H E Atkins
-
- Posts: 839
- Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:26 pm
Re: H E Atkins
Steinitz used the Salvio Gambit several times in his match with Anderssen in 1866 - and won some of them!
-
- Posts: 5244
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
- Location: Millom, Cumbria
Re: H E Atkins
I played it, once (which was enough)
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)
-
- Posts: 122
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2018 3:47 pm
Re: H E Atkins
I would love to see any c.c. games from Keith's notebook!! Must write something about him at some point, but never got round to it.John Upham wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 9:50 am328 is a considerable improvement over MegaBase 2020 which has 230.
I've attempted to add games and make corrections for ChessBase but I have failed miserably.
I have a tranche of Keith Richardson games from one of his scorebooks but CB are not interested.
Excellent newspaper clipping Gerard !
Did you obtain it from Newspapers.com or from some other source ?
-
- Posts: 5834
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm
Re: H E Atkins
"I would love to see any c.c. games from Keith's notebook!!"
I'm sure John Saunders would love it too for Britbase...
I'm sure John Saunders would love it too for Britbase...
-
- Posts: 1728
- Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:10 pm
- Location: Kingston-upon-Thames
Re: H E Atkins
Probably not, in fact. Correspondence chess is a specialism within chess and I think it would be better if cc games were collected and archived as part of a dedicated cc chess website, curated by people who know that field better than I do. I think there are a few cc games on BritBase, forming a small part of player collections (e.g. that of Bernard Cafferty's games), but I wouldn't want to feature cc tournament files. I've enough on my plate with OTB chess.Kevin Thurlow wrote: ↑Sat Sep 04, 2021 7:03 pm"I would love to see any c.c. games from Keith's notebook!!"
I'm sure John Saunders would love it too for Britbase...
Personal Twitter @johnchess
Britbase https://www.britbase.info
(I prefer email to PM - contact me via this link - https://www.saund.org.uk/email.html)
Britbase https://www.britbase.info
(I prefer email to PM - contact me via this link - https://www.saund.org.uk/email.html)
-
- Posts: 5834
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:28 pm
Re: H E Atkins
Fair enough - and I take the point. Keith did retire from CC when computers got too good, so his games wouldn't be contaminated by silicon.
-
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:54 pm
Re: H E Atkins
Although no 'William Booth' (see John Townsend's and other posts above), may I gently note that I did, in fact, make a very serious case for (at least a partial chess-historical) 'salvation' of the Salvio Variation in the King's Gambit on pp 15-22 of the chapter on Steinitz in my book: Giants of Innovation (Everyman Chess 2011).
Steinitz's novel (fundamentally researched and strategically rather than tactically based) re-interpretation of the line thoroughly overturned Staunton's take on this line's repute in his famous 'Handbook'. Staunton's view essentially echoed John Cochrane's that the move 6...f3, or first 6...Nh6, with the intention of continuing with ...f3, cast a dark shadow over the Salvio. Indeed, they remain excellent moves for Black ... only Steinitz had spotted a huge (strategically conceptual) flaw in Staunton's main line recommendation, which I point out clearly (on p.17 of my book).
Steinitz's new (strategic) take on the line quite clearly 'threw' even such a truly great player as Anderssen and it proved to be an innovative master-stroke by Steinitz, who revealed the earliest fruits of his new understanding for the very first time in their high stakes 1866 match. The four games played in that match are also all extremely interesting, with the 10th match game, Steinitz's third win in the four Salvio games played in the match an especially fine achievement (fully annotated in my book).
Steinitz subsequently won many further points with the Salvio, though this was, of course, only one of his enormously varied and thoroughly well-thought-through openings. It does seem likely, however, that his game against Hruby (Vienna 1882), in which his opponent adopted the highly ambitious and certainly critical 6...Nc6 and had much the better of a draw, caused him to drop the line.
NN-Atkins (above) featured 6...Nc6. But I wouldn't suggest that anyone play that (sacrificial) line without considerable theoretical investigation. It's all a lot more complicated than as played by NN, whose obviously early weak play would have had the likes of Steinitz turn in his grave.
Steinitz's novel (fundamentally researched and strategically rather than tactically based) re-interpretation of the line thoroughly overturned Staunton's take on this line's repute in his famous 'Handbook'. Staunton's view essentially echoed John Cochrane's that the move 6...f3, or first 6...Nh6, with the intention of continuing with ...f3, cast a dark shadow over the Salvio. Indeed, they remain excellent moves for Black ... only Steinitz had spotted a huge (strategically conceptual) flaw in Staunton's main line recommendation, which I point out clearly (on p.17 of my book).
Steinitz's new (strategic) take on the line quite clearly 'threw' even such a truly great player as Anderssen and it proved to be an innovative master-stroke by Steinitz, who revealed the earliest fruits of his new understanding for the very first time in their high stakes 1866 match. The four games played in that match are also all extremely interesting, with the 10th match game, Steinitz's third win in the four Salvio games played in the match an especially fine achievement (fully annotated in my book).
Steinitz subsequently won many further points with the Salvio, though this was, of course, only one of his enormously varied and thoroughly well-thought-through openings. It does seem likely, however, that his game against Hruby (Vienna 1882), in which his opponent adopted the highly ambitious and certainly critical 6...Nc6 and had much the better of a draw, caused him to drop the line.
NN-Atkins (above) featured 6...Nc6. But I wouldn't suggest that anyone play that (sacrificial) line without considerable theoretical investigation. It's all a lot more complicated than as played by NN, whose obviously early weak play would have had the likes of Steinitz turn in his grave.
-
- Posts: 839
- Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:26 pm
Re: H E Atkins
Craig, many thanks for these thoughts about the evolution and changing fortune of the Salvio Gambit. One has to admire Steinitz for resuscitating it.
Would it be an overstatement to suggest that 6...Nc6 has now done for it? In recent years, I see that Tim Harding has described it as "This dubious gambit" (Eminent Victorian Chess Players, p. 172). He later made several remarks about the Salvio in his Steinitz in London.
We seem to have strayed from the original topic of H. E. Atkins. It would be better if someone with the know-how would create a new thread for the Salvio Gambit.
Would it be an overstatement to suggest that 6...Nc6 has now done for it? In recent years, I see that Tim Harding has described it as "This dubious gambit" (Eminent Victorian Chess Players, p. 172). He later made several remarks about the Salvio in his Steinitz in London.
We seem to have strayed from the original topic of H. E. Atkins. It would be better if someone with the know-how would create a new thread for the Salvio Gambit.
-
- Posts: 5244
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:51 pm
- Location: Millom, Cumbria
Re: H E Atkins
Personally not really a fan of creating lots of bitty threads. I'm sure this one can be brought back on topic if needs be.
"Set up your attacks so that when the fire is out, it isn't out!" (H N Pillsbury)
-
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:54 pm
Re: H E Atkins
Thanks, John.
In 2011, I wrote that the Salvio (c 1850s-60s) was 'unfashionable ... poorly understood ... had a somewhat hazily doubtful theoretical reputation'. Whether it's wholly 'dubious', I'm not sure but that's not really the point ... which is (1) that Steinitz shone an extraordinarily clear light on how the line might actually be played in search of a strategically well-grounded opening initiative and (2) that, even more significantly, Steinitz actually made it work not just against Anderssen (1866) but also later against Zukertort (1872) and Chigorin (1882). Then he met Hruby (shortly after the Chigorin game, both at Vienna 1882) and dropped the Salvio in all subsequent serious chess.
In fact, to correct my earlier post, Steinitz actually won that Hruby game (although with considerable help from his opponent). In 2011, I also wrote that Hruby's 6...Nc6 'still throws doubt on (the Salvio)' and gave a continuation from a 1963 correspondence game won by Black in a variation (avoided by Steinitz) in which the (2010-11) databases I had available seemed to indicate that 'Black has long scored heavily'. In what can quickly become a heavily sacrificial line in which Black offers his rook on h8, I'd hesitate to go very much further than that, however, even now (at least not without attempting to undertake an unconscionable amount of further analytical work).
I'd therefore tend to agree with Matt that setting up a separate Salvio thread probably wouldn't serve a great deal. But these posts do, I think, belong here because of the NN-Atkins game (given above), to which anyone who sets a competent engine even quite briefly to work on it will soon discover huge improvements for NN (hardly surprising due to the players' obvious disparity in strength). But it was a fine fun finish by Atkins, an undoubtedly true (and under-sung) British great!
In 2011, I wrote that the Salvio (c 1850s-60s) was 'unfashionable ... poorly understood ... had a somewhat hazily doubtful theoretical reputation'. Whether it's wholly 'dubious', I'm not sure but that's not really the point ... which is (1) that Steinitz shone an extraordinarily clear light on how the line might actually be played in search of a strategically well-grounded opening initiative and (2) that, even more significantly, Steinitz actually made it work not just against Anderssen (1866) but also later against Zukertort (1872) and Chigorin (1882). Then he met Hruby (shortly after the Chigorin game, both at Vienna 1882) and dropped the Salvio in all subsequent serious chess.
In fact, to correct my earlier post, Steinitz actually won that Hruby game (although with considerable help from his opponent). In 2011, I also wrote that Hruby's 6...Nc6 'still throws doubt on (the Salvio)' and gave a continuation from a 1963 correspondence game won by Black in a variation (avoided by Steinitz) in which the (2010-11) databases I had available seemed to indicate that 'Black has long scored heavily'. In what can quickly become a heavily sacrificial line in which Black offers his rook on h8, I'd hesitate to go very much further than that, however, even now (at least not without attempting to undertake an unconscionable amount of further analytical work).
I'd therefore tend to agree with Matt that setting up a separate Salvio thread probably wouldn't serve a great deal. But these posts do, I think, belong here because of the NN-Atkins game (given above), to which anyone who sets a competent engine even quite briefly to work on it will soon discover huge improvements for NN (hardly surprising due to the players' obvious disparity in strength). But it was a fine fun finish by Atkins, an undoubtedly true (and under-sung) British great!
-
- Posts: 1008
- Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:51 am
Re: H E Atkins
This game was lost in the fog of war...
In the final position b2-b4 gives White winning chances.
In the final position b2-b4 gives White winning chances.