Florian, Tibor - Defence and Counter-Attack 1983

TIBOR FLORIAN

..

CORVINA KIADO

Defence and Counter-Attack

PERGAMON CHESS SERTRS Executive Editor: MARTIN J. RICHARDSON General Editor: DAVID N. L. LEVY

ALEXANDER, C.H. O'D. & BEACH, T. J. Learn Chess: A New Way for All ASSIAC & O'CONNELL, K. Opening Preparation AVERBAKH, Y. Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge BARDEN, L. W. The Ruy Lopez: Winning Chess With 1P-K4 BELL, A. The Machine Plays Chess? CAFFERTY, B. & HOOPER, D. A Complete Defence to 1P-K4, Second Edition A Study of Petroff's Defence CAFFERTY, B. & HOOPER, D. A Complete Defence to 1d4 A Study of the Queen's Gambit Accepted DICKINS, A. S. M. & EBERT, H. 100 Classics of the Chessboard EVANS, L. The Chess Beat -GLIGORIC, S. & SOKOLOV, V. The Sicilian Defence, Book 1 HARDING, T. D. The Chess Computer Book HARTSTON, W. R. & REUBEN, S. London 1980: Phillips & Drew Kings Chess Tournament KEENE, R. The Chess Combination from Philidor to Karpov LEVY, D. N. L. Learn Chess from the World Champions MEDNIS,E. From the Opening into the Endgame PORTISCH, L. & SARKOZV, B. Six Hundred Endings VUKOVIC, V. The Art of Attack in Chess WINTER, E. G. World Chess Champions

TIBOR FLORIAN

Defence and Counter-Attack

CORVINA KIADO

Translated by Sandor Eszenyi Translation revised by Jerry Payne and Frank Boyd

© Tibor Fl6rian, 1965, 1983 ISBN 963 13 1685 8 This is a translation of the original Hungarian edition entitled vedekezes es e//entdmadtis published by Sport, Budapest, 1965 Published in co-operation with Pergamon Press, Oxford, New York

Contents Attack or Defence '! 1 General thoughts and a short historical review Different Kinds of Defence 5 Active and passive defence. Some definitions 5 Be Prepared! Preventive Defence 9 The Principle of Maximum Difficulty 13 Defence of Attacked Castled Positions 21 When both players castle on the same side 21 Avoid those weakening pawn moves! 21 Defence by moving the pawns defending the castled position 24 Pawn attack against short-side castled positions 31 Both players castle long 33 When the players have castled on opposite wings 34 Attack and Defence when the King Remains in the Centre 51 A Little Intermezzo: Attacks Other than those against the King 59 The Methods of Defence 64 Defence by material sacrifice aimed at changing the strategic character of the position 64 Defence by a tactical counter-blow 66 Defence by modification of the castled position 68 Defence by transition to an endgame 69 Defence by simplification (exchanging the attacking pieces) 71 Defence by closing a file 72 Self-defence by the king 74 Defence by setting traps 75 Defence by counter-attack on the other wing 76 Defence by sacrifice 77 The intermediate move (Zwischenzug) 78 The freeing move 79 Defence against Some Typical Attacks 81 The Pillsbury position 81 Knight sacrifice on f5 82 Defence against sacrifices in the Caro-Kann 84 Defence against the attack with an isolated pawn on d4 87 Defence against minority attacks 90 Postscript. Methodological Recommendations 94 Bibliography 95 Index of Players 96

v

Attack or Defence? attack is futile without good defence. Attack and defence are strategically related aspects Should we play attacking or defensive chess? of the game of chess, particularly in the middle Which is the more elegant, which the more game, and they are inseparably linked. purposeful? Tournament players pond~r Balancing attack with defence is, of course, over these and similar questions just as much not only done for aesthetic reasons. It is as ordinary chess enthusiasts. The answer also done as a response to such questions as depends to a certain extent on temperament, which is more to the point, which is more useindividual preference, talent and many other ful, which is easier, or which is more difficult? Looked at from this angle, the answer defactors. It would seem, however, fairly certain pends perhaps even more on the player's that for all the admiration aroused by the temperament, ft.air and taste. Certainly, the spectacular feat of defence, the hearts of majority would opt for attack. ~·we attack most chess players beat fastest when the because we like to, we defend because we names of the great attacking players, such have to," wrote the late American chess as Anderssen, Morphy, Alekhine, Keres, writer, Fred Reinfeld, in his book dedicated Bronstein or Tai, are mentioned. to defence. As a rule, we do what we like The rich imagination of these great mas- better than what we are compelled to do. ters, their daring combinations, and spec- "No game has ever been won by defence tacular sacrifices, have captivated contempor- alone,'' add the protagonists of attack. Dearies andsucceeding generations. Nimzowitsch fence, the repulsion of an attack, generally believed that great defensive players were only leads to restoration of the balance. numerically in a minority. Of the names Unless defence is followed by counter-attack, mentioned by him, only Steinitz and Lasker the game will end in a draw. Of course, any were widely known, whilst the rest (Bum, player is justly proud of achieving a wellDuras and others) are only remembered by a fought draw, and half a point in competition handful of experts. It is also characteristic chess is better than none at all. Even so, that when a great attacker emerges (for most chess players regard defence, to a instance grandmaster Tal) people are so certain extent, as passive, since it is the atimpressed by the superiority that they tend tacker who determines the course of the game to talk of a new style. But this is a subjective and the direction of events, in both the short conclusion. It was Tai himself who referred and long term. The defender will have to adto those players, contemporary and past, just his moves, plans and methods according who had iµft.uenced him and who played to what the attacker does. The latter seems in a style similar to his own. free to choose between a number of differ.:. While popular opinion unequivocally pre- ent possibilities, while the defender's game fers the attacking game, when it comes to is dictated to him. For this reason the attacker aesthetic effect it must be remembered that is psychologically in a more favourable situGeneral thoughts and a short historical review

Defence and Counter-Attack ation: he is confident that he will soon develop his superior position into a victory, he is optimistic, his imagination is stimulated by the attractive combinative prospects unfolding in the course of his attack. The defender, on the other hand, occasionally becomes dispirited and dejected by the realization of his handicap, and the repeated, increasing threats wear away at his resistance. He cannot concentrate satisfactorily or for long enough, he loses his patience or his belief in the defensibility of the position, he makes an error and he loses. This is the reason why most chess players, from grandmasters to "amateurs" who . only play for the fun of it, regard defence to be more difficult than attack. The talents demanded by a successful defence: steadiness, patience, obstinacy, coolness, presence of mind, protracted concentration, unfailing alertness, all these are rarer talents and more difficult to develop than the combinative ability needed for attack. This latter often emerges at an early age, and is one of the most essential, perhaps even the most essential element in the game of chess. It is not for nothing that attack and defence are, as a rule, evaluated differently, depending on the player's age. Young people usually go all out for attack. In their often unbalanced eagerness to do this they frequently lose their heads and their patience when their opponent in his turn launches an attack. More mature people, on the other hand, find much pleasure in studying the games of the great defenders, and prefer to analyse attacking games from the point of view of whether the attack was really irresistible, even in the face of some other, more effective defence. In addition, they tend to go for the quieter, more considered lines in their own games. It is commonplace, indeed nowadays essential, for young, aggressive players to steady down and acquire the art of positional play

and defence. The leading chess players of our age are generally many-faceted artists with a wide variety of strengths. One-sidedness is unquestionably detrimental to success. It is no surprise, therefore, that one of the greatest attacking players of all times, grandmaster Keres, the chess-idol of many enthusiasts, wrote an essay on the defence of difficult positions. He is perhaps the best example of how a young man, who first attracted attention with flamboyant attacking feats and sharp sacrifices, gradually perfected his positional play, endgame technique and defence. The full armoury of chess can be found in his games. In the interests of truth, however, it should be noted that, according to the latest and most advanced theory, the chess player need not strive for attack at any cost so much as seek the initiative. He should try to decide the course of the game's development and force his will onto his opponent. This, in any given case, may also mean that he does not let his opponent attack, that he manages the opening in such a way that it prevents the opponent from getting tactical chances, from creating baffiing complications and confusing positions. From this point of view these preventive measures are certainly not passive, they conform with the principle of initiative. But there is no doubt that the concept of initiative generally relates to that of attack and activity, and not to that of defence.

*

The maturing process whereby a fiery youngster, endeavouring to attack in all his games, gradually settles down, is commonplace in the history of chess. In the heroic age of the game, up to the end of the nineteenth century and the appearance of Stei.ajtz on the scene, the world of chess was dominated by what the literature termed the romantic trend. This style began with an almost medieval code of chivalry. The attacks were not carefully prepared, the in-

2

Attack or Defence? herent dangers were not weighed up, and the players did not overtly care about the security of their king. They often and gladly sacrificed pawns and pieces alike, with the aim of creating utmost confusion. Acceptance of the sacrifice was almost obligatory, simplification was regarded as shameful retreat, play being guided not by reason and logic, but by the flourish of the imagination. Surprise attacks and combinations often came about as a result of the defence either having been neglected or its importance underestimated. Attacks were considered to have been the product of genius, not the consequence of the position reached on the board, of thoughtlessly weakened points, open lines, and the number of other strategic errors which smoothed the way for the attacker and eased his task. Adolf Anderssen, winner of the first international chess tournament, the London tournament of 1851, was the hero of this era. Following his victory, contemporaries regarded his romantic and combinative style as superior to the quieter, positional play adopted by some players since Philidor and which was represented at that famous tournament, inter alia, by the Englishman Howard Staunton. It was Paul Morphy who usurped Anderssen's sovereignty in chess. This young American was also an attacking player, yet he introduced a further, higher phase of development. His attacks were no longer the product of a free, ill-disciplined imagination, nor the result of adventure and the fortunes of war. His games show that during a career of but a few years, Morphy had recognized the importance of a number of strategic principles, primarily those of the development of advantage and superiority in the centre. His opponents, mostly still adherents of the old, romantic style, were simply unable to resist this attacking technique, based as it was on superior strategic principles, which they were incapable of countering.

The first World Champion, Wilhelm Steinitz, was the one who initiated the great change in the concept of attack and defence. Steinitz had thoroughly analysed the brilliant attacking games of the combinativeromantic style, and found that the attack! often succeeded by the negative virtue of poor defence. Steinitz saw chess as a function of the balance of forces on the board, and he accordingly raised defence to a status of full equality. It was inconceivable to him that any attack could be successful if it was met by adequate counter-measures in the right place and at the right time. By working out the strategy of positional play and defence Steinitz became the founder of the modern approach to chess. One of Steinitz's important conclusions is that an attack can only succeed if the attacker has an advantage. This can be temporary or lasting. An advantage in mobility frequently disappears after a few moves, but the strong and weak points resulting from the pawn structure are more permanent. One should endeavour to increase these lesser or greater advantages and sooner or later there will develop a superiority of power which permits a combination. The one who has the advantage should attack, while the other should concentrate on defence. He should eliminate weaknesses right away and not wait until a crisis arises. While defending, he should pay constant attention to the principle of economy, that is, as far as the elements of time and force are concerned, he should expend as little of these as possible on fending off the opponent's threats. If the defender thus adapts to the character of the position and to the inner logic of the defence, then, according to Steinitz, he will have no reason to despair and can confidently oppose even the most perfect of attacks. This is not the place for a detailed account of Steinitz's revolutionary theories. The best analyst of his ideas and his successor on the 3

Defence and Counter-Attack throne of

~

Ever since Steinit7., defence has had a value equal to that of attack, and the study of the techniques and methods of defence is just as necessary to the chess players of our age as familiarity with the most frequent mating positions or combinative motifs.

World Cham.pion£hip was:

Lasker. He, along with Tarrasch and all of the other great chess players around the tum of the century and beyond, were disciples of Steinitz. With some, for example Tarrasch, his teachings were turned sometimes into dogmas. Others, such as the members of the Soviet school of chess, enriched Steinitz's findings with valuable innovations.

4

Different Kinds of Defence Acti'fe and passive defence. Some definitions

he could prevent the execution of our attacking plans. This is only possible if we are acquainted with the techniques of defence. The reverse is also tme: we must recognize the clouds that are charged with lightning, the gathering storm of the attack, we must foresee the threat and know how the opponent's forces can approach our position. In short, we must know everything about attack in order to build a successful defence. The comparatively limited number of books on the subject use a number of terms to distinguish the various kinds of defence. The Austrian master, Hans Kmoch, whose work "The Art of Defonce" was one of the first. on the subject, distinguished between passive, active, aggressive, automatic and philosophical defence. Reuben Fine, obviously following some other basis of distinction, also talks of "useless" defence. Otherwise, many of the authors distinguish only between good and bad defence, and group their illustrations accordingly. In his time, Nimzowitsch dealt in detail with preventive defence (prophylaxis) and over-protection, that is the reinforcement of strategically important squares. As far as we are concerned, we agree with the opinion of the Soviet master, I. Kan, according to which it is enough to talk about active and passive defence at the present stage of development in defence theory. Apart from that, we also accept the distinction of the Yugoslav expert, V. Vukovic, who talks of direct and indirect defence. The defending party applies direct defence on those sections of the front where the opponent's threats are apparent, while the creation of counter-

Although we have regarded defence, in the wake of Steinitz's concepts, as a completely legitimate strategic process for more than a hundred years, its literature is rather meagre. This also holds true, to a certain extent, for middlegame literature. This is because games are typically classified by their openings, even though the substance of the middlegames deriving from various openings may be identical or at least similar. Thus, for instance, the Queen's Gambit Accepted, the Panov variation of the Caro-Kann, the SemiTarrasch Defence to the Queen's Gambit, the Nimzo-Indian can all lead to a middlegame where White's advantage in space and attacking chances on the K-side are compensated by Black's counterplay against the isolated d-pawn. Even works which deal with attack as well as defence usually treat the former more thoroughly. An example is the book by the excellent Austrian theoretician, Hans Miiller, "Attack and Defence", in which he dedicates some 130pagestoattackand a mere 15 to defence. Similar disproportions can be observed with other authors as well. Nonetheless, this situation is not really so bad, and we should not condemn the authors for it. Attack and defence are so closely interwoven that it is impossible to analyse one of them without studying the other. Or, putting it in the vernacular of the chess player: in order to ensure the success of our attack, we have to evaluate the resistance of the opponent's position, we must see in advance how

5

Defence and Counter-Attack tJ>.reats on some other part of the board is caQ.ed indirect defence. The former corresponds more or less to passive, the latter to active defence. ~ssing the subject it becomes quite clear ·~at active and passive defence essentially epcompass all kinds of defence. On the other hand, in practice the defending player uses both methods equally, even during a single game. He might apply passive defence for a while, limiting himself to fending off his opponent's threats, then gradually create counter-thrC4ts and swing into counterattack. Obviously we cannot categorically declare that active defence is of a higher order or that we should conduct an active defence in every position, however, much activity and initiative are among the major principles of modem chess attitudes. The choice of the mode of defence is always the prerogative of the defending party, depending on the character of the attack. We h~ve to apply one defence against an attack led by pieces, another against storming pawns, and yet another when the basis of the opponent's initiative is generated by positional pressure or a strongly entrenched piece. It is advisable to connect the meeting of threats as far as possible with the preparation of the counter-attack, in other words to conduct the defence as actively as circumstances allow. But often passive defence also leads to success, even victory. It is not infrequent for the attacker himself to become weak in the course of the attack. Perhaps his pawns advance too far and are unable to provide adequate defence for his king's position, or the majority of his pieces are lined up on one sector of the board, leaving other parts defenceless. If the attack does not reach its objectives on such occasions, owing either to the accurate play of the defender or to mistakes on the part of the attacker, then it is often impossible to salvage even half a point, since the attacker is destroyed by the

weaknesses developed in the course of his own attack. In that event it is enough to ward off the direct threats, perhaps to effect some simplification, and the resulting endgame will be hopeless for the attacker! In what follows we shall mainly be studying practical examples, again following the concept of the Soviet master, Kan. The theory of the middlegame is still insufficiently developed for it to be reasonable to formulate general rules. Such rules involve the dangerous possibility that readers might mechanically memorize them instead of actually studying the position reached on the board. There is yet another pitfall we try to avoid. The remarks and advice that are to be found in some chess books are, to a certain degree, of a general character, suggesting good conduct rather than giving practical guidance. They are hints of the nature that we should "prepare a plan", "be circumspect in the execution of the plan", "not drop our guard even in a favourable position", "the devil and the opponent is eternally vigilant", etc. Of course, these reasonable admonitions have as much validity and are of as much use in chess as they are in other areas of life, but they do not exhaust the correlations of the ancient struggle fought out over a board with 64 squares and involving 32 pieces. Some chess authors have gone to the other extreme: they analyse individual moves and sequences exhaustively, cite masses of variations, but fail to deduce general conclusions. They state that one move is good, another bad, but they do not explain why. They lay too much emphasis on aspects of technique and neglect those of didactics, psychology or philosophy. Often one cannot see the wood for the trees with this method of treatment. We believe that we must try to reconcile both of these methods. In the course of studying defence we find that there are many valid propositions which can also be found in military strategy. But 6

Different Kinds of Defence this does not excuse us from actually analysing the details of defending against possible mating attacks on h2 or h7, introduced by a typical bishop sacrifice. Conversely, if we find why it is that the seemingly effective defence of the castled position by moving a pawn to h3 (or h6) is detrimental, then we should also draw the appropriate conclusions. It is not always easy to define the terms relating to chess strategy and tactics. The debate on the definition of the concept "combination", for instance, went on for years, and it has not yet been concluded. The definition of defence is relatively simple: defence is the repulse of an attack. However, in order to understand this definition, we also need to define the concept of attack. If we aim one of our moves against one of our opponent's pawns or pieces, that is, if we are threatening to capture it with our next move, or if we line up our forces concentrating on an important square with the intention of taking possession of it, then we say we are attacking the piece or the square in question. Yet attack, as a strategic process, is more than that, particularly in the middlegame. We conduct an attack when we produce several consecutive threats in order to reach a definite target, even if we occasionally interpose some "quiet", preparatory moves or manoeuvres. The aim is to check mate the opponent's king, or to acquire such a decisive advantage in material or position that the eventual attainment of this primary aim is secured. On the basis of the foregoing, the definition of attack could be this: attack is the sequence of moves connected by a consistent plan and aim, whereby we acquire a decisive advantage once the obstacles in the way of the attack are overcome. In general it is held that there are two conditions for the success of an attack: 1. There must be some weakness in the opponent's position which dictates the direction of the attack. If there is no such weakness

at the time the attack is launched, we must be sure that we will be able to force the creation of such weak points in the course of, or as a result of, the attack. 2. The attacker's forces must have an overwhelming superiority on that part of the board where the attack is aimed, or it must be calculated in advance that the attacker can concentrate greater forces in the chosen area than the defender can. Naturally, sufficient strength of one's own position is also a preliminary to launching a successful attack, since it deprives the opponent of any chance of staging a successful counter-attack. One of the criteria for this is a solid centre. Many people rightly analyse the defence by reversing the principles of attack. Preventing the development of weak points or their exploitation if they already exist (e.g. exchanging an isolated pawn, etc.), and reducing the opponent's material superiority on the endangered section of the front by exchanging off hostile pieces or by regrouping the defending forces, are also considered to be preconditions of effective defence. Attacks develop, as a rule, in the direction of some weakness. There may therefore be as many different kinds as there are different kinds of weakness. It is possible to capture an adventurous piece by means of a longterm attacking manoeuvre, or to occupy important squares in the vicinity of the defensive line. Yet, because the king is the most important and yet most limited piece as far as mobility is concerned, the attack is most frequently directed against the position of the king (mating attack). For this reason, we shall give prominence to the study of defending such attacks. The counter-attack is, in fact, an indirect form of defence. Here the defender becomes the attacker. Thus it needs no separate definition. Two kinds of counter-attack are possible. 7

Defence and Counter-Attack 1. The defender first parries the threats and enters into the counter-attack afterwards. 2. The counter-attack develops simultaneously with the attack, in order to force the withdrawal of the attacking forces into defence. Attacks are also distinguished by the forces employed by the attacker. If he uses exclusively (or predominantly) pieces for attaining his goal, we talk of an attack by pieces. If he sends his pawns into the offensive, then a pawn attack ensues. The most frequent mating attack comes about when both players castle on the same wing, usually on the K-side. In such an event the main method used is the piece attack. Castling on opposite sides is also quite common, particularly as a consequence of the modem handling of the opening (some variations of the Sicilian and the King's Indian defences). When this is the case, the pawn charge is the predominant method of attack. The main chapter of our

book discusses possible methods of defence against the latter and this is where the theme of counter-attack is encountered most frequently. When castling is carried out on the same side, we will learn the various methods of defence, and when castling is done on opposite sides, we will mainly see examples of counter-attack (sometimes called "simultaneous counter-attack", or play over the whole board, etc.). The pawn attack when both players have castled on the same side, and the piece attack when they have castled on opposite sides, are treated as comparatively rarer occurrences. Before we discuss our major subject, the attack on the castled position, we will introduce the difficult task of defence in some general chapters and we will finish our book with a few chapters on the question of which defensive methods should be employed against the various forms of attack.

8

Be Prepared! Preventive Defence we frequently make moves whose profit will become clear later, as the opponent's plans take shape. This is why we try to develop rapidly and secure the harmonious cooperation of our forces, this is why we endeavour to take a firm stand in the centre and avoid the development of weak points in our positions. The position shown below develops in one of the main variations of the King's Indian Defence, which is currently so popular, after the following sequence of moves:

It follows from Steinitz's teaching and the foregoing that defence comes into play when one of the parties has a disadvantage in some area. The best thing, therefore, is to maintain strength, as far as possible all the time, to prevent the opponent from gaining an advantage in the first place. This is more easily said than done because of the limitations of the human mind. Still, we will give a few examples, first where the player, recognizing the impending danger well in time and seeing the direction of the opponent's possible attack, reinforces the threatened section of the front-line before the attack actually develops. If then the opponent does not give up his intention, the defender has sufficient forces to repel it and then perhaps to launch a counter-attack in some other area of the board. If the opponent attacks on one of the wings, the scene of the counter-attack will, as a rule, be on the' other wing or in the centre, whence the enemy forces were siphoned off in order to mount the attack. From this arises a rule of the middlegame (perhaps the only one to allow no exceptions): a successful flank attack is only possible when the centre is secure. Or, looking at it from the point of view of the defender: if the enemy threatens an attack on the flank, we should not close the centre; if it is already closed, we should endeavour to open it (the centre is regarded as closed when the pawns are "interlocking", e.g. when White's pawns are on c4, d5, e4, and Black's on c5, d6 and e5). These preventive measures are also called "defence in an equal position" by some chess writers. As a matter of fact, in the opening stages, when the game's foundations are laid;

1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3 Nc3 Bg7 4 e4 d6 5 Nf3 0-0 6 Be2 e5 7 0-0 Nc6 8 d5 Ne7 9 Net Nd7

The outlines of Black's impending attack are becoming clear from the pawn structure and his last knight moves (with 8. . . Ne7 the queen's knight is directed towards the K-side, and with 9 ... Nd7 the King's knight moves out of the f-pawn's way). Since the centre is closed, it is feasible to attack on the wing. Black sometimes obtains a decisive attack with f7-f5-f4 then ... g5-g4 and a pawn sacrifice on g3, combined with ... Nf6, ... Ng6 and ... Rf6-g6 (or ... Rf6-h6). White's defence is impeded by the lack of 9

Defence and Counter-Attack room that results on the K-side. Therefore it is sensible to take measures against this before the attack develops. The seemingly startling move 10 g4! was played for the first time in a game between the Hungarians Sandor and Gereben during the 8th Hungarian Championship in 1952. After 10 ... f5 11 f3 ! (the move-order 10 f3 f5 11 g4 has become more customary, as for instance in Gipslis-Gufeld, 31st U .S.S.R. Championship, 1963) it turns out that Black can no longer achieve the attack described above. There is a satisfactory defence open for White on the K-side, whether Black opens a file with ... fX g4 or keeps the position closed. The moves 9 Nel 10 g4 and 11 f3 are therefore links in a well-considered defensive manoeuvre. Black was determined to keep up the attack and opted for a piece sacrifice in both of the games quoted, but he failed to gain sufficient compensation and lost. In the Gipslis-Gufeld game, Black continued with 11 . . . Nf6 12 Nd3 Kh8. Instead, he could have executed a preventive defensive manoeuvre on the Q-side similar to that of his opponent by 12 ... c5 then .. . a6, ... b6 and ... Ra7 (or ... Qc7 and .. . Bd7) in order to ward off any Q-side attack that could be started with a pawn charge. A Portisch-Taimanov game (BudapestLeningrad, 1959) :finished in a draw after very similar moves. If necessary, White could render his Kside even more "airtight" with h2-h4 and g4-g5. It should be noted for the sake of completeness that yet another method is available to White for preventing Black from playing ... f7-f5-f4, viz. 10 Be3 f5 11 e X f5 gXf5 12 f4!. Here too the aim of the preventive defence is to stop Black from gaining additional ground. Black would also acquire an advantage in time, as well as space, on 10 Be3 f5 11 f3 f4 when his pawn, by attacking the bishop, advances with gain of tempo.

10

Mason -

Cbigorin

London, 1883

The above position arose after White's 25th move. Here too White is trying to attack on the K-side. Black has already carried out the preventive measures ... Kh8. Now he does not stand idly by, waiting for the storm, but initiates a counter-action in the centre. 25 ... d5! 26 h4 d4 27 exd4 exd4 28 g5 The immediate 28 h5 was better, since the advance . . . g5 would weaken f5 and after 29 Nf5 Black would get into difficulties. Any other move by Black would allow the opening of the h-file. 28 ••. Qg7 29 b5 Kg8 Black is putting up a calm and collected defence, allowing his queen to be driven into a passive position because he realizes that this passivity is of a temporary nature. Moreover, in this way Black avoids the opening of the important h and g-files. 30 h6 Qb8 White has apparently attained a considerable advantage, since he has pushed back Black's forces. A deeper analysis of the position, however, shows that White's attack has faded, and the temporary passivity of Black's pieces can be remedied by opening the ffile, and by getting rid of the pawn on g5. 31 Qd2 f6! 32 Qf4 fXgS 33 Qd6 White must seek complications, because after 33 QXg5. Ne5 34 Nxe5 RXfl+ 35

Be Prepared! :Preventive Deien