study as part position between Potter and Fenton, but made no further references.

Search by Selman

After intensive research succeeded John Selman, to reconstruct the history of the Saavedra study. In an article published in November 1940 article, he describes this in detail. Selman admits to have known the study already long, but to have found in the started together with Cornelis Jan de Feijter collection of studies with sub- transformations, which was designed for later releases a special interest in the study. This was mainly because that the author, with the exception of this study in the chess world was completely unknown both as a composer and as a player. Even the source of the study was not assured given different information circulating. Stutzig Selman was the fact that the study should be Scottish though, Saavedra However, a Spanish name is, among other things, the Don Quixote author Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra was wearing. According to research and a letter to the Glasgow Chess Club, which turned out to be blind fired fluke by Selman information, Selman was introduced to Archibald Johnson Neilson, who, when Saavedra demonstrated the gain guiding May 1895, was present at Glasgow Chess Club. Neilson, many years clerk of a chess column in the Falkirk Herald, was the first true witness, the Selman could find. After the clarification of some misinformation about the Saavedra Selman continues with the fact that there was in 1875 a duel between the playing strength with Master William Norwood Potter and Fenton Vivian and Richard Falkland Fenton. Potter, who pretended a farmer and one or two trains, won the fight with default five wins and four draws from nine games. One of the draws he ended as the history describes the Selman then cites.

According to the legislative history Selman indicates the CV Saavedra and then continues with the proliferation history of the study. This was initially only known locally, and 1902 world chess champion Emanuel Lasker lectures held in Glasgow and there was shown by the Neilson study. After Lasker used it in a lecture on October 3, 1902 a message about it released with emphasis of the study in Glasgow Weekly Herald of 11 October 1902. In this case, the farmer was first provided by c7 c6 after, so White should win on the train. In the article, however, there were several errors, so the study was presented as a game of position between Potter and Fenton and Reverend S. [ sic] Saavedra named as the author. The errors were taken over by the British Chess Magazine, when the composition was reprinted there, after which it was published in every chess magazine in 1902 or 1903. However, at the chess tournament to Monte Carlo in February 1902, the study also circulated already there without author and the source. She was later attributed to Lasker, which is due by Selman's opinion that he had used the task at lectures in Glasgow and Manchester. Around 1911 presented Creassey Edward C. Tattersall together his book A Thousand Endgames, including him Archibald Johnson Neilson the Saavedra study sent, which was recorded as number 336 in the book and was then reprinted again world.

Saavedra himself never demanded authorship of the task, but Neilson made ​​sure that Saavedras name is not forgotten and printed the study more than once in his column in the Falkirk Herald. With gratitude to several correspondents, among other things, Meindert Niemeijer, whose library he was allowed to use for research, Selman then ended his article.

Subsequent research

1996 was dedicated to John Roycroft two questions about the slow spread of the study, which remained open at Selman's article. He noted that the Grand Master tournament Hastings in August 1895, the study is not mentioned in the tournament book, could therefore be assumed that the composition at that time was unknown among the players. Roycroft lists several factors that may have led to the fact that the study has not spread. So the Weekly Citizen few readers had compared with the Weekly Herald and Neilson Falkirk Herald. Furthermore myself have taken the publication over several weeks and looked through the writing style just as a correction. In addition, the Unterverwandlungszug was hidden in the text and indicated no diagram in the solution. Barber fell ill in the summer, while solver did not send appropriate letters to the British Chess Magazine. The chess tournament Hastings also claimed a lot of space in chess columns. The copying facilities were not widely disseminated. Neilson's column eventually included as measures Selman and Roycroft in inspection, 1895 no emphasis of the study and their influence was probably too low. Thus, there were between 1895 and July 1902 no wide publication of the study.

The other mystery was that Lasker was the study by Neilson in October 1902, according to Selman shown, but it was allegedly already shown around by Lasker with the Grand Master tournament to Monte Carlo in February and March 1902. Roycroft solved the mystery by further research and found out that Lasker not staying in front of the Grandmaster Tournament in Glasgow, but Richard Teichmann in January 1902 visited Glasgow. Roycroft quotes the Oxford Companion of Chess, which Teichmann rarely wrote articles, and sees this as an explanation for why Teichmann, the study did not spread before the tournament at Monte Carlo. Since Teichmann had lectured at Glasgow Chess Club over four months, he had someone there, but probably not Neilson, have shown the study. The connection to Lasker lies probably in a task, the Lasker published in 1892 and its similarity could have been substantial enough for the players in Monte Carlo to suspect Lasker as the author of Saavedra study. While the German chess newspaper stated in July 1902 for the Saavedra study, the author is unknown, calls the German Chess Week on July 13, 1902 ( p. 231) Emanuel Lasker as presumed author. On January 25, 1903, the German weekly chess corrected this information to readers demand that Lasker, the study only " rescued from oblivion " have. Roycroft notes that probably the well known name Lasker, the task had been falsely attributed, and not Lasker himself was meant in the column. Through the publications Lasker has already experienced by Roycrofts opinion on a undetermined time from July to October 1902 by the study, before Neilson they had shown him. On October 3, 1902 Lasker used the Saavedra study in a lecture at the Glasgow Athenaeum, in the years before Barbier also gave lessons. On October 4, 1902 Lasker went on the ship Columbia to New York City.

Solution: 1.f7 Txe6 2.Kg5 Re5 3.Kg4 Te4 4.Kg3 wins Te3 5.Kf2

The above position should be published in 1892 in the London Chess Fortnightly. Research by Ken Whyld later revealed, however, that the study was not to be found in the specified source.

Harold van der Heijden 2006 clarified the question of how the Saavedra study was used in Russia. He found out here that the oldest publication with the white pawn on c6 was not published in the German chess magazine in July 1902, but has already been shown in Bohemia in 1902.

Precursor

The idea of ​​a lady just converted to conquer by a spear, was shown already in 1512 by Damiano de Odemira in one, but according to later findings by Thompson incorrect, study. 1853 followed the Potter maneuver in a study by Kling and Horwitz. Eugene Beauharnais Cook showed in 1864 probably due to position of Daniel Harrwitz the stalemate motif in Bilguer. Referred to the white king maneuver Kc 2 -b3 with double attack, by Alexander Rueb charged as king move, was not shown before the Saavedra study.

Solutions: Links: 1.g6 2.g7 Txh6 T5 T4 3.Kf4 4.Kf3 Th3 5.Kg2 wins Right: 1.Tb7 KC8 2.Tb5! C1D 3.Tc5 Dxc5 patt

Alleged anticipation

The Irish champion James Alexander Porterfield Rynd alleged in the Evening Herald on May 25, 1895 the date of publication of the barber solution, the Saavedra position had occurred in one of his games. He stated the following game fragment that was supposedly played three or four years earlier against the club president of the Dublin-based Clontarf Chess Club, William Francis Lynam. 2001 emerged the position on again when Tim Krabbé on his website published the article "The Myth Exposed Saavedra ". After further publications of the material, experts argued over whether Porterfield Rynd told the truth.

1 f6 - f7 Tb5xe5 2 Kh5 - g4 Te5 -e4 3 K g4 - g3 Te4 e3 4 KG3 - f2 Te3 e4 5 f7 - F8T Te4 h4 6 Kf2 - g3 and Black resigned.

The only event to which the description Porterfield Rynds would be true, was a simultaneous exhibition on December 18, 1890, where many spectators were present.

The authenticity of the lot was indeed questioned because Porterfield Rynd they published until after the publication in the Glasgow Weekly Citizen, but only Roycroft laid in January 2002, a chain of evidence against that speaks against the existence of the game. So Porterfield Rynd play has been published not promptly respond relatively late to the columns barber, which he, as is derived from his reactions to earlier columns barber las. Details and of how the introduction with shock event and the relatively weak club president as an enemy, point rather to a plagiarism. Also Porterfield Rynd does not specify how the black king had come by h1. As a strong indication leads to Roycroft that Porterfield Rynd has claimed the invention of the helpmates, and has plagiarized another study on 19 October 1895 in his column and output as a game position. According to Ken Whyld pricing report was published in July 1895 in the British Chess Magazine. As with the Saavedra study Porterfield Rynd remained calm, as Tattersall, the study published in 1911 in A Thousand Endgames. Roycroft sees in the overall circumstances Porterfield Rynds assertion, when Saavedra it was a game of position of one of his games, refuted. Also Krabbé noted in his Open Chess Diary, that he acquired the lot for now invented.

Barr's Lucan Spa Hotel 1895

Links: white wins by 1.Lc7! De1 2.Kh2 Dxf2 3.Ld6! Df4 4.g3 Dxg3 5.Lxg3 matt Right: Allegedly ended the match by 37 .. Sd3 38.Dxf3 Db3 39.Dxd3 Dxd3 40.Lf7 Dxc2 41.Ka2 f4 42.gxf4 Dc4 43.b3 Dxb3 44.Lxb3 matt

Influence

In his book The Chess Endgame Study ( title of the first edition: Test Tube Chess ) called John Roycroft the Saavedra study " undoubtedly the most famous of all endgame studies ."

Harrie Grondijs leads in No Rook Unturned ( as of 2004) 36 additional studies, which lead to a position from the Saavedra study. This appeared 1895-2003, where the alleged match fragment of Porterfield Rynd against Lynam is the earliest entry. Mark Saweljewitsch Liburkin combined the idea of ​​this composition with a further sub- transformation.

Solution: 1.Sa2 -c1 with two variants: 1 .. Tc5xb5 2.c6 - c7 -d5 Tb5 3.Sc1 -d3 Td5xd3 4.Kd1 -c2 Td3 -d4! 5.c7 - C8T! Td4 -a4 -b3 6.Kc2 wins. 1 .. Tc5 -d5 2.Kd1 -c2 - c5 Td5 3.Kc2 -d3 Tc5xb5 4.c6 - c7 Tb5 - b8! 5.c7xb8L! winning