Maróczy's London 1922: A Review

Geza [sic - Géza is correct*] Maróczy, London 1922 (with a Foreword by Andy Soltis) and José Raúl Capablanca, The 1921 World Championship Match (Russell Enterprises, 2010). 128 pp. $19.95. Reviewed by Dennis Monokroussos.

London 1922 is an important point in chess history, for two reasons. First and foremost, it was the site and occasion of a significant chess tournament. The new world champion, José Raúl Capablanca, played in his first serious event since winning the title in 1921, and won an impressive style. Against a field that included such strong opponents as Alexander Alekhine, Akiba Rubinstein, Efim Bogoljubow, Richard Réti, Savielly Tartakower, Géza Maróczy, and a very young Max Euwe; Capablanca won with the big score of  13/15. Alekhine was also undefeated but finished a point and a half behind; both men played very well.

The other reason the event was important is that Capablanca there introduced what are now known as the "London Rules", a series of conditions any prospective challenger to his title would have to meet to get a match. (Go here to see the rules, and follow the link therein for further discussion.)

The games from the event are very good and worth replaying. This is in part because it was a "mixed" field, with not only the strong, established professionals mentioned above but a large helping of local cannon fodder as well. This imbalance gave rise to some beautiful technical and tactical games, which are generally far more instructive to club players than the more evenly balanced games between the elites.

So should you buy the book? If the only question was the quality of the games, the answer would be easy - it would be a must-buy. The problem is that it's not the only question. The London 1922 games are available on dozens of databases, so the book has to add something special to justify $20 plus shipping. Soltis's "Foreword"? It's not bad (though I noted at least two factual errors), but it's not a reason to buy the book. The pictures? It's nice to have head-and-torso shots of all the players but again, not really worth $20. It comes down to the quality of Maróczy's annotations.

Here, I'm afraid, the story is rather dismal. I don't know when the phrase "mailed it in" was coined, to express work that's just going through the motions, but this would have been an apt occasion. Here are a couple of analytical gems from round 1:

Alekhine - Marotti

1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6

This move is not to be recommended; White is master of the center with his pawns and the black king knight is driven away from the kingside.

3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.e4 Nb6 5.Nc3 g6 6.Nf3 Bg4 7.Be3 Bg7 8.Be2 0-0 9.Qd2 Bxf3 10.gxf3 e5 11.d5 Qe7 12.h4 h5 13.0-0-0 N8d7 14.Kb1 a6

White threatened Nb5 followed by Nxc7 and d6.

15.Rc1 Rac8 16.Nd1 Bf6 17.Bh6 Rfe8 18.Ne3 Kh8 19.Rhg1 Rg8

Black defends himself with great determination, and as a matter of fact the game is not going to be decided on the kingside.

20.Bf1! Nf8 21.Bh3 Rd8 22.Bxf8

Decisive. Black cannot now take with either rook because Nf5 would follow, so he relinquishes the c-pawn.

22...Qxf8 23.Rxc7 Bxh4 24.Rxb7 Rd6 25.Rc1 Bd8 26.Rc6 Rg7 27.Qb4 1-0

Here's another:

Yates - Watson

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Bg7 5.Nc3 d6 6.Be2 Nf6 7.O-O O-O 8.Be3 Bd7 9.f4 Nc6 10.Bf3 Ne8 11.Qd2 f5

This advance is not good, as it leaves the e-pawn weak on the open file.

12.exf5 gxf5 13.Rad1 Nf6 14.h3 Kh8 15.Qf2 a6 16.Rfe1 Nxd4 17.Bxd4 Bc6 18.Qe3 Re8 19.Nd5 Qa5 20.Bb6

This does not lead to anything except that Black is soon enabled to push his e-pawn thus getting a good game.

20...Nxd5 21.Bxd5 Qb5 22.Bb3 Be4 23.Bd4 e5 24.Bc3 Rad8 25.Qg3 Bf6 26.fxe5 dxe5 27.Rxd8 Rxd8 28.Kh2 Qe8 29.Re2 Qe7 30.Rd2 Re8 31.Qf2 h6 32.Qe2 Bg5 33.Rd1 Bf4+ 34.Kg1 Qg5 35.Kf1 Be3 36.Be1 f4 37.Qg4 Bf5 38.Qxg5 hxg5 39.Bc3 Kg7 40.Rd6 Be4 41.Rd7+ Kf6 42.Ba5 b6? 43.Rd6+

Why not 43.Bxb6 followed by 44.Rd6+?

43...Ke7 44.Bb4 a5 45.Ba3 Bc5 46.Bxc5 bxc5 47.Ra6 Bf5 48.Rxa5 Rc8 49.Ra7+ Kf6 50.Ra6+ Ke7 51.Bc4 e4 52.Be2 Rd8 53.Ke1 e3 54.Rc6 Rd5 55.Bf3 Re5 56.c4 Kd7 57.Rb6 Be4 58.a4 Bxf3 59.gxf3 Kc7 60.Rg6 e2 61.a5 Kb7 62.Rb6+ Ka7 63.Rb5 Re3

Now follows and [sic] interesting endgame which is most critical for both players, and results ultimately in a well-deserved draw.

64.Rxc5 Rxf3 65.Kxe2 Rxh3 66.b4 g4 67.Rg5 Re3+ 68.Kd2 g3 69.Rg4 Rb3 70.b5 g2 71.Rg7+ Kb8 72.Rg8+ Kc7 73.Rg7+ Kd6 74.a6 Rg3 75.Rxg3 fxg3 76.a7 g1=Q 77.a8=Q Qd4+ 78.Ke2 Qf2+ 79.Kd3 g2 80.Qd8+

White draws by perpetual check, but he must be careful not to let the black king come near his pawn over f4.

80...Ke5+ 81.Qb8+ Ke6 82.Qe8+ Kd6 83.Qd8+ 1/2-1/2

With annotations like this, it's no wonder that the book can pack 120 "annotated" games, more than 100 diagrams and 16 pictures in just 96 and a half pages. It's better than nothing, but not by much!

Further, in the little he had to say, there are mistakes and serious omissions. in Alekhine-Marotti, for instance, 20.Bf1 was interesting but a bit speculative. 20.Rxc7! was better, giving White a clear advantage after 20...Rxc7 21.d6 Qd8 22.dxc7 Qxc7 followed by 23.Nd5. White's pieces would dominate. After 20.Bf1 Black should have taken the pawn with 20...Bxh4, when White certainly has compensation for the pawn, but probably not more. Or if that seems too risky, then simply 20...Qd6. That stops the Rxc7 trick, and after 21.Bh3 Rgd8 when Black is certainly uncomfortable but not yet losing. It's Marotti's next moves that are terrible and that go uncommented upon by Maróczy: 20...Nf8? 21.Bh3?! (21.Bxf8 first and then 22.Bh3, so that Black can't "apologize" with 21...Nfd7) 21...Rd8?! 22.Bxf8 Qxf8 23.Rxc7+-.

Nor is Yates-Watson a treasure trove. First, his suggestion of 43.Bxb6 Bxb6 44.Rd6+ is obvious and worth considering. Further examination proves instructive: 44...Kg7! 45.Rxb6 Rd8! and Black's counterplay should suffice for the draw. For instance, 46.Rxa6 Rd1+ 47.Ke2 Rg1 (47...Rb1!?) 48.Re6 Rxg2+ 49.Kf1 Rg3 50.Rxe5 Bg2+ 51.Kf2 Bxh3 and although White has three connected passers to Black's two, Black's are far enough down the board to equalize the chances. Likewise, 46.Re6 Rd1+ 47.Ke2 Rg1 48.Rxe5 Rg2+ 49.Kf1 Bf3 50.Ra5 Rg3 51.Kf2 Be4 gives Black equal chances. Not including variations like these can't be called an analytical error on Maróczy's part, but it is a missed opportunity.

Later on, he does make an error. His comment after move 63 suggests that the remainder was well-played and the draw the appropriate result. It's probably the case that the position should be drawn with best play, but unless there's an error in the game score, White missed an obvious opportunity later on. After 70.b5, Black is in serious danger and has only one way to draw: 70...Ra3! If 71.a6?!, then 71...g2 and it's White who must be very careful. (Black threatens 72...Rg3, winning on the spot.) 72.Rg7+ Kb6 73.Rb6+ Kc5 and now 74.b6 is best, when 74...Rg3 75.Rxg3 fxg3 76.b7 g1Q 77.b8Q is drawn whether or not Black gives perpetual check.

Another obvious try is 71.Rxf4, but 71...g2 72.Rg4 Ra1 is drawn as well - and again it's White who will have to prove it. Note, finally, that 71.Ke2, hoping for 71...Rxa5 72.Kf3 with some very slight winning chances, even loses to 71...f3+.

In the game, Black played 70...g2??, or at least that's what's given in the databases and the book. White can simply grab on g2 and win: 71.Rxg2 Ra3 72.Rg7+ (no skewer) and then 73.a6. This idea was available to White on every move until 74.a6??, when 74...Rg3 equalized the game.

These, I hasten to add, are not atypical cases. Maróczy's notes are simply bad: very abbreviated and replete with errors. Now, I grant that it's of course easy to find errors when one is running an engine - though no engine is necessary for even a very weak club player to find 71.Rxg2 in the previous example. But remember, the point is whether you should buy this book, not whether Maróczy's errors may be understandable for those pre-computer times. (But don't go too easy on him. Maróczy was a GM, not some undeserving hack who simply knew a publisher.) To my mind, the answer is no - especially because you can find many of those games with his notes for free online, via this page.

However, if you have the book you get Soltis's foreword, pictures, all of Maróczy's annotations AND Capablanca's (similarly light) commentary to the games of his match against Lasker. Nice...but also available for free online. (It's not online theft; the originals are old enough that the copyright expired and they're in the public domain.) So it comes down to whether you like the feel of a book in your hand. If that's important to you, then get it. Otherwise, in my opinion, your $20 is better spent elsewhere.

* It is slightly pedantic, yes. But if the publisher can accent the o in Maróczy, why not get both names right?

Comments

[Larry L]

I have both of these as Dover editions and can't agree with you more on your assessment of the annotations. When their were only books these had real value in the games they contained now I would find it hard to justify except of the casual insight.

[Icepick]

[I]f the publisher can accent the o in Maróczy, why not get both names right?

Okay, THIS time I agree with you! :)