McDonnell, Alexander2440–De Labourdonnais, Louis Charles Mahe2450B32London m Wch 162London1834Kasparov,G
The Players Alexander McDonnell (1798–1835) was born in Belfast and
established himself as the best player in England in the 1830s. Indeed, his
superiority was such that he even played at odds when facing the best of the
English players blindfold. Though his talent was undoubted, he had little
experience facing opposition of his own level, and this showed when he faced
Labourdonnais in their series of matches. Louis Charles Mahé de Labourdonnais
(1797–1840) was born on the French island of La Réunion, where his father
had been governor. After settling in France, then the world’s leading chess
nation, he learned the game while in his late teens, and progressed rapidly;
from 1820 up until his death he was regarded as the leading player. He was
clearly a man who loved to play chess; even during his matches, he would play
off-hand games for small stakes between the match games. The Game After some
lacklustre opening play from McDonnell, Labourdonnais sets up a powerful
mobile pawn centre, very much in the style of Philidor, the greatest French
player prior to Labourdonnais. He plays extremely energetically to support and
advance the pawns, and when McDonnell threatens to make inroads around and
behind the pawns, he comes up with a fine exchange sacrifice. The tactics all
work, and Black’s pawns continue their advance towards the goal. The final
position, once seen, is never forgotten: three passed pawns on the seventh
rank overpowering a hapless queen and rook. 1.e4 c5 2.f3 In the Parisian
Café de la Régence they preferred 2.f4 – in his time Deschapelles had
asserted that 'any other move is advantageous to Black', and McDonnell several
times played this against La Bourdonnais, but after c6 3.f3 e6 4.c3 d5 5.e5 f6 and ...Nh6 the Frenchman was more successful (+4 -8 =1). Later Staunton
also thought that 2 Nf3 was a mistake and that 2 f4, as Saint-Amant played
against him, was better. But Morphy categorically disagreed with this, calling
2 f4 'a completely incorrect method of play', and the moves 2 Nf3 and 2 d4
'the strongest'. It is clear, wouldn't you agree, which of these disputants
could see into the future... 2...c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.xd4 e5! The
exclamation mark is for the breakthrough in time! La Bourdonnais makes a move
which became the starting point of a variation developed 150 years(!) later by
grandmaster Sveshnikov. The 12th game of the match went 4...xd4? 5.xd4 e6 6.c4?! 6.c3! is more accurate 6...e7 7.c3 c6 8.d1 c5 9.0-0 0-0 with a slightly inferior game. 5.xc6 Nowadays every
schoolboy knows that 5.b5 should be played. After this from the late 1950s
they used to play a6 6.d6+ xd6 7.xd6 f6 , for example: 8.d1 8.a3 or even 8.xf6 xf6 9.c3 is also good 8...g6 9.c3 ge7 10.h4 h5 11.g5 d5 12.xe7 d4 13.g5 dxc3 14.bxc3 xe4+ 15.e2 f6 16.e3 g4
with equality, Fischer-Tal, Curaçao Candidates 1962), but 12 exd5! retains an
advantage. Then Sveshnikov showed that 5...d6! 6 c4 Be7 is more solid – here
White has only a minimal initiative. However, 5 Nxc6 is perhaps better than
its reputation. In pre-Steinitzian times they aimed for rapid development and
an attack, and did not pay attention to such positional nuances as the
weakness of the d5-square. 5...bxc6 6.c4 f6 Löwenthal recommended 6...a6 (with the idea of 7 Bxa6 Qa5+ and ...Qxa6), but after 7.d2 xc4 or 7...a5 8.0-0 f6 9.e2 8.xc4 e7 9.0-0 e6 10.b3 f6 11.b2 White
retains some advantage. 7.g5?! A futile, anti-positional move: why
exchange this bishop? Also harmless is 7.e2 e7 8.c3 0-0 9.g5 xe4 9...h6!? 10.xe7 xc3 11.xe5 e8 12.0-0 xe7 13.xc3 d5 14.d3 d6
with equality, as in a previous game of the same match. But 7.0-0!
is more logical. 
No comments:
Post a Comment