"Whereas the tactician knows what to do when there is something to do, it requires the strategian to know what to do when there is nothing to do"

"The idea comes before the logical argument."

Good positions don't win games, good moves do.

Julia Wallace had been murdered and her husband - Chessplayer William Herbert Wallace was the main suspect. The case is regarded to be unsolvable and sometimes ranked second to Jack the Ripper.

Jonathan Goodman:
<‘As for Wallace being a chessplayer: this was interpreted to mean that he was able to devise a far more cunning murder plan than the average citizen. It was reported that he was “a master player; a man with a mind as brilliant as it was perverted, trained to think ahead to the next moves, and to anticipate the moves which his opponent would make”. [...]

The only people, it seems, who did not subscribe to this notion were those who had had the misfortune to play chess with Wallace. [...]

Another member – a true devotee, this one – remarked, “The murder of his wife apart, I think Wallace ought to be hanged for being such a bad chessplayer.”>

Gerald Abrahams:
< ‘Journalists have agitated their readers for many years with the question: was Wallace guilty?

There are three approaches to this question:

(1) Legally, it is academic. There was no evidence against him.

(2) Personally. His acquaintances (excluding those who revel in the troubles of their “friends”) seem convinced of his innocence. The author takes the view that to vest Wallace with guilt in the circumstances is to credit him with a mental power, a skill, an agility, a cold-blooded nerveless efficiency, of which he seemed utterly incapable.

(3) Scientifically, it is a much easier hypothesis to assume another person as murderer, whose task would have been easier, mental effort less. By the principle of simple explanations Wallace was innocent.>

<He is best known for the <Abrahams Defence>> according to wiki~ and

<He also invented a variation of the Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav Defense, known as the <Abrahams-Noteboom variation>.> according to cg-bio.

Danielsson v Abrahams

1.Nf3 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 c6 4.O-O d6 5.d4 Qc7 6.c4 e5 7.Nc3 Be7 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.e4 O-O 10.exf5 Bxf5 11.Qe2 Nbd7 12.Re1 Rae8 13.Bg5 h6 14.Bxf6 Bxf6 15.Ne4 Bxe4 16.Qxe4 Nc5 17.Qc2 e4 18.Nd2 Bd4 19.Re2 e3 20.Nf3 exf2+ 21.Kf1 Be3 22.b4 Na6 23.Qb3 Qe7 24.Rd1 Qe6 25.a3 c5 26.b5 Nc7 27.g4 Qe4 28.Rd3 Rxf3 29.Bxf3 Qxf3 30.Rexe3 Qh1+ 31.Kxf2 Ne6 32.Qd1 Qxh2+ 33.Ke1 Rf8 34.Rf3 (The ChessBase Megabase has a different move order: 32...Rf8 33.Rf3 Qxh2+ 34.Ke1.) 34...Nf4 35.Rxf4 Re8+ 36.Kf1 Qxf4+ 37.Kg1 Re4 38.Rd8+ Kh7 39.Qd3 Qxg4+ 40.Kh1 Qh5+ 41.Kg2 Qg6+ 42.Kf3 Qf5+ 43.Kg3 Rg4+ 44.Kh3 Qxd3+ 45.Rxd3 Rxc4 46.Rd7 Rc3+ 47.Kh4 Rxa3 48.Rxb7 c4 49.Kh5 c3 50.Rc7 Ra4 51.b6 c2 52.b7 c1(Q) 0-1

<Described as “an extremely interesting game”, it was annotated in the Games Department of the BCM, conducted by C.H.O’D. Alexander, with the following remark after move 27:

“Abrahams plays the ending somewhat maliciously, holding out tempting hopes of stalemate to his opponent only to disappoint him unkindly at the end.”>

<However, on page 259 of Not Only Chess (London, 1974) and page 137 of Brilliance in Chess (London, 1977) Abrahams himself wrote:

“The Bad Gastein organizers promised me a brilliancy prize for this [i. e. Abrahams' game against Toth, Karpova], but all I got was a free copy of the tournament book.”’>

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/... (scroll down to 4220)

-- Gerald Abrahams

I picked up a copy, in good condition, for a mere 5 Danish Kroner recently!