My Favourite Annotators. Part Nine. Gyula Breyer.

So, having looked at Tarrasch, I will go to someone who could be seen as almost the antithesis of Tarrasch - Gyula Breyer. Actually, the two were opposites in some things whilst similar in others. Breyer would beat Tarrasch in a 'dogma' contest! Also, they are much mentioned by authors who have never actually taken the time to study them properly. In fact, I think that if Reti had not discussed Breyer in his wonderful 'Masters of The Chessboard', he would be largely forgotten.

Before I forget, I have done at least two previous blogs including his game notes, which you can find with a quick google of simaginfan breyer. 

Breyer was someone I first studied from this book. 

It's in Hungarian - a language that I don't speak! Well, I understood the games, but not Breyer's incredible notes. Luckily Jimmy Adams gives translations in this book.

Unlike Tarrasch, Breyer did not write any books that I know of. His legacy as an annotator is his newspaper columns where he gives his thoughts - often at great length.

Two examples from my earlier blogs.

Breyer was - in many ways - a disciple of Steinitz. Both viewed positions in terms of 'weaknesses' Whilst Steinitz had a more general view of what constitutes a weakness, Breyer was of the view that a single weak square constituted a permanent weakness which contained the potential loss of the game, even if that square was occupied. So, for example he gave 1.e4 a ?. Then after 1...e6, he felt that White had to play 2.d3, to protect the weakness on e4 which was undefended by pieces! 
Equally, he said that after 1.d4 Black equalises by playing 1...Nf6, controlling the weakened square e4. Reti took all this one stage further by opening with 1.Nf3!!! 

OO.K. I have given some of Breyer's notes to the featured game before, but will give the full notes here for a reason. As it was a newspaper column, Breyer was limited in terms of available space, so most of the game is barely commented on However, my eye was caught by a very brief comment at move 11. Most people would skip right by it. 'To provoke a weakness' not of the Pawn on d6, but of the SQUARE d6. When you try to understand how Breyer came to write that, you begin to understand his whole concept of how chess works.

Also Sir George Thomas gives a straightforward improvement on a variation given by Breyer, who was giving what he had intended at the board.  This game also links Henry Bird to Bent Larsen in terms of the ...h5 idea in these positions.

So take a little time to immerse yourself in the unique chess world of Gyula Beyer.