'Amaurosis scaccistica'

From the book 'Manual de Xadrez', Idel Becker, Ed. Nobel, 19th ed., 1987, Brasil.

Siegbert Tarrash was medical doctor and a giant of chess. He given this name in Latin for cases of chess blindness.

An example:

Lasker-Euwe - Nottingham, 1936



1. Kd3 Ba5?? 2. b4! Bxb4 Nc2 1-0

PS: in 1936, Euwe was 'only' the World Champion...

'Manual de Xadrez', id, ibid.

Liberzon-Petrossian - Moscow, 1964

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. e5 Ne7 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. bxc3 c5 7. Qg4 Ng6 8. h4 h5 9. Qg3 Qa5 10. Bd2 Nc6 11. Bd3 Nce7 12. dxc5 Qxc5 13. Nf3 Bd7 14. 0-0



14 ... Bb5? 15. Be3! 1-0

After 15. ... Qc6 (forced) 16. Nd4.

In 1964, Petrossian was the World Champion...

Thanks for these posts. They are informative and a refreshing reminder that everyone makes .

Now I know why I suck at chess.

What happened to the word "mistakes" in my previous post -- Still another mistake!!! Arrrrrrggggghhhhh!!!

Originally posted by Amaurote
Now I know why I suck at chess.

Because you're blind!

From the book 'Play better chess', Leonard Barden, 1980, Octopus Books Ltd., England.

Reshevsky-Savon, Petrópolis (Brasil), 1973


Position after the 39th move of Savon.

Sammy had few seconds to do his last move before the time control. The correct continuation: 40. g5+ Kxg5 {Bxg5 41. Rh8#} 41. h4+ Kxh4 42. Qf4#.

But Reshevsky played 40. Qxg6 (??) and announced "Mate!" (????). A GM near the table described his move as "the mistake of 5 centuries", because Savon played 40 ... Bxg6. :'(

'Play better chess', id, ibid.

Bernstein-Smyslov, Groningen, 1946


Smyslov moves.

Easy win for Vassily, isn´t it?
He played 1 ... b2 2. Rxb2 Rh2+ and 3 ... Rxb2, winning (????). Do you know what happened?

I believe the missing move for white was 3 Rf3 which would have resulted in stalemate.

1 ... b2 2. Rxb2 Rh2+ and 3 Rf3 Rxb2.

See, I told you I am good at mistakes .....

'Manual de Xadrez', id., ibid.

Rubinstein-Nimzovitch, San Sebastián, 1912

Case of double blindness in the last round, when the 2 giants were deciding the 1st prize!


Nimzovitsch moves.

Rubinstein threatened Qxf7+, Qxf8+ and Rxf8#. Nimzovitch plays 1 ... Bc5 ??, thinking: 'This avoids the mate'. And Rubinstein... AGREE, because plays 2. Be4 ????, dispining the piece!
After 1 ... Bc5, the GMs did´t see mate in 2!

Just in time: Rubinstein wins the game and the tournament, and Nimzovitch was the 2nd with Spielmann.

Originally posted by QR
I believe the missing move for white was 3 Rf3 which would have resulted in stalemate.

1 ... b2 2. Rxb2 Rh2+ and 3 Rf3 Rxb2.

See, I told you I am good at mistakes .....

Right! Smyslov drawn the game (stalemate)!

'Manual de Xadrez', id., ibid.

Tchigorin-Steinitz, La Habana, 1892.
World Championship Match, game #23.

After the game #22, Steinitz had 9 victories, and Tchigorin, 8. The new World Chess Champion needed 10 victories, then the Russian GM haven´t alternative. After the 31th move of Steinitz, the situation was:


Tchigorin moves.

If 32. Rxb7! Bh5! (threading mate in 3) 33. Rb3! Bf7! 34. Bf4! Rxd5 35. Ng5 etc, white pieces had the victory.

But Tchigorin plays 32. Bb4??, and Steinitz announce mate in 2...

Vásquez, strong mexican chessplayer and excelent chess columnist, wrote: "More than 1,000 people assisted the game. They thinked Mr. Steinitz will resigned soon. Suddenly, a living agitation is produce. The russian GM turns pale and takes the hands to his head. 'What an unhappiness! What a way of finish a math for the world championship!', hundreds of voices said."

'Manual de Xadrez', id., ibid.

Bird-Gunsberg, Hastings, 1897.

1. f4 e5 2. fxe5 d6 3. exd6 Bxd6 4. Nf3 g5 5. c3 g4



6. Nd4?? Nc6???? 7. Qa4 Qh4+ 8. Kd1 g3 9. b3? Qxh2! 0-1

If giants can do THIS, mere mortals like us can do, too!

Game 2604150 ... and a win for total blindness... 😞

Nice one - you can now sit back, grin, smoke some kippers and time him out.