http://findarticles.com/p/articles/...

Born Leo Salomon, he had his surname legally changed to Nardus. Perhaps he did this wrap himself in the cachet of famous Dutch artists such as: Salomon <Leonardus> Verveer,(1813-1876), and Johannes Hubertus <Leonardus> de Haas (1832-1908)?

Nardus was reputably a technically capable artist, and also a proficient swordsman who was an Olympic fencer for Holland (1912).

He painted portraits of several grandmasters, including Emanuel Lasker and Frank Marshall. Some of them are reproduced here:

It was Janowski who first did this regularly way back in the 19th century; who first incorporated the positional exchange sac into his arsenal. The Janowski exchange sacs were true long-term sacrifices; wherein he had to properly evaluate the ensuing practical value of his minor piece as compared to the rook of his opponent.

See < Karpova's> excellent game collection Game Collection: David Janowsky's exchange sacrifices

Janowski was pretty successful with it too, even against World Champions and top players.

Janowski exchange sac vs:

Steinitz +1 +0 -0

Steinitz vs Janowski, 1898

Lasker +2 +0 -0

Janowski vs Lasker, 1896

Lasker vs Janowski, 1909

Alekhine +1 +0 -0

Janowski vs Alekhine, 1914

Pillsbury +1 +0 -0

Pillsbury vs Janowski, 1904

Marshall +1 +0 -0

Marshall vs Janowski, 1900

Blanking out Lasker, Alekhine, Steinitz, Pillsbury, and Marshall in games were he did the exchange sac is a totally impressive feat by Janowski! It would mean that he had an accurate sense of the value of a minor piece as compared to a rook; and the courage to actually do the sac.

Janowski's only 'failures':

Capablanca +0 +0 -2

Capablanca vs Janowski, 1913

Capablanca vs Janowski, 1916

Yet if one takes a good look at the above two games, Janowski's exchange sac did not really fail. In order to win, Capablanca also did the same thing later on in the game - he 'imitated' Janowski by making his own exchange sac in both games! Thus, it is quite evident that Janowski's sac had adequate compensation; which Capa neutralized by making his own sac. So even these 'failures' are in a sense successes for the positional exchange sac.

At any rate, it is not only Botvinnik or Petrosian or Kasparov who knew about the exchange sac. The pre-WW1 and pre-WW2 top masters were quite aware of it. The studious Botvinnik in fact may even have studied all the above games in close detail, especially the games of Lasker, Capablanca, and Alekhine who were his competitors. Botvinnik was known to thoroughly study all the games of his close competitors.

Is anyone seriously going to compare them to the exchange sacrifices of Petrosian for example? I'm not going to even both giving examples, as they are so well known, but there are plenty of games collections out there for those who are interested.

Janowski vs Lasker, 1909

Janowski vs Lasker, 1909

Lasker vs Janowski, 1909

Janowski vs Lasker, 1909

Janowski vs Lasker, 1910

Lasker vs Janowski, 1910

Obviously the sacrifice is made to break up Black's kingside; it bears no resemblance to Botvinnik's or Petrosian's sacrifices. Also (although the annotators in 1909 loved it) it's unsound.

Here's another example; I leave it to those who can determine such things whether Janowski sacrificed the exchange or was forced to give it up. Anyway, he got a lost game, though eventually he managed to draw.

Ugh, I meant the annotators in 1896, of course.

Fans of the ancients looking for antecedents to Botvinnik's and Petrosian's exchange sacrifices need to go back before Janowski -- way back.

Janowski vs Pillsbury, 1895

Also, not to pound on the list too much, but here's a Janowski exchange sacrifice in a loss to Pillsbury.

With the idea that black will eventually have to play ...h2, allowing ♘f2#.

<2...f3 3.♔f2>

Forcing black to trap himself with 3...h2 right now. Another possibility is 3.♔e1 f2+ (3...h2 4.♔f1 transposes to the main line) 4.♔f1! h2 5.♘xf2#.

Janowski made the most of his talent (for chess only), and then regularly threw away tournament winnings money on the roulette wheel, which was known even then to be dramatically in the houses' favor compared to other games.

It would be interesting to see if Tal ever wrote anything about him.

<Janowski ist trotz seines Mißgeschickes in Turnieren und Matchen ungebrochenen Mutes. Und man muß ihm zugestehen, daß sein Stil weit besser ist als das geringe Maß seines Erfolges vermuten läßt. Der französische Kämpe spürt Feinheiten heraus, mit denen er geringe Vorteile meisterlich zu erreichen weiß. Nur scheint ihm die Fähigkeit der Konsequenz in etwas zu mangeln. Vielleicht erschrickt er zu sehr vor der Verwicklung. Zum mindesten vermeidet er es gar zu ängstlich, sich Blößen zu geben. Dadurch aber verliert sein Angriff naturgemäß die Wucht. Hin und wieder jeder jedoch führt seine Strategie zum Siege, und dann ist der ästhetische Eindruck stark.>

(Janowski is despite his misfortunes in tournaments and matches of unbroken courage. And one has to concede to him that his style is much better than the little success gives reason to believe. The French competitor senses finesses, with which he knows to reach small advantages masterfully. But he seems to lack the ability of being consequent in something (another possibility is: But he seems to somewhat lack the ability of being consequent). Perhaps he is too frightened by complications. At least, he tries too anxiously to avoid lowering his guard. But thereby his attack naturally loses its impact. Every now and then, his strategy leads to success and then the aesthetic impression is strong.)