< 15.<Qb3> >

[ply 15/52 time 02:40 value +2.22]

15.<gxf6> gxf6 16.Ncxe5 fxe5 17.Qg5+ Kh8 18.Qxg4 Ng8 19.Qe6 Na6 20.Rd7 Nc5 21.Rxc7 Nxe6 22.Rxb7 Nc5 23.Rc7 Rae8 24.Rxa7 Nxe4 25.Re1

[ply 15/55 time 01:53 value +1.18]

15.<Qb3> Kh8 16.Ncxe5 fxe4 17.Nxg4 exf3 18.Bxf3 Qf4+ 19.Kb1 Na6 20.Rhe1 Ng6 21.Be2 Nc5 22.Qa3 b6 23.h5 Ne5 24.Nxe5 Qxe5 25.Bf3 Qxg5 26.Bxc6

< 16.<Nfxe5> >

[ply 15/43- time 00:28 value +2.15]

16.<Nb6+> Nd5 17.Nxa8 Qf7 18.g6 Qf4+ 19.Nd2 Bxd1 20.Rxd1 hxg6 21.c4 Qxf2 22.cxd5 e3 23.dxc6+ Kh8 24.Ne4 Qxg2 25.Qb4 Rg8 26.c7 Nc6 27.Qxb7 e2 28.Qxc6 exd1R+ 29.Kxd1 Rc8

[ply 15/61- time 08:10 value +0.11]

16.<Nfxe5> Bxd1 17.Rxd1 Nd5 18.Bxe4 Nd7 19.Nxd7 Qxd7 20.Ne5 Qc7 21.Bxd5+ cxd5 22.Qxd5+ Kh8 23.Qd4 Rf5 24.f4 Raf8 25.Qd7 Qa5 26.Qxb7 Qxa2 27.Nd3 Rd8

< 22.<h5> >

[ply 15/66 time 01:08 value (to White) -7.61]

After Henri Grob, the Swiss portrait artist who first analysed 1.g4 in depth, Bloodgood was its second great champion. His contribution to the theory of minor openings is, um, obscured by his colourful life.

Where Grob liked to play c4 as soon as possible to support the Bg2 in its attack on the light squares, Bloodgood developed some other strategies. He often played g4-g5 to hamper Black's development.

Overall: 259 games. +148 =27 -84, 62.35%.

Bloodgood: 58 games. +49 =5 -4, 88.77%
Grob: 24 games. +18 =4 -2, 83.33%.

Without CSB/HG: 177 games. +81 =18 -78. 50.85%

By comparison, White's overall percentage is 55.04%. You can draw your own conclusions, but I have a sneaky feeling that Bloodgood would have have similar results with 1.Nc3 or 1.b4.

As for the game itself, well, I guess I'm alone here but I don't like the pun that much. Where's the skewer? It would have been better to spell the word correctly and imply losing to Claude's obscure opening.

And, as for Black's 22nd move:

click for larger view

I like the game continuation much better than 22...Rad8, since it simplifies much more efficiently without losing material after 23.Qb3 Qxc2+ 24.Qxc2 Nxc2 25.Kxc2 Rxf2+ 26.Rd2 e3 27.Rxf2 exf2

click for larger view

White can doing nothing about 28...Re8 and 29...Re1, regaining the piece with all of White's pieces off the board.

The annotations are worse.

Bloodgood organized chess games within Powhatan Prison, which were by necessity with fellow inmates. Many of these inmates were taught the game by Bloodgood, and thus began as unrated and inexperienced players. Bloodgood obtained USCF memberships for them. Some accused Bloodgood, with his intimate knowledge of the rating system, of rigging their ratings. The accusation was that he arranged for new prisoners to play rated games against other prisoners, who would deliberately lose, thus giving the new inmate an inflated USCF rating. Bloodgood, it is further alleged, then played rated games against the new highly-rated prisoner, and each time he won, gained a few more rating points. This continued for several years, and by 1996 his rating rose to <2702>, making the 59-year-old Bloodgood the second-highest rated player in the nation. In comparison, at his retirement Bobby Fischer's rating was 2760, and several leading grandmasters were in the 2600s. Bloodgood's true strength at the time is not knowable but is likely to have been in the USCF Expert (2000–2200) range, though some have estimated that Bloodgood was of Senior Master strength (i.e., 2400+) when in his prime in the 1960s.

Yup. I think they have an automated subroutine for turning exclams and question marks into words?! (a dubious move).

If it were to mysteriously vanish overnight!? (an enterprising move) I wouldn't mind.

I once had his book, "The Tactical Grob", but don't recall much about it. Still, he had been editor of a state newsletter in his day, and was certainly a strong enough player to write reasonable notes.