A game of chess

Here's a game played over seventy years ago between two long forgotten women players:

These two finished last and second to last in the tournament in which the game was played (it was all-play-all) so I wanted to get an idea of their strength by playing through their game. The standard was better than I expected with lots of fighting chess, until I got to Black's last two moves. What on earth are they all about?

That game is A. Lougheed - R. Bloch Nakkerud, Wch (Women) Buenos Aires, 1939

The Women’s World Championship 1939 won by an unbeaten Vera Menchik
with 18pts from a possible 19.

Here she is springing (!) the Cambridge Springs Trap.
(I have a mate who as Black caught the same player twice in the same
year with this trick.)

B.Janeckova - V. Menchik, Wch (Women) Buenos Aires, 1939



Vera was killed a few years later in V1 rocket attack on London in 1944.
When she died she was still the holder of the Women's World Chess Champion title.
A few years later in 1946 Alekhine died Whilst still the World Chess Champion.

ALekhine's death is still a mystery. You can take your pick from here;

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/alekhine3.html


The loser of the game Fat Lady posted was not in the best of form.

N. Bloch - B. Carrasco Wch (Women) Buenos Aires, 1939

Originally posted by Fat Lady
Here's a game played over seventy years ago between two long forgotten women players:
[pgn]
1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bf4 Nc6 4.e3 Bd6 5.Bxd6 Qxd6 6.Bd3 Qb4+
7.Nc3 Qxb2 8.Nb5 Qb4+ 9.Nd2 Qe7 10.O-O Nf6 11.Nf3 a6
12.Nc3 O-O 13.Re1 e5 14.e4 dxe4 15.Nxe4 Bg4 16.c3 h6
17.Rb1 Rab8 18.h3 Bh5 19.Ng3 Qd7 20.Bf5 Qd5 21.Nxh5 Nxh5
22.Rb2 Rfe8 23.Qd3 Nf6 24.c4 Qa5 25.Rbe ...[text shortened]... ts of fighting chess, until I got to Black's last two moves. What on earth are they all about?

I am just speculating on what may have caused her to make those last two blunders.

She could have been in time trouble and was thinking of 27...Qc3 as a follow-up to 26...exd4 and did not consider how things changed by 27.g5 or perhaps she had forgotten to interpose the move 27...hxg5 before making the ...Qc3 move.

On her second blunder in a row, she could have still been in time trouble and was probably psychologically tramatized due to the previous blunder and only noticed that her Knight was no longer protecting her Rook and quickly moved the King over for that purpose and did not see the diverting tactic by her opponent.

The Instructor

Vera Menchik vs Em. Lasker, Moscow 1935; she puts up a credible fight, but the wily old fox knows what to do with a passer. (Lasker was 66 when this game was played.)

Originally posted by moonbus
Vera Menchik vs Em. Lasker, Moscow 1935; she puts up a credible fight, but the wily old fox knows what to do with a passer. (Lasker was 66 when this game was played.)


[pgn][Event "Moscow"]
[Site "Moscow, URS"]
[Date "1935.02.28"]
[EventDate "1935.02.15"]
[Round "10"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "Vera Menchik"]
[Black "Emanuel Lasker"]
[ECO "D52"]
[Wh d3 Bf6 27.Rdc1 Qe8 28.Qf3 d3 29.Rxf6
d2 30.Rd1 gxf6 31.Nd5 Rxd5 0-1[/pgn]

What a great game. I particularly like whites strategy after 16.e5, changing blacks pawn structure in order to set up a really unusual minority attack on the queenside. That is a really original idea! It's a real shame white didn't manage to lumber black with a backward c-pawn. If only she'd managed to get h3 in before restructuring the pawns, it's difficult to say if it is possible to reach the same position. I'd be really interested to see how an engine would approach whites position from move 18.

Originally posted by Marinkatomb
What a great game. I particularly like whites strategy after 16.e5, changing blacks pawn structure in order to set up a really unusual minority attack on the queenside. That is a really original idea! It's a real shame white didn't manage to lumber black with a backward c-pawn. If only she'd managed to get h3 in before restructuring the pawns, it's diff ...[text shortened]... I'd be really interested to see how an engine would approach whites position from move 18.

Commentary on the game from the Wiener Schachzeitung: "20.N-N6? White is drifting into an inferior position. She should have played 20. P-N6, followed by Q-K3." Lasker's reply 20. ... B-KN5 is given an exclamation mark without comment. Lasker was in good form in this tourney, drawing both Flohr and Botvinnik (tournament co-winners) and defeating Capablanca. The final result was Botvinnik/Flohr 13; Lasker 12-1/2; Capablanca 12; Spielmann 11; a very strong field of up-&-coming Soviet players making up the rest. Ms Menchik came last, 1-1/2 (3 draws, one against Flohr).