Gonotsky's Great Escape

Murray Cash, Nov 2002

In the 2nd International Match, USA-GB, 1927, Sam Gonotsky turned in his scoresheet to captain Heffner, (in)famously claiming that his score of 13-0-27 was the greatest of all time, as he was in no wins and no losses, thus improving on Richard Jordan's score of 1905.

Sam Gonotsky

Various analysts have attacked this statement over the years, the latest being the excellent "Gonotsky's Waterloo" article by Fortman and Sheehan, ACFB Dec 2002, showing that in Round 9 against A.B Scott, Gonotsky was in a loss had Scott played correctly.

I present analysis to correct this and show that Gonotsky did have an amazing defensive resource at hand. Whether the great Brooklyn master would have found this narrow draw over the board is unknown, but what we can say is that his famous statement still stands firm... for today!

So contrary to being "Gonotsky's Waterloo", I have termed this "Gonotsky's Great Escape", perhaps one even Steve McQueen would be proud of (pictured)...

View this analysis with an animated board
Download the PDN

WWWWWWWW
10-14
22-18
11-15
18-11
8-15
26-22
6-10
22-17
1-6
23-19
9-13
27-23
13-22
25-11
7-16
29-25! (A-0)
16-20*(A-1)
32-27

WWWWWWWW
3-7*(A)
31-26(B)
4-8*(C)
25-22(D)
7-11*
19-16(E)
12-19
23-7
2-11
24-19(F)
11-15*
19-16(G)
8-12*
16-11(H)
5-9*
11-7(I)
14-18*
21-17(J)

WWWWWWWW
18-25
30-21
9-13
26-22(K)
15-18*
22-15
10-19
17-14
6-10*
7-3
10-17
21-14
13-17*
3-7
17-22*
7-11
22-26*
11-15

WWWWWWWW
19-24*
28-19
26-31*
27-23
31-27*
15-18
27-24*
19-15
12-16*
15-11
24-19*
Draw

(A-0) (Eugene Frazier's "Hornet's Nest". Scott played 24-20 in his game against Gonotsky, missing out on this much stronger attack. See 2nd IM book p386.)

(A-1) 6-9 certainly doesn't look hopeful and all other moves lose.

(A) 4-8 and 6-9 were mentioned in the Fortman/Sheehan article, but not 3-7.

(B) 30-26 and 25-22 only draw

(D) 19-16 is a quicker draw

(E) 22-18 and 22-17 are weaker draws

(F) 26-22 and 22-17 are also weaker draws.

(G) 28-24, 27-23 draw quickly

(H) 30-25, 27-23 give easier draws

(I) Would anyone give red a hope in this position?

(J) 30-25 12-16 7-2 16-19 2-7 9-14 7-2 6-9 2-6 9-13 6-9 19-24 28-19 15-31 22-6 31-29 9-18 29-25* draw

(K) 17-14 10-17 21-14 6-10 14-9 15-18 7-2 18-22 26-17 13-22 2-7 10-14 7-10 14-17 10-14 17-21 14-17 22-26 17-22 26-31 and neither 27-23 nor allowing the exchange gives white enough resources to win.

N.B. Most of the analysis was from world computer checkers champion Nemesis. As the Fortman/Sheehan article also used analysis from Nemesis, I think this means Nemesis corrects Nemesis!

After reading the above article, ACFB Editor Al Lyman added the following fascinating background information:

Amazing play Nemesis found to still draw this and uphold Gontosky's statement-one of Checkers great legendary stories, that analysts have tried to crack for all these years.

There is more than meets the eye here. Sam and A.J. Heffner apparently were not "good" friends. Sam was very sensitive about his play, and Heffner equally sensitive about his analysis. Since Heffenr annotated nearly all the books in those days, and a great Master player himself for decades.

In the 2IM book there are a couple games where he published Sam in a loss, or in a missed win-to show how hard he tried to blow holes in Sam's statement and his games. But all Heffners analysis has been corrected, and where he showed Sam in a loss, or missed a win, is wrong.

Tom Sheehan did all the analysis on this ["Gonotsky's Waterloo" article in ACFB Dec. 2002], and asked Fortman to write it up, Fortman himself having become the great annotator, in years afer Heffner. Fortman came along in -I think 1931 at age 16 as a promising player, about the time Heffner died. With Fortman's coming, Sam had only been gone for 2 years, and his games and memory was still on everyone mind.

The game Nemesis corrected represent the "last" chance to prove Gonotsky in a loss, and I don't think it will be found, that he missed any wins, since Heffners claims have been corrected. Sam Gonotsky remains as great a legend today - As back then. Since Tinsley is gone too, he and Sam must have met in "heaven." Surely they played and even God wouldn't miss that event. I wonder who won.....?

AL Lyman 14-Nov-2002