Lasker's Manual of Chess 9781888690507, 188869050X, 9781888690903, 1888690909

Citation preview

1

2

Lasker’s Manual of Chess by

Emanuel Lasker

Foreword by Mark Dvoretsky

2010 Russell Enterprises, Inc. Milford, CT USA 3

Lasker’s Manual of Chess © Copyright 2008, 2010 Russell Enterprises, Inc. First Printing 2008 Second Printing 2010 All Rights Reserved. No part of this book may be used, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any manner or form whatsoever or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the express written permission from the publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews. ISBN: 978-1-888690-50-7 Published by: Russell Enterprises, Inc. PO Box 5460 Milford, CT 06460 USA http://www.Russell-Enterprises.com [email protected] Cover design by Zygmunt Nasiolkowski and Janel Lowrance Editing and Proofreading: Taylor Kingston, David Kaufmann, Hanon Russell Production: Mark Donlan Printed in the United States of America

4

Table of Contents 14 16 18 19 20 21 50 102 140 199 216 247 250 275 277

Foreword Editor’s Preface Dr. Lasker’s Tournament Record Dr. Lasker’s Match Record Preface to the Original German Edition Book I: The Elements of Chess Book II: The Theory of the Openings Book III. The Combination Book IV: Position Play Book V: The Aesthetic Effect in Chess Book VI: Examples and Models Final Reflections Analytical Endnotes Index of Players Index of Openings

Analytical Contents First Book The Elements of Chess Brief Account of the Origin of the Game The Chess Board The Pieces The Rules for Moving: a. the King b. the Rook c. the Bishop d. the Queen e. the Knight f. the Pawn Castling Capturing “en passant” Pawn Promotion The Initial Position Chess Notation The End of the Game: Mate, Stalemate, Draw The Function of strategy On the Advantages of a Plus in Pieces First Proposition: the Plus of a Rook Suffices to Win the Game Rook and King vs. King The Opposition Zugzwang, or Constraint to Move Second Proposition: King and Bishop or King and Knight against Bare King make a Drawn Game Third Proposition: King and Two minor Pieces against Bare King Force Checkmate unless both Minor Pieces are Knights 5

21 21 21 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 26 29 29 29 30 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 35 35

Major Pieces Minor Pieces Illustrations of Propositions Two and Three Fourth Proposition: the Plus of a Pawn does not always Suffice to Force the Win, but in the Majority of Cases it Does Illustrations of Proposition Four Passed Pawn Defined “Square of the Passed Pawn” Defined Peculiarities of the Rook’s Pawn On the Advantage of the Attack against an Unprotected King Smothered Mate Double Check Illustrated On the Advantage brought about by a Simultaneous Attack upon Several Objects Interposing Illustrated Queening Illustrated Pinning Illustrated The Fork The Discovered Check Illusory Pins On the Use of Superior Power at Decisive Points Rule for Determining Which Side has Advantage on a Given Spot How the “Value” of the Pieces Affects the Use of Superior Power Complications Arising through Simultaneous Contending at Various Points How the “Pin” Affects the Use of Superior Power On the Exchange Value of the Pieces Winning the “Exchange” Importance of the “Right to Move” Illustrated Pawn Promotion Showing Case where Under-promoted Pawn is Stronger than Queen, Rook and Knight Combined Rook vs. Bishop and Pawn Queen vs. Two Rooks Queen vs. Rook

35 35 36 38 38 38 38 39 40 42 42 42 43 43 43 43 44 44 44 45 45 46 46 47 47 47 47 48 48 49

Second Book The Theory of the Openings Some General Principles and a Little History The Petroff Defense or Russian Game The Hungarian Defense Philidor’s Defense a. Hanham Variation The Two Knights’ Defense The Center Game and Center Gambit King’s Bishop’s Opening Max Lange Attack The Ponziani Opening The Vienna Opening

50 50 51 52 53 54 55 57 57 58 60 60

6

The Scotch Opening The Scotch Gambit The King’s Gambit a. the Kieseritzky b. the Allgaier c. the Defense of Philidor d. the Chigorin Attack e. the Salvio f. the Muzio The Cunningham Gambit The King’s Bishop’s Gambit The King’s Gambit Declined The Falkbeer Countergambit The Danish Gambit Giuoco Piano or Italian Opening a. the Moeller Attack The Evans Gambit a. Declined b. Accepted Four Knights’ Game Ruy Lopez (or Spanish Game) a. Steinitz Defense b. Schliemann’s Defense c. Berlin Defense d. Morphy Defense e. “Breslau” Variation g. Exchange Variation The Half-Open Games a. the Nimzovitch Defense b. the Fianchetti i. Fianchetto of the King ii. Fianchetto of the Queen c. Alekhine’s Defense d. From’s Gambit e. the Caro-Kann Defense f. the Center Counter (or Scandinavian) Defense g. the Sicilian Defense i. the Wing Gambit h. the French Defense The English Opening (or Reverse Sicilian) The Close Openings The Queen’s Gambit a. Accepted b. Declined Other Queen Pawn Games Zukertort or Réti Opening A Summary of Useful Principles in the Opening Value of the Pieces in the Opening

7

61 64 64 64 65 66 66 67 67 68 68 70 70 71 71 73 73 74 74 76 79 79 80 80 81 83 85 86 86 87

87 88 89 90 91 92 92 94 96 96 96 96 98 99 99 100

Third Book The Combination Variation, Definition of Simple Combinations Illustrated Capablanca-Yates Combination Involving a Stalemate Combination Involving a Smothered Mate Paulsen-Morphy The Combination, What It Is and How Carried Out in Practical Play Various Motifs in Combinations Motif of the Weakness of a Piece of little or no Mobility A Faulty Opening in which a Bishop is Deprived of all Mobility The Geometrical Motif Motif of Encircling the King Obstruction of Rook by a Bishop or vice versa Endings by Troitzky Obstructing or Pinning an Obstruction Illustrated Post-Kagan Ending by L. Kubbel Motif of Indirect Support Illustrated Motif Illustrating Passed Pawn Supporting Distant Pieces or Pawns (i.e., Motif of “Function”) Another Function Motif Illustrated Steinitz-Hirschfeld Löwenthal-Mayet Steinitz-Chigorin Alekhine-Kubmann Steinitz-Meitner Bergen-Schmid The Motif of “Desperado” Forgács-Duras v. Popiel-Marco v. Oppen-NN Tarrasch-Em. Lasker Bogolyubov, Réti and Spielmann vs. Englund, Jacobson, Nyholm and Olson Ending by Troitzky (Queen and Bishop vs. Queen) “Intentions” in Combinations Make Players Reckon with Them “Threat” in an Intended Combination Tarrasch-Burn Tartakower-Capablanca John-Süchting Prevalent Types of Combinations Morphy-Baucher de Rivière-Morphy Steinitz-Amateur Em. Lasker-Bauer Steneberg-Bolte Motif of Tearing Away Safeguards of Hostile King Illustrated Steinitz-NN

8

102 102 102 103 103 104 104 105 106 106 106 106 106 106 107 107 107 108 108 109 109 109 109 110 110 110 111 111 111 112 112 113 113 114 114 114 114 115 115 115 116 116 116 116 117 117 117

Boden-Owen Albin-Steinitz Kolisch-Paulsen Typical Attack on Pinned Knight Typical Defense to Heavy Attacks against King Zukertort-Steinitz Em. Lasker-Ed. Lasker Tartakower-Alekhine Bird-Steinitz Schlechter-Salwe Chigorin-Steinitz Lasker-Janowski Steinitz-Lasker Capablanca-Molina Caldas Vianna-Silvestre Bernstein–Znosko-Borovsky Steinitz-v. Bardeleben Schiffers-Chigorin Schiffers-Harmonist Nimzovitch-Flues Reggio-Mieses Przepiorka-W. Cohn v. Freymann-Forgács Rubinstein-Em. Lasker Esser-Davidson Mackenzie-Blackburne Tartakower-Em. Lasker Rubinstein-Spielmann Zugzwang and Stalemate Ending by Troitzky King and Pawn ending Illustrating “Losing of a Move” Ending by Weenink Opposition Illustrated in Ending of King and Pawns Schelfhout-Muurlink Ending by Em. Lasker after an Idea of v. Gottschall Ending by Troitzky The Promotion of the Pawn Lindehn-Bergh Dufresne-Harrwitz Maróczy-Tarrasch Hallgarten-Dimer Ending from Chess Player’s Chronicle Endings by Leonid Kubbel Chigorin-Tarrasch Thomas-Marshall Ending by Réti Illustration of the Pawn “Break-through” Tarrasch-Em. Lasker Em. Lasker-Janowski On Made-up Combinations and on Combinations Arising in the Course of a Hard-fought Game 9

117 117 118 118 118 118 118 119 120 120 121 121 122 122 123 123 123 124 125 125 125 125 126 126 126 127 128 129 129 130 130 131 131 132 132 133 133 133 134 134 134 134 135 136 137 137 137 137 138 138

Fourth Book Position Play Position Play as Opposed to Combination Play The Plan Plans vs. Ideas Examples Metger-Paulsen Rook and Pawn vs. Bishop and Pawn Queen vs. Rook and Pawn (Philidor) Forgács-Spielmann Forgács-E. Cohn Perlis-Salwe Vidmar-Spielmann MacDonnell-Lewis Marshall-Capablanca Nimzovitch-Capablanca Kaufmann and Fahndrich vs. Capablanca Janowski-Capablanca The History of Planning in Chess Philidor on Planning Rook and Pawn vs. Rook (Philidor) Rook and Bishop vs. Rook (Philidor) Count Brühl-Phildor L’ Analyse (Philidor) La Bourdonnais on Planning La Bourdonnais-McDonnell Philidor, La Bourdonnais, McDonnell, Staunton, Anderssen, Morphy, Steinitz The Theory of Steinitz Steinitz as Analyst Steinitz, Master of Strategy, Compared with Zukertort Genius of Combinations Youth of Steinitz Hamppe-Steinitz Anderssen-Steinitz Steinitz-Green Steinitz-Mongredien The Evolution of the Theory of Steinitz MacDonnell-Boden Stubbornness of Steinitz Steinitz and Potter Anderssen-Steinitz The Lasting Advantages a. Phalanx b. Doubled Pawn c. Backward Pawn d. Blocked Pawn e. Isolated Pawns f. Blocked Isolated Pawn g. the “Hole”

10

140 140 140 140 141 141 142 142 143 144 144 144 145 145 146 146 147 148 148 149 149 150 151 151 151 152 153 154 155 155 156 156 157 158 159 159 160 161 161 161 163

Zukertort-NN Bird-Steinitz Steinitz’s Maxims for Practical Play Examples of Steinitz’s Play Steinitz-Sellmann Zukertort-Steinitz Steinitz-Zukertort Negligent Analysis of Games (Bachmann and Schallop on Steinitz-Zukertort) Zukertort-Steinitz Zukertort-Steinitz Zukertort-Steinitz Steinitz Advances his Theory beyond the Needs of Practical Chess and thus Enters the Domain of Science and Philosophy Balance of Position in Chess Compensation in Chess Principle of Attack Weaknesses and Weak Points as Objectives of Attack Examples of the Principle of Attack Mackenzie-Amateur Salwe-Marshall Capablanca-Tartakower Morphy-Anderssen Teichmann-Bernstein Berlin-Riga Duras-E. Cohn Anderssen-Morphy Tarrasch-Schlechter Principle of Defense Examples of the Principle of Defense Morphy-Anderssen Steinitz-Golmayo Steinitz-Chigorin Ponce and Chigorin vs. Gavilan and Steinitz Chigorin-Steinitz The Declining Years of Steinitz Steinitz and Dr. Emanuel Lasker Criticism of and Additions to Steinitz’s Theory Principle of Cooperation of Pieces Pawns are Best in the Phalanx Remarks on the Bishop and Knight Examples of Co-operation a. Queen vs. Bishop and Knight b. Bishops of Opposite Colors c. Queen vs. Two Knights The Principle of Justice Examples of the Principle of Justice a Rook and Passed Pawn b. King and Pawn vs. Rook c. Knight and Pawn d. King and Pawn Aim of Dr. Lasker in Regard to his Pupils 11

163 164 164 164 164 165 166 166 167 168 170 170 171 171 171 171 172 172 172 172 173 174 174 175 175 175 176 176 176 177 177 177 178 179 179 179 179 180 180 181 181 181 182 182 183 183 183 184 184 184

Antagonism of Pieces Die Blockade (Nimzovitch) Endings of Bishops of Same Color Distance Bishop vs. Pawns Rook vs. Bishop and Pawns The Value of Points (Weak, Strong, Important, Essential) Rubinstein-Salwe Duras-Rubinstein Attack and Defense in Balanced Positions The Sacrifice for Position La Bourdonnais-McDonnell Pillsbury-Em. Lasker The Principle of Proportion Philosophy of Dr. Lasker and the Doctor as an Author Struggle Das Begreifen der Welt (Comprehending the World) Die Philosophie des Unvollendbar (The Philosophy of the Unattainable) Hyper-modern School Examples of the Principle of Proportion Te Kolste-Torre Réti-Colle Te Kolste-Réti An Enquiry into the Logical Origin and Domain of Application of Steinitz’s Theory Adequate Compensation for a Pawn Sacrifice Discussed

184 184 185 186 186 186 187 187 188 189 189 190 190 191 191

193 193 193 194 194 195 197

Fifth Book The Aesthetic Effect in Chess Two-Move Problem by Paul Morphy Anderssen-Kieseritzky (the “Immortal Game”) Examples of the Aesthetic Effect in Chess Ending by Comte de Villeneuf Humorous Ending by an Unknown Author Ending from Ancient Persian Document Three-Move Problem by Sam Loyd Anderssen-Dufresne (Critical Position from the “Evergreen Partie”) Mason-Winawer Pillsbury-Em. Lasker Zukertort-Blackburne Réti-Bogolyubov Rubinstein-Teichmann Bogolyubov-Amateur List-Hromadka Endings by Troitzky Ending by Ratner Endings by Leonid Kubbel Endings by Henri Rinck 12

199 201 201 204 204 204 205 206 206 207 208 209 210 210 211 212 212 213 214 215

Sixth Book Examples and Models Berger-Gaspary Tarrasch-Pillsbury Burn - Znosko-Borovsky Janowski-Em. Lasker Schlechter-Süchting Capablanca-Marshall Tartakower-Seitz Coria-Boneo Dus-Chotimirsky–Capablanca Bogolyubov-Romanovsky Tartakower-Mieses Bogolyubov-Réti Torre-Yates Sämisch-Spielmann Alekhine-Marshall Nimzovitch-Bogolyubov Réti-Alekhine Thomas-Rubinstein Alekhine-Colle Bogolyubov-Mieses Bogolyubov-Réti Romanovsky-Rabinovich Morrison-Watts Torre-Grünfeld Rubinstein-Chwojnik Capablanca-Alekhine Alekhine-Capablanca Euwe-Bogolyubov Final Reflections on Education in Chess Estimated Time Required to Become a First-class Player On the Future of the Theory of Steinitz

216 216 216 216 218 219 221 222 223 223 224 226 227 228 229 231 232 233 235 236 238 239 240 241 241 243 244 246 246 247 248 249

Analytical Endnotes Index of Players and Composers Index of Openings

251 275 277

13

Foreword Can studying the classics be helpful? That depends. Many books that were popular in their day have grown dated, and are now of interest only to lovers of chess history. But Lasker’s Manual of Chess, written by Emanuel Lasker, has not lost its relevance even now, some eighty years after it was first published. In one of my own books, I analyzed the famous fourth game of the Tarrasch-Lasker match, and examined the “desperado” theme – that is, a piece which, compelled by circumstance, displays a powerful urge for self-immolation – which was first introduced in that book. While preparing the English edition, I was told that that English language chess literature treats the concept of “desperado” slightly differently. I went back to the source of this concept, Lasker’s Manual of Chess, where I had first found this idea. And there I discovered that Lasker had not only invented the term, he had isolated and illustrated, by appropriate examples, three possible reasons why a piece might become a “desperado.” One of them applied to the previously mentioned game against Tarrasch. English-language authors, however, use this term for a different situation, which was only one of the three! As it turns out, this useful idea for practical players is, if not forgotten, then at least understood only in a simplified form. I could also bring up other important ideas which were worked out in Lasker’s Manual of Chess, but which have been only dimly reflected in contemporary chess literature, such as his conception of how to defend. But such things are not the the chief value of this notable book by the second world champion. That lies in something more general, more universal. Being constantly in contact with talented chessplayers of varying levels, I have become convinced that only a few of them are able to find on their own the proper responses to general questions that interest them. Why do they constantly make the same errors over and over again? What are the strong and weak points of their game? What habits and techniques should they develop in themselves? What approach should they take to this or that particular chess problem, and where can they find the appropriate study materials, etc., etc. And if they do find answers to these questions, then more often than not, they turn out to be the wrong answers. The overwhelming majority of them naively believe that the key to their success lies in opening preparation, the endless honing of their opening repertoire. Very few contemporary books help you work out a true chess philosophy; some even disorient their readers. But Lasker’s Manual of Chess is philosophical to its core. It helps you examine different kinds of problems in the most varied positions and it is exceptionally important, both for practical players and for trainers. Many times I have re-read, with great pleasure and great benefit to myself, those portions of the book dedicated to combinations, positional play (here we find accurately laid out the vital principles of the theory of Steinitz, which form the basis of contemporary chess), and chess aesthetics. The thoughts expressed in his concluding “On Education in Chess” still resonate today. Here are a few of them: Education in chess has to be an education in independent thinking and judging. Chess must not be memorized, simply because it is not important enough. If you load your memory, you should know why ... You should keep in mind no names, nor numbers, nor isolated incidents, not even results, but only methods ... He who wants to educate himself in chess must evade what is dead in chess – artificial theories, supported by few instances and 14

upheld by an excess of human wit; the habit of playing with inferior opponents; the custom of avoiding difficult tasks; the weakness of uncritically taking over variations or rules discovered by others; the vanity which is self-sufficient; the incapacity for admitting mistakes; in brief, everything that leads to a standstill or to anarchy. Throughout the course of my trainer’s work, I have followed this advice; never have I regretted it. Of course, there is a well-known Russian proverb that goes, “For every bit of good advice, you need ten more bits to tell you how to carry it out.” Thus, Lasker’s ideas, in complete accordance with his philosophy, are not a dried-up end-product, but merely an excellent starting point for working out your own way in chess. Lasker was both a great fighter and a deep thinker. His book forms the quintessence of many years of exceptionally successful experience, and his thoughts on the same. It teaches you what he considers to be most important, general principles and methods applicable to any situation. Once you have read the Manual, you will become wiser, which is bound to help you later on, both in chess and in life. Mark Dvoretsky Moscow September 2008

15

Editor’s Preface Among the many important figures in the history of chess, Emanuel Lasker (1868-1941) stands unique. He had the longest official reign as World Champion, just short of 27 years: May 26, 1894 to April 21, 1921. In his prime (and he had a very long prime) he dominated chess more thoroughly than any other player before or since, winning 12 of 14 tournaments 1892-1924 (placing 2nd and 3rd in the other two), and winning 20 of 21 matches 1889-1916 (the other was drawn). Only Morphy had a higher winning percentage in serious play, but Lasker played many more games against tougher opponents. Lasker’s chess achievements were great, but they become even more impressive when one considers that, in a very real sense, he played chess just in his spare time. Unlike many masters of his era — Pillsbury, Marshall, Rubinstein, Spielmann and Alekhine are some that come to mind — and even less like today’s chess professionals, Lasker was not obsessed with and focused solely on the game; his wide-ranging intellect had many other interests: mathematics (in which he held a doctorate), philosophy, sociology, history, drama etc. As a polymath, probably no other chess master in history compares. One can’t help but wonder, then, how could Lasker be so good at chess — a game which for most of us requires deep study and laborious accumulation of knowledge just to rise much above mediocre — while doing it with just one hand, so to speak? Much of the answer to that question lies, I believe, between the covers of this book. Yes, Lasker had inborn talent, a mental capacity well beyond the norm, ability most of us can only admire and envy. But more importantly, Lasker understood chess more deeply than anyone before him, and more deeply than almost anyone since. And that understanding is something that can be passed on, it is something you can attain. In this book he conveys to you much of that understanding, in a clear, logical, systematic way. If you can absorb even a fraction of that understanding, you will become a much stronger chess player, and a better, clearer thinker in general. Concerning the book’s instructive value, the experienced teacher Mark Dvoretsky, who wrote this edition’s foreword, is much better qualified to comment than I, but looking at it from the less lofty perch of a club player, several noteworthy themes struck me: •

Lasker’s outstanding discussion of the theory of Steinitz. Our modern understanding of chess owes as much to Steinitz as, say, biology owes to Darwin or physics to Newton, but Steinitz himself, Lasker’s predecessor as world champion, did not outline his ideas in a systematic way. Lasker did.

•

The importance of compensation for material. Inexperienced players often are too materialistic, afraid to part with even a pawn. Time and again Lasker shows how in chess matter can be converted into energy, how positional and tactical compensation more than repay the investment of a pawn or piece.

•

The importance of targets. Lasker teaches how to see the weak points in the opponent’s position, and how to attack them.

•

Lasker’s descriptions of combinative vs. positional play, and how in the best players these somewhat discordant tendencies become a harmony.

•

The principle of proportion. In this connection, his debunking of Réti’s inflated claims for hypermodernism is by itself worth the price of the book. 16

Our aim here has been to produce a version of this classic in a form more congenial to 21st-century readers. What is different in this edition? The English version of the Manual had remained, even through numerous reprints, virtually unchanged since 1932. In this new edition we use figurine algebraic notation, now standard throughout most of the world, instead of descriptive notation. The chapter on descriptive has been replaced with one explaining algebraic. Some of Lasker’s more awkward or archaic wordings and grammar — English was not his first language — have been improved or modernized, though recalling Fischer’s fury at Batsford’s revisions of My 60 Memorable Games, I have done this sparingly. Besides more diagrams (the old edition was woefully stingy with them), the main additional features here are: •

Photos of Lasker and some of his major contemporaries.

•

“Lasker Lore,” brief notes highlighting important events in his career, and portraying something of the man and his era.

•

Computer-checked analysis. Virtually every move and position has been subjected to computer analysis. Even with so fine a chess mind as Lasker’s, the occasional mistake or improvement was found. For minor items, I have added brief comments in italics directly in the text. However, sometimes the new analysis required longer discussion, and sometimes even warranted revision of Lasker’s original text. To minimize disruptions, such notes have all been placed in an appendix, indicated by superscripted numbers (e.g. 44.Bb5 Resigns.52) in the text. In cases where the original text was changed, the endnote shows Lasker’s original analysis, and gives the reasons it was modified. In cases where the original text was left intact, the endnote gives a correction or improvement.

To be frank, not everything in the Manual excites my enthusiasm equally. Lasker’s attempt to find social and political applications for Steinitz’s chess ideas seems far-fetched, and his prediction that his own philosophical writings, now little read, would become the basis for an advanced future society shows no signs of coming true. His prose style is occasionally stodgy or flowery. The book’s discussion of chess openings is of less value now than when it first appeared, because of the exponential increase of knowledge in that area, though it still provides a very good introduction for beginners, for whom the book was intended. But these flaws are minor compared to the value of Lasker’s teachings. You have in your hands one of the finest books ever written on the art and science of chess. Read it, learn, and enjoy. Taylor Kingston Shelburne, Vermont

17

Dr. Lasker’s Tournament Record

Year

City

Place

1889 1889 1889 1890 1890 1892 1892 1893 1895 1895-6 1896 1899 1900 1904 1906 1909 1914 1918 1923 1924 1925 1934 1935 1936 1936

Breslau Breslau Amsterdam Berlin Graz London London New York Hastings St. Petersburg Nuremberg London Paris Cambridge Springs Trenton Falls St. Petersburg St. Petersburg Berlin Mährisch-Ostrau New York Moscow Zürich Moscow Moscow Nottingham

1st 1st-2nd 2nd 1st-2nd 3rd 1st 1st 1st 3rd 1st 1st 1st 1st 2nd-3rd 1st 1st-2nd 1st 1st 1st 1st 2nd 5th 3rd 6th 7th-8th Totals

18

Games Played

Won

Lost

Drawn

9 6 8 7 6 11 8 13 21 18 18 28 18 15 6 18 18 6 13 20 20 15 19 18 14

7 4 5 5 3 8 5 13 14 8 12 20 14 9 4 13 10 3 8 13 10 9 6 3 6

0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 4 3 3 1 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 2 4 0 5 3

2 0 2 1 3 2 3 0 3 7 3 7 3 4 2 3 7 3 5 6 8 2 13 10 5

353

212

37

104

Dr. Lasker’s Match Record

Year

Opponent

1889 1890 1890 1890 1890 1892 1892 1892-3 1893 1893 1893 1894 1896-7 1907 1908 1909 1909 1909 1910 1910 1916 1921

Bardeleben Mieses Bird Miniati Englisch Blackburne Bird Showalter Golmayo Vásquez Ettinger Steinitz* Steinitz* Marshall* Tarrasch* Speijer Janowski Janowski Schlechter* Janowski* Tarrasch Capablanca*

Games Played

Won

Lost

Drawn

4 8 12 5 5 10 5 9 3 3 5 19 17 15 16 3 4 10 10 11 6 14

2 5 7 3 2 6 5 6 2 3 5 10 10 8 8 2 2 7 1 8 5 0

1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 5 2 0 3 0 2 1 1 0 0 4

1 3 3 2 3 4 0 1 1 0 0 4 5 7 5 1 0 2 8 3 1 10

194

107

23

64

Totals

* Indicates World Championship match

19

Preface to the Original German Edition This manual has aimed at system, at giving its object a structure. Is it not the first book of instruction written to represent the object of which it treats in the same way as an architect would try to erect a building? Ordinarily, books of instruction are written with an eye on the student, the student’s wants, views, talents — in short, the student’s psychology, but not with the idea of showing the subject to be taught as a piece of architecture, as a harmonious unit, as a thing that has spiritual beauty in the way its parts are linked together so as to imbue the whole with one meaning. Ordinarily, therefore, books of instruction have no system: they merely put fragments by the side of other fragments; to change the order of these fragments, say in a book of mathematics or law, would do little or no harm. Not so in this manual, unless my purpose has been defeated; there is a sufficient motive for every one of its parts, sometimes for every word, to stand where it stands, to read as it reads. In a future, not far distant, mankind, I am convinced, will be very parsimonious with things of real value: with his work, with his time, with the substance that he offers to his mind. The man of this future will require that everything brought to his attention for him to retain in his mind should show a systematic structure. Of the books of instruction of the present day none will see that future. What connects the parts of this manual is the idea of chess, by which I mean that force of mentality inherent in the game which has nourished it with the power of appealing to many people and to many generations, so as to enable it to live through many centuries and to spread and to prosper. This idea is itself a structure of noble design. As if it were a valuable work of art buried among debris, it has here been searched for and laboriously unearthed and brought to light by reviewing the history and reason and the life of the game. This idea is the idea of struggle, also of your struggle. Emanuel Lasker Thyrow, October 1925

20

First Book The Elements of Chess The Square

The game of chess has a history that at all times has awakened interest but of which very little is known. We know some fables treating of the origin of the game, fables that are true to history only in so far as they lay the place of origin in Asia and the time of origin in a very distant past. Games similar to chess have been discovered on Egyptian sculptures. Written documents, a thousand years old, referring to chess, have been found. The game of chess of those days was not, however, the game that we now know. No doubt, chess has undergone many changes and who knows whether draughts (checkers), or, more precisely, a game related to draughts, was not a forefather of our chess.

cuuuuuuuuC {wwwwwwww} {wwwwwwww} {wwwwwwww} {wwwwwwww} {wwwwwwww} {wwwwwwww} {wwwwwwww} {wwwwwwwW} vllllllllV

in their totality composing a large square. In eight rows and, perpendicularly thereto, in eight lines the 64 squares are ordered. Consequently one can draw a chessboard by halving the side of a big square three times in succession, as shown by these diagrams:

The European career of chess began a thousand years ago. At that time it was an admired favorite in Spain, the game of the noble and the learned. In feudal castles and at the courts of princes it was cultivated; it was praised in artistic poems. For centuries it remained the aristocratic, noble, royal game, accessible only to a refined taste. Later, it penetrated through Italy and France, and at last it found a home wherever carried by chessplaying peoples.

After Halving

cuuuuuuuuC {wwwwwwww} {wwwwwwww} {wwwwwwww} {wwwwwwww} {wwwwwwww} {wwwwwwww} {wwwwwwww} {wwwwwwwW} vllllllllV

Chess, as pointed out, has changed, but in its attire, in its forms only, by no means in its essence, its idea. That has remained unchanged all through the many centuries of its life. To discover this idea is therefore not difficult: at all times chess has had the will, the intent, the meaning of picturing a war between two parties: a war of extinction, conducted according to rules, laws, in a cultured manner, yet without clemency. This becomes evident from the rules of the game almost at first sight.

After Halving a Second Time

cuuuuuuuuC {wwwwwwww} {wwwwwwww} {wwwwwwww} {wwwwwwww} {wwwwwwww} {wwwwwwww} {wwwwwwww} {wwwwwwwW} vllllllllV

The Chessboard The most ancient and most enduring feature of chess is certainly the board, the table upon which it is played, the field of the chess struggle. In consists of 64 parts, every one a small square, 21

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC {wdwdwdwd} {dwdwdwdw} {wdwdwdwd} {DwdXZwdw} {wdwZXdwd} {dwdwdwdw} {wdwdwdwd} {dwdwdwdW} vllllllllV

After Halving the Third and Last Time

cuuuuuuuuC {wwwwwwww} {wwwwwwww} {wwwwwwww} {wwwwwwww} {wwwwwwww} {wwwwwwww} {wwwwwwww} {wwwwwwwW} vllllllllV

and fifth ranks with the fourth and fifth files. These four squares in the center of the board have, for strategic purposes, the greatest significance. [About which more later — ed.]

The technical process of producing a chessboard is therefore very simple, and the conception, logical; neither is understanding the board complicated. The perception of the 64 squares by the eye is not so easy, but it has been facilitated by the use of color. The squares are alternately colored black and white, so that from time immemorial the chessboard looks as follows:

To describe the events on the chessboard exactly, a name has been given to every one of the 64 squares; formerly a descriptive name, but today, when the science of nature and of mathematics has become so prominent, a mathematical name. This mathematical name reminds us of a system of coordinates in the manner introduced by Descartes. Accordingly, the eight “files,” running upwards, are successively designated by the letters a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, and the eight “ranks,” running from left to right, are successively designated by the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, thusly:

cuuuuuuuuC {wdwdwdwd} {dwdwdwdw} {wdwdwdwd} {Dwdwdwdw} {wdwdwdwd} {dwdwdwdw} {wdwdwdwd} {dwdwdwdW} vllllllllV

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdW} v,./9EFJMV

It is of importance that the student of chess should know the board very accurately; he should be able to visualize each square in its individual position as well as in its relations to its neighboring squares. For this reason the board has been divided into three regions: the middle and the two wings. The left wing is composed of the first and second line to the left, the right wing in the same way by the two extreme lines on the right hand, and the middle is formed by the four remaining lines, the third, fourth, fifth and sixth. (D)

The a-file, b-file, etc. is each therefore a certain file; the first rank, second rank, etc. each a certain rank. Since each square belongs to one file and to one rank only, it is unambiguously designated

In the center of this middle, four squares are situated, which form the intersection of the fourth

22

First Book by its file and rank. For instance, b5 is that one square on the b-file that belongs to the fifth rank. According to custom the letter precedes the number; one writes b5, never 5b. Thus this notation has the advantage of naming each square without ambiguity.

king is captured by force or the contestants agree to a draw. The pieces are usually made of carved wood or molded plastic. The king has the appearance of a crowned monarch, the queen bears a smaller crown, the rooks suggest sturdy castles, the bishops have a characteristic miter head dress, the knights show a horse’s head, and the pawn is like a person without distinction, a face in the crowd, a common soldier.

In the mathematical notation, the division of the board described above would read as follows: the left wing the a- and b-files, the right wing the g- and h-files, the middle the c-, d-, e-, and ffiles, the center the squares d4, d5, e4, e5. The boundary of the board is formed by the a-file, the h-file, the first rank, the eighth rank The corners are a1, a8, h1, h8.

King: Queen: Rook: Bishop:

The student should endeavor to acquire the habit of designating the squares and of visualizing their position. There are many chessplayers who fail merely from their incapacity to master this geometrical task, not suspecting its value.

Knight: Pawn:

K Q R B N P

k q r b n p

The move consists in transferring a piece from one square to another. White “moves” a white piece, Black a black one. Sometimes two pieces are thus put into motion, namely, when a hostile piece is “captured,” i.e., removed from the board, or in “castling,” or in “queening” a pawn, terms which will be explained later. All of this is executed according to fixed rules which the player is constrained to obey.

The Pieces The armies combating each other on the board consist of black and white pieces. The white pieces form the one side, the black pieces the opposing side. The two sides are briefly called White and Black. The coloring of a piece therefore determines its obedience and fidelity, unconditionally. A piece never deserts to the enemy, nor does it ever rebel; it is faithful unto death. True, if it falls in the combat, it wanders from the board merely into a box where the captured pieces are kept until the next game; then it celebrates a merry and hopeful resurrection.

The Rules for Moving The king moves from its square to a neighboring square:

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwZXZwd} 5DwdXIXdw} &wdwZXZwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdW} v,./9EFJMV

White and Black have equal forces. Each has a king, a queen, two rooks, two bishops, two knights, and eight pawns. Either party, therefore, counts sixteen pieces. The pieces stand on the board until they are captured, each piece on one square, no two pieces on the same square. At the start of the game the pieces are placed in a determined position shown hereafter, and then they are moved, the players moving alternately. Thus a struggle of the chess pieces takes place according to determinate rules, until one side’s

The rook on its rank or file:

23

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdXdwd} 7dwdwZwdw} 6wdwdXdwd} 5ZXZX$XZX} &wdwdXdwd} 3dwdwZwdw} 2wdwdXdwd} %dwdwZwdW} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdXdXdw} 6wdXdwdXd} 5Dwdwhwdw} &wdXdwdXd} 3dwdXdXdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdW} v,./9EFJMV

The bishop moves diagonally:

And the pawn moves one square straight ahead:

cuuuuuuuuC (XdwdwdXd} 7dXdwdXDw} 6wdXDXDwd} 5DwdbDWdw} &wdXDXDwd} 3dXDwdXDw} 2XdwdwdXD} %dwdwdwdX} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwDWDwd} 5DwdWDWdw} &wdwDXDwd} 3dwdw)wdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdW} v,./9EFJMV But such moves are permitted only if the square upon which the piece lands is empty or occupied by a hostile piece. Moreover, the rook, bishop and queen are obstructed in their motion as soon as they strike an occupied square. Thus, a bishop on c1 may go to any square in the diagonal d2, e3, f4, g5, h6:

The queen may move like a rook or a bishop:

cuuuuuuuuC (wZwdXdwZ} 7dwZwZwZW} 6wdwZXZwd} 5ZXZX!XZX} &wdwZXZwd} 3dwZwZwZw} 2wZwdXdwZ} %ZwdwZwdW} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwDWDwZ} 5DwdWDWZw} &wdwDwZwd} 3dwdwZwdw} 2wdwZwdwd} %dwGwdwdW} v,./9EFJMV

The knight jumps in making the shortest move that is not a straight one: 24

First Book

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwDWDwd} 5ZwZwdpdw} &w)wdXDXd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdW} v,./9EFJMV

unless one of these squares is occupied; for example if e3 is occupied, then f4, g5, and h6 are obstructed and the bishop may not be moved there:

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwDWDwd} 5DwdWDWdw} &wdwDwDwd} 3dwdw)wdw} 2wdwZwdwd} %dwGwdwdW} v,./9EFJMV

All pieces are subject to capture except the king. Its life is sacred, the player must defend it, it perishes only when no possible resource can save it from capture. Whenever that occurs the game is at an end; the player who cannot save his king from capture is “checkmated” and loses the game.

However, a knight is not so obstructed — it may “leap” over an intervening man of either color:

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdw4nd} 7dwdwZp0p} 6wdwdwZwZ} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdWdwdwd} 3dwdwdXdX} 2wdwdP)P)} %dwdwdwHW} v,./9EFJMV

These rules are not complete, besides they are too brief so that the reader cannot be expected to obtain a clear conception through them, but they serve as an initial step in that they produce a vivid impression of the chess struggle. We shall now consider them in detail and at length in order to illuminate the various logical consequences that come thereby into play. The King The king may move from the square it occupies to any square satisfying the following conditions:

Thus in the above position the knight on g1 may move to f3 or h3, and the knight on g8 to e7, f6 or h6.

1. A neighbor to the square it occupies. 2. Not occupied by a man of its own color. 3. Not menaced by any hostile piece.

The rook, bishop, queen, king or knight can “capture” an obstruction, provided it is a hostile piece, by putting the moving piece on the square occupied by the obstruction and removing the latter into the box. The pawn, however, captures not in that way, but with a diagonal move forward to a neighboring square: (D)

Once during the game the king may violate the first of these rules, namely, in castling, otherwise never. In castling, the king is moved two squares to the right or left, as the case may be, and the rook towards which the king has moved is then placed upon the square which the king jumped over. But this move is not permitted when:

Thus the white pawn on b4 could capture a hostile man on a5 or c5, while the black pawn on c5 could do the same to one on e4 or g4.

1. The king is in “check,” i.e., menaced with capture. 25

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdw4kd} 7dwdwdp!p} 6wdwdw)pd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwIW} v,./9EFJMV

2. The king or rook has already made a move. 3. The move of the rook is obstructed. 4. The king or rook after castling would be exposed to capture. What has been said here in dry words may now be presented pictorially.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwiwd} 7dwdwdwHw} 6wdwdQdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdpdwdwd} 3dw)wdwdw} 2wgK)wdwd} %dwdwdrdW} v,./9EFJMV

The king can therefore not be saved, the “check” is a “mate,” or checkmate; Black has lost the game. Castling

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdkdw4} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdqdwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &w!wdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdP} 2P)Pdw)Pd} %$wdwIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

The white king placed on c2 has only one possible move, to wit, to b2. It may go there, because firstly, that square is neighbor to c2; secondly it is not occupied by a man of its own party but a hostile one; and thirdly, the square b2 is not menaced by any enemy, neither the black king nor the black rook, nor the black pawn in their present positions being able to capture a piece on b2. On the other hand, the white king could make no other move; it cannot move to b1 or d1 because of the black rook, nor to b3 or d3 because of the black pawn, nor to d2 because of the white pawn standing there, still less to c1, where two slayers would await it, nor to c3, which is menaced by the bishop on b2 and obstructed by a white pawn besides. To other squares it cannot move since they are not adjacent to its present square.

The two kings and the four rooks still stand where they stood at the start of the game. Let us suppose that to this point in the game none of these pieces has moved. White, if he is to move, can castle with the rook on h1 by placing it on f1 and simultaneously jumping with king to g1:

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdkdw4} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdqdwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &w!wdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdP} 2P)Pdw)Pd} %$wdwdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

The reader may demonstrate that in the above position also the black king has only one possible move, namely, to g7. (D) Black to move. His king is “checked” because it is menaced by the white queen. The king cannot capture the queen since g7 is threatened by the pawn on f6; the king can go nowhere else for the white queen threatens its place of refuge; the white queen can be captured by no black piece. 26

First Book

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdrdRIwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2kdrdwdRd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

or White can castle with the rook at a1 by placing it on d1 and jumping with king to c1:

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdkdw4} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdqdwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &w!wdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdP} 2P)Pdw)Pd} %dwIRdwdR} v,./9EFJMV

to c2 or c1 owing to the obstruction of the rook on c2. The rook on e4 has only two squares open to it, d4 and c4, and the rook on g2 no less than 12 squares, any square of the g-file and all but two squares of the second rank: h2, f2, e2, d2, c2, g1, g3, g4, g5, g6, g7, g8.

In practice the player will be well advised always to move the king first and then his rook when castling. Black, if it is his turn to move, can castle with the rook on a8:

cuuuuuuuuC (wdk4wdw4} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdqdwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &w!wdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdP} 2P)Pdw)Pd} %$wdwIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

The Bishop

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdkd} 7dwdwdrdw} 6wdwdwgwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdBdwdwd} 3dwGwdwdw} 2wdw4wdwd} %Iw$wdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

whereby king and rook occupy the squares c8, d8 respectively. But Black cannot castle with the rook on h8, because the white queen would attack the rook after castling and therefore castling on that side is illegal.

In this position three bishops are on the board, at c3, c4, and f6; also three rooks, at c1, d2, and f7, and of course the two kings — the kings never being captured — on a1 and g8. Since the bishops move diagonally, the bishop on c3 can capture on f6, and vice versa. But the bishop on c3 cannot capture the rook on d2 because the bishop is forced to protect its king against the bishop on f6 by obstruction. The bishop on c4 can capture the rook on f7; this piece is immobile since it is pinned by the bishop on c4. The number of squares to which the bishops might move is therefore found for the bishop on c4 to be ten (a2, b3, d5, e6, f7, b5, a6, d3, e2, f1); for the bishop on f6 nine (h8, g7, e5, d4, c3, e7, d8, g5,

The Rook From the next diagram, the rook on c2 has the following possible moves: to b2, d2, e2, f2, and capture on g2. It cannot go to c1 or c3 because it is under obligation to guard its king against the white rook on g2. The rook on c4 can go to a4, b4 or d4, or capture on e4, but it cannot capture on f4 because the rook on e4 is an obstruction. It may also go to c8 or c7 or c6 or c5 or c3 but not 27

Lasker’s Manual of Chess h4); and for the bishop on c3 four (b2, d4, e5, f6).

of the rook on g3: they must protect their kings. The knight on f5 can move to one of the following squares: e7, d6, d4, e3, g3 (whereby it captures the rook), h4, h6. The shortest jump on the chessboard is, namely, to take two squares (in the air) on a file or rank and one square perpendicularly thereto. That movement allows the knight on f5 eight possibilities, but in the above position one of these, on the square g7, is taken away by the obstruction of a knight of the same color. The knight on f6 has eight possible moves: it threatens the hostile king, i.e. “checks” or “gives check,” and the king will have to fly, for instance, to f7, in order to save himself.

The Queen

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdrdwi} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &qdwdQdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdBdwdwd} %dwdwIwdw} v,./9EFJMV

The Pawn

cuuuuuuuuC (w4wdwdkd} 70p0wdpdw} 6wdw0Whwd} 5DwdW0Wdp} &wdw)wDpd} 3dw)wDw)w} 2P)wDP)B)} %dwDRdwIW} v,./9EFJMV

In this position two queens, a rook, a bishop and the two kings are on the board. The black queen on a4, which can move like a rook or like a bishop, has the following moves at its disposal: to b4, c4, d4, a1, a2, a3, a5, a6, a7, a8, b5, c6, d7, b3, capture on e4, and capture on c2. The white queen, however, has a very limited range, because it is pinned by the rook on e8. If the pin were released it could go to h7 and there, supported by the bishop on c2, checkmate the king; as it is, the queen must either capture the rook on e8 or suffer capture by that piece.

Here you see 16 pawns, therefore all that were in the box, and two rooks, one bishop, one knight, the two kings besides. At the beginning of the game the white pawns are placed on the second rank and the black pawns on the seventh rank; from there they move or capture ahead towards the enemy, the white pawns from below upwards, the black pawns in the opposite direction. For instance, the pawn on d4 may capture on e5 and conversely, because the pawns, though moving ahead in their file, capture diagonally, always advancing towards the enemy.

The Knight

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdkd} 7dwdwdwhw} 6wdwdwHwd} 5Dwdwdndb} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdw$w} 2wdwdNdwd} %dwdKdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

The above position shows three immobile pawns, “blocked” pawns: g3, g4, f7. The pawn on g3 is blocked by the pawn on g4, because the pawn does not capture straight ahead, but diagonally. The position shows nine pawns standing on the squares where they stood at the start of the game: a2, b2 e2, f2, h2, a7, b7, c7, f7; they have not

Here are four knights on the board, and a rook and a bishop and the two kings. Two of the knights are immobile, the knight on e2 because of the bishop on h5 and the knight on g7 because 28

First Book The pawns only advancing ahead, rank by rank, arrive finally on the last rank, where according to the rule they would come to a barrier and would be immobile. Should this signify their death? Should they now become useless after having done their duty and fought their way through the ranks of the enemy? That would not be in keeping with justice. Since in a struggle it is honorable to draw upon oneself the fire of the enemy and to do him harm, the pawn advancing to the last rank is rewarded by becoming an “officer” in its army; it is changed for a queen, rook, bishop or knight, according to the will of the player; it is promoted to a higher rank since officers have much more mobility and value than pawns.

moved yet; the other seven pawns have advanced during the progress of the game. The pawn on d4 has two possible moves: to advance to d5 or to capture on e5. The pawn on c3 has only one possible move: to advance to c4. Now the rule was introduced about four centuries ago [now five centuries – ed.] that pawns in their initial position and which are not blocked may advance one or two steps according to the plan of the player. This rule made the game more lively, and therefore the chess world accepted it in time. For instance, in the above position the pawn on a2 may advance to a3 or to a4 in one move. Likewise the pawn on a7 may advance to a6 or a5. The two-square advance is also possible for the pawns on b7, c7, b2, e2, f2 and h2.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdkd} 7dwdw)w0p} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdP} 2wdwdw0RI} %dwdwdwGR} v,./9EFJMV

With this rule a difficulty arose. Its object was to accelerate the pace of chess events and to add to their variety, but it betrayed sometimes the obvious rights of the opponent. To illustrate this point, observe the two pawns on f2 and g4. The pawn on g4 stands on guard over f3. If the pawn on f2 advances to f3, the pawn on g4 can capture it; thus it had been for many centuries. But after the introduction of the new rule the pawn on f2 could evade the pawn on g4 by advancing at once to f4 and could then molest Black unpunished. Naturally, the pawn on guard on g4 felt itself deceived, when the hostile pawn crept through the advance posts. There were scenes of hot dispute. It could not be the meaning of the innovation to make the advancing pawn immune. And finally justice was victorious: the pawn standing on guard was allowed the right of capture, just as if the pawn trying to slip through had advanced one step only; but the pawn on guard cannot defer this movement but must execute it on the next move, an immediate reply to the attempted advance. If, for instance, in the above position White moves f2 f4, Black may answer g4xf3, thus executing his original intention of capturing the pawn on f3. This species of capture is named “capture in passing” or, with the French expression capture “en passant.” If the pawn, after f2-f4, is not immediately captured by g4 “in passing,” it stays unmolested on f4 and has thereafter to contend only with the hostile pawns of the f and e-files.

If it is White’s turn to move here, he may advance pawn e7 to e8, change it for a queen and call mate. If it is Black’s turn to move, he can advance the pawn from f2 to f1, demand a knight and checkmate White. The Initial Position

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1kgn4} 70p0p0p0p} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)P)P)P)} %$NGQIBHR} v,./9EFJMV 29

Lasker’s Manual of Chess From time immemorial the men are placed at the beginning of the game in the order shown above, and White makes the first move. In the corners stand the rooks, on the first rank the white officers in the order R, N, B, Q, K, B, N, R; the corner to the right of White is white; in the second rank stand the white pawns, in the seventh rank the black pawns and in the eighth rank the black officers, every one opposite to a white officer of its own kind, the queen opposite the queen, the king opposite the king, and so forth. The white queen is placed on a white square, the black queen on a black square, the queen therefore on a square of its own color — a remnant of feudal gallantry.

Captures: When a piece makes a capture, an “x” is inserted between the piece and the destination square. For example, Bxe5 means the bishop captures the piece on e5. When a pawn makes a capture, the file from which the pawn departed is used in place of a piece initial. For example, exd5 (the pawn on the e-file captures the piece on d5). Sometimes when it is unambiguous, a pawn capture is indicated only by the files, for example: exd, or ed. A colon (:) is sometimes used instead of an x, especially in European countries, either in the same place the x would go (B:e5) or after the move (Be5:). En passant captures are specified by the capturing pawn’s file of departure, the x, and finally the square to which the capturing pawn moves (not the location of the captured pawn). For example, here:

Chess Notation For presenting chess moves and games, this book uses the method known as “algebraic notation,” which has become standard throughout most of the chess-playing world.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdw)pdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

Naming the Pieces: Each type of piece (other than pawns) is identified by either a figurine, or by an uppercase letter, usually the first letter of the name of that piece in whatever language is being used. English-speaking players use K for king, Q for queen, R for rook, B for bishop and N for knight (or Kt in some older books). In this book we will use the figurine symbols: K, Q, R, B, and N. In recording moves, pawns are not given any letter or symbol. It is not necessary to distinguish between pawns for normal moves, as usually only one pawn can move to any one square (captures are indicated differently; see below).

Black has just moved f7-f5. White’s capturing en passant would be recorded as exf6. This is sometimes optionally followed by the notation “e.p.” Some texts omit indications that a capture has been made.

Notation for moves: Each move of a piece is indicated by the piece’s symbol, plus the coordinate of the destination square. For example Be5 (a bishop moves to e5), Nf3 (a knight moves to f3), c5 (a pawn moves to c5). Often both the starting and ending squares are given, e.g. Ra1d1 means that a rook standing on a1 is moved to d1, or e2-e4 means a pawn is moved from e2 to e4. This method is known as long or full algebraic, and will be used at first in this book to help the student become accustomed to the notation.

Distinguishing between ambiguous moves: If two (or more) pieces of the same kind can move to the same square, the notation must make clear which piece moves. To do this, the piece’s symbol is followed by (in descending order of preference): 1. The file of departure if they differ. 2. The rank of departure if the files are the same but the ranks differ. 30

First Book 3. Both the rank and file if neither alone uniquely defines the piece (possible after a pawn promotion, if three or more of the same piece are able to reach the square).

End of the game: The notation 1-0 at the end of a game indicates that White won, 0-1 indicates that Black won, Except in the event of checkmate, these usually indicate that one player resigned, believing his eventual loss inevitable. ½-½ indicates a draw, usually by mutual agreement.

cuuuuuuuuC (Rdwdwdwd} 7dwdwdw0w} 6wdw4wdw4} 5DwdwHPdw} &wdwdw)wd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %$wdwHwHw} v,./9EFJMV

Styles of printing moves: Moves are generally written in one of two ways: (1) in two columns, as a white/black pair, preceded by the move number and a period: 1. e4 2. Nf3 3. Bb5

e5 Nc6 a6

(2) in a line: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6.

The above position illustrates how it works. Moving either of the black rooks to e6, f6, or g6 would require the starting file, e.g. Rdf6 or Rhf6. Moving either of the white rooks along the a-file requires noting the starting rank, e.g. R1a5 or R8a5. Moving the knight on g1 to f3 would require noting only the file from which it moves, Ngf3, and moving the knight on e5 there requires only the rank, N5f3, but moving the knight on e1 requires both rank and file, Ne1f3, to distinguish it from the other two knights. Finally, if Black were to play g7-g5, the normal and en passant possibilities require that a white capture be recorded as either fxg5 or fxg6, respectively.

We have opted for the latter style in this book. Moves may be interspersed with text. When a game score resumes with a black move, an ellipsis (...) takes the place of the white move, for example: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 — Black now defends his pawn. 2...Nc6 3.Bb5 a6. An ellipsis is also used when a score starts with a black move, as when starting from a diagrammed position. Comments: Annotators often comment on the quality of a move using these punctuation symbols:

Pawn promotion: If a pawn moves to its last rank, achieving promotion, the piece chosen is indicated after the move, for example e1Q, or b8B. Sometimes the = sign or parentheses are used: f8=Q or f8(Q). Castling: castling is indicated by the special notations 0-0 for kingside castling and 0-0-0 for queenside.

! a good move !! an excellent move ? a poor move ?? a serious blunder !? an interesting move that may not be best ?! a dubious but not obviously bad move

Check and checkmate: Normally, and in this book, a move which places a king in check has the notation + added at the end, e.g. Bxh7+. Some books use †. In older books sometimes “ch” is seen. We indicate checkmate by #, e.g. Qxh7#. In some books the word “mate” is written at the end of the notation.

King’s Men and Queen’s Men: As an aside, we should mention that it is common also in chess literature to differentiate between “the queen’s pieces” (i.e., those on the queen’s side of the board, the squares a1, b1, c1, a8, b8 and c8 in the initial array) and “the king’s pieces” (those on the king’s side: f1, g1, h1, f8, g8 and h8) by 31

Lasker’s Manual of Chess the initials Q and K respectively. Thus, for example, when a book refers to “the QB” it means the bishop that stands on c1 (or c8 for Black) at the start of the game, “the KN” would mean the knight that begins the game at g1 (or g8 for Black), the QR would be the rook at a1 or a8, etc. This is not done in algebraic game notation, only in notes or other prose text. In the same way, pawns are often referred to by the piece they stand in front of at the beginning of the game, the e-pawn being also called “the KP” or “king pawn,” the d-pawn “the QP,” the a-pawn “the QRP” etc. However, unlike the pieces, a pawn’s designation changes when it captures. For example, after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.cxd5 exd5, the pawn which began the game as Black’s e-pawn, or KP, is now his d-pawn, or QP. After the further moves 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.Nf3 Bxc3+ 5.bxc3, the pawn that began as White’s QNP, or b-pawn, is now his QBP, or c-pawn.

may be voluntary or compulsory. Compulsory when the two opponents repeat their moves, going backwards and forwards without changing their position,* compulsory also when for fifty moves in succession no essential change, no advance towards the final goal can be demonstrated by either player. This demonstration, such is the accepted law, is achieved when during these fifty moves no capture nor the advance of a pawn has been performed, for these are, by common consent, the outward, the visible signs of an essential change.

cuuuuuuuuC (kdwgwdwd} 7dw0pdwdw} 6w!wdwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdr} &wdwdwGwd} 3dwdwdp)q} 2P)wdw)w)} %dwdwhRIw} v,./9EFJMV

The End of the Game: Checkmate (Mate), Stalemate, Draw With checkmate the game is decided, but not every game ends with a mate. If he whose turn it is to move can make no legal move and yet his king is not checked, he is not checkmated, though the game necessarily is at an end. Such a conclusion of the game is called a stalemate, a useless, a false, an unproductive mate. He who is stalemated does not lose the game nor win it either, because loss of the game is suffered only by him who is checkmated, and an essential condition therefore is that the king should be in check, whereas in a stalemating position the king is not in check.

Here White is to move, Black menaces checkmate in two ways, either by Qh3xh2, or Qh3-g2. White cannot defend the threat, he therefore tries to attack the opponent by giving check with Qb6-a6+. Black is forced to reply Ka8-b8. Now Qa6-b6+ again checking. The pinned pawn cannot capture, hence Kb8-c8 or Kb8-a8. Again Qb6-a6+, Ka8(c8)-b8. And the checks have no end, the game is drawn by “perpetual check.”† The Function of Strategy

Again when neither of the opponents believes he has the power to end the game by administering checkmate, the game is undecided, “drawn,” by mutual agreement. This agreement

Herewith the rules and laws of the game are laid down; according to the very same rules play the beginner and the veteran, the duffer and the

* Lasker is referring to threefold repetition, which by today’s rules is not a compulsory draw. One player or the other must claim the draw when his intended move would create a position which has already existed on the board at least twice previously, with the same player to move. If neither player claims a draw in such a situation, play may continue. † Under today’s rules, a draw by perpetual check per se does not exist. If an indefinite series of checks neither repeats a position three times, nor qualifies under the 50-move rule, it is not grounds for a draw. Lasker’s example would quickly qualify under threefold repetition.

32

First Book master. Whoever does not follow these rules does not play chess; whoever follows them belongs to the community of chessplayers that counts many millions.

above thesis would be a rank failure, but ceteris paribus it is as true as gold. Now the method of Euclid would do no good in chess. Reason in chess — we shall see more clearly later on — is not of the mathematical order. Chess is no certainty. And when it becomes one, chess will have ceased to be useful. To enable the chessplayers to follow an argument, the idea of the learned of the Middle Ages embodied in the curt Latin ceteris paribus is indispensable.

What distinguishes the chessplayers, all of whom follow the same rules, is called strategy: the plan, meaning, intent, force, briefly the reason of their moves. This reason is no different from all reason, but a part of it, grown on its body, possessed of its force and conditioned by its pains. On the same tree where a little branch hangs, called the logic of Aristotle, there hangs another branch named Strategy in Chess.

By means of ceteris paribus we are within our rights to suppose that all the other pieces, being of equal force and value, have fought a drawn battle, at the end of which they, like the two lions that devoured each other up to the two tails, have emigrated from the chessboard into the box, thus leaving the stronger side with rook in a safe position and the king, against the bare king.

Our Task In adopting the above rules and style of speaking and of writing, it will be our task to make visible the reason of the game of chess. According to the manner and law of reason, that task will oblige us to start from simple questions, ever to advance to more complicated questions by 1ogical deduction, and finally to unearth all the different sources of reason as manifested in chess and to draw our final conclusions.

If the stronger side has the move, we can demonstrate that rook and king against king can always force a checkmate. This demonstration is mathematical. It is founded upon a certain process, by which the weaker side is eventually shorn of its mobility, its king being confined in a prison with ever narrowing walls, and finally forced into a checkmate. The demonstration begins by showing that with the pieces available certain mating positions exist and continues by making evident that the weaker side, in the course of the above process, may be driven into one of these mating positions.

On the Advantage of a Plus in Pieces First Proposition: The plus of a rook suffices to win the game. When one is checkmated the pieces that are inactive onlookers of the disaster, however many they might be, are of no avail. Pieces that cannot aid in staying a danger are of no value. Let us, however, consider the question of a plus in pieces under a certain condition that from the learned of the Middle Ages has received the curt name of “ceteris paribus.” Advantages and disadvantages being equal, being evenly balanced — that is the meaning of this condition. The above proposition is certainly not valid in all situations. As a proposition in Euclid,* the

As long as the king is in the middle of the board, it cannot be mated by king and rook. For let us suppose that the two aggressive pieces have arrived at their position of strongest effect. Then the two kings will stand opposite each other and the rook will give check on file or rank, and thus the besieged king will be checked and have five squares of its domain cut off by the enemy. This is easily seen.

* Euclid: a Greek mathematician who lived circa 300 BCE. Often called the father of geometry, his work was noted for its rigorous mathematical proofs.

33

Lasker’s Manual of Chess Strongest Effect of king versus king

Mating position with king in corner

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdkdKdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC {wdRdwdwi} {dwdwdwdw} {wdwdwdKd} The stronger side forces the hostile king to the border and if need be into a corner by proceeding as the fisherman who drives fish into his net and then draws the net, narrowing down the space available to his prey until finally no room is left to the victim. But there is a point that needs further elucidation. After all, the above picture does not come true to reality. Let us consider the following position:

Here the kings stand as near to each other as possible since they must not expose themselves to capture, not even to capture by the opposing king. They stand in “opposition,” they prevent each other from moving on any one of the three squares d3, d4, d5.

The king in the net

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwdKdwd} 5DwdRdwdw} &wdkdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

Strongest effect of king plus rook versus king

cuuuuuuuuC (wdRdwdwd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdkdKdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

True, the black king on c4 cannot get over the dfile nor the fifth rank as long as the white rook, protected by its king, stands on guard on d5. But how is the net to be drawn tighter? If the black king should refuse to move, the tightening of the net would be impossible.

The kings are in opposition, the rook checks and deprives the hostile king of the three squares adjoining those dominated by the white king. Thus the king on the c-file is driven towards the b-file, a file nearer to the boundary than the one the king held previously.

The fish in the net of the fisherman might refuse to move, but not so the king in the net of the rook. The right of moving in chess is at the same time an obligation. In by far most instances the right to move is of great value, but there are cases, as shown above, where to move is disadvantageous. Yet, rightly or wrongly, the laws of chess do not permit a free choice in

Mating position with king on border

cuuuuuuuuC {Rdwdkdwd} {dwdwdwdw} {wdwdKdwd} 34

First Book

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdkdwd} 7dwdwGwdw} 6wdwIwdwd} 5DwdwdwdB} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV cuuuuuuuuC (wdKdkdwd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwHwdNd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV cuuuuuuuuC (kdwdwdwd} 7dwdNdwdw} 6Kdwdwdwd} 5DwdBdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

this respect: you have to move, whether you like it or find it irksome. The constraint to move is usually called by a German word, “Zugzwang,” that has become international in its usage. Let us return to the above position, White to move. White plays Ke6-d6. If Black replies Kc4-b4 or Kc4-b3, the rook will follow it up with Rd5-c5, thus cutting off the c-file; and if Black replies Kc4-c3, the white king will get into opposition, Kd6-c5, and the play might further proceed methodically Kc3-b3, Rd5d4, Kb3-c3, Kc5-d5, Kc3-c2, Kd5-c4 and so on. To drive the king by means of the Zugzwang on to the border and there to give checkmate is, after all that has been said, an easy task. Second Proposition: King and bishop or king and knight against the bare king make a drawn game. Let us deliberate according to the above method. We soon find that a checkmate with king and bishop or king and knight against king is impossible even when the weaker side has its king placed in the most unfavorable position, the corner. Should the aggressive king stand even in opposition to the cornered king, the besieged party will yet have one square of escape; should that be taken away by bishop or knight, the king in the corner will not be checked and therefore a stalemate will result; conversely, if the cornered king is checked it is driven only on more favorable ground. The task of checkmating with the above force is unsolvable. Third Proposition: King and two minor pieces against the bare king will force mate unless both the minor pieces are knights.

But it is impossible to arrive at all such mating positions by a systematic process, in a methodical fashion. And, since chess is not to be played haphazardly for any length of time, that circumstance is highly significant. Hence, we must distinguish between those of the above checkmates that can be arrived at by force and those that can be gained only through intervention of the error or hastiness or bad judgment of your opponent.

Because of the lesser force of bishops or knights, compared to rook or queen, the two latter officers are called the “major” pieces, the former officers the “minor” ones. With the aid of two minor officers and the king, mating positions can always be constructed, for instance, the three that here follow: 35

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdkd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwdwdKd} 5DwdNHwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

A systematic process is always, this way or that, the drawing in of a logical net. When the hostile king is aimed at, systematic progress is possible only in the direction of a diminution of the mobility of that piece. The direction of the process being thus determined, the final aim being one of the checkmating positions, the problem is clearly put and its solution requires little effort. With two bishops it is easy to imprison the hostile king by putting the two bishops alongside of each other. They then dominate two neighboring diagonals and thus divide the board into various parts separated from each other, so that the hostile king, caught in one of these compartments, is unable to enter into another.

that square must not now be cut off by either Nd7-f6 or Nd5-e7 on account of the law of stalemate. Returning, the king will again threaten to escape via f8 and thus keep one of the knights busy such as the one on d7. And no further progress can be achieved. Only a manifest blunder will enable White to bring about the checkmate, namely, by

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7Zwdwdwdw} 6XZwdwdwd} 5DXZkdwdX} &wdXZwdXZ} 3dwdXZXZw} 2wdwdBGwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

1. Nd5-f6+ Kg8-h8 Obviously, this move is a grave mistake, for thus B1ack voluntarily goes where White wants to drive it; the move Kg8-f8 would draw. 2. Ne5-f7# With bishop, knight and king versus king, the checkmate is attainable, but in a complicated manner. The principle of the hunt for the king is this: the king, the bishop and the knight in their effort to chase the adverse king into a corner, must apportion different tasks to each other, thus aiding each other; they must not perform any task doubly which would amount to an unnecessary competition between each other and would be a useless effort. Each one of these pieces must therefore cut off squares to the hunted king that are not cut off by the other pieces, each one must have its own allotted share of squares to guard and must not trespass. With this principle in view, it is not hard to drive the king into a corner. But now another difficulty arises. The adverse king must be driven into one of those corners that the bishop can assail, as mate cannot be forced in either of the other corners. If the bishop moves on white squares, it is limited to these white squares, for diagonals running through a white

Here the black king is restricted to the compartment bordered by the squares a7, a6, b6, b5, b5, c5, c4, d4, d3, e3, f3, g3, g4, h4 and h5. The king cannot move on to any square of this border and therefore cannot reach any square outside of its compartment. With the approach of the white king, it will be easy to draw the net together and to checkmate the black king. With two knights the checkmate cannot be forced. For let the black king be driven into a corner, the task of forcing the checkmate still fails. (D) This is a critical position. In order to achieve the checkmate the king must be driven into the corner. Therefore, its escape, K to f8, must be cut off. If to this end Ne5-d7 and Black replies Kg8-h8, the black king will return to g8, because

36

First Book

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdkdwd} 7dwdwHwdw} 6wGwdKdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

square comprise white squares only; and with black squares it is the same. Hence, the hunted king will be prudent to allow itself to be driven towards a corner unattainable to the bishop and to shun either corner of the color assailable by the bishop. On the other hand, the assailant, having driven the king into the safe corner, is confronted by the problem of driving it into one of the unsafe corners.

cuuuuuuuuC (kdwdwdwd} 7dwdwHwdw} 6Kdwdwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwGwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

Now the knight has to cut off the square e8. 13.Ne7-f5 Ke8-f8 14.Nf5-d6 Kf8-g7 15.Ke6-f5 Kg7-h6 16.Bb6-d8 Kh6-h5 17.Nd6-e8 Kh5-h6 18.Bd8-g5+

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdNdwd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwdwdwi} 5DwdwdKGw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

This latter task has to be studied in detail. The play runs as follows: 1.Ka6-b6 Ka8-b8 2.Kb6-c6 Kb8-a8 3.Ne7-d5 Ka8-b8 4.Nd5-c7 Thus the corner is cut off. 4…Kb8-c8 5.Bd4-a7 Kc8-d8 6.Nc7d5 Kd8-e8

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdkdwd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdKdwdwd} 5DwdNdwdw} &wdwGwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

The black king dares not return to h5, else it is checkmated at once. 18.Kh6-h7 19.Kf5-f6 Kh7-g8 20.Kf6-e7 Kg8-h7 21.Ke7-f7 Kh7-h8 22.Bg5-h6 Kh8-h7 23.Bh6-f8 Kh7-h8 24.Bf8-g7+ Kh8-h7 25.Ne8-f6#

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdwdKGk} 6wdwdwHwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

Black makes an attempt to gain more freedom of movement. 7.Kc6-d6 Ke8-f7 8.Nd5-e7 Kf7-f6 9.Ba7-e3 The net holds tight, the attempt of the black king is frustrated. 9…Kf6f7 10.Be3-d4 Kf7-e8 11.Kd6-e6 Ke8d8 12.Bd4-b6+ Kd8-e8

37

Lasker’s Manual of Chess e8, e7, f8, f6, g8, g7, g6 to stop the pawn. The black king must stand within a certain rectangle formed by two squares, which have the line e6, e7, e8 as a side. Each one of these squares is commonly spoken of as “the square of the passed pawn.” The pawn is “passed” because it has escaped the perils of opposing pawns and is now free to advance to the eighth rank unhampered by hostile pawns.

Fourth Proposition: The plus of a pawn does not always suffice to force the win, but in the majority of cases it does. In considering this proposition, one must accentuate the condition of ceteris paribus very strongly. The plan of “exchanging” the hostile pieces one by one, until nothing but the extra pawn and the two kings remain alone on the board, is often difficult and perhaps impossible to be carried through. But, for all that, let us consider this task solved and let us now inquire into the concluding stages of that contest.

As an exercise show that if the black king stands here on d5, e5, or f5, White having the move, it cannot stop the pawn. In the next diagram, the black king stops the pawn, but the white king aids it. Will the pawn now advance? Far from it! The king will first gain room for the pawn by Zugzwang and therefore use the opposition.

First, let the pawn fight the adverse king unaided. Will the pawn be able to advance unharmed on to the eighth rank, there to be queened, afterwards to checkmate the king? Or will the king approach the pawn meanwhile and capture it? The question is one of pure mathematics. While the pawn advances one square the king approaches one square. Hence, the pawn having to advance by pawn steps until it queens, the king to approach by king steps to the square where the pawn queens, all depends on the relation of the two members, pawn steps and king steps. If the number of pawn steps is less than the number of king steps, the pawn will queen. If they are equal, or if the number of pawn steps is greater than the number of king steps, the king will capture. For instance, if the white pawn is on e6, White to move, the black king must stand at a distance of two squares from e8, or the pawn, though unaided, will queen.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdkdwdw} 6wdwdwdwd} 5DwIwdwdw} &wdw)wdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV White to move wins by 1.Kd5 Ke7 2.Kc6 Thus the white king has gained the power over d7, a point over which the pawn will have to march. 2…Kd8 3.Kd6 Kc8 4.Ke7

cuuuuuuuuC (wdXZXZXd} 7dwZWZwZw} 6wdXZPZXd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wdkdwdwd} 7dwdwIwdw} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdw)wdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

The black king must therefore in that moment stand upon one of the squares c8, c7, c6, d8, d6, 38

First Book

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwiwdwd} 7dwdPdwdw} 6wdwIwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

Now the white king also guards d8. No matter what Black may do, the pawn will safely advance to d5, d6, d7 and queen on d8. Black to move will draw.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdkdwdw} 6wdwdwdwd} 5DwIwdwdw} &wdw)wdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

From the next diagram, if it is Black’s turn to move, White wins. If White to move, the game is uselessly prolonged or ends in a stalemate as shown above.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdkdwd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdw)Kdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

1…Kc7 Now the black king fights the white one, preventing its advance. 2.d5 Kd7 The pawn on d5 is a hindrance to its own king by preventing it from taking the opposition against the adverse king. 1.d6 Kd8

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwiwdwd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdw)wdwd} 5DwIwdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

From these considerations the strategy of play of king plus pawn versus king can be deduced. But the pawn on the borderlines makes an exception; in its case the opposition has no value.

cuuuuuuuuC (kdwdwdwd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6Kdwdwdwd} 5)wdwdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

The best move! If 3…Kc8 instead, White would gain the opposition with 4.Kc6 and win with 4…Kd8 5.d7 Ke7 6.Kc7. 4.Kc6 Kc8 5.d7+ Kd8 6.Kd6 (D) White is forced to make this move or he loses his pawn, but now Black is stalemated and the game drawn.

39

Lasker’s Manual of Chess In this position, Black moves Kb8, and White, not being able to advance on to the seventh rank, has gained nothing. The boundary protects Black. White can never drive the king out of the corner. If White cuts off the mobility of the black king, it flies to the corner and is there stalemated. This play in the corner and round the corner is of interest. To illustrate it, we append two instructive positions.

cannot soon find protection behind its own pieces, it is hopelessly lost. The action of queen, rook, bishop against the king is so strong that obstructions are needed to keep the king from being checkmated. And even if the king is helped by some obstructions, when strong and varied pieces are conducting the attack the obstructions might prove too weak and the king might therefore easily be caught in the meshes of a “mating net.”

cuuuuuuuuC (Kdkdwdwd} 7)wdwdwdw} 6Ndwdwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdrdwi} 7dqgwdwdw} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdRdw} 2wdw!wdP)} %dwdwdwdK} v,./9EFJMV

White to move can only draw, because his king then remains imprisoned, the black king moving to c7 and c8 alternately.

The black pieces stand apart from their king. They are powerful for attack but seem to have forgotten their duty of defense. The white army, weak in numbers but well placed, succeeds in a quick thrust: 1.Qh6+ Kg8 2.Qg6+ Kh8 3.Rh3#

cuuuuuuuuC (kdwdwdwd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2PdwdwGwd} %dwdwdKdw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdw4} 7dwdwdp0w} 6wdwdwiwd} 5$wdwdwdw} &wdwdwdw1} 3dwdwdwdP} 2wdwdwdPd} %dRdwdwIw} v,./9EFJMV

Neither the bishop nor the king nor the pawn can drive the black king from its corner. The king moves in and out of it until being stalemated, the game is drawn.

Black has exposed his king. Black to move might procure a safe retreat for the king at g7 by advancing g7-g6. If White is to move, he wins. 1.Rb6+ Ke7 2.Ra7+ Ke8 (best) 3.Rb8+ Qd8 4.Rxd8+ Kxd8 5.Ra8+ Kany 6.Rxh8 and wins by plus of pieces.

On the Advantage of the Attack against an Unprotected King If the king is exposed to continual checks and 40

First Book

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdwdkd} 7dwdw$pdw} 6wdwdw!pd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwdw0wd} 3dwdwdwhP} 2wdwdwdPd} %dwdwdwIw} v,./9EFJMV

work (in the five following positions the white king is not shown as he takes no part in administering the mate):

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdw4k4} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwdwdQd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

White has left the first rank unprotected and Black can therefore drive the white king into a mating net by cooperation of rook, knight, and the pawn on f4. 1…Ra1+ 2.Kh2 Rh1#, or 2.Kf2 Rf1#.

A queen all by itself checkmates the king hemmed in by its rooks.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdwdwdN} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdwdkdw} &wdwdQdwd} 3dwdPdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

In order to see more clearly why a series of checks is so dangerous, let us analyze the defenses against a check. A pawn that checks forces the opponent to capture the pawn or to withdraw the king. A checking knight must be captured or the king must fly. A bishop or rook or queen that checks must be captured, or the line of attack must be obstructed, or the king must fly.

The king, in the middle of the board and unobstructed, therefore very mobile, is checkmated by the slight force of queen, knight, pawn.

Against a “double check,” a check given by two pieces simultaneously, there is only one possible defense: flight.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dRdwdwdw} 6wdkdwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3GwdwdBdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

If therefore the king has no mobile, aggressive, friendly pieces to help it by capture or obstruction of offenders, it must fly continually and has only the hope of finally joining its own forces and finding a place of safety. But against an assailant who knows what he wants and goes about his business deliberately, the task of the deserted king is a very hard one. For checkmating just a few pieces suffice, provided their force is used up to its extreme limit. Here follow a few instances of maximum 41

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (w1wdrdwi} 7dwdwdwdr} 6wdwdw$nd} 5DwdbGwdw} &wdwgwdwd} 3dwdwdwdP} 2wdwdndwI} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

And here in the middle of the board a checkmate administered by rook and two bishops.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwi} 7dwdwdwdR} 6wdwdwHwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

On the Advantage brought about by a Simultaneous Attack upon Several Objects

Against the cornered king, rook and knight alone are sufficient.

But also when the assailant has no superiority in pieces nor an exposed king as object of attack, he has a multitude of aims to achieve which would procure him an advantage, for the capture of any officer or even of the modest pawn may be of great value; to capture is, ceteris paribus, a gain if the opponent cannot recapture, as we know from our first proposition.

Numerous are mating positions of a few pieces provided that the hunted king is hemmed in by some of its own pieces which thus obstruct its flight. For instance, the “smothered mate” executed by a lone knight:

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdri} 7dwdwdN0p} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

True, to threaten an officer is rarely opportune, because the officer is either “guarded,” i.e., defended by its comrades in that they dominate its square and therefore threaten with capture any and every piece capturing the officer — or else the officer, being very mobile, simply takes to flight. But that is not so when several attacks of this nature take place at one and the same time. According to the fundamental rules, the players may move only one piece at a time, except when castling; hence, in case of a simultaneous attack on several pieces, not all of the assailed pieces can fly at the same moment; some must therefore tarry and suffer the consequences. To save them requires an extraordinary effort, principally a hurried counter-attack by the flying officers themselves against the adverse king or on valuable pieces of the opponent, so as to prevent him from capturing one of the pieces that have fallen into his power and to make possible their flight; and this great effort has to be made very quickly and with energy, else a catastrophe is imminent.

And now a mate by double check. (D) The two white pieces struggle against an overpowering number, but a double check saves them and wins the day: 1.Rf8#. From all the foregoing it is apparent that the attack against an exposed king is full of promise, provided it can be pursued by several pieces of which one is a major officer. 42

First Book When a bishop, rook or queen attacks a piece which by its flight would expose a comrade, possibly the king, to capture, the defender is in the same predicament, since flight may be out of the question. In that case the attacked piece has to be fortified as far as possible or else, if the defense fails, has to sell its life as dearly as possible. If the piece protects the king, whose life is precious before all else, the piece is incapable of flight, it is pinned and must fight desperately. Worse still, if the king itself is assailed, it cannot defend by obstruction; unless one of its officers can aid the king by obstructing the attack of the enemy or, better still, by slaying the aggressor, the king must fly and abandon such piece as might be exposed by his flight.

2.h8Q+, and checking the black king, which has to fly and thus to open the road for the capture of his queen.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdw1wd} 7dwiwdbdw} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2Rdwdw$Pd} %dwdwdwIw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwi} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dw1wdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %IwGwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

White plays 1.Rxf7+, assailing the queen at the same time. Black saves his queen by replying 1…Qxf7. Then 2.Ra7+, winning the queen that stands on the seventh rank.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdw1w4kd} 7dwdwdpgw} 6wdwdwdw0} 5Dwdbdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdw!w$w} 2wdwdw)P)} %dwdwdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

White, checked by the black queen, interposes the bishop, 1.Bb2, and thereby pins the checking piece which stands on the same diagonal as the black king.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdwdwdP} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwiwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2pdwdwdwI} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

The Bg7 is pinned by the Rg3. A pinned piece obstructs but is hampered in its capacity of capture or guarding. Therefore, White with impunity captures 1.Qxh6. This pawn is guarded by the bishop only in appearance, not really. The pinned bishop is now twice attacked, by rook and queen, and Black is unable to guard it the second time, except by 1…Qf6, which is futile on account of 2.Qxf6.

Black to move, White wins: Black plays 1…a1Q; White replies by queening his pawn, 43

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwi} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dw4wdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdw!w} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdK} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rhwdw4wi} 70p0wdw$w} 6wdw0wdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdPdwdw} 2wGPdwdwd} %dKdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

White checks 1.Qb8+, the king moves to h7 or g7, then 2.Qa7+, attacking the rook simultaneously and thus winning it.

White on the move “discovers check” by moving his rook, preferably with 1.Rxc7+. Black might now attempt 1…Rf6 though that would not avail him much. If he replies 1…Kg8 instead, the white rook returns to g7 with check, drives the king into the corner and discovers check thereafter by Rxb7+. Show that White in this fashion would finally win the rook on a8.

cuuuuuuuuC (Kdwdwdkd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdNdwdwd} 5Dwdqdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wdw1kdwd} 7dwdpdwdw} 6wdwdwhwd} 5DwdwdwGw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2wdw)wIwd} %dwdQdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

Show that Ne7+, which would win the queen, is contrary to the fundamental rules of the game.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdw1kdwd} 7dwdpdpdw} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwgwhwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dw)wdwdw} 2wdw)w)wd} %dwdQIwdw} v,./9EFJMV

The bishop pins the knight in that the bishop could capture the queen but for the obstruction of the knight. This pin is, however, not unconditional. If the knight moves while attacking the adverse king, the pin is wholly illusory. Hence, Black plays 1…Ne4+, checking and assailing the dangerous bishop at the same time and thus winning it. (D) B1ack pins the white knight on f3 by his Bh5. But the pin is conditional. Can White execute a strong threat by moving the knight? Indeed, he can. He captures 1.Nxe5, thus attacking the bishop with his queen. And if 1…Bxd1, the

White plays 1.d4 and simultaneously attacks bishop and knight. He “forks” bishop and knight. 44

First Book

cuuuuuuuuC (rdw1kgn4} 7dw0wdp0p} 6pdn0wdwd} 5Dpdw0wdb} &wdwdPdwd} 3dBHwdNdP} 2P)P)w)Pd} %$wGQIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwdwdwd} 54wdwiwdw} &wdw4wdwd} 3dwGwdwHw} 2wdwdwIwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

threat of White against the king is executed: 2.Bxf7+ Ke7 3.Nd5#. This motif recurs often. In an opera called the “Seekadett” (“The Sea Cadet”) a short game of chess is played on the stage and it is this motif that is used on that occasion.

The idea of superiority is of frequent use. If I intend, for instance, to put a pawn or a piece upon a point of vantage that my opponent will not let me gain, then to reach my goal I must support that pawn or that piece on the point aimed at by units in number superior or at least equal to those of the defender.

On the Use of Superior Power at Decisive Points

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kdn4} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdn0wdwd} 5Dwgw0wdw} &wdBdPdwd} 3DW)WDNdw} 2P)w)w)P)} %$NGQIWDR} v,./9EFJMV

If a pinned piece incapable of movement or a blocked pawn is assailed, a fight ensues on that spot, since the piece under attack under such conditions cannot take to flight; the only way to save the piece is by hurrying supports to it. As soon as the assailant, even if only for a moment, obtains the superiority at the point of contest, he is at liberty to capture the piece and to hold on to the advantage thus gained. The rule by which it is determined which side has the advantage on a given spot is very simple: two pieces which dominate the spot are stronger than one and weaker than three, and keep the balance to two hostile pieces on that spot. And so it is in general, even the king making no exception to this simple piece of arithmetic. (D)

Here White intends d2-d4. That point is covered by queen, knight on f3 and pawn on c3, it is attacked by Black’s bishop on c5, knight on c6, and pawn on e5. The units being equal in number, White is safe in advancing the pawn.

The rook on d4 is immobile because pinned by the white bishop. White attacks it by 1.Ne2. Now it is twice attacked and guarded only once. Black keeps the balance by 1…Ra4. Now White plays 2.Nxd4, so as to immobilize the other rook. Black may reply 2…Rxd4, but only to lose that rook, since White assails it anew by 3.Ke3, thus gaining the superiority of two against one upon the disputed point d4.

Though the rule as above stated holds unexceptionally good, it needs a corollary in that the “value” of the pieces engaged in the contest have to be taken into account. Generally it would be foolish to post a queen, however well defended, upon an empty spot assailed by a hostile pawn. To place a very valuable piece upon a contested point cannot be my intention, unless I obtain thereby very valuable compensation. 45

Lasker’s Manual of Chess The question becomes very much more complicated as soon as several points are under contention simultaneously. To obtain the superiority upon the spot A, I may attack one of the defenders of that spot situated on B, and even though my opponent have superiority on B, that attack may serve me to gain superiority on A.

1…Kf8, White continues with 2.Be7+, forces 2…Kxe7 and wins the queen. All this complication arises because the squares adjacent to the spot f7, also the spot g8, where the black king stands, enter into the turmoil.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdw4wdkd} 7dwdwdp0p} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdpdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2w)Pdw)P)} %dwdRdKdw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdwiwdw} 6wdwdndwd} 5Dw1wdwdw} &wdw4wdwd} 3dw!wdwdw} 2wdwdNdwd} %dwdwdwIw} v,./9EFJMV

White is under no menace. He proceeds to attack and selects the d-pawn as his object. The first step is to block it with 1.Rd4. The d-pawn is pinned, as long as the black rook tries to defend it. If Black replies 1…Kf8 White proceeds to assail the pinned and blocked pawn anew by 2.c4, when 2…dxc4 is unplayable because of 3.Rxd8+. So Black must abandon the pawn and seek compensation elsewhere, preferably by 1…Rb8, in counter-attack upon a weak white pawn.

The rook is twice assailed and twice defended, hence on d4 the forces are even; in spite of this the rook is lost, because the defending queen is assailed. White plays 1.Qxc5+. Now the rook cannot save itself either by Rd1+, or by Rg4+, because Black is in check. Black replies 1…Nxc5. After this interlude, White has gained the superiority on d4 and captures the rook gratis.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwiwdwd} 5Dwdpdwdw} &wdwIpdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2Pdwdw)wd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

Also pins have to be taken into consideration.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwGBdk4} 7dwdwdr1w} 6wdwdwdQd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwIw} v,./9EFJMV

On d4, where the black d-pawn stands, attack and defense are in balance. To obtain the superiority White forces the protecting piece, the black king, from the scene of action. To this end he uses his passed pawn, the a-pawn. By advancing it, he threatens to queen it within five

Here the black queen is pinned, the white queen also. Though the rook on f7 seems to be defended twice and assailed no more than twice, it is lost. White simply captures it 1.Bxf7+, since neither king nor queen can recapture. Black must answer 46

First Book The supposition implied in the term “ceteris paribus” is, however, of importance. “All other circumstances being equal,” that is the meaning of ceteris paribus. In strict logic, the other circumstances are never equal. The supposition is that we consider them of equal weight or import. And the “we” in no wise refers to the inexperienced player. The nearly perfect player — says the master — is he who judges. We erring mortals, try to guess his judgment. While in this we are doing our level best, we modestly keep him in mind and seek to approach his efficiency and his methods. To 1eave the ceteris paribus out of reckoning would plunge us into the claws of nonsense that would reduce our proud intellect to blundering romanticism akin to madness. To give an instance, here is a position where a pawn is stronger than a knight and a queen and a rook.

moves. Clearly, the black king must stop that dangerous pawn. By the sacrifice of the passed pawn the white king will be enabled to gain the d-pawn, then the e-pawn and will finally guide his f-pawn to the eighth rank, to victory. Therefore, the game proceeds 1.a4 Ke6 2.a5 Kd6 3.a6 Kc6 4.a7 Kb7 5. Kxd5 Kxa7 6.Kxe4 and wins by superiority. On the Exchange Value of the Pieces In the course of the contests above described the aggressor may often, if he so chooses, capture hostile men at the price of sacrificing some of his own men. To capture a piece of the enemy and in compensation to give up a piece therefore is called an “exchange.” You exchange bishop for knight, if your bishop captures the knight and is recaptured. You exchange pawn for pawn, queen for queen, rook for rook in the same way. But if you capture rook for knight or bishop, you are considered to have made a good bargain, you have “won the exchange.” Some players prefer the knight to bishop, others the bishop to knight and they make exchanges accordingly. Who is in the right? Or is there neither right nor wrong in these proceedings; are they, maybe, under the rule of an incomprehensible hazard?

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwhwdn4} 7dwdw)q0p} 6wdkdwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdBdwdP)} %dwdwdwIw} v,./9EFJMV

In the games of most chess lovers such a hazard seems to dominate; even though this law of chance, or whatever it might be, cannot be considered truly incomprehensible, since psychology may assist us in deciphering it, it is sufficiently difficult of explanation as to balk the human stupidity that we proudly call “intellect.” But it is not this difficulty that we are trying to assail at the present. We rivet our attention on the games of the experienced, the thinking, the strong players, preferably the strongest of them, the masters, and among them certain regularities show very plainly. The experience derived from games played between such as deserve the title of masters, during centuries has proven these regularities. Hence, we know that ceteris paribus knight and bishop are even, either is ceteris paribus worth three pawns, rook ceteris paribus as strong as knight or bishop and two pawns, queen very nearly as strong as two rooks or three minor pieces.

White with the move plays 1.exd8N+, promoting to a knight, simultaneously checking and attacking the queen, then captures queen and thereafter the immobile and helpless rook. Mark the exceeding value of the right to move. Black to move would have an enormous superiority. Ceteris paribus notwithstanding, the exchange values of which a few are set down above, are therefore always somewhat problematical. For all that, they are to the chessplayer a most needed compass. If he conscientiously follows them, his ship nearly always, even though only after many moves, runs safely into port. We are not without a method to probe the above values and to discover others. All we have to do is to build simple positions, in which the values 47

Lasker’s Manual of Chess under discussion, say rook against bishop and pawn, with due regard to the ceteris paribus are set to fight each other and carefully to analyze the course of that fight. Of the application of this method a few examples are here given.

rook, but king recaptures and holds now advantage of position in that it attacks the black pawns while the hostile king is inactive and must suffer the destruction of its army of pawns. Then White wins at his leisure.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdkdwdw} 6wdw0wdw$} 5DwgK0wdw} &wdwdP0wd} 3dwdwdPdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

The queen is weaker than two rooks if the hostile king is protected against checks, otherwise it may be stronger. Ceteris paribus, it would appear, the queen is a trifle weaker than two rooks.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdkdwdwd} 7dw0wdwdw} 6pdw1wdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3)wdwdwdR} 2w)wdwdwd} %IwdwdwdR} v,./9EFJMV

Rook versus bishop and pawn. The ceteris paribus condition is here fairly fulfilled, both sides having besides two blocked pawns each. True, the white king has a very advantageous position, but such an advantage can be forced by methodical play as soon as the advantage of rook versus bishop and pawn is conceded. This position represents the final stages of the contest. White has all the initiative, he is the aggressor. He assails the d-pawn twice. It is guarded twice, but by assailing the king White can drive that protection away and thus attain the superiority on d6. 1.Rh7+ Kd8 2.Ke6. Thereafter Rh7d7 and Rxd6. The advantage of the “exchange” is abandoned, since bishop may now capture

White plays here 1.Rc3, then 2.Rhc1, thus doubling the rooks to assail the c-pawn and winning it. To win the a-pawn would, it is true, be difficult, because the rooks have to protect the king against checks. It is evident, however, that the rooks have the initiative and that Black’s hope is merely to draw by perpetual check. Even one rook is sufficient to make a hard fight against the queen, provided that the rook need not lend its help to other pieces, for instance, to weak pawns, but has a little protection from elsewhere to lean upon.

The Pawn that Changed History: Lasker was chess World Champion for 27 years (1894-1921), yet, but for a quirk of fate, he might have given up chess at age 20. In 1889 Lasker decided he would quit if he failed to win a tournament in Breslau and thereby gain the master title. His main competition, a man named von Feyerfeil, would have won by ½-point, except that when an adjourned game was resumed, a pawn of his was mistakenly left out. This turned a probable draw into a loss, so that von Feyerfeil and Lasker tied for 1st place. Lasker then won a playoff, got the master title, and continued in chess.

48

First Book

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdqdwdw} &piwdwdwd} 3dw$wdwdw} 2w)wdwdwd} %dKdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV White draws by moving his rook from c3 to a3 and back to c3 unless forced to move the king, which clings to the vicinity of its pawn. Thus White is never in Zugzwang and his pieces are never unprotected. A rook without any support loses against the queen ceteris paribus. If it stays under the protection of its king it is at last driven off by Zugzwang. The following instance will illustrate sufficiently:

A dapper Lasker in his mid-twenties.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwdwdw!} 3dwdwdKdw} 2wdwdwdrd} %dwdwdwiw} v,./9EFJMV

1…Ra2 2.Qg5+ Kh1 3.Qh6+. The rook can never go to h2 due to checkmate by the queen on the back rank. 3…Kg1 4.Qg6+ Kh2 5.Qh7+ Kg1 6.Qb1+ or Qg8+ checks and wins the rook. If White to move, he can easily maneuver so as to bring about the same or a similar position with Black to move. For instance 1.Qd4+ Kh1 2.Qh8+ Kg1 3.Qh4. It is not difficult to multiply researches of the above type concerning the exchange value, and such exercises are of exceeding use to the student. What has been said is sufficient to guide him in this work, which I should recommend to him most earnestly.

If Black is to move, the rook must move away from the king and soon gets lost by White checking and attacking rook simultaneously, thus

49

Second Book The Theory of the Openings The chess fraternity had reached an understanding of the preceding points centuries ago. Proof: the stories dealing with chess in olden times speak of the above stratagems; words that from usage in chess play have crept into common usage, such as to check an opponent, to mate him, to make a drawn game, originate from this sphere of mentality; in olden times a king to whom a son was born at the exact moment that he attacked king and rook with his knight called the newly born prince “Shak-Ruk,” meaning “Check-rook,” and this prince, we are told, became a brave hero. The above considerations and observations are the elements of all chess strategy, just as intelligible to every chess player, as is his mother tongue. And five centuries ago [now six centuries — ed.] these elements embodied the whole of chess science. But then a novel idea entered into the plan, setting a problem which stirred the chess fraternity passionately and which even now excites it greatly.

peculiar terms are coined and introduced such as “Gambit” or “Giuoco Piano.” Furthermore, from that day the problem of openings becomes the point upon which attention has been centered and remains so, one may say, even to the present day. To visualize the beginning of this evolution we may surmise that at an ancient date, when players of original talent, whom today we would call “natural” players, predominated over all others, some unknown genius, with a penchant for collecting information, made notes of the beginnings of good games, compiled them, classified them, and exhibited his work to a few friends. As a natural consequence, some of the industrious and intelligent learners would, in the first dozen moves, overcome superior players of that day, by employing the tactical maneuvers gleaned from the manuscript of their compilerfriend. One can imagine the surprise of spectators and the wrath of the defeated masters as they observed newcomers, without natural talent, waging a strong fight purely with the aid of a book of compiled information.

In abstract terms the problem may be stated as follows: how and according to what rules must the pieces from the initial position, where they stand ineffective and obstructive, be marched into efficient battle array?

Their wrath evaporated of course, but the cause of it endured. Since those days we have continued to have compilers of “variations,” players who fight according to the book, and those with natural talent who, however, can no longer climb to the summit.

For hundreds of years chess players had started their games in a happy-go-lucky fashion. After a few such chance moves, complications arose and in these complications skill and sagacity were displayed; they considered that the start of the game, compared to the importance of the handto-hand fight which ensued afterwards, was insignificant. Then one day some genius, now unknown to us, began to pay attention to the different ways of opening the game. And if he has done no more — and probably he did not — than to record some of the methods of starting the game and to designate these “openings” by the names of the eminent players who preferred them, his performance was most estimable. Suddenly, in the fifteenth century, we find openings provided with well-known names and analyzed in books written to that end, and

There is justification for the compiler. But can a player hope to become a master merely by studying a compilation? No. That would be possible if the number of different lines of play were small. In chess, however, that number, no matter how critically one may select and how many feeble lines of play one may reject, goes into many millions. The brain cannot encompass them by a process of mere compilation. One must therefore search for rules, laws, principles capable of comprising within their compass the result of a thousand, nay of ten thousand different variations. 50

Second Book That, naturally, has been done. The process is common to all investigation which aims at comprehending a bulk of matter too large to be comprehended in detail. Probably, the players with natural talent thus tried to offset the efforts of book players. In the eighteenth century they announced their first rule: “Sortez 1es pieces” — “Get the pieces out.” The meaning of this brief sentence is clear. The pieces obstruct each other in their initial position, the chessboard in the middle is unoccupied, let the pieces get out so as to obtain dominance over a fair share of the unoccupied territory. And let the pieces fight the opponent in his endeavor to lay his hand on too much of that territory. And, if you have mobilized your pieces sooner than he, assail him quickly, before he can throw his undeveloped and therefore inefficient force into the action.

very many pawn moves that really are not effective. Distrust a pawn move, examine carefully its balance sheet: this was the sentiment of the masters a few decades after 1851, and, with slight modifications, this sentiment is still very strong and likely to last unchanged. I have added to these principles the law: Get the knights into action before both bishops are developed. The advantage obtained in following this law is certainly not great, yet it is distinctly perceptible. By means of rules, laws, principles of the above kind, players with natural talent could dispense with compilations and the memorizing of them. But games played by them were again and again analyzed and compiled and memorized, so that at last, no matter how they tried to vary from the “book” they had to play against themselves, and, of course, they could not successfully do that. All of which shows that nobody can wholly escape the dire necessity of compiling variations and of examining and memorizing them. And therefore such a compilation, though a brief one, is correctly included in a manual of chess.

It took a hundred years before a new rule was announced. Anderssen, the winner of the first international tournament, that of London, 1851, said “Move that one of your pieces, which is in the worst plight, unless you can satisfy yourself that you can derive immediate advantage by an attack.” One may guess the reasons for this rule. If you cannot successfully carry through an ambitious plan, it is sufficient to get your house into order and to improve the worst spots. In the initial position the e-pawn, the d-pawn, and the two knights, occupy the weakest positions, because they obstruct the most; hence, Anderssen’s rule points out the necessity of moving these four men from their initial positions. But later the same rule applies again and again.

Here follows a collection of variations essential in opening play. They are selected from the million of possibilities as possessing character, importance, and value as instruction to a marked degree. A number of variations are slightly indicated, some only hinted at, so as to provide the reader with matter for his own research and to accustom him to independent judgment and to initiative.

A few decades went by, tournaments became more frequent, and the masters, coming together oftener than before, evolved a “public opinion.” That tended towards the rule: Avoid the moves of pawns in the opening as far as possible. The distrust of pawn moves was founded on experience in tournament play. If one was worsted in the opening, one could almost invariably point to a pawn move as the original offense. The reason is that time is valuable in chess as it is everywhere else. There are pawn moves that are effective, for instance, such as lay hold on important points in the center of the board or remove an obstruction; but there are

The Petroff Defense or Russian Game 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 Black replies to the attack on his e-pawn by counter-attacking the white epawn. 3.Nxe5 d6 It would not be advisable to answer with 3...Nxe4 immediately, viz.: 4.Qe2 Qe7 5.Qxe4 d6 6.d4 f6 7.Nc3 with an obvious advantage. 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 Now White wants to drive off the black knight. Black will fight to maintain it in its position. 6.Bd3 Nc6 Rather faulty would be 6...Bd6 7.0–0 Bg4 8.c4 0–0 9.Nc3, and White has the superiority in the center. 7.0–0 To bring the king into safety before the center by exchange of pawns is opened to 51

Lasker’s Manual of Chess the officers. 7...Be7 8.Nbd2 The knight avoids c3 so as to keep the c-pawn mobile. 8...f5 9.c4

Returning again to the main variation, let Black retreat from his advanced post. 8...Nf6 9.c3 0–0 10.Ne5

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kdw4} 70p0wgw0p} 6wdndwdwd} 5Dwdpdpdw} &wdP)ndwd} 3dwdBdNdw} 2P)wHw)P)} %$wGQDRIW} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1w4kd} 70p0wgp0p} 6wdndwhwd} 5DwdpHwdw} &wdw)wdwd} 3dw)Bdwdw} 2P)wHw)P)} %$wGQdRIW} v,./9EFJMV

9...Be6 If 9...Nb4, White retreats 10.Bb1. 10.cxd5 Bxd5 11.Re1 White has attained his object of driving off Black’s knight on e5. But White may also continue 10.Re1 dxc4 11.Nxe4 cxd3 12.Nc5 Bd5 13.Bg5 with attack.

And now White will fortify his advanced knight or force Black to exchange it and will then be able to recapture with the d-pawn and to assail the adverse king by a mass of pawns. White has the initiative.

Again (from the above position): 9...Nxd2 10.Bxd2 0–0 11.Qb3 and White has the best of it.

Returning to move five, White may also follow another plan:

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1kgw4} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdw0wdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwdndwd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)P)w)P)} %$NGQIBdR} v,./9EFJMV

All in all, the early advance of the f-pawn does not seem advisable. Therefore Black may try 8...Bf5 9.Re1 Nxd2 10.Qxd2

cuuuuuuuuC (rdw1kdw4} 70p0wgp0p} 6wdndwdwd} 5Dwdpdbdw} &wdw)wdwd} 3dwdBdNdw} 2P)P!w)P)} %$wGw$wIW} v,./9EFJMV

5.Qe2 Qe7 6.d3 Nf6 7.Bg5 Qxe2+ Or 7...Be6, or 7...Nbd7. 8.Bxe2 Nd5 A very complicated ending will ensue, where the minor pieces predominate.

Black may here play 10...Bxd3 or Bg4. White has retained the advantage of the first move, no more. As an instance 10...Bxd3 If 10...Bg6 or 10...Bg4, 11.Ne5. Inadvisable seems 10...Qd7 because of 11.Bb5. 11.Qxd3 0–0 12.Bd2 Bf6 13.Ne5.

From the same position, a principal variation, where White tries for too much: 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.0–0 Be7 8.Re1 Bg4 (D) Black can reply by counter-attack. If 9.Bxe4 52

Second Book

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1kgn4} 70p0wdw0p} 6wdw0wdwd} 5Dwdw0pdw} &wdw)Pdwd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$NGQIBdR} v,./9EFJMV

dxe4 10.Rxe4 Bxf3 White cannot reply 11.gxf3 on account of 11...f5 12.Rf4 0–0 13.d5 Bg5 and Black regains at least his pawn.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdw1kdw4} 70p0wgp0p} 6wdndwdwd} 5Dwdpdwdw} &wdw)ndbd} 3dwdBdNdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$NGQ$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

A bold answer, to get the white e-pawn out of the way. 4.Bc4 White retaliates by aiming against the black king, which will have difficulty to obtain a safe position. 4...fxe4 Black insists on forming a mass of pawns in the center. 5.Nxe5 White destroys the mass of pawns by giving up a piece in order to assail the king. 5...dxe5 There is no help for it, since 6.Nf7 as well as 6.Qh5+ are threatened. 6.Qh5+ Kd7 Of course if 6...g6 7.Qe5+ gains the black rook. 7.Qf5+ Kc6 8.Qxe5

9.c3 9...f5 10.c4 Bh4 Black obtains counterattack, since White has made too many pawn moves. 11.Bxe4 dxe4 12.d5 0–0 with advantage rather for Black. The Hungarian Defense 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Be7 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.d3 d6 6.a3 In order to guard the Bc4 against exchange by Nc6-a5. 6...Be6 7.Be3 0–0 8.0–0 Ng4 Or else 8...d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Qd2, and White is well developed. 9.Nd2

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1wgn4} 70p0wdw0p} 6wdkdwdwd} 5Dwdw!wdw} &wdB)pdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$NGwIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdw1w4kd} 70p0wgp0p} 6wdn0bdwd} 5Dwdw0wdw} &wdBdPdnd} 3)wHPGwdw} 2w)PHw)P)} %$wdQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

Black will not be able to secure his king except at great expense. For instance 8...a6 9.Be3 Nf6 10.Nc3 (threatening 11.d5+) 10...Bg4 11.h3 Bd6 12.Qa5 (threatening 12.Bb5+) 12...b6 13.Qa4+ b5 14.Nxb5.

White dominates on d5. Philidor’s Defense

The sound plan for Black is not counter-attack but patient defense as follows: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 exd4 (D)

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 If the white pieces are to penetrate into the center, it is necessary to force the black e-pawn to submit to exchange. 3...f5

4.Nxd4 Also 4.Qxd4 may be played since the 53

Lasker’s Manual of Chess 10.Kh1 As preparation for b2-b3 and Bc1b2, which at present would be risky: 10.b3 d5 11.exd5 Bc5 12.dxc6 Bxc6 13.Nce2 Bxf3 followed by 14...Rxe2 or similar lines of play. After the text, White has the initiative.

queen cannot easily be driven from this strong post. If 4...Nc6 5.Bb5.

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1kgn4} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdw0wdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdw0Pdwd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$NGQIBdR} v,./9EFJMV

If Black tries to keep his e-pawn in its place on e5, Hanham’s variation results: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 Nd7 (D)

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kgn4} 70p0ndp0p} 6wdw0wdwd} 5Dwdw0wdw} &wdw)Pdwd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$NGQIBdR} v,./9EFJMV

4...Nf6 5.Nc3 Be7 6.Be2 With the intention of advancing f2-f4, in order to get a grip on e5 and to strengthen the points e4 and d5 later on by Be2-f3. 6...Nc6 7.0–0 0–0 8.f4 Re8 9.Bf3 Bd7 White’s threat was 10.Nxc6 followed by 11.e5.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdw1rdkd} 70p0bgp0p} 6wdn0whwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwHP)wd} 3dwHwdBdw} 2P)PdwdP)} %$wGQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

If 3...Nc6 4.dxe5 Nxe5 5.Nxe5 dxe5 6.Qxd8+ Kxd8. The black king is not well placed. 4.Bg5 Be7 5.Bxe7 Qxe7 6.Nc3 Ngf6 7.Qd2 0–0 8.0–0–0

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdw4kd} 70p0n1p0p} 6wdw0whwd} 5Dwdw0wdw} &wdw)Pdwd} 3dwHwdNdw} 2P)P!w)P)} %dwIRdBdR} v,./9EFJMV

Tarrasch Declines Challenge: After Lasker won a small London tournament in 1892, ahead of the British veteran Blackburne, whom he then beat in a match +6 =4, Lasker challenged Siegbert Tarrasch, then Germany’s leading player and one of the best in the world. Tarrasch somewhat haughtily declined, suggesting Lasker should first win a major tournament. Lasker instead decided to go to America and challenge world champion Steinitz himself.

54

Second Book weakest point, f7. 4...d5 5.exd5

White has gained in space, but Black’s position presents few assailable points.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kgw4} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdndwhwd} 5DwdP0wHw} &wdBdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)P)w)P)} %$NGQIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

Another important variation of Hanham’s defense: 4.Bc4 c6 To secure the point d5 and to obtain mobility for the queen. 5.Bg5 Qc7 If 5...Qb6 6.Bb3, and the black queen stands somewhat exposed. 6.c3 Ngf6 To gain a pawn move by 6...h6 7.Bh4 seems hardly to the point, since the pawn, at least for the present, seems better left at home. 7.Nbd2

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdkgw4} 70p1ndp0p} 6wdp0whwd} 5Dwdw0wGw} &wdB)Pdwd} 3dw)wdNdw} 2P)wHw)P)} %$wdQIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

That White’s attack is reasonable appears from the consequences of 5...Nxd5. Then White may obtain an advantage by the sacrifice 6.Nxf7 Kxf7 7.Qf3+ Ke6 8.Nc3 Nce7 9.d4 c6 10.Bg5, soon to be followed by castling queenside. Black cannot get his king into safety, for instance 10...exd4 11.0–0–0 dxc3 12.Rhe1+ Kd7 13.Bxd5 cxb2+ 14.Kb1. Or 10...h6 11.Bxe7 Bxe7 12.0–0–0 Rf8 13.Qe4. Or else 8...Ncb4 9.Qe4 — as recommended by Leonhardt — 9...c6 10.d4. The sacrifice of the piece for some pawns, in view of the insecure position of several of the black pieces, appears to be well founded.

It will not be easy for Black to institute a counterattack. True, a certain menace might develop in exd4 and attack on the e-pawn, or by the hazardous maneuver 7...h6 followed by 8...g5.

4...Na5 To retain attack Black abandons a pawn for the present. 6.Bb5+ c6 To hold on to the attack. If 6...Bd7 7.Qe2. 7.dxc6 bxc6 8.Be2 h6 9.Nf3 e4 10.Ne5

The Two Knights’ Defense 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kgw4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdndwhwd} 5Dwdw0wHw} &wdBdPdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)P)w)P)} %$NGQIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kgw4} 70wdwdp0w} 6wdpdwhw0} 5hwdwHwdw} &wdwdpdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)P)B)P)} %$NGQIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

The idea of this move, which sacrifices development in the interest of attack, is to disturb the development of Black by assailing the

The knight wants to stay in the center supported by the white pawns. White has nothing to fear from 10...Qd4 11.f4 Bc5 12.Rf1 since then the 55

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kgw4} 70w0wdp0p} 6wdwdwhwd} 5DpdP0wHw} &wdBnwdwd} 3dw)wdwdw} 2P)w)w)P)} %$NGQIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

white pawns will soon drive the black pieces off with c2-c3, d2-d4, or b2-b4. 10...Bd6 11.d4 Qc7 12.Bd2! Thus White takes advantage of the bad position of the black knight on a5. If 12...Bxe5 13.dxe5 Qxe5 14.Bc3 and White has an excellent position. 12...Nb7 13.Nc4

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdkdw4} 70n1wdp0w} 6wdpgwhw0} 5dwdwdwdw} &wdN)pdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)PGB)P)} %$NdQIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

7...Nxd5 8.cxd4 Qxg5 9.dxe5 Qxe5+ 10.Qe2 Qxe2+ 11.Bxe2 c6

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdkgw4} 70wdwdp0p} 6wdpdwdwd} 5Dpdndwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)w)B)P)} %$NGwIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

13...Bxh2 14.Be3 Bf4 15.Nc3 A position full of life. White has an advantage in development. At move five Black may follow another line of attack.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kgw4} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdndwhwd} 5DwdP0wHw} &wdBdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)P)w)P)} %$NGQIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

A difficult endgame. White probably has a slight advantage. Continuations where White, at his fourth move, instead of making an immediate attack, is satisfied with placid development, are numerous. One is 4.d3, leading up to a firm but nonaggressive position. More energetic is 4.d4.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kgw4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdndwhwd} 5Dwdw0wdw} &wdB)Pdwd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$NGQIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

5...Nd4 The knight goes into the center and therefore renounces immediate attack against the white bishop. 6.c3 b5! (D) The knight defends its good post. If it gives way at once, White proceeds with 7.d4. 7.Bf1 The precious bishop does not desire to be exchanged for the exposed black knight (Leonhardt). But 7.cxd4 bxc4 8.dxe5 Qxd5 9.0–0 Bb7 10.Nf3 Nd7 11.Nc3 is not without merits. 56

Second Book After 4...exd4 5.0–0 Nxe4 6.Re1 d5 7.Bxd5 Qxd5 8.Nc3 Black best secures his queen far out of the reach of minor pieces.

give him sufficient compensation for the loss in material. 4.exd5 Nf6 5.Qxd4 Qxd5 6.Nf3 Nc6, and Black is well developed. After 3.Qxd4, the early exposure of the queen allows Black to gain a move by attacking it.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdkgw4} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdndwdwd} 5Dwdqdwdw} &wdw0ndwd} 3dwHwdNdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$NGQ$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1kgn4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdw!Pdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$NGwIBHR} v,./9EFJMV

8...Qa5 9.Nxe4 Be6 10.Neg5 0–0–0 Not 10...Qd5 on account of 11.Nxf7. 11.Nxe6 fxe6 12.Rxe6 Qf5

3...Nc6 4.Qe3 The queen might also go to a4, but on e3 it has better opportunities for attack on the kingside. 4...Nf6 5.Nc3 White must not attack prematurely as, for instance, by 5.e5 Ng4 6.Qe4 d5! 7.exd6+ Be6, and Black is so well developed that the pawn minus is more than compensated for. 5...Bb4 6.Bd2 0-0 7.0-00 d6 8.Qg3 Ne5

cuuuuuuuuC (wdk4wgw4} 70p0wdw0p} 6wdndRdwd} 5Dwdwdqdw} &wdw0wdwd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$wGQdwIw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1w4kd} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdw0whwd} 5Dwdwhwdw} &wgwdPdwd} 3dwHwdw!w} 2P)PGw)P)} %dwIRdBHR} v,./9EFJMV

Black has a sound development. As an instance of what might follow: 13.Qe2 Bd6 14.Bg5 Rdf8 15.Rd1 h6 16.Bc1 Kd7 17.Re4 Re8 18.Rxe8 Rxe8 19.Qd3 Qxd3 20.Rxd3 Nb4 21.Rxd4 Nxc2, whereupon Black has the initiative on the queenside. The Center Game and The Center Gambit

Black menaces now 9...Bxc3 followed by 10...Nxe4, and also 9...Nh5. All in all, he is well prepared for the ensuing struggle.

1.e4 e5 2.d4 Black frustrates the simple threat to gain a pawn most easily by capturing the assailant pawn. 2...exd4 3.Qxd4 (D)

The King’s Bishop’s Opening

White can play a veritable gambit by abandoning his pawn for the time being: 3.c3 d5 To capture the pawn would develop White so rapidly as to

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 Black develops aggressively. 3.d4 White may, of course, choose a slow development, for instance, by 3.d3 Nc6 57

Lasker’s Manual of Chess The Max Lange Attack

4.Nc3 Bb4 5.Nge2 d5 6.exd5 Nxd5 7.0-0 Be6, but then Black has no difficulties to overcome. 3...Nc6

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.0–0 Bc5

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kgw4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdndwhwd} 5Dwdw0wdw} &wdB)Pdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$NGQIwHR} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kdw4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdndwhwd} 5Dwgwdwdw} &wdB0Pdwd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$NGQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

Black now develops while defending at the same time. But 3...exd4 may be played, to reply to 4.e5 with 4...d5. 4.Nf3 With 4.dxe5 Nxe5 5.Bb3 Bc5 6.f4 Neg4 7.e5 Nf2 8.Qe2 Ng8, White brandishes his sword in vain and gets hurt himself. 4...exd4 5.0–0

Black tries to maintain the advantage of the pawn plus, while White aims at throwing the black pieces into disorder. 6.e5 d5 This counter-attack develops the QB and queen but abandons the kingside. Steinitz, consequently, proposed 6...Ng4:

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kgw4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdndwhwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdB0Pdwd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$NGQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kdw4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdndwdwd} 5Dwgw)wdw} &wdB0wdnd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$NGQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

This position can arise in a variety of ways, leading to a variety of continuations, and is therefore of importance. Black may choose between 5...Bc5, which allows the Max Lange Attack, treated under this heading later on, and 5...Nxe4, which has been discussed in the section on the Two Knights’ Defense. Also 5...d6 or 5...Be7 are good enough, for instance 5...Be7 6.e5 Or 6.Re1 d6 7.Nxd4 0–0. 6...Ng4 7.Re1 d6 8.exd6 Qxd6 9.h3 Nf6, whereupon Black is well enough developed.

If White, analyzing superficially, then tries an impetuous attack, the weak force of the aggressor is soon repulsed, viz. 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Ng5+ Kg8 9.Qxg4 d5 10.e6 Qf6. Or alternately 7.h3 Ngxe5 8.Nxe5 Nxe5 9.Re1 d6 10.f4 d3+ 11.Be3 dxc2 12.Qxc2 Qh4 13.Qf2 Qxf2+ 14.Bxf2 Bxf2+ 15.Kxf2 Be6. Black has no difficulty in overcoming such premature assaults and thereby gaining an advantage. The right plan for White is to play safely with 7.Bf4 Now 8.h3 is menaced. Hence 7...d6 8.exd6 cxd6 9.Re1+ Kf8

58

Second Book

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1wiw4} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdn0wdwd} 5Dwgwdwdw} &wdB0wGnd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$NdQ$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

7.exf6 dxc4 8.Re1+ Be6 Black may answer 8...Kf8, but the king remains exposed there a long time, for instance, after 9.Bg5. Black’s strategy should be to try for safety and counterattack by means of castling queenside. 9.Ng5 If 9.fxg7 Rg8 10.Bg5 Be7 11.Bxe7 Qxe7 12.Nxd4 Rd8 13.c3 Rxg7 Black is well developed; if then 14.Qa4 Kf8! when the g-pawn is weak. After 9.Ng5, on the contrary, Black’s development is hampered, since 10.Nxe6 followed by 11.Qh5+ winning the bishop is a menace. By this threat White retains the attack. 9...Qd5 10.Nc3 Qf5 11.Nce4

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdkdw4} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdndb)wd} 5DwgwdqHw} &wdp0Ndwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$wGQ$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

10.h3 Nf6 11.Nbd2 Bf5 12.Nb3 Qb6. The possibilities are numerous. White can hardly claim an advantage. The Max Lange Attack is provoked by Black’s sixth move, 6...d5.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kdw4} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdndwhwd} 5Dwgp)wdw} &wdB0wdwd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$NGQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

11...Bf8 The right move since the king’s wing needs support. If 11...Bb6, Black’s queenside remains very strong, but at the expense of giving up resistance on the kingside, wherefore the black king then cannot obtain a safe post. White would reply 12.fxg7 Rg8 13.g4 Qg6 14.Nxe6 fxe6 15.Bg5, thus preventing castling queenside and forcefully menacing 16.Qf3. A celebrated game Marshall-Tarrasch took the following course: 11...0–0–0 12.Nxe6 fxe6 13.g4 Qe5 14.fxg7 Rhg8 15.Bh6 d3 16.c3 d2 17.Re2 Bb6

Triumph in America: To establish his credentials as a challenger for Steinitz’s world title, Lasker sailed for the New World in late 1892. Against the best there, Lasker scored one triumph after another, including a perfect 13-0 score at New York 1893, and in matches +21 –2 =1 vs. the top eight members of the Manhattan CC, +5 =1 vs. top Cubans Golmayo and Vásquez, and +6 –2 =1 vs. Jackson Showalter, then America’s #1. A combined score of +46 –4 =3.

59

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1w4kd} 70p0wdp0p} 6wgw0wdwd} 5DwdPdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dw)Ndwdw} 2P)whB)P)} %$wGQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

18.Kg2. In the long run the black pawn on d2 is untenable. The knight on e4, soon supported by the f3-pawn, dominates the center. Therefore, the retreat 11...Bf8 is well founded. It may appear that 12.g4 refutes the move, but in reality no. Black would defeat the attempted refutation by 12...Qxg4+ 13.Qxg4 Bxg4 14.fxg7 Bxg7 15.Nf6+ Kf8 16.Nxg4 h5!. Taken all in all, White can hardly do better than 12.Nxf7 Kxf7 13.Ng5+ Kg8 14.Rxe6 gxf6 15.g4 Qd5 Not 15...Qg6 due to 16.Qf3. 16.Rxf6 h5 17.Rg6+ Bg7 18.Ne6 Rh7, when there is plenty of play for both sides. 1

whereupon Black is secure. 5...Nd5 Instead 5...Ne4 would be speculative, not to say hazardous, viz. 6.Qe2 f5 7.exf6 d5. Still, White’s task is by no means simple. For instance, 8.Nfd2 Qxf6 9.f3 d3 10.Nxe4 dxe2 11.Nxf6+ gxf6 12.Bxe2 and White has had his trouble for next to nothing.2 6.cxd4 Bb4+ Or 6...d6 7.Nc3 Be6 8.Bb5 Be7 9.exd6 cxd6. 7.Nbd2 d6. All in all, the difficulties that Black encounters in this opening are not considerable.

The Ponziani Opening 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.c3 Black will do best to attempt neither gain of a pawn nor to sacrifice a pawn, but rather to strive for continued development. 3...Nf6 4.d4

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kgw4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdndwhwd} 5Dwdw0wdw} &wdw)Pdwd} 3dw)wdNdw} 2P)wdw)P)} %$NGQIBdR} v,./9EFJMV

The Vienna Opening 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 The best reply, according to the rules laid down above, would seem to be 2...Nf6

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1kgw4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdwdwhwd} 5Dwdw0wdw} &wdwdPdwd} 3dwHwdwdw} 2P)P)w)P)} %$wGQIBHR} v,./9EFJMV

4...Nxe4 Now 5...d5 is possible, hence White is forced to attempt a countermove. 5.d5 Nb8 The knight must not go to e7 where it would block bishop and queen. 6.Nxe5 Or else 6.Bd3 Nc5. 6...Bc5 7.Nd3 Bb6 8.Be2 0–0 9.0–0 d6 10.Nd2 Nxd2 The knight is captured, because it threatens to exchange the valuable KB via Nd2-c4. (D) Black will now complete his development by Nb8-d7, Rf8-e8, Nd7-f8.

3.Bc4 Nxe4 4.Qh5 Now 4.Bxf7+ is not to be recommended, because White, after giving up his developed pieces, cannot follow up the attack, viz. 4...Kxf7 5.Nxe4 d5. Also after 4.Nxe4 d5 5.Bd3 dxe4 6.Bxe4 Nd7 Black has rather the better of it. 4...Nd6

Black is by no means restricted to the above line of play. At move 4, he may, for instance, very well play 4...exd4 5.e5 Or 5.cxd4 d5 60

Second Book

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1kgw4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdwhwdwd} 5Dwdw0wdQ} &wdBdwdwd} 3dwHwdwdw} 2P)P)w)P)} %$wGwIwHR} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kgw4} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdndwdwd} 5Dwdp)wdw} &wdwdndwd} 3dwHwdQdw} 2P)P)wdP)} %$wGwIBHR} v,./9EFJMV

5.Qxe5+ If 5.Bb3, Black has the choice between safe development with 5...Be7, and an attempt at a promising attack with 5...Nc6 6.Nb5 g6 7.Qf3 f5 8.Qd5 Qe7 9.Nxc7+ Kd8 10.Nxa8 b6.3 5...Qe7 In the ensuing endgame, White has the advantage in mobility but hardly sufficient objects of attack.

Black defends by counter-attack. If 6.Nxe4 Black counters with 6...Nd4. 6.Bb5 Nxc3 7.bxc3 Qh4+ Placid development by 7...Be7 leads to draw by perpetual check: 8.d4 0–0 9.Bd3 f6 10.Qh5 g6 11.Bxg6 hxg6 12.Qxg6+ etc. 8.g3 Qe4+ 9.Qxe4 dxe4 Black threatens 10...Bd7 followed by 11...Nxe5. A difficult position, where Black need not fear to be at a disadvantage.

A variation often employed by Mieses strengthens the pressure on the point d5 as follows: 3.g3 d5 4.exd5 Nxd5

The Scotch Opening 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1kgw4} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdn0wdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwHwdw)w} 2P)P)w)w)} %$wGQIBHR} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kgn4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdndwdwd} 5Dwdw0wdw} &wdw)Pdwd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$NGQIBdR} v,./9EFJMV

5.Bg2 If instead 5.Nge2 Nc6 6.Bg2 Be6 7.0–0 Qd7 Black has a promising game, threatening 0-0-0 and to institute an attack against the white king by advancing h7-h5-h4. 5...Nxc3 6.bxc3 Nc6 In this way Black gets over the danger of having his d-pawn shut in and has now a fair development.

The idea of this opening is to open the center to the pieces as soon as possible. 3...exd4 Thus, it is almost obvious, the question of how to meet the assault on the e-pawn is most readily answered. 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4 It is not so easy now to guard the e-pawn. For instance, if 6.f3 0–0 and soon d7-d5. 6.Nxc6 bxc6 7.Bd3 Or 7.Qd4 Qe7 8.f3 c5 9.Qf2 (not 9.Qe3 because of the impending d7-d5-d4) 9...0–0 10.Bd2 d5, and Black is well developed. 7...d5

White may try to get the black e-pawn out of the way: 3.f4 d5 4.fxe5 Nxe4 5.Qf3 Nc6 61

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kdw4} 70w0wdp0p} 6wdpdwhwd} 5Dwdpdwdw} &wgwdPdwd} 3dwHBdwdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$wGQIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kgw4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdndwhwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwHPdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$NGQIBdR} v,./9EFJMV

8.exd5 Not 8.e5 which would be premature as an old game proves: 8...Ng4 9.0–0 Bc5 10.h3 (This is inferior, but 10.Bf4 g5 11.Bg3 h5 12.h3 h4 13.Bh2 Nxh2 14.Kxh2 Bd4 15.Qe2 g4 16.hxg4 Qg5 still leaves the initiative to Black.) 10...Nxe5 11.Re1 Qf6 12.Qe2 0–0 13.Qxe5 Qxf2+ 14.Kh1 Bxh3 15.gxh3 Qf3+ 16.Kh2 Bd6 and wins. 8...cxd5 9.0–0 0–0 10.Bg5 c6 White has now some attack; Black, in compensation, a fine pawn in the center. 11.Qf3 Be7 12.Rfe1 Re8

5.Nxc6 bxc6 6.Bd3 The sudden assault 6.e5 will fail if Black keeps cool. Black replies 6...Qe7 7.Qe2 Nd5. If White continues in the same hazardous style, 8.c4 Ba6 9.f4, Black obtains the advantage by 9...Qb4+. If White slows down, Black can placidly proceed with his development, say with d7-d6, Bc1-d7, 0-0-0, or perhaps g7-g5 and Bf8-g7, disturbing the opponent on his part. 6...d5 7.Qe2 Be7 8.e5 Nd7 9.0–0 To push 9.e6, whereupon 9...Nf6, obviously causes no inconvenience to the opponent. 9...0–0 So as to reply to 10.f4 with 10...f5. Black stands prepared.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1rdkd} 70wdwgp0p} 6wdpdwhwd} 5DwdpdwGw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwHBdQdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$wdwRwIw} v,./9EFJMV

While these variations are not unsatisfactory to the second player, he may try to obtain even more than above by becoming aggressive at once, with 4...Bc5.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kdn4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdndwdwd} 5Dwgwdwdw} &wdwHPdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$NGQIBdR} v,./9EFJMV

Black will be able to drive the advanced white pieces off and to build up a firm position, for instance 13.Qg3 Be6 14.Rxe6 fxe6 15.Qh3 Kf8 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.Qxh7 Qb8 and White does not have enough compensation for the material sacrificed. 4 The opening takes a wholly different turn if White attempts to delay Black’s castling. To that end he must forego furthering his own development by 5.Nc3 and harass Black as much as possible.

5.Be3 The impertinent attempt 5.Nf5 can be punished by 5...d5 6.Nxg7+ Kf8 7.Nf5 dxe4 8.Qxd8+ Nxd8 9.Ng3 f5, and Black is better developed than White. 5...Qf6 6.c3 62

Second Book

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdkdn4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdndw1wd} 5Dwgwdwdw} &wdwHPdwd} 3dw)wGwdw} 2P)wdw)P)} %$NdQIBdR} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdkdw4} 70p0php0p} 6wdndw1wd} 5Dwgwdwdw} &wdwHPdwd} 3dw)wGwdw} 2P)wdB)P)} %$NdQIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

Instead of this defensive move Blumenfeld has proposed the attacking move 6.Nb5. Obviously, White thereby gets his e-pawn doubled so that the point e5 becomes easily accessible to the opponent. Black will first of all exchange the bishops: 6...Bxe3 7.fxe3, then weaken the points h3 and f3 by 7...Qh4+ 8.g3, and finally defend his c-pawn with 8...Qd8. Now White will resume the attack with 9.Qg4, bearing down upon the g-pawn which has to serve as protector of the knight that is bound to establish itself on f6. A good and safe reply to this is 9...Kf8. Now 10.Qf4 d6 11.Bc4 Nf6 12.0–0 h5! which provides the needed outlet for the KR while it threatens to engage the white g-pawn by h5-h4 and thus to enlarge the scope of the rook still further.

Now 7.Bc4 is not to be recommended, because Black counters by Ne5. Black’s aim of advancing d7-d5 is hard to prevent. 7...d5 8.Bf3 Bxd4 9.cxd4 dxe4 thus isolating the d-pawn which will soon be a target for a black rook. Paulsen proposed 7.Qd2 as preparation for 8.Nb5.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdkdw4} 70p0php0p} 6wdndw1wd} 5Dwgwdwdw} &wdwHPdwd} 3dw)wGwdw} 2P)wdw)P)} %$NdQIBdR} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1wiw4} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdn0whwd} 5DNdwdwdw} &wdBdP!wd} 3dwdw)w)w} 2P)Pdwdw)} %$NdwdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

7.Qd2 d5 8.Nb5 Bxe3 9.Qxe3 0–0 Black sacrifices the c-pawn with good reason; if 10.Nxc7 Rb8 11.Nxd5? Nxd5 12.exd5 Nb4! with terrible threats against the exposed white king. Better 11.Nd2 dxe4 12.Nxe4 Qe5 13.Nb5 Nf5 14.Qe2 a6 15.Na3 b5. The sacrifice of the pawn is manifestly justified. 10.Nd2 Be6.

Black is well developed. After 13.N1c3 Ne5 14.Bb3 c6 15.Nd4 h4 White’s task would be a hard one.

In view of Black’s splendid development, no danger threatens from the attack of the knight against the c-pawn. White will have his hands full to maintain the balance.

The main play proceeds 6...Nge7 7.Be2

Again, another turn is given to the opening if 63

Lasker’s Manual of Chess White defers or foregoes altogether the recapture of the pawn he has given up. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Bc5

chances of the fierce combat that is evidently approaching.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kdn4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdndwdwd} 5Dwgwdwdw} &wdB0Pdwd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$NGQIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

The King’s Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.f4

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1kgn4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdw0wdw} &wdwdP)wd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)P)wdP)} %$NGQIBHR} v,./9EFJMV

The move 4...Nf6 leads to the Max Lange Attack or the Two Knights’ Defense, as previously outlined. 5.c3 To attack at once before additional force is brought into play would be rather weak, even though a pawn may thus be regained: 5.Ng5 Nh6 6.Nxf7 Nxf7 7.Bxf7+ Kxf7 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qxc5 d5! whereby Black assumes the aggressive role. 10.exd5 Re8+. If 11.Kf1 b6. White is in very bad shape. 5...dxc3 Instead of this Black can decline the proffered bait and proceed with 5...Nf6, turning into a main line of the Giuoco Piano, but to accept a sacrifice and see the attack through is also good strategy. 6.Nxc3 d6 7.Bg5 Qd7 8.Qd2 h6 9.Bh4 Nge7 10.0–0–0

The intention of the proffered sacrifice is to remove the black e-pawn from its strong post and to open the f-file to the rook. 2...exf4 3.Nf3 To prevent 3...Qh4+. 3...g5 To hold fast to the pawn plus. 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 d5 Black having many pawns at risk must strive for rapid development so as to be able to strike hard blows with his pieces. 6.d4 White also must get quick action. 6...Nf6 7.Bxf4 Nxe4 8.Nd2 Be6

cuuuuuuuuC (rhw1kgw4} 70p0wdpdp} 6wdwdbdwd} 5DwdpHwdw} &wdw)nGp)} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)PHwdPd} %$wdQIBdR} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdkdw4} 70p0qhp0w} 6wdn0wdw0} 5Dwgwdwdw} &wdBdPdwG} 3dwHwdNdw} 2P)w!w)P)} %dwIRdwdR} v,./9EFJMV

Black guards the weak f-pawn and fortifies himself. White may regain the pawn, but only at the expense of giving up his advance in development. 9.Nxe4 dxe4 If now 10.Nxg4 Bd6! striking at the vulnerable spot g3. 10.Bc4 Bxc4 11.Nxc4 Nc6

The task for Black is no easy one. One possibility runs as follows 10...Ng6 11.Bg3 a6 12.Nd5 b5 13.Bb3 Bb7 14.Kb1 0–0–0 15.Rc1 It would be difficult to foretell the 64

Second Book

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1kgn4} 70p0pdpdp} 6wdwdwdwd} 5DwdwHwdw} &wdwdP0p)} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)P)wdPd} %$NGQIBdR} v,./9EFJMV

Electric Light Orchestra: Historian Ken Whyld relates that the LaskerSteinitz rematch (1896-7) was played in the Moscow Medical Society to take advantage of its electrical lighting, then a rarity, and that “an orchestra was provided to entertain the crowds watching the demonstration boards.” (World Chess Champions, p. 42)

was first analyzed by Kieseritzky, a Polish master, and bears his name. Another defense to it runs as follows: 5...Bg7 6.d4 Nf6 7.Bc4 d5 8.exd5 Nh5 Here the knight stands safe and menacing. Black wants to castle soon. 9.Nc3 0–0 10.Ne2 To neutralize the knight on h5. If 10.Nxg4 Ng3 the e-file is opened to the advantage of Black, viz. 11.Rh2 Qe7+ 12.Ne5 Bxe5 soon to be followed by Rf8-e8. 10...c5 In order to open up the center.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdw1kgw4} 70p0wdpdp} 6wdndwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdN)pGp)} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)PdwdPd} %$wdQIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1w4kd} 70pdwdpgp} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dw0PHwdn} &wdB)w0p)} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)PdNdPd} %$wGQIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

12.d5 Or 12.c3 Qd5 13.Ne3 Qb5 14.Qb3 Qxb3 15.axb3 Bd6 16.Bxd6 cxd6 17.Nxg4 f5 18.Ne3 Ne7 reaching a difficult ending rather favorable for Black. 12...Nb4 13.Ne3 Bc5 14.a3 Bxe3 15.Bxe3 Nxd5 16.Qd4 0–0 17.Bh6 Qf6 18.Qxf6 Nxf6 19.Bxf8 Kxf8 20.Rf1 Nd5 or 20...Ke7 Black holds on to his two pawns for the exchange though the two rooks with best play will be able to draw.

11.c3 If now 11.dxc6 Nxc6 Black gets quick development. After 11.Nxf4 Nxf4 12.Bxf4 cxd4 the knight loses its support 13.Qxd4 Nc6 14.Nxc6 bxc6. 11...cxd4 12.cxd4 Nd7 This line of play originated in a game SteinitzZukertort, Vienna tournament, 1882. Black is well developed.

The interesting line of play we have been discussing, initiated by White’s fifth move, 5.Nf3-e5,

Instead of the Kieseritzky Gambit, White may choose the bolder line of the Allgaier Gambit, 5.Nf3-g5. 65

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1kgn4} 70p0pdpdp} 6wdwdwdwd} 5DwdwdwHw} &wdwdP0p)} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)P)wdPd} %$NGQIBdR} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1kgn4} 70p0pdpdp} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdwdw0w} &wdBdP0wd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)P)wdP)} %$NGQIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

5...h6 6.Nxf7 Kxf7 7.d4 White must not lose time taking pawns. 7.Qxg4? 7...Nf6 8.Qxf4 Bd6 and the attack goes over to Black. 7...d5 8.Bxf4 Nf6 9.Nc3 Be6

4...Bg7 The defense favored by Philidor. 5.h4 h6 6.d4 d6 7.c3 Another line of play is 7.Nc3 Nc6. Now g5-g4 threatens the d-pawn, hence 8.Ne2 Qf6. White’s attack is not convincing. 7...Nc6 Black attempts to maintain his pawn plus and makes it hard for White to shake the Black pawn mass. 8.0–0 Qf6 In order to continue with 9...Nge7. White is now forced to essay hazardous onslaughts such as 9.g3? Bh3 or 9.e5? dxe5 10.dxe5 Qg6.

cuuuuuuuuC (rhw1wgw4} 70p0wdkdw} 6wdwdbhw0} 5Dwdpdwdw} &wdw)PGp)} 3dwHwdwdw} 2P)PdwdPd} %$wdQIBdR} v,./9EFJMV

The Russian master Chigorin, one of the greatest connoisseurs of gambits, made use of the gpawn, not the h-pawn, in order to break the chain of black pawns.

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1kdn4} 70p0pdpgp} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdwdw0w} &wdBdP0wd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)P)wdP)} %$NGQIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

How White should neutralize the loss of the piece by his two-pawn plus is not evident. For instance, 10.Qd3 Nc6 11.0–0–0 dxe4 12.Nxe4 Or 12.Qe3 Ne7. 12...Nxe4 13.Qxe4 Qd5 Taken all in all, neither the Kieseritzky Gambit nor the Allgaier Gambit seems wholly satisfactory. It appears, therefore, advisable to put off 4.h4 which, though shaking the mass of black pawns, endangers White’s kingside too much. A later opportunity may arise for that advance. From this point of view arise the gambits bearing the names of Salvio, Muzio, and Philidor.

5.0–0 d6 6.d4 Nc6 7.c3 h6 8.g3 g4 9.Nh4 f3 White has here the opportunity of a large number of attacks without having to resort to the sacrifice of a piece. If 10.Nd2 Black can hardly reply 10...Nge7 due to 11.Ndxf3 gxf3 12.Qxf3 0–0 13.Bxf7+, and will therefore have to develop

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4

66

Second Book the knight to f6. The position is difficult for either side. Returning to the next-to-last diagram, Black may attempt to meet Chigorin’s plan by an endeavor to castle early. 5.0–0 d6 6.d4 h6 7.c3 Ne7 8.g3 g4 9.Nh4 f3 But then 10.h3 h5 11.Bg5

10.Qd1 Nf6 Now Black will attempt to force f4-f3, for instance, by d7-d5 and Bc8-g4 and will overrun White. 7...Nxe5 8.dxe5 Bc5 9.Qe1 Qxe1+ To force the attack by 9...g3 is unjustified because the white knight would soon occupy the strong post f3. 10.Kxe1 Ne7 11.Bxf4 Ng6

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1kdw4} 70p0whpgw} 6wdw0wdwd} 5DwdwdwGp} &wdB)PdpH} 3dw)wdp)P} 2P)wdwdwd} %$NdQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdkdw4} 70p0pdpdp} 6wdwdwdnd} 5Dwgw)wdw} &wdBdPGpd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)PdwdP)} %$NdwIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

and the position is rather unbalanced. The white QB is too powerful. All in all, Chigorin’s line of play seems to be appropriate and far more convincing than any other.

12.g3 If 12.Rf1 Nxf4 13.Rxf4 Be3, threatening 14...Bc1, White has a hard game. 12...Bd4 Black has the best of it. If 13.Nc3 Nxe5 14.Nb5 Nxc4, and if 13.c3 Bxe5 14.Rf1 f6.

But Black may abandon the idea of maintaining his pawns and rather use them for an assault against the king. The game then takes a wholly different turn. Thus results the gambit of Salvio: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.Ne5 Qh4+ 6.Kf1 Nc6

At all times White has tried to escape such difficulties by bold sacrifices. Thus arose the Muzio Gambit. 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.0-0

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1kgn4} 70p0pdpdp} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdBdP0pd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)P)wdP)} %$NGQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdkgn4} 70p0pdpdp} 6wdndwdwd} 5DwdwHwdw} &wdBdP0p1} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)P)wdP)} %$NGQdKdR} v,./9EFJMV

Sacrificing the knight in this manner is the defining characteristic of the Muzio. 5...gxf3 6.Qxf3 Qf6 To throw the queen thus early into the fray is necessary in view of the multitude of threats directed against the king. The strongest

Now development is all important. 7.d4 If 7.Nxf7, Black’s development becomes overwhelming: 7...Bc5 8.Qe1 g3 9.Nxh8 Bf2

67

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (rhw1kdn4} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdw0wdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdB)P0bg} 3dwHwdNdw} 2P)PdwdP)} %$wGQdKdR} v,./9EFJMV

piece, though most vulnerable to attack, is also the one that can defend and counter-attack the most effectively. 7.e5 To force the queen out of relative safety and to open the e-file for the rook and the square e4 for a knight. 7...Qxe5 The e-pawn is too strong, it must be captured. 8.d3 Bh6 To mass the obstructions against the attack on f7. 9.Nc3 Ne7 10.Bd2 Nbc6 White makes ready for attack on the KN, Black hurries supports. 11.Rae1 Qf5 Here the queen guards the points f7, f6, and f5 and is fairly safe.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdkdw4} 70p0phpdp} 6wdndwdwg} 5Dwdwdqdw} &wdBdw0wd} 3dwHPdQdw} 2P)PGwdP)} %dwdw$RIw} v,./9EFJMV

Here White dominates the center and with best play should always succeed in maintaining that advantage. Of course, the possibilities are numerous and it would be hard to strike what may be regarded as a perfect line of attack and defense. To make a suggestion: 7...Nc6 8.Bxf4 Be7 9.h3 Bh5 10.g4 Bg6 11.d5 Nb8 12.Nd4 Bg5 13.Qd2 Qf6 14.Nf5 and White keeps his hold on the center. The Cunningham Gambit has gone wholly out of fashion. The King’s Bishop’s Gambit

The results of painstaking analyses by many of the foremost masters are embodied in the following moves. 12.Nd5 12.Re4, though apparently formidable, exposes the rook too much. Black replies 12...0-0 and thus threatens 13...d5 too strongly. 12...Kd8 13.Qe2 The idea is that if 13...Nxd5 14.Bxd5 Qxd5 15.Bc3 13...Qe6 14.Qf2 Qg4 With best play Black appears to hold the advantage in the Muzio Gambit also.

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Meeting the threat of the check by evacuating a square for the king. 3...Qh4+ 4.Kf1

The Cunningham Gambit

cuuuuuuuuC (rhbdkgn4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdBdP0w1} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)P)wdP)} %$NGQdKHR} v,./9EFJMV

1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Be7 4.Bc4 Bh4+ It is best to submit calmly to loss of castling. In compensation White has the better development. For the moment he is master of the center. 5.Kf1 d6 6.d4 Bg4 7.Nc3

4...d5 Necessary to support the attack. Unless aid comes immediately forward, the queen is soon repulsed, for instance 4...g5 5.Nc3 Bg7 6.d4 Ne7 (or 6...d6 7.e5 dxe5 8.Nd5) 7.g3 This is an analysis made about sixty years ago [i.e.,

In former times it was quite the fashion to play gambits. Other openings were then rated as dull. In those days numerous lines of play were tried that are hardly essayed at the present time.

68

Second Book about 1865 – ed.]. 7...fxg3 8.Kg2 Qh6 9.hxg3 Qg6 10.Nf3 h6. Matters for Black grow now rapidly from bad to worse. 11.Nd5 Nxd5 12.exd5 0–0 13.d6 Qxd6 14.Bxg5 hxg5 15.Qd3 Re8 16.Qh7+ Kf8 17.Bxf7 with a slashing attack. 5.Bxd5 White will try to keep the diagonal of the bishop open. True, also 5.exd5 has certain advantages, for instance, the opening of a file for the rook and restriction of the black QN, but they are of minor importance. 5...g5 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.d4 Ne7 8.Nf3 Qh5 9.h4 h6 10.Qd3 In order to liberate the KN.5

reply to 16.hxg5 Qg6 17.Bxf4 with 17...Nxe5. And the answer to 16.Nd6+ Nxd6 17.exd6 would be 17...Qg6 18.Qxg6 Bxd4+. White has over-rushed matters. However, Black has no need, should he fear those complications, to assume the aggressive, but may safely play for development. 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Nc6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Nc3 Bb4

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kdw4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdndwhwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wgBdP0wd} 3dwHwdNdw} 2P)P)wdP)} %$wGQIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rhbdkdw4} 70p0whpgw} 6wdwdwdw0} 5DwdBdw0q} &wdw)P0w)} 3dwHQdNdw} 2P)PdwdPd} %$wGwdKdR} v,./9EFJMV

6.e5 Should White forego the early advance of the e-pawn, Black will easily get an even position: 6.0–0 0–0 7.d3 Bxc3 8.bxc3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Bxd5 Qxd5 11.Bxf4 Qc5+ 12.Kh1 Qxc3 13.Bxc7 Bg4. 6...Ng4 7.Nd5 0–0 Threatening 8...Ngxe5. 8.Nxb4 Nxb4 9.d4 d5 10.Bb3 f6

10...c6 11.Bb3 Bg4 12.e5 Nf5 13.Ne4 Nd7 The game is complicated, but Black keeps at it. He threatens to castle queenside. 14.Kg1 Bxf3 15.gxf3 0–0–0 16.hxg5 In order to

These are some of the principal variations of the King’s Gambit Accepted. But Black may safely decline it, though possibly a minute advantage will then accrue to White.

An Appealing Story: At Cambridge Springs 1904, an ailing Pillsbury beat Lasker brilliantly, the last time these two greats ever met. Two years later Pillsbury died. This, and the fact that up to move seven the game matched Lasker’s defeat of Pillsbury at St. Petersburg 1895-6, spawned a legend that the dying Pillsbury had saved his seventh-move novelty for over eight years, keeping it secret until the chance for revenge finally came. An appealing story, but alas, untrue. The “secret” move had been recommended as early as February 1896 in the British Chess Magazine, and between 1896 and 1904 Pillsbury and Lasker played no less than five times, with Pillsbury never essaying the line in question.

69

Lasker’s Manual of Chess The King’s Gambit Declined

with his own petard. They have invented the counter-gambits. To refute a proffered sacrifice by declining it and offering one themselves is their pleasure.

1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nf3 Not 3.fxe5?? Qh4+ 4.g3 Qxe4+ 5.Qe2 Qxh1. 3...d6

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1kdn4} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdw0wdwd} 5Dwgw0wdw} &wdwdP)wd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)P)wdP)} %$NGQIBdR} v,./9EFJMV

1.e4 e5 2.f4 d5

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1kgn4} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdp0wdw} &wdwdP)wd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)P)wdP)} %$NGQIBHR} v,./9EFJMV

The logical plan for White is to take advantage of the position of the black KB, winning a move by 5.d4. 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Bd2 Bxd2+ 8.Nbxd2 d5 9.e5 Ng4 10.Bd3 f5 Black will be able to maintain the balance. He will have even fewer difficulties if White goes slowly: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nf3 d6 4.Nc3 Nc6 5.Bc4 Nf6 6.d3 Be6 7.Nd5 Nd4

3.exd5 e4 With 3...exf4 the game would be balanced, but the advance of the pawn, though perhaps not entirely sound, is worth some study. The player who chooses this variation evidently considers his e-pawn worth more than the rather misplaced white pawn on f4. 4.d3 Nf6 5.dxe4 Nxe4 6.Nf3 Bc5 7.Qe2 Bf5

cuuuuuuuuC (rdw1kdw4} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdw0bhwd} 5DwgN0wdw} &wdBhP)wd} 3dwdPdNdw} 2P)PdwdP)} %$wGQIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rhw1kdw4} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdwdwdwd} 5DwgPdbdw} &wdwdn)wd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)PdQdP)} %$NGwIBdR} v,./9EFJMV

White will be unable to hold his advance posts. For instance, 8.fxe5 dxe5 9.Bg5 c6 10.Nxf6+ gxf6 11.Bh4 Or 11.Bxe6 Nxe6 12.Bh4 Rg8 13.g3 Rg6. 11...Bxc4 12.dxc4 Rg8 Black has by no means the worst of it.

White’s idea, though tempting, is wrong. He has played for 8.g4 but now cannot do it, since Black castles and obtains a smashing attack: 8.g4 0–0 9.gxf5 Qxd5 10.Be3 Nc6 11.Bxc5 Qxc5 The black rooks get too active. 8.Nc3 Qe7 Black has a good game.

The Falkbeer Countergambit Much superior to the above line of play is the steady attack on the advanced pawn. 1.e4 e5

Aggressive players love to hoist an opponent 70

Second Book 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 e4 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Qe2 Bd6 6.d3 0–0 7.dxe4 Nxe4 8.Nxe4 Re8 9.Qf3 Bf5 10.Bd3 Bxe4 11.Bxe4 f5 12.Ne2 fxe4

sacrificial combination the outlook for Black was more favorable than for White, gold scales would be needed.

cuuuuuuuuC (rhw1rdkd} 70p0wdw0p} 6wdwgwdwd} 5DwdPdwdw} &wdwdp)wd} 3dwdwdQdw} 2P)PdNdP)} %$wGwIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

Alternatively Black may use his KB for attack. 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.Nxc3 Nc6 6.Nge2 Bc5 7.0–0 d6 8.Kh1 0–0

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1w4kd} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdn0whwd} 5Dwgwdwdw} &wdBdPdwd} 3dwHwdwdw} 2P)wdN)P)} %$wGQdRdK} v,./9EFJMV

Black has some little attack because the d-pawn is exposed and the e-pawn exerts some pressure but White is a pawn to the good. It is well to analyze these variations, so as to form position judgment, but the King’s Gambit is irretrievably out of fashion.

But it is questionable whether the bishop may not be needed to support the king. At some moment White will play f2-f4-f5 and eventually by Bc1-g5 will gain the upper hand on the square d5.

Danish Gambit

Giuoco Piano or Italian Opening

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.Nxc3 Nc6 6.Nge2 In order to castle even if 6...Bb4. 6...Be7 7.0–0 d6 8.f4 0–0

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1w4kd} 70p0wgp0p} 6wdn0whwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdBdP)wd} 3dwHwdwdw} 2P)wdNdP)} %$wGQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kdn4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdndwdwd} 5Dwgw0wdw} &wdBdPdwd} 3dw)wdNdw} 2P)w)w)P)} %$NGQIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

9.h3 Necessary as safeguard for 10.Be3 as well as preparatory for 10.g4. 9...a6 10.g4 b5 11.Bb3 Na5 12.Bc2 c6 White will for a long time constantly threaten attack on the kingside. To decide whether from the beginning of the

The continuations 4.Nc3 or 4.d3 lead to placid developments, for instance 4.d3 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Be3 Bb6 7.h3 Be6 8.Bb3 h6 9.0–0. The task of detecting a good line of play becomes 71

Lasker’s Manual of Chess complicated only when the question arises where to castle and after the opponent has arrived at his decision. But, after all, it seems that this decision, however arrived at, does not in itself constitute the turning point of the game provided the contestants continue to play up to the mark until the end.

difficulties to surmount. 7...Bxd2+ If 7...Nxe4 Black must lose time moving his king about: 8.Bxb4 Nxb4 9.Bxf7+ Kxf7 10.Qb3+ d5 11.Qxb4 Re8 12.0–0 Black has nothing better than 12...Kg8, whereupon 13.Nc3 and White has an advantage. 8.Nbxd2 d5 Black can here break the center by 8...Nxe4, but White continues 9.d5 Nxd2 10.Qxd2 Ne7 11.d6 cxd6 12.0–0 and White, having the better development, easily wins the two weak d-pawns and retains an advantage. 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.0–0 0–0 11.Re1 Nce7 12.Rc1

The Giuoco Piano presents problems in abundance as soon as White assumes the aggressive in trying to build a center of pawns. In that case he has to discard the quiet continuations 4.Nc3 or 4.d3 and must attempt to push the d-pawn to d4 supported by the c-pawn.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1w4kd} 70p0whp0p} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdndwdw} &wdB)wdwd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)wHw)P)} %dw$Q$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

This end can be accomplished only by immediately playing 4.c3. If White castles first, the attempt comes too late, because Black replies 4...Nf6, attacks the e-pawn and never yields another opportunity for White to obtain the supremacy in the center. After 4.c3, the black e-pawn, in view of the threatened attack by White’s 5.d4, can be held in position only with 4...Qe7. But thereby Black loses a valuable move. White might follow up with 5.0–0 d6 6.d4 Bb6 7.Na3 Nf6 8.Bd5 and eventually Na3-c4 with pressure on the e-pawn and the e-file.

Although White is ahead in development he has an isolated d-pawn which may become an object of attack, and Black has a strongly posted knight at d5. If, for instance, 12...c6 13.h3 to prepare for Nd2-e4, White has the superiority on some black squares such as e5 and c5 and perhaps also on d6.

4...Nf6 This is the move that keeps a perfect balance. 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kdw4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdndwhwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wgB)Pdwd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)wdw)P)} %$NGQIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

The opening becomes very lively if White sacrifices a pawn by 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.c3 Nf6 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Nc3 Nxe4 8.0–0

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kdw4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdndwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wgB)ndwd} 3dwHwdNdw} 2P)wdw)P)} %$wGQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

Black must not lose any time, the d-pawn strives to advance to d4 to break up the white center. 7.Bd2 Also 7.Nc3, which involves the sacrifice of a pawn, must be considered. But against other moves, such as 7.Kf1, Black has no real 72

Second Book 8...Bxc3 One of the oldest variations and a very fine one runs as follows: 8...Nxc3 9.bxc3 Bxc310.Qb3 Bxa1 11.Bxf7+ Kf8 12.Bg5 Ne7 (if 12...Nxd4 13.Qa3+ Kxf7 14.Bxd8 Rxd8 15.Rxa1) 13.Ne5 Bxd4 (similarly 13...d5 14.Qf3 Bf5 15.Be6) 14.Bg6 and wins easily. If 8...Nxc3 bxc3 d5 10.cxb4 dxc4 11.Re1+ Ne7 12.Qe2 Be6 13.Ng5 Qd7 14.Nxe6 fxe6 15.Qxc4 Nd5 16.a4 0–0 17.Bd2, and the ending is presumably even. 9.d5 The Moeller Attack.

endgame; or 13...d5 14.Bxd5 Bxb2 15.Rb1 Nxd5 16.Qxd5 Ba3 17.Rb3 Be7 18.Rbe3 and wins.) 14.Bxd6 Nf5 15.Bxf8 Bxa1 (If 15...d5 16.Qxd5 with advantage.) 16.Qd5 Nh6 (the only move) 17.Be7 followed by 18.Bf6 and wins. 12.Bg5 Bxg5 13.Nxg5 0–0 If 13...Bf5 14.Qf3. 14.Nxh7 Kxh7 Not 14...Bf5 15.Rh4 Ng6 16.Rh5. 15.Qh5+ Kg8 16.Rh4 f5 17.Qh7+ Kf7 18.Rh6 Rg8 19.Re1 Qf8

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kdw4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdndwdwd} 5DwdPdwdw} &wdBdndwd} 3dwgwdNdw} 2P)wdw)P)} %$wGQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdw1rd} 70p0whk0Q} 6wdw0wdw$} 5DwdPdpdw} &wdBdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)wdw)P)} %dwdw$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

9...Bf6 Another good move is 9...Ne5 10.bxc3 Nxc4 11.Qd4 f5 12.Qxc4 d6 13.Nd4 0–0 14.f3 Nc5 15.Re1 Kh8 White has a firm position, particularly with the knight on d4, and will therefore be able to stand the pawn minus, but he is far from having an advantage. All other moves for Black, such as 9...Ne7 or 9.0-0, are appreciably weaker. 10.Re1 Ne7 11.Rxe4

White can now only at best obtain a draw. Rubinstein in Lärobok i Schack demonstrates the following line of play: 20.Bb5 Rh8 21.Qxh8 gxh6 22.Qh7+ Kf6 23.Rxe7 Qxe7 24.Qxh6+ with perpetual check. The Evans Gambit

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kdw4} 70p0php0p} 6wdwdwgwd} 5DwdPdwdw} &wdBdRdwd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)wdw)P)} %$wGQdwIw} v,./9EFJMV

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kdn4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdndwdwd} 5Dwgw0wdw} &w)BdPdwd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2PdP)w)P)} %$NGQIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

11...d6 If 11...0–0, the d-pawn is sacrificed, as is the rule in such cramped positions. After 12.d6 cxd6 13.Bf4 Bxb2 (If 13...Be5 14.Nxe5 dxe5 15.Qd6 Nf5 16.Qxe5 d6 17.Qb5 with the better

The idea of this gambit, the discovery of Captain Evans, is to win a move for the formation of the center, provided the proffered pawn is taken. 73

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kdn4} 70p0wdp0p} 6wgn0wdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdB)Pdwd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2Pdwdw)P)} %$NGQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

Black is by no means forced to accept the sacrifice. If 4...Bb6 the bishop is there safe and strong. A furious attack by White undertaken with the rejected pawn would fail: 5.b5 Na5 6.Nxe5 Nh6 and now Black menaces many attacks. 7.d4 d6 8.Bxh6 dxe5 9.Bxg7 Rg8 White wins only pawns while Black develops pieces continually. 10.Bxf7+ Kxf7 11.Bxe5 Qg5, and Black will continue the attack by 12...Qxg2 or Nc4 and by force of his superior development will win with ease. If instead the bishop gives way by 6.Be2 with the object of keeping the knight captive, then after 6...d5 7.exd5 e4 a blockade of the black knight cannot be efficiently carried through, since Black by his energetic onslaught gives White many other things to think about.

A1) 9.d5 Na5 Not 9...Ne5 10.Nxe5 dxe5 11.Ba3. 10.Bb2 Ne7 In order to use the open line should White take on g7. 11.Bd3 0–0 White will now operate so as to advance the kingside pawns f2-f4-f5, etc., whereas Black will attempt to bring his queenside pawns to bear. Whichever side is the first to arrive with the pawns at the enemy’s gate will win.

Although the immediate attack by 5.b5 fails, there are several quiet continuations which allow White a fair game. But the most important point is whether the gambit may not be accepted with advantage.

A2) A wholly different picture arises from 9.Nc3 Na5 Not 9...Nf6 because of 10.e5 dxe5 and again 11.Ba3. 10.Bg5 f6 11.Bf4 Nxc4 12.Qa4+ and White stands firmly entrenched in the center.

4...Bxb4 5.c3

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kdn4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdndwdwd} 5Dwdw0wdw} &wgBdPdwd} 3dw)wdNdw} 2Pdw)w)P)} %$NGQIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

A3) And again, but not so strong: 9.Bb2 Nge7 10.Ng5 d5 11.exd5 Na5 12.d6 Nxc4 13.dxe7 Qd5 14.Nc3 Nxb2 15.Nxd5 Nxd1 16.Rfxd1 h6 6

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdkdw4} 70p0w)p0w} 6wgwdwdw0} 5DwdNdwHw} &wdw)wdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2Pdwdw)P)} %$wdRdwIw} v,./9EFJMV

The bishop may retire to c5 or to a5 — not so well to e7, where it would hinder the queen from protecting f7 if the need arise. In the 19th century many masters, to name only the foremost: Anderssen, Zukertort, Chigorin, most diligently analyzed these variations. The following continuations were discovered:

These various attacks may or may not succeed, but for the purpose of judging the value of the gambit they are unfortunately not the measure.

A) 5...Bc5 6.0–0 d6 7.d4 exd4 8.cxd4 Bb6 74

Second Book Black, by accepting the gambit and then giving up his pawn plus voluntarily, can strike a good bargain, because he thus escapes all peril and possibly gains a slight advantage over White.

immediately advance with the d-pawn. 6.d4 If Black now captures on d4, White obtains the attack because the weak point f7 can be guarded only by the queen, and in view of the many mobile white pieces the queen in its turn becomes an object of attack, thus: 6...exd4 7.0–0 dxc3 8.Qb3 Qf6 9.e5 Qg6 10.Nxc3 Nge7 11.Ba3

B) 5...Bc5 6.0–0 d6 7.d4 Bb6

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kdn4} 70p0wdp0p} 6wgn0wdwd} 5Dwdw0wdw} &wdB)Pdwd} 3dw)wdNdw} 2Pdwdw)P)} %$NGQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdkdw4} 70p0php0p} 6wdndwdqd} 5gwdw)wdw} &wdBdwdwd} 3GQHwdNdw} 2Pdwdw)P)} %$wdwdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

If White wants to exchange queens, he can regain his pawn. If not, Black will hold on to the pawn, while refusing to exchange the e-pawn. And thus White will be blocked by his own c-pawn and be without avenues of attack. If White foregoes 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.Qxd8+ Nxd8 10.Nxe5, which would allow Black a good ending, he cannot set into motion his chain of kingside pawns, since the presence of the black e-pawn would prevent it at its very inception.

Black will have to liberate himself, even at the expense of a pawn, e.g. 11...b5 12.Nxb5 Rb8 13.Qa4, or 11...d6 12.exd6 cxd6 13.Rad1 0–0, or else Black will have to forego castling:

C) This line of play is of account also in the variation 5...Ba5

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kdn4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdndwdwd} 5gwdw0wdw} &wdBdPdwd} 3dw)wdNdw} 2Pdw)w)P)} %$NGQIwdR} v,./9EFJMV If White wants to avoid the above defense, he cannot proceed with 6.0–0 d6 7.d4 Bb6 since then 7...Bb6 as above, and therefore he must

An advertisement for a Saturday evening lecture by Lasker.

75

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kgn4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdndwhwd} 5Dwdw0wdw} &wdwdPdwd} 3dwHwdNdw} 2P)P)w)P)} %$wGQIBdR} v,./9EFJMV

11...Bxc3 12.Qxc3 b6 13.Rfd1 Bb7 14.Rac1. But all of this is rather unsatisfactory, undefined, aimless, as dancing upon a tight rope from which the dancer may easily fall (for instance, 14...Na5 15.Bd3 Qh5 16.Qxc7 Bxf3 17.Be2 wins). And during nearly the hundred years that the above position has been analyzed, no final conclusion has been arrived at, which is significant of the validity of the position. For this reason the conscientious analyst is driven to recommend 6...d6 with the intention of turning into the variation discussed above. If White wants to evade this line of play, he must immediately attack; the only target for attack at present is Black’s f7. Hence 7.Qb3 Qd7 Not 7...Qe7 nor Qf6 because of 8.d5.

Black is then able to develop 5...Be7 or Bc5 without any disadvantage. 5...dxc6 6.d4 Perhaps the strongest move. White would not obtain much by 6.Nxe5 Nxe4 7.Nxe4 Qd4 8.0– 0 Qxe5 9.d4 Qf5! because White cannot get the queen into action. 10.Re1 Be6 11.Bg5 h6

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdkdn4} 70p0qdp0p} 6wdn0wdwd} 5gwdw0wdw} &wdB)Pdwd} 3dQ)wdNdw} 2Pdwdw)P)} %$NGwIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdkgw4} 7dp0wdp0w} 6pdpdbhw0} 5DwdwdqGw} &wdw)Ndwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$wdQ$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

In the position arrived at Black will have time to develop by means of Ng8-f6 and 0-0, etc., provided he is ever ready to give up his plus of a pawn in the interest of rapid development. Because of this readiness, the masters, over the first three decades of the 20th century, little by little ceased the playing of gambits.

In order to force the bishop from one of the two long diagonals that it dominates. Now 12.Qd3 is beating the air, since Black parries the threat 13.Nd6+ simply by 12...Kd7, developing the QR at the same time. Better 12.Bh4. True, Black must be cautious here. With 12...g5 13.Bg3 0–0–0 he gets into trouble by 14.Be5 Rg8 15.Nf6 Rg6 16.g4. But 12...Bd6 is all right: 13.g4 Qa5 A decisive advantage cannot be gained by White, 14.Nxd6+ cxd6 15.f4 g5 16.f5 gxh4 17.fxe6 fxe6 18.Rxe6+ Kd7 19.Qe2 Rae8 20.Re1 Qxe1+. The forced attacks leave White weakened at the end.

Four Knights’ Game 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 (D) This opening leads to no complications unless Black forces them. True, the latter strategy is perilous. 4.Bb5 Herewith White obtains some pressure on e4. 4...a6 This reply is appropriate, since White must now decide which diagonal the bishop is to abandon, or whether the bishop should be exchanged. 5.Bxc6 With 5.Ba4 White turns to variations of the Ruy Lopez.

6...exd4 Black may also play 6...Bb4. Then 7.dxe5 Qxd1+ 8.Kxd1 Bxc3 9.exf6 Bxf6 10.c3, 76

Second Book

cuuuuuuuuC (rdw1w4kd} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdw0whwd} 5DwdN0wGw} &wdwhPdbd} 3dwdPdNdw} 2P)P!w)P)} %$wdwdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

and White has a slight initiative. 7.Qxd4 Qxd4 8.Nxd4 Bb4 9.f3

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdkdw4} 7dp0wdp0p} 6pdpdwhwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wgwHPdwd} 3dwHwdPdw} 2P)PdwdP)} %$wGwIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

13...Kh8 14.Kh2 Rg8 15.Rg1 c6 16.Nxf6 gxf6 17.Bh4 Rg6 18.Qe3 Bh5 19.f4 and White should win.7

White has here the better pawn position, but Black has two strong bishops. The black knight will strive towards e5 or c4. White may have a slight initiative, but that is in order.

Returning to the main line:

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1w4kd} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdn0whwd} 5DBdw0wGw} &wgwdPdwd} 3dwHPdNdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$wdQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

Black may follow an altogether different plan. He may follow the moves of the opponent, but, well understood, always on guard and ready, if need be, to vary. 4.Bb5 Bb4 5.0–0 0–0 6.d3 d6

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1w4kd} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdn0whwd} 5DBdw0wdw} &wgwdPdwd} 3dwHPdNdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$wGQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

7...Bxc3 8.bxc3 Qe7 If 8...Ne7 9.Nh4 White easily succeeds in advancing f2-f4 and obtains a lasting attack. A celebrated game, Schlechter versus Duras, played at the San Sebastian tournament ran the following course: 7...Ne7 8.Nh4 c6 9.Bc4 Ne8 10.f4 Bxc3 11.bxc3 d5 12.Bb3 f6 13.fxe5 fxg5 14.Rxf8+ Kxf8 15.Qf3+ Kg8 16.Rf1 Nc7 17.Qf7+ Kh8 Schlechter here gave his opponent a chance with 18.exd5, so changing the order of the moves: 18.Qf8+ Qxf8 19.Rxf8+ Ng8 20.exd5 cxd5 21.Nf3 White threatens to throttle Black. 21...Be6 22.Rxa8 Nxa8 23.Nxg5 Nc7 24.Nxe6 Nxe6 25.Bxd5, and White won the ending.8

7.Bg5 Up to this point everything has gone the way of undisturbed development, but now 8.Nd5 is threatening. Black must not imitate White too long, viz. 7...Bg4 8.Nd5 Nd4 9.Nxb4 Nxb5 10.Nd5 Nd4 11.Qd2 (D) Thereby 12.Bxf6 gxf6 followed by 13.Qh6 is menaced. 11...Nxf3+ 12.gxf3 Bxf3 13.h3! First White moves the king to safety.

9.Re1 Nd8 10.d4 White wants to open the lines for his bishops; Black resists. 10...Ne6 77

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kgw4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdwdwhwd} 5DBdw0wdw} &wdwhPdwd} 3dwHwdNdw} 2P)P)w)P)} %$wGQIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

11.Bc1 c6 12.Bf1 Otherwise the bishops are in the way. 12...Qc7 13.g3 (Rubinstein in Lärobok i Schack) 13...Rd8

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb4wdkd} 70p1wdp0p} 6wdp0nhwd} 5Dwdw0wdw} &wdw)Pdwd} 3dw)wdN)w} 2PdPdw)w)} %$wGQ$BIw} v,./9EFJMV

In hard-fought contests with Rubinstein the following opinions were arrived at 5.Nxe5 Qe7 Not 5...Bc5 due to 6.Be2 d5 7.Nd3 Bb6 8.e5 Ne4 9.0–0 c6 10.Na4, and White liberates himself and maintains his material advantage. 6.f4 Nxb5 7.Nxb5 d6 8.Nf3 Qxe4+ 9.Kf2 Ng4+

Black will have to play patiently and guardedly. He can take the initiative with Bc8-d7, Ra8-c8, and c6-c5. In the early decades of the 20th century there were new and important evolutions by Rubinstein, Bogolyubov, and Svenonius. Rubinstein improved upon an ancient variation. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Nd4

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdkgw4} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdw0wdwd} 5DNdwdwdw} &wdwdq)nd} 3dwHwdNdw} 2P)P)wIP)} %$wGQdwdR} v,./9EFJMV

Original Insights: A common misconception is that Lasker had a degree in philosophy. In fact he was entirely self-taught in that subject. The philosopher Ernst Cassirer, after reading Das Begreifen der Welt, noted that Lasker had some remarkably original insights, but also a tendency to expound already well-known ideas along with his own without making any distinction between them, due to his unfamiliarity with the philosophical literature of the past. (Edward Lasker, Chess Secrets I Learned from the Masters, p. 29)

10.Kg1 Bogolyubov essayed, too boldly, 10.Kg3. Then Black answers 10...Qg6, and the black attack becomes too strong. But after the text move the white king by h2-h3 finds a place of safety and then White obtains domination over the kingside and gains the initiative. The idea of Svenonius is a very sound one. After 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bb4 5.0–0 0–0 6.d3, he moves 6...Bxc3 7.bxc3 d5 (D) Consequently, a complication arises in the center. 8.Bxc6 bxc6 9.Nxe5 Qd6 10.Bf4 Re8 11.Qf3 78

Second Book

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1w4kd} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdndwhwd} 5DBdp0wdw} &wdwdPdwd} 3dw)PdNdw} 2PdPdw)P)} %$wGQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

The Ruy Lopez 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kgn4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdndwdwd} 5DBdw0wdw} &wdwdPdwd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)P)w)P)} %$NGQIWDR} v,./9EFJMV

If 11.exd5 Rxe5 12.d4 Re1 13.Bxd6 Rxd1 14.Rfxd1 cxd6 15.dxc6, the following position arises:

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdwdkd} 70wdwdp0p} 6wdP0whwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdw)wdwd} 3dw)wdwdw} 2PdPdw)P)} %$wdRdwIw} v,./9EFJMV

The most logical of all openings arising from the double step of the two king’s pawns. The attack directs itself against e5 anew.

With 15...Be6 Black apparently has a defensible game, say 16.Rab1 Kf8 17.Rb7 Rc8. 11...dxe4 12.dxe4 Rxe5 13.Rad1 Bg4

cuuuuuuuuC (rdw1kgw4} 70p0bdp0p} 6wdw0whwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwHPdwd} 3dwHQdwdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$wGwIWDR} v,./9EFJMV

The oldest defense is 3...d6, which is the most direct one. Surely a sound and substantial one, though it may not appeal to the high-flown fancy. 3...d6 4.d4 Bd7 5.Nc3 If 5.Bxc6 Bxc6 6.dxe5 Bxe4. 5...Nf6 6.Bxc6 Bxc6 7.Qd3 Black must now decide what to do with his epawn. Obviously 7...Qe7, blocking the bishop, is doubtful, as is 7...Nd7, which limits the action of the QB. However, an unpretentious move suffices. 7...exd4 8.Nxd4 Bd7

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdwdkd} 70w0wdw0p} 6wdp1whwd} 5Dwdw4wdw} &wdwdPGbd} 3dw)wdQdw} 2PdPdw)P)} %dwdRdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

Black desires to keep the two bishops and to guard the point f5. 8...g6 is tempting, but the queenside is threatened: 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.Qa6 Qd7 11.Qb7 winning a pawn. 8...Be7 however may be ventured, provided one keeps cool under

14.Qg3 14.Rxd6 leads to an easy draw. 14...Nxe4 15.Qxg4 Qe6 (with equality).9 79

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kgw4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdndwhwd} 5DBdw0wdw} &wdwdPdwd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)P)w)P)} %$NGQIWDR} v,./9EFJMV

fire: 9.Nf5 0–0 10.Bg5 Possibly 10...Re8 would suffice, 11.0–0–0 Bf8 soon to be followed by Bc6-d7, to drive off some of the assailants. Taken all in all, 8...Bd7, as above, seems obvious. 9.h3 Be7 10.Be3 0–0 White may now try 11.0-0-0, but then Black obtains a target for attack in proceeding with c7-c6, b7-b5 etc. The game seems evenly balanced. Aggressive players have often tried to start an immediate attack by 3...f5

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kgn4} 70p0pdw0p} 6wdndwdwd} 5DBdw0pdw} &wdwdPdwd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)P)w)P)} %$NGQIWDR} v,./9EFJMV

In this position, castling is suggestive of such threat for it liberates the rook for use on the efile. 4.0–0 Nxe4 The important pawn is captured. Now not Re1 at once; this move must be reserved until it carries a definite menace. It is more urgent to combat the minor pieces which would obstruct the rook after its taking the field. 5.d4! If now 5...exd4 6.Re1 is very dangerous. 5...Be7 To block the e-file. 6.Qe2 To use the rook on the d-file if desirable. 6...Nd6 Defense as counter attack. 7.Bxc6 bxc6 The d-pawn must safeguard the queen against the rook. If 7...dxc6 8.dxe5 Nf5 9.Rd1 Bd7 10.e6 fxe6 11.Ne5 which threatens also Qh5+. 8.dxe5 Nb7

But White, who would be unwise to play 4.exf5 allowing 4...e4, starts immediate development by 4.Nc3 and retains thereby an advantage. The continuation might be 4...Nf6 5.exf5 e4 White must not be too fearful of attacks by pawns unsupported by pieces. The advancing pawns of the opponent are soon attacked by pawns and thereby work to the advantage of the player who has the greater number of pieces developed. 6.Ng5 Nd4 7.d3 White will be able to keep the pawn.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kdw4} 70n0pgp0p} 6wdpdwdwd} 5Dwdw)wdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)PdQ)P)} %$NGwdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

A defense which well satisfies the rules of development laid down at the beginning of this chapter is 3...Nf6. (D) Now the white e-pawn is threatened, neutralizing White’s pressure upon the black e-pawn. White may proceed slowly, for instance, with Nb1-c3, but if he desires to give motion to the game, to play a sharp, a biting game, he must not pause to parry this menace, but must find some new threat.

So far the white attack has taken a logical course and resu1ts in the cramping of the black pieces. But now they are out of immediate danger and ready to mass themselves for a counter thrust. Clearly, White, who has conducted his attack with an astonishingly small number of troops, 80

Second Book

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kgn4} 7dp0pdp0p} 6pdndwdwd} 5DBdw0wdw} &wdwdPdwd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)P)w)P)} %$NGQIWDR} v,./9EFJMV

must now hurry to develop his reserves. 9.Nc3 0–0 10.Re1 Nc5 White hinders d7-d5, Black attempts to force it. 11.Nd4 Now that the black knight blocks the KB, the white knight may safely occupy this central spot. 11...Ne6 12.Be3 Nxd4 13.Bxd4 Even now 13...d5 is prevented, since in reply thereto White with 14.Na4 would get permanent control of the square c5, thus blocking the doubled pawn. 13...c5 14.Be3 d5 At last! Black will now fight offensively. 15.exd6 Bxd6 16.Ne4 Bb7!

cuuuuuuuuC (rdw1w4kd} 70b0wdp0p} 6wdwgwdwd} 5Dw0wdwdw} &wdwdNdwd} 3dwdwGwdw} 2P)PdQ)P)} %$wdw$wIw} v,./9EFJMV Not 16...Bxh2+ 17.Kxh2 Qh4+ because then the white bishop would become too strong. 17.Nxd6 The c-pawn cannot be captured, viz. 17.Bxc5 Bxc5 18.Nxc5 Bxg2 19.Kxg2 Qg5+. 17...cxd6 18.Rad1 Qf6 19.c4 Rfe8 20.Qg4 Re6

4.Ba4 Of course, this is not forced. White might reply 4.Bc4 or Be2 without getting into peril. And 4.Bxc6 is quite playable as will be shown hereafter. But the above move is the most aggressive one, since it preserves the bishop for future action against the king besides maintaining the pressure on the square e5. 4...Nf6 5.Nc3 A strong move, but it has the disadvantage of blocking the c-pawn and thus limiting the action of the KB. 5...Bc5 6.Nxe5 6.d3 is also good, but the natural tendency of White is to develop a field of action. 6...Nxe5 7.d4 Bd6 8.dxe5 This is the main variation. White has, however, another move at his disposal that is worth considering: 8.f4 Nc4 9.e5 0–0 10.0–0 b5 11.Bb3 Bb7 12.exd6 cxd6 13.f5

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdwdkd} 70bdwdp0p} 6wdw0r1wd} 5Dw0wdwdw} &wdPdwdQd} 3dwdwGwdw} 2P)wdw)P)} %dwdR$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdw1w4kd} 7dbdpdp0p} 6pdw0whwd} 5DpdwdPdw} &wdn)wdwd} 3dBHwdwdw} 2P)PdwdP)} %$wGQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

If 21.Bg5 Rxe1+ 22.Rxe1 Qxb2 23.Qd7 h6. And if 21.Bf4, then 21...Rae8.

Black will here probably proceed with 13...h6. White has gained much room but has driven his pawns relentlessly forward leaving at their rear many spots that have to be defended by the pieces only, should Black succeed in obtaining the attack. There is both profit and peril in such

A great many questions arise as soon as Black by 3...a6 challenges the intentions of the white bishop. 81

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kdw4} 7dw0wgp0p} 6pdn0whwd} 5Dpdw0wdw} &PdwdPdwd} 3dBHwdNdw} 2w)P)w)P)} %$wGQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

impetuous advances. The student, of course, has to try them and to seek their lesson. The main play proceeds 8...Bxe5 9.Ne2

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kdw4} 7dp0pdp0p} 6pdwdwhwd} 5Dwdwgwdw} &BdwdPdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)PdN)P)} %$wGQIWDR} v,./9EFJMV

For instance, 10...Rc8 11.d3 followed by 12.Be3, supporting the king at the right moment. Again, if 8...b4 9.Nd5 Nxe4 10.d4 , the lines are opened to White’s heavy artillery: 10...0–0 11.Re1 Nf6 12.Nxe7+ Qxe7 13.Bg5 threatening 14.Bd5. 9.axb5 axb5 White has hardly any advantage. 10.h3 seems necessary, to limit the range of the black QB.

White threatens f2-f4. He clearly holds the upper hand in the center, though Black, with b7-b5, c7-c5 and Bc8-b7 will provide for the present emergency. Black does better by far to proceed safely with 5...Be7.

But after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 White can proceed sharply and thus contrive to give life and vigor to the game: 5.0– 0 Nxe4 6.d4 b5 7.Bb3 d5

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kdw4} 7dp0pgp0p} 6pdndwhwd} 5Dwdw0wdw} &BdwdPdwd} 3dwHwdNdw} 2P)P)w)P)} %$wGQIWDR} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kgw4} 7dw0wdp0p} 6pdndwdwd} 5Dpdp0wdw} &wdw)ndwd} 3dBdwdNdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$NGQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

White has now little drive except against the epawn. Of course, not 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.Nxe5 Nxe4! First the preparation. 6.0–0 b5 7.Bb3 d6 White will now challenge the pawn at b5. 8.a4 (D)

8.dxe5 The aggressive move 8.a4 is aggressive at the wrong spot, as Schlechter demonstrated in his match against me. Black replies 8...Nxd4 9.Nxd4 exd4 10.axb5 (if 10.Qxd4 Be6) 10...Bc5 11.c3 0–0 12.cxd4 Bb6 with an even game. 8...Be6 9.c3 In order to make room for the cramped KB and to obtain a support for the knight on d4. 9...Be7

8...Rb8 This move seems yielding, but Black, being initially on the defensive, is justified in that attitude. A premature attack may easily prove a boomerang, viz. 8...Bg4 9.axb5 Nd4 10.Rxa6, thus keeping the black queen busy, which therefore cannot get to c8 in time to support the onslaught. 82

Second Book

cuuuuuuuuC (rdw1kdw4} 7dw0wgp0p} 6pdndbdwd} 5Dpdp)wdw} &wdwdndwd} 3dB)wdNdw} 2P)wdw)P)} %$NGQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

16.Rxe3 Bg5 17.Re1 Bxd2 18.Qxd2 Black gets nowhere. 12.f3 Bd6

cuuuuuuuuC (rdw1w4kd} 7dw0wdp0p} 6pdwgbdwd} 5Dpdphwdw} &wdwHndwd} 3dB)wdPdw} 2P)wdwdP)} %$NGQ$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

Black is now ahead of White in development, so White must hasten to catch up. 10.Nbd2 0–0 10...Nc5 11.Bc2 d4 12.Ne4 would leave the important point e5 — and therefore the center — at the command of White. 11.Bc2 f5 12.exf6 Nxf6 13.Nd4 Thus White obtains some superiority on d4 and a slight advantage in consequence.

13.fxe4? White should not play to win. He should be content with 13.Bf4 c5 14.Bxe5, a proposal of peace, 14...cxd4 which is accepted (if 14...Bxe5 15.fxe4 cxd4 16.exd5 White has the best of it) 15.Bxd4 Now the QB stands ready to guard the points f2 and g1, and Black will have to ponder whether to extend his punitive expedition any further. After 15...Nc5 White still stands weak on the kingside, but he can with impunity reply 16.Bc2 and save the day.10 The Breslau variation, however, is the continued attempt by White to play to win until the bitter end. 13...Bg4 14.Qd2 Qh4 15.h3 16...Nd3 was threatened. 15...c5

In the diagrammed position, many plans were essayed, among others that of an attack without preliminary development. This adventure gave rise to the “Breslau” variation. 10.Re1 0–0 11.Nd4

cuuuuuuuuC (rdw1w4kd} 7dw0wgp0p} 6pdndbdwd} 5Dpdp)wdw} &wdwHndwd} 3dB)wdwdw} 2P)wdw)P)} %$NGQ$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdw4kd} 7dwdwdp0p} 6pdwgwdwd} 5Dp0phwdw} &wdwHPdb1} 3dB)wdwdP} 2P)w!wdPd} %$NGw$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

11...Nxe5 To guard with 11...Qd7? loses deservedly by 12.Nxe6 followed by 13.Rxe4. At all times where an opponent launches an impudent attack with an insufficient number of pieces, one must not retreat but counter-attack, even at the price of a sacrifice. Black, for the rest, has here no choice. With 11...Na5 12.Bc2 c5 13.Nxe6 fxe6 14.Bxe4 dxe4 15.Nd2 e3

Black has now a strong position however White may proceed. And he always remains a little stronger than White no matter what the first player may attempt or invent. For instance, 16.Re3 cxd4 17.cxd4 Nc4 18.Bxc4 dxc4 19.e5 Bc7 20.hxg4 Bb6 21.Qd1 Rad8 22.Re4 f5 83

Lasker’s Manual of Chess 23.exf6 Rxf6 24.Qe2 Bc7 and the threat of 25...Qh2# forces decisive material loss.11

Secondly 5...Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 The two modes of development are interchangeable. 8.c3 In order to guard the KB against exchange. 8...Na5 9.Bc2 c5 10.d4 Qc7 White’s problem is whether to prevent Black pinning his knight by 11...Bg4 or whether he may safely allow it. Shall he play 11.h3 now, or should he have played it before? To me it seems better not to lose time with such slow, defensive moves so early in the game.

The above position has been analyzed many thousands of times, without conclusive results; the prevalent opinion is that Black has the advantage and, with best play, should win the game. The following valuable variation is by Rubinstein: 16.Qf2 Qxf2+ 17.Kxf2 Bd7 18.Nf5 Bxf5 19.exf5 Nd3+ 20.Kf1 Nxe1 21.Kxe1 Rfe8+ 22.Kf2 Re5 with decided advantage.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdkdw4} 7dw1wgp0p} 6pdw0whwd} 5hp0w0wdw} &wdw)Pdwd} 3dw)wdNdw} 2P)Bdw)P)} %$NGQ$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

An altogether different turn is given to the game if Black abstains from the capture of the e-pawn and instead aims at development. Two developing moves are effective after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0–0, firstly 5...d6

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kgw4} 7dp0wdp0p} 6pdn0whwd} 5Dwdw0wdw} &BdwdPdwd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)P)w)P)} %$NGQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

Judging the position, it appears that the white QN aims at the square f1 whence it can go to e3 or g3, the white QR desires to occupy c1, and the QB has not made up its mind whether to go to g5, e3 or perhaps b2. Black, on the other hand, desires to take possession of the c-file, to exert pressure on d4 and to use his QB, which stands mobile and efficient, for manifold threats.

6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 Na5 8.d4 Nxb3 9.axb3 Bb7 10.Bg5

The possibilities are many and diverse. For instance, 11.Nbd2 Nc6 12.d5 Nd8 13.Nf1 0–0 14.h3 Ne8 15.g4 f6 16.Ng3 Nf7 Black will play g7-g6 and Ne8-g7 ; White will try to force an entrance for his rooks on the g-file by posting his knight on f5.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdw1kgw4} 7db0wdp0p} 6pdn0whwd} 5Dpdw0wGw} &wdw)Pdwd} 3dPdwdNdw} 2w)Pdw)P)} %$NdQ$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

Again (from the above diagram) 11.Nbd2 Nc6 12.Nf1 cxd4 13.cxd4 Bg4 14.d5 Nd4 15.Bd3 Nh5 16.Ng3 Nf4 17.Bf1 g5 18.Be3 All in all, in this variation the law of action is rather dictated by White. But Black, by abstaining from this demonstration on c4 can choose a simpler line of play, starting at move 8: 8...0–0 9.d4 Bg4

Herewith White exerts some pressure.

84

Second Book

cuuuuuuuuC (rdw1w4kd} 7dw0wgp0p} 6pdn0whwd} 5dpdw0wdw} &wdw)Pdbd} 3dB)wdNdw} 2P)wdw)P)} %$NGQ$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kgn4} 7dp0pdp0p} 6pdndwdwd} 5DBdw0wdw} &wdwdPdwd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)P)w)P)} %$NGQIWDR} v,./9EFJMV

Black plans something like this: 10.Be3 Re8 11.Nbd2 d5. The question is only, if 10.Bg5 would not give the game a turn, since after the exchange of that bishop for knight the move Bb3-d5 would threaten to hamper the black knight greatly. Also 10.a4, which would keep the black queen busy, is effective. Enough, there are still problems to be solved; the whole truth in chess is not by any means all known yet — fortunately.

4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.d4 exd4 6.Qxd4 Qxd4 7.Nxd4

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdkgn4} 7dp0wdp0p} 6pdpdwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwHPdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$NGwIWDR} v,./9EFJMV

Finally, White may follow the plan to lose no time whatever and accordingly even give up his precious KB.

Black must not refuse this simplification, otherwise he loses too much space. Now White has four pawns against three on the kingside, Black has a doubled pawn on the queenside and therefore difficulties in obtaining a passed pawn except with the aid of his pieces. But he has efficient pieces and need have no apprehensions in entering upon the struggle. 7...Bd6 8.Nc3 Bd7 9.Be3 0–0–0 10.0–0–0

World Champion: In April-May 1894 Lasker played Steinitz for the world title. The match, held in New York, Philadelphia and Montreal, would go to the first to win ten games, draws not counting. Lasker needed only 19 games to reach this goal, at one point winning five in a row, to take the title +10 –5 =4.

White and Black, of course, are at liberty to choose other lines of play. To determine whether this plan is a little superior to that plan or not, we have discovered, as yet, no means but patient and repeated trial. Significant is it, however, that the move f7-f6, ordinarily weak, becomes very effective after the exchange of the hostile KB. This observation is due to Steinitz. Dr. Bernstein has applied it 85

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

Steinitz (left) and Lasker in their 1894 world championship match.

happily in the above question, in recommending against 5.Nc3 the defense 5...f6, in this “Exchange” variation.

exchanged a hostile bishop. The attack must lose no time, the defense no space. The Nimzovitch Defense

The Ruy Lopez opening will continue to set tasks and offer fertile suggestions to chess masters for a long time to come. This opening is dearest and nearest to the spirit of the old game — that spirit which dislikes rigid dogmas but, on the contrary, loves motion and struggle.

1.e4 Nc6 White will now desire to make e7-e5 difficult. 2.d4 d5

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kgn4} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdndwdwd} 5Dwdpdwdw} &wdw)Pdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$NGQIBHR} v,./9EFJMV

The Half-Open Games If White or Black on the first move advances e2-e4, whereas the opponent holds the e-pawn back, one-half of the board is open to the play of pieces whereas the other half abounds with obstructions. An accurate theory of these openings does not as yet exist. One can only say that White should strive to hold the center without advancing pawns until he has his rooks ready; then he may push his pawns with the intention of opening lines for these powerful pieces. The defense should resist the opening of lines, at least until it has

Black thus disputes with White the possession of the center. If now 3.e5 Black may develop 3...Bf5 and fight for the point e4, particularly should White push f2-f4. To be sure, White would have no bad game after 3.e5 Bf5 4.Be3 e6 86

Second Book 5.Bd3 Nge7 6.Ne2, but nothing to boast of. To maintain mobility is the better strategy. 3.Nc3 3...dxe4 4.d5 None of the squares to which the knight can go can be conveniently supported so he best retreats. 4...Nb8 5.Nxe4 e6 Alternatively Black may try 5...e5. 6.Bc4 The center is opened; hence, pieces must hurry into it. 6...Nf6 Black would have done better with 6...Be7 but White has advantage also then by making the capture at e6. If 6...Qe7 7.Qe2. 7.Bg5 Be7 8.Bxf6 Bxf6 9.dxe6 Bxe6 10.Qxd8+ Bxd8 11.Bxe6 fxe6 White has a slight advantage.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kdn4} 70p0ndpgp} 6wdw0wdpd} 5Dwdw0wdw} &wdw)Pdwd} 3dwHwdNdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$wGQIBDR} v,./9EFJMV

The Nimzovitch Defense is quite playable. It is an opening which suits that kind of temperament which can defend patiently and at times assail surprisingly and fiercely. White may turn it into a branch of the Center Counter treated later.

6...0–0 7.Qd2 e5 Now Black has his KR in play and therefore advances in the center. 8.Bd3 exd4 9.Bxd4 Re8 10.0–0–0 White castles queenside because he has a target for his KR in view by advancing h2-h4-h5; also he thus develops his QR. White has the freer game.

The Fianchetti Similarly, the Queen’s Fianchetto. 1.e4 b6 2.d4 Bb7 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bd3 e6 5.Nf3 White must be careful not to advance pawns beyond the fourth rank before he has his rooks ready. 5...c5 To lay hold on the point e4. 6.0–0 c4 Very problematical. 7.Bxc4 Nxe4 8.Nxe4 Bxe4 9.Re1 Bb7 10.d5

1.e4 g6 : the King’s Fianchetto, or 1.e4 b6: the Queen’s Fianchetto. Ancient openings, presumably invented at a time before our rule of castling was introduced, and when another form of castling, a jump of the king over two squares was lawful. These were sane rules, and it would have been better if they had not been changed. After that unfortunate change, the fianchetti lost their original purpose of providing a safe square for the king and developing the rooks. Today they present a weakness in that they leave the center of the board in the control of the enemy. True, they do not present targets in the center either, but a fighter is used to being a target as well as a shot.

cuuuuuuuuC (rhw1kgw4} 70bdpdp0p} 6w0wdpdwd} 5DwdPdwdw} &wdBdwdwd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$wGQ$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

One can only conjecture the course of the game, since rigid analysis of the multitude of possibilities is out of the question. 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nf3 d6 4.Nc3 Nd7 (D)

Once the position is opened, White will hold the advantage.

So far White has had no serious problems, but now it becomes difficult to find a weak point in the black camp that can be assailed. Well, it may be worth while to aim for the black KB that defends the points f6 and h6. 5.Be3 Ngf6 6.h3 It is necessary to safeguard the QB, otherwise White’s plan can be stopped by 6...Ng4.

Alekhine’s Defense 1.e4 Nf6 This opening is the refuge of all those wishing to get out of the books. It also has the advantage of variety. On the other hand, it is not 87

Lasker’s Manual of Chess altogether logically satisfying. 2.e5 The indicated move, since otherwise Black, not White, would assume the initiative. 2...Nd5 White cannot permit the knight to stay in the center; it is best to ask it at once where it wishes to lodge. 3.c4 Nb6 4.d4 d6 5.f4 These moves are prescribed if White desires to maintain his central pawn formation. The idea underlying this defense is on the other hand to allow this formation and then to proceed to break it up. 5...dxe5 6.fxe5 Nc6 Black makes this move with a divided mind. He would like to advance 6...c5, but for the present this counter-thrust is easily parried by 7.d5. If 6...e6 7.Nc3 again prevents c7-c5. Black certainly bears constantly in mind the idea of advancing the QBP, to break the chain of white pawns. 7.Be3 Not 7.Nf3 because of 7...Bg4, and the knight is embarrassed, since the pawns on c4 and d4 are under pressure. The advance 8.e6 fails on account of 8...fxe6 followed by the countersacrifice 9...e5 10.d5 Nd4 and a speedy e7-e6. 7...Bf5 8.Nc3 e6 9.Nf3

12.exf6 gxf6 13.0–0

cuuuuuuuuC (wdk4wgw4} 70p0qdwdp} 6whndp0wd} 5Dwdwdbdw} &wdP)wdwd} 3dwHwGNdw} 2P)w!BdP)} %$wdwdRIw} v,./9EFJMV The situation has cleared. White, his c- and dpawns holding the central position, is assured of the initiative remaining in his hands. He is strong also on the f-file. Black has the g-file. This is no position in which the master may take a nap. It is a breeding ground for combinations. True, White seems to have the stronger position, but this may not be the judgment of history. We must thank Alekhine for his discovery of the possibilities latent in 1...Nf6.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdw1kgw4} 70p0wdp0p} 6whndpdwd} 5Dwdw)bdw} &wdP)wdwd} 3dwHwGNdw} 2P)wdwdP)} %$wdQIBdR} v,./9EFJMV

The From Gambit 1.f4 e5 2.fxe5 To capture the pawn is better than to decline the offer by 2.d3 or 2.e4.2...d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1kdn4} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdwgwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)P)PdP)} %$NGQIBdR} v,./9EFJMV

Here Black must come to a decision whether he wishes to resume his plan of c7-c5, mentioned above, or whether he should rather put pressure on the d-pawn and play for development. The attack 9...Nb4 10.Rc1 c5 11.Be2 is undertaken by a minority of pieces and should lead to nothing but trouble. Black will scarcely be able to do better than 9...Qd7 10.Be2 0–0–0 White’s threat of 11.Bg5 is only apparent, for though the black f-pawn is weak White’s d-pawn is equally so. In reality Black is threatening 11...f6. 11.Qd2 f6 If first 11...Be7 12.Rd1, and the advance of the f-pawn is no longer so powerful.

Black’s attack formerly ran 4...Nh6, 5...Ng4, and 6...Nxe5. To spoil this plan Lipke invented the defense 5.d4, 6.Qd3 and 7.Qe4+, which is sufficient.4...g5 I played this in my match against Bird, in 1890. 5.d4 g4 6.Ne5 Bxe5 88

Second Book 6.Nf3 By 6.f4 White becomes strong on e5 but weak on e4. After 6...Bg4 7.Nf3 e6 8.0–0 Bd6 9.Qb3 Qc7 10.Ne5 Bf5 Black dominates e4 and is safe. 6...Bg4 7.Nbd2 e6 8.0–0 Bd6 9.Re1 0–0 10.Nf1

7.dxe5 Qxd1+ 8.Kxd1 Nc6 9.Nc3 Be6 10.Bg5! In order to prevent 10...0-0-0 (Rubinstein). 10...Nxe5 11.Nb5! Kd7 12.Ke1 Bc4 13.Rd1+ Kc6 14.Nd4+ Kb6 15.e3 f6 16.Bh4 Rf8

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdw4n4} 70p0wdwdp} 6wiwdw0wd} 5Dwdwhwdw} &wdbHwdpG} 3dwdw)wdw} 2P)PdwdP)} %dwdRIBdR} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdw1w4kd} 70pdwdp0p} 6wdngphwd} 5Dwdpdwdw} &wdw)wdbd} 3dw)BdNdw} 2P)wdw)P)} %$wGQ$NIw} v,./9EFJMV

White now has the initiative. To develop the black KN is no easy task. True, the white e-pawn is weak, but, all in all, to counter the opening 1.f4 with a gambit is not wise; the simple 1...d5 is stronger.

A calm position. Black has a target for attack in the pawn at c3 which he can seek to engage by b7-b5-b4, in order to open lines for his rooks and possibly to weaken the white d-pawn. White can make this plan illusory by a2-a4. Besides, he has chances on the kingside. Taken all in all, the position is exceedingly balanced.

The Caro-Kann Defense 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 The idea of Black’s first move is to prepare for his second. His d-pawn is thoroughly secured, and is a menace to White’s e-pawn. After 3.e5 Black could develop all his pieces at his ease by Bc8-f5, e7-e6, Nb8-d7, and if occasion arises c6-c5, etc. Black has difficulties only if 3.exd5 or 3.Nc3, or possibly 3.f3. 3.exd5 If 3...Qxd5 Black’s first move seems almost wasted. Therefore 3...cxd5 4.c3 To secure the d-pawn and to give the queen access to the queenside. 4...Nc6 5.Bd3 Nf6

Alternately, White has 3.f3 with the intention of holding the center. Black cannot reduce this plan ad absurdum simply by 3...dxe4 4.fxe4 e5, because White then develops rapidly with 5.Nf3 exd4 6.Bc4. 3...e6 4.Nc3 c5! This is the best counter to White’s plan. 5.exd5 exd5 6.dxc5 d4 7.Ne4 f5 Not 7...Bxc5 8.Nxc5 Qa5+ 9.c3! 8.Nd6+ Bxd6 9.cxd6 Qxd6

cuuuuuuuuC (rhbdkdn4} 70pdwdw0p} 6wdw1wdwd} 5Dwdwdpdw} &wdw0wdwd} 3dwdwdPdw} 2P)wdwdP)} %$wGQIBHR} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kgw4} 70pdw0p0p} 6wdndwhwd} 5Dwdpdwdw} &wdw)wdwd} 3dw)Bdwdw} 2P)wdw)P)} %$NGQIwHR} v,./9EFJMV

Black has a point of invasion at e3 where he 89

Lasker’s Manual of Chess might try to post a knight. White’s third move now proves a hindrance to his own development and is therefore useless.

To give an instance: 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.d4 e5 5.Nf3 Bg4 6.dxe5 Nc6 7.Be2 Bb4 8.0–0 Nge7 The pawn cannot he saved. The later it is captured, the better.

The strongest line of play is 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nf6 5.Nxf6+ 5.Nc3 is possible, but not 5.Ng3 which is met by 5...e5. 5...exf6 Thus White has the advantage on the queenside, although Black, by virtue of his rapid development and his pawn plus on the kingside, has enough force to make counter-play. 6.Bc4 Here White dominates the important points d5 and e6. 6...Bd6 7.Qe2+ Be7 Black had better avoid the exchange of queens, since White has advantages for the ending while Black has opportunities for attack against the king. 8.Nf3 0–0 9.0–0 Re8 10.Re1 Nd7 11.c3 Nb6 12.Bb3 In a celebrated game, Forgács versus Dr. Bernstein, White in this position followed the plan Bc4-d3, b2-b3 and c3-c4. 12...Bg4 13.Bd2

To meet this plan of campaign White must avoid exchanges of minor pieces. Then the black queen will at last become a target. Such is also the meaning of the following play: 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Be2 Bg4 6.h3 Bh5 7.0–0 Nf6 8.d3 e6 9.Bd2

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdkgw4} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdndphwd} 51wdwdwdb} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwHPDNdP} 2P)PGB)Pd} %$wdQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdw1rdkd} 70pdwgp0p} 6whpdw0wd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdw)wdbd} 3dB)wdNdw} 2P)wGQ)P)} %$wdw$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

Black finds it difficult to discover a secure place for his queen. Note that h5, which would be advantageous, is blocked by the QB, hence the move 6.h3, that otherwise would be questionable. Possibly this move might have been postponed to a later stage with equal effect. It remains for us to consider the attitude White should adopt if, after 2.exd5, Black does not at once recapture the pawn. In this case it is hardly advisable to hold on to it since Black would then get a rapid and efficient development. By his willingness to abandon the pawn plus, White may get an even better development than in the preceding variations. 2.exd5 Nf6 3.d4 Qxd5 If 3...Nxd5 4.c4 Nf6 5.Nf3 White has a phalanx of pawns in the center and has thus far the best of it. 4.Nc3 Qa5 5.Nf3 And now 5...e5 is out of the question. And if 5...Bg4 6.h3 Bh5 7.g4 Bg6 8.Ne5 and the queen is assailed at once, whereby White gains another move, because a developing move, such as 8...Nbd7, would be answered by 9.Nc4 Qa6 10.d5, whereby the queen is shut in. Therefore 8…Ne4 9.Bg2 Nxc3 10.Qd2 with favorable development.

White’s plan is to make his queenside pawns tell and to undertake no offensive on the kingside. Black will try to provoke White to move one of his kingside pawns which will then be a target for his pawn majority on the kingside. With first class play, say in a correspondence game between masters, White may be found to hold a minute advantage. The Center Counter Opening 1.e4 d5 An essentially sound idea. Black disputes the center from the very start. It is his aim to neutralize each piece. White develops by opposing to it an equivalent piece and to proceed with his own development as rapidly as possible. 90

Second Book White has an attack against the king, but the position is very difficult inasmuch as Black has strong pawns and good mobility. As an instance 13.Be3 d5 14.0–0–0 Qg7 15.Bc4 Bd7 and the attack against the king has c o n s i d e r a b l e d i ff i c u l t i e s t o o v e r c o m e . White’s better plan is 13.Bd2 d5 14.0–0–0 with eventually c2-c4 to loosen the array of pawns. The tempting 5...Bb4 is probably weaker.

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1kdw4} 70pdpdp0p} 6wdwdphwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wgwHPdwd} 3dwHwdwdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$wGQIBdR} v,./9EFJMV

Lasker and his older brother, Berthold.

The Sicilian Defense 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Thus White, not Black, dominates the point d4. 4...Nf6 Black prevents 5.c4 which would control d5 as well as b5, hampering the black pawns. 5.Nc3 It cannot be helped; the c-pawn must be blocked. 5...Nc6 Whether this knight should rather aim for d7 is a question. Presumably, either variation is playable. 6.Nxc6 bxc6 Otherwise, White, without having to run risks, would have a slight advantage by exchanging queens. 7.e5 Nd5 8.Ne4 Qc7 9.f4 Thus a game of mine against Lipschütz. 9...f5 10.exf6 Nxf6 11.Nxf6+ gxf6 12.Qh5+ Kd8

White simply develops 6.Bd3 and now threatens an attack against the kingside, for instance, 6...d5 7.e5 Nfd7 8.Qg4 whereupon Black must weaken the kingside. And if 6...Nc6 7.Nxc6 bxc6 8.e5 Nd5 9.Qg4 g6 10.0–0 and Black can win the pawn only by giving away his fine KB, whereupon Black is in trouble on the dark squares, particularly after White plays Bc1h6.12 The game becomes immensely more difficult if Black plays to hold on to his KB and also keeps his d-pawn back: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Be2 Be7 7.0–0 0–0 8.Be3 Nc6 9.f4 Qc7 10.Qe1 a6 In order to push b7-b5 and obtain for the QB a favorable diagonal. 11.Bf3 Na5 12.Rd1 Nc4 13.Bc1 (D)

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbiwgw4} 70w1pdwdp} 6wdpdp0wd} 5dwdwdwdQ} &wdwdw)wd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)PdwdP)} %$wGwIBDR} v,./9EFJMV

White has covered his weaknesses well and also threatens an attack by Qe1-g3 or g2-g4, but Black has counter play on the queenside and also in the center, where he can advance e6-e5 under many conditions. 91

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdw4kd} 7dp1wgp0p} 6pdw0phwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdnHP)wd} 3dwHwdBdw} 2P)PdwdP)} %dwGR!RIw} v,./9EFJMV

White will attempt to get an opening by f2-f4f5. Again Black has chances on the queenside and in the center. For instance 9...d5 10.Nxc6 bxc6 11.e5.

Black can also fianchetto his KB, but then he must not move the e-pawn, thus keeping the QB free and continuing to guard f6 with a pawn: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 d6 6.Be2 g6 7.0–0 Bg7 8.Be3 0–0 Not 8...d5 because of 9.Bb5. 9.Kh1

1.e4 e6 A very logical move, developing, and at the same time preparatory to 2...d5, which engages the white e-pawn and forces White to a far-reaching decision. 2.d4 d5

The attempt to convert the Sicilian Defense into a gambit is feeble: 1.e4 c5 2.b4 cxb4 3.a3 d5 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.Bb2 e5 and Black is well developed. All in all, the Sicilian opening is full of tension. The French Defense

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1kgn4} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdwdpdwd} 5Dwdpdwdw} &wdw)Pdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$NGQIBHR} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1w4kd} 70pdw0pgp} 6wdn0whpd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &wdwHPdwd} 3dwHwGwdw} 2P)PdB)P)} %$wdQdRdK} v,./9EFJMV

3.Nc3 In case of the exchange 3.exd5 exd5, the game tends to a draw of which the symmetrical variation 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bd3 Bd6 6.0–0 0–0 7.Bg5 Bg4 8.c3 Nbd7 9.Nbd2 c6 10.Re1 Qc7 11.Qc2 Rfe8 furnishes a frightful

Success Nearly Followed by Death: After winning the world title in 1894, Lasker fell seriously ill with typhoid. The illness might have proved fatal but for the care of his brother Berthold, a physician. He was still not fully recovered by the time of his first major international tournament, at Hastings in August 1895.

92

Second Book instance. To produce tension only two ways seem practicable — the advance c7-c5 or castling queenside, but in either case the peril seems greater than the gain, so that such an enterprise hardly seems justified, least of all for the second player. 3...Nf6 With 3...dxe4 Black would leave the point e4 to White, but even then he would have a sound position. 4.Bg5 If 4.Bd3 c5! 5.Nf3 cxd4 6.Nxd4 e5 7.Nf3 d4 and Black has nothing to fear. 4...Be7 5.e5 Nfd7 6.h4

My brother, Dr. Berthold Lasker, has demonstrated that 9...c5 would lose. The analysis is a masterpiece.13 It runs as follows: 9...c5 10.Rf3 Ng6 11.Nh3 Nd7 12.Rxf7! Kxf7 13.Bxe7 Kxe7 14.Qxh7

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1rdwd} 70pdniw0Q} 6wdwdpdnd} 5Dw0p)wdw} &wdw)wdw)} 3dwHBdwdN} 2P)Pdw)Pd} %$wdwIwdW} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1kdw4} 70p0ngp0p} 6wdwdpdwd} 5Dwdp)wGw} &wdw)wdw)} 3dwHwdwdw} 2P)Pdw)Pd} %$wdQIBHR} v,./9EFJMV

Black is a rook ahead yet White obtains the advantage, no matter how Black may defend or attack. For instance, 14...Nh8 15.Qxg7+ Nf7 16.Ng5 Rf8 17.Nxe6 and Black has no valid defense; if 17...Rg8 18.Nxd5+ is decisive. Similarly (from the above diagram) 14...Ngxe5 15.dxe5 Rg8 16.f4 Qf8 17.0–0–0 The position is full of finesse. For instance 17...Kd8 18.Ng5 Qxf4+ (or 18...Nb6 19.f5 exf5 20.e6 Ke7 21.Re1 — Black is unable to attain development — 21...Rh8 22.Qg6 Rh6 23.Qf7+, or 21...d4 22.Nd1 Nd5 23.Re5) 19.Kb1 Re8 20.Qxg7 Qxh4 21.Nb5 wins. And again 17...Nb6 18.f5 exf5 19.Nf4.

For Black to accept this sacrifice is hazardous and hardly advisable; he will be unable to bring his plus to bear upon the struggle, even if he survives the attack. From the immense multitude of possibilities an instance —alas! only one out of so many — may be given here: 6...Bxg5 7.hxg5 Qxg5 8.Nh3 Qh6 9.g3 a6 10.f4, and White has an excellent development and many targets for attack besides. 6...0–0 If 6...c5 7.Nb5 cxd4? (and if 7...f6 8.Bd3 initiating a powerful attack) 8.Nd6+ Kf8 9.Qh5 appears to win. 7.Bd3 Re8 8.Qh5 Nf8 9.Rh3

Black may seek counter-attack: 14...Qb6 15.Qxg6 Qxb2 16.Kd2 Qxa1 17.Ng5 (threatening mate in three) 17...Kd8 18.Nb5 with an overwhelming attack. The reader may himself complete the analysis of 14...Qb6. Black has other resources left, say 18...Re7 or 18...Nxe5, but they are insufficient.

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1rhkd} 70p0wgp0p} 6wdwdpdwd} 5Dwdp)wGQ} &wdw)wdw)} 3dwHBdwdR} 2P)Pdw)Pd} %$wdwIwHw} v,./9EFJMV

Again, 14...Qa5 15.Qxg6 cxd4 [if 15...Kd8 16.Qg5+ Re7 (or if 16...Kc7 17.a3 so as to menace b2-b4 either at once or after 17...cxd4) 17.Nf4 Nf8 18.dxc5 d4 19.0–0–0] 16.Qg5+ Kf8 17.Qf4+ Ke7 18.Qxd4. White has two pawns for the exchange and positional advantage. If 18...Qc7 19.Nb5. Going back to White’s 8th move, 93

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1rdkd} 70p0ngp0p} 6wdwdpdwd} 5Dwdp)wGw} &wdw)wdw)} 3dwHBdwdw} 2P)Pdw)Pd} %$wdQIwHR} v,./9EFJMV

6...Bxc5 7.Qg4, whereupon Black must make some weakening, move such as 7...Kf8 or 7...g6. One must not think, however, that this mistake would require Black to pay for it with the extreme penalty of losing. 7.Be3 Nxc5 8.Nf3 Be7 9.Bd3 0–0 10.Ne2

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1w4kd} 70pdwgp0p} 6wdndpdwd} 5Dwhp)wdw} &wdwdw)wd} 3dwdBGNdw} 2P)PdNdP)} %$wdQIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

the main variation is 8.Qh5 Nf8 9.Rh3 Nbd7 (instead of 9...c5) 10.Rf3 Ng6 or 10...f5. The resulting position is complicated and problematical. Another line, from the above diagram: 8.Qg4 f5 9.Qh5 Nf8 10.g4 Bxg5 11.hxg5 g6 12.Qh6 c6

White secures d4 even against d5-d4 as he simply captures. The game then slows down. As compensation for White’s strong point in the center Black has the c-file.

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1rhkd} 70pdwdwdp} 6wdpdpdp!} 5Dwdp)p)w} &wdw)wdPd} 3dwHBdwdw} 2P)Pdw)wd} %$wdwIwHR} v,./9EFJMV

The advance 3.e5 is not to be recommended unless White does so without losing a move thereby. Since the pawn on e5 is easily assailable, the d-pawn must aid it and itself becomes a target. The white officers hardly get a fair chance in all this. Still, this line of play has also an advantage, namely, in White’s gain of space. To give an instance: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.Nf3

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1kgn4} 70pdwdp0p} 6wdwdpdwd} 5Dw0p)wdw} &wdw)wdwd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$NGQIBdR} v,./9EFJMV

It is not easy to force an entrance into the black camp. Black needs only to place a rook on g7, in order to prevent the sacrifice of a knight on h5 or g6. Black can take the initiative on the extreme queenside. The QB dominates e6 and prevents a sacrifice on f5. In the French game the older masters, when playing White, used to open the square d4 in order to occupy it with a knight which thence exerts strong pressure. There are many ways to this goal, for instance, the one preferred by Steinitz: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.dxc5 Nc6 Better than

4...Nc6 5.dxc5 Bxc5 6.Bd3 Nge7 7.0–0 Ng6 8.Bxg6 hxg6 9.Nbd2 Bd7 10.Nb3 Bb6 11.a4. And again (from diagram) 4...Qb6 94

Second Book 5.c3 Nc6 6.Be2 cxd4 7.cxd4 Nge7 8.Na3 Nf5 9.Nc2 Bb4+ 10.Kf1 h5.

Be7 If 5...exd4 6.Nxd4, and the white knights are well posted. 6.Be2 0–0 7.0–0 Bf5 8.b3 Re8 9.Bb2 Qd7

These modes of development, which are numerous, are not aggressive. Still they do not lead to dead losses, but may, by good luck, produce good contests occasionally. What a pity that the first player has it in his power to reduce the French game to a sterile and lifeless position almost certain to end in a draw! Otherwise, it would provide many a problem which would gladden the heart of every genuine chess lover.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdrdkd} 70p0qgp0p} 6wdn0whwd} 5Dwdw0bdw} &wdP)wdwd} 3dPHw)Ndw} 2PGwdB)P)} %$wdQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

English Opening or Reverse Sicilian Since the Sicilian yields a fair game to the second player, one is tempted to think that it should be proportionately stronger when essayed by the first player, who has all the advantages of that opening and a move into the bargain. 1.c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6

It is difficult for Black to obtain the initiative because White is in command of d5 where the QN can occasionally effect an entrance or where the d-pawn may advance accordingly as White plans an attack by advancing his pawns on the queenside or by concentration of pieces against the king.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kgw4} 70p0pdp0p} 6wdndwhwd} 5Dwdw0wdw} &wdPdwdwd} 3dwHwdNdw} 2P)w)P)P)} %$wGQIBdR} v,./9EFJMV

If Black desires to do more than patiently wait for the initiative that White might be disposed to take, he will do well to keep the game closed and to imitate at first the moves of White. 1.c4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.d4 d5 5.Bg5 If now 5.e3 e6. But Black must be resolute enough to go on his own way, as, for instance, in the following variation: 5...cxd4 6.Nxd4 Qb6

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdkgw4} 70pdw0p0p} 6w1ndwhwd} 5DwdpdwGw} &wdPHwdwd} 3dwHwdwdw} 2P)wdP)P)} %$wdQIBdR} v,./9EFJMV

4.d4 exd4 5.Nxd4 Nxd4 A very unpretentious line of play which, however, seems sufficient. 6.Qxd4 Be7 7.g3 0–0 8.Bg2 d6 9.0–0 Nd7 10.Nd5 Nb6 White has more room than Black but the black position is free of weak spots. Again (from the above diagram) 4.e3 Shall Black now advance 4...d5? But after 5.exd5 Nxd5 6.Bb5, White being a move ahead gives him a far superior game than Black could obtain in the equivalent variation of the Sicilian. Must Black play 4...d6? White will then advance d2-d4 and fare rather well, as for instance, 4...d6 5.d4

7.Ndb5 Or 7.Be3 e5 8.Nxc6 Qxb2. 7...dxc4 8.Bxf6 gxf6 9.Nd5 Qa5+ 10.Qd2 Qxd2+ 11.Kxd2 Bh6+ 12.e3 0–0 13.Bxc4 Rd8 95

Lasker’s Manual of Chess The Queen’s Gambit

14.Ke2 Bg7 The above first four moves of Black are sound, that much is fairly certain. All the rest is speculative and is meant to be so and must in no way be considered as having gone through the mill of criticism and experience. The ground trodden above is yet rather new, and you may explore it as well as anybody else.

1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 To accept the gambit is feasible, but it must not be done with the intent of holding fast to the pawn. 3.Nf3 Not 3.e3 due to 3...e5 4.Bxc4 exd4 5.exd4 Bd6, whereupon Black’s pieces are untrammeled. 3...e6 If 3...b5 4.a4 c6 5.axb5 cxb5 6.b3 regaining the pawn easily with the superior game. 4.e3 Nf6 5.Bxc4 a6 In order to obtain development by b7-b5. 6.a4 The black QB shall not get an outlet. 6...c5 7.0–0 In order soon to be able to use the KR on the d-file. 7...Nc6 8.Nc3 Be7 9.Qe2 0–0 10.Rd1 cxd4 11.exd4 Nb4

The Close Openings It is not so long ago that a game in which neither player advanced his e-pawn two squares was a rarity. Now such games, at least in the contests of masters, have become the rule.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1w4kd} 7dpdwgp0p} 6pdwdphwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &PhB)wdwd} 3dwHwdNdw} 2w)wdQ)P)} %$wGRdwIw} v,./9EFJMV

Many causes have contributed thereto. The other openings are already well known, and to try to introduce winning innovations into them has become a very risky business. In the close openings, on the contrary, not only is our knowledge limited, but even our analytical research has failed so far to produce definite and incontrovertible conclusions, for the results become perceptible only after many moves in a long drawn-out ending. The methods which operate in these openings are based not on “combinational” but on “positional” play. These terms, their meanings, and their laws will be explained in the chapters that follow. In the meanwhile, not very much can be said on the theory of the close openings.

White has the initiative, Black is cramped. A method of development for Black is Qd8-a5, Rf8-d8, Bc8-d7-e8, Ra8-c8. Another would be Nf6-d4, f7-f5, b7-b6. The pieces then are mobile, but the e-pawn would be very weak. Standard play is to decline the gambit and to guard the d-pawn by another pawn. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 This move protects as well as develops.

Proving the Skeptics Wrong: Though he had won the title from Steinitz, some were still not convinced of Lasker’s superiority, especially Tarrasch. Opinion quickly changed, however, when Lasker placed 3rd at Hastings 1895 (after Pillsbury and Chigorin but ahead of Tarrasch), then won two very strong tournaments, St. Petersburg 1895-6 (over Steinitz, Pillsbury and Chigorin) and Nuremberg 1896, ahead of Maróczy, Pillsbury, Tarrasch, Steinitz and Chigorin.

96

Second Book 3.Nf3 c5 This move is worthy of consideration because Black thereby strengthens his center so as to maintain the balance there. Its drawback is that the lines are opened very rapidly which benefits the first player more than the defense. 4.cxd5 Herewith White wishes to create a vulnerable point in the black camp whereas his own position on d4 remains very strong. 4...exd5 5.Nc3 Nc6

These moves form a logical chain although their order may be changed. I append a few further moves from a game, Marshall versus Rubinstein. 14.b4 Qa3 15.Qd3 Qxb4 16.Bxf6 Bxf6 17.Nxd5 Bxd5 18.Bxd5 Rad8 whereupon White has an advantage by his powerful wellsupported bishop. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Nbd7 Even though Black does not advance his c-pawn at once, he is well advised to keep himself ready to do so and therefore not to block the pawn. 5.Bg5 Be7 Also 5...c6 may very well be played. After 6.e3 Qa5 7.Nd2 Bb4 8.Qc2 0–0 9.Be2 dxc4 10.Bxf6 Nxf6 11.Nxc4 Qc7 Black may obtain play by his two bishops, though in the center White has a counter-balancing advantage. 6.e3 0–0 7.Rc1 Re8 8.Qc2 c6 White, having no other developing move to make, is now almost forced to play the KB. 9.Bd3 dxc4 10.Bxc4 Nd5 11.Ne4 If 11.Bxe7 Qxe7, Black may attempt to obtain an open game by Nd4xc3 followed by e6-e5. 11...Nf8

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kgn4} 70pdwdp0p} 6wdndwdwd} 5Dw0pdwdw} &wdw)wdwd} 3dwHwdNdw} 2P)wdP)P)} %$wGQIBdR} v,./9EFJMV 6.g3 In order to exert pressure on d5. With 6.Bg5 Be7! 7.Bxe7 Ngxe7 8.e3 (with 8.dxc5 d4, Black gains space whereas the pawn plus cannot be long maintained) 8...Qb6 9.Qd2 cxd4 10.exd4 and the game is equalized. 6...Nf6 To play to exchange the QB by 6...Bg4 would be weak. White would reply 7.Bg2 and be glad to give his knight for the very mobile bishop. 7.Bg2 Be7 8.0–0 0–0 9.Bg5 Be6 The d-pawn requires this protection although the bishop would otherwise be better off on f or g4. 10.dxc5 Bxc5 11.Rc1 Be7 12.Nd4 Nxd4 In order to preserve the QB. 13.Qxd4 Qa5

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1rhkd} 70pdwgp0p} 6wdpdpdwd} 5dwdndwGw} &wdB)Ndwd} 3dwdw)Ndw} 2P)Qdw)P)} %dw$wIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdw4kd} 70pdwgp0p} 6wdwdbhwd} 51wdpdwGw} &wdw!wdwd} 3dwHwdw)w} 2P)wdP)B)} %dw$wdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

Black will now slowly gain ground and beat back any attack since his position is devoid of weak spots. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 This is playable although White, with best play, always keeps the initiative. 5.e3 If 5.a4 Bf5 6.e3 Na6 7.Bxc4 Nb4 the excellent position of the QN gives Black a chance for a strong fight. 5...b5 6.a4 b4 7.Na2 e6 8.Bxc4 Be7 9.0– 0 0–0 10.Qe2 Nbd7 11.Rd1 c5 12.b3 Qb6 13.Bb2 Bb7 14.Nc1 Rfd8 15.Nd3 97

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (rdw4wdkd} 70bdngp0p} 6w1wdphwd} 5dw0wdwdw} &P0B)wdwd} 3dPdN)Ndw} 2wGwdQ)P)} %$wdRdwIw} v,./9EFJMV

however, are not so vigorous as those treated above. They have variety, but not much point. A few instances must suffice. 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 c5 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.Bd3 e6 6.0–0 Be7 7.c3 Qb6 8.Qc2 And again 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.c4 Bg7 4.Nc3 0–0 5.e3 d6 6.Bd3 Nbd7 7.0–0 e5 Now the game is “half-open.” 8.Qc2 Re8 9.Bd2

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1rdkd} 70p0ndpgp} 6wdw0whpd} 5dwdw0wdw} &wdP)wdwd} 3dwHB)Ndw} 2P)QGw)P)} %$wdwdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

White has a weak spot on c3 that gives Black hope for counter-action. Other defenses to the Queen’s Gambit, although playable, are difficult and cramped or not wholly sound. Other Queen Pawn Games After 1.d4, Black as well as White may vary from the above in manifold ways. White may play his QB to f4 or to b2 or to d2, Black may keep back his d-pawn or advance it no farther than d6 and develop his KB to g7. These lines of play,

White will place his rooks on e1 and d1 with the intention of then opening a line or two. He has a firm and strong position.

Some of the players at Hastings 1895. Standing, l. to r.: Albin, Schlechter, Janowski, Marco, Blackburne, Maróczy, Schiffers, Gunsberg, Burn, Tinsley. Seated, l. to r.: Vergani, Steinitz, Chigorin, Lasker, Pillsbury, Tarrasch, Mieses, Teichmann.

98

Second Book To speak at length of these lines of play would be futile at this point. The best way to become acquainted with them is to study them according to the principles to be dealt with in the chapters which follow. Besides, these variations are merely side issues.

the necessity of providing an exit for the QB. If 7.cxd5 Black might will respond with 7...Nxd5, and though the white QB exerts pressure and perhaps forces f7-f6 Black has a good center. If White does not play 7.cxd5, the black d-pawn may finally slip past and establish a rather formidable wedge of pawns.

Zukertort or Réti Opening If 2...c6, White can now follow the regular lines with 3.d4 or else leave the center open for a while longer. 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Bf5 Herewith Black aims to dominate e4 and to develop the QR. But Black must be careful not to permit White to exchange the bishop by Nf3-h4. In reply to that move, the bishop must be ready to sidestep the attack by going to e4 or g4, so long as no safe retreat is provided for it with h7-h6. 5.0–0 e6 6.d3 Nbd7 7.b3 Bd6 8.Bb2 0–0 9.Nbd2 e5

1.Nf3 d5 2.c4

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1kbhr} 70p0w0p0p} 6wdwdwdwd} 5dwdpdwdw} &wdPdwdwd} 3dwdwdNdw} 2P)w)P)P)} %$NGQIBdR} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdw1w4kd} 70pdndp0p} 6wdpgwhwd} 5dwdp0bdw} &wdPdwdwd} 3dPdPdN)w} 2PGwHP)B)} %$wdQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

A spiritual opening which possesses, it is true, not so much force as variety, but which is exceedingly plastic and therefore susceptible of being turned into many wholly different shapes. Black is not bound down to any particular defense. He may for instance continue 2...dxc4, or 2…c6 or 2…e6 or 2…d4; all these moves are quite playable. Black must not, however, advance pawns incautiously or exchange center pawns too readily for wing pawns. 2...e6 3.b3 Nf6 4.Bb2 c5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 a5

It is time to open the center, the rooks are ready for action. Black is firm enough in the center and can make play on the queenside by a7-a5.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kgw4} 7dpdwdp0p} 6wdndphwd} 50w0pdwdw} &wdPdwdwd} 3dPdwdN)w} 2PGw)P)B)} %$NdQIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

A Summary In looking back upon the lines of play we have discussed, and which have evolved through the cooperation of many masters in many trials, we discern, in the web of variations, a certain trend, a certain rule or law. Firstly: It is of great value for either side to dominate points. Hence, not only the gain of material, pieces or pawns, is important, but also the holding in hand of space. The more space you dominate, the less space for the opponent in

In thus opening a way for the QR, Black escapes 99

Lasker’s Manual of Chess of the third move = 3/4 of the fourth move = 2/3 of the fifth move = ½ of the d- or e-pawn = 2 of the c- or f-pawn = 1½ of the b- or g-pawn = 1¼ of the a- or h-pawn = ½ of the Knight = 4½ of the KB = 5 of the QB = 4½ of the KR = 7 of the QR = 6 of the Queen = 11

which to move his pieces about, the more restricted the number of moves with which he may threaten you or guard himself against your threats. Secondly: He who dominates central squares is better off than the ruler over wing squares. The squares have not an equal value. Those of the center are the most important ones because from there queen, bishop and knight command the largest number of squares. In the center the important lines intersect. The struggle in the opening turns therefore essentially round the domination of the center proper: e4, e5, d4, d5, and the extended center bounded at the corners by c3, c6, f3 and f6. Thirdly: Advantage in the opening goes to whoever first succeeds in bringing pawns and pieces to dominate the extended center, and in such a way as not only to command as much area as possible, but to cramp the opponent. Fourthly: To fix the exchange value of the pawns and pieces, and the right to move, in order to decide whether we may sacrifice a pawn for so many moves gained in development and similar questions, the following table will be found to be a fairly accurate guide: The Value of the first move = 1 of the second move = 4/5

These are, of course only estimates based on experience. The numbers given are obviously only approximate. But even though the position is complicated, they can still be of service in helping to determine whether one may venture upon sacrificing a piece for two pawns, and in elucidating similar thorny problems. Such a table, if it were possible, ought to include the values of dominating squares also, but I am not sure whether the table thus extended would retain its original form, whether it would not necessarily be more complex, whether it would not have to work with pairs of numbers and groups of squares. The virtue of the original table, however, is just its lack of complication. It is better, therefore, to go no farther but to stop right here and use only arithmetic. It is better to breed within yourself a sound judgment concerning the value of the squares. Practice and intelligent criticism will help you to develop it. The acquisition of such judgment is a hundred times more precious than the mere learning of a table of values, just as in life it is more important

Defending the Title: After losing the title, Steinitz impatiently demanded a rematch. When it did not happen soon enough to suit him, he claimed the title had defaulted back to him, and tried to dismiss his 1894 loss as a fluke. The rematch finally began in November 1896, Lasker winning the first four games. When it was done, in January 1897, Lasker had won +10 –2 =5. Steinitz could entertain no further illusions.

100

Second Book

Players and various dignitaries at Nuremberg 1896. Lasker stands at far left.

to breed than to learn. This practice you will find to be splendid discipline for you. It is enough to understand and, from the foregoing variations, to be able to prove that for the purpose of the domination of the squares — keeping in mind, not for the attack against the king — the center is the most important space. Also the attack against the king is important in the opening, as well as the manner in which the squares are dominated. Thus, pressure against the squares surrounding

the castled king is advantageous. But this is an inferior advantage because he who dominates the center can combat menacing pieces by obstruction or exchange. Again it is important that you are able to place on the dominated squares pieces of minor value which are safe there and whence they have a wide range. At times open lines of rooks and bishops may have a value equivalent to that of a few pawns. But here we encounter no problems further concerning the opening. These we shall have to examine very accurately later and from wholly different points of view.

101

Third Book The Combination After these researches, which have been enriched by the work of many generations and varied minds and which, therefore, cannot be, as yet, homogeneous, we now turn to systematic investigation. This must not be a mosaic, heterogeneously composed though in every detail beautiful; it has to be a unit, made so by reason, the business of which is not beauty but truth. To this end we begin by illuminating a concept which has to throw 1ight upon the modern period of chess evolution. In every situation one easily discovers moves of violent, forceful and immediate effect. Their purpose is to produce a change in valuation, so as to humiliate that which is strong and to put into the foreground that which had been but slightly esteemed. Such moves are a checkmate, the capture of a piece, the promotion of a pawn, simultaneous attacks, checks to king or attacks on the queen — in short, all moves which contain a menace sudden and brutal.

investigation is ordinarily not made visible by his deed. The move that he chooses reflects none of his preparatory work because it is seldom that the net of variations contains a satisfactory solution. In the rare instances that the player can detect a variation or net of them which leads to a desirable issue by force, the totality of these variations and their logical connections, their structure, are named a “combination.” And he who follows in his play such a chain of moves is said to “make a combination.” Let us elucidate this concept by a variety of examples.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdw4kd} 7dwdqdp0p} 6wdw0wdwd} 5DwdwdP!w} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdP} 2wdwdwdPI} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

Such violent moves are opposed by moves equally violent. Attack and parry and counterattack form therefore a chain. If in this chain link joins link in simple sequence, it is called a “variation.” But the chain often has branches, connecting in points where two or more threats or parries continue the sequence. In that case, one speaks in the plural, “variations,” and usually of a “maze” of variations. In his analysis of the position the chess player has to see through the maze of variations in order to ascertain whether or not by forceful moves the game may be brought at once to a conclusion. He makes these investigations often, he makes them always when the hostile forces have approached each other for mortal combat. Otherwise, he might let slip a favorable opportunity or fail in vigilance and lose thereby in a moment of inattention what he has gained in an hour of concentration. Nevertheless, ordinarily his work is merely prophylactic. Ordinarily, his labor remains a mere attempt, his

White to play 1. White makes a combination consisting of but one variation. It starts with 1.f6 threatening mate. Only one parry is possible, 1...g6. Hereupon 2.Qh6, a new threat of mate which cannot be guarded, because neither queen nor rook can cover the point g7. Black has only the useless 2...Qxh3+ to delay the mate and is lost. 2. From the next diagram, White, though the exchange behind, can force a win by a combination which has two variations. It begins with 1.Ne7+. If the knight is captured the queen recaptures and White wins by superiority. And if 1...Kh8, 2.Qxh7+ Kxh7 3.Rh3 mate.

102

Third Book

cuuuuuuuuC (rdw1w4kd} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdw0wdwd} 5DwdNdwdw} &wdw)Qdwd} 3dwdw$wdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %dwdwdwIw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdbdwip} 6wdwdpdpd} 50rdndwdw} &NdNdwdw)} 3dPdwdw)w} 2wIwdw)wd} %dwdRdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

White to play

Capablanca-Yates, White to play

This second variation embodies the “idea” of the combination, the sacrifice of the queen.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdw4wi} 7dwdwdr0p} 6wdwdQdwd} 5Dqdwdwdw} &pdwdwdwd} 3)wdwdwdP} 2w)wdRdPI} %dwdw$wdw} v,./9EFJMV

4. White makes a combination by which he gains an important pawn. 1.Nc3 Rc5 2.Ne4 Rb5 3.Ned6 Rc5 4.Nb7 Rb5 5.Nbxa5.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwi} 7dwdwdw0w} 6wdwdwdPd} 5Dwdwdndw} &wdwdqdwd} 3dwGw$wdw} 2w)wdwdPd} %dwdQdwdK} v,./9EFJMV

White to play 3. White would here calculate the sequence beginning with 1.Qxf7. If then 1...Rxf7 2.Re8+, forcing checkmate shortly. This is one variation, but there are others to be taken into consideration. Perhaps Black replies with a counter-thrust? 1...Qb8+ 2.K moves or 2.g3. Thereupon 2...Rxf7. Now 3.Re8+. Here again the variation splits into two variations, either 3...Qxe8 — which would be bad — and finally 3...Rf8, whereupon the calculation soon comes to an end. Shall White enter upon this course? The combination forces exchange of rook and queen. It depends upon his judgment whether he considers the combination worth making or not.

Black to play 5. Black saves this apparently hopeless position by a combination: 1...Qxg2+ 2. Kxg2 Nxe3+ 3.K moves Nxd1 4.Bd4 Nxb2 5.Bxb2 and White cannot drive the king out of the corner. The game ends in a stalemate or a draw. Already these few instances prove that a combination must always have a “point,” an “idea.” One may recognize this idea by the surprise which it causes the spectator and by the feeling of freedom which its conception gives to the player. The idea solves a riddle at one stroke.

103

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (w1wdw4wi} 7dwdwdw0p} 6wdwdwdwd} 5DwdwHwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dQdwdwdP} 2wdwdwdPd} %dwdwdwdK} v,./9EFJMV

from the pain of laborious search, he jubilantly announces a checkmate in four moves. The idea is to block the only square where the black king could escape, by offering a surprising sacrifice: 1.Nf7+ Kg8 2.Nh6+ Kh8 3.Qg8+ Rxg8 (forced) 4.Nf7 mates.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdrdkd} 70w0bdp0p} 6Qgpdrdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &w)wdwdwd} 3dw)qdBdw} 2wdw)w)P)} %$wGwdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

White to play 6. White sees easi1y that after 1.Nf7+ the rook must not capture the knight and therefore the king is driven into the diagonal of the queen, 1...Kg8. By moving the knight check by discovery of the queen is given, but since the queen is attacked by the hostile queen no check by discovery would avail except a double check, 2.Nh6+, whereupon again 2...Kh8. So far so good, but how can White win? Certainly, after 3.Nf7+ the king must again move to g8; this, however, leads only to a draw by perpetual check — or no? Suddenly White grasps an idea and, delivered

Absent-mindedness: Though he could negotiate chessboard labyrinths expertly, Lasker was notoriously absent-minded. On a visit to Paris, playing chess at the Café de la Régence, Lasker forgot what hotel he was staying at. Ultimately, a street-bystreet search was necessary, systematically combing entire quarters of Paris. After several hours, Lasker found the hotel where he had left his luggage the previous day.

Louis Paulsen-Morphy 7. Young Paul Morphy, in the New York tournament of 1857, playing against Louis Paulsen, has the move. He had blocked the dpawn with his queen and thus cramped White’s QR and QB, but now White attacks that queen and proposes to exchange. He ponders. Shall I exchange? But no! for I should then have to provide against Bf3-g4 which would afterwards deprive me of my fine QB. Shall I protect the queen with rook so as to block with rook? The rook might be driven off by that bishop. And the king looks weak. A pity that 1.Qxf1+ won’t finish the game right off. Maybe 1.Bxf2+ goes? No, king takes and unfortunately I have no diagonal check with queen so as to drive the king into the open. But there ought to be something, I feel it. How about Qxf3? Why, there would be a check with the rook and Bd7-h3, he cannot guard the threatened mate by Rf1-g1, of course — well, I should like to see him stop that attack. Morphy does not cogitate further, the rest of the combination with him is a matter of intuition. Paulsen, surprised by the combination, does not render the strongest resistance. The game proceeds: 1...Qxf3 2.gxf3 Rg6+ 3.Kh1 Bh3

104

Third Book

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdrdkd} 70w0wdp0p} 6Qgpdwdrd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &w)wdwdwd} 3dw)wdPdb} 2wdw)w)w)} %$wGwdRdK} v,./9EFJMV 4.Rd1 Not the best defense! True, 4.Rg1 was out of the question, because of 4...Rxg1+ 5.Kxg1 Re1+ and mate next move. There was, however, another method to parry the threat, namely, by attacking the formidable rook on g6 with 4.Qd3. If then 4...Bg2+ 5.Kg1 Bxf3+ 6.Qxg6 hxg6 7.d4 Re4 8.h3 and White would win, therefore 4...f5. After this not 5.Qc4+ Kf8! (preventing 6.Qf7) but 5.Rd1 Bxf2 6.Qf1 and White can still struggle; or 5...Bg2+ 6.Kg1 Bxf3+ 7.Kf1 Bxd1 8.Qc4+ Kf8 9.d4, whereupon Black would surely win the ending with 9...Be2+ 10.Qxe2 Rg1+ 11.Kxg1 Rxe2. But in any case, White should have made it harder for Black. 4...Bg2+ 5.Kg1 Bxf3+ 6.Kf1 Bg2+ Still stronger is 6...Rg2, whereupon White is driven into a mating net. 7.Kg1 Bh3+ 8.Kh1 Bxf2 9.Qf1 Bxf1 and Morphy won easily. 15

Idiosyncrasies: His biographer Hannak relates that “Lasker had certain idiosyncrasies.” He could not abide lateness, though he was notoriously unpunctual himself. Also, he “could not bear bad table manners, and it drove him almost frantic to see (and hear) people smack their lips while eating.”

The consideration of forcible moves is necessary because in this way a short road to victory, provided it is on the board, can be discerned. The method is also practical because it eliminates all consideration of the immense multitude of nonviolent moves and concentrates the attention upon a few possibilities which the human mind can easily digest. If a combination forcing a win has been found, nothing avails the opponent, for the demonstration of the win can be grasped. In life it is different. There the struggles are not so clearly terminated as in a game. The game gives us a satisfaction that life denies us. And for the chess player the success which crowns his work, the great dispeller of sorrows, is named “combination.” The combination is born in the brain of a chess player. Many thoughts see the light there — true and false, strong and weak, sound and unsound. They are born, jostle one another, and one of them, transformed into a move on the board, bears away the victory over its rivals. Does a chess master really think as just outlined? Presumably so, but with detours and repetitions. However, it matters not by what process he conceives an idea; the important point to understand is that an idea takes hold of the master and obsesses him. The master, in the grasp of an idea, sees that idea suggested and almost embodied on the board. An idea does not arise accidentally in the mind of the master, but has its raison d’etre on the board. It is not enough to know that a combination is a sequence of forcible moves; one must be able to give a reason for the existence of that combination. If in the position, examined by the master, a combination is hidden, there is a reason for its existence; and again, if there is no such combination to be found, a reason for this nonexistence can be detected. For instance, you will try in vain to checkmate a mobile king safeguarded behind pawns and defended by a few well-posted officers, without employing many moves. If in such position you insist upon searching for a combination which will mate in a hurry, you will only lose time and brainpower. Again, simultaneous attacks are possible only under certain restricted conditions, namely such

105

Lasker’s Manual of Chess as are geometrical, as, for instance, when king and queen stand in the same rank or file or diagonal or on points controlled by the same knight. To execute such simultaneous attacks, not only must these geometrical conditions be satisfied, but also some very mobile and very threatening pieces are required. Even from these two instances it is sufficiently manifest that the conditions for the existence of a combination are limited. And it is these conditions which give rise to the ideas in the mind of the master. Only when the hostile king has little mobility and little protection does the master make the attempt to find a combination which aims at a forced mate, because he knows that only then can the position contain the idea of a mate. And so it is with other ideas.

firmly rooted big tree must remain where it is and may have to give up its leaves, fruit, perhaps even its life. Let us name it the motif of encircling, since in this term the two ideas of violence and of immobility are blended. A second motif, also very common, may be deduced from the rules of the game, since it originates in the geometry of the chessboard and of the moves of the pieces. We name it briefly the “geometrical” motif. This motif inspires the player to seek for simultaneous attacks and defenses.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdw1wd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &biwdwdwd} 3dndwdwdw} 2w!wdwdwd} %dKdwHwdw} v,./9EFJMV

An idea must therefore have a motif or a net, a web of motifs, which is clearly discernible from the position. Let us now consider the various motifs, one by one. The most usual of all motifs is the weakness of a piece of little or no mobility. Such a piece invites attack. The imagination of the player is immediately stirred by the sight of an immobile piece. He is forced to seek for a combination which will finally break down the defense and secure the prey. Often a bishop is assailed by a chain of pawns and deprived of all mobility as in the following faulty opening: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 d6 5.d4 b5 6.Bb3 Nxd4 7.Nxd4 exd4 8.Qxd4? (better 8.Bd5) 8…c5 9.Qd5 Be6 10.Qc6+ Bd7 11.Qd5 c4. Often a piece that has strayed too far into the hostile camp is cut off and falls helplessly. Often many hostile pieces concentrate their attack upon a blocked pawn and win it by force of numbers. Often a pinned piece, often the king itself, after having been surrounded and made immobile, becomes the target for the united effort of the enemy’s pieces. To name this motif, let us emphasize the two ideas underlying it: the idea of superior force at a given point, and that of immobility. What is immobile must suffer violence. The lightwinged bird will easily escape the huge dragon, but the

White to play 8. Here the black king and queen are on the same diagonal and the black queen is unprotected. Can White take advantage of this situation? That is possible only by giving check upon that diagonal. But how can this be done? Because the king could capture the white queen if it checked on the diagonal, namely, on a3. But is it impossible? Thus do one’s thoughts work and the winning combination is discovered. Two motifs cooperate to suggest it — firstly, the geometrical one; secondly, the motif of encircling the black king. 9. Another instance of the geometrical motif is the obstruction of a rook by a bishop or vice versa. That is quite artistic if this obstruction is forced upon the opponent by the occupation of the point where the two lines of mobility, the diagonal one and the straight one, intersect. A fine instance of this, which we may call the intersection motif, follows.

106

Third Book

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdpdwdw} 6w)wdw)wd} 5Dwdrdw0w} &wdwdwdwd} 3dPdwdwdw} 2kdwdwHwd} %dwgwdwdK} v,./9EFJMV

The solution begins with brutally forceful moves: 1.c7 Bh3 2.bxa6. Now the a-pawn threatens to advance; hence, the rook, unable to stop the a-pawn, must stop the c-pawn so as to relieve the bishop which then will be able to stop the apawn. But 2...Rc2 is prevented by the king; therefore 2...Bg4+ 3.Kc1 Bf5 4.a7 Rc2+ 5.Kd1 Be4. Black has attained his end: the bishop stops the one pawn, the rook the other; he seems saved. The knight, however, places itself upon the intersection of the file and the diagonal, 6.Nc6. If the rook captures, the bishop is obstructed and 7.a8 wins; if the bishop captures, the rook is obstructed and 7.c8 wins. Black is lost.

By Troitzky White to play and win From a3 the bishop can hold the white f-pawn, and from f4 the white b-pawn; the rook can hold the f-pawn from f8 and the b-pawn from b5. Black can thus stop both pawns, one with the bishop, the other with the rook. In order to make the black pieces obstruct each other and thus frustrate their plans, White utilizes his apparently useless pieces, the knight and the pawn on b3. 1.Nd3 If now 1...Ba3 2.b4, and the bishop is eliminated and White queens a pawn. Hence 1...Rxd3. Now White threatens strongly by 2.f7. If 2...Rf3 3.b7, and 3...Bf4 is ineffective because it obstructs the rook. And if 2...Ba3 3.b4 Bxb4 4.b7, and again the bishop obstructs the rook.

The motif of obstruction, the geometrical effect of which we have just considered, is founded upon a principle applying to all contests. In every contest the forces opposing each other naturally strive for untrammeled activity. This aim is defeated by obstruction or by pinning. Often a friend obstructs the fighter. In a dispute you remind your opponent of his own assertion; will he now deny it? He is obstructed by his own former arguments. In chess one of your men is often obstructed by your other men. You would like to remove them, so as to free your game, but the opponent now obstructs or pins the obstruction and does not allow it to move.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdkdw4} 70pdpdp0p} 6wdpdqdwd} 5DBdwdwdw} &wdwdwGwd} 3dw)wdwdw} 2P)PdwHP)} %$wdQdwIw} v,./9EFJMV

10. Another instance, illustrating the intersection motif:

cuuuuuuuuC (wHwdwiwd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6pdPdwdwd} 50Pdwdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdw4wd} %dwdKdbdw} v,./9EFJMV By Troitzky White to play and win

Post-Kagan, White to play 11. White, who has the material advantage, desires to win in a few moves and makes a 107

Lasker’s Manual of Chess combination by which he obstructs the black pieces. The bishop obstructs the QR, the d-pawn obstructs the bishop; hence, if the d-pawn is forcibly kept back Black’s QR will for a long time be out of play. The d-pawn can be blocked by a move which also keeps the king in the centre and exposed. Hence, the first move of the combination is strongly suggested by the position. 1.Bd6 cxb5 Black seeks compensation for his loss in mobility by laying his hand upon material force. 2.Qd2 threatening Q and K by Rf1-e1. 2...Qh6 3.Re1+ Kd8 4. Bf4! Black is given no time to bring his KR into action, an instance of the assault motif. The bishop makes room for the queen on d6, so that the black queen must guard that spot. If now 4...Qg6 5.Ng4 threatening 6.Ne5. Black cannot capture the knight, as the black queen has to prevent Qd1-d6. Black is lost, for instance 4...Qg6 5.Ng4 Re8 6.Ne5 Qe6 7.Qd6 Qxd6 8.Nxf7+ Kc7 9.Bxd6+ and wins the rook. Therefore 4...Qc6 5.Bd6 f6 6.Qf4 which threatens 7.Be7+, followed by 8.Bxf6. 6...Re8 7.Bc7+ Qxc7 8.Rxe8+ Kxe8 9.Qxc7 and wins.16 The motifs of a combination, in themselves simple, are often interwoven with each other. What is it that unites the multiplicity of motifs? We call it the “idea.” Motifs, as, for instance, a simultaneous attack against several pieces or the encircling of the hostile king, are tricks of the trade, standard techniques. The idea which links the motifs is artistic, it creates something that had never before been there. Motifs can be taught, ideas must be discovered by original effort. Ideas come from nowhere, they are sudden inspirations; the place of motifs is definite: the memory.

White piece is available for the purpose. The only help is the motif that king and queen in the same line are weak.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdw1wdw} 6wdpdwdwd} 5DwhwdQdw} &pdwdwdNd} 3dwdwdwdk} 2wdwdwdwd} %dKdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV White to play and win Therefore, the knight dares to take a post in the line of the black queen but far away from that queen so that, should the king capture the knight, the black queen would be lost. And on this idea the first part of the combination is based. It is composed of a web of motifs which reveals the idea of the author: 1.Ne3+ Kg3 (best) 2.Qg4+ Kf2 (best) 3.Qf4+ Ke2 (best) 4.Qf1+ The knight is guarded, as it were, because the king must not capture it or the queen is lost by 5.Qe1+. 4...Kd2 5.Qd1+ Kc3 6.Qc2+ Kb4 If 6...Kd4 7.Nf5+ wins the queen. 7.Qb2+ Nb3 (best) 8.Qa3+ winning the queen, or the knight mates on c2.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwiwdwd} 7dwHwdwdw} 6pdqdwdwd} 5)wdwdwdw} &w!wdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwI} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

Even the few simple motifs discussed above breathe art when they are used in a manner to conquer points apparently in the firm grasp of the opponent. As an instance, let us consider the following study by L. Kubbel (from 150 Endspiele by that artistic composer). (D) 12. The knight can discover check; but where shall it move? It has no permanently safe retreat. The queen which has to attack the king cannot spare the time to guard the knight, and no other

White to play 13. The position in the diagram above is another instance, a simple one, which might easily occur

108

Third Book

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdr4kd} 70pdqdp0w} 6wdw0wdn0} 5dwdNdwdw} &wdPdwdwd} 3dPdwdwdw} 2Pdw!w)P)} %$wdwdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

in actual play, not, like Kubbel’s study, the result of artistic invention. Apparently the knight cannot be saved except by premature exchange of queens; actually, the knight is safe at a8, where its support is indirect, thereafter, by Na8-b6, it has a firm foothold and can dispense with the aid of the queen.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwdwdwd} 5dPiNdwdw} &w0wdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dKdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

15. Black’s pawn on g7 has the task of guarding the h-pawn as well as the forking check of the white knight threatened on f6. Therefore, White wins an important pawn by 1.Qxh6. The black g-pawn cannot successfully perform both his tasks.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdwdkd} 70p0bdwdp} 6wdn0whwd} 5dwdwdwdw} &wdw)qHp)} 3dwdQdw)w} 2P)Pdwdwd} %$wdwdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

White to play 14. This motif is of frequent occurrence in end games where a passed pawn is used to protect distant pieces or pawns. The knight cannot protect the pawn by 1.Nc3 or 1.Nc7 for long, but the pawn can protect the knight by 1.b6. For, if 1...Kxd5 2.b7, and queens next move. Therefore pawn and knight do protect each other allowing the white king to approach the black pawn to capture it and then to decide the battle. This illustrates a motif of great importance: the motif of “function.” The power, the domain of force of a piece is decreased as soon as that piece has a certain task to do, as, for instance, in the above position the power of the knight is decreased by its having to watch the passed pawn. A task or a multitude of tasks, such as, for instance, to obstruct a rook or to parry the threat of a mate, if to be done by a certain piece, may be called the “function” of that piece, an expression borrowed from biology. By studying the various functions of the hostile pieces and the effects these functions have of impeding those pieces we discern new motifs for combinations.

Steinitz-Hirschfeld, White to play and win 16. The function of the black knight on f6 is to guard the queen. If attacked, it cannot budge. Steinitz foresaw this situation and prepared an attack which is overwhelming because the knight is twice assailed and is threatened with capture with check. 1.Nh5, and Black resigned. Black should have thought twice before he conferred on a knight so insecurely placed, a task so important as guarding the queen. 17. In the next diagram, the point d5 seems a certain conquest for the white bishop. White seems about to triumph, but the white queen has

109

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (wdw4kgw4} 70pdwdpdp} 6w1wdwdpd} 5dwdwhNdw} &wdwdNdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)wdQ)P)} %$wdwdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

the function of protecting the KR and tries to pin the black knight on e4 also.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdwdkd} 70wdw4wdw} 6wdwhwdwd} 5dpdpdqdR} &wdw)n)wd} 3dB)wdw0w} 2P)wdQdKd} %$wGwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

Alekhine-L. Kubmann, White to play

Löwenthal-Mayet, Black to play This is attempting too much. To get the white queen to relinquish its task is worth a whole rook, so 1...Nf6 and now Black wins easily.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwhwdwd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwHwdw$} 5dp0wipdw} &w4wdwdwd} 3dPdwdPdw} 2PdwdwdP)} %dwdwdwIw} v,./9EFJMV

19. The black king has only one flight square and little protection. The motif of encircling tells us that such a piece is a target. Ne4-f6+ would be mate except for the black queen. In other words its function of guarding against the mate deprives the black queen of any mobility outside the third rank. 1.Qb5+ The white queen, as above pointed out, is attacked only in appearance, but not in fact. The check attacks the knight simultaneously. 1...Nd7 Now 2...Qxb5 is

Steinitz-Chigorin, White to play 18. It is the function of the black king to guard the f-pawn, the black rook has to protect the pawn on b5. These two pieces having functions to fulfill are sensitive to disturbance. Black obviously wants to get his inactive knight into play by Nd8-e6; this, therefore, is the moment to disturb the black pieces. Besides, c5-c4 is threatened. Is 1.f4+ possible? Certainly, because after 1...Kxf4 2.Rh4+ W h i t e profits by the geometrical motif. White thus wins. 110

Mikhail Chigorin

Third Book

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdkgw4} 7dp0wdw0p} 6pdndwdwd} 5dwdq0pdb} &wdw)ndwd} 3dwdBdNdP} 2P)wdw)Pd} %$NGQ$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

threatened, since the knight, as soon as it is unpinned, guards the mate. But White sees to it that this protection becomes illusory by throwing another formidable piece into the combat. 2.Rfe1 The obstruction 2...Be7 is of no avail since White, having a superior force in action, terminates the struggle by mere force. There follows 3.Ned6+ Kf8 4.Rxe7 Qxb5 5.Rxf7+ Kg8 6.Ne7 or Nh6 mate. Black is hopelessly beaten. 20. In the next diagram, the black f-pawn has the function of covering the king against check from h5; the d-pawn has to obstruct the d-file and thus hamper the white rook on d1. On the other hand, the white pawn on e5 obstructs both the rook on e1 and the QB. Hence the move 1.e6 suggests itself as an attack on two pawns weighted down by functions and as the removal of an obstruction.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdkdrd} 70p0php1w} 6wdwdwdwd} 5hwdw)wdp} &wdBdwdwH} 3dwdwdQGw} 2Pdwdw)Pd} %dwdR$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

Prof. Bergen-Dr. Schmid White to play Hence, the move 1.g4 is indicated. The game proceeded 1.g4 Bg6 2.gxf5 Bxf5 3.Bxe4 Bxe4 4.Nc3 Bxf3 5.Nxd5 Bxd1 6.Nxc7+ Kf7 7.Nxa8 Bf3 8.dxe5, and White won.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdkdwd} 7dp!qdwdw} 6bdw)wdwd} 5dwdBdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwd} %dwdwdwIw} v,./9EFJMV

Steinitz-Meitner, White to play

White to play

If now 1...fxe6 2.Qxh5+ wins the knight; if 1...dxe6 2.Bxc7 brings the rook on d1 into immediate action. Black might then still try a feeble resistance by 2...Nac6 3.Bb5 Kf8 4.Bd6 threatening 5.Bxc6 bxc6 6.Nf5. Black is helpless. Finally if 1...Nxc4 2.exf7+ Qxf7 3.Nf5, and the open king’s file is decisive.

22. The black king has the function of guarding the queen; its domain is therefore decreased; it cannot go to f8 nor to f7. The black queen has to guard against two mates. Therefore, 1.Bf7+ wins the queen or forces mate.

21. From the next diagram, the black knight on e4 obstructs the KR, the f-pawn guards that knight, the bishop on h5 pins the white KN. In consequence of this web of functions, the black f-pawn and QB are targets.

23. Sometimes a piece, without intending to, performs a task favorable to the opponent. For instance, it obstructs a passed pawn that wou1d otherwise queen; or it renders a too feeble resistance and threatens to fall an easy prey. Such pieces are possessed of a veritable fury of

111

Lasker’s Manual of Chess aggression. They run amok. They are desperadoes. The “desperado” motif is very frequent. In example 23 the rook is desperado.

threat of all, namely, checkmate by 1...Bg1.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwi} 7dbdrdw0w} 6pdwdwdw0} 5dpdw1Ndw} &wdwgPdwd} 3dwdQdwdw} 2PdwdwdP)} %dBdRdwdK} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwi} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwdwdPd} 5dwdwdwdP} &wdwdwdwd} 3dBdwdwdw} 2pdKdwdwd} %4wdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

v. Popeil-Marco, Black to play

Black to play As long as it stays on a1 merely protecting a2 everything is in danger. Therefore it seeks a target, the most valuable to the opponent, the king. 1...Rc1+ and Black wins.

Marco did not see the move and resigned a game that he should have won.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdw4wi} 70p$wdwdp} 6w1pdw0wd} 5dwdwdw0w} &w)Phwdwd} 3)wdwHwdw} 2wdwdwdP)} %dwdQ$wdK} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdrdwi} 70pdndpdp} 6wdp1w0pd} 5dwdPGwdb} &wdPdw)wd} 3dPdBdw$w} 2Pdwdr!w)} %dKdwdw$w} v,./9EFJMV

White, v. Oppen, to play

Forgács-Duras, Black to play 24. The queen on d6 is desperado because on its account Rxf2 is not playable and the rook on e2 is in danger. It therefore annihilates the strongest adversary that happens to be within its reach. 1...Qxe5 and wins. 25. The black bishop on d4 is pinned! If it moves, the rook is lost. It is also assailed by overpowering numbers. It looks for something to attack. It can indeed threaten, the greatest

26. The white knight obstructs its own rook which otherwise would be able to strike a death blow by Re1-e7. It is desperado and makes the furious attack 1.Nd5. Black replies 1...cxd5. Now 2.Ree7 would have won, but 2.Rxh7+ Kxh7 3.Qh5+ Kg8 4.Re7 is still more conclusive. 27. The knight on e5 and the pawn on f6 obstruct their own queen. The pawn on f6 is blocked by the black pawn on f7, which guards the QB and the g-pawn. That g-pawn is also guarded by the h-pawn, which has to protect the king against Qd4-h4+.

112

Third Book

cuuuuuuuuC (wdw1w4wi} 7dw0wdpdp} 6wdwgb)pd} 5dwdpHWHw} &wdw!wdwd} 3dwdwdwdP} 2wdwdw)Pd} %dwdwdwIw} v,./9EFJMV

white f-pawn is not defended at all. Hence 1...Rxf4 and everything else follows easily. Black wins. Even after the chessplayer in trying to detect the combination latent in a position has recognized the motifs at his disposal and by them has been led to unearth the various forcible moves which promise success, he has often still to determine the order in which these violent blows should be struck. To choose this order indifferently may permit a defense that, with proper discrimination, would not have been possible.

White to play and win The knight on e5 is in a desperado mood. Is that black g-pawn guarded at all? All functions considered, no! Hence 1.Nxg6+ Kg8 2.Qh4 and wins.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdkd} 7dpdwdp0w} 6whw4w1w0} 5dNdw)wdw} &p0rdw)wd} 3dw)w$Q)w} 2Pdwdwdw)} %dwdwdwIw} v,./9EFJMV

29. In the next diagram, the attack on f7 has been beaten back, but White contemplates a move that attacks several things at once, namely, Re5-e7. This move cannot be prevented if preceded by Rf1-e1 or by Qf4-e3. On the other hand, White has a weak d-pawn and Black threatens, after Ra8-d8, to force the exchange of queens. Against 1.Rfe1 the reply 1...Rad8 would force 2.d5 cxd5, and Black would breathe, possibly win.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdw4kd} 70pdqdp0p} 6wdpdwdwd} 5dwdw$wdw} &wdB)w!w)} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)bdwdPd} %dwdwdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

Tarrasch-Em. Lasker, Black to play 28. To understand the motifs of this combination one must dig deep. White is attacking queen and rook with his e-pawn; hence, both are desperadoes: they look for checks, for an attack on the queen, for captures, for strong threats regardless of the sacrifice involved. 1...Rd1+ suggests itself, but that check is adequately guarded by the white queen. Here is the function motif holding the white queen. The white queen guards the f-pawn, which also is guarded by the g-pawn, and that g-pawn has to guard against check by the black queen. Considering the functions of the white queen and g-pawn, the

Bogolyubov, Réti and SpielmannEnglund, Jacobson, Nyholm, and Olson, White to play There remains 1.Qe3. Of course, the reply 1...Rae8 would fail because of 2.Rxf7, since the black KR would be overburdened with functions. But how about 1...Rad8? Then 2.Re7 fails on account of 2...Qxd4, and White has no time for 3.Rxf7 before exchanging queens, nor afterwards because of 4...Rxc4. This being the state of affairs, everything depends on timing the various moves rightly.

113

Lasker’s Manual of Chess Thus the idea occurs to precede Re7 by Rxf7. And now the combination is discovered: 1.Qe3 Rad8 2.Rxf7 Rxf7 3.Re7 If now 3...Qxd5 4.Qxd4 and 5.Re8 mate. 3...Qc8 4.Rxf7 Kh8 5.Rxg7 and the black king, uncovered on the seventh rank, is soon checkmated.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdqdBd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwdwdwd} 5dwdwdwdw} &wdwdkdwd} 3dQdwdwdw} 2wdwdwdwI} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

By far the largest number of combinations that play a part in the drama of a game do not actually occur, though they aid in determining the course of events nevertheless. It is sufficient that they be recognized as intentions, as possibilities with which players must reckon. An intended combination is named a “threat.” A threat becomes an attack unless the threatened party parries, defends, prevents, forestalls, defeats the intention. Ordinarily, this can be done in a multitude of ways from among which the defender has the choice. It is good policy to assign the defense to a threat to an inactive piece. If, however, no reserve force is available, one has to choose the piece that is least burdened. If a piece has too many tasks to perform all at once, its force will be found insufficient and the structure erected by the defense will crumble.

By A. Troitzky, White to play and win

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdwdkd} 7dw0wdphp} 6whwdwdpd} 5dwdw!wdw} &w1wHw)wd} 3dBdwdwdw} 2w)wdwdP)} %dwdw$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

30. Here White has two strong moves to choose from, both hampering the mobility of Black greatly, namely, Qb3-b4+ or 1.Bg8-h7+. The more forceful move is the check with the bishop which permits only one reply, 1...Kd4. After this reply the check with the queen, 2.Qb4+, comes in strongly, again permitting but one reply, namely 2...Kd5. Now a queen check would not avail, but 3.Bg8+ develops the geometrical motif on two diagonals and one file. Now if 3...Qxg8 4.Qb3+, or 3...Kc6 4.Qa4+, or 3...Ke5 4.Qe1+.

Dr. Tarrasch-Burn, White to play 31. Black threatens to win a piece by c7-c5, since

Unprecedented Domination: At London 1899, Lasker scored an amazing +20 –1 =7 to finish 4½ points ahead of a field that included almost all the world’s best: Janowski, Pillsbury, Maróczy, Schlechter, Blackburne, Chigorin, Steinitz and other greats. Such a margin of victory was unprecedented in top-level tournament competition, and was unsurpassed until Alekhine won by five points at Bled 1931.

114

Third Book the knight has to guard the bishop on b3. He also threatens Ra8-e8 which would attack queen and rook simultaneously. How can the menaced rook on e1 move and prevent c7-c5 at the same time? 1.Re3 does not help, because 1...Re8 then makes the double attack with the same effect. Perhaps 1.Rc1, but then what of 1...Re8 2.Qf6 Re1+ 3.Kf2 Qd2+ 4.Kg3 Nh5+? But looking deeper, does 1...Re8 actually force White to move the queen? No! For he can instead counter-attack with 2.Bxf7+ Kxf7 3.Rxc7+ and wins, since if 3...Re7 4.Nc6 forks queen and rook. Black would therefore have to defend by 3...Rc8, when White has parried all threats and has some advantage.

time. 1...Nd5 If now 2.Bf4 Qf6, whereupon again 3...Ne3+ is threatened.

However, in the actual game, White did not hit upon the 1.Rc1 and 2.Bxf7+ idea, and played 1.Rd1. Play proceeded 1...c5 2.Bxf7+ 2.Bd5 would, after 2...Re8, lead to the consolidation of Black’s game. 2...Kxf7 3.Nc6 Qb3?? B1ack lost his head. Instead he could have drawn with 3...Qa4!, viz. 4.Rd6 Re8 5.Rf6+ Kg8 6.Ne7+ Rxe7 7.Qxe7 Qd1+ 8.Kf2 Qd2+ 9.Kf3 (not 9.Qe2?? Qd4+ 10.Kf3 Qxf6) 9...Qd5+ etc., or 4.Qe7+ Kg8 5.Rd8+ Rxd8 6.Qxd8+ Kf7 7.Qxb6 Qd1+ etc. After the text White won: 4.Qe7+ Kg8 5.Rd8+ Rxd8 6.Qxd8+ Kf7 7.Ne5+ Ke6 8.Qg8+ and wins the queen.17

John-Süchting, White to play

cuuuuuuuuC (rGb1kdw4} 70pdwdp0p} 6wdwdwhwd} 5dwdwdwdw} &wgp)wdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)wdBdP)} %$NdQdKHR} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdwdkd} 70p0wdw0w} 6wdpdwdw0} 5dwdbdwdw} &wdwdwdqd} 3dP!Pdw)w} 2PdPHr)w)} %$wdwdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

33. Black’s threat is 1...Rxd2 followed by 2...Qf3. The parry with 1.f3 would be weak because the fpawn has the function of safeguarding the second rank. In fact, if 1.f3 Qh3 would be annihilating. If 1.Ne4 the square f3 is abandoned and Black can continue, as indeed he did, by 1...Qf3 2.Qa5 Rxe4 3.c4 Rxc4 and White resigns. The correct defense was 1.Rae1 which utilizes an inactive piece. Then 1...Rxd2 is met by 2.Qxd2 Qf3 3.Re4. And 1...Rae8 2.Ne4 Qf3 3.Rxe2 Rxe4 4.dxe4, and the game should be a draw. Of the above motifs, some occur often, some rarely. The reason for this difference in frequency is the initial position. There the pieces have certain prescribed positions; the struggle in which they engage, though very varied, still follows a certain trend, and therefore certain types of combinations tend to recur: 1. As a natural outgrowth of attacks against the castled king, pressure on the pawns round the king and sacrifices of pieces for them are frequent.

Dr. Tartakower-Capablanca, Black to play

2. Again as a means of attacking the king, control of the back rank where the queen or rooks might check the king becomes often the object of a combination.

32. After 1...Rxb8, White would win by 2.Qa4+. But Black has a victorious alternative. He protects the KB and attacks the king at the same

3. For attacks against the king and also against pawns the seventh rank is often utilized efficiently by rooks and queen.

115

Lasker’s Manual of Chess 4. The knights on c3/c6 or f3/f6 are frequently pinned by bishops and contest ensues round the pinned pieces.

Bxh3 Thus the white king is held fast. 4.Bd2 Rf6 White resigns.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdrdn4kd} 7dwdwdp0p} 6pdwdwgwd} 5dp1N0Pdw} &wdwdBdwd} 3)wdPdw$Q} 2w)wGKHw)} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

It is not that combinations of the above type differ logically — not at all — only the frequency of such combinations causes us to pay them particular attention.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdqdwdri} 7dp0bgw0p} 6wdwdN0wd} 50wdw0Pdw} &PdwdPdwd} 3dwHwdRdw} 2w)PdQdP)} %dwdRdwIw} v,./9EFJMV

Steinitz-Amateur, White to play 36. 1.Nxf6+ Nxf6 2.Rxg7+ Kxg7 3.Qh6+ Kg8 4.Qg5+ Kh8 5.Qxf6+ Kg8 6.Qg5+ Kh8 7.f6 Rg8 8.Qh6 and wins.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdw4kd} 7dbdwgp0p} 6p0qdpdwd} 5dw0pGwdn} &wdwdw)wd} 3dPdB)wdw} 2PdP)QdP)} %$wdwdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

Morphy-Baucher, White to play 34. 1.Rh3 intending Rxh7+ followed by Qh5 mate. If Black defends with 1...Be8, the knight on e6 retains its dominating post undisturbed. Thus Baucher was induced to play 1...h6 whereupon 2.Qd2 threatens R (or Q) xh6+, and wins with ease.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1w4kd} 70p0wdw0n} 6wdwdwdw0} 5dwdPdwhw} &wdP!w0wd} 3dNdwdwdP} 2P)Pdw)PI} %$wGwdRdw} v,./9EFJMV

Em. Lasker-Bauer, White to play 37. 1.Bxh7+ Kxh7 2.Qxh5+ Kg8 3.Bxg7 Kxg7 4.Qg4+ Kh7 5.Rf3 e5 6.Rh3+ Qh6 7.Rxh6+ Kxh6 8.Qd7 and wins. This motif, of tearing away the safeguards of the hostile king at the expense of some pieces, occurs frequently.

A. de Rivière-Morphy, Black to play 35. 1...Nf3+ depriving the h-pawn of its only efficient protection. 2.gxf3 Qh4 3.Rh1

38. From the next diagram, the white king is principally defended by the h- and g-pawns, hence 1...Bxh2+ 2.Kxh2 Qh4+ 3.Kg1

116

Third Book

cuuuuuuuuC (wdw4w4wi} 70pdw1wdw} 6wdwgBdw0} 5dwdwdpdw} &wdwHbdwd} 3dw)wdwdw} 2P)wdw)P)} %$wdQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdw4rd} 70wgwdwdk} 6w0wdPGpd} 5dwdw)pdw} &wdw1wdw)} 3dwdBdwdw} 2PdwdQdPd} %dwdwdRdK} v,./9EFJMV

Steneberg-Bolte, Black to play

Boden-Owen, White to play

3...Bxg2 4.Kxg2 (or 4.f3 Rg8) 4...Rg8+ 5.Bxg8 Rxg8+ 6.Kf3 Qe4#.18

5.e7+ Ke8 6.Bb5+ Qd7 7.Bxd7+ Kxd7 8.exf6 Rg4 9.Rh8 Re4 10.g4 and Black resigned.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdwdkd} 70pdR$w0p} 6wgwdwdwd} 5dwdwdw4w} &wdpdwdwd} 3GwdwdwdP} 2Pdwdw1PI} %dwdQdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 70pdwdq0k} 6wdndbdwd} 5gwdp)pGP} &wdw4w)wd} 3dwdwHwdw} 2wdwdwdQ$} %dwdwdw$K} v,./9EFJMV

From a game at odds White, Steinitz, to play

Albin-Steinitz, White to play

39. The black rook on g5 must guard against mate in three moves, and is therefore bound to the g-file. 1.Qd5+ Kh8 2.Rd8+ White won differently but this was the most direct way. 2...Rxd8 3.Qxd8+ Bxd8 4.Re8+, illustrating a combination in which the 7th and 8th ranks are exploited.

41. An attack on g7 is indicated. To get the obstructions out of the way is White’s first objective. 1.h6 would be far from serving the purpose; in fact, would defeat it, because Black would refuse to exchange pawns by pushing g7g6, whereby both files would remain closed. Either the obstructing pawn must first be blocked and then attacked by h5-h6, or it must be forced away at the cost of a piece. The former is too slow, so 1.Bf6! If now 1...gxf6 2.Qg6+ Qxg6 3.hxg6+ Kg7 4.Rh7+ Kg8 5.exf6 Rxf4 6.f7+ Bxf7 7.gxf7+ Kxh7 8.f8Q and wins.19

40. Black threatens 1...Rxf6 followed by 2...Qxh4+. White forestalls him in the task of taking the king by storm: 1.Rxf5 Rxf6 2.Qh5+ gxh5 3.Rxh5+ Kg7 4.Rh7+ Kf8

117

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdrdkd} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdpgwdwd} 51wdbdwdw} &wdwdwGwd} 3dPdB$Qdw} 2PdPdw)P)} %dwdwdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

The h-pawn gathered enormous strength by the sacrifice of the bishop. This combination of Albin’s has, it is true, a very common motif: the tearing down of a safeguard of the hostile king; but it compensates for this by joining with this motif others artistically interwoven with it: opening of files, power of the passed pawn and a clever mate.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdw4kd} 70p0w1p0p} 6wdn0bhwd} 5dwgw0wGw} &wdwdPdwd} 3dBHPdNdw} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$wdQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

Zukertort-Steinitz, White to play

Kolisch-L. Paulsen, White to play 42. 1.Nh4 h6 2.Nf5 Bxf5 3.Nd5 A typical attack on a pinned knight. 3...Qd7 4.Bxf6 Be6 5.Qh5 Kh7 Or 5...Bxd5 6.Bxd5 gxf6 7.Qg6+ with a safe draw and the opportunity of getting a rook into action by Kg1-h1 and f2-f4. 6.Kh1 Bxd5 7.exd5 Nd4 8.f4 With a variation something like this in mind: 8...gxf6 9.fxe5 fxe5 10.Rf6. 8...Qf5 Offering exchange of queens, the typical defense to heavy attacks against the king. 9.Qxf5+ Nxf5 10.fxe5 Ne3 11.Be7 Nxf1 12.Rxf1 Rae8 The f-pawn had to be defended. White clearly has the advantage.20

43. White has a difficult game, but could attempt to make a fight by 1.Qh3 g6 2.Rxe8+ Rxe8 3.Bxd6 cxd6 4.Qd7. Instead of a patient and conscientious defense, he essays a sacrificial attack without accurately probing it and thus violates the ethics of the chess master. 1.Bxh7+ Kxh7 2.Qh5+ Kg8 3.Rh3 f6 4.Qh8+ Kf7 5.Qh5+ Ke7 In fact, Steinitz did not make this move at once but repeated several times Kg8, Qh8+, Kf7, Qh5+ for purely technical reasons, having to consider the time allowed for deliberation and measured by a clock devised for the purpose. 6.Re3+ Kf8 7.Qh8+ Bg8 8.Bh6 Re7 9.Rxe7 Kxe7 10.Bxg7 Qf5 The fight is now decided. The sequel was 11.Re1+ Kf7 12.Bh6 Qh7 and White soon after resigned.

So easy does it seem to concentrate pieces against the king and to sacrifice a piece or two for its safeguards, but this device can be easily met. The defensive power of the king must not be underrated. If the hostile king retains mobility, and if the hostile pieces are protected, and thus are not an easy prey to a simultaneous attack, combinations of the above type will fail. The hostile king will simply flee and finally reach a point of comparative safety. Then queens will be exchanged and the attack fade away. 118

cuuuuuuuuC (rdrdwdkd} 7dw1bgp0p} 6pdwdwdwd} 5hpdw0wdn} &wdwdPdwd} 3dwdwdNdP} 2P)BdR)Pd} %$wGQdNIw} v,./9EFJMV Em. Lasker-Ed. Lasker, White to play

Third Book 44. These combinations occur in large numbers. Precious, artistic combinations are not of this type. They are individual, occurring only once and not to be duplicated. Compare with the above combination the one that follows, which has length, complication, force, and individuality. 1.Nxe5 Bxh3 2.Nxf7 Making use of the weakness of d5. 3...Be6 3.Ng5 Bc4 4.Bd3 Rd8 5.Rc2 Nf4 6.Bxf4 Qxf4 7.Nh3 Qe5 8.Bxc4+ Nxc4 9.Qe2

cuuuuuuuuC (rdw4wdkd} 7dwdwgw0p} 6pdwdwdwd} 5dpdw1wdw} &wdndPdwd} 3dwdwdwdN} 2P)RdQ)Pd} %$wdwdNIw} v,./9EFJMV

45. Again, compare with the former drab combinations the following very individual ingenious play by Alekhine:

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdw4kd} 70p0wdp0p} 6wdndw1wd} 5dwdPdwdw} &wdPdwdwd} 3dwdQ0Rdw} 2P)wdBdP)} %$wdwdwIw} v,./9EFJMV

Now a short respite in which the task of driving off the black knight, a vital question for White and Black, becomes the principal motif. 9...Rd4 10.f3 Rad8 11.Rac1 Bc5 12.Kh1 Bb4 The knight is intended to make a desperate inroad. 13.b3 Nd2 If the knight retreats, White exchanges a rook by 14.Rc8 and soon relieves the pressure. 14.Ne3 The threat is 15.Rd1 and 16.a3. Black seeks compensations for the knight, which is cut off, but while it lives, is a terrible menace. 14...Ba3 15.Rd1 Bb4 16.a3

cuuuuuuuuC (wdw4wdkd} 7dwdwdw0p} 6pdwdwdwd} 5dpdw1wdw} &wgw4Pdwd} 3)PdwHPdN} 2wdRhQdPd} %dwdRdwdK} v,./9EFJMV

Now commences a turmoil of attacks and parries. 16...Ba5 17.b4 Bc7 18.f4 Nxe4 19.Kh2 Rxd1 20.Nxd1 Qe7 Only here I did not terminate the combination as I should have. I played 21.Rxc7, whereupon a difficult ending ensued. The appropriate move was 21.Ndf2 Rd4 22.Qe3 winning a piece, for if 22...Bb6 23.Nxe4 Qxe4 24.Rc8+ Kf7 25.Ng5+.

Dr. Tartakower-Dr. Alekhine, Black to play 1...Qxb2 2.Rb1 Qxa2 3.dxc6 This move was not actually made, but forms the principal variation of the combination. 3...Rad8 Before making this series of moves Black had to take into consideration, besides other minor variations, 4.cxb7 Rxd3 5.Bxd3 e2! So as to reply to 6.b8Q with 6...e1Q+. 6.Re3 6...Qd2 with advantage. Again 4.Qb3 Qxe2 5.Rxe3 Qg4 6.cxb7 Rd2 7.Rg3 Qd4+ , followed by 8...Rb8 and Black has a fair position. Finally, 4.Qe4 Rde8 (not 4...Rfe8 on account of 5.cxb7 followed by 6.b8Q) 5.Qd3 Rd8 and draws. A combination must be sound. An unsound combination is no combination at all. It is merely an attempt, an error, a failure, a nonentity. But a combination must not only be correct, it must satisfy other conditions that we shall now discuss. Therefore, besides the art of discovering and creating combinations there is also an art or science of criticism of combinations.

119

Lasker’s Manual of Chess Of several combinations simultaneously existent you have to choose, in the position, the one yielding the greatest advantage; of several mates you have to select the simplest one because that mate is least open to error, because unfortunately humanum est errare.

None of that is true. If Bird had played rightly he would easily have drawn. After 1...d4 2.Nd5+ Ke5 3.Nxf6 dxc3 He should now not have played 4.Ke3? but 4.Nd7+ Kd6 Best. 5.Nxc5 bxc5 6.Ke2

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwiwdpd} 5dp0wdwdw} &w)wdwdPd} 3)w0wdPdw} 2wdwdKdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

True, one cannot demonstrate that this is simpler than that; one can decide such a question by intuition only. Here the science of combination comes into contact with the science of the beautiful with which we shall deal in another chapter. But let us state it at once, that only an inferior taste could prefer that which is unnecessarily complicated to that which is simple. The healthy mind chooses of two equally suitable moves the one that is more straightforward and less sophisticated. It is then the function of the critic to give recognition to and to bring into prominence that which is valuable, to correct that which is well meant but weak, to speak with a loud voice against what is pretentious and a sham.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6w0wdwgpd} 5dp0pdwdw} &w)wdwiPd} 3)w)wHPdw} 2wdwdwIwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

Whereupon 6...c4 would actually lose, while 6...cxb4 would just manage to draw. Thus 6...c4? 7.g5! (7.Kd1? g5 still draws.) 7...Ke5 8.Kd1 Kf4 9.Kc2 Kxg5 10.Kxc3 Kf4 11.a4 bxa4 12.Kxc4 Ke5 13.b5 etc. Best is 6...cxb4 7.axb4 Ke5 8.Kd3 Kf4 9.Kxc3 g5 10.Kd4 Kxf3 11.Kc5 Kxg4 12.Kxb5 and draws. It is no exaggeration to say that the literature of chess abounds with faults of the above type.21

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdw4kd} 7dw1whp0w} 6Rdw0bhw0} 5dp0w0wdw} &wdw)Pdwd} 3dw)wHNdw} 2w)B!w)P)} %dwdw$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

Bird-Steinitz, Black to play 46. Steinitz played here 1...d4, and his biographer (L. Bachman, Schachmeister Steinitz, first volume, page 167) remarks concerning this move: “Steinitz conducts this difficult ending to victory with admirable correctness and a nice judgment of position. A game equally remarkable for the excellent attack of the victor and the obstinate defense of the loser.”

Schlechter-Salwe, White to play 47. In this position, at St. Petersburg 1909, Schlechter made a combination that was awarded the brilliancy prize. But the combination is not correct. Schlechter played 1.dxe5. To be sure, if as actually occurred in the game, 1...Rxa6

120

Third Book 2.exf6 disarranges the whole kingside. But if the black knight gets desperado and commits suicide in a fashion becoming a warrior with 1...Nxe4 what then? Black would have won.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdwdk4} 70pdqhp0p} 6wgpHwdwd} 5dwdp)ndw} &Pdw)wdwd} 3GwdwdNdw} 2wdwdw)P)} %dRdQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

inflicted mortal damage. The sacrifice 1.Nxf7, on the contrary, immediately lets that rook out and imperils the issue of the game concerning which there should have been no doubt. Let us examine the combination: 1.Nxf7 Kxf7 2.e6+ Kxe6 3.Ne5 Qc7! Best. 4.Re1 Kf6 5.Qf3 If 5.Bxe7+ Kxe7 and there is nothing to fear from the discovered check, or any other white move. 5...Rae8 6.Ng4+ Kf7 7.Rxe7+ Rxe7 8.Qxf5+ Kg8 9.Bxe7 Qxe7, and Black can hold out a long time.22 Even the most lenient critic would have to say that Chigorin fought with a corpse, gave him a new spell of life and then killed him again.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdk4wdw4} 70pdwdp0p} 6wdndbdwd} 5dNdwdwdw} &w)wHwdwg} 3)w$w1w)w} 2wdwdBdw)} %dwdQIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

Chigorin-Steinitz, White to play 48. Here Chigorin made the sacrifice 1.Nxf7 and won in a few moves. With one voice the chess press — newspapers, magazines, books — applauded. Nobody criticized. In fact, the combination was a half-sublime, half-ludicrous error. To win the game, 1.a5 was amply sufficient. Say 1...Bxa5 2.Rxb7 Qd8 3.Ng5, but to elucidate this is certainly unnecessary, since Black virtually fights with a rook minus and cannot bring it into play before White has

David Janowski

Lasker-Janowski, Black to play 49. Black played here 1...Qe4? The continuation was 1...Qe4 2.0–0 Bf6 3.Rxf6 gxf6 4.Bf3 Qe5 5.Nxa7+ and won. That Black played badly is true: he should have played 1.Qxc3+. But this sacrifice does not lead to a forced win, its issue is problematical; yet for many years one met throughout chess literature the assertion that this combination would have led to a win. Nobody, indeed, doubted it. I smiled. I showed the right play; but what could I say with my feeble voice to drown the thunder? The analysis given in the chess literature ran 1...Qxc3+ 2.Nxc3 Bf6 3.0–0 Bxd4+ followed by 4...Bxc3. But the law of combination is to ponder all possibilities. Why 3.0-0? Is nothing else possible, not 3.Qc1, not 3.Ncb5? At last the analysis was rendered correctly in Dr. Tarrasch’s Die Moderne Schachpartie. The move 3.Qc1 would not suffice

121

Lasker’s Manual of Chess because after 3...Bxd4 4.b5, the threat could very well be parried by 4...Ne5 and Black then would win. The correct move is 3.Ncb5. Then Black has nothing better than 3...Bxd4, for after 3...Nxd4, the check 4.Qc1+ would be painful, for 4...Kb8 would lead to “Philidor’s legacy,” 5.Qf4+ and mates in a few moves. Hence 3...Bxd4 4.Nxd4 Nxd4 5.Kf2, and the position is about even though still full of problems. As evident from the history of this combination, the chess student should not trust an analysis merely because he sees it in print. He must examine, he must do his own thinking and by conscientious work he must form his own judgment.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdw4kd} 7dwdwdw0p} 6wdpdqdnd} 5dw!wdwdw} &wdw)wdwd} 3dwdw)w)P} 2w)wdNdBd} %dwdwdwIw} v,./9EFJMV

which starts out with the judgment “decidedly better (than 1.e4, as played by Steinitz) would have been 1.d5.” Oh no! Decidedly worse! Black defends as follows: 1.d5? Qe5 2.Nf4 Ne7 3.Kh2 The reply to 3.Ne6 would be 3...Re8. White looks in vain for moves to continue his attack, because his d-pawn is pinned and his epawn is weak. If 3.Qd4 Qxd4 4.exd4 cxd5 5.Nxd5 Nf5 with an advantage sufficient to win. 3...cxd5 4.Nxd5 Nf5.23 The points of view above indicated are bases for the understanding and criticism of a combination; they are the elements which the creative faculty needs for healthy development. A few examples are here given in illustration. It is noteworthy that they are not invented positions, but arise from the struggle of two brains passionately antagonistic to each other and gifted with all the required talent for mastership, battling for the ideals in chess. They will be examined and criticized from the points of view we have already enumerated.

Steinitz-Lasker, White to play 50. Shall White here play 1.d5? L. Bachmann, the biographer of Steinitz, cites a long analysis

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1w4wd} 70pdwhp0w} 6wdwdpdkd} 5dwhwdwHw} &wdwdwdQd} 3dwHw)wdw} 2P)wdw)P)} %$wdwdRIw} v,./9EFJMV Capablanca-Molina, Black to play

Doctor Lasker: After winning four major tournaments 1896-1900, and seemingly having no more chess worlds to conquer, Lasker retired from the game for several years. Devoting himself to studies in mathematics, he received a Ph.D. from Erlangen University in 1902. His doctoral thesis was later published in book form, and is still considered one of the more important mathematical papers of the 20th century.

122

Third Book 51. The white queen is in a commanding position and must be driven off. The attack by 1...e5 is refuted (Capablanca, My Chess Career) by 2.Ne6+ Kf6 3.f4. The right move is 1...f5 2.Qg3 The queen is still menacing. Black played, too passively, 2...Kh6. Better is 2...f4. After 3.Qg4 e5 could fearlessly be played; hence 3.exf4 Nf5 4.Qg4 Nh6. For White now to play for a win would be very hazardous. If for example 5.Qh4 e5, or 5...Rxf4 6.Qxf4 Qxg5, and the attack has passed to Black. Capablanca’s book has many excellent qualities, but his analysis of the above combination and his judgment thereon are not accurate.24

cuuuuuuuuC (wdw4wdk4} 70Q0wdw0p} 6w1wdwdwd} 5gwdwdR0w} &wdw0Ndwd} 3dw)wdwdw} 2PdwdwdP)} %dwdw$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

3.Qd5+ Kh7 4.Qe4 Kg8 5.Qe6+ Kh7 6.Rf6! Which menaces 7...Rxh6+. 6...Rhf8 7.Qf5+ Kg8 8.Rxf8+ Rxf8 9.Qxf8+ The queen cannot be captured because of 10.Re8# and Black resigns.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdw4wdkd} 70w4ndpdp} 6w0wdp0wd} 5dwdwdw1w} &wdw)QHPd} 3dwdwdPdw} 2PdPdwdw$} %$wdwdwIw} v,./9EFJMV Dr. Bernstein–Znosko-Borovsky, White to play

Caldas Vianna-Silvestre, White to play 52. White is in difficulties. A continuation of the attack against the king by checks or threats of mate is not on the board. An exchange of queens is offered and his queen has no escape. If the knight did not block the rook 1.Qd5+ would at once terminate the game, but there it stands and cannot be removed at once, for the check with the knight would open to the black king a safe square simply by capture of the knight. One understands the mood in which White resolved to play. 1.Nd6 Now the correct and good play was 1...Qxb7 2.Nxb7 Bxc3 3.Nxd8 Bxe1 4.Re5 Bb4. Probably Black played hastily. 1...dxc3+ and now the situation for Black has become perilous. 2.Kh1 Now the exchange of queens will leave White with a better ending, 2...Qxb7 3.Nxb7 c2 4.Nxa5 Rd1 5.Rff1, whereby mate is threatened and thus White wins. Black, recognizing that the ending would be lost, tries to hold the position by obstinate defense. 2...h6

53. The black king has an insecure position, but if 1.Qxh7+ Kf8, the king will establish itself on e7 under the protection of his center pawns. White, in possession of heavy pieces with which to harass the king, and because Black’s two rooks for the moment are unprotected and hampered by the knight at d7, embarks upon the following sacrifice: 1.Nxe6 fxe6 2.Qxe6+ Kh8 The king is driven into the corner because the queen otherwise would check and simultaneously attack one of the unprotected rooks. 3.Qe7 Qg8 4.Rxh7+ Qxh7 5.Qxd8+ Nf8 6.Qxf8+ and wins.

123

cuuuuuuuuC (rdrdwdwd} 70pdqhk0p} 6wdwdN0wd} 5dwdpdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)wdQ)P)} %dw$w$wIw} v,./9EFJMV Steinitz-v. Bardeleben, White to play

Lasker’s Manual of Chess 54. The black king is exposed, the g-pawn a possible target, the black queen unprotected, the knight is on the file dominated by White. However, no temporizing would do, because Black threatens exchanges. If White evades them with 1.Rcd1, so 1...Rc3, forcing retreats; hence, this is the moment to seek the combination. Hic Rhodus, hic salta! [The quote (perhaps inaccurate) comes from an Aesop fable, in which an athlete, boasting of his prowess at jumping, is challenged to prove it on the spot — ed.] The beginning of the attack is indicated. There is a move threatening mate in two and putting the black queen in jeopardy at the same time, unquestionably a powerful move. 1.Qg4 g6 2.Ng5+ Ke8 So far, so good. Now let us investigate the functions. Of course, Black’s rooks are desperately anxious to get into action. The king has to guard the queen, the queen has to guard the KR. These two pieces besides have to guard the knight. Are they not overburdened? Let us see! 3.Rxe7+ Indeed they are. If the king captures, it becomes immediately a target for 4.Re1+ and, being hampered by its function, is soon driven into a desperate position as follows: 3...Kxe7 4.Re1+ Kd6 (or 4...Kd8 5.Ne6+ and wins the queen) 5.Qb4+ Kc7 (or 5...Rc5 6.Re6+) 6.Ne6+ Kb8 7.Qf4+ and wins. In this emergency Black thinks to threaten a mate with his rook. 3...Kf8 4.Rf7+ Kg8 5.Rg7+ The rook is immune because Black cannot allow his

Aron Nimzovitch

queen to be captured with check. 5...Kh8 6.Rxh7+ Kg8 7.Rg7+ Kh8 8.Qh4+ and White mates in eight more moves: 8...Kxg7 9.Qh7+ Kf8 10.Qh8+ Ke7 11.Qg7+ Ke8 12.Qg8+ Ke7 13.Qf7+ Kd8 (or 13...Kd6 14.Qxf6+) 14.Qf8+ Qe8 15.Nf7+ Kd7 16.Qd6#.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdk4wdw4} 7!p0whw0w} 6wdbdw0pd} 5dwdwgwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwdwdwHw} 2P)Pdw)wd} %$wGwdRIw} v,./9EFJMV Schiffers-Chigorin, Black to play 55. The white king stands immobile and strongly under the pressure of two rooks and two bishops. The situation calls for an investigation of all direct attacks employing the most forceful moves that Black has at his command. Well, let us try them. 1...Rh1+ 2.Nxh1 Bh2+ 3.Kxh2 Rh8+ 4.Kg3 (or 4.Kg1 Rxh1#) 4...Nf5+ 5.Kf4 Rh4#. Truly, the combination succeeds. And it was easy as it was based only on one motif and containing only two variations (not counting the useless interposing of the white bishop). It is surprising that this forced mate should have escaped Chigorin. 56. From the next diagram, the black f-pawn is thrice attacked and thrice guarded. The black KR has also the function of guarding the last rank. To drive him away from the protection of the fpawn would expose the king greatly, since it would then only be guarded by Black’s two most valuable pieces, king and queen. 1.Re8 Rxe8 2.Bxf7+ Kh8 Otherwise, if 2...Kf8, the king would be driven into the open by 3.Nxh7+. 3.Bxe8 Ne2+ That is all very well, but the black king is immobile and under pressure. 4.Kh1 Nxc1 5.Nf7+ Kg8 6.Nh6+ Kf8

124

Third Book

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdw4kd} 70p1wdp0p} 6wdpdwdnd} 5dwdwdwHw} &PdB)Whwd} 3dQdwdwdw} 2w)wHw)P)} %dw$w$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

evolves: 1.dxc6 Rh6 2.cxb7+ Not 2.cxd7+ Rxd7 3.Bh5 Rxh5 4.Re1 Qxh2+ 5.Kf1 Qh1+ 6.Ke2 Qe4+ etc. 2...Kb8 Or 2...Kxb7 3.Bf3+ with an easy defense. 3.Nc6+ Kxb7 4.Nxd8+ Kc8 5.Qxd7+ Kxd7 6.Rfd1+ Kany 7.Bf3 and wins by material superiority.

cuuuuuuuuC (w4wdwdrd} 70wdkgwdp} 6b1wdpdwd} 5dwdpdpdw} &wdwdw)wd} 3dwGBdwdQ} 2P)wdwdP)} %dwdRIRdw} v,./9EFJMV

Schiffers-Harmonist, White to play 7.Qg8+ Ke7 8.Bxg6 hxg6 9.Qxg7+ Kd8 10.Qf8+ Kd7 Now the king is an obstruction and is therefore left where it is. White uses this moment for bringing up his reserves. 11.Ne4 Qd8 12.Qd6+ Ke8 13.Nf6+ Resigns.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdk4wdwd} 70p0bdpdp} 6wdndp0rd} 5dwdPdwdw} &wdPHwdwd} 3dwdwdw)q} 2PdPdB)w)} %$wdQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

Reggio-Mieses, Black to play 58. The white queen must guard against check at e3 which would lead to a mate in two. Hence 1...Rg3 Qxg3 2.Bh4 and wins.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdrdwdkd} 70pdwdpdp} 6wdwdwdw4} 5dwdp1wdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dR)Q)p)w} 2Pdwdwdw)} %dwdRdwIw} v,./9EFJMV

Nimzovitch-Dr. G. Flues, White to play 57. Can White play 1.dxc6? To be sure, if 1.dxc6 Bxc6 2.Nxc6 Rxd1 3.Rfxd1 bxc6 4.c5 Rg8 5.Rab1 and mate follows. But the situation is complicated by counter-attack. How can 1...Rh6 be met? The threatened mate would force White to play 2.Bh5 and 3.Re1 unless the bishop can get to f3 in time and the blocking by the KR be got out of the way. At least one of these aims must be attained with a check or else the defense will be insufficient. These are the main considerations whence the following play

Przepiorka-W. Cohn, Black to play 59. The position of the white king is weak. The h-pawn is guarded only by the king, the g-pawn by that h-pawn, the square g2 belongs to Black, and f2 is defended only by the king. The white queen guards nothing essential, obviously it should stand on d4. The moment is precious and White must not be given time to play Qd4 or

125

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (wdk4rdwd} 70pdwdp0p} 6wdbdwdwd} 5dwdwdw1w} &wdw)wdwd} 3dwdwHwdw} 2P)wdw)P)} %$wdQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

Rd2, which would drive off the black force or strengthen the weak points. 1...Rxh2 2.Kxh2 Rc6 White resigns for the queen cannot guard g3 nor h6 and the threatened disaster can no more be warded off.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdw1wdw4} 70pdndkgw} 6wdpdRhp0} 5dwdpdwdw} &wdwdw!wG} 3dwHBdPdw} 2P)PdwdP)} %dwIw$wdw} v,./9EFJMV

Rubinstein-Em. Lasker, White to play

v. Freymann-Forgács, White to play 60. The d-pawn guards Black against Bd3-c4, which would be a catastrophe. It also has to guard the point e4. That is too much. 1.Ne4 Which threatens powerfully 2.Nd6+. If 1...Kxe6 2.Ng5#. 1...dxe4 2.Bc4 Kg8 3.Rxf6+ Kh7 4.Rxg6 Nf6 5.Qf5 Resigns.

Biggest Match: The LaskerTarrasch match of 1908 excited the chess world more than any before, and probably more than any since then until Fischer-Spassky 1972. Tarrasch had gone so far as to have himself declared “tournament world champion” the year before, but Lasker won the match decisively +8 –3 =5, finally settling the intense rivalry that had existed for over 15 years.

61. B1ack obviously threatens 1...Rxe3. White defends by counter-attack and wins. 1.Rc1 Rxe3 Better would have been 1...Kb8 2.Rc5 Qf4 3.d5 Rxe3 4.Qc1 Re4. 2.Rxc6+ bxc6 3.Qc1! 3...Rxd4 Also after 3...Re5 4.Qxc6+ Kb8 5.dxe5 Qxe5 6.Rc1 White has an excellent position. 4.fxe3 Rd7 5.Qxc6+ Kd8 6.Rf4 and White won the ending.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdwdw0w} 6wdwdwdw0} 5dwdwdpdw} &wdwdpdw)} 3dwdw)k)w} 2wdwdw)wd} %dwdwIwdw} v,./9EFJMV Dr. Esser-Davidson, Black to play 62. The black king attacks the weak spot. The white g-pawn has to guard the h-pawn, the fpawn has to guard both the e- and g-pawns, the e-pawn has to stop e4-e3, which would lead to the win of the g- and h-pawns. Therefore, f5-f4 is suggested. But when should this be done? Now, because if Black allows White time to play Kf1 he would improve his position, not impair

126

Third Book it. 1...f4 2.gxf4 Or 2.exf4 e3 3.fxe3 Kxe3 and afterward by Kf3 win all the other pawns. 2...Kg4 3.Ke2?? Granting Black a critical tempo. Black had to wait for the right moment to capture the helpless h-pawn, after White’s king has left its favorable position where he supports the advance f2-f3, which would yield him a passed pawn. But had White played 3.Kf1! that moment could not be brought about by force. [See the Analytical Endnotes for details — ed.] 3...h5 4.Kf1 If 4.f3+ exf3+ 5.Kf2 Black has still a move in reserve, g7-g6, and thus holds his f-pawn. 4...Kxh4 5.Kg2 Kg4 6.Kh2 Kf3 7.Kg1 h4 8.Kf1 h3 and wins all White’s pawns in exchange for his h-pawn.25

cuuuuuuuuC (wibdwdw4} 70p0wdwdw} 6wdwdwdwd} 5dP)Pdwdw} &wdw$wdwd} 3dwdw0p)w} 2Pdwdw)w0} %dwdwdRdK} v,./9EFJMV

3...Bxg4 4.Rf8+ Bc8 5.Rxf3 and Black has no attack left. 4.Rxg4 Not 4.Rxf3?? Rg1+. 4...Bxg4 5.Kxh2 Bf5 6.Kg3 Be4 7.Rh1

cuuuuuuuuC (wiwdwdwd} 70p0wdwdw} 6wdwdwdwd} 5dP)Pdwdw} &wdwdbdwd} 3dwdwdpIw} 2Pdwdp)wd} %dwdwdwdR} v,./9EFJMV It is hard to defend the black king. 7...Kc8? The decisive mistake. By allowing White to get a protected pawn on c6, it becomes much harder to defend against the ever-looming threat of backrank mate. Instead, a more active defense was possible: 7...a6!. Relatively best then is 8.d6, but after cxd6 9.cxd6 Kc8 (Riskier is 9...axb5?! 10.Rh8+ Ka7 11.d7, when both sides queen.) 10.Kf4 Bd5 11.bxa6 bxa6 12.a3 Kd7 13.Ke5, neither side can make any progress, the rook being required to defend against e2-e1Q. 8.c6 bxc6 9.dxc6 Kd8 10.Kf4 Bd5 11.Ke5

To sum up the functions and intentions as clearly indicated by the position: The white king must block the h-pawn, the rook on f1 must stop the e-pawn and guard the first rank. It is exposed to Bc8-h3 which at the same time would threaten mate. The rook on d4 has to attack the f-pawn and to attack the black king, eventually to pin the bishop. It is noteworthy that the black king has no way to get into action because the white pawns hinder it and the white rook menaces it.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwiwDwD} 70w0wDwDw} 6wDPDwDwD} 5DPDbIwDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDwDpDw} 2PDwDp)wD} %DwDwDwDR} v,./9EFJMV

White will ward off the threat of ...Bh3 by an inactive piece. Not 1.Rh4? e2 2.Re1 Rd8! but 1.g4 Now Black is obliged to concentrate his effort on getting that obstruction out of the way. 1...e2 2.Re1 Rh4 If 2...Rg8 3.Kxh2 Bxg4 4.Kg3 and with the king in action White would have been quite safe. 3.Rf4 Rxg4 If now

11...Bxa2? Making White’s task easier. Instead 11...Bf7 offered the greatest resistance, forcing White to find the correct “waiting moves,” viz. 12.Kf6 Be8 13.a3! a6 (or 13...Kc8 14.Ke7 Bh5 15.Rg1 and wins) 14.bxa6 (Not 14.a4? a5! when White must move king or rook, and Black can simply mark time, shuttling his bishop along the

Mackenzie-Blackburne, White to play

127

Lasker’s Manual of Chess e8-h5 diagonal ad infinitum.) 14...Bxc6

the draw, invalidate the winners’ combinational ideas? By no means! The winners’ play was very strong, putting maximum pressure on the opponent, forcing him to find the one best move at critical points, no easy thing with one’s clock ticking away. This is often how chess games are won: by maximizing the opponent’s chance to err.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwiwDwD} 7Dw0wDwDw} 6PDbDwIwD} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3)wDwDpDw} 2wDwDp)wD} %DwDwDwDR} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wDw4wDkD} 70wDrDp0w} 6wDwDwDw0} 5DpDwDwDw} &w)wDq)wD} 3)QDnDw)w} 2wDRDwGw)} %DwDwDRIw} v,./9EFJMV

analysis position after 14...Bxc6 15.Ke6 Bd7+ 16.Kd5 Bc8 17.a7 Bb7+ 18.Ke6 Bc8+ 19.Kf6 Bb7 20.Rb1 Ba8 21.Ke6 c5 22.Kd6 Ke8 23.Kxc5 and White will bring his king back to d2 to cover the passed pawn, then play Rb1-b8, winning easily. 12.Kf6 Bg8 13.Rh8 e1Q 14.Rxg8+ Qe8 15.Rxe8+ Kxe8 16.Ke6 Kd8 17.Kf7 and wins.26 Does the fact that in our last two examples the eventual loser could, with best play, have held

Dr. Tartakower-Em. Lasker, Black to play 64. The white f-pawn has the function of guarding e5 and thus preventing Nd3-e5. 1...g5 If now 2.fxg5 Ne5 3.Bc5 Rd1, or if 3.Rfc1 Rd1+. 2.Qa2 2...gxf4 3.Re2 Qg6 4.Qc2 Kh7 5.Qc3 Rg8 6.Kh1 Qh5 7.Rd2 fxg3 with an easy win.

A Peculiar Personality: In 1909, Chess Weekly published some interesting comments about Lasker: “Speaking of the peculiarities of chessplayers, the man who writes the biography of the World’s Chess Champion will face a Herculean task. Our friend Dr. Lasker is a most interesting psychological study, and in all that has been written about his personality we have never seen anything even approaching the truth. Sharing the failings of many great men, Dr Lasker measures his capacities in all lines of endeavor by his phenomenal genius in one. He prides himself more on his business abilities and on his knowledge of things miscellaneous than he does on chess, wherein he is admittedly pre-eminent. Tell him that he has an equal in chess and he will modestly admit it, or perhaps mildly debate the question; but tell him that he has an equal in philosophy, in the sciences – or in pinochle – and you may hurt or offend him. His thoughts, sometimes inconsistent, often impractical, but always unique, reflect a vortex of diverse personalities – an Aristotle, a Claudius, a Nero and a George Peabody, rolled into one and inspired to play chess.” (Our thanks to John Hilbert for finding this — ed.)

128

Third Book

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDw4kD} 7DpDwDr0p} 6wDb0pDwD} 50w1wDwDw} &w)PDPDwD} 3)w!RDw)w} 2wDwDwDB)} %DwDw$wDK} v,./9EFJMV

8.Kf4 Qh6+ 9.Kg4 g5 The king is made immobile. White had to play 10.Rxe6 and is lost after eight moves.27 The “Zugzwang” and the Stalemate

Rubinstein-Spielmann, Black to play 65. The threat Rf7-f1+ is guarded by rook and bishop. The double guard is needed because also the black rooks are doubled. The very same pieces guard the e-pawn. This suggests the question whether Bxe4 would be effective. The move threatens mate and therefore indirectly guards the queen. The formidably posted bishop would have to be captured and the way to Rf1+ opened. The question is only whether the sacrifice would drive the white king into such difficulties as would be considered sufficient compensation for the sacrificed material. If 2.Bxe4 Rf1+ 3.Rxf1 Rxf1+ 4.Kg2 Rg1+ 5.Kf3 Qh5+ 6.Ke3 Qxh2 the white g-pawn will fall and Black will surely have compensation. But there is another variation, 2.Rxe4, which appears more promising. This line of play was actually adopted. Its course was as follows: 1...Bxe4 2.Rxe4 Rf1+ 3.Bxf1 Rxf1+ 4.Kg2 Qf2+ 5.Kh3 Rh1 6.Rf3 Qxh2+ 7.Kg4 Qh5+

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwdkD} 7DpDwDw0p} 6wDw0pDwD} 50wdwDwDq} &w)PDRDKD} 3)w!wDR)w} 2wDwDwDwd} %DwDwdwDr} v,./9EFJMV

There are combinations not subject to the foregoing motifs which play an equally prominent part in all contests of life. They nonetheless are combinations, in that they are brought about by the faculty of the mind to combine various concepts, and of thinking logically and towards a logical purpose. But they differ from the combinations studied above inasmuch as they are not emanations of the power of the pieces but rather of the subtleties of reasoning. They have something mathematical, something of scholastic finesse. They never speak with the voice of thunder, they reflect the despair of a proud and heroic heart battling against titanic forces. Their triumph is the triumph of a tricky lawyer who has discerned a loophole in the wording of a law. Man has erred in framing the law — the moral and social intent of law is defeated by an ambiguity of language, by the inappropriateness of an arbitrary expression — the logical mind gains an advantage over the heroic mind and exalts. Of this nature are combinations based on the motifs of Zugzwang and stalemate. According to the rules of play, one cannot waive the right of moving. You may waive rights in life, but not in play. The right to move may become very irksome — you have attained an excellent, an unimprovable position; you want to stay there, but the wording of the rule forces you to make some change. Your position is such that any change is undesirable, yet you must consent to it. Thereby your position becomes inferior, you lose ground, you lose the game. The obligation to move, which is the same as the right to move, has no name in English. It is usually called by the German name of Zugzwang. There is nothing that exactly corresponds to it in real life. It is very much the same with the stalemate. Possibly the idea of sanctuary, where a criminal would find protection as long as he clung to it,

129

Lasker’s Manual of Chess has a remote likeness to the idea of stalemate. All in all, combinations based upon these motifs, though subtle and sharp, require no boldness, no willpower, but merely ingenuity.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDkdwD} 7Dwdwdwdw} 6wDw)KDwD} 5dwdwDwDw} &wdwdwDwD} 3dwdwDwdw} 2wDwDwDwd} %DwDwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

and pawns. The pawns, not being able to repeat moves, are usually blocked and then it is the king which has to bear the burden of the Zugzwang. In the struggle of the kings under the Zugzwang, geometrical conditions play an important part, such as the opposition and the “triangle.” Sometimes also the mathematical idea of correspondence or function is implied. These endings are therefore no trial of combative energy, but of mathematical reasoning, of the faculty for calculation.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DpDkDwDw} 6w)wDwDwD} 5Dw)KDwDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

1. This elementary ending illustrates both motifs in their simplest form. If Black is to move, White wins by Zugzwang: 1...Kd8 2.d7 Black cannot be driven off by force, but he must move. 2...Kc7 3.Ke7 and now force wins. If White is to move, the Zugzwang is obviated by the stalemate: 1.d7+ Kd8 2.Kd6, stalemate.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DwDwDwDw} 6wDwDwDwD} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDw!wDw} 2wDw0wDw0} %DwDwiwDK} v,./9EFJMV

White to play and win

Black to play and draw 2. This is the final stage of a study by Troitzky. With 1...Kf1 Black keeps the d-pawn mobile, and if 2.Qxd2 Black is stalemated. With this joke Black snaps his fingers at the white queen made powerless by the wording of a rule. The Zugzwang occurs almost exclusively in endings where few forces are left on the board, mostly in endings of king and pawns against king

3. Here both Zugzwang and stalemate are the leading motifs. The black king must play neither to e8 nor e7 because of c5-c6. Its field is restricted to c6, d8 and c8. White can defend his c-pawn from d5, d4, or c4. The mobility of White is greater than that of Black and in the play for Zugzwang he has therefore the advantage. He utilizes the “triangle” d4, d5, e5 for the purpose of losing a move: 1.Ke5 Kc6 2.Kd4 Kd7 If 2...Kb5 3.Kd5 and White soon attacks the bpawn or pushes c5-c6 and wins. 3.Kd5 Now White has lost a move and Black, under the pressure of Zugzwang and unable to play Ke7, must give way. 3...Kc8 4.Ke6 Kd8 5.Kd6 Kc8 6.Ke7 Kb8 7.Kd7 Ka8 Now not 8.Kc7 on account of stalemate, but 8.c6 bxc6 9.Kc7 and queens his pawn. The idea of the triangle is here made manifest. The king which dominates a triangle can make three moves to return to his original post; the king not so favored uses for the same purpose

130

Third Book two or four or six, in short, an even, never an odd, number of moves. Thus the king in the triangle can always lose a move and place the opponent under Zugzwang.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DwDwDwDw} 6wDwDwDwD} 5DpDwDwiw} &w)wDw0wD} 3DwDwDKDw} 2wDwDwDPD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

headway. Consequently, White must somehow contrive to lose a move. 2.Kd5 2...Kh5 Or 2...Kg3 3.Ke5 Kg4 4.Kf6 etc. Or again 2...Kf5 3.Kd4 Kg5 4.Ke4, and the end is attained. 3.Kc6! Now 3...Kg6 would hold the opposition, but that is useless because of 4.Kxb5, whereupon the white king would have time enough to return for the capture of the f-pawn. 3...Kg5 4.Kc5 Kh4 5.Kd4 Kg4 6.Ke4 Kg5 7.Ke5 Kg4 8.Kf6 Kg3 9.Kf5 The exchange of pawns now being forced, White wins without trouble.

By Weenink, White to play and win 4. The white g-pawn is exposed, yet the white king desires to march to b5 in order to win the pawn there. Hence, White must force the exchange of his weak pawn for the strong fpawn. 1.Ke4 Kg4 But now Black has the opposition. If 2.Ke5 Kg5 White can make no

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwiwDwD} 7DwDwDwDw} 6wDwDwDwD} 50wDwDw0w} &PDwDwDPD} 3)wDwDw)w} 2wDwDKDwD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV White to play and win Black to play and draw

St. Petersburg 1909. Standing, back row, l. to r.: E. Cohn, Forgács, E.A. Znosko-Borovsky, Spielmann. Standing, second row: von Freymann, Duras, Levin, S.A. Znosko-Borovsky, Sosnitsky, Demidov SanDonato, Saburov, Chudovsky, Perlis, Tartakower, Teichmann. Seated: Vidmar, Bernstein, Lasker, Burn, Schlechter, Rubinstein, Mieses, Salwe, Speijer.

131

Lasker’s Manual of Chess 5. Here the central squares correspond to each other as follows. Whenever the white king stands on c4 the black king must be on c6 so as to avert both Kb5 and Kd5. Whenever the white king comes to e4, the black king must counter by Ke6 in order to defend both his pawns. To the point d4 corresponds d6. After having established the correspondence thus far, we may easily continue it further. If the white king enters upon d3 ready to go to either c4, d, or e4, the black king must be ready to go to c6, d6 or e6, and therefore must occupy d7. Analogously in correspondence are the points c3 and c7, e3 and e7, c2 and c8, d2 and d8, e2 and d8.

the c-pawn with immediately fatal results, as is readily seen. To lose the move is a simple matter as it was in the case of the triangle: 1.Bh1 Bd7 2.Bg2 Be8 Or 2...Kg6 3.Bf3 wins the h-pawn and forces an entrance for the white king. 3.Bf3 Bd7 With 3...Bf7, the valuable c-pawn is lost: 4.Bxc6 Bxc4 5.Be8 Bb3 6.c6 Bxa4 7.c7. 4.Bxh5 Bc8 5.Be8 Bb7 6.Bd7 Kg6 7.Kg3 Kf6 8.Kf3 Kg6 9.Ke3 Kf6 10.Kd4 Ba8 11.Bc8 Zugzwang has hampered Black all along and now Zugzwang forces him to resign.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 70wDwDw0k} 6wDwDwDqD} 50wDwDwDp} &PDwDwDw)} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wIQDwDwD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

Consequently, White, having the move, wins by 1.Kd2, and Black having the move draws by 1...Ke8. The mode of winning is here indicated: 1.Kd2 Kc8 2.Ke3 , since e7 is inaccessible to Black. 2...Kd7 3.Kd3 Kd6 4.Kd4 and has the opposition and thus forces the fifth rank and wins. If, however, Black is to move, he plays 1...Ke8 and wherever White may move, Black enters the corresponding square, and since this rule can be followed forever, White is forever unable to enter the fifth rank.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDbDwD} 7DwDwDwDw} 6wDpDwDwi} 50w)wDpDp} &PDPDw)wI} 3DwDwDBDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

By Em. Lasker, after an idea of v. Gottschall, White to play and draw 7. The black queen is pinned. Can White force stalemate or keep the queen pinned indefinitely? That is the idea of a study by von Gottschall which, if I remember rightly, had the following form: white king on b1, queen on c2, pawn on h4; black king on h7, queen on g6, pawns on c3, g7, h5 and the solution 1.Ka1. In my modified form 1.Ka1 would not work because of 2...a6 and White, in Zugzwang, must abandon the pin. The solution is 1.Ka3 a6 2.Qb1 and White maintains the pin. Of course, if 2...Kh6 3.Qc1+ Kh7 4.Qb1.

Schelfhout-Muurlink, White to play and win 6. In the diagonal from h1 to a8 the white bishop has three squares of mobility, whereas the black bishop guarding the c-pawn has only two squares at its disposal. White has to lose a move, for if Black is to move, he loses either the h-pawn or

8. From the next diagram, the motif of Zugzwang is here finely executed. First the black king is impeded in its mobility, then the bishop, and finally a catastrophe is brought about. 1.Kh6 Kh8 2.Nh4 If now 2...Bg8 3.Ng6#. The black bishop is thus forced to remain on its exposed post. 2...Kg8 Now the knight can improve its position without losing its hold upon the precious square g6.

132

Third Book

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDkD} 7DwDwDwDb} 6wDwDwDwD} 5DwDwDpIw} &wDwDw)wD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDwDwDND} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

The promotion of the pawn is the final stage of a slow process which runs through three phases.

By Troitzky, White to play and win

cuuuuuuuuC (RDwDwDwD} 7)wDwDkDw} 6rDwDwDwD} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwDwDKDw} v,./9EFJMV

1. The first phase consists in obtaining a “passed” pawn by getting the opposing pawn out of the way by capture or by forcing it to capture a piece or a pawn. 2. The second phase consists in the advance of the pawn in spite of the resistance of the enemy. 3. The last phase is the conquest of the square of promotion either by advancing or by capturing on the last rank.

3.Nf3 Kh8 4.Ne5 Kg8 5.Nc6 Kh8 6.Ne7, the catastrophe. The Promotion of the Pawn Far more natural than the motif of Zugzwang or stalemate, is that of the promotion of a passed pawn on reaching the 8th rank. The pawn has succeeded to the extreme of its possibilities until at its death it is rewarded with a new life — thus a Buddhist might put it — or, as we Westerners say, it is promoted to higher rank because of the efficiency it has shown.

Black to play, White wins 9. White threatens 1.Rh8 guarding the pawn by geometrical motif. Black is helpless, since the king, for fear of check, cannot enter the third rank.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDw4wi} 70pDwDw0p} 6wDpDwDwD} 5Dwgw)wDw} &wDwDP1wD} 3DPGw0wDw} 2PDwDQDP)} %DwDNDwIw} v,./9EFJMV

New Competition: With the premature death of Pillsbury in 1906, and the defeat of Tarrasch in 1908, there seemed no one who might seriously challenge Lasker. But new competition arose in the form of Akiva Rubinstein, who rose from obscure, humble origins to the top ranks of the chess world. In their first encounter, at St. Petersburg 1909, Rubinstein not only tied Lasker for 1st place, but defeated him in their game.

Dr. Lindehn-S. Bergh, Black to play 133

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 70wDwDwDp} 6wDwDwiwD} 5DRDwDPDw} &wDwDwDKD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2P0w4wDwD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

10. 1...Qf1+ 2.Qxf1 e2+ 3.Nf2 exf1Q+ and wins.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDri} 70pDwDQDw} 6wDpDw)wD} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDwDwDqD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2PGwDwgP)} %DwDwDw$K} v,./9EFJMV

Hallgarten-Dimer, Black to play and win

Dufresne-Harrwitz, White to play 11. White wins by means of his passed pawn, which is able to advance to the seventh rank with discovered check and therefore virtually is already on the seventh rank. 1.Qe8 Kh7 2.f7 and wins.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDw$} 7DwDwDwDw} 6wDwDwDwD} 5)KDwDwDw} &w)wDwDwD} 3DwDwDwiw} 2wDwDwDw0} %4wDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

The white rook must stay on the b-file file to stop Black’s b-pawn. The combination consists of overburdening the king as well as rook and so getting the f-pawn out of the way. 1...h5+ 2.Kxh5 Unless captured, the pawn would become dangerous. 2...a5 3.a3 If the king returns to g4, 3...Rd4+ and 4...Rb4 obstructs the white rook and queens the pawn. 3...Re2 White is in Zugzwang. The rook cannot move without losing the f-pawn, the king cannot go to h6 because of the checkmate by Rh2, it cannot return because of the rook checking the fourth rank, as, for instance, 4.Kg4 Re4+ 5.Kany Rb4 and queens the pawn and wins.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 74wDwDw)R} 6wDwIwDwD} 5DwDwDwiw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

Maróczy-Dr. Tarrasch, White to play 12. The game proceeded 1.Kc6 Rc1+ 2.Kb6 Rc4! – threatening 3...Rh4 — 3.Rxh2 Rxb4+ 4.Kc5 Ra4 draw. White could have won as follows: 1.Rxh2 Kxh2 2.Ka6 Kg3 3.b5 Kf4 4.b6 Ke5 5.b7 Rb1 6.Ka7 Kd6 7.b8Q+ Rxb8 8.Kxb8 Kc6 9.a6 and wins. 13. From the next diagram, the white king or rook has the function of guarding the f-pawn.

From Chess Player’s Chronicle Black to play, White wins 14. In spite of the simplicity of the position a variety of motifs comes here into play. Firstly,

134

Third Book the passed pawn. Black, being unable to stop it on his first rank (1...Ra8 2.Rh8 wins at once), must stop it from the g-file. Unfortunately, the king is on that file, so that only one square is open to the black rook on that line, g6. 1...Ra6+ Now White cannot win by 2.Kc7 Rg6, nor by 2.Ke7 Ra7+, because the white king cannot escape the checks of the rook. But where does White move? Remember that after Black has played Rg6 neither the white rook nor the pawn can move and that Black is in a similar predicament. Therefore White utilizes Zugzwang. 2.Kd5 Rg6 3.Ke5 Kg4 Forced by Zugzwang. Now the black king and pawn are sufficiently distant from each other to enable White to make use of the geometrical motif. 4.Rh1 Kf3 5.Rf1+ Ke3 6.Rf7 soon to be followed by Kf5, Kf6, and then White wins easily.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DwDwDwDw} 6wDwDwDw)} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDwDwHwD} 3DkDwDwDw} 2w0wDwgwD} %DKDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV Leonid Kubbel, White to play and win

15. The black pawn cannot gain its square of promotion, but White can keep the bishop from bothering the white pawn. To that end the bishop must be kept from the diagonal dominating h8 within the two moves that the pawn needs for queening. Naturally, 1.Ne2 is not so strong as 1.Ne6, where the knight threatens two checks. 1.Ne6 If 1...Be1 1...Bh4, 2.Nc5+ Kany 3.Ne4 successfully shuts the bishop out. And if 1...Bg3 2.Nd4+ Kany 3.Nf3 is similarly effective.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DwDwDNDp} 6wDwDwDwd} 5iwDwDwDw} &wDwDwdwD} 3IwDw)pDw} 2wdwDwdwD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV Leonid Kubbel, White to play and win 16. Here the passed pawns play the capital part. The f-pawn is menacing, the knight can stop it but only by the aid of a check which speeds the knight on. Then the black king will hurry to support and the white king is far from action. This the setting of the drama. How very balanced the situation is becomes evident from the analysis

Lasker and Rubinstein at St. Petersburg 1909.

135

Lasker’s Manual of Chess of the tempting 1.Ne5. The reply is 1...Kb5 2.Nxf3 Kc4 3.e4 h5 4.Kb2 h4 5.Kc2 h3 6.Kd2 h2 7.Nxh2 Kd4 and draws. The right line of play is: 1.Nd6 f2 2.Nc4+ Kb5 3.Nd2 Since now 4.Kb3 is threatened, which would screen off the black king, Black must get his king into action at once. 3...f1Q 4.Nxf1 Kc4 5.Kb2 Kd3 6.Kc1 Ke2 This is a bitter necessity, since by Kc1-d1-e1f2 etc., White would otherwise build up a firm position. 7.e4 Kxf1

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DwDwDwDp} 6wDwDwDwD} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDwDPDwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwIwDkDw} v,./9EFJMV

15.Qh5+ Kg2 16.Qg4+ Kh2 17.Kf2 and wins.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwinD} 7DwDwDw0w} 6wDwDw1RD} 5DwDw0PDw} &w)w0PDwD} 30wDPDNDQ} 2w4rDwDwD} %DwDwDRDK} v,./9EFJMV Chigorin-Dr. Tarrasch, Black to play

If now the white pawn marches, the black pawn does so likewise, gets to h2, and there according to a well known elementary ending the pawn, supported by its king, makes a draw against the queen by stalemate. But White makes use of the great distance between the black king and pawn by menacing that pawn first and thus approaching with his king. 8.Kd2 h5 9.Ke3 Kg2 Or else the black pawn would be stopped. 10.e5 h4 11.e6 h3 12.e7 h2 13.e8Q h1Q

17. 1...a2 The passed pawn, supported by the rooks, is sufficient compensation for the loss of the queen. 2.Rxf6+ Has the queen not been paid for too dearly with the rook? But if 2.Ng5, Black replies 2...Ke7. If then 3.Qh7 Rb1! and the passed pawn becomes a terrible threat, while White’s attack is insufficient, viz. 3...Rb1 4.Rxg7+ Kd6 5.Rd7+ Kc6 6.Rc7+ Kb5 7.Rb7+ Ka4 8.Ra7+ Kxb4 9.Rb7+ Kc3 10.Rc7+ Kb2 11.Rb7+ Ka1o. 2...gxf6 3.Rd1 Rb1 4.Qf1 Rcb2 5.Nd2 The square b1 must be guarded, since 5...Rxd1 followed by 6...Rb1 is the threat. 5...Rxd1 6.Qxd1 Rxd2 7.Qc1 Rxd3 8.Kg2

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwinD} 7DwDwDwdw} 6wDwDw0wD} 5DwDw0PDw} &w)w0PDwD} 3dwDrDwDw} 2pdwDwDKD} %Dw!wDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDQDwD} 7DwDwDwDw} 6wDwDwDwD} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDwIwDw} 2wDwDwDkD} %DwdwDwDq} v,./9EFJMV Now the white king is near enough to carry through a victorious attack. 14.Qg6+ Kh3

To give a series of checks would be useless, since Black can play so that the series terminates. 8...Rc3 9.Qa1 Rc2+ 10.Kf3 d3 11.Qd1

136

Third Book Rb2 12.Qa4 d2 Now 13...d1Q followed by 14...Rb1 is the threat, and White resigns. 28

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDwDwD} 7DwDwgk0p} 6wDwDw0wD} 50wDwDwDw} &b)w$wDwD} 3DwDw)wDw} 2w)wDw)P)} %DwGwHKDw} v,./9EFJMV

2...Kb6 3.Ke5 and threatens again by 4.Kd6 to give life to the white pawn. 3...Kxc6 4.Kf4 draws. An old method of breaking though

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 70p0wDwDw} 6wDwDwDwD} 5)P)wDwDw} &wDwDwip0} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwDwDwIw} v,./9EFJMV

Thomas-Marshall, Black to play 18. The motif here is the formidable effect of the black rook on the back rank involving simultaneous attack on king, bishop, knight, the weakness of White’s b2 and the force of the passed pawn. 1...Bb5+ 2.Kg1 axb4 If now 3.Nc2 Rc8, or 3.Nd3 Ra1. 3.Bd2? Correct was 3.Nf3 or 3.Rd1. Now the black rook penetrates with decisive effect. 3...Ra1 4.f3 Rb1 5.Kf2 Rxb2 6.Kg3 b3 7.f4 Rxd2 8.Rxd2 Bb4 9.Rd1 Bxe1+ 10.Rxe1 Bd3 and wins.29

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwI} 7DwDwDwDw} 6kDPDwDwD} 5DwDwDwDp} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

White to play and win 20. The array of white pawns is able to obtain by force a passed pawn in breaking through the opposing array. 1.b6 cxb6 2.a6 bxa6 3.c6. Of course, if 1...axb6 2.c6 bxc6 3.a6.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DkDw4wDw} 6w)wDw0pD} 5DwDwDPDw} &wDwDbDPD} 3Dw$wGwIw} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV Dr. Tarrasch-Em. Lasker, White to play

By R. Réti, White to play and draw 19. Most remarkably White can here utilize the nearly helpless c-pawn to aid his king in winning two important moves. 1.Kg7 h4 2.Kf6 Now 3.Ke6 threatens to give life to the white pawn.

21. Here Dr. Tarrasch could have won by making a combination the motif of which is to break through with his pawns. He tried it but missed the right continuation. 1.g5 I moved here 1...Rf7, whereupon 2.Ra3 would have won, but White answered 2.gxf6 and the game ended a draw. 1...fxg5 2.f6 Rf7 3.Bd4 Rd7 4.Re3!

137

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DkDrDwDw} 6w)wDw)pD} 5DwDwDw0w} &wDwGbDwD} 3DwDw$wIw} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV If now 4...Rxd4 5.f7 Rd8 6.Rxe4 Rf8 7.Re7+ Kxb6 8.Kg4 Kc6 9.Kxg5 Kd6 10.Kf6 wins. 4...Bf5 5.Re7 Rxe7 6.fxe7 Bd7 7.Kf3 Kc6 8.Ke4 Kd6 9.Bc5+ Kc6 10.Ke5 wins. Another variation (from above diagram): 4...Bc6 5.Re7 Rxe7 6.fxe7 Kc8 7.Kg4 Kd7 8.Bf6 Ke8 9.Kxg5 Kf7 10.Kf4 Ke8 11.Ke5 Kd7 12.Bg5 Bb7 13.Kf6 Bd5 Or 13...Ke8 14.Ke6. 14.b7 Bxb7 15.Kf7 and wins.

cuuuuuuuuC (whkDrDw4} 7Dw0wDp0p} 6p0wDwDwD} 5Dw0wDwDw} &wDwDP)wD} 3Dw)RGKDw} 2PDPDwDP)} %DwDRDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

paradoxical move. The ordinary method would be to advance first of all the pawn that has no enemy pawn on its file. The e-pawn is “half passed”; if it can get the f-pawn out of the way it will have reached the goal of becoming a passed pawn. But the natural move 1.e5 would be bad for the bishop, shutting it out of action by its own pawns. The move e4-e5 may follow later on, since the bishop can give it support. 1.f5 f6 Dr. Tarrasch (Die Moderne Schachpartie) blames this move for all the trouble that ensues, and he may be right in so far as the move is made by Black too readily, but he is certainly wrong in thinking that Black may do without this move. True, Black can fight for the square e4 with his pieces alone, viz., 1...Nc6 2.Bf4 Re7 3.Re3 Rhe8 4.g4. White will threaten to force e4-e5 by Rd1-e1 and thereby cause Nc6-e5+, Bf4xe5, Re7xe5, and Kf3-f4. In the long run Black will he unable to guard the point e5 without f7-f6, which permits the attack g2-g4-g5.2.g4 Re7 3.Bf4 Rhe8 4.Re3 Nc6 5.g5 After 5...fxg5 6.Bxg5 White will be able at length to conquer the square e5. 5...Na5 6.h4 Nc4 7.Re2 Rf7 8.Rg1 Kd7 9.h5 Nd6 10.h6 If now 10...gxh6 11.gxf6, obtaining two formidable passed pawns. 10...fxg5 11.Rxg5 g6 12.fxg6 hxg6 13.Rxg6 Ref8 14.Rg7 Rxg7 15.hxg7 and won easily. These instances will suffice as a beginning. It would be easy enough to increase their number. But it is not the multitude of examples that is instructive, for the multitude is confusing; it is the method which carries value as instruction, and the method has been sufficiently illustrated above to be thoroughly intelligible. The reader must now work by himself so that he may acquire the ability to apply the method however the circumstances may vary in detail.

Em. Lasker-Janowski, White to play 22. The task for White is clearly to obtain a passed pawn on the kingside. Black cannot attempt to counterbalance this by obtaining a passed pawn on the queenside because of his doubled pawn, unless he achieves that end by bringing up his pieces to make an attack against the white queenside pawns. White has to begin the attack with an apparently

On Made-Up Combinations and on Combinations Arising in the Course of a Hard-fought Game To construct positions according to the motifs discussed above and thus to invent surprising combinations is as easy as telling a fairy tale. The reader may do so for practice, but is earnestly advised to do only a little of it. A method commonly followed with this end in view is to

138

Third Book construct the final position which has some very surprising feature and then to lead up to it by a forced move and again to lead up to that position and so, always going backward a move to arrive at a position where the fundamental idea is fairly hidden. Thus many combinations have been composed from time immemorial. Again, you may take up a combination that arose in actual play, get rid of nonessentials, and thus refine it. This method is superior. But there are masters in the art of composing combinations who follow their own methods and who, perhaps, work with no method, relying only upon their fertility of invention. Of this art and its strong aesthetic impression, more in another chapter. For the moment may it suffice to say that artistic combinations, the solution of which is often concealed as deeply as human wit can hide itself, have been published in immense numbers and have given pleasure to millions. But for all that, it is only the hard-fought game which produces the profoundest and most precious ideas, just as Nature, not the artist, creates the most wonderful works, just so again as the precious metal is not discovered in the retort of the alchemist but in Nature’s own recesses: in the mountains and in the rivers.

Not too completely, therefore, must the adept of chess give himself over to the charms of constructed combinations. Rather should he strive to trace and to master the combination in actual over-the-board play. But to this end, beside a knowledge of the motifs entering into a combination, he will have need also of another method of investigation, and this other method appears to be foreign to combination at first sight, even antagonistic to it. Like most first impressions this is deceptive. Before proceeding to explain this other method of investigation, which is done in the following chapters, let us unmask the reason for this false impression. With such a multitude of resources at his command, many of them of a spectacular nature, the learner is at first disappointed to find that maneuvers of this kind are not always occurring. He loves to believe that truth is beautiful and the beautiful true. For no other cause than lack of experience he fails to recognize the truth and consequently the beauty of the efforts of the chess master. But if he courageously follows our counsel — that he should serve his apprenticeship with the live contest he will assuredly become awakened to a beauty that he had not known before and the charm of which will fail him no more.

The Matches that Never Were: Three interesting “World Championship matches that might have been” were Lasker against Pillsbury, Maróczy, and Rubinstein. Though he had the best record against Lasker of anyone before Capablanca, Pillsbury never formally challenged. Maróczy challenged in 1906, but negotiations fell through. Lasker agreed to play Rubinstein in 1914, but World War I broke out before play could commence. Lopsided Matches and a Close Shave: Lasker’s title matches against Marshall and Janowski were among the most lopsided in chess history. He beat Marshall +8 –0 =7 in 1907, and Janowski +8 –0 =3 in late 1910. In contrast, Lasker barely managed to retain his title against Schlechter in early 1910; the ten-game match ended in a +1 –1 =8 tie, Lasker’s lone win coming in the final game.

139

Fourth Book Position Play Whereas by combination values are transformed, they are proved and confirmed by “position play.” Thus, position play is antagonistic to combination, as becomes evident when a “combinative player” meets with his counterpart, the “positional player.” The two often are wholly different in make up and constitution. The combinative player an adventurer, speculator, gambler, the positional player believing in rigid dogma, happy only in a firm position, afraid of all dangers, parsimonious with all he holds, even with the minute values; the former perhaps careless of detail and large-visioned, the latter penny-wise and pound-foolish. The combinative player calls the positional player Philistine, pedant, woodshifter; the positional player replies with invectives such as romancer, dreamer, presumptuous idealist. One meets with pronounced types of the two kinds and they poke fun at one another. Thus the following story is told of an onlooker at a game. He was a combinative player. Suddenly he interrupted the players: “I see a magnificent combination, a sacrifice of the queen,” he excitedly called to him who was to move. “If your opponent then takes the pawn, he is mated, and if he goes out of check, he is mated in two.” “Well,” replied the player, “but the principal question is: what am I to do if he captures the queen?” “That is the only variation,” replied the combination player, “which I have not yet looked into.” However obviously the majority of chess players may be divided into two big classes of combination and positional players, in the chess master this antagonism is transformed into a harmony. In him combination play is completed by position play. By combination the master aims to show up and to defeat the false values, the true values shall guide him in his position play, which in turn shall bring those values to honor. The master is like a man in a learned dispute who knows sophistry but does not make use of it, except for the purpose of exposing the sly subtleties of an artful opponent who disputes a true, sound, vigorous thesis with mere trickery.

The Plan The thought which gives life to a combination is called the idea, the thought behind position play is called the plan. The idea has a point which surprises, which changes at one blow the state of affairs; the plan has breadth and depth which are imposing and which, by slow, methodical building, give a structure to the position. The methods followed in the analysis of a given position by combination and by the creation of plans are differentiated by the direction of the underlying thought. The combination player thinks forward: he starts from the given position and tries the forceful moves in his mind; the positional player thinks backward: he conceives a position to be arrived at and works toward that position of which he is more conscious than the one on the board. He sees successive stages of the position aimed at and he visualizes the stage in a reverse order. If one position, according to his plan, is to follow another he sees the one that is to follow first and he deduces, as it were, the anterior position from it. In looking for a combination the given position is the essential thing, in the conceiving of plans the intended position is the root of my thinking. When following the former process I seek to find out whether among the positions that I can derive from the present position by a succession of forceful moves I may not be able to detect one desirable to me and to envisage it; with the latter process I hope to be able to attain to a position that I have in mind and try to find out whether ways leading up to that conceived position may not start from the given position. Can I, by method, by systematic procedure, start my antagonist on the way to the position I aim at? This is the question uppermost in the mind of the positional players and this is the essence of plan making. When looking at the results of analysis, it is true, I cannot determine by logical deduction through

140

Fourth Book which particular process of thought the result has been arrived at. But to this end, though logic fails me, psychology will aid me. A spirit with a large and roomy brain who without error could keep in mind millions of variations would have no need of planning. Frail, weak man can clearly keep in mind only half a dozen variations since he has but little time to spare for chess. And if he by chance had more time for it and in addition had genius for the game, to see through hundreds of variations would turn his brain. His reason was not made to be a substitute for a printed table. His mind has a marvelous faculty which enables him to conceive deep and farsighted plans without being subject to the necessity of examining every possibility. From the psychology of frail man I can decide whether this move belongs to a combination; that one to a plan. There are simple positions by the analysis of which one can practice combining and planning at the same time. One can understand such positions either way, and to do this is pleasurable. But let it be said at once that the method of planning has not been made for what is simple but only for what is complicated, immense, infinite. True, complication is merely relative; to a mathematician, for instance, the complex movements of the planets round the sun are very much simpler than the sequence of prime numbers. For all that, every spirit, however great or small, in combat with what to him is complicated, has need of this admirable faculty of conceiving plans with which Nature has provided him. For the chess player the importance of planning is sufficiently manifest and is nowadays acknowledged. So says Nimzovitch (My System, 1929, page 33) “Settle on your objective is the rule ... Aimlessly to drift from one to another, this will expose you to a strategic disgrace.” The plan shall provide for long and manifold series of moves and conduce to a desirable end. In this the plan is different from a combination. Some combinations of artificial positions are long and complicated it is true, but they can be registered in a few lines or, at the utmost, in

several pages. In a contest of two well-matched masters the net of variations would fill volumes, they multiply indefinitely and the chess player, to grasp the immense number of possibilities, would have need of Ariadne’s thread, namely, of a plan. Examples

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7GpiwDwDw} 6wDwDwDwD} 5)wDKDwDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV Metger-L. Paulsen, White to play and win 1. Let us contemplate this position without seeking for a combination. Black’s ideal is to have his king on a8 or on b7 after his pawn has been got rid of. He sees his king in the corner, sure that the opponent cannot dislodge it. Alternatively he sees the bishop on a7, the white pawn on b6, his king on b7, moving to a8 and back to b7 and meanwhile the white king at bay lest it stalemate. He tries to bring one of these positions about, resisting every drift that would tend in another direction. White sees the black king kept from a8. A move of the b-pawn, he thinks, must be countered by a5-a6. He aims at maneuvering his king so as to drive the opposing king off by Zugzwang. Out of this web of plans the following play logically results: 1.Kd4 The b-pawn must not be allowed to advance with check, since the reply to that advance is to be a5-a6.1...Kc6 2.Bb6 Kd6 Of course, if 2...Kb5 3.Kd5 and conquers b7. 3.Kc4 Kc6 4.Kb4 Kd6 5.Kb5 Kd7 6.Bg1 Kc7 7.Bh2+ Kany 8.Kb6 and wins. 2. A somewhat more complicated example follows:

141

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (wDw$wDwD} 7DwDwDwDw} 6wDwDwDwD} 5DwDpDwDw} &wDw)biwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDwDwIwD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (RDwDwDwD} 7DwDwDkDw} 6wDwDwDwD} 5DwDpDwDw} &wDw)wIwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDwDwDbD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

White to play

White dominates the important points. He has achieved what he set out to do. His plan now includes the capture of the pawn with the rook in a position where the single pawn would win, that is, when black’s king has been driven away from the immediate vicinity of d7. 10...Be4 11.Ra7+ Ke8 12.Ke6 Kd8 13.Kd6 Kc8 14.Ra8+ Kb7 15.Rg8 Bf3 16.Rg3 Be4 17.Rc3 Bg2 18.Rc5 Now the king has been forced away from the vicinity of d7 and Rxd5 follows decisively.

White conceives the plan of forcing the black king away from the square e4 and thus of dominating the important points d4 and d5 with king and rook. 1.Rh8 Black resists. He wants to get his king to e4 or e3. 1...Bf5 2.Rh4+ Bg4 3.Kg2 White forces the black king by Zugzwang. 3...Kg5 4.Kg3 Bf5 5.Rh8 Bg6 6.Rf8 Be4 7.Re8 The black king is now driven off his fourth rank. 7...Kf6 8.Kf4 Bg2 9.Ra8 Kf7 Here White is unable to take the opposition owing to his king on f5 being exposed to check by the bishop. 10.Ke5

The above is not the only plan that would win. The white king might have marched to c3, the black king driven from the vicinity of the white pawn, the white king then proceeds to c5, the rook to e5 and if need be the black king is driven away from d7 as above.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DwDwiwDw} 6wDw0wDwD} 5DwDw4wDw} &wDwDwIwD} 3DwDQDwDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

Lasker the Farmer: In 1912 Lasker bought a small piece of land about 20 miles outside Berlin, with the idea of becoming a farmer and pigeon breeder. Neither effort met with success: Lasker got walnut-sized potatoes, and his birds did not breed. Consulting an expert, he learned the reason: they were all male.

Philidor White to play 3. White’s plan must be to separate the black king 142

Fourth Book from the pawn and also, if possible, to lead his king to attack the pawn. Now the king may be driven to e6 and then by a check at e8 to d5 where the king will obstruct the rook. Then Zugzwang may be utilized by placing the queen on c8 and Black gets into difficulties. Or the rook may be on c5, the queen on e8, the king on d5. Can Black resist? Can he turn the game to a different issue? 1.Qh7+ Ke6 Or 1...Kd8 2.Qf7 Kc8 3.Qa7 The rook has to guard the square e7, where the queen would be powerful, hence 3...Kd8 4.Qb8+ Kd7 5.Qb7+ Kd8 6.Qc6 Ke7 7.Qc7+ Ke6 8.Qd8. 2.Qc7 Rc5 3.Qd8 Re5 4.Qe8+ Kd5 5.Qc8 Re4+ There is no help for it. If the king moves, Qc6 follows. To move the rook away from the king would permit fatal simultaneous attacks. 6.Kf5 Re5+ 7.Kf6

cuuuuuuuuC (wDQDwDwD} 7DwDwDwDw} 6wDw0wIwD} 5DwDk4wDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

At last! Now the king to the vicinity of the pawn. 13.Qb5+ Ke4 14.Ke6 Ke3 15.Qb6 Kd3 16.Qb3+ Ke4 17.Qc3 Rd3 18.Qe1+ Kf3

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DwDwDwDw} 6wDw0KDwD} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDrDkDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwDw!wDw} v,./9EFJMV The black king and rook are separated. Now to keep them so and let Zugzwang do its work. 19.Kd7 Rd4 20.Kc6 Rd3 21.Kb5 d5 22.Kc5 Kf4 23.Qe2, and the struggle is over. When we consider the amount of room required by the queen for the execution of the plan, we see that Black would not lose if the pawn had been on Black’s second rank, nor if it had stood on the b-file. Of course, a pawn on the seventh rank would be so threatening as to make a sure draw. If the pawn is on the border, wholly different motifs present themselves. Obviously, the resources of the defense would thereby be further limited.

cuuuuuuuuC (rDbDwDrD} 70pDwiqDw} 6wDwDp0w$} 5DwDpDwDw} &wDp)wDw!} 3Dw)wDw)w} 2PDPDB)wD} %DwIRDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

The fifth rank has been forced by the king, but not yet the e-file. Now to force the rook from the e-file. 7...Re4 8.Qb7+ Kd4 9.Qb4+ Kd5 10.Qd2+ Kc6 11.Qc2+ Kd5 12.Qd3+ Rd4

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DwDwDwDw} 6wDw0wIwD} 5DwDkDwDw} &wDw4wDwD} 3DwDQDwDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

Forgács-Spielmann, White to play 4. White plans to get the pawns which obstruct 143

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (rDb1w4kD} 70pDwhwDp} 6wDpDwDwD} 5DwDp0wDQ} &wDwDp)wH} 3DB)wDwDw} 2PDPDwDP)} %$wDwDRIw} v,./9EFJMV

his pieces out of the way and to enter the black camp with his heavy artillery. 1.f4 Bd7 2.f5 exf5 3.Bxc4 Rg4 If 3...dxc4 4.Re1+, and if 4...Kany 5.Rxf6; if 4...Be6 5.d5. The plan is realized. Now follows a brief struggle. 4.Re1+ Be6 If 4...Kd8 5.Rxf6 wins. 5.Qh1 Kd6 6.Rh7 Qg8 The queen has to keep the bishop protected, else Rxe6+. 7.Bb3 Re4 8.Rxb7 Rc8 9.Qf1 Rc6 10.Rxe4 Resigns.

cuuuuuuuuC (rDbDrhkD} 70p1wgp0w} 6wDpDpDw0} 5DwDw)wDw} &wDB)QDwD} 3DwHwDNDw} 2P)wDw)P)} %DwDR$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

Dr. Perlis-Salwe, White to play 2.Rae1 Kh8 3.g4 Bd7 4.Ng6+ Nxg6 5.fxg6 Rxg6 6.Rf7 Qb6+ 7.Kh1 Rg7 8.Qxe5 Rag8 9.Ref1 Qb5 10.R1f2 Qc5 11.Rxg7 Resigns.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DpDwDkDp} 6wDwDwDpD} 5DwGwIwDw} &pDwDwDwD} 3Dw)wDw)w} 2wDwDwDw)} %DwDwDbDw} v,./9EFJMV

Forgács-E. Cohn, White to play 5. White plans to bring superior forces to bear against the black king and to throttle the resistance of the few black pieces which could be collected in that narrow quarter. Black plans to make an advance in the center, but he needs much time for the preparations necessary to put such a plan into effect with so little developed force. 1.Qg4 b6 2.Qh5 Bb7 3.Re4 Bb4 4.Rg4 The march of the rook to the kingside, a difficult enterprise, has been accomplished. 4...Bxc3 One enemy less. 5.bxc3 Kh8 6.Ng5 Re7 7.Ne4 Rd8 8.Rd3 c5 9.Nf6 White threatens Qxh6+. 9...Ng6 10.Rh3 and wins. 6. From the next diagram, White, who on the queenside is hopelessly inferior, resolves to abandon his queenside to its fate and to concentrate all his efforts upon the kingside. Therefore, he lets even the e-pawn go and advances his f-pawn so as to narrow down the space available to Black. 1.f5 Rf6 Black must block the pawn which would otherwise advance impetuously with new threats at each move.

Vidmar-Spielmann, Black to play 7. B1ack, having a passed pawn on the queenside which will occupy at least one of the white pieces, plans to attack on the kingside with superior force and to keep a remote pawn there on a weak, unprotected spot, so as to have a target for his attack. 1...Bh3 Thus selecting as a target the white h-pawn which must not be allowed to march to safety. 2.Ba3 g5 3.Bb4 Kg6 4.c4 Kh5 5.Ba3 Kg4 6.Bd6 Bg2 7.Kf6 Bf1 8.Kg7 By the pressure on the h-pawn Black has driven White from the center. Thence he can threaten attacks on either wing. 8...Kf5 9.c5 If

144

Fourth Book 9.Kxh7 Bxc4 and wins with his two passed pawns of which one will cost the bishop while the other queens. 9...a3 10.c6 a2 11.g4+ Ke4 12.Be5 bxc6 13.Ba1 c5 14.Kxh7 c4 15.Kg6 Kd3 16.Kxg5 c3 Resigns.

appears to be guided by no recognizable plan and his opponent thereby gets the advantage.”

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDw4kD} 70pDw1p0p} 6wDwDbDwD} 5Dw0wDwDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDw)Q)w} 2P)wDw)B)} %$wDwDRIw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDrDwD} 70p0kDwDp} 6wDw0rDwD} 5DwDwDBDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2P)PDwDP)} %DwDw$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

Marshall-Capablanca, White to play

MacDonnell-Lewis, White to play 8. White has a pawn plus on the kingside, while Black is hampered in mobility and action by the pin of the rook. White plans to maintain the pin while his kingside pawns advance. Thus the game proceeds: 1.c4 To make difficult the liberation of the rook by d6-d5 and Kd6. 1...c6 2.g4? Too soon! First 2.b4 was indicated. 2...d5 Black does not grasp the opportunity. First 2...a5, then (eventually after the interlude 3.a3 a4) 4...b6 and at last d6-d5. 3.c5 That maintains the pin indefinitely. 3...b6 4.b4 d4 5.Re5 bxc5 6.bxc5 h6 Useless to advance the d-pawn, which White would stop with his inactive piece, the king. 7.Kf2 R8e7 8.Ke2 wins the d-pawn and the game easily. 9. In his Die Moderne Schachpartie, p. 207, Dr. Tarrasch very pertinently makes the following comment which interests us not only for its bearing on this particular position but for its logical context: “Now the players have to conceive a plan, the natural plan, the plan manifestly indicated by the position. For White this plan was to advance his kingside pawns by e3-e4, f2-f4 and to make them count and, if possible, to evolve a kingside attack therefrom. But Marshall ... fails to grasp this plan, though it is the only suitable one, and therefore his play

The game proceeded as follows: 1.Rfc1 Rab8 2.Qe4 Qc7 3.Rc3 Before now, for tactical reasons, White should have taken the open file. 3...b5 “Capablanca on his part conceives the appropriate plan, namely, to make his majority of pawns on the queenside tell, and conducts the plan to its logical conclusion.” (Dr. Tarrasch) 4.a3 c4 5.Bf3 Rfd8 “Capablanca demonstrates to his opponent all his omissions.” (Dr. Tarrasch.) 6.Rd1 Rxd1+ 7.Bxd1 Rd8 8.Bf3 g6 9.Qc6 Qe5 10.Qe4 Qxe4 11.Bxe4 Rd1+ 12.Kg2 a5 13.Rc2 b4 14.axb4 axb4 15.Bf3 Rb1

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDkD} 7DwDwDpDp} 6wDwDbDpD} 5DwDwDwDw} &w0pDwDwD} 3DwDw)B)w} 2w)RDw)K)} %DrDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV 16.Be2 Stouter resistance was offered by 16.Rd2 Kg7 17.Be4 Ra1 18.Kf3 Kf6 19.Ke2, aiming to bring the king to the defense of the queenside. 16...b3 Adequate, but even stronger

145

Lasker’s Manual of Chess was 16...c3! 17.bxc3 Bf5 18.Rd2 bxc3 19.Rd8+ Kg7 20.Bd1 c2 winning the bishop at less cost than in the actual game. 17.Rd2 Rc1 18.Bd1 c3 19.bxc3 b2 20.Rxb2 Rxd1 21.Rc2 Bf5 22.Rb2 Rc1 23.Rb3 Be4+ 24.Kh3 Rc2 25.f4 h5 26.g4 hxg4+ 27.Kxg4 Rxh2 and White soon resigned.30

cuuuuuuuuC (wDrDrDkD} 7Dw0qDpgp} 6wDp0whpD} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDwDPDwD} 3DwHQDwDw} 2P)PDw)P)} %$wGwDRIw} v,./9EFJMV

with the extra pawn. He fails, however, to take the best measures against Black’s plan which consists in placing his rooks in the open lines, bringing his knight round to c4, if possible, and through the combined pressure of the bishop, the two rooks and knight, and the queen if necessary against the a- and b-pawns, to regain his material, keeping the upper hand at the same time. The plan in this case is masked by the direct attack against the e-pawn.” 1...Qe6 2.f3 Nd7 3.Bd2 Ne5 4.Qe2 Nc4 5.Rab1 Ra8 “The real attack begins. Black is bound to regain the pawn without thereby losing ground. If White now plays 6.b3, then 6...Nxd2 7.Qxd2 Ra3 and the a-pawn must go. White however, having nothing better, should have adopted this line.” 6.a4 6...Nxd2 7.Qxd2 Qc4 8.Rfd1 Reb8 9.Qe3 Rb4 10.Qg5 Bd4+ 11.Kh1 Rab8 The rest of the game requires no comment. White, threatened by Bxc3, tried the sacrifice of the exchange and lost.

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDwDwD} 70pDwDwDk} 6wDwDw4w0} 5DwDpDpDw} &wDwDbDwD} 3DwDw$NDP} 2P)PDw$w)} %DwDwDwIw} v,./9EFJMV

Nimzovitch-Capablanca, Black to play 10. Concerning this position Capablanca writes in My Chess Career, p. 143: “Evidently White’s plan is to consolidate his position and finally win

Dr. Kaufmann and Fahndrich-Capablanca, Black to play

Lasker, with full beard.

11. From Capablanca’s My Chess Career, p. 130, we cite 1...Rb6 “The beginning of a very elaborate plan, the first object is to force the advance of one of White’s queenside pawns, so that the white rooks cannot be free to maneuver and attack Black’s queenside pawns.” 2.b3 In citing above Capablanca and Dr. Tarrasch’s remarks, our main object, of course, is to show in what manner great masters plan and how they judge plans. Here, as a matter of detail, I should have liked to know Capablanca’s opinion of 2.Rb3, which obviously would have given the

146

Fourth Book game a different turn. Capablanca attaches no comment to the above move. Suppose the reply to have been 2...Rxb3 3.axb3 a5, whereby Black would keep the doubled pawn under restraint. 2...Rc8 3.Nd4 Rf6 4.Rf4 Kg6 “Forcing the c-pawn to advance, which is part of Black’s plan. If 5.Rf2 the f-pawn will soon advance and the black rook go to c3.” 5.c3 Kg5 6.Ne2 Ra6 “The plan is maturing ...” 7.h4+ Kf6 8.a4 b5! 9.axb5 Ra1+ 10.Rf1 “If 10.Kf2 Ke5 followed by Ra2 threatening Rxe2 and Kxf4.” 10...Rxf1+ 11.Kxf1 Ke5 12.Nd4 f4 13.Rh3 Rg8 14.Ke1 Rg1+ 15.Ke2 Rg2+ 16.Kf1 Rb2 17.Ke1 h5 “Now the king must move to d1 and after forcing the exchange of the knight for the bishop the passed pawn cannot be stopped.” 18.Kd1 Bf5 19.Nxf5 Kxf5

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 70wDwDwDw} 6wDwDwDwD} 5DPDpDkDp} &wDwDw0w)} 3DP)wDwDR} 2w4wDwDw)} %DwDKDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

20.c4 If 20.Rd3 Ke4 21.Rd4+ Ke3 22.Rxd5 f3 23.Re5+ Kf4 24.Re7 f2 25.Rf7+ Ke3 and White must finally give up his rook for the f-pawn.” 20...Ke4 21.Rc3 f3 22.Ke1 d4 Resigns.

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDkgw4} 7DpDw0p0p} 6w0nDwDwD} 5DwDpDbDw} &wDw)wDwD} 3DwDw)NDw} 2P)wGw)P)} %$wDwIBDR} v,./9EFJMV Janowski-Capablanca, Black to play 12. From Capablanca’s My Chess Career, p. 172. 1...Bd7 “Black’s plan consists in advancing the b-pawn in due time and posting the knight at c4. White will then be compelled to take it off, and Black will retake with b-pawn, undoubling his pawns and increasing the pressure against White’s a- and b-pawns ...” 2.Be2 “2.Bb5 is better since it would hinder Black’s plan.” 2...e6 3.0–0 Bd6 4.Rfc1 Ke7 5.Bc3 Rhc8 6.a3 Na5 7.Nd2 f5 “To delay the advance of White’s e-pawn.” 8.g3 b5 9.f3 Nc4 “Black’s first plan is completed ... Now for two or three moves Black will devote his time to improving the general strategic position of his pieces before evolving a new plan ...” 10.Bxc4 bxc4 11.e4 Kf7 12.e5 Be7 13.f4 b5

cuuuuuuuuC (rDrDwDwD} 7DwDbgk0p} 6wDwDpDwD} 5DpDp)pDw} &wDp)w)wD} 3)wGwDw)w} 2w)wHwDw)} %$w$wDwIw} v,./9EFJMV

Lasker the Philosopher: Besides chess and mathematics, Lasker was intensely interested in philosophy. His philosophical works, such as the 500-page Das Begreifen der Welt (The Comprehension of the Universe, 1913), tackled such difficult problems as free will versus determinism, and often drew analogies between chess and life.

147

Lasker’s Manual of Chess “Black has already established his position ... It is, therefore, time to evolve a plan of attack, which in this case will be to fix as many white pieces as possible on the queenside by threatening b5-b4, then somewhat to break up the kingside through g7-g5 and then through the greater mobility of the rooks to occupy the gfile.” 14.Kf2 Ra4 15.Ke3 Rca8 16.Rab1 h6 17.Nf3 g5 18.Ne1 Rg8 19.Kf3 gxf4 20.gxf4 Raa8 21.Ng2 Rg4 22.Rg1 Rag8 23.Be1 b4! 24.axb4 Ba4

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDrD} 7DwDwgkDw} 6wDwDpDw0} 5DwDp)pDw} &b)p)w)rD} 3DwDwDKDw} 2w)wDwDN)} %DRDwGw$w} v,./9EFJMV 25.Ra1 “This makes matters easy for Black. He should have played 25.Rc1.” 25...Bc2 26.Bg3 Be4+ 27.Kf2 h5 28.Ra7 Bxg2 29.Rxg2 h4 and Black won in eight more moves. The History of Planning in Chess The human mind can evolve plans in multitude. Of the basic reasons Hamlet says, they are as cheap as blackberries. But plans that prove themselves are as scarce as reasons that hold good. It was at least a thousand years before the chess fraternity had learned anything about planning. Would it be rash to conclude that Homo sapiens is by no means so wise as he considers himself? Planning in chess started on its career with the theory of the ending — king and rook v. king. That ending follows a definite plan as, no doubt, was soon discovered. But then, proud of this achievement, the human chess intellect took it easy for a long while. In the fourteenth century a game was played in Barcelona that by some chance has survived. Its record has been kept in the archives of the city. It clearly shows the

poverty of the planning of that generation. They conceived plans of a kind, of course, but they never held to them; soon they conceived another and again another; they played with plans as children do with sand castles. The modern history of the art of planning began at the time of the Renaissance in Italy. The Italian masters of that period conceived a fertile and sound plan: to get the pieces rapidly into play, to leave the pawns out of consideration and to institute a sudden and vehement attack against the king. The counterplay on its part did not fail in evolving an opposing plan: to develop the pieces and to post them at safe points, to accept the sacrifices and to exchange the threatening pieces of the opponent, and to win by superiority in material force. The masters of the attack invented the brilliant combinations which began by cramping the king and proceeded to sacrifices in order to gain time and space for a direct assault on the king. The masters of the defense invented the systematic exchange of pieces which decreases the vigor of the hostile onslaught and at last breaks it. The masters of the fierce attack discovered the gambits, those of the defense the Giuoco Piano, the Fianchetti openings, and the Sicilian Defense. The chess history of those days has left us few books and documents to judge by. But however considerable may have been the progress of chess in those days, that progress certainly was made in the art of combining only. In the evolution of planning the next step forward was made by Philidor, a French musical composer of the eighteenth century who fled before the disorders of the Revolution to Holland and to England and there made his living by playing chess and writing on the scientific aspects of the game. He made a wonderful name for himself, such as Euclid did in geometry. His idea of planning is clearly implied in his well-known proposition that the pawns are the soul of chess. The masters of combination must have thought such an assertion heretical if not ridiculous. Probably his contemporaries considered his thesis a clever but ill-founded paradox. Nothing shows that they understood it. He was admired, but, as far as comprehending souls were concerned, wholly isolated. We can clearly see what his saying

148

Fourth Book implies. It is this: the pawn, being much more stationary than the pieces, is an element of the structure of the position; the way the array of pawns is placed determines the character of a position and hence also the plan appropriate to it. This is true ceteris paribus, i.e., if the pieces fairly balance each other. At the time of the Italian masters such a balance practically never was realized. Thus, their experience would not have led them to believe the pawns of any considerable importance. Philidor showed the value of the pawn in slow maneuvering for the purpose of opening lines desired open and of obstructing lines dominated by the enemy. And again he showed how to assault a firm position by advancing an array of pawns against it, the pieces following on their heels. He showed it more in his games than by word or writing, but his contemporaries understood neither.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwiwDwD} 7DwDwDwDR} 6wDwIwDwD} 5DwDPDwDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %Dw4wDwDw} v,./9EFJMV Black to move, White wins 7...Rc2 8.Rf4+ Kg7 9.Ke7 Re2+ 10.Kd6 Rd2+ 11.Ke6 Re2+ 12.Kd5 Rd2+ 13.Rd4 and wins.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDkDwD} 7DwDrDwDw} 6wDwDKDwD} 5DwDwGwDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %Dw$wDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

They appreciated, however, Philidor’s analysis of simple endings. This analysis, artistic and profound, has become classical.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwiwDwD} 7DwDwDwDR} 6wDwDwDrD} 5DwIPDwDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

White to move and win

1. Black, with or without the move, draws. If 1...Rf6 2.d6 Rf1, and the white king cannot be guarded against the checks of the rook. 2. Once, however, the white king gets on the sixth rank undisturbed, Black loses, as shown in the following diagram. 1...Ke8 2.Rh8+ Kf7 3.Kd7 Rc2 4.d6 Rc1 5.Kd8 Rc2 6.d7 Rc1 7.Rh4 This is the decisive move. If Black replies with 7...Rf1, White wins by 8.Rc4 and 9.Kc7. Otherwise, the game proceeds as follows.

3. In this position it is noteworthy that the white king and bishop are excellently placed and that consequently the white rook is enabled to threaten mate from either side. Of course, White will not allow Black to disturb the position of the white king, hence the first move is a check to tie up the rook. 1.Rc8+ Rd8 2.Rc7 Threatening Rh7. 2...Rd2 The following point in Philidor’s analysis is deep. The black rook is made to leave White’s second rank and is forced onto the third. With the rook there the bishop and king will be able to exert a stronger pressure upon it than if it stood further distant. 3.Ra7 Rd1 4.Rg7 Rf1 5.Bg3! The bishop guards e1 and thus prevents check; it also prevents the

149

Lasker’s Manual of Chess rook from returning to the second rank. 5...Rf3 With the rook on the third rank comes an interlude. The bishop returns without losing any time. 6.Bd6 Re3+ 7.Be5 Rf3 Again another episode; the white rook, without losing a move, goes to g4. 8.Re7+ Kf8 9.Ra7 Kg8 10.Rg7+ Kf8 11.Rg4 Ke8 And now all is prepared for the winning coup. 12.Bf4 The bishop dominates e3 and thus prevents the saving check; it also obstructs the rook; all is at an end.

black king being unable to fly to an (imaginary) ninth line.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDkDwD} 7DwDwDw$w} 6wDwDKDwD} 5DwDwGwDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwDrDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

This lovely mainplay is completed by two fine variations.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDkDwD} 7DwDwDw$w} 6wDwDKDwD} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDwDwGw} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwDwDrDw} v,./9EFJMV

1.Rc8+ Rd8 2.Rc7 Rd2 3.Ra7 Rd1 4.Rg7 Kf8 5.Rh7 Rg1 6.Rc7 Kg8 7.Rc8+ Kh7 8.Rh8+ If the chess board extended further, Black could save himself and the ending would be a draw. As it is, the rook is lost.

5...Kf8 6.Rg4 Ke8 7.Rc4 Rd1 Or 7...Kf8 8.Be5 Kg8 9.Rh4. 8.Bh4 Kf8 9.Bf6 Re1+ 10.Be5 Kg8 11.Rh4 In the third variation the circumstance of the chess board’s having only eight, and not nine, lines is made use of to catch the black rook, the

It is difficult to understand the above ending from the viewpoint of combination; to understand it from the viewpoint of planning seems decidedly easier. We discover the same circumstance in Philidor’s games. In the following game, one of three played simultaneously blindfold, he let his pawns make the assault. A combination player would be hopelessly lost in the maze of variations, whereas Philidor’s plan guides him surely and lucidly to victory. Count Brühl – Philidor, London, 1783: 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 c6 3.Qe2 d6 4.c3 f5 White should have developed more rapidly, in order to be able to open the lines for his pieces with advantage. 5.d3 Nf6 6.exf5 Bxf5 7.d4 e4 8.Bg5 d5

The Son of Battle: One of the concepts found in Lasker’s philosophical work is the Macheïde, Greek for “the son of battle.” The Macheïde is an ideal being so sharpened and perfected by the struggle for existence that it always makes the optimal choice in any situation. In chess, the Macheïde would always make the best move.

150

Fourth Book 9.Bb3 Bd6 10.Nd2 Nbd7 11.h3 h6 12.Be3 Qe7 13.f4 h5 Philidor fears a phalanx of pawns such as White threatened to form by g2-g4. 14.c4 a6 15.cxd5 cxd5 16.Qf2 0–0 17.Ne2 b5!

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDw4kD} 7DwDn1w0w} 6pDwgwhwD} 5DpDpDbDp} &wDw)p)wD} 3DBDwGwDP} 2P)wHN!PD} %$wDwIwDR} v,./9EFJMV

Rd3 43.d5 f4 44.d6 Rd2+ 45.Kf1 Kf7 46.h5 e3 47.h6 f3

cuuuuuuuuC (wDw$wDwD} 7DwDwDkDw} 6wDw)wDw)} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDw0pDP} 2wDw4wDwD} %DwDwDKDw} v,./9EFJMV and Black, threatening mate, drives the king off and queens his pawns.31

The black knight intends to take up a menacing position on c4 and if captured there thus strengthen the central pawn formation. 18.0–0 Nb6 19.Ng3 g6 20.Rac1 Nc4 21.Nxf5 gxf5 22.Qg3+ Qg7 23.Qxg7+ Kxg7 24.Bxc4 bxc4 25.g3 Rab8 Now Black heaps pressure on the b-pawn. 26.b3 Ba3 27.Rc2 cxb3 28.axb3 Rbc8 The rooks want to enter the hostile camp. 29.Rxc8 Rxc8 30.Ra1 Bb4 31.Rxa6 Rc3 32.Kf2 Rd3 33.Ra2 Bxd2 34.Rxd2 Rxb3 35.Rc2

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DwDwDwiw} 6wDwDwhwD} 5DwDpDpDp} &wDw)p)wD} 3DrDwGw)P} 2wDRDwIwD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV 35...h4 Now the f-pawn becomes a target. 36.Rc7+ Kg6 37.gxh4 Nh5 38.Rd7 Nxf4 39.Bxf4 Rf3+ 40.Kg2 Rxf4 Black has united passed pawns, the white pawns are weak; the issue is not in doubt. 41.Rxd5 Rf3 42.Rd8

Philidor wrote a book, L’Analyse, in which he analyzed particularly the openings. In applying his principles to the ancient problem of the openings he naturally aroused criticism and antagonism. The system of Philidor, slowly and deliberately to form columns of pawns, however magnificent as a strategy in a large variety of positions, is certainly not adapted to the opening stage and it certainly did not suit the temperament or the intelligence of La Bourdonnais, a compatriot of Philidor’s who succeeded him on the throne of chess. And thus La Bourdonnais, in vanquishing, as it were, the Philidor system became the father of the soundest plan known to the history of chess: to combat every developed unit of the enemy in the center with a force at least equal to it and to follow the enemy, after having thrown him back in the center, with a wellsupported advance post in the heart of his position. La Bourdonnais, it is true, never expressed this plan in words; but he did not write chess, he played it, and his moves express his intentions. As instance and proof, let us look at the following game: De la Bourdonnais – McDonnell, match, London, 1834: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e3 e5 4.Bxc4 exd4 5.exd4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Be7 7.Nf3 0–0 8.Be3 c6 9.h3 Very serviceable

151

Lasker’s Manual of Chess as preventing knight and bishop from attacking White via g4. 9...Nbd7 10.Bb3 Nb6 11.0–0 Nfd5

cuuuuuuuuC (rDb1w4kD} 70pDwgp0p} 6whpDwDwD} 5DwDnDwDw} &wDw)wDwD} 3DBHwGNDP} 2P)wDw)PD} %$wDQDRIw} v,./9EFJMV White has the supremacy in the center. 12.a4 a5 13.Ne5 An advance post harassing the enemy. 13...Be6 14.Bc2 White chooses as a target the black kingside. 14...f5 This blocks the white bishop but strengthens the white KN. 15.Qe2 f4 Black leaves the white KB a free diagonal which is serious. 16.Bd2 Qe8 17.Rae1 Bf7 18.Qe4

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDq4kD} 7DpDwgb0p} 6whpDwDwD} 50wDnHwDw} &PDw)Q0wD} 3DwHwDwDP} 2w)BGw)PD} %DwDw$RIw} v,./9EFJMV White has now completed preparations. 18...g6 19.Bxf4 Nxf4 20.Qxf4 Bc4 21.Qh6 Bxf1 22.Bxg6 hxg6 23.Nxg6 Nc8 Better if Black had given up the queen by 23...Bf6, though the struggle would still have been in White’s favor. 24.Qh8+ Kf7 25.Qh7+ Kf6 26.Nf4 Wherewith Ne4 threatens mate. 26...Bd3 27.Re6+ Kg5 28.Qh6+ Kf5 29.Re5#. La Bourdonnais played many hard match games

with McDonnell. He was an extraordinary genius. The plan of the above game is adaptable to many positions. However the adversary chose to march his troops, intrepidly La Bourdonnais followed him and fought for the center of the board with courage and imagination. La Bourdonnais died young in London, and the goddess of Chess, Caissa, very much grieved, mourned for him and forgot to inspire the masters with her sunny look. A dreary time then came over the chess world. The masters played a dry style, without enthusiasm, without imagination, without force, and the chess fraternity was full of the wrangles of the mediocrities. It is true, the goddess soon repaired her omission. She flirted — goddess! pardon me this vulgar expression, but the coarse human language does not know the shades of meaning such as undoubtedly you would be able to express by means of chess pieces — she flirted, I beg to say, with the English historian Staunton and prevailed upon him to organize in 1851 an international chess tournament in London, during the great International Exposition of that year, And then — fickle goddess — she gave her love to a young mathematician, the German Anderssen, and inspired him to superb combinations. And then — Oh the weakness of her — she spied with her great sunny eye in far distant Louisiana a boy, highly talented; she forgot all about Anderssen, guided the steps of the young American, fell in love with him, introduced him to the world and said triumphantly : “Here is the young Paul Morphy, stronger and greater than master ever was.” And the world listened and applauded and cried “Hurrah for Paul Morphy, the king of chess!” In Paul Morphy the spirit of La Bourdonnais had arisen anew, only more vigorous, firmer, prouder. He never formed columns of pawns for the purpose of assaulting a firm position as Philidor had taught, he always fought in the center, only a few pawns in front, and if he needed the lines open, he sacrificed even these few advanced posts. Should the adversary make use of Philidor’s maxims, Morphy’s pieces occupied the gaps in the oncoming mass of pawns and opened up an attack, so as to leave the enemy no time for slow, methodical maneuvering. Paul Morphy

152

Fourth Book fought; on good days and on bad days, he loved the contest, the hard, sharp, just struggle, which despises petted favorites and breeds heroes. But then the Civil War broke out in the United States and broke the heart and the mind of Morphy. When Paul Morphy, despairing of life, renounced chess, Caissa fell into deep mourning and into dreary thoughts. To the masters who had come to ask her for a smile she listened absentmindedly, as a mother would to her children after her favorite had died. Therefore, the games of the masters of that period are planless; the great models of the past are known, and the masters try to follow them and to equal them, but they do not succeed. The masters give themselves over to reflection. One of them reflects a long time and intensely on Paul Morphy, and gratefully Caissa encourages him; and the greatest landmark in the history of chess is reached: William Steinitz announces the principles of strategy, the result of inspired thought and imagination. Principles, though dwelling in the realm of thought, are rooted in life. There are so many thoughts which have no roots and these are more glittering and more seductive than the sound ones. Therefore, in order to distinguish between the true and the false principles, Steinitz had to dig deep to lay bare the roots of the art possessed by Morphy. And when Steinitz after hard work had bared these roots, he said to the world: Here is the idea of chess which has given vitality to the game since its invention in the centuries long past. Listen to me and do not judge rashly, for it is something great, and it overpowers me. The world did not listen but mocked at him. How should this insignificant-looking person have discovered anything great? He can play chess — but what of that — he has practiced it. But should a player be a teacher for serious ends? In a university classroom you do not find children playing marbles. So the world spoke and acted accordingly, but the world was entirely mistaken. The world would have benefited if it had given Steinitz a

Wilhelm Steinitz, World Champion 1886-1894

chance. He was a thinker worthy of a seat in the halls of a university. A player, as the world believed he was, he was not; his studious temperament made that impossible; and thus he was conquered by a player, and in the end, little valued by the world, he died. And I who vanquished him must see to it that his great achievement, his theories should find justice, and I must avenge the wrongs he suffered. The Theory of Steinitz Steinitz’s investigation starts from the principle that a plan must have a reason. That everything must have a reason, a cause, humanity has known for a long time, and great thinkers have written concerning it; for instance, Plato, Aristotle and Leibnitz. And Aristotle’s “prima causa,” now called the First Cause, has made world history; and many large volumes have been written concerning the principle of causality, a very celebrated one by Schopenhauer “on the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason,” but in all this extended literature you will find little or nothing on the reason of a plan. The basic reason of a plan is not the cause of a change such as the lighting of a match is the cause of a flame that had not been there before; nor is this reason a

153

Lasker’s Manual of Chess logical reason for knowledge, since a plan is not knowledge; nor is this reason a motive for action, because our enquiry is not concerned with some person’s plans or actions, but with our desire to know why a given plan is successful in such a position and unsuccessful in another. The reason for a plan is a raison d’etre; a reason for existence, a ratio essendi and in a very particular sense, and before Steinitz nobody had recognized it. Steinitz felt that a plan, being a prescription or a rule for successful action on the chess board, could not be based on the reason ascribed to it during his time, namely, the genius of the player, the creative fancy of a master, but another reason — a reason residing not in the persons or minds of the players but in the position of the board; yet not to be conceived as being a combination the solution of which depends upon the necessary consequences of moves, but as something wholly different, namely, a valuation. He fe1t this, and this consciousness led him to formulate his theory. Whereas the existence of a cause is a priori certain, the reason for a plan has no such certainty. If only players had an intellect vast enough they could do without any plan by relying solely on their power of combination, since they would be able to see through the net of millions of variations with mathematical exactitude. For mere man with his limited mental powers this method would not work. That another method suitable to a normal human mind should exist is not a priori certain, but is a discovery just as was the dynamo. The reason for a plan’s having no existence a priori, is that its existence is merely asserted, and to make such an assertion requires the boldness of genius. For this assertion implies that the position on the board must show a sign, a characteristic moment, which tells us what plan to follow and thus relieve us of the necessity of searching through an immense mass of variations. It is not enough, of course, to assert the existence of such signs; they have to be pointed out and proven true. Such marks, evidently, would be for the painfully seeking chess master what the “philosopher’s stone”

promised to be to the alchemists. These alchemists had passionately searched for that stone many centuries, had consistently failed to find it and had become objects of derision. Steinitz had the colossal boldness to believe in such a stone, available, it is true, not for science, but for the chess master. Steinitz demonstrated his assertion by the analysis of an enormous number of games played by masters. The analytical work of Steinitz extends over thirty years and is very valuable. In the Field, in the Tribune, in his publication International Chess Magazine and in his book Modern Chess Instructor, one may find his penetrating and profound analysis. The world did not comprehend how much Steinitz had given it; even chess players did not comprehend it. And yet his thought was revolutionary, because, of course, it is not limited to the chess board — the royal game, after all, is of slight importance — but extends to every activity directed towards meaning and purpose. Surely, chess, being a very conventional game, that had undergone many changes, a child, to a large extent, of chance, is no exception to a thousand and one other games that have been or could be invented. What is true of Chess must hold by analogy for other games. And games being, at least in intent, modeled on life — simplified, to be sure, but still resembling it in essentials — there must be some analogy between them. Every activity, then, directed by rules and having a meaning and purpose, such as, for instance, a dispute between persons taking different sides of a question and applying logical rules in their argument, every such activity, without exception, has to follow the very same fundamental principle which Steinitz discovered as governing the game of chess. And if this principle can simplify our search for combinations, though their number be millions, it must have the power also of guiding our search for suitable and efficient action. This fundamental and universal principle may be briefly expressed as follows: the basis of a masterly plan is always a valuation. To value, to evaluate, to judge, to estimate a thing

154

Fourth Book does not pretend to exact knowledge. But knowledge by estimate, by judgment, by valuation, though not exact, according to the principle of Steinitz, is still an efficient guide for the master. And such a master is no exceptional person; you yourself might become a master if you cared to. But even if a player is not wholly a master, he may obtain almost equal advantage by observing the principle. Thus he may confidently follow his own estimates. In a given position you value the rook as being superior to a knight and pawn? Believe it, act on it, play to win! What now is the reason for my valuation? Valuations again! True, in each instance the reason is simpler, more sure, more trustworthy than its consequence, but the reason of a valuation is always itself yet another valuation. Finally, all my valuations originate from my experiences: my first losses and wins which gave me pain or joy; my first draws that called forth in me a variety of sentiments; my first analysis, which was crude and faulty. From then on I valued and continued to value; and with practice I became capable of more exact valuations. And from this rough material is generated, by continued trial and intelligent criticism, the series of valuations by which the master arrives at his conclusions. How novel, how surprising, how opposed to every sentiment of his time the conceptions of Steinitz must have been becomes manifest when in play over the games of the greatest match won by him, the one against Zukertort. Zukertort relied on combinations, and in that field he was a discoverer, a creative genius. For all that, in the majority of the games of the match, though he had lost none of his faculty, he was unable to make use of it, the positions yielding no response to his passionate search for combinations. Steinitz seemed to have the mysterious capacity for divining combinations long before they were realizable on the board, to encourage combinations favorable to himself and to forestall those which were unfavorable. Thus Zukertort, the great discoverer, searched in vain, whereas Steinitz, rather a poor hand at combinations, was able to foresee them. Zukertort could not understand how Steinitz was

able to prevent combinations nor how he could win by such a method, since up to that time — this seemed to Zukertort indisputable — games, fairly won, had been won by fine combinations. Zukertort tried for four years to solve this riddle, but he never approached its solution by even one step, and he lost the mastery that he possessed into the bargain. He died a comparatively young man. And thus it is not to be wondered at that the chess world did not understand Steinitz, neither his manner of play nor his written word which treated of his “Modern School.” Nor did any patron of chess, in sympathy with his genius and divining his greatness, ever come forward to his support. It is almost obvious that our age is suffering from a delusion as to the nature of genius. It is in our blood to think that in the struggle of two evenly matched adversaries, ruse, deception, wit or paradox decide the issue; that what is common, or expected, should carry off the victory seems to us impossible. For instance, we acclaim no scientific theory unless it is startling; we believe in no philosophy based on common sense; what we acclaim, what we believe, is mysterious and unintelligible. Such are we today. The magical power to vanquish one who is as strong as the victor can be vested only in the spirit, and the spirit is creative, dazzling: this feeling is very deeply rooted in us. But in truth the spirit, even though it be creative, is by no means dazzling, witty, paradoxical; and chess may do its little share in spreading this truth. Let us consider this same question from another point of view. The impression generally prevails that what is strong must also be beautiful. To make a deep aesthetic impression seems to humanity to be an attribute of all genuine power. That Odysseus fools the giant Polyphemus is proof of the power of mind over matter. The Greeks of the time of Homer could not have endured the thought of Polyphemus checkmating Odysseus, and in our hearts we would not believe the defeat of Odysseus possible. But in reality, in the circumstances depicted by Homer, it would have been a thousand to one on Polyphemus winning his game against Odysseus easily and

155

Lasker’s Manual of Chess safely. The spirit is creative for all that and sometimes dazzling and surprising and antithetic, but the wit of the spirit is profound and subtle, not artificial and laborious as is the common wit of man. Now let us turn back to Steinitz and demonstrate his revolutionary achievement from his history and from his writings. The Youth of Steinitz Steinitz lived his youth in an age on which two great personalities, Anderssen and Morphy, had left a profound impression. At that time everybody thought that victory in chess was gained by ingenuity alone. Often had the chess world seen Anderssen produce an unexpected combination as if by magic, and Morphy equally undertake a successful attack. Thereby the chess world had come to believe that these combinations, these formidable attacks had been created out of nothing by sudden, inexplicable intuitions. Steinitz, unquestionably, harbored the same belief for many years. The style he displayed in his youth makes this fact manifest. He usually played gambits and had often to torture himself with very bad positions on that account, obviously under the illusion that such situations were the necessary accompaniment of an attack and that one was obliged to attack in order to wait and to hope for the sudden and inexplicable inspiration, no matter how great the cost. In this style he continued to play for a number of years, not differing in this respect from any of his contemporaries. The style with which Steinitz began his career was strange and narrow, but it was the style predominating in his time. To place one’s king in safety, to prepare an attack by slow degrees, to decline a proffered sacrifice were tactics not well understood and even less esteemed. The play was wholly dominated by the feverish desire to make a rush against the hostile king and to this end furiously to assail the obstructions, regardless of the sacrifices required. An instance out of many is the following game played by Steinitz, 1859, against the strongest Viennese master.

has to be got out of the center; hence it is assailed from the wing. 3...d5 4.exd5 Nxd5 Of course 4...exf4 would have been simpler but the queen must get an outlet at once, and there is that promising looking check on h4. 5.fxe5 Not 5.Nxd5 Qxd5 6.fxe5. Oh, dear, no! That would have been considered dull. 5...Nxc3 6.bxc3 Qh4+ 7.Ke2 White could not resist the temptation to win a pawn — a matter of honor — though the king have to wander. 7...Bg4+ 8.Nf3 Nc6 9.d4 0–0–0 10.Bd2

cuuuuuuuuC (wDk4wgw4} 70p0wDp0p} 6wDnDwDwD} 5DwDw)wDw} &wDw)wDb1} 3Dw)wDNDw} 2PDPGKDP)} %$wDQDBDR} v,./9EFJMV 10...Bxf3+ 11.gxf3 If 11.Kxf3, then 11...Rxd4 12.cxd4 Nxd4+ would almost certainly have followed. 11...Nxe5 12.dxe5 The idea of 12.Qe1 was repressed; such a move would have been considered shameful. 12...Bc5 13.Qe1 Qc4+ 14.Kd1 Qxc3 15.Rb1 Qxf3+ 16.Qe2

Hamppe-Steinitz, Vienna, 1859: 1.e4 e5 2.Nc3 Nf6 3.f4 The e-pawn is an obstruction — it 156

Pet Peeves: Hannak relates that Lasker abhorred anything he considered “unnatural.” This included perfume, aspirin, baking soda, even shaving cream. He was revolted by artificial dentures, refusing to get them even late in life when he began losing teeth. He also disliked inaccurate clocks, saying “I will not abide liars in my house.”

Fourth Book

cuuuuuuuuC (wDk4wDw4} 70p0wDp0p} 6wDwDwDwD} 5Dwgw)wDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDwDqDw} 2PDPGQDw)} %DRDKDBDR} v,./9EFJMV

16.dxc6 bxa4 17.c7 Qd7 White has been able to make a pretty pointed combination. Black should not have rushed out with 11...Bg4 pursuing an illusory attack against the king, but should have earlier played a7-a6 to threaten b7b5 and thus free his cramped position. 18.cxb8Q Raxb8 19.Nd5 Kf8 20.Qe3 Kg7

cuuuuuuuuC (w4wDrDwD} 70wDqgpip} 6wDw0w0wD} 5DwDNDwDw} &pDwDwDwD} 3DwDw!PDw} 2P)PDw)w)} %$wDw$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

16...Rxd2+ Embarrass de richesse. 17.Kxd2 Rd8+ 18.Kc1 Ba3+ 19.Rb2 Qc3 20.Bh3+ Hope springs eternal, etc. 20...Kb8 21.Qb5 Qd2+ 22.Kb1 Qd1+ 23.Rxd1 Rxd1#. At that time Steinitz’s age was twenty-three years and it was natural and also beneficial that he learned from his environment and shared its prejudices. Three years later Steinitz is in London. In the tournament he meets the fortyfour year old Anderssen. Anderssen-Steinitz, London, 1862: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 The natural master chooses a solid opening. 3...Nf6 4.0–0 Nxe4 5.d4 Be7 6.d5 The attack starts on its way. 6...Nb8 Better the counter-thrust 6...Nd6 to be followed by ...e5-e4 etc. 7.Nxe5 0–0 8.Re1 Nf6 9.Nc3 d6 10.Nf3 c6 11.Ba4 Bg4 12.Qe2 Bxf3 13.gxf3 One of the kings is exposed! 13...Re8 14.Bg5 b5 15.Bxf6 gxf6 Now the other one also!

cuuuuuuuuC (rhw1rDkD} 70wDwgpDp} 6wDp0w0wD} 5DpDPDwDw} &BDwDwDwD} 3DwHwDPDw} 2P)PDQ)w)} %$wDw$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

Now White could have won with ease by 21.Kh1 and occupying the g-file — all would have been over — but there is a piece to be captured and no enemy combination in sight — but is there one? 21.Nxe7 Rb5 There is!! Black threatens Re5.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDrDwD} 70wDqHpip} 6wDw0w0wD} 5DrDwDwDw} &pDwDwDwD} 3DwDw!PDw} 2P)PDw)w)} %$wDw$wIw} v,./9EFJMV 22.Nf5+ A bad move of violence. With 22.f4 Kf8 23.c4! Rc5 (if 23...Rxb2?? 24.Qc3i) 24.b4 axb3 25.axb3 Rxe7 26.Qxe7+ Qxe7 27.Rxe7 Kxe7 28.Rxa7+, or 23...Rh5 24.Qf3 Rh6 25.Qg2, White could have retained his advantage, but Steinitz’s last move excited his adversary.32 22...Rxf5 Now the rook cannot be captured: if 23.Qxe8 Rg5+ 24.Kf1 Qh3+

157

Lasker’s Manual of Chess 25.Ke2 Re5+. 23.Qd3 Ree5 24.Kh1 Rf4 25.Rg1+ Rg5 26.Rg3 Qf5?

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 70wDqDpip} 6wDw0w0wD} 5DwDwDw4w} &pDwDw4wD} 3DwDQDP$w} 2P)PDw)w)} %$wDwDwDK} v,./9EFJMV

Vienna had taught him games of the following type: Steinitz – Valentine Green, London, 1862: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.h4 g4 5.Ne5 Nf6 6.Bc4 d5 7.exd5 Bd6 8.d4 Qe7 9.0–0 Nh5 10.Re1 0–0 11.Ng6 Qf6 12.Nxf8 Kxf8 13.c3 Qxh4

Why Black should have proposed to exchange queens here is explicable only from the supposition that he looked out for some violent, some forcing move. The natural move was 26...Qc6. 27.Qxf5 Now White has obviously the best of it, all of the black pawns being weak. Moreover, Steinitz did not defend patiently and thus failed to make use of the slender opportunities he had. White won the ending with ease: 27...Rfxf5 28.Rd1 Rb5 29.b3 axb3 30.axb3 Rbc5 31.c4 Rc6 32.f4 Rg6 33.f5 Rg5 34.f4 Rxg3 35.hxg3 Rc5??

cuuuuuuuuC (rhbDwiwD} 70p0wDpDp} 6wDwgwDwD} 5DwDPDwDn} &wDB)w0p1} 3Dw)wDwDw} 2P)wDwDPD} %$NGQ$wIw} v,./9EFJMV Now after only 13 moves the white king entrenched behind one solitary pawn faces a whole army. 14.Nd2 f3 15.Nxf3 gxf3 16.Bh6+ Ng7 17.Bxg7+ Kxg7 18.Qxf3 Bg4 19.Qe3 Bg3

cuuuuuuuuC (rhwDwDwD} 70p0wDpip} 6wDwDwDwD} 5DwDPDwDw} &wDB)wDb1} 3Dw)w!wgw} 2P)wDwDPD} %$wDw$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 70wDwDpip} 6wDw0w0wD} 5Dw4wDPdw} &wDPDw)wD} 3DPDwDw)w} 2wdwDwdwd} %dwDRDwDK} v,./9EFJMV 36.Rxd6 Rxf5 37.b4 h5 38.Ra6 h4 39.Kg2 hxg3 40.Kxg3 Rh5 41.Rxa7 Rh8 42.Rc7 1–0 In London Steinitz acquired a knowledge of the close openings: French, Sicilian, d-pawn, the Center Counter, etc. The School of gambits in

In the heat of the fight Black entirely forgets to get his QN out, though he would then win in a canter. The eyes of the contestants seem fatally attracted by the opposing king. 20.Be2 Qh2+ 21.Kf1 Qh1+ 22.Qg1 Qxg1+ 23.Kxg1 White breathes again. 23...Bxe1 24.Bxg4 Bg3 25.Bc8 Na6 A blunder. The a-pawn should have moved, White would then have had

158

Fourth Book no more than two pawns for the piece. 26.Bxb7 Rb8 27.Bxa6 Rxb2 28.Bc4 ½-½

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 70w0wDpip} 6wDwDwDwD} 5DwDPDwDw} &wDB)wDwD} 3Dw)wDwgw} 2P4wDwDPD} %$wDwDwIw} v,./9EFJMV

21.Qh7+ Ke6 22.Qh3+ Kf7 23.Rf1+ Ke8 24.Qe6 Rg7 25.Bg5 Qd7 27.Qxg6+ Kd8 28.Rf8+ Qe8 29.Qxe8# 1–0 The Evolution of the Theory of Steinitz The aggressive and inventive style of the Steinitz who had been raised in the German school of combination pleased the English amateurs, for they were able to learn a great deal from him just as, conversely, Steinitz did from their more solid play. From the imaginative, heroic temper of Anderssen’s combinative style, the largevisioned, systematic position play of the English school, a synthesis arose in the mind of Steinitz, which was destined to make history.

Black has still a strong position and should attempt 28...Rc2 but gave the game up as drawn, presumably because the continuation would have been “dull.” Had he chosen a solid opening, Steinitz would have annihilated such opponents. Compare with the above his fine game against Mongredien. Steinitz-Mongredien, London, 1862: 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 Fortunately, White can now attack without jeopardizing his king. 3.Nc3 Qd8 4.d4 e6 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.Bd3 Be7 7.0– 0 0–0 8.Be3 b6 9.Ne5 Bb7 10.f4 Nbd7 11.Qe2 Nd5 12.Nxd5 exd5 13.Rf3 f5 14.Rh3 g6 15.g4

cuuuuuuuuC (rDw1w4kD} 70b0ngwDp} 6w0wDwDpD} 5DwDpHpDw} &wDw)w)PD} 3DwDBGwDR} 2P)PDQDw)} %$wDwDwIw} v,./9EFJMV This is vigorous and enterprising play. 15...fxg4 16.Rxh7! And this also! Thus do combinations arise.33 16...Nxe5 17.fxe5 Kxh7 18.Qxg4 Rg8 19.Qh5+ Kg7 20.Qh6+ Kf7

I fancy that one day he reflected how it could have come about that the magician Morphy beat the magician Anderssen. That there should be one magician is quite natural, but it is really absurd to think that there should be two magicians fighting each other. That a magician wins is obvious, but how can a magician lose? Also, how could a magician not lose if two magicians fight? For winning and losing at the same time is a logical contradiction which no witchery can explain. Therefore, I fancy, Steinitz, by slow degrees, was led to believe that chess, after all, must be subject to a reason of its own not to be affected by invention, intuition, inspiration, genius, or anything else of the kind. Reason, however, by force of its meaning and power, cannot be subject to mere chance. Consequently, if Steinitz continually took pains to discover combinations, the success or the failure of his diligent search could not be explained by him as due to chance or good or bad luck or any other such term. Hence, he concluded that some characteristic, a quality of the given position must exist that to a discerning eye would indicate the success or the failure of the search before it was actually undertaken. And this characteristic, if explicable by reason, of what could it possibly consist if not an advantage or a disadvantage. The winning player had chess reason on his side provided the win was forced: this seemed a logical conclusion from the premises. Chess reason gave therefore the win

159

Lasker’s Manual of Chess to him who held the advantage. And an advantage, if reasonable, what could that be except the thing that was generally termed so: greater material force, greater mobility, greater effect against the king — in short, things that chess experience had already settled and defined. Surely, Steinitz’s heart beat when for the first time the thought came to him that the master should not look for winning combinations, unless he believed, unless he could prove to himself that he held an advantage. That meant making no attempt at winning in the beginning of the game. And since Steinitz lived in a milieu where to play to win right from the start was considered the only honorable course to take, this thought must at first have had a timid reception in his mind and a hard time establishing itself. But an important thought is not to be intimidated for long. It must have led him to analyze fine combinations commonly ascribed to some form of supernatural ability, and, having become critical, he must have noticed that they were always founded upon an advantage in mobility and efficiency of the pieces. Thus the fine combination that Boden made against MacDonnell in 1869, will hardly have surprised him.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDk4rDwD} 70p0wDw0p} 6wDnDwDwD} 5DwGqDbDw} &QDw)wDwD} 3DwDwDNDw} 2PDwDw)P)} %DwDRDKDR} v,./9EFJMV MacDonnell-Boden, Black to play 1...Qxf3 2.gxf3 Bh3+ 3.Kg1 Re6 4.Qc2 Rxd4 5.Bxd4 Nxd4 and soon mates. Steinitz, in looking at the position, would certainly have anticipated the existence of some

such forcible conclusion, because Black has a rook more in action than White, and, whereas, some combination winning for Black might conceivably exist, none winning for White could possibly have been expected. After having come to this point, he had not yet found a new method of play, but had only made some confused notions plain and had disposed of a superstition. His thought became at once fertile when he insisted on knowing wherein an advantage could consist, and hazarded that the answer was not only in a single important advantage but also in a multitude of insignificant advantages. For instance, if my bishop has four squares to move to, the hostile bishop only three squares, I hold, ceteris paribus, an advantage, which, it is true, is minute, but by accumulation of such minute advantages at last a big plus is collected. The big plus arising by accumulation is discharged in a combination. This fact is upheld by experience. Why this should be so cannot be deduced by mere reasoning, but in chess one may state the law: no combination without a considerable plus, no considerable plus without a combination. This accumulated advantage brings about a tension and this tension, discharging itself like an electric current, produces the conditions for a combination. One cannot deduce that logically, but the fact is far from astonishing. In life a tension within society always leads to a revolutionary political act, a great tension in the sentiments conduces to a revaluation of established values, and it cannot surprise us if in chess a tension brings about a combination. But, whether surprising or not, the fact had to be discovered, and, as soon as it was discovered, it illuminated that which was obscure, and was fertile in suggestions. For if a great advantage is the necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of a combination, this longed-for but seldom attained goal, the laborious search for it can be methodically made and thereby facilitated. With such a method one possesses a magic wand that is efficient indeed. Steinitz saw this clearly. Therefore, his maxim: In the beginning of the game ignore the search for combinations, abstain

160

Fourth Book from violent moves, aim for small advantages, accumulate them, and only after having attained these ends search for the combination — and then with all the power of will and intellect, because then the combination must exist, however deeply hidden. That this maxim should have at once reformed the style of Steinitz so as to make it clean and vigorous, the world in which and with which Steinitz lived did not permit. His generation did not comprehend, did not even suspect his trend of thought. The people among whom he lived were willing to reward nonsense and humbug if dressed up magnificently. Alas, truth appears seldom in fine garb. Another circumstance, a weakness of Steinitz, handicapped his style. He was obstinate. Naturally, he wanted to follow his maxim and to beat those who did not follow it; but thereby, though he was not aware of it, his chess style became provocative. He provoked his antagonists into playing to win, by giving them an excuse or at least a pretext for doing so. To this end he made the most extraordinary, most unusual moves. Then, as a punishment for their presumption, he would beat them. That by his new methods he manifested his desire not to play to win from the start was entirely lost on his opponents, because their experience had taught them to expect just the contrary. This whole process was subconscious with Steinitz, and no logical necessity brought it about, but it was the outcome of Steinitz’s psychology.

I heard in London, that a London master, Mr. Potter, who loved unusual and strange moves, had influenced Steinitz greatly. The two were friends, and Steinitz somehow began to copy Potter’s style. However that may have been, I can well believe that a strange style would rise, almost of necessity, at a time so romantic, so superstitious as that time was. Potter probably saw through the emptiness and the presumption of the style then dominating and with his style of play he seemed to call out to his contemporaries : “You want to beat me right from the start by force of your greater genius? Look! I make ridiculous moves, and yet you cannot beat me. Become, I pray you, more modest and more reasonable.” When Steinitz, in 1866, won a match against Anderssen, the germs of his theory were already discernible in his play. This is one of the games of that match — the thirteenth: Anderssen-Steinitz: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 d6 5.Bxc6+ White here without necessity abandons a small advantage: the pinning of a knight by a mobile bishop. By the exchange Black’s QR and QB gain in mobility, presenting Black with another small advantage. 5...bxc6 6.h3 Loss of time incurred in order to prevent Bg4. Anderssen seems to have considered the knight stronger than the bishop, a valuation for which no motive can be adduced. The pawn move weakens the phalanx of the white kingside pawns as will be explained shortly. Perhaps this game was the historical event which caused Steinitz to conceive his theory of the phalanx. 6...g6

Capital Worth: Lasker did more to improve financial conditions for chess players than perhaps any other player before Fischer. His predecessor as World Champion, Steinitz, died in poverty, and during his title reign had income averaging less than $500 per year. Lasker refused to accept such penury, demanding (and getting) much higher fees from tournament organizers.

161

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (rDb1kgw4} 70w0wDpDp} 6wDp0whpD} 5DwDw0wDw} &wDwDPDwD} 3DwDPDNDP} 2P)PDw)PD} %$NGQIwDR} v,./9EFJMV

Of course, 14.Rb1 was in every way superior. 14...Bd7 15.Ra3 f5 The phalanx marches. 16.Qb1 Kh8 17.Qb7 a5 The attack was easily met. 18.Rb1 a4

Preparation for an assault by a mass of pawns as taught by Philidor. For this purpose it is essential to maintain many obstructions in the center. The bishop which aids the center from g7 is there well placed. 7.Nc3 Bg7 8.0-0 00 9.Bg5 h6 10.Be3 c5 To prevent d3-d4 which would open the center and give White a fighting chance.

cuuuuuuuuC (rDb1w4kD} 70w0wDpgw} 6wDw0whp0} 5Dw0w0wDw} &wDwDPDwD} 3DwHPGNDP} 2P)PDw)PD} %$wDQDRIw} v,./9EFJMV 11.Rb1 White has certainly no advantage on any part of the board, yet he resolves upon an attack. That was the style of the time. Anderssen should have tried to anticipate Black’s attack and to take up a firm position, to retire the somewhat exposed knight on f3 to h2 and possibly to f1, and to await developments. His play otherwise was in the center, say by Nc3-e2, c2-c3 and, after preparation, d3-d4, not with the intent of attacking but of gaining some mobility. Black disregards White’s attack and proceeds with his own. 11...Ne8 12.b4 cxb4 13.Rxb4 c5 14.Ra4 White is hypnotized by the idea of attack, so he selects a random target, the a-pawn.

cuuuuuuuuC (rDw1n4wi} 7DQDbDwgw} 6wDw0wDp0} 5Dw0w0pDw} &pDwDPDwD} 3$wHPGNDP} 2PDPDw)PD} %DRDwDwIw} v,./9EFJMV There are no more targets in sight. White’s troops are wholly disarranged. 19.Qd5 Qc8 20.Rb6 Ra7 Now Black is opening the attack in earnest. He threatens fxe4 followed by Bxh3. 21.Kh2 f4 22.Bd2 g5 23.Qc4 Qd8 24.Rb1 Nf6 25.Kg1 Nh7 The g-pawn having been protected, the phalanx can set itself again into motion. 26.Kf1 h5 27.Ng1 g4 28.hxg4 hxg4 29.f3 Qh4 30.Nd1 Ng5

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDw4wi} 74wDbDwgw} 6wDw0wDwD} 5Dw0w0whw} &pDQDP0p1} 3$wDPDPDw} 2PDPGwDPD} %DRDNDKHw} v,./9EFJMV The pieces post themselves behind the phalanx menacingly. Soon the lines will be opened, which will allow the major pieces to approach the white king. 31.Be1 Qh2 32.d4 Desperation! The rook on a3 will be thrown into the fight, even at the expense of an important pawn. But it is too late. Black is not to be deterred by a trifle like this. 32...gxf3 33.gxf3 Nh3 34.Bf2 Nxg1 Black has won a piece. 35.dxc5 Qh3+

162

Fourth Book 36.Ke1 Nxf3+ 37.Rxf3 Qxf3 and Black won easily.

Another medium value is two isolated pawns:

cuuuu {wDwD {)w)w {wdwD

The Lasting Advantages One recognizes in the above game a trend in the style of Steinitz towards Philidor and away from La Bourdonnais. The theory of Steinitz approached that of Philidor as soon as he examined the minute advantages that endure. The small advantages arising from the superior position of pieces are hard to maintain; often the disadvantage of lack of mobility or of an exposed position is repaired in one move. Small disadvantages pertaining to the position of pawns, however, are difficult to repair and have a tendency to last. Manifestly, pawns that require the support of pieces are less desirable than those that require aid of pawns only, and mobile pawns can make a better fight than blocked pawns. Now consider two neighboring pawns. The strongest position, according to the above, is the phalanx:

cuuuu {wDwD {dP)w

The two pawns are distant from each other and, if attacked by pieces, can save themselves only by the aid of pieces or by flight. Particularly weak is the blocked isolated pawn:

cuuuu {wgwD {dPdw Before the isolated pawn is a hostile piece which deprives the pawn of its mobility. Steinitz added to the rules of Philidor: A phalanx must advance so as to be able to resume the shape of the phalanx again until its advance is needed no more. And this corollary to the plan of La Bourdonnais: As a place for an advance post, the square in front of a hostile backward pawn, the “hole” in the array of pawns, is most suitable, for from that post an officer can most effectively obstruct and harass the enemy, while it is at the same time safe from attack by pawns.

the weakest position is the doubled pawn:

cuuuu {wDwD {dPdw {w)wD w

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DpDwDwDw} 6w)pDkDwD} 50w)p)pDw} &PDw)wDpD} 3DNgwIw)w} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

a medium value the backward pawn:

cuuuu {wDwD {dpdw {w)wD {)wdw Here the white pawn on the lefthand side is backward, the other one is blocked. The backward pawn can advance only if supported by pieces or as a sacrifice.

White, Zukertort, to play Black has on f5 a backward pawn, White has a passed e-pawn which hampers the black king.

163

Lasker’s Manual of Chess These advantages, plus an inaccuracy by Black, allow a winning combination. 1.Nc1 Bb4? Correct was 1...Be1!, when if 2.Kf4?? Bd2#, or 2.Ke2 Bxg3, or 2.Ne2 Kf7 3.Kf4 Kg6 4.Ke3 Kf7 etc. indecisively ad infinitum; 2.Nd3 Bc3?? There was better resistance in 2...Kf7 3.Nf4 Be1 4.Nxd5 Bxg3. Now White wins. 3.Nf4+ Ke7 4.Nxd5+ and wins by his pawns. If Black had played 3...Kd7 White would have won equally with 4.e6+ Ke7 5.Nxd5+ cxd5 6.c6.34

cuuuuuuuuC (rDb1kDw4} 70p0pgp0p} 6wDwDwDwD} 5DBhw)wDw} &wDw!w)wD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2P)PDwDP)} %$NGwDRIw} v,./9EFJMV

king, weakening of the phalanx of hostile pawns, especially in the vicinity of the hostile king, a securely placed advance post, the domination of open lines. To this end he cultivated play in the center, the play of pieces and pawns, leaving the king, at least to begin with, out of the reckoning, thus following in the steps of Morphy and La Bourdonnais. He cultivated also the assault by a chain of pawns on the queenside which has the effect of cramping the opponent and of threatening him, thus going beyond Philidor who directed such attacks mainly against the king. In defense, conversely, Steinitz carefully avoided creating lasting weaknesses of the above type unless forced to do so by his opponent. Examples of His play Steinitz-Sellmann, Baltimore 1885: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.dxc5 Bxc5 7.Nf3 a6 8.Bd3 Nc6 9.Qe2 Nb4 10.Bd2 b5 11.Nd1 Nxd3+ 12.cxd3 Qb6 13.b4

cuuuuuuuuC (rDbDkDw4} 7DwDnDp0p} 6p1wDpDwD} 5Dpgp)wDw} &w)wDw)wD} 3DwDPDNDw} 2PDwGQDP)} %$wDNIwDR} v,./9EFJMV

Bird-Steinitz, Black to play Here Steinitz himself violates his theory. In an offhand game, played in 1866 at Simpson’s Divan in London, the above position arose. Black is cramped and should castle and soon advance d7-d6, to liberate his pieces. And after 1...0-0 2.b4 Ne6 3.Qe4, he had 3...f5. Instead of castling, which is defensive, Steinitz played 1...b6 , which has an aggressive intent, although an advantage for Black cannot be detected. Therefore, Black is justly punished. 1...b6 2.f5 Nb3 3.Qe4 Nxa1 4.f6 Bc5+ 5.Kh1 Rb8 6.e6 and Black has no effective defense. [Even more effective was 6.fxg7 Rg8 7.Qxh7 — ed.] Steinitz’s Maxims for Practical play Steinitz, possessed by the above ideas, strove to transform small advantages that rapidly disappear into small advantages that endure, and thus to accumulate them. Such lasting advantages were to him isolation of a hostile pawn, majority of pawns on the queenside far away from the hostile

To win space on the queenside and to wrest the diagonal held by bishop and queen from Black. It is noteworthy, too, that the point c5 now becomes strong, and in addition c4 remains guarded against an entrance of hostile pieces by the d-pawn. 13...Be7 14.a3 f5 This blocks the pawns on the kingside, but Black deprives himself of an opportunity thereby, namely, of opening lines on that side by f7-f6. 15.Rc1 Bb7 16.Be3 Qd8 17.Nd4 Nf8 18.0-0 h5 Black released his KR with this move besides preventing g2-g4, which would set the kingside

164

Fourth Book in motion. But such is not White’s plan. He wants to effect an entrance on the queenside where he holds all the trumps.

cuuuuuuuuC (rDw1khw4} 7DbDwgw0w} 6pDwDpDwD} 5DpDp)pDp} &w)wHw)wD} 3)wDPGwDw} 2wDwDQDP)} %Dw$NDRIw} v,./9EFJMV 19.Nc3 This knight makes five moves to occupy a strong point. A great deal might happen in five moves; it is a long time. 19...Kf7 20.Nb1 g6 21.Nd2 Nd7 22.N2b3 Rc8 23.Na5 At last! 23...Ba8 24.Rxc8 Qxc8 25.Rc1 Qb8 26.Qc2 Bd8 27.Nac6 Qb7 28.Nxd8+ Rxd8 29.Qc7

cuuuuuuuuC (bDw4wDwD} 7Dq!nDkDw} 6pDwDpDpD} 5DpDp)pDp} &w)wHw)wD} 3)wDPGwDw} 2wDwDwDP)} %Dw$wDwIw} v,./9EFJMV

but the freer game. 7.Bxc4 Nc6 8.Nf3 Be7 9.0-0 0-0 10.Re1 Bd7 11.Qe2 Qa5 12.Nb5 a6 13.Bc7 b6 14.Nc3 Rfc8 15.Bf4 b5

cuuuuuuuuC (rDrDwDkD} 7DwDbgp0p} 6pDnDphwD} 51pDwDwDw} &wDB)wGwD} 3DwHwDNDw} 2P)wDQ)P)} %$wDw$wIw} v,./9EFJMV The black queen has parried the assault and now Black assumes the initiative by pushing the queenside pawns, so as to gain space for his pieces. 16.Bb3 Qb6 17.Red1 Na5 An advance post on c4 is to be established! 18.Bc2 Nc4 19.Bd3 Nd6 Why the advance post so soon retires is not clear, unless it is so that the knight may take up a waiting position where it keeps its eye on two strong posts, c4 and f5. 20.Ne5 Be8 21.Bg5 Qd8 22.Qf3 Ra7 23.Qh3 h6 24.Be3 Rac7 Black is well developed, he has the superiority in the center and is aggressive on the queenside. 25.d5 To get rid of the isolated pawn. Black gives for the central pawn the side pawn and thereby gains further superiority in the center. 25...b4 26.Ne2 Nxd5 27.Bxa6 Ra8 28.Bd3 Bf6 29.Bd4 Nb5 30.Nf3 Nxd4 31.Nfxd4 Ra5

All black squares on the queenside are dominated by White. 29...Qb8 30.Bf2 And also on the kingside Black has very weak points on black squares. 30...Qb6 31.Nf3 Qxc7 32.Rxc7 Ke8 33.Ng5 Nf8 34.Bc5 Nd7 35.Bd6 Any of the few moves at Black’s disposal mean heavy material loss, he has no possible counterattack and so resigns. Zukertort-Steinitz, match, 1886, 13th game: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bf4 c5 5.e3 cxd4 6.exd4 dxc4 White has an isolated pawn 165

cuuuuuuuuC (wDw1bDkD} 7Dw4wDp0w} 6wDwDpgw0} 54wDnDwDw} &w0wHwDwD} 3DwDBDwDQ} 2P)wDN)P)} %$wDRDwIw} v,./9EFJMV

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (rDb1w4kD} 70p0pDp0p} 6wDwhwgwD} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwHB$wDw} 2P)P)w)P)} %$wGQDwIw} v,./9EFJMV

The a-pawn is helpless, the white knight on d4 pinned, the black pieces have a great deal of space: the result of the attack by the black queenside pawns is excellent. 32.Qf3 Ba4 33.Re1 Ne7 34.Qe4 g6 35.b3 Be8 36.Bc4 Nf5 The white knight cannot be defended. If 37.Rad1 Rd7. 37.Nxe6 A desperate sacrifice. 37...fxe6 38.Bxe6+ Kg7 39.Rad1

cuuuuuuuuC (wDw1bDwD} 7Dw4wDwiw} 6wDwDBgp0} 54wDwDnDw} &w0wDQDwD} 3DPDwDwDw} 2PDwDN)P)} %DwDR$wIw} v,./9EFJMV 39...Qe7 Herewith Black loses a move, which in the defense is a matter of importance. He should at once attack the queen with 39...Qa8. If 40.Qxb4 Nh4 and Black, who has a firm hold on the a-pawn also, would assume the offensive against the king. That was the logical conclusion, but Steinitz failed here and afterwards failed again, when the queen on e7 came under the fire of the white rook and at last lost the game. It is useless to record the remaining moves of the game; they would tell nothing, whereas up to the present point the idea of an attack by pawns advancing on the queenside is well exemplified. Steinitz-Zukertort, match, 1886, 6th game: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.0–0 Nxe4 5.Re1 Nd6 6.Nxe5 Nxe5 7.Rxe5+ Be7 8.Nc3 0–0 9.Bd3 Bf6 Here 9...Ne8 was a possibility; because 10.Qh5 could be met by 10...g6 11.Qh6 Ng7; and 10.Nd5 by 10...Bc5, after which Black attains development by advancing the d-pawn 10.Re3. (D) 10...g6 Steinitz in his notes to the game declares Black’s move to be a challenge to his theory not to move pawns on the kingside when under attack, unless there is no alternative.

Well, here 10...Re8 was an alternative, for the threat 11.Bxh7+ Kxh7 12.Qh5+ Kg8 13.Rh3 was thereby parried. 11.b3 Re8 12.Qf3 Bg5 Black should not abandon the important diagonal, but he believes he sees an attack that harasses the white d-pawn. 13.Rxe8+ Was this exchange forced? Had White moved 13.Bb2, possessing himself of the diagonal bearing down upon h8, with the knight threatening to enter, via d5 or e4, the “hole” f6 would surely have been a sufficient equivalent for the sacrifice of the exchange. A matter of valuation, of course, but methinks, to raise the question is to answer it. Let us give an instance: 13...Bxe3 14.fxe3. Now 15.Nd5 menaces. If 14...c6 15.Rf1 (which threatens 16.Ne4) 15...Qe7 16.Ba3 and wins. Or 14...Re6 15.Rf1 threatening 16.Bc4. But let us suppose that Steinitz and Zukertort had seen a hidden parry to this terrible attack, why was the above possibility not mentioned, either in their notes or in those written by other critics of that match? It seems that notes to games are often negligently written, with a negligence that in some cases is downright immoral. Steinitz, one may be quite sure, at the time he wrote his notes, must have been exceedingly excited and too fatigued to give consideration to the question, else he would quite certainly have investigated it thoroughly. 13...Nxe8 14.Bb2 (D) 14...c6 An excellent move which Schallop in his book on the match most unjustly criticized. According to Bachmann, Schallop says of White’s 14th move “White herewith abandons his d-pawn. By capturing it Black would have exposed himself to strong attack but at last would have ‘brought his superiority to bear.’”

166

Fourth Book

cuuuuuuuuC (rDb1nDkD} 70p0pDpDp} 6wDwDwDpD} 5DwDwDwgw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DPHBDQDw} 2PGP)w)P)} %$wDwDwIw} v,./9EFJMV His demonstration: 14...Bxd2 15.Ne4 Bg5 16.Nxg5 16...Qxg5 17.Re1 Ng7 18.Re7 (the rook is here en prise). Probably what he intended to write was 18.Bf6 and 19.Re7. However this “analysis” was intended, it is shocking. What happens if 16.Bc4? After 16...d5 17.Nxg5 Qxg5 18.Bxd5, Black may resign. And Steinitz indicated another attack starting with 15.Bc4 which also wins. Thus negligently did Schallop, a pupil of Anderssen, report a match for the world’s championship, the historian of which he aspired to be and in which another pupil of Anderssen’s, Zukertort, was a contestant. And not a soul has arisen until now to draw attention to this scandal. 15.Ne4 Be7 Black has strengthened his position by going on the defensive. 16.Qe3 To force f7-f6 and to send the h-pawn against the g-pawn. 16...d5 17.Qd4 f6 18.Ng3 Be6 19.Re1 Ng7 20.h4 Qd7 21.h5 Bf7 22.hxg6 Bxg6 If 22...hxg6 23.Qh4 with force. Black has defended with care. 23.Qe3 Kf7 24.Qf4 Re8 25.Re3

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDrDwD} 70pDqgkhp} 6wDpDw0bD} 5DwDpDwDw} &wDwDw!wD} 3DPDB$wHw} 2PGP)w)PD} %DwDwDwIw} v,./9EFJMV

Black, on the defense, has played very good chess. Now White has no immediate threats and Black, to give a direction to his game, has to follow his own initiative: he has to originate a plan. But that is exactly what Zukertort did not understand. Steinitz with whom he contested had furnished the intellectual armament needed for planning, but Zukertort did not comprehend his antagonist and was entirely lost when confronted by such a task. His right plan was to keep his attention riveted on his weak points f5, c5 and f6, and consistently work for a draw by exchanging dangerous pieces. His initiative lay in building a phalanx by c6-c5 to be used, if needed, to blockade a bishop. This plan was certainly a difficult one to execute, but Zukertort did not even try to conceive this or any other plan and failed, and was bound to fail, since the theory of Steinitz carried no message to him. 25...Ne6? Leaves the points f5 and h5 but feebly protected. 26.Qg4 Nf8 27.Nf5 Bc5 28.Nh6+ Kg7 and after a few repetitions of moves with which Steinitz wanted to gain time for deliberation:

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDrhwD} 70pDqDwip} 6wDpDw0bH} 5DwgpDwDw} &wDwDwDQD} 3DPDB$wDw} 2PGP)w)PD} %DwDwDwIw} v,./9EFJMV 35.Bxg6 With this combination Steinitz wins a pawn. 35...Qxg4 36.Nxg4 Rxe3 37.fxe3 Kxg6 38.Nxf6 and Steinitz won the ending with his pawn plus. For our purpose the ending is of no interest and so we conclude at this point.

From the fourteenth move until this moment

Zukertort-Steinitz, match, 1886, 7th game: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 c5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.a3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 cxd4 8.exd4 Be7 9.0–0 0–0 10.Be3 Bd7 11.Qd3 The queen is better placed on the e-file, but White wants to exert pressure on Black’s h-pawn. 11...Rc8 12.Rac1 Qa5 13.Ba2 Rfd8 14.Rfe1 The rook seems

167

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDbDkD} 70pDwDpgp} 6wDwDwDpD} 5DwDBDwGw} &wDwDwDPD} 3)wDwDwDw} 2w)wDq)w)} %Dw!wDwIw} v,./9EFJMV

better posted on d1; however, for comprehending the play of Steinitz and Zukertort this question is of little account. 14...Be8 15.Bb1 g6

cuuuuuuuuC (wDr4bDkD} 70pDwgpDp} 6wDnDphpD} 51wDwDwDw} &wDw)wDwD} 3)wHQGNDw} 2w)wDw)P)} %DB$w$wIw} v,./9EFJMV Zukertort has forced a weakening of the black kingside but, as his succeeding moves indicate, he does not understand the real significance of it. 16.Qe2 Bf8 17.Red1 Bg7 Black immediately guards his weak points. 18.Ba2 Ne7 19.Qd2 Here the queen within range of the black KR is 1ess favorably posted than it was. Zukertort has already lost the thread. He threatens a joke, in Nc3-d5, but the threat has force for an instant only. 19...Qa6 20.Bg5 Nf5

cuuuuuuuuC (wDr4bDkD} 70pDwDpgp} 6qDwDphpD} 5DwDwDnGw} &wDw)wDwD} 3)wHwDNDw} 2B)w!w)P)} %Dw$RDwIw} v,./9EFJMV

Black attacks the b- and g-pawns simultaneously and has shown up the fallacy of White’s quasiattack. 28.h3 h6 Here Steinitz does not make the best of it. Steinitz did not play endings sufficiently well, firstly, because he had no need of this somewhat mechanical art — he won without it; secondly, because his rich imagination did not care for mere calculation. The correct continuation was 28...Bxb2 29.Qc5 Qd1+ 30.Kh2 Be5+ 31.Kg2 Qxd5+ 32.Qxd5 Bc6, and wins methodically by means of his pawn plus. 29.Bc4 Zukertort does not comprehend his good luck. He should have played 29.Be3, whence he attacked the point h6 and the a-pawn, and made his king secure. 29...Qf3 30.Qe3 Qd1+ 31.Kh2 Bc6 32.Be7 Be5+ 33.f4 Bxf4+ 33...g5 would have won still more rapidly. 34.Qxf4 Qh1+ 35.Kg3 Qg1+ Resigns. Zukertort-Steinitz, match, 1886, 9th game: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 dxc4 5.e3 c5 6.Bxc4 cxd4 7.exd4 Be7 8.0–0 0–0

A difficult position. White should now defend by 21.Qe1 in order to try for d4-d5. But Zukertort, not understanding the theory of minute advantages, gets impatient and uses violent tactics. 21.g4 Now White of his own will has weakened the square f3 and his whole kingside, and Black retorts by rapidly opening lines for attack. 21...Nxd4 22.Nxd4 e5 23.Nd5 Rxc1 24.Qxc1 exd4 25.Rxd4 Nxd5 26.Rxd5 Rxd5 27.Bxd5 Qe2 168

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1w4kD} 70pDwgp0p} 6wDwDphwD} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDB)wDwD} 3DwHwDNDw} 2P)wDw)P)} %$wGQDRIw} v,./9EFJMV

Fourth Book To this point White has developed. Zukertort treats that part of the game in a masterly fashion. Steinitz does not aim for mere development, even at this early stage of the game — he follows a plan: he wants to isolate the d-pawn so as to have a target handy. Such a strategy has its drawbacks, since it permits the opponent to obtain a free development. Possibly one might say without exaggeration that in the opening the plan should be rapid development and nothing else — at any rate, very little else. 9.Qe2 Zukertort seeks combinations. He ought to conceive a plan — say 9.Bg5, gaining strength on the c-file and trying to accumulate pressure on the black hpawn — modifying his plan as Black is seen to conceive one of his own. But accumulation of minute advantages is not Zukertort’s style. 9...Nbd7 10.Bb3 Nb6 11.Bf4 Nbd5 12.Bg3 It is hard to see any purpose, a logical sequence in Zukertort’s moves. He simply puts his pieces on squares where they enjoy mobility and hopes for complications in which to exercise his talent for combination. 12...Qa5 13.Rac1 Bd7 14.Ne5 Rfd8 Black has now completed his development and aims at the d-pawn, whereas White has no target. 15.Qf3 Be8 16.Rfe1 Rac8

cuuuuuuuuC (wDr4bDkD} 70pDwgp0p} 6wDwDphwD} 51wDnHwDw} &wDw)wDwD} 3DBHwDQGw} 2P)wDw)P)} %Dw$w$wIw} v,./9EFJMV 17.Bh4 A semblance of a plan at last: by Bxf6 White wants to drive the Nd5 from its commanding post. 17...Nxc3 18.bxc3 Qc7 19.Qd3 This is mere dilly-dallying. The natural move, now that the QB has accomplished its object, was 19.Bg3 Bd6 20.c4. Make the center pawns do something. 19...Nd5 20.Bxe7 Qxe7 21.Bxd5 Giving away a mobile bishop for a knight that had no wish to escape the

exchange. 21...Rxd5 22.c4 Now there is little purpose in this, since the pawns have no minor pieces to harass. 22...Rdd8 23.Re3 But White wanted to make a combination against the king. He has not enough material force to attack that stronghold. He should have played 23.Red1 and simply defended his phalanx. 23...Qd6 24.Rd1 f6 25.Rh3 h6 26.Ng4 Qf4 Black wants to prevent sacrifices which would force him to change the logical course of the game. 27.Ne3

cuuuuuuuuC (wDr4bDkD} 70pDwDw0w} 6wDwDp0w0} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDP)w1wD} 3DwDQHwDR} 2PDwDw)P)} %DwDRDwIw} v,./9EFJMV The attack has fizzled out. The counter-attack begins, since the white KR is misplaced. 27...Ba4 To force the rook from the first rank. 28.Rf3 Qd6 29.Rd2 Bc6 30.Rg3 f5 The white troop is in disorder and must fly, and should fly; for instance, 31.Nd1. But Zukertort seeks combinations. 31.Rg6 31...Be4 32.Qb3 Threatening 33.c5. 32...Kh7!

cuuuuuuuuC (wDr4wDwD} 70pDwDw0k} 6wDw1pDR0} 5DwDwDpDw} &wDP)bDwD} 3DQDwHwDw} 2PDw$w)P)} %DwDwDwIw} v,./9EFJMV All right! Now make a combination! 33.c5 Rxc5 34.Rxe6 Rc1+ 35.Nd1 Qf4 36.Qb2 Rb1 37.Qc3 Rc8 38.Rxe4 Qxe4 Resigns.

169

Lasker’s Manual of Chess If Zukertort has a plan in mind, he is a match for Steinitz, possibly even his peer. Compare with the above games the one that follows. Every move of Zukertort’s pointed towards a vigorous cooperation of the pieces united to attack the king — at first against its initial position, then against the castled king.

18.Rf2 Rc8 19.Bc3 Qb6 20.Qd2 Ne7 21.Rcf1 Bb5 22.Bb1 Qa6 23.g4 g6 24.h3 Rc7 25.Re1 Ng7 26.Nf4 Nc8 27.gxf5

cuuuuuuuuC (wDnDwDkD} 70p4wDrhp} 6qDwDpDpD} 5DbDp)PDw} &wDw)wHwD} 3DwGw)wDP} 2P)w!w$wD} %DBDw$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

The forceful concentration of pieces against the king is the old Italian plan; Zukertort found it ready made, and in the tactics of mere execution he was a great master. Steinitz, however, discovered sound and successful plans over the board. Zukertort-Steinitz, match, 1886, 5th game: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 Bf5 5.cxd5 cxd5 In his notes Steinitz indicates 5...Nxd5 as the stronger move. 6.Qb3 Bc8 Later this variation came to be continued with the offer of a pawn: 6...Qb6 7.Nxd5 Nxd5 8.Qxd5 e6. Black, however, hardly gets sufficient attack. 7.Nf3 Nc6 8.Ne5 e6 9.Bb5 Qc7 10.Bd2 Bd6 11.f4 0–0 12.Rc1

cuuuuuuuuC (rDbDw4kD} 70p1wDp0p} 6wDngphwD} 5DBDpHwDw} &wDw)w)wD} 3DQHw)wDw} 2P)wGwDP)} %Dw$wIwDR} v,./9EFJMV

27...gxf5 If 27...Nxf5 28.e4 dxe4 29.Bxe4 and the d-pawn advances to weaken the position of the obstructive knight. Then the decision comes about in the center. Now it falls on the g-file. 28.Rg2 Kh8 29.Kh2 Qc6 30.Reg1 Ne7 31.Qf2 Qe8 A blunder, but the black position, weak on all black squares and battered on the gfile, was untenable. 32.Rxg7 Resigns. Thus, an intelligent plan makes heroes of us, and absence of plan cowards and dullards. Steinitz Advances his Theory beyond the Needs of Practical Chess and thus Enters the Domain of Science and Philosophy

The pressure on the Nc6 is strong. The threat is now 13.Bxc6 bxc6 14.Nb5 Qb8 15.Nxd6 [Even stronger is 15 .Nxc6 first – ed.] 15...Qxd6 16.Bb4.12...Bxe5 Relieves the pressure but opens a line for the white rooks. 13.fxe5 Ne8 14.0–0 f6 15.Bd3 Prevents 15...fxe5, since 16.Bxh7+ would be the answer. 15...Rf7 16.Qc2 This forces a weakening of the kingside. If 16...g6 17.Bxg6; if 16...h6 17.Bg6. 16...f5 Now White prepares to open the f-file line by g2-g4 and prepares it thoroughly. Such play is straightforward and strong. 17.Ne2 Bd7

The practical maxims of Steinitz: the accumulation of small advantages, their change into lasting advantages, his teaching concerning weak pawns and points, his counsels referring to attack and defense — in short, everything that has been touched upon thus far, constitute a system sufficient to explain the play of Steinitz and to make master players. But Steinitz went far beyond this point. He was a profound thinker, he had a passion for thought, he felt and saw its power and he was not minded to stop at maxims of merely practical value. Hence, he attacked problems far surpassing in importance and in breadth the tasks set for the master who confines himself to his game. To what end? There seems to be in man a mysterious power to foresee the needs of the future and to

170

Fourth Book sacrifice himself to them. In the animal world we see this power at work — sacrifice in the interests of the future is there the common rule; in the life of the thinker, we may assume, the course of nature is no different. Certainly, Steinitz derived from his profound investigations nothing but disappointment. Nobody understood even his practical maxims, far less his more extended researches. He simply followed his conscience, which commanded him to go on. Thus he spoke of the “balance of position.” A wonderful conception, but beyond practical chess. A true, genuine balance does not exist in our game, noble and most human though it is. A true balance exists in the infinite domain of life and it has a logical existence in philosophy, but one must not demand it of chess which after all is finite and therefore has its limits. For the practical needs of chess the concept “compensation” suffices. If the advantages held by my opponent are compensated for by my advantages, the position is balanced. Then no attack, the intent of which is to win — so argues Steinitz — must be undertaken. The idea of balance is enough to convince us that balanced positions with best play on either side must lead again and again to balanced positions. Only after the balance of the positions has been disturbed, so that one player holds an uncompensated advantage, may this player attack with intent to win. And here Steinitz elevates himself to the level of a genuine philosopher in demanding that that player must attack with intent to win or else be punished by being deprived of his advantage. This “must” connotes an ethical power. To obey the command is hard and irksome. Not to obey — well he who obeys may become an artist, if he does not he will never do so. He who obeys will often fail and lose; he who does not obey will often enough win by the mistakes of his opponent, and will run no risk. For all that, only he who obeys the command will grow to be an artist. An artist is one who is observed by the world gladly and attentively and without regrets; a man who has personality, who can mold plastic things into varied shapes so that they express essential truths and realities, bringing joy and edification to a multitude. Would you become

one of this type? Then you must obey the ethical command of your struggle, in chess or elsewhere — at school, in the garden, in dispute, in negotiation or wherever you may contend. That is a fundamental law in the world and Steinitz felt it, and in a mysterious way had understood that it operated also on the chess board. The Principle of Attack In chess the ethical command means: Search for the combination which brings home your advantage. Believe in the existence of that combination and seek to discover it. And if you have searched in vain a hundred times, continue. Possibly the advantage that you think you hold is only an illusion; your valuations may be at fault: prove them and improve them. But, first of all, search diligently; work, for such work is rewarded. Steinitz desires to aid the searcher. He orders the attack, but he also gives advice as to how this order can be successfully carried out. He asks which direction the attack has to take, and he answers: the target for the attack has to be a weakness in the hostile position. He therefore compares the position of your opponent to a chain of many links and yourself, the assailant, to one who wants to break the chain. He advises you to look for the point where the connection is weakest and against that to direct your efforts. Of course, if the chain offers the same resistance in every link, one cannot see a motive for selecting by chance one of these points but the chain is never equally strong in all of its links, and the master chooses after conscientious consideration, the point of least resistance as the target for his efforts. One has no need to follow this rule in chess accurately — from a practical point of view one is not punished for it; and if one tries to obey the rule, one will hardly be the better for it as far as winning games at chess is concerned — this rule goes far beyond chess. Chess is too limited for such a rule. The rule is founded on the old and celebrated idea of the “linea minoris resistentiae.” The stroke of lightning, the train drawn by the locomotive, a defeated army all pursue the line of least resistance. On the chess

171

Lasker’s Manual of Chess board there are no lines, only points; hence Steinitz speaks of weak points. The most successful, the most effective combination as well as the widest visioned and deepest plan of attack — thus his idea — proceed, as if by a miracle, in the direction of the weak points, for the same reason which governs the world governs also the chess board.

guarded on the diagonal only by an undefended weak pawn, and in front by a pawn easily attacked by a5-a4.

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDw4kD} 7DwDwgw0w} 6wDwDwDw0} 50w0wDqDw} &wDwDQ)wD} 3DP)nGwDP} 2PDwHwDwD} %IRDwDwDR} v,./9EFJMV

Examples of the Principle of Attack The brief games which had been terminated by surprisingly sudden attacks, of which countless examples are to be found, had generally been concluded by attack upon the f-pawn, the weakest point in the initial position. To give one instance out of the multitude, MackenzieAmateur: 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 c6 4.dxe5 Nxe4 5.Ne2 Nxf2 6.0–0 Nxd1

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1kgw4} 70pDpDp0p} 6wDpDwDwD} 5DwDw)wDw} &wDBDwDwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2P)PDNDP)} %$NGnDRIw} v,./9EFJMV

Salwe-Marshall, Black to play Marshall looks for the combination directed against this weakness and discerns it: 1...Bf6 2.Qc4+ Kh8 3.Ne4 Rae8 The rook wants to command the seventh rank. 4.Nxf6 White might have tried 4.Nd6, when if 4...Qe6 5.Qxd3 Qxe3 6.Rbd1 Bxc3+ 7.Kb1 seems to hold. 4...Rxf6 5.Bc1 Rfe6 6.Ba3 Much better was 6.Rd1 Ne1 and either (A) 7.a4 Re2 8.Rb2, or (B) 7.Rd5 followed by either 7...Qxh3 8.a4 Re2 9.Bb2, or 7...Qc2 8.Rd2 Re2 9.Qf7 R2e7 (If 9...Kh7 10.f5 Qxc3+ 11.Bb2 Qg3 12.Rbd1 is equal.) 10.Qc4 Re2 11.Qf7 etc. with a draw. 6...Re2 7.Rbd1 Ne1 8.Bxc5 Nc2+ 9.Kb2 Nb4+ and mates in a few moves.35

7.Bxf7+ Ke7 8.Bg5# As in the short games, so in the longer games the points f2 and f7 were equally the objects of combinations, at least during the initial stages of the contest. To judge by these instances, the weak point of the initial position seems to attract the combination. And in the further course of an extended game the same fact is discernible as soon as it is viewed in the light thrown upon it by the theory of Steinitz, viz., attack the weakest points in the enemy camp. 1. From the next diagram, Black is a pawn minus, but he has on d3 a strong advance post and the lines for his pieces are open. He has the advantage. An obvious weakness in the position of the white king, is that it stands immobile,

172

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwiwD} 70w0wDwDR} 6w0rDwDwD} 5DwDpDp)w} &PDw)w)wD} 3Dw)wDKDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV Capablanca-Dr. Tartakower, White to play

Fourth Book This march of the king has cost two pawns, a great deal in an ending, but the compensation is an immediate attack on the hostile weaknesses, the king and the f-pawn. If now 5...Ke8 6.g7 is decisive. 5...Kg8 6.Rg7+ So as to drive the king into a position which enables the g-pawn to advance with check. 6...Kh8 7.Rxc7 Re8 8.Kxf5 Re4 9.Kf6 Rf4+ 10.Ke5 Rg4 11.g7+ Kg8 After the exchange of rooks B1ack would of course be lost. 12.Rxa7 Rg1 13.Kxd5 and Black shortly resigned.36

cuuuuuuuuC (wDrDqDkD} 7DpDbDwgp} 6pDwDpDwD} 5DwDp)pGw} &wDw)wDw!} 3DwHwDwDw} 2P)wDwDP)} %DwDwDRIw} v,./9EFJMV

Frank Marshall

2. White has a protected passed pawn and his rook cuts the black king off; hence, White is bound to attack. The hostile weaknesses are the king on the border and the black c-pawn. But how to get at them? White himself is in distress. Never mind, search! Capablanca evolves the following combination: 1.Kg3 Rxc3+ 2.Kh4 Rf3 Black would have done better by 2...Rc1, but also then White wins as follows:3.Kh5 c5 4.dxc5 d4 5.cxb6 axb6 6.Rd7 Rc4 (If 6...d3 7.g6 Rg1 8.Kh6 Rh1+ 9.Kg5 Rg1+ 10.Kf6 Ke8 11.Rxd3) 7.g6 Rxa4 8.Kh6 etc. 3.g6 Rxf4+ 4.Kg5 Re4 5.Kf6

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwiwD} 70w0wDwDR} 6w0wDwIPD} 5DwDpDpdw} &PDw)rdwD} 3DwdwDwDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

Morphy-Anderssen, White to play 3. Look at the aggregation of weak points. The black king and KB stand on an open line, a target for the rook. The point f6, guarded only by the same KB, is overpoweringly assailed by bishop, queen and pawn; hence, this point is a safe place for an effective advance post. Also, the black hpawn and the square h6 are weak. Black can support the position by Rc8-c7 and by the queen in the vicinity of the KB. The QB is in the way and its development costs a move. This sums up the weaknesses. Now look at the attack as executed by Morphy who had, of these theories at least, no abstract knowledge. 1.Rf3 Bb5 If 1...Qf8 2.Rh3, but even so, to abandon a pawn was the most promising way out of Black’s distress. 2.Rg3 Rc7 3.Bf6 Threatening 4.Qh6. Black is pinned. If, for instance, 3...Kh8 4.Qh6 Qf8 5.Nxb5 axb5 the white reserve force, the king, decides the issue by attacking the advanced b-pawn while the black pieces are held fast: 6.Rxg7 Rxg7 7.Kf2, etc. 3...f4 A sacrifice intended to open the way to the QB for defense

173

Lasker’s Manual of Chess of h-pawn and for blocking the g-file file. 4.Qxf4 Qf8 5.Nxb5 axb5 6.Qh6 Kh8 7.Rxg7 Rxg7 8.Kf2 and Black soon resigned.37

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDrDkD} 7Dw0wDpgp} 6qDw0wDpD} 5Dw0wDwDw} &bDPDPDwD} 3DwHQDPDw} 2PDwDRGP)} %DRDwDwIw} v,./9EFJMV

3.Kh1 Kg7 4.Bf2 Forcing the exchange of bishops and gaining its diagonal for the white queen. 4...Bxf2 5.Rxf2 Qa5 6.Qe2 The command of the diagonal is now assured. 6...f6 7.Qb2 Rf8 8.g4 Threatening 9.Nxf6 followed by 10.g5. 8...h6 9.h4 g5 10.f4 Forcing the passage for the g-pawn and at last gaining the post aimed at. 10...gxh4 11.Nxf6 Rf7 12.g5 Bc6 13.Rg1 [Quicker was 13.gxh6+ Kxh6 14.Rh2 – ed. ] 13...Qa3 14.gxh6+ Kxh6 15.Rh2 Bxe4+ 16.Nxe4 Qf3+ 17.Qg2 Qxg2+ 18.Rhxg2 Rxf4 19.Rg6+ Kh7 20.Nf6+ 1-0.

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDwDwi} 7DwDwDw0p} 6PDpDwDwD} 5DPDwDpDw} &wDw4wDwD} 3$wDwDQ)w} 2wDq0wDw)} %DwDRDwIw} v,./9EFJMV

Teichmann-Dr. Bernstein, White to play 4. White conceives the plan of attacking by way of f6, a manifestly weak point. 1.Nd5 Ra7 If 1...Qa5 2.Be1 and thence to c3. 2.Bh4 Bd4+

Berlin-Riga, Black to Play

Richard Teichmann

5. Black has a pawn plus, his d-pawn holds the rook to its exposed post guarded by the white queen only. It is attacked by the hostile queen and is liable to further attack by a rook on e1. Also, the white king has no safe retreat. White certainly has a menace on the queenside which threatens to become formidable in two moves (b5-b6-b7); hence, Black has no time to lose. 1...Re4 Now 2.b6 is defeated by 2...Re1+ 3.Kg2 Rxd1 4.b7 Rg1+ 5.Kh3 Rg8 6.a7 d1Q 7.a8Q/b8Q Qg2+ and mates shortly. 2.Kg2 Re1 3.Raa1 Now the greatest weakness is the rook on d1 which has to block the formidable pawn. But Black has to pay attention always to White’s terrible counter-thrust, b5-b6. 3...Qb2 4.Qf2 If 4.Qxc6 Rd8 (threatening 5...Qxa1) 5.Qb6 Rde8 whereupon the white king becomes the target. 4...Qxa1 5.Rxa1 Rxa1 6.Qxd2 cxb5 7.Qd5 R1xa6 8.Qxb5 Ra2+ 9.Kh3 R2a5 174

Fourth Book

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDwDwi} 7DwDwDw0p} 6wDwDwDwD} 54QDwDpDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDwDw)K} 2wDwDwDw)} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

and therefore does not discover the strongest line of play.

Black has now a safe superiority and wins methodically by first safeguarding his king by h7-h6 and Kh7 and then doubling his rooks on the seventh rank against the h-pawn. The f-pawn is easily protected, but not so the weak white pawn. Berlin made another seven moves and then resigned.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDRDwDwD} 7Dw$wDwDp} 6wDwDw0wi} 5DwDwDwhw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DPDw!P)q} 2rDwDwDwD} %DwDwDwIw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wDrDwDrD} 70wDqiwDp} 6w0wgwhwD} 5DwDPDpDw} &wDNDp)wD} 3)RDwDwDw} 2wGwDQDP)} %DwDwDRDK} v,./9EFJMV Anderssen-Morphy, White to play Obviously, the h-file is a black weakness, also, the second and the third ranks. On the other hand, the position of the white knight, queen and KR on the same diagonal would invite Qd7-b5, if only the rook on b3 were away, for the knight on c4 is insecurely posted, and the d-pawn is weak. Therefore, not 1.Rh3 as indicated by a wellknown book on Morphy, but first evaluation of the knight on c4. 1.Be5 Bxe5 2.fxe5 Nxd5 3.Nd6 Rcf8 4.Rh3 Rg7 After 4...Kd8 White would occupy the d- and c-files. 5.Rh5 and White wins easily by systematic attack on the weak black pawns. Instead of this winning line of play, White chose a much weaker procedure, failed again and again and at last lost the game.39

Duras-E. Cohn, White to play 6. The black king, open to attack by the queen and the two rooks, is defended only by a knight and two separated pawns. The protection is weak, the attack should aim at the king. The weak obstruction is torn away by sacrifice. 1.Rxh7+ Kxh7 2.Qe7+ Kg6 3.Rg8+ Kf5 The geometrical motif is here operative; therefore 4.Rxg5+ and soon wins the queen.38 7. Anderssen, who in seeking combinations merely follows his instincts, does not guide himself by the form and nature of weaknesses 175

cuuuuuuuuC (w4wDwDwi} 7DwDqDwDp} 6wDw0wgpD} 5DpDwDwDw} &wDw0P)wD} 3DBDQDw)P} 2w)RDwDKD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV Dr. Tarrasch-Schlechter, White to play

Lasker’s Manual of Chess 8. White, with perfect judgment, wanted to bring his superiority of pawns on the kingside to bear. Black’s weakness is the g-pawn, assailable by both f4-f5 and h3-h4-h5. The black h-pawn has to protect it, the black king again is protected by the h-pawn. Which then is the right mode of attack? Certainly 1.h4 is indicated, to be followed up, after due preparation — White has any amount of time for preparation, since B1ack has no counter-threats — by h4-h5.

game. This train of thought is manifestly a logical conclusion from the principle of attack. The effort which the aggressor has to make varies inversely as the degree of the weakness, the defender accordingly forces the assailant to make the greatest possible effort when the attack will exact only a minimum toll. In other words, as the stability of a position is gauged by its least stable point, attempt to achieve at every point the same degree of stability.

But White had a wholly different plan. He made an advance, not against the immobile and therefore permanent weakness, but against a very mobile and therefore wholly illusory weakness, the bishop. 1.g4 And now, all at once, as by a miracle, Black has a hidden defense. White’s fpawn is weakened thereby. Black replied correctly 1...Rf8 2.g5 Bg7 White hastily went on 3.Kg3 in order to prepare h3-h4-h5. He should have played 3.Rf2, thus keeping at least a trifling advantage. Now, as punishment, as it were, for the illogical execution of his attack, White could have been forced to consent to a draw by 3...Rxf4 4.Kxf4 Be5+ 5.Kf3 Qxh3+ 6.Kf2 Qh2+ etc. But Schlechter did not make this combination and lost.

Examples of the Principle of Defense

cuuuuuuuuC (rDb4wDkD} 70p1wDp0p} 6wDwDwhwD} 5DwDwDwHw} &w!wDwDwD} 3DwDBDwDw} 2PDPDw)P)} %DRDw$wIw} v,./9EFJMV Morphy-Anderssen, Black to play

The Principle of Defense As the reverse side of his theory of attack Steinitz enunciated a principle of defense. He who is at a disadvantage must be willing to defend himself, he must be willing to make a concession. But his guiding star must be the principle of economy. Hence, he must seek to make the least concession that just suffices, not an ounce more, not the dot of an “i” too much. That comprises, as it were, the ethical command given to a defender. Steinitz also points the way to the defender who asks himself how to achieve this end. He advises: improve the worst weakness voluntarily. The ideal of a position for defense is that it have no linea minoris resistentiae, that all of its 1ines of resistance be equally strong, that the chain contain only joints of equal strength. But this ideal can never be attained. Approach it, as far as you are able! That is the test of how you do your duty as a defender. Thus, in this manner you serve your cause well, even if you lose the

9. Anderssen played here 1...a5, the answer was 2.Qe7 and the black f-pawn fell, the b-pawn remained weak, and White soon won. A reasonable move would be 1...b6, which does away with the threat of the white QR and therefore mobilizes the black bishop and indirectly the black QR. If then 2.Re7 Qd6, or if 2.Bc4 Bb7 (not 2...Rd7? 3.Nxf7 Rxf7?? 4.Re7i) 3.Bxf7+ Kh8 4.Bb3 Rd7 with compensation for the f-pawn in the form of open lines directed against White’s king. The game would continue and Black, though always under pressure, would do his best to defend the inferior position and follow the ethics of defense. If he then lost, he might have spoken in the words of a famous loser: “All is lost save honor.”40 The move 1...a5, which loses quickly, is contrary to the teachings of Steinitz. The move is aggressive, although Black obviously has an inferior force in action. It leaves the b-pawn almost helpless, it coerces the white queen to

176

Fourth Book increase its effect, it squanders the scanty means of defense.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDk4wDw4} 70p0wDp0p} 6wgnDwhwD} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDw1P!wD} 3DwHNDwDw} 2P)P)KDP)} %$wGwDwDR} v,./9EFJMV Steinitz-Golmayo, White to play

have played 1...Nh4. According to the opinion of the spectators, he ought then to have won. But Chigorin has the worst of the game; their opinion was in contradiction to the theory of Steinitz and based on insufficient analysis. They had considered only the variation 2.dxe7, whereupon Ng2+ would have actually won, since 3.Ke2 is bad because of 3...Qxg4+ [or even better, 3...Qb5+ – ed.], and 3.Kf1 on account of 3...Nxe3+. They also perceived Black’s threat 2...Nf3+. But Steinitz would have had an excellent defense by 2.Kf1 depriving the knight of the square g2. Against 2...Qb5+ White would reply simply 3.Qe2 and against 2...Nf3 3.dxe7, in each case with an easy win for White. Chigorin, undoubtedly, saw this combination and selected another move, though with no better result in the end.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDri} 70p0wDwDp} 6wgwDw1wD} 5DwDw0w0w} &wDwDP4wD} 3Dw)wDBDw} 2PDwDw)P)} %$wDQDRIw} v,./9EFJMV

10. The white king is exposed, but White has a pawn plus. What should White’s strategy be? To strengthen the worst weaknesses, c2 and g2, and remove the blockade of the d-pawn, the function of which is to protect the valuable e-pawn. Unquestionably, therefore, the defensive move indicated here is 1.Ne1. Black, aspiring to prevent the advance of the d-pawn, played 1...Nb4. If now 2.d3 Nxc2; Steinitz therefore replied 2.a3 Rhe8 3.axb4 Nxe4, but White now had the saving check 4.Qf5+ and won the game handsomely.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDw4w4kD} 70pDqgw0p} 6wDw)wDnD} 5DwDw0wDR} &wDwDNDPD} 3DwGw)wDw} 2P)wDw)wD} %Dw$QIwDw} v,./9EFJMV

Ponce and Chigorin-Gavilan and Steinitz, White to play 12. Black threatens 1...g4 2.Be2 g3 3.hxg3 Rxg3, winning immediately. The right defense was 1.Kh1 which does away with the greatest weakness. Steinitz comments thereon as follows: 1...g4 2.Be2 Bxf2, and now the important 3.g3. True, Black then can make a violent attack with 3...Qh6 but White would not reply with the disastrous 4.gxf4 nor with the purely defensive 4.Qd3. He had then the counter-attack 4.Qd5 which gives White a fighting chance.41

Steinitz-Chigorin, Black to Play 11. In the second game of his first match with Steinitz, Chigorin in the above position could

White played 1.h3. It was a plain invitation to 1...g4, of which Black promptly availed himself. For after 2.Bxg4 the sequence is 2...Rgxg4 3.hxg4 Rxf2 and annihilation follows. Therefore,

177

Lasker’s Manual of Chess 2.hxg4 h5! This makes an inactive piece most active. Manifestly because of 3...Rxf3, White must not open the g-file. White continued 3.g5 Rxg5 4.Kh2 Rh4+ 5.Kg1 Qf4 6.Re1 Rxg2+ and mates in two moves. The move chosen by White, 1.h3, was open to grave suspicion because the h-pawn has the function of guarding the h1 square as a retreat for the king. To let the opponent inveigle such a pawn forward into a fight was bad policy. The general rule of Steinitz is here confirmed, and one may unhesitatingly say that it has few exceptions, in fact only where particular circumstances necessitate other tactics, whereas the rule, under the condition of ceteris paribus, is always valid.

cuuuuuuuuC (rDnDq4wi} 70p0wDw0p} 6wDngw0wD} 5DNDw0wDw} &wDwDPDbD} 3DwDwGNDw} 2P)P!B)P)} %DwDRDRIw} v,./9EFJMV Chigorin-Steinitz, Black to play 13. It is Steinitz’s 14th move of the third game of his match against Chigorin. Steinitz is pressed hard, since his adversary has the only open line and the KB cannot escape exchange for the knight — disadvantages that are not compensated for. Shall he play 1...a6? But that would be a concession. It would forever weaken the square b6 a little. This concession does not appear necessary to Steinitz, though not to make it requires a laborious maneuver of defense against the advanced white knight. No — thinks Steinitz — rather suffer the assault; at the very last the white QN, though threatening, is exposed. 1...Nd8 In order to deploy on the central square e6. True, the knight is there not quite stable. 2.c4

But now is 2...a6 unavoidable? No, Black can still do without that move. 2...Ne6 3.h3 Invitation to exchange the bishop. If it is not accepted, the knight on e6 will be still more exposed. But so many lines being open, the bishops are strong and mobile. The knight on e6 is not afraid. It can fight 3...Bh5 4.c5 Since bishop or knight must guard c-pawn, the white pawn is safe. 4...Be7 5.Qd5 The b-pawn and the knight on e6 are assailed, and the same knight has to protect c7. Many a player would now lose his presence of mind. 5...Qc6 The position is still maintained. 6.Bc4

cuuuuuuuuC (rDnDw4wi} 70p0wgw0p} 6wDqDn0wD} 5DN)Q0wDb} &wDBDPDwD} 3DwDwGNDP} 2P)wDw)PD} %DwDRDRIw} v,./9EFJMV Again the knight is threatened and it must not recede. And the way out of difficulties by 6...Qxd5 is blocked, because of the sequence 7.exd5 Nxc5 8.Nxc7 Rb8 9.Bxc5 Bxc5 10.Ne6 winning. Is 6...Bf7 satisfactory? White replies 7.Qxc6 bxc6 8.Bxe6 cxb5 9.Bxf7 Rxf7 10.Rd7 and wins at least a pawn. Steinitz ponders. What now? Are my principles here at fault? Let me see once more. The points e6, c6, and b5 are decisive. Ah, the salvation! No, my principles are not erroneous. 6...Be8 It is apparent that the knight on e6 is no more in danger than the white knight on b5. Still the phalanx of the black pawns is in perfect order and the furor of White’s attack has passed its climax. 7.a4 Fatigued by the hard resistance encountered, White makes an error. He should play for safety with 7.b4. 7...Nxc5 But Steinitz also is fatigued and perhaps too certain of victory. The correct move was 7...a6, now entirely justified since White had weakened his queenside by his attack. Since the white knight must not recede — otherwise the c-pawn will fall — exchanges must follow:

178

Fourth Book 8.Qxc6 Bxc6 9.Bxe6 axb5 10.axb5 Bxe4, and Black would have got out of this scrimmage with advantage.42 Chigorin profited from the mistake of Steinitz by 8.Bxc5 Bxc5 9.Qxc6 Bxc6 10.Nxc7 etc. to the extent as above shown. Steinitz defended the lost position until the 83rd move and then surrendered. The Declining Years of Steinitz The demonstration and evaluation of the above principles was a task which gave Steinitz enough to do during a long life rich in labor. To announce an established principle, as a historian does, is a simple thing, but to discover a new principle, to give it a structure and to make it heard and felt by unresponsive contemporaries requires a diligent and virile man. Besides, the first discoverer of a great thought is more intimate with it than any one of his adherents and pupils. The pupil learns only what can be said and written, the discoverer has the thought in his very blood; the former acquires the thought through his mind and understanding, to the latter it is part of his being. That Steinitz at the age of fifty-nine years was defeated by me and later also by others is due to no defect in his theory. His theory is and forever remains the classical expression of the idea of chess. But in his play over-the-board no man rises beyond the height attained by his own time. In the creative years of a man’s youth he will try hard to rise to the top; as soon as he has arrived there, he will rest on his laurels, for the future, which calls the discoverer, has no interest in the passing glories to be won in over-the-board play. A very old and profound truth proclaims that nature does nothing in vain. The laws of Hammurabi are still alive, the philosophy of Plato still exerts its influence — the struggles of Hammurabi, the cares and deeds of Plato are forgotten. The practice of life is of account for one generation only. Had nature endowed Plato with a talent for practical matters, say agriculture or the local politics of Athens, the philosopher in him would have been a loser to just that extent. And so it was with Steinitz. His talent for overtheboard play was not considerable. Blackburne and Zukertort in that respect were easily superior to him although he beat them

decisively because he was a profound thinker and his adversaries were not. When chess masters arose who were trained for systematic thinking, who therefore understood at least the abstract portions of Steinitz’s theory and who besides had natural talent for overtheboard play, Steinitz was confronted with a task that in his old age he could not perform. Had Steinitz lived in our period of improved chess technique he would have played better chess than he did, and fought also today with honor. For he had all the qualities of a great fighter: force, discernment, conscientiousness, undaunted courage. But his claim on posterity is that he was a great discoverer. Criticism of and Additions to Steinitz’s Theory I now come to the gaps which Steinitz left in his theory, for the problem to be solved was not pointed out to him until too late in his life, if at all. Steinitz, after his advice to both the attacking and defending parties, does not speak of the strategy that a player should follow who feels that he is neither the attacker nor the defender. What plan has the player to follow in a balanced position? Of course, none with the immediate intention of winning, none which embodies the fear of losing, none that would not develop the pieces — these answers to the query may be anticipated, but they are not decisive. I should say that besides all of the above he must play — and this is the essential point — to maintain the cooperation of his pieces. In Steinitz’s writings the concept of cooperation is not made clear. There was a reason for this. Firstly, because in the games of his contemporaries he hardly ever saw a balanced position; secondly, because the grand simplicity of his theory would have been impaired by this extension of his fundamental concepts. His very basis, the principle of accumulation of advantages, would have had to be broadened. Let us consider this question attentively; it is of importance to the positional player who has to prepare for attacks and defenses long before they become actual.

179

Lasker’s Manual of Chess The idea of the accumulation of small advantages is based on the concept that an advantage is the equivalent of a weight. If you accumulate small weights, their mass grows consistently and the sum total may finally be large. For instance, two or more weights make a certain sum; if you replace that sum total of weights by a single weight equal to it in mass, the value of the sum remains the same. But clearly it is not quite so in chess. For instance, two pawns have a very different value according to their mutual position — this is even one of the basic considerations of Steinitz — we cannot substitute for one of the pawns another equal in value to it and leave the value of the sum of the two original pawns unchanged. This value, at least, cannot be compared to a sum of weights. The simplification effected by Steinitz is ingenious and very practical, but this must not blind us to the fact that it is a short-cut to truth which does not quite reach it. It is close to the mark but not a bull’s-eye. The alternative to this conception of weight is that of a cooperation — say, a group value. Thus, two or more advantages will form a group and there will be interaction between its members. Hence there is cooperation and interaction between any two chess values, and this interaction has a certain typical character which always manifests itself whenever two values come into cooperation. That must be so, or

cooperation would not be subject to reason and chess would be a game of chance. The result of cooperation in attacking positions is to strengthen each element of the group; in positions of defense, to protect each other; in positions of balance, to complement each other. Let us, as an instance, consider two pawns. For the attack they are better separated so that both may attack the same point, thus doubling their aggressive action. They complement each other best in the phalanx, each pawn guarding the square where a hostile piece would block his neighbor; in this position their cooperation is at its climax. In defense they are driven into a position where one of them protects the other — one of them sacrifices himself to save the other and for the common good, provided, of course, the enemy has taken pains to enforce such a sacrifice. That pawn will be saved which is first attacked, unless there should happen to be a tangible difference in the value of the two pawns. It is not very different with pieces. Two bishops always complement each other, the action of one never doubles nor obstructs that of the other. Their cooperative value is perceptible to such a degree that two bishops are commonly preferred to two knights or to bishop and knight. Two knights which stand alongside each other or are in other ways posted so that they divide their effectiveness equally on a multitude of important points, complement each other better than two knights protecting each other; the latter attitude is one of defense enforced by perils threatening one or other of them. A bishop and a pawn complement each other when the pawn is not on the same color square as the bishop, they

Another Challenger: Along with Rubinstein, another formidable challenger arose, the Cuban José Raúl Capablanca. After beating Marshall in a 1909 match, and winning his first major tournament in 1911, Capablanca challenged Lasker. However, negotiations went badly, and antipathy developed between them. They would not play until 1914, and not in a title match until 1921.

180

Fourth Book take up a position of defense when bishop and pawn attack the same object. And thus the idea originally exhibited in the phalanx recurs in a multitude of ways which it would seem almost impossible to enumerate in detail. Of course, one may be forced to give up the position of strongest cooperation, for instance, in following a plan of attack requiring the doubling of pressure on certain important points. According to the ideas of Steinitz, one should make concessions in such emergencies; but again according to the same principle, one should be parsimonious with such concessions. The stronger cooperation in the above sense is always a position of greater mobility than the weaker cooperation would allow. Or, to use another term, say flexibility, or adaptability or elasticity. The main idea of this cooperation is to increase the range of possible plans to follow, without specifying too early which road you would prefer to travel. By cooperation you aim to keep the position plastic, alive; by lack of cooperation you take the life out of your position, and to infuse it with new life you will need outside aid. Examples of Cooperation As with all examples concerning values, the examples here are restricted to the material in question. In practice positions are in general very much more complex; the rules discussed here are ceteris paribus valid there. This is as it should be. Consequently we are able to explain the complex by the simple.

1. Knight and bishop do not complement each other here, they double their effectiveness unnecessarily. The knight is wanted on g3 so as to form with the bishop a phalanx, to keep out the black king. At present, White is in peril. 1...Qb7 2.Ke3 Qc6 3.Ng3 Qg2 Black has lessened the cooperation between the white king and his pieces. The black king may now approach and get White into difficulties.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DwDwDwDw} 6wDwDwDwD} 5DwDwDwDb} &wDpDkDwD} 3DwDpDwDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwIwGwDw} v,./9EFJMV Black to play 2. Black cannot win, since he is unable to advance either of his pawns. For instance, 1...Kd4 2.Kb2 Ke3 3.Kc1 Ke4 4.Ba5 Kd5 5.Kb2 Kc5 6.Ka3. The bishop on h5 is wholly inactive, the pawns have deprived it of all useful work. The bishop is dead, the position rigid.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DwDwDwDw} 6wDwDwDwD} 5DwDwDbDw} &wDk0wDwD} 3Dw0wDwDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwIwGwDw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DwDw1kDw} 6wDwDwDwD} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDwDNGwD} 3DwDwDKDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV Black to play

White to play 3. What a difference between this and the preceding position! The black bishop and pawns 181

Lasker’s Manual of Chess complement each other, they work in harmony. Black wins with ease. Say 1.Kd1 Bg4+ 2.Kc1 d3. White loses by Zugzwang.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DkDwDwDw} 6wDwDwDwD} 5DqDwDwDw} &wHNDwDwD} 3DKDwDwDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

language has sprung from a social intercourse which is devoted to tasks entirely different from the incidental tasks undertaken here. The language is pregnant with life, and how should our poor little game, even in the smallest detail, bear comparison to infinite life? Yet, since we have to speak in words, our task must be accomplished as best we can. Leave this task undone? But it has value. You learn no art by anxiously restricting yourselves to it; you have to seek its association, and its logical connections and analogies with the rest of things. Otherwise, you will learn no more than the craft, the technique of your art and never attain to a full comprehension or easy mastery of it.

Black to play 4. White prevents the approach of the black king and therefore draws.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DwDqDwDw} 6wDwDwDwD} 5DwDwDwDw} &wHwDwDwD} 3DKDwDwDw} 2wDNiwDwD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV Black to play 5. The knights are in difficulties. Black drives the white king away and stalemates it, then one of the knights must move and both are lost, viz. 1...Qf7+ 2.Kb2 Qc4 3.Ka3 Kc3 4.Ka4 Qc5 and White faces the catastrophe. The Principle of Justice Not willing to increase the number of above examples beyond proportion, I now attempt to describe in words the principle upon which all cooperation hinges. But it is difficult to express chess ideas in words, because the spoken

If one thinks of the cooperation of chess pieces one is led to think, by analogy, of social cooperation: friendship, a life of many in unison, enmity, contest, of antagonistic parties. A chess piece is supported by some comrades, it antagonizes some enemies, and thus it has tasks and functions to fulfill. How shall the chess p1ayer determine the functions of his various pieces and to what extent shall he support them? The reply of the chess master is, that the pieces ought to be supported according to their usefulness, according to their value. Well understood, this value changes according to the degree of activity exhibited by the piece. If a piece has succeeded in drawing upon itself a great deal of the enemy’s fire, it has gained just that much in value, in importance, in utility, and so far it deserves more support than its average value would justify — at least the support which threatens a counter-attack. On the other hand, if a piece is not sufficiently active, it has to be given a chance to do its share of the work, whether to relieve other pieces or to undertake new tasks. Certainly, the master will not assign to it work already done; it has to complement the work of others; by no means double it. In return for the labor which a piece is required to do for the common cause, it enjoys safety and support, and the more valuable the piece, the greater the task assigned to it and the greater the obligation to safeguard it. What is the equivalent to this practical rule of

182

Fourth Book the chess master, who measures thereby the work to be done by his queen and rooks and minor officers and pawns and even by the king, in the infinite game of social intercourse? Surely a social principle. But whereas the game of chess is rather well understood by half a dozen masters and fairly comprehended by a few dozen lesser masters and — say — a thousand amateurs, our social intercourse is, alas! not conducted by masters, not even by near-masters, not even by any comparable in skill and insight to those thousand amateurs. Let us not be conceited about our statesmanship. Is it necessary to whisper that our life is directed by mediocre people, with the exception of a few men of talent and very rare men of genius? But no, we are not so ill advised, as has been stated frankly by many good men. Unfortunately, the men who lead us, though not egotistical, are not disinterested. The attitude of a man of science, guided by his passion for truth and knowledge, is beyond them. Some particular interests, party or national interests at the very least, which certainly are not the cleancut interests of humanity or of the future, have a share in determining our politicians and our politics. That will change, since everything in the long run changes for the better. In the meanwhile, a word is needed to distinguish the peculiar attitude of the chess master who, in dealing with his pieces of wood, is not led astray by any outside interests. The word I refer to is, alas! soiled by our history, and its significance is thereby covered up as is the sparkle of a diamond that has fallen into the dust. With this reservation let us use the word justice.

occasionally had to hide to gain sustenance and a respite, after the army of mediocrities had driven it from the marketplace. And many a man, struck by injustice as, say, Socrates and Shakespeare were struck, has found justice realized on the chess board and has thereby recovered his courage and his vitality to continue to play the game of life. Later generations, not so narrow-minded as ours, will recognize and appreciate this merit of our noble game. But let us return to our task. Though we have to look at it occasionally from a wide perspective, we must not lose sight of it. Principles have to extend from the heaven of ideals to the soil of our daily work. Examples Since the more valuable piece has to enjoy the greater safety, the less valuable pieces must advance and draw the attack upon themselves; of course, not advance to be mere spectators. A good instance is rook and passed pawn; the pawn in front, the rook, supporting it from behind. The passed pawn thus forces the opponent to pay attention to it. A weak pawn, however, must, if possible, be protected by the rook sideways so as to leave the rook free for counter-attack. The rook would rather abandon the pawn than be tied to its defense.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdrdwdkd} 7Dw0wDwDw} 6wDwDwDwD} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2PDwDw)wD} %Dw$wDwIw} v,./9EFJMV

Principle of justice! Thou art a power effective in history in spite of all that has been done to thee by the army of liars, that want to hurt thee, yet have to play the hypocrite, for the people instinctively love thee. Hypocrisy is tribute paid to thee by thine enemies. It is a tacit admission that the true statesman would at all risks uphold thee. On the chess board lies and hypocrisy do not survive long. The creative combination lays bare the presumption of a lie; the merciless fact, culminating in a checkmate, contradicts the hypocrite. Our little chess is one of the sanctuaries, where this principle of justice has

White to play and win 1. The strongest force is in the a-pawn, because the hostile king is too far away. Much weaker is the c-pawn which the white king can stop at his

183

Lasker’s Manual of Chess convenience. Hence 1.a4 Ra8 2.Ra1 Ra5 The pawn would advance further, unless stopped at once. 3.Kf1 Kf7 4.Ke2 Ke6 5.Kd3 Kd5 6.Kc3 Kc5 Now the f-pawn has to speak. 7.f4 Kb6 8.Kd4 Rf5 9.Ke4 Rf8 10.a5+ Ka6 11.f5 The cooperation of king and pawn versus rook is perfect here. White wins quite easily. Another example of great frequency is knight and pawn. A very bad cooperation is knight in front of the pawn which makes the pawn immobile and is of no help to the knight. The knight behind the pawn is aggressive, since the effectiveness of the pawn is doubled: the pawn guarding the knight is defensive, the knight guarding the pawn is still more so, the knight obliquely one square behind the pawn is the position of the phalanx as well as two squares sideways from the pawn. In the latter position the pawn protects the knight from the attack of its worst enemy, the hostile pawn. The farther away the knight from the pawn, the less cooperation. Generalizing the latter consideration, we may state that a knight gains in value, when the points of importance are near each other; for instance, those which a passed pawn has to traverse. If these points of importance are distant from each other, the knight has lesser cooperative value. The presence of obstruction, on the other hand, decreases its value not at all while it impairs the usefulness of bishop, rook and queen. The cooperation of king and pawn is important, since a pawn is nearly always in the company of the king. For defense the king stands best exactly behind the pawn, which thus protects the king against attacks of queen, rook and knight. If the king accompanies a passed pawn it stands best obliquely in front of the pawn. To stand obliquely behind the pawn indicates that the king is flying to seek safety elsewhere. These considerations, of course, could be multiplied, but no multiplication of them would exhaust them. They are directions for arriving at evaluations of cooperative values, they show a certain method at work; the results will not be given completely; this would be both impossible and undesirable.

My Pupils I want to train pupils to think for themselves and exercise just criticism. I will not teach them mere formulae, mere generalities, but will instill into them lasting principles that will grow and blossom; which are alive, and vital. They must be ready and willing to put their conceptions, laws and valuations to the proof, again and again, diligently and cheerfully, from a sheer joy of the law and from veneration of the fact. Antagonism of Pieces As the total value of several pieces is not found equal to the sum of the values of the pieces taken separately, since a value of cooperation has also to be considered, just so antagonistic pieces, that compensate each other in value, leave still a surplus on the one side or the other according to the circumstances of their antagonism. This resultant is always to be considered, wherever the antagonism of two pieces persists, no matter to what extent these pieces may differ in absolute value. The fundamental principle by which to judge the result of this antagonism is again the principle of justice, coupled, of course, with the reservation implied in the phrase ceteris paribus. Consider the very frequent case of piece against pawn. Obviously, the principle of justice requires that the piece be the aggressor. It should drive the pawn into blockade or capture it. In the blockade a stationary state is arrived at, where the pawn is helpless but for aid rendered it. If the reserve force of the opponent at any moment attains superiority against the square where the pawn is blocked, the pawn falls prey. If aid comes in superiority, the blocking piece is driven off. (Compare the investigations of Nimzovitch, Die Blockade.) If the stationary state is not brought about, the antagonism of piece versus pawn has not been permitted to run its logical course, for instance by aid arriving to support the pawn or by an urgent need that calls the piece away. Other very frequent instances are the contest of bishop versus a bishop of the same color, of rook versus rook, of queen versus queen. These pieces

184

Fourth Book will aim at performing important tasks, will collide in these aims and assail each other. This direct attack is the critical point. If either player can assail the other and force an exchange, the pieces are exactly balanced, otherwise not. That player has the advantage who can assail important points without his opponent’s daring to offer an exchange.

9.Bxe5 Bxg5 10.b6 and the pawn queens. White has the advantages, firstly, that Black cannot propose an exchange; secondly, of being able to block the e-pawn; these suffice to force a win.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDkD} 7DwDwgw0w} 6wDwDwDwD} 5DwDw0wDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2w)wGKDPD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwiwD} 7DwDwDwDw} 6wDwDwDPI} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wgwGwDwD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

White to play and win

White to play and win

2. 1.Bc3 Bd6 2.Ke3 Kf7 3.Ke4 Ke6 4.b4 Bc7 To keep the b-pawn off b6. 5.b5 But Black runs short of moves. 5...Kf6 6.g4 Ke6 7.g5 g6 8.Bb2 Black is in Zugzwang. If 5...Bd8

The important points are obviously g7 and g8, which have to be gained so as to force the pawn ahead. The black bishop will be forced off by the threat of exchange. Hence 1.Kh7 Bd4

3. The same antagonism is illustrated by the following example.

St. Petersburg 1914. Seated, l. to r.: Gunsberg, Blackburne, Lasker, Tarrasch, Burn, Gebhardt, Rubinstein, Bernstein, Capablanca, Janowski. Standing: Vainstein, Marshall, Alekhine, Maximov, Nimzovitch, Malyutin, Saburov, Talvik, Sosnitsky, N.A. Znosko-Borovsky, Robinow, Korolov, Lokhvitsky, E.A. Znosko-Borovsky.

185

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwgwd} 7DwDwDwDw} 6wDwDwiwD} 5DwDKDwDw} &PDwDwDPD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

2.Bh6+ Ke8 3.Bg7 Bc5 4.Bb2 Bf8 5.Ba3 and wins. Distance A defect in cooperation is often indicated by the great distance between the points which the pieces occupy — often, not always. In the last resort, the spirit dominates, not the material. But, considering the simple geometry of the chess board and the laws of motion of the pieces, distance is a first, though inexact, measure of the degree of cooperation of the pieces. Two pieces of the same party near each other almost always have functions that complement each other, an effectiveness intensifying each other. Two antagonistic pieces near each other nearly always are parties to a hot conflict. If, on the other hand, the distance of two pieces, for instance of two knights, is very great, a cooperation or a conflict between them is possible only in the future, unless they cooperate or contend with each other indirectly, for instance, the one sacrificing itself so that the other one may gain time, or the one making an attack so as to hamper the other one. A few examples: The bishop on b2 and the rook on the g-file cooperate on g7. With them great distance is not necessarily an indication of lack of cooperation. But even with them, cooperation is much closer, when they approach each other, for instance, if the bishop is on e5 or f6, the rook on g5 or g6. The means of defense for the opponent by obstruction, by flight of the attacked pawn or piece, by counter-attack, have then so much less variety, the attack on other neighboring points is also correspondingly stronger. If a knight stood on b2, another on g3, their cooperation would extend only to the middle of the board, for instance, on d3 and e4, and for many purposes they would have to approach each other. Cooperation between the h-pawn and the a-pawn is almost impossible and can only be attained when one is threatening whereas the other is threatened, e.g., when both are passed pawns. There is, however, a great surprise for us in the cooperation of two distant pawns, such as the a-pawn and g-pawn, as seen in the following ending:

White to play and win 4. 1.a5 White first advances to the 5th rank and then has only to pass the square a7 to win. Black hurries to get possession. 1...Bh6 The configuration happens to be such that the g-pawn can force the bishop into obstructions. 2.g5+ Bxg5 3.Ke4 Bh4 4.Kf3 and wins. We are surprised, because ordinarily, as soon as one wing attacks, the other one is assailed and has to be put into a state of defense. We are not at all surprised to see pieces near each other in undisturbed cooperation as in the following ending:

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DwDkDwDw} 6wDwDwDwD} 5DwDK)PDw} &wDwGwDwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwDrDwDw} v,./9EFJMV With or without the move White wins. The rook cannot sacrifice itself for both of the pawns. The white king will support the advance of the pawns on white squares, the bishop on black squares. For instance, 1.e6+ Ke8 2.f6 Rf1 3.Ke4 To come to the support of the advance to f7. 3...Kf8 4.Be5 Ke8 5.Bf4 Kf8 6.Kf5 Ke8 7.Kg5

186

Fourth Book Rg1+ 8.Kh6 Rf1 9.Bg5 Re1 10.Kg7 and wins. The Value of Points It is wholly in harmony with the Steinitz theory that the computation of the value of cooperation takes stock of the value of the points: the weak points, the strong points, the important points, the less essential points. Particularly are the weak and strong points of account. The effect of these is decisive; all else is of secondary importance.

White concentrates against c5 and c6. 11...Qb5 12.Be3 0–0 13.Rc1 Bg4 Black should rather strengthen c6 by 13...Bd7. 14.f3 Be6 15.Bc5 Rfe8 16.Rf2 Nd7 17.Bxe7 Rxe7 18.Qd4 Ree8 19.Bf1 Rec8 20.e3 Qb7 21.Nc5 Nxc5 22.Rxc5 Now c5 is gained and the pawn at c6 fixed; that pawn therefore becomes the target. 22...Rc7 23.Rfc2 Qb6 24.b4

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDwDkD} 70w4wDp0p} 6w1pDbDwD} 5Dw$pDwDw} &w)w!wDwD} 3DwDw)P)w} 2PDRDwDw)} %DwDwDBIw} v,./9EFJMV

Examples Rubinstein-Salwe, match, 1908: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.g3 Nf6 7.Bg2 Already this mode of developing the bishop is determined by Black’s weakness on d5. 7...cxd4 8.Nxd4 Qb6 9.Nxc6 bxc6 10.0–0 Be7 11.Na4

cuuuuuuuuC (rDbDkDw4} 70wDwgp0p} 6w1pDwhwD} 5DwDpDwDw} &NDwDwDwD} 3DwDwDw)w} 2P)wDP)B)} %$wGQDRIw} v,./9EFJMV

White threatens 25.b5. Black has no time for 24...Bd7. The sequence is 25.b5 Rac8 26.Qc3 and Black cannot liberate himself. Again, if 25...Rcc8 26.bxc6 Bxc6 27.Qc3. 24...a6 25.Ra5 25...Rb8 26.a3 Ra7 Black cannot guard all of his weak spots. 27.Rxc6 Qxc6 28.Qxa7 Ra8 29.Qc5 Qb7 30.Kf2 The intent is to guard his own weaknesses, particularly on the second and third ranks. 30...h5 31.Be2 g6 32.Qd6 The c-file is important because it is open. 32...Qc8 33.Rc5 Qb7 34.h4 a5 A desperate attempt at a counterattack. 35.Rc7 Qb8 36.b5 a4 37.b6 Ra5 38.b7 resigns.

Legendary Victory: Lasker’s win over Capablanca at St. Petersburg 1914 is one of the most famous games of all time. At its end, Lasker wrote that “there came such applause as I have never experienced in all my life as a chess player. It was like the wholly spontaneous applause which thunders forth in the theatre, of which the individual is almost unconscious.” With victory in this tournament, Lasker remained clearly the world’s #1.

187

Lasker’s Manual of Chess This game illustrates how much greater weight the effect of the pieces on weaknesses has in comparison to their effect on other points. Duras-Rubinstein, St. Petersburg 1909: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.d3 d6 6.c4

cuuuuuuuuC (rDb1kgw4} 7Dp0wDp0p} 6pDn0whwD} 5DwDw0wDw} &BDPDPDwD} 3DwDPDNDw} 2P)wDw)P)} %$NGQIwDR} v,./9EFJMV This advance is testimony that White overrates his position. True, Black is prevented from d6d5 but White has weakened d3 and d4. Moreover, a move is spent, an opportunity for development is lost, a serious matter at such an early stage of the opening. 6...g6 Preparing to aim at d4. 7.d4 exd4 8.Nxd4 Bd7 9.Nxc6 Bxc6 10.0-0 Bg7 11.Nc3 0-0 12.f3 Nd7 13.Be3 Ne5 14.Bb3 b6 The white c-pawn obstructs the KB; hence, it is made immobile. 15.f4 Nd7 The knight has been driven back, but e4 is now the target. 16.Bd4 Nc5 17.Bxg7 Kxg7 18.Bc2 a5

cuuuuuuuuC (rDw1w4wD} 7Dw0wDpip} 6w0b0wDpD} 50whwDwDw} &wDPDP)wD} 3DwHwDwDw} 2P)BDwDP)} %$wDQDRIw} v,./9EFJMV

post.19.Qg4 White does not examine the weaknesses, or he would have played 19.Qd4+ to exchange queens. If he desired to avoid the ending, 19.f5 was the move. The black knight already has a fine post; it would therefore not matter to allow another on e5, and White would have been the gainer by opening the f-file for his rooks. 19...Nxe4 Black will dominate the f-file though he must in compensation let White be rid of a weak spot. 20.Nxe4 f5 21.Qf3 fxe4 22.Bxe4 Bxe4 23.Qxe4 Qf6 In Rubinstein’s play the aim against weaknesses is very apparent. As the weaknesses vary, he varies his plans accordingly.24.Rf2 Rae8 25.Qd5 Qf5 Black gains the open line to dominate it a long time. 26.Rd1 Re4 27.g3 Rfe8 28.Kg2 h5

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDrDwD} 7Dw0wDwiw} 6w0w0wDpD} 50wDQDqDp} &wDPDr)wD} 3DwDwDw)w} 2P)wDw$K)} %DwDRDwDw} v,./9EFJMV White’s c4 and f4 are targets, also d4 and e4 are weak points. The black h-pawn wants to advance further. 29.b3 Re3 Preparation for a5-a4 which rends the white pawns. 30.Rd4 Kf6 In order to have the king handy for entering the white camp.

Knight and a-pawn cooperate well. The knight is safe on an advanced and threatening 188

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDrDwD} 7Dw0wDwDw} 6w0w0wipD} 50wDQDqDp} &wDP$w)wD} 3DPDw4w)w} 2PDwDw$K)} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

Fourth Book 31.h3? Again White does not consider what and where are his weaknesses. The rook pawns are the basis of his defense; to guard them well he should retreat 31.Rdd2. Against 31...Qg4 he had then 32.Rf3, and in any case, though at a disadvantage, he would have made a better fight. 31...h4 32.Qxf5+ gxf5 33.gxh4 Rg8+ 34.Kf1 The h-pawn is indefensible. 34...Rxh3 35.Ke2 Re8+ 36.Kd2 Rxh4 and Black won by material superiority. Again it is manifest that Rubinstein’s play, by being mainly directed against the weaknesses of the opponent, attains to a high degree of force. Attack and Defense in Balanced Positions Balanced positions are not without means of attack or defense, only, in contradistinction to unbalanced positions, the defense has to make no greater concessions than counter-attack can regain. In balanced positions, therefore, defense and counter-attack are so adjusted that with best play on either side the balance is again established. In such positions attacks may be ferocious, defenses subtle, combinations deep but at the end, when comparative tranquility reigns again, neither side can claim to have achieved an advantage. An attack in a balanced position bears some likeness to a thunderstorm. The clouds hovering over a peaceful landscape carry here positive, there negative electricity, and suddenly, after they have approached each other sufficiently, there are discharges, from cloud to cloud or from cloud to earth. The landscape is frightened, a terrific turmoil is let loose; after a little while the clouds break, the turmoil ceases, the sun shines again and the landscape laughs merrily like a child. So in a balanced position, White has here an advantage, Black there, the tension grows until the weapons clash, and there is the drama of action. That lasts a while, the master is frightened, since the slightest mistake may seal his doom; he fights courageously, he does his duty; then suddenly the disadvantages on either side have disappeared, the position has rid itself of its tension and, the moves becoming of slight

menace, the master breathes easily and is glad to have been equal to his task. The direction of attack and defense is also circumscribed by the rules of Steinitz in balanced positions. The events may not have quite the force, the action not quite the tension as in positions where one side has the superiority and has to bring it to bear against the efforts of a well conducted defense eager to assume counterattack. For all that, the connoisseur, observing how the master keeps the finely drawn line of balance, enjoys the situation profoundly. He who does not comprehend the language of the moves that maintain the balance is unable to read the signs which predict the advent of great events; he who knows that language understands also the logic by which such events are brought about. The task of following the principles of Steinitz in balanced positions is no easy one. In a position where I hold the advantage, I do the hitting, my opponent may have to be patient and submissive and may have to lose in the end nevertheless. I am hammer, he anvil, and the gallery applauds. But in balanced positions I am hammer in one part of the board and anvil in another; the gallery may not understand, but this is a harder test. Each move where I obtain an advantage, is paid for by a disadvantage. This play of give and take is most appealing when the master gives material force to obtain positional advantage. He then makes a “sacrifice for position.” Such positions show the character of the player. It takes courage to shoulder the responsibility of such momentous decisions. The master must then be the scales to weigh advantage and disadvantage; and he knows no certainty, for this is no combination, it is his judgment which decides for good and for evil. Then it is your duty to act according to your belief. Not so easy as it looks. You think that you should embark on a venture hazardous but promising? But you fear blindly, unreasonably, the unknown possibilities and the certainty of having to apply yourself vigorously. You should act nevertheless. You may see a ruse, deeply hidden, which, you feel sure, your opponent will not see through and that would save you all the trouble. You see the weak spot of your deception, do not try the trick, keep your self-respect, keep

189

Lasker’s Manual of Chess your style clean. Do not bank upon your opponent making a mistake. One may err, but one must not deceive oneself. He who bravely follows his judgment may lose but even his loss profits him, provided he seeks to discover the reasons for it; and he grows to be a master, an artist. But he who no longer ventures to back his opinion loses the quality of a fighter and approaches his fall. Examples of Sacrifices for Position La Bourdonnais-McDonnell, match, 1834: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4 e5 4.d5 f5 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.Bxc4 Bc5 7.Nf3 Qe7 Not 7...fxe4 8.Ng5. Now 8...Bxf2+ is threatened. 8.Bg5 A mistake. He should have castled. 8...Bxf2+

cuuuuuuuuC (rhbDkDw4} 70p0w1w0p} 6wDwDwhwD} 5DwDP0pGw} &wDBDPDwD} 3DwHwDNDw} 2P)wDwgP)} %$wDQIwDR} v,./9EFJMV 9.Kf1 Better to capture since he would regain the pawn, viz., 9.Kxf2 Qc5+ 10.Ke1 Qxc4 11.Nxe5 Qa6 Black has an advantage, White fighting chances, for instance with 12.Rf1. 9...Bb6 10.Qe2 f4 11.Rd1 Bg4 12.d6 cxd6 13.Nd5

cuuuuuuuuC (rhwDkDw4} 70pDw1w0p} 6wgw0whwD} 5DwDN0wGw} &wDBDP0bD} 3DwDwDNDw} 2P)wDQDP)} %DwDRDKDR} v,./9EFJMV

In this situation Black has the choice of suffering the attack or of beating back every attempt to attack him by giving up his queen. His judgment inclines towards the latter alternative and, being a brave man, he follows it. He probably saw several menaces such as 13...Qd8 14.Nxf4 exf4 15.e5, or 13...Qf8 14.Bb5+ and Black is prevented from castling. On the other hand he weighed the chances after 13...Nxd5. For his queen he gets two pieces, two valuable pawns and an outpost position for his knight at e3. So he made his decision. He did not make a combination, for he could not have calculated the maze of variations; it was too involved. He judged and valued and acted. 13...Nxd5 14.Bxe7 Ne3+ White might now have tried 15.Qxe3 followed by 16.Bxd6, but his judgment, though perhaps at fault, advised him to see the attack through. 15.Ke1 Kxe7 16.Qd3 Rd8 17.Rd2 Nc6 18.b3 Ba5 19.a3 Rac8

cuuuuuuuuC (wdr4wDwD} 70pDwiw0p} 6wDn0wDwD} 5gwDw0wDw} &wDBDP0bD} 3)PDQhNDw} 2wDw$wDP)} %DwDwIwDR} v,./9EFJMV With sure instinct McDonnell aims at White’s vulnerable spot. If now 20.b4, Black is master of the c-file. The sequence is 20...Nxb4 21.axb4 Bxb4 22.Ba2 Bxf3 23.gxf3 Rc2. 20.Rg1 In his dire need White visualizes an attack on the seventh rank which, however, has no force. 20...b5 21.Bxb5 Bxf3 22.gxf3 Nd4 23.Bc4 Nxf3+ 24.Kf2 Nxd2 25.Rxg7+ Kf6 26.Rf7+ Kg6 27.Rb7 Ndxc4 28.bxc4 Rxc4 and Black won.43 Pillsbury-Lasker, Nuremberg, 1896: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.dxc5 Nc6 7.a3 Nxc5 8.b4 Nd7 This

190

Fourth Book retreat is incomprehensible to me now. Of course, 8...d4 was indicated. If then 9.Nce2 d3 10.Ng3 Qd4 and Black has the initiative. 9.Bd3 a5 Proof of nervous impatience. 10.b5 Ncb8 11.Nf3 Nc5 12.Be3 Nbd7 13.0-0 g6 Black herewith perpetuates his weakness on the kingside, but he has only a choice of evils, having lost too much time. 14.Ne2 Be7 Now 14...Bg2 would have made the better fight. 15.Qe1 Nb6 16.Nfd4 Bd7 17.Qf2 Nba4 Black plays to attack the b-pawn and prevents a3-a4, but he should conceive less ambitious plans. 17...Qc7 would have been right. 18.Rab1 h5 Otherwise White could open the f-file line by g2-g4 and f4-f5. 19.b6 This pawn is a veritable wedge. It is sufficiently supported and opens the square b5 to the white pieces. 19...Nxd3 20.cxd3 Bxa3

cuuuuuuuuC (rDw1kDw4} 7DpDbDpDw} 6w)wDpDpD} 50wDp)wDp} &nDwHw)wD} 3gwDPGwDw} 2wDwDN!P)} %DRDwDRIw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rDw1kDw4} 7DpDbgpDw} 6w)wDpDwD} 50wDp)pDw} &nDwHwHw0} 3DwDPGwDw} 2wDwDw!P)} %$wDwDRIw} v,./9EFJMV Now 27.Qxf5 is threatened in addition to other more obvious threats, for instance, 26...Qc8 27.Qxf5 Qc3, and now stronger than 28.Rc1, which also would win, is 28.Bg5. Black played 26...Bd7 and lost, as in such a position he ought to.44 The Principle of Proportion The principles of attack, defense, and balance give directions for planning. They tell us when and how we should strive for a positive aim, or resist changes, or prepare ourselves for the coming crisis. That is a great deal, a very great deal. One may say that he who has not Steinitz’s theory in his grasp does not understand how to conceive sound plans, either on the chess board or elsewhere.

Black wants to set White a task. The situation merits attention. Black has a pawn plus, an immediate danger is not apparent. If White does not threaten, Black fortifies his position by Ba3-b4. White must not wait, but where is Black’s most vulnerable spot? The answer is evidently that the black king is badly placed. But the way to it is strewn with impediments. Removing these impediments may cost much but, according to Pillsbury’s judgment, the high price is not too high; hence the sacrifices for position which reveal Black’s hidden weakness with most becoming justice. 21.f5 gxf5 22.Nf4 Menacing Qg3-g7. 22...h4 23.Ra1 Be7 (D) 24.Rxa4 Bxa4 The bishop is diverted from e6. 25.Ndxe6 fxe6 26.Nxe6

Certainly, he will sometimes be able to hit upon a sound plan, not like the swallow that in midst of its flight catches its prey with ease, but like a poodle which clumsily jumps after a fly. The theory as above presented does not, however, embrace all of the fundamental principles of a contest. To put them together with sufficient explanations so that they will be lucid is rather a formidable task. My first attempt was made in 1906 in my book Struggle, and another and more successful one in my system of philosophy, Das Begreifen der Welt (Comprehension of the World) 1913, Die Philosophie des Unvollendbar (The Philosophy of the Unattainable) 1918, both books at present only in a German edition. This philosophy — pardon, reader, this is my conviction which is not entirely vain — this

191

Lasker’s Manual of Chess philosophy will some day be known and esteemed by man. The likelihood of this is plain even now. But my philosophy is young, only fourteen years of age. My second work was written during the years of the Great War [i.e., World War I – ed.], through which, as if by miracle, I lived in quiet, though starving. That book has therefore an age of only seven years. Philosophical systems can very well bear an age of a few thousand years; in the first century of their life they are small babies. One must not, therefore, wonder that man does not seem to know much of a theory of “struggle,” and still less should one draw from this fact the conclusion that probably it is of little importance. What ripens soon, fades soon. To good and weighty theories public recognition comes late. The theory of struggle, divined by men like Machiavelli, Napoleon, Clausewitz, molded by Steinitz in accurate detail for the chess board, longingly desired by some philosophers, established by myself in universal validity, therefore philosophically, will some day regulate the life of man. I do not in the least hesitate to say so. The theory of struggle is the only theory that is pragmatic. It, therefore, joins the virtues of a theory, definition and finiteness, to the virtues of historical things: reality and infinity. In order to round off the theory of Steinitz as above outlined, I should like to mention one more principle. Steinitz has felt it but not formulated it. It is, that the aim of an attack must be proportionate to the advantage upon which the plan for the attack is based. The attack wants to change the basic advantage which is fluent and unstable into a permanent advantage. The principle of proportion tells us that to the greater basic advantage should correspond the more ambitious plan. In the same way, of course, the defender should apportion his concession. The game of chess has not been designed to serve as paradigm for very subtle questions and it happens not to express the above principle as well as it might. So far as the end of the game is concerned, it knows only three values: win, loss, draw; and this number is insufficient to allow of an accurate estimate to be made of the advantages leading up to the issues. Other games, which have

a larger variety of results, for instance, Whist or still better, the Japanese game of Go, have also a varied scale of values. And life with its infinity of values gives, of course, a much more comprehensive idea of proportion than any game. For all that, chess is not entirely devoid of instances in which the principle of proportion may be demonstrated in a clear light. A well known example is that of “playing to win” which Dr. Tarrasch pointedly has renamed “playing to lose.” That always happens when the player overrates his advantage or for other reasons seeks to derive from a minute advantage a great return such as a forced win. Another example concerns the way in which conclusions are drawn from examples. You must not draw too general a conclusion from too few examples. Unfortunately, this error is made far and wide. In politics and in our social life rash judgments, out of all proportion to the scarcity of facts to prove them, are passed most readily. To uphold a prejudice men will go to any lengths. This game would be laughable were it not so serious. In chess fortunately we may laugh good humoredly at most of these attempts. Yet we have to do our duty and see to it that no lasting harm is done to the game. Hence, a few words on how inductive conclusions should be drawn in chess. A rule or law or stratagem pertaining to chess does not come down from heaven but must have connections and analogies in life; it must therefore be natural. For instance, the rules of development telling us to get the pieces out in the quickest manner compatible with safety reminds us of the setbacks that an inactive man suffers, and it appeals to us at once. After having discovered what presumably is such a rule, we must associate it with chess as closely as possible. But not with purposely thought out positions: with natural positions, which could, nay even assuredly would, crop up in wellcontested games. If the rule applies under such conditions, we hold a rough diamond. Then we have to cut it, so as to bring out its luster, by trying to change the rule a little this way and a little that way. If the rule can be thus twisted about and yet seem to apply, it is a bad sign. The right rule, right in wording and content, cannot

192

Fourth Book be changed in the slightest manner without losing some of its point or application. This method is not followed, nowadays, either in the act of discovery or in that of criticism. The so-called “hyper-modern” school almost lives by not following it, but by erecting magnificent structures out of flimsy material. For all that, this school has its good points. It has quickened our imagination, it has taught us to suspect mechanical chess, it has insisted on the high value of the central pawns, it has warned against their premature advance. But these accomplishments were due to a most diligent research of highly gifted young men who during the last dozen years have played many hard games — thousands of them, with passionate devotion. Nor are these rules new, but they had never been so tested before nor applied within a range so wide as they have by these youths. The purely logical gain of the hypermodern school cannot be viewed with too much suspicion. Its inductions, generalizations, constructions, even its definitions, are made with an insouciance that is enviable as a mood but unbusinesslike. Examples of the Principle of Proportion Te Kolste-Torre, Baden-Baden 1925: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Bb4 5.Nge2 dxe4 6.a3 Be7 7.Bxf6 gxf6 8.Nxe4 b6 9.N2c3 Bb7 10.Qf3 Though check with the knight is now threatened, White’s intention is not aggressive but merely the protection of the gpawn. 10...c6 11.0-0-0 f5 12.Ng3 Nd7

cuuuuuuuuC (rDw1kDw4} 70bDngpDp} 6w0pDpDwD} 5DwDwDpDw} &wDw)wDwD} 3)wHwDQHw} 2w)PDw)P)} %DwIRDBDR} v,./9EFJMV 13.Bc4 But here White begins to be aggressive

Richard Réti

and thereby he puts himself in the wrong for his aim is not even remotely warranted by his advantage. Again he should strive to safeguard his g-pawn by 13.Nh5, to be followed by Rh1g1, and afterwards possibly by h2-h3 and g2-g4 with some little pressure on the center and on the h-pawn, proportionate to his advantage in mobility. As he plays White begins to slide first very slowly; afterwards more quickly. 13...Qc7 14.Rhe1 Nf6 15.Qe2 0-0-0

cuuuuuuuuC (wDk4wDw4} 70b1wgpDp} 6w0pDphwD} 5DwDwDpDw} &wDB)wDwD} 3)wHwDwHw} 2w)PDQ)P)} %DwIR$wDw} v,./9EFJMV Black has defended conscientiously. If White now continues 16.Nxf5 Qf4+ 17.Ne3 Rxd4 18.Ba6 he can still obtain equality. But here is the parting of the ways. 16.Bxe6+ White fancies that he holds an advantage and attempts to win. The punishment is immediate. 16...fxe6 17.Qxe6+ Rd7 18.Nxf5 Bd8 19.Ne4 Nxe4 20.Rxe4 Kb8 21.g3 Bc8 22.Qh6

193

Lasker’s Manual of Chess Rf7 23.Ne3 Rxf2 24.c3 Rg8 25.d5 Bg5 26.Qxc6 Qxc6 27.dxc6 Bf5 0-1 In the following game both opponents overrate their position and Réti is thereby caused to commit a downright blunder.

free, then 17.Kxg2 h4 18.Qe3 Qd8 and Black has a favorable position. 17.Qe3 Kf8 18.Nxb6 Rxb6 19.Qxb6 hxg3 20.fxg3 Bxg2 21.Kxg2 Qh3+ 22.Kf2 Ng4+ 23.Ke1 Bxc3+ 24.bxc3 Nxh2 25.Rg1 Qe6

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwiw4} 7DpDw0pDw} 6w!pDqDpD} 5DwDwDwDw} &PDwDwDwD} 3Dw)PDw)w} 2wDwDPDwh} %$wDwIw$w} v,./9EFJMV

Réti-Colle, Baden-Baden 1925: 1.g3 d5 2.Bg2 c6 3.c4 dxc4 4.Na3 Be6 5.Qc2 g6 6.Nxc4 Bg7 7.Nf3 Nd7 8.0-0 Nb6 9.Nxb6 axb6 10.d3 h6 11.Bd2 Qc8 12.Bc3 Nf6

cuuuuuuuuC (rDqDkDw4} 7DpDw0pgw} 6w0pDbhp0} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwGPDN)w} 2P)QDP)B)} %$wDwDRIw} v,./9EFJMV White has a fair position. He might now continue with 13.Rfe1, safeguard by a2-a3, contend for central points such as d4; in brief aim for small gains. But he now conceives the ambitious plan of gaining a decisive advantage on b6. He succeeds, but in justice his opponent obtains counter-action on the other wing. 13.Nd2 Bh3 True, this is careless. Why not 13...b5 to start with? 14.Nc4 Ra6 15.a4 h5 16.Qd2

cuuuuuuuuC (wDqDkDw4} 7DpDw0pgw} 6r0pDwhpD} 5DwDwDwDp} &PDNDwDwD} 3DwGPDw)b} 2w)w!P)B)} %$wDwDRIw} v,./9EFJMV 16...h4 But now Black wants to annihilate his opponent outright. With 16...Bxg2 the queen was

Impossible to find a safe retreat for the white king and therefore as long as the queens stay on the board Black has a good fighting chance. The normal, patient, suitable continuation for White would have been 26.Rg2 Nf3+ 27.Kf2 Ne5, and perhaps 28.Qd4 Rh3 with a difficult game for either party. But White judges that he has a big advantage, looks for a winning combination and too easily persuades himself that he has discovered it. 26.Qd8+ Kg7 27.Qd4+ Kg8 28.Kd2?? At least 28.Qe4 should now have been played, although 28...Qb3 would have been a disagreeable retort. 28...Nf3+ White resigns, because the black rook comes down to its seventh rank.45 As an instance of the kind of induction above objected to, I cite some notes of Réti concerning the game he played against Te Kolste at BadenBaden, 1925. Réti had Black. The game started 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.Nc3 Nxc3 4.dxc3. In Kagan’s Neuesten Schachnachrichten Réti calls this move a “Positionsfehler,” a positional error. That is at least debatable. But what he then says runs contrary to all proportion. “The game will show how by modern chess technique a minute but clear positional advantage incurred in the opening can be easily converted into a win.” Into a win? No, this proportion is not the right one. Into initiative, into a promising game; such an assertion would have to be conceded, but no

194

Fourth Book more, unless the opponent errs again. Réti’s plan in the above game was to make use of White’s doubled pawn by getting the superiority of pawns on the kingside. First rate! He succeeded in this too. But for all that he was very far from having a winning game. The combination by which he wanted to force the win leaves White with no disadvantage whatever. For this combination see the following diagram.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DwDw0pDp} 6wDk0wDpD} 5DwDw4wDw} &w0PDwDwD} 3DPDRDK)w} 2PDwDw)w)} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

much more than that except to conceive plans as the game proceeded. The reader of Réti’s remarks is led to think that an altogether new and profound strategy has recently arisen and is probably tempted to cast very deep strategic plans of the same order. He is in danger of losing his sound judgment, and neither he nor chess is well served thereby. An Enquiry into the Logical Origin and the Domain of Application of Steinitz’s Theory After having gone through these various examples and verifications one cannot help but admit that the rules of Steinitz are confirmed by well played games. Are these rules then the result of an analysis Steinitz made of thousands of master games; conversely, has the mentality of Steinitz called these rules into being with the intention of reconciling his experience and his observation with them as far as possible? Did Steinitz start his investigation as an analyst or as a thinker, from the material of games or from his imagination which molded principles? We need to be clear on this point.

White to play Te Kolste here made the mistake of offering the exchange of rooks, which loses, because the white a-pawn is backward and Black gets a passed pawn. Réti remarks, that the right move 1.a3 would have lost equally, but his analysis contains an oversight. 1...bxa3 2.b4 a2 3.Ra3 d5 Réti makes White here play 4.cxd5+, whereupon the b-pawn is untenable, but it was easy to see that 4.Ra6+ Kany 5.Rxa2 dxc4 6.Rc2 would make White secure and eliminate all advantage. And this combination should be the culminating point of a strategy resulting from White’s fourth move and bringing about an inexorable win! I admit that after 1.a3 Kc5 2.a4 Black still exerts slight pressure; to say aught beyond that would be an exaggeration. Wide-visioned strategic plans must not have so frail a basis. On a motif such as was indicated by Réti, one cannot build the plan of a whole well-contested game; it is too meager, too thin, too puny for such an end. Réti’s explanations, wherever they are concerned with an analysis which covers a few moves, are correct and praiseworthy. As yet nobody has been able to do

To attack this problem it is sufficient to concentrate our attention upon any one of Steinitz’s principles. Let us consider the simple proposition, that in a faultless game he wins who has continued to hold the advantage. Let us assert outright and bluntly, but briefly and clearly, that the superior force always wins. Can such an opinion be deduced from analysis or observation? Or is its origin elsewhere? The experience that chess players gather every day is certainly very far from suggestive of such an opinion. The ordinary experience is rather that he who has a slight disadvantage plays more attentively, inventively and more boldly than his antagonist who either takes it easy or aspires after too much; thus a slight disadvantage is very frequently seen to convert itself into a good, solid advantage. A budding chess master, during his period of growth, would be hugely surprised if he were confronted by our assertion. He would not be interested in it. He would call it metaphysics, but not chess. His experience is that he wins, when a happy thought strikes him, and that he is in bad disposition or has ill luck, when

195

Lasker’s Manual of Chess no such thought occurs to him. True, he has had experiences of superior force when a boy. In wrestling and boxing the superior force was brought home to him. But chess would appear to him as being of a different order of things. That mental power wins in chess would be the firmest of his impressions. But we reply that we speak of the force of the pieces, the force of their cooperation. He would probably be somewhat stunned by this suggestion and keep his peace. But he would be right in asking, whether such a thing as that really and truly exists. In mathematical books one is likely to find two vectors (a, b) called forces with a demonstration of Newton’s parallelogram of forces attached thereto. Mathematically, the assertion will be true, though a couple of vectors is a logical thing and not a reality like muscular power. Is it, perhaps, no different in chess?

every kind of force, physical, moral, mental, etc., is reckoned with. And nothing whatever will make us deviate from this resolve. This proposition, surely, does not originate with experience, but we strive with might and main to explain our experience, no matter how it turns out, in its terms. This feeling is the home of poetical justice, as of many fine things to which we aspire but which life often denies us. The same feeling, undoubtedly, dominated Steinitz when he maintained his proposition. What he searched for in long years was not the proposition, in which he believed from the start, but the interpretation that the proposition needed to comply with experience. And in this endeavor he met with full success.

Well, it is almost a miracle, but it is not so in chess. As already shown, Steinitz did not grasp his conceptions out of empty space, but formed them according to vivid impressions which suggested analogies, and he oftentimes put them to the test. He was very far from creating new concepts as mathematicians do who discover such ideas as prime number or ellipse or congruence and on them string their propositions. He thought as the poet thinks who searches for an expression that will pregnantly picture his sentiments and impressions.

His method was fertile, chess lent itself to make it so; hence, his deed was ingenious, a memorial both for the investigator and his object. Hitherto, in all history, this method had remained sterile, of value, no doubt, to the historian who looks back upon events, but of no use to the statesman who wants to predict them. Hitherto, we knew only after the deed how the higher morality or culture or willpower or strategy had to be valued, and the use of such knowledge is small. In chess we know in advance. Steinitz has shown the way. The teaching of Steinitz demands from us an accurate valuation. The game of chess itself is severe in this respect and will immediately depose the master who is unable or unwilling to satisfy that postulate.

Thus understood, the proposition of Steinitz, as is apparent, far from stating an experience, is rather of the nature of a demand. He postulates his proposition, though in life it is not always fulfilled, and in chess not so very often, even in the games of masters, if the truth be told, by no means always. Not that this postulate originated with Steinitz. Mankind has framed it, the poet who continually gives expression to it is only its mouthpiece. The small army of Greeks vanquishes the enormous number of Persians; history repeats a thousandfold the victory of the smaller number; we explain that superior morale and strategy had conferred this force upon the outnumbered army. Before we ever investigate we are resolved to uphold the proposition that superior force wins, provided, of course, that

There is another point in which the theory of Steinitz is ahead of any theory at present in use for pragmatic ends. It is based on the assumption of faultless play, and this assumption can be realized in chess at least to a high degree of approximation, and the theory can thus be subjected to severe tests. But how could we in pragmatic affairs hope at present to verify such an assumption? In life we are all duffers. Error and mistake are our daily bread. In chess we can test the players and do so test them, and have a pretty accurate idea of their strength. If we should attempt to introduce into business or statesmanship or engineering or science any such accuracy of measurement, not only should we have a difficult problem to solve, but there would be bloodshed. And the efficient people would in

196

Fourth Book position where slight mistakes, if any, are made, run such a course. Artificial positions, composed, constructed, thought out by a man sitting in An illustration of the his study, are process in chess will necessarily exempt illuminate what has from the above rules been said. A master and valuations. One has made a sacrifice must bear in mind this and has won the contrast or else one game. Has the lesser will be unable to number of pieces comprehend the real beaten the greater by meaning of Steinitz’s some kind of witchery? Many think theory. The contrast is the same as that so. They opine that A visibly aging Lasker, some time in the 1930s. between theory and the genius of the practice, between master was the charm. The investigator who proceeds logic and metaphysics, between thought and methodically denies that; he asserts that also in reality, between human wit and nature. The this case the superior force has been victorious, contest of masters produces situations different the mentality of the players remaining out of the from the constructions of him who wants to make reckoning. Now the critic enters and demands a a combination by spinning the thread of his own precise demonstration. “Here in the opening,” thoughts. To the latter activity, which is not a the critic says to the investigator, “a pawn was duel between unyielding antagonists, the sacrificed and afterwards the game was won. teachings of Steinitz do not apply. According to your view the sacrifice was compensated for by position. But please weigh It is easy to invent positions so peculiar, so the compensation, for in chess words are air; in strange, involved, artificial, I might even say our game the analysis, conducted to the point crazy, that one could not possibly apply to them where the final result can be clearly gauged, is the theory of Steinitz. That theory is not meant admitted as the only proof.” Thereupon the for them. For any position which can be brought investigator examines the records of many about by the play of masters the theory holds positions and replies: “All right, I will specify good, not for the unnatural products of a fanciful that compensation. Three to four moves advance brain. If an unnatural position is examined with in development suffice to compensate for the loss a view to determining how it could have come of an important pawn. This rule can be put on about by play from previous positions, one trial by reviewing a hundred games of masters readily sees that there is something akin to and has been confirmed.” Wherever in chess insanity in it. Such a situation cannot be produced apparently the weaker force is victorious, a by the play of reasonable minds. As an example compensation can be detected, and this to test the theory, it thereby ceases to have any compensation can be accurately circumscribed weight. In a position that has a history arising in terms of a general rule. In other domains of out of a contest, the method of Steinitz is always human activity we have as yet no such method. practicable and in this sense the superior force Perhaps the future will some day bring about a always wins at chess. change for the better. But here I must stop a moment, for I have been The above statements are valid for the contests guilty of an exaggeration. The theory of Steinitz of masters. Games, starting from the initial is always valid when intelligently applied to all likelihood be persecuted and think twice before they made evident their superiority.

197

Lasker’s Manual of Chess contests occurring in life, in reality. In this sense I maintain the validity of the rule, though, of course, with philosophic reasons. In the last resort this is a matter of belief and therefore it pertains to philosophy. If you want to follow and to probe this train of thought, you may read my two books on philosophy. But there are many games, particularly mathematical games, to which during centuries of investigation an immense body of literature has been devoted and which yet have no origin in the struggles of life. These games have a theory that vastly differs from that of Steinitz. The game of chess, it is true, has real struggle as an ancestor, but in the course of its long history the original intent was forgotten, rules were added which were logical, formal, precise, but not true to life. And therefore the theory of Steinitz, even in master games, is not absolutely true. Therewith the proof that the theory of Steinitz originated in his mentality is confirmed anew. I can imagine how Steinitz had to struggle and to search before he was able to apply his ideas to tournament and match practice. The witchery of creative fancy, the inexplicableness of disposition or indisposition for hard play, the elusiveness of his object resisted his efforts. In

addition, the lack of understanding, the ill will of a time too narrow minded, too avaricious, weighed down on him. His struggle was hard. We all lose in the end, that is the intention, and the brave man is not afraid of it; but there is a measure and a limit to human endurance. For Steinitz the struggle was too hard, and his nature abandoned the effort, when his intellect at last refused the ungrateful service. But the cause which he served lives. That chess follows the principles of Steinitz only in some points is no fault of his theory which would indeed deteriorate if it tried to embrace all possibilities. The fault lies in the rules with which, in course of time, the game has been burdened. The aim of chess is to reconstruct, in the terms of a game, the war of a few thousand years ago, but it contains arbitrary rules made after the original idea had been forgotten. Castling and the valuation of stalemate as a draw are instances. To this extent the theory of Steinitz loses its efficiency; for instance, every stalemate is in contradiction to it. The theory of Steinitz is valid for reality, not for rules spun out of bloodless abstractions. That constitutes its limitation as well as its greatness.

Financial Straits: Tired and depressed after Germany’s defeat in World War I, Lasker might have been content to abandon chess altogether in 1918. When new negotiations with Capablanca went badly, he resigned the world title, conferring it on the Cuban. But the hyper-inflation that devalued the German Mark in the early 1920s left Lasker in dire financial straits. That, plus public clamor for a match, left him no choice but to play in Havana in 1921. Dispirited and unmotivated, he resigned the match early after falling behind +0 –4 =10.

198

Fifth Book The Aesthetic Effect in Chess The aesthetic effect of a chess game becomes manifest to the spectator provided he follows the events of the game, as they unroll themselves, with interest and comprehension. The players might be indifferent to him, yet the spectator may derive pleasure from the game to the point of delight, or else he may find it dull, or even object to it to the point of disgust. He has a whole scale of sentiments ready to respond to the play of the pieces. The players may exist or not, they may be abstract persons such as White and Black — that matters not a bit — the spectator responds to the call, to the charm of the chess contest. It is this scale of sentiments that I should like to name the aesthetic valuation. The spectator is highly pleased with a move and calls it “brilliant” or “beautiful.” He likes the look of a position and praises it as natural, alive, suggestive. Another position is cramped, improbable to him. All of these and many similar terms refer to an aesthetic valuation. The aesthetic valuation, obviously, depends upon the personality of the spectator. An old Latin adage says “De gustibus non est disputandum.” This is as true in chess as anywhere else. But it is noteworthy that we have assumed the spectator to be not only interested but also comprehending. We may know nothing, to start with, of his aesthetic valuations, but we may assume that we know a great deal concerning his comprehension. That is the Archimedean point where we might apply our lever. And again, the game appeals to a great many, to a multitude. Positions, many centuries old, have been handed down to us because of their strong aesthetic effect. One man may be exceptional; a multitude of men conversing with each other brings forth a public opinion which is likely not to be so. If “the spectator” is a multitude, we might be able to specify his valuations. In this hope then we may propose the problem of shedding light on aesthetic valuations in chess.

Chess, of course, is no exceptional case. Aesthetic valuations evoked in chess are likely to be met in other fields of endeavor. To what category must we assign chess so as to account for its aesthetic effect? Manifestly, the class of achievements. It is the achievement of the pieces on the chess board, nothing else, that grips the interest of the spectator and carries him along and excites him. Unless the spectator observes an achievement which seems to him out of the common, his interest will slumber. Only when a move discloses a task to be solved which seems difficult if not impossible, or when, for some reason, the spectator expects such a move or series of moves, the aesthetic valuation begins. The achievement may be manifold; the giving of a mate, or its prevention, or the desperate fight of a minority which causes the superior force to doubt its victory, are among the many instances. It is always the achievement of the pieces which, comprehended by the spectator, causes his excitement. And this excitement runs its course, as the game proceeds, and at length culminates in an aesthetic valuation. The interest of the spectator is fired by an achievement that appeals to him and rivets his attention. The achievements speak to the spectator in a language of their own. The player need not speak in words, the move announces an intention and a meaning. True, the spectator must not be deaf and dumb to this language, else he perceives nothing or misunderstands. But the spectator by no means need be a master. The master can create, the sympathetic spectator, not gifted with the genius of discovery, comprehends. He has imagination to follow the drama of the game with interest, and he has intellect to understand what each move aims at and accomplishes. For the aesthetic effect the language of the move and nothing else is of any account whatever. What the move says, expresses, discloses, announces — that is what excites and stirs the spectator. The spectator enjoys not a game of chess, but history, drama; that a chess board is

199

Lasker’s Manual of Chess its stage, and chess pieces its actors, matters not. If the drama of a chess game be presented by human actors on the stage of a theatre, its aesthetic effect would not be a particle different — provided only, as stated above as a condition, the spectator has interest and comprehension.

But if this is true, it follows that for the purposes of grasping the meaning of aesthetic effects and its laws we may make use of analogy. Thus we may gather observations and experiences in many fields and may apply them to each field individually and so multiply their capacity for teaching us what we desire to know.

True, the human language which has a long and wonderful history, the language of pantomime, that of the human anatomy and of the human emotions, is a thousand times more eloquent than the language of the chess pieces. Yet it is a fact that chess games and chess positions have a hold upon many, a hold strong enough to make them burst into applause and to cause these games and positions to be preserved in books and to be fondly remembered. And as a matter of pure theory we may conceive of a spectator so conversant with chess that to him the language of the move is very rich. What we want to establish beyond a doubt is the thesis that this language alone matters, as long as the aesthetic effect alone is considered. Of other effects we do not treat. For this effect the medium is of importance only in so far as it must have a history and therefore be able to make itself understood, to be eloquent, to be heard by a multitude of understanding minds.

Let us now conceive of the simple case of a recital. We are told a story. David, no larger nor stronger than any one of us, vanquishes the challenging giant Goliath by means of a sling. If David approached his enemy, the giant would use his exceeding power and his terrible weapons, the brutal force would consume its adversary as a dragon would a lamb. But the brutal force does not get its way, it is subdued by the force of the spirit. When mind overcomes matter, we are charmed. In chess the brutal force is composed of the number, strength, and mobility of the pieces and the difficulty of the task set. If this brutal force is bested by the few in number, the slight in strength, in moves which indicate rather weakness than force, which announce rather defeat than triumph, by the power of the spirit, by an idea which, seemingly absurd, yet is truth itself, we are delighted.

Players and dignitaries at Mährisch-Ostrau 1923. Seated, l. to r.: Spielmann, Tietz, Bogolyubov, Lasker, Tarrasch, Wolf, Réti, Grünfeld, Euwe. Standing: unidentified, unidentified, Selezniev, Hromadka, Walter, Pokorny, unidentified, unidentified, unidentified.

200

Fifth Book

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwIbi} 7DwDwDw0p} 6wDwDwDPD} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwDwDwDR} v,./9EFJMV

1851: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 Qh4+ 4.Kf1 b5 5.Bxb5 Nf6 6.Nf3 Qh6 7.d3 Nh5 8.Nh4 Qg5 9.Nf5 c6 10.g4 Nf6 11.Rg1 cxb5 12.h4 Qg6 13.h5 Qg5 14.Qf3 Ng8 15.Bxf4 Qf6 16.Nc3 Bc5 17.Nd5 Qxb2

cuuuuuuuuC (rhbDkDn4} 70wDpDp0p} 6wDwDwDwD} 5DpgNDNDP} &wDwDPGPD} 3DwDPDQDw} 2P1PDwDwD} %$wDwDK$w} v,./9EFJMV

By P. Morphy, White to play and mate in two moves Here a task is set, a difficult one. If White had only to solve the problem of how to win this ending, difficulties enough, so it seems, would await him. He would have to guard his pawn and to gain the black g-pawn by methodical attack. But the above task demands that we checkmate in two moves. White’s second move has to be a mate. The task is like an overpowering opponent. And now its solution. No demonstration of force like giving of a check or capturing an enemy: the strongest piece offers itself as a sacrifice 1.Rh6. And yet, it is true, this almost absurd move and this alone solves the problem.

18.Bd6 Bxg1 19.e5 Qxa1+ 20.Ke2 Na6 21.Nxg7+ Kd8 22.Qf6+ Nxf6

cuuuuuuuuC (rDbiwDw4} 70wDpDpHp} 6nDwGwhwD} 5DpDN)wDP} &wDwDwDPD} 3DwDPDwDw} 2PDPDKDwD} %1wDwDwgw} v,./9EFJMV

The ideal of our chess ancestors was the following game which they named The Immortal Game. Anderssen-Kieseritzky, offhand, London,

23.Be7#

Amazing Comeback #1: After losing his title to Capablanca in 1921, much of the chess world considered the 52-year-old Lasker a washedup has-been. Yet soon he returned in triumph, winning at MährischOstrau 1923, and most impressively at New York 1924, where he outclassed a great field headed by Capablanca and Alekhine. And then at Moscow 1925 he finished behind only Bogolyubov, yet again ahead of Capablanca and other greats. In the three events, which included most of the world’s best, he scored a combined +30 –3 =19.

201

Lasker’s Manual of Chess The end of the game is undoubtedly splendid. The checkmate represents a maximum achievement; three minor officers, unaided, execute the incredible mate in the face of the whole hostile army. The opening of the game, however, offends our feelings, although our ancestors were not sensitive on that score.46 Let us return now to our story of David and Goliath. Imagine that we added the explanation, that the whole matter had been a game to arouse the spirit of the army: Goliath had really been a fake. The effect would be that the sympathy of the listener would go to the deluded army and completely turn away from David. We feel the same way, whenever an achievement claims our attention. There must be reality to it. The task must be real; its consummation too. Otherwise we turn aside or, in the most favorable case, we think it comic and laugh. A real task, that means a real danger. Not an unnecessary task. In a city well supplied with water I should feel very little interest in an effort to discover an Artesian spring; in the desert such a search would captivate all my attention. The task must be necessary, and its achievement in just the fashion it is done must be necessary also, or else the aesthetic impression is less or may dwindle entirely or may turn into displeasure. The ideal would be that the task is of vital importance and the achievement can be consummated in one manner only, so that the very slightest change or variation of action or of circumstances would nullify the effort. If this ideal cannot be attained, and it can never be fully attained, it must be striven for, because to the extent that we approach the ideal we achieve depth of aesthetic impression. But the aesthetic impression is, after all, an impression made on our feelings. The spectator must feel, not know, that the ideal has been aimed at. True, his sympathy is with him who struggles against stupendous difficulties, as we poor mortals, whose powers are very limited, struggle against odds and miraculously overcome them. Nevertheless, the spectator does not desire to

make an extended investigation; he wants to comprehend in a flash. It is therefore easy to betray, to bluff, the spectator. Should this be done playfully, the spectator himself, after discovery, will smile. But if done in earnest, the bluff often offends deeply and the vengeance of the spectator is terrible. A master who kept on playing quasi-brilliant games would lose his following. These considerations are valid in every case, where a search, a task, a contest excites interest. For instance, the composition of a checkmate in two moves is for the public that has solved such problems and has learnt to value them, as real a task as a good match between two ambitious players. The problemist will try to solve them; the spectator who watches a game of masters will try to foresee the next move; hence, they comprehend the nature of the task and of its achievement, and in time acquire an instinctive judgment for it. They reach the point of being connoisseurs. It would be very hard to bluff them. Of course, they would understand the comic effect of playful infringements. There is such a thing as buffoonery in chess, and it has a meritorious function. But for all that, the aesthetic effect of a chess task on the connoisseur has nothing whatever to do with its comic effect and is measured solely in terms of the ideal. When this ideal is approached as far as possible within the given limitations, we may speak of a consummate achievement. A checkmate, in which every piece on the board participates to the limit of its capacity and must do so to achieve the end, is an example. For consummate achievements the principle of economy holds: the purpose is attained by the least possible means. It is very remarkable that the guiding principle of defense recurs here. That to the spectator, particularly to the connoisseur, the chess pieces are beings which act and feel and speak, is wholly justified. To our remote ancestors everything was alive and gifted with secret powers This was one of man’s very early religions, and it persists in the aesthetic impression. The musician listening to good

202

Fifth Book

Lasker’s score sheet, recording the moves of his game with Alekhine in the 3rd round at New York 1924.

music, becomes a poet and may weave fanciful stories into it. The chess player, animated by the sight of fine chess, begins to envisage heroic deeds by the pieces. Both dream fairy tales in which all things are alive and speak and feel. They are caught in a gracious illusion. The fairy tale progresses as the chess pieces in their positions and movements fulfill their parts in the drama. I do not know to what extent these considerations may claim originality. The literature on aesthetic questions is surprisingly large, though, it seems, distressingly inefficient. The aesthetics of chess, happily, is an exception. In other fields, for instance, in art, hardly any theory, hardly a point of any theory has been acknowledged;

the contentions are wide and furious, and some of the fanciful constructions of the thinkers border on insanity. There is an abundance of theoretical investigation also in the art of composing chess problems. A great many views have been advanced and a number of “schools” have been founded. This is probably as it should be. But to me it seems that to say more than has been said would be very venturesome. In fact these considerations would need to be elucidated, explained, safeguarded, worked out in greater detail. Shall I proceed to do so now? Everything has its time. I work, I like to work, and I understand its function, but I am also a firm believer in the words of the Bible which says: “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”

203

Lasker’s Manual of Chess Examples 1. In the following position the two bishops hold a witty conversation.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDnDwD} 7DwDwDwDw} 6NDwDwDw)} 5Dw)wDwDw} &wDwDKDwG} 30kDwDwDw} 2wDwDwDwg} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

funny. Black has on the board the whole box of pieces; not one is missing; but with all their tremendous power they seem to be beating the air. White, on the other hand, is quite feeble. His king is saved only by the ridiculous black knight on b7 which could not have had any possible business there. His rook is mobile but must presently hide. His bishop has no earthly chance of escape, his pawn slouches in the corner and talks to the bishop concerning what he happens to see. Only the two white knights are in good trim. But they, chivalrous fellows though they are, know their weakness. Two light cavalrymen against a whole army. True, the black king, a little fat, ringing the bell for his servants, has by some inadvertence only a few small pages at hand. Well, he thinks, that will soon be remedied. The two impudent boys, the white knights, will have to get a sound spanking.

By Comte de Villeneuf, White to play and win The principal actors are obviously the two rooks’ pawns. With 1.h7 White does not win, because the bishop on h2 has a nice reply in store for that clumsy move: 1...Be5 2.Kxe5 a2 3.h8Q a1Q+ and Black wins. The right method is: 1.Nb4 Kxb4 2.h7 Be5 This bishop smiles. 3.Kxe5 a2 4.Be1+ Kb3 5.Bc3 This bishop laughs heartily. 5...Kxc3 6.h8Q a1Q 7.Kd5+ and wins. 2. The following position is highly humorous:

cuuuuuuuuC (bDwgwDw$} 7Dn0wDp0w} 6w0wDwiwD} 5hwDKHwDw} &pDwDwDwD} 3DwDwDpHw} 2PDpDwDpD} %DwGwDr1r} v,./9EFJMV

The white knights speak: “A pretty mess. We have to do the fighting. It is a joke. Well, we must do our bit. Will you start checking?” “No, you’d better.” “Well then, here goes.” 1.Ng4+ “Check! Mr. King.” 1...Ke7 “Be careful,” the king says to the knight, “that one of my servants does not lay his hands on you, you good-fornothing.” 2.Nf5+ “Did you speak to me, Mr. King?” 2...Kd7 “Insolent fellow.” 3.Ne5+ Kc8 Home at last. 4.Ne7+ To the bishop on d8: “Keep watch on our castle in the corner, or you will hurt yourself.” The bishop only stares at the knight. 4...Kb8 5.Nd7+ Ka7

By an unknown composer, White to play. In how many moves will White be checkmated?

cuuuuuuuuC (bDwgwDw$} 7in0NHp0w} 6w0wDwDwD} 5hwDKDwDw} &pDwDwDwD} 3DwDwDpDw} 2PDpDwDpD} %DwGwDr1r} v,./9EFJMV

The question, to begin with, is contrary to the usual seriousness of chess. And the position is

“Oh! Terrible, this narrow lane. But also that helps some, the boys won’t be able to follow

204

Fifth Book here.” The white knights think he will get away. Over such rough ground no horse can go. 6.Nc8+ “Hullo, here I plunge.” 6…Ka6 7.Nb8+ I must mind my horse doesn’t stumble here. 7...Kb5 “Ah! here I have room.” The white king: “Do not come too near me, your majesty; whenever feet are to be trod upon I like to take the initiative.” 8.Na7+ That was some jump! 8...Kb4 9.Na6+ “That’s better than yours.” 9...Kc3 10.Nb5+ “Open country at last.” 10...Kd3 11.Nb4+ “This is fine.” 11...Ke2 12.Nc3+ Kf2 “Quickly away from the horrible e1.” 13.Nd3+ Kg3 14.Ne4+ Kg4 15.Ne5+ Kf5 16.Ng3+ Kf6

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwhwDwi} 7Dw$wDwDw} 6wDnDPdwD} 5DwDNDwHw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DpDwDwDw} 2wDrDwDrD} %IwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (bDwgwDw$} 7Dn0wDp0w} 6w0wDwiwD} 5hwDKHwDw} &pDwDwDwD} 3DwDwDpHw} 2PDpDwDpD} %DwGwDr1r} v,./9EFJMV

White to play and win The seriousness of the contest is believable. Each side is attacking a knight, but much more to the point Black threatens mate on the move to which White has no defense but counter-attack. The two black knights seem to frustrate any such plan. A fine idea, however, forces these helpers of their king to help their enemies. 1.Rh7+ Kg8 2.Nf6+ Kf8 3.e7+ Nxe7 4.Rf7+ Nxf7 5.Ne6#.

17.Ng4+ “Shall we run it all over again, Mr. King?” 3. Here follows a consummate achievement by two knights from a very ancient Persian document.

This mate is remarkable for its economy; there is no duplication of action. From a modern point of view the two black rooks and the black pawn would be judged unnecessary encumbrances, but in the olden days they were useful as providing a setting suggestive of a hard fight.

Capablanca and Lasker at New York 1924.

205

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwHwi} 7DwDwDP0p} 6wDwDwDwD} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDQDwDpD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %gwDwDwDK} v,./9EFJMV

“The Evergreen.” White can win with 1.Be4 because his attack is irresistible, whereas Black’s counter-attack is then frustrated. For instance, 1.Be4 d5 2.Bxd5 Qxd5 3.Rad1 and wins. Or 1...Qh3 2.g3 Rxg3+ 3.hxg3 Qxg3+ 4.Kh1 Bxf2 5.Bxe7 Qh3+ 6.Nh2 Bxe1 7.Rxe1. Or again 1...Rg4 2.Qd1 with a winning position.48

By S. Loyd, White to play and mate in three moves 4. Another consummate achievement. The motif of the problem is “catching the bishop.” In spite of its mobility which extends over five squares, the bishop is caught and the mate is thereby effected. 1.Qf1 No other move would do. For instance 1.Ne6 h6 2.Qc2 g6 3.Qxg6 and takes four moves to mate. Similarly 1.Ng6+ hxg6 2.Qxg4 Bf6!. The threat is 2.Qb1, menacing mate, 2...g6 3.Qxa1 mate. Black can meet the threat by moving 1...g3 threatening check, but then 2.Ng6+ hxg6 3.Qh3#. Hence, the bishop must move. If 1...Bb2 2.Qb1; if 1...Bc3 or Bd4 2.Qd3; if 1...Be5 or Bf6 2.Qf5. One of the great masterpieces of composition.47

cuuuuuuuuC (w4wDkDrD} 70b0phpDp} 6wgnDw)wD} 5DwDwDwDq} &QDwDwDwD} 3Gw)BDNDw} 2PDwDw)P)} %$wDw$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

Anderssen, however, made the move 1.Rad1 This is the greatly admired introduction to astounding sacrifices. The Lärobok i Schack, published only a few years ago, extols the move highly. Yet it cannot sustain criticism. But let us first view the continuation, as it actually took place. 1...Qxf3 This reply is evident to the many. From this point the combination is perfect. 2.Rxe7+ Nxe7 Or 2...Kd8 3.Rxd7+ Kc8 4.Rd8+ and wins. 3.Qxd7+ Kxd7 4.Bf5+ Kc6 5.Bd7#.

cuuuuuuuuC (w4wDwDrD} 70b0BhpDp} 6wgkDw)wD} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3Gw)wDqDw} 2PDwDw)P)} %DwDRDwIw} v,./9EFJMV The mate is nearly pure, except that the square d6 is doubly barred. The move 1.Rad1, which has such a brilliant point, is, as we have seen, not necessary for the purpose of winning. The question remains whether it is, at least, sufficient to that end, for to be necessary and sufficient is the criterion by which we gauge any and every achievement that aspires to the ideal before us.

Anderssen-Dufresne, White to play 5. This is the position where Anderssen made the combination for which the game was named

The practical game, bound rigidly to its practical purpose, can seldom approach that ideal. We have, therefore, to make allowances. But a brilliant combination bewitches men to such an extent that they willingly believe falsehoods and are blinded to the truth. Then criticism, which in the long run comes as irresistibly as death, has to voice its unbiased judgment.

206

Fifth Book The sufficiency of Anderssen’s move has hitherto not been established, although many writers have many times diligently investigated it. It can now be determined that against correct defense it does not work, that defense being 1...Qh3!, threatening mate.

cuuuuuuuuC (w4wDkDrD} 70b0phpDp} 6wgnDw)wD} 5DwDwDwDw} &QDwDwDwD} 3Gw)BDNDq} 2PDwDw)P)} %DwDR$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

is debatable, even dubious. On the other hand, it is understandable that the move roused to enthusiasm the immediate spectators and many others who were not critically inclined and who felt that the move was necessary, though surprising, and sufficient though most perilous. Mason-Winawer, Vienna 1882: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.d3 d6 5.Be3 Bb6 6.Nbd2 h6 7.Nf1 Nf6 8.h3 Ne7 9.Ng3 c6 10.Bb3 Bxe3 11.fxe3 Qb6 12.Qd2 a5 13.c3 a4 14.Bd1 Be6 15.0-0 Qc7 16.Nh4 b5

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDkDw4} 7Dw1whp0w} 6wDp0bhw0} 5DpDw0wDw} &pDwDPDwH} 3Dw)P)wHP} 2P)w!wDPD} %$wDBDRIw} v,./9EFJMV

1.Nh4 fails to 2...Rg4; therefore 2.Bf1 is forced. Then 2...Qf5, when White can either settle for a draw immediately with 2.Bd3 Qh3 etc., or try 3.Kh1 Qxf6 4.Bxe7 (if 4.Bb5 Rxg2 5.Kxg2 Ne5) 4...Nxe7 5.Rxd7 Kf8 6.Rexe7 Qxf3!

cuuuuuuuuC (w4wDwirD} 70b0R$pDp} 6wgwDwDwD} 5DwDwDwDw} &QDwDwDwD} 3Dw)wDqDw} 2PDwDw)P)} %DwDwDBDK} v,./9EFJMV

More necessary was 16...Nd7. Besides, the black pawn position is unstable, since a counter-thrust such as c3-c4 may at some future time disarrange it. 17.Bc2 c5 18.Ngf5 Bxf5 19.Nxf5 Nxf5 20.Rxf5 Nd7 21.Raf1 f6 22.Bd1 a3 23.Bh5+ Ke7 24.b3 Rhf8 25.R5f3 Nb6 26.Rg3 Kd8 27.Bg4 Qe7 28.Be2 Kc7

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDw4wD} 7Dwiw1w0w} 6whw0w0w0} 5Dp0w0wDw} &wDwDPDwD} 30P)P)w$P} 2PDw!BDPD} %DwDwDRIw} v,./9EFJMV

From here, try as he might, White must either allow a draw or force one himself, viz. 7.gxf3 Bxf3+ 8.Bg2 Bxg2+ 9.Kg1 Bh3+ (or even 9...Bc6+ 10.Kf1 Bxa4) 10.Kh1 Bg2+, or 7.Rxf7+ Qxf7 8.Rxf7+ Kxf7 9.Qf4+ (dubious is 9.Bc4+?! 9...Ke7 10.Bxg8 Rxg8) 9...Ke7 10.Qe5+ etc., or 7.Qa3 Qxg2+ 8.Bxg2 Bxg2+ 9.Kg1 Bh3+ etc. again.49 Hence, the aesthetic value of Anderssen’s move

29.d4 Now the thrust against the weakened army of black pawns sets in forcefully. 29...c4

207

Lasker’s Manual of Chess 30.Rb1 g5 31.bxc4 bxc4 32.Rb4 Qe6 33.d5 Qc8 34.Bxc4 Na4 35.Bb5 Nc5 36.Qe2 f5 37.exf5 e4 38.Bc6 Rb8 39.Qh5 Rf6

cuuuuuuuuC (w4qDwDwD} 7DwiwDwDw} 6wDB0w4w0} 5DwhPDP0Q} &w$wDpDwD} 30w)w)w$P} 2PDwDwDPD} %DwDwDwIw} v,./9EFJMV 40.Rxg5 A charming conception. 40...hxg5 41.Qh7+ Nd7 42.Bxd7 Qg8 43.Rb7+ Kxb7 44.Bc8+ Ka8 45.Qxg8 Rxf5 46.Qd8 Rxd5 47.Qd7 Rb1+ 48.Kh2 Rd2 49.Qc6+ Kb8 50.Qxe4 Rbb2 51.Be6 Kc7 52.Qc4+ Kb6 53.Bd5 g4 54.hxg4 Rf2 55.Qc6+ Ka7 56.Qc7+ 1-0

these complications by 6...Be7. 7.Qh4 Be7 8.0–0–0 Qa5 9.e3 Bd7 10.Kb1 h6 Thus either the bishop must be exchanged or the white queen stay where it is. 11.cxd5 exd5 12.Nd4 0–0 13.Bxf6 Bxf6 14.Qh5 Nxd4 15.exd4 Be6 16.f4

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDw4kD} 70pDwDp0w} 6wDwDbgw0} 51wDpDwDQ} &wDw)w)wD} 3DwHwDwDw} 2P)wDwDP)} %DKDRDBDR} v,./9EFJMV Threatening 17.f5. Black replies with a combination. 16...Rac8 17.f5 Rxc3 18.fxe6 Ra3

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDw4kD} 70pDwDp0w} 6wDwDPgw0} 51wDpDwDQ} &wDw)wDwD} 34wDwDwDw} 2P)wDwDP)} %DKDRDBDR} v,./9EFJMV

Pillsbury-Lasker, St. Petersburg 1895-96: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 c5 5.Bg5 cxd4 6.Qxd4 Nc6

cuuuuuuuuC (rDb1kgw4} 70pDwDp0p} 6wDnDphwD} 5DwDpDwGw} &wDP!wDwD} 3DwHwDNDw} 2P)wDP)P)} %$wDwIBDR} v,./9EFJMV This offers White the opportunity of 7.Bxf6 gxf6 8.Qh4 dxc4 9.Rd1 Bd7 10.e3 f5. Black has no disadvantage thereby, since the doubled pawn is compensated for by the two strong bishops and good development, for instance 11.Qg3 h5 12.Bxc4 h4 13.Qf4 Rg8 14.Ne5 Nxe5 15.Qxe5 a6 16.0–0 Rc8. If Black chooses he can avoid

This was the point. 19.exf7+ Or 19.e7 Re8 20.bxa3 Qb6+ 21.Kc2 (If 21.Ka1, Black would soon win by 21... Bxd4+ 22.Rxd4 Qxd4+ 23.Kb1 Rxe7.) 21...Rc8+ 22.Kd2 Bxd4 and White has no defense. 19...Rxf7 20.bxa3 Qb6+ 21.Bb5! Against other moves the attack becomes overwhelming. 21...Qxb5+ 22.Ka1 (D) 22...Rc7 Fifteen moves an hour were prescribed and I had consumed nearly two hours. Thus I had to make these moves in a hurry. 22...Qc4 was the logical continuation.

208

Fifth Book

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDkD} 70pDwDr0w} 6wDwDwgw0} 5DqDpDwDQ} &wDw)wDwD} 3)wDwDwDw} 2PDwDwDP)} %IwDRDwDR} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDw4kD} 70bDw1p0p} 6w0w0phwD} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDp)wDwD} 3DPDw)PDw} 2PGw!BDP)} %$wDwDRIw} v,./9EFJMV

It would have made it impossible for White to guard his second rank. 23.Rd2 Now White can breathe again. 23…Rc4 24.Rhd1 A stronger defense was 24.Re1!. 24...Rc3 With 24...Qc6 25.Kb1 Bg5 Black could have forced the win of the exchange, as the rook must stay on d2 to prevent mate. 25.Qf5 Qc4

15.Bxc4 If 15.bxc4 Black would have attacked this pawn in force. 15...d5 While this immobilizes White’s QB it equally immobilizes Black’s. 16.Bd3 Rfc8 17.Rae1 Rc7 18.e4 Rac8 19.e5 Ne8 20.f4 g6 21.Re3 f5 Black strives to obtain for his king a stable position. The square f8 is exposed to the white bishop; also the h-pawn is weak. 22.exf6 Nxf6 But now the weak e-pawn is pinned. The queen should have recaptured. 23.f5 The commencement of a very great and admirable combination. (Steinitz) 23...Ne4 24.Bxe4 dxe4 25.fxg6! Rc2 26.gxh7+ Kh8 27.d5+ e5 28.Qb4

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDkD} 70pDwDw0w} 6wDwDwgw0} 5DwDpDQDw} &wDq)wDwD} 3)w4wDwDw} 2PDw$wDP)} %IwDRDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wDrDwDwi} 70bDw1wDP} 6w0wDwDwD} 5DwDP0wDw} &w!wDpDwD} 3DPDw$wDw} 2PGrDwDP)} %DwDwDRIw} v,./9EFJMV

26.Kb2 A mistake. 26.Kb1 was indicated. 26...Rxa3 27.Qe6+ Kh7 28.Kxa3 If 28.Kb1 Bxd4 29.Qf5+ g6 30.Qd7+ Bg7 wins. 28...Qc3+ 29.Ka4 b5+ 30.Kxb5 Qc4+ 31.Ka5 Bd8+ and mates next move.50 Zukertort-Blackburne, London 1883: 1.c4 e6 2.e3 Nf6 3.Nf3 b6 4.Be2 Bb7 5.0-0 d5 6.d4 Bd6 7.Nc3 0-0 8.b3 Nbd7 9.Bb2 This bishop is here undeveloped, since the white d-pawn cannot be easily got out of the way. 9...Qe7 10.Nb5 Ne4 11.Nxd6 cxd6 12.Nd2 Ndf6 13.f3 Nxd2 14.Qxd2 dxc4 This facilitates White’s task, since its accords his QB a chance of greater mobility.

Magnificent and decisive. (Steinitz) 28...R8c5 If 28...Qxb4 White mates in seven moves: 29.Bxe5+ Kxh7 30.Rh3+ Kg6 31.Rf6+ Kg5 32.Rg3+ Kh5 33.Rf5+ Kh6 34.Bf4+ Kh7 35.Rh5#. 29.Rf8+ “The preceding moves and the one just made form one of the finest combinations, perhaps the most beautiful that has ever been made over the board. We do not know

209

Lasker’s Manual of Chess how to express our admiration at the grand style in which Zukertort played this game.” (Steinitz) 29...Kxh7 30.Qxe4+ Kg7 31.Bxe5+ Kxf8 32.Bg7+ Kg8 33.Qxe7 1-0 Réti-Bogolyubov, New York 1924: 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 e6 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Bd6 5.0-0 0-0 6.b3 Re8 7.Bb2 Nbd7 Both masters develop according to correct principles. Black could not play 7...e5 on account of 8.c5. 8.d4 c6 9.Nbd2 Ne4 10.Nxe4 dxe4 11.Ne5 f5 12.f3

cuuuuuuuuC (rDb1rDkD} 70pDnDw0p} 6wDpgpDwD} 5DwDwHpDw} &wDP)pDwD} 3DPDwDP)w} 2PGwDPDB)} %$wDQDRIw} v,./9EFJMV

Lasker, with customary cigar, circa 1924.

White’s plan is to get the pawns quickly out of the way, since his bishops are more effectively placed than Black’s. 12...exf3 13.Bxf3 Qc7 14.Nxd7 Bxd7 15.e4 e5 Otherwise, as Alekhine indicates, the e-pawn advances and eventually White opens the game by d4-d5 or g3-g4. 16.c5 Bf8 17.Qc2 exd4 18.exf5 Rad8

cuuuuuuuuC (wDw4rgkD} 70p1bDw0p} 6wDpDwDwD} 5Dw)wDPDw} &wDw0wDwD} 3DPDwDB)w} 2PGQDwDw)} %$wDwDRIw} v,./9EFJMV White has carried out his plan. The lines are open and he has a start in development. Now a charming combination ensues. 19.Bh5 Re5

20.Bxd4 Rxf5 [If instead 20...Rd5, White retains a distinct advantage after 21.Qc4 Kh8, either quietly by 22.Bg4 (Alekhine) or aggressively by 22.Bf3 Rxf5 23.Be4 (Fritz8). – ed.] 21.Rxf5 Bxf5 22.Qxf5 Rxd4 23.Rf1 Rd8 Or 23...Qe7 24.Bf7+ Kh8 25.Bd5 Qf6 26.Qc8 and wins. 24.Bf7+ Kh8 25.Be8 1-0 Rubinstein-Teichmann : 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 Be7 6.Nf3 0–0 7.Qc2 b6 The regular move is 7...c5. 8.cxd5 exd5 9.Bd3 Bb7 10.0–0–0 c5 11.h4 c4

cuuuuuuuuC (rDw1w4kD} 70bDngp0p} 6w0wDwhwD} 5DwDpDwGw} &wDp)wDw)} 3DwHB)NDw} 2P)QDw)PD} %DwIRDwDR} v,./9EFJMV Therewith Black closes his own lines; with 11...Re8, to be followed by Nd7-f8 and Nf6e4, Black would probably have had better chances. 12.Bf5 Re8 13.Bxf6 Nxf6 14.g4

210

Fifth Book Bd6 15.g5 Ne4 16.h5 Qe7 Schlechter here indicated the better defense16...Nxg5 17.Nxg5 Qxg5 18.Bxh7+ Kh8 19.Rdg1 Qh6. 17.Rdg1 a6

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDrDkD} 7DbDw1p0p} 6p0wgwDwD} 5DwDpDB)P} &wDp)nDwD} 3DwHw)NDw} 2P)QDw)wD} %DwIwDw$R} v,./9EFJMV 18.Bxh7+ If Teichmann had foreseen the ultimate consequences of this sacrifice, he would have played 17...g6. But the sacrifice took him by surprise. The point of the sacrifice becomes clear four moves later. 18...Kxh7 19.g6+ Kg8 Not 19...fxg6 because of 20.Nxe4 dxe4 21.Ng5+ etc. 20.Nxe4 dxe4 The queen must not take; if 20...Qxe4 21.gxf7+. 21.h6!

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDrDkD} 7DbDw1p0w} 6p0wgwDP)} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDp)pDwD} 3DwDw)NDw} 2P)QDw)wD} %DwIwDw$R} v,./9EFJMV

had essayed against Spielmann in 1919 at Stockholm. Bogolyubov-Amateur : 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.e5 Nfd7 6.h4 Bxg5 To accept this sacrifice is now considered inadvisable. At the time this opening was the object of many analytical researches. 7.hxg5 Qxg5 8.Nh3 Qe7 9.Nf4 a6 10.Qg4 g6 11.Bd3 c5 12.Qg3

cuuuuuuuuC (rhbDkDw4} 7DpDn1pDp} 6pDwDpDpD} 5Dw0p)wDw} &wDw)wHwD} 3DwHBDw!w} 2P)PDw)PD} %$wDwIwDR} v,./9EFJMV Threatening a sacrifice on d5. 12...Nb6 Hence the knight must occupy an unfavorable post. 13.dxc5 Qxc5 14.0–0–0 Qf8 To guard against a sacrifice on g6.

cuuuuuuuuC (rhbDk1w4} 7DpDwDpDp} 6phwDpDpD} 5DwDp)wDw} &wDwDwHwD} 3DwHBDw!w} 2P)PDw)PD} %DwIRDwDR} v,./9EFJMV

This was the idea. If 21...exf3 22.gxf7+ Kxf7 23.Qg6+ Kg8 24.hxg7. 21...f6 22.hxg7 exf3 23.Rh8+ Kxg7 24.Rh7+ Kg8 25.Qf5 c3 Black can do nothing. If queen moves, 26.Qh5 or Qxf6 soon makes an end of it. 26.Rxe7 Resigns. The following game was played to analyze the opening of a match game which Bogolyubov

15.Be4 A move of rare beauty! The sacrifice at d5 is again threatened. 15...dxe4 16.Nxe4 N8d7 17.Qc3 Qe7 18.Nf6+ Nxf6 If 18...Kd8 19.Qa5, or 18...Kf8 19.Nxh7+ Kg7 20.Nh5+ and mates soon. 19.exf6 Qf8 20.Qc7 Nd7 21.Nd5 exd5 22.Rhe1+ Ne5 23.Rxe5+ Be6 Now Black threatens Qf8-h6+ and 0-0. 24.Kb1 Rd8 25.Rdxd5 Rxd5 26.Rxd5 Resigns.51

211

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DwDwDwDK} 6PDwDwDPD} 5DwDwDwDw} &w0wgwDwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDwiwDwD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DwDwDw1w} 6wDkDw4wD} 5DwDwDwDw} &wIwDwDwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDwDRDwD} %DwDwDQDw} v,./9EFJMV

List-Hromadka, White to play and win

By Troitzky, White to play and win

1. Here is a very fine study arising out of an actual game. White must queen one of his pawns, and it seems almost immaterial which of the two he should advance first. But, in fact, he can win in one way only. 1.g7 would not win. After having seen the difficulties that White has to encounter even if he selects the best method of play, one will readily appreciate the difference between the two pawn moves. 1.a7 Bxa7 2.g7 b3 3.g8Q b2 Now some very beautiful play with the queen follows which wins because the bishop at present does not protect the pawn. 4.Qb3 Bd4 If 4...Kc1 5.Qc3+ Kb1 6.Qc4 Bb8 7.Kg6 Ka1 8.Qa4+ Kb1 9.Kf5 and wins by bringing the king into action. 5.Qa2 Threatening 6.Qb1. If 5.Kg6 White would gain nothing, since Black replies 5...Bh8, when pawn and bishop would be equally out of peril. 5...Kc2 6.Qa4+ and wins, as is readily seen.

2. The solution is not difficult, since White obviously must act at once. It is, however, elegant. 1.Re6+ Rxe6 2.Qa6+ Kd5 3.Qc4+ Kd6 If 3...Ke5 4.Qc3+ wins the queen. 4.Qc5+ Kd7 5.Qa7+ and wins the queen.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DwDwDwHw} 6wDwDwDwD} 5DwhwDRDw} &PDkDw)wD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDKDw0wD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV By Troitzky, White to play and draw

Amazing Comeback #2: After 1925, Lasker retired from chess for nearly 10 years. But when the rise of Hitler forced him, a Jew, to leave Germany, he returned yet again to the game. After a modest 5th place (of 16) at Zurich 1934, the 66-year-old Lasker astounded everyone at Moscow 1935, going undefeated (+6 =13) to finish 3rd, a mere half-point behind winners Botvinnik and Flohr, and (yet again!) ahead of Capablanca. And he defeated Capa in their individual game. The press rightly called it a biological miracle.

212

Fifth Book

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7gw0wDw0w} 6BiwDwDwD} 5DwDwHwDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %HwDwDwIw} v,./9EFJMV

3. The task is very definite. Manifestly, Black will queen and it is just as manifest that White cannot prevent it. How can White make the most of the move? The knight must try to get to g3 or e3. It may go via h5 — but that leaves it out of contact with the black king — or via f5, where a check on e3 would be possible. How can the knight get to f5, while the black king remains in its present position exposed to a check on the same e3 square? It seems impossible. But, no, it is not, as the solution shows: 1.Rd5 f1Q If 1...Kxd5 2.Nf5 draws, of course. 2.Rd4+! Kxd4 3.Nf5+ and, strange to say, with his slender force White succeeds in winning the queen. Truly, a maximum effect, a consummate achievement of a 1one knight.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwhwDwD} 7DwDwDwDw} 6wDPDwDwD} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDwDw0wD} 30wDNDwDk} 2wDwDwDw0} %DwDwDKDw} v,./9EFJMV

By Ratner, White to play and win The achievements of the white pieces are beyond every expectation. The white army is composed only of heroes. The economy of the pieces here functioning is very pleasing. None of the white pieces have weight, nor do they present the chance of increased value as a pawn does; yet there is a way, a very definite, a unique, a narrowly circumscribed one that leads to the goal.

By Troitzky, White to play and draw 4. The idea is witty. The white pawn that can queen has no value unless it can queen and check at the same time. Black can always avoid exposing his king to a check, but, of course, the black king, though exceedingly mobile, is hampered by its function. In making use of this circumstance, the lone knight succeeds in drawing by perpetual check against a very mobile king, a unique feat in the annals of chess. 1.Nf2+ Kg3 2.c7 a2 3.Ne4+ The black king now fears a check by either 4.c8Q or 4.cxd8Q. 3...Kf3 4.Nd2+ Ke3 5.Nc4+ Ke4 6.Nd2+ Ke5 7.Nc4+ It is useless, the black king cannot escape the checks of that knight. 5. The study in the next diagrammed position makes an excellent impression.

The solution is also difficult, for Black wins one of the white knights. The white bishop must move, the black king gives a discovered check and the black bishop attacks the two knights, one of which will be lost, but Black must play so as not to permit either of the knights to escape by means of a check. Black can do this, no matter how White may move. It is incredible, but true: White succeeds in extracting the utmost from the position, and makes with his puny army a successful attack against the king: 1.Be2 This move is the only one to win. If 1.Bf1, the white king, in keeping clear of the bishop, would be drawn too far away. And if 1.Bd3 the bishop would get into the field of action of the black king, as will be shown shortly. 1...Kb7+ 1...Ka5+ would not do, because if 2.Kg2 Bd4 3.Nb3+. 2.Kg2 Again the only move to win. If 2.Kf1or 2.Kh1 the g-pawn would later on march to g4 and become formidable, and if 2.Kh2, the bishop checks when capturing the knight. 2...Bd4 3.Nb3 Of course, the only move to win. It drives the black king into difficulties. Even so, the way to win is still hidden. 3...Bxe5 4.Na5+

213

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7Dk0wDw0w} 6wDwDwDwD} 5HwDwgwDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDwDBDKD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwIwD} 7DPDpDwDw} 6wDw0wDwD} 50wDwDwDw} &BDwDwDwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDwDwDw0} %DwDwDkHw} v,./9EFJMV

The black king is now singularly embarrassed. Neither b6 nor a7 nor b8 are open to the king for fear of losing the bishop. But were the white bishop now on d3, the black king could march to b6 and regain the piece, viz., 5.Nc4+ Kc5 6.Nxe5 Kd4. The black king cannot go to c8 either, because of 5.Bg4+ and 6.Nc6+, winning the bishop with the knight. Hence, the white bishop could not be played to f1 on the first move. Every move is definitely provided for. 4...Ka8 5.Nc6 Bany 6.Ba6 Now the white king threatens to march via white squares to c8 and support Bb7#. If Black could get his g-pawn to g4, all would be well, but if 6.g4 7.Kf3, the king stops the pawn just in time. The end is now in sight. 6...g5 7.Kf3 Bany 8.Kg4 Bany 9.Kf5 Bany 10.Ke6 g4 11.Kd7 g3 12.Kc8 g2 13.Bb7# 1–0

By Leonid Kubbel, White to play and win 1.Ne2 Kxe2 If 1...Kf2 2.b8Q h1Q 3.Qb6+ Kxe2 4.Bb5+ Kd2 5.Qd4+ Kc2 6.Ba4+ Kb1 7.Qd3+ Ka1 8.Qc3+ Ka2 9.Bb3+ Kb1 10.Qc2+ Ka1 11.Qa2#. Also, in this variation the geometrical motif used to drive the king into the mating position. 2.Bd1+ Kf2 If 2...Kxd1 3.b8Q h1Q 4.Qb1+, the geometrical motif on the rank. 3.Bf3 Kxf3 4.b8Q h1Q 5.Qb7+ The geometrical motif on the diagonal.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDRD} 7DwDwDwIw} 6wDwDwDwD} 5DwDwDbDw} &NDwDwDwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDwDw0wD} %DkDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

The above composition comes near to the ideal. Even the slightest change in the circumstances would invalidate the solution. And the economy is extreme. 6. From the next daigram, the idea of the author was, to express the geometrical motif of queen against queen in the only two possible ways, that is on a rank or file and on a diagonal. Of course, he built up his position in a way that might occur in practical play, so that, in consequence, the position has an easy natural appearance. And, of course, since a consummate achievement of the pieces involved is striven for, he makes use of the least material that will suffice for the task. The idea of double attack is made use of with every move.

By Leonid Kubbel, White to play and draw 7. The intention is to produce stalemate. The white pieces are used to their fullest capacity. First of all, the knight must force the black king to capture it. 1.Nc3+ Kc2 Now 1...Kc1 cannot be played because of 2.Ne2+ followed by 3.Ng3. And 1...Ka1 is unplayable due to 2.Ra8+ followed by 3.Nd1+. 2.Nd1 The pawn cannot

214

Fifth Book queen for fear of 3.Ne3+. 2...Kxd1 3.Kh8 Ke1 Black is now unable to move the bishop, since that would leave the road free for 4.Rf8. If the pawn queens, 4.Rg1 draws. 4.Rg2 and draws. The economy of the complex achievements of the white pieces is of a high order.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DK0wDwDw} 6wDwDw0PD} 5DPDwDwDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwGwirDw} v,./9EFJMV

cannot be stopped. The composition is clean, economical, precise.

cuuuuuuuuC (w1wDwDwD} 7DwDwiwDw} 6wDPDwDwD} 5)wDwDw0R} &whwDwDPH} 3DwDwDwDw} 2PDPDwDwD} %DKDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV By Henri Rinck, White to play and win

By Henri Rinck, White to play and win 8. The passed pawn is supported by the bishop, and opposed by the rook. The latter is badly obstructed by its f-pawn. The bishop is able, in making use of various motifs, to block the g-file. 1.Be3 Direct attack on the square g1. 1...Rf3 2.Bg5 After 2...fxg5, obstruction by the black pawn. If 2...Rg3 3.Bh4 pinning. The pawn

9. The win of the queen by rook and knight which succeed in harassing the queen is here represented in a variety of ways. 1.Rh8 Attack on the queen to deprive it of its mobility. The rook is guarded by the threat of a fork. 1...Qb5 Of the 17 squares originally open to the queen no less than 16 are barred by direct attack or the threat of a fork. 2.Nf5+ Kf6 3.Rh6+ Ke5 Continued threats of forking K and Q force the king to this spot. 4.Re6+ Kf4 Or 4...Kd5 5.c4+. 5.Re4+ and wins the queen next move. A variegated, fragrant bouquet.

A famous photo of Lasker that appeared in the 1947 David McKay edition of the manual. For the solution to the problem Lasker is studying, see page 274.

215

Sixth Book Examples and Models I. Berger - P. Gaspary : 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.d3 Ne7 5.Bc4 If 5.Nxe5 c6 6.Nc4 (or 6.Bc4 Qa5+ 7.Nc3 Qxe5) 6...Ng6, the white pieces get into difficulties. 5...c6 6.Nc3 Ng6 7.Ng5 White here should have proceeded with 7.h4, which disarranges the black position again. But this also retains an advantage in development. 7...d5 8.exd5 cxd5 Black ought to have driven the knight away by 8...h6. The knight would have gone to e4 with a good game for White; nevertheless, that was Black’s best chance. 9.Nxd5! Nxd5 10.Qf3 Be6 Now the a4-e8 diagonal has no defense. 11.Nxe6 fxe6 12.Bb5+ Ke7 13.Bg5+ Nf6 14.Qxb7+ Kd6 15.Bd2

cuuuuuuuuC (rDw1wgw4} 70QDwDw0p} 6wDwiphnD} 5DBDw0wDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDPDwDw} 2P)PGw)P)} %$wDwIwDR} v,./9EFJMV 15...a5 If 15...e4 16.d4 e5 17.Qc6+ Ke7 18.Bb4+ Kf7 19.Bc4+. If 15...Nd7 16.Bb4+ mates in five moves, and if 15...Nd5 16.c4. (This note is taken from Berger’s book, Probleme, Studien, Partien.) 16.c4 Resigns. Tarrasch-Pillsbury, Monte Carlo 1903: 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd8 4.d4 Nf6 5.Be3 c6 6.Bd3 Bg4 7.Nge2 e6 8.Qd2 Bd6 Black has not played the opening to the best advantage, and his last move is weak. White threatened to cut off the retreat of the QB by Ne2-g3; hence, 8...Bh5 was here the reply. 9.Ng3 Qc7 10.h3 Bxg3 This should lose. The lesser evil was 10...Bh5. 11.hxg4 The hfile being open, g4-g5-g6 is threatening. 11...Nxg4 With the courage of despair.

12.fxg3 Qxg3+ 13.Bf2 Qxg2 14.Be4 Qxf2+ 15.Qxf2 Nxf2 16.Kxf2 g6

cuuuuuuuuC (rhwDkDw4} 70pDwDpDp} 6wDpDpDpD} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDw)BDwD} 3DwHwDwDw} 2P)PDwIwD} %$wDwDwDR} v,./9EFJMV Black, in his three pawns plus, has a material equivalent for the white bishop, but White has an enormous start in development. Therefore, White had to attack. Where? On the queenside, where White is clearly superior; by no means on the kingside, where the black pawns have it all their own way. The target for the attack, as Dr. Tarrasch justly states in his book, Die Moderne Schachpartie, is c6. After 17.b4 White threatened immediately 18.b5. If 17...a6 18.a4, whereupon b4-b5 cannot be prevented, the black queenside pawns are sure to be weakened and the supremacy of the white pieces decides the fight long before the black pawns can get into action. White adopted this plan only after losing much valuable time; he lost his superiority in development, and the game was eventually drawn. The further course of the game does not seem to be of sufficient interest. Burn - Znosko-Borovsky, Ostend, 1906: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Bxe7 Ngxe7 8.e3 In reply to 8.dxc5 Black best plays 8...d4. Then possibly 9.Ne4 0–0 10.e3 Qd5 11.Ng3 dxe3 (or 11...Bg4 12.Be2) 12.Qxd5 Nxd5 13.Bc4, whereupon neither side has alarmingly weak spots. 8...cxd4 9.Nxd4 Qb6

216

Sixth Book

cuuuuuuuuC (rDbDkDw4} 70pDwhp0p} 6w1nDwDwD} 5DwDpDwDw} &wDwHwDwD} 3DwHw)wDw} 2P)wDw)P)} %$wDQIBDR} v,./9EFJMV

by taking the e-file. 10.Nb3 Now the start in development belongs to Black who therefore seizes the initiative. 10...Be6 11.Bd3 0–0 12.0–0 Rfd8 13.Na4 Movements for attack not backed by superiority. This is the wrong plan. Instead, White should look for safety and stability by, say, 13.Ne2. 13...Qc7 14.Rc1 Qe5 15.Qe2 Rac8 16.f4 Attack at all costs! 16...Qf6 17.f5 Bd7 18.Nac5 b6 19.Nxd7 Rxd7

Black menaces the Nd4 and the b-pawn. If White feels he must avoid the isolation of his d-pawn, he loses a move. Black having only a minimum of weaknesses, White would be unable to compensate this loss of time by an attack. Hence, the best move seems clearly indicated here: 10.Qd2. If then 10...Nxd4 11.exd4 0–0 12.Be2 Be6 13.0–0, White has some initiative, for instance, by Nc3-a4-c5 or

cuuuuuuuuC (wDrDwDkD} 70wDrhp0p} 6w0nDw1wD} 5DwDpDPDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DNDB)wDw} 2P)wDQDP)} %Dw$wDRIw} v,./9EFJMV

Lasker, seated center, watching Alekhine-Bogolyubov.

217

Lasker’s Manual of Chess Now the “logic” of the attack becomes evident. The pawn at f5 had to obstruct the hostile bishop, but now what is the position? It actually obstructs its own bishop. If governments behaved like that, the people would get into a pretty mess. 20.g4 Doing the work of protection twice and certainly overdoing it; the pawn at f5 is safe enough. The move would be strong if the aggressive intent, g4-g5, could be realized, but on dark squares Black holds sway. 20...Rcd8 21.Kh1 Rd6 22.Rg1 Qg5 23.Rcf1 d4 To open the center and to get on to the seventh or eighth rank, whereby the white king would be imperiled. 24.e4 Ne5 25.Rg3 N7c6 26.Nd2 Permitting Black a further gain of space. True, if the game continues systematically, White is without hope. In such situations it is best to accelerate the coming of the crisis; the sooner it comes, the better. Neither the position nor the nerves can stand the strain. 26...Nxd3 27.Rxd3 Ne5 28.Rg3 d3 29.Qg2 Rc6 30.Nf3 Nxf3 31.Qxf3 Rc1 32.Rgg1 Rxf1 33.Rxf1 Qd2

cuuuuuuuuC (wDw4wDkD} 70wDwDp0p} 6w0wDwDwD} 5DwDwDPDw} &wDwDPDPD} 3DwDpDQDw} 2P)w1wDw)} %DwDwDRDK} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rDb1w4kD} 70p0wDp0p} 6wDw0whwD} 5DwDw0wGw} &wDBDPhwH} 3Dw)PDwDw} 2PDPDw)P)} %$wDQDRIw} v,./9EFJMV His 9th move almost amounts to the loss of a move, instead of which the knight should at once have gone to h4, in order to open the way for f2f4. 11.Bxf4 11.Qd2 does not do because of 11...Nxe4; But 11.Bb3 seems feasible, since thus the advance of the black d-pawn is deprived of some of its force. It also would parry the threat 11...h6 by 12.Bxf4 exf4 13.Ng6, which would be no longer a real menace. 11...exf4 12.Nf3 Bg4 Not so strong is the move 12...Be6 recommended by Dr. Tarrasch. White counters by 13.Bb3 d5 14.Nd4, and White has a fair game, because he gets the e-file. On the other hand, the move played pinning the white knight ties up White.

cuuuuuuuuC (rDw1w4kD} 70p0wDp0p} 6wDw0whwD} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDBDP0bD} 3Dw)PDNDw} 2PDPDw)P)} %$wDQDRIw} v,./9EFJMV

If now 34.Qg2 Qc2 and the passed pawn marches. 34.Rb1 Qe2 35.Qg2 Qe3 36.Rd1 d2 37.h3 Qe1+ 38.Qg1 Qe2 39.e5 Rd3 0-1 This game was not played by the old master Burn with the strength native to his style, but is highly instructive by the conclusive manner in which the errors committed were shown up. Janowski-Lasker, match, 1909: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bb5 Bb4 5.0–0 0–0 6.d3 d6 7.Bg5 Bxc3 8.bxc3 Ne7 9.Bc4 Ng6 10.Nh4 Nf4! (D) White has not treated the opening with sufficient precision.

13.h3 An error, which weakens the king’s side very much. White should defend by 13.Qd2, in order to occupy the g-file file after 13...Bxf3 14.gxf3 Nh5 15.Kh1. From now on Black has the advantage. 13...Bh5 14.Rb1 b6 15.Qd2 If instead 15.g4 fxg3 16.fxg3 d5 17.exd5 Nxd5 18.Qd2 f6 soon to be followed by Bh5-f7 and

218

Sixth Book Black has the best of it both for middle- and endgame. 15...Bxf3 16.gxf3 Nh5 17.Kh2 Qf6 18.Rg1 Rae8 19.d4 Kh8 20.Rb5 Qh6 21.Rbg5 f6 22.R5g4

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDr4wi} 70w0wDw0p} 6w0w0w0w1} 5DwDwDwDn} &wDB)P0RD} 3Dw)wDPDP} 2PDP!w)wI} %DwDwDw$w} v,./9EFJMV 22...g6! Stronger than 22...f5, whereupon White on the open lines would get counteraction. Black’s advantage consists in White’s inability to open lines by his own efforts; Black’s task is therefore to select the most favorable time and opportunity for forcing the lines open. 23.Bd3 Re7 24.c4 This gives Black the desired opportunity to conduct his knight to a central square. Sooner or later Black would have been able to achieve that end by advancing, when in perfect readiness, g6-g5 and thus setting the knight free. 24...Ng7 If now 25.Qxf4 Qxf4+ 26.Rxf4 Ne6 winning the d-pawn, and then White would be hopeless, since all dark squares would be firmly in Black’s hands. 25.c3 Ne6 The threat is 26...Ng5, whence f3 and h3 are assailed. 26.Bf1 f5 27.R4g2 Rf6 28.Bd3 g5

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwi} 70w0w4wDp} 6w0w0n4w1} 5DwDwDp0w} &wDP)P0wD} 3Dw)BDPDP} 2PDw!w)RI} %DwDwDw$w} v,./9EFJMV At this point the threat is 29...Qxh3+. 29.Rh1

g4 30.Be2 Ng5 The final break-up of White’s position. 31.fxg4 f3 32.Rg3 fxe2 Resigns. Schlechter-Süchting, Karlsbad 1911: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Qb6 In the Queen’s Gambit the b-pawn is somewhat weak. Guarded only by the QB it prevents, as long as the bishop has to fulfill this function, the development of the QR. It is easily menaced, when the c-pawn has moved, by Qd1-b3 or Qd8b6. He who makes this move first has a certain start. But Black has hardly good ground to lay hold on this advantage, since to further his own development, not to hinder White’s development, should be his first aim.5.Qc2 Develops and at the same time guards the b-pawn, threatens 6.cxd4 and prevents 6...Bf5. 5...Bg4 6.c5 Abandons the pressure on d5 and gets little in return. Moreover, the white d-pawn is now burdened with the defense of the c-pawn and is hard put to it to watch the black e-pawn which will strive to attack it. The proper move was 6.e3. 6...Qc7 7.Ne5 Nbd7

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDkgw4} 70p1n0p0p} 6wDpDwhwD} 5Dw)pHwDw} &wDw)wDbD} 3DwHwDwDw} 2P)QDP)P)} %$wGwIBDR} v,./9EFJMV 8.Nxg4 Thereby Black gets the superiority on e5. White might still have fought for this point by 8.Bf4. If then 8...Nh5? 9.g3 g5? 10.Nxd7 gxf4 11.Ne5 with various compensations. Probably it would have been the best course for Black to reply to 8.Bf4 by 8...Nxe5 9.Bxe5 Qc8 followed by 10...Nd7 so as to prepare e7-e5. 8...Nxg4 9.Qf5 h5 Directed against 10.Bf4, which would now be answered by 10...e5. 10.e4 To profit by the absence of the black knight from f3. 10...g6 Strengthening the intended advance of the e-pawn by driving the white queen to f4; economy of time. 11.Qf4 e5 12.dxe5 Bxc5 13.e6 Nde5 14.exf7+

219

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDkDw4} 70p1wDPDw} 6wDpDwDpD} 5DwgphwDp} &wDwDP!nD} 3DwHwDwDw} 2P)wDw)P)} %$wGwIBDR} v,./9EFJMV

17...Nxf7? Incomprehensible! Black should most certainly seize the rook on h1 and return with the knight to f2, so as to keep the QR from the d-file. 18.Be2 Nxh1 19.Bf4 Bd6 The black king finds safety nowhere. That the gain of the exchange is no compensation for this is evident. 20.Rd1 Not 20.0-0-0, because the king has to watch the square f2. 20...Ke7 21.Rxd6 Nxd6 22.Ne4 Rad8 23.Qd4 There are many threats. Black must seek counter-attack since mere defense will not suffice. 23...Qa5+ 24.b4

cuuuuuuuuC (wDw4wDw4} 70wDwiwDw} 6wDphwDpD} 51wDwDwDp} &w)w!NGwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2PDwDBDP)} %DwDwIwDn} v,./9EFJMV

14...Kd7? A pity! On d7 the king is not safe, whereas on f8 it is well guarded. The game is thus thrown out of its logical path. 15.exd5 Now, since d5-d4 was no more to be feared, White might have played 15.Be3. The move made is too bold. 15...Nxf2 16.dxc6+ bxc6 17.Qa4

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDwDw4} 70w1kDPDw} 6wDpDwDpD} 5DwgwhwDp} &QDwDwDwD} 3DwHwDwDw} 2P)wDwhP)} %$wGwIBDR} v,./9EFJMV

24...Qf5 24...Qd5 loses on account of 25.Bg5+. The queen on f5 wants to prevent the knight from moving. If 25.Nxd6 Qb1+ leads to a draw or the pinning of the white KB and thus lessens the perils of the king, viz., 26.Bd1 Rhf8, and White has not sufficient material for a mating attack and is in all likelihood forced to concede a draw. 25.Bxd6+ Rxd6 26.Qxd6+ Kf7 27.Bc4+ Kg7 28.Qd4+ Kh7 29.Qxa7+ Redoubtable though it seems, 29.Nf6+ was not sufficiently strong. The consequence would be 29...Kh6 30.Ng4+ hxg4 31.Qxh8+ Kg5 and Black has a counter-attack, thus obtaining a draw.

Whyld About Games: Lasker was highly skilled at games other than chess, including go, dominoes, and especially bridge, which Whyld says he played “at an international level.” While playing at a Rotterdam bridge tournament in 1931, Lasker was shown the text of a game from the Capablanca-Euwe match. Without sight of a board, Lasker produced analysis showing where Euwe had missed a win. (World Chess Champions, p. 51)

220

Sixth Book 29...Kh6 30.Qe3+ g5 31.h4 Re8 32.Bd3 Kg7 33.Kd2 Now 34.Nd6 is threatened. 33...Qf4 34.hxg5 Qxe3+ 35.Kxe3 Ng3 36.Kd4 Nxe4 37.Bxe4 Ra8 38.Bxc6 This pawn would not have run away. First of all 38.Bb1 should have been played. 38...Rxa2 39.b5 Kg6 40.b6

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DwDwDwDw} 6w)BDwDkD} 5DwDwDw)p} &wDwIwDwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2rDwDwDPD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV 40...Kxg5 Black here overlooks a chance to obtain a stalemate by 40...h4 41.b7 Rb2 42.Kc5 Rxb7 43.Bxb7 h3. Now 44.gxh3 leads eventually to stalemate on h8, otherwise the band g-pawns are lost. 41.b7 Rb2 42.Kc5 Rc2+ 43.Kb6 Rb2+ 44.Bb5 Resigns.52 Capablanca-Marshall, match, 1909, sixth game: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 d6 4.c3 Bg4 5.d3 Be7 6.Nbd2 Nf6 7.0-0 0-0 8.Re1 h6

cuuuuuuuuC (rDw1w4kD} 70p0wgp0w} 6wDn0whw0} 5DBDw0wDw} &wDwDPDbD} 3Dw)PDNDw} 2P)wHw)P)} %$wGQ$wIw} v,./9EFJMV Black had here the choice between two plans: a7-a6 and advance of the b- and d-pawns, or quietude on the queenside and in the center, but attack on f3 by Nf6-h7-g5. The first plan has prospects, the second one also has merits,

principally that no weaknesses are created thereby. 9.Nf1 Nh7 10.Ne3 Bh5 11.g4 Almost forced, although f4 remains weak. On the other hand, the knight gets a firm hold on f5. 11...Bg6 12.Nf5

cuuuuuuuuC (rDw1w4kD} 70p0wgp0n} 6wDn0wDb0} 5DBDw0NDw} &wDwDPDPD} 3Dw)PDNDw} 2P)wDw)w)} %$wGQ$wIw} v,./9EFJMV 12...h5? Black wanders from the straight road. He should continue with 12...Ng5. For instance, 13.Kg2 Nxf3 14.Qxf3 Bg5 15.Rh1 Bxc1 16.Raxc1 Ne7 17.h4 f6. Black has counterplay in the center. White’s attack would be difficult, since it is based on g4-g5 which would open the f-file for Black. 13.h3 hxg4?? This exchange opens the h-file for the benefit of White. Henceforth, Black has a hard task. 14.hxg4 Bg5 15.Nxg5 Nxg5 16.Kg2 d5 Better 16...f6, followed by Ng5-e6 and Kg8-f7 and occupation of the h-file. Black could not have executed the whole of this program, but he would at least have maintained his knight on e6. 17.Qe2 Re8 18.Rh1 Re6

cuuuuuuuuC (rDw1wDkD} 70p0wDp0w} 6wDnDrDbD} 5DBDp0Nhw} &wDwDPDPD} 3Dw)PDwDw} 2P)wDQ)KD} %$wGwDwDR} v,./9EFJMV This is no place for the rook but for the knight. From this point the black position is untenable.

221

Lasker’s Manual of Chess weak dam! 31.Rxh6 gxh6 32.Bxh6+ Ke7 If 32...Nxh6 33.Rxh6, the rook penetrates to h8 and all is over. The effect of the queen which stands so near to the black king is terrible. 33.Qh7+ Ke8 34.Qxg8+ Kd7 35.Qh7+ Qe7 36.Bf8 Qxh7 37.Rxh7+ Kc8 38.Rxa7 1-0 From a game played at Debreczin, 1925:

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DwDwDpDw} 6wDwDw0w0} 50wDwDPDw} &PDBDwIw)} 3DPiwDwDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwDbDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

Carl Schlecter

Naturally White plays to attack; he does not trouble to gain material force by 19.Bxg5 and 20.exd5 because he is sure to win by the development of his heavy artillery if only he maintains a sound position. 19.Qe3 f6 20.Ba4 Ne7 21.Bb3 c6 The bishop on b3 holds the black pieces to the support of their d-pawn and keeps occupied therefore much more than its own equivalent. 22.Qg3 a5 23.a4 Nf7 24.Be3 b6 To parry Be3-c5, but all this is only a makeshift. 25.Rh4 Kf8 26.Rah1 Ng8 27.Qf3 Menaces d5 and forces the exchange of the bishop, whereby the g-file is opened. 27...Bxf5 28.gxf5 Rd6 29.Qh5 Ra7

cuuuuuuuuC (wDw1winD} 74wDwDn0w} 6w0p4w0wD} 50wDp0PDQ} &PDwDPDw$} 3DB)PGwDw} 2w)wDw)KD} %DwDwDwDR} v,./9EFJMV Now follows the final assault. The white heavy pieces approach the enemy. 30.Qg6 Nfh6 A

Dr. Tartakower-Dr. Seitz, White to play White is at a disadvantage. He has three weak points: b3, a4, f5. To defend them is out of the question, since the black king has penetrated into the white camp. But one must do one’s duty. Therefore, Tartakower reviews the situation, looking out for counter-attack. Matters are bad. The sole target for the white bishop is f7, for the white king h6, but the road to h6 runs over g4 and h5, both of which points are barred by the black bishop. It is a matter of mere counting; in no more than three moves the b- and a-pawn must fall and in no more than eight moves a threatening black queen will stand on a1. But Tartakower, an old fighter, a fighter in good and bad situations, a fighter of inviolate honor, of passion, and also one with a remarkable ingenuity, discovers a way to escape the breakdown. 1.Bxf7 Bxb3 2.Bxb3 Kxb3 3.Kg4 Kxa4 4.Kh5 Kb5 5.Kxh6 a4 6.Kg7 a3 7.h5 a2 8.h6 a1Q 9.h7 Black cannot win, because he has no chance to approach with his king before White queens his pawn.

222

Sixth Book From a tournament in Argentina, 1925:

Dus-Chotimirsky–Capablanca, St. Petersburg, 1913: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 c5 4.c3 Capablanca in his magazine remarked here that if White wanted to make this move he should have done so before developing the QB. He adds no further comment and his opinion seems to be that by means of 3.c3 Black’s 3...c5 would have been prevented, since it would have cost a pawn. 4...Qb6 5.Qc2 cxd4 6.cxd4 Nc6 7.Nc3 Bd7 If 7...Nxd4 8.Nxd4 Qxd4 9.e3 with a stinging attack. 8.e3 Rc8 9.Rc1 e6 10.Be2 Be7 11.0-0 0-0

cuuuuuuuuC (rDw1wDkD} 7DQDbDwDp} 6wDpDwgpD} 5Dw)p0pDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3Dw$w)N)P} 2r)wDBDPI} %DwDRDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wDrDw4kD} 70pDbgp0p} 6w1nDphwD} 5DwDpDwDw} &wDw)wGwD} 3DwHw)NDw} 2P)QDB)P)} %Dw$wDRIw} v,./9EFJMV

Coria-G. Boneo, White to play Black has, it seems, an overwhelming position. He threatens to win at once by 1...Rb8. His pawns form a phalanx, he has two bishops against bishop and knight. The white central pawn is weak, also the b-pawn. Only one cause for reflection: the black king is very susceptible to attacks on his first or second rank, because his pawns have gone forth to attack. White profits by this opportunity skillfully. 1.Bc4 If now 1...Rb8 2.Rxd5 cxd5 (2...Rxb7?? 3.Rxd7+ Kf8 4.Rxd8+) 3.Qxd5+ Kg7 4.Bxa2 and White has won two pawns, since if 4...Rxb2 Ra3!i. 1...R2a7 2.Bxd5+ Kg7?? Black wants to win a move, by keeping the queen assailed. But he goes about it the wrong way. There were two better alternatives: (1) 2...cxd5 3.Qxd5+ Kg7 4.Nxe5 Be8 5.Qxd8 Bxd8, and (2) the correct way to realize his idea, 2...Kf8! 3.Bxc6 Rxb7 4.Bxb7 e4 5.c6 exf3 6.Rxd7 Qb6. Notice the key difference here compared to the position after 2...Kg7 — the rook does not capture with check, thus Black is free to move his queen. 3.Bxc6! Unfortunately for Black, the queen has no intention of flying. 3...Rxb7 4.Bxb7 If now 4...e4, White counters by 5.c6 exf3 6.Rxd7+ Qxd7 7.cxd7. 4...Rb8 5.c6 e4 Black cannot play 5...Rxb7, because White simply recaptures 6.cxb7 and the pawn can no longer be stopped. 6.c7 and wins. The mistake made by Black on his second move cost him the game which otherwise would have gone in his favour.53

12.Qb1 Black threatened 12...Ne4 13.Nxe4 Nxd4. True, also 12.Nd2 would have parried the

223

Savielly Tartakower

Lasker’s Manual of Chess threat. 12...Qa5 “After reflecting half an hour I resolved upon this move. I thought it necessary to keep my queen upon the queen’s side and at the same time to prevent a white knight from gaining the post on c5, as long as the white QB dominated the open diagonal.” (Capablanca) 13.Nd2 a6 14.Nb3 This is too soon. First 14.a3 to hold b4, then White had a fair position, having two plans at his disposal, both auspicious. Firstly Nd2-b3-c5, secondly Qb1-a2, b2-b4, and occupation of c5 by a knight. 14...Qb4 Very skillfully Capablanca makes use of the slight chances offered him to impede the opponent’s attempt at occupying c5.

cuuuuuuuuC (rDb1rDkD} 70pDn0pgp} 6wDpDwhpD} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDw)PDwD} 3DwHBGNDP} 2P)w!w)PD} %$wDwIwDR} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wDrDw4kD} 7DpDbgp0p} 6pDnDphwD} 5DwDpDwDw} &w1w)wGwD} 3DNHw)wDw} 2P)wDB)P)} %DQ$wDRIw} v,./9EFJMV

White dominates the center, but Black wants to simplify his game by e7-e5 and to regain a share of the center. The strength of the white center consists in the restriction it imposes on the hostile pieces, and this center is in danger. A means of encountering the peril was 11.Bc4, because 11...e5 could then be met by 12.Ng5!, and if 12...Rf8 13.Nxf7 Rxf7 14.dxe5 Ne8 15.e6 winning. 11.e5! Bogolyubov, however, justly chooses a move which meets the danger once and for all, and one which results from the logic of the position. Black’s g7-g6 had weakened f6 and h6, and invited the advance of the white epawn. White accepts the challenge. 11...Nd5 12.Nxd5 cxd5 13.0-0 f6 Black is willing to fight. Apparently, he has now shaken the point e5. 14.Bh6 But White discovers the combination which enables him to hold on to e5. The black bishop cannot escape exchange, because after 14...Bh8 15.e6, followed by 16.Bb5, wins at least the exchange. 14...fxe5 15.Bxg7

15.Nc5 A miscalculation, as Black soon demonstrates. If 15.Bd1 — says Capablanca — the sequence would have been 15...Na5 16.a3 Qb6 17.Nc5 Bxc5 18.dxc5 Rxc5 19.b4 Rcc8 20.bxa5 Qxb1 and Black, regaining his piece, has a decisive advantage. The right plan would have been, it seems, to secure the QB by 15.h3, then to press a little against the kingside with Be2-d3 and for the rest to await the dispositions of Black. 15...Nxd4 16.exd4 Bxc5 17.a3 Qxd4 The rest is silence. Bogolyubov-Romanovsky, match, Moscow, 1924: 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 d5 3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.d4 g6 Here Marshall’s move 4...Bf5 is commendable. Black must fight for command of e4. 5.e4 Nf6 6.Nc3 Bg7 7.h3 When, as here, the lines are opening, the bishops are stronger than the knights and must be guarded against exchange. 7...0-0 8.Be3 c6 The double fianchetto with 8...b6 would develop the QB, but would weaken the c-pawn too much. 9.Qd2 Re8 10.Bd3 Nbd7

224

cuuuuuuuuC (rDb1rDkD} 70pDn0wGp} 6wDwDwDpD} 5DwDp0wDw} &wDw)wDwD} 3DwDBDNDP} 2P)w!w)PD} %$wDwDRIw} v,./9EFJMV

Sixth Book If now 15...e4, White wins by rushing the kingside, viz. 16.Qh6 exf3 (17.Ng5 was threatening) 17.Bxg6 hxg6 18.Bh8 Kf7 19.Qh7+ Ke6 20.Rfe1+ Kd6 21.Qxg6+ (now 21...Nf6 would not do, because of 22.Bxf6) 21...e6 (or 21...Kc7 22.Rac1+ Kb8 23.Qg3+ e5 24.Rxe5) 22.Qg3+ [22.Rac1 is also very strong – ed.] 22...Ke7 (if 22...Kc6 23.Rac1+ etc.) 23.Rxe6+ Kxe6 24.Re1+ Ne5 25.Qxe5+ Kd7 26.Qxd5+ Kc7 27.Qc5+ Kd7 (if 27...Kb8 28.Rxe8) 28.Qb5+, winning. 15...Kxg7 16.dxe5

knight is now stronger than the bishop, since the dark squares are those that matter most. 16...Nc5 17.Nd4 Ne6 18.Ne2 White declines to exchange his knight, unless for the bishop. 18...Rf8 19.f4 Qb6+ 20.Kh2 Nd4 21.Nc3 e6 Black could not help shutting in his bishop. If 21...Be6 22.Na4 Qc6 23.b3 White threatens too many things at once. 22.Rad1 Nf5 23.Bxf5 Now White’s superiority on the dark squares has become evident. 23...Rxf5 24.Ne2 Bd7 25.Nd4 Rf7 26.h4!

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDwDwD} 70pDbDrip} 6w1wDpDpD} 5DwDp)wDw} &wDwHw)w)} 3DwDwDwDw} 2P)w!wDPI} %DwDRDRDw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rDb1rDwD} 70pDn0wip} 6wDwDwDpD} 5DwDp)wDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDBDNDP} 2P)w!w)PD} %$wDwDRIw} v,./9EFJMV The situation has changed. The central pawns now occupy posts to which they will cling, and have lost a good deal of their mobility. The center is divided up. White, by reason of his e-pawn, has the supremacy on dark squares. His rooks also are more active than those of Black. The

Subtle as well as strong! White prevents 26...g5 once and for all, whereas he keeps the possibility of opening the kingside in hand. He may, for instance, eventually push h4-h5, exchange the pawns and then occupy the point g5, say by his knight. True, the bargain is not one sided; the white king has been weakened. But the black pieces will be kept busy by the white ones, so that the white king will need little protection by pawns. 26...Raf8 Here Black allows himself to be carried away by his spirit of offense.

Aging Honorably: After 1935 Lasker’s chess strength finally began to fade. He had a minus score (8-10) and placed only 6th of 10 at Moscow 1936, but recovered somewhat to place =7th with Flohr, in a field of 15, at Nottingham 1936, his 8½-5½ score quite an honorable achievement for a man of 67, especially considering those above him were Botvinnik, Capablanca, Euwe, Fine, Reshevsky, and Alekhine. After this tournament Lasker played no more serious chess, and moved back to New York to live in reduced circumstances.

225

Lasker’s Manual of Chess Defense by occupation of the c-file was sounder, though even then White’s superiority, slight as it may be, remains unshaken. 27.Rf3 Kh8 28.Rc1 Qd8 29.Kg3 In spite of Black’s preparations for attack White does not fear to employ his king actively in the defense. White needs all his troops on the c-file, where the issue will be decided. 29...Qb8 30.Qb4 Rg8 Black’s plan is maturing. He wants to arrive at g6-g5 by means of h7-h6. 31.Qd6 But White, steadily working to obtain the advantage for the ending, nips Black’s plan in the bud. If now 31...Qxd6 32.exd6 Rd8 33.Rc7 [Even stronger is 33.Re3 Rdf8 34.Rc7 Kg8 35.Nf3 ( or 35.Rxb7) 35...Rd8 — ed.] 33...Be8 34.Rfc3 Rxd6 35.Rxf7 followed by 36.Rc7 White has the superiority both on the dark squares and on the seventh rank, and wins easily. 31...Qe8 32.Rc7 Bc8 33.Rxf7 Qxf7 34.Rc3 Qe8 Not 34...Rf8 because of 35.Kh3. 35.Rc7 Rg7 Black defends as well as he can. 36.Nb5! But White profits by every card, even the smallest one that he holds. 36...a6 37.Qc5 [ Even stronger was 37.Na7 Rxc7 38.Qxc7 Bd7 39.Qxb7 – ed.] 37...Rxc7 38.Nxc7

cuuuuuuuuC (wDbDqDwi} 7DpHwDwDp} 6pDwDpDpD} 5Dw!p)wDw} &wDwDw)w)} 3DwDwDwIw} 2P)wDwDPD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV 38...Qf7 If 38...Qd8 39.Qd6 Qxd6 40.exd6 Kg7 41.Na8 and wins the bishop by Nb6. If 38...Qg8 39.Qe7 Qg7 40.Qd8+ Qg8 41.Ne8, again winning the bishop. 39.Nxd5 White has won an important pawn. The rest is mere technique. 39...Bd7 40.Nf6 Bc6 41.Qd6 h5 42.Kh3 Kg7 43.g4 Bf3 44.gxh5 gxh5 45.Qd3 Bg4+ 46.Nxg4 hxg4+ 47.Kxg4 Kh6 48.Qd8 Kh7 49.Qf6 Qg8+ 50.Qg5 Qc8 51.h5 Qc6 52.Qg6+ Kh8 53.Kg5 10 A game which charms by its life and logic.54

Tartakower-Mieses, Baden-Baden 1925: 1.d4 f5 2.e4 fxe4 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.g4 This move, though it weakens the white kingside, is thoroughly logical, because White wants to assail, he does not want the black kingside to remain in peace. If he is to find safety it must be on the queenside. 4...d5 Of all the various moves which Black may here choose, viz.: 4...e6, h6, g6, c5, or d6, the move made is certainly the most natural one. 5.g5 Ng8 Here 5...Bg4 might have been played, as after 6.Be2 Bxe2 7.Qxe2 Nfd7 8.Nxd5 Nc6 9.Qxe4 e5 Black plays a promising gambit, for instance, 10.dxe5 Nc5 11.Qg2 Nd4 12.Ne3 Be7 probably regaining pawns, or else 12...Qd7 followed by castling queenside with a goodly choice of attacking variations. 6.f3 exf3 In this position f5 is a strong point for Black, therefore 6...Bf5 was commendable; later on White prevents that move. The consequence might be 7.fxe4 dxe4 8.Bg2 e6 9.Nxe4 Nc6 10.Ne2 Nge7 and Black has counter-attack. 7.Qxf3! 7...Bf5 is now prevented and the attack on the f-file opened.

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1kgn4} 70p0w0w0p} 6wDwDwDwD} 5DwDpDw)w} &wDw)wDwD} 3DwHwDQDw} 2P)PDwDw)} %$wGwIBHR} v,./9EFJMV A remarkable gambit. It is almost impossible for Black to retain his pawn. Rather than try he should play for counter-attack by 7...Nc6. If then 8.Be3 e5, or else 8.Qxd5 e6. Bis dat, qui cito dat. [“He gives twice who gives quickly” — ed.] 7...e6 Black attempts to hold on to the pawn. 8.Bd3 g6 According to the rules of Steinitz, 8...Ne7 or 8...Bd6 was indicated. The pawn move weakens the wing too much. 9.Nge2 Qe7 9...Bg7 is likewise of no avail. The points c7 and e5 are weak, h2-h4-h5 threatens also, the epawn cannot be held in the long run. White has many pieces in play, Black none; at these odds

226

Sixth Book everyone would like to play gambits. 10.Bf4 c6 11.Be5 Bg7 12.Qg3 Na6 Or 12...Nd7 13.Bd6 Qd8 14.Rf1 wins. (Dr. Tartakower in Kagan’s Neuesten Shachnachrichten.) 13.0-0 Bd7 14.Bd6 Qd8 15.Qf4 Also 15.Qe5 would have given a jolt. Black resigns.55 Bogolyubov-Réti, Baden-Baden 1925: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Bb4 5.e5 h6 6.Bd2 Bxc3 7.Bxc3 Ne4 8.Bb4 Leading soon to equality. White retains more initiative by 8.Bd3. 8...c5 9.Bxc5 Nc6 Somewhat complicated, though it accomplishes no more, and perhaps not as much, as the simple 9...Nxc5 10.dxc5 Qa5+. 10.Ba3 Qa5+ 11.c3 Nxc3 12.Qd2

cuuuuuuuuC (rDbDkDw4} 70pDwDp0w} 6wDnDpDw0} 51wDp)wDw} &wDw)wDwD} 3GwhwDwDw} 2P)w!w)P)} %$wDwIBHR} v,./9EFJMV

12...Na4 Black had here the choice between this move and 12...Ne4, whence the knight, after 13.Qxa5 Nxa5 14.h4, would have had to fight his way back. His decision is a wise one. 13.Qxa5 Nxa5 14.b3 Nb6 15.Nf3 White has some advantage, because the two black knights are inactive. He is approximately two moves ahead. On the other hand, Black has no weak points, so that the loss in time is not so perceptible. 15...Bd7 16.Bd3 Nc6 17.Ke2 g5?

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDkDw4} 70pDbDpDw} 6whnDpDw0} 5DwDp)w0w} &wDw)wDwD} 3GPDBDNDw} 2PDwDK)P)} %$wDwDwDR} v,./9EFJMV Now White has what he needed, a target, the gpawn. That Réti should offer a target to the white rooks, the action of which is already concerted, while the black rooks are still separated, is

Nottingham 1936. Seated, l. to. r.: Thomas, Lasker, Capablanca, sponsor J.N. Derbyshire, Mrs. Derbyshire, Euwe, Alekhine, Winter. Standing: Fine, Tartakower, Vidmar, Bogolyubov, Tylor, Alexander, Flohr, Reshevsky, Botvinnik, tournament director Mackenzie.

227

Lasker’s Manual of Chess difficult to comprehend. Impossible that he should value the temporary threat against d4 as sufficient equivalent for a disadvantage sure to be lasting. Fairly strong was 17...a5, and 17...Nc8 was also good. The only possible explanation is that Réti hereabouts followed a plan which he at once abandoned and which therefore cannot be perceived. Bogolyubov, on the other hand, from this point plays with winning precision and invention. 18.h3 Nc8 19.g4 Marking visibly the black g-pawn as the target. Black, of course, sees the peril, but it is too late for successful defense. 19...N8e7 20.h4 gxh4 Forced, for if 20...Rg8 21.hxg5 hxg5 22.Rh5 and the pawn is doomed. 21.Rxh4 0-0-0 22.Rah1 Rhg8 23.Rg1 Rh8 24.Bd6 Ng6 25.Bxg6 fxg6 26.Rgh1

cuuuuuuuuC (wDk4wDw4} 70pDbDwDw} 6wDnGpDp0} 5DwDp)wDw} &wDw)wDP$} 3DPDwDNDw} 2PDwDK)wD} %DwDwDwDR} v,./9EFJMV Sooner or later the h-pawn had to fall. Black resolves on exchanging the white g-pawn, so that the pawn plus remains a backward one. 26...h5 27.gxh5 Rxh5 Black exchanges a rook, so as to facilitate the use of his king for defense. 28.Rxh5 gxh5 29.Rxh5 Rg8 30.Ke3 b6 31.Rh4 Preventing 31...Rg4. First of all, White makes his position sound. 31...Rg7 32.Nh2 The knight aims at f6. On that dominating post it shall aid in forcing the decision. 32...Be8 33.Rh8 Kd7 34.f3 Ne7 35.Bxe7 Of course! The black knight would have loved to establish itself on f5, but he had no safe road to reach that point. 35...Kxe7 36.Ng4 Kf7 37.a4 Bc6 38.Rb8 White seeks to prevent the bishop getting to a square where it is defended without protection from king or rook; consequently he must make the development of the bishop on the

a6-f1 diagonal impossible. Otherwise, counterattacks would be feasible.

cuuuuuuuuC (w$wDwDwd} 70wDwDk4w} 6w0bDpDwD} 5DwDp)wDw} &PDw)wDND} 3DPDwIPDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV 38...Kg6 39.Nf6 Rc7 40.Kd2 Kf7 The king does not go to f5 because of 41.Rg8, threatening to create a mating net by 42.Rg4 (or 42.Ke3), 43.Nh5, and 44.Ng3#, which Black can avoid only at serious material loss. 41.Rg8 b5 42.a5

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDRD} 70w4wDkDw} 6wDbDpHwD} 5)pDp)wDw} &wDw)wDwD} 3DPDwDPDw} 2wDwIwDwD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV Pursuing the previously mentioned plan. White avoids the exchange which would develop the bishop. White now seeks to play Rg8-g1 c1 or Kd2-c3-b4 and enforce the exchange of rooks. Black makes a desperate attempt to secure counter-attack. 42...b4 43.Rh8! Kg6 44.Rb8 a6 45.Rb6 This is the point! 45.Rxb4 would have been bad because 45...Bb5 would have shut the rook in. 45...Kf5 46.Rxa6 Kf4 47.Rb6 Kxf3 48.Rxb4 and Black resigned after a few uninteresting moves.56 Torre-Yates, Baden-Baden 1925: 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nc3 d5 Black cannot well leave

228

Sixth Book the whole of the center to White without a struggle. 4.Bf4 But now White has the advantage on e5. 4...c6 Probably unnecessary; therefore, loss of time. 5.e3 Bg7 6.Bd3 0-0 7.0-0 Nbd7 8.Re1 White saves the move 8.h3, because, if 8...Nh5, the white QB, by 9.Bg5, can still evade exchange. 8...c5 9.Qd2 a6 10.Ne5

cuuuuuuuuC (rDb1w4kD} 7DpDn0pgp} 6pDwDwhpD} 5Dw0pHwDw} &wDw)wGwD} 3DwHB)wDw} 2P)P!w)P)} %$wDw$wIw} v,./9EFJMV White tries to gain the c-pawn and make play on the d-file. The incisiveness of White’s play is remarkable; he has played hitherto without any weakening pawn moves, a true disciple of the theory of Steinitz. 10...Nxe5 That facilitates White’s task. 10...Nh5 was now necessary. If 11.Nxd7 Bxd7 12.Nxd5, 12...Bc6, or 12.dxc5 Qa5. In either case Black would have a fine game, so that only 12.Be5 remains to be considered, after which 12...Bc6 was playable. 11.Bxe5 c4 Now correct, because pressure on d4 evidently is useless and 12.dxc5 was threatened. 12.Be2 Bf5 But that is not in line. The logical continuation was 12...b5, so as to fight against the advance of the white e-pawn with Bc8-b7. 13.Bf3 e6 14.Qe2!

cuuuuuuuuC (rDw1w4kD} 7DpDwDpgp} 6pDwDphpD} 5DwDpGbdw} &wDp)wDwD} 3DwHw)BDw} 2P)PDQ)P)} %$wDw$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

An excellent move which menaces 15.Bxf6 followed by g2-g4 and at the same time exerts pressure on c4. 14...g5 The lesser evil would have been 14...h5 15.h3 h4. 15.e4 The force of this advance which uproots the black c-pawn and at the same time gains space for attack against the adverse king is manifest. 15...dxe4 16.Nxe4 Nxe4 17.Bxe4 Bxe5 18.dxe5 Qc7 19.Qf3 Again an excellent move directed against the weaknesses b7, f5 and f6, while simultaneously freeing the KR. 19...Bxe4 20.Rxe4 Rac8 21.h4

cuuuuuuuuC (wDrDw4kD} 7Dp1wDpDp} 6pDwDpDwD} 5DwDw)w0w} &wDpDRDw)} 3DwDwDQDw} 2P)PDw)PD} %$wDwDwIw} v,./9EFJMV The culminating point of White’s plan. The black g-pawn cannot be held. [If 21...gxh4?? 22.Rg4+ Kh8 23.Qf6# — ed.] The sequence is little more than elementary technique. 21...Qe7 22.hxg5 Kh8 23.Qe3 Rg8 24.f4 b5 25.Rd1 Rcd8 26.Red4 Qc5 27.Kf2 Rc8 28.Rh1 Qe7 At the finish a mistake; Black should have played 28...Rg7, but probably did not deliberate, having no hope left and possibly being re-signed to the approaching end. White mates in five moves by 29.Rxh7+ etc. Sämisch-Spielmann, Baden-Baden 1925: 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 c5 3.e4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Bd3 d6 6.0-0 Be7 7.Nd2 0-0 8.Kh1 Nbd7 9.c3 a6 Here 9...d5 would have given Black a comfortable game. 10.Qe2 White takes no pains to impede Black’s development, as he could have done by preventing d6d5. His idea is a thoroughly practical one. Knowing Spielmann’s desire to make combinations, he hopes as a result to get a favorable opportunity. 10...Qc7 11.f4 b6 12.N2f3 Nc5 13.Bc2

229

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (rDbDw4kD} 7Dw1wgp0p} 6p0w0phwD} 5DwhwDwDw} &wDwHP)wD} 3Dw)wDNDw} 2P)BDQDP)} %$wGwDRDK} v,./9EFJMV

18...Nd3 Sacrifice of a pawn in order to occupy e4 with a piece, but the compensation is insufficient. 19.g5 Nd7 20.Bxd3 exd3 21.Qxd3 Nc5 22.Qe2 Rfe8 23.Rf3 Qe7 The queen would probably better have taken a post on the c8-h3 diagonal, one rook the square e4, the other one on e8. 24.Qg2 Qe4

Black has a fair position. He need not fear the attack White has prepared and may continue with 13...Bb7. If then 14.e5 Ne4 the black knights are firmly entrenched, since for b2-b4 White needs much preparation as long as the c-pawn is unguarded. And 14.Ng5 is very problematical because of 14...h6 15.e5 dxe5 16.fxe5 hxg5 17.exf6 Bxf6, and White has given up a pawn for very little. To summarize, White cannot take the position by violent assault because he is not sufficiently developed. 13...e5 But with this move, intended to prevent e4-e5 for good (unnecessarily, since that move would not hurt) Black gives White two strong bishops. 14.Nf5 More lucid and also stronger play would have been 14.fxe5 developing the QB, and after that Ne4-f5. 14...Bxf5 15.exf5 e4 16.Nd4 d5 17.Be3 Bd6 18.g4

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDw4kD} 7Dw1wDp0p} 6p0wgwhwD} 5DwhpDPDw} &wDwHp)PD} 3Dw)wGwDw} 2P)BDQDw)} %$wDwDRDK} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDrDkD} 7DwDwDp0p} 6p0wgwDwD} 5DwhpDP)w} &wDwHq)wD} 3Dw)wGRDw} 2P)wDwDQ)} %$wDwDwDK} v,./9EFJMV Black’s position looks fine, but he is a pawn minus and threatens nothing. Nor can he invent threats; White is posted too firmly. 25.Raf1 White develops all his pieces before committing to a plan of attack, almost always a wise policy. However, his position is strong enough that he might have undertaken immediate action with 25.Bd2! Qe7 (Forced, else 26.Re1 wins the queen.) 26.f6!, when one likely line is 26...Qd7 27.f5 Be5 28.fxg7 Kxg7 29.g6 Kh8 30.gxh7 Ne4 31.Rg1 f6 32.Bh6 Ng5 (if 32...Qxh7 33.Rh3) 33.h4i. 25...Nd3 26.f6 Bc5 27.fxg7 If 27.f5 Black could gain some relief through simplification by 27...Ne5 28.Rg3 Qxg2+ 29.Rxg2 Nc4 30.Bg1 Ne3 31.Bxe3 Rxe3. 27...Bxd4 28.cxd4

White has a firm position, Black a weak spot on d5. For all that the point of decision has not yet arrived, but Black now commits the grave error of forcing the decision with incomplete preparation and thereby imperils his own game. 230

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDrDkD} 7DwDwDp)p} 6p0wDwDwD} 5DwDpDw)w} &wDw)q)wD} 3DwDnGRDw} 2P)wDwDQ)} %DwDwDRDK} v,./9EFJMV

Sixth Book 28...Rac8 A plausible-looking alternative was 28...Qf5, hoping to forestall further advances by the white pawns, but then 29.Qd2!, threatening to win the knight by 30.Bg1, forces the queen right back, 29...Qe4 (or 29...a5 30.a3 Qe4). Then White proceeds much as in the actual game: 30.f5 (not now 30.Bg1? Ne1!) 30...Rac8 (or 30...Kxg7 31.Kg1 Kh8 32.Rg3) 31.g6 fxg6 (if 31...hxg6 32.Bg1 now wins the knight, since if 32...Ne1 33.Qh6i) 32.f6 Rc7 33.Kg1 Rf7, and now 34.h3!,

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDrDkD} 7DwDwDr)p} 6p0wDw)pD} 5DwDpDwDw} &wDw)qDwD} 3DwDnGRDP} 2P)w!wDwD} %DwDwDRIw} v,./9EFJMV analysis position after 34.h3 preventing 34...Qg4+, forces Black to accept either 34...Rxf6 35.Rxf6 Qxe3+ 36.Qxe3 Rxe3, or 34...Re6 35.Bg5 Qxd4+ (35...Ne1 36.Re3i) 36.Kh1 Qxb2 37.Rxd3, White winning in either case. Returning now to the actual game after 28...Rac8: 29.f5 Decisive, because White has threats, Black none. 29...Rc6 If 29...Kxg7 30.g6 hxg6 31.Qh3 Rc6 32.Qh6+ Kg8 33.Kg1, intending 34.Rh3 and wins. 30.g6 fxg6 31.fxg6 Kxg7 32.Bh6+ 1-0 This game was not free from guilt and error, but is rich in temper and invention.57

Alekhine-Marshall, Baden-Baden 1925: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.e4 Nf6 5.Bd3 If 5.Nc3 e5 — forcefully — 6.dxe5 Qxd1+ 7.Kxd1 Ng4 8.Nh3 with a fairly even game. 5...e5 6.dxe5 Ng4 7.Nf3 Nc6 8.Bg5 Be7 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Nc3 Ncxe5 11.Nxe5 Qxe5 12.h3 Nf6 13.Qd2 Bd7 14.Qe3 Bc6 15.0-0-0 0-0 White, having repulsed the somewhat precipitate attack launched by Black,

has impressed his signature on the position. In castling queenside he has given a target to the adversary, but he has also prepared a forceful advance on the other wing. Since the attack on h7 can soon be initiated, White’s attack seems to have a head-start over Black’s. In any case, White has retained the initiative.

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDw4kD} 70p0wDp0p} 6wDbDwhwD} 5DwDw1wDw} &wDwDPDwD} 3DwHB!wDP} 2P)wDw)PD} %DwIRDwDR} v,./9EFJMV 16.f4 Qe6 Here Black slides into the downward groove. In the center the queen is in peril. 16...Qa5 was more natural and also preferable. 17.e5 Rfe8 If 17...Nd5 18.Nxd5 Bxd5 19.Bxh7+ Kh8 20.Bf5 with a manifest advantage. 18.Rhe1 Rad8 But now it was high time to remove the knight to d7. Black does not willingly submit to defensive tactics but he is forced to do so because White has the better development and has pawns to sustain the fight, whereas the black queenside pawns are for the present mere spectators. 19.f5 Qe7 20.Qg5

cuuuuuuuuC (wDw4rDkD} 70p0w1p0p} 6wDbDwhwD} 5DwDw)P!w} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwHBDwDP} 2P)wDwDPD} %DwIR$wDw} v,./9EFJMV 20...Nd5? Black is now lost. Better instead 20...Qf8!, if 21.exf6?! Rxe1 22.Rxe1 Rxd3 White’s attack runs out of steam, and after a

231

Lasker’s Manual of Chess waiting move such as 21.Qg3, 21...Nd5 works, because now if 22.f6 Black has time for 22...Nxc3. 21.f6 Qf8 22.Bc4! Excellent! The black knight obstructs the white rook on d1, which is intended to attack the black rook on d8 that is already indirectly threatened by the white queen. Black has no time for 22...h6?? 23.fxg7i. The move made is at once decisive. 22...Nxc3 23.Rxd8 Rxd8 24.fxg7

cuuuuuuuuC (wDw4w1kD} 70p0wDp)p} 6wDbDwDwD} 5DwDw)w!w} &wDBDwDwD} 3DwhwDwDP} 2P)wDwDPD} %DwIw$wDw} v,./9EFJMV 24...Nxa2+ In order to continue with 25...Qc5+ if the knight be taken. Nevertheless, it was not advisable to remove the knight from the center at this critical moment. Better 24...Qe8 to reply to the formidable 25.e6 with 25...Rd5. True, if White plays correctly, he must win, viz., 24...Qe8 25.bxc3 Rd6 26.Bxf7+, or 25...Bd5 26.Bd3 Be6 27.Bxh7+ Kxh7 28.Re4. But, even so, Black would thus have had the chance of White committing the error 25.e6. 25.Kb1! Not 25.Bxa2? Qc5+ 26.Kb1 Rd7! and any win for White is a long way off. 25...Qe8 26.e6 Be4+ 27.Ka1 Of course! 27.Rxe4 Rd1+ 28.Kc2 was also playable, but the text is simpler and safer, which is generally the better way when the game is in hand. 27...f5 28.e7+ Rd5 29.Qf6 Qf7 30.e8Q+ 1-0.58 Nimzovitch-Bogolyubov, Baden-Baden 1925: 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.e3 d6 3.d4 Nbd7 4.Nbd2 Around this time a style came into vogue to play the opening indifferently. Of course, one need not desperately strive for initiative, one may win while on the defensive and in counter-attack, and by lack of initiative one by no means permits the game to get out of hand, but all in all, it pays to play incisively. Here the natural move would

have been 4.c4 and 5.Nc3, to hem Black in. 4...g6 5.g3 Bg7 6.Bg2 0-0 7.0-0 c5 8.b3 Qc7 9.Bb2 Rb8 10.c4 cxd4 11.exd4 If 11.Nxd4 a6 and the point c5 remains in Black’s possession. 11...b5 12.Re1 Re8 13.Rc1 Qa5

cuuuuuuuuC (w4bDrDkD} 70wDn0pgp} 6wDw0whpD} 51pDwDwDw} &wDP)wDwD} 3DPDwDN)w} 2PGwHw)B)} %Dw$Q$wIw} v,./9EFJMV Black has had time to develop his game. White’s f3 is weak. Black, however, has less space than the first player. 14.a3 bxc4 15.Nxc4 Qh5 Now White is weak on d5, but he has the majority of pawns on the queenside. All in all, a balanced position.16.b4 Nb6 If 16...Nd5? 17.Nxd6! 17.Nxb6 Very just! Not 17.Na5 because of 17...Nbd5. 17...axb6 18.Nd2 Bg4 19.Qc2 Bh6

cuuuuuuuuC (w4wDrDkD} 7DwDw0pDp} 6w0w0whpg} 5DwDwDwDq} &w)w)wDbD} 3)wDwDw)w} 2wGQHw)B)} %Dw$w$wIw} v,./9EFJMV Black wants to force f2-f4 in order to weaken the g-pawn. Bogolyubov’s play, though careful, is vigorous. 20.f4 Bf5 Preparing to play g7-g5 which would otherwise be parried by f4-f5. 21.Ne4! Bg7 22.Nxf6+ Bxf6 23.Qd2 Be6 The threat was 24.Bc6 followed by 25.d5. 24.Bc6 Rec8 25.Qg2 d5 26.b5 Rd8 27.a4 Bh3

232

Sixth Book

cuuuuuuuuC (w4w4wDkD} 7DwDw0pDp} 6w0BDwgpD} 5DPDpDwDq} &PDw)w)wD} 3DwDwDw)b} 2wGwDwDQ)} %Dw$w$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

of Black’s attack and the logic of his play were a model. 59

The middle game is played finely and strongly by both masters. Black’s plan is to counter the attack that White has initiated on the queenside by an attack on the g-pawn. To begin with, the point h3 must be secured. 28.Qf2 Bf5 29.Bc3 But here White falls off perceptibly. The bishop, bound for some time to guard d4, would better have been left alone. The logical continuation was 29.Ra1 and 30.a5. 29...Be4 30.a5 bxa5 31.Bxa5 Rdc8 32.Bc3 Qh3

cuuuuuuuuC (rDb1w4kD} 70p0wDp0p} 6wDwDwhwD} 5DwDnDwDw} &wDQHwDwD} 3DwDwDw)w} 2P)wHP)B)} %$wDwIwDR} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (w4rDwDkD} 7DwDw0pDp} 6wDBDwgpD} 5DPDpDwDw} &wDw)b)wD} 3DwGwDw)q} 2wDwDw!w)} %Dw$w$wIw} v,./9EFJMV Now it is manifest how heavily the loss of time involved in Bb2-c3-a5-c3 weighs. If a rook stood on the a-file and the bishop on b2, White might now have strengthened the weak spot g3 by 33.Ra3 and caused Black’s attack to slow down. 33.Re2 If 33.Qf1 Qg4 34.Re3 g5 with a good game. 33...h5 34.Rd2 Kg7 35.Re1 h4 36.Qf1 Qf5 37.Bb2 hxg3 38.hxg3 Rh8 39.Rg2 Bxg2 40.Kxg2 Rh6 White resigned. Black’s strategy has carried the day. From the time that the white bishop erred off to a5 the energy

Réti-Alekhine, Baden-Baden 1925: 1.g3 e5 2.Nf3 e4 3.Nd4 d5 4.d3 exd3 5.Qxd3 The pawn position would be more compact after 5.cxd3. But Réti plays for development, which is furthered by getting the queen out of the way of his rooks. 5...Nf6 6.Bg2 Bb4+ The idea is to block the point c3. 7.Bd2 But 7.Nd2 was probably better. The black KB is already in some little danger and White is not well advised to exchange his fine QB for it. 7...Bxd2+ 8.Nxd2 0–0 9.c4 Na6 10.cxd5 Nb4 11.Qc4 Nbxd5

The development is accomplished. White has somewhat the better of it in the center, but Black has brought his pieces more rapidly to the scene of action. 12.N2b3 White espies a weakness of Black’s on c5, accentuated by the bishop on g2 which retards b2-b3.12...c6 Black with this move admits the weakness of c5. 13.0–0 Re8 14.Rfd1 Bg4 15.Rd2 Qc8 Black seeks compensations by exerting pressure on the kingside. 16.Nc5 Bh3 17.Bf3 Bg4 Black seems ready to consent to a draw. 18.Bg2 Bh3 19.Bf3 Bg4 20.Bg2 Bh3 21.Bf3 Bg4 [But Black is playing to win; he does not claim the draw by threefold repetition, as he might have here, assuming this score is correct. Several different versions of this game have been published; it is not certain that the exact moves Lasker gives here were actually played. Alekhine’s own My Best Games 1924-1937 gives 20…h5 here, omitting the repetitions – ed.] 22.Bh1 White too refuses the draw, relying upon the strength of his advance post on c5.

233

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (rDqDrDkD} 70pDwDp0p} 6wDpDwhwD} 5DwHnDwDw} &wDQHwDbD} 3DwDwDw)w} 2P)w$P)w)} %$wDwDwIB} v,./9EFJMV 22...h5 Here Black could have prevented the attack by the white queenside pawns, which, of course, he saw coming, by 22...a5. He resolves, however, to allow the storm to break because he senses, as it were, a profound combination directed against the white king. 23.b4 a6 24.Rc1 h4 25.a4 hxg3 26.hxg3 Qc7

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDrDkD} 7Dp1wDp0w} 6pDpDwhwD} 5DwHnDwDw} &P)QHwDbD} 3DwDwDw)w} 2wDw$P)wD} %Dw$wDwIB} v,./9EFJMV

27.b5 White is here too impetuous. On the one hand, he should not have aided the development of Black’s QR; on the other hand, he had to drive the black knight on d5 from its strong post sooner or later, and the right moment had now arrived. There was no cause for holding the e-pawn back, it should now have its say. With 27.e4 Nb6 28.Qc3 Rad8 29.Ndb3 White had a favorable position, for instance, 29...Rxd2 30.Qxd2 Rd8 31.Qf4 Qc8 32.a5. If 27...Ne7, where the knight has a better post than on b6, White had time for 28.f3, upon which 28...Qxg3+, of course, would not be playable, and the black bishop 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. 27...axb5 28.axb5 Re3 If 29.fxe3 Qxg3+ is deadly. 29.Nf3 Still White is unwilling to simplify. 29.Bf3 was bitterly needed. Now the knight is missing on the queen’s side.

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDwDkD} 7Dp1wDp0w} 6wDpDwhwD} 5DPHnDwDw} &wDQDwDbD} 3DwDw4N)w} 2wDw$P)wD} %Dw$wDwIB} v,./9EFJMV 29...cxb5 The introduction to one of the most charming combinations known to chess.

Lost in Translation: An amusing (though perhaps apocryphal) story is told about Lasker at St. Petersburg 1909. Fedor Dus-Chotimirsky, a lesser Russian master who made a minus score and placed only 13th, nevertheless defeated both Lasker and Rubinstein, the co-winners. It is said that Dus-Chotimirsky infuriated Lasker during their game by pretending to be absorbed in a Japanese translation of Nietzsche’s Thus Spake Zarathustra.

234

Sixth Book 30.Qxb5 Nc3 31.Qxb7 There is nothing else. 31...Qxb7 32.Nxb7 Nxe2+ 33.Kh2 Ne4! To have captured the rook would have profited nothing, but if now 34.fxe3 Nxd2 and wins the exchange or a piece. 34.Rc4 White is equal to the task; play and counterplay are on the same high level. If now 34...Nxd2 35.Nxd2 Rd3 36.Nc5. 34...Nxf2! Now the king becomes the target. 35.Bg2 This bishop is too valuable for defense to allow its exchange. 35...Be6 36.Rcc2 Ng4+ 37.Kh3 Ne5+ 38.Kh2 Rxf3 39.Rxe2 Ng4+ 40.Kh3 Ne3+ 41.Kh2 Nxc2 42.Bxf3 Nd4 White resigned, because after 43.Re3 Nxf3+ 44.Rxf3 Bd5 wins. The play in this combination was rich in invention and variety by both winner and loser. Thomas-Rubinstein, Baden-Baden 1925: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.h3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 Qc7 12.Nbd2 Nc6

a-file avails White nothing. 16.axb5 Best, since otherwise the QB would have to watch his bpawn. 16...axb5 17.g4 g6 18.Ng3 Ng7 19.Kh1 f6 20.Rg1 Nf7 21.Qf1 Bd7 22.Be3 Ra8

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDw4kD} 7Dw1bgnhp} 6wDw0w0pD} 5Dp0P0wDw} &wDwDPDPD} 3Dw)wGNHP} 2w)BDw)wD} %$wDwDQ$K} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (rDbDw4kD} 7Dw1wgp0p} 6pDn0whwD} 5Dp0w0wDw} &wDw)PDwD} 3Dw)wDNDP} 2P)BHw)PD} %$wGQ$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

Now the a-file counter-thrust prevents White from employing his rooks as he would desire. Hence, he cannot execute his plan of Qf1-g2 and Ng3-f5. 23.Qg2 Rxa1 24.Rxa1 Qb7 25.Kh2 Ra8 26.Qf1 Ra6 27.Nd2 White must retreat, for Black holds the a-file and threatens to enter with his rook or queen into the white camp. 27...Qa8 28.Rxa6 Qxa6 29.Nb3 Ng5 Now Black has the advantage on the kingside, because the white knight has to stand guard on b3. Black brings his advantage home in a model fashion. To begin with, he forces the weakening advance of the adverse h-pawn. 30.Kg2 h5 31.h4 Nf7 32.gxh5 gxh5 33.Kh2 Qc8 34.Qg2 Kf8 35.Nd2 f5

13.d5 Black threatened to win a pawn on d4, but that pawn could not have been maintained and White therefore could ignore the threat. In not doing so he shuts off the center and puts all his weight on the wings. But there Black has as much advantage as White — on the queenside even the greater one, since there he enjoys more freedom than White. 13...Nd8 14.Nf1 Ne8 Now, according to Philidor, the pawns in front, knights and bishops backing them up. 15.a4 On the queenside White has nothing to look for. His chances are on the kingside. White should have omitted this move and immediately started with 15.g4, so as to make himself strong on the gfile. 15...Rb8 The temporary possession of the

Now the attack is opened up against the white hpawn, in the process of which the white e-pawn

cuuuuuuuuC (wDqDwiwD} 7DwDbgnhw} 6wDw0wDwD} 5Dp0P0pDp} &wDwDPDw)} 3Dw)wGwHw} 2w)BHw)QI} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

235

Lasker’s Manual of Chess is torn away from its phalanx and the d-pawn becomes weak. 36.exf5 Bxh4 37.f6! White also plays in masterly fashion. He makes the utmost use of the untenable f-pawn and gets up an attack against the king and the h-pawn. 37...Bxf6 38.Qf3 Bh4 39.Bg6 If now 39.Nxh5? or 39.Bh6, Black replies 39...Bg4. 39...Bxg3+ 40.fxg3 Bf5 41.Bxf7 White prefers to play for an attack instead of regaining his pawn. His judgment is perfectly right, since the endgame resulting from 41.Bxh5 Nxh5 42.Qxh5, owing to the strength of the e-pawn and the weakness of the white d-pawn, would be hugely in favor of Black. 41...Kxf7 42.Ne4 Qd7 43.Bh6 Kg6 44.Bxg7 Kxg7

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DwDqDwiw} 6wDw0wDwD} 5Dp0P0bDp} &wDwDNDwD} 3Dw)wDQ)w} 2w)wDwDwI} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV 45.b4 But herewith White surrenders the possibility of supporting his d-pawn by b2-b3 and c3-c4. The right plan was to assume with 45.Nf2 a firm position, to play the queen to d2 or e3, the king to g2 and to threaten counterattacks as soon as the black queen strays too far away from its king and d-pawn. Against such a tenacious defense, Black would still have had to overcome great difficulties. 45...c4 46.Nd2 And also here 46.Nf2 would probably have been preferable. 46...Qf7 47.Qe3 If 47.Kg2 Bd3 48.Qxf7+ Kxf7 and the white d-pawn must eventually fall and the black e-pawn advance. 47...Qxd5 48.Qg5+ Bg6 49.Qe7+ Kg8 50.Qd8+ Kf7 51.Qd7+ Kf6 52.Qd8+ Kf5 53.Qd7+ Kf6 54.Qd8+ Kg7 55.Qe7+ Qf7 There was no other way; the king could otherwise find no protection. 56.Qxd6 Qf2+ 57.Kh3 Kh6 58.Nb1 Loses the knight, but there was hardly any better move and the game was not to be saved. The queen cannot

move without putting itself en prise, abandoning the knight, or allowing 58...Bf5+ 59.Kh4 Qh2#, the knight cannot move except to sacrifice itself, and the king cannot move except into mate. 58...Qf5+ 59.Kg2 Qxb1 60.Qf8+ Kg5 61.Qd8+ Kg4 62.Qd7+ Qf5 63.Qd1+ Kg5 0-1.60 Alekhine-Colle, Baden-Baden 1925: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nf3 Bg4 4.Qa4 A novel attempt. The move here ordinarily played is 4.cxd5. 4...Bxf3 5.exf3 White does not worry over the position of pawns if he gets open lines for his bishops. Also, the f-pawn, if well supported by pieces, can be of great service in an attack on the hostile array of pawns. 5...e6 6.Nc3 Bb4 7.a3 Bxc3+ 8.bxc3 Nge7

cuuuuuuuuC (rDw1kDw4} 70p0whp0p} 6wDnDpDwD} 5DwDpDwDw} &QDP)wDwD} 3)w)wDPDw} 2wDwDw)P)} %$wGwIBDR} v,./9EFJMV The black bishop had to go to b4, because the KN was destined to support the QN from e7. Up to this point the opening has run a logical course. 9.Rb1 Rb8 10.Bd3 dxc4 But this is not justified. The d-pawn should retain its post as long as possible, so as to block the white d-pawn which in its turn obstructs the a1-h8 diagonal. 11.Bxc4 0-0 12.0-0 Nd5 13.Qc2 Nce7 14.Bd3 h6 15.c4 Nb6 In consequence of the censured exchange of pawns White now has an advantage. White’s strategy will be to open the lines for his bishops, either with f2-f4-f5, or by a sacrifice with d4-d5. Black cannot readily attain counter-attack, since c7-c5, his most promising thrust for this purpose, by opening the diagonal of the QB would endanger the kingside. Alekhine’s play quickly brings the above advantages to bear and at the same time gives

236

Sixth Book

cuuuuuuuuC (w1wDw4wi} 7DwDrhpDw} 6p0wDp0w0} 5DwDpDwDw} &PDPDw)QD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDBDw)P)} %DwDR$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

Black opportunities for committing errors or mistakes, wherever such opportunities can be given without endangering White. Thus Alekhine combines, in his style, logic and psychology.

cuuuuuuuuC (w4w1w4kD} 70p0whp0w} 6whwDpDw0} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDP)wDwD} 3)wDBDPDw} 2wDQDw)P)} %DRGwDRIw} v,./9EFJMV 16.Rd1 Nbc8 17.f4 b6 18.Bb2 c6 19.Qe2 Nd6 20.Qe5 Ne8 21.a4 Rb7 22.Re1 Nf6 23.Rbd1 Rd7 The issue will be decided on the d-file. Black has recognized this and played the rook to the right spot. 24.Bc2

33.f5! This thrust hits the weak point. 33...Nxf5 34.Bxf5 exf5 35.Qxf5 Better than 35.Qh4 because after this capture of the pawn the black pawns on f6 and h6 remain very weak. 35...Qd8 36.cxd5 Rd6 37.Qf4 Kh7 38.Qe4+ Kh8 39.Qe3 Kg7 40.Qd3 To add to the misfortune the black a-pawn is now weak. The move 24...a6 was therefore not only a lost move but it also damaged the aggressive power of the queenside pawns. 40...a5

cuuuuuuuuC (wDw1w4kD} 70wDrhp0w} 6w0pDphw0} 5DwDw!wDw} &PDP)w)wD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wGBDw)P)} %DwDR$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wDw1w4wD} 7DwDwDpiw} 6w0w4w0w0} 50wDPDwDw} &PDwDwDwD} 3DwDQDwDw} 2wDwDw)P)} %DwDR$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

24...a6? But here Black gives way. With 24...Qc7 he could assume a fairly stable position. In case the white queen leaves its post, the black rook moves from f8 so as to allow its king a place of refuge when needed. For instance 25.Qe2 Rfd8 26.d5 cxd5 27.Bxf6 gxf6 28.Qg4+ Kf8. 25.Qe2 Qb8 At least, he should here have played 25...Re8. 26.d5 cxd5 27.Bxf6 gxf6 28.Qg4+ Kh8 29.Qh4 Kg7 30.Qg4+ Kh8 31.Qh4 Kg7 32.Qg4+ Kh8 The repetition of moves served the end of gaining time on his clock.

Black is helpless. The b-pawn is backward, his kingside is disorganized and his king bereft of refuge. Alekhine wins methodically by making himself safe, and slowly maneuvering his opponent into a Zugzwang. 41.Re3 Rg8 42.Rh3?! [Better 42.Rg3+ and 43.Rxg8 at once, as will be seen. — ed.] 42...Qd7 43.Qe3 f5 This additional weakness was forced, for Black could not hide his rook on h8 all the time. 44.Rg3+ Kh7 45.Rxg8? To prevent 45...Rg6, when White cannot exchange the rook without uniting the black pawns. [This move is actually

237

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (rDbDkDw4} 70pDwDw0p} 6wDpDpDw1} 5DwDp)pDw} &wDPDn)wD} 3DwHw)wDw} 2P)QDw)B)} %$wDwDw$K} v,./9EFJMV

an oversight that allowed Black to save the game. — ed.]

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDRD} 7DwDqDpDk} 6w0w4wDw0} 50wDPDpDw} &PDwDwDwD} 3DwDw!wDw} 2wDwDw)P)} %DwDRDwIw} v,./9EFJMV 45...Kxg8? [Black errs in turn! Instead with 45...Qxa4! he could have saved the game, winning an important pawn before taking the rook. — ed.] 46.Qg3+ Kh7 47.Qb3 Kg7 48.h3 Qd8 49.Qg3+ Kh7 50.Qe5 Qd7 51.Rd3 f6 Probably not necessary at this moment, but White can force it at any time by Rg3. 52.Qd4 Qd8 53.Qc4 Qd7 54.Rd4 Kg7 55.Qd3 Now Black is in Zugzwang. If 55...Kh8 56.Qe3 is painful owing to the weakness of the h-pawn. 55...Kf7 True, 55...Kh8 was still better than such a move. 56.g4 Kf8 If 56...fxg4 57.Qh7+, with deadly effect. 57.gxf5 Qe8 58.Re4 Qh5 59.Rg4 Qf7 60.Qe3 Qh7 61.Rg6 1-0.61 Bogolyubov-Mieses, Baden-Baden 1925: 1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.Nf3 d5 Herewith Black, building up the celebrated “Stonewall,” fortifies the point e4, but leaves e5 at the mercy of the opponent. Since the white f-pawn still endangers the black stronghold, the scales incline a little in White’s favor. Hence, it would appear suitable to advance the d-pawn to d6 only. 5.0-0 Bd6 6.c4 c6 7.Nc3 Nbd7 If 7...dxc4? 8.Nd2. 8.Qc2 Ne4 9.Kh1 In preparation for a maneuver by which e5 will be much strengthened. 9...Qf6 10.Bf4 Bxf4 11.gxf4 Qh6 12.e3 Ndf6 Black probably senses no danger, else 12...0-0 would have been his move. Or did Black intend to lure the white knight to e5 and there exchange it, so as to block that point forever? The plan, though costing two moves, has its good points. 13.Ne5 Nd7 14.Rg1 Nxe5 15.dxe5

15...Nxc3 To castle would have been more cautious. Or did Black wish to avoid 16.Bxe4 followed by 17.c5, whereupon the knight would establish itself on d4? But Black could probably stand the pressure of the knight without being much harmed. 16.bxc3 White now shows his hand. He wants to assail the queenside. The sacrifice of the c-pawn is in appearance only, since the pawn would soon be regained. 16...Bd7 17.Rad1 b5 In order to force the exchange of pawns, to recapture with the c-pawn and to occupy the c-file with strong pressure on c3. 18.Qb2 0-0 If 18...bxc4 19.Qb7, pinning the black pieces to their posts. [And 18...dxc4? would be disastrous, viz. 19.Qb4 0-0-0 (or 19...Rd8 20.Rxd7 Rxd7 21.Bxc6) 20.Qc5 Kb8 21.Rxd7 Rxd7 22.Bxc6i — ed.] 19.Qa3 Rfd8 If now 19...bxc4, 20.Rb1 with the intention of 21.Rb7. 20.cxb5 cxb5 21.Qa6 The bishop shall not be permitted to go to c6, the a-pawn shall be held back, and besides, the clumsy threat 22.Bxd5 has to be provided for.

238

cuuuuuuuuC (rDw4wDkD} 70wDbDw0p} 6QDwDpDw1} 5DpDp)pDw} &wDwDw)wD} 3Dw)w)wDw} 2PDwDw)B)} %DwDRDw$K} v,./9EFJMV

Sixth Book 21...Qh5 It is a pity that Black did not play 21...Kh8, whereupon the logical variation would have ensued, viz.: 22.a4 Rdb8 (if 22...bxa4 23.c4; or 22...Rac8 23.axb5 Rxc3 24.Qxa7) 23.Rb1 to the advantage of White. 22.Bxd5! With a sudden change of plan White assails the hostile position like a streak of lightning. 22...exd5 23.Rxg7+ Kxg7 24.Qf6+ Kg8 25.Rg1+ Qg4 26.Rxg4+ fxg4 27.f5 Rdc8 If the rook stays on d8, the threat e6-e7 is a trump later on, for instance 27...Rac8 28.e6 Be8 29.e7, or 28...Bc6 29.Qg5+ Kh8 30.f6 Rg8 31.Qe5. 28.e6 Bc6 29.Qf7+ Kh8 30.f6 Rg8 31.Qc7 Rac8 32.Qe5 d4+ 33.Kg1 Bd5 34.f7+ Rg7 35.Qxd5 1-0

9.h4, the threat Bf1-d3 followed by Rh1-h3 is already present. A parry, although by no means the only one, would be 9...Nc6 , intending ...Ne7 and ...Nf5. All in all, 8...Kf8 is certainly worth a determined trial. 8...g6 9.Bd3 Nxd2 10.Kxd2 c5 11.h4 Momentarily, the sacrifice 11.Bxg6 fails because of 11...Rg8. But may the white bishop be allowed to stand on d3 until Rh3 has been played? Black, it is true, can play 11...Qe7, to give powerful support to the king. That, it would appear, would also be the best way of augmenting the pressure on the white d-pawn. 11...c4 But Black decides to make an end to that threat once for all. Only he casts obstacles into the path of his own attack thereby. 12.Be2

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1kDw4} 70pDwDpDw} 6wDwDpDp0} 5DwDp)wDw} &wDp)wDQ)} 3Dw)wDwDw} 2PDPIB)PD} %$wDwDwHR} v,./9EFJMV

The next game is a bouquet of varied, nicely shaded, aesthetic impressions, a monument of honor to both contestants. Bogolyubov-Réti, Breslau 1925: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Bb4 5.e5 h6 6.Bd2 Bxc3 7.bxc3 Ne4 8.Qg4

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1kDw4} 70p0wDp0w} 6wDwDpDw0} 5DwDp)wDw} &wDw)nDQD} 3Dw)wDwDw} 2PDPGw)P)} %$wDwIBHR} v,./9EFJMV The position has at this early stage assumed shape. White wants to assail the kingside, Black the queenside. The black g-pawn requires protection either by 8...g6, which deprives the fpawn of its future, or by 8...Kf8; the kingside is thereby weakened in any event. The weakening effect of 8...g6 seems greater than the concessions that 8...Kf8 makes, because with the pawn on g6 White would have a target for sacrificing combinations. With a2-a4, followed by development of his rook via h3, he could evaluate that weakness. It is true that an attack on the g-pawn is staged in any case. After 8...Kf8

12...h5 Should Black block the h-pawn or permit h4-h5? A difficult question. Much is to be said pro and con for either alternative. For the move 12...h5 it may be argued that, though weakening the black squares on the kingside it allows Black some time, the immediate threats being lessened. Against it may be argued that the permanent weakness is worse than the temporary peril. Thus: 12...Qe7 13.h5 g5 14.f4 gxf4 15.Qxf4 Nd7 16.Nh3 b5 17.Nf2 a5 18.Ng4 Qf8 (or 18...b4). Still the black position holds together and a counter attack is in preparation. After the move actually made the white attack, retarded only a little while, attains such force that the counter-attack appears weak in comparison. 13.Qf4 Nc6 14.Nf3 Qe7 15.Ng5 b5 16.a3 This move is problematical. If it was necessary, the question remains whether the moment for making it had arrived. In any case, at some time or another the square b4 has to be guarded against the inroad of the black queen. 16...a5 17.g4

239

Lasker’s Manual of Chess Ra7 Black must not play 17...hxg4, since White, by pushing h4-h5 soon after, would obtain command of the h-file. As it is, White has only the g-file at his disposal, and that is blocked by the white knight. 18.gxh5 gxh5 19.Rh3 This rook serves both attack and defense; it strengthens the squares c3 and a3. 19...b4 20.Rf3 bxc3+ Probably Black is forced to this. Normally, the formation Ra7-b7, Nc6-a7-b5 would be preferable, but Black cannot allow White, whose position is so commanding, to obtain the command of the a-file also. This then, it would appear, is the idea which prompted the problematical move 16.a3. 21.Rxc3 Rb7 22.Rg1 Na7 23.Rcg3

cuuuuuuuuC (wDbDkDw4} 7hrDw1pDw} 6wDwDpDwD} 50wDp)wHp} &wDp)w!w)} 3)wDwDw$w} 2wDPIB)wD} %DwDwDw$w} v,./9EFJMV 23...Bd7? A pity. Black had the moral courage to meet the attack that he, of course, saw coming. He has set a counter attack in motion; 23...Nb5 was manifest, and now instead this move which obstructs both king and rook! After 23...Nb5 White would have had to moderate the pace of his attack and to defend, say by 24.Rb1. Then, it seems, 25.a4 would be threatening, hence, 24...a4. Then, to safeguard the king, probably 25.Bd1, aiming also at a4. Black would remain endangered, but there would be counterplay and tension. After the ill-considered text move, his position falls like a house of cards. 24.Bxh5 [Very good, but even stronger was 24.Nxf7! followed by, for example, 24 ...Rf8 25.Rg8 Nc8 ( else 26.Nd6+)26.Rxf8+ Qxf8 27.Qf6 Ne7 28.Nd6+ — ed. ] If 24...Rxh5 25.Nxf7 and the king cannot get away from the terrible white rooks. Black played 24...c3+ 25.Ke3 and soon resigned. 1-0. A game which solves some questions only to suggest many other

riddles. White’s play is testimony of supreme mastery. Romanovsky-Rabinovich, Leningrad 1925: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 If now 4...c5 5.a3 Ba5 6.b4 cxb4 7.Nb5 Black gets into difficulties. After 5...cxd4 6.axb4 dxc3 7.bxc3 Qc7 Black wins a pawn, but White has rapid development in return. He continues with 8.Nf3, and is prepared to attack after 8...Qxc3+ 9.Bd2 Qc7 10.Bd3. And, finally, after 5...Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c4 White, who immediately takes the initiative by 7.Qg4, has the advantage. 4...f6 Therefore Black at once seizes the bull by the horns. 5.Nf3 c5 6.Bb5+ Kf8 Bold but logical. Black does not want to exchange the QB, which has to support the e-pawn. Moreover, he considers the white KB in danger. Already c5c4 threatens to gain that bishop. 7.dxc5 Qa5 8.Be2 fxe5 9.0–0

cuuuuuuuuC (rhbDwin4} 70pDwDw0p} 6wDwDpDwD} 51w)p0wDw} &wgwDwDwD} 3DwHwDNDw} 2P)PDB)P)} %$wGQDRIw} v,./9EFJMV The position is interesting. White has manifold threats, and Black would probably do better to capture the knight, than to guard the e-pawn. True, White could try to open the game, to begin with by c3-c4, and to assail the king. The struggle would be a hard one. 9...Nc6 White now gets his opening in a different manner. 10.Nxd5 exd5 11.c3 Bxc5 12.b4 Nxb4 13.cxb4 Bxb4 14.Rb1 Bf5 Black forces White to give up the exchange and White gladly allows this. But Black has a difficult task no matter how he may proceed. His central pawns are under fire and one of them must fall, except after e5-e4, whereupon White would post his knight strongly on d4. 15.Rxb4 Qxb4 16.Qxd5 Ne7 17.Qxe5 Qe4 18.Qb2

240

Sixth Book

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDwiw4} 70pDwhw0p} 6wDwDwDwD} 5DwDwDbDw} &wDwDqDwD} 3DwDwDNDw} 2P!wDB)P)} %DwGwDRIw} v,./9EFJMV In such an open position, the black king imperiled, with queens on the board, the exchange cannot be of much account. The black king needs three moves to achieve safety: h7h6, Kf8-g8-h7. In the meantime, White has targets to aim at: the queen, the knight and the bpawn for instance. White has a good development also, and his position contains no weaknesses. The sacrifices that White has made are justified by his position judgment. 18...Rc8 19.Bh6 Rg8 [If 19...gxh6 not 20.Qxh8+ immediately, but 20.Re1!, when if Black tries to save the rook by 20...Rg8, 21.Qf6+ Ke8 22.Bb5+ wins the queen. — ed.] 20.Qf6+ Ke8 21.Bb5+ Rc6 Black capitulates; the pressure exerted by the white pieces was too strong. 22.Bxg7 Bd7 23.Bxc6 Qxc6 24.Re1 Qc5 25.Bh6 Kd8 26.Bf8 1-0. White’s play demonstrates a high degree of ingenuity, vigor of invention, bold and sharp judgment.62

cuuuuuuuuC (wDw4wDkD} 7Dp1wDp0p} 6pDbDwgwD} 5DwDw0wDw} &wDwDPDwD} 3DwDwDNDw} 2P)QDw)P)} %Dw$BDwDK} v,./9EFJMV J. H. Morrison-W. H. Watts, Black to play

1...Qa5 Unpins the bishop, attacks the a-pawn, and aims at e1 — good work for one move. 2.Qc4? Much better was 2.a3. 2...Bg5?! 2...Rd4! was much stronger, e.g. 3.Qf1 Rxe4. 3.b4 Setting imagination against imagination. But the patient 3.Ra1 was sounder. 3...Bxc1 Black plays energetically and resourcefully. 4.bxa5 Rxd1+ 5.Ng1 Bf4! 6.g3?? A fatal error, making the king vulnerable to the Bc6 on the long diagonal. Correct was 6.Qc3, when neither player can upset the balance and the game should be a draw, e.g. 6...h6 7.f3 Rc1 8.Qd3 etc. After the text White is lost. 6...Re1 7.Qc3 Bd2! 8.Qb3 Bxe4+ 9.f3 Rb1 10.Qa3 Bb4 11.Qe3 Bc5 0-1.63 Torre-Grünfeld, Marienbad 1925: 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c6 3.Bf4 Nf6 4.e3 Qb6 5.Bd3 White sacrifices the b-pawn because he wins thereby three moves (Qd8-b6-b2-b6) where the black queen even then remains exposed. 5...Qxb2 6.Nbd2 Qb6 Black did right in accepting the sacrifice since White has taken an important diagonal with his KB and, unless the b-pawn is captured, would be able to institute an attack by means of the rejected pawn against the black c-pawn. 7.0-0 e6 8.e4 dxe4 If 8...Be7 White continues with 9.c4, in order to open the lines, not 9.e5, which furthers White’s ends only after Black has castled. 9.Nxe4 Nxe4 10.Bxe4 Nd7 11.Qe2 White unites the rooks but, as yet, in no way commits himself as to how he intends to use them. 12...Nf6 12.Bd3 Be7

cuuuuuuuuC (rDbDkDw4} 70pDwgp0p} 6w1pDphwD} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDw)wGwD} 3DwDBDNDw} 2PDPDQ)P)} %$wDwDRIw} v,./9EFJMV The position is fairly balanced. Black has advantage in material, White in position. 13.Be5 With this move White hampers the

241

Lasker’s Manual of Chess knight as long as the g-pawn is unguarded, and by attacking the protection of the h-pawn, he increases his pressure on that point. 13...0-0 But here Black goes astray. First 13...Qd8 since the queen is exposed. Castling could wait, because it indicates to White the direction in which he has to mass his pieces. 14.Ng5 This forces a weakening of Black’s phalanx of pawns. 14...g6 The lesser evil was 14...h6 15.Ne4 Nxe4 16.Qxe4 f5. The e-pawn would remain backward, but the king would be safe.

cuuuuuuuuC (rDbDw4kD} 70pDwgpDp} 6w1pDphpD} 5DwDwGwHw} &wDw)wDwD} 3DwDBDwDw} 2PDPDQ)P)} %$wDwDRIw} v,./9EFJMV 15.h4 Grünfeld himself, in the Italian publication Alfiere di Re, indicates the following subtle combination: 15.Qf3 Qd8 16.Qh3 h5 (if 16...Nh5 17.Nxh7 Re8 18.g4) 17.g4 Kg7 (if 17...Nxg4 18.Qxh5) 18.gxh5 Rh8. Here he goes no further, but Black seems lost after 19.h6+. At least, the pawn on h6 would gravely hamper Black. A perhaps even better alternative is 19.Qg3 Qe8 (if 19...Rxh5? 20.Nxf7 Kxf7 21.Bxg6+) 20.hxg6 fxg6 21.Rae1. However, Grünfeld’s analysis seems to be rendered moot if instead of 15...Qd8, Black replies to 15.Qf3 with 15...Nd7!, forcing some exchanges and clarification, since if 16.Bf4? Qxd4. White can settle for a draw with 16.Qh5 Bxg5 17.Qxg5 f6 18.Qh6 fxe5 19.Bxg6 hxg6 20.Qxg6+ Kh8 21.Qh6+ etc., or if he tries to pursue his attack by, say, 16.Rab1, Black’s resources are adequate, viz. 16...Qd8 17.Ne4 f5 18.Nd2 Bf6, or 16...Nxe5 17.dxe5 Qd4 18.Qg3 f5 19.exf6 Qxf6. 15...Qd8 The white h-pawn is no grave threat. If 16.h5, Black can now reply 16...Nxh5, because

17.Nxh7 Re8 leaves the white knight endangered. White must therefore collect new forces or discover new weaknesses. 16.Rab1 Mobilizes the rook against the b-pawn, as well as against the king via b3. But 16.Rfd1 was more pressing, because the d-pawn is endangered. 16...Nd7 Black drives back White’s advanced pieces. 17.Bf4 Bf6 18.Rfd1 And now 18.c3 was necessary. 18...Nb6 19.c4

cuuuuuuuuC (rDb1w4kD} 70pDwDpDp} 6whpDpgpD} 5DwDwDwHw} &wDP)wGw)} 3DwDBDwDw} 2PDwDQ)PD} %DRDRDwIw} v,./9EFJMV To prevent 19...Nd5, but the move is overbold. What harm would 19...Bxd4! have done to Black? After 20.Nf3 Bg7 White would have had no equivalent for the two pawns. 19...Bd7 Black does not judge right. He probably thought that a peaceful continuation would best preserve his advantage, but this is not so. 20.Rb3 Rc8 21.Be4 White has discovered Black’s weak spot: the b-pawn. That point plays a part in all the following combinations. Now 22.c5 is threatened. 21...h6 22.Nf3 Bg7 23.Bd6 f5 24.Bc2 At last the danger of c4-c5 is allayed, since after Nb6-d5 the knight would threaten to gain the exchange. 24...Rf7 25.Ne5 Bxe5 26.Bxe5 Kh7 27.Rg3 Qe7 If 27...Qxh4 28.Rh3 and the black h-pawn is very weak. 28.Rb1 A strong alternative here was 28.h5!? g5 29.a4 c5 (if 29...a5? 30.Rb1) 30.a5 Na8 31.Re3 Qf8 32.d5. 28...c5 Again the b-pawn was in peril. 29.Bd3 Bc6 This bishop belongs at c8 to support both b- and e-pawn. Torre shows that the bishop is unstable on c6. Grünfeld proposes 29...Rg8 instead and is certainly right. But he is wrong in believing that thereby he would have had the advantage. If 30.h5 g5 31.Qe3. This forces 31...Rc8 32.f4 or 31...cxd4

242

Sixth Book 32.Bxd4. Now 32...Bc6 33.Re1 would weaken the e-pawn too much. Hence, White regains a pawn whenever he feels disposed to do so and keeps the upper hand.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDrDwDwD} 70pDw1rDk} 6whbDpDp0} 5Dw0wGpDw} &wDP)wDw)} 3DwDBDw$w} 2PDwDQ)PD} %DRDwDwIw} v,./9EFJMV 30.d5 The black e-pawn has the function of guarding the f-pawn. This, fundamentally, is the idea behind the combination. 30...exd5 This is ill-advised. In any case 30...Bd7 was obligatory. If then 31.h5 g5 32.dxe6 Qxe6 33.Re3 it would still have been a fight, whereas now Black lays himself open. 31.Rxg6 Rg8 After 31...Kxg6? 32.Qg4+ Kh7 33.Bxf5+ Rxf5 34.Qxf5+ Kg8 35.Qg6+ Kf8 White wins by 36.Bd6. 32.Rxg8 Kxg8 33.Bxf5 Rxf5 After 33...Nxc4 34.Qg4+ Kf8 35.Bf4 Qf6 36.Re1, White threatens 37.Re6. 34.Qg4+ Rg5 35.hxg5 Qxe5 36.gxh6+ Kh7 Black’s defensive task is extremely difficult, because his king cannot find safety. 37.Rb3 Bd7 38.Qh4 Qe1+ 39.Kh2

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 70pDbDwDk} 6whwDwDw)} 5Dw0pDwDw} &wDPDwDw!} 3DRDwDwDw} 2PDwDw)PI} %DwDw1wDw} v,./9EFJMV 39...Qe4?! Correct was 39...Qe6!, when many replies allow Black to force a draw, e.g. 40.Qd8

Qxh6+ 41.Kg1 Qc1+ 42.Kh2 Qh6+ etc. About the only reasonable draw-avoiding lines are 40.cxd5 Qxh6, or perhaps 40.Re3 Qxh6 41.Re7+ Kg6 42.Qxh6+ Kxh6, leading to an exchange of queens and a very difficult, highly imbalanced endgame, in which Black still has no easy time of it, but his chances would be much better than with queens on the board. The text, by failing to attack the h-pawn, allows White more freedom. 40.Qf6 Qg6 41.Qe7+ Kh8 Or 41...Kxh6 42.Rf3i. 42.Qf8+ Kh7 43.Qe7+ Kh8 44.Re3 Qxh6+ 45.Kg1 The rook guards c1 by obstruction. 45...Qg7 46.Qd8+ Qg8 47.Qf6+ Qg7 48.Qf4 Bg4 [If 48...Qa1+ 49.Kh2 Qg7 50.Re5! Qh7+ 51.Kg3i. — ed.] 49.Rg3 Nxc4 50.Rxg4 and White won with ease.64 Rubinstein-Chwojnik, Lodz 1927: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 White immediately constructs a phalanx, to reply to c7-c5 with d4-d5 or — at will — with a developing move. 2…e6 3.Nc3 This holds the balance on the point e4. 3...Bb4 4.Qc2 The merit of this move is that e4 is kept under observation and that in case the knight is captured the queen may recapture. A doubled pawn would lower the mobility of the position and thus make it more difficult for White to drive an advantage home. On the other hand, a valuable opportunity for development is thereby sacrificed, so that 4.Nf3 would after all be slightly preferable. Another possibility 4.Bg5 h6 5.Bxf6 Qxf6 6.Nf3, whereby White permits Black the bishop pair but obtains the superiority in the center and in development. 4...b6 An attempt to get possession of e4, but the development of the queen knight, commenced by 4...d6, was perhaps the more pressing business. Also 4...c5 is strong here. The objection to it is 5.dxc5, which allows White to place a rook on the d-file and to restrain the black d-pawn which is thus kept back for a while. 5.e4 The pawn fights immediately. 5...Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 White has the doubled pawn and, in compensation for it, much space and good development. The advantage is probably White’s. Black would probably have done better with 5...Nc6 6.Nf3 d6 7.Bd3 e5 or 6.e5 Ng8 7.Nf3 d6.

243

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1kDw4} 70w0pDp0p} 6w0wDphwD} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDP)PDwD} 3Dw)wDwDw} 2PDQDw)P)} %$wGwIBHR} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wDk4wDw4} 70b0n1w0p} 6w0w0whwD} 5DwDw0wHw} &wDP)w)wD} 3Dw)BDwDw} 2PDQDwDP)} %$wGw$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

6...d6 7.f4 Bb7 8.e5 Ne4 An insecure post for the knight, hence 8...Nfd7 was superior. White would then have continued with Ng1-e2-g3 and taken command of e4. 9.Nf3 f5 To support the knight, but it opens the lines for the intervention of bishops and rooks.10.exf6 Nxf6 11.Ng5 Qe7 12.Bd3 Nbd7 13.0-0 0-0-0 14.Re1 e5 The pawn cannot be kept on e6, for instance 14...Nf8 15.Nxe6! Nxe6 16.Rxe6. But to keep the lines closed as far as possible, the sacrifice of the pawn might have been advisable.

15.Bf5 Kb8 16.Ba3 A hard problem set to Black! If 16...c5 17.Ne6, whereupon White may open the lines against the black king by 18.fxe5 dxe5 19.dxe5. 16...g6 This threat is ineffectual. 17.dxe5 gxf5 18.exd6 The game cannot be saved. If 18...Qg7 19.dxc7+ Kxc7 20.Ne6+. 18...Qxe1+ 19.Rxe1 cxd6 20.Bxd6+ Ka8 21.Qxf5 1-0 Capablanca-Alekhine, the twenty-first game of the match for the Championship of the World, Buenos Aires, 1927: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Nbd7 5.e3 Be7 6.Nf3 0–0 7.Rc1 a6

cuuuuuuuuC (rDb1w4kD} 7Dp0ngp0p} 6pDwDphwD} 5DwDpDwGw} &wDP)wDwD} 3DwHw)NDw} 2P)wDw)P)} %Dw$QIBDR} v,./9EFJMV

Lasker, toward the end of his life.

Black intends 8...dxc4 followed by 9...b5. If 8.c5? Ne4 would transfer the initiative to Black. White might safely proceed with 8.cxd5 exd5 9.Bd3. 8.a3 But White prefers to allow Black the advance on the queenside which yields White compensating advantages in the center. 8...h6 Black is strong enough on the kingside to permit himself this weakening advance. He thereby 244

Sixth Book posts the h-pawn, which was easily assailable by Bd3, on a secure point. 9.Bh4 dxc4 10.Bxc4 b5 11.Be2 The idea of this retreat is to oppose with his bishop on f3 the black bishop on b7, but 11.Ba2 made the bishop more immediately effective. 11...Bb7 Black permits b2-b4 which, though assailable by a6-a5, would on the whole be advantageous to White. The more direct procedure was 11...c5. 12.0–0 c5 13.dxc5 Nxc5 14.Nd4 Rc8 15.b4 Now his advance has little effect. 15.Bf3 was suggested, so as to weaken the point c6 15...Ncd7 16.Bg3 White is rather passive. 16...Nb6 The knight aims at c4. 17.Qb3 Nfd5 18.Bf3 Rc4 Preparing for ...Qa8 and ...Rfc8. 119.Ne4 Qc8 If 19...Qa8 20.Nd6. 20.Rxc4 Nxc4 21.Rc1 Qa8 22.Nc3 Again rather passive. White should have played 22.Nc5. If then 22...Bxc5 23.bxc5 Rc8 24.Be2, he could still have made an aggressive fight. 22...Rc8 23.Nxd5 Bxd5 24.Bxd5 Qxd5

cuuuuuuuuC (wDrDwDkD} 7DwDwgp0w} 6pDwDpDw0} 5DpDqDwDw} &w)nHwDwD} 3)QDw)wGw} 2wDwDw)P)} %Dw$wDwIw} v,./9EFJMV White is now wholly on the defensive. The white bishop has no targets, the black bishop has many. 25.a4 White wants to weaken the black b-pawn, but his plan presupposes that the white knight is stable, whereas it is unstable. The effect of the move is therefore to weaken the white b-pawn and to leave the black b-pawn strong. This would have been made sufficiently manifest by 25...e5 26.Nf5 Bf8. The better plan was 25.f3. 25...Bf6 Stronger still than the above purely positional continuation. 26.Nf3 White should first of all exchange the pawns. After 26.axb5 Bxd4 27.exd4 axb5 28.Rd1 Nb6 29.Qxd5 Nxd5 30.Bd6 Rc4 31.h3, a patient defense might still have led to a draw. 26...Bb2!

cuuuuuuuuC (wDrDwDkD} 7DwDwDp0w} 6pDwDpDw0} 5DpDqDwDw} &P)nDwDwD} 3DQDw)NGw} 2wgwDw)P)} %Dw$wDwIw} v,./9EFJMV Black wants to push e6-e5 without obstructing his bishop. White cannot reply 27.Rd1 due to 27...Nxe3 which would allow Black a pawn plus and a winning ending. But this is not the finesse of the move. The extraordinary depth of it is revealed by the combination 27.Rb1 Na3!. The tension between the white a-pawn and the black b-pawn, and the omission of h2-h3, which puts on the white rook the burden of guarding the mate threatened by Black’s rook or queen, give Alekhine the opportunity for an exceedingly pretty sacrifice. The sequence would be 28.Qxb2 Nxb1 29.Qxb1 Qb3 30.Qf1 bxa4 31.h3 Qc4! (clearer and simpler than 31...a3 32.Kh2 when the win is harder) 32.Be5 a3 33.Bd4 (or if 33.Qa1 Qc1+ 34.Kh2 Qxa1 35.Bxa1 Rc1 36.Bd4 a2o) 33...Qxf1+ 34.Kxf1 Rc1+ 35.Ke2 a2o. By his masterly synthesis of combinative and positional play Black has obtained an advantage that suffices to force the win. 27.Re1 Rd8 28.axb5 axb5 29.h3 e5 The white knight is now driven from the center and White loses his hold on it. 30.Rb1 e4

245

cuuuuuuuuC (wDw4wDkD} 7DwDwDp0w} 6wDwDwDw0} 5DpDqDwDw} &w)nDpDwD} 3DQDw)NGP} 2wgwDw)PD} %DRDwDwIw} v,./9EFJMV

Lasker’s Manual of Chess 31.Nd4 Desperation or miscalculation, but the game was gone in any event, because Black’s command of the d-file, the strong position of the black knight, and the forced retreat of the knight to the side, are handicaps too heavy to overcome. 31...Bxd4 32.Rd1 Nxe3 0-1.65

cuuuuuuuuC (wDrDw4wD} 70pDb1piw} 6whwDwhp0} 5DwDw0wDw} &wDwDPDwD} 3)wDwDNHP} 2B)w!w)PD} %Dw$wDRIw} v,./9EFJMV Alekhine-Capablanca, last match game, Black to play. The question refers only to the next move of Black. White threatens 1.Qa5 which would simultaneously attack the a- and e-pawns. The dangers lurking if Black becomes too aggressive are evident in the line 1...Bc6 2.Nh4 Bxe4 (not 2...Nxe4?? 3.Nhf5+ gxf5 4.Nxf5+ Kf6 (or 4...Kg8 5.Nxe7+) 5.Qxh6+ Kxf5 6.g4#) 3.Qe2 Rxc1 4.Rxc1 Rd8 5.Nxe4 Nxe4 6.Qxe4 Rd4 7.Nxg6! fxg6 8.Qe3 Rd7 9.Re1 and White is up a pawn.

The move Capablanca made, 1...Be6, loses a pawn by 2.Bxe6 Qxe6 3.Qa5. The right move is 1...Na4. If then 2.Qa5 b5. Black has a fair position since it is not easy to guard the white b-pawn. 3.Qxa7 Nxb2 4.Qe3 would produce an even game, and 4.Rb1 Ra8 5.Qc7 Nd3 would be favorable to Black. Even after Black’s best move, 1...Na4, White has the choice between various continuations that exert pressure on Black, for instance 2.b4 b5 3.Rxc8 Rxc8 4.Rc1 with manifold threats, but by 4...Rxc1+ 5.Qxc1 Ne8, Black could parry them.66 Euwe-Bogolyubov, 4th match game, 1928: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d5 This is venturesome, because Black opens lines at a moment when his development is backwards. 3.cxd5 Qxd5 4.Nc3 Qa5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.e3 But here 6 6.Bd2 was preferable, because after 6...e5 7.e4, White would threaten 8.Nd5. 6...e5 Now Black is able to hold the balance in the center. 7.d5 There was no need for this. 7.Bb5 Bb4 8.Bd2 was preferable. [Or 8.Bxc6+ bxc6 9.Nxe5 — ed.] 7...Nb4 8.Bb5+ c6 9.Qa4 In a critical position, the saving move. It would have been bad play to capture the pawn, because by recapturing with the pawn Black would develop his bishop via a6, viz. 9.dxc6 bxc6 10.Qa4 Qxa4 11.Bxa4 e4 12.Ne5 Ba6. 9...Qxa4 10.Bxa4 b5 11.Bb3 Nd3+ Black now resolutely assails the king. 12.Ke2 e4 13.Ng5 b4 14.Ncxe4 Ba6

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDkgw4} 70wDwDp0p} 6bDpDwhwD} 5DwDPDwHw} &w0wDNDwD} 3DBDn)wDw} 2P)wDK)P)} %$wGwDwDR} v,./9EFJMV

1...Bb5 is perhaps barely playable. 2.Nh4, threatening 3.Nhf5+, forces the bishop back immediately, 3...B7. Then if 3.Qa5 not 3...Na4? 4.Qxa4, nor 3...Nxe4? 4.Nxe4 Qxh4?? 5.Qxe5+, but 3...Rxc1 4.Rxc1 Nc8 5.Nf3 Re8 and both pawns are defended. Black is forced to be largely passive, but may have enough resources to hold, e.g., 6.Rc7 Nd6 and if 7.Qxa7? Nb5. 1...Rfe8 2.Qa5 Rxc1 transposes to the above line. Black should avoid 2...Na4? which loses a pawn after 3.Rxc8 Rxc8 4.Qxe5 Qxe5 5.Nxe5 Be6 6.Bxe6 fxe6 7.b3.

A position full of tension. 15.Kf3 cxd5 Black could have had a safe advantage by 15...Nxd5,

246

Sixth Book but he aims at decisive attack against the king. 16.Ba4+ White does not take full advantage of his chances. He should have set boldness against boldness: 16.Nxf6+ gxf6 17.Nxf7 Rg8 18.Bxd5 Rc8. At this juncture 19.Nd6+ would have been too hazardous, but 19.e4 would have consolidated the position somewhat, for instance 19...Rc2 20.Be3 Rg7 21.Bb3.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDkgwD} 70wDwDN4p} 6bDwDw0wD} 5DwDwDwDw} &w0wDPDwD} 3DBDnGKDw} 2P)rDw)P)} %$wDwDwDR} v,./9EFJMV

but Black has the “embarras de richesse.” 24.Nxg5 Ne4 25.Nxe4 dxe4 26.Rf1 Rag8+ 27.Kh1 Rh3 28.Bd2 Rgh8 and after a dozen moves White resigned. A game replete with imagination. These examples and models will suffice, if the reader will read attentively, probe deliberately and probe again and apply what he has read, until at last it becomes his property. Practice is varied; let what is kept in your mind be wholesome, clean, lightweight, and, above all, systematic. Final Reflections on Education in Chess

To judge the numerous possibilities of this position would be dogmatism, but the difficulties would have been on either side of the board, whereas the line of play chosen by White leaves all the burden on himself. 16...Ke7 17.Nd2 h6 18.Nh3 g5 19.g4 h5 20.Nxg5 hxg4+ 21.Kg2 Bh6 22.f4 gxf3+ 23.Ndxf3 Bxg5 This is the simplest way of winning,

Education in chess goes on in a most haphazard fashion. Most chess players slowly climb to a certain rather low level and stay there. Of players to whom a master can give odds of a queen there are millions; players of greater skill number probably no more than a quarter of a million. If we reckon the number of rook players as a hundred and fifty thousand, of knight players as fifty thousand, of pawn and two-move players as forty thousand, of pawn and move players as nine thousand, and the number of those to whom no master can allow odds, as one thousand, we are possibly not very far wrong. [The reader should keep in mind that Lasker was writing this around 1932; today’s numbers would be substantially greater, though the relative proportions probably similar. — ed.] Now let us consider the efforts made to attain this result:

Amazing Superiority: Lasker died in New York City in 1941. In terms of won/lost percentage in serious games against major opponents, his superiority was perhaps the most marked of any World Champion. Over his full career, he scored 70% vs. Steinitz, vs. Blackburne 76%, Chigorin 77%, Gunsberg 90%, Tarrasch 71%, Janowski 79%, Maróczy 83%, Marshall 70%, Rubinstein 57%, Tartakower 75%, Bogolyubov 71%, Réti 88%, Alekhine 63%, Euwe 100%. Of those he played more than five times, he failed to have a plus score against only Pillsbury (50%) and Capablanca (42%).

247

Lasker’s Manual of Chess a literature of many thousand volumes, hundreds, maybe thousands, of chess columns in widely read newspapers and magazines, lectures, tournaments, tournament books, courses of instruction, matches in the clubs and between clubs and cities and countries, by correspondence, by telegraph and telephone, thousands of coffeehouses, where spectators, amid lively gossip, look on, make notes, analyze — truly an imposing expenditure. One should not take these facts too easily. Certainly, in spite of its capacities, chess is only a game and not to be classed with business, science, technology, not to speak of religion, philosophy or the arts. No one desires to see players devote to chess such time as they need for serious purposes. The waste of time in chess would not matter, were it not a symptom of a sickness that has befallen our culture. We have learnt how to organize manufacturing plants, but our general education, our mental work, our economy of ideals are not better than our education in chess. I will here not wail. I will only illuminate a connection, even though rapidly. Chess, from its very inception, has had coherence with life. Let us assume that a master who follows a good method, say, the method of this book, strives to educate a young man ignorant of chess to the level of one who, if conceded any odds, would surely come out the winner. How much time would the teacher need for this achievement? I think that I am correct in making the following calculation: Rules of Play and Exercises: Elementary Endings: Some Openings: Combination: Position Play: Play and Analysis:

5 hrs. 5 hrs. 10 hrs. 20 hrs. 40 hrs. 120 hrs.

Even if the young man has no talent at all, by following the above course he would advance to the class specified. Compare with this possibility, the reality. In fact, there are a quarter of a million chess amateurs who devote to chess at least two

hundred hours every year and of these only a thousand, after a lifetime of study, attain the end. Without losing myself in calculations, I believe I am safe in voicing the opinion that our efforts in chess attain only a hundredth of one per cent of their rightful result. Our education, in all domains of endeavor, is frightfully wasteful of time and values. In mathematics and in physics the results arrived at are still worse than in chess. Is there a tendency to keep the bulk of the people stupid? For governments of an autocratic type the foolishness of the multitude has always been an asset. Possibly, also the mediocre who happen to be in authority follow the same policy. This motif, it is true, is not predominant in chess. The bad state of education in chess is due entirely to our backwardness. Education in chess has to be an education in independent thinking and judging. Chess must not be memorized, simply because it is not important enough. If you load your memory, you should know why. Memory is too valuable to be stocked with trifles. Of my fifty-seven years I have applied at least thirty to forgetting most of what I had learned or read, and since I succeeded in this I have acquired a certain ease and cheer which I should never again like to be without. If need be, I can increase my skill in chess, if need be I can do that of which I have no idea at present. I have stored little in my memory, but I can apply that little, and it is of good use in many and varied emergencies. I keep it in order, but resist every attempt to increase its dead weight. You should keep in mind no names, nor numbers, nor isolated incidents, not even results, but only methods. The method is plastic. It is applicable in every situation. The result, the isolated incident, is rigid, because bound to wholly individual conditions. The method produces numerous results; a few of these will remain in our memory, and as long as they remain few, they are useful to illustrate and to keep alive the rules which order a thousand results. Such useful results must be renewed from time to time just as fresh food has to be supplied to a living organism to keep it strong and healthy. But results useful in this manner have a living connection

248

Sixth Book with rules, and these again are discovered by applying a live method: the whole of this organization must have life. More than that — a harmonious life. This harmonious life stems from life; life is generated only by life. He who wants to educate himself in chess must evade what is dead in chess — artificial theories, supported by few instances and upheld by an excess of human wit; the habit of playing with inferior opponents; the custom of avoiding difficult tasks; the weakness of uncritically taking over variations or rules discovered by others; the vanity which is selfsufficient; the incapacity for admitting mistakes; in brief, everything that leads to a standstill or to anarchy. Acquisition of harmonious education is comparable to the production and the elevation of an organism harmoniously built. The one is fed by blood, the other one by the spirit; but life, equally mysterious, creative, powerful, flows through either. This comparison is no mere rhetorical imagery; it is a program. True, this program, valid for all education, is in no way restricted to chess; only a second postulate added to the above singles out chess among all other things to be taught. It is this: to lead the pupil along the paths of the theory of Steinitz.

road for it leads to a country of men who judge independently, act boldly and aspire after noble ideals. How should these teachers follow their avocation? In introducing young men to the game in the right manner by lectures, good books, by live play with their pupils, by assisting at matches of the pupils and making notes and comments on the good and weak points of the games played; in short, by thus facilitating the thinking of their pupil without doing violence to it. The ways in which a good teacher may do efficient work are manifold and varied. The chess world has the task of breeding such teachers and, as soon as this is accomplished, to support them in their efforts. Thus the chess world would ease the hard life of the chess masters who must make a profession of chess provided they want to do their best for chess. But who wants to stop halfway? Who would want these chess masters who have the capacity for excellent teaching in them to become mediocre in chess only in order to make them mediocre in some other profession? The function of a chess master, who would be principally a chess teacher, is useful and pleasing. It is to the individual credit of chess that in other domains of human activity, at least up to the present, teachers of the above type are not even possible. On the Future of the Theory of Steinitz

This theory has a history which the pupil should strive to understand because it lifts the veil a little from the mystery of human character; this theory has a meaning which became manifest after a hard contest with competing theories and won authority through a celebrated world’s championship match; this theory has connections with profound problems; this theory asks the pupil to think for himself and to construct his own table of values and to keep it constantly, vigilantly, in order; this theory demands of him boldness and caution and force and economy and thus becomes to him a model for actions outside of chess. The road to this education requires good teachers — masters of chess who at the same time are geniuses of teaching. But it pays to go along this

It is easy to mold the theory of Steinitz into mathematical symbols by inventing a kind of chess, the rules and regulations of which are themselves expressed by mathematical symbols. The Japanese game of Go is very nearly what I mean. In such a game the question, whether thorough analysis would confirm the theory of Steinitz or not, presumably could be quickly solved because the power of modern mathematics is exceedingly great. The instant that this solution is worked out, humanity stands before the gate of an immense new science which prophetic philosophers have called the mathematics or the physics of contest. The contests fought nowadays by men — war, diplomatic negotiation, competition in

249

Lasker’s Manual of Chess manufacture, disputes in the press, to name just a few — are conducted very amateurishly. That wars should appear to us a necessity is proof of our stupidity. True, humanity has need of a test for progress, for right, for soundness of ethics in human affairs, but that need can be satisfied in other and more efficient ways than by war. To make this evident is difficult only because men do not want to know the truth. But this task will be an easy one as soon as the science of contest attains recognition. To outlaw war will be possible because humanity has a wealth of efficient and useful means to fill the gap that would be left. The competition between research workers, inventors, discoverers, artists, statesmen causes the flow of blood in the body of culture. And this competition will retain its vigor till many centuries after the time that Victor Hugo pictures, when cannons will have been stored in museums alongside of the instruments of torture to serve as memorials of a vanished barbaric epoch. The mathematics of chess does not, it is true, solve the problem of comprehending the contests of life, but it sets that problem in precise terms and points to a solution. There the leverage will be supported whence investigators will set scientific research into motion. The first step is always the essential one. With the law of the lever by Archimedes came statics, with the law of the

falling stone by Galileo arose dynamics, and their course, though their entry into the world was so modest, led them to revolutionize all science and all modes of living irrespective of the obstacles that hatred and stupidity heaped into their path. The science of contest will progress irresistibly, as soon as its first modest success has been scored. It is desirable that institutes to further these ends should be erected. Such institutes would have to work upon a mass of material already extant: theory of mathematical games, of organization, of the conduct of business, of dispute, of negotiation; they would have to breed teachers capable of elevating the multitude from its terrible dilettantism in matters of contest; they would have to produce books of instruction and for reading as plain, as intelligible, as valuable as Knigge’s Social Intercourse Amongst Mankind (Umgang mit Menschen) or Labruyère’s Characters. Such an institute should be founded by every people who want to make themselves fit for a sturdier future and at the same time to aid the progress and the happiness of all humankind. These plans are not at all fantastic; they will certainly be realized at some time. Why not now? Let us hope that also in these days of all round mediocrity reason is not wholly without partisans.

250

Analytical Endnotes

Analytical Endnotes by Taylor Kingston As I did for Russell Enterprises’ edition of Lasker’s Common Sense in Chess, I played through all of this book’s games, game fragments, problems, and studies, and Lasker’s accompanying analysis, with the computer program Fritz8 in “infinite analysis” mode. This was the easiest way to translate descriptive notation into algebraic, to prevent incorrect moves, and to generate diagrams. But as with Common Sense, this process also turned up a number of analytical errors, both of omission and commission. Some were relatively minor, as when Lasker gave a good move but missed a better one, or a bad move was even worse than Lasker realized. Some, however, were more serious: instances were Lasker called a good move bad or a bad move good, where he overlooked a strong move that would change the complexion of a game, or where he misevaluated a position. All told, about sixty instances I considered significant were found. As with Common Sense, three questions then arose: (1) Should the errors be pointed out? (2) If so, in what way? (3) How could a World Champion make that many mistakes? To question (1), I think Lasker himself would have been the first to say yes; his objectivity and lack of egotism on such matters are well known. And he certainly would agree that an author and publisher have an obligation not to mislead their readers, no matter how inadvertently. And considering the harsh words Lasker has for others’ faulty analysis — for example calling Schallop’s notes to the sixth game of Steinitz-Zukertort 1886 “shocking,” a “scandal” and “negligence that … is downright immoral” — no objection can be raised if Lasker himself is subjected to similar scrutiny. I dealt with question (2) differently here than in Common Sense. That book being based on a lecture series, and being more concerned with gen-

eral principles than analytical specifics, it would have been a disservice to disrupt its flow of ideas with interruptions and revisions in mid-course. So its original prose was left almost completely intact, and the errors pointed out solely in the endnotes. The Manual is quite different, involving much more extensive and specific analysis, including instances where a note at, say, move 20, is related to a later variation at move 26, and the validity both of the later note, and of any commentary in between, depends on the validity of the earlier note. Thus if the first note was wrong, all that follows from it could be wrong as well, giving a misleading impression of the game as a whole. Therefore, I usually chose to revise such analysis in situ, rewriting notes in the main text of the book, deleting erroneous notes, and adding new comments where something important had been omitted, rather than leave everything to the endnotes. In such cases, the endnote gives what Lasker originally wrote, and the reasons it was changed. The main exception to this is Berthold Lasker’s analysis of the French Defense. This, unfortunately, is not the masterpiece his brother Emanuel thought, and correction required either major rewriting, or removing it entirely. The publisher and I felt either was too radical a solution. Therefore its text was left as is, but the analysis is critiqued at length here. Purists may object to any revisions of the great man’s original prose. While I am second to none in acknowledging Lasker’s greatness, I feel he would have preferred revision to error. In any event I tried to do textual changes sparingly, and in keeping with Lasker’s style. As to question (3), how could Lasker, Champion of the World for 27 years, have made such mistakes, several things come to mind. One, Lasker actually improved greatly compared to Common Sense, which was written about 30

251

Lasker’s Manual of Chess years earlier. There I found nearly forty errors in a work of just over 100 pages, whereas the Manual, a book over 300% bigger, needed only about 50% more corrections. The Manual’s error rate is therefore less than half that of Common Sense.

approaches it with the skeptical attitude Lasker himself always took at the chess board.

Two, some of the mistakes are in the realm of opening theory, which has developed far beyond what it was in the 1920s. Lasker cannot be held accountable for a key improvement found decades after his death.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdwdw4} 70p0wdkgw} 6wdndNdRd} 5Dwdqdwdp} &wdp0wdPd} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)Pdw)w)} %$wGQdwIw} v,./9EFJMV

And now the endnotes: 1. Instead of 18…Rh7, Lasker originally gave 18...Kf7 here,

Three, several mistakes are clearly mere typographical errors, perhaps the fault of a typesetter rather than Lasker himself. Four, some errors become apparent only ten or more moves deep into the analysis. With a good computer program in the hands of a reasonably competent human player (a distinction I hesitate to claim, but perhaps my USCF Postal Master title qualifies me as such), such analytical depth is not too difficult, especially when one has unlimited time. For an unaided human player, even a world champion, it is hard to attain such depth with any confidence or consistency, especially with a publisher’s deadline looming. Five, in a work involving several thousand moves, a mere sixty-something errors is quite a good batting average for a human being. Compare, for example, the many errors in Fine’s Basic Chess Endings. I dare say that if all comparable chess books written in pre-computer days were checked the way I have checked the Manual, Lasker’s rate of error would be among the lowest.

but deeper analysis shows that actually would lose: 19.Rxg7+! Kxe6 20.Qe2+ Ne5 If 20...Qe5 21.Qxc4+ Kd6 22.Rg5 Qe6 23.Bf4+ Kd7 24.Rg7+ Ne7 25.Qxd4+ Kc8 (or 25...Ke8 26.Rxe7+ Kxe7 27.Qg7+ Qf7 28.Re1+ and mate soon.) 26.Rxe7 Qxe7 27.Qxh8+ with an easy win. 21.Bf4 d3 If 21...Rae8 22.Bxe5 Qxe5 23.Qxc4+ Qd5 (or 23...Kd6 24.Qxc7+ Kd5 25.Qxb7+ Kc4 26.Qc6+ Qc5 27.b3+ Kb4 28.Rb7+ Kc3 29.Qxc5+ forcing mate.) 24.Rg6+ Ke5 25.Qxc7+ and mate swiftly. 22.cxd3 cxd3 23.Qe3 Qd4 24.Re1 Qxe3 25.Rxe3 d2 26.Rxe5+ Kf6 27.Rd7 and with the smoke clearing White is a piece up. Therefore our change to 18…Rh7. 2. The original line was “10.Qe3 Qg5 and White has had his trouble for next to nothing,” (D)

Six — and here admittedly I am guessing, though not without basis — it is quite possible that Lasker left some errors in deliberately, to reward the student who investigates for himself. We recommend that the reader take such an approach. Who knows, you may be able to correct some of these endnotes.

Instead of 10...Qg5, Black can put White in great trouble with 10...Bc5! 11.Qxd3 If 11.Nxe4 Qh4+ 12.g3 Bxe3 13.gxh4 Bxc1 14.Nbd2 Bxb2 15.Rb1 dxe4 16.Rxb2 e3. 11...Qh4+ 12.g3 Nxg3 13.hxg3 Qxh1 winning. Therefore we replaced 10.Qe3?? with 10.Nxe4.

Errors notwithstanding, Lasker’s Manual of Chess remains an instructional classic — but its instructional value will be increased if the reader

3. Objectively, this line is probably not sound, but in practical play it may have considerable surprise value, especially at quick time limits.

252

Analytical Endnotes

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1kgw4} 70p0wdw0p} 6wdndw1wd} 5Dwdpdwdw} &wdwdndwd} 3dw)p!Pdw} 2P)wHwdP)} %$NGwIBdR} v,./9EFJMV

wins: 7.Kf2! Qh6 If 7...Bc5+ 8.d4 Bg4 9.Qd3, or 7...Bg4 8.gxh4 Bxd1 9.Bxb7. 8.Nxh3 Qxh3 9.Bxb7 with a telling material advantage. 6. This line may be even less strong for White than Lasker indicates. An alternative for Black in this position,

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdkdw4} 70p0w)p0p} 6wgwdwdwd} 5DwdqdwHw} &wdn)wdwd} 3dwHwdwdw} 2PGwdw)P)} %$wdQdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

4. Lasker’s original line ran 13...Nh5 14.Qh4 Bxg5 15.Qxh5 h6, but White can improve by

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1rdkd} 70wdwgp0p} 6wdpdwdwd} 5DwdpdwGn} &wdwdwdwd} 3dwHBdw!w} 2P)Pdw)P)} %$wdw$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

is to win the exchange by 14...Qxg5 15.Qa4+ c6 16.Qxc4 Bh3 17.g3 Bxf1. 7. Even stronger here

cuuuuuuuuC (rdb1wdri} 70pdwdp0p} 6wdp0whwd} 5DwdN0wGw} &wdwdPdwd} 3dwdPdbdP} 2P)P!w)wI} %$wdwdw$w} v,./9EFJMV

14.Bxe7! Rxe7 (14...Nxg3?? 15.Bxd8 loses a piece) 15.Qh4 Nf6 Forced, now or next move: if 15...Rxe1+ 16.Rxe1 Nf6 (not 16...Qxh4?? 17.Re8#) 17.Bxh7+ etc. 16.Bxh7+ Kf8 17.Bd3, with considerable advantage. 5. We have here omitted a note after Black’s 5th move, which said

cuuuuuuuuC (rhbdkgn4} 70p0wdpdp} 6wdwdwdwd} 5DwdBdw0w} &wdwdP0w1} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)P)wdP)} %$NGQdKHR} v,./9EFJMV

than Lasker’s 16.Nxf6, is 16.Bxf6 gxf6 17.Rxg8+ Qxg8 (17...Kxg8?? 18.Qh6) 18.Rg1 and Black must at least lose his queen for the rook and knight, e.g. 18...Qf8 19.Nxf6 to be followed by Rg8+, since if 19...Qe7 20.Qh6 and mate. 8. An interesting line Lasker does not mention occurs here, (D)

“Now the advance 6.g3 is answered by 6...Bh3+” because in that case White actually

where instead of 21...Be6, 21...Ne6! will either lead to a draw by repetition, e.g., 22.Re8 Nc7 23.Rf8 Ne6 24.Rf7 Nh6 25.Re7

253

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdw$ni} 70phwdw0p} 6wdwdwdwd} 5Dwdp)w0w} &wdwdwdwd} 3dB)PdNdw} 2PdPdwdP)} %dwdwdwIw} v,./9EFJMV

10. From the above diagram, the original text here gave 16.Nd2 as the saving move, but that would fail to 16...Nd3 17.Re2 Nxb2 etc. Our recommendation 16.Bc2 prevents the knight’s incursion. 11. The original recommendation here

cuuuuuuuuC (wdw4w4kd} 7dwdwdw0p} 6pbwdw)wd} 5Dpdwdwdw} &wdp)RdP1} 3dwdwdwdw} 2P)wdwdPd} %$NGQdwIw} v,./9EFJMV

Ng8 etc., or force White to try 22.Nxg5!? Nxg5 23.Bxd5 Be6 24.Rxa8 Bxd5 25.Rxa7, when the win, if any, is much harder to achieve than in the ending actually reached. 9. In his analysis of the Four Knights’ Game, Lasker originally insisted at this point

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdwdkd} 70w0wdw0p} 6wdp1whwd} 5Dwdw4wdw} &wdwdPGwd} 3dw)wdQdw} 2PdPdw)P)} %$wdwdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

12. The original text said “after White plays BR3,” i.e., Ba3 or Bh3, but these are impossible and clearly Bh6 was intended.

that 13.Rfd1 (instead of 13.Rad1) was a mistake, giving 13...Bg4 14.Qg3 Bxd1 15.Bxe5 Qd2 and wins. However, 14.Qg3 is not forced, and White can instead reach the same drawn position as mentioned in the note to White’s 14th move by 14.Rxd6 Bxf3 15.Rxf6 gxf6 16.Bxe5 fxe5 17.gxf3.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdw1w4kd} 7dwdwdp0p} 6pdwgbdwd} 5Dphpdwdw} &wdwGwdwd} 3dB)wdPdw} 2P)wdwdP)} %$NdQ$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

was 23...Rfe8, but that would allow White to force a draw by 24.Rxe8+ Rxe8 25.f7+ Kxf7 26.Qf3+ Kg8 27.g3, or even try for more with 24.f7+ Kxf7 25.Qf3+ Kg8 26.g3 Qh3 27.Nc3. Instead, Black has a clear win with 23...Rxf6.

13. It must be admitted that the 9...c5 variation yields some very interesting positions, but of such complexity as to tax the powers of even the best human analyst. And alas, the cold light of silicon-based scrutiny reveals a number of flaws in Berthold’s analysis, enough that it falls short of “masterpiece” status. To begin with, after 9...c5 10.Rf3,

cuuuuuuuuC (rhb1rhkd} 70pdwgp0p} 6wdwdpdwd} 5Dw0p)wGQ} &wdw)wdw)} 3dwHBdRdw} 2P)Pdw)Pd} %$wdwIwHw} v,./9EFJMV Lasker considers only 10...Ng6. However, this is not at all forced, and Black may improve with

254

Analytical Endnotes 10...g6! 11.Qg4 (if 11.Qh6 Bxg5 12.hxg5 cxd4 13.Nb5 Nc6=) 11...Nfd7 (not 11...cxd4 12.Nb5 Nfd7 13.Qf4 Rf8 14.Bxe7 Qxe7 15.Nc7) 12.Qf4 Rf8 13.Bxe7 (if 13.Bh6 cxd4 14.Bxf8 Qxf8 15.Qxd4 Nc6 16.Qf4 Ndxe5 and Black stands better) 13...Qxe7 14.Bb5 cxd4 15.Qxd4 Nc6 16.Bxc6 bxc6 with a more or less even position. This alone is enough to refute Lasker’s contention that 9...c5 loses by force.

Qf6 etc. as above, but 22.Qg6! which is immediately decisive, viz. 22...dxc3 23.Nf7 cxb2+ 24.Kb1 Nd5 25.Qg5+ Nf6 26.Qxf5 to be followed by 27.Qxc5+ and 28.Nd6+ with devastating results. Lasker did not give the best way to refute the counter-attacking line 14...Qb6.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdrdwd} 70pdniw0Q} 6w1wdpdnd} 5Dw0p)wdw} &wdw)wdw)} 3dwHBdwdN} 2P)Pdw)Pd} %$wdwIwdw} v,./9EFJMV

Further on, in the line 9...c5 10.Rf3 Ng6 11.Nh3 Nd7 12.Rxf7 Kxf7 13.Bxe7 Kxe7 14.Qxh7 Ngxe5 15.dxe5 Rg8 16.f4 Qf8 17.0–0–0 Kd8 18.Ng5 Nb6 19.f5 exf5 20.e6 Ke7 21.Re1

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdw1rd} 70pdwiw0Q} 6whwdPdwd} 5Dw0pdpHw} &wdwdwdw)} 3dwHBdwdw} 2P)PdwdPd} %dwIw$wdw} v,./9EFJMV two errors surface. First, after 21...Rh8 22.Qg6, Black should play not Lasker’s 22...Rh6?? which loses as stated to 23.Qf7+, but 22...Qf6! when after 23.Qf7+ Qxf7 24.exf7 Kf6 the queening square f8 is still covered by the rook and the position is virtually even. Then in the alternate variation 21...d4

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdw1rd} 70pdwiw0Q} 6whwdPdwd} 5Dw0wdpHw} &wdw0wdw)} 3dwHBdwdw} 2P)PdwdPd} %dwIw$wdw} v,./9EFJMV

Best for White here is either to (a) defend the bpawn with 15.0-0-0 and be content with a solid, perhaps winning advantage after 15...Ngf8 16.Qxg7+ Kd8 followed by, say, 17.Nf4, or (b) play more aggressively with 15.Bxg6 (rather than Lasker’s 15.Qxg6) 15...Qxb2 16.Nxd5+! exd5 16.Rd1 when the black king, threatened by queen, bishop, knight (after Nh3-f4/g5) and the e-pawn, is in serious danger. Instead, Lasker’s 15.Qxg6 Qxb2 16.Kd2 runs into trouble after 16...cxd4! instead of 16...Qxa1, leading into a more or less forced line: 17.Nb5 Kd8 18.Nf4 Nc5 19.Nxd5 Nxd3 20.Qxg7 Bd7 21.Qg5+ Kc8 22.Nd6+ Kb8 23.Nxe8 a6 24.Qd8+ Ka7 that produces this fantastic-looking position:

cuuuuuuuuC (rdw!Ndwd} 7ipdbdwdw} 6pdwdpdwd} 5DwdN)wdw} &wdw0wdw)} 3dwdndwdw} 2P1PIw)Pd} %$wdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

not Lasker’s recommended retreat 22.Nd1, which might actually lose after 22...Rh8 23.Qg6

From here there are two main lines:

255

Lasker’s Manual of Chess A) 25.Qb6+ Qxb6 26.Nxb6 Kxb6 27.Kxd3 Rxe8 28.Kxd4

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdrdwd} 7dpdbdwdw} 6piwdpdwd} 5Dwdw)wdw} &wdwIwdw)} 3dwdwdwdw} 2PdPdw)Pd} %$wdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

36.Qd8+ Ka7 37.Nc8+ Ka8 38.Nd6+ is a draw) 31.Kf4 d3 32.e7 Qb2 33.e8Q Rxe8 34.Qxe8 Qxf2+ 35.Kg5 d2 36.Nc8+ etc., draw. 14. Originally the impossible “K-Q2” i.e., 9...Kd7 was given here. It’s not clear whether Lasker meant Q-Q2 (Qd7) or Kt-Q2 (Nd7).

with an intriguing, highly unbalanced and difficult ending, and

15. While Lasker’s analysis of Paulsen-Morphy is basically sound, two improvements are possible. In the line showing best play for both sides, 4.Qd3 f5 5.Rd1 Bg2+ 6.Kg1 Bxf3+ 7.Kf1 Bxd1 8.Qc4+ Kf8 9.d4, rather than simplify to a slightly advantageous endgame with 9...Be2+,

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdriwd} 70w0wdw0p} 6wgpdwdrd} 5Dwdwdpdw} &w)Q)wdwd} 3dw)wdwdw} 2wdwdw)w)} %$wGbdKdw} v,./9EFJMV

B) 25.Qxd7 exd5 26.Kxd3 Qxa1

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdNdwd} 7ipdQdwdw} 6pdwdwdwd} 5Dwdp)wdw} &wdw0wdw)} 3dwdKdwdw} 2PdPdw)Pd} %1wdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV 27.Ke2 (not 27.Kd2? Qc3+ 28.Kd1 d3 29.cxd3 Qxd3+ 30.Ke1 Qc3+ 31.Kf1 Qa1+ 32.Ke2 Qxe5+ 33.Kf1 Rxe8; or 27.Qxd5 Qf1+ 28.Kxd4 Qxf2+ 29.Kd3 Rxe8 and Black wins) 27...Qc3 28.Nd6 Qxc2+ 29.Kf3 Rb8 30.e6

cuuuuuuuuC (w4wdwdwd} 7ipdQdwdw} 6pdwHPdwd} 5Dwdpdwdw} &wdw0wdw)} 3dwdwdKdw} 2Pdqdw)Pd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV 30...Qc3+ (if 30...d3 31.e7 d2 32.e8Q d1Q+ 33.Kg3 Qc3+ 34.Kh2 Qb4 35.Qxb8+ Kxb8

Black can gain a winning material advantage with 9...Bf3 (threatening mate in three) 10.Be3 f4! and the bishop dare not move, as that would allow 11...Bg2+ 12.Kg1 Bd5+ and 13...Bxc4. And in the actual game line,

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdrdkd} 70w0wdp0p} 6Qgpdwdrd} 5Dwdwdwdw} &w)wdwdwd} 3dw)wdbdw} 2wdw)w)w)} %$wGRdKdw} v,./9EFJMV where here Lasker recommended 6...Rg2 “with a mating net,” Black can actually mate a little faster with 6...Bg2+ 7.Kg1 Be4+! (instead

256

Analytical Endnotes of Morphy’s 7...Bh3+) 8.Kf1 Bf5 9.Qe2 (else 9...Bh3#) 9...Bh3+ 10.Ke1 Rg1#. 16. In Post-Kagan, an improvement was possible here:

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbiwdw4} 70pdpdp0p} 6wdwGwdw1} 5Dpdwdwdw} &wdwdwdwd} 3dw)wdwdw} 2P)P!wHP)} %dwdw$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

piece, e.g., 2...Rf8 3.f5 Nc8! 4.Bxf7+ Rxf7 5.Qd8+ Rf8. Lasker also preferred 1...Ne8 to 1...c5, giving the latter a “?”, but after 1...Ne8 2.f5 Black would still be at some disadvantage, rather than being sure of a draw as we demonstrate. Therefore 1.Rc1, which leaves White with some advantage, and not 1.Rd1, turns out to be objectively best, and we altered the text accordingly. 18. The original text claimed that 1...Qh4 would equally have won, but computer analysis does not bear this out, e.g., 1...Qh4 2.g3 Qh3 3.f3 Bxg3 4.Qe2 Rg8 5.Bxg8 Rxg8 6.Kh1 Bd3 7.Qg2 Qxg2+ 8.Kxg2 Be1+ 9.Kh1 Bxf1 10.Rxe1 Bg2+ 11.Kg1 Bxf3+ 12.Kf2 and no win is in sight.

The text move, 4.Bf4, while not bad, is not best; instead of 4...Qc6?, Black had 4...Qg6 5.Ng4 Re8 6.Ne5 Qb6+! (instead of Lasker’s 6...Qe6) and after either 7.Be3 Qe6 or 7.Kh1 Re7, Black is not nearly so bad off as after 6...Qe6. However, White has a decisive improvement: 4.Qd4! threatening Qc5c7#, therefore 4...b6 (or 4...Re8 5.Rxe8+ Kxe8 6.Ne4 Kd8 7.Qe5 Qe6 8.Qxg7 with the decisive threat of 9.Qh8+ Qe8 10.Qf6+) 5.Ng4 Qg6 6.Ne5 Qe6 7.Qf4 f6 8.Nf7+! Ke8 (if 8...Qxf7 9.Bc7#) 9.Rxe6+ winning easily. 17. The discussion of Burn-Tarrasch has been considerably changed from the original. Lasker claimed that after 1.Rd1 c5,

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdwdkd} 7dwdwdphp} 6whwdwdpd} 5dw0w!wdw} &w1wHw)wd} 3dBdwdwdw} 2w)wdwdP)} %dwdRdwIw} v,./9EFJMV

19. The line originally given after 1.Bf6 gxf6 was not 2.Qg6+ but 2.h6.

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 70pdwdqdk} 6wdndb0w)} 5gwdp)pdw} &wdw4w)wd} 3dwdwHwdw} 2wdwdwdQ$} %dwdwdw$K} v,./9EFJMV However, this would fail, as instead of 2...Rxf4 as originally proposed, Black can reply 2...Rd2! and hold, e.g. 3.Qh3 Kh8 4.Rg7 Qf8 5.Rxd2 Bxd2 6.Ng2 with no win in sight. Therefore the text was altered in favor of 2.Qg6+, which is decisive. 20. After 8.f4 in Kolisch-Paulsen,

2.Qe7 Rf8 is drawn, giving 3.Ne6 Nxe6 4.Bxe6 fxe6 5.Qxe6+ Kg7 6.Qe7+ Rf7 Qe5+. But 3.Ne6?? actually loses to 3...Re8!, and even with best play after 2.Qe7? White must drop at least a 257

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdw4wd} 70p0qdp0k} 6wdw0wGw0} 5dwgP0wdQ} &wdwhw)wd} 3dBdPdwdw} 2P)PdwdP)} %$wdwdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

Lasker’s Manual of Chess Black could have improved with 8...gxf6 (instead of 8...Qf5). If then 9.fxe5 not Lasker’s 9…fxe5, but 9…f5! and either: (A) 10.exd6 Qxd6 11.c3 Nxb3 12.axb3 Qg6, (B) 10.Rae1 dxe5 11.Rxe5 Rae8, or (C) 10.c3 Nxb3 11.axb3 dxe5 12.Rxf5 f6, in each case preventing the white rook from penetrating to f6 and remaining a piece up.

7.Ng4+, or 5...Qxe7 6.Ng4+, or 5...Kxe7 6.Nxc6+. 23. The reader may wish to investigate a possible improvement for White at this point,

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdw4kd} 7dwdwhw0p} 6wdpdwdwd} 5dw!P1wdw} &wdwdwHwd} 3dwdw)w)P} 2w)wdwdBd} %dwdwdwIw} v,./9EFJMV

21. Lasker was right in his analysis of BirdSteinitz that 6...c4 would lose,

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdwdwdw} 6wdwiwdpd} 5dpdwdwdw} &w)pdwdPd} 3)w0wdPdw} 2wdwdKdwd} %dwdwdwdw} v,./9EFJMV

3.Nd3, when after, say, 3...Qg5 4.dxc6 Qxc5 5.Nxc5 Rc8 6.c7 Rxc7 White has a pawn more than in Lasker’s analysis of 3.Qd4.

however, he gave 7.Kd1 Ke5 8.Kc2 Kf4 9.Kxc3 Kxf6 10.a4 as the winning continuation. That analysis overlooks 7...g5! which holds for Black, hence our preference for 7.g5!, which preserves the win for White.

24. In the 5.Qh4 variation of CapablancaMolina, the original recommendation was 5...Qd2:

cuuuuuuuuC (rdbdw4wd} 70pdwdw0w} 6wdwdpdkh} 5dwhwdwHw} &wdwdw)w!} 3dwHwdwdw} 2P)w1w)P)} %$wdwdRIw} v,./9EFJMV

22. The verdict that Chigorin’s combination was unsound is basically correct, but after 1.Nxf7 Kxf7 2.e6+ Kxe6 3.Ne5, the original recommendation was not 3...Qc7 but 3...Qe8, followed by 4.Re1 Kf6.

cuuuuuuuuC (rdwdqdw4} 70pdwhw0p} 6wgpdwiwd} 5dwdpHndw} &Pdw)wdwd} 3Gwdwdwdw} 2wdwdw)P)} %dRdQ$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

This, however, would lose to 6.g4!, e.g. 6...Rxf4 7.Qh5+ Kf6 8.Nh7+ Ke7 9.Qxc5+ etc. Hence our preference for 5...e5 or 5...Rxf4. 25. Lasker’s notes to Esser-Davidson required some revision. He originally did not label 3.Ke2 a mistake, and he did not mention 3.Kf1! (D)

However, this would lose to 5.Bxe7+ (much stronger than Lasker’s 5.g4), with decisive discovered attacks after either 5...Nxe7 6.Qf3+ Nf5

after which Black cannot win, as these sample lines show: 3...Kxh4 4.f3 exf3 5.e4 Kg4 6.e5=, or 3...Kf3 4.h5 Kg4 5.Kg2 Kxh5 6.f3 exf3+ 7.Kxf3 Kg6=, or 3...g6 4.Kg2 Kxh4 (not 4...h5?? 5.f3+ exf3 6.Kf2 Kxh4 7.Kxf3 and White will

258

Analytical Endnotes

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwdwdwd} 7dwdwdw0w} 6wdwdwdw0} 5dwdwdwdw} &wdwdp)k)} 3dwdw)wdw} 2wdwdw)wd} %dwdwdKdw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDkD} 7DpDwDw0p} 6wDw0pDwD} 50wDwDwDq} &w)PDBDwD} 3)w!RDK)w} 2wDwDwDw)} %DwDwDw4w} v,./9EFJMV

queen well before Black) 5.f3 exf3+ 6.Kxf3 Kh3=. And definitely not 3...h5?? 4.Kg2i.

since if 8...Qxh2 White gains a tempo and a flight square for the king by 9.Bd5+ Kh8 10.Ke4. However, as with the previous two endnotes, this does not invalidate Spielmann’s play, as his 1...Bxe4! is definitely best for Black, all other lines leading to loss or disadvantage. The reader is encouraged to investigate further.

26. This section had to be extensively rewritten, because Black’s drawing chances after 7...a6! were overlooked.

cuuuuuuuuC (wiwDwDwD} 7Dp0wDwDw} 6pDwDwDwD} 5DP)PDwDw} &wDwDbDwD} 3DwDwDpIw} 2PDwDp)wD} %DwDwDwDR} v,./9EFJMV

28. This famous position, from the 4th game of the 1893 Chigorin-Tarrasch match, is one of the most complex in chess history, and frankly it resisted even our computer-assisted efforts to reach any final conclusion about the alternative line 2.Ng5 Ke7.

Lasker gave 8.b6 cxb6 9.cxb6 Kc8 10.Kf4 Bxd5 11.Ke5 Bxa2??, which allows mate in six after 12.Kd6. Instead Black holds comfortably by 11...Bc6. This fundamentally altered the analytical exercise, which could no longer be considered “White to play and win” as it was originally. In view of this, we felt that addition of an explanatory paragraph immediately following Mackenzie-Blackburne was in order. 27. In the analysis line 1...Bxe4 2.Bxe4 Rf1+ 3.Rxf1 Rxf1+ 4.Kg2 Rg1+ 5.Kf3 Qh5+, a possible drawing line goes unmentioned. (D) Instead of 6.Ke3, the dangerous-looking 6.Kf4!? may paradoxically save White. Fritz8 could find no win or path to advantage for Black, and he may have to settle for forcing a draw, for example by 6...e5+ 7.Ke3 Qh6+ 8.Kf3 Qh5+ etc.,

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwdnD} 7DwDwiw0w} 6wDwDw1RD} 5DwDw0PHw} &w)w0PDwD} 3DwDPDwDQ} 2p4rDwDwD} %DwDwDRDK} v,./9EFJMV Originally Lasker gave 3.Qh7 Kd6 as best for Black, but we found no clear win. Instead, 3...Rb1! is more quickly and clearly decisive, and therefore replaced 3...Kd6 in the text. Instead of 3.Qh7, White may be able to improve with 3.Rxf6!?, but since Lasker was at that point discussing alternatives to giving up the rook for the queen, we left that out of the main text. Fritz8 indicates it may be White’s best chance, giving him two chances to win and one to draw:

259

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDnD} 7DwDwiw0w} 6wDwDw$wD} 5DwDw0PHw} &w)w0PDwD} 3DwDPDwDQ} 2p4rDwDwD} %DwDwDRDK} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wDw$wDwD} 7DwDwDkDw} 6wDw)wDwD} 5DwDwDwDP} &wDwDw0wD} 3DwDw0wDP} 2wDw4wDwD} %DwDwDKDw} v,./9EFJMV

A) 3...gxf6? 4.Qh7+ Kd6 5.Nf7+ Kc6 6.b5+i; B) 3...Kxf6? 4.Ne6 Rb1 5.Qh4+ Kf7 6.Qh5+ Ke7 7.Qg5+ Nf6 8.Qxg7+ Kd6 9.Qf8+ Kc6 (if 9...Kd7 10.Qd8+ Kc6 11.Qc7+i) 10.Qa8+ Kb6 11.Qb8+ Ka6 12.Nc5+ Rxc5 13.Qa8+ Kb5 14.Qa5+ Kc6 15.Qxc5+ Kb7 16.Qb5+ Kc8 17.Qc4+ Kb8 18.Qxa2 Rxf1+ 19.Kg2+-; C) 3...Nxf6! 4.Qh8 Ne8 5.f6+ (or 5.Qh5 Rb1 6.Qf7+ Kd6 7.Qd5+ Kc7=) 5...gxf6 6.Qh7+ Kd6 7.Nf7+ Kc6 8.Qg8=, the = signs indicating White will be able to (and must) force perpetual check to prevent mate by the black rooks or the passed pawn’s advance.

b) 47...Ke8 48.Re7+ Kf8 (or 48...Kd8 49.h6 Rxd6 50.h7 Rh6 51.Rg7) 49.Re4; c) 47...Kf8 48.Rd8+ Kg7 49.Rd7+ Kh6 50.Rf7 Rxd6 51.Rxf4; d) 47...Kf6 48.Rd8 Kf7 49.Rd7+ etc. Black’s best winning chance may have come much earlier in the game, after 24.Bxc4, when instead of capturing with the b-pawn, 24…dxc4!

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDw4wD} 7DwDwDwiw} 6pDwgwhwD} 5DpDwDpDp} &wDp)p)wD} 3DwDwGwDP} 2P)wHwDPD} %Dw$wDRIw} v,./9EFJMV

We are not entirely confident about Fritz8’s verdicts, especially in the last line; the reader is encouraged to examine further, which we feel Lasker himself would want his readers to do. 29. The original notes made no comment on 3.Bd2. It appears that White can hold after 3.Nf3 or 3.Rd1, and so “and win” was deleted from the diagram heading. 30. The original text did not give our alternatives at move 16. This in no way invalidates Capablanca’s plan, or the comments of Tarrasch or Lasker, but we felt the improvements were worth mentioning. 31. It appears White could still have forced a draw late in this game, by playing, instead of 47.h6??, (D) 47.Rd7+!. Some sample lines: a) 47...Ke6 48.Rd8 f3 49.Re8+ Kf5 50.Rxe3;

would have given Black a tremendous bind and great pressure on the weak white pawns, viz. 25.Rce1 Nd5 26.g3 Rad8 27.Kg2 Bc7 28.Bg1 h4 29.Nb1 (if 29.gxh4 Nxf4+) 29...hxg3 30.Kxg3 Rg8, or 25.Rf2 Nd5 26.Nf1 Nb4 27.Ra1 (if 27.a3 Nd3 wins the exchange) 27...Nd3 28.Rc2 Nxf4. 32. In the analysis line beginning 22.f4 Kf8 23.c4, (D) Lasker originally gave 23…Rxb2, a serious mistake most clearly refuted by 24.Qc3! rather than his 24.f5. Least bad for Black (though still insufficient) is 23…Rc5, which was our addition.

260

Analytical Endnotes

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDriwD} 70wDqHpDp} 6wDw0w0wD} 5DrDwDwDw} &pDPDw)wD} 3DwDw!wDw} 2P)wDw)w)} %$wDw$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

home the point: 19.Qh5+ Kg7! 20.Qh6+ Kg8 21.Bxg6 Rf7 22.Kh1 Bf8 23.Qh5 Bg7 24.Rg1 Kf8 25.Rg3!! Rf1+ 26.Kg2 etc.

33. A couple of points about Steinitz-Mongredien bear mentioning. At this point,

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDrDwi} 7DwDwDw0w} 6wDwDrDw0} 50w0wDqDw} &wDQDw)wD} 3DP)nDwDP} 2PDwDwDwD} %IRGwDwDR} v,./9EFJMV

34. The original text made no mention of 1...Be1, giving the impression that White already had a forced win, when the position is actually drawn with best play.

cuuuuuuuuC (rDw1w4kD} 70b0ngwDp} 6w0wDwDpD} 5DwDpHwDw} &wDw)w)pD} 3DwDBGwDR} 2P)PDQDw)} %$wDwDwIw} v,./9EFJMV where Steinitz sacrificed with 16.Rxh7, he could have maintained a winning advantage more simply, by 16.Qxg4 Nxe5 17.dxe5, when Black has no good answer to the threat of 18.f5, demolishing his kingside. This is important because had Mongredien found the best defense, Steinitz might have been hard-pressed to win. Kasparov has shown that a few moves later, if instead of 18...Rg8??,

cuuuuuuuuC (rDw1w4wD} 70b0wgwDk} 6w0wDwDpD} 5DwDp)wDw} &wDw)wDQD} 3DwDBGwDw} 2P)PDwDw)} %$wDwDwIw} v,./9EFJMV Black had tried 18...Qe8!, White would have had to find a long series of “only moves” to bring

35. Originally Lasker wrote “not 4.Nd6? Qe6!” as if it won for Black, but clearly it does not. And at White’s sixth move,

his note read “A little better was 6.Rd1 Ne1 7.a4 Re2 8.Rb2, but Black commands the seventh row and the white position remains very weak.” We amended this in view of the improvements for White found by Fritz8. 36. In the analytical variation 2...Rc1,

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwiwD} 70w0wDwDR} 6w0wDwDwD} 5DwDpDp)w} &PDw)w)wI} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %Dw4wDwDw} v,./9EFJMV Lasker originally said “then the f-pawn falls as follows: 3.Rd7 Rh1+ 4.Kg3 c6 5.Rd6.” Perhaps, but that does not necessarily make it the best continuation, for example after 5...Ra1 6.Rf6+ (if 6.Rxc6 Rxa4) 6...Kg7 7.Rxf5 Rxa4

261

Lasker’s Manual of Chess 8.Rf6 Rxd4 White appears no closer to winning. Therefore we substituted the more clearly winning 3.Kh5 line.

1.Rh3! as recommended by the “well-known book on Morphy.” It is actually the strongest move, and 1...Qb5 is not as potent in reply as Lasker thought, viz.

37. Checking this game, it seemed at first that both Lasker and Morphy had made a major mistake at White’s fourth move,

cuuuuuuuuC (wDrDwDrD} 70wDqiwDp} 6w0wgwhwD} 5DwDPDpDw} &wDNDp)wD} 3)wDwDwDR} 2wGwDQDP)} %DwDwDRDK} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDqDkD} 7Dp4wDwgp} 6pDwDpGwD} 5DbDp)wDw} &wDw)w0w!} 3DwHwDw$w} 2P)wDwDP)} %DwDwDwIw} v,./9EFJMV where the book’s original text had White playing 4.Nxb5 instead of 4.Qxf4. This would have been swiftly punished by 4...Rc1+ 5.Kf2 fxg3+ and suddenly Black is winning. However, it turned out to be a simple typographical error, by which the fourth and fifth moves were transposed. We substituted the correct move order. 38. Also possible here

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDRD} 7DwDw!wDw} 6wDwDw0wD} 5DwDwDkhw} &wDwDwDwD} 3DPDwDP)q} 2rDwDwDwD} %DwDwDwIw} v,./9EFJMV was a forced mate in at most ten: 4.Qc5+ Ke6 5.Qc8+ Ke5 6.Re8+ Kd5 7.Qc4+ Kd6 8.Rd8+ Qd7 9.Qd4+ Kc7 10.Qxd7+ Kb6 11.Rb8+ Ka6 12.Qc6+ Ka5 13.Qb5#. However, in practical terms, Duras’ 4.Rxg5+ was a very expedient choice. 39. Lasker’s recommendation of 1.Be5 is quite good enough to win, but he was wrong to fault

1...Qb5 2.Bxf6+ Kxf6 If 2...Kf8 3.Rc1, or 2...Kf7 3.Rxh7+. 3.Qh5 Qxd5 If 3...Qxc4 4.Qh4+ Kf7 5.Qxh7+ Ke8 6.Qxg8+ Bf8 7.Rd1i. 4.Nxd6 Qxd6 5.Qxh7 Rg6 (5...Qf8 6.Rh6+) 6.g4 fxg4 7.f5 gxh3 8.Qxg6+ Ke7 9.f6+ Kd7 Or 9...Kd8 10.Qg8+ Kd7 11.Qg4+ Kd8 12.f7. 10.Qf5+ Kc7 11.Rc1+ and wins. Nor are other defenses any good, e.g.: a) 1...Rg7 2.Bxf6+ Kxf6 3.Rh6+ Ke7 4.Nxd6i; b) 1...Rcf8 2.Bxf6+ Rxf6 3.Ne5 Bxe5 4.fxe5 Rfg6 5.Rxh7+ R8g7 6.Qh5i; c) 1...Rxc4 2.Qxc4 Rg6 3.Bxf6+ Rxf6 4.Rxh7+ Rf7 5.Rh6 Kd8 (if 5...Bxa3 6.d6+) 6.Rc1i; d)1...Rgf8 2.Bxf6+ Rxf6 3.Rxh7+ Rf7 4.Rxf7+ Kxf7 5.Qh5+ Ke7 6.Qg5+ Ke8 7.Qg6+ Ke7 8.Ne5 Bxe5 9.fxe5 Qxd5 10.Qf6+ Ke8 11.Qxf5 etc. 40. The note about 1...b6 2.Bc4 originally read “or if 2.Bc4 Rd7. The game would continue and Black, though always under pressure — say 3.Nxf7 Ba6 4.Nh6+ Kh8 5.Bxa6 gxh6 — would do his best” etc. The problem is that White has a much stronger continuation than 4.Nh6+, (D) namely 4.Bb3! threatening 5.Ne5+, to which Black has no adequate reply, viz. 4…Rxf7? 5.Re7i, or 4...Nd5 5.Ng5 Bb7 6.Rbd1 Kh8 7.Bxd5 Bxd5 8.Rxd5 Rxd5 9.Qe4i, or 4...Bb7 5.Nd8+ Bd5 6.Bxd5+ Rxd5 (not 6...Nxd5?? 7.Re8#) 7.Qf8+ Kxf8 8.Ne6+ Kg8 9.Nxc7 Rad8 10.Nxd5.

262

Analytical Endnotes

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDwDkD} 70w1rDN0p} 6b0wDwhwD} 5DwDwDwdw} &w!BDwDwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2PDPDw)P)} %DRDw$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwi} 70p0wDwDp} 6wDqDw4wD} 5DwDw0wDw} &wDwDwDQD} 3Dw)wDw)K} 2PDwDwgw)} %$wDwDRDw} v,./9EFJMV

At best, after 4.Bb3 Black must lose at least the exchange and a pawn. Therefore we replaced 2...Rd7 with 2...Bb7.

42. It’s not clear what Lasker considered advantageous about Black’s position after 10...Bxe4;

cuuuuuuuuC (rDnDw4wi} 7Dp0wgw0p} 6wDwDB0wD} 5DP)w0wDw} &wDwDbDwD} 3DwDwGNDP} 2w)wDw)PD} %DwDRDRIw} v,./9EFJMV

41. In the analytical line 1.Kh1 g4 2.Be2 Bxf2 3.g3

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDri} 70p0wDwDp} 6wDwDw1wD} 5DwDw0wDw} &wDwDP4pD} 3Dw)wDw)w} 2PDwDBgw)} %$wDQDRDK} v,./9EFJMV Lasker originally said that after 3...Qh6, 4.Qd5 “secures a draw.” That is certain only if Black replies 4...Bxg3, allowing 5.Qxe5+ Rg7 6.Qe8+ Rg8 7.Qe5+ etc. If instead 4...Re8! there is a lot of play left, viz. 5.Qb5 c6 6.Qd3 Rff8 7.Bxg4 Rd8, when Black still has the upper hand, e.g. 8.Bd7 Rf7 9.Qe2 Rdxd7 10.Rxf2 Rxf2 11.Qxf2 Rd2 12.Qg1.

after 11.Rd7 White’s game certainly seems preferable, as Black will have a very hard time untangling and coordinating his pieces. Fritz8 actually rates this about a pawn worse for Black than the actual game position at the same point. 43. An entire note was deleted after White’s 18th move, where regarding the text move 18.b3

cuuuuuuuuC (rDw4wDwD} 70pDwiw0p} 6wgn0wDwD} 5DwDw0wDw} &wDBDP0bD} 3DPDQhNDw} 2Pdw$wDP)} %DwDwIwDR} v,./9EFJMV

However, Black can advantageously vary from 3...Qh6 with 3...Rxe4! 4.Kg2 Rf8 5.Bxg4 Rxg4! 6.Qxg4 Qc6+ 7.Kh3 Rf6, (D) when White has the unpalatable choice of giving up the exchange by 8.Qc8+ Kg7 9.Rxf2 Rxf2, or his queen by 8.Qh4 Rh6 9.Rxf2 Rxh4+ 10.Kxh4 Qxc3. Fritz8 still validates Lasker’s 1.Kh1 as White’s best try in a tough position, but it is not quite as good as he and Steinitz thought.

Lasker wrote “But here White errs. To develop his force he should offer a sacrifice by 18.Rf1,

263

Lasker’s Manual of Chess so as to rid himself of the oppressive knight on e3. If then 18...Rac8 2.Bb3, or 18...Ba5 19.Rf2. The pawn move only weakens his position. La Bourdonnais had not recognized this clearly. The theory of Steinitz, explaining these points, was not evolved until fifty years later.”

annotating this famous game against Pillsbury. A full analysis is beyond our scope; we will mention but one instance here,

cuuuuuuuuC (rDb1kgw4} 70pDwDp0p} 6wDnDpDwD} 5Dwhp)wDw} &w)wDw)wD} 3)wHwDwDw} 2wDPDwDP)} %$wGQIBHR} v,./9EFJMV

However undesirable 18.b3 was in positional terms, the suggested alternative fails badly tactically. After 18.Rf1 Black ignores the proffered rook and chooses one of three winning alternatives:

cuuuuuuuuC (rDw4wDwD} 70pDwiw0p} 6wgn0wDwD} 5DwDw0wDw} &wDBDP0bD} 3DwDQhNDw} 2P)w$wDP)} %DwDwIRdw} v,./9EFJMV

where Lasker chides himself for the “incomprehensible” retreat 8...Nd7, his proposed alternative 8...d4 9.Nce2 d3 10.Ng3 Qd4 would not yield the initiative he expected; rather it would lose a pawn, or even a piece, to 11.c3! and either 11...d2+ 12.Qxd2 Qxd2+ 13.Bxd2, or 11...Qxc3+ 12.Bd2 Qc4 13.Rc1 Qd5 14.bxc5.

A) 18...Rac8 19.Bb3 To use Lasker’s suggested defense; 19.b3 or 19.a3 are probably better, but still inadequate. 19...Nd4 20.Qb1 If 20.Nxd4 Rc1+. 20...Nxb3 21.axb3 Ba5 22.Rff2 Rc2 and Black will have a huge material advantage. B) 18...Ba5 19.Rff2 Again using Lasker’s suggestion. 19...Rac8 20.a3 Or 20.b3 Nb4 21.Qb1 d5 22.exd5 Bf5 23.Qb2 Nxc4 24.bxc4 Nd3+. 20...Nxc4 21.b4 If 21.Qxc4 Nd4. 21...Nxd2 22.bxa5 Nxf3+ 23.gxf3 Nd4 24.fxg4 Rc1+ 25.Kd2 Rdc8 followed by the crushing 26...R8c2+. C) A strong move Lasker did not mention is 18...Nb4!, when if 19.Qc3 Rac8 20.b3 Ba5 and 21...b5 cannot be stopped; or if 19.Qe2 Rac8 20.b3 d5 21.exd5 Nbxd5 with multiple threats such as 22...e4, 22...Nc3, and 22...Ba5; or 19.Qb3 Rac8 20.Bb5 Rc1+ 21.Ke2 Nxf1 22.Qxb4 Nxd2 23.Kxd2 Rdc8. 44. Lasker is perhaps overly harsh on himself in

45. Lasker’s somewhat tame recommendation at White’s 26th move in Réti-Colle, 26.Rg2, was probably based on practical considerations, especially what he perceived as White’s difficulty in finding a safe retreat for the king. However, Réti’s 26.Qd8+, if not followed up by the blunder 28.Kd2??, was not as bad as Lasker implies. Furthermore another line was well worth considering:

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwiw4} 7DpDw0pDw} 6w!pDqDpD} 5DwDwDwDw} &PDwDwDwD} 3Dw)PDw)w} 2wDwDPDwh} %$wDwIw$w} v,./9EFJMV Fritz8 prefers 26.Rh1. Black can easily go wrong, e.g., 26...Nf3+ 27.Kf2 Nh2 28.Kg1 Nf3+ 29.Kg2 Rxh1 30.Rxh1 Qxe2+ 31.Qf2 Qxf2+ 32.Kxf2 Ne5 33.Ke2 b6 (if 33...Kg7 34.Rb1)

264

Analytical Endnotes

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwi} 7DwDwDP0w} 6wDwDNDwD} 5DwDwDwDp} &wDQDwDpD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2wDwDwDwD} %gwDwDwDK} v,./9EFJMV

34.Rh8+ Kg7 35.Rb8 Nd7 36.Rb7 Nc5 37.Rxb6 Nxa4 38.Rxc6i. A verdict that clear is elusive for such alternatives as 26...Qe5, Qh3, Qf6, Kg7, and Rh5, but White seems to retain the advantage; the reader may wish to investigate. 46. The original text got many of moves 7-16 of the Immortal Game in the wrong order: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Bc4 b5 4.Bxb5 Qh4+ 5.Kf1 (should be 3.Bc4 Qh4+ 4.Kf1 b5 5.Bxb5) 5...Nf6 6.Nf3 Qh6 7.Nc3 (should be 7.d3) 7...Nh5 8.Nh4 c6 (should be 8...Qg5) 9.Nf5 Qg5 (should be 9...c6) 10.Rg1 cxb5 11.g4 Nf6 (should be 10.g4 Nf6 11.Rg1 cxb5) 12.h4 Qg6 13.h5 Qg5 14.d3 Bc5 15.Qf3 Ng8 16.Bxf4 Qf6 (s/b 14.Qf3 Ng8 15.Bxf4 Qf6 16.Nc3 Bc5). These clerical errors make Anderssen and Kieseritzky appear guilty of several blunders that actually did not occur. However, one real mistake bears mentioning. Here,

cuuuuuuuuC (rhbDkDn4} 70wDpDp0p} 6wDwDwDwD} 5DpgNDNDP} &wDwDPGPD} 3DwDPDQDw} 2P1PDwDwD} %$wDwDK$w} v,./9EFJMV as he did in Common Sense in Chess, and as most annotators over the years have, Lasker praised Anderssen’s 18.Bd6. In fact it was a serious error, as would have been clear if Kieseritzky had played not 18...Bxg1??, but 18...Qxa1+ 19.Ke2 Qb2!. Better white alternatives at move 18, and probably adequate to win, were 18.Nc7+ or 18.Re1.

48. A couple of errors were corrected in the discussion of the 1.Be4 variation of the Evergreen game. After 1...Qh3 2.g3 Rxg3+ 3.hxg3 Qxg3+ 4.Kh1 Bxf2, Lasker gave 5.Re2 as the winning reply.

cuuuuuuuuC (w4wDkDwD} 70b0phpDp} 6wDnDw)wD} 5DwDwDwDw} &QDwDBDwD} 3Gw)wDN1w} 2PDwDRgwD} %$wDwdwDK} v,./9EFJMV However, this would lose to 5...Nd4!, when if 6.Bxb7 Qh3+ 7.Nh2 Nxe2 and mate shortly, or if 6.cxd4 Bxe4o, or 6.Rxf2 Bxe4 7.Qxd4 Bxf3+ 8.Rxf3 Qxf3+ 9.Kg1 Rb5 10.Qh4 Ng6o. Correct is 5.Bxe7. Then in reply to 1...Rg4, Lasker gave 2.Qc2,

47. We suspect a typographical error in the original text discussing 1.Ne6 in the Loyd problem, which gave 1...h5 as the refutation. (D) That, however, would still allow a mate in three after 2.Ng5 and 3.f8Q#. Therefore we substituted 1...h6, which does force the mate out to four moves. 265

cuuuuuuuuC (w4wDkDwD} 70b0phpDp} 6wgnDw)wD} 5DwDwDwDq} &wDwDBDrD} 3Gw)wDNDw} 2PDQDw)P)} %$wDw$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (w4wDkDwD} 70b0phpDp} 6wgnDw)wD} 5DwDwDwDq} &QDwDRDrD} 3Gw)BDNDw} 2PDwDw)P)} %DwDRDwIw} v,./9EFJMV

but this allows 2...d5! blunting White’s attack. If 3.Bf5 Rf4, while if 3.Bd3 Black can either force a draw quickly with 3...Rxg2+ 4.Kxg2 Qg4+ 5.Kf1 Qxf3 etc., or try for more with 3...Qh3 4.g3 Rxg3+ 5.hxg3 Qxg3+ 6.Kf1 Qxf3. Instead, with 2.Qd1,White retains his advantage. 49. The discussion of alternatives to 1...Qxf3 required extensive revision. Lasker originally wrote “The move 1...Rg4 causes difficulties.”

cuuuuuuuuC (w4wDkDwD} 70b0phpDp} 6wgnDw)wD} 5DwDwDwDq} &QDwDwDrD} 3Gw)BDNDw} 2PDwDw)P)} %DwDR$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

7.Rxe7+ Kf8 (7...Kd8? 8.Rxf7) 8.Ne5! dxe5 9.Rxc7+ Kg8 10.Rxc6,

“The black king thereby gains an outlet on g8. If then 2.Rxe7+ Nxe7 3.Qxd7+ Kxd7 4.Bf5+ Ke8, and the king escapes. If the queen moves, 2...Rxg2+ initiates counter--attack; if 2.Be4 d5.” There are several flaws in this. One, the two plausible queen moves should not be met with the same reply. If 2.Qb3?? Rxg2+ 3.Kxg2 Ne5 wins, but against 2.Qc2 it only forces a draw; if Black wants to counter-attack he should try 2...Qh3 3.g3 Rxg3+ 4.hxg3 Qxg3+ 5.Kf1 Qh3+ 6.Kg1 (if 6.Ke2 Nb4 7.cxb4 Bxf3+ 8.Kd2 Qh6+ 9.Kc3 Qxf6+) 6...Qxf3. Two, if 2.Be4 not the unclear 2...d5?! 3.Rxd5! Qxd5 4.Bxe7, but the decisive 2...Qh3! which virtually forces White to give up another piece by 3.Ng5 Rxg5, since both 3.g3 and 3.Nd2 are refuted by 3...Ne5o.

cuuuuuuuuC (w4wDwDkD} 70wDwDpDw} 6wgRDw)pD} 5DwDw0wDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3Gw)wDwDw} 2PDwDw)P)} %DwDwDwIw} v,./9EFJMV and the smoke clears with White two pawns up. Therefore we replaced 1...Rg4 with 1...Qh3 as Black’s best reply to 1.Rad1. However, Lasker’s essential point, that Anderssen’s 1.Rad1 was neither necessary nor sufficient to win, and was therefore overrated aesthetically, is still entirely valid. 50. The two notes at move 24 were our additions, not in the original text. Time pressure clearly affected both players. 51. It’s not entirely clear that in this position,

Third, and most important, there is a stronger alternative Lasker did not consider, 2.Re4! (D) Fritz8 then gives best play as 2...Rxe4 3.Qxe4 d6 (to block the bishop’s line to e7) 4.Re1 Qg6 (otherwise 5.Qe2 and 6.Be4/Bb5 can cause trouble in some lines) 5.Qxc6+! (best, as will be seen) 5...Bxc6 6.Bxg6 hxg6 (6...fxg6?? 7.Rxe7+ Kany 8.Ng5i) 266

cuuuuuuuuC (rhbDkDw4} 7DpDn1pDp} 6pDwDpDpD} 5Dw0p)wDw} &wDw)wHwD} 3DwHBDw!w} 2P)PDw)PD} %$wDwIwDR} v,./9EFJMV

Analytical Endnotes the threat of sacrifice on d5 is so potent, or that 12...Nb6 is forced. Instead, after 12...cxd4 13.Ncxd5 exd5 14.Nxd5

cuuuuuuuuC (rhbDkDw4} 7DpDn1pDp} 6pDwDwDpD} 5DwDN)wDw} &wDw0wDwD} 3DwDBDw!w} 2P)PDw)PD} %$wDwIwDR} v,./9EFJMV

C) 25.bxa5 Rxd4 26.Bf3 Ra4

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDnDw4} 70wDwiwDw} 6wDpDwDpD} 5)wDwDwDp} &rDwDNGwD} 3DwDwDBDw} 2PDwDwDP)} %DwDwIwDn} v,./9EFJMV and Black is way ahead in material;

Black has two reasonable possibilities, 14...Qc5 and 14...Qd8, after neither of which does White seem to have full compensation for the sacrificed piece.

D) 25.Nd6 Qd5 26.Qxa7+ Rd7 27.Qe3+ Qe6 28.Bg5+ Nf6 29.Ne4 Rf8

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDw4wD} 7DwDriwDw} 6wDpDqhpD} 5DwDwDwGp} &w)wDNDwD} 3DwDw!wDw} 2PDwDBDP)} %DwDwIwDn} v,./9EFJMV

52. Both Lasker and Süchting may have missed Black’s best chance at this point in SchlechterSüchting:

cuuuuuuuuC (wDw4wDw4} 70wDwiwDw} 6wDphwDpD} 51wDwDwDp} &w)w!NGwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2PDwDBDP)} %DwDwIwDn} v,./9EFJMV

and Black retains his material advantage while White’s attack has run out of steam; E) 25.Qc4 Qd5 26.Bg5+ Kf8 27.Bxd8 Qxd8 28.Kf1 Qd5 29.Kg1 Qxc4 30.Bxc4 Rh7 31.Kxh1 Re7

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDniwD} 70wDw4wDw} 6wDpDwDpD} 5DwDwDwDp} &w)BDNDwD} 3DwDwDwDw} 2PDwDwDP)} %DwDwDwDK} v,./9EFJMV

The surprising 24...Ne8!, while leading to complicated play, seems to win for Black in all variations: A) 25.Qc3 Qf5 26.Bg5+ Kf7 27.Bxd8 (27.Qxh8 Qxe4 28.Bxd8 Qxb4+ merely transposes) 27...Qxe4 28.Qxh8 (if 28.Bg5 Ng7) 28...Qxb4+ 29.Kd1 Nf2+ 30.Kc2 Ne4 31.Qb2 Qd2+ 32.Kb3 Nc5+ 33.Ka3 Qxd8, and Black winds up a piece ahead; B) 25.Qb2 Qf5 26.Bg5+ Kf7 27.Bxd8 Qxe4, when 28.Qxh8 transposes to the above line;

with an easily won ending where Black is up the exchange;

267

Lasker’s Manual of Chess F) 25.Bd6+ Rxd6 26.Nxd6 Qc7 27.Ne4 Qf4 28.g3 Qf5 29.Qxa7+ (if 29.Qxh8 Qxe4) 29...Kf8 30.Qc5+ Qxc5 31.Nxc5 Ke7 32.Bf3 Nxg3 33.hxg3 Kd6,

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDnDw4} 7DwDwDwDw} 6wDpiwDpD} 5DwHwDwDp} &w)wDwDwD} 3DwDwDB)w} 2PDwDwDwD} %DwDwIwDw} v,./9EFJMV

and Black should win whether White allows or avoids an exchange of queens, e.g., H1) 28.Qd2+ Qd5 and either H1a) 29.Qe3 Qa5+ 30.Kf1 (if 30.Kd1? Nf2+ 31.Kc1 Ne4 32.Bxd8 Qc3+ 33.Qxc3 Nxc3) 30...Nf6! 31.Bxf6 Qf5+ 32.Kg1 Qxf6o, or H1b) 29.Qxd5+ cxd5 30.Bxd8 Kxd8 31.g4 h4 with an easy minor piece ending. H2) If instead 28.Bxd8 Kxd8 and in view of the threats 29...Qxg2 and 29...Qb1+ 30.Bd1 Qxa2, White is virtually forced to exchange queens by 29.Qd3+ Qxd3 30.Bxd3, when after, say, 30...g5 (probably the clearest of several winning lines)

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwinDwD} 70wDwDwDw} 6wDpDwDwD} 5DwDwDw0p} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDBDwDw} 2PDwDwDP)} %DwDwIwDn} v,./9EFJMV

with again a winning endgame; G) 25.Qxd8+ Qxd8 26.Bg5+ Kd7 27.Bxd8 Kxd8

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwinDw4} 70wDwDwDw} 6wDpDwDpD} 5DwDwDwDp} &w)wDNDwD} 3DwDwDBDw} 2PDwDwDP)} %DwDwIwDn} v,./9EFJMV and Black wins whether he extricates his knight or not; and finally, H) 25.Qxh8 Qxb4+ 26.Qc3 (26.Kf1?? Qb1+; 26.Bd2?? Qb1+ 27.Bd1 Qxe4+; 26.Nd2?? Qxf4) 26...Qxe4 (much better than 26...Qxc3) 27.Bg5+ Kd7

cuuuuuuuuC (wDw4nDwD} 70wDkdwDw} 6wDpDwDpD} 5DwDwDwGp} &wDwDqDwD} 3Dw!wDwDw} 2PDwDBDP)} %DwDwIwDn} v,./9EFJMV

Black does eventually lose the cornered knight, e.g., 31.Be4 Kc7 32.g3 Nxg3 33.hxg3, or 31.Kf1 Nf6 32.Kg1 Ng4 33.Be2 (33.Kxh1?? Nf2+) Nhf2 34.h3 Nxh3+ 35.gxh3 Nf6, but in either case he has an easily won ending with two pawns up. 53. Some revision was necessary here. First, in the analysis line 1...Rb8,

cuuuuuuuuC (w4w1wDkD} 7DQDbDwDp} 6wDpDwgpD} 5Dw)p0pDw} &wDBDwDwD} 3Dw$w)N)P} 2r)wDwDPI} %DwDRDwDw} v,./9EFJMV Lasker gave 2.Bxd5+ Kg7 3.Qxb8 Qxb8

268

Analytical Endnotes

cuuuuuuuuC (rDbDkDn4} 70pDn1wgp} 6wDpDpDpD} 5DwDpGw)w} &wDw)wDwD} 3DwHBDw!w} 2P)PDNDw)} %$wDwIwDR} v,./9EFJMV

4.Bxa2 “and the rooks are powerful,” but White’s position is far more powerful after 2.Rxd5 etc. Secondly, in the main line 1.Bc4 R2a7 2.Bxd5+

cuuuuuuuuC (rDw1wDkD} 74QDbDwDp} 6wDpDwgpD} 5Dw)B0pDw} &wDwDwDwD} 3Dw$w)N)P} 2w)wDwDPI} %DwDRDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

This, which loses to the obvious 13...Ngxf6, is clearly a typographical error; therefore we substituted the winning 13.Bd6, which must have been the intended move.

Lasker examined only 2...Kg7 and 2...cxd5, never considering the critical difference 2...Kf8! makes, by ensuring that an eventual Rd1xd7 would not give check. This made enough of a difference that we had to revise Lasker’s verdict that correct play “would have led to an ending rather in [Black’s] favor” to something much more positive.

56. After 40...Kf7 in Bogolyubov-Réti, the original note read “The king does not go to f5 because of Rf8.” While in reply to 40...Kf5, 41.Rf8 is good, 41.Rg8! is significantly stronger,

cuuuuuuuuC (wdwDwDRD} 70w4wDwDw} 6w0bDpHwD} 5DwDp)kDw} &PDw)wDwD} 3DPDwDPDw} 2wDwIwDwD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

54. In Bogolyubov-Romanovsky, in the analysis line 11.Bc4 e5,

cuuuuuuuuC (rDb1rDkD} 70pdndpgp} 6wDpDwhpD} 5Dwdw0wDw} &wDB)PDwD} 3DwHwGNdP} 2P)w!w)Pd} %$wdwIwdR} v,./9EFJMV

the threatened mating net forcing Black to give up at least the exchange by 41...Rf7 42.Ke3 Rxf7 (else 43.f4 and 44.Rg5#) 43.exf7, or even more after 41...Kf4 42.Ke2.

Lasker originally gave “12.Bxf7+Kxf7 13.dxe5 with terrific attack.” However, after 13...Nh5 the attack seems not so terrific. Therefore the recommended line was changed to the objectively far stronger 12.Ng5 Rf8 13.Nxf7 Rxf7 14.dxe5 Ne8 15.e6. 55. From the next diagram, in the analysis line 12...Nd7 in Tartakower-Mieses, the original edition gave 13.Bf6 as best.

57. The Sämisch-Spielmann game required considerable revision. First, in the notes after White’s 13th move Lasker gave the line 13...Bb7 14.Ng5 h6 15.e5 hxg5 (without 15...dxe5 first, an important difference) 16.exf6 Bxf6 17.fxg5 Be5, reaching this position: (D) Lasker seemed to consider this better for Black, but actually White would be fine after 18.Nf3, forcing Black to give up one of his bishops for the knight.

269

Lasker’s Manual of Chess

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDw4kD} 7Db1wDp0w} 6p0w0pDwD} 5Dwhwgw)w} &wDwHwDwD} 3Dw)wDwDw} 2P)BDQDP)} %$wGwDRDK} v,./9EFJMV

25.Bxh2 Bxg2+ 26.Kxg2 Rf2+) 23...Qh4o. While all this does support Lasker’s point that White was not yet ready to “take the position by violent assault,” it is all rendered moot by 18.Nf3, and even sooner by 15...dxe5, so it was decided to remove the 18.g6 line from the main body of the book.

Lasker did not mention this, giving instead 18.g6 fxg6 19.Rxf8+ Rxf8,

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDw4kD} 7Db1wDw0w} 6p0w0pDpD} 5DwhwgwDw} &wDwHwDwD} 3Dw)wDwDw} 2P)BDQDP)} %$wGwDwDK} v,./9EFJMV

The variation 25.Bd2 (as an alternative to 25.Raf1) is our addition. Lasker had said only “Black’s position looks fine, but he is a pawn minus and threatens nothing. Nor can he invent threats; White is posted too firmly.” All quite true, but we considered 25.Bd2 quite strong enough that it should be mentioned. Lasker gave 27.fxg7 a “?”, saying “Here 27.f5 was important. Now Black has a chance.” Fritz did not support this, and we changed that note accordingly. Most importantly, at Black’s 28th move,

cuuuuuuuuC (rDwDrDkD} 7DwDwDp)p} 6p0wDwDwD} 5DwDpDw)w} &wDw)q)wD} 3DwDnGRDw} 2P)wDwDQ)} %DwDwDRDK} v,./9EFJMV

with two variations, 20.Bxg6 Rf6, and 20.b4 Qf7. Black is somewhat better in the former line, and in the latter he wins, though not by Lasker’s 20...Qf7, but by the surprising 20...Na4!

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDw4kD} 7Db1wDw0w} 6p0w0pDpD} 5DwDwgwDw} &n)wHwDwD} 3Dw)wDwDw} 2PDBDQDP)} %$wGwDwDK} v,./9EFJMV

Lasker said of Spielmann’s 28...Rac8,

with three main variations: (A) 21.Bxa4 Qxc3 22.Bb2 Qh3 23.Nf3 Rxf3 24.Bxe5 Re3o; (B) 21.Nxe6 Nxc3 22.Nxc7 Nxe2 23.Bb2 (23...Rf1# was threatened) 23...Bxb2 24.Re1 Nf4o; and (C) 21.Be3 Nxc3 22.Qd2 Qe7 23.Bg1 (if 23.Qxc3 Qh4 24.Bg1 Bxh2

“But that is an error! Black could still have fought if he had played 28...Qf5. He had to prevent the white pawns from gaining white squares. After 28...Qf5 White, in order to resume his attack, would have had to dislodge the black queen, for instance, by Rf3-h3-h6-f6, or Qg2-h3 or Qg4 after due preparation. In the meanwhile Black could have pursued his own attack, say by a6a5-a4. The c-file was Black’s in any case.” In view of the strength of 29.Qd2 (which Lasker did not mention) in reply to 28...Qf5, this paragraph was deleted from the main body of the book and replaced by our analysis of 29.Qd2.

270

Analytical Endnotes

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DwDwDqiw} 6wDw0wDwD} 5DpDP0bDp} &w)pDwDwD} 3Dw)wDQ)w} 2wDwHwDwI} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

58. In Alekhine-Marshall, the note with 20...Qf8 was our addition; Lasker did not discuss this move. At White’s 25th move, Lasker erred, saying that White would still win after 25.Bxa2 Qc5+ 26.Kb1,

cuuuuuuuuC (wDw4wDkD} 70p0wDp)p} 6wDbDwDwD} 5Dw1w)w!w} &wDwDwDwD} 3DwDwDwDP} 2B)wDwDPD} %DKDw$wDw} v,./9EFJMV

the original note said “If 47.Kg2 Bg6, and the white d-pawn must eventually fall.” But after 47...Bg6 White can play Nd2-f1-e3, defending the pawn. Therefore we replaced 47...Bg6 with the stronger 47...Bd3. And at move 58,

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDwDwD} 7DwDwDwDw} 6wDw!wDbi} 5DpDw0wDp} &w)pDwDwD} 3Dw)wDw)K} 2wDwHw1wD} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

but he gave only 26...Be4+ 27.Ka1, failing to consider 26...Rd7!, when no win is in sight. And another addition was the note to 27.Ka1; Lasker commented only “Of course!”; we felt a bit more explanation was called for. 59. Two minor changes were made to Nimzovitch-Bogolyubov. At Black’s 16th move, the original note said that in reply to 16...Nd5

cuuuuuuuuC (w4bDrDkD} 70wDn0pgp} 6wDw0wDpD} 5DwDnDwDq} &w)N)wDwD} 3)wDwDN)w} 2wGwDw)B)} %Dw$Q$wIw} v,./9EFJMV

Lasker said of Thomas’ 58.Nb1 “The game was not to be saved since 58...e4 was threatened, but this is a blunder,” This is somewhat unfair; in fact there is hardly any better move. The only one that does not lose at least a piece is 58.g4, when after 58...Qe3+ 59.Kg2 hxg4 White is completely busted.

“White might have played 17.Nfe5.” True, he might have, but far stronger, in fact virtually winning, is 17.Nxd6, so we gave that as White’s best reply. Further on, a typographical error had Black playing ...Rd8 at both moves 26 and 27; the correct 27...Bh3 was used instead. 60. Two corrections surfaced for ThomasRubinstein. At White’s 47th.

61. It is surprising that three such masters as Colle, Alekhine and Lasker all missed the possibility of 45...Qxa4!, though time pressure may explain it for the first two named. Recaptures like 45...Kxg8 should not be made automatically when one has time to see if a strong Zwischenzug, an “in-between move,” may be available. 62. The Romanovsky-Rabinovich game was originally somewhat mislabeled. Black was identified as “E. Rabinovitch,” and the game was said to have been “played in the Russian National

271

Lasker’s Manual of Chess Tourney.” Black was in fact Ilya Rabinovich, and while the 4th Soviet Championship was held in Leningrad in 1925, this game was not played in that event (where I. Rabinovich actually beat Romanovsky), but in one of two other 1925 Leningrad tournaments they played in, perhaps the city championship. Lasker’s discussion of the opening in this game has of course been superseded by the enormous amount of Winawer French theory developed since 1925. 63. Morrison-Watts required some revision. Lasker did not mention 2.a3, and seemed to consider 2...Bg5 better than 2...Rd4, when the reverse is true. Finally, the original edition made no mention of how serious an error 6.g3 was, nor that 6.Qc3 could have held the position.

After White’s 15th move, the sentence beginning “A perhaps even better alternative,” and the paragraph beginning “However, Grünfeld’s analysis seems to be rendered moot” are both our additions. Lasker did not consider 19.Qg3 or 15...Nd7 in discussing Grünfeld’s analysis. The note after 19.c4 originally read “To prevent Nd5, but the move is overbold. What harm would have come to Black if he played 19...Qxd4? After 20.Be3 Qe5 White would have had no equivalent for the two pawns.” But 19...Qxd4?? would actually have led to a great deal of harm:

cuuuuuuuuC (rDbDw4kD} 70pDwDpDp} 6whpDpgpD} 5DwDwDwHw} &wDP1wGw)} 3DwDBDwDw} 2PDwDQ)PD} %DRDRDwIw} v,./9EFJMV

Following Morrison-Watts, Lasker gave a position from a game labeled Bau-Nebermann, White to move:

cuuuuuuuuC (wDwDkDw4} 7DN0wDw0p} 6wDpDw0wD} 5DwDw)qDw} &wDwDw)wD} 3!wDwDwDw} 2P$rDwDP)} %DwDRDwIw} v,./9EFJMV

White plays not 20.Be3? but 20.Bxg6! and Black must give up his queen by 20...Qxd1+ 21.Rxd1, since if 20...Qxf4?? 21.Qh5! and mate shortly. Therefore 19...Bxd4, which is playable, was substituted.

We chose to omit this entirely, as Lasker’s analysis was badly flawed. For example, he said that “exceeding precision was required” for White to win, when in fact at least 30 moves win for White here. He said that “Black is threatening 1...Qg4 with terrible effect,” when in fact even were it Black’s move that threat is easily parried by 2.Rd2. He further claimed 1.Rd8+ “would not win because of 1...Kf7 2.Rxh8 Rc1+ 3.Kf2 Qxf4+,” when in fact Black has no win after 4.Qf3, and White can win easily by varying earlier with 2.Qb3+. Lasker must not have given much attention to this game. 64. A number of changes and additions were made to Torre-Grünfeld:

The notes at White’s 28th and Black’s 39th moves were our additions. In view of the fact that Black could have put up much stouter resistance with 39...Qe6, it became necessary to moderate the tone of the notes at Black’s 30th move, which Lasker described as “suicide” allowing “a slaughter,” and at Black’s 36th, where Lasker said Black was “irretrievably lost.” 65. Slight revisions were made to the note at Black’s 26th move in Capablanca-Alekhine. In the analysis line 26...Bb2 27.Rb1 Na3, (D) Lasker gave best play as 28.Qxb2 Nxb1 29.Qxb1 Qb3 30.Qf1 bxa4 31.h3 a3 32.Be5 f6 33.Ba1 Qc4. While not overturning Lasker’s basic assessment, Fritz8 found improvements for both sides in this sequence.

272

Analytical Endnotes

cuuuuuuuuC (wDrDwDkD} 7DwDwDp0w} 6pDwDpDw0} 5DpDqDwDw} &P)wDwDwD} 3hQDw)NGw} 2wgwDw)P)} %DRDwDwIw} v,./9EFJMV

66. Lasker’s analysis of this position from the Capablanca-Alekhine match is cited often in chess literature, and his basic conclusion, that 1...Na4 was Black’s best move, is entirely validated by computer analysis. There are, however, a few points that required amendment. Lasker judged the line 1...Bb5 “not playable,” after 2.Nh4 Bd7 3.Qa5,

cuuuuuuuuC (wDrDw4wD} 70pDb1piw} 6whwDwhp0} 5!wDw0wDw} &wDwDPDwH} 3)wDwDwHP} 2B)wDw)PD} %Dw$wDRIw} v,./9EFJMV

First, at Black’s 31th,

cuuuuuuuuC (wDrDwDkD} 7DwDwDp0w} 6pDwDpDw0} 5DwDwDwDw} &p)wDwDwD} 3DqDw)NGP} 2wDwDw)PD} %DwDwDQIw} v,./9EFJMV

considering only 3...Na4? and 3...Nxe4?, disregarding 3...Rxc1 4.Rxc1 Nc8, which does look playable for Black.

the immediate 31...Qc4 is best; 31...a3 allows 32.Kh2 when Black still wins but with more difficulty. After Lasker’s 32.Be5, 32...Qc4 is again best; against his 32...f6,

cuuuuuuuuC (wDrDwDkD} 7DwDwDw0w} 6pDwDp0w0} 5DwDwGwDw} &w)wDwDwD} 30qDw)NDP} 2wDwDw)PD} %DwDwDQIw} v,./9EFJMV

Lasker treated 1...Bc6 as if it had independent significance, giving only the suicidal 2.Nh4 Nxe4?? 3.Nhf5+ gxf5 4.Nxf5+ etc. Clearly Black should play 2...Bd7, and transpose back to the preceding line, but to provide a better illustration of some of the position’s possibilities we substituted a much less egregious move Lasker did not mention, 2...Bxe4, in place of 2...Nxe4. In the line 1...Rfe8 2.Qa5, Lasker gave only 2...Na4 3.Rxc8 Rxc8 4.Qxa7 Nxb2 5.Qxb7 Qxa3 6.Bxf7:

White has, rather than 33.Ba1, the much better 33.Qxa6!, attacking the rook. Black should still win after 33...Rf8 34.Ba1 Qd1+ 35.Qf1 Qxf1+ 36.Kxf1 Rc8 37.Ke2 Rc1 38.Bd4 a2, but the loss of the a-pawn makes it more problematical.

273

cuuuuuuuuC (wDrDwDwD} 7DQDbDBiw} 6wDwDwhp0} 5DwDw0wDw} &wDwDPDwD} 31wDwDNHP} 2whwDw)PD} %DwDwDRIw} v,./9EFJMV

Lasker’s Manual of Chess However, the position after 4.Qxe5 (instead of 4.Qxa7) 4...Qxe5 5.Nxe5 Be6 6.Bxe6 fxe6 7.b3,

Black can transpose to the 2...Rxc1 3.Rxc1 Nc8 line.

cuuuuuuuuC (wDrDwDwD} 70pDwDwiw} 6wDwDphp0} 5DwDwHwDw} &nDwDPDwD} 3)PDwDwHP} 2wDwDw)PD} %DwDwDRIw} v,./9EFJMV

Solution to problem on page 215

cuuuuuuuuC (qDn4k4wD} 7DwDw0w$R} 6bDn0PDP)} 5DwDwDwDw} &wDwDw)wD} 3DwDwDwDp} 2wDwDwDwI} %DwDwDwDw} v,./9EFJMV

with pawns still on both wings, seems rather more favorable to White. In any event the 2...Na4 lines are rendered moot by the fact that

1.Rf7 Rg8 2.g7 any 3.Rf8+ Rxf8 4.gxf8Q+ Kxf8 5.Rh8# 1-0

274

Index of Players and Composers This index includes complete games, game fragments, and compositions. The French prefix “de” and the German “von” are ignored, e.g. “de Rivière” is listed as Rivière, “von Bardeleben” as Bardeleben. Unnamed persons (e.g. “Amateur” or “NN” are not listed. Numbers refer to pages. Albin 117 Alekhine 110, 119, 231, 233, 236, 244, 246 Anderssen 157, 161, 173, 175, 176, 201, 206 Bardeleben 123 Baucher 116 Bauer 116 Bergen 111 Berger 216 Bergh 133 Berlin 174 Bernstein 123, 174 Bird 120, 164 Blackburne 127, 209 Boden 117, 160 Bogolyubov 113, 210, 211, 224, 227, 232, 238, 239, 246 Bolte 117 Boneo 223 Brühl 150 Burn 114, 216 Caldas Vianna 123 Capablanca 103, 115, 122, 145, 146, 147, 172, 221, 223, 244, 246 Chigorin 110, 121, 124, 136, 177, 178 Chwojnik 243 Cohn, E. 144, 175 Cohn, W. 125 Colle 194, 236 Coria 223 Davidson 126 Dimer 134 Dufresne 134, 206 Duras 77, 112, 175, 188 Dus-Chotimirsky 223 Englund 113 Esser 126 Euwe 246 Fahndrich 146 Flues 125 Forgács 112, 126, 143, 144 Freymann 126 Gaspary 216 Gavilan 177

Golmayo 177 Green 158 Grünfeld 241 Hallgarten 134 Hamppe 156 Harmonist 125 Harrwitz 134 Hirschfield 109 Hromadka 212 Jacobson 113 Janowski 121, 138, 147, 218 John 115 Kagan 107 Kaufmann 146 Kolisch 118 Kubbel 108, 135, 214 Kubmann 110 La Bourdonnais 151, 190 Lasker, Edward 118 Lasker, Emanuel 113, 116, 118, 121, 122, 126, 128, 132, 137, 138, 190, 208, 218 Lindehn 133 List 212 Löwenthal 110 Loyd 206 MacDonnell 145, 160 Mackenzie 127, 172 Marco 112 Maróczy 134 Marshall 59, 97, 137, 145, 172, 221, 231 Mayet 110 McDonnell 151, 190 Meitner 111 Metger 141 Mieses 125, 226, 238 Molina 122 Mongredien 159 Morphy 104, 116, 173, 175, 176, 201 Morrison 241 Muurlink 132 Nimzovitch 125, 146, 232 Nyholm 113 Olson 113

275

Oppen 112 Owen 117 Paulsen 104, 118, 141 Perlis 144 Philidor 142, 149, 150 Pillsbury 190, 208, 216 Ponce 177 Popeil 112 Post 107 Prezpiorka 125 Rabinovich 240 Ratner 213 Reggio 125 Réti 113, 137, 194, 210, 227, 233, 239 Riga 174 Rinck 215 Rivière 116 Romanovsky 224, 240 Rubinstein 97, 126, 129, 187, 188, 210, 235, 243 Salwe 120, 133, 172, 187 Sämisch 229 Schelfhout 132 Schiffers 124, 125 Schlechter 77, 120, 175, 219 Schmid 111 Seitz 222 Sellmann 164 Silvestre 123 Spielmann 113, 129, 143, 144, 229 Steinitz 109, 110, 111, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 156, 157, 158, 159, 161, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170, 177, 178 Steneberg 117 Süchting 115, 219 Tarrasch 59, 113, 134, 136, 137, 175, 216 Tartakower 115, 119, 128, 172, 222, 226 Teichmann 174, 210 Te Kolste 193, 194 Thomas 137, 235 Torre 193, 228, 241 Troitzky 107, 114, 130, 133, 212, 213 Vidmar 144 Villeneuf 204 Watts 241 Weenink 131 Winawer 207 Yates 103, 228 Znosko-Borovsky 123, 216 Zukertort 118, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170, 209 276

Index of Openings This index includes complete games only. Numbers refer to pages.

Center Counter Defense (Scandinavian) 159 Colle-Zukertort System 209 Dutch Defense 226 Four Knights’ Game 218 French Defense 164, 190, 193, 211, 227, 239, 240 Giuoco Piano 207 Irregular Openings 224, 232, 233 King Bishop’s Opening 150, 162 King’s Gambit Accepted 158, 201 Nimzo-Indian Defense 243 Queen’s Gambit Accepted 151, 168, 190 Queen’s Gambit Declined, Chigorin Defense 236 Queen’s Gambit Declined, Marshall Defense 231, 246 Queen’s Gambit Declined, Orthodox Defense 165, 167, 208, 210, 244 Queen’s Gambit Declined, Slav Defense 170, 219 Queen’s Gambit Declined, Tarrasch Defense 187, 216 Queen’s Pawn, Barry Attack 228 Queen’s Pawn, London System 223 Queen’s Pawn, miscellaneous 241 Réti Opening 194, 210 Ruy Lopez 157, 161, 166, 188, 216, 221, 235 Sicilian Defense 229 Vienna Game 156

277

ChessCafe Puzzle Books The ChessCafe Puzzle Book 1 by Karsten Müller 303 pages ISBN: 1-888690-21-6 SRP:$19.95 Test and Improve Your Tactical Vision!

German grandmaster Karsten Müller combines clear discussions of tactical themes with over 600 well-chosen positions to test, challenge and teach. Although the classic combinations are not ignored, the great emphasis is on positions from modern tournament practice of the last decade. “This book offers every type of tactical motif imaginable, from the more common back rank mates, pins, skewers, forks and the like up to and including some of the most beautiful and rare combinations.” – From the Foreword by Women’s World Champion, International Grandmaster Susan Polgar.

The ChessCafe Puzzle Book 2 by Karsten Müller ISBN: 978-1-888690-43-9 SRP: $24.95 Improve Your Positional and Strategic Intuition! ChessCafe Puzzle Book 2 is a unique

instructional chess book that aims to help intermediate and advanced players improve their command of one of the most difficult aspects of playing chess - strategy. It does so by offering a large number of examples carefully selected by the author, German Grandmaster Karsten Müller. While there are many books and software programs available to assist chess players in improving their tactical ability, there are relatively few that focus on strategic and positional considerations. Working through these positions and exercises is a great way to improve your positional understanding.

278

Great Game Collections St. Petersburg 1909 by Emanuel Lasker Fall 2008 ISBN: 978-1-888690-46-0 SRP: $19.95

In February 1909, nineteen of the world’s best chessplayers gathered in St. Petersburg to play in one of the most famous tournaments in chess history. World Champion Emanuel Lasker topped the list of competitors, which also included Akiva Rubinstein, Carl Schlecter, Rudolf Spielmann, Ossip Bernstein, Richard Teichmann, Jaques Mieses and SavielyTartakower, to name but a few. This is the official tournament book – available for the first time in English in algebraic notation – written by Emanuel Lasker. He annotated all 175 games in the clear, instructive style that would become his trademark.

The Life & Games of Akiva Rubinstein, Volume 1: Uncrowned King By Donaldson & Minev 402 pages ISBN: 1-888690-29-1 SRP: $29.95

Akiva Rubinstein occupies a unique position in chess history. One of the greatest artists ever to sit down at a chessboard, Rubinstein was also probably the strongest player never to get a chance to play for the title of World Champion. The Life & Games of Akiva Rubinstein, Volume 1: Uncrowned King focuses on the years 1882-1920, covering Rubinstein’s rise from a modest upbringing to his emergence as Emanuel Lasker’s chief challenger in the last years leading up to World War I. It also examines the effects this conflict had on his sensitive psyche and the way it influenced his play in the post-War years.

279

Mark Dvoretsky Teaches… Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual 2nd Edition by Mark Dvoretsky 402 pages ISBN 1-888690-28-3 SRP: $29.95

A Modern Classic “Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual is quite simply a masterpiece of research and insight. It is a tremendous contribution to endgame literature, certainly the most important one in many years, and destined to be a classic of the literature (if it isn't already one). The famous trainer Mark Dvoretsky has put together a vast number of examples that he has not only collected, but analysed and tested with some of the world’s strongest players. Most of all, Dvoretsky’s analysis is staggering in its depth and accuracy.”–John Watson, The Week In Chess

The Legendary Emanuel Lasker Common Sense in Chess by Emanuel Lasker 127 pages ISBN: 978-1-888690-40-8 SRP:$19.95 The Classic Tour de Force Now in a 21st Century Edition!

Respected chess author Bruce Alberston has taken Lasker’s classic and created a 21st century edition. The text has been converted to modern algebraic notation and more diagrams have been added (there are now more than 330 diagrams!). Splendidly complementing Lasker’s original masterpiece, Alberston has added seven games annotated by Lasker that were played in the famous Hastings Tournament of 1895.

280