[Event "St. Petersburg"]
[Site "St Petersburg"]
[Date "1909.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Rubinstein, Akiba"]
[Black "Lasker, Emanuel"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D32"]
[WhiteElo "2591"]
[BlackElo "2632"]
[Annotator ""]
[PlyCount "79"]
[EventDate "1909.??.??"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "20"]
[EventCountry "RUS"]
{The Players 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. 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 Once more Lasker employs an
inferior defence to the Queen’s Gambit, but unlike his game against
Pillsbury, he doesn’t get a chance to correct his error this time.
Rubinstein fails to find the most punishing continuation, but what he plays is
certainly enough to secure a small plus. In typical fashion Lasker seeks
complications, sacrificing a pawn to gain the initiative. Rubinstein accepts
the pawn, perhaps unwisely, but for him this is the only questionable decision
of the game. Faced with a defensive task, Rubinstein plays brilliantly, first
to squash Lasker ’s counterplay and then to go onto the attack himself.
Lasker is forced to enter a terrible endgame, which is the equivalent of
resignation against someone of Rubinstein’s legendary technique.} 1. d4 d5 2.
Nf3 Nf6 3. c4 e6 4. Bg5 c5 {[When this advance is made prematurely, the
isolation of the d-pawn is the necessary consequence.]} 5. cxd5 exd5 6. Nc3
cxd4 7. Nxd4 Nc6 $2 8. e3 Be7 {LiveBook: 3 Games} 9. Bb5 {[This move shows why
Black's 7th was open to censure.]} Bd7 {White is slightly better.} 10. Bxf6 (
10. O-O {is interesting.} O-O 11. Be2 Rc8 12. Rc1 h6 13. Bh4) 10... Bxf6 11.
Nxd5 Bxd4 (11... Be5 12. O-O O-O 13. Bxc6 bxc6 14. Nc3 Re8 15. Qd2 Qc7 16. Nf3
Bf6 17. Rac1 Qb7 18. Qc2 c5 19. Na4 Bxa4 20. Qxa4 Qxb2 21. Rxc5 Qb7 22. Rfc1
Rac8 23. h3 a6 24. Rc7 Qb8 25. Qd7 Rxc7 26. Rxc7 {Rausis,I (2440)-Mellier,P St
Martin 1991 1-0 (38)}) 12. exd4 Qg5 (12... O-O 13. O-O a6 14. Bxc6 Bxc6 15. Ne3
Qf6 16. d5 Bb5 17. Re1 Rfd8 18. Qb3 Rab8 19. a4 Bd7 20. Rac1 b5 21. a5 Rbc8 22.
Qb4 Re8 23. Qd2 Qd6 24. b4 h6 25. Qd4 Qe5 26. Qxe5 Rxe5 27. Rxc8+ {Polich,S
(2054)-Klubal,J (1761) Pardubice 2017 1-0 (46)}) 13. Bxc6 Bxc6 14. Ne3 $146 (
14. Qe2+ Kd7 15. Ne3 Bxg2 16. Rg1 Qa5+ 17. Qd2 Qxd2+ 18. Kxd2 Be4 19. Nc4 Bg6
20. Rac1 f6 21. f4 Rhg8 22. Ne3 Be4 23. Rc5 b6 24. Rh5 Rac8 25. f5 h6 26. Rh4
Rce8 27. Rhg4 Re7 28. Rg6 Kc7 {Shocron,R-Humerez Estrada,C Mar del Plata/
Buenos Aires 1954 1/2-1/2 (66)}) 14... O-O-O (14... Bxg2 $11 15. Rg1 Qa5+ 16.
Qd2 Qxd2+ 17. Kxd2 Be4) 15. O-O Rhe8 {Threatens to win with ...Rxe3.} 16. Rc1
$1 {[A move of extraordinary subtlety. White now retains his advantages. He
threatens Rc1-c5 and d4-d5, and Black's obvious threat of 16...Rxe3 he meets
as is shown by his 17th move.]} Rxe3 {[%csl Gc6][%cal Rg5g2] [#]} 17. Rxc6+ $1
{[%mdl 512]} bxc6 18. Qc1 $3 {The whole point of Rubinstein’s previous play,
beginning with 16. Rc1. The rook is pinned to the queen and cannot be saved.}
Rxd4 19. fxe3 $16 {[%mdl 4096] Endgame KQR-KQR} Rd7 20. Qxc6+ Kd8 21. Rf4 $1
$40 {[%mdl 128] Rubinstein plays the rest of the game in a faultless manner.
By placing his rook on the fourth rank White threatens to decide the issue
immediately by smoking the black king out into the open. Black is in trouble.}
f5 (21... Rd1+ $16 {was necessary.} 22. Kf2 Qa5) 22. Qc5 {Threatening mate
with Qf8+.} Qe7 {Lasker is forced into a lost ending.} 23. Qxe7+ ({Wrong is}
23. Qxf5 $2 Qxe3+ 24. Kh1 Qxf4 $1 $19 {[%mdl 512]}) 23... Kxe7 24. Rxf5 {KR-KR}
Rd1+ {[#]} 25. Kf2 $1 {Classic technique. White gives up one of his extra
pawns to activate his king.} Rd2+ 26. Kf3 Rxb2 27. Ra5 Rb7 {[#]} 28. Ra6 $1 {
Another excellent move. The a6-square is the ideal place for the white rook.
Now the black rook remains tied to the a7-pawn, while the black king cannot
move onto the third rank. Black can now only sit and wait while White
gradually pushes his king and pawns up the board.} Kf8 29. e4 Rc7 30. h4 {
[%cal Bh2h4,Bh4h5][%mdl 32]} Kf7 31. g4 Kf8 32. Kf4 Ke7 33. h5 $1 {The white
pawns slowly move up the board. Lasker now decided to prevent any further
advance, but in doing so created a specific weakness on g6.} h6 $2 {
Nevertheless, passive defence also loses, although some accurate play is
required by White.} (33... Ke8 {was worth a try.} 34. e5 Kf7) 34. Kf5 $18 Kf7
35. e5 Rb7 (35... Kg8 $142 36. Ke6 Kf8) 36. Rd6 Ke7 37. Ra6 Kf7 38. Rd6 {
Repeating the position is merely a tease for Lasker. Rubinstein is merely
marking time before the final finesse.} Kf8 39. Rc6 Kf7 40. a3 $22 {. Lessons
from this game: 1) Brilliant defence can be just as powerful and imaginative
as brilliant attack. Rubinstein’s concept, culminating with 18. Qc1, is
proof of this. 2) Rook activity and king activity are powerful tools in the
endgame. Witness Rubinstein’s 25. Kf2! and 28. Ra6!. 3) Rubinstein was the
absolute master of rook and pawn endgames. Accuracy: White = 82%, Black = 38%.}
1-0
No comments:
Post a Comment