White to Play - Mate in 2!

Georg A Rotlewi X Akiba Rubinstein - Lodz 1907

[Event "Lodz1"] [Site "Lodz"] [Date "1907.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Rotlewi, Georg A"] [Black "Rubinstein, Akiba"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "D40"] [WhiteElo "2556"] [BlackElo "2605"] [Annotator ""] [PlyCount "54"] [EventDate "1907.??.??"] [EventType "tourn"] [EventCountry "POL"] {[%evp 17,53,-5,36,-22,13,-41,-48,-69,-42,-78,-55,-73,-46,-71,-46,-57,-52,-105, -67,-176,-98,-478,-423,-440,-431,-392,-314,-758,-873,-29992,-29993,-29995, -29996,-29996,-29997,-29998,-29999,-29999] D40: Queen's Gambit Declined: Semi-Tarrasch with 5 e3 Knaak,R: 'Rotlewi (Jahrgang 1889, aber schon 1920 verstorben) hat durch diese Partie zweifelhaften Ruhm erlangt; dabei war er so schlecht nicht: Beim Turnier in Karlsbad 1911 kam er nur einen Punkt hinter Rubinstein ein; er schlug ihn zudem im direkten Aufeinandertreffen und sorgte so dafür, daß der große Akiba nur 2. wurde (hinter Teichmann). Nach 1911 gibt es keine Partien mehr von ihm. '} {The Players Georg Rotlewi (1889-1920) was a Polish player who achieved considerable success in his short career. His best result was probably fourth place in the enormously strong tournament at Karlsbad 1911 with a score of 16/26 (including only two draws!). Shortly after this he contracted a serious illness and never played again. Akiba Rubinstein (1882–1961) was one of the world’s best players in the period 1907–22. Born in the small Polish town of Stawiski, he learned chess at the age of 16 – unusually late for one who goes on to become a great player. A few years later he moved to Lodz and his chess developed rapidly. By 1907 he was already recognized as one of the leading masters and in the following five years he won a whole string of major international events. Rubinstein challenged Lasker for the World Championship and a match was arranged, but a poor performance by Rubinstein at St Petersburg 1914 followed by the outbreak of the First World War dashed his hopes of a title match. After the war years Rubinstein’s career continued successfully and in 1922 he agreed terms with Capablanca, who had taken the title away from Lasker the previous year. However, he was unable to raise the necessary finance and his hopes of becoming World Champion faded for ever. Rubinstein effectively retired from chess in 1932, with his mental health in poor shape. Destitution and the Second World War cast a further shadow over his declining years and he became one of the many great masters who suffered poverty and deprivation in later life. The Game Rubinstein was primarily a positional player whose endgame play was of unparalleled subtlety, but when he was provoked he could be a fierce attacker. Rotlewi plays the opening too naïvely, and soon relinquishes the initiative. In symmetrical positions, the advantage of a single tempo can have a disproportionate influence on the play. Here Rubinstein exploits White’s inaccuracies with great energy, first inducing Rotlewi to weaken his kingside and then crashing through with one of the most stunning combinations ever played.} 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 e6 3. e3 c5 4. c4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Nf6 6. dxc5 Bxc5 7. a3 a6 8. b4 Bd6 9. Bb2 O-O {LiveBook: 154 Games} 10. Qd2 $6 {QUESTION: This is a strange move, isn't it? ANSWER: White doesn't want to develop his bishop yet, since he would like to recapture on c4 without losing a tempo, but while this is a developing move, it will not prove useful, as Rubinstein will demonstrate.} {EXERCISE: What did Rubinstein play in this position to call 10 Qd2 into question? ANSWER:} Qe7 $1 {A pawn sacrifice for the sake of accelerating Black's development – the imminent arrival of a black rook on d8 will be uncomfortable for the white queen.} 11. Bd3 $6 {Inconsistent with his previous move.} {EXERCISE (easy): What's the snag with 11 Bd3 - ? ANSWER:} dxc4 $1 {Unlike Black's king's bishop, White's will have spent two tempi recapturing the c-pawn, with the further snag, as will become apparent, that the queen is badly placed on d2.} 12. Bxc4 {Black is slightly better.} b5 13. Bd3 {EXERCISE (easy): How should Black continue? ANSWER:} Rd8 {Of course; the white queen is under X-ray pressure from the d8-rook and sooner or later will be forced to lose another tempo.} 14. Qe2 {QUESTION: White was already "playing with Black" - in a symmetrical position with Black to move – but now he will be two tempi down. Was 14 0-0 better?} Bb7 15. O-O {EXERCISE: How can Black exploit his slight advantage in development? ANSWER:} Ne5 $1 $36 {[%mdl 2048] With the exchange of knights White's castled position loses an important defender, and the two black bishops will be aimed menacingly at his kingside. . Black fights for an advantage.} 16. Nxe5 Bxe5 {With the familiar threat of 17...Bxh2+.} 17. f4 { Closing the h2-b8 diagonal, at the cost of weakening his kingside.} Bc7 { With the idea of opening the game with 18...e5.} {To answer} 18. e4 {[#]} (18. Rac1 $15) 18... Rac8 {QUESTION: How significant is Black's advantage? ANSWER: Black has just developed his last inactive piece and both his rooks occupy active posts. In contrast, the white rooks are still passive. This is not a decisive advantage, but any tactical complications arising are likely to benefit the side whose pieces are more active, so White is clearly at risk.} ( 18... Nh5 $1 $19 {[%mdl 512]} 19. g3 (19. Qxh5 Rxd3) 19... Bb6+ 20. Kg2 Nf6) { Seeking to simplify after either} 19. e5 $2 (19. Kh1 $17 {is tougher.}) 19... Bb6+ $19 20. Kh1 {[#] EXERCISE: How did Rubinstein continue here? ANSWER:} Ng4 $1 {[%mdl 512] "In playing 19 e5? Bb6+ 20 Kh1 White clearly underestimated this reply." – Kasparov. Rubinstein exploits the fact that the white queen is overworked; the threat is now 21...Qh4.} 21. Be4 (21. Qxg4 Rxd3) 21... Qh4 { [%csl Gg4][%cal Rh4h2]} 22. g3 $2 {[#]} (22. h3 Rxc3 23. Bxc3 Bxe4 24. Qxg4 Qxg4 25. hxg4) {EXERCISE: How did "Rubinstein's Immortal" continue? ANSWER:} 22... Rxc3 $1 {[%mdl 512] "An astonishing queen sacrifice, combining pins and deflections. White can't stop the attacking fury." – Kavalek. "One of the best combinations ever made. Black's next, uncommonly spectacular move reveals the depth of Rubinstein's combinative idea." – Romanovsky.} 23. gxh4 {[#]} ( 23. Bxc3 Bxe4+) {EXERCISE: What is the spectacular key to the combination? ANSWER:} 23... Rd2 $3 {[%mdl 512] "Such moves bear the stamp of eternity! Black is a queen down, and nearly all his pieces are en prise." – Razuvaev & Murakhveri. . Black mates.} 24. Qxd2 Bxe4+ 25. Qg2 {EXERCISE: How did Rubinstein force resignation? ANSWER:} {Rotlewi resigned, in view of} Rh3 $1 { [%csl Gg4][%cal Rh3h2] "A clincher! Black uses a pin to deliver a pretty mate. " – Kavalek.} 26. Rf2 $146 Bxf2 {[%csl Gg4][%cal Rh3h2]} 27. Qxe4 Rxh2# { . Lessons from this game: 1) The advantage of moving first is a valuable but fragile asset – take good care of it! 2) In symmetrical positions a single tempo can play a decisive role. The first player to undertake aggressive action can force his opponent into a permanently passive role. 3) Two bishops attacking the enemy king along adjacent diagonals make a dangerous team. Accuracy: White = 16%, Black = 84%.} 0-1

White to Play - Mate in 2!

Emanuel Lasker X William Ewart Napier - Cambridge Springs 1904

[Event "Cambridge Springs"] [Site "Cambridge"] [Date "1904.??.??"] [Round "3"] [White "Lasker, Emanuel"] [Black "Napier, William Ewart"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "B72"] [WhiteElo "2620"] [BlackElo "2500"] [Annotator ""] [PlyCount "69"] [EventDate "1904.??.??"] [EventType "tourn"] [EventRounds "15"] [EventCountry "USA"] [EventCategory "11"] {The Players Emanuel Lasker (1868-1941) is one of the most famous chess players of all time. As a youngster Lasker showed incredible talent at both chess and mathematics and he fulfilled his potential in both fields. Lasker defeated Steinitz to become World Champion in 1894, a title he was to hold for twentyseven years, which is still a record. Despite his victory over Steinitz, the chess world remained unimpressed, chiefly as the former World Champion was 32 years older than Lasker and his health was declining. Lasker, however, was still improving. In 1896 he proved his worth without doubt by winning four successive major events, including the St Petersburg tournament. Lasker continued to have excellent results, before beating Steinitz in a return match in 1896/7. During his chess career he still found time to pursue his mathematical studies, and in 1900 he was awarded his doctorate at Erlangen University. In chess Lasker was an exceptional tactician, but more than anything he was an immensely resourceful fighter. On countless occasions he was able to turn inferior positions to his advantage and his defensive qualities were without equal. William Napier (1881–1952) was born in England, but his family emigrated to the United States when he was five years old. His international chess career was very short but he was a successful competitor during the period 1900–5, one of his achievements being to win the British Championship in 1904. Had he continued playing chess, he might have risen to the top, but he retired from international chess, became a US citizen in 1908 and embarked on a successful business career. Napier had an attractive combinative style and although he left relatively few games, many of them are worth studying. The Game Lasker was famous for his fighting spirit and ability to induce mistakes by his opponents; both qualities are evident in this game. Lasker plays over-aggressively in the opening, and should have been punished for neglecting his development. Instead of refuting Lasker ’s opening positionally, Napier goes in for tactics which rapidly become a whirlwind of complications spreading over the whole board. Both players handle the tactics brilliantly and at the critical moment Lasker, not content with a slight endgame advantage, goes for broke. For a fleeting instant Napier has the chance to score the success of his career by beating the World Champion, but instead he adopts a tempting but unsound continuation. Lasker springs his trap and liquidates to a winning ending.} 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 g6 4. d4 cxd4 5. Nxd4 Bg7 6. Be3 d6 7. h3 Nf6 8. g4 {Launching an attack before completing your development is always a risky business, but Lasker ’s idea is to drive away the black knight from f6 by g4-g5. This will make it much harder for Black to develop counterplay by ...d5, his traditional response when confronted by a kingside attack in the Dragon. Although this push of the g-pawn is a valid idea in certain Sicilian variations, here the fact that White has had to spend a further tempo on the preparatory h3 casts doubt on the idea. The normal continuation today is 8 Bc4.} O-O {The simplest reply; the threat of g5 is not so strong that Black need take any special measures against it.} 9. g5 Ne8 ({Black could even have continued} 9... Nh5 {for example } 10. Nxc6 (10. Be2 Nf4) 10... bxc6 11. Be2 Rb8 {and his counterplay against b2 and c3 is more important than the threat to the knight on h5.}) 10. h4 $6 { This is going too far. White continues with his plan of attacking on the kingside, but every pawn move is a non-developing move, and he simply cannot afford to leave his king in the centre for so long. 10 Qd2 followed by 11 0-0-0 would have been safer and better.} Nc7 {Now Black is threatening to open the position up by 11...d5, when White’s lack of development will become serious.} 11. f4 {In order to meet 11...d5 by 12 e5, keeping the position closed, but it is yet another pawn move.} e5 $1 {Napier hits on the correct answer to White’s plan. A central counterattack is usually the best response to a flank attack, and this applies particularly when the opposing king is still in the centre.} 12. Nde2 d5 $2 ({This move is the trigger for the exciting complications which follow, but it is a mistake since these should ultimately give White the edge. The simple} 12... Bg4 $1 {would have been very strong; for example,} 13. Qd2 (13. Rg1 Qd7 14. Qd2 exf4 $17 {and 15...Ne5 is also good for Black}) 13... exf4 14. Bxf4 Ne5 15. O-O-O Ne6 16. Bg3 Nc4 17. Qd3 Rc8 $19 {and Black has a very strong attack (18...Nxb2 is the immediate threat) for which White has not the slightest compensation.}) 13. exd5 Nd4 14. Nxd4 Nxd5 $1 {The point of Black’s play.} 15. Nf5 $1 {Lasker responds in style.} ( 15. Nxd5 exd4 16. Bg2 dxe3 17. O-O Be6 18. Re1 Bxd5 19. Qxd5 Qc7 $17 { White’s weak pawns and exposed king give Black the advantage.}) 15... Nxc3 16. Qxd8 {Enabling the knight to check on e7.} Rxd8 17. Ne7+ ({Better than} 17. Nxg7 Nd5 18. O-O-O Bg4 $1 19. Rxd5 Rxd5 20. Bg2 Rd7 21. fxe5 Kxg7 22. c3 $15 { when White faces an uphill struggle to draw.}) 17... Kh8 (17... Kf8 18. Bc5 Ne4 19. Ba3 Nd6 20. Nxc8 Raxc8 21. O-O-O Ke7 22. Bh3 Rc6 23. Rhe1 $18) 18. h5 $1 { Just when the complications are at a maximum, Lasker suddenly revives his kingside attack, even in the absence of queens.} Re8 $1 (18... Nd5 19. Nxd5 Rxd5 20. h6 Bf8 21. Bc4 $16) (18... gxh5 19. f5 Ne4 20. f6 Bf8 21. Rxh5 Ng3 22. Rh4 Nxf1 23. Kxf1 Bxe7 24. fxe7 Re8 25. Bc5 $16) 19. Bc5 {There is nothing better than simply defending the knight.} gxh5 ({A key moment. Black decides to prevent hxg6 directly, but 19...exf4 was also tempting, pinning the knight. In fact the move played appears more accurate, since} 19... exf4 {leads to a significant advantage for White:} 20. hxg6 $1 fxg6 21. Bc4 b5 22. Bf7 Bb7 23. Rh2 Nd5 24. Bxe8 Rxe8 25. O-O-O Nxe7 26. Rd7 Bc6 27. Rxe7 Rxe7 28. Bxe7 f3 $16 {with an advantage for White, although winning this endgame would be far from easy.}) 20. Bc4 $2 ({White could have secured an edge by} 20. bxc3 Bf8 21. Bb5 Rxe7 $1 22. Bxe7 Bxe7 23. Rxh5 Bg4 24. Rh4 Bf5 $16 {Although White has some extra material, there would be few winning chances in view of his scattered pawns. Lasker evidently felt that this simple line would be insufficient to win and so bravely went in for a more complex alternative. However, there was a serious flaw in his idea which could have cost him the game.}) 20... exf4 $2 {This costs Black the first half-point.} (20... Ne4 $1 21. Bxf7 Bg4 $1 22. Bxe8 Rxe8 23. Ba3 Ng3 24. Rh2 exf4 $19 {and Black has overwhelming compensation for the exchange – he has one pawn already, White’s king is trapped in the centre and his knight is hopelessly pinned. While this line may not appear very complex, the sheer number of alternatives at each move makes Black’s task far from easy. Moreover, one of the themes of the game is Black’s desire to maintain his knight at c3 in order to prevent White from castling queenside. It would not have been easy to overcome the psychological block about moving it away, even though the bishop on g4 proves an effective substitute. It is also worth mentioning that I have seen this game annotated many times without any mention of 20...Ne4!.}) 21. Bxf7 Ne4 $2 {This tempting but unsound idea costs Black the second half-point.} (21... Rf8 $1 22. Bxh5 Ne4 23. Ng6+ Kg8 24. Ne7+ $11 (24. Nxf8 Bxb2 25. Rd1 Bc3+ 26. Kf1 Nxc5 $13)) 22. Bxe8 Bxb2 23. Rb1 Bc3+ 24. Kf1 Bg4 {The point of Napier’s idea: two of White’s minor pieces are attacked and both White’s rooks are vulnerable to a knight fork. Lasker finds a brilliant defence, returning the sacrificed material to liquidate favourably.} (24... Nxc5 25. Bxh5 Ne4 26. Kg2 Ng3 27. Bg6 Nxh1 28. Rxh1 $18) 25. Bxh5 $1 Bxh5 (25... Ng3+ 26. Kg2 Bxh5 27. Rb3 Nxh1 28. Rxc3 Kg7 29. Kxh1 $18) 26. Rxh5 Ng3+ (26... Nd2+ 27. Kf2 Nxb1 28. g6 Kg7 29. Rxh7+ Kf6 30. g7 $18) 27. Kg2 Nxh5 28. Rxb7 a5 ({Attempting to counterattack by } 28... Rd8 29. Rxa7 Rd2+ 30. Kf3 Rxc2 {rebounds after} 31. Nf5 Kg8 32. Nh6+ Kh8 33. Ra8+ Kg7 34. Rg8#) {The wild complications have led, oddly, to material equality. However, all the white pieces are more active than their enemy counterparts – the contrast between the knights is particularly extreme. Lasker now exploits one vulnerable black piece after another to win a pawn, while maintaining his pressure.} 29. Rb3 $1 Bg7 (29... Ba1 30. Rh3 Ng7 31. Rh6 Ne8 32. Kf3 Kg7 33. Kxf4 $18) 30. Rh3 Ng3 31. Kf3 Ra6 $6 (31... Re8 { would have put up more resistance, but} 32. Bd6 Nf1 33. Kxf4 $18 {will win in the long run.}) 32. Kxf4 Ne2+ (32... Nf1 33. Rh1 Nd2 34. Rd1 $18) 33. Kf5 Nc3 34. a3 Na4 35. Be3 {Since there is no defence to the threat of 36. g6 winning another pawn. Lessons from this game: 1) It is risky to start an attack before you have brought your pieces into play and safeguarded your king by castling. 2) The correct response to a flank attack is usually a counterattack in the centre. 3) In wild complications, piece activity is often more important than a material head-count. 4) If your opponent has sacrificed material for an attack, it may be possible to stifle his attack by returning the extra material.} 1-0

White to Play - Mate in 2!

Harry Nelson Pillsbury X Emanuel Lasker - Nurnberg 1896

[Event "Nurnberg"] [Site "Nurnberg"] [Date "1896.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Pillsbury, Harry Nelson"] [Black "Lasker, Emanuel"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C11"] [WhiteElo "2630"] [BlackElo "2620"] [Annotator ""] [PlyCount "99"] [EventDate "1896.??.??"] [EventType "tourn"] [EventRounds "18"] [EventCountry "GER"] [EventCategory "12"] {The Players Harry Nelson Pillsbury (1872–1906) shot to fame when he won his first major tournament. No one had ever done this before and only Capablanca later achieved a success of a similar magnitude in his international debut. Although considered merely an outside bet for the first Hastings International in 1895, Pillsbury produced some magnificent chess, scoring fifteen wins, three draws and only three losses. He came first, ahead of Steinitz, Chigorin, Tarrasch and the reigning World Champion Lasker. This result catapulted Pillsbury to the top of the chess world, and his exceptional form continued in the first half of the St Petersburg Tournament, a round-robin tournament with Lasker, Steinitz and Chigorin (six games against each). After nine rounds Pillsbury was a clear leader with 6½ points. However, Pillsbury’s play mysteriously collapsed in the second half, when he could muster only 1½ points, leaving him in third place behind Lasker and Steinitz. Pillsbury also caught syphilis at St Petersburg, which plagued him through the rest of his career and led to his premature death. Emanuel Lasker (1868–1941) is one of the most famous chess players of all time. As a youngster Lasker showed incredible talent at both chess and mathematics and he fulfilled his potential in both fields. Lasker defeated Steinitz to become World Champion in 1894, a title he was to hold for twentyseven years, which is still a record. Despite his victory over Steinitz, the chess world remained unimpressed, chiefly as the former World Champion was 32 years older than Lasker and his health was declining. Lasker, however, was still improving. In 1896 he proved his worth without doubt by winning four successive major events, including the St Petersburg tournament. Lasker continued to have excellent results, before beating Steinitz in a return match in 1896/7. During his chess career he still found time to pursue his mathematical studies, and in 1900 he was awarded his doctorate at Erlangen University. In chess Lasker was an exceptional tactician, but more than anything he was an immensely resourceful fighter. On countless occasions he was able to turn inferior positions to his advantage and his defensive qualities were without equal. The Game Pillsbury creates one of the classic examples of the sacrificial breakthrough, whereby a seemingly impregnable position is ripped apart by a series of sacrifices. Starting from a slightly unusual line of the French Defence, in which he has loosened his queenside in return for greater mobility, Pillsbury conceives a grandiose plan to attack the black king, which Lasker has decided to leave in the centre, defended by a strong barricade of pawns. Firstly Pillsbury gives up a pawn to divert a black piece to the queenside, and then a pawn on the kingside to loosen Black’s position and bring a knight to an active square. Lasker then misses his best chance to retain a viable position and plunge the game into a mass of murky complications. Pillsbury pounces. First an exchange, and then a piece is sacrificed, and all the lines to the black king are smashed open. Although he is a rook up, Lasker has no defence. In desperation, he gives up his queen, but the resulting endgame is hopeless.} 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Nfd7 5. f4 c5 6. dxc5 {An unusual idea, but far from bad. Instead White normally develops so as to support the d4-pawn.} Nc6 7. a3 Nxc5 {7...Bxc5 would be more standard, but less ambitious.} 8. b4 $5 {This move loosens White’s queenside but severely reduces the activity of Black’s knights – probably a good trade-off for White.} Nd7 (8... d4 $6 {looks like it should be better, but there is a tactical problem pointed out by John Nunn:} 9. Nce2 d3 ( 9... Ne4 10. Nf3) 10. Ng3 Qd4 11. c3 $1 Qxc3+ 12. Bd2 {wins a piece for inadequate compensation.}) 9. Bd3 a5 10. b5 Ncb8 11. Nf3 Nc5 12. Be3 Nbd7 13. O-O g6 {Not with the idea of fianchettoing the bishop, but to delay White’s intended f4-f5 advance. Lasker has decided that his king will be safest in the centre, and aims to make it as difficult as possible for White to break through to it. Note that if White has to support f5 with g4, his own king will also become considerably exposed after a later f5 gxf5, gxf5.} 14. Ne2 { White has the greater freedom of movement, but must play energetically to justify the weakening of his queenside.} Be7 15. Qe1 Nb6 16. Nfd4 Bd7 17. Qf2 { This cunning move lends support to possible f-file play and threatens to win a pawn by 18 Nxe6.} Nba4 (17... Qc7 $5 {followed by ...Nca4 and ...Nc4 is a more secure way for Black to play on the queenside.}) 18. Rab1 {Both preventing ... Nb2 and supporting the b-pawn.} h5 {Lasker further discourages White’s plan of g4 and f5, by making the preparatory advance that much harder. However, it eats another tempo, and Pillsbury manages to engineer a tactical f5 breakthrough without any support from the g-pawn.} (18... O-O $5 {was still possible (e.g. 19 g4 f5), though a switch of plans.}) 19. b6 $5 {White makes inroads into the queenside. If Black reacts passively, White will be able to make good use of the b5-square, but if Black makes the critical reply and wins the a3-pawn, several pieces will be diverted from the defence of the king. Undoubtedly Pillsbury’s great combination was already coming together in his mind at this stage – one would not give Lasker an extra passed a-pawn on a whim!} Nxd3 20. cxd3 Bxa3 21. f5 $1 {Disrupting Black’s kingside structure and freeing f4 for the knight. “Pillsbury possessed an unparalleled technique when it came to unleashing the explosive powers of his pieces.” – Euwe.} gxf5 (21... exf5 $2 22. Nf4 {gives White a massive attack without the need for sacrifices.}) 22. Nf4 {One of White’s ideas is now to bring the queen to g7 via g3, but Black’s next move is an, albeit understandable, over-reaction to this.} h4 $2 {Now White has time to engineer an explosive breakthrough.Two lines are more critical:} (22... Rc8 $5 {with ideas like} 23. Qg3 (23. Ra1 Bc5 24. Qg3 Qe7 25. Rxa4 Bxa4 26. Nxd5 $11 {is roughly level.}) 23... Qe7 24. Nxf5 exf5 25. Nxd5 Nc3 {is a good defence}) (22... Bb4 $5 23. Qg3 (23. Qf3 $6 h4 24. Nxf5 $2 exf5 25. Nxd5 Bc6 {exploits the queen’s position on f3 to force exchanges.}) 23... Kf8 {and now it is time for White to sacrifice:} 24. Nxd5 $6 {leads to fascinating complications, but objectively Black is at least OK. If Black wishes to take the knight on d5, he should first nudge the white queen to a worse square.} (24. Nxf5 $1 exf5 25. Ng6+ (25. Nxd5 $6 {is unconvincing.}) 25... fxg6 26. Qxg6 Qe8 27. Qf6+ $11 {with perpetual check.})) 23. Ra1 (23. Nxf5 exf5 24. Nxd5 {is a less convincing sacrificial attempt, since Black has more pieces ready to defend his king.}) 23... Be7 (23... Qe7 {loses to} 24. Nxf5 $1) 24. Rxa4 $1 Bxa4 {At the cost of “just” an exchange, White has removed the irritating black knight and drawn a defensive bishop off-side.} 25. Ndxe6 $1 fxe6 26. Nxe6 {“The great virtuoso of the breakthrough presents his chef d’oeuvre. Black, a clear rook ahead, must now lose, play as he will. To have foreseen all this is a brilliant piece of work by Pillsbury. There are few combinations on record to be compared to it.” – Euwe. Of course, it is not clear to what extent Pillsbury played by intuition, and how far he had seen in the lines following 22...Bb4, but there is no doubting Euwe’s conclusion.} Bd7 ({Lasker is convinced that White’s play is sound and, true to his nature, seeks the best practical chances of saving the game. However, this is practically equivalent to resignation, since the“practical chances” are little more than a way to prolong the agony. The critical continuation was} 26... Qc8 27. Qxf5 $1 { (threatening, amongst other things, 28 Bg5!)} Qc6 (27... Rg8 28. Qf7+ Kd7 29. Nc5+ Kc6 30. Qxe7 {and the black pieces are too poorly placed to put up a decent defence to the mating threats.}) 28. Bg5 $1 Qxb6+ 29. d4 Qb4 (29... Kd7 30. Nc5+ Kc7 31. Bxe7 {with a winning attack.}) 30. Qf7+ Kd7 31. Bxe7 Qxe7 32. Nc5+ Kd8 33. Nxb7+ Kd7 34. e6+ {winning the black queen.}) 27. Nxd8 Rxd8 28. Bc5 {White is clearly winning; his queen is too powerful and Black’s army too poorly coordinated. The rest of the game is a nice example on the theme “using a queen actively to harass loose pieces”.} Rc8 29. Bxe7 Kxe7 30. Qe3 Rc6 31. Qg5+ Kf7 32. Rc1 Rxc1+ 33. Qxc1 Rc8 34. Qe1 h3 (34... a4 35. Qxh4 a3 36. Qh7+ Ke8 (36... Ke6 37. Qg7 $1 $18) 37. Qg6+ Kf8 38. Qd6+ Ke8 39. Qxa3 { eliminates the passed a-pawn and with it Black’s last hope.}) 35. gxh3 Rg8+ 36. Kf2 a4 37. Qb4 Rg6 38. Kf3 a3 39. Qxa3 Rxb6 40. Qc5 Re6 41. Qc7 Ke7 42. Kf4 b6 43. h4 Rc6 44. Qb8 Be8 45. Kxf5 Rh6 46. Qc7+ Kf8 47. Qd8 b5 48. e6 Rh7 49. Ke5 b4 50. Qd6+ {. Lessons from this game: 1) Great ingenuity is needed to break through a defensive wall – it may be necessary to loosen the opponent’s position by play on both wings, and to sacrifice material to divert crucial defensive pieces. 2) When facing a massive sacrificial attack, keep calm and try to find ways to interfere with the smooth operation of the attacking pieces – this may mean striking at the reinforcements, rather than the advanced units. 3) A queen on an open board can overpower a large number of uncoordinated pieces, especially if one of them is a king.} 1-0

White to Play - Mate in 2!

William Steinitz X Emanuel Lasker - St Petersburg 1895/96

[Event "St Petersburg 1895/96"] [Site "St Petersburg"] [Date "1896.??.??"] [Round "4"] [White "Steinitz, William"] [Black "Lasker, Emanuel"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "D35"] [WhiteElo "2590"] [BlackElo "2640"] [Annotator ""] [PlyCount "65"] [EventDate "1895.12.13"] [EventType "tourn"] [EventRounds "18"] [EventCountry "RUS"] [EventCategory "15"] {The Players Wilhelm Steinitz (1836-1900) was the first official World Champion, a title he received after defeating Zukertort in New Orleans in 1886. Despite actually being one year older than Paul Morphy, Steinitz really belonged to the next generation of chess players. By the time Steinitz was beginning to dedicate himself seriously to the game, in 1862, Morphy’s chess career was already finished. After a few years living in Vienna, Steinitz came to England, and it was there that he developed his positional style, which contrasted with Anderssen’s wholly combinative play. Steinitz’s importance was not just as a player of the game. He was also a profound thinker and teacher and became the most prolific chess writer of the nineteenth century. Unlike Philidor, who also advocated a positional approach to chess, Steinitz was able to persuade the world of its absolute importance. He was undoubtedly helped in this respect by his excellent results using his deep concepts of positional play. Emanuel Lasker (1868-1941) is one of the most famous chess players of all time. As a youngster Lasker showed incredible talent at both chess and mathematics and he fulfilled his potential in both fields. Lasker defeated Steinitz to become World Champion in 1894, a title he was to hold for twentyseven years, which is still a record. Despite his victory over Steinitz, the chess world remained unimpressed, chiefly as the former World Champion was 32 years older than Lasker and his health was declining. Lasker, however, was still improving. In 1896 he proved his worth without doubt by winning four successive major events, including the St Petersburg tournament. Lasker continued to have excellent results, before beating Steinitz in a return match in 1896/7. During his chess career he still found time to pursue his mathematical studies, and in 1900 he was awarded his doctorate at Erlangen University. In chess Lasker was an exceptional tactician, but more than anything he was an immensely resourceful fighter. On countless occasions he was able to turn inferior positions to his advantage and his defensive qualities were without equal. The Game Steinitz introduces a new concept in a well-worn opening, which presents Lasker with some early difficulties. Lasker reacts badly to the new circumstances and leaves the opening with clear disadvantage. Steinitz then plays the rest of the game in an accurate and imaginative fashion, never once letting Lasker use his renowned fighting abilities. Faced with problem after problem, the new World Champion finally breaks and Steinitz’s relentless attack reaps the reward his ingenious play deserves.} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bf4 {These days 4. Bf4 is very uncommon, since it has been shown that the active 4...c5 offers Black a problem-free position. If White is intent on playing Bf4 lines, he tends first to play 4. Nf3 and only after 4...Be7 does he commit the bishop to f4.} Be7 5. e3 O-O 6. c5 $5 {Even the great Lasker underestimated the danger of White's clamp on the queenside. Only 90 years later Black found the right way to create counterchances, in the game Lerner-Geller: 6...b6 7.b4...} Ne4 $6 { Kasparov: 'Of course Lasker doesn't wait for the realisation of White's plan. But his attempt to organize counterplay in the centre plays directly into Steinitz' hand.'} (6... b6 $1 7. b4 a5 8. a3 axb4 9. axb4 Rxa1 10. Qxa1 Nc6 11. Qa4 bxc5 $3 12. Qxc6 cxd4 {with a dangerous initiative for the sacrificed piece.}) 7. Nxe4 dxe4 8. Qc2 f5 9. Bc4 Nc6 10. a3 {Kasparov: 'preventing Nb4-d5, and also keeping the bishop on an important diagonal after Na5, Ba2.'} Bf6 11. O-O-O $1 {A concrete decision: White's advance on the queenside will be met by e6-e5, which is why Steinitz changes direction, preparing an attack against the weakened black centre and potentially on the kingside.} Kh8 (11... b6 $2 12. d5 $1 {leads to a disaster.}) 12. f3 Qe7 $1 {Not surprisingly Lasker begins to fight hard in what can only be described as a miserable position.} 13. Bg3 $1 {refusing the pawn sacrifice that would give Black an initiative:} ( 13. fxe4 $2 e5 14. dxe5 Nxe5) 13... f4 $6 {Very typical for Lasker - by complicating dubious positions he won many great games. Now he hoped for 14. Bxf4...} 14. Qxe4 $3 {This brilliant piece sacrifice kills Black’s attempt at snatching the initiative. Lasker was once more hoping that White would grab the offered pawn.} (14. Bxf4 $2 e5 15. dxe5 Nxe5 16. Qxe4 Bf5 $1 17. Qxf5 Nxc4 {winning. But on that day Steinitz was invincible!}) 14... fxg3 15. hxg3 { Kasparov: 'White has gained only two pawns for the piece, but his initiative will encounter no more obstacles.'} g6 {Kasparov: 'Giving up the third pawn Lasker hopes to use the g-file for defence. After the obvious '} (15... g5 16. f4 g4 17. Ne2 Bd7 (17... Rf7 18. Qc2 b6 19. e4 Bg7 20. e5 h6 21. Qg6 Qe8 22. Bd3 {Kasparov-Fritz}) 18. Qc2 {followed by e3-e4-e5 Black would die without a breath.}) 16. Qxg6 Bd7 (16... Rg8 17. Qe4 Rxg3 {would bring the white knight into the attack:} 18. Ne2 Rg7 19. Nf4) 17. f4 Rf7 $2 {After this mistake Black's game is finally doomed.} (17... Rg8 {would offer solid resistance, although White's pressure remains very unpleasant.} 18. Qe4 Rxg3 19. Ne2 Rg7 20. Rh6 {followed by Rdh1.}) 18. g4 Rg7 ({If} 18... Rg8 {then} 19. Qh5 { and g4-g5. Now 19.Qh5 allows Black to defend with Bd7-e8-g6, but...}) 19. Qh6 $1 Rxg4 20. Bd3 Rg7 (20... Rh4 21. Rxh4 Bxh4 22. Nf3 Bf2 23. Rh1 Bxe3+ 24. Kb1 {winning.}) 21. Nf3 Qf7 22. g4 $1 {The White attack rolls by itself.} Rag8 23. g5 Bd8 24. Rh2 $1 {The disaster on h7 is unavoidable. The rest is simply.} Rg6 25. Qh5 $1 R6g7 26. Rdh1 $1 Qxh5 27. Rxh5 Rf8 28. Rxh7+ Rxh7 (28... Kg8 29. Rxg7+ Kxg7 30. Rh7+) 29. Rxh7+ Kg8 30. Rxd7 Rf7 31. Bc4 Rxd7 32. Bxe6+ Rf7 33. g6 {The mindpower and energy shown in this game by the 59-year-old Steinitz deserves the greatest admiration. Lessons from this game: 1) Always be careful to study carefully the consequences before allowing your pawn structure to change. Lasker hoped that he would gain enough activity to counterbalance his compromised structure after 6...Ne4, but was proved wrong by Steinitz’s imaginative play. 2) If your opponent shocks you in the opening (as in this case with 6. c5), don’t panic into moving quickly. Take a deep breath and try to weigh up the novel idea in objective fashion. In most cases you’ll find that the new move is not any better than its predecessors and that its main strength is indeed its surprise value. 3) It is often worth giving up material to kill off any chances of counterplay. This is shown with great effect by Steinitz’s 13. Bg3! and 14. Qxe4!. With absolutely no attacking chances to relieve the purely defensive task at hand, even great fighters such as Lasker are going to make mistakes.} 1-0

PORTIELJE Gérard (1856 – 1929)

White to Play - Mate in 2!

Harry Nelson Pillsbury X Emanuel Lasker - St Petersburg 1895

[Event "St Petersburg 1895/96"] [Site "St Petersburg"] [Date "1895.??.??"] [Round "4"] [White "Pillsbury, Harry Nelson"] [Black "Lasker, Emanuel"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "D50"] [WhiteElo "2630"] [BlackElo "2640"] [Annotator ""] [PlyCount "64"] [EventDate "1895.12.13"] [EventType "tourn"] [EventRounds "18"] [EventCountry "RUS"] [EventCategory "15"] {The Players Harry Nelson Pillsbury (1872-1906) shot to fame when he won his first major tournament. No one had ever done this before and only Capablanca later achieved a success of a similar magnitude in his international debut. Although considered merely an outside bet for the first Hastings International in 1895, Pillsbury produced some magnificent chess, scoring fifteen wins, three draws and only three losses. He came first, ahead of Steinitz, Chigorin, Tarrasch and the reigning World Champion Lasker. This result catapulted Pillsbury to the top of the chess world, and his exceptional form continued in the first half of the St Petersburg Tournament, a round-robin tournament with Lasker, Steinitz and Chigorin (six games against each). After nine rounds Pillsbury was a clear leader with 6½ points. However, Pillsbury’s play mysteriously collapsed in the second half, when he could muster only 1½ points, leaving him in third place behind Lasker and Steinitz. Pillsbury also caught syphilis at St Petersburg, which plagued him through the rest of his career and led to his premature death. Emanuel Lasker (1868-1941) is one of the most famous chess players of all time. As a youngster Lasker showed incredible talent at both chess and mathematics and he fulfilled his potential in both fields. Lasker defeated Steinitz to become World Champion in 1894, a title he was to hold for twentyseven years, which is still a record. Despite his victory over Steinitz, the chess world remained unimpressed, chiefly as the former World Champion was 32 years older than Lasker and his health was declining. Lasker, however, was still improving. In 1896 he proved his worth without doubt by winning four successive major events, including the St Petersburg tournament. Lasker continued to have excellent results, before beating Steinitz in a return match in 1896/7. During his chess career he still found time to pursue his mathematical studies, and in 1900 he was awarded his doctorate at Erlangen University. In chess Lasker was an exceptional tactician, but more than anything he was an immensely resourceful fighter. On countless occasions he was able to turn inferior positions to his advantage and his defensive qualities were without equal. The Game Lasker gets away with some provocative opening play to reach a very comfortable position with the black pieces. Undaunted, Pillsbury continues to plough ahead with a crude attack, but is rocked on his heels by a clever rook sacrifice from Lasker. Fighting hard, Pillsbury offloads some material to set up a defence, but at the vital moment, he misses the best line and allows Lasker to sacrifice again. This time there is no defence.} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c5 5. Bg5 cxd4 6. Qxd4 Nc6 7. Qh4 Be7 8. O-O-O Qa5 9. e3 Bd7 10. Kb1 h6 11. cxd5 exd5 12. Nd4 O-O 13. Bxf6 (13. Bxh6 $2 Ne4 $1 $19) 13... Bxf6 14. Qh5 Nxd4 15. exd4 Be6 16. f4 Rac8 17. f5 {Kasparov: 'As you can see, both opponents were in a real fighting mood. After the "normal" 17...Bd7 18.Qf3 the position remains double-edged. But here Lasker unleashes a beautiful, deeply calculated combination that any great player of today would be proud to have found.'} Rxc3 $3 {This move is the start of some real cut-and-thrust, where neither side is willing to go on the defensive. Of course 17...Bd7 is possible, but that’s another, less exciting story.} 18. fxe6 $1 ({Grabbing the rook leads to a catastrophe on the queenside for White. After} 18. bxc3 Rc8 $1 19. fxe6 Qxc3 $19 {White cannot defend against the many mating threats.}) 18... Ra3 $3 { Kasparov: 'This paradoxical rook sacrifice drives White's king out into the fight, where he will meet his destiny.'} 19. exf7+ {Kasparov: 'Lasker's ingenious idea proved to be correct in all variations:'} (19. bxa3 Qb6+ 20. Ka1 (20. Kc2 Rc8+ 21. Kd2 Qxd4+ 22. Ke1 (22. Bd3 Rc2+ $3 23. Kxc2 Qb2#) 22... Qc3+ 23. Ke2 Qc2+ 24. Rd2 (24. Ke3 Bg5+) 24... Qe4+ 25. Kf2 Bd4+ 26. Kg3 Rc3+ {etc.} ) 20... Bxd4+ 21. Rxd4 Qxd4+ 22. Kb1 fxe6 23. Be2 Qe4+ 24. Ka1 Rf2 {with a decisive attack}) (19. e7 $5 {looks stronger, but it doesn't break the co-ordination of Black's pieces:} Re8 $1 (19... Rc8 $4 20. Qf5 $1 {and the queen comes back to the defence}) 20. bxa3 Qb6+ 21. Kc2 Rc8+ 22. Kd2 Bxd4 { and after this deadly quiet move White is defenceless,} 23. Ke2 Qe6+ 24. Kf3 Qe3+ 25. Kg4 g6 $1 26. Qxd5 h5+ {with mate to follow. It would be interesting to know whether a computer can come close to executing such a great combination.}) 19... Rxf7 20. bxa3 Qb6+ 21. Bb5 $1 {Kasparov: 'The best chance. '} (21. Ka1 Bxd4+) (21. Kc2 Rc7+ {both lose as above.}) 21... Qxb5+ 22. Ka1 Rc7 $2 {Kasparov: 'A pity. After spending so much energy and creativity to reach this position Lasker, under heavy time pressure, misses the simple win''} ( 22... Qc4 23. Qg4 Re7 $1 {threatening Re4 and Re2,} 24. Rhe1 Bxd4+ 25. Qxd4 Rxe1 26. Qxc4 (26. Qd2 Rxd1+ 27. Qxd1) 26... Rxd1+) 23. Rd2 Rc4 {Another vital moment has arisen. Black threatens both 24...Bxd4+ and 24... Rxd4, with the added idea of doubling the major pieces on the c-file. White has to decide between active and passive defence, and it is by no means an easy choice.} 24. Rhd1 $2 {Kasparov: 'Losing again.'} (24. Re1 $1 {would lead to a nice draw:} Qa5 $1 25. Re8+ Kh7 26. Qf5+ g6 27. Re7+ $3 (27. Qxf6 $4 Rc1+ 28. Kb2 Qc3#) 27... Bxe7 28. Qf7+ Kh8 29. Qe8+ Kg7 30. Qxe7+ {with perpetual check.}) 24... Rc3 $2 {Kasparov: 'A very serious mistake that could change everything dramatically'} (24... Qc6 $1 {gives Black an easy win}) 25. Qf5 (25. Re1 $1 { was more energetic, forcing Black to retrea} Rc8 {and White has a clear advantage.}) 25... Qc4 26. Kb2 $2 {Kasparov: 'Lasker's time trouble is making Pillsbury nervous! He feels that his opponent has lost the thread of the game, but he himself cannot keep up with the pace.'} (26. Kb1 $1 {would pose serious problems for Black,} Rxa3 27. Rc1 $1 {and chess history would have gone a different route.}) 26... Rxa3 $3 {Kasparov: 'In the magical world of chess lightening can hit the same place twice! I wonder if Pillsbury could believe his eyes - here the horror comes again!'} 27. Qe6+ Kh7 28. Kxa3 $4 {Kasparov: 'Exhausted by the black hurricane Pillsbury succumbs to a mating threat.'} (28. Kb1 {was also losing} Bxd4 $1 29. Qf5+ g6 $1 30. Qd7+ Bg7 {but the immediate}) ({aber sofortiges} 28. Qf5+ $1 {would have saved half a point:} Kh8 29. Kb1 $1 Rxa2 $1 (29... Bxd4 30. Qf8+ Kh7 31. Qxa3) 30. Rxa2 Qb3+ 31. Kc1 Bg5+ (31... Qxa2 32. Qc8+ Kh7 33. Qc2+) 32. Rad2 Qc3+ 33. Qc2 Qa1+ 34. Qb1 Qc3+ {and draw.} ) 28... Qc3+ 29. Ka4 b5+ $1 {Kasparov: 'The final touch. '} 30. Kxb5 Qc4+ 31. Ka5 Bd8+ 32. Qb6 Bxb6# {mate ended this fascinating human drama. "Too many mistakes" you say? Please don't rush to write off this game. Remember its unique historical importance! That day Caissa chose Lasker, and as we know today, the chess goddess did not err. Her cruel decision marked a fork in the lives of both players. Lasker, inspired by this victory, won the tournament convincingly. Later that year he crushed Steinitz in a rematch and kept his title for 25 more years! Pillsbury, after the above disaster, collapsed and lost five games out of the remaining eight, ending up third behind Steinitz. He never achieved the same peak of playing strength as in that magnificent year and died eight years later at the age of 34. Who know how often Harry Nelson Pillsbury remembered that traumatic day in St. Petersburg and the chances he had missed - chances that would have changed his entire life and the course of chess history. Lessons from this game: 1) Study your own games! Despite being on the wrong end of a brilliancy here, Pillsbury didn’t just erase the game from his memory. He looked long and hard for an improvement and was ready to unleash 7. Bxf6! next time around. 2) Often attack is the best form of defence. Instead of passive resistance, the more active 24. Re1 or 25. Re1 would have saved White. 3) Sacrificing two rooks, followed by driving the king up the board to checkmate, is a pleasing way to win!} 0-1

White to Play - Mate in 2!

William Steinitz X Curt Von Bardeleben - Hastings 1895

[Event "Hastings"] [Site "Hastings"] [Date "1895.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Steinitz, William"] [Black "Von Bardeleben, Curt"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C54"] [WhiteElo "2590"] [BlackElo "2510"] [Annotator ""] [PlyCount "69"] [EventDate "1895.??.??"] [EventType "tourn"] [EventRounds "21"] [EventCountry "ENG"] {The Players Wilhelm Steinitz (1836-1900) was the first official World Champion, a title he received after defeating Zukertort in New Orleans in 1886. Despite actually being one year older than Paul Morphy, Steinitz really belonged to the next generation of chess players. By the time Steinitz was beginning to dedicate himself seriously to the game, in 1862, Morphy’s chess career was already finished. After a few years living in Vienna, Steinitz came to England, and it was there that he developed his positional style, which contrasted with Anderssen’s wholly combinative play. Steinitz’s importance was not just as a player of the game. He was also a profound thinker and teacher and became the most prolific chess writer of the nineteenth century. Unlike Philidor, who also advocated a positional approach to chess, Steinitz was able to persuade the world of its absolute importance. He was undoubtedly helped in this respect by his excellent results using his deep concepts of positional play. Curt von Bardeleben (1861–1924) was born in Berlin. He studied law but never practised, finding the lure of the chessboard too strong to resist. He was undoubtedly an extremely talented player, capable of first-class results, but his temperament was unsuited to the hurly-burly of tough competitive play, with its inevitable setbacks. His standard of play would fall substantially after a disappointing loss, and he would sometimes withdraw from an event altogether. The Game For both players this was a turning point in the tournament. Steinitz had begun poorly, but starting with this game rallied to a respectable fifth place, whereas for von Bardeleben, who had the tremendous score of 7½/9 up to that point, it marked the start of a collapse. Steinitz plays a rather simple opening, common nowadays only at club level for its trappiness, but rare at top level because it brings matters to a premature crisis. However, von Bardeleben avoids the main lines, and lands in a position where structurally he is doing well, but his king is stranded in the centre. After a trade of inaccuracies, Steinitz plays an excellent pawn sacrifice to bring his knight into the attack. The finish is highly dramatic. It appears that Steinitz has over-reached, as Black finds a cunning defence based on White’s back rank. However, this illusion is washed away by a staggering series of rook offers. This opens up a route for the white queen to come into the attack and bring about a beautiful mating finish. } 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 {This move characterizes the Giuoco Piano. The name means “Quiet Game”, and seems rather inappropriate given the stormy events to come. However, when it received its name, the standard opening was the King’s Gambit, and in comparison it is relatively “quiet”.} 4. c3 {Instead 4. d3, or 5. d3 on the next move, would bring about the Giuoco Pianissimo. This is actually the modern preference, with White keeping open many plans, including queenside expansion with b4, play in the centre, and kingside activity, often involving the manoeuvre Nbd2-f1-g3. Note that 4. d3 followed by Nc3 is a deadly dull system that tends to be seen a lot in schools’ chess.} Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 {White has set up an “ideal” pawn-centre, but he is unable to maintain it. Another logical attempt to achieve central dominance, 6. e5, is met by the thematic central thrust 6...d5!, assuring Black his full share of the play. Anyone who defends symmetrical king’s pawn openings absolutely must know this idea.} Bb4+ 7. Nc3 $5 (7. Bd2 $1 Bxd2+ 8. Nbxd2 d5 $1 {breaks up White’s pawn-centre, and gives Black a completely acceptable position.}) 7... d5 $2 {Now, however, this move causes White rather less inconvenience. The key difference from the line in the previous note is that White retains his dark-squared bishop, and this greatly enhances his attacking prospects in the open position that now arises.} (7... Nxe4 $142 $1 8. O-O Bxc3 9. bxc3 d5 {Steinitz-Schlechter/Hastings/1895}) 8. exd5 Nxd5 9. O-O Be6 (9... Nxc3 10. bxc3 Bxc3 11. Bxf7+ Kf8 12. Qb3 Bxa1 13. Ba3+ Ne7 14. Re1 $40 {+-}) (9... Bxc3 10. bxc3 Nxc3 11. Qb3 $40 {+/-}) 10. Bg5 Be7 (10... Qd7 11. Bxd5 Bxd5 12. Re1+ Be7 13. Nxd5 {Wins a tempo.}) 11. Bxd5 $1 Bxd5 12. Nxd5 (12. Bxe7 Nxe7 13. Re1 O-O 14. Rxe7 $2 {Zaitsev} Qxe7 $2 (14... Bxf3 $1 $17 {Fritz2}) 15. Nxd5) 12... Qxd5 13. Bxe7 Nxe7 (13... Kxe7 14. Rc1 Rhe8 (14... Kd7 15. Qa4 $40) 15. Rc5 Qd6 16. Qc1 (16. Qc2 $5)) 14. Re1 f6 15. Qe2 (15. Qa4+ $1 $16) 15... Qd7 (15... Qd6 $2 16. Qb5+ Qc6 17. Qb4 Qd6 18. Qxb7 ) 16. Rac1 $6 (16. Rad1 $1 {Zaitsev} Kf7 17. Qc4+ Nd5 18. Ne5+ fxe5 19. dxe5 $18) 16... c6 $2 {Black underestimates the forthcoming square-vacating pawn sacrifice.} (16... Kf7 $1 {Black can save the game.} 17. Qxe7+ $2 (17. Qc4+ Nd5 ) 17... Qxe7 18. Rxe7+ Kxe7 19. Rxc7+ Kd6 20. Rxb7 Rhb8 21. Rxg7 (21. Rxb8 Rxb8 22. b3 Kd5 $15) 21... Rxb2 22. h3 Rxa2 $44) (16... Kf8) (16... Kd8) 17. d5 $3 { This excellent pawn sacrifice suddenly enlivens the struggle.} cxd5 (17... Kf7 18. dxc6 Nxc6 19. Rcd1 $40) 18. Nd4 Kf7 19. Ne6 {ChessBase: '/\ 20.Rc7'} Rhc8 ( 19... Rac8 20. Qg4) (19... Nc6 20. Nc5 Qc8 21. Qb5 Rb8 (21... Nd8 22. Nd7 Nc6 23. Qxd5+ Kg6 24. g4 $40) 22. Na6 Ra8 (22... bxa6 23. Qxd5+) 23. Qxd5+ Kg6 24. Nc5 Rd8 25. Qe4+ f5 26. Qh4 $40) 20. Qg4 $1 g6 21. Ng5+ Ke8 (21... fxg5 $4 22. Qxd7 $18) 22. Rxe7+ $1 {Starting one of the most famous sacrificial sequences in chess history. The rook cannot be taken, but Black has a cunning defensive idea.} Kf8 (22... Qxe7 23. Rxc8+ Rxc8 24. Qxc8+ $18) (22... Kxe7 23. Re1+ Kd6 24. Qb4+ Rc5 (24... Kc6 25. Rc1#) (24... Kc7 25. Ne6+ Kb8 26. Qf4+ $18) 25. Ne4+ $18) 23. Rf7+ $1 (23. Qxd7 $4 Rxc1+ $19) 23... Kg8 $1 (23... Qxf7 24. Rxc8+ Rxc8 25. Qxc8+ Qe8 26. Nxh7+ $18) 24. Rg7+ $1 Kh8 $1 (24... Kf8 25. Nxh7+ Kxg7 26. Qxd7+ $18) 25. Rxh7+ {Von Bardeleben now saw the spectacular finish that awaited him, and elected to “resign” by simply leaving the tournament hall and not coming back. Obviously, this is rather poor sportsmanship. After this devastating loss he even wanted to withdraw from the tournament. Ironically, this game is now virtually the only thing he is remembered for – perhaps the idea of gaining immortality as the loser of a game is what upset him so much.} Kg8 26. Rg7+ Kh8 27. Qh4+ Kxg7 28. Qh7+ Kf8 29. Qh8+ Ke7 30. Qg7+ Ke8 31. Qg8+ Ke7 32. Qf7+ Kd8 33. Qf8+ Qe8 34. Nf7+ Kd7 35. Qd6# {. Lessons from this game: 1) If the opponent allows you to win a centre pawn, take it unless there is a very good reason not to. 2) It can be well worth sacrificing a pawn to gain a superb square for a piece, particularly if it is near the enemy king. 3) Try not to be too upset by a loss. Setbacks are inevitable, and it is most useful (though not necessarily very easy) to view each as a learning experience.} 1-0

White to Play - Mate in 2!

William Steinitz X Mikhail Chigorin - Havana 1892

[Event "World Championship 4th"] [Site "Havana"] [Date "1892.01.07"] [Round "4"] [White "Steinitz, William"] [Black "Chigorin, Mikhail"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C65"] [WhiteElo "2590"] [BlackElo "2600"] [Annotator "Pritchett"] [PlyCount "55"] [EventDate "1892.01.01"] [EventType "match"] [EventRounds "23"] [EventCountry "CUB"] [SourceTitle ""] [Source ""] [SourceDate ""] [SourceVersion "1"] [SourceVersionDate ""] [SourceQuality "1"] {[%evp 13,55,-13,29,-21,11,-50,6,-19,24,-32,34,23,75,66,113,75,130,126,108,80, 137,85,142,61,159,132,182,27,232,243,236,214,242,223,29993,29994,29994,29995, 29996,29997,29997,29998,29998,29999] C65: Ruy Lopez: Berlin Defence (3...Nf6), unusual lines and 4 0-0 Bc5} {The Players Wilhelm Steinitz (1836–1900) was the first official World Champion, a title he received after defeating Zukertort in New Orleans in 1886. Despite actually being one year older than Paul Morphy, Steinitz really belonged to the next generation of chess players. By the time Steinitz was beginning to dedicate himself seriously to the game, in 1862, Morphy’s chess career was already finished. After a few years living in Vienna, Steinitz came to England, and it was there that he developed his positional style, which contrasted with Anderssen’s wholly combinative play. Steinitz’s importance was not just as a player of the game. He was also a profound thinker and teacher and became the most prolific chess writer of the nineteenth century. Unlike Philidor, who also advocated a positional approach to chess, Steinitz was able to persuade the world of its absolute importance. He was undoubtedly helped in this respect by his excellent results using his deep concepts of positional play. Mikhail Chigorin (1850–1908) was one of the world’s leading players towards the end of the nineteenth century. He twice challenged Steinitz for the world championship, in 1889 and 1892, but lost on both occasions, although the second match (+8 =5 –10) was close. Like many of his contemporaries, he was an exceptional tactician and he was also renowned for his imaginative approach to the opening, which is shown in his surprising invention against the Queen’s Gambit (1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nc6). At Vienna in 1903, where everyone was forced to play the King’s Gambit Accepted, Chigorin won with ease, ahead of Pillsbury, Maroczy and Marshall. He also did much to develop chess activity in Russia, forming a chess club in St Petersburg and lecturing in many other cities. The Game After some peaceful opening play, Steinitz totally bewilders his distinguished opponent with some high-class manoeuvring. Not realizing the danger, Chigorin procrastinates over the right plan and is punished when Steinitz suddenly lashes out on the kingside with his h-pawn. Facing a sudden change in tempo, Chigorin is unable to cope and he finally falls prey to an irresistible attack on his king. Steinitz finishes with quite a flourish as an exquisite rook sacrifice rounds off some extremely subtle play.} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d3 d6 5. c3 g6 {Black can either fianchetto his king's bishop or play it to e7. Steinitz, however, noted that whether the bishop stands on g7 or e7, it will still remain a little more restricted by Black's own d6/e5 pawn centre than its white counterpart, which remains outside its own pawns.} 6. Nbd2 Bg7 7. Nf1 { By delaying castling, White is able to execute the classic Lopez knight manoeuvre. This knight can now emerge at either g3 or, on this occasion, e3 where it has a substantial influence over the centre. That said, Steinitz’s plan is a little bit too elaborate to give hope of a real advantage.} O-O { LiveBook: 46 Games} (7... a6 $142 8. Bxc6+ bxc6) 8. Ba4 {Chigorin probably scratched his head at this novelty. Why retreat the bishop unprovoked? In fact the move plays a key part in White's middlegame plans. White's main aim is to retain this bishop, which has excellent attacking potential. By retreating the bishop, Steinitz anticipates threats to force its exchange by ...Bd7 and ... Na5. From a4, White's bishop can easily slip back to useful posts – on b3, or possibly c2 – to avoid this.} (8. Ng3 $142 Bd7 9. Ba4 Re8 (9... Qe8 10. O-O Kh8 11. Re1 Ng8 12. Bc2 Nge7 13. d4 Bg4 14. d5 Nb8 15. h3 Bd7 16. Nh2 Na6 17. f4 f5 18. exf5 exf4 19. Bxf4 Qf7 20. Nf3 Nxf5 21. Ng5 Qg8 22. Ne6 Bxe6 23. dxe6 Nd4 24. Bxd6 {Stany,G (2485)-Anurag,M (2423) Roquetas de Mar 2017 1/2-1/2 (42)}) 10. O-O a5 11. Bg5 h6 12. Bd2 d5 13. exd5 Nxd5 14. Ne4 Nce7 15. Re1 Bxa4 16. Qxa4 Nb6 17. Qc2 Nc6 18. Rad1 Nd5 19. Bc1 b6 20. Ng3 Qd7 21. h4 Rad8 22. h5 g5 23. d4 {Gobet,F (2355)-Spassky,B (2605) Fribourg 1987 0-1 (46)}) 8... Nd7 $146 {Had Chigorin spotted White's surprise 11th move, which rudely pulls the positional rug away from Black, but was hard to foresee, he might not have played this way. Black plans ...Nc5-e6, with good central control, and ... f7-f5 or ...d6-d5 to follow, after suitable preparation in the middlegame.The position is equal.} (8... d5 9. Qe2 Qd6 10. Bb3 (10. Bc2 b6 11. Ng3 Ba6 12. O-O dxe4 13. Nxe4 Nxe4 14. Qxe4 Bb7 15. Qh4 Ne7 16. Ng5 h6 17. Ne4 Qd7 18. Bxh6 Nf5 19. Qh3 Bxe4 20. dxe4 Bxh6 21. Rad1 Qc8 22. exf5 Kg7 23. f6+ Kh7 24. Rd7 Qe8 { Steinitz,W-Chigorin,M Havana 1892 1-0 (33)}) 10... Be6 11. Ng3 Nd7 12. Ng5 d4 13. O-O Nc5 14. f4 exf4 15. Bxf4 Qe7 16. Bd2 dxc3 17. bxc3 Bxc3 18. Bxc3 Qxg5 19. Bf6 Qh6 20. Rf4 Qxf4 21. Rf1 Qd6 22. Qd2 Nd7 23. Nh5 {Crane,B-Wallace,A Sydney 1893 0-1}) 9. Ne3 (9. h4 $11) 9... Nc5 (9... f5 $15) 10. Bc2 $11 Ne6 ( 10... a5 {should be considered.}) 11. h4 $1 {Steinitz's sharp h-file thrust completely undermines Black's intended strategy. With his subtle feel for any sort of time and structural weakness, Steinitz exploits a momentary opportunity to get h4-h5 in and open the h-file. Nowadays we are much more used to such attacking ideas, but in Steinitz's day he blazed new paths. This is no "indiscriminate" attack against the king. White "attacks" to weaken and diminish the potential of Black's kingside pawns.} (11. O-O $11) {Commenting after the game on his aggressive 11th move, Steinitz is said to have good-humouredly replied, "I'm not usually a dangerous attacker early in the game, but I spotted a weakness on my opponent's kingside, and no one should provoke me, even at my age, or I'll bite."} 11... Ne7 (11... h5 $15) 12. h5 $1 $14 d5 (12... c6 $1 $11 {remains equal.}) 13. hxg6 fxg6 $2 {No doubt at least partly in shock at the unexpected turn of events in the last few moves, Chigorin fails to readjust and turns a poor position into one that is critical. By recapturing away from the centre, he allows White to isolate his e-pawn and dominate the central light squares with considerable long-term attacking potential, not least on the vulnerable a2-g8 diagonal.} (13... hxg6 $14 { is more appropriate.} 14. Ng4 dxe4 15. dxe4 Qxd1+ 16. Bxd1 Nc6) 14. exd5 $1 $16 Nxd5 (14... Nf4 $142) 15. Nxd5 Qxd5 16. Bb3 Qc6 17. Qe2 (17. d4 $142 {Black must now prevent d5.} exd4 18. cxd4) 17... Bd7 $5 {Chigorin may have expected to obtain more counterplay than is actually in the position. Even though Black's pieces are all apparently well developed, he is hamstrung by his own structural weaknesses. White's king is clearly heading for the queenside, but it remains remarkably hard for Black to make anything other than gestures on that flank without his own game collapsing elsewhere.} (17... a5 $142) 18. Be3 {White's bishop is very well placed on e3 to support an eventual d3-d4 pawn break and to ensure that d3 is well protected after queenside castling. Note that Black can rarely hope to achieve anything by playing ...Nf4 in these positions, as White can simply retreat his queen to f1 and then eventually eject Black's knight by preparing a suitably well-timed g2-g3.} (18. Nxe5 $16 Qxg2 19. Rf1) 18... Kh8 ({Black should try} 18... a5 $1 $14) 19. O-O-O $1 Rae8 {[#]} 20. Qf1 $1 {We can sympathize with Chigorin to the extent that it couldn't have been easy to foresee that such a modest retreat by White's queen could prove so decisive. But it is! Black's development still has a deceptively active look about it, but by quietly removing the queen from the indirect fire of Black's rook on e8, White threatens mayhem, not just in the centre by playing d3-d4, but also, as we shall see, on the h-file. It must indeed have seemed quite extraordinary to many in the 1890s that White should be able to build up such devastating attacking force with all of his pieces and pawns developed no further forward than on his first three ranks. But after exchanges on d4, White's pressure on the a2-g8 diagonal, dominance on the h- and d-files, and opportunity to exploit the weakened dark squares around Black's king, all come together in a riotous king-hunt.} ({Worse is} 20. Bxa7 Nd4 $15) (20. Qd2 $1 $18) 20... a5 $2 {[#]} (20... h5 $11) 21. d4 $1 $18 { [%cal Rd4d5]} exd4 22. Nxd4 Bxd4 23. Rxd4 ({Not} 23. Bxd4+ Nxd4 24. Rxd4 Re7 $11) 23... Nxd4 $2 {[#] Chigorin presumably allowed Steinitz to cap his strategic masterpiece with its justly famous sacrificial finish.} (23... Rf7 $18 24. Rh6 Rg7) 24. Rxh7+ $1 {[%mdl 512] White mates.} Kxh7 25. Qh1+ Kg7 26. Bh6+ Kf6 27. Qh4+ Ke5 28. Qxd4+ {Accuracy: White = 45%, Black = 8%.} 1-0

White to Play - Mate in 2!

Johannes Hermann Zukertort X Joseph Henry Blackburne - London 1883

[Event "London Wch 16"] [Site "London"] [Date "1883.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Zukertort, Johannes Hermann"] [Black "Blackburne, Joseph Henry"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "A13"] [WhiteElo "2600"] [BlackElo "2570"] [Annotator "Kasparov,G"] [PlyCount "65"] [EventDate "1883.??.??"] [EventType "tourn"] [EventCountry "ENG"] [SourceTitle ""] [Source ""] [SourceDate ""] [SourceVersion "2"] [SourceVersionDate ""] [SourceQuality ""] {The Players Johann Zukertort (1842–88) was a Polish-born player, who for many years was considered second only to Wilhelm Steinitz in the chess world. In 1861 he enrolled in the faculty of medicine at Breslau University. Rather than attending lectures, however, Zukertort spent most of his waking hours playing chess, including many friendly games against Anderssen, and he was finally struck from the university register due to non-attendance. Zukertort gradually built up his reputation as a chess player, and this was enhanced when a match of off-hand games ended in a 5–2 victory over Anderssen in 1871. He arrived in London in 1872, and spent the rest of his life there as a professional player. Many successes in tournaments and match-play followed, including first place at the 1883 London Tournament, ahead of all the world’s best, including Steinitz. His triumphs were rewarded with a battle against Steinitz in New Orleans in 1886, which has been recognized as the first official World Championship match. Steinitz won by the score of +10 =5 –5. Joseph Blackburne (1841–1924) was for many years the leading English chess player, as well as being one of the world’s best. Inspired by Paul Morphy’s brief but explosive accomplishments in Europe, the eighteen-year-old from Manchester decided to learn the game. He proved to be an excellent student. After spending much of the 1860s developing his game, he made his breakthrough by winning the British Championship in 1868, and following this he became a full-time professional player. Blackburne’s excellent results were helped by his brilliant combinative powers, his ability to create awesome kingside attacks, plus his knack of producing swindles from seemingly lost positions. The tournament book of Vienna 1873 called him “der schwarze Tod” (The Black Death), a nickname that has stuck ever since. The Game A deceptively quiet opening and a strategic middlegame give us no warning of the fireworks that eventually decide this battle. Blackburne starts off well, but then makes a minor slip, which Zukertort immediately exploits. The rest of the game is played to perfection by the Polish player, who builds up impressively on the kingside. When the position finally opens up, Blackburne appears to be fighting back strongly, but Zukertort’s concept turns out to have hidden depth, and he wins by a spectacular combination. Look out in particular for White’s sensational 28th move.} 1. c4 e6 2. e3 {Zukertort plays the early part of the game in a very innocuous way indeed, allowing Black to reach a comfortable position with no effort at all. Later on Richard Réti was to develop a more potent, “hypermodern” method of development against 1...e6, involving a fianchetto of the king’s bishop. At this particular moment, however, the theory of flank openings had not really developed at all.} Nf6 3. Nf3 b6 4. Be2 Bb7 5. O-O d5 6. d4 Bd6 7. Nc3 O-O 8. b3 Nbd7 9. Bb2 Qe7 $6 {After some effective opening play, Black now starts to drift. There are two basic pawn breaks for Black in this position, namely ... c7-c5 and ...e6-e5. Both advances will lead to pawn exchanges and thus an opening of the position. With 9...Qe7 Black connects his rooks and keeps his options open on which advance to make, but forgets one vital factor, the generalization that “in open positions bishops are better than knights”. For this reason Black should take one move out to preserve his d6-bishop. Only after 9...a6! can Black safely continue with such moves as ...Qe7, ...Rad8, ... dxc4 and ...e5 (or ...c5). Needless to say, Zukertort is quick to seize his chance.} 10. Nb5 $1 Ne4 11. Nxd6 cxd6 12. Nd2 Ndf6 13. f3 Nxd2 14. Qxd2 { At the moment the position remains reasonably closed, but without being really blocked up. In effect it has the potential to become open and it is this situation which the bishops are waiting for.} dxc4 ({With this move, Blackburne allows just one open file, but in doing so he accepts a lifeless position. The advance} 14... e5 $5 {is more enterprising, and ensures more counterplay.}) 15. Bxc4 d5 16. Bd3 Rfc8 17. Rae1 $1 {It is deep moves like this which often separate good players from great players. Many players would have been very tempted to oppose the only open file with 17. Rac1, but this would have been an incorrect plan, leading only to a mass exchange of the major pieces on the c-file. It’s true that White could still advance in the centre later on, but with fewer pieces on the board, Black’s defensive task would be greatly eased. As we shall see later on, the presence of white rooks is an important factor in the success of the attack. This is not to say that giving up the only open file is a business that should be taken lightly. Here, however, White correctly assesses that Black’s occupation of the c-file is not so important, especially as all the possible infiltration squares (i.e. c1-c5) are covered more than adequately by White’s pieces and pawns. As a further point it should be mentioned that this is definitely a case of the “right rook”. The other rook is excellently placed on f1, where it will support the eventual advance of the f-pawn.} Rc7 18. e4 Rac8 19. e5 Ne8 20. f4 g6 21. Re3 {We now begin to see for sure that Black’s counterplay along the c-file is proving to be more apparent than real. Meanwhile, White’s attack on the kingside builds up at his leisure behind the impressive pawn-centre. The next stage of the plan will involve forcing the f4-f5 breakthrough with moves such as g2-g4. Rather than waiting to be squashed without a contest, with his next move Blackburne understandably tries to fight back. However, by doing so he stumbles into a long forced line, ending in a brilliant win for White.} f5 22. exf6 Nxf6 23. f5 $1 {(in the words of Steinitz, 'the start of a remarkable conception of grandiose scale')} Ne4 {Black was pinning all his hopes on this move.} (23... gxf5 24. Bxf5 Ne4 25. Bxe4 dxe4 {was unsatisfactory in view of} 26. Rg3+ Kh8 27. d5+ e5 28. d6 {.}) 24. Bxe4 dxe4 25. fxg6 $1 {'This unexpected move, allowing Black to invade with his rook on c2 and "win" a piece, was undoubtedly foreseen by Zukertort much earlier. The essence of the remarkable combinative idea concealed in it is still far from obvious.' (Romanovsky)} Rc2 ({'Despite its ruinous consequences, this is perhaps the only chance.} 25... hxg6 26. Rg3 Qg7 27. d5 e5 28. Qg5 Re8 29. Rf6 {is hopeless for Black.' (Zukertort)}) 26. gxh7+ Kh8 27. d5+ e5 {Suddenly it seems as if Black has dealt with the threats and White is left facing the loss of a piece.} 28. Qb4 $3 {The point of White's idea is the diversion of the enemy queen! An extraordinary idea against which there is no defence.} R8c5 ({ If} 28... Qxb4 {there would have followed} 29. Bxe5+ Kxh7 30. Rh3+ Kg6 31. Rg3+ Kh6 ({or} 31... Kh7 32. Rf7+) 32. Rf6+ Kh5 33. Rf5+ Kh6 34. Bf4+ Kh7 35. Rh5#) ({while if} 28... Qe8 29. Rf8+ $1 Qxf8 30. Bxe5+ Kxh7 31. Qxe4+ {.}) 29. Rf8+ $1 {'In conjunction with White's previous play, this forms one of the most noble combinations conceived over the chessboard.' (Steinitz)} Kxh7 ({Or} 29... Qxf8 30. Bxe5+ Kxh7 31. Qxe4+ {with a rapid mate.}) 30. Qxe4+ Kg7 31. Bxe5+ Kxf8 32. Bg7+ $1 Kg8 (32... Qxg7 33. Qe8# {.}) 33. Qxe7 {. Lessons from this game: 1) Look out for sneaky knight moves. It’s very easy to overlook annoying ones like Zukertort’s 10. Nb5, which secured the advantage of the two bishops. 2) Open files should be studied carefully. Sometimes they are the most important feature of the position. In this game, however, the open c-file was virtually irrelevant. 3) A queen sacrifice, based on a forced checkmate in seven moves, is a pleasing way to end the game!} 1-0

The Chess Players - John Lavery 1929

Adolf Anderssen X Jean Dufresne - Berlin 1852

[Event "Berlin 'Evergreen'"] [Site "Berlin"] [Date "1852.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Anderssen, Adolf"] [Black "Dufresne, Jean"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C52"] [WhiteElo "2600"] [BlackElo "2370"] [Annotator "Pinski"] [PlyCount "47"] [EventDate "1852.??.??"] [EventType "game"] [EventCountry "GER"] [SourceTitle ""] [Source ""] [SourceDate ""] [SourceVersion ""] [SourceVersionDate ""] [SourceQuality ""] {This is one of the most famous games in chess history. It is known as the Evergreen Game. The Players Adolf Anderssen (1818–79) was undoubtedly one of the strongest players of his era and indeed he was crowned unofficial World Champion after handsomely winning the great London Tournament of 1851, which had the distinction of being the first international chess tournament ever held. A teacher of mathematics by profession, Anderssen began to take chess much more seriously after his London triumph. He kept his status as the world’s strongest player until 1858, before losing convincingly in a match to the brilliant young American, Paul Morphy. Morphy’s sudden retirement from the game, however, meant that Anderssen could once more take up the mantle as the leading player. Despite his numerous work commitments, he stayed active on the chess front, playing matches against many of his nearest rivals. In 1870 he won the strongest ever tournament at that time, in Baden-Baden, ahead of players such as Steinitz and Blackburne. Anderssen was certainly a chess player at heart. At London in 1851, he was asked why he had not gone to see the Great Exhibition. “I came to London to play chess” was his curt reply. Jean Dufresne (1829–93) was born in Berlin. When a hearing defect forced him to give up his career as a journalist, he devoted himself to chess and chess writing. Although not one of the leading players of his time, he was strong enough to score some successes against masters, and his writings proved influential: his Kleines Lehrbuch des Schachspiels was a popular beginners’ guide, from which several generations of Germans learned their chess. Nowadays, outside Germany at least, he is mostly remembered as Anderssen’s opponent in the Evergreen Game. The Game Like the “Immortal Game”, this encounter did not take place under tournament conditions, but was a friendly game, just for the pleasure of playing chess. It has certainly given a great deal of pleasure to generations of enthusiasts ever since, and to this day articles appear now and then in chess magazines with some new nuance in the analysis of Anderssen’s great combination. The game starts with a sharp Evans Gambit – one of the most popular openings of the day. Dufresne chooses a somewhat offbeat sideline, losing a little time to frustrate the smooth development of White’s position. Anderssen achieves a powerfully centralized position, and while Black tries to generate play on the flanks, White wrenches attention back to Black’s king, stranded in the centre, with a stunning (though, it must be said, unnecessary) knight sacrifice. Dufresne, though, has considerable counterplay against the white king, making for a thrilling finale. When he misses his best chance to stay in the game, Anderssen pounces with a dazzling queen sacrifice to force an extremely attractive checkmate.} 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4 Bxb4 5. c3 Ba5 6. d4 exd4 7. O-O d3 $6 8. Qb3 { White should build up his attack.} Qf6 9. e5 Qg6 {In case you are thinking that Black’s play looks very old-fashioned, consider that this position has been taken on, with success, as Black by Grandmaster Beliavsky, though his opponent did not play Anderssen’s next move. Still, Beliavsky prepares his openings extremely thoroughly, so it is reasonable to assume that after 10. Re1 he has an improvement for Black that he considers viable.} 10. Re1 Nge7 11. Ba3 b5 $2 {The extra move does little good for Black – in the coming play the white queen seems better placed at a4 anyway. This is the first truly “nineteenth-century” move of the game, and is reminiscent of Kieseritzky’s 4...b5 in the Immortal Game. Rather than try to defend carefully, and to return the pawn, if necessary, in due course to deaden White’s initiative, Black lashes out with a counter-sacrifice of a pawn. To a modern player, the logic is hard to see. Black’s only consolation for White’s lead in development is his extra pawn (the one of d3 cannot survive in the long term), and healthy, unweakened pawnstructure. These advantages are thrown away on a whim, Black hoping for some sort of counterattack on the b-file and a8–h1 diagonal. While it is true that Black does secure some counter-threats, to start a tactical shoot-out from a strategically inferior position is a policy doomed to failure. However, such logic was foreign to ordinary masters in the 1850s – it was some decades yet before the writings of Steinitz put the case for the methodical approach to chess. That said, lashing out with a move such as this is not always bad – sometimes specific tactics will justify outrageous, “illogical” moves.} 12. Qxb5 Rb8 13. Qa4 Bb6 14. Nbd2 Bb7 15. Ne4 Qf5 16. Bxd3 Qh5 17. Nf6+ $5 {The beginning of one of the most beautiful combinations in chess history. Nevertheless, it is also entering completely unnecessary complications.} gxf6 18. exf6 Rg8 19. Rad1 $5 Qxf3 $2 {Now White plays his famous combination:} 20. Rxe7+ $1 Nxe7 $2 21. Qxd7+ $3 Kxd7 22. Bf5+ Ke8 23. Bd7+ Kf8 24. Bxe7# {. Lessons from this game: 1) Play in the centre has more effect than play on the wings – everyone knows this of course, but it is all too easily forgotten in the heat of battle. 2) Always analyse variations with double checks extremely carefully – however improbable they may look. 3) Before playing a spectacular combination, check to see whether there is a simpler, safer way to win cleanly. Unless of course you want to play a brilliancy that is still being talked about a century and a half later, in which case play the sacrifice and keep your fingers crossed! (And don’t blame me if you follow that advice and go on to lose.)} 1-0

David Bowie and Catherine Deneuve playing chess on the set of The Hunge

Adolf Anderssen X Lionel Kieseritzky - London 1851

[Event "London 'Immortal game'"] [Site "London"] [Date "1851.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Anderssen, Adolf"] [Black "Kieseritzky, Lionel"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C33"] [WhiteElo "2600"] [BlackElo "2480"] [Annotator "Huebner"] [PlyCount "45"] [EventDate "1851.??.??"] [EventType "game"] [EventCountry "ENG"] [SourceTitle ""] [Source ""] [SourceDate ""] [SourceVersion ""] [SourceVersionDate ""] [SourceQuality ""] {The Players Adolf Anderssen (1818–79) was undoubtedly one of the strongest players of his era and indeed he was crowned unofficial World Champion after handsomely winning the great London Tournament of 1851, which had the distinction of being the first international chess tournament ever held. A teacher of mathematics by profession, Anderssen began to take chess much more seriously after his London triumph. He kept his status as the world’s strongest player until 1858, before losing convincingly in a match to the brilliant young American, Paul Morphy. Morphy’s sudden retirement from the game, however, meant that Anderssen could once more take up the mantle as the leading player. Despite his numerous work commitments, he stayed active on the chess front, playing matches against many of his nearest rivals. In 1870 he won the strongest ever tournament at that time, in Baden-Baden, ahead of players such as Steinitz and Blackburne. Anderssen was certainly a chess player at heart. At London in 1851, he was asked why he had not gone to see the Great Exhibition. “I came to London to play chess” was his curt reply. Lionel Kieseritzky (1806–53) was born in Tartu, in what is now Estonia, but settled in France in 1839. He became a frequent visitor to the Café de la Régènce in Paris, where he gave chess lessons for five francs an hour, or played offhand games for the same fee. His main strength was his ability to win by giving great odds to weaker players. Kieseritzky was also an openings theoretician, who invented a line in the King’s Gambit which is still considered a main variation today. However, despite his other achievements, he is still best remembered for the part he played in this game. The Game Dubbed the “Immortal Game” by the Austrian player Ernst Falkbeer, this is a game typical of the “romantic era” of chess, in which sacrifices were offered in plenty and most were duly accepted. Anderssen’s love of combinations and his contempt for material are plain to see here. After some imaginative opening play, the game explodes into life when Anderssen plays a brilliant (and sound) piece sacrifice. Spurning more mundane winning lines, Anderssen raises the game onto another plane by a double rook offer, followed by a dazzling queen sacrifice, finishing with a checkmate using all three of his remaining minor pieces. In the final analysis it could be claimed that it’s not all entirely sound, but this is merely a case of brilliance over precision. } 1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4 Qh4+ 4. Kf1 b5 $6 {This counter-gambit was named after the American amateur player Thomas Jefferson Bryan, who was active in the chess circles around Paris and London in the middle of the nineteenth century. Kieseritzky also took a shine to it, especially after his pretty win over Schulten (see below). However, it has always been considered, to put it mildly, somewhat dubious. That said, it has been utilized by none other than Garry Kasparov, although the circumstances were hardly normal. After comfortably defeating Nigel Short for the PCA World Chess Championship in 1993, the audiences at the Savoy Theatre in London were treated to some exhibition matches between the two players. Kasparov won the rapidplay games by the convincing margin of 4-0. Short, however, got some sweet revenge in the theme games, where the openings were chosen by the organizers. After two draws the proceedings were “spiced up” when Kasparov was forced to defend with the Bryan. Clearly disgusted with this choice, Kasparov could only last fifteen moves before resigning in a totally lost position, and storming off stage to vent his feelings to the powers-that-be. Still, Kasparov couldn’t complain too much. Batsford Chess Openings 2, written by Garry Kasparov and Raymond Keene, only gives White a slight plus in this line!} 5. Bxb5 Nf6 6. Nf3 Qh6 ( 6... Qh5 7. Nc3 Bb7 8. e5 (8. Bc4 $1 {Y.B. Estrin} Nxe4 (8... Bb4 9. d3 Bxc3 10. bxc3 g5 11. h4) 9. Nxe4 $1 d5 10. Bb5+ c6 11. Nc3 $1) 8... Nd5 (8... Bxf3 9. Qxf3 Qxf3+ 10. gxf3 Nh5 11. d4 c6 12. Bd3 d5 13. Ne2 g5 14. h4 h6 15. hxg5 hxg5 16. Bf5 $18) (8... Ng4 9. d4 Ne3+ (9... g5 10. h4 $18) 10. Bxe3 fxe3 11. Qe2 $16) (8... Ne4 9. Nxe4 Bxe4 10. d3 Bxf3 11. Qxf3 Qxf3+ 12. gxf3 g5 13. h4 $18) 9. Ne4 $16 {/\ 10.Qe2}) 7. d3 $6 (7. Nc3 Bb7 (7... g5 8. d4 Bg7 9. e5 Nh5 {Raphael-Morphy (New York 1857), 10.Kg1?} 10. Ne4 g4 11. Nh4 Qb6 12. Be2 $18) 8. Qe2 (8. d4 Nxe4 9. Qe2 Qe6 10. Nxe4 Qxe4 11. Bxf4 Qxe2+ 12. Kxe2 c6 $14 { /\ 13...Be7}) 8... Bb4 9. e5 Nh5 10. Rg1 O-O 11. d4 Qb6 $16) 7... Nh5 $6 (7... Bc5 8. d4 Bb6 9. Nc3 Bb7 {Anderssen-Pollmächer (1852)} 10. Bd3 (10. e5 Ne4 ( 10... Nh5 11. Ne2 Bxf3 (11... g5 12. Qd3 {/\ 13.g4}) 12. gxf3 $16) (10... Nd5 $2 11. Nxd5 Bxd5 12. c4 {/\13.c5}) 11. Nxe4 Bxe4 12. h4 $16 {/\ 13.Ng5}) 10... g5 11. h4 Rg8 $17) 8. Nh4 $2 {As one would expect, the Immortal Game has been subjected to much analysis and debate from masters of the past and present. The sum of the analysis alone would probably be enough to fill up an entire book. One of the more recent annotators is the German GM Robert Hübner, who reviewed the game in his own critical way for ChessBase Magazine. From move seven to eleven inclusive, Hübner awarded seven question marks!} (8. Rg1 { /\ 9.g4} Qb6 9. Nc3 c6 10. Bc4 Qc5 11. Qe2 $18 Ba6 12. Bxa6 Nxa6 13. d4 Qa5 14. Ne5 g6 15. Nc4 Qc7 16. e5) (8. Ke2 $6 Qb6 9. Nc3 c6 10. Bc4 Ba6 $13) 8... Qg5 ( 8... g6 9. g3 (9. g4 Nf6 10. Ng2 Qh3 11. Bxf4 Nxg4 $17 {Estrin, Glaskov}) 9... Be7 $15 {Estrin, Glaskov} 10. Qg4 c6 (10... Kd8 11. Ng2 d6 12. Qf3 $16) 11. Bc4 Bxh4 (11... Na6 12. Bxa6 Bxa6 13. Nc3 $16 {/\ 14.gxf4}) (11... O-O 12. Nf5 Qg5 13. Qxg5 Bxg5 14. Nd6 $16) (11... Kd8 12. Bd2 Kc7 (12... d5 13. Ba5+ $18) 13. gxf4 d5 14. f5 $18) 12. Qxh4 d5 (12... g5 13. Qh3 {/\ 14.g4}) 13. Bxf4 Qg7 14. Bd6 g5 15. Qxh5 Qxb2 (15... dxc4 16. e5 $18) 16. Qxg5 $18) 9. Nf5 c6 $6 (9... g6 10. h4 (10. g4 $2 gxf5 11. gxh5 fxe4) 10... Qf6 {(von Gottschall)} (10... Ng3+ 11. Nxg3 (11. Ke1 Qf6 12. Nxg3 fxg3 13. Qe2 {'mit starkem Spiel für Weiß' (von Gottschall)} (13. Qf3 $18 {(Steinitz)})) 11... Qxb5 (11... Qxg3 12. Rh3 $18) 12. Nc3 {(Polhroniade)} Qe5 13. Nge2 Bh6 14. g3 f3 15. Nf4 $18) 11. Nc3 c6 12. Ba4 (12. Bc4 d5) 12... Na6 $15 {/\ 13...Sc5 14.Bb3 d6} (12... d6 13. Nd5) 13. d4 Ng3+ 14. Nxg3 fxg3+ 15. Qf3 Qxd4) 10. g4 $2 (10. h4 $2 Qg6 11. Ba4 d5 $17) (10. Bc4 $2 d5) (10. Ba4 g6 (10... d5 11. g4 dxe4 12. dxe4 Ba6+ 13. Kg2 $16 Nf6 14. Qf3) 11. Ng3 Nxg3+ 12. hxg3 Qxg3 13. Nc3 Bc5 14. Qe1 (14. d4 $2 Ba6+) (14. Qf3 $2 Qxf3+ 15. gxf3 g5 16. Rh5 Be7) 14... Qxe1+ (14... Qg4 15. Rh4 $18) 15. Kxe1 g5 16. Rh5 Be7 17. g3 $16 fxg3 18. Bxg5 Rg8 19. Bxe7 g2 20. Kf2) 10... Nf6 $6 (10... g6 11. Nd4 (11. gxh5 gxf5 12. h4 Qf6 13. Bc4 fxe4 14. dxe4 Rg8 $17) 11... Bg7 12. c3 Bxd4 13. cxd4 Qxb5 14. Nc3 (14. gxh5 Ba6) 14... Qb6 15. gxh5 Qxd4 16. Qf3 (16. Bxf4 Qf6) (16. Ne2 Qf6) 16... Ba6 17. Ke2 g5 18. Rd1 d6 $19) 11. Rg1 $1 {An imaginative piece sacrifice. The idea is to gain masses of time driving the black queen around the board. This will give White an enormous lead in development.} cxb5 $2 (11... d5 $2 12. h4 Qg6 13. h5 (13. Bxf4 $6 h5) 13... Qg5 14. Qf3 Bxf5 15. exf5 cxb5 (15... Bd6 16. Ba4 O-O 17. Nc3 { /\ 18.Ne2}) 16. Bxf4 Qh4 17. Nc3 $18 Bc5 18. Re1+ Kf8 (18... Qxe1+ 19. Kxe1 Bxg1 20. g5 $18) 19. Nxd5) (11... h5 12. h4 Qg6 13. g5 Ng4 14. Nc3 (14. Bxf4 d5 $19) (14. Ba4 d5 15. Nd4 Bc5 16. c3 Bxd4 17. cxd4 dxe4 $19 18. dxe4 Qxe4 { /\ 19...Ba6+}) 14... cxb5 15. Nd5 (15. Nxb5 $2 Qb6) 15... Na6 (15... d6 $6 16. Nd4) (15... Bd6 $6 16. Nxf4 Bxf4 17. Bxf4) 16. Bxf4 Bb7 17. c4 Bxd5 18. cxd5 Qb6 $17) 12. h4 (12. Qf3 $2 h5) 12... Qg6 13. h5 Qg5 (13... Nxh5 $2 14. gxh5 Qf6 15. Nc3 Bb7 16. Bxf4 g6 17. Nxb5 $18) 14. Qf3 Ng8 (14... Nxg4 {Euwe} 15. Rxg4 Qxh5 16. Bxf4 $18 d5 (16... g6 17. Nd6+ Bxd6 18. Bxd6 Nc6 19. Qf6 Rg8 20. Nc3) 17. Nc3 Bxf5 (17... g6 $2 18. Nxd5 {/\ 19.Nf6+}) 18. exf5) 15. Bxf4 Qf6 ( 15... Qd8 {Reti} 16. Nc3 a6 (16... d6 17. Nxb5 Bxf5 18. exf5 $18 {Polihroniade} ) (16... g6 17. Nxb5 gxf5 18. Nc7+ Ke7 19. exf5 $18 {Polihroniade}) 17. Bd6 Bb7 18. Nd5 Bxd5 19. exd5 Bxd6 20. Nxd6+ Ke7 21. Nxf7 $18) 16. Nc3 Bc5 (16... Bb7 { Reti} 17. Qg3 (17. Nxb5 Qxb2 18. Nc7+ Kd8 19. Kg2 Na6 (19... Nc6 20. Rab1 Qxc2+ 21. Kh3 Rb8 22. Nd5 $18) 20. Nxa8 Bxa8 21. Rab1 Qxc2+ 22. Kh3 $18) 17... Na6 ( 17... Nc6 18. g5 {/\ 19.Nxb5}) 18. Nxb5 (18. Be5 Qb6 $13) 18... Qxb2 19. Nfd6+ Bxd6 20. Nxd6+ Kf8 21. Be5 Qb6 22. Kg2 f6 23. Rgf1 $18 {23...Qc6 24.g5}) 17. Nd5 $6 (17. d4 $1 {/\ 18.Nd5}) 17... Qxb2 18. Bd6 $3 {(?) And here is the immortal sacrifice. The two exclamation marks are for ingenuity, while the question mark is for the actual strength of the move. With 18 Bd6 White says to Black “Take my rooks!”. Given that Black can actually spoil the fun by choosing a resourceful option at move 19, it should be pointed out that objectively stronger moves do exist for White here. Hübner gives three possible wins:} (18. d4 Qxa1+ (18... Bf8 19. Nc7+ Kd8 20. Re1 $18) 19. Kg2 Qb2 20. dxc5 Na6 21. Nd6+ Kf8 22. Be5 Qxc2+ 23. Kh3 f6 24. Nxf6 $18) (18. Be3 d6 ( 18... Qxa1+ 19. Kg2 Qb2 (19... Qxg1+ 20. Bxg1 $18 Bxg1 21. Nd6+) 20. Bxc5 Qxc2+ 21. Kh3 Qxc5 22. Rc1 d6 (22... Qxc1 23. Nd6+) 23. Rxc5 Bxf5 24. Qxf5 { Polihroniade 24.Nc7+} dxc5 25. Qc8#) 19. Bd4 (19. Re1 Bxf5 (19... Kd7 20. Bxc5 dxc5 21. Qg3) 20. exf5 Kd7 21. Bxc5 dxc5 22. Nc7) 19... Bxd4 20. Nxd6+ Kd8 ( 20... Kd7 21. Qxf7+ Kxd6 22. Qc7+ Ke6 23. Nf4+ Kf6 24. g5#) 21. Qxf7 $18 { Polihroniade}) (18. Re1 Bb7 (18... Na6 19. Bd6 Bb7 (19... Bxg1 20. e5 $18) 20. Bxc5 Nxc5 21. Nd6+ Kd8 22. Nxf7+ $18) 19. d4 $18 (19. Nc7+ {Polihroniade} Kd8 ( 19... Kf8 20. Bd6+ Bxd6 21. Nxd6 Qf6 22. Qxf6 Nxf6 23. Nxb7 $18) 20. Nxa8 Na6 ( 20... Bxa8 21. Bxb8 Bxg1 22. Kxg1 $18 {Polihroniade}) 21. Be3 Bxa8 22. Bxc5 Nxc5 23. Nd6 Nh6 24. g5 $18)) 18... Bxg1 (18... Qxa1+ 19. Ke2 Qb2 $1 20. Kd2 ( 20. Rc1 Bb7 21. Bxc5 Bxd5) 20... Bxg1 (20... g6 21. Rb1 (21. Re1 Bb7 22. Bxc5 Bxd5 23. exd5+ Kd8 24. Bd4 (24. Nd6 Nh6 25. Qe3 Na6) 24... Qb4+ 25. Bc3 Qc5 26. Ne3 $16) 21... gxf5 22. Rxb2 Bxd6 23. e5 Bxe5 24. Qe3 d6 25. d4 Kd8 (25... Bb7 26. Nc7+ Kd8 27. Nxa8 $18 f4 (27... Bg7 28. Rxb5 $18) 28. Qa3) 26. dxe5 $18) 21. e5 Ba6 $1 22. Nc7+ (22. Nxg7+ Kd8 23. Qxf7 Kc8) 22... Kd8 23. Qxa8 (23. Nxa6 Bb6 24. Qxa8 Ba5+ $15) 23... Bb6 24. Qxb8+ Bc8 25. Nd5 Ba5+ 26. Ke3 Qxc2 $15 (26... Qc1+ $10)) 19. e5 Qxa1+ (19... Ba6 20. Nc7+ Kd8 21. Nxa6 Qxa1+ ( 21... Bb6 22. Qxa8 Qxc2 23. Qxb8+ $18) 22. Ke2) 20. Ke2 $18 Na6 (20... f6 21. Nxg7+ Kf7 22. Nxf6 Bb7 (22... Kxg7 23. Ne8+ Kh6 24. Qf4#) 23. Nd5+ Kxg7 24. Qf8#) (20... Bb7 21. Nxg7+ Kd8 22. Qxf7 Nh6 23. Ne6+) (20... Ba6 21. Nc7+ (21. Nxg7+ $2 Kd8 22. Qxf7 Nh6 23. Ne6+ Kc8) 21... Kd8 22. Nxa6 (22. Qxa8 $2 Qc3 23. Qxb8+ Bc8 24. Nd5 Qxc2+ $15) 22... Qxa2 (22... Qc3 {Falkbeer} 23. Bc7+ Qxc7 24. Nxc7 Kxc7 25. Qxa8 $18 {/\ 26.Nd6} Nc6 (25... Bc5 26. Nd6 Bxd6 27. exd6+ Kc8 28. Qxa7 $18) 26. Nd6 Nxe5 27. Ne8+ (27. Qf8 $18) 27... Kb6 28. Qb8+ $18 { /\ 29.Qxe5 (Falkbeer)}) (22... Bb6 23. Qxa8 Qc3 24. Qxb8+ Qc8 25. Qxc8+ Kxc8 26. Bf8 h6 27. Nd6+ (27. Bxg7 Rh7 28. Nb4 $18 {/\ 29.Nd5, 30.Nf6}) 27... Kd8 28. Nxf7+ Ke8 29. Nxh8 Kxf8 30. Kf3 $18 {Tschigorin}) 23. Bc7+ (23. Nb4 Nc6 24. Nxa2 g6 25. Nb4 gxf5 26. Nxc6+ dxc6 27. Qxc6 Rc8 $16) 23... Ke8 24. Nb4 Nc6 25. Nxa2 Bc5 26. Qd5 Bf8 27. Qxb5 $18 {/\ 28.Qb7}) 21. Nxg7+ Kd8 22. Qf6+ $1 { The final glory in a game of many glories.} Nxf6 23. Be7# {. Lessons from this game: 1) It goes without saying that Black was punished in this game for his lack of respect for development. He had fun with his queen, but this was short-lived. 2) In the “Romantic” era of chess, defensive technique was not very well developed, and sacrifices tended to be readily accepted. Hence, Anderssen’s 18 Bd6 was a good practical bet, but such a move could prove unwise against a modern grandmaster. 3) The Bryan Counter-Gambit is a very dodgy opening. Just ask Garry Kasparov!} 1-0