IRLchess

Philidor Cup, Hyères 1928

A total of 45 games were played in the tournament but unfortunately we have so far succeeded in finding only one brilliant game from the 2nd round, when M. Duchamp crushed the last player E.H. Smith. It is unlikely that any more games can be found in a French magazine or daily but perhaps a game is preserved in private archives of a local club or a local player. Since there were two British players, some of the games might also be found in a British chess column. [There is a footnote here: “J. Keeble in the 1920s was in charge of the problem section of the chess column in the Hastings and St. Leonards Observer, some games by J.J. O’Hanlon could be in a Irish chess column.”]. The discovery of another game from this tournament would be tantamount to a small miracle.
[Vlastimil Fiala: The Chess Biography of Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968) Volume 2: On the Road to the Chess Mastery (1926-1930), page 125.]

Turning first to the Hastings and St. Leonards Observer chess column, Keeble reported on the Hyères tournament in three successive editions on the 28th January, 4th and 11th February 1928. Two Scottish newspapers – the Falkirk Herald, and the Linlithgowshire Gazette – also carried his reports [in largely similar language] in their chess columns.

The column in the Hastings and St Leonards Observer for Saturday 28th January 1928 provided a preview of the event.

The Hyères tournament, the chief event of which is for the “Philidor” Cup, is rather a failure this year [the report in the Gazette adds: “as far as entries are concerned”], but it promises to be a pleasant affair. Only 15 entries were received, and of these only seven are of first-class strength. To make up the Cup tournament the committee have promoted three others, including Mr. John Keeble. The tournament is therefore being run with a premier section of ten players and a minor with five. The latter will play a double-round. The players in the chief event are Nicholas [de] Terestchenko, (Russia), Halberstadt (Russia), Duchamp, de Pampelonne and Jules Patey (France), O’Hanlon (Ireland), Col. Stuart-Prince, A. J. Maas, Dr Smith, and J. Keeble (England).

Competitors in the minor are Mr. Paull, J. Baines-Lewis (Harrogate), Lahallé, Garcia and Glogg (France).

The Observer’s column for Saturday 4th February carried a progress report on the event.

One of the players, Jules Patey, who entered for the Hyères tourney, has not turned up, so the cup contest is being played with nine competitors only. The scores at the end of the first week were:- Marcel Duchamp 4.5; V. Halberstadt 4.0; J.J. O’Hanlon 4.0, N. [de] Terestchenko 3.5; A.J. Maas 3.0: J. Keeble 2.0; Col. Stuart-Prince 1.5; R de Pampelonne 0.5;  Dr. E.H. Smith 0.0. Duchamp has played one more game than the others.

On Saturday 11th February, the Observer completed its coverage.

The Hyères Chess Congress ended in a triple tie between M. Duchamp (Paris), V. Halberstadt (Russia), and J. J. O’Hanlon (Ireland), who scored 6 points out of a possible 8. They divided the prize money, taking 916 francs each, but as no opportunity occurred for playing off the ties for the cup, it will remain at Hyères till next year. Mr. A. J. Maas, now of Hyeres but formerly of London took 4th prize (300 francs) scoring 5.5, and Nicholas de Terestchenko [with 4.5 points] the fifth (160 francs). The remaining scores were J. Keeble, 3.5; Col. Stuart-Prince, R. de Pampelonne 2; and Dr E. H. Smith 0. The latter retired after the fifth round so that Maas, [de] Terestchenko and Pampelonne scored a game by default.

The minor tourney was played as a double round with five players only. This also resulted in a tie with, J. Baines-Lewis (Harrogate) and Lieut. de Vassien Lahallé 5.5. each. They divided the first and second prizes of 500 and 350 francs. A third prize, 150 francs, was won by M. Garcia.

The Observer also reported on a problem solving event at the Congress, but the two Scottish newspapers gave more detail. Here is the identical report from the Herald (Wednesday 8th February) and Gazette (Friday 10th February).

The fifth prize-winner in the Premier event, Nicholas de Terestchenko, is a problem composer of great merit. A charming and sympathetic man. It is quite a privilege to meet him. He has composed about 200 chess problems, and made a couple specially in honour of the Hyères Chess Congress (one in two moves and the other in three). These were set in a special solving competition Thursday morning [2nd February]. The first prize in this (75 francs) was won by John Keeble, who fully solved both quite accurately in 20 minutes.

The two mover appeared in both the Observer and the Gazette.

Nicholas de Terestchenko – Mate in two moves

[Click here for Solution]

Returning to the competition for the premier tournament, J.J. O’Hanlon’s local newspaper, the weekly Portadown Times, provided brief reports on his progress in three consecutive editions, with the final one revealing a controversial finale.

[Friday 27th January] At the International Chess Tourney at Hyères, Riviera, France, Mr. J.J. O’Hanlon, Portadown, beat E.H. Smith, Canada in the first round.

[Friday 3rd February] At the International Chess Tourney at Hyères, Riviera, France, Mr. J.J. O’Hanlon, Portadown, drew with V. Halberstadt, Russia, in the 4th round, and beat J. Keeble in the 5th round.

In the 6th round he beat A.J. Maas, Holland.

Leading scores are :-
O’Hanlon, Ireland 5.0
Halberstadt, Russia 5.0
[De] Terestchenko 4.5
Duchamp 4.5

[Friday 10th February] The Hyères International Chess Tournament has resulted in a tie – J.J. O’Hanlon (Ireland), V. Halberstadt (Russia) and M. Duchamp (France) making an equal score.

These players will jointly hold the Philidor Challenge Cup and Championship of The Riviera for 1928.

At the start of the last round O’Hanlon was leading by one point, but after a few moves he accidentally touched a piece and was compelled to resign, and thus allowed two players to draw level with him.

A brief report on the tournament in the Belfast News-Letter chess column on 9th February provides an extra detail about the last round incident, revealing O’Hanlon’s opponent and thereby increasing the controversy level.

In the final round O’Hanlon lost to Duchamp through accidentally touching a pawn, which his opponent insisted upon his moving.

Hyères 23 January-3 February 1928
Final Crosstable

[Source: La Stratégie, 1928, page 39 via Jeremy Gaige: Chess Tournament Crosstables, Volume IV (1921-1930) page 802, amended to reflect the three games defaulted by Smith]

                         D  V  O  M  T  K  S  P  S  Pts
1=3. M. Duchamp          x  ½  1  0  ½  1  1  1  1   6
1=3. V. Halberstadt      ½  x  ½  1  ½  1  ½  1  1   6 
1=3. J.J. O'Hanlon       0  ½  x  1  1  1  ½  1  1   6
4.   A.J. Maas           1  0  0  x  1  ½  1  1  +   5½
5.   N. de Terestchenko  ½  ½  0  0  x  ½  1  1  +   4½
6.   J. Keeble           0  0  0  ½  ½  x  1  ½  1   3½
7.   C. Stuart-Prince    0  ½  ½  0  0  0  x  ½  1   2½
8.   R. de Pampelonne    0  0  0  0  0  ½  ½  x  +   2
9.   E.H. Smith          0  0  0  -  -  0  0  -  x   0

We started with Vlastimil Fiala’s faint hopes for finding more games from the event. Now, to conclude, we can present our two small miracles, courtesy of O’Hanlon and the Belfast News-Letter.

Vitaly Halberstadt – John J. O’Hanlon
Philidor Cup, Hyères 1928 (Round 4)
[Source: Belfast News-Letter, 1 March 1928, page 13; annotations by O’Hanlon]

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 Be7 6.Nc3 0-0 7.Rc1 a6
Played by Janowski many years ago, and at that time it was thought that 8.c5 or cxd5 gave white the advantage. The Swiss player, W. Henneberger analysed the defence and proved that in reality 8.c5 was a bad move and he won a fine game from Alekhine in playing against the latter move. After this game, Alekhine was so impressed with the possibilities of this defence that he adopted it in a number of games in his match with Capablanca.
8.cxd5
In the earlier games of the Capablanca – Alekhine match Capablanca played 8.a3 without gaining any advantage, but he afterwards played the text move, which is, undoubtedly, the only move which gives any prospect of advantage.
8…exd5 9.Bd3 c6
This move is necessary, and at first sight it would seem that White has a very great advantage owing to Black’s weakness on the b6 and c5 squares, but in actual play it is very difficult, if not impossible, to exploit this weakness.
10.0-0
It would probably have been better for white to have played 10.Qc2 as now Black forces the exchange of Bishops and equalises the game at once.
10…Nh5 11.Bxe7 Qxe7 12.Ne5
Threatening to win a pawn by 13.Bxh7.
12…Nhf6 13.f4 Re8
A routine move whereas 13…Nxe5 14.fxe5 Ne8 followed by f6 would have given Black practically a winning advantage.
14.Qe1 Nf8
Black gains nothing by 14…Nxe5 15.fxe5 Nd7 16.Rf3 f6 17.Qh4
15.h3 N6d7 16.Rf3 f6 17.Nxd7 Bxd7 18.Kh2 Rad8 19.Qf2 Be6 20.a3 Bf7 21.Na4 Qc7 22.Nc5 Ne6 23.Qc2 h6

24.Nxe6
After this move, White offered a draw which, after some hesitation, Black accepted. If 24.b4 then 24…Ng5 25.Rg3 h5 26.fxg5 (If 26.h4 Rxe3 27.Rxe3 (if 27.hxg5 Qxf4 wins) 27…Qxf4+ 28.Rg3 Qxh4+ 29.Rh3 Nxh3 30.gxh3 Re8 winning) 26…h4 winning the Rook.

[Click here to replay the game]

Arthur J. Maas – John J. O’Hanlon
Philidor Cup, Hyères 1928 (Round 6)
[Source: Belfast News-Letter, 23 February 1928, page 5; annotations by O’Hanlon]

1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 e6 4.Nc3 Nbd7 5.Bg5 c6 6.e3 Qa5 7.Bxf6 Nxf6 8.Bd3 Bb4 9.Qb3 Nd7
White’s last three moves are recommended by Tartakower as giving an advantage to White but he now continues …9…0-0 10.Ne5 .The move in the game is distinctly better, and seems to give Black the advantage as he remains with the two Bishops.
10.0-0 0-0 11.Ne2 dxc4 12.Qxc4
No doubt better than 12.Bxc4 as it saves a move
12…Bd6 13.Ng3 e5
Black hesitated between this move and 13…c5 but finally selected the text move to remain with three pawns to two on the Queen’s side.
14.Qc2
If 14.Nf5 Bc7 [RR The way to equality is in fact 14…Nb6 15.Qc2 Bxf5 16.Bxf5 g6 17.dxe5 Bxe5 18.Nxe5 Qxe5] 15.Ne7+ Kh8 16.Nxc8 Raxc8 White has only exchanged his active Knight for an inactive Bishop, and is faced with the advance of Black’s Queen’s side pawns. [RR O’Hanlon misses the move 17.Ng5 threatening the pawns on f7 and h7, when best is 17…Qd5 but after 18.Qxd5 cxd5 19.Bf5 Rcd8 20.Nxh7 Rfe8 21.Ng5 Re7 22.Nf3 White has a considerable advantage.]
14…g6 15.Ne4 Be7 16.dxe5 Nxe5 17.Nxe5 Qxe5 18.f4
A weak move, but White was trying to get up an attack on the King’s side before Black could advance on the Queen’s side.
18…Qa5 19.a3 Bf5 20.Nf2 Bxd3 21.Nxd3 Qb6 22.Kh1 Rad8 23.e4 Rd4 24.Rae1 Rfd8 25.Rf3
If 25.Ne5 Black would have replied 25…Bf6 (and not 25…Rd2 because of the reply 26.Qc4).
25…Qb5 26.Ree3 c5 27.b3 c4

28.bxc4 Rxc4 29.Qe2
If 29.Qb2 Rxd3 winning a piece.
29…Bc5 30.Ne1
If White plays 30.Nb2 then 30…Qxb2 wins.
30…Bxe3 31.Rxe3 Qc5 32.h3 Rc3 33.Rxc3 Qxc3 34.Nf3 Qc1+ 0-1

[Click here to replay the game]

On the 2nd March 1928 the Portadown Times reported that O’Hanlon “had just received intimation that he had been awarded the special prize for the best game in the tourney” and it seems quite likely that it was for this game against Maas.

“At the time I was 22 years old and easily the youngest member of the Irish team. Cranston, Creevey and O’Hanlon were already veterans of the chess-board; so that Ireland’s team had the doubtful distinction of being the oldest, in average age, which competed in Warsaw.”
(“International Team Tournament, Warsaw 1935” by Austin Bourke in “Chess in Ireland”, January 1960, pages 12-14)

Who played Board 4 against Poland?

In Who did Dake play? (to which today I have added a tailpiece) I addressed the uncertainty of whether T.G. Cranston or Austin Bourke (de Búrca) had played on Board 4 for Ireland in the Round 6 match against the U.S.A.

It turns out that this may not be the only misidentification involving those two players in some of the published material about the Warsaw Olympiad.

To start off our quest for the truth, here is Bourke’s take on how the Olympiad worked out for Ireland.

HOW IRELAND FARED
“It soon became obvious that the Irish team was rather outclassed – and there wasn’t even the consolation of young players gaining valuable experience. Indeed I watched the first third of the tournament from the sideline, for at least with the Irish team, the term “reserve player” was taken literally. Reilly and O’Hanlon played in all nineteen rounds. I was eventually brought on to the team on five occasions when the opposition was so strong that defeat was inevitable in any case; surely a baptism of fire for the young intruder. But when poor Cranston was laid low with digestive troubles, I got three further games against less stern opponents, and even won a game, rather luckily, against Salo of Finland. Reilly won in the same match, so Ireland drew with Finland as a single bright spot amongst eighteen defeats.”

24 years had elapsed for Bourke since playing at Warsaw until writing his article for Chess in Ireland. His recollections may have become a little hazy in that time. However, by doing a simple calculation, the article suggests that he played 8 games in total.

However, our own database lists all the games played by the Irish team at Warsaw (plus the Cork-born Hugh Alexander who played for the British team) and only gives (at least until now) seven games for de Búrca, as seen below. That total number and opponents (including Dake) concurs with the same in major databases such as Chessbase and Olimpbase. 

Golombek, Harry	   de Búrca, Austin  1-0 (4.4)  1935.08.18
Dake, Arthur       de Búrca, Austin  1-0 (6.4)  1935.08.20
de Búrca, Austin   Réthy, Pál        0-1 (7.4)  1935.08.21
Danielsson, Gösta  de Búrca, Austin  1-0 (8.4)  1935.08.21
Raizman, Maurice   de Búrca, Austin  1-0 (11.4) 1935.08.24
de Búrca, Austin   Salo, Toivo       1-0 (18.4) 1935.08.30
Luckis, Markas     de Búrca, Austin  1-0 (19.4) 1935.08.31

The first thing I should point out is that not all the game scores from Warsaw 1935 have entered the public domain. This applies to the game below, from the Ireland -v- Poland match which is the focus of our attention for misidentification.

Friedmann, Henryk  Cranston, T. G.   1-0 (15.4)	1935.08.27

The alternative spelling Friedman is used in many sources, and which from this point I shall use in preference.

The alleged Friedman-Cranston game is one of 17 games currently listed for Cranston in the IRLchess database and in others, e.g. Chessbase). It also appears in A.J. Gillam’s Warsaw Olympiad 1935 (Nottingham, 2020) as game 592 at page 271 (though, of course, it is only a stub).

There is, however, contrary evidence elsewhere that de Búrca in fact played 8 games and Cranston only 16 and that the correct listing for the Board 4 game in the Poland-Ireland match is Friedman-de Búrca.

In Chess Olympiads by Árpád Földeák (Corvina Press, Second enlarged edition, 1968) there are extensive statistical tables and at page 113 (see Table 1) the overall scores for the Irish team members at Warsaw 1935 are given: Cranston 16 games, de Búrca 8.

Table 1

Warsaw 1935 International Team Tournament by Fred Reinfeld and Harold M. Phillips (Black Knight Press, 1936) also provided the individual scores of every player. At page xii (see Table 2) the scores for the Fourth Board players and the Alternates (or Reserves) are again: Cranston 16 games, de Búrca 8.

Table 2

VI Wszechświatowa Olimpiada Szachowa, Warszawa 1935 by Mirosława Litmanowicz (Warsaw, 1996) provides a contradictory picture of the game totals for Cranston and de Búrca.

In that book, each competing country was allocated a separate chapter outlining its performance. In the chapter for Ireland, at page 314 (see Table 3) the individual scores for each player are given: Cranston 17 games, de Búrca 7.

Table 3

For the avoidance of doubt, immediately below is the translation from Polish to English of the words given in Table 3.

zawodnicy partie rozegrane wygrane przegrane remisowe
players   games  played    won     lost      drawn

At pages 55-66 there are a number of statistical tables given by Litmanowicz.

In “Tabela 5. Indywidualne wyniki zawodników” (Individual results of players) all 99 players are listed in descending order of percentage score. At page 62 we find the lower reaches of that Tabela/Table (see our Table 4) where unfortunately we find all the Irish players: Cranston 17 games, de Búrca 7 again.

Table 4

However it is a different story when we come to Litmanowicz’s “Tabela 6. Indywidualne wyniki zawodników wedlug szachownic” (Individual player results by board). First an excerpt from page 65 (see our Table 5) from the Board 4 results: Cranston only 16 games.

Table 5

Now, on page 66 (see our Table 6) we find the tail-end of the Reserves’ totals: De Búrca goes up to 8.

Table 6

However, there is another piece of relevant information in Litmanowicz and I would suggest that it provides a compelling argument in favour of the Cranston 16 games, de Búrca 8 games version of events. It helps particularly with proving there is a second game from the event (the first being the game against Dake) where there has been a misidentification between Cranston and de Búrca.

From pages 16-51 there is a chapter entitled Przebieg rozgrywek (Course of the games).  A large part of the chapter is given over to a round-by-round report of the tournament and usually the individual results of the Polish team are given for each round. At pages 41-42 can be found the report on Round 15 including reference to the individual results in the Ireland-Poland match (see extract immediately below).

The final part of this excerpt translates into English as:

Tartakower defeated Reilly, Frydman defeated Creevey, Najdorf won the game against O’Hanlon, and Friedman defeated de Búrca.

So here, we have the evidence – from a Polish author, who had access to many Polish contemporary sources – that Friedman’s opponent was not Cranston, but instead de Búrca.

Of course, there might still be a nagging doubt over the discrepancies in the Litmanowicz statistical tables. However there is one final piece of evidence, that I consider wins the day for my hypothesis and it is moreover from a contemporary source.

The British Chess Magazine in its October 1935 edition contained a lengthy report on the Warsaw Team tournament, and which included the detailed results of  every one of the matches played. Here, from page 445, is the result of the Poland-Ireland match.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Bourke-Salo

This game, played in the Ireland-Finland match and mentioned in Bourke’s Chess in Ireland article on Warsaw 1935, does not seem to have found its way into the databases nor any of the major books on the event.

The game-score is to be found in the chess column of Bourke’s local newspaper, the (Cork) Evening Echo. Unfortunately the legibility of the source’s digital column is not optimal though fortunately good enough to read the game score, but the appended notes on the game (probably by the editor W.R. O’Shea, and possibly based on comments by Bourke) are indecipherable. However, it is possible to see in the game-score the bracketed letters (from a to i) used to identify each note – and they are after moves black 2, black 3, white 14, black 15, white 18, white 21, white 24, black 24 and white 30. This does provide a rough guide to various significant points in the game

It is a complex game and worth studying in depth. I used Stockfish 14 to assist my understanding and the annotations are intended to provide no more than a few signposts on a journey through the game. Hopefully the computer engine has helped me avoid any egregious errors.

Aibhistín de Búrca – Tapio Salo
Olympiad Warsaw (Round 18, Board 4), 30 August 1935
[Source: Evening Echo, Saturday 15 February 1936, page 6]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nf3 a6 4.a4 Nf6 5.e3 Bg4 6.Bxc4 e6 7.0-0 Nc6 8.Nc3 Bd6 9.Re1 0-0 10.h3 Bf5 11.g4 Bg6 12.e4 e5 13.Bg5 exd4 14.Nd5 Be5 15.Nh4

15…Na5
15…h6 was a plausible alternative and after 16.Nxg6 fxg6 17.Bxf6 Bxf6 if White goes material hunting with 18.Nxc7+ Kh7 19.Nxa8 then Black could counter-attack with 19…Bh4 20.Rf1 Ne5 21.Bd5 when both 21…Nf3+ and 21…Rf3 look promising.
16.Ba2 d3 17.f4 Bxb2 18.Rb1
Here White could have offered the exchange by playing 18.f5 or or 18.e5 when, in both cases, capturing the Rook would give White a strong attack. 18.Nxg6 is probably not as strong as the two pawn moves, if Black’s declined the exchange sacrifice, but accepting with 18…Bxa1 would have been catastrophic for Black after 19.Nde7+.
18…Bd4+ 19.Kg2 c6

20.e5
Here the alternative pawn push 20.f5 might have been better. White can win a piece with 20…cxd5 21.fxg6 hxg6 22.e5 but he would not necessarily be better, e.g. 22…Bxe5 23.Rxe5 when now Black can try 23…Nc4 24.Re1 d2!? 25.Bxd2 Ne4 26.Bxc4 Qxh4. White would now be forced to play 27.Rxe4 and after 27…dxe4 28.Rxb7 Stockfish 14 assesses this as 0.00.
20…cxd5 21.f5 h6
Better here would be 21…Bxe5 22.Rxe5 Nc4 23.Re1 h6! with advantage for Black.
22.Bxf6 gxf6 23.fxg6 fxe5 24.gxf7+
The alternative was 24.Nf5 fxg6 25.Nxd4 exd4 26.Qxd3. The pawns at d4, d5 and g6 are all targets and Re6 is a threat. Best for Black might be the counter-attacking 26…Qf6; e.g. 27.Bxd5+ Kh8 and if 28.Re6 Qf2+
24…Kh8
Black had to sacrifice the exchange, viz. 24…Rxf7 and if 25.Nf5 then 25…Rxf5 26.gxf5 Qg5+ with good counter-attacking chances.
25.Ng6+ Kg7 26.Nxf8 Qxf8 27.Bxd5 Qc5 28.Qf3 Rf8 29.Rf1 Qd6

30.Be4?
Letting Black back into the game. Instead 30.g5 immediately and if 30…hxg5 31.h4 gxh4 32.Kh1 and the threat of Rfg1 is decisive.
If (instead of 30…hxg5) Black plays 30…h5 now 31.Be4 works; if still 31…Nc4 32.Qxh5 the only way to prevent mate in two is 32…Ne3+ 33.Kh1 Nf5 and after 34.Rxf5 White is a Rook up – plus Stockfish asserts it is at most mate in 9. In this line if (instead of 31…Nc4) 31…Rh8 is played then 32.Qf5 and …f8(Q) followed by mate is inevitable.
30…Nc4 31.g5 Ne3+ 32.Kh1 Nxf1 33.Rxf1 hxg5 34.Qf5 Qh6 35.Bxd3

35…a5
Black must play 35…e4 to allow his Bishop to help out the defence. After 36.Bxe4 best is probably 36…b5 when 37.a5 may well be better than capturing the pawn. White could probably keep the pressure on, hoping Black cracks.
36.Rf3
36.Be4 stopping …e4 would be stronger. One idea available would be pushing h4 – for instance (although not forced) after 36…b6 37.Rf3 Bb2 38.Kg2 Bd4 39.h4! gxh4 (39…Qxh4 40.Qf6#) 40.Qg4+ Kh8 41.Kh3 and mate in ten according to Stockfish. However the move actually played turned out well. White’s relentless pressing finally paid off as Black now self-destructed.
36…Qh5?? 37.Qf6# 1-0

[Click here to replay the game]

A tongue-in cheek assertion

Austin Bourke provided an article for the Evening Echo chess column which appeared in the 16th April 1936 edition of the newspaper. He used the events of Warsaw 1935 and particularly his win against Salo to produce an over-elaborate claim to star status.

“AM I WORLD CHAMPION?”
by AUSTIN BOURKE

Capablanca set a stiff standard for succeeding world champions when, for a period of some three or four years, he played continuously in tournaments, and never lost even a single game. So that today, when in some obscure tournament, a Master, stale with too many simultaneous displays, slips up to some unknown amateur, the chess correspondents shake their heads and say:” Is X as good as he used to be?” However, even Homer nods (I have lost games myself!), and if every victor in every chess game is a better player than every vanquished, then I am World Champion! Why, on Warsaw form alone — I beat Salo (Finland), who beat Popa, of Rumania. Popa beat Golombek (England), who beat Horowitz (U.S.A.), who, in turn, beat Trifunovic, of Yugoslavia. Trifunovic beat our own O’Hanlon, who drew with Stolz, of Sweden. Stolz beat Marshall (U.S.A.), who beat Grunfeld (Austria). And Grunfeld drew with Alekhine, Flohr, Tartakover, Vidmar, Book, Winter, Stahlberg, etc. [all] of which goes to prove I could give Alekhine pawn and move. It may not be to far out, at that!

Epilogue

The final paragraph of Bourke’s Chess in Ireland article brought together his chess and work careers, and acknowledged the immense events that had occurred between two visits to Warsaw.

“The building in which the Team Tournament was held had immediately previously housed a meeting of the International Meteorological Organisation, a body then unknown to me. Last year, after a lapse of twenty-three years, I returned to Warsaw , and was elected President of Commission for Agricultural Meteorology of the World Meteorological Organisation! I looked for the old Military Club in which the chess tournament had been held, but it had vanished in the destruction and rebuilding of Warsaw. So much had changed; only the indomitable spirit of Poland, which has survived so much and continues to endure, remained unchanged.”

Throughout his career, J.J. O’Hanlon would send a selection of his game scores to the editors of Irish chess columns, frequently with his own annotations appended.

Here we present the result of one such offering, as described by T.P. Donnegan of the Evening Herald, and spread out over two successive issues of his column therein.

Mr. O’ Hanlon has been good enough to favour us with a couple of his games (together with his own annotations) played at the Cambridge Easter Tournament. One of them is of much importance; it breaks fresh ground in the [Nimzo-Indian Defence] and is likely to become a new headline in this variation.

John James O’Hanlon – William James Fry
Cambridge Major A Cambridge (Round 2), 28th March 1932
[Annotations by O’Hanlon; notes in italics are based on analysis by Stockfish 14]

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.g3
This move was suggested to me by Dr. Euwe, the Dutch champion, who thought it might prove to be the best way of meeting the Niemzowitsch defence. The object is to try and hold the centre, and White plays consistently for this purpose throughout the game. I am not aware if the move had been previously tried in tournament play.
4…d5 5.Bg2 0-0
If 5…dxc4 6.Qa4+ wins a piece; and if Black captures the pawn at the 6th or 7th move, then White plays Ne5 recovering the Pawn.
6.Nf3 c6 7.0-0 Nbd7 8.Qb3 Bxc3 9.bxc3 Re8 10.Nd2 dxc4 11.Qxc4
White could have prevented 11…e5 by 11.Nxc4; if 11…e5  12.Nd6 Re6 13.Ba3 threatening to win the exchange by 14.Bh3. But instead of 11…e5 Black could have played 11…c5 and it was to prevent this move that White played 11. Qxc4.
11…e5 12.e4 Nb6 13.Qd3 exd4 14.cxd4 Nfd7 15.Qc2 Nf8 16.Bb2 Ne6 17.Nf3 Nc7 18.a4 Be6 19.Nd2 Qd7

20.Rfe1
In order to be able to play 21.Bh1 if Black offered the exchange [of bishops], but it would have been better to have first played 20.a5 driving back the Knight and prevented the development of Black’s a8-Rook. The neglect to play 20.a5 allows Black to get up an attack.
20…Rad8 21.f4 f6 22.Rac1 Na6 23.a5 Nc8 24.Red1 Nb4 25.Qb1 Ba2 26.Qa1 Qf7 27.Nf1 Bb3 28.Rd2 Nd6 29.Qa3 Na2 30.Re1 Nb5 31.Qc5 Qc7 32.Re3

32…b6
Best! If 32…Bf7 33.d5! Qxa5 (if 33…cxd5 34.Qxc7 Nxc7 35.exd5 and the passed pawn would win) 34.Ra3 wins a piece.
[However Stockfish provides a way out here with 34…Qb4 when, to avoid a worse game White must play 35.Qxb4 and then the Knight escapes after the recapture 35…Nxb4.]
33.axb6 axb6 34.Qh5 Bf7 35.Qf3 Nd6 36.e5
The ending is very interesting, and it will be found that White wins in every variation.
36…Nc4 37.Qxc6 Qxc6 38.Bxc6 Re7 39.d5 Nxd2 40.d6

40…Rxd6
White expected 40…Nxf1 41.dxe7 Rd1 when the problem-like move 42.Ra3 wins.
[However Stockfish suggests instead 40…Re6! 41.Nxd2 Rdxd6 42.exd6 Rxe3 and a probable draw with best play.]
41.exd6 Rxe3 42.Nxe3 Nb4 43.Bb5 Be6 44.Bc3 1-0
[Source: Evening Herald, 30th April 1932, page 13]

The other game … is one with the blind player, Rupert Cross, who, Mr. O’Hanlon says, possesses great chess talent. He plays entirely by touch on a special board for the blind.

John James O’Hanlon – Rupert Cross
Cambridge Major A Cambridge (Round 4), 30th March 1932
[Annotations by O’Hanlon; notes in italics are based on analysis by Stockfish 14]

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3
Often played at this point, but 9.d4 at once is probably better.
9…Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Qc7 12.Nbd2 Bd7 13.Nf1 Rfc8 14.Ne3
Black threatened to win a pawn, but as deployment if the Knight at g3 is desirable it might have been better to play 14.Bd3 or 14.d5
14…Bf8 15.Bd2 g6 16.Qe2 cxd4 17.cxd4 Nc6 18.dxe5 dxe5 19.Bb3 Rab8
If now or at the next move Black plays 19…Nxe4 then 20.Nd5 wins.
20.Rac1 Qd8 21.Nd5

21…Nxd5 22.Bxd5
White, who was paying more attention to the blind player’s clock than his own, was getting short of time and completely overlooked that he could probably have won by 22.exd5 Nd4 23.Nxd4 exd4 24.Bf4 followed by 25.Be5. After this let-off Black plays accurately to a draw.
22…Bg7 23.Bg5 Qe8 24.Be3 Be6 25.Rcd1 Nb4 26.Qd2

26…Bxd5 27.Qxb4
[A mistake; the correct capture would be 27.exd5.]
27…Be6
[Missing 27…Bf8 and the attack on the White Queen would allow Black to win the e4 pawn next move.]
28.a3 Rc4 29.Qa5 Qc6
[A serious mistake; with this move, Stockfish’s assessment goes from the game being equal, to White having a decisive advantage.]
30.Rd8+ Rxd8 31.Qxd8+ Bf8 32.Bh6 Qc8

33.Qxc8
[Forcing off all the major pieces with 33.Rd1 Qxd8 (or 33…Rd4 34.Rxd4 exd4 35.Qxf8+ Qxf8 36.Bxf8 Kxf8 37.Nxd4) 34.Rxd8 Rc8 35.Rxc8 Bxc8 36.Bxf8 Kxf8 37.Nxe5 leads to a clearly winning ending, whereas in the game continuation Black’s active Rook provides compensation for the lost e5-pawn.]
33…Rxc8 34.Bxf8 Kxf8 35.Nxe5 Rc2 36.Nd3 Bc4 37.Nb4 Rxb2 38.Nxa6 Ra2 39.Re3 ½-½
[Source: Evening Herald, 7th May 1932, page 13]

Until now, both games do not appear to have found their way into the modern databases. Click the links for the playable games of O’Hanlon -v- Fry and O’Hanlon -v- Cross.

Cambridge Major Open A: Final Crosstable

                    G K C D O F M R Pts 
1=2. H. Golombek    x 1 = = 1 1 = 1 5.5 
1=2. G. Koltanowski 0 x 1 = 1 1 1 1 5.5 
3.   A.R.N. Cross   = 0 x = = 1 1 1 4.5 
4=5. L.C.G. Dewing  = = = x = 0 = 1 3.5 
4=5. J.J. O'Hanlon  0 0 = = x 1 = 1 3.5 
6.   W.J. Fry       0 0 0 1 0 x 1 = 2.5 
7=8. A.J. Mackenzie = 0 0 = = 0 x 0 1.5 
7=8. P. Reid        0 0 0 0 0 = 1 x 1.5