% BOOKTITLE = My Great Predecessors (part 1)
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "About this Publication"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1952.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2012.10.05"]
{The battle for the World Chess Championship has witnessed numerous titanic
struggles which have engaged the interest not only of chess enthusiasts but
also of the public at large. The chessboard is the ultimate mental
battleground and the world champions themselves are supreme intellectual
gladiators. --- These magnificent compilations of chess form the basis of the
first two parts of Garry Kasparov's definitive history of the World Chess
Championship. Garry Kasparov, who is universally acclaimed as the greatest
chessplayer ever, subjects the play of his predecessors to a rigorous analysis.
} 1. -- {Part one features the play of champions Wilhelm Steinitz (1886-1894),
Emanuel Lasker (1894-1921), Jose Capablanca (1921-1927) and Alexander Alekhine
(1927-1935 and 1937-1946).} (1. -- {Garry Kasparov is generally regarded as
the greatest chess player ever. He was the thirteenth World Champion, holding
the title between 1985 and 2000. His tournament record is second to none,
featuring numerous wins in the world's major events, often by substantial
margins. As well as his outstanding successes, Kasparov has constantly
promoted the game; he has done more than anyone to popularize chess in modern
times.}) *
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Introduction"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "2009.12.10"]
[SourceDate "2013.01.12"]
{The Champions as Symbols of their Time: For quite some time I have been
wanting to write a book on the new and modern history of chess. And moreover,
deviating from the traditional approach, to demonstrate the continuous
progress of the game through the play of the world champions. Since it is this
elite group of super-stars (only 14 in 117 years!) that has made the greatest
contribution to chess: to win the supreme title, they had to overcome the best
of the best, discover something new, and catch highly experienced and talented
opponents unawares. --- According to official legend, a slow war game not
unlike chess originated nearly two thousand years ago in India, and,
undergoing slight changes, made the endlessly long journey through the south
of Central Asia, Persia and the Arab countries of the Middle East, to the
Iberian Peninsula. However, the 'Indian' version of the origin of chess became
known to Europeans only at the end of the 17th century. Only one thing can he
stated with certainty: modern chess originated in the 15th century on the
Mediterranean. And this is already a purely European invention - an
intellectual game, modelling psychological warfare. --- The best chess masters
of every epoch have been closely linked with the values of the society in
which they lived and worked. All the changes of a cultural, political and
psychological background are reflected in the style and ideas of their play.
This deep connection can be traced back a long time. Was it not logical that,
in the era of the Renaissance, in the 15th-17th centuries, chess developed
most rapidly in Spain and Italy? Was it an accident that the first maestro,
who tried to create a theory of positional play, lived in the epoch of the
Enlightenment and of the philosophy of rationalism - the great François-André
Philidor (incidentally, a well-known composer and a friend of Diderot)? And
remember the slogan that he proclaimed in the middle of the 18th century -
'The pawns are the soul of chess!' Do we not hear in this echoes of the coming
Great French Revolution?} 1. -- {Later, in the first half of the 19th century,
in full accordance with geopolitical reality, chess was the arena for battles
between the best players from England and France: McDonnell-La Bourdonnais,
Staunton-Saint-Amant... In the middle of the century the outstanding chess
romantic Adolf Anderssen was the leading player. His style was that of
reckless attacks on the king, with mind-boggling sacrifices, personifying the
triumph of mind over matter (fully typical of an educated German, and not
alien to the ideas of Hegel and Schopenhauer). --- We also remember the
brilliant flight of the American super-genius Paul Morphy, who in a couple of
years (1857-59) conquered both the New and the Old Worlds. He revealed a
thunderous blend of pragmatism, aggression and accurate calculation to the
world - qualities that enabled America to accomplish a powerful spurt in the
second half of the 19th century. --- The London international tournament of
1883 intrigued the public: who was in fact the stronger - Wilhelm Steinitz or
Johann Hermann Zukertort? And in 1886 (only after Morphy's death!) they
finally met in an official match for the title 'Champion of the World'. That
was how this title arose - the result of public recognition of the result of a
match between the two strongest players on the planet. Running through the
fourteen champions of the world, we again observe an inseparable link between
chess and social surroundings.} (1. -- {Wilhelm Steinitz (world champion
1886-1894): Steinitz effectively dominated chess from the early 1870s. He was
an ardent follower of the scientific method, which could, in his opinion,
provide the key to the solving of any problems arising on the chessboard. He
was the first to divide a position into its component elements, to pick out
its most important factors, and to state the general principles of strategy.
This was a great discovery, a turning point in chess history! But in practice
Steinitz often overestimated the importance of the theory of positional play
he had created, and relied excessively on abstract principles. Well, he was a
true child of his materialistic time, when there prevailed a naďve belief in
the omnipotence of science and in the inevitability that soon all natural
processes would be completely understood.}) (1. -- {Emanuel Lasker (world
champion 1894-1921): A native of Germany, a Doctor of philosophy and
mathematics, Lasker was the first, and at that time the only player to
appreciate the importance of psychological factors. While being an excellent
tactician and strategist, at the same time he realised that the art of
exploiting the opponent's deficiencies was sometimes far more important than
the ability to make the most correct moves. A deep knowledge of human
psychology and an understanding of the relative value of chess strategy helped
him to win almost all the events in which he competed, and to retain the title
of champion for 27 long years. An absolute record! And who at that time were
the masters of thinking? Of course, Einstein and Freud! As they say,
commentary is superfluous...}) (1. -- {José Raúl Capablanca (world champion
1921-1927): 'The chess machine' - this was what the Cuban genius was called,
on account of the purity of his playing style. A favourite with the public, he
was a person of refined manners and a man of the world. The great Capa crushed
his opponents in an apparently offhand manner, with exquisite ease and
elegance. Also attractive was the fact that he gained his brilliant victories
apparently without any serious preparatory work on chess. But now remember
that time - the years of hope and optimism, when the world was enjoying the
peace and quiet after the horrors of the First World War. It was at that time
that the global export of American cultural values began - from literary
bestsellers to Hollywood productions. Stories involving successful heroes,
with dazzling smiles and invariable happy endings, healed the wounds of the
recent war. And Capa, a successful socialite and a spoilt child of fortune,
corresponded excellently with the spirit of the times.}) (1. -- {Alexander
Alekhine (world champion 1927-1935, 1937-1946): The product of a rich noble
family - and at the same time the first champion of Soviet Russia! Even before
this he had known much sorrow in the hard times of war and revolution. Then
came emigration to France, the diploma of Doctor of Law, the grandiose battle
with Capablanca, years of travelling, victories and defeats, the Second World
War, tournaments in occupied Europe, then accusations of collaboration with
the Nazis and the threat of disqualification... Alekhine's style was the
embodiment of psychological aggression. Enormous preparatory work, explosive
energy at the board, and a maniacal striving to finish off the opponent,
together with rich combinative imagination. All this amazingly resembles the
devastating wars that shook Europe in the first half of the 20th century.
Towards the end, the pendulum of Alekhine's life was about to swing back: the
new Soviet champion Botvinnik officially challenged him to a match for the
world crown. However, the king died prematurely, thus remaining undefeated.}) (
1. -- {Max Euwe (world champion 1935-1937): A symbol of the age of scientific
and technological revolution, the start of the era of atomic energy and the
computer. An earnest follower and populariser of the teachings of Steinitz, 'a
pragmatist, who studied everything that had been published in chess,' Euwe was
also a Doctor of Mathematics and a prominent specialist in electronics; at one
time he was chairman of the Euroatom commission on chess programming. He was
the first of the chess kings to become President of FIDE (1970), not without
the influence of Botvinnik, who thought that 'only a chessplayer who has been
world champion can understand the importance of the firm and just rules for
conducting competitions for the world championship.'}) (1. -- {Mikhail
Botvinnik (world champion 1948-1957, 1958-1960, 1961-1963): From his youth a
staunch communist. The cold, merciless style of the Patriarch of the Soviet
Chess School, based on deep opening and psychological preparation - is this
not a symbol of the might of the Stalin regime! In order to play at the
highest level, Botvinnik studied chess very seriously, scientifically and
professionally. He was champion in the initial years of the Cold War, when
sport emerged into the world political arena, and was transformed into an
instrument in the ideological battle between East and West. But professional
sport was then only in its infancy, while science was being drawn into atomic,
cosmic and computer ventures. I should remind you that Botvinnik was a Doctor
of Technology and one of the pioneers of chess programming.}) (1. -- {Vasily
Smyslov (world champion 1957-1958): Undoubtedly a symbol of the early thaw,
the comparatively libertarian era. The death of Stalin, the 20th Communist
Party Congress, the start of the rehabilitation of the victims of repression,
the world youth festival in Moscow... Onto the chess throne climbed a mild,
intelligent man with a fine baritone voice, who had dreamed of a singing
career. He was not a communist, and his deep religiousness as though
anticipated the approaching rebirth of the Orthodox Church. In addition,
Smyslov's style was much lighter and more airy compared with Botvinnik's
tank-like onslaught. These giants played three matches against each other!
Alas, Smyslov, who was then clearly the strongest player in the world, did not
hold the championship for long: the previous era did not want to give way.}) (
1. -- {Mikhail Tal (world champion 1960-1961): Although his tenure of the
championship lasted a record short time, Tal undoubtedly remains one of the
brightest stars in the history of chess. His daring, risky style with its
stunning combinations and sacrifices, his youth, irrepressible optimism and
wit - all this reflected the hopes of Soviet society, which had barely awoken
after the darkness of Stalinism and had eagerly breathed a gulp of freedom in
the Khrushchev thaw. Tal became champion in 1960, but his sparkling play won
over the public as early as 1956. His victory over Botvinnik was the triumph
of a restless poet over a cold materialistic technician (in 1951 Bronstein had
come close to this, but the time had not yet arrived). But in the return match
held a year later the young romantic had no chance of success against the
'bulwark of the Soviet system'. Incidentally, it was in 1961 that the first
signs of the ending of the thaw appeared. The hard-line supporters had
triumphed...}) (1. -- {Tigran Petrosian (world champion 1963-1969): The ideal
son of his time, who replaced Botvinnik. This was the period of the 'early
Brezhnev', a time of the methodical tightening of the screws. The proceedings
against Brodsky, the trial of Sinyavsky and Daniel, the invasion of
Czechoslovakia, the complete stifling of freedom of speech... Belief in
communist ideals lessened, and its place was taken by conformism, reticence,
caution and discretion. And for Petrosian, with his difficult childhood, sober
prudence and enormous natural talent, these qualities were present in full
measure.}) (1. -- {Boris Spassky (world champion 1969-1972): A kind of Soviet
dandy, the master of the spectacular attack, a natural actor on the chess
stage. Also a great talent, but at the same time a bold and independent person,
known for his caustic, unprejudiced comments. In contrast to other celebrities,
he never clung to power, did not try to get anything out of it and never tried
to squeeze political capital out of his name. Spassky's dissident behaviour,
like that of a number of prominent figures in science and culture, reflected
the growing hostility of the post-Stalin generation of Soviet people to the
decaying regime. A new wave of emigration began... In 1976 Spassky also
escaped to freedom, married a French woman and moved to a suburb of Paris. But
he was deprived of the red flag and his stipend from the USSR Sports Committee
only after Linares 1983, where the former world champion took first place,
ahead of the current champion Karpov.}) (1. -- {Robert James Fischer (world
champion 1972-1975): The most restless and ambiguous champion. By achieving
unprecedented successes he became a living legend. Fischer's energetic style
is that of a 'killer at the chessboard': monstrous purposefulness, furious
pressure, sweeping away everything in its path... The lone genius challenged
the formidable Soviet Chess School - and, to the delight of the West, he won!
He firmly and uncompromisingly demanded improvements in playing conditions,
and respect for chess and chessplayers. Fischer modernised practically all
aspects of the ancient game and could well have implemented its conversion
onto professional lines. But due to certain traits of his character and his
extreme individualism, in the end he became a recluse and slipped out of the
onward process of chess development. A pity, since it could have been brought
onto a fundamentally different level only by Fischer - an outstanding
contemporary of the Beatles, hippies and mass disturbances by students,
demanding greater individual freedom...}) (1. -- {Anatoly Karpov (world
champion 1975-1985): Karpov's powerful instinct for survival, multiplied by
his unique chess talent, gave birth to a super-solid alloy of Lasker's
psychological refinement with Capablanca's impeccable, machine-like technique.
A favourite of Brezhnev and a vivid symbol of 'stagnation' - the last decade
of the regime, when the USSR invaded Afghanistan, and the party authorities,
hiding behind the screen of the decayed ideology, did everything to engage in
personal enrichment. Precisely during these years the International Chess
Federation (FIDE) became an organisation run by the countries of the socialist
camp and the Third World, and effectively by the Soviet Union and its world
champion Anatoly Karpov. Corruption, stagnation, cynicism and conformism -
these were the typical features of Soviet reality in the twilight communist
era. But the West accepted the idea of the peaceful coexistence of the two
systems and was ready to live with double standards for a long time yet. The
two matches for the world crown between Karpov and Korchnoi (1978 and 1981)
are an excellent illustration of that period. Korchnoi, even after becoming a
Westerner and enlisting the support of the free world, was unable to withstand
the heartless might of the Soviet machine.}) (1. -- {Garry Kasparov (world
champion 1985-2000): I see my own style as being a kind of symbiosis of the
styles of Alekhine, Tal and Fischer. I became champion in the historic year of
1985, the first year of Gorbachev's perestroika, which led to the break-up of
the USSR and a fundamental change in the map of the world. A storm of change
swept the planet, overturning the lives of millions of people. In chess too
the old order could not survive. After a number of desperate attempts to
reanimate the past (a further three matches with Karpov!), it nevertheless
broke away on a new path and is aiming to become one of the main types of
professional sport. However, many changes still lie ahead - both in chess, and
in the world as a whole.}) (1. -- {Vladimir Kramnik (world champion 2000-?):
On the border of the 20th and 21st centuries, in Russia, and also in the West,
it became the time of the pragmatic market and questions such as 'What is your
company worth?' or 'How much are your shares?' And there came into chess a
person who personified this approach with his style of play and life. The
champion-like scale of his talent was evident back in the early-90s, when I
insisted on the inclusion of Volodya in the Russian Olympiad team, but his
chess style reached completion only by the time of our match in 2000. This is
the height of pragmatism, a quaint synthesis of the psychological insight of
Lasker, the deep opening preparation of Botvinnik and the extraordinary
tenacity of Karpov, whose collection of games was Kramnik's bedside book...}) (
1. -- {A truly symbolic place for the history of chess is Prague - a city
where in May 1836 the first world champion Steinitz was born, and where in May
2002 the FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, together with the 13th and 14th
champions, signed a 'Resolution for uniting the chess world'. A line was
thereby drawn under the historic dispute regarding to whom the title 'Champion
of the World' belongs: as a result of the unification, the only rightful owner
and the only organisation, staging the official world championships, remains
FIDE. This was a serious, but necessary concession on the part of the
champions: today there is no other way of attracting money into chess from big
corporations and of ensuring a decent living for hundreds of professionals.
--- Next in turn is the creation of dynamic system for conducting the world
championship - a two-year cycle, consisting of a qualifying knock-out
tournament, quarter-final and semi-final candidates matches and a match for
the world championship of 12 games; moreover, the champion will now join in at
the semi-final stage, and subsequently even at the quarter-final. --- To all
appearances, the former significance and symbolism of the title 'Champion of
the World' will fade into the past. What can be done? The rapid acceleration
in the tempo of life, and the overall computerisation and commercialisation
also exert an enormous influence on chess. Its development is entering a new
stage - the practical realisation of accumulated ideas, and at the forefront
is the competitive element. It is possible that my match with Kramnik (London
2000) will be the last to make serious changes to our understanding of the
game...}) (1. -- {Tal once made the fair comment that the history of the
battle for the world championship is created not only by the champions, but
also by their brilliant rivals. And indeed, apart from the world champions
there is another small elite group of players who have played an enormous role
in the development of chess (some of them were very close to the supreme title
and did not win it, perhaps only due to mysterious caprices of fate). One
remembers the names of Zukertort, Chigorin, Tarrasch, Pillsbury, Schlechter,
Rubinstein, Nimzowitsch, Réti, Keres, Bronstein, Geller, Larsen, Polugayevsky,
Korchnoi... Of course, their fates are also inseparable from their times, and
I will endeavour to talk at least briefly about each of these chess giants.
--- But now it is time to be on our way. Awaiting you is a wonderful
collection of masterpieces, created by the best chessplayers in the world and
studied under the microscope of the latest analytical computer programs; hence
- a great number of amazing finds and discoveries. I hope that this work will
make it possible to see the colossal evolution of chess during the past one
hundred and fifty years, which is fully comparable with scientific and
technological progress. --- I hope also that my book will interest not only
professionals and inveterate chess enthusiasts, but also those who are not yet
imbued with a deep love for this ancient, truly royal game.}) (1. -- {Garry
Kasparov, April 2003}) *
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "1: Chess before Steinitz"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{The stages in the development of chess resemble the path taken by everyone
who proceeds from a beginner to a player of high standard. Initially they all
unconsciously reproduce the manner of play in the 16th and 17th centuries:
never missing a chance to give check, bring the queen immediately into play
and, not thinking about the development of all the pieces, launch a dashing
attack on the king. The combination either succeeds, or suddenly turns out to
be completely incorrect. The level of defence is terrible and there is a
complete absence of any deep plan. --- This style, inspired by the talent and
imagination of the performers, became known in chess as the 'Italian School'.
A manuscript of its legendary representative Gioacchino Greco (1600-1634) is
full of miniatures resembling those that occur with all novices:} 1. -- (1. e4
e5 2. Nf3 Qf6 $2 3. Bc4 Qg6 4. O-O Qxe4 $2 5. Bxf7+ $1 Ke7 6. Re1 Qf4 7. Rxe5+
Kxf7 8. d4 Qf6 9. Ng5+ Kg6 10. Qd3+ Kh5 11. g4+ {and mate}) (1. e4 e6 2. d4 Nf6
$6 3. Bd3 Nc6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. h4 O-O $2 6. e5 Nd5 7. Bxh7+ $1 Kxh7 8. Ng5+ Bxg5
9. hxg5+ Kg6 10. Qh5+ Kf5 11. Qh7+ g6 12. Qh3+ Ke4 13. Qd3#) (1. e4 e5 2. f4 f5
$6 3. exf5 Qh4+ 4. g3 Qe7 5. Qh5+ $6 (5. fxe5 $1 Qxe5+ 6. Qe2 {is better}) 5...
Kd8 6. fxe5 Qxe5+ 7. Be2 (7. Qe2 $1 Qxf5 8. Bh3) 7... Nf6 8. Qf3 d5 9. g4 $2 h5
$1 10. h3 $2 hxg4 11. hxg4 Rxh1 12. Qxh1 Qg3+ 13. Kd1 Nxg4 14. Qxd5+ Bd7 15.
Nf3 Nf2+ 16. Ke1 Nd3+ 17. Kd1 Qe1+ 18. Nxe1 Nf2# {. What is this, if not a
monument to the era! Just take a look at White's queenside...}) ({However,
Greco also has some theoretically valuable variations - for example, a famous
attack with a rook sacrifice in the Italian Game:} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4
Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Bb4+ 7. Nc3 Nxe4 8. O-O Nxc3 (8... Bxc3 $1) 9.
bxc3 Bxc3 (9... d5 {is better}) 10. Qb3 (10. Ba3 $1 {is even stronger}) 10...
Bxa1 $2 (10... d5 $1) 11. Bxf7+ $1 Kf8 12. Bg5 Ne7 13. Ne5 $1 Bxd4 ({or} 13...
d6 14. Bg6 $1) 14. Bg6 $1 d5 15. Qf3+ Bf5 16. Bxf5 Bxe5 17. Be6+ Bf6 18. Bxf6 {
and wins.}) ({'The masters of that time,' writes Lasker, '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 masters of the second type
devised the systematic exchange as a means of weakening and in the end
parrying the attack. The masters of the first type were the inventors of
gambits, whereas the second type discovered the Giuoco Piano (i.e. 'quiet
play' in the Italian Game:} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. d3 ({or} 4. Nc3 {
- Garry Kasparov, subsequently referred to as G.K.), the fianchetto and the
Sicilian Defence.' Who could have known then that the modest 'Sicilian' would
become the main and sharpest opening of our times?})) ({The gambit-combinative
mood reigned in chess until the mid-18th century, until the appearance of
François-André Danican Philidor (1726-1795), an outstanding player and,
incidentally, a well-known composer, one of the founders of French comic opera.
In his youth Philidor used to visit the Café de la Régence in Paris, where he
learned the game from the strongest French player Legall (who does not
remember the famous mate which bears his name:} 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 d6 3. Nf3 Bg4
4. Nc3 g6 5. Nxe5 Bxd1 6. Bxf7+ Ke7 7. Nd5# {). In a match in 1747 he crushed
the talented Syrian player Stamma, the inventor of the algebraic notation and
the author of a popular collection of 100 problem and study positions (1737).})
*
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "L'analyse"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "79"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{Philidor was so much stronger than his contemporaries, that from that point
until the end of his life he played them all, only by giving away odds.
Therefore the most significant chess event of the era was not his victories at
the board, but his creation of an absolutely innovatory manual 'L'analyse du
jeu des Échecs' (1749, 1777, altogether about 100 editions!). Philidor was the
first to subject the openings to a systematic, scientific study and to draw up
certain general playing principles. --- As a counter to the reckless piece
attacks in the style of the Italian School, which in the 18th century were
personified by the masters from Modena - Lolli, del Rio and Ponziani, he was
the first to put forward a positional plan, based on a distinctive pawn theory:
'Pawns are the soul of chess; on their correct or bad arrangement depends the
success of attack or defence; the art of playing with them decides the fate of
the game.' --- Pawns in front, pieces to the rear - this, expressed briefly,
was Philidor's plan. I will give a typical example from 'L'analyse',
illustrating this argument} 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Bc5 3. c3 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. cxd4
Bb6 6. Nc3 O-O 7. Nge2 c6 8. Bd3 d5 9. e5 Ne8 10. Be3 f6 11. Qd2 fxe5 12. dxe5
Be6 13. Nf4 Qe7 14. Bxb6 axb6 15. O-O Nd7 16. Nxe6 Qxe6 17. f4 Nc7 18. Rae1 g6
19. h3 d4 20. Ne4 h6 21. b3 b5 22. g4 Nd5 23. Ng3 {(with the unequivocal
threat of f4-f5)} Ne3 {The knight advances to cut off communications between
[the white] pieces and break the strength of [his] pawns; which he would
undoubtedly do, by pushing his g-pawn; but [White] prevents him by sacrificing
[his] rook.' (Philidor)} 24. Rxe3 $1 dxe3 25. Qxe3 Rxa2 ({The inhibiting} 25...
Rae8 {would appear to be more tenacious, although here too White has an
appreciable advantage.}) 26. Re1 $1 {'So that the e5- pawn should not be left
in the lurch when f4-f5 is played.' (Philidor)} Qxb3 27. Qe4 Qe6 28. f5 $1 {
(here it is, Philidor's dream!)} gxf5 29. gxf5 Qd5 30. Qxd5+ cxd5 31. Bxb5 {
(White does not even have a pawn for the exchange, but his pair of connected
passed pawns is very strong)} Nb6 32. f6 {'If you have a light-squared bishop,
you should place your pawns on dark squares; if a dark-squared bishop, then on
light squares. Since then your bishop will prevent the enemy pieces from
establishing themselves between your pawns.' One of the classic rules of
Philidor, which was later adopted by Steinitz.} Rb2 33. Bd3 Kf7 34. Bf5 Nc4 35.
Nh5 {(with the unavoidable e5-e6)} Rg8+ 36. Bg4 Nd2 37. e6+ Kg6 38. f7 {.
'Then the pawn (e6) promotes to a queen and White wins.' For example,} Rf8 39.
Nf4+ Kg7 40. Bh5 {and e6-e7.} (40. -- {Philidor discovered the eternal
principle of the coordination of the forces - 'genuine attacks are carried out
by the united efforts of many pieces' (in this respect his best pupil was
Morphy) - and he formulated several other valuable rules: 1. 'An attack should
never be begun before the pawns leading it are thoroughly supported' (and they
should be deployed in a compact chain - a phalanx). --- 2. 'Pawns, especially
central ones, that have advanced to the fifth rank, lose part of their
strength, since then they can easily be attacked by the enemy pawns from the
sixth rank' (a direct panegyric upon the Alekhine Defence!). --- 3. 'It is
always advantageous to exchange your f-pawn for the e-pawn, since this leads
to the seizure of the centre and, in addition, to the opening of a file for
the rook' (the ideology of the King's Gambit and an opening of the 19th
century - the Vienna Game).}) (40. -- {Play in accordance with the pawn theory
was often protracted, concluding deep in the endgame. Philidor's investigative
gift vividly displayed itself in this field too: an enormous step forward was
provided by his now classical analyses of the endings 'rook and pawn against
rook', 'rook and bishop against rook', 'queen against rook and pawn', and so
on. It is from typical endgame positions that the concept of a plan originates.
--- However, the problem for the further development of chess was that the
great French master was too far ahead of his time: no one was able to play
successfully in the manner proposed by him - it all reduced to protracted and
fruitless manoeuvring. The chess world was simply not yet ready for the
general principles of positional play, especially in closed positions, and for
more than half of the 19th century the romantic trend of the Italian School
dominated - which, nevertheless, as we shall see, greatly enriched chess.}) *
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "First Matches for the Crown"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "12"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{First Matches for the Crown: After the death of Philidor, for a long time
there was no clearly strongest player in Europe. In the early 1820s the
contenders for this role were Frenchman Alexander Louis Deschapelles
(1780-1847) and the prominent British chess writer William Lewis (1787-1870).
Then it was their pupils who became the leaders - Louis Charles de la
Bourdonnais (1795-1840) and Alexander McDonnell (1798-1835). --- La
Bourdonnais was born into a distinguished noble family, but he gradually
squandered his wealth and earned his living from chess alone - in those days
this was a thankless occupation even for the very best, and the great maestro
was barely able to make ends meet. Although he had studied Philidor's
'L'Analyse', he nevertheless played in a different, intuitive attacking style,
in keeping with his own temperament. In the words of Lasker, 'However the
adversary chose to march his troops, intrepidly La Bourdonnais followed him
and fought for the centre of the board with courage and imagination.' --- In
1833 he published a manual 'New treatise on the game of chess' (also published
later in Russia), where for the first time advice was given on how to work
independently with a chess book and learn to calculate variations in the mind.
And in 1836 la Bourdonnais founded the world's first chess periodical - the
monthly 'Le Palamčde' (the name of a mythical Greek hero, a participant in the
Trojan War, to whom in France the invention of chess was attributed for a long
time; in my view, this is indirect evidence of its Mediterranean origin: the
myth could well have arisen after the real wars of the 13th-15th centuries).
--- Back in 1824, on a visit to London, La Bourdonnais crushed the English
masters and was proclaimed by his compatriots as 'the greatest chess player in
Europe.' The English tolerated this position for 10 years, until the time a
worthy opponent to the Frenchman appeared. --- The Irishman Alexander
McDonnell (1798-1835) was a merchant, the secretary of a respectable trading
firm, i.e. quite a prosperous man and, in contrast to La Bourdonnais, a chess
amateur. A player of sharp combinative style, from the outset he would launch
into a fierce battle and often had to pay for this. One only has to think of
his provocative gambit} 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4 g4 5. Nc3 $6 ({If
White does not want to play} 5. Ne5) ({then the Polerio-Muzio Gambit} 5. O-O {
really is better.}) 5... gxf3 6. Qxf3 {.} -- ({One of his match games with La
Bourdonnais continued} 6... Bh6 7. d4 $1 Nc6 8. O-O Nxd4 $2 9. Bxf7+ Kxf7 10.
Qh5+ Kg7 11. Bxf4) ({and another} 6... Nc6 7. d4 Nxd4 8. Bxf7+ Kxf7 9. Qh5+ Kg7
10. O-O {also with an attack for White}) ({although after} 6... d6 $1 7. d4 Be6
{the advantage is with Black.}) *
[Event "1: Fourth match, London"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1834.??.??"]
[Round "16"]
[White "McDonnell, A."]
[Black "La Bourdonnais, L."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B32"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "74"]
[EventDate "1834.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{The organiser of the series of six matches between McDonnell and La
Bourdonnais was another pupil of William Lewis - George Walker, a theoretician,
historian and writer, the founder of the Westminster Club. The famous
'Westminster marathon' (London 1834) was essentially the first battle for the
chess crown, the forerunner of official matches for the world championship.
The winner, as is well known, was La Bourdonnais: +45 -27 =13 (according to
other sources, +44 -30 =14). The following remarkable game has remained for
ever as the French master's visiting card.} 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 ({In the Parisian
Café de la Régence they preferred} 2. f4 {- in his time Deschapelles had
asserted that 'any other move is advantageous to Black', and McDonnell several
times played this against La Bourdonnais, but after} Nc6 3. Nf3 e6 4. c3 d5 5.
e5 f6 {and ...Nh6 the Frenchman was more successful (+4 -8 =1). Later Staunton
also thought that 2 Nf3 was a mistake and that 2 f4, as Saint-Amant played
against him, was better. But Morphy categorically disagreed with this, calling
2 f4 'a completely incorrect method of play', and the moves 2 Nf3 and 2 d4
'the strongest'. It is clear, wouldn't you agree, which of these disputants
could see into the future...}) 2... Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e5 $1 {The
exclamation mark is for the breakthrough in time! La Bourdonnais makes a move
which became the starting point of a variation developed 150 years(!) later by
grandmaster Sveshnikov.} ({The 12th game of the match went} 4... Nxd4 $2 5.
Qxd4 e6 6. Bc4 $6 (6. Nc3 $1 {is more accurate}) 6... Ne7 7. Nc3 Nc6 8. Qd1 Bc5
9. O-O O-O {with a slightly inferior game.}) 5. Nxc6 ({Nowadays every
schoolboy knows that} 5. Nb5 {should be played. After this from the late 1950s
they used to play} a6 6. Nd6+ Bxd6 7. Qxd6 Qf6 {, for example:} 8. Qd1 (8. Qa3)
({or even} 8. Qxf6 Nxf6 9. Nc3 {is also good}) 8... Qg6 9. Nc3 Nge7 10. h4 h5
11. Bg5 d5 12. Bxe7 d4 13. Bg5 dxc3 14. bxc3 Qxe4+ 15. Be2 f6 16. Be3 Bg4 {
with equality, Fischer-Tal, Curaçao Candidates 1962), but 12 exd5! retains an
advantage. Then Sveshnikov showed that 5...d6! 6 c4 Be7 is more solid - here
White has only a minimal initiative. --- However, 5 Nxc6 is perhaps better
than its reputation. In pre-Steinitzian times they aimed for rapid development
and an attack, and did not pay attention to such positional nuances as the
weakness of the d5-square.}) 5... bxc6 6. Bc4 Nf6 ({Löwenthal recommended} 6...
Ba6 {(with the idea of 7 Bxa6 Qa5+ and ...Qxa6), but after} 7. Nd2 Bxc4 ({or}
7... Qa5 8. O-O Nf6 9. Qe2) 8. Nxc4 Qe7 9. O-O Qe6 10. b3 Nf6 11. Bb2 {White
retains some advantage.}) 7. Bg5 $6 {A futile, anti-positional move: why
exchange this bishop?} ({Also harmless is} 7. Qe2 Be7 8. Nc3 O-O 9. Bg5 Nxe4 (
9... h6 $5) 10. Bxe7 Nxc3 11. Qxe5 Re8 12. O-O Qxe7 13. Qxc3 d5 14. Bd3 Qd6 {
with equality, as in a previous game of the same match.}) ({But} 7. O-O $1 {is
more logical.} -- ({. In the well-known game Morphy-Löwenthal (London 1858)
after} 7... d5 $6 8. exd5 cxd5 9. Bb5+ Bd7 10. Bxd7+ Qxd7 11. Re1 Bd6 $6 12.
Nc3 (12. Bg5 $1 {is more accurate}) 12... e4 $2 ({even the superior} 12... Qe6
13. Bg5 Bb4 14. Bxf6 gxf6 15. Nxd5 O-O-O 16. c4 Bxe1 17. Qxe1 {would have left
White with the initiative}) 13. Bg5 {Black encountered great difficulties.}) (
7... Nxe4 $6 8. Re1 d5 {is bad because of} 9. Rxe4 dxe4 $2 10. Bxf7+ $1 {.}) ({
. However, in the event of} 7... Be7 $1 8. Nc3 O-O 9. Qd3 d6 {White would have
been unable to count on anything. He has a free game, it is true, so the
outcome of the opening is acceptable for both sides...})) 7... Be7 ({The 11th
game of the match went} 7... Bc5 8. O-O h6 9. Bxf6 Qxf6 {.}) 8. Qe2 $6 ({I
agree with Chigorin, who proposed} 8. Nc3 Bb7 9. Qe2 d5 10. Rd1 {. After} d4
11. O-O O-O 12. Nb1 c5 13. Nd2 Nd7 {Black is alright, but for the moment White
too has not yet spoiled anything.}) 8... d5 ({This is more energetic than} 8...
O-O {, as recommended by a number of commentators.}) 9. Bxf6 $2 {But this is a
serious error.} ({'White could have advantageously simplified the game:} 9.
exd5 cxd5 10. Bb5+ Bd7 11. Bxd7+ Nxd7 12. Bxe7 Qxe7 13. Nc3 {with pressure on
the central pawns.' (Neishtadt) Excuse me: after} d4 14. Nd5 Qd6 15. c4 O-O 16.
O-O Nb6 $1 {this pressure is worthless.}) 9... Bxf6 10. Bb3 O-O 11. O-O a5 {
(with the threats of 12...a4 and 12...Ba6)} 12. exd5 cxd5 13. Rd1 d4 14. c4 $2
{Apparently the decisive mistake: it was wrong to allow Black's pawns to
become passed, since it does not prove possible to blockade them on the light
squares.} ({After} 14. Nd2 a4 15. Bc4 a3 16. b3 Bb7 {White would simply have
stood worse (the opponent has the two bishops, the centre, and so on), but he
could still have held on.}) 14... Qb6 15. Bc2 Bb7 16. Nd2 Rae8 ({The greedy}
16... Qxb2 $2 {would have thrown away Black's entire advantage:} 17. Qd3 g6 18.
Rab1 e4 $1 19. Nxe4 (19. Rxb2 exd3 20. Bxd3 {is equal}) 19... Bxe4 20. Rxb2
Bxd3 {with a probable draw.}) 17. Ne4 ({Even so,} 17. Be4 $5 {was more
tenacious.}) 17... Bd8 (17... Be7 $5 {was also good.}) 18. c5 Qc6 19. f3 Be7
20. Rac1 f5 $1 {The beginning of the end: the bishops are firing from afar,
and the pawns break through in the centre, for which Black does not begrudge
giving up the exchange!} 21. Qc4+ Kh8 ({But not} 21... Qd5 $2 22. Qb5 Bc6 {in
view of} 23. Bb3 Bxb5 24. Bxd5+ Kh8 25. Nd6 Bxd6 26. cxd6 Rf6 27. Rc5 Rb8 28.
f4 $1 {, when it is now Black who is worse:} e4 29. Bb7 $1 Bd7 30. Rxd4 $1 Rxb7
31. Rc7 Rxb2 32. Rxd7 {.}) 22. Ba4 Qh6 23. Bxe8 $2 ({The last possibility of
sharpening the play was} 23. Nd6 $1 Bxd6 24. Bxe8 ({or} 24. cxd6 Rc8 {and wins}
) 24... Bc7 25. c6 e4 26. cxb7 Qxh2+ 27. Kf1 exf3 28. gxf3 Bg3 $1 ({Romanovsky
only considered} 28... Qh3+ 29. Ke2 Rxe8+ 30. Kd3 Qxf3+ 31. Kc2 Qxb7 32. Qxd4 {
, although even here after} h6 {Black is slightly better}) 29. Qxd4 Rxe8 {,
and now not} 30. Rd2 $2 ({but the computer move} 30. Rc3 $1 {, and Black still
has to work for his win:} h5 $1 31. f4 h4 32. b8=Q $1 Rxb8 33. Rd2 Qh1+ 34. Ke2
Qe1+ 35. Kd3 Qf1+ 36. Kc2 Bxf4 37. Qf2 Qxf2 38. Rxf2 g5 39. Rxf4 gxf4 40. Rh3
Kg7 41. Rxh4 Rb4 {with a won endgame}) 30... Qh1+ 31. Qg1 Qxf3+ 32. Rf2 Bxf2
33. Qxf2 Qxb7 {with two extra pawns (Neishtadt).}) 23... fxe4 $1 {(the
avalanche of passed pawns sweeps away everything in its path)} 24. c6 ({Or} 24.
Qb5 Ba6 25. Qc6 exf3 26. gxf3 Qe3+ 27. Kh1 Be2 {and wins.}) 24... exf3 25. Rc2
({White loses after both} 25. cxb7 $2 Qe3+ 26. Kh1 fxg2+ 27. Kxg2 Rf2+ 28. Kg1
Re2+) ({and} 25. gxf3 Qe3+ 26. Kh1 Qxf3+ 27. Kg1 Rf5 {.}) 25... Qe3+ 26. Kh1
Bc8 ({The computer also suggests} 26... d3 27. Qxd3 Qxd3 28. Rxd3 f2 29. Rxf2
Rxf2 30. h3 Bc8 31. c7 Rc2 32. Bc6 g6 {winning.}) 27. Bd7 f2 (27... d3 $5 {.})
28. Rf1 d3 29. Rc3 Bxd7 30. cxd7 e4 {(with the threat of 31...Qe2 32 Rcc1 e3)}
31. Qc8 Bd8 ({The commentators also pointed out another way to win:} 31... Rd8
$5 32. Rcc1 d2 33. Rcd1 Qe1 (33... Qf4 34. Qc4 Bd6 {is also possible - G.K.})
34. Qc3 e3 35. Rdxe1 dxe1=Q 36. Rxe1 Bb4 $1 {.}) 32. Qc4 ({Or} 32. Rcc1 d2 33.
Rcd1 Qf4 $1 {with the threats of} 34. -- Bc7 ({and} 34... e3 {.})) 32... Qe1
33. Rc1 d2 34. Qc5 Rg8 35. Rd1 e3 36. Qc3 Qxd1 37. Rxd1 e2 {What a phalanx!
Philidor would certainly have been delighted by such a fantastic pawn surge.
--- This inimitable finish is one of the most remarkable positions to have
occurred in the 19th century! --- 'The tactical play of La Bourdonnais, in
ensuring the advance of his passed pawns, creates a strong impression,' writes
Yakov Neishtadt in his book 'Nekoronovannye Chempiony' (The Uncrowned
Champions). 'And yet to a much greater degree this game reveals his strategic
superiority. The combinations of La Bourdonnais were based on a sounder
positional foundation. These were the first steps of the strategy that was to
be brilliantly demonstrated in the late 1850s by Paul Morphy.' It is hard not
to agree with this: La Bourdonnais did indeed play more deeply than his
opponent, seeing strategic trumps which the latter was unaware of, and it was
this that decided the matches.} 0-1
[Event "2: Match, Paris"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1843.??.??"]
[Round "21"]
[White "Saint-Amant, P."]
[Black "Staunton, H."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "E14"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "132"]
[EventDate "1843.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{It was enormously regrettable that soon afterwards both of these outstanding
players died prematurely. The implacable dispute between England and France
was continued by Howard Staunton (1810-1874) and Pierre Charles de Saint-Amant
(1800-1872). --- Staunton learned to play chess comparatively late in life,
and he did not meet either McDonnell or La Bourdonnais in person, but by the
early 1840s he was already superior to all his rivals, who gravitated,
according to Lasker's classification given above, towards masters 'of the
second type'. The scale of his chess activity is impressive! A Shakespearian
scholar by profession, he nevertheless founded and edited the magazine 'Chess
Player's Chronicle' (1841-1854), wrote a chess column in the 'Illustrated
London News' (1845-1874), studied opening theory (in particular, he devised
the gambit 1 d4 f5 2 e4!?), published four remarkable chess books: 'Chess
Player's Handbook' (1847 plus a further 18 editions over the next 70 years), a
collection of the games from his three main matches (1849), a collection of
the games from the first international tournament in London (1852) and 'Chess
Praxis' (1860), which also included games by Morphy. He endorsed the famous
'Staunton pieces', which for a century and a half now have been used
throughout the world, organised the first international tournament in history
and was the first to try and set up an international chess organisation... ---
His opponent Saint-Amant was then the best player at the Café de la Régence,
that Parisian temple of Caissa, and he enjoyed a considerable reputation not
only as a chess player and a successful merchant, but also as an editor (in
1842 he revived 'Le Palamčde') and as a representative of France in
international chess affairs. --- Negotiations about a match proceeded with
difficulty, but in November 1843 Staunton finally arrived in Paris and in the
hall of the Café de la Régence, with a record crowd of spectators, the clash
between the two strongest players of the Old World began. The winner was to be
the first to win 11 games. The stir created by this, as the papers wrote,
'great chess battle between France and England' was indeed great! The French
were sure that Saint-Amant would win (six months before this he had defeated
his opponent in a short match: +3 -2 =1), but bitter disappointment awaited
them. --- After eight games the score was +7 =1(!) in Staunton's favour, and
after the 15th game the Englishman was only one step from his goal: +10 -3 =2.
True, this proved to be not an easy one to make: Saint-Amant displayed his
tenacity and won in the 16th, 19th and 20th games... And yet the inevitable
was bound to happen.} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 {'The Queen's Gambit... is a very sound
and instructive method of opening the game; less brilliant, because less
hazardous, than the gambits on the King's side, but especially improving to
the student, from the nicety and correctness of play on both sides which it
demands.' (Staunton)} e6 3. e3 c5 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. Nf3 Be7 {Strangely enough, a
Tarrasch Defence!} ({Moreover, before this, from the seventh to the 17th game,
Staunton played it with its main, symmetrical variation -} 5... Nc6 {.}) 6. Bd3
b6 (6... dxc4 $1 {.}) 7. O-O O-O 8. b3 Bb7 {And now the position on the board
is from the 'central variation' of the Queen's Indian Defence.} 9. cxd5 {A
rather premature exchange, provoked by a desire to block the bishop at b7.} ({
Nowadays} 9. Bb2 cxd4 10. exd4 Nc6 11. Qe2 $5 ({or} 11. Rc1 {would have been
played. However, it is hard to condemn seriously the opening and middlegame of
this game: the players were proceeding through virgin territory, intuitively
trying to grasp the rudiments of positional play.})) 9... exd5 10. Qc2 $6 {The
queen is misplaced here;} ({either} 10. Bb2) ({or} 10. Qe2 {was better.}) 10...
Nc6 11. a3 a6 $6 {A superfluous move;} ({if} 11... Rc8 12. Bf5 {did not appeal
to Black}) ({then the immediate} 11... cxd4 {really was better.}) 12. Rd1 $6 ({
More logical was} 12. dxc5 $5 bxc5 13. Na4 {, besieging the hanging pawns (and
if} Rc8 {, then} 14. Qe2 {, correcting his slight error).}) 12... cxd4 13. exd4
h6 {'Preventing the enemy bishop from going to g5 and freeing the knight from
having to defend the h7-pawn.' (Saint-Amant)} 14. b4 $6 {An unnecessary
weakening.} (14. Bf4 {was more solid.}) 14... Bd6 $1 15. Re1 b5 {(also not
essential)} 16. h3 Rc8 17. Qb3 Qc7 18. Bd2 Qb6 19. Be3 Ne7 20. Rac1 Nh5 $6 {(a
rather strange manoeuvre)} 21. Qd1 $1 Nf6 22. Nh4 $6 {A no less strange
manoeuvre.} ({Nowadays any candidate master would without thinking play} 22.
Ne5 $1 {(into the centre, closer to the c5-square), with a slight but enduring
advantage.}) 22... Rc7 23. Qd2 Nh7 {Also a quite unnecessary move,} ({since
after the obvious} 23... Rfc8 $1 {it is bad to play} 24. Bxh6 $2 gxh6 25. Qxh6
{in view of the counter} Ne4 $1 {(with the threat of ...Bh2+ and ...Qxh6). But
'just in case' Staunton defends against the sacrifice...}) 24. Qc2 ({Not} 24.
Bxh6 $2 gxh6 25. Qxh6 $4 Bh2+ {and ...Qxh6.}) 24... Nf6 25. Kh1 $6 {Yet
another strange move. As Spassky likes to joke in such cases, 'if it had been
possible, he would have gone to h0...'} Ne8 (25... Bc8 $1 {suggests itself, to
control f5 and play the bishop to the normal square e6.}) 26. Nf5 $6 {(an
obvious positional mistake, exchanging the passive knight at e7)} Nxf5 27. Bxf5
a5 $1 28. Qb3 axb4 29. axb4 {Here the game, which had already lasted more than
eight hours, was adjourned for one hour. After that Black launched a
counter-offensive and seized the initiative:} Rc4 $1 30. Na2 Nf6 31. Bd3 {'In
the vain hope of driving away the audacious rook...' (Neishtadt)} Qc6 $1 {(a
prototype of the 'Petrosian' exchange sacrifice!)} 32. Qb2 (32. Bxc4 $4 dxc4 {.
}) 32... Qd7 $1 33. Kg1 $1 ({Too dangerous is} 33. Bxc4 $2 dxc4 34. Kg1 {
(parrying the threat of ...Qxh3)} Nd5 35. Bd2 Bc7 $1 36. Qc2 Qd6 37. g3 f5 {
with a powerful attack.}) 33... Nh5 {Not even thinking about retreating the
rook, although, in my view, the preparation of ...f7-f5 is not very much in
keeping with the exchange sacrifice.} 34. Qd2 $6 ({For some reason the
commentators did not mention that here} 34. Bxc4 dxc4 35. Nc3 {followed by
d4-d5 was now possible. Of course, Black has full compensation for the
exchange, but nothing terrible for White is apparent.}) 34... f5 35. f4 $2 {A
positional blunder, catastrophically weakening the light squares.} (35. Bxc4
dxc4 36. f3 {, not mentioned by anyone, was better. In the game
Spassky-Petrosian (Moscow 7th matchgame 1966) in a similar position White had
to play f2-f4, whereas here nothing forced him to do so! However, all these
errors are excusable: this happened nearly 160 years ago, and one can merely
remark on the gigantic progress in chess mastery.}) 35... Ng3 36. Bxc4 {
(nevertheless...)} dxc4 $1 {(activating the bishop at b7)} 37. Qb2 Rf6 38. Nc3
Ne4 39. Re2 Rg6 (39... Rg6 {with the threat of} 40. -- Nxc3 41. Qxc3 (41. Rxc3
Qe7) 41... Qe7 42. Rb2 (42. Rb1 Bxf4) 42... Qe4 43. Rcc2 Rg3 44. Re2 Bxf4 {.})
40. Rd1 $6 {Returning the exchange, but, in the words of Staunton 'it is
extremely difficult for White to determine what line of play is best here.'}
Nxc3 41. Qxc3 Bf3 ({The recommendation} 41... Qe7 $6 {(intending ...Qe4) is
not very successful on account of} 42. d5 $1 Bxb4 43. Qb2 {with unnecessary
complications.}) 42. Rde1 {'The other rook should have been played,'
Saint-Amant asserted in Le Palamčde.} ({But Staunton refuted him in the Chess
Player's Chronicle by} 42. Ree1 Bxd1 43. Rxd1 Qe7 (43... Rg3 {is also possible}
) 44. Rb1 Rxg2+ ({or immediately} 44... Qe4 45. Rb2 Bxb4 {, and 'in every case
Black's game is won'}) 45. Kxg2 Qe4+ {.}) 42... Bxe2 43. Rxe2 Qe7 44. Qb2 Re6
45. Kf2 Re4 46. Qa2 Kf7 ({Missing the simple} 46... Bxf4 {winning}) (46... Kh7
{is also good.}) 47. g3 {White is forced to open a way into his position for
the black queen.} Qb7 (47... g5 $5 {.}) 48. Qa3 Re8 49. Qc3 $6 (49. Re1 {was
more tenacious.}) 49... Qh1 50. h4 g5 $1 51. Qe1 Qh2+ 52. Kf1 Qh3+ 53. Kg1 Qg4
$1 54. hxg5 {Here it was already turned midnight, and the game was adjourned
until the following day. In a hopeless position Saint-Amant fought on to the
last bullet.} Bxf4 55. Bxf4 Qxe2 56. Qxe2 Rxe2 57. gxh6 c3 58. Kf1 Re4 59. Bc1
Kg6 60. d5 c2 61. Bd2 Rxb4 62. d6 Rd4 63. Ke2 Rxd6 64. Ke3 Kxh6 65. Ke2+ Kg6
66. Ke1 b4 {. The game lasted 14 hours! --- Staunton won the 'match of his
life' (+11 -6 =4), gaining a certain revenge for McDonnell's defeat. The
winner endured both the pressure of the fanatical Parisian enthusiasts, and
the tiring waiting for his opponent's replies (Saint-Amant thought endlessly
over every move, and the average length of the games reached nine hours). ---
Yes, this unhurried match differed strikingly from the fierce encounters
between La Bourdonnais and McDonnell! Staunton played cautiously, intuitively
trying to grasp the principles of positional play (which, with the exception
of a few rules by Philidor, had not yet been recorded and formulated). Every
now and then the closed and semi-open games were tried, allowing the quiet
development of the pieces. Saint-Amant acted in the same solid, rather dry
manner, but not so successfully... An interesting evaluation was given by
Lionel Kieseritzky, one of the most original masters of those times: 'Staunton
plays strictly correctly for development, understands the position deeply, is
composed and quickly orientates himself. But Saint-Amant has not achieved the
strength of La Bourdonnais and Deschapelles; both adversaries played one and
the same openings... events developed slowly.' --- And nevertheless this match
became the next, after Philidor, significant step in the development of chess
strategy, the understanding of the deep regularities of the game and the art
of manoeuvring. 43 years later, at a higher level, this line would be
continued by the Steinitz-Zukertort match...} (66... -- {In 1846 Staunton
declined a challenge by Kieseritzky, but on the other hand he convincingly won
matches to the best of 21 decisive games against the well-known masters
Bernhardt Horwitz (+14 -7 =3) and Daniel Harrwitz (+12 -9 =1; in 15 of these
games Staunton gave the odds of a pawn), thus reinforcing - with the help also
of his newly-invented gambit 1 d4 f5 2 e4!? - his reputation as the number one
player in the world. --- Despite this, Staunton was not properly recognised by
either his contemporaries, or chess historians. But in 1964 Fischer included
him in his ten best masters of all time, declaring: 'Staunton was the most
profound opening analyst of all time. He was more theorist than player, but
nonetheless he was the strongest player of his day. Playing over his games, I
discover that they are completely modern; where Morphy and Steinitz rejected
the fianchetto, Staunton embraced it. In addition, he understood all of the
positional concepts which modern players hold so dear, and thus - with
Steinitz - must be considered the first modern player.'}) 0-1
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Genius of Combinations"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{Genius of Combinations: The development of international links in the
mid-19th century was immediately reflected in chess too. The indefatigable
Staunton, who had long dreamed of organising a tournament of the leading
players in the world, decided to make use of a convenient occasion - the Great
Industrial Exhibition in London (right from the moment that Prince Albert
proposed it in 1849). Having enlisted the support of the St George's Chess
Club, he set up an organising committee and sent out invitations over the
whole of Europe (at that time America was not yet very conspicuous). --- Among
those invited were the strongest masters of all the countries: Saint-Amant and
Kieseritzky (France), Löwenthal and Szén (Hungary), Petroff, Jaenisch and
Schumoff (Russia), and Lasa, Horwitz and Mayet (Germany). And although for
various reasons Saint-Amant was unable to participate, nor the Russian players,
nor the German 'No.1' Lasa (by a decision of the Berlin Chess Society, he was
replaced by the comparatively little-known Anderssen), this hardly minimises
the importance of the first international tournament in the history of chess.}
1. -- {Apparently, with the aim of economising, they played not by the usual
all-play-all system, but a knockout (which is employed nowadays in the FIDE
championships): the 16 players were divided into eight pairs, who met in
mini-matches of the first to win two games (draws not counting). The losers
were knocked out, and the winners continued the battle in mini-matches of now
the first to win four games - the number of games was increased at the demand
of the players! In the very first match the random draw brought together two
of the potential favourites - Anderssen and Kieseritzky. And although the
German maestro won (+2 =1), in a series of friendly games over the following
days Kieseritzky came out on top (+9 -5 =2). --- However, it was one of these
friendly games that eclipsed all of Anderssen's London victories, and charmed
the chess world. Kieseritzky promptly sent the score of it by telegraph to his
magazine La Régence, Kling and Horwitz published it in the first issue of
their new magazine The Chess Player, and in the magazine Wiener Schachzeitung
(1855) Falkbeer published a detailed analysis of this game and christened it
'immortal'.} *
[Event "3: Friendly game, London"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1851.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Anderssen, A."]
[Black "Kieseritzky, L."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C33"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "39"]
[EventDate "1851.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 e5 2. f4 {The King's Gambit was the most popular opening of that era:
the initiative at any price! The sacrifice of material at an early stage was
regarded as a sign of good taste, and to refuse it was considered bad form.}
exf4 3. Bc4 Qh4+ 4. Kf1 b5 $2 {Kieseritzky's favourite move, diverting the
bishop away from the f7-square, but this counter-gambit is bad!} 5. Bxb5 {When
I was forced to play Black in this position, in a thematic exhibition game
with Short (London 1993), I thought for some 10-15 minutes and wanted to
resign immediately. I simply did not understand: for what has the pawn been
given up?} Nf6 6. Nf3 Qh6 (6... Qh5 7. Nc3 Bb7 8. Bc4 ({or} 8. e5 {favours
White.})) 7. d3 ({More energetic is} 7. Nc3 $1 {, as Short in fact played
against me. After} g5 (7... Bb7 8. Qe2 ({or} 8. d4 $5 Nxe4 9. Qe2)) 8. d4 Bb7 (
{the antediluvian game Rafael-Morphy, New York 1857, went} 8... Bg7 9. e5 (9.
h4 $5) 9... Nh5 {, and here} 10. Ne4 $1 g4 11. Nh4 {would have been strong}) 9.
h4 Rg8 10. Kg1 gxh4 11. Rxh4 Qg6 12. Qe2 Nxe4 13. Rxf4 f5 14. Nh4 Qg3 15. Nxe4
{, Black finally resigned.}) 7... Nh5 $6 ({Better was} 7... Bc5 8. d4 Bb6 9.
Nc3 Bb7 10. Bd3 {Anderssen-Pollmächer, Leipzig 1852;} (10. e5 Ng4 $5) 10... g5
$1 11. h4 Rg8 {. 'Kieseritzky bases his play on tactical threats, which
Anderssen skilfully parries.' (Neishtadt)}) 8. Nh4 $6 {Defending against ...Ng3+;} ({but much more 'clever' was} 8. Rg1 $1 {with the threat of 9 g4, and if
} Qb6 {, then} 9. Nc3 c6 10. Bc4 {with an overwhelming advantage.}) 8... Qg5 ({
Kieseritzky recommended} 8... g6 {, but after} 9. g3 $1 Be7 10. Qg4 c6 ({or}
10... Kd8 11. Ng2 d6 12. Qf3) 11. Bc4 {Black is a long way from equalising.})
9. Nf5 c6 $6 ({But here} 9... g6 {should have been played, not fearing} 10. h4
{in view of} Qf6 ({but not} 10... Ng3+ $2 11. Nxg3 Qxb5 (11... Qxg3 $2 12. Rh3)
12. Nc3 Qe5 13. Nge2 Bh6 14. g3 f3 15. Nf4 {with a won game}) 11. Nc3 c6 12.
Ba4 (12. Bc4 $2 d5) 12... Na6 $1 13. d4 Ng3+ 14. Nxg3 fxg3+ 15. Qf3 Qxd4 16.
Bb3 f6 {with an unclear game.}) 10. g4 $2 {Another mistake.} ({Of course, the
simple} 10. Ba4 {was better} -- ({, with an obvious advantage after both} 10...
d5 11. g4 $1 dxe4 12. dxe4 Ba6+ 13. Kg2 Nf6 14. Qf3) ({, and} 10... g6 11. Ng3
Nxg3+ 12. hxg3 Qxg3 13. Nc3 Bc5 14. Qe1 $1 Qxe1+ (14... Qg4 $2 15. Rh4) 15.
Kxe1 g5 16. Rh5 Be7 17. g3 $1 {(Hübner).})) 10... Nf6 ({Also to be considered
was} 10... g6 $5 11. Nd4 (11. gxh5 gxf5 12. h4 Qf6 13. Bc4 fxe4 14. dxe4 Rg8 {
is worse for White}) 11... Bg7 12. c3 Bxd4 13. cxd4 cxb5 (13... Qxb5 14. Nc3
Qb6 15. gxh5 Qxd4 16. Bxf4 Qf6 $6 17. Qg4 {is less clear}) 14. gxh5 Nc6 15. Nc3
d6 16. Qf3 Nxd4 17. h4 $1 Qe5 18. Qxf4 Be6 {, and it is now White who has to
fight for equality.}) 11. Rg1 $1 {A pretty and intuitive bishop sacrifice.}
cxb5 $2 {After this Black has an objectively bad position.} ({Unclear is} 11...
d5 12. h4 Qg6 13. h5 ({less good is} 13. Bxf4 $6 h5 $1 14. gxh5 Qxh5 15. Qxh5
Rxh5 16. Bxb8 cxb5) 13... Qg5 14. Qf3 Bxf5 15. exf5 cxb5 16. Bxf4 Qh4 17. Nc3
Nc6 $1 18. g5 Qxh5 19. Qe3+ Kd7 20. gxf6 Re8 21. Qf2 gxf6 22. Qg2 Qxf5 23.
Qxd5+ Qxd5 24. Nxd5) ({but the strongest is evidently} 11... h5 $5 12. h4 Qg6
13. g5 Ng4 {.} 14. -- ({. Now} 14. Nc3 cxb5 15. Nd5 Na6 (15... d6 $5 16. Nd4
Na6 17. Nxf4 Qh7) 16. Bxf4 Bb7 17. c4 Bxd5 18. cxd5 Qb6 {is advantageous to
Black}) (14. Bxf4 d5 $1) ({, and so there only remains} 14. Ba4 d5 15. Qe1 $1
dxe4 16. Qxe4+ Kd8 17. Nd4 {with a sharp game.})) 12. h4 ({But not} 12. Qf3 h5
$1 {etc.}) 12... Qg6 13. h5 Qg5 14. Qf3 {Threatening the simple Bxf4.} Ng8 {As
Euwe states, 'Black is too concerned about retaining his material advantage.'}
({However,} 14... Nxg4 15. Rxg4 Qxh5 16. Bxf4 {would also have left him little
hope of saving the game:} g6 ({or} 16... d5 17. Nc3 Bxf5 (17... g6 $2 18. Nxd5)
18. exf5 {etc}) 17. Nd6+ Bxd6 18. Bxd6 Nc6 19. Qf6 Rg8 20. Nc3 {.}) 15. Bxf4
Qf6 ({The alternative} 15... Qd8 16. Nc3 {was equally bad.}) 16. Nc3 Bc5 $2 {
An immediately losing move.} ({If} 16... Bb7 {there is a choice between:} 17.
-- (17. Nxb5 Qxb2 18. Nc7+ Kd8 19. Kg2) ({, and} 17. Qg3 Na6 (17... Nc6 18. g5
{and Nxb5}) 18. Nxb5 Qxb2 19. Nfd6+ Bxd6 20. Nxd6+ Kf8 21. Be5 Qb6 22. Kg2 f6
23. g5 $1 {.})) ({Things are also not easy for Black after} 16... Na6 17. g5 ({
or} 17. Nxb5 Qxb2 18. Nbd6+ Bxd6 19. Nxd6+ Ke7 20. Re1 Qxa2 21. e5) 17... Qc6
18. Be5 {.}) 17. Nd5 (17. d4 $1 {and only then Nd5 was much simpler.}) 17...
Qxb2 18. Bd6 $6 {'The start of a brilliant combination, the correctness of
which, however, is dubious' (Euwe).} ({With this move White throws away an
easy win (and perhaps the win altogether!):} 18. d4 Qxa1+ (18... Bf8 19. Nc7+
Kd8 20. Re1 {and wins}) 19. Kg2 Qb2 20. dxc5 Na6 21. Nd6+ Kf8 22. Be5 Qxc2+ 23.
Kh3 f6 24. Nxf6 {wins for White.}) (18. Be3 $5) ({and} 18. Re1 $5 {have also
been suggested.}) 18... Bxg1 $2 ({As was shown by Steinitz,} 18... Qxa1+ 19.
Ke2 Qb2 $1 {was essential. After} 20. Kd2 $1 ({less good is} 20. Rc1 Bb7 21.
Bxc5 Bxd5 22. Qe3 Be6 23. Bd4 Qa3 24. Nxg7+ Kd8 25. Nxe6+ dxe6 26. Bxh8 Nd7)
20... Bxg1 $1 21. e5 -- (21... Ba6 {, White's attack, in my view, is
sufficient only for a draw:} 22. -- (22. Nxg7+ Kd8 23. Qxf7 Kc8 24. Qe8+ Kb7
25. Qd8 Kc6 26. Nb4+ Qxb4+ 27. Bxb4 Bb7 28. Qf8 Kb6 29. Qd8+ Kc6) ({, or} 22.
Nc7+ Kd8 23. Qxa8 (23. Nxa6 Bb6 24. Qxa8 Ba5+ 25. Ke3 Qc1+ 26. Kf2 Qxc2+ 27.
Kf1 Qc1+ 28. Kf2 Bb6+ 29. d4 {also leads to a draw}) 23... Bb6 24. Qxb8+ Bc8
25. Nd5 Ba5+ 26. Ke3 Qxc2 (26... Qc1+ {is also possible}) 27. Qxa7 Qc1+ 28. Kf2
Qd2+ 29. Kg3 Qe1+ 30. Kg2 {.})) ({. But there is also an interesting try for
an advantage -} 21... Bb7 $5 {, for example:} 22. Nxg7+ (22. Nc7+ $6 Kd8 23.
Qxb7 Bb6 24. Nxa8 Ba5+ 25. Ke3 Qc1+ 26. Kf2 Qxc2+ 27. Kg1 Qc1+ 28. Kh2 Qc8 {
wins for Black}) 22... Kd8 23. Qxf7 Be3+ $1 24. Nxe3 Ne7 25. Qxe7+ Kc8 26. Qf6
(26. e6 $5 Bc6 27. Qf7 Na6 28. e7 Kb7 29. e8=Q Raxe8 30. Nxe8 {is also unclear}
) 26... Qxa2 27. Ngf5 Qa5+ $1 28. Ke2 Re8 29. Be7 Na6 30. Nd6+ Kc7 31. Nxb7 $1
Kxb7 32. Qf3+ Kb8 33. Bd6+ Nc7 34. Nd5 {, and White's counterplay is
nevertheless sufficient for a draw:} Rc8 35. Nf6 Rd8 36. Nd5 Rc8 {with a
repetition.})) ({I should add that} 18... Qxa1+ 19. Ke2 Qb2 20. Kd2 g6 $2 {
(instead of 20...Bxg1!) will not do;} 21. -- ({, but not because of the
generally-accepted variation} 21. Rb1 $2 gxf5 $1 22. Rxb2 Bxd6 23. e5 Bxe5 24.
Qe3 {'with advantage to White' (after} Nc6 $1 25. d4 Nge7 {he has to beat a
retreat)}) ({, but in view of the very pretty} 21. Re1 $1 Bb7 22. Bxc5 gxf5 ({
after} 22... Bxd5 23. exd5+ Kd8 {both} 24. Nd6 ({and} 24. Bd4 Qb4+ 25. Bc3 Qc5
26. Ba5+ Kc8 27. d4) 24... Nh6 25. Qe3 Na6 26. a3 $1 {are good for White}) 23.
exf5+ Kd8 24. Bb6+ $3 axb6 25. Qe3 $1 {. A wonderful 'quiet' move! Black does
not have a single check, and if} Bxd5 {there follows} 26. Qxb6+ {and Re8 mate.
For a human it is very hard to perceive such a mate: to see the move Bb6+!!
from afar is impossible. Whereas a computer finds such sacrifices almost
instantly... Incidentally, a similar bishop sacrifice appears in one of the
variations from the game Tal-Portisch (Bled 2nd matchgame 1965), which is
analysed in the second volume.})) 19. e5 (19. e5 {also a 'quiet' move, with
the elementary threat of} -- 20. Nxg7+ Kd8 21. Bc7# {.}) 19... Qxa1+ 20. Ke2 {
. Here Black resigned.} (20. Ke2 -- ({. Black loses after} 20... Bb7 21. Nxg7+
Kd8 22. Qxf7 Nh6 23. Ne6+) ({, or} 20... f6 21. Nxg7+ Kf7 22. Nxf6 {etc.}) ({
. Steinitz looked for a way to save the game with} 20... Ba6 21. Nc7+ Kd8 22.
Nxa6 $1 {(Falkbeer)} -- ({, but analysis by Chigorin proved clear cut:} 22...
Qc3 23. Bc7+ Qxc7 24. Nxc7 Kxc7 25. Qxa8 Nc6 (25... Bc5 26. Nd6 Bxd6 27. exd6+
Kc8 28. Qxa7) 26. Nd6 Nxe5 27. Nxb5+ Kb6 28. Qb8+ Kc6 29. c4) (22... Bb6 23.
Qxa8 Qc3 24. Qxb8+ Qc8 25. Qxc8+ Kxc8 26. Bf8 h6 27. Nd6+ Kd8 28. Nxf7+ Ke8 29.
Nxh8 Kxf8 30. Kf3) (22... Qxa2 23. Bc7+ Ke8 24. Nb4 Nc6 25. Nxa2 Bc5 26. Bd6 {.
})) ({. However, the game is rightly famous for} 20... Na6 21. Nxg7+ Kd8 22.
Qf6+ $3 {(a spectacular concluding sacrifice)} Nxf6 23. Be7# {mate!})) (20. Ke2
{. Objectively the game is rather weak and superficial, but what a finish!
After sacrificing both rooks, a bishop and a queen, the mate was
simultaneously pure, economic and smooth! 'An unusually elegant finish, almost
forcing the incorrectness of the entire combination to be forgotten.' (Euwe)
Later the combination with the sacrifice of both rooks on their initial
squares was to occur many times, including games by Steinitz, Alekhine and Tal.
.. --- Let us return, however, to the London knockout tournament. In the
quarter-final Anderssen overcame Szén (+4 -2), after losing the first two
games to him - if the initial rules had been retained (the first to win two
games), chess history would have turned out differently... Then the random
draw played a cruel trick: in the semi-final Anderssen met the chief favourite
Staunton and, to the horror of the English fans, inflicted on him an
unconditional defeat (+4 -1). With this the tournament intrigue was exhausted:
in the final Anderssen tore to pieces the local 'tourist' Wyvill (+4 -2 =1)
and won the first prize. --- Staunton was in a state of shock: his reputation
as the best player in the world had suffered a severe blow. However, as the
organiser of the tournament he had sensed the trickiness of the knockout
system, and even before the start he had found a way of insuring himself: in
the rules it was written that the winner was obliged to accept a challenge
from any participant. A kind of right to a return match! And Staunton promptly
challenged the offender to a match (it was suggested that they should play to
the best of 21 decisive games). But... he fell ill, Anderssen's holiday came
to an end, and he had to return home. Alas, this battle of titans never in
fact took place...}) 1-0
[Event "4: Berlin"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1852.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Anderssen, A."]
[Black "Dufresne, J."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C52"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "47"]
[EventDate "1852.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{The new uncrowned king of chess Adolf Anderssen (6 July 1818 - 13 March 1879)
was born into a poor family in Breslau (now Wroclaw), where he graduated from
the university and lived almost continuously all his life, teaching
mathematics and German in a secondary school. He made the acquaintance of
chess at the age of nine and learned from the books of Philidor, Moses
Hirschel (a populariser of the works by Greco and Stamma) and the Viennese
player Johann Allgaier, the author of the best chess manual in the German
language, permeated with the spirit of the Italian School. He was attracted by
composition and he published a collection Aufgaben für Schachspieler (1842 and
1852). --- Back in the mid-1840s he had played at an amateur level, being
inferior to Lasa, Bledow, Mayet and Löwenthal... But he made staggering
progress by studying the works of the Modenese School, Lewis and Walker, and
by analysing the games of the old masters, especially the La
Bourdonnais-McDonnell encounters. On flying visits to Berlin he met strong
opponents there, impressed with his magical combinations, and soon was deemed
a rising star. --- After London 1851 his compatriots arranged for Anderssen a
genuine coronation! But he still had to demonstrate that his London triumph
was not a fluke. There were then extremely few tournaments, and he had to
demonstrate this more with creative, rather than competitive achievements. ---
The following game literally bewitched his contemporaries, who called it,
following the example of Steinitz, 'an evergreen in the laurel wreath of great
German masters.' Chigorin too, as well as many others, considered it to be one
of the most brilliant games ever played.} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4
$5 {(also the height of fashion at that time)} Bxb4 {As Capablanca said, the
way to refute a gambit is to accept it!} ({After} 4... Bb6 5. a4 {White simply
has more space:} a5 (5... a6 {is sounder}) 6. b5 Nd4 7. Nxd4 Bxd4 8. c3 Bb6 9.
d4 exd4 10. O-O $1 (10. cxd4 d5 $1) 10... Ne7 11. Bg5 h6 12. Bxe7 Qxe7 13. cxd4
{, and Black was unable to equalise in Kasparov-Piket, Amsterdam 1995.}) 5. c3
Ba5 {The classical defensive line. I should mention that Jean Dufresne was a
pupil of Anderssen and quite a competent master, the author of some popular
chess manuals.} ({Nowadays} 5... Be7 6. d4 Na5 {is also in vogue, for example:}
7. Be2 $5 (7. Nxe5 Nxc4 8. Nxc4 d5 9. exd5 Qxd5 10. Ne3 {is much more tedious})
7... exd4 8. Qxd4 $1 Nf6 (8... Nc6 $5 9. Qxg7 Bf6 10. Qg3 d6 {is unclear}) 9.
e5 Nc6 10. Qh4 Nd5 11. Qg3 g6 (11... O-O 12. Bh6) (11... Kf8 $5) 12. O-O Nb6
13. c4 d6 14. Rd1 Nd7 15. Bh6 $1 {with a powerful initiative for the pawn and
a win on the 25th move (Kasparov-Anand, Riga 1995). Incidentally, reverting to
old gambits has caught many present-day players unawares, but here the dispute
did not last long: everywhere an acceptable defence was found for Black.}) 6.
d4 ({If} 6. O-O {, then} d6 7. d4 Bb6 $1 {is strong, Chigorin-Lasker, St
Petersburg 1895/96 - Game No.43)}) 6... exd4 ({In the 20th century} 6... d6 7.
Qb3 $5 Qd7 8. dxe5 Bb6 $1 {was tried, with an unclear game.}) 7. O-O d3 $6 ({
Also insufficient is} 7... dxc3 $5 8. Qb3 Qf6 9. e5 Qg6 10. Nxc3 Nge7 {
(Anderssen-Dufresne, Berlin 1851), since after} 11. Ba3 $1 {Black's position
is highly unpleasant.}) ({The correct course -} 7... Nge7 $1 {and 8...d5! -
extended across the century from the Anderssen-Mieses match (Breslau 1867) to
the games Short-Adams (Sarajevo 2000) and Morozevich-Adams (Wijk aan Zee 2001).
}) 8. Qb3 $1 {A surprise;} ({Dufresne was probably expecting} 8. Ng5 $6 Nh6 9.
e5 {, as Anderssen played in the matches with him and Mayet (Berlin 1851).})
8... Qf6 9. e5 ({It is curious that in their 1855 match Dufresne was not
afraid to go in for this position against Anderssen, but the latter
persistently replied} 9. Re1 $5 {with the idea of} Nge7 10. Bg5 Qg6 11. Bxe7
Kxe7 12. e5 {.}) ({Whereas Zukertort in his first match with Steinitz (London
11th matchgame 1872) was tempted by the unfavourable} 9. Bg5 $6 Qg6 10. Bxd3
Nh6 11. Nbd2 O-O 12. Rad1 Bb6 13. Bxh6 Qxh6 14. e5 d5 $1 15. exd6 cxd6 {etc.})
9... Qg6 10. Re1 Nge7 ({Or} 10... Bb6 11. Qd1 $1 Nh6 12. Bxd3 Qh5 13. h3 {with
a strong initiative (Anderssen-Dufresne, Berlin 1855).}) 11. Ba3 ({But not} 11.
Nbd2 $2 b5 $1 12. Bxb5 Rb8 13. Qa4 Bxc3 14. Rb1 a6 15. Bxc6 Qxc6 16. Qxc6 Nxc6
17. Rxb8 Nxb8 {with a won endgame for Black in Zukertort-Steinitz, London 9th
matchgame 1872).}) 11... b5 $6 ({'Black wants to develop his queenside, but}
11... O-O {was better.' (Euwe) However, here too after} 12. Nbd2 Bb6 13. Qb1 {
and Bxd3 White has a splendid attacking position.}) 12. Qxb5 Rb8 13. Qa4 Bb6 (
13... O-O $2 14. Bxe7 {.}) 14. Nbd2 Bb7 $6 ({Also after} 14... O-O 15. Ne4 {
Black's position is unenviable.}) 15. Ne4 Qf5 $2 ({As Lasker pointed out,}
15... d2 $1 16. Nexd2 O-O {was now simply essential.}) 16. Bxd3 Qh5 {White has
an enormous advantage. The time has come for resolute action, and Anderssen
played in accordance with his romantic style and the demands of his time:} 17.
Nf6+ $6 {! The two exclamation marks are for one of the most beautiful
combinations in the history of chess. And the question mark is for the
unnecessary complications;} ({the prosaic} 17. Ng3 Qh6 18. Bc1 Qe6 19. Bc4 Nd5
(19... Qg6 20. Nh4 Qg4 21. Bxf7+) 20. Ng5 Nxc3 (20... Qg4 21. Re4) 21. Qb3 {
would have concluded the game without any problems. But... the treasury of
chess art would have lost a major masterpiece!}) 17... gxf6 18. exf6 Rg8 $1 {
Black's last chance is a counterattack along the newly-opened g-file.} 19. Rad1
$5 {'This is the greatly admired introduction to astounding sacrifices. Yet it
cannot sustain criticism...} ({White can win with} 19. Be4 {because his attack
is irresistible, whereas Black's counterattack is then frustrated. For
instance,} Qh3 20. g3 Rxg3+ 21. hxg3 Qxg3+ 22. Kh1 Bxf2 23. -- (23. Re2 {wins.
' (Lasker) However, later the knockout blow} Nd4 $3 {was found here.}) ({.
Therefore I would have preferred the line} 23. Bxe7 $1 Qh3+ 24. Nh2 Bxe1 25.
Rxe1 {with the initiative.} (25. --))) 19... Qxf3 $2 ({Lasker criticised
White's previous move because of the possible reply} 19... Rg4 $1 {which was
analysed by the German master Paul Lipke in Deutsche Schachzeitung (1898). I
don't wish to tire you with all the numerous variations, which belong to more
than one generation of players. I will merely point out that in 1930 Hoppe and
Heckner tried to demonstrate a win for White, which at present cannot be found
even by a computer.} 20. -- ({. Thus, after} 20. c4 $2 Rxg2+ $1 ({instead of}
20... Rf4 $2 21. Bg6 $1 ({or} 21. Qb5 Qh6 22. Bf5 Qxf6 23. Rxd7 $1)) 21. Kxg2
Qg4+ 22. Kf1 Qxf3 23. Rxe7+ Nxe7 24. Qxd7+ Kxd7 25. Bf5+ Ke8 26. Bd7+ Kf8 {the
king hides at g8}) ({, and in the main variation} 20. Bc4 Qf5 21. Rxd7 Kxd7 22.
Ne5+ Kc8 23. Nxg4 Nd5 24. Qd1 Nxf6 $1 ({instead of} 24... Nd8 $2 25. Bd3 $1 Qd7
26. Ne5 Qe6 27. Nxf7 $1 {winning}) 25. Bd3 Qxg4 26. Qxg4+ Nxg4 27. Bf5+ Kd8 28.
Rd1+ Nd4 29. Bxg4 Bd5 30. cxd4 Bxa2 {with a roughly equal endgame.}) ({. Also
unclear is} 20. Re4 $5 Rxe4 21. Qxe4 d6 22. Re1 $1 Qg6 $1 ({but not} 22... Ne5
$2 23. Bb5+ c6 24. Ba4 $1 {winning. --- Therefore, 19...Rg4! would have made
things much more difficult for White. However, can we really criticise
Dufresne, who was tempted by a threat of mate in one move, and did not foresee
the tricky idea of the combinative magician?}))) 20. Rxe7+ $1 Nxe7 $5 {To
create a chess masterpiece, you really do need the generous participation of
your opponent!} ({A modern professional and, of course, a computer would
without hesitation have replied} 20... Kd8 {, thus avoiding an immediate rout:}
21. Rxd7+ $1 Kc8 $1 (21... Kxd7 22. Bf5+ Ke8 23. Bd7+ Kd8 24. Bxc6+ {and mate})
22. Rd8+ $1 Kxd8 (22... Rxd8 23. gxf3 {wins}) (22... Nxd8 23. Qd7+ $3 {- the
same motif as in the game}) 23. -- (23. Be2+ $1 Nd4 24. Bxf3 Bxf3 25. g3 $1
Bxd1 26. Qxd1 c5 27. cxd4 cxd4 28. Be7+ {with a tedious, but won endgame.}) ({
. Neishtadt's recommendation of} 23. Bf5+ Qxd1+ 24. Qxd1+ Nd4 25. g3 {is less
clear in view of} Rg5 $1 26. Bh3 Bf3 $1 {.} (26... --))) 21. Qxd7+ $3 Kxd7 22.
Bf5+ Ke8 ({Or} 22... Kc6 23. Bd7# {.}) 23. Bd7+ Kf8 24. Bxe7# {. 'It is
noteworthy that in both these celebrated games Anderssen gives mate with a
bishop on e7.' (Euwe)} 1-0
[Event "5: Breslau"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1863.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Rosanes, J."]
[Black "Anderssen, A."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C39"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "46"]
[EventDate "1862.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{In addition to his teaching work Anderssen contributed to the magazine
Schachzeitung (1851-1859) and Neue Berliner Schachzeitung (1864-1871). In
seven years after 1851 he played only two(!) serious games and arrived for his
highly important match with Morphy (which will be described later) in far from
his best form. However, after Morphy's departure he restored his reputation of
the strongest player in the world, by winning a match against the next
challenger Ignác Kolisch (1861) and then also the second major London
international tournament (1862), which was held, incidentally, on the
all-play-all system. --- Despite the obvious difference in class of the two
players, the following game also gives a clear impression of the chess fashion
during Anderssen's time.} 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. h4 g4 5. Ne5 {The
Kieseritzky Gambit was one of the theoretical tabiyas of the 19th century.} Nf6
({In Anderssen's games there several times occurred} 5... Bg7 6. Nxg4 ({or} 6.
d4)) ({and} 5... h5 6. Bc4 Rh7 (6... Nh6 $2 7. d4 d6 8. Nd3 f3 9. gxf3 {etc.})
7. d4) ({and} 5... d6 $5 6. Nxg4 {- this, following the example of grandmaster
Fedorov, is popular even today: Black replies} Nf6 ({not being tempted by the
old line} 6... Be7 7. d4 Bxh4+ 8. Nf2 Qg5) 7. -- ({, when Federov initially
played} 7. Nf2 Rg8 8. d4 Bh6 9. Nc3 Nc6 $1 (9... Qe7 10. Nd3 Bg4 {has also
occurred}) 10. Nd5 Nxd5 11. exd5 Ne7 ({but after} 11... Qe7+ $1 12. Be2 Nb4 13.
c4 Bf5 $1 14. Qa4+ Kf8 15. Qxb4 Re8 16. Qd2 Rxg2 17. Kf1 Rg3 18. Qd1 Be4 19.
Rh2 f5 20. Nxe4 fxe4 21. Bg4 e3 22. Bf3 Qg7 23. Rh1 Rg2 $1 {with crushing
threats (Federov-Shirov, Polanica Zdroj 2000}) 12. Qe2 {etc.}) ({, but then
switched to} 7. Nxf6+ $1 Qxf6 8. Nc3 Nc6 (8... c6 $6 9. Be2 $1 Rg8 10. Bf3) 9.
Nd5 Qg6 10. d3 Qg3+ 11. Kd2 Ne7 12. Qe1 ({but not} 12. Nxc7+ $2 Kd8 13. Nxa8
Qe3+ 14. Kc3 Bg7+ 15. Kb3 Be6+) 12... Nxd5 13. exd5+ Be7 {with equal chances
in Fedorov-Anand, Wijk aan Zee 2001.})) 6. Bc4 (6. Nxg4 $6 {is dubious.} -- ({
. In a series of friendly games with Morphy (Paris 1858) Anderssen first
refuted} 6... d5 $2 {- by} 7. Nxf6+ Qxf6 8. Qe2 $1 Bd6 9. Nc3 c6 10. d4 $1 Qxd4
11. Bd2 Rg8 12. exd5+ Kd8 13. O-O-O $1 Bg4 14. Qe4 Qxe4 15. Nxe4 Bxd1 16. Nxd6
Bh5 17. Bxf4 cxd5 18. Nxb7+ Ke7 19. Bb5 $1) ({, and then he showed the correct
way:} 6... Nxe4 $1 7. d3 Ng3 8. Bxf4 Nxh1 9. Qe2+ Qe7 10. Nf6+ Kd8 11. Bxc7+
Kxc7 12. Nd5+ Kd8 13. Nxe7 Bxe7 14. Qg4 (14. Qh5 $6 Ng3 $1) 14... d6 15. Qf4
Rg8 $1 {with sufficient compensation for the queen.})) ({However, even after
the currently fashionable} 6. d4 d6 (6... Bg7 $6 7. Nc3 d6 8. Nd3 O-O 9. Nxf4 {
Anderssen-Zukertort, Breslau 1866}) 7. Nd3 {White cannot build up any
particular momentum:} -- (7... Nxe4 8. Bxf4 Bg7 {Spassky-Fischer, Mar del
Plata 1960;} (8... Qe7 $5) 9. c3 Qe7 $1 {with sharp play}) ({, or} 7... Nc6 $5
8. c3 (8. Nc3 Nxd4 9. Nxf4 Ne6 $1) 8... Nxe4 9. Bxf4 d5 10. Nd2 Bd6 11. Ne5 O-O
(11... Qf6 $5) 12. Nxe4 dxe4 13. Qc2 Qf6 {with excellent play for Black
(Fedorov-Ivanchuk, Wijk aan Zee 2001).})) 6... d5 $1 {(this is the point!)} 7.
exd5 Bd6 8. d4 ({Later the American professor and millionaire Isaac Rice
devised the gambit} 8. O-O Bxe5 9. Re1 {and, as a patron, did everything
possible to encourage the testing of his idea in thematic events. Lasker and
Chigorin even played an entire match (Brighton 1903) on the theme of} Qe7 10.
c3 f3 $5 (10... Nh5 11. d4 Nd7 {is even better}) 11. d4 Ne4 12. Rxe4 Bh2+ 13.
Kxh2 Qxe4 14. g3 O-O {, and Black (Chigorin) won 3˝-2˝. I think that this
indicates not the weakness of the world champion's play, but the defects of
White's gambit...}) 8... Nh5 ({More accurate than} 8... Qe7 $6 9. Bxf4 Nh5 10.
g3 $1 {(a year earlier Anderssen tried to uphold this position as White)}) ({
and probably than} 8... O-O 9. O-O $1 ({but not} 9. Bxf4 $2 Nh5 10. g3 f6 11.
Nd3 Nxg3 $1 {Pillsbury-Chigorin, Vienna 1903}) 9... Nh5 10. Nxg4 Qxh4 11. Nh2
Ng3 (11... Re8 12. Nc3 $1 {Alapin}) 12. Re1 Nd7 13. Nd2 Nf6 14. Ndf3 Qh5 15.
Re5 $1 {with the initiative (Neustadtl-Pierce, correspondence 1903).}) 9. Bb5+
({Correct is} 9. O-O $1 Qxh4 10. Qe1 {. It is amusing that Rosanes copies the
play of his opponent against Hirschfeld (Berlin 1860), where Black met the
bishop check with 9...Kf8?! But Anderssen had not been idle and he had
prepared an excellent sacrifice of a pawn, and then of a whole rook!}) (9. Nc3
Qe7 $1 {.}) 9... c6 $1 10. dxc6 bxc6 $1 11. Nxc6 Nxc6 12. Bxc6+ Kf8 $1 13. Bxa8
Ng3 14. Rh2 {Rosanes (a little-known club player) holds on to the material,
apparently not realising that Black has ultra-powerful compensation for the
sacrificed rook. However, it is hard to offer White any good advice.} ({For
example, in the event of} 14. Kf2 Nxh1+ 15. Qxh1 g3+ 16. Ke1 (16. Kg1 Bc5 $1) (
16. Kf3 Rg8 17. Bxf4 Qf6 {etc.}) 16... Qe7+ 17. Kd1 Bg4+ 18. Bf3 Bxf3+ 19. gxf3
Rg8 20. Qg2 Qxh4 21. Ke2 Qh2 22. Kf1 h5 {the advance of the h-pawn is decisive.
}) 14... Bf5 ({Harrwitz's suggestion of} 14... Qe7+ 15. Kf2 Ne4+ $1 {is also
good.}) 15. Bd5 ({After the more tenacious, in Réti's opinion,} 15. Bc6 {there
is} Qe7+ 16. Kf2 Ne4+ 17. Bxe4 g3+ 18. Kg1 gxh2+ {etc.}) 15... Kg7 {(making
way for the rook)} 16. Nc3 Re8+ 17. Kf2 Qb6 {Many modern players would
probably regard Anderssen's rook sacrifice with mistrust and caution, but
meanwhile the threat of ...Be5! is already decisive.} 18. Na4 Qa6 (18... Qa6 {
and now the threat is} 19. -- Qe2+ 20. Qxe2 Rxe2+ {, 21...Re1+ and 22...Rf1
mate.}) 19. Nc3 ({Also in the event of} 19. c4 Qxa4 $1 20. b3 (20. Qxa4 Re2+ {
leads to mate}) 20... Qd7 {White has no defence.}) 19... Be5 $3 {(another
'quiet' move before the decisive combination)} 20. a4 $2 {Intending to block
the queen by 21 Nb5, but allowing a highly spectacular mate.} ({Also clearly
bad was} 20. dxe5 $2 Qb6+ 21. Ke1 Qg1+ 22. Kd2 Qe3# {.}) ({However, even the
best, computer defence} 20. Kg1 {, would not have saved White from a rout:} Qb6
({here the} 20... Qf1+ $2 {idea no longer works:} 21. Qxf1 Bxd4+ 22. Be3 $1)
21. Rh1 Bxd4+ 22. Kh2 Qf6 $1 {.}) {Here Anderssen announced mate in four:}
20... Qf1+ $3 {(diversion!)} 21. Qxf1 Bxd4+ 22. Be3 Rxe3 {(and, whatever White
does, mate in one move is inevitable)} 23. Kg1 Re1# {. Of Anderssen's other
exploits, mention should be made of his fantastic match in 1866 with Steinitz
(which will be described later), his win in a match against his highly
talented pupil Zukertort (1868), and his first prize in the strong
double-round tournament in Baden-Baden (1870), sustained by two wins against
Steinitz! --- Later the first world champion was to say about Anderssen: 'This
was the greatest master of all times. His brilliant style, the beauty of his
combinations and the depth of thought were remarkable...' --- It was for the
sake of beauty that in any position he would seek drastic measures and would
boldly burn his boats behind him, overstepping the safety margin. But in
defence he was much weaker, asserting that 'the best form of defence is
attack!' Such play was admired, but the progress of chess was inexorable, and
the old combinative school led by Anderssen proved powerless against the
modernised technique of Morphy (and then also Steinitz), which was based on a
sound positional foundation.} 0-1
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "The American Legend"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{The American Legend: Paul Charles Morphy (22 June 1837 - 10 July 1884) was
born in New Orleans, in the state of Louisiana. His father came from a
distinguished Creole family of Spanish and Irish extraction, while his mother
was French. In Paul's family, chess was played by all the men: his grandfather,
father, elder brother and his Uncle Ernest, one of the strongest players in
the town. After learning to play chess at the age of ten, already when he was
twelve he inflicted a spectacular defeat on the local maestro Rousseau (this
was Morphy's first published game), and soon he also defeated Löwenthal, who
was on a tour across the southern states of the USA. --- Paul was a real child
prodigy: he astonished his family with his memory and with his quick grasp of
everything. His play was distinguished by its inventiveness, precise
calculation and the methodical implementation of his plans. And most important,
gradually the young Morphy became the most erudite player of his time. Fluent
in French, English, Spanish and German, he read Philidor's L'analyse, the
Parisian magazine La Régence, Staunton's Chess Player's Chronicle, and
possibly also Anderssen's Schachzeitung (at least, he knew all of Anderssen's
published games). He studied Bilguer's 400-page Handbuch - which consisted
partly of opening analyses in tabular form, and also Staunton's Chess Player's
Handbook. 'These books,' considers Fischer, 'are better than modern ones;
there has been no significant improvement since then in King Pawn openings,
and Morphy's natural talents would be more than sufficient for him to vanquish
the best twentieth century players.'} 1. -- {(Fischer is eccentric always and
in everything, including his opinions. In the 1960s the theory of the open
games may indeed 'not have advanced' yet, but by the start of the 21st century
it had undergone revolutionary changes!). --- After shining at college, in two
years Paul completed the entire course at Louisiana University and at the age
of 19 he became a qualified lawyer. But since in the USA it was possible to
work in this field only from the age of 21, for the moment he decided to
devote himself entirely to his favourite game - seeing as the chess boom
reigning after the first international tournament in London had also reached
the New World. In the autumn of 1857 the first American Chess Congress took
place, attracting the 16 best players in the country. Like the London event,
it was held on the knockout system: mini-matches of the first to win three
games, and in the final - five. --- Morphy easily reached the final (nine wins
and one draw!), where he crushed (+5 -1 =2) the as yet little-known German
Louis Paulsen, who was then living in the USA. Moreover, he played quickly, as
usual, whereas his opponent played very slowly, and since the time for
thinking was not restricted, the games lasted 10-11 hours, and the drawn
second game as long as 15 hours (out of which Paulsen thought for 12!). The
most famous game of the match is the sixth (see the following game).} *
[Event "6: First American Congress, New York"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1857.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Paulsen, L."]
[Black "Morphy, P."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C48"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "56"]
[EventDate "1857.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Bc5 ({Much quieter is} 4... Bb4) ({while
the Marshall-Rubinstein move} 4... Nd4 {was still half a century away.}) 5. O-O
({If} 5. Nxe5 {it is considered quite safe to reply} Nxe5 ({but not} 5... Bxf2+
$6 6. Kxf2 Nxe5 7. d4) 6. d4 Bd6 ({after} 6... Bb4 7. dxe5 Nxe4 8. Qd4 $1 {
Black fails to equalise}) 7. f4 (7. dxe5 Bxe5 {is equal}) 7... Nc6 ({inferior
is} 7... Ng6 $6 8. e5 {Janowski-Lasker, Cambridge Springs 1904}) 8. e5 Bb4 9.
d5 (9. exf6 Qxf6 {is equal}) 9... Ne4 10. Qd3 Nxc3 11. bxc3 Be7 {.}) 5... O-O {
Morphy sacrifices a pawn.} ({If} 5... d6 {, then} 6. d4 exd4 7. Nxd4 Bd7 8. Nf5
$1 {(Paulsen-Zukertort, Leipzig 1877).}) 6. Nxe5 Re8 $6 {For the pioneers it
is always difficult.} ({Later both} 6... Bd4 $6 {(Schlechter)}) ({and} 6... Nd4
$6 {(Marshall) were tried}) ({but the main variation became} 6... Nxe5 7. d4
Bd6 8. f4 (8. dxe5 Bxe5 {is level, as in Paulsen-Winawer, Baden-Baden 1870})
8... Nc6 9. e5 Be7 $1 (9... a6 10. Be2 {Short-Adams, England 1991}) ({; after}
9... Bb4 10. d5 {it is no longer possible to play} Ne4 ({and} 10... a6 11. Be2
Bc5+ 12. Kh1 Nxd5 13. Qxd5 d6 {nevertheless favours White})) 10. d5 (10. exf6
Bxf6 {is equal}) 10... Nb4 (10... Bc5+ 11. Kh1 Nd4 12. exf6 Qxf6 13. Ne4 Qe7
14. Bd3 Bb6 15. f5 {with an attack, Paulsen-Anderssen, Leipzig 1877}) 11. exf6
(11. d6 $5 cxd6 12. exf6) 11... Bxf6 12. a3 (12. Ne4 $5) 12... Bxc3 13. bxc3
Nxd5 14. Qxd5 c6 15. Qd3 cxb5 16. f5 {with a slight initiative.}) 7. Nxc6 $6 (
7. Nf3 $1 {gives an advantage, for example:} Nxe4 ({or} 7... Nd4 8. e5 Nxf3+ 9.
gxf3 $1 {(Teichmann-Rubinstein, San Sebastian 1912)}) 8. d4 (8. Nxe4 Rxe4 9. d3
Re8 10. d4 {is also good}) 8... Nxc3 9. bxc3 Bf8 (9... Be7 $6 10. d5 Nb8 11.
Bf4 {Maróczy-Pillsbury, Nuremberg 1896}) 10. d5 Ne5 11. Nxe5 Rxe5 12. Bf4 Re8
13. Qf3 c6 14. Bd3 {.}) 7... dxc6 8. Bc4 b5 ({But not immediately} 8... Nxe4 $2
{in view of} 9. Nxe4 Rxe4 10. Bxf7+ Kxf7 11. Qf3+ {.}) 9. Be2 (9. Bb3 $6 Bg4
10. Qe1 b4 11. Nd1 Rxe4 12. Ne3 {is hardly advantageous to White.}) 9... Nxe4
10. Nxe4 ({Of course, not} 10. Bf3 $2 Nxf2 $1 11. Rxf2 Qd4 12. Ne4 (12. Qf1 $2
Qxf2+ $1 13. Qxf2 Re1#) 12... Rxe4 $1 {and wins.}) 10... Rxe4 11. Bf3 ({
According to Steinitz,} 11. c3 {is better, when} Qh4 {is acceptable, for
example:} 12. -- (12. d4 Bd6 13. g3 Qh3 {(threatening ...Rh4)} 14. f4 Bd7 15.
Bf3 Re7 {(and ...Rae8)}) ({, or} 12. g3 Qe7 $1 ({inferior is} 12... Qh3 13. d3
$1 Re8 14. Bf3 Bd7 15. a4) 13. Bf3 Bh3 14. d4 Bxf1 15. Bxe4 Qxe4 16. Qxf1 Bd6 {
with a comfortable game.})) 11... Re6 12. c3 $2 {A simply hideous move: who
would think of allowing the queen in at d3?} ({Especially since} 12. d3 {
retains a normal position.}) 12... Qd3 $1 {Of course: the queen completely
paralyses White's position.} 13. b4 $6 {This is also dubious.} (13. Re1 Rxe1+
14. Qxe1 {looks better, although after} Bf5 $1 (14... Bd7 15. Qf1) 15. Bxc6 (
15. Qe2 Rd8 $1) 15... Rd8 16. Qe5 Qc2 $1 (16... Bd6 $2 17. Qxb5 Qc2 18. Qa4)
17. Bf3 Bd6 18. Qxb5 Bd3 19. Qc6 Kf8 $1 {Black still has the advantage.}) 13...
Bb6 14. a4 bxa4 15. Qxa4 Bd7 $2 {A mistake in reply.} ({Black could have won by
} 15... Bb7 $1 {(maintaining control of a6)} 16. Ra2 Rae8 17. Qd1 Ba6 $1 18.
Rxa6 Qxa6 19. d4 Qc4 20. Bd2 a5 {.}) 16. Ra2 $2 {A fatal error.} ({The queen
should have been dislodged from d3 by} 16. Qa6 $1 {, when the advantage could
have passed to White:} -- (16... Qxa6 $6 17. Rxa6 Rae8 18. Bg4 ({but not} 18.
d4 $2 c5 $1 19. bxc5 Bb5) 18... Bc8 (18... R6e7 $6 19. Bxd7 Rxd7 20. d4) 19.
Ra1 Rf6 20. Bxc8 Rxc8 21. d4) ({, or} 16... Qf5 17. d4 Rae8 18. Be3 c5 19. bxc5
Bxc5 20. Qb7 ({not} 20. Qa5 $2 Rg6 21. Kh1 Qxf3 22. gxf3 Bc6 {and wins}) ({
whereas} 20. Qe2 Bb6 21. Bg4 Rxe3 22. Bxf5 Rxe2 23. Bxd7) 20... Bb6 21. c4 {.
Instead of winning, Black would have had to defend...}) ({. Inferior is} 16...
Qg6 $6 17. d4 Rae8 18. Bf4 {.})) 16... Rae8 {(with the threat of ...Qxf1+)} 17.
Qa6 ({Also hopeless is} 17. Qd1 c5 (17... Re5 $5 {Neishtadt}) 18. bxc5 Bxc5 19.
Ba3 (19. Bg4 f5) 19... Bxa3 20. Rxa3 Bb5 {. Paulsen found the correct idea
after all, but for some reason a move later. At that time tempo play was still
unusual!}) 17... Qxf3 $3 {A very pretty refutation.} 18. gxf3 Rg6+ 19. Kh1 Bh3
20. Rd1 ({Or} 20. Qd3 f5 $1 21. Rd1 (21. Qc4+ Kf8 $1) 21... Bg2+ 22. Kg1 Bxf3+
23. Kf1 Bxd1 {and wins.}) (20. Rg1 $2 Rxg1+ 21. Kxg1 Re1+ {.}) 20... Bg2+ 21.
Kg1 Bxf3+ 22. Kf1 Bg2+ ({The 'quiet'} 22... Rg2 $1 {would have won more
quickly:} 23. Qd3 Rxf2+ 24. Kg1 Rg2+ 25. Kh1 Rg1# {- Zukertort.}) 23. Kg1 Bh3+
({Black could have mated by} 23... Be4+ 24. Kf1 Bf5 $1 25. Qe2 Bh3+ 26. Ke1
Rg1# {- Bauer.}) 24. Kh1 Bxf2 25. Qf1 Bxf1 26. Rxf1 Re2 27. Ra1 Rh6 28. d4 Be3
0-1
[Event "7: New York"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1857.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Schulten, J."]
[Black "Morphy, P."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C32"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "41"]
[EventDate "1857.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{On becoming USA champion, for a time Morphy settled in New York, where he
played 161 games at odds (+107 -36 =18) and 100 on equal terms (+87 -5 =8), in
which his opponents included the strongest players of that time, such as
Paulsen, Stanley, Lichtenhein and Schulten. One of his wins over the latter
was published all over the world.} 1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 e4 {(the Falkbeer
Counter-Gambit, the evaluation of which remains not altogether clear even to
this day)} 4. Nc3 ({More is promised by} 4. d3 Nf6 (4... Qxd5 5. Qe2 ({or, as
suggested by Keres,} 5. Nd2 $5 exd3 6. Bxd3)) 5. dxe4 Nxe4 6. Nf3 Bc5 7. Qe2
Bf5 8. Nc3 Qe7 9. Be3 $1 {.}) 4... Nf6 5. d3 Bb4 6. Bd2 ({After} 6. dxe4 Nxe4
7. Qd4 Qe7 {Black has a comfortable game:} 8. Be2 O-O 9. Bd2 Nxd2 10. Qxd2 c6
$1 (10... Bg4 {has also been played}) 11. Nf3 (11. dxc6 $6 Rd8 12. Qc1 Nxc6) (
11. O-O-O cxd5 12. Bf3 Be6 {and ...Nc6}) 11... cxd5 12. O-O Nc6 {
(Bardeleben-Blackburne, London 1895).}) 6... e3 $5 {'Entirely in Morphy's
style! We have here a splendid example of a positional sacrifice.' (Euwe)} ({
Later they began making this move automatically, occasionally also trying} 6...
exd3 7. Bxd3 O-O {.}) ({But in the game Spassky-Bronstein (Moscow 1971) Black
preferred} 6... O-O {and after} 7. Nxe4 Re8 8. Bxb4 Nxe4 9. dxe4 Rxe4+ 10. Be2
Rxb4 {(a variation by Falkbeer!)} 11. Nf3 Rxf4 12. Qd2 Qd6 13. O-O-O Nd7 14.
Nd4 a6 15. g3 Rf6 16. Rhe1 Ne5 17. Bh5 Bd7 18. Qe2 Re8 {he gained a draw.
Apparently, after 6...e3, without going into details, Spassky was intending
somewhere to improve on Schulten's play...}) 7. Bxe3 O-O 8. Bd2 ({No better is
} 8. Be2 Bxc3+ 9. bxc3 Nxd5 10. Bd2 Qf6 $1) ({or} 8. Nge2 Re8 9. Bd2 Bxc3 10.
Bxc3 Nxd5 {(Schulten-Kolisch, Paris 1860).}) 8... Bxc3 {Eliminating the knight,
which in some cases could have covered the e-file.} ({For example:} 8... Nxd5
9. Nxd5 Re8+ 10. Ne3 (10. Be2 $5) 10... Rxe3+ 11. Kf2) ({or} 8... Re8+ 9. Be2 (
{inferior is} 9. Nce2 $6 Bc5 {, when} 10. c4 $2 ({while after} 10. Nf3 Qxd5 {
Black is alright}) 10... Ng4 11. Nh3 Qh4+ 12. g3 Nxh2 $1 {is not possible})
9... Bg4 10. Ne4 $1 {with advantage.}) 9. bxc3 Re8+ ({Later there occurred}
9... Nxd5 10. -- (10. Qf3 Re8+ 11. Ne2 Nc6 {with double-edged play}) (10. Nf3
Qf6 $1) ({, although more active is} 10. c4 $1 Re8+ 11. Be2 Ne3 (11... Nf6 12.
Nf3 Qe7 13. Ne5 Nc6 14. Bc3 $1 {Estrin}) 12. Bxe3 Rxe3 13. Kf2 $1 Re8 ({
incorrect is} 13... Qd4 $2 14. Nf3 Qxf4 15. Qc1 {Petroff-Schumoff, St
Petersburg 1862}) 14. Nf3 {, and Black still has to find real compensation for
the pawn (for example,} Bg4 15. Qd2 Bxf3 16. Bxf3 Qd4+ 17. Kg3 $1 {etc.).}))
10. Be2 Bg4 {Since Morphy won quickly, one does not feel inclined to criticise
this move.} ({Especially since after} 10... Nxd5 11. c4 $1 {, as it follows
from the previous note, it is not obvious that Black can equalise.}) 11. c4 $6
{'This "greedy" move is the decisive (? - G.K.) mistake.} ({White could have
escaped from the pin, firstly, by} 11. h3 Bxe2 12. Nxe2 Qe7 (12... Nxd5 13. O-O
) 13. Kf2 ({in my opinion,} 13. c4 $5 c6 14. dxc6 Nxc6 15. Kf2 Qc5+ 16. Kg3 Re6
17. Kh2 Rae8 18. Ng3 {is more promising - G.K.}) 13... Nxd5 14. Re1 Ne3 15.
Qc1 {. Secondly, there was also the more useful move 11 Kf2, after which it is
not easy for Black to demonstrate that his initiative is worth the sacrificed
pawn.' (Neishtadt)}) ({According to Estrin, however, after} 11. h3 {stronger is
} Qxd5 $1 12. Kf2 (12. hxg4 $2 Qxg2) 12... Bxe2 13. Nxe2 Qc5+ $1 {'with the
initiative for Black' (although the position after} 14. Kg3 {is by no means so
clear)}) ({whereas perhaps} 11. Kf2 {is indeed useful:} Bxe2 12. Nxe2 Qxd5 13.
Rf1 (13. Re1 Nc6 14. Kg1 Qc5+ $1 15. d4 Qd5 {is equal}) 13... Nc6 (13... Qc5+
14. Kg3 Qh5 15. Nd4) (13... Ng4+ $5) 14. Kg1 Qc5+ 15. Kh1 Ng4 16. Nd4 {with a
slight advantage.}) 11... c6 $1 12. dxc6 $4 {But this really is the decisive
mistake, the move of roughly a third category player.} ({Absolutely essential
was} 12. h3 Bxe2 13. Nxe2 cxd5 14. cxd5 Qxd5 15. O-O {with an extra pawn, for
which Black has some compensation, but not more. Now, however, he has an
enormous lead in development and an irresistible attack.}) 12... Nxc6 {(with
the threat of ...Nd4)} 13. Kf1 ({White would no longer have saved the game by}
13. h3 Bxe2 14. Nxe2 Nd4) ({or} 13. Bc3 Nd4 14. Bxd4 Qxd4 15. Nf3 Bxf3 16. gxf3
Nh5) ({or} 13. Kf2 Qb6+ ({but not} 13... Rxe2+ $2 14. Nxe2 Nd4 15. Re1) 14. Kg3
Rxe2 15. Nxe2 Nd4 {.}) 13... Rxe2 $1 {(disaster strikes on e2)} 14. Nxe2 Nd4
15. Qb1 Bxe2+ 16. Kf2 (16. Kg1 Nxc2) ({and} 16. Ke1 Qe7 {are equally hopeless.}
) 16... Ng4+ 17. Kg1 ({If} 17. Ke1 {then} Qh4+ 18. g3 Qe7 ({or} 18... Re8 $1 {.
})) (17. Kg3 Nf5+ {and ...Qh4 mate.}) 17... Nf3+ $1 {(forcing mate in seven
moves)} 18. gxf3 Qd4+ 19. Kg2 Qf2+ 20. Kh3 Qxf3+ 21. Kh4 ({After} 21. Kh4 {,
Black announced mate in three:} Ne3 22. Rg1 Nf5+ 23. Kg5 Qh5#) 0-1
[Event "8: London"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1858.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Bird, H."]
[Black "Morphy, P."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C41"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "58"]
[EventDate "1858.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{Morphy dreamed of playing the chess king of the 1840s - Staunton, and his
friends sent the latter an invitation to visit America. But Staunton declined,
and then Morphy himself set off for Europe. In June 1858 he arrived in England,
where he easily demonstrated his superiority over the local masters,
brilliantly winning a match against Löwenthal (spending the prize on...
furniture for the flat of his hard-up opponent!), but, alas, after lengthy
discussions he did not achieve his main aim - a match with the 48-year-old
English champion. --- The explanation is obvious - here we can again recall
the words of Fischer: 'Staunton appears to have been afraid to meet Morphy and
I think his fears were well-founded. Morphy would have beaten him, but it
wouldn't have been the one-sided encounter that many writers now think it
would. It would have been a great struggle.' --- The others were crushed one
after another by the young American, and in highly spectacular style.} 1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 f5 $6 {Philidor's move, which was fashionable at that time,
but which is objectively more than dubious, and perhaps even losing.} 4. Nc3 ({
Also good is} 4. Bc4) ({as well as} 4. dxe5 fxe4 5. Ng5 d5 6. e6 (6. Nc3 $5)
6... Bc5 7. Nc3 $1 ({but not immediately} 7. Nf7 $2 Qf6 8. Be3 d4 {with a
counterattack, Barnes-Morphy, London 1858}) 7... c6 (7... Qf6 8. Ngxe4 dxe4 9.
Qh5+ {and Qxc5}) 8. Nf7 {, which was suggested back in 1880 by Johann Berger.})
4... fxe4 ({Black fails to equalise with either} 4... Nf6 5. dxe5 Nxe4 6. Nxe4
fxe4 7. Ng5 d5 8. e6 Bc5 9. Nxe4 Be7 10. Qh5+ g6 11. Qe5 Rg8 12. Ng5) ({or}
4... exd4 5. Qxd4 fxe4 6. Bg5 Nf6 7. Nxe4 Be7 8. Bc4 Nc6 9. Qe3 {.}) 5. Nxe4 d5
({Or} 5... Nf6 6. Nxf6+ gxf6 ({if} 6... Qxf6 {then} 7. Bg5 Qg6 8. dxe5 {
Zukertort}) 7. dxe5 fxe5 8. Bc4 Qf6 9. Ng5 {with an obvious advantage.}) 6. Ng3
$6 ({As was shown by Zukertort, stronger is} 6. Nxe5 $1 dxe4 7. Qh5+ g6 8. Nxg6
Nf6 9. Qe5+ Be7 ({and in the event of} 9... Kf7 10. Bc4+ Kg7 (10... Kxg6 $4 11.
Qg5#) 11. Bh6+ Kxh6 12. Nxh8 Bb4+ 13. c3 Qxh8 14. cxb4 {(Keres), White's
advantage is close to being decisive}) 10. Nxh8 Nc6 11. Bb5 Qd5 12. Bg5 {.})
6... e4 7. Ne5 Nf6 8. Bg5 ({Correct is} 8. f3 $1 {, advantageously undermining
the centre.}) 8... Bd6 {'A move typical of Morphy, striving as soon as
possible to overcome his lack of development.' (Euwe)} ({In Maróczy's opinion,
} 8... Be7 {was more circumspect.}) 9. Nh5 $6 O-O 10. Qd2 $6 Qe8 $1 11. g4 $2 {
After a series of incomprehensible moves, Bird commits a decisive mistake.
'However, had it not been for this move, chess literature would not have been
enriched with one of Morphy's most staggering and profound combinations...} ({
After} 11. Nxf6+ $1 gxf6 12. Bxf6 -- (12... Rxf6 13. Qg5+ Rg6 14. Nxg6 hxg6 $1
15. Qxd5+ ({or} 15. h4 {) the game would have become equal.' (Maróczy)})) (
12... Qh5 13. g4) ({. Euwe does not agree with this evaluation: 'In the
resulting open position the strength of the two black bishops should quickly
tell.' But in my opinion, White would have been lucky to reach such a position,
since in fact he is destroyed by the interposition of} 12... e3 $1 {(this
Morphy would not have missed!)} 13. Qxe3 Rxf6 14. O-O-O (14. Qg5+ Rg6) 14...
Bf8 {etc. --- Bird's mistake is fully understandable: he already had a
difficult choice...})) (11. Bxf6 Qxh5 {.}) 11... Nxg4 12. Nxg4 Qxh5 13. Ne5 Nc6
14. Be2 Qh3 15. Nxc6 bxc6 16. Be3 Rb8 {The prelude to a combination,} ({
although the immediate} 16... Bg4 {was more efficient, when Black is a very
healthy pawn to the good.}) 17. O-O-O ({'Safer is} 17. c3 {' (Maróczy), if one
can say this about a hopeless position.}) 17... Rxf2 $6 {I raise my hat to the
great chess artist,} ({but the crude} 17... Bg4 $1 {was correct}) ({or even,
according to Euwe, the slow} 17... Bf5 {and ...Bg6.}) 18. Bxf2 Qa3 $3 ({But not
} 18... Ba3 $2 19. Qe3 $1 {. Alas, even this brilliant queen manoeuvre does
not give more than a draw...}) 19. c3 $1 ({If} 19. Qg5 {Maróczy gives the
winning variation} Qxb2+ 20. Kd2 Bb4+ 21. Ke3 Qa3+ $1 22. Bd3 (22. Kf4 $2 Bd6+)
22... Ba6 23. Rhg1 Bf8 $1 {and ...exd3}) ({while if} 19. Qc3 -- (19... Qxa2 20.
Rdg1 g6 21. b3 Bb4 $1 {.}) ({. Instead of 19...Qxa2 even stronger is} 19...
Bf4+ $1 20. Rd2 Qxa2 21. Qa3 ({or} 21. b3 Bd6 $1 ({simpler than} 21... e3 22.
Bxe3 Bxe3 23. Rf1 a5 $1 {etc}) 22. Rdd1 Bb4 {winning}) 21... Qxa3 22. bxa3 e3 {
and wins (Euwe).})) 19... Qxa2 ({Grandmaster Murey tried to find a win after}
19... e3 $6 20. Bxe3 Bf5 {, but without success:} 21. Qc2 $1 Qxa2 22. Bd3 Bxd3
(22... Ba3) ({or} 22... Rxb2 {-} 23. Bxf5) 23. Rxd3 Ba3 (23... Rxb2 24. Qxb2
Ba3 25. Qxa3 $1) 24. Qb1 $1 (24. bxa3 Qa1+ 25. Kd2 Qxh1 26. c4 $1 Qxh2+ 27. Kc3
{will also do}) 24... Bxb2+ 25. Kc2 Qa4+ 26. Kd2 Bxc3+ 27. Rxc3 Rxb1 28. Rxb1
Qa2+ 29. Kc1 {, parrying the attack and retaining the extra material.}) 20. b4
{Forced: mate in two was threatened;} ({and if} 20. Qc2 $2 {there is a choice
between} Bf4+ ({and} 20... Rxb2 21. Qxb2 Ba3 22. Qxa3 Qxa3+ 23. Kd2 Qb2+ 24.
Ke1 Qxc3+ {.})) 20... Qa1+ 21. Kc2 Qa4+ 22. Kb2 $2 ({According to Maróczy,} 22.
Kc1 $1 {would have forced a draw by perpetual check (} Qa1+ {)} ({, since}
22... Bxb4 $2 {is wrong in view of} 23. cxb4 Rxb4 24. Qg5 (24. Qc2 Qa3+ 25. Kd2
Rb2 26. Rc1 {is also possible}) 24... Qa3+ 25. Kd2 Rb2+ 26. Ke1 Rxe2+ 27. Kxe2
Qf3+ 28. Ke1 Qxh1+ 29. Qg1 Qf3 30. Qg3 {.}) ({. Now, with the help of a
computer, it can be established that} 22... Bf5 $1 23. Be1 $1 Qa1+ 24. Kc2 e3+
25. Kb3 exd2 26. Rxa1 Re8 27. Ba6 dxe1=Q 28. Raxe1 Rxe1 29. Rxe1 Bxh2 30. Bb7
Be4 31. Bxc6 Kf7 {would nevertheless have given Black a minimal advantage
(obviously less than after 17...Bg4!: here it is far closer to a draw). This
is the present-day level of attack and defence, illustrating the colossal
progress in chess during the past hundred plus years.}) (22... a5 23. Qc2 Qa3+
24. Qb2 axb4 25. Kc2 Ba6 26. Bf1 $1 {is unclear.})) 22... Bxb4 23. cxb4 Rxb4+
24. Qxb4 Qxb4+ 25. Kc2 ({If} 25. Ka2 {Black wins by} c5 $1 26. dxc5 e3 $1 27.
Bxe3 d4 {.}) 25... e3 $1 {This reply was overlooked by Bird - but it is hard
to demand of a master from the mid-19th century that he should be able to
weigh up all the consequences of 18...Qa3!! and 22...Bxb4. Whereas Morphy's
sound framework and his wide-ranging tactics already resemble the play of a
modern grandmaster. To combat such a hurricane was simply impossible.} 26. Bxe3
Bf5+ 27. Rd3 ({Or} 27. Bd3 Qc4+ {.}) 27... Qc4+ 28. Kd2 Qa2+ 29. Kd1 Qb1+ 0-1
[Event "9: Friendly game, Paris"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1858.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Morphy, P."]
[Black "Consultants"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C41"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "33"]
[EventDate "1858.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{Early in the autumn of 1858 Morphy moved on to Paris, where he won a match
against the French champion Daniel Harrwitz. The winner was to be the first to
win seven games, but after a string of failures Harrwitz 'fell ill' and the
arbiter ruled that he had been defeated (+5 -2 =1). Curiously, Morphy
considered that the event was not altogether complete and he give up his small
prize to pay for the great Anderssen to travel from Breslau to Paris, if the
latter wished to play a 'friendly match'. Anderssen, naturally, accepted the
challenge, but informed Morphy that he would be unable to give up his teaching
work in the middle of the school year and that he would arrive only for the
Christmas holiday... --- While he was waiting, Morphy gave some simultaneous
displays (as in England, with particular success playing blindfold), and
played some friendly games with the French masters, including Arnous de
Rivičre and Saint-Amant (his future second in the match with Anderssen), and
also with some less strong - but more distinguished! - opponents. The most
famous of these games was played against two consultants - the Duke of
Brunswick and Count Isouard - in a box during a performance at the Opera
Theatre.} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Bg4 $2 {Nowadays every schoolboy knows that
this is bad, but in those days it was even played by Harrwitz!} 4. dxe5 Bxf3 5.
Qxf3 dxe5 6. Bc4 Nf6 $2 {The decisive mistake.} ({True, Black had an
unpleasant choice between} 6... Qf6 7. Qb3 Bc5 ({the spectacular variation}
7... b6 $6 8. Nc3 Ne7 $2 9. Nb5 Na6 10. Qa4 Nc5 11. Nd6+ $1 Kd8 12. Qe8# {was
pointed out long ago in Greco's treatise!}) 8. O-O Bb6 9. a4 a5 10. Nc3 Ne7 11.
Be3 Nd7 12. Rad1) ({and} 6... Qd7 7. Qb3 {followed by Nc3, 0-0 and Rd1 - in
both cases White has an obvious advantage.}) 7. Qb3 {(a classic double attack)}
Qe7 ({In a game played a month earlier Morphy-Harrwitz (Paris 8th matchgame
1858) Black preferred to suffer a pawn down after} 7... Bd6 8. Bxf7+ {and he
resigned on the 59th move.}) (7... Qd7 $2 8. Qxb7 {.}) 8. Nc3 $5 {For the sake
of rapid development Morphy avoids the exchange of queens,} ({although after}
8. Bxf7+ $1 Kd8 ({or} 8... Qxf7 9. Qxb7) 9. Qxb7 Qb4+ 10. Qxb4 Bxb4+ 11. c3 {
Black can resign.}) (8. Qxb7 Qb4+ 9. Qxb4 Bxb4+ 10. Bd2 {is rather a 'small'
achievement.}) 8... c6 9. Bg5 b5 $2 {An attempt to solve all the problems in
one go.} ({'Black would hardly have saved the game by} 9... Na6 10. Bxa6 bxa6
11. Qc4) ({or} 9... h6 10. Bxf6 gxf6 11. O-O-O) ({while} 9... Qc7 10. O-O-O Bc5
{would have been refuted by the simple} 11. Bxf7+ $1 Qxf7 12. Rd8+ $1 {'
(Neishtadt).}) 10. Nxb5 $1 ({But not} 10. Be2 $2 Qb4 $1 {.}) 10... cxb5 11.
Bxb5+ Nbd7 ({Or} 11... Kd8 12. O-O-O+ {.}) 12. O-O-O Rd8 ({If} 12... Qb4 $2 {
, then} 13. Bxf6 {.}) 13. Rxd7 $1 {'White lands successive blows, and each
time with gain of tempo.' (Euwe) 'Morphy is in his element. The brilliant
combination with sacrifices makes this game one of the most beautiful
achievements in the entire history of chess.' (Maróczy)} Rxd7 14. Rd1 Qe6 (
14... Qb4 $2 15. Bxf6 {.}) 15. Bxd7+ (15. Bxf6 {was a drier alternative.})
15... Nxd7 16. Qb8+ $3 Nxb8 17. Rd8# {. 'A sparkling finish!' (Euwe)} 1-0
[Event "10: Match, Paris 1858"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1858.??.??"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Morphy, P."]
[Black "Anderssen, A."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B32"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "33"]
[EventDate "1858.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{But then December came, and Anderssen arrived in Paris. They agreed to play
up to seven wins, and a few days later, with Morphy hardly having managed to
recover from illness, there began the historic match between the two most
striking and undoubtedly the strongest players of the mid-19th century. ---
Again, as in his match with Harrwitz, Morphy began with a loss. But then he
gained a draw and... won five games in a row! Anderssen simply no longer knew
that to do: with White he despaired of playing 1 e4 and switched to his patent
move 1 a3 (which he later called 'crazy'), and with the black pieces he
unsuccessfully tried 1...e5, 1...d5, ...e6 and 1...c5.} 1. e4 c5 {(Anderssen,
after La Bourdonnais and Staunton, was one of the pioneers of the Sicilian
Defence)} 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 e6 5. Nb5 d6 {It is hard to believe
that this modern tabiya occurred a century and a half ago!} 6. Bf4 {Fischer's
favourite;} ({but later everyone began preferring Karpov's favourite move} 6.
c4 {.}) 6... e5 7. Be3 f5 $2 ({More than a hundred years were required, in
order to show that after} 7... Nf6 8. Bg5 Be6 {Black has nothing to worry
about, for example:} 9. N1c3 a6 10. Bxf6 gxf6 11. Na3 d5 $1 {etc.
(Fischer-Petrosian, Buenos Aires 1st matchgame 1971). However, Anderssen with
his aggressive style wanted to hasten a crisis in the centre: previously such
methods had always worked for him.}) 8. N1c3 $1 {Morphy sensed that chess
logic was on his side, and he found an immediate refutation of Black's
premature activity.} f4 ({If} 8... a6 {, then} 9. Nd5 $1 axb5 10. Bb6 Qh4 11.
Nc7+ Kd7 12. Nxa8 Qxe4+ 13. Qe2 {is decisive.}) ({'And after} 8... Nf6 9. Bg5
a6 (9... Be7 10. Bxf6 gxf6 $2 11. Qh5+ Kf8 12. Bc4 Qe8 13. Qh6#) 10. Bxf6 gxf6
11. Qh5+ Kd7 12. Qxf5+ Ke8 13. Qh5+ Kd7 14. Na3 {White is a pawn up with the
better position.' (Maróczy)}) 9. Nd5 $1 fxe3 {(there is already no way back)}
10. Nbc7+ Kf7 11. Qf3+ $6 (11. Nxa8 {was probably stronger, for example:} exf2+
12. Kxf2 Qh4+ 13. g3 Qxe4 14. Bg2 {. But Morphy did not want to divert his
sights from the enemy king, and this presumptuousness allowed some
counter-chances...}) 11... Nf6 12. Bc4 Nd4 $1 13. Nxf6+ d5 $1 ({Bad is} 13...
Ke7 14. Nfd5+ Kd7 15. Qf7+ Be7 (15... Kc6 16. Nb4+) 16. fxe3 Rf8 ({or} 16...
Nxc2+ 17. Kd2) 17. exd4 Rxf7 18. Bb5# {.}) ({It is doubtful whether Anderssen
worked out all the consequences of} 13... Kg6 {, but his combinative feeling
did not let him down:} 14. Qh5+ Kxf6 15. Ne8+ ({Maróczy suggested '} 15. fxe3
$1 {, as in the game', but here after} Qxc7 16. Rf1+ Nf5 {it comes to nothing})
15... Qxe8 16. Qxe8 Nxc2+ (16... d5 17. O-O-O $1) 17. Kf1 e2+ (17... Nxa1 18.
g4 $1) 18. Bxe2 Nxa1 19. g4 $1 {and Black, despite the favourable material
balance, is helpless against the new wave of the attack.}) 14. Bxd5+ {The
critical moment of the battle.} Kg6 $2 ({'An oversight! Black thought that
after} 14... Kg6 15. Qh5+ Kxf6 16. Qf7+ ({now} 16. Ne8+ $2 {is not possible
because of} Qxe8 17. Qxe8 Bb4+ {- G.K.}) ({but he overlooked} 16. fxe3 $1 {
with a decisive attack on the f-file}) 16... Kg5 {he would be able to save his
king. The game was played very quickly, otherwise Anderssen would undoubtedly
have noticed this simple move,' writes Maróczy.}) ({'It was possible to avoid
the immediate danger by} 14... Qxd5 15. Nfxd5+ Nxf3+ 16. gxf3 exf2+ 17. Kxf2
Bc5+ 18. Ke2 Rb8 {when Black, with two bishops against two knights, does not
stand badly.' But in my opinion he is a simply a pawn down, and after} 19. b4
Bf8 (19... Bd6 20. Nb5) 20. Rhd1 ({or} 20. c4 {immediately}) 20... Bd7 21. c4 {
he has a technically lost ending.}) ({White would have been caused more
problems by Zukertort's suggestion of} 14... Ke7 {:} 15. -- (15. Ng8+ $6 Kd6
16. Qf7 Nxc2+ 17. Kd1 (17. Ke2 Bg4+ 18. f3 Nd4+ 19. Kxe3 Qxc7 20. Qxc7+ Kxc7
21. fxg4 Bd6) 17... Nxa1 18. Nxa8 Bg4+ 19. f3 Bd7 $1 {and Black is winning}) (
15. Qh5 gxf6 16. Qf7+ Kd6 17. Nxa8 $1 ({the only way:} 17. Ne8+ $2 Qxe8 18.
Qxe8 Nxc2+ 19. Kf1 e2+ 20. Kg1 Nxa1 {etc.}) 17... Nxc2+ (17... Qe7 18. O-O-O)
18. Ke2 Qe7 19. Qxe7+ Bxe7 20. Rac1 Nd4+ 21. Kxe3 Bd7 22. Rc7 $1 Rxa8 23. Rxb7
Bc6 24. Bxc6 Nxc6 25. Rc1 Nd8 26. Rd1+ Ke6 27. Rc7 Rb8 {. According to Maróczy,
'White's position is slightly better,' but in my view after} 28. b3 {Black
cannot hold out.})) 15. Qh5+ Kxf6 16. fxe3 $1 {Perhaps Anderssen was hoping
that his young opponent would lose his way in the mass of tactical
complications, but Morphy maintained a clear head. It turns out that the king
can be finished off on the open f-file not only in the King's Gambit...} Nxc2+
{This loses immediately;} ({but} 16... Qxc7 {would merely have prolonged the
agony:} 17. Rf1+ ({much clearer than Maróczy's suggestion of} 17. exd4 Ke7 18.
O-O-O) 17... Nf5 (17... Ke7 $2 18. Rf7+) 18. Rxf5+ $1 Bxf5 19. Qxf5+ Ke7 20.
Qe6+ Kd8 21. O-O-O $1 Bd6 ({or} 21... Qd7 22. Bxb7) 22. Bxb7 {etc.}) 17. Ke2 ({
Black resigned in view of the continuation} 17. Ke2 Nxa1 18. Rf1+ Ke7 19. Qxe5+
Kd7 20. Be6+ Kc6 21. Rc1+ Kb6 22. Qb5# {.}) (17. Ke2 {An impressive defeat of
the champion of the Old World! This game lasted all of half an hour. After
gaining revenge on the 77th move in the very next game, Anderssen joked
gloomily: 'Morphy wins in 17 moves, whereas it takes me 77. However, this is
still bearable...' By winning the 11th game, Morphy won the match (+7 -2 =2),
and thus in just one year he had demonstrated that he had no equal in the
world. --- 'Morphy possesses the secret of invincibility,' the newspapers
enthused. The loser, although shocked, also worthily assessed his opponent's
triumph, publicly declaring that Morphy played much more strongly and solidly
than La Bourdonnais, and admitting: 'It is useless fighting against this man;
for me he is too strong. He is accurate and faultless, like a machine, whereas
I am only a mere mortal...' Later Anderssen shared an important observation:
'Morphy treats chess with the seriousness and conscientiousness of an artist...
For him a game of chess is a sacred duty...' --- Before Morphy left Paris a
splendid farewell banquet was held in his honour. To the applause of the
public, the chairman Saint-Amant crowned with a laurel wreath a marble bust,
specially made for the occasion, of the 'king of all kings', which became one
of the sights of the Café de la Régence.} -- {Paul was greeted even more
triumphantly in New York. An official celebration in his honour took place in
a hall seating two thousand, where enormous shields were erected with the
names of his defeated opponents. When Morphy appeared a hymn was played; then
the chess king was presented with a gift from the nation - a rosewood table,
encrusted with pearl and silver, a chess board with squares of mother-of-pearl
and ebony, with gold and silver pieces on cornelian pedestals... He was also
presented with a gold clock with diamonds, where the hours were indicated by
red and black chess pieces. For the first time in the history of chess a
victory was recognised as an event of national importance! --- Alas, after
this Morphy abandoned the chess arena forever. In the early 60s, when the
Civil War broke out in the USA, he showed the first signs of mental disorder,
and within a few years it turned out that the great maestro was lost not only
to chess... In the 70s he could be seen just once a day, always at the same
time, walking the streets of New Orleans. Legend has it that not long before
his death, in 1882, he exchanged greetings with Zukertort, who was performing
in the town, and that in 1883 he chatted for about ten minutes at his home
with Steinitz... In the summer of 1884, at the age of 47, the legendary
American passed away. --- What was the secret of Morphy's invincibility? I
think that it was a combination of a unique natural talent and brilliant
erudition. His play was the next, more mature stage in the development of
chess. Morphy had a well-developed 'feeling for position', and therefore he
can be confidently regarded as the 'first swallow' - the prototype of the
strong 20th century grandmaster. --- Like Philidor previously, Morphy was
greatly ahead of his time. As Euwe put it: 'if the distinguishing feature of a
genius is that he is far ahead compared with his epoch, then Morphy was a
chess genius in the complete sense of the word.' He spontaneously established
the three main principles of opening play: 1) the rapid development of the
pieces; 2) the seizure of the centre; 3) the opening of lines. To formulate
these and other principles of positional play required a further quarter of a
century and the mighty intellect of the next chess titan - Wilhelm Steinitz...}
(17... -- {In conclusion, here are some interesting views of the world
champions. --- Lasker: 'In Paul Morphy the spirit of La Bourdonnais had arisen
anew, only more vigorous, firmer, prouder... Morphy discovered that the
brilliant move of a master is essentially conditional not on a sudden and
inexplicable realisation, but on the placing of the pieces on the board. He
introduced the rule: brilliant moves and deep winning manoeuvres are possible
only in those positions where the opponent can be opposed with an abundance of
active energy... From the very first moves Morphy aimed to disclose the
internal energy located in his pieces. It was suddenly revealed that they
possess far greater dynamism than the opponent's forces.' --- Capablanca:
'Reviewing the history of chess from La Bourdonnais to the masters of our day
right up to Lasker, we discover that the greatest stylist was Morphy. He did
not look for complicated combinations, but he also did not avoid them, which
really is the correct way of playing... His main strength lay not in his
combinative gift, but in his positional play and general style. Morphy gained
most of his wins by playing directly and simply, and it is this simple and
logical method that constitutes the true brilliance of his play, if it is
considered from the viewpoint of the great masters.' --- Alekhine: 'How much
more vivid, more rich does the figure of Morphy appear before us, how much
clearer does the secret of his success and charm become, if we transfer
ourselves in our thoughts to that era when he lived and created, if we take
the trouble to study, if only a little, his contemporaries! Then... in London
and in particular in Paris, where the traditions of Philidor were still alive,
where the immortal creations of La Bourdonnais and McDonnell were still in the
memory, at that time, finally, when Anderssen was alive, and with brilliance
alone it was hardly possible to surprise anyone. The strength, the invincible
strength of Morphy - this was the reason for his success and the guarantee of
his immortality!' And Morphy's strength, according to Alekhine, was his
'deeply considered positional play, primarily of an aggressive character.'}) (
17... -- {Botvinnik: 'To this day Morphy is an unsurpassed master of the open
games. Just how great was his significance is evident from the fact that after
Morphy nothing substantially new has been created in this field. Every player
- from beginner to master - should in his praxis return again and again to the
games of the American genius.' --- Fischer: 'A popularly held theory about
Paul Morphy is that if he returned to the chess world today and played our
best contemporary players, he would come out the loser. Nothing is further
from the truth. In a set match, Morphy would beat anybody alive today...
Morphy was perhaps the most accurate chess player who ever lived. He had
complete sight of the board and never blundered, in spite of the fact that he
played quite rapidly, rarely taking more than five minutes to decide a move.
(His opponents, in those days before chess clocks, often took hours.)' Perhaps
his only weakness was in closed games like the Dutch Defence. But even then,
he was usually victorious because of his resourcefulness.' --- Smyslov: 'There
is no doubt that for Morphy chess was an art, and for chess Morphy was a great
artist. His play was captivated by freshness of thought and inexhaustible
energy. He played with inspiration, without striving to penetrate into the
psychology of the opponent; he played, if one can express it so, "pure chess".
His harmonious positional under-standing and deep intuition would have made
Morphy a highly dangerous opponent even for any player of our times.' --- It
would appear that each world champion considered Morphy's play through the
prism of his own approach to chess. Each found in him the source of his own
strength! And so, summing up all that has been said, Morphy can be regarded as
the forefather of modern chess.})) 1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "2: Wilhelm the First"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.06"]
{Wilhelm Steinitz (14 May 1836 - 2 August 1900) was not only the first world
champion, but also a great researcher, the creator of a new, positional chess
school. His life's work was fully appreciated by the next chess king - Lasker:
'When Paul Morphy, despairing of life, renounced chess, Caissa fell into deep
mourning and into dreary thoughts... The games of the masters of that period
are planless; the great models of the past are known, and the masters try to
follow them and to equal them, but they do not succeed. The masters give
themselves over to reflection. One of them reflects for a long time and
intensely on Paul Morphy, and gratefully Caissa encourages him; and the
greatest landmark in the history of chess is reached: Steinitz announces the
principles of strategy, the result of inspired thought and imagination... In
order to distinguish between the true and the false principles, Steinitz had
to dig deep to lay bare the roots of the art possessed by Morphy... --- 'The
reason for a plan's having no existence a priori, is that its existence is
merely asserted, and to make such an assertion requires the boldness of genius.
For this assertion implies that the position on the board must show a sign, a
characteristic moment, which tells us what plan to follow and thus relieve us
of the necessity of searching through an immense mass of variations... The
world did not comprehend how much Steinitz had given it; even chess players
did not comprehend it. And yet his thought was revolutionary... This
fundamental and universal principle may be briefly expressed as follows: the
basis of a masterly plan is always a valuation. To evaluate, to judge, to
estimate a thing does not pretend to exact knowledge. But knowledge by
estimate, by judgement, by evaluation, though not exact, according to the
principle of Steinitz, is still an efficient guide for the master.'} 1. -- {
Steinitz isolated a number of significant positional features and discovered
that brilliant attacks are often successful only because of very weak defence.
After sharply raising the art of defence, he, in the words of Euwe, 'cast
doubts on the widely-accepted, thanks to the victories of Morphy and Anderssen,
axiom about the need to attack!' And instead of this he put forward the
concept of the well-founded attack, resulting from the continuous accumulation
of small advantages. --- His teaching became a turning point in chess history:
it was from Steinitz that the era of modern chess began. The contribution of
the first world champion to its development is comparable with the great
scientific discoveries of the 19th century.} *
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "The Modern Calabrese"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.06"]
{'The Modern Calabrese': Steinitz was born in a Prague ghetto, into the family
of a tailor, in which he was child number nine; the next four all died in
early childhood and he, the last remaining, maintained that he was the 13th
all through his life. He learned chess by watching his father play. After
finishing school in the mid-fifties, he continued his education in Vienna,
which had ancient chess traditions (it is sufficient to recall the names of
Allgaier, Hamppe and Falkbeer). When in London and Paris the fame of Morphy
and Anderssen was at its height, in a small Vienna café a certain poor student
was making a living by playing for stakes... --- Chess captivated Steinitz
entirely. For the sake of it he gave up the higher polytechnic school, which
promised the comfortable life of a qualified engineer, and soon he was the
strongest player in Vienna. And when in 1862 an invitation arrived from London
to the second international tournament, the Vienna Chess Society decided to
send their 26-year-old champion to it.} 1. -- {Steinitz's international debut
was not bad: sixth prize out of 14 participants (all of five pounds sterling!),
but the main thing was his memorable win over Mongrédien. The winner of the
tournament, the legendary Adolf Anderssen, acknowledged it to be 'the most
bold and brilliant game', and called Steinitz 'a rising chess star'. In turn,
the organisers called the game 'the diamond of the Austrian champion' and
awarded it a special prize, as the most brilliant in the tournament.} *
[Event "11: London"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1862.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Steinitz, W."]
[Black "Mongrédien, A."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B01"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "57"]
[EventDate "1862.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qd8 $6 {A move that is mentioned back in ancient
manuscripts.} ({More popular and natural is} 3... Qa5 {with definite
counter-chances, as even occurred in the Kasparov-Anand match (New York 14th
matchgame 1995).}) 4. d4 e6 ({After} 4... Nf6 {Fischer played} 5. Bc4 Bf5 6.
Qf3 $1) ({and after} 4... g6 {-} 5. Bf4 Bg7 6. Qd2 $1 {.}) 5. Nf3 Nf6 6. Bd3
Be7 7. O-O (7. Qe2 Nc6 8. Be3 Nb4 9. Bc4 Nbd5 {is unclear.}) 7... O-O {A
'French' type of position has arisen, but with an extra tempo for White. In
Black's justification it can be said that a similar position (with the bishop
at c4) occurred in the game Alekhine-Schlechter (Carlsbad 1911).} 8. Be3 ({The
alternative is} 8. Qe2 Nc6 9. Rd1 Nb4 10. Bc4 Nbd5 11. Ne4) ({or} 8. Ne5 $5 c5
9. dxc5 {.}) 8... b6 ({Or} 8... Nbd7 9. Ne5 $1 {.}) 9. Ne5 Bb7 10. f4 Nbd7 (
10... Nc6 $5 {.}) 11. Qe2 ({'} 11. f5 {came into consideration,' writes Yakov
Neishtadt in his book The First World Champion (1971). However, I am not sure
that White has any advantage after} exf5 12. Rxf5 (12. Bxf5 Nxe5 13. dxe5 Nd5)
12... Nxe5 13. dxe5 Nd5 14. Nxd5 Qxd5 15. Qg4 g6 {.}) 11... Nd5 $6 (11... c5 {
is more logical, although after} 12. Rad1 {White is a little better.}) 12. Nxd5
exd5 ({If} 12... Bxd5 {, not shutting in the bishop and controlling the
f3-square, then} 13. c4 Bb7 14. Rad1 {.}) 13. Rf3 (13. Rf3 {with the classic
threat of} -- 14. Bxh7+ Kxh7 15. Rh3+ {and Qh5.}) ({Neishtadt also considers}
13. Qh5 $5 Nf6 14. Qh3 {with the idea of} Bc8 15. f5 $1 {.}) 13... f5 $1 ({
Avoiding the rout that is possible after} 13... Nxe5 $6 14. fxe5 f6 15. Rh3 {(}
g6 16. Rxh7 $1 {)}) ({or} 13... Nf6 $6 14. Rh3 {(with the threat of g2-g4-g5)}
Bc8 (14... Ne4 15. Bxe4 dxe4 16. Qh5 h6 17. Rg3 $1 {etc.}) 15. f5 Bd6 16. Bg5
$1 h6 17. Bh4 Re8 18. Bb5 $1 Bxf5 19. Bxe8 Qxe8 20. Rf3 Bg4 21. Bxf6 Bxf3 22.
Qxf3 gxf6 23. Ng4 {.}) 14. Rh3 ({Better is} 14. Raf1 $5 {with an enduring
positional initiative.}) 14... g6 {Parrying Qh5 and intending ...Nf6.} ({Bad is
} 14... c5 $2 15. Qh5 Nf6 16. Qxf5 Bc8 17. Qxh7+ $1 Nxh7 18. Bxh7+ Kh8 19. Ng6#
{.}) (14... Qe8 $2 15. Bb5 {.}) 15. g4 $6 {According to Lasker 'vigorous and
enterprising play', but in my view debatable, to say the least.} fxg4 $2 ({
Essential was the variation} 15... Nxe5 16. fxe5 Bc8 $1 ({but not} 16... fxg4
$2 17. Rxh7 $1 {, as in the game}) 17. gxf5 Bxf5 {, and White has absolutely
nothing! Now, however, the defence collapses.}) 16. Rxh7 $5 {The start of a
bold combination, which brought Steinitz the brilliancy prize. But was the
rook sacrifice correct? Did Black not have a better defence, or White a
bloodless way to win? --- After giving these questions to readers of the Los
Angeles Times and Welt am Sonntag, which published extracts from the
forthcoming book, I switched on my computer and began comparing my preliminary
conclusions with the opinions of previous commentators of this game. My 'iron
friend' Fritz, as always, caused surprise with its interesting variations, not
reflected in chess literature. I think that even the great Steinitz himself
did not suspect how many exciting adventures remained off-stage in this 'hit'
game!} ({First, it transpired that the simple} 16. Qxg4 $1 {, threatening
sacrifices on g6 and h7, is decisive.} -- ({. After} 16... Nf6 $2 17. -- ({,
Neishtadt suggested} 17. Qg2 {, and if} Bc8 {, then} 18. Rxh7 $1 Kxh7 19. Qxg6+
Kh8 20. Kh1) ({, but more forcing is} 17. Qe6+ $1 Kg7 18. f5 Bc8 (18... h5 19.
Nxg6 Rf7 20. Bh6+ $1) 19. Bh6+ Kh8 20. Nxg6+ hxg6 21. Bxf8+ Nh5 22. Rxh5+ gxh5
23. Qh6+ Kg8 24. Qg7# {(Fritz).})) ({. Therefore there only remains} 16... Nxe5
{.} 17. -- ({. Now it is important not to be tempted by} 17. Qe6+ $2 Nf7 $2 ({
the surprising} 17... Rf7 $3 {refutes the bold queen sortie:} 18. Bxg6 ({the
only chance:} 18. fxe5 $2 Bc8) ({or} 18. Qxe5 $2 Bf6 19. Qe6 Bc8) 18... hxg6 (
18... Nxg6 19. Rxh7 {is not so clear}) 19. fxe5 Bc8 20. Qxg6+ Rg7 {, when the
attack peters out and White is behind in material}) 18. Bxg6 Bh4 19. Qg4 hxg6
20. Qxg6+ Kh8 21. Kh1 $1 ({but not} 21. Qh5+ Kg7 22. Rxh4 {because of} Bc8 23.
Kh1 Bf5 {Fritz}) 21... Rg8 22. Qxf7 Rg7 23. Qh5+ Rh7 24. Qe5+ Bf6 (24... Qf6
25. Rxh4 $1) 25. Rxh7+ Kxh7 26. Qf5+ Kg7 ({or} 26... Kh8 27. Qh3+ Bh4 28. Rg1
Bc8 29. Qg2 Qf8 30. Qg6) 27. Rg1+ Kf7 28. Qh7+ Ke6 29. f5+ Kd6 30. Rg6 $1 Qe7
31. Rxf6+ Qxf6 32. Bf4+ Kc6 33. Qxc7+ Kb5 34. Qxb7 Qxd4 35. a4+ $1 Ka5 36. Qxa8
{and White wins.}) ({. Correct is} 17. dxe5 $1 {with the threat of Bxg6, and
Black has no defence:} -- (17... Qc8 18. e6 Rf6 (18... Qe8 19. f5) 19. f5 Qf8
20. fxg6 hxg6 21. Bxg6 Qg7 22. Rg3 {wins}) ({, or} 17... Bc8 18. e6 Rf6 19. f5
Qf8 (19... Bc5 20. Bxc5 bxc5 21. Re1 Qe8 22. fxg6 {wins}) ({while if} 19... c5
{there is both the modest} 20. fxg6 ({and the extravagant} 20. Rxh7 Kxh7 21.
Qh3+ Kg8 22. fxg6 Rxg6+ 23. Bxg6 Bh4 24. Bf7+ Kh8 25. Qg4)) 20. Bg5 Bc5+ 21.
Kh1 Rxf5 (21... gxf5 $2 22. Bxf6+ fxg4 23. Bxh7#) 22. Bh6 Qf6 23. Bxf5 Qxf5 24.
Qxf5 gxf5 25. Rg3+ Kh8 26. e7 {etc.})) ({. But not} 17. fxe5 $2 Bc8 $1 18. e6
Rf6 {and wins. --- Second, it was confirmed that the rook sacrifice also wins,
although this is a more thorny path to the goal.}))) 16... Nxe5 ({Or} 16...
Kxh7 17. Qxg4 {, and} Nxe5 ({since} 17... Nf6 $2 {is bad:} 18. Qxg6+ Kh8 19.
Qh6+ Kg8 20. Kh1 $1 {and wins}) 18. fxe5 {has to be played.}) 17. fxe5 Kxh7 ({
After the desperate} 17... Bg5 $6 {there is a pleasant choice between:} 18. --
(18. Bxg5 Qxg5 19. Rxc7 g3 ({or} 19... Bc8 20. Kh1) 20. hxg3 $1 (20. Rxb7 $2
Rf2) 20... Qxg3+ 21. Qg2 Qe3+ 22. Kh1 Qh6+ 23. Qh2) ({, and} 18. Bxg6 Rf3 {
(incidentally, 17...Rf3 18 Bxg6 Bg5 would have come to the same thing)} 19. Bf2
$1 ({but not} 19. Bxg5 $2 Qxg5 20. Rxc7 Qxg6 21. Rxb7 Raf8 22. Qg2 Qe4 {and ...Qf4 with sufficient counterplay}) 19... Bf4 20. Bh4 Bg5 21. Qg2 $3 Bc8 22. Rf1
$1 {, and in both cases White is in charge.})) (17... Ba6 $6 18. Rh6 {.}) 18.
Qxg4 Rg8 $2 {This loses without any questions;} ({as does} 18... Rf5 $2 {-
after} 19. Bxf5 gxf5 20. Qxf5+ Kg7 (20... Kh8 21. Qh5+) 21. Kh1 $1 {the black
king is finished off by a check from g1.}) ({But the best defence} 18... Qe8 $1
{would have forced White to play very accurately:} 19. Qh5+ Kg7 $1 ({not} 19...
Kg8 20. Bxg6 Rf7 21. Kh1 Bf8 22. Rg1 Bg7 23. Bh6 $1 {and wins}) 20. Qh6+ Kg8
21. Bxg6 Rf7 22. Kh1 $1 Bf8 {. Here the readers of the aforementioned
newspapers together with the computer discovered two attractive possibilities:}
23. -- (23. Bxf7+ Qxf7 24. Rg1+ Bg7 25. Qf6 $1 Re8 26. Bh6 Qxf6 27. exf6 Re1 $1
28. Rxe1 $1 ({after} 28. Bxg7 Rxg1+ 29. Kxg1 Kf7 30. Kf2 Bc8 31. Ke3 Bf5 32. c3
Ke6 {the endgame is not so clear: the bishop at g7 is passive, and only a
special analysis can establish whether or not the white king will break
through on the queenside}) 28... Bxh6 29. Re7 Bf4 30. h4 {- Black is not able
to coordinate the actions of his bishops, and the white king comes into play
with decisive effect.}) (23. Qh5 {, and Black has no defence:} -- (23... Qd7
24. Rg1 Bg7 25. Qh7+ $1 Kf8 26. Bxf7 Qxf7 27. Rxg7 Qf1+ 28. Rg1 Qf3+ 29. Rg2
Qf1+ 30. Bg1) ({, or} 23... Qe6) ({, or} 23... Bg7 $5 24. Rg1 $1 (24. Qh7+ Kf8
25. Bh6 {gives only perpetual check:} Bxh6 $1 26. Qxh6+ Ke7 27. Qg5+ Kf8) 24...
Kf8 25. Rg3 $3 {the only move;} ({after} 25. Bxf7 Qxf7 26. Rg6 Qf1+ 27. Rg1 Qf7
{Black saves the game}) 25... Rf1+ 26. Kg2 {and wins (Fritz).}))) 19. Qh5+ Kg7
20. Qh6+ ({Of course, not} 20. Qxg6+ $2 Kh8 $1 {.}) 20... Kf7 21. Qh7+ Ke6 (
21... Rg7 22. Bxg6+ Kf8 23. Qh8+ Rg8 24. Bh6# {.}) 22. Qh3+ $1 Kf7 23. Rf1+ (
23. e6+ {would have also concluded the pursuit of the king, forcing mate in
another eight moves.}) 23... Ke8 24. Qe6 Rg7 25. Bg5 ({Dual solutions -} 25.
Bb5+) (25. Bh6 $1 {.}) 25... Qd7 ({Or} 25... Bc8 26. Qc6+ Bd7 27. Qxg6+ Rxg6
28. Bxg6# {.}) 26. Bxg6+ Rxg6 (26... Kd8 27. Rf8+ {and mate.}) 27. Qxg6+ Kd8
28. Rf8+ Qe8 29. Qxe8# {. 'Games that were deemed brilliant in recent
international tournaments were no match for this one,' declared Chigorin in
1890.} 1-0
[Event "12: London"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1863.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Steinitz, W."]
[Black "Mongrédien, A."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B06"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "43"]
[EventDate "1863.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{After the tournament Steinitz settled in London, one of the chess capitals of
the world, and quickly won over the public with his aggressive, uncompromising
play. The elderly English master Walker even called him 'the modern Calabrese'
(this was how Greco had been called long ago - as coming from Calabria). Yes,
the early Steinitz was a fervent supporter of Anderssen and looked a worthy
successor to him, playing in the good old combinative style... --- In matches
played in 1863 he crushed the young Joseph Blackburne (+7 -1 =2), the
Belgian-born Frederick Deacon (+5 -1 =1) and Valentine Green (+7 =2). During
this period he also won an instructive game against Augustus Mongrédien -
incidentally, Morphy's last proper match opponent.} 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. c3 {
'Typical of Steinitz: more than anything he is careful not to end up with weak
pawns in the centre.' (Euwe)} b6 4. Be3 Bb7 5. Nd2 d6 6. Ngf3 ({White is not
tempted by the committal} 6. f4 {.}) 6... e5 $6 ({Much sounder was} 6... Nd7 {
, and if} 7. a4 {then} a6 {in the spirit of a game from... the
Petrosian-Spassky match (Moscow 16th matchgame 1966).}) 7. dxe5 $1 {(shutting
in the bishop at g7)} dxe5 8. Bc4 Ne7 (8... Qe7 {was essential.}) 9. Qe2 $6 ({
The commentators missed the typical sacrifice} 9. Bxf7+ $1 {, which
immediately gives a decisive advantage:} Kxf7 10. Qb3+ Nd5 (10... Ke8 11. Ng5)
11. Nc4 Re8 12. O-O-O c6 13. Na5 {(computer play!). Why didn't Steinitz play
this? I think that he thought schematically, and back on the seventh move he
had prepared a plan.}) 9... O-O 10. h4 $1 {A classic flank attack with a
secure centre (the same theme will be seen in a game with Chigorin - Game No.
25).} (10. O-O-O Nd7 11. h4 {is inaccurate in view of} Nf6 {.}) 10... Nd7 ({If
} 10... h5 {, then} 11. Ng5 {.}) 11. h5 c5 12. hxg6 Nxg6 {An ugly move,} ({but
after} 12... hxg6 13. Ng5 Nf6 14. O-O-O Qc7 {Black also has a bad position,
for example:} 15. Ndf3 ({also good is} 15. Rh4 Nc6 16. Rdh1 Na5 17. f3 Nxc4 18.
Nxc4 Rfd8 19. g4 Kf8 20. Qh2 Ng8 21. Rh7) 15... Nc6 16. Nxf7 Rxf7 17. Ng5 Raf8
18. Bxf7+ Rxf7 19. Qc4 Na5 20. Rd8+ Bf8 21. Qe6 $1 Qe7 22. Rxf8+ Kxf8 23. Rh8+
Kg7 24. Qh3 {and wins.}) 13. O-O-O a6 $6 (13... Nf6 {.}) 14. Ng5 Nf6 ({Not}
14... h6 {because of} 15. Nxf7 Rxf7 16. Qg4 {etc.}) 15. Nxh7 $1 {Strictly
according to his own teaching: a combination as the fruits of a positional
advantage.} Nxh7 16. Rxh7 $5 {'The right way!} (16. Qh5 {also gave an
advantage, but not a decisive one:} Nf6 17. Qxg6 Qc8 {and then ...Qg4.' (Euwe)
Naďve expectations: here White wins by both the quiet} 18. Rh4 {and Rdh1,} ({
and also the spectacular} 18. Rh7 $3 Nxh7 19. Bh6 {forcing mate.})) 16... Kxh7
({After the interposition of} 16... b5 {White decides matters by} 17. Rdh1 ({or
} 17. Qh5 {immediately}) 17... bxc4 18. Qh5 Re8 19. Rxg7+ Kxg7 20. Qh6+ Kg8 21.
Qh7+ (21. Bxc5 Re7 22. Nxc4 {is also good}) 21... Kf8 22. Bh6+ Ke7 23. Bg5+ {.}
) 17. Qh5+ Kg8 18. Rh1 ({Also possible is} 18. Qxg6 Qf6 19. Qh5 b5 20. Rh1 Rfc8
21. Bg5 $1 {.}) 18... Re8 19. Qxg6 Qf6 20. Bxf7+ $1 Qxf7 ({Or} 20... Kf8 21.
Bxe8 Rxe8 22. Rh8+ Bxh8 23. Bh6+ Ke7 24. Bg5 {.}) 21. Rh8+ Kxh8 22. Qxf7 {and
White won. --- 'The aggressive and inventive style of the Steinitz who had
been raised in the German school of combination pleased the English amateurs,
for they were able to learn a great deal from him just as, conversely,
Steinitz did from their more solid play,' writes Lasker. 'From the imaginative,
heroic temper of Anderssen's combinative style, the large-visioned, systematic
position-play of the English School a synthesis arose in the mind of Steinitz,
which was destined to make history... I fancy that one day he reflected how it
could have come about that the magician Morphy beat the magician Anderssen.
That a magician wins is obvious, but how can a magician lose? Also, how could
a magician not lose if two magicians fight. Therefore, I fancy, Steinitz, by
slow degrees, was led to believe that chess, after all, must be subject to a
reason of its own not to be affected by invention, intuition, inspiration,
genius, or anything else of the kind... Surely, Steinitz's heart beat when for
the first time the thought came to him that the master should not look for
winning combinations, unless he believed, unless he could prove to himself
that he held an advantage...'} 1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Bloodbath Number Four"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "13"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.06"]
{Bloodbath Number Four: Steinitz's striking match successes induced the
English to organise his encounter with Anderssen, which can fully be regarded
as the fourth in history, after the duels La Bourdonnais-McDonnell,
Staunton-Saint-Amant and Morphy-Anderssen, to resemble a match for the world
championship. And indeed, if ratings had existed then, the first six in the
world rating list on 1 July 1866 would have looked like this: 1. Morphy, 2.
Anderssen, 3. Paulsen (2nd prize-winner, London 1862), 4. Steinitz, 5. Kolisch,
6. Löwenthal. But since hopes of Morphy returning had died, any big match
involving Anderssen effectively became a battle for the crown (roughly like
the 1974 final candidates match Karpov-Korchnoi). --- Play was to the first to
win eight games, draws not counting (and there weren't any - not a single one!)
. Finally a time control appeared: two hours for every 20 moves. By
present-day standards the prize fund was more than modest: 100 pounds sterling
to the winner, and 20 to the loser. Curiously, for being late for play by more
than 15 minutes a penalty of one guinea was imposed... --- Staunton regarded
Anderssen as the favourite and he wrote that 'Steinitz clearly overestimated
his strength.' However, this was a fierce and dramatic battle between two
worthy opponents, two fearless chess buccaneers. Anderssen began with his
favourite Evans Gambit and opened the score: 1-0. Steinitz replied with the
even more audacious Salvio Gambit (} 1. e4 e5 ({In the sixth game Anderssen
remembered about the Sicilian Defence and after} 1... c5 2. g3 Nc6 3. Bg2 e5 {
he won in a protracted struggle (which also occurred in the 12th). Greatly
heartened, the 48-year-old German master scored a further three successive
wins: twice with White in the Evans Gambit and finally with Black in the
Salvio Gambit! And he again took the lead: 5-4. But Steinitz promptly gained
his revenge in both gambits: 6-5! Then Anderssen again employed the Sicilian:
6-6. --- Up till this point, as the commentators remarked, Steinitz was more
like Anderssen than Anderssen himself! But in the 13th game his play clearly
shows features of the future positional school.}) 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 g5 4. Bc4
g4 5. Ne5 Qh4+ 6. Kf1 Nh6 7. d4 {), and levelled the score: 1-1. Then
Anderssen suddenly began to 'drift', losing twice with White in the Evans and
again with Black in the Salvio. The score became 4-1 in Steinitz's favour!} *
[Event "13: Match, London 1866"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1866.??.??"]
[Round "13"]
[White "Anderssen, A."]
[Black "Steinitz, W."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C65"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "86"]
[EventDate "1866.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 ({Refraining, for the first time in the match, from
} 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 $5 {.}) 3... Nf6 4. d3 d6 5. Bxc6+ $6 {This exchange is
good in connection with d2-d4,} ({but here} 5. c3 {is better.}) 5... bxc6 6. h3
{'Loss of time incurred in order to prevent ...Bg4. Anderssen seems to have
considered the knight stronger than the bishop, a valuation for which no
motive can be adduced. The pawn move weakens the phalanx of the white kingside
pawns as will be explained shortly. Perhaps this game was the historical event
which caused Steinitz to conceive his theory of the phalanx.' (Lasker) --- I
should mention that the plan with Bxc6 and h2-h3 is more justified in the
Sicilian Defence (1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 g6 4 Bxc6 dxc6 5 d3 Bg7 6 h3) and,
with colours reversed, in the English Opening - there the arrangement of the
pawns is different and it is important to retain the knight at f3 (f6).} g6 $1
{'Preparation for an assault by a mass of pawns as taught by Philidor. For
this purpose it is essential to maintain many obstructions in the centre. The
bishop which aides the centre from g7 is there well placed.' (Lasker)} 7. Nc3
Bg7 8. O-O O-O 9. Bg5 $6 {A new, but unsuccessful move.} ({The two players
obviously remembered the Anderssen-Paulsen match (London 1862), the fifth game
of which went} 9. Ne2 c5 10. Ng3 Bb7 11. b3 ({in the seventh game White
preferred} 11. Re1 Nd7 $6 12. Rb1 f5 13. b4) 11... Ne8 12. Rb1 Qe7 13. Re1 f5
14. b4 cxb4 15. Rxb4 c5 16. Rb1 f4 17. Nf1 Bc8 18. c3 Qf6 19. d4 {with a
protracted and double-edged struggle.}) 9... h6 10. Be3 c5 {(solidifying the
centre)} 11. Rb1 {Anderssen remains true to an approved plan.} ({After} 11. a3
{Black has the reply} a5) ({or} 11. Nh2 Nh5 12. Qd2 Kh7 {, and if} 13. g4 {,
then} Nf4 14. Bxf4 exf4 15. Qxf4 f5 {with excellent play for the pawn.}) ({
Lasker suggested} 11. Qd2 Kh7 12. g4 $6 {, but after} Ng8 $1 {and ...f7-f5
White runs into difficulties.}) 11... Ne8 $1 {(making way for the f-pawn)} 12.
b4 cxb4 13. Rxb4 c5 14. Ra4 {A dangerous rook journey;} (14. Rb2 f5 15. Nd5 Nf6
{etc. was a quieter alternative.}) 14... Bd7 15. Ra3 f5 {'The phalanx marches.
' (Lasker)} 16. Qb1 $6 (16. Nd5 {is correct, and if} f4 17. Bd2 g5 {, then} 18.
Nh2 {.}) 16... Kh8 $6 ({The commentators were perplexed as to why Steinitz
avoided winning a pawn -} 16... fxe4 $5 17. Nxe4 (17. dxe4 Bxh3) 17... Bxh3 {
. Neishtadt suggested that in the event of} 18. Qb3+ Kh8 ({inferior is} 18...
c4 $6 19. dxc4 Rxf3 20. gxf3 Bxf1 21. Kxf1) 19. -- (19. Qb7 $6 {'things are
not so simple', but after} Rxf3 $1 {the computer does not see any compensation
for the material deficit.}) ({. Evidently better is} 19. Nxe5 Bxe5 20. gxh3 Qc8
21. Kg2 (21. d4 $6 c4 22. Qc3 Bg7 {) with hopes of equalising.})) ({. But not}
19. Nfg5 $6 c4 $1 20. Qb7 Bd7 {.})) ({But if Black really didn't want to allow
his opponent counter-chances,} 16... Nc7 {was more logical, since} 17. Qb7 $2 {
is not possible on account of} Rb8 18. Qxa7 Ra8 {.}) 17. Qb7 a5 18. Rb1 (18.
Rb3 $5 {.}) 18... a4 19. Qd5 $6 {White sounds the retreat.} (19. Nd5 {was more
consistent, for example:} -- (19... fxe4 $6 20. dxe4 Bxh3 $2 21. -- ({, and
here Neishtadt recommended} 21. gxh3 Rxf3 22. Bxc5) ({, although the
spectacular inclusion of the a3-rook is much stronger after} 21. Bg5 $1 hxg5 (
21... Qc8 22. Nh4 $1) 22. Nxe5 $1 {(with the threats of Nxg6+ and Rxh3+)} Be6
23. Nxg6+ Kg8 24. Nde7+ Kf7 25. Nxf8 Kxf8 26. Nc6 Qc8 27. Rf3+ Bf6 28. Qe7+)) (
19... Nf6 {(seemingly the most natural)} 20. Bxc5 $5 {(in the style of the
'old' Anderssen!)} Nxd5 (20... dxc5 21. Nxe5 Be8 22. Nf4 $1) 21. Bxd6 fxe4 22.
dxe4 Nf4 23. Nxe5 Be6 24. Bxf8 Qxf8 25. Nd3 {with sharp play}) (19... Be6 20.
Ne7 Kh7 21. Nc6 ({but not} 21. Nh4 $6 f4 22. Bd2 Rf7 23. Nhxg6 Nc7) 21... Qc8
22. Na7 {, and since} Qxb7 23. Rxb7 fxe4 24. dxe4 Nf6 25. Nd2 {is unfavourable
for Black, he has to play 22...Qd8 with equal chances.})) 19... Qc8 20. Rb6 Ra7
21. Kh2 {Everyone considered this prophylactic move to be a serious mistake.} (
{They recommended} 21. exf5 gxf5 22. Bd2 {with the idea of} Rg8 (22... f4 23.
Nh2 $1) ({but after} 22... Qc7 $1 {White's position is worse}) 23. Qc4 f4 24.
Nb5 {.}) ({Incorrect is} 21. Rxd6 $2 Nxd6 22. Qxd6 f4 {.}) ({Apparently if} 21.
Qc4 $5 {Anderssen was afraid of the attack} f4 (21... Be6 22. Nd5) 22. Bd2 Bxh3
$5 23. gxh3 Qxh3 {, although after} 24. Ne1 f3 25. Nd5 {Black has no more than
a draw.}) 21... f4 22. Bd2 g5 23. Qc4 Qd8 24. Rb1 $2 {But this really is a
mistake.} (24. Nd5 $1 {was much more energetic, with possibilities of active
counterplay:} h5 25. Ra6 $1 Rxa6 26. Qxa6 g4 27. Ba5 $1 {(diverting the queen)}
Qb8 28. Nh4 Kh7 29. Qb6 (29. Nb6 Be6) 29... Qa8 30. Qd8 {.}) 24... Nf6 $6 ({If
} 24... h5 {the paradoxical} 25. h4 $1 gxh4 26. Nb5 Ra6 27. Nc3 Nc7 28. Nd5 {
is unclear.}) ({However, it was worth covering the b5-square by} 24... Nc7 $1 {
- after this it is hard for White to do anything to oppose the imminent
storming of his king's fortress.}) 25. Kg1 $6 ({Of course, not} 25. Nxa4 $2 Qe8
({or} 25... Qe7 {and ...Rfa8})) ({but after} 25. Nb5 $1 {there would still
have been all to play for.}) 25... Nh7 {'The g-pawn having been protected, the
phalanx can set itself into motion.' (Lasker)} 26. Kf1 (26. Nb5 $5 Qb8 27. Nc3
{.}) 26... h5 27. Ng1 $2 {Probably the decisive error.} ({After} 27. Nb5 $1 {
nothing terrible for White is apparent:} Ra6 28. Nc7 Ra7 29. Ne6 {etc.}) 27...
g4 28. hxg4 hxg4 29. f3 $2 {(this merely strengthens the enemy attack)} Qh4 30.
Nd1 Ng5 {'The pieces post themselves behind the phalanx menacingly. Soon the
lines will be opened, which will allow the major pieces to approach the white
king (Lasker).' Virtually a model of the modern King's Indian Defence!} 31. Be1
Qh7 32. d4 {(desperation!)} gxf3 33. gxf3 Nh3 $5 (33... cxd4 {was a more
prosaic way to win.}) 34. Bf2 ({Or} 34. dxc5 Nxg1 35. Kxg1 Qg6+ 36. Kf2 Bh3 37.
Bb4 dxc5 38. Bxc5 Rc7 {and wins.}) 34... Nxg1 35. dxc5 Qh3+ 36. Ke1 (36. Kxg1
$2 Rg8 {.}) 36... Nxf3+ 37. Rxf3 Qxf3 38. Nc3 dxc5 39. Bxc5 Rc7 40. Nd5 Rxc5
41. Qxc5 Qxe4+ 42. Kf2 Rc8 43. Nc7 Qe3+ {. 'One recognizes in the above game a
trend in the style of Steinitz towards Philidor and away from La Bourdonnais.
The theory of Steinitz approached that of Philidor as soon as he examined the
minute advantages that endure... Small disadvantages appertaining to the
position of pawns are difficult to repair and have a tendency to last.'
(Lasker) --- Declining the King's Gambit did not help Anderssen in the 14th
game, and this 'bloody' match ended with a score of 8-6 in Steinitz's favour.
--- However, the chess world was not in a hurry to recognise him as champion.
Firstly, the undefeated Morphy was still alive. When in the autumn of 1866
Steinitz won with difficulty a match against Henry Bird (+7 -5 =5), the latter
remarked that Morphy (who had smashed Bird by a score of +10 -1 =1) would be
able to give the 'modern Calabrese' odds of a pawn and move! Such a comment is
not forgotten: afterwards Steinitz crushed Bird every time for many years...
--- Secondly, Steinitz was not able to demonstrate his superiority in the next
few tournaments: in Paris 1867 he was third after Kolisch and Winawer, in
Dundee he was second after Neumann, and in Baden-Baden 1870 he was second
after Anderssen, to whom he lost both games.} 0-1
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Birth of a New School"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.06"]
{The Birth of a New School: At that time the future world champion invented an
ultra-sharp opening, which became known in theory as the 'Steinitz Gambit'. In
it were oddly interwoven both the attacking ideas of the masters of the old
school, who often left their king in the centre, and the first dawning of the
future new school. Steinitz put forward an original thesis (true, as it later
transpired, it did not hold for all positions, by any means): 'If necessary
precautionary measures are taken, the king can defend itself... For an attack
the opponent has to advance his pawns, and in the event of an unsuccessful
offensive the pawns will prove weak.'} 1. -- {Of the many games played by
Steinitz with his gambit, the most complete impression is made by the
following - with Louis Paulsen, one of the leading masters of that era, who
Steinitz rated highly and belonged to the 'pioneers of the modern school'. In
this game he convincingly demonstrated his superiority in the evaluation of
positional factors - both temporary and long-term.} *
[Event "14: Baden-Baden"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1870.??.??"]
[Round "13"]
[White "Steinitz, W."]
[Black "Paulsen, L."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C25"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "71"]
[EventDate "1870.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4 exf4 4. d4 $6 Qh4+ 5. Ke2 {Such boldness by the king
is a nonsense in modern-day chess. The idea of this audacious gambit was
evoked by a game with Hamppe (Vienna 1859): 1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 Nf6 3 f4 d5 4 exd5
Nxd5 5 fxe5 Nxc3 6 bxc3 Qh4+ 7 Ke2 Bg4+ 8 Nf3 Nc6 9 d4 0-0-0 with advantage to
Black - Steinitz. --- Since the king interferes with the development of its
own pieces, it would seem that Black should automatically obtain a good game.
However, Steinitz thought that in the given position long-term factors were
more important than temporary inconveniences. White's plan is to drive back
the queen with gain of tempo and to prepare an attack under the cover of his
strong pawn centre, at the same hindering Black's harmonious development. The
first world champion's contemporaries were not in fact able to find a
prescription against his revolutionary strategy of accumulating small
advantages, and it was only much later that doubts were cast on this gambit.
--- When in 1883 Morphy was informed that Steinitz was in New Orleans, he is
said to have replied: 'I know... His gambit is bad.' The great chess recluse
was not let down by his intuition! But to disclose the vulnerability of the
white king in the centre and to refute the gambit, it was precisely Morphy's
genius that was lacking. Perhaps in this there was some historical chess sense
- the elemental pioneer had departed, making way for the philosopher: the time
had come to formulate new principles...} d6 {The most solid.} ({In Steinitz's
games there also occurred both} 5... Qh5+ 6. Nf3 g5 7. Nd5 $1) ({and} 5... b6
6. Nb5 ({according to Chigorin,} 6. Qd2 $1 Ba6+ 7. Kd1 Bxf1 8. Nf3 Qh5 9. Rxf1
{is better}) 6... Ba6 7. a4) ({and also} 5... Nf6 6. Nf3 Qg4 7. d5 Ne5 8. h3
Qh5 9. Bxf4 Nxf3 10. gxf3 d6 11. Kd2 Qh4 12. Be3 {with advantage to White
(Chigorin-Steinitz, Havana 21st matchgame 1892).}) ({The central counter} 5...
d5 $5 {is met by} 6. exd5 {which leads to wild complications, for example:} --
(6... Qe7+ 7. Kf2 Qh4+ 8. g3 fxg3+ 9. Kg2 -- (9... Bd6 10. Qe1+ $1 Nce7 11.
hxg3 Qxd4 {(Steinitz-Chigorin, London 1883)} 12. Nf3 $1 {with advantage}) ({,
or} 9... Nxd4 $2 {(an unsuccessful novelty: Black suddenly finds himself
behind in development)} 10. hxg3 Qg4 11. Qe1+ Be7 12. Bd3 {(threatening 13 Rh4)
} Nf5 (12... Kd8 13. Ne4) 13. Nf3 Bd7 14. Bf4 f6 15. Ne4 Ngh6 16. Bxh6 Nxh6 17.
Rxh6 gxh6 18. Nxf6+ Kf7 19. Nxg4 {and White won (Steinitz-Zukertort, USA 20th
matchgame 1886) - this win brought Steinitz the official title of world
champion!})) (6... Bg4+ $5 7. Nf3 O-O-O (7... Bxf3+ $5 8. gxf3 Qe7+) 8. dxc6
Bc5 9. cxb7+ (9. Qe1 $5 Qh5 $1 10. cxb7+ Kb8 {Steinitz-Liverpool Chess Club
1898/99}) 9... Kb8 10. Nb5 Nf6 11. Kd3 Qh5 (11... Bf5+ 12. Kc3 Ne4+ 13. Kb3 Qf6
14. Qe1 {is unclear}) 12. Kc3 Bxd4+ $2 (12... a6 $1 {is correct}) 13. Nbxd4
Qc5+ 14. Kb3 Qb6+ 15. Bb5 Bxf3 16. Qxf3 Rxd4 17. Qc6 Qa5 18. c3 {and White won
(Steinitz-Zukertort, London match 1872).})) 6. Nf3 Bg4 7. Bxf4 O-O-O ({The
stem game Steinitz-Neumann (Dundee 1867) went} 7... Bxf3+ 8. Kxf3 Nge7 (8...
Nf6 9. Bb5 $1) (8... g5 $5) 9. Be2 O-O-O 10. Be3 Qf6+ 11. Kg3 d5 12. Bg4+ Kb8
13. e5 Qg6 14. Kf2 h5 15. Bh3 $1 f6 16. exf6 Qxf6+ 17. Qf3 Qxf3+ 18. gxf3 $1 g6
19. Ne2 $1 Nf5 $6 20. Bxf5 gxf5 21. c3 Bd6 22. Bf4 $1 {and White won.}) ({In
Baden-Baden against Rosenthal, Steinitz tried the tempting} 7... Bxf3+ 8. gxf3
$6 Qxf4 9. Nd5 {, and after} Qh6 $2 ({correct was} 9... Qh4 $1 10. Nxc7+ Kd8
11. Nxa8 Kc8 12. d5 Ne5 13. Qd4 Kb8 {and if} 14. Qc3 Qd8 $1) 10. Nxc7+ Kd8 11.
Nxa8 Kc8 12. d5 Nf6 (12... Ne5 13. Qd4 Kb8 14. Qc3 $1 {, and the knight at a8
is rescued}) 13. dxc6 d5 14. Qd4 Bd6 15. Qxa7 bxc6 16. Re1 Re8 17. Kd1 $1 dxe4
18. Rxe4 $1 Rxe4 (18... Nxe4 $2 19. Nb6+ {and Qd7 mate}) 19. fxe4 Qf4 20. Bh3+
Kd8 21. Rf1 Qxe4 22. Qb6+ Ke8 23. Re1 {and Black resigned.}) ({Perhaps the
most logical is} 7... f5 $1 {(E. Schmidt, 1895), for example:} 8. -- (8. exf5
O-O-O 9. Bg3 Bxf3+ 10. Kxf3 Nxd4+ 11. Kf2 Qf6) ({. No better} 8. Nd5 O-O-O) ({
, or} 8. h3 fxe4 $1 9. Nxe4 Qe7 10. hxg4 Qxe4+ 11. Be3 Nf6) (8. d5 Ne5 9. Bxe5
({or} 9. Ke3 Bxf3 10. gxf3 g5 $1 11. Bxe5 dxe5 12. Qd3 Bc5+) 9... dxe5 10. g3
Qh5 11. Bg2 Nf6 $1) (8. e5 Bxf3+ 9. Kxf3 Qg4+ 10. Ke3 dxe5 $1 11. Qxg4 (11.
Bxe5 $2 Nxe5 12. dxe5 Bc5+) 11... exd4+ 12. Kd3 fxg4) (8. Ke3 Qe7 (8... Bxf3 $5
9. Kxf3 g5) 9. Bd3 Nf6 10. Bg5 O-O-O) (8. Qd2 Nf6 9. exf5 O-O-O 10. g3 Qh5 11.
Bg2 d5 12. h3 Bxf5 13. g4 Qg6 14. Nh4 Qe8+ 15. Kf2 Be4 {- as in all the
preceding variations, Black has an excellent game (Averbakh-Trifunovic,
USSR-Yugoslavia match 1963).})) 8. Ke3 Qh5 (8... Bxf3 9. Qxf3 f5 10. d5 Nce7
11. Kd2 fxe4 12. Nxe4 {favours White, Steinitz-Winawer, London 1883}) ({but}
8... Qe7 $5 9. Kf2 f5 10. exf5 Qd7 {is interesting.}) 9. Be2 Qa5 $2 {Fearing
10 h3, Black loses a highly important tempo.} ({The modern ways of playing
this position are the standard} 9... f5 10. h3 (10. Ng5 $6 Nf6 11. Kd3 fxe4+ {
Caldwell-Bisguier, New York 1987}) 10... Bxf3 11. Bxf3 Qe8 12. Kf2 fxe4 {with
gradual equality}) ({and the sharp} 9... g5 $1 10. Nxg5 Nf6 $1 {(I am sure
that Morphy would not have neglected such ideas!)} 11. h3 Bxe2 12. Qxe2 Qg6 13.
d5 Ne5 14. Nf3 Bh6 $1 {with excellent compensation for the pawn
(Barle-Portisch, Portoroz/Ljubljana 1975).}) 10. a3 $1 {(it turns out that the
queen is also uncomfortable on the queenside)} Bxf3 11. Kxf3 $1 {The right way!
} ({Paulsen was hoping for} 11. Bxf3 g5 $1 12. Bg3 Bg7 {with counterplay.})
11... Qh5+ ({Now} 11... g5 $2 {is bad on account of} 12. b4 Qb6 13. Be3 {with
the threats of d4-d5, Nd5 or Na4.}) 12. Ke3 Qh4 13. b4 $1 {White not only
pursues the queen, but also gradually prepares an attack on the king.} g5 14.
Bg3 Qh6 15. b5 Nce7 16. Rf1 Nf6 17. Kf2 Ng6 18. Kg1 $1 {'It is hard to believe
that out of 18 moves White has made six with his king! The unfortunate
position of the black queen is very evident.' (Neishtadt) The outcome of the
game is already decided: Black's scattered army is unable to come to the aid
of its king.} Qg7 19. Qd2 h6 20. a4 Rg8 21. b6 $1 {(a pawn sacrifice to open a
file for a direct attack on the king - a procedure that was to become typical
in the 20th century)} axb6 22. Rxf6 $1 {A spectacular exchange sacrifice,
securing the d5-square for the knight.} Qxf6 23. Bg4+ Kb8 24. Nd5 Qg7 25. a5 {
(all the white forces take part in the attack!)} f5 {A desperate attempt to
delay the end, by including the queen in the defence.} ({Other replies would
have lost more quickly, for example:} 25... Ne7 26. axb6 cxb6 (26... Nxd5 27.
Ra8+ $1 Kxa8 28. Qa5+ {and mate}) 27. Nxb6) ({or} 25... b5 26. a6 b6 (26...
bxa6 27. Qa5) 27. a7+ Kb7 28. Nxc7 Kxc7 29. Qc3+ Kb7 30. Bd7 $1 {etc.}) (25...
c5 26. axb6 $1 {.}) 26. axb6 cxb6 27. Nxb6 Ne7 ({Mate follows after} 27... fxg4
28. Ra8+ Kc7 29. Qc3+ Kxb6 30. Qa5+ Kc6 31. d5+ Kd7 32. Qxd8# {.}) 28. exf5 ({
'Much stronger than} 28. Qc3 {, when there is} Nc6 {(} 29. Ra8+ Kc7 30. Nd5+
Kd7 31. -- (31. Bxf5+ Ke8 {).' (Neishtadt)}) ({. However, here White has} 31.
exf5 $1 Qxd4+ (31... Rxa8 32. f6+ {and 33 fxg7}) 32. Qxd4 Nxd4 33. Nf6+ Kc7 34.
Rxd8 Kxd8 35. Nxg8 {winning.})) ({But from the computer's point of view,} 28.
Qb4 {would have forced mate more quickly -} Kc7 29. Na8+ Kc8 30. Bxf5+ Rd7 31.
Bxd7+ Kxd7 32. Qxd6+ Ke8 33. Nc7+ Kf7 34. Qe6# {. But we hardly have the right
to criticise Steinitz for such an 'error'.}) 28... Qf7 29. f6 Nc6 30. c4 {
(unhurried, but sufficient)} Na7 31. Qa2 Nb5 {Desperation...} 32. Nd5 ({Again
the computer prefers something different -} 32. Qa8+ Kc7 33. Qa5 {with mate in
three moves. Of course, Black could have resigned, but he preferred to be
mated.}) 32... Qxd5 33. cxd5 Nxd4 34. Qa7+ Kc7 35. Rc1+ Nc6 36. Rxc6# {. In
the second half of the tournament Steinitz also defeated Paulsen with Black,
in good positional style. A lengthy period of re-evaluating chess values was
beginning. 'At the tournaments in Paris (1867) and Baden-Baden (1870) I was
hoping to take first prize,' the first world champion later recalled. 'On
failing to achieve this, I was forced to think things over and I came to the
conclusion that combinative play, although it sometimes gives fine results, is
not able to ensure solid success. After a careful study of this type of game
(including, no doubt, those from his match with Anderssen - G.K.) I
discovered in them a number of defects. Many tempting and successful
sacrifices turned out to be incorrect. I came to the conviction that sound
defence demands far less expenditure of energy than attack. In general an
attack has chances of success only when the opponent's position is already
weakened. Since then my thinking has been aimed at finding a simple and sure
way of weakening the enemy position.' A revolutionary step in the
understanding of chess! Anderssen & Co. remain in the past...} 1-0
[Event "15: Match, London"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1876.??.??"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Blackburne, J."]
[Black "Steinitz, W."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C45"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "102"]
[EventDate "1876.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{In 1872 Steinitz won the international tournament in London (2. Blackburne, 3.
Zukertort), then also a match against the young Zukertort (+7 -1 =4), and in
1873 he won an important international tournament in Vienna (2. Blackburne, 3.
Anderssen), thus significantly enhancing his reputation as the strongest
player in the world. --- Soon he obtained a regular tribune - a chess column
in the English sports newspaper The Field, where for nearly nine years he
commented on the most interesting master games. This was a time not only of
comparative material prosperity, but also of tireless searching, the gradual
development of new playing principles. --- On the way Steinitz scored a
completely crushing (+7) match win against Blackburne - in the 1870s the most
vivid representative of the combinative school. 'He felt himself obliged to
demonstrate to his opponents in practice that their attacks were premature and
therefore incorrect,' writes Euwe. 'This was an extremely difficult task,
forcing Steinitz to develop the theory of defence; and since before him
defensive skill was in its infancy, he was forced to be the pioneer.' ---
Believing religiously in the defensive properties of his cramped but
unweakened positions, Steinitz considered it his duty to refute gambits and he
would often deliberately provoke an attack against his king. The following
characteristic game from the aforementioned match with Blackburne was highly
rated and demonstrated many times in his lectures by Lasker.} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3
Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Qh4 $5 {'Agreeing to subject himself to an attack, but
winning a pawn.' (Lasker)} ({And, I should add, avoiding the insipid struggle
for equality after} 4... Nf6 5. Nxc6 bxc6 6. Bd3 ({nowadays} 6. e5 {is topical}
) 6... d5 7. Qe2 Be7 8. O-O O-O 9. Bf4 Rb8 10. Nd2 Re8 11. e5 Bf8 12. Nb3 Nd7
13. Bg3 c5 14. c4 d4 15. f4 Rb6 16. Rae1 {(Blackburne-Steinitz, London 1875).})
5. Nb5 Bb4+ (5... Qxe4+ 6. Be3 $1 {Paulsen-Steinitz, Vienna 1882;
Chigorin-Steinitz, Havana 19th matchgame 1892.}) 6. Bd2 $1 ({Inferior is} 6.
N1c3 Ba5 $1 {.}) 6... Qxe4+ 7. Be2 Kd8 $1 {'The king defends the pawn, taking
up a comparatively safe position.' (Lasker)} ({Other replies clearly favour
White:} 7... Bxd2+ 8. Qxd2 (8. Nxd2 $1) 8... Qe5 9. f4 Qxb2 10. O-O Qxa1 11.
N1c3 {(Bronstein)}) ({or} 7... Qxg2 8. Bf3 Bxd2+ 9. Nxd2 Qh3 10. Bxc6 $1 bxc6
11. Nxc7+ Kd8 12. Nxa8 Nf6 13. Qf3 {.}) 8. O-O Bxd2 9. Qxd2 (9. Nxd2 {comes
into consideration, for example:} -- (9... Qf4 10. g3 Qh6 11. Nc4 Nge7 12. Qd3
a6 13. Nd4 Nxd4 14. Qxd4 Nc6 15. Qc3 {with sufficient compensation}) ({, or}
9... Qe5 10. Re1 Nf6 (10... Nge7 $5) 11. Bc4 (11. Nf3 $5) 11... Qf5 (11... Qc5
12. c3) 12. Nf3 {with the initiative (Sveshnikov-Sermek, Bled 1994).})) 9... a6
$5 {'The advanced white knight may cause problems, and so it is driven back.'
(Lasker)} ({In the second game of the match Steinitz played} 9... Nf6 {and
after} 10. N1c3 Qe5 11. Rfe1 a6 12. Na3 Qd4 13. Qg5 Rg8 14. Rad1 h6 15. Qg3 Qe5
16. Qh4 Qg5 17. Qc4 {White retained compensation for the pawn (although in the
end he lost).}) 10. N1c3 ({The attempt} 10. N5a3 Qd4 11. Qg5+ Qf6 12. Qd2 {
ended in failure in the sixth game:} Qxb2 13. Nc4 Qd4 $1 14. Qc1 Nge7 15. Nbd2
d6 16. Rd1 Be6 {etc.}) 10... Qe5 11. Na3 b5 $5 12. Bf3 Nge7 13. Rad1 ({Black's
position is extremely dangerous, as is evident from the variation} 13. Rfe1 $5
-- (13... Qf6 $2 14. Rxe7 $1 {.}) ({. And if} 13... Qd6 {White could have
maintained the pressure by} 14. Nd5 ({or gone into a slightly superior ending:
} 14. Qxd6 cxd6 15. Ne4 Kc7 16. c4) 14... Re8 15. Rad1 {.})) 13... Qf5 14. Rfe1
Rb8 $1 {As Lasker put it, 'the rook seeks a safe square.'} 15. Qe2 $2 {But
this really is a hideous move! The commentators did not in fact answer the
question: where did Blackburne make the decisive mistake? I will answer: after
the move in the game White loses his compensation for the pawn,} ({whereas
after} 15. Bxc6 $1 {(an unexpected exchange, but here the bishop is not needed)
} Nxc6 16. Nd5 Bb7 17. c4 {he would still have had a rather unpleasant
initiative: it is hard for Black to complete his development.}) 15... d6 {'It
is interesting in the highest degree to follow how little by little the
defending side arranges his pieces for offensive action.' (Lasker).} 16. Ne4
Bd7 17. Qe3 f6 (17... Re8 $5 {looks even better.}) 18. g4 $2 {After this lunge,
combined with the following knight sacrifice, there is no longer any way back.}
Qg6 {Threatening to launch a counterattack.} 19. Nxd6 $6 {A desperate piece
sacrifice, which merely hastens the end.} cxd6 20. Rxd6 Kc7 (20... Ne5 $5 {.})
21. Bxc6 ({If} 21. Qc5 {Steinitz would have had to find the firm reply} Qg5 $1
{, and after} 22. Rxe7 Qxc5 23. Rexd7+ Kb6 24. Rxc6+ ({or} 24. b4 Qxb4 25.
Rxc6+ Ka5 26. Rdd6 Ra8 {and wins}) 24... Qxc6 25. Bxc6 Kxc6 26. Rxg7 Rbg8 {it
would all have been over.}) 21... Nxc6 22. Qg3 Kc8 23. Red1 Rb7 24. Qg2 Nb8 {
'Strengthening the weakest point - the bishop at d7.' (Lasker)} 25. R1d4 h5 $1
{The long-awaited counterattack. There is nothing more to comment on: White is
material down and in a completely hopeless position.} 26. Qd5 Qg5 27. Qxg5 fxg5
28. Rg6 Bxg4 29. Rxg5 Re8 30. Kg2 Rf7 31. h3 Bd7 32. Kg3 Re2 33. Rxh5 Rexf2 34.
Rc5+ Nc6 {, and Black won on move 51.} 35. Rd3 Kc7 36. Nb1 Kb6 37. Rcd5 Nb8 38.
Nd2 Bc6 39. Ne4 Re2 40. Nc3 Rxc2 41. Rd2 Rxc3+ 42. bxc3 Bxd5 43. Rxd5 Rc7 44.
Rd3 Nc6 45. Kf4 Rf7+ 46. Ke4 Rf2 47. a3 Ra2 48. c4 bxc4 49. Rg3 Rd2 50. Rxg7
Rd4+ 51. Kf5 c3 {. After this match Steinitz did not take part in any serious
competitions for six years(!), earning his living by giving extraordinarily
successful simultaneous displays (including some blindfold - it was about him
that they said: he came, he did not see, he conquered) and his tireless
commentary work in The Field. Thanks to his deep and witty analyses, his
positional theory, which was still not understood by anyone, step-by-step
acquired increasingly real form...} 0-1
[Event "16: Baltimore"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1885.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Steinitz, W."]
[Black "Sellmann, A."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C11"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "69"]
[EventDate "1885.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{Studying the games of that time, one sees how they gradually become more
complicated, how their quality improves, and how the resistive capacity of the
players and their defensive skill increases. On the other hand, the best
masters also had to develop their attacking skill, seeking new continuations
in well-known set-ups. Here too Steinitz was successful! Moreover, he was not
satisfied by seeking isolated improvements, but he developed complete
strategic trends in the opening and the middlegame, based on his theory of
accumulating small advantages. A classic example of such an innovation is his
'Steinitz Variation' in the French Defence.} 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5
({Previously Steinitz also played like Anderssen -} 4. Bg5 {.}) 4... Nfd7 5. f4
$5 ({Before this, also following the example of Anderssen, it was thought that
the only way to fight for an advantage was to maintain the pawn centre by} 5.
Nce2 c5 6. c3 Nc6 7. f4 Qb6 8. Nf3 {(Steinitz-Fleissig, Vienna 1873). Today,
in a new cycle in the evolution of chess, this variation is employed with
great success by Anand.}) 5... c5 6. dxc5 $5 {'Steinitz's patent. The
systematic play, begun with this move, aimed at creating and exploiting the
piece outpost on d4, made a great impression, especially on the next
generation of masters.' (Neishtadt)} ({Nowadays this classical plan is usually
carried out after} 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. Be3 $1 {.}) 6... Bxc5 (6... Nc6 7. Nf3 Bxc5 {
is safer.}) 7. Nf3 ({The alternative is} 7. Qg4 $5 O-O 8. Nf3 {.}) 7... a6 {
Not an essential move.} ({If} 7... O-O $6 8. Bd3 Nc6 {White has the attractive}
9. h4 $1 f6 10. Ng5 $1 fxg5 11. Bxh7+ $1 Kxh7 12. hxg5+ Kg8 13. Qh5 Ndxe5 14.
fxe5 Rf5 15. g4 Rxe5+ 16. Kd1 Be3 17. Bxe3 Rxe3 18. Nb5 Rf3 19. g6 Kf8 20. Qh8+
Ke7 21. Qxg7+ {1-0 (Steinitz-Golmayo, Havana 1888).}) ({But} 7... Nc6 8. Bd3 f6
$1 {is better, immediately undermining the strong e5-pawn: after} 9. exf6 Nxf6
10. Qe2 O-O 11. Bd2 Nd4 ({or} 11... Bd7 {Black has no problems.})) 8. Bd3 Nc6
9. Qe2 Nb4 $6 {A fundamental mistake: Black loses control over the centre!} ({
More appropriate is} 9... Qc7 10. Bd2 b5 11. a3 Rb8 12. Nd1 Nb6 {with equal
chances (Boleslavsky-Pachman, Saltsjöbaden interzonal 1948). But it was as if
Sellmann had set himself the aim of accompanying his opponent in the creation
of a positional masterpiece, and of helping the latter to demonstrate his plan
in its purest form.}) 10. Bd2 b5 11. Nd1 ({I would have preferred} 11. a3 $5
Nxd3+ 12. cxd3 {, not moving the knight away from the key d4-square.}) 11...
Nxd3+ 12. cxd3 $1 {It may seem strange to attach an exclamation mark to a move
which today would be automatically made by any candidate master. But then, in
1885, the consequences of the pawn capture were by no means obvious, and the
majority of players were simply unable to think long-term.} Qb6 $6 ({Here}
12... b4 $1 {suggests itself (seizing space on the queenside and not allowing
White to fix the a5- and c5-squares)} 13. Rc1 a5 {with the intention of ...Ba6,
although after} 14. Be3 {White retains some advantage.}) 13. b4 $1 {'Beginning
play on the queenside, where the opponent has a weak square at c5, whereas
Steinitz's c4-square is defended by the d3-pawn.' (Lasker)} Be7 14. a3 f5 $2 {
Essentially the decisive positional mistake: Black leaves himself without
counterplay.} (14... f6 {has been recommended}) ({but in my view the radical}
14... d4 $1 15. Qf2 Bb7 {was essential, opening up the bishop and retaining
the possibility of the undermining move ...f7-f6.}) 15. Rc1 (15. Be3 $5 {.})
15... Bb7 ({The last chance was} 15... d4 $1 16. Qf2 Bb7 {, sacrificing the
d-pawn for the sake of activating the bishop.}) 16. Be3 Qd8 17. Nd4 {Here it
is, the dream of a player from the 20th century: a powerful knight at d4
against a pitiful bishop at b7. Now Black can merely await the inevitable
execution.} Nf8 18. O-O h5 $6 {Preventing the g2-g4 breakthrough, which could
have been unpleasant with the king on f7. However, although the game is
decided on the opposite wing, later White is able to benefit from the
weakening of the g5-square and the h4-d8 diagonal. Never advance your pawns
without real need - this is one of Steinitz's basic rules!} 19. Nc3 $1 {'The
start of a multi-move manoeuvre, the aim of which is to create an outpost at a
weak point in the enemy position.' (Lasker) The knight is aiming for a5.} Kf7
20. Nb1 $1 g6 21. Nd2 Nd7 22. N2b3 Rc8 23. Na5 {At last! White tightens the
noose around the opponent's neck.} Ba8 24. Rxc8 Qxc8 25. Rc1 Qb8 26. Qc2 Bd8
27. Nac6 Qb7 28. Nxd8+ {(exchanging the defender of the dark squares)} Rxd8 29.
Qc7 $1 {(the decisive invasion)} Qb8 {Sellmann has defended his main
weaknesses, but here Steinitz brings another piece into play.} 30. Bf2 $1 {
With the threat of Bh4 - here you have the consequences of 18...h5?! Now the
defensive resources are exhausted.} Qb6 31. Nf3 Qxc7 32. Rxc7 Ke8 33. Ng5 Nf8
34. Bc5 Nd7 35. Bd6 {. Black is in zugzwang and is unable to defend his e6-
and a6-pawns. A strategic triumph!} 1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "An Historic Match"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.06"]
{An Historic Match: Steinitz resumed playing in 1882, sharing first place at
the international tournament in Vienna. Zukertort, who by now had become
remarkably strong, was overshadowed here (although he defeated Steinitz in
their mini-match: 1˝-˝), but soon he achieved the greatest success in his
career, winning the famous London tournament of 1883: 1. Zukertort - 22 out of
26; 2. Steinitz - 19; 3. Blackburne - 16˝; 4. Chigorin - 16. For the first
time in many years the question arose: who in fact was now the world's
strongest player?} 1. -- {Johann Hermann Zukertort (1842-1888) was Anderssen's
most talented pupil and he played at least a thousand games with him,
including two matches: in 1863 (+3 -8 =1) and in 1871 (+5 -2). Then together
with his teacher he edited the magazine Neue Berliner Schachzeitung, and with
Dufresne he also wrote a popular manual. In 1872 Zukertort settled in London
and, although he had a medical education, he gave up his medical practice and
devoted himself entirely to chess. In 1879 he founded (together with Lipót
Hoffer) the magazine Chess Monthly, on the pages of which he engaged in sharp
arguments with Steinitz. He was fluent in a dozen languages, had a phenomenal
memory, and gave record-breaking simultaneous blindfold displays. It need
hardly be said that the natural element of the outstanding German master was
combination...} *
[Event "17: London"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1883.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Zukertort, J."]
[Black "Blackburne, J."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A13"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "65"]
[EventDate "1883.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. c4 e6 2. e3 Nf6 3. Nf3 b6 4. Be2 Bb7 5. O-O d5 6. d4 Bd6 7. Nc3 O-O 8. b3
Nbd7 9. Bb2 Qe7 10. Nb5 Ne4 11. Nxd6 cxd6 12. Nd2 Ndf6 13. f3 Nxd2 14. Qxd2
dxc4 15. Bxc4 d5 16. Bd3 Rfc8 17. Rae1 Rc7 18. e4 Rac8 19. e5 Ne8 20. f4 g6 21.
Re3 f5 22. exf6 Nxf6 23. f5 $1 {(in the words of Steinitz, 'the start of a
remarkable conception of grandiose scale')} Ne4 {Black was pinning all his
hopes on this move.} (23... gxf5 24. Bxf5 Ne4 25. Bxe4 dxe4 {was
unsatisfactory in view of} 26. Rg3+ Kh8 27. d5+ e5 28. d6 {.}) 24. Bxe4 dxe4
25. fxg6 $1 {'This unexpected move, allowing Black to invade with his rook on
c2 and "win" a piece, was undoubtedly foreseen by Zukertort much earlier. The
essence of the remarkable combinative idea concealed in it is still far from
obvious.' (Romanovsky)} Rc2 ({'Despite its ruinous consequences, this is
perhaps the only chance.} 25... hxg6 26. Rg3 Qg7 27. d5 e5 28. Qg5 Re8 29. Rf6
{is hopeless for Black.' (Zukertort)}) 26. gxh7+ Kh8 27. d5+ e5 28. Qb4 $3 {
The point of White's idea is the diversion of the enemy queen!} R8c5 ({If}
28... Qxb4 {there would have followed} 29. Bxe5+ Kxh7 30. Rh3+ Kg6 31. Rg3+ Kh6
({or} 31... Kh7 32. Rf7+) 32. Rf6+ Kh5 33. Rf5+ Kh6 34. Bf4+ Kh7 35. Rh5#) ({
while if} 28... Qe8 29. Rf8+ $1 Qxf8 30. Bxe5+ Kxh7 31. Qxe4+ {.}) 29. Rf8+ $1
{'In conjunction with White's previous play, this forms one of the most noble
combinations conceived over the chessboard.' (Steinitz)} Kxh7 ({Or} 29... Qxf8
30. Bxe5+ Kxh7 31. Qxe4+ {with a rapid mate.}) 30. Qxe4+ Kg7 31. Bxe5+ Kxf8 32.
Bg7+ $1 Kg8 (32... Qxg7 33. Qe8# {.}) 33. Qxe7 {. 'Words are insufficient to
express the admiration of the mastery with which Zukertort conducted this game,
' wrote Steinitz in the press, and at the same time, as if anticipating the
future, in a letter to his future biographer L. Bachmann he commented: 'True
strength also assumes strength of character, and for this reason I have doubts
about Zukertort's genius...' --- Naturally, Steinitz was eager to regain the
reputation of the number one player in the world: immediately after the London
tournament he challenged Zukertort to a match. The battle between the two
stars promised to become an event comparable with the legendary
Morphy-Anderssen encounter. However, as the jokers of the time expressed it,
'the greatest of matches of our time demanded, if not the greatest, then the
longest negotiations.' --- Meanwhile, before London 1883 the publisher of The
Field had closed down Steinitz's chess column (and after the tournament it was
relaunched... under the editorship of Hoffer and Zukertort!), and the maestro
had to seek other work. Alas, in England he was unable to find any... In the
autumn of 1883 Steinitz emigrated to America, declaring that he was ready to
play Zukertort anywhere, except in London. From then on his numerous
commentaries and articles were published in the New York Tribune and in his
own International Chess Magazine, which was begun with the help of new friends
in 1885.} (33. -- {There in the USA, now after the death of the great Morphy,
the organisers of a Steinitz-Zukertort match were announced. Everyone accepted
Steinitz's suggestion to play to 10 wins, draws not counting, and to consider
this competition - for the first time in history! - an official match for the
title Champion of the World. --- There was an important nuance: with a score
of 9-9 the match would be considered to have ended in a draw, since the
players did not want the outcome of such an important duel to rest on the
result of one game. Such a rule was to apply later in a number of unlimited
matches for the world championship, and it became a stumbling-block in the
years when Fischer was champion (as will be described in a later volume). ---
The long-awaited match began on 11 January 1886 in New York, before a large
crowd of spectators, in Cartier's Rooms on Fifth Avenue. The moves were
displayed on a special demonstration board, and the demonstrator was the
well-known master McKenzie! They played for a stake of $2000 from each side,
three games a week, up to four wins for one of the players in New York, up to
a further three in St Louis, and then in New Orleans, Morphy's home town. The
time control was two hours for 30 moves, then, after a two-hour break for
dinner, one hour for 15 moves (it will be remembered that, beginning in London
1883, modern double-sided clocks were used).}) (33. -- {As was remarked on in
the press, in appearance Steinitz was the complete opposite of Zukertort. The
latter was a thin man, with a fine, spiritual face, set off by a short beard.
Whereas Steinitz looked more like a representative of the business world than
of an intellectual pursuit: a massive, thickset figure, with a resolute
bearing, large round face, flat nose, deep-set eyes, uncombed, tousled beard,
and enormous, mane-like reddish-brown sideburns. Perhaps their only common
feature was their 'lively, burning eyes...' --- The match began
catastrophically for Steinitz: after winning the first game in excellent style,
he then suffered four successive defeats (moreover, in the third game he
completely outplayed his opponent strategically, and in the fourth he
blundered a piece in a slightly better position). However, the future champion
did not despair: such a start was not something he needed to become accustomed
to... The match moved on to St Louis, where Steinitz immediately gained two
wins, and the scores became closer: 3-4. In the eighth game the first draw was
finally recorded. The tension had reached breaking point: now much depended on
who won the next game... --- Here it should be remembered that in this match
Steinitz was fighting not only for the title of world champion, but also for
the triumph of his principles. He had long since become aware that chess was
subject to definite laws and that one should always play strictly according to
a plan, taking into account the features of the specific position. And one
should attack only if a sufficient number of small advantages has been
accumulated, stemming from certain properties of the position (temporary or
long-term), such as: lead in development, mobility of the pieces, seizure of
the centre, position of the enemy king, weak squares in the opponent's
position, superior pawn formation, pawn majority on the queenside, open lines,
and the advantage of the two bishops.}) (33. -- {Steinitz particularly valued
such a stable feature as the pawn formation, studying three types of pawns
(pinned, isolated and doubled), and also the weakness and strength not only of
the pawns themselves, but also the neighbouring squares. In particular, he
established that an isolated pawn in the centre is a weakness, a target for a
systematic attack, and the square in front of it a convenient springboard for
a minor piece, especially a knight. And it was in the match with Zukertort
that a clear conception of how to play against the 'isolani' was first
revealed! --- One of the classic examples is the ninth game, in which Steinitz
once again showed himself to be an outstanding master of defence (see the
following game)..}) 1-0
[Event "18: World Championship, St Louis"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1886.??.??"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Zukertort, J."]
[Black "Steinitz, W."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D26"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "76"]
[EventDate "1886.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 ({In the seventh game after} 4. e3 c5 5.
Nf3 Nc6 6. a3 dxc4 7. Bxc4 cxd4 8. exd4 Be7 9. O-O O-O 10. Be3 $6 {Steinitz
demonstrated for the first time an exemplary arrangement of the forces for
Black:} Bd7 11. Qd3 (11. d5 {equalises}) 11... Rc8 12. Rac1 $6 Qa5 13. Ba2 Rfd8
14. Rfe1 $6 Be8 $1 15. Bb1 g6 16. Qe2 Bf8 17. Red1 Bg7 18. Ba2 Ne7 {with an
excellent game.}) 4... dxc4 5. e3 ({More active is} 5. e4 $1 {, and after} Bb4
6. Bg5 c5 7. Bxc4 {the popular Vienna Variation is reached.}) ({Also possible
is the trendy} 5. Qa4+ c6 (5... Nbd7 6. e4) 6. Qxc4 {, as occasionally played
by Karpov, and then also Kramnik.}) 5... c5 ({From the viewpoint of modern
theory Black easily equalises by} 5... a6 $1 6. a4 (6. Bxc4 b5 7. Bb3 Bb7 {is
equal}) 6... c5 7. Bxc4 Nc6 8. O-O Be7 {, and in view of his premature Nc3
White is unable to defend his d4-pawn by Qe2 and Rd1, for example:} 9. Qe2 (9.
dxc5 Qxd1 10. Rxd1 Bxc5 {is dead level}) 9... cxd4 10. Rd1 e5 11. exd4 exd4 12.
Nxd4 Nxd4 13. Qe5 Qd6 {with equality.}) 6. Bxc4 cxd4 (6... Nc6 {is slightly
more accurate, for the moment not opening the diagonal for the bishop at c1.})
7. exd4 (7. Nxd4 a6 {is equal.}) 7... Be7 8. O-O O-O ({The first world
champion also played} 8... Nc6 $1 {, preventing Qe2 by the attack on the
d4-pawn. For example:} 9. Bf4 O-O 10. Re1 ({or} 10. Rc1 Qb6 11. Qd2 Rd8 12.
Rfd1 Bd7 13. Qe2 Be8 14. Bd3 Rac8 {with equality (Pillsbury-Steinitz, St
Petersburg 1895/96)}) 10... Bd7 (10... Qb6 $5) 11. Qe2 Qa5 (11... Rc8 $5) 12.
Nb5 a6 13. Bc7 b6 14. Nc3 Rfc8 15. Bf4 b5 16. Bb3 Qb6 17. Red1 (17. d5 $5)
17... Na5 18. Bc2 Nc4 {with equal chances (Zukertort-Steinitz, USA 13th
matchgame 1886).}) 9. Qe2 (9. Ne5 $5 {.}) 9... Nbd7 ({Nevertheless better was}
9... Nc6 10. Rd1 Na5 $1 11. Bd3 b6 {and ...Bb7.}) 10. Bb3 ({Zukertort does not
even think about} 10. d5 exd5 11. Nxd5 Nxd5 12. Bxd5 Nf6 13. Bb3 Bf5 14. Rd1
Qe8 15. Nd4 Bd7 {with equal chances, since, in the words of Euwe, 'he by no
means regards the d4-pawn as a minus of his position.'}) 10... Nb6 11. Bf4 {It
is more competent to place the bishop on g5 (the battle for the d5-square!),} (
{and the simple} 11. Rd1 Nbd5 12. Bg5 Qa5 13. Rac1 {retains an enduring
initiative. However, this only became clear much later, by the efforts of
Botvinnik, who broke up Black's defences by Ne5 and f2-f4-f5.}) 11... Nbd5 12.
Bg3 {'It is hard to see any purpose, a logical sequence in Zukertort's moves.
He simply puts his pieces on squares where they enjoy mobility and hopes for
complications in which to exercise his talent for combination.' (Lasker) But
even for Lasker and Euwe the positional battle around the 'isolani' largely
remained 'terra incognita'.} Qa5 {A subtle nuance: with the bishop at g3 White
is unable to harass the queen by Bd2;} ({the alternative was} 12... b6 $5 {and
...Bb7.}) 13. Rac1 Bd7 14. Ne5 Rfd8 15. Qf3 (15. Nxd7 Rxd7 {and ...Rad8 was
unfavourable for White}) ({but} 15. f4 {was interesting.}) 15... Be8 {A
classical plan! 'The best square for the bishop in such positions: here it
does not interfere with the manoeuvres of the other black pieces, and in
addition it carries out the important function of defending f7.' (Euwe) It is
obvious that White has lost his opening initiative and that he needs to
concern himself with maintaining equality.} 16. Bh4 $1 {White finally hits on
the idea of fighting for the d5-square. But during the time he has wasted,
Black has solved the problem of his c8-bishop's development - virtually the
main one in such set-ups.} ({According to other sources, the order of moves was
} 16. Rfe1 Rac8 17. Bh4 Nxc3 18. bxc3 Qc7 {.}) 16... Nxc3 {Such moves are not
made without necessity: why relieve the opponent of his 'isolani'?} ({But if}
16... Rac8 $6 {, then} 17. Nxd5 {is unpleasant, for example:} Nxd5 ({or} 17...
exd5 18. Ng4 Rxc1 19. Rxc1 Rc8 20. Rd1 $1) 18. Bxe7 Nxe7 19. Qxb7 {.}) 17. bxc3
Qc7 ({'Defending the bishop at e7. The direct play for a blockade by} 17... b5
{was premature in view of} 18. Ng4 {.' (Neishtadt) The computer does not agree
with this assessment:} Nxg4 19. Qxg4 (19. Bxe7 $2 Nxh2 $1 20. Kxh2 Qc7+ 21. Kg1
Qxe7) 19... Bxh4 20. Qxh4 Bc6 21. f4 Qa3 {with equal chances.}) 18. Rfe1 Rac8
19. Qd3 $6 {An aimless move. Zukertort does not realise that weak hanging
pawns must be advanced, and then they can become strong!} (19. Bg3 {was
correct, and if} Bd6 {, then} (19... Qb6 $1 {was better, with double-edged play
}) 20. c4 {- Lasker considered this position unclear, but in my opinion it
favours White:} Nd7 21. Nxd7 Rxd7 22. d5 $1 Bxg3 23. hxg3 exd5 24. Qe3 Qd8 25.
cxd5 {with a powerful passed pawn in the centre (the strength of which was
then not yet appreciated!).}) 19... Nd5 $1 {Immediately inducing exchanges:
the fewer the pieces, the more obvious the weakness of the hanging pawns.} 20.
Bxe7 (20. Bg3 Qa5 $5) ({possible was} 20. Bc2 g6 21. Bxe7 Qxe7 22. Bb3 b5 23.
Bxd5 Rxd5 24. Qe3 {with counterplay thanks to the weakness of the dark squares
and the rather passive bishop at e8.}) 20... Qxe7 21. Bxd5 $2 {A fundamental
positional mistake: before ...g7-g6 has been played, White should not take on
d5! 'White should have retained this excellent bishop, but in pursuit of
forcing moves and combinations associated with them he even gives up his
strong pieces.' (Lasker)} (21. Bc2 Nf6 (21... Qh4 $5) 22. Ng4 g6 23. Ne5 {was
unclear}) ({but the most logical (connected pawns must be advanced!) was} 21.
c4 $1 Nf6 (21... Qg5 $6 22. h4 $1) 22. Rcd1 {with chances for both sides.})
21... Rxd5 22. c4 Rdd8 23. Re3 $2 {Play at the level of that time: an attempt
to attack the king with inadequate means. What kind of attack is possible here?
} ({'White should have played} 23. Red1 {and then possibly Qb3, c4-c5 and
Nc4-d6.' (Euwe) But after} b6 {Black has a comfortable game.}) ({Therefore I
would prefer to sharpen the play by} 23. d5 $5 b5 {(this is what Steinitz had
in mind)} 24. Qh3 $1 {.}) 23... Qd6 24. Rd1 ({The trappy} 24. Rh3 $5 {can be
met by} h6 $1 ({but not} 24... Qxd4 $2 25. Qxh7+ Kf8 26. Re3 $1) 25. Rd1 f6 26.
Ng4 Qf4 {, transposing into a position from the game.}) 24... f6 {The
consequence of the b3-bishop being exchanged: now the bishop at e8 can come
out to g6 or h5.} 25. Rh3 $5 {'In search of a combination.' (Lasker)} ({In
fact, White is in trouble: in the event of} 25. Nf3 Qa6 $1 (25... Bh5 26. Qb3
b6 27. h3 {is not so clear}) 26. Nd2 e5 27. d5 Qxa2 {he has no compensation
for the material deficit.}) 25... h6 $1 {Parrying all the threats and
beginning to seize the initiative.} ({There was no point in Steinitz going in
for the dangerous complications after} 25... fxe5 $6 26. Qxh7+ Kf8 {. For
example:} 27. -- (27. Rf3+ Bf7 28. Qh5 ({Neishtadt recommended} 28. Qh8+ Ke7
29. Qxg7 Rf8 30. Rb1 b6 31. dxe5 {'with an attack', but after} Qd4 {there is
insufficient compensation for the piece}) 28... Rc7 (28... Qd7 29. Qh8+ Ke7 30.
Qh4+ {with perpetual check}) (28... Rd7 $2 29. Qh8+) 29. c5 Qd5 30. Qh8+ Ke7
31. Qh4+ {with a draw,} ({not} 31. Qxg7 $2 Rf8 32. h4 Qxf3 $1 {and wins.})) (
27. Rg3 $5 {.} -- ({. Bad here are both} 27... Rc7 $2 28. Qh8+ Ke7 29. c5 $1 (
29. Rxg7+ Bf7 30. Qh5 {leads to a draw}) 29... Qd5 30. Rxg7+ Bf7 31. Rxf7+ Kxf7
32. Qh7+ Kf6 33. Qxc7 exd4 34. Rd3) ({, and} 27... Bf7 $2 28. Rxg7 Rc7 29. c5
Qd7 (29... Qxc5 $2 30. Qh8+ Ke7 31. Rxf7+ Kxf7 32. Qh5+ Ke7 33. dxc5) 30. Qh8+
(30. Rd3 $5 {Ravinsky}) 30... Ke7 31. Qh4+ Ke8 32. Rh7 $1) ({, and there only
remains the 'machine' move} 27... Rd7 $1 28. Qh8+ Ke7 29. Qh4+ (29. Rxg7+ $2
Kd8 30. Rxd7+ Kxd7 31. Qg7+ Kd8 32. Qg5+ Kc7 {favours Black}) 29... Kf7 30. Qh7
{with a draw.}))) 26. Ng4 ({Unfavourable is} 26. Ng6 Bxg6 27. Qxg6 Rxc4 {, and
if} 28. Rxh6 Qxd4 $1 29. Qh7+ Kf8 30. Qh8+ Kf7 31. Qxd8 Qxd8 {and wins.
Zukertort is hoping to sacrifice his knight on f6 or h6, but Black's next
reply kills this idea.}) 26... Qf4 $1 27. Ne3 ({If} 27. Rg3 {Steinitz was
planning} b5 $1 {, when} 28. cxb5 $2 {is bad in view of} Rxd4 $1 29. Nxh6+ Kf8
30. Qa3+ Qd6 {.}) 27... Ba4 $1 {'To force the rook from the first rank, which
will soon be seized by Black.' (Lasker)} 28. Rf3 $2 ({None of the commentators
noticed a better chance -} 28. Rd2 $1 b5 29. Rf3 ({but not} 29. cxb5 $2 Rc1+
30. Nf1 ({or} 30. Nd1 Qxd2 {winning}) 30... Bxb5) 29... Qb8 $1 (29... bxc4 $2
30. Qa3) (29... Qc7 30. c5 e5 31. Nf5 exd4 32. Rg3 Qxc5 33. Rxg7+ Kf8 34. g4
Qc1+ 35. Kg2 Bc2 36. Rxc2 Qxc2 37. Qf3 Qxf5 38. Qxf5 Kxg7 39. h4 d3 40. h5 {
leads to a draw}) 30. Qg6 $1 ({Steinitz only considered} 30. cxb5 $2 Rc1+ 31.
Nd1 e5 $1 {winning}) 30... Kh8 (30... bxc4 $2 31. Ng4 $1) 31. Rg3 ({inferior is
} 31. Rxf6 $6 Rc7 $3 32. Rxe6 bxc4) 31... Qb7 32. c5 b4 $1 {, and although
Black has the advantage, there is still a lot of play to come.}) 28... Qd6 29.
Rd2 (29. Rxf6 $2 Bxd1 {wins.}) 29... Bc6 $2 {As it transpires from the note to
the following move, this is a serious mistake.} ({Much stronger was the
tactical blow} 29... b5 $1 {suggested by Vukovic.} 30. -- ({. Now White loses
after} 30. cxb5 $2 Rc1+ 31. Nf1 (31. Nd1 Qxd4 $1 32. Qxd4 Rxd4 33. Rxd4 Bxd1)
31... Qb4) ({, or} 30. Rg3 $2 bxc4 31. Qg6 Qf8 32. Ng4 Kh8 33. Nxh6 Be8 $1 34.
Nf7+ Qxf7) ({, or} 30. h3 bxc4 31. Nxc4 Qb4 32. Ne3 Bb5 33. a3 Qa5 {.}) ({.
And even after the best continuation} 30. Qg6 Qe7 31. Rh3 Qf7 {all the chances
are on Black's side.})) 30. Rg3 $2 {A mistake in reply, and this time a fatal
one.} ({Also bad was} 30. Rxf6 $2 gxf6 31. Qg6+ Kf8 32. Qxf6+ Ke8 {.}) ({But}
30. d5 $1 {suggests itself. 'Steinitz thought that this would be refuted by}
exd5 31. -- (31. cxd5 Bxd5 32. Nxd5 Qxd5 33. Qxd5+ Rxd5 {.}) ({. But instead
of 31 cxd5, stronger is} 31. Nf5 $1 {, for example:} -- (31... Qe5 $2 32. Re3
Qa1+ 33. Rd1 {(} Qxa2 34. Nxh6+ $1 {)}) (31... Qd7 $2 32. Rg3 dxc4 33. Nxh6+
Kh8 (33... Kf8 34. Qh7) 34. Qg6 Re8 35. h4 {wins}) ({, or} 31... Qf8 32. Rg3
dxc4 ({Black can save the game by} 32... Rd7 $1 33. Nxh6+ Kh8 34. Ng4 Re8 $1
35. Ne3 dxc4 36. Qxc4 Qf7 37. Rh3+ Kg8 38. Qh4 Qg6 39. Qc4+ Qf7 {with equality
- G.K.}) 33. Nxh6+ Kh8 34. Qg6 ({or} 34. Qxd8 $1 Rxd8 35. Rxd8 Qxd8 36. Nf7+)
34... Re8 35. h4 {and wins}))) ({Therefore correct is} 30. d5 Qe5 $1 31. Rg3 ({
if} 31. Nc2) ({or} 31. Nf1 {, then ultra-calmly} exd5) 31... exd5 32. Qg6 Rc7 {
and ...Be8 (of course, not} 33. Qxh6 $2 {on account of} Qxg3 $1 {).' (Euwe)}) (
{In the variation} 30. d5 $1 Qe5 $1 {the computer introduces its corrections:}
31. Qf1 $1 exd5 32. cxd5 Bd7 {leads to a rather complicated position, in which
White can defend himself at the cost of the initiative. Whereas 30 Rg3? runs
up against a wall.}) 30... f5 $1 {This reply, effectively deciding the game,
was underestimated by Zukertort.} 31. Rg6 $2 {A coffee-house move!} ({There
was more sense in} 31. c5 Qe7 32. Nc4 ({or} 32. f4 Be4 33. Qe2 Qf6 34. Qf2 $1
b6) 32... Bb5 33. a4 Bxc4 34. Qxc4 Rxc5 35. dxc5 Rxd2 36. h3 {with an
indifferent, but not yet totally ruined position.}) (31. Rh3 $5 {.}) 31... Be4
32. Qb3 Kh7 ({Not} 32... f4 $2 33. c5 fxe3 34. cxd6 exd2 35. Qxe6+ Kh7 36.
Rxh6+ gxh6 37. Qf7+ Kh8 38. Qf6+ Kg8 39. Qe6+ Kg7 40. Qe7+ {with perpetual
check}) ({but} 32... Kf7 $1 33. c5 Qe7 34. Rg3 f4 35. Rg4 fxe3 {would have won
calmly.}) 33. c5 Rxc5 34. Rxe6 ({Or} 34. Qxe6 Rc1+ 35. Nd1 (35. Nf1 Qxe6 36.
Rxe6 Bd5 37. Re7 Bc4) 35... Qf8 $1 (35... Qxe6 36. Rxe6 Bd5 37. Re1 Bxa2 38.
Rxa2 Rxd4 {Steinitz}) 36. Rg3 Bc2 37. Qe2 Qe8 38. Kf1 f4 {all of which are
winning for Black.}) 34... Rc1+ 35. Nd1 $2 ({More tenacious was} 35. Nf1 -- ({
, when there is a choice between} 35... Qf4 36. Qe3 Qc7 $1) ({, and the
immediate} 35... Qc7 {, for example:} 36. Rd1 Rxd1 37. Qxd1 Qd7 38. Re5 Qxd4
39. Qxd4 Rxd4 40. f3 Bc6 41. Ne3 f4 42. Nf5 Rd2 43. Re7 Kg6 {and Black has a
won endgame.} (43... --))) 35... Qf4 36. Qb2 Rb1 37. Qc3 Rc8 38. Rxe4 Qxe4 {.
The game is a very uneven one, and it is hard to annotate from the standpoint
of the 21st century: by present-day standards it contains too many mistakes.
But it should be remembered that even the best players of that time progressed
in the opening and the middlegame purely intuitively, groping their way. And
Steinitz was clearly superior to his opponent in positional play, in his
understanding of the strength and weakness of central pawns. Nothing was then
known about this, and objectively the game played a colossal role in the
development of chess understanding. It needed nearly half a century and the
appearance of Botvinnik for positions with an 'isolani' to be reassessed in
favour of White, and then nearly another 30 years and the appearance of
Petrosian, for the Queen's Gambit Accepted to again become a popular opening
and for players to begin relating to the 'isolani' without emotion, seeing in
it both minuses and pluses. And now there prevails a concrete and complex
approach, based on a gigantic amount of processed information... --- In the
match too the ninth game played an enormous role. The scores became level (+4
-4 =1), and although in the event of a 9-9 score the players had agreed to
continue playing to a further eight wins, the play was now all one way. In New
Orleans, with the score standing at 5-7 and after failing to win the almost
won 17th game and losing the 18th, Zukertort completely collapsed, and within
two more games Steinitz was celebrating overall victory: +10 -5 =5. The first
official champion of the world had emerged. --- The press greeted Steinitz's
triumph coolly: it was said that Zukertort was 'not at all himself', that
there were rather a lot of blunders and, by contrast, little in the way of
brilliance. They remembered with delight the times of Morphy and Anderssen,
completely ignoring the path that chess had taken over a quarter of a century,
forgetting that Steinitz and Zukertort played an order of magnitude stronger
that any opponent of their legendary predecessors, and therefore their
internecine clash, like many subsequent battles for the crown, demanded
incomparably greater nervous tension...} (38... -- {But why did Zukertort
'burn up' so quickly? It seems to me that after the first third of the match
Steinitz had fully adapted to him, adjusted to his playing style and
discovered his own (which was not easy: Zukertort was after all an excellent
practitioner) - and he could now do with him what he wanted, playing chess
that was incomprehensible to his opponent! And gradually Zukertort lost his
nerve. and a feeling of hopelessness arose: he simply did not know what to do
with Steinitz... --- Many years later Lasker called this match 'an event which
decided the outcome of the battle between the combinative and positional
schools,' and gave a very clear description of it: 'How novel, how surprising,
how opposed to every sentiment of his time the conceptions of Steinitz must
have been becomes manifest when playing over the games of the greatest match
won by him, the one against Zukertort. Zukertort relied on combinations, and
in that field he was a discoverer, a genius. For all that, in the majority of
the games of the match, though he had lost none of his faculty, he was unable
to make use of it. Steinitz seemed to have the mysterious capacity for
divining combinations long before they were realisable on the board, to
encourage combinations favourable to himself and to forestall those which were
unfavourable. Zukertort could not understand how Steinitz was able to prevent
combinations nor how he could win by such a method, since up to that time -
this seemed to Zukertort indisputable - games, fairly won, had been won by
fine combinations. Zukertort tried for four years to solve this riddle, but he
never approached its solution by even one step, and he lost the mastery that
he possessed into the bargain. He died a comparatively young man (of a stroke
at the age of 46 - G.K.). And thus it is not to be wondered at that the chess
world did not understand Steinitz, neither his manner of play nor his written
word which treated of his "modern school".'}) 0-1
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chigorin"]
[Black "The First Challenger"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.06"]
{Chigorin - The First Challenger: In 1888 the rich Havana Chess Club, with
which Steinitz had good relations, invited the champion to choose his most
worthy opponent and to play the next match for the world championship in Cuba.
Steinitz immediately agreed, and without any hesitation named Chigorin. --- At
that time the great Russian maestro master Mikhail Ivanovich Chigorin
(1850-1908) still had only a short service record, but he was the most
difficult, the most dangerous opponent for the champion: in Vienna 1882 he had
drawn 1-1 with Steinitz, and in London 1883 he had won both games against him!
In addition he spoke out as a fundamental critic and opponent of Steinitz, who,
in turn, called him 'a genius of practical play, who regards it as his
privilege at every convenient opportunity to challenge the principles of
modern chess theory.' Chigorin played in sharp combinative style, he was a
virtuoso of various gambits, and later, when a whole generation of followers
of the new school came into the arena, he won fame as 'the last chess
romantic'.} 1. -- {Mikhail Ivanovich learned chess at the age of 16, and began
playing seriously only when he was 24, in the well-known Dominik Café in St
Petersburg. For the sake of chess he gave up his job and from 1876 he edited
the magazine Shakhmatny Listok (and in the mid-80s Shakhmatny Vestnik). After
winning matches against the leading Russian masters, he became the strongest
player in the country for a quarter of a century. He was distinguished by an
amazingly vivid, but nevertheless, unusual style of play.} *
[Event "19: Match, St Petersburg"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1879.??.??"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Chigorin, M."]
[Black "Schiffers, E."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C68"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "65"]
[EventDate "1879.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 {This is much drier than Chigorin's
beloved Evans Gambit, but even here, as it turns out, it is possible to stir
up trouble.} dxc6 5. d3 Bc5 6. Nc3 Bg4 7. h3 Bxf3 8. Qxf3 Ne7 9. Ne2 O-O 10. g4
$5 Qd7 11. Be3 Bb4+ 12. Kf1 $5 {Together with 10 g4, this is an original way
of preparing an attack.} Rad8 13. Ng3 Qe6 14. h4 a5 15. Rg1 Kh8 16. Nf5 g6 17.
a3 Bd6 18. Ke2 $1 {This very modern knight sacrifice is an example of
Chigorin's paradoxical thinking.} gxf5 $6 (18... c5 $5 {with the idea of ...c5-c4 is more cautious.}) 19. gxf5 Qd7 20. Bh6 $5 ({Perhaps Schiffers was
hoping for} 20. Qg4 Nxf5 21. Qxf5 Qxf5 22. exf5 {with a very slightly better
endgame for White. But Chigorin does not fritter away his advantage.}) 20...
Rg8 21. Bg5 Rxg5 22. hxg5 c5 23. Rh1 Ng8 24. f6 Bf8 25. Rh3 c4 $1 26. Rah1
cxd3+ 27. cxd3 (27. Qxd3 h6 {.}) 27... h6 28. g6 fxg6 29. f7 Ne7 $4 {The
computer records this as a blunder.} ({After} 29... Qd4 $1 30. fxg8=Q+ Kxg8 {
it was still possible to resist:} 31. Rg3 Qxb2+ 32. Kf1 Rd6 33. Qf5 Kg7 34.
Rhg1 Qc1+ 35. Kg2 Qf4 36. Qc8 Qf7 {etc.}) 30. Rxh6+ Bxh6 31. f8=Q+ Rxf8 32.
Qxf8+ Ng8 33. Rxh6+ 1-0
[Event "20: Sixth American Congress, New York"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1889.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chigorin, M."]
[Black "Pollock, W."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C51"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "73"]
[EventDate "1889.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{After his debut in the world arena (Berlin 1881: 1. Blackburne; 2. Zukertort;
3-4 Winawer and Chigorin) Chigorin won universal recognition. 'His
combinations are very clever,' wrote Zukertort. 'With one leap he has joined
the ranks of international masters.' --- In the spring of 1889, returning home
from his first match with Steinitz (their duels will be described below),
Chigorin shared 1st-2nd place at an important tournament in New York, the
longest in the history of chess (64 days: a double-round event with 20 players)
, where he played one of his best-known games.} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5
4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Bc5 $6 (5... Ba5) (5... Be7 {.}) 6. O-O (6. d4 $1 {.}) 6... d6
7. d4 exd4 $6 (7... Bb6 $1 {- Game No.43.}) 8. cxd4 Bb6 9. Nc3 Na5 10. Bg5 $1 {
This, the 'Göring Attack' was a tabiya of Mikhail Chigorin, his favourite
position.} f6 11. Bf4 $5 ({Less convincing is} 11. Bh4 Nxc4 12. Qa4+ Qd7 13.
Qxc4 Qf7 14. Nd5 Nh6 {(Chigorin-Yakubovich, correspondence 1879).}) 11... Nxc4
12. Qa4+ Kf7 13. Qxc4+ Be6 14. d5 $1 Bd7 ({'After} 14... Bg4 {Black has to
reckon with a piece sacrifice for the sake of an attack:} 15. e5 $1 {(? - G.K.)
} fxe5 16. Nxe5+ dxe5 17. Bxe5 {.' (Vasyukov, Nikitin) Excuse me: after the
simple} Nf6 $1 {and the approximate} 18. Bxf6 Qxf6 19. Qxg4 Qxc3 {White has
got nowhere. Whereas the 'positional offensive' 15 Nd4! and a2-a4 gives him
excellent compensation for the pawn.}) 15. Ne2 Qe8 $6 {A loss of time.} ({'It
was better to develop the kingside by} 15... Ne7 {and ...Re8 or ...Rf8. The
queen should have been reserved for a better post.' (Steinitz) After this
there would evidently have followed} 16. a4 {with a complicated game.}) 16. a4
$1 Ne7 17. Be3 $1 Ng6 ({Steinitz suggested the tenacious but passive} 17... Qd8
18. Bxb6 axb6) ({while to me} 17... Rc8 $5 {seems interesting.}) 18. Bxb6 cxb6
19. Qb4 Qe7 (19... Bg4 20. Rac1 Bxf3 (20... Qe7 21. Ng3) {, does not work on
account of} 21. Rc7+ Kg8 22. gxf3 Nh4 23. Ng3 Nxf3+ 24. Kg2 Nh4+ 25. Kh1 {with
an attack.}) 20. Ng3 Rhc8 21. Nd4 Rc5 22. f4 Rac8 23. Qd2 Rc4 ({After
Steinitz's move} 23... Nf8 {, forestalling the invasion of the white knight at
e6,} 24. Rae1 {is unpleasant with the dangerous threat of Ngf5 and possibly
e4-e5 (Vasyukov, Nikitin).}) ({My alternative is} 23... Kg8 $5 24. Ngf5 (24.
Ne6 Rc2) 24... Bxf5 25. exf5 Nf8 {.}) 24. Ne6 $1 Nh4 {Clearly, Black cannot
take twice on e6 on account of the fork f4-f5.} ({'But perhaps it was worth
trying to disrupt the attack by giving up the exchange:} 24... Rc2 25. Qxc2 $1
Rxc2 26. Nf5 Bxe6 27. Nxe7 Nxe7 28. dxe6+ Kxe6 {.' (Vasyukov, Nikitin) And
indeed, the position after} 29. Rfc1 Rc5 {does not look altogether clear.}) 25.
Qd1 $1 Bxe6 $2 {In my opinion, a serious mistake, and one that was not
mentioned by the commentators.} (25... Kg8 $1 {should have been played, and if}
26. Qg4 {-} f5 27. exf5 (27. Nxf5 Nxf5 28. exf5 Qf6) 27... Rc2 {.}) 26. dxe6+
Kg8 27. Qg4 $1 {'The king's side attack is congenial to Mr Chigorin's style
and he pursues it here with consummate mastery.' (Steinitz)} ({However, also
good was} 27. f5 $5 g5 28. Rf2 {with the threat of 29 Rd2 followed by e4-e5
(Vasyukov, Nikitin).} (28. fxg6 $5 {.})) 27... Ng6 28. Nf5 $1 Qc7 ({Of course,
not} 28... Qxe6 $4 29. Nh6+ $1 {.}) 29. e7 $5 {The culmination of the battle.
'Everything serves the purpose of the attack on the king. The knight at g6 is
pinned and the terrible h2-h4-h5 is threatened. However, many masters of the
later "cautious" times would have been unlikely to detach from its neighbours
this far-advanced pawn, which guarantees victory.' (Spielmann)} ({'After the
direct} 29. h4 $6 {Black has the defence} Rxe4 30. h5 Ne5 $1 31. Qg3 Nc4 {and ...Qc5+}) ({but after} 29. Rae1 $1 {followed by the march of the h-pawn Black
would appear to have no defence.' (Vasyukov, Nikitin).}) 29... Kf7 $2 {The
decisive mistake.} ({Far more tenacious was Steinitz's suggestion of} 29... Re8
$1 {. In the variation of Vasyukov and Nikitin} 30. h4 Rxe7 31. h5 Nf8 32.
Nxe7+ ({I suggest} 32. h6 $1 g6 33. Nxe7+ Qxe7 34. Rae1 Rxe4 35. Qd1 {and
White's position is better}) 32... Qxe7 33. Rac1 $5 Qxe4 34. Rce1 $1 Qd4+ 35.
Kh1 {the outcome remains unclear.}) ({But not} 29... Rxe4 $2 30. Nxd6 {.}) 30.
Rad1 Qc5+ 31. Kh1 Rc6 {This results in a fatal weakening of the eighth rank.}
32. e5 $3 {A breakthrough at the most fortified point!} ({True, in the opinion
of the computer, White also wins by the cold} 32. e8=Q+ $5 Kxe8 33. Nxg7+ Kf7
34. Qd7+ Ne7 35. Ne6 Qh5 36. Nd8+ {.}) 32... fxe5 ({Also pretty was} 32... dxe5
33. Rd8 Re6 34. Rf8+ $1) ({or} 32... Qxe5 33. Nxd6+ $1 Rxd6 34. fxe5 {.}) 33.
Nxd6+ {The commentators attach an exclamation mark to this 'crushing blow'} ({
although} 33. e8=Q+ $5 Kxe8 34. Nxg7+ Kf7 35. Qd7+ {would have concluded
matters immediately.}) 33... Rxd6 34. fxe5+ Rf6 35. e8=Q+ $1 Kxe8 36. Qd7+ Kf8
37. exf6 {. 'The grandiosity of Chigorin's ideas is enchanting: his every move
breathes with creative force and an irresistible will to win.' (Spielmann)} 1-0
[Event "21: Match, Havana"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1890.??.??"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Gunsberg, I."]
[Black "Chigorin, M."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C77"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "84"]
[EventDate "1890.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{In this type of complicated, dynamic play Mikhail Ivanovich was superior to
his contemporaries. He had a very subtle feeling for the initiative and he was
not afraid to sacrifice material. Anderssen too played successfully in
positions where he was material down, but in his time the standard of defence
was still very weak. Chigorin overcame far more serious resistance! In many
respects his style was the forerunner of Alekhine's style, and in the mid-20th
century the young Spassky - a great connoisseur of Chigorin's games - played
in a similar manner... --- Here is another classic game by Chigorin, from the
'final candidates match' with Gunsberg (Havana 1890). Although this fierce
clash ended in a draw (+9 -9 =5), the Russian master's play created by far the
stronger impression.} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 ({In his second match with
Steinitz (Havana 1892) Chigorin preferred} 3... Nf6 4. d3 d6 5. c3 g6 6. Nbd2
Bg7 7. Nf1 O-O 8. Ne3 ({or} 8. Ba4 d5 $5 ({but not} 8... Nd7 $6 {(Game No. 25)}
)) 8... d5 $1 {.}) 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. d3 d6 6. c3 g6 7. Nbd2 Bg7 8. Nf1 O-O 9. h3 $6
{Inappropriate flank activity, which is parried by a counter in the centre.} d5
$1 {The position is even more favourable for Black than in the aforementioned
games with Steinitz, where there was not the possibility of immediately
driving back the bishop by ...b7-b5.} 10. Qe2 ({After} 10. Bxc6 $6 bxc6 11.
Nxe5 {the simplest is} Nxe4 {,} ({although} 11... Qe8 {will also do.})) 10...
b5 11. Bc2 $6 ({'After this the bishop remains shut out of play until the end
of the game. It made sense to play} 11. Bb3 {and only if ...Na5 - Bc2. Then it
would have been more difficult for Black to occupy the d4-square.' (Vasyukov,
Nikitin)}) 11... d4 $1 {(seizing space)} 12. g4 Qd6 13. N1d2 ({If} 13. Ng3 {,
then} Qc5 {is possible, also forcing the capture on d4.}) 13... Be6 14. cxd4 ({
'If} 14. O-O {the immediate} h5 {is possible} ({or first} 14... Rad8 {; in any
case White's position is cramped.' (Chigorin)})) 14... Nxd4 15. Nxd4 Qxd4 16.
Nf3 Qb4+ 17. Kf1 Qd6 18. b3 ({The advantage is now on the side of Black, for
example:} 18. d4 $6 Bc4 19. Bd3 Bxd3 20. Qxd3 Nd7 21. d5 c6 $1 {etc.}) 18... c5
19. Bb2 Nd7 $1 {The start of a deep manoeuvre, which has now become standard -
the knight is aiming for d4. At the same time 20...f5! is threatened.} 20. Ng5
Nb8 $1 21. Nxe6 fxe6 $1 {Opening the f-file for an attack is also a textbook
procedure in such positions. Black's advantage is growing.} 22. Kg2 Ra7 23.
Rhf1 Raf7 24. f3 Nc6 25. Qd2 Rf4 26. Rad1 Qe7 27. Qe1 Bf6 28. Qe2 ({'If} 28.
Bc1 Bh4 29. Qc3 (29. Qe2 Nd4) {, then} 29... Rxf3 $1 30. Rxf3 Rxf3 31. Kxf3
Qf6+ 32. Kg2 Qf2+ 33. Kh1 Qf3+ {and mate in three moves.' (Chigorin)}) 28...
Bh4 29. Bb1 h5 $1 30. a3 hxg4 31. hxg4 Qg5 $1 {With the deadly threat of 32...
Rxf3! 33 Rxf3 Qxg4+.} 32. Kh3 ({Also bad is} 32. Bc1 Nd4 $1 33. Bxf4 Rxf4 34.
Qb2 Nxf3 35. Kh1 Qxg4 36. Qg2 Qh5 {when White can resign.}) 32... R8f7 $1 33.
Rc1 ({Or} 33. Bc1 Rh7 $1 34. Bxf4 Bg3+ $1 35. Kg2 Rh2+ 36. Kg1 Qxf4 {and wins.
The weakness of the dark squares and the bad placing of his pieces renders
White's position hopeless.}) 33... Qh6 34. Kg2 Rh7 {(threatening ...Be1!)} 35.
Rh1 Rxf3 $3 {'A charming mastercoup of the rarest profundity and brilliancy.'
(Steinitz) 'It could have been created only by a great master.' (Gunsberg) It
is indeed very spectacular!} 36. Qxf3 ({'If} 36. Rxh4 {, then} Rg3+ $1 ({also
good enough is the simple} 36... Qxh4 37. Kxf3 Qh3+ 38. Kf2 Qh2+ 39. Ke1 Qg3+
40. Kd1 Rh1+ 41. Kd2 Rh2) 37. Kxg3 Qxh4+ 38. Kf3 Qh3+ 39. Kf2 Rf7+ 40. Ke1 $1
Qg3+ 41. Kd1 Rf2 {winning the queen.' (Chigorin)}) 36... Qd2+ 37. Kg1 Bf2+ {
They all attach an exclamation mark to this move,} ({although} 37... Nd4 $5 38.
Bxd4 Bf2+ {was also good.}) 38. Kf1 (38. Qxf2 Rxh1+ 39. Kg2 Rh2+ {.}) 38... Nd4
$1 {The final stroke - on the theme of overloading.} 39. Bxd4 Qxc1+ 40. Ke2
Rxh1 41. Bxf2 Qxb1 42. g5 Qf1+ {. A splendid, complete game - 'the pearl of
the match', as it was described by the commentators. -- Chigorin won a number
of other momentous games (sixth, 20th) against Gunsberg, which also became a
step forward in the development of chess. But, strangely enough, their match
ended in a draw. What told was an unusual phenomenon of Chigorin: he could
play on the whole more interestingly, more vividly and more strongly than his
opponent, but his unsure handling of certain types of positions and crude
oversights would reduce his creative superiority to nought. --- Such was the
world champion's main opponent in the late 1880s to the early 1890s. 'He
stands as though apart from the ranks of 19th century masters, he is a special
figure,' thought Alekhine. 'Chigorin's talent is enormous, and possibly he is
a real genius. At times the depth of his ideas can be inaccessible to mere
mortals.'} 0-1
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Under the Havana Sun"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.06"]
{Under the Havana Sun: The first Steinitz-Chigorin match (Havana 1889) was
played to the best of 20 games and was extremely uncompromising: there was
only one draw, and that a bloody one, in the final game. Chigorin won at the
start and was leading after seven games, then suffered three successive
defeats, won back one point, but... again lost three in a row and it was all
over: Steinitz won the match 10˝-6˝.} 1. -- {This was what the world
champion wrote immediately afterwards: 'This was a match between an old master
of the young school and a young master of the old school, and the young school
won, despite the age of its master. The young master of the old school
sacrificed pawns and pieces. The old master of the young school went further -
he sacrificed entire games, to demonstrate what he understood by sound
positional principles. And I think it has to be admitted that I paid quite a
high price for my experiments, by carrying them out in a fierce match struggle
under the pressure of restricted time, and also without any preliminary
testing in practice. Therefore my adventures in defence against the Evans
Gambit cost me, at the least, five out of the seven lost games; but I am
satisfied by the fact that I nevertheless managed to win four games and draw
one (here the post-match consultation games have also been included - G.K.),
which is not such an insignificant success, if account is taken of the novelty
and difficulty of the experiment.' --- Using examples from the match, I should
like to confirm the validity of Steinitz's words and his amazing obstinacy
when playing Black (see the following game).} *
[Event "22: World Championship, Havana"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1889.??.??"]
[Round "17"]
[White "Chigorin, M."]
[Black "Steinitz, W."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C52"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "140"]
[EventDate "1889.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 ({It is good at least that
he didn't play} 5... Bf8 $6 6. d4 Qe7 $6 7. O-O d6 8. Qb3 g6 9. dxe5 dxe5 10.
Rd1 Bh6 11. Nbd2 $1 Qf6 12. Ba3 Nge7 13. Bd5 $1 {with an agonising death on
the 41st move (Chigorin-Steinitz, Vienna 1882).}) 6. O-O ({Before Lasker it
was not known that} 6. d4 $1 {is more accurate.}) 6... Qf6 $6 (6... d6 7. d4
Bb6 $1 {- Game No.43.}) 7. d4 Nge7 {An artificial defence, which before this
Steinitz called 'in principle correct and sound', and even 'the best', but for
some reason, with the exception of one instance, he did not employ it on any
subsequent occasions...} 8. d5 $1 ({In the first game Steinitz lost after} 8.
Ng5 $6 {, but not on account of the opening.}) ({The aforementioned 'instance'
was} 8. Qa4 $6 Bb6 9. Bg5 Qd6 10. Na3 exd4 11. Nb5 Qg6 12. cxd4 a6 13. d5 Ne5
14. Nxe5 Qxg5 15. Nf3 Qh6 16. Bb3 O-O 17. Rac1 c6 18. Nbd4 c5 19. Ne2 d6 {,
and Black gradually won (Gunsberg-Steinitz, 18th matchgame 1890/91).}) 8... Nd8
9. Qa4 $1 ({Less accurate is} 9. Bg5 Qd6 10. Qa4 {, but the world champion was
able to demonstrate this only after two defeats:} -- (10... Bb6 $6 11. Na3 Qg6
12. Bxe7 Kxe7 13. Nxe5 Qf6 14. Nf3 Qxc3 15. e5 c6 16. d6+ Kf8 17. Bb3 $1 h6 18.
Qh4 g5 19. Qh5 Qd3 20. Rad1 $1 {(seventh game)}) (10... b6 $6 11. Na3 a6 12.
Bd3 $1 Bxc3 13. Rab1 $1 Bb7 (13... Qg6 14. Bxe7 Kxe7 15. Qc4) 14. Nc4 Qc5 (
14... Qg6 15. Bxe7 Kxe7 16. Qa3+) 15. Be3 {etc. (11th game)}) (10... f6 $1 {
(the correct way)} 11. Bc1 Bb6 12. Na3 c6 13. Bb3 (13. Rd1 $5) 13... Bc5 {with
an unclear game: if} 14. Rd1 {Black has} b5 15. Qa5 Nb7 16. Qa6 Nd8 {with
equal chances (13th game). However, Black avoided the repetition of moves and... once again lost!})) 9... Bb6 10. Bg5 Qd6 11. Na3 c6 (11... f6 $6 12. Nb5 {.})
12. Rad1 Qb8 ({If} 12... f6 13. dxc6 Qxc6 14. Nb5 $1 {.}) 13. Bxe7 Kxe7 14. d6+
Kf8 15. Qb4 $1 ({In the 15th game} 15. Nxe5 $6 {was played, after which} Bc5 {
was possible. But now White has excellent compensation for the pawn and,
what's more, Chigorin is in his element!}) 15... f6 16. Bb3 g6 17. Nc4 Kg7 18.
a4 Nf7 19. Nxb6 axb6 20. Bxf7 $1 Kxf7 21. Nxe5+ $1 {(a brilliant stroke!)} Kg7
({If} 21... fxe5 {White wins by} 22. f4 $1 {with the deadly opening of the
f-file.}) 22. Nc4 b5 23. axb5 Qa7 24. b6 Qa4 25. Qc5 Re8 26. f3 {And with the
locked-in bishop at c8 Chigorin should have easily won, then he nearly lost
(what jumps there were in the standard of play!), and in the end the two
players 'tired by the sun' agreed a draw on the 71st move. This was the final
game.} Qa2 27. Ne3 Qb3 28. Rb1 Qf7 29. Nc4 Ra4 30. Rb4 Ra2 31. Qd4 Kg8 32. Ne3
Ra3 33. Ra4 Rb3 34. Rfa1 Kg7 35. Ra8 Rb5 36. Rb8 c5 37. Qd5 Rxb6 38. Raa8 Qf8
39. Nc4 Rc6 40. f4 b5 41. Rxb5 Ba6 42. Rxe8 Qxe8 43. Rxc5 Rxc5 44. Qxc5 Qxe4
45. Ne3 Qxf4 46. h3 Bb7 47. c4 Bc6 48. Qa3 Qd4 49. Kh2 f5 50. c5 f4 51. Nc2 Qe5
52. Qa1 Qxa1 53. Nxa1 Kf6 54. Nc2 Ke5 55. Nb4 Bb7 56. Kg1 Kd4 57. c6 Bc8 58.
cxd7 Bxd7 59. Kf2 Ke5 60. Nd3+ Kxd6 61. Nxf4 Ke5 62. Ke3 Kf6 63. Nd3 h6 64. Kf4
g5+ 65. Ke3 h5 66. Nc5 Bc6 67. g3 h4 68. g4 Bg2 69. Ne4+ Bxe4 70. Kxe4 Ke6
1/2-1/2
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Original Chigorin Defence"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "9"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{Impartial statistics show that Steinitz's victory in the match was secured by
his enormous advantage playing White (+7 -1), achieved with the help of the
rigorous} 1. Nf3 {(epistle to Kramnik!), in the main after} d5 2. d4 Bg4 3. Ne5
(3. c4 $1 Bxf3 $6 (3... Nc6 4. e3 e5 ({and} 4... e6 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Bd2 Nge7 7.
Bd3 Bf5 8. Bxf5 Nxf5 9. cxd5 exd5 10. Qb3 Bxc3 11. Bxc3 Rb8 12. O-O O-O 13.
Rac1 {(12th game)}) 5. Qb3 $1 Bxf3 6. gxf3 {(10th and 14th games)}) 4. gxf3 {
(fourth and sixth games).}) 3... Bh5 4. Qd3 Qc8 5. c4 {(second game). The
theory of the original Chigorin Defence (cf. Game No.31) made its first, timid
steps... --- Another worthy candidate for the world crown at the time was
considered to be the Anglo-Hungarian master Isidor Gunsberg (1854-1930),
winner of the tournaments in Hamburg 1885 and Bradford 1888. After drawing a
crucial match with Chigorin (Havana 1890), he issued a challenge to Steinitz,
and eleven months later they met in a match for the world championship (New
York 1890/91). They played to the best of 20 games, and the champion again
held his title, winning 10˝-8˝. The challenger did not seriously threaten
the throne, but he showed himself to be a pretty solid positional player: as
Tarrasch later wrote, 'Gunsberg was the first of Steinitz's opponents to fight
against him with his own weapon.'} *
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Instructor"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "14"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{A year earlier in New York the first volume of Steinitz's famous opening
guide The Modern Chess Instructor was published, which also included a
thematic article The modern school and its tendencies (extracts from this
manual were regularly published in Russian chess magazines). In the Instructor
it was asserted that the best defence in the Evans Gambit after} 1. e4 e5 2.
Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 ({and the best retreat in the Two Knights Defence after}
3... Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Na5 6. Bb5+ c6 7. dxc6 bxc6 8. Be2 h6 {is} 9. Nh3 $5
) 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. O-O {is} Qf6 7. d4 Nh6 $5 {. Incidentally, three
quarters of a century later Fischer agreed with this latter assertion, but
such a way of playing made Chigorin indignant, and he invited Steinitz to play
a mini-match of two games by telegraph with these opening variations (with a
time control of three days per move and a break during the match for the world
title match with Gunsberg). --- Steinitz, as always, accepted the challenge,
but it all ended dismally for him: firstly, there are (probably false) stories
that the New York police, on learning of the suspicious telegraph encoding,
arrested him as a Russian spy, and secondly, Chigorin won both games
brilliantly! See what a crushing defeat he inflicted on the champion in the
Evans Gambit.} *
[Event "23: Match by telegraph"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1890.??.??"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Chigorin, M."]
[Black "Steinitz, W."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C52"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "75"]
[EventDate "1890.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. O-O Qf6 $6 (6... d6 $1 {
.}) 7. d4 Nh6 ({In the 1889 match Steinitz tried to uphold} 7... Nge7 {(Game
No.22)}) ({and against Gunsberg -} 7... h6 {, but he did not repeat such
experiments any more.}) 8. Bg5 Qd6 ({After} 8... Qg6 9. d5 Nb8 10. Bxh6 Qxh6
11. Nxe5 O-O 12. d6 Nc6 {Vasyukov and Nikitin recommend} 13. Ng4 $1 Qg6 14. Re1
{with the initiative.}) 9. d5 Nd8 10. Qa4 Bb6 11. Na3 c6 (11... O-O 12. Bd3 $1
Qg6 13. Nc4 {etc.}) 12. Be2 $1 {A subtle manoeuvre: the bishop makes way for
the knight.} Bc7 ({Or} 12... Bc5 13. Nc4 Qf8 14. Bxd8 Kxd8 (14... b5 15. Qa5
bxc4 16. dxc6) 15. Nfxe5 f6 16. dxc6 $1 {etc.}) 13. Nc4 Qf8 {Typical Steinitz!}
({However, also bad were both} 13... Qc5 14. d6 $1 Bb8 (14... Bxd6 15. Be3) 15.
Be3 Qb5 16. Qc2 {with the threat of Nb6}) ({and} 13... Qg6 14. Bxd8 Bxd8 15.
Nfxe5 Qf6 16. Qa3 Be7 17. d6 {.}) 14. d6 $1 {(and this is typically
Chigorin-like)} Bxd6 ({After} 14... Bb8 15. Be7 $1) ({or} 14... b5 15. dxc7 Nb7
16. Qb3 {Black loses quickly (} Nc5 17. Qb4 bxc4 18. Qb8 $1 {).}) 15. Nb6 Rb8
16. Qxa7 Ne6 {It is typical that the champion also dared to go in for this
variation in his match for the chess crown with Gunsberg (New York 1890/91).
When in the 12th game the latter employed the Evans Gambit for the first time,
before playing 6...Qf6?! Steinitz unexpectedly asked: 'Do you think that I am
morally bound to play exactly the same defence as I did against Chigorin?'
Gunsberg replied: 'You are not exactly bound, but the public will expect you
to defend your own theories!'} ({Alas, after} 16... Ng4 17. Nh4 $1 Ne6 18. Bxg4
Nxg5 19. Nf5 Ne6 20. Rfd1 $1 Bc7 21. Na8 $1 Rxa8 22. Qxa8 Kd8 23. Rxd7+ $1 Kxd7
24. Rd1+ {Black lost ignominiously... --- 16...Ne6 looks rather more solid,
but... not for a game with a time control of 'three days for a move'.}) 17. Bc1
$1 {'Astounding. This move, like White's 12th and 14th moves, bears the stamp
of genius.' (Steinitz)} Ng8 18. Ba3 {(with the threat of Qxb8)} c5 19. Rad1 $1
Nf6 ({If} 19... Bc7 {Chigorin had prepared} 20. Bb5 Nf6 21. Nd5 Bd6 22. Nh4 $1
Nxd5 23. Rxd5 Bc7 24. Nf5 g6 25. Rfd1 gxf5 26. Rxd7 Bxd7 27. Rxd7 Qh6 28. Bxc5
$1 Nxc5 29. Qxc5 Qc1+ 30. Rd1# {.}) 20. Bc4 Bc7 ({Black fails to save the game
with} 20... Nxe4 21. Nxc8 Rxc8 22. Qxb7 Rc6 23. Nxe5) ({or} 20... Qe7 21. Bxe6
fxe6 22. Nc4 Bc7 23. Bxc5 {and 24 Nd6+.}) 21. Nd5 $1 Bd6 22. Nh4 $1 Nxd5 23.
Nf5 $1 g6 24. Nxd6+ Qxd6 25. Bxd5 Qc7 26. Bxe6 fxe6 27. Bxc5 Ra8 28. Qxa8 Qxc5
29. Qa4 Kd8 30. Rd2 Kc7 31. Rb1 $1 {White accurately converts his clear
advantage of the exchange.} Rd8 (31... d6 32. Rb4 $1 {etc.}) 32. Rb5 $1 Qc6 33.
Qb4 d6 34. a4 $1 Qe8 (34... Bd7 35. Rxd6 $1 {.}) 35. Rb6 Qf8 36. Qa5 d5 (36...
Kb8 37. c4 {.}) 37. exd5 Kb8 38. d6 {. And the second game became altogether
one of the most remarkable in the history of chess: Chigorin played Black with
the same inexorable consistency, developed a terrible attack on the king and
concluded matters with an unexpected and spectacular queen sacrifice. 'The
games of the telegraph match made a startling impression on me,' the second
world champion Lasker recalled many years later. 'To crush Steinitz in such a
way - this seemed incredible!' --- In admitting that his opponent's victory
was deserved, Steinitz wrote: 'I do not accept my defeat as conclusive
evidence against the application of my theories in the two disputed positions,
and still less as proofs against the doctrines of the modern school... The
Russian master's tactics seem to show a conversion to the new ideas, or at any
rate that the modern principles have made their impression on his style just
like on that of most players of the new generation. Such moves as his twelfth,
seventeenth and eighteenth in the Evans Gambit bear the distinct trademark of
the modern school... It was a slow struggle and a wrestling for position, in
which the Russian master gained ground on the most approved principles of
modern warfare in chess.' --- But Mikhail Ivanovich himself did not consider
that he belonged to either the old, or the new school, explaining that 'the
geniuses Morphy and Anderssen did not require any abstract understandings,'
and that he, Chigorin, frequently 'was guided not by abstract theoretical
understandings about the comparative strength of the pieces etc., but solely
by those facts which seem correct... after a detailed and if possible accurate
analysis. Each move of mine is a feasible conclusion from a number of
variations, in the analysis of which theoretical "principles of play" may have
only a limited significance.' Nevertheless Chigorin had a deep respect for
Steinitz, which is evident if only from the letter sent to his opponent soon
after the telegraph match: 'True friends of chess must be thankful to you for
the interest which you constantly awake with your innovations and for your
aversion to schablon-like [stereotyped] play. As known to you I do not share
your theory and principles completely, which, however, does not prevent me
from appreciating them.'} 1-0
[Event "24: World Championship, Havana"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1892.??.??"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Chigorin, M."]
[Black "Steinitz, W."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C52"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "61"]
[EventDate "1892.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{The telegraph battle provoked an unprecedented surge in the popularity of
chess in many countries. Again the question of who was the strongest player in
the world became acute. The St Petersburg Chess Society and the Havana Chess
Club simultaneously made offers to organise a new Steinitz-Chigorin match for
the world championship. The choice of venue was offered to the champion, and
he chose Havana. --- The match began on 1 January 1892 in the luxurious
building of the 'Centro Asturiano' Club. On this occasion the winner was to be
the first to win 10 games, and in the event of 9-9, a further three. The stake
($2000) and the time control duplicated the 'original source'
Steinitz-Zukertort. The champion was now nearly 56, and he announced that this
would possibly be his last match... In the first game the challenger played,
as usual, 1 e4, and the world saw another 'parade of Captain Evans'!} 1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. O-O (6. d4 $1 {.}) 6... d6 ({
Away with} 6... Qf6 $6 {.}) 7. d4 Bg4 ({Best of all is Lasker's} 7... Bb6 $1 {
(Game No.43)}) ({but} 7... Bd7 8. Qb3 Qf6 9. dxe5 dxe5 10. Rd1 h6 {is also
more or less sound (seventh and ninth games).}) ({The two players also tried}
7... exd4 8. cxd4 Bb6 ({and} 8... Nf6 9. e5 dxe5 10. Ba3 Be6 11. Bb5 Qd5 12.
Qa4 {with the initiative (Hastings 1895; St Petersburg 1895/96)}) 9. Nc3 Na5
10. Bg5 f6 11. Bf4 Nxc4 12. Qa4+ Qd7 13. Qxc4 Qf7 14. Nd5 $1 {with a dangerous
attack (London 1883).}) 8. Bb5 $6 ({Later Chigorin was twice successful with}
8. Qa4 -- ({, although after} 8... exd4 9. cxd4 a6 $1 {(15th game)}) ({, or}
8... Bxf3 9. gxf3 exd4 10. cxd4 {(17th game)} Qf6 $1 {Black should not have
any opening problems.} (10... --))) 8... exd4 9. cxd4 Bd7 10. Bb2 Nce7 $2 {At
what a price does Steinitz arrive at the chess truth!} ({Of course, correct was
} 10... Nf6 $1 11. Na3 -- ({, and here not} 11... O-O 12. d5 Ne7 ({or} 12...
Nb8 {, which brought Black draws in the third and fifth games})) ({, but} 11...
Nxe4 $1 12. d5 Ne7 13. Qa4 Bc3 $1 14. Rab1 Bxb2 15. Rxb2 Nc5 {with a decisive
material advantage (13th game).})) 11. Bxd7+ Qxd7 12. Na3 $1 Nh6 13. Nc4 Bb6
14. a4 $1 c6 (14... a6 15. Qb3 $1) (14... a5 15. Nxb6 cxb6 16. Qb3 Nc8 17. d5 {
.}) 15. e5 $1 d5 ({No better was} 15... dxe5 16. dxe5 $1 Qxd1 17. Raxd1 O-O 18.
Rd7) ({or} 15... Bc7 16. exd6 Bxd6 17. Nxd6+ Qxd6 18. Ba3 {and 19 Re1.}) 16.
Nd6+ Kf8 17. Ba3 Kg8 18. Rb1 $1 Nhf5 $6 ({If} 18... Nc8 {,} 19. a5 $1 Nxd6 20.
exd6 Bxa5 21. Ne5 Qc8 22. d7 Qc7 23. Qh5 Bb6 24. Be7 {wins}) ({but} 18... Rb8 {
was more tenacious.}) 19. Nxf7 $1 ({Much bolder than the obvious} 19. a5 {;
this knight sacrifice was published right round the world.}) 19... Kxf7 20. e6+
Kxe6 21. Ne5 Qc8 ({Or} 21... Qe8 22. Re1 Kf6 23. Bxe7+ $1 {etc.}) 22. Re1 Kf6
23. Qh5 $1 g6 (23... Ng6 24. g4 $1 {.}) 24. Bxe7+ Kxe7 ({Of course, not} 24...
Nxe7 $2 25. Qh4+ g5 26. Ng4+ Kf7 27. Qxg5 {.}) 25. Nxg6+ Kf6 26. Nxh8 Bxd4 ({
Equally dismal was} 26... Qxh8 27. Re5 Qc8 28. g4) ({or} 26... Qd7 27. Rb3 $1
Rxh8 28. Rf3 Rg8 29. Re5 Rg5 30. Qh6+ Rg6 31. Rexf5+ Qxf5 32. Qf8+ {.}) 27. Rb3
Qd7 28. Rf3 Rxh8 29. g4 Rg8 30. Qh6+ Rg6 31. Rxf5+ ({In view of} 31. Rxf5+ Qxf5
32. Qf8+ {Black resigned.}) (31. -- {Again a horrible defeat... Fortunately
for the champion, after this he gained some respite in the form of two draws
and by the fourth game he had completely restored his mental balance. That day
the chess world finally saw the real Steinitz! --- According to his teaching,
a flank attack should be parried by a counter in the centre, and therefore it
can prove successful only with a closed or well supported centre. It was this
that Steinitz demonstrated in the following game, the great depth of which
lies not in the pretty concluding attack, but in where this attack arose, its
source. It was here that the difference between the opponents in the
understanding of position was revealed. Of course, Chigorin was more
'advanced' than Zukertort, and he played chess on a broader scale, but even he
could not compete with Steinitz in positional play! It is an amazing game,
inexplicable for the 19th century: Steinitz appeared to manoeuvre on the first
three ranks, but everywhere things turned out badly for Black. In a quiet,
semi-closed position his problems piled up like a snowball...}) 1-0
[Event "25: World Championship, Havana"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1892.??.??"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Steinitz, W."]
[Black "Chigorin, M."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C65"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "55"]
[EventDate "1892.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d3 {Not aiming for an opening advantage.} d6
5. c3 g6 ({A game from the Steinitz-Lasker match (USA/Canada 2nd matchgame
1894) went} 5... Bd7 6. Ba4 g6 7. Nbd2 Bg7 8. Nc4 O-O 9. Ne3 Ne7 10. Bb3 c6 {
, and after} 11. h4 $1 Qc7 12. Ng5 d5 13. f3 $1 Rad8 (13... h6 $5) 14. g4 $1
dxe4 15. fxe4 h6 $6 16. Qf3 $1 Be8 17. Bc2 Nd7 18. Nh3 Nc5 19. Nf2 b5 20. g5 h5
21. Nf5 $1 gxf5 $6 (21... Ne6) 22. exf5 f6 23. g6 Nxg6 24. fxg6 Bxg6 25. Rg1 e4
$2 (25... Bxd3 $1 {Chigorin}) 26. dxe4 Kh7 27. Rxg6 $1 Kxg6 28. Qf5+ Kf7 29.
Qxh5+ Kg8 30. Qxc5 {White soon won. Also a splendid victory!}) 6. Nbd2 Bg7 7.
Nf1 O-O 8. Ba4 {Preserving the bishop (unlike Anderssen - Game No.13).} ({The
second game went} 8. Ne3 d5 $1 {, and White had to make the unwieldy move} 9.
Qc2 {.}) ({And after} 8. Qe2 {Steinitz suggested} Bd7 9. Ba4 $6 Nd4 $1 10. cxd4
Bxa4 11. dxe5 dxe5 12. Nxe5 Bb5 {with an excellent game.}) 8... Nd7 $6 {An
important moment in the opening: Black is at the crossroads. 'By playing my
knight via c5 to e6, I was intending to prevent d3-d4 in the immediate future,
and also the (unrealisable) plan with ...f7-f5.' (Chigorin) Fully in the
spirit of the new school!} ({Although simpler was} 8... d5 $5 9. Qe2 ({
unfavourable is} 9. Bxc6 $6 bxc6 10. Nxe5 Qe8 11. f4 dxe4 {etc.}) 9... Qd6 10.
Bc2 b6 (10... Be6 $5) 11. Ng3 Ba6 12. O-O dxe4 13. Nxe4 Nxe4 14. Qxe4 Bb7 {
with equal chances, as occurred in the 14th game.}) (8... a6 {was also
suggested, for example:} 9. Ne3 ({or} 9. Ng3 b5 10. Bb3 d5 11. Qe2 Re8 12. O-O
Bb7 {(Keres), both with equal chances}) 9... b5 10. Bb3 Na5 11. Bc2 d5 {(Euwe).
In short, White has nothing in particular, and he is even somewhat behind in
development. On the other hand, there are nuances in the position that cause
Chigorin a certain discomfort: he is unable to initiate a concrete tactical
battle. And Steinitz subtly exploits this factor!}) 9. Ne3 Nc5 ({'} 9... f5 {
was recommended, and if} 10. b4 ({after} 10. exf5 gxf5 11. Nd5 {the chances
are with White.' (Neishtadt)}) {, then} 10... f4 11. Nd5 g5 {with a
complicated game.}) 10. Bc2 Ne6 ({But not immediately} 10... f5 {on account of}
11. exf5 gxf5 12. d4 $1 {. But now it would seem difficult for White to do
anything active, whereas Black is intending ...f7-f5, or perhaps ...Ne7 and ...d6-d5.}) 11. h4 $1 {'In general this is not especially dangerous early in the
game, but in the given instance I noticed a weak point on the enemy kingside
and I am not to be trifled with: despite my age, I can still bite.' (Steinitz)
--- I think that this move must have shocked Chigorin: how is it that White is
suddenly beginning an attack?! Steinitz must be punished, but how? And Mikhail
Ivanovich decided to reply (following the classical rules!) with a
counter-blow in the centre, although in the given instance this proves to be
an empty blow, since White's centre is securely fortified.} Ne7 (11... h6 $6
12. h5 g5 {(Mason) is dubious in view of} 13. Nf5 {and d3-d4! with advantage
to White.}) ({'I can only regret that I myself did not bite, by playing} 11...
f5 {. The consequences of this counterattack are very hard to foresee. Here
are the immediate ones:} 12. h5 ({or} 12. exf5 gxf5 13. Nd5 Ne7 14. Nxe7+ Qxe7
15. Ng5 h6 (15... Qe8 $5)) 12... f4 13. Nd5 g5 14. h6 Bf6 15. Bb3 Kh8 {.'
(Chigorin)}) ({'In fact} 11... f5 {was risky, to say the least: after} 12. exf5
gxf5 {White should play} 13. d4 $1 {with excellent attacking chances.'
(Neishtadt) Analysis demonstrates the correctness of this evaluation.}) 12. h5
d5 ({But not} 12... g5 $6 13. h6 $1 {.}) 13. hxg6 fxg6 $2 {A serious, and
probably even decisive mistake: the 'Spanish' bishop at c2, which has hitherto
been dozing, suddenly comes alive.} ({Correct, of course, was} 13... hxg6 {
(towards the centre!), as initially Chigorin wanted to play. In this case, as
he put it, 'Black would have succeeded in putting his king in a safe place':}
14. exd5 Nxd5 15. Nxd5 Qxd5 16. Bh6 Bxh6 17. Rxh6 Kg7 18. Qd2 Nf4 {.' It is
true that 14 Qe2! is stronger, then Bd2 and 0-0-0 with the initiative, but
this is a very sharp position and still a long way from a 'clear plus for
White' evaluation (the play could have developed along the lines of the game
with Lasker, mentioned in the notes to Black's fifth move).}) 14. exd5 $1 Nxd5
15. Nxd5 Qxd5 16. Bb3 Qc6 17. Qe2 {Preventing ...e5-e4. Gradually coming into
play are long-term positional factors, of which Chigorin was not even aware.
It turns out that the chronic defects in Black's position (in particular the
weakness of his king) can no longer be eliminated.} Bd7 ({Chigorin later
lamented that he had not played} 17... a5 {, giving the line} 18. a4 $1 (18.
Bh6 Bxh6 19. Rxh6 a4 {etc.}) 18... Qb6 19. Bxe6+ {(?)} Bxe6 20. Ng5 Bf5 21.
Nxh7 Rfd8 {. However, Neishtadt recommends 19 Qc2 and Be3, and I - 19 Bc4!
with an obvious advantage.}) 18. Be3 ({There was no point at all in playing}
18. Nxe5 $2 Qxg2 19. Nxd7 Qxh1+ 20. Kd2 Kh8 21. Bxe6 Qh2 22. Nxf8 Rxf8 {with
equal chances.}) 18... Kh8 ({Steinitz suggested} 18... Rf7 19. O-O-O Bh8 {,
but after} 20. d4 $1 {Black's position is unenviable.}) 19. O-O-O {(I think
that this late queenside castling must have also shocked Chigorin: not bad for
a Ruy Lopez!)} Rae8 20. Qf1 $1 {(preparing the thematic d3-d4, after which the
attack on the king will become irresistible)} a5 ({'An empty stroke,
testifying to Black's confusion.} 20... Rf5 {and ...Nf8 was better.' (Euwe)
But, in my opinion, after} 21. Kb1 {White has a significant advantage.}) ({
Both Steinitz and Chigorin thought that} 20... Nf4 {was the most logical,
although then White has a pleasant choice between} 21. Ng5 ({and the immediate
} 21. d4 $1 Bg4 (21... exd4 22. Rxd4 $1) 22. Ng5 h6 23. f3 {(Neishtadt)}) 21...
h6 22. Nf7+ Kh7 23. d4 $1 Qxg2 24. Qxg2 Nxg2 25. Nxh6 $1 {(Ravinsky).}) 21. d4
$1 exd4 {Forced, in view of the threat of d4-d5.} 22. Nxd4 Bxd4 {The exchange
of this bishop looks suicidal.} (22... Nxd4 $2 {was even worse:} 23. Rxh7+ $1
Kxh7 24. Qh1+) ({and} 22... Qa6 23. Bc4 Qa8 24. Nf3 {was also unattractive.}) (
{As the lesser evil Neishtadt recommended} 22... Qe4 23. Bc2 ({and therefore,
in my view,} 23. Nf3 $1 Qc6 24. Qd3 {with a winning attack is correct}) 23...
Qg4 24. f3 Qg3 ({but} 24... Nxd4 $1 25. Rxd4 Qe6 {is better}) 25. Nf5 $1 (25.
Ne2 Qe5) 25... gxf5 26. Rxd7 {.}) 23. Rxd4 $1 {The culmination of White's deep
strategy.} Nxd4 $2 {Disastrous.} ({'} 23... Re7 {would have prevented the rook
sacrifice, but I did not see any escape after} 24. Rdh4 {. If} Rff7 {, then}
25. g3 {, with the threat of} -- (25... Kg8 26. Qd3 Qb5 {is perhaps more
tenacious, although objectively Black's position is hopeless}) 26. Bd4+ Kg8 27.
Qd3 {and 28 Qg6, against which there is no defence.' (Chigorin)}) 24. Rxh7+ $1
{A highly dramatic finish! If the regular 3 Bb5 and the march h4-h5xg6 are
disregarded, this is the first crossing of the demarcation line. White crosses
the line - and immediately it is mate!} Kxh7 25. Qh1+ Kg7 26. Bh6+ Kf6 27. Qh4+
Ke5 28. Qxd4+ {. Black resigned one move before checkmate. --- A very deep
game, demonstrating that Steinitz's superiority over his contemporaries was in
his global understanding of chess. Here he outplayed his opponent simply and
imperceptibly, without moving beyond the third rank. Moreover, this was no
ordinary opponent, but one of the most outstanding players of that era, a real
contender for the supreme title. But he was unable to do anything! Steinitz as
though looked into the future: his stealthy plan with d2-d3, c2-c3, Nd2-f1-e3
and Bc2 became the prototype of modern manoeuvring play... --- This wounding
defeat somewhat disheartened Chigorin: after a drawing respite he also lost
the sixth game. But then he drew inspiration and resoundingly announced his
claim to the throne, by gaining a whole series of wins and seizing the lead
for a long time: 5-3 (=4), 7-6... In the 18th game Steinitz managed to level
the scores, but after that Chigorin again went ahead: 8-7. Here, by his own
admission, he was unable to withstand the oppressive tropical heat and he
clearly weakened (his older opponent proved more resilient - perhaps because
he had been to Cuba more often): he lost the 20th and 22nd games. And yet he
still cherished hopes of winning the match...} 1-0
[Event "26: World Championship Match, Havana"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1892.??.??"]
[Round "23"]
[White "Chigorin, M."]
[Black "Steinitz, W."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C34"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "64"]
[EventDate "1892.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{The opening of the 23rd game - a King's Gambit - was played amazingly badly
by the challenger and he quickly reached a difficult ending. Then, however,
some genuine miracles began.} 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e5 Nh5 5. Be2
g6 6. d4 Bg7 7. O-O d6 8. Nc3 O-O 9. Ne1 dxe5 10. Bxh5 gxh5 11. dxe5 Qxd1 12.
Nxd1 Nc6 13. Bxf4 Bf5 14. Ne3 Be4 15. Nf3 Rfe8 16. Ng5 Bg6 17. Nd5 Bxe5 18.
Nxc7 Bxc7 19. Bxc7 Rac8 20. Bg3 Nd4 21. c3 Ne2+ 22. Kf2 h4 $2 ({The
unpretentious} 22... Nxg3 {keeps an edge:} 23. Kxg3 ({if} 23. hxg3 Re5 24. Nf3
{there is the manoeuvre} Rb5 $1 {and the pawn cannot be held - after} 25. b3
Rxc3 {White has a difficult position}) 23... Re2 24. Rf2 h4+ 25. Kf3 Bh5+ 26.
g4 Bxg4+ 27. Kg2 Rce8 {etc.}) 23. Bd6 Nd4 $2 {A very strange decision!} ({
Black suddenly gives up a piece, instead of playing} 23... Rcd8 24. Rfd1 (24.
Rad1 Nc1 $1) 24... Bh5 {, e.g.} 25. Nf3 (25. Rd2 Nf4 $1) 25... h3 26. gxh3 (26.
g3 Ng1 $1) 26... f5 27. Rd2 f4 {with counterplay.}) (23... Rc6 $5 {.}) 24. cxd4
Rc2+ 25. Kg1 Ree2 26. Rae1 $1 {This is what Steinitz overlooked!} Rxg2+ 27. Kh1
Kg7 28. Re8 ({'} 28. Re7 Rgf2 ({overlooking the simple} 28... Rxg5 $1) 29. Rxf2
Rxf2 30. Rxb7 h6 31. Kg1 {would have won more surely for White,' writes
Chigorin}) ({Also inaccurate is} 28. Be5+ $6 Kf8 29. d5 Rxg5 30. d6 Bf5 31. Bf6
{'winning' (Steinitz), in view of} Rgg2 ({or even} 31... Bd7 $1 32. Bxg5 Bc6+
33. Rf3 Bxf3+ 34. Kg1 Bc6 35. Bh6+ Kg8 36. Re5 Rg2+ 37. Kf1 Rg6 {with a
guaranteed draw}) 32. Rxf5 Rxh2+ 33. Kg1 Rcg2+ 34. Kf1 h3 {.}) 28... f5 ({If}
28... Rxg5 $4 29. Bf8+ Kg8 30. Bh6# {.}) 29. Ne6+ $6 {Time-trouble!} (29. Re7+
{would have won more easily, for example:} Kh6 (29... Kf6 $4 30. Ne4#) ({or}
29... Kg8 30. Ne6 f4 31. Nxf4 Rxh2+ 32. Kg1 h3 (32... Rxb2 33. Be5 $1 Bf7 34.
Rd7 {also wins for White}) 33. Rfe1 $1 ({but not} 33. Be5 $2 Rh1+ $1 34. Kxh1
Be4+) 33... Rxb2 34. Rd7 Bf7 35. Be5 $1 Bxa2 36. Bf6 {, weaving a mating net})
30. Bf4 $5 ({the computer makes this move instead of more normal} 30. Ne6 Rxb2
31. Bf4+ Kh5 32. h3 {with the threat of Ng7 mate}) 30... Kh5 31. Nxh7 Bxh7 32.
Rxh7+ Kg6 33. Rxb7 Rxb2 34. Rxa7 Rxa2 35. Rxa2 Rxa2 36. d5 {and wins.}) 29...
Kf6 30. Re7 Rge2 $1 ({More tenacious than} 30... Rxb2 31. Nc5 Rxh2+ 32. Bxh2
Kxe7 33. d5 {.}) 31. d5 Rcd2 {And here Chigorin did not bother to seal his
move, although the arbiter had already prepared the envelope (the time control,
I should remind you, was 30 moves in two hours, after which the game was
adjourned).} 32. Bb4 $4 {(truly the 'blunder of the century!)} ({And yet after
the cool} 32. Rxb7 {he would have retained every chance of winning!} -- ({. 'If
} 32... Rxe6 {there would have followed} 33. dxe6 Rxd6 34. e7 Be8 35. Rc1 {.'
(Chigorin)}) (32... Rxd5 $2 33. Nf4 {.}) ({. Neishtadt adds the variations}
32... f4 33. Rxf4+ Bf5 34. Rf1 Rxd5 35. Ng7 $1 Rxd6 36. Nxf5) ({, and} 32... h3
33. Bf4 Rf2 34. Bg5+ $1 ({and therefore more accurate is} 34. Rb1 $1 Rxd5 35.
Re1 {(threatening Bg5 mate)} Rg2 36. Bg3 $1 {winning}) 34... Ke5 35. Re1+ Rde2
36. Rxe2+ Rxe2 37. Kg1 {; true, here} Rg2+ 38. Kf1 Kxd5 39. Nf4+ Kc6 40. Rxa7
Rxg5 {prolongs the struggle}) ({. Steinitz considered} 32... Bh5 $5 {(with the
threat of ...Bf3+)} 33. -- (33. Rb3 Bf7 {, when there is a choice between} 34.
Bb8 ({and} 34. Nf4 $1 Rxh2+ 35. Kg1 {with a won game.})) ({. In my view, White
also wins by} 33. Rg7 $5 Rxe6 (33... Rxd5 $2 34. Nf4) 34. dxe6 Kxg7 35. Be5+
Kg8 36. Rxf5 h3 37. Kg1 Rg2+ 38. Kf1 Bg6 39. e7 Bf7 40. b4 Rg6 41. Bd4 {.})))
32... Rxh2+ ({In view of} 32... Rxh2+ 33. Kg1 Rdg2# {White resigned.}) (32...
-- {Thus the score became +10 -8 =5 in favour of Steinitz, and he retained the
title of world champion. 'It is unlikely that we will ever forget that
decisive moment,' wrote the Cuban press. 'At the 23rd game more than a
thousand people were present, and all were discussing Chigorin's brilliant
play. At any minute Steinitz's resignation was expected. Suddenly there was an
extraordinary commotion: the spectators stood up, and they all saw how the
Russian master, nervy, with a changed face, was holding his head in his hands:
he had moved away the bishop that was defending him against mate. "'What a
pity!'" repeated hundreds of voices. 'What a vexatious and terrible ending to
a wonderful match for the world championship! Chigorin can feel proud: never
was Steinitz so close to defeat as now.' --- And it was indeed a staggeringly
dramatic match, a fierce clash between the Artist and the Scientist. Chigorin
probably played more prettily, but Steinitz played more correctly. The world
champion himself called his win 'a Pyrrhic victory' and admitted: 'It remains
a fact that I am unable to contend with the Russian master as successfully as
I have contended with the other great masters, including Zukertort.' ---
However, it was right that Steinitz won. If he was to some extent a positional
dogmatist, a player of strict rules, then Chigorin was rather a tactical
dogmatist, an adventure lover (in this sense his follower became Alekhine, but
already in another cycle of the development of the game). Steinitz's theory
was after all more soundly based, since it encompassed more types of positions,
and Steinitz defeated Chigorin, in particular, thanks to his greater range of
vision. In 'his' positions - with the initiative, with an attack - Mikhail
Ivanovich was invincible, but in 'foreign' positions, where the correct paths
had to be patiently groped for, he made mistakes and was inferior. And overall
he all the time lacked a little something...}) 0-1
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Passions around Mount Olympus"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.06"]
{Passions around Mount Olympus: After another Steinitz coronation, the chess
world asked the eternal question: who would be the champion's next opponent?
Or more precisely, given his advancing years, who would be the next chess
king? --- The most realistic challenger looked to be the 30-year-old German
champion Doctor Siegbert Tarrasch, who had won the important tournaments in
Breslau (1889), Manchester (1890) and Dresden (1892) in brilliant fashion. He
could have played Steinitz even after Manchester, but he declined the tempting
offer of the Havana Chess Club, stating that he was occupied with his medical
practice.} 1. -- {Also clearly on the up was the 24-year-old Emanuel Lasker.
But for the present he had not achieved sufficient successes, and therefore
Tarrasch quite reasonably declined his challenge to a candidates match.
Although the Doctor would then have probably been able to defeat both the
inexperienced Lasker, and the wounded Steinitz, he chose another course - he
challenged the recent 'number one' candidate Chigorin to a match! --- This
match (St Petersburg, autumn 1893) is deserving of a special mention, since it
became a truly champion-like battle - not only by its format (the first to win
10 games; if 9-9, then a draw), but also by the richness of its chess content.
The contestants fought literally to the last pawn: in the first nine games and
the six final ones there was not a single draw! --- Victory would have given
Tarrasch every right to a match with Steinitz, and the Doctor from Nuremberg
briskly got down to business: 1-0, 4-2... However, Chigorin had no intention
of yielding, especially on his home ground: by winning the seventh and eighth
games in excellent style, he levelled the scores (see the following game).} *
[Event "27: Match, St Petersburg"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1893.??.??"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Chigorin, M."]
[Black "Tarrasch, S."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C00"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "67"]
[EventDate "1893.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 e6 2. Qe2 $5 {Chigorin's patent move (in Tarrasch's opinion, 'ugly'),
which was tested in the match with an overall score of +5 -3 =2. Chigorin
described how this idea was evoked by Steinitz's play in one of their games -
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6 4 d3 d6 5 c3 g6 6 Nbd2 Bg7 7 Nf1 0-0 8 Ba4 d5 9
Qe2! (Havana 14th matchgame 1892): 'In this way Steinitz avoided the need to
take e4xd5. It was this that gave rise to my initial plan with g2-g3, Bg2 and
d2-d3, which was later varied.' --- Usually Tarrasch gained good positions
from the opening and, incidentally, scored textbook wins in the fourth and
14th games, where 'White's attack on the kingside was halted with the help of
counterplay on the queenside.' But on the whole, this variation, which is very
close to King's Indian set-ups (which at that time were still unusual),
conformed with Chigorin's original style: in the resulting complicated and
obscure play he was able to confuse his formidable, logically thinking
opponent, the outstanding pupil of the Steinitz School.} c5 ({Later Tarrasch
switched to} 2... Be7 {Game No.30).}) ({Also possible is} 2... Nc6 3. Nf3 e5 4.
c3 Nf6 5. d3 Be7 6. g3 d5 {with equality, but take a look at this 'King's
Indian Attack' as performed by Mikhail Ivanovich:} 7. Bg2 dxe4 $6 8. dxe4 Bd6
$6 9. Nbd2 O-O 10. Nc4 Be6 11. O-O Ne8 12. b4 $1 a6 13. Rd1 Qe7 14. a4 $1 f6
15. Ba3 b5 $2 {(this is already a direct mistake: Black faced problems that
were too difficult for those times!)} 16. axb5 axb5 17. Ne3 Rb8 18. Bc1 Nd8 19.
Ra7 Nc6 20. Ra6 Nd8 21. Nd5 Qd7 22. Ne1 c6 23. Ne3 Qb7 24. Ra1 Bc7 25. Nf5 $1
Bb6 26. Be3 $1 {(weakness of the c5-square!)} Bxe3 27. Qxe3 Rf7 28. Nd3 Bc8 $2
29. Nxe5 fxe5 30. Rxd8 Be6 31. Nd6 {1-0 (Chigorin-Teichmann, Hastings 1895).
--- Deep positional play, more typical of the mid-20th century! Chigorin
demonstrated all the basic ideas of the set-up with the X-ray bishop at g2 and
symmetrical pawns on e4 and e5: restriction of the knight at c6 by c2-c3,
manoeuvre of the knight to c4, advance of the a- and b-pawns, exploitation of
the d5- and f5-squares, the gradual suffocation of the opponent... This was
the style of the future! Many decades later the King's Indian Attack became
fashionable - incidentally, it was successfully employed by Fischer: against
Ivkov (Santa Monica 1966), Durao (Havana Olympiad 1966), Miagmarsuren (Sousse
interzonal 1967), Panno (Buenos Aires 1970) and so on.}) (2... e5 3. f4 $1 {.})
({I should add that after} 2... Nc6 {there is also} 3. f4 $5 (3. Nc3 e5 {is
equal, Chigorin-Lasker, London 1899}) 3... Nd4 (3... Nge7 4. Nf3 d5 5. e5 {...
1-0 Chigorin-Gunsberg, Monte Carlo 1902}) 4. Qd3 c5 5. Nf3 Nc6 (5... Nxf3+ {is
better}) 6. Qe2 $1 Be7 7. Nc3 d5 8. d3 Nf6 9. g3 {- in this way Mikhail
Ivanovich crushed the young Rubinstein (Third Russian Championship, Kiev 1903).
}) 3. g3 ({The second game went} 3. Nc3 $6 Nc6 4. Nf3 a6 5. g3 Nd4 6. Qd3 Qb6
7. Bg2 Ne7 8. Nxd4 cxd4 9. Ne2 Nc6 10. c3 dxc3 $1 {and 11...Bc5 with an
excellent game for Black, but... he got mated!}) ({Or} 3. f4 Nc6 4. d3 Be7 (
4... Nge7 $5) 5. Nf3 d5 6. Nc3 Nf6 {with equality (Chigorin-Tarrasch, Ostend
1905).}) 3... Nc6 4. Bg2 ({In the fourth game Chigorin began with} 4. Nf3 {.})
4... Be7 ({In the sixth game Black equalised by} 4... Nd4 5. Qd3 (5. Qd1 d5)
5... Be7 6. Nc3 Bf6 7. Nb5 Nxb5 8. Qxb5 Qb6 $1 9. Qe2 d6 10. Nf3 Bd7 {, but on
this occasion Tarrasch 'did not want to repeat the same moves, but to take a
new course as soon as possible.'}) ({According to Botvinnik, also good is} 4...
Nge7 5. Nc3 g6 6. d3 Bg7 {, and 'the subsequently unavoidable ...d7-d5 enables
Black to carry out a plan, which in the English Opening is usually chosen by
White,' and, moreover, 'the move Qe2 may prove inappropriate.'}) 5. Nc3 $6 {
Blocking the c-pawn - at that time the correct ways were only just beginning
to be probed.} ({Today everyone knows that more energetic is} 5. Nf3 d5 6. d3
Nf6 7. O-O O-O (7... b6 $6 8. e5 Nd7 9. c4 $1) 8. Re1 ({, or} 8. e5 Ne8 (8...
Nd7 9. c4 $1) 9. c4 Nc7 10. Bf4 {(Tal-Debarnot, Las Palmas 1977).}) ({. But
after} 8. Nc3 {a tabiya of the Chigorin Variation again arises, for example:}
d4 ({in the fourth game Tarrasch played} 8... a6) ({while Schiffers tried both
} 8... Nd4 9. Qd1 dxe4 10. dxe4 Qb6) ({and} 8... dxe4 9. dxe4 e5) 9. Nd1 e5 10.
Ne1 $1 Qb6 11. Kh1 Bg4 12. f3 Bd7 13. f4 $1 Rac8 14. b3 {(Chigorin-Schiffers,
St Petersburg match 1895). A double-edged position in the spirit of the modern
King's Indian was reached (an analogy suggests itself with the well-known game
Taimanov-Fischer, Vancouver 3rd matchgame 1971).})) 5... Qc7 ({'The immediate}
5... Nf6 $2 {is impossible in view of} 6. e5) ({but} 5... Nd4 {is stronger.'
(Tarrasch) Then} 6. Qd1 Nf6 7. d3 {and Nce2 was possible, with an unclear game.
}) 6. Nh3 $5 a6 7. Nf4 {(preventing ...d7-d5 for a long time)} Nd4 8. Qd1 ({If
} 8. Qd3 $6 {Black was intending} Bf6 {with the threat of ...c5-c4.}) 8... Nf6
9. d3 b5 10. O-O Bb7 11. Be3 ({But not} 11. e5 $6 {on account of} Bxg2 12. exf6
Bf3 $1 13. fxg7 Rg8 {.}) 11... Rc8 12. a4 b4 {'The first mistake, but one with
serious consequences - the surrender of the c4-square.} ({Correct was} 12...
Qb6 {with a reasonable game.' (Tarrasch) However, in this case Chigorin could
have developed his initiative by} 13. axb5 axb5 14. e5 Bxg2 15. Nxg2 Ng8 (15...
Nd5 $6 16. Nxd5 exd5 17. Bxd4 cxd4 18. Nf4) 16. b4 $1 (16. Ne4 d5 17. exd6 Bxd6
18. c3 Nf5 19. b4 Nxe3 20. fxe3 {is unclear}) 16... cxb4 17. Qg4 {etc.}) 13.
Nb1 $1 e5 $6 {'The second and decisive mistake. I thought that the knight
could not go to d5, since after the exchange on d5 the white pawn would be
weak. This error cost me the game...} ({After} 13... O-O 14. Nd2 ({or} 14. c3
bxc3 15. bxc3 Nc6 16. d4 cxd4 17. cxd4 Nb4) 14... Rfd8 15. c3 bxc3 16. bxc3 Nc6
17. d4 cxd4 18. cxd4 d5 {Black would have had a quite acceptable game.'
(Tarrasch)}) 14. Nd5 $1 Bxd5 $2 ({If} 14... Nxd5 {White would have gained the
advantage by playing} 15. exd5 Qd6 ({the modern} 15... b3 $5 16. cxb3 O-O 17.
Nd2 {is not altogether sufficient}) 16. c3 bxc3 ({but in addition, after 15...
Qd6 16 c3 more accurate is} 16... Nf5 $1 {(not hurrying with 16...bxc3?!), for
example:} 17. c4 Nxe3 18. fxe3 Qh6 19. Qf3 O-O 20. Nd2 f5 {with sharp play})
17. bxc3 Nf5 18. c4 {, when the bishop at b7 is condemned to a lengthy period
of inaction. Even so, this would have been preferable.' (Tarrasch) Of course!
Especially since moving the rook from c8 and playing ...d7-d6 and ...Bc8 would
not take so very long.}) 15. exd5 Qd6 $2 {After the strategic mistake comes a
tactical one: Tarrasch missed 'a subtle combination by the opponent',
overlooking that it will be impossible to take on d5.} 16. Nd2 $1 Qc7 ({It
transpires that after} 16... Nxd5 $2 17. Nc4 Qe6 18. Bxd4 cxd4 19. Bxd5 Qxd5
20. Nb6 {Black loses the exchange.}) 17. Nc4 {And now he has a strategically
lost position.} h5 {'Inwardly I was reconciled to defeat.' (Tarrasch).} ({
Indeed, the knight at d4 is in danger, and after} 17... Nf5 18. Bd2 g6 19. g4
$1 Ng7 ({not} 19... Nh4 $2 20. d6 Bxd6 21. Bg5) 20. f4 {Black's position is
unenviable.}) (17... d6 $2 18. Bh3 Rd8 19. c3 {traps the knight.}) 18. f4 Nf5
19. Bd2 exf4 20. Bxf4 d6 21. Qe2 $6 ({Stronger was Tarrasch's suggestion of}
21. Bh3 $1 g6 ({or} 21... Ng4 22. Bxg4 hxg4 23. Qxg4 {with a won game in each
instance}) 22. Bxf5 {(I would add} gxf5 23. Bg5 Nxd5 24. Rxf5 {).}) 21... Rd8 (
{'Better was} 21... Nd4 22. Qd2 Rd8 {.' (Tarrasch)} ({as is also the case after
} 22... h4 23. Rae1 Kd8 24. c3) {. But after} 23. Rae1 O-O 24. c3 $1 {Black is
also lost.}) 22. Rae1 Kf8 ({Black can hardly contemplate} 22... O-O 23. Bh3 Ng4
24. Bxg4 hxg4 25. Qxg4 {.}) 23. c3 a5 $6 ({'Had I not lost heart a few moves
earlier, I would now have played} 23... bxc3 24. bxc3 Re8 {.' (Tarrasch)
Although here too it is all sufficiently clear:} 25. Qf3 g6 26. Rb1 Kg7 27. Rb6
{.}) 24. Bd2 bxc3 25. bxc3 Nh6 ({Or} 25... g6 26. Bh3 $1 {.}) 26. Nxa5 $1 Nhg8
{'To what base uses we may return, Horatio!' writes Tarrasch, wittily quoting
Hamlet's words from the scene in the graveyard.} 27. Nc6 Re8 28. c4 Qd7 29. Bf4
h4 30. g4 Nxg4 ({Despair:} 30... Qxg4 31. Qxg4 Nxg4 32. Nxe7 Rxe7 33. Bxd6 {is
hopeless.}) 31. Bh3 N8f6 32. Bg5 Rh5 33. Bxf6 gxf6 34. Qxg4 $1 (34. Qxg4 Rg5
35. Qxg5 $1 {. A good illustration of Chigorin's original, non-routine style.
It was of particular value that his opponent was one of the strongest players
in the world, an excellent tactician who had absorbed Steinitz's ideas and
sensed the nuances of positional play. However, even he was unable to counter
Chigorin's originality! This once again confirms the scale of the talent that
Tarrasch ran into in this match...}) 1-0
[Event "28: Match, St Petersburg"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1893.??.??"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Tarrasch, S."]
[Black "Chigorin, M."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C82"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "125"]
[EventDate "1893.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{However, the very next day the Doctor was able to win one back, and he again
took the lead.} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. d4 b5
7. Bb3 d5 8. dxe5 Be6 9. c3 Bc5 (9... Be7 {- Game No.65.}) 10. Nbd2 O-O 11. Bc2
{One of the tabiyas of the Open Variation of the Ruy Lopez.} Nxd2 $6 {An old
continuation, unpopular nowadays on account of its passivity.} ({In the 20th
century they played both} 11... Nxf2 {(Smyslov-Botvinnik, Moscow Championship
1943/44)}) ({and} 11... f5 {(Smyslov-Reshevsky, USSR-USA radio match 1945)}) ({
and since the time of the Fischer-Larsen game (Santa Monica 1966)} 11... Bf5 $1
{has been in fashion - here one immediately recalls the match duels
Karpov-Korchnoi (1978, 1981) and Karpov's win over Yusupov (50th USSR
Championship, Moscow 1983). We will examine these important games in the
second and third volumes in this series.}) 12. Qxd2 $1 {(with the threat of
Qd3)} Ne7 ({The main move is} 12... f6 {(Game No.66)}) ({but in games by
Tarrasch, Schlechter, Maróczy and Bernstein} 12... Re8 {also occurred, when
Janowski played and Keres later recommended} 13. Qf4 $5 {.}) 13. Ng5 $6 ({'A
tempting but premature attempt to attack.} 13. Nd4 {is more solid.' (Tarrasch)}
) ({Also interesting is} 13. Qg5 $5 Ng6 14. Qh5 Be7 15. Nd4 {(Mason)}) ({while
the main line is} 13. b4 Bb6 14. Ng5 Bf5 15. Bxf5 Nxf5 16. Qd3 g6 17. Qh3 $1 {
with the initiative} ({if} 17. e6 $5 f6 18. Nf7 Qe7 19. Qxd5 Rfe8 20. Re1 Ng7
21. Nh6+ {Black must reply} Kf8 ({but not} 21... Kh8 $2 22. Bb2 $1 Nxe6 23. c4
$1 Rad8 24. Rxe6 $1 {Smyslov-Ragozin, 13th USSR Championship, Moscow 1944.})))
13... Ng6 14. Qe2 ({After} 14. Qe2 {, now} -- 15. Qh5 h6 16. Nxe6 {is
threatened.}) 14... Qd7 $1 15. Be3 ({'After} 15. Qh5 $6 h6 16. Nxe6 ({or} 16.
Nxf7 Bxf7 $1 17. Bxg6 Bxg6 18. Qxg6 Rxf2 $1) 16... Qxe6 {White would have
ended up in an inferior position due to difficulties with the defence of his
e5-pawn and the pressure on f2, for example:} 17. Bf5 Qe7 $1 18. Bxg6 ({or} 18.
e6 Nh4 19. exf7+ Rxf7 20. Bd3 Rxf2 $1 {with a winning attack}) 18... fxg6 19.
Qxg6 Rxf2 $1 {.' (Tarrasch)}) 15... Bg4 $1 16. Qd3 ({White must already play
cautiously: after} 16. f3 $6 Bxe3+ 17. Qxe3 Bf5 18. Bxf5 (18. Bb3 h6) 18...
Qxf5 19. f4 h6 {his knight would have been out of play.}) (16. Nf3 $2 Bxf3 $1 {
.}) 16... Bxe3 17. Qxe3 h6 {Forcing exchanges.} ({If} 17... Bf5 $5 {Tarrasch
recommended} 18. Bb3 $1 h6 19. Nf3 Rae8 20. Qd4 c6 21. Rfe1 {with equal
chances. Let us try continuing this variation:} Qc7 $1 22. a4 Be4 23. axb5 axb5
24. Ra7 Qb8 25. Nd2 Rxe5 26. Nxe4 Rxe4 27. Rxe4 dxe4 28. Qe3 {with sufficient
compensation for the pawn.}) 18. e6 $1 {(a spectacular breakthrough, leading
to... complete equality)} fxe6 ({Of course, not} 18... Bxe6 $2 19. Nxe6 Rfe8
20. Nc5 {.}) 19. Nxe6 ({Tarrasch judged} 19. Bxg6 hxg5 20. Qxg5 Bf5 21. Bxf5 $6
({but more accurate is} 21. Rae1 $1 Rf6 22. Bxf5 Rxf5 23. Qg3 {with a level
game}) 21... Rxf5 {to be in favour of Black.}) 19... Qxe6 (19... Rfe8 $6 20.
Nc5 Rxe3 21. Nxd7 Re7 $1 (21... Re2 $2 22. Bd1) 22. Nc5 {favours White.}) 20.
Qxe6+ Bxe6 21. Bxg6 {The endgame is almost dead drawn, and Tarrasch offered a
draw. But Chigorin, with a pawn majority on the queenside and the chance of
being the first to create a passed pawn, declined...} c5 22. Rfe1 Rf6 23. Bh5
Rd8 24. Re5 $1 {(preventing ...d5-d4)} Kf8 ({'Better was} 24... g6 $1 {, then .
..Bf7 and ...Rfd6.' (Tarrasch) Black may stand a trifle better.}) 25. Rae1 Rd6
$6 (25... Bf7 $1 {.}) 26. f4 g6 27. Bxg6 Rxg6 28. f5 Rf6 $2 ({Much simpler was
} 28... Bxf5 29. Rxf5+ Rgf6 {with a level game.}) 29. fxe6 Ke7 30. Rd1 Rfxe6
31. Rdxd5 Rxd5 32. Rxd5 Re2 33. Rxc5 Rxb2 34. Rc6 ({'Although White has won a
pawn, Black retains drawing chances, as usually happens in rook endings.} 34.
a4 bxa4 35. Ra5 Rc2 36. Rxa4 Rxc3 37. Rxa6 h5 38. Ra5 h4 39. Ra4 h3 {would
have led to a draw.' (Tarrasch)}) 34... Rxa2 35. Rxh6 a5 36. h4 a4 37. Ra6 Rc2
38. Ra5 Kf6 39. Rxb5 Rxc3 40. Kh2 Kg6 41. Ra5 a3 42. g3 Rc2+ 43. Kh3 {The key
moment of the game.} Ra2 $2 {An astounding lapse!} ({After all, Kling and
Horwitz had published analyses of this endgame back in the mid-19th century,
and the method of gaining a draw was well known:} 43... a2 $1 44. h5+ ({or} 44.
Ra6+ Kf5 45. h5 Rc5 $1 46. Rxa2 Kg5 {etc.}) 44... Kf6 45. g4 Rc5 $1 ({this is
quicker than Tarrasch's suggestion of} 45... Rb2 46. Kh4 Rh2+ 47. Kg3 Rb2 48.
Ra6+ Kg7 49. h6+ Kf7 50. g5 Rb6 51. Rxa2 Kg6) 46. Rxa2 Kg5 47. Ra3 Rb5 {.
Incidentally, later it was Tarrasch who formulated the golden rule: a rook
should stand behind a passed pawn! To the side of it, if absolutely necessary,
but on no account in front of it... This may now be a common truth, and no
competent player will play 43...Ra2, but someone had to be the first to
express it! It is the creation of a code of such general rules that comprises
Tarrasch's historic service, the real achievement of his life...}) 44. Kg4 Ra1
45. Ra6+ Kf7 46. Kg5 a2 47. g4 ({But not} 47. h5 $2 Rg1 {.}) 47... Ke7 48. Ra7+
Ke8 49. h5 Kf8 50. h6 Rb1 ({'Black nevertheless has to give up the pawn on
account of the threat of} 50... Rb1 51. h7 Rh1 52. Kg6 {. The resulting ending
of rook and two pawns against rook (the same as that won by Zukertort against
Steinitz in London 1883) is rather difficult to play; in particular White has
to guard against a premature h6-h7 in view of a possible stalemate.' (Tarrasch)
}) 51. Rxa2 Kg8 52. Ra8+ Kh7 53. Ra7+ Kh8 54. Rf7 Rb5+ 55. Kg6 Rb6+ 56. Rf6 Rb8
57. g5 Ra8 58. Rf5 {With the intention of Kh5 and g5-g6.} Kg8 59. Rd5 $1 {
Enviable accuracy!} ({After} 59. Kh5 Ra1 60. g6 Rh1+ 61. Kg5 Rg1+ 62. Kf6 Kh8
63. g7+ (63. h7 $2 Rxg6+) 63... Kh7 64. Kf7 Rg2 {things would have been far
more difficult for White.}) 59... Rb8 60. Kh5 Ra8 61. g6 Kh8 62. Rf5 {
Threatening mate after h6-h7 and Kh6.} Rg8 63. g7+ (63. g7+ Kh7 64. Rf8 Rxf8
65. gxf8=B {(or N) - the only way! The game lasted eight hours.}) 1-0
[Event "29: Match, St Petersburg"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1893.??.??"]
[Round "11"]
[White "Tarrasch, S."]
[Black "Chigorin, M."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C77"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "105"]
[EventDate "1893.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{In the 10th game the first draw in the match was recorded, and in the 11th
Mikhail Ivanovich suffered yet another terrible catastrophe.} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3
Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Bxc6+ bxc6 7. d4 Nd7 8. dxe5 dxe5 9. Be3
Bd6 10. O-O O-O 11. Qd2 Qe7 12. Na4 Rb8 13. b3 Bb7 14. c4 Rbd8 15. Qa5 c5 16.
b4 Qe6 17. bxc5 Be7 18. Nd2 Nf6 19. f3 Rd3 20. Rfe1 Rfd8 21. Rab1 Bc6 22. Nb2
R3d7 23. Rbc1 Nh5 24. Nd1 Nf4 25. Bxf4 exf4 26. Nb3 Bh4 27. Nf2 Qh6 28. Rc2 Qg6
29. Qc3 Qh5 30. e5 Qg6 31. Rd2 Bxf3 32. Qxf3 Rxd2 33. Nxd2 Rxd2 34. Rf1 h6 35.
Qxf4 Bg5 36. Qf3 Be7 37. Kh1 Rxa2 38. Nd3 Bg5 39. Nb4 Rb2 40. Nd5 c6 41. Nc3
Rb3 42. Rd1 Kh7 43. h3 Be7 44. Rd3 Bxc5 45. Ne4 Rb1+ 46. Kh2 Bg1+ 47. Kh1 Bd4+
48. Kh2 Bxe5+ 49. g3 Rb2+ 50. Kg1 f5 51. Nc5 a5 $6 ({Immediately decisive was}
51... Qg5 $1 {with the threats of} 52. -- Bxg3 ({and} 52... Qc1+ 53. Rd1 Qc2 {.
})) 52. Nd7 Bc7 $4 {A nightmare!} ({'After} 52... Bd6 {Black would have won
this subtly planned and powerfully conducted game.' (Tarrasch)}) 53. Nf8+ {.
The game lasted seven hours. To a considerable degree it was on account of
this type of oversight that Chigorin succumbed to his mighty opponents...} 1-0
[Event "30: Match, St Petersburg"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1893.??.??"]
[Round "18"]
[White "Chigorin, M."]
[Black "Tarrasch, S."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C00"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "123"]
[EventDate "1893.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{After seventeen games Tarrasch was leading 8-5 and was just two steps away
from the cherished goal. But here the incredible happened: the strict Doctor
lost three times in a row! Later he explained this by the incredibly cordial
reception that he was given in St Petersburg: 'The lengthy night-time vigils
till three, four and even six in the morning affected by usual freshness and
readiness for battle. The lavish libations, which were awkward for me to
decline, also played their part...' --- In the 18th game Chigorin won a famous
rook endgame, to which analysts were returning even a whole century later.} 1.
e4 e6 2. Qe2 Be7 3. b3 {'A clever move, directed against ...d7-d5.' (Tarrasch)}
({Harmless is} 3. Nc3 d5 4. d3 Nf6 5. g3 O-O ({or} 5... b6 6. Bg2 Bb7 7. Nh3
dxe4 8. Nxe4 Nxe4 9. Bxe4 Bxe4 10. Qxe4 Qd5 {Chigorin-Maróczy, Nuremberg 1896})
6. Bg2 Nc6 7. Nf3 e5 {(10th game).}) ({But another 'King's Indian trick' is
also of interest:} 3. g3 d5 4. d3 Nf6 (4... b6 $5 {Chigorin-Marco, Berlin 1897}
) 5. Bg2 O-O 6. Nh3 $5 c5 7. O-O Nc6 8. c3 $1 dxe4 $6 (8... b6 $1 {equalises})
9. dxe4 e5 10. Na3 h6 11. Nc2 Be6 12. f3 Qd7 13. Nf2 Rad8 14. Ne3 g5 $2 15. Kh1
Kh7 16. Qc2 $1 Kh8 17. Nf5 Bxf5 18. exf5 Rg8 19. g4 Kg7 20. Re1 a6 21. Bf1 $1
Rge8 22. Bd3 Qc7 23. h4 $1 Rh8 24. Kg2 gxh4 $6 25. Be4 Nd5 26. Bxd5 $1 Rxd5 27.
Ne4 Rhd8 28. Re2 Qd7 29. f6+ $1 Bxf6 30. Bxh6+ Kxh6 31. Nxf6 {1-0
(Chigorin-Zinkl, Berlin 1897).}) 3... d5 ({More artificial is} 3... Bf6 4. Nc3
Nc6 5. Bb2 Nge7 6. f4 d6 7. Nf3 Ng6 8. g3 Bd7 9. h4 h5 10. O-O-O {etc.
(Chigorin-Schiffers, St Petersburg 2nd matchgame 1897).}) 4. Bb2 Bf6 ({'The
normal} 4... Nf6 $1 {allows the break-up of the kingside pawns} 5. -- (5. exd5
exd5 (5... Qxd5 $6 6. Nc3) 6. Bxf6 gxf6 {, but Black has excellent
compensation for this in the form of his two bishops, the open g-file, and the
weakening of the opponent's queenside by b2-b3 (say,} 7. Nf3 Nc6 8. d4 Bg4 9.
c3 Qd7 {with equal chances - G.K.).}) ({. And after} 5. e5 {the game has the
usual "French" character and Black is alright.' (Tarrasch) For example:} Nfd7
6. g3 c5 7. Bg2 Nc6 8. f4 f5 9. Nf3 O-O 10. h4 Nb6 11. Nc3 Bd7 {
(Chigorin-Schiffers, St Petersburg 4th matchgame 1897).}) ({. Against Alapin,
Chigorin tried both} 5. Nc3 O-O 6. f4 {(Monte Carlo 1901)} ({and} 6. Nf3 {(St
Petersburg 1905), but also without success.}))) 5. Bxf6 $6 ({White changes
course, despairing of gaining any advantage after} 5. e5 Be7 6. Qg4 Bf8 7. Nf3
(7. Nh3 c5 8. f4 Nc6 9. a3 Nh6 {12th game}) 7... c5 8. Bb5+ (8. Nc3 $5 {Keres})
8... Bd7 9. Bxd7+ Qxd7 10. Nc3 Nc6 11. O-O Nge7 {(14th game), all of which are
equal.}) (5. Nc3 dxe4 {Chigorin-Burn, Vienna 1898.}) 5... Nxf6 6. e5 Nfd7 7.
Qg4 ({'White needs to develop his bishop. He does not have time to fianchetto
it:} 7. f4 O-O 8. g3 f6 9. Nf3 fxe5 10. Nxe5 Nxe5 11. fxe5 Nc6 12. Bg2 Qg5 $1 {
' (Vasyukov, Nikitin)}) 7... O-O ({In the 20th game Tarrasch played} 7... g6 {
- 'for amusement's sake, to see whether White would be able to exploit this
weakening.' After} 8. f4 Nc6 (8... c5 $5) 9. Nc3 Nb4 10. Kd1 Nc5 11. Qe2 a6 12.
a3 Nc6 13. Nf3 b6 14. d4 Nd7 15. Qe3 Ne7 16. Bd3 c5 {Black began an offensive
on the queenside and by the 26th move he had obtained an overwhelming position.
But here... 'My thinking apparatus stopped functioning normally,' writes
Tarrasch, 'and I let slip a deserved win.' And 30 moves later he also missed a
draw...}) ({'The strongest move is} 7... Nxe5 {, suggested by Heyde in his
book about the match; it refutes Chigorin's entire favourite method of attack.
After} 8. Qxg7 Ng6 {Black aims for the exchange of queens, which will give him
the better game:} 9. Bd3 ({or} 9. h4 Qe7 10. h5 f6) 9... f5 {and ...Qe7.'
(Tarrasch)}) 8. f4 Nc6 ({'Nowadays every master would first play} 8... c5 {.'
(Botvinnik) But according to Tarrasch, 'the knight move is much stronger,
since the knight immediately threatens an attack on the queenside.'}) 9. Nf3 ({
In the final, 22nd game, Mikhail Ivanovich 'corrected himself' with} 9. c3 {,
but after} d4 $1 {Black also gained the advantage (although he soon went wrong
and lost in a titanic struggle). It is amusing that a theoretical duel in the
match developed in a position where for White one already wants... simply to
resign!}) 9... f5 $6 ({'Missing the most appropriate moment for an attack -}
9... Nb4 $1 {' (Tarrasch).} 10. -- ({. And indeed, bad now are both} 10. Na3 $6
f5 11. Qg3 c5 12. c3 Qa5 13. cxb4 Qxa3) ({, and} 10. Nd4 $6 c5 11. a3 Qa5 12.
c3 cxd4 13. cxb4 Qc7 {(Chigorin).}) ({. Only the awkward} 10. Kd1 {remains,
when there can follow} c5 ({Tarrasch considered} 10... Nc5 {and a possible ...Ne4}) 11. c3 Nc6 12. Bd3 f5 13. Qh3 Nb6 {with an excellent game for Black,} ({
but not} 13... c4 $2 14. Ng5 {.}))) 10. Qh3 {(threatening Ng5)} Re8 11. Nc3 (
11. g4 $5 {is unclear (Tarrasch).}) 11... Nf8 12. Be2 $6 ({'Typical of
Chigorin: he prefers to avoid simplification, even at a high price. By playing
} 12. Bb5 {and, given the opportunity, Bxc6, White would have insured himself
against all dangers.' (Botvinnik)}) ({'} 12. g4 {was still very strong.'
(Tarrasch)}) ({It is strange that no commentator considered the simple gain of
space -} 12. d4 $5 {. That is what I would play! For example:} Nb4 ({or} 12...
Ng6 13. Qg3 Nb4 14. O-O-O c5 15. h4) 13. O-O-O c5 14. dxc5 Qa5 15. Kb2 Qxc5 16.
a3 Nc6 17. g4 {with double-edged play.}) 12... Ng6 13. Qg3 ({'After} 13. g3 {
the white queen would have been cut off from the centre and the c8-bishop
would have developed dangerous activity on the c6-h1 diagonal.' (Tarrasch)})
13... d4 14. Na4 Nb4 15. Bd1 {Prophylaxis against ...d4-d3.} d3 $6 {'The
original cause of Black's defeat.} ({Correct was} 15... b5 16. Nb2 c5 17. O-O
Bb7 $1 {with a clear advantage in the centre and on the queenside.' (Botvinnik)
However, the position after} 18. Ng5 {seems to me to be not altogether clear})
({and I would prefer Tarrasch's recommendation} 15... Nd5 $1 16. Nxd4 Ndxf4 17.
Nf3 Bd7 18. Nc3 Bc6 {'with an excellent game for Black, since White cannot
castle in view of ...Bxf3 and ...Qxd2 or ...Qd4+.'}) 16. c4 b5 $6 ({'Rather a
wild idea. By} 16... Bd7 17. Nc3 Bc6 {Black would have maintained a positional
advantage and given the d3-pawn adequate support:} 18. a3 ({or} 18. O-O a5 19.
a3 Na6 {and ...Nc5}) 18... Nc2+ 19. Bxc2 dxc2 {and White is still unable to
castle.' (Tarrasch) Apparently the Doctor very much wanted to punish the
opponent for his artificial play, and for some reason he gave up a pawn, at
the same time creating a 'hole' in his position at c6.}) 17. cxb5 Nd5 18. Nd4
$1 {'An excellent move, which can hardly have been anticipated by Tarrasch.} ({
If immediately} 18. O-O {, then} Ndxf4 {.' (Botvinnik) True, here all is not
clear after} 19. Nc5 {.}) 18... Ndxf4 ({Inferior is} 18... Ngxf4 $6 19. O-O $1
Ng6 20. Nc6 Qh4 21. Qxh4 Nxh4 22. Nc5 {.}) 19. Nc6 Qd5 20. Nc3 $1 {A not
altogether obvious stroke.} ({It would seem that from afar Tarrasch had
calculated} 20. Bf3 $6 Qxb5 {with advantage to Black:} 21. Ne7+ ({or} 21. Nc3
Qc5 22. b4 Qb6 23. Ne7+ Rxe7 24. Bxa8 c6 (24... Qxb4 {will also do})) 21...
Rxe7 22. Bxa8 Qxe5+ {.}) 20... Qc5 $2 {The losing move.} ({'} 20... Qxg2 $1 {
was essential - after} 21. Bf3 Qxg3+ 22. hxg3 Nd5 23. Nxd5 $1 (23. Bxd5 $2 exd5
24. Nxd5 Bb7 $1 {wins for Black}) 23... exd5 24. Bxd5+ Be6 {the weakness of
the e5-pawn would have promised Black an excellent game.' (Tarrasch) At any
event, he would not have been worse:} 25. Bf3 a6 26. bxa6 Rxa6 27. Kf2 Bd7 28.
Nb4 Ra3 {etc.}) 21. b4 $1 Qf8 22. O-O $1 {'After castling only on the 22nd
move, White immediately wins the d3-pawn, since the knight at f4 is forced to
move.' (Botvinnik)} Ne2+ (22... Nd5 23. Bf3 $1 {.}) 23. Nxe2 dxe2 24. Bxe2 Bd7
25. Qc3 {The stage of converting the advantage now begins.} Bxc6 26. bxc6 Kh8
27. d4 {'The simplest winning plan was Ba6-b7 and the capture of the a7-pawn
with queen or rook (Rab1-b3-a3).} (27. Bh5 {was also very strong.' (Tarrasch)})
27... Red8 28. Bc4 Qf7 29. Rad1 $6 Ne7 30. b5 Nd5 31. Qf3 $6 (31. Qb3 {is more
accurate.}) 31... Qe7 32. a3 $6 (32. Qb3 $1 {.}) 32... Nb6 33. Qb3 ({If} 33.
Ba2 {, then} a6 $1 {.}) 33... Nxc4 ({'If} 33... Nd5 {there would have followed}
34. Bxd5 Rxd5 35. Rxf5 Rxd4 36. Rxd4 exf5 37. Qd5 h6 38. e6 {, and the win for
White is not difficult.' (Chigorin)}) 34. Qxc4 g6 ({Both} 34... Rd5 $2 35. Rxf5
) ({and} 34... Qxa3 $2 35. Qxe6 Qe3+ 36. Kh1 Rxd4 37. Rxd4 Qxd4 38. Qxf5 {were
bad.}) 35. d5 $2 {Whereas with his preceding moves Chigorin had let the win
slip a little, this is simply a blunder leading to the loss of his extra pawn.}
({Botvinnik recommended} 35. a4 Rd5 36. Rd3 Kg7 37. Rb1 Kf7 ({but} 37... Qh4 $5
38. Qb4 ({or} 38. Qc3) 38... Kg8 {is more tenacious}) 38. a5 Rb8 39. Rb4 Kg7
40. Rd1 Kf7 41. Rdb1 {when b5-b6 cannot be prevented.}) ({Chigorin considered
the similar variation} 35. Qc5 Qf7 $1 36. -- (36. a4 Rd5 37. Qc4 {, 'and
nevertheless doubted whether the game could be won.'}) ({. But, as was shown
by Tarrasch, after 35 Qc5 Qf7! White could have won by} 36. d5 $1 exd5 37. e6
$1 Qxe6 38. Rfe1 Qd6 (38... Qf6 39. Re7 Rac8 40. Rd7 {wins}) 39. Qxd6 Rxd6 40.
Re7 a6 (40... Rc8 41. Rde1 {intending 42 Rd7}) 41. a4 axb5 42. axb5 Rb8 43.
Rxc7 Rxb5 44. Re1 Rb8 ({or} 44... Rd8 45. Ree7 d4 46. Rcd7 Rg8 47. c7) 45. Ree7
Rdd8 46. Rxh7+ Kg8 47. Rcg7+ Kf8 48. c7 Rb1+ 49. Kf2 Rc8 50. Rd7 Ke8 (50... Kg8
51. Rhe7 Kf8 52. Re5) 51. Rd8+ Rxd8 52. Rh8+ {.})) 35... exd5 36. Rxd5 Rxd5 37.
Qxd5 Rd8 $1 {(this is the point!)} 38. Qa2 ({Or} 38. Qc4 Qxe5 {with equal
chances.}) 38... Qxe5 ({For some reason none of the commentators mentioned the
obvious} 38... Qc5+ $1 39. Qf2 Qxb5 {(picking up an important pawn)} 40. Qxa7
Qxe5 {with a dead draw!}) 39. Qa1 $1 {The transition into a rook ending leaves
White with some practical winning chances.} Qxa1 ({But not} 39... Rd4 $2 40.
Re1 Qf6 41. Re6 $1 Rd1+ 42. Qxd1 Qxe6 43. Qd8+ Qg8 44. Qxc7 {and wins.}) 40.
Rxa1 Kg7 41. Kf2 Kf6 42. a4 Rd5 {Tarrasch called White's advantage 'enormous';}
({whereas according to Botvinnik it is only 'definite' and he recommended the
simplifying} 42... a6 $5 43. Rb1 ({or} 43. Ke3 Ke6 44. h4 Rd5 45. Rb1 axb5 46.
axb5 Kd6 {and White is tied to the defence of his b5-pawn}) 43... axb5 44. Rxb5
$6 Rd6 45. Rc5 Rd4 46. a5 Ke6 47. Ke3 Ra4 {and ...Kd6 equalising.}) 43. Ke3 Ke5
44. Rc1 g5 ({It is too late for} 44... a6 $2 45. b6 $1) (44... f4+ $5 45. Kf3
Rd4 46. a5 Rb4 47. Rc5+ Kd6 {(Tarrasch).}) 45. g3 h5 {'The decisive mistake.} (
{After the calm} 45... Kd6 {it is doubtful whether White would have been able
to invade (considering that after the exchange of rooks he loses):} 46. Rc4
Re5+ 47. Kf3 (47. Kd3 Rd5+ {, and} 48. Kc3 $2 {is not possible because of} Rc5)
47... Rd5 {, and the danger of the b5-b6 breakthrough is not so great.'
(Tarrasch)}) ({'Simpler and stronger was} 45... h6 {, supporting the g5-pawn.'
(Botvinnik) --- However, as we will see, the plan of defence chosen by Black
in the game was also not at all bad.}) 46. Rc4 g4 {Fixing the h2-pawn!} ({'The
exchange of rooks would now have led to a loss for Black:} 46... Rd1 47. Rc5+ (
47. h4 gxh4 48. gxh4 Re1+ 49. Kd2 Ra1 $1 {- G.K.}) 47... Rd5 ({Botvinnik
suggested} 47... Ke6 48. a5 Rb1 49. Kd3 Kf6 50. Kc2 Rb4 51. Kc3 Rb1 52. Rd5 Ke6
53. Rd7 Rxb5 54. Rxc7 Rxa5 {with equality, regarding the move ...g5-g4 as
merely 'a new weakening'}) 48. Rxd5+ Kxd5 49. h4 $1 {' writes Tarrasch, having
in mind} gxh4 50. gxh4 Kc5 51. Kf4 Kb4 52. Kg5 Kxa4 $2 ({but overlooking the
deadly} 52... f4 $1 53. Kxf4 Kxa4 54. Kg5 Kxb5 55. Kxh5 a5 {and wins}) 53. Kxh5
Kxb5 54. Kg5 a5 55. h5 a4 56. h6 a3 57. h7 a2 58. h8=Q {.}) 47. Rb4 Ke6 ({
'Black should have played} 47... Kd6 {, for example:} 48. Rd4 Rxd4 $1 ({but not
} 48... Kc5 $2 49. Rxd5+ Kxd5 50. Kf4 Kc5 51. Kxf5 Kb4 52. Ke6 $1 {- G.K.}) 49.
Kxd4 Ke6 50. a5 Kd6 51. a6 Ke6 52. Ke3 Kd6 53. Kd4 {and a draw is inevitable.'
(Botvinnik) But should he really?...}) 48. a5 $1 {The only chance.} (48. Rd4
Re5+ $1 49. Kd3 Re1 50. Kd2 Rh1 {is equal (Botvinnik).}) 48... Kf6 ({Vasyukov
and Nikitin recommend} 48... Rc5 $5 49. Kd4 ({or} 49. Kf4 Kf6) 49... Kd6 {,
impeding the white king, and summarise: 'Black plays uncertainly and with
every move he worsens his position.' We shall see, we shall see...}) (48... Ke5
$2 49. b6 axb6 50. axb6 cxb6 51. c7 Rc5 52. Rb5 $1 {wins}) (48... Kd6 49. Rb2
$1 {and Kf4 with some initiative.}) 49. b6 axb6 50. axb6 cxb6 51. c7 $1 Rc5 52.
Rxb6+ Kg5 {'The decisive mistake.} (52... Kf7 $1 {would still have retained
drawing chances -} 53. Rb7 Ke6 54. Kf4 Kd7 55. c8=Q+ Kxc8 56. Rh7 Rc2 57. Rxh5
Rf2+ 58. Ke5 Kd7 59. Rxf5 Rxh2 60. Kf4 Ke6 61. Kxg4 Rh8 {and a draw (Botvinnik)
. --- But 102 years after the game(!) the Russian master Fridstein showed on
the pages of the magazine Shakhmaty v Rossii (1995, No.2) that Black had been
written off too early.}) 53. Rb7 h4 54. Kd4 {The culminating point of this
exciting battle, which was not noticed by any of the earlier commentators.} Rc1
$2 {Here it is, the decisive mistake!} ({'After} 54... Rc2 $1 55. Ke5 (55. Kd3
Rc6) ({or} 55. gxh4+ Kxh4 {is pointless}) 55... h3 $1 {everything is clear -
White has no winning chances:} 56. Ra7 Re2+ 57. Kd6 Rd2+ 58. Kc6 Rxh2 59. c8=Q
Rc2+ 60. Kd7 Rxc8 61. Kxc8 h2 62. Rh7 f4 {. Had Tarrasch found this resource,
the tone of the comments would no doubt have been completely different and
about his play they would have written "'a brilliant defence"'. Such is the
price of one bad move!' (Fridstein)}) 55. Ke5 hxg3 56. hxg3 Rc3 ({'Black also
fails to save the game by} 56... f4 57. gxf4+ Kh4 58. Kd6 Rd1+ ({or} 58... g3
59. Rb8 g2 60. c8=Q Rxc8 61. Rxc8 g1=Q 62. Rh8+ {and Rg8+ - G.K.}) 59. Ke7 Rc1
60. Kd7 Rd1+ 61. Kc8 g3 62. Kb8 Rc1 63. c8=Q Rxc8+ 64. Kxc8 Kg4 65. Rf7 $1 Kf3
66. f5 g2 67. Rg7 {. This is by no means the only way to win; there are also
others.' (Chigorin)}) 57. Kd6 (57. Ra7 $1 {.}) 57... Rd3+ 58. Ke7 Re3+ 59. Kd6
Rd3+ 60. Ke5 Rc3 61. Ra7 $1 f4 ({After} 61... Rc1 62. Kd6 {the king hides from
the checks at a8 and the c7-pawn queens.}) 62. Kd4 $1 (62. Kd4 Rc1 63. Ra5+ {
and 64 Rc5. 'This entire difficult and interesting ending was played with
great mastery by Chigorin. The game lasted eight hours.' (Tarrasch)}) (62. -- {
Another vivid illustration of the strong and weak sides of both contenders for
the throne, and of Chigorin in particular. He played very creatively, and
riskily in the strategic sense. And again Tarrasch, after gaining an excellent
position, got himself entangled: in complicated, irrational play he was
nevertheless inferior to his opponent! But when the time came to defend, he
defended very well. However, Chigorin made rather a mess of converting his
enormous advantage and even blundered a pawn. Fortunately, in the endgame his
opponent, already anticipating a draw, created some minor difficulties for
himself and overlooked a critical moment. --- Tarrasch steadfastly survived
the three successive defeats and in the 21st game he gained his ninth win. But
in the 22nd he missed a simple draw, and with it victory in the match: the
grandiose battle ended with a score of +9 -9 =4. --- For the proud Doctor this
was an unpleasant surprise: after all, he had played the match 'more
correctly' than Chigorin (he was in general a 'correct' player) and, by the
logic of things, he should have won, but... the purely chess potential of his
opponent proved to be higher! It was another matter that Chigorin often lacked
accuracy in the realisation of his cosmic ideas - this can happen with great
masters.}) (62. -- {In the historic sense it was very important that the new
Steinitz-Tarrasch School had at that time such a powerful opponent. Since when
creative disputes die away in chess, stagnation begins! It was in the big
matches that there was a fierce head-to-head clash of different creative
tendencies, one could even say of different chess ideologies, and it was in
the course of these clashes that modern chess thinking took shape. As they say,
in disputes the truth was born... --- Steinitz was not only the first to
express his positional principles, but also - this is another of his
historical merits - he created a tradition whereby leading masters, in
contrast to the stars of the past, considered it a matter of honour to
formulate and uphold their chess views. Perhaps not as revolutionary as those
of the first world champion, but also principles! Thus Chigorin, who
criticised Steinitz for his 'abstraction' and the somewhat dogmatic nature of
his theory, advocated a different, concrete approach to chess, and was also
perpetually searching and contemplating paths of his own. --- Generally
speaking, the tradition of not only winning a game, but also explaining why it
was won, dates back to Philidor. But he was guided by excessively general
concepts, which at the end of the 19th century no longer worked - so greatly
had the level of chess understanding risen. And since from the time of
Philidor nothing significant in this field had occurred, it can be considered
that it was Steinitz who opened the era of the scientific explanation of chess
wins. The great Steinitz-Chigorin confrontation was perhaps the first stage in
this era. The champion deservedly won, and his theory became the dominating
one.}) (62. -- {However, modern chess is unthinkable without the contribution
made by Chigorin. In contrast, say, to Zukertort, an outstanding student and
to some extent an imitator of Anderssen, Mikhail Ivanovich put forward a
number of completely new, revolutionary ideas and entire trends. But they,
like many of Steinitz's views, could not then win complete recognition, since
they were ahead of their time (that was the case, for example, with the first
'King's Indian experiments'). And in addition, Chigorin was not always able to
demonstrate his correctness at the board: like his historic opponent, he was
excessively obstinate in upholding his opening set-ups, which suffered from
serious positional defects. --- The Tarrasch-Chigorin match became an
important stage in the development of chess understanding. True, while they
were determining in St Petersburg which of them was the main challenger, in
distant America the impatient Lasker had persuaded Steinitz to play him in a
match for the world crown. And in the spring of 1894 the world acquired a new,
young chess king. --- It is appropriate to recall that a year later Lasker
declined an offer by the St Petersburg Chess Society to organise a match
between him and Chigorin, and their first meeting took place in August 1895,
at the start of the historic tournament in Hastings. In this famous game
Chigorin chose an unusual defence, which bears his name in opening theory (see
the following game).}) 1-0
[Event "31: Hastings"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1895.??.??"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Lasker, Em"]
[Black "Chigorin, M."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D07"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "114"]
[EventDate "1895.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 ({If} 2. c4 {there would have followed} Nc6 $5 {. The idea of
piece pressure on the centre followed by the attack and blockade of it was far
ahead of its time, anticipating the discoveries of the hypermodern era: the
Alekhine Defence, the Grünfeld Defence, and the whole complex of Nimzo-Indian
set-ups (it was no wonder that Nimzowitsch called Chigorin his teacher!).})
2... Bg4 3. c4 Bxf3 ({Chigorin more often began with} 3... Nc6 4. -- (4. e3 e6
({after} 4... e5 $6 {Steinitz played} 5. Qb3 $1) 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. -- (6. Bd2 Nge7)
({, or} 6. Qb3 Bxf3 (6... Nge7 $5 7. Bd2 O-O) (6... Bxc3+ $5 7. bxc3 Bxf3 8.
gxf3 Na5 9. Qc2 Nxc4 10. Bxc4 dxc4 11. Qa4+ c6 12. Qxc4 Qd5 $1) 7. gxf3 Nge7 8.
Bd2 O-O {etc.})) ({. In my opinion, more lively is} 4. cxd5 Bxf3 5. -- (5. gxf3
$1 Qxd5 6. e3 {(Kasparov-Smyslov, Vilnius 11th matchgame 1984).}) ({. But not}
5. dxc6 Bxc6 6. Nc3 e6 7. e4 Bb4 $1 8. f3 f5 $1 {. The battle for the light
squares! The game Pillsbury-Chigorin (St. Petersburg 1895/96) continued} 9. e5
$6 ({correct is} 9. Bc4 $1 Qh4+ 10. g3 Qe7 11. O-O {with sharp play}) 9... Ne7
(9... Qh4+ $5 10. g3 Qh5 11. Bg2 O-O-O 12. O-O {is unclear}) 10. a3 Ba5 11. Bc4
Bd5 12. Qa4+ $6 ({better are both} 12. Qb3) ({and} 12. Bxd5 Nxd5 ({or} 12...
Bxc3+ 13. bxc3 Qxd5 14. Rb1 b5 15. Bg5) 13. Qb3) 12... c6 13. Bd3 Qb6 $1 14.
Bc2 Qa6 $1 15. Bd1 (15. b4 Qc4 $1 16. Bb2 Bb6 {etc.}) 15... Bc4 $1 16. f4 $2 ({
more tenacious was} 16. b4 Bb6 17. Qxa6 Bxa6 18. Be3 Rd8 (18... f4 $6 19. Bf2
Nf5 20. Be2 $1 Bxd4 21. Bxd4 Nxd4 22. Bxa6 bxa6 23. O-O-O) 19. Be2 Bxe2 20.
Nxe2 Nd5) 16... O-O-O 17. Be3 $2 ({essential was} 17. b4 Bb6 18. Qxa6 bxa6 19.
Ne2 a5) 17... Nd5 18. Bd2 Nb6 19. Qc2 Rxd4 20. Rc1 (20. Kf2 Nd5 $1) 20... Bd3
21. Qb3 Nc4 22. Kf2 Nxd2 23. Qxe6+ Kb8 24. Bf3 Qb6 25. Kg3 Nxf3 26. gxf3 Bc4
27. Qxf5 Bxc3 28. bxc3 Rd2 {... 0-1. The young Pillsbury did not understand
this unfamiliar position. Lasker would not have lost so feebly!}))) 4. gxf3 Nc6
5. Nc3 e6 6. e3 Bb4 7. cxd5 Qxd5 $5 (7... exd5 {is more solid, but it is piece
pressure on the centre that Chigorin wants to create.}) 8. Bd2 ({An example
from the play of the 10th world champion:} 8. Bg2 Qd7 9. O-O Nge7 10. f4 Rd8
11. a3 Bxc3 12. bxc3 Na5 13. Qh5 (13. Qc2 $5) 13... b6 14. a4 Nd5 15. Ba3 Nc4
16. Rfc1 c5 17. Qe2 Nxa3 18. Rxa3 O-O {with equal chances (Taimanov-Spassky,
27th USSR Championship, Leningrad 1960).}) 8... Bxc3 {The demonstrative
exchange of bishops for knights was a reproach to the new school, which gave
an obvious preference to bishops and a strong pawn centre. Incidentally, it
was thanks to Chigorin that skilful play with the knights came to be regarded
as a distinguishing feature of the 'Russian Chess School'.} (8... Qd7 {is more
flexible, for example:} 9. Qa4 $6 ({more is promised by} 9. f4 $1 Nge7 10. Bg2)
9... Nge7 10. Bb5 $6 a6 11. a3 Bxc3 12. Bxc3 O-O 13. Be2 Nd5 14. Bd2 Rad8 15.
Rc1 e5 $1 16. dxe5 Nf4 $1 {with advantage to Black (Steinitz-Chigorin, London
1899).}) 9. bxc3 Nge7 {'Chigorin, a genius of practical play, considers it his
privilege at every convenient opportunity to challenge the principles of
contemporary chess theory,' Steinitz wrote about the opening of this game. And
he was right!} 10. Rg1 ({The alternative was} 10. c4 {and 11 f4.}) 10... Qh5 ({
'Stronger was} 10... O-O 11. c4 ({if} 11. Qb3 {there can follow} Qxf3 12. Bg2
Qh5 13. Qxb7 Qxh2 14. O-O-O Rab8 $1) 11... Qh5 12. Bc3 Ng6 13. Rg3 e5 14. d5
Nce7 {.' (Vasyukov, Nikitin)}) 11. Qb3 $1 (11. Qb3 {has the threat of} -- 12.
Rxg7 Ng6 13. Qxb7 {.}) 11... Nd8 $6 ({'After the natural} 11... O-O 12. Rg3 (
12. Qxb7 Qxh2 13. Rg3 Rfc8 {followed by ...Ra8-b8-b6 and ...Nf5 is most
probably favourable to Black}) 12... Nd8 13. e4 $1 Ng6 14. Rh3 Qa5 15. Bd3 e5
$1 {the resulting position, although better for White, is one where Black has
definite counterplay.' (Vasyukov, Nikitin)}) 12. Qb5+ $1 ({But not} 12. Rxg7 $2
Ng6 {.}) 12... Qxb5 13. Bxb5+ c6 14. Bd3 {By present-day measures this endgame
is already virtually a win for White: his two mighty bishops give him an
enormous advantage. But Black plays on as though nothing has happened...} Ng6
15. f4 O-O 16. Ke2 ({It is too early for} 16. f5 $2 {on account of} Nh4 {.})
16... Rc8 $6 {An inaccurate implementation of the correct plan with ...c6-c5-c4.} (16... f5 {was essential, although here too after} 17. a4 Rc8 18.
Bc1 Rf7 19. Ba3 {all the chances are with White.}) 17. Rg3 ({Serious
consideration should have been given to opening the game by} 17. f5 $1 exf5 18.
Bxf5 Rc7 ({or} 18... Ne6 19. f4 Rfe8 20. Kf2 {with a solid advantage}) 19. c4 {
(Levenfish).}) 17... c5 18. Rag1 $2 ({It was not yet too late for} 18. f5 $1 {
, but Lasker has another idea. 'White is planning an attack with 19 h4 or 19
f5. This looks rather menacing, but it is comparatively easily refuted.'
(Romanovsky)}) 18... c4 $1 19. Bc2 f5 $1 20. Bc1 Rf7 $1 21. Ba3 Rc6 $1 22. Bc5
Ra6 {Black successfully manoeuvres 'in Nimzowitsch's blockading style' and
Lasker is unable to demonstrate the advantages of his position.} 23. a4 {This
self-restriction of the c2-bishop is forced;} ({weak is} 23. a3 $6 b6 24. Bb4
Nc6 25. a4 Nxb4 26. cxb4 Ne7 {and ...Nd5!}) 23... Nc6 24. Rb1 Rd7 25. Rgg1 Nge7
26. Rb2 ({By} 26. Bxe7 $5 Nxe7 27. Kd2 Nd5 28. Rb5 {White would still have
retained some edge.}) 26... Nd5 27. Kd2 Ra5 {White's centre has become fixed,
his bishops 'apathetic'... With his original manner of play (how could he shut
in his own rook at a5?!) Chigorin confused the great Lasker! The champion is
unable to hit on any useful plan.} 28. Rgb1 b6 29. Ba3 g6 30. Rb5 Ra6 $1 31.
Bc1 Nd8 {'Black's manoeuvring, although forced, is by no means of a waiting
nature. With the threat of penetrating with his knight to e4 he wants to
induce f2-f3 and then mount an attack on the enemy pawn in the centre.'
(Romanovsky)} 32. Ra1 Nf7 (32... Nb7 33. Ba3 Na5 {is also interesting.}) 33.
Rbb1 $6 ({In view of Black's possible reply, better was} 33. Ba3 $5 {,
preventing both} g5 ({and} 33... Nd6 34. Bxd6 $1 Rxd6 35. a5) 34. Rg1 $1 {.}) (
{But not} 33. h4 Nd6 34. Rbb1 Ne4+ $1 {.}) 33... Nd6 $6 ({According to
Steinitz,} 33... g5 $1 {was strong. Then 'White would face an unpleasant
choice: whether to give up his f4-pawn or allow the invasion of the knight at
e4 after} 34. fxg5 Nxg5 {.' (Vasyukov, Nikitin) Here Chigorin's knights really
are good!} 35. -- ({. 'Steinitz thought that} 35. Ra3 Ne4+ 36. Bxe4 fxe4 {
followed by 37...Rg7 would have led to a winning attack.}) ({. Later Levenfish
pointed out that} 35. Bb2 {was a bolder move for White, but even here after}
Ne4+ 36. Bxe4 fxe4 {Black's dominant knight forces the position to be
evaluated in his favour. True, his advantage is hardly sufficient for a win:
there can follow} 37. Rg1+ Rg7 38. Rxg7+ Kxg7 39. Ke2 {(preparing f2-f3) with
quite good resources for a tenacious struggle for a draw.' (Romanovsky)} (39.
--))) 34. f3 $1 {(at last White has hit on the correct idea of the e3-e4 break)
} Nf7 35. Ra3 $1 {Freeing the king from having to defend the c3-pawn.} g5 $6 {
At the wrong time!} ({If} 35... Ra5 {, then} 36. Ke2 $1 {and e3-e4.}) ({
However, he could have tried to create a fortress by} 35... Nd6 $1 36. Ke2 Rf7
$1 37. Bd2 Ra5 {.} ({True, according to Romanovsky 'it is very doubtful
whether Black could have prevented the advance of the e-pawn, for example:}
37... Kf8 38. Kf2 Ke7 39. Kg3 Kf6 40. Raa1 {, then Rf1, Rae1 and nevertheless
c3-c4.'})) 36. Ke2 $1 {(threatening 37 fxg5 Nxg5 38 e4)} gxf4 37. e4 Nf6 38.
Bxf4 $1 {(the game is opened up to White's obvious advantage)} Nh5 39. Be3 $6 {
In a time scramble White misses a chance to consolidate his unexpected
advantage.} ({Previous commentators recommended} 39. Bd2) ({but to me the most
promising seems to be} 39. Rg1+ $5 Kf8 40. Bc1 $1 Ra5 41. Ra1 {.}) 39... f4 $1
{(again a blockade!)} 40. Bf2 Ra5 $6 ({More consistent was} 40... e5 $1 41.
Rg1+ Kf8 {, when} 42. dxe5 $6 Nxe5 43. Rg5 $2 {is bad on account of} Rd2+ $1 {.
}) 41. Rg1+ Kf8 (41... Rg5 42. Rxg5+ Nxg5 43. a5 $1 {favours White.}) 42. Raa1
$6 (42. e5 $1 b5 43. Raa1 {was more energetic.}) 42... e5 $1 43. Rab1 Ng7 44.
Rb4 ({Also after} 44. d5 $5 Ne8 45. Bh4 Nh8 46. Rg5 Ng6 47. Bf2 {Black has a
rather indifferent position.}) 44... Rc7 45. Bb1 $6 (45. Rb5 Rxb5 46. axb5 Nd6
47. Ba4 {suggests itself.}) 45... Ne6 46. Rd1 $6 (46. Ba2 $1 {.}) 46... Ned8 $1
{The play is 'seesawing'. In a difficult situation Chigorin plays with
uncommon resourcefulness (...Nc6 is threatened), and at a critical instant
Lasker is unable to withstand the tension...} 47. Rd2 $2 {A blunder.} (47. d5
Nd6 48. Bc2 N8b7 49. Rg1 Rg7 50. Rxg7 Kxg7 {would have suited Black}) ({but
the calm} 47. Bc2 $1 {would still have left White with the better chances.}) ({
Vasyukov and Nikitin recommended 'opening the game by} 47. dxe5 $1 Nc6 48. e6
$1 ({but not} 48. Rb5 Rxb5 49. axb5 Ncxe5 50. Rd5 Ke7 $1 {(although here White
has the advantage:} 51. Bd4 Ke6 52. h4 {- G.K.)}) 48... Nfe5 ({but after} 48...
Nxb4 $1 49. cxb4 Rxa4 50. exf7 Rxb4 {he would have overcome them very quickly})
49. Bc2 Nd3 50. Rb5 {, and Black would have had to overcome the greatest
difficulties.'}) 47... Nc6 $1 {Now the initiative securely passes to Black,
and Lasker is unable to save the game.} 48. Rb5 ({Both} 48. Rxc4 $2 Nd6 $1) ({
and} 48. Bc2 $2 exd4 49. Bxd4 Nxb4 50. cxb4 Rh5 {are also bad.}) 48... Rxa4 49.
dxe5 Nfxe5 {(the time has come to talk about the advantage of the two knights!)
} 50. Bh4 $6 Rg7 51. Kf2 Rg6 52. Rdd5 Ra1 53. Bd8 Nd3+ $1 54. Bxd3 (54. Kf1
Ncb4 $1 {with mate.}) 54... cxd3 55. Rxd3 ({If} 55. Bg5 {, then} Rxg5 $1 56.
Rxg5 d2 {.}) 55... Rag1 $1 56. Rf5+ Ke8 57. Bg5 {Desperation;} (57. Rxf4 R6g2+
58. Ke3 Re1# {.}) 57... R6xg5 {. What a crushing defeat! --- In this
ultra-tense, far from faultless duel, it is not so much variations that are
important, as the text of the game itself: Chigorin was after all playing the
world champion, and, as always, he upheld his principles! In the given
instance, this was a struggle of two knights against two bishops in a
semi-closed position and the blockade of a pawn centre. And on the whole,
although Lasker gained the better chances, he did not demonstrate a
superiority in strategic manoeuvring. In the complicated play Chigorin
maintained this flexibility of thinking throughout the entire game. It is not
surprising that later Lasker always aimed to play more simply against him.} 0-1
[Event "32: Hastings"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1895.??.??"]
[Round "20"]
[White "Chigorin, M."]
[Black "Janowski, D."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C26"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "32"]
[EventDate "1895.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{In the opinion of many, the Russian master played better than anyone else in
the tournament. Before the 20th, penultimate round, he was in sole first
place! But here, after failing to withstand the tension and 'violating the
competitive regime', he lost an unthinkable game with White to Janowski,
probably the worst in his life.} 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. d3 {(Chigorin never
used to play this!)} d5 4. exd5 $2 Nxd5 5. Qe2 $2 Nc6 6. Bd2 $2 Be7 7. O-O-O $2
O-O 8. Qf3 $4 Be6 9. Nge2 f5 10. Qh3 Qd6 11. Nxd5 $2 Qxd5 12. Nc3 Qa5 13. a3 $2
Bxa3 14. Nb1 Bxb2+ 15. Kxb2 Qa2+ 16. Kc1 Nd4 {, and White resigned. The
numerous question marks to the white moves were attached by the victim himself.
--- This occurrence, in my opinion, is even more tragic than the finish to the
23rd game of the second match with Steinitz (Game No.26). Truly, as Tal used
to say, every chess player forges his own tournament fortune! As a result
Mikhail Ivanovich finished half a point behind the winner, Pillsbury, after
defeating him in their individual game (first round, King's Gambit), and
finishing ahead of Lasker, Tarrasch and Steinitz. --- 'In Hastings I once
again experienced Chigorin's enormous strength,' Lasker later recalled. 'I was
therefore convinced that I would inevitably have to play a match with him for
the world championship.' Alas, fate decided otherwise...} 0-1
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "The Ageing Lion"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.06"]
{The Ageing Lion: And so, Steinitz conceded the throne, thus becoming the
first... ex-world champion in the history of chess. The years had taken their
toll. But in individual games the old lion could still show his claws,
reminding everyone of his former might.} 1. -- {At the height of Hastings 1895,
that genuine 'tournament of the century', the 59-year-old ex-king won a
sparkling game, which received the first brilliancy prize. Up till then his
opponent Curt Bardeleben had been undefeated with 7˝ out of 9 (including a
win against Lasker!).} *
[Event "33: Hastings"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1895.??.??"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Steinitz, W."]
[Black "Bardeleben, C."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C54"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "49"]
[EventDate "1895.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Bb4+ 7. Nc3 $5 {
Greco's ancient gambit variation.} ({The 'main' continuation} 7. Bd2 Bxd2+ 8.
Nbxd2 d5 9. exd5 Nxd5 10. Qb3 {is harmless in view of} Na5 $1 ({this is
simpler than} 10... Nce7 11. O-O O-O 12. Rfe1 c6) 11. Qa4+ Nc6 {with equal
chances.}) 7... d5 $6 ({Bardeleben avoids repeating the game
Steinitz-Schlechter, played at the start of the tournament, where after} 7...
Nxe4 $1 8. O-O Bxc3 9. -- (9. bxc3 d5 10. Ba3 $6 Be6 $2 ({the correct way for
him was found later, in the Steinitz-Lasker return match (Moscow 3rd matchgame
1896):} 10... dxc4 $1 11. Re1 Be6 12. Rxe4 Qd5 13. Qe2 O-O-O 14. Ne5 Rhe8 {,
remaining a sound pawn to the good}) 11. Bb5 Nd6 12. Bxc6+ bxc6 13. Ne5 O-O 14.
Nxc6 Qf6 {Black maintained the balance with difficulty.}) ({. I should add
that in 1899 the clever Mřller Attack} 9. d5 $5 {(instead of 9 bxc3) made its
appearance, while exactly one hundred years later two noteworthy games on this
theme were played in Fritz 6-Anand (Frankfurt rapidplay 1999):} -- (9... Bf6
10. Re1 Ne7 11. Rxe4 d6 12. Bg5 Bxg5 ({instead of} 12... O-O $2 13. Bxf6 gxf6
14. Qd2) 13. Nxg5 h6 14. Qe2 ({Black stands better after} 14. Nf3 O-O) ({or}
14. Bb5+ Bd7 15. Qe2 Bxb5 $1 16. Qxb5+ Qd7 17. Qe2 Kf8 {Bárczay-Portisch,
Hungary 1969}) 14... hxg5 15. Re1 Be6 16. dxe6 f6 {with sharp play}) (9... Ne5
$1 10. bxc3 Nxc4 11. Qd4 O-O $1 ({but not} 11... Ncd6 $2 12. Qxg7 Qf6 13. Qxf6
Nxf6 14. Re1+) ({also not good is} 11... f5 {, Schlechter-Lasker, London 1899})
12. Qxe4 Nd6 (12... b5 $5 {is sharper, Djindjihashvili-Karpov, Mazatlan
rapidplay 1988}) 13. Qd3 b6 $1 {(this had already been played many times)} 14.
Ba3 Qf6 15. Qd4 Qxd4 16. Nxd4 Bb7 17. Bxd6 cxd6 18. Nf5 g6 19. Nxd6 Bxd5 {,
and Black converted his extra pawn. This is the modern way of combating
gambits: the timely return of part of the 'booty', - and it is all over... ---
This opening information explains why the classical 'Italian' with 4 c3 and 5
d4 occurs so rarely nowadays.}))) 8. exd5 Nxd5 9. O-O Be6 ({White stands
better after} 9... Bxc3 10. bxc3 O-O 11. Qc2 h6 12. Re1 Be6 $6 13. Bxh6 $1 {
(Steinitz-Schiffers, Rostov-on-Don match 1896)}) ({or} 9... Nb6 10. Re1+ Be7
11. Bb3 O-O 12. d5 Na5 13. Bc2 Nac4 14. Qd3 f5 15. Bb3 Nd6 16. Bf4 Nd7 17. Qe3
Rf7 18. Nd4 Nf6 19. Rad1 {(Steinitz-Blackburne, Nuremberg 1896).}) ({Black
also does not gain complete equality with} 9... Nxc3 10. bxc3 Be7 ({not} 10...
Bxc3 $2 11. Qb3 $1 Bxa1 12. Bxf7+ Kf8 13. Ba3+ Ne7 14. Rxa1) 11. Bf4 {(Bilguer)
.}) 10. Bg5 Be7 $6 ({In the light of what follows,} 10... Qd7 {is better, for
example:} 11. Bxd5 Bxd5 12. Re1+ Kf8 $1 (12... Be7 $2 13. Nxd5 Qxd5 14. Bxe7
Nxe7 15. Qe2 Qd6 16. Qb5+) 13. Re3 Bxc3 ({or} 13... f6 14. Nxd5 Qxd5 15. Bf4)
14. bxc3 f6 15. Bf4 Re8 16. Nd2 {with a slight advantage to White.}) 11. Bxd5
$1 Bxd5 12. Nxd5 ({If} 12. Bxe7 Nxe7 13. Re1 O-O 14. Rxe7 {, then} Bxf3 $1 15.
Qe1 Bc6 16. Qe5 Re8 {with equal chances.}) 12... Qxd5 13. Bxe7 Nxe7 ({After}
13... Kxe7 14. -- ({, White retains a clear advantage by} 14. Rc1 Rhe8 (14...
Kd7 15. Qa4 $1) 15. Rc5 Qd6 (15... Qxa2 16. Qc2 Kd6 17. Rb5) 16. Qc2) ({,
although in Weiss-Seibold (correspondence 1933) he was successful with} 14.
Re1+ Kf8 15. Qe2 f6 16. Rac1 Rc8 $2 (16... Kf7 $5) 17. Rc5 Qd6 18. Qc4 (18. Qb5
$5) 18... Nd8 19. Rd5 Qc6 20. Qe2 $1 Nf7 21. Qe7+ Kg8 22. Rd7 Qc4 23. d5 $1 {.}
)) 14. Re1 f6 {The critical position of the opening variation.} 15. Qe2 $6 {An
imperceptible 'scratch on a sparkling diamond'. For nearly a whole century
commentators looked for a more efficient way of attacking.} ({In 1978 Igor
Zaitsev suggested} 15. Qa4+ $1 {, but after} Kf7 (15... c6 $2) ({or} 15... Qd7
{-} 16. Qb4 $1) ({while if} 15... Kd8 $6 {there is a choice between} 16. Re2 (
16. Nd2) ({and} 16. Qb4 Re8 17. Rac1)) 16. -- {, he came to a standstill:} (16.
Rac1 Qd6 $1 17. Qb3+ Nd5) ({, or} 16. Qb4 Rhe8 17. Rac1 a5 $1 18. Qa3 Nc6 {etc.
}) ({. And only in 1983 did Geller discover} 16. Ne5+ $1 fxe5 (16... Kf8 17.
Nd3 $1 {with the threat of Nf4, while if} g5 {, then} 18. Rac1 c6 19. Qa3 {wins
}) 17. Rxe5 Qd6 18. Qc4+ $1 Kf8 19. Rae1 Ng8 (19... Ng6 $2 20. Rf5+) ({and}
19... Re8 20. R1e4 g6 21. Re6 $1 {are both winning for White}) 20. Rd5 Qc6 21.
Qb4+ $1 Kf7 22. Rc5 Qd6 23. Qc4+ Kf8 24. Rxc7 {and wins.})) 15... Qd7 ({But not
} 15... Qd6 $2 {in view of} 16. Qb5+ Qc6 17. Qb4 Qd6 18. Qxb7 {.}) 16. Rac1 ({
Here Keres suggested} 16. Qe4 c6 17. Re2 Kf7 18. Rae1 Nd5 19. Qh4 {with some
pressure}) ({and Romanovsky -} 16. d5 Kf7 17. Rad1 Rad8 (17... Rhd8 $5) 18.
Qe6+ $1 (18. Nd4 Nxd5) 18... Qxe6 19. dxe6+ Kg6 20. Nh4+ Kh5 21. Rd7 Nd5 22.
Rxd8 $1 (22. Nf5 Rxd7 23. exd7 Rd8 24. Nxg7+ Kh6 $1 {is equal}) 22... Rxd8 23.
Nf5 Kg6 24. g4 {with an extra pawn, but there is still the question of whether
it is enough for a win.}) (16. Rad1 $5 {also looks logical.} -- ({. Now,
according to analysis by Zaitsev, bad are both} 16... Kf7 17. Qc4+ Kf8 (17...
Nd5 $2 18. Ne5+ $1 fxe5 19. dxe5 {and wins}) 18. d5 {with a great advantage}) (
16... Kd8 17. d5) ({, and} 16... Rd8 17. Qc4 c6 (17... Kf8 18. Qb4 c6 19. d5 $1
cxd5 20. Nd4 Kf7 21. Ne6 Rde8 22. Qg4 Nf5 23. Nxg7 {wins}) 18. Rd3 Kf8 19. Ng5
$1 fxg5 20. Rf3+ Nf5 21. g4 g6 22. gxf5 gxf5 23. Qc5+ {etc.}) ({. However,
after} 16... Kf8 $1 17. d5 $5 (17. Qc4 Nd5 $1 18. Nd2 ({and} 18. Re2 c6 19.
Rde1 Kf7) 18... Kf7 19. Ne4 Rhe8 {are both equal}) 17... Nxd5 18. Ng5 $1 Re8 ({
inferior is} 18... fxg5 19. Qf3+ Qf7 20. Qxd5) ({or} 18... c6 19. Ne6+ Kg8 20.
Nf4 Rd8 21. Qh5 Qf7 22. Qf3) 19. Qf3 c6 20. Qa3+ Kg8 21. Ne4 (21. Qh3 Qc8 $1)
21... b6 22. b4 $1 {White has no more than the initiative for the pawn. True,
Black has to play very accurately: for example,} f5 $2 {is bad on account of}
23. Ng5 Rxe1+ 24. Rxe1 g6 (24... h6 $2 25. Qxa7 {wins}) 25. b5 $1 {.})) 16...
c6 $2 (16... Kf7 $1 {was essential} 17. -- ({, not fearing the exchange
sacrifice} 17. Qxe7+ $6 Qxe7 18. Rxe7+ Kxe7 19. Rxc7+ {in view of} Kd6 20. Rxg7
({even worse is} 20. Rxb7 $2 Rhb8 21. Rxg7 Rxb2 22. h3 Rxa2 23. Rxh7 a5 $1 {
etc.}) 20... Rac8 $1 21. g3 Rc7 {, when Black has a good endgame.}) ({. And if
} 17. Qc4+ {there is (in contrast to the variation with 16 Rad1) the reply} Nd5
{.}) ({. The immediate knight sacrifice also gives nothing real:} 17. Ne5+ fxe5
18. dxe5 Qe6 19. Rxc7 Rhd8 $1 20. Rxb7 Kg8) ({, or} 17. Ng5+ fxg5 18. Qf3+ Nf5
$1 19. g4 Rhe8 {(Neishtadt).}) ({. I have tried to find an advantage after} 17.
Nd2 {, but without success:} c6 18. Ne4 b6 $1 {(restricting the knight)} 19.
Qc4+ Kg6 $1 20. Qd3 ({or} 20. Rc3 Nf5) 20... Kf7 21. Qb3+ Nd5 22. Nc3 Rac8 {is
level.})) 17. d5 $3 {A classic breakthrough in the centre, strictly in
accordance with Steinitz's own theory: the player holding an advantage is
obliged to attack! Especially if this wins by force...} cxd5 ({Fortunately for
chess, Bardeleben had no suspicion of Steinitz's brilliant idea, otherwise he
would surely have played} 17... Kf7 {. However, even here after} 18. dxc6 bxc6
(18... Nxc6 19. Rcd1) 19. Red1 {, the computer everywhere indicates 'winning
for White':} (19. Qc4+ Qd5 20. Qxd5+ cxd5 21. Rc7 Rhe8 22. Nd4 {is also
unpleasant}) 19... Qe6 ({or} 19... Nd5 20. Nd4 Rac8 21. Qc4 {with the
unavoidable Nxc6 (for example,} Qg4 22. h3 Qf4 23. g3 Qe4 24. Re1 Qg6 25. Nxc6
{)}) 20. Qxe6+ Kxe6 21. Nd4+ Kf7 22. Nxc6 {etc.}) 18. Nd4 Kf7 19. Ne6 {(with
the threat of Rc7)} Rhc8 ({Black also fails to save the game by} 19... Rac8 20.
Qg4 g6 21. Ng5+ Ke8 22. Rxc8+) ({or} 19... Nc6 20. Nc5 $1 Qf5 (20... Qc8 21.
Qh5+) 21. Nxb7 Qd7 22. Nc5 Qf5 23. Ne6 Rac8 24. Qa6 Ne7 25. Rxc8 Rxc8 26. h3
Rc4 27. f3 $1 {.}) 20. Qg4 $1 g6 21. Ng5+ Ke8 22. Rxe7+ $1 {An astounding
combination!} Kf8 $1 ({After} 22... Kxe7 {Steinitz calculated the variation}
23. Re1+ ({but the computer shows that} 23. Qb4+ {would have won more quickly:}
Ke8 ({or} 23... Qd6 24. Qxb7+ Qd7 25. Re1+ Kd6 26. Nf7+) 24. Re1+ Kd8 25. Ne6+)
23... Kd6 (23... Kd8 24. Ne6+ Ke7 25. Nc5+) 24. Qb4+ Kc7 25. Ne6+ ({or} 25.
Rc1+) 25... Kb8 26. Qf4+ Rc7 27. Nxc7 Qxc7 28. Re8# {.}) 23. Rf7+ $1 ({Of
course, not} 23. Qxd7 $4 Rxc1+) ({and not} 23. Rxc8+ $2 {- why, we will see in
the note to White's 25th move.}) 23... Kg8 $1 (23... Qxf7 24. Rxc8+ Rxc8 25.
Qxc8+ Qe8 26. Nxh7+ {is hopeless for Black.}) 24. Rg7+ $1 Kh8 $1 ({Avoiding}
24... Kf8 25. Nxh7+ $1 Kxg7 26. Qxd7+ {.}) 25. Rxh7+ $1 {The final point! More
precisely, Bardeleben... suddenly stood up and silently walked out of the room
(later he sent a note by special delivery a note tendering his resignation).} (
{But Steinitz willingly demonstrated to the spectators that which awaited
Black:} 25. Rxh7+ Kg8 26. Rg7+ $1 Kh8 27. Qh4+ Kxg7 28. Qh7+ Kf8 29. Qh8+ Ke7
30. Qg7+ Ke8 (30... Kd8 31. Qf8+ Qe8 32. Nf7+ {and 33 Qd6 mate}) (30... Kd6 31.
Qxf6+ {, and the rook at c1 prevents the king from escaping onto the c-file})
31. Qg8+ $1 Ke7 32. Qf7+ Kd8 33. Qf8+ Qe8 34. Nf7+ Kd7 35. Qd6# {. Here I
can't help but recall the elevated words of Hannak, the biographer of the
first world champion: 'This was Steinitz's final flash of a dream about his
former youth, brilliance, greatness and happiness, when towards the end of a
hot day on 17 August 1895 he won the most brilliant game of his life.' ---
Hastings 1895 designated the five strongest players in the world: 1. Pillsbury
- 16˝ out of 21 (the sensation of the tournament!); 2. Chigorin - 16; 3.
Lasker - 15˝; 4. Tarrasch - 14; 5. Steinitz - 13. But which of these was No.
1? For a short time a kind of 'chess republic' was established.}) 1-0
[Event "34: St Petersburg"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1895.??.??"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Steinitz, W."]
[Black "Lasker, Em"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D35"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "61"]
[EventDate "1895.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{Soon in St Petersburg (1895/96) a six-cycle match-tournament of the four
giants was held (alas, Tarrasch declined to play), ending in an unequivocal
triumph for Lasker. And yet in one of the games the young champion suffered a
bitter disappointment.} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bf4 ({If White does
not play} 4. Bg5 {(Steinitz-Anderssen, Vienna 1873)}) ({or} 4. cxd5) ({he more
often first goes} 4. Nf3 {and only after} Be7 {-} 5. Bf4 O-O 6. e3 {, for
example:} c5 7. dxc5 $1 {etc. (Steinitz-Burn, Hastings 1895).}) 4... Be7 ({
More energetic is} 4... c5 $1 {, as Lasker played in the sixth cycle of the St
Petersburg Match-Tournament: after} 5. e3 (5. Nb5 $6 cxd4 $1) 5... Nc6 ({also
good is} 5... cxd4 6. exd4 dxc4 7. Bxc4 Nc6 8. Nf3 Be7 {with equality
Zukertort-Steinitz, USA 13th matchgame 1886}) 6. Nf3 a6 7. dxc5 Bxc5 8. cxd5
Nxd5 9. Nxd5 exd5 10. Bd3 Bb4+ {Black has a good game.}) 5. e3 O-O 6. c5 $5 ({
In the second cycle} 6. Rc1 c5 7. dxc5 Bxc5 8. cxd5 exd5 9. Nf3 Nc6 10. Bd3 d4
11. exd4 Nxd4 {with a level game was tried.}) 6... Ne4 $6 {Even the great
Lasker underestimated the danger of the bind on Black's queenside: the attempt
to gain counterplay in the centre proves advantageous to his opponent.} ({The
correct way for Black was only found nearly a century later:} 6... b6 $1 7. b4
a5 8. a3 axb4 9. axb4 Rxa1 10. Qxa1 Nc6 11. Qa4 bxc5 $3 12. Qxc6 (12. bxc5 Bd7
13. Bb5 Qa8 {is equal}) 12... cxd4 $1 13. Na2 ({or} 13. exd4 Bxb4 {with a
powerful initiative}) 13... Bd7 14. Qa6 dxe3 15. fxe3 c6 16. Ne2 Ne4 17. Ng3
Nd6 18. Bd3 Qa8 19. Qxa8 Rxa8 20. Nc3 Ne8 {with a great advantage
(Lerner-Geller, 52nd USSR Championship, Riga 1985).}) 7. Nxe4 $1 ({But not} 7.
Bd3 $6 Nxc3 8. bxc3 b6 $1 {equalising.}) 7... dxe4 8. Qc2 f5 9. Bc4 {The
weakness of the e6-pawn is exposed.} Nc6 10. a3 {(preventing ...Nb4-d5 and
vacating the a2-square for the bishop in the event of ...Nc6-a5)} Bf6 11. O-O-O
$1 {A concrete decision: realising that a pawn offensive on the queenside will
be countered by ...e6-e5, Steinitz changes plan. Now White intends to attack
the weakened enemy centre (f2-f3!), and potentially also the kingside.} Kh8 {
'This and the next move prepare ...e6-e5: only in this way is it possible to
undertake anything against f2-f3.' (Romanovsky).} ({And indeed} 11... Ne7 12.
f3 $1 Nd5 $6 13. fxe4 Nxf4 14. exf4 {is unfavourable for Black.}) (11... b6 $5
12. d5 $1 {.}) 12. f3 Qe7 $6 ({Black hurries to play ...e6-e5, not being
satisfied with} 12... exf3 13. Nxf3 Qe7 {.}) 13. Bg3 $1 ({The acceptance of
the pawn sacrifice -} 13. fxe4 $2 {would have handed the initiative to Black:}
e5 $1 14. d5 ({or} 14. dxe5 Nxe5) 14... exf4 15. dxc6 Qxc5 {.}) 13... f4 $6 {
Very typical of Lasker: on getting into dubious positions, he would launch
into a mass of complications - and in this way he won numerous interesting,
fighting games. But that day Steinitz was irresistible!} 14. Qxe4 $3 {A
surprise: a pretty, purely positional piece sacrifice.} ({Black's calculation
was based on the 'natural'} 14. Bxf4 $2 e5 15. dxe5 Nxe5 16. Qxe4 $2 Bf5 $1 17.
Qxf5 Nxc4 {winning.}) 14... fxg3 15. hxg3 {White has only two pawns for the
bishop, but his initiative is inextinguishable.} g6 $6 {Lasker gives up a
third pawn, hoping to use the g-file for defence.} ({If} 15... h6 {, then} 16.
Bd3 ({or} 16. f4 Bd7 17. Nf3 {and g3-g4.})) (15... g5 {suggested itself, when
Steinitz said that he was intending} 16. f4 g4 17. Ne2 Bd7 18. Qc2 {followed
by e3-e4-e5, and if possible the doubling of rooks on the h-file. It would not
have been easy for Black to withstand the mounting pressure.}) 16. Qxg6 Bd7 (
16... e5 $2 17. d5 $1 {is bad for Black}) ({while the greedy} 16... Rg8 17. Qe4
Rxg3 $6 {would merely have helped the white knight join the attack:} 18. Ne2
Rg7 19. Nf4 {.}) 17. f4 Rf7 $2 {Now Black is doomed.} (17... Rg8 {was more
tenacious, although after} 18. Qe4 Rxg3 19. Ne2 Rg7 20. Rh6 {and Rdh1 White's
pressure would have remained highly unpleasant.}) 18. g4 Rg7 ({If} 18... Rg8 {
, then} 19. Qh5 {and g4-g5.}) 19. Qh6 $1 ({The inaccurate} 19. Qh5 $2 {would
have allowed Black to defend by ...Be8-g6.}) 19... Rxg4 20. Bd3 Rg7 ({Also bad
is} 20... Rh4 21. Rxh4 Bxh4 22. Nf3 Bf2 23. Rh1 Bxe3+ 24. Kb1 {.}) 21. Nf3 Qf7
22. g4 $1 {(the attack develops of its own accord)} Rag8 23. g5 Bd8 24. Rh2 $1
({This is far stronger than} 24. g6 $6 Rxg6 $1 {. After Rdh1 a catastrophe on
h7 is unavoidable.}) 24... Rg6 25. Qh5 $1 R6g7 26. Rdh1 $1 Qxh5 27. Rxh5 Rf8
28. Rxh7+ Rxh7 ({If} 28... Kg8 {, then} 29. Rxg7+ Kxg7 30. Rh7+ {.}) 29. Rxh7+
Kg8 30. Rxd7 Rf7 31. Bc4 $1 {Just before the curtain - a little 'stroke of
genius'.} ({Black resigned in view of} 31. Bc4 Rxd7 32. Bxe6+ Rf7 33. g6 {.}) (
31. -- {The fighting spirit and energy demonstrated by Steinitz, who was only
half well and already a long way from his best days, both in this game and
throughout the St Petersburg match-tournament, provoke enormous admiration.
--- A year later in Moscow (1896/97) the former champion lost to Lasker in the
first return match in history, beginning with four successive defeats. This,
however, did not prevent him from writing and sending a congratulatory letter
to his long-standing opponent Chigorin, who had just won the international
tournament in Budapest: 'My dear friend and deeply-respected colleague! Please
accept my most hearty congratulations regarding your glorious victory in
Budapest. Admirers of our noble art will be sincerely gladdened by the fact
that the winner was a representative of Russia, which in recent times has done
so much for chess, thanks mainly to your genius and authority. --- Allow me to
assure you, on behalf of all the chessplayers I know, that I wish you the
greatest success in the future. --- With best wishes, W. Steinitz.'}) (31. -- {
I somehow don't recall such letters in the severe 20th century... And this for
all the difficult, unsociable, even quarrelsome character of the first
champion! 'He had arguments wherever he settled,' writes Znosko-Borovsky.
'Cheerful, pleasant and witty though he was on short visits, a lover of
cheerful anecdotes, capable of citing lengthy verses which he had never
learned by heart, but only read a couple of times, an admirer of Wagner's
music, to which he could listen for hours - he was a difficult person in the
place where he settled. He did, said and wrote what he considered necessary or
correct, completely ignoring the repercussions that would result, or the
response it would provoke. Within a few years of arriving in America he could
hardly find a town that was willing to invite him to give a simultaneous
display. This is understandable: one of his first actions in American was to
subject Morphy, the American genius, to a destructive criticism.' --- During
the Moscow return match Steinitz began to experience serious health problems -
later he even spent almost a whole month in a clinic. But even in such very
difficult conditions, playing a young and very strong opponent, the old
maestro was sometimes able to create genuine strategic masterpieces (see the
following game).}) 1-0
[Event "35: Return match, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1896.??.??"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Lasker, Em"]
[Black "Steinitz, W."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C62"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "111"]
[EventDate "1896.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 d6 4. d4 Bd7 5. Nc3 Nge7 6. Bg5 f6 7. Be3 Nc8 8. Ne2
Be7 9. c3 O-O 10. Bd3 Nb6 11. Ng3 Kh8 12. O-O Qe8 13. Rc1 Nd8 14. Re1 c5 15.
Nd2 Na4 16. Rc2 b5 17. f4 Ne6 18. f5 Nd8 19. d5 Nb7 20. Nf3 c4 21. Be2 Bd8 22.
Nh4 g6 23. Bg4 g5 $1 {Delaying White's attack and intending the long-planned
invasion of a knight at d3.} ({The immediate} 23... Nbc5 $2 {is bad in view of}
24. fxg6 hxg6 25. Bxd7 Nxd7 26. Qg4 Rg8 27. Nhf5 $1 {winning.}) 24. Nf3 Nbc5
25. h4 $5 {'Opening lines to strengthen the attack.} ({After} 25. Ree2 Nd3 {
White would have had to counter the possible combination 26...Ndxb2 27 Rxb2
Nxc3, for example:} 26. Qa1 (26. Red2 Ba5 27. Bh5 Qe7 28. Ne2 {(defending the
c3-pawn in the event of ...Nxb2)}) 26... Ba5 27. b4 Bb6 28. Bxb6 Nxb6 29. Ne1
Nf4 {and 30...a5, in both variations with a difficult game for White.' (Euwe)})
25... gxh4 26. Nxh4 Nd3 27. Rf1 {A practically forced pawn sacrifice.} ({If}
27. Ree2 {, then strong is} Rg8 $1 (27... Ndxb2 28. Rxb2 Nxc3 {is not so clear}
) 28. Bh5 (28. Red2 Bb6) 28... Qf8 29. Nf1 Bb6 $1 30. Bxb6 axb6 {followed by ...Qh6 or ...Nf4.}) 27... Naxb2 (27... Rg8 $6 28. b4 {.}) 28. Qf3 Bb6 29. Kh2 Rg8
$5 {'Black could have exchanged bishops (29...Bxe3), but he does not hurry
with his exchange, since after the bishop moves from e3 his bishop at b6 will
prevent the attacking manoeuvre Rh1 and Kg1.' (Euwe)} 30. Bh6 Qe7 31. Nh5 {
(apparently, preparing a combination...)} Be8 $1 {A highly important link in
the defence!} 32. Qh3 ({Or} 32. Ng3 Na4 33. Bh5 Ba5 34. Ne2 Nac5 {etc.}) 32...
Na4 {A highly picturesque position has arisen: where else have you seen so
many pieces on the h-file?!} 33. Bf3 $6 {Retreat!} ({Many commentators were
puzzled why Lasker did not play} 33. Ng6+ $5 {. The computer solves this
problem in a matter of minutes:} Bxg6 $1 ({of course, not} 33... hxg6 $2 34.
Nxf6 $1 Rg7 35. Bxg7+ Kxg7 36. Qh7+ Kxf6 37. fxg6+ Nf4 38. Qh4+) 34. fxg6 Rxg6
35. Nxf6 (35. Rxf6 $2 Rxf6 36. Bg5 Nf4 $1) 35... Rxf6 $1 36. Bg5 Raf8 ({more
modest is} 36... Rxf1 37. Bxe7 Bg1+ 38. Kh1 (38. Kg3 $6 Rg8 $1) 38... Bf2+ {
with perpetual check}) 37. Rxf6 Rxf6 38. Bf5 Kg8 39. Qh4 ({or immediately} 39.
Bxf6 Qxf6 40. Qxh7+ Kf8) 39... Bd8 40. Bxf6 Qxf6 41. Qxh7+ Kf8 {, and together
with the extra material Black retains winning chances.}) 33... Nac5 (33... Ba5
$5 {.}) 34. Re2 ({And again Lasker rejects} 34. Ng6+ $5 Bxg6 35. fxg6 {,
possibly not seeing anything good for himself after} Rxg6 36. Ng3 Rag8 37. Nf5
Qd7 38. Bh5 Nxe4 $1 39. Bxg6 Rxg6 40. Be3 Ba5 {.}) 34... Nd7 (34... Ba5 {wins.}
) 35. g3 a5 {(now things become very bad for White)} 36. Ng2 b4 37. Ne3 Rc8 ({
Simpler was} 37... Bxe3 {winning.}) 38. Nd1 (38. cxb4 axb4 39. Rc2 c3 $1 {etc.}
) 38... bxc3 ({'} 38... b3 {and ...N7c5 was even stronger.' (Euwe)}) 39. Nxc3
Bd4 40. Bd2 (40. Nd1 Bf7 {.}) 40... N7c5 (40... Rb8 $5 {.}) 41. Qh4 Bxh5 42.
Bxh5 Rb8 43. Nd1 Na4 {With the threat of ...c4-c3.} (43... Rb1 $5 {was also
good.}) 44. Bxa5 Ra8 45. Bd2 ({Or} 45. Be1 Nxe1 46. Rfxe1 c3 47. Rc2 Nb2 48.
Nxc3 $6 Rgc8 49. Rxb2 (49. Rec1 $2 Nd3) 49... Bxc3 50. Ree2 Bxb2 51. Rxb2 Rcb8
52. Rc2 Rb4 {and Black wins.}) 45... c3 46. Bxc3 $5 {A desperate chance.} ({If
} 46. Bh6 {Black has a pleasant choice between} Nab2 ({and} 46... Rgc8 47. Ne3
Bxe3 48. Bxe3 c2) 47. Ne3 Bxe3 48. Bxe3 Rxa2 {.}) 46... Nxc3 47. Nxc3 Bxc3 48.
Rf3 Nc1 49. Rc2 Nxa2 50. Rfxc3 Nxc3 51. Rxc3 Rgc8 ({Chigorin recommended} 51...
Rg5 $5 52. Bf3 ({or} 52. g4 Ra2+ 53. Kh3 Qa7 54. Bg6 Ra3 55. Rxa3 Qxa3+ 56. Kg2
Qa7 {and wins}) 52... Ra2+ (52... Kg7 $5) 53. Kh3 Kg7 54. g4 h5 55. gxh5 Qa7
56. Qe1 (56. h6+ Kh7) 56... Qf2 57. Qxf2 Rxf2 58. Bd1 Rf1 59. Bf3 Kh6 {
followed by ...Rgg1 and ...Kg5-f4.}) 52. Rb3 $5 Ra2+ 53. Kh3 Rac2 (53... Ra1 {
wins}) ({but not} 53... Rcc2 $6 54. Rb8+ Kg7 55. Be2 $1 {with a draw.}) 54. Rb6
{(a last attempt to confuse matters)} R2c3 55. Bg6 {With the threat of Rxd6.}
Rd8 $2 {The result of fatigue;} ({Black would have won easily by both} 55...
R3c7) ({and} 55... Rc1 $1 56. Kg2 R8c2+ 57. Kf3 Rc3+ 58. Kg4 Rc4 59. Rb8+ Rc8 {
.}) 56. Rb7 $1 ({A draw was agreed in view of} 56. Rb7 Qxb7 (56... Rc7 $2 57.
Rxc7 Qxc7 58. Qxf6+ Kg8 59. Bf7+ $1) 57. Qxf6+ Qg7 (57... Kg8 $2 58. Qxd8+ Kg7
59. Bh5 $5 Rc8 60. f6+ Kh6 61. Qxd6 {etc.}) 58. Qxd8+ Qg8 59. Qf6+ {with
perpetual check.}) (56. -- {At the return match Steinitz more than worthily
explained his bad play in the press: 'Why am I losing so ignominiously? Mainly
because Lasker is the greatest player that I have ever met, perhaps the best
of all who have ever existed... I simply cannot now withstand a struggle with
a top-class master. A chess player has no right to be ill, just like a
commander on the battlefield.' --- ...His last heroic deed was winning fourth
prize in the Vienna 1898 marathon, but Steinitz's powers rapidly deserted him.
At the end of the century he took part in his last tournament (London 1899),
and although for the first time in his career he did not win a prize, at the
finish he won a game - against Janowski, which was to be the last in his life.
--- The great master ended his days on the very threshold of the 20th century,
in poverty, in a mental asylum on Ward's Island, not far from New York. He
went there by boat, clutching to his chest a small chess board; he imagined
that he produced an electric current, moving his pieces and striking down his
opponents. He longed to play both with Lasker, and with God Himself - and he
was sure that he would win... --- A fitting inscription on his gravestone
would have been the words of Chigorin: 'This was undoubtedly a chess genius,
one of the greatest who has ever lived. And, which I respect in him most of
all, he rated chess highly as an art. The struggle with him at the chess board
forced me to endure both minutes of intense pleasure, and periods of
despondency.'}) (56. -- {In his declining years Steinitz once said about
himself: 'I am not a chess historian - I myself am a piece of chess history,
which no one can avoid. I will not write about myself, but I am sure that
someone will write...' They did indeed write about him, many did. The most
prominent proponents of his ideas were Tarrasch, Lasker and, somewhat later,
Euwe. From his school there emerged Pillsbury, Schlechter, Maróczy, Rubinstein,
Capablanca... And Alekhine too, by his own admission, learned more from
Steinitz than from any other masters of the past. --- Of course, much water
has flowed under the bridge since then, and much has changed in the approach
to chess. Thus, with the improvement in defensive technique it has become
extremely difficult to gain an advantage without risk, and one is obliged to
fight for the initiative by other, ultra-active and sometimes risky means,
even at the cost of weakening one's own position, which would hardly have
gladdened Steinitz. However, when defence has been brought to perfection,
there is no other way.}) (56. -- {And again I should like to conclude this
chapter with some notable opinions of the chess kings. --- Steinitz: 'Chess is
not for the faint-hearted; it absorbs a person entirely. To get to the bottom
of this game, he has to give himself up into slavery. Chess is difficult, it
demands work, serious reflection and zealous research. Only honest, impartial
criticism leads to the goal. Unfortunately, many regard the critic as an enemy,
instead of seeing in him a guide to the truth...' --- Lasker: 'Steinitz was a
thinker worthy of a seat in the halls of a University. A player, as the world
believed he was, he was not; his studious temperament made that impossible;
and thus he was conquered by a player and in the end little valued by the
world, he died.' --- Capablanca: 'It was Steinitz who was the first to
establish the basic principles of general chess strategy. He was a pioneer and
one of the most profound researchers into the truth of the game, which was
hidden from his contemporaries.'}) (56. -- {Alekhine: 'That which Steinitz
gave to the theoretical aspect of the game when he was at his best is very
remote to all our home-bred chess philosophers, but with his views on Morphy,
whom he tries to discredit completely, it is of course impossible to agree.'
--- Fischer: ''...Steinitz's book knowledge didn't compare with Morphy's, and
- where Morphy was usually content to play a book line in the opening -
Steinitz was always looking for some completely original line. He understood
more about the use of squares than did Morphy, and contributed a great deal
more to chess theory.' --- Petrosian: 'The significance of Steinitz's teaching
is that he showed that in principle chess has a strictly-defined, logical
nature.'}) 1/2-1/2
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "3: Emanuel the Second"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.06"]
{The second world champion Emanuel Lasker (24 December 1868 - 11 January 1941)
held the crown for longer than anyone - 27 years, and it is unlikely that this
record will ever be surpassed. He was a man of broad education, a doctor of
philosophy and mathematics, and an author of scientific works and books,
including his famous Manual of Chess, and even historical philosophical dramas.
--- Wisdom, a mighty intellect, deep belief in himself, in his common sense,
and, of course, his enormous natural gift for chess enabled Lasker to compete
successfully with the strongest players in the world almost to the age of 68!
Before him history knew of no such examples, and in subsequent years only the
names of Smyslov and Korchnoi come to mind...} 1. -- {Lasker was, along with
Tarrasch, a direct follower of Steinitz's positional theory. But, while
understanding amazingly deeply the laws of the chess struggle, he went further.
Botvinnik expresses this well: 'It is staggering that, over such a lengthy and
brilliant chess career, in general Lasker played little... This indicates that
he was not only a player, but also a chess researcher. When he was not playing,
he was thinking (not all the great masters are capable of this), he prepared
for tournaments and achieved success. Lasker was perhaps the first of the
great masters who understood the importance of preparing for competitions;
before him, of course, they studied chess, but only in general, and they were
not yet able to prepare concretely (directly for a given tournament)...
Lasker's preparation was assisted by his chess universality. He did not have
"tastes", he did not have a "style", he did everything equally strongly,
equally well - in defence and attack, in quiet positions and wild
complications, in the middlegame and the endgame. Therefore the main aim of
his preparation was to study the features of his opponent's style. Lasker
always endeavoured to create a situation on the board in which his opponent
would feel uncertain... He knew his opponents to perfection, their virtues and
weaknesses. Lasker was a great psychologist...' --- Lasker spoke out for chess
professionalism and for 'the uniting of the chess world into an effective
organisation' (like FIDE or the GMA). He suggested giving masters the
copyright on the texts of games they had played, seeing in this the material
basis of professionalism; however, nowadays this idea, which has been
fervently upheld by grandmaster Sveshnikov, is hardly realisable...} *
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chess or Mathematics?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.06"]
{Chess or Mathematics? --- Lasker was born in the small town of Berlinchen,
not far from the then Prussian-Russian border, into the poor family of a
cantor in the local synagogue. At the age of 12, the boy, who showed unusual
ability in mathematics, was sent to a school in Berlin, under the care of his
elder brother Berthold - a student in the medical faculty. It was he who
taught Emanuel to play chess, presented him with a chess book, and began
taking him to a café where he earned a little money by playing for stakes. ---
The boy was so captivated by the game that his parents ordered Berthold to
transfer him to another school. However (oh, Providence!) its head and
mathematics teacher turned out to be... the president and champion of the
local chess club! And, fortunately, chess went hand in hand with mathematics
right to the end of his schooling in 1888. Lasker entered the mathematics
faculty of Berlin University and, like his elder brother, he helped to earn
his living by playing for stakes (was it from this that he acquired his
long-standing habit of playing every game with full intensity, as though it
was the most important in his life?).} 1. -- {He finished his first tournament
in the Kaiserhof Café with a 100% score, and soon he also won a secondary
tournament at the Sixth Congress of the German Chess Union (Breslau 1889). It
is curious that in the main, international tournament the winner was his
future opponent (incidentally, a colleague and friend of his brother Berthold)
Doctor Tarrasch, declared by the press to be 'Anderssen's successor'... ---
After gaining first prize and the master title, the 20-year-old Emanuel also
received his first invitation to an international tournament - Amsterdam 1889:
1. Burn - 7 out of 8; 2. Lasker - 6; 3. Mason - 5˝; 4. Van Vliet - 5; 5.
Gunsberg - 4; 6. Bauer - 3˝ etc. Here he had the good fortune to carry out
a brilliant combination, which became a classic example of the destructive
double bishop sacrifice.} *
[Event "36: Amsterdam"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1889.??.??"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Lasker, Em"]
[Black "Bauer, J."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A03"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "75"]
[EventDate "1889.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. f4 d5 2. e3 Nf6 3. b3 $6 (3. Nf3 $1 {is more accurate, not allowing} d4 $1 {
.}) 3... e6 4. Bb2 Be7 5. Bd3 b6 (5... c5 {is also quite good.}) 6. Nf3 (6. Qe2
$5 {.}) 6... Bb7 (6... Ba6 $5 {.}) 7. Nc3 Nbd7 8. O-O O-O 9. Ne2 (9. Ne5 $5 {.}
) 9... c5 (9... Nc5 {and ...Nxd3 is evidently safer.}) 10. Ng3 Qc7 (10... Ne4
$5 {.}) 11. Ne5 Nxe5 ({In Zak's opinion, better is} 11... d4 12. exd4 cxd4 13.
Bxd4 ({but matters are not so clear after} 13. Qe2 $1 Qd6 14. Rae1 Nc5 15. f5)
13... Bc5 $1 {with equal chances.}) 12. Bxe5 Qc6 {With the obvious idea of ...d5-d4.} 13. Qe2 $1 {A psychologically subtle move: both prophylactically
defending g2, and threatening Bb5, which in fact is a sham - the bishop is
looking in quite the opposite direction! 'If Lasker had indeed worked out
everything to the end, why then did he make his 13th move with his queen?'
writes Boris Vainstein in his book Myslitel (The Thinker, 1981). 'After all,
the combination would also have worked with the queen on d1...' Nothing of the
sort!} ({After} 13. Nh5 d4 $1 {no win for White is apparent:} 14. -- (14. Rf2
dxe3 (14... Nxh5 15. Qxh5 f5 16. exd4 Qd7 17. c3 Bf6 {is also acceptable}) ({
but not} 14... Ne8 $2 15. Bxg7 $1 Bh4 16. Qg4 Bxf2+ 17. Kxf2 f5 18. Qg5 dxe3+
19. dxe3 Rf7 20. Be5+ Kf8 21. Rd1) 15. dxe3 Nxh5 16. Bxh7+ (16. Qxh5 f5 17. Rd1
Rad8 {is equal}) 16... Kxh7 17. Qxh5+ Kg8 18. Bxg7 Kxg7 19. Qg4+ Kh7 20. Qh5+
Kg7 {with perpetual check (but not} 21. Rf3 $2 Qxf3 $1 22. gxf3 Rh8 {and wins)}
) (14. Nxf6+ gxf6 $1 (14... Bxf6 15. Qg4 Bxe5 16. fxe5 dxe3 17. dxe3 Rad8 18.
Rf3 {is dangerous for Black}) 15. Bxh7+ (15. Qg4+ Kh8 16. Qh3 Qxg2+ $1) 15...
Kxh7 (15... Kh8 $2 16. e4 $1 fxe5 17. Qh5 Kg7 18. Rf3 {wins for White}) 16.
Qh5+ Kg7 17. Rf3 Rg8 18. Rg3+ Kf8 19. Qh6+ Ke8 20. Rxg8+ Kd7 21. Rg4 ({or} 21.
Rg7 fxe5 22. fxe5 Qe4 23. Rf1 Rf8) 21... fxe5 22. fxe5 dxe3 23. Qxe3 f5 {with
a double-edged game.})) 13... a6 $2 {Bauer falls into the trap set for him,} ({
although he had a reasonable choice between} 13... Ne4 14. Nxe4 dxe4 15. Bc4 (
15. Bb5 Qc8 16. Qg4 f6 17. Bb2 Bd5 {is level}) 15... f6 16. Bc3 Qd7 17. f5 Bd5
18. fxe6 Qxe6 19. Bxd5 Qxd5 20. Qg4 Rf7) (13... Rfd8 $6 14. f5) ({and} 13...
Nd7 14. Nh5 (14. Bb2 Bf6) 14... f6 ({not} 14... Nxe5 $2 15. fxe5) 15. Bb5 Qc8
16. Qg4 Rf7 17. Bb2 a6 18. Be2 Qc6 {with equal chances in each instance.}) 14.
Nh5 $1 {Signalling the start of a ferocious storming of the king's fortress.}
Nxh5 ({It is amazing that Black's position is already practically hopeless:}
14... d4 15. Bxf6 Bxf6 16. Qg4 Kh8 (16... e5 17. Be4 $1) 17. Rf3 Rg8 (17...
dxe3 18. Nxf6 gxf6 19. Qh4) 18. Bxh7 $1 Rgd8 19. Qh3 Be7 20. Be4 $1) (14... Ne8
15. Bxg7 $1 c4 (15... Nxg7 16. Qg4) (15... f5 16. Bxf8 Bxf8 17. a4) 16. Bd4 f5
17. bxc4 dxc4 18. Bxc4 b5 19. Bb3 {(Fritz)}) (14... h6 15. Bxf6 ({or} 15. Nxg7
$5 Kxg7 16. Qg4+ Kh8 17. Qh4 Kg7 18. Rf3 {winning}) 15... Bxf6 16. Nxf6+ gxf6
17. Qg4+ Kh8 18. Rf3 $1 ({more accurate than} 18. Qh4 Kg7 19. Rf3 Rfd8 20. Rg3+
Kf8 21. Qxh6+ Ke7) 18... Rg8 19. Qh4 Kg7 20. Rg3+ Kf8 21. Rxg8+ Kxg8 22. Qxh6
f5 23. Rf1) (14... Rfd8 $5 {(the only way of avoiding an immediate rout)} 15.
Nxf6+ Bxf6 (15... gxf6 16. Qh5 Kf8 17. Qh6+ {and Bxf6 wins}) 16. Bxh7+ $1 ({or
} 16. Bxf6 gxf6 17. Qg4+ Kf8 ({but not} 17... Kh8 $2 18. Qh4 f5 19. Qf6+ {and
Rf3}) 18. Bxh7 {etc.}) 16... Kf8 (16... Kxh7 $2 17. Qh5+ Kg8 18. Bxf6 gxf6 19.
Qh6 $1 {and Rf3 winning}) 17. Bxf6 gxf6 {, continuing to resist a pawn down.})
15. Bxh7+ $1 ({Of course, not} 15. Qxh5 $2 f5 {.}) 15... Kxh7 16. Qxh5+ Kg8 17.
Bxg7 $3 {This double bishop sacrifice is Lasker's patent (later, in St
Petersburg 1914, Tarrasch knocked out Nimzowitsch in similar fashion - Game No.51). Modern computer programs find his combination with frightening speed: on
the calculation of the main 15-move variation, Fritz, for example, spends not
more than 13 seconds!} Kxg7 ({If} 17... f5 {there is a choice of winning moves
between} 18. Rf3 ({and} 18. Be5 Rf6 19. Rf3 Kf8 20. Rg3) 18... Bf6 19. Bxf6
Rxf6 20. Rh3 $1 Kf8 21. Qg5 e5 22. Rh7 {.}) ({and if} 17... f6 {- between} 18.
Bh6 ({and} 18. Rf3 Qe8 19. Qh8+ Kf7 20. Qh7 Qc6 21. Qh5+ $1 {.})) 18. Qg4+ Kh7
19. Rf3 e5 20. Rh3+ Qh6 21. Rxh6+ Kxh6 {(by giving up his queen Black has
avoided mate, but not defeat)} 22. Qd7 $1 {Winning a piece, and with it the
game.} Bf6 23. Qxb7 Kg7 (23... exf4 24. Qxb6 Kg7 25. Rf1) ({and} 23... Rab8 24.
Qxd5 Rbd8 25. Qc6 Kg7 26. d3 {both win for White.}) 24. Rf1 Rab8 25. Qd7 ({Or}
25. Qxd5 Rbd8 26. Qf3 Rxd2 27. Qg4+ Kh7 28. Qf5+ Kg7 29. fxe5 {.}) 25... Rfd8 (
25... e4 26. Qxd5 Rfd8 27. Qxe4 Rxd2 28. Qc4 a5 29. Rf2 {and wins.}) 26. Qg4+
Kf8 27. fxe5 Bg7 (27... Bxe5 28. Qf5 {.}) 28. e6 Rb7 29. Qg6 f6 30. Rxf6+ $1
Bxf6 31. Qxf6+ Ke8 32. Qh8+ Ke7 33. Qg7+ Kxe6 34. Qxb7 Rd6 35. Qxa6 d4 36. exd4
cxd4 37. h4 d3 38. Qxd3 {. After returning to Berlin, Lasker won a mini-match
against Bardeleben (+2 -1 =1), and then crushed by a score of +5 =3 none other
than Mieses, the third prize-winner at the congress in Breslau! --- In 1890 he
travelled to England, where he defeated Bird, Englisch and a number of other
masters. Lasker's name became known throughout Europe. A year later the future
world champion again visited the shores of the misty Albion and soon, like
Steinitz 30 years earlier and Zukertort - 20, he settled in London for a long
time. The stakes there were higher, and there was the lure of its halo, not
yet altogether lost, of the chess capital of the world...} 1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "The Unacknowledged King"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.06"]
{The Unacknowledged King: As has already been mentioned, in 1892/93 Steinitz
had three real rivals for the throne: Chigorin - the participant in the two
previous matches for the world championship (1889, 1892), Tarrasch - the
winner of Breslau 1889, Manchester 1890 and Dresden 1892, and the improving
Lasker. The successes of the latter were as yet modest, but stable: confident
victories in two English tournaments in 1892, and crushing match wins over
Blackburne (+6 =4) and Bird (+5 =0). --- Realising that for contesting the
world crown this was insufficient, Lasker challenged Tarrasch to a match. But
the latter replied that he would accept the challenge, only when the 'young
man' had taken first place in a strong international tournament, and he
explained his refusal in the following way: 'Since in the world there are now
several players whose successes are superior to Lasker's English victories, I
would have been unfair to them. If Lasker wanted to test his strength, he
should not have avoided participating in the Dresden tournament...' --- And
for the moment Tarrasch decided to play a match with Chigorin. But their clash
in the autumn in St Petersburg did not produce a winner: +9 -9 =4 (this match
was described on p.89).} 1. -- {But what was the spurned Lasker, with his
ambitions, to do? There were no big tournaments in prospect, and at the end of
1892 he set off on a long tour of America, where he won matches against
Schowalter (+6 -2 =2) and other American and Cuban masters, and then in the
autumn of 1893 took first prize at a tournament in New York, scoring 13 out of
13 (4˝ points ahead of Albin and 6 ahead of the young Pillsbury, the future
victor in Hastings). This already made an impression. Still before that, in
August, when Tarrasch and Chigorin were still only preparing for their
candidates match, Lasker sent a challenge to Steinitz without delay. And the
elderly world champion, who earlier had called the match with Chigorin 'his
last', accepted the challenge, since he never avoided a fight! --- The
Steinitz-Lasker match took place from 15 March to 26 May 1894 in New York,
Philadelphia and Montreal. They played, as was now the custom, to the first to
win 10 games, with a time control of two hours for the first 30 moves and then
one hour for every 15. The prize for the winner was $2,250, and $750 for the
loser. In the event of the champion losing, he had the right to a return match.
--- The start of the match was genuinely intriguing and bloody. In the first
game Lasker outwitted his opponent 'Bronstein-style', but Steinitz gained
spectacular revenge in the second. Then the two players again exchanged heavy
blows and followed up with two fighting draws (where in both cases Steinitz
was a pawn up). After six games the scores were level - 3-3, and the turning
point became the tremendously intense and dramatic seventh game (see the
following game).} *
[Event "37: World Championship, USA/Canada"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1894.??.??"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Lasker, Em"]
[Black "Steinitz, W."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C62"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "91"]
[EventDate "1894.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 d6 4. d4 Bd7 5. Nc3 Nge7 {Steinitz's classical
defence.} 6. Be3 ({Before this Lasker played} 6. Bc4 {but in the fifth game
after} exd4 7. Nxd4 Nxd4 8. Qxd4 Nc6 9. Qe3 Be6 ({. Black fails to equalise by
} 9... Ne5 10. Bb3 c6 ({or} 10... Be6 11. f4 Nc4 12. Qg3 {, as in the first
and third games}) 11. Qg3) (9... Be7 $5) 10. Nd5 Be7 11. Bd2 O-O 12. O-O Ne5
13. Bb3 Bxd5 14. Bxd5 c6 15. Bb3 Nd7 16. Rad1 a5 17. c3 a4 18. Bc2 Re8 19. Qh3
Nf8 20. Be3 Qa5 {Black obtained a solid enough position.}) 6... Ng6 7. Qd2 Be7
8. O-O-O (8. O-O O-O 9. Rad1 {is quieter.}) 8... a6 9. Be2 exd4 ({If} 9... O-O
$6 {, then} 10. dxe5 $1 {is unpleasant, for example:} Ngxe5 11. Nxe5 Nxe5 12.
f4 {with the initiative.}) 10. Nxd4 Nxd4 11. Qxd4 ({'Not allowing the exchange
of bishops after} 11. Bxd4 Bg5 $1 {' (Zak). True,} 12. Be3 Bxe3 13. Qxe3 {
leaves White with a slight advantage.}) 11... Bf6 12. Qd2 Bc6 ({Or} 12... O-O
13. f3 Re8 14. Nd5 {.}) 13. Nd5 ({The preparatory} 13. Kb1 {is also possible.})
13... O-O {White has merely obtained slightly the freer game from the opening,
but suddenly Lasker sharply disrupts the positional balance.} 14. g4 $6 {Pawns
don't move backwards! It is hard to say whether this aggressive move was made
with the desire to unsettled his tenacious opponent, or if it involved some
oversight.} ({It looks logical to play} 14. f3 {(Lasker)}) (14. g3 Re8 15. Bf3
{and h2-h4-h5}) ({or} 14. Nxf6+ Qxf6 15. f3 Bb5 16. c4 Ba4 17. Rde1 {with a
small plus.}) 14... Re8 15. g5 ({'After} 15. f3 Bxd5 16. Qxd5 Be5 {Black's
control of f4 would have given him a good game.}) ({If} 15. Nxf6+ Qxf6 16. f3 {
there could have followed} Qe6 17. c4 ({or} 17. Kb1 d5) 17... b5 {with
excellent prospects.' (Neishtadt)}) 15... Bxd5 16. Qxd5 ({Dubious is} 16. gxf6
$6 Bxe4 17. f3 Bf5 18. Bd4 c5 $1 19. Bc3 d5 20. Qxd5 Nf4 21. Qxf5 Nxe2+ 22. Kb1
Nxc3+ 23. bxc3 Qb6+ 24. Ka1 Qxf6 25. Qxf6 gxf6 26. Rd5 Re3 {with an extra pawn}
) ({while after} 16. exd5 Rxe3 $1 17. fxe3 ({or} 17. gxf6 Re5 18. fxg7 Qf6)
17... Bxg5 {and ...Qe7 Black has stable compensation for the pawn: the
drawbacks of g2-g4 are felt.}) 16... Re5 17. Qd2 $6 ({Much better was} 17. Qxb7
$1 Bxg5 18. Bxg5 Rxg5 19. Rhg1 {, although after} Rc5 $1 {Black has an easy
game: ...a6-a5, ...Rb8, and then an attack on the kingside pawns by ...Qh4, or
an attack on the king along the b- and c-files.}) 17... Bxg5 $1 ({Possibly
Lasker was hoping for} 17... Rxg5 $2 18. f4 Rg2 19. Qe1 {, when the black rook
is 'offside'.}) 18. f4 Rxe4 $1 19. fxg5 Qe7 20. Rdf1 $2 (20. Bf3 Rxe3 21. Bxb7
{suggests itself, for example:} Rb8 (21... Re2 22. Rhe1 Rxd2 23. Rxe7 Rxd1+ 24.
Kxd1 Nxe7 25. Bxa8 a5 {is unclear}) 22. Rhe1 Rxe1 ({little is promised by}
22... Re5 23. Bxa6 Qxg5 24. Qxg5 Rxg5 25. Bc4 Ne5 26. Bd5) 23. Rxe1 Qd7 24. Bd5
(24. Bxa6 $6 Qa4) 24... Ne5 {with only some advantage to Black.}) 20... Rxe3
21. Bc4 {Two pawns down, in a difficult, objectively lost position, White
tries to create an attack by h2-h4-h5 etc.} Nh8 $5 {Typical Steinitz! The
commentators admired this eccentric move, although it is apparently not the
strongest.} (21... Qxg5 {would have retained some advantage, for example:} 22.
Rxf7 ({or} 22. Rhg1 Qh6 23. Bxf7+ Kh8 24. Bxg6 hxg6 25. Rxg6 Qxg6 26. Qxe3 Re8)
22... Kh8 23. Rxc7 Rae8 24. Rd1 Ne5 25. h4 Qf4 26. Bd5 b5 {.}) ({However,}
21... Rf8 $1 {was the most logical, and if} 22. h4 Re4 23. h5 {either} Rxc4 ({
or} 23... Ne5 $5 {(Neishtadt)} 24. Bd5 Rg4 25. g6 hxg6 26. hxg6 Nxg6 27. Bxb7
Qg5 {and Black should win}) 24. hxg6 hxg6 25. Re1 $6 (25. Kb1 Re4 {also brings
no joy}) 25... Re4 $1 ({Zak considered only} 25... Qd8 $2 26. Reg1 {and Qh2})
26. Rxe4 Qxe4 27. Qh2 f5 {winning.}) 22. h4 c6 23. g6 $1 {The only chance;} ({
hopeless is} 23. Rfg1 d5 24. Bd3 Ng6 25. h5 Nf4) ({or} 23. Bd3 Re8 24. Rhg1 Qe6
25. Kb1 b5 26. h5 c5 {. There now begins a sequence of irrational play, in
which Lasker, as it transpires, is superior to his opponent. The problem of
this position is that in nearly all variations Black is close to a win, but
everywhere White retains some counter-chances. To evaluate where there are
more of them, and where there are less, is not easy, and for more than a dozen
moves Steinitz is obliged to solve a rather ticklish problem: how not to lose
his decisive advantage?}) 23... d5 $6 {This possibly does not yet throw away
the win;} ({but clearly better was} 23... hxg6 $1 24. h5 g5 $1 (24... gxh5 25.
Rxh5 Re8 26. Rhh1 Qe5 $1 {will also do}) ({or} 24... d5 25. hxg6 Nxg6 26. Bd3
Rxd3 $1 ({but not} 26... Nf8 $6 27. Qh2 f6 28. Bf5 {with compensation for the
material deficit})) 25. h6 gxh6 $1 ({unclear is} 25... g6 $6 26. h7+ Kg7 (26...
Kf8 27. Bxf7 $1) 27. Qh2 $1 f5 28. Qh6+ Kf6 29. Bg8 $1) 26. Rxh6 ({or} 26. Qh2
Qf8 27. Rfg1 Re5) 26... Re8 $1 27. Kd1 (27. Rhh1 Qe5) 27... Qe4 {and the game
is decided:} 28. Rfh1 ({or} 28. Bd3 Qg4+ 29. Kc1 Qg3 30. Kd1 R8e6 {etc.}) 28...
Ng6 29. Bd3 Qg4+ 30. Kc1 Qg3 31. Kd1 Nh4 {.}) 24. gxh7+ Kxh7 25. Bd3+ Kg8 {By
Steinitz's standards, the position is won, but Lasker continues fighting.} 26.
h5 Re8 27. h6 (27. Rfg1 $5 {.}) 27... g6 28. h7+ Kg7 29. Kb1 $5 {In this game
there is something of the 'Tal' element: White's attack is rather abstract,
but it will not come to an end - all the time some threats arise!} ({It is a
kind of lingering compensation, which there also is after} 29. Qh2 $5 Qg5 30.
Kb1 c5 31. Rfg1 Qe5 32. Qh6+ Kf6 {.}) 29... Qe5 30. a3 {Lasker's last two
quiet moves were completely inexplicable to his contemporaries: how can you
play this way when two pawns down?!} c5 ({'Very strong was} 30... Re6 {,
parrying the queen manoeuvre carried out in the game. If} 31. Qf2 {, there
would have followed} ({after} 31. Qb4 $1 b5 32. Qh4 {all is by no means so
clear}) 31... Rf6 {.' (Neishtadt)}) 31. Qf2 (31. c3 $2 c4 32. Bc2 Re2 $1) ({and
} 31. Be2 Qe4 32. Bd3 Qd4 33. Qh2 f5 34. Rd1 Qe5 35. Qh6+ Kf7 {both fail.})
31... c4 32. Qh4 ({But not} 32. Bxg6 $2 fxg6 33. Qh4 Nf7 {.}) 32... f6 ({
According to Chigorin,} 32... Kf8 {was completely safe, avoiding weakening the
g6-square. But even here after} 33. Bf5 $1 gxf5 ({Neishtadt suggested the
'restrained'} 33... Re7 $2 {, overlooking} 34. Bxg6 $1 Nxg6 35. Rhg1 {and wins}
) 34. Rhg1 f6 35. Rg8+ Ke7 36. Rfg1 Re4 37. Qf2 {it is altogether unclear who
is winning.}) 33. Bf5 {A key moment: to keep his attack alive, Lasker now also
gives up a piece.} ({He subtly sensed that the misplaced black king and the
'sleeping' knight at h8 would promise White excellent compensation:} 33. Bf5 $6
gxf5 34. Rhg1+ Kf7 35. Qh5+ Ke7 36. Rxf5 {etc. So how should Black play? Even
a powerful computer required a considerable amount of time to understand this
intricate position...}) 33... Kf7 $6 {Not an easy choice.} ({Later those
researching the games of Steinitz and Lasker suggested two 'ways to win':}
33... Qg3 34. Qh6+ Kf7 35. Rhg1 $2 Re1+ 36. Ka2 Qxg1 $1 {, but here} 37. Bd7 $1
Rd8 38. Rxe1 Rxd7 {is unclear}) (33... Rg3 34. Ka2 ({but not} 34. Re1 $2 Qxe1+
35. Rxe1 Rxe1+ 36. Ka2 Rgg1 {and wins}) ({although} 34. Bg4 $1 {is stronger,
when there is still all to play for}) 34... Qd6 $1 {.}) 34. Rhg1 $1 (34. Bh3 {
and Bg2 is too slow.}) 34... gxf5 ({'Here it is, the decisive mistake!'
'Suicidal!' - exclaimed the commentators, maintaining that there was nothing
threatening Black, and recommending the 'winning'} 34... b5 {(or 34...c3):} 35.
-- ({: if} 35. Qh6 {there is} Rg3 {.}) ({. In fact, far stronger is} 35. Bxg6+
$1 Nxg6 36. Qg4 $1 ({but not} 36. Rxg6 $2 Re1+ 37. Rxe1 Qxe1+ 38. Qxe1 Rxe1+
39. Ka2 Rh1 {and Black wins}) 36... Nh8 37. Qg7+ $5 (37. Qd7+ Re7 38. Qc8 Re8
39. Qd7+ {is sufficient for a draw}) 37... Ke6 38. Qb7 {with a powerful attack,
for example:} f5 39. Rg8 Kd6 40. Rxe8 Qxe8 41. Rxf5 Re5 42. Qxa6+ Kc5 43. Qa7+
Kd6 44. Qb6+ Kd7 45. Qxb5+ Kd6 46. Qb4+ Kc6 47. Rf8 {and wins.})) 35. Qh5+ Ke7
36. Rg8 ({Inferior is} 36. Rxf5 $6 Qe6 37. Rg7+ Kd8 38. Rxd5+ Kc8 39. Qh2 Re5 {
and Black wins.}) 36... Kd6 $6 {But this really would seem to be a mistake.} ({
Safer was} 36... Kd7 {(or 36...Kd8)} 37. Rxf5 Qe6 38. Rxd5+ Kc7 {with unclear
play. However, only a thorough analysis of the further events in the game
enables such a conclusion to be drawn.}) 37. Rxf5 Qe6 38. Rxe8 (38. Qh2+ $6 Re5
{.}) 38... Qxe8 39. Rxf6+ (39. Rxd5+ Ke7 {.}) 39... Kc5 ({The alternative}
39... Kc7 40. Qxd5 {is also very unpleasant.}) 40. Qh6 Re7 $2 {How hard it was
for Steinitz to defend!} ({Later Chigorin recommended} 40... Qe7 {, after} 41.
Rf8 $1 {I was unable to find a draw for Black, although this position was on
my computer for a long time.} ({and if} 41. Qf8 $2 {, then} Qxf8 42. Rxf8 Ng6
43. Rg8 Rh3) 41... -- {. To all appearances, White's attack is irresistible:} (
41... Re6 42. Qd2 $1 {a very important manoeuvre;} ({earlier they considered
only} 42. Rc8+ Kb6 $1 {with double-edged play,} ({but not} 42... Rc6 $2 43. Qd2
$3 Qxh7 44. Rxh8 $1 Qxh8 45. Qb4+ Kd4 46. Qc3+)) 42... Qxh7 43. Rc8+ Rc6 44.
Rxh8 Qf7 45. Rf8 Qd7 46. Qb4+ Kd4 47. Rf1 Qd8 48. Rd1+ Ke5 49. Re1+ Kf6 50.
Qc3+ Kf7 51. Qh3 Kg7 52. Rh1 {winning}) (41... Re1+ 42. Ka2 Re6 43. Qd2 $1 {
(the same key manoeuvre)} Qxh7 44. Rc8+ Rc6 45. Qb4+ Kd4 46. Rxh8 Qxc2 47. Rh4+
Ke5 48. Qe7+ Re6 49. Qc7+ Rd6 50. Rh3 Qg6 51. Qe7+ Re6 52. Re3+ Kf5 53. Qd7 Qg8
54. Qxd5+ Kf6 55. Rf3+ Ke7 56. Qxb7+ {, and the curtain comes down.})) ({Only}
40... Re2 $1 {would have saved Black, for example:} 41. Qg7 Re7 42. Qg1+ Re3 (
42... d4 $6 43. Qg5+ Re5 44. Qg8 d3 $6 45. cxd3 cxd3 46. Qb3 $1) 43. Qg8 Re7
44. Rf8 Qg6 45. Rc8+ Kd6 {with a shaky equilibrium.}) 41. Qh2 $3 {Quite
brilliant;} ({if} 41. Rf8 $2 {, then} Rxh7 $1) ({White also fails to win by}
41. Qd2 $5 Qd8 {.}) 41... Qd7 (41... Qd8 {would have been refuted by} 42. Qf2+
Kb5 43. b3 $1 (43. Rf8 Re8 {is not so clear}) 43... Re1+ 44. Kb2 Re3 45. bxc4+
Ka4 46. cxd5 Re4 47. d6 {.}) ({And if} 41... Rd7 {decisive is} 42. Qg1+ $1 ({
Neishtadt's suggestion of} 42. Qf2+ d4 43. Rf8 Qe4 44. Rxh8 {is inferior in
view of} Rxh7) 42... d4 43. Qg5+ Rd5 44. Qd2 {.}) 42. Qg1+ d4 {(otherwise mate)
} 43. Qg5+ Qd5 44. Rf5 Qxf5 (44... Re1+ 45. Ka2 {does not change anything.})
45. Qxf5+ Kd6 46. Qf6+ {. In this game, balancing on the edge of the abyss,
the young Lasker demonstrated those qualities that were to enable him to hold
the crown of world champion for such a long time. In a difficult position he
managed to set his opponent very tricky problems, typical of the level of
chess in the second half of the 20th century (similar to those that very
strong opponents were set by Tal or, say, Shirov). Lasker was far ahead of his
time, and it is hard to blame Steinitz for his mistakes: he fought with all
his might, under a continual and savage attack. Because this ultra-tense game
was ahead of its time, it was overshadowed and remained underrated: their
contemporaries simply could not understand what happened in it... --- I think
that the seventh game became the decisive one in the match, breaking
Steinitz's resistance. He experienced an almost mystical horror: was this
really possible?! Such things don't happen!! 'Whereas the champion endured
with fortitude the purely chess defeats, again mobilising himself completely
for the next game, this psychological defeat strongly affected him. All the
systemic connections in his defensive methods and rules collapsed. After this
Steinitz lost a further four games in succession!' (B. Vainstein)} (46. -- {
The outcome of the match was decided, and its Montreal part merely determined
the final score: +10 -5 =4 in favour of Lasker, who thus became the second
world champion in history. After losing the final, 19th game, Steinitz got up
with difficulty from his chair, leaning on his stick, and pronounced three
'hurrahs' for the new 'world chess king' and promptly... settled down to play
cards with some friends. --- Although Lasker had gained a convincing victory,
the chess world was not in a hurry to acknowledge him as the true champion:
many explained Steinitz's defeat as being due to his advanced age and the fact
that he was unwell. Tarrasch (who, incidentally, had won his fourth
international tournament in succession, Leipzig 1894) also had a dig at his
expense: 'The final games of the match merely provoke profound regret. Whereas
in the initial games, especially the seventh, the usual strength of the old
master is no longer apparent, the remainder increasingly resemble the last
games of Zukertort, who late in life completely lost his inherent strength,
resourcefulness, initiative, confidence...'}) 1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "American Tragedy"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.06"]
{American Tragedy: Hastings 1895 - the most important tournament of the 19th
century, which assembled the entire cream of world chess - was called on to
clarify the situation at the top. As was written in the press, 'the fact alone
that among the participants is the star quartet - Lasker, Steinitz, Tarrasch
and Chigorin - gives it historic significance.'} 1. -- {However, suddenly the
hitherto unknown young American Harry Nelson Pillsbury (1872-1906) intervened
in the battle of the stars. After losing in the first round to Chigorin, he
then set a furious pace (9˝ out of 10!) and burst into the leading group,
staggering everyone with his powerful, forceful play. Take, for example, his
win over Tarrasch!} *
[Event "38: Hastings"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1895.??.??"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Pillsbury, H."]
[Black "Tarrasch, S."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D55"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "103"]
[EventDate "1895.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 ({Later Tarrasch became a fervent supporter of
the defence} 3... c5 {.}) 4. Bg5 {This move, known since the middle of the
century and tried by Steinitz against Anderssen (Vienna 1873), became a
formidable force in Pillsbury's hands.} Be7 ({Soon afterwards Pillsbury
himself suggested the original defence} 4... Nbd7 5. e3 c6 6. Nf3 Qa5 {, which
later became known in opening theory as the Cambridge Springs Variation.}) 5.
Nf3 ({In the event of} 5. e3 O-O 6. Nf3 b6 7. cxd5 exd5 (7... Nxd5 $5) 8. Bd3 {
White saves a tempo on Rc1, and here is what can result from this:} -- (8...
Bb7 {(8...Be6!?)} 9. Ne5 ({Rubinstein played} 9. Qc2 $5 Nbd7 10. O-O-O {- Game
No.60}) ({and Geller -} 9. O-O Nbd7 10. Qe2 c5 11. Ba6 $1) 9... Nbd7 10. f4 c5
(10... Ne4 $5 11. Bxe7 Qxe7 12. Bxe4 dxe4 13. O-O f5 {with an unclear game,
Pillsbury-Schiffers, Vienna 1898; Pillsbury-Mason, Monte Carlo 1903}) 11. O-O
c4 (11... a6 12. Qf3 Re8 13. Rad1 cxd4 14. exd4 b5 15. a3 Rc8 $2 16. Bf5 Rc7
17. Nxd7 Nxd7 18. Bxe7 Rxe7 19. Nxd5 {with a won game Pillsbury-Gottschall,
Hanover 1902}) (11... cxd4 $5) 12. Bc2 a6 13. Qf3 b5 14. Qh3 g6 15. f5 b4 16.
fxg6 hxg6 17. Qh4 $1 bxc3 18. Nxd7 Qxd7 19. Rxf6 $1 {and White won
(Pillsbury-Marco, Paris 1900)}) (8... Nbd7 9. O-O c5 10. Ne5 Nxe5 (10... Bb7
11. f4) 11. dxe5 Nd7 12. Bf4 Bb7 13. Qf3 Re8 14. Qh3 Nf8 15. Rad1 Ng6 16. Bg3
$1 Bf8 17. f4 a6 18. Bc2 b5 19. e6 $1 fxe6 20. f5 exf5 21. Qxf5 {with an
attack (Schlechter-Janowski, Ostend 1905).})) 5... Nbd7 6. Rc1 O-O 7. e3 b6 (
7... c6 $1 {.}) 8. cxd5 exd5 9. Bd3 ({Or immediately} 9. Ne5 Bb7 10. f4 {, for
example:} a6 11. Bd3 c5 12. O-O c4 13. Bf5 b5 14. Rf3 Re8 15. Rh3 g6 16. Bb1
Nxe5 17. fxe5 Nd7 18. Bxe7 Rxe7 19. Qf3 Nf8 20. Rf1 Qd7 21. Qf6 b4 $2 (21...
Re6 $1) 22. Na4 $1 Qc7 23. Nc5 Bc8 24. Rh6 a5 25. Rf4 Rb8 26. Bxg6 $1 {1-0
(Pillsbury-Wolf, Monte Carlo 1903).}) (9. Qa4 {- Game Nos.79, 89.}) 9... Bb7
10. O-O c5 {A tabiya of the variation that is known in opening theory as the
orthodox fianchetto.} 11. Re1 $6 {A waste of an important tempo,} ({as is} 11.
Bb1 $5 Ne4 $1 {equalising (Pillsbury-Schlechter, Hastings 1895).}) ({However,
we should not forget how hard it is to take the first steps...} 11. Ne5 {is
premature in view of} Nxe5 12. dxe5 Ne4 $1 {with equality (Marshall-Janowski,
Paris 3rd matchgame 1905), therefore White must find the optimal move order.})
({Modern theory prefers} 11. Bf5) ({while in those years the best was thought
to be Schlechter's recommendation} 11. Qe2 {:} -- (11... c4 12. Bb1 a6 13. Ne5
$1 b5 14. f4 h6 $6 (14... Ne4 15. Bxe4 dxe4 16. Nxd7 Qxd7 17. Bxe7 Qxe7 18. f5
f6 19. Rf4 {with the initiative, Vidmar-Yates, London 1922}) (14... Re8 $5 15.
Rf3 Ne4 16. Rh3 Nf8 {is more solid}) 15. Bh4 Re8 16. Rf3 Ne4 17. Bxe7 Qxe7 18.
Bxe4 dxe4 19. Rg3 Nf6 20. a4 $1 b4 21. Nd1 c3 22. bxc3 bxc3 23. Rxc3 {and
White gradually won (Pillsbury-Janowski, Vienna 1898).}) ({. After} 11... cxd4
$6 12. exd4 {and Ne5 there is the additional threat of Ba6.}) (11... Ne4 $5 12.
Bf4 Nxc3 13. bxc3 c4 14. Bf5 ({inferior is} 14. Bb1 $6 b5 15. Ne5 a5 16. Qf3
Nxe5 17. Bxe5 Ra6 $1 {Euwe-Menchik, Carlsbad 1923}) 14... g6 15. Bxd7 Qxd7 16.
Ne5 Qe6 17. Bh6 {'with advantage to White' (Tartakower), although after} Rfe8 {
no particular advantage is apparent.})) 11... c4 ({Here too} 11... Ne4 {is not
bad, but Tarrasch is playing for a win.}) 12. Bb1 a6 13. Ne5 $1 {The start of
the classic Pillsbury Attack, about which it was later said: 'If Pillsbury has
played Ne5, then Black is lost.'} b5 ({White has the advantage after} 13...
Nxe5 $6 14. dxe5 Nd7 (14... Ne8 $2 15. Bxe7 {and Nxd5}) (14... Ne4 $2 15. Bxe7
Qxe7 ({or} 15... Nxc3 16. Bxh7+ $1) 16. Nxd5) 15. Bf4 $1 Nc5 16. Qd2 b5 17.
Rcd1 {(Tartakower).}) 14. f4 Re8 15. Qf3 Nf8 {An economic defence of the
kingside - strictly according to Steinitz! - followed by a breakthrough on the
queenside.} 16. Ne2 $6 (16. a3 {would have maintained approximate equality,
for example:} Ne4 17. Bxe7 Rxe7 18. Nxe4 dxe4 19. Qg3 ({but not} 19. Bxe4 $2
Bxe4 20. Qxe4 f6 $1 {and wins}) 19... Qd6 {.}) 16... Ne4 {A typical relieving
manoeuvre;} (16... Qa5 17. Ng3 Bb4 18. Re2 {is unclear.}) 17. Bxe7 Rxe7 18.
Bxe4 dxe4 19. Qg3 ({Inferior is} 19. Qh3 $6 f6 20. Ng4 Bc8 {.}) 19... f6 20.
Ng4 Kh8 {Nxf6+ was threatened;} ({if} 20... f5 $2 21. Nh6+ {and Nxf5.}) 21. f5
Qd7 22. Rf1 Rd8 $6 ({More accurate was the immediate} 22... Rae8 {(supporting
the e4-pawn)} 23. Rf4 Bd5 {with excellent counterplay on the queenside.}) 23.
Rf4 Qd6 (23... Bd5 {and ...b5-b4 was more energetic.}) 24. Qh4 Rde8 25. Nc3 Bd5
({For the moment} 25... b4 $6 {is unfavourable because of} 26. Na4 {.}) 26. Nf2
({Pillsbury continues manoeuvring, not being tempted by the questionable} 26.
Nxd5 Qxd5 27. Nxf6 $6 gxf6 28. Qxf6+ Rg7 29. Qxa6 Ra8 30. Qf6 Qg8 31. Rf2 Rxa2
{.}) 26... Qc6 $1 27. Rf1 b4 28. Ne2 ({Also after} 28. Nxd5 Qxd5 29. Rc1 {
Black would have been the first to begin:} c3 $1 30. bxc3 Qxa2 31. cxb4 Qd2 32.
Rd1 Qxe3 {etc.}) 28... Qa4 $2 {Up till now, despite a few isolated
irregularities, Tarrasch has played in sound positional style, but now,
chasing after a pawn, he incorrectly moves his queen away from the defence of
his king.} ({'} 28... c3 $1 {was essential, and if} 29. bxc3 (29. b3 a5 30. Nc1
a4 $1) 29... -- ({, then} 29... Bc4 30. Re1 Bxe2 31. Rxe2 bxc3 32. Rc2 Qb5 $1 {
' (Lasker) However, here} 33. Qg4 $1 Rc7 34. Qd1 {is completely unclear}) ({,
and therefore I would have preferred} 29... bxc3 30. Nd1 (30. Rc1 $2 c2 31. a4
Rb7 32. a5 Rb1 {wins for Black}) 30... c2 31. Ndc3 Bc4 32. Qe1 Rb7 33. Qd2 Rb2
34. Rc1 Bxe2 35. Nxe2 Rc8 36. Ng3 Rxa2 37. Nxe4 Nd7 {, and the powerful passed
c-pawn forces White to think primarily about defence.})) 29. Ng4 $1 (29. Ng4 {
with the obvious intention of} Qxa2 $2 30. Nxf6 $1 gxf6 31. Qxf6+ Rg7 32. Rg4 {
winning.}) 29... Nd7 30. R4f2 $1 {Making way for the knight.} Kg8 ({Now} 30...
Qxa2 $2 {is bad because of} 31. Nf4 {- after} Bf7 {White has two tempting
possibilities:} 32. -- (32. Ng6+ Kg8 $1 ({but not} 32... Bxg6 $2 33. fxg6 h6 ({
or} 33... Nf8 34. Nxf6 gxf6 35. Rxf6 {and Rf7 and White wins in each case}) 34.
Nxh6 $1 gxh6 35. Qxh6+ Kg8 36. Rf4) 33. Nxe7+ Rxe7 34. Qg3 Kf8 {- after
pointing out this defence, Chigorin asked: 'Do not Black's two passed pawns,
of course after ...Qb3 or ...Qa4-b5(c6) and ...a6-a5, prove decisive as
regards White's fate?' I would answer: hardly. After} 35. Qd6 $1 Qa5 36. Rc2
Nb6 37. Rcc1 Qb5 38. Ra1 (38. Rf4 Nc8 39. Qd8+ Re8 40. Qc7 Ne7 {is unclear})
38... Na4 39. Nf2 a5 40. Nd1 Bh5 41. Rf4 {White has sufficient counterplay}) (
32. d5 $1 -- (32... Ne5 33. Nxf6 gxf6 34. Qxf6+ Kg8 35. d6 Rd7 36. Ne6 {and
wins (Tartakower)}) ({, or} 32... Rc8 33. Ng6+ $1 Bxg6 34. fxg6 (34. d6 {is
also good, for example:} Ree8 ({or} 34... Bxf5 35. dxe7 Bg6 36. Rd2) 35. fxg6
Nf8 36. d7) 34... Nf8 35. Nxf6 gxf6 36. Rxf6 Nxg6 37. Rxg6 Qxb2 38. Qxe7 {with
a won game.}))) 31. Nc1 c3 32. b3 Qc6 {With nothing to show for his pains...
--- Black's new plan has taken shape: ...a5-a4xb3 and ...Ra8-a3, destroying
the opponent's queenside. White's sole hope is to storm the king's fortress,
and Pillsbury does this with enormous energy, inventiveness and mastery.} 33.
h3 $1 {Signalling the start of the offensive. 'At first sight there is no
danger threatening Black. Moreover, the advantage is on his side: for the
passed c-pawn there are only two more steps to the queening square. But White,
after calculating the variations with mathematical precision, calmly and
literally tempo by tempo develops his attack.' (Gunsberg)} a5 34. Nh2 a4 35. g4
$1 axb3 $6 ({In my opinion,} 35... h6 $5 {was more circumspect.}) 36. axb3 Ra8
(36... h6 $5 37. Ra2 Ra8 {.}) 37. g5 Ra3 {Consistently playing for a win.} ({
After} 37... fxg5 38. Qxg5 Nf6 (38... Qf6 39. Qg3 {intending Ng4}) 39. Ng4 Qd6
40. Rg2 $1 {White can breathe more easily: for the moment his b3-pawn is not
hanging.}) 38. Ng4 Bxb3 $2 ({But strong here was the prophylactic} 38... fxg5
$1 39. Qxg5 Nf6 40. Rg2 Kf8 $1 {(Chigorin), for example:} 41. Ne5 Qa6 $1 42. h4
(42. Ne2 $2 Ra1 $1) 42... Bxb3 43. h5 Bc4 44. h6 $6 Bxf1 45. hxg7+ Kg8 46. Ng4
Nxg4 47. Qxe7 Qc8 48. Rxg4 Bh3 49. Qxb4 Bxg4 50. Qxa3 Qxf5 51. Qxc3 Qf3 {, and
this wild confrontation concludes to Black's advantage.}) (38... Kh8 $6 39. Rg2
) (38... Rxb3 $2 39. Nxb3 Bxb3 40. Rg2 Kh8 41. gxf6 gxf6 42. Ne5 $1 Nxe5 43.
dxe5 {and wins.}) 39. Rg2 $1 Kh8 ({It is now too late for} 39... fxg5 40. Qxg5
Kf8 {in view of} 41. f6 $1 {.}) 40. gxf6 gxf6 $6 ({'If} 40... Nxf6 {White wins
by} 41. Ne5 Qd6 42. Ng6+ Kg8 43. Nxe7+ Qxe7 44. Nxb3 Rxb3 45. Kh1 -- (45... Ra3
46. Rfg1 -- (46... Ra6 47. Rxg7+ Qxg7 48. Rxg7+ Kxg7 49. Qg3+ {, and Black is
unable to advance either his b-pawn or his c-pawn without losing one of them.'
(Chigorin)}) ({. An important refinement: after 46...Ra6? there is 47 Qh6!,
and Black also fails to save the game with} 46... Kf8 47. Rxg7 $1 Qxg7 48. Rxg7
Kxg7 49. Qg3+ Kf7 50. Qc7+ Kg8 51. Qc4+ Kg7 52. Qxb4 Ra1+ 53. Kg2 Ra2+ 54. Kg3
c2 55. Qb7+ Kh6 56. Qc8 $1 Kg7 57. Kf4 {.} (57. --))) ({. However, after} 45...
c2 $1 {(instead of 45...Ra3?)} 46. Rxc2 Rxe3 47. Rc8+ Kf7 48. Rfc1 Rc3 49.
R1xc3 bxc3 50. Rxc3 Qa7 {Black would have had a chance of holding on (} 51. Qg3
Qa1+ 52. Kg2 Qb2+ 53. Kf1 Qb5+ {is equal).})) 41. Nxb3 Rxb3 42. Nh6 Rg7 ({If}
42... Qc8) ({or} 42... Qd5 {, then} 43. Qg4 {.}) 43. Rxg7 Kxg7 {It appears
that White's attack has petered out and that the black pawns are about to have
their say...} 44. Qg3+ $1 {A highly unpleasant surprise!} (44. Kh1 $2 Qc4 45.
Rg1+ Kf8 46. Rg8+ Qxg8 47. Nxg8 c2 {would have led to directly the opposite
result.}) 44... Kxh6 (44... Kf8 $2 45. Qg8+ {and Qxb3.}) 45. Kh1 $1 {With the
deadly threat of Rg1;} ({whereas} 45. Rf4 $2 Rb1+ 46. Kg2 Rb2+ {would have led
only to a draw.}) 45... Qd5 ({If} 45... c2 $2 {, then} 46. Rg1 c1=Q 47. Qh4# {.
}) ({Black also fails to save the game by} 45... Nf8 46. Rg1 Qe8 47. Qg7+ Kh5
48. Qxf6 Ne6 49. fxe6 {.}) 46. Rg1 Qxf5 47. Qh4+ Qh5 48. Qf4+ Qg5 49. Rxg5 fxg5
50. Qd6+ Kh5 {'The tragedy for Black is that after either king move White
captures the knight either with check, or with the threat of an immediate mate,
thereby forestalling ...c3-c2.' (Réti)} 51. Qxd7 c2 $6 ({Avoiding the agonising
} 51... Rb1+ 52. Kh2 Rb2+ 53. Kg3 Kg6 54. Qe6+ {etc.}) 52. Qxh7# {. Chigorin
and the newly-fledged world champion Lasker performed no less brilliantly in
Hastings. Three rounds before the finish the position of the leaders was as
follows: Lasker - 14˝ out of 18(!); Chigorin - 14; Pillsbury - 13˝;
Tarrasch - 11 etc. --- At this point there occurred the first meeting of the
fundamental opponents - Tarrasch and Lasker, which greatly influenced the
outcome of the entire tournament. With Black the champion erected the
currently fashionable 'Berlin Wall' 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Nf6 4 0-0 Nxe4 5
d4 Nd6 6 Bxc6 dxc6 7 dxe5 Nf5 8 Qxd8+ Kxd8 - Game No.47), but White went all
out for a win, and the battle in this seemingly tedious endgame became
extremely sharp.} 1-0
[Event "39: Hastings"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1895.??.??"]
[Round "19"]
[White "Tarrasch, S."]
[Black "Lasker, Em"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C67"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "97"]
[EventDate "1895.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O Nxe4 5. d4 Nd6 6. Bxc6 dxc6 7. dxe5 Nf5
8. Qxd8+ Kxd8 9. Nc3 h6 10. Bd2 Be6 11. Ne2 c5 12. Bc3 g5 13. Nd2 Kd7 14. f4
Kc6 15. Rf2 Rg8 16. fxg5 hxg5 17. Ne4 Rd8 18. N2g3 Nd4 19. Bd2 Nxc2 20. Rc1 Nd4
21. Bxg5 Rd5 22. Be3 Bg7 23. Bxd4 Rxd4 24. Rxc5+ Kb6 25. Rfc2 Rd5 26. Rxd5 Bxd5
27. Nc3 Bc6 28. Rf2 Bxe5 29. Rxf7 Rd8 30. Nge4 Bxe4 31. Nxe4 Bxb2 32. g4 c5 33.
Kg2 c4 34. Rf2 Bd4 35. Rd2 Kb5 36. Nc3+ Kb4 37. Ne2 Bf6 38. Rxd8 Bxd8 39. Kf3
c3 40. Ke4 Kc4 41. Kf5 $6 {A desperate move!} ({If} 41. Nd4 b5 42. Nc2 b4 43.
Ne3+ Kc5 {the bishop is stronger than the knight}) ({White was also not
satisfied with the drawn but unpleasant queen ending a pawn down after} 41.
Nxc3 Kxc3 42. Kf5 b5 43. g5 Bxg5 44. Kxg5 Kb2 45. h4 Kxa2 46. h5 b4 47. h6 b3
48. h7 b2 49. h8=Q b1=Q {.}) 41... Kd3 $4 ({Lasker, Tarrasch and other
commentators thought that} 41... c2 $1 {would have given Black only a draw:}
42. g5 Bxg5 43. Kxg5 Kd3 44. Nc1+ Kd2 45. Nb3+ Kd1 46. a4 (46. h4 b5 $1 47. h5
a5 48. h6 a4) 46... a5 47. Kf5 (47. h4 b5 $1) 47... b5 48. axb5 a4 49. Nc1 Kxc1
50. b6 a3 51. b7 a2 52. b8=Q a1=Q 53. Qf4+ Kb1 54. Qe4 {'etc.' However, after}
Qc3 {he wins! Those wishing to learn the winning method can look in Averbakh's
'Comprehensive Chess Endings'...}) 42. Nxc3 $1 {(now there is no stopping the
passed pawns)} Kxc3 43. g5 Bb6 44. h4 Bd4 45. h5 b5 46. h6 b4 47. g6 a5 48. g7
a4 49. g8=Q {. In the following round Chigorin also crashed, losing in 16
moves to Janowski (Game No.32). But Pillsbury won his three concluding games
and, to general astonishment, finished first, ahead of the entire formidable
'star quartet'! Chigorin was half a point behind, Lasker a point, and Tarrasch
and Steinitz even further... --- Thus Hastings 1895 did not clarify the
situation at the top, but further confused it: the world champion did not
manage to demonstrate his superiority, and in addition a new challenger
appeared. 'Pillsbury is a brilliant player, and his play is full of deep ideas,
' wrote Tarrasch. 'But in my view it was the famous Russian master Chigorin
who played best of all... The third prize-winner Lasker showed for the first
time that he too is a very strong player. All his previous successes were
exaggerated by unparalleled publicity...'} 1-0
[Event "40: St Petersburg"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1895.??.??"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Lasker, Em"]
[Black "Pillsbury, H."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C42"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "66"]
[EventDate "1895.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{It was a pity that the fourth prize-winner Tarrasch, again citing busyness at
work, avoided a decisive fight with his rivals in the St Petersburg
match-tournament (1895/96). This was the first super-elite competition in
history, a kind of prototype of the world championship match-tournament of
1948. The four strongest - Lasker, Steinitz, Chigorin and Pillsbury - played
one another six times. Need it be said what prestige and what rights would be
acquired in the eyes of the chess world by the winner of such a battle?! ---
The first half of the match-tournament developed into a fierce race between
Pillsbury and Lasker. Initially the lead was seized by the energetic
23-year-old American. He was paired against the world champion in the very
first round. As White Lasker played extremely badly against a Petroff Defence
and suffered an opening catastrophe.} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3
Nxe4 5. d4 d5 6. Bd3 Be7 7. O-O Nc6 8. Re1 Bg4 9. c3 f5 10. Qb3 O-O 11. Bf4
Bxf3 12. gxf3 Ng5 13. Kg2 Qd7 14. Qc2 Ne6 15. Bc1 Bd6 16. Nd2 Rae8 17. Nf1
Nexd4 $1 18. Qd1 Rxe1 19. Qxe1 Nxf3 $3 20. Kxf3 ({If} 20. Qd1 {, then} Nce5 {.}
) 20... f4 $1 (20... Ne5+ $5 21. Ke2 Qe8 {is also good.}) 21. Qd1 ({After} 21.
Ke2 Re8+ 22. Ne3 fxe3 23. fxe3 {there is the spectacular} Nd4+ $3 (23... Qg4+
24. Kd2 Nd4 $1 {is also possible}) 24. Kd1 (24. cxd4 Qg4+ 25. Kd2 ({or} 25. Kf2
Rf8+) 25... Bb4+) 24... Qa4+ 25. b3 Nxb3 {and wins.}) 21... Ne5+ 22. Ke2 Qg4+
23. Kd2 Qxd1+ 24. Kxd1 Nxd3 {... Black won.} 25. Ke2 Ne5 26. f3 Re8 27. b3 Ng4+
28. Kd2 Ne3 29. Bb2 Ng2 30. h3 Bc5 31. Nh2 Bf2 32. c4 dxc4 33. bxc4 h5 {. In
the second cycle Pillsbury again defeated Lasker(!), this time in a classic
ending with knight against bishop (cf. the note to the ninth move in Game No.55), and in the third cycle he gained a draw without particular anxiety, once
more in a Petroff Defence. Apart from that he crushed Chigorin three times and
only the 'old lion' Steinitz withstood the American's pressure. In turn,
Lasker scored 2˝ out of 3 against Steinitz and Chigorin, and after three
cycles the scores were as follows: Pillsbury - 6˝ out of 9; Lasker 5˝;
Steinitz - 4˝; Chigorin - 1˝.} 0-1
[Event "41: St Petersburg"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1896.??.??"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Pillsbury, H."]
[Black "Lasker, Em"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D50"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "62"]
[EventDate "1895.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{Halfway through the tournament a five-day break was announced. The
participants greeted the New Year and - as Tarrasch had done a couple of years
earlier, when he played his match in St Petersburg with Chigorin - later
remembered for a long time the extraordinary hospitality of the organisers
together with all the delights of life in the Capital. The latter, however,
did not apply to Chigorin, who, as director of the St Petersburg Chess Society,
bore a heavy burden of administrative problems throughout the tournament...
--- And then came the day of the fourth meeting between the leader and the
world champion, 4 January 1896. Had Pillsbury won - and he was playing White -
the outcome of the match-tournament was would have been practically decided.
The ultra-talented American would have clearly become the No.1 challenger, and
Lasker would possibly have had to play an official match with him for the
world championship, under conditions highly unfavourable for him... But things
turned out differently.} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c5 5. Bg5 {
Pillsbury's favourite move.} ({Nowadays} 5. cxd5) ({or} 5. e3 {is preferred.})
5... cxd4 6. Qxd4 ({After} 6. Nxd4 {, as was established only in the 20th
century,} e5 {equalises.}) 6... Nc6 ({Quieter is} 6... Be7 $5 {(Lasker)} 7.
cxd5 exd5 8. e3 Nc6 {and ...0-0.}) 7. Qh4 $6 (7. Bxf6 $1 {is correct - Game No.42.}) 7... Be7 ({The pedigree of this variation extends from the game
Blackburne-Schowalter (New York 1889), which went} 7... d4 $2 8. O-O-O e5 9. e3
Bc5 10. exd4 exd4 11. Nd5 Qa5 12. Bxf6 gxf6 13. Nxf6+ Kf8 14. Re1 Be6 15. Rxe6
$1 fxe6 16. Qh6+ {with crushing threats.}) 8. O-O-O $6 {A risky idea.} ({
However, if} 8. e3 {, then} Qb6 {is unpleasant, for example:} 9. Rb1 h6 $1 10.
Bd3 dxc4 11. Bxc4 O-O {, and} 12. Bxh6 $6 gxh6 13. Qxh6 {is bad in view of} Qc5
$1 {.}) ({Instead} 8. cxd5 exd5 9. Rd1 {is perhaps more solid, but it was not
for this that Pillsbury played 5 Bg5 and 6 Qxd4.}) 8... Qa5 9. e3 ({In one of
the simultaneous displays he gave in 1900, Lasker risked} 9. cxd5 exd5 10. e3
Be6 11. Nd4 Rc8 12. Kb1 h6 13. Nxe6 fxe6 14. Qh3 Kf7 15. Bf4 {, but he could
have paid for this in the event of} Nb4 $1 16. a3 Rxc3 {.}) 9... Bd7 10. Kb1 h6
$1 {'A seemingly simple, but basically brilliant move.' (B. Vainstein) 'Thus
either the bishop must be exchanged or the white queen stay where it is.'
(Lasker)} 11. cxd5 exd5 12. Nd4 O-O $1 13. Bxf6 ({If} 13. Bxh6 $6 gxh6 14. Qxh6
{there is the adequate reply} Ne4 {.}) 13... Bxf6 14. Qh5 ({Not even
contemplating the restrained} 14. Qg3 {.}) 14... Nxd4 15. exd4 Be6 $1 {(Lasker
already knows how to reply to the advance of the f-pawn)} 16. f4 (16. Ne4 $2
Bxd4 $1) (16. Bc4 Rfd8 $1 {and ...Rac8.}) 16... Rac8 17. f5 Rxc3 $3 {A fine,
deeply calculated combination, which any grandmaster could be proud of even
today. It is beyond the powers of even a strong computer - here additional
forces are needed...} ({Whereas after the prosaic} 17... Bd7 18. Qf3 {the
chances would have become double-edged.}) 18. fxe6 ({Pillsbury avoids} 18. bxc3
-- ({, not wishing to go into a depressing endgame with problematic drawing
chances after} 18... Qxc3 19. Qf3 $1 (19. fxe6 $2 Qb4+ {and ...Rc8}) 19... Qxf3
$1 ({less clear is} 19... Qb4+ 20. Qb3 Bxf5+ 21. Bd3 Qxb3+ 22. axb3 Bg4 23. Rd2
Bxd4 24. Bc2 Bf6 25. Rxd5 Rc8 26. Bf5) 20. gxf3 Bxf5+ 21. Bd3 Bh3 {.}) ({. Or
perhaps he had noticed the unexpected quiet move} 18... Bd7 $3 {, when after}
19. Qf3 Rc8 {Black has a decisive attack:} 20. Rc1 (20. Kb2 Bxf5 21. Be2 Be4
22. Qh3 Rc6) (20. Rd3 Bb5 21. Re3 Bxd4 22. Bxb5 (22. cxd4 Qb4+ 23. Rb3 Qe1+)
22... Qxb5+ 23. Ka1 Bxe3 (23... Bf6 $5 24. Rb1 Qc5 25. Rxb7 d4) 24. Qxe3 Qc4
25. Kb2 Rc6) 20... Bxd4 21. cxd4 Bxf5+ {and ...Qb4+.})) 18... Ra3 $3 {The
point of the combination! This paradoxical rook sacrifice forces the white
king to begin a fight for its own existence.} 19. exf7+ $2 ({The seemingly
tempting} 19. e7 $2 {also fails to disrupt the coordination of the black
pieces -} Re8 $1 ({after} 19... Rc8 $4 20. Qf5 $1 {the queen returns to the
defence}) 20. bxa3 Qb6+ 21. Kc2 (21. Ka1 Bxd4+ {and ...Rxe7}) 21... Rc8+ 22.
Kd2 Bxd4 {and White has no defence:} 23. e8=Q+ ({or} 23. Ke2 Qe6+ 24. Kf3 Qe3+
25. Kg4 g6 $1 26. Qxd5 h5+ {with mate}) 23... Rxe8 24. Bd3 Qa5+ 25. Kc1 Rc8+ {.
}) ({It also seems hopeless to play} 19. bxa3 $1 Qb6+ 20. Kc2 (20. Ka1 $2 Bxd4+
21. Rxd4 Qxd4+ 22. Kb1 fxe6 $1 23. Be2 Qe4+ 24. Ka1 Rf2 {with a winning attack:
} 25. Re1 Qd4+ 26. Kb1 Qd2) 20... Rc8+ 21. Kd2 Qxd4+ 22. Ke1 (22. Bd3 $2 Rc2+
$1 23. Kxc2 Qb2#) 22... Qc3+ {, but the e6-pawn serves as a shield for the
king and by the sequence} 23. Ke2 ({or} 23. Rd2 Qe3+ (23... fxe6 24. Qe2 Bg5
25. Qxe6+ Kh8 26. Qe2 Qa1+) 24. Kd1 Bb2 25. Qxf7+ Kh8 26. Bc4 $1 Rxc4 27. Qf8+
Kh7 28. Qf5+ {White gains a draw}) 23... Qc2+ 24. Rd2 Qe4+ 25. Kd1 $1 ({but
not instead} 25. Kf2 $2 {when the continuation is} Bd4+ 26. Kg3 Rc3+) 25...
Qb1+ 26. Ke2 {.}) 19... Rxf7 20. bxa3 Qb6+ 21. Bb5 $1 {The best chance.} ({Both
} 21. Ka1 Bxd4+) ({and} 21. Kc2 Rc7+ 22. Kd2 Qxd4+ 23. Ke1 Qc3+ $1 24. Rd2 Re7+
25. Be2 Bg5 {were hopeless.}) 21... Qxb5+ 22. Ka1 Rc7 $2 {What a pity...} ({
After spending masses of energy and creative effort, Lasker misses a simple
win -} 22... Qc4 $1 {, for example:} 23. Rd2 ({or} 23. Qg4 Re7 $1 {
(threatening ...Re4 or ...Re2)} 24. Rhe1 Bxd4+ 25. Qxd4 Rxe1 {etc.}) 23... Qc3+
{.}) 23. Rd2 Rc4 24. Rhd1 $2 {An error in reply.} (24. Qe2 $6 Qb6 $1 25. Rhd1
Rxd4 26. Rxd4 Bxd4+ 27. Rxd4 Qxd4+ 28. Kb1 Qe4+ {was also poor}) ({but a
pretty draw would have resulted from} 24. Re1 $1 Qa5 $1 (24... Rxd4 $2 25. Re8+
Kh7 26. Qf5+ g6 27. Qxf6 Qxe8 28. Qxd4 {wins for White}) 25. Re8+ Kh7 26. Qf5+
g6 27. Re7+ $3 (27. Qxf6 $4 Rc1+ 28. Kb2 Qc3#) 27... Bxe7 28. Qf7+ Kh8 29. Qe8+
Kg7 30. Qxe7+ {with perpetual.}) 24... Rc3 $2 {Another serious mistake, which
was also not pointed out by the commentators.} (24... Qc6 $1 {would have won,
for example:} 25. Kb1 Bg5 26. Qe2 Bxd2 27. Qxd2 Qd6 {etc.}) 25. Qf5 ({Possible
was} 25. Re1 $5 Qc4 (25... Kf8 $2 26. Rf2 $1 {and Rxf6+}) ({while after} 25...
Rc8 $6 {White has a clear advantage}) 26. Re8+ Kh7 27. Qf5+ g6 28. Re7+ $1 {,
forcing a draw:} Bg7 ({or} 28... Bxe7 29. Qf7+ Kh8 30. Qe8+) 29. Rxg7+ Kxg7 30.
Qd7+ Kg8 ({but not} 30... Kf6 $2 31. Rf2+ Kg5 32. Qe7+ {etc.})) 25... Qc4 (
25... Rxa3 $6 26. Qc8+ Kf7 27. Rb2 {was unclear.}) 26. Kb2 $2 {Lasker's
time-trouble haste had upset Pillsbury's equanimity: he sensed that his
opponent had lost the thread of the game and... he grew nervous.} ({And yet}
26. Kb1 $1 Rxa3 27. Rc1 $1 {, would have set Black unpleasant problems:} ({
previously they considered only the insipid} 27. Qc2 Rc3 28. Qb2 b5 $1 29. Rc2
$1 Bxd4 30. Rxc3 Bxc3) 27... Qb5+ (27... Rc3 $2 28. Rxc3 Qxc3 29. Qxd5+ Kh8 30.
Rd1) 28. Ka1 Qa5 29. Rc8+ Kf7 30. Rb2 {, when it is now White who has an
attack. A couple of accurate moves - and chess history could have taken a
different course...}) (26. Qf1 $6 Qa4) (26. Qb1 Rxa3 27. Qb2 Rc3 28. Kb1 b5 {
is level.}) 26... Rxa3 $3 {This is some kind of mysticism: the second rook is
also sacrificed on the very same square! I think that Pillsbury must have been
unable to believe his eyes...} 27. Qe6+ Kh7 $2 (27... Kh8 {would have won
cleanly -} 28. Qe8+ (28. Kb1 Bxd4) 28... Kh7 29. Kb1 (29. Kxa3 $2 Qc3+ 30. Ka4
a6) 29... Bxd4 30. Qe2 Qb4+ 31. Rb2 Bxb2 32. Qxb2 Qe4+ 33. Ka1 Ra4 {etc.}) 28.
Kxa3 $4 {Worn out by Black's ferocious onslaught, Pillsbury walks into a mate.}
({Also bad was} 28. Kb1 $2 Bxd4 $1 29. Qf5+ g6 $1 30. Qd7+ Bg7 {.}) ({But for
some reason no one has pointed out the saving} 28. Qf5+ $1 Kh8 29. Kb1 $1 {,
for example:} Rxa2 $1 (29... Bxd4 30. Qf8+ {and Qxa3}) 30. Rxa2 Qb3+ 31. Kc1
Bg5+ (31... Qxa2 32. Qc8+ Kh7 33. Qc2+) 32. Rad2 Qc3+ 33. Qc2 Qa1+ 34. Qb1 Qc3+
{with perpetual check.}) 28... Qc3+ 29. Ka4 b5+ $1 {(the final point)} 30. Kxb5
Qc4+ 31. Ka5 Bd8+ ({In view of} 31... Bd8+ 32. Qb6 Bxb6# {, White resigned.
Later Lasker called this game the best of his career.}) (31... -- {A
tremendous human drama, which was also of historic importance! That day Caissa
chose Lasker - and, as we now know, the chess goddess was not mistaken. Her
cruel whim influenced the fate of both of these great players. --- Pillsbury
was so broken-hearted that he suffered a further five defeats(!) and in the
end did not even take second place. According to some sources, it was then
that he began to show the first signs of the illness that ten years later was
to send him to his grave. It was written that a sudden diagnosis, supplied the
very day before this fatal game, shocked the young master. At any event, he
himself complained of serious headaches, sleeplessness and neurosis, due to
which several of his games were moved to different days... --- But the
inspired champion convincingly won both the match-tournament (1. Lasker 11˝
out of 18; 2. Steinitz - 9˝; 3. Pillsbury 8; 4. Chigorin - 7), and the
super-tournament Nuremberg 1896 (1. Lasker - 13˝ out of 18; 2. Maróczy 12˝; 3-4. Pillsbury and Tarrasch - 12; 5. Janowski - 11˝; 6. Steinitz - 11),
and then also the return match with Steinitz (Moscow 1896/97) with a score of
+10 -2 =5 - and he held the crown for a further quarter of a century!}) 0-1
[Event "42: Cambridge Springs"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1904.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Pillsbury, H."]
[Black "Lasker, Em"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D50"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "59"]
[EventDate "1904.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{Who knows for how long Pillsbury suffered that tragic day in St Petersburg,
remembering his missed chances. Later, as one of the historians aptly put it,
he spent his remaining life unsuccessfully trying to catch up with the
Pillsbury of 1895 - and he was unable to do so: he was trying to catch himself,
while Lasker was moving forward... --- Six months later in Nuremberg he again
finished behind Lasker, although he gained brilliant revenge in their
individual game, receiving a special prize from Rothschild for his fine win
over the champion. And eight years later in Cambridge Springs, although
already in far from his best form, he found in himself the strength for a
final upsurge of chess thought.} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c5 5. Bg5
cxd4 6. Qxd4 Nc6 (6... Be7 $5 {.}) 7. Bxf6 $1 {A new move, which had awaited
its hour for many years.} gxf6 ({It transpires that White is better after} 7...
Nxd4 8. Bxd8 Nc2+ (8... Nxf3+ 9. gxf3 Kxd8 10. cxd5 exd5 11. O-O-O ({or
immediately} 11. Nxd5 {with an extra pawn})) 9. Kd2 Nxa1 10. Bc7 (10. Bh4 Bd6
11. e3) 10... dxc4 11. e4 Nb3+ 12. axb3 cxb3 13. Bc4 {etc.}) 8. Qh4 dxc4 (8...
d4 $6 9. O-O-O $1 e5 10. e3 {.}) 9. Rd1 ({If} 9. Qxc4 {, then} Qb6 {is good}) (
{while if} 9. e3 {-} f5 10. Qxd8+ Nxd8 11. Bxc4 Nc6 12. Bb5 Bd7 13. Ke2 a6 14.
Bxc6 Bxc6 15. Rhd1 Bg7 16. Rac1 Ke7 17. g3 Rhd8 {is equal (Bogoljubow-Alekhine,
Munich 1942).}) 9... Bd7 10. e3 {The critical position of the variation.} Ne5
$6 {Lasker falters!} ({Later he recommended} 10... f5 {, for example:} 11. Qg3
({or} 11. Qxc4 Bg7 12. Qb3 Bxc3+ 13. Qxc3 Qa5 14. Qxa5 Nxa5 15. Ne5 Ba4 16. Rd4
Nc6 17. Rxa4 Nxe5 18. Bb5+ Ke7 {with equal chances
(Duz-Khotimirsky-Znosko-Borovsky, St Petersburg 1905)}) 11... h5 (11... Qb6 $5)
12. Bxc4 h4 13. Qf4 Rg8 14. Ne5 Nxe5 15. Qxe5 Bg7 $5 (15... a6 16. O-O Rc8 {is
level}) 16. Qd6 Bxc3+ 17. bxc3 Rxg2 18. Qb4 Qb6 {with a comfortable game.}) ({
Euwe suggested} 10... Be7 {. After} 11. Bxc4 Qa5 12. O-O f5 13. Qf4 O-O-O {and
...Rhg8-g6 Black has clear counterplay (Fuster-Cuellar, Havana 1966).}) 11.
Nxe5 ({After} 11. Be2 $6 Rc8 12. Nxe5 fxe5 13. Qg3 Qa5 {there is no real
compensation for the pawn (Guimard-Grau, Argentina 1938).}) 11... fxe5 12. Qxc4
Qb6 13. Be2 $1 {A bold and fully justified pawn sacrifice. White quickly
completes his development and throws all his forces against the enemy king.} ({
Much more passive was} 13. Rd2 Bc6 {.}) 13... Qxb2 14. O-O $1 (14. Bh5 Rc8 $1
15. Bxf7+ Kxf7 16. Rxd7+ Be7 17. Nd1 Rxc4 18. Nxb2 Rc1+ 19. Nd1 Rd8 {was
unclear.}) 14... Rc8 15. Qd3 Rc7 ({If} 15... Bc6 {, then} 16. Bf3 {.}) 16. Ne4
Be7 ({Another defensive try was} 16... Qc2 $5 17. Nd6+ Bxd6 18. Qxd6 Qc5 {.})
17. Nd6+ ({Inadequate was} 17. Rd2 Qb6 18. Rb1 Qc6 19. Bf3 Qa6 $1 20. Qxa6 bxa6
{with a tenable endgame.}) 17... Kf8 ({'After} 17... Bxd6 18. Qxd6 Qb6 (18...
Qc3 $2 19. Bb5 $1) 19. Qxe5 {Black's position is catastrophic:} Rg8 (19... O-O
20. Rb1 ({or} 20. Qg5+ $5 Kh8 21. Qf6+ Kg8 22. Rd4 e5 23. Qxe5)) 20. Rd6 ({
White should play} 20. Bh5 $1 Qc6 21. e4 {with an attack (bad is} Qc5 $2 22.
Bxf7+ Kxf7 23. Rxd7+ {)}) 20... Qc5 21. Qxc5 Rxc5 22. Rfd1 Rc7 $2 (22... Ba4 $1
{is stronger}) 23. Rxd7 Rxd7 24. Bb5 {.' (B. Vainstein)}) 18. Nc4 Qb5 19. f4 $1
exf4 $2 ({Far more solid was} 19... Bc6 20. fxe5 (20. Nxe5 $6 Qxd3 21. Bxd3 Bc5
$1) 20... Qd5 21. Qxd5 Bxd5 22. Nd6 Bxd6 23. exd6 Rc2 24. Bf3 {, when White
has only a minimal advantage.}) 20. Qd4 $1 f6 ({If} 20... Rg8) ({or} 20... Kg8
{, then also} 21. Qxf4 {.}) 21. Qxf4 Qc5 ({But not} 21... Rc8 22. Qd4 Bc6 23.
Rxf6+ $1 {.}) 22. Ne5 Be8 23. Ng4 (23. Rd4 {was also interesting, for example:}
Kg7 ({or} 23... Rg8 24. Rc4 Qd5 25. Bf3 Qxe5 26. Qxe5 Rxc4 27. Qxe6) 24. Ng4 e5
25. Qh6+ Kg8 26. Bc4+ {and wins.}) 23... f5 ({In view of what follows, more
tenacious was} 23... Bg6 $1 24. Nxf6 (24. Rd4 Rc6 25. Nxf6 Kg7 26. Nd7 Qg5)
24... Kg7 25. Nd7 Qc3 26. Bg4 {with an attacking position for White.}) 24. Qh6+
Kf7 {The culmination of this gripping duel.} 25. Bc4 $3 {The right way!} (25.
Rxf5+ Qxf5 (25... exf5 $2 26. Bc4+ $1 Qxc4 27. Ne5+ {and Nxc4}) 26. Rf1 Rc5 $1
{was unclear.}) 25... Rc6 (25... Qxc4 $2 26. Ne5+ {.}) 26. Rxf5+ $1 Qxf5 27.
Rf1 Qxf1+ ({Or} 27... Rxc4 28. Rxf5+ exf5 29. Ne5+ {.}) 28. Kxf1 Bd7 29. Qh5+
Kg8 30. Ne5 {. A fine portrait of the 'American meteor' was painted many years
later by Alekhine: 'Pillsbury was, after Morphy, undoubtedly the greatest
chess talent of the USA. However, their careers were completely different:
whereas Morphy slowly, quietly and joylessly extinguished the candle of his
life, Pillsbury aspired for the candle of his life to burn constantly at both
ends. "Wine, women and not harmless songs, but strong cigars" - this was
Pillsbury's principle of life. And this together with simultaneous blindfold
displays, playing whist, and again blindfold games of draughts...' --- Indeed
something has to be said about Pillsbury's sensational displays without
looking at the board. He toured the whole world giving them, playing in excess
of a thousand 'blindfold' games in more than seventy displays! He held the
world record at that time, established in 1902 in Moscow - 22 boards (+17 -1
=4). This display impressed the nine-year-old Alekhine, who later recalled:
'Pillsbury's achievement had a stunning effect on me, as it did on the entire
chess world.' And somewhat earlier a similar display in Havana was observed by
the 11-year-old Capablanca - and he also remembered it all his life:
'Pillsbury staggered everyone with the strength and subtlety of his brilliant
play.' --- On the other hand, Lasker thought that playing blindfold damaged
Pillsbury's already undermined health, that 'the struggle of life was made
very hard for him,' and he reproached the chess world for the fact that, 'it
made the meagre prizes it gave him dependent on too much effort and exertion...
'} (30. -- {In the summer of 1906 a fatal illness 'announced mate' to the
legendary American. Pillsbury died without reaching the age of 34 and remained
as one of the brightest stars ever to sparkle in the chess firmament. The
overall score of his dramatic meetings with Lasker was +5 -5 =4, and one can
only bitterly regret that they did not in fact play a match for the world
crown - a match about which there was much discussion during the transition
between the 19th and 20th centuries... --- 'A genius has gone,' the world
champion mourned in his Lasker's Chess Magazine... 'Those who knew Pillsbury
in his days of early youth will never forget the striking, almost beautiful
face which he bore in those days. The eyes had that expression which speaks of
mentality, dreaming, poetic sentiment, and righteousness. Some called them
angelic. They gave one an idea how the eyes of the old prophets must have
looked. His countenance had the stamp of natural nobility. From the long line
of his Puritan ancestors he had inherited moral inflexibility, muscles of
steel bred by work and a sane life, and a capacity for inspiration that in the
olden days might have been religious, but in the modern man spent itself on
his one great love, Caissa.'}) 1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "The Lasker Defence"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.06"]
{The Lasker Defence: Thus, after the triumphal year 1896 Lasker became not
only the nominal, but also the generally acknowledged chess king. He was
distinguished by his phenomenal tenacity, tactical resourcefulness, fine
endgame technique and subtle psychological feeling. Some time earlier
Schiffers had commented that Lasker 'has no weak aspects at all and is himself
capable of determining and exploiting the opponent's weak aspect.'} 1. -- {
Lasker had an indifferent attitude to the study of opening theory, considering
that the main thing was to achieve playable positions. Even so, he devised at
least two defences that bear his name: in the Queen's Gambit (cf. his match
with Marshall, 1907) and in the Evans Gambit - here his defensive plan put the
'opening of the 19th century' out of action for almost 100 years!} *
[Event "43: St Petersburg"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1895.??.??"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Chigorin, M."]
[Black "Lasker, Em"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C52"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "52"]
[EventDate "1895.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Bc5 ({For putting the
following idea into practice,} 5... Ba5 $1 {is more accurate.}) 6. O-O (6. d4
$1 {.}) 6... d6 7. d4 Bb6 $1 {The value of this move, which was tried back in
one of the match games McDonnell-La Bourdonnais (London 1834/35), went
unnoticed until Lasker played it.} 8. a4 ({Alas, Mikhail Ivanovich avoids the
current} 8. dxe5 {(in the 20th century 8 Ba3 and 8 h3 were also played)} dxe5
$1 (8... Bg4) (8... Be6) ({and} 8... Nge7 {, which have also occurred, are
less natural}) 9. -- {with two possible continuations:} (9. Qxd8+ Nxd8 10. Nxe5
Be6 {, and in view of the weakness of White's queenside pawns, Black has a
favourable endgame (Chigorin-Pillsbury, London 1899)}) (9. Qb3 Qf6 (9... Qe7 $5
10. Ba3 Qf6) 10. Bg5 (10. Rd1 h6 $5) (10. Bb5 h6 ({or} 10... Be6 11. Qa4 Bd7))
10... Qg6 11. Bd5 (11. Bb5 f6 12. Bh4 Nge7 {etc.}) 11... Nge7 (11... f6 $5 12.
Bxg8 Na5 13. Nxe5 fxe5 14. Qd5 Nc6 {is unclear}) 12. Bxe7 Kxe7 13. Bxc6 (13. a4
$6 Na5 14. Qa3+ Qd6 15. Nxe5 $2 Bc5 $1 {wins for Black}) 13... Qxc6 14. Nxe5
Qe6 15. Nc4 ({inferior is} 15. Nd3 Qxb3 16. axb3 Rd8 17. Nf4 c6) ({or} 15. Qa3+
Qd6 $1 16. Qxd6+ cxd6) 15... Rd8 {. Regarding this, the main variation of the
defence, the two players conducted a lively dispute on the pages of the
magazines that they edited. Chigorin believed in White's attacking resources,
whereas Lasker considered that Black's two bishops and the absence of any
weaknesses in his position promised him the advantage - for example, after} 16.
Qa3+ Ke8 {.}) (9. Nbd2 Qf6 10. Bd5 Nge7 {is unfavourable for White}) ({, and}
9. Bxf7+ $2 Kxf7 10. Nxe5+ Ke8 $1 11. Qh5+ g6 12. Nxg6 Nf6 {etc. is altogether
incorrect.})) 8... Nf6 ({Also sound is} 8... Bg4 9. Bb5 Bxf3 10. Qxf3 a6 11.
Bxc6+ bxc6 {with a good game (Swiderski-Gunsberg, Monte Carlo 1904).}) ({If}
8... exd4 {- with the idea of} 9. cxd4 ({there can follow the sharp} 9. a5 $5
Nxa5 10. Rxa5 Bxa5 11. Qb3 Qd7 12. e5 d5 13. Bxd5 c6 14. Bc4 b5 15. e6 fxe6 16.
Bxe6 Qxe6 17. Re1 Qxe1+ 18. Nxe1 {Blackburne-Gunsberg, London 1900}) 9... Bg4
10. Bb2 Qf6 {.}) 9. Bb5 ({No better is} 9. Bd5 Nxd5 10. exd5 Na5 11. dxe5 O-O
$5 12. Bg5 Qd7 13. Re1 dxe5 14. Nxe5 Qf5 15. Bh4 f6 16. Nf3 Bd7 17. Na3 Rae8 {
(Chigorin-Lipke, Vienna 1898).}) 9... a6 10. Bxc6+ bxc6 11. a5 Ba7 12. dxe5 ({
Subsequent attempts to improve White's play were unsuccessful:} 12. Nbd2 exd4
13. cxd4 O-O 14. Qc2 Bd7 15. Bb2 Re8 {with a quite healthy extra pawn
(Schiffers-Marco, Vienna 1898)}) ({or} 12. Qa4 exd4 $1 13. e5 $6 ({not
resigning himself to} 13. Qxc6+ Bd7 14. Qxa6 Nxe4) 13... dxe5 14. Ba3 e4 15.
cxd4 Bd7 16. Qc4 c5 17. Ne5 O-O 18. Qxa6 Re8 19. Nxd7 Qxd7 20. dxc5 Bxc5 {etc.
(Duz-Khotimirsky-Salwe, St Petersburg 1905).}) 12... Nxe4 13. Qe2 $2 ({
'White's planned combination is incorrect and it leads to a lost position. He
should have fought for a draw with} 13. exd6 O-O $1 (13... cxd6 14. Qe2 d5 15.
Nd4 Bxd4 16. cxd4 O-O 17. Nd2 {is not dangerous for White; excuse me: after}
Nd6 $1 {he does not have equality - G.K.}) 14. dxc7 Qxc7 15. Qe2) ({or} 13. Qa4
Nc5 14. Qxc6+ Bd7 15. Qd5 O-O 16. exd6 Bb5 17. Rd1 (17. c4 $6 c6) 17... Qxd6
18. Qxd6 cxd6 19. Be3 $1 {' (Zak) However, after} Rfc8 20. Nh4 Ne4 21. Bxa7
Rxa7 22. f3 Nxc3 23. Nxc3 Rxc3 24. Rxd6 g6 25. f4 Re7 {Black would have
retained somewhat the better prospects.}) 13... d5 14. Nd4 $2 ({Better, even
so, was} 14. Be3 O-O (14... Bg4 15. Bxa7 Rxa7 16. Qe3 Rb7 17. Nbd2) 15. Bxa7
Rxa7 16. Nd4 Bd7 17. f3 Nc5 18. Nd2 Re8 19. f4 Rb7 {, although even here
things are not easy for White.}) 14... Nxc3 $1 15. Nxc3 Bxd4 16. Qd3 (16. Bb2
Rb8 17. Na4 Bxb2 18. Nxb2 c5 {is hopeless.}) 16... c5 17. Qg3 Be6 $1 18. Bg5 ({
If} 18. Qxg7 {, then} Kd7 $1 19. Ra3 Rg8 20. Qxh7 Bxe5 {wins.}) 18... Qd7 19.
Rac1 f6 $1 {The opening of the g-file is decisive.} 20. exf6 gxf6 21. Bf4 Rg8
22. Qf3 O-O-O 23. Rfe1 ({If} 23. Ne2 {possible is either:} -- (23... Bg4 24.
Qd3 c4 25. Qxd4 Bxe2 26. Rfe1 (26. Qa7 Qc6 {wins}) 26... Rxg2+ $1 ({but not
Zak's} 26... Qg4 27. g3 Bf3 $2 {in view of} 28. Qa7 $1 Rg7 29. Rb1) 27. Kxg2 (
27. Kh1 Qh3 28. Rc3 Bf3 {etc.}) 27... Qg4+ 28. Bg3 Bf3+ 29. Kg1 Qh3) ({, or}
23... Bh3 $1 24. Bg3 (24. Ng3 Qg4 25. Qxg4+ Bxg4 26. Be3 Be5 27. Bxc5 Kd7 28.
f4 Bd6 29. Rf2 Rc8 30. Bxd6 Kxd6 31. Rd2 Rge8 32. h3 Bd7 {also wins}) 24... Bg4
25. Qd3 Bxe2 26. Qxe2 c4 27. Rfd1 Rge8 28. Qf3 Qe6 29. Kf1 Ba7 {with a won
game in each instance.})) 23... c4 24. Qe2 ({Or} 24. Bg3 Bg4 25. Qf4 Be5 {and
Black wins.}) 24... Bf5 25. Qa2 $2 {This loses instantly,} ({but} 25. Bg3 Bxc3
26. Rxc3 Rde8 27. Qd2 Rxe1+ 28. Qxe1 Bd3 29. Rc1 d4 30. Qd2 Re8 {would not
have helped}) ({and nor even the best move} 25. Qd1 $1 Bd3 26. Bg3 Bxc3 {.})
25... Rxg2+ 26. Kh1 ({Or} 26. Kxg2 Bh3+ 27. Kg1 Qg4+ 28. Bg3 Qf3 {and mates.})
26... Rxf2 {. The variation with 7...Bb6! became known in opening theory as
the 'Lasker Defence'. --- After confirming his champion's authority, Lasker
gave up chess for two and a half years and engaged in a serious study of
mathematics and philosophy. --- The major chess event of those years was the
international tournament in Vienna 1898: 1-2. Tarrasch and Pillsbury - 27˝
out of 36; 3. Janowski - 25˝; 4. Steinitz - 23˝; 5. Schlechter - 21˝;
6-7. Burn and Chigorin - 20, etc. By winning the additional match for first
prize with a score of 2˝-1˝, Tarrasch regained the reputation of No.1
challenger. However, instead of trying to obtain a match for the crown, he
left the chess stage for four years... --- Lasker's return was no less
triumphal. He won by an enormous margin the tournaments in London 1899 (1.
Lasker - 23˝ out of 27; 2-4. Maróczy, Pillsbury and Janowski - 19; 5.
Schlechter - 18; 6. Blackburne - 16˝; 7. Chigorin - 16) and Paris 1900,
where the first draws were replayed (1. Lasker - 14˝ out of 16; 2.
Pillsbury - 12˝; 3-4. Maróczy and Marshall - 12; 5. Burn - 11; 6. Chigorin
- 10˝).} 0-1
[Event "44: Vienna"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1898.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Tarrasch, S."]
[Black "Janowski, D."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B33"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "129"]
[EventDate "1898.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{Immediately after the London tournament, Lasker was challenged to a match for
the title of world champion for the first time. The challenger was the
Franco-Russian master David Janowski (1868-1927), a player of vivid attacking
style, who had defeated all the stars, including Lasker himself, many times.
Six months before London, on a tour of America, he challenged Pillsbury to a
candidates match, but nothing came of this. 'A great pity,' the press wrote.
'A match between the two brilliant young players would have brought the chess
world numerous masterpieces.' --- Speaking of masterpieces, one involuntarily
recalls the opening of the following game, which was well ahead of its time.}
1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 e6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Nf6 6. Ndb5 d6 {An audacious
challenge by the new school: Tarrasch considered this move to be... a decisive
mistake!} 7. Bf4 e5 8. Bg5 a6 9. Bxf6 ({More accurate is} 9. Na3 $1 b5 {- the
Sveshnikov or Chelyabinsk Variation!}) 9... gxf6 10. Na3 f5 $1 11. Qh5 (11. Bc4
Ra7 $1 {.}) 11... b5 $1 {Just like the second half of the 20th century...} 12.
Naxb5 $5 {(getting rid of the 'bad' knight)} axb5 13. Bxb5 Bb7 $1 14. Bc4 ({
Dubious is} 14. exf5 $6 Qa5 $1) ({or} 14. Qxf5 $6 Bg7 15. O-O-O O-O 16. Bxc6
Bxc6 17. Rd3 Bd7 $1 18. Qh5 Be6 {(Sveshnikov).}) 14... Qf6 15. Nd5 Qg6 16. Nc7+
Kd8 17. Qxg6 fxg6 18. Nxa8 Bxa8 19. Bd5 Kc7 {...and after 20...Bh6! (followed
by moving the c6-knight) White's rook and two pawns are no stronger than the
two minor pieces.} 20. b4 Be7 21. c3 Bg5 22. h4 Bf6 23. h5 g5 24. f3 Ne7 25.
Bxa8 Rxa8 26. Kd2 d5 27. a4 Kb6 28. Kc2 Rc8 29. Kb3 f4 30. Rhd1 d4 31. c4 Rb8
32. a5+ Kc6 33. b5+ Kc5 34. a6 Nc8 35. a7 Ra8 36. Ra6 Nb6 37. Rda1 Bd8 38. h6
Bc7 39. Rg1 Bd8 40. Rd1 Be7 41. Rda1 Bd8 42. R1a2 Bc7 43. R2a3 Bd8 44. Ra1 Bc7
45. Rg1 Bd8 46. g3 fxg3 47. Rxg3 Be7 48. Rg1 Nxc4 49. Rc6+ Kxb5 50. Rxc4 Rxa7
51. Rc8 Ra3+ 52. Kc2 Ra2+ 53. Kb1 Rf2 54. Ka1 d3 55. Rb1+ Bb4 56. Rb8+ Kc4 57.
R8xb4+ Kc3 58. R4b3+ Kd4 59. Rb7 Rxf3 60. Rxh7 Rh3 61. Re1 g4 62. Rd7+ Kc3 63.
h7 g3 64. Rg1 Kb3 65. Rxd3+ {. Janowski was then on the rise (slightly later
he brilliantly won the tournaments in Monte Carlo 1901 and Hanover 1902), but
his dreams of a match with Lasker had to be deferred. The champion devised a
new 'defence': first, he proposed playing to the first to win eight games
(draws not counting), whereas the obstinate challenger, 'based on the
experience of previous matches for the world championship,' insisted on
playing to 10 wins; secondly, he demanded a high monetary stake, which
Janowski despaired of collecting - it was joked that 'no one wanted to invest
money in a hopeless enterprise.' And after lengthy discussions the match did
not in fact take place...} 1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "The Indefatigable Marshall"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.06"]
{The Indefatigable Marshall: Lasker's tournament victories brought him
legendary fame. 'Lasker was there, Lasker the first, the only Lasker,' Wiener
Schachzeitung summed things up. But the champion continued his deep studies,
and in 1900 he defended his doctor's dissertation on mathematics... The
'absolute monarch' did not play tournament chess for four whole years! --- At
that time those shining in tournaments were Janowski, Pillsbury, Schlechter
and Maróczy. The last three were joint-winners at the 12th Congress of the
Germany Chess Union (Munich 1900), with Maroczy being placed third after a
play-off. There, incidentally, a highly momentous event occurred: a Union of
International Chess Masters was founded at a meeting chaired by Lasker. The
first President to be elected was Berger, and second (at a meeting in Monte
Carlo 1902) - Dr Tarrasch, and its permanent Secretary was Marco, editor of
the magazine Wiener Schachzeitung, which became the organ of the Union. And
although the activity of this organisation soon faded, even so a historic
precedent of an association of chess players, about which Staunton had dreamed
long before, had been created. --- Returning to the arena, Tarrasch reminded
everyone of his formidable strength in Monte Carlo 1903: 1. Tarrasch - 20 out
of 26; 2. Maróczy - 19; 3. Pillsbury - 18˝; 4. Schlechter - 17 etc. Alas,
this tournament was overshadowed by a scandalous incident, which in my view
has some historical significance.} 1. -- {'Chigorin arrived from St Petersburg,
' wrote the press, 'to experience something incredible: his compatriot, Prince
Dadian of Mingrelia, a well-known falsifier of "brilliant" games with unknown
players, imagining himself for a few hundred francs to be a chess patron,
threatened to resign as president of the tournament committee, if Chigorin,
who, it was said, had once offended him, was allowed to play. And the
organisers, defending the interests of the gambling-house, and not chess,
excluded Chigorin from the tournament.' An unprecedented matter! But what
about the other players? Driven by quite understandable material
considerations, they swallowed this pill. Only Janowski, who was not playing
in the tournament, was genuinely indignant: 'Did Dr Tarrasch, President of the
Union of International Chess Masters, really not have sufficient authority to
prevent this?... I request that my name be removed from the list of members of
the International Union. This decision is final.' --- In our days similar
'patrons', trying to put a good face on the matter, act in a more refined way:
they tirelessly repeat that their doors are open, and with an obliging smile
they invite you to play... under deliberately unacceptable conditions! ---
After his victory in Monte Carlo, Tarrasch at last sent a challenge to Lasker,
and they even signed an agreement to a match, planned for autumn 1904. But
fate decreed otherwise: when out skating the challenger fell and suffered a
serious fracture, and there was no question of him playing chess for many
months...} (1. -- {The super-tournament in Cambridge Springs (spring 1904),
where Lasker played after a lengthy interval, produced a super-sensation:
going through the whole tournament undefeated and scoring 13 points out of 15
(!), the winner was the young American Frank James Marshall (1877-1944). This
fearless chess cowboy, a lover of inconceivable complications and traps, had
distinguished himself back in Paris 1900, by inflicting the only defeat on the
champion. And in Cambridge Springs he finished ahead of Lasker and Janowski,
who shared second place, by two whole points! --- Marshall promptly challenged
the champion to a match, but in reply Lasker demanded a stake of not less than
$2,000 from each party. 'For what right have I to prefer one challenger to
another?' he wrote to the editor of the magazine Checkmate. 'Where could I
stop in making allowances? If a challenger cannot satisfy the conditions, it
is very likely, if not clear, that the chess world does not consider him
entitled by his record to challenge the championship, and consequently he
ought to challenge somebody else and show first that he is underrated. It
would, in the case of Marshall, for instance, not have been difficult to
arrange a match between him and Janowski on the terms proposed.' --- Later,
remembering Steinitz's sad fate, Lasker gave a clear explanation of his high
financial demands: 'If the chess world wishes to experience satisfaction,
enjoy some excitement and learn from the strongest, that is, obtain everything
that will be given to tens of thousands of modern players and to some extent
even to future generations by a match for the world championship, why should
the chess world not pay for this? After all, the players sacrifice
considerable time and health. Why should the chess world expect all these
sacrifices from the masters, why does is not create the conditions, when the
entire question, essentially, revolves around... the remuneration!'}) (1. -- {
In short, Marshall had to play a match with Janowski, who himself was eager
for a fight. This 'candidates match' (Paris 1905) was won by the American with
a score of +8 -5 =4, after which he issued a challenge to... Tarrasch! The
latter immediately accepted the challenge, declaring that he was 'gladdened by
the opportunity to play such an opponent.' They again played to the first to
win eight games (Nuremberg 1905) and Tarrasch demonstrated who was who: +8 -1
=8. He concluded his speech at the final banquet with a proud tirade: 'After
this, my new and greatest achievement, there is no reason to think that in the
chess world anyone should be considered higher than me. Indeed: it is far more
difficult to beat the young Marshall than the aged Steinitz! I am prepared to
play a match with Lasker under acceptable conditions, but I do not intend to
challenge him: that should be done by the one who has an inadequate reputation
and inadequate successes. My successes over the past 20 years are at least
equal to his successes; when two years ago I sent him a challenge, it proved
to be in vain. It is a matter for the chess world to arrange this match, if it
is of interest... The German Chess Union and the American clubs should
establish acceptable conditions, which would induce us, and if necessary force
us to join battle. If the chess world wishes, it will obtain a Lasker-Tarrasch
match.' --- Meanwhile, Marshall did not calm down: after winning the strong
tournament Nuremberg 1906, he again threw down the gauntlet to Lasker! And...
the champion 'acknowledged defeat,' by lowering the winner's prize to $1,000.
The challenger's enthusiastic American supporters gathered the necessary sum
and the Lasker-Marshall duel, the first match for the world crown for ten
years(!), became a reality. It took place early in 1907 in six USA cities.
They played, according to the new fashion, to the first to win eight games.
'If Marshall wins, will he really be acknowledged as world champion?' the
magazine Deutsche Schachzeitung asked in perplexity. --- However, Lasker did
not give his opponent the slightest chance. Knowing well Marshall's reckless,
excessively optimistic character, he quickly found 'calming measures' (see the
following game).}) *
[Event "45: World Championship, USA"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1907.??.??"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Marshall, F."]
[Black "Lasker, Em"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C65"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "98"]
[EventDate "1907.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d4 ({Only} 4. O-O {gives chances of an
advantage.}) 4... exd4 5. O-O Be7 (5... a6 $5 {.}) 6. e5 ({The alternative is}
6. Qe2 O-O 7. e5 Ne8 8. Rd1 d5 9. c3 $5 (9. Bxc6 bxc6 10. Nxd4 Qd7 {is equal
Berry-Lasker, simultaneous display, USA 1903.})) (6. Nxd4 O-O 7. Nc3 Re8 {
equalises Black-Lasker, simultaneous display, USA 1907.}) ({or} 6. Re1 O-O (
6... d6 7. Nxd4 Bd7 {leads to the Steinitz Defence}) (6... a6 $5) 7. e5 Ne8 8.
Bf4 {with a mini-plus.}) 6... Ne4 7. Nxd4 ({In the game Tal-Furman (25th USSR
Championship, Riga 1958) after} 7. Qe2 Nc5 8. Rd1 O-O (8... Ne6 $5) 9. Bxc6
bxc6 10. Nxd4 Qe8 11. Nc3 f6 12. Nf5 Bd8 13. Qc4+ Ne6 14. Nd4 $1 {White
retained some initiative.}) 7... O-O $1 ({Not wasting a tempo on} 7... Nxd4 $6
8. Qxd4 Nc5 {, which may lead to a rout:} 9. f4 $5 (9. Nc3 {is quieter}) 9...
b6 $2 10. f5 $1 Nb3 11. Qe4 $1 Nxa1 ({or} 11... Bb7 12. Bxd7+ $1 Kf8 13. Qxb7
Nxa1 14. f6) 12. f6 $1 Bc5+ 13. Kh1 Rb8 14. e6 Rg8 15. Qxh7 {(Bird-Steinitz,
London 1866).}) 8. Nf5 {(an attempt to fight for at least the appearance of an
advantage)} d5 9. Bxc6 ({As it later transpired, little good also comes of} 9.
Nxe7+ Nxe7 {, for example:} 10. c3 (10. f3 Nc5 11. b4 $6 Bd7 $1 12. Be2 Na4)
10... c6 11. Be2 Ng6 12. f3 Nc5 13. b4 Nd7 14. f4 Re8 15. Nd2 Ndf8 16. Nb3 Bf5
17. Nc5 Rb8 18. g4 Bc8 19. Be3 f6 {with equal chances (Spielmann-Eliskases,
Linz 1932).}) 9... bxc6 10. Nxe7+ Qxe7 11. Re1 Qh4 $5 ({'In search of
complications Black avoids} 11... f6 {, which leads to a good position:} 12. f3
Ng5 13. Bxg5 fxg5 14. Nc3 Be6 {followed by ...c6-c5.' (Zak)}) 12. Be3 ({The
immediate} 12. f3 $5 {would perhaps have been better.}) 12... f6 13. f3 fxe5 $1
(13... Ng5 {was more prudent, but Lasker makes a psychologically wise choice.
It is doubtful whether the world champion calculated all the variations; he
more probably sensed that the character of the positions arising after the
piece sacrifice would be quite comfortable for him, and that for Marshall they
would be unpleasant.}) 14. fxe4 d4 15. g3 $6 {And Lasker guessed correctly!} ({
Of course, White could not move his bishop:} 15. Bd2 $2 Bg4 16. Qc1 Rf2 $1 17.
Bg5 Rxg2+ $1 18. Kxg2 Bh3+ 19. Kh1 Qf2 {and mate.}) ({Or} 15. Bc1 $2 Qf2+ 16.
Kh1 Bg4 {.}) ({But} 15. Qd2 $1 dxe3 16. Qxe3 {(and Nd2!) would have retained
at least equal chances - here the best would seem to be} Rf6 17. Nd2 Bg4 {,
not allowing the knight to go to f3.}) 15... Qf6 16. Bxd4 $6 ({Again what
tells is Lasker's knowledge of human nature: Marshall does not want to 'sit'
under an attack after} 16. Bd2 Qf2+ 17. Kh1 Bh3 18. Rg1 {.} -- ({. After this,
in Zak's opinion, 'there would have followed} 18... h5 {, and White is
helpless against the threat of ...Bg4, since if} 19. Qxh5 $2 ({or} 19. Be1 $2 {
Black gives mate in two moves:} Qxg1+ 20. Kxg1 Rf1# {' (Réti)}) ({Here there
is some oversight, since} 19. Na3 Bg4 20. Rf1 $1 Bxd1 21. Rxf2 Rxf2 22. Rxd1 {
is bad not for White, but for Black.})) ({. Therefore correct is} 18... Bf1 $1
{(threatening ...Be2-f3)} 19. Be1 Qe3 20. Nd2 Be2 21. Qc1 Bf3+ 22. Nxf3 Qxf3+
23. Rg2 Qf1+ {with not more than perpetual check.})) (16. Qd2 $6 dxe3 17. Qxe3
Bh3 $1 {is no longer so attractive.}) 16... exd4 17. Rf1 Qxf1+ $1 ({There is
no point in either} 17... Qe5 18. Rxf8+ Kxf8 19. Qf3+ Ke7 20. Qf4) ({or} 17...
Qe7 18. Rxf8+ Qxf8 19. Qxd4 Bh3 20. Nc3 Rd8 21. Qe3 Rd6 22. Ne2 {and Nf4.}) 18.
Qxf1 Rxf1+ 19. Kxf1 {When he avoided the dangerous 16 Bd2 Marshall probably
considered this ending to be drawn, but Lasker is of another opinion.} Rb8 $1
20. b3 Rb5 $1 {In this game the rook truly performs miracles.} 21. c4 ({One
can understand the desire to get rid of the weak c2-pawn, but} 21. Nd2 {would
have enabled White, although not without difficulty, to gain the desired draw:}
-- (21... Rc5 22. Rc1 Ba6+ 23. Kf2 (23. Ke1 $2 Rc3 $1) 23... Bd3 (23... Rc3 24.
Nb1 $1) 24. Nf3 Rxc2+ 25. Rxc2 Bxc2 26. Nxd4 Bxe4 27. Ne6 Bb1 28. a3 Ba2 29.
Nc5) (21... Rh5 22. h4 (22. Kg2 $6 Rc5 $1 23. Rc1 Rc3) (22. Kg1 Kf7 {, and,
according to Zak, 'the king begins a decisive invasion'}) 22... Rc5 23. Nf3
Rxc2 24. Nxd4 Bh3+ 25. Ke1 Rg2 26. Rc1 Rxg3 27. Rxc6 Rg4 28. Nf3 $1 Rxe4+ 29.
Kf2 Re7 30. Ra6 c5 31. Rc6 {.})) ({Not} 21. c3 $2 Re5) ({or} 21. Na3 $2 Re5 22.
Re1 Ra5) ({also dubious is} 21. a4 Rc5 22. Na3 Bg4 23. Kg2 Rc3 24. Rf1 d3 {etc.
}) 21... Rh5 $1 22. Kg1 ({After} 22. h4 $2 g5 $1 23. hxg5 Rh1+ {the rook
paralyses both white pieces.}) 22... c5 23. Nd2 Kf7 24. Rf1+ $2 {The decisive
positional mistake: Marshall's imagination dries up in the desert of the
endgame!} ({Essential was the active} 24. a3 $1 a5 (24... Ke7 25. b4) ({; if}
24... Ke6 {, then not} 25. b4 $6 ({but first} 25. Rf1 $1 {Shereshevsky}) 25...
Ke5 $1 26. bxc5 d3) 25. Rb1 $1 Ke7 (25... Ke6 26. b4 axb4 27. axb4 Ke5 28. bxc5
d3 29. Rb8 Be6 30. Rd8) 26. b4 cxb4 27. axb4 axb4 ({or} 27... Be6 28. bxa5 Rxa5
29. Nb3) 28. Rxb4 Ra5 29. Nb3 Ra2 30. Rb8 Bh3 31. Nxd4 {with sufficient
counterplay for a draw.}) 24... Ke7 25. a3 $6 {(alas, this activity is too
late)} Rh6 $1 {(the rook is on the alert!)} 26. h4 ({If} 26. b4 {, then} Ra6 $1
27. Rf3 (27. bxc5 Rxa3 28. Nf3 Bh3 {wins for Black}) 27... Bg4 28. Rb3 Bd1 29.
Rb1 Bc2 30. Rc1 d3 {etc.}) ({And if} 26. Ra1 {, then} a5 27. h4 Bg4 28. Rf1 Rb6
$5 {is good.}) 26... Ra6 $1 {As a result of the impressive manoeuvre ...
Rb8-b5-h5-h6-a6 Black has an enormous advantage.} 27. Ra1 (27. a4 {was hardly
much better, for example:} Bg4 28. Rf4 h5 29. Kf2 Rb6 $1 (29... Ke6 30. Nf3 {
is not so clear}) 30. Ke1 a5 31. Kf2 Rb8 (31... g6 $5) 32. Ke1 Ke6 {,
preparing to break through with ...d4-d3 and ...Ke5-d4.}) 27... Bg4 $1 28. Kf2
Ke6 29. a4 ({The rook ending after} 29. Nf3 Bxf3 30. Kxf3 Ke5 {is also bad.})
29... Ke5 {An amazing picture: only ten simple moves - and White's position is
in ruins!} 30. Kg2 Rf6 31. Re1 d3 32. Rf1 Kd4 {Alas, the heroic rook will not
be present to witness Black's triumph...} 33. Rxf6 gxf6 34. Kf2 c6 35. a5 ({Or
} 35. Nb1 a5 36. Ke1 Kxe4 37. Kf2 Kd4 {.}) 35... a6 {Zugzwang! The rest is
clear without any commentary:} 36. Nb1 Kxe4 37. Ke1 Be2 38. Nd2+ (38. Kd2 f5 {.
}) 38... Ke3 39. Nb1 f5 40. Nd2 h5 41. Nb1 Kf3 42. Nc3 Kxg3 43. Na4 f4 44. Nxc5
f3 45. Ne4+ Kf4 46. Nd6 c5 47. b4 cxb4 48. c5 b3 49. Nc4 Kg3 {. After this
Marshall switched to 1 d4, hoping to successfully employ Pillsbury's favourite
attack in the Queen's Gambit. But he received in reply 1...d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3
Nf6 4 Bg5 Be7 5 e3 Ne4!? - another 'Lasker Defence' (later improved by 5...0-0
6 Nf3 h6 7 Bh4 Ne4). In this new way Black won the third game and also the
last, the 15th. --- The final score of the match, +8 =7 in favour of the
champion, indicates that the two players were simply in a different class.
Although, for a good 20 years more the challenger was to be one of the best
grandmasters in the world, he was known as the 'Don Quixote of chess', and on
one occasion, in a game with Lewitzky (Breslau 1912), he landed the inimitable
blow 23...Qg3!!, which has been called 'the most brilliant move in chess
history'. --- Lasker demonstrated his absolute superiority over Marshall, but
it was clear to everyone that the real challenger was Tarrasch. This was
confirmed by the four-cycle 'tournament of champions' in Ostend 1907: 1.
Tarrasch - 12˝ out of 20; 2. Schlechter - 12; 3-4. Marshall and Janowski -
11˝ etc.} 0-1
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Who are you, Doctor Tarrasch?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.07"]
{Who are you, Doctor Tarrasch? --- After the tournament in Cambridge Springs
the world champion remained living in America, where he published his splendid
Lasker's Chess Magazine. However, four years later the magazine closed due to
lack of funds, and Dr Lasker returned to his native Germany. Awaiting him
there was his old and implacable opponent - Dr Siegbert Tarrasch (1862-1934).}
1. -- {We have already spoken about the role played by Tarrasch, one of the
strongest players since the early 1890s. He was born and grew up in Breslau,
the town of Anderssen and Zukertort, where several other masters also lived:
Harrwitz, von Scheve, Riemann and Schottländer. It is symbolic that Siegbert
attended the same school that Anderssen himself had once done. 'I saw the
ageing master only once, admiringly observing his play from a respectful
distance,' writes Tarrasch. 'The chess king did not pamper his subjects, only
occasionally commanding Riemann or Schottländer to play a game with him.' But
the youngster played constantly against masters, he studied the books of
Philidor, Stamma, von der Lasa and the Handbuch of Dufresne and Zukertort, and
his chess strength together with his erudition very quickly grew. --- It is
not surprising that it was Tarrasch who properly appreciated the ideas of the
first world champion and became the first who was able to take Steinitz's
teaching to a wide audience in a popular form, being essentially the mentor of
more than one generation of masters (he was even called the 'teacher of
Germany'). This was an important, necessary stage in the development of chess:
so that later, in the first quarter of the 20th century, the world should see
the appearance of Rubinstein, Alekhine and the hypermodernists, Steinitz's
lessons had to be assimilated first!} *
[Event "46: GCU 5th congress, Frankfurt"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1887.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Tarrasch, S."]
[Black "Gunsberg, I."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C10"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "79"]
[EventDate "1887.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{From the enormous heritage of Dr Tarrasch, apart his games with Chigorin and
Lasker given in the book, we have selected a few more striking examples of his
play.} 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 4. Nxe4 Nf6 5. Bd3 Nbd7 6. Be3 Nxe4 7.
Bxe4 Nf6 8. Bd3 Bd7 9. Nf3 Bd6 10. O-O Ng4 11. Bg5 f6 12. Bd2 Qe7 13. h3 Nh6
14. c4 c6 15. b4 O-O-O 16. Re1 Bxb4 17. Rb1 Bxd2 18. Qxd2 Kb8 19. c5 Bc8 20.
Rb3 Qc7 21. Reb1 Ka8 {This position was reached from a French Defence with 3...
dxe4, a move criticised by Tarrasch, but the player with the black pieces was
not some boy off the street, but the winner of the Fourth Congress and a
future challenger for the world crown, a match opponent of Chigorin and
Steinitz. Nevertheless White has boldly sacrificed his b-pawn, to create a
direct attack on the king.} 22. Rb6 $1 ({Tarrasch also considered the
unexpected} 22. Ba6 $6 bxa6 $2 ({but rejected it in view of any neutral reply
by Black - for example:} 22... Rhe8 {, and nothing is achieved by} 23. Rxb7
Bxb7 24. Bxb7+ Qxb7 25. Rxb7 Kxb7 {etc.}) 23. Qa5 $1 Qf4 24. g3 {winning.})
22... e5 $1 {A timely counter in the centre.} (22... Ng8 23. R1b4 Ne7 {and ...Nd5 was more passive.}) (22... axb6 $2 23. cxb6 {and Qa5+.}) 23. R1b4 Rhe8 ({
Bad once again was} 23... axb6 $2 24. cxb6 {, and after the queen moves} -- 25.
Ra4+ Kb8 26. Ra8+ $1 Kxa8 27. Qa5+ Kb8 28. Qa7# {.}) 24. dxe5 fxe5 25. Ra4 e4 (
{Black could have considered} 25... Qb8 $5 26. Qc3 (26. Ng5 Bf5 27. Ne4 Bxe4
28. Rxe4 Nf5 ({or} 28... Ng8)) 26... Nf5 27. Be4 Nd4 28. Nxd4 exd4 29. Rxd4
Rxd4 30. Qxd4 Qf4 {, forcing} 31. Rb4 {(Neishtadt).}) 26. Qa5 Qb8 27. Bxe4 Bf5
$2 {'An extremely rash move, which loses.} ({After} 27... Rd1+ $1 28. Ne1 Nf5 {
the knight, which for a long time has been standing idle, would have come into
play, and the chances would have been roughly equal.' (Tarrasch)}) 28. Ra6 $1 {
A pretty stroke, which involuntarily brings the words of Fischer to mind:
'Tarrasch's play was razor-sharp, and in spite of his devotion to this
supposedly scientific method of play, his game was often witty and bright.'}
Rd1+ ({This is forced (} 28... bxa6 $2 29. Bxc6+ {), but it also fails to save
Black.}) 29. Ne1 Rxe1+ 30. Qxe1 Bxe4 31. Rxe4 Rxe4 32. Qxe4 bxa6 33. Qxc6+ Qb7
34. Qe8+ Qb8 35. Qe4+ Qb7 36. c6 $1 Qc7 37. Qe8+ Qb8 38. Qd7 $1 {An elegant
'quiet' move. The helpless knight on h6 illustrates Tarrasch's famous aphorism:
a knight on the edge of the board stands badly!} Qb1+ 39. Kh2 Nf5 40. c7 1-0
[Event "47: GCU 6th Congress, Breslau"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1889.??.??"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Harmonist, M."]
[Black "Tarrasch, S."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C67"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "92"]
[EventDate "1889.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{When studying the following classic game, it is interesting to compare
Tarrasch's comments and those of his eternal critic Nimzowitsch, who in this
case was very satisfied with the play of his old colleague.} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3
Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O Nxe4 5. d4 Nd6 $5 ({Tarrasch willingly made this move,
regarding it (compared with} 5... Be7 {- Game No.55) as 'the simplest defence,
leading to an equal game.' Later it was successfully played by Pillsbury, then
from the mid-1970s by Romanishin, and nowadays the baton has been taken up by
Kramnik. The present game, effectively the original source of a fashionable
variation, disclosed many of its basic ideas for Black.}) 6. Bxc6 ({With White,
the Doctor himself also tried} 6. dxe5 Nxb5 7. a4 d6 (7... Nbd4 $5) 8. -- (8.
axb5 Nxe5 9. Re1 Be7 10. Nxe5 dxe5 11. Qxd8+ Kxd8 12. Rxe5 Bd6 {with equality})
({, or the sharp Janowski Attack} 8. e6 $5 fxe6 9. axb5 Ne7 {etc.} (9... --)))
6... dxc6 7. dxe5 Nf5 8. Qxd8+ Kxd8 {One of the tabiyas of the Berlin Defence,
nicknamed, on account of it being so hard to breach, the 'Berlin Wall'. The
resources of this complex endgame were underestimated for a long time, until
it was played by Kramnik in the London 2000 world championship match. ---
'Although Black temporarily experiences difficulties in view of the loss of
castling, in the endgame, thanks to his two bishops and pawn majority on the
queenside, he gains good winning chances.' (Tarrasch) Moreover, compared with
sharp set-ups, here the value of each move is not so great and Black can vary
his ways of defending. --- The position contains numerous nuances and it is
very difficult to find the correct line of play for White. For the moment one
thing is clear: he has a certain number of useful moves (such as Nc3 and h2-h3)
, but after that everyone plays how he wishes. In the 21st century it would
appear that White is gradually finding some ways, although it is a lengthy,
painful and far from obvious process. In short, at the present day the
variation is still alive.} 9. Bg5+ $6 {A waste of a tempo: in any case the
black king has to move from d8.} ({More logical is} 9. Nc3 h6 {with the
following possibilities:} 10. -- (10. b3 Be6 11. Bb2 Be7 (11... Kc8 $5 {
Romanishin}) 12. Rad1+ Kc8 13. Rfe1 $6 (13. Ne2 $1) 13... g5 $1 14. Ne4 b6 $6 (
14... Re8) 15. Nd4 $2 (15. Nd6+ $1 Bxd6 {is level}) 15... Nxd4 16. Rxd4 Kb7 17.
Nf6 a5 18. a4 c5 19. Rd3 c4 20. bxc4 Bxc4 21. Rd4 Be6 22. Ne4 Rhd8 23. Red1 Bf5
$1 24. f3 Bxe4 25. Rxd8 Rxd8 26. Rxd8 Bxd8 27. fxe4 Kc6 28. Ba3 b5 29. axb5+
Kxb5 {and Black won (Porges-Tarrasch, Dresden 1892).}) (10. Bd2 Be6 11. Ne2 c5
12. Bc3 {is also unclear, Tarrasch-Lasker, Hastings 1895.}) (10. Rd1+ Ke8 11.
h3 (11. b3 g5 ({or, according to Pillsbury,} 11... Bb4 {with the idea of} 12.
Bb2 Bxc3 $5)) 11... a5 12. Bf4 (12. b3 Bb4 $1 {, Fritz 5-Anand, Frankfurt
rapidplay 1998}) 12... Be6 13. g4 Ne7 14. Nd4 Nd5 15. Nce2 Bc5 16. Nxe6 fxe6
17. c4 Nb6 18. b3 {with a small plus (Kasparov-Kramnik, London 9th matchgame
2000)}) (10. h3 Bd7 $5 11. b3 Ke8 ({or} 11... Kc8 12. Bb2 b6 13. Rad1 {,
Kasparov-Kramnik, London 3rd matchgame 2000; Shirov-Kramnik, Astana 2001}) 12.
Bb2 Rd8 13. Rad1 Ne7 14. Rfe1 Ng6 15. Ne4 {, and the careless} Nf4 $2 {gave
White a very strong attack after} 16. e6 $1 {(Kasparov-Kramnik, Astana 2001).})
) 9... Ke8 $1 ({But not} 9... Be7 $6 10. g4 $1 Nh6 11. h3 {.}) 10. Nc3 h6 11.
Bf4 Be6 {'White's pawn majority has but slight mobility.' (Nimzowitsch)} 12.
Rad1 Rd8 13. Ne4 c5 {'By threatening 14...Nd4, Black provokes an exchange of
rooks, giving him the opportunity to bring his king's rook into play.'
(Tarrasch)} 14. Rxd8+ Kxd8 15. Rd1+ Kc8 16. h3 (16. h3 {with the threat of} --
17. g4 Ne7 18. Nxc5 {.}) 16... b6 17. Kf1 Be7 18. a3 {'White is clearly having
difficulty finding a good plan.} ({After} 18. Ke1 $2 Bxa2 {shutting in the
bishop by} 19. b3 {does not work in view of} c4 {, for example:} 20. Ned2 ({if
} 20. Nfd2 {, then} cxb3 {and 21...Nd4}) 20... cxb3 21. cxb3 Bb4 22. Kf1 Bxd2
23. Nxd2 Nd4 {.' (Tarrasch)}) 18... Rd8 19. Rxd8+ Kxd8 {'The exchange of rooks
has sensibly increased the radius of action of Black's king.' (Nimzowitsch)}
20. c3 {'This move, weakening the queenside still further, is necessary due to
the threat of 20...Nd4. Now Black gains more and more space.' (Tarrasch)} Bd5
21. Nfd2 Kd7 22. Ke2 g5 (22... Nh4 23. g3 Ng6 24. Ke3 Ke6 25. Nf3 {is unclear.}
) 23. Bh2 Nh4 24. g3 Ng6 25. f4 Ke6 26. Ke3 c4 27. Nf3 gxf4+ 28. gxf4 (28. gxf4
{threatening both} -- 29. Nd4+ ({and the unexpected} 29. f5+ Kxf5 30. Nd4# {.})
) 28... c5 $1 {Nimzowitsch gives this game as an illustration of the power of
two bishops in the fight against a pawn majority, and this position as an
example of the miraculous action of the blockade: 'In the position now reached
White's pieces are fairly well shut in. This gratifying state of affairs has
followed almost automatically from Black's successfully executed blockade of
White's e5-pawn and in particular his f4-pawn.'} 29. Ng3 Nh4 {(preventing
f4-f5)} 30. Nxh4 Bxh4 31. Ne4 Be7 {(otherwise 32 Nd6)} 32. Bg1 Bc6 {'The
intention is ...Kd5 followed by ...Bd7-f5, driving the knight yet further back.
' (Nimzowitsch)} 33. Bf2 Bd7 34. Bg3 $6 ({'As was correctly pointed out by
Metger, with} 34. Nd6 $1 {White would have retained chances of a draw; after}
Bxd6 ({I should only like to add} 34... b5 35. Bg3 f5 36. Bf2 {with equality})
35. exd6 {there are opposite-colour bishops left on the board.' (Tarrasch)
This was also pointed out by Nimzowitsch.}) 34... Kd5 35. Nf2 $2 {A fatal
retreat.} (35. Nd6 $5 Bxd6 36. exd6 Bxh3 37. f5 Bxf5 38. Bh2 Bd7 {was
essential, although it would not yet have guaranteed a draw: 38...Bd7 must be
considered followed by the unhurried transference of the king and the advance
of the b-pawn.}) 35... h5 36. Kf3 ({Or} 36. h4 Bf5 {and the knight cannot come
into play.}) 36... Bf5 {'Blockade!' Nimzowitsch exclaims joyfully, and he sums
up: 'We can say with some justice that the restraint of the pawn majority once
in operation carries with it automatically the hemming in of the knights; that
is to say the blockading pawns may easily develop into obstructions to their
own knights.'} 37. Ke3 b5 38. Kf3 a5 39. Ke3 {(White is in a kind of stalemate)
} b4 40. Kf3 Kc6 41. axb4 ({If} 41. h4 {, then the reply} Kb5 42. Ne4 Ka4 {
wins.}) 41... cxb4 42. cxb4 axb4 43. Ne4 Kd5 44. Nd6 Bxd6 45. exd6 c3 46. bxc3
b3 {. It is obvious that this type of win ultimately gave birth to one of the
famous Tarrasch aphorisms: 'The future belongs to he who has the bishops.' One
also recalls the classic ending of the game Tarrasch-Rubinstein (San Sebastian
1912), where, it is true, the Doctor was the victim... --- Both in his play,
and in his commentaries, Tarrasch aimed to follow general rules, and he
methodically formulated them, completing Steinitz's work. Honour and praise to
him for the fact that nowadays these rules are known by any graded player! Of
course, certain of his aphorisms sometimes provoke a smile - for example, 'if
one piece stands badly - the whole game stands badly', or 'a knight on the
edge of the board always stands badly'. In a number of cases it is possible to
gain an advantage even with a 'bad' knight: we can recall, among others, the
games Lasker-Schlechter (Vienna/Berlin 10th matchgame 1910 - Game No.58) and
Kasparov-Karpov (London/Leningrad 16th matchgame 1986). However, Tarrasch's
'dogmas' are not eternal truisms, but merely instructional material presented
in an accessible and witty form, those necessary rudiments from which one can
begin to grasp the secrets of chess...} 0-1
[Event "48: 1st prize play-off match, Vienna"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1898.??.??"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Tarrasch, S."]
[Black "Pillsbury, H."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C49"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "91"]
[EventDate "1898.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{The following game, played after a tournament race lasting 36 days and an
exchange of blows in the play-off match, decided the fate of first prize at
Vienna 1898.} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. Nc3 {(avoiding the Berlin
Defence!)} Bb4 5. O-O O-O 6. d3 d6 7. Bg5 Bxc3 8. bxc3 Ne7 {Pillsbury's
favourite manoeuvre.} ({Later they began to give preference to Metger's move}
8... Qe7 {(Kiel 1893) with the idea of} 9. Re1 Nd8 10. d4 Ne6 ({or} 10... Bg4 {
.})) 9. Bc4 ({'Objectively stronger is} 9. Nh4 $1 {' (Tarrasch) For example:}
Ng6 ({or} 9... c6 10. Bc4 Be6 $2 (10... d5 11. Bb3 Qd6 {is correct}) 11. Bxf6
gxf6 12. Bxe6 fxe6 13. Qg4+ Kf7 14. f4 $1 {with a typical attack
(Capablanca-Steiner, Los Angeles 1933)}) 10. Nxg6 fxg6 11. Bc4+ Kh8 12. f4 $1
h6 13. fxe5 dxe5 14. Bh4 g5 15. Bg3 Qe7 16. d4 {with advantage
(Janowski-Spielmann, Nuremberg 1906).}) 9... Be6 ({Eleven years later in his
match with Janowski (Paris 1909) Lasker improved Black's play with} 9... Ng6 $1
10. Nh4 Nf4 $1 11. Bxf4 exf4 12. Nf3 Bg4 (12... Be6 $5) 13. -- {, and gained
excellent prospects after both:} (13. h3 Bh5 14. Rb1 b6 15. Qd2 Bxf3 16. gxf3
Nh5 17. Kh2 Qf6 {(second game)}) ({, and} 13. Qd2 Bxf3 14. gxf3 Nh5 $1 {
(fourth game).} (14... --))) 10. Bxf6 ({Janowski also tried} 10. Bb3 $5 Bxb3
11. axb3 Nd7 12. d4 f6 13. Be3 Ng6 14. Qd3 Kh8 15. Nd2 a6 16. f4 {.}) 10...
gxf6 11. Bxe6 fxe6 12. Nh4 Ng6 13. Nxg6 hxg6 14. f4 $1 {It is amusing that,
several years later, in another triumphant tournament for him (Ostend 1907),
Tarrasch crushed in similar fashion... the obstinate Janowski, the third
prize-winner at Vienna 1898.} Kg7 $6 ({Trying to repair 'the hideous position
of the kingside pawns', Tarrasch suggested} 14... f5 {, after which the
commentators recommended} 15. fxe5 dxe5 16. Qb1 $5 b6 17. Qb3 Qd6 18. exf5 gxf5
19. Rae1 {with an edge for White.}) 15. f5 exf5 16. exf5 Rh8 17. fxg6 Rh6 ({
Very dangerous for Black is} 17... Kxg6 18. Qg4+ Kf7 19. Rf3 Qe7 20. Raf1 Rh6
21. Rg3 Rah8 22. Rxf6+ $1 Qxf6 (22... Kxf6 $2 23. Rf3#) (22... Rxf6 23. Qg7+
Ke6 24. Qxh8 {wins}) 23. Rf3 {with the threat of Qd7+.}) 18. Rb1 $1 {(in order
to switch the rook to the kingside with gain of tempo)} b6 19. Rb4 Qd7 20. Rxf6
$1 {A spectacular blow, which was not foreseen by any of the masters studying
the position in a neighbouring room.} ({They expected the not altogether clear
} 20. Qf3 Rf8 {.}) 20... Kxf6 21. Qf3+ Kg7 ({If} 21... Kxg6 {, then} 22. Rg4+
Kh7 23. Qe4+ Kh8 24. Qxa8+ {.}) 22. Qxa8 c5 23. Rb1 Rxg6 24. Rf1 Qe7 25. c4 {
, and White converted his advantage:} e4 26. Qxe4 Qxe4 27. dxe4 Rg4 28. Re1 Kf6
29. g3 Ke5 30. c3 Rg7 31. Kg2 Rb7 32. a4 a6 33. h4 b5 34. axb5 axb5 35. cxb5
Rxb5 36. Kh3 c4 37. Kg4 Rb2 38. h5 Rc2 39. Rh1 Ra2 40. h6 Ra8 41. h7 Rh8 42.
Kg5 Kxe4 43. Kg6 Kd3 44. Kg7 Rxh7+ 45. Kxh7 Kxc3 46. Rd1 1-0
[Event "49: Candidates match, Nuremberg"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1905.??.??"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Marshall, F."]
[Black "Tarrasch, S."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C27"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "94"]
[EventDate "1905.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{Earlier we saw how casually Lasker overcame in the endgame the victor at
Cambridge Springs, Marshall (Game No.45). Something similar was achieved a
couple of years before that by Tarrasch.} 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. Nc3 Bc5 4. d3
d6 5. Na4 Bb6 6. Nxb6 axb6 7. f4 Be6 8. Bxe6 fxe6 9. fxe5 dxe5 10. Nf3 Nc6 11.
O-O O-O 12. a3 Qd6 13. Be3 Ng4 14. Qe2 Nxe3 15. Qxe3 Nd4 16. Nxd4 Qxd4 17. Qxd4
exd4 18. Rxf8+ Kxf8 19. Rf1+ Ke7 20. Rf4 Ra5 $5 ({Far more lively than} 20...
e5 21. Rf5 Ke6 {with a level game.}) 21. Kf1 $6 Rc5 22. Rf2 Rb5 $1 23. b3 Rh5
$1 {It has to be agreed that this rook is no less 'rabid' than Lasker's...} 24.
h3 b5 $1 25. b4 Rg5 26. Rf4 e5 27. Rf2 Rg6 28. Rf5 Re6 29. Ke2 $2 {Marshall
has no feeling for 'simple' positions.} ({After} 29. Rh5 $1 {White does not
have even a hint of a problem:} Ra6 ({or} 29... h6 30. Ke2 g5 31. h4) 30. Rxh7
Kf6 31. Rh8 Rxa3 32. Ke2 {.}) 29... g6 30. Rf1 Ra6 31. Ra1 b6 32. Kd2 Ra4 33.
c3 c5 34. cxd4 ({When the time came to calculate, the USA champion rejected}
34. Kc2 dxc3 35. Rb1 $6 Kd6 36. Rb3 cxb4 37. Rxb4 Kc5 $1 {and the computer
suggests that he was right:} 38. Rxa4 ({or} 38. Rb3 b4 39. axb4+ Kd4 40. Rxc3
Ra2+ 41. Kb3 Ra3+ 42. Kxa3 Kxc3 43. Ka4 Kxd3 44. Kb5 Kxe4 45. Kxb6 Kd5 46. b5
e4 47. Kc7 e3 48. b6 e2 49. b7 e1=Q 50. b8=Q Qe5+ 51. Kc8 Qxb8+ 52. Kxb8 Ke5 {
and Black wins in both cases}) 38... bxa4 39. Kxc3 b5 40. h4 h5 41. g3 b4+ $1
42. axb4+ Kb5 {.}) 34... cxb4 ({Nothing was achieved by} 34... exd4 35. bxc5
bxc5 36. Rb1 Ra5 37. Kc2 {, for example:} Kd6 ({or} 37... c4 38. dxc4 bxc4 39.
Rd1 d3+ 40. Kc3 Ra4 41. Rd2 Ke6 42. Kd4 {with a level game}) 38. Kb3 Ke5 39.
Rc1 c4+ 40. dxc4 bxc4+ 41. Rxc4 Kxe4 42. Rc7 d3 43. Re7+ Kd4 44. Rd7+ Ke3 45.
Re7+ Kf2 46. Rd7 {.}) 35. dxe5 Ke6 36. d4 bxa3 37. Kc3 a2 {Black has set his
opponent many problems, and Marshall is unable to hold out...} 38. g4 $2 ({
Strangely enough,} 38. h4 $1 h5 39. g3 {would still have given a draw:} Ke7 ({
or} 39... Kd7 40. Kd3 Ra3+ 41. Kc2) 40. Kd3 Ra3+ 41. Kc2 Rxg3 42. Rxa2 Rg2+ 43.
Kb3 Rxa2 44. Kxa2 g5 45. hxg5 h4 46. d5 h3 47. d6+ {.}) 38... g5 {(now White
finds himself in zugzwang)} 39. Kd3 b4 40. Kc4 b3+ 41. Kxb3 Rxd4 42. Rxa2 Rxe4
43. Ra6 Re3+ 44. Kc2 Rxh3 45. Rxb6+ Kxe5 46. Rb4 Re3 47. Kd2 Re4 0-1
[Event "50: San Sebastian"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1912.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Tarrasch, S."]
[Black "Teichmann, R."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C14"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "82"]
[EventDate "1912.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{And now a well-known and instructive game by the follower of the first world
champion, following in the footsteps of the classic game Steinitz-Sellmann
(Game No.16), where the outcome was also decided by White's occupation of the
d4-square.} 1. e4 e6 {It should be remembered that the Doctor also played this
opening masterfully with Black, even when Chigorin chose the rare plan with 2
Qe2 (Game Nos.27, 30).} 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 ({Back in 1890 Tarrasch introduced the
'very good continuation of the attack'} 3. Nd2 {.}) ({By contrast, he had
attached a question mark to} 3. e5 {since the time of his win over Louis
Paulsen (Nuremberg 1888), and in San Sebastian 1912 he had a critical
encounter on this theme with Nimzowitsch (Game No.92).}) 3... Nf6 ({
Incidentally, the variation with} 3... Bb4 {, which (in some countries) bears
the name of its developer Nimzowitsch, was tried by Tarrasch back in a game
with Gottschall (Nuremberg 1888), and after} 4. e5 Ne7 5. f4 $6 c5 6. a3 Bxc3+
7. bxc3 c4 8. Nf3 Qa5 9. Qd2 Nd7 $5 10. Nh4 Nb6 {he carried out the blockading
plan with the manoeuvre of a minor piece to a4, which half a century later was
to be successfully employed by Botvinnik - for example, against Tolush (14th
USSR Championship, Moscow 1945).}) 4. Bg5 ({Also good is the 'pure' Steinitz
variation} 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 {, as in the aforementioned game with Sellman.})
4... Be7 ({Nowadays it is fashionable to fight for equality with Rubinstein's
simplifying} 4... dxe4 {. Tarrasch considered this, like 3...dxe4, to be
unacceptable (the centre is conceded!), but experience has confirmed that
Rubinstein was right. Generally speaking, Tarrasch often carried over his
popular ideas of chess philosophy, which were suitable for beginners, to
crucial disputes with the world's leading players - and sometimes he was
proved wrong...}) 5. e5 Nfd7 6. Bxe7 (6. h4 {- Game No.112.}) 6... Qxe7 7. Qd2
{Englisch's move (Paris 1878).} ({Steinitz used to play} 7. f4) ({while
earlier Tarrasch himself preferred} 7. Bd3 {, with which he beat Barthmann
(Nuremberg 1883). He regarded this win, along with his game against Noa
(Hamburg 1885), as the 'prototype' of the present encounter.}) 7... O-O ({Bad
is} 7... c5 $6 8. Nb5 O-O $6 9. Nc7 cxd4 10. Nxa8 {etc.}) 8. f4 c5 ({There is
no point in losing time on} 8... a6 {(since here Nb5 is not a threat): after}
9. Nf3 c5 {Steinitz's plan with} 10. dxc5 {gains in strength.}) 9. Nf3 ({If} 9.
Nb5 $6 {, then} a6 10. Nd6 cxd4 11. Nf3 f6 $1 {is good.}) 9... Nc6 10. g3 {
'This move, suggested by Rubinstein, is fully consistent with the entire
variation, devised not for an attack on the b1-h7 diagonal, but for weakening
Black's centre.' (Tarrasch)} (10. O-O-O Nb6 11. h4 Bd7 {with equal chances has
also been played}) ({but to this day Steinitz's} 10. dxc5 $1 {remains the main
plan.}) 10... a6 ({'Black avoids} 10... f6 {, to avoid falling in with his
opponent's intentions,' writes Tarrasch, having in mind} 11. exf6 -- (11...
Qxf6 12. O-O-O a6 13. Bg2 Nb6 14. Rhe1 Nc4 15. Qf2 b5 16. dxc5 $5 -- (16...
Nxb2 $2 17. Kxb2 b4 18. Nd4 $1 bxc3+ 19. Ka1 $1 {with a won game
(Rubinstein-Levenfish, Carlsbad 1911).}) ({. Even so, undermining the centre
is in fact the way to call into question White's slow strategy. Firstly,
strong is} 16... b4 17. Na4 Bd7 $1 {(Levenfish)} (17... --))) ({, and secondly
-} 11... Nxf6 12. O-O-O (12. dxc5 e5 $1) (12. Bg2 cxd4 13. Nxd4 e5 $1) 12...
cxd4 13. Nxd4 e5 $1 14. fxe5 {with an excellent game.})) 11. Bg2 b5 $6 ({
Definitely more appropriate is} 11... Nb6 $1 12. b3 Bd7 13. Ne2 cxd4 {with
equality (Kostic-Maróczy, Bled 1931).}) 12. O-O $1 (12. O-O-O $6 {is dangerous
in view of} c4 {, then ...Nb6 and ...b5-b4 with an attack.}) 12... cxd4 13.
Nxd4 ({A little later Tarrasch tried} 13. Ne2 $5 {against Lowtzky (Breslau
1912) - and correctly: why exchange queens? The game continued} Nb6 $6 {here
the knight is cut off;} ({better is} 13... Nc5 14. Nexd4 Nxd4 15. Nxd4 Bb7 {,
aiming for e4 with the knight in the hope of counterplay}) 14. b3 Bd7 15. Nexd4
Qc5 16. Rf2 $1 {(after retaining control of d4, the Doctor firmly carries out
his classic plan)} Rac8 17. Nxc6 Rxc6 18. Qd4 Rfc8 19. Bf1 Na8 $6 20. a4 $1
bxa4 21. Rxa4 a5 22. Qa1 $1 Qb6 (22... Qe3 23. Bd3 $1 Rxc2 $2 24. Bxc2 Rxc2 25.
Qd4 Qxf2+ 26. Qxf2 Rxf2 27. Rxa5 $1 {wins}) 23. Nd4 Rxc2 (23... Rc5 24. b4) 24.
Nxc2 Rxc2 25. Rd4 $1 {and White won. An effective supplement to the duel with
Teichmann!}) 13... Nxd4 14. Qxd4 Qc5 15. Qxc5 Nxc5 {In this position Teichmann
offered a draw, but he received a courteous refusal.} 16. Ne2 $1 {'White has
more space; Black is cramped not only by the e5-pawn, but also by his own
e6-pawn. The white knight will occupy a dominating position at d4, from which
it cannot be driven away; for the black knight this is something that cannot
be achieved.' (Tarrasch)} Bd7 17. Nd4 Rac8 18. Kf2 $1 {'Although Black
controls the only almost open file, as a counter to this White has a
significant advantage: he can post in the centre the most important endgame
piece - the king, which is something that again Black cannot do.' (Tarrasch)}
Rc7 19. Ke3 Re8 $6 {Planless play (apparently Black was afraid of f4-f5).} ({
Nowadays in such a position Black would nevertheless gain a draw - by, say,}
19... Rfc8) ({or} 19... a5 $5 {(with the idea of ...Rb8 and ...b5-b4)} 20. f5
exf5 21. Bxd5 Re8 {etc.}) 20. Rf2 $1 Nb7 21. Bf1 {'White must, at last,
advantageously deploy his bishop, since at g2 it was dragging out a rather
miserable existence.' (Tarrasch)} Na5 22. b3 h6 $6 {'When there is a lack of
good moves, bad ones are made - this is an old truth. Nothing spoils a
position so strongly and irreparably as pawn moves.' (Tarrasch) How very true!}
({Of course, Black should have played} 22... Nc6 {- why give himself an
additional weakness?}) 23. Bd3 {'Now this piece too stands better than its
black opposite number. In general, the trio of pieces in the centre is
operating splendidly.' (Tarrasch) Complete domination in the centre has been
achieved, and from now on White's plan is a breakthrough on the kingside. Up
to a certain point he plays very accurately.} Nc6 24. Nxc6 $1 Bxc6 25. Kd4 {
'To the end of the game the king will all the time be ready to invade at c5
and attack the enemy pawns, and so the black rook must constantly guard the
c-file.' (Tarrasch)} Bd7 26. g4 $1 {Disclosing the defectiveness of 22...h6:
now White has something to latch on to.} Bc8 27. h4 (27. h4 {with the threat of
} -- 28. g5 h5 29. g6 $1 {.}) 27... g6 28. Rh1 ({Of course, not} 28. g5 $6 h5
$1 {, and Black blocks the kingside.}) 28... Kg7 29. h5 Rh8 30. Rfh2 Bd7 31. g5
$1 {This leads to the inevitable opening of one of the files and the invasion
of the rook.} hxg5 32. fxg5 Rxh5 ({Even worse was} 32... Be8 $2 33. hxg6 Rxh2
34. gxf7 $1 {and wins.}) 33. Rxh5 gxh5 34. Rxh5 Kf8 35. Rh8+ Ke7 36. g6 $2 {
Unexpectedly White makes a serious mistake.} ({Euwe's move} 36. Ra8 $6 {is
also dubious in view of} Bc8 37. a4 bxa4 38. bxa4 Bb7 39. Ra7 Kd7 40. c4 ({or}
40. c3 Kc8 41. Bxa6 Bxa6 42. Rxa6 Rc4+) 40... Kc8 41. cxd5 Kb8 42. d6 Rc8 {
with a probable draw.}) ({'The immediate} 36. Rh7 $1 {was better,' writes
Tarrasch. 'If} Ke8 {, then} ({. And after} 36... Kf8 {there would have followed
} 37. g6 fxg6 38. Bxg6 Kg8 39. Rf7 -- (39... Kh8 40. Bh7 $1 {when Black is
stalemated. But the immediate g5-g6 also leads to a win.'}) ({. Whether or not
this is so, we will see shortly, but for the moment let us check Brinkmann's
recommendation} 39... b4 $1 {(instead of 39... Kh8?):} 40. Bh5 $1 a5 ({or}
40... Kh8 41. Bg4 $1 Kg8 42. Rxd7 $1 Rxd7 43. Bxe6+ Rf7 44. Kxd5 {and wins})
41. Bg6 a4 42. Bh5 a3 ({inadequate is} 42... Rxc2 43. Rxd7 a3 44. Bf7+ Kf8 45.
Bxe6 Rxa2 46. Bxd5 Ra1 47. e6 Rd1+ 48. Kc5 a2 49. Rf7+ Kg8 50. Ra7 a1=Q 51.
Rxa1 Rxa1 52. e7+) 43. Bg6 Kh8 44. Bh7 {. Here Neishtadt places the evaluation
'winning advantage', but in my opinion one more move should be made -} Rc3 $1 (
{if} 44... Rc6 {the computer suggests} 45. Bd3 $1 Bc8 46. Ra7 Kg8 47. Ra4 {
winning}) 45. -- {and the win is not so obvious:} (45. Rxd7 $2 Rc7 46. Rd6 Kxh7
47. Rxe6 Rxc2 48. Kxd5 Rxa2 49. Kc5 Rc2+ 50. Kxb4 a2 51. Ra6 Kg7 52. Ra7+ (52.
Kb5 Kf7 53. b4 Ke7) 52... Kg6 53. e6 {(whether or not there is a 'winning
advantage' here is unclear)} Kf6 54. e7 Kf7 55. Kb5 Ke8 56. b4 Kf7 57. Kb6 Ke8
{with a draw - a pretty trick}) (45. Bd3 $1 {(this wins, fortunately)} Rc7 46.
Bb5 Kg8 47. Rxd7 Rxc2 48. Ra7 Rxa2 49. Bd7 Ra1 50. Bxe6+ Kf8 51. Bxd5 a2 52. e6
Rd1+ 53. Kc5 a1=Q 54. e7+ Ke8 55. Bc6+ {, and it is all over.}))) 37. c3 {and
Be2-h5 with a double attack on the f-pawn.}) 36... fxg6 37. Bxg6 b4 $1 ({Of
course, not} 37... Bc8 $2 38. Rh7+ Kd8 39. Rxc7 Kxc7 40. Kc5 {(at last!)} Bd7
41. Bf7 Bc8 42. Be8 Bb7 43. b4 Bc8 ({or} 43... Ba8 44. Bf7 Kd7 45. Kb6 {and
wins}) 44. Bc6 Bd7 (44... Bb7 45. Bxb7 Kxb7 46. Kd6 {is also hopeless}) 45.
Bxd7 Kxd7 46. Kb6 {and wins.}) 38. Rh7+ Kd8 39. Bd3 {This is now the last
critical point in the game.} Rc3 $2 {A blunder.} ({Tarrasch states laconically:
'} 39... Rc6 {was better.' But after this I have been unable to find a win:}
40. Rh1 Kc7 41. a3 bxa3 42. Ra1 Kb6 43. Rxa3 a5 {, say, is simply a dead draw,
a fortress! Which means that, as often happens, at the very last moment
Teichmann missed an unexpected saving chance...}) 40. a3 $1 a5 41. Rh8+ Ke7 {
Here, without waiting for 42 Ra8, Black resigned.} ({Or} 41... Kc7 42. Ra8 Kb6
43. Ra6+ {.}) 1-0
[Event "51: St Petersburg, preliminary tourney"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1914.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Nimzowitsch, A."]
[Black "Tarrasch, S."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D30"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "64"]
[EventDate "1914.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{In the fifth round of the preliminary part of the super-tournament in St
Petersburg (1914), Tarrasch, in the words of one historian, 'played a game,
the finish of which is known by any player who has the slightest experience:
the innovator Nimzowitsch suffered badly at the hands of the classic.'
Moreover, in a Tarrasch Defence!} 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 c5 3. c4 e6 4. e3 (4. cxd5
exd5 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. g3 {is stronger - Game No.64.}) 4... Nf6 5. Bd3 Nc6 6. O-O
Bd6 ({Also good, in the spirit of the Queen's Gambit Accepted, was} 6... dxc4
7. Bxc4 a6 {(Janowski-Lasker, Berlin 4th matchgame 1910), but Tarrasch was
happier playing these positions as White.}) 7. b3 O-O 8. Bb2 b6 9. Nbd2 Bb7 10.
Rc1 (10. Ne5 $5 {.}) 10... Qe7 11. cxd5 exd5 12. Nh4 g6 13. Nhf3 Rad8 ({The
typical} 13... Ne4 $6 {is premature in view of} 14. dxc5 $1 bxc5 $2 15. Bxe4
dxe4 16. Nxe4 Qxe4 17. Qxd6 {and wins.}) 14. dxc5 $6 bxc5 15. Bb5 $6 {
Nimzowitsch handles this classical variation passively and unsuccessfully,
feeling much less confident in it that in 'his' modernistic variations. There
was nowhere for him to employ his imagination, and it was possibly games such
as this one that made him think that in chess one should play differently...}
Ne4 16. Bxc6 Bxc6 17. Qc2 ({If} 17. b4 {there is} Bb5 {.}) 17... Nxd2 18. Nxd2
({'Also after the better} 18. Qxd2 {Black has fine attacking chances.' (Euwe)})
18... d4 $1 {A classic breakthrough. Of numerous similar instances, the first
that come to mind are the games Spassky-Tal (Montreal 1979), Korchnoi-Karpov
(Merano 1st matchgame 1981) and, with reversed colours, Kasparov-Portisch
(Niksic 1983).} 19. exd4 $2 {The decisive mistake.} ({White should have
reconciled himself to an inferior game after} 19. e4 Rfe8) ({or} 19. Rfe1 Rfe8
20. Nc4 Bc7 {.}) 19... Bxh2+ $5 {Tarrasch is captivated by the famous game
Lasker-Bauer (Game No.36): of course, he could not resist the temptation to
win in classical fashion, with the sacrifice of both bishops!} ({Although he
could have achieved his goal more quickly with} 19... Bxg2 $1 20. Kxg2 (20.
dxc5 Qg5 $1) 20... Qg5+ {, when the white army is unable to come to the aid of
its king:} 21. Kh1 (21. Kh3 Qh5+) (21. Kf3 Rfe8 $1 {(the strongest)} 22. Rg1
Qf4+ 23. Kg2 Re2 {and wins}) 21... Qf4 22. Kg2 Qxh2+ 23. Kf3 Rfe8 24. Ne4 Qf4+
25. Kg2 Rxe4 {.}) 20. Kxh2 Qh4+ 21. Kg1 Bxg2 $1 22. f3 $1 ({White would have
lost easily after} 22. Kxg2 $2 Qg4+ 23. Kh1 Rd5 $1 24. Qxc5 Rh5+ 25. Qxh5 Qxh5+
26. Kg2 Qg5+ 27. Kh2 Qxd2 {.}) 22... Rfe8 $1 ({But not} 22... Qg3 $2 {because
of} 23. Ne4 {.}) 23. Ne4 ({No better was} 23. Rfe1 Rxe1+ 24. Rxe1 Qxe1+ 25.
Kxg2 Qe2+ 26. Kg3 {in view of} Rd5 $1 27. f4 Rh5 {and wins.}) (23. Kxg2 $2 Re2+
{.}) 23... Qh1+ 24. Kf2 Bxf1 25. d5 {A desperate attempt to create
counter-threats along the a1-h8 diagonal.} ({The bishop cannot be taken:} 25.
Rxf1 $2 Qh2+ {and 26...Qxc2.}) 25... f5 $1 26. Qc3 ({Or} 26. Nf6+ Kf7 27. Nxe8
Rxe8 {winning.}) 26... Qg2+ 27. Ke3 ({But not} 27. Ke1 $2 Qe2# {.}) 27... Rxe4+
$1 {A spectacular concluding sacrifice. Here the Doctor no doubt remembered
one of his immortal aphorisms: 'Chess, like love and music, has the ability to
make man happy.'} 28. fxe4 f4+ $5 ({Much more elegant than the 'crude'} 28...
Qg3+ $1 29. Kd2 Qf2+ 30. Kd1 Qe2# {.}) 29. Kxf4 Rf8+ 30. Ke5 (30. Ke3 Rf3# {.})
30... Qh2+ 31. Ke6 Re8+ 32. Kd7 (32. Kf6 Qf4# {.}) 32... Bb5# {. A splendid
win, which conceded the special prize 'for brilliancy' to the game
Capablanca-Bernstein (Game No.83) only because the combination that occurred
here had a 'predecessor'. But in my opinion, this game was better!} 0-1
[Event "52: Mährisch-Ostrau"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1923.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Spielmann, R."]
[Black "Tarrasch, S."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C32"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "52"]
[EventDate "1923.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{As we see, the 'positional dogmatist' Tarrasch did not shun combinations.
Also after the war the old Doctor sometimes experimented, employing new, risky
variations. Thus in Mährisch-Ostrau (1923) against Lasker... he chose... the
Alekhine Defence! It was also there that the following highly instructive game
was played.} 1. e4 e5 2. f4 {It will be recalled that Spielmann was a fervent
chess neo-romantic, a follower of Anderssen and Chigorin 'the last knight of
the King's Gambit'. And to make a better appraisal of the critical nature of
this encounter, take a look at what he wrote about his opponent: 'Hardly had
the direct attacking style given way to the positional, when Tarrasch appeared
with his advocacy of the "new principles" of play. If these principles are
followed in the games of Tarrasch himself, it becomes clear that in them there
is no spirit of attack. Slowly, terribly slowly, almost stealthily, the chess
forces move into play. Their motto is to avoid, as far as possible, an open
battle and merely to besiege the opponent, blockade, and wait until his vital
resources are exhausted, until his "air and water" run out, and then slowly
crush him. For a long time this Tarrasch method has been extremely successful.
His opponents either lost patience and bled to death in untimely sallies, or
remained passive and were subjected to an absolute squeeze.'} d5 3. exd5 e4 {
Falkbeer's classical counter-gambit - as played long before by Morphy!} 4. d3 (
{This would appear to be more promising than the alternative variation} 4. Nc3
Nf6 5. d3 Bb4 {, as in the game Schulten-Morphy (Game No.7).}) 4... Nf6 (4...
Qxd5 5. Qe2 {etc.}) 5. dxe4 $5 {Berger's plan, known from back in the late
1860s.} Nxe4 6. Nf3 ({Later, in 1941, Keres introduced} 6. Be3 $5 {. For
example:} -- (6... Bd6 7. Nf3 O-O {(Bronstein-Unzicker, Moscow Olympiad 1956)}
8. Bd3 $1 Re8 9. O-O Nf6 10. Ne5 Nbd7 11. Nc4 Nf8 12. Kh1 $1 {with the
initiative (Muchnik)}) (6... Bc5 7. Bxc5 Nxc5 8. Qe2+ Qe7 9. Nc3 Bg4 10. Qxe7+
Kxe7 11. h3 Bf5 12. O-O-O h5 13. Nf3 {with a clear advantage for White
(Spassky-Limbos, Varna Olympiad 1962)}) ({, or} 6... Qh4+ 7. g3 Nxg3 8. Nf3 (8.
hxg3 $6 Qxh1 9. Qe2 {as played by Keres and Tal, is more reckless}) 8... Qe7 9.
hxg3 Qxe3+ 10. Qe2 Qxe2+ 11. Bxe2 Bg4 12. Nc3 Bb4 13. Ng5 {with slightly the
better ending (Spassky-Matanovic, Belgrade 1964).})) 6... Bc5 $1 ({Of course,
not} 6... Bf5 $2 7. Be3 $1 c6 8. Bc4 b5 9. Bb3 c5 10. d6 $1 c4 11. Qd5 {with
an obvious advantage to White (Alekhine-Tarrasch, St Petersburg 1914). On this
occasion the Doctor had prepared a surprise...}) 7. Qe2 (7. Bd3 $5 {is a
suggestion of Tartakower.}) 7... Bf5 $1 {An important improvement in the main
position of the variation!} ({Earlier White had been successful after} 7... f5
8. Be3 $1 Qxd5 9. Bxc5 Qxc5 10. Nc3 Qe7 11. Nd5 {(Spielmann-Wolf, Düsseldorf
1908)}) (7... Qxd5 8. Nfd2 $1) (7... Qe7 8. Be3 $1) (7... O-O 8. Qxe4 Re8 9.
Ne5 f6 10. Bb5 $1 {Krause.}) ({or} 7... Bf2+ 8. Kd1 Qxd5+ 9. Nfd2 $1 f5 10. Nc3
Qd4 11. Ncxe4 fxe4 12. c3 {(Réti-Breyer, Budapest 1917).}) 8. g4 $2 {The
intriguing point is that this thrust had been recommended by Spielmann in the
latest edition of Bilguer's Handbuch as the refutation of 7...Bf5. But here
Tarrasch had devised something!} ({Of course, correct is} 8. Nc3 Qe7 9. Be3 $1
{, as Tartakower soon announced in his famous theoretical work Die
hypermoderne Schachpartie and his no less famous article From the sickbed of
the King's Gambit.} -- (9... Nxc3 10. Bxc5 Nxe2 11. Bxe7 Nxf4 12. Ba3 $3 {with
advantage to White, which was converted in the game Bronstein-Tal (Riga 1958)
- cf. Bronstein's remarkable book '200 Open Games'.}) (9... Bxe3 10. Qxe3 Nxc3
11. Qxe7+ Kxe7 12. bxc3 Bxc2 ({Tartakower recommended the 'equalising'} 12...
Be4 {, and only nearly half a century later was it discovered that} 13. Ng5 $1
Bxd5 14. O-O-O {sets Black difficult problems}) 13. Kd2 Bg6 14. Re1+ Kd6 15.
Nd4 $1 {with the better endgame.})) 8... O-O $3 {A brilliant bishop sacrifice,
which must have stunned Spielmann.} 9. gxf5 Re8 10. Bg2 (10. Qg2 {comes into
consideration. After this the loser and other commentators give the line} Qxd5
({instead of 10...Qxd5 possibly better is} 10... Ng3+ 11. Ne5 Nxh1 12. Qxh1 f6
13. d6 Bxd6 14. Bc4+ Kh8 {, nevertheless with advantage to Black}) 11. Be2 Nc6
12. Nc3 {(? - G.K.)} Qxf5 {with numerous threats. However, in my opinion it
is stronger to interpose 12 f6! and only after 12...g6 or 12...Nxf6 to play 13
Nc3, when Black still has to demonstrate that his attack compensates for the
piece deficit.}) ({But not} 10. Ne5 $2 Qh4+ {.}) 10... Nf2 11. Ne5 Nxh1 12.
Bxh1 Nd7 $1 {A brilliant move: things immediately become bad for White!} (12...
f6 $2 {was premature on account of} 13. d6 $1 fxe5 (13... cxd6 $2 14. Bd5+) 14.
Qc4+ Kh8 15. Qxc5 Nc6 16. Qf2 Qxd6 17. Nc3 {, when Black stands badly.}) 13.
Nc3 f6 $1 14. Ne4 ({It is hard to say whether it would have been more
tenacious to play} 14. Bd2 fxe5 15. O-O-O exf4 16. Qc4 Bd6 {, when Black is
the exchange up.}) 14... fxe5 15. Nxc5 Nxc5 16. fxe5 Qh4+ 17. Kf1 (17. Kd1 $2
Qd4+ {was even worse, but now too the days of the white king are numbered.})
17... Rf8 $1 18. Kg1 $6 ({White would also have lost after} 18. Qf3 Qxh2 19.
Bf4 Qxc2 20. f6 Nd3 21. Qg3 Rf7) ({or} 18. f6 Rae8 $1 19. e6 (19. Bg2 Qd4 $1)
19... Rxf6+ 20. Kg1 Qd4+ 21. Be3 Rg6+ 22. Bg2 Qxd5) ({but it was worth trying}
18. e6 $1 Rxf5+ 19. Kg1 Raf8 (19... Qd4+ 20. Be3 Qxb2 21. Re1 Qc3 22. Bd2 {is
not so clear}) 20. Be3 Ne4 21. Bg2 {- here there is still some fight in the
position.}) 18... Qd4+ $1 19. Be3 Qxe5 20. Re1 Nd7 $1 {As quickly as possible
to the kingside!} 21. Qc4 Kh8 22. Be4 Rae8 23. Bd4 Qf4 24. Re2 Nf6 ({But not}
24... Rxe4 $2 25. Rxe4 Qxe4 $4 26. Bxg7+ {and 27 Qxe4.}) 25. Bxf6 gxf6 26. h3 (
{Or} 26. Re1 Rg8+ 27. Kh1 Qf3+ $1 {.}) 26... Rg8+ {. But in general Tarrasch
preferred classical methods and he was undoubtedly a player with the class and
talent of a champion. But he had his purely competitive problems (as, for
instance, did Chigorin, who was unable to withstand the tension of the
struggle). At decisive moments of chess history - in particular in the 1890s,
when he needed to demonstrate everything of which he was capable, Tarrasch
often avoided a direct confrontation with his strongest opponents, preferring
not to subject his nervous system to excessive strain. --- It is probable that
at that time he could have defeated both Steinitz, and also even Lasker - or
at least to offer him very serious resistance. But in the 20th century Lasker
was already too strong for Tarrasch: the champion had retained his enormous
practical strength, whereas the challenger had begun to lose his, together
with his former clarity of thought...} 0-1
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Test of Principles"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.07"]
{Test of Principles: In 1908 the German Chess Union finally managed to raise
the funds for the long-awaited match for the world crown between Lasker and
Tarrasch, and on 17th August in Düsseldorf, before a crowd of nearly two
thousand spectators, the two players joined battle. They played to the first
to win eight games; the time control was one hour for each 15 moves with an
adjournment after six hours' play; the prize fund - 6,500 Marks (4,000 to the
winner and 2,500 to the loser) plus an appearance fee for the champion of 7,
500 Marks.} 1. -- {The match with Tarrasch was a severe test of Lasker's
creative views. His opponent was a strict guardian of Steinitz's laws, so
strict that later Tarrasch's critics unfairly called him 'dogmatic'. In fact
Tarrasch, an advocate of the positional school (although, as we have seen, he
also had a brilliant combinative talent), a splendid theoretician, commentator
and writer, made an invaluable contribution to the development of chess. At
the board he firmly upheld his principles: his ideal was play 'according to
the position', the search for objectively the strongest move. Whereas Lasker's
ideal was the move that was most unpleasant for the given opponent! ---
Initially the match promised to be competitively intriguing: Lasker won the
first, in the Exchange Variation of the Ruy Lopez, and also the second, then
Tarrasch responded with a spectacular win in the third. 'After two days' rest
he played freshly, not displaying any psychological damage from his initial
defeats.' (Lasker)} *
[Event "53: World Ch. Match, Düsseldorf/Munich"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1908.??.??"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Lasker, Em"]
[Black "Tarrasch, S."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C98"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "86"]
[EventDate "1908.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3
Na5 (8... O-O 9. h3 ({but at that time after 8...0-0 they feared} 9. d4 {, not
knowing that} Bg4 {gives Black good counterplay}) 9... Na5 10. Bc2 c5 11. d4
Qc7 {is more accurate.}) 9. Bc2 c5 10. d4 Qc7 11. Nbd2 Nc6 12. h3 {A
non-essential move, which returns us to a theoretical position.} (12. Nf1 $6 {
(Game No.78) is passive}) ({but White could have played} 12. d5) (12. a4) ({or
} 12. dxc5 {, trying to carry out Rauzer's plan with an extra tempo.}) 12...
O-O 13. Nf1 $6 {A dubious decision: now Black can simply grab a pawn.} ({The
Rauzer system really is better -} 13. dxc5 dxc5 14. Nf1 {and Ne3. This is what
Fischer played, although with alternating success: thus he lost to Kholmov
(Havana 1965).} (14. a4 $5 {.})) ({But the strongest is} 13. d5 $1 {(it is
because of this that nowadays ...Na5-c6 is not popular)} Nd8 14. a4 Rb8 15.
axb5 axb5 16. b4 {, as in the games Karpov-Spassky (41st USSR Championship,
Moscow 1973) and Karpov-Unzicker (Nice Olympiad 1974), which are analysed in
the second volume.}) 13... cxd4 14. cxd4 Nxd4 ({Also good is} 14... exd4 {
(with the idea of ...Qb6, ...Be6 and ...Nd7)} 15. Re2 (15. b3 d5 $1) (15. Bg5
h6 16. Bh4 Re8 17. Rc1 Qb6 18. Qd2 Be6 19. Bb1 Ne5 $1 {Leonhardt-Rubinstein,
San Sebastian 1911}) (15. Ng3 g6 ({or} 15... Re8 {with equality})) 15... Qb6
16. Rd2 d5 17. exd5 Nxd5 18. Nxd4 Bb4 {and it is doubtful whether White has
anything.}) 15. Nxd4 exd4 {An unusual tabiya of this match.} 16. Ng3 ({In the
fifth game Lasker successfully tried} 16. Bg5 -- (16... h6 17. Bh4 Qb6 18. Qd3
g5 $6 (18... Rd8 19. Red1 Be6 {equalises}) 19. Bg3 Be6 20. Rad1 Rfc8 21. Bb1
Nd7 22. e5 $1 Nf8 23. Qf3 $1 d5 24. Qh5 Kg7 25. f4 f5 $2 (25... Ng6 {was more
tenacious}) 26. exf6+ Bxf6 27. fxg5 hxg5 28. Be5 d3+ 29. Kh1 Ng6 30. Qxg5 Bf7
31. Ng3 Bxe5 32. Rxe5 Rh8 33. Bxd3 Ra7 34. Rde1 Kf8 35. Bxg6 Qxg6 36. Qe3 Rc7
37. Nf5 Qc6 38. Qg5 {1-0. 'For the first time I was outplayed from beginning
to end.' (Tarrasch)}) ({. I should remind you that the challenger played the
fifth game in a depressed state after his heavy defeat in the fourth.
Otherwise he would easily have discovered the strong reply} 16... Qc5 $1 {,
found by the analysts only after the match:} 17. Bh4 Be6 18. Rc1 Qb4 19. b3
Rac8 20. Ng3 d5 {with advantage to Black. Which, in my view, after} 21. Bxf6
Bxf6 22. exd5 Bxd5 23. Bxh7+ Kxh7 24. Qh5+ Kg8 25. Qxd5 Rxc1 26. Rxc1 Qd2 {
with advantage to Black. Which, in my view, after})) (16. b3 d5 $1 {is equal})
(16. Bb3 Qb6 17. Bg5 Ra7 $1 {.}) 16... Nd7 ({'Weaker is} 16... g6 17. Bb3 Qb6
18. Bh6 Re8 19. Qf3 Be6 20. Nf5 $1 {with advantage to White (Euwe-Kramer,
Amsterdam 3rd matchgame 1941),' theory stated for more than half a century,
but after} Bf8 $1 {this advantage is somehow not apparent.}) 17. Bb3 $6 ({
According to Euwe, simpler is} 17. Nf5 $1 Bf6 18. Re2 (18. Bb3 Qb6 19. Bd5 Bb7
{is equal}) 18... Qb6 (18... Bb7 19. Nxd4 Nc5) 19. Rd2 {, 'regaining the pawn
with a good game.' However, here too Black is perfectly alright:} Ne5 $1 20.
Nxd4 Nc4 (20... Bg5 $5) 21. Rd3 Bb7 22. b3 Bxe4 $1 ({in my view, this is
stronger than the} 22... Ne5 {suggested by the commentators}) 23. bxc4 Bxd4 $1
24. Rxd4 Bxc2 {etc. --- 'The pawn could have been regained without great
effort, if that had been my intention,' writes Lasker. 'But I was enticed by
an attack, since the temptation was very great. The attack did not succeed,
and this decided the outcome of the game.'}) 17... Qb6 (17... g6 {is also
possible, allowing White to regain the d4-pawn. The weakness at d6 is balanced
by the weakness at e4, and Black has quite a good position (which was
demonstrated with particular success in similar set-ups by Keres).}) 18. Nf5
Bf6 19. Bf4 $6 ({Schlechter quite reasonably suggested} 19. Bd5 Ra7 20. b3 {,
to which Tarrasch replied} Ne5 21. Bb2 Bxf5 22. exf5 d3 {(with the threat of ...Nf3+ and ...Bxb2), although here} 23. Rb1 $1 ({but not} 23. Bxe5 $2 Bxe5 24.
Rc1 Qd4 {and Black wins}) 23... Rc7 ({in my view,} 23... Rd8 $5 24. Bc1 Re7 {
is more interesting}) 24. Bxe5 Bxe5 25. Qxd3 {would still have maintained the
balance.}) 19... Ne5 $1 {It is important to retain the dark-squared bishop!} ({
'The world champion had probably based his calculation on} 19... Be5 $2 20.
Bxe5 (20. Qg4 g6 21. Ne7+ Kg7 {- G.K.}) 20... dxe5 $2 ({relatively best is}
20... Nxe5 21. Nxd4) 21. Qg4 Qf6 22. Bd5 Ra7 23. Rac1 {with a strong attack.'
(Neishtadt) But in my opinion, after} Nb6 24. Rc6 Be6 {things are not so clear.
}) 20. Bd5 ({After the greedy} 20. Nxd4 {there would have followed} Nc4 $1 21.
Ne2 ({there is nothing else:} 21. Bxc4 $2 Bxd4 22. Bd5 Bxf2+) (21. Be3 $6 Nxe3
22. fxe3 Bb7) 21... Be6 {with the initiative.}) 20... Ra7 21. Qb3 (21. Qb3 {
threatens} -- 22. Nxd4 Qxd4 $2 23. Be3 {and Bxa7.}) 21... Rc7 22. g4 g6 23.
Nh6+ Kg7 24. g5 Bd8 25. Qg3 f6 $1 {An accurate move, bringing the opponent's
activity to a standstill.} 26. Nf5+ $5 ({With a heavy heart, since both} 26.
gxf6+ Bxf6) ({and} 26. h4 $2 fxg5 27. hxg5 Rxf4 $1 28. Qxf4 Bxg5 $1 {(} 29.
Qxg5 Nf3+ {and ...Nxg5) are bad for White.}) 26... Kh8 $1 ({There was a
drawing opportunity for White after} 26... gxf5 $6 27. gxf6+ Kh8 (27... Kxf6 $4
28. Qg5#) 28. Bh6 Rff7 29. Bxf7 Rxf7 30. Bg7+ Kg8 31. Bh6+ {.}) 27. Nh4 {(alas,
forced)} fxg5 28. Bxg5 Bxg5 29. Qxg5 d3 $1 {A catastrophe on f2! 'After
repelling a seemingly very dangerous attack, Black launched an irresistible
counter-offensive.' (Lasker) 'I was able to decide the game with the help of
this rejected pawn.' (Tarrasch)} 30. Kh1 (30. Qg3 Rc2) (30. Rf1 Bxh3 {.}) 30...
Rc2 31. Re3 Rfxf2 32. Ng2 ({After the cunning} 32. Nf3 {Black would have
decided matters by} Rxf3 ({but not} 32... Nxf3 $4 33. Qf6#) 33. Rxf3 Rh2+ $1
34. Kxh2 Nxf3+ {and ...Nxg5.}) 32... d2 33. Rg1 Rc1 34. Qe7 Rxg1+ (34... d1=Q
35. Qe8+ Kg7 36. Qe7+ Nf7 {would also have won}) ({but the simplest, of course,
was} 34... Rff1 $1 35. Qe8+ Kg7 36. Qg8+ ({or} 36. Qe7+ Nf7 37. Rxf1 Rxf1+ {
and ...d1Q}) 36... Kh6 37. Rxf1 Rxf1+ {and ...d1Q.}) 35. Kxg1 d1=Q+ 36. Kxf2
Qf3+ 37. Ke1 {A picturesque position.} Qa5+ ({It is doubtful whether Alekhine,
who also had occasion to give mate with two queens (Game No.125), would have
missed} 37... Nd3+ $1 38. Kd2 (38. Rxd3 Qbf2#) 38... Qa5+ 39. Kc2 (39. Kxd3
Qd1#) 39... Qxg2+ 40. Kxd3 Qgd2# {.}) 38. Rc3 Bxh3 39. Qxd6 Qaxc3+ (39... Qg3+
$1 {was quicker.}) 40. bxc3 Qxc3+ 41. Ke2 ({Or} 41. Kf1 Qf3+ 42. Ke1 Qg3+ 43.
Kd1 Bg4+ 44. Kc1 Nd3+ {.}) 41... Qc2+ 42. Ke3 Qd3+ 43. Kf4 g5+ (43... g5+ 44.
Kxg5 (44. Kxe5 Qc3# {- a problem-like finish!}) 44... Nf7+ {and ...Nxd6.}) 0-1
[Event "54: World Ch. Match, Düsseldorf/Munich"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1908.??.??"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Tarrasch, S."]
[Black "Lasker, Em"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C66"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "82"]
[EventDate "1908.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{The challenger had raised his head! Now much depended on which of the two
players would succeed in landing the next blow. And at this moment was played
one of their most famous games, determining the outcome of the match.} 1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O d6 {Not only Lasker, but also Capablanca (cf.
Game No.81) followed the first world champion in playing the rather passive,
but solid Steinitz Defence. But Tarrasch condemned the variation with ...d7-d6,
saying that 'every cramped position harbours the germ of defeat'.} 5. d4 Bd7 6.
Nc3 Be7 7. Re1 exd4 8. Nxd4 Nxd4 ({In the second game after} 8... O-O $1 9.
Nxc6 Bxc6 ({according to Steinitz,} 9... bxc6 10. Bd3 Re8 {is more solid}) 10.
Bxc6 bxc6 11. Ne2 Qd7 $2 {(this square is for the knight!)} 12. Ng3 Rfe8 13. b3
Rad8 14. Bb2 {White gained a clear advantage. But castling served Lasker
faithfully in his later matches with Janowski (1909), Schlechter (1910) and
Capablanca (1921).}) 9. Qxd4 (9. Bxd7+ Nxd7 {is equal.}) 9... Bxb5 10. Nxb5 O-O
({After} 10... a6 11. Nc3 O-O 12. Bg5 Nd7 13. Bxe7 Qxe7 14. Nd5 Qd8 15. Re3 {
White also has a slight initiative (Capablanca-Thomas, Hastings 1919).
Incidentally, this game had a very curious finish (Game No.87).}) 11. Bg5 (11.
Bf4 $5 {is also sensible.}) ({Capablanca suggested} 11. Qc3 c6 ({but better is
} 11... a6 $1 12. Nd4 Nd7 13. Nf5 Bf6 14. Qg3 Ne5 {with level chances}) 12. Nd4
{.}) 11... h6 12. Bh4 Re8 (12... Ng4 $5 {.}) 13. Rad1 {(with the threat of
e4-e5)} Nd7 14. Bxe7 ({If} 14. Bg3 {, then} Bf6 15. Qc4 a6 $1 16. Nxc7 Rc8 (
16... Nb6 $1) 17. Bxd6 Be5 18. Bxe5 (18. Qd3 $1) 18... Rxe5 19. Qd4 Qxc7 $1 {
is equal (Tarrasch).}) 14... Rxe7 15. Qc3 $5 {Intending Nd4-f5 and at the same
time hitting the c7-pawn.} (15. c4 {would have led to a position from the game
Capablanca-Marshall (New York 4th matchgame 1909), where after} Re6 16. f4 a6
17. Nc3 Nf6 18. Nd5 Nxd5 19. exd5 Re7 {a draw was agreed.}) ({Later} 15. f4 $5
a6 16. Nc3 Re6 17. Rf1 Qf6 18. Qb4 {was recommended, with some advantage.}) (
15. Qc3 {. Tarrasch must have been happy with the outcome of the opening:
White has a slight but enduring advantage, and chances of increasing it
without any risk.} -- ({. For example,} 15... Nf8 16. Nd4 $1 {, and} g6 {
noticeably weakens the king's defences}) (15... Nf6 $6 16. e5) ({, or} 15...
Nc5 16. f3 ({the tempting} 16. e5 $6 {is parried by} Qd7 17. Nd4 Rxe5 18. Rxe5
dxe5 19. Qxc5 exd4 20. Rxd4 Re8 $1 21. h3 Qe7 {with equality}) 16... Qd7 17.
Nd4 Ne6 18. Nf5 Ree8 19. Qb4 Rab8 20. e5 d5 21. Qg4 {etc. --- Lasker realised
perfectly well that his only chance of avoiding a prolonged and gruelling
defence was to dislodge Tarrasch from his confident state. To do this he had
to create something unusual, contrary to all the positional rules and
standards of chess wisdom!})) 15... Re5 $1 {(a brilliant way of defending the
c7-pawn)} 16. Nd4 $1 {For the moment Tarrasch is equal to the occasion: he
threatens Nf5 and f2-f4.} ({In the event of} 16. Qxc7 $2 Rxb5 17. Qxd6 Rxb2 18.
Qxd7 Qxd7 19. Rxd7 Rc8 $1 {Black has the better endgame.}) (16. Nxc7 $2 Rc5 {
wins.}) 16... Rc5 $1 {Of course, from the purely positional viewpoint this
move is very dangerous: the stray rook may cause Black significant problems.} (
{But, firstly,} 16... Nc5 17. f3 {leaves White with all the advantages of his
position, and secondly, the impudent behaviour of the rook is bound to upset
the opponent's composure...}) 17. Qb3 ({If} 17. Qg3 {, then} Qg5 {is quite
good.}) 17... Nb6 (17... a5 $5 {.}) 18. f4 {Cutting off the rook's retreat.
Many commentators criticised this move, saying that 'Tarrasch was influenced
by Lasker's psychological thinking,' and recommending 18 Re3 or 18 Nf5. But
Mark Dvoretsky's evaluation is closer to the truth: 'By advancing his pawn to
f4, White takes control of the e5- and g5-squares, and prepares to cramp the
opponent by Qf3, b2-b3 and c2-c4. From the fact that Tarrasch lost the game,
it by no means follows that all his decisions were incorrect.'} Qf6 19. Qf3 {
An important moment for evaluating the correctness of Black's idea.} Re8 $2 (
19... Re8 {Black is apparently tempted by a trap:} 20. b3 $2 {(with the
logical intention of playing c2-c4)} Nd5 $1 21. Ne2 (21. exd5 $2 Rxe1+ {and ...Qxd4+}) 21... Nb4 {, and it is now White who has problems.}) ({Later Lasker
suggested} 19... a5 $5 20. b3 a4 21. c4 ({after} 21. b4 Rc4 22. c3 {Black has
an extra tempo compared with the game}) 21... axb3 22. axb3 Rca5 {(and if} 23.
Nb5 Qe7 24. Qf2 {, then} Ra2 {).}) ({However, as was mentioned by Dvoretsky,
the soundest way to equalise was found by a pupil from his school, Ilya
Makariev -} 19... Na4 $1 {. For example:} 20. e5 (20. b3 $6 Nc3) (20. Qb3 Nb6
21. Qf3 Na4 {is equal}) 20... dxe5 21. Qxb7 Rd8 22. Nb3 (22. Qxa7 Rxd4 23. Rxd4
exd4 24. Qxa4 Qxf4) 22... Rxd1 23. Rxd1 Rxc2 24. Qe4 Qg6 $1 25. f5 Qc6 {etc.})
20. c3 $1 {(not losing his presence of mind)} a5 $1 {To the aid of the rook!}
21. b3 ({If} 21. Qd3 {Tarrasch did not like} Rh5 {.}) ({'} 21. Nb3 Rb5 ({
inferior is} 21... Rc4 $6 22. Nxa5 Ra4 {in view of} 23. Nxb7 Rxa2 24. b4 Rc2
25. Rc1 {- G.K.}) 22. Qe2 {was tempting, intending} c6 ({Black would have
replied} 22... Rf5 $1 23. g3 a4 {. True, but here} 24. e5 $1 dxe5 (24... axb3
25. exf6 $1 {etc.}) 25. Nd4 {is unpleasant}) 23. Nd4 Rc5 24. Qf2 {with an
obvious advantage.' (Dvoretsky)}) 21... a4 22. b4 {Tarrasch would appear to
have become nervous...} ({The consistent} 22. c4 $1 axb3 23. axb3 {would have
'stifled' the rook at c5 and condemned Black to a difficult defence:} -- (23...
c6 24. Nf5 $1 {(the most energetic)} d5 25. Qf2 ({or} 25. Qe3 $5 Nd7 26. Qh3
Rxe4 27. Rxe4 dxe4 28. Nd6 {Makariev}) 25... Nd7 26. g4 $1 {with strong
pressure,} ({according to Dvoretsky,} 26. Ng3 {is also good})) (23... Ra5 24.
Nb5 $1 Qe7 25. Qf2 {with the threat of Nxd6 and again the better prospects
(associated with e4-e5 or Nc3-d5),} ({but not} 25. e5 $6 d5 $1 {. About the
move in the game, which also retains a marked advantage, Dvoretsky made the
following subtle comment: 'After 22 c4 the position is clear and established,
and White's subsequent play is simpler. After 22 b4 the position is more
complicated, more unusual. Lasker was superior to his opponent in tactics, and
was better at finding his way in dynamic positions. In addition, he was
significantly younger than Tarrasch, more robust and with greater stamina. It
is clear who was favoured by the further complication of the play.'}))) 22...
Rc4 {Although the rook is trapped, it is exerting constant pressure on c3, so
that it is now doing some work!} 23. g3 ({If immediately} 23. Nb5 $6 Rd8 24.
Re3 {, then} d5 $1 25. e5 Qxf4 26. Qxf4 Rxf4 {.}) 23... Rd8 {Preparing ...
c7-c5.} ({The immediate} 23... c5 $2 {was bad because of} 24. Nb5 {.}) 24. Re3
$2 {In Réti's opinion, 'White is now positionally outplayed. He has, as
against the threat 24...c5 no defence from a positional point of view.
Therefore he attempts to create one by means of a combination, which, as is
usual with all combinations resorted to in a state of mere desperation, does
not get home.' --- It is from such components, influenced by the result of the
game and the accompanying impressions, that chess mythology is created! What
cause is there here for desperation?!} ({After all, even the crude} 24. e5 dxe5
25. Rxe5 {retains some advantage. And if one is hoping for more, it is easy to
find against ...c7-c5 a 'defence from the positional point of view', and not
just one!}) ({For example:} 24. Qe3 $5 {(Rellstab)} Re8 (24... c5 $6 25. Nb5) (
24... a3 25. Nb5 Na4 26. e5 $1 dxe5 27. fxe5 Qe7 28. Rxd8+ Qxd8 29. e6 Qe7 30.
Qd3 {wins for White - Dvoretsky}) 25. Qd3 $1 Rd8 26. Nb5 {with the threat of
e4-e5 or Re3}) (24. Rb1 $5 {(Chernin), planning Qd3, Re3 and Nb5-a3, and if} c5
$6 (24... a3 $6 25. Rb3) 25. bxc5 {then} dxc5 26. e5) (24. Rd3 $5 {(Makariev)}
c5 $6 25. bxc5 Rxc5 (25... dxc5 26. Nb5 $1) 26. Rb1 {etc.}) (24. a3 $1 {
(Tarrasch). In my opinion, this prophylaxis is the best - the rook at c4 is
stalemated, and in the event of} c5 $6 25. Nb5 cxb4 26. cxb4 {the d6-pawn is
extremely weak and White has a clear advantage. --- Incidentally, Tarrasch
himself explained his error rather simply: 'Up till now I had conducted the
game irreproachably, but here I was seized by the unfortunate idea of a rook
sacrifice, which in view of time-trouble I was unable to calculate properly.'})
24... c5 25. Nb5 $2 {Driven by a passionate desire to punish his opponent for
his violation of the chess laws, Tarrasch 'goes off the rails'!} ({Later he
lamented: 'If I hadn't been so carried away by the idea of the rook sacrifice,
I would have played} 25. Nc2 cxb4 26. Nxb4 {with a good game thanks to the
attack on the d6-pawn.'}) ({Also suitable was Richard Teichmann's
recommendation} 25. bxc5 $1 Rxc5 (25... dxc5 $2 26. e5 ({or} 26. Nb5)) 26. Rb1
Nc4 27. Rd3 {and Nc2-e3-d5 with equal chances.}) 25... cxb4 26. Rxd6 $2 {That
'desperate' combination referred to earlier;} ({the more sober} 26. cxb4 $1
Rxb4 27. Nc3 Rc8 28. Red3 Rc6 29. a3 Rb3 30. Ne2 {would still have retained
possibilities of a defence.}) 26... Rxd6 27. e5 Rxf4 $3 {And here is the
refutation. Moreover, by the irony of fate the fatal blow is struck by the
abhorrent 'hooligan' rook!} ({In Dvoretsky's opinion, White's combination
'would have been incorrect even if this rejoinder had not been found:} 27...
Rd1+ $5 28. Qxd1 Qc6 {was also very strong.' But in this case after} 29. Qd8+
Kh7 30. e6 $1 fxe6 31. Qd3+ Kg8 (31... g6 $6 32. Nd4) 32. Qd8+ Kh7 33. Qd3+ {
White would have maintained the balance.}) 28. gxf4 ({Also hopeless are both}
28. Qxf4 Rd1+ 29. Kf2 Qxf4+ 30. gxf4 Nd5 ({or} 30... Rd2+)) ({and} 28. exf6
Rxf3 29. Rxf3 Rd1+ 30. Kg2 Rd2+ (30... Nd5 $5) 31. Rf2 Rxf2+ 32. Kxf2 b3 ({or}
32... Nd5 {(Tarrasch).})) 28... Qg6+ 29. Kh1 $6 ({No better was} 29. Kf1 Qb1+
30. Re1 Qd3+ 31. Qxd3 Rxd3 32. Ke2 Rh3 33. cxb4 Nd5 $1 {and Black wins. The
rest is clear without any commentary.}) 29... Qb1+ 30. Kg2 Rd2+ 31. Re2 Qxa2
32. Rxd2 Qxd2+ 33. Kg3 a3 $1 34. e6 Qe1+ 35. Kg4 Qxe6+ 36. f5 Qc4+ 37. Nd4 a2
38. Qd1 Nd5 39. Qa4 Nxc3 40. Qe8+ Kh7 41. Kh5 a1=Q {. 'In this game, as in
many others, I dug my own grave.' (Tarrasch) --- The score became 3-1 in
Lasker's favour, and the match moved on from Düsseldorf to Munich. The world
champion drew some initial conclusions with a depth of thinking that was ahead
of the time: 'The two players have gained some knowledge of the force opposing
them... In a match it is necessary to understand the psychology of the
opponent, in order to decide how to conduct the further offensive. Almost
sub-consciously, sometimes even involuntarily, each creates in his mind a
plastic image of the opponent. This work is necessary, since the concept of
playing strength is a highly complex matter. How the opponent conducts himself
in joy and grief, in simple and complex situations, in dubious and safe
positions, in the moments of origination and ruining of hopes - all this forms
his style of play. It consists of many different components. And therefore to
compile the psychological resources of the two sides one has to examine a
number of games, where the opponent finds himself in a variety of situations...
This knowledge is bound to come in useful in the subsequent battle.' --- But
for Tarrasch, in contrast to his opponent, it hardly came in useful. The fatal
fourth game undermined the challenger's confidence in his powers, and a week
later in Munich, in front of one and a half thousand spectators, the match
went off the rails for him: a submissive loss in the fifth game, a clearly
missed win in the endgame of the sixth, and another defeat in the prolonged
seventh game...} 0-1
[Event "55: World Ch. Match, Düsseldorf/Munich"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1908.??.??"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Tarrasch, S."]
[Black "Lasker, Em"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C67"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "65"]
[EventDate "1908.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{With the score standing at 5-1 (=1), Lasker came to a halt - a crisis for the
leader, typical of match situations. After fighting draws in the eighth and
ninth games, Tarrasch pulled himself together and won in the 10th, playing
what was probably his best game of the match. In the commentary on its opening
stage, it is interesting to follow the development of chess thinking over the
intervening one hundred years.} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O Nxe4 ({
After the fourth game Lasker did not play} 4... d6 {any more in the match.}) 5.
d4 ({In the 19th century, under the influence of Steinitz they also played} 5.
Re1 Nd6 6. Nxe5 {, but after} Be7 7. Bd3 O-O 8. Nc3 Nxe5 ({or} 8... Ne8 $5 9.
Nd5 Bf6 10. Ng4 d6 {(Janowski-Lasker, Nuremberg 1896) Black has no problems})
9. Rxe5 c6 10. b3 Ne8 $1 11. Bb2 d5 12. Qf3 Bf6 13. Re2 Nc7 {(Steinitz-Zukertor
Steinitz-Zukertort, USA 14th matchgame 1886).}) 5... Be7 ({After the drama in
his game with Tarrasch in Hastings 1895, Lasker's attachment to} 5... Nd6 {had
cooled (Game No.47).}) 6. Qe2 $1 Nd6 7. Bxc6 bxc6 8. dxe5 Nb7 (8... Nf5 9. Qe4
$1 g6 {is regarded as a sideline because of} 10. Nd4 (10. Nc3 $5) (10. b3 $5)
10... Nxd4 11. Qxd4 O-O ({better is} 11... d5 $1 {, as my former assistant,
grandmaster Vladimirov liked to play (cf. Shakhmaty v SSSR 1979, No.12, p.23)})
12. Bh6 Re8 13. Nc3 {(Tarrasch-Taubenhaus, Monte Carlo 1903).}) 9. Nc3 {The
main plan.} ({In the ancient matches Neumann-Anderssen (Berlin 1864-65)} 9. Be3
O-O 10. Rd1 Qe8 11. Nc3 Nd8 $1 ({and} 11... d5 $5 12. Nd4 Nc5 13. f4 Ne6 {were
tried many times, as a result of which the entire variation with 4...Nxe4 was
called the Berlin Defence.})) (9. c4 O-O {(Zukertort-Anderssen, Berlin 1st
matchgame 1868)} 10. Nc3 {has also been known for a long time, for example:} --
(10... Nc5 11. Be3 (11. b3 f6 $1 {Tal-Smyslov, Moscow 1971}) 11... Ne6 12. Rad1
f6 13. Nd4 Nxd4 14. Bxd4 fxe5 15. Qxe5 {with a microscopic advantage
(Petrosian-Ivkov, Moscow-Belgrade match 1978)}) ({, or} 10... f6 11. Re1 (11.
Be3 Qe8 $1) (11. Bd2 $5 {Tal-Panno, Rio Hondo 1987}) 11... fxe5 12. Nxe5 Bf6
13. Bf4 (13. Qh5 Nc5 $5) 13... Bxe5 14. Bxe5 d6 15. Bd4 Qh4 (15... Bf5 $5) 16.
Qd2 Qf4 17. Re3 Nd8 $1 18. Ne4 Ne6 19. Bc3 Bd7 {with equal chances
(Tal-Dorfman, 44th USSR Championship, Moscow 1976).})) ({But the game
Pillsbury-Lasker (St Petersburg 1895/96) went} 9. b3 O-O 10. Bb2 (10. Ba3 $5 {
Romanishin}) 10... d5 11. exd6 cxd6 12. Nbd2 Bf6 13. Bxf6 Qxf6 {with an equal
position, although after} 14. Rfe1 Nc5 15. Ne4 Nxe4 16. Qxe4 Bd7 $6 (16... d5)
17. c4 Rfe8 18. Qd4 Rxe1+ 19. Rxe1 Qxd4 20. Nxd4 Kf8 21. Kf1 a5 $2 22. a4 $1
Re8 23. Rxe8+ Kxe8 24. Ke2 {White obtained a favourable endgame and converted
it into a win.}) 9... O-O (9... Nc5 10. Nd4 Ba6 $6 {is premature on account of}
11. Qg4 $1 Bxf1 12. Qxg7 Rf8 13. Kxf1 {(Showalter-Tarrasch, Vienna 1898).}) 10.
Re1 $1 {Pillsbury's idea: White hinders ...d7-d5.} ({After} 10. Nd4 {in the
game Winawer-Lasker (Nuremberg 1896) there followed} Bc5 $1 11. Nf5 $2 (11. Rd1
Qe8 12. Bf4 Nd8 $1 13. Bg3 Rb8 14. Rab1 Ne6 15. Nf5 f6 $1 {equalises,
Kostro-Smyslov, Leipzig Olympiad 1960}) 11... d5 12. Qg4 Bxf5 13. Qxf5 Re8 14.
Bf4 Bd4 $1 15. Rfe1 Nc5 16. Rad1 Bxc3 17. bxc3 Qc8 $1 {with advantage to Black.
}) (10. Rd1 {also promises little in view of} d5 {(Tal-Pachman, Moscow 1967)} (
{or} 10... Nc5 11. Bf4 Ne6 12. Bg3 d5 $1 {(Shirov-Timman, Dordrecht 1999).}))
10... Nc5 {Immediately activating the 'bad' knight.} ({After} 10... Re8 {
(Pillsbury-Lasker, London 1899) Black has} 11. Qc4 $5 Nc5 12. Ng5 {Chigorin's
idea;} ({if} 12. Bg5 Ba6 $6 (12... d5 $1) 13. Bxe7 Bxc4 14. Bxd8 Raxd8 15. Rad1
{with the better endgame, Hübner-Spassky, Venice 1st matchgame 1988}) 12...
Bxg5 ({according to Fine, more solid is} 12... Rf8 13. Nce4 Ba6 14. Qc3 Nxe4
15. Nxe4 f5 16. Nc5 Bxc5 17. Qxc5) 13. Bxg5 Qxg5 14. Qxc5 Re6 (14... Qe7 $5)
15. Qd4 $1 {with pressure (Schlechter-Janowski, Paris 1900).}) ({Other
possibilities are} 10... f6 11. Bf4 $1 {(Teichmann-Tarrasch, Monte Carlo 1902)}
) ({and} 10... d5 {(nevertheless!)} 11. exd6 Bxd6 12. Bg5 Qd7 13. Rad1 {
(Martinez-Lasker, USA simultaneous exhibition 1902)} ({or} 13. Ne4 c5 14. Rad1
{(Balashov-Smyslov, Leningrad 1977), and Black still has to fight for equality.
})) 11. Nd4 ({Fashionable nowadays is} 11. Bf4 $5 Ne6 12. Bg3 Rb8 (12... d5 13.
exd6 {and Rad1}) (12... f5 13. exf6) 13. b3 f5 14. exf6 Bxf6 15. Ne5 Bxe5 16.
Qxe5 {(Geller's plan)}) ({and also} 11. Be3 Ne6 12. Rad1 $5 {with some
initiative for White after both} f6 ({and} 12... d5 13. exd6 cxd6 14. Nd4 Bd7 (
{or} 14... Nxd4 15. Bxd4 Re8 16. Qf3 d5 17. Na4 Bf8 18. Bc5 {(Tal-Portisch,
Brussels 1988)}) 15. Nf5 d5 16. Nxe7+ Qxe7 17. Qd2 $1 {(Karpov-Korchnoi,
Merano 2nd matchgame 1981)}) 13. Nd4 Nxd4 14. Bxd4 fxe5 15. Bxe5 {
(Geller-Lengyel, Moscow 1975).}) 11... Ne6 12. Be3 ({White has also played both
} 12. Nf5 f6 $1) ({and} 12. Nxe6 fxe6 13. b3 (13. Ne4 d5 $1 {equalises}) (13.
Be3 d5 14. Na4 d4 $5 15. Rad1 c5 16. Bc1 Qd5 $1 {etc.}) 13... Qe8 (13... Bb7 $5
{and ...c6-c5}) 14. Be3 $5 (14. Bb2 Bb7 15. Qg4 {˝-˝ Spassky-Smyslov,
Tilburg 1979}) 14... Rf5 15. Ne4 $1 {(Anand-Timman, Wijk aan Zee 1999), and
Black has to choose between} Rxe5 16. Bf4 Rf5 17. Bxc7 Qf8 {and 15...Bb7.})
12... Nxd4 ({Nowadays they also employ the sharp sacrifice of the a7-pawn -}
12... Rb8 {, which has been known since the 1880s.} 13. -- ({. For example:}
13. Nxe6 fxe6 14. Bxa7 Rb4 $5 15. Be3 Bb7 16. b3 c5 $1 {with counterplay}) (13.
b3 Bb4 14. Nxe6 (14. Qd2 $5) 14... fxe6 15. Qd2 Rb5 $1) ({, or} 13. Rab1 Nxd4
14. Bxd4 c5 15. Be3 d5 16. exd6 Bxd6 {etc.})) 13. Bxd4 c5 $1 ({In the given
situation} 13... d5 $6 {is much weaker because of} 14. Na4 $1 Bb4 15. c3 Ba5
16. Qh5 Bb6 17. Re3 Be6 18. Rg3 Kh8 19. Rd1 Qe7 20. b4 {with a solid blockade
of the c5-square (Pillsbury-Tarrasch, Vienna 2nd matchgame 1898). --- 'The
move in the game is the start of the Vianna variation, named the "Rio de
Janeiro Variation" after the player's home.' (Keres) A year before the match,
Teichmann brought the 'Brazilian' idea 13...c5! from a tour of South America.
As Lasker wrote, 'this defence has come into theory, to settle there for a
long time.'}) (13... f6 $6 14. Rad1 {also failed to establish itself,
Zukertort-Winawer, London 1883.}) 14. Be3 d5 15. exd6 Bxd6 ({Of course, not}
15... cxd6 $2 16. Bxc5 {.}) 16. Ne4 $1 {Probably the strongest.} ({The eighth
game went} 16. Qh5 Bb7 17. Rad1 (17. Bxc5 $2 g6) 17... Re8 18. Nb5 (18. f3 {is
slightly better}) 18... Qf6 19. Nxd6 cxd6 20. Bc1 Re6 {with level chances.}) ({
In the 14th game Tarrasch tried} 16. Rad1 -- ({, and after} 16... Qh4 $6 17. h3
Qb4 18. Bc1 {he gained an advantage}) ({, but correct is} 16... Bb7 $1 17. Bf4
(17. Bxc5 $2 Qg5) 17... Re8 {with equality, for example:} 18. Qxe8+ Qxe8 19.
Rxe8+ Rxe8 20. Bxd6 cxd6 21. f3 Re6 22. Kf2 Bc6 23. Nd5 Kf8 24. Ne3 g6 25. c4
Ke7 26. Rd3 a5 27. Ra3 a4 28. Nd1 g5 $1 29. Nc3 Rh6 30. Nxa4 Rxh2 {when the
draw is not far off.}) (16... Qf6 $5 17. Qh5 Rb8 18. Bc1 Qf5 {equalises,
Capablanca-Réti, Vienna 1914.})) 16... Bb7 ({'But not} 16... Bxh2+ 17. Kxh2
Qh4+ 18. Kg1 Qxe4 19. Bxc5 Qxe2 20. Rxe2 {with clearly the better endgame for
White.' (Keres) But in my opinion, after} Ba6 $1 {(this statement demands
proof)} (20... Rd8 $6 21. Re7 $1) 21. Re7 (21. Rd2 $5) 21... Rfc8 22. Rae1 Bc4
23. Bxa7 (23. b3 Be6) 23... h6 $1 {is equal} ({Vukic recommended} 23... Bxa2 $2
24. b3 Bb1 {, but after} 25. Rxb1 Rxa7 26. Rd1 {Black can resign.})) 17. Nxd6
$5 {(White gets rid of the dangerous bishop, not worrying about the resulting
opposite-colour bishops)} cxd6 18. c4 {A new move - fixing the backward
d6-pawn.} ({In the source game Marco-Teichmann (Ostend II 1907) after} 18. Bf4
d5 19. Qb5 Qb6 20. Qxb6 axb6 21. Bc7 b5 {things ended in a draw.}) ({Out of
recent attempts I should mention} 18. Rad1 Qf6 19. f3 $5 {(Tseshkovsky-Ivkov,
Bled/Portoroz 1979)}) ({and} 18. Qg4 Qf6 19. Qg5 $5 Qg6 20. Qxg6 hxg6 21. Rad1
Rfd8 22. f3 {with a small plus in the ending (Tseshkovsky-Hort, Petrosian
Memorial, Moscow 1999).}) 18... Qf6 ({Also possible is} 18... Re8 19. f3 (19.
Rad1 Re6) 19... Qh4 20. b3 Re6 21. Qd2 Rg6 22. Bf4 Qf6 23. Qe3 h5 $5 24. Rad1
Rd8 25. Rd3 h4 26. Red1 h3 {with counterplay (Selesnieff-Réti, Berlin 1919).})
19. Rad1 Rfe8 ({Eighty years later} 19... Rae8 20. f3 Re6 21. Qf2 Rfe8 22. b3
h6 {with equal chances was also played.}) 20. Qg4 $1 {Precise calculation. The
problem of defending with Black in such 'dull' positions is that to maintain
the balance he all the time has to find virtually the only moves. And Lasker
is unable to withstand the tension...} Bc6 $2 {In Tarrasch's opinion, the
decisive mistake.} ({Also bad is} 20... Qxb2 $2 21. Rb1 Qc3 ({or} 21... Rxe3
22. fxe3 Qc3 23. Re2) 22. Rec1 Bc8 ({if} 22... Qa3 {there follows not} 23. Rxb7
$2 ({but} 23. Bh6 $1 g6 24. Qf4 {with the threats of Qf6 and Rxb7}) 23... Qxc1+
) 23. Qf3 Rb8 24. Qc6 Rxe3 25. Qxd6 $1 {and wins.}) ({Of course,} 20... Re6 $1
{should have been played. 'In this case White's position is also better in
view of the unpleasant weakness of the black d6-pawn, but with correct defence
Black should nevertheless be able to gain a draw thanks to the
opposite-coloured bishops.' (Keres)} 21. -- ({. In my opinion, this is not
hard to do, for example:} 21. Bf4 Rae8 22. Rxe6 Rxe6 23. h4 (23. b3 $2 Qe7 $1)
23... h6) (21. Re2 $6 Rae8 22. Red2 $2 ({or} 22. Qg3 Qg6 $1) 22... Qe5 $1) (21.
b3 Rae8 22. Qg3 h6 {is equal}) ({, or} 21. Qf4 Qg6 22. f3 Rae8 23. Bf2 Rxe1+
24. Rxe1 Rxe1+ 25. Bxe1 Qd3 26. Bc3 f6 {with equal chances in each case.})) 21.
Re2 $1 {After this move Lasker thought for almost a whole hour...} Re4 $2 {Not
without reason do they say that mistakes comes in pairs.} (21... Re6 $2 {no
longer worked because of} 22. Bg5) ({but better, nevertheless, was Vukic's
recommendation} 21... h6 $5 22. Red2 Rad8 23. Qg3 (23. Qf4 Qxf4 24. Bxf4 Re6 {
is equal}) 23... Re6 24. h4 (24. Bxc5 $2 Qf5 {and ...Rg6}) 24... Qe7 25. h5 Kh8
{, 'and Black's defences hold:} 26. -- (26. Bxc5 $2 Re1+ {(let us continue:}
27. Kh2 Rxd1 28. Bd4 f6 29. Rxd1 Qe2 30. Rc1 Qxh5+ 31. Kg1 {with equal chances
- G.K.)}) ({, or} 26. Bf4 d5 27. cxd5 Bxd5 ({after 28 Be3 White has a clear
advantage, and so instead of 27...Bxd5? correct is} 27... Re1+ 28. Rxe1 Qxe1+
29. Kh2 Rxd5 30. Rxd5 Bxd5) 28. Rxd5 $2 Re1+ $1 {' (Neishtadt)})) 22. Qg3 Qe6 (
{If} 22... Rxc4 {, then} 23. Rxd6 Rd8 24. Rxd8+ Qxd8 25. h3 $1 {with the
threats of Rd2 and Bh6.}) 23. h3 $1 ({'Possible was} 23. Rxd6 Qxc4 24. Red2 {
with the initiative, since here} Rg4 $2 {, does not work in view of} ({but
after} 24... Qxa2 25. h3 Re6 {things are not so clear}) 25. Rd8+ Be8 26. Qxg4
$1 Qxg4 27. Rxa8 {.' (Neishtadt)}) (23. Qxd6 $6 Rg4 $1 {.}) 23... Rd8 ({
Schlechter proposed} 23... Qxc4 24. Bh6 g6 25. Rxe4 Qxe4 {, but after} 26. Rxd6
{White is threatening Rxc6!, and if} Re8 {, then} 27. Kh2 {with the threat of
f2-f3.}) 24. Red2 Re5 25. Bh6 $1 Qg6 $2 ({Of course,} 25... Qxh6 26. Qxe5 {was
bad for Black}) ({but he could have prolonged the resistance by} 25... g6 26.
Bf4 Re1+ 27. Rxe1 Qxe1+ 28. Kh2 {etc. Now, however, almost as in draughts, one
after another Black loses his d6- and c5-pawns.}) 26. Bf4 Re6 27. Bxd6 Qh5 ({
Tarrasch considered} 27... h5 {to be somewhat more tenacious.}) 28. Qg4 ({But
not} 28. Be5 $4 Qxd1+ $1 29. Rxd1 Rxd1+ 30. Kh2 Rg6 {and Black wins.}) 28...
Qxg4 29. hxg4 Re4 30. Bxc5 Rxd2 31. Rxd2 h5 32. Rd6 f6 33. Rd1 {. 'The result
of this game again inspired me,' Tarrasch declared and... he ignominiously
lost the next, 11th game. But then he won the 12th, and in a titanic struggle!
The score became 6-3 (=3). Somewhat shaken, Lasker took a four-day break...
--- In his report on the game he had just lost (both players covered the match
in the press) the world champion wrote that he 'intends to explain his defeats,
present them in the correct light and... philosophise on their causes (shades
of the Steinitz-Chigorin School!). And indeed he gave a detailed psychological
analysis of the struggle, explaining why the win for his opponent, who
repulsed a seemingly dangerous attack, was justified: 'He parried a desperate
attack very skilfully and found a saving idea... Chess is just. He who plays
correctly and seeks, he will always find. Perhaps this is the most splendid
thing in our ancient strategic game.' --- The resumption of play showed that
Tarrasch's powers were already on the wane. In the 13th game the champion
chose 1 d4 for the first time in the match, and the challenger replied with
the defence that bears his name - 1...d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5. By the 20th move
Black had a splendid attacking position, when suddenly he removed a knight
from the centre and his position became almost hopeless. Lasker converted his
advantage and took the score to 7-3. 'Now, when my opponent only had to win a
single game more,' wrote Tarrasch, 'I played as though a Sword of Damocles was
raised above my head.'} 1-0
[Event "56: World Ch. Match, Düsseldorf/Munich"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1908.??.??"]
[Round "14"]
[White "Tarrasch, S."]
[Black "Lasker, Em"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C67"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "238"]
[EventDate "1908.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{Nevertheless the 14th game was the most protracted in all of Lasker's match
experience: obtaining an endgame with an extra pawn, Tarrasch tormented his
opponent for three days and 119 moves! There was a moment when in a sharp time
scramble Lasker made a couple of errors and was a step away from defeat.} 1. e4
e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O Nxe4 5. d4 Be7 6. Qe2 Nd6 7. Bxc6 bxc6 8. dxe5
Nb7 9. Re1 O-O 10. Nc3 Nc5 11. Nd4 Ne6 12. Be3 Nxd4 13. Bxd4 c5 14. Be3 d5 15.
exd6 Bxd6 16. Rad1 Qh4 17. h3 Qb4 18. Bc1 Be6 19. a3 Qb7 20. Qe4 Qxe4 21. Nxe4
Rfd8 22. Be3 Bf5 23. Nxc5 Bxc2 24. Rd2 Bf5 25. Nb7 Rd7 26. Red1 Be6 27. Nxd6
cxd6 28. Rxd6 Rxd6 29. Rxd6 a5 30. b4 axb4 31. axb4 Kf8 32. b5 Ke7 33. Rd1 Rd8
34. Rb1 Bd5 35. Bg5+ f6 36. Bf4 Bb7 37. Re1+ Kd7 38. Rc1 Ke6 39. b6 Rd7 40.
Re1+ Kd5 41. Re8 Kc6 42. Be3 Ba6 43. Ra8 Bd3 44. Rb8 Ba6 45. Kh2 Bd3 46. Bf4
Bg6 47. Be3 Bd3 48. g4 Bg6 49. Kg3 h5 50. f4 hxg4 51. hxg4 Re7 52. Rc8+ Kb7 53.
Rc3 Be4 54. Ra3 Kc6 55. Rc3+ Kb7 56. Ra3 Kc6 57. Rc3+ Kb7 58. f5 g6 59. g5 Rf7
60. gxf6 $2 {The ill-starred last move before the time control!} ({'} 60. Ra3 {
would have won quickly, for example:} -- (60... Kc6 61. Ra7 Rf8 (61... Rxa7 62.
bxa7 Kb7 ({or} 62... Kd7 63. fxg6 Ke7 64. g7) 63. gxf6 Bd5 64. fxg6) 62. Rc7+
Kb5 63. Bc5 Rg8 64. gxf6) (60... Kb8 61. Ra7 Rf8 ({or} 61... Bb7 62. fxg6 Rg7
63. Bd4 Rxg6 64. Bxf6) 62. gxf6 Rxf6 63. Bf4+ Kc8 64. Rc7+ Kd8 65. Bg5) (60...
Kc8 61. fxg6 Bxg6 62. Ra8+ Kb7 63. Ra7+ Kc6 64. Rxf7 Bxf7 65. gxf6 {. The
continuation chosen by me led to the win of the bishop, but not the game.'
(Tarrasch)})) 60... Rxf6 61. Rc7+ Ka6 62. Ra7+ Kb5 63. b7 Bxb7 64. Rxb7+ Kc4
65. Kf4 gxf5 66. Ke5 Rf8 {and Black gained a draw.} 67. Rc7+ Kd3 68. Bc5 Rd8
69. Bb4 f4 70. Rc3+ Ke2 71. Ke4 Re8+ 72. Kxf4 Re6 73. Bc5 Kd2 74. Bd4 Rh6 75.
Ke4 Re6+ 76. Kd5 Re7 77. Ra3 Re8 78. Be5 Rg8 79. Ke4 Rg4+ 80. Kd5 Rg8 81. Bd4
Re8 82. Rf3 Ke2 83. Rg3 Kd2 84. Be5 Rd8+ 85. Ke4 Kc2 86. Rc3+ Kd2 87. Rb3 Rc8
88. Rh3 Re8 89. Rh2+ Kc1 90. Kd4 Rd8+ 91. Kc3 Kd1 92. Bd4 Ke1 93. Kd3 Rf8 94.
Rg2 Rf7 95. Be3 Rd7+ 96. Bd4 Rf7 97. Rg5 Rf8 98. Rb5 Kf1 99. Rb1+ Kg2 100. Rg1+
Kh3 101. Be3 Kh4 102. Ke4 Rf7 103. Bd4 Rf8 104. Bg7 Ra8 105. Bf6+ Kh3 106. Be5
Ra4+ 107. Kf5 Ra3 108. Bf4 Ra5+ 109. Ke4 Kh4 110. Bg3+ Kh5 111. Be5 Kh4 112.
Kf5 Ra3 113. Rg2 Rb3 114. Ra2 Rf3+ 115. Bf4 Rb3 116. Rg2 Rb5+ 117. Ke4 Kh5 118.
Be5 Kh4 119. Kf5 Rb3 {. After this there followed a nervy draw in the 15th
game, and then a terrible time-trouble blunder by the challenger in the 16th -
and the match ended in a convincing win for Lasker: +8 -3 =5. --- Tarrasch was
thus unable to find the key to his amazingly resourceful opponent. In
particular he was ruined by his straightforward adherence to the theory of
'correct moves', without taking account of psychological factors. In searching
for the ephemeral absolute truth he went too far, lost control over the
situation and, to put it simply, made more mistakes than his opponent. --- It
is a pity that their match did not take place 10-15 years earlier... The
failure of the 46-year-old Tarrasch was neatly described by the remarkable
chess author and master Eugene Znosko-Borovsky: 'Intellect, erudition,
technique, talent - all that fate extravagantly bestowed on him, proved
insufficient in a meeting with the inner force, the foreseeing intuition, the
originality of a genius.'} 1/2-1/2
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "A Tough Nut"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.07"]
{A Tough Nut: Other possible contenders for the throne at that time were two
prominent positional players, the Hungarian Géza Maróczy (1870-1951) and the
Austrian Karl Schlechter. But whereas the first of these did not manage to
arrange a match with the champion, the second, the victor of Ostend 1906, who
played successfully in 1908 in the major tournaments in Vienna and Prague
(with an overall score of +18 -1 =19), immediately issued a challenge to
Lasker, who in reply gave his agreement in principle. But first he had to play
Tarrasch, and the Lasker-Schlechter match was deferred until January 1910. ---
During this time a number of interesting events occurred, the main one being
the Chigorin Memorial, the highly important international tournament in St
Petersburg (February 1909). Schlechter was paired with White against Lasker in
the very first round, and was completely outplayed by his formidable opponent
(in the same Steinitz Defence to the Ruy Lopez). Apparently the only thing
that saved the challenger was the fact that the champion was out of practice...
} 1. -- {However, Lasker ultimately found his earlier form, which is not
something that can be said about Schlechter, if one only looks at the results
of the St Petersburg tournament: 1-2. Lasker and Rubinstein - 14˝ out of 18
(!); 3-4. Duras and Spielmann - 11; 5. Bernstein - 10˝; 6. Teichmann - 10; 7.
Perlis - 9˝; 8-10. E. Cohn, Salwe and Schlechter 9 etc. This poor showing by
the challenger displeased the champion, who declared that their match was
unlikely to be of interest to the chess world. However, later Lasker admitted
that Schlechter's failure had been caused by his illness during the tournament,
and he spoke highly of the mastery of his future opponent. --- In Paris that
same autumn, Lasker crushed Janowski in a series of 10 'training' games (+7 -1
=2), since the Franco-Russian master had found a rich patron, the artist Leo
Nardus, who invested 6,000 Francs in this venture. --- It was proposed that
the Lasker-Schlechter match (Vienna/Berlin 1910) would be the best of 30 games,
but due to financial problems the number of games was reduced to 10 - an
unprecedented occurrence! Also for the first time the full text of the match
agreement was not published. Only a few of its points were leaked to the press:
the prize fund - 3,000 Krona from Vienna and 2,000 Marks from Berlin; the time
control - an hour for 15 moves with an interval every two hours... However, to
all appearances, one of the points stated that to win the title the challenger
had to gain an advantage of two points, and that if Schlechter were to win by
one point (5˝-4˝) the match would be declared... drawn.} (1. -- {This was
a very difficult match for Lasker! Already in the first game he only just
escaped in a rook ending where he was two pawns down, and in the second, after
a mistake in the opening, he was obliged to gain a draw by finding the only
moves. And although the champion then dominated in most of the games,
Schlechter proved to be a tough nut to crack: an outstanding follower of the
Steinitz School and an expert on the openings, he played with unusual tenacity,
not succumbing to psychological tricks, and he was very hard to break down.
Later Botvinnik explained this by the fact that 'to some extent Schlechter's
play was faceless, and Lasker had nothing to hook on to.' --- The first game
to finish decisively, after four draws at the start, was the fifth. From the
opening (once again a Steinitz Defence in the 'Spanish') a dead drawn position
was reached, but Lasker began playing for a win with Black, devising an
amazing manoeuvre of his king to the queenside. His opponent was completely
outplayed, but in time-trouble the picture suddenly changed...}) *
[Event "57: World Ch. Match, Vienna/Berlin"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1910.??.??"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Schlechter, C."]
[Black "Lasker, Em"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C66"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "117"]
[EventDate "1910.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O d6 5. d4 Bd7 6. Nc3 Be7 7. Bg5 O-O 8.
dxe5 Nxe5 9. Bxd7 Nfxd7 10. Bxe7 Nxf3+ 11. Qxf3 Qxe7 12. Nd5 Qd8 13. Rad1 Re8
14. Rfe1 Nb6 15. Qc3 Nxd5 16. Rxd5 Re6 17. Rd3 Qe7 18. Rg3 Rg6 19. Ree3 Re8 20.
h3 Kf8 21. Rxg6 hxg6 22. Qb4 c6 23. Qa3 a6 24. Qb3 Rd8 25. c4 Rd7 26. Qd1 Qe5
27. Qg4 Ke8 $5 {'Black fearlessly sends off his king on a Steinitz-like
journey.' (Krefelder Zeitung 13 February 1910). What self-belief and
imagination he needed to have!} 28. Qe2 Kd8 29. Qd2 Kc7 30. a3 (30. a4 $5 {.})
30... Re7 31. b4 ({Here} 31. a4 {was more circumspect. 'White begins something
resembling a pawn storm, intending to create some threats to the black king.
Lasker boldly accepts the challenge.' (Romanovsky)}) 31... b5 $1 {An excellent
sealed move! 'Played fearlessly and energetically, as befits a great master.
Although in the process the king's position is exposed, the white a3-pawn
becomes backward. And Black hopes to create a passed pawn, by subsequently
advancing his c-pawn.' (Tarrasch) After the adjournment there followed:} 32.
cxb5 ({If} 32. Qd3 {, then} Qa1+ 33. Kh2 g5 {is good,} ({while Romanovsky gives
} 33... Qa2 $5 34. c5 dxc5 35. bxc5 Rd7 36. Qc3 Qd2 $1 37. Qe5+ Kb7 {'with
real winning chances'.})) 32... axb5 33. g3 g5 34. Kg2 Re8 35. Qd1 f6 $1 {(not
fearing a3-a4)} 36. Qb3 {A cautious line.} ({Lipke and Tarrasch recommended}
36. a4 {, but here too after} bxa4 37. Qxa4 Kb7 38. Qc2 ({but not} 38. Ra3 $2
Qxe4+ 39. Kh2 Qd4 $1 40. Qa6+ Kc7 41. Qa7+ Qxa7 42. Rxa7+ Kb6 43. Rxg7 Re4 {
and wins - Romanovsky}) 38... Ra8 ({or} 38... Qe6 {Black retains the advantage.
})) 36... Qe6 37. Qd1 (37. Qxe6 Rxe6 {is too depressing for White. 'In view of
the weakness of the a3-pawn and the possibility of ...c6-c5, the rook ending
is quite unacceptable for him.' (Romanovsky)}) 37... Rh8 $1 {(provoking a new
weakening, since 38 Qg4?! is unfavourable)} 38. g4 Qc4 {'A presumptuous queen
invasion. 38...Ra8 should definitely have been played, suppressing White's
main, and perhaps his only chance: a3-a4.' (Romanovsky). But perhaps Lasker
simply did not consider it necessary to prevent his opponent's dubious
counterplay?} 39. a4 $6 {On encountering difficulties, the challenger begins
throwing caution to the wind.} ({'A pawn sacrifice offering good chances; after
} 39. Qf3 Re8 40. Qf5 Re5 41. Qg6 ({or} 41. Qh7 Qf7) 41... Qg8 {White would
have had a difficult game.' (Schlechter)}) ({However, more solid was} 39. Qd2
$5 Ra8 40. f3 Qe6 41. Qc2 Qe5 42. Rc3 Ra6 43. Qb3 {with a defensible position.}
) 39... Qxb4 ({If} 39... bxa4 40. Qxa4 Rb8 {(Capablanca), then} 41. Qa5+ Kc8
42. Qa7 Rb7 43. Qa8+ Rb8 44. Qa7 {with a repetition.}) (39... Rb8 $5 {is more
interesting - after} 40. axb5 Rxb5 41. Qa4 Kb7 $1 {, White also loses a pawn
without any particular compensation:} (41... Qxb4 42. Qa7+ Rb7 43. Qa2 {is not
altogether clear}) 42. Qd1 ({or} 42. Kf3 Rxb4 43. Qa5 g6) 42... Qxb4 {etc.}) ({
'No worse was} 39... Ra8 40. axb5 Qxb5 41. Qb3 Ra1 $1 {, and if} 42. Rd3 $2 {
, then} Kb6 43. Rxd6 Qf1+ 44. Kg3 Qg1+ {and wins.' (Romanovsky)}) 40. axb5 Qxb5
41. Rb3 Qa6 42. Qd4 Re8 {Preventing Qb2 and Ra3, but more importantly -
centralising the rook.} 43. Rb1 Re5 44. Qb4 Qb5 ({But not} 44... Rb5 $2 45. Qc4
$1 {; now, however, White is simply a pawn down.}) 45. Qe1 Qd3 $6 ({A moment
that is not mentioned by any of the commentators: more accurate was} 45... Qa4
$1 {with an obvious advantage. After} 46. Rb4 ({or} 46. f3 Rb5) 46... Qa5 $1
47. Qb1 Rb5 48. Rxb5 Qxb5 {Black has a technically won position.}) 46. Rb4 $1 {
'Not only defending, but also threatening the strong attacking manoeuvre Qa1.
White has acquired real threats against the king.' (Romanovsky)} c5 $6 {
Excessively sharp! Now White activates his queen and suddenly there are
various checks and sacrifices in the air...} ({Capablanca suggested} 46... Rb5
$5 {. In Romanovsky's opinion, this move 'is parried by} 47. Ra4 {, and if} Rb1
({but after} 47... Kd7 $1 {it is hard to offer White any good advice:} 48. Ra7+
Ke6 {etc.}) 48. Qa5+ {, then} Kd7 49. Qf5+ {.'}) ({'The commentators
considered the best chance to be} 46... Ra5 {with the threat of ...Ra3.
However, the queen endgame after} 47. Rb3 (47. Qc1 Ra2 $1) (47. Rb2 Ra4 $1 {
Bernstein}) 47... Qxb3 48. Qxa5+ Kb7 (48... Qb6 $5 {Schlechter}) 49. Qd8 Qe6
50. f3 d5 51. exd5 cxd5 52. Qa5 Qd7 ({but in my opinion} 52... Qe2+ $1 53. Kg3
(53. Kg1 Qxf3) 53... Qe5+ 54. Kg2 d4 {should win for Black}) 53. Qb4+ Kc7 54.
Qd4 {is not at all simple, and it is unclear whether Black can win it. Lasker
was not sure about this...' (Romanovsky)}) 47. Ra4 c4 (47... Kd7 {was
interesting, but how could Black resist taking the e4-pawn?!}) 48. Qa1 ({White
could also have considered} 48. Qb4 $5 Qxe4+ 49. Kg3 Rc5 50. Ra7+ Kc8 51. Rxg7
Qf4+ ({or} 51... Qe5+ 52. Kg2 Qd5+ 53. Kg1 Rc7 54. Rg6 c3 (54... Qf7 55. Qb1)
55. Rh6 c2 56. Rh8+ {, saving himself by perpetual check}) 52. Kg2 Rc7 53. Rg8+
{with a sharp game.}) (48. f3 $4 Qc2+ {and ...Qxa4.}) 48... Qxe4+ 49. Kh2 Rb5 (
49... Rb5 {threatening to exchange queens, for example:} 50. Ra7+ $2 Kb8 51.
Rxg7 Qe5+ $1 {.}) 50. Qa2 $3 {A unique resource! In a difficult position
Schlechter shows incredible resourcefulness in seeking the slightest chances
to sharpen the play - in which he succeeds. The threat is Rxc4+ or Ra7+ and
Rxg7.} Qe5+ 51. Kg1 Qe1+ 52. Kh2 (52. Kg2 $5 {.}) 52... d5 53. Ra8 $1 (53. Ra8
{with the threat of} -- 54. Qa7+ Rb7 55. Qc5+ {.}) 53... Qb4 (53... Qe5+ {did
not promise anything more than a draw.}) 54. Kg2 ({'Had his king already been
at g2, White could have played} 54. Qa6 {, but here this is not possible in
view of} Qd6+ {.' (Romanovsky) --- The culmination of this fierce battle:
White is two pawns down, but he has occupied the a-file and is threatening to
invade with his queen at a6. It would appear that he is no longer losing!})
54... Qc5 $6 {Dozens of question marks have been attached to this time-trouble
move, and Schlechter called it 'the decisive mistake', but, as we will see, it
is hard in general to call it a mistake.} ({Let us consider Black's other
possibilities:} 54... Rb8 55. Qa7+ $1 ({Tarrasch suggested} 55. Ra7+ $6 Rb7 56.
Ra8 {, but after} Qb5 $1 57. Qa3 ({or} 57. Qa1 Kd7 58. Qe1 Qc6 59. Qe8+ Kd6 60.
Qf8+ Ke5 {the king avoids the checks}) 57... d4 58. Qe7+ Qd7) 55... Rb7 56. --
(56. Qe3 -- (56... Qd6 {'with a win for Black' - a variation by Lasker,
contested by Schlechter with} 57. Rg8 ({but also suitable is} 57. Qe1 Rb8 58.
Ra7+ Rb7 59. Ra8 {with a repetition}) 57... d4 58. Qe4 {'with a strong attack
for White'}) ({. But after} 56... c3 $1 {(instead of 56...Qd6?)} 57. Re8 c2 58.
Re7+ Kc6 59. Qe6+ Kc5 60. Qc8+ Kd4 61. Rxb7 Qc4 $1 62. Rc7 c1=Q 63. Rxc4+ Qxc4
64. Qd7 Kc3 65. Qxg7 Qc6 {Black does indeed have quite good winning chances.}))
({. My computer checked these subtleties for several hours, and as a result I
came to the conclusion that the activity of White's heavy pieces is sufficient
to save the game, only instead of 56 Qe3? he should play} 56. Qa6 $1 {, for
example:} -- (56... Qb6 57. Qa3 Qb4 58. Qa6 Qe1 59. Rg8 Qe4+ 60. Kh2 Qe5+ 61.
Kg2 f5 62. Rf8) ({, or} 56... Qe1 57. Rg8 $1 Qe4+ (57... Qe7 58. Qa5+ Kc6 59.
Qa6+) 58. Kh2 Qe7 {, and here not} 59. Qa5+ $6 ({but} 59. Qa8) ({or} 59. Kg2 $5
) 59... Kd7 $1 60. Qxd5+ $2 Qd6+ {.}))) ({After} 54... c3 55. Re8 $1 Ra5 56.
Qe2 {White is alright.}) (54... Rb7 {- Schlechter considered this to be the
best chance, but after} 55. Qa6 $1 {we reach that same, apparently drawn
position as in the previous paragraph,} ({not} 55. Qe2 $2 Qd6 56. Qe1 Qe5 57.
Qa5+ Kd7 58. Rd8+ Ke6 {winning.})) 55. Qa6 $1 Rb8 $2 {This is where the
decisive mistake lies!} ({'If} 55... Rb7 {there follows} 56. Qe6 $1 {(with the
pretty threat of Rc8 mate)} Rb8 57. Qf7+ Kc8 58. Qe8+ {etc.}) ({Dr Lasker said
that by} 55... c3 $1 56. Rc8+ Kd7 57. Rxc5 Rxc5 {at the cost of his queen he
could still have gained a draw.' (Krefelder Zeitung, 13 February 1910) This is
perfectly true:} 58. Qb7+ (58. Qa4+ Kc7 59. Qc2 d4) 58... Kd6 59. Qb6+ ({or}
59. Qxg7 c2 60. Qxf6+ Kd7) 59... Rc6 60. Qd8+ Ke6 61. Qg8+ Kd6 62. Qxg7 c2 63.
Qxf6+ Kd7 64. Qg7+ Kc8 {.}) ({It is not clear that Black would also have lost
after} 55... Qb6 56. Qc8+ Kd6 57. -- (57. Ra6 Qxa6 58. Qxa6+ Kc5 {(Capablanca)}
) ({, or} 57. Qf8+ Ke5 58. Rb8 $5 (58. Qe8+ Kd6 59. Rd8+ Qxd8 60. Qxd8+ Kc6 61.
Qe8+ Kb6 62. Qe6+ Ka5 63. Qf7 c3 64. Qxg7 Rc5) 58... Qb7 (58... Qxb8 $2 59.
Qe7+ {and Qe3 mate}) 59. Qa3 Rb3 60. Qa1+ Kd6 61. Rxb7 Rxb7 62. Qa6+ Kc7 63.
Qe6 Rb6 64. Qxd5 Rc6 {.})) 56. Ra7+ Kd8 ({No longer sufficient was} 56... Qxa7
57. Qxa7+ Rb7 58. Qc5+ {etc.}) 57. Rxg7 Qb6 58. Qa3 Kc8 (58... Qb4 59. Qa7 $1 {
.}) 59. Qf8+ (59. Qf8+ Qd8 60. Qc5+ {and mate. --- A highly interesting
skirmish! This dramatic ending reminds me of the resumption of my game with
Karpov (New York 8th matchgame 1990), where there also was a complicated queen
and rook endgame, in which my opponent was a pawn up with winning prospects.
But with an open king there are always some counter-chances, and after a sharp
battle I managed to draw... --- Thus Schlechter took the lead: 3-2. The Berlin
part of the match began. The next four games again ended in draws, Lasker
switching with Black to the Sicilian Defence: after 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4
cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 in the seventh game he tried 5...g6, and in the ninth -
5...e5!? which was extremely audacious for those times. The cautious
Schlechter replied with the 'hideous', according to Tarrasch, 6 Nb3?! (6 Ndb5!)
, allowing 6...Bb4! 7 Bd3 d5! with a comfortable game for Black. After a
complicated battle and mistakes by both sides an endgame was reached, in which
the champion missed a seemingly certain win.}) 1-0
[Event "58: World Ch. Match, Vienna/Berlin"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1910.??.??"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Lasker, Em"]
[Black "Schlechter, C."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D94"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "141"]
[EventDate "1910.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{The score became 5-4 in the challenger's favour, and the day of the last,
decisive day arrived. All or nothing! A fantastic moment in chess history: for
both players only a win would do! But it would be interesting to know what
would have happened if they had nevertheless played a draw: would Lasker have
still been acknowledged as world champion? Or would another match with
Schlechter have been demanded?.. --- The press has retained for us a
'photograph' of the two players on the day of that game: 'Lasker, with the
pale face of a thinker, with his characteristic nose, and his small, seemingly
closed eyes, which suddenly and unexpectedly open up on the chess board, all
nervy, not capable of sitting still for an instant, constantly smoothing his
combed-back hair with his hand. He thinks as though with his whole body, in
which everything is constantly in motion - everything, apart from his face, on
which a chess thought appears to have frozen... On the other side is
Schlechter, a small, at first sight inconspicuous man, with a high, broad
forehead, a cigar clutched in his hand, economic and cold in every movement.
His eyes are directed straight at the board, and it appears that his thoughts
are occupied only with his move.'} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. e3 g6 $5 {
Avoiding 1 e4 for the first time in the match, Lasker encounters a surprise:
an invention named after his opponent - the Schlechter Defence! At that time
moves such as 4...g6 contradicted the generally-accepted opening norms. 'I did
not want to play for a draw in the last game and I chose a little-known
continuation, leading to interesting complications.' (Schlechter)} 5. Nc3 Bg7
6. Bd3 O-O ({Already at that time Schlechter had sounded out the idea of} 6...
Bg4 {, which for the moment, however, is slightly premature because of} 7. Qb3
{.}) 7. Qc2 $6 {Lasker avoids 7...Bg4 at the cost of a tempo.} ({More natural
is} 7. O-O Bg4 {(Smyslov's patent)} 8. h3 Bxf3 9. Qxf3 {, and if} dxc4 ({
Smyslov used to prefer} 9... e6) (9... Re8) ({or} 9... Qd6) 10. Bxc4 Nbd7 11.
Rd1 e5 {, then after} 12. d5 $1 (12. Bb3 Qe7 13. e4 exd4 14. Rxd4 Nc5 15. Bc2
Rfe8 16. Be3 Rad8 17. Re1 Rxd4 18. Bxd4 Nfd7 {equalises, Kasparov-Hübner,
Cologne rapidplay 1992}) 12... e4 $5 13. Nxe4 (13. Qf4 $5) 13... Nxe4 (13...
Ne5 $5) 14. Qxe4 Nb6 15. Bb3 cxd5 16. Bxd5 Nxd5 17. Rxd5 Qb6 18. Qd3 {White
retains a small plus (Bareev-Kramnik, Novgorod 1994).}) 7... Na6 ({'Very
boldly played;} 7... Nbd7 {is more solid.' (Schlechter) And... much more
passive!}) ({Closer to the truth is Euwe's recommendation} 7... dxc4 8. Bxc4 c5
9. dxc5 Nbd7 {.}) ({But in 1910 the idea of the Grünfeld Defence - to attack
the white centre with the bishop on g7 - was not yet known, and the move} 7...
c5 $1 {seemed somehow improbable. But nowadays it is obvious: after} 8. dxc5
Qa5 (8... Na6 $5 9. cxd5 Nb4 10. Qd2 Nfxd5 11. Nxd5 Qxd5 12. Qxb4 Qxd3 {is
also good}) 9. O-O ({or} 9. cxd5 Nxd5 10. Bd2 Nb4 $1) 9... dxc4 10. Bxc4 Qxc5 {
Black has easy equality. --- However, as one of the commentators aptly
remarked, 'in this game equal play did not interest either Lasker, or
Schlechter.'}) 8. a3 dxc4 $6 ({Here the line} 8... Nc7 9. O-O Be6 {
(Bernstein-Alekhine, Vilna 1912) is more solid}) ({but the most energetic was
again} 8... c5 $1 {, e.g.} 9. cxd5 ({or} 9. O-O Bg4 10. Ne5 Be6) 9... cxd4 10.
exd4 Nc7 {.}) 9. Bxc4 b5 $2 {An irreparable weakening.} ({In Euwe's opinion,}
9... Nc7 10. e4 (10. O-O Be6) 10... Bg4 {would have equalised, but from the
perspective of the 21st century we know that in such positions - after, say,}
11. Be3 {- White's chances are somewhat better.}) 10. Bd3 b4 $6 {Another nervy,
impulsive decision.} 11. Na4 ({There is no point in taking the pawn -} 11. Bxa6
$6 Bxa6 12. axb4 Qc8 $1 13. e4 Qg4 14. Rg1 Bb7 15. Be3 {(} c5 $2 16. h3 {),
since now Black simply has a 'dead' knight at a6, a 'hole-ridden' queenside
and a strategically lost position. The challenger's opening experiment has
been a failure, but, as we will soon see, that day this was of no significance.
}) (11. axb4 $6 Nxb4 12. Qe2 a5 $1 {.}) 11... bxa3 12. bxa3 ({Of course, not}
12. Qxc6 $6 Nb4 13. Qxa8 $2 Nxd3+ {with a winning attack.}) 12... Bb7 13. Rb1 (
{If} 13. O-O $5 {Lasker did not like} Nd7 {(with the idea of ...c6-c5),
although here too after} 14. Rb1 Qc8 15. e4 c5 16. d5 {Black's position is
unenviable.}) 13... Qc7 14. Ne5 {'In his time Steinitz would have only needed
roughly a dozen moves to blow up Black's position. But Lasker begins deviating
from calm and consistent development and nervously forces the attack,
gradually allowing his opponent counter-chances.' (Tarrasch)} ({It would
appear that, having failed to win any of the previous nine games, Lasker had
partly lost confidence in himself. In a normal situation Black's chronic
weaknesses should have suggested to him the simple} 14. O-O $5 {(Capablanca
proposed the 'bold' 14 h4, but he himself would probably have castled)} Nd7 15.
Qe2 Nab8 16. Bd2 {with an overwhelming advantage.}) 14... Nh5 ({Of course, not
} 14... Nd7 $2 15. Rxb7 Qxb7 16. Bxa6) ({or} 14... Rac8 $2 15. Bxa6 Bxa6 16.
Nc5 Bb5 17. a4 {.}) ({But perhaps the best reaction to the knight sortie was}
14... Nd5 15. O-O Bxe5 (15... f6 16. Nf3 {is hopeless}) 16. dxe5 Nb6 {,
although after} 17. e6 $1 {Black has an unpleasant position all the same:} Nxa4
18. Qxa4 Nc5 19. exf7+ Rxf7 20. Qc2 Nxd3 21. Qxd3 {followed by f2-f3 and e3-e4.
}) 15. g4 $2 {The seventh game of the match with Steinitz (Game No.37)
involuntarily comes to mind. Lasker explained his anti-positional move as
follows: 'When so much depends on one game, the players become very excited
and their imagination transforms into recklessness...'} ({Tarrasch wisely
remarked that 'in principle it is wrong to open up the kingside, giving the
opponent compensation for his queenside defects,' pointed out the harmlessness
of the variation} 15. Bxa6 $6 Bxa6 16. Qxc6 Bxe5 17. Qxa6 Bxh2 18. g3 (18. Bd2
Bd6 19. g4 Nf6 {equalises}) 18... Bxg3 19. Rxh5 gxh5 20. fxg3 Qxg3+) ({and
recommended} 15. f4 {- after which Lasker was afraid of} Bxe5 ({but not} 15...
Rfb8 $2 16. Qc4 Bxe5 17. fxe5 c5 18. O-O {winning}) 16. dxe5 Ng7 17. O-O c5 {
'with equality', although after} 18. Qc4 Bc8 19. e4 Rd8 20. Be3 {Black stands
badly: his knight will not be able to move from a6.}) ({The prosaic} 15. O-O {
was also possible, since} Bxe5 ({while after} 15... c5 16. Nxc5 Nxc5 17. Qxc5
Qxc5 18. dxc5 Bxg2 19. Kxg2 Bxe5 20. f4 $1 {Black has a difficult endgame (Zak)
}) 16. dxe5 Qxe5 $2 {fails to} 17. Rxb7 {.}) 15... Bxe5 $2 {This justifies
Lasker's idea.} ({It is surprising that no one pointed out the calm} 15... Nf6
$1 {(Steinitz would surely have played this). The advance of the g-pawn has
spoiled White's position, and although after} 16. O-O Nd5 {he retains some
advantage, play is double-edged:} 17. f4 Nb6 18. Bd2 c5 19. Nxc5 Rac8 {etc.
--- Whereas up to this point the players have been groping their way through
unfamiliar opening territory, there now begins the phase that gives the entire
game particular value. Positional factors retreat into the background, giving
way to calculation and intuition. There begins 'play without rules', in which
both these outstanding players demonstrate exceptional flights of imagination.}
) 16. gxh5 $1 ({Of course, not} 16. dxe5 Ng7 {and ...Ne6.}) 16... Bg7 17. hxg6
hxg6 18. Qc4 $1 {It was on this stroke that the world champion was counting,
hoping to decide the game by tactical means: both Bxg6 and Rxb7 are threatened.
} ({If} 18. h4 $6 {, then} c5 $1 19. Rg1 Rac8 {is good}) ({while after
Tarrasch's recommendation of} 18. f4 c5 19. Rg1 {-} Rac8 20. Bxa6 Bxa6 21. Nxc5
Qd6 {with unclear, double-edged play.}) 18... Bc8 $1 {The only defence!} (18...
c5 $2 {is bad in view of} 19. Rg1 Qxh2 20. Rxg6 Qh1+ 21. Kd2 {, and after} Qf3
$1 (21... cxd4 $2 22. Rxg7+ $1 Kxg7 23. Qxd4+ e5 24. Qg4+ Kh6 25. Rxb7) ({and}
21... Nc7 $2 22. Rxg7+ $1 Kxg7 23. d5 Qxd5 24. Qg4+ Kf6 25. Rxb7 $1 {are
hopeless}) 22. Be2 ({and} 22. Rxb7 Qxb7 23. dxc5 Qf3 24. Rxa6 Qxf2+ 25. Be2)
22... Qh1 23. Rxg7+ $1 Kxg7 24. d5 Qxd5+ 25. Qxd5 Bxd5 26. Bxa6 {are decisive.}
) 19. Rg1 $5 {A tempting move, creating the threat of Rxg6.} ({'After} 19. Bxg6
Be6 20. Bxf7+ Bxf7 (20... Bxf7 21. Qxa6 Bd5 {Black has a strong attack.'
(Schlechter) But, in my opinion, the variation} 22. Rg1 Qxh2 23. Qf1 $1 Rab8 (
23... e5 $2 24. Rh1) 24. Rxb8 Rxb8 25. Nc3 Rb3 26. Kd2 {refutes this evaluation
}) ({, and better is} 20... Rxf7 $1 21. Qxa6 Bd5 {with counterplay:} 22. -- (
22. Rg1 Qxh2 23. Qf1 Raf8 24. Rb2 (24. f4 $2 Qc2) 24... e5 25. Nc3 exd4 26.
exd4 Qc7 {etc.}) (22. Rf1 Bg2 $1 (22... Qxh2 23. Nb6 Rb8 24. Nxd5 (24. Qxa7 Bc4
$1) 24... Rxb1 25. Qxc6 {is unclear}) 23. Qb7 (23. Rb7 $2 Bxf1) 23... Qxb7 24.
Rxb7 Bxf1 25. Kxf1 e5) ({, or} 22. Rb7 $1 Qd6 23. Rf1 Bg2 24. f4 Bxf1 25. Qxf1
{, and White has had to give up the exchange for the initiative.}))) ({
Meanwhile, he had two other excellent possibilities that did not involve
giving up material:} 19. Bd2 $5 {(a developing move suggested by Tarrasch)} Rb8
(19... Qd6 20. Be4) (19... e5 $6 {(recommended by Euwe)} 20. Bxg6 exd4 21. Be4
dxe3 22. Bxe3 {with an obvious advantage}) 20. Rxb8 Nxb8 21. Nc5) (19. h4 $1 {
(a logical continuation of the assault)} Qa5+ ({there is nothing better:} 19...
c5 $6 20. dxc5) 20. Bd2 Qd5 21. Qxd5 cxd5 22. h5 $1 {, and Black is in
difficulties, for example:} g5 23. Rg1 Bf6 24. e4 $1 {, 'winning a pawn with a
continuing attack.' (Zak) --- Lasker was apparently afraid of the exchange of
queens, but there was no need to: on the contrary, with the queens on the
board the position of the white king in the centre will always promise Black
counterplay.}) 19... Qa5+ ({But not} 19... Qxh2 $2 20. Rxg6 Qh1+ 21. Kd2 Qf3
22. Bb2 $1 {(threatening Rbg1)} Qxf2+ 23. Be2 {and wins.}) ({However, a
continuation not mentioned by the commentators was possible:} 19... e6 $5 20.
Rg3 ({or} 20. f4 Rd8) 20... Rd8 {, and after} 21. Bd2 {White's advantage is
rather less than in the game.}) 20. Bd2 Qd5 21. Rc1 ({In my view, after} 21.
Nc3 $5 {(this is also not mentioned by anyone)} Qxc4 22. Bxc4 Kh8 23. Ne4 {
Black has a very unpleasant position: White has a wide choice of possibilities,
including the advance of the h-pawn. But, as I have already said, Lasker was
afraid of selling himself too cheaply, by exchanging the queens.}) 21... Bb7 ({
Here} 21... Qxc4 $6 22. Rxc4 {was now clearly bad.}) 22. Qc2 $5 {Looking for
complications!} ({Euwe suggested the cold} 22. Qxd5 cxd5 23. f4 {, and from
the practical viewpoint he is right: with the knight on a6 White has an
enduring advantage, and the plan with h2-h4-h5 remains in force. I think this
is the way that Capablanca would have tried to handle the position. ---
However, for purely psychological reasons Lasker could no longer go in for the
exchange of queens, since he had just avoided it in a more favourable
situation.}) 22... Qh5 {The queen attacks the h2-pawn and disturbs the white
king.} ({'The threat of 23 Rxg6 fxg6 24 Bc4 would have been more accurately
parried by} 22... Qd6 {.' (Zak) A questionable assertion: after} 23. Qb3 $1 {
, Black has to play ...Qxh2 all the same, either immediately or after} (23.
Bxg6 $6 Qxh2 24. Rf1 fxg6 {, as in the game}) 23... Rab8 24. Rxg6 {. But now
a critical position has been reached: how is White to continue the offensive?})
23. Bxg6 $2 {Lasker underestimates Black's counterplay along the opened f-file.
} ({Later he himself recommended} 23. Rb1 Qxh2 24. Rf1 (24. Ke2 Qh5+ 25. Ke1
Qh2) 24... Qc7 $6 ({the best defence is} 24... Bc8 $1 25. Qxc6 Rb8) 25. Bxg6 $6
({in my opinion, correct is} 25. Bc4 $1 e6 26. Qd3 Nb8 27. Nc5 Bc8 28. Rh1 {
with a powerful initiative}) 25... fxg6 26. Qb3+ Rf7 27. Qxb7 {'and wins',
although after} Rb8 $1 28. Qxc7 Rxb1+ 29. Ke2 Rxf2+ $1 30. Rxf2 Nxc7 {Black is
perfectly alright.}) ({Zak suggested the 'further strengthening of the
position by} 23. Bc4 e6 24. Qd3 Nc7 (24... Qxh2 25. Qf1 $1) 25. Nc5 Bc8 26. Ne4
{etc.'} (26. Qe4 Nd5 27. Be2 Qh3) 26... Nd5 {the situation is less favourable
for White than the 22...Qh5 position.}) ({And, apparently, best of all is
Capablanca's recommendation} 23. Qb3 $1 Rab8 24. Rxg6 Qxh2 25. Be4 {- in my
view White has strong pressure; the main thing is that Black is still
suffering due to his ill-starred knight at a6. --- In general it must once
again be emphasised that without the queens White would have significantly
fewer problems. As we will now see...}) 23... Qxh2 $1 24. Rf1 fxg6 25. Qb3+ Rf7
26. Qxb7 Raf8 $1 {Schlechter takes heart!} ({For the first time in a long
while the position, from being openly bad for Black, has been transformed into
one that is completely unclear:} 26... Raf8 27. Qxa6 $2 {fails to} Rxf2 28.
Rxf2 Rxf2 {. This 'knight gambit' reminds me of a grandiose 'Spanish' from my
return match with Karpov (London/Leningrad 16th matchgame 1986), where my
opponent captured a knight on a3 and came under a mating attack. --- With
Schlechter it all turned out the other way round: by the irony of fate he lost
all his pieces, apart from his wretched knight. How paradoxical: it is the
knight offered as a sacrifice that remains alive! Apparently, as a punishment:
it really is a very bad piece...}) 27. Qb3 ({Lasker avoids} 27. f4 -- ({, not
only because of} 27... Nb8 $5 {with sharp play:} 28. Qb3 (28. Qb4 g5 $5) 28...
Qg3+ 29. Kd1 (29. Ke2 $6 Bxd4 30. Rg1 Qh2+ 31. Kd3 Bg7 {and ...Rd8 Euwe}) 29...
Bxd4 30. Kc2 Bg7 31. Nc5 Qh3 {etc.}) ({, but not} 27... e5 $2 28. Qxa6 exf4 29.
Qc4 $1 fxe3 $6 30. Bxe3 {winning.}) ({. It is simply that Black could have
given perpetual check} 27... Qh4+ 28. Rf2 Qh1+ 29. Ke2 Qh5+ 30. Kd3 Qf5+ 31.
Ke2 Qh5+ 32. Ke1 ({dangerous is} 32. Rf3 $6 e5 $1 33. Qxc6 exf4 34. e4 Nc7)
32... Qh1+ {. I don't know if Schlechter would have played this, but he did
have a draw.})) 27... Kh8 28. f4 g5 $5 ({Dubious was} 28... Qg3+ $6 29. Kd1
Rxf4 30. Rxf4 Rxf4 31. Kc2 $1 {(Lasker). And indeed, the white king hides,
whereas Black's comes under attack:} Rf2 32. Rh1+ Bh6 33. Qd3 Kg7 34. Rxh6 $1
Kxh6 35. Qxa6 {(if} Qxe3 $2 {the pin} 36. Qd3 {is decisive).}) ({Much more
interesting was the little-studied continuation} 28... e5 $5 29. dxe5 Qg3+ 30.
Ke2 Rxf4 31. Rxf4 Rxf4 32. Rh1+ Rh4 33. Rxh4+ Qxh4 {with sharp, unclear play.
Apparently, after} 34. e6 {the most probable outcome is a draw; at any event
Black's chances are not worse. I think that 28...e5 is at least as good as the
move in the game.}) 29. Qd3 ({White's position is still quite good, as is
shown by the variation} 29. Rxc6 $5 Nb8 ({some commentators give} 29... gxf4 $2
30. Rxa6 $4 ({but} 30. exf4 $1 Nb8 31. Rc3 {is the end for Black}) 30... fxe3
31. Rxf7 Qxd2+ 32. Kf1 e2+) 30. Rc7 (30. Re6 Qg3+ 31. Kd1 Rxf4) 30... Qg3+ ({
inferior is} 30... gxf4 $2 31. exf4 Bxd4 32. Qd5 Qg3+ 33. Kd1 Bf6 34. Nc3 Rh7
35. Kc2) 31. Kd1 Rxf4 32. Rh1+ Rh4 33. Qb7 Rxh1+ 34. Qxh1+ Qh4 35. Qb7 Be5 $1
36. Rxe7 $1 (36. Rc3 Bd6 37. Kc2 g4 {is unclear}) 36... Bd6 37. Re4 Qh1+ 38.
Kc2 Bxa3 39. Nc3 ({or} 39. Nc5 {with the better prospects.})) 29... gxf4 30.
exf4 ({But not} 30. Qxa6 $4 fxe3 {.}) 30... Qh4+ ({Perhaps the champion was
hoping for} 30... Nb8 $2 31. Nc5 $1 Bh6 32. Ne6 Rg8 33. d5 {, with an obvious
advantage:} Qh4+ ({or} 33... Rf6 34. Bc3 Qh4+ 35. Kd1 {etc.}) 34. Kd1 Qh5+ 35.
Kc2 Qf5 36. Rh1 Rg6 37. Rb1 Nd7 38. Qxf5 Rxf5 39. dxc6 Rxe6 40. cxd7 Rf8 41. f5
Rc6+ 42. Bc3+ Kh7 43. Rbe1 {and wins.}) 31. Ke2 ({Avoiding} 31. Kd1 Qg4+ 32.
Kc2 Qf5 {with simplification and a draw:} 33. Rh1+ ({or} 33. Qxf5 Rxf5 34. Rce1
(34. Kd3 $6 Rd8) 34... Bxd4 35. Rxe7 R8f7) 33... Kg8 34. Rcg1 Qxd3+ 35. Kxd3
Rd8 {. Lasker is eager to win!}) 31... Qh2+ 32. Rf2 Qh5+ {Here (or a move
earlier) the game was adjourned, and resumed the following day. It was one of
the most dramatic adjournment sessions in the history of chess!} 33. Rf3 ({Not
} 33. Ke3 $2 Rxf4 $1 34. Rxf4 Bh6 35. Rcf1 Nc7 $1 36. Qe4 Rxf4 37. Rxf4 Nd5+
38. Kf2 Qh2+ 39. Kf3 $2 Bxf4 40. Bxf4 Qh1+ {.}) 33... Nc7 ({After} 33... Nb8 $6
{Lasker was planning} 34. Rh1 ({although} 34. Nc5 {also promises an advantage})
34... Qxh1 35. Rh3+) ({But with the knight on c7 the exchange} 33... Nc7 34.
Rh1 Qxh1 35. Rh3+ {is dubious on account of} Qxh3 36. Qxh3+ Kg8 37. Nc5 Nb5 $1
38. Ne6 Nxd4+ 39. Nxd4 Bxd4 {, when White is even slightly worse.}) 34. Rxc6 $6
{'In this game one is amazed by Schlechter's tireless boldness in attack and
Lasker's iron composure in defence.' (B. Vainstein) 'Incredible! Lasker is
threatened with destruction from every side, and he grabs a pawn! This
resembles a general who under a hail of bullets lights up a cigar.' (Tarrasch)}
({Of course, it would have been more sensible to bring the knight into play -}
34. Nc5 {, in order after} Nd5 {to make the leap} 35. Ne6 {with very sharp
play and, apparently, dynamic equilibrium. At any event, White would have been
out of the danger zone, whereas now he is on the edge of the abyss, although
computer analysis shows that, contrary to the opinion of many commentators,
Black has no forced win.}) 34... Nb5 $1 ({Schlechter considered} 34... Nd5 {to
be 'very strong and probably decisive', but Lasker refuted this by} 35. Qg6 $1
({but not} 35. Rc5 $2 Rxf4 $1 36. Bxf4 Nxf4+ 37. Kd1 e5 $1 38. Qf1 Ng6 {winning
}) 35... Qxg6 36. Rxg6 Nxf4+ ({inferior is} 36... Rxf4 $6 37. Rh3+ Kg8 38. Rhg3
$1 R8f7 39. Nc5 R4f6 40. Ne6 {etc.}) 37. Bxf4 Rxf4 38. Rh3+ Kg8 39. Rhg3 (39.
Nc5 R8f6 40. Rg2 Rd6 41. Ke3 Rf7 {is level}) 39... R4f7 {(? - G.K.)} ({I
would like to refine this:} 39... Re4+ $1 {gives an immediate draw:} 40. Kd3 (
40. Re3 {is equal}) 40... Rxd4+ 41. Ke3 Rxa4 42. Rxg7+ Kh8 43. Ke2) 40. Nc5 {
with advantage to White.}) 35. Rc4 $1 ({An immediate catastrophe results from}
35. Rc5 $2 Nxd4+ $1 36. Qxd4 Qxf3+) ({or} 35. Be3 $2 Nxd4+ $1 36. Bxd4 Rxf4 37.
Bxg7+ Kxg7 38. Qc3+ e5 39. Rc7+ Kh8 {.}) 35... Rxf4 $2 {Some kind of black-out.
} (35... Rxf4 {'This combination is incorrect. I calculated the variation} 36.
Bxf4 Rxf4 37. Rc8+ Bf8 38. Kf2 Qh4+ 39. Kg2 $1 (39. Ke2 Qh2+ 40. Ke3 Rxf3+ 41.
Kxf3 Qh3+ {and ...Qxc8}) 39... Qg4+ {, noticing too late} 40. Rg3 $1 Qxc8 41.
Qg6 {,' writes Schlechter.}) ({'Decisive was} 35... Rd8 $1 36. -- ({, and if}
36. Be3 {, then} e5 {.' Indeed, after} 37. Rc5 (37. d5 Nd6) 37... Nxd4+ 38.
Bxd4 (38. Qxd4 Qxf3+) 38... Rxf4 39. Nc3 Rfxd4 40. Qe3 Rd3 {White can resign.})
({. Also unsuitable is} 36. d5 $2 {(instead of 36 Be3?)} Rxd5 37. Rc8+ Rf8 38.
Rxf8+ Bxf8 39. Bc3+ Bg7 40. Qc4 ({or} 40. Qe3 Bd4 $1) 40... Nxc3+ 41. Nxc3 Rc5
{winning.}) ({. However, after Minev's brilliant discovery} 36. Ke1 $3 {it is
now Black who has to find a way to save the game:} Qh1+ (36... Nxd4 $2 37. Rh3
{wins}) 37. Qf1 Qxf1+ 38. Kxf1 Nxd4 39. Rh3+ Kg8 40. Kg2 {with a level
position.})) ({Years later Capablanca suggested} 35... e5 $5 {. This leads to
a crazy position, which does not lend itself to evaluation:} 36. dxe5 Bxe5 37.
Ke1 Bf6 38. Rc5 Qh1+ 39. Rf1 Qh4+ 40. Kd1 Nd4 41. Rd5 Qg4+ 42. Kc1 Ne2+ 43. Kb1
{. Here too there can be no question of a 'decisive advantage' for Black: all
three results are possible.}) ({From the purely practical viewpoint, probably
more promising is Tarrasch's recommendation of} 35... Nd6 $5 36. Rc5 Nf5 {,
building up the pressure. For example:} 37. -- (37. Ke1 Qh4+ (37... Qh1+ 38.
Rf1 Qg2 39. Qf3) 38. Kd1 Qg4 39. Kc1 Qg1+ 40. Rf1 Qxd4 41. Qxd4 Nxd4 {with a
somewhat better endgame.}) ({. But not} 37. Be3 $2 Qg4 {- with the threat of ...Nh4 -} 38. Kf2 Nxe3 39. Qxe3 Rxf4 {and wins.}) ({. Or} 37. Kd1 Rd8 {Lasker
judged this move to favour Black;} (37... Qg4 38. Kc1 $1 Qg1+ 39. Rf1 {is equal
}) 38. Kc1 $1 {, and here I somehow failed to find any particular advantage
for Black. --- Thus, although Schlechter held an appreciable initiative,
nowhere did he have a direct win. The play was double-edged, and Lasker did
not intend to give up his crown...})) 36. Bxf4 Rxf4 37. Rc8+ Bf8 38. Kf2 $1 {
Finally White can breathe more freely.} ({A number of sources recommended} 38.
Rd8 e5 $1 (38... e6 39. Qe3) (38... Qg4 39. Kf2) 39. dxe5 Qg4 40. Qe3 $1 ({but
not} 40. Kf2 $2 Rxf3+ 41. Qxf3 Qh4+ 42. Ke2 Qxd8) 40... Nd4+ 41. Rxd4 Rxd4 42.
Nc3 Bxa3 (42... Bc5 $5) 43. e6 Be7 44. Kf1 {'with advantage'.' But in fact} Rb4
$1 {gives an easy draw:} 45. Qe5+ Kh7 46. Rf7+ Kg8 {.}) 38... Qh2+ ({Black
avoids the variation referred to:} 38... Qh4+ 39. Kg2 $1 Qg4+ 40. Rg3 $1 Qxc8
41. Qg6 {and as yet he is by no means losing.}) 39. Ke1 Qh1+ $2 {Allowing the
white king to escape successfully from the checks,} ({whereas the move} 39...
Qh4+ $1 {would have guaranteed Black at least a draw:} 40. Kf1 (40. Rg3 $2 Qh1+
41. Kd2 Rf2+) (40. Kd1 $2 Qh1+ 41. Ke2 Rxf3 42. Qxf3 Nxd4+) 40... Qh3+ 41. Kf2
Rxf3+ 42. Qxf3 Qxc8 43. Qh5+ Kg8 44. Qxb5 Qc2+ {, and White still has to make
several accurate moves to achieve complete equality:} 45. Kg3 Qg6+ 46. Kf3 Qf6+
47. Ke4 Qh4+ 48. Kd3 Qh3+ 49. Kc2) (39... Qh4+ 40. Kd2 Qh2+ 41. Ke1 ({
dangerous is} 41. Ke3 $2 Rxf3+ 42. Kxf3 Qh3+ 43. Ke2 Qxc8 44. Qxb5 Qc2+ 45. Kf3
Qd1+ 46. Ke4 Qh1+ $1) 41... Qh4+ {with perpetual check: after any attempt to
run, the rook at c8 is lost.}) 40. Rf1 Qh4+ 41. Kd2 Rxf1 (41... Rxd4 $2 42.
Rcxf8+ Kg7 43. R1f7+ {and mate.}) 42. Qxf1 Qxd4+ 43. Qd3 {For the first time
after the wild complications the advantage has passed to Lasker.} Qf2+ ({
Hopeless is} 43... Qxd3+ 44. Kxd3 Kg7 45. Nc5) ({or} 43... Qf4+ 44. Qe3 Qxe3+
$6 (44... Qh2+ {is more tenacious}) 45. Kxe3 Kg8 46. Nc5 {(} Nxa3 $2 {is not
possible due to} 47. Ne6 {).}) 44. Kd1 Nd6 ({'After} 44... a6 {there would
have followed} 45. Nb6) ({and if} 44... Qg1+ {, then} 45. Kc2 Nd4+ 46. Kb2 Qg2+
47. Ka1 Qh1+ 48. Ka2 Qg2+ 49. Nb2 {winning.' (Lasker) White's winning plan is
to coordinate his forces, exchange queens, pick up the a-pawn and advance his
own passed pawn to the queening square. It is hard to prevent this plan,
especially since the champion carries it out with merciless consistency,
whereas the challenger is clearly disheartened...}) 45. Rc5 Bh6 46. Rd5 Kg8 ({
According to Schlechter, better drawing chances were offered by} 46... Qa2 {,
but I do not see any great point to this:} 47. Rh5 Kg7 48. Nc5 Nf7 49. Rd5 {
etc. The move played is not at all bad: Black still has defensive
possibilities, and whether the position is won for White is not so clear.}) 47.
Nc5 Qg1+ ({Perhaps} 47... Qg2 {should have been played, although this would
have been unlikely to make any fundamental difference after} 48. Re5 Bg7 49.
Re1 {.}) 48. Kc2 Qf2+ 49. Kb3 Bg7 50. Ne6 $6 ({In my opinion,} 50. Ka4 {is
more accurate.}) 50... Qb2+ $2 {Another mistake that was not pointed out by
anyone!} (50... Qb6+ $1 {was essential, driving the king back to the kingside:}
51. Kc2 Qb2+ 52. Kd1 Qa1+ 53. Ke2 Qb2+ 54. Kf3 ({nothing is achieved by} 54.
Qd2 Qxa3 55. Rg5 (55. Nxg7 Kxg7 56. Rg5+) 55... Qa6+ 56. Ke1 Qa1+ {with
perpetual check}) 54... Qf6+ 55. Nf4 Nf7 {. Of course, White will play for a
win, but with such a king it is doubtful whether such a result can be achieved.
}) 51. Ka4 Kf7 $2 {The last serious error.} ({The only chance was} 51... Qg2
52. Nxg7 Kxg7 53. Qd4+ Kf7 54. Rc5 {when according to Lasker 'White wins', but
after} Qe2 $1 ({instead of the fatal} 54... Qb7 $2 55. Qd5+ Qxd5 56. Rxd5 Ke6
57. Ra5 Nc8 58. Kb4 Kd6 59. Kc4) 55. Qd5+ Kf6 {, this still has to be
demonstrated. White's king is open, whereas the black knight, defended by a
pawn, closely defends its monarch, and it is extremely hard to create a mating
construction, for example:} 56. Rc3 Qa6+ 57. Kb3 Qb6+ 58. Ka2 Qf2+ 59. Kb1 Qf1+
60. Rc1 Qf2 61. Qc5 Qe2 {, and if} 62. Qxa7 $2 {, then the reply} Qb5+ 63. Ka2
Qe2+ {equalises the position. --- Generally speaking, I am not fully convinced
that Lasker was definitely bound to win this ending. One thing is obvious:
Schlechter, demoralised by his unfortunate sacrifice 35...Rxf4?, did not
exploit all his defensive resources.}) 52. Nxg7 ({A more intricate plan was}
52. Ng5+ Ke8 53. Qg6+ Kd7 54. Qf5+ Kc6 55. Qd3 Qa2 56. Ra5 Bd4 57. Nf3 {etc.})
52... Qxg7 (52... Kxg7 53. Rg5+ Kf8 54. Qf3+ {.}) 53. Qb3 Ke8 ({Or} 53... Kf6
54. Qb2+ Kf7 55. Qxg7+ Kxg7 56. Ra5 Nc8 57. Rc5 Nd6 58. Rc7 {winning.}) 54.
Qb8+ Kf7 55. Qxa7 {With the fall of the a7-pawn Black's position is now
definitely lost, and he can merely prolong the resistance. Lasker proceeds
towards his goal with confident manoeuvres of his heavy pieces.} Qg4+ ({If}
55... Ne4 {, then, if there is nothing better,} 56. Rf5+ Ke6 57. Rf3 Qg4 58.
Qe3 Kd7 59. Qf4 {.}) 56. Qd4 Qd7+ 57. Kb3 Qb7+ 58. Ka2 Qc6 59. Qd3 Ke6 60. Rg5
Kd7 61. Re5 Qg2+ 62. Re2 Qg4 63. Rd2 Qa4 $6 ({Slightly more tenacious was}
63... Qh5 64. Qd5 Qh6 65. Qb7+ (65. Qf5+) 65... Ke8 66. Qc6+ Kd8 67. Rd3 {etc.}
) 64. Qf5+ Kc7 $6 {Capitulation;} ({but also after} 64... Kd8 65. Qe6 $1 {the
exchange of queens would soon have been forced.}) 65. Qc2+ Qxc2+ 66. Rxc2+ Kb7
({Or} 66... Kd7 67. a4 Nb7 68. Ka3 {, then Kb4 and a4-a5-a6.}) 67. Re2 Nc8 68.
Kb3 Kc6 69. Rc2+ Kb7 70. Kb4 Na7 71. Kc5 {. 'He could have defended for a long
time yet; a similar ending in one of the La Bourdonnais-McDonnell games ended
in a draw. But nowadays the endgame is played incomparably better.' (Tarrasch)
--- A titanic battle! Of course, there were many mistakes, but what an intense
struggle, and with what inventiveness both sides played! The game was ahead of
its time, and the commentaries on it, even later ones, often do not sustain
criticism: so complicated and deep were the variations that occurred. Its
study, beginning with Schlechter's opening novelty, enables us to follow the
development of chess thinking. Whereas nowadays independent play at the board
normally begins from the 15th move at least, here it began much earlier, and
the value of every move was extremely high. The two players immediately began
playing creatively, and the tension was incredible - the game had colossal
competitive importance, and therefore all the mistakes, in my view, are
excusable. --- An outstanding game - and an enormous achievement by Lasker,
who managed to achieve a very difficult win. It has to be said that in his
best years he always won the decisive games. The ability to accomplish such
competitive feats is precisely what distinguishes champions... --- And so,
this short, fierce duel ended in a draw: 5-5, and Lasker retained the title of
world champion. --- It can be imagined what an easy stroll the next match for
the crown must have seemed to him - with the incorrigible optimist Janowski,
whose peak form had long since passed (Berlin 1910). Nardus sacrificed 5,000
Francs, to see his favourite be mercilessly crushed: +8 =3.} 1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "The Great Akiba"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.07"]
{The Great Akiba: In the meantime a new generation of followers of the
Steinitz School had resolutely entered the chess arena. And the brightest of
them, whose ideas are staggering deep even to this day, was from Poland, the
12th child in a poor teacher's family, Akiba Rubinstein (1882-1961). For the
purity and logicality of his style of play, this great chess artist was
compared with an ancient sculptor, whose smooth and monumental work provokes
admiration...} 1. -- {His first chess book was a modest manual by Sosnitz,
written in Modern Hebrew (apart from which, Akiba was also fluent in Polish,
Russian and German). He spent his youth in Lodz where there was quite a strong
chess society headed by the master Georg Salwe, the first serious opponent of
the talented young player. --- Rubinstein became a recognised master after his
third place in Ostend 1906 (behind Schlechter and Maróczy). He performed even
more successfully the following year, winning the master tournament in Ostend
1907, then Carlsbad 1907 and, in his native Lodz, the Fifth All-Russian
tournament. Here is virtually his most famous creation: see the following game.
} *
[Event "59: Lodz"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1907.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Rotlewi, G."]
[Black "Rubinstein, A."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D40"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "50"]
[EventDate "1907.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 e6 3. e3 c5 4. c4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. dxc5 Bxc5 7. a3 a6 8. b4
Bd6 9. Bb2 O-O 10. Qd2 Qe7 11. Bd3 dxc4 12. Bxc4 b5 13. Bd3 Rd8 14. Qe2 Bb7 15.
O-O Ne5 16. Nxe5 Bxe5 17. f4 Bc7 18. e4 Rac8 19. e5 Bb6+ 20. Kh1 Ng4 $1 {(in
playing 19 e5? Bb6+ 20 Kh1 White clearly underestimated this reply)} 21. Be4 ({
It transpires that also bad are} 21. Qxg4 Rxd3) ({and} 21. Bxh7+ Kxh7 22. Qxg4
Rd2) ({and} 21. Ne4 Rxd3 $1 22. Qxd3 Bxe4 23. Qxe4 Qh4 24. h3 Qg3 25. hxg4 Qh4#
{.}) 21... Qh4 22. g3 (22. h3 {loses to} Rxc3 $1 23. Bxc3 (23. Bxb7 Rxh3+ {and
mate}) (23. Qxg4 Rxh3+ $1 24. Qxh3 Qxh3+ 25. gxh3 Bxe4+ 26. Kh2 Rd2+ 27. Kg3
Rg2+ 28. Kh4 Bd8+ 29. Kh5 Bg6#) 23... Bxe4 24. Qxg4 (24. Qxe4 Qg3 {wins}) 24...
Qxg4 25. hxg4 Rd3 $1 26. Kh2 Rxc3 {. But now Black exploits the fatal
weakening of the h1-a8 diagonal.}) 22... Rxc3 $3 {'One of the best
combinations ever made. Black's next, uncommonly spectacular move reveals the
depth of Rubinstein's combinative idea.' (Romanovsky)} 23. gxh4 ({The queen
has to be taken, since no hopes are offered by either} 23. Bxc3 Bxe4+ 24. Qxe4
Qxh2#) ({or} 23. Bxb7 Rxg3 24. Rf3 (24. Bf3 Nxh2) 24... Rxf3 25. Bxf3 Nf2+ 26.
Kg1 (26. Kg2 Qh3+ 27. Kg1 Ne4+ 28. Kh1 Ng3#) 26... Ne4+ 27. Kf1 Nd2+ 28. Kg2
Nxf3 29. Qxf3 (29. Kxf3 Qh5+) 29... Rd2+ {.}) 23... Rd2 $3 {'Such moves bear
the stamp of eternity! Black is a queen down, and nearly all his pieces are en
prise,' write Razuvaev and Murakhveri in their book Akiba Rubinstein (1980).}
24. Qxd2 ({After} 24. Qxg4) ({or} 24. Bxc3 {matters are concluded by} Bxe4+) ({
while if} 24. Bxb7 {-} Rxe2 25. Bg2 Rh3 $3 {.}) 24... Bxe4+ 25. Qg2 Rh3 $1 {.
In view of the unavoidable ...Rxh2 mate, White resigned. Rubinstein's truly
'immortal' game! --- Not without reason did Réti assert that Rubinstein
created the most complete examples of chess art in the entire epoch after
Steinitz: 'The games of Steinitz himself, the creator of the theory, are by no
means the best demonstration of its correctness. A whole generation of chess
masters extracted from this theory everything in it that is of value for
practical play. Rubinstein was the central figure of this generation, and his
games are the most complete embodiment of Steinitz's teaching.'} 0-1
[Event "60: Match, Vienna"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1908.??.??"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Rubinstein, A."]
[Black "Teichmann, R."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D55"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "51"]
[EventDate "1908.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Nbd7 5. e3 Be7 6. Nf3 O-O 7. Qc2 $5 {(one
of the first experiences with the formidable 'Rubinstein Attack')} b6 (7... c5
$1 {is more vigorous, as later occurred in the Lasker-Capablanca match (Game
No.90).}) 8. cxd5 exd5 9. Bd3 Bb7 10. O-O-O ({Alekhine against Yates (Hamburg
1910) preferred} 10. h4 $5 {(preventing 10...Ne4)} c5 11. O-O-O cxd4 12. Nxd4
Re8 13. Kb1 a6 14. g4 $1 b5 15. Bxf6 $1 Nxf6 16. g5 Ne4 17. Nxe4 dxe4 18. Bxe4
Bxe4 19. Qxe4 {.} -- ({. Here Yates took the bait with} 19... Bxg5 $2 {and
after} 20. Ne6 $1 Qe7 21. hxg5 h6 (21... g6 22. Rxh7 $1 {wins}) 22. gxh6 Qxe6
23. Qd4 Qe4+ 24. Qxe4 Rxe4 25. hxg7 Kxg7 26. Rdg1+ Kf6 27. Rh6+ Ke7 28. Rc1 Ra7
29. Rcc6 $1 {he soon laid down his arms.}) ({. The most surprising thing is
that, three years before this, the position in the diagram, but with the a8
rook at c8, occurred with reversed colours (!) in the game
Duz-Khotimirsky-Rubinstein (Lodz 1907), and after (note that for convenience
we will re-colour the pieces!)} 19... Qb6 20. Qg4 Bf8 21. Rc1 {it took a long
time for Akiba to convert his extra pawn.})) 10... c5 (10... Ne4 $5 {needs
testing. The game Rubinstein-Znosko-Borovsky (St Petersburg 1909) went} 11. h4
$1 f5 12. Kb1 c5 $5 ({inferior is} 12... h6 13. Bxe7 Qxe7 14. Nxe4 dxe4 15.
Qxc7 Bd5 16. Bc4 $1) 13. dxc5 bxc5 $2 (13... Ndxc5 $2 14. Nxd5 $1) ({but after
} 13... Rc8 $1 14. cxb6 Nxb6 15. Nd4 {White's advantage is not great}) 14. Nxe4
$1 {(following the motifs of the well-known game Steinitz-Anderssen, Vienna
1873)} fxe4 15. Bxe4 $1 dxe4 16. Qb3+ Kh8 17. Qxb7 exf3 18. Rxd7 Qe8 19. Rxe7
Qg6+ 20. Ka1 Rab8 21. Qe4 Qxe4 22. Rxe4 {and White won.}) 11. h4 $1 c4 $6 {A
dubious novelty.} ({In Carlsbad (1907) Teichmann lost after} 11... Rc8 12. Kb1
Re8 ({as we have seen, Black fails to equalise after} 12... cxd4 13. Nxd4) 13.
dxc5 $1 -- (13... Rxc5 $6 14. Nd4 Ne4 $6 (14... a6 $1) 15. Bxe4 dxe4 16. Ndb5
$1 Ba6 17. Qa4 Bxb5 18. Nxb5 Bxg5 19. hxg5 Re7 (19... Qxg5 20. Nd6 Re7 21. Qxa7
) 20. Rd4 ({I like} 20. Nxa7 $5 Qc7 21. Nb5 Qc6 22. Rd6 $1 Qxb5 23. Qa8+ Nf8
24. Rd8 {winning}) 20... Qa8 ({or} 20... Rxg5 21. Rhd1 Qe8 22. Nc7 b5 23. Qxa7)
21. b4 $1 Rc8 $6 (21... Rxg5 22. Rc1 $1) 22. Nd6 b5 $4 (22... Rd8) 23. Nxc8 $1
{1-0.}) (13... Nxc5 $2 14. Bf5 Ncd7 15. Bxf6 {.}) ({. However,} 13... bxc5 $1 {
is clearly better. Here, in the opinion of grandmaster Razuvaev, 'White has an
interesting way to develop his initiative:} 14. Bxf6 $1 Nxf6 15. Ng5 h6 ({if}
15... g6 {very strong is} 16. Bb5 Rf8 17. h5 {with an attack (but in my
opinion after} Qb6 {the situation is unclear - G.K.)}) 16. Bb5 (16. Bc4 Bd6 {
- G.K.}) 16... Rf8 {, and now both} 17. Bc4 ({and} 17. e4 {give White the
advantage.' Excuse me, but after 17 e4 the simple} g6 $1 {is alright}) ({while
if} 17. Bc4 $1 {, then again} g6 {, and in the variation} 18. Nge4 Nxe4 19.
Nxd5 Nxf2 20. Qxf2 Kg7 21. Nf6 Bxf6 22. Rxd8 Rcxd8 {Black has reasonable
compensation for the queen.}))) 12. Bf5 Re8 {(with the intention of ...Nf8)}
13. Bxf6 $1 Nxf6 14. g4 Bd6 15. g5 Ne4 16. h5 $1 {Rubinstein's play, as always,
is consistent and logical: in the given instance he is thinking only of attack!
} ({The following line was completely unclear and unnecessary for White:} 16.
Nxe4 dxe4 17. Nd2 c3 $1 18. Nxe4 cxb2+ 19. Kxb2 (19. Kb1 Ba3) 19... Bb4 20. f3
Qd5 21. Bxh7+ Kh8 {.}) 16... Qe7 ({If} 16... Nxg5 $6 17. Nxg5 Qxg5 {Tarrasch
suggested} 18. Bxh7+ Kf8 19. h6 $1 gxh6 20. Rdg1 {.}) 17. Rdg1 a6 $2 {Most
probably the decisive mistake: the counterattack is too late.} ({Essential was
} 17... g6 18. hxg6 hxg6 {. Now, according to analysis by Razuvaev, two
dangerous continuations have to be considered:} 19. -- (19. Bxe4 dxe4 20. Nd2
Rac8 21. Rh4 {'and it is difficult for Black to defend' - yes, difficult, but
after} Kg7 $1 {still quite possible}) (19. Bxg6 $5 fxg6 20. Rh6 Kg7 {(? - G.K.
)} ({but after} 20... Qg7 $1 21. Nh4 Re6 22. Nxe4 dxe4 23. Nf5 $1 gxf5 24. Rxe6
Be7 25. Qxc4 Kf8 26. Qb5 {White still has work to do}) 21. Nh4 {'with a strong
attack' - in my view it is simply decisive:} Rh8 22. Nxg6 Qd7 23. Nxh8 Rxh8 24.
f3 {.})) ({But not} 17... Nxf2 $6 18. Qxf2 Qxe3+ 19. Qxe3 Rxe3 20. Rf1 {.}) 18.
Bxh7+ $3 {'Like lightning from a clear sky! Such a combination cannot be
calculated to the end, and this is the main difficulty in taking a decision in
similar situations.' (Razuvaev)} Kxh7 19. g6+ Kg8 ({If} 19... fxg6 $2 {
Tarrasch gives} 20. Nxe4 dxe4 21. Ng5+ Kh6 (21... Kg8 22. Qxc4+) 22. hxg6+ ({
while I would add} 22. Nf7+ $1 {, mating}) 22... Kxg6 23. Nxe4+ Kf7 24. Qxc4+ {
.}) 20. Nxe4 dxe4 21. h6 $3 {'The crux of White's attack! Black cannot prevent
the opening of both the g- and h-files, after which the white rooks quickly
decide matters. 22 gxf7+ and Rxg7+ is now threatened.' (Euwe) This impressive
picture is the culmination of the entire game.} f6 ({'If} 21... exf3 {there
would have followed} 22. gxf7+ Qxf7 (22... Kxf7 23. Qg6+ Kg8 24. hxg7) 23. hxg7
$1 {with the double threat of Rh8 mate and Qh7 mate.' (Euwe)}) (21... fxg6 {is
much more interesting, for example:} 22. -- (22. Rxg6 $2 exf3 23. Qxc4+ ({even
worse is} 23. Rxg7+ $6 Qxg7 24. hxg7 Be4 $1 25. Qxc4+ Kxg7 26. Rg1+ Kf6) 23...
Kh7 $1 24. Rxg7+ Kh8 25. Rxe7 Rxe7 {with dangerous counterplay}) (22. h7+ Kf7 (
22... Kh8 $2 23. Nh4 {wins}) 23. Nh4 $1 ({after} 23. Ng5+ Kf6 {the attack
comes to a standstill}) 23... g5 24. Nf5 Qf6 ({or} 24... Qe6 25. Rxg5 g6 26.
Rh6 $1) 25. Rxg5 Qxg5 26. Nxd6+ Ke7 27. Nxe8 Rxe8 28. Qxc4 $1 Kd6 29. Qg8 {
winning}) (22. Nh4 $5 {was recommended by Razuvaev. The computer gives it the
green light:} g5 23. Ng6 Qf6 24. h7+ Kf7 25. h8=Q Rxh8 26. Nxh8+ Kf8 27. Rh5 {
and wins.})) 22. hxg7 $1 exf3 ({'} 22... Qe6 {is not possible on account of}
23. Rh8+ Kxg7 24. Rh7+ Kf8 ({I should add that after} 24... Kg8 {White wins by
both:} 25. -- (25. Rxb7 exf3 26. Rh1 f5 27. g7 Be7 28. Rxb6 $1 Qxb6 (28... Qf7
29. Rbh6) 29. Qxf5) ({, and} 25. Rgh1 f5 26. Ng5 $1 Qd5 27. Rxb7 ({or} 27. Nf7
$5 Bf8 28. f4 $3 exf3 29. Qh2 f2 30. Rh8+ Kg7 31. Qh6+ Kf6 32. g7+ Ke7 33.
g8=N+ Kd7 34. Nf6+ Kc6 35. Rxf8 Re6 36. a4 $5 Rxf8 37. Ne5+) 27... Qxb7 28. Qe2
Qd5 (28... Qc7 29. Rh7) 29. Qh5 Kg7 30. Qh6+ Kf6 31. Nh7+ Ke7 32. Qg7+ Kd8 33.
Nf6 Bf8 34. Rh8 Qd6 35. Qf7 Qe7 36. Qxe8+ Qxe8 37. Nxe8 Kxe8 38. g7)) 25. Rxb7
exf3 26. g7+ Kg8 27. Qh7+ {and mate in two moves.' (Euwe)}) 23. Rh8+ Kxg7 24.
Rh7+ Kg8 25. Qf5 $1 {The concluding blow: White has a mass of threats,
beginning with Qh5.} c3 {(desperation)} 26. Rxe7 1-0
[Event "61: St Petersburg"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1909.??.??"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Rubinstein, A."]
[Black "Lasker, Em"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D32"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "79"]
[EventDate "1909.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{An enormous impression on the chess world was made by Rubinstein's
performance at the Chigorin Memorial, the strong international tournament in
St Petersburg (1909). He started with 4 out of 4, and among those defeated -
and in what style! - was the world champion himself.} 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. c4
e6 4. Bg5 $5 ({After} 4. Nc3 {Lasker used to play both} Be7 ({and} 4... c5 {
(Game Nos. 41, 42). 'Rubinstein, who had made a special study of the Queen's
Gambit and was convinced that the "orthodox" defence was unsatisfactory, very
cleverly led the game to a position similar to this defence.' (Tarrasch)}))
4... c5 $6 ({The champion avoids the Rubinstein attack -} 4... Be7 5. Nc3 Nbd7
6. e3 O-O 7. Qc2 {, with which in the first round his opponent had crushed
Znosko-Borovsky, and a year earlier Teichmann (Game No.60). But now Black
reaches not the most favourable position with an 'isolani'.}) 5. cxd5 exd5 6.
Nc3 cxd4 ({Avoiding getting involved in the discussion which a year earlier
flared up in Marshall's games with Salwe and Rubinstein in the variation} 6...
Be7 7. dxc5 $1 Be6 {.}) ({After the simultaneous-like move} 6... c4 $6 {White
has both} 7. Bxf6 $1 ({and} 7. e4 $5 {.})) ({If} 6... Nc6 {Black again has to
reckon with} 7. Bxf6 {.}) ({Finally, after} 6... Be6 {, which occurred between
McDonnell and La Bourdonnais back in London 1834, Lasker himself was
successful with} 7. e3 ({or even, as later also played by Alekhine,} 7. e4 $5 {
.})) 7. Nxd4 ({Lilienthal's idea} 7. Bxf6 $5 gxf6 ({here White has to reckon
with the sharp} 7... Qxf6 8. Nxd5 Qd8 9. Qxd4 Nc6 {and 10...Be6, in the spirit
of the Schara-Hennig Gambit}) 8. Qxd4 Be6 9. e4 Nc6 10. Bb5 dxe4 11. Qxe4 {is
interesting. The luring of the opponents into similar, often dubious but
'chancy' positions was a typical Lasker trait!}) 7... Nc6 $6 {'An inaccuracy
that leads to difficulties.} ({Correct is} 7... Be7 8. e3 O-O {, when Black
has no weak points.' (Lasker) But, as is shown by the experience of the 20th
century, after} 9. Be2 ({or} 9. Bd3 {he still has to fight for equality.})) 8.
e3 ({Here if} 8. e4 {there is the good reply} Bc5 $1 9. Nxc6 bxc6 10. exd5 O-O
$1 {.}) ({According to Tarrasch, dangerous is} 8. Bxf6 $5 Qxf6 9. Ndb5 ({not}
9. Nxd5 $4 Qxd4) 9... Bb4 {'with advantage to Black', but after} ({he also is
after} 9... Qe5 10. Nxd5 Bb4+ 11. Nxb4 Qxb5 12. Nxc6 Qxc6 13. Rc1 Qb6 14. Qa4+
Bd7 15. Qa3 $1) 10. Nc7+ Kf8 11. N7xd5 {White is simply a pawn up.}) 8... Be7 (
{In the event of} 8... Bb4 9. Rc1 ({or} 9. Bb5 {the pin on the f6 knight is
unpleasant.})) 9. Bb5 $1 Bd7 10. Bxf6 ({'The pawn is won only temporarily.} 10.
O-O {was more solid, after which the d-pawn would all the same have been bound
to fall.' (Lasker)}) 10... Bxf6 11. Nxd5 Bxd4 (11... Be5 $6 {does not give
compensation for the pawn after the reply} 12. O-O O-O 13. Bxc6 bxc6 14. Nc3
Re8 15. Qd2 Qc7 16. Nf3 Bf6 17. Rac1 {etc.}) 12. exd4 Qg5 $1 {(the only way of
creating definite counterplay)} 13. Bxc6 ({Of course, not} 13. Nc7+ $2 Kd8 14.
Nxa8 Qxb5 {.}) 13... Bxc6 14. Ne3 ({Less is promised by} 14. Qe2+ Kd7 15. Ne3
Bxg2 16. Rg1 Qa5+ 17. Qd2 Qxd2+ 18. Kxd2 Be4 {with equality (if} 19. Rxg7 {,
then} Bg6 {).}) (14. Nc7+ $2 Kd7 15. Nxa8 Re8+ {.}) 14... O-O-O $6 ({Later
Lasker suggested} 14... Bxg2 15. Rg1 ({but not} 15. Nxg2 $2 Qxg2 16. Qe2+ Kd8
17. O-O-O Qg6 {with an excellent game:} 18. Qd3 Rc8+ 19. Kb1 Re8 {etc.}) 15...
Qa5+ 16. Qd2 Qxd2+ 17. Kxd2 Be4 {, but Bernstein showed that by} 18. Rg4 $1 (
18. Rxg7 $2 Bg6) 18... Bg6 19. f4 {White retains some advantage (for my part,
I should like to add} Rd8 20. f5 Bh5 21. Rh4 Bf3 22. Rg1 {).}) ({More
interesting is Razuvaev's recommendation} 14... O-O $1 15. O-O Rad8 {with
quite good compensation for the pawn.}) 15. O-O Rhe8 {With the obvious threat
of ...Rxe3.} 16. Rc1 $3 {I agree with Lasker: unusually subtle! The threat is
Rc5 and d4-d5.} Rxe3 ({'Also after} 16... Kb8 17. Rc5 ({passive is} 17. Qd2 Re4
$1 18. Rcd1 ({but not} 18. d5 Rxd5 {- G.K.})) 17... Qf4 ({but it seems to me
that better is} 17... Qxc5 $1 18. dxc5 Rxd1 19. Rxd1 a5 {with hopes of saving
the endgame}) 18. d5 Rxe3 19. Qc1 $1 Re4 20. dxc6 bxc6 21. Qc3 {Black would
have stood badly.' (Lasker)}) 17. Rxc6+ bxc6 18. Qc1 $3 {'This is the crux of
the matter!} ({Black had evidently reckoned only on} 18. fxe3 $2 Qxe3+ 19. Kh1
Rxd4 {, which is advantageous for him.' (Tarrasch) It is amusing that
Rubinstein also defeated Capablanca with the help of the same queen move (Game
No.64).}) 18... Rxd4 ({According to Lasker, more tenacious was} 18... Re5 19.
Qxc6+ ({not} 19. f4 $6 Rc5 $1) 19... Kb8 20. -- (20. dxe5 Qxe5 {. Razuvaev,
after adding} 21. Rc1 {, writes that 'White still has to overcome considerable
technical difficulties.' Even so, from the standpoint of modern chess, his
position is objectively won!}) ({. Not} 20. f4 $6 Re6 {. And even in the
obviously secondary variation 20 f4? Re6} 21. Qxe6 Qxg2+ 22. Kxg2 fxe6 23. Rd1
{, where, according to Razuvaev, 'Black has good drawing chances', after 23
Rd1 it is not to easy to make a draw.} (23. --))) 19. fxe3 Rd7 (19... Rd6 20.
Rxf7 {etc.}) 20. Qxc6+ Kd8 {If now White delays, his extra pawn will not play
any role: after all, his king is also exposed.} 21. Rf4 $3 {'A wonderful idea.
White threatens to decide the game by a direct attack on the king - 22 Qa8+
and Re4+ or Rc4+. To avoid this Black is forced to allow the exchange of
queens and a lost endgame.' (Lasker)} f5 ({'If} 21... Qa5 {, then} 22. Qa8+ Ke7
(22... Kc7 23. Rc4+) 23. Re4+ Kf6 24. Qc6+ Kg5 25. h4+ {.' (Lasker)}) ({After}
21... Rd1+ {Tarrasch gave} 22. Kf2 Rd2+ ({instead of 22...Rd2+?, in my opinion,
better is} 22... Qa5 $1 23. Qa8+ Ke7 24. Rxf7+ Kxf7 25. Qf3+ Ke8 26. Qxd1 Qxa2
27. Qh5+ {with advantage to White, but Black avoids an immediate rout}) 23. Ke1
Qxg2 ({I should like to add} 23... Qa5 24. Ra4 Rd6+ 25. Rxa5 Rxc6 26. Rxa7 {
winning}) 24. Rd4+ Ke7 25. Qd6+ {and mate.}) 22. Qc5 $1 {(threatening Qf8+)}
Qe7 {The only defence;} ({if} 22... Rd1+ 23. Kf2 Rd2+ 24. Ke1 Qxg2 {there
follows} 25. Qa5+ {and Qxd2.}) (22... Qf6 23. Rd4 {.}) 23. Qxe7+ Kxe7 ({Or}
23... Rxe7 24. Rxf5 Rxe3 25. Rf7 {winning.}) 24. Rxf5 Rd1+ 25. Kf2 $1 ({After}
25. Rf1 $6 Rd2 26. Rb1 Re2 {Black would have retained drawing chances (Kmoch).}
) 25... Rd2+ 26. Kf3 Rxb2 27. Ra5 $1 Rb7 28. Ra6 $1 {An ideal place for the
rook! White creates a textbook rook endgame, one of those wonderful endings
that gave birth to Tartakower's well-known aphorism: 'Rubinstein is the rook
ending of a chess game, begun by the gods a thousand years ago.'} Kf8 29. e4
Rc7 30. h4 $1 {'Not only a preparation for further activity, but also
prophylaxis against ...Rc2.' (Levenfish, Smyslov)} Kf7 31. g4 Kf8 32. Kf4 Ke7
33. h5 $1 {With the obvious intention of opening a way for the king.} h6 {
Creating an opening via g6.} ({If} 33... Rb7 {, then} 34. g5 Rc7 35. e5 Rb7 36.
Kf5 Rc7 37. g6 $1 h6 38. a4 Rb7 39. Re6+ $1 Kd7 (39... Kf8 40. Rc6 Ke7 41. Rc8
{and Rg8}) 40. Rf6 $1 Ke8 41. Rf7 $1 Rxf7+ 42. gxf7+ Kxf7 43. e6+ Ke7 44. Ke5 {
wins (Lasker).}) ({The result is roughly the same after} 33... Kd8 34. e5 Ke8
35. g5 Rc4+ 36. Kf5 Rc7 37. g6 h6 38. Re6+ $1) ({or} 33... Kf7 34. Kf5 ({also
possible is} 34. h6 gxh6 35. Rxh6 Kg7 36. Ra6 Kf7 37. Kf5 Re7 38. e5 Rb7 39.
Rc6 {followed by a4-a5-a6 winning}) 34... Ke7 35. g5 Kf7 36. e5 Ke7 37. g6 h6
38. Re6+ $1 Kf8 (38... Kd7 39. Rf6 $1 Ke8 40. Rf7 {etc.}) 39. Rd6 Ke7 40. Ra6
Kd7 (40... Rb7 41. Rc6 Rd7 42. Rc8 {and Rg8}) 41. Rf6 $1 {(Lisitsyn).}) 34. Kf5
Kf7 35. e5 Rb7 36. Rd6 Ke7 ({Equally hopeless are both} 36... Rc7 37. Rd7+ $1
Rxd7 38. e6+ Ke7 39. exd7 Kxd7 40. Kg6) ({and, as we will see,} 36... Kf8 {.})
37. Ra6 {The last move before the time control (which was 2˝ hours for 37
moves, 1˝ hours for the next 23 moves, and then one hour for 15 every moves)
.} ({White is not in a hurry to go in for the forcing variation} 37. Kg6 Rb4 (
37... Rb5 38. Ra6) (37... Kf8 38. Rd8+ Ke7 39. Rg8 {winning}) 38. Kxg7 Rxg4+
39. Kxh6 Re4 40. Ra6 Rxe5 41. Kg6 {and wins.}) 37... Kf7 38. Rd6 Kf8 39. Rc6 $5
({Lasker also considered} 39. Rd8+ Kf7 ({if} 39... Ke7 {White wins by both} 40.
Ra8 ({and} 40. Rg8 Kf7 41. Rc8 Ke7 42. a4 Rd7 43. Rg8 Kf7 44. e6+ $1) 40... Kf7
41. a4) 40. e6+ Ke7 41. Rd7+ $1 ({but not} 41. Rg8 $2 Rb5+ 42. Kg6 Rg5+ 43. Kh7
Rxg4 44. Rxg7+ Rxg7+ 45. Kxg7 Kxe6 46. Kxh6 Kf6 {with a draw.})) 39... Kf7 40.
a3 $1 {Taking away a square from the rook.} ({After} 40. a3 {, Black is in
zugzwang:} -- (40... Re7 41. e6+ Kg8 42. Kg6 Re8 43. e7 $1 Kh8 44. Rd6 {and Rd8
}) (40... Kf8 41. Kg6 Rb3 42. Rc8+ Ke7 43. Rc7+ Ke6 44. Rxg7) (40... Ke7 41.
Kg6 Kd7 (41... Kf8 42. Rc8+) 42. Rd6+ Ke8 43. Kh7 Kf8 44. Rd8+ Kf7 45. Rg8 {
and Rxg7. --- An historic game, without question. But let's see what the
'great Akiba' accomplished later. In the ninth round, with 7 points out of 8,
he unexpectedly lost to the Russian master Duz-Khotimirsky (who in the 16th
round also defeated Lasker!) and... as if nothing had happened he immediately
began a new spurt (see the following game).})) 1-0
[Event "62: St Petersburg"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1909.??.??"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Cohn, E."]
[Black "Rubinstein, A."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D21"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "76"]
[EventDate "1909.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 c5 3. c4 dxc4 4. dxc5 Qxd1+ 5. Kxd1 Nc6 6. e3 Bg4 7. Bxc4 e6 8.
a3 Bxc5 9. b4 Bd6 10. Bb2 Nf6 11. Nbd2 Ke7 12. Ke2 Be5 13. Bxe5 Nxe5 14. Rhc1
Rac8 15. Bb3 Rhd8 16. Nc4 Nxc4 17. Rxc4 Rxc4 18. Bxc4 Ne4 19. Ke1 Bxf3 20. gxf3
Nd6 21. Be2 Rc8 22. Kd2 Nc4+ 23. Bxc4 Rxc4 24. Rc1 $2 ({Of course, White
should have played} 24. f4 {(preventing ...Rh4)} b5 25. Kd3 {with good drawing
chances. 'Cohn, however, assumed that the pawn ending was the simplest way of
securing this result.' (Levenfish, Smyslov)}) 24... Rxc1 25. Kxc1 Kf6 $1 {
'Rubinstein, an outstanding master of the endgame, begins an attack on the
h2-pawn, which proves decisive.' (Levenfish, Smyslov) 'An attack with
insignificant means, but splendidly conducted.' (Lasker)} 26. Kd2 Kg5 27. Ke2 (
{'The counterattack on the queenside is too slow: after} 27. Kd3 Kh4 28. Kc4
Kh3 {Black has time to pick up the h2-pawn and queen his own h-pawn. Here it
is important only that in reply to Kc7 he should play ...b7-b5.' (Averbakh,
Maizelis)}) 27... Kh4 28. Kf1 Kh3 29. Kg1 {'The white king is tied to the
defence of the h-pawn. He is powerless against the impending black pawn
offensive on the kingside.' (Levenfish, Smyslov)} e5 $1 30. Kh1 ({Also bad is}
30. f4 $2 exf4 31. exf4 Kg4) ({or} 30. e4 g5 31. Kh1 h5 32. Kg1 h4 33. Kh1 g4
34. fxg4 Kxg4 35. Kg2 h3+ 36. Kf1 Kf3 {.}) ({But, in the opinion of Averbakh
and Maizelis,} 30. a4 $1 b6 31. b5 {was more tenacious, when Black would have
won by} f5 $1 32. Kh1 g5 33. Kg1 h5 34. Kh1 h4 35. Kg1 e4 36. fxe4 fxe4 37. Kh1
({or} 37. f3 exf3 38. e4 g4 39. e5 g3) 37... Kg4 38. Kg2 h3+ 39. Kg1 Kf3 40.
Kf1 g4 {.}) 30... b5 $1 {'Now Black also has an extra tempo (...a7-a6), which
may prove useful.' (Averbakh, Maizelis)} 31. Kg1 f5 32. Kh1 g5 33. Kg1 h5 34.
Kh1 g4 {Wouldn't you agree that this resembles a study?} 35. e4 ({If} 35. fxg4
-- ({, according to Averbakh, the simplest is} 35... fxg4 $1 36. Kg1 e4 {,
then 37...h4 and 38...g3!}) ({. In the variation} 35... hxg4 36. Kg1 f4 37.
exf4 exf4 38. Kh1 -- ({, Maizelis's recommendation of} 38... g3 $2 {leads to a
draw after} 39. fxg3 $1 fxg3 40. hxg3 Kxg3 41. Kg1 $1 Kf3 42. Kf1 Ke3 43. Ke1
Kd3 44. Kd1 Kc3 45. a4 $1) (38... g3 {with the idea} 39. hxg3 fxg3 40. f3 g2+
41. Kg1 Kg3 42. f4 Kxf4 43. Kxg2 Ke3 {winning.}) ({. However, even in this
case grandmaster Speelman discovered a win:} 38... f3 $1 {(instead of 38...g3?)
} 39. Kg1 Kh4 {, for example:} 40. Kh1 ({or} 40. Kf1 Kh5 $1 41. Ke1 Kg5 42. Kf1
(42. Kd2 Kh4) 42... Kf4 43. Ke1 Ke4 44. Kd2 Kd4 45. Kc2 Kc4 46. Kd2 Kb3 47. Ke3
Kxa3 48. Kf4 Kxb4 49. Kxg4 a5) 40... Kg5 41. h3 gxh3 42. Kh2 Kg4 43. Kg1 Kf4
44. Kh2 Ke4 45. Kxh3 (45. Kg3 h2 $1) 45... Kd3 46. Kg4 Ke2 47. Kg3 a6 $1 {.})))
35... fxe4 $1 36. fxe4 ({Or} 36. fxg4 hxg4 37. Kg1 e3 38. fxe3 e4 39. Kh1 g3 {.
}) 36... h4 37. Kg1 g3 $1 38. hxg3 hxg3 (38... hxg3 39. fxg3 Kxg3 {etc. The
same procedure was employed in the pawn ending that arose in the game
Sveshnikov-Kasparov (47th USSR Championship, Minsk 1979), only Akiba's king
ran along the third rank from h3, and mine from a3. --- In the 13th round
Rubinstein also completely crushed Schlechter, the then contender to the
throne; according to Lasker, 'he played this game with exceptional power, and
at times very subtly.'}) 0-1
[Event "63: St Petersburg"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1909.??.??"]
[Round "17"]
[White "Spielmann, R."]
[Black "Rubinstein, A."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C90"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "150"]
[EventDate "1909.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{And about the following complicated rook endgame, which was published in
chess magazines around the world, the champion said: 'The skill with which
Rubinstein conducted this ending cannot be praised too highly.'} 1. e4 e5 2.
Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3 Bg4 9. h3 Bh5
10. d3 O-O 11. Nbd2 d5 12. exd5 Nxd5 13. Nf1 Bf6 14. g4 Bg6 15. g5 Be7 16. Nxe5
Nxe5 17. Rxe5 Nb6 18. d4 Nd7 19. Re1 Bxg5 20. Bxg5 Qxg5+ 21. Qg4 Qd8 22. Ng3
Nf6 23. Qf3 Qd7 24. Kh2 a5 25. a3 Rab8 26. Re5 Rfe8 27. Rg1 b4 28. Rxa5 bxc3
29. Qxc3 Ne4 30. Nxe4 Rxe4 31. Rd5 Qe7 32. Rc5 Re2 33. Qg3 Qd6 34. Qxd6 cxd6
35. Rc7 Rxb2 36. Rgc1 Kf8 37. Bc2 Ra2 38. Bxg6 hxg6 39. R1c2 Rxc2 40. Rxc2 {
For a draw it is sufficient for White to give up his weak a3- and d4-pawns for
the d6-pawn. But, amazingly, he is not able to do this!} Ra8 ({'By} 40... Rb3
41. Ra2 Rd3 {it is possible to win a pawn, but then after} 42. a4 $1 Rxd4 43.
a5 Rc4 44. a6 Rc8 45. a7 Ra8 46. Kg3 {and Kf3-e3-d4 there can be no question
of Black winning. If he tries to capture the a7-pawn, he loses the pawn
endgame.' (Levenfish, Smyslov)}) 41. Rc3 {A difficult choice. 'As a rule, one
should try to place the rook behind a passed pawn,' writes Spielmann. 'However,
this is advantageous if the pawn has already reached the middle of the board
or crossed it: then the rook behind the passed pawn has freedom to manoeuvre.}
({But here} 41. Ra2 {would have completely paralysed White's game after} Ra4 $1
42. Kg3 Ke7 $1 ({but not} 42... Rxd4 $2 43. a4 Rc4 44. a5 Rc7 45. a6 Ra7 46.
Kf4 Ke7 47. Ke4 Ke6 48. Kd4 {with a draw}) 43. Kf3 Ke6 44. Ke4 -- (44... d5+
45. Ke3 ({Levenfish and Smyslov pointed out} 45. Kd3 $1 Kd6 ({it would appear
that if} 45... Kf5 {they had in mind} 46. Kc3 {with the idea of} -- 47. Kb3
Rxd4 48. a4 $1 Rd3+ 49. Kb4 Rxh3 50. a5 {etc.}) 46. Kc3 Kc6 47. Kd3 Kb5 48.
Rb2+ {with equality}) 45... Kf5 {and Black wins.'}) ({. Here is their main
variation, where 'Spielmann would apparently have gained a draw':} 44... g5 {
(instead of 44...d5+)} 45. Ra1 f6 46. Ra2 f5+ 47. Kd3 Kd5 48. Kc3 Rc4+ 49. Kb3
Rxd4 50. a4 Rd3+ ({or} 50... Kc6 51. a5 Kb7 52. a6+ Ka7 53. Ra5 Rf4 54. Rd5
Rxf2 55. Rxd6 Rf3+ 56. Kc4 Rxh3 57. Rg6 g4 58. Kb5 Rb3+ 59. Ka5) 51. Kb4 Rxh3
52. a5 Rh8 53. a6 Ke4 54. a7 Ra8 55. Kb5 Kf3 56. Kb6 {.})) 41... Ra4 42. Rd3
Ke7 43. Kg3 ({'Of course,} 43. d5 {was necessary, to keep the black king
further away:} -- ({: if} 43... Kf6 {there is} 44. Rf3+) ({, and if} 43... f5 {
-} 44. Re3+ {and ...Re6.' (Lasker)}) ({. However, in my opinion here too after
} 43... g5 $1 44. Kg3 Kf6 45. Rf3+ Kg6 {White faces difficult problems: ...Rd4
is threatened, and if} 46. Rd3 {, then} f6 {and ...Kf5-e5 is possible.} (46...
--))) 43... Ke6 44. Kf3 Kd5 45. Ke2 ({'It was worth considering} 45. h4 {,
which would have blocked the doubled g-pawns and restrained Black's activity
on the other wing.' (Levenfish, Smyslov)}) 45... g5 $1 ({'Avoiding a cunning
trap: if} 45... Rxd4 $2 46. Ke3 $1 {, and only White can win.' (Averbakh) 'The
outside passed a-pawn does not allow Black to go in for the exchange of rooks.
' (Spielmann)}) 46. Rb3 f6 ({After} 46... Kxd4 {Spielmann gives} 47. Rb7 {and
Averbakh adds} f6 (47... Rxa3 48. Rxf7 Rxh3 49. Rxg7 {is level}) 48. Rxg7 Rxa3
49. h4 $1 gxh4 50. Rg4+ Kc3 51. Rxh4 {'with good drawing chances', while
Levenfish and Smyslov play} Ra2+ {and write: 'In our view, in this position
too White's defence involves great difficulties.'}) (46... Rxd4 $2 47. Rd3 $1 {
.}) 47. Ke3 ({Now after} 47. Rb7 Rxa3 48. Rxg7 Rxh3 {all the same the d-pawn
cannot be defended.' (Spielmann)}) 47... Kc4 $1 ({Once again:} 47... Rxd4 $2
48. Rd3 {.}) 48. Rd3 d5 49. Kd2 Ra8 {The rook switches from defence to attack.
'Black's plan becomes clear. White ends up in zugzwang.' (Levenfish, Smyslov)}
50. Kc2 (50. Ke3 $6 Rb8 51. Kd2 Rb2+ 52. Ke3 Ra2 {wins.}) 50... Ra7 $1 51. Kd2
Re7 $1 {'As a result of all these manoeuvres White is forced to give up one of
his pawns without any compensation.' (Spielmann)} 52. Rc3+ ({'White cannot
avoid the loss of a pawn: if} 52. Re3 {, then} Rb7 $1 53. Rd3 Rb2+ {.' (Lasker)
}) ({Or} 52. Kc2 Re2+ 53. Rd2 Rxd2+ 54. Kxd2 Kb3 $1 {and wins (Spielmann).})
52... Kxd4 53. a4 $1 Ra7 54. Ra3 Ra5 {'It is still unfavourable for Black to
go into the pawn ending. Therefore he blocks the pawn, to be free to
strengthen his position.' (Levenfish, Smyslov)} 55. Ra1 Kc4 {'A typical plan:
Black takes his king to a5, freeing his rook to attack the opponent's weak
pawns.' (Averbakh)} 56. Ke3 $6 ({Spielmann makes no comment at this point, but
analysts from the late-20th century point out the strongest defence -
launching a counterattack by} 56. Rc1+ Kb4 57. Rb1+ $1 Kxa4 (57... Ka3 58. Rb7
Rxa4 59. Rxg7 Rf4 60. Ke2 Kb3 61. Rc7 $1 {Averbakh}) 58. Kd3 Rc5 ({risky is}
58... Rb5 $6 59. Ra1+ Kb4 60. Kd4) 59. Kd4 Rc2 60. Rb7 Rxf2 61. Rxg7 {'with
drawing chances.' (Levenfish, Smyslov) --- And indeed, although the position
after} Rd2+ 62. Kc5 Kb3 63. Rf7 Kc3 64. Rxf6 d4 {looks dangerous for White, I
have been unable to find a clear win for Black:} 65. Ra6 $1 d3 66. Ra3+ Kb2 67.
Kb4 Rd1 68. Rc3 {etc.}) 56... d4+ $1 57. Kd2 Rf5 58. Ke1 ({If} 58. a5 {, then
simply} Rxf2+ 59. Ke1 Rb2 ({but not} 59... Rh2 $2 60. Ra4+ Kb5 61. a6 $1) 60.
a6 Rb8 61. a7 Ra8 62. Kd2 Kc5 63. Kd3 Kb6 64. Kxd4 Rxa7 {wins.}) 58... Kb4 59.
Ke2 Ka5 $1 ({'The king blocks the passed pawn, and the rook begins eliminating
the white pawns. Black would have lost his advantage after} 59... Ra5 $2 60.
Kd3 Rxa4 61. Rxa4+ Kxa4 {.' (Levenfish, Smyslov)}) 60. Ra3 Rf4 61. Ra2 ({No
better was} 61. Kf1 Rh4 62. Kg2 Kb4 $1 63. Ra1 d3 64. a5 d2 65. a6 Rh8 66. a7
Ra8 67. Kf3 Rxa7 {and wins.}) 61... Rh4 62. Kd3 ({Or} 62. Ra3 Kb4 $1 {.}) 62...
Rxh3+ 63. Kxd4 Rh4+ 64. Kd3 Rxa4 65. Re2 Rf4 {Here White could have resigned,
but Spielmann most probably remembers that it is never too late to resign...}
66. Ke3 Kb6 67. Rc2 Kb7 68. Rc1 Ra4 69. Rh1 Kc6 70. Rh7 Ra7 71. Ke4 Kd6 72. Kf5
{(hastening the end)} g6+ $1 73. Kxg6 Rxh7 74. Kxh7 Ke5 75. Kg6 g4 {. This is
an eternally living, classic rook endgame! As also are his finish with Lasker
(Game No.61), Rubinstein's miraculous saving of his game with Tarrasch (San
Sebastian 1911), and his incisive wins over Alekhine (Carlsbad 1911) and
Schlechter (San Sebastian 1912). --- Talking about Rubinstein's merits in the
field of the endgame, I should mention that by a process of experimentation
the leading masters of that era discovered the positions that became
theoretical and ended up in all the endgame books. In the collection of the
'great Akiba' there are masses of such endings, each one more subtle and
prettier than the last! For example, bishop against knight - the instructive
conversion of a positional advantage in his game with Réti (Gothenburg 1920).
--- Or rook and pawn against bishop and pawn. First Rubinstein, with the rook,
defeated Salwe in Prague 1909 (White - Kg3, Bg5, Ph4; Black - Ke4, Rf8, Ph5),
where half a century later Baranov discovered in the course of things a
study-like draw, and a further nine years later Maizelis pointed out what was
after all the correct way to win... Then Rubinstein, on ending up in a
difficult position in his game with Tartakower (Vienna 1922), found a quite
amazing draw, this time with the bishop (White - Kf3, Bc1, Pg4; Black - Kd3,
Rg8, Pg5; the bypass by the king from below does not work because of Bxg5!).
--- As a result of a fascinating tournament race in St Petersburg 1909, it was
only thanks to scoring 9˝ out of 10(!) in the middle of the tournament and
winning at the end against Teichmann that Lasker was able to catch his
unexpected rival and share first place with him. He and Rubinstein finished 3˝ points ahead of their nearest pursuers! It became clear that there had
appeared in Russia a worthy successor to Chigorin's glory - a very real
challenger for the title of world champion. One noteworthy detail: in the
secondary All-Russian tournament for amateurs the winner was the future chess
king, the 16-year-old Alexander Alekhine...} 0-1
[Event "64: San Sebastian"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1911.??.??"]
[Round "13"]
[White "Rubinstein, A."]
[Black "Capablanca, JR."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D33"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "83"]
[EventDate "1911.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{A turning point in Rubinstein's fate was the major international tournament
in San Sebastian (1911), where the 22-year-old Capablanca made his debut. The
talented Cuban quickly took the lead, whereas Akiba started slowly. 'He lost
at least two and a half points,' writes Mieses in the tournament book, 'since
in his games with Teichmann, Vidmar, Bernstein, Marshall and Spielmann he
missed a clear win due to careless play (which earlier had never happened with
him!).' --- However, two rounds before the finish Rubinstein nevertheless
caught up with the leader, by defeating him brilliantly in their individual
meeting.} 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 c5 3. c4 e6 4. cxd5 exd5 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. g3 Be6 $6 ({
'In making the text move I was trying to avoid the beaten track.} 6... Nf6 {is
the normal move in this variation. White's development was first introduced by
Schlechter and elaborated later on by Rubinstein. It aims at the isolation of
Black's d-pawn, against which the white pieces are gradually concentrated.'
(Capablanca)}) 7. Bg2 Be7 8. O-O Rc8 $6 ({As before} 8... Nf6 {was better
(Game No.75).}) 9. dxc5 Bxc5 10. Ng5 $5 {'I had not yet learned of the attack
founded on Ng5 and the exchange of the bishop at e6.' (Capablanca)} ({Another
attempt to exploit Black's delay in developing his g8-knight is} 10. Na4 $5 Be7
11. Be3 {.}) 10... Nf6 11. Nxe6 fxe6 12. Bh3 $1 {'The start of a complicated
combination. This is not the only way to develop White's initiative.} ({The
natural} 12. e4 {also came into consideration, for example:} -- (12... dxe4 13.
Qb3 $5 (13. Nxe4 Qxd1 14. Rxd1 Nxe4 15. Bxe4 O-O 16. Be3) 13... Qe7 14. Nxe4) (
{, or} 12... d4 {(! - G.K.)} 13. Na4 Be7 (13... Qe7 $6 14. Nxc5 Qxc5 15. Qb3)
14. Qb3 {and it is hard for Black to defend (Razuvaev). But in my view, after}
Qd7 $1 15. Bd2 O-O {the situation is completely unclear.})) 12... Qe7 13. Bg5
O-O $6 {'Too late! Now a storm breaks out.' (Kmoch)} ({'This is a mistake. The
right move was} 13... Rd8 {in order to get the rook away from the line of the
bishop at h3 and at the same time to support the d-pawn. Against the text move
White makes a very fine combination, which I had seen but which I thought
could be defeated.' (Capablanca)}) 14. Bxf6 Qxf6 $2 ({'I considered} 14... gxf6
{, which it seemed would give me a playable game, but I thought White's
combination unsound and therefore let him play it, to my lasting regret.'
(Capablanca) The capture with the pawn was indeed the lesser evil: although
after} 15. Nxd5 $1 exd5 16. Bxc8 Rxc8 17. Qxd5+ Kh8 18. e3 Rd8 19. Qf5 {White
has an obvious advantage, it is not so easy to convert it.}) 15. Nxd5 $1 Qh6 ({
But not} 15... exd5 $2 16. Qxd5+ Kh8 17. Bxc8) ({or} 15... Bxf2+ $2 16. Kg2 Qf7
17. Nf4 {.}) 16. Kg2 $1 ({Capa had only reckoned on} 16. Bg2 $2 Ne5 $1 {with
an excellent game for Black:} 17. Nf4 (17. Rc1 $2 Qxc1 $1 18. Qxc1 Bxf2+) 17...
Ng4 18. h3 (18. Nh3 Bxf2+) 18... Nxf2 19. Rxf2 Bxf2+ 20. Kxf2 g5 {winning.})
16... Rcd8 {(in Capa's words, 'submitting to the inevitable')} 17. Qc1 $3 {A
brilliant stroke, envisaged beforehand, which replicates in amazing fashion
the game with Lasker (Game No.61). Rubinstein defeated the two champions using
practically one and the same device!} exd5 ({There is nothing else:} 17... Rxd5
$2 18. Qxh6 gxh6 19. Bxe6+ {and Bxd5}) (17... Qxc1 $2 18. Bxe6+ Kh8 19. Raxc1 {
etc.}) 18. Qxc5 Qd2 19. Qb5 Nd4 20. Qd3 Qxd3 21. exd3 Rfe8 {'In the resulting
ending White has an extra pawn and a good bishop, and hence winning chances.
Black's only trump is his slight lead in development.' (Razuvaev)} 22. Bg4 $5 (
{In the event of} 22. Rfe1 Nc2 23. Rxe8+ Rxe8 {. Black has definite
counterplay.' (Tarrasch) But nevertheless it is insufficient after} 24. Rd1 {.}
({Capablanca gave} 24. Rc1 $5 Re2 25. Kf1 Nd4 (25... Rd2 26. Be6+ Kf8 27. Bxd5)
26. Rc8+ Kf7 27. Rc7+ Re7 28. Rc5 {and 'wins', and criticised the bishop move:
'This gives Black a chance.'})) 22... Rd6 $1 23. Rfe1 Rxe1 24. Rxe1 Rb6 $1 25.
Re5 {To overcome Capablanca's stubborn resistance, very fine endgame technique
is required.} ({Also possible was} 25. b3 $5 Ra6 26. Re5 $1 Rxa2 27. Rxd5 Nc6 (
27... Nxb3 $2 28. Be6+ Kf8 29. Rf5+ {and Bxb3}) 28. Be6+ Kf8 29. Rd7 Ne5 30.
Rxb7 {, 'and White should win quickly.' (Razuvaev)}) 25... Rxb2 26. Rxd5 Nc6
27. Be6+ Kf8 28. Rf5+ ({But not} 28. Rd7 $6 Ne5 {.}) 28... Ke8 29. Bf7+ Kd7 30.
Bc4 a6 $6 {'Black's only chance is his extra pawn on the queenside,' writes
Razuvaev, and he attaches an exclamation mark to this move. But Capablanca
thought otherwise: 'A bad move, which gives away any legitimate chance Black
had to draw. It loses a very important move.} ({The proper way was to play}
30... Kd6 {.} 31. -- ({. If then} 31. Rb5 {(? - G.K.)} Rxb5 32. Bxb5 Nd4 {
followed by ...b7-b5 and White would have an exceedingly difficult game to
draw on account of the dominating position of the knight at d4 in conjunction
with the extra pawn on the queenside and the awkward position of White's king.'
}) ({. I agree that 30...Kd6! would have given Black better chances, for
example:} 31. Rd5+ Ke7 32. Rb5 $6 {(a basically incorrect idea)} Rxb5 33. Bxb5
Nd4 34. Ba4 b5 35. Bd1 a5 $1 ({but not} 35... Kd6 36. f4 Kc5 37. Kf2 Kb4 38.
Ke3 Kc3 39. g4 a5 40. f5 h6 41. h4 {winning}) 36. f4 Nc6 37. Kf1 Nb4 38. a3 Nc6
39. Kf2 Kd6 40. Ke3 Kc5 {with sufficient compensation for the pawn.}) ({.
However, after} 31. Rf7 $1 {impassive computer analysis nevertheless promises
White a win:} b5 ({or} 31... Ne5 32. Rxg7 b5 33. Bb3 a5 (33... Nxd3 34. Rxa7
Rxf2+ 35. Kg1 Rb2 36. Rxh7 Nc1 37. Rh5 Nxb3 38. Rxb5 Rb1+ 39. Kg2 Nd2 40. Rxb1
Nxb1 41. a4 Nc3 42. a5 {also wins}) 34. d4 Nd3 35. Kf3 Nc1 36. Bg8 Nxa2 37.
Rxh7 Nc3 38. Rh6+ Ke7 39. Ra6 a4 40. h4 Nd1 41. d5 Rxf2+ 42. Ke4) 32. Bb3 Nd4
33. Rxa7 Nxb3 34. axb3 Rxb3 35. Rxg7 Rxd3 36. Rxh7 Kc6 37. Rh8 Kc7 38. Rh4 Kd6
39. Rb4 Kc5 40. Rb1 b4 41. h4 {.})) 31. Rf7+ Kd6 32. Rxg7 b5 33. Bg8 a5 34.
Rxh7 a4 35. h4 b4 36. Rh6+ Kc5 37. Rh5+ Kb6 38. Bd5 $2 {'With these three last
moves White again gives Black a chance. The text move is a downright blunder.'
(Capablanca) I think that this was the result of nervous fatigue: generally
speaking, Rubinstein, like Fischer half a century later, had an obvious soft
spot for his light-squared bishop and he more than once performed miracles
with it...} ({There was a comparatively easy win by} 38. Bc4 $1 {, and if} b3 {
, then} 39. axb3 a3 40. Rb5+ Kc7 41. b4) 38... b3 $2 ({Missing an unexpected
saving chance -} 38... Rxa2 $3 39. -- ({. 'White's best continuation then
would have been} 39. Bc4 Rc2 40. Rb5+ Kc7 41. Bg8 a3 42. h5 a2 43. Bxa2 Rxa2
44. h6 Ra6 $1 ({but not} 44... Ra8 $2 45. g4 $1) 45. g4 {, with excellent
chances for a draw.' (Capablanca) The computer confirms this evaluation:} Ne7
46. g5 (46. h7 Ra8) 46... Rb6 47. Rxb6 Kxb6 48. f4 b3 49. h7 Ng6 50. f5 b2 51.
fxg6 b1=Q 52. h8=Q Qc2+ 53. Kf3 Qxd3+ 54. Kf4 Qd2+ 55. Kf5 Qc2+ {with a draw.})
(39. Bxa2 $2 b3 {.}) (39. Rh6 $5 Rc2 40. h5 {seems tempting. Here Razuvaev
gives two supposedly winning variations for White:} b3 ({and} 40... a3 41. Re6
a2 {(? - G.K.)} (41... Rc5 $1 {the advantage is altogether on the side of
Black!}) 42. Re1 Nd4 43. h6 b3 44. h7 Rc8 45. Bg8) 41. Re6 b2 {(? - G.K.)} ({
after 40...b3 41 Re6 stronger is} 41... Rc5 $1 42. Bxc6 Rxc6 43. Rxc6+ Kxc6 44.
h6 b2 45. h7 b1=Q 46. h8=Q Qxd3 {with a probable draw (} 47. Qe8+ Qd7 {)}) 42.
Ba2 Rc1 43. h6 Ra1 44. h7 Rxa2 45. h8=Q b1=Q 46. Qb8+ {.})) 39. axb3 (39. Bxb3
$5 {would also have won.}) 39... a3 (39... axb3 40. Rh6 {wins.}) 40. Bxc6 Rxb3
({Or} 40... a2 41. Rb5+ Ka6 42. Rb8 $1 a1=Q 43. Ra8+ {and Rxa1.}) 41. Bd5 a2
42. Rh6+ (42. Rh6+ Ka5 ({or} 42... Ka7 43. Rh8) 43. Bc4 $1 {and the rook
reaches the a-file in time. --- But even so, first place went to Capablanca:
in his last game Rubinstein failed to find a one-move win(!) against
Schlechter. 'He, of whom one of the acknowledged virtues is precisely his
ability to win won positions, to general astonishment, in this game, such an
important one for him, missed a certain chance.' (Mieses) Thus on the chess
scene there appeared a new, more fortunate contender for the chess crown...})
1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Rubinstein contribution"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{It is time to say something about the gigantic, staggeringly high-quality
contribution of Rubinstein to modern opening theory.} 1. -- ({He discovered
new paths in the most diverse variations of the Queen's Gambit: apart from the
'Rubinstein Attack' given above and his systems in the Tarrasch Defence, there
is his variation in the Queen's Gambit Accepted -} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nf3
Nf6 4. e3 e5 5. Bxc4 c5 6. O-O a6 7. a4 {, which, incidentally, was also
tested in the Botvinnik-Petrosian world championship match (Moscow 1963). And,
now for Black, there is his highly popular Meran Variation in the Slav, opened
to the world in his games with Teichmann (Carlsbad 1923) and Grünfeld (Meran
1924).}) ({His interpretation of the English Opening in his game with Duras
(Carlsbad 1911) became classical:} 1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. g3 Bb4 4. Bg2 O-O 5.
Nf3 Re8 6. O-O Nc6 7. Nd5 $1 {etc. Incidentally, it was in this encounter that
he overpowered his opponent with the staggering positional move 27 Qf1!! His
games are studded with similar gems - take the murderous manoeuvre 21 Nd1!! in
his game with Tarrasch (Hastings 1922).}) ({When the Nimzo-Indian Defence
appeared -} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 ({at the same time he developed the
fundamental Anti-Queen's Indian variation} 3. Nf3 b6 4. g3 {, which for a long
time became White's main weapon in this opening}) 3... Bb4 {, Rubinstein
immediately devised the variation} 4. e3 {and 5 Ne2 against it (to avoid the
spoiling of the pawn formation!), which even today is considered one of the
most interesting and venomous, partly thanks to the match games
Korchnoi-Karpov (Baguio 1978).}) ({In all the openings which he played against
} 1. e4 {, original systems and variations bearing his name have been retained!
} -- ({. In the Sicilian Defence -} 1... c5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5) ({; in the
French -} 1... e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4 ({or} 3... Nf6 4. Bg5 dxe4 {, for
example:} 5. Nxe4 Nbd7 6. Nf3 Be7 7. Nxf6+ Nxf6 8. Bd3 b6 9. Ne5 Bb7 10. Bb5+
c6 11. Bxc6+ $6 Bxc6 12. Nxc6 Qd5 $1 {, and after} 13. Ne5 Qxg2 14. Qf3 Qxf3
15. Nxf3 Rc8 {Black finally won the endgame (Schlechter-Rubinstein, San
Sebastian 1912). And whereas Akiba's Sicilian idea has not found any followers,
his exchanging variation in the French is still constantly the centre of
attention. It is possible even, that it was because of his successes with
Black after ...dxe4 that Nimzowitsch became such a fervent devotee of 3 e5.}))
({. In the Four Knights Game -} 1... e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 {- it was
Rubinstein who suggested the variation with} Nd4 $5 {(nowadays that is how
Kramnik replies; it was because of the knight move that White stopped playing
this opening). In the Chigorin Variation of the Ruy Lopez, in reply to the
clamping d4-d5 he devised an elegant defensive plan with ...Nc6-d8, ...Nf6-e8,
...g7-g6 and ...Ng7, ...f7-f6 and ...Nf7, as in his games with Thomas and
Bogoljubow (Baden-Baden 1925).})) *
[Event "65: All-Russian master tourney, Vilna"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1912.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Alekhine, A."]
[Black "Rubinstein, A."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C83"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "54"]
[EventDate "1912.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{The master also left his deep mark in the Open Variation of the Ruy Lopez.
The following game occurred in one of Rubinstein's triumphal tournaments of
1912 (San Sebastian, Pistyan, Breslau and Vilna).} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5
a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. dxe5 Be6 9. c3 Be7 (9... Bc5 {
is more popular (Game Nos.28, 66). Towards the end of the 20th century,
largely through the efforts of Korchnoi, this move so troubled White, that he
switched to the variation 9 Nbd2 Nc5 10 c3, allowing, apart from 10...Bg4 11
Be2 Be7, the problematic 10...d4!?}) 10. Nbd2 Nc5 11. Bc2 Bg4 {By
transposition of moves one of the critical positions has been reached.} (11...
O-O {is also played}) ({as well as} 11... d4 $5 {- earlier this was rejected}
12. -- ({, because of} 12. Ne4 Bd5 $2 ({or} 12... dxc3 $6 13. Nxc5 Bxc5 14. Be4
$1 {(Capablanca-Chajes, New York 1915 and 1916)}) ({but then after 12 Ne4 they
found} 12... d3 $1 13. Nxc5 dxc2 14. Qxd8+ Rxd8 15. Nxe6 fxe6 16. Be3 Rd5 17.
Rfc1 Nxe5 18. Nxe5 Rxe5 {with equal chances}) 13. Nxc5 Bxc5 14. Nxd4 {
(Tarrasch-Post, Mannheim 1914)}) ({, and then they began trying} 12. Nb3 d3 13.
Bb1 (13. Nxc5 dxc2 14. Qxd8+ Rxd8 {is level}) 13... Nxb3 14. axb3 Bf5 15. Be3
O-O 16. Bd4 $5 (16. Nd4 Nxd4 17. cxd4 c5 $1) 16... Qd5 17. Re1 {with a sharp
game (Topalov-Piket, Antwerp 1997)}) ({, or} 12. cxd4 Nxd4 13. Nxd4 Qxd4 14.
Nf3 (14. Qe2 O-O) 14... Qxd1 15. Rxd1 O-O ({slightly worse is} 15... Bg4 16.
Be3 O-O 17. h3 $1 {Leko-Khalifman, Budapest 6th matchgame 2000}) 16. Ng5 h6 17.
Bh7+ Kh8 18. Nxe6 Nxe6 19. Be4 Rad8 20. Be3 Bg5 {with equality (Anand-A.Greenfeld, Haifa rapidplay 2000).})) 12. h3 $6 {This and White's subsequent
inaccuracies are explained by the 20-year-old Alekhine's lack of experience
and the fact that the theory of this variation was undeveloped. Is it really
worth driving the bishop to g6, if it is aiming for there anyway?} ({Today the
main line is} 12. Re1 $1 Qd7 {, for example:} 13. -- (13. Nb3 Ne6 14. h3 Bh5
15. Bf5 Ncd8 ({or} 15... Bg6 16. Bg4 h5 17. Bxe6 fxe6 18. Be3 O-O 19. Nc5 Bxc5
20. Bxc5 Rf4 21. Nd4 Re4 {with level chances Leko-Piket, Wijk aan Zee 2000})
16. Be3 a5 17. Bc5 a4 18. Bxe7 Qxe7 {with approximate equality
(Karpov-Korchnoi, Baguio City 28th matchgame 1978)}) (13. Nf1 $5 {(Bronstein's
cunning manoeuvre)} Rd8 (13... Bh5 14. Ng3 Bg6 15. h4 $5 O-O 16. h5 {is also
played, which demonstrates again that 12 h3 is unnecessary}) 14. Ne3 Bh5 ({
dangerous is} 14... Bxf3 15. Qxf3 Nxe5 16. Qg3 Ng6 17. Nf5 Ne6 18. h4 Bf6 19.
Bg5 {etc.}) 15. b4 $5 (15. Nf5 O-O) 15... Ne6 (15... Ne4 $2 16. Nxd5) 16. g4 $1
Bg6 17. Nf5 O-O 18. a4 Rfe8 19. axb5 axb5 20. Bd3 {with appreciable pressure
(Galkin-Sorokin, Ekaterinburg 1997; Khalifman-Marin, Istanbul Olympiad 2000).})
) 12... Bh5 13. Qe1 $6 (13. Re1 {is still better.}) 13... Ne6 14. Nh2 $6 {
White wants to advance his f- and g-pawns with gain of tempi, but an
unpleasant surprise awaits him.} ({A game from our times went} 14. Bf5 Bg6 15.
Bxg6 fxg6 $1 {(following the classic example!)} 16. Nb3 O-O (16... Qd7 $5) 17.
Nfd4 Ncxd4 18. Nxd4 Qd7 19. Be3 c5 20. Nxe6 Qxe6 21. f4 g5 {with excellent
play for Black (Y. Grünfeld-Stean, Skara 1980).}) 14... Bg6 {What should White
do now?} 15. Bxg6 ({Later} 15. Bb1 $5 {was played, with the idea of f2-f4.})
15... fxg6 $3 {But this is a surprise: in such cases every follower of the
Steinitz School would without thinking have captured towards the centre (...hxg6), whereas Akiba evaluated the position concretely. A phenomenal move (for
the sake of which, strictly speaking, this not very outstanding game is given
here). Of course, today this is already a typical procedure, but then... How
hard it was to go against the established dogmas! The game is important mainly
because it clearly demonstrates that, thanks to his chess genius, Rubinstein
was capable of blazing completely new trails.} 16. Nb3 ({Hardly any better was
} 16. Ndf3 O-O 17. Be3 Rf5 $1 {with the intention of ...Qd7 and ...Raf8.})
16... g5 $1 {Preventing the supporting of the e5-pawn.} ({Although} 16... O-O
17. f4 a5 18. Be3 a4 19. Nd4 Ncxd4 20. cxd4 c5 21. dxc5 d4 22. Bd2 Qd5 {was
also acceptable.}) 17. Be3 O-O 18. Nf3 $2 {Again a poor move - one senses that
the young Alekhine was stunned.} ({It was not essential to lose this position,
and White could still have saved himself by tempo play:} 18. Qe2 Nxe5 19. Bxg5
Nxg5 20. Qxe5 Qd6 21. Ng4 {with equality.}) 18... Qd7 $2 ({Undoubtedly
stronger was the immediate} 18... Rxf3 $1 19. gxf3 Nxe5 20. Qe2 Bd6 21. Nd4 Qd7
{with excellent compensation for the exchange. However, as Razuvaev and
Murakhveri write, 'Rubinstein could sometimes procrastinate, but hurry -
never!'}) 19. Qd2 $2 {The decisive mistake.} ({The only way to exploit Black's
delay was by} 19. Qe2 {, and nothing terrible for White is apparent, for
example:} Rf5 20. Nbd4 Ncxd4 21. cxd4 Raf8 22. a4 $5 (22. Nd2 c5) 22... Rxf3
23. gxf3 c5 24. dxc5 d4 25. Rfd1 Bxc5 26. axb5 axb5 27. Bc1 {with an unclear
game.}) 19... Rxf3 $1 {(better late than never...)} 20. gxf3 Nxe5 21. Qe2 Rf8
22. Nd2 Ng6 $1 {In order to jump to f4, weaving a mating net.} 23. Rfe1 Bd6 24.
f4 $6 {(desperation)} Nexf4 25. Qf1 Nxh3+ 26. Kh1 g4 27. Qe2 Qf5 {. The threat
of ...Qh5 is irresistible, and White resigned. --- As we have seen, Rubinstein
was great in all stages of the game - in the opening, and in the middlegame,
and in the endgame. But, in contrast to Tarrasch or Nimzowitsch, he never
related his achievements in print, and so for a long time his special role in
the development of chess was suppressed and remained underestimated. Careful
analysis shows that modern chess, proceeding from the Botvinnik era, is very
strongly influenced by the games of Rubinstein, who was, essentially, one of
the fathers of modern chess history. --- In the period 1909-1912 the strength
of his play was certainly sufficient for him to issue a challenge to Lasker. A
match between them at that time would have been very interesting, as would
somewhat later - but also before the War! - have been the matches Lasker vs.
Capablanca and Rubinstein vs. Capablanca. Alas, history knows of numerous
instances when the logic of events was disrupted... Either the War or, more
probably, deficiencies of character, prevented Akiba from making the last,
decisive step, and hopes of seeing a match between him and Lasker were never
realised.} (27... -- {Rubinstein was an extraordinarily taciturn, modest and
diffident person, but more importantly - completely impractical. By contrast,
the enterprising Capablanca, after winning San Sebastian 1911 (only half a
point ahead of his rival, who defeated him in their individual game and did
not suffer a single defeat!), he promptly issued a challenge to Lasker. And
although after Rubinstein's series of brilliant tournament victories in 1912
his rights to a match with Lasker were undisputed, negotiations with the world
champion were manifestly delayed. --- Talking about Lasker as a great
psychologist, Botvinnik explains: 'He knew when he should avoid a match (the
opponent was in good form) and when, on the contrary, he should aim for a
fight! That is undoubtedly how he operated with Tarrasch, with Rubinstein, and
with Capablanca... But should this be condemned? There were no rules then for
organising competitions for the world championship, and each could act at his
own discretion. In this respect Lasker differed from Steinitz: the latter
never avoided a contest.' --- Yes, Lasker had a clear position regarding this:
'I was ready to play a match with any challenger, only if the chess world
wished to see this match and confirmed this wish not only verbally, but also
materially. Of course, I certainly did not want to be an object of
exploitation. I was threatened by the fate of players, who either died of
hunger, such as Kieseritzky, Zukertort or Mackenzie, or, like Pillsbury and
Steinitz, ended up on social security and, degraded, in mental disorder, ended
their days in hospital. I was ready to give my skill and thinking to the chess
world and thereby enliven it, assisting the development of the game, but I
demanded that it should take on the responsibility for this and bear it to the
end.' --- How very true! As, however, was the champion's rebuff to those who
considered that chess could not be recognised as a profession: 'The millions
of enthusiasts, who play through the games of masters, learn from them and
obtain spiritual pleasure, should not hold such a point of view. Using such
arguments, the musical world could deny a living to talented professional
musicians, which, of course, would be obviously unjust. Only those who devote
themselves entirely to a particular matter can create something great in that
field.'}) 0-1
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Settling Accounts"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.07"]
{Settling Accounts in St Petersburg: The most significant chess event of those
years was the super-tournament St Petersburg 1914, with the participation of
the 45-year-old world champion Lasker and both the young contenders for this
title - Rubinstein and Capablanca. For the first time the three leading chess
organisations in the world - Russia, Germany and Great Britain - agreed that
the winner of the tournament (if it should not be Lasker) would gain the right
to play a match for the world championship under jointly drawn-up conditions,
and moreover, he would automatically receive the title in the event of the
champion defaulting! And Lasker, satisfied with a high appearance fee, agreed
to this, thereby imparting an unusual intrigue to the event.} 1. -- {Such a
distinctive candidates tournament was not entirely fair: a player who finished
second after the champion would not gain any rights at all. Also imperfect was
the tournament formula: a preliminary all-play-all of 11 participants, and
then a double-double final for the first five... with the preliminary results
carried forward. --- The exceptionally nervy, tense battle in the first stage
produced a regrettable sensation: Rubinstein, who was out of practice, did not
finish in the cherished five, letting slip a serious advantage against
Capablanca (Game No.82) and then losing 'grievously' to Lasker and Alekhine...
--- The Lasker-Rubinstein game was of great competitive significance. The
champion struck his dangerous opponent a terrible blow, outplaying him
literally out of nothing ... in a rook endgame - the stage where it was
generally held that Akiba had no equal! This ending also found its way into
books on the endgame.} *
[Event "66: St Petersburg, preliminary tourney"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1914.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Lasker, Em"]
[Black "Rubinstein, A."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C82"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "131"]
[EventDate "1914.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. dxe5
Be6 9. c3 Bc5 (9... Be7 {- Game No.65.}) 10. Nbd2 O-O 11. Bc2 Nxd2 $6 ({
Nowadays} 11... Bf5 $1 {is in vogue.}) 12. Qxd2 $1 f6 {'The comparatively best
reply.' (Keres)} ({Chigorin played} 12... Ne7 {(Game No.28).}) 13. exf6 (13.
Qd3 $5 {.}) 13... Rxf6 14. Nd4 (14. Ng5 Bf5 15. a4) (14. b4 Bb6 15. a4 $1 {is
considered more energetic.}) 14... Nxd4 15. cxd4 Bb6 ({'After Tarrasch's
recommendation of} 15... Bd6 $5 {there follows} 16. Qe2 h6 ({according to
Larsen, stronger is} 16... Qd7 $1 {with equal chances}) 17. a4 Rb8 18. axb5
axb5 19. Be3 {with advantage to White.' (Keres)}) 16. a4 Rb8 17. axb5 axb5 18.
Qc3 Qd6 19. Be3 {The opinions of the theoreticians regarding this position are
divided: some think that, thanks to his pressure on the c-file, White has the
advantage, others that Black has a solid defence.} Bf5 20. Rfc1 Bxc2 21. Rxc2
Re8 22. Rac1 Rfe6 23. h3 Re4 24. Qd2 R8e6 {Allowing White to exchange a pair
of rooks.} (24... Qe7 25. Rc6 (25. Qd3 Qb4) 25... Qh4 26. Rd1 Qe7 27. Qc3 {
does not offer full equality, although here it will not be possible to play
f2-f3.}) ({After} 24... Qd7 $6 25. Rc6 {the b5-pawn is threatened.}) 25. Rc6
Qd7 ({Quite safe was} 25... Qxc6 $5 26. Rxc6 Rxc6 27. Qb4 Bxd4 $1 28. Bxd4 (28.
Qxb5 Rc5) 28... Rc4 29. Qxb5 Rcxd4 30. Qb8+ Kf7 31. Qxc7+ Re7 {with equality.})
26. Rxe6 Qxe6 27. Qd3 Qe8 {Black appears to have a quite normal position, and
at least White does not have anything serious. But Lasker, not at all
concerned by this, continues playing in his usual manner - for a long time he
moves here and there, creating in the end an outstanding example of
manoeuvring play!} 28. Qc3 Kf7 29. Qd3 Kg8 30. Qc3 Qe6 31. Ra1 Qe8 32. Kf1 h6
33. Qd3 Kf7 34. Rc1 Kg8 35. Qb3 Qf7 36. Rd1 c6 ({Possibly an inaccuracy, but
after} 36... Qd7 37. f3 {Black's position is somewhat inferior.}) 37. f3 $1 Qf6
38. Qd3 Re7 39. Bf2 {Gradually White has gained a 'plus': he has advanced
f2-f3, he has fixed the pawn at c6, and he wants to exploit his pawn majority
on the kingside. And yet, despite certain problems (the main one being a lack
of counterplay!), Black should be able to draw.} Qd6 40. Qc2 Kf7 41. Rc1 Re6
42. Qf5+ Rf6 43. Qe5 $1 Re6 (43... Qd7 {came into consideration, avoiding the
exchange of queens, which turns out to favour White: he activates his king and
sets about creating a passed pawn.}) 44. Qxd6 Rxd6 45. Ke2 Ke7 46. Kd3 Rg6 47.
g3 $1 Rf6 48. f4 Kd7 49. Re1 Rf8 50. Ra1 h5 51. Be3 g6 52. Rf1 {With the
intention of g3-g4 intending f4-f5. Stealthily, step by step, White
imperceptibly increases his advantage.} Kd6 $2 ({In my opinion, this is
already the decisive mistake:} 52... Ke6 $1 53. g4 Bc7 $1 {was essential.
White has made all his useful moves - what is he to do next? The computer
'looks at' the sharp} 54. f5+ $1 gxf5 55. Bh6 $1 (55. gxh5 $2 f4) 55... Rf7 56.
g5 {, but after} Rh7 ({but not} 56... f4 $2 57. g6 Rf6 58. Re1+ Kf5 59. g7 Rg6
60. Re8 {and the pawn queens}) 57. Rg1 Rh8 58. g6 Rg8 59. g7 Bd6 60. Rg6+ Ke7
61. Ke3 c5 62. Bg5+ Kd7 63. Bf6 Ke8 64. dxc5 Kf7 65. Rh6 Bxc5+ 66. Kf4 d4 67.
Rxh5 Kxf6 68. Rxf5+ Kxg7 69. Rxc5 Rd8 70. Rxb5 d3 71. Rg5+ Kf6 72. Rg1 Rh8 {
Black gains a draw.}) 53. g4 $1 {(proceeding to create a passed pawn)} hxg4 ({
If} 53... Ke6 {, then} 54. f5+ $1 gxf5 55. gxh5 Bc7 56. Re1 Kd7 57. Bg5 {.})
54. hxg4 c5 $6 {An attempt to create his own passed pawn.} ({One can argue
about whether this should have been played, but after} 54... Ke6 55. Rh1 {and
Rh6 White simply has an advantage for free and every chance of winning -
evidently Rubinstein did not believe that he would be able to defend here. ---
With amazing rapidity the position has been transformed from being almost
equal to one that is highly unpleasant, even lost for Black. This truly is a
gift of the great masters: the ability to create something... out of nothing!
--- A further paradoxical feature of this game is that according to all the
rules White has a 'bad' bishop (running up against its own d4-pawn), whereas
Black's is 'good'. But with the rooks on and a superior pawn formation - a
healthy extra pawn on the kingside, whereas the b2- and d4-pawns restrain
three black pawns - this does not play any role! And in the end, trying to
survive, Black himself goes in for the exchange of bishops... Of course,
Rubinstein, a great master of rook endings, fully understood the danger of his
position, but he was hoping that he would be saved by the limited material
remaining.}) 55. dxc5+ Bxc5 56. Bxc5+ Kxc5 {A classic position.} 57. f5 {
'White creates an outside passed pawn, with his rook ideally placed - "ŕ la
Tarrasch", as though urging on the passed pawn from behind, whereas the black
rook is passive. The white king is also well placed: it stands in the path of
the opponent's passed pawn, securely blocking it.' (Averbakh)} gxf5 58. gxf5
Rf6 ({'The pawn has to be stopped. After} 58... d4 59. f6 Kd5 60. f7 Ke5 61. b4
Kd5 62. Rf4 Ke5 63. Re4+ Kf5 64. Re1 $1 Kf6 65. Kxd4 Rd8+ 66. Kc5 Kxf7 67. Kxb5
{White wins easily.' (Averbakh)}) 59. Rf4 {The last critical position in this
amazing game. Here, with the help of a computer, I was fortunate enough to
discover something.} b4 $2 {The question mark is mine: by occupying the
b4-square with his pawn, Rubinstein deprives himself of any counterplay!} ({
True, in the opinion of Levenfish and Smyslov, 'Black no longer has any useful
moves: if} 59... d4 {, then} 60. Ke4 {wins. This, according to Averbakh, would
merely have 'complicated the play somewhat, for example:} Rd6 ({if instead}
60... Kc4 {then} 61. Ke5 Rf8 62. Rxd4+ Kb3 63. f6 {wins}) 61. Rf3 Kc4 62. -- (
62. b3+ {(? - G.K.)} Kb4 ({in addition, it transpires that after 62 b3+? the
reply} 62... Kc5 $5 {(apart from 62...Kb4) is also acceptable. Here too no win
is apparent:} 63. f6 d3 64. f7 d2 65. Rf1 Rd8 66. Ke3 Kb4 {. At this point I
became excited: does 59...d4! really save Black?!}) 63. Rd3 (63. f6 $2 d3)
63... Kc5 64. Ke5 Rd8 65. f6 Re8+ 66. Kf5 Kd5 (66... Re3 $2 67. Rxe3 dxe3 68.
f7 {and wins}) 67. f7 Rf8 68. Kf6 Ke4 69. -- (69. Rd1 d3 70. Ke7 Rh8 71. f8=Q
Rxf8 72. Kxf8 Ke3 {(? - G.K.)} ({but, surprising though it may seem, after}
72... Kd4 $1 73. Ke7 Kc3 74. Kd6 Kxb3 75. Rxd3+ Kc4 {the position is a draw!})
73. Ke7 d2 74. Kd6 {and wins.'}) ({. Then I tried} 69. Rg3 $5 {(instead of 69
Rd1)} d3 70. Rg8 Rxf7+ 71. Kxf7 Kd4 72. Rc8 $1 b4 $3 {the only move; although
through inertia the computer shows a win for White, nothing works for him:
after} ({if} 72... d2 $2 {White wins by the study-like} 73. b4 $3 d1=Q 74. Rd8+
Kc3 75. Rxd1 Kxb4 76. Ke6 Kc3 77. Rc1+ $3 {- also the only move, gaining a
decisive tempo! -} Kd3 78. Rb1 Kc4 79. Ke5 b4 80. Ke4 b3 81. Rc1+) 73. Rc4+ ({
and if} 73. Kf6 {, then} d2 74. Kf5 d1=Q 75. Rd8+ Kc3 76. Rxd1 Kxb3 {- a
little study!}) 73... Ke3 74. Rc7 {Black is again saved by the only move} Kd4
$1 {(backwards!).})) ({. But no - the 'iron friend' quickly put everything in
its place:} 62. f6 $1 {(this does indeed win)} Re6+ ({the best defence:} 62...
d3 63. f7 d2 ({or} 63... Rd4+ 64. Ke3 d2 65. f8=Q d1=Q 66. Qc8+ Kb3 67. Qc3+)
64. f8=Q d1=Q 65. Qc8+) 63. Kf5 Re3 (63... Re8 64. f7 Rf8 65. b3+ Kd5 66. Kg6 {
wins}) 64. Rf4 $1 {(an important tempo: the rook firmly restrains the d-pawn)}
Re8 65. f7 Rf8 66. Ke6 b4 67. Ke7 Rh8 68. f8=Q Rxf8 69. Kxf8 Kd3 70. Ke7 b3 71.
Kd6 Kc2 72. Kc5 {(just in time)} d3 73. Kc4 d2 74. Rf2 {and White wins. ---
Some interesting discoveries, wouldn't you agree?... But the game, after 59...
b4?, concluded much more prosaically:})) 60. b3 Rf7 ({'Black is in zugzwang:}
60... Kc6 61. Kd4 Kd6 62. Rf2 {would have led to roughly the same continuation
as in the game.' (Averbakh) Even so, this should have been tried, because the
winning variation is not so simple:} Rh6 63. f6 Rh4+ 64. Ke3 Rh3+ 65. Kf4 Ke6 (
65... Rh8 66. Kg5 d4 67. Kg6 Kd5 68. f7 Rf8 69. Kg7 Rxf7+ 70. Rxf7 d3 71. Rd7+)
({or} 65... Rxb3 66. Kg4 $1 {, and White manages to win:} Rc3 67. f7 Rc8 68.
f8=Q+ Rxf8 69. Rxf8 Kc5 70. Kf3) 66. f7 $1 Rh8 67. Kg5 Rf8 68. Kg6 d4 69. Kg7 {
, winning by one tempo.}) 61. f6 {'This is the tragedy of Black's rook
position. The passed pawn uses each of its moves to suffocate the defender.'
(Levenfish, Smyslov)} Kd6 62. Kd4 Ke6 63. Rf2 $1 Kd6 (63... Rxf6 $2 {is not
possible - the pawn endgame is clearly lost.}) 64. Ra2 $1 {The key and far
from obvious manoeuvre, underestimated beforehand by Rubinstein. 'All this is
rather simple and at the same time instructive. Black has stopped the pawn's
advance, but now he is helpless against the attack by the rook from the flank.
White is threatening to exchange rooks.' (Levenfish, Smyslov)} Rc7 ({Or} 64...
Rxf6 65. Ra6+ {, Rxf6 and Kxd5}) (64... Rb7 65. Ra6+ Kd7 66. Kxd5 {.}) 65. Ra6+
Kd7 66. Rb6 $1 ({But not} 66. Kxd5 $2 Rc3 {.}) ({Black resigned due to} 66. Rb6
Rc3 67. Rxb4 Rf3 68. Ke5 Rf1 69. Rf4 {.}) 1-0
[Event "67: St Petersburg, preliminary tourney"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1914.??.??"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Lasker, Em"]
[Black "Tarrasch, S."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C83"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "94"]
[EventDate "1914.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{Considerable difficulties in qualifying for the final stage of the tournament
were also experienced by Lasker, when in the eighth round he lost surprisingly
to Bernstein, and then only just escaped against his 'old friend' Tarrasch.} 1.
e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4 6. d4 b5 7. Bb3 d5 8. dxe5
Be6 9. c3 Be7 10. Nbd2 O-O 11. Re1 Nc5 12. Bc2 d4 13. cxd4 Nxd4 14. Nxd4 Qxd4
15. Nb3 Nxb3 16. axb3 Qxd1 17. Rxd1 c5 18. Bd2 Rfd8 19. Ba5 Rxd1+ 20. Rxd1 f6
21. Bc3 fxe5 22. Bxe5 Rd8 23. Rxd8+ Bxd8 24. f4 Kf7 25. Kf2 Bf6 26. Bd6 Bd4+
27. Kf3 Bd5+ 28. Kg4 Ke6 29. Bf8 Kf7 30. Bd6 Bxg2 31. Bxh7 Ke6 32. Bf8 Kd5 33.
Kg5 Bf6+ 34. Kg6 Be4+ 35. f5 Ke5 36. Bxg7 Bxf5+ 37. Kf7 Bxg7 $2 ({The simple}
37... Be6+ $1 38. Kf8 Bxg7+ 39. Kxg7 Bxb3 {would have won.}) 38. Bxf5 $1 Kxf5
$6 ({Had Black noticed his oversight, he would have replied} 38... Bf6) ({or}
38... Bh8 {. But apparently Tarrasch had decided to return an old debt - for
Hastings 1895 (cf. Game No.39).}) 39. Kxg7 a5 40. h4 $1 Kg4 41. Kg6 $1 {
Excellent: it turns out that this pawn endgame is drawn!} ({Black had only
reckoned on} 41. Kf6 $2 c4 42. bxc4 bxc4 43. Ke5 c3 44. bxc3 a4 45. Kd4 a3 {
winning.}) 41... Kxh4 42. Kf5 {(the king catches the passed a-pawn)} Kg3 43.
Ke4 Kf2 44. Kd5 Ke3 45. Kxc5 Kd3 46. Kxb5 Kc2 47. Kxa5 Kxb3 {. An ending that
became a thematic predecessor of Réti's famous study (1921). --- This was an
important episode: this missed win at the finish of the preliminary stage
dispirited Tarrasch, and in the final he was no longer the same player, while
on the other hand, because of the system of counting, the half point saved by
Lasker, as it later transpired, deprived Capablanca of at least a share of
first place! --- In the 'tournament of eleven' the Cuban was merciless: 1.
Capablanca - 8 out of 10; 2-3. Lasker and Tarrasch - 6˝; 4-5. Alekhine and
Marshall - 6; 6-7. Bernstein and Rubinstein - 5 etc. It seemed that the
destiny of first place was decided... In the second round of the final
tournament Lasker as Black gained a very difficult 100-move draw with
Capablanca (with rook against bishop and knight with f-, g- and h-pawns), and
then he began performing miracles. First he gained three wins in succession,
reducing the deficit to a point.} 1/2-1/2
[Event "68: St Petersburg, final tournament"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1914.??.??"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Lasker, Em"]
[Black "Capablanca, JR."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C68"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "83"]
[EventDate "1914.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{Now much, if not everything, was decided by the duel of the leaders in the
second cycle. This game with Capablanca is one of the most famous in Lasker's
career. For the umpteenth time he demonstrated his true champion's character,
when in an extreme situation he needed to mobilise himself fully and win 'to
order', and, moreover against a very strong, hard-to-beat opponent (before
this game Capa had not lost any games!).} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6
$5 {A surprising choice: although in Lasker's hands the Exchange Variation was
a formidable weapon (he defeated Steinitz, Chigorin, Tarrasch, Janowski etc.
with it), few could have thought that it would work against Capablanca, whose
virtuoso endgame technique was already widely known. This especially could not
have been imagined by José Raúl himself, with his charming youthful
self-confidence - and hence also his underestimation of the opponent's plan.}
dxc6 5. d4 ({Nowadays, following the example of Fischer,} 5. O-O {is
considered best}) ({but at that time they more often played} 5. Nc3 f6 (5...
Bc5 $6 {- Game No.84}) 6. d4 exd4 7. Qxd4 Qxd4 8. Nxd4 {. It is amusing that
this occurred in a game from the previous round, Alekhine-Lasker, and after}
Bd6 9. Be3 Ne7 10. O-O-O O-O 11. Nb3 Ng6 12. Bc5 Bf4+ 13. Kb1 Re8 14. Rhe1 (14.
f3 b6 {is equal}) 14... b6 15. Be3 Be5 16. Bd4 Nh4 ({dangerous is} 16... Bxh2
$6 17. g3 Bg4 18. Rc1 $1 {etc.}) 17. Rg1 Be6 18. f4 Bd6 19. Bf2 Ng6 20. f5 Bxb3
21. axb3 Nf8 {White finally lost due to a blunder on the 41st move.}) 5... exd4
6. Qxd4 Qxd4 7. Nxd4 {Is it really possible, after removing the queens from
the board, to win a decisive game against Capablanca? After all, 'the defects
of Black's pawn formation are more than compensated by his good development
and the advantage of the two bishops.' (Zak) But, as it turns out, it is
possible to win. True, for this you have to be a Lasker...} Bd6 ({Simpler is}
7... Bd7 $1 {and ...0-0-0 with a very comfortable game.}) 8. Nc3 Ne7 9. O-O (9.
Be3 {also promises little.}) 9... O-O 10. f4 Re8 {'Best. It threatens 11...Bc5
12 Be3 Nd5. It also prevents 11 Be3 because of 11...Nd5 or 11...Nf5.'
(Capablanca)} (10... Bc5 $5 11. Be3 Re8 {is also possible}) ({as well as
Tarrasch's suggestion} 10... f5 $5 11. e5 Bc5 12. Be3 Bxd4 ({but not} 12... Nd5
$2 13. Nxd5 Bxd4 $2 ({or} 13... cxd5 14. Nxf5) 14. Ne7+ Kf7 15. Bxd4 Kxe7 16.
Bc5+) 13. Bxd4 b6 ({or} 13... Nd5 {with sufficient defensive resources,
despite White's strong passed pawn. --- The impression made by Lasker's
original plan was so great, that the commentators tried to improve Black's
play at the very start of the game! But Capablanca is correct in his
assessment: Black does not have so many problems that he need be concerned
about anything.})) 11. Nb3 ({Pointless is} 11. e5 $6 Bc5 12. Be3 Nd5 13. Nxd5
cxd5 {.}) 11... f6 {'Preparatory to ...b7-b6 followed by ...c6-c5 and ...Bb7
in conjunction with ...Ng6, which would put White in great difficulties to
meet the combined attack against the two centre pawns.' (Capablanca)} 12. f5 $1
{'It has been wrongly claimed that this wins the game, but I would like
nothing better than to have such a position again.' (Capablanca) According to
the classical laws of the Steinitz theory, this is indeed a dubious venture:
White devalues his pawn majority on the kingside, giving himself a weak,
backward pawn on e4, whereas Black is presented with a powerful outpost at e5.
Aren't these rather too many defects for one move?! But Lasker's eagle eye is
trained on the e6-square...} b6 ({Tarrasch and Réti recommended} 12... Bd7 13.
Bf4 Bxf4 14. Rxf4 Rad8 {with the idea of ...Nc8-d6, but the bishop is more
active on b7, from where it attacks the e4-pawn.}) 13. Bf4 Bb7 $6 {A
fundamental mistake: in general it is advantageous for Black to undouble his
pawns, but in the given instance the d6-pawn will become a chronic weakness.} (
{Therefore more logical is} 13... Bxf4 $1 14. Rxf4 c5 15. Rd1 Bb7 16. Rf2 (16.
Rd7 Rac8 {and ...Bc6 or ...Nc6-e5}) 16... Rad8 (16... Rac8 $5 {and ...Nc6-e5
is equal - Nimzowitsch}) 17. Rxd8 ({if} 17. Rfd2 Rxd2 18. Rxd2 {, both} Bc6 {
and ...Nc8-d6,} ({and} 18... Nc6 19. Rd7 Rc8 {and ...Ne5! are good})) 17...
Rxd8 18. Rd2 Rxd2 19. Nxd2 Nc6 $1 {, and 'If White answers} 20. Nd5 {then} Nd4
{for Black will at least draw.' (Capablanca) This is also confirmed by the
computer:} 21. Nxc7 Nxc2 22. Nc4 Bxe4 23. Nxb6 Nb4 24. a3 Nd3 25. Nc4 ({or} 25.
Nxa6 Bb7 26. Nc7 Nxb2) 25... Bxf5 26. Nxa6 Be6 27. b3 Kf8 {with equality.}) 14.
Bxd6 cxd6 15. Nd4 {Capablanca admitted that he did not see this move when he
played 13...Bb7.} Rad8 $6 {Black still does not take his opponent's plan
seriously and does not realise his mistake - and yet the knight at e6 will be
like a bone in his throat!} ({If he is going to allow it into his position,
then better is} 15... c5 16. Ne6 Rac8 17. Rad1 Rc6 18. Ne2 ({or} 18. Nd5 Nxd5
19. exd5 Rcc8) 18... Bc8 19. N2f4 g5 $1 20. Nd5 Kf7 {with trench warfare.}) ({
But the most radical way of fighting for equality was} 15... Bc8 $1 16. Rad1 c5
{, for example:} 17. -- (17. Ne6 Bxe6 18. fxe6 Rad8 19. Nd5 Nc6 $1 ({but not}
19... Nc8 $2 20. e7 $1 Rd7 21. Rxf6 $1 gxf6 22. Nxf6+ Kf7 23. Nxd7 Kxe7 24. Nb8
)) ({, or} 17. Nde2 d5 $1 18. Nxd5 (18. exd5 Nxf5) 18... Nxd5 19. Rxd5 Bb7 20.
Rd6 Bxe4 21. Rxb6 Bxc2 {with equal chances.})) 16. Ne6 Rd7 17. Rad1 Nc8 {'I
was now on the point of playing ...c6-c5, to be followed by ...d6-d5, but
suddenly I became ambitious...' (Capablanca)} ({And indeed, after} 17... c5 18.
Rf2 ({or} 18. g4 {there is} d5 $1 {.}) ({But} 18. Nd5 $1 {is stronger -
although after} Bxd5 19. exd5 b5 {, in the opinion of the third world champion,
'Black has nothing to fear. Black's plan in this case would be to work his
knight around to e5, via c8, b6 and c4 or d7', White nevertheless retains the
initiative:} 20. g4 Nc8 21. Rf3 Nb6 22. Rg3 Kh8 23. Kh1 {followed by h2-h4 and
g4-g5.})) 18. Rf2 b5 19. Rfd2 Rde7 20. b4 Kf7 21. a3 {White now has serious
pressure.} Ba8 $2 ({'Once more changing my plan and this time without any good
reason. Had I now played} 21... Rxe6 22. fxe6+ Rxe6 {, as I intended to do
when I went back with the knight to c8, I doubt very much if White would have
been able to win the game. At least it would have been extremely difficult.'
(Capablanca) --- The exchange sacrifice would certainly have given better
practical chances of saving the game, but the question mark is merited not so
much by the bishop move itself, but rather Black's fatal idea of opening the
a-file: effective use of it can be made only by a white rook...}) 22. Kf2 Ra7
23. g4 $1 h6 24. Rd3 a5 $2 25. h4 axb4 26. axb4 Rae7 $6 {Although Black's
position is difficult, he should not have moved his rook off the newly-opened
a-file.} 27. Kf3 ({The immediate} 27. Rg3 $1 {was more energetic.}) 27... Rg8
28. Kf4 {Also a non-essential move before the time control.} g6 $6 (28... g5+ {
was more tenacious (Capablanca), when there would have followed} 29. Kf3 {with
a possible Rh1, Rdd1-a1, hxg5 etc.}) 29. Rg3 ({'White's advantage is already
so great, that the immediate breakthrough} 29. g5 $5 hxg5+ 30. hxg5 {would
also have been decisive, for example:} -- (30... gxf5 31. exf5 fxg5+ 32. Nxg5+
Kf8 33. Ne6+ Kf7 34. Ne4) ({, or} 30... Rh8 31. gxf6 Kxf6 32. Rxd6 $1 Rh4+ ({
even worse is} 32... Nxd6 33. e5+ Kf7 34. exd6) 33. Kg3 Nxd6 34. Kxh4 gxf5 35.
Rxd6 Rxe6 36. Rd8 fxe4 {the last chance;} (36... Bb7 37. Rf8+) 37. Rxa8 e3 38.
Ra1 $1 {, and it only remains to overcome certain technical difficulties.} Ke5
39. Ne2 Kd5 40. Rd1+ Kc4 $2 41. Rd4# {would be an amusing finish.' (Zak)}))
29... g5+ {Here it is already hard to offer any good advice.} ({Some
criticised Capablanca for this move, recommending} 29... gxf5 {, but this too
would not have helped in view of} 30. exf5 $1 d5 31. g5 Nd6 ({or} 31... hxg5+
32. hxg5 fxg5+ 33. Nxg5+ Kf8 34. f6 Ra7 35. Ke5 $1) 32. g6+ Ke8 33. Ra1 {, and
the win for White is not far off.}) 30. Kf3 Nb6 {(a desperate attempt to leap
with the knight to c4 and e5)} 31. hxg5 $1 ({White is not distracted by} 31.
Rxd6 {.}) 31... hxg5 32. Rh3 $1 {Lasker carries out his plan without any
deviations.} ({The 'greedy'} 32. Rxd6 $2 {would have given Black the desired
respite:} Nc4 33. Rd8 (33. Rd1 Rh8) 33... Rxd8 34. Nxd8+ Ke8 35. Ne6 Rh7 $1 {.}
) 32... Rd7 ({After} 32... Nc4 $2 {the combined invasion of the white rooks on
the a- and h-files is decisive:} 33. Rh7+ (33. Ra1 {is also possible}) 33...
Ke8 34. Ra1 $1 Bb7 35. Nc7+ Kd7 36. Rxe7+ Kxe7 37. Ra7 {, and after the bishop
moves - 38 N7d5+ and 39 Nxf6 (Réti).}) 33. Kg3 $1 {(the final preparations for
the victorious breakthrough)} Ke8 34. Rdh1 Bb7 35. e5 $3 {Over the course of
23 moves (after 12 f5) Black has been unable to neutralise this backward pawn!}
dxe5 ({Or} 35... fxe5 36. Ne4 {.}) 36. Ne4 Nd5 37. N6c5 $1 ({White would also
have won easily by} 37. Rh8 $5 Rxh8 38. Rxh8+ Kf7 39. N4c5 Re7 $2 40. Rf8# {.})
37... Bc8 (37... Rc7 38. Nd6+ {.}) 38. Nxd7 Bxd7 39. Rh7 Rf8 40. Ra1 $1 {Black
pays dearly for this mistake on the 24th move.} Kd8 41. Ra8+ Bc8 42. Nc5 {.
'Capablanca was dejected. Normally dignified, calm and smiling, on this
occasion, for two or three minutes after resigning, he sat at the board with
his head in his hands.' (Romanovsky) --- The psychological effect of this
brilliant win was enormous. Even seven years later in their match for the
world crown, in reply to 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 Capa did not once play 3...a6! against Lasker. And in St Petersburg he was so shocked, that the following
day he 'collapsed' with White in his game with Tarrasch and as a result
finished half a point behind Lasker. --- However, in order to take clear first
place, the champion still had to win 'to order' in his final game. His bold
combination against Marshall has provoked numerous debates.} 1-0
[Event "69: St Petersburg, final tournament"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1914.??.??"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Lasker, Em"]
[Black "Marshall, F."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C42"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "57"]
[EventDate "1914.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5 d6 4. Nf3 Nxe4 5. Qe2 {This is what Lasker began
playing after his painful defeat at the hands of Pillsbury in St Petersburg
1895/96 (Game No.40).} Qe7 6. d3 Nf6 7. Bg5 ({Or} 7. Nc3 Qxe2+ 8. Bxe2 g6 (8...
Be7) (8... c6 {and ...Na6}) 9. Nd4 a6 (9... Bg7 10. Ndb5) 10. h3 (10. Bg5 $5)
10... Bg7 11. g4 Bd7 $1 12. Bf3 Nc6 {with an equal position (Shirov-Kramnik,
Cazorla 8th matchgame 1998).}) 7... Be6 {Marshall's favourite move.} ({In the
second half of the 20th century they began to prefer} 7... Nbd7 8. Nc3 Qxe2+ 9.
Bxe2 h6 {(Bronstein)}) ({and then} 7... Qxe2+ 8. Bxe2 Be7 9. Nc3 c6 $1 ({but
not} 9... Bd7 10. O-O-O {Lasker-Teichmann, Cambridge Springs 1904}) 10. O-O-O
Na6 {, as in the 13th and 15th games of the Spassky-Petrosian match (Moscow
1969).}) 8. Nc3 Nbd7 ({After} 8... Nc6 $6 {, apart from} 9. O-O-O ({it is
possible simply to spoil the black pawns -} 9. Ne4 $5 d5 10. Nxf6+ gxf6 11. Be3
O-O-O 12. d4 {etc.}) 9... O-O-O 10. d4 d5 11. Ne5 {with some advantage
(Lasker-Pillsbury, St Petersburg 1895/96).}) ({And if} 8... h6 {it makes sense
to play} 9. Bxf6 Qxf6 10. d4 {- a variation, known from the games
Morphy-Löwenthal (New Orleans 1850), Capablanca-Marshall (St Petersburg 1914)
and Mieses-Marshall (Baden-Baden 1925).}) 9. O-O-O h6 10. Bh4 g5 ({Or} 10...
O-O-O $5 11. d4 Nb6 12. Qb5 a6 13. Qa5 {with a slight advantage to White.}) 11.
Bg3 Nh5 ({Dangerous is} 11... Bg7 12. Nd4 O-O $6 13. h4 $1 {.}) 12. d4 Nxg3 (
12... O-O-O $5 {.}) 13. hxg3 g4 $6 (13... O-O-O {is better}) ({but Tarrasch's
recommendation of} 13... Nb6 14. d5 Bg4 $2 {is strongly met by} 15. Qb5+ $1 Bd7
(15... Qd7 16. Re1+) 16. Qa5 {.}) 14. Nh4 d5 ({Alas,} 14... O-O-O $2 {is not
possible because of} 15. d5 {. For complete happiness Black is short of just
one tempo: had he already castled queenside, his two bishops could have caused
White considerable problems, especially with the crippled knight on h4. Fully
aware of this, the world champion launches an offensive.}) 15. Qb5 $1 {'A move,
with which Lasker wins not only the game, but also the tournament in St
Petersburg.' (Tarrasch)} ({Much less was promised by} 15. Nb5 Kd8 16. Qd2 a6
17. Nc3 Bg7 {.}) 15... O-O-O {A cunning trap very much in Marshall's style!} ({
However,} 15... Qb4 $2 16. Nxd5 $1 {was clearly bad}) ({and} 15... Bg7 $6 16.
Qxb7 O-O 17. Nxd5 {was extremely dubious.}) 16. Qa5 $1 ({After} 16. Nxd5 $2
Bxd5 17. Qxd5 Qg5+ 18. Qxg5 hxg5 {White would have lost his wretched knight.})
16... a6 ({But not} 16... Kb8 $2 17. Nb5 {.}) 17. Bxa6 $1 bxa6 $6 ({Not at all
to Marshall's liking was the depressing endgame a pawn down after} 17... Qb4 $5
18. Qxb4 Bxb4 19. Bd3 Bxc3 20. bxc3 {, although this was probably the best
saving chance.}) 18. Qxa6+ Kb8 19. Nb5 Nb6 (19... Nf6 $2 20. Rd3 {wins.}) 20.
Rd3 {The critical position for assessing the correctness of Lasker's
combination.} Qg5+ ({Several commentators considered this to be the decisive
mistake, and suggested instead the immediate} 20... Nc4 {, so as not to allow
the rook to go to b3:} 21. -- (21. Rb3 Qg5+ 22. Kb1 Nd2+ {and ...Nxb3+.}) ({.
And if} 21. Re1 {, then} Rd6 22. Nxd6 ({although here, in my opinion,} 22. Qa7+
Kc8 23. Nf5 $1 {is more promising, e.g.} Qg5+ 24. Kb1 Rc6 25. Qa8+ Kd7 26. Na7)
22... Qxd6 23. Rb3+ (23. Qb5+ Qb6) 23... Nb6 24. a4 Bc8 25. Re8 Qd7 {with
drawing chances.}) ({. However, a more careful study of the position, even
without the help of a computer, reveals that 20...Nc4 also does not refute the
champion's idea. After} 21. Rb3 $1 {(nevertheless!)} Qg5+ {White has two
tempting continuations:} 22. f4 (22. f4 $5 gxf3+ 23. Kb1 Nd2+ 24. Ka1 Nxb3+ 25.
cxb3 Qxg3 26. Nxf3 Bd6 27. Rc1 Bf4 28. Ne5 $1 Bxe5 29. Qa7+ $1 (29. dxe5 $2 Qe3
) 29... Kc8 30. dxe5 Kd7 31. Nxc7 $1 Qh4 32. Nxd5+ Ke8 33. Nc7+ Kd7 (33... Kf8
34. Nxe6+ fxe6 35. Rf1+ {and mate}) 34. Qc5 $1 {with decisive threats}) (22.
Kb1 Nd2+ 23. Ka1 Nxb3+ 24. cxb3 Bd6 25. Qa7+ Kc8 26. Nxd6+ Rxd6 ({if} 26...
cxd6 {, then} 27. f4 $1 gxf3 28. Nxf3 Qe3 29. Re1 $1) 27. Qa8+ Kd7 28. Qxh8 {
with an obvious advantage (} Rc6 29. a3 Rc2 30. f4 gxf3 31. Nxf3 Qxg3 32. Qf8 {
wins). --- Therefore the correctness of Lasker's famous combination remains
above suspicion. Marshall probably avoided 20...Nc4 because he intuitively
sensed the danger of this move.}))) 21. Kb1 Bd6 ({Also after} 21... Qe7 22.
Qa7+ (22. Rb3 $5 Rd6 23. a4) 22... Kc8 23. Rc3 Nc4 24. Nf5 $1 Bxf5 25. Qa8+ Kd7
26. Qxd5+ Ke8 (26... Kc8 $6 27. Na7+ Kb8 28. Nc6+) 27. Qxf5 ({or} 27. Qc6+ Qd7
(27... Rd7 28. Nxc7+ Kd8 29. Qa8+ {and Rxc4+}) 28. Nxc7+ Ke7 29. Re1+ Be6 30.
Qxc4 {White has an irresistible attack.})) 22. Rb3 ({White could also have
considered} 22. Rc3 $5 Nc4 (22... Nc8 23. Na7 $1) 23. Qa7+ Kc8 24. Nxd6+ Rxd6 (
24... cxd6 25. Ka1 $3 {and Rb3}) 25. Qa8+ Kd7 26. Qxh8 Rb6 27. f4 {winning.})
22... Rhe8 ({If} 22... Qe7) ({or} 22... Qf6 {, then again} 23. a4 $1 {.}) 23.
a4 $1 ({Much stronger than} 23. Rc3 Nc4 24. Nxd6 Rxd6 (24... cxd6 $4 25. Rb3+
Kc7 26. Qb7#) 25. Qb5+ Rb6 26. Qxe8+ Kb7 27. f4 gxf3 28. Nxf3 Qxg3 {with an
unclear game.}) 23... Bf5 24. Na7 $1 (24. a5 $5 Bxc2+ 25. Kxc2 Re2+ 26. Kb1 {
was also decisive.}) 24... Bd7 25. a5 Qd2 26. axb6 Re1+ 27. Ka2 ({Or} 27. Rxe1
Qxe1+ 28. Ka2 {.}) 27... c6 28. Nb5 cxb5 29. Qa7+ (29. Qa7+ Kc8 30. Qa8+ Bb8
31. Qa6# {. A crushing win! --- And so, by demonstrating his outstanding
fighting qualities and scoring 7 out of 8 in the final(!), the current
champion finished ahead of two future chess kings and two former challengers
(1. Lasker - 13˝ out of 18; Capablanca - 13; 3. Alekhine - 10; 4. Tarrasch
- 8˝; 5. Marshall - 8). And he showed that, as a couple of decades earlier,
he still had no equals in the world! --- An invaluable reward for this victory
was the acknowledgement of Dr Tarrasch: 'Lasker again produced a wonderful
game (the game in question is the one with Marshall from the first cycle - G.K.). He played 'not according to the rules', in 'ultra-modern' style, sharply
for a win. Lasker took a serious risk! He was in a difficult position. But
that is his style. His opponents play objectively correctly and obtain good
positions, but, strangely enough, Lasker never loses. No one has the right to
reproach him for his skill in playing in this style. We must merely again and
again be surprised by him... For participating in the tournament Lasker
received an enormous fee - 4,000 roubles. I do not find this too high. Who
else could play like this! Patrons do not give their money lightly, and if in
future Lasker will play like this, he deserves much greater fees.'}) 1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chess Longevity"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.07"]
{Chess Longevity: Before the start of St Petersburg 1914 Lasker announced in
the press that in the autumn he would play 'with the brilliant Russian master
Rubinstein a match of 20 games for the world championship.' And at the same
time he 'curtailed' another challenger: 'Can the esteemed title of genius be
conferred on Capablanca? In my opinion, no.' But after the tournament the
Cuban's stock, naturally, rose sharply. Alas, all plans were ruined by the
First World War. --- Of the rare events of that time I should mention the
'friendly' match that Lasker played with the markedly weaker Tarrasch (Berlin
1916: +5 -0 =1) and the double-cycle match-tournament of four stars, also in
Berlin (1918): 1. Lasker - 4˝ out of 6; 2. Rubinstein - 4 (both undefeated);
3. Schlechter - 2; 4. Tarrasch - 1˝. Two and a half months later Schlechter
died prematurely...} 1. -- {Negotiations with Capablanca were resumed only in
1920. After the difficult war years Lasker felt unprepared for a match with
his flourishing opponent, but, having lost, due to inflation, all of his
savings, he could not reject the generous offer of the Havana Chess Club - $11,
000, an unheard of sum for those times! The result of this match (Havana 1921)
is well known: Capablanca won ahead of schedule by the score +4 =10 and became
the third world champion in history. However, the battle between the two chess
greats did not end there. --- Lasker's first appearance after the Havana match
created a genuine furore - the ex-champion brilliantly won a strong
international tournament in Mährisch-Ostrau (1923), ahead of both his former
rivals and the young generation of top-class masters: 1. Lasker - 10˝ out of
13 (undefeated); 2. Réti - 9˝; 3. Grünfeld - 8˝; 4. Selesnieff - 7˝; 5-6.
Tartakower and Euwe - 7; 7-8. Bogoljubow and Tarrasch - 6˝; 9. Spielmann - 6;
10. Rubinstein - 5˝ etc. --- Then in the double-cycle super-tournament in
New York (1924) the 55-year-old former king performed yet another miracle, by
finishing ahead of the entire elite, including both the current and the future
world champions: 1. Lasker - 16 out of 20(!); 2. Capablanca - 14˝; 3.
Alekhine - 12; 4. Marshall - 11; 5. Réti - 10˝; 6. Maróczy - 10; 7.
Bogoljubow - 9˝; 8. Tartakower - 8 etc. Moreover, he fought like a lion in
every game!} *
[Event "70: New York"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1924.??.??"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Lasker, Em"]
[Black "Lasker, Ed"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "C99"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "206"]
[EventDate "1924.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. c3
d6 9. h3 Na5 10. Bc2 c5 11. d4 Qc7 12. Nbd2 cxd4 13. cxd4 Bd7 14. Nf1 Rfc8 15.
Re2 Nh5 16. dxe5 dxe5 17. Nxe5 Bxh3 18. Nxf7 Be6 19. Ng5 Bc4 20. Bd3 Rd8 21.
Rc2 Nf4 22. Bxf4 Qxf4 23. Nh3 Qe5 24. Bxc4+ Nxc4 25. Qe2 Rd4 26. f3 Rad8 27.
Rac1 Bc5 28. Kh1 Bb4 29. b3 Nd2 30. Ne3 Ba3 31. Rd1 Bb4 32. a3 Ba5 33. b4 Bc7
34. f4 Nxe4 35. Kh2 Rxd1 36. Nxd1 Qe7 37. Rxc7 Qxc7 38. Qxe4 Qc4 39. Qe7 Qc8
40. Ndf2 h6 41. Qa7 Qe6 42. Qb7 Qd5 43. Qb6 Rd6 44. Qe3 Re6 45. Qc3 Qc4 46. Qf3
Qc6 47. Qd3 Rd6 48. Qb3+ Qd5 49. Qb1 Re6 50. Ng4 Re2 51. Nxh6+ gxh6 52. Qg6+
Kf8 53. Qxh6+ Ke8 54. Qg6+ Kd8 55. Qg3 Re8 56. Qf2 Rg8 57. Qb2 Qd6 58. Qc3 Kd7
59. Qf3 Kc7 60. Qe4 Rg7 61. Qf5 Re7 62. Ng5 Re3 63. Ne4 Qe7 64. Nf6 Kb8 65. g3
Rxa3 66. Kh3 Ra1 67. Nd5 Rh1+ 68. Kg2 Qh7 69. Qxh7 Rxh7 70. Kf3 Kb7 71. g4 Kc6
72. Ke4 Rh8 $6 {'This plausible move grants White a hidden possibility for a
draw.} ({Correct would have been} 72... Rd7 {, which could have forced the
retreat of the knight without taking the rook from the seventh row; for
instance:} 73. -- (73. Ne3 a5 74. bxa5 b4 75. g5 (75. a6 b3 {is pointless})
75... Kc5 76. Nc2 b3 77. Na3 b2 78. g6 Kb4 79. Nb1 (79. Nc2+ Kb3) 79... Rd1 80.
g7 Rg1 {followed by ...Rxg7 winning}) ({, or} 73. Nf6 Rd8 74. g5 a5 75. bxa5 b4
76. g6 ({instead of 76 g6? the 'saving'} 76. Ng4 b3 77. Ne5+ Kb5 78. Nd3 Re8+ (
{but stronger is} 78... Kc4 $1 79. Nb2+ Kc3 80. Na4+ Kb4 81. Nb2 Rd2 {and wins}
) 79. Kd4 Kxa5 {was recommended}) 76... b3 {, and wins.' (Alekhine)})) 73. Ne3
({Inferior is} 73. Nf6 $6 Rd8 74. g5 a5 $1 {.}) 73... Re8+ 74. Kd4 Rd8+ 75. Ke4
$1 ({If} 75. Kc3 {, then} Rd6 $1 {is unpleasant.}) 75... a5 $1 {Black's last
winning chance is to create his own passed pawn.} 76. bxa5 b4 77. a6 $1 {'The
only move.} ({Obviously insufficient, for instance, would have been} 77. g5 b3
78. Nc4 Kc5 79. Nb2 Rd2 80. Nd3+ Kc4 81. Ne5+ Kc3 {, and wins. (Alekhine)}) ({
And the recommendation} 77. Nc4 b3 78. Ke3 Kb5 79. Nb2 {would have been no
good at all on account of} Kxa5 80. g5 Kb4 81. g6 Kc3 82. Na4+ Kc2 83. f5 Re8+
84. Kd4 Ra8 {.}) 77... Kc5 $1 ({Inferior was} 77... b3 $6 78. Nc4 Kb5 79. Nb2
Kxa6 (79... Rd2 80. a7) 80. Ke3 Kb5 81. g5 Kb4 82. g6 Kc3 ({or} 82... Ka3 83.
Nc4+) 83. Na4+ {with a draw, since} Kc2 $2 {fails to} 84. f5 b2 85. Nxb2 Kxb2
86. g7 {and White wins.}) 78. a7 $1 b3 {Alekhine considered this sharp
position to be drawn, but for the moment no clear draw for White is apparent!}
({Also good was} 78... Ra8 $5 79. f5 Rxa7 80. Nd1 Re7+ 81. Kf3 Rf7 82. Nb2 Kd5
83. Kf4 b3 {etc.}) 79. Nd1 Ra8 $1 (79... Kb6 80. Ke3 Kxa7 81. Nb2 {is equal.})
80. g5 ({White loses after} 80. f5 $6 Rxa7 81. f6 Kd6 82. Kf5 Ra1 83. Nb2 Rf1+
84. Kg6 Rf2 85. Nd3 b2 86. Nxb2 Rxb2 {.}) 80... Rxa7 81. g6 Rd7 ({Many
commentators, following Alekhine, ignore this moment, but the computer
suggests that after} 81... Kd6 $1 82. Kf5 Ke7 83. Kg5 Ra2 {things are bad for
White.}) 82. Nb2 Rd2 (82... Kd6 $5 83. f5 Rc7 84. Kf4 Rc2 {is also tempting.})
83. Kf3 $1 Rd8 ({Of course, not} 83... Rxb2 $2 84. g7 {.}) 84. Ke4 ({Possibly
better was} 84. f5 $5 Kd6 85. Kf4 Rc8 86. Nd1 {, although after} Rc4+ 87. Kg5
Rc1 88. Nb2 Rc2 89. Nd1 Ke5 {there is still no obvious draw.}) 84... Rd2 $6 ({
It would appear to be only here, and not on the 72nd move, that Black misses a
win:} 84... Kb4 85. f5 Kc3 86. Na4+ Kc2 87. f6 Ra8 {.}) 85. Kf3 Rd8 86. Ke4 Kd6
{(forcing the win of both passed pawns, but... not the game!)} 87. Kd4 $1 ({
Dangerous is} 87. f5 $6 Rc8 88. Nd3 Rc4+ {.}) 87... Rc8 88. g7 $1 (88. f5 $2
Ke7 {loses.}) 88... Ke6 89. g8=Q+ Rxg8 90. Kc4 Rg3 ({Or} 90... Rb8 91. Kc3 Kf5
92. Nd3 Rb6 93. Nb2 ({not} 93. Kb2 $2 Ke4) 93... Kxf4 94. Na4 Rb8 95. Nb2 {
with a draw (Shereshevsky).}) 91. Na4 Kf5 92. Kb4 Kxf4 93. Nb2 Ke4 94. Na4 Kd4
95. Nb2 Rf3 {'An attempt to bring over the king to d2 in the rear of the rook.
Meanwhile, however, White had time to post his king on b2 so that further
attempts to approach must remain futile. An unusual game rich in vicissitudes.
' (Alekhine)} 96. Na4 Re3 97. Nb2 Ke4 98. Na4 Kf3 99. Ka3 $1 Ke4 ({Or} 99...
Ke2 100. Nc5 Kd2 101. Kb2 {with a draw.}) 100. Kb4 Kd4 101. Nb2 Rh3 102. Na4
Kd3 103. Kxb3 Kd4+ {. 'This is probably the most incredible, the most
paradoxical draw in the history of international tournaments.' (B. Vainstein)
When he shook his opponent's hand, the American master exclaimed: 'I didn't
know that in the endgame a knight could draw against a rook and a pawn!'}
1/2-1/2
[Event "71: New York"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1924.??.??"]
[Round "16"]
[White "Reti, R."]
[Black "Lasker, Em"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A12"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "90"]
[EventDate "1924.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{In New York Richard Réti distinguished himself with his famous opening, one
of the pillars of the new-fangled stream of chess thinking - hypermodernism
(cf. p.275). However, at the very height of the tournament race it met its
match: the wise Lasker introduced a sound system of defence which later
acquired his name.} 1. Nf3 (1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. Bf4 Bg7 4. h3 (4. Nbd2 c5 5.
e3 d6 6. c3 Nc6 7. h3 O-O 8. Bc4 {Alekhine-Euwe, London 1922}) 4... O-O ({or}
4... c5 5. e3 b6 6. Nbd2 Bb7 7. Bd3 O-O 8. O-O d6 9. c3 Nbd7 10. Qe2 Rc8 11. a4
{(Réti-Alekhine, New York 1924, 13th round)}) 5. Nbd2 d6 6. e3 Nbd7 7. c3 c5 8.
Bc4 b6 9. O-O Bb7 10. Qe2 Qc7 11. Bh2 Rae8 12. e4 {(Capablanca-Réti, London
1922).}) 1... d5 2. c4 c6 $5 ({Before this} 2... e6 {was tried against Réti -
Game No.98}) ({for} 2... d4 {cf. Game No.146.}) 3. b3 ({Avoiding the
questionable} 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nc3 dxc4 5. e3 b5 6. a4 b4 7. Na2 e6 {(Réti-Lasker,
Mährisch-Ostrau 1923). This theme was later developed in the game
Reshevsky-Smyslov (USSR-USA radio match 1945), which is examined in the second
volume.}) 3... Bf5 $5 {'With this move Dr Lasker as second player applies the
London system of development, which, with colours transposed, has several
times stood the test against the double fianchetto,' writes Alekhine, having
in mind the 1 d4 variation, above.} ({A modern variation is} 3... Bg4 {, which,
as it happens, has also been played by me: against Gulko (46th USSR
Championship, Tbilisi 1978) and Leko (Wijk aan Zee 2001). In any case, Black's
main idea is to develop his c8-bishop outside the pawn chain and only then set
up the defensive wall c6-d5-e6.}) 4. g3 Nf6 5. Bg2 Nbd7 ({'More cautious would
have been first} 5... e6 {, as White might assure himself of a positional
advantage, even if microscopical, by means of} 6. cxd5 $1 cxd5 7. Bb2 {
followed by Nc3 etc. (compare the game Dr Lasker-Alekhine from the 18th round,
wherein, with colours transposed, this method was adopted successfully).'
(Alekhine)}) 6. Bb2 e6 7. O-O Bd6 ({A good alternative was} 7... Be7 8. d3 O-O
9. Nbd2 a5 $5 ({managing without} 9... h6 {- Game No.108}) {, and if} 10. Nh4 {
, then} Bg4 11. h3 Bh5 12. g4 Bg6 {with equality.}) 8. d3 O-O 9. Nbd2 (9. Nc3
Qe7 {equalises.}) 9... e5 $6 {Rather premature activity.} (9... e5 {Alekhine
attaches an exclamation mark to this move, ignoring the possible reply} 10.
cxd5 cxd5 11. e4 $1) (9... h6 {will do, and if} 10. cxd5 cxd5 11. e4 {, then}
dxe4 12. dxe4 Bg4 $1 ({but not} 12... Bxe4 $2 13. Nxe4 Nxe4 14. Nd4 Ndf6 15.
Re1 {with a strong initiative for White})) ({but the most logical is} 9... Qe7
$1 10. a3 a5 {with a normal game.}) 10. cxd5 cxd5 11. Rc1 $6 ({Only} 11. e4 $1
{would have given hope of at least some advantage:} dxe4 ({or} 11... Be6 12.
exd5 Bxd5 13. Nc4 Qb8 14. Re1 Re8 15. Rc1 {etc.}) (11... Bg4 12. exd5 {and Nc4!
}) 12. dxe4 Bxe4 $6 13. Nxe4 Nxe4 14. Nh4 Ndf6 15. Re1 Nc5 16. Nf5 {. But Réti
carries out his favourite original plan.}) 11... Qe7 12. Rc2 {With the
intention of Qa1 and Rfc1.} ({Réti's recommendation} 12. Re1 {with the belated
idea of e2-e4 is hardly dangerous, although perhaps it would have been rather
more solid.}) 12... a5 $1 {(Lasker sensed the correct course of play)} 13. a4 {
White could not allow ...a5-a4, but now his b3-pawn and the b4-square are weak.
} h6 {(in order after ...Rfe8 and ...Bh7 to threaten the breakthrough ...
e5-e4-e3)} 14. Qa1 ({After} 14. Nh4 $6 Bh7 15. e4 Nc5 $1 {Black would have
seized the initiative.}) 14... Rfe8 15. Rfc1 Bh7 16. Nf1 {(in parrying ...
e5-e4, White leaves his b3-pawn undefended)} Nc5 $5 ({If} 16... e4 17. dxe4 {
, then} dxe4 ({while} 17... Bxe4 18. Rc3 Rad8 {is unclear}) 18. Nd4 e3 19. Nxe3
Bxc2 20. Rxc2 {is entirely advantageous to White, who has two strong bishops.
But what is he to do now? Imperceptibly Lasker has outplayed his opponent...})
17. Rxc5 $5 {'With correct position judgement White seeks his salvation in
this sacrifice by which he can dispose of one of Black's centre pawns.} (17.
Qa2 {, for instance, would have been apparently less profitable on account of}
Na6 {.' (Alekhine)}) 17... Bxc5 18. Nxe5 Rac8 ({In my view, a continuation not
mentioned by the commentators was more accurate:} 18... Bd6 $1 19. f4 Rac8 {
with hopes of converting the exchange advantage.}) 19. Ne3 Qe6 20. h3 Bd6 $2 {
Apparently an oversight.} ({'A mistake which might have had unpleasant
consequences and in place of which might best have been played} 20... b6 {in
order to safeguard the queen's wing as well as the position of the bishop.
After} 21. d4 {he would still have had sufficient counterplay by occupying the
square e4, and in the event of other moves a plan leading to simplification
could have been undertaken with 21...d4 22 Nc4 Nd7 etc., after which his
material advantage would finally have been decisive.' (Alekhine)}) ({Also good
was the direct} 20... Bxe3 $5 21. fxe3 Qb6 22. Bd4 Qxb3 23. Rb1 Qc2 24. Rxb7
Qxe2 {.}) 21. Rxc8 Rxc8 22. Nf3 $2 ({'White is not aware that Dame Fortune
smiles at him. By} 22. N5g4 Nxg4 23. hxg4 ({or} 23. Bxd5 $5 Qe7 24. Nxg4 {- G.K.}) {, he could have won a second pawn for the exchange and thereby have
avoided anyway the danger of loss. After} 23... Bf8 (23... Bxg3 24. Bxg7 {etc.}
) ({or} 23... Bc5 24. Bxd5 Qd7 25. Bd4 {etc.}) 24. Bxd5 Qd7 25. Bf3 {it would
have been for Black, possibly through} b5 {, to strive for a difficult draw.'
(Alekhine)}) 22... Be7 23. Nd4 Qd7 24. Kh2 $6 {'The beginning of an artificial
manoeuvre, the insufficiency of which is demonstrated by Dr Lasker with
marvellous clearness and precision.} ({Better drawing chances were offered by}
24. Nb5 {, which, on account of the threat of Bd4 followed by Nc3 etc., would
have forced Black, after ...Bf5-e6, to permit the exchange of that bishop,
thereby strengthening the power of the hostile pair of bishops.' (Alekhine)})
24... h5 $1 25. Qh1 {'Even for Réti himself this is almost too "original". In
any event this move would have been ineffective if Black had been merely
content to protect his pawn simply by means of 25...Rd8. His next move,
however, is much more energetic and to the point.' (Alekhine)} h4 $1 26. Nxd5 (
{Alekhine buries White too early, saying that the endgame after} 26. Bxd5 Nxd5
27. Qxd5 Qxd5 28. Nxd5 Bc5 {is hopeless for him - after} 29. Ne3 $1 (29. Nb5
Bf5 $1) 29... hxg3+ {it would have been far from easy to dismantle the unusual
knight harness.}) 26... hxg3+ 27. fxg3 Nxd5 28. Bxd5 Bf6 $1 {(a terrible pin)}
29. Bxb7 ({If} 29. Qg2 {with the idea of} Rc5 ({there is the reply} 29... Bxd4
30. Bxd4 Rc2 31. Qf3 Bf5 $1) 30. e4 {.}) 29... Rc5 (29... Rd8 30. e3 Bxd3 {was
also possible.}) 30. Ba6 $2 {The fatal last move before the time control (with
the threat of 31 Qa8+).} ({Alekhine attaches an exclamation mark to it, but
the cold-hearted Fritz shows that essential was} 30. Be4 Bxd4 31. Bxh7+ Kxh7
32. Qe4+ f5 33. Qxd4 Qxd4 34. Bxd4 Rc2 35. Kg2 ({inferior is} 35. Bb6 $6 Rxe2+
36. Kg1 Rb2 37. Bxa5 Rxb3) 35... Rxe2+ 36. Kf3 Re8 37. Bc3 Rb8 38. Bxa5 Rxb3
39. Kf4 Rxd3 40. Bb6 {with drawing chances.}) 30... Bg6 31. Qb7 Qd8 ({In my
opinion,} 31... Qd6 $1 {would have won more quickly, for example:} 32. Ba3 (32.
b4 $2 Rg5) ({nothing is changed by} 32. Qa8+ Kh7) 32... Bxd4 33. Bxc5 Bxc5 34.
Bc4 Qd4 $1 {.}) 32. b4 ({Unsuitable is} 32. e3 Bxd4 33. Bxd4 Rc2+ 34. Kh1 Qd6 {
and wins.}) 32... Rc7 $1 33. Qb6 Rd7 34. Qxd8+ Rxd8 35. e3 ({The point is that
if} 35. Nc6 $2 {Black has} Rd6 36. Bxf6 Rxc6 {winning.}) 35... axb4 36. Kg2 ({
'A trifle better would have been} 36. Bc4 {, but even then Black would have
won eventually after} Ra8 37. Bb5 Bf5 {followed by the transfer of this bishop
to b3.' (Alekhine)}) 36... Bxd4 37. exd4 {'So, the hypermodern idea of caring
for the central pawns has been carried out by Réti consistently and, it can be
said, uncompromisingly: the game is lost, but the pawns are still intact!} ({
Incidentally, if} 37. Bxd4 {Black would have won by} Rxd4 ({after 37 Bxd4 he
recommended the simple} 37... Bf5 $1 38. Kf3 (38. Bc4 Be6) 38... Bd7 {winning})
38. exd4 b3 39. Bc4 b2 40. Ba2 Bxd3 {.' (B. Vainstein) --- However, it was
shown by Alekhine that after} 41. a5 $1 b1=Q 42. Bxb1 Bxb1 43. a6 $1 ({but not
} 43. Kf3 $2 Bd3 44. d5 Kf8 45. Ke3 Bf1 46. Kd4 Ke7 47. Kc5 Kd7 48. h4 f5 49.
d6 Bg2 50. a6 g6 {and Black wins}) 43... Be4+ 44. Kf2 f6 45. Ke3 Bd5 46. Kf4
Kf7 47. h4 Kg6 48. g4 Ba8 49. a7 Bb7 50. g5 {White gains a draw.}) 37... Bf5
38. Bb7 Be6 $1 39. Kf3 (39. a5 Bd5+ {.}) 39... Bb3 40. Bc6 Rd6 41. Bb5 Rf6+ 42.
Ke3 Re6+ $1 43. Kf4 ({Only a little better was} 43. Kd2 Rg6 44. g4 Rh6) (43.
Kf3 Bd1+ {.}) 43... Re2 44. Bc1 Rc2 45. Be3 Bd5 {. After this important win
Lasker scored a further 5˝ out of 6(!), and Capa was not able to keep pace
with him... --- Eighteen months later the ex-champion also came ahead of the
'Cuban Morphy' at the First Moscow International Tournament (1925): 1.
Bogoljubow - 15˝ out of 20; 2. Lasker 14; 3. Capablanca 13˝; 4. Marshall -
12˝; 5-6. Tartakower and Torre - 12; 7-8. Réti and Romanovsky 11˝; 9-10.
Grünfeld and Ilyin-Genevsky - 10˝; 11. Bohatirchuk - 10; 12-14. Verlinsky,
Rubinstein and Spielmann - 9˝; 15. Levenfish - 9 etc. Not only the third,
but also the second chess king delighted the many thousands of spectators with
their play, assisting the famous 'chess fever'.} 0-1
[Event "72: Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1925.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Ilyin-Zhenevsky, A."]
[Black "Lasker, Em"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B50"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "76"]
[EventDate "1925.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{In the following game he was once more ahead of his time. Then his queen
sacrifice was a revelation - whereas now it is a typical procedure and no
longer really a sacrifice, but simply a form of exchange.} 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 e6
3. Nf3 d6 4. g3 Nf6 5. Bg2 Be7 6. O-O O-O 7. b3 Nc6 8. Bb2 Bd7 9. d4 cxd4 10.
Nxd4 Qa5 11. Qd2 Rac8 12. Rad1 Kh8 13. Nce2 Qxa2 $3 {'Here the thought
probably occurred to Lasker: if yesterday, playing the Sicilian,
Ilyin-Genevsky sacrificed his queen against Capablanca and won, why shouldn't
I do the same?' (B. Vainstein)} ({White has just played 13 Nce2!, inviting}
13... Qxd2 14. Rxd2 {followed by Rfd1 and c2-c4 with a more than comfortable
game...}) 14. Ra1 Qxb2 15. Rfb1 Qxb1+ 16. Rxb1 Rfd8 17. c4 Ne8 ({White also
has some advantage after} 17... a6 18. Nc2 Nb8 19. Rd1 b5 20. Ne3 bxc4 21. Nxc4
{. But this does not concern Lasker at all: his main aim was to upset the
opponent's familiar routine, and to force him to play a position with an
unusual balance of forces.}) 18. f4 a6 19. Kh1 (19. Nc2 $5 b5 20. cxb5 axb5 21.
Rc1 Nf6 22. Qd3 Ra8 23. Ned4 {was also not bad.}) 19... Nc7 20. Qe3 (20. Nxc6
$5 bxc6 21. Qa5 c5 22. Rd1 {was interesting.}) 20... Rb8 ({Black also has a
choice:} 20... Nxd4 $5 21. Qxd4 b5 22. Qa7 e5 {with counterplay.}) 21. Rd1 Nb4
22. Qc3 a5 23. Ra1 $2 {White begins to 'drift';} (23. Nc2 Nca6 24. Bf3 {was
correct.}) 23... b6 {Threatening ...Bf6.} 24. Qe3 $2 {A fatal mistake.} ({
White would have maintained approximate equality by} 24. Rd1 Bf6 ({or} 24...
Rbc8 25. Qf3 b5) 25. Qe3 b5 26. e5 dxe5 27. fxe5 Be7 28. Qf4 Be8 29. Nc3 bxc4
30. bxc4 Nca6 {etc.}) 24... e5 $1 25. Nf5 ({Or} 25. fxe5 dxe5 26. Nf5 Bxf5 27.
exf5 Nc2 28. Qxe5 Bf6 29. Qxc7 Nxa1 30. Bd5 Nxb3 31. Qxf7 a4 {and White is
lost:} 32. Qa7 Na5 33. Kg2 a3 34. Nc1 Bd4 {.}) 25... Bxf5 26. exf5 Nc2 27. Qc3
Nxa1 28. Qxa1 Bf6 {The two rooks and the pawn easily overcome the queen.} 29.
Qg1 (29. Qe1 d5 $1) (29. Qa4 Na6 {and ...Nc5.}) 29... d5 $1 30. cxd5 Nxd5 31.
fxe5 Bxe5 32. g4 f6 33. h4 b5 34. Nd4 Ne3 $1 35. Qxe3 Rxd4 36. Bf3 a4 37. h5 a3
38. Qe2 Rbd8 {. To the super-tournament in New York (1927), arranged to
'accommodate' Capablanca, Lasker was no longer invited. And the esteemed
Doctor would have retired to a quiet life, fully engaged in philosophy, his
favourite contract bridge and... the ancient Japanese game of Go. But Lasker's
difficult material situation forced him to return to chess.} 0-1
[Event "73: Zürich"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1934.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Euwe, M."]
[Black "Lasker, Em"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D64"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "100"]
[EventDate "1934.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{The appearance of the 65-year-old ex-monarch at the tournament in Zürich
(1934) became the sensation of the season! In the very first round,
thoughtfully smoking his usual cigar, he won against Euwe in the good old
style.} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Nbd7 5. e3 c6 6. Nf3 Be7 7. Qc2 O-O
8. a3 Re8 9. Rc1 dxc4 10. Bxc4 Nd5 11. Bxe7 Qxe7 12. Ne4 N5f6 13. Ng3 c5 14.
O-O cxd4 15. Nxd4 Nb6 16. Ba2 Rb8 17. e4 Rd8 18. Rfd1 Bd7 19. e5 Ne8 20. Bb1 g6
21. Qe4 Ba4 22. b3 Bd7 23. a4 Nd5 24. Bd3 Rbc8 25. Bc4 Bc6 26. Nxc6 bxc6 27.
Rd3 Nb4 28. Rf3 Rc7 29. h4 Rcd7 30. h5 Qg5 31. Re1 Rd4 32. hxg6 hxg6 33. Qe2
Rd2 34. Qf1 {The fork Ne4 is threatened, but:} Nc2 $1 {An elegant rejoinder
which Euwe had not anticipated.} 35. Ne4 Qxe5 $3 {'Colossal! Lasker gives up
his queen, obtaining for it rook, minor piece and pawn,' as occurred once in
Moscow against Ilyin-Genevsky.' (B. Vainstein)} 36. Nf6+ Qxf6 37. Rxf6 Nxf6 ({
Also good was} 37... Nxe1 $5 38. Rf4 (38. Be2 Nxf6 39. Qxe1 Ne4) ({and} 38.
Rxg6+ fxg6 39. Bxe6+ Kg7 40. Qc4 R8d6 {both win for Black}) 38... Rd1 39. Kh2
R8d2 40. Be2 Nf3+ 41. Rxf3 Rxf1 42. Bxf1 Nd6 ({or} 42... Kg7 {.})) 38. Rc1 ({
After} 38. Re2 Rd1 39. Rxc2 Rxf1+ 40. Bxf1 Rd6 {Black is simply a pawn up as
in the previous variation.}) 38... Ne4 39. Be2 Nd4 40. Bf3 Nxf2 ({Simpler was}
40... Rd5 41. Bxe4 Ne2+ 42. Qxe2 Rxe2 43. Bxd5 cxd5 {etc.}) 41. Qc4 Nd3 42. Rf1
Ne5 43. Qb4 Nexf3+ 44. gxf3 Ne2+ (44... Rd3 $1 {wins.}) 45. Kh2 Nf4+ 46. Kh1
R2d4 47. Qe7 ({No better was} 47. Qb7 Kg7 48. Qxc6 R8d5 {etc.}) 47... Kg7 $1 {
(weaving a mating net)} 48. Qc7 R8d5 49. Re1 Rg5 50. Qxc6 Rd8 $1 {. After
starting with 3˝ out of 4, Lasker took the lead, and then reached 5˝ out
of 7... 'Unfortunately, the second half of the tournament was not so
successful for him. He won three games, but also lost three, losing twice with
White - to Bogoljubow and Nimzowitsch, and once with Black - to Alekhine. It
is interesting that all three of these opponents were gaining their first win
over Lasker,' comment Vladimir and Isaak Linder in their encyclopaedia Kings
of the Chess World (2001). 'This poor finish to the tournament was quite
understandable. The schedule was very severe - they played for eight hours
every day, without any free days or adjournment days.' --- The outcome of
Zürich was fifth place after Alekhine, Flohr, Euwe and Bogoljubow. And a year
later at the Second Moscow International Tournament (1935) the elderly former
world champion achieved his last competitive triumph: 1-2. Botvinnik and Flohr
- 13 out of 19; 3. Lasker - 12˝ (undefeated!); 4. Capablanca - 12 etc. ---
It was not just that the second chess king again finished ahead of the third,
but he also defeated him in their individual game, receiving one of the
brilliancy prizes! 'Lasker was the moral winner of the Moscow tournament,'
Zubarev wrote in his summarising article. 'His play was just as deep and rich
as in the best years of his phenomenal chess talent.'} (50... -- {In the very
strong tournaments Moscow 1936 and Nottingham 1936 his results were more
modest, but this is what the then world champion Alekhine wrote about him
after Nottingham: 'I consider that it is almost impossible to criticise Lasker,
so great is my admiration for him as a person, an artist and a chess writer.
At his 67 years, thanks to his youthful energy, will-to-win and incredibly
deep treatment of the chess struggle, he remains the same Lasker, if not as a
practical player, then as a chess thinker.' --- For Lasker's family this was a
time of deprivation and wandering: the flight from Hitler's Germany, a year
and half in the USSR, departure to the USA in the autumn of the ominous year
1937, chronic lack of money and exhausting work... --- He died on 11 January
1941, soon after his 72nd birthday, on a day when he was visited by
grandmaster Fine and his wife. Lasker could no longer speak. In a moment
shortly before he died, his wife Martha heard Emanuel whisper: 'King of chess...'}) (50... -- {In conclusion, as has become customary, here are few opinions
of the champions: Lasker: 'On the chess board lies and hypocrisy do not
survive long. The creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie; the
merciless fact, culminating in a checkmate, contradicts the hypocrite.' ---
Capablanca: 'Lasker, a natural genius, who developed thanks to very hard work
in the early period of his career, never adhered to the type of play that
could be classified as a definite style. None of the great players has been so
incomprehensible to the majority of amateurs and even masters, as Emanuel
Lasker.' --- Alekhine: 'Lasker was my teacher, and without him I could not
have become whom I became. The idea of chess art is unthinkable without
Emanuel Lasker.' --- Botvinnik: 'Great was Lasker's role in the social
recognition of chess, the realisation of its usefulness ("The game of chess
eases our life's struggle," he said).' --- Tal: 'The greatest of the champions
was, of course, Emanuel Lasker. At the chess board he accomplished the
impossible!... He was an amazing tactician, winning games that were apparently
quite hopeless.' --- Karpov: 'The earlier leading lights - Lasker and
especially Capablanca - hardly studied the openings at all. They were such
geniuses and knew that they would be able to cope with any unpleasantness at
the board - which they demonstrated in practice.'}) 0-1
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "4: José Raúl The Third"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.07"]
{The third world champion José Raúl Capablanca y Graupera (19 November 1888 -
8 March 1942) remains one of the most esteemed and legendary figures in the
history of chess. In general there is something puzzling about the fact that
the most renowned figures in chess - Morphy, Pillsbury, Capablanca and Fischer
- were born in America. Although, for example, the last two were diametrically
opposed to each other: Fischer was devoted to chess and wrapped up in the game,
whereas 'Capa' was unfamiliar with theory and lived, at least in everyday life,
outside of chess. He did almost nothing, he worked much less than other
players - and he contrived to win the most important tournaments and matches,
going undefeated for years (of all the champions he lost the fewest games). Is
this not an indication of unlimited talent, of undoubted chess genius?! ---
Capablanca possessed an amazing ability to quickly see into a position and
intuitively grasp its main features. His style, one of the purest, most
crystal-clear in the entire history of chess, astonishes one with his logic.
As he taught: 'If you have thought up a definite plan, you should carry it out
rigorously.' --- This great positional player was, so to speak, a natural,
intuitive successor of the Steinitz School. 'Whereas Anderssen and Chigorin
looked for accidental positions,' writes Lasker, 'Capablanca is guided by the
logicality of strong positions. He values only that which is well-founded:
solidity of position, pressure on a weak point, he does not trust the
accidental, even if it be a problem-like mate, at the required moment he
discovers and carries out subtle and far-sighted combinations...'} 1. -- {In
contrast to his predecessor on the throne, Lasker, the great psychologist,
Capablanca clearly underestimated the role of the psychological element in
chess, saying: 'When you sit down to play a game you should think only about
the position, but not about the opponent. Whether chess is regarded as a
science, or an art, or a sport, all the same psychology bears no relation to
it and only stands in the way of real chess.' --- Alas, in the end this
underestimation and the ease of his victories did him a bad service, as he
lost the habit of working on chess: he was champion for only six years,
although he could have held the crown for much longer...} *
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "The Cuban Morphy"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.07"]
{The Cuban Morphy: Capablanca was born in Havana, into a large and quite
prosperous family. He made the acquaintance of chess when he was not yet five
years old, by watching his father play. And from this moment his biography
begins to be shrouded in legends. His father, who had been defeated by the boy
three days later, took him to the famous Havana Chess Club, where they soon
all realised that they could not give him a queen start. The Franco-Polish
master Taubenhaus, who was visiting the club, later liked to recall: 'I am the
only living master who has given Mr Capablanca a queen!' --- The chess
atmosphere in Havana was ideal for the growth of the young talent. Cuba was
closely linked with the USA, and it had a strong aristocracy, rich clubs and
equally rich chess traditions: back in the 1860s Morphy had twice given
simultaneous displays in Havana, and in the late 1880s to the early 1890s
matches for the world championship between Steinitz and Chigorin (and the
Chigorin-Gunsberg match) were held there. Not without reason did Steinitz call
the local club the 'Chess Eldorado': at that time chess was obviously
flourishing in Havana, and there were players from whom one could learn. True,
the young Capa was over-excited by the tense battles and as a result he was
only allowed to play at home. At the age of eight he began going to the club
on Sundays, and the master Golmayo could no longer give him a rook start, but
then a new three-year break occurred.} 1. -- {Capablanca said that his passion
for chess was fired by two events: the historic match between Steinitz and
Chigorin (1892), which for years was discussed animatedly in Havana, and a
simultaneous blindfold display by Pillsbury (1899): 'I was then a very
mediocre player, but the reader can well imagine the impression on a child
full of imagination produced by a man who could play simultaneously sixteen or
more blindfold games of chess at the same time that he played a number of
blindfold games of draughts and a hand of duplicate whist. The effect of
Pillsbury's displays was immediate. They electrified me, and with the consent
of my parents I began to visit the Havana Chess Club. By leaps and bounds I
reached the top class in three months, and I was not over twelve when I
defeated the champion of Cuba in a set match.''""...'' At the age of 13 he had
already defeated all the leading Cuban players and towards the end of 1901 he
won a match against the then champion of the country, Juan Corzo (+4 -3 =6).
--- In the summer of 1904 the youth's parents sent him to New York - to study
English and to make preparations for entering Columbia University. I should
mention that in the USA too there was something of a chess boom: everyone was
talking about Marshall's sensational victory at the grandiose tournament in
Cambridge Springs; in addition, the world champion Lasker had moved to America
and had begun publishing his own magazine. And Capa, with his unique gift and
knowledge of languages, picked up everything very quickly and made rapid
progress. He began visiting the Manhattan Chess Club and quickly won
recognition - in particular, by winning in 1906 a big blitz tournament in
which Lasker himself competed. I don't know who the world champion lost to
there, but it was then that he met Capablanca and even analysed some
problematic position with him.} (1. -- {Soon José Raúl entered university, but
within two years he bid farewell to a career as an engineer for the sake of
chess. 'In closing this period and looking back upon my style of play I find a
great deal of improvement in every respect,' Capablanca later recalled. 'The
openings begin to resemble more those of a master, though generally they were
much weaker than they should be, as there is too much of slow moving,
elaborate plans which cannot be carried out against strong opponents, instead
of the simple, forward, strong, attacking moves which should characterise
White's development. The middle game has advanced enormously, the combinations
are sure and more profound, and there begins to loom the playing for position.
The endings I already played very well, and to my mind had attained the high
standard for which they were in the future to be well known.' --- Early in
1909 the 20-year-old Capablanca made a lengthy tour of 27 USA towns, playing
602 games in 31 simultaneous displays with the staggering result +571 -13 =18.
For a complete triumph it only remained for him to defeat the permanent
champion of the country, the 31-year-old Frank Marshall. The latter, of course,
did not object to a match and accepted the challenge, expecting to defeat the
inexperienced novice. A few years before this Marshall had lost matches to
Lasker and Tarrasch, but they were the first and second players in the world,
whereas this was some boy... A serious delusion! Lasker was much more
discerning, predicting a win for the Cuban and stating that he, Lasker, 'will
soon, probably, have to play a match for the world championship with
Capablanca.' --- The intriguing encounter between Capablanca and Marshall
(April-June 1909) was held in several USA towns under the aegis of the
Manhattan Chess Club. The winner was to be the first to win eight games. After
five games Capa was already leading 2-0 (with three draws), and the sixth game
demonstrated the overwhelming difference in class between the two opponents.})
*
[Event "74: Match, Morristown"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1909.??.??"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Capablanca, JR."]
[Black "Marshall, F."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C62"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "75"]
[EventDate "1909.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 d6 4. c3 Bg4 $6 {(what for?!)} 5. d3 Be7 6. Nbd2 Nf6
7. O-O O-O 8. Re1 {(Capa plays the opening quietly, not seeing any need to
force the play)} h6 $6 {Too slow.} ({Nowadays any master would simply play}
8... Nd7 {.}) 9. Nf1 Nh7 $6 10. Ne3 Bh5 ({'If} 10... f5 11. exf5 Bxf5 12. Nxf5
Rxf5 13. d4 {and White should win, because if} exd4 ({and if} 13... Bf6 {, then
} 14. Bd3 {wins the exchange}) 14. Bxc6 {followed by 15 Nxd4 wins at least a
pawn.' (Capablanca)}) 11. g4 $1 Bg6 12. Nf5 {A turning point.} h5 $2 {Should
one really help the opponent on that flank where he is attacking?! Marshall
himself opens the h-file, along which he will be mated - nothing more and
nothing less!} ({Of course 'better would have been} 12... Ng5 {in order to
simplify the position,' (Capablanca) for example:} 13. Kg2 ({or} 13. d4 $5
Nxf3+ 14. Qxf3 exd4 ({but not} 14... Bg5 $6 15. Bxc6 bxc6 16. dxe5 $1 dxe5 17.
Rd1) 15. Bxc6 bxc6 16. cxd4 Rb8 {with a slightly inferior position, but this
is not at all the same as that which occurred in the game: here there is a
safety margin and nothing tragic}) 13... Nxf3 14. Qxf3 Bg5 15. Rh1 Bxc1 16.
Raxc1 Ne7 17. h4 c6 {and Black is alright (Lasker). Whereas now Black's
position deteriorates sharply.}) 13. h3 hxg4 $6 (13... Bg5 $1 {was better,
although after} 14. Nxg5 Nxg5 15. Kg2 d5 16. gxh5 Bxf5 17. exf5 {White has an
obvious advantage.}) 14. hxg4 Bg5 ({'I would have preferred} 14... Ng5 {,
though the chances are that the game cannot be saved.' (Capablanca)}) 15. Nxg5
Nxg5 16. Kg2 d5 17. Qe2 Re8 18. Rh1 {Here is where it begins... But in fact
the game is already decided: White is simply playing for mate.} Re6 {In the
words of a number of commentators, this is one of the famous Marshall traps.
Nowadays such 'devilish traps' merely provoke a smile...} 19. Qe3 ({'If White
is tempted into winning the clear exchange -} 19. Bxg5 {(! - G.K.)} Qxg5 20.
exd5 Bxf5 21. dxe6 -- (21... Bxg4 22. exf7+ $2 {then after} ({immediately
decisive is} 22. Qe3 $1 Qg6 (22... Qxe3 23. exf7+) 23. Qg3 Qxe6 24. Bc4 Qg6 25.
Rh4 Bf5 26. Qxg6 Bxg6 27. Rah1 {, and there aren't in fact any devilish traps!}
) 22... Kxf7 23. Qe3 ({if} 23. f3 $1 {Black has only perpetual check:} Bh3+ 24.
Kf2 Qh4+ 25. Ke3 Qf4+ {- G.K.}) 23... Bh3+ $3 {he is unexpectedly mated.'
(Panov)}) ({. Also bad is} 21... Bxe6 {(instead of 21...Bxg4)} 22. Bxc6 bxc6 (
22... Bxg4 $2 23. Bf3) 23. f3 {etc. --- I would imagine that Capablanca did
not even calculate these variations: why strain himself, if 19 Qe3 was
sufficient? This was the winner's comment: 'A very important move, the object
of which is to shut off the action of the opposing queen, and at the same time
to bring the white queen into the game. It also creates a weak diagonal in
Black's game, against which the white bishop can act.' --- Well, up to a
certain time such moves sufficed for Capa. With Marshall he did not need to
calculate, with Lasker (1921) he could afford to miscue slightly, but with
Alekhine (1927), when extreme accuracy was required, he no longer had the
strength for complicated calculations: his laziness had become a habit of many
years' standing...})) 19... f6 20. Ba4 $1 {A simple transference of the
'Spanish' bishop to its rightful place.} Ne7 21. Bb3 c6 22. Qg3 a5 $6 {Black's
position is strategically hopeless, but why also weaken the queenside?} 23. a4
Nf7 24. Be3 b6 {Preventing Bc5, but the b6-pawn becomes an eternal weakness.
There is nothing more that particularly needs commenting on: White has a clear
winning plan.} 25. Rh4 Kf8 26. Rah1 Ng8 27. Qf3 $1 {'Compelling Black to take
the knight, strengthening still more the position of White.' (Capablanca)} Bxf5
28. gxf5 Rd6 29. Qh5 Ra7 30. Qg6 Nfh6 (30... Ne7 31. Rh8+ Nxh8 32. Rxh8+ Ng8
33. Qh7 Kf7 {is also bad in view of} 34. Bd1 ({or} 34. Bxb6 {.})) 31. Rxh6 $1
gxh6 (31... Nxh6 32. Bxh6 {wins.}) 32. Bxh6+ Ke7 33. Qh7+ Ke8 34. Qxg8+ Kd7 35.
Qh7+ Qe7 36. Bf8 Qxh7 37. Rxh7+ Kc8 38. Rxa7 {. 'This is one of my best games.
' (Capablanca)} 1-0
[Event "75: Match, New York"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1909.??.??"]
[Round "23"]
[White "Marshall, F."]
[Black "Capablanca, JR."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D34"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "98"]
[EventDate "1909.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{In the seventh game Marshall managed to open his account, but then he was
completely overwhelmed. After winning the eighth, 11th, 12th and 13th games,
Capablanca only had to score one more win. And here there suddenly came a
string of draws - the eternal accompaniment to unlimited matches in the 20th
century: the players played nine successive draws! --- The last game in the
match was the 23rd, the finish to which created an indelible impression on
Capablanca's contemporaries. It is a classic example of converting a factor
that had been exalted by Steinitz and Tarrasch - a queenside pawn majority.} 1.
d4 d5 2. c4 {Not without reason was Marshall called the 'fearless knight of
the Queen's Gambit': this is how he played throughout the match, with the
exception of the 17th game, where the Four Knights Game occurred.} e6 3. Nc3 c5
({Capablanca's main weapon was the defence named after Lasker, who had
employed it against Marshall in the match for the world championship (1907) -}
3... Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 Ne4 6. Bxe7 Qxe7 {etc. Here the Cuban did not have
any particular problems and he achieved a score of +3 -1 =4.}) 4. cxd5 exd5 5.
Nf3 Nc6 6. g3 Be6 $6 {Later Capablanca also played this against Rubinstein
(Game No.64). But then he gave up the Tarrasch Defence, deciding not to give
himself weaknesses.} ({Even so,} 6... Nf6 7. Bg2 Be7 {is more accurate - the
c8-bishop can come out to g4, and the king's rook to e8, creating pressure on
the e-file.}) 7. Bg2 Be7 ({In the first game after} 7... Nf6 8. Bg5 h6 9. Bxf6
Qxf6 10. O-O cxd4 11. Nb5 Rc8 12. Nfxd4 Bc5 13. Nxe6 fxe6 14. Qa4 Kf7 {Capa
gained a draw without difficulty.}) 8. O-O Nf6 9. Bg5 $6 {With the bishop at
e6 this is an inaccuracy.} ({Better is the modest} 9. b3 $5) ({or the more
rigid} 9. dxc5 Bxc5 10. Na4 $1 ({to Bogoljubow's move} 10. Ng5 {there is the
simple reply} O-O) 10... Be7 11. Be3 O-O 12. Nd4 {(Réti), with a slight but
enduring advantage.}) 9... Ne4 $1 {'A very good reply which frees Black's game.
Before this game was played Rubinstein and Mieses had engaged in a series of
games which were shown to me by some of my friends desirous of knowing my
opinion with respect to them. I liked Mieses' ninth move 9...Ne4, and I
decided to play it against Marshall, whom I hoped had not seen the games.'
(Capablanca) --- Incidentally, if instead of ...Be6 Black has played ...0-0,
the relieving manoeuvre 9...Ne4? is not possible, since after 10 Bxe7 Qxe7 the
d5-pawn is hanging.} 10. Bxe7 Qxe7 {The first critical moment.} 11. Ne5 $2 {In
totally the wrong direction! This is a typical attempt by Marshall to initiate
some unjustified tactics out of nothing.} ({'Of course, if} 11. dxc5 Nxc3 {
with an excellent game.' (Capablanca)}) ({But there are also normal moves -}
11. e3) ({or} 11. Rc1 {. Strangely enough, Marshall had already crushed
Mieses with 11 Rc1 (Berlin 3rd matchgame 1908):} Rd8 $6 ({it is probable that
he had in fact seen the game Rubinstein-Mieses (Frankfurt 2nd matchgame 1909),
which went} 11... Nxc3 $1 12. Rxc3 c4 13. Ne5 O-O 14. b3 $6 ({Rubinstein
suggested} 14. f4 {with the idea of f4-f5 or e2-e4, but here too there is
nothing terrible for Black:} f6 $1 15. Nxc6 bxc6 16. e4 dxe4 17. Bxe4 Bd5 {
with equality}) 14... Qb4 15. Qd2 Rac8 16. Rd1 b5 17. f4 Nxe5 18. fxe5 a5 {
with equal chances}) 12. dxc5 Nxc5 13. b4 Ne4 14. b5 Na5 15. Qd4 Nxc3 16. Qxc3
Nc4 17. Qxg7 {etc.}) 11... Nxd4 $1 {Simple and convincing.} ({There is no need
for} 11... Nxc3 12. bxc3 Nxe5 13. dxe5 O-O (13... Qd7 14. f4 g6 15. e4 $1) (
13... Rd8 14. Qa4+) 14. Bxd5 Rad8 15. e4 Bxd5 ({inferior is} 15... Bh3 $6 16.
Re1 Qxe5 17. Qb3 b6 18. f4 Qe7 19. a4 {Tarrasch}) 16. exd5 Qxe5 17. c4 b5 18.
Re1 Qf5 {with an unclear game.}) 12. Nxe4 dxe4 13. e3 ({But not} 13. Bxe4 $2
Bh3 {and wins.}) 13... Nf3+ $1 {Again the simplest.} ({If} 13... Nb5 $2 {, then
} 14. Qa4 a6 15. Qxe4 {.}) 14. Nxf3 ({'Better would have been} 14. Bxf3 exf3
15. Qa4+ {. I had the intention at the time to play} Kf8 {against this check} (
{and not} 15... Bd7 $2 {, which would have simplified the game, taking away
all chances of winning.' (Capablanca) I agree:} 16. Nxd7 Qxd7 17. Qe4+ Qe7 18.
Qxf3 {with equality.}) ({And after} 15... Kf8 $1 {they recommended} 16. Rfd1 {
, overlooking} g6 $1 17. Nxf3 Kg7 {with an excellent game for Black.})) 14...
exf3 15. Qxf3 O-O $1 16. Rfc1 ({'Black has the better game, since White cannot
play} 16. Qxb7 {because of} Qxb7 17. Bxb7 Rab8 {followed by 18...Rxb2, holding
all the lines and having a free pawn to boot, which should win.' (Capablanca)
Panov and other commentators are of the same opinion, but in my opinion from
the practical standpoint this was the surest way to save the game:} 18. Bg2
Rxb2 19. Rfc1 $1 c4 20. Bf1 Rc8 21. Rc3 {with good drawing chances.}) ({They
all concertedly and rather dogmatically suggested immediately creating
counterplay with} 16. e4 {, then Qe3 and f2-f4. But after} Rfd8 17. Qe3 Rd4 $1
{it is not clear if the white pawns will begin advancing, whereas the d-file
is in Black's possession and the weaknesses in White's position are
irreparable. For the moment the move in the game does not spoil anything:
Marshall simply activates his rook, not yet suspecting what is awaiting him.})
16... Rab8 17. Qe4 {(with the idea of 18 Bh3)} Qc7 $1 {Avoiding the exchange
of bishops: Black's bishop is better!} 18. Rc3 ({Another myth: '} 18. f4 {was
better.' (Panov) This merely weakens White's position and after} Rfd8 {his
difficulties increase. He should not be advancing pawns, but defending!}) 18...
b5 19. a3 ({In my opinion, for a draw} 19. b3 $5 {was nevertheless preferable.
This is what modern masters would have played.}) 19... c4 {Another
micro-nuance. Capa exploits the unfortunate position of the rook at c3.} 20.
Bf3 $6 ({Also weak was} 20. b3 $6 Qa5 $1 21. b4 Qc7 {.}) ({According to Lasker,
} 20. Rd1 {was necessary, and if} Rfd8 21. Rcc1 $1 {, connecting the rooks.
Black has a small plus, but there is nothing decisive. Apparently Marshall
was satisfied by the fact that Black's pawns were standing on squares of the
colour of his bishop. But these pawns will soon begin advancing...}) 20... Rfd8
21. Rd1 Rxd1+ 22. Bxd1 Rd8 {'Black now has full command of the board. His play
is an example of how slight advantages should be utilised.' (Lasker) --- Only
seven moves of quiet play have passed, and strategically the game is already
decided: Black has advanced his queenside pawns, while White has placed his
rook offside and conceded the d-file. It is hard to imagine that the player
with White was a recent challenger for the crown, a grandmaster from the
world's top ten!} 23. Bf3 g6 $1 (23... g6 {has the threat of} 24. -- Bd5 25.
Qg4 h5 {. According to Steinitz and even Philidor, Black supposedly should
have played ...h7-h6. But Capa subtly observed that in the given instance it
was not a question of pawns on squares of the same colour as the bishop, but
of the most harmonious arrangement of the forces, killing White's counterplay,
since in any case things will be decided by a breakthrough on the queenside.})
24. Qc6 (24. Rc2 $2 Bf5 {.}) 24... Qe5 $1 (24... Qxc6 25. Bxc6 a6 {was also
possible, but Black exchanges in a more favourable situation.}) 25. Qe4 Qxe4
26. Bxe4 Rd1+ $1 {'Very important. Black must stop the approach of the white
king by means of Bc2 followed by Kf1 etc.' (Capablanca)} 27. Kg2 a5 {(setting
about the creation of a passed pawn)} 28. Rc2 b4 29. axb4 axb4 30. Bf3 Rb1 {
The last critical position, which is now bad for White: Black has achieved
everything that he wanted.} 31. Be2 $2 {This loses the bishop!} ({With} 31. Rd2
{it was still possible to resist - at the least, some accuracy would have been
required of Black:} Ra1 $1 32. Be2 Ra2 33. Kf1 c3 34. Rd8+ Kg7 35. bxc3 Ra1+ $1
36. Rd1 ({or} 36. Kg2 bxc3 37. Bd1 Ra2) 36... Rxd1+ 37. Bxd1 b3 {winning. But
now comes the Cuban's star turn - an elegant little combination.}) 31... b3 $1
32. Rd2 ({If} 32. Rc3 {, then} Rxb2 33. Bxc4 Rc2 $1 {, also winning a piece.})
32... Rc1 $1 33. Bd1 ({Or} 33. Kf3 Rc2 34. Rd4 c3 35. bxc3 b2 36. Rb4 Bd5+ 37.
e4 Rxc3+ 38. Kf4 Bb3 {.}) 33... c3 34. bxc3 b2 $1 35. Rxb2 (35. Bc2 $2 Rxc2 {.}
) 35... Rxd1 36. Rc2 Bf5 37. Rb2 Rc1 38. Rb3 Be4+ 39. Kh3 Rc2 40. f4 h5 {
'Threatening 41...Bf5+ followed by 42...Rxh2+ and 43...Kg7. The rest requires
no further comment.' (Capablanca)} 41. g4 hxg4+ 42. Kxg4 Rxh2 43. Rb4 f5+ 44.
Kg3 Re2 45. Rc4 Rxe3+ 46. Kh4 Kg7 47. Rc7+ Kf6 48. Rd7 Bg2 49. Rd6+ Kg7 {. The
simplicity with which Black promoted his pawn had a colossal influence on the
minds of players. After this game many acquired a superstitious horror of a
pawn majority on the queenside, as though it automatically gave an advantage.
It was only many years later that this was disputed by Alekhine in a game with
Yates (Game No.116), and he was proved right - every position should be
approached concretely: A flank majority reigns in a technical endgame, where
an outside passed pawn can be calmly created, but in positions of a middlegame
type the central pawns may give serious counterplay or even an attack. But to
make this step forward, it required an Alekhine... --- And so, the novice won
the match with the sensational score +8 -1 =14. In the USA he was christened
'the Cuban Morphy', and in Cuba he was greeted as a national hero. 'I can
safely say that no player ever performed such a feat,' writes Capablanca
without false modesty, 'as it was my first encounter against a master, and
such a master, one of the first ten in the whole world. The most surprising
feature of all was the fact that I played without having ever opened a book to
study the openings; in fact, had Marshall played such things as Danish Gambits,
Vienna Openings, or the like, the result might have been different. I
certainly should have experienced more difficulty in obtaining such a result.'
--- In my view, it was not even the question of the score, but of the fact
that Capa played a completely different type of chess. The games of the match
show that, thanks to his incredible natural talent, he understood chess simply
differently, on some level that was unknown to his opponent. This difference
in understanding was the equivalent of at least two categories! Marshall was
quite a good grandmaster; he played concretely, making sudden attacks, but
without much of a feeling for position. But Capablanca thought in schemes, he
saw plans, and used general conceptions, something that at the time was not
accessible to many, only the chosen few - Lasker, Tarrasch, Schlechter,
Rubinstein... --- Now these few had been joined by Capablanca, and with the
years he raised his positional understanding to perfection. He knew exactly
which piece to place where, and it was as though he could see through a
position. It was for this reason that the Cuban so rarely lost: there was
hardly anyone who could win against him.} 0-1
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Drama in San Sebastian"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.07"]
{Drama in San Sebastian: Capablanca's debut in the world arena took place at
the important international tournament in San Sebastian (1911), which
attracted all the stars of those times, apart from Lasker, the current world
champion, and Alekhine, who was as yet too young. Playing here were the chief
contender for the throne, the incomparable Rubinstein, and all the
participants in the recent matches for the world championship - Schlechter,
Janowski, Tarrasch, Marshall... They invited only masters who had at least
twice taken fourth prize or better in tournaments during the previous decade.
The only exception was made for the 22-year-old Capa - in view of his
impressive victory in his match with Marshall.} 1. -- {'Some of the masters,'
Capablanca later recalled, 'objected to my entry before this clause was known.
One of them was Dr Bernstein. I had the good fortune to play him in the first
round, and beat him in such fashion as to obtain the Rothschild prize for the
most brilliant game of the tournament.' --- (Something similar happened many
years later at the strong tournament in Banja Luka 1979. The venerable
participants expressed their displeasure over the invitation to the
16-year-old Baku schoolboy Kasparov, who did not hold an international title.
The most indignant was grandmaster Vukic. It need hardly be said that he
shared Bernstein's fate...)} *
[Event "76: San Sebastian"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1911.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Capablanca, JR."]
[Black "Bernstein, O."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C66"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "69"]
[EventDate "1911.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. O-O Be7 5. Nc3 d6 6. Bxc6+ bxc6 7. d4 exd4 8.
Nxd4 Bd7 9. Bg5 O-O 10. Re1 h6 11. Bh4 Nh7 12. Bxe7 Qxe7 13. Qd3 Rab8 14. b3
Ng5 15. Rad1 Qe5 16. Qe3 Ne6 17. Nce2 Qa5 18. Nf5 Nc5 19. Ned4 Kh7 20. g4 Rbe8
21. f3 Ne6 22. Ne2 $6 {A purely intuitive sacrifice of the a2-pawn for the
sake of an attack on the king. All the commentators, beginning with Capablanca,
considered the sacrifice to be more than correct, but whether it was in fact
we will now see. I think that by around the year 1925 the Cuban would no
longer have played 22 Ne2?!...} Qxa2 $5 ({Of course,} 22... Qb6 {was quieter -
perhaps after} 23. Kg2 Qxe3 24. Nxe3 {White has a small plus, but this still
has to be demonstrated. As Capa proudly writes, 'I can say, because of the
conversation that I had at the time with Dr Bernstein, that he had not the
slightest idea of what was coming. He is not much to be blamed, however,
because the combination involved is very deep and difficult to foresee.'
However, nowadays such a pawn would probably be taken not only by a Korchnoi:
indeed, for the moment nothing concrete for White is apparent.}) 23. Neg3 Qxc2
{But here they all attach a question mark.} ({According to Lasker,} 23... f6 $5
24. Nh5 Rf7 {was necessary. I agree that this is not bad, especially as after
the sharp} 25. Nxh6 gxh6 26. Qc3 Qa3 27. Nxf6+ Rxf6 28. Qxf6 Qc5+ 29. Kh1 Ng7 {
there is nothing terrible for Black. But what if the capture on c2 should also
prove useful?!}) 24. Rc1 {Parrying the threat of ...Qc5.} ({Bearing in mind
the difficulties that White could have faced in the game, I would suggest the
unclear} 24. Nh5 Qc5 25. e5 $1 ({but not} 25. Qxc5 Nxc5 26. Nfxg7 $2 Rb8 $1)
25... Qxe3+ 26. Rxe3 Nc5 27. Nfxg7 $5 {.}) 24... Qb2 25. Nh5 {'The march of
this knight is most remarkable. Even now it looks inoffensive, and yet it is
this knight that is going to decide the game.' (Capablanca) But only because
of Black's weak play!} Rh8 $2 {'There was nothing better (?? - G.K.).} ({If}
25... g6 26. Qxh6+ Kg8 27. e5 gxh5 28. gxh5 {and White wins because there is
no way to stop one of the rooks from checking in the open g-file (} Qxb3 29.
Re2 {and Rg2+ - G.K.).}) ({If} 25... g5 26. e5 f6 ({but what is more
important - no one has shown what he is to do after} 26... Nf4 $1 {(instead of
26...f6), for example:} 27. Nxf4 Rxe5 28. Nd3 Rxe3 29. Nxb2 Rxb3 {with an
excellent game for Black}) 27. Qd3 {, and with proper play White will win. I
do not give the variations because they are very long and complicated.'
(Capablanca) --- A typical comment: the third world champion did not greatly
favour long and complicated variations! Yet no one has shown how after} Kh8 $1
{White wins.}) ({I should add that even after the more restrained} 25... Rg8 $5
26. Re2 (26. Nhxg7 $6 Rxg7 27. Qxh6+ Kg8) 26... Qe5 27. f4 Qb5 28. Nfxg7 $6
Rxg7 29. Nf6+ Kh8 30. f5 Ng5 {the only question is whether White can save the
game. --- There's the 'deep combination' for you... To be objective, I should
mention that most of the grandmasters of that time did not defend any better
than Bernstein, and therefore Capa's risky fantasies, which with the years
became increasingly rare, were something that he usually got away with.}) 26.
Re2 Qe5 27. f4 Qb5 {The queen is shut off from the defence of the kingside,
and the unfortunate position of the rook at h8 allows White to land a veiled
blow.} 28. Nfxg7 $1 Nc5 $2 {Another mistake, apparently due to time-trouble.} (
{Capablanca expected} 28... Nxg7 29. Nf6+ Kg6 30. Nxd7 f6 $1 31. e5 ({the
spectacular} 31. f5+ Kh7 32. Nxf6# {was threatened}) 31... Kf7 32. Nxf6 Re7 33.
Ne4 {, 'and Black's position is untenable'.}) ({It is a pity that he did not
examine the cool defence} 28... Rd8 $1 {. In this case, as Panov writes, 'by}
29. f5 ({in addition, White can consider} 29. Nf5 $5 {(instead of 29 f5)} Qb6
30. Ra1 {with a serious initiative, even without the queens:} a5 (30... Nc5 $2
31. Kh1 Bxf5 32. Qc3 $1 Rhg8 33. Nf6+ Kh8 34. Nxg8+ Kxg8 35. gxf5 {wins}) 31.
Kg2 Qxe3 32. Rxe3 c5 33. Ne7 {etc.}) 29... Nf8 (29... Nxg7 $4 30. Nf6#) (29...
Nc5 30. g5 $1 Qd3 31. g6+ $1 {- G.K.}) 30. e5 $1 {White would have gained an
irresistible attack:} -- (30... Qxe5 31. Qd2 $1 Qb5 32. Qb2 Rg8 33. Nf6+ Kxg7
34. Nxd7+ Kh7 35. Nf6+ Kh8 36. Re7) ({, or} 30... Rg8 31. e6 fxe6 32. fxe6 Nxe6
33. -- (33. Qe4+ $1 Kh8 34. Nxe6 Qxh5 (34... Bxe6 $2 35. Qxe6 Qxh5 36. Qf6+ Kh7
37. Re7+) 35. Rg2 {.' However, this last variation needs to be continued and
improved:} -- (35... Bxe6 36. gxh5 Rxg2+ 37. Qxg2 (37. Kxg2 $2 Bd5) 37... Rg8
38. Qxg8+ Kxg8 39. Rxc6 (39. b4 Bd5 40. Ra1 c5) 39... Bxb3 40. Rxc7 {leads to
an endgame with rook against bishop, where the win for White, if there is one
at all, requires a separate analysis}) (35... Qe8 36. Qd4+ Kh7 37. Nxd8 Qxd8
38. Qd3+ Kh8 39. h3 {with the better position for White, but one that is still
far from won.})) ({. Therefore I tried to improve his play with} 33. Nxe6 $5 {
(instead of 33 Qe4+). The computer quickly produced a fantastic variation,
unexpectedly confirming Capablanca's self-advertising words, that 'this
combination taken as a whole is one of the longest and most difficult ever
played over the board':} Rxg4+ 34. Kf1 Qxh5 (34... Qf5+ 35. Rf2 Qxe6 36. Nf6+
Kg6 37. Nxg4 {wins}) 35. Nxd8 c5 $1 36. Rf2 $1 Bb5+ 37. Ke1 Qh4 38. Ne6 Re4 39.
Nf8+ Kg7 {. Black would appear to have sufficient attack for the rook but...}
40. Kd2 $3 Qg4 $1 (40... Rxe3 41. Rg1+) 41. Qc3+ Kg8 42. Qg3 Qxg3 43. hxg3 Kg7
44. Re1 {wins.}))) 29. Nxe8 Bxe8 30. Qc3 f6 ({No better was} 30... Rg8 31. Nf6+
Kg7 32. Re3) ({or} 30... Ne6 31. Nf6+ Kg6 (31... Kg7 32. Nxe8+) 32. f5+ Kg5 33.
h4+ Kxh4 34. Rh2+ Kg5 35. Rh5+ {with a rapid mate.}) 31. Nxf6+ Kg6 32. Nh5 Rg8
33. f5+ Kg5 {('forgetting' to resign)} 34. Qe3+ Kh4 35. Qg3+ {. After this win
Capa gained respect and he was no longer regarded as easy prey. But even so in
this, his first international tournament, and such a strong one at that, the
Cuban did not feel altogether confident. Later he recalled that it was rather
terrible for him in the company of the strongest players in Europe: the
debutant was all the time fearful that they would make moves that he had not
anticipated. --- And although he started with 3 out of 4, in his game with
Janowski (see the following game), one of the most experienced fighters, his
fears were confirmed. Capablanca later admitted: 'In this game I was for the
first time in my life to have the feeling of being completely outplayed by my
opponent; time after time, up to my twenty-third move, I would figure some
reply of my adversary only to find out immediately that I was wrong, and that
some other move that he had made was superior to the one I had thought best.'}
(35. Qg3+ Kg5 36. h4# {.}) 1-0
[Event "77: San Sebastian"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1911.??.??"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Capablanca, JR."]
[Black "Janowski, D."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D40"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "131"]
[EventDate "1911.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. d4 d5 2. e3 Nf6 3. Nf3 c5 4. c4 e6 5. Nc3 Be7 (5... dxc4) ({or} 5... Nc6 {
is usually played, but Janowski 'wanted to induce White to give up his centre
pawn while keeping his own on d5.' (Ed. Lasker)}) 6. dxc5 O-O 7. a3 (7. cxd5 $1
{is more accurate.}) 7... Bxc5 8. b4 Be7 (8... Bd6 $5 {.}) 9. Bb2 a5 $5 10. b5
({Of course, not} 10. c5 $2 b6 $1 {.}) 10... b6 11. cxd5 exd5 12. Nd4 Bd6 13.
Be2 ({'I saw at the time that} 13. g3 {seemed the proper continuation, but I
became afraid of being criticised for creating such a formation of pawns on
the kingside.' (Capablanca) According to Edward Lasker, then} Bg4 $1 {is a
good reply. Even so, I think that after} 14. f3 Be6 15. Kf2 Ra7 16. Be2 {White
has quite a favourable position.}) 13... Be6 14. Bf3 $6 ({Of course,} 14. O-O {
was better, not weakening the c4-square. In a complicated, non-standard
position where both sides have weaknesses, playing merely on general
considerations, 'by eye', does not work!}) 14... Ra7 $1 15. O-O Rc7 16. Qb3 $6
{A blank shot.} (16. Qd2) ({or} 16. Rc1 {was more solid}) ({but not} 16. Nxd5
$2 Nxd5 17. Bxd5 Bxh2+ $1 18. Kxh2 Qh4+ 19. Kg1 Bxd5 20. Nf3 Bxf3 21. Qxf3 Rc5
{etc.}) 16... Nbd7 $1 17. Rfd1 ({As is easily verified,} 17. Nxd5 $2) ({and}
17. Nc6 $2 {both lose material.}) 17... Ne5 $1 18. Be2 ({And in this position
the capture with} 18. Bxd5 $2 {is well met by} Rxc3 {which is good for Black.})
18... Qe7 19. Rac1 Rfc8 $1 20. Na4 Rxc1 21. Rxc1 Rxc1+ 22. Bxc1 Ne4 23. Bb2 {
'I had already seen what was coming, but I also felt sure that my only chance
was to weather the storm.} ({Perhaps either} 23. f3) ({or} 23. Nxe6 {followed
by 24 f3 would have held the game, but, at any rate, Black had an advantage.'
(Capablanca)}) ({Only not} 23. Nxb6 $2 Qc7 $1 {.}) 23... Nc4 $1 24. Bxc4 ({If}
24. Nxe6 $2 {with even more force there would have followed} Bxh2+ $1 25. Kxh2
Qh4+ 26. Kg1 Qxf2+ 27. Kh2 Qg3+ 28. Kh1 Nxe3 {winning.}) 24... Bxh2+ $1 {'The
crisis is at hand! With this bishop sacrifice Janowski tears down his
opponent's defences. Incidentally, he gains enough pawns to compensate him for
the piece, should Capablanca succeed in getting his king away to safety.' (Ed.
Lasker) 'This sacrifice is excellent, inasmuch as Black can, at least, draw
the game by perpetual check.} (24... dxc4 {would not have been good, because
White would then play} 25. Qc2 {and have, at least, an even game.' (Capablanca)
}) 25. Kxh2 Qh4+ 26. Kg1 Qxf2+ 27. Kh2 Qg3+ $1 ({Much less clear was} 27...
dxc4 28. Qc2 Nd2 29. Qd1 Bd5 (29... Nf1+ 30. Kh1 Bd5 31. Nf3 Nxe3 ({and there
remains only} 31... Ng3+ 32. Kh2 Nf1+ {with perpetual check}) 32. Qg1 $1) 30.
Qg4 Nf1+ 31. Kh3 Bb7 32. Nf5 g6 33. Bd4 {.}) 28. Kg1 ({But not} 28. Kh1 $2 Nf2+
29. Kg1 Bh3 30. Bxd5 Ng4 31. Bxf7+ Kh8 {.}) 28... dxc4 29. Qc2 Qxe3+ 30. Kh2
Qh6+ 31. Kg1 Qe3+ 32. Kh2 Qg3+ {Checks to gain time on the clock.} 33. Kg1 Qe1+
34. Kh2 Nf6 $1 {An excellent resource - the temporary sacrifice of a second
piece!} 35. Nxe6 ({In the light of White's subsequent difficulties, probably
more tenacious was a continuation not mentioned by anyone:} 35. Qe2 $5 Ng4+ 36.
Kh3 Qh1+ 37. Kg3 {.}) 35... Qh4+ 36. Kg1 Qe1+ 37. Kh2 Qh4+ 38. Kg1 Ng4 39. Qd2
$1 {The only move.} ({If} 39. g3 {, then} Qxg3+ 40. Qg2 Qe1+ 41. Qf1 Qxe6 42.
Qf4 h5 $1 {etc.}) (39. Qc3 $4 Qf2+ 40. Kh1 Qf1# {.}) 39... Qh2+ 40. Kf1 Qh1+
41. Ke2 Qxg2+ 42. Kd1 Nf2+ 43. Kc2 Qg6+ 44. Kc1 Qg1+ 45. Kc2 Qg6+ 46. Kc1 Nd3+
47. Kb1 fxe6 48. Qc2 ({'In his book 'My Chess Career', Capablanca makes the
statement that at this point he could have at least drawn the game with} 48.
Ka2 {, but after} Qf5 $1 {White would have been as badly off as in the line
which he actually chose.' (Ed. Lasker) Indeed, after} 49. Qe3 Nxb2 50. Nxb2 Qd5
51. Kb1 c3 {White's position is unenviable.}) (48. Nxb6 $2 Qg1+ {.}) 48... h5
$1 49. Bd4 (49. Qxc4 $6 h4 $1 50. Nxb6 (50. Qxh4 $2 Nb4+) 50... h3 51. Qc8+ Kh7
52. Nd7 {does not work in view of} Qf5 $1 ({but not} 52... Nc5+ $2 53. Ka2 Nxd7
54. Qxd7 h2 55. Qd1 {drawing}) 53. Nf8+ Kh6 54. Nxe6 Nc5+ 55. Ka1 (55. Ka2
Qxe6+ $1) 55... Qf1+ 56. Ka2 Qc4+ 57. Kb1 (57. Ka1 Nb3+) 57... Qe4+ $1 58. Ka1
Qe1+ 59. Ka2 Qxe6+ 60. Qxe6+ Nxe6 61. b6 Nc5 62. Be5 g5 {and Black wins.}) (49.
Nxb6 $2 Qg1+ {and ...Qxb6.}) 49... h4 50. Bxb6 h3 51. Bc7 e5 $1 52. b6 {'All
this from move forty-eight on, is the result of the analysis during
adjournment... It was not good...} ({Here} 52. Qxc4+ Kf8 53. Bd6+ Qxd6 54. Qc8+
{and 55 Qxh3 would have given a better chance for a draw.' (Capablanca) Let us
see how much better:} Ke7 $1 55. Qxh3 Qxa3 56. Qh4+ Kd7 57. Nb6+ (57. Qh3+ Kd6)
({or} 57. Qg4+ Kd8 58. Qg5+ Qe7) 57... Kc7 58. Nd5+ Kb7 {with a simple win.})
52... Qe4 $1 {'This move I had not properly considered, though it was the only
one to win.} ({Against} 52... Qc6 {I had} 53. Nc3 {, and in the same way I
believe there would be a defence against any other move.' (Capablanca)}) 53.
Bxe5 ({After} 53. Nc3 {Black would have won with} h2 $1 54. Nxe4 (54. Qxh2 $2
Qe1+ 55. Ka2 Qxc3) 54... h1=Q+ 55. Ka2 Qxe4 56. Kb1 $1 (56. b7 $2 Nb4+ $1)
56... Qd5 $1 {followed by ...e5-e4 and ...g7-g5.}) (53. Nb2 h2 $1 54. Qxh2 Nb4+
55. Kc1 Na2+ {.}) 53... Qe1+ $4 ({'It was a tragedy in Janowski's life that he
did not bring this brilliant game to a fitting conclusion with} 53... Qh1+ $1 {
, followed by ...Nxe5 and ...Qg2.' (Ed. Lasker) --- There comes to mind an
ancient chess aphorism: lucky, like the first prize winner! 'Janowski should
not, however, be much blamed for it, as previous to this fault he had
conducted the game as in the old days, when he was one of the most feared of
all the players,' the happy winner praised his opponent.}) 54. Ka2 Nxe5 $6 ({
It made sense to force perpetual check -} 54... Nc1+ {. But... 'Janowski, like
the other masters watching the game, never thought that it would be possible
for me to obtain more than a draw out of the game... Before continuing I
should add that the endgame coming is perhaps the finest of its kind ever
played over the board, and that for some unknown reason it has not been
properly appreciated. It is a masterpiece, of which I am very proud.'
(Capablanca)}) 55. b7 Nd7 56. Nc5 $1 {'An all-important move,' writes Capa,
prematurely burying his opponent, in my opinion.} Nb8 57. Qxc4+ Kh8 58. Ne4 $1
{'Black has no check with his queen, nor can the pawn advance, because through
a combination of checks I am threatening to win the queen or obtain a similar
position to the one that I finally obtained in the game.' (Capablanca)} ({For
example:} 58. Ne4 h2 59. Qc8+ Kh7 60. Qh3+ Kg8 (60... Kg6 61. Qe6+) 61. Qe6+
Kh8 ({or} 61... Kf8 62. Qd6+ Kf7 63. Ng5+ Ke8 64. Qxb8+) 62. Qe8+ Kh7 63. Ng5+
$1 {.}) 58... Kh7 $2 {Only this is the decisive mistake!} ({Two queen moves
would have left Janowski with every chance of saving the game:} 58... Qh4 $5
59. Qc8+ Kh7 60. Qf5+ (60. Qxh3 Qxh3 61. Ng5+ Kg6 62. Nxh3 {draws}) 60... Kh6 (
60... Kg8 $5 61. Qe6+ Kh7 {is also unclear}) 61. Nd6 g6 62. Qf8+ Kh7 63. Qxb8
Qf2+ 64. Kb3 Qb6+ 65. Kc3 h2 66. Nc4 Qf6+ 67. Ne5 h1=Q ({even simpler is} 67...
Qb6 $1 68. Nc4) 68. Qc7+ Kh6 69. b8=Q Qc1+ 70. Kb3 Qe6+ 71. Ka4 Qd1+ 72. Kxa5
Qe1+ 73. Qb4 Q1xe5+ {with a draw}) (58... Qe3 $5 59. Qc8+ Kh7 60. Qf5+ Kh6 {,
and} 61. Nf2 {does not achieve anything in view of} Qe2+ 62. Kb3 Qe3+ 63. Ka4 (
63. Kb2 Qe2+) 63... Qd4+ 64. Kb5 (64. Kxa5 Qa7+) 64... Qb2+ {with perpetual
check.}) 59. Qd3 $1 g6 ({Black is no longer helped by} 59... Kg6 60. Qd6+ Kf5
61. Qf8+ Kg6 62. Qe8+ Kh6 63. Qe6+ g6 64. Qxh3+) (59... Kg8 60. Qd5+ $1 {.}) ({
or} 59... Qh4 60. Ng5+ Kh6 61. Nf7+ Kh5 62. Qf5+ g5 63. Ne5) ({or} 59... h2 60.
Ng5+ Kh6 61. Nf7+ Kh5 62. Qf5+ Kh4 63. Qf4+ Kh3 64. Ng5+ Kg2 65. Qf3+ Kg1 66.
Nh3# {.}) 60. Qxh3+ Kg7 61. Qf3 Qc1 ({No better was} 61... Qh4 62. Qc3+) ({or}
61... Nd7 62. Qd3 Nb8 63. Qd4+ {.}) 62. Qf6+ Kh7 63. Qf7+ Kh6 64. Qf8+ Kh5 65.
Qh8+ Kg4 66. Qc8+ {. 'The game demonstrates the exceptional tenacity and
resourcefulness of the young Capablanca in a difficult defence.' (Panov) ---
An exceptionally tense and, in its way, historic encounter. 'Its outcome,'
wrote the American master Edward Lasker, 'influenced the fate of three
outstanding players. For Janowski the undeserved defeat became the drama of
his entire life. After winning this game, Capablanca went on to win the
tournament as a whole, thanks to which he became the main contender for the
world championship and so raised the prestige of his country in Europe that
the Cuban government enlisted him in the diplomatic service, thereby providing
him with a comfortable existence to the end of his days. Finally, Rubinstein,
who had been regarded as Lasker's natural successor on the chess throne, who
defeated Capablanca in classic style in their individual game and in the end
finished only half a point behind him (without a single defeat!), despite all
his further successes was overthrown from his proud height.' --- I will remind
you of the sensational result of San Sebastian 1911: 1. Capablanca - 9˝ out
of 14; 2-3. Vidmar and Rubinstein - 9; 4. Marshall - 8˝; 5-7. Nimzowitsch,
Tarrasch and Schlechter - 7˝; 8-9. Bernstein and Spielmann - 7; 10.
Teichmann - 6˝; 11-12. Maróczy and Janowski - 6 etc. The winner later
asserted that his success surpassed Pillsbury's feat at Hastings in 1895, but
this is going too far: after all, then Pillsbury finished head of the entire
elite, including the world champion Lasker!} (66. -- {Although he lost to
Rubinstein (Game No.64), Capa won six games, including his eighth-round game
against Nimzowitsch, who also, like Bernstein, had objected to the novice's
participation in the tournament - and who also, as we will see, became one of
Capablanca's 'eternal clients'! Incidentally, in San Sebastian an amusing
squabble occurred between them. On one occasion the Cuban could not refrain
from making a critical comment while watching a blitz game between Bernstein
and Nimzowitsch. In reply the latter advised the young master not to interfere
in something that did not concern him. Then Capa invited Nimzowitsch to play
some blitz games for a side bet, 'which I won with ridiculous ease, and ended
by his retracting the statement he had previously made.' --- It soon
transpired that in friendly games the Cuban had altogether no equals, and he
acquired the firm reputation of being the best blitz player in the world.
'Never before and never since have I seen - and I cannot even imagine,'
recalls Alekhine, 'such an amazing rapidity of chess thinking that Capablanca
possessed in 1913-14. In blitz games he gave all the St Petersburg players
odds of five minutes to one - and he won.'}) 1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Instead of a Match"]
[Black "Tours"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.07"]
{Instead of a Match - Tours: After his triumph in San Sebastian, Capablanca
made a lengthy journey through South America, and then he made an equally long
and successful tour of Europe. In late 1911, with the guaranteed support of
generous Cuban patrons, he took a decisive step - he sent Lasker an official
challenge to a match for the world championship. --- Within a few days Lasker
replied that in principle he was ready to defend his title, and a further two
weeks later he clarified on what conditions: the winner was to be the first to
win six games, draws not counting, but with a limit of 30 games; after the
30th game the match was to terminate and the winner would be the player who
had a lead of not less than two points, while with an advantage of one point
the match would be considered drawn (and the champion would retain his title -
a similar rule had already operated in the 1910 Lasker-Schlechter match); the
time control was to be 12 moves in an hour, a playing session of not more than
five hours a day, with a break after two and a half hours for dinner and rest;
the challenger was to secure a prize fund of $10,000 (an unprecedented sum!).}
1. -- {The size of the prize fund suited Capablanca, but he angrily rejected
the rest, declaring that Lasker was obliged to defend his title under the
conditions as when he had defeated Steinitz (i.e. an unlimited match up to 10
wins), and calling the item about a two-point advantage 'unfair'. Lasker
promptly demanded an apology, Capa refused, and negotiations concerning a
match came to a standstill. --- 'Many took Capablanca's side in the dispute,
and in my opinion they were completely wrong,' Lasker wrote years later. 'The
controversial rule stated that if the score was 1-0, 2-1 or 3-2 after 30 games,
the match would be considered drawn. From this, some drew the conclusion that
I was gaining a significant advantage, since a draw would leave me with the
champion's title. However, the critics did not take account of the fact that
the match would be played for a large sum of money, and the aforementioned
rule would be valid as regards the division of this sum and was equally
advantageous for both sides. And the retention of the title after a 0-1, 1-2
or 2-3 defeat did not have any value for me, unless I were to decisively
regain it in a return match. After all, in itself the title of world champion
does not give any significant advantages, if it is not acknowledged by the
entire chess world, and a champion who does not have the chess world behind
him is, in my view, a laughing-stock.' (Who could have imagined that this
simple thought would be so topical in the transition between the 20th and 21st
centuries!) --- It is not for us to judge who was right and who was wrong in
this episode. We would comment only that Capablanca himself, on becoming world
champion, introduced the 'golden wall' of $10,000, and play to six wins
without counting draws, and a drawn match with a score of 5-5 - i.e. the
challenger was still obliged to win with an advantage of two points...} (1. --
{Even so, Lasker should probably have played Capablanca then: the latter was
still very inexperienced, whereas the champion was at the height of his powers.
Here one can agree with Panov, who wrote that a victory for Lasker in 1912
'would have given him an enormous moral advantage and it would have been
extremely difficult for the Cuban to achieve a new match.' --- In fact 1912
went down in chess history as the year of Rubinstein, who won, apart from the
Russian Championship, three strong international tournaments and gained every
right to a match with Lasker. But the champion was not in any hurry to come to
an agreement with the 'great Akiba'... --- For a couple of years Capablanca
went into hiding, restricting himself to playing in American competitions and
making tours of the USA and Cuba. In the summer of 1913 he reminded everyone
of his strength with a result of 13/13 in one of the New York tournaments,
repeating an achievement by Lasker twenty years before.}) (1. -- {At the end
of the year he was invited to the international tournament St Petersburg 1914
and he finally set sail for a tour of Europe. 'I had entered the Cuban Foreign
Office (a pure sinecure, similar to a stipend from the USSR Sports Committee -
G.K.), and was sent to the Consulate at St Petersburg, where I arrived in
November of 1913,' writes Capablanca. 'Shortly after my arrival a series of
six games was arranged: two each against Alekhine, Znosko-Borovsky and
Duz-Khotimirsky. I won five, and lost one to Znosko-Borovsky. It was my first
defeat, after having won some thirty serious games.' --- The Cuban was still
playing with his captivating ease and elegance. See how naturally be crushed
the 'threat to the champions' Fedor Duz-Khotimirsky - the master who had
defeated both Lasker and Rubinstein in St Petersburg 1909.}) *
[Event "78: Exhibition game, St Petersburg"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1913.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Capablanca, JR."]
[Black "Duz-Khotimirsky, F."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C90"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "93"]
[EventDate "1913.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3
Na5 $6 ({It will be recalled that, at that time, after} 8... O-O $1 {they
feared} 9. d4 {.}) 9. Bc2 c5 10. d4 Qc7 11. Nbd2 Nc6 12. Nf1 $6 ({Capa himself
later suggested} 12. d5 $1) (12. h3 {- Game No.53.}) 12... cxd4 13. cxd4 Bg4 $5
{An attempt to seize the initiative.} (13... exd4 {is simpler, for example:}
14. Ng3 O-O 15. Ne2 Nb4 16. Bb1 d3 {with equality.}) 14. d5 Nd4 15. Bd3 O-O ({
The logical continuation of the chosen course was} 15... Nh5 $1 16. Be3 Nxf3+
17. gxf3 Bd7 18. Ng3 Nf4 {.}) 16. Be3 Rac8 $6 (16... Nxf3+ 17. gxf3 Bd7 18. Ng3
{was advantageous to White}) ({but} 16... Rfc8 $1 {was more accurate, with a
normal position.}) 17. Bxd4 exd4 18. a4 $1 Qb6 19. axb5 axb5 20. h3 $1 Bxf3 (
20... Bd7 21. Ng3 Ne8 ({or} 21... Rc7 22. Ne2) 22. Qd2 {is advantageous to
White.}) 21. Qxf3 Nd7 22. Rec1 $1 Nc5 ({Black is not satisfied with slightly
inferior chances after} 22... Ne5 23. Qe2 Rxc1 24. Rxc1 Bg5 25. Rd1 {.}) 23. b4
$1 Na4 $2 ({'Had now Black played} 23... Nxd3 {, then} 24. Qxd3 -- (24... Rc3
$2 25. Rxc3 dxc3 26. Ne3 Bf6 27. Nc2 {followed by 28 Ra5, and White has the
better game.}) ({. Probably the best line of play for Black would be} 24... Bf6
{.' (Capablanca) I agree that the sacrifice of the b5-pawn would have led to
an unclear game:} 25. Rxc8 Rxc8 26. Ra5 Qc7 27. Rxb5 g6 {etc.} (27... --))) 24.
Rxc8 Rxc8 {The culminating point of the game. --- 'While this game was being
played there were present, besides masters of lesser rank, two of the leading
players of the world, and they thought that I had allowed my opponent to
obtain a winning position. They had not seen my twenty-fifth move, which was
to turn the tide of the battle.' (Capablanca)} 25. e5 $1 {The prelude to a
series of spectacular combinative blows.} ({Incidentally, I don't understand
why it was thought that Black had a 'winning position': even after the dull}
25. Ng3 {nothing bad for White is apparent.}) 25... g6 ({'White threatened 26
Qf5. Had Black played} 25... Rf8 {, he would later on be forced to play ...
g7-g6.' (Capablanca)}) 26. e6 Rf8 27. Ng3 $1 Qb7 ({If} 27... fxe6 {, then} 28.
Qg4 {with the decisive threats of Bxg6 and Qxe6+.}) 28. Nf5 $1 {Very pretty!}
fxe6 {This hastens the end,} ({but even after the better} 28... Kh8 {White
would have won by} 29. Qe4 fxe6 30. Nxe7 Qxe7 31. dxe6 {.}) 29. dxe6 $1 Qc7 30.
Qc6 $3 {An unusually pretty and effortless conception!} Qd8 31. Nxe7+ Qxe7 32.
Bxb5 Nc3 33. Qd7 $1 Qxd7 34. Bxd7 Rb8 ({No better was} 34... Nd5 35. Rd1 Rf4 (
35... Nc3 36. Rd3) 36. g3 Re4 37. Bc6 Re5 38. Rxd4 Ne7 39. Rxd6 {winning.}) 35.
e7 Kf7 36. Re1 Re8 ({Or instead} 36... d3 37. e8=Q+ Rxe8 38. Bxe8+ Kf6 39. Re3
d2 40. Ba4 Nxa4 41. Rd3 {and wins.}) 37. Bxe8+ Kxe8 38. Re6 d5 39. Kf1 Nb5 40.
Ke2 Nc7 41. Re5 Na6 42. b5 Nb4 43. b6 d3+ 44. Kd2 Kd7 45. e8=Q+ Kd6 46. Qe7+
Kc6 47. Qxb4 {. During those days Capablanca became friendly with Alekhine,
who happily showed his remarkable guest around St Petersburg and discussed
various chess topics with him. The Cuban's performances, especially his
simultaneous displays, were a sensational success.} 1-0
[Event "79: Exhibition game, Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1914.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Bernstein, O."]
[Black "Capablanca, JR."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D63"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "58"]
[EventDate "1914.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{In early 1914 the master visited Moscow, where, apart from five simultaneous
displays and three consultation games, he also played two exhibition games
with Bernstein. And again he staggered everyone with the simplicity and
easiness of his style. After the following quick win he looked at his watch
and exclaimed: 'Excellent! I will still be in time for the ballet!' And he set
off by horse-drawn cab to the Bolshoy Theatre.} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4.
Nf3 Be7 5. Bg5 O-O 6. e3 Nbd7 7. Rc1 b6 (7... c6 $1 {.}) 8. cxd5 exd5 9. Qa4 (
9. Bd3 $5 {.}) 9... Bb7 ({It is interesting that in the game Capablanca-Lasker
(Havana 5th matchgame 1921) Black preferred the bold} 9... c5 $5 10. Qc6 Rb8
11. Nxd5 Bb7 {with counterplay for the pawn (Game No.89)} (11... Nxd5 $5 {.}))
10. Ba6 $1 Bxa6 11. Qxa6 c5 (11... c6 $1 12. O-O Qc8 $1 {was more solid.}) 12.
Bxf6 $2 ({Instead of this awful move,} 12. O-O {suggests itself, with a clear
strategic initiative, for example:} Qc8 13. Qxc8 Rfxc8 14. Ne5 {and Black has
a rather unpleasant position.}) 12... Nxf6 13. dxc5 bxc5 14. O-O Qb6 15. Qe2 c4
$1 {Nowadays this is a classic, typical procedure, but then it was a fresh
positional idea! 'All the onlookers, and most annotators, considered this last
move of Black's as weak.' (Capablanca) And indeed, Black's hanging pawns are
now fixed, the d5-pawn becomes backward and eternally weak, and White gains
the d4-square. But this is fully compensated by the pressure on the b2-pawn!
I can give at least two similar examples: Bertok-Fischer (Stockholm interzonal
1962) and Winants-Kasparov (Brussels 1987).} 16. Rfd1 Rfd8 17. Nd4 ({After} 17.
e4 dxe4 18. Nxe4 (18. Ng5 e3 $1) 18... Nxe4 19. Qxe4 Bf6 20. Qxc4 Qxb2 {the
resulting position is slightly better for Black, but objectively drawn. In
this case Capa would definitely not have made it to the ballet...}) 17... Bb4
$1 {'The ultimate object of this move is to play ...Bxc3 at the proper time
and force a passed pawn. White makes this task easier by his next move.'
(Capablanca)} 18. b3 $6 {A questionable move: it gives Black a passed pawn,
which in the end proves to be not a weakness, but a strength.} ({'} 18. Qc2 {
and then Nd4-e2-f4 was better.' (Panov)}) 18... Rac8 19. bxc4 dxc4 20. Rc2 Bxc3
21. Rxc3 Nd5 $1 (21... Nd5 {mini-tactics:} 22. Rxc4 $2 {is not possible on
account of} Nc3 {.}) 22. Rc2 c3 {As simply as possible!} ({I am not sure that}
22... Nf4 23. Qg4 Nd3 {would have been better.}) 23. Rdc1 Rc5 24. Nb3 Rc6 25.
Nd4 Rc7 $1 {'Because I had first played 23...Rc5, Dr Bernstein was lured into
the fatal trap, thinking that I was aiming at the exchange of knights, in
order to obtain a free a-pawn.' (Capablanca)} 26. Nb5 $6 ({White should simply
have made an escape square for his king -} 26. h3 {, and after} Qb4 27. Qf3 {
he would probably have been able to restrain the c-pawn.}) 26... Rc5 27. Nxc3
$4 {Bernstein decided to 'make a draw' immediately,} ({although he could still
have reconsidered and played} 27. Nd4 {.}) 27... Nxc3 28. Rxc3 Rxc3 29. Rxc3 (
29. Rxc3 {expecting} Qb1+ 30. Qf1 Qxa2 {with equality, but...}) 29... Qb2 $3 {
. A queen sacrifice on the theme of diversion - the weakness of the back rank!
'Simple and - let's not be afraid to use the word - a stroke of genius.'
(Botvinnik) --- Capablanca's manners and appearance were fully in keeping with
the elegance of his play. Friendly and sociable, the brilliance of his
expressive, velvety eyes, the dark-golden colour of his handsome face, the
black dinner suit with a miniature ivory chrysanthemum in his button-hole...
--- 'In Capablanca's personal life there is nothing that would allow you to
guess that he is a chess master,' wrote Spielmann. 'His favourite occupations
are politics and diplomacy. In addition, Capablanca likes any kinds of
fashionable sports, in particular tennis. In everything else he is an elegant
man of the world, although he is free of the accompanying "elegant" vices. He
does not smoke, he does not drink, and in general he adheres strictly to the
rules of hygiene. He gives the impression of playing chess merely for
relaxation, incidentally... He is unusually impressionable and feels calm only
when his opponent is overcome by the superiority of his technique.'} 0-1
[Event "80: Exhibition game, Riga"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1914.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Nimzowitsch, A."]
[Black "Capablanca, JR."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C50"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "124"]
[EventDate "1913.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{From Moscow Capa set off on a tour of Vienna, Paris and Berlin, also
appearing on the way in several Russian towns. In Riga he met his 'old friend'
Nimzowitsch and defeated him in an instructive ending with opposite-coloured
bishops.} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. d3 d6 6. Bg5 Be6 7. Bb5
h6 8. Bh4 Bb4 9. d4 Bd7 10. O-O Bxc3 11. bxc3 g5 12. Bg3 Nxe4 13. Bxc6 Bxc6 14.
dxe5 dxe5 15. Bxe5 Qxd1 16. Raxd1 f6 17. Bd4 Kf7 18. Nd2 Rhe8 19. f3 Nxd2 20.
Rxd2 Rad8 21. g4 $2 ({Of course, this plays into Black's hands, although he
also has some advantage after} 21. Kf2 Re5) ({or} 21. Rfd1 Rd5 {.}) 21... Bb5
22. Rb1 Ba6 23. Rbd1 ({But not} 23. Kg2 $2 c5 $1 24. Be3 Rxd2+ 25. Bxd2 Re2+ {.
}) 23... Re2 $1 24. Rxe2 Bxe2 25. Re1 Bxf3 26. Rf1 c5 $1 {'The move that gives
Black the advantage.' (Capablanca)} 27. Bxf6 {In the hope of saving himself in
the opposite-coloured bishop ending a pawn down.} ({The rook ending after} 27.
Rxf3 cxd4 28. Rd3 Rc8 $1 {is also unpleasant for White, for example:} 29. Rxd4
Ke6 30. c4 Rc5 31. c3 Ra5 32. Rd2 Ra4 {etc.}) 27... Rd1 28. Be5 Rxf1+ 29. Kxf1
Bxg4 {'The ending is now won by force. Several months after the game was
played, Nimzowitsch told me that he had studied the game and that he had
finally found a way to draw this ending. Although I had not seen the game
since it was played I offered to make him a small sporting bet, giving him the
odds of a draw in any position from now on. The offer was immediately accepted
and we sat down. In a few moves he saw that his idea was wrong and gave up the
game.' (Capablanca)} 30. a4 Ke6 31. Bb8 ({After} 31. Bg7 h5 32. Ke1 (32. a5 Bd1
{and ...Bxc2}) 32... Bf5 {, there was an equally inevitable win by} 33. Kd2 b6
$5 34. Bh6 g4 35. Bf4 Kd5 36. Bb8 a5 37. Bc7 Kc6 {etc.}) 31... a5 $1 32. Ke1 ({
It turns out that if} 32. Bc7 {, then} b5 $1 {is immediately decisive.}) 32...
Kd5 33. Kd2 Bd7 34. Bc7 Kc6 35. Bd8 ({But not} 35. Bxa5 $2 b6 {winning the
bishop.}) 35... b6 36. c4 Kb7 37. Kc3 Bxa4 38. Kb2 Bd7 39. Kb3 Be6 40. Kc3 a4
41. Kd3 Kc6 42. Kc3 g4 43. Bh4 h5 44. Bg3 a3 45. Kb3 Bxc4+ $1 46. Kxa3 ({If}
46. Kxc4 {, then} a2 47. Be5 h4 48. Kb3 g3 49. hxg3 h3 $1 {, and one of the
rook's pawns will queen.}) 46... b5 47. c3 Kd5 48. Bf2 Be2 49. Kb3 Bd1+ 50. Kb2
Kc4 51. Kc1 Bf3 52. Kd2 b4 53. cxb4 cxb4 54. Bh4 Be4 55. Bf6 Bg6 56. Bh4 b3 57.
Bf6 h4 58. Ke3 g3 59. hxg3 h3 60. Kf2 Bf5 61. g4 Bxg4 62. Kg3 Kd3 (62... Kd3
63. Kh2 Kc2 64. Kg3 b2 {. 'This is one of the finest endings I ever played,
and I have had very often the great pleasure of hearing my opponent pay
tribute to the skill displayed by me in winning it.' (Capablanca)}) (62... -- {
Again all so easy and simple! For his contemporaries this clarity of
Capablanca's style was probably even more staggering than Lasker's magical
play: that which Lasker got up to on the board was impossible to explain -
whereas here everything was so simple! It was thanks to games such as those
with Nimzowitsch, Bernstein, Duz-Khotimirsky, Marshall etc, that rapturous
legends grew up around Capablanca and an almost mystical worship developed:
that this was a chess machine, and for him there was nothing complicated and
inexplicable in the game! An age-old dream of mankind had been realised: all
the secrets of chess had been discovered... --- What was at the basis of this
phenomenon? The Cuban calmly played classical openings, instantly grasped the
essence of the position and then played instinctively, if necessary making
brief but accurate calculations, and sometimes also demonstrating deep ideas
(such as 15...c4! against Bernstein). And this proved quite sufficient to
defeat almost all the players in the world! --- The paradox is that
Capablanca's contribution to the development of chess is much less obvious
than that of his contemporary Rubinstein, who was like a modern-day
grandmaster, a true innovator, who laid the foundation of modern theory.
However, Capablanca's positional insight, his 'little combinations' and his
fine technique became essential instructional material for all subsequent
generations of players, including, of course, future world champions.}) 0-1
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Soon to be Number One"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.07"]
{Soon to be Number One: In the spring of 1914 in St Petersburg the most
important international tournament of the early 20th century took place. For
the first time all three world leaders - Lasker, Rubinstein and Capablanca -
came face to face. The idea of the organisers was that they should play three
games against one another: first in the preliminary tournament of 11
grandmasters, and then in the final double-cycle 'tournament of five'. The
winner, if it was not Lasker, would be declared the official challenger for
the world championship.} 1. -- {I have already acquainted you with the unusual
formula and the outcome of this historic event in the chapter on Lasker, but
now I should like to show you how Capablanca played in St Petersburg. In the
very first round he gave an excellent lesson in positional play to none other
than Nimzowitsch!} *
[Event "81: St Petersburg, preliminary tourney"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1914.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Nimzowitsch, A."]
[Black "Capablanca, JR."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C62"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "83"]
[EventDate "1914.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 d6 {The fire-proof Steinitz Defence had
for a long time been in the Cuban's repertoire, enabling him to avoid
unpleasant surprises in the opening. As for the middlegame, Capa was not
concerned, being sure that here he would always be able to neutralise the
opponent's initiative.} 5. d4 Bd7 6. Bxc6 $5 (6. O-O exd4 7. Nxd4 Be7 {leads
to a tabiya of the variation, for example:} 8. -- (8. Nf5 $6 Bxf5 9. exf5 O-O
10. Re1 Nd7 11. Nd5 Bf6 12. c3 Nb6 {with an excellent game for Black
(Alekhine-Capablanca, St Petersburg 1914)}) (8. b3 {(both 8 Bg5 and 8 Bf4 have
also been tried)} Nxd4 9. Qxd4 Bxb5 10. Nxb5 Nd7 $1 11. Ba3 a6 12. Nc3 Bf6 13.
Qe3 ({also after} 13. Qd2 O-O 14. Rad1 {the correct move is} Bxc3 $1 ({but not
} 14... Re8 15. Rfe1 Nb6 16. Bb2 Qd7 17. a4 Qc6 18. a5 Nd7 19. Ba1 Re6 20. Nd5
$1 {Tal-Larsen, Bled 2nd matchgame 1965})) 13... O-O 14. Rad1 Bxc3 $1 15. Qxc3
Re8 16. Rfe1 Rc8 17. Qh3 Ne5 18. Bb2 Qg5 $1 {with equality (Lasker-Capablanca,
New York 1924)}) (8. Re1 {- the most popular continuation (Game No.54).})) 6...
Bxc6 7. Qd3 exd4 {Forced;} ({Black can hardly play} 7... Qe7 $6 {.}) 8. Nxd4 g6
$6 {'A novel idea, brought out on the spur of the moment, with the intention
of putting White on his own resources and out of the normal forms of this
defence with which Nimzowitsch is very familiar.' (Capablanca)} ({In those
days the usual move was Steinitz's} 8... Bd7 {- in the opinion of Keres,
'undoubtedly best: although after} 9. Bg5 Be7 10. O-O-O O-O 11. f4 Ne8 12. Bxe7
Qxe7 13. Nd5 Qd8 14. g4 {(Spielmann-Maróczy, Gothenburg 1920) White has a
strong attacking position, things for Black are by no means hopeless.'}) ({A
later try was} 8... Be7 $5 9. Nf5 {(Tal-I. Zaitsev, 37th USSR Championship,
Moscow 1969). --- Capablanca has embarked on a risky venture, which also
involves the sacrifice of a pawn. And Nimzowitsch is unable to resist the
temptation.}) 9. Nxc6 $6 ({Only the exact Alekhine plan with} 9. Bg5 $1 Bg7 10.
O-O-O {justifies the exchange of the 'Spanish' bishop, for example:} Qc8 $5 (
10... Qd7 11. h3 $1 O-O 12. Rhe1 Rfe8 $6 (12... Kh8 13. f4) 13. Qf3 $1 Nh5 14.
g4 {with a very strong initiative (Alekhine-Brinckmann, Kecskemet 1927).}) ({
. Even worse is} 10... O-O $2 11. Nxc6 bxc6 12. e5 $1 dxe5 13. Qf3 $1 Qe7 14.
Ne4) ({, or} 10... h6 11. Bh4 O-O 12. f4 Re8 $2 {, after which the computer
instantly produces} 13. Nxc6 bxc6 14. e5 $1 dxe5 15. Qxd8 Rexd8 16. Rxd8+ Rxd8
17. fxe5 {winning. --- However, 9 Bg5! is already the next step forward in the
comprehension of chess. It would probably also have been played intuitively by
Morphy, and so Alekhine's discovery can well be regarded as a creative
development of his idea.})) 9... bxc6 10. Qa6 Qd7 (10... c5 $2 {will not do in
view of} 11. Qc6+ Nd7 12. Bg5 $1 {'with a good attack for White'. (Tarrasch)
For example:} Be7 13. Bxe7 Kxe7 14. Nd5+ Kf8 15. Nxc7 Rc8 16. Qxd6+ Kg7 17. Nd5
{winning.}) 11. Qb7 Rc8 12. Qxa7 Bg7 13. O-O O-O {It appears that White is
simply a healthy pawn to the good: after all, Black has no obvious threats.}
14. Qa6 $6 {A waste of a tempo.} ({Tarrasch suggested} 14. Bd2 $1 {, to answer}
Rfe8 ({or} 14... Qe6 {with} 15. f3 {and when convenient Qf2, and he doubted
whether Black had compensation for the pawn. --- But this did not disturb
Capablanca: 'Black is a pawn behind, but all his forces are now deployed and
ready for manoeuvring, while White, who had to make three moves with his queen
in order to win a pawn, is therefore very backward in his development.
Nimzowitsch, it is true, does not make the best moves now, but I believe he
has been unjustly criticised for losing this game, although none of the
critics have given a satisfactory line of procedure. They have all suggested
moves here and there; but the games of the great masters are not played by
single moves, but must be played by concerted plans of attack and defence, and
these they have not given.' --- Well, let's support Tarrasch's idea with a
concrete plan: b2-b3, a2-a4 and Rad1, and if ...c6-c5, then the queen escapes
via a6 and the black knight has to guard the d5-square. Of course, here too
Black retains some compensation for the pawn, but it would have been harder
for him to demonstrate that he was right. --- We can hardly reproach
Nimzowitsch for underestimating his opponent's very deep positional idea, an
amazing one for the early 20th century. The typical intuitive insight of a
genius! Today, in the era of the Benko Gambit, everyone knows that in such
instances the pressure of the rooks on the a- and b-files, supported by the
powerful bishop on g7, together with pressure on the centre, promises Black
long-term counterplay. But at that time this was a revelation...})) 14... Rfe8
15. Qd3 {(already the sixth move by the queen!)} Qe6 $1 16. f3 Nd7 $1 {After
the rapid advance ...Ne5-c4 White's queenside will be on the point of collapse.
Now it is clear that Black has gained excellent compensation for the pawn.} 17.
Bd2 $2 {Nimzowitsch does not sense the mounting danger.} (17. Bf4 {was correct,
to eliminate the knight after} Ne5 18. Bxe5 Bxe5 19. Rab1 {. With such a
bishop Black will now definitely never lose, but we are trying to solve
another problem: how not to lose with White...}) 17... Ne5 18. Qe2 Nc4 {After
giving up a pawn just like that, Capa plays as though nothing has happened,
strengthening his position as much as possible. His 'simple' manoeuvres ...
Qd7-e6 and ...Nd7-e5-c4 followed by the deployment of the rooks on the a- and
b-files are, in my view, staggering for the level of chess at that time.} 19.
Rab1 Ra8 20. a4 $2 ({Little is changed by} 20. b3 $6 Nxd2 21. Qxd2 Ra3 $1 {,
and after 22...Qe5 Black regains the pawn, retaining his powerful bishop,} ({
but not immediately} 21... Qe5 $2 {because of} 22. Na4 $1 {.})) ({But} 20. Be1
{was much better, although after} d5 $1 21. b3 Nd6 22. a4 f5 {Black has a
comfortable and active game.}) 20... Nxd2 21. Qxd2 Qc4 $1 22. Rfd1 ({After} 22.
Ne2 Rxa4 23. b3 Qc5+ 24. Kh1 Ra2 25. Rbc1 {White would have faced an equally
depressing defence.}) 22... Reb8 $1 {With the threat of ...Rxb2!} ({Of course,
Black ignores the possibility of regaining the pawn at the cost of the
exchange of his fine bishop:} 22... Bxc3 23. Qxc3 Qxc3 24. bxc3 Rxa4 {with
drawing motifs in the double-rook ending.}) 23. Qe3 $2 {The Cuban's play has
paralysed Nimzowitsch's will!} ({Only} 23. Qd3 Qc5+ 24. Kh1 Rb4 25. Ne2 {would
have retained any chances of saving the game.}) 23... Rb4 $1 24. Qg5 ({Now} 24.
Qd3 {is too late:} Qc5+ 25. Kh1 Rab8 {etc.}) 24... Bd4+ 25. Kh1 Rab8 {The
triumph of Black's innovatory strategy: the destruction of White's queenside
is inevitable! The threat of 26...Bxc3 forces White to give up the exchange.
However, this terrible bishop is worth a rook...} 26. Rxd4 Qxd4 27. Rd1 Qc4 28.
h4 Rxb2 29. Qd2 Qc5 {The conversion of the advantage does not present any
difficulty for such a 'technician' as Capablanca.} 30. Re1 $2 ({Even so,} 30.
Ra1 {was more tenacious.}) 30... Qh5 $1 31. Ra1 ({Avoiding a transparent trap:
} 31. Qf2 $2 Rxc2 $1 {.}) 31... Qxh4+ 32. Kg1 Qh5 33. a5 Ra8 34. a6 Qc5+ 35.
Kh1 Qc4 36. a7 Qc5 37. e5 Qxe5 38. Ra4 Qh5+ 39. Kg1 Qc5+ 40. Kh2 d5 $5 ({
'Destroying White's last hope:} 40... Rxa7 $2 41. Ne4 $1 -- (41... Qb6 42. Qh6
{.' (Panov)}) ({. There is no doubt that in such positions a good player will
always aim to avoid unnecessary complications. But in the given instance after
40...Rxa7! 41 Ne4 there weren't any - instead of the cooperative 41...Qb6??
our 'iron friend' Fritz indicates three ways to win:} 41... Qe5+ 42. f4 Qe7 $1
{, and to avoid} 43. Rxa7 Qh4+ 44. Kg1 Rb1+ 45. Qd1 Rxd1# {, White has to give
up his rook}) (41... Qh5+ 42. Kg3 (42. Kg1 Rb1+ 43. Kf2 Qh4+) 42... Qe5+ 43. f4
Rxa4 $1 44. fxe5 Rxe4) (41... Rxc2 42. Qh6 ({or} 42. Nxc5 Rxd2 43. Rxa7 dxc5
44. Rxc7 Rd6) 42... Qe5+ 43. f4 Rxa4 44. fxe5 Rxe4 {etc.})) 41. Rh4 Rxa7 42.
Nd1 {. Without waiting for his opponent's reply, White resigned. 'One of
Capablanca's classic games. The sacrifice of the a-pawn in similar positions
followed by the attack on the opponent's pawns along the a- and b-files has
been adopted by many masters.' (Botvinnik)} 0-1
[Event "82: St Petersburg, preliminary tourney"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1914.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Rubinstein, A."]
[Black "Capablanca, JR."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D64"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "76"]
[EventDate "1914.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{Before the start the Cuban quite reasonably named Rubinstein as the main
favourite, saying that he 'is in excellent health, and has prepared for this
tournament for a long time,' whereas the world champion Lasker 'is uncertain,
because he is a little out of practice,' and about himself 'my health just now
is not very good, and I will be satisfied if I finish second.' --- In the
third round the two contenders for the crown met in a nerve-racking
confrontation, the outcome of which had an enormous influence on their
subsequent fates.} 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. c4 e6 4. Nc3 Nbd7 5. Bg5 Be7 (5... c6
$5 6. e3 Qa5 {.}) 6. e3 O-O 7. Rc1 Re8 $6 {Fashionable at that time, but not
the most accurate move.} ({At that time the theory of the Queen's Gambit was
only just being developed, and it was possibly this game that suggested to
Capablanca the idea of the relieving variation} 7... c6 8. Bd3 dxc4 9. Bxc4 Nd5
{etc.}) 8. Qc2 $5 ({This is more useful than} 8. a3 a6 $1 {(Janowski,
Rubinstein)}) ({or} 8. Bd3 dxc4 9. Bxc4 a6 ({along with} 9... c5 10. O-O a6 $1)
10. O-O b5 11. Bd3 Bb7 12. Qe2 c5 {, which was also introduced by Janowski
(1908), and then also employed by Rubinstein.}) 8... c6 ({Here are some later
tries:} 8... dxc4 9. Bxc4 c5 10. O-O cxd4 11. Nxd4 a6 12. Rfd1 Qa5 13. Bh4 Ne5
14. Be2 {with some advantage (Rubinstein-Maróczy, Gothenburg 1920)}) ({or} 8...
h6 $5 9. Bh4 c5 10. cxd5 Nxd5 11. Bxe7 Nxe7 12. dxc5 Nxc5 13. Bb5 Bd7 {with a
rapid draw (Capablanca-Lasker, Havana 13th matchgame 1921).}) 9. Bd3 ({But here
} 9. a3 $5 {makes a lot of sense:} dxc4 (9... h6 10. Bf4 $5) ({the waiting move
} 9... a6 $5 {is more solid}) 10. Bxc4 Nd5 ({inferior is} 10... b5 $6 11. Ba2
$1 a6 12. Bb1 h6 13. Bxf6 Nxf6 14. Ne4) 11. Bxe7 Qxe7 12. Ne4 (12. Ne2 {has
also been played}) 12... N5f6 (12... h6 $2 13. O-O b6 14. Ba2 Bb7 15. Bb1 N5f6
16. Ng3 g6 17. e4 {Smyslov-Hort, Leipzig Olympiad 1960}) 13. Ng3 c5 14. O-O
cxd4 15. Nxd4 Nb6 16. Ba2 {with some advantage (Euwe-Lasker, Zurich 1934).})
9... dxc4 $6 {Capa follows Bernstein's plan, employed a couple of months
earlier in one of the exhibition games in Moscow.} ({However, it was worth
eliminating the attack on the h7-pawn by} 9... h6 {, and if} 10. -- (10. Bh4 {
, then} dxc4 {.}) ({. True, here Black has to reckon with} 10. Bf4 $5 {- after}
dxc4 11. Bxc4 Nd5 12. O-O Nxf4 13. exf4 {White retains the initiative.} (13. --
))) 10. Bxc4 b5 $6 ({Also in White's favour is} 10... a6 11. O-O b5 12. Bd3 c5
13. Bxf6 Nxf6 14. dxc5 Bxc5 15. Ne4 {.}) (10... h6 11. Bf4 $5 {.}) ({The
lesser evil looks to be} 10... Nd5 {, as Lasker played in the 11th game of the
1921 match (Game No.91)}) ({or even} 10... c5 {.}) 11. Bd3 a6 $6 ({Even after
the comparatively better} 11... Bb7 12. O-O $1 (12. Ne5 Nxe5 13. dxe5 Nd7 14.
Bxe7 Qxe7 15. Bxh7+ Kh8 16. Be4 Nxe5 17. Qe2 Kg8 {is less clear}) 12... Qa5 $6
{(Black has a difficult position)} (12... h6 13. Bxf6 Nxf6 14. Ne4 {and the
bishop at b7 is shut in}) ({or} 12... a6 13. Ne5 c5 14. Nxd7 Qxd7 15. Bxf6 Bxf6
16. dxc5 {etc.}) 13. Ne5 Nf8 14. Ne4 $1 Qxa2 15. Bxf6 Bxf6 16. Nxf7 $1 {wins
for White.}) 12. Ne5 $1 {'This move disrupts all Black's plans.' (Tarrasch)} ({
The modest} 12. O-O Bb7 13. Ne5 {was also quite good, transposing into the
previous variation.}) 12... Bb7 ({If} 12... Qb6 {there can follow} 13. Nxd7 ({
or} 13. Bxf6 $1 Nxf6 (13... Bxf6 14. Bxh7+) (13... gxf6 14. Bxh7+ Kg7 15. Nxc6
$1 f5 16. Bxf5 exf5 17. Nd5) 14. Ne4 {and Black loses material}) 13... Bxd7 14.
Bxf6 gxf6 15. Bxh7+ Kg7 16. Be4 $1 (16. Bd3 $6 c5 $1 {Ed. Lasker-Hodges, New
York 1915.})) (12... c5 $6 13. Nc6 Qb6 14. Nxe7+ Rxe7 15. Bxh7+ {.}) ({And if}
12... Nxe5 13. dxe5 Nd7 14. Bxh7+ Kh8 {, then} 15. Bxe7 $1 ({but not} 15. Bf4
g6 16. Bxg6 fxg6 17. Qxg6 Nf8 18. Qh5+ Nh7) 15... Qxe7 16. Be4 Nxe5 17. Qe2 f5
18. f4 $1 {with a powerful initiative.}) 13. Nxd7 Qxd7 14. Bxf6 Bxf6 15. Bxh7+
Kh8 {A critical position. White is a healthy pawn to the good, and he has to
choose a plan for converting his advantage.} 16. Be4 $2 ({'The advantage could
have been retained only by a sharp attack on the king -} 16. Ne4 $1 Be7 17. h4
$1 {' (Tarrasch)} -- ({. Yes, the sharp advance of the h-pawn looks not at all
bad: if} 17... Rac8 {, then} 18. Nc5 $1 Bxc5 19. dxc5 {with a complete bind,
since after} g6 $6 {White has a forced win by} 20. h5 $1 Kxh7 21. hxg6+ Kg8 22.
Rh7 Re7 23. Rd1 $1 Qc7 24. gxf7+ Rxf7 25. Qg6+ {.}) ({. Or} 17... Bb4+ 18. Kf1
e5 19. Nc5 $1 ({the idea of blocking in the b7-bishop is so good, that I do
not even analyse} 19. Ng5 $5) 19... Bxc5 20. dxc5 (20. Bf5 $6 Qd5 21. dxc5 {
allows the chance} e4 22. Bg4 Bc8 $1) 20... g6 $6 {, and again after} 21. h5 $1
Kxh7 22. hxg6+ Kg8 23. Rd1 $1 {there is no way of saving the game:} Qe6 (23...
Qc7 24. Qf5 $1) 24. Rd6 Qxa2 (24... Qc4+ 25. Qxc4 bxc4 26. gxf7+ Kxf7 27. Rh7+)
25. Qf5 Qc4+ 26. Ke1 Qb4+ 27. Rd2 {winning.})) ({I should add that White would
also have retained the advantage by} 16. Bd3 $5 e5 17. Ne4 $1 ({in my opinion,
this is stronger than} 17. dxe5 {and Ne4}) 17... exd4 ({or} 17... Be7 18. Nc5
Bxc5 19. dxc5 Qd5 20. Be4 Qxa2 21. O-O {and again Black is 'a bishop down'.})
18. Nxf6 gxf6 19. Qe2 (19. O-O dxe3 20. fxe3 Rxe3 21. Rcd1 {is less clear})
19... Qd5 20. O-O c5 21. e4 {. The nature of Rubinstein's mistake can be
explained: after quickly gaining a winning position and afraid of squandering
his advantage, he decided to operate with purely technical means, without any
risk - and he moved his bishop from h7, so as not to have to calculate the
'sharp' variations with ...g7-g6. Moreover, the retreat to e4 looks logical:
the long diagonal! Playing against any other opponent (apart perhaps from
Lasker), Rubinstein would most probably have converted his pawn advantage. But
Capablanca makes things as difficult as possible for White, and puts up a
desperate resistance.}) 16... e5 (16... c5 $5 {comes into consideration. In a
game between two little-known German players (Seitz-Sprecher, Berlin 1920)
Black equalised after} 17. Bxb7 (17. dxc5 Bxc3+ 18. bxc3 Rac8 19. O-O ({or} 19.
Rd1 Bxe4 20. Qxe4 Qc6 {with drawing chances}) 19... Bxe4 20. Qxe4 Rxc5) 17...
Qxb7 18. Qe4 ({I would have preferred} 18. Ne4 $5 cxd4 19. Nxf6 gxf6 20. O-O {
with the initiative, but with no guarantee of success}) 18... Qxe4 19. Nxe4
cxd4 20. Nxf6 gxf6 21. exd4 Red8 22. Ke2 Rxd4 {.}) 17. dxe5 Rxe5 $1 {By
activating his rook, Black gains some compensation for the pawn.} ({After}
17... Bxe5 $6 18. Rd1 Qe7 19. Bf3 c5 20. Bxb7 Qxb7 21. O-O {White has a 'free
ride'.}) 18. O-O Qe7 {(with the threat of 19...b4)} 19. Bf3 Rc5 $1 20. Qe2 (20.
Qb3 $5 a5 21. Rfd1 Rc4 {is interesting. Although the commentators give here a
'with counterplay' sign, after} 22. Rd2 $1 a4 (22... Bc8 23. Qd1 $1) 23. Qd1 {
the threat of Rd7 sets Black unpleasant problems:} a3 (23... Bc8 $2 24. Nxb5)
24. bxa3 $1 Bxc3 25. Rd7 Qf6 26. Rxb7 Rxa3 27. Rd7 {etc.}) 20... Bxc3 21. Rxc3
$6 ({Now} 21. bxc3 $1 {was simply essential.} -- ({. Some criticised this
because of} 21... Bc8 22. Rfd1 Be6 {, but after} 23. Rd4 $1 {and Qd2 White
seizes control of the d-file and can calmly begin an attack: the c3-pawn is
inaccessible to Black, and it is unfavourable for him to exchange on d4 - in
short, the position is a technical one.}) ({. Therefore} 21... Qf6 $1 {is
better, when} 22. Rfd1 $5 Rxc3 23. Rxc3 Qxc3 24. Be4 {is tempting, with an
attack in a position with equal material. But in order to win here,
considerable effort and inventiveness are required of White, and this is
precisely what Rubinstein was aiming to avoid! He tried everything possible to
simplify the position and in the end he overdid it: too many pieces were
whisked off the board sooner that they should have been...} (24. --))) 21...
Rxc3 22. bxc3 Rd8 23. Rd1 {'White has nothing else. He cannot leave his
opponent with the only open file.' (Tarrasch) Apparently Rubinstein was hoping
to win the queen endgame, but from afar he underestimated the resulting
problems. It would very much appear that the win has already been finally
missed.} Rxd1+ 24. Qxd1 Kg8 25. h4 c5 ({But not} 25... Qxh4 $2 26. Qd7 {
winning the bishop.}) 26. Bxb7 Qxb7 27. Qd6 (27. Qd8+ Kh7 28. Qd3+ Kg8 {would
also have hardly promised anything. --- 'The queen endgame is very favourable
for White. Firstly, he is a pawn up, but this is not the main thing. It is
well known that in queen endgames, passed pawns are especially important. A
strong passed pawn is usually able to neutralise even a big material advantage.
Secondly, White's queen is more active than Black's and it controls most of
the important central squares. Thirdly, the position of the white king is more
secure. How then should Black continue in this difficult situation?' (Keres)})
27... b4 $1 {This is how: it is much easier for Black to create a passed pawn
than White.} (27... c4 $2 {was bad because of} 28. f3 $1 b4 (28... a5 $2 29.
Qd8+) (28... Kh7 29. a3 $1) 29. cxb4 Qc8 30. Qd2 c3 31. Qc2 Qc4 32. a3 {(Keres)
.}) ({Also dubious was the passive} 27... Qc8 $6 28. e4 Kh7 29. f3 Kg8 30. Kf2
Kh7 31. g4 {etc.}) 28. Qxc5 $2 {The final mistake, leading to a rapid draw.
But what should White do?} ({If} 28. cxb4 {, then} Qxb4 $1 ({inferior is} 28...
cxb4 $6 29. Qc5 $1 Qe4 30. Qc8+ Kh7 31. Qxa6 Qxh4) 29. Qxa6 c4 {, and the
strong passed c-pawn saves Black, for example:} 30. Qa8+ Kh7 31. Qe4+ Kg8 32.
Qe8+ Kh7 33. Qxf7 c3 {.}) ({Tarrasch in the tournament book, and later Keres
in the magazine Shakhmaty v SSSR (1964 No.3 - for an English translation cf.
The Art of the Middlegame by Keres and Kotov [Penguin 1964]) recommended} 28.
c4 $1 {as the best chance.} -- ({. And indeed, now both} 28... a5 $2 29. Qd8+
Kh7 30. Qxa5) ({, and} 28... b3 $2 29. axb3 Qxb3 30. Qxa6 {are bad.}) ({. But
Black has other ways of defending:} 28... Qe4 $6 29. Qxc5 $1 ({after} 29. Qxa6
Kh7 $1 {it is not apparent how White can strengthen his position}) (29. Qxa6
Kh7 $1) 29... Qb1+ 30. Kh2 Qxa2 31. Qxb4 Qxf2 32. Qe7 {, 'and the c-pawn
cannot be stopped.' (Keres) Let us check this:} f6 33. Qe4 $1 ({but not} 33.
Kh3 $6 Qf5+ 34. Kg3 Kh7 35. c5 Qg6+ {drawing}) 33... f5 34. Qe7 f4 35. Qe8+ Kh7
36. Qe4+ Kg8 37. exf4 Qxh4+ 38. Kg1 {with winning chances}) (28... Qa7 $5 29.
g4 (29. Qd8+ Kh7 30. Qa5 Qe7 $1 31. Qxa6 Qe4) 29... a5 30. h5 a4 31. g5 b3 32.
g6 Qa8 33. axb3 a3 {, repelling the attack:} 34. gxf7+ ({but not} 34. Qd7 $4 a2
$1 35. gxf7+ Kf8 {winning}) 34... Kxf7 35. Qg6+ Kg8 36. h6 Qa7 {with a level
position}) (28... Qc8 $5 {(with the threat of 29...a5)} 29. Qb6 Qf5 $1 (29...
Kh7 $2 30. e4 $1) 30. Qxa6 Kh7 $1 {. 'The conversion of the two extra pawns is
very difficult,' writes Keres, and he gives these variations:} 31. -- (31. Qa4
Qb1+ 32. Kh2 Qf5 ({or} 32... Qb2 $5 {and it is not apparent how White can
conveniently defend the f2-pawn})) (31. Qa5 Qe5 $1 {(threatening 32...Qa1+ and
33...b3)} 32. Qa4 ({I should like to add} 32. Qa8 Qa1+ $1 33. Kh2 Qe5+ 34. g3
Qe6 {with adequate counterplay (} 35. Qd5 $4 Qxd5 36. cxd5 Kg8 {wins for Black)
}) 32... Qa1+ 33. Kh2 Qb2 {, transposing into a position that has already been
examined}) (31. Qa7 $5 {(the most dangerous)} Qe5 $5 ({but the quiet} 31... f6
32. e4 Qe5 {is also possible - in my opinion, Keres is right, although this
position contains numerous nuances:} 33. Qf7 Qa1+ 34. Kh2 Qxa2 35. Qh5+ Kg8 36.
Qxc5 b3 37. Qc8+ Kh7 38. Qf5+ Kh8 39. c5 b2 40. c6 Qc4 41. Qc8+ Kh7 42. Qb7
Qxe4 43. Qxb2 Qxc6 {, and the queen endgame with 'three against two' is
objectively drawn}) 32. Qxf7 Qa1+ 33. Kh2 Qxa2 {with counterplay. --- 'Thus
analysis shows that even after 28 c4! Black could have played on, retaining
excellent drawing chances,' Keres sums up. 'It is a pity that Rubinstein did
not decide on this, and that Capablanca's wonderful idea remained unnoticed by
the chess world.'}))) 28... bxc3 29. Qxc3 Qb1+ 30. Kh2 Qxa2 {The passed a-pawn
together with the attack on the f2-pawn gives Black an easy draw.} 31. Qc8+ Kh7
32. Qf5+ g6 33. Qf6 a5 $5 ({Capa is no longer satisfied with the drawing} 33...
Qe6 {.}) 34. g4 a4 35. h5 $1 gxh5 $1 ({Of course, not} 35... Qe6 $2 36. hxg6+)
({and not} 35... a3 $6 36. h6 Kxh6 $4 (36... Qb2 $1) 37. Qh8+ Kg5 38. Kg3 {and
Qh4 mate.}) 36. Qf5+ {Again I agree with Keres: 'Rubinstein is right to give
up any further attempts to win.} ({He forces a draw, since after} 36. gxh5 Qe6
$1 {there is a risk of losing.'}) 36... Kg7 37. Qg5+ (37. gxh5 a3 38. e4 Qb2 $1
{.}) 37... Kh7 38. Qxh5+ Kg7 {. 'It is amazing with what skill Capablanca was
able to draw this bad endgame.' (Keres) --- Was it an accident that Akiba
missed the win? I think not: remember his error against Capa in San Sebastian
- 38 Bd5? (Game No.64), and also other errors, which increased with the years... After all, Rubinstein was first and foremost a great thinker and researcher
in chess, whereas at the board he acted rather conservatively, and was
inferior to Capablanca and Lasker in the purely playing aspects. In order to
withstand the enormous tension and overcome these exceptionally tenacious
fighters, you had to have, like a cat, nine lives! --- After this draw, a
vexing one for White and a fortunate one for Black, the paths of the two
opponents diverged in different directions. The unsettled Rubinstein suffered
a heavy defeat against Lasker (Game No.66) and then, after a bad oversight,
against Alekhine - and produced the greatest surprise of St Petersburg 1914:
he did not finish in the top five places. Whereas the inspired Capablanca set
a fantastic pace (6 out of 7!) and won the preliminary tournament by a big
margin.} 1/2-1/2
[Event "83: St Petersburg, preliminary tourney"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1914.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Capablanca, JR."]
[Black "Bernstein, O."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D51"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "91"]
[EventDate "1914.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{The following win by the Cuban was awarded the first brilliancy prize,
controversially beating the well-known game Nimzowitsch-Tarrasch with bishop
sacrifices on h2 and g2 (Game No.51). However, I am not sure that this
decision of the jury was correct: Capablanca's opponent played the opening
really very badly.} 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. c4 e6 4. Nc3 Nbd7 5. Bg5 Be7 6. e3
c6 $6 {This is Bernstein's favourite plan with ...c7-c6, ...dxc4, ...b7-b5, ...a7-a6, ...c6-c5 and ...Bb7, which was also tried by Capablanca in the
preceding game with Rubinstein (incidentally the latter also made use of this
sensible idea in developing the Meran Variation).} ({However,} 6... O-O {is
more accurate, and only after} 7. Rc1 ({while if} 7. Bd3 {, then immediately}
c5 $1) 7... c6 {.}) 7. Bd3 dxc4 8. Bxc4 b5 9. Bd3 a6 10. e4 e5 $2 {A dubious
venture, which is accurately refuted by Capablanca.} ({The thematic} 10... c5 {
is correct, and if} 11. e5 {-} Nd5 $1 ({but not} 11... cxd4 $2 12. exf6 gxf6
13. Nxd4 fxg5 14. Nxe6 $1 (14. Be4 $5) 14... fxe6 15. Qh5+ Kf8 16. Qf3+ Kg7 17.
Qxa8 Nc5 18. Be2 Bb7 19. Qxd8 Rxd8 20. f3) 12. Bxe7 Qxe7 (12... Nxc3 $2 13.
Bxd8 Nxd1 14. Rxd1 Kxd8 15. Be4 {wins}) 13. Nxd5 exd5 14. O-O c4 15. Bc2 O-O {
with a somewhat inferior, but acceptable game.}) 11. dxe5 Ng4 12. Bf4 $1 Bc5 $2
{For some reason no one has pointed out that this is also a mistake, and
possibly already the decisive one.} ({After} 12... Qc7 $1 {White would have
retained the advantage only by} 13. Rc1 $1 (13. O-O Ngxe5 14. Rc1 Bd6) (13. Qc2
Ngxe5 14. Nxe5 Nxe5 15. Bxe5 Qxe5 16. Nxb5 O-O 17. Nc3 Bd6 {with compensation
for the pawn}) 13... Ngxe5 14. Nd5 $1 Qa5+ 15. Kf1 cxd5 16. Nxe5 Nxe5 17. Bxe5
f6 18. Bf4 Be6 19. exd5 Bxd5 20. Qh5+ Bf7 21. Qf3 O-O 22. Qe4 Bg6 23. Qe6+ Rf7
24. Bxg6 hxg6 25. g3 {etc.}) 13. O-O Qc7 ({Black rejected} 13... Qe7 {because
of} 14. e6 $1 {, although after} fxe6 ({forced:} 14... Qxe6 $2 15. Ng5) 15. e5
O-O 16. Qd2 {things are perhaps not as bad for him as in the game.}) 14. Rc1 f6
({'Necessary, since if} 14... Ngxe5 $2 {there would have followed} 15. Nxe5
Nxe5 16. Nxb5 $1 cxb5 17. b4 {, with a winning position for White.' (Panov).
This is hardly so in view of} ({but} 17. Qh5 $1 {does in fact win}) 17... Bg4
$1 18. Be2 Nf3+ 19. Bxf3 Qxf4 {.}) 15. Bg3 (15. b4 $5 fxe5 16. Bg3 {would have
come to the same thing.}) 15... fxe5 ({In the event of} 15... Ngxe5 {White
could have continued the attack by} 16. Nxe5 fxe5 17. Qb3 {.' (Panov). But
what about, say,} ({I prefer} 17. b4 $5 Bxb4 18. Nd5 Qd6 19. Nxb4 Qxb4 20. Rxc6
{with an obvious advantage}) 17... Qd6 $1 18. Rfd1 {etc.}) 16. b4 $1 Ba7 ({
Also bad are both} 16... Bxb4 {because of} 17. Nd5 Qd6 18. Nxb4 Qxb4 19. Rxc6
O-O 20. Bc2) ({and} 16... Bd6 17. Bxb5 axb5 18. Nxb5 cxb5 19. Rxc7 Bxc7 20. Qd5
Ra6 21. Rc1 Ngf6 22. Qxb5 {. After regaining the pawn, Black is too far behind
in development...}) 17. Bxb5 $1 {(as Capa writes, 'it is now time to carry on
the assault')} axb5 18. Nxb5 Qd8 19. Nd6+ Kf8 20. Rxc6 Nb6 21. Bh4 $1 {'This
is to my mind the finest move in the game. Before making it I had to plough
through a mass of combinations which totalled at least one hundred moves. The
text combination is one of them, and I had to see through the whole thing to
the end before I decided on this move.} ({Otherwise the simple continuation}
21. Nxe5 {would have been adopted.' (Capablanca)}) 21... Qd7 ({If} 21... Nf6 {
the simplest reply is} 22. Nxe5 Qe7 23. Bxf6 gxf6 24. Nxc8 Rxc8 25. Nd7+ {.})
22. Nxc8 $1 {A clear plan;} ({although, in my opinion, the line} 22. b5 $5 Ba6
23. Ng5 Bxb5 24. Rc7 {is also strong.}) 22... Qxc6 23. Qd8+ ({Subsequently the
commentators pointed out a quicker way to win -} 23. Be7+ $1 Ke8 ({or} 23...
Kf7 24. Ng5+ Kg6 25. Qxg4 Qxc8 26. Ne6+ Kf7 27. Qxg7+ Kxe6 28. Rd1 $1) 24. Qd8+
Kf7 25. Ng5+ Kg6 26. Qxh8 Nf6 27. Bxf6 Qxf6 28. h4 $1 {.}) 23... Qe8 ({Not}
23... Kf7 $2 24. Nd6+ {.}) 24. Be7+ Kf7 25. Nd6+ Kg6 26. Nh4+ Kh5 ({If} 26...
Kh6 {, then} 27. Ndf5+ Kh5 28. Ng3+ Kh6 29. Bg5# {.}) 27. Nxe8 Rxd8 ({'The
resistance would by no means have been prolonged by} 27... Rxe8 28. Qd1 {with
the threat of 29 h3!' (Panov)}) 28. Nxg7+ Kh6 29. Ngf5+ Kh5 30. h3 $1 {'The
climax of the combination started with 21 Bh4. White is still threatening mate,
and the best way to avoid it is for Black to give back all the material he is
ahead and remain three pawns behind.' (Capablanca)} Nc8 ({But not} 30... Rd7 $2
31. hxg4+ Kxg4 32. f3+ Kf4 33. g3# {!}) 31. hxg4+ Kxg4 32. Bxd8 Rxd8 33. g3 Rd2
34. Kg2 $1 Re2 ({Or} 34... Rxa2 35. Nf3 {winning. Again Bernstein 'forgets' to
resign...}) 35. a4 Nb6 36. Ne3+ Kh5 37. a5 Nd7 38. Nhf5 Nf6 39. b5 Bd4 40. Kf3
Ra2 41. a6 Ba7 42. Rc1 Rb2 43. g4+ Kg6 44. Rc7 Rxf2+ 45. Kxf2 Nxg4+ 46. Kf3 1-0
[Event "84: St Petersburg, preliminary tourney"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1914.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Capablanca, JR."]
[Black "Janowski, D."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C68"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "61"]
[EventDate "1914.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{Not so spectacular, but no less instructive, was Capa's win over Janowski.
Playing through this game, one is again struck by the difference in class
between the young Cuban and his eminent opponent. To evaluate correctly
Capablanca's role at this stage in the development of chess, it should be
remembered that here he was playing one of the best masters at the start of
the century, and a participant in a match for the world championship.} 1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 {White operates as simply as possible,
remembering San Sebastian, where Capa miraculously escaped, after coming under
a crushing attack (Game No.77). Dry, tedious play sickened Janowski - back in
the match with Lasker (Paris 1909) he played the Exchange Variation badly with
Black, and this had obviously been taken into account by Capablanca.} dxc6 5.
Nc3 ({In the final tournament Lasker 'swindled' Capa with the help of} 5. d4 {
(Game No.68)}) ({and the time for} 5. O-O $1 {had not yet then arrived.}) (5.
O-O Qd6 6. d3 f6 7. Be3 Bg4 (7... Ne7 8. Nbd2 Be6 9. b4 $1) 8. Nbd2 O-O-O 9.
Rb1 $1 Ne7 10. b4 g5 11. a4 Ng6 12. b5 $1 {etc. (Mecking-Korchnoi, Augusta
12th matchgame 1974).}) 5... Bc5 $6 ({The usual} 5... f6 {is sounder.}) 6. d3
Bg4 7. Be3 Bxe3 $6 (7... Qe7 {.}) 8. fxe3 Qe7 $6 ({It would have been better
to play the knight here after} 8... f6 $5 {.}) 9. O-O O-O-O $6 (9... Nh6 {and ...0-0.}) 10. Qe1 Nh6 $6 ({Of course,} 10... f6 {is more accurate, but that was
how they played chess then! Slowly, without himself being aware of it,
Janowski loses the game...}) 11. Rb1 $3 {Not wasting time on a2-a3. This plan
of attack has become a classic one in such positions (see the 5 0-0 Qd6
variation).} f6 12. b4 Nf7 $6 ({Possibly the only defence was} 12... Be6 $1 13.
a4 b6 14. b5 cxb5 15. axb5 a5 {, in order to control the d5-square. But
Janowski simply does not yet realise how bad his position is.}) 13. a4 Bxf3 {
'He simplifies, hoping to lighten White's attack.' (Capablanca)} (13... Be6 $6
{is now too late in view of} 14. b5 cxb5 15. axb5 a5 16. b6 $1 {winning.}) 14.
Rxf3 b6 $2 ({'He is forced to do this in order to avoid the breaking up of his
queenside pawns. The only alternative would have been} 14... b5 {, which on
the face of it looks bad.' (Capablanca) 'Now the white knight occupies d5, and
the game is strategically decided. The best chance of a defence was 14...b5
with the idea of ...Kb7 and ...Ra8.' (Panov) I think that Panov was right,
although Black also has a bad position after} 15. Ne2 $1 Ng5 16. Rf2 Ne6 17.
Nc1 {.}) 15. b5 $1 cxb5 16. axb5 a5 17. Nd5 Qc5 18. c4 $1 {Supporting the
knight and intending a simple and natural strategic plan with d3-d4 and c4-c5.
Amazing: Black has not blundered, yet he can already resign!} Ng5 19. Rf2 ({
But not} 19. Rf1 Ne6 20. Qc3 $2 {because of} Rxd5 $1 21. exd5 Qxe3+ {and ...
Nc5.}) 19... Ne6 20. Qc3 Rd7 21. Rd1 $1 (21. Rd2 $2 Rxd5 $1 {.}) 21... Kb7 $6 (
21... Kd8 {was slightly more tenacious.}) 22. d4 Qd6 ({'Also after} 22... Qf8 {
the game is immediately decided by the same manoeuvre by White.' (Panov)}) 23.
Rc2 $1 exd4 24. exd4 Nf4 {(this loses a piece, but there is no way of saving
the game)} 25. c5 $1 Nxd5 26. exd5 Qxd5 27. c6+ Kb8 28. cxd7 Qxd7 29. d5 Re8
30. d6 cxd6 31. Qc6 {. 'The impetuous Capablanca has gained a whole series of
brilliant wins and now stands ahead of everyone,' Lasker wrote after the
preliminary tournament. 'To score 8 out of 10 - that is no joke! Now he has
the opportunity to show whether he can maintain the advantage he has gained.'
--- However, in the final a miracle of another sort occurred: Lasker, trailing
by one and a half points, managed to defeat Capablanca (Game No.68), score 7
and of 8 and take first place! The Cuban, who also lost to Tarrasch
(blundering a piece), finished half a point behind, while the third
prize-winner Alekhine was 3˝ behind... At the concluding banquet Capablanca
maintained a brave face. He congratulated the world champion on his victory
and apologised for his sharp letter of more than two years earlier regarding
the conditions for the world championship match. In reply Lasker offered a
toast to Capablanca's further successes, and they shook hands with each other
in a sign of reconciliation. --- 'The fact that Capablanca took second place
in this tournament, conceding the advantage to Lasker, must be put down
exclusively to youthful flippancy,' Alekhine later wrote. 'Already then
Capablanca was playing as well as Lasker...' It is well known that during the
tournament, endless dinners, banquets and receptions were arranged in honour
of the amicable and sociable Cuban and, before the decisive game with Tarrasch,
he and Alekhine spent the entire evening making merry with friends and then
they walked for a long time around St Petersburg, with its fairy-tale beauty
of the white nights... --- Capablanca's own summary was interesting: 'My poor
physical condition and Lasker's superb form at the finish tell the tale, but
at any rate it became evident that we stood above the rest of the competitors,
and that only a match could decide who was the better of the two. I hope the
match will come, the sooner the better, as I don't want to play an old man,
but a master in the plenitude of his powers.' --- It cannot be denied that
this is a wish, worthy of a true gentleman! Alas, the First World War
intervened...} 1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "The Marshall Counterattack"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.07"]
{The Marshall Counterattack} 1. -- {Nevertheless Lasker and Capablanca met
once more before the War: in July 1914 in Berlin they played a blitz match of
10 games (at the rate of 5 seconds per move). As the world champion admitted,
'even with such severely restricted time, Capablanca hardly made any mistakes.
' He was victorious in the match (6˝-3˝), winning in study-like fashion
the following ending:} *
[Event "85: Blitz game/composition, Berlin"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1914.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Capablanca, JR."]
[Black "Lasker, Em"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1R1K4/k1n5/Np6/1P1n4/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "5"]
[EventDate "1914.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. Nxc7 Nxc7 2. Ra8+ $3 ({But not} 2. Kxc7 $4 {stalemate!}) 2... Nxa8 (2...
Kxa8 3. Kxc7 Ka7 4. Kc6) (2... Kb7 3. Ra7+ $3 {.}) 3. Kc8 $1 {. Black resigned
due to 4...Nc7 4 Kxc7 etc. --- However, it is hard to imagine what Black's
move was before the initial position. If it was ...Na8-c7, then why not ...
Nd5-c3 and ...Nxb5 with a dead draw? And what did White play before that?...
At any event, the two players 'repaired' the position and published a joint
study in the newspaper Vossische Zeitung (26 07.1914), where the black d5
knight was stationed on e6, and the white king on d7. (It is debateable
whether the above 'game' actually took place, or whether it is entirely a
composition.) --- At that time the current and future world champions
discussed the question of creating an International Chess Federation, of which
the leading chess countries in Europe were in favour. But these plans were
dashed by the war...} *
[Event "86: New York"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1918.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Capablanca, JR."]
[Black "Marshall, F."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C89"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "71"]
[EventDate "1918.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{Capablanca returned to America and over the next five years gradually
prepared for a match for the world crown, performing triumphantly in
second-rate events. He won three New York tournaments (1915, 1916 and 1918),
and at the start of the latter he produced, together with Marshall, another
classic game.} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 {'My first surprise. For the first time in
ten years Marshall allowed me to play a Ruy Lopez.' (Capablanca)} 3. Bb5 a6 4.
Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O $5 {'My second surprise. I now felt
that Marshall had prepared something for me... The reason was that he had
found a prepared a variation for me, and had kept it for two years, awaiting
the opportunity of playing it in a tournament against me.' (Capablanca)} ({
Incidentally, Marshall's idea was anticipated by the game Taubenhaus-Chigorin
(Ostend 1905):} 7... d6 8. c3 O-O 9. d3 Bg4 10. Nbd2 Re8 11. Nf1 d5 $1 12. exd5
Nxd5 13. h3 Bh5 14. g4 Bg6 15. Nxe5 Nxe5 16. Rxe5 {(a familiar picture!)} Nf6
17. d4 Bd6 18. Rxe8+ Qxe8 19. Be3 Be4 $1 20. f3 Bb7 {with excellent
counterplay for the pawn.}) 8. c3 d5 $5 {(here it is, the Marshall Attack!)} 9.
exd5 Nxd5 ({Later the intricate} 9... e4 10. dxc6 exf3 11. Qxf3 Bg4 12. Qg3 Re8
13. d4 Bd6 14. Rxe8+ Qxe8 {was also tried.}) 10. Nxe5 {'The lust of battle had
been aroused within me. I felt that my judgement and skill were being
challenged... I decided that I was in honour bound, so to speak, to take and
pawn and accept the challenge.' (Capablanca)} Nxe5 11. Rxe5 {So, Black has
sacrificed a pawn...} Nf6 $6 ({In 1938 Marshall introduced the main line} 11...
c6 $1 {, which was later developed in detail by Soviet players, including
Spassky and Geller. And nowadays it is played by Adams, Short, Khalifman,
Svidler...}) 12. Re1 ({Later} 12. d4 Bd6 13. Re1 (13. Re2 Nh5 $1) 13... Ng4 14.
h3 Qh4 15. Qf3 $1 {became generally accepted. Capablanca tries to divert his
opponent from his prepared analysis, but things revert to a simple
transposition of moves.}) 12... Bd6 13. h3 Ng4 $5 {Bold - and fully in
Marshall's style.} ({Panov recommended the positional plan with} 13... Bb7 14.
d4 Qd7 {, although a pawn is a pawn.}) 14. Qf3 $1 {Both defence, and
aggression;} (14. hxg4 $2 Qh4 15. Qf3 Bh2+ $1 {and 16...Bxg4 with a decisive
attack.}) 14... Qh4 15. d4 ({Again} 15. hxg4 $2 {is bad in view of} Bh2+ $1 16.
Kf1 Bxg4 17. Qe4 Bf4 $1 18. g3 Qh2 {and White has no defence:} 19. -- (19. Re3
Rae8 20. Qd5 Bxg3 $1 21. Rxg3 (21. Qxf7+ Kh8 $1) 21... Be2+ 22. Ke1 Bf3+) (19.
Bxf7+ Kxf7 20. Qd5+ Kg6 21. Re6+ Bxe6 22. Qxe6+ Kh5 23. Qd5+ Bg5 24. Qg2 Rxf2+
$1 25. Qxf2 Qh1+ 26. Ke2 Re8+ {(Tal)}) (19. gxf4 {(my attempt)} Bh3+ $1 ({but
not} 19... Rae8 20. Bxf7+ Kxf7 21. Qd5+ Kg6 22. Qg5+ Kf7 23. Qd5+ Be6 24. Rxe6
Rxe6 25. f5 Qh3+ 26. Kg1 Qg4+ {with a draw}) 20. Ke2 Rae8 21. d3 Bg4+ 22. Ke3
Rxe4+ 23. dxe4 Qh3+ 24. Kd4 Rd8+ 25. Kc5 Qh6 {winning.})) 15... Nxf2 {'The
trapper trapped. Black, however, had nothing better, and had to go on with the
attack to do or die.' (Capablanca)} ({Not reckoning on Shamkovich's idea of}
15... h5 $5 16. Be3 (16. Nd2 Bh2+ 17. Kf1 Bd6 $1 {is equal}) 16... Nxe3 17.
Rxe3 Qf4 18. Qxf4 Bxf4 19. Re1 Bf5 {, when Black's two powerful bishops
prevent White from converting his extra pawn.}) 16. Re2 ({Of course, not} 16.
Qxf2 $2 Bh2+ $1 17. Kf1 Bg3 18. Qe2 Bxh3 19. gxh3 Rae8 {and White is in
trouble.}) ({However, in the 1950s it transpired that} 16. Bd2 $1 {is stronger,
for example:} -- (16... Bb7 $6 17. Qxb7 Nd3 18. Re2 $1 Rae8 ({or} 18... Qg3 19.
Kf1 $1 Qh2 20. g4 $1 Qxh3+ 21. Qg2 Qh4 22. Be3 Rae8 23. Nd2 Bf4 24. Nf3 Qh6 25.
Bc2 {and wins}) 19. Qf3 Rxe2 20. Qxe2 Qg3 21. Qf3 $1 Qh2+ 22. Kf1 Qh1+ 23. Ke2
Nxb2 24. Be3 {winning (Euwe)}) (16... Bxh3 17. gxh3 Nxh3+ 18. Kf1 Ng5 {
(Lilienthal)} (18... g5 19. Re4 Bf4 20. Bxf4 Nxf4 21. Nd2 Rad8 22. Rxf4 $1 gxf4
23. Ne4 {Aronin}) 19. Bxg5 (19. Qg2 Rae8 $1) 19... Qxg5 20. Na3 c5 21. Rad1 {
with an obvious advantage to White.}) (16... Ng4 $2 17. Re8 $1) (16... Be6 $2
17. Re3 $1 ({but not} 17. Qxf2 $2 Bg3 18. Qe3 Rae8 19. Re2 Bxh3 20. Qxe8 Be6 $1
{.}))) 16... Bg4 $2 {'The best way to continue the attack.' (Capablanca)
Nothing of the sort!} ({Tartakower pointed out the saving move} 16... Ng4 $1 {
, for example:} 17. -- (17. Re8 Nf6 $1 18. Rxf8+ Kxf8 19. Nd2 Rb8 20. Nf1 Bb7 {
with equality}) (17. Bf4 Bb7 18. d5 Nf6 19. Bxd6 cxd6 20. Nd2 Rae8 {is also
level}) (17. Qxa8 Qg3 18. hxg4 Qh2+ 19. Kf1 ({sharp play also results from} 19.
Kf2 $5 Bxg4 20. Qe4 Bg3+ 21. Ke3 Qg1+ 22. Kd3 Bxe2+ 23. Qxe2 Qxc1 24. Bd1 Be1
$5 25. Qxe1 Qxb2 26. Bb3 Qxa1 27. Kc2 a5 {etc.}) 19... Bg3 20. Be3 Qh1+ 21. Bg1
Bh2 22. -- ({, and here everyone gives the cooperative variation} 22. Ke1 $2
Qxg1+ 23. Kd2 Bf4+) ({, overlooking} 22. Bxf7+ $1 Kh8 ({or} 22... Rxf7+ 23. Ke1
Qxg1+ 24. Kd2 Rf8 25. Qd5+ Kh8 26. Qf3 $1 Bd6 27. Re1) 23. Re6 $3 Qxg1+ 24. Ke2
Qc1 25. Nd2 Qxa1 26. Re8 Rxe8+ 27. Bxe8 Bxg4+ 28. Kd3 Bf5+ 29. Ke2 {with
equality})) (17. g3 $5 {(this would appear to be the best)} Qxh3 18. Qxa8 Bxg3
19. Qg2 Qh4 20. Nd2 {and there is everything to play for.})) 17. hxg4 ({But not
} 17. Qxf2 $2 Bg3 18. Qf1 Bxe2 19. Qxe2 Rae8 {.}) 17... Bh2+ ({Less good was}
17... Nxg4 $6 18. Bf4 $1 {.}) 18. Kf1 Bg3 ({'I expected} 18... Nh1 {. White,
however, can defend in several ways. The best might be} 19. Be3 {.'
(Capablanca) And indeed, after} Ng3+ 20. Ke1 Rae8 21. Nd2 Bg1 22. Nf1 Nxe2+ 23.
Kxe2 Qg5 24. Re1 {Black is lost.}) 19. Rxf2 Qh1+ 20. Ke2 Bxf2 $6 ({White would
have been set greater problems by} 20... Qxc1 $1 21. Qxg3 (21. Bxf7+ $6 Kh8 22.
Rf1 Qc2+ 23. Nd2 Rae8+ $1) ({or} 21. Rf1 Rae8+ 22. Kd3 Re3+ 23. Qxe3 Qxf1+ 24.
Qe2 Qc1 {is not so clear}) 21... Qxb2+ 22. Kd3 Qxa1 23. Kc2 Rae8 $1 ({Panov's
suggestion of} 23... b4 $6 24. g5 $1 {is weaker}) 24. Qxc7 Re1 25. Nd2 {etc.})
21. Bd2 $1 Bh4 22. Qh3 $1 {'Black, in order to avoid the exchange of queens,
is now compelled to drive the king to c2, where he is safe.' (Capablanca)}
Rae8+ 23. Kd3 Qf1+ 24. Kc2 Bf2 25. Qf3 $1 {After this pendulum move Black's
activity comes to a standstill.} Qg1 {Unpinning the bishop.} ({If} 25... Re2 {
, then} 26. a4 $1 Qe1 27. axb5 $1 Rxd2+ (27... Be3 $2 28. Qxe3 $1) 28. Nxd2
Qxa1 29. Qxf2 axb5 30. Nf3 {wins.}) 26. Bd5 c5 27. dxc5 Bxc5 28. b4 $1 {The
attack is repulsed, and White's material advantage decides the outcome.} Bd6
29. a4 a5 $6 {(a despairing chance)} 30. axb5 axb4 31. Ra6 $1 bxc3 32. Nxc3 Bb4
33. b6 Bxc3 34. Bxc3 h6 ({Or} 34... Re3 35. Qxf7+ $1 {.}) 35. b7 Re3 36. Bxf7+
$1 {. In view of inevitable mate, Black resigned. 'This clash, like the San
Sebastian game Capablanca-Janowski (Game No.77), clearly demonstrates the
Cuban player's skill in the defence of even the most complicated and
double-edged positions.' (Panov)} 1-0
[Event "87: Hastings"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1919.??.??"]
[Round "4"]
[White "Capablanca, JR."]
[Black "Thomas, G."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C66"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "57"]
[EventDate "1919.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{In the spring of 1919 Capablanca won a match in Havana against Boris Kosti?
(the second prize-winner at New York 1918), who before that had drawn all his
games with the Cuban, but here the score was 5-0! The winner was to be the
first to win eight games, but Kostic fully appreciated the situation and
resigned the match... --- In the summer Capa again moved to Europe and played
in the tournament in Hastings, which from that time began to be held every
year (true, in the Christmas holidays), but in that post-war year it did not
have many famous names: 1. Capablanca - 10˝ out of 11; 2. Kostic - 9˝; 3-4.
Thomas and Yates - 7 etc. --- Over that five-year period the Cuban had
reinforced the legend of his invincibility, gaining an impressive score in
serious games: +48 -1 =10. In his opinion, in St Petersburg he had already
achieved the peak of his chess strength. 'Hereafter I may gain a little from
experience,' he wrote in 1919, 'and the style may be changed somewhat
accordingly, but whatever I may gain in one way I am sure will show a
corresponding loss somewhere else.' --- His play seemed almost ideal, and only
after a careful study was it possible to see 'spots on the sun' - barely
perceptible symptoms of the process that Soviet journalism, which was rich in
nicknames, christened 'the degradation of creative directives'. --- Typical
was the finish to the Hastings game between Capablanca and Sir George Thomas,
the leading English player of that time (and, incidentally, very highly
respected in the chess world).} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 d6 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. d4
Be7 6. O-O Bd7 7. Re1 Nxd4 8. Nxd4 exd4 9. Qxd4 Bxb5 10. Nxb5 a6 11. Nc3 O-O
12. Bg5 Nd7 13. Bxe7 Qxe7 14. Nd5 Qd8 15. Re3 Ne5 16. Rg3 f6 17. f4 Nc6 18. Qc3
Rf7 19. f5 Qf8 20. Qb3 Kh8 21. Nf4 Ne5 22. Qxb7 Rb8 23. Qxa6 Rxb2 24. Rb3 Rxc2
25. Rab1 h6 26. Ng6+ Nxg6 27. fxg6 Re7 28. Rb8 Re8 {. Here White landed the
'decisive' blow} 29. Qa8 $2 (29. Qa8 -- ({, and... Black resigned because of}
29... Rxb8 $2 30. Rxb8 {with unavoidable mate. Another masterpiece by the
Cuban genius? Alas, just the opposite!}) ({. The unexpected} 29... Rxa2 $3 {
would have dispelled White's illusions: after} 30. Qb7 (30. Qxa2 Rxb8) (30.
Rxe8 Rxa8 $1 31. Rxf8+ Rxf8) 30... c5 31. Rxe8 Qxe8 32. Qf7 Ra8 {the limit of
his dreams is compensation for the pawn.})) ({Meanwhile he missed an easy win:
} 29. Qb5 $1 Rxb8 30. Qxb8 Rc1+ (30... Kg8 31. Qb3+) 31. Kf2 Rc2+ 32. Ke3 Kg8
33. Qb3+ d5 34. Qxc2) ({or, even more attractive,} 29. Rxe8 $1 Qxe8 30. Qa4 $3
Rxg2+ (30... Qxa4 31. Rb8+ {and mate}) (30... Rc1+ 31. Kf2) 31. Kxg2 Qxg6+ 32.
Kh1 {. Curiously, the next day Capablanca managed without any tactical
brilliance, creating a textbook example on the theme 'a bishop out of play'.
(see the following game)}) 1-0
[Event "88: Hastings"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1919.??.??"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Winter, W."]
[Black "Capablanca, JR."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C49"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "58"]
[EventDate "1919.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Bb4 5. O-O O-O 6. Bxc6 $5 ({Instead of
the usual} 6. d3 {.}) 6... dxc6 (6... bxc6 $6 {- Game No.110.}) 7. d3 {
Nimzowitsch's Variation, which is similar to the Exchange Variation and the
later Hort Variation in the Ruy Lopez.} (7. Nxe5 {is harmless in view of} Re8 (
{or immediately} 7... Bxc3 8. dxc3 Nxe4 {.})) 7... Bd6 {A new move!} ({At the
time the following games had been seen, where White had held the initiative:}
7... Bg4 8. h3 Bh5 (8... Bxf3 $5) 9. Bg5 (9. Kh1 Qe7 10. Rg1 Rad8 11. Qe2 h6
12. Nd1 Bc5 13. g4 Bg6 14. Nh4 {Paulsen-Göring, Leipzig 1877}) 9... Qd6 10.
Bxf6 Qxf6 11. g4 Bg6 12. Kg2 Rad8 13. Qe2 {(with the idea of Nd1-e3)} Bxc3 14.
bxc3 c5 15. Nd2 $1 Qe7 16. Nc4 b6 17. Ne3 f6 18. Rg1 {(Nimzowitsch-Leonhardt,
San Sebastian 1911)}) (7... Qd6 8. Ne2 c5 9. Ng3 Ba5 10. Nh4 g6 11. h3 {,
preparing f2-f4 (Nimzowitsch-Vidmar, San Sebastian 1911)}) (7... Re8 8. h3 (8.
Ne2 $5) 8... h6 ({or} 8... Bxc3 9. bxc3 Qd6 10. Nh4 g6 11. f4 {(Capablanca-Kupc
Capablanca-Kupchik, New York 1913)}) 9. Ne2 Nh5 10. g4 Nf6 11. Ng3 Nh7 12. Nf5
Bxf5 13. gxf5 {(Capablanca-Tennenwurtzel, New York 1913)}) (7... Qe7 8. Qe2 (8.
Ne2 $5 {this manoeuvre is also good after the modern 7...Nd7}) 8... Re8 9. h3
g6 10. Qe3 Nh5 11. Ne2 Bc5 12. Qh6 f6 13. g4 Ng7 14. Kg2 Qf7 15. Nh2 Bf8 16.
Qe3 {(Capablanca-Jaffe, New York 1913). --- Incidentally, the idea of spoiling
the pawns by Bxc6 has proved very long-lived, and not only in the Ruy Lopez.
In the Sicilian with 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5, after 3...g6, and 3...e6, and 3...d6 nowadays 4 Bxc6 is often played, giving the opponent the two bishops, but
trying to exploit the superior pawn structure. It is the same in the English
Opening: 1 c4 e5 (1...e6) 2 Nc3 Bb4 or 2...Nf6 3 g3 Bb4, aiming to capture
soon on c3.}) 8. Bg5 $6 {The start of a series of amateur moves.} ({Winter
clearly has no feeling for the subtleties of this variation, as otherwise he
would have preferred} 8. h3) (8. Ne2) ({or even the unusual} 8. Kh1 h6 9. Ng1 {
(Nimzowitsch-Behting, correspondence 1913).}) 8... h6 9. Bh4 c5 {Inhibiting
d3-d4 and ... a slight provocation.} 10. Nd5 $2 {'White falls into the trap.
Only lack of experience can account for this move.' (Capablanca)} (10. Nd2 {
followed by Nc4-e3 was in the spirit of the position.}) 10... g5 $1 11. Nxf6+ (
{In the event of} 11. Nxg5 $2 Nxd5 $1 {White would have lost a piece:} 12. Nf3
Nf6 (12... Be7 $5) 13. Nd2 Be7 {.}) ({Also hopeless was} 11. Bg3 Nxd5 12. exd5
Bg4 13. h3 Bxf3 ({or} 13... Bh5 $5 14. Bh2 f5) 14. Qxf3 f5 {(then ...Qf6, ...Kh7, ...Rf7, ...Rg8 and ...g5-g4 with an attack).}) 11... Qxf6 12. Bg3 Bg4 13.
h3 Bxf3 14. Qxf3 Qxf3 15. gxf3 f6 $1 {'A simple examination will show that
White is minus a bishop for all practical purposes. Black now devotes all his
energy to the queenside, and having practically a bishop more the result
cannot be in doubt.' (Capablanca) Whether this is so, we shall see...} 16. Kg2
({After} 16. c3 Rad8 17. Rfd1 Rd7 18. Kf1 $5 (18. Rd2 Rfd8 {White would have
been unable to play d3-d4 without losing material}) 18... Kf7 19. Ke2 {would
have retained chances of a successful defence. However, the difference in the
two opponents' standard of play was so great that Winter's choice is of no
great importance.}) 16... a5 {(threatening 17...a4)} 17. a4 Kf7 {In my opinion.
the key moment of the game.} 18. Rh1 $6 {The opening of the h-file does not
help White: his bishop remains unemployed.} ({Much more interesting was the
attempt, ignored by all the commentators, to create a fortress - 18 c4!, for
example:} 18. c4 c6 19. Rfc1 Rfb8 20. b3 b5 21. Rc3 $1 Rb6 22. Kf1 bxc4 23.
dxc4 Rab8 24. Ra3 $1 {and Ke2-d2-c2. --- It would appear that the version
stemming from Capablanca about 'how simple it is to win such a game' is
another beautiful legend...} ({But not} 24. Rb1 $2 Rb4 {with the threat of ...Rxa4.})) 18... Ke6 {(preparatory centralisation)} 19. h4 Rfb8 20. hxg5 hxg5 21.
b3 ({If} 21. c4 $5 {Black would also have replied} c6 {followed by ...b7-b5.})
21... c6 $1 ({Only not} 21... b5 $2 22. axb5 Rxb5 23. Ra4 Rb4 24. Rha1 {with
counterplay.}) 22. Ra2 b5 23. Rha1 c4 $1 {The decisive breakthrough.} ({Now it
all is indeed simple: if} 23... c4 24. dxc4 bxc4 25. bxc4 {, then} Rb4 $1 {,
followed by ...Rab8, ...Rxc4 etc.}) 24. axb5 cxb3 25. cxb3 (25. Rxa5 $2 Rxa5
26. Rxa5 b2 {.}) 25... Rxb5 26. Ra4 Rxb3 27. d4 Rb5 $1 28. Rc4 (28. dxe5 fxe5
$1 {.}) 28... Rb4 29. Rxc6 (29. Rxb4 Bxb4 30. dxe5 fxe5 31. Rc1 c5 {also wins.}
) 29... Rxd4 {The triumph of the play aimed at isolating the bishop.} ({In
view of} 29... Rxd4 30. Rc2 a4 31. Rca2 a3 32. Kf1 Rb8 33. Ke2 Rb2+ 34. Rxb2
axb2 35. Rb1 Ba3 36. Ke3 Rc4 37. Kd2 Rc1 {White resigned. --- I repeat,
Capablanca won his games mainly because he thought in general categories that
were unfamiliar to the majority of his opponents. He intuitively grasped and
devised plans for creating weaknesses in the opponent's position - this was
the next step in the development of the Steinitz School. This strategy gave
such excellent results, that Capa became lazy about making concrete
calculations, doing so only in cases of extreme necessity, as in the above
duel with Marshall, and sometimes miscalculating, as in the game with Thomas.})
0-1
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Coronation in his Native Land"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.07"]
{Coronation in his Native Land: Early in 1920 Lasker and Capablanca met in The
Hague and signed an agreement about a match for the world championship. The
champion wanted to play in Holland and the USA, but due to financial problems
this idea failed. By the summer Lasker felt that he had been left to the mercy
of fate and he even renounced his title in favour of Capablanca! I think that
this was some kind of game: the chess world could not accept such a gift from
the long-standing and undisputed champion... The situation was saved by the
challenger's Havana admirers, who invested a record sum of $20,000 in the
match. --- Financially ruined by the War, Lasker did not resist this
suggestion, although earlier he had 'firmly decided not to lower the dignity
of the champion and not to travel to his opponent's country, to sub-tropical
Havana.' But the chess public had long been demanding a match for the crown,
and in the spring of 1921 this match at last took place. They played with a
control of 30 moves in two hours, for the first time to the best of 24 games
(later Botvinnik liked this rule and it became a standard one during the
second half of the 20th century).} 1. -- {Also for the first time, at the
suggestion of the champion, the match agreement included an item that the
games were the personal property of the players, who had exclusive rights to
their publication. However, nothing came of this: one of the American
journalists distributed the game scores right round the world... --- Of course,
playing in hot and sultry Havana was very difficult for the 52-year-old Lasker.
This is not the sort of age when you can endure such trials. Yes, at the same
age Steinitz defeated Chigorin in Havana, but Lasker was playing a Cuban, not
a European! In addition, the champion was badly prepared. He himself wrote: 'I
wasn't able to do any worthwhile training. The last few days before the match
I used for acclimatisation, hoping to warm up during the actual play, which I
had often succeeded in doing previously, especially in St Petersburg.' --- By
contrast, the 32-year-old Capablanca, who had been gathering strength far away
from the War, was clearly on the rise. Nevertheless, Lasker did not intend to
lay down his arms and the match, especially initially, took a very tough and
tenacious course. The initial four games ended in draws, and only in the first
did one of the sides have any appreciable problems: the champion obtained a
good position with Black, but he made a mistake and had to find virtually the
only moves to save himself. --- The first decisive game was the fifth, in
which both players displayed brilliant resourcefulness in an unusual position
(see the following game).} *
[Event "89: World Championship Match, Havana"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1921.??.??"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Capablanca, JR."]
[Black "Lasker, Em"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D63"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "91"]
[EventDate "1921.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. c4 e6 4. Bg5 Nbd7 (4... c5 $6 {- Game No. 61.}) 5. e3
Be7 6. Nc3 O-O 7. Rc1 b6 (7... c6 $1) ({or} 7... a6 {is objectively better.})
8. cxd5 exd5 9. Qa4 ({The first game went} 9. Bb5 {(Capablanca's patent;
Pillsbury played 9 Bd3!? - Game No.38)} Bb7 10. Qa4 $6 ({for some reason
deviating from the successful} 10. O-O a6 11. Ba4 Rc8 12. Qe2 c5 13. dxc5 $1 {
Capablanca-Teichmann, Berlin 1913}) 10... a6 $1 11. Bxd7 (11. Bc6 $2 b5) 11...
Nxd7 {with an equal game.}) 9... c5 $5 {'A bold, risky move, involving a pawn
sacrifice.' (Panov)} ({If} 9... Bb7 {Lasker did not like} 10. Ba6 $1 {(Game No.
79).}) 10. Qc6 Rb8 11. Nxd5 Bb7 ({If} 11... Nxd5 $5 {comes into consideration:}
12. Qxd5 Bb7 13. Bxe7 Qxe7 14. Qg5 (14. Qc4 Bxf3 15. gxf3 Rfd8 $5) 14... Qxg5
15. Nxg5 cxd4 ({Capablanca suggested} 15... h6 16. Nf3 Bxf3 17. gxf3 cxd4 18.
Rc7 Rfd8) 16. Rd1 $5 {(Euwe)} (16. exd4 Nf6 $1 {etc.}) 16... Nf6 17. Rxd4 Rbc8
{with counterplay, most probably sufficient for a draw. Lasker chose a more
complicated way.}) 12. Nxe7+ Qxe7 13. Qa4 Rbc8 $2 {Too slow.} ({As Duras
pointed out, correct was} 13... Bxf3 $1 14. gxf3 cxd4 15. Qxd4 Ne5 16. Be2 Rbd8
17. Qf4 (17. Qc3 Rd5) 17... Rd6 {the initiative:} 18. O-O $6 Rd2 $1 {. Even if
Black did not have 100% compensation for the pawn, this was definitely the
best chance.}) 14. Qa3 $1 Qe6 15. Bxf6 $1 Qxf6 16. Ba6 $1 {With a series of
accurate and strong moves Capa has gained an obvious advantage. Here most of
his opponents would not have lasted long, but Lasker, though pinned to the
wall, only now begins to demonstrate his true strength.} Bxf3 $1 ({This
exchange sacrifice is effectively the only chance: bad are both} 16... Bxa6 17.
Qxa6) ({and} 16... cxd4 17. Rxc8 Rxc8 18. O-O Bxa6 19. Qxa6 Rc2 20. Qa4 $1 Rc7
21. Nxd4 {.}) 17. Bxc8 Rxc8 18. gxf3 Qxf3 19. Rg1 Re8 $1 ({Bad is} 19... Qh3 $2
20. Qxa7 Qxh2 21. Qxd7 Qxg1+ 22. Ke2 $1 {winning.}) 20. Qd3 ({But not} 20. Qxa7
$2 Rxe3+ {.}) 20... g6 21. Kf1 Re4 $1 {Lasker's tactical resourcefulness is
impressive: by giving up the exchange, he has gained definite counterplay
instead of a hopeless position. But Capablanca also plays well, accurately
parrying the threats and retaining his extra material.} 22. Qd1 ({If} 22. dxc5
Nxc5 23. Qd5 {there can follow} Qh3+ 24. Rg2 Rg4 25. Kg1 Ne4 26. Rxg4 Qxg4+ 27.
Kf1 Qh3+ ({but not} 27... Qf3 $2 28. Rc8+ Kg7 29. Qe5+ Kh6 30. Qf4+) 28. Ke1
Qg4 {with compensation for the material deficit.}) 22... Qh3+ 23. Rg2 Nf6 {
With the threat of ...Rg4.} ({Less good is} 23... cxd4 $6 24. Rc4 $1 {.}) 24.
Kg1 $1 cxd4 ({If} 24... Rg4 $6 {there is} 25. Rg3 $1 ({less clear is} 25. Qf1
cxd4 26. exd4 Qh4 ({but not} 26... Rxd4 $4 27. Rxg6+ $1 {and Qxh3})) 25...
Rxg3+ 26. hxg3 Ng4 27. Qf3 {winning. But now something out of the ordinary is
demanded of White.}) 25. Rc4 $1 {'Wonderful!' (Lasker) And this is indeed an
excellent defensive move, forcing the exchange of the menacing black rook.} ({
After} 25. exd4 $2 Nd5 $1 26. Rg3 Qe6 {Black would have had serious
compensation for the exchange: for the moment White's rooks are out of play,
his king is exposed, he has a mass of weaknesses, and ...h7-h5-h4 is imminent.}
) 25... dxe3 ({Bad is} 25... Rg4 $6 26. Rc8+ Kg7 27. Rxg4 Nxg4 28. Qxd4+ {.})
26. Rxe4 Nxe4 ({Of course, not} 26... exf2+ $2 27. Rxf2 Nxe4 28. Qd8+ Kg7 29.
Qd4+ {.}) 27. Qd8+ Kg7 28. Qd4+ Nf6 29. fxe3 $1 ({After} 29. Qxe3 Qf5 {White's
advantage would have been less.}) 29... Qe6 30. Rf2 g5 {To escape from the pin
by ...Kg6.} 31. h4 gxh4 {It is usual to attach a question mark to this move.} (
{'} 31... Kg6 {was better. Then if} 32. hxg5 Ne4 33. Qd3 Qg4+ 34. Rg2 Qh4 35.
Qb1 Kg7 {the pawn at g5 falls and Black has a good position.' (Lasker) At
first sight here it is indeed impossible to convert the exchange advantage:
the white king is exposed, and Black's queen and knight dominate. --- And yet
White has a way to gain an advantage:} 36. Qd1 $1 ({this is stronger than} 36.
Qf1 Nxg5 37. Qf4 Qe1+ 38. Kh2 h6 39. Rf2) 36... Kg6 37. Qf3 $1 {(threatening
Qf4)} Nxg5 38. Qg3 {with good winning chances. So that 31...Kg6 was by no
means better than the move in the game.}) 32. Qxh4 Ng4 33. Qg5+ Kf8 34. Rf5 ({'
} 34. Rd2 $1 {was very strong.} f6 {must be played and Black's king becomes
exposed to attack.' (Lasker) 'If 34...f6, then 35 Qf4,} ({while if} 34... Nf6 {
there follows} 35. e4 {' (Panov)} ({Excuse me, but this blunders a pawn (35...
Qxe4!) - correct is} 35. Qf4 {with an advantage that is probably sufficient to
win, although Black has some saving chances.}))) 34... h5 $1 {Making use of
the slight respite, Black unexpectedly creates counterplay.} ({'Not} 34...
Qxe3+ 35. Qxe3 Nxe3 36. Rf2 $1 {and 37 Re2 and White wins.' (Lasker)}) 35. Qd8+
Kg7 36. Qg5+ Kf8 37. Qd8+ Kg7 38. Qg5+ Kf8 39. b3 $6 {After checking to gain
time on the clock, Capa makes a move 'by eye', a solid one which, though not
noticed by anyone, is not the most accurate.} ({Stronger was} 39. Qxh5 $1 Qxe3+
40. Kg2 Qd2+ 41. Kg3 Nh6 42. Rd5 Qe1+ 43. Kg2 Qe4+ 44. Kf2 {, and White should
win: it is hardly possible for Black to exploit the open position of his king
(it can cross to the queenside). --- In the match with Lasker, and also
earlier, Capablanca got away with this customary unwillingness to make a
detailed calculation of 'dangerous' variations, but later it was to let him
down in his match with Alekhine.}) 39... Qd6 $1 {A brilliant reply: White is
tied down, and he is forced to bring back his queen.} 40. Qf4 $1 Qd1+ 41. Qf1
Qd2 42. Rxh5 ({Perhaps} 42. Qf3 $5 {was better, but Capa probably thought that
in any case his position was won. As a result, although he refuted the
exchange sacrifice, he threw away his advantage and won only thanks to a
blunder by his opponent. Such slight inaccuracies harboured the germ, as yet
hardly visible, of the future defeat of the third world champion...}) 42...
Nxe3 43. Qf3 Qd4 $1 {Amazing resourcefulness. A clear winning plan for White
is no longer evident (at least, I have not found a direct win), and some
extraordinary measures are required.} 44. Qa8+ $6 {(objectively it is wrong to
move the queen away, but it is a chance!)} Ke7 45. Qb7+ ({Of course, not} 45.
Qxa7+ $2 Ke6 {.}) 45... Kf8 $4 {A great pity: the tired world champion
blunders his knight. 'A terrible mistake. I had a quarter of an hour for
thinking, but I was completely incapable of doing so.} ({By} 45... Ke6 {(or 45.
..Kf6) Black would have avoided the exchange of queens.' (Lasker) And it would
indeed be interesting to know how White could have won after} 46. Qc6+ Ke7 47.
Qf3 {.}) ({I also like} 45... Kd6 $5 {. For example:} 46. Qf3 $1 Nd5+ $1 ({
inferior is} 46... f5 $6 47. Rh6+ Ke5 48. Qg3+ f4 49. Qg7+ Ke4 50. Re6+ Kd3 51.
Qxd4+ Kxd4 52. Kf2) 47. Kh2 f6 {, again with real drawing chances.}) 46. Qb8+ (
46. Qb8+ Ke7 47. Qe5+ {. The challenger took the lead: 3-2.}) (46. -- {The
next four games took a quiet course, in which Capablanca did not have any
advantage. In the sixth game after lengthy manoeuvres Lasker even gained the
better of a double-rook endgame, but suddenly he lost a pawn (again a blunder!)
and was forced urgently to make a draw. The seventh and eighth games were
short draws, and in the ninth the champion gained some advantage this time
with Black, but threw it away with one move... --- Lasker's problem was not
the blunders, but the fact that he was quite unable to set the Cuban any real
problems. He was evidently affected by the uncustomary Havana climate, and
therefore the course of the match did not reflect the true relative strengths
of the two players (remember Lasker's subsequent tournament successes). But we
must not belittle Capablanca's achievement - he could probably have played
more strongly, if it had been required. As we shall see, in Buenos Aires 1927,
when he was pressed, he began playing quite differently... --- But for the
moment the practical challenger was in no hurry to 'strike while the iron was
hot'. And the champion too patiently made draws, in order to play himself in -
and then to see whether it might be possible somewhere to catch his languid
opponent.}) 1-0
[Event "90: World Championship Match, Havana"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1921.??.??"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Lasker, Em"]
[Black "Capablanca, JR."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D61"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "136"]
[EventDate "1921.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{In all probability it was the 10th game that proved the decisive one of the
match.} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 O-O 6. Nf3 Nbd7 7. Qc2 {
(the Rubinstein Attack)} c5 $1 ({More passive is} 7... b6 {(Game No.60)}) ({or
} 7... c6 {(fourth game), when} 8. Rd1 {is strong.}) ({Rubinstein himself
first played} 7... h6 8. -- ({, removing the pawn from attack in the event of}
8. Bh4 c5 $1 9. cxd5 Nxd5 10. Bxe7 Qxe7 11. Nxd5 exd5 12. Bd3 $6 {- now Black
has a tempo for 12...c4;} ({while if} 12. dxc5 Nxc5 13. Be2 {, then} Bg4 ({or}
13... Be6 {is equal.}))) (8. h4 $5 c5 $1) ({. Therefore in a game with
Portisch (Brussels 1986) I risked sacrificing the bishop by} 8. cxd5 $5 {
Portisch did not accept the challenge, but replied} exd5 ({the variation} 8...
hxg5 9. dxe6 fxe6 10. Nxg5 Nb6 11. h4 $1 {is hard to evaluate, but in practice
Black is not burning with the desire to take such a piece...}) 9. Bf4 $1 c5 (
9... c6 10. O-O-O $1) 10. Be2 b6 11. O-O Bb7 12. Rfd1 Rc8 13. dxc5 bxc5 (13...
Nxc5 14. Qf5 $1) 14. a4 $1 Qa5 $2 (14... a5 {was better}) 15. Nh4 $1 Rfd8 16.
Nf5 Bf8 17. Nb5 Ne8 (17... Ba8 18. Qc3 $1) 18. Bd6 $1 {he ran into
difficulties.})) 8. Rd1 ({The sharp plan with} 8. O-O-O {has lost its
popularity due to} Qa5 $1 9. -- (9. cxd5 exd5 10. dxc5 Nxc5 11. Nd4 {(it is
extremely dangerous to take the d5-pawn)} Be6 12. Kb1 Rac8 13. Bd3 h6 14. Bxf6
Bxf6 15. Bf5 Rfd8 16. Bxe6 fxe6 17. Qg6 Rd6 {with advantage to Black
(Rotlewi-Teichmann, Carlsbad 1911).}) ({. Many years later, in a game with
Fichtl (Prague 1943), Keres played} 9. Kb1 $1 -- ({, and won after} 9... cxd4
10. exd4 dxc4 11. Bxc4 Nb6 12. Bb3 Bd7 13. Ne5 Rac8 14. Qe2 Nbd5 $2 (14... Rfd8
15. h4 $1 {and Rh3 is unclear}) 15. Nxd5 Nxd5 16. Nxd7 $1 {.}) ({. Theory
began recommending} 9... h6 10. -- ({, with the idea of} 10. Bxf6 Nxf6 11. Ne5
cxd4 12. exd4 Bb4 {equalising}) ({, and} 10. h4 {was considered incorrect
because of} cxd4 11. Nxd4 {(? - G.K.)} dxc4 12. Bxc4 Nb6 13. Bb3 hxg5 $1 14.
hxg5 Qxg5 15. f4 Qg6 {.}) ({. However, in the game Kasparov-Marovic (Banja
Luka 1979) White did in fact play} 10. h4 $5 dxc4 ({if} 10... cxd4 {, then} 11.
exd4 $1 hxg5 $2 12. hxg5 Ne4 13. Nxe4 dxe4 14. c5 $1 {with a strong attack})
11. Bxc4 Nb6 $6 ({better is} 11... cxd4 12. exd4 Nb6 13. Bb3 Bd7 14. Ne5 Rac8
15. Rh3 $1 {with chances for both sides}) 12. Bxf6 gxf6 ({after} 12... Bxf6 13.
Ne4 cxd4 14. Nxf6+ gxf6 15. Rxd4 Nxc4 16. Rg4+ $1 Kh8 17. Rxc4 e5 {the pretty}
18. Ng5 $1 fxg5 19. hxg5 e4 20. Rc5 Qb4 21. a3 $1 {is decisive}) 13. Be2 cxd4
14. exd4 Bd7 15. Rh3 $1 {with an obvious advantage.})))) ({Even so, this
bloodthirsty line is dubious, and nowadays White prefers to fight for a small
plus:} 8. cxd5 Nxd5 9. Bxe7 Qxe7 10. Nxd5 exd5 11. Bd3 g6 12. dxc5 Nxc5 13. O-O
(13. Rc1 Nxd3+ 14. Qxd3 Bf5 $1 {with a rapid draw, Alekhine-Capablanca, Buenos
Aires 10th matchgame 1927}) 13... Bg4 14. Nd4 {etc. (a recent example:
Nikolic-Piket, Wijk aan Zee 2000).}) 8... Qa5 9. Bd3 ({The seventh game, where
Capa was White, went} 9. cxd5 Nxd5 10. Bxe7 Nxe7 11. Bd3 Nf6 12. O-O cxd4 13.
Nxd4 Bd7 14. Ne4 Ned5 15. Nb3 Qd8 16. Nxf6+ Nxf6 17. Qc5 Qb6 18. Rc1 Rfc8 19.
Qxb6 axb6 20. Rxc8+ Rxc8 21. Rc1 Rxc1+ 22. Nxc1 Kf8 {˝-˝.}) 9... h6 10. Bh4
cxd4 ({According to Alekhine,} 10... Nb6 $1 {is sounder.}) 11. exd4 dxc4 12.
Bxc4 Nb6 13. Bb3 Bd7 14. O-O Rac8 {A classic set-up in the spirit of Steinitz
(cf. Game No.18).} ({Inferior is} 14... Bc6 15. Ne5 Bd5 $6 (15... Rac8 $1) 16.
Nxd5 Nbxd5 17. Qe2 Rad8 18. f4 $1 Ne8 $6 19. Bxe7 Nxe7 20. f5 Nxf5 21. Nxf7 $1
{with a decisive attack (Stahlberg-Capablanca, Moscow 1935).}) 15. Ne5 ({
Tartakower suggested} 15. Qe2 $5 {.}) 15... Bb5 {'This is a weak move which
might have given Black a great deal of trouble.} ({The simple and logical move
} 15... Bc6 {, threatening ...Bd5, would have given Black an excellent game.'
(Capablanca) Although the aforementioned game against Stahlberg does not
confirm this...}) 16. Rfe1 Nbd5 {The first critical moment. Lasker's next move
shows that the typical methods of playing positions with an isolated d-pawn
had not yet been mastered.} 17. Bxd5 $2 {A completely unnecessary exchange,
denying White all hopes of an advantage (a similar mistake was made by
Zukertort - Game No.18).} ({Whereas Breyer's suggestion of} 17. Bxf6 $1 Bxf6 (
17... Nxf6 $2 18. Ng6 $1 Rfe8 19. Rxe6 {wins}) 18. Bxd5 exd5 19. Qf5 $1 {would
have set Black problems:} -- (19... Bc6 {(Bogoljubow)} 20. Ng4 $1 (20. Nd7 Bxd7
21. Qxd7 Rfd8 $1 22. Qf5 $1 Rc4 $1 23. Nxd5 Qxd5 24. Re8+ Rxe8 25. Qxd5 Rxd4
26. Qf3 Rxd1+ 27. Qxd1 Bxb2 {is equal}) 20... Bg5 21. f4 g6 22. Nf6+ $1 ({
previously they only considered} 22. Qe5 $6 Rce8 23. Nf6+ Bxf6 24. Qxf6 Qb4 $1
{with equal chances}) 22... Bxf6 ({not} 22... Kg7 $2 23. Nh5+ $1 Kh7 24. Qe5)
23. Qxf6 {with a dangerous initiative}) (19... Bxe5 $5 {(apparently the best
defence)} 20. Rxe5 (20. dxe5 Bc4 $1) 20... Bc4 21. a3 Qb6 22. Rd2 {with some
pressure.})) 17... Nxd5 18. Bxe7 Nxe7 19. Qb3 Bc6 20. Nxc6 bxc6 21. Re5 ({'If}
21. Na4 {, then} Rfd8 {(with the threat of ...Rxd4)} 22. Re5 Rd5 $1 {' (Panov)
Apparently Lasker, true to his match strategy, did not object to a draw, and
thought that the weakness on d4 would be offset by the weakness on c6. But, as
becomes clear, the d-pawn is weaker and it is not so simple for White to draw.}
) 21... Qb6 22. Qc2 Rfd8 23. Ne2 $2 {Too passive!} ({'The rook went to e5 to
control c5, therefore} 23. Na4 {was the right move.' (Lasker) Of course, 23
Na4! is what White should have played - although after} Qb8 24. Rc5 Nf5 25.
Rxc6 Rxc6 26. Qxc6 Nxd4 27. Qe4 $1 e5 {Black would have retained a microscopic
plus, with accurate play White should nevertheless have been able to draw. Now
he has problems.}) ({But not} 23. Rc5 $2 Rxd4 $1 {.}) 23... Rd5 $1 24. Rxd5 {
'A worse mistake than the previous move.} ({After} 24. Re3 Nf5 25. Rb3 Qd8 26.
Rb4 {White gains time later by Rc4, or Ra4, or g2-g4.' (Lasker) 'But after 26...Qd7 with the threats of 27...e5 or 27...Rd8 White has a difficult position.'
(Panov)} ({I should add that} 26. Rbd3 {is also insufficient in view of} Qd7
27. b4 Rd8 28. h3 e5 $1 {etc.})) 24... cxd5 {'From now on the student will do
well to study carefully every move up to the end. It is one of Black's best
efforts in his whole career, and that against one of the strongest players the
world has ever seen.' (Capablanca)} 25. Qd2 Nf5 26. b3 $6 ({According to
Lasker,} 26. g3 {was better.}) 26... h5 {'To prevent g2-g4 at any time.'
(Capablanca) 'A hasty move, as a result of which Black almost missed the win.}
(26... g6 {should have been played.' (Panov) But I don't see what would have
changed after} 27. Ng3 {.}) 27. h3 $2 {'A completely bad move, allowing Black
to paralyse the white pawns.' (Lasker)} ({'Necessary was} 27. Ng3 $1 Nxg3 28.
hxg3 {, transposing into a heavy piece endgame with excellent drawing chances.
' (Panov) However, even here after} Qc7 {White, with his weak pawns, would all
the same have faced a cheerless defence.}) 27... h4 $1 {After the blockade of
the kingside the number of weaknesses in White's position exceeds the
permissible norm, and he is now strategically lost.} 28. Qd3 Rc6 29. Kf1 g6 30.
Qb1 Qb4 31. Kg1 a5 $1 {'This decides the outcome. From here and to the end of
the game Black plays with merciless consistency. Capablanca's style is
irreproachable.' (Lasker)} 32. Qb2 a4 {Giving White yet another weakness - at
b3. 33...Rb6 and ...axb3 is threatened.} 33. Qd2 {(an attempt to save himself
in the endgame)} Qxd2 34. Rxd2 axb3 35. axb3 Rb6 $1 36. Rd3 ({But not} 36. Rb2
$2 Rb4 {winning a pawn.}) 36... Ra6 $1 37. g4 ({White can no longer mark time,
as otherwise the breakthrough of the rook is decisive:} 37. Nc3 Ra1+ 38. Kh2
Rc1 39. b4 Rc2 40. Kg1 Rb2 41. b5 Rb4 {. But now too Black gradually wins
material.}) 37... hxg3 38. fxg3 (38. Nxg3 Ra1+ 39. Kg2 Nd6 40. Kf3 Rb1 {
winning.}) 38... Ra2 39. Nc3 Rc2 {(with the threat of ...Nxd4)} 40. Nd1 Ne7 41.
Nc3 Rc1+ 42. Kf2 Nc6 43. Nd1 $1 {A pretty trap.} Rb1 $1 ({Avoiding} 43... Nb4
$6 44. Rd2 Rb1 45. Nb2 Rxb2 $2 46. Rxb2 Nd3+ 47. Ke2 Nxb2 48. Kd2 $1 Kf8 49.
Kc2 {trapping the knight:} Nc4 50. bxc4 dxc4 51. Kc3 Ke7 52. Kxc4 {draws.}) 44.
Ke2 $2 {Finally White blunders a pawn.} ({Of course, more tenacious was} 44.
Ke1 Na5 45. Kd2 Rxb3 46. Rxb3 Nxb3+ 47. Kc3 {'with drawing chances in view of
the insignificant amount of material remaining on the board,' (Panov) although
objectively this knight endgame a pawn down is also lost (knight endgames
being like pawn endgames!).}) 44... Rxb3 $1 45. Ke3 Rb4 $1 {It is clearly
simpler to convert the advantage with the rooks on. And in the given instance
this simplicity and inevitability, typical of Capa, creates a particular
impression, because playing White was the great Lasker!} 46. Nc3 Ne7 47. Ne2
Nf5+ 48. Kf2 g5 49. g4 Nd6 50. Ng1 Ne4+ 51. Kf1 ({Or} 51. Kf3 Rb1 52. Ne2 Rf1+
53. Ke3 Rh1 {and wins.}) 51... Rb1+ 52. Kg2 Rb2+ 53. Kf1 Rf2+ 54. Ke1 Ra2 55.
Kf1 Kg7 {After tying down the opponent's pieces, Black activates his king.} 56.
Re3 Kg6 57. Rd3 f6 58. Re3 Kf7 59. Rd3 Ke7 60. Re3 Kd6 61. Rd3 Rf2+ 62. Ke1 Rg2
63. Kf1 Ra2 64. Re3 e5 65. Rd3 exd4 66. Rxd4 ({Or} 66. Ne2 Kc5 67. Nxd4 Kc4 68.
Rd1 Nc3 {.}) 66... Kc5 67. Rd1 d4 68. Rc1+ Kd5 {. This heavy defeat with White
was the last straw for the champion. Of course, Lasker did not play as well as
he could have done, but he had not previously encountered such an iron grip.
Others used to give Lasker chances, but not Capa! And Lasker, that great
psychologist, had to become accustomed to this sort of play, and try to find
an antidote to it. But in his condition during the match in Havana he was
unable to find the solution to this problem.} (68... Kd5 69. Rd1 Ng3+ 70. Ke1
Rg2 {wins.}) 0-1
[Event "91: World Championship Match, Havana"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1921.??.??"]
[Round "11"]
[White "Capablanca, JR."]
[Black "Lasker, Em"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D64"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "95"]
[EventDate "1921.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{In the 11th game Lasker resorted to extreme measures - he drew the enemy fire,
playing the opening deliberately passively, ŕ la Steinitz. Diverging from the
rules, he sharply upset the positional balance and exceeded the bounds of
acceptable risk. He had also used this method before: it didn't matter about
the position, the main thing was to retain as many pieces as possible! --- But
this decision proved to be radically flawed: it was as though Capablanca had
been awaiting such a turn of events. He joined battle, seized space and began
relentlessly suffocating his opponent.} 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 e6 3. c4 Nf6 4. Bg5
Nbd7 5. e3 Be7 6. Nc3 O-O 7. Rc1 Re8 $6 (7... c6 $1 {.}) 8. Qc2 $1 c6 9. Bd3 (
9. a3 $5 {.}) 9... dxc4 10. Bxc4 Nd5 ({On one occasion Capablanca himself was
unsuccessful with} 10... b5 $6 {(Game No.82).}) 11. Bxe7 (11. Ne4 Qa5+ $1) ({
but} 11. Bf4 $5 Nxf4 12. exf4 {is interesting.}) 11... Rxe7 $6 ({The normal
course would be} 11... Qxe7 12. O-O Nxc3 13. Qxc3 e5 {with hopes of equality
and a draw.}) 12. O-O Nf8 $6 (12... Nxc3 13. Qxc3 b6 {was nevertheless better.}
) 13. Rfd1 Bd7 14. e4 Nb6 $6 (14... Nxc3 {.}) 15. Bf1 Rc8 16. b4 $1 Be8 {'The
defensive position is Steinitzian in its character, with most of the pieces
massed on the last two rows. There are no weak points in Black's game, but his
position suffers from lack of space for his pieces to manoeuvre.' (Capablanca)}
17. Qb3 Rec7 18. a4 Ng6 19. a5 Nd7 20. e5 {White methodically increases his
spatial advantage, opening the way for his knight to d6.} b6 21. Ne4 Rb8 22.
Qc3 ({The immediate} 22. Qa3 $1 {is more accurate, not allowing Black a tempo
for ...Ng6-f4-d5.}) 22... Nf4 23. Nd6 Nd5 24. Qa3 f6 {With the correct idea of
...Bh5;} ({but Levenfish and Panov recommended first} 24... Qe7 $1 {(to answer
Nxe8 with ...Rxe8, keeping the b4-pawn under fire). This would appear to be
more accurate, for example:} 25. Bc4 $5 {(with the threat of Bxd5 and Nb5)} Nf8
26. Ba2 f6 {etc.}) 25. Nxe8 $1 Qxe8 26. exf6 gxf6 (26... N7xf6 $6 27. Ne5 {was
dubious. After parting with his powerful knight without regrets, White has
transformed his advantage: now Black's king is open, which with the queens on
will sooner or later make itself felt.}) 27. b5 ({Perhaps} 27. Bc4 $5 {was
better. But the move in the game, which is often accompanied by an exclamation
mark, is also quite logical: 'The exposed position of the black king is rather
inviting for an attack, but before going into it White must liquidate his
queenside pawns in order to remove all possible sources of weakness. Once
those two pawns are exchanged, White can devote all his attention to the
attack against the king without having anything to worry about on the other
side.' (Capablanca)}) 27... Rbc8 $1 {The most tenacious defence.} ({'Here}
27... c5 {would be met by} 28. dxc5 (28. axb6 axb6 29. Bc4 $1 {is correct,
'and Black's position collapses.' (Panov)}) 28... bxc5 ({but stronger here is}
28... Nxc5 $1 29. Nd4 Rbc8 {with an unclear game}) 29. Bc4 {and Black's
position would be untenable.' (Capablanca)}) ({Also bad was} 27... cxb5 $6 28.
Rxc7 Nxc7 29. Qd6 Rc8 (29... Nd5 30. Bxb5) 30. d5 $1 e5 (30... exd5 31. Re1 $1)
31. axb6 axb6 32. Bd3 {with a decisive attack.}) 28. bxc6 Rxc6 29. Rxc6 Rxc6
30. axb6 axb6 {After the exchanges on the queenside Black has nevertheless
gained some counterplay on the c-file and hopes of an acceptable endgame.} 31.
Re1 Qc8 ({If} 31... Qf8 {, then} 32. Qb3 {.}) 32. Nd2 $1 {The time has come to
activate the knight.} Nf8 $6 ({'Better is} 32... Rc3 $1 33. -- (33. Qa1 Nf8 34.
Ne4 Rc7 {, gaining an important tempo.' (Lasker) I agree: after} 35. g3 {White
has a marked advantage, but even so not as great as in the game.}) ({.
Incidentally, many recommended} 33. Qd6 {(instead of 33 Qa1!)} Nf8 (33... Rc6
$6 34. Qg3+ Kh8 35. Ne4 $1) 34. Ne4 Rc6 35. Qa3 {, overlooking 34...Rc1! with
the exchange of rooks and a probable draw.})) 33. Ne4 Qd8 34. h4 $1 {
Preventing ...f6-f5.} Rc7 {Playing the rook onto the seventh rank leads to the
conceding of the c-file.} ({Bad was} 34... f5 $6 35. Qg3+ $1 Kh8 36. Qe5+ Kg8
37. Bb5 Rc7 38. Ng5 Re7 39. Bc4 Ng6 40. Qg3 {winning.}) ({In Capablanca's
opinion, the best chance was} 34... h6 $5 {with the threat of driving back the
knight by ...f6-f5. In any event, the black king's shelter is insecure.}) 35.
Qb3 Rg7 $1 36. g3 Ra7 37. Bc4 Ra5 ({Not falling for} 37... h6 $2 38. Bxd5 exd5
39. Qxd5+ $1 Qxd5 40. Nxf6+ Kf7 41. Nxd5 {winning.}) 38. Nc3 $1 {After the
exchange of the key knight at d5 Black's weaknesses will be indefensible.} Nxc3
39. Qxc3 Kf7 40. Qe3 Qd6 41. Qe4 Ra4 $2 {'Suicide!' (Lasker) 'The same losing
picture as in the previous games of this match! Initially the world champion
plays the opening carelessly and finds himself in an inferior position, then
by skilful defence he achieves an almost drawn position, but in the end, worn
out by his indefatigable opponent, he begins to make mistakes.} (41... Ra7 42.
d5 e5 {was correct, although even then the manoeuvre Bc4-f1-h3 would have
retained the advantage for White.' (Panov)}) 42. Qb7+ Kg6 ({If} 42... Qe7 {,
then} 43. Qc6 Ra7 44. d5 {.}) ({Slightly more tenacious was} 42... Kg8 43. Qc8
Kf7 44. d5 e5 45. Bb5 Rd4 46. Qb7+ Kg8 47. Ra1 {and White wins.}) 43. Qc8 $2 ({
It is surprising that none of the commentators has pointed out a pretty forced
win:} 43. h5+ $1 Kh6 44. Qf7 Qd8 45. Bd3 $1 Rxd4 46. Rxe6 {, and if} Rxd3 47.
Rxf6+ Kg5 48. Qg7+ Ng6 49. Rxg6+ {. It would not have been so difficult for
Capablanca to work out the combination, but... again what told was his
inclination towards play on general grounds. In Havana 1921 this had no
significance: his minor flaws went unnoticed, because Lasker did not exploit
them. Before Alekhine, no one could force Capa to really work! And the latter,
naturally, was accustomed to winning with little effort. However, in Buenos
Aires 1927 this habit was to cost the Cuban dearly...}) 43... Qb4 $2 {Alas,
Lasker promptly makes a mistake in reply, allowing his opponent to conclude
the game spectacularly.} ({After} 43... Ra7 $1 {White would have had to win
the game anew:} 44. Qe8+ (44. Bxe6 $6 Nxe6 45. Rxe6 Qxd4 {is level}) 44... Kg7
$1 {etc.}) 44. Rc1 $1 Qe7 $6 ({If} 44... Qa3 {Capa gives} 45. Bd3+ f5 (45...
Qxd3 $2 46. Qe8+) (45... Kh6 $2 46. Rc7 {the threat of} -- 47. Qxf8+ Qxf8 48.
Rxh7#) 46. Qe8+ Kh6 47. Re1 ({the computer prefers} 47. Rc7 $5 Rxd4 48. Be2 Ng6
49. Qg8 {and wins}) 47... Ra8 48. Rxe6+ Nxe6 49. Qxe6+ Kg7 50. Qe5+ {with mate.
}) ({Meanwhile the best defence was still} 44... Ra7 $1 {, after which White
would have had a pleasant choice between} 45. Bxe6 ({and} 45. d5 $5 Qd2 46. Bb3
) 45... Nxe6 46. Qxe6 Qxd4 47. Rc4 Qe5 48. Rg4+ Kh6 49. Qxb6 {.}) 45. Bd3+ $1
Kh6 ({After} 45... f5 {, apart from the sharp} 46. Bxf5+ ({there is also the
cold} 46. Rc7 {.})) 46. Rc7 Ra1+ 47. Kg2 Qd6 48. Qxf8+ $1 {. 'This game shows
Capablanca's style in its most favourable light: energetic, but cautious play,
striving to create a sound position, from which it is easy to launch an attack.
' (Lasker) --- The score became +3 in Capablanca's favour, and after two draws
things came to a head: by blundering (again) the champion lost the 14th game,
which he had begun quite well, and... on the advice of his doctor he resigned
the match. 'Towards the end of the fourth hour, just before the time control,
I was almost exhausted and with several obvious errors I ruined my entire
strategic plan,' Lasker lamented. 'I was looking at the board as though
through a mist, and my head ached suspiciously. This was a warning to me, and
I heeded it.' --- And so, Capablanca won ahead of schedule with a score of 9-5
(+4 =10) and became the third world champion in the history of chess. It can
only be regretted that this match was played in Havana, and not somewhere in
the USA or Europe, in a climate to which Lasker was accustomed. Then he would
not have committed the blunders that were so atypical of him... However, it is
probable that even in this case the Cuban's chances would have been somewhat
better.} (48. -- {The wise Lasker endured his defeat with enviable dignity and
generosity. In his final report from the match, and in a small book 'Mein
Wettkampf mit Capablanca' that was soon published, he paid tribute to his
opponent: 'Capablanca's play set me genuine problems. His games are clear,
logical and strong. In them there is nothing hidden, artificial or laboured...
Although they are transparent, they are by no means banal and are often deep.
Capablanca does not like unclear positions and gambles. He likes to know
beforehand where he is going. The depth of his play is the depth of a
mathematician, not of a poet. He has the soul of a Roman, not of a Greek...
--- 'Is Capablanca the ideal, the ultimate chess champion? I don't think so.
But he deserves the title of world champion. His style is extremely
distinctive, accurate and inventive, logical and energetic... When Steinitz
lost the last game of the match to me, he stood up and exclaimed: 'Three
hurrahs for the new world champion!' These words touched me. The debt of
honour obliges me to address the chess world with the same words.'}) 1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Nimzowitsch and Hypermodernism"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.07"]
{Nimzowitsch and Hypermodernism: Under the influence of the series of draws in
the Havana match, both players began talking about the threat of a drawing
death in chess. 'The game of chess is approaching perfection,' wrote Lasker.
'From it the elements of play and uncertainty are disappearing. In our time
too much is known; there is not, therefore, the need to guess, as we, the
older masters, had to do in the days of our youth. Regrettable though it is,
knowledge entails death. I have always been opposed to research. But Pillsbury
began studying the openings as far as the most clear conclusions, and his
method triumphed. Now all players know the best opening moves of the Queen's
Gambit or the Ruy Lopez and feel at home in them... The charm of the unknown
has disappeared.' --- And later: 'Of course, chess will not keep its secrets
for long. The fatal hour of this ancient game is approaching. In its modern
form this game will soon die a drawing death - the inevitable victory of
certainty and mechanisation will leave its stamp on the fate of chess. Then
new rules will have to be devised...'} 1. -- {Capablanca also thought that
within 10-15 years any 'good player will be able to draw any game' and he also
thought about the reform of chess. He suggested increasing the board to 100
squares and in 1929 he even played with Maróczy an endlessly lengthy
exhibition game on a board of 192 squares... As Alekhine joked, 'such projects
are always put forward by players who have lost the world championship.' ---
In fact the fears of Lasker and Capablanca were a vivid illustration of the
relative nature of human knowledge. Yes, they were the kings of the chess in
which after 1 e4 they largely played 1...e5, less frequently 1...e6 and
altogether rarely 1...c5, and after 1 d4 - almost exclusively 1...d5,
restricting themselves to the Queen's Gambit Declined or Accepted. On this
little 'chess island' they had raised technique to unprecedented heights, and
it seemed to them that there was nowhere further to go. --- However, with the
years both champions saw that the territory of chess was far wider and that it
was still a long way from exhausting all its possibilities. A considerable
role here was played by the new trend of chess thinking, called
'hypermodernism'. Its pillars were Nimzowitsch, Réti and Breyer, and its
supporters - Alekhine, Bogoljubow, Tartakower, Grünfeld... This important
stage in the development of chess theory is something that we must dwell on in
some detail.} ({The great chess theoretician and innovator Aron Nimzowitsch
(1886-1935), who originated from Riga and lived in Copenhagen, substantially
refined and expanded the operation of Steinitz's principles, by putting
forward on their basis a number of truly revolutionary ideas. He began his
researches with a sharp criticism of some of Tarrasch's dogmas. 'Steinitz had
perhaps only one deficiency: he was ahead of his generation by at least 50
years!' declared Nimzowitsch in an article with the provocative title 'Does Dr
Tarrasch's Die moderne Schachpartie correspond to the modern understanding of
the game?' (1913) --- I would remind you that Tarrasch and his numerous
followers rated the role of central pawns in the opening excessively highly.
For example, in the French Defence after} 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 ({or} 3. Nd2
{(Tarrasch's move) they severely criticised} dxe4 {. But Nimzowitsch retorted:
'This method of play has already been assiduously and lovingly cultivated for
more than 20 years, in spite of all the purists and screams about the
surrender of the centre. Moreover, with the move ...b7-b6 (Rubinstein) an
improvement has been found which has cast doubts on the value of 3 Nc3 and
persuaded me to resurrect 3 e5, with which I, as is known, have gained great
successes - again in spite of all the purists!' --- And here the author gave
the philosophical basis of this variation: 'White switches the attack from d5
to e6, which he fixes by e4-e5, in accordance with the rule: 'an object of
attack must first be made immobile.' There arises a pawn chain, restricting
the free manoeuvring of both sides. Naturally, one wants to break it up. With
this aim the base of the chain must be attacked: Black - d4 (by ...c7-c5), and
White - e6 (by f2-f4-f5)' etc. --- But Tarrasch was actively opposed to the
move 3 e5 here! It need hardly be said how critical and fierce was the
following duel between the most prominent theoreticians of their time.})) *
[Event "92: San Sebastian"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1912.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Nimzowitsch, A."]
[Black "Tarrasch, S."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C02"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "81"]
[EventDate "1912.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 c5 ({After the normal move order} 1... e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 {apart from}
4. c3 ({Nimzowitsch also tried the rare plans} 4. Nf3 cxd4 5. Qxd4 Nc6 6. Qf4)
(4. dxc5 Nc6 5. Nf3 Bxc5 6. Bd3) ({and} 4. Qg4 cxd4 5. Nf3 {, explaining: 'I
am not really a gambit player, but in my opinion the sustained policy of
restraint (i.e. 3 e5) is worth a pawn.'})) 2. c3 e6 3. d4 d5 4. e5 $5 ({In the
1930s} 4. Nf3 Nc6 $5 5. Bd3 $5 cxd4 6. O-O {was also played, but this went out
of fashion after} Bc5 (6... f6 $5 {Alekhine-Euwe, Nottingham 1936}) 7. Nbd2 (7.
Bf4 $5) 7... Nge7 8. a3 (8. Nb3 Bb6 9. Bf4 Ng6 {equalises Levenfish-Botvinnik,
Moscow/Leningrad 9th matchgame 1937}) 8... Ng6 9. Nb3 Bb6 10. Re1 Bd7 11. g3 f6
$1 {with an excellent game for Black (Bondarevsky-Botvinnik, Leningrad/Moscow
1941).}) 4... Nc6 (4... Bd7 5. Nf3 Qb6 {with the idea of ...Bb5 is also of
topical interest.}) 5. Nf3 Qb6 {Earlier this move was made automatically,} ({
but nowadays} 5... Nge7) (5... Nh6) ({or} 5... Bd7 {is often played, avoiding
the variation 5...Qb6 6 b3. For example:} 6. Be2 Nge7 7. Na3 cxd4 8. cxd4 Nf5
9. Nc2 Nb4 10. O-O $1 (10. Ne3 Nxe3 11. fxe3 Be7 12. a3 Nc6 13. b4 a6 14. Rb1
Na7 $1 15. a4 Nc6 16. Bd2 a5 17. b5 Nb4 {is equal Spassky-Korchnoi, Belgrade
18th matchgame 1977/78}) (10. Nxb4 Bxb4+ 11. Bd2 Qb6 $1) 10... Nxc2 11. Qxc2
Rc8 12. Qd3 (12. Qb3 Qb6 $1) 12... Qb6 (12... a6 $5) 13. a4 (13. Bd2 Bb4 $1)
13... Bb4 14. h4 h6 15. h5 Ne7 {with complicated play (Sveshnikov-Rublevsky,
Elista 1994).}) 6. Bd3 $6 {The first steps of theory.} ({'More natural would
have been} 6. Be2 {, for the d4-pawn is the "base", and as such should be
protected as thoroughly as possible.' (Nimzowitsch)}) 6... cxd4 $1 {An
accurate reply.} (6... Bd7 $6 7. dxc5 $1 Bxc5 8. O-O {favours White, as was
shown by the classic game Nimzowitsch-Salwe (Carlsbad 1911):} f6 $6 (8... a5 {
is better}) ({but not} 8... Nge7 $2 9. b4 {winning}) 9. b4 $1 Be7 10. Bf4 fxe5
11. Nxe5 Nxe5 12. Bxe5 {. A complete piece blockade of the centre:} Nf6 ({bad
is} 12... Bf6 $2 13. Qh5+ g6 14. Bxg6+ hxg6 15. Qxg6+ Ke7 16. Bxf6+ Nxf6 17.
Qg7+) 13. Nd2 $1 O-O 14. Nf3 $1 Bd6 (14... Bb5 $2 15. Bd4 Qa6 16. Bxb5 Qxb5 17.
Ng5 $1) 15. Qe2 Rac8 16. Bd4 Qc7 17. Ne5 Be8 18. Rae1 Bxe5 19. Bxe5 Qc6 20. Bd4
$1 Bd7 21. Qc2 Rf7 22. Re3 $1 b6 23. Rg3 Kh8 24. Bxh7 $1 e5 $5 (24... Nxh7 25.
Qg6 $1) 25. Bg6 Re7 26. Re1 Qd6 27. Be3 d4 28. Bg5 Rxc3 29. Rxc3 dxc3 30. Qxc3
{... 1-0.}) 7. cxd4 Bd7 $1 8. Be2 {White is forced to waste a tempo on the
defence of the d4-pawn.} ({Steinitz and Maróczy tried} 8. Bc2 {, but after} Nb4
{White has no advantage, as I found out for myself back in my childhood, at
the schoolchildren's Spartakiad in Alma Ata (1974), playing Black against
Gabrilyavichus (where, incidentally, it was also a Sicilian with 2 c3).}) ({
Therefore since the mid-20th century 6 Bd3 has been played more for the sake of
} 8. O-O {(the Milner-Barry Gambit)} Nxd4 9. Nxd4 Qxd4 10. Nc3 {, although
after the continuation} a6 $1 {it is hard for White to develop sufficient
initiative to compensate for his material deficit;} ({also} 10... Qxe5 11. Re1
Qb8 12. Nxd5 Bd6 {.})) 8... Nge7 9. b3 $6 {Too passive.} ({At the finish of
the same tournament, Nimzowitsch played} 9. Na3 {against Duras, and after} Ng6
$6 ({better is} 9... Nf5 10. Nc2 Nb4 {- compared with the variations
considered above with 5...Bd7 Black has an extra tempo (his queen is already
at b6) and at least an equal game}) 10. O-O Be7 11. Nc2 f6 12. Bd3 O-O-O 13. b4
(13. Re1 $5 {he retained some advantage.})) 9... Nf5 10. Bb2 Bb4+ 11. Kf1 {
Because of the pressure on d4, White is deprived of the right to castle. By
present-day French measures his position is simply worse: the 'stupid' bishop
at b2 plus the threat of ...f7-f6 and the opening of the f-file. However,
Nimzowitsch believed in the magical power of the over-protected pawn centre...}
Be7 ({Apparently White would have been satisfied with} 11... h5 12. g3 Rc8 13.
Kg2 g6 14. h3 {(Nimzowitsch-Rubinstein, Carlsbad 1911). But Black has no
reason to support his knight.}) ({According to Nimzowitsch, the most accurate
is} 11... O-O $1 12. -- (12. Bd3 f6 $1 13. Bxf5 exf5 {with the advantage of
the two bishops}) ({, or} 12. g4 $6 Nh6 13. Rg1 f6 $1 14. exf6 Rxf6 15. g5 Rxf3
$1 {with a strong initiative:} 16. Bxf3 ({or} 16. gxh6 Rf7 17. Rxg7+ Rxg7 18.
hxg7 Qc7 19. Kg2 Be8 {- G.K.}) 16... Nf5 17. Rg4 Be8 (17... Rf8 $5) 18. Qe2 {
(? - G.K.)} Ncxd4 19. Rxd4 Nxd4 20. Qe5 Bb5+ 21. Kg2 Nf5 22. Bxd5 ({more
tenacious is} 22. Bg4 d4 23. Bxf5 exf5 {- G.K.}) 22... exd5 23. Qxf5 Rf8 24.
Qxd5+ Rf7 $1 25. Qd4 Bc5 {and White must resign. And after 11...Be7 too he has
an uneasy position.})) 12. g3 (12. g4 $2 Nh4 $1 {.}) 12... a5 {Tarrasch
attached an exclamation mark to this move (and also to the previous one),
whereas Nimzowitsch gave it a question mark: 'In order to exploit the new
"weakness", White's b3-pawn (again Steinitz's dogmas! - G.K.). The only pity
is that this point is no weakness; he should have gone for the weak king's
position.'} ({Indeed, after} 12... O-O 13. Bd3 (13. Kg2 f6 $1) 13... f6 14.
Bxf5 exf5 {Black has a comfortable position - the dream of any French player.
For Botvinnik this would already be obvious, like two times two! --- However,
the two players were conducting a principled opening dispute, for the time
being repeating the old game L. Paulsen-Tarrasch (Nuremberg 1888).}) 13. a4 Rc8
{The inclusion of ...a7-a5 and a2-a4 does not play any particular role (Black
has weakened his b5-square, and White his b4-square),} ({and therefore} 13...
O-O {and 14...f6! was again logical.}) 14. Bb5 $1 Nb4 $6 ({'} 14... O-O {was
very bad because of} 15. Bd3 $1 {, and Black cannot take on d4.' (Tarrasch) He
does not need to take - after} f6 $1 {he is perfectly alright.}) 15. Nc3 $1 {
An improvement!} ({Paulsen played} 15. Bxd7+ $6 Kxd7 16. Nc3 Nc6 $1 17. Nb5 Na7
$1 18. Nxa7 $2 (18. Qd3 Nxb5 19. axb5 {with level chances was essential}) 18...
Qxa7 19. Qd3 {, and after} Qa6 $1 20. Qxa6 bxa6 21. Kg2 Rc2 22. Bc1 Rb8 23. Rb1
Rc3 24. Bd2 Rcxb3 25. Rxb3 Rxb3 26. Bxa5 Rb2 $1 ({but not} 26... Ra3 $2 27. Rc1
$1) 27. Bd2 (27. Rc1 Ne3+ {and ...Nc4}) 27... Bb4 $1 28. Bf4 h6 (28... Ra2 $5)
29. g4 Ne7 30. Ra1 Nc6 31. Bc1 Rc2 {Black won an instructive endgame.}) 15...
Na6 $6 {A dubious manoeuvre.} ({In his famous Dreihundert Schachpartien (1895,
1909), Tarrasch suggested} 15... Bxb5+ 16. Nxb5 -- (16... Nc2 {'with the
threat of ...Ne3+', but Nimzowitsch had prepared a refutation:} 17. Rc1 Nce3+
18. fxe3 Nxe3+ 19. Ke2 Nxd1 20. Rxc8+ Kd7 21. Rxh8 Nxb2 22. Rc1 {winning.}) ({
. On noticing this, Black diverged, but better was} 16... O-O $1 {(instead of
16...Nc2?)} 17. Rc1 (17. Kg2 $2 Nc2) 17... Rc6 18. Kg2 Rfc8 19. Re1 Na2 (19...
Na6 {is unclear}) 20. Ra1 Nb4 {, immediately forcing a draw. --- One of
White's problems is the 'stupidity' of his bishop at b2 and, despite all
Nimzowitsch's optimism, he has nothing in particular. It can rather be said
that in this game the old dogma was inferior to the new dogma...})) 16. Kg2 Nc7
17. Be2 $1 {(retaining the 'good' bishop)} Bb4 ({Here after} 17... O-O 18. Bd3
f6 {White would now have had time to regroup successfully:} 19. Ne2 Be8 20.
exf6 Bxf6 21. Ba3 {with some advantage.}) 18. Na2 Na6 19. Bd3 Ne7 20. Rc1 Nc6
21. Nxb4 Naxb4 22. Bb1 {Over the last 10 moves White has made colossal
progress: he has hidden his king at g2, overcome his lag in development and
preserved his light-squared bishop from exchange. Whereas Black has played
unconvincingly: he has allowed the exchange of his 'good' dark-squared bishop
and only gained the b4-square, which in the given situation does not produce
anything.} h6 23. g4 {'White opens an attack against the black king's wing
which is cramped by the e5-pawn. 23 g4 is to make castling appear unhealthy,} (
{but} 23. Rc3 {and Re3 was also good, perhaps even better.' (Nimzowitsch)}) ({
Or} 23. Re1 $5 {and Re3.}) ({Another idea is} 23. h4 $5 {(the position of the
pawn at h5 together with Nh4 promises a favourable endgame). In any case
White's chances are somewhat better, but for the moment Black is solidly
placed.}) 23... Ne7 {This has to be played.} ({Someone recommended} 23... Ke7
$6 24. Qd2 Rcf8 {'and then ...f7-f6.' But here I have great doubts: what to do
with the king on e7?! After} 25. Rc5 f6 26. Rhc1 {White has an obvious
advantage.}) ({Also given was the variation} 23... Qd8 $6 24. Qd2 O-O 25. g5
hxg5 26. Nxg5 {, which I considered necessary to continue:} f6 (26... f5 27.
Rhg1 {with an attack}) 27. Nh7 $1 Rf7 28. exf6 gxf6 29. Rhg1 $1 {, and} Rxh7 $2
{, fails to} ({while after} 29... f5 30. Ng5 Rg7 31. Kh1 {Black has a bad
position}) 30. Kh1+ Rg7 ({or} 30... Kh8 31. Bxh7 Kxh7 32. Qe3 e5 33. Qg3) 31.
Qh6 Qf8 32. Rxg7+ Qxg7 33. Rg1 {and wins.}) 24. Rxc8+ Bxc8 25. Ne1 (25. Qd2 $5
{.}) 25... Rf8 $1 {Tarrasch correctly realised that the king should be left at
g8 and counterplay created by ...f7-f6.} 26. Nd3 f6 27. Nxb4 Qxb4 28. exf6 {A
somewhat dubious idea.} ({Nimzowitsch generally praised his own moves, but it
seems to me that} 28. Re1 $5) ({or perhaps} 28. Qc2 {came into consideration.})
28... Rxf6 29. Bc1 $6 {The maker of this move attached an exclamation mark to
it : 'White gets a direct attack. Note the bishop which has been roused to
activity.'} ({Although in the light of what follows,} 29. Re1 Ng6 30. Bxg6+
Rxg6 31. h3 {was more accurate.}) 29... Nc6 $2 {A serious time-trouble mistake.
} ({The commentators, who considered this to be a model instructional game,
did not notice} 29... e5 $1 {(the computer suggests this instantly). It is a
pity that Tarrasch missed his chance: I should have liked to see what
Nimzowitsch would have done in this case. Black is threatening ...e5-e4,
shutting out the bishop at b1, 31 dxe5? Bxg4 is bad, and} 30. g5 Rf7 {is
unclear. In a word, the plan with 29 Bc1 was dubious.}) 30. g5 $1 {(now White
does indeed have an attack)} hxg5 31. Bxg5 Rf8 32. Be3 Qe7 ({Good or bad,
Black had to run with his king as soon as possible -} 32... Kd8 $5 {. Although,
of course, here too after} 33. Qg4 Ne7 34. Rc1 {White has the initiative and
freedom for his two bishops.}) 33. Qg4 Qf6 34. Rg1 $1 {(a strong manoeuvre
together with Kh1)} Rh8 {Apparently this is also a mistake,} ({but already in
a difficult position:} 34... Ne7 35. Kh1 Rf7 36. Qh5 Kd7 37. Bd3 {etc.}) 35.
Kh1 Rh4 $2 {The final error.} ({After} 35... Kf8 36. Bd3 Bd7 {White would
still have had to battle for his win.}) 36. Qg3 {(this is the end: both Bg5
and Qxg7 are threatened)} Rxd4 $5 {(desperation)} 37. Bxd4 Nxd4 38. Qxg7 Qf3+
39. Qg2 Qxg2+ 40. Rxg2 Nxb3 41. h4 {. This game is a vivid demonstration of
how new views win their place under the sun. After winning one game
convincingly as Black against Paulsen, Tarrasch stagnated somewhat and rested
on his laurels. Whereas Nimzowitsch upheld his new views, and it has to be
said the variation with 3 e5 still remains at the centre of heated discussions:
some dispute it with White, and others with Black.} 1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Nimzowitsch's position"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r1b3k1/pp6/4p3/PP1pN2P/3N4/6K1/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.07"]
{In the aforementioned article Nimzowitsch expressed his most cherished,
'truly modern' view: yes, for creating a centre it is pawns that are the most
suitable (in view of their stability), but they can well be replaced by pieces
that have moved to the centre! Occupation of the centre can be replaced by
piece pressure on the centre!' Later in his main book My System (1929) and
other theoretical works Nimzowitsch began using concepts such as the flexible
centre, the security of the pawn chain, the weakness of a complex of squares
of a particular colour, prophylaxis, manoeuvring, restraint and, finally,
blockade.} 1. -- {This is an instructional position from Nimzowitsch's book,
which evokes the above game with Salwe (c.f. the diagram on page 277.
'Eloquent, wouldn't you agree? White is the exchange and a pawn down in the
endgame, but his position is better thanks to the blockading knights,' writes
Tal, and he remembers another two classic examples on the theme of blockade:
Reshevsky-Petrosian (Zürich candidates 1953) and Tal-Petrosian (25th USSR
Championship, Riga 1958). We will return to these games in the second volume.
--- The ideas listed lay at the basis of Nimzowitsch's most grandiose
invention - the Nimzo-Indian Defence and the Queen's Indian Defence. The
system 1 d4 Nf6 and 2...e6 - without an early ...d7-d5, with piece pressure on
the centre (or, more precisely, on the e4-square that has been weakened by
d2-d4) was initially called by its author the 'Modern Queen's Gambit'. It was
discovered and thoroughly analysed by Nimzowitsch in 1911-1912, tested in
training games in the summer of 1913 and was soon employed for the first time
in a serious competition - the All-Russian master tournament.} *
[Event "93: St Petersburg"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1914.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Gregori, B."]
[Black "Nimzowitsch, A."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A46"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "140"]
[EventDate "1914.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 3. Bg5 ({'Of special interest historically as being the
first game in which what has been called the 'Ideal Queen's Gambit' was played,
where Black forgoes altogether the occupation of the centre by his pawns. In
answer to} 3. c4 {I had intended} b6 {. The point d5 is to remain permanently
unoccupied.' (Nimzowitsch)}) ({In the 1950s 3 Bg5 was a favourite weapon of
Petrosian. A comparatively harmless deviation from the Queen's Indian was} 3.
Bf4 c5 4. c3 {(Rubinstein-Nimzowitsch, St Petersburg 1914).}) 3... h6 (3... c5
4. e3 b6 $2 {is inaccurate because of} 5. d5 $1 {(Petrosian's discovery).}) ({
We will examine} 3... d5 {(Spassky-Petrosian, Moscow 7th matchgame 1966) in
the second volume.}) 4. Bxf6 ({After} 4. Bh4 {Alekhine, who borrowed this
system from Nimzowitsch, suggested} d5 ({, but he himself played} 4... b6 5. e3
Bb7 6. Bd3 c5 7. O-O Be7 8. Nbd2 d6 9. Qe2 Nbd7 10. Rad1 O-O 11. c3 Qc7 12.
Rfe1 Rfe8 {with a slightly inferior position for Black (Janowski-Alekhine,
Mannheim 1914).}) ({. More energetic is} 4... c5 $1 5. e3 cxd4 6. exd4 Be7 7.
Bd3 O-O 8. c3 b6 9. Qe2 Bb7 10. Nbd2 Nc6 11. Bxf6 $5 (11. O-O Nd5 {equalises})
11... Bxf6 12. O-O-O g6 $1 13. h4 Bg7 14. Kb1 Ne7 $1 {etc. (I. Sokolov-Karpov,
Linares 1995).})) 4... Qxf6 5. e4 g6 $5 (5... d6 6. Nc3 ({or} 6. c3 g6) 6...
Nd7 {is now in vogue,} ({whereas Karpov has tried the sharp} 6... g5 $5 {a
couple of times.})) 6. Nc3 ({The alternative is} 6. Bd3 {, Nbd2 and c2-c3.})
6... Qe7 $1 {(avoiding the opening of the position after e4-e5)} 7. Bc4 ({Or}
7. Bd3 d6 8. Qe2 Bg7 9. e5 d5 {with equal chances (Tselikov-Alekhine, Moscow
1915).}) (7. Qd2 d6 8. O-O-O {is more lively, for example:} a6 9. h4 Bg7 10. g3
b5 {with sharp play (Korchnoi-Karpov, Moscow 19th matchgame 1974).}) 7... Bg7
8. O-O d6 9. Qd3 O-O 10. Rae1 a6 11. a4 b6 12. Ne2 (12. e5 d5 $1) (12. d5 e5 $1
{.}) 12... c5 $1 {'A strategical device which the hypermodernist may care to
note, makes its appearance here. I mean the continuity of an attack directed
against a pawn mass. This is to be understood thus: the threatened advance
must first have its sting drawn (in this game this was done by 6...Qe7). It is
only when this has happened that we may regard the mass as semi-mobile, and
attack it; for only those objects which have been made immobile should be
chosen as a target.' (Nimzowitsch) --- Note that both this game, and the
aforementioned Janowski-Alekhine game, are, with reversed colours, unusual
prototypes of the Réti Opening!} 13. c3 Bd7 14. b3 (14. Nd2 $5 Bxa4 15. f4 {
Nimzowitsch.}) 14... Qe8 15. Qc2 b5 16. axb5 axb5 17. Bd3 Qc8 $1 18. dxc5 dxc5
19. e5 Nc6 20. Bxb5 $6 ({After} 20. Ng3 b4 {Black's two bishops would sooner
or later have had their say.}) 20... Nxe5 21. Nxe5 Bxb5 22. Nf3 Qb7 23. Nd2 Bc6
24. f3 Rfb8 25. Ng3 Qa7 26. Rf2 Bd5 27. Kf1 Qa2 28. Qxa2 Rxa2 29. c4 Bd4 30.
Rfe2 Bc6 31. Rd1 Rb2 32. Rc1 h5 33. Ke1 Ra8 {and Black won.} 34. Nh1 Raa2 35.
Nf2 Rxd2 36. Rxd2 Rxd2 37. Kxd2 Bxf2 38. Rb1 Kf8 39. b4 cxb4 40. Rxb4 Ke7 41.
Rb8 Bd4 42. Rc8 Bd7 43. Ra8 e5 44. Kc2 Bc6 45. Rc8 Ba4+ 46. Kd3 Bd7 47. Rc7 Kd6
48. Rb7 Bg1 49. h3 h4 50. Rb8 Be6 51. Ra8 Bb6 52. Rh8 Bf2 53. Ra8 Bf5+ 54. Ke2
Bb6 55. Rh8 g5 56. Rg8 f6 57. Rf8 Ke7 58. Rb8 Bd4 59. Rb5 Bg6 60. Ra5 Bf5 61.
Ra6 Bc8 62. Rc6 Bd7 63. Ra6 Bc5 64. Kd3 Bf5+ 65. Ke2 e4 66. Rc6 Bd4 67. Ra6 Be6
68. Ra4 e3 69. Kd3 Bc5 70. Ra6 Bxc4+ 0-1
[Event "94: Copenhagen"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1923.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Sämisch, F."]
[Black "Nimzowitsch, A."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "E06"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "50"]
[EventDate "1923.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{In the following famous game the opening was played rather weakly, which,
however, is quite excusable: it was one of the first experiences of the
Queen's Indian Defence being employed.} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 ({The game
Bernstein-Nimzowitsch (St Petersburg 1914) became a prototype of a fashionable
position from the 'Classical Variation' of the Nimzo-Indian Defence:} 3. Nc3
Bb4 4. Qc2 O-O 5. a3 Bxc3+ 6. Qxc3 b6 7. Nf3 Bb7 8. e3 d6 9. b4 Nbd7 10. Bb2 {
, and here apart from} Qe7 (10... c5) (10... a5) ({or the immediate} 10... Ne4
{(Kramnik-Karpov, Dos Hermanas 1997) are possible, although everywhere, thanks
to his two bishops, White retains a strategic initiative}) 11. Be2 $1 (11. Bd3
c5 $1 {Kasparov-Gligoric, Lucerne Olympiad 1982}) 11... Ne4 12. Qc2 f5 13. O-O
Ndf6 14. Rad1 Rae8 15. Nd2 Nxd2 16. Qxd2 Ne4 17. Qc1 $1 {with advantage to
White (Miles-Andersson, Wijk aan Zee 1981).}) 3... b6 ({A challenge to the
established rules: in the traditions of the classical school was if not 1...d5,
then at least} 3... d5 {.}) 4. g3 {The Rubinstein Variation.} ({The game
Bernstein-Nimzowitsch (St Petersburg 1914) went} 4. Nc3 Bb7 5. e3 Bb4 6. Qb3
Qe7 (6... c5) ({or} 6... a5 {is better}) 7. a3 Bxc3+ 8. Qxc3 d6 9. b4 Nbd7 10.
Bb2 a5 ({Nimzowitsch recommended} 10... Ne4 $1 {and ...f7-f5}) 11. Be2 axb4 12.
axb4 Rxa1+ 13. Bxa1 O-O 14. O-O Ne4 15. Qc2 f5 16. Nd2 Nxd2 (16... c5 $5) 17.
Qxd2 Ra8 {with a fighting draw on the 50th move.}) 4... Bb7 ({The variation
with} 4... Ba6 $5 {also comes from Nimzowitsch and was, incidentally, the main
theoretical trend at the end of the 20th century!}) 5. Bg2 Be7 6. Nc3 ({Or} 6.
O-O O-O 7. Nc3 {.}) 6... O-O ({The main move is} 6... Ne4 $1 {. In
Euwe-Alekhine (Holland 21st matchgame 1937) Black tried this even with the
loss of a tempo: 5...Bb4+ 6 Bd2 Be7 7 Nc3 Ne4 8 0-0 0-0 9 d5 Nxd2 10 Qxd2 Bf6
11 Rad1 d6 etc.}) 7. O-O (7. Qc2 $1 {is more energetic, as in the games
Ravinsky-Botvinnik (Leningrad 1930), Korchnoi-Karpov (Moscow 5th matchgame
1974) and Karpov-Spassky (Riga 1975).}) 7... d5 {Nevertheless Nimzowitsch is
still drawn towards the Queen's Gambit ...} ({The first to categorically
declare that only} 7... Ne4 $1 {is in the spirit of the position was Botvinnik
- and he successfully defended his thesis against none other than Alekhine
(AVRO Tournament, Holland 1938).}) 8. Ne5 ({As is shown by modern praxis,
beginning with the match game Korchnoi-Spassky (Belgrade 17th matchgame 1977/78),} 8. cxd5 exd5 9. Qc2 Na6 10. Rd1 {is also good for White.}) 8... c6 $6 ({
The fashion at the end of the 20th century was for} 8... Na6 {. Now the
position on the board is a favourable variation for White of the Catalan
Opening.}) 9. cxd5 $6 (9. e4 $1 {is much stronger, for example:} -- (9... dxc4
10. Nxc4 Ba6 11. b3 b5 12. Ne3 b4 13. Ne2 Bxe2 (13... Nbd7 14. Bb2) 14. Qxe2
Qxd4 15. Bb2 {with excellent play for the pawn (Smyslov-Guimard, Groningen
1946)}) ({, or} 9... Nbd7 10. Nxc6 $5 (10. exd5 cxd5 11. cxd5 Nxe5 12. d6 Nc6
$1 {is unclear}) 10... Bxc6 11. exd5 exd5 (11... Bb7 $6 12. d6) 12. cxd5 Bb7
13. d6 Bxg2 14. dxe7 Qxe7 15. Kxg2 {, by contrast, with an extra pawn.})) 9...
cxd5 10. Bf4 (10. Bg5 Nbd7 11. Re1 Nxe5 12. dxe5 Nd7 {is level.}) 10... a6 11.
Rc1 b5 12. Qb3 (12. a3 $5 {is interesting -} Nc6 $2 ({while if} 12... Nbd7 {,
then} 13. Nd3 {with complicated, unclear play:} Qb6 14. e3 Rfc8 15. b4 Rc4 16.
Nc5 a5 17. Qb3 {etc.}) 13. Nxd5 $1 {.}) 12... Nc6 $6 {'The ghost! With
noiseless steps he presses on towards c4.' (Nimzowitsch)} ({But,} 12... Nbd7 $5
13. Na4 Rc8 14. Nd3 Ne4 15. f3 Bc6 {was evidently more solid.. Here one of the
basic problems of Nimzowitsch the player is revealed: carried away by his
strategic ideas, he often ignored tactics!}) 13. Nxc6 $6 ({For some reason the
strong tactical blow} 13. Nxd5 $1 {, opening the position to White's advantage,
went unnoticed:} Nxd4 14. Nxe7+ Qxe7 15. Qe3 Bxg2 16. Kxg2 Qb7+ 17. f3 Nf5 (
17... Rfd8 $6 18. Rfd1 Nf5 19. Qf2 Nd5 20. Bd2 f6 21. Nd3) 18. Qf2 Nh5 ({or}
18... Nd5 19. Bd2) 19. Bd2 Qd5 20. Bc3 b4 21. e4 Qb5 22. a4 $5 Qxa4 23. Bd2 Ne7
24. Qc5 {, and Black does not have clear equality. I don't know, but perhaps
this was too complicated for those times?}) 13... Bxc6 {'Sämisch sacrifices
two tempi (exchange of the tempo-eating knight at e5 for the knight which is
almost undeveloped) merely to be rid of the ghost.' (Nimzowitsch)} 14. h3 $6
Qd7 15. Kh2 $6 {(Sämisch does not seem to know what to do, and he marks time)}
Nh5 $1 ({'I could have supplied him with yet a second ghost by} 15... Qb7 {and
...Nd7-b6-c4, but I wished to turn my attention to the kingside.' (Nimzowitsch)
}) 16. Bd2 f5 {(White's position is already worse)} 17. Qd1 $2 ({Although
White has lost a lot of time, after} 17. Nb1 {he could still have put up a
fight, for example:} a5 (17... Nf6 18. Bb4) 18. Rc2 f4 19. g4 Bd6 20. Bf3 Nf6
21. Rfc1 Rfc8 {.}) 17... b4 18. Nb1 Bb5 19. Rg1 ({Or} 19. Qe1 a5 20. a3 Rab8 {
. 'One senses how White is shrivelling.' (Nimzowitsch)}) 19... Bd6 20. e4 $6 {
A desperate chance, the only one to try and escape from the vice.} fxe4 $1 {An
absolutely correct piece sacrifice, leading to the complete paralysis of
White's army. 'He is unable to disentangle his pieces.' (Nimzowitsch)} 21. Qxh5
Rxf2 22. Qg5 (22. a3 a5 {.}) 22... Raf8 23. Kh1 R8f5 24. Qe3 Bd3 ({Black is
playing for zugzwang, but it is amusing (and also not pointed out by anyone)
that it was also possible simply to win the queen:} 24... Re2 $1 25. Qb3 Ba4
26. Rc8+ Rf8 {.}) 25. Rce1 h6 $1 {Brilliant!} ({White resigns - he has no
moves: if} 25... h6 26. Kh2 ({or} 26. g4 {, then} R5f3 $1 {. --- 'This game,'
wrote Nimzowitsch, 'called in Denmark the "immortal zugzwang game", is just as
typical of our time as was the "immortal sacrificial game" of Anderssen's time.
Now we sacrifice for the sake of prophylaxis, or to set up a blockade, or to
restrict the dynamic potential of the opponent's forces, but not for the sake
of performing a crude act of aggression. The crude is obsolete!' --- In the
same vein is the following fine win by Black, illustrating no less vividly
Nimzowitsch's favourite ideas of blockade and the general restriction of
mobility (see the following game).})) 0-1
[Event "95: Dresden"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1926.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Johner, P."]
[Black "Nimzowitsch, A."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "E41"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "80"]
[EventDate "1926.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 {At that time this flexible defence was not
taken seriously, whereas nowadays it is one of the most popular openings for
Black.} 4. e3 O-O ({The historic source game Janowski-Nimzowitsch (St
Petersburg 1914) went} 4... b6 5. Bd3 Bb7 6. Nf3 Bxc3+ 7. bxc3 d6 ({
Nimzowitsch himself suggested} 7... c5 $1 {and ...Nc6}) 8. Qc2 Nbd7 9. e4 e5
10. O-O O-O 11. Bg5 h6 12. Bd2 Re8 {with a lengthy battle 'for' and 'against'
d4-d5.}) ({Then Nimzowitsch came to the conclusion that in this set-up the
light-squared bishop should be kept on the c8-g4 diagonal. For many years his
remarkable system, sometimes called the 'wall', was performed via} 4... c5 5.
Bd3 Nc6 6. Nf3 Bxc3+ $1 7. bxc3 d6 8. e4 (8. Nd2 e5 {- cf. the note to} 9. --
b6) 8... e5 {, for example:} 9. -- (9. d5 Ne7 (9... Na5 {has been rejected
because of Nd2-f1-e3: the c4-pawn is securely defended and the knight at a5 is
isolated}) 10. Nh4 h6 $1 11. f4 ({while if} 11. g3 {, then} g5 $1 {(this is
also strong after 11 0-0 or 11 f3)} 12. Ng2 (12. Qf3 Nfg8) 12... Bh3 {followed
by ...Qd7 and ...0-0-0}) 11... Ng6 $1 12. Nxg6 fxg6 13. fxe5 $6 (13. O-O O-O
14. f5 ({or} 14. Qe1 {is better})) 13... dxe5 14. Be3 b6 15. O-O O-O {(here
the game is level)} 16. a4 $6 a5 $1 17. Rb1 Bd7 18. Rb2 Rb8 19. Rbf2 $6 Qe7 20.
Bc2 g5 $1 21. Bd2 Qe8 $1 22. Be1 Qg6 23. Qd3 Nh5 $1 {etc. (Spassky-Fischer,
Reykjavik 5th matchgame 1972).}) (9. h3 h6 10. Be3 b6 11. d5 Ne7 12. Nd2 g5 $5
(12... Nh7 $5 {Timman}) 13. Nf1 ({or} 13. h4 gxh4 $1 14. Rxh4 Ng6 {
Yusupov-Karpov, Dortmund 1994}) 13... Ng6 14. g3 Bd7 15. Bd2 Qe7 16. Ne3 O-O-O
{with sharp play (Yusupov-Lalic, Yerevan Olympiad 1996). --- As we see, with
this move order Black has an important additional resource - queenside
castling (or even a walk by the king to the queenside). Therefore since the
time of the match games Korchnoi-Karpov (Baguio 3rd and 5th matchgames 1978)
White has increasingly often answered 4...c5 with Rubinstein's 5 Ne2! Today
this is considered the strongest move, and Black has considerable problems in
equalising. A fresh example is Kramnik-Leko (Budapest rapidplay, 9th matchgame
2001).})) 5. Bd3 ({Here too Rubinstein used to play} 5. Nge2 {avoiding the
doubling of his pawns.}) 5... c5 6. Nf3 Nc6 ({For some time} 6... d5 $1 {has
been preferred, transposing into the 'Modern Variation'.}) 7. O-O Bxc3 ({The
standard} 7... d5 $1 8. a3 Bxc3 9. bxc3 Qc7 {leads to a tabiya of the
1950s-70s, which is topical even today: Spassky used to play this, and Kramnik
also plays it.} (9... dxc4 10. Bxc4 Qc7 {.})) 8. bxc3 d6 {This is also a
theoretical tabiya, even with the inclusion of castling.} 9. Nd2 {'A fine
idea!' (Nimzowitsch)} ({The alternative is} 9. e4 e5 10. d5 Ne7 11. Nh4 {, for
example:} Ng6 ({or} 11... h6 12. f3 $5 (12. g3 $5 g5 13. Ng2) (12. Qf3 $5 Ng6
13. Nf5 {Hort}) 12... g5 13. Nf5 Nxf5 14. exf5 Bd7 {with complicated play
(Gelfand-Short, Dos Hermanas 1997)}) 12. Nf5 (12. Nxg6 fxg6 $1 {- Rubinstein!})
12... Re8 13. Rb1 h6 $5 14. Qf3 Rb8 15. g3 Nh7 16. h4 Ne7 $1 {(Yusupov-Epishin,
Dortmund 1994).}) 9... b6 (9... b6 {with the original idea of} 10. -- e5 11. d5
Na5 12. Nb3 Nb7 $5 {.}) ({After the immediate} 9... e5 $1 {(the main move)} 10.
-- ({, Nimzowitsch did not like} 10. d5 Ne7 (10... Na5 $6 11. Nb3 $1) 11. e4 {
with similar play to his aforementioned game with Janowski. However,
experience has shown that after} Ng6 ({or} 11... h6 12. Re1 Nh7 13. Nf1 f5 {
Black is alright}) 12. g3 Bh3 13. Re1 Ne8 14. Rb1 Qd7 {(and ...f7-f5).}) ({.
Therefore after 9...e5 White more often tries 10 Rb1!? or knight moves:} 10.
Nb3 {- now} b6 {leads to a position from the game,} ({but Black also has} 10...
Qe7 $5 {(Portisch-Seirawan, Toluca interzonal 1982)}) ({and} 10... e4 $5 {
(Andersson's move)} 11. Be2 b6 12. Bd2 Ne7 $1 13. Kh1 Nf5 14. Be1 Qe7 {with a
comfortable game (Portisch-Miles, Niksic 1983)})) (10. Ne4 b6 (10... Bf5 {has
also been played}) 11. Qf3 (11. Nxf6+ Qxf6 12. Be4 Bb7 13. Bd5 Na5 {equalises})
(11. f4 $5) 11... Bb7 12. Ng3 $6 (12. Nxf6+ Qxf6 13. Qxf6 gxf6 14. f4 $1 {is
better}) 12... Kh8 $1 13. d5 $6 (13. Qd1) 13... e4 $1 14. Bxe4 Ne5 15. Qf4 Ba6
16. Rd1 $2 g5 $1 17. Qxg5 Rg8 18. Qh6 (18. Qf4 Rg4 {etc.}) 18... Rxg3 19. hxg3
Nxe4 {and wins (Kamsky-Anand, Sanghi Nagar 2nd matchgame 1994).})) 10. Nb3 $6 (
{Of course,} 10. f4 $1 {is stronger. Nimzowitsch gives the variation} e5 11.
fxe5 dxe5 12. d5 Na5 13. Nb3 Nb7 14. e4 Ne8 {and ...Ned6 when 'the game would
stand about even', but White is not obliged to take on e5, freeing the
d6-square for his opponent. However, here it is not a matter of variations,
but of the fact that the master was thinking in positional categories that
were unknown to the majority of his contemporaries.}) 10... e5 $1 11. f4 ({
'The 11...e4 move would also have been the reply to} 11. d5 {, for example} e4
12. Be2 (12. dxc6 exd3 {with advantage to Black}) 12... Ne5 {with
centralisation.' (Nimzowitsch)}) ({In 1972 Portisch tried} 11. Bd2 {(the solid
11 f3 has also been played)} Ne7 $6 ({but} 11... Qe7 $1 {is better}) 12. e4 Ng6
13. f4 $1 {.}) 11... e4 ({'} 11... Qe7 {was also possible, for if say} 12. fxe5
dxe5 13. d5 {, then} Nd8 (13... e4 $1 {is better}) 14. e4 Ne8 {, and Black by ...Nd6 and ...f7-f6 gets a strong defensive position.' (Nimzowitsch)}) ({But
nowadays the problems are solved by} 11... exd4 $5 12. cxd4 cxd4 13. e4 ({or}
13. exd4 d5 $1) 13... Re8 14. Qf3 Bb7 15. Ba3 Qd7 16. Rae1 a5 {with sufficient
counterplay (Pinter-Razuvaev, Budapest 1982).}) 12. Be2 {The time has come for
revelations.} Qd7 $5 {The author of this surprising move attaches two
exclamation marks to it (in the Russian edition): 'Black sees in White's
kingside pawns (f-, g- and h-pawns) a qualitative majority. The text move
involves a complicated system of restraint.} ({A simpler one could have been
brought about by} 12... Ne8 {, but after} 13. g4 ({or} 13. f5 Qg5) ({; it is
amusing that 20th century theory altogether ignored 12...Qd7!? and considered
only} 13. Bd2 $5 f5 14. Be1 {, then h2-h3, g2-g4 and if possible Bh4 with some
initiative for White}) 13... f5 14. d5 ({if} 14. dxc5 dxc5 15. Qd5+ Qxd5 16.
cxd5 Ne7 17. Rd1 Nd6 {Black has rather the better game}) 14... Ne7 15. g5 {
this would again lead to a deadlock; we miss the squares at c5 and f5 for the
knights. To conduct restrictive operations, while avoiding the deadlock, makes
the problem exceedingly difficult to solve.' (Nimzowitsch)}) 13. h3 ({Later
Larsen suggested} 13. a4 $5 a5 14. Bd2 Ne7 15. Be1 {- after} Ba6 $1 16. Nd2 d5
17. Bf2 Rfc8 {Black has some initiative, but White's position is fairly solid
and there is nothing terrible for him as yet.}) (13. Bd2 Ne7 14. Be1 Ba6 $1 {
, and if} 15. Bh4 $2 Nf5 16. Bf2 cxd4 $1 17. cxd4 d5 {with pressure.}) ({Also
interesting is Szabo's recommendation} 13. f5 $5 Ne7 14. g4 h5 15. h3 hxg4 16.
hxg4 {with counterplay on the kingside. However, for the moment Johner has no
understanding of what is going on...}) 13... Ne7 14. Qe1 $2 {But this is an
obvious mistake: the queen manoeuvre does not at all go together with the
previous move.} ({Once White had played 13 h3, he should have continued} 14. g4
$5) ({or at least} 14. Kh2 $5 {(Szabo).}) ({There was also} 14. Bd2 -- ({,
after which Nimzowitsch recommended} 14... Nf5 15. Qe1 g6 16. g4 Ng7 17. Qh4
Nfe8 18. a4 {(otherwise ...Qa4)} f5 19. g5 Nc7 20. d5 Ba6 $1 (20... a5 $5) 21.
Kf2 (21. a5 b5) 21... Qf7 $1 22. Rfd1 (22. Qh6 $2 Nxd5 $1 23. cxd5 Bxe2 24.
Kxe2 Qxd5 25. Nc1 Nh5 $1 {, cutting off the queen}) 22... Kh8 {, then 23...Nh5,
...Rg8, ...Kg7-f8-e7-d7 and ...h7-h6!}) ({, and Larsen -} 14... h5 $5 15. Bxh5
(15. Be1 Nf5 16. Bf2 g6) 15... Nxh5 16. Qxh5 Qa4 $1 (16... Ba6 17. f5 $1) 17.
f5 f6 {with an excellent game for Black (} 18. Rf4 $2 Bxf5 {).})) 14... h5 $1 {
The start of a pawn-piece squeeze. Now White is tied down and has no active
possibilities.} 15. Bd2 ({But not} 15. Qh4 $2 Nf5 16. Qg5 Nh7 17. Qxh5 Ng3 {.})
15... Qf5 $1 {An amazing conception! 'The queen is bound for... h7! where she
will be excellently placed, for then the crippling of White's kingside by ...
h5-h4 will at once be threatened.' (Nimzowitsch)} 16. Kh2 Qh7 $1 17. a4 Nf5 (
17... Nf5 {with the threat of} 18. -- Ng4+ 19. hxg4 $2 hxg4+ 20. Kg1 g3 {
winning.}) 18. g3 ({Larsen suggests} 18. a5 $1 {, and he is right:} Ng4+ ({
although} 18... Bd7 {is possible with some advantage, even so White's position
is better than in the game}) 19. Bxg4 $1 hxg4 20. axb6 gxh3 21. gxh3 Nh4 22.
Qg3 {with unclear complications.}) 18... a5 {Depriving the opponent of his
last counterplay. The weakness at b6 is balanced by the weakness at a4 (as
also in the aforementioned Spassky-Fischer game!).} 19. Rg1 Nh6 20. Bf1 Bd7 21.
Bc1 Rac8 {Threatening by ...Be6 and ...cxd4! to force d4-d5, 'in order then to
operated undisturbed on the kingside.' (Nimzowitsch) It is a real pleasure to
watch how Black converts his advantage!} 22. d5 Kh8 23. Nd2 ({Or} 23. Kg2 Rg8
24. Kf2 g5 $1 {.}) 23... Rg8 {The start of the decisive attack, the logical
precondition for which was restricting the mobility of the white pawns.} 24.
Bg2 g5 25. Nf1 Rg7 26. Ra2 Nf5 27. Bh1 Rcg8 28. Qd1 gxf4 $1 {'Opens the g-file
for himself, but the e-file for his opponent. This move, therefore, demanded
deep deliberation.' (Nimzowitsch)} 29. exf4 Bc8 30. Qb3 Ba6 31. Re2 ({If} 31.
Bd2 {Black would have won by the pretty} Rg6 $1 32. Be1 Ng4+ 33. hxg4 hxg4+ 34.
Kg2 Bxc4 $3 35. Qxc4 e3 $3 {- a quiet move with unavoidable mate or the win of
the queen.}) 31... Nh4 $1 {(but now too the finish is no less fine)} 32. Re3 ({
'Here I naturally expected} 32. Nd2 {. But a result of that move would have
been a delightful queen sacrifice, namely:} Bc8 $1 ({but not} 32... Qf5 $2 33.
Qd1 $1 Bc8 34. Qf1) 33. Nxe4 (33. Qd1 Bxh3 $1 34. Kxh3 Qf5+) 33... Qf5 $1 34.
Nf2 Qxh3+ $1 35. Nxh3 Ng4# {.' (Nimzowitsch)}) 32... Bc8 33. Qc2 Bxh3 $1 34.
Bxe4 ({Or} 34. Kxh3 Qf5+ 35. Kh2 Ng4+ 36. Kh3 Nf2+ 37. Kh2 Qh3# {.}) 34... Bf5
{Accuracy to the end: there is no defence against ...h5-h4.} 35. Bxf5 Nxf5 36.
Re2 h4 37. Rgg2 hxg3+ 38. Kg1 Qh3 39. Ne3 Nh4 40. Kf1 Re8 $1 (40... Re8 {has
the threat of} 41. -- Nxg2 42. Rxg2 Qh1+ 43. Ke2 Qxg2+ $1) (40... Re8 {and if}
41. Ke1 {, then} Nf3+ 42. Kd1 Qh1+ {and mate.}) 0-1
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Nimzowitsch"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{As I have already mentioned, Nimzowitsch considered Chigorin to be his
teacher.} 1. -- ({It was from him that he adopted the 'incorrect' (by the
standards of the time) system with the moves ...Nf6, ...d7-d6, ...Nbd7, ...e7-e5 and ...Be7, or even ...g7-g6 and ...Bg7, thus becoming one of the
founders of the King's Indian Defence, although} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7
4. e4 d6 5. f4 O-O 6. Nf3 Nbd7 {had already occurred in the games Schwarz-L.Paulsen (Leipzig match 1879) and Englisch-Tarrasch (Hamburg 1885). Then
Tartakower and Réti played this way, but this opening only reached its heyday
in the mid-20th century - by the efforts of Konstantinopolsky, Boleslavsky,
Bronstein and Geller (as detailed in the second Volume).}) ({The young
Nimzowitsch so liked the Indian set-up, that he also employed it in the
Philidor Defence - for example, against Teichmann (San Sebastian 1911):} 1. e4
e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 Nf6 4. Nc3 Nbd7 {the Hanham Variation;} ({later Nimzowitsch
switched to} 4... exd4) 5. Bc4 Be7 6. O-O O-O 7. Qe2 c6 8. Bg5 $6 (8. a4 $1)
8... h6 9. Bh4 Nh5 10. Bg3 Nxg3 11. hxg3 b5 12. Bd3 a6 $1 13. a4 Bb7 14. Rad1
Qc7 {with an excellent game for Black.}) ({Was it not this set-up that
produced the remarkable idea of another hypermodernist, the Hungarian master
Gyula Breyer (1893-1921)? In a key position of the Ruy Lopez after} 1. e4 e5 2.
Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3 O-O 9. h3 Nb8
$5 ({instead of the usual} 9... Na5 10. Bc2 c5 {he suggested a paradoxical
manoeuvre}) 10. d4 Nbd7 {, for example:} 11. Nbd2 Bb7 12. Bc2 Re8 13. Nf1 Bf8
14. Ng3 g6 15. b3 c6 16. Bg5 h6 17. Be3 Bg7 18. Qd2 Kh7 19. Nh2 Qc7 {with a
flexible position 'ŕ la Nimzowitsch'. --- At the end of the 20th century the
Breyer Variation (and the variation of Igor Zaitsev which grew out of it: 9...
Bb7 10 d4 Re8 with the idea of ...Bf8 and only then ...Nb8-d7) gained
considerable popularity, as we will see from a game analysed in the second
volume, R. Byrne-Spassky (San Juan 3rd matchgame 1974).}) (1. -- {With his
ability to think in deep and original schemes, Nimzowitsch (like Rubinstein
too) was far ahead of his time. His plans were deadly against weaker opponents,
but... they did not work against the world champions. Nimzowitsch had a
pitiful individual score against Capablanca and Alekhine: he simply could not
withstand the overwhelming mental power of these great players, who
intuitively understood all his positional revelations. --- I think that
Capablanca did not even think about formulations, but he knew everything about
blockade, about weak points, and about manoeuvring, sensing a position with
the tips of his fingers. Whereas with Alekhine things often did not get as far
as manoeuvring: while Nimzowitsch was preparing to exploit weak points, he was
being mated! And although the 'great Aron' did well in tournaments from
1925-31, was in the world's top five, and issued challenges to both Capablanca
and Alekhine, sincerely considering himself to be a contender for the throne,
he was never genuinely close to the title of world champion. --- Nevertheless,
Nimzowitsch's contribution to the theory of positional play was enormous. His
book My System became an invaluable manual for many generations of players
(Petrosian grew up on it!). His disputes with Tarrasch expanded the boundaries
of our understanding of chess. Tarrasch, as a classic of the post-Steinitz era,
opposed with all his heart and soul the 'crooked' ideas of the hypermodernists,
who in fact were merely developing the teachings of Steinitz (as Lasker wrote,
'the new school should unite and synthesise that which the two great
antagonists, Steinitz and Chigorin, embodied'). I think that the historic
dispute of the two titans of chess thinking ended in favour of Nimzowitsch:
the popularity of his defence far exceeded the popularity of the Tarrasch - a
victory for flexibility!}) *
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "The Réti Phenomenon"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.07"]
{The Réti Phenomenon} 1. -- {Whereas Nimzowitsch was the pioneer of
hypermodernism, and Saviely Tartakower (1887-1956) with his Die hypermoderne
Schachpartie was its witty populariser, the outstanding Czech grandmaster
Richard Réti (1889-1929) staggered everyone in the early 1920s with his
spectacular wins at high level, gained with a highly unusual method.} *
[Event "96: Carlsbad"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1923.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Réti, R."]
[Black "Rubinstein, A."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A09"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "99"]
[EventDate "1923.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 ({Or} 2. b3 Bf5 3. g3 {(Game No.71); this set-up was also
adopted by both Capablanca (Game No.108) and Alekhine (Game No.146). I should
remind you that Morphy and Steinitz avoided the fianchetto and in the 19th
century it was employed only by Staunton, Paulsen (both mainly as Black) and
Chigorin, but after 1 e4.}) 2... Nf6 3. Bg2 g6 4. c4 {In contrast to
Nimzowitsch, who played 1 Nf3, 2 b3 and 3 Bb2 and put pressure on the
e5-square, Réti puts pressure on d5. As he wrote, what is common for the
hypermodernists 'is only the fact that they are all seekers, aiming to
discover new (apart from those established by Steinitz) strategic laws; but
they proceed towards this goal in the most varied ways.' --- Yes, those were
glorious times, when playing chess, which was still full of unresolved
mysteries, became a battle of philosophical conceptions... In the given
instance it was Réti who was proved historically correct: the pressure on d5
is after all more effective than that on e5.} d4 (4... c6 {is sounder.}) 5. d3
Bg7 6. b4 $1 {'The d4-pawn needs to be isolated, in order then either to win
it, or to force Black after e2-e3 to exchange it, which will give White an
imposing advantage in the centre.' (Kmoch)} O-O 7. Nbd2 $1 c5 8. Nb3 cxb4 9.
Bb2 $1 (9. Nfxd4 e5 $1 10. Nc2 a5 {is not so clear.}) 9... Nc6 10. Nbxd4 Nxd4
11. Bxd4 b6 12. a3 $1 {What is this, if not the Benko Gambit with reversed
colours?!} (12. Nd2 $2 Qxd4 13. Bxa8 {was incorrect because of} Ng4 $1 {.})
12... Bb7 (12... Bb7 {threatening} 13. -- Bxf3 14. Bxf3 Qxd4 15. Bxa8 Ng4 {.})
13. Bb2 bxa3 14. Rxa3 Qc7 15. Qa1 $1 {'This move, it can be said, was not
found, but created by Réti! It is extremely strong and highly typical of the
entire variation in question.' (Kmoch)} Ne8 16. Bxg7 Nxg7 17. O-O Ne6 18. Rb1 {
(with the threat of Rxa7)} Bc6 19. d4 Be4 20. Rd1 a5 21. d5 Nc5 22. Nd4 $1 {
'The knight invades at c6. Rubinstein's deep strategy has been completely
defeated - a very rare occurrence: up till then his opponents had defeated him
(also, it is true, not often), mainly combinatively.' (Kmoch) --- Yes, for a
classic player it was rather hard playing such a non-classical position. He
appeared to defend normally, tenaciously, but was literally suffocated on the
queenside...} Bxg2 23. Kxg2 Rfd8 (23... Rfc8 $5 {.}) 24. Nc6 Rd6 25. Re3 Re8 {
An important moment.} ({Maróczy considered the least evil to be the exchange
sacrifice -} 25... Rxc6 $5 26. dxc6 Qxc6+ {, and he was right: such a knight
cannot be endured! However, all the same after} 27. f3 {White should have
gradually won. --- Rubinstein was relying on his trumps - the 'eternal' knight
at c5 and passed a-pawn, but here the weakness of the c6-square and the
b6-pawn are far more significant. White's combined attack proves decisive.})
26. Qe5 f6 27. Qb2 e5 28. Qb5 $1 Kf7 29. Rb1 Nd7 30. f3 Rc8 ({For some reason
no one has pointed out that the natural equalising attempt} 30... Nb8 31. Nxb8
Rxb8 {, would have been refuted by} (31... Qxb8 32. c5 $1) 32. c5 $1 Rxd5 33.
Qb3 Qxc5 34. Rd3 Rbd8 35. Rbd1 a4 36. Qa2 Ke6 37. e4 {winning.}) 31. Rd3 $1 {
(a subtle manoeuvre)} e4 $5 {desperation;} (31... Nb8 32. c5 $1) ({or} 31...
Nc5 32. Qxb6 $1 {.}) 32. fxe4 Ne5 33. Qxb6 $1 Nxc6 ({After} 33... Nxd3 34. exd3
{the avalanche of white passed pawns is irresistible.}) 34. c5 $1 {(a
murderous interposition)} Rd7 35. dxc6 Rxd3 36. Qxc7+ Rxc7 37. exd3 Rxc6 38.
Rb7+ Ke8 39. d4 Ra6 40. Rb6 $1 Ra8 ({Or} 40... Rxb6 41. cxb6 Kd8 42. e5 fxe5
43. dxe5 a4 44. e6 a3 45. b7 Kc7 46. b8=Q+ Kxb8 47. e7 a2 48. e8=Q+ {. The
remainder is clear without any commentary.}) 41. Rxf6 a4 42. Rf2 a3 43. Ra2 Kd7
44. d5 g5 45. Kf3 Ra4 46. Ke3 h5 47. h4 gxh4 48. gxh4 Ke7 49. Kf4 Kd7 50. Kf5 {
. An amazingly clean, instructional game - a model example of the ideas of
hypermodernism!} 1-0
[Event "97: New York"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1924.??.??"]
[Round "5"]
[White "Réti, R."]
[Black "Capablanca, JR."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A15"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "61"]
[EventDate "1924.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{Réti also played splendidly in the double-round super-tournament in New York
1924, where Capablanca, Lasker and Alekhine met for the first time since 1914.
--- In the first half of the tournament the 'leader of the revolutionary
modern school' (the press definition) inflicted a sensational defeat on the
current world champion. This was the first zero for the impregnable Capa since
his defeats by Chajes (New York 1916) and Lasker (St Petersburg 1914).} 1. Nf3
Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. b4 $5 Bg7 ({The source game Nimzowitsch-Réti (Carlsbad 1923)
went} 3... a5 4. b5 Bg7 5. Bb2 O-O 6. e3 d6 7. d4 Nbd7 8. Be2 e5 9. O-O exd4
10. exd4 Re8 $6 {, and here} 11. Nc3 $1 {would have retained the advantage
(Nimzowitsch). However, by 10...Ne4! and ...Ndf6 Black could have obtained a
fine game, which I did at the age of 12, in a simultaneous display by the
master player Katalymov at a pioneers' palace tournament (Leningrad 1974).}) 4.
Bb2 O-O 5. g3 b6 6. Bg2 Bb7 7. O-O d6 8. d3 Nbd7 9. Nbd2 e5 {'Capablanca
treats the opening simply as well as soundly and, after a few moves, obtains a
perfectly even position.' (Alekhine)} 10. Qc2 (10. Nxe5 $2 Bxg2 11. Nxd7 {does
not work because of} Bxf1 {winning.}) 10... Re8 11. Rfd1 a5 (11... e4 12. dxe4
Nxe4 13. Bxg7 Kxg7 14. Nd4 {favours White.}) 12. a3 h6 $6 {'This move, which
is difficult to understand, is the best proof that Capablanca was poorly
disposed that day.' (Alekhine) It is known that the champion began the
tournament completely unwell, with a high temperature. True, on the other hand,
a witty remark by Larsen comes to mind: 'Not once in my life have I won
against a healthy player!'} 13. Nf1 c5 $1 {'A clever positional trap, quite in
the champion's style.' (Alekhine)} 14. b5 {Declining the 'Greek gift'.} ({After
} 14. bxa5 Rxa5 15. Nxe5 Bxg2 16. Nxd7 Bc6 $1 17. Nxf6+ Bxf6 18. Bxf6 Qxf6 19.
Qd2 h5 $1 {Black has more than sufficient compensation for the pawn:} 20. Rab1
Ra6 21. Rb2 d5 {etc.}) 14... Nf8 (14... d5 $6 {is dubious in view of} 15. cxd5
Nxd5 16. N3d2 $1 Qe7 17. Nc4 Rad8 18. Nfd2 {, when White's control of c4 gives
him a pleasant game.}) 15. e3 $5 (15. e4 {and Ne3-d5 is really too insipid.})
15... Qc7 16. d4 Be4 17. Qc3 $2 ({Of course,} 17. Qc1 {is better, although
after} exd4 18. exd4 Ne6 {Black has no problems.}) 17... exd4 18. exd4 N6d7 {
An error in reply. 'Capablanca probably overlooked the check of the queen on
the 22nd move, by means of which White protects his b-pawn;} ({otherwise he
would undoubtedly have selected the simple move of} 18... Ne6 {, the strength
of which was patent. After} 19. dxc5 dxc5 20. Qc1 {Black's position, because
of the effective distribution of his pieces, would have been somewhat
preferable.' (Alekhine)}) 19. Qd2 $1 cxd4 $6 ({According to Alekhine, better
was} 19... Rad8 20. dxc5 dxc5 21. Bxg7 Kxg7 22. Qb2+ Kg8 23. Ne3 {, when it
would still, perhaps, have been possible to neutralise White's advantage.}) 20.
Bxd4 Qxc4 21. Bxg7 Kxg7 22. Qb2+ $1 Kg8 23. Rxd6 ({But not immediately} 23.
N3d2 $6 {because of} Qc2 {.}) 23... Qc5 ({Passive was} 23... Qc7 24. Rad1 Nc5
25. Ne3 {etc.}) 24. Rad1 Ra7 25. Ne3 {(with the threat of Ng4)} Qh5 26. Nd4 $1
({'The most compelling move. White, to be sure, by means of the surprising
continuation of} 26. R1d5 $5 Bxd5 27. g4 Bxf3 28. gxh5 Bxh5 29. Bc6 {etc.,
would have won the queen for a rook, knight and pawn, but the final tussle in
that case would have been much more difficult and tedious than after the best
defence possible against the move in the text.' (Alekhine)}) 26... Bxg2 27.
Kxg2 Qe5 $2 ({Undoubtedly more tenacious was} 27... Ne5 {, when White would
have had a pleasant choice between} 28. Qe2 (28. Rxb6 $6 Ng4) 28... Qxe2 29.
Nxe2 {and 28 Qb3!? with the threats of Nd5 and Rxb6.}) (27... Rxe3 $2 28. fxe3
Qxd1 29. Ne6 {wins}) (27... Rc7 28. Nf3 {.}) 28. Nc4 Qc5 {'The unfortunate
queen will presently be unable to find another square.' (Alekhine)} 29. Nc6 Rc7
(29... Rb7 30. Ne3 {.}) 30. Ne3 Ne5 ({Or} 30... Qh5 31. R1d5 f5 32. Rd2 Kh7 33.
Nd5 {.}) 31. R1d5 $1 (31. R1d5 Nc4 32. Rxc5 Nxb2 33. Rc2 Na4 34. Nd5 {wins.})
1-0
[Event "98: New York"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1924.??.??"]
[Round "12"]
[White "Réti, R."]
[Black "Bogoljubow, E."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "E01"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "49"]
[EventDate "1924.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{The inspired Réti then gained a further three brilliant wins in succession
and for more than half of the tournament held second place (behind Lasker).
The main thing was that no one could resist in his favourite opening!} 1. Nf3 (
1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. e3 Bg7 4. Nbd2 b6 5. Bc4 $6 O-O 6. Qe2 c5 7. c3 Bb7 8.
O-O d5 $1 9. Bd3 Ne4 $5 10. Bxe4 $6 dxe4 11. Ng5 e5 $1 12. Ngxe4 exd4 13. exd4
{, and here the simple} cxd4 $1 {would have retained the advantage.}) 1... d5
2. c4 e6 {Alekhine criticised this move, which blocks in the bishop at c8,} ({
and recommended Lasker's} 2... c6 {(Nos.71, 108). But later, here too quite
acceptable defensive set-ups were found.}) 3. g3 Nf6 4. Bg2 ({It is rather too
early for the move} 4. b3 {, for example:} c5 5. Bg2 Nc6 6. O-O Be7 7. d3 (7.
cxd5 $5) 7... O-O 8. Bb2 d4 {with a complicated game in prospect
(Capablanca-Marshall, Moscow 1925).}) 4... Bd6 ({Dubious is} 4... d4 $6 5. b4
$1) ({or} 4... c5 5. O-O d4 6. d3 Nc6 7. e3 $1 {- a Modern Benoni with
reversed colours and an extra tempo.}) ({Playable, however, is the well-tried}
4... dxc4 5. Qa4+ Nbd7 6. Qxc4 c5 (6... a6 $5)) ({or} 4... Be7 5. O-O O-O 6. b3
b6 7. Bb2 Bb7 8. e3 (8. cxd5 Nxd5 $1) 8... c5 9. Nc3 dxc4 10. bxc4 Nc6 {etc.})
5. O-O O-O 6. b3 Re8 $6 {This looks like a waste of a tempo.} ({More accurate
is} 6... Nbd7 7. Bb2 c6 {, and if} 8. d4 {, then} Ne4 ({or} 8... Qe7 {- this
set-up also occurs today}) 9. Nbd2 f5 {, erecting a 'stonewall' (Réti-Vajda,
Semmering 1926).}) 7. Bb2 Nbd7 8. d4 $1 {An improvement, suggested by
Capablanca!} ({In the sixth round Réti had defeated Yates in pretty fashion
after} 8. d3 c6 9. Nbd2 e5 10. cxd5 cxd5 11. Rc1 Nf8 12. Rc2 Bd7 (12... Bf5 $5
13. Qa1 N8d7 {Alekhine}) 13. Qa1 $1 Ng6 14. Rfc1 -- (14... Bc6 $2 15. Nf1 Qd7
$6 (15... Qe7) 16. Ne3 h6 $2 (16... d4 $1 17. Nc4 Bc7) 17. d4 $1 {(the
explosion of a compressed spring!)} e4 18. Ne5 Bxe5 19. dxe5 Nh7 20. f4 $1 exf3
21. exf3 Ng5 22. f4 Nh3+ 23. Kh1 d4 $5 {(desperation)} 24. Bxd4 Rad8 25. Rxc6
$1 bxc6 26. Bxc6 Nf2+ 27. Kg2 Qxd4 28. Qxd4 Rxd4 29. Bxe8 Ne4 30. e6 $1 Rd2+
31. Kf3 {1-0.}) ({. But it soon transpired that Black had a normal position:
instead of 14...Bc6? he could have chosen between} 14... Qe7 15. Nf1 Rac8 16.
Rxc8 Rxc8 17. Rxc8+ Bxc8 18. d4 e4 19. Ne5 Qc7 {with equality (Alekhine)}) ({
, and the more aggressive} 14... b5 $5 15. Nf1 Qb8 $1 16. Ne3 a5 {(Nimzowitsch)
.})) 8... c6 9. Nbd2 {Surprisingly, a similar position with reversed colours
occurred in the 10th round game Marshall-Capablanca: 1 d4 variation.} (9. Ne5
$5 {is also good.}) 9... Ne4 $6 ({'If the liberating move of} 9... e5 {,
recommended by Rubinstein and others, is really the best here - and this
appears to be the case - then it furnishes the most striking proof that
Black's entire arrangement of his game was faulty. For the simple continuation}
10. cxd5 cxd5 11. dxe5 Nxe5 12. Nxe5 Bxe5 13. Bxe5 Rxe5 14. Nc4 Re8 15. Ne3 Be6
16. Qd4 {would have given White a direct attack against the isolated d-pawn,
without permitting the opponent any chances whatsoever.' (Alekhine) --- The
move in the game leads in the end to the exchange of knights, but does not
solve Black's main problem - the employment of his c8-bishop.}) 10. Nxe4 dxe4
11. Ne5 f5 12. f3 $1 {(the opening of the game increases White's advantage)}
exf3 13. Bxf3 $1 Qc7 ({Also unattractive is} 13... Nxe5 14. dxe5 Bc5+ 15. Kg2
Bd7 16. e4 $1 {.}) 14. Nxd7 $1 Bxd7 15. e4 {(with the threat of a bind by
e4-e5)} e5 16. c5 Bf8 17. Qc2 $1 {A double attack - the prelude to a series of
energetic and accurately-calculated moves, which destroy Black's defences.}
exd4 (17... fxe4 $2 18. Bxe4 {wins.}) 18. exf5 $1 Rad8 ({After} 18... Re5 19.
Qc4+ Kh8 20. f6 {, among other lines, would be very strong.' (Alekhine)}) 19.
Bh5 $1 {(the decisive manoeuvre)} Re5 20. Bxd4 Rxf5 ({If} 20... Rd5 {, then}
21. Qc4 Kh8 22. Bg4 {with an extra pawn and the initiative.}) 21. Rxf5 Bxf5 22.
Qxf5 Rxd4 23. Rf1 $1 Rd8 ({Or} 23... Qe7 24. Bf7+ Kh8 25. Bd5 $1 Qf6 26. Qc8 {
and White wins.}) 24. Bf7+ Kh8 25. Be8 {. An elegant concluding stroke. Black
resigns. The first brilliancy prize! --- In the next round he also defeated
Alekhine, who later, talking not only about this game, admitted: 'Réti is the
only grandmaster whose moves are often completely unexpected to me.' However,
soon Réti met his match - he lost in his opening to the leader, Lasker (Game
No.71). This clearly depressed him and after losing with Black to Yates,
Edward Lasker and Capablanca, he dropped down to fifth place...} 1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Hypermodern opening"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{For the highest successes the talented Czech player lacked competitive
qualities and a reliable defence against 1 e4. As Tartakower wrote: 'Réti is a
brilliant type of artist, who battles not so much with his opponents, as with
himself, with his own ideals and doubts.'} 1. -- ({It was also then, in the
early 1920s, that the Austrian grandmaster Ernst Grünfeld (1893-1962) revealed
to the world another hypermodern opening -} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 {,
allowing} 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4 Nxc3 6. bxc3 {and attacking the pawn centre by}
Bg7 {and ...c7-c5. The sharp, dynamic Grünfeld Defence soon won a place under
the sun, especially as Alekhine promptly included it in his repertoire. Later
great contributions to its development were made by Botvinnik, Smyslov,
Korchnoi, Fischer...}) ({Generally speaking, Alekhine was quick to take up
virtually all the latest achievements of chess thinking. This related not only
to the 'Réti' (including with reversed colours), the 'Grünfeld', the 'Nimzo'
or the Queen's Indian Defence. On seeing a Moscow first category player reply
to} 1. e4 {with the strange move} Nf6 {, Alekhine substantiated and in 1921
introduced into serious competition this more than hypermodern defence, which
received his name and the recognition by Nimzowitsch of 'Alekhine's most
outstanding discovery: the move 1...Nf6 is stunning, it cannot be called other
than brilliant.'}) ({I should also mention the first sensational testing of
the Blumenfeld Gambit (a forerunner of the Benko Gambit):} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6
3. Nf3 c5 $5 4. d5 b5 $5 5. dxe6 (5. Bg5 $1) 5... fxe6 6. cxb5 d5 7. e3 Bd6 8.
Nc3 O-O 9. Be2 ({after Réti's move} 9. e4 $5 {correct is} Nbd7 $1) 9... Bb7 10.
b3 Nbd7 11. Bb2 Qe7 12. O-O Rad8 13. Qc2 e5 {with powerful play for the pawn
(Tarrasch-Alekhine, Pistyan 1922). Incidentally, a similar motif occurred in
the match games Korchnoi-Karpov (Baguio 7th and 17th matchgames 1978), which I
will describe in the third volume.}) ({Capablanca also endeavoured not to be
out of step with the times and tried playing the 'Réti', the 'Alekhine'
(against Yates in Moscow 1925), the 'Nimzo' and other fashionable set-ups. See
how he performed 'at sight' the Modern Benoni with reversed colours:} 1. Nf3 d5
2. g3 c5 3. Bg2 Nc6 4. O-O e5 5. c4 d4 6. d3 Bd6 7. e3 Nge7 8. exd4 ({
according to Capa, first} 8. Nbd2 $1 {with the idea of Ne4 was more accurate})
8... cxd4 9. a3 a5 10. Nbd2 Ng6 $6 11. Re1 O-O 12. Qc2 Re8 13. b3 h6 (13... f6
$1) 14. Rb1 Be6 15. h4 $5 Rc8 $2 (15... Qe7) (15... b6) 16. c5 $1 Bb8 17. Nc4
f6 18. Bd2 Kh8 19. b4 {etc. (Capablanca-Janowski, New York 1924).}) (1. -- {
However, in general the Cuban was not an openings expert and he did little
work in this field. 'He had a high regard for his talent and thought that he
would always outplay his opponent at the board,' writes Botvinnik. 'But
doesn't one have to be familiar with modern openings? Capablanca "observed"
what his opponents were playing, evaluated these variations critically, and if
necessary, employed them.' --- An interesting observation was made by Réti:
'Instead of applying Morphy's principle of developing all the pieces as
quickly as possible he was guided in his play by some plan based as much as
possible on positional considerations. According to that method every move not
demanded by that plan amounts to loss of time.' And the main principle of the
middlegame, formulated by Capablanca, was the coordinated action of all his
pieces.}) (1. -- {We will add to the portrait of the champion with a
commendation by Nimzowitsch: 'Analyse various typical positions! That is how
Capablanca works. He is eternally analysing and it is always typical positions.
Capablanca is familiar with a mass of such positions - mainly from the field
of queen and rook endgames.' Yes, Capa was deeply convinced that 'to improve
at chess you should in the first instance study the endgame.' --- With the
appearance of innovatory openings and the emergence into the arena of a new
generation of masters, chess greatly revived, discovering in itself a chasm of
unexplored possibilities. And by the mid-30s talk about the threat of its draw
death had somehow petered out of its own accord. At any event, both Lasker and
Capablanca remembered about their fears with a smile...}) *
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "From London to New York"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.08"]
{From London to New York: 'I did not want to stand in the way of the young,'
Lasker declared after the match in Havana, 'and so I am prepared to give up my
right to a return match to clear the way for Rubinstein whom I rate highly.'
Yes, Akiba remained the main contender for the world championship, but after
the war his success curve went downhill. And at the same time Alekhine, Réti
and Bogoljubow had started to make progress...} 1. -- {The first major
tournament, where the new champion met his potential challengers, was London
1922. Capa started with 6 out of 6(!) and in the end he demonstrated
brilliantly that he was the strongest player in the world: 1. Capablanca - 13
out of 15; 2. Alekhine - 11˝ (both undefeated); 3. Vidmar - 11; 4.
Rubinstein - 10˝; 5. Bogoljubow - 9; 6-7. Réti and Tartakower - 8˝ etc.}
*
[Event "99: London"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1922.??.??"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Capablanca, JR."]
[Black "Bogoljubow, E."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C91"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "103"]
[EventDate "1922.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{Here is another famous game by the Cuban on the theme 'bishop out of play'
(like both Game No.88 and Game No.99). As it was very superficially analysed,
it generated a whole series of myths, which I would finally like to dispel.} 1.
e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. c3 O-O
9. d4 exd4 $6 {The first steps of theory;} ({of course,} 9... Bg4 $1 {is more
accurate.}) 10. cxd4 Bg4 11. Be3 $6 {Returning the compliment;} ({correct is}
11. Nc3 $1 {(Lasker-Bogoljubow, Mährisch Ostrau 1923).}) 11... Na5 (11... d5 {
is also interesting, but we will skip through the opening since it is not the
main content of this game.}) 12. Bc2 Nc4 (12... c5 $5 {.}) 13. Bc1 ({Harmless
is} 13. Nbd2 $6 Nxe3 14. Rxe3 c5 15. Qe1 Nd7 16. h3 Bh5 17. dxc5 Nxc5 {with
the initiative for Black (Yates-Capablanca, New York 1924).}) 13... c5 14. b3
Na5 (14... Nb6 $5 {.}) 15. Bb2 $6 ({Much stronger is Fischer's plan} 15. d5 $1
Nd7 16. Nbd2 Bf6 17. Rb1 {, which was tested in the games Fischer-Korchnoi
(Stockholm interzonal 1962), Korchnoi-Portisch (Sousse interzonal 1967),
Tal-Gligoric (Belgrade 7th matchgame 1968) and Bronstein-Smyslov (Petropolis
interzonal 1973). --- Now, however, Black is able to exchange the formidable
'Spanish' bishop and to gain the advantage of the two bishops.}) 15... Nc6 $1
16. d5 Nb4 17. Nbd2 Nxc2 18. Qxc2 Re8 ({'} 18... Nd7 {at once would have been
better.' (Capablanca) In any event, Black has achieved an excellent position
from the opening in the spirit of the Modern Benoni: no problems!}) 19. Qd3 ({
Capa suggested} 19. a4 {, in order after} b4 $6 {to create a 'hole' for the
knight at c4.} ({But} 19... Nd7 20. Qd3 Qb6 {was possible, with a complicated
game.})) 19... h6 $6 ({Again} 19... Nd7 $1 {is better.}) 20. Nf1 ({In my
opinion, the immediate} 20. h3 $5 {is more energetic.}) 20... Nd7 21. h3 Bh5 $6
{'This is the turning point of the game. Black should have taken the knight
with the bishop and then played ...Bf6. Failure to do this was the cause of
his defeat.' (Capablanca) A typically categorical statement from the 'epoch of
the titans': all simple and understandable!} ({Of course, it was quite
unnecessary to hold on to the bishop, and by} 21... Bxf3 $1 22. Qxf3 Bf6 {
Black would have achieved the dream of any Modern Benoni devotee. However, I
cannot agree with Capablanca's conclusion: in my view the move 21...Bh5 is
double-edged and does not yet spoil anything. It is another matter that
Bogoljubow did not realise just how dangerous was his opponent's deep plan of
cutting off the bishop.}) 22. N3d2 Bf6 23. Bxf6 Qxf6 24. a4 c4 $5 {'This move
gives Black a passed pawn, but on the other hand it helps White to carry out
his purpose of blocking off the bishop at h5.' (Capablanca) Indeed, the move
is very interesting and sharp: Bogoljubow, an incurable chess optimist, is
playing for a win!} ({Also unclear is} 24... Ne5 25. Qe3 g5 $5 {followed by ...Bg6 - it is doubtful whether the weakening of the king can be exploited, and
it would appear that Black has a perfectly good game.}) 25. bxc4 Nc5 26. Qe3
bxa4 ({It is strange that none of the commentators considered such an obvious
move as} 26... bxc4 $5 {. For example:} 27. Ra3 ({or} 27. f3 Nd3 28. Reb1 Nb4
$1 29. e5 Rxe5 30. Ne4 Rxe4 31. Qxe4 Bg6 32. Qxc4 Bxb1 33. Rxb1 a5) 27... Bg6
28. f3 Nd3 29. Rb1 Nf4 30. Nxc4 Rac8 {with sharp play. However, the capture on
a4 is not yet a mistake.}) 27. f4 $1 {The consistent implementation of the
plan - Capablanca's iron principle.} Qe7 $6 ({Charmed by the Cuban's easy play,
the commentators did not notice} 27... Bg6 $1 {. Yet after} 28. Ng3 (28. e5 Qd8
$1) (28. f5 $2 Bxf5) 28... Rab8 29. f5 Bh7 {the f5-pawn is not supported by
g2-g4 and Black's chances are certainly not worse: in the event of} 30. Rab1 $2
Rxb1 31. Rxb1 a3 $1 {White's position is altogether unenviable.}) 28. g4 Bg6
29. f5 {As in his game with Winter (Game No.88), Capa cuts off the bishop from
the main battlefield. But there the bishop was altogether 'dead', whereas here
it can after all come into play, and in addition Black has a strong passed
pawn. And although from the preceding commentary it would appear that 'the
goalkeeper is already on the ground and it only remains to shoot gently but
accurately at the goal,' in my view the evaluation of the position is as yet
far from clear.} Bh7 30. Ng3 Qe5 $1 31. Kg2 Rab8 32. Rab1 f6 {'The move
prepares for the ultimate re-entrance of the bishop into the game via g8, f7
etc. The drawback is that it creates a hole at e6 for one of the white knights.
However, there was not very much that Black could do in order to avoid the
disadvantage from such a poor pawn formation.' (Capablanca) But why?!} (32...
Rb2 {came into consideration, for example:} 33. Re2 Rxb1 34. Nxb1 Rb8 35. Nd2
Rb2 {with counterplay.}) 33. Nf3 Rb2+ 34. Rxb2 Qxb2+ 35. Re2 Qb3 36. Nd4 $1
Qxe3 $2 ({'Practically forced, since he could not afford to play} 36... Qxc4 {
because of} 37. Rc2 {followed by Ne6,' Capablanca writes in his manual (A
Primer of Chess), overlooking} Qxd5 38. Ne6 Qb3 $1 ({there is also} 38... Rxe6
39. fxe6 Qxe6 {. Of course, 37 Ne6! is stronger, but after 37...Rb8 the
position is completely unclear. --- Thus 36...Qxc4! was perfectly possible.
The queens should have been retained for the additional reason that White's
king is bad, and this was an additional chance for Black.})) 37. Rxe3 Rb8 38.
Rc3 Kf7 39. Kf3 Rb2 40. Nge2 Bg8 41. Ne6 $1 {It is now possible to talk of an
advantage for White, although, as we will see, subsequently Bogoljubow could
have resisted more tenaciously.} Nb3 ({After} 41... Nxe4 42. Kxe4 Rxe2+ {Capa
gives} 43. Kd3 ({but I would give} 43. Kd4 Rd2+ 44. Rd3 Rxd3+ 45. Kxd3 h5 46.
Kc3 hxg4 47. hxg4 Bh7 48. Kb4 g6 49. Nd4 {winning}) 43... Rh2 44. Kd4 h5 45. c5
$1 {.}) (41... Nxe6 $2 42. fxe6+ {and 43 c5!.}) 42. c5 dxc5 43. Nxc5 Nd2+ 44.
Kf2 (44. Ke3 $2 a3 {.}) 44... Ke7 $2 ({Capa suggested} 44... Nb1 $1 45. -- (45.
Nxa4 Nxc3 46. Nxb2 Nxe4+ 47. Ke3 Nd6 {'with good chances to draw.'}) ({.
Tartakower added} 45. Rc4 $1 a3 46. Ne6 Ke7 $1 ({but not} 46... a2 47. Rc7+ Ke8
48. d6 $1 {with the threat of Re7 mate; however, White wins only by the
study-like} Bxe6 49. fxe6 Rb8 50. Rxg7 Kf8 51. Rf7+ Kg8 52. Rb7 $3 Rxb7 53. d7
a1=Q 54. e7 Rxd7 55. e8=Q+ Kg7 56. Qxd7+ Kg8 57. Nd4 Qa2+ 58. Kg3 Qf7 59. Qc8+
Kh7 60. Qxa6 Qc7+ 61. Kg2 {- G.K.}) 47. Rc7+ Kd6 48. Rc6+ Ke7 {But what next?}
({Black can try} 48... Ke5 $5 {(instead of 48...Ke7)} 49. N6f4 Nd2 50. Nd3+
Kxe4 51. d6 Rb8 52. d7 {. White still has some work to do in order to win:} Rd8
({or} 52... a2 53. Rc8 a1=Q 54. Ng3+ $1 Kxd3 55. d8=Q+ Qd4+ 56. Qxd4+ Kxd4 57.
Rxb8 {etc.}) 53. Rd6 Bd5 54. Nb4 $1 a5 55. Re6+ $3 {(a very difficult,
study-like move!)} Bxe6 56. fxe6 axb4 57. e7) 49. Nc5 ({therefore there would
seem to be only one way to win -} 49. Rxa6 $1 Bxe6 50. fxe6 Nc3 51. Ra7+ Kf8
52. Ke3 Rxe2+ 53. Kd3) 49... Nc3 50. d6+ {, Black is saved by} Kd8 51. Ke3 (51.
d7 $2 Nxe4+) 51... a2 52. Rxa6 Rxe2+ 53. Kd3 a1=Q $1 54. Rxa1 Ra2 {. Thus 44..
.Nb1! would have prolonged the game, whereas now it ends quickly.})) 45. Ke1
Nb1 46. Rd3 a3 $2 {Another mistake,} ({but} 46... Kd6 {would also not have
saved Black -} 47. Nxa4 Rb4 48. Nac3 {.}) 47. d6+ Kd8 48. Nd4 $1 Rb6 49. Nde6+
Bxe6 50. fxe6 Rb8 51. e7+ Ke8 52. Nxa6 ({After} 52. Nxa6 a2 {White wins with}
53. Nxb8 a1=Q 54. d7+ {.}) (52. -- {And so, London 1922 further strengthened
the beautiful legend about Capablanca's invincibility. But this tournament is
also memorable for another reason. Here, for the first time in history, the
champion invited a group of leading grandmasters to adopt the standard rules
that he had worked out for world championship matches. And after detailed
discussion, Capablanca, Alekhine, Rubinstein, Bogoljubow, Réti, Maróczy,
Vidmar and Tartakower signed the so-called 'London agreement'. I will remind
you of its main points: - the winner was to be the first to win six games,
draws not counting; - the time control was to be 40 moves in 2˝ hours, play
to proceed for five hours without a break; - the champion must defend his
title within a year after receiving a challenge, but he is not obliged to play
a match if the prize fund does not reach $10,000 US in gold; - out of the
total prize fund the champion is to receive 20% as an appearance fee, and out
of the remaining part the winner is to receive 60% and the loser 40%; - if the
champion has accepted a challenge, the challenger is to make a deposit of $500,
three months before the match a further $500 (the champion is to contribute a
similar amount), the guarantors subsidising the match - $3,000 and the balance
before the start of the match; - the date for the start of the match and the
hours of play are to be specified by the champion; - the champion has the
right to postpone the match due to illness for a maximum of 40 days, after
which if he is unable to play he loses his title; - a new champion is obliged
to defend his title under the same conditions.}) (52. -- {Capablanca, as he
put it, had decided to put an end to the arguments and misunderstandings that
frequently arose during the times of Steinitz and Lasker due to a lack
permanent rules for contesting the world championship. And although the
agreement did not encompass all the strongest players (Lasker, Nimzowitsch and
Spielmann were not in London), even so an important and historic precedent had
been created. --- It was another matter that in the 1920s-30s the 'golden
wall' of $10,000 was not able to be surmounted by either Rubinstein or
Nimzowitsch (they did not in fact play a match), or by Bogoljubow or Euwe
(they only played for the title, after raising the prize fund stipulated for
the champion). And only Alekhine managed to raise the required sum with some
difficulty in 1927, in order to play the 'match of his life' strictly under
the conditions of the London agreement. At that time Capa bitterly regretted
that he had insisted on an unlimited match up to six wins, but it was already
too late... However, this will be described later.}) 1-0
[Event "100: New York"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1924.??.??"]
[Round "6"]
[White "Capablanca, JR."]
[Black "Tartakower, S."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A85"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "103"]
[EventDate "1924.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{The next place for the meeting of the chess elite became New York 1924. The
tournament, especially its second half, took the form of a fascinating race
between Lasker and Capablanca. The ex-champion immediately took the lead and
stormed ahead, whereas Capa started badly with a score of 2 out of 5, losing
unexpectedly to Réti (Game No.97). There was nothing for it, and the Cuban
began a spurt...} 1. d4 e6 2. Nf3 f5 3. c4 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. Nc3 O-O 6. e3 b6
7. Bd3 Bb7 8. O-O Qe8 9. Qe2 Ne4 10. Bxe7 Nxc3 11. bxc3 Qxe7 12. a4 Bxf3 13.
Qxf3 Nc6 14. Rfb1 Rae8 15. Qh3 Rf6 16. f4 Na5 17. Qf3 d6 18. Re1 Qd7 19. e4
fxe4 20. Qxe4 g6 21. g3 Kf8 22. Kg2 Rf7 23. h4 d5 24. cxd5 exd5 25. Qxe8+ Qxe8
26. Rxe8+ Kxe8 27. h5 Rf6 28. hxg6 hxg6 29. Rh1 Kf8 30. Rh7 Rc6 31. g4 Nc4 32.
g5 Ne3+ 33. Kf3 Nf5 34. Bxf5 gxf5 {'At first sight it is not easy to assess
the chances of the two sides. The black rook is about to invade the enemy
position, and White must lose at least a pawn. However, the black king is
"bad" and White has a strong passed g-pawn. And if the king can be included in
the attack...' (Averbakh)} 35. Kg3 $1 {'Decisive! White sacrifices material in
order to obtain the classical position with king on f6, pawn on g6 and rook on
h7, whereupon the black pawns tumble like ripe apples.' (Alekhine)} Rxc3+ 36.
Kh4 $1 Rf3 ({'} 36... Rc1 37. Kh5 Rh1+ 38. Kg6 {does not help. After the loss
of the f5-pawn White's two connected passed pawns easily decide matters.'
(Levenfish, Smyslov)}) 37. g6 $1 Rxf4+ 38. Kg5 Re4 {The only chance.} ({'If}
38... Rxd4 {, then} 39. Kf6 Ke8 (39... Kg8 40. Rd7 {with mate}) 40. Rxc7 Rxa4
41. g7 Rg4 42. Rxa7 {, winning the rook by} -- 43. g8=Q+ Rxg8 44. Ra8+ Kd7 45.
Rxg8 {. Black did not manage to exploit his separated passed pawns.'
(Spielmann)}) 39. Kf6 $1 ({But not} 39. Kxf5 $2 Rxd4 {with a draw.}) 39... Kg8
40. Rg7+ Kh8 41. Rxc7 Re8 42. Kxf5 $1 {'Again the simplest.} (42. Kf7 {would
not yet have been disastrous, because of} Rd8 {etc.' (Alekhine)}) 42... Re4 (
42... a6 43. Ra7 b5 44. a5 {wins.}) 43. Kf6 $1 Rf4+ 44. Ke5 Rg4 45. g7+ $1 Kg8
({Also hopeless is} 45... Rxg7 46. Rxg7 Kxg7 47. Kxd5 Kf7 48. Kc6 Ke7 49. d5
Kd8 50. Kb7 {.}) 46. Rxa7 ({More accurate than} 46. Kxd5 $6 {.}) 46... Rg1 ({Or
} 46... Rg5+ 47. Kd6 {and Kc6.}) 47. Kxd5 Rc1 48. Kd6 Rc2 49. d5 Rc1 50. Rc7
Ra1 51. Kc6 $1 Rxa4 52. d6 {. A classic ending!} 1-0
[Event "101: New York"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1924.??.??"]
[Round "9"]
[White "Bogoljubow, E."]
[Black "Capablanca, JR."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D05"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "64"]
[EventDate "1924.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{Altogether at the finish of the first half Capa scored 4 out of 5, including
a win over Bogoljubow. I will give this also quite well-known game, to
demonstrate the relative strengths of the champion and one of the contenders
for the throne, as well as the level of commentary at that time.} 1. d4 Nf6 2.
Nf3 d5 3. e3 e6 4. Bd3 c5 5. b3 Nc6 6. O-O Bd6 7. Bb2 O-O 8. Nbd2 (8. a3 $1 Qe7
9. Ne5 {is more accurate, not allowing the following exchanging operation and
retaining some initiative.}) 8... Qe7 $1 (8... Qe7 {threatens both} 9. -- e5 ({
and} 9... cxd4 10. exd4 Ba3 $1 {.})) 9. Ne5 cxd4 10. exd4 Ba3 $1 {
Advantageously simplifying the position and weakening the enemy flank. This
action demonstrates Capablanca's chess vision: he sees the entire board!} 11.
Bxa3 ({Also possible is} 11. Qc1 $5 Bxb2 12. Qxb2 Bd7 {with equality. For the
moment there is nothing terrible for White: Black simply has a comfortable
position.}) 11... Qxa3 12. Ndf3 Bd7 13. Nxc6 Bxc6 14. Qd2 $6 ({According to
Alekhine, 'Here} 14. Qc1 $1 Qb4 15. Qd2 Qb6 16. Ne5 {was much to be preferred.'
}) 14... Rac8 15. c3 $6 {'To what purpose?} (15. Ne5 {could very well have
been played at once.' (Alekhine) --- Bogoljubow's subsequent play reminds us
of how much more professional present-day chess has become. Today one cannot
imagine a grandmaster from the world's top ten (or perhaps even the top
hundred) losing such a position with White, even against the world champion.
It is amazing how great the gulf was in those days between the giants, driving
chess forward (Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine...) and the rest of the elite.
Bogoljubow has a lost position literally within 10 moves!}) 15... a6 {Alekhine
attaches an exclamation mark to this move: 'Excellent! After the exchange of
the bishop, now practically unavoidable for White, the knight will gain new
and important squares for attack.'} ({But in my view, better is} 15... Qa5 $5
16. a4 ({if} 16. Ne5 {, then} Bb5 $1) 16... Ne4 17. Bxe4 dxe4 18. Ne5 Bd5 19.
b4 Qd8 20. a5 f6 21. Ng4 {with a rather complicated game - possibly Black
stands very slightly better.}) 16. Ne5 Bb5 17. f3 $2 {What for?!} ({'After} 17.
Bxb5 axb5 {etc. the opening of the a-file would have conduced to the benefit
of Black.' (Alekhine)}) ({But for some reason none of the commentators
mentioned a move which nowadays would be made in a second by any master -} 17.
c4 $1 {. Simple and into the centre! Yes, after} dxc4 18. bxc4 {White has
hanging pawns, but these are a double-edged weapon, and both sides have
chances...}) 17... Bxd3 18. Nxd3 Rc7 {(beginning a siege of the c3-pawn)} 19.
Rac1 Rfc8 20. Rc2 Ne8 $1 21. Rfc1 Nd6 {Now White is in trouble: he has been
unable to advance c3-c4 and has been left with a chronic weakness.} 22. Ne5 $6
{'There is nothing to be gained for the knight at e5.} (22. Nc5 $1 {(22...b6
or 22...e5, 23 Na4 etc) would have added to the difficulty of his opponent's
reaping the benefit of his positional advantage.' (Alekhine) I think that the
correct reply would be} Nb5 $1 {.}) 22... Qa5 $1 23. a4 $2 {A conclusive
weakening - White concedes everything!} (23. Nd3 {really was better.}) 23...
Qb6 $1 24. Nd3 $2 {Of course, White's position is already bad, but why
squander pawns?!} (24. Rb2 Nf5 25. Rcc2 f6 26. Ng4 e5 {etc. was nevertheless
more tenacious.}) 24... Qxb3 25. Nc5 Qb6 26. Rb2 Qa7 27. Qe1 b6 28. Nd3 Rc4 29.
a5 bxa5 30. Nc5 Nb5 31. Re2 {(allowing a spectacular finish)} Nxd4 $1 32. cxd4
R8xc5 $1 {. The finish of New York 1924 was incredibly dramatic. In the second
half Capablanca defeated Lasker and scored 8˝ out of 10! But Lasker, despite
this defeat, also contrived to score 8˝ out of 10 and retained first place,
ahead of Capablanca, Alekhine and Marshall - exactly as in St Petersburg 1914
(the results of the tournament are given on p.216).} 0-1
[Event "102: Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1924.??.??"]
[Round "19"]
[White "Capablanca, JR."]
[Black "Bogoljubow, E."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D24"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "63"]
[EventDate "1924.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{Let us now move on to Russia, to the first Moscow international tournament of
1925. This was a grandiose project: the 10 leading Soviet players headed by
the champion of the country Bogoljubow (who had actually been living in
Germany since 1914 and took German nationality in 1927) against 11 leading
foreign players headed by Capablanca and Lasker! --- During those days in
Moscow there was a real chess boom. Would Capablanca repeat his London triumph
or would he again be thwarted by the evergreen Lasker? Their starting duel
ended in a draw. Then, however, Bogoljubow, scoring 8 out of 9 against the
Soviet masters whom he knew so well, unexpectedly interfered in the dispute of
the kings. Whereas Capa made draws and very casually squandered his energy: on
the free day he even travelled to Leningrad where he gave a tough simultaneous
display (and, incidentally, lost to the 14-year-old Botvinnik - that was their
first meeting!). As a result, after suffering sensational defeats against
Ilyin-Genevsky and Verlinsky, he fell catastrophically behind the leader -
Bogoljubow. --- Their individual game took place three rounds before the
finish. Capablanca was two points behind and he only had two games left (he
had a bye in the last round). And the champion decided to play sharply, and to
go in for an uncustomary risk: it was practically impossible to catch
Bogoljubow, but... prestige!} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 dxc4 4. e4 c5 $6 ({
Nowadays} 4... b5 {is considered acceptable.}) 5. Bxc4 $1 ({In the 17th round
Capablanca played} 5. d5 {against Zubarev, but after} exd5 6. exd5 Nf6 7. Bxc4
Bd6 8. O-O O-O 9. Bg5 Bg4 10. Nc3 Nbd7 {he did not achieve anything (although
in the end he won spectacularly, gaining the first brilliancy prize!).}) 5...
cxd4 6. Nxd4 Nf6 7. Nc3 Bc5 ({It is known that after} 7... Be7 {,} 8. e5 Nd5 9.
Qg4 {is unpleasant}) ({while after} 7... e5 {-} 8. Ndb5 Qxd1+ 9. Kxd1 Na6 10.
Be3 $1 {, and if} Ng4 {, then} 11. Bxa7 $1 Rxa7 12. Nxa7 Nxf2+ 13. Ke2 Nxh1 14.
Nxc8 Bc5 15. Rxh1 O-O 16. Bxa6 bxa6 17. Na4 {wins.}) 8. Be3 Nbd7 $6 ({
Bogoljubow provokes his opponent into sacrificing a piece, since, by his own
admission 'after lengthy thought I could no longer find an adequate defence
for Black' (such was then the level of theory outside of the classical Queen's
Gambit!):} 8... e5 $2 9. Ndb5) (8... Nc6 $2 9. Nxc6 Qxd1+ 10. Rxd1 {(} Bxe3 $2
11. Rd8# {)}) (8... Bxd4 9. Bxd4 O-O ({or} 9... Nc6) 10. Bc5 $1) ({or} 8... O-O
9. O-O ({after 8...0-0 Capablanca suggested} 9. e5 Nd5 10. Bxd5 exd5 11. O-O {
'with a decided advantage to White'}) 9... Nbd7 10. Qe2 Ne5 (10... Qe7 $1) 11.
Rfd1 $1 {with an obvious advantage to White.}) 9. Bxe6 $1 {'Considering
himself morally obliged to play for a win at all costs, Capablanca made this
move almost without thinking.' (Bogoljubow) Capa's intuition did not betray
him!} ({After} 9. O-O O-O 10. Qe2 Qe7 {White's initiative might have gradually
evaporated.} ({But not} 10... Ng4 $2 11. Qxg4 Ne5 12. Qg3 Nxc4 13. Nxe6 Bxe6
14. Bxc5 {.})) 9... fxe6 10. Nxe6 Qa5 $6 ({According to Bogoljubow,} 10... Qb6
{'would have given Black the possibility of achieving equality.'} 11. -- ({.
After this Capa gave a spectacular winning variation in the style of the old
masters:} 11. Nxc5 Nxc5 12. O-O {(threatening 13 Na4)} Qc6 13. Rc1 (13. Nd5 $2
Ncxe4 ({or} 13... Ne6 $5 14. Rc1 Qd7 {Lasker})) 13... Ncxe4 14. Nxe4 Qxe4 15.
Re1 $1 (15. Bc5 Qd5 $1) 15... Kf7 16. Rc7+ Kg6 17. Bd4 Qf4 18. Ree7 $1 Rd8 {(?
- G.K.)} ({even without a computer it is clear that after the simple} 18...
Rg8 $1 {there is no win for White:} 19. Be3 Qb4 20. Rc5 Bf5 {etc.}) 19. Rxg7+
Kh6 20. Rxh7+ $1 Nxh7 21. Rxh7+ $1 Kxh7 22. Qh5+ Kg8 23. Qg6+ Kf8 24. Bc5+ {.})
({. After 10...Qb6 other ways must be sought:} 11. Nxg7+ Kf7 12. Nf5 {with a
rather dangerous attack:} Qxb2 ({or} 12... Bxe3 13. Nxe3 Qxb2 14. Rc1 Nc5 15.
O-O) 13. Rc1 Bb4 14. Bd4) (11. Nxc5 Nxc5 12. Rc1 $1 {would appear to be the
most accurate:} -- (12... O-O 13. Nd5 $1 Nxd5 14. Qxd5+ Be6 15. Qxc5 Qxb2 16.
O-O Bxa2 $6 ({slightly better is} 16... Qxa2 17. Qe5) 17. Bd4 Qb3 18. Bxg7 $1
Kxg7 19. Qg5+ Kh8 20. Qe5+ Kg8 21. Rc3 {winning}) (12... Bd7 13. O-O Qa5 14. b4
$1 Qxb4 15. Nd5) ({, or} 12... Be6 13. O-O Rd8 14. Nd5 Nfxe4 15. Qh5+ g6 16.
Qe5 Rxd5 17. Qxh8+ Kd7 18. f3 Nd6 19. Qc3 {and wins}) (12... Bg4 $5 13. f3 Be6
14. O-O {. Of course, these variations are by no means exhaustive, but even
from them it is clearly apparent that in the event of 10...Qb6 White would
have had to display exceptional resourcefulness, to justify his bold sacrifice.
}))) 11. O-O $1 Bxe3 12. fxe3 Kf7 {'Black had nothing better against the
double threat of Nxg7+ or Nd5.' (Bogoljubow)} ({This is perfectly true:} 12...
Qb6 $2 13. Nxg7+ Kf7 14. Nd5) (12... g6 13. Nd5 $1 Nxd5 14. exd5 {and Qf3}) ({
or} 12... Rg8 13. Nd5 Rb8 14. b4 $1 Qa3 15. Nec7+ Kd8 (15... Kf7 16. Qh5+ Kf8
17. e5) 16. e5 Nxd5 17. Qxd5 Qxe3+ 18. Kh1 Rh8 19. e6 {are all winning for
White.}) ({The computer examines the more tenacious} 12... Qe5 13. Nxg7+ Kd8 $5
(13... Kf7 14. Rf5 Qe7 15. Nd5 Qxe4 16. Rf4 Qe5 17. Nh5 {wins}) 14. Rf5 Qe7 15.
e5 Ne8 16. Nd5 Qxg7 17. e6 Ne5 18. Qd4 Nf3+ 19. Rxf3 Qxd4 20. e7+ Kd7 21. exd4
Rg8 {with an unclear outcome after} 22. Rf8 $6 ({but} 22. Re1 $1 {puts
everything in its place:} Rg6 (22... Rg5 23. Nf6+) 23. Rf8 Rc6 24. Ref1 Re6 25.
R1f7 b6 26. Rxe8 Kxe8 27. Rxh7 {and wins}) 22... Rg5 23. Rxe8 Kxe8 24. Nc7+
Kxe7 25. Nxa8 Bd7 {.}) 13. Qb3 (13. Rf5 $6 Qb6 $1 {.}) 13... Kg6 ({If} 13...
Qb6 {White wins by} 14. Ng5+ Kg6 15. Qf7+ Kxg5 (15... Kh6 16. Ne6) 16. Qxg7+
Kh5 17. Rf5+ {.}) 14. Rf5 $1 ({'} 14. Rf3 {would probably win also, but the
text move is better and should have brought about a quick ending.' (Capablanca)
Not so - 14 Rf3? would have altogether thrown away the win:} Ne5 15. Rg3+ Kh6
16. Nxg7 Qb6 $1 ({but not} 16... Rg8 $2 17. Rf1 $1 Rxg7 18. Rxf6+ Rg6 19. Qg8
$1 Qc5 20. h4 Qe7 21. Rgxg6+ hxg6 22. Qh8+ Qh7 23. Qe8 Qc7 24. Rf8 Kh5 25. Rh8+
Kg4 26. Qb5 {winning}) 17. Rf1 Qxb3 18. Rxf6+ (18. axb3 Rf8) 18... Ng6 {etc.})
14... Qb6 ({If} 14... Ne5 {, then} 15. Nd5 $1 {, for example:} Nxd5 (15... Kh6
16. Rxe5 Ng4 17. Nec7) ({or} 15... Bxe6 16. Nf4+ Kh6 17. Qxe6 {(} Rhe8 $2 18.
Rh5# {)}) 16. Rxe5 Bxe6 17. Rxe6+ Nf6 18. e5 {.}) 15. Nf4+ Kh6 {An important,
highly instructive moment for... the future contender for the crown.} 16. g4 $2
{An alarm bell: unable to withstand the tension, Capablanca commits an
oversight.} ({And yet happiness was so possible, so close -} 16. Qf7 $1 {with
the threat of Rh5+ and mate. 'Of course, the world champion saw this natural
attacking move, but he did not bother to calculate the resulting complicated
and difficult variations, deciding that the win would be achieved more simply
with the move in the game.' (Panov) --- Again this leaning towards simplicity!
And yet the variations after 16 Qf7! are in fact by no means so 'complicated
and difficult':} -- (16... g5 17. Ne6 $1 ({although Bogoljubow's suggestion
will also do:} 17. Rxg5 $5 Qxe3+ 18. Kh1 Kxg5 19. Qg7+ Kxf4 20. Rf1+ Ke5 21.
Qe7+ Kd4 22. Rd1+ Kc4 23. Qe6+ Kc5 24. b4+ Kxb4 25. Qb3+ Kc5 26. Qb5#) 17...
Rg8 (17... Qxe3+ 18. Kh1 {is also hopeless}) 18. Rf3 g4 19. Rxf6+ {with a
rapid mate}) (16... Qxe3+ 17. Kh1 g6 {.} 18. -- ({. Here Panov recommended} 18.
Rxf6 Nxf6 19. Qxf6 Re8 20. Ncd5 Qf2 ({but not} 20... Qxe4 $2 21. Qh4+ Kg7 22.
Nf6 Qe5 23. Nxe8+ Qxe8 24. Re1 {- G.K.}) 21. h4 {'with a winning attack', but
after} Bd7 $1 {nothing of the sort is apparent.}) ({. On the other hand, White
wins without difficulty after} 18. Ne6 $1 Rg8 (18... Nh5 19. g4) (18... gxf5
19. Qg7+ Kh5 20. Ne2 $1) 19. Nd5 (19. Rf4 $5 g5 20. Rf3) 19... Qxe4 20. Rxf6
Nxf6 21. Nxf6 Qxe6 22. Nxg8+ Kg5 23. Qxh7 Qe2 24. Qh6+ Kf5 25. Qf8+ Kg5 26. Rf1
)) (16... g6 17. -- (17. Ne6 $1 Qxe3+ (17... Rg8 18. Rf3 $1) 18. Kh1 {
transposing into the previous variation}) ({, although also acceptable is} 17.
g4 $5 Qxe3+ 18. Kg2 $1 -- (18... gxf5 19. g5+ Kxg5 20. Qg7+ Kxf4 21. Rf1+ Ke5
22. Qe7+ Kd4 23. Rd1+ Kc4 24. Qe6+ Kc5 25. b4+ Kxb4 26. Qb3+ Kc5 27. Qb5# {
(Capablanca).}) (18... Nxe4 19. Ne6 $1) (18... Nxg4 19. Rh5+ gxh5 20. Qxh5+ Kg7
21. Qxg4+ Kf8 22. Ne6+ Ke8 23. Qh5+ Ke7 24. Nd5+) ({. I should like to add}
18... Qd2+ 19. Kh1 Nxg4 (19... gxf5 20. g5+ Kxg5 21. Qg7+ Kxf4 22. Qg3#) 20.
Rh5+ $1 gxh5 21. Qxh5+ Kg7 22. Qxg4+ Kf8 23. Qf5+ Ke7 24. Qg5+ Kf7 25. Ncd5 {
winning.})))) 16... g5 $1 {An unforeseen reply, forcing the exchange of queens.
White's attack peters out, and he has to think about how to save the game.} 17.
Qxb6 $1 ({It is easy to see that everything else is worse:} 17. Qf7 $2 Rf8 $1)
(17. Nb5 $2 Nc5) (17. Qc4 $2 Nxg4 18. Nfd5 Qxb2) ({while if} 17. Qd1 $2) ({or}
17. h4 $2 {, then} Qxe3+ 18. Kf1 gxf4 {etc.}) 17... axb6 18. Rd1 $1 {'Although
Black is a piece ahead he still has trouble to get out of this position
without serious loss.' (Capablanca) --- After stumbling on easy ground, the
Cuban begins plays very cunningly, 'mixing things', I would say, in the style
of Tal.} (18. Nfd5 $6 Nxg4 19. h3 Nge5 20. Rd1 Ng6 {etc. was too depressing.})
18... Rg8 $2 {Bogoljubow wants to win in comfort.} ({After} 18... gxf4 19. g5+
Kg7 ({but not} 19... Kg6 $2 20. Rd6) 20. gxf6+ Nxf6 21. Rg5+ (21. Rxf4 $2 Ra5
$1) 21... Kf7 22. exf4 {White, as Capablanca expressed it, 'would have had to
fight hard to obtain a draw' - say, after} h6 23. Rb5 (23. Rg3 Nh5) 23... Rg8+
24. Kf1 {.}) ({But even stronger was} 18... Ra5 $1 19. Nfd5 (19. Nh3 Nxg4)
19... Nxg4 20. Rdf1 Re8 21. b4 Ra3 {winning. I think that Alekhine would have
found his way through these complications and would not have forgiven White
for mistakes such as 16 g4?}) 19. Nfd5 $1 Nxg4 $2 {Mistakes come in pairs...
Black decided that after the exchange of queens there was no longer any play
for mate, and he left too many white pieces in the vicinity of his king.} ({'If
} 19... Rg6 {, then} 20. Ne7 Nc5 {(21...Rg7!? - G.K.)} 21. Rd8 $1 {etc.'
(Bogoljubow)}) ({But the simple} 19... Nxd5 $1 {would have forced the opponent
to fight for a draw:} 20. Rfxd5 (20. Rdxd5 $6 Nf8 21. Rf6+ Ng6 22. h3 Ra6) (20.
exd5 $6 Rf8 21. Rdf1 Rxf5 22. Rxf5 Kg6) ({or} 20. Nxd5 Nc5 21. Rf6+ Kg7 22.
Rdf1 Bxg4 23. Rf7+ Kh6 24. Nf6 Be6 25. Nxg8+ Rxg8 {etc.}) 20... Nf6 21. Rd6 Rg6
22. h3 b5 23. Rb6 Nxg4 24. Rxg6+ hxg6 25. hxg4 b4 26. Nd5 Rxa2 27. Nxb4 ({but
not} 27. Nf6 $6 Kg7 28. e5 Rxb2 {.})) 20. Ne7 $1 {(unexpectedly White's attack
flares up with renewed strength)} Rg7 ({Perhaps the best defence was} 20... Rg6
$5 21. Nxc8 Nc5 22. Nxb6 Rxb6 23. Rxc5 Rxb2 {with drawing chances.}) 21. Rd6+
Kh5 22. Rf3 $1 {'A very strong move.' (Bogoljubow)} Ngf6 ({If} 22... Nge5 $2 {
, then} 23. Rh6+ $1 {.}) 23. Rh3+ $1 ({But not immediately} 23. Nf5 $6 {
because of} Kg6 $1 (23... Rg6 $2 24. Rh3+ Kg4 25. Kg2 Nxe4 26. Rd5 Nxc3 27.
Rh4+ gxh4 28. Nh6+ Rxh6 29. h3#) 24. Nxg7 Kxg7 25. e5 Ng4 26. e6 Nde5 {etc.})
23... Kg4 24. Rg3+ (24. Kg2 $2 Rxe7 {.}) 24... Kh5 25. Nf5 $1 {White already
has perpetual check, but Capa is eager to create a masterpiece!} ({Weaker is}
25. Ncd5 Rxe7 $1 (25... Nxd5 $2 26. Rh6+ $1) 26. Nxe7 Rxa2 $1 27. Nxc8 Nxe4 28.
Rxd7 Nxg3 29. hxg3 Kg4 {with a probable draw.}) 25... Rg6 {Another key moment.
'The position is most interesting. Black is in a mating net, but to finish the
work is most difficult.' (Capablanca)} 26. Ne7 $2 ({In mutual time-trouble
(the control was on the 30th move) White tries to save time on the clock by
repeating moves and he misses a study-like win, pointed out later by
Capablanca:} 26. Rh3+ $1 Kg4 27. Kg2 {(threatening Nd1 and Nf2 mate)} Nxe4 ({or
} 27... Nc5 28. Nh6+ (28. Ne7 $5 Nh5 29. Rxg6 hxg6 30. Rf3 $1 {- G.K.}) 28...
Rxh6 29. Rxh6 Ncxe4 $6 ({Black also loses after} 29... Nh5 30. Rd8 $1 Kh4 31.
Kf2 {- G.K.}) 30. Nxe4 Nxe4 31. Rd5 {and 32 h3 mate}) 28. Rd5 $1 Nxc3 29. Rh4+
$3 gxh4 30. Nh6+ Rxh6 31. h3# {.}) 26... g4 $2 ({Aiming to avoid repeating the
position (} 26... Rg7 27. Nf5 {) and to escape with his king from the mating
threats, Black makes a fatal mistake.}) ({'The idea of not moving the rook was
in itself correct, only the correct move had to be found -} 26... Nc5 $1 {'
(Bogoljubow). For example:} 27. -- (27. Nxg6 Nfxe4 28. Rd8 Kxg6 (28... Nxg3 $2
29. Ne7) 29. Rg2 (29. Nxe4 $2 Nxe4 30. Rg2 Rxa2 $1) 29... Nxc3 ({or} 29... Ne6
30. Rxc8 Rxc8 31. Nxe4) 30. bxc3 Ne6 31. Re8 Kf7 (31... Nc7 $5 32. Re7 Nd5) 32.
Rh8 Kg7 {with equality}) (27. Rf3 Ncxe4 ({after} 27... Nfxe4 {Black has to
reckon with} 28. Rxg6 $1 hxg6 29. Rf8 Nxc3 $4 30. Rh8+ Kg4 31. Kg2) 28. Nxg6
Nxd6 29. Rxf6 Ne8 $1 ({less clear is} 29... Nf5 30. Ne5 Ra5 31. Nc4 Rc5 32.
Nxb6 Nxe3 33. Rf3 $1 Nc4 34. Ne4 Rc6 35. Nxc8 Rxc8 36. Rf7) 30. Rf8 Be6 31. Ne5
Kh6 $1 {and ...Kg7 equalising.})) 27. Nxg6 Kxg6 $6 ({'If} 27... hxg6 28. e5 {
.' (Capablanca) But even so, in this case the win for White is more difficult
than in the game:} Ne8 (28... Nh7 29. e6 Ne5 30. Nd5 $1) (28... Ng8 29. e6 Ne5
30. Rd8 Ne7 31. Re8 N5c6 32. e4) 29. Re6 (29. Rd4 $5 Kh6 30. e6) 29... Ng7 30.
Re7 Kh6 31. Rxg4 Ra5 ({or} 31... b5 32. Rh4+ Nh5 33. Re8 Nb6 34. e6 Kg7 35. e4
{etc.}) 32. Rh4+ Nh5 33. Rc4 Rc5 34. e6 Ndf6 35. Rxc5 bxc5 36. Na4 Ng7 37. Nxc5
Nd5 38. Rd7 Nb6 39. Rd8 {.}) 28. Rxg4+ Kf7 ({After} 28... Kh5 29. Rg7 $1 Ra5 {
both} 30. Ne2 ({and} 30. Nd5 Nxd5 31. Rxh7+ Kg5 32. Rg7+ Kh5 33. Rxd5+ Rxd5 34.
exd5) 30... Rg5+ 31. Ng3+ Kh4 32. Rf7 $1 {are good for White.}) 29. Rf4 Kg7 30.
e5 Ne8 ({Or} 30... Ng8 31. Rc4 (31. e6 $5) 31... Nxe5 32. Rc7+ Bd7 (32... Nf7
33. Rd8) 33. Rdxd7+ Nxd7 34. Rxd7+ Kg6 35. Rxb7 {winning.}) 31. Re6 Nc7 32.
Re7+ (32. Re7+ Kg6 33. e6 Nc5 34. Rxc7 Nxe6 35. Rg4+ Kf5 36. Rcc4 b5 37. Rb4 {
. 'An extremely tense game.' (Bogoljubow)}) (32. -- {In spite of this defeat,
Efim Bogoljubow won the tournament, achieving the greatest success in his
career and in the eyes of the general public becoming one of the real
contenders for the chess crown. Whereas Capablanca, although he scored 8 out
of 9(!) at the finish, finished only third, half a point behind Lasker (the
results of Moscow 1925 are given on p.221). --- Nevertheless, as is apparent
from the above game between Capablanca and Bogoljubow, the difference in the
class of their play was striking. Bogoljubow was a strong, talented practical
player, but as regards his level of positional understanding - still an
amateur. And almost every game of his with Capablanca ended in failure: the
overall score of their meetings was +5 =2 in favour of the Cuban. He was also
markedly inferior to Alekhine (cf. the chapter on the fourth world champion).
--- But this did not bother Bogoljubow. When early in 1927 the Americans
invited him to New York, to a four-cycle match-tournament of the six leading
grandmasters in the world, in reply he suggested that... 'instead of this
mediocre tournament a Bogoljubow-Capablanca match should be arranged.' And, of
course, he was replaced - by Spielmann, the victor of Semmering 1926. ---
Initially it was planned that 'the first prize-winner of the match-tournament
(or the second, if Capablanca should be first) will become the official
challenger for the world championship.' However, by that time Capablanca and
Alekhine had already agreed on a match for the crown, and this condition was
removed on the challenger's demand. --- New York 1927 more than restored the
shaken prestige of the world champion, who won the mini-matches against all
five of his opponents: 1. Capablanca - 14 out of 20 (undefeated!), 2. Alekhine
- 11˝; 3. Nimzowitsch - 10˝; 4. Vidmar - 10; 5. Spielmann - 8; 6.
Marshall - 6.}) 1-0
[Event "103: New York"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1927.??.??"]
[Round "15"]
[White "Nimzowitsch, A."]
[Black "Capablanca, JR."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B12"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "92"]
[EventDate "1927.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{Let us examine another classic game by Capablanca, illustrating his amazing
superiority over the leading grandmasters of his era. His opponent Nimzowitsch
held second place for a long time, but by the time of his fourth game with the
champion, in the words of Tartakower, 'he had evidently lost faith in his
principles, if he was not simply tired - and he lost without much of a fight.'
} 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 {As we see, Nimzowitsch liked to play 3 e5 ('aiming
for an outpost') not only against the French Defence (Game No.92). At the end
of the 20th century this variation became very popular. For Black a
considerable contribution to its development was made by Karpov.} Bf5 {The
most natural reply: the bishop is placed outside the pawn chain!} ({In the
Tal-Botvinnik return match (Moscow 1961)} 3... c5 4. dxc5 e6 {was tried three
times - a French with an extra tempo for White. But whether he has an
advantage is not clear, and now this 'dubious' continuation is quite popular
(an example: Shirov-Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 2001). An interesting evolution of
ideas, wouldn't you agree?}) 4. Bd3 {Too inoffensive: again the first steps of
theory! White himself helps his opponent to finally solve the problem of his
bishop and to obtain a solid position with a flexible pawn structure.} ({At
one time Tal tried both} 4. c4) ({and} 4. h4 h6 5. g4 Bd7 6. h5) ({and in the
early 1990s} 4. Nf3 e6 5. Be2 c5 6. O-O Nc6 7. c3 {was tested.}) ({But
extremely popular now is the ultra-sharp set-up with} 4. Nc3 e6 5. g4 $5 Bg6 6.
Nge2 {, in which I was able to crush Karpov (Linares 2001).}) 4... Bxd3 5. Qxd3
e6 6. Nc3 ({Or} 6. Ne2 Qb6 (6... Qa5+ $1 7. Bd2 Qa6 {equalising is even better}
) 7. O-O Qa6 $1 {with an easy game for Black (Duras-Nimzowitsch, San Sebastian
1912; Atkins-Capablanca, London 1922).}) 6... Qb6 7. Nge2 c5 ({'The safest
course would have been} 7... Qa6 {, to exchange queens... which would
facilitate the draw.' (Capablanca) And indeed,} 8. Nf4 (8. Qg3) ({or} 8. Qh3 {-
} Ne7 $1) 8... Qxd3 9. Nxd3 Nd7 10. Be3 Ne7 11. f4 Nf5 12. Bf2 h5 {leads to an
equal endgame, although I think that even here Capa would have had every
chance of winning: there is still much play to come.}) 8. dxc5 Bxc5 9. O-O {
White intends to seize control of d4.} (9. Qg3 $6 Ne7 $1 10. Qxg7 Rg8 11. Qxh7
Bxf2+ 12. Kf1 Bd4 {etc. is unfavourable for him.}) 9... Ne7 {'With the idea of
placing a knight at f5 as quickly as possible.' (Capablanca)} 10. Na4 ({'} 10.
a3 {came into consideration, forcing} Qc6 {, which would have hindered
somewhat Black's mobilisation plan.} (10... Qc7 $6 11. Nb5 $1 {.})) ({By
contrast, the surprise thrust} 10. b4 {would not have given White anything
after} Qxb4 ({but the pawn sacrifice 10 b4?! is indeed highly dubious: after}
10... Bxb4 $5 11. Rb1 Qa5 {White does not have any particular compensation for
it}) 11. Nb5 Na6 12. Ba3 Qa5 13. Bxc5 Nxc5 14. Nd6+ Kd7 $1 (14... Kf8 $2 15.
Qf3) 15. Qg3 Rhg8 16. Nxf7 Nf5 {with advantage to Black.' (Alekhine) A vivid
demonstration of Alekhine's imagination, although after 16 c4! White has quite
good counterplay.}) 10... Qc6 11. Nxc5 Qxc5 12. Be3 Qc7 13. f4 {'White's
outpost already causes him problems, and does not bring any benefits.'
(Tartakower)} Nf5 14. c3 $6 ({'Because of the weak points in White's position
it was essential to play actively,' writes Alekhine and he suggests} 14. Rac1
$1 Nc6 (14... Nxe3 $5 15. Qxe3 Nc6 16. c4 {- G.K.}) 15. Bf2 h5 (15... O-O $5
16. g4 Nfe7 {- G.K.}) 16. c4 dxc4 17. Qxc4 O-O 18. Rfd1 {and then Nc3-e4,
'when he is in no danger of losing'. Indeed, after} Rfd8 19. Nc3 Rxd1+ 20. Rxd1
Rd8 21. Qe2 h4 {the chances are equal.}) ({Boleslavsky's recommendation} 14.
Bf2 $1 h5 15. Rac1 Nc6 16. c4 {comes to the same position after 16 c4 in the
14 Rac1 variation.}) 14... Nc6 15. Rad1 $6 {'What is the rook looking for on
the d-file?} ({White should still have played} 15. Bf2 $1 h5 16. Rac1 {,
preparing c3-c4.' (Alekhine)}) 15... g6 {In his comments to move 14 Capablanca
states that: 'In such positions it is generally better to retard castling as
long as possible in order to compel the opponent to guard against both
possibilities.' (Capablanca) The champion deliberately delays ...h7-h5,
provoking White's next move.} 16. g4 $2 {'An unbelievable move for a player of
Nimzowitsch's class: it deprives him of any chances on the kingside and rids
the opponent of any fears regarding the dark squares in his position - and
thereby grants Capablanca complete freedom on the queenside. Now White's game
is strategically lost.' (Alekhine) --- One senses a certain complex in
Nimzowitsch, a feeling of being psychologically doomed. In addition, he
preferred Black's position - the knight on the blockading square f5! And he
wanted to drive away this knight as soon as possible...} ({Of course, correct
was the simple} 16. Bf2 h5 {, and now either Alekhine's} ({if} 16... O-O {,
then} 17. g4 Nfe7 18. Bh4 $5 {is now unpleasant - Black has a 'hole' at f6! -}
Qb6+ 19. Kh1 Qxb2 20. Bf6 {with an attack}) 17. Rd2 {followed by 18 Rc1 and
c3-c4,} ({or else the gambit} 17. c4 $5 Nb4 18. Qa3 ({if} 18. Qd2 Qxc4 19. Rc1
{, then} Qb5 20. Rc5 Qa4 21. Rc7 b6) 18... Qxc4 19. Nd4 $1 {with the
initiative for the pawn - the enemy king is caught in the centre:} Nc6 20. Nxc6
Qxc6 21. Rc1 Qa6 22. Qxa6 bxa6 23. Rc7 {. There is nothing terrible here for
Black, but White too is not in danger.})) 16... Nxe3 17. Qxe3 h5 $1 {
'Brilliant! After White's almost forced reply his entire kingside becomes
ossified and then Black is free to turn the weight of the struggle to the
queenside.' (Tartakower)} 18. g5 ({'Also in Black's favour is} 18. h3 hxg4 19.
hxg4 O-O-O {with the threats of 20...g5 and 20...Rh4.' (Alekhine) But now he
calmly castles kingside and one already wants to say: 'the rest is a matter of
technique'. However, this evaluation is somewhat premature and White's
defensive resources are not yet exhausted.} (19... g5 $5 {.})) 18... O-O 19.
Nd4 {'White has a strong-point, but no freedom of action.' (Tartakower) Little
would be changed by 19 Rd2 with the idea of Rf3, b2-b3, h2-h3, Kh2 and Ng3:
Black places his rook at c8, queen at a5, doubles rooks on the c-file,
retreats his knight to e7 and begins advancing his b-pawn. The essential point
is that White's king is very bad, and a breakthrough on the queenside will
lead to its downfall sooner or later.} Qb6 20. Rf2 Rfc8 {'The file of the
future!' (Tartakower)} 21. a3 $6 ({I think that even after the best} 21. Rd3
Qa5 22. b3 $1 {White would be unable to hold out after} Rc7 {, ...Rac8 and ...b7-b5-b4.}) 21... Rc7 22. Rd3 Na5 $6 {A serious inaccuracy: the idea of
penetrating to c4 with the knight proves to be fundamentally incorrect:
'Contrary to his custom, Capablanca tries to win combinatively and because of
this he merely loses time.} ({Correct was} 22... Ne7 23. Rfd2 Rac8 24. Qf2 Qa6
{, then ...b7-b5, ...Qb6 and ...a7-a5, after which the outcome would be
decided by ...b5-b4 in combination with ...Nf5.' (Alekhine) --- The nature of
Black's mistake is perfectly understandable: his position was so good that
Capa was already conducting the game simply 'by hand', disregarding possible
counterplay for the opponent.}) 23. Re2 {Suddenly White has come alive;} ({
After} 23. Re2 {, the unclear chance} -- 24. f5 $5 exf5 25. e6 {has appeared.})
23... Re8 ({'Black was evidently convinced that} 23... Nc4 24. Qf2 Nxa3 $5 {
was dubious in view of} 25. f5 $1 {' (Alekhine)} -- ({. This is bad only in
the event of} 25... exf5 $6 26. e6 Nb5 27. exf7+ Kxf7 28. Re6 Rc6 29. Nxc6
Qxf2+ 30. Kxf2 Kxe6 31. Re3+ Kd6 32. Ne7 {with an attack}) ({, whereas after}
25... gxf5 $1 26. g6 Nb5 $1 ({but not} 26... fxg6 $2 27. Rg3 Nc4 $2 28. Rxg6+
Rg7 29. Qg3 {winning}) 27. gxf7+ Kxf7 28. Qh4 Nxd4 29. Qxh5+ {Black has an
obvious advantage. --- Therefore it seems to me that if 23...Nc4?! it is
better to play 24 Qc1! with a double-edged game.})) 24. Kg2 (24. f5 $6 exf5 25.
e6 $2 fxe6 26. Nxe6 $2 Rxe6 {wins for Black.}) 24... Nc6 {(reverting to the
correct path)} 25. Red2 $6 ({'Much better practical chances of drawing were
offered by} 25. Nxc6 Qxc6 $1 26. Rd4 {But even here with accurate play Black
should win.' (Alekhine) This is not so: the exchange of knights would have
eased White's defence!} ({but not} 26. Qxa7 $2 b6 27. Qa6 Ra8 {.})) 25... Rec8
(25... Ne7 $1 {.}) 26. Re2 (26. Nxc6 $1 {.}) 26... Ne7 $1 {(at last!)} 27. Red2
Rc4 $1 {'A magic square.' (Tartakower) 'There begins the concluding phase of
the game, which Capablanca conducts clearly and confidently.' (Alekhine)} 28.
Qh3 $6 (28. Qf2 {was nevertheless better.}) 28... Kg7 $1 {Preparing ...Nf5.
'Consolidation never does any harm. With amazing skill Capablanca suppresses
all the opponent's attempts and then forces him to dance to Black's
"positional" tune. White has absolutely no counterplay.' (Tartakower)} 29. Rf2
$6 (29. Qe3 {was more tenacious.}) 29... a5 30. Re2 Nf5 $1 {(at just the right
moment: White is forced to exchange)} 31. Nxf5+ ({If} 31. Red2 {, then} Nxd4
32. Rxd4 Rxd4 33. cxd4 Qb5 $1 34. Qf3 Rc1 $1 {(Capablanca).}) 31... gxf5 32.
Qf3 (32. Qxh5 $2 Rh8 33. Qf3 Rh4 $1 {was completely bad for White, for example:
} 34. Qf2 Qxf2+ 35. Rxf2 Rcxf4 36. Rxf4 Rxf4 37. Rd4 Rxd4 38. cxd4 Kg6 39. h4
Kh5 40. Kg3 a4 41. Kh3 f4 {winning.}) 32... Kg6 33. Red2 Re4 $1 {(decisive
centralisation)} 34. Rd4 Rc4 35. Qf2 Qb5 36. Kg3 ({'If} 36. Rxc4 Qxc4 37. Rd4 {
Black would have probably replied} Qb3 {.' (Alekhine) And then ...b7-b5-b4.})
36... Rcxd4 $1 37. cxd4 (37. Rxd4 $2 Re2 {.}) 37... Qc4 $1 38. Kg2 b5 {'The
pawn moves have the aim of eliminating possible targets for the opponent's
counterplay. This is typical of the Cuban grandmaster's method of thinking.'
(Alekhine)} 39. Kg1 b4 40. axb4 axb4 41. Kg2 Qc1 $1 42. Kg3 {'White has no
good moves.} ({If} 42. h4 {, then} b3 {with zugzwang.' (Panov)}) 42... Qh1 $1 {
'The quickest way to the goal, depriving the stalemated opponent even of king
moves. In this "geometrical" game, which is one of Capablanca's best
achievements, there was essentially no struggle, but only... the demonstration
of a theorem!' (Tartakower)} 43. Rd3 ({Also hopeless was} 43. Qg2 Qxg2+ 44.
Rxg2 Rxd4 45. Re2 {and ...Qxd4.}) (43. Qf3 h4+ {.}) 43... Re1 {(threatening ...Rf1)} 44. Rf3 Rd1 45. b3 (45. Kh3 Rd2 $1) ({or} 45. Rb3 Qe4 46. Rxb4 Rd3+ 47.
Kh4 Rf3 {.}) 45... Rc1 $1 46. Re3 ({Zugzwang:} 46. h3 Rg1+ 47. Kh4 Rg4#) (46.
Qd2 h4+ $1) (46. Qe2 Qg1+ 47. Qg2 Qxd4) ({or} 46. Kh3 Rc2 $1 {.}) 46... Rf1 ({
In view of} 46... Rf1 47. Qe2 Qg1+ 48. Kh3 Re1 $3 {White resigned. 'One might
suppose from this game that Capablanca had carefully read My System and then
used all the theories contained therein against their inventor!' (Keene)}) (
46... -- {And so, during his six years on the throne the Cuban lost only three
games, and he won, with enviable ease, more than forty. It appeared no one
could threaten his supremacy... --- 'Speaking about Capablanca means asking
yourself the question, what super-qualities must a modern player possess, to
become world champion?' wrote Tartakower. 'In reply to this we would give two
points: 1) the voluntary renunciation of the predominance of artistry in
favour of the predominance of technique; 2) the introduction of some new
principle into the game, and in Capablanca's case: the division of overall
strategy into individual moves ("the cinema principle in chess!").'}) 0-1
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Buenos Aires"]
[Black "Eyes of Capablanca"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.08"]
{Buenos Aires through the Eyes of Capablanca: The Capablanca-Alekhine match
(Buenos Aires 1927) occupies a special place in history as a duel between two
chess geniuses, at the height of their powers and talent. Therefore I will
describe it twice, first from the viewpoint of the loser, and then, naturally,
in the chapter about the winner. --- The clear favourite was considered to be
Capablanca. This was due both to the score of his previous meetings with
Alekhine (+3 =7, not counting two won exhibition games) and to his triumph in
New York 1927, reinforced by a spectacular win over the challenger with the
black pieces. In a complicated, unfamiliar Modern Benoni-type position the
champion displayed a deep understanding of chess and splendidly exploited his
opponent's mistakes. 'As a consequence of my poor play,' wrote Alekhine, 'the
value of this game is zero, but its psychological importance - not for the
loser, but for the broad public - was enormous. There is no doubt that because
of this game 95% of the so-called competent critics began trying to convince
the entire chess world that there would be no struggle as such: there would be
a rout.' --- For example, Spielmann stated that Alekhine would not win a
single game: 'In the form that Capablanca showed in New York, he is
invincible!... I think that he will be on the throne for a long time yet.'} 1.
-- {Apparently Capablanca himself also came to believe in this. Besides, he
had another important advantage on his side: although the winner was to be the
first to win six games (not counting draws), with a score of 5-5 the match
would be considered to have ended in a draw and the champion would retain his
title. A well-known pre-match statement by Alekhine involuntarily comes to
mind: 'I have thoroughly prepared for the battle, but even so I cannot imagine
how I will be able to win six games against Capablanca. However, I can imagine
even less how he will win six games against me.' Capa did not need to: five
wins were sufficient for him - then the match would have been continued only
in order to divide the prize fund. --- Nowadays, due to the influence of my
first match with Karpov, unlimited matches have the reputation of being
excessively prolonged and uninteresting. But the match in Buenos Aires, which
lasted 73 days, was not like that - even despite the abundance of draws and
the uncommonly monotonous choice of openings (32 Queen's Gambits out of 34
games). It was an extremely tenacious, nervy and tense struggle, with numerous
fine attacks and counterattacks, with models of positional manoeuvring and
resourceful defence. And, as usual, with dramatic mistakes...} (1. -- {It
seems to me that up till now the chess content of his 'match of giants' has
not been properly evaluated, and I will try as far as possible, with both
human and machine analysis, to fill this gap. --- The match began with a
sensational defeat for Capablanca, who played the first game simply
dreadfully! He opened with 1 e4, received in reply a French Defence and
half-heartedly and insipidly exchanged on d5. And he was effectively lost
after 17 moves, although the conversion of the advantage took until the 43rd
move. Capa did not play 1 e4 again - and, it would seem, he was correct not to
do so... --- But already in the third game the champion gained a fine revenge,
and then, after three draws, he easily and confidently won the seventh. This
game is noteworthy not only for the wonderful play of the Cuban, but also for
the amazingly poor analytical standard of the subsequent commentaries (see the
following game).}) *
[Event "104: World Ch. Match, Buenos Aires"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1927.??.??"]
[Round "7"]
[White "Capablanca, JR."]
[Black "Alekhine, A."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D52"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "71"]
[EventDate "1927.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 Nbd7 5. Bg5 c6 6. e3 Qa5 {In Buenos Aires
the Cambridge Springs Defence was Alekhine's main weapon with Black, and the
resulting opening dispute became the prototype of future theoretical battles
in matches for the world crown.} 7. Nd2 ({Excessively modest is} 7. Bxf6 Nxf6
8. Bd3 Bb4 9. Qb3 dxc4 10. Bxc4 O-O 11. O-O Bxc3 12. bxc3 b6 13. Ne5 Bb7 14.
Be2 c5 15. Nc4 Qa6 16. Qb2 Bd5 $1 17. Ne5 Qc8 18. a4 Nd7 19. c4 Be4 20. Nxd7
Qxd7 21. dxc5 bxc5 {with a rapid draw (Capablanca-Ed. Lasker, New York 1924).})
({Sharper is} 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8. Qd2 Bb4 ({or} 8... N7b6 9. Bd3 $5 {
(Alekhine-Euwe, Holland 25th matchgame 1935),} ({but not the harmless} 9. Nxd5
Qxd2+ 10. Nxd2 exd5 11. Bd3 a5 {(Karpov-Kasparov, Moscow 47th matchgame 1984/
85)})) 9. Rc1 {(as, for example, in the games Bogoljubow-Alekhine, Germany/
Holland 12th matchgame 1929, and Kasparov-Smyslov, Vilnius 3rd matchgame 1984).
}) 7... Bb4 8. Qc2 O-O ({Later the challenger switched to} 8... dxc4 {- Game
Nos.106, 125.}) 9. Bh4 $5 {It would appear that this interesting reply
surprised Alekhine: he thought for a long time.} (9. Be2 {was usually played,
when Bogoljubow replied} e5 {,} ({while later} 9... c5 $5 {became fashionable.}
)) 9... c5 ({'I lost the game mainly because I was very tempted by the reply}
9... e5 {. I spent a great deal of time considering all the complications
associated with this move, and in the end I rejected it: after} 10. dxe5 Ne4
11. Ndxe4 dxe4 12. e6 Ne5 13. exf7+ Rxf7 14. O-O-O $1 {White retains the
better chances.' (Alekhine) I agree that after} Bxc3 $6 ({but} 14... Bf5 $1 {
is stronger}) 15. Qxc3 Qxc3+ 16. bxc3 Bf5 17. Rd4 {he has a favourable endgame.
}) 10. Nb3 Qa4 $5 {'A bold pawn sacrifice.} ({After} 10... Qc7 11. Bg3 Qc6 12.
a3 $1 {White has the advantage.' (Panov)} ({Which would have evaporated in the
event of} 12. dxc5 dxc4 13. Bxc4 Nxc5 14. O-O Bxc3 15. Nxc5 Qxc5 16. Qxc3 Ne4 {
.})) 11. Bxf6 Nxf6 ({Of course, not} 11... gxf6 $6 12. cxd5 exd5 13. Qd2 {.})
12. dxc5 Ne4 $6 {Starting with the ninth move, Alekhine thought for more than
an hour!} ({And, as often happens in such cases, he deviated from the correct
path:} 12... Qc6 13. a3 (13. cxd5 exd5 {is level}) 13... Bxc5 14. cxd5 exd5 15.
Nxd5 (15. Bb5 Qd6 $1 {equalises}) 15... Qxd5 16. Nxc5 b6 $5 ({after} 16... Bf5
17. Qc4 Qxc4 18. Bxc4 Rac8 19. Rc1 Rxc5 20. Bxf7+ Kxf7 21. Rxc5 {White is
slightly better}) 17. Nb3 Bf5 18. Qc4 Qe5 {with counterplay for the pawn}) (
12... Bxc3+ 13. Qxc3 Ne4 14. Qd4 ({or} 14. Qa5 Qxa5+ 15. Nxa5 Nxc5 16. cxd5
exd5 17. Rc1 {and White merely has a purely symbolic advantage}) 14... Qb4+ 15.
Ke2 e5 $1 ({inferior is} 15... Qxc4+ 16. Ke1 Qc2 17. Be2) 16. Qxe5 Qxc4+ 17.
Ke1 Qb4+ 18. Ke2 {with equal chances.}) 13. cxd5 $6 {An error not mentioned by
anyone.} (13. Bd3 $1 {is more accurate, for example:} Bxc3+ ({but not} 13...
Nxc5 $2 14. Bxh7+ Kh8 15. Nxc5) 14. bxc3 dxc4 15. Bxe4 cxb3 16. Bxh7+ Kh8 17.
Qe4 Qa5 $1 18. Qh4 Qxc3+ 19. Ke2 g5 20. Qh6 Qg7 21. Qxg7+ Kxg7 22. Bd3 bxa2 23.
Rxa2 {with somewhat the better endgame.}) 13... Bxc3+ $2 ({Strangely enough,
almost everyone missed the simple} 13... Nxc5 $1 14. Rc1 $1 (14. O-O-O $5 {
Soultanbéieff}) (14. Rd1 exd5 15. Rxd5 $6 Be6 {etc. is pointless}) 14... Ne4 $1
({only} 14... exd5 $2 15. Nxc5 Qxc2 16. Rxc2 Bxc5 17. Nxd5 {was suggested}) 15.
-- {, with inevitable equality after either:} (15. Bd3 exd5 16. O-O Bxc3 17.
bxc3 Be6) ({, or} 15. dxe6 Bxe6 16. Bd3 Qxa2 17. Bxe4 Bxb3 18. Bxh7+ Kh8 19.
O-O Bxc2 20. Nxa2 Bxh7 21. Nxb4 Rad8 22. Rfd1 Rxd1+ 23. Rxd1 Rc8 24. Kf1 a5 25.
Nd3 Rc2 26. b3 Rc3 {.} (26... --)) (15. Qxe4 $4 Bxc3+ {.})) 14. bxc3 Nxc5 ({Or
} 14... exd5 15. Bd3 Be6 16. O-O Rfc8 17. c4 $1 {.}) 15. Rd1 ({When he
exchanged on c3 Alekhine was probably hoping for} 15. dxe6 $6 Bxe6 {and he
overlooked this energetic move, which gives White both an extra pawn and an
attack.}) 15... exd5 ({If} 15... Rd8 {, then} 16. Rd4 $1 Qa3 17. Nxc5 Qxc5 18.
Bd3 {.}) 16. Rxd5 Nxb3 $6 ({It is probable that} 16... b6 {, as suggested by
Lasker, is slightly better, but it would not have changed fundamentally the
evaluation of the position:} 17. Rd4 $1 (17. Be2 $2 Be6 {equalises}) (17. Rd2
$5) 17... Qc6 18. Bc4 $5 ({or} 18. Nxc5 bxc5 19. Rh4 f5 20. Bc4+ Kh8 21. O-O
Bb7 22. f3 Rad8 23. Rf4) 18... Ne6 19. Rh4 h6 20. Bd3 f5 21. O-O Bb7 22. f3 {
, in both cases with an obvious advantage to White.}) 17. axb3 Qc6 18. Rd4 {
(an ideal post for the rook)} Re8 19. Bd3 $5 {'After the loss of the pawn
Black's position has become hopeless. Capablanca could have also decided the
game by the simpler 19 e4 followed by f2-f3, but the way chosen by him is far
more elegant. In my view, the concluding attack is one of his best tactical
achievements.' (Alekhine)} ({Indeed,} 19. e4 $1 {would have guaranteed White a
firm advantage:} Be6 20. Bc4 Rad8 21. Rxd8 Rxd8 22. Bxe6 Qxe6 23. O-O {. But -
a rare instance! - Capa preferred, as he himself put it, 'a bold transition to
a counterattack' and the 'extremely interesting play' with the king in the
centre. This shows that, if he desired, he could play sharply, creatively,
demonstrating fresh ideas. Especially if he was in an excellent frame of mind
and realised that he was not especially risking anything...}) 19... Qxg2 20.
Bxh7+ Kf8 ({Or} 20... Kh8 21. Be4 Qh3 22. Rg1 {etc.}) 21. Be4 Qh3 22. Qd2 $1
Be6 23. c4 a5 {Parrying Qb4+.} 24. Rg1 $1 {Returning the pawn for an attack.} (
{Dangerous was} 24. Bxb7 $2 Rab8 25. Bc6 Rxb3 26. Qd1 Rb6 27. Bxe8 Qg2 {with
complications.}) 24... Qxh2 {The best chance.} ({Soultanbéieff's (and later
Golombek's) recommendation of} 24... Qh6 $6 {is more than dubious on account of
} 25. Bxb7 Rab8 26. Bc6 Rxb3 27. Qd1 $1 {(an important nuance)} Rbb8 28. Bxe8 {
, for example:} Qxh2 29. Rf1 Rxe8 (29... Kxe8 30. Qa4+) 30. Qb3 Bh3 31. Rh4 $1
Qg2 32. Rh8+ Ke7 33. Qa3+ Kf6 34. Qd6+ Re6 35. Qf4+ Kg6 36. Rxh3 $1 Qxh3 37.
Rg1+ Kh7 38. Qxf7 {and wins.}) 25. Rh1 Qc7 26. Qb2 $1 (26. Qb2 {threatens} --
27. Qa3+ Kg8 28. Bh7+ Kh8 29. Rdh4 {.}) 26... Qc5 ({Interesting, in my opinion,
was} 26... Ke7 $5 {, which again has not been pointed out by anyone. After} 27.
Bd5 $1 (27. Qa3+ Kf6) 27... Bxd5 28. Rxd5 f6 29. Qd4 {Black still has a sorry
position, but at least there does not appear to be a forced win.}) 27. Bd5 $1 (
27. Bd5 {'With a new dangerous threat:} -- 28. Bxe6 fxe6 (28... Rxe6 $2 29.
Rh8+) 29. Rf4+ Kg8 30. Qc2 {.' (Panov)}) 27... Ra6 $1 {A tenacious defence,
although a question mark was attached to this move! 'In a difficult position,
aggravated by time-trouble, Black, who up till now had defended very
tenaciously, makes an irreparable mistake.} (27... Rad8 {was better, when
White would have had to go into a queen ending with an extra pawn:} 28. Bxe6 $1
Rxd4 29. -- (29. Rh8+ Ke7 30. Rxe8+ Kxe8 31. Bxf7+ Kxf7 32. exd4 Qb4+ 33. Kd1
a4 34. Kc2 {.' (Panov)}) ({. But in the computer era the problem is solved far
more dramatically and simply:} 29. Qxd4 $1 Qxd4 ({also bad is} 29... Qb4+ 30.
Ke2 fxe6 31. Rh8+ Kf7 32. Qf4+ Ke7 33. Qc7+) 30. Rh8+ Ke7 31. Rxe8+ Kxe8 32.
Bxf7+ $1 Kxf7 33. exd4 {with a won pawn ending.})) ({And if} 27... Qb4+ 28. Ke2
Ra6 {the computer finds a no less interesting geometrical win:} 29. Bxe6 Raxe6
30. Rd5 $1 f6 31. Rb5 Qe7 32. Qd2 b6 33. Rxb6 $3 {(very pretty!)} Rxb6 34. Rh8+
Kf7 35. Qd5+ Qe6 36. Qh5+ {.}) 28. Re4 $1 {(with the threat of Rh8+)} Rd6 $2 {
But this is indeed the consequence of time-trouble.} ({Also bad is} 28... g6 $2
29. Rh8+ Ke7 30. Bxe6 Rxe6 31. Rxe6+ fxe6 32. Rh7+ Kd6 33. Qd2+ Ke5 34. Qc3+
Ke4 35. Rf7 {winning.}) ({'} 28... Kg8 29. -- ({, fails to} 29. Rg1 {.' (Panov)
However, this was the best defence, since after} Qf8 $1 {there appears to be
no direct win for White:} 30. Bxb7 Rb6 31. Bd5 Reb8 32. Bxe6 Rxb3 33. Bxf7+
Qxf7 34. Re8+ $1 Rxe8 35. Qxb3 {with an advantage that still has to be
converted.}) ({. Therefore the computer's recommendation, rather a complicated
one for a practical game, comes into consideration:} 29. f4 $5 Qb4+ 30. Kf1 {
, for example:} f5 ({or} 30... Rd6 31. Qh2 Kf8 32. Qh8+ Ke7 33. Qxg7 Kd8 34.
Bxe6 fxe6 35. Rd4 Rxd4 36. Qxd4+ Kc8 37. Rh5 {and wins}) 31. Rg1 Qf8 32. Rxe6
Raxe6 33. Qe5 Qf7 34. Bxe6 Rxe6 35. Rxg7+ {.}) ({. Inaccurate is} 29. Reh4 f6
$1 {.})) 29. Rh7 $1 {(the remainder is now simple)} Ke7 ({There is nothing
better:} 29... g6 30. Qg7+ Ke7 31. Rxe6+) ({or} 29... f6 30. Rh8+) (29... Qb4+
30. Ke2 Rxd5 31. Qxg7+ Ke7 32. Qxf7+ Kd8 33. Qc7# {.}) 30. Qxg7 Kd8 31. Bxe6
fxe6 (31... Rdxe6 32. Qxf7 {.}) 32. Qxb7 Qb4+ 33. Qxb4 axb4 34. c5 Rc6 35. Rxb4
Rxc5 36. Ra7 (36. Ra7 {hinting at} Rc8 $2 37. Rd4# {- an epaulette mate! Here
Black resigned.}) (36. -- {The champion had clearly warmed up! After this
excellent win Capablanca took the lead and he possibly thought that later too
everything would go so smoothly: draws with Black, wins with White... ---
However, in the ninth game a slight disappointment awaited him: from the
opening he would have seized the initiative, but with a series of precise
moves Alekhine brilliantly solved some rather difficult problems. This was the
first symptom of the imminent turning-point. Alekhine's wins in the 11th and
12th games (Game Nos.125 and 126) took him into the lead - 3-2, and undermined
Capablanca's confidence in his ultimate success. 'I am not doing as well as I
expected,' he wrote at that time to a friend in New York. 'I believe, however,
that should another match be arranged in New York, for, say, the beginning of
1929, I could do much better... Should the match here end in a draw, I suggest
that the next match be limited to twenty games...' --- These impressive wins
influenced the evaluation of the further course of the match: in chess
literature the opinion was expressed that Alekhine, despite isolated failures,
confidently 'sailed' to the champion's title - especially since he won the
21st game in splendid style, increasing his lead to 4-2.}) (36. -- {But to me
the picture seems somewhat different. After his defeats in the 11th and 12th
games Capablanca came down to earth, gathered his strength and began making
draws, in order to gradually come to, get back to his best and begin a new
offensive (this resembles Lasker's strategy in the 1921 match: the main thing
being to hold on!). --- After four successive draws he had completely calmed
down, but the 17th game again upset him. After letting slip an enormous
positional advantage, he angrily said: 'If I can't win such a game, I will
also not win the match...' With two respite draws he regained his calm, but
then came the 20th game, in which he seized the initiative, won the exchange
and... barely escaped with a draw (Game No.127). Alekhine was playing very
strongly! I think that Capablanca was shocked, at any event he played very
badly in the 21st game, whereas Alekhine's play was again very strong (Game No.128). --- 'By inertia' Capa also nearly lost the 22nd game. Alekhine conducted
it with great verve, but in a difficult endgame he missed a win (at the end
the Cuban defended brilliantly - Game No.129). And here, it seems to me, a new
phase of the match began: the challenger faded, whereas the champion,
realising that the loss of his title was now a reality, revived and began
playing with increasing power. After four relatively quiet draws the most
interesting events began. --- In the next five games Capablanca held the
initiative. The fact that Alekhine capitulated only once appears simply
miraculous! The main talking-point was the Cuban's blunder in the completely
won 27th game (see the following game).}) 1-0
[Event "105: World Ch. Match, Buenos Aires"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1927.??.??"]
[Round "27"]
[White "Capablanca, JR."]
[Black "Alekhine, A."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D65"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "76"]
[EventDate "1927.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Nbd7 5. e3 Be7 6. Nf3 O-O 7. Rc1 {(another
opening tabiya of this match)} a6 $5 ({Capa himself upheld} 7... c6 {.}) 8.
cxd5 {The classic Carlsbad Variation.} ({From games 13-21 Capablanca played} 8.
a3 {(Game No.128).}) 8... exd5 9. Bd3 c6 10. Qc2 $1 ({The 23rd game went} 10.
O-O Ne8 11. Bxe7 Qxe7 12. e4 $6 dxe4 13. Nxe4 Ndf6 14. Qc2 Nxe4 15. Bxe4 Nf6
16. Bf5 Bxf5 17. Qxf5 Rad8 18. Rfe1 Qb4 19. Qc2 Rfe8 {with excellent play for
Black.}) 10... h6 (10... Re8 11. O-O Nf8 {is more solid, for example:} 12. Rfe1
(12. Rb1 {and b2-b4 is also of current interest}) 12... Be6 13. Na4 N6d7 14.
Bxe7 Qxe7 15. Nc5 Nxc5 16. Qxc5 Qc7 17. b4 {(25th game), and here Alekhine
recommended} Rad8 $1 18. Nd2 ({and} 18. Ne5 Nd7) 18... Bg4 {and ...Bh5-g6 with
equal chances in each instance.}) 11. Bh4 Ne8 ({After} 11... Re8 {the
inclusion of ...h7-h6 merely makes it harder for Black to equalise.}) 12. Bg3
Bd6 13. O-O Bxg3 14. hxg3 Nd6 15. Na4 $1 {The weakness of the opponent's
queenside gives White a small but enduring positional advantage.} Re8 16. Rfe1
Nf6 $6 ({According to Alekhine,} 16... Nf8 {was better, leaving the f6- square
free for the queen.}) 17. Ne5 Nfe4 18. Qb3 $1 Be6 19. Nc5 $1 Nxc5 $2 {'A gross
error;} (19... Qf6 $1 {was correct.' (Alekhine). After} 20. Bxe4 dxe4 21. Nxe6
(21. Qb6 Re7) 21... Qxe6 22. Qxe6 Rxe6 23. Nd7 $1 Rd8 24. Nb6 {this would have
left Black with an inferior but defensible endgame.}) 20. dxc5 Nb5 21. a4 Nc7 (
21... Nc7 {with an elementary trap:} 22. Qxb7 $4 Bc8 $1 {.}) 22. Bb1 $1 {An
accurate and timely decision. 'Capablanca unexpectedly switches to an attack
on Black's weakened kingside. The coordination of White's pieces is as good as
that of Black's is bad!' (Panov)} Bc8 {Sadly necessary;} ({after} 22... Qf6 $2
{a pawn is lost:} 23. Qxb7 $1 Qxe5 24. f4 Qf6 25. Qxc7 {.}) 23. Nf3 Ne6 24. e4
$1 {White's advantage becomes threatening: by opening the position, he quickly
mobilises all his forces for the concluding assault.} dxe4 ({In the event of}
24... d4 {this pawn would not have survived for long.}) 25. Rxe4 Re7 $6 (25...
Nc7 {and ...Nd5 was more tenacious.}) 26. Rce1 Bd7 ({But not} 26... Nxc5 $4 27.
Rxe7 Nxb3 28. Re8+ {and mate.}) 27. Qc2 g6 28. Ba2 $1 Qf8 29. Ne5 $1 {(the
decisive blow: Black's defences begin to crack)} Qg7 ({Or} 29... Be8 30. Nxg6
$1 {.}) 30. Nxd7 Rxd7 31. Bxe6 fxe6 32. Rg4 {After gaining a completely
winning position and anticipating Black's inevitable capitulation, Capa loses
the thread a little.} ({In Soultanbéieff's opinion,} 32. Rxe6 Kh7 33. Rd6 $1 {
was more convincing, for example:} Rad8 34. Ree6 Rxd6 35. cxd6 Rd7 36. Qe4 {
winning.}) 32... Kh7 33. Rxe6 Rg8 34. Qe4 $1 ({'The win of the queen and a
pawn for two rooks by} 34. Rgxg6 {would have greatly prolonged the game.'
(Panov). Now it would appear that nothing can stop the efficient world
champion, who has completely destroyed the challenger's position. But in
battles at the top one must always be prepared for miracles, and until the
opponent stops the clocks, the game is not over...}) 34... Rf7 35. f4 $1 (35.
f4 {with the terrible threat of} -- 36. f5 $1 Rxf5 37. Rgxg6 Qxg6 38. Rxg6 Kxg6
39. g4 {and wins.}) 35... Qf8 ({'With a last faint hope that Capablanca will
fall into a trap...} 35... Rf6 36. Re7 Rf7 37. Rxg6 $1 {was also bad.' (Panov)}
) 36. Rgxg6 ({In a calm frame of mind Capa would most probably have chosen a
longer, but safer path to his goal -} 36. b4 {, defending the c5-pawn. Then
there would not have been anything to devise, and the champion would have
'automatically' converted his advantage into a win. Thus after, say,} Rf5 37.
Rgxg6 $1 Rxg6 38. Rxg6 Kxg6 39. g4 {White gains a won pawn ending:} h5 40.
Qxf5+ Qxf5 41. gxf5+ Kxf5 42. g3 h4 43. Kf2 Kg4 44. gxh4 Kxf4 45. h5 Kg5 46.
Ke3 Kxh5 47. Kf4 {with the triumphal march of the king to c7.}) 36... Qxc5+ 37.
Kf1 ({But not} 37. Kh2 $4 Qh5+ {.}) 37... Qc1+ 38. Kf2 $4 {'Throwing away the
win, which had been achieved by truly brilliant play!' (Panov) 'When he
captured on g6 on move 36, Capablanca simply overlooked the check on c5. This
oversight, which in itself did not matter, nonetheless made him so nervous
that straight afterwards, without thinking about it, he made the decisive
error...' (Alekhine)} ({Moving one square to the left -} 38. Ke2 $1 {could
have changed the course (and even the outcome) of the match: after} Qxb2+ 39.
Kf3 Qb3+ (39... Qc3+ 40. Kg4) 40. Kf2 $1 ({avoiding the trap} 40. Kg4 $4 Qxe6+
$1 41. Qxe6 Rxg6+) 40... Qb2+ 41. Kg1 Qc1+ 42. Kh2 {the king would have found
shelter and Black would have had to resign.}) 38... Qd2+ $1 ({After} 38... Qd2+
{, perpetual check cannot be avoided:} 39. Kg1 (39. Kf3 Qd1+) 39... Qd1+ 40.
Kf2 (40. Kh2 $4 Qh5+) 40... Qd2+ {. Here, in my view, what told was not only
extreme fatigue with a 'mental black-out' (as one of the commentators
expressed it), but also Capablanca's inveterate habit of trying to convert an
advantage while avoiding the calculation of any variations that were in the
least complicated (remember his match with Lasker!). --- The things that were
written about this game! It was called both the decisive one in the match, and
a fatal one for the champion... 'The consequences of Capablanca's tragic
mistake predetermined the outcome of the entire match.' (Panov) But in my
opinion, although Capa was in a state of shock, his main mistake was still to
come. And for the moment he was continuing to press his opponent with all his
remaining strength. --- In the 28th game, where a sharp, multi-piece endgame
was reached, Alekhine ran short of time and ended up in a critical position:
White inevitably lost a pawn. In an effort to save the game, he thought over
his sealed move for 1 hour 50 minutes (a record for the match!) and on the
resumption he twice more found the only moves... And here, after thinking for
40 minutes, Capablanca unexpectedly offered a draw!}) 1/2-1/2
[Event "106: World Ch. Match, Buenos Aires"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1927.??.??"]
[Round "29"]
[White "Capablanca, JR."]
[Black "Alekhine, A."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D52"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "139"]
[EventDate "1927.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{The 29th game was no less dramatic. One version has it that Alekhine
thoroughly exhausted his opponent by his tenacious defence in a very difficult
position. He did indeed defend brilliantly, but he nevertheless lost the game...} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Nbd7 5. e3 c6 6. Nf3 Qa5 7. Nd2 Bb4 8.
Qc2 dxc4 ({Apparently the challenger was not inspired by} 8... O-O 9. Bh4 $5 {
(Game No.104).}) 9. Bxf6 Nxf6 10. Nxc4 Qc7 11. a3 (11. g3 $5 {.}) 11... Be7 12.
g3 $5 {A new move!} ({In the 11th game} 12. Be2 {was played (Game No.125).})
12... O-O (12... c5 $5 {comes into consideration} 13. -- ({, and if} 13. Nb5 {-
} Qc6 $1 ({more passive is} 13... Qb8 14. dxc5 Bxc5 15. Rd1 $1 O-O 16. Bg2 {
with some advantage}) 14. Ne5 Qxh1 15. Nc7+ Kf8 16. Nxa8 b6 {, seizing the
initiative.}) ({. While after} 13. Bg2 Bd7 14. Ne5 cxd4 15. exd4 O-O {Black
has no reason to complain (Levenfish-Chistyakov, Leningrad 1939).}) (13. dxc5
Bxc5 14. b4 Be7 15. Nb5 Qb8 16. Ncd6+ Bxd6 17. Qxc8+ Qxc8 18. Nxd6+ Ke7 19.
Nxc8+ Raxc8 {is level.})) 13. Bg2 Bd7 ({Capablanca recommended} 13... b6 $2 {
, but after} 14. Ne5 $1 Bb7 15. Nb5 Qc8 16. Nxc6 {Black loses a pawn.}) 14. b4
$1 (14. O-O c5 $1 {.}) 14... b6 ({White has the advantage after} 14... Nd5 15.
O-O Nxc3 16. Qxc3 Rfd8 {(Alekhine-Bogoljubow, Bad Nauheim 1936)} 17. Rfc1 $1 {
and Rab1.}) 15. O-O a5 $6 {'A careless move, which I had already rejected in
the 11th game because of very similar variations.' (Alekhine)} ({Capablanca's
suggestion} 15... Rab8 16. Rfb1 c5 $6 17. dxc5 bxc5 18. b5 $1 {is of
instructional value.}) ({Modern theory recommends} 15... Rac8 {(followed by ...Rfd8 and ...Be8), although even here after} 16. Rfc1 Rfd8 17. Rab1 {White has
a small but enduring advantage.}) 16. Ne5 $1 {'An energetic reply.' (Kotov)
'The only move by which White firmly maintains the advantage.' (Panov)} ({And
indeed, weaker is} 16. bxa5 b5 $1 17. Ne5 Rxa5 18. a4 $1 bxa4 $1 19. Nxa4 c5
20. Nxd7 Nxd7 {with equality.}) (16. b5 $2 Rac8 $1) (16. Rab1 $2 axb4 17. axb4
Ra7 $1) (16. Qb3 $2 axb4 17. axb4 Nd5 $1 {.}) 16... axb4 17. axb4 (17. Nb5 $5 {
, a move that was not mentioned by anyone, in interesting, for example:} Qc8
18. Nxd7 Qxd7 19. Bxc6 Rac8 20. Rac1 Qd8 21. axb4 Bxb4 22. Qb3 {with definite
pressure.}) 17... Rxa1 (17... Bxb4 $6 {was bad because of} 18. Nb5 $1 Qc8 ({or
} 18... Qb7 19. Nxd7 Qxd7 20. Bxc6 Rac8 21. Rfc1) 19. Na7 $1 ({Becker suggested
} 19. Rxa8 Qxa8 20. Bxc6 $1 Bxc6 ({but after} 20... Rc8 $1 21. Nxd7 Qxc6 22.
Nxf6+ gxf6 23. Qe2 Qe4 {all is not clear}) 21. Nxc6 Ba5 22. Ra1) 19... Qe8 20.
Nxd7 Nxd7 21. Bxc6 Rd8 22. Rfb1 {with an overwhelming advantage.}) 18. Rxa1 Rc8
$1 (18... Bxb4 $2 {was again bad:} 19. Nb5 Qc8 20. Bxc6 $1 {(Capablanca)} Bxc6
21. Nxc6 Qd7 22. Ra7 Qd5 23. Nc7 Qd6 24. Qc4 {wins}) ({while} 18... c5 $6 19.
Nxd7 Qxd7 20. dxc5 bxc5 21. b5 {gives White a powerful passed pawn.}) 19. Nxd7
Qxd7 $6 ({'Capablanca pointed out that} 19... Nxd7 {, defending the b6-pawn,
was better, although after} 20. Qb3 {White would still have retained the
advantage.' (Panov) Even so, Black's position would have been quite tolerable.}
) 20. Na4 $1 {The start of some subtle manoeuvres aimed at destroying the
opponent's queenside.} Qd8 ({According to Kotov, better chances of a defence
were offered by} 20... Bd8 21. Rc1 Nd5 22. Bxd5 exd5 23. b5 c5 24. dxc5 Qxb5 {.
}) 21. Qb3 $1 ({Of course, not} 21. Bxc6 $2 Bxb4 {equalising.}) 21... Nd5 $6 (
21... c5 $2 22. bxc5 bxc5 23. dxc5 Bxc5 24. Bb7 $1 {was bad for Black}) ({but
Capablanca's recommendation of} 21... b5 $1 22. Nc5 Bxc5 23. bxc5 Ra8 {, was
stronger. According to Panov, this loses to} ({if} 23... Nd5 {, then} 24. Ra6)
24. Rxa8 Qxa8 25. Qxb5 cxb5 26. Bxa8 b4 27. Bf3 b3 28. Bd1 b2 29. Bc2 Kf8 30.
e4 {'and the white king approaches the b2-pawn,' but in my opinion, after} Ke7
31. Kf1 Kd7 32. Ke2 Kc6 33. f4 (33. Kd2 e5 $1) 33... Kb5 34. Kd3 Kb4 35. Bb1
Ne8 {things are closer to a draw.}) 22. b5 $1 cxb5 $6 {Again a dubious move,
leading to the loss of the b6-pawn and indeed to an unpleasant position.} ({
Capablanca, and after him Panov and Kotov, condemn} 22... c5 {because of} 23.
dxc5 bxc5 (23... Bxc5 $2 24. Rd1 $1) 24. Qc4 {. But it seems to me that after}
Qa5 25. Rb1 Rb8 26. h4 Nb4 27. Nc3 Bf6 28. Bf1 {White's advantage is not so
great and that Black can still resist.}) 23. Qxb5 Ra8 {The commentators
attached an exclamation mark to this move and called it 'a very resourceful
defence.'} ({And indeed} 23... Rb8 $6 {was more passive:} 24. Bxd5 Qxd5 25.
Qxd5 exd5 26. Rb1 b5 (26... Bd8 27. Rb5) 27. Nc3 b4 28. Nxd5 Bd6 29. Rb3 {and
e3-e4-e5 (Becker).}) ({But I think that better chances of a draw were offered
by going into an ending with opposite-coloured bishops:} 23... Nc3 $5 24. Qxb6
({the widely recommended variation} 24. Nxc3 Rxc3 25. Bc6 {is no better in
view of} Ba3 $1) 24... Nxa4 25. Qxd8+ Bxd8 26. Rxa4 Rc1+ 27. Bf1 Kf8 {. Now,
however, White wins a pawn while retaining his queen and knight, reaching what
is probably a technically won position.}) 24. Rc1 $1 ({But not} 24. Rb1 $2 Rxa4
$1 25. Qxa4 Nc3 {equalising.}) 24... Ra5 25. Qc6 Ba3 ({Weak is} 25... b5 $6 26.
Bxd5 $1 (26. Qb7 Bf8) 26... exd5 27. Nc5 Qa8 28. Qd7 {.}) ({and totally bad is
} 25... Nb4 $2 26. Qb7 $1 Bf8 27. Nxb6 Rb5 28. Rc8 Qd6 (28... Qxb6 29. Qe7) 29.
Nc4 {winning.}) 26. Rb1 Bf8 {Threatening ...Rxa4.} ({Neither} 26... Rxa4 $2 27.
Qxa4 Nc3 28. Qxa3 Nxb1 29. Qb2) ({nor} 26... b5 $2 27. Nc5 Bxc5 28. dxc5 Ne7
29. Qb6 {will do.}) 27. Bxd5 Rxd5 28. Nxb6 {'After the opponent's exemplary
exploitation of the weaknesses, Black has lost a pawn.' (Alekhine) But not yet
the game...} Rd6 29. Qb7 h5 ({Generally speaking,} 29... h6 {is more solid.})
30. Nc4 Rd7 31. Qe4 (31. Qf3 $5 Rc7 32. Ne5 {is also interesting. It is
pointless to try and exhaust the given position by variations - it seems to me
that objectively it is closer to a loss for Black than to a draw. With the
given pawn formation, any endgame is difficult: queen, rook, or even knight
against bishop (a similar ending, but with four pawns against three, was won
by White, for example, in the game Khalifman-Barua, Las Vegas 2nd matchgame
1999).}) 31... Rc7 32. Ne5 Qc8 33. Kg2 Bd6 34. Ra1 Rb7 ({But not} 34... Qb7 $2
35. Ra8+ Bf8 36. Qxb7 Rxb7 37. Rd8 $1 {and Nd7 and wins.}) 35. Nd3 g6 36. Ra6
Bf8 37. Rc6 (37. Rc6 {with the idea of} -- 38. Nc5 Bxc5 39. dxc5 {.}) 37... Rc7
$1 38. Rxc7 ({'Capablanca incorrectly suggests that} 38. Ne5 {would have won.
Then with} Qb7 39. Qf3 Bg7 {Black would have achieved a position very similar
to that which occurred in the game.' (Alekhine)}) 38... Qxc7 39. Ne5 Bg7 {
(defending against Nxg6)} 40. Qa8+ Kh7 41. Nf3 (41. Nf3 {and now} -- 42. Ng5+
Kh6 43. h4 {and Qg8! was threatened.}) 41... Bf6 42. Qa6 ({If} 42. Qf8 {, then}
Qe7 {.}) 42... Kg7 43. Qd3 {White has chosen the most straightforward plan:
the creation of a passed pawn on the d-file. But the paradoxical thing is that
in the process his advantage gradually evaporates! Perhaps he shouldn't have
exchanged rooks and been in a hurry to advance his pawns...} Qb7 44. e4 Qc6 45.
h3 Qc7 46. d5 ({According to Alekhine, there is no time for} 46. Nd2 {in view
of} h4 $1 {.}) 46... exd5 47. exd5 Qc3 $1 {This move, which was underestimated
by the champion, delighted the commentators: the challenger had precisely
calculated that without the queens Black should gain a draw,} ({whereas after}
47... Qd6 48. Qc4 Qf8 49. Nd4 {his position could have become critical.}) 48.
Qxc3 ({'Also after} 48. Qe4 Qc5 $1 {a win for White would hardly have been
possible.' (Alekhine)}) ({Better, perhaps, was} 48. Qd1 $5 Qc7 49. d6 Qc6 50.
d7 Bd8 51. Qd4+ Kg8 {, although even here it is hard to believe that White can
win.}) 48... Bxc3 49. Kf1 $1 (49. Ng5 f5 $1 {.}) 49... Kf6 50. Ke2 Bb4 $1 51.
Nd4 $1 {'Capablanca plays the endgame with his typical accuracy, playing his
knight to the strong square c6.} ({If} 51. Kd3 {there would have followed} Bc5
52. Nd4 Ke5 {.' (Kotov)}) 51... Bc5 ({Only not} 51... Ke5 $4 52. Nc6+ {.}) 52.
Nc6 Kf5 $1 53. Kf3 ({Or} 53. f3 Bd6 54. g4+ hxg4 55. hxg4+ Kf4 {drawing.})
53... Kf6 $1 54. g4 $5 {(the last chance)} hxg4+ 55. hxg4 Kg5 $4 {'A blunder,
which nullifies all Black's fine preceding work.' (Kotov) 'Tired by his
laborious, exhausting defence against the endgame virtuoso, Alekhine makes two
mistakes, one after another, and unexpectedly loses.' (Panov)} ({As all the
commentators pointed out, a simple draw would have been given by} 55... Bd6 $1
{(Alekhine also gave 55...Bb6!? with a draw), for example:} 56. -- (56. Ke4 Kg5
$1 57. Ne5 (57. f3 f5+ 58. gxf5 gxf5+ 59. Ke3 Bc5+) 57... f5+ 58. gxf5 gxf5+
59. Kd4 Kf4) (56. Nd8 Bc7 57. g5+ Kxg5 58. Nxf7+ Kf6 59. d6 Bb6) ({, or} 56.
Ke2 Kg5 57. Nd8 Bc7 58. Nxf7+ (58. Nb7 Bb6 59. f3 f5) 58... Kf6 59. d6 Bb6 60.
Nh8 g5 {.})) 56. Ne5 $1 Bd4 $6 {Capitulation.} ({'When I made the incorrect
king move, which, as it seemed to me, was the easiest way to draw after} 56...
f5 {, I simply overlooked the study-like continuation} 57. d6 $1 fxg4+ 58. Kg2
$1 {' (Alekhine) Followed by} Kf5 59. d7 Be7 60. Nc6 {winning.}) ({Also bad was
} 56... Kf6 $2 57. Nd7+) ({or} 56... f6 $2 57. Nf7+ {followed by the advance
of the d-pawn.}) ({'Strangely enough, even two pawns down Black would have
retained drawing chances, had he played} 56... Ba3 $1 57. Nxf7+ ({after} 57. d6
$1 Kf6 58. d7 Ke7 59. Nxf7 Kxd7 60. Ne5+ {White would also have won}) 57... Kf6
{and 58...Ke5.' (Panov)}) 57. Nxf7+ Kf6 58. Nd8 $1 Bb6 (58... Ke5 $2 59. Nc6+ {
.}) 59. Nc6 Bc5 60. Kf4 $1 {An elegant pawn sacrifice, which forces the win.} (
60. Kg3 Bd6+ 61. f4 $2 g5) ({or} 60. Ke2 Kg5 61. f3 Kf4 {was inaccurate.})
60... Bxf2 (60... g5+ 61. Kf3 {, then Ke2, f2-f3, Kd3-c4-b5-a6-b7 etc.}) 61.
g5+ Kf7 62. Ne5+ Ke7 ({Like a move earlier,} 62... Kg7 {loses to} 63. d6 {.})
63. Nxg6+ Kd6 64. Ke4 Bg3 65. Nf4 Ke7 66. Ke5 Be1 67. d6+ Kd7 68. g6 Bb4 69.
Kd5 ({But not} 69. g7 $2 Bc3+ {.}) 69... Ke8 70. d7+ $1 {. By accurately
exploiting his opponent's mistake, Capa reduced the deficit to 3-4. It is true
that the game might have left an unpleasant aftertaste: from a practically
winning position he had reached one that was drawn. In one of the match books
there is an original passage on this theme (which Kotov liked to quote):
'Capablanca conducted the entire game in his best style and nevertheless he
won it accidentally.' One great expert on chess commented: 'After his
undeserved draw in the 27th game I thought that Capablanca might be able to
save the match, but after his win in the 29th game I finally saw that things
were lost for him.' --- However, a careful study of the next few games shows
that the opinion of the 'expert' was a long way from reality. The match
initiative was still with the Cuban! In the 30th game he improved Black's play
compared with the 28th and confidently gained a draw. And in the 31st he was
not afraid to go in for double-edged play, allowing his opponent serious
counter-chances. But it only needed Black to stumble - and Capablanca found a
way to take play into an endgame where he was a pawn up with excellent winning
chances (see the following game).} 1-0
[Event "107: World Ch. Match, Buenos Aires"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1927.??.??"]
[Round "31"]
[White "Capablanca, JR."]
[Black "Alekhine, A."]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "D51"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "83"]
[EventDate "1927.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Nbd7 5. e3 c6 6. Bd3 {A harmless deviation
from the Cambridge Springs.} ({In the fifth game Capa did this by} 6. a3 Be7 7.
Nf3) ({and in the ninth -} 6. Qc2 Qa5 7. cxd5 Nxd5 8. e4 Nxc3 9. Bd2 {, but
unsuccessfully (} Qa4 $1 10. Qxc3 a5 11. Nf3 Bb4 {with equality).}) ({In the
32nd game Alekhine preferred} 6. cxd5 exd5 7. Bd3 {, and in the 34th he
reverted to 6 a3 (Game No.130).}) 6... Qa5 $1 7. Bh4 dxc4 (7... Bb4 8. Nge2 $1
{.}) 8. Bxc4 b5 9. Bb3 ({In the 33rd game after} 9. Bd3 Bb7 ({but not} 9... b4
$6 10. Qa4 $1 Qxa4 11. Nxa4) 10. Nge2 a6 11. Bxf6 Nxf6 12. a3 Qb6 13. Ne4 Nxe4
(13... c5 $5 {Alekhine}) 14. Bxe4 c5 15. dxc5 Bxc5 16. Bxb7 Qxb7 17. O-O O-O
18. Rc1 Rac8 {a draw was agreed.}) 9... Bb7 10. Nf3 (10. Nge2 $6 c5 $1 {.})
10... c5 11. dxc5 Bxc5 ({Alekhine also suggested} 11... Nxc5 $5 12. Bxf6 gxf6 {
.}) 12. O-O O-O 13. Nd4 a6 {'The simplest way of defending against the threat
of Nxe6 is to ignore it.} ({Black could also maintain an equal game with} 13...
b4 14. Na4 Bd5 {.' (Alekhine)} (14... Be7 $5 {will also do -} 15. Nxe6 $2 fxe6
16. Bxe6+ Kh8 17. Bxd7 g5 18. Bg3 Rad8 {wins for Black.})) 14. Qe2 {'A
somewhat risky move.} ({I had rather expected} 14. a3 {, by which White would
have avoided both an isolated d-pawn, and the diversion of his queen's knight
to the edge of the board.}) ({And} 14. Nxe6 $6 fxe6 15. Bxe6+ {would only
expose him to unnecessary dangers:} Rf7 (15... Rf7 16. Qb3 Ne5 ({I would prefer
} 16... Raf8 17. Rad1 Qc7 {- G.K.}) 17. Rad1 ({however,} 17. Bxf6 $1 gxf6 18.
Nd5 {is better}) 17... Qc7 {and if} 18. Bg3 {, then} Qc6 {and ...Nc4 with
active piece play}) (15... Kh8 $5 16. Bxd7 Rad8 17. Bxf6 Rxf6 18. Qh5 Qc7 19.
Bh3 {, and now either} Bd6 (19... Rh6 20. Qe2 Qe5 {with a very strong attack
for Black,} (20... b4 $1 21. Nd1 a5 22. Re1 Ba6 23. Qc2 Bd3 24. Qa4 g5 {- G.K.}) 21. Rad1 Rf8 {things are not so clear}) 20. f4 Qb6 {, when the sacrificed
material is bound to be won back. --- 'In the game I intended choosing the
sharper second line.' (Alekhine)})) 14... b4 15. Na4 Bxd4 16. exd4 Nd5 ({The
immediate} 16... Bc6 $6 {is dubious in view of} 17. Nc5 Nxc5 18. dxc5 Qxc5 19.
Bxf6 gxf6 20. Rfc1 $1 ({but not} 20. Rac1 $6 Bb5 21. Qg4+ Qg5 {.})) 17. Bg3 Bc6
18. Qc2 Bxa4 (18... Rac8 19. Nc5 $1 {.}) 19. Bxa4 Rac8 20. Qd1 N7b6 21. Bc2 ({
Or} 21. Bb3 Qb5 $1 {with the threat of ...a6-a5-a4. It is now evident that
White has not played the opening very well and his bishops are by no means
superior to the black knights.}) 21... Nc4 22. b3 $6 (22. Qd3 f5 {was
unfavourable for White, but this new weakening could have cost Capablanca
dearly.}) 22... Na3 $6 {A rare instance of Alekhine missing a tactical blow!
This shows that he too was tired...} ({As he writes,} 22... Nde3 $1 {suggests
itself -} 23. fxe3 ({or} 23. Bxh7+ Kxh7 24. Qd3+ Qf5 $1) 23... Nxe3 24. Bxh7+
Kxh7 25. Qd3+ Nf5 26. Be5 (26. Be1 Kg8) 26... Kg8 $1 {with an obvious
positional advantage, for example:} 27. Qe4 (27. d5 $2 Rc5 $1) 27... Qb6 28. g4
Ne7 29. Rac1 Rc3 {etc.}) ({But not} 22... Nce3 $2 23. Bxh7+ Kxh7 24. Qh5+ Kg8
25. fxe3 {.}) 23. Bd3 Nb5 24. Be5 $1 {The situation has become sharper.} f5 $6
{Possibly sensing his opponent's nervous fatigue, the challenger decides to
stake everything.} ({The simple} 24... f6 $1 25. Qh5 g6 26. Bxg6 hxg6 27. Qxg6+
Kh8 {would have led to a draw (} 28. Qh6+ {).} ({'The attempt to win with} 28.
f4 {would fail to} Rc7 ({if 28 f4 Black should force a draw by} 28... fxe5 $1 {
-} 29. Qh6+ (29. Rf3 $2 Nxf4) 29... Kg8) 29. Bxc7 Qxc7 30. Rf3 ({instead of 30
Rf3?,} 30. f5 $1 {is very strong, for example:} Nxd4 31. fxe6 Nf4 32. Qh6+ Kg8
33. Rae1 Ndxe6 34. Re4 {with an attack}) 30... Qh7 $1 {(Alekhine). And if} 31.
Rh3 $2 {, then} Qxh3 32. gxh3 Rg8 {wins.})) 25. Bc4 Rfd8 $6 ({'It is only
after this move that Black gets into some difficulties. By the manoeuvre} 25...
Qd8 $1 {and ...Qd7 he could have safeguarded both his kingside and his centre,
when a difficult game, with chances for both sides, would have arisen.'
(Alekhine) However, in my opinion, the position is now in White's favour all
the same: his bishops are gaining in strength! The position is a favourable
modification for him of the well-known game Karpov-Korchnoi (Baguio 5th
matchgame 1978).}) 26. Re1 Qb6 27. Qd2 Qb7 $2 {'This pawn sacrifice seemed to
me to be sufficient for a draw, but in fact it is not fully correct.} (27...
Nbc3 {would have given Black a perfectly defensible position, since after} 28.
a3 $1 Ne4 {White has no great advantage.' (Alekhine) I don't agree with this:
firstly, there is a rather promising exchange sacrifice -} 29. Rxe4 $5 ({and
secondly, White retains an enduring plus after} 29. Qd3 a5 30. f3 Nd6 31. Bxd5
exd5 32. axb4 Qxb4 33. Re3 Nc4 34. bxc4 Qb3) 29... fxe4 30. axb4 Ra8 31. Qg5
Rd7 32. b5 a5 33. Qg4) ({I should add that} 27... a5 $2 {would have led to the
loss of a pawn:} 28. Qg5 Rd7 29. Bxd5 exd5 30. Qxf5 {.}) 28. Bxd5 Qxd5 29. Qxb4
Rc2 ({But not} 29... Nxd4 $2 30. Bxd4 Qxd4 31. Qxd4 Rxd4 32. Rxe6 {winning.})
30. Qe7 $1 {White forces the exchange of queens, killing the opponent's
temporary activity and beginning the conversion of his extra pawn.} Qd7 31.
Qxd7 Rxd7 32. Kf1 {'This indirectly protects the pawn on d4 and threatens 33
Rec1.} ({It would be much weaker to play} 32. a4 Nxd4 33. Bxd4 Rxd4 34. Rxe6
Rdd2 35. Rf1 Rb2 {, when White's winning chances would be virtually negligible.
' (Alekhine)}) 32... Kf7 {Black preserves the d5-square for his knight.} ({
'Even fewer chances (or perhaps more?! - G.K.) were offered by} 32... Rd5 33.
Rec1 $1 {, forcing} Rxc1+ 34. Rxc1 Nxd4 35. Bxd4 Rxd4 36. Rc6 a5 37. Ra6 Rd5
38. Rxe6 a4 39. Re1 {followed by Rb1.}) ({Now} 32... Nc3 {was also inadequate,
because of} 33. Rac1 Rxc1 34. Rxc1 Nxa2 35. Rc6 {.' (Alekhine)}) 33. a4 Nc3 34.
Rac1 Rxc1 35. Rxc1 Nd5 36. Rc6 Ra7 ({Of course,} 36... Rb7 $2 37. Rxa6 Rxb3 38.
Ra7+ {was hopeless for Black. --- Black has a strong knight, but White has a
no less strong, dominant bishop, as well as an active rook and a sound extra
pawn on the wing - a potential outside passed pawn. He only needs to take care
that the black rook does not leap, like a jack-in-the-box, to b7 and then to
b3. In short, White has a technically won endgame and it is probable that
Capablanca had mentally chalked up the win already: he usually won such
positions without thinking.}) 37. a5 $5 ({Alekhine attaches a question mark to
this move and recommends} 37. h4 {, 'to disable the opposing kingside and then,
with the necessary precautions, to bring the king to the queenside. This plan
would have reduced Black's drawing chances to the minimum.'}) ({The verdict of
Levenfish and Romanovsky is no less severe: 'The pawn stood better at a4 than
at a5, since now Black gains control of the b5-square, which is the key to the
position. Correct was} 37. Ke2 g5 38. h3 h5 39. Rc8 Rb7 40. Rb8 Rxb8 41. Bxb8
Ke7 42. Kd3 Kd7 43. Kc4 Kc6 44. b4 $1 Nb6+ 45. Kb3 Kd5 46. b5 axb5 47. a5 $1
Nd7 48. Be5 {winning.' However, in 1994(!) the Russian master Fridstein
accomplished a complete revolution in the evaluation of this ending, beginning
with a criticism of this last variation: 'The analysis was terminated too
early: after} Nxe5 49. dxe5 Kc5 {the pawn ending is drawn! However, instead of
48 Be5? White wins by 48 Bc7! In turn, Black should not play 45...Kd5?! -
after 45...g4 it is not at all easy to show that White has a win. But the main
thing is that White has no reason to exchange his active rook for the
opponent's passive rook! --- Instead of 39 Rc8?! it is not too late to
transpose into a position from the game by 39 a5! The point is that the 'key
to the position' is not the b5-square, but the b6-square!' --- Perhaps 37 h4
was indeed simpler, since it would have deprived Black of any counterplay.
However, the move in the game was not at all bad, as we shall see.}) 37... g5
$1 {(Alekhine's exclamation mark)} 38. h3 ({It is not clear whether} 38. Ke2 {
was any better.}) 38... h5 39. Ke2 g4 $2 {As it transpired many years later,
this decisively weakens the f4-square. 'But what should Black play? If he
waits, White will play his king to a3 and advance his b-pawn.} ({This means
that the most tenacious is} 39... Rb7 40. Rxa6 Rxb3 {, initiating at least
some kind of fight:} 41. Ra7+ Kg6 42. a6 {(here too 37.a5! came in useful!)}
Ra3 (42... Rb2+ 43. Kd3 Rxf2 $2 44. Ra8 $1 {wins}) 43. Rg7+ Kh6 44. a7 Nf4+ ({
or} 44... Nc3+ 45. Kd2 Nb5 46. Rb7 Nxa7 47. Rb6) 45. Kd2 Nxg2 46. Re7 Nf4 47.
Bxf4 $1 gxf4 48. Rxe6+ Kg5 49. Re7 Kf6 50. Rb7 Ke6 51. Kc2 Kd5 52. Kb2 Ra6 53.
Kb3 {and White wins.' (Fridstein) --- I think that this was the culminating
point of the entire match.}) 40. Rc8 $4 {The fatal last move before the time
control... 'A genuine tragedy for Capablanca!} (40. Rb6 $3 {would have given a
straightforward win.} -- ({. Now} 40... Nxb6 41. axb6 Rb7 {loses by force:} 42.
Bc7 Ke7 43. Ke3 $1 Kd7 44. Kf4 Rxc7 45. bxc7 Kxc7 46. Ke5 Kd7 47. h4 Ke7 ({or}
47... a5 48. d5 exd5 49. Kxd5) 48. f4 g3 49. d5 {.}) ({. No better is} 40...
gxh3 41. gxh3 Ra8 ({or} 41... Nxb6 42. axb6 Rb7 43. Bc7 Ke8 44. Kf3 Ke7 45. Kf4
Kf6 46. Bd8+ Kg6 47. Ke5 Kf7 48. Kd6 $1 {- G.K.}) 42. h4 Rc8 43. Kd2 Rc3 44.
Rxa6 Rxb3 45. Ra7+ Kg6 46. a6 Ra3 47. Rg7+ Kh6 48. a7 {.' (Fridstein) ---
Instead of this Capa unexpectedly removes the attack on the a6-pawn and
releases the black rook.}) (40... Ra8 41. h4 {.}) (40... Ke7 41. Rb8 {.}))
40... Rb7 $1 41. Rb8 {This essentially terminates the game. Here the game was
adjourned and Black sealed} ({'After the time wasted on his previous move,
White could no longer have prevented Black from getting enough counterplay for
a draw, for example:} 41. hxg4 hxg4 42. Ra8 Rxb3 43. Ra7+ Kg6 44. Rxa6 f4 $1
45. Rxe6+ Kf5 46. Re8 (46. Rd6 Ke4 {- G.K.}) 46... Ra3 {or indeed 46...Rb2+
or 46...f3+.' (Alekhine)} ({. I would prefer} 46... Ra3 47. Bd6 f3+ 48. gxf3
gxf3+ 49. Kd2 Rxa5 50. Kd3 Nf6 51. Rf8 ({or} 51. Re3 Kg4 52. Be7 Nd5 53. Re4+
Kh3 54. Re5 Kg2) 51... Ke6 52. Bc5 Ng4 53. Rxf3 Ra2 54. Kc4 Rc2+ 55. Kb3 Rd2
56. Kc3 Ra2 {drawing.}) (46... Rb2+ $6 47. Kd3 Rxf2 48. Bd6 Kg6 49. Re6+ Kf7
50. Re2 Rf1 51. Re5 {.})) 41... Rxb8 {On the resumption there followed} 42.
Bxb8 {and... on White's proposal a draw was agreed.} ({'Of course, Black
immediately plays} 42. Bxb8 Ke7 43. Kd3 (43. f3 gxh3 44. gxh3 h4 $1) 43... Kd7
44. Kc4 Kc6 {.' (Alekhine) --- However, as was discovered at the end of the
20th century by the Russian master Goldin, even in this seemingly arid desert
White would have retained real winning chances after} 45. h4 $1 Nf6 46. Bf4 {
. After fixing the h5-pawn, White wants to break through to it with his king
with the help of d4-d5. The main line goes} Ne4 ({inferior is} 46... Nd5 $6 47.
g3 Nf6 48. d5+ $1 Nxd5 49. Kd4 Nxf4 50. gxf4 Kd6 51. b4 {winning}) 47. b4 ({it
is too early for} 47. d5+ $6 exd5+ 48. Kd4 Nc5 $1) 47... Nf6 $1 (47... Nxf2 $6
48. d5+ $1 exd5+ 49. Kd4 Ne4 50. Ke5 {wins}) 48. Bh6 Nd5 49. g3 Nf6 50. Be3 $1
{Fridstein;} (50. Bg5 $6 Ne4 $1 {draws}) ({as does} 50. d5+ $6 Nxd5 51. Kd4
Nxb4 52. Ke5 Kd7 53. Kf6 Nc6 $1 {Lilienthal}) 50... Nd5 51. Bd2 $1 Nf6 52. d5+
$1 {At last! Black has two replies:} exd5+ (52... exd5+ 53. Kd4 Ne4 54. Be3 $1
Kd6 55. b5 axb5 56. a6 Kc6 57. a7 Kb7 58. Kxd5 b4 59. Kc4 f4 60. Bxf4 Kxa7 61.
Kxb4 Kb6 62. Kc4 Kc6 63. Kd4 Nxf2 {. Lilienthal thought that this was a draw:}
64. -- (64. Ke5 $6 Nd3+ 65. Kf5 Nxf4 66. Kxf4 Kd5 67. Kg5 Ke4) (64. Ke3 $6 Nh3
$1 65. Bb8 Kd5 66. Ba7 Ng1) ({. But Goldin demonstrated a win for White, based
on zugzwang:} 64. Bb8 $1 Kb7 65. Be5 Kc6 66. Bf4 Kd7 67. Ke5 Ke7 68. Kf5 Kf7
69. Kg5 ({instead of 69 Kg5? White wins by} 69. Bb8 $1 {(the same key move)}
Nh3 70. Ba7 Kg7 71. Be3 Kf7 72. Bd4 Ke7 73. Kg6 Ke6 74. Kxh5) 69... Ke6 {(? -
G.K.)} ({although the Russian master missed} 69... Nh3+ $1 {and ...Nxf4 with
an immediate draw, in general he evaluated the position correctly}) 70. Kxh5
Kf5 71. Kh6 Ne4 ({or} 71... Kf6 72. Bg5+ Kf5 73. Kg7 Ne4 74. Bf4) 72. Kg7 Nf6
73. Bb8 $1 Ne8+ 74. Kh6 {and 75 h5 (64 1999, No.8).})) (52... Nxd5 53. Kd4 Kd6
54. Bf4+ $1 Kd7 $1 ({inferior is} 54... Kc6 55. Ke5 Kd7 56. Bd2 Ke7 57. b5 axb5
58. a6 Nb6 59. a7 Na8 60. Bb4+ Kd7 61. Kf6) ({or} 54... Nxf4 55. gxf4 Kd7 56.
Ke5 Ke7 57. b5) 55. Kc5 $1 Nxf4 $1 (55... Nc3 $6 56. Be5 Ne4+ 57. Kb6 Nxf2 58.
b5) 56. gxf4 Kc7 57. b5 axb5 58. a6 b4 59. Kxb4 Kb6 60. Kc4 $1 {Lilienthal's
discovery;} (60. a7 $6 Kxa7 61. Kc5 e5 $1 62. fxe5 f4 {draws}) 60... Kxa6 {and
now:} 61. -- (61. Kd4 Kb5 62. Ke5 Kc4 63. Kxe6 Kd3 64. Kxf5 Ke2 65. Ke4 $1 Kxf2
66. f5 g3 67. f6 g2 68. f7 g1=Q 69. f8=Q+ Ke2 $1 ({but not} 69... Ke1 $2 70.
Qb4+) 70. Qf3+ Kd2 71. Qxh5 ({or} 71. Qd3+ Kc1 72. Qe3+ Qxe3+ 73. Kxe3 Kc2)
71... Qe3+ 72. Kf5 Qc5+ 73. Kg6 Qd6+ 74. Kf7 Qd7+ 75. Kf6 Qd6+ {with a draw}) (
61. Kc5 $1 e5 62. fxe5 Kb7 $1 (62... f4 $2 63. e6) 63. Kd6 f4 64. e6 g3 65.
fxg3 fxg3 66. e7 g2 67. e8=Q g1=Q 68. Qxh5 {. This queen ending looks more
promising than the one reached in variation a): thanks to the position of the
black king at b7, White hopes to defend against the checks and queen his
h-pawn (Shakhmaty v Rossii 1998, Nos.5-6). --- The database analytical module
quickly establishes that if it is White to move he does indeed win, although
with Black to move the position is after all a draw:} Qg3+ 69. Ke6 Qe3+ 70. Kf6
Qf4+ 71. Kg7 Qd4+ $1 ({but not} 71... Qg3+ $2 72. Qg5 {and... mate in another
81 moves!}) 72. Kh7 Qe4+ 73. Kh6 Kc8 74. Qg5 ({or} 74. Qc5+ Kd7 75. h5 Qf4+ 76.
Kg7 Qg4+ 77. Kh8 Qf4 78. Qa7+ Ke8 79. Qg7 Qf8+ 80. Qg8 Ke7 81. Kh7 Qf5+ 82. Qg6
Qf7+ 83. Qg7 Ke8 84. h6 Qf5+) 74... Qc6+ 75. Qg6 Qc1+ 76. Kh7 Qc7+ 77. Kh8 Qc3+
78. Qg7 Qh3 79. Qe7 Qc3+ 80. Kg8 Qb3+ 81. Kg7 Qg3+ 82. Qg5 Qc7+ 83. Kf8 Qd6+
84. Kf7 Qc7+ {with endless checks.}))) ({This historic ending drew the
interest of some well-known analysts: Hübner (Schach 1998, No.8) and Timman
(New in Chess 1999, No.7), who discovered a less thorny path to the draw:} 42.
Bxb8 Ke7 ({but not} 42... gxh3 $2 43. gxh3 Ke7 44. Kf3 $1 {winning}) 43. Kd3 ({
Hübner recommended} 43. h4 $5 Kd7 44. Kd3 {, but Timman parried this by} Nb4+ (
{in order after} 44... Kc6 45. Kc4 {to transpose into the 'main' variation})
45. Kc4 Nc6 {drawing (the black king has deprived the bishop of the c7-square)}
) 43... Kd7 44. Kc4 {and now, instead of Alekhine's} Kc6 (44... gxh3 $1 45.
gxh3 Kc6 {(whereas without the a-pawns White wins, as Karpov showed in a
similar ending against Andersson, Skelleftea 1989). --- In any case, nowadays
such a position would have been played on until the last chance! Why then was
Capa in a hurry to offer a draw, if he could have calmly analysed the endgame
during the adjournment? Especially since, in view of his birthday (on 19th
November the Cuban reached the age of 39) he had been granted an extra free
day. Perhaps, being extremely tired and not seeing a winning plan, he decided
not to waste his time and energy? Or had he noticed 40 Rb6 and, realising that
he had missed a clear win, was terribly upset and could no longer bear the
thought of resuming the game?!})) (42. -- {Timman is probably correct, when he
writes that Capablanca, in reconciling himself to a draw, had already resigned
the match in the depths of his heart... --- Strangely enough, the importance
of this truly decisive game was underestimated for several decades (everything
was eclipsed by the champion's 'fatal' blunder in the 27th game). Probably
because it was poorly analysed. Although it was the outcome of this game that
changed chess history: had Capablanca won, the match score would have become
4-4, and since the Cuban only needed five wins to retain his title, he could
well have remained champion, and it would have been very hard for Alekhine to
obtain a second match. But after missing a win, Capablanca was depressed and
finally broken: he lost the 32nd and 34th games, and with them the match. ---
On the whole, the reasons for the champion's failure are clear: excessive
self-confidence and, as a consequence, weak preparation, a habitual
inclination to try and win with little expenditure of effort, without tension
and the calculation of 'dangerous' variations, hence the tactical errors, and
then, after encountering an incredibly resourceful opponent and a number of
heavy defeats - shock, despair, loss of belief in himself... Even after
pulling himself together, the Cuban was no longer able to change the course of
the match. Here is what grandmaster Averbakh wrote about this: 'It is
impossible to ignore a highly important factor of the chess struggle -
psychology. We wonder: why was Capablanca, at that time undoubtedly the best
"technician" in the world, unable to win technically won positions in the 27th
and 31st games? On one occasion Alekhine, during the period when he
temporarily lost the world crown, explained his avoidance of the transition
into a technical endgame by the fact that "I simply could not rely on my
patience and nerves - which certainly would have been required for winning the
endgame in question." There you have it: technique is first and foremost
nerves! And towards the end of the exhausting two-month marathon Capa's were
clearly not in good shape. It was for this reason that he was unable to win
positions that in other conditions he would have easily converted into a win.'}
) (42. -- {I think nevertheless that Alekhine did not really like the
character of the play between the 27th and 31st games (to say nothing of from
the third to the seventh). He once again realised how mighty his opponent was,
and so he was by no means eager for a return match, to which, according to the
London agreement, the ex-champion had the right. Unfortunately, Capablanca did
not immediately agree to play under the same conditions, but delayed his
challenge and allowed Alekhine a formally legitimate opportunity to avoid a
return match (the details of these dramas are given in the chapter on the
fourth champion). --- One can only guess how a second match between them would
have gone. Capablanca, having learned from bitter experience, could have
prepared properly for it. For the first time he would have had to give his all,
from beginning to end! Given the Cuban's colossal natural talent and the fact
that he was still comparatively young (40 years old), the chess world had a
chance of seeing him at the peak of his game. --- An analysis of the match
shows that in a second match too there would have been a very hard, roughly
equal battle. If one takes the purely chess aspect, I would nevertheless have
put my money on Capablanca (as also in the first match, had he approached it
more seriously). But in matches of such calibre the human character also tells.
Before Buenos Aires, Capa had never in his life had to exert himself strongly.
Even in the match with Lasker he played at half-intensity, and this was
sufficient. Whereas against Alekhine - no! And there is still the question of
how long the Cuban would have withstood the unusually high tension...}) (42. --
{Capablanca was the first to experience the burden of an unlimited match and
he severely criticised it: 'Without a limit to the number of games,' he wrote
early in 1928 to the FIDE President Alexander Rueb, 'it is quite possible that
the match may never be finished, or that it may last so long as to make the
result merely dependent on the physical and mental endurance of the players.
In other words it would depend on who would be exhausted first, and not on who
was the better player. This does not take into consideration the cost of the
match, which evidently is greater the longer it lasts.' Therefore Capablanca
suggested restricting the number of games to 16 - i.e., if by that time
neither of the players had achieved six wins, the winner of the match and the
world champion would be simply the one who was leading (with the scores equal
the champion would retain his title). --- He sent a copy of this letter to
Alekhine, but in reply the latter declared: 'I won six games from you in fair
play and I shall only recognise the superiority of one (be it you or another)
who will also win six games from me.' Nevertheless, Alekhine did later play
matches that were limited to 30 games... --- FIDE also did not support
Capablanca. On the contrary, it put forward a different, 'official' challenger
- the FIDE champion Bogoljubow. (On the other hand, in the mid-70s FIDE
supported Fischer, and then also Karpov, who dragged out of the archival dust
the long-forgotten unlimited matches. In 1986 they were buried again - and
this time, it would seem, for ever.)}) 1/2-1/2
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "In the Autumn of his Career"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "21"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.08"]
{In the Autumn of his Career: The former champion spent the decade after his
failure in Buenos Aires in the desperate hope of playing another match for the
crown. His first tournament appearance was Bad Kissingen 1928: 1. Bogoljubow -
8 out of 11; 2. Capablanca - 7; 3-4. Rubinstein and Euwe - 6˝; 5.
Nimzowitsch - 6; 6. Réti - 5˝ etc. Capa's 'regular' win against Bogoljubow
was, alas, cancelled out by a defeat against Spielmann. Immediately after the
tournament Bogoljubow challenged Alekhine to a match, and the latter accepted... --- Two months later the Cuban gave himself an excellent present on his 40th
birthday, winning the double-round Berlin 1928 in good style: 1. Capablanca -
8˝ out of 12; 2. Nimzowitsch - 7; 3. Spielmann - 6˝; 4. Tartakower - 5˝; 5-6. Réti and Rubinstein - 5 etc. --- He was far less gladdened by the
grandiose Carlsbad 1929: 1. Nimzowitsch - 15 out of 21; 2-3. Capablanca and
Spielmann - 14˝; 4. Rubinstein - 13˝; 5-7. Becker, Vidmar and Euwe - 12;
8. Bogoljubow - 11˝ etc. Two defeats with Black, against Sämisch and again
against Spielmann, deprived the former champion of first place, and the only
consolation was the failure of his rival Bogoljubow. --- Incidentally, in the
Sämisch-Capablanca game an unusual curiosity occurred:} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3.
Nc3 Bb4 4. a3 {(Sämisch's patent!)} Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 d6 6. f3 e5 7. e4 Nc6 8. Be3
b6 9. Bd3 Ba6 $4 {(an 'automatic' move)} 10. Qa4 Bb7 11. d5 {and Black lost
his knight. The secret of this 'blunder of the year' was revealed by the
victim himself. It turns out that before Capa's ninth move a beautiful
brunette appeared in the hall - his wife Gloria, who had turned up out of the
blue from Havana. This 'opening surprise' shocked the master: he was having an
affair with a beautiful blonde... (Later his first marriage, which had
produced a son and a daughter, broke up, and Capa remarried.) --- After this,
as he had also done before, the ex-champion won several less important
tournaments, but in Hastings 1930/31, after losing unexpectedly to Sultan Khan,
he finished half a point behind Euwe. Then he decided to play a match of 10
games with the Dutchman, who was now one of the world elite, and he gained a
convincing 6-4 victory (+2 =8). 'The Cuban was able to demonstrate his
superiority over Euwe more effectively than did Alekhine and Bogoljubow,'
wrote the magazine Shakhmaty v SSSR. 'Therefore the sooner that the
long-awaited Alekhine-Capablanca return match takes place, the more that chess
will gain from this. For the present champion, Capablanca, despite all his
"fractures", is still the most dangerous opponent.' --- Alas, the world
economic crisis buried hopes of a return match. Correspondence with Alekhine
led to a complete severing of relations between the historic opponents - they
even stopped playing in the same tournaments...} (11. -- {'Capablanca used to
talk calmly and moderately about everything,' recalls Alexander Koblenz.
'However, when our conversation turned to the problems of the battle for the
world championship, in front of me was a quite different person: an enraged
lion, although with the fervour typical only of a southerner, with his
temperamental patter, which made it hard to follow the torrent of his
indignant exclamations and words. This was obviously a very sore point with
the Cuban... His soul was still tormented by thoughts of the loss of the crown.
He spoke with incredible ardour. The defeat had inflamed his ambition!
Capablanca was convinced that Alekhine was inferior to him both in strength,
and in talent; a superiority complex had taken root in him, preventing him
from soberly and objectively evaluating the deserved and splendid victory of
his opponent. He was indignant at the inertness of the chess world in
organising his return match with Alekhine. He spoke scornfully about FIDE and
at the same time about "this entire chess community"... As regards Alekhine's
two matches with Bogoljubow, a player who the Cuban, in his own words, always
went at it hammer and tongs, Capablanca considered them to be an obscene farce.
' --- After the match with Euwe, Capablanca disappeared from Europe for nearly
four years, restricting himself to record-breaking simultaneous displays in
USA, Cuba and Mexico. His debut after the break in Hastings 1934/35 brought
him a crushing defeat against Lilienthal and general disappointment: 1-3.
Thomas, Flohr and Euwe - 6˝ out of 9; 4. Capablanca - 5˝; 5-6. Botvinnik
and Lilienthal - 5 etc. In Moscow 1935 Capa was again fourth, this time with
two defeats (against Lasker and Ryumin), behind Botvinnik, Flohr and his
'eternal' opponent Lasker. In Margate 1935 he finished half a point behind the
young Reshevsky, losing to him in their individual game... --- It appeared
that the star of the Cuban genius was about to set. But here - miraculously! -
in late 1935 Alekhine lost the chess crown to Euwe. Unexpectedly there was a
chance for Capablanca to regain the throne! I think that this factor and his
young wife, the Russian émigré Olga Chegodaev (whom I had the pleasure of
meeting half a century later), inspired Capa with new strength, and in 1936 he
played brilliantly in Moscow: 1. Capablanca - 13 out of 18; 2. Botvinnik - 12;
3. Flohr - 9˝; 4. Lilienthal - 9; 5. Ragozin - 8˝; 6. Lasker - 8 etc. And
then in the 'tournament of champions' in Nottingham: 1-2. Botvinnik and
Capablanca - 10 out of 14; 3-5. Reshevsky, Fine and Euwe - 9˝; 6. Alekhine -
9; 7-8. Lasker and Flohr - 8˝; 9. Vidmar - 6; 10-11. Bogoljubow and
Tartakower - 5˝ etc.}) (11. -- {The young Smyslov, who in those years
visited the Moscow international tournaments, later recalled: 'I was
especially attracted by the play of Lasker and Capablanca, whose names, even
in their lifetimes, were legendary. Capablanca's play was notable for its
unique intuition and for its easy and spontaneous manner.' --- Let's examine
two examples of Capa's later play, two specimens of his famous technique.
First, a lesson on his favourite theme 'bishop out of play'. After defeating
Botvinnik the previous day in a sharp battle, the Cuban had become the sole
leader and he arrived for his game with Lilienthal in excellent spirits. It
was time to repay a little debt!}) *
[Event "108: Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1936.??.??"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Capablanca, JR."]
[Black "Lilienthal, A."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A12"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "107"]
[EventDate "1936.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 c6 3. b3 {In the footsteps of Réti! Thus, with the help of the
champions, hypermodern ideas became classical...} Bf5 4. Bb2 e6 5. g3 Nf6 6.
Bg2 Nbd7 7. O-O h6 {'This move, preserving the f5-bishop from exchange, is
completely unnecessary.' (Capablanca)} ({In the source game Lasker played} 7...
Bd6 {(Game No.71)}) ({but} 7... Be7 8. d3 O-O 9. Nbd2 a5 $5 {is also good,
with the idea of} 10. Nh4 Bg4 11. h3 Bh5 12. g4 Bg6 13. Nxg6 hxg6 {equalising.}
) 8. d3 Be7 (8... Bc5 {is also possible, for example:} 9. Nbd2 ({or} 9. Nc3 O-O
10. Qc2 Bh7 11. e4 dxe4 {(Smyslov-Keres, 19th USSR Championship, Moscow 1951)})
9... O-O 10. Qc2 Qe7 11. e4 dxe4 12. dxe4 Bh7 13. a3 a5 14. h3 Bb6 15. Bc3 Nc5
16. Ne5 Rfd8 {(Keres-Euwe, AVRO Tournament, Holland 1938) with equal chances
in both cases.}) 9. Nbd2 O-O 10. Rc1 ({Or} 10. a3 a5 11. Qc2 Bh7 $1 12. Rac1 (
12. Bc3 b5 {equalises Botvinnik-Smyslov, Moscow 12th matchgame 1958}) 12... Bd6
{with the intention of ...Qe7 and ...e6-e5.}) 10... a5 11. a3 {(to answer ...a5-a4 with b3-b4, avoiding the opening of the a-file)} Re8 (11... Bh7 $1 {is
slightly more accurate, since then after} 12. Rc2 {, apart from} Re8 ({also
possible is} 12... Ne8 $5 13. Qa1 Bf6) (12... Qb6 $5 13. Qa1 Rfd8) ({or
Lasker's} 12... Bd6 $5 13. Qa1 Qe7 {.})) 12. Rc2 Bh7 ({The imprudent} 12... e5
$2 13. Nxe5 Nxe5 14. Bxe5 Bxa3 {is refuted by} 15. Bxf6 $1 gxf6 16. cxd5 cxd5
17. e4 {with a dangerous initiative.}) 13. Qa1 Bf8 (13... Qb6 {has also been
played (Stein-Tal, Moscow 1971)}) ({as well as} 13... Bd6 14. Ne5 Bf8 $1 {
(Lobron-Karpov, Lucerne 1985). I think that this position is an altogether
barren one for White: he does not even have a hint of an advantage.}) 14. Re1
Qb6 15. Bh3 Bc5 {'Black's moves show that he has not yet decided on a definite
plan. With the aim of preparing ...e6-e5, ...Bd6 and ...Qb8 looks logical.'
(Capablanca)} ({Or} 15... Rad8 $5 {and ...c6-c5.}) 16. Rf1 Bf8 17. Rcc1 Rad8
18. Rfe1 Bc5 $5 {Provoking d3-d4, which would activate the bishop at h7 and
give Black a more comfortable game.} (18... c5 {weakens the centre -} 19. e4 $1
dxe4 ({worse is} 19... d4 $6 20. e5 Nh5 21. Bg4 $1 Bg6 22. Nh4) 20. dxe4 e5 21.
Re2 Qc7 22. Rce1 {and Nb1-c3-d5 with some advantage.}) 19. Rf1 $5 Bf8 20. Bg2 (
{'If} 20. Ne5 $6 {there could have followed} Nxe5 21. Bxe5 Nd7 22. Bb2 f6 {and
then ...e6-e5.' (Capablanca)}) 20... Bd6 {Hinting at ...e6-e5.} ({Now, when
the bishop has retreated to g2,} 20... c5 $5 {also came into consideration.})
21. Ne5 $1 Bxe5 (21... Bf8 $1 {was more solid.}) 22. Bxe5 Nxe5 23. Qxe5 Nd7 ({'
} 23... d4 $2 {is bad in view of} 24. c5 Qb5 25. Nc4 Re7 26. Nd6 Qxb3 27. Rb1
Qxa3 28. Nxb7 Rc8 29. Ra1 Qb4 30. Nxa5 {etc.}) (23... Ng4 $6 24. Qb2 d4 {is
also insufficient because of} 25. b4 {, c4-c5 and Nc4-d6.' (Capablanca)}) ({But
} 23... c5 $5 24. Qc3 d4 {and ...e6-e5-e4 is acceptable.}) 24. Qb2 Nf6 $6 ({
'Correct is} 24... c5 $1 {and ...Nb8-c6. White could not take twice on d5 in
view of the loss of the e2-pawn.' (Capablanca)}) 25. b4 $1 axb4 26. Qxb4 $1
Qxb4 ({If} 26... Qc7 {there would have followed} 27. Rb1 Re7 28. Rb3 {with
mild but enduring pressure.}) 27. axb4 Ra8 $2 {An important moment, on which
Capablanca makes no comment!} ({After} 27... dxc4 28. Nxc4 Rd4 29. Na5 Rxb4 30.
Rb1 {White would have regained his pawn with some advantage.}) ({But} 27... e5
$1 {- in order to free the h7-bishop by ...e5-e4 - would have led to exchanges
and a rapid draw:} 28. cxd5 (28. Ra1 $6 e4 $1) 28... Nxd5 29. b5 cxb5 30. Rc5
Nf6 31. Bxb7 ({or} 31. Rxb5 e4 $1) 31... e4 32. Bc6 Re7 33. Nxe4 Bxe4 34. dxe4
Nxe4 35. Rxb5 Nc3 {.}) 28. Ra1 {'I had this position in mind back on my 21st
move. The ending is advantageous to White: he has a strong-point at a5,
enabling him to double rooks on the a-file. In addition, the g2-bishop is
strong, whereas the h7-bishop is out of play for a long time.' (Capablanca)}
Nd7 $6 ({The best chance was still} 28... e5 $1 {, for example:} 29. cxd5 ({or
} 29. c5 e4 $1 30. d4 e3 (30... Bf5 $5) 31. fxe3 Rxa1 32. Rxa1 Rxe3 33. Ra8+
Re8 34. Rxe8+ Nxe8 35. Bh3 f5 36. e3 Nc7 {with good chances of a draw}) 29...
Nxd5 30. Bxd5 (30. b5 $6 Nc3 $1) 30... cxd5 31. Nb3 e4 32. d4 Bf5 {.}) 29. Nb3
Kf8 ({Black's mounting difficulties are illustrated by the variations} 29...
Nb6 $6 30. c5 Nd7 31. Ra5 $1 b6 32. cxb6 Rab8 33. Ra7 Nxb6 34. Nd4 Nc8 35. Rc7
Rxb4 36. Nxc6 {(with the threat of Rxc8+)}) ({and} 29... b6 $6 30. b5 $1 cxb5
31. cxd5 e5 (31... exd5 32. Nd4) 32. d6 {etc.}) 30. Ra5 $1 (30. c5 e5 31. Bh3
Ke7 {is unclear.}) 30... dxc4 $2 {'The decisive mistake.} ({The only defence
was} 30... Ke7 31. Rfa1 Rxa5 32. Rxa5 Kd6 33. Ra7 Kc7 34. Na5 Rb8 {. Although
after} 35. c5 {Black is blockaded, no forced win for White is apparent.'
(Capablanca)}) ({If} 30... b6 $6 {, then} 31. Rxa8 Rxa8 32. b5 $1 cxb5 33. cxd5
e5 34. Rc1 {and d5-d6 is good - G.K.}) 31. dxc4 Nb6 32. Rxa8 $1 Rxa8 33. Na5
$1 Ra7 ({No better is} 33... Rb8 34. Rd1 e5 (34... Ke7 35. Bxc6 $1) (34... Bc2
35. Rd2 Ba4 $2 36. Ra2 {and Kf1-e1}) 35. Rd6 Ke8 (35... Ke7 36. Rxc6 $1) 36. b5
Nc8 37. Rd2 cxb5 38. cxb5 b6 39. Nc6 {winning.}) 34. Rd1 $1 (34. Rd1 {has the
threat of} -- 35. Bxc6 bxc6 36. Rd8+ Ke7 37. Nxc6+ {.}) 34... Ke8 ({If} 34...
f6 $2 {, then} 35. Rd8+ Kf7 36. Rb8 {wins.}) (34... Ke7 $2 35. Bxc6 $1 {.}) 35.
Nxb7 $1 {'The quickest way to win. The combination gives White a rook and two
passed pawns for a bishop and knight. These minor pieces are unable to cope
with the passed pawns, supported by the rook.' (Capablanca) --- 'A typical
Capablanca exchanging operation in the endgame. In general he liked playing
with rook and two pawns against two minor pieces.' (Botvinnik)} Rxb7 36. Bxc6+
Rd7 37. c5 Ke7 ({Or} 37... Nd5 38. f3 f5 39. b5 Ke7 40. Bxd7 Kxd7 41. Ra1 $1 {
and wins.}) (37... Be4 $2 38. Rxd7 $1 {.}) 38. Bxd7 Nxd7 39. c6 Nb6 40. c7 Bf5
41. Rd8 ({By} 41. e4 Bg4 42. f3 Bxf3 43. Rd8 Bxe4 44. c8=Q {White could have
won a piece, remaining with the exchange for a pawn, but this would only have
prolonged the game.' (Capablanca)}) 41... e5 42. Rb8 $1 ({But not} 42. b5 $2
Nc8 {.}) 42... Nc8 ({If} 42... Nd5 {, then} 43. c8=Q Bxc8 44. Rxc8 Nxb4 45.
Rc7+ Ke6 46. e4 $1 {.}) 43. b5 Kd6 44. b6 Ne7 (44... Kc6 45. b7 {etc.}) 45. Rf8
({Again there was another way to win -} 45. c8=Q Nxc8 46. b7 Kc7 47. bxc8=Q+
Bxc8 48. Ra8 {.}) 45... Bc8 46. Rxf7 Nd5 ({Or} 46... g6 47. Rf6+ Kd7 48. h4 {.}
) 47. Rxg7 Nxb6 48. Rh7 Nd5 49. Rxh6+ Kxc7 50. e4 Ne7 51. f3 Kd7 52. h4 Ke8 53.
Rf6 Ng8 $2 {An oversight,} ({but} 53... Bd7 54. h5 Ng8 55. Rg6 Kf7 56. Rg5 {
would also not have saved the game.}) 54. Rc6 (54. Rc6 Bd7 55. Rc5 {and Rxe5.
This game won the third special prize 'for the best game'!}) 1-0
[Event "109: Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1936.??.??"]
[Round "10"]
[White "Kan, I."]
[Black "Capablanca, JR."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C25"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "113"]
[EventDate "1936.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{In the following well-known game with one of the Soviet masters, the
47-year-old ex-champion, after obtaining clearly the better position, did not
perhaps play with the accuracy of his former years. But this in no way
diminishes the prettiness and instructional importance of this complex endgame.
} 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Bc5 ({'Theory recommends (in this opening) that the knights
should first be developed, but Black wanted to avoid the hackneyed variations
with} 2... Nf6 3. f4 d5 {etc.' (Capablanca)}) 3. Nf3 (3. f4 d6 4. Nf3 {is
sharper, but Kan is thinking only in terms of a draw.}) 3... d6 4. Na4 ({The
'theoretical'} 4. d4 exd4 5. Nxd4 {also merely gives White slightly the freer
game.}) 4... Bb6 5. Nxb6 axb6 6. d4 exd4 (6... Qe7 $5 {Larsen.}) 7. Qxd4 Qf6 ({
If} 7... Nf6 {, then} 8. Bg5 {Capa happily offers the exchange of queens,
hoping, not without justification, to outplay his opponent in the endgame.}) 8.
Bg5 $5 ({The well-known game Schlechter-Janowski (San Sebastian 1911) went} 8.
Bd3 Nc6 9. Qe3 Nge7 10. O-O O-O 11. c3 Ng6 12. Nd4 Nxd4 13. cxd4 Ra4 {with
equality.}) 8... Qxd4 9. Nxd4 Bd7 10. Bc4 (10. Nb5 $5 {.}) 10... Ne7 11. O-O
Ng6 (11... Ng6 {. 'Before castling it is necessary to prevent} 12. f4 {, after
which there now follows} h6 13. f5 Ne5 {winning.' (Capablanca)}) 12. a3 (12.
Nb5 $5 {.}) 12... O-O 13. Rad1 Nc6 14. Nxc6 $6 {The first of a series of minor
mistakes. 'With this exchange White merely increases the value of the black
pawns.' (Capablanca)} ({Here} 14. Nb5 $6 {would now be a blank shot on account
of} Nce5 15. Be2 Bxb5 16. Bxb5 Ra5 17. Be2 Nf3+ $1 18. Bxf3 Rxg5 {.}) ({But,
as the Cuban showed, correct was} 14. Bc1 {(} Ra4 $6 15. b3 $1 {and 16 a4). I
think that if the players were to have changed places, Capa would quickly have
shown Kan what is meant by the two bishops and what they are capable of...})
14... bxc6 {(Black has acquired a compact pawn skeleton, which in the end he
is able to exploit)} 15. Bd2 $6 ({Not realising that} 15. Bc1 $1 {should be
played as soon as possible, then b2-b3 and a3-a4.}) 15... Ra4 $1 16. Bd3 Ne5
17. Bc3 f6 18. f3 ({Perhaps it would have been better to drive away the knight
by} 18. f4 {. White's position is already slightly worse, but as yet he has no
particular weaknesses, and Kan decided simply to stand his ground.}) 18... Re8
19. Rf2 {(a peaceful outcome seems almost inevitable, but we will not jump to
conclusions)} Bc8 $1 {First Capa deprives White of the advantage of the two
bishops.} ({In his words, 'in the event of} 19... Nxd3 $6 {the
opposite-coloured bishops would have assured White of a certain draw.'}) 20.
Bf1 ({The manoeuvre ...Ba6 could have been prevented by} 20. Ra1 $5 {with the
idea of b2-b3 and a3-a4.}) ({Or} 20. Bb4 $5 {(with the same idea)} c5 21. Bc3 {
and Black has merely a symbolic advantage.}) 20... Ba6 21. Bxa6 $6 ({Stronger
is} 21. Rd4 $1 {, exchanging the active black rook and achieving an
objectively drawn position.}) 21... Rxa6 22. Bxe5 $6 {But this exchange
improves Black's pawn structure and gives him the possibility of attacking on
both wings. Of course, all the same Capa had a fairly clear plan (...c6-c5, ...Nc6, ...Kf7-e6 and ...b6-b5-b4), but as long as White does not take on e5, his
position is comparatively safe.} fxe5 {'It is now clear that Black stands
better. His pawn mass is concentrated closer to the centre and his rooks
control open files.' (Capablanca) In aiming for a draw, Kan has tried to
exchange as many pieces as possible and, as often happens, he has overdone it.}
23. Rd3 $6 ({Black's possibilities would have been restricted by} 23. c4 $1 {
, although here too he would take his king to the centre, play ...c6-c5 and
begin an attack with ...g7-g5-g4, to create weaknesses in the enemy position.
Of course, with accurate play White should be able to defend (as Capa writes,
'the neutralising tendency of rook endings is significant', but in practice
everything is decided by the difference in class...}) 23... b5 $1 {('just the
same', only Black has seized another little bit of space)} 24. Rfd2 c5 25. Kf2
Ra4 $1 {'A timely prevention of White's attempt to free himself by f2-f4.'
(Capablanca)} 26. Ke3 Kf7 27. Rd1 Ke6 {Now there is the plan of a breakthrough
by ...c7-c6 and ...d6-d5, and all the time White has to watch for this. Over
some dozen moves his position has been transformed from slightly better to
passive and unpleasant.} 28. Kd2 {White does not know what to do, and hence he
awaits the threats.} (28. h4 $5 {came into consideration.}) 28... Rb8 ({More
direct was} 28... Rd8 $5 {(or 28...c4 29 Rc3 Rc8!?) with the idea of ...c7-c6
and ...d6-d5. However, Capa's basic principle was not to create weaknesses for
himself without extreme necessity. And he defers the advance in the centre
until the decisive moment, when the opponent will already be 'ripe'.}) 29. Rc3
(29. Ke3 g5) ({or} 29. h4 $5 {.}) 29... g5 {A typical attack by a pawn
minority on the kingside.} ({Also suitable was} 29... Rf8 30. Ke3 c4 $1 (30...
g5 31. Rcd3 c4 32. R3d2 $1) 31. Kd2 c6 {with the threat of ...d6-d5-d4 or the
preparatory centralisation 29...Rd4+!}) (29... Rd4+) 30. h3 ({The alternative
plan was to keep the h-file closed:} 30. Ke3 g4 (30... c4 31. Kd2) (30... c6
31. g3) (30... Rf8 31. Rcd3) 31. Rd2 Rg8 32. Rb3 {etc.}) 30... h5 (30... Rf8
31. Ke3 c4 32. Kd2 {with the idea of b2-b3}) (30... c6 $5 {.}) 31. Rh1 {
Neutralising the ...g5-g4 breakthrough;} ({but} 31. Ke3 $5 {would appear to be
better.}) 31... Rd4+ (31... Rg8 32. Ke2 c6 $1 33. Rd3 d5 {etc. was also good.})
32. Ke2 ({But not} 32. Rd3 $6 c4 33. Rxd4 exd4 34. h4 Rg8 {and ...Ke5-f4-g3
with an overwhelming advantage for Black.}) 32... Rg8 {'Forestalling a
possible h3-h4.' (Capablanca)} ({Again} 32... c6 $5 {with the idea of ...c5-c4
and ...d6-d5 was tempting.}) 33. Rd3 Ra4 {(it is important to retain the
active rook)} 34. Rhd1 g4 $6 {Euwe, the current world champion, called this
game 'the best of all those seen up till then in this tournament: Capablanca
plays the endgame with exceptional mastery.' Here it is - the magic of the
name and the result!} ({I agree that it all looks logical and pretty, but
better was} 34... Rb8 $1 35. Rh1 c4 36. Rd2 Rg8 $1 {followed by ...c7-c6 and ...d6-d5: towards the centre!}) ({But not immediately} 34... c4 $6 {on account of
} 35. Rd5 {.}) 35. hxg4 hxg4 36. Ke3 {Conceding the h-file.} ({After} 36. Rh1
gxf3+ 37. gxf3 Rg2+ 38. Kd1 b4 {(with the threat of ...c5-c4-c3)} 39. Rb3 Kd7
40. Kc1 Kc6 {Black would have retained winning chances.}) 36... Rh8 $1 {(the
typical seizure of a file)} 37. Rb3 $1 ({'Clearly bad was} 37. fxg4 $2 Rg8 38.
Kf3 Rf8+ 39. Ke3 Rf4 {.}) ({Also after} 37. f4 $6 exf4+ 38. Kxf4 Rf8+ 39. Ke3
Rh8 {White's position is unenviable.' (Capablanca)} (39... g3 $5) (39... Kd7 $1
{- G.K.})) 37... Rh2 38. Rd2 Rd4 $1 (38... c6 $2 39. fxg4 {.}) 39. Re2 {Kan
defends with all his might!} (39. Rxd4 $6 cxd4+ 40. Kf2 gxf3 41. Kxf3 c6 {is
advantageous to Black.}) (39. Rbd3 $2 c4 $1 {.}) 39... c6 40. Rc3 ({Dubious is
} 40. f4 $6 d5 $1) ({or} 40. Rd3 $6 Rh1 41. Kf2 Rxd3 42. cxd3 Rd1 43. Ke3 g3 {
etc.}) ({However, White could have simply taken the pawn -} 40. fxg4 {,
although after} c4 $1 (40... Kf6 $6 41. Rd3 $1) 41. Rc3 Kf6 {(Capablanca)
Black would still have retained some advantage thanks to his strong rook at d4:
} 42. b3 ({or} 42. Kf3 Kg5 43. Rce3 Rh6 $1) 42... cxb3 43. cxb3 c5 {.}) 40...
g3 $6 {The last move before the control, and probably made in time-trouble.} ({
After} 40... Rd1 {White has} 41. Rd3) ({while if} 40... c4) ({or} 40... Kf6 {
, then simply} 41. fxg4 {.}) ({But} 40... Rh1 $1 {would still have retained
the advantage:} 41. fxg4 (41. Kf2 Rb1 $1) 41... Rf1 {(with the threat of ...Rf4)} 42. g3 c4 43. g5 d5 {etc.}) 41. Rd3 $2 {The sealed move and, it would
appear, the result of the time scramble. 'When I arrived for the start of the
adjournment session,' recalls Kan, 'a member of the tournament committee came
up to me and said: 'Seńor Capablanca offers you a draw, if you have sealed 41
f4.' Alas, I had sealed another move and so I was obliged to "decline" this
offer.'} ({As Capa observed, '} 41. f4 $1 {was the only saving possibility,
for example:} Rh4 42. fxe5 Rdxe4+ 43. Kf3 Rhf4+ 44. Kxg3 Rg4+ 45. Kf3 Rxe2 46.
Kxe2 Rxg2+ 47. Kf3 Rh2 48. Kg3 {and 49 exd6 drawing.' The computer confirms
this evaluation: it is not clear why Black should be any better here. But it
would be interesting to know where the commentators, who praised his position,
were looking?}) 41... Rh1 $1 42. f4 $6 {Now this loses, and instantly.} ({After
} 42. Rb3 {there could have followed} c4 {, then ...Rf1, ...Rdd1 and ...d6-d5})
({while if} 42. c3 {, then} Rxd3+ 43. Kxd3 d5 {.}) 42... Rf1 $1 {Once again a
typical endgame manoeuvre: the rook cuts off the king from the g3-pawn. After
retaining it, Black begins a decisive breakthrough in the centre and on the
queenside.} 43. f5+ ({No better is} 43. fxe5 Kxe5 44. Kd2 ({or} 44. Rxd4 cxd4+
45. Kd2 c5) 44... c4 {winning.}) 43... Kf6 44. c3 Rxd3+ 45. Kxd3 d5 $1 {
Black's pawn avalanche begins moving, sweeping away everything in its path.}
46. b3 (46. b3 {otherwise} c4+ 47. Ke3 Rf4 {.}) 46... c4+ ({'} 46... Ra1 {
would appear to be the strongest, but the text move is also sufficient.'
(Capablanca)}) 47. bxc4 bxc4+ 48. Ke3 ({If} 48. Kd2 {Black would have won by}
Ra1) ({while if} 48. Kc2 {-} d4 $1 {.}) 48... Ra1 $1 {Clearing the board of
white pawns.} (48... Rf4 {was also good}) ({but not} 48... Rc1 $6 49. Ra2 $1 {.
}) 49. Kf3 Rxa3 50. Kxg3 ({Or} 50. Re3 Rb3 $1 51. Kxg3 d4 {.}) 50... Rxc3+ 51.
Kh4 Rc1 $1 52. g4 {The last chance: g4-g5.} Rh1+ 53. Kg3 d4 54. Ra2 d3 55. Kg2
Re1 56. Kf2 Rxe4 57. Kf3 {. Finally White resigned. 'The rook ending deserves
careful study.' (Capablanca). We have partly fulfilled this behest... ---
Incidentally, at this tournament Kan made an interesting observation about a
joint analysis by Lasker and Capablanca. 'There was a stamp of extraordinary
natural talent on the style of Capablanca's analysis. The thoughtful and
unhurried manner, with which Lasker analysed a position that interested both
ex-champions, was in marked contrast to the almost lightning speed with which
Capablanca demonstrated subtle and unexpected variations. It also showed, of
course, Capablanca's extraordinarily fine technique.' --- After Nottingham
1936, where Capa together with Botvinnik finished ahead of the world champion
Euwe, ex-champion Alekhine, Lasker and a whole cohort of contenders (again
undefeated, and also with a win against Alekhine!), the press wrote that the
Cuban had acquired his earlier form and had good chances of regaining his
champion's title. That is also what Capablanca thought, adding: if his health
would hold out.} (57. -- {'Of all the questions interesting the chess world,
perhaps the most important is the question of the world championship title,'
he wrote in Izvestia on 10 January 1937, and he admitted a serious mistake
that was made in producing the London agreement (1922): 'I did not take into
consideration the fact that the world champion, if he desires, is able to
delay the moment when he meets a dangerous, in his opinion, opponent.' What
was to be done? Capa suggested giving FIDE the right to organise matches for
the crown. Euwe was also inclined this way. But six months later, when FIDE
nominated the No.1 challenger as... Flohr(!), they saw that this idea was
premature. --- In the resulting confusion, without waiting for the
Euwe-Alekhine return match in the autumn, Capablanca secured the agreement of
Euwe to play a match with him in 1939 (a year before the planned FIDE match
with Flohr). But the return match was won by Alekhine, and the Cuban's path to
the throne was again blocked... --- However, Semmering-Baden 1937 and
especially the AVRO tournament of 1938, where for the first time in his life
Capa finished outside the prize list, in seventh place, last but one, showed
that the 50-year-old ex-champion was no longer able to combat the leaders of
the new generation; in addition, on his actual birthday he lost to his 'sworn
friend' Alekhine (Game No.147). The latter, incidentally, later gave a simple
explanation for this failure: 'Towards the end of his days Capablanca could
still create chess masterpieces, but he no longer had sufficient stamina to
achieve practical successes in a big tournament.' --- But was it really all so
simple? Lasker, for example, retained his stamina and did his utmost to crush
the young even in later life... It seems to me that the main reason for the
decline in Capablanca's results was the increased complexity of chess, which
happened precisely during the last period of his career. The hypermodern ideas
had already become established and the 'Soviet Chess School' had announced
itself - a different, dynamic and genuinely creative game had begun! Capa
tried not to fall behind, but it became increasingly difficult for him. As we
have seen, certain problems occurred with him already in the 20s, and in the
30s these were merely aggravated.}) (57. -- {And in general Capablanca's
heyday was, in my opinion, in the period before he became champion. It was
then that he played the most interesting and fresh chess and demonstrated his
colossal superiority over his contemporaries. It was on account of this that
the myth of his invincibility arose: no one could see the slight, and
sometimes serious flaws in his 'ultra-pure' style. But these mistakes were not
accidental, and in the match with Alekhine they already became tragic, since
they cancelled out all the fruits of his enormous preceding work. Capa was let
down by his old illness - a certain carelessness in his play: if it is all
succeeding, why exert oneself? --- I have come to the paradoxical feeling that
the 'Capablanca mystery' is that there is no mystery! Despite his staggering
talent (or more probably, because of it), his real contribution to the
creation of modern chess was inferior to that of Steinitz and Lasker. Their
contribution was enormous and fundamental - they were the founders. Whereas
Capablanca, by contrast, did everything possible to simplify the problems
facing him, by dividing them into elementary components. Hence the impression
that to him it was all easy and understandable - and hence the idea of the
drawing death of chess. --- For a good hundred years the impression had been
created in public consciousness that chess players were a peculiar caste of
people, devoted to some mysterious order, and that chess was a game for wise
men, sitting in a café with a cup of coffee, thoughtfully smoking a cigar and
seeking incredible moves that were unknown to anyone. But Capablanca destroyed
this stereotype: to him everything was clear and simple, no mysteries! In 1910
he did indeed resemble Morphy: he arrived, conquered Europe - and again hid
himself in America, leaving behind a train of general admiration. There is no
doubt that the play of these two geniuses displayed the traditional spirit of
the American continent: practicality and clarity. Everything should be nicely
ordered! --- And then, after the War, Capa altogether became the greatest of
idols, since he was 'close to the people' and ideally in keeping with the era,
expressing the joyful hopes of the post-war world. A kind of dream champion -
handsome, a spoilt child of fortune and a chess god... Meanwhile, an objective
analysis of his games shows that Capablanca's contribution to the development
of the game was considerably less than the scale of his talent. Of course, his
games provide a rich basis for any player's development, but for all his
positional discoveries he, alas, did not create anything global.}) (57. -- {
And if he did create something, it was largely before the First World War. It
is a pity that Capa and Lasker did not play their match in 1914: they were
both playing very well then, and a battle between them would have been
extremely interesting for the future of chess. But, as has occurred many times
in chess history, their match did not take place at the right time. By the
1920s Lasker was already beginning to decline, whereas Capablanca's tremendous
momentum kept him going. At that time they had no equals (Rubinstein was
declining, and Alekhine was only beginning to rise), and no one could force
Capa to work. In the absence of any real rivals he played at half power,
exploiting his strength only to the extent that it was necessary. Therefore
later, however much he tried, he could no longer keep up with chess progress...
--- The Cuban's last appearances were Margate 1939 (1. Keres - 7˝ out of 9;
2-3. Capablanca and Flohr - 6˝) and the World Olympiad in Buenos Aires,
where Capa, playing for the Cuban team, scored the best result on board 1. It
is staggering that after the start of the Second World War he did not lose
hopes of a return match with Alekhine and he even conducted discussions with
the champion, while the latter was touring South America. Later Alekhine too
was aiming for a match, dreaming of escaping from Europe... But it was not to
be. --- On the evening of 7 March 1942, in the Manhattan Chess Club (where a
year earlier Lasker had given his last simultaneous display), Capablanca
suddenly suffered a severe headache and began to lose consciousness. He was
rushed to hospital and the following morning, in the arms of his wife Olga, he
died of a brain haemorrhage... Havana buried its national hero with state
honours.}) (57. -- {In conclusion - another mosaic of noteworthy opinions by
the champions. --- Lasker: 'I have known many chess players, but among them
there has been only one genius - Capablanca! His ideal was to win by
manoeuvring. Capablanca's genius reveals itself in his probing of the
opponent's weak points. The slightest weakness cannot escape from his keen eye.
' --- Alekhine: 'Capablanca was snatched too early from the chess world. With
his death we have lost a great chess genius, the like of whom we will never
see again.' --- Botvinnik: 'Capablanca's play produced and still produces an
irresistible artistic effect. In his games a tendency towards simplicity
predominated, and in this simplicity there was a unique beauty of genuine
depth.' --- Tal: 'Without technique it is impossible to reach the top in chess,
and therefore we all try to borrow from Capablanca his wonderful, subtle
technique.'}) (57. -- {Petrosian: 'I was brought up on the games of Capablanca
and Nimzowitsch, and they became part of my chess flesh and blood.' ---
Fischer: 'Capablanca was among the greatest of chess players, but not because
of his endgame. His trick was to keep his openings simple, and then play with
such brilliance in the middlegame that the game was decided - even though his
opponent didn't always know it - before they arrived at the ending. ---
'Capablanca never really devoted himself to chess, seldom made match
preparations. His simplicity is a myth. His almost complete lack of book
knowledge forced him to push harder to squeeze the utmost out of every
position. Every move he made had to be super-sharp so as to make something out
of nothing. His play was forced. He had to try harder than anybody else
because he had so little to begin with.' --- Karpov: 'The ideal in chess can
only be a collective image, but in my opinion it is Capablanca who most
closely approaches this... His book was the first chess book that I studied
from cover to cover. Of course, his ideas influenced me.'}) 0-1
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "5: Alexander the Fourth"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.08"]
{Alexander Alexandrovich Alekhine (31 October 1892 - 24 March 1946) has been
called a 'genius of chess combinations'. However, his fantastic combinative
vision was based on a sound positional foundation, and was the fruit of strong,
energetic strategy. Therefore Alekhine can safely be called the pioneer of the
universal style of play, based on a close interweaving of strategic and
tactical motifs. --- Alekhine was clearly ahead of his time in his approach to
chess. According to my theory, the game of chess consists of three components:
material, time and quality of position. And every player makes use of them as
far as possible. With material everything is clear: on this arithmetic level
even a computer 'thinks': extra pawn, extra piece - this is the ABC of chess
science. The second factor - time - is more complicated, but also
understandable: the gain of a tempo, the speed of a passed pawn's advance or
of the storming of the king's fortress. By sacrificing material for a swift
attack, it is precisely time that we take into account... The third - quality
of position - is the least obvious, strategic factor: pawn structure, strong
and weak squares, active and passive pieces, two bishops, 'bad' king... Here
evaluation is a question of intuition, and an understanding of this factor is
already a sign of great mastery. Well, and the highest skill is a subtle
appreciation of all three factors! The ability to weigh up everything 'for'
and 'against', to sacrifice something for the sake of weakening certain
squares or, say, to spoil one's pawns for the sake of a couple of tempi. This
is accessible to very few: here one needs intuition, experience, God-given
talent...} 1. -- {And so, Alekhine was the first who began intuitively to
combine all three factors in his play, linking them together. He demonstrated
clearly that material is only one of the forms of advantage. In creating a
certain type of position, he would sacrifice a pawn or two, or even a piece!
Sometimes he would overstep the mark, but on the whole he proceeded on the
basis that chess is highly diverse and that the sacrifice of material, which
was strictly regulated by the Steinitz School, can in fact provide other
advantages. And frequently Alekhine set his opponents problems with which they
could not cope: they were unable to compete on such a level of complexity of
play. --- The masters of the next generation, headed by Botvinnik and Keres,
already sacrificed more boldly: it had become a standard method! And in later
years this fertile ground gave rise to Bronstein, Spassky, Tal...} *
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Chigorin's Successor"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.08"]
{Chigorin's Successor: Alekhine grew up and for many years lived in Moscow, on
the Arbat, close to Smolensk Square, literally a few steps from my present
home... He was the third child in the family of a hereditary nobleman, where
both adults and children were keen on chess. He began playing at the age of
seven, and his main opponent became his older brother Alexey. Later their
house was visited by some well-known masters of sharp combinative style, such
as Nenarokov, Blumenfeld and Duz-Khotimirsky, and the latter even gave the
future champion some paid lessons. --- It should be said that in the
transition period between the 19th and 20th centuries Moscow was a major chess
centre, the second in Russia after St Petersburg: here the Lasker-Steinitz
return match (1896/97) took place, as well as the 1st and 2nd all-Russian
tournaments (1899 and 1900/01), where Chigorin won, and here there were visits
by foreign stars, including Pillsbury with his record blindfold simultaneous
display (1902). Good nourishment for the growth of a young talent! Alekhine
was so infatuated with chess that during school lessons, according to one of
his fellow-pupils, he 'used to switch off from his surroundings and was not
always fully aware of where he was.' Once during an algebra test he suddenly
leaped up and looked round the class with shining eyes, as usual twisting with
his left hand his ginger forelock. 'Well, Alekhine, have you solved it?' asked
the teacher. 'Yes... I sacrifice the knight, and White wins!' The class burst
out laughing...} 1. -- {From the age of 12 Alekhine played seriously, mainly
by correspondence, developing his analytical powers. He won a gambit
correspondence tournament of the magazine 'Shakhmatnoe obozrenie' (1905-1906)
and in the autumn of 1907 he took part in over-the-board tournaments of the
Moscow Chess Society, displaying amazing resourcefulness in difficult
positions. As he later recalled, he even developed an unusual psychological
weakness, which he was able to rid himself of only after a long time and with
difficulty: 'The impression that, on ending up in a bad position, I can always
think up some unexpected combination and with the help of it escape from all
my difficulties. A dangerous delusion!' --- The idols of Alexander and Alexey
were Morphy, Anderssen, La Bourdonnais and, of course, Chigorin, who in those
years wrote popular chess columns in the magazine Niva and the newspaper Novoe
Vremya. Already then there were mentions in the press about the Alekhine
brothers, 'of whom the younger, 15-year-old, is unusually talented.'
Duz-Khotimirsky related how a well-known player once whispered to him: 'I have
discovered a future world champion!' And, sighing, he added: 'For the moment
he is only a Moscow schoolboy.' --- In the summer of 1908 Alekhine went to
Dusseldorf, to the 16th Congress of the German Chess Union, where he took part
in a subsidiary tournament with the master norm. He wasn't able to achieve it
straightaway, but his foreign debut was not a bad one: a share of 4th-5th
places (+8 -3 =2). Alekhine also played two short matches there: with
Bardeleben (4˝-˝) and Fahrni (1˝-˝). And the main thing - at precisely
that time in Dusseldorf the Lasker-Tarrasch match for the world championship
was starting, and the youngster was fortunate enough to observe with his own
eyes four games of this historic battle (two of them being Games No. 53 and 54)
. The power of the Lasker intellect created an indelible impression on him...}
(1. -- {In February 1909 a major international congress in memory of Chigorin,
who had died a year earlier, was held in St Petersburg. I should remind you
that victory in the main tournament was shared by Lasker and Rubinstein, who
finished 3˝ points ahead of their nearest rivals (although, strangely enough,
they both lost to Duz-Khotimirsky!). But the secondary, all-Russian amateur
tournament produced a real sensation: it was won by the youngest, 16-year-old
participant: 1. Alekhine - 13 out of 16; 2. Rotlewi - 12; 3. Gregory - 11˝
etc. Alexander became a master and many saw him as a worthy successor to
Chigorin. --- In 1910 Alekhine finished school and in the summer he travelled
to Hamburg, to the 17th Congress of the German Chess Union, where he played in
his first big international tournament: 1. Schlechter - 11˝ out of 16; 2.
Duras - 11; 3. Nimzowitsch - 10˝; 4. Spielmann - 10; 5-6. Marshall and
Teichmann - 9˝; 7-8. Alekhine and Duz-Khotimirsky - 8˝ etc. --- A similar
result was achieved by the talented 18-year-old master in Carlsbad 1911 (this
tournament was overshadowed by San Sebastian, where the 22-year-old Capablanca
performed brilliantly): 1. Teichmann - 18 out of 25; 2-3. Rubinstein and
Schlechter - 17; 4. Rotlewi - 16; 5-6. Marshall and Nimzowitsch - 15˝; 7.
Vidmar - 15; 8-11. Alekhine, Duras, Leonhardt and Tartakower - 13˝ etc. ---
After observing the following game, Schlechter, the recent contender for the
chess crown, was so captivated by Alekhine's play that he exclaimed: 'This is
a future world champion!'}) *
[Event "110: Carlsbad"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1911.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Alekhine, A."]
[Black "Vidmar, M."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C49"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "75"]
[EventDate "1911.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bb5 Bb4 5. O-O O-O 6. Bxc6 {(following
Nimzowitsch!)} bxc6 $6 (6... dxc6 {- Game No.88.}) 7. Nxe5 Qe8 8. Ng4 {Typical
of Alekhine: his sights are set on the enemy king!} ({After} 8. Nd3 $1 {White
has some advantage thanks to his superior pawn structure.}) 8... Nxe4 $2 {
Underestimating the tactical resources.} ({Correct is} 8... Nxg4 9. Qxg4 d5 10.
Qh4 Bxc3 11. bxc3 Qxe4 12. Qxe4 dxe4 {with equality.}) 9. Nh6+ $1 {(an
unexpected tactical blow!)} Kh8 ({'It would have been comparatively better for
Black to remove the audacious knight, though in that case too White's game
would have remained superior after} 9... gxh6 10. Qg4+ Kh8 11. Qxe4 Qxe4 12.
Nxe4 Be7 13. d3 f5 14. Nc3 f4 15. Re1 {followed by Re4.' (Alekhine)}) 10. Re1
d5 11. d3 Qe5 (11... Nxc3 12. bxc3 Be7 {did not work on account of} 13. Qh5 $1
Be6 14. f4 $1 {with the threat of 15 f5 and 16 Ba3!}) 12. dxe4 d4 $1 13. a3 $1
dxc3 14. axb4 cxb2 {It would appear that with the help of tactical trickery
Black has emerged unscathed. But that is not the case!} 15. Nxf7+ $1 ({
'Equally good was} 15. Rb1 $5 Qe6 ({if} 15... bxc1=Q {, then} 16. Nxf7+ $1 Kg8
17. Nxe5 {etc.}) 16. Rxb2 gxh6 17. Rb3 {and Black cannot hold his h6-pawn. But
I did not want to give him counter-chances associated with the open g-file,
especially as the move in the game seemed to be simpler and equally certain.'
(Alekhine)}) 15... Kg8 16. Rb1 $1 Rxf7 ({Even more hopeless was the variation}
16... bxc1=Q 17. Nxe5 Qf4 18. Nd3 {: White simply has four pawns against two
on the kingside.}) 17. Bxb2 Qg5 18. Qd3 {(parrying 18...Bh3)} Be6 19. Bd4 $1 {
(with the intention of 20 Ra1)} Rd8 20. Qe3 Qb5 ({If} 20... Qxe3 21. Bxe3 a6 {
Alekhine gives} 22. Red1 Rfd7 23. Rxd7 Rxd7 24. f3 Kf7 25. Ra1 Bc4 26. Kf2 {
followed by Ke1, Ra3-c3-c5 and c2-c4 winning.}) 21. Bxa7 Qa4 22. c3 Bc4 23. Bd4
Ra8 24. Qd2 h6 25. h3 Qb5 {(otherwise 26 Qb2 and 27 Ra1)} 26. Ra1 Ra4 27. Qc2
Rxa1 28. Rxa1 Bd3 29. Ra8+ Kh7 30. Qa2 Qh5 (30... Bc4 31. Qa7 {and then Qb8 or
Rb8.}) 31. Qe6 $1 Bf1 $1 {'Black has no satisfactory defence and so he can
without danger indulge in this little pleasantry.' (Alekhine)} 32. Ra5 Qd1 33.
Kh2 Bxg2 34. Kxg2 ({But not} 34. Qxf7 $4 Qh1+ 35. Kg3 Qxh3+ 36. Kf4 Qf3+ {and
37...Qxf7.}) 34... Qf3+ 35. Kg1 Rf4 36. Ra8 $1 {(threatening mate with the
move Rh8+)} Rf7 37. Qg4 Qd3 38. Rf8 $1 1-0
[Event "111: Scheveningen"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1913.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Mieses, J."]
[Black "Alekhine, A."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C22"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "66"]
[EventDate "1913.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{That same autumn Alekhine moved to St Petersburg, where he entered the
Imperial Law School and began writing a chess column in the newspaper Novoe
Vremya. During the summer holidays of 1912 he won in Stockholm the
championship of northern countries: 1. Alekhine - 8˝ out of 10; 2. E.Cohn -
7; 3. Marco - 6˝; 4. Olland - 5˝; 5. Spielmann - 5. The All-Russian master
tournament held shortly afterwards in Vilna showed that the youngster was
already among the leading players in the country: 1. Rubinstein - 12 out of 18;
2. Bernstein - 11˝; 3. Levitzky - 11; 4. Nimzowitsch - 10˝; 5. Flamberg -
9; 6-7. Alekhine and Levenfish - 8˝ etc. --- Early in 1913 Alekhine won a
match in St Petersburg against Levitzky (+7 -3) and in the summer a tournament
in Scheveningen with 11˝ out of 13 (half a point ahead of Janowski). It
became clear that a new, bright star had risen in the chess sky. Gradually
Alekhine began to conquer the world with his magical combinations, which have
already charmed many generations of chess enthusiasts.} 1. e4 e5 2. d4 exd4 3.
Qxd4 {'It is quite evident that such displacements of the queen at an early
stage in the opening are not likely to reap any advantage. However, Black is
compelled to play with precision.' (Alekhine)} Nc6 4. Qe3 Be7 ({'Black could
also have played} 4... Nf6 {, for the following variation is mere bluff and
eventually turns to Black's advantage:} 5. e5 ({and if} 5. Nc3 {, then} Bb4 ({
or} 5... Be7 {as in the present game})) 5... Ng4 6. Qe4 d5 $1 7. exd6+ Be6 8.
Ba6 ({or} 8. dxc7 Qd1+ $1) 8... Qxd6 9. Bxb7 Qb4+ $1 10. Qxb4 Nxb4 {.'
(Alekhine)}) ({An alternative is} 4... g6) ({or} 4... Bb4+ 5. Nc3 ({or} 5. c3
Be7 {and ...Nf6}) 5... Nge7 6. Bd2 O-O 7. O-O-O d6 8. Qg3 Kh8 9. f4 f5 {
equalising (Tolush-Botvinnik, 13th USSR Championship, Moscow 1944).}) 5. Bd2 $6
({With this move order White has the opportunity for} 5. Qg3 $5 Nf6 6. e5 ({
but not} 6. Qxg7 $2 Rg8 7. Qh6 Rg6 8. Qe3 Nxe4 $1 9. Bd3 d5) 6... Nh5 7. Qe3 {.
}) 5... Nf6 6. Nc3 O-O ({Or immediately} 6... d5 $5 {as in
Chigorin-Znosko-Borovsky, St Petersburg 1906.}) 7. O-O-O d5 $1 ({This is
stronger than} 7... Re8 {(Mason-Chigorin, Paris 1900), to which} 8. Bc4 {is a
good reply. The move in the game, according to Alekhine, 'will allow Black to
extract the maximum return from his advanced development.'}) 8. exd5 Nxd5 9.
Qg3 Bh4 $1 {(parrying with gain of tempo the threat of 10 Bh6)} 10. Qf3 Be6 {
'The sacrifice initiated by this move is full of promise and on the other hand
devoid of risk.} ({It would, however, have been more logical to adopt the
following variation:} 10... Nxc3 11. Bxc3 Qg5+ 12. Bd2 {(else 12...Bg4)} Qc5 $1
13. Be3 Qa5 {which would have given Black a dominating position without such
complications as defy exact calculation.' (Alekhine)}) 11. Be3 $1 ({Inferior is
} 11. Bf4 Nxc3 $1 12. Rxd8 Nxa2+ 13. Kb1 Raxd8 14. Bxc7 $2 Rd2 15. c3 Rc8 {etc.
}) (11. Kb1 $2 Nd4 $1 {.}) 11... Nxc3 $1 ({'Much less strong would be} 11...
Ncb4 12. a3 Nxc3 13. Rxd8 Nba2+ 14. Kd2 Nb1+ 15. Ke1 {, and the two black
knights would find themselves in a tragi-comical situation.' (Alekhine)}) 12.
Rxd8 Nxa2+ 13. Kb1 Raxd8 14. Be2 Nab4 15. Nh3 Rfe8 {'Essential as a basis for
all the subsequent combinations.' (Alekhine)} ({In my opinion} 15... Bd5 $5 16.
Qg4 Bf6) ({or the immediate} 15... Bf6 {should also be studied, since the
position after the queen sacrifice looks far more promising for Black than the
one reached in the game before the 22nd move.}) 16. Nf4 ({If} 16. Rd1 {, then}
Bd5 17. Qh5 Bf6 {with the threat of 18...Be4 is unpleasant.}) 16... Bf5 17. Rc1
g6 $6 {Threatening 18...Nxc2 and ...Nb4.} ({If immediately} 17... Nxc2 $2 18.
Rxc2 Nb4 {, then} 19. Nd3 $1 Be4 20. Nxb4 $1 {.}) ({But even so,} 17... Nd4 $1
{would appear to be more energetic.}) 18. g4 $1 {(to exchange the dangerous
bishop)} Be4 19. Qh3 Bf6 (19... Bg5 20. Bf3 $1 {.}) 20. Bf3 Bxf3 21. Qxf3 Ne5
22. Qe2 (22. Qe2 {aims for further simplification by} -- 23. c3 Nbd3 24. Nxd3
Nxd3 25. Rd1 {.}) ({According to Alekhine,} 22. Qxb7 $5 {would have lost due
to the combined attack of the f6 bishop and the rook on the b-file. However,
after} Rb8 (22... Nxg4 23. Bxa7) 23. Qg2 $1 (23. Qxc7 Nec6 $1) ({but} 23. Qxa7
$6 {is indeed dangerous because of} Nc4 $1 24. c3 Nc6) 23... Nc4 24. c3 {no
good continuation for Black is apparent:} Nxb2 (24... Na6 25. Qc6 $1 Rxb2+ 26.
Ka1 Reb8 27. Qxc4 R2b5 28. Rc2) (24... Na2 25. Kxa2 Rxb2+ 26. Ka1 {etc.}) 25.
cxb4 $1 {.}) 22... c5 $1 {(in some cases this pawn can support a knight at d3)}
23. Rg1 ({Simpler is} 23. Bxc5 Ned3 24. Qxe8+ Rxe8 25. Nxd3 {with equality,
but Mieses - with a queen! - is playing for a win: in those times a positional
queen sacrifice was something exotic...}) 23... c4 24. h4 ({Here} 24. g5 Bg7
25. Rd1 {would have maintained approximate equality.}) 24... Nd5 {'The renewed
complications resulting from this move required the most exact calculations.'
(Alekhine)} 25. Nxd5 Rxd5 26. f4 $6 ({If} 26. g5 Bg7 27. Rd1 {Black was
intending} Rb5 $1 28. Bd4 Re6 {, although after the reply} 29. Qf1 {with the
idea of f2-f4 White has a solid position.}) 26... Nd3 $1 {Immediately
exploiting the fact that the advance with f2-f4 has weakened the e3-bishop's
defences.} 27. Qf3 $2 ({Alekhine considered it essential to play} 27. cxd3 Rxd3
28. Rg3 Bd4 $1 29. Qc2 ({but not} 29. Qxd3 $2 cxd3 30. Bxd4 Re1+ 31. Ka2 d2 $1
{winning}) 29... Bxe3 30. Qxc4 Red8 {'with the better game.'} (30... Rd4 $1 31.
Qb5 Re7 32. Rf3 b6 {would appear to be more accurate, with the idea of
gradually invading with the rook into White's position}) 31. f5 {his advantage
is not so obvious.}) 27... Rb5 $1 {'Decisive! Although Black has only a rook
for the queen, White is without resource.' (Alekhine)} 28. cxd3 {All the same
the knight has to be taken.} ({After} 28. b3 Ra5 $1 29. cxd3 -- ({, in some
early edition of Alekhine's best games the 'winning' variation} 29... cxb3 $2
30. Kc1 $2 ({but grandmaster John Nunn, armed with the chess program Fritz,
refuted it by} 30. d4 $1) 30... Bc3 31. Kd1 Ra1+ {was recommended}) ({. Of
course,} 29... cxd3 $1 30. Kc1 Bc3 31. Kd1 Ra1+ 32. Bc1 {is correct. Nunn
showed me this position and invited me to find a pretty win for Black in four
moves. The solving of this entertaining little problem took me half a minute...
} Re1+ $1 33. Rxe1 Rxc1+ 34. Kxc1 d2+ 35. Kc2 (35. Kb1 dxe1=Q+ {and mate})
35... dxe1=N+ $3 {. A rare instance when the outcome is immediately decided by
the promotion of a pawn to a knight!})) 28... Rxb2+ 29. Kc1 cxd3 30. Kd1 (30.
Rg2 Rc8+ 31. Kd1 {would have merely transposed.}) 30... Rc8 $1 31. g5 ({
'Against the threat of 31...Rcc2 White's only defence was} 31. Rg2 {. In this
case Black would have won as follows:} Rb1+ 32. Kd2 Rb3 33. Kd1 (33. Ke1 Rc1+
$1 34. Kf2 ({or} 34. Bxc1 d2+) 34... Bxh4+ {and wins}) 33... Bc3 $1 34. Bc1 Bb4
$1 {and White is helpless against the threats 35...d2 and 35...Rb1.' (Alekhine)
}) 31... Rcc2 $1 32. Ke1 Rb1+ 33. Qd1 Bc3+ {. The next all-Russian master
tournament (St Petersburg 1913/14), a qualifying event for the historic
international tournament, was a fateful event for Alekhine. All the best were
playing, apart from the previous year's winners Rubinstein and Bernstein, who
were already allowed into the 'high society'. The outcome of the battle for
the sole qualifying place was as follows: 1-2. Alekhine and Nimzowitsch - 13˝ out of 17; 3. Flamberg - 13; 4. Lowtzky - 11; 5. Levenfish - 10˝; 6-7.
Znosko-Borovsky and Smorodsky - 10; 8. Bogoljubow - 9˝ etc. An additional
mini-match between the winners ended in a draw (+1 -1), and both were allowed
into the cherished 'tournament of champions' St Petersburg 1914. ---
Alekhine's performance in this event cannot be praised too highly! After
winning in the preliminary tournament against the contender for the throne
Rubinstein, and twice defeating Tarrasch in the final, he finished in third
place behind the world champion Lasker and the newly-found contender
Capablanca. 'The merit of the tournament,' wrote the Russian press, 'is that
along with the two world stars it also provided a player for whom Russia is
pleased most of all - Alekhine. In his person Russia has acquired a very
powerful force, who without fear can embark on further, even more difficult
and dangerous battles.' Alas, the most dangerous battles soon broke out beyond
the chess board...} 0-1
[Event "112: Mannheim"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1914.??.??"]
[Round "11"]
[White "Alekhine, A."]
[Black "Fahrni, H."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C14"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "45"]
[EventDate "1914.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{After successfully completing his course at the Law School that same spring,
Alexander wondered about whether to play that summer in Mannheim, in the main
tournament of the 19th Congress of the German Chess Union. 'He arrived
literally two hours before the start of the first round,' recalled a
participant in one of the subsidiary tournaments, Pyotr Romanovsky. 'To my
question, why had he kept the tournament committee in a state of ignorance for
so long, Alekhine replied that he needed to find out whether Capablanca would
be playing in the tournament. 'I was prepared to play only in the event of
Capablanca not participating,' he explained, and he frankly admitted that
within a few years he was intending to play a match with Capablanca for the
world championship, and therefore it was very important for him to create
around this question a definite public opinion. 'At the moment I am a weaker
player than Capablanca, and if he had participated in the tournament he would
have taken first prize, and to finish below Capablanca now is not at all in my
interests.' 'But the world champion is Lasker, not Capablanca,' I objected.
'But soon it will be Capablanca,' Alekhine replied.' --- A profound strategic
prediction! And five years later Alekhine stated that 'Lasker will be replaced
by Capablanca - it is merely a question of time,' and that he had come to this
conclusion after Capa's victory in San Sebastian 1911. --- Incidentally,
Lasker was guest of honour at the tournament in Mannheim and he made a speech
at the opening ceremony. Naturally, Tarrasch also spoke, proposing a toast 'to
the world brotherhood of chess.' Virtually 'Gens una sumus'... --- In Mannheim
the Russian grandmaster played brilliantly and after two-thirds of the
distance he was confidently leading: 1. Alekhine - 9˝ out of 11 (!); 2.
Vidmar - 8˝; 3. Spielmann - 8; 4-6. Breyer, Marshall and Réti - 7; 7.
Janowski - 6˝; 8-9. Bogoljubow and Tarrasch - 5˝ etc. Here is a typical
win by the young Alekhine, showing the way in which his style was taking shape.
And, incidentally, his last game before the war.} 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6
4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. h4 $5 {'This energetic move has been especially
played in off-hand games by the ingenious French amateur Chatard and
previously by the Viennese master Albin. It was during the present game that
it was introduced for the first time in a Master Tournament.' (Alekhine)} ({
The classical} 6. Bxe7 {is a quieter alternative (Game No.50).}) 6... Bxg5 ({
Also possible is} 6... O-O 7. Bd3 f5 $1 ({but not} 7... c5 $6 8. Nh3 $1 Re8 9.
Nb5 f5 10. Nd6 cxd4 11. Nxe8 Qxe8 12. Bb5 $1 {winning Bogoljubow-Spielmann,
Vienna 1922}) 8. g4 $1 c5 9. gxf5 cxd4 10. f6 Bxf6 $1) ({or} 6... a6 7. Qg4
Bxg5 8. hxg5 {(Bogoljubow-Maróczy, San Remo 1930)} c5 9. g6 f5 $1 {, with
sharp play in both cases.}) 7. hxg5 Qxg5 {The tabiya of the Alekhine-Chatard
Attack.} 8. Nh3 {Earlier this was played almost automatically,} ({but recently
} 8. Qd3 $5 {has also appeared - now} Nc6 $6 {is weak on account of} 9. Nf3 Qg6
10. Qxg6 fxg6 11. Nb5 $1 Ke7 (11... Kd8 12. Ng5) 12. Nxc7 Rb8 13. Nb5 {with an
obvious advantage (Kasparov-Korchnoi, Zürich rapidplay 2001).}) 8... Qe7 ({
'After} 8... Qh6 $6 {Black's queen would be in a precarious position.'
(Alekhine) After this theory recommends} 9. Nb5 $1 ({or} 9. g3 c6 10. Bd3 g6
11. f4 {followed by Qe2 and 0-0-0 (Ryumin-Makogonov, 9th USSR Championship,
Moscow 1934)}) 9... Na6 10. f4 {.}) 9. Nf4 Nf8 $2 {Too unwieldy.} ({Later more
successful plans were tried:} 9... a6 10. Qg4 g6 11. O-O-O Nb6 (11... c5 $6 12.
Qg3 $1 Nb6 (12... cxd4 13. Ncxd5 $1) 13. dxc5 Qxc5 14. Bd3 Qf8 15. Be4 $3 dxe4
16. Nxe4 N8d7 17. Qc3 $1 {wins, Bogoljubow-Spielmann, Stockholm 1919}) 12. Bd3
N8d7 13. Rh6 Nf8 14. Rdh1 Bd7 {with a solid position, although White has
compensation for the pawn}) (9... Nc6 10. Qg4 $5 ({if} 10. Qd2 {, then} b6 ({or
} 10... Nb6 11. Nh5 f5 $5)) 10... Nxd4 11. O-O-O Nf5 12. Ncxd5 {(the start of
wild complications)} exd5 13. Nxd5 Qxe5 14. Bb5 O-O 15. Bxd7 Nh6 16. Qg3 Qxg3
17. Ne7+ Kh8 18. fxg3 Bxd7 19. Rxd7 Ng4 20. Rxc7 b5 21. Rh4 Nf6 22. Nf5 a6 23.
a4 {˝-˝ (Khalifman-Gulko, Reykjavik 1991).}) 10. Qg4 {(with a double
threat of 11 Qxg7 and 11 Ncxd5)} f5 11. exf6 gxf6 12. O-O-O {Renewing the
threat of Ncxd5. There is now no doubt that White has a dangerous attack.} c6
13. Re1 $1 Kd8 {The computer makes roughly the same moves.} ({'There is no
other way to develop the queenside. If} 13... Bd7 {the sacrifice of the knight
at d5 would once more be decisive.' (Alekhine)}) 14. Rh6 $1 e5 15. Qh4 Nbd7 16.
Bd3 {(an ideal way of conducting the attack: one of the threats is 17 Bf5)} e4
{Black should hardly have played this, although for the computer it is... the
first move!} 17. Qg3 {(again threatening Ncxd5)} Qf7 $2 {Almost the decisive
mistake.} ({'Black cannot play} 17... Qd6 {, for after} 18. Bxe4 $1 dxe4 ({
after} 18... Rg8 $1 19. Qh2 dxe4 {the position is by no means as clear as in
the game, although} 20. Rxe4 $1 (20. Nxe4 Qxd4) 20... Rg7 21. Ne6+ Qxe6 22.
Rxe6 Nxe6 23. d5 {leaves White with an attack}) 19. Rxe4 $1 {he would be
defenceless against the threat 20 Qg7!' (Alekhine)}) 18. Bxe4 $1 dxe4 $2 (18...
Rg8 $1 19. Bxd5 cxd5 20. Qf3 {etc. was nevertheless more tenacious.}) 19. Nxe4
Rg8 {Now this is too late.} ({'If} 19... Qxa2 20. Nxf6 $1 Nxf6 21. Qg7 $1 {and
wins.' (Alekhine) For example:} Qa1+ 22. Kd2 Qa5+ 23. c3 N6d7 24. Qe7+ Kc7 25.
Qd6+ Kd8 (25... Kb6 26. Nd5+) 26. Rhe6 $1 {.}) 20. Qa3 $1 {Accuracy to the end;
} (20. Nd6 $6 Qxa2 {is unclear.}) 20... Qg7 ({Or} 20... Qe7 21. Qa5+ b6 22. Qc3
{winning.}) 21. Nd6 $1 Nb6 22. Ne8 $1 Qf7 (22... Qd7 23. Nxf6) (22... Nc4 23.
Qc5 Qf7 24. Rxf6 {.}) 23. Qd6+ {. To enormous regret, on 1st August the First
World War began. The tournament was cut short, and the organisers hastily
distributed the prize fund in accordance with the placing of the participants
at that moment...} (23. Qd6+ Qd7 24. Qxf6+ {and mate. A clear, clean attack!})
1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Whirlwind of Wars"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.09"]
{In the Whirlwind of Wars and Revolutions: The First World War abruptly
changed Alekhine's hitherto successful life. The misadventures of Russian
chess players, and there were more than a dozen of them in Mannheim, began
immediately after the cessation of the tournament, when they were all taken to
a police station. Most were ordered not to travel and to wait until further
notice, but Alexander was detained: because of a photograph that had been
taken with him wearing the uniform of the Law School, he was taken for an
officer. According to a witness, 'this misunderstanding cost Alekhine a night,
spent in the barracks.' --- Germany was instantly enveloped by a mass
spy-mania and the Russians felt most uncomfortable. Three days later 'as a
special exception' they were allowed to travel to Baden-Baden, to settle there
in private quarters and to await further orders. But on the train the
conductor played a cruel trick on them: he told them that they had to change
in Rastadt, and he himself telephoned the military commandant of that town (a
mobilisation centre in Southern Germany) and informed him of a suspicious
group of foreigners...} 1. -- {'As soon as we stepped out of the carriage,'
recalls Fedor Bohatirchuk, a participant in one of the subsidiary tournaments,
'we were surrounded by virtually a company of fully armed soldiers, and we
were arrested. In the station building they thoroughly searched us and our
luggage and triumphantly discovered score sheets with the recordings of chess
games, taken by the zealous spy-hunters to be obviously code for the
transmission of spy messages. The hour was late and, before any verdict was
reached, we were taken to a military prison - we were lined up, each was
forced to carry his own luggage, and surrounded by a cordon of soldiers, we
set off... The population of the small town, on learning that some spies had
been caught, poured out onto the street along which we were being led, and
expressed their anger in every way possible. The most bellicose demanded
immediate retribution on the spot, others broke through the cordon and
expressed their feelings with their fists. Poor Selezniev could hardly drag a
large basket with warm clothes, provided by his compassionate mother, and this
not only delayed us, but also increased the number of blows we received. They
also struck Alekhine, who stood out with his bearing and height.' --- The
military authorities quickly sorted out who was whom, but, to save face they
continued their 'investigations' and put the chess players in a civil prison.
There Alekhine shared a cell with Bogoljubow, Ilya Rabinovich and Samuil
Vainstein. 'Life in prison was rather monotonous,' he later recalled. 'There
were no books, no newspapers and, of course, no chessboard. Bogoljubow and I
played blindfold chess for hours. Our battles were interrupted when for four
days I was placed in solitary confinement, for the reason that during a
communal walk (in the obligatory goose-step) I once ventured to smile...' More
precisely, Alekhine exchanged glances with the pretty daughter of the warder,
and the latter did not like this...} (1. -- {Within a couple of weeks the
prisoners were finally sent to Baden-Baden, where a further two weeks later
they had to pass through a military medical commission, in order to establish
which of them were potentially dangerous to Germany. Only three were lucky, as
being deemed unfit for military service: on 14th September they released
Alekhine, and three days later - Saburov and Bohatirchuk. 'I did not believe
my eyes, on seeing the conclusion of the commission, by which I was sent "for
treatment" to Switzerland,' writes Bohatirchuk. 'Saburov was elderly and not
in very good health, but why they freed the healthy Alekhine, I cannot imagine.
I can only think that the doctor who examined him was an admirer of Alekhine's
chess genius. I should mention that among those not released were Bogoljubow
and Selezniev, who had both been released from military service in Russia.'
Together with the remaining players they were interned in Triberg, and this
changed Bogoljubow's fate: he married the daughter of a local school teacher
and although he visited his motherland in 1924-26, in the end he became a
German citizen. --- But Alekhine left for Switzerland, and from there to Genoa
- this Italian port had become a collecting point for Russians who were stuck
in Europe. In the press a fantastic rumour appeared, to the effect that 'the
winner of the tournament in Mannheim was intending to travel to Buenos Aires
and to play numerous games there with Capablanca.' In fact Alekhine played
numerous games (several hundred!) with Bohatirchuk, who also sat in Genoa for
about a month, waiting for a boat. The latter later recalled: 'There was no
question of being bored: I had a partner, and what a partner - Alekhine! Only
someone who has played this chess genius knows what a magician he was on the
64 squares of the chessboard. In his hands the pieces were transformed into
living creatures, making moves that were completely unexpected to his
opponents. Moreover, these surprises would strike the enemy like a bolt from
the blue in any stage of the game, even when there were very few pieces
remaining. The enforced stay in Genoa undoubtedly did more for my chess
development than the games in subsequent years with ordinary opponents.'}) (1.
-- {In mid-October Alekhine finally left for his motherland by a northern
route: via Gibraltar, London, Stockholm (where he found time to give a
simultaneous display on 24 boards) and Finland - to St Petersburg, which had
now been renamed Petrograd, and then to Moscow. From November 1914 he was
already playing numerous consultation games and giving charitable simultaneous
displays, which included some for the benefit of Romanovsky and other
chess-playing colleagues who were still imprisoned in Triberg. --- Relating to
this period is one of the mysteries of chess history, a legendary game, either
in fact played, or thought up by the future world champion. But in any case it
is a wonderful demonstration of Alekhine's impetuous, boundless imagination.})
*
[Event "113: Moscow"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1915.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Alekhine, A."]
[Black "N.N."]
[Result "*"]
[ECO "C12"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "47"]
[EventDate "1914.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bb4 {The sharp McCutcheon counterattack,
which Alekhine was much happier playing as Black.} 5. e5 ({The popular reply to
} 5. exd5 {is the 'French'} Qxd5 $5 (5... exd5 {is not so good as in the
variation 3...Bb4 4 exd5 exd5 5 Bd3 Nc6 6 Ne2 Nge7 7 0-0 Bf5 equalising,
Capablanca-Alekhine, Buenos Aires 1st matchgame 1927}) 6. Bxf6 Bxc3+ 7. bxc3
gxf6 8. Qd2 $1 {followed by ...Bd7-c6, ...Nd7 and ...0-0-0 (the fashion of the
1990s).} (8. Nf3 b6 {is equal, Tarrasch-Alekhine, St Petersburg 1914}) 8... Qa5
$1 (8... c5 9. Qe3 $1) (8... Bd7 9. c4 $1) ({or} 8... Nd7 9. c4 $1 Qe4+ 10. Ne2
{Capablanca-Alekhine, New York 1924.})) 5... h6 6. exf6 {'Chigorin's
interesting continuation.} ({Nowadays players prefer to aim at a rapid
kingside attack by} 6. Bd2 $1 Bxc3 7. bxc3 Ne4 8. Qg4 {.' (Alekhine) This, the
main line, extends from the ancient game Lasker-Marshall, (USA 4th matchgame
1907) to the classic duel Fischer-Rossolimo (USA Championship 1965/66) and to
the present day.}) 6... hxg5 7. fxg7 Rg8 8. h4 gxh4 9. Qg4 $5 ({An attempt to
improve on the variation} 9. Qh5 Qf6 10. Nf3 (10. Qxh4 Qxg7) 10... Nc6 11. Rxh4
Qxg7 12. O-O-O Bd7 {and 13...0-0-0 with equality.}) 9... Be7 {'The only
correct reply.} ({After} 9... Qf6 10. Rxh4 Qxg7 11. Qxg7 Rxg7 12. Rh8+ Kd7 ({
excuse me, but after} 12... Bf8 $1 13. O-O-O (13. Nb5 Na6 14. Nf3 f6 15. Nh4
Nb4 $1) 13... Bd7 {Black completes his development and easily equalises
(Heuer-Dvoretsky, Tallinn 1976)}) 13. Nf3 {White has the better chances.'
(Alekhine)}) 10. g3 $1 {(threatening to create another passed pawn)} c5 ({Of
course, not} 10... hxg3 $2 {on account of} 11. Rh8 {.}) ({Also in White's
favour is} 10... Bf6 11. gxh4 Rxg7 12. Qf4 $1 {.}) 11. gxh4 {The start of the
legend.} ({The well-known game Grigoriev-Alekhine (Moscow 1915/16) went} 11.
O-O-O Nc6 12. dxc5 Qa5 $1 13. Kb1 e5 $2 (13... Bf6 14. Nb5 Ke7 $1 {and ...Rxg7
would have given Black the better chances}) 14. Qh5 Be6 15. Nxd5 $2 ({correct
was} 15. Bh3 $1 Bxh3 16. Nxh3 d4 17. Nd5 {with advantage}) 15... Bxd5 16. Rxd5
Nb4 $1 {and Black won by a direct attack on the king. --- Annotating the game
with Grigoriev in the magazine Shakhmatny Vestnik (1916), Alekhine writes: 'If
11 gxh4 I was intending to play 11...Bf6, since 11...cxd4 leads to
complications that are very hard to calculate. Here, for example, is one of
the possible fantastic variations.' And he goes on to give all the moves of
the game with N.N., right up to 24 Rh6!! --- But in his book of best games
(1927) Alekhine writes: 'A game played by the author in Moscow, 1915,
continued as follows...' - and he gives the same moves, accompanying them with
a light commentary. --- In any case, we have the happy opportunity of enjoying
the fairy-tale final position.}) 11... cxd4 (11... Bf6 $5 {was indeed more
prudent. However, as we will see, things are by no means so bad for Black.})
12. h5 $1 dxc3 13. h6 cxb2 14. Rb1 Qa5+ 15. Ke2 {An important moment, which up
till now has been skipped over by all the analysts. But not the computer!} Qxa2
$2 ({In my opinion,} 15... Bf8 $3 {would have destroyed White's entire set-up.
For example:} 16. h7 ({or} 16. gxf8=Q+ Rxf8 17. Rxb2 Qc3 (17... Nc6 $5) 18. Qg7
({while after} 18. Qb4 Qf6 $1 19. Ke1 Rh8 {Black retains his extra material
and winning chances}) 18... d4 $1 19. Qxf8+ $2 Kxf8 20. h7 d3+ $1 21. Kd1 Qh8 {
is bad for White}) 16... Rxg7 17. Qd4 Rxh7 18. Rxh7 Qxa2 19. Rxb2 Qa6+ 20. Ke1
Qa1+ 21. Ke2 Nd7 22. Nf3 b6 {with three pawns for the exchange.}) 16. h7 Qxb1
17. hxg8=Q+ Kd7 18. Qxf7 Qxc2+ 19. Kf3 Nc6 $1 {'Only in this way can Black
combat the veritable brigade of White queens. The knight move enables him to
simultaneously defend both bishops.' (Kotov)} 20. Qgxe6+ ({Another important
refinement: In my view,} 20. g8=Q $1 {is much simpler, for example:} Ne5+ ({or
} 20... Qe4+ 21. Qxe4 dxe4+ 22. Kg2 b1=Q 23. Qxe6+ Kc7 24. Qg3+ Kb6 25. Qd5 {
also with a decisive advantage}) 21. Kg2 Nxf7 22. Qxf7 Kc6 23. Qe8+ Kb6 24.
Qd4+ {with a forced win.}) 20... Kc7 21. Qf4+ Kb6 22. Qee3+ Bc5 ({'Other moves
lose immediately:} 22... d4 23. Bd3 $1) ({or} 22... Ka5 23. Qd2+ {.' (Kotov)})
23. g8=Q $1 ({After} 23. Bd3 Bxe3 24. Qxe3+ $6 (24. Bxc2 Bxf4 25. g8=Q {is
evidently better}) 24... d4 25. Bxc2 dxe3 26. g8=Q (26. Rh8 $2 Nd4+) 26... Bg4+
$1 27. Qxg4 Ne5+ 28. Kg3 Nxg4 29. Kxg4 Rh8 $1 30. Nh3 Rc8 {White could have
been left empty-handed.}) 23... b1=Q {. Fantastic: there are five queens on
the board! In the famous finish to the 11th game of the Capablanca-Alekhine
match there were 'only' four (Game No.125).} ({'In the event of} 23... Bxe3 24.
Qxe3+ {hopeless for Black are both} Kc7 (24... d4 25. Qeb3+) (24... Ka5 25.
Qxd5+) 25. Qg3+ {when the two queens mate the black king without difficulty.'
(Kotov)}) 24. Rh6 $3 {'In this extraordinary position White won by a coup de
repos. (threatening 25 Qd8 mate)} (24. Rh6 -- ({, for if} 24... Bxe3 $2 {, then
} 25. Qd8+ Kc5 26. Qfd6+ Kd4 27. Q8f6+ {and mate.}) (24... Qxf1 $2 {is also
not possible on account of} 25. Qb4+ Kc7 (25... Qb5 26. Qd8+ Ka6 27. Qea3+ {
and mate in two moves}) 26. Qg3+ {with mate in a few moves.' (Alekhine)}) ({.
Or} 24... Qe4+ 25. Qexe4 dxe4+ 26. Kg3 $1 Qxf1 27. Qb3+ {with an attack and a
material advantage.}) ({. The computer shows that Alekhine's move 24 Rh6!! was
indeed the strongest. But 60 years after the mythical game the best defence
for Black was found by grandmaster Timman:} 24... Bg4+ $1 25. Qgxg4 Bxe3 26.
Qb4+ $6 ({in my view, here too after} 26. Qxe3+ $1 Qc5 27. Qgf4 {he retains a
considerable advantage}) 26... Qxb4 27. Qxb4+ Kc7 {and White has only
perpetual check (} 28. Qe7+ {etc.).})) (24. -- {It is hard to convey how
difficult these wartime years must have been for Alekhine: there were the
premature deaths of his parents (his father spent more than a year in a German
prison) and work at the front as a Red Cross (according to another version,
Union of Cities) official - rescuing the wounded under artillery fire, serious
concussion, the military hospital in Tarnopol... --- 'For a whole month I lay
immobile, bed-ridden,' Alekhine recalled. 'For me at that time playing
blindfold was a real godsend. At my request I was often visited by local
players, and I would give small simultaneous displays without looking at the
board. It was in one such display that my best known blindfold game was played
- against Feldt.' (Historians believe that this was the pseudonym of one of
the Tarnopol medical staff.)}) *
[Event "114: Blindfold simul display, Tarnopol"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1916.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Alekhine, A."]
[Black "Feldt, M."]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C11"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "35"]
[EventDate "1916.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. exd5 (4. Bg5 $1 {- Game No.113.}) 4... Nxd5 5.
Ne4 $1 f5 $2 6. Ng5 $1 Be7 7. N5f3 c6 8. Ne5 O-O 9. Ngf3 b6 10. Bd3 Bb7 11. O-O
Re8 $6 (11... c5 {.}) 12. c4 Nf6 13. Bf4 Nbd7 14. Qe2 c5 (14... Nf8) ({or}
14... Bf8 {was essential, but who could have known...}) 15. Nf7 $3 {(there's a
surprise!)} Kxf7 ({After} 15... Qc8 16. Qxe6 {the threat of} -- 17. Nh6+ Kh8
18. Qg8+ $1 {and Nf7 mate wins.}) 16. Qxe6+ $1 Kg6 (16... Kxe6 17. Ng5# {mate!}
) ({or} 16... Kf8 17. Ng5 $1 {.}) 17. g4 $1 Be4 18. Nh4# 1-0
[Event "115: Petrograd"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1917.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Alekhine, A."]
[Black "Hofmeister, M."]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "k1rb4/p3r3/Pp1Q1p2/3P2q1/P1P4p/1R4nP/2R3PK/6B1 w - - 0 31"]
[PlyCount "13"]
[EventDate "1916.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{After leaving hospital, Alekhine returned to Moscow, where for his exploits
at the front he was awarded the Order of St Stanislav and two George Medals.
--- Then came the ominous year 1917 - the year of tragic revolutionary shocks.
Alekhine rushed about Russia from town to town, as though not knowing where to
make for: he gave simultaneous displays, normal and blindfold, he played
consultation and exhibition games... --- The following finish is another vivid
demonstration of his restless, explosive style of play. That same style and
approach to chess, which later was incomprehensible to Fischer, with his
classically clear, rational chess thinking.} 31. c5 $1 b5 $2 ({The attempt to
give perpetual check -} 31... Nf1+ $2 32. Kh1 Ng3+ {is refuted by} 33. Rxg3 $1
Qxg3 34. cxb6 $1 {, for example:} Rxc2 ({or} 34... Qxd6 35. Rxc8+ Qb8 36. b7+
Rxb7 37. axb7+ Kxb7 38. Rxb8+ Kxb8 39. Bf2 {and matters are decided by the
extra pawn}) (34... Rec7 35. Rxc7) (34... Rb8 35. b7+) 35. Qxd8+ Qb8 36. Qxe7
axb6 37. d6 {winning.}) ({However, as the computer confirms, Black had two
ways to at least avoid being crushed:} 31... Ne4 32. cxb6 $1 Qxg2+ $1 {found
in the early 70s by some East German players)} 33. Rxg2 Nxd6 34. b7+ (34. a5 $5
Rd7 35. Rgb2 Rb8 36. Be3 axb6 37. axb6 Bxb6 38. Rxb6 Rxb6 39. Bxb6 Nc4 {with
level chances}) 34... Nxb7 35. axb7+ Rxb7 36. Rxb7 Kxb7 37. Rg7+ Rc7 38. Rxc7+
({or} 38. Rg4 $5 Rc2+ 39. Kh1 Bb6 $1 40. Bxb6 Kxb6 41. Rxh4 Kc5 42. Rf4 Ra2 43.
d6 Kxd6 44. Rxf6+ Ke5 45. Ra6 Kf4 {with a draw in each instance}) 38... Bxc7+
39. Kg2 Bb6 40. Bh2 Ka6 41. Kf3 Ka5 42. Kg4 Kxa4 43. d6 a5 44. Kf5 Kb3) (31...
Re2 $1 {(with the threat of ...Nf1+)} 32. Rxe2 Nxe2 33. Qd7 (33. cxb6 Bxb6 {
wins for Black}) 33... Qe5+ 34. Kh1 Qc7 35. Qxc7 ({inferior is} 35. Qe6 $2 Ng3+
36. Rxg3 hxg3 37. c6 Kb8) 35... Rxc7 $1 ({stronger than} 35... Bxc7 36. d6 Bd8
({and than} 36... bxc5 $2 37. dxc7 Nxg1 $4 ({although} 37... Ng3+ 38. Kh2 Nf1+
{still gives perpetual check}) 38. Rd3 $1)) 36. c6 Ng3+ 37. Kh2 Rc8 {with an
extra piece and winning prospects. --- After missing these possibilities,
Hofmeister perishes under the pawn avalanche.}) 32. axb5 Ne4 ({Black loses
picturesquely after} 32... Nf1+ 33. Kh1 Ng3+ 34. Rxg3 Qxg3 35. b6 $1 Qxd6 ({or
} 35... axb6 36. cxb6 Qxd6 37. Rxc8+ Qb8 38. b7+ Rxb7 39. axb7+ Kxb7 40. Rxb8+
Kxb8 41. Bc5) 36. cxd6 Rxc2 37. dxe7 Bxe7 38. b7+ Kb8 39. Bh2+ Rc7 40. Bf4 $1
Bc5 41. g3 $1 hxg3 42. h4 Bd4 43. Bxc7+ Kxc7 44. d6+ Kb8 45. d7 Bb6 46. h5 {
and wins.}) (32... Re2 33. Rxe2 Nxe2 34. b6 $1 {.}) 33. b6 $1 {'The queen and
the rooks don't matter! The outcome is decided by the white pawns.' (Kotov)}
Nxd6 ({Also after the desperate} 33... axb6 34. cxb6 Qxg2+ $5 35. Rxg2 Nxd6 36.
b7+ Nxb7 37. axb7+ Rxb7 38. Ra2+ Kb8 39. Ba7+ Ka8 (39... Kc7 40. Rc2+ Kd6 41.
Rxc8 Rxb3 42. Rxd8+) 40. Rba3 $1 {White still wins.}) 34. cxd6 {This is not
something that one sees every day:} Rec7 {What else?! The white pawns are
irresistible!} ({In confirmation Alekhine gives the following variations:}
34... Rxc2 35. b7+ Rxb7 36. axb7+ Kb8 37. Bxa7+ {and mate follows in two more
moves}) (34... Rb8 35. b7+ {and mate in three moves}) (34... axb6 35. Rxc8+ Ka7
36. dxe7 {and wins (} Qf4+ 37. Kh1 Bxe7 38. Bxb6+ Kxa6 39. Ra8+ Kb7 40. Be3+ {
Kotov)}) (34... Bc7 $1 35. b7+ $1 Kb8 36. dxc7+ ({I should like to add} 36. Kh1
$5 Rce8 37. dxe7 Qxd5 38. Rxc7 Kxc7 39. b8=Q+ Rxb8 40. Rxb8 {winning}) 36...
Rexc7 37. Rxc7 $1 {etc. That is,} Qe5+ ({or} 37... Rg8 38. Rc2) 38. Kh1 $1 Qxc7
39. Bh2 {.}) 35. b7+ Kb8 36. d7 $3 Qg3+ 37. Kh1 {. 'An incredible position. It
represents the ultimate triumph of mind over matter - the two white pawns on
d7 and b7 conquer the black army, which has in its ranks a whole queen more.'
(Kotov) (The moves in this game have been numbered arbitrarily: its beginning
is not known.) --- After the Bolsheviks seized power, the position of Alekhine,
with his noble origins, became more than precarious. After losing what
remained of his parents' fortune, he was obliged to think every day about how
to earn his living. In Moscow hunger and cold prevailed and there was no time
for chess, but nearer to the summer of 1918 a small three-cycle
match-tournament nevertheless took place: 1. Alekhine - 4˝ out of 6; 2.
Nenarokov - 3˝; 3. A. Rabinovich - 1. --- In the autumn Alexander made a
dangerous trip to the south - to Kiev and Odessa. The civil war was at its
height, and many towns were constantly changing hands... In Odessa a
tournament was planned with the participation of some local masters -
Verlinsky, Vilner and others, but Alekhine's main aim was to travel abroad by
boat. However, the tournament did not take place, it was not possible to
obtain a ticket on a boat, and Alekhine was stuck in Odessa until spring 1919.
The terrible situation at the time was described by Ivan Bunin in his
narrative diary Cursed Days and by Sergey Melgunov in his book The Red Terror
in Russia 1918-1920. Everywhere there were mass arrests and shootings... ---
What happened next is related by Bohatirchuk, from the words of Yakov Vilner,
who was working in the Odessa military tribunal: 'Alekhine was faced with the
problems of how to survive and how not to lose hopes of becoming world chess
champion. Some admirer of his chess genius found him work in the safest place
- in the commission for confiscating valuables from the bourgeoisie! To work
in the commission you had to join the communist party, which Alekhine did...'
But he could not escape his fate: he was nevertheless arrested by the secret
police - apparently, due to someone informing against him - and sentenced to
be shot. However, literally a couple of hours before the sentence was carried
out, Vilner managed to contact the Ukrainian Chief Commissar Khristian
Rakovsky, who gave the order to free Alekhine (according to another version,
he was saved by the Agriculture Commissar Dmitry Manuilsky, with whose consent
Alekhine was living in Odessa).} (37. Kh1 {After returning in the summer to
Moscow, Alekhine was ready to give up chess and enter the State School of
Cinematography. Fortunately for us, nothing came of this: at the end of 1919
he gave up acting and... travelled to Kharkov, where his elder brother Alexey
was then living. He worked in the office of a military sanatorium, in the
winter caught typhus (also a sign of the times!) and in May 1920 again
returned to Moscow. Here, as a qualified lawyer, he at last found work in his
speciality - as an investigator for the police central investigation
department (this organisation helped people who had lost one another during
the War). --- Chess also staked its claim: Alekhine happily visited the 'club'
apartment in block No.23 on Prechistensky (Gogolevsky) Boulevard, opposite the
present Central Chess Club. --- On one occasion Alekhine was demonstrating his
game with Duras from Mannheim 1914, and someone asked him how he rated Duras's
strength. 'Of course, he is a very strong player,' Alekhine replied, 'but when
he is playing me, I always know what he is thinking about. But when I play
Lasker or Capablanca, I have absolutely no idea what they are thinking about.
Many of their moves are a revelation to me...' A highly interesting admission
by the young grandmaster!}) (37. Kh1 {At that same time he took an active part
in the organisation of the first championship of Soviet Russia (Moscow,
October 1920) and he brilliantly won his tournament (which was quite strong,
despite the absence of Rubinstein, Nimzowitsch, Bernstein, Bogoljubow and
Znosko-Borovsky, who had ended up abroad): 1. Alekhine - 12 out of 15
(undefeated); 2. Romanovsky - 11; 3. Levenfish - 10; 4. I. Rabinovich - 9˝
etc. --- It need hardly be said what it was like to play for 20 days in a
tournament, which took place on a background of general hunger and destruction.
An unheated, poorly-lit room, problems with meals, and everything somehow
barren. At the height of the battle, seven of the players demanded an increase
in the bread ration and an immediate issue of cheese and cigarettes...
Alekhine supported his colleagues, declaring that he did not consider it
possible to play 'hungry opponents'. The participants' protest was largely
satisfied, and it proved possible to finish the tournament. --- Meanwhile in
November the Moscow secret police, after receiving a signal from their Odessa
branch, brought a new case against Alekhine. Fortunately, early in 1921, after
a very detailed interrogation of the suspect, the charges of 'anti-Soviet
activity' were dropped.}) 1-0
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Campaign for the Crown"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.09"]
{The Campaign for the Crown: The first 'championship of the Soviets' turned
out to be Alekhine's last tournament in Russia. He had not given up his life's
dream - to fight for the world crown. --- In those difficult conditions in
which he was living, the further development of his mastery was impossible,
and in addition he needed to play in strong international tournaments. But the
authorities persistently refused him permission to travel abroad. And Alekhine
racked his brains: how to escape from Russia?! (In another turn of chess
history, in the mid-1970s, Korchnoi found himself in a similar situation.) ---
He was helped by an accident. In the summer of 1920 Alekhine was transferred
from the central investigation department to Comintern, where he worked as an
interpreter, since he had an excellent command of French and German. He became
a candidate member of the Communist Party (although Bohatirchuk writes that
Alekhine showed him his Odessa party ticket back in 1919), and in the autumn
he met the 41-year-old Swiss woman Annaliese Rüegg, who had come to Russia as
a delegate to the 3rd International. And on 15 March 1921 (the day that the
Lasker-Capablanca match in Havana began!) they were married. Annaliese was
already expecting a baby and, naturally, wanted to have the birth at home,
with the moral support of her husband. In view of this, in the words of
Bohatirchuk, 'the persistent lady delegate obtained a reception with Lenin
himself,' or in another version - with Karl Radek, who is supposed to have
said: 'Alekhine may be a counter-revolutionary, but in chess he is a genius.
He can display this gift only outside of Russia...' At any event, Alekhine
received permission to leave, by a mystical coincidence, on 29th April,
immediately after news had arrived from Havana about Capablanca's victory.} 1.
-- {The newly-weds travelled via Latvia to Berlin and soon parted: Annaliese
returned to her native Switzerland, where she safely gave birth to a son and
concerned herself with his upbringing (without interrupting her political
activity!), while Alexander set off on his long campaign for the world chess
crown. He did not then know that he would never seen his native land again...
But he periodically visited his son and after the death of Annaliese in 1934
he placed him in a good boarding-house, under the guardianship of the Swiss
master Voellmy. --- During the remaining half of 1921 Alekhine found time to
play mini-matches in Berlin with Teichmann (+2 -2 =2) and Sämisch (+2), write
his first book Shakhmatnaya zhinzn v Sovetskoi Rossii (Chess Life in Soviet
Russia) and to win three tournaments in a row, in all of which he was
undefeated: the double-round tournament in Triberg (1. Alekhine - 7 out of 8;
2. Bogoljubow - 5), Budapest (1. Alekhine - 8˝ out of 11; 2. Grünfeld - 8...
6. Euwe - 5˝; 7. Bogoljubow - 5) and The Hague (1. Alekhine - 8 out of 9; 2.
Tartakower - 7; 3. Rubinstein - 6˝). --- The following is not, perhaps, the
most typical example of his play. Nevertheless it shows that Alekhine was
blazing new trails in chess, not even giving in to the authority of the
deified Capablanca (see the following game).} *
[Event "116: The Hague"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1921.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Yates, F."]
[Black "Alekhine, A."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B40"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "86"]
[EventDate "1921.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 Bb4 6. Bd3 e5 7. Nde2 d5 8.
exd5 Nxd5 9. O-O Nc6 10. Nxd5 Qxd5 11. a3 Ba5 12. b4 Bc7 13. Re1 f5 14. c4 Qf7
15. Nc3 O-O 16. Nd5 Be6 17. Bb2 e4 18. Nxc7 Qxc7 19. Bf1 Ne5 20. Bxe5 Qxe5 21.
Qc2 Rad8 22. Rad1 Rxd1 23. Qxd1 Qc3 {Alekhine attaches an exclamation mark to
this move (although I would have played 23...f4! immediately) and makes an
interesting , somewhat malicious, comment: 'Against this move White has
nothing better than to offer an exchange of queens, because after 24 Re3 Black
would gain the necessary time by 24...Qf6 to occupy the d-file, which would be
decisive. --- 'The ensuing endgame admits of a majority of pawns on the
queenside for White, but this advantage is here somewhat illusory. On this
subject I am anxious to state that one of the most notorious prejudices of
modern theory lies in the fact that this majority is in itself considered an
advantage, without any reference to whatever pawns or, more especially, pieces
are concerned. --- 'In the present game Black has very evident compensations:
(1) the greater mobility of the black king, the adverse king being hampered by
his own pawns; (2) the dominating position of the black rook on the only open
file. With correct play, these points should ensure a win.' Alekhine would
appear to be conducting a correspondence dispute with Capablanca, who
classically converted a queenside pawn majority in the 23rd game of his match
with Marshall (Game No.75). And although he clearly overrates Black's chances
(the white pawns are also mobile!), these comments reflect his style: the
advance of the e- and f-pawns creates tactical threats to the king. The most
interesting thing here is the clash of conceptions: whereas Capa 'simply'
queened a pawn, Alekhine 'simply' gave mate! But the successful strategy of
both the one, and the other, depended mainly on the fact that their opponents
did not understand their plans at all...} 24. Qc1 ({It is likely that} 24. Re3
Qf6 25. c5 Rd8 26. Qc1 {was nevertheless possible, but White, remembering
Capablanca's successful experience, heads for the endgame.}) 24... Qxc1 {Black
does not object, already anticipating the manoeuvre of his king to e5 and the
development of an instructive attack with a small army. Fischer's remark
involuntarily comes to mind: 'He disliked clear-cut positions. If an opponent
wanted to clarify his situation with Alekhine, he had to pay the Russian's
price.'} 25. Rxc1 Rd8 26. g3 {'Trying to exchange the bishops, which would
increase White's chances of a draw.' (Kotov)} (26. c5 Kf7 27. b5 Ke7 {is good
for Black.}) 26... Kf7 27. c5 Kf6 {An important moment, which has escaped the
attention of the commentators.} 28. Bc4 $6 ({The simple} 28. c6 $1 bxc6 29.
Rxc6 Rd1 30. Kg2 Ke5 31. Bc4 Bxc4 32. Rxc4 {would have ensured a draw:} Rd2 33.
Kf1 {etc. Of course, had Capa or Lasker being playing White, something like
this would have happened... But Yates wants to advance his a- and b-pawns - as
Capablanca 'bequeathed'!}) 28... Bc8 $1 {(this unexpected retreat was beyond
the understanding of most of the masters of that time)} 29. a4 $6 {Evidently
White should have moved his bishop from c4 and played c5-c6 as soon as
possible. It soon transpires that the white pawns are 'going nowhere', whereas
Black's are weaving a mating net.} g5 30. b5 f4 31. Kf1 Rd2 $1 32. Ke1 Rb2 33.
gxf4 ({After} 33. c6 bxc6 34. Be2 {there is a choice between} Ke5 ({and} 34...
c5 35. Rxc5 Be6 {.})) 33... gxf4 34. Be2 ({Or} 34. Rd1 Bg4 35. Rd6+ Ke7 36. Rd4
Bf3 {and 37...e3 (Alekhine).}) ({And here after} 34. c6 bxc6 35. Be2 {, apart
from} Ke5 ({there is} 35... c5 36. Rxc5 Be6 {.})) 34... Ke5 35. c6 bxc6 36.
Rxc6 $6 ({'Bad is} 36. bxc6 f3 37. Bd1 e3 {and wins.' (Kotov) But after} 38.
Rc2 $1 Rxc2 (38... Rb1 $2 39. fxe3) 39. Bxc2 {there is no question of Black
winning! Therefore after 36 bxc6 he would have had to continue seeking how to
exploit his positional advantage.}) 36... Be6 37. Bd1 ({The awkward position
of the bishop also tells in the variation} 37. Rc7 Rb1+ 38. Kd2 Kd4 39. Kc2 Ra1
$1 40. Bd1 (40. Rxa7 $2 Ra2+) 40... Rxa4 {. Unexpectedly White's position has
become lost: while rigorously carrying out the plan of a queenside offensive,
he finds himself facing mate.}) (37. Bc4 Bg4 $1 {.}) 37... Rb1 38. Rc5+ Kd4 39.
Rc2 e3 ({Or} 39... Bb3 $5 40. Rd2+ Kc4 {winning.}) 40. fxe3+ fxe3 41. Rc6 Bg4
42. Rd6+ Ke5 43. h3 Bh5 {. With the irresistible threat of ...e3-e2. --- The
autumn triumph in The Hague was especially noteworthy for Alekhine, since he
finished 1˝ points ahead of (and defeated in their individual game) the
official challenger Rubinstein. (Back in the spring Rubinstein had challenged
Capablanca to a match for the world crown, but alas, during the two and a half
years granted him by the champion, he was not in fact able to raise the
necessary funds.) --- Without thinking for long, the Russian grandmaster also
issued a challenge to Capablanca! A report even appeared in the press that a
match between them would take place at the end of 1922 in America... But this
all turned out to be a bluff. Later Alekhine admitted: 'I did not yet feel
fully mature in the chess sense. In many fields, especially in technique,
Capablanca was undoubtedly stronger than me at that time, and his main
opponent still remained Lasker... Therefore my challenge had only one aim - to
strengthen my candidature for the future.' --- Here it is worth recalling a
distinctive, as always, opinion of Fischer: 'Alekhine developed as a player
much more slowly than most. In his twenties, he was an atrocious chessplayer,
and didn't mature until he was well into his thirties.' --- This is, of course,
going too far, but I would like to see how Fischer himself would have played
after the events between 1914-1921 described above...} 0-1
[Event "117: Pistyan"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1922.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Treybal, K."]
[Black "Alekhine, A."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C84"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "80"]
[EventDate "1922.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{The new challenger also performed quite well in the spring of 1922 in Pistyan:
1. Bogoljubow - 15 out of 18; 2-3. Alekhine and Spielmann - 14˝; 4. Grünfeld
- 11; 5. Réti - 10˝ etc. Here Alekhine was awarded two special prizes: for
the most brilliant game of the tournament (against Wolf) and for the best game
played by a Slav master (against Tarrasch). --- However, I will show you
another brilliant game by Alekhine, of which he was very proud, since in it he
carried out 'the longest combination in his life'. Although it turned out to
have a flaw, discovered by the all-seeing eye of the computer...} 1. e4 e5 2.
Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. Nc3 {(this modest plan was also employed by
Alekhine)} Be7 6. O-O b5 7. Bb3 d6 8. a4 (8. Nd5 {Alekhine-Barcza, Munich 1942.
}) 8... Rb8 ({'This move is distinctly inferior to} 8... b4 {, for it abandons
the a-file to White without any compensation.' (Alekhine) For example:} 9. Nd5
(9. Ne2 Be6 $6) 9... Na5 10. Ba2 (10. Nxe7 Qxe7 11. d4 Nxb3 {is level,
Thomas-Alekhine, Hastings 1922}) 10... Nxd5 11. Bxd5 c6 12. Ba2 c5 13. c3 Rb8
14. Bd5 O-O {with equality (Alekhine-Bogoljubow, Pistyan 1922).}) 9. axb5 axb5
10. h3 {Not an essential move.} (10. Qe2 $6 Bg4 $1 11. Nxb5 O-O 12. Qc4 Bxf3
13. gxf3 Rxb5 14. Qxc6 Rb6 15. Qc3 Nh5 $1 16. d3 Bg5 {is risky for White}) ({
but quite good, according to Réti, is} 10. d3 Bg4 (10... O-O 11. Nd5 $1) 11.
Be3 O-O 12. Nd5 $1 {with a slight initiative.}) 10... O-O 11. Qe2 Bd7 12. d3 ({
If} 12. Nxb5 {, then} Nxe4 $1 13. Qxe4 ({after} 13. Nxc7 $6 {both} Nxd2 ({and}
13... Nc5 {are good})) 13... Rxb5 {and Black has no problems (Ashley-Giorgadze,
Philadelphia 1991).}) 12... Qc8 $1 ({'Insufficient would be} 12... Nd4 13. Nxd4
exd4 14. Nd5 Nxd5 15. Bxd5 c6 16. Bb3 Be6 17. Bxe6 fxe6 18. Ra7 Ra8 19. Rxa8
Qxa8 20. Qg4 Qc8 ({although here} 20... Qa2 $5) ({and} 20... Rf6 $5 {must be
considered}) 21. Bh6 Rf7 22. Ra1 {with advantage to White.' (Alekhine)}) 13.
Kh2 {Just in case, Treybal prevents the bishop sacrifice on h3.} ({Of course,
more energetic was} 13. Be3 $1 {(13 Nd5!?), when Alekhine was planning} Nd8 {
and ...c7-c5.}) 13... Nd4 $1 {(now Black has an easy game)} 14. Nxd4 exd4 15.
Nd5 Nxd5 16. Bxd5 c6 17. Bb3 Be6 $1 18. f4 (18. Bxe6 Qxe6 19. f4 f5 {equalises.
}) 18... Bxb3 19. cxb3 Ra8 $1 ({'Not} 19... Qe6 $2 {because of} 20. f5 Qxb3 21.
Ra3 Qb4 22. f6 $1 Bxf6 23. Rxf6 gxf6 24. Bh6 Kh8 25. Qf3 f5 26. Qxf5 f6 27. Ra7
{and wins.' (Alekhine)}) 20. Rxa8 (20. Rb1 $6 Qe6 $1 {.}) 20... Qxa8 21. f5 f6
$5 {A secure barricade.} ({Black was less attracted by} 21... Bf6 22. Bf4 Rd8
23. Qe1 $1 {'followed by 24 Qa1 or 24 Qg3', although after} c5 {there is
nothing terrible for him.}) 22. g4 $5 ({'Having embarked on a perilous journey,
White has no option but to persevere, for, were he to adopt a purely defensive
plan, Black would have a still more easy game than in the text, e.g.} 22. b4 c5
23. Qc2 Qc6 {followed by ...Ra8.' (Alekhine)}) ({And yet} 22. Bf4 {was more
natural, with equal chances.}) 22... c5 23. h4 $2 {Overlooking a typical
counter-blow in the centre.} ({The cool} 23. Bf4 {was still correct, and if}
Qa2 24. Qc2 {.}) 23... d5 $1 {(Alexander Alexandrovich did not miss such
opportunities)} 24. g5 $6 (24. exd5 Bd6+ 25. Bf4 Re8 26. Qg2 Bxf4+ 27. Rxf4 Qb8
28. Qf3 Qe5 {also favours Black.}) ({If} 24. e5 -- ({, Alekhine was planning}
24... Qb8 25. Bf4 fxe5 26. Bxe5 Bd6 {'with advantage to Black', but after} 27.
Bxd6 Qxd6+ 28. Kg2 {this advantage still has to be demonstrated.}) (24... fxe5
25. Qxe5 Bxh4 {was rejected by the future champion because of} 26. g5 Re8 ({
although, in my opinion, much stronger is} 26... Qe8 $1 27. Qxd5+ (27. Qxe8
Rxe8 {wins for Black}) 27... Kh8 {with the threat of ...Qh5:} 28. Qxc5 $6 Bxg5
$1 29. Bxg5 Qh5+ {etc.}) 27. Qf4 Be1 (27... Re1 $5 {- G.K.}) 28. f6 $1 {with
an attack.})) 24... dxe4 25. dxe4 Qc6 26. Kh3 {'Preparing e4-e5.} ({If} 26. g6
h6 (26... Bd6+ {is also possible, and if} 27. Kg2 {, then} hxg6 28. fxg6 f5 $1
{. All the indications are that White can no longer save the game}) 27. Qh5
Qxe4 28. Bxh6 gxh6 29. Qxh6 Qe2+ {followed by 30...Qe3+ wins for Black.'
(Alekhine)}) 26... c4 $1 27. e5 d3 28. Qe1 $1 ({If} 28. Qe3 {Alekhine was
intending} fxg5 29. hxg5 Rxf5 $1 30. Rxf5 Qe6 31. Qe4 g6 32. Kg4 (32. Qa8+ Kg7)
32... gxf5+ 33. Qxf5 Qxf5+ 34. Kxf5 Ba3 $3 {winning.}) 28... fxe5 (28... fxg5
29. Bxg5 $1 {.}) 29. Qxe5 Bb4 $1 30. bxc4 bxc4 31. Qd4 $1 {Threatening to
break up the black pawns by b2-b3. Treybal fights to the last!} Qb5 $1 (31...
Qb5 {with the obvious threat of} 32. -- Rxf5 ({and also a veiled one -} 32...
d2 $1 33. Bxd2 c3 $1 {(a double attack!), which White underestimated.})) 32. f6
$6 {The computer condemned this move,} ({suggesting} 32. Kg2 {. True, in this
case Alekhine was intending to reply} Ba5 $1 {and then ...Rd8, which 'would
also win without difficulty'.}) 32... d2 $1 {(a spectacular breakthrough at a
reinforced point!)} 33. Qf4 $1 {The best practical chance.} Qd7+ ({White was
'anticipating the continuation} 33... dxc1=Q 34. Rxc1 Rc8 ({no better is} 34...
Qd7+ 35. Kg2) ({or} 34... gxf6 35. Qxc4+ Qxc4 36. Rxc4 {- G.K.}) 35. Qg4 $1 {
with drawing chances, since the h1-square is not of the same colour as Black's
bishop. By the ensuing combination (the longest which I have ever undertaken)
Black avoids this doubtful variation and secures a winning pawn ending.'
(Alekhine) Well, we'll see, we'll see...}) 34. Kg2 d1=Q $6 {Alekhine, Kotov
and others attach an exclamation mark to this move.} ({But in my opinion,
Black would have won much more quickly, and - most important - more certainly
by} 34... Qd5+ $1 35. Kh3 (35. Qf3 Qxf3+ 36. Kxf3 gxf6) 35... Qd3+ (35... gxf6
36. gxf6 Qe6+ {is also good enough}) 36. Kg2 gxf6 37. gxf6 Kf7 {and ...Rg8+
(after the 'spite' checks} 38. Qc7+ Ke6 39. Qc6+ Bd6 {).}) 35. Rxd1 Qxd1 36.
Qxc4+ Rf7 37. Qxb4 Qxc1 38. Qb8+ Rf8 39. f7+ $1 {The only way;} ({after} 39.
Qb3+ $2 Kh8 40. fxg7+ Kxg7 {the checks come to an end.}) 39... Kxf7 {The
culmination of the tactical duel. 'As we shall see shortly, Black's winning
manoeuvre initiated by 33...Qd7+! comprises no less than 20 moves!' (Alekhine)}
40. Qb3+ $2 ({Meanwhile, by} 40. g6+ $3 {Treybal could have regained the rook,
since in the event of} hxg6 (40... Kg8 $2 41. gxh7+) ({. There remains only
the one way, pointed out by Alekhine:} 40... Kxg6 $1 41. Qxf8 Qxb2+ 42. Kf3 {
(h3)} Qc3+ 43. Kg2 Qd2+ 44. Kg3 {(h3)} Qe3+ 45. Kg2 Qe4+ 46. Kg3 (46. Kh3 Qf5+)
46... Qe5+ 47. Kg2 Kh5 $1 {(a quiet move, connecting up the king)} 48. Qf3+ {
(? - G.K.)} ({alas, the computer refutes Alekhine's longest combination by}
48. Qb4 $1 {. Now Black is unable to force the transition into a pawn endgame,
and with the queens on such endings with an extra pawn are drawish. For
example:} g6 49. Kf3 Qe6 50. Kg3 Qe3+ 51. Kg2 Qd3 52. Qe7 h6 53. Qb4 Qe2+ 54.
Kg3 Qe3+ 55. Kg2 {etc.}) 48... Kxh4 49. Qh3+ Kg5 50. Qxh7 Qe2+ 51. Kg3 {(g1)}
Qg4+ {'and Black wins by forcing exchange of queens next move.' (} 52. Kf2 ({or
} 52. Kh2 Qh4+) 52... Qf5+ {).}) 41. Qb3+ {(White forces a draw by perpetual
check)} Kf6 ({or} 41... Ke7 42. Qa3+ Ke8 43. Qa8+ Kf7 44. Qd5+) 42. Qf3+ Ke7
43. Qa3+ Ke8 44. Qa4+ $1 Kd8 45. Qa8+ Ke7 46. Qa3+ Kf7 47. Qb3+ {etc. --- It
follows that White missed a draw. It is evident that Fischer was right, when
he stated that at the chessboard, Alekhine radiated a furious tension that
often intimidated his opponents.}) 40... Kg6 $1 ({White resigned due to} 40...
Kg6 41. Qe6+ Kh5 42. Qe2+ Kxh4 $1 {etc. --- But Black, in turn, missed a win
back on the 34th move, when he did not play 34...Qd5+!. This game, on the one
hand, demonstrates Alekhine's amazing calculating ability, but on the other
hand it reminds one of an old truth, that any analysis longer than five moves
will contain a 'hole'... even if we have before us a masterpiece from the
treasury of chess art.}) 0-1
[Event "118: Exhibition game, Seville"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1922.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Torres, A."]
[Black "Alekhine, A."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C79"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "60"]
[EventDate "1922.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{Here is another example of the energetic positional-combinative play of the
fourth world champion.} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O d6 ({
'This move, commended by Rubinstein, seems to me less sound than} 5... Be7 {.'
(Alekhine)}) 6. Bxc6+ ({One of the main replies, along with} 6. c3) ({and} 6.
Re1 {.}) ({But if} 6. d4 {, then} b5 $1 7. Bb3 Nxd4 8. Nxd4 exd4 9. c3 $5 (9.
Bd5 Nxd5 10. exd5 Be7 {equalises Treybal-Rubinstein, Carlsbad 1923}) 9... dxc3
10. Nxc3 Be7 11. Qf3 (11. f4 Bb7) 11... O-O $1 12. e5 $6 Bg4 {etc.}) 6... bxc6
7. d4 $1 Nxe4 $1 {A sharp reply!} ({'The exchange} 7... exd4 8. Nxd4 {leads to
an unfavourable variation of the Steinitz Defence.}) ({Here Chigorin's move}
7... Nd7 {is also not especially favourable in view of} 8. Na3 {and Nc4.'
(Keres)}) 8. Re1 ({The alternative is} 8. dxe5 d5 (8... Be7 $5 {
Gurgenidze-Spassky, 29th USSR Championship, Baku 1961}) 9. Nbd2) ({or} 8. Qe2
f5 9. dxe5 ({after} 9. Nbd2 Nxd2 10. Nxd2 Be7 11. dxe5 {Euwe advises} O-O $1
12. Qc4+ Kh8 13. Qxc6 Rb8) 9... d5 {, and here not} 10. Rd1 ({, and not} 10.
Be3 c5 $1 11. c3 Be7 {(Kubanek-Alekhine, Prague 1943)}) ({, but} 10. c4 $1 Bc5
(10... d4 $5) 11. Be3 {with a slight initiative}) 10... c5 (10... Bc5 $5 {Euwe}
) 11. c4 c6 {equalising (Rubinstein).}) 8... f5 9. dxe5 d5 {'Now Black has
undoubtedly the better game, with his two bishops and his strongly-posted
knight in the centre.' (Alekhine) A clearly premature verdict!} 10. Nd4 $1 ({
In the early 1940s} 10. Nc3 Bc5 ({but stronger is} 10... Bb4 $1 11. Nd4 Nxc3
12. bxc3 Bxc3 13. Ba3 Qh4 $1 {, and if} 14. Nxc6 $2 Be6 $1 {(analysis by
Botvinnik)}) 11. Be3 {was fashionable (Boleslavsky-Smyslov, match-tournament,
Leningrad/Moscow 1941).}) ({And in the late 1990s Adams introduced} 10. c4 $5 {
.}) 10... Bc5 ({Bad is} 10... c5 $2 11. Ne2 $1 c6 12. Nf4 g6 13. c4 $1 d4 14.
Qa4 {(Keres-Reshevsky, AVRO Tournament, Holland 1938)}) ({whereas} 10... Qh4 {
allows Fine's variation} 11. g3 Qh3 12. Nc3 $1 {, after which both} Nxf2 $6 (
12... Bc5 13. Nce2 $1) ({and} 12... c5 13. Nde2 $1 d4 14. Nd5 Nxf2 $6 15. Kxf2
Qxh2+ 16. Kf3 $1 Bb7 17. c4 {are incorrect}) 13. Kxf2 Qxh2+ 14. Kf3 {.}) 11. c3
({If} 11. Be3 {, then} f4 $1 12. Nxc6 ({but not} 12. Bxf4 $6 O-O 13. Be3 Nxf2
$1 14. Bxf2 Rxf2 15. Kxf2 Qh4+ {etc.}) 12... fxe3 13. Nxd8 exf2+ 14. Kf1
fxe1=Q+ 15. Kxe1 Bf2+ 16. Kf1 Rf8 17. Qxd5 Bc5+ 18. Ke1 Bf2+ {with perpetual
check (Euwe).}) ({But} 11. f3 Qh4 ({excluding the possibility of} 11... O-O)
12. c3 {is interesting.}) 11... O-O ({Soviet masters later developed the very
sharp continuation} 11... Qh4 $5 12. f3 Nf2 13. g3 $1 Qh5 14. Kxf2 $1 ({
dangerous is} 14. Qe2 Nh3+ 15. Kg2 f4 $1 16. e6 O-O 17. g4 Qh4 {, when} 18. Nf5
$2 {fails to} Rxf5 19. gxf5 Nf2 {winning}) 14... Qxh2+ 15. Ke3 {, and although
for the piece Black has two pawns and some attack, in the game
Bonch-Osmolovsky-Estrin (Moscow 1945) White was able to convert his material
advantage.}) 12. f4 $2 {At last the enormous difference in the class of the
two players tells.} ({Also weak is} 12. f3 Ng5 13. -- (13. Be3 $2 f4 14. Bf2
Bb6 $1 15. Nd2 c5 {(Romanovsky).}) ({. But the old game Flamberg-Salve (Lodz
1906) went} 13. Kh1 $1 Bxd4 {, and here Chigorin recommended} ({according to
Romanovsky,} 13... f4 $5 14. Nxc6 Qd7 15. Nd4 Qf7 {is correct}) 14. Bxg5 $1
Qxg5 15. cxd4 (15. Qxd4 $5) 15... f4 ({it was the same after} 15... Rb8 16. b3
Qh4 17. Nc3 {(Smyslov-Levenfish, Moscow 1938)}) 16. Nc3 Rf5 17. Na4 Qh6 18. Re2
$1 Rh5 19. Qg1 {with an obvious advantage to White - the c5-square!})) 12...
Qe8 {(now Black's position is indeed significantly better!)} 13. Be3 Bb6 14.
Nd2 Bb7 {'In perfect safety Black prepares the advance of his centre pawns,
thus enabling his bishops to exercise pressure on the hostile king.' (Alekhine)
} 15. N2f3 Rd8 16. Qc2 c5 17. Nb3 ({'} 17. Ne2 {at once was preferable, upon
which Black would probably have continued} h6 {, followed by 18...Kh8 and 19...
Rg8, preparing to open the g-file by ...g7-g5.' (Alekhine)}) 17... c4 $1 {
(further intensifying the pressure in the centre)} 18. Nbd4 (18. Bxb6 $2 cxb3 {
.}) 18... c5 19. Ne2 Qc6 20. Rad1 h6 21. Rf1 Kh8 $1 {An important link of the
future combination: the king moves not so much to make ...Rg8 possible, but so
that after ...d5-d4 White cannot take the c4-pawn with check.} 22. Kh1 Qg6 {
(with the intention of ...Qh5 and ...g7-g5)} 23. Neg1 Qh5 24. Nh3 {By
defending against the flank attack, Torres goes from the frying pan into the
fire.} d4 $1 {(the decisive breakthrough, based on a queen sacrifice)} 25. cxd4
cxd4 26. Bxd4 Bxd4 27. Rxd4 Rxd4 28. Nxd4 Qxh3 $1 29. gxh3 Nf2+ 30. Kg1 Nxh3#
0-1
[Event "119: Hastings"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1922.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Bogoljubow, E."]
[Black "Alekhine, A."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A90"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "106"]
[EventDate "1922.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
{In the summer of 1922, in the London 'victory tournament', the first direct
duel after the War between Alekhine and Capablanca took place. The Russian
played well (+8 =7), but the Cuban played even better (+11 =4). The results of
this tournament are given on p.296, but the moral outcome for Alekhine was the
start of his gradual advance to the role of main contender to the throne: he
left behind Rubinstein, and Bogoljubow, and Réti (true, the picture was
somewhat obscured by the absence of the still mighty Lasker). At the same time
the participants signed the so-called 'London agreement' - the regulations for
world championship matches proposed by Capablanca (cf. p.299). --- The
double-round tournament at Hastings in September 1922 reinforced this tendency:
1. Alekhine - 7˝ out of 10; 2. Rubinstein - 7; 3-4. Bogoljubow and Thomas -
4˝ etc. Alexander again, as in London (and The Hague!) defeated Rubinstein
once, and Bogoljubow twice. --- The last of these wins is one of the most
grandiose Alekhine canvases. It once again shows that his amazing combinations
did not arise out of thin air, but were the fruit of very deep strategic
preparation.} 1. d4 f5 {'A risky defence which up to the present I have
adopted only very infrequently in serious games. But in the present game I had
positively to play for a win in order to make sure of first prize, whereas a
draw was sufficient for my opponent to secure third prize, and hence I found
myself forced to run some risks.' (Alekhine)} 2. c4 ({According to Alekhine it
is better to begin with} 2. g3 {, so that Black should not be able to exchange
his f8-bishop. But is this really to his advantage?}) 2... Nf6 3. g3 e6 4. Bg2
Bb4+ 5. Bd2 ({If} 5. Nd2 {correct is} O-O $1 ({but not} 5... Ne4 $2 6. a3 Nxd2
7. Bxd2 Bxd2+ 8. Qxd2 O-O 9. Nh3 $1 d5 10. cxd5 exd5 11. Nf4 c6 12. O-O Qe7 13.
b4 $1 {with a clear advantage (Alekhine-Tartakower, San Remo 1930).})) 5...
Bxd2+ ({In his match with Euwe (1935) and later, the fourth world champion
played} 5... Be7 {.}) 6. Nxd2 ({Of course, more accurate is} 6. Qxd2 $1 O-O 7.
Nc3 {with some initiative, which in the event of} d6 8. Nf3 Nc6 9. Rd1 $5 ({or
} 9. O-O e5 10. d5 Ne7 11. e4) 9... Ne7 (9... Qe7 10. d5 $1) 10. O-O Ng6 11.
Qc2 c6 (11... f4 $5) 12. e4 $1 Qa5 13. exf5 exf5 14. d5 cxd5 15. Nxd5 {can
become serious (Euwe-Alekhine, Amsterdam 10th matchgame 1926/27).}) 6... Nc6 7.
Ngf3 O-O 8. O-O ({Tartakower suggested} 8. Qc2 $5 {with the idea of e2-e4.})
8... d6 9. Qb3 Kh8 $6 ({For some reason most commentators don't mention the
immediate} 9... e5 $1 {, when Black need not fear either} 10. Qc3 ({or} 10. c5+
Kh8 11. dxe5 dxe5 12. Rfd1 Qe7 13. Rac1 Bd7) 10... a5 $1 11. dxe5 dxe5 12. Rad1
Qe7 {with equal chances in both cases (Spielmann)}) 10. Qc3 $6 {'It is already
difficult to suggest a satisfactory line of play for White.' (Alekhine)} ({
Why? After} 10. d5 $1 {Black would have faced a thankless defence:} Na5 (10...
exd5 11. cxd5 Ne7 (11... Ne5 12. Nd4 $1) 12. Nd4 {etc.}) 11. Qc3 c5 12. Ng5 {.}
) 10... e5 $1 11. e3 ({No better is} 11. dxe5 dxe5 12. Rad1 (12. Nxe5 $2 Nxe5
13. Qxe5 Qxd2 {drops a piece}) 12... Qe7 13. Rfe1 e4 {etc. (Pirc-Spielmann,
RogaQka Slatina match 1931).}) 11... a5 $1 {(hindering b2-b4)} 12. b3 ({But not
} 12. a3 $6 a4 $1 {.}) 12... Qe8 $1 13. a3 Qh5 $1 {'The start of a deep
strategic plan. First of all Black creates threats on the kingside and
provokes a weakening of the opponent's pawns.' (Kotov)} 14. h4 {'A good
defensive move, which secures new squares for his king's knight and revives
the threat of 15 dxe5.} ({White cannot answer} 14. dxe5 dxe5 15. Nxe5 Nxe5 16.
Qxe5 {on account of} Ng4 {, winning outright}) ({nor can he play} 14. b4 $2 e4
15. Ne1 axb4 {.' (Alekhine)}) 14... Ng4 15. Ng5 $6 ({According to Alekhine,}
15. b4 {was preferable.}) 15... Bd7 16. f3 (16. Bxc6 $6 Bxc6 17. f3 {was bad
because of} exd4 $1 18. fxg4 dxc3 19. gxh5 cxd2 {with the better endgame for
Black.}) 16... Nf6 {(with the threat of 17...f4!)} 17. f4 e4 18. Rfd1 $6 {'In
order to protect the g3-pawn (which was threatened by 18...Qg4 and 19...Nh5)
by Nf1.} ({However, the preliminary advance} 18. d5 $1 {, preventing Black
from forming a centre, would have yielded White more chances of a successful
defence.' (Alekhine)}) 18... h6 19. Nh3 d5 $1 {'By this move Black completely
wrecks his opponent's hopes in the centre.' (Alekhine) 'The white pawns on the
kingside have been weakened, and Black begins carrying out the second part of
his plan: by initiating active play on the queenside, in the end he breaks
through from the rear to the white king's position.' (Kotov)} 20. Nf1 Ne7 (
20... Ne7 {prepares} 21. -- a4 $1 22. b4 dxc4 {and ...Ned5.}) 21. a4 Nc6 $1 {
(and now ...Nb4-d3 is on the agenda)} 22. Rd2 Nb4 23. Bh1 {Such moves are not
made willingly...} Qe8 $1 {'This very strong move yields Black a new advantage
in every case: either control of the square d5 after 24 cxd5, or the opening
of a file on the queenside after 24 c5 b5!, or lastly, as in the actual game,
the win of a pawn.' (Alekhine)} 24. Rg2 {(with the illusory hope of playing
g3-g4)} dxc4 25. bxc4 Bxa4 26. Nf2 Bd7 27. Nd2 b5 $1 {'This important
strategic thrust in the battle for the d5-square leads to a highly interesting
combination. The b-pawn is about to accomplish great deeds!' (Kotov)} 28. Nd1
Nd3 $1 ({White's position looks terrible, but after the artless} 28... bxc4 $6
29. Nxc4 Nfd5 30. Qa3 {his wretched knight would have gained access to the
e5-square and the coordination of his scattered forces would have been
unexpectedly restored.}) 29. Rxa5 {The attempt to regain the pawn leads to
disaster.} ({But} 29. cxb5 Bxb5 30. Rxa5 {was no better in view of} Nd5 31. Qa3
({or} 31. Rxa8 Qxa8 32. Qb3 Ba4 {etc.}) 31... Rxa5 32. Qxa5 Qc6 {with a
winning attack (Alekhine).}) 29... b4 $1 30. Rxa8 ({After} 30. Qa1 Rxa5 31.
Qxa5 Qa8 $1 32. Qxa8 Rxa8 {the invasion of the rook is decisive.}) 30... bxc3
$3 {A brilliant interposition!} ({'This continuation is much stronger than}
30... Qxa8 31. Qb3 Ba4 ({after the simple} 31... Qa1 $1 32. Qb1 Ra8 {he would
quickly have lost...}) 32. Qb1 {, after which White could still defend himself.
' (Alekhine) Black wants to create something immortal willy-nilly.}) 31. Rxe8
{There is no choice.} c2 $3 {'The point! White cannot prevent this pawn from
queening.' (Alekhine) Truly, as Alexander Alexandrovich used to say,
'combination is the soul of chess'.} 32. Rxf8+ Kh7 {White's queen's rook can
be proud: it has devoured Black's queen and both his rooks. But on its own the
modest b7-pawn cancels out these achievements! The complete triumph of mind
over matter!} 33. Nf2 {(there is nothing else)} c1=Q+ 34. Nf1 Ne1 $1 {With the
unexpected threat of ...Nf3 mate.} 35. Rh2 Qxc4 {'A new threat of mate in a
few moves, commencing with 36...Bb5, which compels White to sacrifice the
exchange.' (Alekhine)} 36. Rb8 Bb5 37. Rxb5 Qxb5 38. g4 {With the faint hope
of including the sickly h1-bishop in the game. But another surprise is in
store for White.} Nf3+ $1 39. Bxf3 exf3 40. gxf5 {Forced;} (40. g5 Ng4 41. Nxg4
fxg4 {wins.}) 40... Qe2 $3 {Creating a problem-like position. White is in
zugzwang: any reply by him leads to immediate defeat.} 41. d5 ({After} 41. Nh3
Ng4 $1 42. Rxe2 fxe2 $1 {a third black queen would have appeared on the board.}
) (41. Rh3 Ng4 $1 {.}) 41... Kg8 $1 ({But not} 41... h5 $2 42. Nh3 $1 {
intending 43 Ng5+.}) 42. h5 Kh7 {(a demonstration of strength)} 43. e4 {The
only move, but even it leads to a lost ending.} Nxe4 44. Nxe4 Qxe4 45. d6 cxd6
46. f6 gxf6 47. Rd2 Qe2 $1 {'A pretty finish, worthy of this fine game.'
(Alekhine)} 48. Rxe2 fxe2 49. Kf2 exf1=Q+ 50. Kxf1 Kg7 51. Kf2 Kf7 52. Ke3 Ke6
53. Ke4 d5+ {. There's no denying that this is an excellent present for your
30th birthday! --- After this dressing-down Bogoljubow was depressed for a
time, but on the other hand the 'great Akiba' roused himself, as was shown two
months later in Vienna 1922: 1. Rubinstein - 11˝ out of 14; 2. Tartakower -
10; 3. H. Wolf - 9˝; 4-6. Alekhine, Maróczy and Tarrasch - 9; 7. Grünfeld -
8; 8. Réti - 7˝; 9. Bogoljubow - 6˝ etc. --- It would appear that the
Russian champion became rather tired towards the end of the year. Take a look
at his portrait, painted by the Vienna press: 'Alekhine is the embodiment of
nervousness. The facial expression of this tall, elegant young man is
constantly changing; the impulsive movements of his hands, with which he first
passes impetuously through his light-gingery hair, then quickly picks up
pieces that have been removed from the board - all this reflects the intense,
passionate working of his mind... After his every move he quickly stands up,
with rapid, impetuous steps his elegant figure moves from board to board, and
with a keen glance he takes in the positions in the games. If his opponent
succeeds in putting him in a difficult position with an unexpected manoeuvre,
he becomes irritable and impatient; the slightest noise gets on his nerves;
his bright eyes are fixed searchingly on his opponent, as though with the aim
of penetrating into his thoughts - and when he finds a good reply, a
triumphant smile lights up his face. The board at which Alekhine is playing is
always surrounded by a dense crowd of spectators.' --- From Vienna, Alekhine
departed to Paris, where he settled among the numerous Russian émigrés...} 0-1
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "From Carlsbad to Baden-Baden"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "1"]
[EventDate "1943.??.??"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.09"]
{From Carlsbad to Baden-Baden: The most important tournaments of 1923 were in
May in Carlsbad, where 'everyone' played, apart from Capa and Lasker, and in
July in Mährisch-Ostrau, where 'everyone' played, apart from Capa and Alekhine.
One general feature of these tournaments was the failure of Rubinstein, who
began to drop out of the circle of contenders for the crown. In
Mährisch-Ostrau the winner was Lasker, and in Carlsbad there were three: 1-3.
Alekhine, Bogoljubow and Maróczy - 11˝ out of 17; 4-5. Grünfeld and Réti -
10˝; 6-7. Nimzowitsch and Treybal - 10 etc.} 1. -- {However, the moral
winner of Carlsbad can safely be regarded as Alekhine: he defeated his three
nearest rivals: Bogoljubow, Maróczy and Grünfeld, and he was denied clear
first place only by unexpected losses to Treybal and Yates. In addition he won
two brilliancy prizes!} *
[Event "120: Carlsbad"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1923.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Grünfeld, E."]
[Black "Alekhine, A."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "D64"]
[Annotator "Garry Kasparov"]
[PlyCount "68"]
[EventDate "1923.??.??"]
[Source "Everyman Chess"]
[SourceDate "2013.04.05"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Bg5 Be7 5. Nf3 Nbd7 6. e3 O-O 7. Rc1 c6 {A
tabiya of the Orthodox Defence;} ({for} 7... a6 {, cf. Games No.105 and 128.})
8. Qc2 a6 ({Here Alekhine makes a valuable and instructive comment: 'In my
opinion better than} 8... h6 {, upon which White could have replied
advantageously} 9. Bf4 $1 Re8 ({if} 9... Ne4 {, then} 10. Bd3 $1 f5 11. h4 {
followed at need by g2-g3 and Ne5 with advantage to White}) 10. Bd3 dxc4 11.
Bxc4 b5 12. Bd3 a6 13. a4 $1 {. The game Alekhine-Teichmann (Carlsbad 1923)
unfolded itself in the following way:} Bb7 14. O-O Rc8 15. Qb3 Qb6 16. Ne5 Red8
17. Ng6 $1 Bf8 18. Nxf8 Nxf8 19. Ne4 Nxe4 20. Bxe4 Nd7 21. Bd6 $1 Nf6 22. Bc5
Qc7 23. Bf3 a5 {, and White by playing for example} 24. Rfe1 ({or} 24. Rc2 {,
instead of accepting the pawn sacrificed, which only led to a draw, would have
retained a winning position.})) ({'Every international tournament brings a
fresh and sufficient line of play for Black. In the Mährisch-Ostrau tournament
of 1923 Wolf played against the great theorist Grünfeld the simple
continuation:} 8... Ne4 9. Bxe7 Qxe7 10. Bd3 (10. Nxe4 {obviously leads to
nothing, for if White captures the pawn on e4 he loses his b-pawn}) 10... Nxc3
{, with a very defendable game which resulted in a draw.' Then Black plays ...dxc4, ...b7-b6, ...Bb7 etc. --- It was because of the typical relieving
manoeuvre 8...Ne4! that White gradually came to reject 7 Rc1 c6 8 Qc2 in
favour of the immediate 7 Qc2.}) 9. a3 {The struggle for a tempo.} (9. a4 {was
also played (Game No.121)}) ({but the Capablanca-Alekhine match (1927) showed
that} 9. cxd5 $5 {is more promising (Game No.105).}) 9... h6 10. Bh4 ({Also
after} 10. Bf4 {good is} Re8 11. Bd3 dxc4 12. Bxc4 b5 {followed by ...Bb7 and ...c6-c5 (Alekhine-Capablanca, Buenos Aires 4th and 26th matchgames 1927).})
10... Re8 $1 ({'An important improvement on the line of play adopted by
Maróczy against Grünfeld in the Vienna tournament of 1922. This game continued
} 10... dxc4 11. Bxc4 b5 12. Ba2 Bb7 13. Bb1 Re8 14. Ne5 $1 Nf8 15. O-O {, and
White has far the better game.' (Alekhine)}) 11. Bd3 ({Little is changed by}
11. h3 dxc4 12. Bxc4 b5 13. Ba2 c5 {.}) ({If} 11. Rd1 {, then} b5 {is good
(Game No.126).}) ({But White can consider transposing into the Carlsbad
structure by} 11. cxd5 $5 exd5 (11... Nxd5 12. Bg3 $1) 12. Bd3 {.}) 11... dxc4
12. Bxc4 b5 13. Ba2 c5 14. Rd1 $6 ({Also unfavourable is} 14. dxc5 Nxc5 15. Bb1
(15. O-O Qd3 $1) 15... Bb7 $1 16. Bxf6 $6 Bxf6 17. Qh7+ Kf8 18. Nxb5 axb5 19.
Rxc5 Bxb2 {(Alekhine).}) ({However,} 14. O-O cxd4 (14... Qb6 $5) 15. exd4 {is
more natural, as played in Carlsbad 1923 by Réti and Grünfeld against
Teichmann.}) 14... cxd4 15. Nxd4 {(this would appear to involve a tactical
oversight)} Qb6 16. Bb1 Bb7 $1 17. O-O ({'White had apparently been intending}
17. Ndxb5 $6 axb5 $2 ({but here he noticed the refutation -} 17... Qc6 $3 18.
Nd4 {(forced)} Qxg2 {with a strong counterattack}) 18. Rxd7 {winning.'
(Alekhine)}) 17... Rac8 {Black has comfortably completed his development and
is now threatening 18...Be4 or 18...Ne4.} 18. Qd2 ({Inferior is} 18. Qe2 $6
Bxa3 19. Ncxb5 Bb4 $1 {.}) 18... Ne5 $1 {'This knight will occupy the square
c4, thereby fixing the weakness of the queenside, induced by 9 a3.' (Alekhine)}
19. Bxf6 {With the intention of exchanging the dangerous b7-bishop. However,
according to Alekhine, all White's trickery is no longer sufficient to
equalise.} Bxf6 20. Qc2 g6 {(not so much a defence against Qh7+ as a
preparation for ...Bg7)} 21. Qe2 Nc4 22. Be4 $1 Bg7 $1 {Avoiding a subtle trap;
} ({after} 22... Nxa3 $6 {Grünfeld had prepared} 23. Qf3 $1 Bxe4 24. Nxe4 Bxd4
25. exd4 {and 26 Nf6+, winning the exchange.}) 23. Bxb7 Qxb7 {(threatening 24...Nxa3)} 24. Rc1 e5 $1 {'This advance of the e-pawn will give Black's knight a
new outpost on d3, still more irksome for the opponent than its present
position.' (Alekhine)} 25. Nb3 e4 {(again threatening ...Nxa3)} 26. Nd4 Red8 $1
{(gradually supporting the knight's position at d3)} 27. Rfd1 Ne5 28. Na2 $6 {
'After this move, which removes the knight from the field of action, White is
definitely lost.} ({Comparatively better was} 28. f3 {, upon which Black would
have continued} exf3 2