Sunday, June 3, 2018

Ossip Bernstein X Jose Raul Capablanca - Moscow game 1914

[Event "Moscow game"] [Site "Moscow"] [Date "1914.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Bernstein, Ossip"] [Black "Capablanca, Jose Raul"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "D63"] [WhiteElo "2562"] [BlackElo "2637"] [Annotator ""] [PlyCount "58"] [EventDate "1914.??.??"] [EventType "tourn"] [EventRounds "10"] [EventCountry "RUS"] {The Players Ossip Bernstein (1882–1962) was born in Ukraine into a rich family. He was able to devote a great deal of time to chess while studying law at Heidelberg University. His best years as a player were between 1905 and 1914, when he performed prominently in many major tournaments, sharing first place with Rubinstein at Ostend 1907. After losing his fortune in the revolution of 1917 he moved to Paris, where he became an outstanding financial lawyer. In 1932, after a long time away from the game, Bernstein took up chess once more. He was awarded the grandmaster title in 1950 and two years later he also gained the title of International Arbiter. In his later years he still played actively, representing France at the Amsterdam Olympiad in 1954. Also in that year there was a flash of his previous skill when he was awarded the brilliancy prize for a victory over Najdorf in Montevideo. José Raúl Capablanca (1888–1942) is one of the legends in chess history. Born in Cuba, he learned chess at the age of four and gave due notice of his talent when, barely a teenager, he defeated Corzo, who won the national championship in the same year, in an informal match. Capablanca was educated in America, and spent much of his free time playing masters at the Manhattan Chess Club. Even in his younger days it was obvious to everyone that Capablanca was a natural-born chess player. Positionally and in the endgame he had no equal, but as his countless wins against other tacticians show, he was also at home in highly complex positions. At one stage of his career Capablanca lost only one tournament game in ten years, which gave him an aura of invincibility. It came as absolutely no surprise when, in Havana during 1921, he finally met with Lasker and took the world title, without losing a single game. The Game Capablanca possessed a distinctive style, which was both classical and direct; this game is a perfect illustration. After playing a sound opening he accepts “hanging” pawns, which can either be viewed as a strength or a weakness. The Cuban follows up by stunning the chess world with a new and somewhat controversial concept. Bernstein tries in vain to search for a refutation, but is slowly pushed backwards as Capablanca’s activity increases. Annoyed by Capablanca’s passed pawn, Bernstein thinks he has spotted a way to eliminate it. Capablanca, however has seen one move further. This one crushing move is enough for victory.} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 Be7 5. Bg5 O-O 6. e3 Nbd7 7. Rc1 b6 (7... c6 $1 {.}) 8. cxd5 exd5 9. Qa4 (9. Bd3 $5 {.}) 9... Bb7 ({ It is interesting that in the game Capablanca-Lasker (Havana 5th matchgame 1921) Black preferred the bold} 9... c5 $5 10. Qc6 Rb8 11. Nxd5 Bb7 {with counterplay for the pawn (Game No.89)} (11... Nxd5 $5 {.})) 10. Ba6 $1 Bxa6 11. Qxa6 c5 (11... c6 $1 12. O-O Qc8 $1 {was more solid.}) 12. Bxf6 $2 ({Instead of this awful move,} 12. O-O {suggests itself, with a clear strategic initiative, for example:} Qc8 13. Qxc8 Rfxc8 14. Ne5 {and Black has a rather unpleasant position.}) 12... Nxf6 13. dxc5 bxc5 14. O-O Qb6 15. Qe2 c4 $1 { Nowadays this is a classic, typical procedure, but then it was a fresh positional idea! 'All the onlookers, and most annotators, considered this last move of Black's as weak.' (Capablanca) And indeed, Black's hanging pawns are now fixed, the d5-pawn becomes backward and eternally weak, and White gains the d4-square. But this is fully compensated by the pressure on the b2-pawn! I can give at least two similar examples: Bertok-Fischer (Stockholm interzonal 1962) and Winants-Kasparov (Brussels 1987). “White’s plan from the start was to work against the weakness of Black’s hanging c- and d-pawns, which must be defended by pieces. The general strategy for such positions is for White’s rooks to occupy the c- and d-files attacking Black’s hanging pawns, while Black’s rooks defend these pawns from the rear. Again the awkward position of Black’s bishop at e7 rendered it useless, except for the purpose of defending the pawn on c5. It is against such strategy on the part of White that the text-move (15...c4) is directed. By it the defensive bishop becomes an attacking piece, since the long diagonal is open to him; and what is more important, White’s b-pawn is fixed and weakened and becomes a source of worry for White, who has to defend it also with pieces, and thus cannot use those pieces to attack the black hanging pawns. The fact that the text-move opens d4 for one of White’s knights is of small consequence, since if White posts a knight there his attack on Black’s d5-pawn is blocked for the moment, and thus Black has time to assume the offensive.” Capablanca} 16. Rfd1 Rfd8 17. Nd4 ({After} 17. e4 dxe4 18. Nxe4 (18. Ng5 e3 $1) 18... Nxe4 19. Qxe4 Bf6 20. Qxc4 Qxb2 {the resulting position is slightly better for Black, but objectively drawn. In this case Capa would definitely not have made it to the ballet...}) 17... Bb4 $1 {'The ultimate object of this move is to play ...Bxc3 at the proper time and force a passed pawn. White makes this task easier by his next move.' (Capablanca)} 18. b3 $6 {A questionable move: it gives Black a passed pawn, which in the end proves to be not a weakness, but a strength.} ({' } 18. Qc2 {and then Nd4-e2-f4 was better.' (Panov)}) 18... Rac8 19. bxc4 dxc4 20. Rc2 Bxc3 21. Rxc3 Nd5 $1 {mini-tactics:} 22. Rc2 (22. Rxc4 $2 {is not possible on account of} Nc3 {.}) 22... c3 {As simply as possible!} ({I am not sure that} 22... Nf4 23. Qg4 Nd3 {would have been better.}) 23. Rdc1 Rc5 24. Nb3 Rc6 25. Nd4 Rc7 $1 {'Because I had first played 23...Rc5, Dr Bernstein was lured into the fatal trap, thinking that I was aiming at the exchange of knights, in order to obtain a free a-pawn.' (Capablanca)} 26. Nb5 $6 ({White should simply have made an escape square for his king –} 26. h3 {, and after} Qb4 27. Qf3 {he would probably have been able to restrain the c-pawn.}) 26... Rc5 27. Nxc3 $4 {Bernstein decided to 'make a draw' immediately,} ({although he could still have reconsidered and played} 27. Nd4 {.}) 27... Nxc3 28. Rxc3 Rxc3 29. Rxc3 {expecting} Qb2 $3 {. A queen sacrifice on the theme of diversion – the weakness of the back rank! 'Simple and – let's not be afraid to use the word – a stroke of genius.' (Botvinnik)} (29... Qb1+ 30. Qf1 Qxa2 { with equality, but... Lessons from this game: 1) Learn from the past masters. Countless grandmasters admit that they are influenced by the top players from yesteryear. As we have seen, both Bobby Fischer and Nigel Short were direct beneficiaries of Capa’s brave new idea. 2) Always be aware of back-rank mates. They can often give rise to some surprising tactics (e.g 29...Qb2 in this game). 3) Capablanca was a genius!}) 0-1

No comments: