Morphy to Botwinnik

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

CHESS FROM

MORPHY

BOTWINNIK

TO

A CENTURY OF CHESS EVOLUTION by

IMRE KONIG

LONDON

G.

BELL & SONS, LTD 1951

Printed in Great Britain by Cheltenham Press Ltd., Cheltenham

PREFACE THE idea of dealing historically with the development of Chess occurred to me some time ago, but the difficulty of writing a book of this nature soon became apparent. After several unsuccessful attempts the solution to this problem suddenly came upon me: to show how the masters of the past and present have tried to take up the fight for the centre, which is the fundamental idea of Chess.

As there is no Public Chess Library I should have found difficulty in obtaining the necessary material for this book but for the help of E. G. R. Cordingley' s unique library and for the generous loan of books by Messrs. F. W. Alien, B ruce Hayden and Robin J. R. Hayward. I was fortunate in finding a number of excellent helpers: first the late A. N. Booth, later D. Castello, Robin J. R. Hayward D. B. Pritchard and Miss Anne Sunnucks to all of whom I am most grateful for help in remodelling the original manuscript and Mr. Hayward for reading and correcting the proofs. ,

September, 1950

I.K.

CONTENTS page xiii

INTRODUCTION

PART I

Game

Page

THE RUY LOPEZ

1

Chapter I WHITE ATTEMPTS IMI\fEDIATE CONQUEST OF THE CENTRE

2

Morphy's treatment (as White) Morphy's treatment (as Black) Alekhine's attempt to revive the classical attack

1. Morphy-Lowenthal 2. Barnes-Morphy

5

3. Alekhine-Keres

7

Chapter 11 WHITE KEEPS THE CENTRE CLOSED Anderssen's treatment . . Steinitz' treatment (as White)White holds the centre and advances on the King's side .

4. Anderssen-Max Lange 5. Steinitz-Lasker

.

Chapter Ill THE BERLIN DEFENCE Early Beginnings The Modern Continuation Schlechter's Treatment

8 10

12 13

7. Schlechter-Reti

14

8. Lasker-Steinitz 9. Bernstein-Lasker 10. Pillsbury-Bardeleben 11. Euwe-Capablanca . .

Chapter V THE STEINITZ DEFENCE DEFERRED Blackburne's Treatment Black establishes a stronghold in the centre-Schlechter's Treatment

8

6. Winawer-Lasker

Chapter IV THE STEINITZ DEFENCE Steinitz' Treatment Lasker's Contribution White chooses an attacking for­ mation-The Showalter Con­ tinuation Capablanca's Contribution

2

16 17 18 20 21

23

12. Mackenzie-Blackburne

23

13. Teichmann-Schlechter

25

vii

CONTENTS White tries to restrict Black's development on the King's side-Capablanca's Defensive Method Black foils White's attempt at simplification - Alekhine's Treatment Bogoljubov's Contribution The Modern Continuation White defers the Fight for the Centre . . Steinitz' Defence System Alekhine's Continuation The Siesta Variation The Duras Variation Black holds the centre-Alek­ hine's Defensive Method Black Eases the Tension in the Centre-Capablanca's Defen­ sive Method Black Holds the Centre-The Modern Continuation Conclusions

Game

14. Romanovsky-Capablanca

27

15. Stoltz-Alekhine 16. Yates-Bogoljubov . .

29 30

17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

32 32 34 35 36 37

Marco-Steinitz Sergeant-Alekhine Reti-Capablanca Euwe-Keres Book-Andersen

22. Keres-Alekhine

38

23. Keres-Capablanca . .

40

24. Keres-Reshevsky

41 42

Chapter VI THE TcHIGORIN DEFENCE Early Beginnings The Modern Form of the Tchigo­ rin Defence White Keeps the Centre Open­ Lasker's Treatment . . Rubinstein Improves the Defence White Plays for a King's Side Attack-Rubinstein's Defence White Maintains the Tension in the Centre-Keres' Contribu­ tion Black Chooses an Active Defen­ sive System - Tchigorin's Continuation . . Later Trends in the Tchigorin Defence - The Bogoljubov Variation The Modern Continuation of the Tchigorin Defence The Modern Continuation (for White)-The Rauser System White Resumes the Fight for the Centre-The Worrall Attack

Page

43

25. Lasker-Tchigorin

43

26. Duras-Tchigorin

45

27. Lasker-Tarrasch 28. Leonhardt-Rubinstein

47 49

29. Bogoljubov-Rubinstein

50

30. Keres-Reshevsky . .

52

31. Schlechter-Tchigorin 32. Luckis-Najdorf

54 56

33. Euwe-Keres

57

34. Alexander-Keres

59

35. Rauser-Rumin

61

36. Lasker-Teichmann

63

viii

CONTENTS Game 37. Fine-Keres . . 38. Alekhine-Keres

Keres' Continuation Alekhine's Treatment Conclusions

Page 64 67 70

PART 11 THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT

73

Chapter VII THE ORTHODOX DEFENCE The Orthodox Defence of the 19th Century Steinitz' Treatment Pillsbury's Treatment The Modern Continuation against the Fianchetto in the Orthodox Defence The Modern Form of the Ortho­ dox Defence-Lasker's Treat­ ment Showalter's Continuation Rubinstein's Continuation-The Tempo Struggle System Capablanca's Freeing Manceuvre Capablanca's Contribution (with White) Bogoljubov's Contribution Alekhine's Preventive System Lasker's Defensive System Conclusions

74

39. Steinitz-Anderssen 40. Pillsbury-Schiffers

74 74 75

41 . Alekhine-Cuckiermann

77

42. Steinitz-Lasker 43. Pillsbury-Showalter 44. Pillsbury-Showalter

78 81 83

45. Rubinstein-Maroczy 46. Marshall-Capablanca

84 85

47. 48. 49. 50.

87 89 91 94 95

Capablanca-Steiner Bogoljubov-Thomas Alekhine-Capablanca Alekhine-Lasker

Chapter VIll THE EXCHANGE VARIATION OF THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT The Minority Attack in the Exchange Variation-Early Beginnings Capablanca Revives the Minority Attack Alekhine Chooses a Better Defensive Formation Flohr's Treatment The Defence System to the Minority Attack-Capablanca's Defensive System The Modified Capablanca Defence System . . Heterogeneous Castling in the Ex­ change Variation-Reshevsky's Treatment

96

51. Steinitz-Lee

96

52. Capablanca-Alekhine

98

53. Capablanca-Alekhine 54. Flohr-Euwe

100 101

55. Alekhine-Capablanca

103

56. Najdorf-Eliskases

104

57. Reshevsky-Stahlberg ix

. . 106

CONTENTS

Game

Page

Chapter IX THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED The Queen's Gambit Accepted in 58. de la BourdonnaisMcDonnell . . the Last Century 59. de la BourdonnaisWhite Plays for a King's Side Attack McDonnell .. Staunton's Treatment . . 60. Saint-Amant-Staunton Morphy Defends the Queen's 61. Harrwitz-Morphy . . Gambit The Steinitz Variation-Steinitz 62. Zukertort-Steinitz Establishes his System Steinitz Improves his System . 63. Pillsbury-Steinitz White Builds up an Attacking Formation-Schlechter's Continuation 64. Schlechter-Tchigorin .

109 109 111 113 115 118 120 .. 122

Chapter X THE 8TEINITZ VARIATION IN MODERN TIMES The Steinitz Variation by Transposition from the Caro-Kann Defence Lasker's Treatment By Transposition from the Ortho­ dox Defence - Botwinnik's Continuation . . Capablanca's Treatment

124

65. Botwinnik-Euwe . . 66. Lasker-Reshevsky

124 126

67. Botwinnik-Vidmar 68. Flohr-Capablanca

128 129

Chapter XI THE Q uEEN's GAMBIT AccEPTED IN MoDERN TIMES Alekhine's Defence System Euwc's Continuation Botwinnik's Treatment . . Conclusions

69. Euwe-Alekhine 70. Euwe-Alekhine 71. Botwinnik-Keres

131 131 133 134 136

PART Ill THE ENGLISH OPENING

137

Chapter XII THE ENGLISH OPENING IN THE LAST CENTURY The English Opening in the Last Century The English Opening as Played in the London Tournament, 1851

72. Staunton-Saint-Amant 73. Staunton-Horwitz X

138 138 . . 140

CONTENTS Game 74. Wyvill-Lowe 75. Wyvill-Kennedy 76. Anderssen-Morphy

Wyvill's Treatment Anderssen's Continuation Conclusions

Page 142 144 146 148

Chapter XIII THE ENGLISH OPENING IN MODERN TIMES Nimzovitch's Contribution Flohr's Treatment The Four Knights' System in the English Opening-White Aims at Immediate Conquest of the Centre-Reti's Contributions The Modern Continuation The Modern Form of the English Opening-Mason's Continuation Alekhine's Continuation Golombek's Continuation Black Adopts a Safer Defensive System . . Rubinstein's Defensive System Conclusions

149

77. Nimzovitch-Spielmann 78. Flohr-Landau

149 151

79. Reti-Przepiorka 80. Reti-Griinfeld 81. Botwinnik-Levenfish

153 155 156

82. Mason-Mieses 83. Alekhine-Tarrasch 84. Golombek-Cruz

157 159 161

85. Flohr-Kashdan 86 . Nimzovitch-Rubinstein

163 164 166

PART IV THE KING'S GAMBIT

167

Chapter XIV THE KING's GAMBIT AccEPTED The Kieseritzky Gambit The Berlin Defence Morphy Strengthens the Attack The Paulsen Defence Blackburne's Contribution The Modern Continuation of the Kieseritzky Gambit . . The Classical Defence . .

The Cunningham Gambit (re­ vived) The Bishop's Gambit

87. 88. 89. 90. 91.

Anderssen-Kieseritzky Rosanes-Anderssen Morphy-Medley Steinitz-Zukertort Steinitz-Schlechter

168 168 170 171 172 174

92. Stoltz-Samisch 93. The Gambit of Greco 94. Spielmann-Griinfeld

175 177 178

95. Kramer-Euwe 96. Spielmann-Bogoljubov

179 181

xi

CONTENTS

Game

Page

Chapter XV THE KING's GAMBIT AccEPTED IN MoDERN TIMES The Modern Defence to the King's Gambit 97. Rubinstein's Continuation 98. The Latest Trend in the King's Gambit 99. Bronstein's Treatment . . 100.

182

Schallop-Paulsen Hubinstein-Yates

182 184

Santasiere-Levin Bronstein-Ragosin

186 187

Chapter XVI THE KING's GAMBIT DECLINED Morphy's Continuation Spielmann's Contribution Reti's Continuation

101. Morphy-Boden 102. Spielmann-Tarrasch lOB. Stoltz-Spielmann

189 189 191 193

Chapter XVII THE KING'S GAMBIT DECLINED (CONTD.) The Falkbeer Counter Gambit . . Morphy's Continuation 104. Schulten-Morphy White Adopts a Safer Line 105. Schulten-Morphy Tarrasch's Contribution 106. Spielmann-Tarrasch Keres' Continuation 107. Castaldi-Trifunovic Conclusions

194 194 195 196 197 198 200 201

SuMMING UP

xii

INTR ODUCTION WHAT is chess technique? Does it really exist or are we merely playing with words when we refer to it? Many an experienced player will profess a disbelief in the conception and then, almost in the same breath, will go on to discuss whether the great Paul Morphy would have been able to hold his own in a modern tournament; thereby admitting the existence of fundamental differences between past and present standards and methods of play. What kind of changes has, in fact, taken place? The object of this book is to trace the evolution of technique through the course of the last hundred years within the framework of the major openings. Capablanca writes in his Primer of Chess . . . Fundamental strategic principles never change, though their mode of application may not always be the same . . . . ' Here is the key to all that we mean when we speak of technique. In chess we deal with the elements of force, space and time, represented respectively by the varying powers of the pieces, the chess-board with its arbitrary dimensions and inherent attributes and limitations, and the movements of the pieces on this board. '

These are fundamentals of chess; unchanging, unchangeable. As our study of the game progresses we learn more of its many strengths and weaknesses, examples of which are doubled pawns, open lines, etc. Here we have the strategic principles of the game. They cannot be altered; we merely strive to learn more about them. But how do we apply our knowledge? Here time brings changes. As we come to know more about fundamental principles, our practical methods become transformed. Masters study and absorb the knowledge of their forerunners, and out of the experience of the past forge their own practical tournament weapons. How to attack-how to defend-how to win a won game-all this is technique. We shall define technique, then, as 'the practical application of known strategic principles.' Clearly, as more becomes known of the unchanging principles of strategy, technique will progress. Tarrasch pointed out that de la Bourdonnais failed at least once to win simple ending of Rook and two pawns against Rook, through lack of technique. Evidence of how technique has progressed is given by the fact that, nowadays, such endings are won by the most ordinary players as a matter of routine. Only if we correctly interpret the principles of strategy, can we devise a sound technique. Mistakes have been made in the past; there has been many a deviation into a blind alley, many a false step, but the sum movement of the technique of the game has been perceptibly forward. A considerable time may elapse before the discoveries of a pioneer become common property. As we look back we realize that de la Bour­ donnais and Morphy have exerted a great influence on the progress of the game; yet Lasker speaks of an era after their time as a sort of "dark age,' a period of relapse. And, indeed, surprising as it may seem, for a long a

xiii

INTRODUCTION time their successors not only did not progress beyond the ideas of these masters, but failed even to understand and assimilate their contributions to the game. When we speak of absorbing previous la;lowledge we, as ordinary players, should not, in the first place, expect to be able to do this for ourselves. The ridicule accorded Steinitz and Nimzovitcb during the greater part of the ir careers shows that not even the greatest contempo­ raries of the truly inventive masters are always able to grasp the ideas at once. What happens is that, slowly but surely, the less-inventive masters, playing regularly in tournaments, experiment with the new ideas. When these ideas have withstood the searching test of tournament play, they become better understood, and finally, common knowledge. This process was surprisingly slow in the last century and in the early years of this one. The fact is, that the ti·uly inventive masters did not surpass the other masters as players, so that the importance of their ideas was not quickly realized. An example is the case of Lasker and Steinitz. Lasker was the great player par excellence; Steinitz the great thinker. Distinctly superior to Steinitz as a player, Lasker himself has explained how he learned from Steinitz, and was able to put the latter's ideas into practice in tournament play. This the more temperamental Steinitz was never able to do with any measure of success. It is not surprising, there­ fore, that the lesser contemporaries of Steinitz were slow in appreciating his ideas, particularly as the competitive nature of the game serves to obscure the evolutionary tendencies. To illustrate the different approach of the older masters to the game, we have selected characteristic examples from the past as well as the present. They are considered together so that they can be readily com­ pared. As we are to deal with the evolution of opening and middle game technique, we have tried to analyze the games of the earlier masters from two points of view: ( 1 ) Embracing the ideas underlying their moves, with regard to the concepts prevalent at the time.

(2 ) Studying the games from the present-day standpoint, we have endeavoured to determine how modern masters would deal with the positions that arise. The games selected have been chosen for the similarity of their strategy, so that we can observe the two generations of masters wrestling with the same ideas.

xiv

PART I

THE R UY LOPEZ IN the last century there was much controversy as to the merits of this remarkable opening. Although it has been established that the opening was known in 1490, in the English-speaking world it bears to-day the name of the Spanish priest who published an analysis of it in 1561.

It was the research of Ruy Lopez which first drew attention to the opening. His bold assertion that the opening moves of a game could be decisive roused the critics. Although one of the greatest players of his time, he was declared to be a poor analyst. Even in the last century leading masters frequently adopted unsatis­ factory opening variations purely out of convention, believing the initial stages of the game to be of only incidental importance, the final outcome being decided at a later stage through some romantic combinations. Two nineteenth century authorities had definite views on the subject. Blackburne called it 'an opening for the safe and cautious player'; whilst Steinitz was of the opinion that White could obtain only equality against the best defence, which he 1hought hinged on the move 3 . . . . . P-Q3; now known as the Steinitz Defence. Despite these weighty condemnations, however, the Ruy Lopez not only continued to flourish, but increased in popularity. Differences arose as to what, in fact, was the best defence-a sure sign of strength in an opening. All this controversy indicated what we know to-day: that the Ruy Lopez is an elastic opening, affording several good lines to both attacker and defender, a factor which has made it indisputably the most popular of the King's side debuts.

1

I "rHITE ATTEMPTS IMMEDIATE CONQUEST OF THE CENTRE MORPHY'S TREATMENT (AS WHITE ) THE earlier great masters of the game-de la Bourdonnais, McDonnell, Staunton, Saint-Amant-did not adopt this opening, an interesting fact that requires some explanation. It is not difficult to conclude that the Evans and the Scotch Gambit afforded more opportunities of open, tactical struggle coupled with central control than the Ruy Lopez. Even when this opening was introduced as a tournament weapon by Bird against Horwitz in London, 1851, it was in a form where White played for early control of the centre by P-Q4. On the rare occasions that Morphy adopted the Ruy Lopez he played this line, which was at that time considered to give White the initiative. Morphy was not a theoretician in the modern sense of the word. Tar­ rasch compared him with Capablanca, maintaining that Morphy was not an opening expert, preferring to employ the best continuations conceived by Max Lange. According to Steinitz and Staunton on the other hand, Morphy was the leading exponent of the openings in his day. These conflicting views may be reconciled. Morphy accepted what he considered sound and recast it to suit his style, retaining a critical perspective of any contradiction of general principles; an approach later accepted by other great masters, as Lasker and Capablanca. In this light, it will be interesting to observe how Morphy embarks on the main problem of the opening-which is the main problem of all openings-the struggle for control in the centre. It is rarely seen nowadays, for reasons which we shall discuss later.

1 White

P. Morphy

J.

Black

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Lowenthal

Played in London, 21st August, 1858 14th Match Game

P-K5 Castles B x Kt Kt x P

PxP Kt-K5 Kt-B4 QP x B Kt-K3

This move is certainly not bad itself, but it commits Black to a narrow choice of defensive lines. For the more elastic 9 . . . . . B-K2; see the game Barnes-Morphy (No. 2, page 5).

P-K4 1 . P-K4 Kt-QB3 2. Kt-KB3 P-QR3 3. B-Kt5 Kt-B3 4. B-R4 5. P-Q4 A straightforward move, which aims at securing the superiority in the centre by the most direct means.

10. Kt x Kt 1 1 . Q-K2 2

B x Kt B-QB4

VIHITE ATTEMPT§ IMMEDIATE CONQUEST OF THE CENTRE

3

of the accumulated knowledge of ahnost a century since this game was played. Q-K2 12. Kt-B3 13. Kt-K4 P-R3 BxB 14. B-K3 15. Q x B B-B4 Black's whole defensive strategy was based on this move. If now 16. Q-B4, B X Kt; 17. Q X B,R-Q1; and with only heavy pieces left on the board, White would have had difficulty in making anything of his advantage. According to Maroczy, this Bishop should have gone to K2. But even after this move, the con­ tinuation 12. Kt-B3, Castles; 13. B-K3, followed by QR-Q1 would have restricted the activity of the Black Queen. Furthermore, Black would have to face two positional threats: the exchange of one of the Bishops after Kt-K4 followed by B-Kt5, leaving him with a vir­ tually lost ending; and the march of the King's Bishop's Pawn to KB4 and KB5. It is understandable therefore that Lowenthal wished to keep the square K2 for his Queen, although the course of the game shows that this move is not satisfactory. The right move was 11 . . . . . Q-R5; with the threat of B-B5, which would have compelled White to play either 12. Kt-Q2-in which case 12. . . . . Castles Q; would have followed, with a game offering chances to both sides--or 12. R-Q1, B-K2; when Black would no longer have to meet the threat of P-KB4-B5, owing to the absence of the White King's Rook from the KB file. The strategic considerations which make the move 11 . . .. . Q-R5; so much better than its alternatives may seem simple and clear to us, but it should be re­ membered that we have the benefit

16. Kt-Kt31 But Morphy finds the right reply. BxP 16. . .. . . . P-KKt3 17. P-B4 The reply to the tempting 17. . . . . Q-Kt5; would have been 18. R-B2; and the Black Bishop would have got into trouble, for instance 18. .. . . Q x KtP?; 19. QR-QB1, or 18 . . . .. B-R5; 19. P-Kt3.

18. P-K6! ! The combination of this move with the previous one reveals Morphy's genius in open positions. The Pawn cannot be taken, because of 19. Q-QB3; and if 18. . . . . . Castles QR; 19. Q-R7, would follow.

4

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

18. B-B4 19. Kt x B P x Kt 20. P x P eh. KxP 21. Q-KR3 Q-B3 22. QR-K1 QR-K1 23. R-K5! Now that the skirmish is over, we can sit back and admire Mor­ phy's fine judgment of position, which guided him in making his Pawn sacrifice. Superficially Black's game appears defendable, for his King's side is only partially broken up, and there are only heavy pieces left on the board. But this move shows what a strong grip White has on the game. Morphy-perhaps quite unconsciously-had a very good idea of the modern theory of strong points. Black now cannot exchange the Rook, because this would bring White's King's Rook into play, with great effect, so he must allow White to build up an attacking formation. 23. . . . . . . K-Kt3 RxR 24. KR-K1 25. R x R R-Q1 26. Q-Kt3 eh. K-R2 R-Q2 27. P-KR3 P-Kt3 28. Q-K3 29. K-R2 P-B4 30. Q-K2 Q-Kt3 Q-Kt2 31. R-K6 This part of the game is con­ ducted by both sides in a manner which could not be surpassed even to-day. With our modern technical knowledge, we should express it as the struggle for the vital squares at K5 and KR5. The Black Queen cannot hold both of these squares, as 31. . . . . Q-B2; would be answered by 32. Q-K5, threatening both 33. R-KB6 and 33. R-K8.

Position after 31.

•

.

•

•

Q- Kt2

32. Q-R5 R-Q4 Not 32 . . . . . R-B2; 33. R X P eh. P-Kt4 33. P-QKt3 Black is reduced to making only Pawn moves. If 33 . . . . . Q-B1; 34. Q-Kt6 eh., K-Rl ; 35. R-K8. R-Q3 34. R x P 35. Q X BP eh. Q-Kt3 36. Q x Q eh. KxQ The foJlowing ending is not diffi­ cult, and is handled irreproachably by Morphy. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41 . 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49.

R-R5 P-KKt4 K-Kt3 R-R7 PxP P-B5 R-K7 eh. P-B6 P-Kt5 K-B4 PxP K-B5 R-K3

R-Kt3 P-B3 P-R4 PxP K-B3 K-K4 K-Q3 R-Ktl R-KB1 P-B5 PxP P-B6 Resigns.

At the time this game was played, it was probably not so highly appre­ ciated as it is to-day. When we consider Morphy's fine Pawn sacrifice with its tactical points (shutting out the Bishop), his transition into a seemingly insignificant advantage in the middle game, and the simple­ looking way in which he demolishes the defence, we are reminded of the same masterly ease of technique displayed by Capablanca on so many occasions.

WHITE ATTEMPTS IMMEDIATE CONQUEST OF THE CENTRE

5

We may ask, 'Would Morphy be able to obtain such positions against a modern master?' Some light will be thrown on this question by the following game and also by the notes to the game Alekhine-Keres, Kemeri, 1937 (No. 3, page 7).

MORPHY'S TREATMENT (AS BLACK) In the last game we witnessed Morphy endeavouring to gain ground in the centre, relying on an early advance of the Queen's Pawn; and his opponent failed to counter this attempt. We have remarked, however, that the variation is not quite satisfactory, and here Morphy, with the Black pieces, is faced with his own line. His treatment of it, however, cannot be termed definitive. 2 T.

White

P. W. Barnes

Black

P. Morphy

London, July, 1858 1 . P-K4 P-K4 2. Kt-KB3 Kt-QB3 Kt-B3 3. B-Kt5 4. P-Q4 PxP 5. P-K5 Kt-K5 6. Castles P-QR3 Kt-B4 7. B-R4 With a clarity of purpose the more remarkable considering the state of chess knowledge at that time, Morphy simplifies in the centre, and avoids the possible dangers of, for instance, 7. . . . . B-K2; 8. Kt x P, Castles; 9 . Kt-B5, a n attack which was later played with success by Zukertort. It was eventually demonstrated in Collijn's Liirobok i Schack that even in this line Black can get a level game after 9. . . . . Kt-B4; 10. Q-Kt4, P-KKt3; 11. B X Kt, QP x B; 12. Kt x B eh ., Q x Kt; 13. Q-Kt5. 8. B x Kt QP x B 9 . Kt x P B-K2 10. Kt-QB3 Castles P--B3 1 1 . B-K3 Max Lange comments: 'With this move Black turns the attack in his favour.' This was the contemporary view shared by Lowenthal. The

Position after 1 1 . . . . . P-B3 aggressive nature of the move is only to be expected from a player of Morphy's reputation. By ex­ changing the Pawn on K5, he gains the initiative, but the permanent characteristics of the position are equally important. White remains with a Pawn majority on the King's side, and as his position is quite solid he should be able to repel the attack and remain with a very favourable end game. Morphy's move is therefore not good, indicat­ ing that although his plan was correct he did not possess the necessary technical knowledge to implement it. Eighty years later in the game Alekhine - Keres, Kemeri, 1937, the young Esthonian treated the same position in the following way: 1 1 . R-K1! · . . . .

6

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

12. R-K1 , B-B1; 13. P-B4, P-B3! The position is now very different. White has to weaken himself and Black can exert pres­ sure on the central lines instead of embarking on an uncompromising attack on the King's side. (See Game 3, page 7.)

A fine trap, and at the same time Morphy's only chance, for other­ wise the strong Knight position at Kt6, in conjunction with the mating threat at KR8, would quickly decide the game in White's favour.

RxP 12. P x P R-Kt3 13. Q-K2 B-Q3 14. K-R1 15. QR-Q1 Q-R5 16. P-B4 B-Kt5 If 16 . . . . . R-R3; 17. Kt-B3, with the threat of B X Kt followed by Q-K8 eh. and R-Q8. Q-R4 17. Kt-B3 BxB 18. B x Kt B-Kt3 19. Kt-K4 The defensive move 19. B-K2; also leads to a favourable position for White after 20. Kt­ Kt3, B X Kt; 21. Q X QB. 20. Kt(K4)-Kt5 P-R3 K-R1 21. Q-B4 eh. K-R2 22. Kt-B7 eh. R-B3 23. Kt(7)-K5 Q x Kt 24. Kt x B Q-K3 25. Kt-K5 26. Q-K4 eh. Barnes has played these combined defensive and attacking manreuvres with great skill. Q-B4 26 . . . . . . . RxQ 27. Q x Q 28. P-KKt4 This and the following two moves were considered weak· by Max Lange and according to him were the cause of the loss of the game. To-day it is natural in such a position to post a Knight at KKt6. It only shows what a hypnotic influence Morphy had on his con­ temporaries.

28

.

. . • . . .

29. P-B5

80. Kt-Kt61

R-B3 R-K1 R-K7!

31. R-Q8? The position looks fairly simple, but when faced with the inventive genius of Morphy, great care is needed. Maroczy has pointed out that the correct move was 31. KR-K1 ! If then 31 . . . . . R X QBP; 32. R-K8, R X Kt; 33. R(Q1 )-Q8, R-B8 eh.; 34. K­ Kt2, R X KtP eh.; 35. K-R3 and White wins. After the best move, 31. . . . . R-B7; 32. R-K8, R X Kt; 33. P X R eh., K X P; the White Rook is on the King's file-not subject to attack by the Black King-and this renders impossible the fine defensive manreuvre of Morphy's 34th move. R x Kt! ! 31. . . . . . . KxP 32. P x R eh. R X BP 33. R-Q7 B-Q5! 34. R(1 )-B7 Here is the point of the ambush sprung on Black's 30th move. The text move would be useless if the White King's Rook now stood on K7. 35. R x BP R x KtP R x QRP 36. R x QKtP P-QH4 37. P-R4

WHITE ATTEMPTS IMMEDIATE CONQUEST OF THE CENTRE 7 38. P-H5 eh.? This merely drives the King to a better square. Better was 38. R(B7)-Q7, P-B4; with the idea of playing 39. R-Q6 eh., K-R2; 40. P-Kt5, or 38. R(B7)-Q7, B-B3; 39. R-Kt6, P-B4; 40. R-Q5, threatening P-Kt5.

Position after 34. . . . . B-Q5!

38. . . . . . . K-Kt4 K-R5! 39. Rx KtP eh. 40. R(KKt7)-K7 P-R5! This move bars the White Rook from coming to the 3rd rank which would prevent the Black King from penetrating with mating threats. Black won.

Morphy was unsuccessful in solving the problem of the opening and for 40 years this variation was in the forefront until Tchigorin demonstrated how to meet it.

ALEKHINE'S ATTEMPT TO REVIVE THE CLASSICAL ATTACK The following game is of particular interest as it shows an attempt by Alekhine to revive the old Morphy continuation, namely, the early con­ quest of the centre exemplified in the two previous games. This game also answers those who ask how Morphy would have fared in our times. It also shows how Alekhine, one of the most inventive aggressive players, is prevented from developing an attack in spite of his resourceful play and his numerous threats, one of which is to arrive at a favourable end game. In addition White aimed at attaining the basic attacking position already known. As, however, he was unsuccessful in achieving his aim, he was never able to instigate a real attack. The way in which certain positions were mastered by Morphy remains unsurpassed even to-day; but would he have reached such positions without learning the present­ day technique ? 3 White

A. Alekhine

Black

P. Keres

Kemeri, 1937 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

P-K4 Kt-KB3 B-Kt5 B-R4 Castles P-Q4

P-K4 Kt-QB3 P-QR3 Kt-B3 B-K2 PxP

Kt-K5 7. P-K5 Kt-B4 8. R-K1 QPxB 9. BxKt Castles 10. KtxP R-K1 1 1 . Kt-QB3 This move is not new and was played in the game Lasker-Tchi­ gorin, St. Petersburg, 1895, which continued 12. B-B4, Kt-K3; 13. KtxKt, QxQ; 14. QR x Q, B x Kt; 15. P-QR3, QR-Q1; 16. P-R3, R x R; 17. Kt x R, R-Q1 ; 18. Kt-K3, R-Q5! and

CHESS :FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

Lasker,

who

previously

in

his

the two Bishops. Yet he is ready to exchange one in order to get rid of the centralized Kt on Q4.

Common Sense in Chess, considered

the variation strong for White, got nothing out of it. 12. B-K3 13. P-B4

1 6. B-B2 Protecting the K4 square. 16. . . . . . . QR-Q1 17. R-K3! A very ingenious way of doubling the Rooks, since 17 . . . . . RxKt? would be answered by 18. RxR.

B-B1 P-B3!

B-Kt3 17. 18. QR-K1 B--Q3 19. RxR eh. RxR 20. RxR eh. BxR 21. P-KKt3 B-B2 22. P-QKt4! A last attempt to force the Black pieces out of the centre and to make use of the superior Pawn position on the King-side. With this move Black liquidates White's centre instead of playing for a King's side attack. Certainly a more objective treatment of the position than shown in the previous game.

Kt-K3 22. Q-Kt3 23. Kt-K4 Kt X Kt 24. P-B5 Q-R4! 25. B X Kt The best 25. . Q-R3; 26. B-K3, Q-R6; 27. B-B5, would leave White the initiative. . . •

14. PxP QxP 15. Q-B3 B-B4! Again demonstrating unprejudiced judgment. One would at first think that Black's strength lies in

26. 27. 28. 29.

QxQ P-B3 KtxB P-B6

BxQ B-B6 PxKt Drawn.

Though the game, compared with the two of Morphy's, looks uneventful, this is because both players mastered the positions which arose and took account of the limitations imposed. But it has its fine points, and even to-day only outstanding players could as effectively execute the general plan.

11

WHITE KEEPS THE CENTRE CLO SED ANDERSSEN'S TREATMENT IN contrast to Morphy's treatment of this opening, Anderssen preferred to keep his Queen's Pawn at Q3, exchanging his KB against the Black Knight on his QB6, and retaining his two Knights for manreuvring. The

9

WHITE KEEPS THE CENTRE CLOSED

whole idea shows that, unlike his two great near-contemporaries, de la Bourdonnais and Morphy, Anderssen did not realize that attack in the centre is superior to attack on the wings. However, his method did produce a solid position, with the centre well held, in which White is at no disadvantage. 4 White

Black

A. Anderssen

Max Lange

Aachen, 1868 1 . P-K4 P-K4 2. Kt-KB3 Kt-QB3 3. B-Kt5 P-QR3 4. B-R4 Kt-B3 5. P-Q3 P-Q3 6. BxKt eh. PxB 7. P-KR3 P-Kt3 8. Kt-B3 B-KKt2 9. B-K3 Castles 10. P-KKt4 R-K1 1 1 . Kt-K2 P-Q4 12. Kt-Kt3? A mistake which must, as the annotator says, be recognized. But even the recommended move 12. Kt-Q2, would have left Black with the initiative.

KtxKtP 12. . . . . . . An original sacrifice. If now 13. P X Kt, B X P; (with the threat . . . . Q-B3) 14. K-B 1 , P X P; 15. QKt X P, P---KB4; winning back Or 14. R-KKtl, the piece. Q-B3; 15. Kt-B5, P X Kt; 16.

PxBP, BxP! (not 16 . . . . . Q x P; 17. Kt-R4). Kt-B3 13. B-Kt5 14. Q----'K2 Q-Q3 R-Ktl 15. Q-Q2 P-B4 16. P-Kt3 PxKP 17. P-B4 18. P X P B-Kt2 Kt X P! 19. Q-K3 to open lines for the two Bishops. 20. Kt X Kt Q-QB3 21. Kt(B3)-Q2 The beauty of Black's sacrifice is shown by the following variation: 21 . Kt(K4)-Q2, P-K5! opening the diagonal for the King's Bishop. P-B4 21. . . . . . . 22. P-B3 P X Kt 23. PxP If 23. KtxP, Q-Kt3; is strong, 24. QxP (24. KtxP, P-K5!), QxQ; 25. KtxQ, BxP. 23. . . . . . . R-K3 P-QR4 24. Castles Q 25. P-QR4 Q-Kt3 26. Q-QB3 Q-Kt5 The safest, but not the quickest way to win. By 26. . . . . R-Q3; with the idea of going to Q5, followed by . . . . Q-Q3; tying down the Knight on Q2, a decision could be forced in the middle game. 27. QxQ BPxQ 28. QR-K1 P-R3 29. B-R4 P-Kt4 P-R4 30. B-Kt3 A clever move; Max Lange knew how to make best use of the two Bishops. The text-move not only prevents 31 . P-R4, but also opens up a square at KR3 for the Bishop. 31. R-K2

R-Q1

10

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

32. R-Ktl R-KKt3 33. B-R4 R-Q6 34. B x P R x RP 35. R(2)-Kt2 K-R2 36. K-Ql A recommended continuation here was 36. B-Q8, R x R; 37. R x R, B-KR3; 38. K-Ql, B x Kt(? ) with good drawing chances for White, as the Bishops are of opposite colours. But Black could play 37 . . . . . R-Q6;! 38. B x P, B X P; and the two Bishops are very strong on their open diagonals. 36. .. . . . . B-QBI 37. B-Q8 B-Kt5 eh. 38. K-B2 R-QB3 39. Kt-Bl R-B6 eh. 40. K-Kt2 B-Ra 41. R-Kt3 If 41 . Kt-Kta, the reply B-K6; with the threat B-Q5; is too strong. R-B8 41. . . . . . . 42. R-Q31 A very subtle trap. If now 42. . . . . B-K7; 43. R-Q7 eh., K-Rl; 44. B x P, R x B; 45. R x R, R x Kt; 46. R x R, B X R; 47. P-B5, P-R5; 48. P-B6, P-R6; (or 48 . . . . . B-R6; 49. R-B7, B-Kt5; 50. R-B5, or here 49. . . . . B-K3; 50. R-B6) 49. R-B8 eh., K-R2; 50. P-B7, B-R3; 51. R-R8, B-QKt2; 52. R-QKt8, with a draw.

Position after 42. R-Q3! This analysis, given by a contem­ porary annotator, demonstrates the type of finesse peculiar to the age. R-K8! 42 . . . . . . . Keeping watch on the Q2 square with the Bishop. 43. R-Q5 44. K-Rl 45. Kt-Kt3 46. R x R 47. Kt-K4 48. K-Ktl 49. K-Bl 50. K-Kt2 51. Kt-B6 eh. 52. B x R 53. R x Q 54. B-Q8 Resigns.

R-K7 ch. R x KP R-Q5 PxR B-Kt2 P-Q6 B-Ra eh. P-Q7 RxKt P-Q8(Q) BxR B-B5

Max Lange's conduct of this most beautiful game is impressive even by present-day standards. Important elements to be noticed are: the strategic opening of the centre; the manner in which the two Bishops take control of the position; the fine end-game technique displayed by both sides. In this decisive game (the first prize depended upon it) Max Lange proves himself as great a practical player as he was an analyst. STEINITZ' TREATMENT (AS WHITE)-WHITE HOLDS THE CENTRE AND ADVANCES ON THE KING'S SIDE With Wilhelm Steinitz, an important epoch opens in the development of the Ruy Lopez. In the previous chapter we saw that Anderssen failed to appreciate the essential point of the Ruy Lopez, namely the control of the centre. Steinitz, with his positional judgment, realized

WHITE KEEPS THE CENTRE CLOSED

11

that an attack on the wing could only be successful if the centre was secured. In contrast to Morphy, he did not seek to gain command of the centre, but contented himself with consolidating his position in this theatre. When, and only when, his centre was secure, Steinitz com­ menced his attack against the opposing King. The following game, played in a World Championship match with Lasker, is a typical example of his profound strategy. more normal-looking move Kt-B I . The text intensifies Black's task of carrying out .. . . P-Q4;

5 W.

White

Steinitz

Black

Em. Lasker

Second match-game, 1 894 I . P-K4 P-K4 2. Kt-KB3 Kt-QB3 3. B-Kt5 Kt-B3 4. P-Q3 P-Q3 5. P-QB3 B-Q2 Lasker, perhaps, wrongly, often gave the impression of not caring very much about the opening. Here, at any rate, he failed to rise to the occasion. A satisfactory method of treating this variation for Black had already been demon­ strated some years before: I . P-K4, P-K4; 2. Kt-KB3, Kt-QB3; 3. B-Kt5, P-QR3; 4. B-R4, Kt-B3; 5. P-Q3, P-Q3; 6. P-B3. We now have a similar position to that in the present game, with the interpolation of the moves, . . . . P-QR3 and B-R4; 6. . . . . P-KKt3; 7. QKt-Q2, B-Kt2; 8. Kt-B1, Castles; 9. P-KR3, P-Q4; 10. Q-K2, P­ QKt4; U. B-B2, P-Q5; 12. P-KKt4, Q-Q3; and Black has a good game. (Gunsberg-Tchigorin Match, 1890.) Lasker's move involves a loss of time as White will in any case take steps to preserve his Bishop. 6. B-R4 Avoiding the anticipated change of Bishops.

ex­

6. P-KKt3 7. QKt-Q2 B-Kt2 8. Kt-B4 An important deviation from the

Castles 8. Kt-K2 9. Kt-K3 10. B-Kt3 P-B3 Here 10. . . . . Kt-Kt5; was worth considering, with the idea of exchanging the strong Knight on K3 and preparing for the advance of the King's Bishop's Pawn. U. P-KR4

Q-B2 12. Kt-Kt5 Very fine. Superficially it looks like a simple attacking move, but its chief aim is the defence of the centre as is subsequently apparent. P-Q4 12. QR-Q1 13. P-B3 14. P-Kt4 Comparison with the previous game will show how carefully Steinitz has prepared his attack. PxP 14. . . . . . . Another slight inaccuracy. Black releases the tension in the centre too early. P-KR3 15. BP X P 16. Q-B3! B-K1 If 16 . . . . . PxKt; 17. PxP, Kt-R2; 18. Kt-B5! defending the Kt5P and threatening Q-R3; with tremendous effect. Kt-Q2 17. B-B2 18. Kt-R3 And now the Knight is taken back for defensive purposes. 18. 19. Kt-B2

Kt-QB4 P-QKt4

12

CHESS FROM MORPHY '1' 0 BOTWINNIK

This counter-attack is premature. Lasker stated that 19 . . . . . P-B3; would have stopped White's attack. However, White could then have continued with 20. P-R5, P­ KKt4; 21 . Kt-B5, and with the King's side secured, operate in the centre with B-K3; followed, after due preparation, by P-Q4. The truth is that Black's several inac­ curate moves have added up to a bad game for him. 20. P-Kt5 21. Kt-B5

P-KR4 P x Kt

Kt x Kt; 23. B-K3, making use of his strength on the black squares. P-B3 22. P x P 23. P-Kt6 Kt x KtP There is no other defence. If 23. . . . . B-Q2; 24. Q x RP, KR-Kl ; 25. Q-R7 eh., K-BI ; and White simply advances the KRP. BxP 24. P x Kt 25. R-KKtl P-K5 Lasker later pointed out that the best defensive line here was 25 . . . . . K-R2; 26. R x B, K x R; 27. P-Q4 eh. , with some fighting chances for Black.

Here 21. . . . . Kt-K3; gave a better defence. In this case White would have continued 22. Kt x B,

26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31 . 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

PxP RxB Q-B5 eh. Q x RP eh. Q x Kt B-K3 P-R4 PxP QxQ R-R6 Kt-Kt4 B-B5 Kt-K3 B-Q4 P-R5 B-Kt3 eh. Kt-B5

K-R2 KxR K-B2 K-Ktl Q-K4 P-R3 KR-Kl RP x P RxQ R-QBI R-K2 R(2)-Kl B-Bl K-B2 B-K2 K-Bl Resigns.

Ill THE BERLIN DEFENCE THE two previous chapters have shown that neither Morphy's early opening of the centre, nor Anderssen's retention of the closed centre, brought White any lasting initiative. It has been found that after 1. P-K4, P-K4; 2. Kt-KB3, Kt-QB3; 3. B-Kt5, Kt-B3; White can safely castle since his King's Pawn is only seemingly threatened; this continuation, recommended by Max Lange, gave White new scope. Black has now to decide whether to accept or decline the pseudo-sacrifice of the Pawn. Acceptance constitutes the Berlin Defence, 4. . . . . P-Q3; the Steinitz Defence.

THE BERLIN DEFENCE

13

When Black plays the Berlin Defence, he does not expect to hold the Pawn on his K4 (White, if he wishes, can recover it at once by 5. R-K1,) but by exchanging the centre Pawns, he aims at a less restricted develop­ ment for his pieces than he would achieve in the Steinitz Defence. EARLY BEGINNINGS

6 White

S. Winawer

Black

Em. Lasker

Nuremberg, 1896 I. P-K4 P-K4 2. Kt-KB3 Kt-QB3 3. B-Kt5 Kt-B3 4. Castles Kt x P 5. P-Q4! This move, rather than the for­ merly popular 5 . R-K1, is to-day recognized to be strongest, as is shown by Max Lange's fine but almost forgotten analysis. Black cannot hold the Knight on his J\..5 square (see following note). B-K2 5. . . . . . . 6. Q-K2 Kt-Q3 If 6 . . . . . P-Q4; 7. Kt x P, B-Q2; 8. B X Kt, P X B; 9. R-K1, Kt-B3; 10. B-Kt5, Kt-Ktl; 11. Kt x B, 7. B x Kt KtP x B 8. P x P Kt-Kt2 9. Kt-Q4 Castles 10. Kt-QB3 B-B4 1 1 . Kt-B5 This old-style attacking move is not justified by the position. For the correct continuation see next game. 1 1. . . . . . . P-Q4 12. Q-Kt4 B x Kt 13. Q x B R-K1 14. B-B4 B-Q5 15. KR-K1 Necessary because of the threat . . . . P-Kt3; winning a Pawn. 15 . . . . . . .

Kt-B4

16. QR-Q1 Ifl 6. B-Q2,R-Ktl; threatening . . . . P-Kt3, and . . . . R-Kt5. B x Kt 16. . . . . . . Q-B1 17. P x B 18. Q-R5 Q-R3 19. R-K3 QxP 20. R--QB1 Q-B5 21. R-B3 If 21 . R-R3, Q x B; and the Black King can escape. 21 . . . . . . . Kt-K3 22. B-Q2 R-K2 23. R-R3 Q-K5 24. P-B3 On 24. P-KB4, Kt-B1; and the pressure on "\-Vhite's King's Pawn prevents his playing P-B5. 24. . . . . . . Q-Kt3 25. Q-R4 R-Q2 26. P-KB4 Q-K5 27. P-Kt4 Kt-B1 White was threatening P-B5, 28. Q-B2 P-QR4 29. R-K3 Q-B5 P-R5 30. P-B5 30. . . . . Q X P eh.; 31. R-Kt3, and the open file would strengthen White's attack. P-R6 3 1 . R-B1 32. R(3)-K1 32. P-K6, is not good because of 32. P x P; 33. P x P, Kt x P; 34. R x Kt?, Q x P eh. 32 . . . . . . . P-R7 33. P-R3 P-QB4 34. K-R2 34. P-K6, is again prevented by 34 . . . . . P x P; 35. P x P, Kt x P; 36. R X Kt?, P-R8(Q);

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

14 34. 35. Q-B3

P-Q5 P-QB3!

tens to play 36. . . . . R(2)-R2; forcing the QR Pawn. BPxP 36. P-K6 KtxP 37. Px KP R(2)-R2 38. Q X P This move and the following show Lasker's unique power in combining attack with defence. If 39. R X Kt, then Q X R(8); 40. R-K8 eh. , R X R; 41. Q X R eh. , Q-Bl;

Another of Lasker's characteristic defensive manreuvres. The Pawn cannot be taken because of 36. QxP, P-R8(Q)! 37. RxQ, RxR; 38. R X R, P X P. Black now threa-

R-KBl 39. R-QR1 Kt-Q1 40. KR-Kl R(2)-KB2 41 . Q-QKt6 R-R7 eh. 42. B-Kt5 43. K-Kt3 or 43. K-Ktl , Q-Q4. QxP eh. 43. . . . . . . Resigns. 44. K-R4, QxP eh. and Mate in two follows.

Surveying the game from a modern viewpoint we realize that Black solved his opening problems by the 1 1th move, when he was able to play . . . . P-Q4; without any interference from White. That White was able to initiate an attack was due to the fact that Black captured a Pawn, and lost time in consequence. The middle game is very lively and con­ ducted with much ingenuity. We cannot help admiring Lasker's tactical genius; the way he seemingly permits White chances only to counter them. We can clearly understand from this game why the Berlin Defence became popular between the years 1890-1910. It created positions where attack on the King's side, and counter-attack in the centre by Black, brought about lively games full of scope for tactical players. True, there were some attempts to refute the defence by keeping back the centre Pawns, but they were later abandoned.

THE MODERN CONTINUATION-SCHLECHTER'S TREATMENT The above game proved that once Black can firmly establish a Pawn in the centre his opening problem is solved. In the last century players like Pillsbury and Tarrasch, recognizing that this is Black's aim, tried to prevent it, but they were only partly successful, and the games in the match Em. Lasker-Tarrasch, 1 908, showed that Black, by adopting the so-called "Rio de Janeiro' variation, was able to obtain a playable game. In the following game, however, Schlechter demonstrates how White's pressure can be maintained. White

7

K. Schlechter

Black

R. Reti

Vienna, 1914 1 . P-K4

P-K4

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Kt-KB3 B-Kt5 Castles P-Q4 Q-K2 7. Bxl{t

Kt-QB3 Kt-B3 KtxP B-K2 Kt-Q3 KtPxB

THE BERLIN DEFENCE 8. P X P Kt-Kt2 9. Kt-B3 Castles 10. Kt-Q4 10. R-Kl, Kt-B4; 1 1 . Kt-Q4, Kt-K3; 12. B-K3, Ktx Kt; 13. Bx Kt, P-QB4; 14. B-K3, P­ Q4; 15. P X P e.p. B X P;l6. QR-Ql, Q-R5;-the 'Rio de Janeiro' varia­ tion-gives Black a playable game as shown in the 14th match game, Tarrasch-Lasker, 1908. B-B4 10 . . . . . . . BxKt 1 1 . R-Ql P-Q4 12. RxB PxP 13. PxP e.p. 14. P-QKt41 Preventing 14 . . . . . P-Q4; by the threat of 1 5 . P-Kt5. 14 . 15. 16. 17.

...... B-K3 QR-Ql P-Kt4!

Q-B3 B-B4 P-QR3

15

would then be embarrassing, there­ fore he tries a dangerous counter­ attack. Q-B2 20. Q-Q3 21. R-KB4 Q-K3 22. P-KKt5 KR-K1 23. P-R3 R-K2 24. K-R2 Q-Kt3 25. P-KR4 B-K3 25 . . . . . P-Q4; would weaken the black squares; and furthermore White would play 26. Kt-R4, with the threat Kt-Kt6. It would, however, have been useless to play Kt-R4 before the QP had moved because of the reply . . . . P-QB4; 26. Kt-K2 P-B4 27. P-B4 PxP 28. PxP R-QB2 29. Kt-B3 Q-B2 30. Kt-Q5 "\Vhite's manreuvres to expose his opponent's Pawn weaknesses, while covering those of his own, are admirable. 30. . . . . . . BxKt At the expense of a Pawn Black at last obtains some counter-play. 31 . R X P! Q-K3 31. . . . . Bx P?, loses the ex­ change. 32. R X B R-KBI

Though it appears to weaken White's King's position, this excel­ lent move drives the Black Bishop away from its strong position. Q-Kt3 17. . . . . . . 18. K-Rl B-Q2 Not 18. . . . . B xBP?; 19. R­ QBI , and the Bishop is lost. 19. P-KR3 P-KB4 Black has no time to play 19. . . . . P-Q4; since 20. Kt-R41

If 32 . . . . . Q-Kt5; 33. R-Q4, but now Black threatens 33. . . . . R-B6; and on 33. Q-K2, R(2)­ B2; 34. P-B4, RxP; wins. 33. K-Kt3 ! ! Very accurate! Now 33. R(2)-B2; is met by 34. P-B4, and the King guards the important square K-Kt4. P-KR4 33. . . . . . . 34. PxP e.p. White must play this dangerous looking move otherwise his KKt4 square would become too weak.

16

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK Kt5 eh.; 38. K-BI, Q-R6 eh., leads to nothing. 37. R x R eh. RxR 38. Q-B5! By this move White beats back Black's attack. QxQ 38. R-Kt5 39. R X Q 40. R-B4 RxR 41. B x R P-QR4 42. P x P? 42. P-Kt5, would have won. The Rook's Pawn was not dan­ gerous.

Position after 32.

R-KBI

34. PxP R-Kt2 35. K-R2 36. R-KKtl ! R( I )-B2 36 . . . . . R x R; 37. K x R, Q-

42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.

B x RP K-Kt3 B-B4 K-B3 K-K2

Draw.

Kt x P Kt x P K-R2 P-Q4 K�Kt3 Kt-R4!

In this harmonious game Schlechter was able to carry out White's strategic aim of holding back Black's centre Pawns. The way in which, for positional gain, he deliberately exposed his King, and his subsequent brilliant defence against Black's desperate counter-attack, are truly admirable. It is no wonder that after this game the Berlin Defence virtually disappeared from tournament practice. In this game Schlechter not only makes a contribution to opening knowledge but also effects an advance in middle game technique.

IV THE STEINITZ DEFENCE WHEN the Berlin Defence was at the height of its popularity and seemed to solve the problem of a valid defence to the Ruy Lopez, Steinitz, in­ stinctively distrusting the loose Pawn formation, had gone his own way. He was firmly convinced that a player who has a strong hold on the centre need have little fear of being overrun by an attack on the flanks, and therefore sought an adequate defence based on this theory. Unfortunately he was temperamentally unfit as a player to prove the soundness of his theory. To maintain his grip, on the centre he often made bizarre moves which brought both his play and his theory into disrepute. Nowadays his theory is accepted without reserve. The pro­ gress we have made in technique enables us to use his basic theory in a practical and successful manner. Further examples of this progress will appear later when we examine the 'Steinitz Defence Deferred.'

THE STEINITZ DEFENCE

17

STEINITZ' TREATMENT The following game is an excellent illustration of Steinitz' theory of the centre. 8 White

Black

Em. Lasker

W. Steinitz

Seventh game of the first match, 1 894 P-K4 1. P-K4 Kt-QB3 2. Kt-KB3 P-Q3 3. B-Kt5 B-Q2 4. P-Q4 KKt-K2 5. Kt-B3 Steinitz regularly played this move, which his contemporaries, preferring the 'natural' KKt-B3, condemned. We shall see later that although his idea of holding the centre by this move was right, his manner of execution was at fault. 6. B-K3 In the previous game Lasker played 6. B-QB4, and because of the threat 7. Kt-KKt5, Steinitz gave up his attempt to hold the centre (though still possible with 6 . . . . . P-KR3; as he tried against Schlechter in London, 1899) but gained a few tempi after 6. . . . . P x P; 7. Kt x P, Kt x Kt; 8. Q x Kt, Kt-B3; 9. Q-K3. Kt-Kt3 6. B-K2 7. Q-Q2 8. Castles Q P-QR3 9. B-K2 PxP 10. Kt x P Kt x Kt 1 1 . Q X Kt B-KB3 B-B3 12. Q-Q2 13. Kt-Q5 Castles We have now reached a position where White is in control of the centre. His contemporaries might well have questioned Steinitz' ap­ parent inconsistency;-why had he chosen an artificial manreuvre (KKt-K2) to hold the centre, only to surrender it a few moves later?

In this instance, as will be seen, he wanted to have open lines to counteract possible attack on the King's wing, which usually occurs when players castle on opposite sides. 14. P-KKt4

This advance is premature, and shows that in his younger days Lasker did not fully appreciate Steinitz' theory of the centre. R-K1 14 . . . . . . . 15. P-Kt5 Necessary was 15. P-KB3, B x Kt 15. . . . . . . 16. Q x B 16. P x QB, was better, but even then Black would have had suffi­ cient counter-play in the centre against a King's side attack. R-K4! 16. . . . . . . The beginning of a deep defensive combination. BxP 17. Q-Q2 R x PI 18. P-KB4 This is the key to the combina­ tion. The move is not difficult to

18

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

see at this stage, but . for Steinitz to envisage such a possibility re­ quired a firm faith in his own theory. Q-K2 19. P x B RxB 20. QR-B1 21. B-B4 Kt-R1 Contemporary critics recommended 21. . . . . R-KB1 , instead. How­ ever Steinitz probably wished to avoid the opening of the KR file after 22. P-KR4, Q-K4; 23. P-R5, Kt-B5; 24. P-Kt6, P X P; 25. P X P, Kt X P; and Black must be careful of surprises. P-B3 22. P-KR4 23. P-Kt6! The only move to create com­ plications.

Q-R4, Kt-B2; 34. P-R8(Q) eh. , R x Q; 3 5 . R x Kt eh., K x R.' 32. . . . . . . P-B3 'On Steinitz' thirty-second move I expected . . . . K-B 1 ; whereupon B-B5 would have left me with good chances for a draw, as the Bishop could not well be taken on account of KR-KKtl,' is Lasker's comment. K-B2 3a. B-B5! 34. KR-Ktl PxB This move is too risky, and leads to the same position as if the Pawn had been taken a move earlier. K-K2 35. Q-R5 eh. 36. R-Kt8 K-Q3 36 . . . . . K-Q1; is answered by 37. K-R2, (threatening QR­ KKtl ,) 37 R-K8; 38. Q X R eh. ! Q x Q; 39 R x R! .

P-Q4 23. . . . . . . The alternative was 23. P x P; 24. P-R5, P-KKt.4; 25. P-R6, P x P; 26. KR x P, R-K1; and Black should be able to repel White's attack. KxP 24. P x RP eh. K-Ktl 25. B-Q3 eh. R-K1 26. P-R5 P-KKt3 27. P-R6 K-Kt2 28. P-R7 eh. Q-K4 29. K-Ktl P-QB4 30. P-R3 P-B5 31. Q-B2 32. Q-R4! Steinitz writes: 'At first glance it would seem that White could win by B X KtP. But this does not realize 32. B X KtP, P X B; 33.

. . . •

Q-K3 37. R x P QxR 38. R x R K-B4 39. R x BP eh. R-K2 40. Q-R6 41. Q-R2! Not 41 . R-B8? because of 41 . . . . R x P! Q-Q2 41 . 41. . . . . Q-Q1; was suggested as a better defence, but White could play 42. Q-B2 eh. , K-Kt.4; 43. P-R4 eh., K X P; 44. Q-QB5. 42. Q-Ktl eh. 43. Q-Kt5 eh. 44. R-B5 45. Q x Q eh. 46. Q-B6 eh.

P-Q5 Q-Q4 QxR K-Q3 Resigns.

This game provides an excellent example of Steinitz' theory of the centre; and incidentally, of Lasker's tactical genius. It is interesting to note that the critics were unanimous in condemning Steinitz' method of deve­ loping his KKt at K2, which aims at holding the centre, but in practice rarely succeeds in doing so. To-day we know that Steinitz was right, but his idea can be fulfilled only in the 'Steinitz Defence Deferred.'

LASKER'S CONTRIBUTION In the last years of his life, in the Vienna 1 898 and the London 1899 Tournaments, Steinitz resorted to the more natural . . . KKt-B3 .

THE STEINITZ DEFENCE

19

(instead of . . . . KKt-K2; ) which implied that he recognized that his own attempt to hold the centre was tactically not feasible. With one exception-a memorable draw with Lasker-he was singularly unsuccess­ ful, losing to Tarrasch, Pillsbury and Showalter. It was left to his successor, Lasker, to introduce this system effect­ ively into practical play. Lasker's keen perception soon fathomed the limitations of the Steinitz Defence. The World Champion realized that Black's problem was the development of his King's Knight, and, in common with Steinitz, he perceived that KB3 was not a good post for the piece owing to its exposure to attack by P-K5. He therefore moved it to KB1 via R2, a simple looking but really deep defensive manreuvre. 9 0.

White

Bernstein

Black

Em. Lasker

Exhibition Game, Moscow, 1914. P-K4 I. P-K4 Kt-QB3 2. Kt-KB3 Kt-B3 3. B-Kt5 P-Q3 4. Castles B-Q2 5. P-Q4 B-K2 6. Kt-B3 PxP 7. R-K1 8. Kt x P Castles PxB 9. B x Kt P-KR3 10. B-Kt5 11. B-R4 Kt-R2 In the third match game against Capablanca, 1921 , Lasker played the more solid l l . . . . . R-1·0; 12. Q-Q3, Kt-R2; 13. B X B, R x B; 14. R-K3, Q-Ktl; 15. P-QKt3, Q-Kt3. Here we see the same ideas prevail as in the present game: Black seeks to bring pressure on White's Queen's wing while at the same time maintaining a firm control of his own K4. But White's strategic plan can best be seen in the following continuation: 11 R-Kl; 12. P-K5, Kt­ R2; 13. B-Kt3, P-QR4; - 14. Q-Q3, B-KB1; 15. P x P, P x P; 16.R X R, Q x R; (Bernstein-Lasker, St. PetersbuTf�, 1914) and White could not break up Black's central Pawn position. .

• . . .

12. B x B 13. Q-Q3 14. R-K3 3

QxB KR-K1 Kt-B1

P-QB4 15. Q-B4 16. Kt-Q5 This looks very menacing, but simpler was 16. Kt-B3, B-K3; 17. Q-R6, with the intention of exploiting Black's weakened Pawn position. 16. . . . . . . Q-K4 B-K3! 17. Kt-Kt3 Threatening . . . . P-QB3; and leading to interesting complications in which Lasker is able to display his tactical skill.

18. Q-K2? 18. Q-R4 was better in order to answer 18 . . . . . Q X KtP; with 19. Kt X P(B7), P-B5; 20. Kt X KR, P X Kt; 21. RP X P, B-Q2; 22. Q-R3, Q x Q; 23. R x Q, B x Kt; 24. R-Q3, with about equal chances. 18. 19. P-QB4

Q x KtP!

20

CHESS FHOM MOHPHY TO BOTWINNIK

19. Kt X P(B7) is now not good because after 19 . . . . . B x Kt; the QR is loose, while with the vYhite Queen on R4, White could have countered the threat with RP x B defending the Rook.

QxQ 19. B x Kt 20. R x Q 21. BP x B P-QR4! 22. P-QR4 Kt-Q2 23. P-B3 KR-Ktl Other players might have hesitated to commit themselves to 2 1 . . . . . P-QR4; binding the Q R to the defence of its Pawn, but Lasker saw that White's QR Pawn would

become even weaker than his own. This part of the game is a good example of Lasker's masterly tech­ nique. 24. R-K3

25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

Kt-B1 R(3)-R3 Kt-Q3 Kt x R R-K3 RxP R-K7 RxP R-KB1 Resigns.

R-Kt5 Kt-Kt3 P-B4! P x P! RP x Kt Kt x QP Kt-B6 P-Kt6 P-Kt7 RxP

The variation we have just seen was frequently adopted by leading masters such as Lasker, Capablanca, Schlechter. Whilst having the appearance of rigidity the defence provides plenty of scope for individual enterprise, as may be seen by comparing Lasker's treatment of this game with his later game against Capablanca referred to in the notes.

WHITE CHOOSES AN ATTACKING FORMATION­ THE SHOWALTER CONTINUATION In the more positional treatment of the Steinitz Defence, as in the last game, White's aim was to carry through P-K5, and break up Black's Queen's side formation leaving Black's double Pawns weak for the end game. Black, however, was able to meet this threat by overprotecting his square K4. White had little hope of generating a successful King's side attack, for Black's sound Pawn structure and the open QKt file would have outweighed White's attacking chances. It is not surprising that attacking players like Showalter tried to deprive Black of this compensation by an early exchange of the QKt, forcing Black to retake with the Bishop instead of the Pawn. Even to-day this continuation is considered the strongest, and was successfully adopted by Pillsbury. His game against Bardeleben is a good example of this system. 10 White

H. N. Pillsbury

Black

C. von Bardeleben

Mun ich, 1 900

1. P-K4 2. Kt-KB3 3. B-Kt5 4. Castles

P-K4 Kt-QB3 Kt-B3 B-K2

P-Q3 5. Kt-B3 6. P-Q4 B-Q2 7. B x Kt BxB PxP 8 . Q-Q3 Black gives up the centre one move too early. Correct is 8 . . . . . Kt-Q2; 9 . B -K3, ( 0 . P-Q5, Kt-B4; and . . . . B- c, 2) 9. . . . . P X P; 10. B X P, Cas�'; 1 1 . Kt­ Q5, B X Kt; 1 2 . P X D, .i. � -B3; 13. KR-Kl, B X B; 14. Q X B, (Mar-

THE S'l'EINITZ DEFENCE

21

oczy-Capablanca, London, 1922). Here Black succeeds in properly controlling his K4 square (the key of the defence) by Kt-Q2 and B-B3 (the same idea as in Steinitz' treatment). 9. Kt x P B-Q2 10. P-QKt3 The 14th match game Lasker­ Capablanca continued 10. B-Kt5, Castles; 1 1 . QR-Kl , P-KR3; 12. B-R4, Kt-R2; 13. B x B, Q X B; 14. Kt-Q5, Q-Ql; 15. P-QB4, with advantage for White. However, the text-move appears to give an even more lasting initiative. 10. . . . . . . Castles 1 1 . B-Kt2 R-Kl A better line of defence is shown in the game Pillsbury-Steinitz, Vienna, 1898. 1 1 . . . . . P-B3; 12. QR-QI , Q-B2; 13. KR-K1 , KR-K1 ; 1 4 . KKt-K2, QR-QI ; 1 5 . Kt-B4, B-KB1; 1 6. Q-Kt3, K-Rl; 17. P-B3, Q-R4; 18. QKt-K2, Kt-Ktl ; 19. P-QR3, Kt-K2. 12. QR-K1 B-KBI 13. P-B4 Q-K2 14. P-KR3 P-B4 This appears weakening but there is no other way of development; besides, Black has a plan. 15. Kt-B3 B-B3 By forcing White to pJay 16. Kt-Q5, the weakness on Q6 disappears. B X Kt 16. Kt-Q5 17. P x B Q-Q2 An interesting continuation would

have resulted from the se�mingly stronger 17 . . . . . Q-Ql; 18. Kt­ Kt5, P-KKt3; 19. P-B5, R x R; 20. R x R, B-Kt2; 21. P x P, RP x P; 22. R-KB I , followed by Q-KB3 with a winning attack. This variation shows how well the Queen is placed on Q3 to exert pressure on the remote King's side. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

B x Kt Kt-R4 Q-B5 Kt x Q P-KR4 P-R5 R-B3 K-R2 RP x P R-K2 PxP R-B3 R-K8

PxB P-Kt4 QxQ KR-Ktl P-QR4 P-R3 P-R5 PxP R-R7 P-B5 PxP R-Kt5? R(Kt5) -Kt7 3 1 . R-Kt3 eh. Resigns. An impressive demonstration of the Showalter attack. It is difficult to detect any major mistake on Black's part prior to his 29th move.

CAPABLANCA's CoNTRIBUTION Capablanca was the third world master to accept the Steinitz Defence. He did not employ it exclusively, but his faith in its soundness is proved by his adopting it regularly against his great rival, Lasker, after his loss to him at St. Petersburg, 1914. Though the games between them do not constitute the last word on this defence, they do reveal many new possibilities in its mode of conduct.

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

22

11 \Vhite

M. Euwe

Black

J. R. Cap ablanca

London, 1922 I. P-K4 P-K4 Kt-QB3 2. Kt-KB3 Kt-B3 3. B-Kt5 P-Q3 4. Castles B-Q2 5. P-Q4 PxP 6. Kt-B3 Capablanca gives up the centre a move before 7. R-K1 (or 7. B � Kt, B x B; 8. Q-Q3, ) forces him to do so but thereby avoids Showalter's variation (see previous game). A good example of Capa­ blanca's preventive technique. B-K2 7. Kt x P 8. R-K1 A more useful move appears to be 8. P-QKt3, but it only gives White equality after 8. . . . . Kt x Kt; 9. Q x Kt, B x B; 10. Kt x B, Kt---,-Q2; 1 1 . B-R3, P-QR3; 12. Kt-B3,B-B3; 13. Q-K3,Castles; 14. QR-Q1, B X Kt! Lasker­ Capablanca, New York, 1924. Castles 8 R-K1 9. B-B1 10. P-B3 Tarrasch recommends 10. P­ QKt3, and B-Kt2. .

Kt x Kt! 10. . . . . . . One of Capablanca's characteristic moves by which he evades the dan­ ger arising after 10 . . . . . B-KB1; 11. B-KKt5, P-KR3; 12. B-R4, P-KKt3; 13. Kt-Q5, B-Kt2; 14. Kt-Kt5, �-KKt4; 15. KKt X P, P x B; 16. Kt x QR, Q x Kt; 17. Kt-B7, (better Q X P) (Lasker­ Capablanca, 1921, 1 2th match game). 11. Q x Kt B-K3 To meet 12. P-QKt3 with 12. . . . . Kt-Q2 and . . . . B-B3, besides preparing . . . . P-Q4. 12. Q-B2 P-B3 13. B-Q2 If 13. B-K3, Q-R4. Q-Kt3 13. . . . . . . 14. Kt-R4 This puts the Knight out of play but 14. P-QKt3, P-Q4; is also good for Black. Q x Q eh. 14 . . . . . . 15. K x Q P-Q4 16. P-K5 If 16. P x P, Kt x P; and Black threatens P-QKt4 followed by . . . . B-B4 eh. and Kt-Kt5. .

. . . . • •

Kt-Q2 16. . . . . . . 17. P-KKt3 Better, but not quite satisfactory, is 17. P-KB4, P-QKt4; 18. Kt­ B3, B-B4 eh.; 19. K-B3, P-B3; 20. P X P, Kt X P; with the threat of . . . . P-Q5. 17. . . . . . . B-KB4 P-QKt4 18. QR-B1 19. Kt-B3 B-B4 eh. 20. K-Kt2 Kt x P The liquidation of White's centre is carried out in Capablanca's con­ vincing style. 21. 22. 23. 24.

P-KKt4 K-Kt3 B-KB4 B x Kt

B-KKt3 P-KR4 P-B3 PxB

THE STEINITZ DEFENCE DEFERRED 25. B-Q3 B-B2 Black naturally wishes to retain the two Bishops.

23

33. P-QB4 RXP 34. P x QP PxP 35. B-Ktl B-B3 36. R-Q1 R(B6)-B5 37. B-K4 B-B4 38. Kt-Q3 P X B! Resigns. 3 9 . K t x B, R-Kt5 eh. leads to mate. Truly a Capablanca game. Chiefly impressive is that even within the strict limitations of the Steinitz Defence Capablanca is able to demonstrate his smooth and ap­ parently effortless style.

26. P-Kt5 P-Kt3 B-Q3 27. R-K2 28. K-Kt2 K-Kt2 29. QR-K1 R-K2 R-KB1 30. Kt-Q1 31. Kt-B2 B-K1 32. P-Kt3 R(2)-KB2 The game is won for Black; it is nevertheless interesting to observe the ruthless way in which Capa­ blanca exhibits his opponent's weaknesses.

V THE STEINITZ DEFENCE DEFERRED THIS most modern defence was played during the nineteenth century; for instance, we know an example of its adoption by Louis Paulsen in 1871. However, since his mode of treatment was quite different from present-day methods, we begin our study with a game played by Black­ burne in 1 877, in which we see our modern strategical ideas beginning to assume a definite shape. At a later date, Steinitz himself revived this defence (which came to be known as the 'Steinitz Defence Preceded') when, according to his contemporaries, he had become disillusioned in his old defence. He vigorously denied this saying, 'Some critics remarked that I had lost faith in my usual favourite 3 . . . . . P-Q3; but it will be seen the same idea is carried out after the move (3 . . . . . P-QR3; ) which secures a draw at least against the most formidable attack, which according to the theory and practice of first-class masters White has at his disposal.' (As we shall see in the notes to game No. 16 Yates-Bogoljubov, San Remo, 1930, it has since been proved that White cannot force the draw.) Steinitz adopted it consistently during the Hastings Tournament of 1895, and at last it seemed as if he achieved his objective of maintaining the centre albeit at the expense of a cramped position. The ultimate judgment on the Steinitz Defence Deferred has yet to be given, but we can say in general that Black can maintain the centre, and if he should have to give it up, he can do so safely in the knowledge that he can secure a free development for his pieces. BLACKBURNE'S TREATMENT In the following interesting game Blackburne, a player of individual outlook, adopting the defence for the first time, demonstrates his sound appreciation of its principles.

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

24

12 White

Black

G. H. Mackenzie J. H. Blackburne Played in a short match of 3 games after the Bradford Tournament, 1877 P-K4 I. P-K4 2. Kt-KB3 Kt-QB3 P-QR3 3. B-Kt5 P-Q3 4. B-R4 B-Q2 5. P-B3 P-KKt3 6. Castles 7. P-Q4 B-Kt2 Black has now reached the ideal position in this variation. It is certain that this was not deliber­ ately planned, nevertheless it is remarkable that Blackburne treats it quite in the modern spirit.

Blackburne knows how to make use of the centralized pieces. 13. QR-Q1 KP x P 14. B x B KxB 15. BP x P P-B4! 16. P-K5 P-B5 17. K-R1 Q-B1 18. B x Kt PxB 19. K-Kt2 The alternative was 19. RKKt1 , Q-R6; 20. Q-K2, R-B4; 21. R-Kt2, R-R4; with the threat of Kt-B4-R5.

•

8. B-K3 KKt-K2 9. Q-Q2 The usual move played to-day is 9. P x P, with the idea of bringing the QB to B5. 9. . . . . . . Castles B-Kt5 10. B-R6 Black avoids the trap! If (a) 10 . . . . . Kt x P; 1 1 . P x Kt, B x KB; 12. B x B, K x B; 13. P x P, P x P; 14. Kt x P, regaining the Pawn with the better position; (b) 10 . . . . . Kt x P; 11. P x Kt, B x QB; 12. Q X B, B X B; 13. Kt-Kt5, wins. 1 1 . Kt-R3 Contemporary critics here recom­ mended 1 1 . B X B, K X B; 12. Kt­ K1 , with attacking chances for White, but this shows that they misjudged the position. By ex­ changing the Bishops White has not unduly weakened Black's King position and furthermore he has no minor pieces left on the King's side with which he can attack. u.

12. P x B

B x Kt P-Q4!

Kt-B4! 19. . . . . . . A fine, and by no means obvious Pawn sacrifice. Q-Q1 20. Q x P Kt-R5 21. K-R1 P-KR4! 22. Q-Kt4 Kt x P 23. Q-Ktl Q-Q2 24. Q-Kt3 Takes control of the important Kt5 square. 25. Kt-B2 P-R5 26. Q-Kt2 It is interesting to see how Black has succeeded in controlling all the important squares thus restricting the movements of the White Queen. 26 . 27. 28. 29.

...... Kt-K3 Q-Kt3 R-Q3

R-B5 P-R6 QR-KB1 P-B4!

25

THE STRINITZ DEFENCE DEFERRED

breaks up the centre. If instead of 29. . . . . P-B4; 29. . . . . R X P; 30. R X R, Kt X R; then 31. Kt­ Kt4! would follow with the threat of Q x RP, also Q-R4! or 29. Kt X QP; 30. R-KKtl , 30. R-B1 Not 30. P x P, P-Q5; with the threat Q-Q4, or R-Kt5. 30. PxP 31. P-K6 QxP 32. R x P eh. The last desperate attempt. If now 32. . . . . QR-B2; 33. Q X R,

Position after 29 . . . . . P-B4! After Black has reduced \-Vhite to passivity on the King's side he

32. 33. Kt-B1 Resigns.

KR-B2 Q-K7

That this game has aroused no particular interest is evident by its omission from Blackburne's best games, whereas with to-day's knowledge we cannot help admiring how well Blackburne mastered all elements of the game, when we consider that it was played in 1887 when the strategic implications were not fully appreciated. It is true Black achieved this ideal formation as the result of White's indifferent handling of the opening. Nevertheless, once Black had attained a firm hold on the centre, he proved that he was able to carry out a combined attack in the centre and on the King's side. It is surprising that this contest was dismissed as just a good attacking game without regard to the genesis of the attack.

BLACK ESTABLISHES A STRONGHOLD IN THE CENTRE ­ SCHLECHTER'S TREATMENT As soon as the fundamental differences between the 'Steinitz' and the 'Steinitz Deferred' had taken shape, the question arose: 'Can White force Black into the "Steinitz" when Black intends to play the "Deferred"?' If so, the latter would become meaningless, since from the first decade of the new century Chess began to assume scientific form, and in master play Black would long ago have abandoned a defence dictated by the wishes of White. The following game is a good answer to this question. 13 White

R. Teichmann

Black

K. Schlechter

Monte Carlo, 1902 1. P-K4 2. Kt-KB3 3. B-Kt5 4. B-R4

P-K4 Kt-QB3 P-QR3 P-Q3

PxB 5. B x Kt eh. 6. P-Q4 White's aim is to force Black to play 6. . . . . P x P; which would lead to an ordinary Steinitz De­ fence. 6. . . . . . . P-B3 But this move, played by Alapin against Tarrasch in Nuremberg, 1 892, foils White's attempt.

26

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

7. Kt-B3 With regard to the currently popular 7. B-K3, see the following game. 7. . . . . . . P-Kt3 Kt-R3 8. B-K3 Kt-B2 9. P-KR3 B-KKt2 10. Q-Q2 Black's method of developing his King's side pieces is even to-day considered best-an ideal which can be realized only by indifferent handling of the opening on the part of White. 1 1 . R-Q1 Q-K2 12. Castles Castles P-R3 13. KR-K1 14. Kt-K2 K-R2 P-QR4 15. Kt-Kt3 Kt-Q1 16. P-QR4 17. Kt-R2 Kt-K3! With this well-timed Knight manreuvre Black not only prevents 18. P-KB4, on which 18. . . . . P X QP; 19. B X QP, Kt X B; could follow, but clarifies the tension in the centre, since 18. P-Q5, P X P; 19. Q x QP, B-Q2; followed by P-KB4; would be too strong. 18. P-QB3 P-QB4 19. Kt-K2 If 19. P x BP, Kt x P; 20. B x Kt, P x B; and the position is in favour of Black, who can now play 21. . . . . B-K3; with the threat B­ Kt6 and . . . . KR-Ql . 19. . . . . . . B-Kt2 By superlative manreuvring Black at last induces White to close the centre, since he was threatening 20. . . . . P-KB4; in which case the two Bishops would have enhanced powers. 20. 21 . 22. 23. 24.

P-Q5 P-B3 Q-B2 B-B1 Kt-Kt4

Kt-Kt4 P-B4! P-KB5 B-B1 B-Q2

Position after 19.

B-Kt2

25. P-QKt3 More precise was at once 25. P-B4, for now Black had the alter­ native break-through with 25 . . . . . P-B5; 26. P x P, Q-Kl. P-R4 25. . . . . . . Kt-B2 26. Kt-B2 27. P-B4 P-Kt4 All this is superbly played. The Queen's side and the centre being blocked, Black can prepare the break-through on the King's side at his leisure. 28. K-B1 Kt-R3 P-Kt5 29. Kt-B3 30. RP x P PxP 31 . K-K2 B-KB3 32. R-R1 B-R5 33. QR-Ktl R-KKtl 34. K-Q1 R-Kt3 35. Q-K2 QR-KKtl PxP 36. R-B1 This break-through proves to be too early and, as will be seen, it should have been prepared by QR-Kt2 and K-Ktl since the Black King on R2 is exposed. 37. P x P R-Kt7 38. K-B2 Q-Kt4 Q-Kt6 39. B-Q2 B-R6 40. Kt(B3)-Q1 41. K-Q3 Loses the Queen for Rook and

THE STEINITZ DEFENCE DEFERRED

27

48. B X RP, R-Kt7; 49. B-Kl was a good alternative for White. 48. . . . . . . K-Kt2 49. B-Kl Not 49. R X Kt?, R-Kt7 eh., winning the Rook.

Position after 36. R-Bl Knight, but affording chance for White.

the

best

41 . B-Kt5 42. Kt x B RxQ 43. K x R Q-Kt7 eh. 44. K-Q3 Kt x Kt 45. R x B eh. Owing to the disadvantageous position of the Black King, White has now this defensive resource at his disposal. 45 . 46. 47. 48.

...... R-B2 K-K2 R(2)-R2

Kt-R3 Q-Kt8 R-Kt6

Kt-Kt5 49 . . . . . . . 50. B x R Kt x R Q-Q5 51. B x Kt K-B2 52. R-Kt4 eh. 53. R-Kt2 Q-RS 54. K-Kl Q-Kt8 55. R-KB2 QxP 56. Kt-Kt2! As a result of the manreuvre initiated by the 52nd move, White was able to defend aU the weak points of his position. 56 . 57. 58. 59. 60. 61 . 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68.

K-Kl ...... K-Bl K-Q2 K-Kt2 K-Bl R-K2 K-Kt2 B-Ktl K-R3 K-R2 B-B2 B-Kl K-R3 K-R2 B-R4 Q-Ktl B-QS B-R4 Q-Kt6 B-Kl K-R3 K-B2 K-Kt3 K-R3 B-Q2 Drawn.

Black's strategy in this game is almost perfect. The way in which he uses his forces by diverting them from the centre to the flanks is most impressive, as is his economy in using only as many pieces in the centre or flank as necessary. If ever a proof were needed of Steinitz' theory of the centre, this game provides one, and it is unsurpassed� even to-day, as a model of how such a position should be treated. WHITE TRIES TO RESTRICT BLACK'S DEVELOPMENT ON THE KING'S SIDE­ CAPABLANCA'S DEFENSIVE METHOD As soon as Black is able to develop his Knight to KB2, he has not only , established a real stronghold, but he has solved the problem created by playing 6 . . . . . P-KB3, which deprives the Knight of its natural square. In the following game, White's strategy is directed against Black's harmonious development of the King's side. That this creates a difficult problem for Black can be seen from the games referred to in the anno­ tations in which Black has often to face a dangerous King's side attack.

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

28 White

14

Black

P. Romanovsky J. R. Capablanca Moscow, 1935 I. P-K4 P-K4 Kt-QB3 2. Kt-KB3 P-QR3 3. B-Kt5 P-Q3 4. B-R4 PxB 5. B x Kt ch . P-B3 6. P-Q4 7. B-K3! P-KKt3 Another line of development is 7 . . . . . Kt-K2; 8. Kt-B3, Kt­ Kt3; 9. Q-Q2, B-K2; 10. P­ KR4, P-KR4; l l . Castles Q, B-Kt5; 12. Q-Q3, P X P; 13. B X P, Kt-B5; 14. Q-B4, Q-Q2; Bogoljubov - Alekhine, Exhibition game, Baden-Baden, 1934. 8. Q-Q2 9. Kt-B3

B-KKt2 B-Q2!

attack as shown in the previous note, but with the advantage that his King is safer in the middle, retaining the option of castling on the Queen's side if White tries to open the central files. Kt-K2 10. . . . . . . 1 1 . P-KR3 To be able to play QR-Q1 without the interference of B-Kt5. ll. Castles 1 2 . QR-Q1 Q-Ktl 13. P-QKt3 Q-Kt2 14. B-R6 Threatening 15. B x B, K x B; 16. P x P, BP x P; 17. Kt x P. QR-Q1 14 . . . . . . KxB 15. B x B 16. Kt-R2 White wants to undertake an action in the middle, but 15. Q-B1 with the idea of playing Q-Kt2 is a more promising plan. .

Q-Kt5! 16. . . . . . . One of Capablanca's typical "pre­ ventive" moves. Now he eliminates White's attacking chances before they become dangerous. If now 17. P-B4, Q x P eh.; 18. Q x Q, P x Q; and in the end game White's centre is weak.

A simple-looking, but important waiting move to see which side White is going to castle. The alter­ native is 9. . . . . Kt-K2; 10 B-R6, Castles K; ll. Castles Q, B-K3; 12. P-KR3, Q-Ktl; 13. P-KKt4, Q-Kt5; 14. B X B, K X B; 15. P-R3, Q-Kt3; '\-\ith chances for both sides. (Bogoljubov-Sir G. Thomas, Hastings, 1922.) 10. Castles KR If White castles on the Queen's side Black can carry out the same

17. Q-K3 QR-K 1 ! Preventing again 18. P-KB4, on which could follow 18. P x QP; 19. R x P, Q-Kt3; with the threat . . . . Kt-B4; PxP 18. QKt-K2 Q-Kt3 19. R x P P-QB4 20. Q-Q2 Q-Kt5! 21 . R-Q3 22. P-QB4 White cannot avoid exchange of Queens, for if 22. Q-B4, Kt-QB3! is too strong. QxQ 22. B-B3 23. R x Q P-B4 24. Kt-B3 25. Kt-Q5 Kt x Kt

29

THE STEINITZ DEFE�CE DEFERRED B-Q2 R-K5 P-KR3

26. KP x Kt 27. P-KB4 28. R-B3

I

29. Kt-B1 Drawn, for if 29. . . . . P-Kt4; 30. Kt-Kt3 would follow.

Though this game looks superficially like a 'Grandmaster draw,' after following the difficulties Black had to face in the two games given in the notes, one recognizes that Capablanca's treatment, with its crystal clear strategy, must, for the present at any rate, constitute the last word in this variation. How, after holding the centre for· twenty moves, he gives it up to transpose into an advantageous line of the Steinitz Defence, is a real masterpiece of strategy.

BLACK FOILS WHITE'S ATTEMPT AT SIMPLIFICATION ALEKIIINE 's TREATMENT

­

While the previous game has shown that White cannot forcibly trans­ pose from the Steinitz Defence Deferred into the Steinitz Defence, a second equally important question has to be solved, namely, whether White by simplification can remove the sting of Black's play-rendering the variation useless as an aggressive weapon. 15 White

Black

G. Stoltz

A. Alekhine

Bled, 1931 P-K4 I. P-K4 Kt-QB3 2. Kt-KB3 P-QR3 3. B-Kt5 P-Q3 4. B-R4 5. P-Q4 P-QKt4 Kt x P 6. B-Kt3 7. Kt x Kt P x Kt 8. B-Q5 R-Ktl 9. B-B6 eh. Alekhine remarks, if White thought that by simplification he could easily obtain a draw, he was certainly ill advised. 9. B-Q2 10. B x B eh. QxB u. Q x P Kt-B3 12. Kt-B3 B-K2 13. Castles Castles 14. B-Q2 14. B-Kt5 is not good because of 14. . . . . P-Kt5; 15. Kt-Q1 , (15. Kt-Q5, Kt X Kt; 16. Q X Kt, R--Kt4;) 15. . . . . Q-Kt5;

KR-K1 14. P-Kt5 15. Q-Q3 16. Kt-K2 16. Kt-Q5, Kt x Kt; 17. Q x Kt, (or 17. P x Kt, Q-Kt4;) increases White's drawing chances, in har­ mony with the policy of simplifi­ cation. 16. 17. On lowed

Q-B3 ...... P-KB3 17. Kt-Kt3, Kt-Kt5; fol­ by . . . . Kt-K4; is strong.

P-Q4 17. Kt x P 18. P x P B-B3 19. QR-K1 Q-B4 eh. 20. P-QB4 21. R-B2 Kt-K6 22. P-QKt3 QR-Q1 23. B x Kt RxB B-R5 24. Q-B2 After breaking up White's centre, Black is able to win a Pawn, but not without allowing White some counterplay. 25. P-Kt3 26. R-KB1 27. K-Kt2 28. R x R

R x BP B-Kt4 R x R eh. Q-B3 eh.

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

30 29. K-R3 30. R-BI

B-K6 R-Q4!

31. Q-B5, with counter-attack. Q-Q2 eh. 31. Kt-B4 R-Q5 32. P-Kt4 33. Q-KKt2! An ingenious defence. By the Mate-threat on R8 White wins a tempo to defend his Kt Pawn. 33. 34. Kt-R5 35. Q-K2 36. Kt-Kt3 37. Kt-K4 Seemingly allows plify, but the move

Characteristic of Alekhine. Even in a won position he plays the precise move. 30 . . . . R-Q3 would have allowed White to play

P-QB3 B-Kt4 P-KKt3 P-KR4 Q X P eh. White to simhas a point!

P x Q eh. 38. Q x Q R x Kt eh. 39. K x P 40. K x B K-Kt21 Resigns. There is no defence against 41. . . . . P-B3 eh. 42. R X P, R-K4 eh. winning the Rook.

This game is important not only from the opening point of view but for its contribution to middle game strategy, in demonstrating the dif­ ference between the strong and weak centre. As White is backward in his development, Alekhine is able to break up the position and to use the lines gained for manceuvring his pieces, transforming this again into a material win. As soon as this is realized, a direct attack is launched to conclude matters.

BoGoLJUBov's CoNTRIBUTION Although in the previous game Alekhine demonstrated that Black can undermine White's attempts at simplification, it was left to Bogoljubov to expound that, contrary to popular opinion, White cannot force a draw by a Pawn sacrifice. Even Steinitz was unaware of this, as he observed that this refinement constituted a possible blemish of the pefence Deferred. White

F. D. Yates

16 Black

E. D. Bogoljubov

San Remo, 1930 1. P-K4

2. Kt-KB3

3. B-Kt5 4. B-R4 5. P-Q4 6. B-Kt3 7. Kt x Kt

P-K4 Kt-QB3 P-QR3 P-Q3 P-QKt4 Kt x P P x Kt

8. P-QB3 Up to here the game is identical with Hymes-Steinitz, New YoTk, 1894, which was drawn by repeti­ tion of moves after 8. . . . . P X P; 9. Q-Q5, B-K3; 10. Q-B6 eh. B-Q2. It is interesting to note that in his attempts to find a line to avoid a draw, Steinitz analyses 10 . . . . . K-K2; coming to the conclusion that it is too dangerous for Black-and yet fails to find Bogoljubov's simple reply.

THE STEINITZ DEFENCE DEFERRED 8. . . . . . . B-Kt2! Kt-Ba 9. P x P If 9. . . . . B x P; 10. Castles, B-Kt2; 1 1 . R-K1 eh., B-K2; 12. B-Kt5, gives White a strong attack. 10. P-B3 B-K2 1 1 . Castles Castles 12. Kt-B3 P-B4 With this move Bogoljubov shows that White' s seemingly strong centre is merely an illusion, since he is totally unable to profit from it. Better than White's next move was 13. B-K3. 13. P-Q5 R-K1 B-KB1 14. Kt-K2 15. Kt-Kt3 P-Kt3 16. B-B2 H-Kt2 17. P-QR4 R-QB1 P-Kt5 18. B-Q2 Kt-Q2 19. P-R5 20. R-R2 Kt-K4 21. P-Kt3 P-R4 22. Kt-K2 R-B2 23. P-B4 This move appears to weaken White's centre still further, but he has no choice since he must find some counterplay against Black's impending B-QBI , Q2, Kt4, strengthening his position still further. 23 . . . . . . . 24. B-Q3 25. P-B5

Kt-Kt5 QR-K2

31

25. . . . . . . RxP Bogoljubov's direct method of breaking up White's centre by sacrificing the exchange is most impressive. White was threatening Kt-B4, followed by P x P and Kt-K6. PxP 26. P x P 27. B x R RxB P-Kt4 28. B-B4 28. . . . . Kt-K6; 29. B x Kt, R X Kt; is worth considering. 29. B-Bl R-K4 30. Q-Q3 Q-Kl If 30 . . . . . B X P; 31. B-Kt2 is too strong whilst if 30. . . . . R x P; 31. Q-Kt6 gives White a strong attack. 31. Kt-Kt3 RxP 32. R-K2! A clever tactical stroke to pro­ mote complications. If 32. . . . . B-K4; 33. Q-B5, B-Q5 eh.; 34. K-Rl, R X Q; 35. R X Q eh., K-B2; 36. R X R eh., K X R; 37. P-R3, wins. R-K4 32. . . . . . . R xR 33. B x P 34. Kt X R Q-K5 35. Q x Q BxQ 36. P-R3 Kt-K4 37. B-K7 Kt-B2 37 . . . . . B-Q6! would win an important tempo since if 38. R-B2, Kt-B2; White cannot play 39. Kt-Kt3 because of B-Q5. 38. Kt-Kt3 B-Q5 eh. 39. K-Rl B-QB7 40. Kt-B5! B-K4 41 . Kt x QP The only chance. White must try to break up Black's Pawn position. 41. R-B3 is met by P-B5! 41. . . . . . . Kt x Kt Not 41. . . . . B x Kt; 42. R x Kt with Bishops of opposite colours. 42. R-Bl

BxP

CHESS FROM MOHPHY TO BOTWINNIK

32

43. R x P B-KB5 If 43 . . . . . Kt-B5; 44. R--B8 eh., K-B2; 45. B x P, 44. R-B6 Not 44. R X P, B-B7; 44. . . . . • . Kt-B4

45. 46. 47. 48. 4.9. 50.

BxP B-Q4 RxP Kt-R5 B-Kl B x P eh. K-Ktl B-Kt2 R-KB6 B-Kt4 B x Kt BxR Drawn.

THE MoDERN CoNTINUATION­ WHITE DEFERS THE FIGHT FOR THE CENTRE As soon as it was realized that "Thite could achieve no tangible result by an attempt at early conquest of the centre, attention was directed to building up a strong position by 5. P-QB3, a not uncommon move in the Ruy Lopez. For the defence it was a long step forward, as Black was now able to hold the centre and even to fianchetto his King's Bishop.

STEINITZ' DEFENCE SYSTEM The following game is of particular interest, as it shows how Steinitz attempted to solve the problem of holding the centre, this time with the Steinitz Defence Deferred. He succeeded in his endeavour, but failed to obtain a good position. At that time his treatment of the opening was considered one of his many experiments. However, by comparing it with a game played by Alekhine we can easily discern where and why he failed. White

G. Marco

17

Black

W. Steinitz

Hastings, 1895 I. P-K4 P-K4 Kt-QB3 2. Kt-KB3 3. B-Kt5 P-QR3 P-Q3 4. B-R4 Kt-K2 5. Castles P-KKt3 6. P-B3 B-Q2 7. P-Q4 B---:-Kt2 8. B-K3 9. P x P PxP 10. QKt-Q2 Castles Kt-B1 1 1 . R-K1 As usual in this variation the development of the King's Knight is Black's opening problem. Steinitz developed the piece early to K2 instead of at a later stage and retaining the option of going to KB3, leaving the K2 square for the

Position after 11 . . . . . Kt-B1 Queen. He could then have trans­ ferred his KKt to Q3 via K1 , which is Black's aim in this variation. He is unable to prevent White's fol­ lowing move by 1 1 . . . . . P-Kt3; since 12. Kt-B l , Kt-Bl ; 13.

T HE STEINITZ DEFENCE DEFERRED B-KKt5 !, Q-K1; (13. P-B3? 14. Q-Q5 eh. ) 14. Kt-K3, followed by Kt-Q5 would prove embarrassing. R-K1 12. B-B5! P-Kt3 13. Kt-B1 KKt-R2 14. B-R3 Black is now forced to undertake this artificial manreuvre. QB-B1 15. Q-Q3 16. Q-K2 B-Kt2 P-QKt4 17. Kt-K3 P-Kt5 18. B-B2 Black has no time for . . . . P-QR4, and . . . . P--Kt5, since after QR-Q1 and Kt-Q5 White would exert too much pressure. But the following Pawn sacrifice is not quite correct. 19. B x P 20. P x Kt 21. Q-B4?

Kt x B Kt-Kt4

sufficient Pawn.

33

compensation

for

the

21. Kt-Q3 22. Q-Kt3 Kt x P 23. QR-Q1 Kt-Q3 24. Kt-Q5 Better was at once 24. Kt-Q2. 24 . . . . . . . 25. Kt-Q2 26. Q x B Better than 27. Kt-B4.

26.

P-K5 B x Kt P-K6!

B x P;

27. R x P RxR 28. P X R R-Ktl Not 28 . . . . . B X P; 29. Kt-B4. 29. Kt-B4 RxP 30. B-Kt3 This involved manreuvre endan­ gers White's game. 30. Kt x Kt, P X Kt; 31. Q X P, would have drawn. 30. R-Kt4 31 . Q-B6 B-B l ! 32. Q x RP Q-Kt4 33. R-KBl Kt x Kt 34. B x Kt Q x KP eh. 35 . K-R1 R-KB4 36. R-Rl Or 36. R x R, P x R; 37. P-KR3, B-B4; 38. K-R2, K-Kt2; (to be able to play . . . . P-B5 without interference of Q-B8 eh. and Q-Kt4) and Black's attack is decisive.

A mistake. Correct was 21. Kt-B4, with the threat Kt-R5. 21. Q-K2; 22. P-QR3, B-QB 1 ; 23. Kt-K3! prevents 23. . . . . B-Kt5; and Black has no

36. . . . . . . B-Q3 37. B-B1 If 37. P-KR3, Q-Kt6; 37. . . . . . . B xP Resigns. There is no defence to . . . . R-KR4.

This is not one of Steinitz' great games, but one in which we can per­ ceive the Steinitz Defence Deferred coming into being; and for this reason it is of great interest. As the following game will show, the strategical r�ql!irements of the position were well recognized by Steinitz, only the . t1mmg of the moves bemg wrong; but complete accuracy on the very first occasion would be too much to expect.

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

34

ALEKHINE's CoNTINUATION Forty-two years later Alekhine was faced with the same problem that Steinitz failed to solve. And his continuation is a good answer to those critics who have condemned Steinitz for his unfruitful endeavours. 18 White

E. G. Sergeant

Black

A. Alekhine

Margate, 1937 P-K4 1. P-K4 Kt-QB3 2. Kt-KB3 P-QR3 3. B-Kt5 P-Q3 4. B-R4 5. Castles More exact is 5. P-B3, since the text-move allows Black to exchange the KB with Kt-QR4. B-Q2 5. . . . . . . P-KKt3 6. P-QB3 B-Kt2 7. P-Q4 8. P x P 8. B-KKt5would only help Black after 8. . . . . P-B3; 9. B-K3, Kt-R3; followed by . . . . Kt-B2; and the Knight has reached its ideal post in this variation. (Bogol­ jubov-Alekhine Match, 22nd game, 1929). P x P! 8. . . . . . . 8. . . . . Kt X P; gives White more chances after 9. Kt X Kt, P X Kt; 10. P-KB4, B X B; 1 1 . Q X B eh., Q-Q2; 12. Q X Q eh., K X Q; 13. P X P, K-K3; 14. B-B4, R-KB1 ; 15. Kt-Q2, B X P ; 1 6 . Kt-Kt3, B x B; 17. R x B, P-Kt3; 18. P-QR4, (Fine-Alekhine, Avro, 1938.) Kt-B3! 9. B-K3 The most important move in this variation; the Knight goes to B3 instead of to K2, as in the previous game. Q-K2 10. QKt-Q2 1 1 . P-QKt4 This manreuvre was com;idered

Position after 9 . . . . . Kt-B3! too arbitrary, but it is difficult to see what other plan White can conceive. 11. . . . . . P-QKt3 1 2. P-KR3 Castles KR 13. B-Kt3 P-QR4 14. P-Kt5 A better alternative is 14. PQR3 to maintain the tension on the Queen's side. Even then, White has little chance to improve his position, whereas Black can play 14 . . . . . Kt-KR4; . . . . B5 with advantage. .

14 . . . . . . . Kt-Q1 15. P-QR4 Kt-Kt2 16. B-Kt5 Kt-B4 17. B-Q5 QR-Q1 18. Kt-B4 P-R3 19. B x Kt B xB 20. Q-B1 White plays for a trap. 20. Q-B2, still gives him a playable game: 20. . . . . B-Kt2; 21. Kt-K3, B-K3; 22. B x B, P x B! 20. . . . . . . Not 20. . . . .

K-Kt2 Kt-Kt6? ;

21 .

THE STEINITZ DEFENCE DEFERRED Q x P, Kt x R; 22. Q x KtP eh. with draw. Kt x RP! 21. Q-K3 The decisive combination, quite in Alekhine's style : a seemingly sound position is quickly broken up. BxP RxB

22. R x Kt 23. QR-R1

35

B x Kt 24. P x R R-Q1 25. KR-Q1 B-Kt6 26. Q-K4 27. R-Q2 Q-B4 28. Kt x P? An oversight, but White's posi­ tion is naturally hopeless. 28. . . . . . . Q x BP! Resigns. White has three pieces attacked.

Alekhine's handling of the game is certainly convincing. He does not attempt the impossible, but exploits in full the potentialities of the opening.

THE SIESTA VARIATION Though this variation appears more in the nature of an experiment, it plays an important role in the development of the Steinitz Defence Deferred. It throws light on a pertinent query: Can Black undertake counter-action in the centre if White postpones his attack, as shown in the previous game? Short and fierce games resulted from 5. P-QB3, P-B4; reminiscent of the old gambits. Once declared bad, the Siesta reappeared in the short win of Keres against Euwe, Moscow, 1948. That one single game can bring into disrepute a whole system, or revive it, as in this case, proves that in scientific analysis we have made no considerable progress compared with the older masters; while in accuracy we may have retrogressed, as Alekhine once observed when comparing a contemporary analysis with one made by Tchigorin in the last century. It is interesting to note that Steinitz published an analysis in his Modern Chess Instructor in which he tried to prove that Black can safely play this 'Gambit' continuation, and Capablanca's conclusions, it will be seen, are the same. The following game is in his characteristic style. 19 White

R. Reti

J.

Black

R. Capablanca

Berlin, 1928 I. P-K4 2. Kt-KB3 3. B-Kt5 4. B-R4 5. P-B3 6. P-Q4 For the superior following game. 6. 4

P-K4 Kt-QB3 P-QR3 P-Q3 P-B4 6. P x P, see P x KP

7. Kt-Kt5 If 7. Kt x P, P x Kt; 8. Q-R5 eh., K-K2; 9. B-Kt5 eh., Kt­ B3; 10. B x QKt, P x B; l l . P x P, Q-Q4! 12. B-R4, K-Q21 Up to this point both Steinitz' and Capa­ blanca's analyses are identical. Capablanca gives here 13. Q-Kt5, P-R3; 14. Q-B5 eh., K-K1; 15. Q-Kt6 eh., Q-B2; 16. Q X Q eh., K x Q; 17. P x Kt, P x P; with an equal game. 7. 8 . Kt x KP 9. B-KKt5 10. Q x P

PxP ' Kt-B3 B-K2

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

36

13. Q X Kt eh. , B-Q2; 14. Q­ B3, P X B; 15. Q-R5 eh. , K-B1; 16. Q-R6 eh. , K-Ktl; would not yield White the draw, but he now threatens Q-R5 eh. and Q-B5 eh. drawing, as well as B-Kt7. 13. . . . . . . Q-Q2! Meets both threats. 14. Castles If 14. B-Kt7, Q-K3 eh.; 15. Q x Q, B x Q; 16. B x R, K-B2; winning two minor pieces for the Rook. This move turns out to be hazardous. Material loss could have been avoided, without advantage to Black by 10. B x Kt, B x B; l l . Q-R5 eh. , P-Kt3; 1 2 . Q-Q5, B-Q2; (Kmoch-E. Steiner, Buda­ pest, 1928.) 10 . II. 12. 13.

...... Kt x Kt ch. Q-Q5 B-R6

P-QKt4 P x Kt P x KB

14. . . . . . . B-Kt2 15. B-Kt7 Castles Q 16. B x R Kt-K4 B-B6! 17. Q-Q1 Hastening the end. 18. P x B There is no defence against 18 . . . . . Q-R6; 18 Resigns. .

• . . . . .

Q-R6

The following game shows the latest tendency of the Siesta Variation, and it is particularly interesting since one of our greatest opening experts, Euwe, is caught unprepared by a new variation. White

M. Euwe

20

Black

l l . Q-B3

P. Keres

World Championship Tournament, Moscow, 1948 I. P-K4 P-K4 Kt--QB3 2. Kt-KB3 3. B-Kt5 P-QR3 P-Q3 4. B-R4 5. P-B3 P-B4 6. P x P BxP 7. P-Q4 P-K5 8. Kt-Kt5 P-Q4 9. P-B3 P-K6! Not 9 . . . . . P x P; 10. Castles, and White obtains a strong attack.

10. P-KB4

B-Q3

This move created considerable controversy. It was called �over-

37

THE STEINITZ DEFENCE DEFERRED elaborate' and the simple 1 1 . B x P, was recommended. But after 1 1 . B x P, Q-K2; 12. Q-K2, the position is by no means as simple as it looks. True 12 . . . . . B-Q6?; 13. Q x B, B x P; is refuted by 14. Kt-B7 ! I but 12. . . . . Castles Q; 13. B x Kt, P x B; 14. Q x P eh., K-Q2; 15. K-B2, R-Kl; 16. R-Kl, B X P; wins. Analysts demonstrated 1 1 . Castles to be the clearest line for White. 11 . . . . . P-R3; (not 1 1 . . . . . B x P; 12. R x B, Q x Kt; 13. B x P, ) 12. Kt-B3, B x P; 13. P-KKt3, B­ Q3; ( . . . B-Kt4; 14. Kt X B, Q x Kt; 15. Q-B3, ) 14. Kt-K5, (analysis by Kmoch). The artificial-looking move 1 1 . Q-R5 eh. ! gave better chances for White than the text. If 1 1 . . . . . P-KKt3; 12. Q-B3, and the KKt cannot get to Kt3, and if 11 . . . . . B-Kt3; the Bishop has to give up the control of the K3 square, the importance of which is shown by the 13th move. .

Q-B3 11. 12. Q x P eh. After 12. B x P, Kt-K2; the White pieces are scattered and disunited. . . • . . .

12. . . . . . . Kt-K2 13. B x Kt eh. If 13. Castles, Castles KR; 14. Kt-B3, B X Kt; 15. R X B, Q-Kt3! followed by 16 . . . . . B X P; But had

he interposed on the 11th move Q-R5 eh. B-Kt3; with Q-K6! he could have forced the exchange of Queens. PxB 13. 14. Castles 14. Kt-B3, was still not feasible because of 14. . . . . B x Kt; 15. R X B, Q-Kt3; . This variation shows the importance of the KKt3 square for Black. 14. Castles KR 15. Kt-Q2 Kt-Kt3 16. P-KKt3 QR-K1 17. Q-B2 If 17. Q-B3, P-R3! 17. B-Q6 18. R-K1 R x R eh. 19. Q x R B x P! 20. P x B There is no help. On 20. Q-K6 eh., Q x Q; 21. Kt x Q, B-K6 eh.; 22. K-Rl, R-BS eh.; 23. K-Kt2, R-B7 eh. wins a piece. 20. Kt x P 21. QKt-B3 Kt-K7 eh. 22. K-Kt2 P-R3 23. Q-Q2 Q-B4 24. Q-K3 P x Kt 25. B-Q2 If 25. Kt X P, Q-B8 Mate. 25 . . . . Resigns.

0 0 0

B-K5

Euwe came in for considerable criticism over this game, and annotators suggested various moves to improve the defence; yet with unlimited time they overlooked more than Euwe did under the strict time limit. The only point on which censure is justified is that he went into an extensively analysed variation unprepared. Which just shows the pains that must be taken in this technical age if, avoiding over-solid lines, one wants to give the game a more dynamic character. THE DURAS VARIATION This modern line is named after the Czechoslovakian master who adopted this formation, though he treated it as a kind of Steinitz system, by first playing 5. P-Q3, then 6. P-B4, and ultimately P-Q4: therefore with the loss of a tempo compared with the modern continuation.

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK To-day it is mainly used with the idea of first restricting Black chances on the Queen's side, and then resuming the fight for the centre. It has the merit of eliminating the Siesta variation, which is bad against the Duras, as will be seen from the following short game. 21 White

Black

E. E. Book

E. Andersen

International Team Tournament Warsaw, 1935 I. P-K4 P-K4 2. Kt-KB3 Kt-QB3 3. B-Kt5 P-QR3 P-Q3 4. B-R4 P-B4 5. P-B4 Black does not realise the dif­ ference made by White playing 5. P-B4, (instead of 5. P-B3). 6. P-Q4! BP X P 7. Kt x P! Now this �acrifice is correct. 7. . . . . . .

P x Kt 8. Q-R5 eh. K-K2 9. B x Kt QxP At last Black realises that after 9. . . . . P X B; 10. B-Kt5 eh., Kt-B3; 1 1 . P x P, he cannot play Steinitz' fine defensive move 1 1 . . . . . Q-Q4; since the B P controls that square.

Position after 9. B x Kt Better was 9. . . . . Kt-B3; 10. Q x KP eh. , K-B2; 11. B-Q5 eh. , Kt x B; 1 2 . Q x Kt eh., Q x Q; 1 3 . P x Q, B-KB4; 1 4 . B-B4, R-B 1 ; and Black can still fight on. 10. Q-K8 eh. K-Q3 1 1 . B-K3 Q x BP 1 2. Kt-B3 B-Kt5 13. R-Q1 eh! Resigns 13 . . . . . B x R; 14. Q-Q7 Mate would follow.

"\\7hile this game may impress many by its brilliancy and brevity its importance lies in its theoretical value, for it shows that Black cannot counteract White's move 6. P-Q4, by playing 5 . . . . . P-KB4.

BLACK HOLDS THE CENTRE-ALEKHINE'S DEFENSIVE METHOD This section deals with the important problem of whether Black can hold the centre when he has not the important move . . . . P-QKt4, at his disposal. Alekhine, a most enterprising player, was the first to make the attempt. Though, like Steinitz, he pays heavily for his pioneering work, his idea is sound. White

P. Keres

22

Black

A. Alekhine

Margate, 1937 I. P-K4

P-K4

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Kt-KB3 B-Kt5 B-R4 P-B4 Kt-B3 7. P--Q4

Kt-QB3 P-QR3 P-Q3 B-Q2 P-KKt3 B-Kt2

THE STEINITZ DEFENCE DEFERRED Alekhine's aim is to hold the centre at all costs. For 7. P X P, see following game. 8. B-K3 Kt-B3 This move has been much criti­ cized and either 8 . . . . . P x P; or 8 . . . . . KKt-K2; recommended. But after 8. . . . . KKt-K2; 9. P x P, Kt x P; (9 . . . . . P x P; 10. B-B5) 10. Kt X Kt, P X Kt; 1 1 . B x B eh., Q x B; 1 2 . Q x Q eh., K x Q; 13. Castles Q eh., K-K1; 14. B-B5! would be too strong. PxP 9. P x P This is a mistake! Better is 9 . . . . . QKt x P; 10. Kt x Kt, P x Kt; as 1 1 . B-B5 could have been met by 1 1 . . . . . B x B; 12. Q x B eh., Q-Q2; retaining the option of castJing on the Queen's side, with good chances for Black.

89

Castles, would have given a clear advantage after 13. . . . . Kt-K2; (13 . . . . . B X P; 14. QR-Ktl ) 14. B X B eh. , Q X B; 15. Q-Kt3. 13. . . . . . . P-KKt4 In this complicated position, Alekhine misses his chance. Analy­ sis by Keres and Alekhine has proved that 13. . . . . Kt x P; is playable. 14. Q-K2, P-KB3; 15. Castles Q, P-B3; 16. B-Q6, Q­ R4; 17. Kt x Kt, P x Kt; 18. B x KP! Q x QB; 19. Q x Q eh., B x Q; 20. KR-K1, Castles Q; with suffi­ cient defensive resources for Black. 14. Q-Q5! Meets Black's intended move 14. . . . . P-KKt.5 ; by 15. P-K61 B X KP; (15 . . . . . P X P; 16. Q-R5 Mate) 16. B X Kt eh., P X B; 17. Q X P eh. , B-Q2; 18. Q-K4 eh. followed by 19. R-QI . 14. . . . . . . B-KB1 15. B x B RxB 16. Castles Q Q-K2 There is no good direct defence for the KKt Pawn after 16. . . . . R-KKtl ; 17. P-KR41 17. B x Ktl Avoids the trap! If 17. Kt x P, Castles Q; with the double threat of 18. . . . . B-Kt5; also 18. Q x Kt;

10. B-B5! With this move, characteristic of the opening, White gets the upper hand. 10. . . . . . . Kt-KR4 To bring the Knight to Q5 via B5-K3. 1 1 . Kt-Q5 Kt-B5 12. Kt x Kt P x Kt 13. P-K5 White's superiority is obvious. As subsequent analysis showed, 13.

BxB 17. . . . . . . B-Q2 18. Q-Q3 Black gives up a Pawn in order to castle, otherwise Kt-Q4 would follow. Castles Q 19. Kt x P 20. Kt-B3 P-KB3 21. P x P RxP 22. KR-K1 Q-Kt5? An oversight, but even 22 . . . . . R-K3; 23. Q-Q4, with the threat Q-R7 and also Q x BP, leads to a loss. 23. Q x B eh. Resigns. Mate in two follows.

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNII(

40

A complex game, especially in the opening which had not been previously essayed, and was therefore untrodden ground. This game brought the defence into discredit as is usual when a great player loses while adopting a new system. As this variation has been rarely seen, the final word has not yet been said. Black's counter-chances are very limited and for this reason it has not found favour in modern tournament practice, more elastic variations being preferred.

BLACK EASES THE TENSION IN THE CENTRE­ CAPABLANCA'S DEFENSIVE METHOD This game is an interesting counterpart to the previous one, in which Alekhine attempted to solve the problem of holding the centre under difficult circumstances. Here Capablanca elects to give up the centre in order to relax the tension. 23 White

P. Keres

Black

J. R. Capablanca

Buenos Aires, 1939 1. P-K4

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Kt-KB3 B-Kt5 B-R4 P-B4 Kt-B3 P-Q4 Kt x P

P-K4 Kt-QB3 P-QR3 P-Q3 B-Q2 P-KKt3 PxP B-Kt2

discredit. It continued: 9. Kt x Kt, P X Kt? 10. Castles, Kt-K2; 1 1 . P-B5! with strong pressure since 11 . . . . . P-Q4? is refuted by 12. P x P, P x P; 13. Kt x P, Kt x Kt; 14. Q X Kt, B X B; 15. Q-K4 eh. , and Q X B . But with 9 .. . . . . B X Kt; 10. B x B eh. , P x B; 1 1 . B-K3, Black with 11 . . . . . P-QB4; could meet the threat 12. B-Q4. KKt-K2 9. Castles 10. Castles 1 1 . P-KR3 Kt X Kt! Kt-K7 eh! 12. B x B One of Capablanca's simplifying moves, reducing White's pressure. 13. Kt x Kt If 13. Q x Kt, Q x B; and the threat 14. B-Q4, is prevented, while 14. Kt-Q5, is met by P-KB4. 13. . . . . . . QxB 14. B-Q4 B xB Black must not play 14. P-KB4; because of 15. B x B, K X B; 16. Q-Q4 eh., K-Ktl; 17. P-K5, Kt-B3; 18. Q-Q5 eh.

9. B-K3 Another important line is shown in the game Boleslavsky-Fine, Radio-match, U.S.S.R.-U.S.A. 1945 which brought the variation into

15. Q x B Kt-B3 16. Q-Q5 QR-Kl 17. Kt-B3 Through his 12th move Black has gained a useful tempo. 17

.

. . . . . •

Q-K3

41

THE S'fEINITZ DEFENCE DEFERRED 18. QR-Q1 P-B4! At last Black is able to eliminate White's Pawn centre, but the move, though it looks simple, required exact calculation. 19. P x P 20. QR-K1 21. R x Q

RxP RxQ

R-K4! 21. . . . . . . The key of the defensive man­ reuvre. It is not difficult to see at this stage; but Black based his defensive system on this move. Naturally 21. . . . . R X R? 22. P X R, would lose a piece. RxR 22. R x R eh. 23. R-Q1 If 23. Kt-Q5, R-K7; 23 . 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31 . 32. 33.

...... K-B1 P-QKt3 Kt-Q5 Kt-B4 P-Kt3 Kt-K2 P-B3 K-B2 RxR K-K3

K-B2 Kt-K4 Kt-Q2 P-B3 R-K5 K-K2 Kt-B4 R-K6 R-Q6 Kt x R eh. Kt-K4

Drawn. A game in Capablanca's convincing style. It is instructive to observe how he defeats White's intentions to make use of the hole at KB6 by B-Q4 and Kt-Q5.

BLACK HOLDS THE CENTRE-THE MODERN CONTINUATION The last two games have shown that Black has the choice of holding the centre, as Alekhine did against Keres, or giving it up and simplifying by exchanges, as played by Capablanca. These are purely defensive systems in neither of which had Black any chance of counter-play. It is therefore not surprising that later a more aggressive system was introduced, of which the following game is a good example. 24 White

Black

P. Keres

S. Reshev8ky

World Championship Tournament, Moscow, 1948 1. P-K4 P-K4 2. Kt-KB3 Kt-QB3 3. B-Kt5 P-QR3 4. B___:R4 P-Q3 5. P-B4 B-Kt5 This is the current favourite;

essentially logical, as White has weakened his Q4 square. 6. Kt-B3 White can force Black to give up the centre with 6. P-Q4, P X P; 7. B x Kt eh., P x B; 8. Q x P, B x Kt; 9. P x B, but with 9 . . . . . P-QB4; followed by Kt-K2-B3 Black can make use of White's weakness at Q4. 6 7. P-KR3 .

. • . . . .

Kt-K2 B x Kt

42

CHES� FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

Kt-Kt3 8. Q x B 9. Kt-Q5 R-QKtl 10. Kt-Kt4 Kt-K2 10. . . . . Q-Q2; would be too rigid, though possible. 1 1 . B x Kt, P X B; 12. Kt X P? R-Kt3;

20. P-Kt4 21. B-K3

Kt-K3 Kt-B5!

1 1 . Kt-B2 Q-Q2 12. P-Q3 White has no better prospects after 14. P-Q4, P x P; (not 14 . . . . . P-QKt4; 15. P X KtP, Kt X P; 16. Kt x Kt, P x Kt; 17. B-Kt3) 15. Kt x P, P-QKt4; 16. Kt X Kt, Kt X Kt; 17. B-Q1, Kt-Q5; and the White Bishops have no freedom to manreuvre. Kt-B1 12. . . . . . . 13. B-Q2 Preventing the exchange of the Bishop by 13. . . . . Kt-Kt3; and . . . . Kt-R4; but more aggressive was 13. P-QKt4. 13. B-K2 B-B3 14. Q-Kt3 15. R-QB1 Kt-Kt3 1 6. B-Kt3 Q-Q1 Kt-Q2 17. Castles 18. P-QR3 Kt-B4 19. B-R2 Castles The superiority of the Knights over the Bishops is apparent in such closed positions.

22. Q-B3 On 22. B X Kt, P X B; 23. Q-B3, (23. Q X P? B-Kt4; ) 23 . . . . . Kt­ K4; 24. Q-Q1, P-B4; Black would secure a strong post for his Knight. Kt x QP 22. . . . . . . 23. R-Ktl Kt-B5 White threatened to trap the Knight with 24. P-Kt3. 24. P-Kt5 Drawn. If 24. B x Kt, P x B ; 25. Q x P, and Bishops of opposite colours foreshadow the draw.

Although the game is cumbersome, and the early draw might suggest that both players avoided battle, the contrary is true. The structure of the defence demanded both caution and patience, and it is not surprising that both players got into time trouble seeking a solution to their diffi­ culties-but it should be realized that this is one of the first-known examples of the opening in tournament play.

CONCLUSIONS This concludes the chapters on the Steinitz and Steinitz Defence Deferred. While the former is crystallized and very unlikely to undergo radical changes, the latter has reached only a transitory state in its development. We have dealt with its primary form, where the fight for the centre can clearly be demonstrated. These chapters show how great masters like Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine have put Steinitz' ideas into practice. It is interesting to see how easily a player like Capablanca expresses Steinitz' fundamental concepts. In his three games as Black, Capablanca displays perfect

43

THE TCHIGORIN DEFENCE

timing in surrendering the centre only on completion of development, or when he was able to ease the position by forced exchanges. To-day, we accept these principles as inherent, proving that we can speak of a technique in chess.

VI THE TCHIGORIN DEFENCE THE other great pioneer in the Ruy Lopez was Tchigorin, who, like Steinitz, distrusted the then fashionable Berlin and 'Open' defences. Whilst trying to evolve a solid defensive system against the Ruy Lopez, he seems to have passed through a period of mental conflict, and two well defined phases in his approach can be clearly recognized. In 1893, according to Tarrasch, his ideas on the defence were still influenced by Steinitz. Indeed, in his match against Tarrasch in that year and in the Hastings Tournament of 1895, he adopted a passive defence similar to Steinitz', developing his KKt at Q2 via KB3 instead of KKt3 via K2. Later, he conceived a bolder plan, namely, advancing the Queen's side Pawns, to drive back White's KB, gaining manceuvring space behind the Pawn chain.

EARLY BEGINNINGS The following game was the first in which he introduced his new system into tournament play. 25 White

Em. Lasker

Black

M. I. Tchigorin

London, 1899 1. P-K4 P-K4 2. Kt-KB3 Kt-QB3 3. B-Kt5 P-QR3 4. B-R4 Kt-B3 5. Castles The 15th game of the Tarrasch­ Tchigorin match in 1893 went 5. Kt-QB3, P-Q3; 6. P-Q4, Kt­ Q2? !; 7. Kt-K2, B-K2; 8. P-B3, Castles; 9. Kt-Kt3, B-B3; 10. P-KR3, Kt-K2; 1 1 . Castles, Kt-KKt3; 12. B-Kt3, R-Kl; 13. Q-Q3, Kt(Q2)--Bl ; 14. Kt-K2, Q-K2; 15. B-Q2. This was Tchigorin's original system, and it

is remarkable that, although he had good practical success with it against Tarrasch, he changed to the more aggressive system in the text. The successful fusion of these two variations by the Russian masters Keres and Smyslov will be shown later. B-K2 5. . . . . . . 6. Kt-B3 This move is quite in accordance with the then current dictum of developing the minor pieces first. To-day the more dynamic 6. R-Kl is preferred, since it aJlows White to build up a Pawn chain by P-QB3 and P-Q4. 6. 7. B-Kt3 8. P-Q3

P-QKt4 Castles P-Q3

44

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

9. B-K3 Lasker must have realised that 9. P-QR4, (a move that he should have played in place of 8. P-Q3), is easily met by 9 . . . . . B-Kt5; 10. P X P, Kt-Q5; 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

...... Kt-K2 P-B3 P x Kt Kt-Kt3

Kt-QR4 P-B4 Kt x B Q-B2 P-Q41

P-QR4 19. Kt-Ktl 20. P-B31 This fine defensive move is typical of Lasker. First, he secures the centre and then he manreuvres with his Kts; his handling of such tasks has always been admired. P-Kt5 20. . . . . . . Preferable is 20. . . . . P-B5; 21 . KtP x P, KtP x P; 22. P-Q4, QR-Ql. Black should try to open diagonals for his Bishops. 21 . Kt-B5 Q-Kt2 22. Kt-R3 B-B3 23. P-QB41 Now White gets the upper hand, since 23. . . . . P-Q5; is met by 24. P-B4, and White will be able to break through on the King's side. Moreover, Knights are stronger than Bishops in closed position of this nature.

The position is clearly in Black's favour. He has the two Bishops, an attack in the centre and a superiority on the Queen's side. It is interesting to note that little curiosity was aroused by the fact that the world master had got into such a difficult position after a dozen moves in one of the strongest openings. 14. Q-B2 B-Kt2 15. KR-K1 P-R3 16. QR-Q1 KR-K1 17. B-B1 B-KB1 18. K-R1 Q-B3 He tries to force White to give up the centre, but the text man­ reuvre does not have the desired effect. White's defence would have been made very difficult had Tchi­ gorin played 18. . . . . QR-Q1; 19. Kt-Ktl , R-Q2; doubling Rooks on the Q file with the pos­ sible threats of P x P and of P-Q5.

23 . 24. 25. 26. 27.

...... QP x P PxP Q-B3 Kt-K3 1

P x KP P-R5 P-Kt6 RxP

A move that shows Lasker's superb skill in using his Knight not only for defence of the QBP but also for securing the square Q5. 27 . . . . . . . 28. Kt-KB2 29. Kt-Q3

R-Ktl Kt-K1 P-B3

THE TCHIGORIN DEFENCE 30. B-Q2 Q-B1 Better is 30. Q-Q2, as will be seen on the 34th move. Kt-B2 31. R-R1 B xR 32. R x R PxP 33. P-B4 Q-K1 34. Kt x KBP Now Black is unable to play 34. . . . . R-K1;-a consequence of his mistaken 30th move. R-Q1 35. Kt-B5 B-Q2 36. Q-K3 Whether this is a sacrifice or an oversight, there is no doubt that Black has a difficult position. White threatens both 37. B-R5 and

45

Q-Kt3 with an attack against Black's King's side. 37. Q x KtP B x Kt 38. P x B Q-Q2 39. B-R5 R-K1 40. R-Q1 Q-B1 41 . Q-Q3 R-K4 42. Kt-Kt6 R-K1 Not 42 . . . . . R x P; 43. B x Kt, 43. P-R3 Kt-R3 44. Q-Q5 eh. K-R2 45. Q-B7 Kt-Kt5 46. R-Q7 R-K8 eh. 47. K-R2 B-Q3 eh. 48. R x B QxP 49. R-Q8 Resigns. If 49 . . . . . Q X Kt; 50. Q-Kt8, Mate.

Though the game aroused interest and Black's treatment of the opening was highly praised a few years later as one of the best of the London 1899 Tournament, it took a long time for the chess world to appreciate that a new vista had opened for Black in the Ruy Lopez. To-day the Tchigorin is the most widely played defence in this opening.

THE MODERN FORM OF THE TCHIGORIN DEFENCE The foregoing game exemplified the early form of the Tchigorin Defence. The revolutionary character of Tchigorin' s idea was not immediate1y realized; indeed, both Pillsbury and Tarrasch played the same in­ different continuation as Lasker. The following game shows the variation in a form approximating to that of the present day. 26 White

0.

Duras

Black

M. I. Tchigorin

Nuremberg, 1906 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

P-K4 Kt-KB3 B-Kt5 B-R4 Castles R-K1 B-Kt3 P-B3 P-KR3 B-B2 P-Q4

P-K4 Kt-QB3 P-QR3 Kt-KB3 B-K2 P-QKt4 P-Q3 Castles Kt-QR4 P-B4 Q-B2

12. QKt-Q2 K-R1 The idea of this move is to secure the King's side. To-day this is carried out in other ways and at a later stage, but it wil1 be seen that the fundamental principles are the same. 13. Kt-Bl Kt-Ktl 14. Kt-K3 B-K3 15. Kt-B5 Better was 15. P x BP, P x P; 16. Kt-Q5, 15. . . . . . . B-B3 16. P-Q5 White closes the centre, as Black threatens 16 . . . . . BP x P; 17.

46

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

P x P, B x Kt; 18. winning a Pawn.

P x B, P x P;

16 . . . . . . . B-Q2 17. P-KKt4 P-Kt3 1 8. Kt-Kt3 B-Kt2 19. K-R2 Kt-B5 20. Kt-Q2 If 20. P-Kt3, Kt-Kt3; and Black can pursue his attack with . . . . P-QR4 and . . . . P-B5! 20 . . . . . . . Kt-Kt3 21. P-KR4 Q- Q1 22. K-Kt2 Not 22. P-Kt5, P-B3; 23. Kt-B3, P x P; 24. P x P, B-Kt5; with a strong position for Black. Whether the 21st move was a sacrifice or oversight is difficult to decide. 22. . . . . . . QxP 23. P-B3 B-R3 24. R-Rl The open KR file gives White good attacking chances, and Tchi­ gorin 's defence of the position is very instructive. 24 . . . . . . .

Q-B3

25. R-R3! It looks as if 25. R X B, Kt X R; 26. P-Kt5, would win, but Duras avoids the trap 26. . . . . Q x KtP; 27. Kt-B4, Q-R5; 28. Kt x Kt, Q-R6 eh.; 29. K-B2, Q-R7 eh.;

30. K-K3, Q X Kt; 31. Kt x B , KR-Q1; 32. Kt-B6, Q-B5 eh.; 33. K-K2, Q X Kt; 34. B X Kt, P-Kt4; followed by . . . . R­ KKtl and . . . . R-Kt3 winning the exchange. This variation, given by Tchigorin, shows that masters of the last century were capable of accurately calculating deep com­ binations. 25. Q-Kt2 26. K-B2 B-B5 27. Kt(Q2)-B1 QR-K1 28. Kt-K3 If 28. B X B, P X B; 29. Kt-K2, P-B4; breaking up White's posi­ tion. R-K2 28. P-B3 29. Q-R1 30. Kt-Kt2 B-Kt4 31. P-Kt3 R{2)-B2 . 32. B-K3 Kt-K 2 B x B eh. 33. Kt-R4 34. K x B P-B4! 35. KtP x P KtP x P 36. KP x P Q-Kt4 eh. 37. K-K2 Kt(3) x QP This move discloses the other function of the QKt, and also Tchigorin's skill in preparing the decisive break-through. 38. K-K1 Q-K6 eh. Kt-B5 39. Kt-K2 40. R-R2 Kt X Kt 41 . R x Kt Q x P eh. Q-Q5 eh. 42. K-B2 . 43. K-Kt2 R-Kt2 eh. 44. Kt-Kt6 eh. Kt x Kt 45. P X Kt B-B3 46. R-B2 RxP 47. R x R B x R eh. Q-B6 eh. 48. K X B Q X B eh. 49. K-K4 50. K-Q5 Q-Q6 eh. 51. K-B6 Q x KKtP 52. K-Kt6 P-Q4 eh. R-B2 eh. 53. K X P 54. K X QP R-Q2 eh. 55. K x P Q-K1 eh. Played in the good old Romantic

THE TCHIGORIN DEFENCE style. To-day, we rarely see the King being driven over the whole board.

I

56. K-B4 57. K-Kt3 Resigns.

47

R-B2 eh. Q-K6 eh.

Tchigorin played this game when he was fifty-six years old during the twilight of his chess career, when except for the Gambit tournament at Vienna in 1903, success eluded him. This was the only defeat inflicted upon Duras (who won the tournament), and Tchigorin had the satisfaction of seeing his system triumphant.

WHITE KEEPS THE CENTRE OPEN-LASKER'S TREATMENT The previous game was an interesting example of the conduct of the defence by its inventor against the Modern continuation, but the first real test was to come in the I asker-Tarrasch match of 1908. Although Lasker was never a scientific explorer of the openings (it has been said that he did not care to. gain advantages achieved by study), his approach was really deeper and philosophical. He treated the openings by applying the general principles of chess to them. Thus, although he deprived himself of the advantages of prepared analysis, he achieved more by an unbiased approach to the opening problems in practical play. The following game shows a lively encounter between Lasker and the scientific Tarrasch. ..

27 White

Black

Em. Lasker

S. Tarrasch

Fifth Match Game, 1908 P-K4 I. P-K4 Kt-QB3 2. Kt-KB3 P-QR3 3. B-Kt5 Kt-B3 4. B-R4 B-K2 5. Castles P-QKt4 6. R-K1 P-Q3 7. B-Kt3 Kt-QR4 8. P-B3 P-B4 9. B-B2 Q-B2 10. P-Q4 Kt-B3 1 1 . QKt-Q2 Castles 12. P-KR3 13. Kt-B1 The alternative is 13. P-Q5, which gives White a safe game but few winning chances; Lasker there­ fore sacrifices a Pawn in order to keep the game fluid. Though this is the first time he tried it, it cannot be considered merely a momentary impulse, or an experi­ ment, but part of Lasker's outlook

on chess. Thirty years later he still recommends this move in his Manual of Chess in spite of the weight of analytical evidence against him. 13. BP x P 14. P x P QKt x P 15. Kt x Kt P x Kt 16. B-Kt5 In the third match game Lasker continued here with 16. Kt-Kt3, Kt-Q2; 17. B-Kt3, Q-.Kt3; 18. Kt-B5, B-B3; 19. B-KB4, Kt­ K4; 20. B-Q5, R-R2; and could not get sufficient attack for the Pawn, and lost. Euwe recommends 16. Kt-Kt3, Kt-Q2; 17. Kt-B5, B-B3; 18. R-K2, Q-Kt3; 19. R-Q2, regaining the Pawn, but Pachman has shown that after 19. . . . . Kt-K4! Black has a good game, as 20. Kt x P (20. R x P? B X Kt; 21. P X B, Kt-B6 eh.) Kt-B5; 21. R-Q3, B-Kt2! P-R3? 16. . . . . . . Tarrasch writes: 'If 16. Kt-Q4; 17. B x B, Kt x B;

18.

48

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

Kt-Kt3, B-K3; 19. Kt-K2, Kt-B3; 20. R-Bl, Q-Kt3; 21. Q-Q2, and White will ultimately capture the Pawn at Q4 leaving Black with an isolated Pawn at Q3. . . . ' But Black can play 21. . . . . P-Q4; 22. P x P, B x RP; 23. QR-Ql , QR-Ql; with a good game. This merely proves that 16. B-Kt5 is not the strongest move. White may fare better with Alapin's suggestion 16. P-QKt3 and B-Kt2. Q-Kt3 17. B-KR4 P-Kt4? 18. Q-Q3 18. . . . . R-Kl; gives better chances of defence, since if 19. P-K5, P x P; 20. B x Kt, B x B; and the King can escape to K2 if necessary. B-K3 19. B-KKt3 KR-Bl 20. QR-QI Kt-Q2 21. B-Ktl Kt-Bl 22. P-K5 23. Q-KB3 Naturally Lasker is not satisfied to regain the Pawn, but wishes to exploit the weakness of Black's King's position. P-Q4 23. . . . . . . K-Kt2 24. Q-R5 25. P-B4! This weakens Black's position still further. Tarrasch recommends 25. . . . . Kt-Kt3; 26. P-B5, P-Q6 eh.; 27. B-B2, B:__B4; 28. Kt-K3, Kt-B5! but White can interpose 28. P-B6 eh., K-R2; 29. Kt-K3, Kt-B5; 30. B X QP eh., Kt X B; 31. R X Kt, with a far superior game.

Position after 25. P-B4! 25. . . . . . . P-B4 26. P x P e.p. eh. B x P PxP 27. P x P 28. B-K5! With this move White is able to eliminate Black's remaining King's side Pawn, after which his attack becomes irresistible. P-Q6 eh. 28. Kt-Kt3 29. K-Rl B-B2 30. Q x P 31. Kt-Kt3 Preventing 31 . . . . . B x B; 32. R x B, Q-KB3?; 33. Kt-R5 eh. 31 . . . . . . . 32. R x B 33. B x P Not 33. Kt-B5 eh. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.

QR-Kl B x Kt Q-K3 Kt-B5 Q-Kt5

B xB R-Rl R-QR2 Q-KB3?

34.

K-Bl QxB R-B2 Q-QB3 Resigns.

This game is important as it is here we see for the first time the fight for the centre, Black forcing White either to lock the centre (by advancing the QP) or to allow Black to break it up (as in this game) and initiate a counter-attack (cf. the 3rd match game in the note to White's 16th move). How is one to explain Tarrasch's demoralization and his condemnation of the defence? He was never fond of passive resistance and believing Black's pressure in the centre insufficient compensation for White's King's side superiority, he dogmatically considered the defence inadequate.

49

THE TCHIGORIN DEFENCE RUBINSTEIN IMPROVES THE DEFENCE

Tarrasch's defeat in the previous game brought the Tchigorin Defence into disrepute. His avoidance of it and his great influence as a writer enabled him to convince others of its 'inferiority,' especially as he was able to show a 'better' defence, namely the 'Open' variation, revived in the Lasker-Schlechter match of 1910. However, Rubinstein, who was at the height of his power, was able to improve the defence, as is apparent in the following game. 28 White

P. S. Leonhardt

Black

A. Rubinstein

San Sebastian, 1911 P-K4 1 . P-K4 2. Kt-KB3 Kt-QB3 3. B-Kt5 P-QR3 Kt-B3 4. B-R4 B-K2 5. Castles 6. R-K1 P-QKt4 P-Q3 7. B-Kt3 Castles 8. P-QB3 9. P-KR3 Kt-QR4 P-B4 10. B-B2 Q-B2 1 1 . P-Q4 Kt-B3 12. QKt-Q2 BP X P 13. Kt-B1 14. P x P P x P! Tarrasch played 14. . . . . Kt X QP; here; a similar position arising but with the two Knights exchang­ ed. He was mistaken in thinking that fewer pieces make the defence easier. P-R3 15. B-Kt5 R-K1 16. B-KR4 Q-Kt3 17. R-B1 B-K3 18. Q-Q2 Kt-K4! 19. B-Ktl Here the distinction is manifest! The Knight enters the fray with decisive effect at the moment when VVhite is about to play QR-Q1 to attack and capture the Pawn at his Q4. Now if20. Kt X P, B x KRP; 21. P-B4, (21. P X B?, Q X Kt!; 22. Q X Q, Kt-B6 eh. ) 21. . . . . B-Q2; 22. B-B2, Kt(4)-Kt5 ! 20. Kt(1)-R2

Kt-B5

Position after 19 . . . .

.

Kt--K4!

21. Q x QP If 21. Q-K2, Kt-KR4; would follow with the threat of Kt-B5. 21. QxQ 2 2 . Kt x Q Kt x KtP 23. Kt-B6 P-Kt4! 24. Kt x B eh. R x Kt 25. B-KKt3 Kt-B5 26. Kt-B3 QR-K1 27. QR-Q1 lf 27. B x P, Kt x B; 28. P-K5, Kt(Q3)-K5. P-Q4 27. . . . . . . 28. P-K5 Kt-KR4 Kt-Kt2 29. B-R2 30. P-Kt4 B-B 1 ! Rubinstein handles the technical part of the game with his usual artistry. ·

31. R x P 32. R-Q3 33. R x B

B-Kt2 B x Kt Kt x P

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

50

34. B x Kt Forced, since if 34. R(3)-K3? there follows Kt-B6 eh. RxB 34. 35. R x R R xR 36. K-B1 Kt-K3 Kt-B5 37. R-R3 Not the simplest. 37. Kt-B4; was better since after 38. R-QB3, K-B1; 39. R-B1, K-K2; 40. R-Q1, P-Kt5; the White Rook is bottled up and a speedy decision can be forced on the Queen's side. 38. 39. 40. 41 . 42. 43.

R x P! R-R8 eh. R-K8 K-Kt2 K-B3 R-QKt8

R-QB4 K-Kt2 Kt x P Kt-B5 eh. Kt-K3 R-B6 eh.

44. K-Kt2 R-B5 45. B-B5 Kt-B5 eh. 46. K-R2 P-Kt5 47. R-Kt7 Kt-K7 48. K-Kt2 If 48. B-K6, R-B5; 49. KKt2, Kt-Q5. 48. R-B5 49. P-B3 P-R4! 50. K-B2 Kt-B6 51. R-R7 P x P! 52. B x P K-B3 53. P-R3? A mistake. With 53. K-Kt3, White could have made Black's task very difficult. 53 . . . . . . 54. R-Kt7 Resigns. .

P-Kt6 P-Kt71

Though this game may have restored the confidence of many, it did not popularize the defence, for in the great St. Petersburg Tournament of 1914, we do not see this line played at all. WHITE PLAYS FOR A KING's SIDE ATTACK-RuBINSTEIN's DEFENCE In the previous games, the fight was mainly for predominance in the centre. This was really a preliminary stage, to enable White to carry out his King's side attack, and Black to start a counter-attack on the Queen's side. It was shown that White cannot keep up the tension in the centre without a rather dubious Pawn sacrifice. This might have suited Lasker's philosophical style which induced him to play doubtful variations, but it was theoretically unsound. The logical course, therefore, was for White to close the centre, which seemed the more justified as he was able to close the Queen's side as well, and have undisputed command on the King's side. The following game is a good example of this system. 29 White

E. D. Bogoljubov

Black

A. Rubinstein

Baden-Baden, 1925 1. 2. 3. 4.

P-K4 Kt-KB3 B-Kt5 B-R4

P-K4 Kt-QB3 P-QR3 Kt-B3

5. Castles B-K2 6. R-K1 P-QKt4 7. B-Kt3 P-Q3 8. P-B3 Castles 9. P-KR3 Kt-QR4 10. B-B2 P-B4 1 1 . P-Q4 Q-B2 12. QKt-Q2 It is important to note that after the interpolation of the moves 8. . . . . Castles and 9. P-KR3 the

51

THE TCHIGORIN DEFENCE move P-QR4 does not constitute a threat, since with 12 . . . . . B-Q2 the Black Rooks are connected. Black is able to avoid the move . . P-Kt5, and can choose the right moment for counter-action on the Queen's side.

The centre and the Queen's side are completely blocked and now he can safely turn his attention to the King's side.

• .

Kt-B3 12. . . . . . . 13. P-Q5 This move appears to be a simple solution of the problem set in the opening, but there is another equally important problem to be solved. White has to close the Queen's side as well as the centre, otherwise he could not attack on the King's side without the risk of a dangerous counter-attack by Black on the other wing. Kt-Q1 13. . . . . . . The alternative is 13. . . . . Kt-­ QR4; 14. P-QKt3, B-Q2; 1 5. Kt-B1 , Kt-Kt2; 16. P-B4, KR-Ktl; 17. Kt-K3, P x P; 18. Kt x BP, B-KB1; 19. P-QR4, Kt-QR4; 20. KKt-Q2, (C. H. O'D Alexander-Keres, Hastings, 1937-8). Although Black has suc­ ceeded in preventing the blockade of the Queen's side, White has the superiority there. 14. P-QR4 R-Ktl 14 . . . . . P-Kt5; is no better, as White can either play 15. P-B4, transposing to the actual game, or 15. Kt-B4, P--QR4?; 16. KKt x P, B-R3; 17. B-Kt3, P x Kt; 18. P-Q6, B x P; 19. Q x B, Q x Q; 20. Kt x Q, Kt-Kt2; with the better end game for White ( Capablanca­ Vidmar, New York, 1927). 15. P-B4 P-Kt5 If 15 . . . . . B-Q2; to keep the Queen's side open, 16. Kt-B1, P x BP; 17. Kt-K3!, R-Kt5; 18. Kt-Q2, regaining the important QB4 square for the Knight. 16. P-QKt3 White'& first task is completed. 5

16. 17. P-KKt4 18. K-R1 19. R-KKtl

Kt-K1 P-Kt3 Kt-KKt2

19. . . . . . . P-KR41 This looks like an attacking move and appears to violate the principles of defence; i.e., not to move Pawns where your opponent has the superiority and is preparing for attack. However, the strength of this move lies in the fact that Black, by exchanging the Rooks' Pawns, reduces White's chances to break through with Pawn ex­ changes to two files. The opening of the Rook's file is not dangerous for Black. 20. Kt-B1 20. P-Kt5 is bad because the R3 Pawn is undefended. But, even - if White had developed the King previously to R2, on 20. P-Kt5, P-B3; 21. P x P, R x P; would have followed, with pressure on the King's Bishop file. 20. . . . . . . PxP 21. P X P P-B3t Now 22. P-Kt5, can be an­ &wered by 22. . . . . P -B4.

CHESS FROM MORPHY T O BOTWINNIK

52

22. Kt-K3 Kt-B2 Kt-Rl 23. Kt-R4 Black's timing of the defensive moves is perfect. 24. P-B4 PxP 25. Kt(K3)-B5 This sacrifice of a piece was planned before White's previous move. Kt x Kt! 25. . . . . . . Acceptance of this sacrifice would have led to ruin for Black: 25 . . . . . P x Kt; 26. KtP x P, B-QI; (lf 26. . . . . R-B2; 27. Q-R5!) 27. Q­ R5, R-B2; 28. B x P, and the Black King cannot escape, since he would lose his Knight on R8. White again could build up his position with R-Kt2, QR-Ktl , R-R2, Q-R6 followed by Kt-B3 or Kt-Kt6. P---Kt4

26. KtP x Kt

R-B2 27. B x P 28. B-R2 R-R2 Kt-B2 29. Kt-Kt2 30. Kt-K3 B-Q2 31. K-Kt2 K-Kt2 R(Kt)-KRI 32. R-Rl 33. Q-K2 Q-Bl 34. B-Kt3 Q-KKtl RxR 35. Kt-Kt4 36. R x R RxR 37. K X R Q-R2 eh. 38. K-Kt2 Q-R4 Kt-R3 39. B-Ql This leads to a dead draw. After the exchange of Rooks there is nothing in it. Kt X Kt 40. Q-Kl 41 . B-B3 And the Knight cannot escape. 41. P-R4 42. Q-K2 B-Kl Q-R3 43. B x Kt 44. K-Ktl B-B2 Drawn.

This, and two other encounters between these two players, threw some light on the attack and defence of the Tchigorin variation. But while White's attack is along usual lines and is easy to carry out, Black's defence requires real mastership, and in this respect Rubinstein with his unprejudiced preventive action ( 19th move) has certainly brought a new idea into the game, and enriched the technique of the defence. WHITE MAINTAINS THE TENSION IN THE CENTRE­ �ERES' CONTRIBUTION Among contemporary masters, the greatest contribution to the Ruy Lopez has been made by Keres. His combinative style urged him to create positions with attacking possibilities. The problem was how to vitalize the game without resorting to doubtful variations. He therefore made an extensive study of the opening and discovered hidden tactical possi­ bilities which he merged into a cohesive system that opened new per­ spectives. The following game is a good example of his system. White

P. Keres

30

Black

S. Reshevsky

Stockholm, 1937 1 . P-K4 2. Kt-KB3

P-K4 Kt-QB3

P-QR3 3. B-Kt5 Kt-B3 4. B-R4 5 . Castles B-K2 6. R-Kl P-QKt4 P-Q3 7. B-Kt3 8. P-B3 Kt-QR4 According to Keres, this move is Castles. not as accurate as 8 .

• • . •

THE TCHIGORIN DEFENCE 9. B-B2 10. P-Q4 1 1 . P-QR4!

P-B4 Q-B2

This move disorganises Black's defensive system. If now 1 1 . . . . . R-QKtl; 12. RP x P, RP x P; 13. P-R3! (not P X KP immediately, because 13 . . . . . P X P; 14. Kt X P? Q X Kt; 1 5 . R X Kt, Kt-Kt5 !; 16. P-KB4, Q-B2; 17. R-R1, P­ B5! threatening to win the ex­ change) 13. . . . . Kt-B3; (Kt x P was threatened as Kt-Kt5 is no longer feasible for Black) 14. B­ K3 ! and White is able to keep up the tension in the centre, as Kt-R4 -B5 no longer constitutes a threat. P-Kt5 1 1. . . . . . . P x KtP 12. P x KtP 1 3. P-R3 Castles 14. QKt-Q2 In the first match game between Tarrasch and Lasker in 1916, White continued with 14. B-Kt5, R-K1; 1 5 . QKt-Q2, Kt-Q2; 16. B X B, R x B; 17. QR-B1, Q-Kt3; 18. Kt-B1, B-Kt2; 19. Kt-Kt3, P-Kt3; 20. P x P! and now instead of 20. . . . . P x P; Black could have equalised with 20. . . . . Kt x P; according to Lasker. B-K3 14. . . . . . . Black wants to stabilise the centre, and tries to induce White to play P-Q5. This move also prepares for a counter-attack along the QB file. 15. Kt-B1 KR-B1 16. Kt-K3! With this well-timed manreuvre, White is not only able to defend his Bishop, but also to centralise the Knight, which will soon have important attacking possibilities.

lowed by QR-B 1 would have given Black better chances. 17. P-QKt3 18. B-Kt2 19. QR-B1

Kt-R4 B-B3

19. . . . . . . PxP It was certainly not an easy decision to give up the centre after holding it so tenaciously, but on 19. . . . . Q-Ktl ; 20. Kt-Kt4, B X Kt; 21 . P X B, Kt-B5; (the only move, as 21. . . . . Kt-Kt2; 22. P-Kt5, wins a Pawn) 22. P-Q5, P-Kt4; (White was threat­ ening 23. Q-Q2 and P-Kt3 win­ ning the Knight) 23. P-Kt3, Kt­ Kt3; 24. K-Kt2, followed by R-KRI-R5 with a decisive advantage. 20. Kt x P Not 20. B X P?, Kt X P; winning a Pawn. 20. Q-Q2 R-B4 21. R-Ktl 22. Kt(Q4)-B5! This forces the exchange of the Black Bishops, with resulting weak­ nesses on the black squares. . • . . . .

22 B x Kt 23. P x B BxB 24. R x B R-K1 25. B-Q3 25. Q-Kt4 with the double .

16. . . . . . . P-KKt3 It is doubtful whether the alter­ native move 16 . . . . . Kt-B5; 17. Kt X Kt, B X Kt; 18. B-Kt5, fol-

53

. . . . . •

54

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

threat of P x P and Q x QKtP would have been more direct. 25. Q-B3 26. Q-Kt4 Q-Kt3 27. QR-K2 R(B4)-K4 BP x P 28. P x P 29. B x KtP PxB 30. Q X P eh. K-Rl If 30. . . . . Kt-Kt2; 31. Kt-B5, Q-B2; 32. Kt x Kt, Q X Kt; 33. Q x R eh. A better defence would

be 30. . K-B1; 31. Kt-Q5, Q-B4; 32. R X R, R X R; 33. R X R, P X R; 34. Q-B5 eh. , K-Ktl; 35. Q x P, Q-B8 eh.; 36. K-R2, Q-Q8; 37. Q-Kt8 eh., winning the QKt. . . •

31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

Kt-B5 Q x Kt eh. Q-Kt5 eh. Q-Kt7 eh. Kt x P eh.

R{Kl )-K3 K-Ktl K-Bl K-K1 Resigns.

This game proves that White is able to maintain the tension in the centre if Black plays inaccurately (8 . . . . . Kt-QR4; instead of 8 . . . . . Castles; see game 33, page 57, note to move 9). The idea was tried some time ago by Tarrasch, who in his game against Lasker (shown in the notes) almost succeeded in demonstrating White's superiority; but Keres' method of combining the defence of the Queen's side with an attack on the centre is more convincing. However, this is not the final word, as Keres has found a better defensive system for Black.

BLACK CHOOSES AN ACTIVE DEFENSIVE SYSTEM­ TCHIGORIN'S CONTINUATION It does not seem to be generally known that at the end of his career Tchigorin evolved a still more aggressive defensive system, opening the Queen's Bishop file by . . . . BP x QP and using this to keep White occupied on the Queen's side thereby foiling any attempt on the part of his opponent to build up a King's side attack. With this system Tchigorin introduced an extremely controversial line which has been regularly adopted since his death, and which only recently seems to show signs of reaching finality, if indeed any opening system can be said to reach this stage. 31 White

Black

K. Schlechter

M. I. Tchigorin

Ostend, 1907 1. P-K4 P-K4 2. Kt-KB3 Kt-QB3 3. B-Kt5 P-QR3 4. B-R4 Kt-B3 B-K2 5. Castles 6. R-K1 P-QKt4 P-Q3 7. B-Kt3 8. P-B3 Castles 9. P-KR3 Kt-QR4 The simplifying move 9. . . . . B-K3 was revived recently by

Botwinnik, who, against Bole­ slavsky in the Tchigorin Memorial tournament at Moscow in 1947, played 9. . . . . B-K3; 10. B x B, P x B; 1 1 . P-Q4, Q-Q2; 12. P x P, P x P; 13. Q x Q, Kt x Q; 14. B-K3, Kt-B4; 15. B x Kt, B x B; 16. QKt-Q2, B-Kt3; and the game ended in a draw. It is of interest to note that this line had already been adopted in the game Schlechter -Tchigorin at Cambridge Springs, 1904, which continued, after 9 . . . . . B-K3; 10. P-Q4, P X P; 1 1 . P X P, B X B; 12. Q X B, Kt-R4; 13. Q-R3, P-B4. 10. B-B2

P-B4

55

THE TCHIGORIN DEFENCE l l . P-Q4

Q-B2 BP x P 12. QKt-Q2 This is Tchigorin's new system. Some idea of its merits will be seen when we come to game 32, page 56. 13. P x P B-Q2 14. Kt-B1 Kt-B3 Even 14 . . . . . QR-B1 does not give Black full equality after 15. B-Q3, Kt-B3; 16. B-K3, (Chris­ toffel-Bernstein, Groningen, 1946). He contests the centre a move too late.

22. Kt(K4)-Kt5 Kt-B3 22. . . . . B X Kt; 23. Kt X B, also loses a Pawn, since Black's Knight is attacked. 23. B X P eh. K-B1 R-Q1 24. QR-Q1 25. Kt x P! B-KB4 There is nothing better. After 25. . . . . K X Kt; 26. Q-Q5 eh. , K-B3; 27. Kt-Kt5, leaves Black without defence. 26. Kt x R

R x Kt

QKt-Kt5 15. B-K3 16. B-Ktl KR-B1 17. Q-Q2! A fine move which foils Black's plan to play 17 . . . . . Kt-B7; and exchange White's King's Bishop­ the 'dreaded' Lopez bishop. P-Q4 17. . . . . . . There is nothing better than this opening of the centre, which is advantageous to White on account of his superior development for if 17 . . . . . Kt-B7; 18. R-B1, fol­ lows winning the Queen for two Rooks and leaving Black's Knight on QR8 out of play. 18. Kt-Kt3 KP x P After 18 QP X P; 19. Kt X P (K5), Black's Pawn at K5 would prove very weak. .

• • . .

19. B x P PxP 20. B x Ktl This splendid and by no means obvious move is the right continua­ tion of White's attack. 20. . . . . . 2 1 . Kt x P .

BxB B-K2

27. Q x R eh. This sacrifice of the Queen for two Rooks is not difficult to see, but it is noteworthy in that it is the logical sequel of White's superb strategy. Kt x Q 27. . . . . . . Q-Kt3 28. B X B 29. Kt-K5 K-Ktl Q-R3 30. Kt-Q7 Q-Kt4 31. R X B 32. Kt-B6 eh. Resigns. A worthy conclusion !

Though Tchigorin was unsuccessful in this game, his idea of preventing White from closing the Queen's side and forgoing his King's side attack gave inspiration to later players who have consistently employed his system during the last forty years. It has been established that Black has an easier game than in the passive defensive system shown in the game Bogoljubov-Rubinstein (Game 29, page 50), even if modern theory has established that White can counter Black's initiative on the QB file.

CHESS FR OM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

56

From the previous game we can see that Black's defeat was due to the faulty timing of his moves (see the following game) and Schlechter's skill in taking advantage of his redoubtable opponent's lapses in such masterly fashion. 32 White

Black

M. Luckis

M. Najdorf

Mar del Plata, 1945

(b) 16 . . . . . P-R6; 17. P x RP, R X P; 18. R-B 1 , Q-Ktl; 1 9 . B-Kt3, Kt-QR4; 20. P X P, P X P; 21. B-B5, B x B; 22. R X B, Kt X B; 23. P X Kt, R-K1; with a roughly equal game, Boleslavsky­ Grigorienko, 1 938. (c) 16 B-Q2; 17. QR-B 1 , KR-B1 ; 1 8 . B-Ktl , Q-Ktl ; 19. Kt-B1 , Kt-QR4; 20. R X R eh. , B x R; 21. B-Kt5, with the better game, Smyslov-Reshevsky, The Hague, 1948. .

I. P-K4

P-K4 2. Kt-KB3 Kt-QB3 P-QR3 3. B-Kt5 Kt-B3 4. B-R4 5. Castles B-K2 6. R-K1 P-QKt4 P-Q3 7. B-Kt3 8. P-QB3 Kt-QR4 9. B-B2 P-QB4 10. P-KR3 Castles 1 1 . P-Q4 Q-B2 12. QKt-Q2 BP X P This exchange, which opens the QB file, changes the whole course White has to forgo of the game. any idea of a King's side attack and turn his attention to the Queen's side where Black possesses temporary superiority in develop­ ment. 13. P X P Kt-B3 P-QR4 14. Kt-Kt3 P-R5 15. B-K3 16. QKt-Q2 B-R3 Apart from this move, which seems safest for Black in a cramped position, he has the choice of : (a) A counter-attack by 16 . . . . . QKt-Kt5; 17. B--Ktl , P-R6; 18. Q-Kt3, Q-R4; 19. P X KP, P X KP; 20. Kt x P, B-K3; 21. Q x P, Q x Q; 22. P x Q, R x P; 23. QKt­ B3! winning a pawn (23. . . . . B x P? 24. B x B, R x B; 25. Kt­ B6! R-K1 ; 26. Kt x B eh. , R X Kt; 27. B--B5! R x R; 28 R x R, Kt­ B7; 29. R-R2! winning a piece) Boleslavsky - Hagosin, Leningrad, 1947.

17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

. • . .

QR-B1 Kt-Bl B-Ktl Kt-Kt3 B-Kt5

Q-Kt2 B-Q1 R-K1 P-KKt3 QKt-R4

22. P-Q5 White at last decides to accede to Black's desire and close the centre. White seems to have had nothing better since Black is threat­ ening to initiate a strong attack on the Queen's side with Kt-B5. Q-Q2 22. . . . . . . Not at once 22 . . . . . Kt-B5; because of 23. P-QKt3, Kt-R6;

THE TCHIGORIN DEFENCE (23. . . . . P X P; 24. Q X PI) 24. P x P, P x P; 25. R-B6! (25. Q x P? B-Q6). K-Kt2 23. B-Q3 Kt-B5 24. Q-Q2 25. B-R6 eh. K-Ktl PxB 26. B x Kt 27. Kt-KR4 K-R1 Kt-Ktl 28. B-Kt5 29. B x B QxB

57

30. Kt-B3 R-Ktl 31. R-B3 R-Kt2 32. R-R3 B-Kt4 33. P-QKt4! Draw agreed. This move secures the draw since 33. . . . . RP X P e.p.; 34. P X P, P x P; leads to the liquidation of the Queen's side Pawns, and on other moves Black is unable to break through on the Queen's side.

LATER TRENDS IN THE TCHIGORIN DEFENCE­ THE BOGOLJUBOV VARIATION This line was for a long time considered a sub-variation as White is able to transpose into an ordinary Tchigorin. Eventually, Keres adapted it to his defensive system, proving what an important link it is. White

M. Euwe

33

Black

P. Keres

7th Match Game, 1940 1. P-K4 P-K4 2. Kt-KB3 Kt-QB3 3. B-Kt5 P-QR3 4. B-R4 Kt-B3 5. Castles B-K2 6. R-K1 P-QKt4 7. B-Kt3 P-Q3 8. P-B3 Castles 9. P-Q4 Instead of this move White could play 9. P�KR3, and seemingly transpose into the ordinary Tchi­ gorin Defence. That is the reason why the above variation was not considered important. But after 9. . . . . Kt-QR4; 10. B-B2, P-B4; 1 1 . P-Q4, Q-B2; 12. P-QR4? can be answered by 12 . . . . . B-Q2; now the Rooks are connected and Black can choose the right moment to strike on the Queen's side. After 13. QKt-Q2? BP x P; 14. BP x P, KR-B1; 15. B-Q3, P X RP; 16. Q-K2, Kt---QR4; Black has the better game (Fine - Reshevsky, Avro, 1 938). 9. . . . . . . 10. P-Q5

B-Kt5

Alekhine preferred 10. B-K3, but Black could play 10 . . . . . P X P; 1 1 . P x P, Kt-QR4; 1 2. B-B2, Kt-B5; 13. B-Bl, P-B4; 14. P-QKt3, Kt-Kt3; and blockade the White centre Pawns with . . . . Kt-Q2 and . . . . B-B3 (Yates­ Ed. I asker, New York , 1 924). ..

10. . . . . . . Kt---QR4 P-B3 1 1 . B--B2 12. P x P QKt x P This and the following move do not seem to help Black's preparation of . . . . P-Q4, without which the Black Q3 Pawn might later become a weakness. The Kashdan-Res­ hevsky, Hollywood, 1945, game con­ tinued 12 . . . . . Q-B2; 13. P-KR3, B-K3; 14. Kt-Kt5, B-B1; 15. Kt-Q2, Q x P; 16. Kt-B1, P-R3; 17. Kt(5)-B3, B-K3; 18. Kt­ Kt3, Kt-R2; 19. Kt-B5, KR­ K1; 20. Kt X B eh., with the better game for White. But Keres' idea will become clear later. 13. QKt-Q2 P-Kt5 14. B-R4 H-B1 15. B x Kt P x P! P x Kt! 16. B-Kt7 Not 16 . . . . . R-Ktl; 17. B x P, P x P; 18. B x P, R x B; 19. Kt-B4, R-Ktl; 20. Kt-K3, preventing . . . . P-Q4.

58

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK 1 7. B x QP 18. B x P

R-Ktl

chances. 20. B X B, P X P; 2 1 . B x P, Kt x B; 2 2 . R x Kt, R x P; 23. B-B3, R X RP; would lead to an equal game. 20. . . . . . . B-B4! Creating complications. If 20. . . . . P x P; 21. B-B3, 2 1 . R-Ktl Simpler was 2 1 .

PxP Q-Kt3.

2 2 . B-K3 Avoids the trap! 22. P X P, B x P eh.; 23. K x B, Kt x P eh.

P-Q41 ! 18. Not 19. . . . . R x P; 20. B-B3, and White would force on his QRP. With the text-move Black not only carries through his strategic idea, but begins an attack against White's King's side.

B-Q5? 22. . . . . . . Keres recommended 22. B x B; 23. P x B, {23. Q x Q, KR x Q; 24. P x B, R-Q7; with advan­ tage for Black) 23. . . . . Q-Kt3 ! PxB Q-Q4 25. P x P Kt x P 26. Q-B3 P-B4 Q-R1 27. P-Kt3 Simpler was 27. . . . . K-R1; to meet the threat 28. B-B4. 23. B x B

24. B-B1

19. B-K2 (a) 19. P x P, P-K5; 20. P­ KR3, B-R4; 21 . P-KKt4, P X Kt; 22. P x B, Q x P; 23. R x B, KR­ Q1; would give Black a strong attack while (b) 19. B-Q3, P x P; 20. B X P, Kt X B; 21. R X Kt, B x Kt; 22. P x B, R x P; 23. B-B3, Q x Q eh.; 24. R x Q, R x RP; would lead to a draw.

R-Kt3 28. P-QR4 Q-R4? ? 29. QR-Q1 A blunder under time pressure. First 29. . . . . R-Kt3 eh.; 30. B-Kt2, (30. K-R1? Kt x P Mate) 30 . . . . Q-R4! would have led to an interesting fight.

B x Kt 19. . . . . . . 20. P x B The only move offering winning

30. B-B4 eh. Resigns. If 30. . . . . K-R1 ; 31. R X Kt, wins a piece.

One of Keres' characteristic games; full of combinations, and if it had not been for his annotations one would think he played for complications. Only on deeper introspection one can see the strategic aim of the game­ namely, the break through in the centre-which is carried out in a masterly fashion. Although this game cannot be considered as the final word, because of its involved character and the possibility that there may be a more effective line for White which would enable him to hold back Black's Queen's Pawn, it is an important link in Black's defence, since it allows him to transpose into another line of the Tchigorin Defence. This is shown in the following game.

THE TCHIGORIN DEFENCE THE MoDERN CoNTINUATION

oF

59

THE TcBIGORIN DEFENCE

The following game shows how Tchigorin's two systems are merged into one very effective defence. 34 White

C. H. 0'D.

Alexander

Black

P. Keres

Anglo-Soviet Match, 1947 1. P-K4 P-K4 2. Kt-KB3 Kt-QB3 3. B-Kt5 P-QR3 4. B-R4 Kt-B3 5. Castles B-K2 6. R-K1 P-QKt4 7. B-Kt3 Castles 8. P-B3 P-Q3 Kt-Q2 9. P-KR3 This is the alternative answer to White's move 9. P-KR3 (instead of 9 . . . . . Kt-QR4;). It is worth while remarking that Tchigorin used to play this move against Tarrasch (Match 1893), but without the man­ ceuvre . . . . P-QR3 and . . . . P-QKt4. 10. P-Q4 B-B3 1 1 . P-Q5 This move, by which White tries to transpose the game into an ordinary Tchigorin, is too commit­ ting at this stage; but that it is not easy for White to keep up the tension in the centre without allow­ ing simplification is shown in the game Boleslavsky-Flohr, Groningen, 1946. 1 1 . B-K3, Kt-Kt3; 12. QKt-Q2, Kt-R4; 13. B-B2, Kt(R4)-B5; 14. Kt X Kt, Kt X Kt; 15. B-B1, R-K1; 16. P-QKt3, Kt-Kt3; 17. P x P, P x P; 18. Q x Q, R x Q; with equality. Nor is 1 1 . P X P, QKt X P; 12. Kt-Q4, Kt-QKt3; dangerous for Black. 11. 1 2 . B-B2 13. QKt--Q2

Kt-R4 P-B4! Kt-Kt3

Superficially the position looks like an ordinary Tchigorin Defence, but closer study will reveal some important differences. Black in­ duced White to play P-Q5 without losing a tempo (by . . . . Kt-B3) as is usual in this variation. The Knight on Kt3 has an important function as it prevents White closing the Queen's side. P-Kt3 14. Kt-Bl 15. P-KKt4 KB-Kt2 16. Kt-Kt3 This move, which is usually played with the intention of build­ ing up an attacking formation on the King's side, is here a necessary defensive precaution against 16. . . . . P-B4; clearly demonstrating what a difference a few tempi make in the opening. 16. . . . . . . B-Q2 17. P-Kt3 Another bitter necessity, to be able to develop the QB without the interference of . . . . Kt-B5. But the text-move allows Black to open the QR file. 17. Kt-Kt2 18. K-R2 P-QR4 P-R5 19. B-K3 20. Q-Q2 P-B3 2 1 . Kt-Ktl Q-B2 22. Kt(Ktl)-K2 Kt-Q1 23. P-B3 Kt-B2 This classical Knights' manreuvre, bringing over the Queen's Knight to KB2 for defence and the KKt to QKt3 for attack, was introduced by Lasker in his 5th match-game against Tarrasch in 1916, and is still considered best. 24. P-R4

60

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK move frees Kt(Kt3) to interpose on the KB file. Kt-Kt4 dis. eh. Better was 37 . . . . . Q x R! 38. Kt-B5, Kt-R7; 39. Kt-Ktl , Kt-Kt5 eh.; 40. K-Kl, Q-Kt7; with the threat of . . . . Kt x B; also R-Rl; 37. . . . . . .

Too committing. White has no real attacking chances, and besides, he is engaged on the Queen's side. 24. . . . . . . R-R2 25. R-KKtl PxP 26. P x P KR-Rl 27. R x R RxR 28. P-Kt5 A mistake. It was necessary to play 28. R-Ktl , R-R7; 29. Q-Ql to take up a defensive position on the Queen's side. 28. . . . . . . PxP 29. B x P If 29. P x P, B-QBI; followed by . . . . Q-Q2 and Black would have chances on both flanks. P-R3 29 . . . . . . . 30. B-K3 Q-Ql ! 31. P-R5 Q-R5 eh. Kt-Kt4 32. K-Kt2 33. R-KRI B-R6 eh. 34. K-B2 Kt x BP 35. Q-Q3 All other moves lose quickly, e.g. 35. K x Kt, R-B2 eh.; 36. Kt-B4, P x Kt; 37. B x KBP, P-Kt4; 38. Kt-B5, Q-Kt5 eh. wins. R-KB2 35. . . . . . . R-Bl 36. P x P 37. R x B The only way to meet the threat 37 . . . . . Kt-Q5 dis. eh. 38. K-Kl, Kt X Kt; winning a piece. The text-

38. K-Kl QxR 39. B x Kt PxB 40. Q x P Kt-Bl 41 . P-Kt4 Alexander gives here 41. Kt-B5, Q-R4; 42. Kt(2)-Kt3, Q x P; 43. B-Ql, as a better line of defence. PxP 41. . . . . . . Kt-K2 42. P X P Kt x KtP 43. Q-Kt7 R-B2 44. Kt-B5 45. Q-B8 eh. K-R2 If 45 . . . . R-Bl? 46. Kt-K7 eh. R-B2 46. Q-K6 47. Kt x B QxQ RxB 48. Kt x Q 49. Kt X P eh. K-Ktl R-Kt7 50. K-QI RXP 5 1 . Kt-QB3 52. K-B2 Kt-Bl 53. Kt-B3 Kt-Q2 54. Kt-KR4 Kt-B4 55. Kt-B5 R-Kt3 55. . . . . Kt X P; 56. Kt X Kt, R x Kt; 57. Kt x P, R-Q5; 58. Kt-B5, R-KB5; was also suffi­ cient to win, but exchanging Pawns would be an unnecessary risk. 56. Kt-K3 K-B2 57. Kt-B4 R-R3 58. K-Q2 K-K2 R-R8 59. K-K3 60. K-K2 R-QB8 61. K-Q2 R-KR8 62. K-K3 R-R7 The first phase of the interesting end-game is over. Black's aim was to separate the two Knights which he was able to force by "zugzwang" manreuvre. (63. K-B3?, R-R6

61

THE TCHIGORIN DEFENCE

And now the other Knight has

to move since 66 . . . . . Kt-Q5 eh.;

was threatening. '

R-Kt6 66. . . . . . . 67. K-B2 The only move. Neither of the Knights can move because of . . . . Kt-Q5 eh. But now the King is forced away leaving the other side unprotected.

Position after 6 2. . . . . R-R7 eh. or 63. Kt-Kt5?, R-R6 eh.). 63. 64. 65. 66.

Kt-Q2 Kt-B3 K-K2 Kt-QKt5

R-R6 eh. K-Q2 Kt-Kt6

R-Ktl 67. . . . . . . 68. K-K8 R-QB1 69. K-Q8 69. . . . . R-B4; 70. Kt-R3, R-B6 eh.; 71. K-K2, Kt-B8 eh. was threatened. 69 . 70. 71. 72.

...... K-K8 Kt-B3 K-Q2 Resigns.

Kt-B4 ch. R-QKtl R-Kt6 Kt x P eh.

A clear demonstration that in this modern form of the Tchigorin Defence Black retains considerable play whether or not White maintains or curtails the central tension. THE MoDERN CoNTINUATION (FOR WBITE)-TnE RAUSER SYSTEM The Bogoljubov-Rubinstein game (Game 29, page 50) was a good example of White's attempt to force a decision on the King's side while closing the centre. But this attempt deprived the game of its dynamic character. White must therefore seek a better use of the centre. The following game is a good example of this idea. 35 White

Black

V. Rauser

N. Rumin

Leningrad, 1936 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

P-K4 Kt-KB3 B-Kt5 B-R4 Castles R-K1 B-Kt3 P-B3

P-K4 Kt-QB3 P-QR3 Kt-B3 B-K2 P-QKt4 P-Q3 Kt-QR4

9. B-B2 P-B4 10. P-Q4 Q-B2 1 1 . QKt-Q2 Kt-B3 1 1 . . . . . Castles; is less direct since it does not exert pressure on Q5, and can be answered by 12. Kt-B1 , B-Kt5; 13. P x KPI, P x P; 14. Kt-K3, B-K3; 15. Q-K2, KR-K1; 16. Kt-Kt5, P-B5; 17. P-QKt41, P x P e.p. 18. Kt x B, P x Kt; 1 9. P x P, P-Kt5; 20. P X P, B X P; 21. B-Q2, B X B; 22. Q x B, Kt-B3; (Alekhine-Flohr, Avro, 1938). Al­ though Black was able to control the important squares on his Q4

62

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

and KB4, by allowing the doubling of his centre Pawns, the resulting weaknesses proved to be fatal.

1948. White's last move was 26. Kt-Q5 !)

1 2. P-QR4 R-QKtl If 12 . . . . . P-Kt5; 13. P x KtP, P x KtP; 14. Kt-B4, foUowed by Kt-K3. RP x P 13. P x KtP PxP 14. P x BP B-K3 15. Kt-B1 On 15 . . . . . Castles; 16. Kt-K3, R-Q1 ; 17. Kt-Q5, Kt x Kt; 18. P X Kt, B-K3; 19. Kt-Kt5, fol­ lows with strong attack. 16. Kt-K3 Castles KR-Q1 17. Kt-Kt5 R-Q3 18. Q-B3 If 18. . . . . P-R3; 19. Kt x B, P X Kt; 20. Kt-Kt4, R-KB1 ; 21. Kt X Kt eh., R X Kt; 22. Q-Kt4, with advantage for White. 19. Kt-B5 1

B x Kt 19 . . . . . . . 20. P x B P-R3 Kt x Kt 21. Kt-K4 22. B x Kt B-B3 23. B-K3 Black's King's side is secure for a while, but now White turns to the Queen's side again. Kt-K2 23 . . . . . . . P-B5 24. P-QKt4 R--Q2 25. P-Kt3 Q-Q1 26. R-R7 27. R x R QxR 28. P-R4 K-R1 29. P-Kt4 And now White is able to transfer the fight to the King's side. This shows how much more vitality can be achieved in the game when the centre is not closed.

This is the key-move in the Rauser variation. When White is prevented from occupying the Q5 square he is able to put the Knight on this correspondingly important square. To illustrate how White is able to occupy the Q5 square when he cannot place a piece to his KB5 square the following position is of interest (Euwe-Smyslov,The Hague,

Kt-Ktl 29. . . . . . . If 29. . . . . B x P? 30. Q-R3, B-B3; 31. P-Kt5, wins. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.

P-Kt5 R-Q1 P-B6 PxB B-B2 BxP B xR B-B4 Q-K2

B-K2 Q-B2 B x BP Kt x P R--Q1 R x R eh. P-K5 Q-Ql Resigns.

THE TCHIGORIN DEFENCE

ft3

This system, introduced by Rauser, is completely revolutionary; breaking away from the old established axiom that White cannot attack on the King's side while his centre is open. Although such an authority as Alekhine recommended it, it has gained ground only slowly. It had to be proved that in spite of the simplification in the centre it gave White's game increased dynamic power, since White has to gain control of the vital squares (Q5 or KB5) by combinative means.

WHITE RESUMES THE FIGHT FOR THE CENTRE­ THE WORRALL ATTACK The previous sections have, in the main, dealt with the classical form of the Tchigorin Defence, and although new ideas were introduced, they were incorporated in the old framework. We call this form 'classical' since it centres round White's King's side attack, as in the game Bogoljubov-Rubinstein (Game 29, page 50). The only - new ideas embraced were associated with the preparation of this attack by first closing the Queen's side and the centre. The weakness of this plan was that the centre became hopelessly blocked and the game lost its dynamic character. Therefore, it is understandable that aggressive masters like Alekhine or Keres sought new ways of revitalizing the centre. The Worrall attack (and the Rauser system) seemed to fit these ideas. The basis of this system is to play Q-K2 (instead of R-K1) and follow up with KR-Q1 giving greater support, and therefore more force, to the central push P-Q4. It is interesting to note how White has con­ tinually tried to enliven the game, replacing 6. Kt-QB3 by 6. R-K1 and then replacing this by 6. Q-K2. 36 White

Em. Lasker

Black

R. Teichmann

St. Petersburg, 1909 P-K4 I. P-K4 Kt-QB3 2. Kt-KB3 P-QR3 3. B-Kt5 Kt-B3 4. B-R4 B-K2 5. Castles 6. Q-K2 Lasker remarks that this move did not appear to have been played before. P-QKt4 6. P-Q3 7. B-Kt3 8. P-B3 Castles PxP 9. P-Q4 On 9. . . . . B-Kt5; White has the alternatives of either 10. R-Q1 leading to variations similar to that

in the game or 10. P-Q5, Kt­ QR4; 1 1 . B-B2, P-B3; 12. P x P, QKt X P; 13. P-KR3, B-R4; 14. B-K3, ( Spielmann - Rubinstein, Berlin, 1928). 10. P X P B-Kt5 P-Q4 1 1 . R-Q1 Kt-K5 12. P-K5 Kt x Kt 13. Kt-B3 14. P X Kt P-B3 A mistake after which it appears that Black cannot recover. Lasker recommends 14. Kt-R4; whilst in a game Reti-Stoltz, Stockholm, 1928, after the interpo­ lation of P-KR3 and . . . . B-R4 there followed 15 . . . . . Q-Q2; with a roughly equal game. 15. P-KR3 B-R4 The Bishop has no good square for if 15 . . . . . B-KB4 also 16

64

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

P-Kt4! and if 15. . . . . B-K3; 16. P x P, R x P; 17. B-Kt5, R Kt3; 1 8 . B--B2. -

16. P--KKt4 B-B2 B-Kt3 17. P-K6! Kt-R4 18. Kt-R4 P x Kt 19. Kt x B P-KB4 20. B-B2 B-Q3 21. K-Rl Q-R5 22. P x P 23. Q-B3 PxP 24. R-KKtl White threatens 25. B X P, Q-B3; 26. Q-Kt2. P-B5 24 . . . . . . . Q-R3 25. R-Kt4 26. P-K7! A fine move bringing about a quick decision. If 26. . . . . R-B2;

Position after 26. P-K7! 27. B-Kt6, R x P; 28. Q x P eh. and the QR is captured with check. 26. . . . . . .

Resigns.

This game is one of the very earliest examples of the adoption of the Worrall Attack, and it is a good example of the potentialities of White' s push i n the centre. Even to-day Black's defensive system i s considered sound, but it has not the solidity of the Tchigorin Defence; and as Lasker so forcibly demonstrated, even a slight inaccuracy can seriously endanger Black's position. But can White prevent Black from adopting the Tchigorin defensive system? This is the problem with which we deal in the two following games. ·

KERES' CONTINUATION 37 White

R. Fine

Black

P. Keres

Avro Tournament, 1938 P-K4 I. P-K4 Kt-QB3 2. Kt-KB3 P-QR3 3. B-Kt5 Kt-B3 4. B-R4 B-K2 5. Castles P-QKt4 6. Q-K2 P-Q3 7. B-Kt3 8. P-QR4 This move has greater significance here than in the R-Kl variation, since the Black QKt Pawn is ex­ posed to attack, and the natural

reply 8 . . . . . P-Kt5? is refuted by 9. Q-B4! 8. . . . . . . B-Kt5 The only move to give Black adequate counterplay. The older move 8 . . . . . R-QKtl ; 9. P x P, P x P; 10. P-B3, B-Kt5; l l . R-Ql , Castles; 1 2. P-Q4, P x P; (Black is forced to surrender the centre as 13. P-Q5 is threatened) 13. P x P, P-Q4; 14. P-K5, Kt-K5; 15. Kt-B3, Kt x Kt; 16. P x Kt, Q-Q2; 17. P-R3, B-R4; 18. R-R6, Kt-Ql; 19. P-Kt4, a.:;; in the game Alekhine-Asztalos, J.:ccskcmrt, 1 927, and in others, has proved unsatisfactory for Black. 9. P-B3

Castles

THE TCHIGORIN DEFENCE This Pawn sacrifice, simple though it may appear, had to be accurately ca]culated. 10. P x P PxP ll. R x R QxR 12. Q x P Black now demonstrates this to be a mistake. Necessary was 12. P-R3, B-R4; 13. R-QI. Kt-R21 12. . . . . . . It seems astonishing that this natural move passed unnoticed for so long. The other seemingly strong move 12 . . . . . Kt-QR4? is met by 13. B-B2, Kt X P; 14. Kt X P! R-Ktl (if 14. . . . . P X Kt; 15. Q x P wins) 15. B x Kt, R x Q; 16. B x Q, winning a Pawn (Book C. H. O'D. Alexander, Margate, 1938). -

13. Q-K2 This withdrawal involved a diffi­ cult decision, for it is clear that the best White can hope for is a hard­ fought draw. The alternative is 13. Q-R5, Q X PI; ( 13. . . . . Kt X P; 14. B-Q5!) 14. Q X Kt, B X Kt; 15. P x B, Q x Kt; 16. Q x P, (16. Q­ K3, Kt-R4!) Q-Kt3 eh.; 17. K-R1, Q-Q6; 18. K-Kt2, Kt­ R41 with a winning attack. Whe�her Keres had prepared this variation or relied upon his intuition is difficult to say, but it is an apt illustration of his willingness to submit to a long and complicated variation, simply to meet the strate­ gical requirements of the position, rather than to fight a difficult defen­ sive game. 13 . . . QxP Kt x Q 14. Q x Q 15. P-Q4 It is difficult to avoid the doubling of the Pawns for if 15. B-Q1, Kt-B4; 1 6. B-K2, P-K5 and White has a serious weakness at his Q3.

65

17. K-Kt2 Preferable is the simplifying 17. B x Kt, B x B; 18. P x P, P x P; 19. R-K1 , B -B5; 20. R-QI ! stop­ ping 20 . . . . . R-Ktl on account of the threat of mate. 17. R-Ktl 18. B-QB4 PxP 19. P x P Kt-K3 20. P-Q5 A sad necessity. If 20. R-K1, B-B3; 21. B x Kt, P x B; 22. R x P, K-B2; with advantage to Black. 0 0 0 • • •

20. Kt-B4 Kt-B1 21 . Kt-B3 22. R-K1 K-Bl 23. R-K2 P-B4 More exact is 23. . . . . R-Kt5 and the Bishop has to surrender one of its diagonals for if 24. B-R2, Kt-Q6; or 24. B-QKt5, Kt-R2. Kt-Kt3 24. Kt-Kt5 25. P-Kt3 Kt X QPI A well-calculated move, as will be seen from the next move.

0 . 0 .

15. 16. P x B

B x Kt Kt-KKt4

26. Kt-Q4 This looks very strong, since not only is the BP attacked, but R x B and Kt-B6 eh. are threatened in certain lines. Kt-Kt5! 26. . . . . . . The only good move.

66

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

27. B-Q2? White persists in his original plan. Had he foreseen Keres' fine com­ bination, he would have played 27. Kt x P. 27. . . . . . . P�4! ! 28. B x Kt RxB 29. Kt-B6 If 29. R X B, K X R; 30. Kt-B6 eh., K-B3; 31. Kt x R, P x B; 32. P x P, and White has a lost end game on account of his weak QBP. P x B! 29. . . . . . . 30. Kt x R PxP 31. Kt-Q5 To prevent 31. . . . . B-B3 and P-Kt7.

38. Kt-B2 Kt-KS ! r If in reply 39. Kt X Kt, B X Kt; 40. K-Q3, B-Q7; wins. B-B4 39. Kt-R3 Good enough, but 39 . . . . . B-R5, 40. K�l, Kt X P; is quicker. 40. K x Kt B x Kt 41. K-Ql B-Q3 42. K-B2 White must give up the Pawn and B-B8 otherwise B-B5 is decisive. BxP 42. . . . . . . 43. R-KRl If 43. K x P, B-K4 eh. wins easily.

K�6! 81. The right reply, for if 32. Kt x B, Kt-B5 eh. wins, or if 32. R x B, P-Kt7!

B-K4 43. More precise is 43 B-B5; 44. R x P, B-Q7; as will be seen on the 49th move.

82. R�2 P-Kt7 33. R-Ql If 33. Kt--B3, B-Kt5; 34. R X Kt, B x Kt; 35. R�8 eh., K-K2; 36. R�Kt8, P-B4 wins.

K-B2 45. R-Rl P-Kt4 K-B3 46. R-Kl K-Kt3 47. R-KKtl B-B3 48. R-Kl 49. R-KKtl P-Kt5! The only way to make progress, since the Black King is unable to penetrate. This shows the disad­ vantageous position of Black's Bishop at K4.

. . • • . •

P--B4 33. . . . . . . Inexact; 33. . . . . Kt-BS (keep­ ing the Rook out) 34. Kt-B3, B-Kt5; 35. Kt-Ktl , P-B4; and P�B5 wins quickly. P�B5 34. R�Ktl B-B4 85. K-Bl 36. K-K2 If 36. Kt-K3? B X Kt; 37. P X B, P-B6 wins. 36. BxP 37. Kt-K3! A fine move making Black's task difficult, for if 37. . . . . B X Kt; 38. K x B, and Black loses his Queen's side Pawns. • • . • • .

37. . . . . . . P-B6! A very subtle move, for if 38. K x Kt, B x Kt; 39. K x P, B-B8; and the White Rook is incarcerated.

. . • . . .

.

• • . .

44. R x P

50. P x P P-B5 5 1 . P-Kt5l Otherwise 51. . . . . K-Kt4 fol­ lowed by P-B6 decides. 51. 51.

B�5 B X P? only draws.

. . . . . • . . • •

B-K6! R-Ql B--B8 KxP KxP R-Q6 eh. P-B6 R-Kt6 K-B5 K-Q3 K-Kt6 R-Kt8 Resigns. If 58. R-Kt8 eh., K-B7; 59. K-B2, K-K7; 60. R-KS eh. , 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57.

THE TCHIGORIN DEFENCE K-B8; 61. R K7, P-B7; 62. ---:R-K8, K-Kt7, 63. R-Kt8 eh. ,

I

67

K_-B6; 64. R-B8 eh., B-B5; and wms.

This game, between the winners of perhaps the greatest tournament of all time, presents, at first glance, a rather old-fashioned aspect especially in the opening stages where White indulges in the ancient practice of pawn-grabbing at the expense of development. The explanation seems to lie in the remarkable variations given in the notes to White's 13. Q-K2, the Queen's agile leap from QRI-K5 threatening the Knight at QKtl and also Q-Kt3 eh. with mating threats. It is a good illustration of the trend of modern play where strategical concepts are carried out by tactical threats and where the most important points are more often implied than implemented. The importance of this game from the point of view of the opening we are studying, lies in showing that Black need not spend time defending his QKtP but can continue his development. The middle and end game are here inseparable, for in spite of the reduced material the ending is rich in combinative strokes-a contrast to the 19th-century style of retaining Queens simply to provide such tactical opportunities. AI.EKHINE'S TREATMENT

Alekhine often adopted the Worrall attack when he played the Ruy Lopez, since being less analysed it gave his combinative powers far greater scope and allowed him to introduce that element of surprise so charac­ teristic of his dynamic style. In the next game we see the two greatest attacking players of modern times engaged in a variation favoured by both. From the start Alekhine introduces surprises by inverting the order of moves, although the greatest surprise comes when he introduces the Rauser system (exchange of the centre Pawns instead of blockading the centre by P-Q5), infusing new life into the Worrall attack. 38 White

Black

A. Alekhine

P. Keres

Salzburg, 1942 P-K4 1. P-K4 Kt-QB3 2. Kt-KB3 3. B-Kt5 P-QR3 Kt-B3 4. B-R4 5. Castles B-K2 P-QKt4 6. Q-K2 P-Q3 7. B-Kt3 The other line is 7. . . . . Castles; 8. P-B3, P-Q4; where Black offers a Pawn for a vigorous counter-attack. Though the line has been much analysed, it is so rich in possibilities that it may be a long time before an ultimate conclu:aion 6

is reached. The simplest answer is 9. P-Q3, P-Q5; 10. P X P, QKt X P; ll. Kt X Kt, Q X Kt; 12. B-K3, Q-Q3; (Keres-Euwe, The Hague, 1948) and with 13. R-B l l (instead of the move actually played 13. Kt -B3), White could have obtained a better game. 8. P-B3 Castles If at once 8. . . . . Kt-QR4 in order to adopt a Tchigorin defence system then there would follow 9. P-Q41 Kt X B; 10. P X Kt, Kt-Q2; l l . R-Ql, B-B3; 12. P X P, P X P; 13. Kt-R3 (Alekhine-Rey Ardid, 2nd match game, 1944) with a slight advantage to White. Alek­ hine's free and alert approach to the openings is well illustrated by this variation.

CHESS FHOM MORPHY 'fO BOTWINNIK

68

9. R-Q1 Instead of playing 9. P-Q4 at once which would allow B-Kt5, White waits to see what system Black will adopt. 9. . . . . . . Kt-QR4 If 9 B-Kt5; 10. P-KR3, B-R4; 1 1 . P-Kt4, B-Kt3; 12. P-Q3! and the Bishop is out of play as Alekhine played against Samisch at Bad Nauheim, 1937. A striking illustration of the use of transposition of moves. .

• . . .

18. Q-Kt4 does not help Black to overcome the weakness on his Q4, after the !{night has been driven off by P-KKt3. 15. Kt-B1 Kt-R4 16. P-KR3 B-K3 16 . . . . . B x Kt; 17. Q x B, B x B; 18. Q x Kt, is preferable, since the Bishop would prevent the White K�ight from reaching K3, although Black's weakness at his Q4 will still prove a handicap. 17. Kt-K31

P-B3

P-B4 10. B-B2 Q-B2 1 1 . P-Q4 Superficially it appears that Black has achieved a normal Tchigorin defence formation and, indeed, this has often been recommended as the safest defence for Black to adopt against the Worrall attack, since White cannot play 12. QKt-Q2 as 12. . . . . BP x P wins a Pawn (the Bishop at B2 is now unprotected). 12. B-Kt5 To all appearances a developing or waiting move, but Alekhine has other aims. 12. 13. P x KP! 14. QKt-Q2

B-Kt5 PxP

Now Alekhine's idea becomes clear. He is able to set up a Rauser formation (see game 35), with the added advantage that he has gained time, since he has been able to play his KR to Q1 at once instead of to K1 first, and he has also dispensed with P-KR3, a move of little or no advantage in this system. This gain of two tempi enables Alekhine to give the game a more dynamic character. J{R- Q1 14. . . . . . . The simplifying move 14. . . . . Kt-R4; 15. P-KR3, B X Kt; 16. Kt x B, B x B; 17. Kt x B, Kt-KB5;

Now it seems that Black will be able to play Kt-KB5, but he had not reckoned with Alekhine's reply. 18. Kt-R2! I A superb move, the introduction to a splendid example of the modern system of furthering strategical aims (here the occupation and utilisation of White's Q5) by tac­ tical threats. Naturally, not 18. B-KR4, Kt-KB5! P-Kt3 18. . . . . . . Against the alternative move 18. . . . . B-B2 White has two lines, (a) the immediate occupation of Q5 by the Knight; 19. Kt-Q5 when there follows R X Kt; 20. P x R, P X B; 21. P-Q6, B X QP; 22. Q-Q3, R-Q1 (22. . . . . B-Kt3; 23. Q-Q5 eh.) 23. Q x P eh., with

THE TCHIGORIN DEFENCE a nebulous position, or the stronger line (b) 19. P-KKt4, P X B; 20. P x Kt, and White has control of Q5 and KB5 . B-KB1 19. B-R6 KxB 20. B x B lf 20 . . . . . Kt-KB5; 2 1 . Q-B3, R X B; 22. P-KR4!, Kt-B5; 23. B-Kt3, Kt X Kt; 24. P X Kt, B X B; 25. P X B, Kt-K3; 26. R-Q5! 2 1 . P-KKt3 R x R eh. Black avoids the trap 21. . . . . B x KRP? 22. Kt--Q5! Q-B2; 23. P-KKt4, Kt-KB5; 24. Kt X Kt, P x Kt; 25. Q-B3, and the Bishop is lost. 22. B x RI White declares his intention of opening the QR file for his Rook in exchange for the Queen's file, which is of no use to Black, since White guards every square upon it. 22 . . . . . . . 23. P-QR4! 24. P x P

R-Q1 Kt-QB5 PxP

69

P x B, R x P; 27. Q-K4, Q-Q2; (27 . . . . . R-Q1? 28. B X Kt, P X B; 29. Q-B3, Q-B2; 30. Q-B6, or 27. . . . . Kt-Kt3; 28. B X Kt, P X B; 29. Q-K2!) 28. B-B3, R-Q3; 29. Q-R8 eh., Q-Q1; 30. Q--Kt7, regaining the Pawn with a won game. The complications of these lines are not so significant as the realisation that the position holds such opportunities for White on account of his positional super­ iority. Since Black is unable to accept the Pawn, White has at last achieved the positional goal of the Rauser variation-absolute control of his Q5. The rest of the game is given to turning this advantage to effect. 25. . . . . . . Q--QKt2 Kt--Q3 26. P-Kt3 PxP 27. P--QB4 B x Kt 28. P x P 29. KP x B Kt-Kt2 30. Kt-Kt4 Q-K2 If 30. . . . . Kt(Kt2)-K1; 31. Q-K3, Kt X P; 32. Q X P eh., Kt(B4)--Q3; 33. R-R7, Q-Kt8; 34. Kt-R6, Q X B eh.; 35. K-R2, Kt-Kt2; 36. Q-B7, followed by mate in a few moves. Kt(Kt2)-Kl 31. B-B2 32. P-R4 P-K5 The drawback to this move is that it surrenders KB5 to White. 33. Kt-K3 Threatening Kt-Kt2-B4--K6.

25. Kt--Q5! Just at the moment when Black thought that he had successfully overprotected his Q4, Alekhine plays the thematic move in the Rauser system, Kt-Q5 offering a Pawn sacrifice which Black dare not accept. If 25 . . . . . B x Kt; 26.

Q-K4 33 . . . . , . . A better defence is given by 33 . . . . . R-Ktl; 34. Kt-Kt2, P-B4; 35. Kt-B4, Kt-KKt2; and Black can either oppose his Rook on QKt7 or use it aggressively at QKt5. K-Ktl 34. R-R7! Q-Q5 35. Kt-Kt4 36. B x PI Decisive! If 36. Kt x B; 37. Kt-R6 eh. , K-R1; (37. . . . . K-B1? 38. R-B7 mate} 38.

70

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

Q-B3 38. B-B2 Q-K7 was threatened. 39.

40. 41 . 42. 43. Or

Q-K6

QxQ

R-Bl PxQ Kt x Kt Kt-B7 eh. P X Kt Kt-Q3 B-Q3 K-Kt2 43. . . . . R-Bl; 44. R-B7.

-M. P-B8(Q) eh.

Position after 35 . . . . . Q-Q5 Kt-B7 eh. wins the exchange, or 36 . . . . . Q x B; 37. Kt-R6 eh., K-Rl; 38. Q X Q, Kt X Q; 39. Kt-B7 eh., a combination not difficult to foresee but impressive in the active co-operation of White's pieces. 36. . . . . . . 37. Kt-R6 eh.

P-B4 K-Rl

KXQ K-Ktl 45. R x P 46. R-Q7 Kt-Kl 47. P-R5! Now 47 . . . . . Kt-B3 is met by 48. R-Q6! 47 . 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57.

...... BxP B-K6 eh. R-Q5 RxP K-Kt2 B-B5 R-B7 eh. R-B7 P-B4 P-Kt4

PxP R-Rl K-Rl Kt-B3 K-Kt2 R-R7 R-R6 K-R3 R-R3 P-R5 Resigns.

Logically we conclude our study of the Ruy Lopez with an example of the modem form of attack in marked contrast to the classical attack demonstrated by Morphy in the first game. And what greater exponent than Alekhine? He demonstrates convincingly that although the require­ ments of modern technique are exigent, it is possible to graft onto this 'solid' opening as many ideas as his romantic predecessor. But how complex the game has become! 'Whilst for Morphy it was sufficient to open the centre to obtain the superiority, Alekhine had to use all the finesses known to modem opening theory, from transposing moves to changing the field of action, first in the centre, then to the Queen's side and back to the centre again, to force a decision. If a proof is needed that time alone permits new ideas to become common property, it will be found here. While the quality of this game has been recognized, the fact that it combines the two modem systems in the Ruy Lopez-the Worrall attack and the Rauser system-seems to have passed unnoticed.

CoNCLUSIONS Our survey of the central struggle in the Ruy Lopez discloses three principal conceptions, which may be classified according to the precepts enacted by the three great players whose ideas dominate the founda tions of these lines.

THE TCHIGORIN DEFENCE

71

First Morphy, who attempted an early conquest of the centre, but succeeded in achieving little in the way of establishing a lasting initiative for White. His greatest contribution is the defence named after him, characterized by the move P-QR3 for Black. which releases the tension in the centre and is the basis of all the modern defences to the Ruy Lopez. Secondly Steinitz, who emphasized the importance of control of the centre. We can distinguish three periods in Steinitz' later years. In the first he attempted to hold the centre by the artificial 4 . . . KKt­ K2 with unfavourable results. In the second period he attempted to revive the 'Steinitz Preceded,' now known as the Steinitz Defence Deferred, and failed only because of the faulty timing of the moves. The last period found Steinitz adopting his own defence in the modern form (developing the KKt at B3), a variation he played in the London and Vienna Tournaments at the close of the century. His lack of success was due to his tactical inabilities and not to any endemic failing in the variation. It was left to Lasker to demonstrate its inherent soundness. Thirdly Tchigorin, who was more fortunate. He introduced his original system against the formidable Tarrasch in 1893 with considerable success. He was not, however, content with the line and evolved a more aggressive system in the form that it is used to-day. The latest trend in the Ruy Lopez, a blending of these two systems, is the highest tribute that can be accorded his memory. .

.

PART

11

T H E Q U E E N ' S GA M B I T IF any opening has experienced marked changes in its treatment during the last hundred years it is certainly the Queen's Gambit-the modem opening. Despite its modernity, it is one of the earliest of recorded openings (circa 1500 according to von der Lasa), and it appears to ante­ date the King's Gambit. Comparisons have been drawn with the King's Pawn Openings, and for a long time the Queen's Gambit was considered dull and unenter­ prising, a debut for the cautious player, whereas King's side Openings remained the choice of the venturesome. To-day we know that this classification is artificial, since many games in the Q.G. Orthodox Defence illustrate brief and brilliant combinations (see Alekhine-Lasker, Game 50, page 94), while even in the King's Gambit Accepted, games of a lifeless and mechanical character have been played (see Santasiere-Levin, Game 99, page 186). In fact, by mastering the closed game and perfecting the transition from the closed to the open formation, one can give the game that liveliness applauded by the connoisseurs, whereas 'pure' open games tend to lead to draws by rapid exchanges.

73

VII THE ORTHODOX DEFENCE WE commence with the Orthodox Defence. It derives its title from Tarrasch who ridiculed those players who religiously adhered to this old variation, electing to have a cramped. position without organic weak­ nesses rather than accept the lasting weakness (isolated Pawn on Q5) of the Tarrasch Defence (3 . . . . . P-QB4) with a free and open game. This defence attained its peak of popularity during the latter part of the last century, although this can be attributed rather to the paucity of good defensive systems than to its inherent solidity ; for the 'Slav' Defence had not been developed, nor had the Tarrasch Defence come into favour. The Orthodox Defence is characterised by White's ability to develop his Queen's Bishop (after 1. P-Q4, P-Q4; 2. P-QB4, P-K3; 3. Kt-QB3, Kt-KB3; 4. B-Kt5 ) whilst Black's Queen's Bishop is shut in, the satisfactory development of this piece being Black's main problem. ,

THE ORTHOD OX DEFENCE OF THE 19TH CENTURY

'\Ve begin our study of the historical development of the Orthodox Defence with an example of Steinitz' play, as it was he who introduced into tournament play the development of the QB at KKt5. This line had already been played by Saint-Amant in his 1 5th match-game against Staunton, but only after making the move P-QB5. His motive there­ fore was completely different from Steinitz' idea of exerting pressure on Black's Q4 Pawn and of trying later by waiting moves to force him to play . . . . QP x P, and thus to surrender the centre.

STEINITZ' TREATMENT many years; as Gunsberg expressed a similar opinion when Pillsbury adopted this line consistently in the Hastings Tournament of 1895.

39 W.

White

Steinitz

Black

A. Anderssen

4. B-K2 Castles 5. P-K3 6. Kt-B3 P-QKt3 This plausible move appears the simplest method of solving the development of the Queen's Bishop.

Vienna, 1873 1. P-Q4 P-Q4 2. P-QB4 P-K3 3. Kt--QB3 Kt-KB3 4. B-Kt5 This move, considered strongest even to-day, was adj u dged danger­ ous by Staunton who thought that White's QKt Pawn might become weak, a view that persisted for

7. 8. 9. 10.

74

B-Q3 Castles PxP R-Bl

B-Kt2 QKt- Q2 PxP P-B4

75

THE ORTHODOX DEFENCE U. P x P A move showing Steinitz as the pioneer of modern positional play. He creates permanent weaknesses in Black's position instead of trying, like Pillsbury, to build up a King's side attack (see the next game) . PxP Kt-K5?

11. 12. Q-R4

A mistake which precipitates a collapse. With 12 . . . . . Q-Kt3, preserving the Queen's Bishop, Black has a defensible position as long as he can avoid exchanging the minor pieces which are needed to support the Pawns. 13. B x Kt PxB 14. KR-Q1 1 BxB 15. Kt x BI Precise! If at once 15. R X Kt, Q-B1; 1 6. Kt X B, B-B3! winning the Rook. 15. 16. 17. 18. 1 9. 20. 21 . 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

R x Kt Q-Kt3 Q x P eh. P-KR4 RxP QxR QxP R-Q1 R-Q6 Kt-Q1 K-B1

Q x Kt KR-Ktl B-B3 K-R1 Q-Kt5 R xR RxP Q-K3 P-R3 Q-B2 R-K7 Resigns.

This game between the foremost representatives of the 'classical' and the 'modern' school is really the beginning of modern positional play. It was not recognized as such in 1873, for the tournament book mentions nothing extraordinary about the game. Steinitz' idea of isolating the Black Pawns and trying to exploit the Pawn weaknesses was fundamentally a far better plan than that of Pillsbury who, twenty-three years later in the same position conceived another idea for initiating an attack against the Black King. This will be shown in the following game. PILLSBURY'S TREATMENT At the close of the century the opening gained popularity after Pillsbury's successful adoption of his system of basing a King's side attack on the strong position of White's Knight at K5. To-day we cannot fail to admire the vigour that he was able to infuse into this opening, previously considered monotonous. This was one of the games played with the system after it had become more widely known. White

40

H. N. Pillsbury

Black

E. Schiffers

Vienna, 1898 I . P-Q4 2. P-QB4

P-Q4 P-K3

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Kt-QB3 B-Kt5 P-K3 Kt--KB3 PxP B-Q3 Kt-K5

Kt-KB3 B-K2 Castles P-QKt3 PxP B-Kt2

76

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

It is interesting to note how Pillsbury improved his system as a reaction to the ever improved de­ fence of his opponents. Here he plays Kt-K5 before castling and saves the move QR-B1 which does nothing to further his King's side attack. 9. . . . . . . QKt-Q2 Kt-K5 10. P-B4 QxB ll. B x B 12. B x Kt PxB P-KB4 13. Castles Too committal, since it leaves White in possession of his K5. 13 . . . . . KR-K1 followed by . . . . Kt-B1 and . . . . P-KB3 drives off the White Knight.

23. R X R, Q-R5 eh., leading to draw by perpetual check.

a

Q-K2 20. . . . . . . P-Kt3 21 . Q-Q1 22. P-R5 1{-Kt2 23. Q-Q4 QR-Q1 ? Black overestimates his chances. With 23. . . . . P-QB4; 24. P X P e.p., B X P; 25. P-K6 eh. , K-R3; he could win a Pawn and leave White with only few attacking chances for it. 24. P-K6 eh. 25. P x P 26. Q-K5 !

K-R3 KxP Q-R2

14. P-KKt4 An aggressive move in keeping with Pillsbury's style. In later years Pillsbury recognized that Black's weaknesses lie on the Queen's side (as demonstrated by Steinitz in the previous game) and in fact against Barry in his last tournament at Cambridge Springs, 1904, he played 14. Q-Kt3 eh., K-R1; 15. KR­ Q1, Kt-B3; 16. QR-B 1 , P-B3; 17. Kt-K2, and won in a convin­ cing style. Kt x Kt 14. . . . . . . 15. BP x Kt Not 15. QP x Kt, because of 15. . . . . QR-Q1 ; followed by R-Q6. Q-Kt4 15. . . . . . . P-KR4 16. R-B4 17. Q-Kt3 eh. K-R2 18. QR-KB1 RP X P P-Kt6 19. P-Q5! White threatened 20. Kt x P, but this could have been met by 19. B-R3; 20. R-B2, (20. Kt x P, Q-K2!) 20 . . . . . B-Q6. 20. P-KR4! 20. Kt X P? P X P; dbl. eh. 21. K x P, P x Kt; 22. R x R, R x R;

27. R{4)-B2! ! This move must have been a complete surprise to Black. Whilst admiring the beauty of the Rook sacrifice we recognize that the strong centralized position of the 'Vhite pieces indicates the possi­ bility of such a combination. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

0 . 0 0 0 0

RxP R-Kt2 eh. Q X QBP eh. R-R2 K-B2 Q x Q eh. Q-B7 eh. QxB Q-R6 Kt-K2

P x R eh. Q-R3 K-R2 K-R1 R-Ktl eh. Q x R eh. K-Kt2 K-R3 R-Kt2 K-Kt3 K-B3

77

THE OR THODOX DEFENCE as. Q-B4 39. Kt-B4 40. Q-B3 eh. 41. P-Q6

QR-KKtl R--R2 K-Kt4 R-R7 eh.

42. 43. 44. 45.

K-K1 K-Q1 Q-K1 Kt-K2

K-Kt5 K-B6 RxP Resigns.

THE MODERN CONTINUATION AGAINST THE FIANCHETTO IN THE ORTHODOX DEFENCE The previous two games have shown how two great masters of the past played against the fianchetto in the Orthodox Defence. It will be of interest to see how modern masters have treated the same opening. And it will explain how our outlook on chess has changed especially in respect of rational thinking. 41

White

A. Alekhine

Black

J. Cuckiermann

Paris, 1 933 1. P-Q4 P-Q4 2. P-QB4 P-K3 3. Kt-QB3 Kt-KB3 4. B-Kt5 B-K2 5. P-K3 QKt-Q2 6. Kt-B3 Castles 7. R-B1 P-QKt3 8. P x P PxP 9. B-Kt5 A move previously made by Capablanca, who explained that he made it on a momentary impulse. It gives Black difficult tactical pro­ blems to solve, since on the one hand the driving off of White's King's Bishop creates further weak­ nesses, and on the other hand White threatens to exchange off Black's minor pieces and to exploit the weakness of Black's Pawns. 9. . . . . . . B-Kt2 10. Castles P-QR3 P-B4? 1 1 . B-QR4 The position now reached is iden­ tical with that in the Steinitz­ Anderssen (Game 39, page 74) where this same weakening move was made except that White's King's Bishop is on R4 instead of Q3. 12. KB x Kt!

Alekhine remarks that this move is more forceful than 12. P X P, Kt X P; (as in the game Capablanca­ Teichmann, Berlin, 1913). If in reply 12. . . . . Q X D; 13. P X P, P x P; 14. Kt-QR4! v. ith great advantage. 12. Kt x B 13. B x B QxB 14. P x P Q x BP Necessary, in order to defend the QP. QR-B1 15. Kt-Q4 K-R1t 16. Kt-B5 Meeting the threat 17. Kt X QP, and setting a clever trap, for if now 17. Kt x KtP, P-Q5! (not 17 . . . . . K X Kt; 18. Q-Kt4 eh.) 18. Q X P, Q X Q; 19. P X Q, R-KKtl; with the threat 20 . . . . . R x P eh. 17. Kt--K2 Q-Kt5 18. Q-Q4 QxQ RxR 19. Kt(2) x Q Kt-B4 20. R X R Not 20. . . . . R-B1? 21 . R X R eh., B x R; 22. Kt-Q6, winning a piece. 21. Kt-Q6 B-R1 22. P-QKt4 Kt-Q6 23. R-B7 K-Ktl 24. Kt-B8! Alekhine observes that after 24. P-QR3, Kt-K4; followed by . . . . Kt-B5, saves the Bishop which now cannot escape its fate.

7R

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK Kt x KtP 24. . . . . . . 25. Kt x KtP! Threatening to win a piece by R-R7. 25. . . . . . . R-Ktl The last fling. If now 26. R-R7, B-Kt2; 27. Kt-Q7, R-QB I ; 28. P-Kt3, B-B3; saving the piece.

Position after 23 . . . . . K-Ktl

26. Kt-,---Q - 7 27. P-QR3 28. R-R7 29. K-B1 There is no Kt-Kt6.

R-Ql Kt-Q6 R-QBI Resigns. defence to

30.

This system, originated by Capablanca and improved by Alekhine, clearly shows how greatly our approach to the problems of the position differs from that of the majority of the earlier masters, and it justifies Steinitz who followed the same positional idea as did Capablanca 40 years later.

THE MODERN FORM OF THE ORTHODOX DEFENCE This, which is even to-day considered the most solid defence, came into fashion at the end of the last century when it was frequently adopted by Lasker and Mason. Black's aim in this defence is to postpone the develop­ ment of his Queen's Bishop and to ease his position by an exchange of pieces. Since it entails the surrendering of the centre ( . . . . P x BP), it remained unpopular until the end of the first World War when new concepts on the centre were beginning to take shape.

LASKER'S TREATMENT 42

White

W.

Steinitz

Black

Em. Lasker

18th match game, 1894 I. P-Q4 P-Q4 2. P-QB4 P-K3 3. Kt-QB3 Kt-KB3 4. B-Kt5 B-K2 5. Kt-KB3 Castles 6. P-K3 QKt-Q2 7. R-B1 In the 12th and 16th match games Steinitz unsuccessfully tried 7. P-B5, but, as Lasker remarked,

the text move is superior. To-day it has become so established that it. is played as a kinci of routine move. It is not, as thought by many, just a waiting move. It prevents the freeing move 7 . . . . P-B4; on which 8. B x Kt, Kt x B; 9. P x BP, B x P (9 . . . . . P x BP; 10. Q x Q, R X Q; 1 1 . P-B6!, P X P; 12. B X P), 10. P x P, P x P; 1 1 . Kt x P!, Q-R4 eh.; 12. Q-Q2, would follow. .

P-B3 7. . . . . . . This is characteristic of the modern defensive system, preparing for the following simplification. 8. B-Q3 PxP

79

THE ORTHODOX DEFENCE 9. B x P Kt-Q4 10. B x B QxB 1 1 . P-K4 It appears that White has achieved his aim-the occupation of the centre-but his last move is too committal. The question of how White is to make use of his com­ mand of the centre has still to be answered. Direct attack on Black's King is not advisable, since his position is too solid. White's stra­ tegy is therefore directed towards preventing Black from breaking up the centre by . . . . P-K4, or . . . . P-QB4.

Black's Queen's Bishop, sinceWhite's only way of gaining the advantage is to stop Black's P-QB4. 15. B--Kt3 B-Kt2 16. Q-K3 P-QR3 QR-B1 17. Kt-K2 18. KR-Q1 R-K1 In order to be able to play . . . . P-QB4 the Black Rook must leave the Queen's file. 19. Kt-K1

P-QB4

Kt-B5 11. . 'Exchanging followed by P-K4, was feasible; but then White's centre might be strong, and troublesome,' writes Mason, with the typical contemporary view. How­ ever, after 11 . . . . . Kt X Kt; 12. R X Kt, P-K4; 13. Castles, P X P; 14. Q x P, P-QKt4, as in the fol­ lowing game, Black has solved his opening problems. • .

. • •

12. P-KKt3 Lasker considered this weakened \Vhite's position and recommended instead 12. Castles, followed by Q-Q2. Still after 12. Castles, P-K4; 13. P X P, Kt X KP; 14. Kt X Kt, Q x Kt; 15. P-KKt3, Kt-R6 eh.; 16. K-Kt2, Kt-Kt4; 17. P-B4? B-R6 eh. ; and Q-QB4 Black has solved his opening pro­ blems by the satisfactory develop­ ment of the Queen's Bishop. Kt-I{Kt3 12. . . . . . . 13. Castles R-Q1 14. . . . . P-K4 is not so strong, since after 14. P- Q5, P x QP; White is always able to recapture with a piece on Q5, therefore Black con­ centrates on developing his Queen's Bishop at QKt2. 14. Q-K2 P-QKt4 We see that both players are fully aware of the problems posed by the position, namely, the development of

Just as White was about to blockade the QBP with Kt-Q3, Black is able to force his important freeing move . . . . P-QB4. Lasker remarks that this move seems to give Black the better game. 20. P x P Kt x BP 21 . B-B2 R-B2 22. P-B3 KR-QB1 23. B-Ktl Kt-K4 24. P-Kt3 P-B3 25. R-B2 This move allows Black to break up the centre, but the apparently stronger 25. R-Q2 does not prevent 25 . . . . . P-B4, since there follows 26. P x P, P x P; 27. B x P? Kt x P eh. ; 28. K-B2, Kt x R; 29. Q x Q, R X Q; 30. B X R, Kt(7)-K5 eh., winning a piece. 25. 26. P x P

P-B4 PxP

80

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINN IK

27. Q-B2 In view of the threat 27. Kt x P eh. P-Kt3 27. . . . . . . Kt(B4)-Q2 28. Kt-B4 Q-Q3 29. Kt-Q5 R-BS 30. R(B)-Q2 31 . Kt-K3 RXR By offering the Queen for two Rooks which White dare not accept, Lasker is able to force the exchange of one pair of Rooks, thus greatly diminishing White's defensive re­ sources. Q-K3 32. Kt x R 33. K-Bl Black threatened 33 . . . . . Kt X P eh.; 34. Kt X Kt, B X Kt; 35. Q X B, Q-KS eh. R-B4 33. . . . . . . R-Q4 34. Q-K3 QxR 35. R x R Q-B3 36. Kt-B3 37. K-B2 K-Kt2 Q-Q3 38. Kt-K2 Q-KB3 39. Kt-Q4 40. Kt-Kt2? Kt-B3 'An extraordinary oversight ac­ countable for only by the pressure of the time limit. 40. . . . . B x KBP instead obviously gains a clear Pawn and leaves Black with a winning advantage' (Lasker) . K-Ktl 41 . Kt-K6 eh. Q--K4? 42. B-B2 Lasker writes, 'Again the chance to win at once is overlooked. 42. . . . . Kt(3)-K4; 43. Kt-Q4, B x KBP wins without much difficulty.'

43. Kt(Kt2)-B4 Q x Q eh. 44. K x Q Kt-Kt5 45. B-Ktl Kt-K4 46. Kt-Q4 K-B2 47. P-QR3 Kt-Q4 eh. 48. Kt x Kt B x Kt 49. B-Q3 K-K2 50. B-K2 K-Q3 51. P-B4 Kt-Q2 52. P-KKt4 White must take action before Black's superiority on the Queen's side becomes active. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61 .

...... . PxP B x KKtP Kt-Kt3 P-KR4 B-Kt2 B-K6 Kt-Q4 eh. B x Kt KxB Kt-B3 B-Bl Kt-Kt5 P-KR4 Kt-K4 B-B4 K-B4 Kt-B3 eh. K-Q4 Kt-K4 eh. Drawn.

This game, considered one of the best in the first Steinitz-Lasker match for the world championship, shows clearly the characteristics of the new defence system. Black gives up the centre but tries to maintain equili­ brium in an attempt to break White's centre by means of a vigorous counter-attack. Lasker's execution of this plan is admirable, though he is helped to some extent by White's weak handling of the opening. Far more important from our point of view is the beautifully conducted middle-game. Here we see White in complete possession of the centre, but unable to do anything with it. 'Ve cannot blame Steinitz overmuch, for he was unaware that the centre is not an end in itself but only a means to an end, since even the great teacher Tarrasch failed to realize this.

THE OHTHODOX DEFENCE

81

Unless White is able either to transform his central preponderance into a tangible advantage, e.g., a King's side attack, before Black has com­ pleted his development, or to prevent Black from developing harmoniously, his centre may suddenly change from an asset to a serious liability. This dynamic conception of the centre (shown clearly in the Griinfeld Defence) was imperfectly understood until quite recently, and proves how even an accepted fundamental principle may have to be considerably modified as a result of prolonged experience.

SHOWALTER'S CONTINUATION Whilst Lasker had done much to place the Queen's Gambit on a sound footing, it the defensive system which even to-day is to adopt. Showalter's frequent adoption was more than a fortuitous experiment. 43 White

H. N.

Pillsbury

Black

J. Showalter

Match game, 1897 1. P-Q4

P-Q4 P-K3 Kt-KB3 B-K2 QKt-Q2 Castles P--B3 PxP Kt-Q4 QxB Kt x Kt P-K4

2. P-QB4 3. Kt-QB3 4. B-Kt5 5. P-K3 6. R-B1 7. Kt-B3 8. B-Q3 9. B x BP 1 0. B x B 1 1 . Castles 12. R x Kt 13. P-K4 The logical move, according to the nineteenth century tenets, pre­ venting 13. . . . . P-K5; and gain­ ing the advantage in the centre. PxP 13. . . . . . . P-QKt4 14. Q X P A bold manceuvre. Modern theory recommends 14. . . . . Kt--Kt3; 15. B-Kt3, B-K3; with equality. 15. 16. 17. 18.

B-K2 Q-Q5 R-Q1 R-K3

P-QB4 R-Ktl P-B5

the new Orthodox Defence to was left to Showalter to create considered the safest for Black of this system proves that it

This defensive move is not in keeping with Pillsbury's previous strategy. Better was 18. P-K5, Kt-B4; 19. Kt-Q4, B-Kt2; 20. Kt-B5! Kt-B3 18. 19. Q-Kt5 P-KR3 20. Q-R4 Q-Kt5 A well - timed counter - attack, threatening 21. . . . . Kt-Kt5. 21. Kt-Q4

R-Kt3 21 . . . . . . . If 21 . . . . . Q x KtP; 22. Kt-B6, R-Kt2; 23. P-K5, Kt-Q2; (23. Kt-R2; 24. Kt-K7 eh., K-R1; 25. Kt X B, R X Kt; 26.

82

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

R-QS eh. ) 24. Kt-K7 eh., K-Rl; 25. P-K6, gives White a strong attack.

A clever manreuvre. Against the passive defence 43. P-B3, R-B6 and R X QRP soon decides.

R-Kl 22. P-QKt3 23. Kt-B2 Q-B4 24. P-QKt4 Q-Kt4 By exchanging Queens Black gets the better game, since White cannot make much use of the open Queen's file, whereas Black's passed Pawn is a potential asset for the end-game. 25. Q x Q PxQ 26. P-K5 Kt-Kt5 27. B x Kt B xB 28. R-Q5 28. R-Q2 threatening 29. RKKt3 is better. 43. R x KKtP If 43. . . . . R-B6; 44. Kt-B5, R X P; 45. Kt-K6 follows. . . . . . •

B-K3 28 . . . . . . . B-B4 29. R-Q4 R-QB3 30. Kt-Kl B-KtS 31. P-KKt4 P-B6 32. P-QR3 B-Kt3 33. R-Ql KR-QBI 34. K-Bl 35. R-QBI Forced since Black threatens 35. . . . . R-R3 winning the QRP. R-B5 35. . . . . . . 35 . . . . . K-Bl looks much more promising. If 36. Kt-Q3, B x Kt; 37. R x B, K-K2; could follow and White's KP is weak. P-B3 36. P-K6 P-B7 37. P-K7 38. R x P BxR 39. P-KS(Q) eh. R X Q 40. R x R eh. K-B2 B-R5 41. R-QRS White has eliminated the dan­ gerous passed Pawn, but Black still has the superior game since his Rook and Bishop co-operate better than White's Rook and Knight. 42. R x P eh. 43. Kt-Q3

K-Kt3

B-QS 45. R-Q7 If White plays 45. Kt-K6, B-B6; 46. R x P eh., K-B4; 47. Kt-B5, R-QB5; gives Black a strong attack. 44. Kt-B5

45 . . . . . . . B-B6 46. R-Q3 B-Kt7 eh. 47. K-K2 R-R5 48. R-Q7 R x RP 49. Kt-K6 R-R5 50. P-KB3 R-QB5 51. R X KtP eh. K-B4 52. Kt-B7 R-B7 eh. 53. K K3 B-BS 54. K-Q4 '� .� R-B5 eh. · 55. K-K3 R-B6 eh. 56. K-B2 B-B5 57. R-K7 R x RP 58. Kt-KS R-R7 eh. 59. K-Kt3 If 59. K-Kl, K-B5; is too strong. -

59 . . . . . . . 60. Kt-Q6 eh. 61. Kt-K4

B-BS K-Kt3 R-Kt7 eh.

THE ORTHODOX DEFENCE P-B4 62. K-R3 K-Kt2! 63. R-K6 eh. Not 63 . . . . . K-B2; 64. R-B6 eh.

83

64. Kt-B5

R-Kt7 dis. eh. 65. K-Kt3 RXP and Black won on the 91st move.

In spite of Showalter's masterly exposition of the principles of his new system, contemporary players failed to appreciate its importance, and it lay neglected for many years. However, Pillsbury himself must have realized that this 'simplifying' system had more in it than was at first apparent, since in a later game we notice that he tried to avoid an early exchange of his King's Bishop.

White

Black

H. N. Pillsbury

J. Showalter

Match game, New York, 1897 P-Q4 1. P-Q4 P-K3 2. P-QB4 Kt-KB3 3. Kt-QB3 4. B-Kt5 B-K2 QKt-Q2 5. P-K3 Castles 6. R-B1 P-B3 7. Kt-B3 PxP 8. B-Q3 P-QKt4 9. B X P This move introduces the second important line in the Orthodox Defence in which Black develops his Queen's Bishop at Kt2. Showal­ ter's handling of the opening is lucid and distinctive in his clear - cut adherence to one system, not mixing the two as did Lasker in Game 42. The importance of this system will be seen later on. P-QR3 10. B-Q3 P-B4 1 1 . Castles P-B5 12. Kt-K4 Kt x Kt 13. Kt x Kt eh. B-Kt2 14. B-Ktl Kt-K5 15. Kt-K5 QxB 16. B x B Kt-Q3 17. P-B3 P-Kt3 18. Q-B2 P-B3 19. Q-Q2 20. Kt-Kt4 Kt-B2 21. P-K4 QR-Q1 P�KR4 22. Q-K3 Pillsbury has cleverly evolved an attacking formation on the King's side and Showalter is only able to hold the balance by weakening his 7

Pawn position. His last move, al­ though risky, is necessary to prevent 23. P-K5 and Kt-B6 which would win for White. K-Kt2 23. Kt-B2 24. Kt-R3 Q-Q3 25. QR-Q1 Q-Kt3 26. KR-K1 R-Q2 Black, by exerting pressure on White's centre, finds the right answer to White's impending attack. 27. 28. 29. 30.

P-K5 Kt-Kt5 Q x Kt Q x KP

PxP Kt x Kt R-B3 R-Q4

This is the turning point of the game. 31. Q-Kt8 has been sug­ gested as a good continuation, after which 31. . . . . R x QP; 32. K-R1, R X R; 33. R X R, gives Black a difficult position. However, Black has a better line in 31. . . . . R-Q3; 32. B-K4, B-Q4; 33. Q x Q, R x Q; 34. B x B, P x B; and

84

CHESS FR OM MORPHY TO BOTWINNII{

his Queen's side majority gives him the superior game. P-K41 31. Q-K4 PxP 32. K-R1 R-Q1 33. Q-K8 34. Q-K7 eh. If 34. R-K7 eh., K-R3 and White has nothing better than to give up the exchange with 35. R x B. R-B2 34. Q-B3 35. Q-K5 eh. P-Q6 36. P-QR4 PxP 37. P x P 38. K-Ktl 38. Q X KtP is met by 38. B X P; 39. R-KB1 (39. P X B, Q x P eh.; 40. K-Ktl, R-B4) 0 0 0 0

0

0

39. . . . . B-B3; 40. R X Q, B X Q; with a won end-game. 38. 39. 40. 41 . 42. 43.

44.

45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53.

0

0

0 0 0 0

RxQ R-K3 K-B2 R(Q1)-K1 P-R4 R-QB1 B-R2 B-Ktl PxP BxP RxR K-K3 K-Q4 K-K3 P-Kt4 Resigns.

QxQ R-Q4 R(B2)-Q2 K-B3 R(Q4)-Q3 P-Kt5 B-R3 R-QB2 P-B6 PxP RxB BxR B-B4 P-B7 R-Q2 R-Q8

RUBINSTEIN's CoNTINUATION-THE TEMPO STRUGGLE SYSTEM Rubinstein's name is closely connected with the Orthodox Defence, mainly from White's point of view. He achieved great success at a time when there was no clear-cut defensive system worked out. To-day his contribution is considered as merely transitory, because against his 'tempo struggle' (8. Q-B2,) system several equalizing lines have been found. Rubinstein's handling of the opening left the path open for Capablanca to perfect a workable defence, and it is still important, since it proved that great accuracy and tactical skill are necessary to equalize in the Orthodox Defence. 45 Black

White A.

Rubinstein

G. Maroczy

Goteborg, 1920 Kt-KB3 1 . P-Q4 P-Q4 2. Kt-KB3 P-K3 3. P-B4 4. B-Kt5 B-K2 QKt-Q2 5. P-K3 6. Kt-QB3 Castles 7. R-B1 R-K1 This defence, preferred to 7. . . . . P-B3 (as played previously by Showalter), reflects the dogma then prevailing: namely, time must not be lost by playing 7 . . . . . P-B3 as ultimately . . . . P-B4 will be ,

necessary. To-day this move is thought to give Black a difficult defence. 8. Q-B2 PxP If 8. . . . . P-B3; 9. B-Q3, P x P; 10. B x P, Kt-Q4; 1 1 . B x B, Q x B; 12. Kt-K4! KKt-B3; 13. Kt-Kt3, would make it difficult for Black to carry through the freeing move . . . . P-K4, since White would threaten both Kt-B5 and Kt-Kt5. These threats show the weakness of 7. . . . . R-K1; leaving Black's KB2 exposed to attack. 9. B x P 10. Castles

P--ll-t

PxP

85

THE ORTHODOX DEFENCE P-QR3 1 1 . Kt x P In those days to restore equili­ brium in the centre by 9 . . . . P-B4 and . . . . P x QP, was considered more important than developing the Queen's Bishop. The latter line had already been proved by Showal­ ter to give Black full equality (see Games 43-44, pages 81-83).

22. 23. 24. 25.

B x Kt Q-K4! RxB QR-Q1

B-K3 BxB QR-B1

Q-R4 12. KR-Q1 13. B-R4 Kt-K4 Kt-Kt3 14. B-K2 P-K4 15. B-Kt3 Black has seemingly freed his position and he was able even to develop his Queen's Bishop along the QB1-R3 diagonal, which is still considered the soundest plan. But Rubinstein calculated deeper. Q-B2 16. Kt-Kt3 17. Q-Ktl ! Q-Ktl Necessary. 18. Kt-Kt5, was threatening winning the exchange. 18. B-B3 Q-R2 A remarkable position. At the moment when Black hoped to bring his Queen's Bishop into play White prevents this development by tac­ tical threats. On 18 . . . . . B-KKt5; 19. B x B, Kt X B; 20. Kt-Q5, with the double threats Kt-B7 and Kt-Kt6 would decide. If 18 . . . . . B-K3; 19. Kt-Q41 and finally if 18. B-Q2; 19. Kt-Q5! Kt x Kt; 20. B x Kt is too strong. 19. Kt-R5! Preventing Black from playing 19. . . . . R-Ktl ; and 20. . . . . P-QKt4; by the threat Kt-B6. 19. 20. Kt-B4 21 . Kt-Q5

B-QKt5 B-Q2 Kt x Kt

The only advantage Rubinstein gained from the opening is the control of the Queen's file but it is sufficient. Now on 25 . . . . . P-B4? 26. Q x BP, R x Kt; 27. R-Q7 would be decisive. B-B1 25. . . . . . . 26. P-QKt3 Here the above variation was threatened, since the mate on KKt2 is prevented. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31 . 32. 33. 34. 35. On wins.

P-QKt4 Kt-Q6 B x Kt RxB R-B2 P-KR4 P-B3 Q-Q5 eh. ! K-R1 P-R5 Kt-B1 P-R6 Kt-Kt3 Q-K6! R-KB1 R-Q7 PxP B-R4! Resigns. 35. Kt x B; 36. Q-K7,

CAPABLANCA's FREEING MANCEUVRE It was left to Capablanca to perfect a system which combined the solidity of the games of his predecessors with the convincing clarity of form that characterized his style. To-day his 'methods are so widely known that it is difficult to appreciate how slow his contemporaries were

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWI��IK

86

to realize the value of his defensive svstem. It is well to remember that before this was perfected, great ma:sters struggled in vain to find an adequate defence to the Queen's Gambit and Rubinstein had li ttle difliculty in obtaining a superior game with the White pieces. When Capablanca's system became known and was adopted by other masters, such as Vidmar in London, 1922, and Tarrasch in Hastings, 1922 (see notes to the following game), they found that a deviation from it, however slight, resulted in a positive decline of position. The following game shows Capablanca playing his defence against a line introduced by Rubinstein, and at the time considered strong.

46

F.

White

Marshall

Black

J. R. Capablanca

New York, 1918 P-Q4 1 . P-Q4 2. Kt-KB3 Kt--KB3 3. P-B4 P-K3 QKt-Q2 4. Kt-B3 5. B-Kt5 B-K2 Castles 6. P-K3 P-B8 7. R-B1 PxP 8. Q-B2 Against Rubinstein in St. Peters­ burgh, 1914, Capablanca continued 8 . . . . . R-K1;9. B-Q3, P x P; 10. B x P, P-QKt4; 1 1 . B-Q3, P­ QR3? and after 12. Kt-K5, he lost a Pawn. We might assume that he evolved this more solid system on the basis of 'trial and error.' 9. B x P Kt-Q4 QxB 10. B x B Kt X Kt 1 1 . Castles The game Capablanca-Vidmar, London, 1922, continued 11 P-QKt3? 1 2. Kt X Kt, BP X Kt; 13. B-Q3, P-KR3; 14. Q-B7, Q-Kt5; 15. P-QR3! and White soon obtained a winning position. This proves that even his great contemporaries did not at once appreciate the finer p oints of his defensive system. .

• • • •

P-QKt3 12. Q X Kt 13. P-K4 The game Alekhine-Capablanca, London, 1922, continued 13. Q-Q3,

P-QB4! 14. B-R6, B X B; 15. Q x B, P x P; 16. Kt x P, Kt-B4; 17. Q-Kt5, draw. Soon after this game the great Chess teacher of his day-Tarrasch-tried to improve Capablanca's system by interposing the move (after 13. Q-Q3,) 13. . . . . R-Q1? 14. Q-K2, P-QB4; 15. B-Kt5, P x P; 16. Kt x P, B-Kt2; 17. R-B7, QR-Ktl ; 1 8 . R-Q1, B-Q4; 1 9 . Kt-B6, (Bogoljubov-Tarrasch, Resigns. Hastings, 1922.) It emphasises that this position cannot be assessed by old conceptions. (On this occasion a gain of a tempo proved fatal. ) 13. B-Kt2 14. KR-K1 KR-Q1 Kt-B4! 15. P-Q5 This move is stronger than 15. . . . . Kt-B1; which Capablanca played against Kostic in an earlier round of the same tournament. Now Black threatens 16. Kt x P; also BP x P. 16. P x KP Kt x P(K3) 17. B x Kt QxB 18. Kt-Q4! Capablanca explains that he hoped to win a tempo by attacking the QRP but that the text-move took him by surprise. 18. . . . . Q X HP? 19. R-R1, wins the Queen. ,

18. . . . . . . Q-K4! An excellent The only move! example of Capablanca's intuition, as the only visible compensation for the sacrificed Pawn is a slight initiative. 18. . . . . Q-Q2; 19.

87

THE ORTHODOX DEFENCE 24. R-IG

Marshall prefers to stake every­ thing on a counter-attack rather than to remain with his pieces tied up.

R-K3 24. K-Kt2 25. R( 1)-QB1 P-Kt4 26. P-QKt4 R-Kt3 27. P-R3 R-R7 28. K-B1 29. K-Ktl Better was 29. P-K6. 0 0

.

Kt-B5, P-B3; 20. Q-KKt3, K-R1; 21. QR-Q1, Q-KB2; 22. P-KR4, would give White an overwhelming position. 19. Kt x P QxQ 20. R x Q R-Q7 21. R-Ktl A mistake. Capablanca gives 21 . Kt-K7 eh., K-B1 ; 22. R-B7, R-K1; (22 . . . . . B x P? 23. P-B31) 23. R X B, R X Kt; 24. R-Kt8 eh., R-K1; 25. R x R eh., K x R; with a probable draw. R-K1 21. . . . . . . 22. P-K5 On 22. P-B3, P-B4; 23. P X P, R(1)-K7; would follow. 22. . . . . . . 23. P-KR4

P-KKt41 PxP

0

0

0

P-R6 29. P-QR3 30. P-Kt3 R x KP 31. P-K6 32. P-Kt4 If the Knight moves 32. . . . . P-R7 eh. ; 33. K x P, R-R3 eh.; 34. K-Ktl, R-R8 Mate would follow. 0

Position after 17 . . . . Q x B

0

0 . 0 . 0

32. . . . . . . R-R3 33. P-B3 On 33. P-Kt5, P-R7 eh.; 34. K-R1, R x Kt; 35. R x R, R x BP; wins. 33. . . . . . . R-Q3 Better than the obvious 33. P-R7 eh. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.

Kt-K7 Kt-B5 eh. Kt-R4 Kt-B5 K-B1 P-B4 eh. Resigns.

R(Q3)-Q7 K-B3 K-Kt4 R-Kt7 eh. P-R7 K x BP

This game shows that in order to carry through the idea of the defence (the development of the Queen's Bishop), tactics as masterly as those used by Capablanca are necessary. By his fine Pawn sacrifice Black, according to Capablanca, obtains an easy game.

CAPABLANCA'S CONTRIBUTION (WITH WHITE) Showalter has already shown (see Games 43-44, pages 81-83) that Black can develop his Queen's Bishop either on the diagonal QB1-R6 by playing . . . . P-K4, or on the QKt2-R8 diagonal by playing . . . . P-QB4 (after . . . . P-QKt4). Black thus appears to have plenty of latitude, but CapabJanca proved that in actual fact BJack is forced to adopt the particular line dictated by '\\'bite's play. The following game is a good example of this.

CHESS FROM MOR PHY TO BOTWINNIK

88

47 White

Black

J. R. Capablanca

H. Steiner

Budapest, 1928 Kt-KB3 P-Q4 P-K3 P-QB4 P-Q4 Kt-QB3 QKt-Q2 B-Kt5 B-K2 P-K3 Castles Kt-B3 P-B3 R-B1 8. B-Q3 PxP 9. B x P Kt-Q4 10. B x B QxB Kt x Kt 1 1 . Castles P-QKt3 12. R X Kt As this game demonstrates, Black has only one adequate move: . . . . P-K4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

P-QB4 13. Q-B2! 13. . . . . B-Kt2; is not satis­ factory, since after 14. B-Q3, Black must play the weakening move . . . . P-KB4; for after 14. . . . . P-Kt3; 15. B-K4, he would lose the QB Pawn. This variation would not be available for White if his Queen were standing before his Rook. (The reason for this is that Black could pin White's Bishop after 16. B X BP.) Kt x P 14. P x P 15. P-QKt4 Kt-R3 Black hopes to win a tempo by attack on the QKtP. On 15 . . . . . Kt-Q2; 16. B-Q3, P-Kt3; 17. R-B7, with the threat 18. B-K4 is too strong. B-Kt2 16. P-QR3 P-Kt3 17. B-Q3 18. R-B1! Preventing Black from opposing the Rook. After 18 . . . . . QR-B1; 19. R x R, R x R; 20. Q x R eh. , B X Q ; 21 . R X B eh., K-Kt2; 22. B X Kt, White gains Rook and two minor pieces for the Queen.

18 . . . . . . . QR-Q1 19. Kt-K5 Q-Q3 20. P-B4 Kt-Kt l 21. R-B7 B-Rl 22. R x RP Kt-B3 23. R x B! Far stronger than 23. Kt x Kt, B x Kt; 24. Q x B, Q x B; with some attacking chances for Black.

Kt x Kt 23. . . . . . . RxR 24. R x R 25. B-K2! Q-Q7 A desperate counter-attack. On 25. Kt-Q2; 26. R-Q1, Q-K2; 27. Q-B7, K-B1; 28. B-Kt5, is decisive.

26. Q x Q! Typical of Capablanca· to choose a simple and conclusive line instead of the gain of a piece for after 26. P x Kt, Q x P eh.; 27. K-R1, R-Q7; Black can still hold out a while. RxQ 26. . . . . . . K-Kt2 27. R-B8 eh. Kt-Q2 28. K-B1 Black cannot avoid the pin, the point of White's 26th move. K-B3 29. R-Q8 30. B-Kt5 R-Q4 31. P-QR4! Stronger than 31. B x Kt, K-K2; 32. R-QKt8, R x B; 33. R x P,

89

THE ORTHODOX DEFENCE R-H2; and resistance is still possible. RxB 31. . . . . . The Pawn ending after 31. K-K2; 32. R X Kt eh. , R X R; 33. B x R, K x B; 34. K K2 is hope less for Black. .

-

,

­

32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

PxR H -QB 8 R-B6 K-K2 K-Q2 K B3 -

K-K2 P-K4 P-K5 P-B4 K-B2 Resigns.

From this game we discover that when the White Rook is on the Queen's Bishop file with the Queen behind it, Black cannot develop his Bishop on the QKt2-R8 diagonal without fatally weakening his Queen's side. (See Game 46, page 86, for an example when he can do it safely!) BoooLJunov's CoNTRIBUTION In this game, an interesting counterpart to the previous one, Bogoljubov shows that White can prevent Black playing the liberating move . . . . P-K4; thereby restricting Black's methods of development to one line only (see note to move 11 ). White

48

Black

E. D. Bogoljubov Sir G. A. Thomas Carlsbad, 1929 P-Q4 1. P-Q4 P-K3 2. P-QB4 3. Kt-QB3 Kt-KB3 QKt-Q2 4. B-Kt5 B-K2 5. P-K3 6. Kt-B3 Castles 7. R-B1 P-B3 Kt-K5 8. P-QR3 The best move. 8. . . . . P x P; 9. B x P, Kt-Q4; would lead to a position in which White gained the important move 8. P-QR3 (see Game 46, page 86).

R-Q8 Mate would follow. How insignificant looking moves can prove decisive is shown by com­ paring this game with Yates-Gilg in the same tournament, in which from a similar position White con­ tinued 12. B-K2, P X P; 13. B X P, P-K4; 14. Castles, P-K5; and Black has equalized. Q-B3 12. . . . . . . P-QKt3 13. B-K2 Black changes his plan of playing . . . . P-K4, since even if he pre­ pared this move with 13. . . . . P-KKt3; 14. Castles, P X P; 15. B x P, P-K4; 16. P x P, Kt x P; 17. Kt X Kt, Q X Kt; ( 17. R X Kt; 18. P-B4!) 18. Q X Q, R X Q; 19. R-Q8 eh. , K-Kt2; 20. KR-Q1, the pin on the last rank would be ruinous.

9. B x B QxB Kt X Kt 10. Q-B2 R-K1 1 1 . Q x Kt Black is trying for . . . . P-K4; but this game shows that it is not feasible. Capablanca's continuation is best: 1 1 . . . . . P X P; 12. B X P, P-QKt3; and . . . . P-QB4.

14. Castles B-Ra QR-B1 15. P-QKt4 16. R-B1 P-K4 On 16 . . . . . P-B4; 17. KtP x P, P x P; 18. Q-R5 would follow.

1 2. R-Q1 With this move White prevents 12 . . . . . P x P; 13. B x P, P-K4; since after the exchanges on K5,

P x QP 17. KR-Q1 17 . . . . . P-K5; 18. Kt-Q2, and ultimately � White will break up B lack s position by P-B3. '

90

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

Kt-K4 18. Q X P! On 18 . . . . . Q x Q; 19. Kt x Q, P-QB4; 20. B-Kt4! is decisive. 19. Kt x Kt 20. Q x Q

Q x Kt RxQ

33. K-K3 R-R7 34. P-Kt3 K-Bl 35. B-K8 With this move White conceives a plan of giving up his QR Pawn for Black's B Pawn. This would give him a two Pawn superiority on the King's side. K-Ktl 35. . . . . . . 36. R-Q7 K-Bl On (a) 36 . . . . . B-R5; 37. B x PI R x P eh.; 38. R-Q31 wins; and on (b) 36 . . . . . R x RP; 37. R-Q3, wins. _

K-Ktl R-R7 R x RP R-K71 K-Q4! K-Bl K-Q1 K-K5 B-B5 K-B6 P-B4 P-QKt4 R-R3 eh. B X BP P-Kt5 44. B-K6! The Queen's ending is interesting after 44 . . . . . R X B eh.; 45. R X R, B x .R; 46. K x B, P-Kt5; 47. K-B71, P-Kt6; 48. P-K5, P­ Kt7; 49. P-K6, P-Kt8(Q); 50. P-K7 eh., K-B2; 51. P-K8(Q), Q-Kt6 eh.; 52. K-Kt7, Q x P; 53. Q-K7 eh., followed by Q­ Kt5 and White would win both Black Pawns. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43.

21. P-Kt51 Forcing the issue, since after 21. . . . . P X KtP; 22. P X KtP, B-Kt2; 23. R x R eh., B x R; 24. R-QBI, followed by R-B7 would lead to a winning position. 21. . . . . . . B-Kt2 Black decides to sacrifice a Pawn to obtain some play. 22. P x BP R x BP Better than 22. . . . . B x P; 23. P x P, B-Kt2. RxR 23. P x P 24. R x R K-B1 If 24. . . . . R x QP?; 25. B-B3 wins. 25. R-B7 BxP 26. R x RP B-Kt6 27. K-Bl R-QB4 28. B-Q3 ll-B8 eh. 29. K-K2 R-QR8 30. P-K4 P-Kt3 3 1 . P-KR4 K-10 32. B-Kt5 eh. K-QI

45. P-B5 PxP B xB 46. P x P 46 . . . . . R-Kt3; 47. R-Q7 eh., K-Kl; 48. R x P, K-Q1; 49. R-R8 eh., K-B2; 50. R-B8 eh., followed by R X B wins. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51 . 52. 53. 54. 55.

PxB R-Q7 eh. P-Kt4 K-Kt5 RxP R-QKt7 P-R5 P-H6 K-R5

R-R6 K-Kl R-B6 eh. R-K 6 RxP R-K5 K-Bl K-Ktl Resigns.

Th is game confirms that B l ack can develop his QB on the QKt2-R8 diagonal only when White's Queen is on the QB file with the Rook behind it, and further establishes that Black has to adopt the line White forces

THE ORTHODOX DEFENCE

91

upon him. Here is expressed the essence of the Orthodox Defence ; but though it appears simple, its development was protracted and complex. ( See also Game 47, page 88.) ALEKHINE's PREVENTIVE SvsTEM

The previous game demonstrated that Black can secure equality if he masters the tactical points of the defence and adapts his defensive plan to the line that White forces on him. Then he will be able to secure a free development for his Queen's Bishop after either P-K4 or P-QB4. After his game against Capablanca at London in 1922, Alekhine realized this and evolved a new system aimed at preventing, at least temporarily, Black's freeing moves, and at utilizing the time gained to consolidate the slight advantage in space that White obtains after Black's surrender of the centre by QP x BP. At first he was eminently successful with his new system and even Capablanca, in their match, had considerable difficulty in maintaining equilibrium. 49 White

Black

A. Alekhine

J. R. Capablanca

22nd Game, World Championship, 1927, Buenos Aires Kt-KB3 I. P-Q4 P-K3 2. P-QB4 P-Q4 3. Kt-QB3 QKt-Q2 4. B-Kt5 B-K2 5. P-K3 Castles 6. Kt-B3 P-B3 7. R-QBI PxP 8. B-Q3 Kt-Q4 9. B x P 10. B x B Previously Alekhine had tried the more aggressive move 10. Kt-K4, but this proved to be too risky on account of 10 . . . . . P-B3; 1 1 . B-R4, Q-R4 eh.; 1 2. K-K2, QKt-Kt3; with good counterplay for Black. QxB 10. . . . . . . 1 1 . Kt-K4 Kt(Q4)-B3 This is the correct order of the moves and not 1 1 . . . . . Q-Kt5 eh.; 12. Q-Q2, Q X Q eh. ; 13. K X Q, R-QI; 14. KR-QI , QKt-B3; 15. Kt X Kt eh. , Kt X Kt; 16. B-Kt3! (preventing 16 . . . . . P-QKt3 and also 16. . . . . P-B4; when 17.

K-Kl l P x P; 18. R x P, R x R; 19. Kt x R, gives White the advan­ tage), as Capablanca played in the 6th match game in which he was unable to play either of the freeing moves P-B4 and P-K4. Q-Kt5 eh. 12. Kt-Kt3 13. Q-Q2 Q x Q eh. R-QI 14. K x Q P-QKt3 15. KR-QI 16. P-K4 B-Kt2 Kt-Kl 17. P-K5 18. K-K3 K-B1 In the 16th match game Capa­ blanca played 18. . . . . P-QB4 at once, but drifted into an inferior position after 19. P-Q5, P x P; 20. B x P, B x B; 21. R x B. 19. Kt-Kt5 In the 28th match game Alekhine continued with 19. P-KR4, but he considers the text-move far superior. P-KR3 19. K-K2 20. Kt(5)-K4 21. P-B4 P-KB4 22. Kt-B3 After 22. P x P e.p. eh., Kt(2) x P; Black gains command of his Q4 with sufficient counter chances. 22. Kt-B2 23. Kt(Kt3)-K2 P-KKt4

92

CHESS FROM MOR PHY TO BOT,VINNIK

24. P-KR4 P-Kt5 Playable was 24. . . . . P x RP; 25. R-KRI, KR-Ktl ; 26. R x P, R x P. 25. Kt-Kt3 P-QR4 26. B-Kt3 QR-Bl In the 24th mate� game Capa­ blanca played the stronger 26. . . . . P-Kt4; and soon equalised. 27. P-QR3 R-Bl 28. R-Q2 B-Rl To free the QKt file for the Rook.

QI far better and gives 34. R x Kt, Kt X R; 3:3. R X Kt, R-QKtl ; 36. Kt-R4 (36. Kt x B, R-Kt6 eh. ) KR-Bl; 37. R x R, R x R; 38. P-Kt4, P X P; 39. P X P, with only a very slight advantage to White. 34. Kt X B R-Kt6 eh. On 34 . . . . . R x Kt; 35. Kt-K2! with the threats of Kt-Q4 eh. and also P-Kt4 and R x Kt, 35. R-B3

R x R eh.

29. R(2)-QB2 P-B4 After 29(! !) moves Black is at last able to play this important move which ought to give him equality. 30. P x P Kt x BP Alekhine considers this the deci­ sive mistake, suggesting that with 30. . . . . P x P; followed by occupy­ ing the QKt file and his Q4 square, Black would have obtained suffi­ cient counter-play. 31. Kt-R4

Kt(2)-R3 36. P x R! ! A surprise for Capablanca who probably expected 36. R x R, when 36 . . . . . R x Kt; 37. P-Kt4, P X P; 38. P x P, Kt x P! 39. R x Kt, R-R6 eh. followed by Kt-Q6 eh. would have given him the advan­ tage. 36. . . . . . . R x Kt 37. R-Ql R-KBI Necessary, for if 37 . . . . . KtKt2; 38. R-QKtl .

32. B x P! A most difficult type of sacrifice, White obtaining two Pawns and an attack for his Bishop. KxB 32. . . . . . . R-QKtl 33. Kt X KtP Alekhine considers 33. . . . . QR-

K-K2 38. R-Q6 eh. Kt-B2 39. R x P K-Ql 40. R-R7 eh. Kt(2)-K3 41 . P-B4 42. R-QR7? A mistake: Alekhine points out that he had an easy win by Kt­ K2-B3-Q5, preventing Black's counter of Kt x P (on account of

T HE ORTHODOX DEFENCE

46. K x Kt 47. K-K3 48. K-B2 49. K x P 50. R-Q5 eh. 5 1 . P-B5 52. P-B6 53. R-B5 54. K x P 55. K-B3

93 Kt-K3 eh.

P -B5 eh. P x Kt eh.

R-KRl K-K2 RxP Kt-Bl K-Ql R-Kt3 eh. K-B2

Position ajteT 41 . . . . . Kt(2)-K3 the dominating Knight at Q5).

position

of the

42. . . . . . . Kt-B2 Kt(4)-K3 43. R x P 44. P-R5 Stronger was 44. Kt-K2, but Black is still able to hold the posi­ tion by 44. . . . . K-Q2; 45. Kt­ Q4, Kt x Kt; 46. K x Kt, R-QKti ! 47. R-R7, K-B3; 48. P-K6, K-KKt3; 49. R-R4, Kt x P eh. ; 50. K-K5, R-Kl; 5 1 . K x P , P-Kt6! a variation given by Alekhine. 44. . . . . . .

45. P-R6

K-Q2

A highly instructive position. Though White has four Pawns for the piece and Black dare not allow an exchange of Rooks, he still cannot win. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64.

45. . . . . . .

Kt x P!

65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75.

P-Kt4 R-Q5 R-B5 R-Q5 R-R5 K-K4 R___.:.R7 eh. R-R6 eh. R-R7 eh. R-R6 eh. P-R4 R-R6 K-Q4 P-R5 R-R7 eh. P-R6 P-R7 R-QKt7 R-Kt2 R-Q2

Kt-K3 Kt-Bl Kt-K3 Kt-Bl R x BP R-B8 K-K3 K-Q2 K-K3 K-K2 Kt-Q2 R-K8 ch. Kt x P Kt x P K-Q3 R-QR8 Kt-B3 Kt-Q2 RxP Kt-B4

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO .BOTWI�"'NIK

94 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81.

K-B4 dis. eh. R-I\R2 K-B3 K-Q2 R-R5 K-K2

K-B3 R-R5 eh. R-KKt5 R-Kt6 K-Kt4 K-B5

82. 83. 84. 85. 86.

R-R4 eh. K-B2 R-KB4 K-Kt2 K-B3 Draw.

K--B6 R-Q6 K-Q7 R-Q4 K-Q6

A truly titanic struggle and an extremely difficult type of game to follow. Indeed it would be almost impossible but for Alekhine's comments. There are two important points to be observed. Firstly, that a pure tactical struggle does not take place until the 2_6th move, at which point the game diverges from the 24th match game. Secondly, that Black was eventually able to free his game with . . . . P-QB4, although he required 29 moves to prepare for this key-move. LASKER'S DEFENSIVE SYSTEM The following game shows a different defensive system. Lasker here adopts a more energetic but also a riskier line than that played by Capa­ blanca (see Game 49, page 91). Although he succeeds in forcing through the liberating move P-K4, at an early stage, nevertheless he loses very quickly. 50 White

Black

A. Alekhine

Em. Lasker

Ziirich, 1934 P-Q4 1. P-Q4 2. P-QB4 P-K3 Kt-KB3 3. Kt-QB3 B-K2 4. Kt-B3 QKt-Q2 5. B-Kt5 6. P-K3 Castles P-B3 7. R-B1 8. B-Q3 PxP 9. B x BP Kt-Q4 QxB 10. B x B KKt-B3 1 1 . Kt-K4 P-K4 12. Kt-Kt3 An enterprising and rather dan­ gerous attempt to solve the pro­ blems presented by the defence, at the expense of some insecurity of position. PXP 13. Castles 14. Kt-B5 The simple 14. P x P gives White more chances. Alekhine suggests the Pawn sacrifice 14. P X P, Kt­ Kt3; 15. R-K1, Q-Q3; 16. B-

Kt3, B-Kt5; 17. P-KR3, offering the QP when White has a strong attack on account of the open King's file. But even 14. Kt x P, Kt-Kt3; 15. B-Kt3, gives White a strong game without any need to sacrifice. 14. 15. KKt x P 1 6. B-Kt3 17. Kt x B

Q-Q1 Kt-K4 B x Kt Q-Kt3?

Position after 26. Q X PI /

THE ORTHODOX DEFENCE An insignificant move but the Sufficient for decisive mistake. equality is 1 7 . . . . P�KKt3. (Euwe-Flohr, Nottingham, 1936.) .

QKt-Q2 18. Q-Q6! If 18 . . . . . Kt-Kt3; 19. Kt-R6 eh. 19. KR-Q1 20. Q-Kt3

QR-QI P-Kt3

95

K�R1 2 1 . Q-Kt5 White threatened 22. R�Q6 , Kt-K5; 23. R x KtP eh., K-Rl ; 24. Q-R6. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

Kt-Q6 P-K4! R-Q3 Kt-B5 eh. Q x P! !

K-Kt2 Kt-KKtl P-B3 K-RI Resigns.

As Alekhine remarks, the final attack could hardly have been more efficiently directed after Black's wasted 17th move. Examining Alek­ hine's conduct of the final attack, we cannot help noticing the enormous strides that attacking technique has made since the age of the HEvergreen" and the "Immortal" and also the technique of changing a closed position into an open one. Whether Lasker's system is an improvement on Capablanca's is difficult to say since it has rarely been played, and the other lines suggested for White have never been subjected to the rigorous test of tournament play. However, Alekhine himself says that his move (Kt-K4) is no better than the normal l l . Castles, which seems to show that Black can achieve approximate equality.

CoNCLUSIONS The problem of the Orthodox Defence is this: how is Black to develop his Queen's Bishop? In the preceding games we have endeavoured to show how masters of the past and present tried to solve this problem. In the first example Anderssen attempts a straightforward solution by playing . . . . P-QKt3, and though Steinitz refutes it on the first occasion, the defence is to be found in the tournament repertoire for the next 50 years. In this period Pillsbury adopted a system based on his famous Kt-K5 position, yielding victory through a King's side attack. But the defence technique progressed, and even Pillsbury in his last tournament at Cambridge Springs, 1904, changed his strategy and sought to exploit Black's concrete weakness on the Queen's side instead of the illusory weakness on the other wing. Capablanca introduced a more convincing line strengthened by the addition of some refinements by Alekhine (see Game 41, page 77). This leads us to the modern defence illustrated by Lasker's treatment, which avoids the Pawn weaknesses and deliberately surrenders the centre ( . . . . P x BP;) to prepare for the freeing moves . . . . P-K4; or . . . . P-QB4; with the dual purpose of restoring the equilibrium in the centre and gaining an outlet for the Queen's Bishop. This object we see carried out ideally by Showalter, but it failed to be appreciated or universally adopted. The next milestone occurs between the years 1907-1920, when Rubin­ stein achieved singular victories with the Queen's Gambit, attributed at that time to his superb positional play ; whereas we now know that the explanation of his success lies not only in his technique but also because no clear-cut defensi \-e systems had been evolved. To-day, against his "tempo struggle" system (Q-B2) not less than five adequate defences have been form ulated. A definite line for Black was introduced by

CHESS FR OM l\IOHPHY TO BO'l'W IN NIK

96

Capablanca who, in the war years, revived the old Showalter continuation and by enriching the defence tactically introduced what we call 'Capa­ blanca's Freeing Mamcuvre.' Alekhine's attack (Kt-K4) offered White chances, chiefly dependent on the su rprise elemen t, but these were overcome.

VIII THE EXCHANGE VARIATION OF THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT THIS is one of the most important variations of the Queen's Gambit, as White can usually force some line of it upon his opponent, and because it also provides a means of avoiding the many and varied tactical complica­ tions of the Cambridge Springs and allied defences. By exchanging in the centre (BP x P, KP x P), White sets up a rigid formation and transfe.rs the fight to the wings. It might seem that such a policy would deprive the game of its dynamics, reducing it to a mere djsplay of technique. This is fortunately not the case. Many great masters manage, as we shall see, to infuse into this system many novel ideas and personal refinements, despite the reduced material resources. We divide the Exchange variation into two main lines: 1. The Minority Attack, where \Vhite (and in some cases Black) attacks the opposing Pawn majority with a view to isolating and weakening the Pawns. 2. Heterogeneous Castling, where the players castle on opposite sides and attack the enemy King's position. THE MINORITY ATI'ACK IN THE EXCHANGE VABlATION­ EARLY BEGINNINGS This modem variation of the Queen's Gambit Declined poses a middle game problem: Can White succeed in attacking Black's seemingly solid Queen's side Pawns with his minority? The attempt opposes a dogma which was generally accepted in the period between Steinitz' death and the First World War: that a Pawn minority should not advance a{!,ainst

a majority.

Thus we find no examples of this system from the time when the theory of Tarrasch held sway until Capablanca's revival of the system in 1921 . We have to return to the nineteenth century to find examples from tournament play. Here we discover that it was played by Pillsbury against Showalter, and by Steinitz against Lee. Since Pillsbury's treatment has little in common with modern methods, we start our study with Steinitz v. Lee in the London Tournament 1R99. ,

THE EXCHANGE VARIATION OF THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 51 White W.

Steinitz

Black

F. J. Lee

London, 1899 P-Q4 1. P-Q4 P-K3 2. P-QB4 Kt-KB3 3. Kt-QB3 B-K2 4. B-Kt5 Castles 5. P-K3 6. B x Kt BxB PxP 7. P x P 8. Q-Kt3 Steinitz' manreuvre in the last three moves indicates that he was deliberately aiming at 1·eaching this position. With the experience of modern theory as support, we now know that it is possible to arrive at this type of position without the committing 6. B x Kt, and the tempo-losing Q-Kt3.

97

RP X P 15. P-Kt5 16. P x P R xR 17. R x R P-KB4 Kt-Q2 18. R-R8 There is nothing better. 19. Kt-R4 Kt-Kt3 20. Kt x Kt Q x Kt B-Q2 21. Kt-B3 22. Q-R2 RxR 23. Q X R eh. B-Q1 If the suggested line 23. K-Kt2; 24. Kt-R4, Q-B2; 25. P-Kt6, Q-Bl; 26. Q-R7, B-Q3; threatening to dislodge the Queen after B-Ktl is played, there fol­ lows 27. Kt-B5, B x Kt; 28. P x B, with the threat 29. B-R6. 24. Kt-R4 25. P-Kt6

Q-B2 Q-B1

8. . . . . . . P-B3 9. B-Q3 R-Kl 10. KKt-K2 This move, adopted thirty years later by Alekhine and Flohr, is much more elastic than the usual Kt-B3. Kt-Q2 10. 1 1 . Q-B2 Kt-Bl P-KKt3 12. Castles KR P-QR3 13. P-QKt4 B-K2 14. P-QR4 Now we have reached the critical position, and it is interesting to note what one contemporary critic said: 'The plan of attacking on the left wing practically four Pawns with two should not succeed. Black might have played 14. . . . . P­ QKt3; stopping 15. P-Kt5, because of 15. P-QB4; threatening . . . . P-B5, and estab­ lishing a passed Pawn.' Though this remark is correct, it proves only that White should have gained control of the Queen's Bishop file first and omitted the premature 6. B x Kt.

26. Q-R7 Safer was first 26. Q-R5, and if 26 . . . . . P-B5; 27. P x P, B­ KB3; 28. Q-Kt4. Against other moves, White can secure his King's side and eventually break through on the Queen's side with Kt---,.B5, followed by Q-R7 and B-R6. P-B5 26 . . . . . . . The only move, but an ingenious resource. 27. Kt-B5 A tempting alternative is 27. B-R6, but Black simply replies

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

98

27. P x P; and if 28. B x P, then 28. P-K7 wins. 27. . . . . . . 28. Kt x P If 28. P x P, B-Kt4.

PxP then

28.

P x P eh. 28. B-B4 29. K-Bl 30. B x B If 30. B-K2, B-Kt5; or if 30.

B-R6, Q-K3 follows. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.

QxB Q-Q6 eh. Kt X B Q-Q7 eh. KXP Q-Q6 eh. K-B3 Q-B4 eh. K-Kt4 Q-Q6 eh. K-Kt3 Q X P eh. K-R4 Q-B3 eh. P-Kt4 Q-K4 eh. K-Kt3 Drawn.

Except for a slight transposition of the opening moves, this game has quite a modern appearance. Its clear-cut strategy and purposefulness might well have given new life to the 19th century Queen's Gambit Declined, but contemporary players passed it by unnoticed. Unfortunately, we do not know Steinitz' own views on this line as he played it in this, his last tournament, only a few months before his death.

CAPABLANCA REVIVES THE MINORITY ATTACK Capablanca revived the Minority Attack as Black in the tenth game of the World Championship Match against Lasker, in 1921. He demon­ strated with great ski11 that, contrary to accepted theory, a majority of Pawns can be successfully assailed, provided the attacker has an advantage in space for the mobility of the supporting pieces. In his later match against Alekhine in 1927, Capablanca purposely sets up an 'exchange variation' formation, carrying through the 'Minority Attack.'

J. R.

White

52

Capablanca

Black

A. Alekhine

25th Match Game, 1927 P-Q4 1 . P-Q4 P-K3 2. P-QB4 Kt-KB3 3. Kt-QB3 QKt-Q2 4. B-Kt5 B-K2 5. P-K3 Castles 6. Kt-B3 P-QR3 7. R-Bl PxP 8. P x P P-B3 9. B-Q3 10. Q-B2 In the 23rd match game Capa­ blanca played the less exact move 10. Castles, which allowed Black to reply 10 . . . . Kt-Kl; 1 1 . B X B,

Q x B; freeing his game and enabling him to manreuvre his Knight to the key position, Q3. 10. R-Kl Kt-Bl 1 1 . Castles 1 2. KR-Kl A seemingly insignificant move, but in reality a typical conception of Capablanca, who thus retains the option of attacking in the centre, should Black initiate any attack on the King's wing. 12. . . . . . . B-K3 To-day, in such a position as this, we would prefer 12 . . . . . B-KKt5; in order to follow with B-R4-Kt3, a manreuvre which can now only

THR EXCHANGE VARIATION OF THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT

99

be played with much difficulty. If White replies 13. Kt-K5, B-R4; 14. Kt-R4, Kt-Kt5 ! can follow. KKt-Q2 13. Kt-QR4 14. B x B QxB 15. Kt-B5 Kt x Kt Q-B2 16. Q X Kt 17. P-QKt4 Kt-Q2 We have now arrived at a typical position in the Minority Attack. White threatens to break up Black's Queen's side by P-QR4 and P-Kt5, whilst Black's counter­ attacking chances on the King's side are unsubstantial. Even so, the text­ move is a slight inaccuracy, as Alekhine points out, recommending 17. . . . . QR-Q1; and on 18. Kt-Q2, B-Kt5; followed by . . . . B-R4 and B-Kt3. . . . •

18. Q-B2 P-R3 19. P-QR4 Q-Q3 20. R-Ktl KR-QBI B-Kt5 21. KR-QB1 22. Kt-Q2 R-B2 23. Kt-Kt3 B-R4 If 23. . . . . Q X P? 24. Kt-B5. Kt X Kt 24. Kt-B5 25. Q X Kt Q-B3 Naturally Black keeps the Queen since his whole defensive chances lie in a possible counter-attack on the King's side. 26. P-Kt5 Premature. He must play 26. R-Rl l B-Kt3; 27. B-B1 first, retaining his advantage by keeping the Bishop for the defence of the

Position after 25 . . . . Q-B8 .

King's side and for attacking the Queen's side Pawns. 26 RP x P 27. P x P B-Kt3 28. B x B QxB 29. R-Rl QR-QBI 30. P--Kt6 White has nothing better. He cannot force Black to play P x P breaking up the Pawn position. .

30 . 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

. . . . • .

...... R-R7 KR-Rl Q-B2 P-Kt3 R-R8 R xR R-R7 P-R4 K-Kt2 Q-Q3 K-R2

R-Q2 K-R2 P-B4 R-K2 R(l )-Kl R-K5 RxR R-QKtl P-R4 Q-K3 K-Kta Drawn.

A most pleasing and harmonious game, in which Capablanca carries out the minority attack in a masterly fashion. Very impressive is his 'preventive technique,' the manner in which, by not weakening his Pawn position, he prevents Black from counter-attacking on the King's side, thus avoiding any mark of attack which Black might use later as a means of providing counter-play in a difficult position. We know to-day that \\Thite was able to do this only because Black omitted to execute the manreuvre B-KKt5-KR4-KKt3. 8

100

CHESS FROM 1\IORPHY

TO BOT,VINNIK

ALEKHINE CH OOSES A BETTER DEFENSIVE FORMATION

53 White J.

R. Capablanca

Black

A. Alekhine

27th Match Game, 1927 P-Q4 1. P-Q4 P-K3 2. P-QB4 3. Kt-QB3 Kt-KB3 4. B-Kt5 QKt-Q2 5. P-K3 B-K2 6. Kt-B3 Castles 7. R-B1 P-QR3 8. PxP PxP 9. B-Q3 P-B3 10. Q-B2 P-R3 1 1. B-R4 Kt-K1 B-Q3 12. B-Kt3 BxB 13. Castles Kt-Q3 14. RP X B This Knight manreuvre was in­ troduced by Capablanca in the 14th match game and it is considered best even to-day. 15. Kt-QR4 R-K1 16. KR-K1 Kt-B3 Better is 16. .. . . Kt-B1; in order to be able to drive off the Knight from K5 with P-B3. 17. Kt-K5 18. Q-Kt3 19. Kt-B5

Kt(B3)-K5 B-K3

Kt X Kt The ideal position of White's Knights prompts Alekhine to adopt a simplifying manceuvre which hinges on his 21st move. Better was his recommendation 19. Q-B3; when White plays 20. B x Kt, P x B; (20 . . . . . Kt x B; 21. Kt x Kt, P x Kt; 22. Q x P, QR- Ktl ; 23. Q x BP!) 21. Q-B2, B-Q4; and after preparation P­ B3, obtaining the superiority in the centre. 20. P X Kt

21. P-R4 22. B-Ktl

Kt-Kt4 Kt-B2

Not 22. QxKtP? B-Bl; win-

ning the Knight. Black has based his defence on this trap. 22. . . . . . . 23. Kt-B3

B-Bl

Kt-K3

24. P-K4 The position is now clarified. By means of his complicated Bishop and Knight manreuvre, Black has been able to prevent White from carrying out his minority attack, but not without allowing him chances in the centre. 24. . . . . . . PxP 25. RxP R-K2 26. QR-Kl B-Q2 If 26 . .. . . KtxP? 27. RxR, B-K3; (R-K8 is threatened) 28. Q-B2. 27. Q-B2 P-KKt3 28. B-R2 Q-KBl Q-Kt2 29. Kt-K5 If 29. .... B-B1; 30. KtxKtP, P X Kt; 31. B X Kt eh., K-Kt2; (31. . .. . K-R2? 32. B-Kt8 eh.) 32. BxB, RxR; 33. QxR, RxB; 34. Q-Q4 eh. wins. 30. 31. 32. 33.

KtxB BxKt R-KKt4! RxP

34. Q-K4 35. P-B4

RxKt PxB K-R2 R-KKtl

R-KB2

Q- Bl

THE EXCHANGE VARIATION OF THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 101 36. R(Kt4) X P Simpler is 36. R(6) X KtP, Q X P eh.; 37. K-B l , Q-B8 eh.; 38. K-B2, Q-Q7 eh.; 39. K-Ktl , Q-Q8 eh.; 40. K-R2, and wins, since the Black Queen cannot check on KR4. Q x P eh. Q-B8 eh.

36. 37. K-Bl 38. K-B2?

White can still win by 38. K-K2, Q x P eh.; 39. K-B3, Q-Kt6 eh.; (preventing 40. K-Kt4? because of Q x R eh.) 40. K-B2, Q-Kt7 eh.; (40. . . . . Q-Kt3 eh. 41. K-B l ) 41 . K-Ktl, and wins, since the White King escapes to R2 without having to fear Q-R4 eh. 38. . . . . . . Q-Q7 eh! Drawn.

This game shows that Black is able to prevent White from carrying out the Minority Attack, but he is unable to solve satisfactorily the other problems of the opening. Herein lies the importance of the game from our point of view. We see that by merely threatening to play the Minority Attack White can tie down Black's pieces and force a decisive break-through in the centre. Alekhine himself was full of praise for his opponent's fine play. FLOHR'B TREATMENT

Another great 'technician' to adopt the Minority Attack was Salo Flohr. He used this system mainly to prevent his opponents from adopting the Cambridge Springs and Manhattan defences, with all their attendant tactical complexities. Especially instructive is the way in which he neutralises Black's King's side counter-chances, so that his eventual action on the Queen's side may proceed unhindered, and with the greatest effect. 54 White

S. Flohr

Black

M. Euwe

1st Match Game, 1932 P-Q4 1. P-Q4 P-QB3 2. P-QB4 Kt-KB3 3. Kt-KB3 P-K3 4. Kt-B3 5. B-Kt5 QKt-Q2 6. P x P KP x P 7. P-K3 B-K2 8. B-Q3 More precise is 8. Q-B2 since after the text Black can free his position with 8. . . . . Kt-K5. 8. 9. Q-B2 10. Castles KR 1 1 . Kt-K5

Castles R-Kl Kt-Bl Kt-Kt5

12. B x B QxB 13. Kt x Kt B x Kt 14. KR-Kl In the 5th match game against Showalter, Pillsbury played 14. QR-Kl, Q-B3; 15. P-QR4, R-K2; 16. P-QKt4, QR-Kl ; 17. P-Kt5, Q-Kt4; and in order to meet the dangerous attack, played the weakening move 18. P-B4, after which his minority attack should not have been successful. The idea of the text-move is to free KBl for a minor piece, where it would be well placed for defensive purposes. 14. . . . . . . QR-Ql 15. Kt-K2 R-Q3 An easier defence is given by 15. . . . . B x Kt; after 16. R x B, P­ KKt3; 17. R-Ktl, Kt-K3; 18. P-QKt4, P-QR3; 19. P-QR4,

102

CHE�S FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

R-QBl; 20. Q-Kt3, Q-Kt4; when Black can meet 21. P-Kt5 with RP X P; 22. P x P, P-QB4. 16. Kt-Kt3

R-R3

Position after 23 . . . . . R-K2 24. Kt-R21 ! complete surprise! One would expect White to play the Knight to Q2 and thence to the Queen's side in order to assist in the decisive break-through, but the piece returns to the King's side, since White intends to reply to 24 Kt-K1 with 25. Kt-Kt4, R-K3; 26. Kt-K5, and follow later with P-Kt5. A

17. B-B5! In a similar Very important! position (the White QKtP was at Kt4) against Keres at Semmering­ Baden, 1937, Flohr allowed Black to play Q-R5 and after 18. Kt­ B1, Kt-K3; 19. P-Kt5, Black obtained a very dangerous attack with B-B6! ! (20. P X B, Kt-Kt4; 21. K-Kt2, Q-R4; 22. B-B5, followed). Q-Kt4 17. .. ... . QxB 18. B x B 19. P-KR3 Q-Q2 20. P-QKt4 Kt-K3 21 . QR-Ktl Kt-B2 22. P-QR4 P-QR3 23. Kt-B1 R-K2 Black probably expected 24. Kt-Q2, when 24. . . . . Kt-K1; 25. Kt-Kt3, Kt-Q3; gives him a good defensive position. Had he comprehended White's deep stra­ tegy he would have played 23 . . . . . R-QB1; (intending 24 . . . . . Kt­ K1; when the Rook prevents White's break - through by 24. P-Kt5) 24. Q-Kt3, R-Kt3; 25. K-R1, Q-B4; 26. R-K2, Kt­ K1; 27. P-Kt5, RP x P; 28. P x P, Kt-Q3; with sufficient counter­ play.

.

• . . .

R(R3)-K3 24. . . . . . . 25. Kt-B3 P-KB3 White has, by subt1e play, completely secured his King's side, since the Black Rook cannot be transferred to this wing without the intermediary P-KB4, after which the White Knight could be estab­ lished at K5 with great effect. 26. Kt-Q2 R-K1 27. Kt-Kt3 R(K3)-K2 Q-B1 28. Kt-B5 29. KR-QB1 R-Q1 Q-Ktl 30. Kt-Q3! White threatened 31. P-Kt5. If 30. . .. . Q-B4; 31. Q-B5, R-B2; 32. R-Kt3, follows with the threat Q-Kt6. 31 . Kt-B4 Kt-K3 In the long run Black cannot avoid the exchange of Knights and White was also threatening 32. Q-QB5, followed by Q-Kt6.

THE EXCHANGE VARIATION OF

R x Kt 32. Kt x Kt 33. P-Kt5 RP x P 34. P x P PxP A dubious move, but if 34. Q-Q3 (35. P x P, R x BP; 36. Q x R! must be prevented) 35 . Q-R2!, with threats on both the Rook's file and the diagonal, makes Black's position very difficult. P-QKt3 35. R X P If 35 . . . . . R-B3? 36. Q X R. 36. Q-Kt3

Q

-

Q3

THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 103

Not 36 . . . . . Q-Kt2; when 37. R(l )-B5, R(3)-Q3; 38. P-K4! is decisive. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41 . 42. 43. 44. 45. 46.

R-QKti R x KtP QxQ RxR K-R2 K-Kt3 K B4 P-Kt4 R-Kt7 eh. K-B3 -

R-Q2 QxR RxQ K-B2 K-K2 R-R2 P-KKt3 R-R7 K-K3 Resigns.

Flohr's clear-cut play makes this game a strategical masterpiece. His defensive technique is of special interest. Unlike Capablanca in the last game he was unable to avoid making a weakening Pawn move on the King's side, but by skilful manreuvring with his Knight and by employing his latent threats on the Queen's side, he managed to drive off Black's pieces and break through on the Queen's side, just at the moment when his opponent's pieces were most disorganised. This game and Capablanca's method of handling the Minority Attack in the previous one show how the problems of the opening extend deep into the middle-game: an apt illustration of how involved and intricate are the problems posed by modern theory. THE DEFENCE SYSTEM TO THE MINORITY ATTACK­ CAPABLANCA'S DEFENSIVE SYSTEM

Since all the previous games have featured the Minority Attack from White's point of view, it may seem as if White has almost a 'walk over.' However, it must be remembered that it always takes some considerable time for a sufficient counter to be found to any attack. In the following games we shall examine this problem of finding an adequate defensive system by showing its gradual evolution at the hands of the great masters. We commence our study with the original system played by Capablanca in his World Championship match against Alekhine. 8. Q-B2

55 White

A. Alekhine

Black J. R.

Capablanca

14th Match Game, 1927 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

P-Q4 P-QB4 Kt-KB3 Kt-B3 B-IH5 P-K3 R-Bl

P-Q4 P-K3 Kt-KB3 QKt-Q2 B-K2 Castles P-QB3

P-QR3 P-R3 9. P-QR3 In the second match game, Capa­ blanca played the more exact 9. . . . . R-Kl and avoided being forced into the exchange variation as 10. P x P, is answered by Kt X PI 10. B-R4 R-K1 11. P x P KP x P Now 11 . . . . KtxP is answered by 12. B-Kt3. .

12. B-Q3

104

CHESS

FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK 14. Castles KKt-B3 15. P-KR3 Too slow. 15. P-QKt4, Kt-K1 ; 16. P-QR4, Kt-Q3; 1 7 . P-Kt5, gives White a strong initiative, showing that Capablanca's man­ ceuvre to place the Knight at Q3 requires exact timing, and is satis­ factory only when Black is suffi­ ciently developed and able to play �-QKt4 before White can play P-QKt5.

Position after 12. B-Q3 The usual continuation in posi­ tions of this type is 12 . . . . . Kt-B1; 13. Kt-K5, Kt-Kt5; 14. Kt x Kt, B x Kt; which, though perfectly playable, allows White to adopt a line in which he can dictate the future trend of the play for some time. This passive defence does not suit Capablanca's style of play, and he therefore chooses a simplifying continuation. 12. Kt-R4 RxB 13. B x B To make room for the Knight at Kl .

Kt-K1 15. . . . . . . 16. Kt-K2 If White now plays 16. P-QKt4, Black replies 16 . . . . . Kt-Q3; 17. P-QR4, P-QKt4; 18. Kt-K2, Kt-B5; and he can block the QB file without having to put his Queen's Bishop out of play at Kt2. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21 . 22. 23. 24. 25.

Kt-Q3 Kt-Kt3 Kt-B1 Kt-K5 P-KB3 Kt X Kt Kt-Kt6 B x Kt B-K3 Kt-K2 Q-Q2 Kt-B4 B-B4 QxB BxB QxQ Kt x Q Kt-Q3 Kt-Q3 Drawn.

The importance of this game lies in Capablanca's introduction of the Knight manceuvre to Q3 which has since become an important defensive resource. THE MODIFIED CAPABLANCA DEFENCE SYSTEM As we have seen from the preceding game, Capablanca's defence system, though positionally sound, involves a loss of time, which White is able to turn to good use in building up an attacking position on the Queen's side and in the centre (see, for example, Alekhine's game against Tylor at Nottingham in 1936). Attempts have consequently been made to carry out the defensive manceuvre without undue preparation. The following game is a good example of modern trends in the treatment of this problem. 56 2. P-QB4 P-K3 3. Kt-QB3 P-Q4 Black White 4. B-Kt5 QKt-Q2 M. Najdorf E. Eliskases B-K2 5. P-K3 Mar del Plata, 1947 6. Kt-B3 Castles 1. P-Q4 Kt-KB3 7. R-B1 P-QR3

THE EXCHANGE VARIATION OF THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 105 8. P x P PxP P-B3 9. B-Q3 10. Q-B2 R-K1 1 1 . Castles Kt-B1 12. P-KR3 If this move is considered neces­ sary in order to prevent B-KKt5R4-Kt3, it means that Black gains a move besides creating a possible point of attack at KKt5.

This attempt to counter-attack is too early. With 22 . . . . . Q-K3; 23. Q-Kt6, R-K2; 24. P-Kt5, RPxP; 25. P x P, R-QB1 ; 26. R-B5 (26. R-R1, P-Kt4!) R(2) -B2 Black is able to satisfactorily defend his Queen's side and keep his Pawn chain intact and could then start a counter-attack by P-KR4 and P-KKt4-KKt5.

P-KKt3 12. . . . . . . With the idea of playing the usual manreuvre Kt-K3-Kt2 and B­ KB4, which may be called the modified Capablanca system.

23. Q-Kt6 ! R-K2 If 23. . . . . Q-Q2; 24. P-Kt5, RP x P; 25. RP x P, R-K3; 26. R-R1, R-QB1; 27. R-R7 would follow and White has considerable pressure.

13. Kt-K5 Kt(B3)-Q2 14. B-KB4 Kt x Kt 1 5. B x Kt B-Q3 16. B x B QxB 17. Kt-R4 If 17. P-R3, Kt-K3; 18. PQKt4, Kt-Kt2; 19. R-Ktl , B84; 20. P-QR4, B X B; 21. Q x B, P-QKt4 follows and Black will eventually be able to secure the strong square QB5 for his Knight via Kt-B4-Q3. 17 . 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

...... Kt-B5 Q x Kt P-QKt4 BxB P-QR4

Kt-K3 Kt x Kt Q-B3 B-B4 QxB

RP x P 24. P-Kt5! 25. P x P PxP Now Black must allow his Pawn position to be broken up, since 25. . . . . R-QB1; 26. P X P, Q-K3; is refuted by 27. P X P! ! K-Kt2 26. R-B5 R-Q1 27. Q X P(Kt5) R(2)--Q2 28. Q-R5 P-Kt5 29. R(1 )-B1 QxP 30. P x P 31. R-Kt5 K-R1 32. Q-Kt6 Avoiding the trap 32. R X KtP? R-KKtl . R-Q3 32. . . . . . . 33. Q-B7! Not 33. Q x P, R-KKtl ; 34. P-Kt3, Q-R6l with the threat R x P eh. R-KKtl 33. . . . . . . Now if 33. R-KR3; 34. Q-K5 eh., P-B3; 35. Q X QP! repulses the attack. Q-K3 34. P-Kt3 35. R-K1 In view of the threat 35. R x P eh.

22 . . . . . . .

P-KKt4

P-Kt3 35. . . . . . . 36. P-K4! Just when it looks as if Black has set up a defensible position,

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

106

White institutes a decisive break­ through in the centre.

38. P-Q5 P-R4 38 . . . . . Q-R8 eh.; 39. K-Kt2, R-R3; 40. Q-K5 eh., Q X Q; 41. R x Q, gives Black better drawing chances. 39. K-Kt2 Q-Kt3 40. R-KB4 R-Kt2 41. R-KR41 The threat of 42. R x P eh. forces the Black Rook to an inactive post on R2, a weakness which later proves to be decisive. 41 . . . . . . R-R2 42. R(5)-Kt41 Q-B3 43. R(R4)-KB4 Q-QI 44. Q-B3 eh. K-Ktl 45. R(Kt4)-B41 Q-KB1 46. R-B8 R-Q1 47. R(4)-QB41 This is the key of White's skilful manreuvre. The opposing Rooks are driven away, whilst his own pieces are established at their most effective posts. A masterpiece of strategy. .

Position after 36. P-K4! If Black replies 36 . . . . . P-B4; White plays 37. R(l )-Ktl, (not 37. P-K5? R-B3; 38. Q-R7, P-B5!) 37 . . . . . BP X P; 38. R x KtP, R x R; (not 38 . . . . . R(I)-QI; 39. Q X R eh !) 39. R X R, Q-B4; 40. Q-K7! with decisive advantage. .

47 48. R x R 49. R-B8 •

36 . . . . . . 37. R x KP .

PxP Q-B3

. . . . . .

R-R3 QxR Resigns.

The first part of the game demonstrates how Black should handle this defence; that is by the exchange of the Queen's Bishop for White's King's Bishop and the deploying of the Knight via KKt2 to Q3, keeping it always in close proximity to the centre, so that he can readily deal with any possible change of plan by White. The second phase of the game is remarkable for the middle-game play by Najdorf, the foremost tactician of our time, who correctly exploits with his heavy pieces Black's Pawn weaknesses.

HETEROGENEOUS CASTLING IN THE EXCHANGE VARIATION­ RESHEVSKY'S TREATMENT

In the other main line of the Exchange Variation, after the early exchange of the centre Pawns, instead of developing the Queen's Rook, White tries to give the game a sharper note by Castling Q'side. Fifteen years ago, this line used to be looked upon as an independent system in which the Minority Attack had no place. However, the following game shows its introduction as an effective counter to the defensive system illustrated in the last game.

THE EXCHANGE VARIATION OF THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 107 57 White

S. Reshevsky

G.

Black

Stahlberg

Kemeri, 1937 Kt-KB3 I. P-Q4 2. P-QB4 P-K3 P-Q4 3. Kt-KB3 4. Kt-B3 B-K2 QKt-Q2 5. B-Kt5 6. PxP PxP Better is 6 . . . . . Ktx P; 7. B X B, Q X B; ( Alatortsev - Capablanca, Moscow, 1935), and Black has eased his position by the exchange of Bishops. P-QB3 7. P-K3 8. Q-B2 With this move White chooses a more elastic system than we have seen hitherto. Not only does he save the move QR-B1 (the Rook usually has to return to QKtl to support P-QKt4) but he retains the possibility of castling on the Queen's side. Kt-B1 8. . . . . . . But Stahlberg is also on his guard and likewise selects a non-commit­ tal move, which according to White's play can either transpose into regular lines or, as in the game, can be the prelude to a modified defensive system. Kt-K3 9. B-Q3 P-KKt31 10. B-R4 Now Black's plan becomes ap­ parent. He wants to exchange the opposing King's Bishop by playing the usual manreuvre Kt-Kt2 and B-KB4, but wishes to save a move by dispensing with R-K1, which in order to make room for the Knight, is necessary after castling. 1 1 . Castles QR Reshevsky changes his plans since he realizes that to adopt the minority attack leads to nothing after 1 1 . Castles KR, Kt-Kt2; 12. QR-Ktl , P-QR4; 13. P-QR3,

B-KB4; 14. P-QKt4, P x P; 15. P X P, R-R6; when Black stands well. This system of heterogeneous castling introrluces a new system which was fashionable in the 1930's, until it was realized that Black's counter-chances on the Queen's side are more easily realized than White's attack on the King's side. Reshev­ sky, who fears none of the dangers attendant upon lines such as this, has adopted the system several times in order to inject more life into the game. Castles 11. . . . . . . 12. K-Ktl With 12. P-KR3 White can prevent Black's impending man­ reuvre, remaining more in harmony with the strategy. Still, even after 12. P-KR3, P-B4; (12. . . . . Kt-Kt2; 13. P-KKt4,) 13. P X P, Kt x P; 14. P-KKt4, B-K3; 15. K......: Ku, R-Bl; Black obtains good counter-chances on the Queen's side. Kt-Kt2 1 2. B-KB4 13. P-KR3 14. B x Kt Better than 14. P-KKt4, B X B; 15. Q X B, Kt-K5. KB x B 14. B xB 15. P-KKt4 Kt-K3 16. Q X B The object of Reshevsky's stra­ tegy becomes plain. He is able to advance his King's side Pawns whilst Black's usual response, a similar Queen's side Pawn advancE-, is purposeless here since White has not moved any of his Queen's side Pawns and so has an ideal defensive position. P-B41 17. P-KR4 A Pawn sacrifice ( Black s only counter-chance), the consequences of which are not easy to assess. '

18. P x P

B x Kt

108

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

R-B l 19. Q x B 20. P-K4! RxP 21. Q-R3 Now White is threatening Q X P, and on 21 . . . . . P-QR4; 22. Kt-Kt5, Q-Q3; 23. P x P, wins a Pawn, as after 23. . . . . Kt x Kt; 24. P X Kt, R-Q1; 25. Q-R3 follows. Q-Q3! 21. . . . . . . 22. P x P If 22. Q x P, Q-B51

White has kept the Pawn and has consolidated his position, but Black has a surprise in hand. P-R4! 25. . . . . . . 26. R-K1 ! The only move. If (a) 26. P X P? Q-B4 eh.; 27. K-R1 , R-Q6; wins a piece; if (b) 26. R-Ktl? P x P; 27. R x P, Q-Q8 eh. winning the Knight. PxP 26. . . . . . . Kt-Kt2! 27. Kt-K5 28. Q-K4! Avoiding the trap 28. Kt x P (4) ? Q-B4 eh.; 29. Q-K4, R-Q8 eh.; 30. K-B2, R x R; wins. QxQ 28 . . . . . . P-B4 29. R x Q K-R2 30. R-QB4 31 . K-B2 R-K1 Kt-K3 32. Kt-Q3 33. P-R4 K-R3 R-K2 34. R-Kt4 35. R-Kt6! A fine move that indirectly defends the KRP for if 35. . . . . K-R4? 36. R x Kt, R x R; 37. Kt-B4 eh. follows, and if 35 . . . . . Kt-Q5 eh. ; 36. K-B3, Kt-B6; 37. Kt-B4. .

R-Q1 ! 22. . . . . . . The key to Black's play, which enables him to win the QP and open up the centre files. 23. Q x P 24. R x R 25. Q-K3

RxP QxR

35. . . . . . . P-B5 P-KKt4 36. R-Kt4! KxP 37. P x P eh. K-R5 38. R-Kt5 eh. 39. R-K5! Forcing a Knight ending in which chances are roughly equal. Kt-Q5 eh. 39. . . . . . . RxR 40. K-B3 Kt-K3 41 . Kt x R 42. Kt-Q3 P-B6 P-Kt6 43. P-Kt4 KxP 44. P x P eh. Kt-B5 45. P-R5 46. Kt-B5! K-Kt7 On 46 . . . . . P-B7; 47. Kt-K4 eh. , K-Kt7; 48. Kt X P, K x Kt; 49. K-Q4 follows.

109

THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED 47. 48. 49. 50. 51.

Kt-K4 K-Kt3 K-B4 P-Kt5 Kt-Q2

Kt-Q4 eh. Kt-B2 Kt-K3! Kt-Kt4 P-B7

52. 53. 54. 55. 56.

P-R6 P x P! K-B3 P-Kt8(Q) K-Q3

Kt-K5 Kt x Kt eh. P-B8 (Q) Q-B8 eh. Drawn.

The system adopted by Reshevsky was no mere improvisation, but the logical development of a system which he had engineered successfully against Monticelli at Syracuse in 1934. This system, and others closely allied to it notably Alekhine's method of playing his KKt to K2 and keeping the King in the middle as long as possible, proves that the seemingly rigid structure of the exchange variation gives plenty of scope to a player of fertile imagination. ,

IX THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED THE Queen's Gambit Accepted occupied the minds of the analysts of the past, and we are indebted to them for some interesting variations which are analysed in the 'Gottinger Manuscript' in 1500, and later (1536) by Ruy Lopez. They show that after the moves I. P-Q4, P-Q4; 2. P-QB4, P x P; 3. P-K4, P-QKt4; 4. P-QR4, P-QB3; 5. P-QKt31 (an important improvement given by Ruy Lopez instead of first taking the Pawn 5. P x P, P x P; 6. P-QKt3, B-Kt21), White regains the sacrificed Pawn. More important by far was Damiano's (1512) assertion that Black would remain with the inferior game, a contention that Philidor tried to confirm by a fine analysis, claiming that after the continuation 5 . . . . . P x KtP; 6. P x KtP, P x P; 7. B x P eh., B-Q2; 8. Q x P, B x B; 9. Q x B eh., Q-Q2; 10. Q x Q eh., Black's isolated Pawn is weak and might get lost. A very advanced statement that conforms with present-day views. This was the analytical background to the games between de la Bour­ donnais-McDonnell, and is the starting point of our historical study. Thus we can understand why McDonnell never attempted to hold the Pawn, but tried to free his position by playing early 3. . . . . P-K4. Even in this form the acceptance of the gambit was considered· a risk, and it is said that although McDonnell realized this, nevertheless nothing could induce him to decline the gambit. (For the present-day view, see notes at the end of Game 59, page 1 12.) THE QUEEN'S

GAM BIT ACCEPTED IN THE LAST CENTURY -

58 White

C. M. de la Bourdonnais

L.

Black

A. McDonnell

50th Match Game, London, 1 834

I. P-Q4

P-Q4

2. P-QB4 PxP 3. P-K4 P-K4 It is difficult to form an opinion on the opening moves as this line has been so rarely played. Euwe suggests that 3. . . . . P-QB4; 4. P-Q5, P-K3; is better since 4. P x P, Q x Q eh.; 5. K x Q! and

110

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

White's King's side Pawns may become dangerous. 4. P-Q5 This move gives a too rigid Pawn formation. 4. P-KB4 Steinitz-Blackburne,London, 1 899 continued 4. . . . . Kt-KB3; 5. Kt-QB3, B-QB4l 6. B x P, Kt­ Kt5; 7. Kt-R3, P-B4l . . . . . •

5. Kt-QB3 Kt-KB3 6. B x P B-B4 7. Kt-B3 Q-K2 8. B-KKt5 A mistake. Necessary is 8. Castles when Black must play 8. . . . . P-KB5; followed by . . . . B-Q3; closing the position so that he can castle. 8. B x P eh. 9. K-Bl Lasker pointed out that a modern player would have preferred 9. K xB, Q-B4 eh.; 10. K-Kl , QxB; 11. Kt x P, and White has eliminated the dangerous Bishop and regained his Pawn. . • • .

.

•

9. . . . . . . B-Kt3 With the threat 10 . . . . Q-B4. This move looks very strong and, indeed, enables Black to prod uce one uf the most beautiful combina­ tions seen on the chess- board. Nevertheless, a logical modernist would have played 9 . . . . . B-B4; followed by 1 0 . . . . B-Q3, not onl y defending the King's Pawn but circumventing the thre at of P-Q6. After castling, Black with a Pawn plus and attack along the King's Bishop file, would ha v e a greatly su peri or game. 10. 11. 12. 13.

P-B5 Q-K2 R-QI B-Kt5 P-Q6 PxP K t Q5 It a ppear s as if White has obtained counterplay in the centre --

Position after 13. Kt-Q5 for if 1 3 . . . . . Q-Q 1; 14. QKt x P, P x Kt; 15. P-K5, or 13. . . . . Q-B1; 14. B-Kt5 eh., and Black's position is insecure, but McDonnell finds a remarkable answer, the sacrifice of the Queen for two minor pieces and attack. Kt x Ktl l 13. Kt-K6 eh. 14. B x Q 15. K-K1 KxB 16. Q-Q3 White realizes that the Black Knight is too strong and offers to exchange it for the Rook. Black declines to oblige. A better defence is 16. B-Q5, Kt-B3; 17. B x Kt, P x B; 18. R-Q3, followed by R x Kt; but even then Black, with Rook, Bishop and two Pawns for the Queen, has the superior game. R-Q1 16. Kt-B3 17. R-Q2 B-QR4 18. P-QKt3 QR-B1 19. P-QR3 20. R-Ktl After 20. P-QKt4, Kt x QP; 21. P x Kt, B x P; 22. B-Kt3, R-B8 eh. wins. An impressive variation, considering Black's material in­ feriority. 20. 21. B x P 22. P x B

P-QKt4 B x Kt

THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED 2 2 . B x Kt, does not save the game for there follows 22. . . . . R X B; 23. P-QKt4, (2a. P X B, R-B8 eh. ; 24. K-B2, B x R; 25. Q X B, R-B7; ) 2B . . . . . B-Kt3; 24. P x B, R-B8 eh.; 25. K-B2, Kt-Q4 dis. eh.

22. 23. B-B4 24. K-B2 25. R x P eh. 26. R-B7 eh. 27. R-K7 and Black won.

111 Kt-Q5 Kt x P eh. Kt x QR K-B3 K-Kt3 QKt x B

Playing through this beautiful game, we can see why lovers of romantic chess speak so appraisingly of such games and the era in which they were played. Nevertheless, whilst we share their admiration for the abundance of original ideas displayed and the ilaring play involved, wc cannot shut our eyes to the fact that these combinations should never have been allowed to come into being. In an opening in which both players r'eientlessly pursue their respective aims-without acknowledging the requirement8 of the position-rapidly changing situations are produced culminating in McDonnell's masterly Queen sacrifice. Our judgment is that whilst some phases were beauti­ fully played, too much was left to the element of chance in situations where to-day pure technique would decide the game. Also, the phases of the game are too disconnected and do not form a co-ordinated whole. WHITE

PLAYS FOR A KING's SIDE ArrAcx

Whilst the previous game bears little resemblance to the modem form of the Queen's Gambit Accepted, the following game is a definite step forward, displaying some of the familiar features which we associate with this debut. White is left with an isolated Queen's Pawn, but gains control of the vital central squares and is able to carry out a successful King's side attack. 59 White

Black

L. C. M. de la Bourdonnais

A. McDonnell

17th Match Game, 1834 P-Q4 2. P-QB4 PxP P-K4 3. P-K3 4. B x P PxP 5. P X P Kt-KB3 This move was consistently played during the match, though neither player foWld White's strongest reply, 6. Q-Kt3, Q-K2 eh.; 7. K-Bl, and Black has many dis­ agreeable threats to attend to. I. P-Q4

6. Kt-QB3 7. �1\t-B3

B-K2 Castles

8. B-K3 P-B3 Stronger is 8. . . . . B-KKt5; 9. Castles (9. Q-Kt3, B x Kt; 10. P X B, Kt-B3!) 9. . . . . Kt-B3; with a good game. QKt-Q2 9. P-KR3 Kt-Kt3 1 0. B-Kt3 KKt-Q4 1 1 . Castles The position is similar to the modem Queen's Gambit Accepted set-up with the important differ­ ence that Black's Queen's Bishop is not shut in and so Black has no worries about the development of this piece. 12. P-QR4 This move is not only unnecessary but it gives Black undisputed control of his QKt5.

112

CHESS FROM MOHPHY TO BOTWINNIK

P-QR4 12. B-K3 13. Kt-K5 P-KB4 14. B-B2 Too committal, since it allows the Knight at K5 to dominate the game. With 14. . . . . Kt-Kt5; followed by Kt(3)-Q4 Black would have a strong position, and White has few attacking chances to com­ pensate for his isolated Queen's Pawn. 15. Q-K2 P-B5 16. B-Q2 Q-Kl White threatened Kt x P. B-B2 17. QR-K1 Black sets a trap. 17. B-KB4; 18. B X B , R x B; 19. Q-Q3, still gives White the superior game, but Black has fighting chances 18. Q-K4 19. B x P 20. Q x Kt

P-Kt3 Kt x B B-B5

Black was relying on this move, but de la Bourdonnais has seen further. 21. Q-R6 B xR 22. B x PI An attractive sacrifice not diffi­ cult to see but noteworthy as the logical outcome of White's previous strategy. 22. . . . . . . PxB Kt-Bl 23. Kt x KtP Black has other defences but none avails him, e.g. 23. . . . . B-KKt4; 24. Q-R8 ch.,K-B2; 25. Q-R7 eh., K-B3; 26. R x Q, KR x R; 27. Kt-K5, and wins, or 23 . . . . . B-Q3; 24. Q-R8 eh., K-B2; 25. Q-R7 eh., K-B3; 26. Kt-K4 eh. wins. 24. Q-RS eh. Even without analysis it is clear that the attack is decisive since all White's pieces are centralized and can be deployed at will. At the time this game was played such assessment of a position was non­ existent, native intuition guiding the players. De la Bourdonnais was reputed to have often said, 'All I need is a little position.' 24. K-B2 25. Q-R7 eh. K-B3 26. Kt-B4 Threatening Kt-K4 mate. 26. 27. R-K6 eh. 28. Q-R6 eh. 29. R-K5 Mate.

B-Q6 K-Kt4 K-B4

It is interesting to note that contemporary critics considered Black's difficulties were caused by his acceptance of the gambit, whilst we know that in fact his position was better than it would be in the modern lines of the Q.G. Accepted. The P-KB4-B5 manreuvre was the cause of his difficulties, a stratagem that McDonnell thought to be strong, as evinced by his repeated adoption of this line. De la Bourdonnais' not dissimilar mistake, 12. P-QR4, indicates that square weaknesses had not been recognized as a decisive handicap.

113

THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED STAUNTON'S TREATMENT

The previous games indicate the struggles that are liable to result from the acceptance of the gambit Pawn; and we can see why our forebears considered it risky to accept the gambit. Our next example introduces a new defensive system adopted by Staunton. At the time that this game was played the practice of White playing first had not come into general usage and Saint-Amant was actually Black. However, to avoid confusion the colours have been reversed. White

60

P. C. F. de Saint-Amant

Black 11.

Staunton

19th Match Game, 1843 1. P-Q4 P-Q4 2. P-QB4 PxP 3. P-K3 P-K4 4. B x P PxP B-Q3 5. P x P Better is 5. . . . . B-Kt5 eh.; 6. Kt-QB3, Kt-KB3; 7. Kt-B3, Castles; 8. Castles, B-Kt5; (Stahl­ berg-Gligoric Match, 1949) but best is Golombek's suggestion 5. . . . . Kt-QB3! 6. Kt-KB3, (6. Q-Kt3, Q-K2 eh.) 6. . . . . Kt-B3; 7. Q-Kt3, B-Kt5 eh.; followed by . . . . Castles. 6. Kt-KB3 Kt-KB3 7. P-KR3 Castles 8. Castles Kt-QB3 Staunton remarked that he should have played 8 . . . . . P-KR3; here, a move that he considered indis­ pensable for both players in this opening. B-K2 9. B-KKt5 Better first 9 . . . . . P-KR3; 10. B-R4, B-K2. 10. Kt-B3 B-KB4 1 1 . P-R3 Kt-K5 12. B-K3 White is now able to avoid sim­ plification, whereas if Black had interposed 9 . . . . . P-KR3; White would be forced to exchange Bishops.

B-B3 1 2. Kt-Q3 13. R-K1 14. B-R2 P-KR3 Staunton, imbued with the attitude of 'wait and see' prevalent at that period, fails to profit from the position. Here, for instance, Black can exploit White's isolated Pawn by 14 . . . . . B-Kt3; followed by Kt-B4, B-R4 or according to White's play. 15. Q-R4 Staunton comments: 'The object of this sally of the Queen is not at all clear to us.' Kt-K2 15. 16. QR-Q1 Kt-Kta 17. B-B1 As Saint-Amant observes: 'To be able to play Kt-K5,' proving that White's 15th move was not devoid of purpose. 17. 18. Kt-K5

P-B3

1 14

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

18. Q-B2 Staunton remarks: '18. . . . . K­ R2; would have been stronger play,' indicating that he considered his subsequent difficulties arose out of this oversight. But on 18. . . . . K-R2; 19. P-KKt4! appears strong, e.g. 19 . . . . . B-B 1 ; 20. B x BP, Kt x B; 21. Kt x Kt(6), K X Kt; 22. Q-B2 eh! or 19. . . . . B-Q2; 20. B X BP, Kt x Kt; 21. P x Kt, Kt x B; 22. P x B. To us it seems obvious that with the strong Bishop at R2, the Knight at K5 and the centralization of all White's pieces, he should have some way of demonstrating his superiority. P-Kt4 19. P-KKt4! The only move to avoid losing a piece. 20. Q-Kt4 21. R-Q2 22. Q-B5 23. P x B Black has played

B-B7 P-QR4 B x Kt Kt-Kt2 very cleverly.

24. Kt x KtP! The best. If 24. Q-K3, P-Kt5; saves the piece. Kt x Q 24. Kt-Q6 25. Kt X Q B xR 26. R x Kt R x Kt 27. Kt x R The way Staunton created com­ plications is admirable as is also Saint-Amant's ingenuity in meeting them. However, whilst the game seemed in the balance to last cen­ tury's onlookers, we with our accu­ mulated knowledge, would never hesitate to assert. that White will ultimately emerge with the superior game, simply because he entered into complications with all the advantages one can hope to have in such a position. 28. P-B4 Too slow. 28. P-K6, P· x P; 29. R x P, wins a second Pawn, and with two Bishops White has a very quick win.

28. R-K1 29. R-Q1 B-K5 30. R-Q4 B-Q4 31. B x B PxB 32. K-B2 Better is 32. R X P, R-QB1 ; 33. B-K3, and Black has no counter­ chances whatsoever. 32. R-QB1 Kt-K2 33. B-K3 R-Ktl 34. K-K2 K-B1 35. B-B1 R-Kt4 36. P-Kt4 Staunton remarks that this is Black's best move. Probably he had in mind the avoidance of the trap 36 . . . . . P x P; 37. R x KtP, R x R; 38. P x R, Kt-B3; 39. B-K3! with the threat P-QKt5. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41 . 42. 43.

PxP Kt-B3 R-R4 Kt x RP B-Q2 Kt-B3 B-Kt4 eh. K-K1 P-R4 P-Kt4! BP x P PxP R-R8 eh. K-Q2 44. P-R5 Kt x B 45. P-R6 White's best chance.

45. Kt-B3 R-Kt7 eh. 46. P-R7 R-IH6 eh. 47. K-Q3 According to Staunton 47. . . . Kt X P eh.; 48. K-B3, R-KR7; 49. P-R8(Q), R X Q; 50. R X R, Kt x P; would lead to the same position as in the game. .

48. K-B2 R-KR6 49. P-R8(Q) RxQ 50. R x R Kt x P 5 1 . K-B3 The previous part of the game was played in the true 'romantic' style, but whilst Staunton makes use of his chances in a praiseworthy manner, Saint-Amant's play de­ serves censure, since he had many simpler and more convincing ways of demonstrating his superiority.

THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED

115

51. Kt x P 5 2 . K-Q4 Kt-B3 53. K-K5 K-K2 54. P-R4 Kt-Q2 eh. 55. K-B5 If 55. K x P? Kt-Kt3 eh. 55. P-Q5 Kt-B4 56. P-QR5 P-Q6 57. K x P P-Q7 58. K-B4 K-Q2 59. R-Rl 60. K-K3 K-B3 61. R-QKtl Not only cutting off the Black King, but threatening 62. K x P. P-QS(Q) 61. . . . . . . K-Kt4 62. R X Q 63. R-Q5 With this move White at last assures himself of victory. K-B3 63. Kt-K3 eh. 64. K-Q4 K-Kt2 65. K-B4 K-R3 66. R-Q7 eh. 67. R x P! A fine move. If now 67. K x P; 68. R-B5 eh., K-R5; 69. R-B6, Kt-B2; 70. R-B6, wins the Knight.

Position after 66 . . . . . K-R3 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79.

R-B5 R-B6 K-Kt5 K-B5 R-KR6 P-R6 eh. R-R7 R-Kt7 eh. K-B6 K-B7 K-Kt6 R-Q7

Kt-QI Kt-B3 K-Kt2 Kt-R2 eh. Kt-Bl Kt-R2 K-Ktl Kt-Bl K-Rl Kt-R2 eh. Kt-B3 Kt-Kt5 Resigns.

An interesting game, played in an admirably aggressive spirit. But on reflection we see that Staunton's troubles arose from his inability to recognize the strength of the Bishop on QR2-KKt8 diagonal and from failing to take steps to neutralize it by placing a Knight on his Q4 (as did McDonnell in the previous game)-a new technique that later became very common and is still considered best to-day. Again White failed to utilize his great superiority through not recognizing where his advantage lay. For this reason the game became long and drawn out, a sign that his technique must have been inferior. MORPHY DEFENDS THE QU�EN'S GAMBIT This game is of particular interest as it is one of the very few in which we see Morphy, the master of the 'open' game, defending with the Queen's Gambit Accepted (by transposition). On the authority of Morphy him­ self, we know that he was fully aware of the fundamental differences between the 'open' and 'closed' game. He did not like the 'closed' game, the principles of which had not in his time been laid down by Steinitz. His treatment of the opening is creditable in one respect, that he recognized the limitation of the defence and therefore did not force risky combinations. On the other hand he fails to gain the initiative, being 9

116

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

misled by a pseudo-threat of attack on the part of his opponent (see note to Black's 12th move). 61 White

Black

D. Harrwitz

P. Morphy

1st Match Game, 1858 P-Q4 1 . P-Q4 P-K3 2. P-QB4 Kt-KB3 3. Kt-QB3 4. B-B4 Lowenthal comments: 'Mr. Mor­ phy agrees with us in the opinion that, at this stage of the game the text-move is the most forcible one that can be selected, indeed he says he found it so strong that in his subsequent games with Mr. Harr­ witz he preferred meeting 1. P-Q4 with 1. P-KB4, in place of expos­ ing himself to this attack.' Present opinion considers that 4. B-B4, allows Black to equalize easily. 4. . . . . . . P-QR3 This move was considered neces­ sary to prevent 5. Kt-Kt5, but to-day we would not waste time, as 4. . . . . P-B4; 5. Kt-Kt5, BP X P; 6. Kt-B7 eh., Q x Kt; 7. B x Q, B-Kt5 eh.; follows with the better game for Black. P-B4 5. P-K3 Kt-B3 6. Kt-B3 P x QP 7. P-QR3 PxP 8. KP x P P-QKt4 9. B x P 10. B-Q3 The position now reached shows the familiar characteristics of the Queen's Gambit Accepted. The text-move was thought to be good at that period because the Bi�hop attacks Black's KR2, a weak square in the castled position. To-day we consider it preferable to keep the Bishop on the QR2-KKt8 diagonal with possibilities of playing P-Q5 and also bringing pressure to bear on Black's KB2 after Kt-K5.

10. B-Kt2 1 1 . Castles B-K2 12. B-K5 Though this move looks logicaldefending the QP and preparing Q-K2 and QR-QI-the usual method of development in this variation, it is out of place here. Better is 12. B-K3, or 12. B-B2, followed by Q-Q3 and QR-Ql . 12 . . . .

0

•

•

Castles

Here Morphy misses his chancel He assumes that after 12. . . . . Kt X B; 13. P X Kt, (or 13. Kt X Kt, Q-Q3; and 14. . . . . QR-QI) the Pawn at K5 will exert considerable pressure and White will be able to use it as pivot for a King's side attack. However, after 13. . . . . Kt-Q4; White has to meet the threat of 14 . . . . . Kt-B5; with 14. B-K4, and after 14 . . . . . Kt x Kt; 15. Q x Q eh. , K x Q; 16. B x B, R-R2; Black has the advantage. Kt-Q4 13. Q-K2 K-Rl 14. B-Kt3 Morphy considered this the losing move and recommended 14. B-B3; with equality. B-B3 15. KR-Kl Lowenthal comments that Mor­ phy's idea behind 14. . . . . K-Rl ;

ll7

THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED was t o follow with 1 5 . . . . . P-B4; but this is met by 16. Q X P, Kt X l(t; 17. P X Kt, P-B5; 18. Q-K4, P-Kt3; 19. B x BP. P-Kt3 16. Q-K4 Q x Kt 17. Kt x Kt PxQ 18. Q x Q 19. Kt-K5 ! Now this move is very strong, not only threatening Kt-Q7, but also tying down the King's Rook to the defence of KB2. 19. . . . . . . QR-Q1 B x Kt 20. Kt x Kt 21 . QR-B1 R-B1 KR-Ktl 22. B-Q6 Not 22 . . . . . KR-Ql; 23. BK7, B X B; 24·. KR X B, R-Q2? 25. R x B ! K-Kt2 23. B-K5 A contemporary annotator points out that 23 . . . . . B x B; draws, but this appears doubtful in view of Black's weakness on the dark­ coloured squares. 24. P-B4 In the position reached, White has control of his QB5 and K5 and we would nowadays say that White has almost a won game, but Harr­ witz's recognition of the fact ninety years ago reflects much credit on him. B-Q2 24. P-R3 25. K-B2 RxR 26. K-K3 R-QB1 27. R x R 28. R-B5! Although to-day this creation of a 'strong-point' is merely technique, it shows clearly Harrwitz's ma�?tery of the position. BxB 28. . . . . . . 29. BP x B Decisive, as after the exchange of Rooks White wins. 29 . . . . . R x R; 30. P x R, B-B3; (necessary to prevent 31. P-B6,) 31. K-Q4, P-B5; 32. P-K6, K-B3; 33.

Position after 29. BP X B P-K7, K x P; 34. K-K5, P-Q5; 35. P-KKt3, followed by K x P and playing the Bishop to Q5. 29. . . . . . . 30. P-QR4! 31. B X RP 32. R-Kt5 Loss of time. 32 . at once is better.

B-K3 PXP R-QKti R-Ql . . . . R-QR1;

R-QR1 33. R-Kt6! Necessary, otherwise 34. B-Kt7 ties down the Black pieces and K-Q2-B3-Kt4 decides. 34. K-Q2 B-Bl RxB 35. B x B 36. R-Kt5 R-QRI If 36 . . . . . R-Ql ; 37. K-B3, R-B1 eh. ; 38. R-B5, R-Ql; 39. K-Kt4, R-Ktl eh.; 40. K-R3 , winning a Pawn. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.

RxP PxP R-B5 K-K2 P-Q5 R-B6 R-B6 P-Q6 eh. P-K6 R x P eh. P-Q7

P-R6 RxP K-Bl K-K2 K-Q2 P-R4 K-K2 K-Kl PxP K-B2 R-Rl

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

118

48. R-Q6 K-K2 If 48. R-QI; 49. K-K3, and the White King enters deci­ sively. KxP

49. R x P

50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55.

R-Kt5 K-B3 K-Kt3 K-Kt4 P-Kt3 R-KR5

R-RI K-K3 P-R5 eh. P-R6 K-B3 Resigns.

A masterly game by Harrwitz, who prevented his great opponent from displaying his combinative ability. The importance of the game lies in the growth of the idea of differentiating between the 'open' and 'closed' games. Lowenthal says of Harrwitz, 'Mr. Harrwitz, when first player, almost invariably adopts this mode of opening his game. It is one with every variation of which he is thoroughly familiar, and in no match of importance has he ever failed to avail himself of it.' The remark suggests that our predecessors had very different ideas about the openings from ourselves. To-day, when the variations of even one opening cannot be thoroughly explored, we should hesitate to say that anybody knows every variation of an opening. THE STEINITZ

VARIATION-STEINITZ ESTABLISHES HIS SYSTEM

We have seen that a century ago the technique of attack excelled the technique of defence. This is the more remarkable, since in the Queen's Gambit Accepted Black had an easier task than he has to-day, as he was able to play the freeing move 3 . . . . . P-K4; and did not need to shut in his QB, by . . . . P-K3. It was an innovation of Blackburne' s (I . P-Q4, P-Q4; 2. P-QB4, P x P; 3. Kt-KB3!) which forcibly transposed the game into a closed formation. That the defence had a far more difficult task to solve soon became apparent. It was left to Steinitz to work out a system that McDonnell had already tried against de la Bourdonnais (see Game 59, page Ill). His idea con­ sisted of placing a Knight on his Q4 square blocking White's isolated Queen's Pawn, thus erecting a barrier behind which he could safely develop his pieces to meet White's attack. How far he was ahead of his time can only to-day be appreciated. His system is considered the best method of playing against an isolated Pawn (instead of attempting conquest by direct attack). 62 White J.

H. ZukeTtort

Black

the tension by . . . . Kt-B3 as played to-day) is called the 'Steinitz Variation.'

W. Steinitz

9th Match Game, I886 P-Q4 1. P-Q4 P-K3 2. P-QB4 Kt-KB3 3. Kt-QB3 PxP 4. Kt-B3 P-B4 5. P-K3 6. B x P PxP This early exchange of Pawns (instead of continuing keeping up

7. P x P 8. Castles Better is 8. next game).

B-K2 Castles Kt-B3! (see

9. Q-K2! Even to-day this is considered to be most forceful, but it is playable only if Black adopts an indifferent continuation like 8 . . . . . Castles.

THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED 9. QKt-Q2 10. B-Kt3 Kt-Kt3 1 1 . B-KB4 This normal-looking developing move is quite out of place here. Best is 1 1 . R-Q1, QKt-Q4; 12. B-Kt5, Q-R4; 13. QR-B1 , R­ Q1; 14. Kt-K5, and Black is un­ able to attain the Steinitz formation since 14. . . . . B-Q2; 15. Kt X Kt, Kt x Kt; ( . . . . P x Kt; 16. B x Kt, B x B ; 17. R-B5!) 16. B x B, Kt x B; 17. Q-B3 wins a Pawn. A very important variation showing the difficulties Black has to face after the inaccurate move 8 . . . . . Castles. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

B-Kt3 QR-B1 Kt-K5 Q-B3 KR-K1 B-KR4

QKt-Q4 Q-R4 B-Q2 KR-Q1 B-K1 QR-B1

119

Steinitz' plan as White's position is still insecure, due to the 'hanging pawns' in the centre. 18. P X Kt Q-B2 19. Q-Q3 White is losing too much time by moving his Queen aimlessly instead of adopting a positive idea such as 19. B-Kt3, B-Q3; 20. P-B4, (recommended by Lasker). In this case the centre Pawns might become strong. Kt-Q4 19 . . QxB 20. B x B 21. B x Kt This surrender of the Bishop for the inferior Knight, which can always be driven away by P-QB4, is incomprehensible to the reasoning of to-day. Moreover, the Bishop secures the Knight at K5, since to drive it away by . . . . P-KB3; weakens Black along the KKtl­ QR7 diagonal. 0

•

•

•

•

21. RxB 22. P-QB4 This only weakens the Pawns still further, since White cannot now support their advance with minor pieces. o

17. . . . . . . Kt x Kt Appearing to give up the idea of playing against White's isolated Queen's Pawn, but it is part of

o

o

.

.

KR-Ql 22. 23. R-K3 This move shows that when White played 21 . B x Kt, he had an idea of bringing over the Rook to the King's side for attack. To us it seems a doubtful enterprise, since the Knight can always be driven away by . . . . P-B3 (there is no fear that White will be able to obtain counter-chances along the QKt3-KKt8 diagonal). 0

White at last has attained an attacking position but at the cost of losing time with his Queen's Bishop. Now he threatens 18. B x QKt, P x B; ( . . . . Kt x B; 19. B x B, Kt x B; 20. Q x KtP) 19. Kt-Kt4!

o

0

0

0 0

0

Q-Q3 23. . . . . . . P-B3 24. R-Q1 P-KR3 25. R-R3 On 25 . . . . . P X Kt; 26. Q X P eh. , K-B1; 27. R-B3 e h . , B-B2; 28. Q-R5, Q-Q2; 29. Q-R8 eh., K-K2; 30. Q-R4 eh. , draws.

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

120

26. Kt-Kt4 27. Kt-K3

Q-B5

rank. If now 28. R-Q2, P-QKt4; 29. R-B3, Q-Ktl ; 30. P x P, R-B8 eh. ; 3 1 . Kt-Ql , P-K4 (Steinitz). Q-Q3 28. R-B3 B-B3 29. R-Q2 P-B4 30. R-Kt3 B-K5 31. R-Kt6 32. Q-Kt3 Superficially it appears that White has good attacking chances.

B-R5! �7. . . . . . . Forcing the Rook off the first

32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.

K-R2 RxP R-B8 eh. Q-B5 R-Kt8 R-QB1 Q x R(5)

P-B5 R x KP Kt-Q1 Q-Kt2 Q-B3 RxB Resigns.

This game marked a great advance in the treatment of the Queen's Gambit Accepted. Steinitz claimed, 'For it will be remembered that the capture of the QBP by the second player was formerly held disadvanta­ geous for the defence.' Here we see that a system, imperfect though it may be, is preferable to mere move to move improvisation such as Zukertort resorted to in this game. Next we will follow the development of Steinitz' system through the later modifications of Steinitz himself. STEINITZ IMPROVES HIS SYSTEM

Steinitz' Defence System had to stand a much more severe test eight years later against Pillsbury, at that time the most feared attacking player. In this game Steinitz plays a variation that he formerly thought inferior to his original line (see previous game), an opinion which he may have later revised. 63 White

Black

H. N. Pillsbury

W. Steinitz

St. Petersburg, 1 896 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

P-Q4 P-QB4 Kt-QB3 Kt-B3 P-K3 BxP

P-Q4 P-K3 Kt-KB3 PxP P-B4 Kt-B3!

By putting pressure on White's Queen's Pawn Black prevents him from adopting the favourable line of Q-K2, and KR-Q1 (see pre­ vious game). 7. Castles The modern P-QR3.

line

PXP is 7.

B-K2 8. P x P 9. B-B4 An indifferent move often adopt­ ed by Pillsbury, without success.

THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED At that time it was not recognized that 9. B-K3, enabling him to play Q-K2, etc., is better. The text­ move loses the initiative. Castles 9 Q-Kt3 10. R-B1 1 1 . Q-Q2 In an earlier game Pillsbury tried 1 1 . QKt-Kt5, Kt-Kl; 12. KR­ K1, Kt-R4; 13. B-Q3, B-Q2; 14. Kt-B7, R-Bl; 15. Kt-Q5, P X Kt; 16. R X B, Kt-B3; and Black stands well. .

.

.

.

. • •

R-Ql 11 . . . . . . . B-Q2 12. KR-Q1 13. Q-K2 The strength of Black's system lies in the fact that White has to lose time with the Queen to attain his most favourable formation. 13. 14. B-Q3

B-K1

121

QKt-Kt5 15. P-KR3 QKt-Q4 16. B-Ktl B-B3! 17. B-K5 By his 14th move Black has gained time in which to deploy his Bishop on this diagonal, a man­ reuvre characteristic of the varia­ tion, as will be seen later. 18. KKt-Kt5 P-KR3 19. KKt-K4 QKt x Kt Kt x Kt 20. P x Kt 21 . B x Kt BxB Q-B3 22. Q x B Black has beaten back \\'bite's attack and has left him with weak hanging Pawns. B-Bl 23. Q-Kt4 24. P-QB4 Though weakening, this move is necessary, otherwise Black can blockade the Pawns with Q-Q4 and . . . . R-B5. 24. P-B4 Q-Kl 25. Q-Kt6 26. Q-Kt3 P-QKt3 Q-B3 27. Q-Kt3 28. P-QR4 P-QR4 Black's decision to play this move must have been a difficult one since it leaves the QKtP backward, and it might become weak after the exchange of the Bishops.

14. . . . . . . QR-Bl ! A fine manreuvre which can best be appreciated by comparison with a later game Pillsbury-Tarrasch, Nuremberg, 1896, where Black play­ ed 14 . . . . . QKt-Kt5; 15. B-Ktl, QKt-Q4; 16. B-K5, QR-Bl ; 17, KKt-Kt5, P-KR3; 18. KKt-K4, QKt x Kt; 19. R x Kt, R x R; 20. Kt x Kt eh., B x Kt; 21 . B x B, P X B; 22. P X R, and White was able to break up Black's King's side.

B-Q3 29. R-B3 Q-B2 30. P-Q5 QxB 31. B x B 32. R-K3 If 32. R-KB3, to prevent P-K4; 32. . . . . R-B4; follows. 32. P-K4 33. R-Ktl P-K5 34. R-QB3 If 34. Q x P, Q x Q; 35. R x Q, R x BP; 36. R-R3, R-B4; wins a Pawn. Q-K4 34. . . . . . . Threatening 35 . . . . . R X QP.

122

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOT\VINNIK

R-Q3 35. R-B2 36. R(1 )-QB1 Better is 36. R-K1, Q-Q5. 36. 37. P-B5 38. R x P

P-B5 PxP RxR

39. 40. 41. 42. 43.

RxR Q-Q1 P-Kt4 Q-K1 R-B1 44. Q-B3 Resigns.

P-B6 R-KKt3 P-K6 P-K7 QxP R-QB3!

This game was played during Steinitz' declining years, and it is a tribute to the strength of his system that Pillsbury had no success in his games against him in this line of the Queen's Gambit Accepted. That Pillsbury was unable to find any means of initiating an attack shows that he had not sufficiently understood his former failings. WHITE BUILDS UP AN ATTACKING FORMATION­ SCHLECHTER'S CONTINUATION

In the previous games we have seen that White's attacking formation was not sufficiently powerful to overcome Steinitz' Defensive System. Although great attacking players like Pillsbury and Zukertort had tried in other games to employ better tactics in the early middle game, they were unsuccessful in these attempts. In the following game Schlechter improves White's opening strategy. 64 White

Black

K. Schlechter

M. I. Tchigorin

London, 1 899 P-Q4 I. p_:_Q4 PxP 2. P-QB4 P-QB4 3. Kt-KB3 Kt-KB3 4. P-K3 P-K3 5. B x P QKt-Q2 6. Castles B-K2 7. Kt-B3 Castles 8. Q-K2 P-QR3 9. R-Q1 10. P-QR4 The game runs on lines similar to the modern variations, and by delaying the exchange of Pawns by . . . . BP x P; Tc.higorin shows much more insight into the requirements of the position than his contempo­ raries. Still, his inaccuracy in developing his QKt at Q2 early on, and later playing . . . . P-QR3; brings him into difficulties. Had he played . . . . QKt-B3; a possible development is 10 . . . . . Q-B2; 1 1 .

P-R3, R-Q1; 1 2 . P-Q5, P x P; 13. B x P, QKt-Kt5; 14. P-K4, KKt x B; 15. P x Kt, B-B4; 16. B-B4, Q x B; 17. Q x B, with an equal game (Reshevsky-Fine, Sem­ mering-Baden, 1937). 10. PxP 11. P X P Kt-Kt3 12. B-Q3 QKt-Q4 13. Kt-K5 Kt x Kt A doubtful move, but if 13 . . . . . Q-R4; 14. B-Q2, with the threat Kt-B4, and the Black Queen's mobility is very limited. 14. P x Kt Q-B2 15. P-QB4 Kt-Q2 16. Kt-Kt4 Very fine, avoiding simplification. R-Q1 16. . . . . . . 17. B-B2! This seemingly insignificant wait­ ing move is much better than the routine development of the Queen's Bishop, the function of which has not yet been determined.

THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED

123

Kt-B1 17 . . . . . . . B-Q2 18. R-Ktl 19. Kt-K5 A very strong move, with the intention of playing Q-K4, threat­ ening Q x KtP also B-B4.

26. Q-K4 P-Kt4 This looks very risky, but he has no choice; if 26 . . . . . Kt-Kt3; 27. B-Q2, B-B3; 28. B X P, R-KB1 ; 29. B-B6, followed b y B-Kt7 and P-B6.

B-Q3 1 9. . . . . . . 20. Kt x B R x Kt 21. P-Kt3 P-QKt3 A mistake, but White's reply was not easy to foresee, and White was threatening P-B5.

27. B-K3 P-B4 Kt-Kt3 28. Q-Kt7 29. B-Kt31 White now turns to the weakened King's side. K-B2 29. 30. Q-B3 K-Kt2 P-B5 31. B-QB4 P-K4 32. B-Q2 If 32 . . . . . R X P? 33. B-B3. 33. B-B3 R-B1 34. Q--K4 R-R2 P x KtP 35. R-Kt6 Q-R6 36. RP X P Q-R4 37. B-B1 38. B-K2 Q-R3 39. K-Kt2 P-Kt5 There is no other way to extricate the Queen, for if 39. . . . . K-R 1 ; 40. R-KR1, Q-Kt2; 41 . R x Kt.

22. P-R51 A fine Pawn sacrifice creating a passed Pawn. PxP 22. R(2)-Q1 23. B-R4 B-K2 24. P-B5 25. B-B41 The first move by White's Queen's Bishop, which, however, comes into action with decisive effect. Com­ paring White's strategy with that of Pillsbury in the last game, we cannot but admire Schlechter's economical and purposeful dev�lop­ ment, enabling him to advance his QB Pawn successfully, instead of having to allow it to be blockaded. 25 . . . . . . .

Q-B1

40. Q X KtP B-Q1 Preparing the following desperate sacrifice. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55.

B-Q2 KxR K--K3 PxB P-Q5 R-KB1 BxR K-K2 Q-Q7 eh. B-R3 B-K6 eh. P x Kt QxQ BxP B-Kt4

R x P eh. Q-R7 eh. BxR R-K2 R-KB2 RxR Q-Kt8 eh. Q x QKtP K-Ktl Kt-B1 Kt x B Q-Kt4 eh. PxQ K-Kt2 Resigns.

A fine example of White's modern strategy in the Queen's Gambit Accepted. Though this game was played only three years after the previous one, it represents a great advance in technique. Here Black

124

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

delays . . . . BP x QP, keeping White's Queen's Bishop locked in. Schlech­ ter's solution of the opening problem-actually leaving his Queen's Bishop undeveloped, but using it still as a latent force, able to be developed on either diagonal as the position may demand-is truly masterly. This technique has since become a new and important feature of the chess­ master's repertoire, and indeed Alekhine has frequently adopted it (see his game against Davidson, Semmering, 1926).

X THE

STEINITZ VARIATION IN MODE RN TIME S

To-DAY the Stcinitz Variation, characterized by White's isolated Pawn at Q4, is rarely played in its original form. Rubinstein tried to revive it by introducing minor improvements, but it still remained a difficult defence to play. Moreover, a much more elastic and promising defensive system had been introduced (see Games 69 and 70, pages 131 -133). Even Steinitz did not claim that his system gave Black a definite advantage, merely pointing out that Black can blockade the Pawn at Q4 and, by cautious manceuvring behind this barrier, he can hope to reach an advantageous end-game. The following games deal with the Steinitz Variation in its modern guise, the result of a favourable transposition from the Caro-Kann and Orthodox Defence. THE STEINITZ VARIATION BY TRANSPOSITION FROM THE CARO-KANN DEFENCE

KKt5 and its retreat to K3 would lose time.

65 White

Black

M. M. Botwinnik

M. Euwe

Hastings, 1934-5 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

P-QB4 P-QB3 P-Q4 P-K4 KP x P PxP P-Q4 Kt-KB3 Kt-QB3 Kt-B3 B-Kt5 P-K3 Kt-B3 PxP BxP B-K2 9. Castles Castles Now White has no chance of playing Q-K2 without prepara­ tion, since his QB is already at

10. R-B1 P-QR3 1 1 . B-Q3 Aimed at preventing P-QKt4, which is now met by 1 2. Kt-K4! B-Kt2; 13. B X Kt, B X B; 14. Kt-B5. P-R3! 11. . . . . . . An important move, the object of which is to gain control of his KB5 . 12. B-K3 Preferable to the text-move is 12. B-R4, Kt-QKt5; 13. B-Ktl, P-QKt4; 14. P-QR3, QKt-Q4;

THE STEINITZ VARIATION IN MODERN TIMES

1 25

R-K7! (26. R-KB2, R x R; 27. K X R, Kt-Kt5 eh!) Kt x Q 24 . . . . . . R(R1 )-Kl 25. B-Q2 R-K7 26. P-QKt3 Kt-B3 27. R-KB2 RxR 28. B-R5 Kt-K5 eh. 29. K x R Kt-Kt4 30. K-Bl 31. B-Q7 Better is 31 . B-KKt4. .

Position after 12. B-K3 15. Q-B2 forcing Black to play either P-KKt4 or P-KKt3. Kt-QKt5 12. . . . . . . P-QKt4 13. B-Ktl 14. Kt-K5 B-Kt2 R-K1 1 5 . Q-Q2 Preventing the sacrifice on R6, for if 16. B x P, P x B; 17. Q x P, B-KB 1 . 1 6 . P-B4 QKt-Q4 17. Kt x Kt 17. B-KB2, is no better, for there follows 17. . . . . Kt x Kt! 18. P X Kt, Kt-K5! Q x Kt 17. . . . . . . B-Q3 18. P-B5 RxP 19. P x P Preventing White from moving his Knight, for if 20. Kt-B3, Kt­ Kt5! 21 . B-KB2, B x P eh. ; or 20. Kt-Q3, R x B! On 20. B-B4, B X Kt; 21. P X B, Q X Q; follows, winning a Pawn.

R-K2 31 . . . . . . . R-K4 32. B-B5 B-K5 33. B-Ktl Kt x B 34. B x B 35. R-B6 Better is 35. R-B8 eh., K-R2; 36. B-Kl . R-B4 eh. 35. . . . . . . 36. K-K1 If 36. K-Ktl , R-B7; 37. P­ QR4, R-Kt71 or if 36. K-K2, R-B7 eh. ; 37. K-K3, R x RP. 36 . 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43.

...... P-QR4 R x QRP PxP R-R8 eh. B-Kt6 P-R5 P-R6 44. P-R7

R-B7 RxP PxP RxP K-R2 R-QR7 P-R4 P-R5 P-R6

R-K2 20. B-B5 B x Kt 2 1 . B-R3 Q x KP 22. P x B 23. B-B4 If 23. B-Q4, R-QI. Q-Q4 23. . . . . . . 24. Q x Q Not 24. B x P, P x B; 25. Q x P,

Position after 47. R-K8

12�

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

Kt-B3 45. B-Ktl 46. K-Q1 ! Necessary, for if 46. R-Q8, R x P; 47. B x R, P-R7 wins. Kt-Kt5 46. . . . . . . P-R7 47. R-K8 Not 47 . . . . R x P? 48. B x R, P-R7; 49. R-K1 (the idea behind White's 46th move) but 47. . . . . Kt-B7 eh! 48. K-K1, Kt-Q6 eh.; 49. K-Q1, R X P! 50. B x R, P-R7; wins, since White's K1 is no longer .

available to the Rook. This varia­ tion was pointed out by Botwinnik after the game. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56.

BxP B-Kt8 R-Q8 B-B7 BxR K-K2 K-K3 B-B7 K-B2 Resigns.

RxP R-R1 Kt-K4 RxR K-Kt3 K-B4 K-Kt5 Kt-B6 P-B4

LASKER'S TREATMENT

The following game is of some interest since it gives us a clue to an important question: With chess knowledge in its advanced state, can a player now apply only the general principles to the openings, treating them like other phases of the game, thereby ignoring modern analysis? It is well known that Lasker was an exponent of this theory and in the following game he deliberately avoids 'book' variations, for it was common knowledge that in the Queen's Gambit Accepted the development of White's Queen's Knight is best when delayed. 66 White

Black

Em. Lasker

S. Reshevsky

Nottingham, 1936 1. P-Q4 P-Q4 2. P-QB4 PxP 3. Kt-KB3 Kt-KB3 P-K3 4. P-K3 P-B4 5. B x P 6. Kt-B3 According to modern theory, this move is best deferred until later. P-QR3 6. . . . . . . 7. Castles Or 7. P-QR4, Kt-B3; 8. Castles B-K2; 9. Q-K2, P x P; 10. R-Q1, P-K4; 1 1 . P x P, P x P; 12. Kt x P, Kt X Kt; 13. Q-K5, Q-Q3; with equality. 7. . . . . . . P-QKt4 8. B-Q3 8. B-Kt3 is better, but even so

Black is able to play 8. . . . . B-Kt2; retaining control of the squares Q4 and K5. P x PI 8. . . . . . . This is an important move, the object of which is to fix White's Pawns. 9. P x P B-Kt2 10. B-Kt5 B-K2 1 1 . Q-K2 White has handled the opening in an indifferent manner and does not seem to realize that he is drifting into an inferior position. Alekhine recommends here 1 1 . B X Kt, B x B; 12. B-K4, in order to diminish the strength of Black's Queen's Bishop. Castles 11. QKt-Q2 1 2 . QR-Q1 13. Kt-K5 This move, characteristic of the variation, is entirely out of place here, since White has no attacking

THE STEINITZ VARIATION IN MODERN TIMES chances whatsoever. He should have avoided simplification by play­ ing 13. B-B1, Kt-Q4; 14. Kt-K4. 13. . . . . . . Kt-Q4 14. B-B1 It seems that Lasker still hoped to obtain the initiative, for other­ wise he would have chosen the continuation 14. B x B, Kt X B; (14. . . . . KKt X Kt; 15. B X P eh! or 14. . . . . Q x B; 15. QKt x Kt, B x Kt; 1 6. B-K4!) 15. B-K4, B x B; 16. Kt x B and White has in the strong position of his Knights compensa­ tion for the weakness of his Pawn. 14. . . . . . . KKt x Kt Kt-B3 15. P X Kt 16. P-QR4 A Pawn sacrifice with the idea of pushing forward his centre Pawns (P-QB4), but the position does not contain such a tactical chance; besides, Lasker faces a tactician of equal calibre, who from now on finds the very best moves.

127

19. P x P, P x P; 20. B x Kt, Q X B; 21 . Q X P, B-R3; wins the exchange. 1 9. . . . . . . Kt-Kt4 20. P x P If 20. Kt-Kl, P x P. PxP 20. . . . . . . Better than 20 . . . . . Kt x Kt eh.; 2 1 . Q x Kt, with counter-chances for Black. 21 . B x P If 21 . Kt-K1, Kt-R6 eh.; 22. K-R1, Kt-B5. 21 . 22. P x Kt

Kt x Kt eh. Q-Kt4 eh.

Q-Q4! 16. . . . . . . 17. Kt-B3 If 17. P-KB4, P-Kt5. 17. 18. 18. is no

...... KR-B1 B-Kt2 P x P, P x P; 19. B x P, R x P; better.

18 . . . . . . . 19. R-B1

Kt-K5

White resigns, for if 23. K-R1 , Q-Kt5 wins.

Lasker was unsuccessful in his treatment of the opening because he rejected certain important findings of the analysts, and allowed his opponent to obtain an ideal formation in the Queen's Gambit Accepted. The fact that he could have achieved at one stage approximate equality does not confirm his theory, since White can always keep the balance of the position without complicated opening analysis. Even a great tactician when facing an opponent of equal skill will find it difficult to regain terrain lost in the early stages. When he has to fight against modern opening theory as well, his task will be practically impossible. The last two games have shown us the modern development of the Steinitz system, from which emerge two salient points. First, White must use care in the development of his Queen's Bishop, which is strong

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

128

at KKt5 if he can force Black to weaken his King's side (e.g. by forcing P-KR3, giving White a point of attack at KKt5), but is weak if Dlack can simplify by KKt-Q4. Secondly, Black can often develop his Queen's Bishop at QKt2, using it aggressively along the long diagonal instead of following Steinitz' passive deployment of the piece for defence of his King's position via Q2 to Kl. BY TRANSPOSITION FROM THE ORTHODOX DE FENCE­ BOTWINNIK'S CONTINUATION

The question has often been posed whether our attacking technique has advanced at all. On the other hand it is debatable whether this age of scientific play encourages attack. For providing an answer to this problem our study of the Queen's Gambit Accepted with its numerous transposition possibilities is most useful. In the following game Botwinnik, who is considered a 'strategist' rather than 'tactician,' challenges his opponent to create a position characteristic of the Steinitz Variation, by avoiding the 'tempo struggle' continuation which results after 7. R-Bl. The game itself has some resemblance to the Zukertort-Steinitz game (see Game 62, page 1 18) and Botwinnik's handling of the attack gives a clear answer to the question whether attacking technique can be acquired. 67 White

M. M. Botwinnik

Black

M. Vidmar

Nottingham, 1 936 P-K3 1. P-QB4 P-Q4 2. Kt-KB3 Kt-KB3 3. P-Q4 B-K2 4. B-Kt5 Castles 5. Kt-B3 QKt-Q2 6. P-K3 7. B-Q3 This move in place of the more normal 7. R-QBl , allows Black to play 7 . . . . . P-QB4 with impunity. P-B4 7. 8. Castles BP x P QP x P 9. KP x P Kt-Kt3 10. B X P 1 1 . B-Kt3 B-Q2 QKt-Q4 12. Q-Q3 By an inversion of moves we have reached a Queen's Gambit Accepted formation. Better was 12 . . . . . KKt-Q4; and if 13. B-B2, P-Kt3; with the double threat of Kt-Kt5 and also

B X B. If instead (a) 13. B-K3, Kt X Kt; 14. P X Kt, B-QR5; or (b) 13. Kt-K4, B-QR5; and in both cases Black, by exchanging White's powerful King's Bishop, has good prospects of simplification. This analysis given by Botwinnik is highly instructive since he moves his King's Knight to Q4 ( instead of the usual . . . . QKt-Q4). By fol­ lowing his idea Black is able to force an exchange of minor pieces and to ease his position. 13. Kt-K5 B-B3 14. QR-Q1 Now Black's position is becoming uncomfortable, for if (a) 14. . . . . Kt-R4; 15. Kt X B, P X B; 16. B-B 1 , with a very good game, or (b) 1 4. . . . . Q-,-R4; 1 5. B-B 1 , Kt x Kt; 16. Kt x B, P x Kt; 17. P X Kt, with the better game. 14. . . . . . . Kt-QKt5 15. Q-R3 The Queen is able without loss of time to reach this strong position, from which she can threaten Black's vulnerable squares at K6 and KR7.

THE STEINITZ VARIATION IN MODERN TIMES

129

B-Q4 15. QKt x B 16. Kt x B Better is 16 . . . . . KKt X B; 17. B-B1, R-B1; and Black has some defensive chances, though White still has the better game. 17. P-B4 QR-B1 Not 17 . . . . . P-KKt3; 18. B­ R6, R-1{1 ; 19. B-R4, winning the exchange. If 17 . . . . . Kt-K5; 18. Kt x P! K x Kt; (R x Kt, Q x KP!) 19. QR-K1! 18. P-B5 PxP No better is 18 . . . . . Q-Q3; 19. P x P, P x P; (19 . . . . . Q x P; 20. Q-B3,) 20. QR-K1 ! 19. R x P Q-Q3? This loses immediately; but even after the best move 19 . . . . . R-B2; 20. QR-KB1, retains the strong pressure. R x Kt 20. Kt x PI Not 20 . . . . . K x Kt; 2 1. B x Kt eh. 21. B x KKt

BxB

CAPABLANCA'S

Position after 19 . . . . . Q-Q3? If 21. . . . . Kt X B; 22. R X Kt, B x R; 23. Q x R eh. 22. R x Ktl Much stronger than 22. B x Kt. Q-B3 22. . . . . . . 23. R-Q6 Avoiding the trap 23. R-QB5? B x P eh. 23. 24. R-Q7

Q-K1 Resigns.

T REATMENT

Capablanca has very rarely accepted the Queen's Gambit and the following game is one of the few occasions on which he did so. It is a curious fact that his opponent should have been Salo Flohr, who very often chose to accept the gambit. It is indeed fortunate that Capablanca had very little knowledge of previous theory, for in his unbiassed approach to the opening problems he succeeds in evolving a system which is, in effect, a compromise between the old and the new. He isolates White's Queen's Pawn and is able still to retain mobility for his pieces. 68 White

Black

S. FlohT

J. R. Capablanca

Semmering-Baden, 1937 I. P-Q4

P-Q4

2. P-QB4 3. Kt-KB3 4. P-K3 5. B x P 6. 0-0 7. Q-K2 8. R-Q1 9. Kt-B3

PxP Kt-KB3 P-K3 P-n4 P-QR3 Kt-B3 Q-B2 B-K2

130

CHESS FR Ol\1 MOR PHY TO BOT\VINNIK

A move chara cteri sti c of Capa­ b1 an ca' s sty1e. He avoids the com­ mittal line 9. . . . . P-QKt4; 10. P-Q5 , 11. B-Kt2; B-Kt3, P x P; 12. Kt x P, Kt x Kt; 13. B x Kt, B-K2; 14. P-QKt3, Cast­ les KR; 14. B-Kt2, preferring to maintain the tension in the centre without weakening his Pawn posi­ tion, and to advance on the Queen's side only when he is in a position to do so with the greatest effect.

10. P-QR3 Now 10. P-Q5, P X P; 1 1 . Kt X P, Kt X Kt; 12. B x Kt, can be met by Castles; 13. P-K4, 12. B-Kt5. P-QKt4 10. . . . . . . P-Kt5 1 1 . B-R2 P x QP 12. Kt-QR4 B-Q2 13. KP x P Kt x KtP 14. P x P The manner in which Capablanca has secured freedom to manreuvre for his pieces on the Queen's side and has isolated White's Queen's Pawn is quite remarkable and re­ presents a great advance upon

B1ack's treatment in the game Pillsbury-Steinitz (Game 63, page 1 20). Now 1 4 . . . . . Kt x QP is not good because of 1 5. R x Kt, B x Kt; 16. B-QB4 winning the QR Pawn. B-Kt4! 15. Kt-B3 A typical Capablanca simplifying combination. 16. Q-K5 If 16. Kt x B, P x Kt; 17. Q x P eh., Kt-Q2; and wins a piece. 16. . . . . . . Q-Kt2 Kt-Q6 17. B-Kt3 1R. Q-Kt3 Kt x R 1 9. QR x Kt B-Q2 20. B-QB4 QR-B1 21 . P-QKt3 Castles B-Kt4 22. Kt-K5 B xB 23. Q-Q3 23. . . . . B-R6; 24. R-B2, B-l{t5; would have maintained the tension on the Queen's side (25. KtB x B, P x B; 26. Kt x KtP? R x R). 24. P x B KR-Q1 Q-R2 25. Q-K2 26. P-B5 Simpler than 26. Q-Q3, when he might have experienced some difficulty in safeguarding his Pawns after 26. . . . . B-Q3. Kt-Q4 26 . . . . . . . R x Kt 27. Kt x Kt P-QR4 28. R-R1 B xP 29. Q-Kt5 30. P x B 30. R x P, B x P; 31. R x Q, R X Q; is good for Black. R x Kt Q-K2

30. 31. R x P

Position after 1 5 . . . . . B-Kt4!

Draw.

Capablanca's free and easy style is well manifested in an opening in 'Which analysis apparently confined the players to a narrow choice of moves.'

XI THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED IN MODERN TIMES Queen's Gambit Accepted is a good example of the manner in which the chess thought of a period is often reflected in the contemporary handling of the opening. During the nineteenth century this opening invariably led to a rigid Pawn formation, with an isolated Queen's Pawn at White's Q4, with compensation for White in the free development of his pieces (his Queen's Bishop not being shut in). To-day Black avoids playing . . . . P X QP, but by putting pressure on White's Q4, prevents his bringing out his Queen's Bishop. Tension, and the maintenance of tension, is Black's aim until he is able to complete his development on the Queen's side. This White tries to counter by a break-through in the centre, often by Pawn sacrifices.

THE

ALEKHINE'S DEFENCE SYSTEM

The next game is a fine example of the intricacies of modern opening theory. Whilst we are accustomed to long and far reaching combinations for definite objects which are immediately decisive, e.g. material gain or mate, here we see Alekhine introducing surprising and remarkable com­ binations in the opening solely to maintain the tension and to prevent his Queen's side Pawns from being broken up. QKt-Q2; though after 9. P-QR4, P-Kt5; 10. QKt-Q2, B-Kt2; 1 1 . Kt-B4, Black's Pawns are fixed and may become weak.

69 White

Black

M. Euwe

A. Alekhine

8. . . . . . . B-Kt2 9. P-QR4 QKt-Q2! ! A surprising move that keeps Black's Pawns position intact. If now 10. P X KtP, P X KtP; 1 1 . R x R, Q x R; 12. Q x P, B x Kt.

Bad Nauheim, 1937 P-Q4 1. P-Q4 PxP 2. P-QB4 Kt-KB3 3. Kt-KB3 P-K3 4. P-K3 P-B4 5. B x P P-QR3 6. Castles P-QKt4 7. Q-K2 8. B-Kt3 This move is good only when Black's Queen's Knight is deve­ Correct is 8. loped at QB3. B-Q3, after which 8 B-Kt2? is bad, being met by 9. P X P, B X P?; 1 0. B X P eh. , winning a Pawn. Black has to play 8. .

10

.

. • .

B-K2 10. R-Q1 Castles 1 1 . QP X P This Pawn sacrifice enables Black to maintain the tension. 1 2. B-B2 Threatening 1 3. P-QKt4, this move forces Black to play 1 2 . . . . . B X P; Euwe recommenrls 12. P­ B6, B X P; 13. Kt-K5, Q-B2; 14.

181

132

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK 19. 20. 21 . 21 .

Kt-Ktl B-Q3 Kt-B3 B-B4 R-Q2 R-Q1? B x B; wins a piece.

21 . . . . . . . Q-Kt3 The best chance. Black obtains some compensation for the sacrificed Pawn. 22. B x B 23. R x P 24. R-Ql

PxB Kt-Kt5

Position after 1 1 . . . . . Castles Kt X B, Q X Kt; 15. B-B2, with the two Bishops and a better Pawn position. Still it appears that Black has a promising line in 13. . . . . B-Kt2! ; 14. P x P, Q-B2!; 15. Kt x Kt, Kt x Kt; 16. P x P, Kt­ B4; and he has good compensation for the sacrificed Pawn. BxP 12. . . . . . . 13. Kt-K5 Preferable is the solid move 13. QKt-Q2. P-Kt5 13. . . . . . . Although at last White has forced Black to make this characteristic move in the Queen's Gambit Ac­ cepted, he has lost too much time.

Kt-B7? 24. . . . . . . The decisive mistake. With 24. . . . . QR-B1; 25. B-Q2, R-B7; 26. Q-B1, Kt-R7; Black's strong position is adequate compensation for the lost Pawn.

14. Kt x Kt Kt x Kt 15. Kt-Q2 15. B X P eh. , K X B; 16. Q-Q3 eh . , P-B4; 17. Q x Kt, Q x Q; 18. R X Q, QR-Ql ; is in favour of Black, but 15. P-K4 is better than the text-move.

Q--QB3 25. R-Ktl QxP 26. B-Q2 27. B-B3 Now the position is clarified. The Black Knight has nothing to say jn the following play, whilst White's Bishop threatens Black's most vul­ nerable spot.

15. . . . . . . P-B4 B-Q4l Kt-Kt3 B x Kt b 17. Kt-Q4 P-Kt6? �: 18. R X B The right move is 1 8. . . . . Q-Kt3; {9. B-Q2, P-QR4; lock­ ing in the White Queen's Bishop.

27. Q-Kt4 QR-Q1 28. Q-B3 29. Q-Kt3 R-Q2 R(B1 )-B2 30. R-Q6 P-B5 31 . QR-Q1 Alekhine sacrifices a Pawn to meet the threat of 32. R x R , R x R ;

�. 16.

. . . . . •

THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED IN MODERN TIMES 33. R X R, Q X R; 34. Q-Kt8 eh . , K B 2 ; 35 . Q X P eh. -

32. P X P

34. P-B 6 35. P-R4

P Kt3 RxR

36. Q x R

P-R4

-

If 36 . . . . . Q-K1; 37. Q

P-QR4

33. P-B5 P-R5 Protecting the QKt Pawn and preventing the line mentioned in the last note.

133

-

Kt6

.

Resigns. 37. Q-K6 If 37 . . . . . Q-Ktl ; 38. R-Q7, Q-KB1 ; 39. R-K7, decides.

EuwE'S CONTINUATION

The following game is an interesting counterpart to the last, and is a further illustration of the tactical complexities to be faced when playing the Queen's Gambit Accepted. White

M. Euwe

70

10. P x P BxP P-Kt5 l l . P-K4 Now ll . . . . . B-Kt2, is mean­ ingless, but 1 1 Kt-Q2; comes into consideration.

Black

A. Alekhine

.

5th Match Game, 1937 P-Q4 1. P-Q4 PxP 2. P-QB4 P-QR3 3. Kt-KB3 Kt-KB3 4. P-K3 P-K3 5. B x P P-B4 6. Castles 7. Q-K2 Kt-B3 8. Kt-B3 Superficially, this looks an ob­ vious developing move, but it was a long time before it was generally recognized that this is stronger than the old move 8. R-Q1, since after 8. . . . . Q-B2; 9. Kt-B3, P­ QKt4; 10. B-Kt3, B-K2; 1 1 . P x P, B x P; 12. P-K4, KKt­ Kt5; gains a tempo (White's KB Pawn is unprotected) and prevents White from p�aying 13. P-K5. 8. . . . . . . P-QKt4 9. B-Kt3 . B-K2 At the time this game was pl�yed, 9 . . . . . B-K2; though it involves the loss of a tempo, was considered safer than 9 . . . . . B-Kt.2. To-day the latter move has been rehabili­ tated, since after 10. R-Q1, Q-B2; l l . P-Q5, P X P; 12. P-K4, P-Q5! Black is ahle to maintain the tension, although this is not without its dangers.

•

•

•

.

12. P-K5 P X Kt If 12 . . . . . Kt-Q2; 13. Kt-K4, is too strong. 13. P x Kt P x BP The alternatives are (a) 13. Q X P; 14. Q-B4! Q-K2; 15. B-K3, or (b) 13. . . . . Q x P; 14. Q-B41 P X P; 15. Q X B, P X B ( Q), (15 . . . . . P X R(Q); 1 0. Q X Kt eh., K-Ql; 17. R-Q1 eh., K-K2; 18. B-R3 Mate) 16. QR x Q, B-Q2; 17. B-R4, R-QB1; 1 8. KR-Q1, with a strong attack. 14. Q-B4 Q-Kt3 Kt-Q5 15. Q X BP On 15 . . . . . B-K2; 16. B-K3, Q-Kt4; 17. QR-Bl, B-Kt2; 18. Q-B2, gives White the better game. 16. Kt x Kt B x Kt 17. B-R4 eh. K-K2 18. B-K31 1 A surprising move which enables White to keep up his attack.

·

18. . . . . . . B x Q? A better defence is given by 18. R-Ql; 19. QR-Q1, P-K4; 20. B x B, R x B; 21 . R x R, P x R; .

• .

.

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

134

K x R; 22. R-Q1 eh. , K-K4; 23. B-B6, wins a piece .

•

B X KtP 2 1 . P-B4 22. R-B3 This quiet move is decisive. If now 22 . . . . . P-B4; 23. R-QKt3, B-B3; 24. B-B6, wins a piece. B-Kt2 22. . . . . . . 23. R-KKt3 B-R6 There is no other way of meeting the threat of mate. If 23. . . . . R-B1; 24. R-Q8 eh., R x R; 25. B-B5 eh.

Position afte:r 17 . . . . . K-K2 (21. . . . . Q X R; 22. Q-B6,) 22. Q-B3, and, although White main­ tains his attack, Black has defensive chances. B-K4 19. B x Q Black must do something about the threat of 20. B-B5 eh. If 19. . . . . B-Kt5; 20. KR-Q1 , (threat­ ening 2 1 . P-QR3, B-Q3; 22. R x B,) 20. . . . . QR-Ktl ; 2 1 . B-B7, R-Kt2; 2 2 . QR-B1, with the threat 23. P-QR3. 20. QR-Q1 K-B1 If 20. . . B-Q3; 21. R X B, .

•

24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41 .

RxB R-KKt3 PxR B-Kt3 PxB P-QKt4 B-B5 R-R1 K-B2 K-K3 K-Q4 K-B4 R-Q1 R-Q6 BxR B-K7 BxP K-B5

R-KKtl R xR B-Q4 BxB K-K1 R-Ktl R-B1 R-B3 P-B4 P-B3 K-B2 K-Kt3 K-R4 R xR K-Kt5 KxP K x BP Resigns.

An extremely instructive game showing how a seemingly slight in­ accuracy such as Black's 9th move, enabling White to gain a tempo for his central advance, can prove fatal. White was able to maintain this advantage in spite of the exchange of Queens and direct his attack to its logical conclusion. A masterpiece of strategy.

BoTWINNIK's

TREATMENT

Another important line arises when White endeavours to prevent Black's Pawn advance on the Queen's side by an early P-QR4. This old continuation received new life when Botwinnik demonstrated that White has nothing to fear from weakening his QKt4. He has adopted it several times on many important occasions and his fine tactical sense 1� well illustrated in the many finesses which he has introduced into this line.

THE QUEEN' S GAMBIT ACCEPTED IN MODERN TIMES

1 35

threat Q-B-i, gives White a strong attack.

71 White

Black

M. M. Botwinnik

P. Keres

Moscow, 1 941 I. P-Q4 P-Q4 2. P-QB4 PxP 3. Kt-KB3 P-QR3 Kt-KB3 4. P-K3 P-K3 5. B x P 6. P-QR4 P-B4 7. Castles Kt-B3 8. Q-K2 B-K2 9. R-Q1 Q-B2 10. P-R3 Here we reach the crucial point of the variation. Can White save a tempo by dispensing with this move and give the game a more dynamic nature by the substitution of a developing move? Against Euwe at Groningen, 1946, Botwin­ nik played 10. Kt-B3, (instead of 10. P-R3,) 10. . . . . Castles; 1 1 . P-QKt3, B-Q2; 1 2 . B-Kt2, QR-B1; 13. P-Q5, with the better position, but analysis has shown that with 10. . . . . Castles; 1 1 . P-QKt3, P x P ; 1 2 . P X P , Kt­ QR4; 13. P-Q5, Kt X B; 14. P X Kt, P x P; 15. Kt x P, Kt x Kt; 16. P X Kt, B-KKt5! Black obtains an easy game. 10 . . . . . . . Castles 1 1 . Kt-B3 R-Q1 12. P-QKt3 Botwinnik maintains the tension in the centre. The alternative is 12. P-Q5, P X P; 13. B X QP, Kt­ QKt5; 14. P-K4, KKt x B; 15. P X Kt, B-B4; 16. B-B4, Q x B ; 17. Q X B, (Reshevsky-Fine, Sem­ mering-Baden, 1 937), which leads to interesting complications, but gives White no advantage. 12. . . . . . . B-Q2 Keres chooses Steinitz' method of developing the Queen's Bishop since if 12. . . . . P-QKt3; 13. P-Q5, P X P; l 4. B x QP, with the

13. B-Kt2 B-Kl 14. P-Q5 At last White is able to carry out this characteristic break-through. 14. . . . . . . 15. B x QP

PxP Kt-Q5!

Black must try to simplify; other­ wise White will soon achieve super­ iority in the centre by P-K4-K5. Kt x B 16. Kt x Kt Kt x Kt 17. Kt-B5 P-B3 18. B X Kt On 1 8 . . . . . B-Bl; 19. Q-Kt4, P-KKt3; (19 . . . . . B-Q2; 20. Kt-R6 eh. ) 20. Q-Kt5, with the threat 21. Q-B6, follows. 19. Q-Kt4 B-Kt3 20. B-R5! R x R eh. On 20 . . . . . Q X B; 21. Kt X B eh., K-B2; 22. Kt X B, P X Kt; 23. R-Q7 eh., follows with good win­ ning chances for White. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

RxR Kt x B eh. R-Q7 Q-Kt3 Q-B7 RxQ B-Ktft 28. P-R5

Q-K4 Q x Kt Q-K5 Q-B3 QxQ R-Ktl B-B7 BxP

136

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

29. B x P ao. P-Ba 31. B-Kt6 B2. B-B5 Preventing 31. . .

B-Q4 B-BB R-KB1 . . R-B2.

32. R-Q1 33. P-K4 R-Q2 K-B2 34. R-BS eh. R-Q7 35. K-R2 36. K-Kt3 B-Kt4 37. P-B4 P-KKt3 Necessary otherwise 38. R-B7

eh. and P-B5 eh. be come very dangerous. 38. P-B5 PxP 39. P x P B-B3 40. K-B4 R-Q4 If 40. . . . . R x P; White regains the Pawn with 41 . R-B7 eh., or secures perpetual check. 41 . R-B7 eh. R-Q2 Drawn\

Though this line is not as popular as that shown in the previous two games, it is still a good illustration of the maintenance of the tension and of White's striving for a central break-through by P-Q5. Black's defensive system is characterized by not striving to establish a Knight on Q4 as in the Steinitz System (even though here it seems even stronger, since Black can occupy the 'hole' QKt5 with his Queen' s Knight). Experience has shown that White can obtain more than sufficient compensation by playing Kt-K5.

CONCLUSIONS

In these chapters on the Queen's Gambit Accepted we witness a cavalcade of the great masters, both past and present facing the problem of White's isolated Pawn on Q4. Is it strong or weak? If weak, can White obtain sufficient attack to compensate him for this potential end-game handicap? From the time of de la Bourdonnais the technique of attack was superior to the technique of defence, and the pendulum of advantage swung heavily to White until the great defensive player William Steinitz estab­ lished in his match against Zukertort in 1886, a system which remains classic; namely, the blockade of the isolated Pawn rather than direct assault. At the end of the century Schlechter strengthened White's play (see Game 64, page 122), which led to the practical disappearance of the Steinitz variation (early exchange of Pawns in the centre). Let us follow the modern method employed in this variation arising mainly from transpositions from the Q.G. Orthodox Defence and from the Caro-Kann (Panov-Botwinnik attack). An improvement on the Steinitz line is Black's attempt to develop his Queen's Bishop more effectively on Kt2 (instead of Stcinitz' B-Q2-K1), which is tactically not an easy task, but when successful gives Black a good game. Chapter XI deals with the Q.G. Accepted of to day . The isolated White QP is not in evidence, Black avoiding the exchange at Q4 in order to restrict the White Queen's Bishop. White on the other hand endeavours to free the Bishop preparatory to a centre thrust which usually leads to a very tense struggle where even a slight inaccuracy brings disaster to either side. This underlines the modern tendency to harness study and tactics to one purpose: to maintain the tension in the centre. -

PART Ill THE ENGLISH OPENING THIS debut, which was often practised by the English players during the middle of the nineteenth century, disappeared for a time but was revived by the 'hypermoderns' in their quest, after the First World War, for an opening capable of giving expression to their original ideas. Even at its inception, it did not meet with much favour and Staunton, in his Chess Players' Handbook, makes this lament: 'The move recom­ mended by modern (sic 1847) authors for Black's reply is 1 . P to K's 4th, and we have then of course the same position as if Black had commenced the game with I. P to K's 4th, and you have replied with I. P to QB's 4th, with this difference, that in the present instance you have the advantage of the move, a circumstance which seems to have escaped the notice of some writers, since, with a strange inconsistency, they carry on the game from this position, and decide it in favour of the defending player, who is a move behind; while in the 'Sicilian game' I. P to K's 4th, P to QB's 4th; }Vhen the position is reversed and you have Black's position, and in addition the advantage of the move, you can barely make an even game.'

137

XII THE ENGLISH OPENING IN THE LAST CENTURY We commence our survey with a game of the Staunton-Saint-Amant match, in which Staunton uses the English Opening for the first time. Although we know that most of the modern openings owe their origin to a chance adoption in an important game, and to their being gradually worked out by succeeding generations, we here see Staunton deliberately setting up a formation which even to-day is considered difficult to handle. To defend oneself against the fierce King's side attacks to which one is sometimes subjected in this line, still requires great independence of outlook and much confidence in one's own ability. 72

the long diagonal by P-KKt3 in place of . . . . Kt-KKt5. After 1 1 . QKt-Q5, Kt X Kt; 12. Kt X Kt, B-K3; 13. Kt X B eh., Q X Kt; 14. Q-K2, White obtained the better game on account of the strong position of his Bishop on QKt2. • . . •

Black*

White

H. Staunton P.C. F. de Saint-Amant 1 2th Match Game, 1 843 1. P-QB4 Staunton remarked: 'This way of opening the game, although not usual, is perfectly safe.' P-QB4 Kt-QB3 P-B4 P-Q3 P-K4 P-K3 B-Q3 Kt-KB3 Kt-R3 PxP PxP Castles B-K2 Kt-B3 P-QKt3 9. B-Kt2 Castles Kt-KKt5 10. Kt-B4 So far the game is identical with the famous 6th match game in which Staunton first introduced his new English Opening. There Saint­ Amant had played 7. . . . . P­ KKt3; 8. P-QKt3, B-K2; �. B­ Kt2, Castles; 10. Kt-B4, Kt-B3; leading to a position identical "·ith 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

the one in the present game, except that he had weakened himself on *

1 1 . KKt-Q5 Stronger than 1 1 . QKt-Q5, since it prepares for P-KB4. 11. B-B3 Kt x Kt 12. Kt x B eh. 13. Kt-K2 Kt-KKt5 P-QKt3 14. P-B4! Kt-R3 15. P-KR3 Q-R5 16. R-B3 17. R-Kt3 P-Kt3 White has at last forced Black to weaken his King's position, for if he plays 17. . . . . R-B2; 18. R-Kt5, threatening Q-KB1 and P-Kt3, would follow. 18. Q-K1 As Staunton remarks, this har­ rowing of the Queen is not as force­ ful as 18. Q-KB1 , (threatening R-Kt5 and P-Kt3, winning the Queen) Q-K2; 1 9. Q-Ba, followed by . Q--R5, with an irresistible .

.

.

The game was played with colours reversed. 1 38

13Q

THE ENGLISH OPENING

followed by Kt-K5 eh., or (b) 29 . . . . . P x P; (29 . . . . . Q x BP; 30. P x P,) 30. Kt x P, B x Kt; 31 . Q x B. Q-R5 29. P-KR3 30. Kt-R2 Q-Kt6 31. Kt-B3 32. Kt-K1 This move loses a Pawn. It was necessary to play 32. Kt-R2. 32. . . . . . . R-K1 33. Q-KB2 Or 33. R x P, R X P; and wins.

Position after 17 . . . . . P-Kt3 attack. However, in 18 . . . . . Kt­ B2; Black has a better defence. Here we see the superb positional player Staunton led astray by a tempting tactical diversion instead of pursuing the positional line, 18. Q-B2! B-Kt2; (18 . . . . . Kt-Q5; 19. Q-B3) 19. Q-B3, Kt-Q5; 20. Kt x Kt, Q X R; 2 1 . Kt-B6, with a won game; an illustration of the strength of the open diagonal (QR1-KR8) occupied by the QB. 18. Q-K2 1 9. Q-B2 Kt-QKt5 B-Kt2 20. R-K1 QR-K1 21. B-Ktl 22. R-K3 Q-Q1 K-B2 23. Kt-Kt3 R xR 24. Q-K2 25. P x R Objectively much better than the drawish line 25. Q x R, R-K1 ; etc. since if in reply 25. . . . . P-Q4; 26. P-R3, and R-Ql can follow. 25. Q-R5 Kt-Kt! 26. Kt-B1 R-Q1 27. R-Ql Q-Kt6 28. Kt-Q2 29. Kt-B1 Much too slow! 29. P-K4! was the correct move, and gives White a strong attack, e.g., if (a) 29 . . . . . R-Kl; 30. Kt-B3! P-KR3; (30. . . . . Q x BP? 31 . B-B l ! ) 31 . R x P,

Q x KP 33. . . . . . . 34. P-R3 Staunton remarks, 'From this point to the end, the game abounds with rare and critical situations.' Kt-QB3 34. . . . . . . 35. Kt-B3 Q X Q eh. Not 35 . . . . . Q x BP? 36. B-B1 , winning the Queen. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41 . 42.

KxQ P-KKt4 Kt-R4 B xB RxP PxP K-Kt3

R-K3 QKt-K2 B-K5 RxB PxP R x P eh.

P-KKt4? 42. . . . . . . A weak move. Not only does it render Black's King's side Pawn

140

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

majority valueless, but it drives White's Knight to a far better square. Black could have retained his advantage with 42 . . . . . R-BS; 43. Kt-B3, R-QKt8. 43. Kt-B3 R-K5? Falling into the trap, but even after the better move 43. . . . . Kt-KB3; then 44. B X Kt, R X B; 45. Kt-K5 eh., K-Kt2; 46. R­ Q7, gives White a good game. 44. R x RP R-K6 44. . . . . R x P eh.; 45. K x R,

Kt x R eh. draws. K-K1 45. R-R7 eh. 46. B-B1 RxP 47. B x P RxP 48. K-B4 P-R4 This move endangers Black's position. He should play 48. . . . . R-R8 in order to bring back his Rook for defensive purposes. After 49. Kt-K5, R-B8 eh.; 50. K-K4, it is doubtful whether Black can play for a win with 50. . . . . Kt­ B3 eh.; 5 1 . B X Kt, R X B; 52.

P-Kt5, since the KtP is too strong, but he can force a draw by 50. R-K8 eh. 49. Kt-K5 R-R8 The only defence to the threat of 50. B X Kt, and R-R8 eh. 50. B x Kt 51. K-K4 52. R-R8 eh. - 53. R-R6 Staunton remarks eh. only draws.

R-B8 eh. Kt x B R-B1 that 53. R x R

53. . . . . . . Kt-Ktl On 53 . . . . . Kt-B1; 54. P-Kt5, is too strong. 54. R x P Kt-B3 eh. Kt-Q2 55. K-K3 K-Q1 56. R-K6 eh. 57. R-Q6 K-K2 58. R x Kt eh. K-K3 59. R-Q5 R-B8 60. Kt-Q3 R-KKt8 61 . Kt x P eh. K-B3 62. P-Kt5 eh. K-Kt3 63. Kt-K4 and White won on the 89th move.

In this, one of the first examples of �he 'English Opening,' two important characteristic features make their appearance. The first is Staunton's well conceived plan to break up his opponent's central Pawn position. But let Staunton speak for himself. In his notes to his 3rd move (P-K4, in reply to Saint-Amant's 2. P-KB4), he remarks: 'A forcible reply to White's Jast move; since if he now takes the KP, the Black Kt comes into excellent play on his K's side, and, if he does not take the P, his own centre Pawns are sure to be broken up and displaced.' (Staunton opened the game with the Black pieces.) The second important contribution is the introduction of the Queen's Fianchetto, of which Staunton says: 'Playing this P forward to afford an outlet for the Q's Bishop, was first brought into vogue by the present games, in which the advantage of this mode of play over the old ( I I ) system i s eminently conspicuous.' From this we see that even a s early as 1843 one could speak of an 'old system.'

1851 The fact that the English Opening was played by the English partici­ pants in the Tournament of 1851, shows that one eminent player can create a 'school.' The following game should be considered a step forward in this opening. For Staunton, though retaining the essential features of his earlier system, here introduced some distinctly new ideas.

THE ENGLISH OPENING AS PLAYED IN THE LONDON TOURNAMENT,

141

THE ENGLISH OPENING 73 White

Black

H. Staunton

B. Horwitz

London, 1851 1 . P-QB4 P-K3 2. Kt-QB3 P-KB4 Kt-KB3 3. P-KKt3 4. B-Kt2 P-B3 5. P-Q3 Kt-R3 6. P-QR3 This sequence of moves would be incompatible with modern opening analysis, but it is not our purpose to examine it . from that angle. We aim at seeing how this position was treated according to the theory of that period. Here to-day one would play 6. P-K4. 6. . . . . . . B-K2 Castles 7. P-K3 8. KKt-K2 Kt-B2 Horwitz regularly played this move. \Ve see that 'overprotection' is not just an invention of Nimzovitch. P-Q4 9. Castles Q-K1 10. P-Kt3 Q-B2 1 1 . B-Kt2 The · game, characterized by the cautious manreuvres in the centre, has quite a modern appearance. But while White still has moves with which he can strengthen his position, Black has not, and he should, therefore, have started an action in the centre by 1 1 . . . . . P-K4; since 12. P-Q4, or 12. P-B4, could have been answered by 12 . . . . . P-K5. On other moves by White, Black could have played . . . . Q-R4, with an attack similar to that arising from the Dutch Defence. 12. R-B1 B-Q2 13. P-K41 Staunton realizes that it is time to take action in the centre before Black can play 13. . . . . QR-QI .

Position after 12 . . . . . B

-

Q2

13. . . . . . . BP x P On 13 . . . . . P-K4; 14. P x QP, P X QP; 15. P X QP, Kt(2) X P; 16. Kt x Kt, Kt x Kt; 17. B x P, wins a Pawn. 14. QP X P QR-Q1 15. P-K5 KKt-K1 On 15. . . . . Kt-Kt5; 16. Kt­ B4, Kt x KP; 17. P x P, KP x P; 18. QKt x P, is the simplest. 16. P-B4 PxP This looks like a mistake, but even 16 . . . . . B-B1; 17. P x P, Kt X P; 18. Kt X Kt, BP X Kt; 19. Kt-Q4, gives White the superior game. 17. P x P B-B4 eh. B-K6 18. K-R1 1 9. QR-Ktl P-KKt3 The decisive mistake. This move weakens his KB3 square, which, in conjunction with the weakness on Q3, must prove fatal. B-B1 20. Q-Kt3 21. Kt-K4 B-Kt3 22. QR-Q1 Kt-R3 RXR 23. Q-QB3 24. R x R Kt-B4 Q-B2 25. Kt-Q6 A better defence was 25. Kt-R5; 26. Q-B2, Kt x Kt; 27.

142

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

Q X Kt Kt-B4; in order to case the position by exchanges. ,

26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

Q-B2 P-Kt4 B-Q4 P-QR4 P-QB5 Q-Kt3 Kt-K4 Kt-B6 eh.

Kt-Kt2 Q-K2 Q-QB2 Kt-R3 B-R4 P-Kt3 PxP

nates Black's counter-chances on the Queen's side, which he had achieved by sacrificing his QB Pawn. K-R1 33. . . . . . . 34. Q-KR3! The speed with which the Queen and the Knight are switched over is really remarkable. Kt-K1 . 34. . . . . . . 35. B-R1 Black's Pawns on the Queen's wing are broken up, and his chances are reduced to a minimum. Kt x Kt 35. 36. P X Kt K�Ktl Q-QKt2 37. B-K5 38. B-K4 Q-KB2 B-Q1 39. Kt-Ktl 40. P-Kt5 B-Kt2 R-K1 41 . Kt-B3 BxP 42. B-Q6 Staunton remarks, 'It is indifferent what he plays, the game being past all surgery.'

This part of the game shows Staunton's advanced technique. Before attacking on the King's side, where his advantage lies, he elimi-

43. P x B 44. Kt-Kt5 45. B-K5 46. B x KtP

QxP Q-Kt2 Q-K2 Resigns.

In this logical game, a new element of modern positional play-the double fianchetto-makes its appearance. That this was not merely an improvisation is clear to us after setting up the Pawn formation that usually follows this development of the White Bishops. The technique displayed by Staunton in the middle-game is equally remarkable. On examining the way in which he reduces his opponent's counter-chances on one wing before going over to the other, one is reminded of the strategy so characteristically demonstrated by Capablanca seventy years later. WYVILL'S TREATMENT The other great exponent of the English Opening in the last century was Wyvill, the winner of the second prize in the London 1851 Tourna­ ment. Staunton called him 'One of the finest players in England.' He adopted only this opening (for with the Black pieces he played the Sicilian Defence) and he can be considered a forerunner of those great masters who to-day specialize in certain openings. His games show that he understood the spirit of the opening, and they therefore supply very useful material from which we draw our conclusions concerning the finer strategical points of this debut.

THE ENGLISH OPENING 74 White

Black

M. Wyvill

E. Lowe

London, 1 851 l. P QB4 P-K4 2. P-K:l P-QB4 3. Kt-QB3 Kt-QB3 4. P-KKt3 B-K2 5. B-Kt2 P-Q3 6. P-Q3 Kt-KB3 7. P-QR3 B-K3 8. KKt-K2 With minor deviations and trans­ positions the opening is the same as played to-day, when Black aims atblockadingWhite's Queen's Pawn, whilst White, purposely acquiescent to his opponent's plan, hopes later to break up Black's centre with P-Q4. To-day we would play 8. Kt-Q5, with which move White retains all his chances in the centre, whilst those of Black's are non­ existent.

143

On 14 . . . . . P-B4; 15. QR-Ktl ! would manifest the strength of \Vhite's King's Bishop. But after the text-move White is able to demonstrate how a centre can be effectively broken up.

-

P-Q4 8. . . . . . . 9. P x P Kt x P 10. Castles Castles 1 1 . Q-B2 On 1 1 . P-Q4, BP x P; 12. P x P, P x P; 13. Kt x P, QKt x Kt; 14. Q x Kt, B-B3; would follow with advantage for Black. This shows White's strategy was faulty in allowing himself to be blockaded. Kt x Kt 11. . . . . . . The right move was 1 1 . R-B 1 ; with the latent threat . . . . Kt-Q5. B-Q4 , 12. P x Kt 13. P-K4 B-K3 14. B-K3! A very important move. Now 14 . . . . -. P-B5; can be answered by 15. P-Q4. 14 . . . . . .

.

Q--Q2

15. P-KB4! P-B4 On 15. . . . . B-R6; 16. B X B Q x B; 17. P x P, Kt x P; 18. Kt­ B4, with advantage for White would follow. 16. P x KP On 16. is strong.

Kt x P P X P; 17. P-Q4,

17. Kt.:_B4 Kt-Kt5 18. B-Q2 P-B5 19. P-Q4 B-B2 20. P-K5 QR-Ktl 21. P-R3 Kt-R3 22. P-Q5 Staunton remarks, 'Now are these Pawns quite irresistible.' B-B4 eh. 22. . . . . . . 23. K-R1 Q-K2 24. QR-Kl Q-Kt4 A mistake, but Black is lost in any case. 25. Kt-K6 Q-K2 26. B-Kt5 Q-K1 27. Kt x R and won on the ,n st move.

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK In this game we see the power of the advance P-KB4, by White, to-day common knowledge, but unknown at that time, and not appreciated until many years later. An equally important motive is the pressure of White's King's Bishop against the weak square at Black's QKt2, a stratagem still considered to be of a most promising nature. The following game shows a further development of the English Opening, but on this occasion it is from the point of view of Black, who here adopts a more solid line by answering 1. P---QB4, with 1 . P-K3; a move which was considered by Steinitz to be safer than the committing 1 . P-K4. . • • •

75 White

M. Wyvill

Black

Capt. G. Kennedy

London, 1 851 (Played with reversed colours) P-K3 1. P---QB4 2. P-K3 P---Q4 3. P-KKt3 P---QB 4 4. B-Kt2 Kt---QB3 Staunton remarks, 'Taking the Pawn would have been imprudent, since it would have disjointed the centre and Black (here first player) would win a Pawn in return at once by checking with his Queen.' Modern theory tells us that 4 P x P; 5. Q-R4 eh. , B---Q 2 ; 6. Q x BP, B-B3; 7. KKt-B3, leads to ·a variati0n of the Catalan system, where \Vhite's P-K3 is a weak move (weakening him on the light coloured squares on the King's side). .

Kt-B3 5. Kt-K2 B---Q3 6. P---Q3 B-B2 7. QKt-B3 P-KR4 8. Castles This attack is premature, Staunton observes.

. . . •

as

Kt-R4 9. Q-Kt3 An ingenious reply. On 9 . P-Q5; 1 0 . P x P, P x P; 1 1 . Kt­ Kt5, B-Kt3; 1 2. B-B4, gives White a strong position. 10. Q -Kt5 eh.

Kt-B3

ll. P x P PxP 12. P-K4! This push in the centre and the preparation for it by Q-Kt3, to bring out the strength of White's King's Bishop, shows Wyvill's in­ sight as a fine strategist. Even to-day this is the basis of the English Opening. 12. P---Q5 13. Kt-Q5 Kt-Q2 14. B-Kt5 P-B3 15. B-B4 Staunton observed that Wyvill had now a great superiority of position. 15. . . . . . . B-K4 16. B-R3 It looks as if Black cannot now defend his QB Pawn, but Kennedy finds a very ingenious reply.

145

THE ENGLISH OPENING Q-R4! 16. . . . . . . 17. Q- Kt3 On 17. Q x Q, Kt x Q; 18. B x B , Kt x B; 19. Kt-B7 eh., K-QI ; 20. Kt X R, B X B; 2 1 . R-Ql, White's Knight on R8 is trapped and Black would remain with two minor pieces against the Rook. J{t-l{t3 17. . . . . . . RxB 1 8 . KB x B 19. KR-QI Up to this point Wyvill's strategy has been really impressive, but now he misses his chance. With 19. QR-B1, preventing Black from exchanging Queens, he would have left his opponent without a good move. 19. . . . . . . Q-R5 20. Q x Q Kt x Q 2 1 . B-B1 Kt-Kt3 Here Staunton writes, 'Captain Kennedy has fought manfully through his difficulties, and at this point there appears no serious dis­ parity between the two sides.' This comment is interesting since it throws valuable light on the con­ temporary positional judgment. It is evident that Staunton must have thought that Black was able to equalize the game between his 1 5th and 21st moves. From the modem viewpoint we have no hesitation in asserting that had White not com­ mitted the serious positional mis­ take on his 19th move, Black would have been unable to recover. P-Kt4? 22. KKt-B4 A mistake. Correct was B x Kt. RP x Kt 23. Kt x Kt 24. Kt-Q5 P-Kt5 Black cannot save the Pawn. On 24. . . . . P-QKt4; 25. P-B4 wins the KB Pawn. 25. Kt x P R-B2 26. B-B4 P-R5 27. QR-B1 Much simpler was 27. Kt-Q5,

which would have prevented 27. . . . . R(2)-R2; because of the threat 28. B x B, P X B; 29. Kt-B6 eh. 27. PxP R(2)-R2 28. BP X P BxB 29. R-Q2 P-Kt6 30. P X B P X P eh. 31 . R X P Black suddenly obtains excellent counter-chances. 32. K-R1 K-Q1 33. Kt-Q5 R-R6 34. R-B1 P-B4 35. R-B1 Better was 35. P-K5. PxP 35. . . . . . . P-Q6 36. P x P 37. R(1 )-B2 Kt-Q5 38. Kt-Kt4 R-K6 Staunton gives here 38. R-Ktl; with a win for Black. (a) 39. R x RP, R x R eh.; 40. R x R, Kt-B6; or (b) 39. R-Kt2, R x R; 40. R X R, R-K6; 41 . Kt x QP, Kt-B6; 42. R-Kt8 eh., K-B2; 43. Kt-B2, R-K8 eh.; 44. K­ Kt2, R-Kt8 eh.; 45. K x Kt, R x R; and wins. (c) 39 .. R-Q1, Kt-B6; 40. R-Kt2, (40. R x Kt, R-Kt8 eh.! 41 . R X R, P X R (Q) ; double eh. wins.) 40. . . . . R x R; 41. K X R, P-R8(Q) eh.; 42. R X Q, R X R; 43. K X R, P-Q7; and wins. (d) 39. R-B1, Kt-K7; 40. R x QP eh., R X R; 41 . Kt X R, Kt-Kt6 eh.; 42. K X P, Kt X R eh.; wins. These variations show Staunton's remark­ able ability as analyst. RxP 39. Kt x P 40. R x P R x R eh. 41, R x R Kt-K7 42. R-B2 K-K2 43. K-Kt2 K-B3 A mistake in a lost position. 44. K-B3

45. R x Kt 46. R-K5 47. R-QKt5

R-R5 RxP R-R3 R-Q3

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOT\\riNNIK

1 46

48. 49. 50. 51 . 52. 53. 54. 55.

Kt-K5 Kt-B4 K-K4 R x P eh. P-B5 P-B6 eh. Kt-K5 eh. P-B7 eh.

P-Kt3 R-Q6 eh. R-QB K-K2 R-QBB K-B2 K-Ktl K-R2

56. R-R6 eh. Now we notice why Black has played on. He hoped for 56. P-BS(Q), and then to play for a stalemate by checking with the Rook. KxR 56. . . . . . . 57. P-BS(Q) eh. and wins.

·

This game has two outstanding features, first Wyvill's excellent strategy in undermining Black's centre and, �ater, Capt. Kennedy's tactical skill. ANDERSSEN' S CONTINUATION Although Anderssen played this opening very rarely, his system is extremely important in relation to our modern theory. Here we see him adopting (with the White pieces) the 'Sicilian Defence,' in order to avoid the openings of a regular character in which, as pointed out by Lowenthal, he was usually outplayed by Morphy. Anderssen made use of the true ' Classical Sicilian style,' omitting the Fianchetto of the King's Bishop, and for this reason his method of treat­ ment is very different from that of the English School under Staunton. 76 White

Black

A. AndeTssen

P. Morphy

6th Match Game, 1 858 P-K4 1. P-QR3 2. P-QB4 By a transposition of moves we have now come to an English opening. Kt-KB3 2. P-Q4 3. Kt-QB3 Kt x P 4. P x P 5. P-K3 B-K3 6. Kt-B3 B-Q3 Castles 7. B-K2 8. P-Q4 Kt X Kt Although this exchange is often played even to-day, it is inexact. Black should play 8. . . . . P X P; first clarifying the position in the centre, since 9. P x P, Kt-B5; is clearly bad for White on account of his weak isolated Pawn. On 9 . K t X P , K t X Kt! 1 0 . P X Kt, ( 10. Kt x B, Q-B3! 1 1 . P x Kt, P x Kt; ) 10 . . . . B-Q4! would have given Black an easy and free game.

P-K5 9. P x Kt 10. Kt-Q2 P-KB4 1 1 . P-KB4 P-KKt4 A sharp attacking move that one might expect from Morphy. But even he could not have been satis­ fied with the effect of this move, since in the 8th game of the match he continued with 11 . . . . . Q-R5 eh.; 12. P-Kt3, Q-R6; 13. B-B 1 , Q-R3; without, however, achieving more than in the present game. 12. B-B4 BxB 13. Kt x B PxP 14. P x P Q-K1 White has the superiority in the centre, which Black should try to break up by 14. . . . . P-B4; 15. Kt x B, Q x Kt; 16. P-QR4, Q­ KKt3. If here 15. P-QR4, ( 1 5. P-Q5, P-Kt4;) P X P; 16. Kt X B , Q x Kt; 17. B-R3, Q x P; 18. B X R, Q-K6 eh. ; 1 9. Q-K2, ( 1 9 . K-B 1 , Q-B5 eh. ; ) Q X P eh. ; 20. K-B2, P-K6 eh. ; 21 . K-Kt3, Q-B2 eh. ; 22. K-R3, K X B; with a good game for Black would follow.

.

15. Castles

Q-B3

1 47

THE ENGLISH OPENING Q-Q4 16. Q-Kt3 17. R-Ktl P-Kt3 1 8 . Q-R2 P-B3 Owing to the threat 19. R-Kt5. 19. Q-K2 Kt-Q2 Q-K3 20. Kt-K3 Kt-B3 21. P-B4 K-B2 22. R-Kt3 White threatens to open the files with 23. P-Q5, and after 23. . . . . P x P; 24. P x P, Kt x P; 25. Kt x Kt, Q X Kt; 26. R Kt3 eh. , would win. Though the Kin g s move tem­ porarily meets the threat, the King's position in the middle remains in­ secure. Even after 22 . . . . . R-B2; 23. B-Kt2, B-B 1 ; 24. R-Q1, R-Q 1 ; 25. P-Q5, P x P; 26. B x Kt, R x B; 27. Kt x QP, White would have broken through in the centre. -

'

23. B-Kt2 24. K-Rl 25. P-Q5 26. P x P If 26 . . . . . Kt X P?

QR-B1 R-KKtl PxP Q-Q2 27. Q-R5 eh.

27. Kt-B41 K-K2 27. . . . . Kt x P; 28. R-R31 is decisive.

to the mind of a master of our time and to his approach to the above position by giving Lasker's analysis in which he says that 28. R--R3, previously considered decisive, leaves Black the reply 28 . . . . . Q-Kt4! while the right continuation he gives is 28 . B K5, B X B; 29. P x B, Kt X P; 30. Kt-Q6, QR-KB1 ; 31. R-R3, R-Kt2; 32. R-R5. -

KxB 28. . . . . . 29. Q-Kt2 eh. K-B2 30. R-R3 Here Anderssen misses his chancel First 30. Q-Q4! R-B4; (31 . Kt-K5 eh., B X Kt; 32. P x B, is threatened) 31. R-R3, R-Kt2; 32. R-R6, B-B2; 33. P-Q6, K- Ktl; 34. R-Ql, B-Q1; 35. Kt-K5, Q­ Kt4; 36. R-K6, P-KR3; 37. P­ Q7, Q-K7; 38. Q-Ktl, R-B7; 39. R-K8 eh., K-R2; 40. R x B, R x KtP; 41. R-R8 eh., K x R; 42. P-Q8(Q) eh., followed by Mate in a few moves would have followed. This fine analysis by Maroczy gives us an idea how an attack should be directed. .

R-Kt2 30. . . . . . . K-Ktl ! 31. Q-Q4 Now we notice that owing to transposition of moves (by White) Black escaped immediate danger (Kt-K5 eh. ). 32. R-R6 B-Bl 33. P-Q6 R-KB2 This part of the defence is well conducted by Morphy. Now 34. Kt-K5? is met by 34. Q-Kt4. 34. R-R3 Q-R5! 35. R-Bl R-B4! Preventing Q-K5; and QP-Kt4? would be a K6, 35. mistake because of 36. P-Q7, R-Ql; 37. R-Kt3 eh., B-Kt2; 38. R X B eh., R X R; 39. Q-Q5 eh., K-Rl; 40. Kt-K5. .

28. B x Kt eh. This move is good enough, but White should be able to decide the game by direct attack, keeping his strong Bishop. We provide a clue II

.

. •

36. R-Kt3 eh.

B-Kt2

148

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

K-R1 37. P-R3 38. R x B This sacrifice should lead only to a draw; while 38. Q-Q2, would still have given White by far the better game. Anderssen might have feared

the pin from 38 . . . . . Q-B3; still, 39. R-Ql , was a good enough reply. RxR 38. . . . . . . 39. R-B3 P-K6! Anderssen must have overlooked As Morphy this saving move. points out, 39. . . . . K-Ktl; is of no use because of 40. R-KKt3! . Q-Q2; (40. . . . R X R? 41 . P­ Q71) 41 . Kt-K5, R x Kt; 42 R X R eh., followed by P x R wins. .

40. R x P A mistake. 40. Q-B6 still drew. 40. . . . . . . R x Kt 41 . Q-B6 Better was 41 . Q-K5.

Position after 39. R-B3

41 . 42. K-R2 Resigns.

R-B8 eh. Q x P eh.

It is interesting to see how Morphy was outplayed throughout this game, except during the concluding moves; and that in the other two games against Anderssen in which this opening occurred, he was at no less disadvantage. Lowenthal certainly over-praises Morphy's treatment of the opening when he writes: 'It seems to make no difference' (what opening he plays) 'nor should we expect it would, to one so well versed in the principle of the game as he is.' On the contrary, these games prove, in our opinion, that the great chess genius was unable, without previous study, to master this opening. CONCLUSIONS

These five selected games give a clear picture of the English Opening as it was played in the second half of the last century. The standard of these compares favourably with that reached by contemporary games with other openings: which is not surprising since, in addition to Staunton and Wyvill, a number of English players including Horwitz and Williams frequently made use of this opening. Thus we can with truth speak of an 'English School.' In the first game of this chapter, we see Staunton adopting the original line of developing his King's Knight at R3-B4-Q5 (later claimed by the 'hypermoderns' as their own invention) and also clearly controlling all the central squares with his pieces and Pawns. The succeeding game was a step forward; for in it, by means of the double fianchetto and by keeping back his central Pawns, he establishes a kind of Reti system. Wyvill's treatment in the following games was slightly different. He clearly demonstrates how the control of the centre should be carried out.

THE ENGLISH OPENING IN MODERN TIMES

149

Anderssen again introduces quite another system, perhaps with the idea of avoiding regular lines against Morphy, without adopting the fianchetto. His method became popular eighty years later, and was then revived by Nimzovitch and Flohr.

XIII THE ENGLISH OPENING IN MODERN TIMES IN the latter half of last century the English Opening was seldom played. Steinitz made a few attempts to bring it to life again, as did Zukertort, and still later Mason. The latter players, however, used it as a means of transposing into a favourable line of the Queen's Gambit. In the early years of this century further attempts at revival were made, particularly in Bremen where it was often played. Indeed, in Gennany it became known as the 'Bremer Partie.' Later Rubinstein played it occasionally, although he did not adopt any definite system. When, after the First World War, Nimzovitch and Reti evolved some kind of system, the real re-birth of the English Opening took place. NIMZOVITCH's CoNTRIBUTION

In company with the other 'hypermoderns,' Nimzovitch helped to revive the English Opening. He really continued from the point where Anderssen left it: namely, to play the Sicilian Defence with a tempo more. He was successful with this opening, mainly because his opponents (in the same way as Morphy against Anderssen, see previous game) fai1ed to realize that they were running their heads against the wall. His encounters with Spielmann, the greatest gambit player of this century, were interesting, and in the following game he confirmed Staunton's theory that the Sicilian Opening with the White pieces is of distinct advantage to the first player, owing to the extra tempo. 77 White

Black

A. Nimzovitch

R. Spielmann

Carlsbad, 1929 P-K4 1. P-K3 Kt-KB3 2. P-QB4 P-K5 3. Kt-KB3 Nimzovitch remarked that Black should have been aware of the missing tempo and be sufficiently 'modest' to play 3. . . . . P-Q3; 4. P-Q4, QKt-Q2; followed by the fianchetto of his King's Bishop.

Kt-B3 4. Kt-Q4 5. Kt-Kt5 P-Q4 This move is the cause of later troubles. Black should have kept the position closed. 5. . . . . P­ QR3; 6. KKt-B3, was the right continuation. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 1 2.

PxP QKt-B3 Q-R4 Kt-Q4 Kt x Kt B-Kt5 BxB 1 3 . Q x Q eh.

Kt x P Kt-B3 B-KB4 B-Q2 B x Kt Q-Q2 QxB PxQ

150

14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK P-QKt3 B-Kt2 P-QR3 BxB Castles KR

Castles B-Kt5 B x Kt R-Q6 KR-Q1

30. R-B2, and forces Black's next move. R(6)-Kt7 29. . . . . . . K-Kt2 30. R-Kt7 R(Kt)-B7 31 . P-R3 K-Kt3 32. R-Kt5 P-B4 33. R-KB1 Spielmann hopes at last to get rid of the weakness of his QB Pawn that was due to his faulty concep­ tion of the opening, but new dis­ appointments are waiting for him. 34. 35. 36. 37.

R-B4 P-KR4 R-B6 eh! R-Kt5 eh.

P-B5 R-R7 K-Kt2

'Mechanical development,' says Nimzovitch, who recommended in­ stead 18 . . . . . R-Ktl l; 19. P-B3, Kt-Q4; 20. P x P, Kt x B; 21 . P x Kt, R-B1 . Nimzovitch causti­ cally remarked that such discreet use of the energies of a Rook (18 . . . . . R-Ktl l) is not usual in a gambit, but very necessary when one wants to win first prizes. Kt-Q4 19. P-B3 20. B x PI White is now able to demonstrate the superiority of the Bishop over the Knight, proving that the Black Rook would have been much better placed on KKtl .

Nimzovitch uses his Rooks very cleverly. The aim of this move is both offensive and defensive. It enables the Rook on the 6th rank to defend his KKt Pawn while the QR can be switched over to attack the Black Pawns on KR4 and QB2. ,

R x QP 20 . . . . . . . P-KB4 21 . B-Q4 PxP 22. P x P R-Q6 23. B x P Kt x KP 24. P-QKt4 RxB 25. B x Kt R-QKt6 26. KR-K1 R-Q7 27. R x P P-R4 28. R-K7 29. R-B7 Black was threatening 29. P-R5; 30. P-R3, R-Kt6. The text-move aims at simplifying with

K-B1 ...... R-K7 R-KKt6 R(R7)-B7 R-QB5 R-Kt7 K-Ktl R(5) X BP(7) R x P eh. R-B8 eh. RxR KxR K-B2 P-B6 44. R-Kt5 R-KR8 -'5. R x P On �5 . . . . . P-B7; 46. R-B5

37 . 38. 39. 40. 41 . 42. 43.

l 51

THE ENGLISH OPENING IN MODERN TIMES eh., K-Kt3; 47. K-K2, would follow. 46. R-B5 eh. K-Kt3 47. K-Kt3 R-QB8 48. K-B2 R-KR8 49. K-K3! Much better than 49. R x P, R x P; 50. K- K3, K-Kt4. 49 . . . . . . .

R-R6 eh .

If 49. . . . . R x P; 50. K-Q3, R-R6 eh. ; 5 1 . K-B2, followed by R x P, would give White an easy win. P-B7 50. K-Q4 51. R x P R x P eh. K-Kt4 52. K-B3 53. K-Kt3 and White won on the 70th move.

In this game we actually witness two fundamentally different views of theory of the opening. Nimzovitch even made the ironical remark that Spielmann's method of developing was the result of his playing gambits all the time and of his inability to change this style of play. FLOHR'S TREATMENT

With the exception of Nimzovitch, Flohr has contributed more than any other master to our understanding of the English Opening. In order to employ his pieces more effectively, in support of the central thrust, he has often successfully assumed positions hitherto thought very difficult to defend. The following game is a fine example of the many notable victories won by him in this opening. 78 White

s.

FlohT

Black

S. Landau

8. KtP x P Castles B-Q3 9. P-Q4 Q-K2 10. B-K2 B-Kt5 l l . CastJes ll . . . P-K5; 12. Kt-Q2, P-B4; 1 3. Kt-B4, at once leads to a position similar to that of the Anderssen-Morphy game (Game 76). But now Black threatens 12. . . . . P-K5; with counterplay. .

Kemeri, 1937 1. P-QB4 Kt-KB3 2. Kt-QB3 P-K4 3. Kt-B3 Kt-B3 4. P-K3 P-Q4 5. P x P Kt x P 6. Q-B2 The alternative is 6. B-Kt5, Kt X Kt; 7. KtP X Kt, B-Q3; (7. . . . . P-K5; 8. Kt-K51) 8. P-Q4, B-Q2; 9. P-K4, P x P; 10. BP_x P, B-Kt5 eh.; l l . B-Q2, B x B eh.; 12. Q X B, Castles; (Nimzovitch­ Spielmann, Berlin, 1928) with the better game for White. Flohr's move aims at avoiding exchanges. �. . . . . . .

B-K2 Kt x Kt A strate�ical mistake. 7. P-QRS

.

12. P-R31 A fine parry! Now on 12. . . . B-R4; 13. Kt x P, B X B; 14. Kt x Kt, wins a Pawn. Black there fore cannot keep up the pin. .

B-Q2 12. . . . . . . 13. P-B4 P-QKt3 QR-K1 14. B-Kt2 Black tries to maintain the tension in the centre. It was better to simplify with 14. . . . . P X P; 15. P X P, B-KB4; 16. Q-QI . ·

1 5 . P-B51 With this Pawn 1acriftce, White

152

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK This move is much clearer than 23. Q X P, R-KKt4. 23. RxR R-Bl 24. Q x R 25. P-R4 P-R4 26. P-R5 P-R5 27. Q-Q5 ! Meets Black's threat of 27. B x P; 28. B X B , P-R6; 29. Q-Q5, Q x B eh.; 30. Q x Q, P x Q.

Position after 14 . . . . . QR-K1 breaks up Black's Pawn position. 15 . . . . . . . P x BP 16 . .P x KP Kt x P 17. Kt x Kt B x Kt 18. B x B QxB 19. KR-B 1 ! This self-confident move is characteristic of Flohr's style. The Rook has to make room for the Bishop, which is needed at KBI for defen­ sive purposes on the King's wing. 19. Q-Kt4 20. Q x P R-K4 BxP 21. Q x RP 22. B-B I ! The key move of \Vhite's precise defensive manceuvre starting on the 19th move. 22. 23. R-B5!

Q-Kt3

B-B4 27. B-K5 28 . P-R6 B-B4 29. Q-Q7 30. Q-K7 P-R6 B-K5 3 1 . P-R7 On 3 1 . . . . . P x P; 32. B x P, B-R6; 33. P-R8(Q), R x Q; 34. R x R eh. , K-R2; 35. Q-R4 eh. wins. R-Rl 32. Q-Q7! 33. Q x RP The way in which Flohr has beaten back Black's attack is very impressive. P-QB4 33. Q-QB3 34. Q-Q7 BxQ 35. Q x Q 36. R-R5 B-K5 The Bishop must retain the con­ trol of the diagonal, otherwise on 36. . . . . B-Q2; 37. B-K2, wins. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41 .

P-B3 B-Kt2 RxP RxP R-B7 P-B3 K-R2 K-Rl B-Kt5 R-R6 and Black resigned.

This game in its clarity of purpose and straightforward strategy is a masterpiece of technique. On comparing it with Anderssen-Morphy (Game 76, page 146), we notice with how much greater coolness Flohr defends his King's wing against an attack which in the nineteenth century would have been thought decisive. Although great defensive players are still rare, his play in this game emphasizes that during the last fifty years the technique of defence has developed considerably.

THE ENGLISH OPENING IN MODERN TIMES

1 53

THE FOUR KNIGHTS' SYSTEM IN THE ENGLISH OPENING--WHITE AIMS AT IMMEDIATE CONQUEST OF THE CENTRE-RETI'S CONTRIBUTIONS

Until now we have dealt with a system in which White takes up a defensive position, allowing Black temporarily to occupy the centre, in order later to reap the benefit of the latent power in his position and overwhelm Black by force. The principal success of this 'lying in wait' system was due to players failing to recognize the enormous potentialities possessed by this opening which is, in effect, a Sicilian defence with a •move in hand.' The next stage in the evolution of the opening was the investigation of whether this 'lying in wait' stage could be dispensed with, and an immediate thrust made to gain control of the centre. Soon after the First World War, the 'hypermoderns' evolved our next system, where White tries this direct approach by means of an early P-Q4, a perfectly logical idea reminiscent of the Scotch Game (1. P-K4, P-K4; 2. Kt-KB3, Kt-QB3; 3. P-Q4, etc.). Though he most certainly was not the inventor of this system, we associate with it the name of the Viennese grandmaster, Richard Reti, who contributed so much to its theory. His profound and clear demonstrations added a great deal to our modern dynamic . concepts of the centre. A typical example of his incisive style and the brilliance of his strategical conceptions is the following game against Przepiorka. White

R. Reti

79 Black

For the better move 5. B-Kt5 see Game 81.

....

D. Przepiorka

Marienbad, 1925 Kt-KB3 P-K4 2. Kt-QB3 3. Kt-B3 Kt-B3 4. P-Q4 PxP The alternative is 4 . . . . . P-K5; 5. Kt-Q2, Kt x P; 6. KKt x P, Kt-K3; 7. P-KKt3, Kt x Kt; 8. Kt X Kt, B-Kt5 eh.; 9. B-Q2, B X B eh.; 10. Q x B, Castles; 1 1 . B-Kt2, P-Q3; 12. Castles K , B ­ Q2; 1 3 . Kt-B3, B-B3; 14. Kt-Q5, P-QR4; 15. P-K4, Kt-B4; Flohr-Botwinnik, 5th match game, 1933, and though Black has a firm position he has not yet obtained full equality. I . P-QB4 .

5. Kt x P B-B4 This was the fashionable move at the time the game was played, con­ forming to the current conception of developing a piece, which forces White to declare his intentions in the centre.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Kt x Kt P-KKt3 B-Kt2 Castles Q-R4

KtP x Kt P-Q4 B-K3 Castles

The first phase of the opening is over, and we have reached a posi­ tion where, according to the tenets of the Tarrasch school, Black has secure possession of the centre.

154-

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

However, the early 'hypermoderns' would maintain that Black is lost owing to his weak Pawn position. To-day we would prefer to say that Black has committed himself to a central Pawn formation which is under immediate pressure, al­ though it has the advantage of providing a pivot for building up an attack if the central structure can be maintained. 10. . . . . . . B-Q2 This move manages to afford Black only temporary relief. He could have tried 10 . . . . . Q-K1; and after 11. R-Q1 , (if 1 1 . B-Kt5, B-Q5; 12. QR-Q1, B x Kt; 13. P X B, Kt-K5 !) B-Kt3; 12. P X P, (if 12. B-Kt5, Kt-Kt5! ) P X P; 13. Q x Q, QR x Q; 14. Kt x P, Kt x Kt; 15. B x Kt, B x B; 16. R X B, R X P; Black has fair defen­ sive chances. 1 1 . B-Kt5 B-K2 He might have tried 1 1 . B-Kl . P-KR3 1 2. KR-Q1 13. B x Kt BxB 14. Q-R6 R-Ktl Now his defensive plan is appar­ ent. He has hopes of obtaining adequate counter-chances by exert­ ing pressure on White's QKt2, but White, by means of his more force­ ful threats on the Queen's file,

thwarts this, demonstrating the bad position of Black's Queen. 15. P x P PxP Not 1 5 . . . . . R x P; 16. P x P! 1 6. Kt x P BxP If 16 . . . . . R x P; 17. Kt x B eh. , P X Kt; 18. B-R3, B-B1; 1 9 . B x B, Q x B; 20. Q x BP i s good enough. P-QB3 17. QR-Ktl Not 17. . . . . B-K4; at once since 18. R X R, Q X R; 19. Kt-K7 eh. , wins a piece. 18. Q x RP! Though this move allows Black to obtain Bishops of opposite colours, it proves to be the most expeditious way of winning. Over­ whelming pressure is exerted on Black's KB2. P x Kt 18. Q-K1 19. R x P 20. R x QB QxP 21. R x P B-K4 RxR 22. R x R 23. R x P eh. BxR 24. Q x R eh. K-R2 K-R1 25. Q-Ktl eh. 26. B-K4 B-K4 If 26 . . . . . B-Q5; 27. Q-Kt8 eh. , K-Kt2; 28. Q-B7 eh. , K­ Ktl ; (not 28 . . . . . K-B3? 29. Q­ Q6 eh. ) 29. Q-Q8 eh. , wins a piece. 27. Q-Kt7

Resigns

From this game we see that Reti's main contribution to our modern theory was his illustration that control of the centre does not imply occupation with Pawns or even with pieces. This concept of 'remote control' formed the underlying idea of the brilliant and profound 'Reti Opening' which he adopted so successfully in these years. Reti's method of allowing his opponent to occupy the centre temporarily so as to demonstrate the weaknesses of his Pawn skeleton has extended our knowledge of the implications of strong and weak centres. Another important contribution to the theory of the centre was provided by Reti in the following game. Black here avoided committing himself to a Pawn-centre, but held back his Pawns, and continued the development of his pieces-a line of play setting this problem: Can White prove that his control of the central squares gives an advantage sufficient to be transformed into material gain?

THE ENGLISH OPENING IN MODERN TIMES 80 White

Black

R. Reti

E. Griinfeld

Baden Baden, 1 925 P-K4 1. P-KKt3 2. B-Kt2 Kt-KB3 Kt-B3 3. Kt-KB3 4. P-Q4 PxP 5. Kt x P B-B4 6. Kt x Kt KtP x Kt 7. P-QB4 With a transposition of moves we have arrived at a typical position of the English Opening where Reti has cleverly prevented Black from playing . . . . B-QKt5 and from pinning the Knight, a man