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