Magnus Carlsen (2855) X Ian Nepomniachtchi (2782) - 136 Moves - Game of Century

Peter Svidler X Veselin Topalov - Linares 23rd - 18/2/2006

Hermanis Matisons X Aaron Nimzowitsch - Karlsbad 1929

[Event "Karlsbad"] [Site "Karlstad"] [Date "1929.??.??"] [Round "12"] [White "Matisons, Hermanis"] [Black "Nimzowitsch, Aaron"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "E21"] [Annotator ""] [PlyCount "46"] [EventDate "1929.07.31"] [EventType "tourn"] [EventRounds "21"] [EventCountry "SWE"] [SourceTitle ""] [Source "HCA"] [SourceDate ""] [SourceVersion ""] [SourceVersionDate ""] [SourceQuality "1"] {Weak Pawns, Weak Squares and Mighty, Mighty Knights In this game, Nimzovich (a) plants his Knight on a weak square, (b) forces open a file for his Rook and (c) switches the other Knight over to the center of the board, and the power generated by the centralized Knights are devastating.} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. Nf3 Bxc3+ 5. bxc3 d6 6. Qc2 Qe7 {Black is ready to meet 7.e4 with 7... e5, securing a fair share of the center.} 7. Ba3 {White has two objects in mind: (1) to prevent 7... e5, after which 8.dxe5 leaves Black unable to recapture; (2) To advance 8.c5, with the idea of dissolving the doubled Pawn.} c5 {This fixes White´s Pawn at c4, making it a targit of Black´s future attack.} 8. g3 {White will fianchetto the Bishop and control the long diagonal. Here it has the drawback of depriving the weak Pawn at c4 of a defender.} (8. e4 e5 9. d5 O-O 10. Bc1) 8... b6 {Black will dispute control of the diagonal.} 9. Bg2 Bb7 10. O-O O-O 11. Nh4 {White is anxious to exchange Bishops because Black´s has more scope, making (together with f6 Knight) strong pression on e4 square, but a better way to bring about an exchange was by 11.Nd2. The Knight would then exert more influence on the center and also would be a useful protector od the c4 Pawn.} Bxg2 12. Kxg2 ({ Much better would be} 12. Nxg2 {brining the Knight back into play} Nc6 13. e4 Na5 14. Ne3 {with White´s Knight centralized and c4 Pawn defended.}) 12... Qb7+ 13. Kg1 {White gets into dificulties after this. The right move was 13.Nf3.} ( 13. Nf3 Qa6 14. Qb3 Nc6 15. Bc1 Rfc8 16. Bg5 Ne4 17. Qc2 f5 18. d5 Ne5 19. Nxe5 dxe5 20. Be7 Qxc4 21. d6 Qxc3 22. Qb3 Kf7 23. Rh1) (13. f3 g5 (13... Qa6 $1 14. Bb2 Nc6 15. Kg1 Na5 16. Ng2 Nxc4 17. e4) 14. Qd2 (14. Qc1) 14... h6 {and the Knight has no flight square.} 15. Kf2 gxh4 16. Qxh6 Nh7 17. gxh4 Kh8 18. Rg1) 13... Qa6 14. Qb3 Nc6 15. Rfd1 (15. dxc5 bxc5 {The threat is 16... Rab8, winning the a3 Bishop, or 16... Ne5, winning the c4 Pawn.} 16. Qb5 Qxb5 17. cxb5 Na5) (15. Nf3 Na5 16. Qb5 Qxb5 17. cxb5 Nc4 18. Bc1 Nd5 {and the c3 Pawn falls.}) 15... Na5 16. Qb5 Qxb5 17. cxb5 Nc4 $1 {The doubled Pawn has been dissolved, but the weakness of the c4 square remains. Nimzovich anchors his Knight on this vital square and secure new advantages: (1) The Knight is posted aggressively. It attacks the Bishop and drives it back to its original square. (2) The Knight is posted defensively, protecting the d6 and b6 Pawns. (3) The Knight cannot be dislodged by Pawns nor by the Bishop (which operates on black squares only).} 18. Bc1 a6 $1 {Forces opening of the A file: White must capture or loses a Pawn.} 19. bxa6 Rxa6 20. dxc5 bxc5 21. Ng2 Nd5 { Black´s position is superior: his Knights are centralized, while White´s minor pieces are widely scaterred.} 22. Rd3 (22. Bd2 Rfa8 23. e4 Nf6 24. Ne3 Ne5 25. Kg2 Rxa2 26. Rxa2 Rxa2 27. f3) 22... Rfa8 23. e4 Ne5 (23... Ne5 24. Rd1 Nxc3 25. Rf1 (25. Rd2 Nf3+) (25. Re1 Nf3+) 25... Rxa2 26. Rxa2 Nf3+ 27. Kh1 Rxa2 { and White must lose the third Pawn (the e4 one).}) 0-1

Liren Ding X Jan-Krzysztof Duda - Round 10.1 - 43rd Olympiad Batumi 2018 Open

[Event "43rd Olympiad Batumi 2018 Open"] [Site "Batumi"] [Date "2018.10.04"] [Round "10.1"] [White "Ding, Liren"] [Black "Duda, Jan-Krzysztof"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "D24"] [WhiteElo "2804"] [BlackElo "2739"] [Annotator ""] [PlyCount "75"] [EventDate "2018.??.??"] [TimeControl "60"] 1. d4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Nf6 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 2. c4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} e6 {[%emt 0: 00:00]} 3. Nf3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} d5 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 4. Nc3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} dxc4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 5. e4 {[%emt 0:00:09] LiveBook: 1741 Games} b5 {[%emt 0: 00:06] D24: Queen's Gambit Accepted: 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Nc3} 6. e5 {[%emt 0:00:11]} Nd5 {[%emt 0:00:05]} 7. Nxb5 {[%emt 0:00:05]} Nb6 {[%emt 0:00:05]} 8. Be2 { [%emt 0:00:20]} Nc6 {[%emt 0:00:07]} 9. O-O {[%emt 0:00:00]} Be7 {[%emt 0:00: 05]} 10. Qd2 {[%emt 0:00:42]} (10. Be3 O-O 11. Nc3 Rb8 12. a3 Bb7 13. Qc2 { 1/2-1/2 (61) Mamedyarov,S (2801)-Caruana,F (2822) Saint Louis 2018}) 10... O-O {[%emt 0:00:24]} 11. Qf4 {[%emt 0:00:39]} Rb8 $146 {[%emt 0:00:24]} ({ Predecessor:} 11... Nb4 12. Qg4 Re8 13. Rd1 {1/2-1/2 (64) Dreev,A (2649) -Grachev,B (2626) Moscow 2018}) 12. Nc3 {[%emt 0:04:14]} f5 {[%emt 0:03:03]} 13. Qg3 {[%emt 0:22:18]} Kh8 {[%emt 0:13:25]} 14. Rd1 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Nb4 { [%emt 0:07:25]} 15. b3 {[%emt 0:00:20]} cxb3 {[%emt 0:03:39]} 16. axb3 { [%emt 0:00:07]} a6 {[%emt 0:00:13]} 17. Bc4 {[%emt 0:15:50]} Nc2 {[%emt 0:17: 50]} 18. Ra2 {[%emt 0:00:31]} Nb4 $1 {[%emt 0:00:06]} 19. Ra1 {[%emt 0:04:49]} Nc2 {[%emt 0:00:28]} 20. Ra2 {[%emt 0:00:03]} Nb4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 21. Re2 { [%emt 0:04:59]} a5 {[%emt 0:07:59]} 22. d5 {[%emt 0:00:33]} exd5 {[%emt 0:21: 30]} 23. e6 {[%emt 0:00:25]} Bd6 {[%emt 0:03:30]} (23... Rf6 $11) 24. Qh3 { [%emt 0:07:31]} (24. Bf4 $16 Bxf4 25. Qxf4) 24... Qf6 {[%emt 0:04:35]} (24... dxc4 25. Ng5 $16 (25. e7 Qxe7 26. Rxe7 Bxe7 $14)) 25. Nb5 {[%emt 0:00:00]} ({ Stronger than} 25. Nxd5 N4xd5 26. Bxd5 (26. Ng5 h6 $19) 26... Nxd5 $17) ({ Of course not} 25. Ng5 h6 $15) 25... dxc4 {[%emt 0:07:17]} 26. Nxd6 {[%emt 0: 00:00]} (26. Ng5 $1 $11 {hält das Gleichgewicht.} h6 27. Nxd6 cxd6 28. e7) 26... cxd6 {[%emt 0:03:15]} (26... Bxe6 $17 27. Nxc4 (27. Ng5 Bg8 $17) 27... Bxc4 28. bxc4 Rbd8) 27. e7 {[%emt 0:00:03]} Re8 {[%emt 0:03:10] [#]} (27... Bd7 $1 $14 28. exf8=N Rxf8 29. Bg5 Qg6 $14) 28. Ng5 $1 {[%emt 0:00:04]} Qg6 { [%emt 0:00:22] [#]} (28... h6 $142 29. Qh5 Bd7 30. Rxd6 N6d5 31. Nf7+ (31. bxc4 $2 Nf4 $19) 31... Kh7) 29. Rxd6 $1 {[%emt 0:00:04]} f4 {[%emt 0:00:05] [#]} 30. Qh4 $1 {[%emt 0:00:38]} Qb1 {[%emt 0:01:42]} 31. Re1 $2 {[%emt 0:03:14]} (31. Qxf4 $18 Bd7 {[#]} 32. Rf6 $3 (32. bxc4 Na2 $11) 32... gxf6 33. Qxf6+ Kg8 34. Qf7+ Kh8 35. Rc2 $1) 31... Bf5 $2 {[%emt 0:01:44]} ({Wrong is} 31... cxb3 $2 32. Rd8 $18) (31... Bd7 $16 {is a better defense.}) 32. Rd8 {[%emt 0:00:42]} Bg6 $2 {[%emt 0:00:55] [#]} (32... Nc6) 33. Rxb8 $1 {[%emt 0:01:20]} ({Worse is } 33. Nxh7 Kg8 $17) 33... Rxb8 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 34. Qxf4 {[%emt 0:00:06]} ({ Don't go for} 34. Nxh7 $2 Kg8 $19) 34... Rg8 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 35. Nf7+ { [%emt 0:00:17]} Bxf7 {[%emt 0:00:05]} 36. Qxf7 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Nd7 {[%emt 0: 01:39]} 37. e8=Q {[%emt 0:00:15]} Nf6 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 38. Bg5 $18 {[%emt 0:02: 48]} 1-0

Peter Leko X Maxime Vachier-Lagrave - Round 7.1 - 43rd Olympiad Batumi 2018 Open

[Event "43rd Olympiad Batumi 2018 Open"] [Site "Batumi"] [Date "2018.10.01"] [Round "7.1"] [White "Leko, Peter"] [Black "Vachier-Lagrave, Maxime"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "B90"] [WhiteElo "2690"] [BlackElo "2780"] [Annotator ""] [PlyCount "142"] [EventDate "2018.??.??"] [TimeControl "60"] 1. e4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} c5 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 2. Nf3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} d6 {[%emt 0: 00:00]} 3. d4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} cxd4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 4. Nxd4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Nf6 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 5. Nc3 {[%emt 0:00:06]} a6 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 6. f3 { [%emt 0:00:08]} e5 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 7. Nb3 {[%emt 0:00:07]} Be6 {[%emt 0:00:00] } 8. Be3 {[%emt 0:00:08]} h5 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 9. Qd2 {[%emt 0:00:23]} Nbd7 { [%emt 0:00:04]} 10. Nd5 {[%emt 0:00:00] B90: Sicilian Najdorf: Unusual White 6th moves, 6 Be3 Ng4 and 6 Be3 e5} Bxd5 {[%emt 0:00:06]} 11. exd5 {[%emt 0:00: 07]} g6 {[%emt 0:00:09]} 12. Be2 {[%emt 0:00:26]} Bg7 {[%emt 0:00:07]} 13. O-O-O {[%emt 0:00:10] LiveBook: 3 Games} (13. O-O a5 14. a4 O-O 15. Bb5 Qc7 16. c4 b6 17. h3 Nc5 18. Nxc5 bxc5 {1/2-1/2 (49) Carlsen,M (2842)-Vachier Lagrave, M (2779) Biel 2018}) 13... O-O {[%emt 0:03:47] [#]} 14. g4 $146 {[%emt 0:02:15] } ({Predecessor:} 14. Kb1 Qc7 15. g4 Rfc8 16. Rc1 a5 {1/2-1/2 (44) Velilla Velasco,F (2565)-Biedermann,T (2456) ICCF email 2014}) 14... a5 {[%emt 0:03:25] } 15. a4 {[%emt 0:00:44]} Nb6 {[%emt 0:07:19]} 16. gxh5 {[%emt 0:01:51]} Nxh5 { [%emt 0:01:34]} 17. Bb5 {[%emt 0:00:13]} Nf6 {[%emt 0:13:19]} 18. h4 {[%emt 0: 48:21]} Qc7 {[%emt 0:00:00]} (18... Rc8 $142) 19. h5 $1 $16 {[%emt 0:18:13]} Nxh5 {[%emt 0:01:13]} 20. Bh6 {[%emt 0:00:59]} (20. Rxh5 $16 gxh5 21. Rg1) 20... Nf4 $1 $14 {[%emt 0:00:00]} ({Not} 20... Bxh6 $2 21. Qxh6 Rfc8 22. c3 $18 ) 21. Bxf4 {[%emt 0:15:24]} (21. Nd4 $5) 21... exf4 {[%emt 0:00:28]} 22. Qxf4 { [%emt 0:01:40]} Rfc8 {[%emt 0:02:10]} 23. Qe4 $1 {[%emt 0:00:44]} Nxa4 { [%emt 0:16:42]} 24. Bxa4 {[%emt 0:00:17]} b5 {[%emt 0:00:06]} 25. Bxb5 { [%emt 0:02:09]} a4 {[%emt 0:00:20]} 26. Nd4 {[%emt 0:01:32] Black must now prevent Bc6.} a3 {[%emt 0:00:12] Hoping for ...Bxd4.} 27. Bc6 {[%emt 0:02:09] bxa3 is the strong threat.} axb2+ {[%emt 0:12:01]} 28. Kd2 {[%emt 0:00:12]} Ra2 {[%emt 0:00:15]} 29. Rb1 $1 {[%emt 0:01:06]} Qa5+ {[%emt 0:03:37]} 30. c3 $1 { [%emt 0:01:15]} Ra4 {[%emt 0:04:25]} 31. Bxa4 {[%emt 0:00:50]} Qxc3+ {[%emt 0: 00:04]} 32. Kd1 {[%emt 0:02:27]} (32. Ke2 $16 Bxd4 33. Qd3) 32... Qc1+ $2 { [%emt 0:02:07]} (32... Bxd4 $11 {and Black is okay.} 33. Bc6 Rb8) 33. Ke2 $18 { [%emt 0:00:01]} Qc4+ {[%emt 0:00:06]} 34. Qd3 {[%emt 0:00:15]} Qxa4 {[%emt 0: 00:03]} 35. Nc6 $2 {[%emt 0:01:12]} (35. Rh4 $1 $18 Re8+ 36. Kf2) 35... Re8+ $11 {[%emt 0:00:07]} 36. Kf2 {[%emt 0:00:14] And now Kg3 would win.} Qf4 $1 { [%emt 0:00:29]} 37. Rbe1 $2 {[%emt 0:02:01]} (37. Rh3 $11) 37... Rxe1 $19 { [%emt 0:00:12]} 38. Rxe1 {[%emt 0:00:05]} Qh2+ {[%emt 0:00:04]} 39. Kf1 { [%emt 0:00:22]} Qh1+ {[%emt 0:00:00] Black has strong compensation.} 40. Kf2 { [%emt 0:00:00]} Qh2+ {[%emt 0:00:00]} 41. Kf1 {[%emt 0:15:35] [#]} Bf6 $1 { [%emt 0:08:19] ( -> ...Bh4)} 42. Rd1 {[%emt 0:09:49] [#]} Bh4 $1 {[%emt 0:01: 16]} 43. Qd4 {[%emt 0:00:17]} Bg3 $40 {[%emt 0:01:09] White is in trouble.} 44. Nb4 {[%emt 0:05:55] [#]} b1=Q $1 {[%emt 0:01:03]} 45. Rxb1 {[%emt 0:00:03]} Qh1+ {[%emt 0:00:07]} 46. Ke2 {[%emt 0:00:02]} Qxb1 {[%emt 0:00:06]} 47. Nd3 { [%emt 0:00:20]} Qc2+ {[%emt 0:00:00]} 48. Kf1 {[%emt 0:00:24]} Qd2 {[%emt 0:03: 40]} 49. Qe4 {[%emt 0:00:24] [#]} Bh4 $1 {[%emt 0:01:37]} 50. f4 $2 {[%emt 0: 00:38]} (50. Qe2 {might work better.} Qa5 51. Qe4) (50. Qxh4 Qxd3+) 50... Qd1+ {[%emt 0:00:21]} 51. Kg2 {[%emt 0:00:06]} Qg4+ {[%emt 0:00:35]} 52. Kf1 { [%emt 0:00:14]} Kf8 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 53. Qe3 {[%emt 0:02:10]} Qf5 {[%emt 0:00: 20]} 54. Qf3 {[%emt 0:01:50]} g5 {[%emt 0:01:16]} 55. Ke2 {[%emt 0:00:11]} (55. Qe3 $142) 55... g4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 56. Qg2 {[%emt 0:00:37]} Qg6 {[%emt 0:01: 57]} 57. Qh1 {[%emt 0:01:03]} Bf6 {[%emt 0:01:53]} 58. Ke3 {[%emt 0:00:08]} Kg7 {[%emt 0:01:08]} 59. Qg2 {[%emt 0:00:27]} Bd8 {[%emt 0:00:55]} 60. Qb2+ { [%emt 0:00:10]} Kh7 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 61. Qh2+ {[%emt 0:01:18]} Kg8 {[%emt 0:00: 06]} 62. Qb2 {[%emt 0:00:25]} Ba5 {[%emt 0:01:21]} ({Black should try} 62... f5 $19 63. Kf2 g3+ 64. Kf1 Qh5) 63. Qg2 $2 {[%emt 0:00:38]} (63. Nf2 $17) 63... Bb6+ {[%emt 0:02:02]} 64. Ke2 {[%emt 0:00:17]} g3 {[%emt 0:00:13]} 65. Ne1 { [%emt 0:00:33]} Ba5 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 66. Nd3 {[%emt 0:00:21]} Kf8 {[%emt 0:01: 27]} 67. Ke3 $2 {[%emt 0:00:31]} (67. f5 Qh5+ 68. Ke3) 67... Bb6+ {[%emt 0:00: 15] Black is clearly winning.} 68. Kd2 {[%emt 0:00:12]} Qg4 {[%emt 0:00:18]} 69. Kc3 {[%emt 0:01:06]} Be3 {[%emt 0:00:08]} 70. Kc2 {[%emt 0:00:30]} Bxf4 { [%emt 0:00:39]} 71. Ne1 {[%emt 0:00:25]} Be5 {[%emt 0:00:24] Precision: White = 61%, Black = 67%.} 0-1

Fabiano Caruana X Viswanathan Anand - Round 4.1 - 43rd Olympiad Batumi 2018 Open

[Event "43rd Olympiad Batumi 2018 Open"] [Site "Batumi"] [Date "2018.09.27"] [Round "4.1"] [White "Caruana, Fabiano"] [Black "Anand, Viswanathan"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "E03"] [WhiteElo "2827"] [BlackElo "2771"] [Annotator ""] [PlyCount "51"] [EventDate ""] [TimeControl "60"] 1. d4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} Nf6 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 2. c4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} e6 {[%emt 0: 00:00]} 3. g3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} d5 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 4. Bg2 {[%emt 0:00:00]} dxc4 {[%emt 0:00:17]} 5. Qa4+ {[%emt 0:00:00]} Nbd7 {[%emt 0:02:31]} 6. Qxc4 { [%emt 0:00:09]} a6 {[%emt 0:00:32] LiveBook: 46 Games} 7. Be3 $146 {[%emt 0:00: 00] E03: Open Catalan: 5 Qa4+ Nbd7 6 Qxc4} ({Predecessor:} 7. Qc2 c5 8. Nf3 b5 9. Ne5 Nd5 10. Nxd7 Bxd7 11. Bxd5 exd5 12. dxc5 Bc6 13. O-O d4 14. Bf4 Qd5 15. f3 d3 16. exd3 Qxc5+ 17. Qxc5 Bxc5+ 18. Kg2 Bd4 19. Nc3 Kd7 20. Rae1 {1/2-1/2 (20) Giri,A (2752)-Anand,V (2767) Wijk aan Zee 2018}) 7... Bd6 {[%emt 0:04:00]} 8. Qc2 {[%emt 0:03:05]} O-O {[%emt 0:02:22]} 9. Nh3 {[%emt 0:00:22]} e5 { [%emt 0:06:24]} 10. O-O {[%emt 0:01:23]} h6 {[%emt 0:03:20]} 11. dxe5 {[%emt 0: 00:00]} Nxe5 {[%emt 0:00:30]} 12. Nc3 {[%emt 0:00:26]} Qe7 {[%emt 0:02:11]} 13. Rad1 {[%emt 0:05:56]} Re8 {[%emt 0:03:45]} 14. Nf4 {[%emt 0:09:03]} c6 { [%emt 0:00:19]} 15. Bd4 {[%emt 0:03:37]} g5 {[%emt 0:15:04]} 16. Nd3 {[%emt 0: 00:00]} Nxd3 {[%emt 0:01:16]} 17. Rxd3 {[%emt 0:11:59]} Be5 {[%emt 0:06:19]} ({ But not} 17... Bf5 $2 18. Bxf6 Bxd3 19. Bxe7 $18) 18. Qd2 {[%emt 0:18:56]} Bf5 {[%emt 0:14:38]} 19. e4 {[%emt 0:06:06]} Bg6 {[%emt 0:00:43]} 20. f4 {[%emt 0: 00:00]} gxf4 {[%emt 0:06:25]} (20... Bxd4+ $11 21. Rxd4 Rad8) 21. Bxe5 { [%emt 0:06:04]} Qxe5 {[%emt 0:00:26]} 22. gxf4 {[%emt 0:00:04]} ({Much worse is } 22. Qxf4 $6 Qxf4 23. Rxf4 Kg7 $11) 22... Qc5+ {[%emt 0:00:20] [#]} 23. Kh1 $1 {[%emt 0:00:32]} Nxe4 {[%emt 0:08:22]} 24. Nxe4 {[%emt 0:01:10]} Rxe4 {[%emt 0: 00:00] [#]} 25. Rg3 $1 {[%emt 0:02:57]} Rd4 {[%emt 0:01:22] [#]} 26. Qe3 $1 $18 {[%emt 0:02:40]} 1-0

Magnus Carlsen X David Navara - ACCENTUS Biel GMT 2018

[Event "ACCENTUS Biel GMT 2018"] [Site "Biel"] [Date "2018.07.22"] [Round "1"] [White "Carlsen, Magnus"] [Black "Navara, David"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "D30"] [WhiteElo "2842"] [BlackElo "2741"] [Annotator ""] [PlyCount "127"] [EventDate "2018.07.22"] [EventCountry "SUI"] [SourceTitle ""] [Source ""] [SourceQuality "1"] 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 d5 3. c4 e6 4. Bg5 Bb4+ 5. Nc3 h6 6. Bxf6 Qxf6 7. e3 O-O 8. Rc1 dxc4 9. Bxc4 c5 {D38: Queen's Gambit Declined: Ragozin Defence (4 Nf3 Bb4)} 10. dxc5 Nd7 11. O-O {LiveBook: 3 Games} Nxc5 {The position is equal.} 12. Nb5 a6 13. Nbd4 {[#]} b5 $146 ({Predecessor:} 13... Ba5 14. a3 Bb6 15. b4 Ne4 16. Qd3 Ng5 17. Nxg5 hxg5 {1-0 (36) Salem,A (2638)-Peralta,F (2556) Sitges 2017}) 14. Be2 e5 15. Nc2 (15. a3 {is more complex.} exd4 16. Nxd4 Ne6 17. axb4 Rd8 18. Bf3) 15... Rd8 16. Nxb4 Rxd1 17. Rfxd1 a5 18. Nd5 Qd6 19. Nxe5 Bb7 20. Bf3 Rc8 21. Ng4 Qf8 22. h4 Nd7 {With the idea ...Rxc1.} 23. Rxc8 Bxc8 24. a3 h5 25. Nh2 g6 26. Be2 Ne5 27. Bxb5 Bb7 28. Nc3 Qe7 29. Rd4 Qe6 30. Nf1 Qb3 31. Rd2 Nc4 32. Rd7 {Bxc4 is the strong threat.} Nxb2 33. Rxb7 Qxc3 34. Be8 Kf8 35. Bxf7 Qc6 36. Rxb2 Kxf7 $11 {Endgame KQ-KRN} 37. Rd2 $1 Qa4 38. Rd3 Qxh4 39. Rd7+ Kg8 40. Rd4 $1 Qe7 41. a4 Qa3 42. g3 Qa1 43. Kg2 g5 44. Nd2 g4 45. Ne4 Qc1 46. Nf6+ Kf7 47. Nxh5 Qc6+ 48. Kg1 {Threatens to win with Rf4+.} Qc1+ 49. Kh2 Kg6 $1 50. Nf4+ Kf6 51. Ng2 Kg5 52. Rf4 Qd1 53. Nh4 {Hoping for Rf5+.} Qc2 54. Nf5 Qd3 55. e4 Qd7 $2 {[#]} (55... Qd1 $1 $11 {and Black has nothing to worry.}) 56. e5 $1 $18 Qh7+ 57. Kg1 {aiming for e6.} Qg6 {[#]} 58. Nd6 $1 Qe6 $2 (58... Qb1+ 59. Kh2 Qc1) 59. Rf5+ Qxf5 60. Nxf5 Kxf5 61. f4 {Kg2 would kill now.} gxf3 62. Kf2 Kxe5 63. Kxf3 Kf5 64. Ke3 {Precision: White = 75%, Black = 65%.} 1-0

Paul F Johner X Aoron Nimzowitsch - Dresden 1926

[Event "Dresden"] [Site "Dresden"] [Date "1926.04.??"] [Round "2"] [White "Johner, Paul F"] [Black "Nimzowitsch, Aaron"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "E41"] [WhiteElo "2414"] [BlackElo "2577"] [Annotator ""] [PlyCount "80"] [EventDate "1926.04.??"] [EventType "tourn"] [EventRounds "9"] [EventCountry "GER"] {The Players Paul Johner (1887–1938) was a Swiss player and musician, who won or shared the Swiss Championship six times. His best success was his victory in a quadrangular tournament in Berlin 1924, where he came ahead of Rubinstein, Teichmann and Mieses. Aron Nimzowitsch (1886-1935) was one of the strongest players in the world during the 1920s and was also influential as a thinker and writer. He was born in Riga and rose to prominence before the First World War. The war interrupted his career for six years but when Nimzowitsch was able to resume international competition he rapidly advanced into the world elite. After a succession of tournament victories, his challenge for the World Championship was accepted by Capablanca in 1926. However, Nimzowitsch was unable to raise the necessary money and when the world title passed to Alekhine in 1927, the new champion preferred to play a title match against Bogoljubow (some have said that this was because Alekhine regarded Nimzowitsch as the more dangerous opponent). After 1931 he could not maintain his level of play and was no longer a realistic title contender. Nimzowitsch fell ill in 1934 and died from pneumonia some months later. Nimzowitsch was, along with Réti, one of the most prominent members of the “Hypermodern” school of chess, which introduced many new ideas into the game, especially in the area of opening play (see the introduction to Game Réti - Bogoljubow, for more details). Nimzowitsch’s influence on opening theory was especially profound and a number of opening lines bear his name. The two most important are the Nimzo-Indian Defence (1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4), and the French Defence line 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4, which is called the Nimzowitsch Variation in most non-English speaking countries. Both are still in everyday use. Nimzowitsch wrote three important books of which two, My System (1925) and Chess Praxis (1929) are regarded as classics of chess literature and are still in print. The Game This is probably one of Nimzowitsch’s most creative achievements at the chessboard. As early as move 12 he implements a plan that shocks the chess world. The incredible thing is that it seems to work! Certainly Johner has no answer to the unique problems facing him. He looks on as a virtual spectator as his pawns are blocked and then his position dismantled bit by bit. A game of pure joy!} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 {Nimzowitsch’s own defence, which is generally known as the Nimzo-Indian (the name “Nimzowitsch Defence” is reserved for 1. e4 Nc6, even though this is a far less important opening). In the nineteenth century virtually all the top players would have played 3...d5 here (if they hadn’t already played ...d5 on move one), controlling the centre in a classical way by occupying it with pawns. However, Nimzowitsch discovered another way to play for Black, which seems very normal now, but at the time was quite revolutionary. His concept was to control the centre with pieces rather than pawns, a kind of long-distance command, which has the advantage of retaining much flexibility. This theory was one of the key ideas of the Hypermodern school of chess, led by Richard Réti and Nimzowitsch himself.} 4. e3 O-O 5. Bd3 c5 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. O-O Bxc3 8. bxc3 d6 9. Nd2 $1 {Nimzowitsch} (9. e4 e5 10. d5 Na5 {Nimzowitsch} (10... Ne7 $5)) 9... b6 {/\10...e5 11.d5 Na5 12.Nb3 Nb7 Nimzowitsch} (9... e5 10. d5 Na5 (10... Ne7 11. e4 $1 {Nimzowitsch}) 11. Nb3) 10. Nb3 $2 (10. f4 $1 e5 11. fxe5 dxe5 12. d5 Na5 13. Nb3 Nb7 14. e4 Ne8 { /\15...Ne8-d6}) 10... e5 $1 11. f4 (11. d5 e4 $1 12. Be2 (12. dxc6 exd3 $17) 12... Ne5 $1) 11... e4 $1 (11... Qe7 12. fxe5 dxe5 13. d5 Nd8 14. e4 Ne8) 12. Be2 Qd7 $3 {This move, together with the subsequent queen manoeuvre, astounded the chess world at the time it was played, but its concept has been an inspiration to many grandmasters since. Nimzowitsch’s main idea was first to restrain, then blockade and finally destroy. Here Black starts the restraining part of the plan. The only possible action for White in this position is on the kingside. He would like to expand there with g4, so Black basically takes steps to prevent this. The fact that the queen blocks the bishop for the moment is quite irrelevant. The whole picture will be seen in a few moves’ time. In My System Nimzowitsch writes “Black sees in White’s kingside pawns (f-, g- and h-pawns) a qualitative majority. The text move involves a complicated method of restraint."} (12... Ne8 $1 13. g4 (13. f5 Qg5) 13... f5 14. d5 (14. dxc5 $5 dxc5 15. Qd5+ Qxd5 16. cxd5 Ne7 17. Rd1 Nd6) 14... Ne7 15. g5 {Leads to petrification-Nimzowitsch Führt zu Versteinerung -Nimzowitsch}) 13. h3 $2 {No annotations by Nimzowitsch, but the move weakens g3.} (13. f5 $5 {Szabo} Ne7 14. g4 h5 $1) (13. Bd2 $5 {Larsen} Ne7 14. Be1 Nf5 $2 (14... Ng4 15. Qd2 f5 {not easy to storm the white position.}) (14... Ba6 $5 15. Bh4 $2 Nf5 16. Bf2 cxd4 $1) 15. Bf2) (13. a4 $1 {Larsen} a5 14. Bd2) 13... Ne7 14. Qe1 $2 {Discounting the small glimmer of a chance at move eighteen, this was White’s last chance to make a fight of it in the positional battle.} (14. Bd2 Nf5 {/\15...Nf5-g3 to exchange the Be2, which covers the Pc4.} (14... h5 $1 { Larsen} 15. Bxh5 (15. Be1 Nf5 16. Bf2 g6) 15... Nxh5 16. Qxh5 Qa4 $1 (16... Ba6 17. f5 $1) 17. f5 f6 18. Rf4 $2 Bxf5) 15. Qe1 g6 16. g4 Ng7 17. Qh4 Nfe8 { /\18...f7-f5} 18. a4 {inter alia to prevent Qd7-a4.} f5 19. g5 Nc7 20. d5 Ba6 { A preventive measure directed against 21.a4-a5, for now the reply could be 21.. .b6-b5.} 21. Kf2 Qf7 22. Rfd1 (22. Qh6 $2 Nxd5 $1 23. cxd5 Bxe2 24. Kxe2 Qxd5 25. Nc1 Nh5 $1 {with permanent imprisonment of the White's queen. Black wins by promoting the pawns.}) 22... Kh8 $14 {/\23...Nh5, Kg7(!) and finally h7-h6 - Nimzowitsch.}) (14. Kh2 $1 {Szabo}) (14. g4 $5 {Szabo}) 14... h5 $1 {The start of the process of tying White up. Der Beginn der Einschnürung.} 15. Bd2 (15. Qh4 Nf5 16. Qg5 Nh7 17. Qxh5 Ng3) 15... Qf5 $1 {To make its way to h7. This was the original point of the restraining maneouvre. Um nach h7 zu wandern, dies war die originelle Pointe des Hemmungsmanövers.} 16. Kh2 Qh7 $1 { The restraining manoeuvre Qd8-d7-f5-h7 represents one of the most remarkable conceptions invented by Nimzowitsch.} 17. a4 Nf5 {/\18... Ng4+ 19.hxg4 hxg4+ 20.Kg1 g3 etc.} (17... a5 $1) 18. g3 (18. a5 $1 {Larsen} Ng4+ 19. Bxg4 hxg4 20. axb6 gxh3 21. gxh3 Nh4 22. Qg3 {It's not easy to prove a clear win for Black - Larsen.}) 18... a5 $1 {It's easier to defend the weakness on b6 than the weakness on a4. Compare Spassky,B-Fischer,R (05) Wch28-Reykjavik 1972, 0-1/ (27) b6 ist leicht zu decken. Vgl. Spassky,B-Fischer,R (05)/Wch28-Reykjavik/ 1972/0-1/27/} 19. Rg1 Nh6 20. Bf1 Bd7 21. Bc1 Rac8 {Black has enough play on the kingside, so he is not worried about the centre being closed by d4-d5. Schwarz braucht die Abschließung durch d4-d5 nicht mehr zu fürchten, denn er hat genug Spiel am Königsflügel.} 22. d5 Kh8 23. Nd2 (23. Kg2 Rg8 24. Kf2 g5 $19) 23... Rg8 {Now comes the attack.} 24. Bg2 g5 25. Nf1 Rg7 26. Ra2 Nf5 27. Bh1 Rcg8 28. Qd1 gxf4 $1 29. exf4 Bc8 30. Qb3 Ba6 31. Re2 (31. Bd2 Rg6 $1 32. Be1 Ng4+ 33. hxg4 hxg4+ 34. Kg2 Bxc4 $1 35. Qxc4 e3 $19) 31... Nh4 $1 { Black’s positional masterpiece has been completed, and he now completely dominates the board. The rest is of the game is simply tactics. Tactics tend to flow freely from a position of strength, and this game is no exception.} 32. Re3 (32. Nd2 Bc8 $1 (32... Qf5 $2 33. Qd1 $1 Bc8 34. Qf1) 33. Nxe4 (33. Qd1 Bxh3 $1 34. Kxh3 Qf5+) 33... Qf5 $1 34. Nf2 Qxh3+ $1 35. Nxh3 Ng4#) 32... Bc8 33. Qc2 Bxh3 $1 34. Bxe4 (34. Kxh3 Qf5+ 35. Kh2 Ng4+ 36. Kh3 Nf2+ 37. Kh2 Qh3#) 34... Bf5 {The best, since h5-h4 can no longer be stopped; after the fall of the Bh3 the defence has become hopeless. Das Beste, denn nun ist h5-h4 nicht mehr aufzuhalten; nach Fall des Bh3 ist die Verteidigung eben hoffnungslos geworden.} 35. Bxf5 Nxf5 36. Re2 h4 37. Rgg2 hxg3+ 38. Kg1 Qh3 39. Ne3 Nh4 40. Kf1 Re8 $1 {/\41...Nxg2 42.Rxg2 Qh1+ 43.Ke2 Qxg2+!} (40... Re8 $1 {White resigned.} 41. Ke1 Nf3+ 42. Kd1 Qh1+ {. Lessons from this game: 1) The Nimzo-Indian is one of the soundest defences to 1. d4. 2) The art of restraint is a very important concept. In My System Nimzowitsch asks himself the question “Was ...Qd8-d7-f5-h7 an attacking manoeuvre?”, before answering in his own way “Yes and no (!). No, since its whole idea was to restrain White’s kingside pawns. Yes, since every restraining action is the logical prelude to an attack, and since every immobile complex tends to be a weakness and therefore must sooner or later become an object of attack.” Who can argue with this logic? 3) Positional domination is often the precursor to a decisive tactical flourish. In this game Black only begins the tactics around move thirty. Ten moves later White is forced to resign.}) 0-1

Akiba Rubinstein X Alexander Alekhine - Semmering Panhans 1926

[Event "Semmering Panhans"] [Site "Semmering"] [Date "1926.03.17"] [Round "8"] [White "Rubinstein, Akiba"] [Black "Alekhine, Alexander"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "E16"] [WhiteElo "2596"] [BlackElo "2664"] [Annotator ""] [PlyCount "72"] [EventDate "1926.03.07"] [EventType "tourn"] [EventRounds "17"] [EventCountry "AUT"] {The Players 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. Alexander Alekhine (1892-1946) was one of the greatest players of all time and held the World Championship from 1927 to 1935 and from 1937 until his death in 1946. Born into the Russian aristocracy, he was taught chess by his mother and soon displayed a remarkable talent for the game. After some successes in relatively minor tournaments, he was invited to play in the famous 1914 St Petersburg tournament, which included all the world’s leading players. Alekhine’s third place indicated that he had arrived among the chess elite. The First World War and the Revolution interrupted Alekhine’s career, but after he left Russia in 1920 he started a run of impressive tournament successes, which led to a challenge for the World Championship in 1927. Few expected the almost unbeatable Capablanca to lose, but Alekhine’s preparation was better and, aided by his ferocious will-power, Alekhine gained the title after a marathon battle of 34 games. Unlike many world champions, actually gaining the title did not undermine his determination and over the next few years Alekhine dominated the chess world. He successfully defended his title twice against Bogoljubow, but Alekhine seemed reluctant to face his most dangerous challengers and never allowed Capablanca a return match. A fondness for alcohol cost Alekhine the title in 1935 when he faced the Dutchman Euwe. The gentlemanly Euwe offered Alekhine a return match and, after giving up the bottle, Alekhine regained his title in 1937. Alekhine’s results just before the Second World War were definitely less impressive than formerly, and had a projected match with Botvinnik taken place he might well have lost the title. The war intervened, and during the war years Alekhine played in a number of (not very strong) tournaments in German-occupied territory. After the war, negotiations for a match with Botvinnik resumed and terms were agreed, but Alekhine died of a heart attack before the match could take place. Alekhine had a preference for attacking play and tactics, but he could handle all types of position well. The games produced while he was at his peak are models of attacking play; he had the rare ability to confront his opponents with all sorts of problems without risking his own position. The Game Just as in the game (Réti – Alekhine), most commentators have been intimidated by Alekhine’s own annotations, but it turns out that these annotations are not especially accurate. The opening line chosen by Rubinstein is not thought to cause Black any real problems; indeed Alekhine’s vigorous response seems to lead to clear equality. Alekhine misses a chance to gain an advantage, but then Rubinstein goes wrong in turn. The result is a dazzling display of tactics by Alekhine.} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 {At the time of this game, the Queen's Indian Defence was a relatively new and popular line, introduced by Nimzowitsch as part of the Hypermodern revolution. Rather than occupying the centre with pawns, Black seeks to control it by piece play from afar.} 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 Bb4+ 6. Nbd2 O-O 7. O-O d5 {QUESTION: What do you think of this position? ANSWER: Black has no problems at all. I have actually played this position as Black a number of times myself and never experienced any difficulties. The rather passive white knight on d2 does not exert any pressure against d5, which makes Black's development simple and straightforward.} 8. a3 Be7 9. b4 c5 $1 {This counter-attack in the centre ensures Black good play.} 10. bxc5 bxc5 {The position is equal.} 11. dxc5 (11. Rb1 $14 Qc8 12. Ne5) 11... Bxc5 (11... Nbd7 $15) 12. Bb2 ({White should try} 12. Rb1 $14 Qe7 13. Nb3) 12... Nbd7 $11 13. Ne5 $6 {QUESTION: What is wrong with the text? It looks natural enough. ANSWER: It leads to the loss of the initiative.} Nxe5 14. Bxe5 Ng4 $1 {From here on, Black's attack builds up with remarkable speed. QUESTION: So are you saying White is already worse here? ANSWER: Objectively, no, but he already needs to be careful. Rubinstein, who always seemed to have a lot of trouble against Alekhine in the 1920s, fails to cope with the task on this occasion.} 15. Bc3 $1 Rb8 {QUESTION: What is that for? ANSWER: Black defends his b7-bishop, so as to be able to push ...d5-d4.} 16. Rb1 $6 {QUESTION: Why don't you like this? It seems like a logical attempt to prevent Black's intended ...d5-d4 advance. ANSWER: Yes, it is a logical try, but as we will see, it does not necessarily succeed in stopping the pawn advance. Having said that, White still should be able to maintain equality, so Alekhine's criticism of the move is possibly exaggerated.} (16. Nb3 {keeps more tension.} Nxf2 17. Rxf2 Bxf2+ 18. Kxf2 dxc4 19. Qd4) 16... d4 {[%cal Bd5d4,Bd4c3,Bc3d2][%mdl 32]} 17. Rxb7 $2 {This is the real mistake.} (17. Bb4 $11 Bxg2 18. Kxg2) 17... Rxb7 $17 18. Bxb7 (18. Ba5 $17 {was necessary.} Qxa5 19. Bxb7) 18... Nxf2 $5 {This is the move Rubinstein had overlooked, and it is indeed good for Black, though Alekhine's double exclamation marks are misplaced.} 19. Kxf2 {QUESTION: Wow! That looks pretty desperate! ANSWER: It is, but White has no good alternative.} (19. Ba5 $17 {was the only chance.} Nxd1 20. Bxd8 d3+ 21. e3 Nxe3 22. Bc7) 19... dxc3+ $19 20. e3 cxd2 21. Ke2 Qb8 (21... Bxa3 22. Qxd2 Qc7 23. Be4 $19) 22. Bf3 Rd8 {Black obviously has a decisive advantage – a huge extra passed pawn on d2 and a hopelessly exposed white king. The opposite-coloured bishops are no help in the presence of queens and rooks; indeed, they only serve to strengthen the attack.} ({Don't do } 22... Bxa3 23. Qxd2 Qb3 24. Be4 $19) 23. Qb1 Qd6 $40 {[%mdl 128] Black goes for the king.} ({Not} 23... Bxa3 24. Qxb8 Rxb8 25. Kxd2 $17) 24. a4 (24. Rd1 $142) 24... f5 {[%cal Bf7f5,Bf5f4][%mdl 32]} 25. Rd1 Bb4 26. Qc2 Qc5 27. Kf2 a5 28. Be2 g5 29. Bd3 $2 {[#]} (29. Qb2) 29... f4 $1 30. Bxh7+ $146 Kh8 31. Qe4 Qxe3+ 32. Kg2 {[#]} f3+ $1 {[%mdl 512]} 33. Kh3 (33. Qxf3 Qxf3+) 33... Qe2 $1 34. Qg6 g4+ 35. Kh4 Be7+ 36. Kh5 Qxh2+ {Accuracy: White = 22%, Black = 71%. . Lessons from this game: 1) Timid opening play by White often gives Black the opportunity to seize the initiative himself. 2) Even very strong players sometimes fall victim to the weakness of f2 (f7 for Black). 3) Your next move may seem forced, but it is worth taking a few seconds to see if there might be an alternative.} ({Stronger than} 36... Qxd1 37. Qh6 $11) 0-1

Richard Reti X Alexander Alekhine - Baden-Baden 1925

[Event "Baden-Baden"] [Site "Baden-Baden"] [Date "1925.04.25"] [Round "1"] [White "Reti, Richard"] [Black "Alekhine, Alexander"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "A00"] [WhiteElo "2563"] [BlackElo "2649"] [Annotator ""] [PlyCount "84"] [EventDate "1925.04.16"] [EventType "tourn"] [EventRounds "20"] [EventCountry "GER"] [EventCategory "11"] {The Players Richard Réti (1889-1929) was born in what was then Hungary but he later adopted Czechoslovakian nationality. Réti was one of the leading figures in the “Hypermodern” school of chess, which revolutionized chess thinking in the period after the First World War. The new ideas introduced by the Hypermoderns had a particular impact on opening play. It had always been accepted that opening play had three main objectives: to develop the pieces, bring the king into safety and control the centre. This last had been taken to mean occupying the centre with pawns, and the ideal central formation was thought to be pawns on d4 and e4 with White, or d5 and e5 with Black. The Hypermodern school held that central control was possible without the physical occupation of the centre by pawns; instead, the pieces would exert control from a distance. In keeping with this theory, Réti favoured openings involving the fianchetto of the bishops (i.e. b3 + Bb2 and g3 + Bg2 with White, and the analogous development with Black). From b2 and g2 the bishops would exert an influence on all four central squares (d4, e4, d5 and e5). If Black tried to occupy the centre with his own pawns, the idea was that the persistent pressure exerted by the bishops would cause the enemy centre to collapse, opening the way for White’s own pawns to advance in the centre without resistance. These new theories proved controversial, and would never have gained any credence had they not been backed up by practical successes. Although Réti was one of the world’s leading players in the early 1920s, he was never in a position to challenge for the world championship and his early death deprived the chess world of one of its most profound thinkers. He left behind two classics of chess literature (Modern Ideas in Chess and the unfinished Masters of the Chess Board) and a collection of games bearing the hallmarks of a great chess artist. The ideas of the Hypermoderns were gradually assimilated into chess thinking; one of their theories which has gained universal acceptance is that a pawn-centre which is insufficiently supported by pieces is not strong, but weak. Many opening systems have been developed with the specific purpose of luring the opponent into a premature central advance; this over-extension is then punished by a vicious counterattack. Alexander Alekhine (1892-1946) was one of the greatest players of all time and held the World Championship from 1927 to 1935 and from 1937 until his death in 1946. Born into the Russian aristocracy, he was taught chess by his mother and soon displayed a remarkable talent for the game. After some successes in relatively minor tournaments, he was invited to play in the famous 1914 St Petersburg tournament, which included all the world’s leading players. Alekhine’s third place indicated that he had arrived among the chess elite. The First World War and the Revolution interrupted Alekhine’s career, but after he left Russia in 1920 he started a run of impressive tournament successes, which led to a challenge for the World Championship in 1927. Few expected the almost unbeatable Capablanca to lose, but Alekhine’s preparation was better and, aided by his ferocious will-power, Alekhine gained the title after a marathon battle of 34 games. Unlike many world champions, actually gaining the title did not undermine his determination and over the next few years Alekhine dominated the chess world. He successfully defended his title twice against Bogoljubow, but Alekhine seemed reluctant to face his most dangerous challengers and never allowed Capablanca a return match. A fondness for alcohol cost Alekhine the title in 1935 when he faced the Dutchman Euwe. The gentlemanly Euwe offered Alekhine a return match and, after giving up the bottle, Alekhine regained his title in 1937. Alekhine’s results just before the Second World War were definitely less impressive than formerly, and had a projected match with Botvinnik taken place he might well have lost the title. The war intervened, and during the war years Alekhine played in a number of (not very strong) tournaments in German-occupied territory. After the war, negotiations for a match with Botvinnik resumed and terms were agreed, but Alekhine died of a heart attack before the match could take place. Alekhine had a preference for attacking play and tactics, but he could handle all types of position well. The games produced while he was at his peak are models of attacking play; he had the rare ability to confront his opponents with all sorts of problems without risking his own position. The Game Alekhine was famed for his attacking powers and they are never more evident than in this game. A slightly lax opening by Black allows White some positional pressure. Rather than defend passively, Alekhine, typically, chooses to counterattack. At the critical moment he hurls a rook into White’s position. Faced with a thicket of enormously complex variations, Réti chooses the wrong move and falls victim to a tactical storm which continues right into the endgame. The fact that the new annotations below tell a different story to the generally accepted version in no way detracts from Alekhine’s genius.} 1. g3 e5 2. Nf3 e4 3. Nd4 d5 4. d3 exd3 5. Qxd3 (5. cxd3 {and the P-position would be more compact. But Reti plays for development which is furthered by getting the Q out of the way of his R's. (L)}) 5... Nf6 6. Bg2 Bb4+ {The idea is to block the point c3.} 7. Bd2 (7. c3 Be7) (7. Nd2 $142 {was probably better. The Black Bb4 is already in some little danger and White is not well advised to exchange his fine Bc1 for it. (L)}) 7... Bxd2+ 8. Nxd2 O-O 9. c4 $1 Na6 (9... c5 10. N4b3 $1 {(Kotov)}) 10. cxd5 Nb4 11. Qc4 Nbxd5 {The development is accomplished. White has somewhat the better of it in the centre, but Black has brought his pieces more rapidly to the scene of action. (L)} 12. N2b3 {White espies a weakness of Black's on c5, accentuated by the Bg2 which retards -b6. (L)} c6 {Black with this move admits the weakness of his c5. (L)} 13. O-O Re8 14. Rfd1 Bg4 15. Rd2 (15. h3 $6 Bh5 { /\ Bg6-e4}) 15... Qc8 {Black seeks compensations by exerting pressure on the K side. (L)} 16. Nc5 {/\ b4-b5} Bh3 $1 17. Bf3 (17. Bxh3 $2 Qxh3 18. Nxb7 $2 Ng4 19. Nf3 Nde3 $1 20. fxe3 Nxe3 21. Qxf7+ Kh8 22. Nh4 Rf8 $19 23. Nd8 $8 Rxf7 24. Nxf7+ Kg8 25. Ng5 Qg4 26. Ngf3 Rf8 $15) 17... Bg4 $1 {Black is ready to cosent to a draw. (L)} 18. Bg2 Bh3 $1 19. Bf3 Bg4 $1 20. Bh1 {In relying upon the strength of his advance post on c5, White refuses a draw. (L)} h5 $1 (20... a5 {Here Black could have prevented the attack by White's Q side pawns, which, of course, he saw coming. He re solves, however, to allow the storm to break because he senses as it were, a profound combination, directed against the White K. (L)}) 21. b4 a6 22. Rc1 h4 23. a4 hxg3 24. hxg3 Qc7 {Kasparov: 'Forced to fight against Reti's special weapon Alekhine has almost equalized, but his opponent, playing with ongoing inventiveness, has managed to retain the initiative. He has a positional edge because of his superiority in the centre and on the queenside, with Alekhine obviously looking for counterchances on the kingside.} 25. b5 $2 {White here is too impetuous. On the one hand, he should not have aided the development of Black's Ra8; on the other hand, he had to drive the Black Nd5 from its strong post sooner or later, and the right moment had now arrived. There was no cause for holding Pe2 back, it should now have its say. (L)} ({Kasparov: Eine solide positionelle Alternative war} 25. e4 $1 Nb6 (25... Ne7 {where the N has a better post than on b6, White had time for} 26. f3 {upon which} (26. a5 {strengthening the knight on c5 was a solid positional alternative, but Reti wanted to create weaknesses on c6.}) 26... Qxg3+ {, of course, would not be playable, and the Black B would become embarrassed. All in all, with 27.e4 White had slightly the better of it and kept the initiative. But from the moment that White omitted that move Black took the initiative out of White's hands. (L)}) 26. Qb3 (26. Qc3 Rad8 27. Ndb3 $16 {White had a favourable position, for instance} Rxd2 28. Qxd2 Rd8 29. Qf4 Qc8 30. a5 $16 {(L)}) 26... Nbd7 $1 $13) 25... axb5 26. axb5 {Kasparov: 'White's strategy seems to be working very nicely. The isolated black pawn is doomed to fall within a few moves. But Alekhine wasn't going to passively wait for destruction. He finds a way to completely change the unwanted course of the game. '} Re3 $3 {Kasparov: 'All of a sudden the white king feels insecure. The audacious rook cannot be taken:} 27. Nf3 $2 $19 {Still White is unwilling to simplify. 29.Bf3 was bitterly needed. Now the N is missing on the Q's side. (L) Kasparov: 'From now on Alekhine makes a series of moves that sweep White off the board.} (27. Kh2 $2 {Kasparov: 'Black will continue to apply pressure on g3: '} Raa3 $1 {Kasparov: 'and the rook still cannot be touched' Kasparov: 'der Turm ist immer noch tabu'} 28. Ncb3 $1 (28. fxe3 $2 Nxe3 {/\ -Nf1+ -+} 29. Qb4 Nf1+ $1 30. Kg1 Qxg3+ 31. Bg2 (31. Kxf1 Bh3+) 31... Ne3 {and mate. But the quiet 28.Ncb3 would have given White the upper hand. However, confronted with Alekhine's dramatic assault Reti panicked - unfortunate for him, lucky for the world of chess! !}) 28... Qe5 $1 29. bxc6 bxc6 $19 30. fxe3 $2 Qh5+ 31. Kg1 Qh3 $1 32. Bxd5 Nxd5 (32... Qxg3+ $4 33. Bg2 $18) 33. Nf3 Qxg3+ 34. Kh1 Bxf3+ 35. exf3 Qxf3+ 36. Kh2 Qxe3 37. Qg4 (37. Qxc6 Qf4+ 38. Kg1 Rxb3 39. Qc8+ Kh7 40. Rh2+ Kg6 41. Rc6+ Kg5 42. Qd8+ Nf6 43. Rg2+ Rg3 44. Rcc2 $11) 37... Qxb3 38. Qc8+ Kh7 39. Qf5+ Kh6 40. Rg2 g6 41. Qxf7 Qh3+ 42. Kg1 Qe3+ 43. Kh2 $11) (27. Bf3 $1 Bxf3 28. exf3 {Kasparov: 'ending Black's activity; or even by the cold-blooded} cxb5 29. Nxb5 Qa5 $1 $17 30. Rxd5 $2 {an } Re1+ 31. Rxe1 Qxe1+ 32. Kg2 Ra1 (32... Nxd5 $8 33. Qxd5 Ra1 34. Qd8+ { with an immediate draw, which seems to be the correct result of the whole combination (Nunn).}) 33. Rd8+ Kh7 (33... Ne8 34. Kh3) 34. Qh4+ Kg6 35. f4 $18 {Nunn}) (27. fxe3 $4 Qxg3+ {'with mate; and even after '} 28. Bg2 (28. Kf1 Nxe3#) 28... Nxe3 $19) ({und auch nach} 27. Bg2 Rxg3 $1 28. fxg3 $2 ({Hier ist } 28. e3 $1 {is much stronger, but Black still has sufficient compensation for the sacrificed material:} Nxe3 29. fxe3 Nd5) 28... Ne3 29. Qd3 Qxg3 {wins. In the last variation 28.e3! was much stronger... (see above). Alas Alekhine's original attempt to complicate the position could have been met by simply}) 27... cxb5 $1 {The introduction to one of the most charming combinations known to chess.} 28. Qxb5 (28. Qd4 Ra4 $1) 28... Nc3 $3 {'Now the black pieces are swarming'} 29. Qxb7 {There is nothing else. (L)} (29. Qc4 $6 {'doesn't help:'} b5 $1 $19) 29... Qxb7 (29... Nxe2+ $2 30. Rxe2 Qxb7 31. Rxe3 $1 {with a possible draw. (L)}) 30. Nxb7 Nxe2+ 31. Kh2 (31. Rxe2 $2 Rxe2 $19) (31. Kf1 { Kasparov: 'is hopeless too:' Kasparov: 'ist ebenfalls hoffnungslos:'} Nxg3+ 32. fxg3 Bxf3 33. Bxf3 Rxf3+ 34. Kg2 Raa3 {Kasparov: 'etc. White's position has lost its attraction, but how can Black make something serious out of that? Both 31...Nxc1... (see below) '} 35. Rd8+ Kh7 36. Rh1+ Kg6 37. Rh3 Rfb3 $1 $19) 31... Ne4 $3 {To have captured Rc1 would have profited nothing, but if now fe: Nd2: and wins the exchange or a piece. (L) Kasparov: 'What a move! This new member of the cavalery regiment will turn White's defence lines into dust. Now White's best chance was 32.Rd8... (see below)} ({Sowohl} 31... Nxc1 {and}) ({ wie auch} 31... Rxf3 32. Rxe2 Rf5 33. Rb2 {lead to an obvious draw.}) 32. Rc4 $8 {White is equal to the task; play and counter-play are on the same high level. (L) Kasparov: 'Reti, using nice tactical tries, desperately hopes he will be able to exchange the terrifying black pieces. 32...Bxf3... (see below)} (32. fxe3 $2 Nxd2 {Kasparov: 'loses right away.' Kasparov: 'verliert sofort'} 33. Nxd2 Nxc1 $19) (32. Rd8+ Rxd8 33. fxe3 {although after obwohl nach} Rd5 $1 {Black wins the pawn while his pieces still dominate the board.}) 32... Nxf2 $1 {Now the K becomes the target. (L) Kasparov: 'The simple refutation - Black takes the key pawn on f2 and keeps all threats alive.} (32... Nxd2 $2 { Kasparov: 'also doesn't work'} 33. Nxd2 $1 {(Alekhine)} Rd3 34. Nc5 {(L) '!' Kasparov.}) (32... Rxf3 $2 33. Rxe2 {(Kotov)} Rxf2+ 34. Rxf2 Nxf2 $17 {(Fritz 3)}) ({Kasparov: Nach} 32... Bxf3 $2 {Kasparov: 'is met by'} 33. Rxe4 $1 { '!!' Kasparov.} Bxe4 34. fxe3 Bxh1 35. Kxh1 Nxg3+ 36. Kg2 Ne4 37. Rd8+ Rxd8 38. Nxd8 {with good drawing chances. mit guten Remischancen.}) 33. Bg2 {This B is too valuable for defence to allow its exchange. (L) Kasparov: 'Black is clearly winning, but Alekhine's final combination makes this game a true masterpiece.'} Be6 $1 34. Rcc2 $8 {-Ng4+ Kh1 Ra1 -+} Ng4+ 35. Kh3 Ne5+ 36. Kh2 Rxf3 $1 37. Rxe2 Ng4+ 38. Kh3 {Kasparov: 'Neither now nor before could the white king move to the first rank because of the deadly check on a1'} Ne3+ 39. Kh2 Nxc2 40. Bxf3 Nd4 $1 {I consider that this and my game against Bogoljubow at Hastings 1922 are the most brilliant tournament games of my chess career. And by a peculiar coincidence they both remained undistinguished as there were no brilliancy prices awarded in either of these contests. (Alekhine) White resigned. The play in this combination was rich in invention and variety by both winner and loser. (L)} 41. Rf2 Nxf3+ 42. Rxf3 Bd5 $1 {Kasparov: 'and the abandoned knight on b7 is lost. The endgame with a piece less is hopeless, so Reti resigned. I think there is reason to nominate this game the most beautiful ever played in the history of chess. Lessons from this game: 1) A fianchettoed bishop combined with a pawn advance on the opposite wing is a standard technique for exerting strategic pressure. 2) Active counterplay is better than passive defence. 3) In order to play a game such as this it helps if you can calculate at least ten moves ahead!} 0-1

Richard Reti X Efim Bogoljubow - New York 1924

[Event "New York"] [Site "New York"] [Date "1924.04.02"] [Round "12"] [White "Reti, Richard"] [Black "Bogoljubow, Efim"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "E01"] [WhiteElo "2555"] [BlackElo "2590"] [Annotator ""] [PlyCount "49"] [EventDate "1924.03.16"] [EventType "tourn"] [EventRounds "20"] [EventCountry "USA"] [EventCategory "14"] {The Players Richard Réti (1889–1929) was born in what was then Hungary but he later adopted Czechoslovakian nationality. Réti was one of the leading figures in the “Hypermodern” school of chess, which revolutionized chess thinking in the period after the First World War. The new ideas introduced by the Hypermoderns had a particular impact on opening play. It had always been accepted that opening play had three main objectives: to develop the pieces, bring the king into safety and control the centre. This last had been taken to mean occupying the centre with pawns, and the ideal central formation was thought to be pawns on d4 and e4 with White, or d5 and e5 with Black. The Hypermodern school held that central control was possible without the physical occupation of the centre by pawns; instead, the pieces would exert control from a distance. In keeping with this theory, Réti favoured openings involving the fianchetto of the bishops (i.e. b3 + Bb2 and g3 + Bg2 with White, and the analogous development with Black). From b2 and g2 the bishops would exert an influence on all four central squares (d4, e4, d5 and e5). If Black tried to occupy the centre with his own pawns, the idea was that the persistent pressure exerted by the bishops would cause the enemy centre to collapse, opening the way for White’s own pawns to advance in the centre without resistance. These new theories proved controversial, and would never have gained any credence had they not been backed up by practical successes. Although Réti was one of the world’s leading players in the early 1920s, he was never in a position to challenge for the world championship and his early death deprived the chess world of one of its most profound thinkers. He left behind two classics of chess literature (Modern Ideas in Chess and the unfinished Masters of the Chess Board) and a collection of games bearing the hallmarks of a great chess artist. The ideas of the Hypermoderns were gradually assimilated into chess thinking; one of their theories which has gained universal acceptance is that a pawn-centre which is insufficiently supported by pieces is not strong, but weak. Many opening systems have been developed with the specific purpose of luring the opponent into a premature central advance; this over-extension is then punished by a vicious counterattack. Efim Bogoljubow (1889–1952) was born the same year as Réti, in Ukraine, but became a German citizen in 1927. Although his career was far longer than Réti’s, his greatest achievements were also in the 1920s. His best result was victory in the Moscow 1925 tournament, where he took first prize by a massive 1½ point margin over a field that included all the leading players of the time with the exception of Alekhine. This and other successes led him to challenge Alekhine for the world championship in 1929, but he lost decisively (+5 =9 –11). A second world-title match against Alekhine in 1934 again ended in defeat (+3 =15 –8). Although Bogoljubow continued to compete with some success during the late 1930s, his results gradually declined, although he won the German Championship as late as 1949. The Game The current game, which won the first brilliancy prize at the extremely strong New York 1924 tournament, is one of the most elegant examples of Hypermodern opening play. White’s opening appears modest, but its latent power is revealed when Réti opens the position up and his bishops suddenly develop tremendous power. Bogoljubow tries to free himself tactically, but is demolished by a refined combination.} 1. Nf3 d5 2. c4 e6 3. g3 Nf6 4. Bg2 Bd6 5. O-O O-O 6. b3 Re8 7. Bb2 Nbd7 8. d4 $1 {Auf diese Weise bekommt der Nachziehende Schwierigkeiten mit der Entwicklung seines Damenläufers.} c6 9. Nbd2 Ne4 {Der von Bogoljubow gewählte Zug führt zum Abtausch des Springers, aber das bedeutet nicht, dass sich seine Lage verbessern wird.} (9... Bb8 10. Qc2 a5 11. a3 b5 12. c5 e5 13. dxe5 Nxe5 14. Nd4 Bd7 15. e4 a4 16. b4 dxe4 17. Nxe4 Nc4 18. Nxc6 $1 $18 { 1-0 Winants,L-Cosma,E/Cappelle 1993/TD (22)}) ({Ein Versuch des Nachziehenden seinen schwachen Läufer c8 zu befreien wäre:} 9... e5 {aber danach folgt:} 10. cxd5 cxd5 11. dxe5 Nxe5 12. Nxe5 Bxe5 13. Bxe5 Rxe5 14. Nc4 Re8 15. Ne3 { [%cal Yg2d5,Ye3d5]} Be6 16. Qd4 $1 $14 {[%cal Yf1d1,Ya1c1] Und Weiß bekommt einen kleinen aber dauerhaften Vorteil.}) 10. Nxe4 dxe4 11. Ne5 f5 12. f3 $1 { Richtiger strategischer Zug. Wenn Schwarz schon seine Stellung im Zentrum schwächt, muss man dringend das Spiel öffnen um den weissen Entwicklungvorsprung auszunützen.} exf3 13. Bxf3 $1 Qc7 (13... Nxe5 14. dxe5 Bc5+ 15. Kg2 Bd7 (15... Qxd1 16. Raxd1 $16 {Nach dem Damenabtausch kommt der Läufer c8 überhaupt nicht mehr ins Spiel.}) 16. e4 $1 $16 {Weiß hat grossen oositionellne Vorteil.}) 14. Nxd7 Bxd7 15. e4 e5 {Sonst folgt 16.e5 nebst weiterem Durchbruch d4-d5 oder g3-g4. Nach dem Zug in der Partie scheint es als ob der Nachziehende seine Probleme gelöst hätte. Aber Reti spielt eine Reihe ganz feiner Züge, um die versteckten Möglichkeiten seiner Stellung auszunützen.} 16. c5 $1 Bf8 17. Qc2 $1 {Weiß greift die schwarzen Zentralbauern an.} exd4 ({Schwarz ist in seinen Möglichkeiten gehemmt. Zum Beispiel:} 17... fxe4 18. Bxe4 $18 {[%cal Yd4e5,Ye4h7] Und Schwarz verliert einen Bauern.}) 18. exf5 Rad8 (18... Re5 19. Qc4+ Kh8 20. f6 $1) 19. Bh5 $1 { Anfang eines genau berechneten entscheidenden Manövers, das schließlich zu einem sehr schönen Schlag führt.} Re5 20. Bxd4 Rxf5 (20... Rd5 21. Qc4 Kh8 22. Bg4 {Und Weiß verbleibt mit Mehrbauer und besserer Stellung.}) 21. Rxf5 Bxf5 22. Qxf5 Rxd4 23. Rf1 $1 Rd8 (23... Qe7 24. Bf7+ Kh8 25. Bd5 $3 {[%cal Yf5f8]} Qf6 26. Qc8 $18) 24. Bf7+ Kh8 25. Be8 $3 {Schönheitspreis des Tuniers. Lessons from this game: 1) Central control is an important objective of opening play, but this does not necessarily mean the occupation of the centre by pawns; control can be exerted by pieces from a distance. 2) A single badly-placed piece can poison one’s entire position. In this game Black never really recovered from his handicap of an inactive light-squared bishop. 3) Stay flexible. Be ready to transform advantages from one type to another, or to switch from positional play to attack.} 1-0

Jose Raul Capablanca X Saviely Tartakower - New York 1924

[Event "New York"] [Site "New York"] [Date "1924.03.23"] [Round "6"] [White "Capablanca, Jose Raul"] [Black "Tartakower, Saviely"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "A85"] [WhiteElo "2736"] [BlackElo "2546"] [Annotator ""] [PlyCount "109"] [EventDate "1924.03.16"] [EventType "tourn"] [EventRounds "20"] [EventCountry "USA"] [EventCategory "14"] {The Players 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. Savielly Tartakower (1887-1956) was born in Rostov-on-Don, but he left Russia in 1899 and settled in Vienna. He had already become a leading player before the First World War, winning matches against Spielmann and Réti, but it was in the 1920s that his career reached its peak. In 1924 Tartakower moved to Paris and in the subsequent six years won a number of tournaments. While he was undoubtedly one of the top ten players during this period, he was not generally regarded as a potential challenger for the world title. During the 1930s his results slowly tailed off, although he remained a strong and active player until 1950. Tartakower’s playing style is hard to define. He would often experiment in the openings, and he seemed to love paradoxical ideas. His best games are absolutely first-class, but sometimes his love of the eccentric cost him valuable points. Tartakower’s writings are highly regarded, although little has been translated into English. His two-volume My Best Games of Chess is an excellent games collection, containing not only very fine analysis but also some humour. The Game Tartakower employs the Dutch, which we have already seen him using to such devastating effect. Capablanca responds with straightforward development, rather than getting embroiled in a theoretical dispute in his opponent’s territory. Capablanca gets the better of a tense middlegame, and evolves the plan of a positional attack down the h-file. Although the queens are exchanged, this plan is effective in the endgame too. Tartakower tries to counterattack on the queenside, and indeed he appears to have made a good deal of headway. However, Capablanca turns out to have everything worked out. A series of brilliant moves, sacrificing two pawns with check, sees Capablanca’s king penetrate into the heart of Tartakower ’s kingside, to add its support to a passed pawn. The small but superbly coordinated army of king, rook and pawn generates deadly threats against the black king, and this leaves Black paralysed. Capablanca can then regain his pawns with interest. It is an extremely instructive ending. Rook on the 7th Rank In this game Capablanca provides us with a magic formula for conducting Rook and Pawn endings: seize the seventh rank with your Rook, and advance your King to the sixth. Once there, his King and Rook keep the adverse King busy warding off threats of mate, and leave him no time to defend his Pawns.} 1. d4 e6 2. Nf3 f5 3. c4 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. Nc3 O-O 6. e3 b6 7. Bd3 Bb7 8. O-O Qe8 {Customary strategy in the Dutch Defence: Black intends to attack on the King side by 9... Qh5 and 10. .. Ng4.} (8... Na6 $11) 9. Qe2 $1 ({Better is} 9. Bxf6 $14 Bxf6 10. e4) 9... Ne4 {Tartakover changed his mind} 10. Bxe7 Nxc3 {The position is equal.} (10... Qxe7 {is interesting.} 11. Rad1 d6 12. Bxe4 fxe4 13. Nd2 d5) 11. bxc3 Qxe7 { Now Black could play an unwelcome intrusion move 12... Qa3, but after} 12. a4 $1 {it is not possible anymore.} Bxf3 13. Qxf3 Nc6 14. Rfb1 Rae8 15. Qh3 { After this move Black cannot free himself by 15... e5; 16.Bxf5. White prepares 16.f4, which will assure him the control over e5 square.} Rf6 16. f4 $1 { Now the Queen could move back.} Na5 17. Qf3 {dominating the long diagonal.} d6 18. Re1 {to support a break by 19.e4.} Qd7 19. e4 $1 $36 {[%mdl 2048] White opens the position to give his pieces more scope. . White has good play.} fxe4 20. Qxe4 g6 21. g3 {White prepares an attack on the King-side by h4 and h5, but with g3 he stabilizes the position.} Kf8 22. Kg2 Rf7 23. h4 d5 (23... c5 $11) 24. cxd5 exd5 25. Qxe8+ Qxe8 26. Rxe8+ Kxe8 $14 {[%mdl 4096] Endgame KRB-KRN} 27. h5 Rf6 28. hxg6 hxg6 29. Rh1 Kf8 30. Rh7 Rc6 31. g4 (31. Rd7 $16) 31... Nc4 {Black activates his Knight.} (31... Nb3 $11 {remains equal.}) 32. g5 ({White should play} 32. Rd7 $16) 32... Ne3+ 33. Kf3 Nf5 (33... Nd1 $11 { keeps the balance.}) 34. Bxf5 $1 $16 gxf5 {KR-KR} 35. Kg3 $1 {With his Rook at the 7th rank and the g passed Pawn, Capablanca decides to send his King to the f6 square. He must have planned this many moves before.} Rxc3+ 36. Kh4 $1 Rf3 $2 {[#]} (36... a6 $16 {might work better.}) 37. g6 $1 $18 Rxf4+ 38. Kg5 Re4 { [#]} 39. Kf6 $1 {[%cal Rh7h8] Now the King support his Pawn and thretens with mate. White desdained capturing Black´s Pawn, which now acts as protection against check by Black´s Rook.} Kg8 40. Rg7+ ({Don't do} 40. Rxc7 Re8 $18) 40... Kh8 {With the idea ...Re6+!} 41. Rxc7 {White wants to mate with Rc8+.} Re8 42. Kxf5 Re4 (42... Kg8 {was necessary.} 43. Rxa7 Re4) 43. Kf6 { Threatening mate with Rc8+.} Rf4+ 44. Ke5 Rg4 {[#]} 45. g7+ $1 {[%mdl 512]} Kg8 (45... Rxg7 46. Rxg7) 46. Rxa7 Rg1 47. Kxd5 Rc1 48. Kd6 Rc2 49. d5 {[%cal Bd4d5,Bd5d6,Bd6d7][%mdl 32]} Rc1 50. Rc7 Ra1 51. Kc6 Rxa4 52. d6 {White mates.} Rd4 $146 53. d7 Rc4+ 54. Kb7 Rd4 55. Kc8 {This ending provides a superb example of a number of important endgame themes: passed pawns, rook activity, king activity and an admirable avoidance of materialism when the initiative is at stake. Lessons from this game: 1) Don’t be intimidated because your opponent knows a lot about an opening. If you play sensible moves you should get a reasonable position. 2) A positionally justified plan of attack can be just as effective in an ending as in the middlegame. 3) Initiative, piece activity and mating attacks are a part of endgame play too – be prepared to sacrifice for them. Accuracy: White = 60%, Black = 26%.} 1-0

Ernst Gruenfeld X Alexander Alekhine - Karlsbad 1923

[Event "Karlsbad"] [Site "Karlsbad"] [Date "1923.04.29"] [Round "2"] [White "Gruenfeld, Ernst"] [Black "Alekhine, Alexander"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "D64"] [WhiteElo "2560"] [BlackElo "2655"] [Annotator ""] [PlyCount "68"] [EventDate "1923.04.??"] [EventType "tourn"] [EventRounds "17"] [EventCountry "CSR"] {[%evp 24,68,42,0,27,-24,28,-30,-6,-32,-14,-36,-25,-76,-19,-105,-91,-95,-88, -126,-94,-112,-74,-108,-78,-100,-48,-70,-69,-87,-49,-72,-65,-81,-99,-109,-60, -358,-353,-455,-456,-456,-456,-755,-758,-29998,-29999] D64: Queen's Gambit Declined: Classical: 7 Rc1 c6 8 Qc2} {The Players Ernst Grünfeld (1893–1962) was a strong Austrian grandmaster who, for a few years in the 1920s, was probably in the world’s top ten players. He continued to play in the 1930s, but with less success, and the Second World War effectively ended his career, although he did play in a couple of small events in Vienna just after the war. Today he is chiefly remembered for having invented the Grünfeld Defence (1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5) which is one of those workhorse openings played day in, day out by grandmasters all round the world. Alexander Alekhine (1892–1946) was one of the greatest players of all time and held the World Championship from 1927 to 1935 and from 1937 until his death in 1946. Born into the Russian aristocracy, he was taught chess by his mother and soon displayed a remarkable talent for the game. After some successes in relatively minor tournaments, he was invited to play in the famous 1914 St Petersburg tournament, which included all the world’s leading players. Alekhine’s third place indicated that he had arrived among the chess elite. The First World War and the Revolution interrupted Alekhine’s career, but after he left Russia in 1920 he started a run of impressive tournament successes, which led to a challenge for the World Championship in 1927. Few expected the almost unbeatable Capablanca to lose, but Alekhine’s preparation was better and, aided by his ferocious will-power, Alekhine gained the title after a marathon battle of 34 games. Unlike many world champions, actually gaining the title did not undermine his determination and over the next few years Alekhine dominated the chess world. He successfully defended his title twice against Bogoljubow, but Alekhine seemed reluctant to face his most dangerous challengers and never allowed Capablanca a return match. A fondness for alcohol cost Alekhine the title in 1935 when he faced the Dutchman Euwe. The gentlemanly Euwe offered Alekhine a return match and, after giving up the bottle, Alekhine regained his title in 1937. Alekhine’s results just before the Second World War were definitely less impressive than formerly, and had a projected match with Botvinnik taken place he might well have lost the title. The war intervened, and during the war years Alekhine played in a number of (not very strong) tournaments in German-occupied territory. After the war, negotiations for a match with Botvinnik resumed and terms were agreed, but Alekhine died of a heart attack before the match could take place. Alekhine had a preference for attacking play and tactics, but he could handle all types of position well. The games produced while he was at his peak are models of attacking play; he had the rare ability to confront his opponents with all sorts of problems without risking his own position. The Game After some subtle opening play, Alekhine manages not only to nullify White’s advantage of the first move but even to gain a slight positional advantage. Many players would have tried to increase this advantage by slow positional manoeuvring, but Alekhine’s methods are far more direct. A series of threats keeps Grünfeld off-balance, until finally Alekhine strikes with a deadly combination.} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5 4. Bg5 Be7 5. Nf3 Nbd7 6. e3 O-O 7. Rc1 c6 {A tabiya of the Orthodox Defence;} 8. Qc2 a6 9. a3 {The struggle for a tempo.} h6 10. Bh4 Re8 $1 11. Bd3 dxc4 12. Bxc4 b5 13. Ba2 c5 14. Rd1 $146 (14. O-O cxd4 15. exd4 Bb7 16. Ne5 Nf8 17. Rfd1 Rc8 18. Qe2 Qb6 19. f3 Red8 20. Bf2 Nd5 21. Nxd5 Bxd5 22. Rxc8 (22. Bxd5 exd5 23. Nd3 Ne6 24. Nc5 Re8 25. Qf1 Rcd8 26. Rc2 Bf6 27. b4 g6 28. Ra2 Bg7 29. a4 Ra8 30. g3 bxa4 31. Rxa4 Qb5 32. Rxa6 Qxb4 33. Nxe6 Rxa6 34. Qxa6 fxe6 35. Qd3 Kf7 36. Rb1 Qd6 {Gruenfeld,E-Teichmann,R Karlsbad 1923 1/ 2-1/2 (37)}) 22... Rxc8 23. Bxd5 exd5 24. Nd3 Ne6 25. b4 Rc4 26. Nc5 Bf6 27. Kf1 Qc6 28. Re1 Nxd4 {Reti,R-Teichmann,R Karlsbad 1923 1-0 (50)}) (14. Bxf6 Nxf6 15. dxc5 Bxc5 16. Ne4 Be7 17. Bb1 Bb7 18. Nxf6+ Bxf6 19. O-O g6 20. Rfd1 Qe7 21. b4 Rac8 22. Qe2 Bd5 23. Ba2 Bb7 24. Nd2 Rxc1 25. Rxc1 Bb2 26. Rd1 Bxa3 27. Nf3 Bxf3 28. Qxf3 Qxb4 {Kacalek,T (1661)-Zikan,K (1870) Brno 2007 0-1 (38)} ) 14... cxd4 15. Nxd4 {(this would appear to involve a tactical oversight)} Qb6 {Black has an edge.} 16. Bb1 Bb7 $1 17. O-O Rac8 {Black has comfortably completed his development and is now threatening 18...Be4 or 18...Ne4.} 18. Qd2 Ne5 $1 {'This knight will occupy the square c4, thereby fixing the weakness of the queenside, induced by 9 a3.' (Alekhine)} 19. Bxf6 {With the intention of exchanging the dangerous b7-bishop. However, according to Alekhine, all White's trickery is no longer sufficient to equalise.} (19. Qe2 $11) 19... Bxf6 $17 20. Qc2 g6 {(not so much a defence against Qh7+ as a preparation for ... Bg7)} 21. Qe2 Nc4 22. Be4 $1 Bg7 $1 {Avoiding a subtle trap;} 23. Bxb7 Qxb7 { (threatening 24...Nxa3)} 24. Rc1 e5 $1 {'This advance of the e-pawn will give Black's knight a new outpost on d3, still more irksome for the opponent than its present position.' (Alekhine)} 25. Nb3 e4 {(again threatening ...Nxa3)} 26. Nd4 Red8 $1 {[%cal Be8d8,Bd8d4,Bd4d1][%mdl 32] (gradually supporting the knight's position at d3)} 27. Rfd1 Ne5 28. Na2 $6 {'After this move, which removes the knight from the field of action, White is definitely lost.} Nd3 29. Rxc8 Qxc8 30. f3 $2 {Completely outplayed by his mighty opponent, in desperation Grünfeld tries to undermine the d3-outpost as soon as possible: this knight is just too strong, paralysing White's entire game and creating the preconditions for dangerous combinations.} (30. Nc3 $1 $15) 30... Rxd4 $1 $19 31. fxe4 {[#] Here the rook is immune;} Nf4 $1 {[%mdl 512] The crowning stroke!} 32. exf4 Qc4 $3 {Diversion – one of the spectacular tactical devices in which all the games of the fourth champion abound.} 33. Qxc4 {(otherwise the knight at a2 is lost)} (33. Re1 $142 Qxa2 34. h3) 33... Rxd1+ ({Inferior is } 33... bxc4 34. Nc3 $16) 34. Qf1 Bd4+ {. A move before mate White resigned. A deserved brilliancy prize, wouldn't you agree? Lessons from this game: 1) Even if no material sacrifice is involved, playing for an attack usually involves a positional commitment which may prove a handicap if the attack fails. 2) Advantages do not increase of their own accord; purposeful play is necessary to increase an advantage. 3) A knight firmly entrenched in the middle of the opposing position is often a decisive advantage. Accuracy: White = 24%, Black = 47%.} 0-1

Fritz Saemisch X Aaron Nimzowitsch - Copenhagen 1923

[Event "Copenhagen"] [Site "Copenhagen"] [Date "1923.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Saemisch, Fritz"] [Black "Nimzowitsch, Aaron"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "E06"] [WhiteElo "2452"] [BlackElo "2537"] [Annotator ""] [PlyCount "51"] [EventDate "1923.??.??"] [EventType "tourn"] [EventRounds "10"] [EventCountry "DEN"] { The Players Friedrich Sämisch (1896–1975) was a German bookbinder before devoting himself to chess full-time. His most notable successes as a player were his match victory over Richard Réti and his third place at the strong Baden-Baden event in 1925, behind Alekhine and Rubinstein. In his later years Sämisch proved himself to be an excellent lightning chess player, yet paradoxically he was also terrible in time-trouble. He lost more games on time than any of his contemporaries. In fact, in one tournament he lost all thirteen games on time! Aron Nimzowitsch (1886-1935) was one of the strongest players in the world during the 1920s and was also influential as a thinker and writer. He was born in Riga and rose to prominence before the First World War. The war interrupted his career for six years but when Nimzowitsch was able to resume international competition he rapidly advanced into the world elite. After a succession of tournament victories, his challenge for the World Championship was accepted by Capablanca in 1926. However, Nimzowitsch was unable to raise the necessary money and when the world title passed to Alekhine in 1927, the new champion preferred to play a title match against Bogoljubow (some have said that this was because Alekhine regarded Nimzowitsch as the more dangerous opponent). After 1931 he could not maintain his level of play and was no longer a realistic title contender. Nimzowitsch fell ill in 1934 and died from pneumonia some months later. Nimzowitsch was, along with Réti, one of the most prominent members of the “Hypermodern” school of chess, which introduced many new ideas into the game, especially in the area of opening play (see the introduction to Game Réti - Bogoljubow, for more details). Nimzowitsch’s influence on opening theory was especially profound and a number of opening lines bear his name. The two most important are the Nimzo-Indian Defence (1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4), and the French Defence line 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4, which is called the Nimzowitsch Variation in most non-English speaking countries. Both are still in everyday use. Nimzowitsch wrote three important books of which two, My System (1925) and Chess Praxis (1929) are regarded as classics of chess literature and are still in print. The Game Nimzowitsch has a slight disadvantage from the opening, but Sämisch releases the tension too early, allowing his opponent to equalize. Then, as Sämisch’s play becomes planless, Nimzowitsch embarks on a space-gaining operation on the kingside. At the critical moment, he offers a very deep piece sacrifice. His return is not immediately obvious, but slowly Sämisch realizes that despite having more pieces, he is fast running out of moves... Emanuel Lasker hailed this as the “Immortal Zugzwang Game”.} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6 {The Queen's Indian Defence is the natural counterpart to the Nimzo-Indian, continuing the fight for the e4-square.} 4. g3 Bb7 5. Bg2 Be7 6. Nc3 {Not surprisingly for a game played almost 100 years ago, in the earliest days of the development of this opening, the move orders adopted by both players are not entirely accurate, compared with contemporary understanding.} O-O $5 {Not regarded as 100% accurate by theory nowadays.} 7. O-O {And White, in his turn, settles for routine development, instead of trying to profit from the move order.} d5 $6 {A slightly old-fashioned treatment, which is rarely seen these days.} 8. Ne5 c6 $6 {Another sub-optimal choice.} 9. cxd5 $6 {This exchange gives away the opening advantage.} cxd5 10. Bf4 {LiveBook: 12 Games} a6 $1 11. Rc1 b5 12. Qb3 Nc6 $6 {The position is equal.} 13. Nxc6 $6 Bxc6 14. h3 (14. Ne4 $11 dxe4 15. Rxc6) 14... Qd7 15. Kh2 ( 15. Nb1 $15) 15... Nh5 16. Bd2 f5 ({Black should play} 16... b4 $17 17. Nb1 a5) 17. Qd1 $2 {White has already lost a lot of time, and stands very badly, but Kasparov suggests that this is the final, decisive mistake.} (17. Nb1 $11 { remains equal.}) 17... b4 $17 18. Nb1 Bb5 {Now we see just how 'bad' the Stonewall bishop really is.} 19. Rg1 Bd6 20. e4 {The text is a last, desperate attempt to change the course of events, by trying to exploit the tactical possibilities against the 'loose' knight on h5. Unfortunately, it loses by force, as Nimzowitsch had seen, but White does not really have anything better. } (20. Bf3 $15 Nf6 21. Bf4) 20... fxe4 $1 $19 {The prelude to one of the most famous finishes in chess.} 21. Qxh5 Rxf2 {Black already has two pawns for the piece, and the white pieces still have almost no moves.} 22. Qg5 $2 {[#]} (22. a3 $17) 22... Raf8 {Now 23...R8f3 is a threat, hence White's next.} 23. Kh1 $2 (23. Qh4) 23... R8f5 {Black is clearly winning.} 24. Qe3 Bd3 {Now he threatens 25...Re2.} 25. Rce1 {After} h6 $3 {One of the most well-known final positions in chess history. White has no safe move, apart from} 26. b3 $146 {(met by any waiting move), Lessons from this game: 1) When you have control of the centre, it is usually a good policy to maintain or increase the tension, rather than release it (as Sämisch did with 9. cxd5). 2) “A bad plan is better than no plan at all.” 3) Zugzwang is normally seen more in the endgame rather than the middlegame, but when it does arise in a complex position, it is an extremely powerful weapon. Accuracy: White = 11%, Black = 49%.} 0-1

Geza Maroczy X Saviely Tartakower - Teplitz-Schoenau 1922

[Event "Teplitz-Schoenau"] [Site "Teplitz-Schoenau"] [Date "1922.10.05"] [Round "4"] [White "Maroczy, Geza"] [Black "Tartakower, Saviely"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "A85"] [WhiteElo "2576"] [BlackElo "2542"] [Annotator ""] [PlyCount "70"] [EventDate "1922.10.02"] [EventType "tourn"] [EventRounds "13"] [EventCountry "CSR"] {The Players The Hungarian Geza Maroczy (1870–1951) was one of the world’s strongest players at the start of the twentieth century. His second place at Nuremberg 1896 signalled his arrival on the world stage, and over the decade 1899–1908 he achieved consistently good results in numerous tournaments. In 1906 he signed an agreement with Lasker to play a world-title match, but owing to a combination of circumstances the match never took place. Although Maroczy achieved some further successes after the title bid collapsed, he started to play less often and more erratically. After the First World War he lived in various countries before returning to Hungary, which he represented in the Olympiads of 1927, 1930 and 1933. Maroczy effectively retired in 1936, although he did participate in one tournament in 1947. Maroczy had a positional style, and was especially famed for his handling of the endgame. Some of his queen and pawn endings are regarded as classics and are still quoted today as model examples. His name is attached to one important opening system – the Maroczy Bind (pawns on c4 and e4 against the Sicilian). Savielly Tartakower (1887–1956) was born in Rostov-on-Don, but he left Russia in 1899 and settled in Vienna. He had already become a leading player before the First World War, winning matches against Spielmann and Réti, but it was in the 1920s that his career reached its peak. In 1924 Tartakower moved to Paris and in the subsequent six years won a number of tournaments. While he was undoubtedly one of the top ten players during this period, he was not generally regarded as a potential challenger for the world title. During the 1930s his results slowly tailed off, although he remained a strong and active player until 1950. Tartakower’s playing style is hard to define. He would often experiment in the openings, and he seemed to love paradoxical ideas. His best games are absolutely first-class, but sometimes his love of the eccentric cost him valuable points. Tartakower’s writings are highly regarded, although little has been translated into English. His two-volume My Best Games of Chess is an excellent games collection, containing not only very fine analysis but also some humour. The Game Tartakower adopts the Dutch Defence, an opening quite popular today but which was regarded as offbeat at the time this game was played. In the Dutch, one of Black’s main plans is to launch a kingside attack, but to begin with Maroczy does not seem to realize the potential danger. A few casual moves by White allow Black to make a brilliant rook sacrifice. What makes this sacrifice special is that it is largely positional – Black obtains a few pawns, but his main compensation lies in his unshakeable grip on the position. Maroczy struggles, but the net tightens ever so slowly. Finally, the pressure becomes too much and White’s position collapses.} 1. d4 e6 2. c4 f5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. a3 Be7 5. e3 O-O 6. Bd3 d5 7. Nf3 c6 8. O-O Ne4 9. Qc2 Bd6 10. b3 Nd7 11. Bb2 Rf6 12. Rfe1 Rh6 13. g3 Qf6 14. Bf1 g5 15. Rad1 g4 16. Nxe4 fxe4 17. Nd2 {The fireworks begin from this point onwards. The beautiful thing about the following sacrifice is that it was intuitively made by Tartakower. It is impossible to calculate right to the end.} Rxh2 $1 18. Kxh2 Qxf2+ 19. Kh1 (19. Bg2 Nf6 $1 20. Rc1 {making space for the king on d1 might well be the best option.} (20. Rf1 $2 Qxg3+ 21. Kg1 Qh2+ 22. Kf2 Bg3+ 23. Ke2 Qxg2+ 24. Rf2 Qxf2#) 20... Qxg3+ 21. Kg1 Qh2+ 22. Kf1 Nh5 $1 $19 {The knight enters the attack and Black has a decisive advantage.}) 19... Nf6 $1 {The queen on f2 is irritatingly placed. Tartakower finds it the perfect time to include more pieces into the attack.} (19... Bxg3 $2 20. Re2 $18) (19... Qxg3 $6 20. Nb1 $1 $14 {[%cal Gc2g2]}) 20. Re2 {This is definitely the most natural and the best defensive move available in the position.} Qxg3 { Black is a rook down and has three pawns to compensate for it. But his pieces are working together. The queen on g3 is a monster and the bishop on d6 and knight on f6 are backing it up. And as Garry Kasparov has said, even a pawn is a unit of attack, so we cannot discount the g4 pawn.} 21. Nb1 {This looks like the most natural move, clearing the second rank for the white queen to join the defence.} (21. Rg2 $2 Qh3+ 22. Kg1 Qxe3+ 23. Kh1 Qh3+ 24. Kg1 Bf4 $17) 21... Nh5 (21... Qh4+ 22. Kg1 g3 23. Rg2 Ng4 24. Qe2 Bd7 $19 {followed by Rf8 will end the game. Look at how all the white pieces are completely tied up.}) 22. Qd2 (22. Rh2 Qf3+ 23. Bg2 Ng3+ 24. Kg1 Ne2+ 25. Kh1 Qf2 $19) 22... Bd7 $1 { Tartakower's play is a perfect example of attacking play. He invites everyone to the party.} 23. Rf2 Qh4+ 24. Kg1 Bg3 25. Bc3 (25. Rg2 {might have been possible but Black can bring his last piece into the attack.} Rf8 26. Nc3 Bc7 { clearing the g3 square for the knight.} 27. Ne2 (27. Be2 $2 Ng3 $1 28. Rh2 Nxe2+ 29. Qxe2 Bxh2+ 30. Qxh2 Qxh2+ 31. Kxh2 Rf2+ $19) 27... Rf3 $1 $19) 25... Bxf2+ 26. Qxf2 g3 27. Qg2 Rf8 {Black is now only a down a piece and already has three pawns for it. Besides the knight on b1 is completely out of the game. We can conclude that this is a completely winning position for the second player.} 28. Be1 Rxf1+ $1 {Tartakower sacrifices material with great ease in this game.} (28... e5 $1 {would have been faster.}) 29. Kxf1 e5 30. Kg1 Bg4 $1 {Attacking the d1 rook and also threatening Bf3.} 31. Bxg3 Nxg3 32. Re1 Nf5 $1 (32... Bf3 $2 33. Qh2 $15) 33. Qf2 Qg5 34. dxe5 Bf3+ 35. Kf1 Ng3+ {A mesmerisingly beautiful attack by Tartakower. He could intuitively feel that his attack was decisive even though there was no clear path to victory. He brought all his pieces into the attack with great patience and finished off the game to perfection. No wonder this game received a brilliancy prize.} ( 35... Ng3+ 36. Kg1 Nh1+ $19 {. Lessons from this game: 1) If your opponent is building up an attack, it is essential to take defensive measures in good time. 2) Sacrifices are not necessarily short-term investments; sometimes they only pay off after 15 or 20 moves. 3) If the defender has no active plan, then the attacker can afford to take his time and bring all his reserves into play.}) 0-1

Jose Raul Capablanca X Emanuel Lasker - World Championship 12th 1921

[Event "World Championship 12th"] [Site "Havana"] [Date "1921.04.08"] [Round "10"] [White "Lasker, Emanuel"] [Black "Capablanca, Jose Raul"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "D61"] [WhiteElo "2686"] [BlackElo "2719"] [Annotator ""] [PlyCount "136"] [EventDate "1921.03.15"] [EventType "match"] [EventRounds "14"] [EventCountry "CUB"] {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. 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 Here we see Capablanca in tremendous form, remorselessly grinding down Lasker in a game that effectively sealed Capablanca’s victory in the match. In a fairly normal Queen’s Gambit position, Lasker takes on an isolated queen’s pawn. However, he fails to play dynamically enough to make use of his active pieces, and Capablanca is able to execute some elegant exchanging manoeuvres. To the untrained eye it looks as if the game is heading for a draw, but Capablanca secures an edge, which he turns into a serious endgame advantage. He increases the pressure in all sectors of the board, and eventually, having started off with just one moderately weak pawn, Lasker is left with nothing but weaknesses. Robbed of all counterplay, bound and gagged, he can do little but await the execution. What makes this game so remarkable is that Capablanca was able to render one of the most resourceful players of all time so completely helpless.} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e3 O-O 6. Nf3 Nbd7 7. Qc2 {(the Rubinstein Attack)} c5 $1 8. Rd1 Qa5 9. Bd3 h6 10. Bh4 cxd4 11. exd4 dxc4 12. Bxc4 Nb6 { The position is equal.} 13. Bb3 Bd7 14. O-O Rac8 {A classic set-up in the spirit of Steinitz (cf. Game No.18).} (14... Bc6 15. Ne5 Bd5 16. Nxd5 Nbxd5 17. Qe2 Rad8 18. f4 Ne8 19. Bxe7 Nxe7 20. f5 Nxf5 21. Nxf7 Rxf7 22. Qxe6 Ned6 23. g4 Kh8 24. Qe5 Qxe5 25. dxe5 Ne3 26. Bxf7 Nxd1 27. exd6 Rxd6 {1/2-1/2 (27) Stahlberg,G-Capablanca,J Moscow (Russia) 1935}) 15. Ne5 Bb5 {'This is a weak move which might have given Black a great deal of trouble.} 16. Rfe1 {And now Nxf7! would win.} Nbd5 $146 {[%cal Rd5c3] The first critical moment. Lasker's next move shows that the typical methods of playing positions with an isolated d-pawn had not yet been mastered.} (16... Bc4 17. Bxc4 Nxc4 18. Bxf6 Bxf6 19. Nd7 Rfd8 20. Nxf6+ gxf6 21. Rd3 Kf8 22. Rf3 Qg5 23. h4 Qd2 24. Qxd2 Nxd2 25. Rxf6 Kg7 26. Rf4 Rc4 27. Ne2 Rc2 28. Ng3 Rxb2 29. Nh5+ Kf8 30. Rxe6 Rxd4 31. Rxh6 {Euwe,M-Landau,S Noordwijk 1938 1/2-1/2 (43)}) 17. Bxd5 $2 {A completely unnecessary exchange, denying White all hopes of an advantage (a similar mistake was made by Zukertort – Game No.18).} (17. Bxf6 $14 Bxf6 18. Bxd5 exd5 19. Ng4) 17... Nxd5 $15 18. Bxe7 Nxe7 19. Qb3 (19. Qe4 {is interesting.} Bc6 20. Qg4 Rcd8 21. Rd3 Qb4 22. Rd2) 19... Bc6 20. Nxc6 bxc6 21. Re5 Qb6 22. Qc2 Rfd8 23. Ne2 $2 {Too passive!} Rd5 $1 24. Rxd5 {'A worse mistake than the previous move.} cxd5 {'From now on the student will do well to study carefully every move up to the end. It is one of Black's best efforts in his whole career, and that against one of the strongest players the world has ever seen. ' (Capablanca)} 25. Qd2 Nf5 26. b3 $6 h5 {'To prevent g2-g4 at any time.' (Capablanca) 'A hasty move, as a result of which Black almost missed the win.} 27. h3 $2 {'A completely bad move, allowing Black to paralyse the white pawns. ' (Lasker)} h4 $1 {After the blockade of the kingside the number of weaknesses in White's position exceeds the permissible norm, and he is now strategically lost.} 28. Qd3 Rc6 29. Kf1 g6 30. Qb1 Qb4 31. Kg1 a5 $1 {'This decides the outcome. From here and to the end of the game Black plays with merciless consistency. Capablanca's style is irreproachable.' (Lasker)} 32. Qb2 a4 { Giving White yet another weakness – at b3. 33...Rb6 and ...axb3 is threatened.} 33. Qd2 {(an attempt to save himself in the endgame)} Qxd2 34. Rxd2 axb3 35. axb3 $17 {[%mdl 4096] Endgame KRN-KRN} Rb6 $1 36. Rd3 Ra6 $1 37. g4 hxg3 38. fxg3 Ra2 39. Nc3 Rc2 {(with the threat of ...Nxd4)} (39... Rb2 {is more complex.} 40. Nb5 Kg7 41. Kf1 Kf6 42. g4 Nh4) 40. Nd1 Ne7 41. Nc3 Rc1+ 42. Kf2 Nc6 43. Nd1 $1 {A pretty trap.} (43. Nb5 $15) 43... Rb1 $1 44. Ke2 $2 {[#] Finally White blunders a pawn.} (44. Ke1 $17) 44... Rxb3 $1 $19 {[%mdl 512]} 45. Ke3 (45. Rxb3 Nxd4+) 45... Rb4 $1 {It is clearly simpler to convert the advantage with the rooks on. And in the given instance this simplicity and inevitability, typical of Capa, creates a particular impression, because playing White was the great Lasker!} 46. Nc3 Ne7 47. Ne2 Nf5+ 48. Kf2 g5 49. g4 Nd6 50. Ng1 Ne4+ 51. Kf1 Rb1+ 52. Kg2 Rb2+ 53. Kf1 Rf2+ 54. Ke1 Ra2 55. Kf1 Kg7 {After tying down the opponent's pieces, Black activates his king.} 56. Re3 Kg6 57. Rd3 f6 58. Re3 Kf7 59. Rd3 (59. Nf3 {only move.}) 59... Ke7 60. Re3 Kd6 61. Rd3 (61. Nf3 $142) 61... Rf2+ 62. Ke1 Rg2 63. Kf1 Ra2 64. Re3 e5 65. Rd3 exd4 66. Rxd4 (66. Nf3 $142 Kc5 67. Ke1) 66... Kc5 {Black is clearly winning.} 67. Rd1 d4 68. Rc1+ Kd5 {“The black pawn will advance and White will have to give up his knight for it. This is the finest win of the match and probably took away from Dr Lasker his last real hope of winning or drawing the match. ” – Capablanca. wins. Lessons from this game: 1) If you have an isolated queen’s pawn, it is necessary to play energetically and aggressively. Otherwise the pawn is liable to become a static weakness that could easily cost you the game. 2) “A weakness is not a weakness unless it can be attacked.” 3) When the opponent’s position is paralysed on one wing, see if you can take advantage of this by making additional gains in other parts of the board before undertaking decisive action. 4) In a winning ending don’t give the opponent any more counterplay than you have to - and ideally stamp out his activity altogether. Then bring your king up and promote a pawn. Accuracy: White = 37%, Black = 54%.} 0-1

Carlos Torre Repetto X Edwin Ziegler Adams - New Orleans 1920

[Event "New Orleans"] [Site "New Orleans"] [Date "1920.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White "Adams, Edwin Ziegler"] [Black "Torre Repetto, Carlos"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "C62"] [WhiteElo "2350"] [BlackElo "2535"] [Annotator ""] [PlyCount "45"] [EventDate "1920.??.??"] [EventType "game"] [EventRounds "2"] [EventCountry "USA"] {The Players Edwin Adams (1885–1944) was born in New Orleans. He is best known as having been Torre’s trainer, and for this game and its sensational combination. Carlos Torre Repetto (1905–78) was born in Merida, Yucatan, and is the strongest player ever to have come from Mexico. There are certain parallels between his career and that of Paul Morphy: having proved himself against the best of the North American players, he travelled to Europe and achieved some remarkable successes, most notably his fifth place in the Moscow tournament of 1925, including a brilliant win over Emanuel Lasker. However, in 1926, following severe misfortunes in both his professional and personal life, he suffered a nervous breakdown and never played tournament chess again. He was finally awarded the grandmaster title in 1977, on the basis of his results in the mid-1920s. In his games he used the opening system 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 e6 (or 2...g6) 3. Bg5 to great effect, and as a result this popular opening is nowadays known as the Torre Attack. The Game What starts as a normal training game – a young talent against his teacher – takes on immortal status when the teacher finds a spectacular combination. From a fairly quiet opening, Torre fails to resolve the problem of his weak back rank, and it is this that Adams exploits with a series of astonishing queen offers. Torre refuses the offer for as long as he can, but eventually he runs out of options – the queen must be taken and the back rank collapses. A highly appealing feature is that White’s back rank is also weak, but this does not provide quite enough counterplay for Black to survive. There have been questions asked about whether Torre and Adams really played this game, or whether it is a composition. I imagine there will always be doubts about any such brilliant game that was played neither under tournament conditions nor with any eye-witnesses. It would take us too far afield to go into details here, but the evidence for this game being fabricated strikes me as purely circumstantial, and presents no compelling reason to assert that the game was definitely not played. So let’s just enjoy the game. If it was composed, then let’s enjoy the composition!} 1. e4 {[%mdl 2112]} e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 exd4 4. Qxd4 {This treatment of the Philidor Defence was favoured by Morphy in his time. White centralizes his queen and the f3-knight continues to support a possible e5 push. The drawback is that White will need to surrender the bishop-pair to maintain his queen in the centre.} Nc6 (4... a6 {--> Sznapik-Plachetka}) (4... Qf6 {--> Guez-Samama}) (4... Nf6 5. e5 (5. Nc3 { --> Campora-Chiburdanidze}) (5. Bg5 {--> Sax-Tseshkovsky} Be7 6. Nc3 {--> main line}) 5... Qe7 {--> Jansa-Ermenkov} (5... dxe5 {--> Gufeld-Georgadze}) 6. Be3 Ng4 $10) 5. Bb5 Bd7 (5... Nf6 {--> Niedermayer-Speckner}) (5... Nge7 {--> Markovic-Nikolic}) 6. Bxc6 Bxc6 7. Nc3 {The text-move should not give White much advantage either, but the move has scored well in practice. White has more space and his game is very easy to play.} (7. Bg5 f6 {--> Morphy-Harrwitz} (7... Nf6 {--> Anderssen-Paulsen}) (7... Be7 $1 8. Qxg7 Bf6 9. Qxh8 Bxh8 10. Bxd8 Bxb2 $1 $11)) 7... Nf6 (7... Qf6 {--> Tringov-Acimovic}) 8. O-O (8. Bg5 $142 {--> Gawliczek-Goebel} Be7 9. O-O-O) 8... Be7 9. Nd5 ({RR} 9. b3 O-O 10. Bb2 Re8 11. Nd5 Bf8 12. Rfe1 Ng4 13. c4 Bd7 14. Rad1 c6 15. Nf4 Nf6 16. Qd3 Bg4 17. h3 Bxf3 18. Qxf3 Qe7 19. e5 Nd7 20. e6 fxe6 21. Nxe6 Nc5 22. Nxf8 Qxe1+ 23. Rxe1 Rxe1+ {Gomez Esteban,J (2410)-Vladimirov,E (2585) Oviedo 1993 1/2-1/2}) ({ RR} 9. Re1 O-O 10. Bg5 Nd7 11. Bxe7 Qxe7 12. Nd5 Bxd5 13. exd5 Qf6 14. Re4 Rfe8 15. Rae1 Rxe4 16. Qxe4 h6 17. c3 Nc5 18. Qe3 Qf5 19. b4 Na4 20. c4 Qc2 21. Qb3 Qxb3 22. axb3 Nb2 23. Re3 a5 {Butler,B (1790)-Danaswara,I (1061) Canberra 2015 1-0}) 9... Bxd5 {Torre sees no way to put his bishop-pair to use and gives up one of the clergymen to eliminate White’s powerful knight.} 10. exd5 O-O 11. Bg5 c6 $146 ({RR} 11... Qd7 12. Rfe1 h6 13. Bh4 Rfe8 14. Qd2 Qb5 15. Qd4 Qd7 16. c4 a5 17. Re2 g5 18. Bg3 Nh5 19. Rae1 Bf6 20. Qd1 Rxe2 21. Qxe2 Ng7 22. Qc2 b6 23. Nd2 Nf5 24. Ne4 Bg7 25. Rd1 Nd4 26. Qd2 {Bird,H-Horwitz,B London 1851 0-1 (38)}) 12. c4 cxd5 ({The liquidation} 12... Nxd5 13. cxd5 Bxg5 14. Nxg5 Qxg5 15. dxc6 bxc6 16. Qxd6 $14 {gives White the more pleasant pawn-structure.} ) 13. cxd5 Re8 {13...h6, partly with hindsight, could be suggested.} 14. Rfe1 a5 {This is certainly not the most useful move imaginable, and this fact has been seized upon by those who seek to cast doubt on this game’s credibility. However, the move is not without point: one idea is to play ...Ra6 and then either ...Rb6 or ...Qb6, while another is simply to secure c5 as a square for the knight later on. Torre may also have been thinking of the more ambitious plan of ...a4 and ...Ra5, threatening the d5-pawn. It is quite common even for strong players to try slightly unrealistic ideas in a misguided attempt to generate winning chances as Black. The results, as here, tend to be somewhat unfortunate. Again one might suggest 14...h6, possibly then meeting 15. Bh4 with 15...Qb6 creating counterplay against the d5-pawn.} 15. Re2 {Doubling rooks on the e-file is an effective answer to Black’s idea. Black now fails to sense the danger and simply develops his a8-rook.} Rc8 $2 {Now everything is set for the great combination.} (15... h6 $142) 16. Rae1 Qd7 (16... h6 17. Bxf6 gxf6 18. Qg4+ Kh7 $18 {gives White a choice of devastating continuations.} ) 17. Bxf6 Bxf6 $2 {We are now treated to one of the most spectacular sequences in chess history – six consecutive queen offers. Black can never take the queen due to mate on e8.} 18. Qg4 $1 Qb5 {The e8-rook is attacked twice, so Black must keep it defended twice. Note that the whole combination is only possible because the e1-rook is defended by the knight on f3. If the minor pieces were magically to vanish from the board, White’s combination would not work due to 18...Rxe2, when 19. Qxd7? would allow 19...Rxe1#.} 19. Qc4 $3 {Some writers have claimed that 19 Qa4?? is bad because of 19...Qxe2. This is true, but I’ll leave it for the reader to find a simpler answer to White’s blunder! The text-move puts the queen en prise again, but this time to two black pieces. However, since they are both needed to cover e8, the queen is again invulnerable.} Qd7 20. Qc7 $3 {The same theme, but White has now penetrated into the midst of Black’s forces. As Nunn puts it, “It is especially attractive that the queen slides cheekily along the black rook’s line of attack.} Qb5 {It appears that Black is coping quite well with the multiple queen offers – perhaps all White has done is to find a very striking way to force a repetition of moves? Note that White need only have seen this far to feel safe when playing the combination – a draw by repetition is his “safety net” if it proves impossible to find anything better. However, Black’s defence is very fragile, and all it takes is one little tap at its base for the whole structure to come crashing down.} (20... Qd8 21. Qxc8 $1 $18) 21. a4 $1 (21. Qxb7 $2 Qxe2 22. Rxe2 Rc1+ $19) 21... Qxa4 22. Re4 $3 {This is the point. White is able to introduce another idea into the position – the rook can control, with gain of tempo, one of the squares on the a4–e8 diagonal. If the black queen can be run out of squares on that line, then this will sever the black king’s lifeline. White’s main threats are now 23. Qxc8 Rxc8 24. Rxa4 and 23. b3 Qb5 24. Qxb7, so Black has no time to breathe.} Qb5 23. Qxb7 $1 {The white queen covers the squares b5, c6 and d7 and, now that the a4-square is also covered and there is no killing counter-sacrifice on e2, this completes the domination of the black queen. It has finally been run out of squares and now it is either mate or loss of a “full” queen. John Nunn wrote that he was particularly impressed by this combination as a young player: “This combination had a profound effect on me. It suddenly seemed that chess was worth all the blunders and lost games, if only one could produce such a beautiful and profound combination.” Lessons from this game: 1) Spare a thought for your back rank. If it is possible to open up some “luft”, an escape-hatch for your king, without a serious loss of time or weakening of your king’s defences, it is well worth considering. 2) If your opponent’s position is only hanging together by a slender thread, use all your ingenuity to find a way to cut this thread. 3) If you want everyone to believe that you really did play a fantastic combination, be sure to play it in a tournament game!} 1-0