[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
No comments:
Post a Comment