chessgames.com
Members · Prefs · Laboratory · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

Hans Kmoch
Kmoch 
 
Number of games in database: 210
Years covered: 1921 to 1948

Overall record: +67 -75 =66 (48.1%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games in the database. 2 exhibition games, blitz/rapid, odds games, etc. are excluded from this statistic.

MOST PLAYED OPENINGS
With the White pieces:
 Queen's Pawn Game (13) 
    D02 A46 E00 A40 D04
 Orthodox Defense (12) 
    D63 D51 D54 D60 D52
 Nimzo Indian (10) 
    E24 E34 E22 E33 E32
 Queen's Gambit Declined (8) 
    D30 D39
 Queen's Indian (8) 
    E17 E14 E12 E18
 English (8) 
    A14 A15 A13 A17
With the Black pieces:
 Ruy Lopez (13) 
    C77 C79 C90 C74 C78
 Nimzo Indian (12) 
    E33 E32 E23 E24 E53
 French Defense (8) 
    C01 C00 C11 C10 C09
 Orthodox Defense (7) 
    D63 D56 D51 D52
 Queen's Indian (7) 
    E12 E17 E19 E16 E18
 Sicilian (6) 
    B29 B73 B40 B30 B83
Repertoire Explorer

NOTABLE GAMES: [what is this?]
   Kmoch vs Prins, 1940 1-0
   G Nagy vs Kmoch, 1925 0-1
   A Brinckmann vs Kmoch, 1927 0-1
   W Von Holzhausen vs Kmoch, 1928 0-1
   Kmoch vs Znosko-Borovsky, 1926 1-0
   Kmoch vs L Steiner, 1925 1-0
   Kmoch vs G Nagy, 1926 1-0
   J van den Bosch vs Kmoch, 1941 0-1
   Kmoch vs Fine, 1936 1-0
   Kmoch vs Przepiorka, 1925 1-0

NOTABLE TOURNAMENTS: [what is this?]
   Debrecen (1925)
   Budapest (1928)
   Kecskemet (1927)
   Leningrad (1934)
   Amsterdam (1936)
   San Remo (1930)
   Semmering (1926)
   Hamburg Olympiad (1930)
   London Olympiad (1927)
   Prague Olympiad (1931)

GAME COLLECTIONS: [what is this?]
   Debrecen 1925 by Phony Benoni
   Budapest 1928 by Tabanus
   Giessen 1928 by suenteus po 147

GAMES ANNOTATED BY KMOCH: [what is this?]
   Nimzowitsch vs Systemsson, 1927


Search Sacrifice Explorer for Hans Kmoch
Search Google for Hans Kmoch


HANS KMOCH
(born Jul-25-1894, died Feb-13-1973, 78 years old) Austria (federation/nationality United States of America)

[what is this?]

Johann (Hans) Joseph Kmoch, of Czech parentage, was born in Austria in 1894. He moved to the Netherlands in the 1930s and then settled in the USA in 1947. He was awarded the IM title in 1950 and became an International Arbiter in 1951. As a player he was 1st at Debrecen 1925 and played on the Austrian Olympiad teams of 1927, 1930 and 1931. However, he is best known for his work as a writer and author. He wrote regularly for the US 'Chess Review' and edited the Carlsbad 1929 tournament book. His main works are 'Die Kunst der Verteidigung' (1927) (The Art of Defence), 'Rubinstein gewinnt' (1933) (Rubinstein's Chess Masterpieces) and 'Die Kunst der Bauernführung' (1956) (Pawn Power in Chess).

He also served as the Secretary and manager of the Manhattan Chess Club in New York City from 1951 to 1973.

Wikipedia article: Hans Kmoch

Last updated: 2018-08-01 02:35:30

 page 1 of 9; games 1-25 of 210  PGN Download
Game  ResultMoves YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. Kmoch vs L Zimpel 0-1261921Vienna-AB06 Robatsch
2. K Antosch vs Kmoch  0-1341921Vienna-AC55 Two Knights Defense
3. Kmoch vs J Krejcik  ½-½451921Vienna-AD02 Queen's Pawn Game
4. Kmoch vs S R Wolf  ½-½571921Vienna-AC02 French, Advance
5. Maroczy vs Kmoch  1-0341922ViennaC77 Ruy Lopez
6. Kmoch vs Alekhine 0-1201922ViennaD12 Queen's Gambit Declined Slav
7. H Wolf vs Kmoch 1-0211922ViennaC84 Ruy Lopez, Closed
8. Kmoch vs Spielmann 0-1301922ViennaA43 Old Benoni
9. Reti vs Kmoch 1-0521922ViennaC86 Ruy Lopez, Worrall Attack
10. Kmoch vs Saemisch  0-1301922ViennaA07 King's Indian Attack
11. S Takacs vs Kmoch  ½-½341922ViennaD63 Queen's Gambit Declined, Orthodox Defense
12. Kmoch vs Gruenfeld 0-1331922ViennaC46 Three Knights
13. Bogoljubov vs Kmoch 1-0351922ViennaC77 Ruy Lopez
14. Kmoch vs Tarrasch  0-1601922ViennaC01 French, Exchange
15. V Vukovic vs Kmoch 1-0281922ViennaE11 Bogo-Indian Defense
16. Kmoch vs I Koenig ½-½261922ViennaC49 Four Knights
17. Rubinstein vs Kmoch 1-0331922ViennaA90 Dutch
18. Kmoch vs Tartakower  ½-½221922ViennaC01 French, Exchange
19. V Olexa vs Kmoch  0-1251923Vienna CC Schlechter vs Brno CCD00 Queen's Pawn Game
20. V Vukovic vs Kmoch 0-1321925DebrecenD63 Queen's Gambit Declined, Orthodox Defense
21. J A Seitz vs Kmoch  ½-½221925DebrecenC01 French, Exchange
22. Kmoch vs Tartakower  ½-½211925DebrecenE17 Queen's Indian
23. Kmoch vs Przepiorka  1-0531925DebrecenE11 Bogo-Indian Defense
24. Kmoch vs H Mattison 1-0621925DebrecenD30 Queen's Gambit Declined
25. P F Johner vs Kmoch 1-0201925DebrecenB18 Caro-Kann, Classical
 page 1 of 9; games 1-25 of 210  PGN Download
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Kmoch wins | Kmoch loses  
 

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Aug-01-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Stonehenge: I checked

https://www.delpher.nl/nl/boeken/vi...

but it doesn't seem to be there.

Aug-01-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Telemus: <z: <Telemus> what ref did you use for your 1956 date?> The book itself. More precise: the German edition of 1956 published by the Siegfried Engelhardt Verlag, Berlin-Frohnau. It has also two forewords, both dated September 1956; one by Kmoch and the other one by Herbert Engelhardt for the publisher.

The rights are described on an extra page. First there is a "All rights reserved" (in English), and then a selection of reseved rights follows in German, wherein translation is mentioned. It is not mentioned that this book is a translation itself. At the bottom of that page there is this text: "WorldCopyright [sic] 1956 by Siegfried Engelhardt Verlag" (again in English).

Aug-01-18  zanzibar: <Telemus> thanks for that info, I thought it might be the case.

I'm disappointed in <worldcat.org>, which does have the 1956 entry, but makes it very hard to find via an internal search (almost impossible)...

http://www.worldcat.org/title/kunst...

(Search google for <"Die Kunst der Bauernführung" + site:worldcat.org> or google search <"Die Kunst der Bauernführung" 1956>)

Just to highlight worldcat.org's weirdness, click on "View all editions and formats" in the link above and one gets this:

http://www.worldcat.org/title/kunst...

where the 1956 edition is missing! And try to find the original German edition via a sense on the author - I went through 12+ pages without finding it.)

* * * * *

OK, it seems that Kmoch wrote, and published, the German edition first. Given his origins in Vienna, it all makes sense. I do wonder who did the English translation - perhaps Kmoch himself, like Samuel Beckett did (with Beckett publishing both in French/English vs. German/English).

<Telemus>, does your version have a dustcover, and a photograph of the author in a frontpiece?

.

Aug-02-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Telemus: <z: does your version have a dustcover> No.

<and a photograph of the author in a frontpiece?> Yes.

Aug-02-18  Olavi: <zanzibar: <Telemus>>

I have the 1967 second German edition by Schach-Archiv Verlag. It has both 1956 forewords and a new one, commenting on the changes and corrections.

Aug-02-18  zanzibar: I'm a bit of a nerd when it comes to books, even if I'm not a collector myself. It's nice to know the history of editions, so my thanks to <Telemus> and <Olavi> (and others over time).

It would be nice to get good scans of covers, frontpieces, copyright pages, and even prefaces...

(Which I think would qualify as "fair use").

Here's an example with Kmoch's picture and signature:

https://www.groningercombinatie.nl/...

Aug-03-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Telemus: <z: frontpiece/frontispiece> A little piece of etymology in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_... and http://www.worldwidewords.org/weird....
Aug-03-18  zanzibar: Oh, <Telemus> I love etymology, and greatly appreciated your post.

I should point out that <frontpiece>, vs. <fontispiece>, is basically taking the word's evolution to its logical conclusion - albeit accidentally so, I must admit!

Aug-11-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: Recently an off-topic discussion started in Fischer vs Petrosian, 1971 concerning Hans Kmoch's "instructive composition" from his "Pawn Power in Chess" in the chapter "The Sealer and the Sweeper":

White moves and draws:


click for larger view

The "instructive composition" is by W.E. Rudolf from La Strategie 1912 and not by Hans Kmoch as I first thought. It was clearly off-topic for the Fischer vs Petrosian, 1971 game so I've posted the relevant links here even though, since it wasn't composed by Hans Kmoch, some may consider it off-topic for this page also. Here are the links in case anyone is interested in what preceded this post.

Fischer vs Petrosian, 1971 (kibitz #162)

Fischer vs Petrosian, 1971 (kibitz #165)

Fischer vs Petrosian, 1971 (kibitz #166)

Fischer vs Petrosian, 1971 (kibitz #167)

Fischer vs Petrosian, 1971 (kibitz #168)

Additional hopefully relevant posts to follow.

Aug-11-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <Sally Simpson> If you are still mildly curious and came to read this, I ran an additional analysis overnight and beyond with Komodo 12 MTCS using only 1 core out of my 4-core machine. Again, it stopped (no activity) at d=35 after running for about 7 hours even though I ran the analysis for more than 13.5 hours. To get to the important thing first, Komodo MTCS using 1 thread did not find the drawing line either. Sometimes it evaluated 1.Ba4+ as one of its top 3 moves and sometimes it even evaluated it as the best move. But most of those times it continued with 1...Kxa4 2.exf6, even though it occasionally continued 1...Kxa4 2.b3+ Kb5. But then it invariably continued with 3.exf6. So I don't know if it would ever continue with 3.c4+.

As far as the d=35 barrier, after reading <and understanding> the Komodo documentation, there is a formula that allows you to estimate the amount of time that you can run an MCTS-based analysis as a function of the amount memory you allocate to the MTCS table. And, if the MTCS table becomes full, the analysis just stops.

Sure enough, the number of nodes that it evaluated in all 3 MCTS-based analyses were about the same, so the MCTS table just got full. So, if I want the analysis to run to a greater search depth, I just have to make the MCTS table bigger. I just don't know how much bigger I can make it without the program starting to swap its code and data to disk and slow down to a crawl so I'll have to experiment. This might take some time.

Also mildly interesting and perhaps not surprising (but surprising to me), the analysis with 1 core required about 4X longer to reach d=35 than it took for the analyses using 4 cores. It was surprising to me because these multi-threaded algorithms do not typically scale linearly; in my computer an analysis using a "regular" engine with alpha-beta pruning (ABP) instead of MTCS takes roughly 2X as long with 1 core to reach the same search depth as the same analysis using 4 cores. Again, the Komodo 12 documentation alludes to this, saying that "we believe Komodo MCTS gains more than most normal engines from using multiple threads". I'm sure that they would be very interested in data that indicates that it benefits linearly rather than by a factor of SQRT(2).

Which then leads me to run more analyses to try to find out if:

(a) Komodo MCTS is deterministic just like Komodo "normal" when using only 1 core.

(b) Komodo MCTS can find the full drawing line, even if it doesn't declare the result a draw, if I increase the size of the MCTS table to the maximum that my computer will allow.

Aug-12-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sally Simpson: Hi AylerKupp,

Thanks. I suspected a super-duper box might toil because it is rather long - it has to get to the 50 moves marker to make a draw and there are quite a few pieces left on the board.

A reasonable human player can see within seconds it's a draw but the box has to calculate.

No harm done. It's a freak position as far as a computer goes.

Thanks - in this case humans:1

The super-duper Carlos Fandango computer: 0

Aug-13-18
Premium Chessgames Member
  AylerKupp: <<Sally Simpson> Yes, at this point I would say that it's humans:1, computers:0. But, frankly, Stockfish exceeded my expectations because I didn't think that it could find the drawing line at all, much less in a reasonable amount of time (if you consider 2 hours and 42 minutes "reasonable"), even though it didn't recognize it as the drawing line. I'm still puzzled how it selected 5.e6+ allowing 5...Kxd8 and leaving White B+2R behind instead of, say, 5.Bxa5 which after 5...Rxa5 would leave it "only" 2Rs behind. Well, there seemed to be only one way to find out.

So I started the analysis in the position after 1.Ba4+ Kxa4 2.b3+ Kb5 3.c4+ Kc6 4.d5+ Kd7


click for larger view

To my surprise, delight, and puzzlement, Stockfish selected 5.e6+ as its 3rd best move with an evaluation of [-15.27] at d=27 and 9 seconds of calculation and selected it as its best move with a [-15.28] evaluation at d=31 after 35 seconds of calculation, doable under classic time control conditions. After d=35 and a little bit over 8 minutes of calculations it evaluated 5.e6+ as the only move to avoid mate.

I'm puzzled why it did that. After 5.e5+ dxe8 6.f5 looking at its material deficit alone and using the classic piece values (Q=9, R=5, B=3, N=2, P=1) the evaluation would have been [-13.00] (down a bishop and 2 rooks) while after 5.exf6 exf6 6.Bxf6 its evaluation would have been [-9.00] (down two rooks but up a pawn). So, for some reason, it evaluated Black's positional disadvantage after 5.e5+ much less than after 5.exf6. I still have no idea why but that's a mystery for another day (and for another person!)

And, like I said, I hardly have a super-duper box. I did some more calculations and I projected that, in my computer, it would take Stockfish 9 about 1,250 hours or 52 days for it to reach d=57 and determine that the position is a draw. But after it evaluated all moves except 5.e5+ as leading to a forced mate, it began to reach additional search depths quicker. And after it passed d=60 I realized that I had made a foolish mistake. It's not a 50 <ply> draw rule, it's a 50 <move> draw rule. So instead of needing to reach d=57 it would need to reach d=114, and I projected that it would take about 850 hours on my machine for it to do that. No thanks, I don't have that much patience to wait to see if its evaluation of 5.e5+ would really be [0.00] at around d=114. So I pulled the plug at d=75 after about 15 hours of calculation. Maybe someone like <RandomVisitor> with his powerful hardware might be interested in seeing if he can get Stockfish 9 to run long enough to give 5.e5+ a [0.00] evaluation.

The other thing I did establish after another analysis run with Komodo MCTS is that, unlike "classical" chess engines which use handcrafted evaluation functions, and minimax-based move selection, combined with alpha-beta pruning, running Komodo MCTS with threads=1 is also non-deterministic. Which in retrospect should have been obvious since MCTS involves running game simulations (playouts) using a random number generator so it would have been <very> surprising if two successive analyses with Komodo MCTS of the same position would yield the same results. Still, it's good to have confirmation even though 2 analysis runs is hardly a statistical sample.

Oh well, there is a saying that "The more you run over a dead cat, the flatter it gets." I think I've gotten this dead cat as flat as I can get it so I'll stop. Thanks for your patience in reading all this useless junk.

Jul-25-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  HeMateMe: Pawn Power!
Jul-25-20  sudoplatov: The Other Best Game of the Century was Robert E Byrne vs Fischer, 1963.

(There are others: Janowski vs Marshall, 1912.)

Nov-18-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  Telemus: One of Kmoch's rules printed in spaced letters:

<Stehen sich zwei Einzelbauern im Hinkerabstand gegenüber, so fällt die Rückständigkeit auf den mit der längeren Frontspanne.>

I try a translation: If two isolated pawns stand opposite each other at a limp distance, the backwardness falls on the one with the longer front span.

And there are people - including many chess commentators - who blaspheme about Nimzowitsch's "My System" at every opportunity!

Nov-18-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  saffuna: <I try a translation: If two isolated pawns stand opposite each other at a limp distance, the backwardness falls on the one with the longer front span.>

Darn! Why didn't you tell me that before yesterday's game?

Nov-18-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  Williebob: "front span" just sounds plain unnatural!
Nov-18-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  Williebob: Just saw today a translation of Kmoch from the 1929 Carlsbad tournament book, regarding Vera Menchik:
‘She caused fearful anxiety to the Viennese master who, before the tournament, undertook thenceforward to go on stage as a ballerina if Miss Menchik scored more than three points. He has long since bitterly repented his vow and will never again act in such a way. I shall discreetly conceal his name, disclosing only that he was baptized “Hans” and that his surname begins with a “K” and ends with “ch”.’
Nov-18-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  Telemus: <Williebob: sounds plain unnatural> Well, then the translation could possibly have been successful.

The text of the English edition (1959) is completely different, including the positions in the diagrams.

Nov-18-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  Williebob: <Telemus>, I thank you; "front span" has already become a favorite phrase around the house! :)
Pawn Power in Chess sounds like a book I could benefit from.
Nov-18-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: < Williebob: <Telemus>, I thank you; "front span" has already become a favorite phrase around the house! :) Pawn Power in Chess sounds like a book I could benefit from.>

It's a great book! Kmoch has a way of writing that gets the points across. The only weird thing is he tried to coin a lot of phrases, but it doesn't matter much. The examples he chooses for diagrams are great too. It's one of the first chess books I acquired.

I think it pairs well with My System and Chess Praxis (Nimzovich)

Nov-21-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  Williebob: <BP>, big thanks for the recommendations. I have never owned or read the Nimzo books either. And I wonder why my chess playing is so bad?
Dec-12-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  Big Pawn: <Williebob>, I've read a lot of chess books, especially when I was in my twenties, and to some degree, they helped me get better. I played a lot of chess against my tabletop Novag Diamond, which was just about 2200 level in standard time controls. I played it every day one or two games for a year and a half before I won my first game.

But now we live in a new age! I think we can learn a lot more about chess from a few videos where the masters, or even IMs, GMs, or the world champ himself (!) provide live commentary as they play. That provides the kind of insight into high-level chess thinking that books struggle to get across.

I love <Kingscrusher's> channel because of the way he explains the games. I think Kramnik said that although he can't prove it, he somehow feels it's important, valuable, maybe even necessary for improvement, to be very familiar with the whole history of chess and study games from the best players of each respective era.

With that in mind, <Kingscrusher's> playlist on The Evolution of Chess Theory is perfect! He goes way back to the times of Greco and then Staunton, on to Morphy and then Steinitz, moving forward to the Lasker era and so forth.

I went through the different eras once and tried to emulate the style of play typical for each era in my blitz games. I would play thousands of games just trying to play like Morphy by focusing on quick development and increasing piece activity at all times, with an eye out of tactics. (Supplemented with tactics puzzles).

Then I got into the Steinitz era and that was so interesting, watching him change from a typical 1800s romantic style to the new position style. I then switched my style of play in blitz to Steinitz and resisted my old urges to sac and attack speculatively, focusing on the center, the bishops, and solid play.

My blitz rating went from about 1850-1950 to 2295 (the other day).

One downside about great books is that they are so great, make such a profound impression, and inspire you to try out what you learned, that it can make your thinking inflexible and dogmatic. That happened to me. I broke free from that by experimenting with uncomfortable moves in certain kinds of positions in my blitz games. In my case, for example, I started taking on IQP positions and working with the piece activity. I also started recapturing with a pawn in the kind of position where I would normally have dogmatically captured with a piece, say, to plunk the piece in a <hole> on e5.

Dec-18-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  Williebob: <BP> Thanks for the above. I can relate especially with the problem of 'solidified' thinking you describe in your last paragraph, and the attendant feeling of discomfort with some moves and ideas. Gonna check out Kingcrusher! I believe I have bumped into him on Lichess, very popular player there.
Dec-18-20
Premium Chessgames Member
  Check It Out: I second the <Kingscrusher> recommendation. His voice and personality are easy on the ears and mind, not true for a lot of youtube chess commentators.
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 5)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 5 OF 5 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.


NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific player only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | Profile | Preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | New Kibitzing | Chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | Privacy Notice | Contact Us

Copyright 2001-2021, Chessgames Services LLC