Friday, May 18, 2018

William Steinitz X Mikhail Chigorin - Havana 1892

A game that I liked (ChessBase 14)
Steinitz, William2590Chigorin, 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
20.f1! We can sympathize with Chigorin to the extent that it couldn't have been easy to foresee that such a modest retreat by White's queen could prove so decisive. But it is! Black's development still has a deceptively active look about it, but by quietly removing the queen from the indirect fire of Black's rook on e8, White threatens mayhem, not just in the centre by playing d3-d4, but also, as we shall see, on the h-file. It must indeed have seemed quite extraordinary to many in the 1890s that White should be able to build up such devastating attacking force with all of his pieces and pawns developed no further forward than on his first three ranks. But after exchanges on d4, White's pressure on the a2-g8 diagonal, dominance on the h- and d-files, and opportunity to exploit the weakened dark squares around Black's king, all come together in a riotous king-hunt. Worse is 20.xa7 d4 20.d2!+- 20...a5?
20...h5= 21.d4!+- exd4 22.xd4 xd4 23.xd4 Not 23.xd4+ xd4 24.xd4 e7= 23...xd4?
Chigorin presumably allowed Steinitz to cap his strategic masterpiece with its justly famous sacrificial finish. 23...f7+- 24.h6 g7 24.xh7+! White mates. xh7 25.h1+ g7 26.h6+ f6 27.h4+ e5 28.xd4+ Accuracy: White = 45%, Black = 8%.
1–0

No comments: