[Event "Cambridge Springs"]
[Site "Cambridge"]
[Date "1904.??.??"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Lasker, Emanuel"]
[Black "Napier, William Ewart"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B72"]
[WhiteElo "2620"]
[BlackElo "2500"]
[Annotator ""]
[PlyCount "69"]
[EventDate "1904.??.??"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[EventRounds "15"]
[EventCountry "USA"]
[EventCategory "11"]
{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. Nc3 Nc6 3. Nf3 g6 4. d4
cxd4 5. Nxd4 Bg7 6. Be3 d6 7. h3 Nf6 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.} O-O {The simplest reply;
the threat of g5 is not so strong that Black need take any special measures
against it.} 9. g5 Ne8 ({Black could even have continued} 9... Nh5 {for example
} 10. Nxc6 (10. Be2 Nf4) 10... bxc6 11. Be2 Rb8 {and his counterplay against
b2 and c3 is more important than the threat to the knight on h5.}) 10. h4 $6 {
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.} Nc7 {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 $1 {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. Nde2 d5 $2 ({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... Bg4 $1 {would have been very
strong; for example,} 13. Qd2 (13. Rg1 Qd7 14. Qd2 exf4 $17 {and 15...Ne5 is
also good for Black}) 13... exf4 14. Bxf4 Ne5 15. O-O-O Ne6 16. Bg3 Nc4 17. Qd3
Rc8 $19 {and Black has a very strong attack (18...Nxb2 is the immediate threat)
for which White has not the slightest compensation.}) 13. exd5 Nd4 14. Nxd4
Nxd5 $1 {The point of Black’s play.} 15. Nf5 $1 {Lasker responds in style.} (
15. Nxd5 exd4 16. Bg2 dxe3 17. O-O Be6 18. Re1 Bxd5 19. Qxd5 Qc7 $17 {
White’s weak pawns and exposed king give Black the advantage.}) 15... Nxc3
16. Qxd8 {Enabling the knight to check on e7.} Rxd8 17. Ne7+ ({Better than} 17.
Nxg7 Nd5 18. O-O-O Bg4 $1 19. Rxd5 Rxd5 20. Bg2 Rd7 21. fxe5 Kxg7 22. c3 $15 {
when White faces an uphill struggle to draw.}) 17... Kh8 (17... Kf8 18. Bc5 Ne4
19. Ba3 Nd6 20. Nxc8 Raxc8 21. O-O-O Ke7 22. Bh3 Rc6 23. Rhe1 $18) 18. h5 $1 {
Just when the complications are at a maximum, Lasker suddenly revives his
kingside attack, even in the absence of queens.} Re8 $1 (18... Nd5 19. Nxd5
Rxd5 20. h6 Bf8 21. Bc4 $16) (18... gxh5 19. f5 Ne4 20. f6 Bf8 21. Rxh5 Ng3 22.
Rh4 Nxf1 23. Kxf1 Bxe7 24. fxe7 Re8 25. Bc5 $16) 19. Bc5 {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 $1 fxg6 21. Bc4 b5 22. Bf7 Bb7 23.
Rh2 Nd5 24. Bxe8 Rxe8 25. O-O-O Nxe7 26. Rd7 Bc6 27. Rxe7 Rxe7 28. Bxe7 f3 $16
{with an advantage for White, although winning this endgame would be far from
easy.}) 20. Bc4 $2 ({White could have secured an edge by} 20. bxc3 Bf8 21. Bb5
Rxe7 $1 22. Bxe7 Bxe7 23. Rxh5 Bg4 24. Rh4 Bf5 $16 {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 $2
{This costs Black the first half-point.} (20... Ne4 $1 21. Bxf7 Bg4 $1 22. Bxe8
Rxe8 23. Ba3 Ng3 24. Rh2 exf4 $19 {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. Bxf7 Ne4 $2 {This tempting
but unsound idea costs Black the second half-point.} (21... Rf8 $1 22. Bxh5 Ne4
23. Ng6+ Kg8 24. Ne7+ $11 (24. Nxf8 Bxb2 25. Rd1 Bc3+ 26. Kf1 Nxc5 $13)) 22.
Bxe8 Bxb2 23. Rb1 Bc3+ 24. Kf1 Bg4 {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... Nxc5 25. Bxh5 Ne4 26. Kg2 Ng3 27. Bg6
Nxh1 28. Rxh1 $18) 25. Bxh5 $1 Bxh5 (25... Ng3+ 26. Kg2 Bxh5 27. Rb3 Nxh1 28.
Rxc3 Kg7 29. Kxh1 $18) 26. Rxh5 Ng3+ (26... Nd2+ 27. Kf2 Nxb1 28. g6 Kg7 29.
Rxh7+ Kf6 30. g7 $18) 27. Kg2 Nxh5 28. Rxb7 a5 ({Attempting to counterattack by
} 28... Rd8 29. Rxa7 Rd2+ 30. Kf3 Rxc2 {rebounds after} 31. Nf5 Kg8 32. Nh6+
Kh8 33. Ra8+ Kg7 34. Rg8#) {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.} 29. Rb3 $1 Bg7 (29... Ba1 30. Rh3 Ng7
31. Rh6 Ne8 32. Kf3 Kg7 33. Kxf4 $18) 30. Rh3 Ng3 31. Kf3 Ra6 $6 (31... Re8 {
would have put up more resistance, but} 32. Bd6 Nf1 33. Kxf4 $18 {will win in
the long run.}) 32. Kxf4 Ne2+ (32... Nf1 33. Rh1 Nd2 34. Rd1 $18) 33. Kf5 Nc3
34. a3 Na4 35. Be3 {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
No comments:
Post a Comment