Mihail Marin explains the origin of "Indian Openings" on eleven pages in an article titled "Warum 'Indisch'?" in the German magazine Schach 2/2021, mixing ancient games played between John Cochrane and Moheschunder Bannerjee with modern examples of typical motives. He even adds a hint that Cochrane's unpublished manuscript can be found online at the Cleveland Public Library. Highly recommended.

Chess historians haven't been able to find the exact source where Gyula Breyer recommended the "Breyer Variation" in the Ruy Lopez. Edward Winter has covered the topic, quoting Iván Bottlik:

Quote:

Wikipedia says:

Quote:

If 1911 were correct, this eassay couldn't have appeared in Breyer's 1920/21 column in Becsi Magyar Ujsag.

It's just a quirk of Italian grammar, for instance my dictionary gives as an example:

"Ho comprato qualche libro" - "I've bought a few books".

So for "qualche altro maestro", the translation "some/a few other masters" is correct. My version:

According to Marshall and some other masters, this is the strongest continuation against the King's Fianchetto, since according to them the immediate action of the pieces is more effective than that of the pawns. In contrast, Alekhine maintains that bringing the knight out in this fashion obstructs the movement of the c-pawn and in particular prevents White from setting up the famous pawn structure with pawns on c3, d4 and e3, which, according to him, is the best way to fight against the King's Fianchetto. Opinions that are still relevant!

Stefan Buecker wrote on 12/24/15 at 08:05:37:


Was it the one with the Kalashnikov in? 

DMel wrote on 12/23/15 at 23:59:04:

Many thanks for the help. "Maestro" can be plural?

DMel wrote on 12/23/15 at 23:59:04:

Yes, the modern view (of Colle players at least) is that Black's fianchetto is one of the soundest replies. - In Marshall's books Chess Openings (1904) or the Swindles there is nothing on 3.Nc3.

Paddy wrote on 12/21/15 at 19:01:56:

6 Be2 is often seen as the defining move of the so-called "Barry Attack". True, Capablanca - Yates, New York 1924, deserves a mention in spite of its 6.h3 - if only as part of a development. In his comments in the tournament book, Alekhine prefers 6.Bd3. "Euwe" has 6 h3 as his main line, and likes 6.Be2 more than 6.Bd3. You are right, 6.Be2 has many fathers. It's so much easier to find an uncontroversial name for 6.Nb5: Bogoljubow Attack, after Bogoljubow - Rellstab, Bad Aachen 1935.

Tartakower's remark "Marshalls Zug" in 1925 is a puzzle. In Salvioli's La Partita d'Oggi (1928) I find this on 3 Nc3:
Quote:

The first sentence (thx, Google Translate):
Quote:

...or s.th. similar (corrections welcome from native speakers). The rest reports Alekhine's skepticism (from the tournament book) since 3.Nc3 blocks the c-pawn. The first sentence seems to indicate that Marshall commented on 3.Nc3 rather than playing it in a game.

BabySnake wrote on 06/04/12 at 15:48:10:



http://www.cockneyrhymingslang.co.uk/slang/barry_white

I volunteer to put up any ChessPubber traveling to Cleveland. As long as they pass a very detailed background check. 

kylemeister wrote on 06/04/12 at 21:34:40:

A valuable hint, thank you very much! I see that there are other articles in Yearbook 57 and 67, then it's "Barry Attack". But Ian Rogers' earlier proposal is important.

BabySnake wrote on 06/04/12 at 14:33:41:

True, but the game isn't really played in the spirit of the Barry Attack. According to Palliser and other authors, it is Be2 combined with h4-h5 which makes it an "attack". There are about 120 games older than 1982 in the database starting 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4 Bg7 (not necessarily in this move order). But the idea h4-h5 only appears in a 1982 game.

Another key motif seems to be 5.e3 0-0 6.Be2 c5 7.dxc5 Qa5 8.Nd2 Qxc5 9.Nb3 which gives White initiative on the q-side. But was it Murshed who put together all the main pieces, or is Ian Rogers or another Australian player the hero of the story? And doesn't Hebden deserve credit for his success with the line (~ 74% in 123 games)?

BabySnake wrote on 06/04/12 at 14:59:20:


The top comment of that page, mentioned another source, just prior to the early 80s

Quote:

See also this old thread, which has a game from 1986 where Hebden faces the Barry Attack and wins!

http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1132794533/15

JEH wrote on 05/31/12 at 21:30:31:


OK, I remembered wrong. It was probably this article by Andrew Martin I was thinking of, I guess.

Bits and pieces, Feb 1999:
Quote:

http://web.archive.org/web/19991003142606/http://www.internetchess.com/columns/a...

Btw, found another site referring to Barry, Wales but not much more...
http://chessexpress.blogspot.se/2010/06/barry-attack.html

TN wrote on 06/01/12 at 02:05:24:

I may be wrong, but the game which "converted" Mark Hebden seems to be the following:

I see that the topic was already discussed at chesspub: http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1132794533/all . One quote:

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/04/06 at 03:29:57:


In August 2007 ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/chess/malcolmpein/3667044/An-ill-wind-for-Rad... ) Malcolm Pein wrote the following in his Telegraph column:

Quote:


If the system was first named after the town in Wales or after a real player Barry, witnesses step forward, please.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 05/31/12 at 19:28:38:

My understanding has always been that the opening is named after the town of Barry, which is in Wales. However, I'm afraid I have no idea why the name might have originated in this way, nor can I remember where I first heard this, so it might be absolute nonsense!

If "Barry Attack" doesn't refer to a real person with the surname Barry, but is just a joke, meaning "rubbish" (or worse) - then I can't see any logic behind using "Barry-Angriff" in German. It would help to know more about the background - who coined the name and when.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 05/30/12 at 15:32:50:

Most openings are named after famous players, but I guess this case is different. In his Mammoth Book of Chess, Graham Burgess wrote (p. 200): "The fact that this attack looks so naive is the reason for the opening's name!"

According to Palliser: Angriffe mit dem Damenbauern, 2011, p. 214 [translated from Starting Out: d-Pawn Attacks, 2008], the opening was played in the 1920, but remained nameless, until Mark Hebden started to play it in the 1980s. Palliser continues that there have been discussions about the name's origin, "but it seems that it comes from the British saying "a load of old Barry" (my re-translation from German).

But who invented the name, and when? Hebden? Gary Lane? Aaron Summerscale?

Several sources call 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.Bf4 Bg7 5.e3 0-0 6.Be2 followed by an eventual Ne5 and h4-h5 the "Barry Attack". One explanation was that it comes from "barry", British slang for "rubbish". Is this true, and if so, who invented the name? Gaige lists half a dozen chess players with the name "Barry", btw.

That makes some sense, thanks guys.

Willempie wrote on 08/14/11 at 12:22:27:



Willempie wrote on 08/14/11 at 12:22:27:


According to Wikipedia, quoting the book on the 1994 Buenos Aires "Sicilian Love" Tournament:
Quote:

So somewhere in the writings of  Salvio, Polerio, Cozio or the other old Italian theoreticians there must have been mention of someone from Sicily playing 1.e4 c5.

Stefan Buecker wrote on 08/09/11 at 15:35:22:


Siciliaanse Draak (with two capitals) to be exactly. Usually just Draak suffices, though some recognize a variation called Engelse Draak (no awards for those who can guess the initial moves).

The German Wiki ( http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igelstellung ) offers the information lacking on the English site:

Quote:

Translation:

Quote:

MNb wrote on 07/24/11 at 21:10:01:

Thanks. "Igelstellung" may also have a place in warfare, or as a general term, but German chess players connect it with the animal, yes. There was a book on the system with a hedgehog on the title, for example.

I thought the term would perhaps go back to the early 1970s, because of Fischer. Else it could in fact have a German origin - I guess I saw it at first in Schach-Magazin 64. That magazine started 1979, with editor Otto Borik, who was well versed with the latest openings (and authored a small, but very useful book Halboffene Spiele). I'll check.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/24/11 at 12:19:38:

Many funny names came from Britain. This still seems more probable to me than the German origin. Thanks - will check.

I don't have a source, but I'm pretty sure the term "hedgehog" does come from the 1970s. I vaguely remember something that Ludek Pachman said, but it could just as easily have been one of the English kiddos of the day with their strong affinity for woodland creatures. Perhaps someone read Kenneth Grahame once too often before a chess game. (Yeah, I know. Grahame was Scottish, not English.)

Seen in another thread:

BPaulsen wrote on 07/24/11 at 02:19:05:

Can someone tell me, perhaps, when the term "Hedgehog" for these structures came up? In the 1970s, I guess? There are several books on the topic, maybe one of these authors has explicitly mentioned a book or article where the term, in this context, was used for the first time?

Regarding the Paulsen Sicilian, by the way, the proper name would be "Wilfried Paulsen Sicilian". Not Louis Paulsen, his brother had developed it.

From Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Defence :

Quote:

Most Indian systems were fully accepted by 1930, I believe, no matter how you define "accepted". Played by many of the leading players - too many to be listed here. Even old Tarrasch played Indian defences: Old Indian, Bogo-Indian, Nimzo-Indian, Queen's Indian, Budapest - you find them all in his games. The King's Indian took a little longer, Max Euwe was one of the main forces to prove its respectability. And somehow I doubt that the Budapest was ever regarded as fully respectable by the best of the best.

Correction: In reply #81, I wrote: Seghieri: Guida elementare per apprendere il giuoco degli scacchi, 1889 [it also covered "Partita di Fischer"]: Cochrane - Moheschunder, the true KI from reply #56, until 7...e5: "Black has the better game". The author says about "La Difesa Italiana" [...]

For "Italiana" read "Indiana".

Stefan Buecker wrote on 07/21/11 at 06:38:20:

Okay, I take that back. There was a fair share of serious positional errors from the first till the last KI games of the series. But they had their moments:


Cochrane - Moheschunder, 1853, their 15th surviving KI game; 0-1, 46.



Cochrane - Moheschunder, 1855, their 57th surviving KI game; 15.Kh2 followed by an attack on the g-file. 1-0, 30.



Cochrane - Moheschunder, 1855, their 62nd surviving KI game; 0-1, 25. - These three positions are recognizable King's Indian structures - admittedly with some minor flaws.

I knew about the sandglasses. Is there any direct evidence they were used in Cochrane's games?


One thing that slightly surprises in these few games is the relatively high value the players place on the Bishops in these games.

A modern player looking at the McDonnell-Labourdonnais games will quickly realise they both valued knights more than bishops and played the opening accordingly.

I'm not so sure I see such a preference in these (few) games.

Specialized chess clocks were first used at London 1883.

But even before that moves were timed, using e.g. sandglasses, pendulum clocks or stopwatches.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/20/11 at 12:15:16:

There are at least half a dozen hints in the magazines that these Indian games lasted 20 or 25 minutes, that they were "skittles" or "skittled". It would be a bit early for chess clocks (their use in tournaments began in the 1880ies, I believe). So probably they were played without a time limit, although Cochrane seems to have noted the time which was spent for the whole game (a practice quite common in old chess magazines). Maybe the (few) games in the Chessbase database with an "m" (for "match") are different, I don't know. Both players were known as fast....

The following game is one of the last in the database, it was published in the year after Cochrane's death by The Chess Player's Chronicle 1879, with the following remark:

Quote:

Played January 15, 1860. - Below the game the Chess Player's Chronicle adds: "Time 28 minutes. Notes by J. Cochrane."

Five years later he played a little more sophisticated. It is speed chess, but not patzer speed chess...

TalJechin wrote on 07/19/11 at 17:24:17:

Even if there existed a kind of Native Chess Theory, Moheschunder played 1.e4 e5 in the majority of his earliest games with Cochrane. Also due to social pressure, I guess: as an employee of the chess club, he simply had to allow a certain amount of 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7, Cochrane's pet line. In the occasional experiments I see an experimental mind, not really interested in imitating others or "theory". Later he found the regular Nimzo-Indian, but look at this:



Edit: In an imaginary "Native Chess Theory", a system involving an early g6 and Bg7 would be unpopular: this chess didn't know castling, but the king was able to move, once in a game, like a knight. A bishop on g7 would not make much sense. BUT the empty square g7 in the game above does indeed look like a relic from these rules!

MNb wrote on 07/18/11 at 16:20:01:

Yes, background information is scarce. The games by Saumchurn (Guttack, or Gutrack or Guhach, or ... I have seen many spellings) a k a Somacarana in the Chessbase database give a hint, however. Why should an Indian player, when he is invited to play according to European rules, not actually move the pawns 2 squares? Saumchurn mainly played 1.d4 d5, and 1.e4 c5, and (with White) 1.d4 d5 2.g3. He varied, too, but basically his 199 games with Cochrane look more European than Moheschunder's (btw: Cochrane scored 66% against Saumchurn, worse than against Moheschunder). Further 30 games have survived in that manuscript, without involvement of Cochrane, that's all.

In his review "Persisting Mysteries" ( http://www.chesscafe.com/urcan/urcan.htm ), Olimpiu G. Urcan has reviewed a new book: Western Chess in British India by Vijay D. Pandit (The Chess Player, Nottingham 2011, 168 pp., 19£). And which sources did the author use? Urcan writes:

Quote:


The point which I am trying to make: If we don't have the evidence that Brahmins played European chess against each other, outside the Calcutta club, I'd just assume that they were following their Indian rules. It is probable that these games contained many fianchettoes, but that doesn't mean much. Since 1848 Moheschunder was employed at the newly founded chess club (1847) which started with 13 members (source: Allen's Indian Mail 1847, p. 546). His first games showed the set-up g6, Bg7, e6. In the Chronicle he was criticized for playing un-European, err, meant to say: uneducated.

But then he practiced a lot with Cochrane, who was familiar with opening theory, but at the same time an extremely experimental player (once against Saumchurn. C. played 1.d4 Nc6 2.d5 Ne5 and won), and faced "modern" openings. They played the Evans, the Muzio, etc.

Saumchurn must have gone through essentially the same experience. Like Moheschunder, he combined European chess with "Indian" elements. So he played 1.d4 d5 2.g3, and with Black he sometimes used a set-up g6, Bg7, e6, Ne7, c6, d7-d5. His style was more solid than Moheschunder's, maybe a good idea against the aggressive Cochrane. But what is more important: both found their own personal way to fight against the European players. They didn't simply (and stupidly) repeat strategies that they were used from the Indian version of the game. There was a lot of creativity. In his later games, Moheschunder also used the Caro-Kann.

It wouldn't be fair to re-name all the openings. We shouldn't forget that these were often "light" games. And there is a difference between a CK game slumbering in a manuscript for 150 years, not influencing other players, and the much better known KI game by Moheschunder published in three chess sources (three countries) and commented favourably by Steinitz.

We can speculate how many Brahmins played European chess (not many, I believe) and whether some of them were almost as strong as Moheschunder. But even then I believe that chess is rich enough to allow dozens or more versions to combine fianchetto ideas with European ideas. (Owen and Blackburne fianchettoed quite often, but their chess looks different.) It is said that Moheschunder was about 50 years old in 1848, playing fast and self-conscious. He learned the European openings, but still insisted that it made sense to hold back the pawns with Black and hit hard with e7-e5 just at the right moment against the broad white center. Cochrane was a creative mind, he must have discussed the strategy with his opponent. He even began to play the KI himself. - You can imagine that elsewhere in India someone invented a new opening, independently. But that might just as well have been the QI, not the KI. Using Occam's razor, I come to the conclusion: The "discussion" on the chess board between Cochrane and Moheschunder, two of the strongest players of their "nations", led to the invention of the King's Indian.

Today we have seen so much Indian stuff that it is hard to think that this invention was something special. But Steinitz commented (reply #56) that c2-c4 was weakening pawn d4. I guess it would be difficult to find a similar comment in any earlier source. In later writings, Steinitz often mentions the options c2-c3 and f2-f3 against fianchetto sytems. It is impossible to prove, but this game won by Moheschunder probably had a big influence on the development of chess.

Special role of Steinitz

In the next posts I'll focus on Indisch and the changes it caused in opening nomenclature. Looking back, the main results regarding the pre-Tartakowerian period seem well established:

(a) Cochrane's collected Indian games (664, I believe) in the CB database are strong evidence that Moheschunder Banerjee deserves to be recognized as the inventor of the King's Indian. He also tried the Grünfeld and other systems, yet his 68 King's Indians represent a systematical test of this opening. He returned to it again and again and even played something similar with the white colours.

(b) There are hints that most of these games were played as skittles games, taking perhaps 20-25 minutes per game. Still, Cochrane was one of the strongest players of this era. He scored 75% overall, but only 57% against the KI. They were played between 1848 and 1860 [so it's probably too optimistic to hope for more surviving games] and the colours are distributed about evenly (Cochrane White in 53%). Maybe I am reading too much in to this fact, but it seems that Cochrane didn't select much.

(c) Some later works (1930ies and later) wrote that the chess-playing Brahmins taught European players how to play fianchetto structures: not to combine g6 with e6, but with d6, and combine b6 only with e6. But Steinitz found this out by himself. Secondly, in India it was Moheschunder alone who had developed this "KI understanding".

(d) Louis Paulsen knew only few games by Moheschunder, if any. Yes, he introduced the Indian D. into tournament play on the highest level. Nevertheless Tartakower got the name "Indian" basically right (to an extent he wasn't aware of).

(e) John Cochrane invested much energy into collecting the games, but editors of chess magazines, because of lack of space, published only few - and not many Indian Defences. William Steinitz recognized that Moheschunder's ideas were both original and valuable.

Steinitz played a special role in the acceptance of the Indian Defence. His comments on the "Indian Opening" 1.e4 e5 2.d3 show his respect for "the Brahmins", but they also demonstrate that he was unsure about the value of 2.d3: 

The International Chess Magazine 1891, p. 237: "The opening derives its name from its having been first brought to notice in the games played by the late Mr. Cochrane, one of the most brilliant players of the old school, against some Indian Brahmins who generallv favored the text move when first players. Mr. Hanham often adopts this opening, which is by no means a weak one."

The Book of the Sixth American Chess Congress, 1891, p. 140: "Though this opening has been in favor with strong players of East India, whence it also derives its name, it cannot be recommended. By steady development on the part of the opponent, White ought ultimately to be inconvenienced by the restricted action of his KB."

The Book of the Sixth American Chess Congress, 1891, p. 393: "This move is much in favor with some strong players among the Brahmins in India, and the opening has been named, accordingly, the Indian Opening."

Games by Moheschunder, published in various sources (mainly 1869-1875). The list is not nearly complete, but may be sufficient to demonstrate the low interest in the Indian Defence by most editors, with the exception of Steinitz and Potter. Usually no dates are given: "played many years ago"; I add in [] brackets the date from the ChessBase database.

Cochrane - Moheschunder, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7!? (Cochrane's Gambit); 8 games with this system appeared in Staunton's Chess Praxis (1860), but no game with the Indian Defence.

Cochrane - Moheschunder, 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Nf3 Bd6 (0-1, 19); Ill. London News Sept. 11, 1869 [database: October 2, 1855]

Cochrane - Moheschunder, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 exd4 4.Qxd4 (1-0, 25); Taylor: Chess Brilliants, 1869 [database: 1854]

Moheschunder - Cochrane, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bc4 (1-0, 20); The Westminster Papers 1870, p. 173. [database: July 19, 1855]

Moheschunder - Cochrane, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.0-0 d6 5.h3 (1-0, 29); Neue Berliner Schachzeitung 1870, p. 116 [database: 1854]

Cochrane - Moheschunder The Westminster Papers 1873, p. 156. "The following partie was contested, many years ago, between the veteran Mr. Cochrane and the Brahmin Moheschunder Bonnerjee. It formed one of a series, which extended to some hundred Games, a performance which reflected equal credit upon the skill of Mr. Cochrane and the patience of the Brahmin, for the latter generally came off second-best in these battles." 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Bc5 6.0-0 d6 7.d4 exd4 8.exd4 Bb6 9.Bb2 Nf6 10.Nbd2 0-0 11.e5 dxe5. "It reflects great credit upon the Brahmin's knowledge of European analysis that up to this point he should have conducted the defence, as Mr. Cochrane conducts the attack, strictly in accordance with the established rules of the time. The line of play adopted in this game has, however, fallen completely into disuse. At this eleventh move Moheschunder Bonnerjee commits an error common enough amongst Western players. The exchange of Pawns allows White's pieces to come to the front, and the second player loses time and position, if not material. The Knight should, instead, be simply retreated to King's square. Black then threatens Bf5." (1-0, 32 /34 moves database) [database: 1852]

Six games:
[First printed "after Cochrane's Homecoming" in Ill. London News, published 1873 in Nordisk Skaktidende. The latter source writes: "[...] Both Brahmins, however, most Saumchurn, are pronounced defensive players, they choose with partiality the closed game and covered behind their entrenchments, you see them from spying after an unfortunate "victim" [...]. A contrary to this tactic is Cochrane [...] as Cochrane knew how to put the day of the attack - an art, which probably still only Morphy has reached him. (The English call the aptly Morphy: "Cochrane without error.") [...] - Lots of those opponents could of course not always satisfy the modern time claims of "correctness", [...] but they are in return possessed of a freshness that our newer play often miss ..." etc. etc.
- Cochrane - Moheschunder, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 exd4 4.Qxd4 (1-0, 25) [database: 1854]
- Moheschunder - Cochrane, 1.e3 d5 2.d4 c5 3.Nf3 e6 4.Be2 (1-0, 37) [database: 1851]
- Cochrane - Saumchurn, 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 (1-0, 30) [game not in database]
- Cochrane - Moheschunder, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7!? (Cochrane's Gambit); (1-0, 32) [database: 1855]
- Cochrane - Moheschunder, [b]1.e4 d6 2.d4 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.f4 0-0 (0-1, 32; "Unregelmaessigt Parti") = the game from reply #56.
- Saumchurn - Cochrane, 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 g6 3.d4 Bg7 4.e3 (0-1, 29) [database: 1856]

Cochrane - Moheschunder, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7!? (1-0, 14); The Westminster Papers 1874, p. 53 (notes by Zukertort/Wisker) [database: 1855]

Moheschunder - Cochrane, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 (0-1, 33) Cook: Synopsis of the Chess Openings 1874, p. 34 [database: 1852]

Saumchurn - Moheschunder, 1.d4 Nf6 2.g3 e6 3.Bg2 c5 (1-0, 51) Deutsche Schachzeitung Feb. 1875, p. 42f. [not in database; the DSZ reprinted this game from The Field.

Cochrane - Moheschunder, [b]1.e4 d6 2.d4 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.f4 0-0 (0-1, 32) = the game from reply #56. The City of London Chess Magazine 1875, p. 39

Cochrane - Moheschunder, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nxf7!? (1-0, 24 /database: 25) The City of London Chess Magazine 1875, p. 40 [database: 1855]

Cochrane - Moheschunder, 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Bd3 g6 4.c4 Bg7 5.Nc3 0-0 6.f4 e5 7.fxe5 dxe5 8.d5 c6!? 9.Nf3 cxd5 10.cxd5 (1-0, 36) The City of London Chess Magazine 1875, p. 231 [database: 1852]

How many Fischers from Detmold who played chess in that period do you expect to find?

It's almost certainly E(rnst?) Fischer, even though I can't find a single game of his.

I hope you're not too worried that our hero played a 1..e5 against Max Lange. Even the Paulsen brothers didn't always play their eponymous opening.

[quote author=4B7E73557A7C7776711F0 link=1309972666/71#71 date=1310563898][quote author=053B2F253A392009103738560 link=1309972666/70#70 date=1310561664][quote author=05223330373809142333353D3324560 link=1309972666/63#63 date=1310454929][quote author=033D29233C3F260F16313E500 link=1309972666/60#60 date=1310391441][highlight]Btw, Parti/Partie/Partia just means "game".[/highlight] I'm guessing most of the people here know that, but monoglot English speakers may not be aware of this.[/quote]
Exactly. For example, the [b]"Partita di Fischer"[/b] was a system for Black. Do monoglot English speakers here know which line it was?[/quote]

I'm not a monoglot, and I don't know which opening is known as the "Partita di Fischer". :-[[/quote]

KGA 3.Nf3 [b]d6[/b] ?[/quote]
No, sorry. The solution is [b]1.e4 Nc6. [/b] A scan from [i]Neue Berliner Schachzeitung[/i] 1869, p. 278:

[img]http://api.photoshop.com/v1.0/accounts/bbb52ca3d6c1425daebec45981ed3ceb/assets/5d98a85be5654e129648d63b8d804a88/renditions/1024.jpg[/img]

Footnote (a), p. 279, explains:
[quote]Wie uns die Gebrüder Paulsen mittheilten, wendet Herr Fischer in Detmold, ein starker Spieler, mit Vorliebe diese Entgegnung an. [/quote]
Translation:

[quote]As the brothers Paulsen told us, Mr. Fischer in Detmold, a strong player, applies this reply with preference.[/quote]
This important piece of information is not overlooked by Tassilo von der Lasa: [i]Handbuch des Schachspiels[/i] 1874 (5th ed.): "Von Fischer in Detmold häufig angewendet." Which means: [b]"Frequently used by Fischer in Detmold."[/b]

The [i]Handbuch[/i] 6th ed. 1880: "Von Fischer in Detmold häufig angewendet."

The [i]Handbuch[/i] 7th ed. 1891: "Von Fischer in Detmold häufig angewendet."

The [i]Handbuch[/i] 8th ed. 1916: "Von Fischer in Detmold häufig angewendet."

No wonder that the name appeared in many opening works of the 19th and 20th century, e.g. [b]"Partita di Fischer".[/b] - Maybe this Fischer is identical with [b]"E. Fischer from Detmold"[/b] who played a correspondence game against Max Lange, 1854-1856: [i]Schachzeitung [/i]1854, p. 463, gives the first moves; [i]Schachzeitung [/i]1858, p. 292, the rest (Lange won). - But why played this E. Fischer 1.e4 e5?

And maybe they were lazy, these guys from the 18th-19th century..  Don't play 1... g6 in order to not study this opening!..
I can imagine a game in a tournament back then. First player opens with 1.e4 and the second player answers with 1... b6. The reaction: In a loud voice: "Mister, you have the right to withdraw your last move."...while murmuring "Don't play such moves! We all have to study them and write about them.. No one will buy our books if we write about Indian moves.".. 

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/10/11 at 19:02:34:

Edward Winter's note #4556 has some interesting information on the earliest uses of "fianchetto", which often referred to 1.e4 b6, "Il Fianchetto di Donna".
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/winter26.html

I especially enjoyed this quote from C.F. de Jaenisch:

Quote:

Stefan Buecker wrote on 07/12/11 at 07:15:29:


I'm not a monoglot, and I don't know which opening is known as the "Partita di Fischer".

[quote]The term "Preussiskt parti" invented by the Collijns was widely accepted and became "Preussische Partie" in many later German sources. So what was the real reason why the direct translation "Prussian Game" didn't catch on e.g. in England? [/quote]

Aha, so parti, in that sense, is another word we've exported, along with sloyd, ombudsman, moped and orientering. :)

As for why it didn't catch on in England, WW I & II may have a big part of it. The first time I went to London (in the mid 1990s) I soon noticed that there was [i]a big difference[/i] between being assumed to be German or Danish. At least when dealing with people more than 20 years older than me.

So, to try naming anything after 'the enemy' in Britain was probably doomed from 1914 and forwards...

Stefan, thank you for your detailed post! Zhal, I don't have any of the three volumes.

Zwischenzugzwang wrote on 07/11/11 at 13:59:02:

Your remark was a surprise for me. Should one of the best German chess journalists be so badly informed? Yet indeed, Kurt Richter in Die moderne Schachpartie, Berlin 1948, ignores the older history of the system, for him the "indische Systeme" are the "most modern" openings which have been accepted only "in the last 25 years". On p. 31 Richter claims:

Quote:

For him the name was "purely arbitrarily chosen" and has nothing to do with India. - Tartakower did claim that new ideas greatly changed the character of the opening, but he did not forget to hint at the older roots of the opening. The first sentences of T.'s booklet Indisch (bold words were highlighted in the original):

Quote:

The Google translation (good enough, I hope):

Quote:

On a separate page (p. 4) Tartakower gave a long list of 1.d4 Nf6 games played between 1843 (Jaenisch mentions 1.d4 Nf6 in his Analyse Nouvelle) until 1907 (death of Chigorin, who played a kind of Old Indian on a regular basis). The only print in bold type on this page is in the entry for 1875:

Quote:

If we consider that the whole Cochrane material became accessible only in 2007 via ChessBase, we can say: Tartakower's presentation of the material wasn't perfect, but sufficient as a rough overview over the history of 1.d4 Nf6. If the sporadical attempts in the past with 1.d4 Nf6 were so irrelevant as it must have seemed to Tartakower, his focus on the new developments was the right thing to do. But it is still interesting that his sly spin worked so well that Kurt Richter entirely forgot about the original Indian games.