Page 1 of 1
Remembering FM John Littlewood (25-v-1931 16-ix-2009)
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2026 10:07 am
by John Upham
Remembering FM John Littlewood (25-v-1931 16-ix-2009)
https://britishchessnews.com/2020/09/16 ... 6-ix-2009/
- FM John Littlewood (25-v-1931 16-ix-2009)
- jelh.jpg (43.43 KiB) Viewed 288 times
Re: Remembering FM John Littlewood (25-v-1931 16-ix-2009)
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2026 1:37 pm
by JustinHorton
5...g6 in
Corden-Littlewood transposes into the Three Knights' Game 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nc3 g6 which you occasionally see from players in justified despair of getting anything from 3...Nf6 4 d4 exd4 5 Nxd4. Whether it's worth it kind of depends what level of objective disadvantage you're prepared to cope with, but it's worth knowing that 8 f3 is superfluous (8 Qd2 and the computer gives White a sizeable edge) and that 7 Nxc6 is also favourable for White. If this weren't the case we might see more of it!
Re: Remembering FM John Littlewood (25-v-1931 16-ix-2009)
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2026 1:48 pm
by Roger de Coverly
JustinHorton wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2026 1:37 pm
5...g6 in
Corden-Littlewood transposes into the Three Knights' Game 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Nc3 g6 which you occasionally see from players in justified despair of getting anything from 3...Nf6 4 d4 exd4 5 Nxd4
In its day, the Corden-Littlewood game was important in demonstrating that you didn't need long lines of tactical play to defend against 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4.
Otherwise you had to know your way through lines like 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. 0-0 Nxe4 6. Re1 d5 7. Bxd5 Qxd6 8. Nc3 with the risk of being crushed rapidly if you got it wrong.
Re: Remembering FM John Littlewood (25-v-1931 16-ix-2009)
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2026 1:51 pm
by JustinHorton
Though he does mention that line in the notes.
Another way to play is 4...Bc5 5 O-O d6, where 5 c3 Nf6 brings you back to normal lines.
Re: Remembering FM John Littlewood (25-v-1931 16-ix-2009)
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2026 3:13 pm
by IM Jack Rudd
Something tells me black probably didn't actually play 44...Qe3+ in that game.
Re: Remembering FM John Littlewood (25-v-1931 16-ix-2009)
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2026 3:35 pm
by JustinHorton
Oh good spot, I wonder what's given in the original BCM? It would presumably have been descriptive back then.
Re: Remembering FM John Littlewood (25-v-1931 16-ix-2009)
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2026 3:42 pm
by Matt Mackenzie
When did the BCM switch over to algebraic, come to think of it?
(CHESS magazine had an algebraic edition from the late 1970s, before the full conversion when Pergamon relaunched it)
Re: Remembering FM John Littlewood (25-v-1931 16-ix-2009)
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2026 4:00 pm
by John Upham
Matt Mackenzie wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2026 3:42 pm
When did the BCM switch over to algebraic, come to think of it?
(CHESS magazine had an algebraic edition from the late 1970s, before the full conversion when Pergamon relaunched it)
The final edition of
BCM in descriptive was the December 1975 issue.
This was game #17399 and it was ARB Thomas vs MJ Basman from Hastings Challengers of 1964 - 1965.The final descriptive move was 17.R-Q8+!, resigns
The first edition of
BCM in algebraic was the January 1976 issue.
This was game #17400 from the 1975 Alekhine Memorial between EP Geller and VL Korchnoi and it was a French Defence.
Re: Remembering FM John Littlewood (25-v-1931 16-ix-2009)
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2026 4:02 pm
by John Saunders
IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2026 3:13 pm
Something tells me black probably didn't actually play 44...Qe3+ in that game.
Black did play 44...Qe3+ but White didn't play 44 Kd2. He played 44 Ke2. It's correct in BCM, CHESS and BritBase. Big mistake by John Upham, to take the score from ChessBase's Mega Database (where it's wrong). If I had been consulted earlier, this mistake would not have been made. (Stewart Reuben left me this meme in his will.)
Re: Remembering FM John Littlewood (25-v-1931 16-ix-2009)
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2026 4:07 pm
by JustinHorton
It is also incorrect (as people can see) on Chessgames.
Re: Remembering FM John Littlewood (25-v-1931 16-ix-2009)
Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2026 5:05 pm
by John Upham
John Saunders wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2026 4:02 pm
IM Jack Rudd wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2026 3:13 pm
Something tells me black probably didn't actually play 44...Qe3+ in that game.
Big mistake by John Upham, to take the score from ChessBase's Mega Database: I often make Big mistakes!
