sachistu: Yes, I agree <perfidious> when looking at the position it is not so difficult to see. However, I think you will agree such things are not always easy to see in the heat of battle, with the clock ticking, and facing a strong opponent like Reshevsky. After all, I doubt Lapiken was expecting Reshevsky to blunder and made an 'automatic' (safe) move perhaps never even considering the tactical possibility. Lapiken was an Expert (about 2230 USCF rating), so it's reasonable to presume he could have found Bc4 (if he was looking for it). Lapiken is not the only one who overlooked that possibility. <Phony Benoni> pointed out that the game was featured in the Games From Recent Events (Chess Review,October 1955,p311). Kmoch (who wrote the notes) never mentions Bc4. <Phony Benoni> also points out that in April 1956, p97, Chess Review published a letter from Karl Burger who identifies the oversight. <Phony Benoni> was kind enough to send the article, which I'm including as it gives some insight to the probable thinking of both players.
===================
HISTORIC OVERSIGHT
I would like to call your attention and that of the readers of Chess Review to a glaring mistake which was made by Dr. Lapiken on his 20th move in his game with Samuel Reshevsky at Long Beach, California (U. S. “Open”, 1955). I refer to the following position (for game see Chess Review, p. 311, October , 1955):
[DIAGRAM OF POSITION AFTER 19…Qe6+]
Black has just played 19…Qe6+ (the tail end of a “combination” to enter a won end-game). White now automatically withdrew his King from attack: i.e. 20.Kb1??? With 20.Bc4!! however, Reshevsky would have been forced to resign on the move! There is a threatened mate via Qh6 to h8 mate. So Black cannot recapture with the Pawn. On the other hand, 20…Qxc4+ fails against 21.b3 as White wins the Queen due to the same threat of mate. Black is advised to play 20…Nxg7; but after 21.Bxe6, etc., White’s queen remains a more valuable piece than the Knight. This obviously will change the common opinion that Reshevsky’s play at Long Beach was adequate to win the title.
Parenthetically, I would like to add my remarks concerning such play. There are factions and organs in this country and in other countries of the world which attempt to set up idols and heroes in chess as well as in other endeavors. Ritualistically, the public is supposed to restate their belief in the invincibility and immutability of the truths propounded by these heroes. Undoubtedly, Mr. Reshevsky is the best player in the U.S. From his victory against M. Botvinnik in Moscow, 1955, and from other successes against overwhelming odds, a fair observer must conclude that he is probably the best chess player in the world today. This fact does not require the chess public to enshrine every move and every game of his. Nor does every weaker player’s victory against a stronger player necessarily assume that the weaker player showed (1) “undaunted” courage or that he was (2) “lucky” or again that he had created a tremendous upset. To accept these thoughts would be adopt a Sklavenvall” (slave morality).
Rather a scientific spirit should prevail, each player looking clearly at the board and not at his opponent, unfettered by preconceived notions of his opponent’s invincibility.
Karl Burger
New York, N. Y.
What impresses us at the moment is that Dr. Lapiken missed saving the management of the Long Beach tournament many bitter recriminations. -- Ed.
==================
<Phony Benoni> points out Horowitz (Ed/Chess Review)was referring to the fact that Rossolimo and Reshevsky tied for first place. (See the US Open 1955 Collection by <Phony Benoni> here at Chessgames.)
Kibitzing
icon.
