On Sep 25, 5:56 am, "Chess One" wrote:

This week there appears a new memoire of Arnold Denker at Chessville
including Arnold's favorite game [score given below].

Denker,A - Feit,H
New York Interscholastic Championship, 1929

1.d4 f5 2.Nf3 e6 3.g3 b6 4.Bg2 Bb7 5.0-0 Nf6 6.c4 Be7 7.Nc3 d6 8.d5 e5 9.Ng5
Bc8 10.e4 0-0 11.f4 exf4 12.Bxf4 fxe4 13.Ncxe4 Nxe4 [diagram] 14.Bxe4 Bxg5
15.Qh5 Rxf4 16.Qxh7+ Kf7 17.Bg6+ Kf6 18.Rxf4+ Bxf4 19.Qh4+ Bg5 20.Qe4 Be3+
21.Kh1 Bh6 22.Rf1+ Kg5 23.Bh7 1-0


I find GM Denker's own annotations of this game to
be just a tad misguided.


a) He says that the fianchetto of Black's QB is a
strategical error, which may be true; but then he
just assumes that Black will later advance his
d-pawn, and gives that as the proof. (In fact, this
later advance is a strategical blunder *in itself*.)

b) GM Denker says that ...Bc8 is "forced"; in
reality, there are alternative ways of handling the
situation, as any decent computer program will
demonstrate. This tack of suggesting that every
later move was "forced", is just wrongheaded.
Both sides had plenty of options; for instance,
White could have exploited the e6 weakness in
several different ways, not just as in the game.

c) He gives his own moves exclams over and
over, even when they are obvious; this approach
leads to "exclamflation" (an oversupply of exclams
with no counterbalancing question marks). I
expect the idea is to render an artificial "brilliancy"
effect.

d) At move 15, a very poor move is handed an
exclamation mark. What was needed of course
was to defend the King with ...Bf5. It is oh so
obvious that chopping wood on f4 gives White a
free move with which to capture on h7 with check.
GM Denker even gives faulty analysis to support
this exclam, as if "in denial" that here was Black's
big chance to defend his King, and take his trip
to the woodshed.

e) Move 19: White pursues the enemy Queen,
when his King was on the auction block. Tsk,
tsk.

f) Move 20: another double-exclam is awarded,
though White got himself into the fix by not
swinging his Rook into play on move 19 . Black
is said to be "completely tied up and helpless
against the many threats of mate". Well, in that
case I would expect an efficient execution, not
this stumbling about. I know this is from when
Mr. Denker was a wee lad, but fumbling about,
when combined with severe exclamflation, makes
for artificially inflated opportunities to spread the
disease until it can potentially become a pandemic.
(The simple 19.Rf1, Black resigns, could perhaps
have saved hundreds of innocent lives.)


g) The imbecile IM Innes has transcribed the
moves incorrectly, as I just now discovered when
looking at GM Denker's own annotations. Above,
where the move 21. ...Bh6 is given, the actual
move played was ...Bh3. This explains a lot;
there was no missed mate-in-one, because a
key square was not in fact occupied by Black's
KB.


h) But the game annotations as given in the article by
Larry Parr are also incorrect: below the diagram for the
position after 22. ...Kg5, GM Denker comments:

-------------
23. ...Bxf1
24. Qf5+ Ke7
25.Qf7 mate.
------------

Obviously, the King cannot move through check, so
the winning line should read: 24. Qf5+ Kh6, 25. Qh5++.

This is the famous R-f1 move which has no doubt
appeared in the pages of Chess Life numerous times;
the Rook is immune from capture because of this two-
move mate.


i) But the single most alarming thing about the game's
annotations is the ridiculous claim that AD had never
even seen the Dutch Defense before this game. Let
the math majors figure the odds, but I'll take the side of
the bet which says this is either a baldfaced lie, or just
a titanic lapse of memory! A billion to one? A zillion to
one? Go, go, calculus nerds... .

For the record, although it has been *many years*, I do
recall having seen the famous R-f1 diagram before, but
had no clue who was playing either side. What are the
odds?


-- help bot