|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chessville
Advertise to Single insert:
|
Unorthodox Opening Heroes
Myers is best known for his writings on the Nimzovich Defense (1.e4 Nc6) and for his work on the Myers Openings Bulletins. Personal History
Chess History
I am still deeply saddened by the recent death of my friend Hugh E. Myers of Myers Chess Openings Bulletins. I have had correspondence with Hugh E. Myers on and off since the mid 1980's. He had said that I had the gift and talent to write about unorthodox chess openings. And he encouraged me not to give up writing about unorthodox chess openings. He has been my friend and the guiding light to all who played unorthodox chess openings. He has endured great tragedy in his life with the death of his two young children in an airplane crash. May you now have peace and join those
who are now gone but have become immortal such as Morphy, Tartakower,
Alekhine, Bronstein and others. You will be remembered for a thousand
years and beyond. Farewell my friend, I will miss you. by Tom Purser's BDG pages/Blogspot Hugh E. Myers, a chess original if the term means anything at all, died three days before Christmas, only a month short of his seventy-ninth birthday. I'm surprised that he lived so long, for as I knew him in the 1980s he was invariably in poor health. I first became aware of Hugh and his unorthodox openings and original opinions (or was that original openings and unorthodox opinions) after I came across the original (1973) edition of his book, The Nimzovich Defense, which I found in, of all places, Rudi Schmaus's bookshop in Heidelberg. That would have been about 1978 or '79. Schmaus was the publisher of the Das Moderne Blackmar-Diemer Gambit series, which included a reprint of Diemer's original Vom Ersten Zug an auf Matt! as well as two books by Freidl and one by Studier. At the time Freidl's Band 2 was due out shortly, and I would drive over to Heidelberg now and then to check on it (or really just to browse through a collection of chess books). A few years ago I decided I was through with this foolish game and sold my copy of that book. Shortsighted, I know. But I
digress. In his Nimzovich book Hugh included a game or two that
transposed into a BDG. That was enough impetus for me to get in touch
with him and subscribe to his The Myers Openings Bulletin.
Later, when Charles Szasz and I started a little publication for
Blackmar-Diemer Gambit aficionados, Hugh was very supportive, and over the
years we kept in touch with an occasional letter or note. I never had
the pleasure of meeting him face-to-face, but now and then he had a comment
on something I published, and he wrote a short piece for at least one issue
of BDG WORLD. by Dennis
Monokroussos Hugh Myers, 1930-2008 He wasn't a great player (maybe FM strength at his peak), but he made a name for himself in chess circles as a theoretician of the offbeat. Before there was Stefan Bücker and possibly before Rolf Martens (who also died earlier this year), Hugh Myers was analyzing and promoting lines that ranged from the eccentric to the atrocious. (Examples: The comparatively moderate 1.e4 Nc6 - perhaps his specialty; 1.Nh3 with the idea of 2.f4; 1.e4 c5 2.a4; 1.Nf3 d5 2.a4; and 1...g5 against 1.g3 and 1.c4. To his credit, I'm not aware of his advocating 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5??) More about Mr. Myers here. While I can't honestly say I'm a big fan of crank openings per se, it must be acknowledged that those who are drawn to them and analyze them deeply do (if they're strong enough and have some degree of objectivity) make a contribution to our game. Sometimes lines turn out to be viable, and even when they don't, sometimes they develop ideas that can be used in less extravagant openings. They help to keep the game fresh, and finally, the time spent analyzing the intricacies of these sidelines is time they're not spending on conspiracy theory bulletin boards. That alone is cause for celebration. So let's
commemorate the life of a chess maverick. Read the article linked
above, and then play something bizarre at the next opportunity - as long as
money isn't involved. More eulogies:
Chess Openings Played
Chess Games The following 21 games were analyzed by either myself, Deep Shredder 10 or Fritz 11. Download a zipped pgn file containing these games here. Hugh E. Myers – John Penquite Illinois 1953
{A04:
Unusual lines after 1 Nf3 and King's Indian Attack} 1. e4 c5 2. g3
(2.Nf3!? +/= {should not be overlooked}) 2... Nc6 = 3. Bg2 g6 4.
Nf3 Bg7 5. O-O e6 (5... d6 6. d3 =) 6. d3 Nge7 7. c3
{Consolidates b4+d4} d5 8. Nbd2 O-O 9. Re1 b6 10. Nf1 Ba6 11. e5 Qc7 12.
Bf4 Rac8 13. h4 Rfd8 (13... d4 14. c4 =/+ ) 14. Qe2 b5 15. N1h2 d4
16. Ng4 Nd5 (16... Qd7 17. Nf6+ Bxf6 18. exf6 =) 17. Bg5 (17. Bh6
dxc3 18. bxc3 Nce7 +/=) 17... Rd7 (17... dxc3!? {should be
investigated more closely} 18. bxc3 Nxc3 =/+) 18. cxd4 +/= cxd4
19. Rac1 Qb6 20. Bf6?? {gives the opponent new chances} (better is
20.Qd2 +/-) 20... h5 -/+ 21. Nfh2 hxg4 22. Nxg4 Nce7 23.
Rxc8+ Bxc8 24. Qd2 Nf5 25. Be4 Nde7 (25... Bf8 26. h5 Bb4 +/=) 26.
Qg5 = Kf8 (better is 26... Qa5 {would hold out} 27. Rc1 Rc7 =)
27. h5 Ng8?? {sad, but how else could Black save the game?} (27... Qa5
28. Rc1 Rc7 29. Bxg7+ Kxg7 30. Bxf5 Nxf5 31. Qf6+ Kh7 32. hxg6+ fxg6 +-)
28. Bxf5 exf5 (28... Qa5 29. Rc1 Rc7 30. Be4 +-) 29. h6 Bxf6
(29... Bxh6 {hoping against hope} 30. Nxh6 Ne7 +-) 30. exf6 Qa5 31. Rc1
Bb7 (31... Qd8 {doesn't improve anything} 32. h7 Rc7 33. h8=Q Rc5 34.
Rxc5 Be6 35. Ne5 Qd6 36. Qgh6+ Ke8 37. Qxg8+ Qf8 38. Qhxf8#) 32. h7
(32. h7 Rc7 33. h8=Q Rc5 34. Ne5 Rxe5 35. Qgh6+ Ke8 36. Qxg8+ Kd7 37. Qxf7+
Kd8 38. Qhf8+ Re8 39. Q8xe8#) 1-0 The following game was perhaps Hugh Myers' most impressive tournament win because William Lombardy had previously won the World Chess Junior Championship (1956) with an undefeated score of 11-0. In that same year William Lombardy was awarded the Grandmaster title.
Hugh
E. Myers – William J. Lombardy {A11: English Opening: 1...c6} 1. g3 Nf6 2. Bg2 d5 3. Nf3 Bf5 4. c4 c6 5. cxd5 cxd5 6. Qb3 {last book move} Bc8 {Nakamura: dropping the B back to guard the b pawn is a bad move. Better were Nc6, Qd7 or e6 according to Deep Shredder 10.}7. O-O e6 8. Nc3 Nc6 {Maneuver Nb8-c6-a5-c4} 9. d4 Bd6 10. Rd1 h6 {Secures g5} 11. a3 {Consolidates b4} (11. Nb5 Bb8 +/=) 11... Na5 {Black threatens to win material: Na5xb3} (11... O-O 12. Nb5 Bb8 13. Qd3 =) 12. Qc2 +/= Bd7 13. b4 {White threatens to win material: b4xa5} Nc4 {A classical outpost} 14. e4 dxe4 15. Nxe4 Rc8 [diagram] (15... Nxe4 16. Qxe4 (worse is 16. Qxc4 Rc8 17. Qd3 Nc3 =) 16... Rc8 17. Nd2 =)
20...exd5 21. Nf6+ gxf6 22. exf6 Nd6 23. Bxh6 Bf5 (23... Qc2
{hardly improves anything} 24. Bxf8 Rxf8 25. Qxd5 +-) 24. Bxd5 Qc2 25.
Bxf8 Rxf8 26. Qh6 Ne8 27. Re1 Bg6 (27... Nxf6 {the last chance for
counter play} 28. Qxf6 Bg6 +-) 28. Rxe8! {Mate attack} Qd1+
(28... Rxe8 29. Qg7# {Mate attack}) (28... -- 29. Rxf8# {Mate threat})
29. Kg2 Qxd5+ 30. f3 Qd2+ (30... Qa2+ {doesn't do any good} 31. Kh3 Bf5+
32. g4 Bxg4+ 33. fxg4 Qxa3+ 34. Kh4 Qh3+ 35. Kxh3 Rxe8 36. Qg7#) 31.Qxd2
Rxe8 (31... Kh7 {cannot change destiny} 32. Rxf8 b6 33. Qg5 a6 34. Qh4+
Bh5 35. Qxh5#) 32. Qh6 (32. Qh6 Re2+ 33. Kf1 Re1+ 34. Kxe1 Bd3 35.
Qg7#) 1-0
Hugh E. Myers – T. Alvarez (2565) Santo Domingo 1966 Amar Gambit {A00: Irregular Openings} 1. Nh3 d5 2. g3 e5 3. f4 {The Amar Gambit. If White had played 3.Bg2 this would be the Amar Opening.} Bxh3 4. Bxh3 exf4 5. O-O fxg3 {last book move} 6. e4 gxh2+ 7. Kh1 (7. Kxh2 Bd6+ 8. Kg2 dxe4 -+) 7... dxe4 8. Nc3 Nf6 9. d3 exd3 10. Bg5 dxc2 ?? {Black king safety dropped. gives the opponent new chances.} (10... Nc6 {and Black can already relax} 11. Bxf6 gxf6 12. Qxd3 Qxd3 13. cxd3 -+) 11. Qf3? [diagram]
Hugh
E. Myers – Juan Leon
16.
e5! {Double attack: g6/e8} Qc5?? {simply worsens the
situation} (16... fxe5 17. Bf7+ {Double attack}) 17. Rxd7! {Decoy:
f5}
Kxd7
18. e6+ Kd6 19. Rd1+
(19. Rd1+ Kc7 20. Qxc5 +-) 1-0
Hugh
E. Myers – Boris Kazanski
{B07:
Pirc Defence: Miscellaneous Systems B07: Pirc Defence: Miscellaneous
Systems} 1. e4 d6 (1... e5!? +/=) 2. d4 +/- Nf6 3. Nc3 g6
4. Be2 Bg7 5. h4 (5. Nf3 Bg4 +/-) 5... h5 (5... c5 6. dxc5 Qa5 7.
Bd2 Qxc5 8. h5 Nxh5 9. g4 = ) 6. Bg5 O-O 7. Qd2 c5 8. d5 b5
(8... Qb6!? 9. Rb1 e5 +/-) 9. Bxb5 +- Ba6 10. Bxa6 Nxa6 11. Nge2
Re8 12. O-O Rb8 13. Rab1 Qd7 14. a3 Ng4 15. Qd3 Nc7 16. Qg3 (16.
b3!? e6 17. f3 Ne5 +-) 16... Nb5 +/- 17. Nxb5 (17. Qf3 +/- )
17... Rxb5? (better is 17... Qxb5!? 18. Nc3 Qc4 +/=) 18. b3 +-
Reb8 19. Bd2 R5b7 20. Bc3 Nf6 21. f3 Qb5 22. Rbe1 (22. Qf2 Qb6 +-)
22... a5 (22... c4 23. Nd4 Qa6 24. Qf2 +/-) 23. Nf4 (23. a4!? Qa6
24. Qg5 c4 +/-) 23... c4 24. b4 Kh7 (24... Qa4 25. Rc1 Ne8 26.
Bxg7 Nxg7 27. bxa5 Qxa5 28. Ra1 +/=) 25. Nh3 (25. bxa5 Nd7 26. Bb4
Kg8 +-) 25... Ra8 (25... Qa4!? 26. bxa5 Qxc2 +/-) 26. f4 axb4 27.
axb4 Ra3 28. Rf3 Rba7 (28... Ra2 29. Bxf6 Bxf6 30. c3 +-) 29.
f5 Rxc3 30. Rxc3 Qxb4 31. fxg6+ fxg6 32. Ng5+ Kg8 33. Rce3??
{letting the wind out of his own sails} (better is 33. Rf3 +-) 33... Ng4
= {Praise the knight!} 34. R3e2 (34. Qf3 Bf6 35. R3e2 Bd4+ 36. Kh1
Nf2+ 37. Kg1 Ng4+ 38. Kh1 Nf2+ 39. Kh2 Ng4+ 40. Kh1 =) 34... Be5
(better is 34... Bd4+!? 35. Kf1 Be5 -/+) 35. Qf3 = Qc5+??
(better is 35... Bd4+ {was possible} 36. Kh1 Nf2+ 37. Kg1 Ng4+ 38. Kh1 Nf2+
39. Kg1 Ng4+ +=) 36. Kh1 +- Nf6 (36... Bf6 37. Ne6 Qb6 38. Qf4
+-) 37. Rb1 (37. Ne6 {makes it even easier for White} Qb6 +-)
37... Ra1 (37... Qb4 38. Rf1 +-) 38. Ree1 Ra8 39. Rb7 Qa5 40. Reb1
(40. Rf1 {and White can already relax} Re8 +-) 40... Re8 (40... Qd2
41. Rxe7 Qxc2 42. Rf1 +-) 41. Qf2 Qc3 42. Rb8 Rxb8 43. Rxb8+ Kg7
44. Rb7 Kf8 45. Ne6+ Kf7 (45... Kg8 {what else?} 46. Ra7 Bg3 +- ) 46.
Rb8 Qa1+ 47. Qg1 Qxg1+ 48. Kxg1 Nd7 (48... Ne8 +- {is the last
straw}) 49. Rd8 (49. Rd8 Bg3 50. Rxd7 Bxh4 51. e5 dxe5 52. Rc7 +-)
1-0 In the following game Hugh E. Myers had a slight advantage until move 21. Be5 of +/= 0.74 (according to Deep Shredder 10) but played several 4th-best moves in a row (starting with 22. Qd6) and slowly gave Black the advantage and lost the endgame. Gligoric was actually prepared to resign the game after the move 17.Bg5 if Myers had played several forced moves.
Hugh
E. Myers – Svetozar Gligoric
22.
Qd6 (22. Rf3 Ke8 =) {Nakamura: Deep Shredder 10 only considered 3
possible moves as best : Qd5, Rf3 and Bxf6 with an evaluation of +/= 0.74
for Qd5.}22... a5 (Worse is 22... Qxc2 23. Rac1 Qe2 24. Rf3 +/=)
23. Rf3 {Black's piece can't move: c8} (23. Qd5!=) 23... Ra6 -/+
{Black threatens to win material: Ra6xd6} ({Instead of} 23... Qxc2 24. Bxf6
gxf6 25. Qe5 +/-) 24. Qb8 Rc6 ({Inferior is} 24... Qxc2 25. Rc3 Qxb2
26. Rxc8 +/-) 25. Rc3 {Nakamura: this was a mistake, best was 25.c3,
now Black has a slight advantage.}Qe4 26. Rxc6 Qxc6 27. Bc3 (27.
Rf1!? -/+) 27... b6 -+ 28. Qg3 Bb7 29. Rf1 Qe4 30. Rf2
(30. Bxf6 gxf6 31. Qf2 Nf4 -+) 30... Bc6 (30... d5!? 31. Qe5 -+)
31. h3 Ke7 32. Bxf6+ (32. Kh2 h5 -+) 32... gxf6 33. Rd2
(33. Kg1 Qe1+ 34. Kh2 Qe5 -+) 33... Qe5 34. Qd3 (34. Qxe5 fxe5
35. Kh2 d5 -+ ) 34... f5 (34... h5 {might be the shorter path} 35.
Re2 Qxb2 36. Kh2 -+) 35. c3 Kf6 36. Re2 (36. b4 a4 -+) 36... Nf4
37. Rxe5 Nxd3 (37... Bxg2+?! 38. Kh2 Nxd3 39. Rb5 -+) 38. Re2 Nf4 39.
Rd2 (39. Re8 Nxg2 40. Kh2 f4 -+) 39... Ke5 40. Kg1 (40. b4 {does
not improve anything} Nxg2 41. Kh2 Ne3 -+) 40... Nxg2
0-1 David Friedgood – Hugh E. Myers Lugano Olympiad Men Qual C 10/22/68 rd5
{A10:
English Opening: Unusual Replies for Black} 1. c4 g5 2. d4 Bg7 3. Bxg5
{last book move} c5 4. e3 Nc6 5. Nf3 cxd4 6. exd4 Qb6 7. Qd2 Nxd4 8. Nxd4
Qxd4 {White king safety dropped} 9. Nc3 d6 (9... Qxd2+ 10. Kxd2
d6 11. Nb5 +/=) 10. Nd5 (10. Bd3 Be6 11. Be3 Qh4 +-) 10... Qxd2+
+/= (10... Qxb2? {fails because of} 11. Qxb2 Bxb2 12. Rb1 +-) 11. Bxd2
{White has a king attack} Kd8 {Black loses the right to castle}
(11... Bxb2? {doesn't lead to the expected results} 12. Rb1 Bd4 13. Nc7+
Kd7 14. Nxa8 +-) 12. O-O-O {White has a king attack} Bf5 13. Ne3
Bg6 14. f4 Nh6 (14... Be4 15. Bb4 =) 15. Be2 (15. g4 Be4 16. Rg1
Bd4 +/=) 15... Rc8 16. Rhf1 Nf5 17. Nxf5 Bxf5 18. Be3 Kc7 19. Bd4 Rhg8
20. Bxg7 (Less advisable is 20. Bxa7 Ra8 21. g4 Bxg4 22. Bxg4 Rxa7 -/+)
20... Rxg7 21. g3 b5 22. Rd5 {White threatens to win material:
Rd5xf5} Bh3 {Black threatens to win material: Bh3xf1} 23. Re1
(23. Rfd1 bxc4 24. R1d4 Be6 25. Rxc4+ Kd7 26. Rxc8 Bxd5 +/=) 23... bxc4
=/+ 24. Rd4 Be6 25. g4 Kd8 (25... f6 !? =/+ {is interesting})
26. f5 = {White wins space} Bd7 27. Kd2 (27. Bxc4? {is
a blank shot} d5 {Deflection: d5} 28. b3 dxc4 29. bxc4 e6 -+) 27... c3+
28. bxc3 Rb8 29. f6 {White threatens to win material: f6xg7} Rg5 30.
fxe7+ Kxe7 31. Bd3+ Re5 32. Rb4 1/2-1/2 Hugh E. Myers – Juan Leon San Juan 1970
{B27:
Sicilian: 2 Nf3, unusual Black 2nd moves} 1. e4 c5 (1... e5 2. Nf3
Nf6 3. d4 Nxe4 4. Bd3 +/=) 2. Nf3 +/= g6 (2... Nc6 3. Nc3 +/=)
3. h4 (3. d4!? +/-) 3... Bg7 4. h5 d6 {Controls e5} 5.
Bb5+ (5. d4 cxd4 6. Nxd4 Nc6 =) 5... Bd7 6. a4 gxh5 7. Rxh5 a6 8.
Bxd7+ Qxd7 9. d3 Nf6 10. Rh4 Nc6 11. Nc3 O-O-O 12. a5 d5 (12...
Qc7 13. Bg5 e6 14. Qd2 =) 13. Na4 +/= Kb8? (better is 13... Qc7!?
{is an interesting alternative} 14. Nxc5 dxe4 15. Nxe4 h6 +/=) 14. Bf4+
Ka7 15. Nxc5 Qe8 16. Bc7 Rc8 17. Bb6+ Ka8 18. Qe2 dxe4 (18...
e5!? +/-) 19. dxe4 +- Nd7 (19... e6 20. Nxa6 Qf8 21. Nc5 +-)
20. Nxa6 bxa6?? {simply worsens the situation} (20... Bxb2 21. Rb1
Bf6 +-) 21. Qxa6+ Kb8 22. e5 Rc7 (22... Nc5 {cannot change destiny}
23. Bxc5 Rc7 24. Rg4 +-) 23. Bxc7+ (23. Nd4 Nxd4 24. Bxc7+ Kxc7 25.
Qa7+ Kc6 26. Rxd4 f5 27. Raa4 Qc8 28. Rac4+ Kb5 29. Rd5+ Qc5 30. Rcxc5+ Nxc5
31. Qxc5+ Ka6 32. Qb6#) 23... Kxc7 24. e6 fxe6 25. Ng5 Qg6 (25... Qc8
{what else?} 26. Qb5 Nde5 +-) 26. Rc4 Ndb8 27. Qb6+ Kd7 28. Rd1+ Ke8
(28... Qd3 {doesn't do any good} 29. Rxd3+ Kc8 30. Rxc6+ Nxc6 31. Qxc6+ Kb8
32. Rb3+ Ka7 33. Qb7#) 29. Qxb8+!! {this sacrifice makes everything
clear} (29. Qxb8+ Nd8 30. Qxd8#) 1-0 J. Harkins – Hugh E. Myers Milwaukee, Wisconsin 1974
{B01:
Scandinavian Defence} 1. e4 Nc6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Nf3 Bg4 5. Be2
O-O-O 6. c3 Nf6 7. O-O e6 8. Bf4 Qf5 {Black threatens to win material:
Qf5xf4} 9. Bg3 h5 10. h3 {White threatens to win material: h3xg4}
Bd6 {Loses material} 11. Nh4 {White threatens to win material:
Nh4xf5} Qh7 12. hxg4 hxg4 13. Bxg4 {White wins a piece} g5
{Black threatens to win material: g5xh4.} 14. Qf3 Nxg4 15. Qxg4 Rdg8 16.
Bxd6 cxd6 17. Nd2 d5 18. Ndf3 gxh4 19. Qf4 (19. Qh3!? Rg7 20. c4
-/+) 19... Qg6 20. Ne1 (20. Nxh4 Rxh4! Mate attack} 21. Qg3 Rg4 -+ )
20... Rh5 21. Kh1 (21. Qe3 h3 22. g3 Rf5 -+) 21... Rg5 (21...
Ne7 22. Kg1 -+) 22. Rg1 (22. Qf3 h3 23. g3 e5 -+) 22... e5
(22... Rg4!? 23. Qh2 Qf6 24. b4 -+) 23. dxe5 -/+ Nxe5 24. Nf3?
(better is 24. Rd1 h3 25. g3 -/+) 24... Nd3 25. Qxg5 Nxf2+ 26. Kh2
Qd6+ 27. Qe5 (27. g3 Rxg5 28. Nxg5 -+)27... Ng4+ (27... Ng4+ 28.
Kh1 Nxe5 (28... Qxe5? 29. Nxe5 Nxe5 30. Rad1 +-) 29. Nxe5 Qxe5 -+) 0-1 Emmanuel Perez – Hugh E. Myers Santo Domingo 1976
{B01:
Scandinavian Defense} 1. e4 Nc6 2. Nf3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Nc3 Qa5 5. Bb5
Bd7 6. d4 a6 7. Bc4 {last book move} e6 8. Qe2 Bb4 (8...
O-O-O 9. Bd2 +/=) 9. Bd2 {White has an active position} Nge7 10.
a3 {White threatens to win material: a3xb4} O-O 11. O-O Bxc3 12. Bxc3
{White has the pair of bishops} Qh5 13. Rad1 b5 {Black threatens
to win material: b5xc4} 14. Bd3 Nd5 15. Bd2 Rfd8 16. c3 (16. Rfe1
Nce7 +/-) 16... Ra7 (16... Na5 17. Rb1 +/=) 17. Rfe1 Bc8 18. Qf1
f6 19. Re4 g5 20. h3 Nce7 21. Ree1 c6 22. Qe2 (22. Be4!? +/-) 22...
Ng6 +/= 23. Bxg6 Qxg6 {Opposite colored bishops appeared} 24.
Bc1 Rg7 25. Qd3 (25. Nd2 Nf4 26. Qe4 Qf5 =) 25... Qf7 (25... Qxd3
26. Rxd3 Kf7 27. Be3 =) 26. b3 Kh8 ({better is} 26... Qg6 +/=) 27.
Re2 (better is 27. c4 Ne7 28. Bd2 +/-) 27... Nf4 =/+ 28. Bxf4
gxf4 29. Qe4 e5 30. Kh2? (better is 30. Ne1!? =/+ {must definitely be
considered}) 30... Qh5 ({better is} 30... Rdg8 31. Ne1 Qh5 -+) 31.
Rg1?? {an oversight. But White was lost anyway.} (31. Ng1 Qg5 32. f3 -+
(32. Qxc6?? {A poison bait which should not be taken} Bb7 33. Qxb7 Rxb7
-+)) 31... Rdg8 32. dxe5 (32. Nxe5 {there is nothing better in the
position} Bxh3 33. gxh3 Rxg1 34. Re1 Rxe1 35. Qxe1 -+) 32... Rxg2+!!
{Mate attack} (32... Rxg2+ 33. Rxg2 Qxh3+ 34. Kg1 Qxg2#) 0-1
18.
Be3?? {White crumbles in face of a dire situation} (18. Bf4 e5 19. Bg3
Nxd4 20. Nxd4 Rxd4 21. Qb3 -+) 18... Nce5 {Clearance to allow c7-c5}
(18... Nce5 19. dxe5 Rxd3 -+) 0-1 In this game Black escapes the transposition into the dreaded Mieses-Kotroc Gambit. If White had played one key move (15.d5) Black would have been lost. Walter D. Morris (2325) – Hugh E. Myers Cedar 1978
{B01:
Scandinavian Defence} 1. e4 Nc6 2. Nf3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Nc3 Qa5 5. Bb5
Bd7 6. b4 {Nakamura: A transposition into the Mieses-Kotroc Gambit which
is very dangerous for Black. White gets the open b file and an active R.
This gambit is not to be underestimated.} (6. O-O!? O-O-O 7. d3 +/-) 6...
Qxb4 +/= 7. O-O Nf6 8. Rb1 Qc5 9. Rb3 O-O-O 10. d4 Qh5 11. Qe2 Nb8?
(better is 11... e6 {!? {and Black hangs on} 12. Bf4 Be8 +/=) 12. Bxd7+
(12. Ng5 Qxe2 13. Nxe2 Bxb5 14. Rxb5 Rd5 +- ; 12. Bf4 Bg4 13. Qc4 e5 14.
Bxe5 Bd6 15. Ba4 Bxf3 16. Nb5 Nc6 17. Bxd6 Ne8 18. Rxf3 Nxd6 19. Nxd6+ Rxd6
20. Rxf7 a6 21. Rxg7 b5 22. Qc5 Qh6 23. Qf5+ Kb8 24. Qf7 Rc8 25. Rxh7 Qd2
26. Bb3 {+- 1.92 Deep Shredder 10}) 12... Nfxd7 (12... Nbxd7 13. Bf4
Nd5 14. Nxd5 Qxd5 +- ) 13. Bf4 e5 14. Nb5 Nc6 15. dxe5 ?? {White
lets it slip away} ({better is} 15. d5 {and White is on the road to success}
Nb6 16. dxc6 exf4 17. Qe4 +-) 15... Nc5 +/= 16. Rc3 ({better
is} 16. Rbb1!? +/= {should be examined more closely}) 16... a6 =/+
17. Na3 Ne6 18. Bg3 Rd5 (18... Bc5 19. Rb1 =/+) 19. Rb1
(better is 19. Rxc6!? bxc6 20. Qxa6+ Kd7 21. Nb1 +/-) 19... Bxa3 =
20. Rxa3 Rhd8 21. h3 Rd2 22. Qe1 (22. Qf1 R2d5 =) 22... Rxc2
(better is 22... Ned4 23. Nxd2 Nxc2 =/+) 23. Rab3 ? (23. Rxb7 Kxb7
24. Qb1+ Nb4 25. Qxb4+ Kc8 26. Rxa6 +/-) 23... Nc5 -+ 24. Rc3
(better is 24. Ra3 -+) 24... Nd3 25. Rxd3 Rxd3 26. e6 fxe6 27. Qxe6+ Kb8
28. Qg8+ Nd8 29. Re1 (29. Qxg7 Rd5 -+) 29... Qd5 (29... Rd7!? {might be
the shorter path} 30. Bh4 Kc8 31. a4 -+) 30. Qxh7 Ka7 ({better is}
30... Rxa2 31. Qxg7 Rc2 -+) 31. Re8?? {leading to a quick end}
(better is 31. Qxg7 Rd1 32. Rxd1 Qxd1+ 33. Kh2 -/+) 31... Rc1+ 32. Kh2
(32. Re1 {desperation} Rdd1 33. Kh2 Rxe1 34. Nxe1 Rxe1 35. Qxg7 -+) 32...
Rxf3 (32... Rxf3 33. h4 Qd1 -+) 0-1 Mitchell Weiss – Hugh E. Myers Bettendorf 1981
{B01:
Scandinavian Defence} 1. e4 Nc6 2. Nf3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Nc3 Qa5 5. d4
Bg4 6. Bb5 e6 (6... O-O-O 7. Bxc6 bxc6 8. Qe2 +/-) 7. h3 Bh5
8. g4 Bg6 9. Ne5 Bb4 10. Bd2 Bxc3 11. Bxc6+ bxc6 12. Bxc3 Qd5 13. f3
Ne7 14. Bb4 Qb5 15. a3 (15. Qd2 f6 16. Nxg6 Nxg6 +/-) 15... f6
+/= 16. c4 Qa6 17. Nxg6 Nxg6 18. Qc2 O-O-O 19. O-O-O e5 20. d5
(better is 20. Bc5!? +/-) 20... cxd5 = 21. cxd5 Kb8 22. Kb1
(22. Rh2 Nf4 23. Rhd2 Nxh3 =/+) 22... Nf4 =/+ 23. Qb3
(23. Qe4!? =/+ {must definitely be considered}) 23... Qb7 -/+
24. Qc4 (24. Qc2 Rxd5 25. Rxd5 Qxd5 -/+) 24... Nxd5 (24... Rxd5
25. Rxd5 Qxd5 26. Qxd5 Nxd5 27. Bc5 -+) 25. Bc5 Nb6 (25... Nf4 26.
Qa4 -+) 26. Bxb6 axb6 27. Rd3 c5 28. Rhd1 (28. Rb3 Rd4 29. Qe2 Kc7
-+) 28... Rd4 -+ 29. Qc3 (29. Qb5 Rhd8 -+) 29... Rhd8 30.
b4?? {a blunder in a bad position} (better is 30. Qb3 -+) 30... Qd5
31. Rxd4 exd4 32. Qd3 c4 33. Qe4 Qxe4+ 34. fxe4 b5 35. Kb2 Kc7 36. a4
(36. Rf1 {doesn't change anything anymore} Kc6 -+) 36... bxa4 37. Ra1
(37. Rc1 {does not save the day} c3+ 38. Kc2 Kc6 -+) 37... Kb6 38.
Rxa4 (38. Kc2 {hardly improves anything} Kb5 -+) 38... c3+
(better is 38... Kb5 {keeps an even firmer grip} 39. Ra1 Kxb4 40. Kc1 -+)
39. Kc1 (39. Kc2 {is no salvation} d3+ 40. Kxc3 d2 -+) 39... d3 40.
Ra2 Kb5 (40... Kb5 41. Kd1 d2 -+) (better is 40... d2+ {seems even
better} 41. Kd1 Kb5 42. Ra1 Kxb4 43. Kc2 -+) 0-1 Hugh E. Myers (2187) – John C. Meyer (2452) US Open 1982 St. Paul
{B02:
Alekhine's Defence: Chase Variation and lines with early Nc3} 1. e4 Nf6
2. Nc3 d5 3. d3 dxe4 4. Bg5 exd3 5. Bxd3 Nc6 6. Nf3 {Black is
behind in development. Black's piece can't move: f8} Bg4 7. Qe2
{White has a very active position} Nd5 (7... Nd4!? deserves
consideration} 8. Qe3 Bxf3 9. gxf3 c5 =) 8. Qe4 +/= Bxf3 9. gxf3
(9. Qxf3!? Nxc3 10. bxc3 +/=) 9... Nxc3 = 10. bxc3 {White has
the pair of bishops} Qd6 11. Be3 (11. O-O Qc5 12. Be3 Qxc3 =)
11... O-O-O 12. Rb1 Qe5 {Black threatens to win material: Qe5xc3} (12...
g6 13. O-O Bg7 14. Qa4 =/+) 13. Qc4 e6 {Consolidates f5} 14. Ke2
{White loses the right to castle} Qd5 15. Qa4 Qa5 {Black threatens to
win material: Qa5xa4} 16. Qb3 (16. Qxa5 Nxa5 17. Rhg1 g6 =/+)
16... b6 -/+ 17. f4 (17. Qc4!? Ne5 18. Qa6+ Qxa6 19. Bxa6+ Kb8
20. Rhg1 -/+) 17... Qh5+ 18. f3 Qh3 (18... Be7 19. Qb5 Qxb5 20. Rxb5
-/+ ) 19. Rhf1? (19. Ba6+ Kb8 20. Qb5 Qg2+ 21. Bf2 Na5 -/+) 19...
Rxd3 (19... Bd6 20. Qa4 Ne7 -/+ (20... Qxh2+? {would be great except
for} 21. Rf2 Qh5 22. Qxc6 +-)) 20. cxd3 =/+ Qxh2+ 21. Rf2 Qh5 22.
Qa4 {White threatens to win material: Qa4xc6} Kb7 {Black king
safety dropped} 23. Rb5 {White threatens to win material: Rb5xh5}
Qh1 {White king safety dropped} 24. Rf1 {White threatens to win
material: Rf1xh1} Qg2+ 25. Bf2 (25. Rf2 Qh3 =/+) 25... Qg6
(25... Qh2 26. Rg1 -/+) 26. Qe4 Bd6 27. Rg5 (27. Rg1 Qh6 28. f5 Rd8
=/+) 27... Qf6 {Black threatens to win material: Qf6xc3} (better is
27... Qh6!? -/+) 28. Bd4 = e5 29. Bxe5 Bxe5 30. Rxe5 Kb8
31. Re8+ Rxe8 {Black pins: Re8xe4} 32. Qxe8+ Kb7 33. d4 Qxf4
34. Qe4 {White threatens to win material: Qe4xf4} Qd6 35. Qxh7 Qe6+
{Black forks: a2+e2} 36. Qe4 Qxa2+ 37. Ke3 Qb3 {Black pins: Qb3xc3}
(37... Qb2 38. c4 =/+) 38. Rc1 = g6 (38... Qa3 39. Kd2 =)
39. d5 +/= {White threatens to win material: d5xc6} Nd8 40. f4
(40. d6+ Kc8 +/=) 40... f5 = {Black threatens to win material: f5xe4}
41. Qg2 {White threatens to win material: Qg2xg6} Qc4 42. d6+
(Weaker is 42. Qxg6 Qe4+ (42... Qxd5?! 43. Qh5 -/+) 43. Kd2 Qxd5+ 44. Kc2
Ne6 -+) 42... c6 43. Qxg6 Qe4+ 44. Kd2 Qxf4+ 45. Kc2 Qe4+ 46. Kb2 Qe2+
47. Rc2 Qb5+ 1/2-1/2 Hugh E. Myers (2200) – T. Sage (2195) Midwest Masters – B 1984
{D00:
1 d4 d5: Unusual lines} 1. Nc3 d5 2. d4 Nc6 (2... Bf5 3. f3 Nf6 4. g4
= ) 3. Bg5 (3. e4!? dxe4 4. d5 +/=) 3... h6 4. Bh4 g5 5. Bg3 Bg4
6. f3 Bh5 7. e3 Bg7 8. Bb5 Qd7 9. Na4 e6 10. Nc5 Qc8 11. c3 Nge7 12.
h4 a6 13. hxg5 (13. Bxc6+ Nxc6 14. Ne2 Bg6 +/=) 13... hxg5 (13...
axb5 14. Rxh5 hxg5 15. Rxh8+ Bxh8 16. e4 =) 14. Bd3 (14. Bxc6+!? bxc6
15. e4 +/-) 14... b6 = 15. Nb3 f6 {Prevents intrusion on e5}
(15... a5!? = {is worth looking at}) 16. Qc2 +/- Kf7
(16... Kd7 17. O-O-O +/-) 17. Nh3 Bg6 (17... a5 18. O-O-O +/-) 18.
O-O-O (18. Bxg6+ Nxg6 19. e4 Nce7 +/-) 18... a5 ({better is}
18... Bxd3!? {looks like a viable alternative} 19. Qxd3 a5 +/-) 19. e4
+- a4 20. Nd2 Na5 (better is 20... a3!? 21. b4 Re8 +-) 21. Rde1
Qd7 22. Kb1 c5 23. exd5 Qxd5 24. Bxg6+ Nxg6 25. Qxa4 (better is 25. Rd1
{White has a promising position} c4 26. Ne4 +-) 25... Nc6 +/= 26.
Qc4 (26. Qb3 Qxb3 27. Nxb3 cxd4 28. Nxd4 Nxd4 29. cxd4 Ne7 +/-) 26...
cxd4 = 27. cxd4 Nxd4 28. Qxd5 exd5 29. Bf2 Nb5 30. Nb3 Rab8
(30... Ra6!? =) 31. Rd1 +/= Rhd8 32. Rhe1 Nf8 33. a4 Nc7 34. Nd4
Rd7 35. Bg3 (35. Rc1 Nfe6 36. Nc6 Rb7 =) 35... Ra8 36. Bxc7 Rxc7
37. b3 Ng6 (37... Rac8 38. Nf5 Rd7 39. f4 +/-) 38. Re6 +/- Rb8
39. Rde1 (better is 39. Rd6 +/-) 39... Bf8 = 40. Nb5 Rd7 41.
Rc6 Be7 42. Nd4 {A sound move} Ne5?? {not a good decision,
because now the opponent is right back in the game} ( better is 42... Bc5
{saving the game} 43. Rxf6+ Kxf6 44. Re6+ Kg7 45. Nf5+ Kf8 46. Rxg6 d4 47.
Nxg5 d3 =) 43. Nxg5+! +- {Demolishes the pawn shield} Kg8?!
{not the bravest move} (43... fxg5 {Theme: Deflection from e5} 44. Rxe5)
44. Re6 (44. Rxe5 {keeps an even firmer grip} fxe5 45. Rg6+ Kh8 46. Rh6+
Kg8 +-) 44... Bb4? (44... Bc5 45. Nf5 Rf8 46. Rd1 +-) 45. Re2
(45. R1xe5 { and White can already relax} fxe5 46. Nc6 Rg7 47. Nxb8 Rxg5
+-) 45... Kg7 (better is 45... Bc5 46. Nf5 Rf8 +-) 46. R2xe5 fxe5
47. Nc6 Rh8 (47... Bd6 48. Nxb8 Bxb8 49. Rxb6 Bd6 +-) 48. Nxb4 Rh1+
49. Kc2 Rh2 (49... e4 {cannot change what is in store for ?} 50.
Rxb6 e3 51. Ne6+ Kf7 52. Nd3 +-) 50. Rxe5 Rxg2+ 51. Kd3 Kf6 (51...
Rg3 {cannot undo what has already been done} 52. Ke3 d4+ 53. Kf2 +-) 52.
f4 d4 (52... Rg3+ {doesn't change the outcome of the game} 53. Kd2 Rg2+
54. Kd3 Rg3+ 55. Kd4 +-) 53. Nd5+ Kg6 (53... Kg7 {doesn't get the
bull off the ice} 54. b4 Kg6 55. Nxb6 Rg3+ 56. Kc4 Rc3+ 57. Kb5 +-) 54.
Kxd4 Rf2 (54... Rc2 {does not improve anything} 55. Re6+ Kg7 56. Ne4 +-)
55. Kc3 ({better is} 55. Re6+ {makes it even easier for White} Kg7
56. Ke5 +-) 55... Rd6 (55... Rf1 {doesn't get the cat off the tree}
56. Re6+ Kg7 57. Nxb6 +-) 56. Ne4 (better is 56. Ne7+ {it becomes
clear that White will call all the shots} Kg7 57. Nf5+ Kg6 58. Nxd6 Rxf4 +-)
56... Rc6+ (56... Rf3+ {is not much help} 57. Kc4 Rd7 58. Re6+ Kf5
59. Rxb6 +-) 57. Kb4 Rf3 58. Ne7+ (58. Ne7+ Kh6 59. Nxc6 Rxf4 60. Kb5
+-) 1-0 Hugh E. Myers – NN Iowa 1985
{128MB, Fritz10.ctg A03: Bird's Opening with 1...d5} 1. f4 d5 2. e4 dxe4
3. Nc3 {Nakamura: Williams Gambit}
Nf6 4.
Qe2
{Nakamura: White is playing a trap that also occurs in the Englund Gambit
with 1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 Nc6 3.Nf3 Qe7. This Englund Gambit trap can be found
in a book of chess traps.}Bf5 5. Qb5+ Bd7 (5... Nc6 6. Qxf5 Nd4 7.
Qe5 Nxc2+ 8. Kd1 Nxa1 9. Nxe4 -/+) 6. Qxb7 (better is 6. Qc4 Nc6 7.
Nxe4 -/+) 6... Bc6?? {forfeits the clear win} (better is 6... Nc6
{Black has the better game} 7. Bb5 Rb8 8. Qxc6 Bxc6 9. Bxc6+ Nd7 -+) 7.
Bb5 +- Qd7 (7... Bxb5 {desperation} 8. Nxb5 Na6 9. Qxa6 Rb8 +-)
8. Bxc6 Qxc6 (8... Nxc6 {otherwise it's curtains at once} 9. Qxa8+
Nd8 10. Qxa7 g6 {\+-) 9. Qc8# 1-0 Hugh E. Myers – B. Devin Open 1985
{A00:
Irregular Openings} 1. b4 c6 2. Bb2 Qb6 3. a3 a5 4. c4 axb4 5. c5 Qc7
(5... Qxc5 {Decoy to c5} 6. axb4 {Discovered attack}) 6. axb4 Rxa1 7.
Bxa1 d5 8. Nf3 f6 {Covers e5} 9. e3 e5 (9... Nh6 10. d4
+/=) 10. Be2 (10. Nxe5!? Nh6 11. Nd3 +/-) 10... b6 11. O-O
(11. d4!? e4 12. Nfd2 +/=) 11... bxc5 = 12. bxc5 Bxc5 {Black
is behind in development.} 13. d4 Bd6 14. e4 Ne7 15. Nc3 exd4 16.
Qxd4 c5 (16... Be5 17. Nxe5 fxe5 18. Qb4 =/+) 17. Qa4+ +/= Bd7
18. Nb5 Bxb5 (better is 18... O-O!? {is an interesting alternative}
19. exd5 Qb6 +/=) 19. Bxb5+ +- Kf8 (19... Kf7!? 20. exd5 Rd8
+-) 20. exd5 Nxd5 21. Re1 (21. Qe4 Ne7 22. Qe6 +-) 21... Be7?
(better is 21... Ne7 +-) 22. Qe4 Nf4 (22... Qd6 23. Rd1 Nc3 24. Rxd6
Nxe4 +-) 23. Ng5! {the final blow} g6 (23... fxg5 24. Qf5+)
24. Qxf4 1-0 R. Lahlum – Hugh E. Myers Am tt Midwest 1994
{A50:
Queen's Fianchetto Defence (1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 b6)} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 Nc6 3. Nc3
e5 4. d5 {White gets more space} Ne7 5. e4 Ng6 6. Be3 (6. Bd3 Bc5
+/=) 6... Bb4 = 7. f3 {Controls g4} O-O 8. Qc2 (8. Bd3
Nh5 =) 8... d6 {Consolidates c5} 9. a3 Bc5 10. Bxc5 dxc5 11. Bd3
Ne8 12. g4 Qh4+ (12... Nd6 13. h4 =) 13. Qf2 +/= Qxf2+
14. Kxf2 Nf4 {The black knight on an outpost} 15. Bc2 Nd6 {The
knight blocks d5} 16. b3 {Covers c4} Bd7 17. a4 a6 {Secures
b5} 18. Nge2 Nxe2 19. Kxe2 g6 20. Rag1 b5 21. cxb5 axb5 22. Ra1 b4
{Black gains space} 23. Nd1 (23. Na2 Rfc8 +/-) 23... Bb5+?
{Black plans c4} (23... Nb5 24. Kd3 Nd4 25. Ne3 =) 24. Bd3 (better is
24. Ke3!? c4 25. Nb2 +/-) 24... c4 = 25. bxc4 Bxa4 26. Nb2 Bb3 27.
Ke3 Ra3 28. Rhc1? (better is 28. c5 {and White has air to breath} Nb7
29. Rac1 =) 28... Rfa8 -+ 29. Rxa3 bxa3 30. Nd1??
{simply worsens the situation} (better is 30. Ra1 Ra5 31. Nd1 Nxc4+ 32. Bxc4
Bxc4 33. Kd2 -+) 30... a2 31. Ra1 (31. c5 {doesn't get the cat off
the tree} Nb7 32. c6 Nd6 -+) 31... Bxd1 32. c5 (32. Rxd1 {cannot
change destiny} a1=Q 33. Rxa1 Rxa1 -+) 32... Nb7 33. Bc4 (33. c6
{doesn't change the outcome of the game} Nc5 34. Rxd1 Ra3 -+) 33... Nxc5
({better is} 33... Ra3+ {and Black can already relax} 34. Kf2 Nxc5 35. Rxd1
-+) 34. Rxa2 Rxa2 35. Bxa2 Kf8 36. g5 Ke7 37. f4 (37. Bb1 {does not
win a prize} Nb3 38. f4 Kd6 -+) 37... Kd6 (better is 37... exf4+!?
{seems even better} 38. Kxf4 Bc2 39. e5 Nd3+ 40. Ke4 Nc1+ 41. Kd4 Nxa2 42.
Kc4 -+) 38. Bb1 exf4+ 39. Kxf4 Nd7 40. h4 (40. h3 {doesn't do any
good} Ne5 -+) 40... Ne5 41. Ba2 (41. Ke3 {doesn't change anything
anymore} Nf3 42. Kf4 Nxh4 -+) 41... Bc2 42. Ke3 Kc5 43. Kf4 (43. d6
{is no salvation} Kxd6 44. Bd5 c6 -+) 43... Kd4 44. d6 cxd6 45. Bd5 Bd3
46. Bb7 Bc4 47. Ba8 Nd3+ (better is 47... Bb5 {!? makes it even easier
for Black} 48. Bb7 -+) 48. Kf3 Nc5 49. Bc6 (49. Kf4 {is not the
saving move} Na4 -+) 49... Bd3 50. Be8 Bxe4+ 51. Kf4 (51. Ke2 {is not
much help} Bd5 52. Bb5 Ke4 -+) 51... Nd3+ 52. Kg4 (52. Kg3 {doesn't
get the bull off the ice} Bd5 53. Bb5 Ke3 -+) 52... Ke3 53. Bxf7 Ne5+
(53... Ne5+ 54. Kg3 Nxf7 55. h5 d5 56. Kh4 d4 57. Kh3 d3 58. hxg6 Bxg6 59.
Kg2 d2 60. Kg3 d1=Q 61. Kg2 Qf3+ 62. Kg1 Qf2+ 63. Kh1 Be4#) 0-1 Robert Bistany – Hugh E. Myers Amateur tt Playoff 1994
{D03:
1 d4 d5 2 Nf3 Nf6 3 Bg5, including Torre Attack with early ...d5} 1. d4
Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. Bg5 d5 4. Nbd2 h6 5. Bh4 Nc6 6. e3 Bd6 7. c4
g5 {Black threatens to win material: g5xh4} (7... O-O 8. Be2 =) 8.
Bg3 +/= Ne4 (8... Bd7 9. Ne5 +/=) 9. Bxd6 (9. Nxe4 dxe4
10. Nd2 f5 +/-) 9... Nxd2 (9... cxd6 10. h4 +/=) 10. Qxd2 (10.
Kxd2?! cxd6 11. Qa4 Bd7 12. cxd5 exd5 =) 10... Qxd6 11. c5 {White
gets more space} Qe7 12. b4 f6 {Covers e5} (12... g4 13. Ne5 Nxe5 14.
dxe5 =) 13. Bd3 (13. b5 Nd8 +/-) 13... Qg7 14. b5 {White
threatens to win material: b5xc6} Nd8 (14... Ne7 15. Qa5 e5 16. dxe5
(worse is 16. Qxc7 e4 =/+) 16... fxe5 17. Qc3 +/- (17. Qxc7 {is no
comparison} e4 18. O-O exf3 -+)) 15. Qc3 Nf7 16. a4 O-O {Black king
safety dropped} 17. O-O e5 18. dxe5 (better is 18. Nd2!? +/-)
18... fxe5 = 19. Bc2 Be6 (19... g4 20. Nd2 {=/+}) 20. c6
(20. h3 g4 21. hxg4 Bxg4 +/=) 20... b6 = 21. Rfd1 Qf6 22.
Rd2 (22. Bb3!? {might be a viable alternative} g4 23. Ne1 =) 22... g4
=/+ 23. Ne1 Ng5 {Black plans e4} (23... Nd6 =/+) 24. Qd3 (24.
a5 Qg7 =) 24... e4 {Black threatens to win material: e4xd3} ({better
is} 24... Ne4!? 25. f3 gxf3 -/+) 25. Qd4 = Qf5 {Black king
safety dropped} (25... Qxd4!? 26. Rxd4 a6 27. bxa6 Rxa6 =) 26. Bb3
+/= {White threatens to win material: Bb3xd5} Rad8 (better is 26...
a6 27. Nc2 a5 +/=) 27. a5?? {with this move White loses his
initiative} (27. Nc2 Rf7 28. Kh1 Qf6 +/=) 27... Rf7?? {releasing the
pressure on the opponent} ({better is} 27... Nf3+ {and Black could have
gained the advantage} 28. Nxf3 gxf3 -+) 28. axb6 axb6 29. Bc4
({better is} 29. Nc2!? {is worth looking at} Rg7 30. Kh1 =) 29... h5
-/+ 30. Bf1 (30. Nc2 h4 31. Nb4 h3 32. Nxd5 Kh7 33. Nf6+ Qxf6 34.
Qxf6 Rxf6 35. Rxd8 Bxc4 36. Rd7+ Kg6 37. Rxc7 Bxb5 =) 30... h4 31. Ra7?
(better is 31. g3 -/+) 31... Nf3+ -+ 32. gxf3 gxf3 33. Kh1?
(33. Nxf3 h3 34. Ne1 Rg7+ 35. Bg2 hxg2 36. f3 (worse is 36. Nxg2 Rxg2+ 37.
Kh1 Qh3 38. Qe5 Rg6 39. Qxe6+ Rxe6 40. Ra1 Rg6 41. f3 Qxf3+ 42. Rg2 Qxg2#)
36... exf3 37. Rf2 -+) 33... Qg5 34. Rxc7 (34. Rd1 {praying
for a miracle} Rg7 35. Bg2 -+) 34... Rxc7 35. Qxb6 (35. Nxf3 {what
else?} exf3 36. Qf4 Qxf4 37. exf4 -+) 35... Rg7 36. Bg2 Bh3 (36...
Bh3 37. Qxd8+ Qxd8 38. Bxh3 Qa5 -+) 0-1 In the following game, Black transposes from a Sicilian Defense to a French Defense type of pawn structure but Black plays it better than the regular French by moving the B at c8 outside of its pawn structure to pin the White N at f3. White’s refusal to deal with this pin proves fatal later on.
Bobby
G. Moore Jr. (2275) – Hugh E. Myers {B22: Sicilian: 2 c3} 1. e4 c5 2. c3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nf3 d6 6. cxd4 Nc6 7. Bc4 Nb6 8. Bb5 d5 (Nakamura: Black prevents d5 by White and prepares to move the B at c8 outside of its pawn structure.) (8... Bg4 9. d5 a6 10. dxc6 axb5 11. cxb7 +/-) 9. O-O Bg4 10. Be3 (10. Qd3 e6 11. Bg5 Be7 12. Bxe7 Qxe7 +/=) 10... e6 +/= 11. Nbd2 Rc8 12. Rc1 Be7 13. Nb3 (13. Qb3!? +/=) 13... O-O = 14. Qe2 (Nakamura: White should have played Be2 to take out the pin on the N at f3. White’s decision to leave the pin proves fatal later on.) Nd7 (14... f6 15. Bxc6 Rxc6 16. Rxc6 bxc6 17. exf6 Bxf6 18. Nbd2 =) 15. a3 {Covers b4} (15. h3!? Bf5 16. Rfd1 =) 15... Qb6 =/+ 16. Rc3 a6 (16... f6 17. Rfc1 =/+) 17. Ba4 (17. Bd3 f5 =/+) 17... f6 {Consolidates g5} 18. Rfc1 (18. h3!? {is interesting} Bh5 19. exf6 Bxf3 20. Qxf3 Nxf6 21. Rc2 =) 18...fxe5 -/+ 19. dxe5 Qd8 20. Bxc6 bxc6 21. Rxc6? [diagram]
Conclusion Myers Chess Game Myers usually placed his bishops outside the pawn structure in active positions. Your bishops are usually better placed outside your pawn structure (except in openings such as the Kings Indian Defense, Kings Indian Attack, Pirc Defense or similar positions) because it becomes much more active than a Bishop trapped behind its pawns. You could have piece coordination problems if the Bishop is trapped behind its pawn structure. He had a deep understanding of French Defense positions. He used this knowledge to transpose from another opening such as a Sicilian Defense (1.e4 c5) to obtain a French Defense (1.e4 e6) middle game position. See game Bobby Moore Jr – Hugh E. Myers. Hugh E. Myers had played the King’s Indian Defense long before anyone else played it in tournament games. And he might have influenced Bobby Fischer into adopting the Kings Indian as a major defense against the Queen Pawn Opening 1.d4. When I
examined some of his chess games I was quite stunned to discover that Myers
(who was not known as a gambit player) played some truly amazing gambit
games full of piece sacrifices and interesting combinations.
Hugh E. Myers did extensive theoretical work on the Nimzovich Defense and his book on the Nimzovich Defense is still considered the foremost authority on the Nimzovich Defense. The Nimzovich Defense is not an easy opening to master because it can transpose into various other openings such as the Scandinavian Defense (1.e4 d5), some form of the Mexican Defense where Black’s queen-knight is chased by White’s pawns, Pirc Defense (1.e4 d6) as well as lines that only belong to the Nimzovich Defense. His
Myers Openings Bulletins were very densely packed with chess articles
which had very deep and accurate analysis on various standard and unorthodox
chess openings. Myers did extensive historical research for whatever chess
article he wrote. He had a large collection of chess books and had
access to the Cleveland Public Library where he did some of his historical
research on chess. Myers Chess Writing He created some enemies by criticizing some highly ranked players for their integrity in his Myers Openings Bulletin. If I had written that Bulletin I would not have created controversy and would have steered clear of chess politics and not criticized various chess players with my writing. I would have just stuck to the analysis and comments of the chess games. However my chess bulletin would clearly not have been as colorful and controversial as the Myers Openings Bulletin. Myers was criticized by chess writer IM Taylor Kingston for his book An Opening Explorer. I believe most of Taylor Kingston’s criticism of Myers writing skills in that book were true, that Myers writing in that book was awkward and had a lot of grammatical errors. However I still enjoyed reading An Opening Explorer because it was essentially an autobiography of Myers and if you love unorthodox chess openings, the awkward writing and grammatical errors should not matter. Myers was from the old school because he refused to use computers to do his writing. It would have been much easier to use computers because there exists many strong computer chess engines (commercial and free) that could have helped his analysis of chess games or chess positions. And there also exists many chess databases (commercial or free) which he could access to pull up the specific chess games he needs for his writing. And chess programs such as ChessBase or programs with a ChessBase graphic interface such as Fritz can be useful in creating chess diagrams for your chess article. And he could have used the internet to look up information with “google” for any specific chess opening or chess player. His Myers
Openings Bulletins were packed with a lot of deep and accurate original
analysis by various strong chess players such as IM Stefan Buecker, Maurits
Wind and others. I believe Myers did make important contributions to
opening theory with his book on the Nimzovich Defense and with his work on
the Myers Openings Bulletin. His Life I admired his sense of adventure and courage. He traveled to such countries as Santo Domingo as a Peace Corps volunteer, Puerto Rico and Dubai (to work on the tournament bulletin at the 1986 World Chess Olympiad). I saw the following comment by Sam Sloan on Games Forum about a Hugh Myers incident with an Arab girl at the 1986 World Chess Olympiad in Dubai:
Hugh E.
Myers was married four times and had at least two children.
Unfortunately they both died in a plane crash. Towards the end of his
life he seemed to have dropped out from chess because of illness and
personal problems. And in one year alone he had four heart attacks. CHESS BOOKS PUBLISHED Books Published: 1968 New Strategy in the Chess Openings Being Chiefly a Recommendation for Nimzovich's Defence ... By Hugh E Myers
Published
by James R. Schoeder, 1968 1973 The Nimzovich Defense by Hugh E. Myers Published by CHESSCO, 1973 87 pages
1977 Reversed King Pawns, Mengarini’s Opening by Hugh E. Myers Published by Thinker's Press, 1977 44 pages
1978 Exploring the Chess Openings
by
Hugh E.
Myers 102 pages
2002 A Chess Explorer (Autobiography of Hugh E. Myers) by Hugh E. Myers 239 pages
Bulletins Published 1979-88 Myers Openings Bulletins (38 issues) 1992-96
New Myers Openings Bulletin (9 issues) LINKS TO BOOK/CD REVIEWS NEW STRATEGY IN THE CHESS OPENINGS Rick Kennedy also had a short comment about “New Strategy in the Chess Openings” in his review of “A Chess Explorer”.
THE NIMZOVITCH DEFENCE The Kenilworthian – A short one sentence review of this book. http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/kenilworthian/2005/08/1nc6-or-kevitz-system-bibliography.html
EXPLORING THE CHESS OPENINGS“The Literature of Chess” by John Graham – page 79 reference. A Chess Explorer Reviewed by Rick Kennedy http://www.chessville.com/reviews/AChessExplorer.htm\
A DISSONANT CODY Chess café article review of “A Chess Explorer” by Taylor Kingston http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review341.pdf
The Nimzovich Defense Ultimate CD by Hugh Myers Chesscentral.com http://www.chesscentral.com/pickard/The_%20Nimzovich_%20Defense.htm The Kenilworthian http://www.kenilworthchessclub.org/kenilworthian/2005/08/1nc6-or-kevitz-system-bibliography.html
REFERENCES Wikipedia References This includes articles and news about Hugh E. Myers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Myers 1. Hugh Myers, A Chess Explorer, Myers Openings Bulletin, 2002, pp. 5-6. 2. Myers 2002, p. 6. The language quoted by Myers concludes Lasker's analysis of 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.d4 d5!? Emanuel Lasker, Lasker's Manual of Chess, Dover, 1960, pp. 100-01. The book was first published in English in 1927. David Hooper and Kenneth Whyld, The Oxford Companion to Chess (2d ed. 1992), Oxford University Press, p. 219. ISBN 0-19-866164-9. 3. Myers 2002, p. 6. 4. Myers 2002, p. 8. 5. Myers 2002, pp. 2, 8-9. 6. a b Chess Note 5909, Myers autobiographical sketch. Retrieved on 2009-01-06. 7. Myers 2002, pp. 8-9. 8. Myers 2002, p. 10. 9. Chess Review, April 1950, p. 100. Also available on DVD (page 114 of "Chess Review 1950" PDF file). 10. Chess Review, June 1951, p. 165. Also available on DVD (page 189 of "Chess Review 1951" PDF file). 11. Chess Review, April 1952, p. 101. Also available on DVD (page 115 of "Chess Review 1952" PDF file). 12. Chess Review, November 1951, p. 324. Also available on DVD (page 368 of "Chess Review 1951" PDF file). 13. a b Myers 2002, p. 12. 14. Chess Review, September 1952, p. 260. Also available on DVD (page 294 of "Chess Review 1952" PDF file). 15. Chess Review, July 1955, p. 196. Also available on DVD (page 222 of "Chess Review 1955" PDF file). 16. Myers 2002, p. 25. 17. Chess Review, August 1962, p. 228. Also available on DVD (page 256 of "Chess Review 1962" PDF file). 18. Myers 2002, pp. 102-05, 140-41. 19. Árpád Földeák, Chess Olympiads 1927-1968, Dover, 1979, p. 397. ISBN 0-486-23733-8. 20. R.D. Keene and D.N.L. Levy, Haifa Chess Olympiad 1976, The Chess Player, 1977, p. 71. ISBN 0-906042- 02-X. 21. Myers 2002, p. 170. 22. Individual Iowa State Chess Champions. Retrieved on 2008-12-27. 23. Myers 2002, pp. 174-75. 24. Chess Life, June 1994, pp. 36-37. 25. Myers 2002, pp. 209-10. 26. Quad-City Times obituary. Retrieved on 2008-12-30. 27. Myers 2002, p. 86. 28. Myers 2002, p. 172. 29. USCF Regular Rating History for Hugh E. Myers. Retrieved on 2008-12-26. 30. Jeff Sonas, Chessmetrics Player Profile: Hugh Myers. Retrieved on 2008-12-25. 31. Under FIDE Regulation 1.3 (retrieved on 2008-12-25), a player who achieves a published rating of 2300 is entitled to the FIDE Master title. 32. a b c ChessBase.com, Hugh Myers (1930-2008), opening theoretician (2008-12-25). Retrieved on 2008-12-27. 33. Myers 2002, pp. 99-100, 115, 150, 177, 202, 209. 34. Myers 2002, p. iv. 35. Watson remarks, "Note ... how White (by his shockingly committal first move) has forfeited his chance for [c3], the key move in several of the most effective defences to Grob's Attack". John L. Watson, English: Franco, Slav and Flank Defences, Batsford, 1981, p. 103. ISBN 0-7134-2690-X. 36. Stefan Bücker, The Impoliteness of Ice Age Openings (PDF). Retrieved on 2009-01-01. 37. a b Rick Kennedy, Review of A Chess Explorer. Retrieved on 2008-12-26. 38. Myers 2002, p. 100. 39. Watson 1981, p. 103. 40. Watson 1981, p. 103. 41. Nick de Firmian, Modern Chess Openings: MCO-15, Random House Puzzles & Games, 2008, pp. 716-17. ISBN 978-0-8129-3682-7. 42. Encyclopedia of Chess Openings, Volume A (2nd ed. 1996), Šahovski Informator, p. 60. 42. Gary Kasparov and Raymond Keene, Batsford Chess Openings 2, Collier Books, 1989, p. 27. ISBN 0-02- 033991-7. 43. John Nunn, Graham Burgess, John Emms, and Joe Gallagher, Nunn's Chess Openings, Everyman Publishers, 1999, p. 19 n. 1. ISBN 1-85744-221-0. 45. Gary Kasparov and Raymond Keene, Batsford Chess Openings, Batsford, 1982, p. 11. ISBN 0713421126. 46. Edward Winter, Old Opening Assessments (July 19, 2008). Retrieved on 2008-12-26. 47. a b Myers 2002, p. 179. 48. Myers 2002, p. 178. 49. Edward Winter, The Termination (1988, updated in 2006, 2007 and 2008). Retrieved on 2008-12-27. 50. Myers 2002, pp. 184-85. 51. Edward Winter, The 1986 FIDE Presidential Election. Retrieved on 2009-01-16. 52. Myers 2002, pp. 179, 194. 53. Myers 2002, pp. 186, 188, 193-94. 54. All ten issues of F.I.D.E. Facts are reproduced in Edward Winter, The 1986 FIDE Presidential Election. Retrieved on 2009-01-16. 55. CHESS magazine, November 1986, pp. 323-25. 56. Myers 2002, p. 188. 57. a b Myers 2002, p. 194. 58. a b Myers 2002, p. 193. 59. Hooper and Whyld 1992, p. 232. 60. Chess Review, March 1957, p. 89. Also available on DVD (page 99 in "Chess Review 1957" PDF file). 61. Annotations based on those by Kmoch in Chess Review. 62. a b Myers 2002, p. 106. 63. Myers wrote of his sixth move, "I love it when I can get away with early advances of both Rook pawns!" Myers 2002, p. 106. 64. Chess Life & Review, October 1970, pp. 564-65. Also available on DVD (pages 564-65 in "Chess Life & Review 1970" PDF file). 65. Except where otherwise specified, annotations are based on those by Kmoch in Chess Life & Review. 66. Quad City Times – Obituary with family information. 67. March 2009 Issue of Chess Life - page 9 and 10. Eulogy on Hugh E. Myers by FM Allan Savage.
Unorthodox Chess Openings Vol. 2 by Eric Schiller Page 34 – A short profile of Hugh Myers as one of the unorthodox chess openings specialists. Page 330-332 - Nimzowitsch Defense – Some analysis by Hugh Myers.
Unorthodox Chess Openings Newsgroups MessagesThere are 93 messages on Hugh Myers. You would have to do a search by the name “Hugh Myers”. Unorthodox Chess Openings Newsgroups File SectionMyers Defense (1.c4 g5) Line 1.c4 g5 2.d4 Bg7 3.Bxg5 c5 (zip file 16 kb) nimgambit1.pgn Nimzovich Defense Gambit #1 – 3 games nimgambit2.pgn Nimzovich Defense Gambit #2 – 7 games nimzmar1.pgn Nimzovich Defense – Marshall Gambit – 11 games & 1 combined line
Sverre’s Chess Corner – Mengarini’s Opening
http://sverreschesscorner.blogspot.com/2007/02/mengarinis-opening.html Download a zipped pgn file of 141 of Myers' games here. _______________________________________________________________________ Copyright 2009 Clyde Nakamura. All rights reserved. _______________________________________________________________________
|
The Chessville
The
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
