|
|
|
The KibitzerTim Harding
Translate this page
|
Chess in the Years 1862 and 1912 Previous January columns have focused on events and personalities in the game a century past, so it is now time to look at what happened at the chessboard in the year 1912. Recognising, however, that because of the First World War competition was thin in the years 1914-19 (especially 1915-18) future articles in this series will also look at events 150 years back. I have decided to start this double look-back already because 1862 was a year of particular significance in the chess world. The second part of the article will look at 1912. 1862: Steinitz comes to London At the start of the 1860s the world of top chess was in rather a lull. After his storming European tour of 1858-59 Paul Morphy, like Howard Staunton, was effectively in retirement. With one exception, Morphy had beaten everybody there was to beat – Louis Paulsen, in the first American Congress, and then, in matches, the top professionals Löwenthal, Harrwitz, and Anderssen as well as several amateurs. 1862 was to show that a new generation was on the rise, but Morphy withdrew from competition and never tested himself against them. The civil war in the U.S. largely halted competition there, and the only major event in Europe in 1861 was a long match in England, in which Paulsen, returned from America, fought the new star Ignacz Kolisch to a standstill. After thirty-one games they called it a draw although Paulsen held a slender lead 16-15. There had been many draws and in the second half of the match Paulsen, who had held a large lead at first, had only scored one win. The British Chess Association congress in London was the principal event in 1862 and it brought together a strong field of fourteen for the first time in an all-play-all tournament. Although some leading players, apart from Morphy, were missing (no Kolisch, no Lange), it saw the return to form of Anderssen and had long-term consequences. Two of the grandmasters of the future – Blackburne and Steinitz – entered the world stage, and the Italian master Serafino Dubois also performed well. Some British amateurs performed above expectations, particularly the clergymen John Owen and George Macdonnell. The most significant outcome was that Steinitz made his home in London for the next twenty years. The Congress was not run on modern lines, with set rounds where everyone played a designated opponent on a particular day. Some of the London-based players began their programme before the overseas visitors arrived. Most of the games were played in the various clubs and although the St. James's Hall was taken for one week, only some tournament games were played there. Moreover, draws did not count, as was frequently the case in mid-Victorian tournaments. The chief organiser, Johann Löwenthal, started with three wins against amateurs (and a walkover), but then poor health and the duties of organisation led him to retire. Under other circumstances he might have been one of the principal contenders but he effectively retired from serious play at this point. The fight for first place resolved itself into a duel between Anderssen and Paulsen. Anderssen won nine games in succession before suffering a surprise loss to Owen. Paulsen who was beaten by Dubois. The following was the decisive game: Adolf Anderssen – Louis Paulsen 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6 4 d3 Löwenthal's notes in his tournament book are critical of the defensive character of this move. 4...d6 5 Bxc6+ bxc6 6 h3 Be7 "In some of his match games Mr. Paulsen here played ...g6." 7 Nc3 0–0 8 0–0 Ne8 9 d4 "The best move to prevent Black's contemplated advance of the f-pawn." 9...exd4 10 Nxd4 Bb7 11 Be3 d5 This threatens to win a piece by 12...c5 and 13...d4. 12 Nf5 Bf6 13 Bc5 Nd6
14 Re1 It is not obvious that Löwenthal was correct when he commented here: "14 Bxd6 might have won a pawn, but the move selected by Mr. Anderssen is preferable." 14...Re8 15 Qg4 Nxf5 "Black might with equal effect have played 15...Bc8." 16 exf5 Qd7 17 Qf3 a5 18 Ne2
18...a4 "Mr. Paulsen had here a move at his command which would have considerably improved his game. A glance at the position will convince good chess players that 18...Re4, with the view of doubling the rooks afterwards, would have given him a strong game." 19 c3 Ra5? Löwenthal commented that Anderssen's last move had anticipated this attempt to dislodge the bishop. 20 Bd4 "Mr. Anderssen has the game in his hands." 20...Qd6 21 Ng3 Be5? "Black has an extremely difficult game to play, and his position becomes more and more embarrassing." 22 f6! "The natural sequence to Black's last move." 22...Qxf6 23 Qh5 "Nothing can now withstand White's attack." 23...g5
The double error that now occurred is hard to explain, except by the tension of the tournament situation, given that these were the two strongest active players of 1862. It does not say much for the accuracy of play in those days, but the quality in some other games from the tournament was higher. 24 Qe2?? Löwenthal wrote that "24 h4 strikes us as decidedly better," and indeed this should have won. Even stronger, however, would be 24 Rxe5 Rxe5 25 f4. 24...Qh8?? "A serious mistake which presently loses the game." Paulsen pointed out afterward that he should have played 24...Qg6! to escape the pin, for if 25 Bxe5 f6 "regaining the lost bishop and having a safe game." He is now totally lost one more. 25 Bxe5 f6 26 Qh5 Rxe5 27 Rxe5 fxe5 28 Qe8+ Kg7 29 Nf5+ 1–0 Anderssen finished with 12 points (including one walkover) and Paulsen with 11, having also lost to Dubois. After the tournament, Anderssen and Paulsen played a small match in London which was deemed drawn at 4-4, both players needing to return to the continent. Steinitz enhanced his growing reputation by winning a match against Dubois 5-3 with one draw. Owen took the third prize with 10 points and Dubois scored 9, tied with Macdonnell. Steinitz scored 8 and Blackburne, who had never before played outside Manchester, scored 4, but impressed with a blindfold simultaneous display. The Scottish army officer George Henry Mackenzie, who was not in the main tournament, also made a strong debut this year. He won the Handicap event, winning a game against Anderssen from whom he received odds of pawn and move. Later in the year he won a match against MacDonnell, played at the Dublin Library Club. In October, Paul Morphy sailed from New Orleans on a Spanish vessel with his friend Charles Maurian, starting to make his way to join his mother and sister in Paris. He played some games in Cuba but there was nobody there to provide him with serious resistance. Two games can be found on databases and websites, but have Morphy's opponents been correctly identified? D. Felix Sicre – Paul Morphy The Weltgeschichte des Schachs collection of Morphy's games (edited by Rellstab) says this game was played on 18 October 1862. The ChessBase Mega Database 2012 claims that J. M. Sicre was the loser of this game. 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 d3 Bc5 6 0–0 b5 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 h6 9 Be3 Bxe3 10 fxe3 0–0 11 Nbd2 d5 12 exd5 Nxd5 13 Qe2 Be6 14 Bxd5 Qxd5 15 Ne4 f5 16 Nf2 Qd8 17 b3
17...g5 18 Kh1 g4 19 Ng1 Qg5 20 Rad1 Ne7 21 Qd2 Rad8 22 d4 c5 23 e4? A miscalculation, relying on a pin down the d-file which is easily broken. 23...Qxd2 24 Rxd2 cxd4 25 Rfd1 fxe4 26 Nxe4 Bd5 The winning move. 27 cxd4 Bxe4 28 dxe5 Rxd2 29 Rxd2 Rf1 30 e6 Kg7 31 Rd4 Re1 32 Rd2 Nd5 33 e7 Kf7 34 Rf2+ Kxe7 0–1 Paul Morphy – José Maria Sicre The Weltgeschichte des Schachs collection says this game was played blindfold by Morphy on 22 October. David Lawson's book on Morphy (page 283) says that J. M. Sicre was "a very good chess player and a slave of Felix Sicre." 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 exd5 4 Nf3 Bd6 5 Bd3 Nf6 6 0–0 0–0 7 Nc3 c6 8 Bg5 Bg4 9 h3 Bxf3 10 Qxf3 Nbd7 11 Rfe1 Qc7 12 g4 Rfe8 13 Be3
13...Kh8? 14 g5 Ng8 15 Qxf7 Re7 16 Qh5 Nf8 17 Qg4 Ne6 18 Bxh7 Nf6 19 gxf6 gxf6 20 Bg6 Rg7 21 Qh5+ Kg8 22 Kh1 Nf8 23 Bf5 Bf4 24 Rg1 Bxe3 25 fxe3 Rg5 26 h4 Nh7 27 hxg5
ChessBase stops here. Additional moves are included in the WGS collection. 27...Nxg5 28 Rxg5+ fxg5 29 Rg1 1–0 1912: Lasker's rivals advance their case In the half century between 1862 and 1912, chess made huge advances in terms of the technical standard of play. The rise of professionalism and annual master tournaments and the growth of chess literature raised the bar in terms of opening knowledge, and positional ideas unknown to the experts of fifty years previously were available to a new generation of players through the example of Steinitz and Lasker and the teachings of Tarrasch. The years before the First World War were the high age of modernism in European culture in its many aspects, as the continent walked blindly towards the precipice. In the little world of chess, 1912 was another year when the world champion Dr. Emanuel Lasker (who had just returned to Europe) chose to rest on his laurels. Capablanca, who got married, also did not compete that year. Both Capablanca and Rubinstein made attempts to negotiate with Lasker to play a world championship match but without success. Therefore, 1912 became an opportunity for others to make their mark, which many did. The Year-Book of Chess for 1912, edited by E. A. Michell, considered that 1912 "will undoubtedly be remembered as one of the richest in tournament play that the chess world has known for some time." He instanced four international tournaments "of great distinction" at Abbazia (a King's Gambit tournament), San Sebastian, Pistyan, and Breslau, plus a lesser international at Stockholm and limited openings tournament at Budapest, with important national tournaments in Hungary and Russia. In addition, there was a match between Marshall and Janowski, played in Biarritz in September, which Marshall won 6-2 with two draws. Foreshadowing the status of the USSR Championships half a century later, Michell observed that the Russian national tournament was "considerably stronger as regards the standing of the competitors than many international tournaments." American chess-lovers had a major disappointment because a tournament planned for New York and Havana in December did not take place. English chess, on the other hand, was in a slump. Only Amos Burn (in his final active year) and Yates competed internationally. Burn played his last tournament at Breslau (the Eighteenth German Federation Congress), but age caught up with him: he was now sixty-three. Whereas long tournaments used to suit his powers of endurance, in this case he was the early leader, but collapsed as the event wore on, losing several games. After the cancellation of the American event, he declined all further invitations and retired from active play. The British Chess Federation raised a subscription on the fiftieth anniversary of Blackburne's emergence as an international player, which paid for an annuity for himself and his wife, but he did not compete in 1912. In January, Atkins won the play-off for the 1911 British Championship title against F. D. Yates (thus completing his run of six consecutive victories) but missed the 1912 tournament, held at Richmond in Surrey. This threw the field open, the new champion being R. C. Griffith, co-editor of Modern Chess Openings. In the B.C.F.'s Major Open tournament, held alongside the championship, joint first was "A. Green," said by Hoffer to be the pseudonym of a foreign competitor; does any reader know who this was? There was even a match between competitors of the Major Open and the championship, won by the former! Wins for black predominated at Abbazia, but Michell argued that this was because the change to a riskier style did not suit most masters. He said the King's Gambit should not be considered refuted because "in the hands of players like Spielmann and Duras, the gambit seems to be full of life." The San Sebastian tournament, the strongest of the year, was played from 19 February to 20 March, starting soon after the end of Abbazia, with eleven strong masters meeting each other twice. Burn and Rotlewi had also been invited but did not participate. According to Hoffer in The Field of 24 February, Burn sent the organisers a letter withdrawing just before the tournament began. Forgacs only played the first half of the tournament. Akiba Rubinstein was to be the player of the year, but he had early losses to Spielmann and Duras at San Sebastian. He won because of a strong performance in the second half in which he scored 7½ out of 9. His final score was 12½ points from nineteen games, half a point ahead of Spielmann (who made 8/10 in the first half) and Nimzowitsch, and a point ahead of Tarrasch. In Capablanca's comments on the San Sebastian tournament, which can be read at Chess History, the great Cuban noted that Tarrasch had been written off prematurely after his loss to Lasker in 1908. "He is still a player to be feared and beating him is a Herculean task." Michaell, too, noted that Tarrasch won more games than anyone else at San Sebastian (nine), whereas Teichmann and Schlechter only scored one win between them, perhaps because of the fact that non-prizewinners received 100 francs for each win and fifty francs for each game drawn. Nimzowitsch had gone into the last round half a point ahead and should have played for a draw against Rubinstein, but eventually lost. Nevertheless, Nimzowitsch advanced his reputation this year. Perlis, with 10, also made a plus score at San Sebastian and Marshall scored fifty percent. Rubinstein won at Pistyan by a wide margin, and he also tied for first at Breslau with Duras. Then he won the Russian championship which was held in Vilna at the end of the year. Several players there would now be considered Poles or Balts as the Russian empire then was nearly as geographically extensive as the Soviet Union later became. Rubinstein finished ahead of Alapin, Alekhine (who had won in Stockholm), Bernstein (the close runner-up at Vilna), Nimzowitsch, and Salwe, among others. Michell foresaw "Of the younger players, Alekhin[e] stands very probably quite by himself." Here is one of Rubinstein's lesser-known victories of 1912: Akiba Rubinstein – Gyula Breyer 1 d4 d6 2 e4 Nd7 3 f4 e5 4 Nf3 exf4 5 Bxf4 Ngf6 6 Nc3 Nb6 7 a4 Qe7 8 Bd3 h6 9 0–0 Black's opening experiment, a sort of passive King's Gambit Declined, has turned out poorly. 9...Bg4 10 h3 Bh5 11 a5 Nbd7 12 e5
12...dxe5 13 dxe5 Qb4 14 Qc1 Bxf3 15 Rxf3 Qc5+ 16 Kh1 Nd5 17 Nxd5 Qxd5 18 e6 fxe6 19 Bxc7 Ne5 20 Bxe5 Qxe5 21 Bg6+ Kd7 22 Re3 Qc5 23 Qd2+ Bd6 24 Rd1 Rad8 25 b4 Qc7
26 Bf7 Relying on technique, Rubinstein misses the quicker win by 26 Rxe6!+- when if 26...Kxe6 27 Qd5+ White soon mates: 27...Kf6 (27...Kd7 28 Qf5+ Kc6 29 b5#) 28 Qf5+ Ke7 29 Qf7#. 26...Rhf8 27 Bxe6+ Ke7 28 Bd5+ Kd7 29 Rc3 Qb8 30 Qd4 Rf6 31 Qg4+ Ke8 32 Qxg7 Be5 33 Re3 Qd6 34 Rxe5+ Qxe5 35 Bf7+ Ke7 36 Bh5+ Ke6 37 Bg4+ 1–0 Alexander Alekhine – Osip Bernstein This is Game Fourteen in the first volume of My Best Games by Alekhine. 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 e6 3 Nc3 a6 4 d4 cxd4 5 Nxd4 Qc7 6 Be2 Nf6 7 0–0 Be7 8 f4 Nc6 9 Kh1 d6 10 Bf3 Bd7 11 Be3 0–0 12 Qe2 Rac8 13 Qf2 b5 14 Nb3 Ne8 15 Rad1 Rb8 16 Rd2 Na5 17 Nxa5 Qxa5
18 e5! b4 If 18...d5, 19 Bxd5 because Black would be lost after 19...exd5 20 Nxd5: a) 20...Bd8 21 Bc5 Be6! 22 Bxf8 Kxf8 23 Qc5+ Kg8 24 f5 Bxd5 (24...Bxf5 25 b4; 24...Qxd2 25 fxe6) 25 Qxd5. b) 20...Qd8 21 Bc5 Bxc5 22 Qxc5+-. 19 Ne4 d5 20 Nc5 Bb5 21 Ra1! Nc7 Alekhine criticised this move, saying 21...Qc7 or 21...Qd8 would have been better, although Black's position would remain very precarious. 22 a4!
As this threatens to win the queen by Nb3, Black must lose at least the exchange. 22...Bc4 If 22...bxa3 23 Rxa3 Qb4 24 c3 Qc4 25 Be2+- or 22...Bxc5 23 Bxc5 Rfc8 24 c3! Bxa4 25 Bd1 bxc3 26 b4!+-. 23 Nd7 b3 24 Nxb8 Rxb8 25 c3 Na8 26 Be2! Rc8 27 f5! Bxe2 28 Rxe2 Bc5 29 Rf1 Bxe3 30 Rxe3 Qb6 31 a5 Qc6 32 Rf3!? Alekhine said 32 f6 g6 33 Qh4 Qe8 34 Rh3 h5 35 Qg5 Qf8 36 Rxh5 would have been simpler. 32...exf5 33 Rxf5 Nc7 34 Rxf7 Ne6
35 Qa7! h6 36 Re7 Qc4 37 Rff7 Qe4 38 Qxa6 Rc6 39 Qf1 Kh7 40 Rf6! d4 41 Rfxe6 Rxe6 42 Rxe6 dxc3 43 bxc3 b2 44 Rb6 Qc2 45 a6 Qc1 46 Qg1 1–0 The following is a spectacular game, belying the Petroff Defence's boring reputation. Dawid Janowski – Frank Marshall 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Nxe5 d6 4 Nf3 Nxe4 5 d4 d5 6 Bd3 Bd6 7 c4 This was often seen in the early days but White should prepare central action by 7 0–0. 7...0–0 This allows White to return to the main line by 8 0–0 if he wants; subsequently Marshall played several games with 7...Bb4+. Note that the old Petroff monograph by Forintos and Haag has the wrong move order for this game. 8 cxd5?! In the fifth game Janowski tried 8 c5 Be7 9 Nc3 but still obtained an inferior position following 9...Nxc3 10 bxc3 b6 11 cxb6 axb6 12 Be3 c5 13 Qc2 h6 14 Qd2 Re8 15 0–0 c4 16 Bc2 Nd7 17 Rae1 Bf8. 8...Bb4+
9 Kf1? Far too optimistic; 9 Nbd2 is the least evil. 9...Qxd5 10 Qc2 Re8 11 Nc3 Now White apparently expected 11...Bxc3 12 bac3 which would justify his king move, but instead he is burned up by a brilliant display of tactics from Marshall. 11 Bxe4 Rxe4 12 Nc3 is met by 12...Bxc3 13 bxc3 Bg4 but the text is worse. 11...Nxc3 12 bxc3 Qxf3!
13 cxb4 Not 13 gxf3? Bh3+ 14 Kg1 Re1+ and mate next move. Instead, 13 h3 Qh5 14 cxb4 Nc6 15 Bd2 Be6, followed by ...Rad8, also leaves Black on top. 13 Bd2 (or 13 Bb2) 13...Bh3 14 Rg1 is relatively best, and regains the piece after 14...Bd6 15 gxh3 but Black's position is far superior after the precautionary 15...g6. 13...Nc6 14 Bb2?
14 Be3 fails to 14...Bh3! 15 Rg1 Rxe3; 14 h3 is best, transposing to the previous note. Janowski's attempt to refute Marshall's combination leads to fascinating play, however. 14...Nxb4! The assault continues, giving White no time to recover his development or safeguard his king. However, the computer (Deep Rybka 3) prefers the more materialistic continuation 14...Bh3 15 Rg1 Nxb4 16 Qd1 Qxd3+ 17 Qxd3 Nxd3 18 gxh3 Nxb2 winning a piece; e.g., 19 Rb1 Nd3 20 Rg3 Nf4 21 Rxb7 Rad8. 15 Bxh7+ Kh8 16 gxf3 Bh3+ 16...Nxc2 17 Bxc2 Bh3+ 18 Kg1 Re2 transposes. 17 Kg1 Nxc2 18 Bxc2 Re2 The main point of the combination begun at move fourteen. Black now wins a piece unless, as in the game, White tries to save it and is mated instead. 19 Rc1
19...Rae8!? Marshall could have won with greater certainty by the elegant 19...Rxc2! 20 Rxc2 Re8 mating in six moves at most: 21 Rc1 Re6. 20 Bc3 20 Be4 would oblige Black to "win ugly" by 20...f5 21 Ba3 fxe4 22 f4 e3. 20...R8e3?! This somewhat artificial, if effective, choice by Marshall is a slight flaw although Janowski's response leads to a pleasing geometric effect at the end. Marshall again failed to see that he had a straightforward mate with 20...Rxc2 21 Rxc2 Re6 22 Bd2 Rg6+ 23 Bg5 Rxg5#. 21 Bb4 If 21 fxe3 Rg2+ 22 Kf1 Rxc2+ 23 Ke1 Rxc1+ 24 Kd2 Rxh1. 21 Be4 Rxc3 22 Rd1 (22 Rxc3? Re1#) holds out longest, but Black is sure to win in the end; e.g., 22...Ra3. 21...Rxf3 Like a cat toying with a mouse. 22 Bd1 Rf6! 0–1 White resigns, for if 23 Bc2 (23 Bxe2 Rg6+ 24 Bg4 Rxg4#) 23...Rxc2! 24 Rxc2 Rg6#. Postscript: Updates on Previous Columns With respect to Kibitzer 177, Professor Rod Edwards (host of the excellent website www.edochess.ca) has turned up an earlier reference to the Victorian expert C. F. Smith, who was the winner of the first correspondence chess tournament in the early 1850s. Although I have so far been unable to find any postal game played by Smith before 1852, he appears to have started playing chess by post in 1847. A paragraph in Bell's Life in London, 2 May, says: "Any amateur in London or its environs desirous to play a game by correspondence can hear of an opponent by addressing Mr. C. F. Smith, 16, Spencer-terrace, Lower-road, Islington." With a nice piece of diligent research in old newspapers, Alan Smith (Manchester) has cleared up my query in the previous column (Kibitzer 187) about the Colonel Szabo who was active in English chess in the 1850s and early 1860s. His name, according to a brief obituary notice in the Liverpool Mercury (20 April 1865) was Emeric de Szabo and he died in London on 10 April 1865. He was indeed an Hungarian refugee, who had been secretary for war in Kossuth's revolutionary government of 1848-9. He had spent some time in Manchester (playing for that club in a telegraph match against Liverpool in 1859) and had resided in Liverpool three years before his death. Alan also sent me the score of a game to which I briefly referred in Kibitzer 171 when reviewing a book on the Ponziani Opening. It was actually played in 1998, not 1999, on top board in a match between the Greater Manchester Chess Association and Leicestershire. Here are the moves. Mike Surtees – Mark Hebden 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 c3 d5 4 Qa4 Bd7 The Caro Counter-Gambit. 5 exd5 Nd4 6 Qd1 Nxf3+ 7 Qxf3 Nf6 8 Bc4 Bd6 9 d3 Qe7 The Bolton player Surtees said in his notes that 9...Bg4 was better. 10 Bg5 h6 11 Bxf6 gxf6 12 Nd2 f5 13 Bb3
13...0–0?! Surtees was waiting last move to see which side his opponent would castle; he reckoned 13...0–0–0 was safer. 14 0–0–0 b5 15 h3 a5 16 g4 f4 If 16...a4 17 gxf5! axb3 18 f6! (Surtees). 17 Ne4 f5 Otherwise White would play g4-g5. 18 gxf5 Bxf5 19 Rdg1+ Kh8 20 Qh5 Qh7 21 Rg2 a4 22 Bd1 a3? 22...Ra6 (Surtees) would be better at once. 23 b4
23...Ra6 The main line in Surtees's notes goes 23...Bxe4 (23...Rg8? 24 Nf6) 24 dxe4 Rg8 (24...Qxe4 25 Rg6) 25 Rhg1 Rxg2 26 Rxg2 Rg8 27 Rxg8+ Kxg8 28 Qe8+. This seems to end prematurely. After 28...Kg7 (28...Bf8 29 Qxe5) 29 Qd7+ Kh8 30 Qxh7+ Kxh7 31 Be2 seems to be winning the endgame on the queenside despite the opposite coloured bishops. 24 Rhg1 Be7 25 d6 Rxd6 26 Nxd6 cxd6 27 Bb3 Bg5 28 Rxg5 hxg5 29 Qxg5 f3 30 Bd5 Bxd3 31 Rg4 Qg6 32 Qxg6 Bxg6 33 Rxg6 e4 34 Kd2 Re8 35 Ke3 Rc8 36 Kd4 e3 37 fxe3 Rf8 38 Rg1 1–0 Postscript I intend to look at chess books next month, so if any publisher has a title they wish to have reviewed, they should send it at once. I Stand Corrected Bernard Cafferty has pointed out that the Tsarist Empire at its greatest extent included Finland and (a large part of) Poland. Therefore, my article was wrong to say that the Tsarist Empire was never as large as the USSR. The reverse was true, it seems. According to Wikipedia, USSR land area was 22,402,200 square kilometers, whereas the Russian Empire at its greatest extent, 22.8 million square km (in 1895) or 15.31% of world land area. (It may have been a bit less in 1912 as Japan may have gained some Manchurian and island territory from Russia after the 1905 war, and lost it back in 1945? I am unsure about that.) Another website (marxists.org) said the USSR was 21,352,572 square kilometers and a USSR information site says that its area was 93 percent of that of the Tsarist Empire. Can any expert in historical geography authoritatively reconcile all these figures? © 2012 Tim Harding. All Rights Reserved. A PDF file of this month's column, along with all previous columns, is available in the ChessCafe.com Archives. Comment on this month's column via our Contact Page! Pertinent responses will be posted below daily. |
Purchases from our
|
|
|
|
[ChessCafe
Home Page] [Book
Review] [Columnists] © 2012 BrainGamz, Inc. All Rights Reserved. |
|
