Thursday, May 31, 2018
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
Georg A Rotlewi X Akiba Rubinstein - Lodz 1907
Rotlewi, Georg A2556–Rubinstein, Akiba26050–1D40Lodz1Lodz1907
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.f3 e6 3.e3 c5 4.c4 c6 5.c3 f6 6.dxc5 xc5 7.a3 a6 8.b4 d6 9.b2 0-0 LiveBook: 154 Games 10.d2?! 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: e7! 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.d3?! Inconsistent with his previous move. EXERCISE (easy):
What's the snag with 11 Bd3 - ? ANSWER: dxc4! 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.xc4 Black is slightly better. b5 13.d3 EXERCISE (easy): How should Black
continue? ANSWER: d8 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.e2 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? b7 15.0-0 EXERCISE: How can Black exploit his slight advantage in
development? ANSWER: e5! 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.xe5 xe5 With the familiar threat of 17...Bxh2+. 17.f4
Closing the h2-b8 diagonal, at the cost of weakening his kingside. c7
With the idea of opening the game with 18...e5. To answer 18.e4 Tuesday, May 29, 2018
Monday, May 28, 2018
Emanuel Lasker X William Ewart Napier - Cambridge Springs 1904
Lasker, Emanuel2620–Napier, William Ewart25001–0B72Cambridge Springs3Cambridge1904
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.c3 c6 3.f3 g6 4.d4 cxd4 5.xd4 g7 6.e3 d6 7.h3 f6 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. 0-0 The simplest reply;
the threat of g5 is not so strong that Black need take any special measures
against it. 9.g5 e8 Black could even have continued 9...h5 for example
10.xc6 10.e2 f4 10...bxc6 11.e2 b8 and his counterplay against
b2 and c3 is more important than the threat to the knight on h5. 10.h4?!
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. c7 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! 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.de2 d5? 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...g4! would have been very
strong; for example, 13.d2 13.g1 d7 14.d2 exf4 and 15...Ne5 is
also good for Black 13...exf4 14.xf4 e5 15.0-0-0 e6 16.g3 c4 17.d3 c8-+ and Black has a very strong attack (18...Nxb2 is the immediate threat)
for which White has not the slightest compensation. 13.exd5 d4 14.xd4 xd5! The point of Black’s play. 15.f5! Lasker responds in style. 15.xd5 exd4 16.g2 dxe3 17.0-0 e6 18.e1 xd5 19.xd5 c7
White’s weak pawns and exposed king give Black the advantage. 15...xc3 16.xd8 Enabling the knight to check on e7. xd8 17.e7+ Better than 17.xg7 d5 18.0-0-0 g4! 19.xd5 xd5 20.g2 d7 21.fxe5 xg7 22.c3
when White faces an uphill struggle to draw. 17...h8 17...f8 18.c5 e4 19.a3 d6 20.xc8 axc8 21.0-0-0 e7 22.h3 c6 23.he1+- 18.h5!
Just when the complications are at a maximum, Lasker suddenly revives his
kingside attack, even in the absence of queens. e8! 18...d5 19.xd5 xd5 20.h6 f8 21.c4± 18...gxh5 19.f5 e4 20.f6 f8 21.xh5 g3 22.h4 xf1 23.xf1 xe7 24.fxe7 e8 25.c5± 19.c5 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! fxg6 21.c4 b5 22.f7 b7 23.h2 d5 24.xe8 xe8 25.0-0-0 xe7 26.d7 c6 27.xe7 xe7 28.xe7 f3± with an advantage for White, although winning this endgame would be far from
easy. 20.c4? White could have secured an edge by 20.bxc3 f8 21.b5 xe7! 22.xe7 xe7 23.xh5 g4 24.h4 f5± 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? This costs Black the first half-point. 20...e4! 21.xf7 g4! 22.xe8 xe8 23.a3 g3 24.h2 exf4-+ 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.xf7 e4? This tempting
but unsound idea costs Black the second half-point. 21...f8! 22.xh5 e4 23.g6+ g8 24.e7+= 24.xf8 xb2 25.d1 c3+ 26.f1 xc5∞ 22.xe8 xb2 23.b1 c3+ 24.f1 g4 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...xc5 25.xh5 e4 26.g2 g3 27.g6 xh1 28.xh1+- 25.xh5! xh5 25...g3+ 26.g2 xh5 27.b3 xh1 28.xc3 g7 29.xh1+- 26.xh5 g3+ 26...d2+ 27.f2 xb1 28.g6 g7 29.xh7+ f6 30.g7+- 27.g2 xh5 28.xb7 a5 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. Attempting to counterattack by
28...d8 29.xa7 d2+ 30.f3 xc2 rebounds after 31.f5 g8 32.h6+ h8 33.a8+ g7 34.g8# 29.b3! g7 29...a1 30.h3 g7 31.h6 e8 32.f3 g7 33.xf4+- 30.h3 g3 31.f3 a6?! 31...e8
would have put up more resistance, but 32.d6 f1 33.xf4+- will win in
the long run. 32.xf4 e2+ 32...f1 33.h1 d2 34.d1+- 33.f5 c3 34.a3 a4 35.e3 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
Sunday, May 27, 2018
Saturday, May 26, 2018
Harry Nelson Pillsbury X Emanuel Lasker - Nurnberg 1896
Pillsbury, Harry Nelson2630–Lasker, Emanuel26201–0C11NurnbergNurnberg1896
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.c3 f6 4.e5 fd7 5.f4 c5 6.dxc5 An unusual idea, but far from bad. Instead White
normally develops so as to support the d4-pawn. c6 7.a3 xc5 7...Bxc5
would be more standard, but less ambitious. 8.b4!? This move loosens
White’s queenside but severely reduces the activity of Black’s knights –
probably a good trade-off for White. d7 8...d4?! looks like it should be
better, but there is a tactical problem pointed out by John Nunn: 9.ce2 d3 9...e4 10.f3 10.g3 d4 11.c3! xc3+ 12.d2 wins a piece for
inadequate compensation. 9.d3 a5 10.b5 cb8 11.f3 c5 12.e3 bd7 13.0-0 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.e2
White has the greater freedom of movement, but must play energetically to
justify the weakening of his queenside. e7 15.e1 b6 16.fd4 d7 17.f2
This cunning move lends support to possible f-file play and threatens to win a
pawn by 18 Nxe6. ba4 17...c7!? followed by ...Nca4 and ...Nc4 is a more
secure way for Black to play on the queenside. 18.ab1 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...0-0!? was still
possible (e.g. 19 g4 f5), though a switch of plans. 19.b6!? 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! xd3 20.cxd3 xa3 21.f5! 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? 22.f4 gives White a massive attack without
the need for sacrifices. 22.f4 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? Now White has time to engineer an explosive
breakthrough.Two lines are more critical: 22...c8!? with ideas like 23.g3 23.a1 c5 24.g3 e7 25.xa4 xa4 26.xd5= is roughly level. 23...e7 24.xf5 exf5 25.xd5 c3 is a good defence 22...b4!? 23.g3 23.f3?! h4 24.xf5? exf5 25.xd5 c6 exploits the queen’s position
on f3 to force exchanges. 23...f8 and now it is time for White to
sacrifice: 24.xd5?! 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.xf5! exf5 25.g6+ 25.xd5?! is unconvincing. 25...fxg6 26.xg6 e8 27.f6+= with
perpetual check. 23.a1 23.xf5 exf5 24.xd5 is a less convincing
sacrificial attempt, since Black has more pieces ready to defend his king. 23...e7 23...e7 loses to 24.xf5! 24.xa4! xa4 At the cost of
"just" an exchange, White has removed the irritating black knight and
drawn a defensive bishop off-side. 25.dxe6! fxe6 26.xe6 "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. d7 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...c8 27.xf5!
(threatening, amongst other things, 28 Bg5!) c6 27...g8 28.f7+ d7 29.c5+ c6 30.xe7 and the black pieces are too poorly placed to put up a
decent defence to the mating threats. 28.g5! xb6+ 29.d4 b4 29...d7 30.c5+ c7 31.xe7 with a winning attack. 30.f7+ d7 31.xe7 xe7 32.c5+ d8 33.xb7+ d7 34.e6+ winning the black queen. 27.xd8 xd8 28.c5 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". c8 29.xe7 xe7 30.e3 c6 31.g5+ f7 32.c1 xc1+ 33.xc1 c8 34.e1 h3 34...a4 35.xh4 a3 36.h7+ e8 36...e6 37.g7!+- 37.g6+ f8 38.d6+ e8 39.xa3
eliminates the passed a-pawn and with it Black’s last hope. 35.gxh3 g8+ 36.f2 a4 37.b4 g6 38.f3 a3 39.xa3 xb6 40.c5 e6 41.c7 e7 42.f4 b6 43.h4 c6 44.b8 e8 45.xf5 h6 46.c7+ f8 47.d8 b5 48.e6 h7 49.e5 b4 50.d6+ . 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. 1–0Friday, May 25, 2018
Thursday, May 24, 2018
William Steinitz X Emanuel Lasker - St Petersburg 1895/96
Steinitz, William2590–Lasker, Emanuel26401–0D35St Petersburg 1895/964St Petersburg1896
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.c3 f6 4.f4 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. e7 5.e3 0-0 6.c5!? 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... e4?!
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! 7.b4 a5 8.a3 axb4 9.axb4 xa1 10.xa1 c6 11.a4 bxc5‼ 12.xc6 cxd4 with a dangerous initiative for the sacrificed
piece. 7.xe4 dxe4 8.c2 f5 9.c4 c6 10.a3 Kasparov: 'preventing
Nb4-d5, and also keeping the bishop on an important diagonal after Na5, Ba2.' f6 11.0-0-0! 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. h8 11...b6? 12.d5! leads to a disaster. 12.f3 e7! Not surprisingly Lasker
begins to fight hard in what can only be described as a miserable position. 13.g3! refusing the pawn sacrifice that would give Black an initiative: 13.fxe4? e5 14.dxe5 xe5 13...f4?! Very typical for Lasker - by
complicating dubious positions he won many great games. Now he hoped for 14.
Bxf4... 14.xe4‼ 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.xf4? e5 15.dxe5 xe5 16.xe4 f5! 17.xf5 xc4 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.e2 d7 17...f7 18.c2 b6 19.e4 g7 20.e5 h6 21.g6 e8 22.d3 Kasparov-Fritz 18.c2 followed by e3-e4-e5 Black would die without a
breath. 16.xg6 d7 16...g8 17.e4 xg3 would bring the white knight
into the attack: 18.e2 g7 19.f4 17.f4 f7? After this mistake
Black's game is finally doomed. 17...g8 would offer solid resistance,
although White's pressure remains very unpleasant. 18.e4 xg3 19.e2 g7 20.h6 followed by Rdh1. 18.g4 g7 If 18...g8 then 19.h5
and g4-g5. Now 19.Qh5 allows Black to defend with Bd7-e8-g6, but... 19.h6! xg4 20.d3 g7 20...h4 21.xh4 xh4 22.f3 f2 23.h1 xe3+ 24.b1 winning. 21.f3 f7 22.g4! The White attack rolls by itself. ag8 23.g5 d8 24.h2! The disaster on h7 is unavoidable. The rest is simply. g6 25.h5! 6g7 26.dh1! xh5 27.xh5 f8 28.xh7+ xh7 28...g8 29.xg7+ xg7 30.h7+ 29.xh7+ g8 30.xd7 f7 31.c4 xd7 32.xe6+ f7 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. 1–0Wednesday, May 23, 2018
Tuesday, May 22, 2018
Harry Nelson Pillsbury X Emanuel Lasker - St Petersburg 1895
Pillsbury, Harry Nelson2630–Lasker, Emanuel26400–1D50St Petersburg 1895/964St Petersburg1895
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.c3 f6 4.f3 c5 5.g5 cxd4 6.xd4 c6 7.h4 e7 8.0-0-0 a5 9.e3 d7 10.b1 h6 11.cxd5 exd5 12.d4 0-0 13.xf6 13.xh6? e4!-+ 13...xf6 14.h5 xd4 15.exd4 e6 16.f4 ac8 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.' xc3‼ 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! Grabbing the rook leads to a
catastrophe on the queenside for White. After 18.bxc3 c8! 19.fxe6 xc3-+ White cannot defend against the many mating threats. 18...a3‼
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 b6+ 20.a1 20.c2 c8+ 21.d2 xd4+ 22.e1 22.d3 c2+‼ 23.xc2 b2# 22...c3+ 23.e2 c2+ 24.d2 24.e3 g5+ 24...e4+ 25.f2 d4+ 26.g3 c3+ etc. 20...xd4+ 21.xd4 xd4+ 22.b1 fxe6 23.e2 e4+ 24.a1 f2 with a
decisive attack 19.e7!? looks stronger, but it doesn't break the
co-ordination of Black's pieces: e8! 19...c8?? 20.f5! and the
queen comes back to the defence 20.bxa3 b6+ 21.c2 c8+ 22.d2 xd4
and after this deadly quiet move White is defenceless, 23.e2 e6+ 24.f3 e3+ 25.g4 g6! 26.xd5 h5+ with mate to follow. It would be interesting
to know whether a computer can come close to executing such a great
combination. 19...xf7 20.bxa3 b6+ 21.b5! Kasparov: 'The best chance.
' 21.a1 xd4+ 21.c2 c7+ both lose as above. 21...xb5+ 22.a1 c7? Kasparov: 'A pity. After spending so much energy and creativity to reach
this position Lasker, under heavy time pressure, misses the simple win'' 22...c4 23.g4 e7! threatening Re4 and Re2, 24.he1 xd4+ 25.xd4 xe1 26.xc4 26.d2 xd1+ 27.xd1 26...xd1+ 23.d2 c4 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.hd1? Kasparov: 'Losing again.' 24.e1! would lead to a nice draw: a5! 25.e8+ h7 26.f5+ g6 27.e7+‼ 27.xf6?? c1+ 28.b2 c3# 27...xe7 28.f7+ h8 29.e8+ g7 30.xe7+ with perpetual check. 24...c3? Kasparov: 'A very serious mistake that could change everything
dramatically' 24...c6! gives Black an easy win 25.f5 25.e1!
was more energetic, forcing Black to retrea c8 and White has a clear
advantage. 25...c4 26.b2? 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.b1! would pose serious
problems for Black, xa3 27.c1! and chess history would have gone a
different route. 26...xa3‼ 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.e6+ h7 28.xa3?? Kasparov:
'Exhausted by the black hurricane Pillsbury succumbs to a mating threat.' 28.b1 was also losing xd4! 29.f5+ g6! 30.d7+ g7 but the immediate aber sofortiges 28.f5+! would have saved half a point: h8 29.b1! xa2! 29...xd4 30.f8+ h7 31.xa3 30.xa2 b3+ 31.c1 g5+ 31...xa2 32.c8+ h7 33.c2+ 32.ad2 c3+ 33.c2 a1+ 34.b1 c3+ and draw. 28...c3+ 29.a4 b5+! Kasparov: 'The final touch. ' 30.xb5 c4+ 31.a5 d8+ 32.b6 xb6# 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! 0–1Monday, May 21, 2018
Sunday, May 20, 2018
William Steinitz X Curt Von Bardeleben - Hastings 1895
Steinitz, William2590–Von Bardeleben, Curt25101–0C54HastingsHastings1895
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.f3 c6 3.c4 c5 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. f6 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. b4+ 7.c3!? 7.d2! xd2+ 8.bxd2 d5! breaks up White’s pawn-centre, and gives
Black a completely acceptable position. 7...d5? 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...xe4! 8.0-0 xc3 9.bxc3 d5 Steinitz-Schlechter/Hastings/1895 8.exd5 xd5 9.0-0 e6 9...xc3 10.bxc3 xc3 11.xf7+ f8 12.b3 xa1 13.a3+ e7 14.e1 +- 9...xc3 10.bxc3 xc3 11.b3 +/- 10.g5 e7 10...d7 11.xd5 xd5 12.e1+ e7 13.xd5 Wins a tempo. 11.xd5! xd5 12.xd5 12.xe7 xe7 13.e1 0-0 14.xe7? Zaitsev xe7? 14...xf3! Fritz2 15.xd5 12...xd5 13.xe7 xe7 13...xe7 14.c1 he8 14...d7 15.a4 15.c5 d6 16.c1 16.c2!? 14.e1 f6 15.e2 15.a4+!± 15...d7 15...d6? 16.b5+ c6 17.b4 d6 18.xb7 16.ac1?! 16.ad1! Zaitsev f7 17.c4+ d5 18.e5+ fxe5 19.dxe5+- 16...c6? Black underestimates the forthcoming square-vacating pawn
sacrifice. 16...f7! Black can save the game. 17.xe7+? 17.c4+ d5 17...xe7 18.xe7+ xe7 19.xc7+ d6 20.xb7 hb8 21.xg7 21.xb8 xb8 22.b3 d5 21...xb2 22.h3 xa2 16...f8 16...d8 17.d5‼
This excellent pawn sacrifice suddenly enlivens the struggle. cxd5 17...f7 18.dxc6 xc6 19.cd1 18.d4 f7 19.e6 ChessBase: 'FOO 20.Rc7' hc8 19...ac8 20.g4 19...c6 20.c5 c8 21.b5 b8 21...d8 22.d7 c6 23.xd5+ g6 24.g4 22.a6 a8 22...bxa6 23.xd5+ 23.xd5+ g6 24.c5 d8 25.e4+ f5 26.h4 20.g4! g6 21.g5+ e8 21...fxg5?? 22.xd7+- 22.xe7+! Starting one of the most famous sacrificial sequences
in chess history. The rook cannot be taken, but Black has a cunning defensive
idea. f8 22...xe7 23.xc8+ xc8 24.xc8++- 22...xe7 23.e1+ d6 24.b4+ c5 24...c6 25.c1# 24...c7 25.e6+ b8 26.f4++- 25.e4++- 23.f7+! 23.xd7?? xc1+-+ 23...g8! 23...xf7 24.xc8+ xc8 25.xc8+ e8 26.xh7++- 24.g7+! h8! 24...f8 25.xh7+ xg7 26.xd7++- 25.xh7+ 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. g8 26.g7+ h8 27.h4+ xg7 28.h7+ f8 29.h8+ e7 30.g7+ e8 31.g8+ e7 32.f7+ d8 33.f8+ e8 34.f7+ d7 35.d6# . 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. 1–0Saturday, May 19, 2018
Friday, May 18, 2018
William Steinitz X Mikhail Chigorin - Havana 1892
Steinitz, William2590–Chigorin, Mikhail26001–0C65World Championship 4th4Havana07.01.1892Pritchett
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.f3 c6 3.b5 f6 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.bd2 g7 7.f1
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. 0-0
LiveBook: 46 Games 7...a6 8.xc6+ bxc6 8.a4 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.g3 d7 9.a4 e8 9...e8 10.0-0 h8 11.e1 g8 12.c2 ge7 13.d4 g4 14.d5 b8 15.h3 d7 16.h2 a6 17.f4 f5 18.exf5 exf4 19.xf4 f7 20.f3 xf5 21.g5 g8 22.e6 xe6 23.dxe6 d4 24.xd6 Stany,G (2485)-Anurag,M (2423) Roquetas de Mar 2017 1/2-1/2 (42) 10.0-0 a5 11.g5 h6 12.d2 d5 13.exd5 xd5 14.e4 ce7 15.e1 xa4 16.xa4 b6 17.c2 c6 18.ad1 d5 19.c1 b6 20.g3 d7 21.h4 ad8 22.h5 g5 23.d4 Gobet,F (2355)-Spassky,B (2605) Fribourg 1987 0-1 (46) 8...d7N 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.e2 d6 10.b3 10.c2 b6 11.g3 a6 12.0-0 dxe4 13.xe4 xe4 14.xe4 b7 15.h4 e7 16.g5 h6 17.e4 d7 18.xh6 f5 19.h3 xe4 20.dxe4 xh6 21.ad1 c8 22.exf5 g7 23.f6+ h7 24.d7 e8
Steinitz,W-Chigorin,M Havana 1892 1-0 (33) 10...e6 11.g3 d7 12.g5 d4 13.0-0 c5 14.f4 exf4 15.xf4 e7 16.d2 dxc3 17.bxc3 xc3 18.xc3 xg5 19.f6 h6 20.f4 xf4 21.f1 d6 22.d2 d7 23.h5 Crane,B-Wallace,A
Sydney 1893 0-1 9.e3 9.h4= 9...c5 9...f5 10.c2= e6 10...a5 should be considered. 11.h4! 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. 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." 11.0-0= 11...e7 11...h5 12.h5! d5 12...c6!= remains equal. 13.hxg6 fxg6? 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
is more appropriate. 14.g4 dxe4 15.dxe4 xd1+ 16.xd1 c6 14.exd5!± xd5 14...f4 15.xd5 xd5 16.b3 c6 17.e2 17.d4 Black
must now prevent d5. exd4 18.cxd4 17...d7!? 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 18.e3 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.xe5± xg2 19.f1 18...h8 Black should try 18...a5! 19.0-0-0! ae8 Thursday, May 17, 2018
Wednesday, May 16, 2018
Johannes Hermann Zukertort X Joseph Henry Blackburne - London 1883
Zukertort, Johannes Hermann2600–Blackburne, Joseph Henry25701–0A13London Wch 16London1883Kasparov,G
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. f6 3.f3 b6 4.e2 b7 5.0-0 d5 6.d4 d6 7.c3 0-0 8.b3 bd7 9.b2 e7?! 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.b5! e4 11.xd6 cxd6 12.d2 df6 13.f3 xd2 14.xd2
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!? is more enterprising, and ensures more
counterplay. 15.xc4 d5 16.d3 fc8 17.ae1! 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. c7 18.e4 ac8 19.e5 e8 20.f4 g6 21.e3 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 xf6 23.f5! (in the words of Steinitz, 'the start of a
remarkable conception of grandiose scale') e4 Black was pinning all his
hopes on this move. 23...gxf5 24.xf5 e4 25.xe4 dxe4 was
unsatisfactory in view of 26.g3+ h8 27.d5+ e5 28.d6 . 24.xe4 dxe4 25.fxg6! '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) c2 'Despite its ruinous consequences, this is
perhaps the only chance. 25...hxg6 26.g3 g7 27.d5 e5 28.g5 e8 29.f6 is hopeless for Black.' (Zukertort) 26.gxh7+ h8 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.b4‼ The point of White's idea is the diversion of the
enemy queen! An extraordinary idea against which there is no defence. 8c5
If 28...xb4 there would have followed 29.xe5+ xh7 30.h3+ g6 31.g3+ h6 or 31...h7 32.f7+ 32.f6+ h5 33.f5+ h6 34.f4+ h7 35.h5# while if 28...e8 29.f8+! xf8 30.xe5+ xh7 31.xe4+ . 29.f8+! 'In conjunction with White's previous play, this forms one of the most
noble combinations conceived over the chessboard.' (Steinitz) xh7 Or 29...xf8 30.xe5+ xh7 31.xe4+ with a rapid mate. 30.xe4+ g7 31.xe5+ xf8 32.g7+! g8 32...xg7 33.e8# . 33.xe7 . 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! 1–0Tuesday, May 15, 2018
Monday, May 14, 2018
Adolf Anderssen X Jean Dufresne - Berlin 1852
Anderssen, Adolf2600–Dufresne, Jean23701–0C52Berlin 'Evergreen'Berlin1852Pinski
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.f3 c6 3.c4 c5 4.b4 xb4 5.c3 a5 6.d4 exd4 7.0-0 d3?! 8.b3
White should build up his attack. f6 9.e5 g6 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.e1 ge7 11.a3 b5? 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.xb5 b8 13.a4 b6 14.bd2 b7 15.e4 f5 16.xd3 h5 17.f6+!? The beginning of one of
the most beautiful combinations in chess history. Nevertheless, it is also
entering completely unnecessary complications. gxf6 18.exf6 g8 19.ad1!? xf3? Now White plays his famous combination: 20.xe7+! xe7? 21.xd7+‼ xd7 22.f5+ e8 23.d7+ f8 24.xe7# . 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.) 1–0Sunday, May 13, 2018
Saturday, May 12, 2018
Adolf Anderssen X Lionel Kieseritzky - London 1851
Anderssen, Adolf2600–Kieseritzky, Lionel24801–0C33London 'Immortal game'London1851Huebner
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.c4 h4+ 4.f1 b5?! 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.xb5 f6 6.f3 h6 6...h5 7.c3 b7 8.e5 8.c4! Y.B. Estrin xe4 8...b4 9.d3 xc3 10.bxc3 g5 11.h4 9.xe4! d5 10.b5+ c6 11.c3! 8...d5 8...xf3 9.xf3 xf3+ 10.gxf3 h5 11.d4 c6 12.d3 d5 13.e2 g5 14.h4 h6 15.hxg5 hxg5 16.f5+- 8...g4 9.d4 e3+ 9...g5 10.h4+- 10.xe3 fxe3 11.e2± 8...e4 9.xe4 xe4 10.d3 xf3 11.xf3 xf3+ 12.gxf3 g5 13.h4+- 9.e4± FOO 10.Qe2 7.d3?! 7.c3 b7 7...g5 8.d4 g7 9.e5 h5 Raphael-Morphy (New York 1857), 10.Kg1? 10.e4 g4 11.h4 b6 12.e2+- 8.e2 8.d4 xe4 9.e2 e6 10.xe4 xe4 11.xf4 xe2+ 12.xe2 c6
FOO 13...Be7 8...b4 9.e5 h5 10.g1 0-0 11.d4 b6± 7...h5?! 7...c5 8.d4 b6 9.c3 b7 Anderssen-Pollmächer (1852) 10.d3 10.e5 e4 10...h5 11.e2 xf3 11...g5 12.d3 FOO 13.g4 12.gxf3± 10...d5? 11.xd5 xd5 12.c4 FOO13.c5 11.xe4 xe4 12.h4± FOO 13.Ng5 10...g5 11.h4 g8 8.h4? 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.g1
FOO 9.g4 b6 9.c3 c6 10.c4 c5 11.e2+- a6 12.xa6 xa6 13.d4 a5 14.e5 g6 15.c4 c7 16.e5 8.e2?! b6 9.c3 c6 10.c4 a6∞ 8...g5 8...g6 9.g3 9.g4 f6 10.g2 h3 11.xf4 xg4 Estrin, Glaskov 9...e7 Estrin, Glaskov 10.g4 c6 10...d8 11.g2 d6 12.f3± 11.c4 xh4 11...a6 12.xa6 xa6 13.c3± FOO 14.gxf4 11...0-0 12.f5 g5 13.xg5 xg5 14.d6± 11...d8 12.d2 c7 12...d5 13.a5++- 13.gxf4 d5 14.f5+- 12.xh4 d5 12...g5 13.h3 FOO 14.g4 13.xf4 g7 14.d6 g5 15.xh5 xb2 15...dxc4 16.e5+- 16.xg5+- 9.f5 c6?! 9...g6 10.h4 10.g4? gxf5 11.gxh5 fxe4 10...f6 (von Gottschall) 10...g3+ 11.xg3 11.e1 f6 12.xg3 fxg3 13.e2 'mit starkem Spiel für Weiß'
(von Gottschall) 13.f3+- (Steinitz) 11...xb5 11...xg3 12.h3+- 12.c3 (Polhroniade) e5 13.ge2 h6 14.g3 f3 15.f4+- 11.c3 c6 12.a4 12.c4 d5 12...a6 FOO 13...Sc5 14.Bb3 d6 12...d6 13.d5 13.d4 g3+ 14.xg3 fxg3+ 15.f3 xd4 10.g4? 10.h4? g6 11.a4 d5 10.c4? d5 10.a4 g6 10...d5 11.g4 dxe4 12.dxe4 a6+ 13.g2± f6 14.f3 11.g3 xg3+ 12.hxg3 xg3 13.c3 c5 14.e1 14.d4? a6+ 14.f3? xf3+ 15.gxf3 g5 16.h5 e7 14...xe1+ 14...g4 15.h4+- 15.xe1 g5 16.h5 e7 17.g3± fxg3 18.xg5 g8 19.xe7 g2 20.f2 10...f6?! 10...g6 11.d4 11.gxh5 gxf5 12.h4 f6 13.c4 fxe4 14.dxe4 g8 11...g7 12.c3 xd4 13.cxd4 xb5 14.c3 14.gxh5 a6 14...b6 15.gxh5 xd4 16.f3 16.xf4 f6 16.e2 f6 16...a6 17.e2 g5 18.d1 d6-+ 11.g1! 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? 11...d5? 12.h4 g6 13.h5 13.xf4?! h5 13...g5 14.f3 xf5 15.exf5 cxb5 15...d6 16.a4 0-0 17.c3
FOO 18.Ne2 16.xf4 h4 17.c3+- c5 18.e1+ f8 18...xe1+ 19.xe1 xg1 20.g5+- 19.xd5 11...h5 12.h4 g6 13.g5 g4 14.c3 14.xf4 d5-+ 14.a4 d5 15.d4 c5 16.c3 xd4 17.cxd4 dxe4-+ 18.dxe4 xe4
FOO 19...Ba6+ 14...cxb5 15.d5 15.xb5? b6 15...a6 15...d6?! 16.d4 15...d6?! 16.xf4 xf4 17.xf4 16.xf4 b7 17.c4 xd5 18.cxd5 b6 12.h4 12.f3? h5 12...g6 13.h5 g5 13...xh5? 14.gxh5 f6 15.c3 b7 16.xf4 g6 17.xb5+- 14.f3 g8 14...xg4 Euwe 15.xg4 xh5 16.xf4+- d5 16...g6 17.d6+ xd6 18.xd6 c6 19.f6 g8 20.c3 17.c3 xf5 17...g6? 18.xd5 FOO 19.Nf6+ 18.exf5 15.xf4 f6 15...d8 Reti 16.c3 a6 16...d6 17.xb5 xf5 18.exf5+- Polihroniade 16...g6 17.xb5 gxf5 18.c7+ e7 19.exf5+- Polihroniade 17.d6 b7 18.d5 xd5 19.exd5 xd6 20.xd6+ e7 21.xf7+- 16.c3 c5 16...b7
Reti 17.g3 17.xb5 xb2 18.c7+ d8 19.g2 a6 19...c6 20.ab1 xc2+ 21.h3 b8 22.d5+- 20.xa8 xa8 21.ab1 xc2+ 22.h3+- 17...a6 17...c6 18.g5 FOO 19.Nxb5 18.xb5 18.e5 b6∞ 18...xb2 19.fd6+ xd6 20.xd6+ f8 21.e5 b6 22.g2 f6 23.gf1+- 23...Qc6 24.g5 17.d5?! 17.d4! FOO 18.Nd5 17...xb2 18.d6‼ (?) 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 xa1+ 18...f8 19.c7+ d8 20.e1+- 19.g2 b2 20.dxc5 a6 21.d6+ f8 22.e5 xc2+ 23.h3 f6 24.xf6+- 18.e3 d6 18...xa1+ 19.g2 b2 19...xg1+ 20.xg1+- xg1 21.d6+ 20.xc5 xc2+ 21.h3 xc5 22.c1 d6 22...xc1 23.d6+ 23.xc5 xf5 24.xf5
Polihroniade 24.Nc7+ dxc5 25.c8# 19.d4 19.e1 xf5 19...d7 20.xc5 dxc5 21.g3 20.exf5 d7 21.xc5 dxc5 22.c7 19...xd4 20.xd6+ d8 20...d7 21.xf7+ xd6 22.c7+ e6 23.f4+ f6 24.g5# 21.xf7+-
Polihroniade 18.e1 b7 18...a6 19.d6 b7 19...xg1 20.e5+- 20.xc5 xc5 21.d6+ d8 22.xf7++- 19.d4+- 19.c7+ Polihroniade d8 19...f8 20.d6+ xd6 21.xd6 f6 22.xf6 xf6 23.xb7+- 20.xa8 a6 20...xa8 21.xb8 xg1 22.xg1+- Polihroniade 21.e3 xa8 22.xc5 xc5 23.d6 h6 24.g5+- 18...xg1 18...xa1+ 19.e2 b2! 20.d2 20.c1 b7 21.xc5 xd5 20...xg1 20...g6 21.b1 21.e1 b7 22.xc5 xd5 23.exd5+ d8 24.d4 24.d6 h6 25.e3 a6 24...b4+ 25.c3 c5 26.e3± 21...gxf5 22.xb2 xd6 23.e5 xe5 24.e3 d6 25.d4 d8 25...b7 26.c7+ d8 27.xa8+- f4 27...g7 28.xb5+- 28.a3 26.dxe5+- 21.e5 a6! 22.c7+ 22.xg7+ d8 23.xf7 c8 22...d8 23.xa8 23.xa6 b6 24.xa8 a5+ 23...b6 24.xb8+ c8 25.d5 a5+ 26.e3 xc2 26...c1+= 19.e5 xa1+ 19...a6 20.c7+ d8 21.xa6 xa1+ 21...b6 22.xa8 xc2 23.xb8++- 22.e2 20.e2+- a6 20...f6 21.xg7+ f7 22.xf6 b7 22...xg7 23.e8+ h6 24.f4# 23.d5+ xg7 24.f8# 20...b7 21.xg7+ d8 22.xf7 h6 23.e6+ 20...a6 21.c7+ 21.xg7+? d8 22.xf7 h6 23.e6+ c8 21...d8 22.xa6 22.xa8? c3 23.xb8+ c8 24.d5 xc2+ 22...xa2 22...c3 Falkbeer 23.c7+ xc7 24.xc7 xc7 25.xa8+- FOO 26.Nd6 c6 25...c5 26.d6 xd6 27.exd6+ c8 28.xa7+- 26.d6 xe5 27.e8+ 27.f8+- 27...b6 28.b8++-
FOO 29.Qxe5 (Falkbeer) 22...b6 23.xa8 c3 24.xb8+ c8 25.xc8+ xc8 26.f8 h6 27.d6+ 27.xg7 h7 28.b4+- FOO 29.Nd5, 30.Nf6 27...d8 28.xf7+ e8 29.xh8 xf8 30.f3+- Tschigorin 23.c7+ 23.b4 c6 24.xa2 g6 25.b4 gxf5 26.xc6+ dxc6 27.xc6 c8± 23...e8 24.b4 c6 25.xa2 c5 26.d5 f8 27.xb5+- FOO 28.Qb7 21.xg7+ d8 22.f6+!
The final glory in a game of many glories. xf6 23.e7# . 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)