Principle of Development

The first task of a chess player at the beginning of a game is rapid development. This means that a player should deploy the maximum number of pieces on squares where they are not vulnerable and work together with other pieces. They should be deployed with attention to the opponent's efforts to accomplish the same.

There are other ways to define the principle of development (see "What is Development"). The paragraph above is an effort to present the essence of the oldest definition of the principle that I have found in print. That definition is a translation of writing by Domenico Lorenzo Ponziani (although credited to Ercole del Rio by the translator). It was published in English 17 years before Paul Morphy was born (see "Principle of Development: Early History").

Morphy is usually credited as the "first player to understand the importance of swift development in open games", as Thomas Engqvist puts it in 300 Most Important Chess Positions (2018), 13. Engqvist offers 30 key positions from 24 games to articulate the concept of development in practical ways (13-32). There should be no question that Morphy's games illustrate well the principle of rapid development. They also show, as Engqvist elucidates well, how to sacrifice material to gain a decisive advantage against a player who neglects the principle.

I have spent that past ten days working through these 30 key positions as part of an effort to read the whole of Engqvist's book in 60 days (see "60 Days, 300 Positions: Day One"). This morning I reviewed all thirty positions after spending some time (too little) on numbers 26-30. I noted the key ideas that Engqvist offers through these positions, questioning how much was absent from Ponziani's articulation of the principle.

Engqvist includes center control, which I do not see in Ponziani's statement. He also shows Morphy's preference for avoiding "unproductive one-move threats" (14). Some of the most challenging positions in the first section of the book feature positions from modern grandmaster practice where the idea is to interfere with the opponent's harmonious development. The translation of Ponziani states, 

Whoever, at the beginning, has brought out his Pieces with greater symmetry, relatively to the adverse situation, may thence promise himself a fortunate issue in the prosecution of the battle.
J.S. Bingham, The Incomparable Game of Chess (1820), 32.

In the context, I suspect that harmony might make more sense than the word symmetry, but I have not examined Ponziani's Italian. Nonetheless, it is clear that the notion of attentiveness to the opponent's development exists in Ponziani's formulation.

William Steinitz is often credited with articulating the principles underneath Morphy's play. But, clearly other chess writers before Steinitz mentioned the principle of development. As for Morphy being the first to understand rapid development, I offer this position, which would be in my collection of 300 most important positions.

White to move

White has already sacrificed two pawns and here often plays 10.Qb3, sacrificing a rook for a winning attack. Black's best chance is 10...d5 11.Bxd5 O-O, as was played in Meyer,H. -- Ubbens,MH., 1926. Gioachino Greco is credited with the position and has both 10...Bxd4 and 10...Bxa1 for Black. In fact, Greco copied this position from the manuscripts of Giulio Cesare Polerio, or perhaps a book by Alessandro Salvio (see "Greco Attack Before Greco").

Searching ChessBase Mega 2024 for the position turns up nine games with 10.Qb3 prior to the first with 10.Ba3, which might be an improvement (see "Corte -- Bolbochan 1946").

After 10...Bxa1 in Polerio's composition, we have a position that I like to show students in conjunction with this position from Morphy's Opera Game.

White to move

In both cases, White is behind a considerable amount of material but completely winning because Black's pieces lack mobility. It seems clear to me that Polerio and to an even greater extent Greco understood the pitfalls in neglecting the principle of development. It remained for the leading players of the so-called Italian school a century later to articulate the principle.

Nonetheless, Morphy's games remain the clearest early examples.

The Grob for Beginners

Beginners should not play the Grob.

Some may object to such a prohibition. Asserting it brings to memory my negative reaction to reading, “I cringe whenever I see 1600-players wheeling out the King’s Indian Attack” (3) in John Donaldson, A Strategic Opening Repertoire (1998). As a sub-1600 player with affection for the Reti Opening when I read this twenty years ago, Donaldson’s harsh words about the KIA seemed aimed at me, too. He states, "everyone should start with 1.e4 and 1.d4 and play classical chess at the beginning of his career” (3). My problem was that I had been playing chess thirty years and was still C-Class. Having learned the moves at age eight and started playing seriously at 15, I was hardly at the beginning of my chess career in my 40s. I thought I should be able to play openings that interested me.

My initial negative response to Donaldson's words were temporary. I agree with him. In fact, I find the so-called "recapitulation theory of chess development" useful pedagogically, even if it does not hold up as a description of most player biographies. See "On the Origin: Reading Journal" (2020). In several forum posts, I have offered the advice that a beginner should only play openings found among the games of Gioachino Greco--with White, that's the Italian, King's Gambit, and Queen's Gambit.

Beginning a game of chess with 1.g4 is clearly risky. The move has gone by many names, but today is most commonly called the Grob in honor of Swiss International Master Henri Grob (1904-1974) who advocated the opening in Angriff (1942) and employed it in correspondence games. The notorious criminal Claude Bloodgood (1937-2001) also employed it in correspondence chess and authored The Tactical Grob (1976).

A few days ago, a beginner played the Grob against me. The beginner in question favors 1.g4 and 1.Nf3 and was under 1200 after nearly 12 years and more than 8000 games on chessdotcom, although the player’s peak rapid rating is 1368.

Chessdotcom does not keep Explorer up-to-date. This data reflects a small portion of the player's games. Nonetheless, it serves to suggest that the Grob has not served him well.

One might object to the term “beginner” for someone who has been active on a chess playing site more than ten years. Although I use that term for everyone under 1200, regardless of how long they have been playing, I also have more than a few losses to such players.* Perhaps novice is a better term. This opponent, 1308 at this writing, is in the top 8% of players in chessdotcom’s pool. From another point of view, the player might be considered quite strong. Certainly he or she should have a plus score against those near the average rating on the site (the average rapid rating on the site today is 618).

Perhaps my advice should be modified somewhat. For a 1200 rated player, the Grob is not an ideal choice for developing the skills needed to rise above 1400. Nor is it a particularly good choice against a player rated hundreds of points higher. The Grob immediately gives Black a slight advantage. Nonetheless, it can be useful against an unprepared player who overestimates this slight advantage.

Here, then, is the game.

Internet Opponent — Stripes, J. [A00]
Live Chess Chess.com, 29.11.2024

1.g4 c6

My reply is not common and is not my usual response, but I have played it once before. I was thinking of a partially remembered line in Bloodgood's book where this move was played a few moves later. Bloodgood shows that it fails as an effort to protect d5 in that line.

Twelve years ago, I had the White side of this position. That game continued 2.e4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.Bg2 Nc6 5.d4 g6 6.c3 Bg7 7.Qb3 Nf6 8.g5 and I won the d-pawn, eventually converting the advantage.

2.a3

This move does nothing for White's position.

2...e5 3.Nc3

In Bloodgood's line, both c4 and Qb3 are commonly combined with placing the bishop on the long diagonal. This move interferes with White's normal plans. The evidence so far is that White has chosen an offbeat opening, but has not taken the time to learn the principal ideas behind the initial move.

4...d5

White to move

Black has a strong center.

4.g5

White has a plus score on Lichess with this sacrifice.

4...Qxg5 5.d4

Perhaps many of those games on Lichess were played by players oblivious to the discovery.

5...Qh5!?

5...Qe7 is played more often here, but I like discouraging the move that White should have begun with.

6.dxe5 Bc5?!

Why not 6...Qxe5? Now, I'm trying to provoke 7.e3 to exchange queens. But also, 1.g4 weakens the e1-h4 diagonal, and I'm speculating that I might be able to use that. That I was able to shows that White's tactical sense needs considerable work--something that develops more rapidly when most games begin 1.e4.

White to move

7.Nf3

7.Bf4! secures the pawn and prepares Bg3, putting an end to my kingside fantasies. As with any opening, the board position makes demands to which the players must attend. My speculative sixth move looks silly if White responds appropriately.

7...Bg4 8.Rg1?? Bxf3-+ 9.exf3

Black to move

9... Qxh2

This fork picks up the e-pawn with tempo.

10.Rg2 Qxe5+ 11.Be2 Nd7 12.Rg5?

12.f4 at least chases the queen back instead of provoking Black to threaten checkmate.

12...Qh2 13.Bf1

13.Qd3 avoids immediate checkmate.

13...Qxf2# 0-1

If you are a novice or even stronger and want to play the Grob, at least do yourself the favor of looking at Bloodgood's pamphlet, The Tactical Grob. Also be aware that trotting out this opening against a much higher rated player means that you could be playing someone who knows the opening better than you.

*As many as 1/3 of them showed evidence of using assistance. 10% have been banned.

Greco’s Study Method

This position appears in Checkmates and Tactics (2019), a book that consists of exercises that I have used with scholastic players since 2006. It is doubtful that my creation of this exercise from a game credited to Gioachino Greco is original. The small selection of games credited to Greco that are found in ChessBase, chessgames.com, and other aggregations are well-enough known that others undoubtedly have put this position before their students.

White to move

Digging deeper into Greco’s output through Professor Hoffman, The Games of Greco (1900) and William Lewis, Gioachino Greco and the Game of Chess (1819), shows that Greco had improved upon Black’s play in some variations on the game that led to this position.

Those improvements were the subject of my chess lesson with some students earlier this month. Greco’s variations in this and other games lead one to suspect that he methodically sought to improve the defense in the short miniatures by which he is principally remembered. But, as I have noted in prior posts, these variations—better games—are absent from databases, although present in the books by Lewis and Hoffman.

Further study since presenting the lesson to my students has revealed that the exercise in Checkmates and Tactics was presented to Giacomo Buoncompagno, the Duke of Sora, by “an exceptional player” (more than likely Giulio Cesare Polerio). A Spanish manuscript kept in the Biblioteca Riccardiana in Florence dated in the last quarter of the sixteenth century presents the position and a comment about its presentation to the duke. Two Italian manuscripts (Elegantia and Regole) from the same time period offer the game, but only Riccardiana has the story.

The sixteen move game, thus, should be considered the work of Polerio, not Greco. It would take much time and travel to examine these manuscripts, but others have done so. Their work has been compiled into a useful table: "Openings and Games of the Classical Era of Modern Chess," in Peter J. Monté, The Classical Era of Modern Chess (2014), 439-530; the game in question here appears on 503.

At some point in Rome, Greco had access to some manuscripts containing Polerio’s work and made copies. In his 1620 manuscript dedicated to an unnamed cardinal of Casa Orsini, Greco wrote that Black had an alternate defense in this game. Improvements to Black’s play appear in four manuscripts a few years later—Grenoble (1624), Paris (1625), Orleans (undated), and Godolphin (undated, but possibly 1623).

As I have repeatedly emphasized on Chess Skills, Greco's games are poorly known because his best work does not appear in databases. In this case, Greco is credited with a composition by Polerio that he criticized and improved in his own work.

Here, then, is Greco's main (best) game from this opening with Polerio's and Greco's other work as variations.

Greco, Gioachino
Analysis, London? c.1623

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4

4.Nc3 c6 5.Bc4 h6 6.d4 d6 7.h4 Bg7 is the sequence in Polerio's mss--see move 15.

4...Bg7 5.d4 d6 6.Nc3 c6 7.h4 h6 8.hxg5 hxg5 9.Rxh8 Bxh8

The last move in Primo, an undated Greco manuscript (likely 1619). Greco notes that Black remains with a pawn up.

10.Ne5

Several posters on chessgames.com have noted that this move is an error, giving Black a clear advantage

10...dxe5 11.Qh5 Qf6 12.dxe5 Qg7

12...Qg6 offers Black chances, too, but the text is better.

13.e6 Nf6

13...Bxe6 is suggested on chessgames.com

14.exf7+

This position appears as a diagram in Lewis 1819

Black to move

Having inherited this miniature from Polerio's writings, Greco sought to improve Black's defensive efforts. He offers two better moves for Black--Ke7 and Kd8 and carries each forward with a plausible line.

a) 14...Ke7

14...Kf8?? leads to the diagram at the top of the article.

15.Bxf4 Nxh5
15...gxf4 16.Qc5# appears in Polerio's manuscripts.
15...Ke7 is still possible 16.Bxg5+-.

16.Bd6# Is the line in the databases and the main game in Hoffman and Lewis.

15.Qe2 Be6

Black has better moves, such as Bg4, but most of Greco's line offers the best moves for both sides.

16.Bxe6 Kxe6

So far, Black is slightly better, but White has active play against a vulnerable king.

17.Qc4+ Ke7 18.Qb4+ Kxf7 19.Qxb7+ Nbd7 20.Qxa8

Three of Greco's extant manuscripts end here, as do Lewis and Hoffman. David Levy & Kevin O'Connell, Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games, Vol. 1 1485-1866 (1981) makes the contents of Hoffman accessible in algebraic notation. Francis Beale, The Royall Art of Chesse-Play (1656) also ends here.

Perhaps Greco thought that the win of the rook was sufficient for the line. However, he extended analysis five moves longer in what became one of his more obscure manuscripts. According to Monté, the manuscript was believed to have been dedicated to Sir Francis Godolphin. Tassilo von der Lasa acquired it in 1856 and still had it in 1897, but after his death, its whereabouts became unknown until Alessandro Sanvito found it in a collection in Poland.

Black to move

20...Qh6 21.Qxa7 Qh1+ 22.Ke2 Qxg2+ 23.Qf2 Qxf2+

23...f3+ Black is slightly better.

24.Kxf2

Only now White is better, although what Greco thought is not clear. As the Godolphin manuscript would likely have been created in London, and is the most length analysis, a date of 1623 seems plausible.

With such a game, modern chess players armed with the latest Stockfish might still find faults in his analysis, but it should be clear that his strength exceeds the conclusions that are drawn when we associate him with Polerio's unacknowledged work.

Variation b is more clearly dated to 1624.

 

b) 14...Kd8

In this line, Greco's analysis is less precise. Although 14...Ke7 appears to give Black an advantage, with best play 14...Kd8 is equal.

White to move

15.Qxg5

A nice deflection!

15...Qxg5 16.f8Q+ Kd7?

An error.

16...Kc7=

17.Qxh8

17.Bxf4!! Stockfish 17...Qxf4 18.Rd1+ Nd5 19.Qxf4

17...Qxg2 18.Qxf6 f3

White to move

Black has threats, but White has a forced mate. Neither side plays the best moves in the conclusion of this variation.

19.Qf7+

19.Be6+!

19...Kd6

19...Kd8 is more stubborn.

20.Bf4+

20.e5+ Kc5 21.Be3+ Kb4 22.a3+ Ka5 23.b4# appears in Antonius van der Linde, De Kerkvaders der Schaakgemeente (1875).

20...Kc5 21.Na4+ Kb4

21...Kd4 22.c3+ Kxe4 23.Nc5# variation in Greco

22.Bd2+ Kxa4 23.b3+ Ka3 24.Qe7+ Kb2 25.Qe5+ Ka3

25...Kxc2 26.Rc1# variation in Greco

26.Bc1+ Kb4 27.c3#

This line and variations appears in two Paris manuscripts: Grenoble (1624) and Paris (1625), as well as the undated Orleans manuscript that appears to be copied from the Paris ms. While less precise, I could see extracting some checkmate exercises for my students from this variation.

Unsourced Quote

Garry Kasparov, My Great Predecessors, Part 1 offers a quote that he attributes to Lasker. He does not indicate whether Emanuel or Edward. Nor does he indicate the text where the quote appears. The brief reference list in Part V lists nothing by either Lasker. Two weeks ago I noted criticism of Kasparov's My Great Predecessors for poor documentation in "Plagiarism and Related Crimes".

The quote comes at the end of Kasparov’s brief discussion of Gioachino Greco, where he presents four games with light annotations to the fourth.

The masters of that time found a sound and fruitful plan: disregarding pawns, achieve a rapid development of the pieces for a swift attack on the enemy king. To oppose this, a counter-plan was worked out: develop the pieces in solid positions, accept the sacrifices and then win thanks to material superiority. The masters of the first type found and carried out brilliant combinations, whereas the second type discovered the Giuoco Piano, the fianchetto and the Sicilian Defense. (12)

It is an interesting narrative that would benefit from some illustrative examples.

I would like to locate the original source of this quote. Was it in an article or a book? I do not recall seeing this sort of historical discussion by Emanuel Lasker in Common Sense in Chess nor in Lasker’s Manual of Chess, although the assertion does seem preliminary to Lasker’s purpose in the latter to explicate and build upon ideas of positional play credited to William Steinitz.

Can anyone help?

Edit:

Eight hours after posting I found a version of the quote. No doubt, Kasparov is working from a Russian translation of Lasker’s original German. I am working from Lasker’s English edition, which he wrote because he thought a translation would be too literal to remain faithful. The quote derives from Lasker’s Manual of Chess (1947). I am using the 1960 Dover paperback edition.

The modern history of the art of planning began at the time of the Renaissance in Italy. The Italian Masters of that period conceived a fertile and sound plan: to get the pieces rapidly into play, to leave the pawns out of consideration and to institute a sudden and vehement attack against the king. The counter-play on its part did not fail in evolving an antagonistic plan: to develop the pieces and post them at safe points, to accept the sacrifices and to exchange the threatening pieces of the opponent, add to win by superiority in material force. The masters of the attack invented the brilliant combinations which began by cramping the king and proceeded to sacrifices in order to gain time and space for a direct assault on the king. The masters of the defense invented the systematic exchange of pieces which decreases the vigour of the hostile onslaught and at last breaks it. The masters of the fierce attack, discovered the Gambits, those of the defense the Giuoco Piano, the Fianchetti Openings, and the Sicilian Defense. (179-180)

Even accounting for differences in translation, it appears that Kasparov edited the passage slightly.

Greco on 2...Qf6

Gioachino Greco's explorations of an inaccuracy common among beginners deserve attention. This post does that, as promised in "How Bad is 2...Qf6?" Greco's games with 2...Qf6 all begin: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Qf6 3.Bc4 Qg6 4.O-O Qxe4 5.Bxf7

Black to move

Greco's explorations of this queen foray appear in the Paris (1625) and Orléans (n.d.) manuscripts. Peter J. Monté notes in The Classical Era of Modern Chess (2014) that Orléans was likely copied from the Paris MS (339), although some errors were corrected. Part II of this book, "Openings and Games of the Classical Era of Modern Chess" (439-530), has been an indispensable resource.

I have contended that Greco's games are poorly known, even by those who think they have studied all of them. Most players access these games through ChessBase or websites such as chessgames.com (currently 90 games). The latter has more Greco games, but both offer shorter versions of what is available in such old books as "Professor Hoffmann" [Angelo Lewis], The Games of Greco (1900), and William Lewis, Gioachino Greco on the Game of Chess (1819). These shorter versions miss the best of Greco's analysis.

A couple of years before the earliest version of what eventually became ChessBase Mega, David Levy and Kevin O'Connell made an effort to record all known games up to 1866 in Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games, Volume 1 1485-1866 (1981). They offer 77 Greco games, many annotated. These are extracted from Hoffmann's text. As with Lewis before him, Hoffmann buried the best analysis in the variations, which sometimes are much longer than the main game. Levy and O'Connell continue this practice.

The games in ChessBase come close to representing these abbreviated "main games" sans the variations. If the longest variation of each game were the main game instead, what most chess players know of Greco would be substantially enriched. Here I offer improved versions with notes. The notes show other lines that appear in Greco's manuscripts and in Hoffmann.

Greco,Gioachino [C40]
Paris, 1625

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Qf6 3.Bc4 Qg6

ChessBase Mega 2020 has four games with this move. Three are Greco's. The other was a fighting draw played in Germany in 2010. No rating is given for the player of Black, while White's is slightly over 2000.

4.0-0 Qxe4 5.Bxf7+

All of Greco's games reach this point. The analysis continues with lines that follow all three of Black's legal moves.

5...Kd8

5...Kxf7 6.Ng5+ Ke8 7.Nxe4 matches a game in CB Mega 2020 and also appears in the Paris MS.

White to move

6.Nxe5 Nf6

6...Qxe5 7.Re1 Qf6 8.Re8# Orléans. Game XXI, var. A in Hoffmann. This line ends with the same checkmate that can be found in one of the Greco selections in CB Mega 2020.

7.Re1 Qf5 8.Bg6

Black to move

8...Qe6

8...hxg6 9.Nf7# Game XXI, var. B in Hoffmann; Paris and Orléans MSS.

9.Nf7+ Ke8 10.Nxh8+ hxg6 11.Rxe6+ dxe6 12.Nxg6 1-0

Black to move

This game and its variations appear in Paris MS (1625) XXXIII; Orléans MS XXII. The game is XXI, var. C in Hoffmann.

Greco,Gioachino [C40]
Paris, 1625 

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Qf6 3.Bc4 Qg6 4.0-0 Qxe4 5.Bxf7+ Ke7

White to move

Greco considers every legal move for Black after the bishop check.

6.Re1 Qf4 7.Rxe5+

Black to move

Here, also, Greco considers every legal move for Black.

7...Kxf7

7...Kd8 Paris MS (1625) XXXIV. 8.Re8# This game appears in ChessBase Mega 2020.
7...Kf6 8.d4 Qg4 9.Bh5 Paris MS XXXIV.
7...Kd6 8.Rd5+ Kc6 9.Nd4+ Paris MS (9.Ne5+ Orléans MS)

8.d4 Qf6 9.Ng5+ Kg6 10.Qd3+

Black to move

10...Kh5

10...Kh6 11.Nf7# is given as the main line in Levy and O'Connell. Hoffmann, game XXII.

An essential aspect of Greco's technique in dealing with the horrid positions for which he is well-known is to seek to improve the losing side's defenses. When only the shortest versions of these games are known, this technique is hidden. 

11.Nf7+

11.g4+ is not attested by Monte, but is found in CB Mega 2020.
11.Nf3+ Kg4 (11...g5 12.Rxg5+) 12.h3# Orléans MS.

11...Kg4

11...g5 12.Rxg5+ Game XXII, var. B in Hoffmann.

White to move

12.h3+

Hoffmann writes, "Greco gives this move as mate, but this is obviously a slip, Black still having one square available" (65). Monte notes this error in Paris XXXIII (477).

12.Qg3# Monte notes that Greco overlooks this mate.

12...Kh4 13.Qg3# 1-0

This game appears in the Paris MS (1625) XXXIII. Also as Game XXII, var. A in Hoffmann.

Greco,Gioachino [C40]
Orléans, 1625

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Qf6 3.Bc4 Qg6 4.0-0 Qxe4 5.Bxf7+ Ke7

5...Kxf7 6.Ng5+ Ke8 7.Nxe4 is found in CB Mega 2020

6.Re1

Black to move

6...Qf4 7.Rxe5+ Kd6

7...Kf6 8.d4 Qg4 9.Bh5 Game XXIII, var. A in Hoffmann.
7...Kd8 8.Re8# Paris MS (1625) XXXIV; Orléans MS. Game XXIII in Hoffmann. This version is in CB Mega 2020.

8.Rd5+ Ke7 9.Qe1+ Kxf7 10.d4 Qf6

White to move

11.Ng5+ Kg6 12.Qe8+

Paris MS has an error here, corrected in Orléans.

12...Kh6 13.Nf7+ Kg6

White to move

14.Nxh8# 1-0

This game appears in the Orléans MS. Also Game XXIII, var. B in Hoffmann.

My view is that Greco's attacking technique against the best defense he found for Black is quite instructive. Of course, 2...Qf6 is a bad move, and 3...Qg6 is worse. Nonetheless, the simple refutations offered in the sample of these games in ChessBase Mega and on database websites have unjustifiably tarnished Greco's reputation. Much more of value exists in his model games than is generally believed.

Decisive Advantage

My students this week are seeing a series of positions in which White has a decisive advantage. Before suggesting moves, or seeing those that were played, I ask them to assess the position. What features account for White's substantial advantage?

The intent is for them to grow in their understanding that a player must use all their pieces in coordination. They should notice that in each position, White's pieces are more mobile, offer concrete threats, and work together. Students are also asked to understand the difference between the pieces on the board and the pieces in the battle. This dynamic imbalance is temporary unless the player wit the advantage acts with vigor.

I spent about an hour gathering 16 positions for these lessons, but no student so far has seen more than eight. The first two are from famous games that many of the students have seen before.

The first is from Paul Morphy's Opera Game.

White to move

The second is from Gioachino Greco's best known use of the Greco Attack (see "Cultivating Error"). I have had this position myself in at least 17 games, winning 16. The one loss was a bullet game where I inexplicably put a horse on a square earmarked for an elephant.

White to move

The third position highlights the relationship between space and mobility. It comes from a game that I played on Chess.com a few days ago.

White to move

Number four was presented at "Desperation". It highlights concrete checkmate threats. Number five is a textbook endgame exercise.

White to move

The sixth proves difficult for students to assess. It comes from a cyborg game played in a match organized by the International Correspondence Chess Association (ICCF). In this game, White used his intuition and a great deal of time on moves 13-15 to acquire mobile center pawns that confer a dynamic advantage.

White to move

Thomas Engqvist's analysis of Morphy,P. -- Morphy,A., New Orleans 1849 in 300 Most Important Chess Positions (2018) guided my selection of the seventh position (14-15).

White to move

How bad is 2...Qf6?

Players relatively new to the game are often warned not to bring their queen out too early The move 2...Qf6 after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 was examined early in chess history. It appears in several manuscripts that reflect the work of Giulio Cesare Polerio and Gioachino Greco, and also in a sixteenth century manuscript reflecting the work of Pedro Damiano and Luis Ramirez de Lucena.

White to move

What should White do? I was surprised that my database of online games contains only 65 games with this position as it seems that I see it often lately. My score of 66% wins with White is unpleasant, too. I should have more success, especially as this queen foray is more often played by lower rated players. In fact, I underperform against it with a performance rating more than 100 lower that my average rating. My database also shows that I played this move once. I won with Black.

In the vast majority of the 304 games in ChessBase Mega 2020 that reached this position, White opts for one of two natural developing moves: 3.Nc3 is most popular (133 games), and second most often played is 3.Bc4 (93 games). Both score approximately 75%. I have played both of these moves and several others.

Monday morning, I opted for 3.c3, which I had played at least seven times prior. Although appearing in only five games in CB Mega, it may be the oldest response. It appears in the sixteenth century German MS produced by an unknown author sometime after 1512, purporting to present the work of Damiano and Lucena. Peter J. Monté has a chapter devoted to this MS in The Classical Era of Modern Chess (2014) and offers two lines after 3.c3 in Part II.

My game continued:

3...Bc5 4.d4 exd4

The German MS has 4...Bb6 and then 5.Be3 (5.h3 h6 6.Nxe5 d6 7.Nf3) 5...d6 6.dxe5 dxe5 7.Bg5 Qg6 8.Qd8#.

Three games on Lichess went as far as 6...dxe5 and then all had 7.Bxb6. After 7.Bg5, Black must play 7...Qd6, of course. 5.Be3 is not the strongest move in this old line. 5.a4, 5.Nxe5, and 5.dxe3 all give White a decisive advantage.

White to move

5.e5

If Black brings out the queen early, I should kick it around.

5.cxd4 is preferred by Stockfish. 5...Bb4+ 6.Nc3. White has a clear lead in development.

Perhaps White should favor normal development. What principles guide the punishment of Black's early queen foray?

5...Qg6

Although the engine favor removing the queen to its starting square, such a move is not in the spirit of 2...Qf6.

6.cxd4

Stockfish would give up prospects of castling kingside with 6.Bd3! Qxg2 7.Rg1 Qh3 8.Rg3 Qe6 9.cxd4 with a decisive advantage in the judgement of the software.

6...Bb4+ 7.Nc3

White has a comfortable position. A couple of moves later, my opponent gave up the dark-squared bishop for the gain of a pawn. I went on to win. My play was sloppy, failing to find the strongest moves. My reluctance to give up the g-pawn for an opportunity to chase Black's queen with developing moves is one lesson I take from this game.

The Doazan manuscript credited to Polerio offers two main lines that follow from 2...Qf6 (see "Classic Bishop Sacrifice: Early History" for a discussion of this MS). One of these lines leads to a clear advantage for White, but the other is less clear.

Polerio,Giulio Cesare [C40]
Doazan MS, c.1610

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Qf6 3.Nc3 Bc5

White to move

3...Bc5 is a terrible move that allows White to exploit the position of the Black queen. Polerio offers an instructive line that is worth learning.

4.Nd5 Qd6 or Qg6 5.d4 Bxd4 6.Nxd4 exd4 7.Bf4 1-0

Polerio,Giulio Cesare [C40]
Doazan MS, c. 1610

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Qf6 3.Nc3 c6

This move is much better that 3...Bc5.

4.Bc4 Bc5 5.0-0 d6

White to move

White is better, but Polerio's line does not demonstrate an advantage.

6.h3

6.d4 is suggested by Stockfish with a clear advantage for White.

6...Be6 7.Bb3 Nd7 8.d3 h6 9.Kh1 Ne7 10.Ng1 0-0 11.f4 

Polerio's line ends here. The position seems close to equal.

Gioachino Greco's explorations of this queen foray appear in the Paris (1625) and Orléans (n.d.) manuscripts. Monté notes that Orléans was likely copied from the Paris MS (339). ChessBase has three games from these explorations, although the lines given in that database are not entirely attested by Monté's compilation of lines found in sixteenth and seventeenth century manuscripts. I plan another post showing what we can know of Greco's work on 2...Qf6. (edit: now posted at "Greco on 2...Qf6")

The Art of Analysis

How do you analyze a chess game?

I was thinking about this question this morning when I would have preferred to sleep another hour. Hence, I thought to open Irving Chernev, The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess (1955) to the next game and analyze it. Then, I would compare my annotations to those Chernev offers. I am working my way through this book.

While analyzing a game, I look at many possibilities that will vary depending on the game and why it has come to my attention. For miniatures, such as one finds in this classic Chernev text, I expect to find a game-losing blunder and sometimes a series of weak moves. I make an effort to identify these before seeking any assistance from the annotations of others or from engines.

Wills -- Sparks [C42]
USA, 1942
Stripes,James

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4?

This move is the critical error and a common beginner's mistake. There are few chess coaches who have not shown this error and the subsequent refutation to their students. It also appears in some of the oldest chess books and manuscripts (see the section on history below).

4.Qe2 Qe7

4...Nf6?? worsens matters and should be shown to beginners 5.Nc6+ wins the queen.

5.Qxe4

Black to move

5...d6 6.d4 f6

6...dxe5 and Black is a pawn down. Surely, this should be preferred to a futile effort for equality that cannot succeed against attentive play.

7.f4 Nd7 8.Nc3 dxe5

White to move

9.Nd5!+-

The refutation of Black's idea is a good example of an intermezzo. Instead of continuing a sequence of exchanges, White attack's Black's queen.

9...Qd6 10.fxe5 fxe5 11.dxe5 Qc6

11...Nxe5 12.Bf4 Yes, Black ends up a piece down, but that piece is a knight. Alternatives leave Black down a rook or a knight.
11...Qxe5 12.Qxe5+ Nxe5 13.Nxc7+ Kd8 14.Nxa8 Black may be able to trap the knight, being down only an exchange.

12.Bb5 Qc5 13.Be3 1-0

Chernev does not highlight the critical error, but offers some analysis after the game is already lost. His headnote, however, offers a clue to Black's fatal decision: "Mimicry can be very amusing, but in chess it usually turns out to be expensive fun" (91).

Wills -- Sparks [C42]
USA, 1942
Chernev,Irving

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4 4.Qe2 Qe7

The knight must not move, as the discovered check will cost Black his queen.

5.Qxe4 d6 6.d4 f6 7.f4 Nd7 8.Nc3 dxe5 9.Nd5 Qd6 10.fxe5 fxe5 11.dxe5 Qc6

11...Qxe5 12.Qxe5+ Nxe5 13.Nxc7+; or 11...Nxe5 12.Bf4 wins a piece

12.Bb5 Qc5 13.Be3 1-0

I must credit Chernev's sometimes cryptic annotations for driving me to think and analyze for myself when I first encountered this book 47 years ago.

History

Neither the players Wills and Sparks, nor this particular execution of these moves are well-known apart from Chernev's book, but the moves and ideas can be found in the texts of Pedro Damiano, Ruy Lopez. Giulio Cesare Polerio, Gioachino Greco, and others. In ChessBase Mega 2020, Greco's game is the oldest, but Chessgames.com has one attributed to Damiano.

The following game appeared in ChessBase News in Spanish and German versions on 21 May 2009. The only English versions I have found are Google Translate versions of these. The article is an interview with Mário Silva Araújo, an amateur historian who produced a biographical study of Damiano. Araújo suggests that Damiano fled Portugal to Rome because he was Jewish. In December 1496, King Manuel I of Portugal ordered the expulsion of Jews from the nation. According to Araújo, "It is the oldest known game played--and won--by a Portuguese."

Damiano [C42]
Rome 1497

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4 4.Qe2 Qe7 5.Qxe4 d6 6.d4 f6 7.f4 Nd7 8.Nc3 dxe5 9.Nd5 Qd6 10.dxe5 fxe5 11.fxe5 Qc6 12.Bb5 Qc5 13.Be3 Qxe3+

The game presented on chessgames.com lists Araújo's study as its source and concludes 13...Qxb5 14.Nxc7

14.Nxe3 1-0

Early Petrov lines similar to those in these games span pages 449-452 in Peter J. Monté, The Classical Era of Modern Chess (2014), "Part II. Openings and Games of the Classical Era of Modern Chess". There the move order presented from Damiano's published text and its many reprints have 7...dxe5, but still reach a position after White's move 11 that is shared by all the games presented in this post.

Black to move

There are several continuations from this point in manuscripts from the late fifteenth century to Greco's seventeenth century work: 11...Qc6, 11...Qc5, and 11...Qg6. Monté also presents a fair number of alternatives to the main line that were explored in these manuscripts. Whoever Sparks may have been, he fell prey to one of the oldest known opening fiascos.

Following Greco

In the headnote to the game, Irving Chernev mentions four later publications, each with different players, that follow an eight-move miniature that he presents in The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess (1955).* It would seem that this particular Gioachino Greco composition frequently occurs in actual play.

The earliest extant record of this game appears in Greco's MountStephen manuscript (1623). Chernev claims that it appeared in a book published by Greco in 1619. Greco never published a book. Nonetheless, the 1619 date appears with this game in many places. Greco's work is known through slightly more than two dozen extant manuscripts, as well as a few that were once known and were copied before they disappeared. Greco's sojourn in Rome is known through four manuscripts that were produced in 1619 or very early in 1620. But, this game appears only in later MSS: MountStephen, mentioned above, and Paris (1625), as well as a few documents derived from Greco's MSS.**

The rest of Chernev's note withstands scrutiny. The note, preceding game 23, reads:

    In 1891 the Deutsches Wochenschach published a pretty game won by Deichmann. The same game appeared in the Deutsche Schachzeitung of 1917 with K.J. as the winner. Chess Review printed the score in 1935 with Pearsall the victor over X. In his book Lehrreiche Kurzpartien, Herr Benzinger gives himself credit for the win.
    These claimants and a few others will have to step aside though and make room for a fellow known as the Calabrese, Gioachino Greco.
    Away back in 1619 he published a book of his games. This is one of the brilliants which graced this early collection. (9-10)

The game score appears in descriptive notation in Chernev's text. Here I present it in algebraic.

1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Bd3 f5 4.exf5 Bxg2 5.Qh5+ g6 6.fxg6 Nf6 7.gxh7 Nxh5 8.Bg6#

I often present the checkmate in two to beginning students.

Three of Chernev's four references have been digitized and are readily accessible. The game appears in Deutsches Wochenschach (December 1891), 412. An extra set of moves is included that are absent from Greco's version.

The Deutsche Schachzeitung was also easily located (158-159). It shows the initials of the player of White as K.Sz.J. A note explains that the game had been played in Budapest and was copied from a Hungarian publication. In Chess Review (July 1935), Arnold Denker comments, "Very, very old, but always amusing; the Black player had ideas" (155). The player with White, Allen G. Pearsall, is sufficiently well-known that chessgames.com has six of his correspondence games and a win against Frank Marshall from a 20-game simul in San Diego. Game 31 in Chernev is another Pearsall miniature.

Josef Benzinger, Lehrreiche Kurzpartien (1938) has not been digitized and presented on the Web, so far as I have found, but a copy exists in the Cleveland Public Library.

The "few others" referenced by Chernev must number in the thousands. Several commentators on the game at chessgames.com claim they have played this miniature. 3...f5 appears 1393 times in the FICS Database. In the overwhelming majority, however, 6...Bg7 was played instead of moving into mate in two with 6...Nf6. After 6...Nf6, ten games have 7.g7+ (an error) and 19 have 7.gxh7+. That is still 19 instances of the miniature on the Free Internet Chess Server.

An astounding 22,410 games on Lichess have the nearly fatal 3...f5 and a much higher percent (~20%) of those that continue to follow Greco's line play 6...Nf6. Alas, 7.g7+ is played nearly as often as 7.gxh7+. A total of 818 games on that site conclude with Greco's 8.Bg6#.

If the Chess.com explorer allowed full archive access in that manner afforded by Lichess, surely there would be at least another thousand or so instances of this game. One of my youngest students memorized Greco's game earlier this summer, so the repetitions should continue.


*Please see "My First Chess Book" (2012) for a description of the importance of this book to my early development as a chess player.
**My source for the early records of this and other games is Peter J. Monté, The Classical Era of Modern Chess (2014), "Part II. Openings and Games of the Classical Era of Modern Chess".

Classic Bishop Sacrifice Before Greco

In Chess Gems: 1,000 Combinations You Should Know (2007), Igor Sukhin presents this position which he credits to an 1594 manuscript produced by Giulio Cesare Polerio.

White to move

Polerio's Ordini MS is dated 1594 in the dedication to an unnamed lord. In "Part II. Openings and Games of the Classical Era of Modern Chess" of The Classical Era of Modern Chess (2014), Peter J. Monté presents a game opening from this MS that concludes with the classic bishop sacrifice (519), which sometimes is called Greco's Sacrifice or the Greek Gift.

Polerio,G.C.
Ordini MS 1594

1.e4 e6 2.d4 Bb4+ 3.c3 Ba5 4.f4

Rapid advance of the c- and f-pawns was advised by Polerio against closed positions "gioco stretto" (see Monté, 236).

4...Nf6 5.Bd3 O-O 6.Nf3 d5 7.e5 Ne8

White to move

8.Bxh7+

9.Ng5 and Qh5 will follow.

This position differs in a few particulars from the one presented by Sukhin. The line that leads to Sukhin's position appears in the Doazan MS. I discussed this game and the Doazan MS at the end of March in "Classic Bishop Sacrifice: Early History". As noted there, the manuscript is of uncertain authorship and date. Monté includes it in the grouping he labels the Polerio-complex. Its contents have much in common with other MSS more clearly the work of Polerio.

Two earlier Polerio MSS offer another variation leading to the classic bishop sacrifice. The first was acquired by J.A. Leon, who presented its contents in British Chess Magazine (August 1894) and then later that year in a small book, Forty-Six Games of Chess by Giulio Cesare Polerio. Based on the handwriting, Monté believes, it is "the work of an anonymous writer who could copy Polerio's notes at leisure" (222). This Leon MS may have preceded one presented to Giacomo Buoncompagno, named Boncompagno MS No. 2 by Monté. The dedication addresses Giacomo as the Duke of Sora, a title he assumed 12 March 1580. In October 1583 acquired an additional title not in the dedication, suggesting the MS must have been presented sometime 1580-1583.

This version appears to be the earliest known example of the classic bishop sacrifice. It is the work of Polerio a full decade prior to the date given by Sukhin.

Polerio,G.C.
Leon MS 1583

1.e4 e6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Bd3 Bb4+ 4.c3 Ba5 5.Nf3 O-O 6.e5 Nd5

White to move

7.Bxh7+

Before Greco

As I mentioned in my article in March, there have been those who credited nineteenth century chess masters with what many today call Greco's Sacrifice. Greco certainly deserves credit for demonstrating the conduct of the game all the way to the end, but the sacrifice itself was known earlier. There are at least four versions that precede Greco.

1) Polerio's earliest, appearing in the Leon and Boncompagno-2 MSS from the early 1580s.

2) Polerio's second, appearing in the Ordini MS, 1594
3) The Doazan MS version, possibly connected to Polerio. Probably early seventeenth century.
4) Salvio's version, published in Trattato dell' Inventione et Arte Liberale del Gioco Degli Scacchi (1604).

Greco may have seen Polerio's early version, but Salvio's version is the one that he developed in his own manuscripts.

Final Worksheet

My after school chess club started doing worksheets when COVID reached such numbers that we wanted to maintain social distancing during chess club, not allowing the children to crowd together for a lesson at the demo board. When we could again use the demo board, we continued with the worksheets. Today was the last club meeting this school year, so I created a special worksheet.

Three of these appeared on previous worksheets.

Find the correct move for White in each diagram. Draw an arrow showing the correct move. Answers are in order of piece value from weakest to strongest (and then most important).

1. Mate in one

2. Win material

3. Start an attack

4. Mate in two

5. Mate in five

6. Assure pawn promotion

Classic Bishop Sacrifice: Early History

Gioachino Greco (c.1600-c.1634) is usually credited with the discovery of the classic bishop sacrifice on h7, at least by those who bother to look into the matter historically. A few years ago some writers suggested the sacrifice was of more recent invention. These days, perhaps because Greco's games are better known, most writers have given up on such ideas.

Although the best known early example of the sacrifice comes from Greco, he appears to have learned the idea from Alessandro Salvio (c.1575-c.1640), who published some lines employing the sacrifice in Trattato dell' Inventione et Arte Liberale del Gioco Degli Scacchi (1604).

White to move

In 1996, Edward Winter posed the question in his column, "When was the Bxh7+/Ng5+ attack first played"?* He proceeds to demonstrate Irving Chernev's confusion on the matter, claiming Morphy -- Guibert, Paris, 1858 in Chess Review (April 1950) and in The Chess Companion (1968), while two pages later in this book Chernev suggests Paulsen -- Schwartz 1879. Winter asks, "what about Greco", noting that Chernev includes Greco's game in The 1000 Best Short Games of Chess (1955), where it is game 199 (90). 

The version of the game in Chernev's collection of miniatures is identical to the second variation of the twenty-third game in William Lewis, Gioachino Greco on the Game of Chess (1819) and game XXV, variation A in Professor Louis Hoffmann [Angelo Lewis], The Games of Greco (1900). Hoffmann's game and variations appear in David Levy and Kevin O'Connell, Oxford Encyclopedia of Chess Games, Vol. 1 1485-1866 (1981). This version, sans the variations in Lewis and Hoffmann, appears in  ChessBase Mega 2020. Chessgames.com has Lewis's twenty-third game, instead of his variation A.

A longer version appears in Francis Beale, The Royall Art of Cheese-Play (1656). In Beale's version, Black's bishop first checks from b4 and then retreats to e7 after White's c-pawn blocks the check.

None of these books or databases offer the whole of Greco's analysis evident in his manuscripts. Both the extent of Greco's analysis and that which preceded his work becomes clear in "Part II. Openings and Games of the Classical Era of Modern Chess" (439-530) in Peter J. Monté, The Classical Era of Modern Chess (2014). I first mentioned this definitive work on Chess Skills with "Monumental Scholarship" (June 2020). Monté offers an analysis tree that ends every line with the names of sixteenth and seventeenth century manuscripts where these lines appear. He also references a few later published books, such as Beale, that are grounded in manuscripts.

Jon Edwards, Sacking the Citadel: The History, Theory and Practice of the Classic Bishop Sacrifice (2011) came into my possession a few days ago and provoked my interest in creating this article. Edwards attempts to give Greco his due, while acknowledging that Giulio Cesare Polerio may have "discovered it first" (8). He offers an admirable effort to present a more detailed biography of Greco and some context to place Greco in his times. Edwards draws on a number of Renaissance histories to construct his narrative. Unfortunately, he seems a little too trusting of dubious accounts and does not source his claims well. Some information is clearly grounded to a text, but mostly the author presents only a general bibliography of sources at the back of the book.

As Edwards tells it, Greco read Salvio's Trattato and Ruy Lopez's text, showed promise, and began studying with Don Mariano Marano (13-14). The claim that Greco studied under Marano derives from Richard Twiss, Chess (1787) and was repeated by Lewis in his book on Greco's games mentioned above (vii). Monté notes a number of historians who have expressed doubts concerning Twiss's claim. Salvio states only that Greco met Marano twice. Monté states, "an early acquaintance with Marano is based only on a rather vague suggestion by Salvio" (319).

That Greco was in Rome in 1619-1620 is better attested. No less than four extant Greco manuscripts exist from this time and indicate Greco's presence in Rome. Two of these manuscripts are undated and two are clearly dated early 1620. "[A]ll approximately dated facts of Greco's life are exclusively provided by his manuscripts", according to Monté (321).

Turning now to Monté's 90 page opening tree and documentation, we find variations containing the classic bishop sacrifice absent from the standard texts containing Greco's games (Beale, Lewis, and Hoffmann).

1.e4 e6 2.d4 c6

This strange move is absent from all modern references to Greco's games, but appears in three manuscripts of unknown authorship classified by Monté as part of the Lopez-complex: Elegantia, Regole, and Riccardiana (146, 156ff, 518). The idea is to bring Black's queen out with check. The check only occurs after White plays c4, a move recommended by Lucena.

3.Bd3 Be7 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.h4 Kg8&Re8

Castling, as we know it today, is older than Greco, but was not universally adopted. There were local variations. Some places there was a range of choices a player could make as to the squares where the king and rook ended up during the move. The placement of the rook on e8 makes the bishop sacrifice to come less forcing as Black's king has an additional option after accepting the sacrifice, as well as a second square for refusing.

6.e5 Nd5 7.Bxh7+ Kxh7 8.Ng5+

Black to move

The three main options 8...Bxg5, 8...Kg6, and 8...Kg8 all appear in Salvio's Trattato (1604). Greco adds additional lines or extends them. Because 8...Bxg5 has more variations, I begin with the other two.

a) 8...Kg6 9.h5+

Salvio ends here. Greco adds:

9...Kh6 10.Nxf7+ K moves 11.Nxd8 with these moves appearing in the Orsini (1620) and Lorraine (1621) manuscripts.

b) 8...Kg8 9.Qh5 Bxg5 10.hxg5

This line is in Salvio, Orsini, and Lorraine.

c) 8...Bxg5 hxg5+

And now, Black has 9...Kg6, 9...Kg8 appearing in Salvio and two Greco manuscripts. I will not present all of this analysis. You can find it in Monté's book, and it reappears in the games of others in the twentieth century. Here Edwards' analysis shines.

Noteworthy is 9...Kg6 10.Qh5+ Kf5 11.Qh3+ Kg6 (11...Ke4 12.Qd3#) 12.Qh7# in Salvio, and two early Greco MSS. For 11.Qh3+, see below.

Lines with 3...Nc6 instead of 3...c6 do not appear in Salvio, but appear in a larger number of Greco manuscripts, beginning with Mountstephen (1623), one of the London MSS.

Game 1 in Edwards, Sacking the Citadel appears in ChessBase Mega 2020, Lewis, and Hoffmann.

1.e4 e6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Bd3 Nc6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.h4 0-0 6.e5 Nd5 7.Bxh7+ Kxh7 8.Ng5+ Bxg5 9.hxg5+ Kg6 10.Qh5+ Kf5

White to move

11.Qh7+

Edwards comments, "Chernev was the first to mention a quicker checkmate with 11.Qh3+" (96). He does not indicate where Chernev offers this analysis. Nonetheless, the sequence appears in Salvio, as noted above, albeit with the difference that Black played 3...c6 instead of 3...Nc6.

11...g6 12.Qh3+ Ke4 13.Qd3# 1-0

It appears that Greco's early manuscripts are almost completely lifted from Salvio with respect to the French Defense and the classic bishop sacrifice. By 1623, however, Greco was developing his own ideas and adding variations.

Did Salvio, rather than Greco, first discover the Bxh7+ sacrifice? Perhaps not. In the Doazan manuscript, there may be an earlier version. The MS was sold in 1827 and then offered for sale again in 1841, In 1843, its new owner, Gabriel Eloy Doazan introduced it in an article in Le Palamède. When Doazan died in 1864, it was sold again and lost. The bulk of its contents were transcribed by Tassilo von der Lasa in 1855. It is from these transcriptions that we know much of its content.

Doazan dated the manuscript to 1600, but not much credence is given by historians to his claims.

The manuscript is of unknown authorship and date, but may reflect the work of Polerio and his associates. Some of the games are credited to other players. A line credited to Giovanni Domenico contains the classic bishop sacrifice.

1.e4 e6 2.d4 Nc6 3.Nf3 Be7 4.c3 Nf6 5.Bd3 O-O 6.h4 d5 7.e5 Ne8

White to move

8.Bxh7+ Kxh7 9.Ng5+ Bxg5 10.hxg5+

It appears that is as far as the game goes, but we know the possible conclusions.

Greco's games, especially if more of them were made available in databases, remain the most detailed early analysis of the classic bishop sacrifice. He copied lines from Salvio, and may have been exposed to ideas from even earlier. Greco developed these lines further. 

*Winter's question appeared in Kingpin (August 1996), and then again in Chess Notes 7979 "Greek Gift", which references the republication of the Kingpin column in Kings. Commoners, and Knaves (1999).