Masters of the Chessboard [Paperback ed.] 1936490218, 9781936490219

Citation preview

Masters of the

Chessboard

by Richard Reti

Foreword by Andy Soltis

2012 Russell Enterprises, Inc . Milford, CT USA

Masters of the Chessboard by Richard Reti ISBN: 978-1-936490-21-9

© Copyright 2012 Russell Enterprises, Inc . Hanon W. Russell 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, elec­ tronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the express written permission from the publisher except i n the case of brief quotations embodied i n critical articles or reviews.

Published by: Russell Enterprises, Inc. P.O. Box 3131 Milford, CT 06460 USA http://www.russell-enterprises .com i nfo@russell-enterprises. com

Cover design by Janel Lowrance Printed in the United States of America

Table of Contents

Foreword by Andy Soltis Author's Preface Part

1:

5 8

The Older Masters

Adolf Anderssen Paul Morphy Wilhelm Steinitz Siegbert Tarrasch The Queen's Gambit Emanuel Lasker The Steinitz Defense of the Ruy Lopez The Ruy Lopez Exchange Variation Carl Schlechter Harry Nelson Pillsbury Examples of the Breakthrough on the Grand Scale

10 19 30 55 67 70 83 90 1 00 1 09 1 10

Part II: Masters of Today Foreword Geza Mar6czy Frank Marshall Akiba Runbinstein The Rubinstein Defense of the Four Knights Game Rudolf Spielmann Aron Nimzowitsch The Hanham Variation The Indian Defense Milan Vidmar Savielly Tartakower

1 16 1 16 121 1 24 1 28 1 34 1 37 1 40 1 43 1 49 151

Masters of the Chessboard

Jose Raul Capablanca The Theory of the Caro-Kann Defense The Cambridge Springs and the Westphalia Defenses of the Queen's Gambit Rook Endgames Efim Bogoljubow My System of Opening The Center Pawn as an Obstruction to Its Own Pieces Alexander Alekhine The Blumenfeld Gambit and Related Systems Declining the Cambridge Springs Variation The Technique of Chess Combinations The Alekhine Defense

1 90 191 1 94 204 208 21 1

Player Index Opening Index

215 2 16

4

1 57 16 1 1 66 171 1 74 1 85

Foreword

It's a familiar story: Someone crafts a book, a movie, a stage play or some other original work that is both critically acclaimed and commercially successful. The response from his publisher/producer/sponsor is, "Do it again." Or rather, "Do something very similar so it will be received just as profitably as the original." In other words, "Make a sequel." There have been many chess books that seemed to be recycled that way. The result, typically, is an unsatisfying sequel. That's why Masters ofthe Chessboard is a surprise. Richard Reti covers much the same ground in it that he did in Modern Ideas ofChess. He presents the material in the same basic format, a chronological history of the games evolution. Yet the result is not only strikingly different but is a classic on its own merit. There are few cases in chess literature and its hard to recall them in any realm of literature in which two books on the very same subject by the same author turned out so well. (Aron Nimzovich's My System and its sequel, Chess Praxis, come close.) Some discerning critics, such as Irving Chernev, who wrote a few classics of his own, preferred Reti's sequel to Modern Ideas. He said the only chess book greater than Masters was Alexander Alekhine's first game collection. The differences between the two books are evident early on. Reti focused on general ideas, Big Ideas, in the first pages of his first book. He discussed the nature of combination, the limits of calculation and the role of positional play. His notes were brief. He hardly discussed the openings of the six Morphy games he examined. But Reti said in his introduction to Masters that it was going to be "a textbook." He packs it with advice, even for beginners. "Avoid the Queen's Gambit and the French Defense and play open games instead !" he counsels. You might not win as often this way, he is saying, but you'll learn a lot about handling files and diagonals and seeing tactics. Also, Modern Ideas downplayed openings, while Masters makes them a priority. Reti tells the student to understand "the basic idea" of each opening, and goes into considerable detail as he explains each of the popular lines of the day, i ncluding, of course, the Reti Opening. The practical approach is also evident when he deals with positional themes. "Steinitz was the first to demonstrate the superiority of two bishops over a bishop and a knight," he writes. He could have left matters there, as he often did with a perceptive comment in Modern Ideas. But his second book is filled with instructive elaboration. Masters can be appreciated as almost a primer on the subject of how

5

Masters of the Chessboard

to turn the two bishops into a significant advantage. He demonstrates this in two Steinitz endgames (games 1 4 and 1 6) and a Morphy-Amateur brilliancy. He explores the theme of 2A+.£J-vs.-2.£J+A with a pair of rooks added in games 34 and game 42. The author's basic approach in Masters is to focus on great players rather than great ideas. At first this seems misguided because we don't learn much from the skimpy biographical details. In truth, some of the details are just wrong, such as Reti's claim that Frank Marshall was born in Brooklyn, that Jose Capablanca completed his education at Harvard, and that Alexander Alekhine's first game collection was called My Hundred Best Chess Games. But potted bios are not what this book is all about. The most original aspect of this book is Reti's attempt at finding a link between the style of great players and their personalities. "Morphy's superiority over his contemporaries is due to the fact that he was the first great player to understand the nature and characteristics of the open positions," he writes. But his message is not just Morphy Development, as it was in Modern Ideas. No, in Masters he makes the case that the Americans predilection for rapid mobilization of pieces in the opening was due to his nature. Morphy was a man "loving action and quick success." He stands in contrast to Steinitz who "was not interested in the glory of ready success" and therefore inclined to closed positions, Reti claims. Another revealing point comes when he point out that AkibaRubinstein made more blunders than any other masters. He then explains that this happens because ofRubinstein's "excessive mental exertion" to find the best move. This was a novel approach because many ofReti's contemporaries insisted that personality played no role in their games. It didn't matter who they played tomorrow, just what color pieces they had. =

Reti's emphasis on personality is highly debatable and the reader is entitled to considerable skepticism. His views on Emanuel Lasker range from the discerning "He is not so much interested in making the best moves as he is making those most disagreeable to this opponent" to the ludicrous "Lasker often plays badly on purpose." Reuben Fine, in his The Psychology of the Chess Player, said that Masters was the first work to point out the extensive differences in playing style of the great masters and to document them in considerable detail. Curiously, Fine didn't mention Reti's psychological approach. Many of the judgments he handed down in Modern Ideas are refined in Masters. Morphy was called "the first positional player" in the first book. But in the second, Reti concedes, "there were position players even in the remote past," such as Philidor. In Modern Ideas, Adolf Anderssen is portrayed as tactics-minded fossil whose tricks had to fail against Morphy. In Masters, Anderssen is a historical hero who advanced the art of combination so that the world would be "ripe for position play."

6

Foreword

Some of the finest parts of the book are the mini-essays, most of them on openings, but also on rook endgames. It's remarkable that Reti manages to do this without going into long variations. Considering how move-heavy today's GM analysis is in any chess magazine, the reader might conclude that it was move-light in Reti's day. But Horace Bigelow, the New York Post chess columnist and master, pointed out in the introduction to the original English edition of this book that Reti was taking "a welcome departure" from the commentary of the day, which lacked in explanations in words, rather than moves. Reti was also being original when he said the real weakness of an isolated pawn lies in the square in front of it, not in the pawn itself. Another gem of insight is, "The real criterion by which to appraise closed position is the possibility of breaking through." In game 26 he writes, "The line-dominating pieces, bishop, rook and queen, can move without losing control over points needing protection. With the king and knight it is a different matter. This is the reason why in endgames such as this ( 4J+fts-vs.-lt +fts), forced moves play such an important role." Think about that for a moment. Reti is saying that there is more calculation and opportunities for zugzwang in endings with the short-range pieces, and more maneuvering in endings with the long-range pieces. Later he explains that "seemingly poor, restricted positions may be good ones, if they are capable of development and offer possibilities of planning ahead." In other words, positions that look bad but can be improved are often better than ones that look good but can't. This is a direct challenge to Siegbert Tarrasch, who believed cramped positions were simply bad positions. Reti's explanation of the psychology of the defender, the good one and the bad one, is also wonderfully instructive. True, some of his comments about specific openings are positively ancient. He claims the Falkbeer Countergambit nearly refutes the King's Gambit and that only players interested in "tedious" middlegames will play the Sicilian Defense as Black. Also, his analysis of the Schulten-Morphy game has been challenged in dozens of master games that showed White isn't bad at all after 7.-'txe3. And the reader may just smile when he finds Reti saying the reply 1 . .. e5 to l . e4 is a mistake that is virtually refuted by the Ruy Lopez. Nevertheless, Masters was a brilliant sequel. It turned out to be Reti's last great gift to the chess world. It was published posthumously, as Die Meister des Schachbretts in German in 1 930, after Reti died in 1 929. Andy Soltis New York January 20 1 2

7

Masters of the Chessboard

Author's Preface

This book, though it is in the form of a collection of games, is nevertheless meant to be a textbook - quite unlike a textbook on mathematics or some other science of course, since chess has never been learned from books alone. Just as one learns to swim by swimming, so one learns to play chess by playing chess. A textbook on chess can be nothing more than a guide for the amateur, a friend in time of need, warning him against pitfalls and revealing to him in leisure hours enough of the beauty and fascination of our art to give him that sense of enjoyment in chess which is the essential condition of success. Such are the reasons which have led me to believe that this textbook migH.t best take the form of a collection of games . Complicated mathematical calculations are a result of the synthesis of simple theories. The opposite is true of chess where the theory is an abstraction, a generalization of experiences gained in the playing of actually games. The primary element is the living game which is the foundation of all chess theory. I have presented the achievements of the great masters of the chessboard in historical order because that is also the logical order. The modem technique of chess is based on past experience and for this reason the newer master games can be correctly understood only after a study of the older masters. In the selection of games as well as in their analysis I constantly kept in mind the fact that I was writing a textbook, and it was therefore invariably from the individual case that I derived the general principles and the theory not only of the openings but also ofthe middlegame. Thus I dare hope that both experienced and less experienced players will find in my book a good companion and a faithful helpmate in their chess exploits. Richard Reti

8

Richard Reti 1889-1929

9

Masters of the Chessboard

Part I The Older Masters Adolf Anderssen

A knowledge of combination is the foundation of positional play. This is a rule which has stood its test in chess history and one which we cannot impress forcibly enough upon the young chessplayer. A beginner should avoid the Queen's Gambit and the French Defense and play open games instead! While he may not win as many games at first, he will in the long run be amply compensated by acquiring a thorough knowledge of the game. There were position-players even in the remote past, outstanding among whom was Andre Danican Philidor, who was perhaps the greatest chess thinker of all time. He had this in common with all his predecessors and contemporaries, that combination was not his strong point. The master who by his example developed the power of combination of the entire chess world to such an extent that it became ripe for position play was Adolf Anderssen. Anderssen was born in Breslau, Germany, on July 6, 1 8 1 8. But little is to be said about his life and career. He studied philosophy and mathematics and taught at the gymnasi urn of his native city until his death on March 1 3, 1 879. While yet a student he became engrossed with chess, although his powers developed but slowly. His winning of the first prize at the First International Masters Tournament in London in 1 85 1 , with which he began he modem age in chess, therefore came as a surprise to both German and international chess circles. This triumph was followed by others, notably in London in 1 862 and at Baden­ Baden in 1 870. To the students we would like to recommend an analysis of the following Anderssen games, not only for their own pleasure, but in order to develop powers of combination. It is a mistake to think that combination is solely a question of talent and that it cannot be acquired. The same elements, as double attacks, pins, obstructions, etc., occur here again and again in more or less complicated

10

Adolf Anderssen

associations. The more one sees of them, the easier it becomes to conceive and follow through such combinations oneself. A thorough study of the following games will at the same time give us a better understanding of the so-called theory of openings. The opening of the following game is the King's Gambit. A gambit is an opening in which a pawn is sacrificed in order to obtain an advantage in development or some other gain. The oldest gambit known in chess literature is the King's Gambit, l . e4 e5 2.f4. The idea underlying this gambit is twofold: In the first place it opens the f-file, on which the king's rook can quickly become active, as for example after castling. In the second place it offers the possibility, after elimination or exchange of the black e­ pawn, of forming a strong pawn center eventually by means of d4. We shall learn more about the strength of such a pawn center later. Of course after 2 . .. exf4, White cannot very well play 3 . d4 at once, but has to guard first against the threatening �h4+. The student as well as the more experienced player will improve his play considerably if he makes it a rule to treat each opening systematically in accordance with its basic idea. Consequently, in playing the King's Gambit, he will keep in mind the two aims this opening, namely pressure on the f-file and the formation of a pawn center. If he allows himself to be tempted into by-paths however, he deprives his first moves of al meaning, and inconsistent play cannot fail to bring retribution. How is Black now to reply to the King's Gambit? In former times the rule was to accept the sacrifice offered by the adversary. The King's Gambit was therefore accepted almost without exception by means of 2 . . . exf4, with g5 following, in an endeavor to defend the pawn on f4. Apart from its material value, this defense has also a positional purpose. The defense of the f4-pawn effectively blocks the f­ file. In order to carry out the attack on the f-file, which is in accordance with the underlying idea of the opening, White generally will have to sacrifice a piece in order to remove the black gambit pawn. Artother reply to the King's Gambit is the counterattack in the center, 2 . . . d5; usually continuing 3 .exd5 (it would be a serious mistake to play 3 . fxe5 on account of 3 . . . �h4+) with 3 . . . e4. The gambit is here played by Black and is called the Falkbeer Counter Gambit after its inventor, the Austrian chess master Ernst Karl Falkbeer, born in Bruenn in 1 8 1 9, died in Vienna in 1 885. What does Black gain by making this pawn sacrifice? Above all it achieves the complete defeat of the aims inherent in White's gambit move. The opening of the f-file, as well as the intended establishment of a pawn center are thoroughly thwarted. The position of the pawn on f4 seems now devoid of meaning. Moreover, Black's pawn at e4 exerts a certain amount of pressure on the position of White which obstructs his development. Black is decidedly superior in the center. For

11

Masters of the Chessboard

this reason, the Falkbeer Counter Gambit has come of late to be considered almost as the refutation of the King's Gambit. Finally Black may attempt to ignore the gambit move of White to some extent and to continue his development. In doing so, Black does not necessarily have to play the protective 2... d6 at once which would shut in the black king's bishop. The attack on the e5-pawn is illusory as 3.fxe5 would prove abortive on account of 3 . . .'�'h4+. Black therefore can well afford to play first 2.. . Jlc5 and to defend the pawn on e5 later on with d6 without limiting the freedom of action of the bishop. We shall of course have more to say concerning the King's Gambit during discussion of the games. But we would ask the student not to pass lightly over the general ideas concerning openings which we shall develop here and later. It seems unfortunate that most chessplayers appreciate only exact variations. The opposite would be more to the point. There is more real chess truth in ideas than in variations. Although these are to be found in black and white in voluminous books of scientific aspect, they are usually after a few short years found to be incorrect, sometimes almost as soon as they are off the press. Anyone with a correct understanding of the real intent and meaning of openings need never fear for his game, even without a knowledge of the variations.

(1) Rosanes-Anderssen Breslau, 1 862 Falkbeer Counter Gambit [C32]

therefore plays 4.Jlb5+, in order to exchange the d5-pawn which otherwise might become weak, after c3.

l.e4 e5 2.f4 d5 3.exd5 e4 4.Ab5+

4 ...c6 5.dxc6 4) xc6

This move is characteristic of the old­ time player. The game was played without consideration of the fine positional qualities and the player was concerned mainly with obvious material advantages or mating attacks. Today we know that the primary object of the struggle in the opening is the control of the center. A modem player therefore aims first of all at the removal of the oppressive e4-pawn and for this reason naturally plays 4.d3 In this game White as was customary at that time attempts to establish first his preponderance in pawns, even at the expense of his development and

The exchange of the pawn was here usually accompanied with 5 . . . bxc6. 6.4)c3 4)f6 7. 'l:/e2

White would have done better to move the d-pawn in order to make up as much as possible for his rather backward development. White instead continues to play for material gain, namely the capture of a second pawn, the e-pawn. Black is quite justified in not defending this pawn, but to continue his development instead. The more pawns are eliminated from the board and the more lines are opened thereby, the

12

Adolf Anderssen

greater will be his advantage in development.

completely opponent.

7 ... Jl.c5 8.4) xe4 0-0 9.Axc6 bxc6 10.d3 E{e8 11.J}.d2

17.4)f3

overlooked

by

his

Had White seen through his adversary's plan, he would have played 17.�b2, although Black would have won speedily with 17 . . . Jle6, threatening 18 . . . Jl x b3.

In castling on the queenside, White is attempting to guard his king against possible danger. Black, however, has too many open lines on the queenside.

17 ... � xb3! 18.axb3 E{xb3 19.Ae1 Ae3+! and mate next move. 0-1

11... 4) xe4 12.dxe4 Jl.f5 13.e5 �b6

After 1 3 . . . Jlxc2 and 1 4 . �c4 Black would have to exchange one of his valuable bishops, but in view of White's undeveloped position, even continuation would be this advantageous for Black.

(2) Rosanes-Anderssen Breslau, 1 863 King's Gambit [C39] 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.4)f3

This constitutes the so-called King's Knight Gambit. Other current continuations are 3 .Jlc4, the Bishop's Gambit, and 3 . Jl e 2 , the Lesser Bishop's Gambit. More recently; 3 . �f3 , the Breyer Gambit, has occasionally been played. We shall say more about these continuations later.

14.0-0-0 Jl.d4

This move weakens White's castled position. 15.c3 §ab8 16.b3

3 ... g5

As far back as three centuries ago it was known that the gambit pawn can only be protected in the long run by making this defensive move without delay. As we have already mentioned in the opening of the first game, it is fairly obvious that this endeavor to maintain the advantage gained was the prevailing manner of play in Anderssen's time.

16... E{ed8

A quiet waiting move quite in the Anderssen manner and preparing a brilliant combination, which is

White now has two fundamentally d i fferent continuations. He can continue his development with 4.Jlc4 and 0-0, on the next move. Such naive

13

Masters of the Chessboard

tactics might be used by superficial players whose only aim is the attack at all cost and who are not aware that this is not in accordance with the spirit of the King's Gambit. We know that the idea of the King's Gambit is to attack on the f-file, where the f6- and f5squares have become weak as a consequence of g5, as this pawn can no longer protect these squares or drive off hostile units from them. Playing in accordance with the real meaning of the gambit, White therefore would have to aim first of all at the opening of the f-file and at the elimination of the f4-pawn. The continuation leading to positional advantage is therefore 4 . h 4 , undermining the defenses o f the gambit pawn. It was no accident therefore that typical positional players like Steinitz and Rubinstein are of the opinion that this variation of the King's Gambit is in favor of White. It should also be noted that on this fourth move White must determine his further course of action. If he plays 4 .ilc4, Black can answer with 4 . . . ilg7, which would deprive h4 of its purpose, since Black now has the possibility of maintaining his chain of pawns through h6.

We have here an excellent opportunity of demonstrating the advantage of a proper understanding of the real meaning of an opening and of showing how much more important this is than a mere memorizing of variations. The average player, looking for the obvious attacking moves, would probably play 6.ilc4. But even the chess student who has taken the trouble of studying Bilguer's famous textbook would probably make the same move and soon be at a disadvantage, if his adversary played correctly. It is not astonishing that this great work contains many flaws in regard to the analysis of the King's Gambit. In the first place, almost every analysis based only upon variations has proved erroneous in the course of years, because a knowledge of variations is after all only sham knowledge. It is further to be considered that the King's Gambit is not a modern opening, most of its variations having originated at a time when positional thinking was relatively rare.

4.h4 g4 5.�e5

This opening variation is called the Kiesertizky Gambit. Another continuation is the Allgaier Gambit with 5. .£)g5, which gives White a very dangerous attack, though he has to sacrifice the knight after Black's move 5.. . h6, with 6. .£) xf7.

Keeping in mind the underlying idea of the opening, the elimination of the gambit pawn on f4 and the opening of

14

Adolf Anderssen

the f-file, 6.d4 would seem to be of primary importance. This is the move which was favored by the oldest of the great masters of positional play, Philidor, and which recently has been demonstrated by Rubinstein as being advantageous for White. It is true that after 6 . d4 d6 7 . 4Jd3 4J x e4 8 . ilxf4, Black is a pawn ahead, but his position is far from enviable, because of the irreparable weakness of the now open f-file. It is not surprising that White in the following game made the more obvious, but weaker move.

t4 ... Af5 t 5 . .1ld5

A better defense would probably have been 1 5 .ilc6 in order to prevent the black rook from occupying e8. 15 . . . � g7! 16.4)c3 §eS+ 17.�f2 �b6

With this move, Black threatens to bring about a decision by means of ileS .

18.4)a4 �a6

6.Ac4 d5 7.exd5 Ad6 8.d4 4)h5

Threatening mate in four moves:

We readily see that it is not so easy now for White to open the f-file, though he should have persevered, preferably with 9 . 0-0 in spite of the possible answer 9 . . . �xh4. As in the previous game, however, Rosanes again plays not for position, but for material advantage.

§el + 2 2 .®f2 § fl =11=.

19 . . . �e2 + 20.�xe2+ § xe2+ 2 1 .®gl

White cannot parry this threat with 1 9 . c4, since Black would answer with 1 9 . . . �xa4 and after 20 .�xa4 would mate again with 20 . . . § e2+, etc.

9 . .1lb5+ c6 10.dxc6 bxc6 11.4) xc6 4) xc6 12 . .1}.xc6+ �f8 13.Axa8

19 ... Ae5! 20.a4

White to be sure now has the advantage of a clear rook, but on the other hand a quite undeveloped game and an en qangered king's position. 13 ... 4)g3 14.§h2

It seems almost superfluous to mention that White here should have tried to throw a sop to Cerberus by sacrificing the exchange with 14.®f2 instead of wasting his rook on h2. As Anderssen has shown in a long analysis, he would however even then have obtained a sufficient attack.

Black announced mate in four moves. 20. . . �fl + ! 21.� x f l 22 . ..Q.e3 § xe3! 23. � g l

15

.1}. x d4+

Masters of the Chessboard

Any other move is followed by .§ e2 #. 23 ... .§el# 0-1

Following the trend of the times, Anderssen in later years turned more and more to positional play. We shall add one of these later games, though even here Anders sen's power of combination triumphs at the end. In consequence this game, based on positional play, obtains a character of its own.

indicates a n unmistakable advantage for White. As one result White was able to place his rooks advantageously on e 1 and d 1 while Black has no open file at his disposal for his queen's rook.

(3) Anderssen-Paulsen,L. Vienna (m2), 1 873 Philidor's Defense [C62] l.e4 e5 2. lL)f3 d6

The defense of Philidor. 2 .. �c6 is considered the better move, giving Black the possibility of playing d5 eventually and thereby of participating more effectively in the opening fight for superiority in the center. The move d6 to a certain extent constitutes a surrender, the surrender namely of the greater freedom of action, in case the opponent should choose to play d4. Older theoreticians have mainly criticized d6 because it blocks the king's bishop, which, though quite true, is of comparatively minor importance. .

Content with his victory in the fight for the superiority in the center, Anderssen here makes a waiting move, contributing to the safety of his position. In cases like the above where a lasting positional advantage has been achieved, such safety moves are nearly always to the point. t t ... Ad7

Black wants to maneuver his bishop to e6, giving thereby his opponent however an opportunity of increasing his positional advantage, or, more accurately, of exchanging it for another, even larger and more lasting advantage.

3 .d4 e x d4 4 . � x d4 lL)c6 5 .Jlb5 jld7 6.jl xc6 j}.xc6 7.A g 5 lL)f6 8. lL)c3 Jle7 9.0-0-0 0-0 lO . .§hel .§e8 (D)

12 . jl x f6 j}. x f6 14. lL)d5 jlf8

White has completed his development, Black only as far as his cramped position will permit. The pawn position in the center, White e4, Black d6,

13.e5!

Jle7

All the moves of Black are forced. 15.exd6 cxd6

16

Adolf Anderssen

here White will be able to establish a piece with great and lasting effect, since on the one hand there are no neighboring pawns with which to dislodge this piece and on the other hand the isolated pawn itself is an obstruction for the black rooks which otherwise could attack the piece. The most effective piece in such a position is a knight. The others are long­ range pieces and just as effective from a distance. Only the knight increases in effectiveness if it succeeds in taking up a permanent position close to the opponent's lines. After these remarks it is clear that Black will endeavor above all to get rid of the knight on d5, i.e., to exchange it against his queen's bishop. The manner in which Anderssen opposes this intention and is seemingly losing time to maintain the knight on d5 at any cost, is very instructive and shows Anderssen as a positional player, just as during the whole first part of this game.

The point of Anderssen's combinations, introduced with the twelfth move, lies in the fact that Black, after 1 5 . .. Axd6, would lose a pawn with 16.{)xc7. Thus Black is forced to see his pawn isolated on d6. This is the greater positional advantage for which Anderssen sacrificed the advantage that he had gained in the opening with his pawn on e4 against Black's pawn on d6. Let us say a few words here concerning the isolated pawn. Every chessplayer seems to realize that an isolated pawn is a disadvantage, but only very few really know why it is a disadvantage and how it can be turned to the best possible account. Most players believe the isolated pawn to be weak and easy to capture. This, however, is only rarely the case if the position is otherwise fairly even, because there is absolutely no reason why the opponent should not be able to defend the pawn with as many pieces as are used to attack it.

t 6 . .§ x e8 jt x e 8 17 . 4:)d 2 ! Ac6 18.4:)e4 f5

Now Black dare not play 18.. -'txdS, since thereby he would lose the d6pawn. .

19.4:)ec3

Thus has White secured the dominating knight position.

The essential disadvantage of the isolated pawn, its essential weakness, lies not in the pawn itself, but in the square in front of the pawn, here, for example, the d5-square. This square is entirely under the control of White and

19 ... �d7 20.a3

Just as after move 11, we see here how Anderssen, having se cured his positional advantage, makes a waiting move to improve his king's position.

17

Masters of the Chessboard

22 ... .§e8 23.f4 .§e6 24. g5

20 ... �f7 2l .h3

With this last move Black's plan is defeated. Nevertheless we believe that the criticism which as leveled at Paulsen's last move is unjustified. He apparently intended to provoke g5, in order to make it more difficult for White to open the g-file which otherwise would have been effected, after some preparatory moves, with gxfS. 24 ... b5

Here begins a new phase of the game: the assault of the pawns on the kingside. Similar tactics are frequently observed in tea-shop games, but only rarely are they positionally justified. The attack of the pawns on the flank pre-supposes absolute safety in the center as is the case in the game under discussion. As long as the opponent has a chance of breaking through in the center, an offensive maneuver on the flank is usually a mistake.

Black, who cannot do anything very effective, attempts a demonstration on the queenside. 25.h4 §e8 26.�d3

Anderssen conducts his attack subtly and unrelentingly. The queen move prepares hS. 26 ... .§b8 27.h5 a5 28.b4!

21... a6

The most unfortunate part of Black's position is the fact that it is impossible for him to play g6, with ilg7 following, inasmuch as White would always counter g6 with 4Jf6+. This illustrates the great force of the knight at d5. Black now intends to prepare g6 with .§ e8e6 and therefore secures the a-pawn from the attack by the white queen. 22.g4

White stops Black's maneuver at exactly the right moment. Black's b5pawn now obstructs the c6-bishop.

The continuation of the pawn attack and at the same time a preventive measure against Black's intention.

28 ... axb4 29.a xb4 �xh5

18

Paul Morphy

To prevent the white pawns from getting too powerful - White for example threatened .§.gl and even before perhaps �f3, with g6. Another threat was h6, and if Black moves his g-pawn to g6, White would reply with 4Jf6+ and �d4.

opportunity of demonstrating his power of combination.

-

33 ... §.e8

This frees the c3-knight but Black has no other plausible reply against the threat of 32 . .§. h l . 32.4:\e4 �f5 33.§.hl

White, who conducts his attack with wonderful precision, now threatens 34.4Je3 �g6 35 .f5 . In order to prevent this, Black scarcely has any other move but that shown below which however once again affords Anderssen an

34.4:\ef6+! g x f6 35.4:\ x f6+ '/lf7 36.§.xh7+ Jl g7 37.§.x g7+ '/lxg7 38.4:\x eS+ '/lf8 39.� x f5+ Jl x f5 40.4:\ xd6 and White wins. 1-0

Paul Morphy

The life story of this perhaps most famous of all chess masters may be told in a few words. Paul Morphy was born in New Orleans in 1837. In 1857 he won first prize at the first American chess tournament, defeating the German master Louis Paulsen. In the following years he visited Europe to compete with the• greatest European masters of chess, defeating every one of his opponents. His most important matches were those against Lowenthal, Harrwitz and Anderssen, the first one of which was played in London, the two others in Paris. Shortly afterwards he retired entirely from participation in tournaments and matches and died on July 10, 1884, in his native city.

19

Masters of the Chessboard

His contemporaries reproached Morphy for a certain dryness, a criticism which as been leveled against every world's champion before and after him. His inclination to exchange queens in order to win a paltry pawn was found fault with, fundamentally the same criticism aimed at Capablanca today, except that the exchange of queens is today considered self-understood even by less advanced players and that the exchange is made by Capablanca for much smaller positional advantages. Times have changed and the numerous chess amateurs who lack a full understanding of the now prevalent and more difficult closed games are glorifying Morphy's open play. This is because nowadays the open game is readily understood even by less advanced players which was not the case however in Morphy's time, since• it is to him and to his games that we owe this understanding. Morphy's superiority over his contemporaries is the consequence of the fact that he was first to understand the nature and characteristics of the open positions and had elaborated sound principles for their treatment. A position is called open after some of the center pawns have been exchanged, so that the pieces command open lines. The openings beginning with l .e4 e5 are more apt than others to lead to open positions, since as a rule d4 and exchange of center pawns will follow. On the other hand it is obviously more difficult to carry out the move 2 .e4 after l .d4, inasmuch as the e4-square is originally unprotected. This is the reason why d-pawn openings as a rule lead to closed positions. The open positions quite naturally lead to a lively game, wherefore - and this is Morphy's most important discovery- it is essential to develop the pieces without delay, to bring them quickly into action and not to lose any time. Morphy's contemporaries on the contrary indulged all too frequently in premature attacks with their forces insufficiently developed, or in unnecessarily timid defensive moves, as we shall see more clearly in the following games. White, in order to recapture his pawn, will sooner or later have to play hl §.aS 24.§.acl!

In order to avoid the exchange of rooks. See our comment regarding move 1 3 .

29 ...hxg5 30.hxg5 4) xg5 3l.�h2 c;t>g8 3 2 . 4) x g 5 A x g 5 3 3 .f6 g6 34.A xg6 1-0

62

Siegbert Tarrasch

regard to whi ch D r. Tarrasch has distinguished himself, is to be found in the logical attack against Black's e­ pawn which i s contained in the moves 2 J�jf3 and 3.�b5, in order to induce B lack to play d6, thereby achieving superiority by means of d4, all of which we have seen in the Anderssen-Paulsen game.

Regarding the Theory of the Ruy Lopez

Let us recall how Steinitz managed the Ruy Lopez or agai n the P hi lidor Defense. He did not attempt to bring about an advantage in space in the center, his aim being the formation of a solid pawn center, e4-d3 -c3, in order to fortify himself against attacks in the center and thus be able to take the offensive on the flank. In contrast to these tactics we have seen how The in the gameAnderssen-Paulsen, after l .e4 e5 2 .4Jf3 d6, successfully contended for immediate superiority in the center by means of 3.d4. Experience has shown that this space­ winning move d4 is only then of real advantage in e-pawn openings where Black has previously played d6, a rule which is well to remember. The reason for this lies in the fact that otherwise Black may attack the e-pawn with 4Jf6, thereby taking the initiative and without further di ffi culty arri vi n g at the liberating move dS, which would not be possible at all or only with the greatest difficulty by first playing d6 on account of the loss of a tempo. The modern treatment of the Ruy Lopez in

In the modern defense of the Ruy Lopez, Black therefore resists this ideal formati on (for White) as al ong as possible. The so-called Berlin Defense, 3 . . . 4Jf6, is very i nstructi ve in thi s respect. Black is not protecting his e­ pawn, but in reality makes a counter­ attack on White's e-pawn. As we have mentioned in connection with game 1 8 (Steinitz-Chigorin) White, in order to maintain hi s plan of arriving in due course at d4, will have to abandon the defense of his e-pawn and castle on the fourth move. If Black then protects his e-pawn by means of 4 . . . d6, Whi te realizes his intention with 5.d4. In order to avoid restriction, B lack therefore must play 4 . . . 4Jxe4, though White obviously will regain his pawn and will be at an advantage in the resulting open p o si ti on , thanks to hi s b ett � r development. True, this advantage 1s only minute and hardly decisive, and as it is in the nature of chess that the second p l ayer must be at some disadvantage, the above line of play, which we shall discuss more fully in the fo l l owi ng gam e s , must b e considered as pertaining t o the enduring elements of the theory of openings. (21) Tarrasch-Lasker,Em. Germany 1 908 Ruy Lopez [C67]

63

Masters of the Chessboard

l .e4 e5 2.4)f3 4) c6 3.Ab5 4) f6 4.0-0 4) xe4 5.d4

! fWhite, after winning back the pawn,

mtends to maintain the advantage in development, he must endeavor to rec apture the pawn by means o f developing and attacking moves and not by simply moving his rook to e 1 in order to take the pawn with his knight. 5 .. .Ae7 6.'ll?/e 2

Tarrasch (Vienna 1 898), Pillsbury has however demonstrated the drawback of d 5 , whi ch creates a weak poi nt in Black's position on c5, which weakness was i mmedi ately made use of by Pillsbury by playing 14.4Ja4. (14.'�e3 would also have been a very good move.) In order to avoid this weakness ' Lasker plays . . .

This is better than 6 . .§ e l , since it opens the d 1 -square for the rook. 6 ... 4)d6 7.A x c6 bxc6

It would have been more natural to take the bi shop with the d-pawn, and it would have been possible i f White had not moved his queen to e2 on the 6th move and had played 6 . .§el instead. As it is now it would be inadvisable for B lack to use the d-pawn for thi s purpose, as this would enable White to continue with dxe5 and .§ d l .

13 ... c5 14.Ae3 d5 15.exd6 A x d6 16.4)e4 Ab7

If White now plays 17 .4Jxc5, Black wins a piece through exchanges on c5 and �g5 .

8.dxe5 4)b 7 9.4)c3 0-0 l O . .§el

In order to free himself, B lack must attai n d 5 . The move in the text i s desi gned t o prevent thi s . F o r thi s reason, Black has to move his knight first to e6 .

Black's two bishops would otherwise become too threateni ng. White sti ll maintains a small advantage on account ofBlack's backward pawn on d6, while B lack on the other hand has good prospects of a draw, thanks to the bishops of opposite colors.

10 ... 4) c 5 1 1 .4) d4 4) e6 1 2 . Ae3 4) xd4 13.A x d4 (D)

The obvious thing to do now would be to play 13 . . . d5, since after 1 4.exd6, Black would be compensated for his weaker pawn position by his two very effective bishops. In a game Pillsbury-

17 . . . c x d 6 1 8 .c4 'll?/ f 6 19.f!adl f!fe8 20.'ll?/g4

White thereby takes the initiative which Black would assume otherwise with

64

Siegbert Tarrasch

�g6 or with f!e6 and �f5. White now threatens 2 1 .�d7. If Black now played 20 ... �xb2, the game would to White wi th 2 l . f! b l � c 3 2 2 . f! e c l �a3 23.ith6 g6 24.�f4.

the reply to �xd6, which threatens a catastrohpe on g2 and to the loss of the exchange by means of M3. Satisfactory for White, after Black's �e6, would have been the reply 2 3 . f! xd6 �xc4 24.f!ed2, which would make Black's reply 24 . . . f! g4 di sadvantageous on account of 25.f!d8+ ite8 26.�xg4 and 27 .f! xa8. The following move, simply parrying the principal threat of f!g4, is even better."

20 ...Ac6

This loses time so that White's position soon becomes overwhelming. The correct move to hold the game would have been 20 . . . f!e6.

23.h3! 21 .fte2

"Now if23 . . . �xc4, White would obtain an excellent game with 24.Ah6 g6 25.f! xe4 �xe4 26.f!xd6. The bishop on h6 is very powerful and the mate by means of 27.f! x c6 �xc6 28.�e5 f6 29.�e7 is not far off.

Preventing 2 1 . . . f! e6 by Black which would be followed by 2 2 . ltg5 and 23.f!ex6 with pawn gain. 2l ...fte4 22.�g3 �e6

23 ...ftd824.fted2 fte5

The follo.wing comments are quoted from Tarrasch 's The Chess Match Lasker-Tarrasch: "A surprising move leading to some interesting maneuvers. The generally expected move was 22 . . . f! x c 4 , wi th the conti nuati on 23.f! xd6 f!d8! 24.f! xd8+ �xd8, which would leave White with the advantage after 25.h3! in view of the threats Ah6 and f! d2, etc. The move in the text threatens first of all f!g4. This also is

25.Ah6 �g6

25 . . . � x h 6 w o u l d be fol lowed by 26.�xe5. 2 6 .Af4 fte6 2 7 . A x d 6 � h 5 2 8 .�g4 � x g4 29.h x g4 fte4 3 0 .A x c 5 ft x d 2 3 l .ft x d 2 h 5 32.ftd6 1-0

65

Masters of the Chessboard

10 ...0-0 1 1 .4)c6 �d6 12.�f3

(22) Tarrasch-Mieses Berlin 1 9 1 6 French Defense [C 1 0]

Better than 1 2 . 4Jxe7+ followed by 1 3.'li¥f3 inasmuch as Black would reply with 1 3 . . . a b8 and 1 4 . . . itb7, all of which is not possible now.

l.d4 e6 2.e4

A French with transposition of moves. 12 ...Ad7 13.4J xe7+ �xe7 14.Ag5 E!ac8

2 ...d5 3.4Jc3 dxe4

See comment concerning move 3 in game 20 (Tarrasch-Noa).

The c orrect move for B l ack was unquestionab ly 1 4 ... h6, since it was imperative that the pressure on hi s castled position should be removed.

4.4) xe4 4Jd7

An immediate 4 . . . 4Jf6 is not advisable on account of 5 .4Jxf6+ 'li¥xf6 6.4Jf3, threatening to win the queen by means of 7.itg5. The continuation in the text has been elaborated by Rubinstein; it has been frequently played and is sometimes known as the "Rubinstein Variation" of the French Defense.

15.f!fel E!fe8

5.4Jf3 4Jgf6 6.Ad3 Ae7

In a previ ou s game by the same opponents, B l ack p layed 6 . . . 4Jxe4 7 .itxe4 4Jf6 which gave White a good continuation with 8.itg5 ite7 9.itxf6.

Agai n B lack should have p laye d 1 5 . . . h6. White now definitely prevents this move.

7.0-0 4J xe4 8.A xe4 4Jf6 9.Ad3 b6

White the development of queen 's bishop to b7 is indicated, it is a tactical error to p lay b6 before castling, a mistake which soon makes B lack's game untenable.

Black can no longer play 1 6 . . . h6, since White would win with 17 .itxh6 gxh6 1 8 . 'li¥xh6 with the threat of 1 9.a e3. Black hopes to save the situation by means of a pawn sacrifice.

10.4)e5

16 ...�d6 17.Axf6 gxf6

If 1 0 . . . itb7, White prevents hi s opponent from castling with 1 1 .itb5+.

If White now plays 1 8.'li¥xh7+, the king escapes via f8 to e7 and Black may even

66

Siegbert Tarrasch

It will be remembered that White, after 1 .e4 e5, has two essentially different methods of turning the advantage of the first move to account by trying to open up the game. The move to achieve this in the one method is f4, as for instance in the King's Gambit or the Vienna Game, and in the other method it is d4, as in the Scotch Game or the Ruy Lopez.

expect to launch and attack on the now open g- and h-files. With his next move, White however holds Black's king fast in the net which he has over him. 18.�h6!

Threatening the well-known mate in four moves beginning with 19.iixh7+. 18 ...f5 19 .§.e3 � x d4 20.c3 1-0 .

Any and all moves of the queen are followed by 2 1 J�g3. The Queen's Gambit

Apart from 1 .e4, 1 .d4 has at all times been the most usual opening move. If after that Black has no other thought but to maintain the balance of the forces in the cen�er, he replies with 1 . . . d5, analogous to his reply 1 . .. e5 to l .e4, which is known as the Queen's Pawn Opening, l .d4 d5 . At first it might appear that the Queen's Pawn Opening is nothing but the reflected likeness of the King's Pawn Opening, l .e4 e5. On second thought, however, it is really seen that the Queen's Pawn Opening creates essentially different conditions in regard to the opening fight in the center.

67

In considering these methods of attack we have become aware of the fact that the methods using d4 are superior to those with f4. One of the reasons is that f4 involves a weakening of one's own king's position, another that after d4, the d-pawn is automatically protected by the queen while the pawn on f4 enjoys no such protection. Similarly we have a l s o i n the Queen ' s P awn Openings after 1 .d4 d5, two methods of arriving at the opening of the game, the moves now being c4 or e4 . In contrast to the King's Pawn Game however, it i s here the opening on the flank by means of c4 which is superior to the attack with the other center pawn with e4. The one di sadvantage of f4 in the King's Pawn Game, the weakening of the king's position, is obviously non­ existent with c4. The opening by means of e4, in the Queen's Pawn Game on the other hand is rather more difficult than the corresponding opening with d4 in the King's Pawn Game, inasmuch as the e-pawn does not have the automatic protection of the queen. For this reason, the usual continuation in the Queen's Pawn Game in the Queen's Gambit (2 . c4) or with transposition of moves, 2 .�f3 and 3.c4. Other methods where White aims at a breakthrough by e2-

Masters of the Chessboard

e4 or e 3 - e 4 are of l e s s freq u ent occurrence.

wins back the pawn with a superior game.

(23) Tarrasch-Tartakower Berlin 1 920 Albin Countergambit [D08]

2 ...e5

This reply, known under the name of "Albin's Counter Gambit," presents the counterpart to the Falkbeer Gambit. The Queen's Pawn Opening is however not a mere symmetrical likeness of the K i n g ' s P awn Opening and the var i at i o n s cannot b e transpo sed symmetrically. The Falkbeer Gambit is so powerful that we are inclined to consider it as the refutation of the King's Gambit.

l.d4 d5 2.c4

Albin's Counter Gambit however is scarcely correct. It differs from the Falkbeer Gambit essentially in so far as White ' s king 's position i s not weakened, though this is by no means the only difference. In the Falkbeer Gambit, White's gambit pawn is placed on d5 , where it is exposed to the attack of Black's queen, while on the other hand in A l b i n ' s C o unter G ambit White's gambit pawn after 3 .dxe5 d4 is posted on e5 where it is not under fire.

The Queen 's Gambit is not a real gambit since B lack cannot take and keep the pawn. In case of 2 . . . dxc4, White, in order to win back the pawn as soon as possible, plays 3.e3, and, should Black parry with 3 . . . b5, replies with 4.a4, and has the advantage, e.g. , 4 . . . c6 5 .axb5 cxb5 6.�f3 and White wins a piece. Another example : 4 . . . itd7 5 . axb5 ltxb5 6.b3, etc. It is true that Black after 3.e3, can free his game by mean � of 3 . . . e5, instead of fighting for the gambit pawn. This pawn however is so weak that White is in no hurry to win it back and has ample time to prevent Black's e5 with 3 J�jf3. Even now Black has no chance of effectively defending his gambit pawn, e.g., 3 . . . c6 4.e3 b5 5 .a4 e6 6.axb5 cxb5 7 .b3 (a move characteristic of this game) 7 . . . itb4+ 8.itd2 itxd2+ 9 . o£\bxd2 and White

Then again we see that in the Falkbeer Gambit the oppressive black pawn on e4 is not attacked while in Albin's Counter Gambit it is posted on d4 and exposed to the attack of White's queen from the first and furthermore is liable to become weak after o£\f3, and o£\bd2-b3. 3.dxe5 d4 The natural move now would be 4.e3, as in the Falkbeer Gambit. The analogy is however only apparent. Black would reply to 4 . e3 with 4 . . . itb4+ 5 . itd2

68

Siegbert Tarrasch

dxe3 6.i.txb4 exf2+ 7.'3ie2 fxg14J+ or 6.�a4+ 4Jc6 7.i.txb4 exf2 + 8 .'3fxf2 �h4+ 9 .g3 �d4+ and be ahead.

because White's pawn at e5 is rather exposed anyway. 13.Ae4 4)gxe5 14.4) xe5 � xe5

4.4)f3 c5

On 14 . . . 4Jxe5, White would continue with 1 5 .i.txb7+ �xb7 1 6 . § xe5, and Black would have to exchange queens in view of his exposed king's position. After 1 6.�xb3 1 7.axb3 '3fb7 1 8.§ea5, Black's endgame would be hopeless.

The usual move here i s 4 . . AJc 6 , followed b y 5.4Jbd2 g 6 and 6 . . . i.tg7. If Black, after 5.4Jbd2, plays 5 . . . i.tf5, White is forced to insert first 6.a3, in order to prevent 4Jb4. The move 4 . . . c5 has frequently been used by Tartakower to prevent the d4pawn from becomi n g w eak; i t contributes nothing however t o the development of the attack and i s therefore not i n harmony with the idea of the gambit.

After the move in the text, White could also exchange queens and win a pawn by means of 1 5 . �x b 7 + '3fxb7 1 6 . i.t x c 6 + '3i x c 6 17 . § x e S , though Black would have good chances in vi ew o f hi s otherwi se favorab le position, his two bishops and his passed pawn.

5 .e3 4) c 6 6 .e x d4 c x d4 7.Ad3 4)ge7 8.4)bd2 Ag4 9.�b3 �c7 10.0-0 0-0-0

15.4)f3 �c5 16.Af4!

Black is confronted with the difficult task of playing on the one hand for the capture of the e-pawn, and on the other hand for the maintenance of his own d-pawn, in order to achi eve equalization of the forces . Castling on the queenside therefore seems the only way to mobi li ze hi s pi e c e s . The resulting opportunities for attack are turned' to splendid account by Tarrasch. A beautiful move. If 1 6 . . . i.txc4, White would continue with 1 7. �xc4 �xc4 1 8.i.tf5+ a d7 1 9 . a e8+ 4Jd8 20.4Je5.

l l .f!el 4)g6 12.h3 Ae6

Black might have won back his pawn by means of 1 2 . . . i.txf3 1 3.4Jxf3 4Jgxe5, but after 1 4 . i.te4 ! , White w o u l d nevertheless b e ahead in view of his strong pair of bishops and the fact that Black's king's position would not be any too pleasant. Tartakower therefore removes hi s bi shop, especially also

16 ... Ad6 17.A xc6 bxc6 18.A xd6 f! xd6 19.4)e5! f!hd8

Once more Black dare not play for the capture of the pawn on c4. If Black p l ays 1 9 . . . f6 , W hite would

69

Masters of the Chessboard

advantageously continue with 20 . .£Jd3 �xe4 2 1 .�a3.

2S . . . Jle4 is followed by 26.bS Jle2 ( 2 6 . . . JldS 2 7 . �a6 �xeS 28 . .§ xd2) 27.b6. But ifWhite now continues with 26.bS, Black would reply 26 . . . Jle4 27.�a6 �xeS.

20.�a4

White now threatens to win speedily with b4 and eS. Black therefore stakes his all on his passed pawn, and in order to make it more effective, sacrifices the exchange. Nevertheless he loses as a result of his exposed king's position and the logical consequence of the entire structure of his game.

26. �b5+ c;f/c7

Other moves by the king could be answered by White to advantage with 27 . e6, whi ch now however would result in this pawn becoming weak on account of 27 . . . Jle8.

20 ...d3 21 .b4 �d4 22.4:) xc6 .Elxc6 23.� xc6+ c;f/b8 24.c5 d2 25 .Eledl .1lf5

27.�a5+ c;f/b8 28.b5 .1}.c2 29.b6 .Eld7 30.bxa7+

•

30.e6 would of course be answered by 30 . . . axb6. 30 c;f/a8 3 l .c6 .Eld5 32.c7 .1lf5 33.c8�+! A x eS 34. �c7 •..

Black now has to give up the bishop which means the end. 34 .Elb5 35.� xc8+ c;f/ x a7 36.a4 .Elc5 37.�g4 � xa1 38 .Elxal.Elcl + 39-�dl l-0 •••

•

Emanuel Lasker

Emanuel Lasker, who was born in 1 868 in Berlinchen in the Newmark, has distinguished himself not only as a chess master but also as a mathematician and philosopher. We are concerned here only with his achievements in chess. His most eminent successes are as follows: T he matches against Steinitz, 1 894 ( 1 0-5 with four draws); Marshall, 1 907 (8 -0 with seven draws) and against Tarrasch, 1 908 (8-3 with five draws). With his defeat of Steinitz, Lasker won the title of world's champions which he kept until 1 92 1 when he was defeated in tum by Capablanca (Havana 1 92 1 ) In tournament play Lasker won first prize at the international tournaments of Nuremberg 1 896, London 1 899, Paris 1 900, St. Petersburg 1 909 (divided with Rubinstein), St. Petersburg 1 9 14, Mahrisch-Ostrau 1 923 and New York 1 924. On the basis of comparison of the results achieved at international tournaments, that i s to say ever since chess became of international importance, Lasker must be considered as the most successful of all chess masters. .

70

Emanuel Lasker

The phi l o s ophi c al foundati o n o f Lasker's play has been discussed in the chapter on Tarrasch. We might add here that Lasker, though he was fully familiar with the theory of Steinitz, in his style shows a closer relationship to the style of Morphy. Like Morphy, he is not as infallible in closed positions as he is in the open game and in closed positions not infrequently dri fts into danger of defeat. But since no closed position can be overthrown by strategy alone and si nce a fi nal deci si on can only be achi eved by breaking through and opening up the game, none of hi s opponents can entirely eliminate this open phase of the game in which Lasker is most dangerous. Thi s is one of the reasons why Lasker more often than any other chess master has succeeded when already in an unfavorable position, in regaining the initiative. Lasker's most original contribution to chess however is not a purely technical, but a psychological element, the psychological play. This has first been pointed out by the author in an article published after the New York tournament of 1 924, and of which the following is an excerpt: "In analyzing Lasker's tournament games, I was struck by his lasting and at first seemingly incredible good luck. There are tournaments in which he came out on top and won almost every game, though in a losing position in every other game, so that many masters spoke of Lasker's hypnotic influence over his opponents. "What is the truth? Again and again I studied Lasker's games to discover the secret of his success. There is no denying the fact that over and over again Lasker's lay-out of the game is poor, that he is in a losing position a hundred times and nevelitheless wins in the end. The hypothesis of lasting luck is too improbable. A man who steadily wins such success must be possessed of surprising power. But why then the bad, the losing positions? There is only one answer which may sound paradoxical at first blush: Lasker often deliberately plays badly. "The motive is not far to seek. It was Dr. Tartakower who created the paradox which may give us the explanation: 'a game is always won through a mistake, either the opponent's or one 's own . ' As a result of the far-reaching development in the technique of chess all too many games are drawn if the games played correctly. In order to avoid this, Lasker manages to maneuver the game to the brink of an abyss by means of a series of theoretically unsound moves. And while he himself is hardly able to hold on, he finally manages, thanks to his greater

71

Masters of the Chessboard

staying power, to emerge victori ously while his opponent, who seemed safe enough, falls into the gulf. In this way Lasker wins a victory which he could never have achieved by simply playing a correct, steady game. "To this extent I had come to understand Lasker's style from book study. During the international tournaments of Mahrisch-Ostrau and New York I had occasion to observe Lasker's manner of playing first hand and to see him engaged in battle with his opponents all of whom I had met myself and whose game I knew very well. Thus I was able to come to an even closer understanding of his game and his success and to know why his opponents faltered and plunged into the abyss, as if seized by vertigo. "Every game of chess in a way is a contest of the nerves. Tournament play is essentially different from work in the quite of one 's study, where you work when you feel so disposed and where you rest when you are tired; it is a relentless intellectual struggle before a numerous public, at a prescribed hour and with a prescribed limit. Every chess master moreover takes his vocation very seriously and he feels that each move is a contribution to his life's work. This may explain why most chess masters suffer a sort of nervous collapse after a mistake, especially after a game has b een lost. I have known chess masters who, after a defeat, stayed in their room for a whole day, unable to eat or to cheer up. "And here is where we discover Lasker 's secret: For him the essential element is this contest of nerves, he uses the medium of the chess game to fight above all his opponent's psyche, and he knows how to bring about the nervous collapse, which otherwise occurs only after a mistake, even before a mistake has happened, and to make this the very cause of subsequent errors. How does he do it? He studies the game, the manner of playing, the strong and the weak points of the masters whom he is to meet. He is not so much interested in making the objectively best moves as those most disagreeable to hi s opponent; he turns the game in a direction not suitable to the style of his opponent and on this unaccustomed road leads him to the abyss, often by means of intentionally bad moves, as I have previously outlined. This is why Lasker's opponent never has a chance of playing a position that suits him, that, objectively speaking, he often stands to win, but is again and again confronted by new and for him especially difficult problems. And thus much precious time is lost, awkward situations must be attended to in haste, difficulties appear to become overwhelming and then all of a sudden Lasker begins to play magnificently and to show his real strength. There follows the nervous collapse, the psychic catastrophe, the direct consequence of which is a catastrophe on the chess board." Lasker's own remarks, as contained in an interview in De Telegraaf of June 23 , 1 924 should be compared in this connection. The question was as follows: "I have heard that after you have carefully studied some of your opponent's games, you know both his weak and strong points."

72

Emanuel Lasker

Lasker replied: "That is self-understood and is entirely in line with my theoretical conception of the fight. A game of chess, after all, is a fight in which all possible factors must be made use of, and in which a knowledge of the opponent's good and bad qualities is of the greatest importance. Thus Reti 's games for instance show that he plays better with White than with Black; Mar6czy's is that he is very cautious in defense, and that he attacks only when driven by necessity; Janowski's that he may stand to win six times but finds it regrettable that the game should end and that finally he manages to lose. In New York he has performed the impossible in this respect. In short, there is much to be learned from a few serious games of one's opponent. This would seem to confirm our opinion. Of what possible advantage would it be to know that Maroczy for instance dislikes the attack, if one were not willing to utilize such psychological factors in selecting one's moves? Such knowledge certainly is not required in order to arrive at the objectively best move in a given situation. We are not surprised after all this to find that Lasker had no disc iples and that he founded no school of his own, in contrast to Tarrasch, who became the teacher of an entire generation of masters. His successes made him famous and he was much admired, thought the reasons for these successes were not fathomed. Only during the past few years have Lasker and his conception of chess come to be better understood and it is only to be hoped that this will be a fountain of rejuvenation for the old game. In the following game we see once more a fight of two bishops against bishop and knight. The reader will do well first to play onc e more through the corresponding games of Steinitz, in order to obtain a c learer understanding of the Lasker game. Again, we encounter the same pawn attacks, restricting White's knights on the one hand and forming a barrier against White's bishop. Obviously young Lasker had a thorough comprehension of Steinitz's theories. But there is also a new element. The same pawn advances which restrict White's pieces, are at the same time the beginning of an attack on White's king's position so that the dec isive break does not lead to a favorable endgame as in the games of Steinitz,but to a victorious attacking combination against White's king. (24) Blackburne-Lasker,Em. London 1 892 Center Game [C22] l.e4 e5 2.d4

As we have previously seen, the plan of opening the game by means of d4 is probably the most promising attempt of

73

turning the advantage of the first player in the King's Pawn Game ( l .e4 e5) to good account. This must however not be done quite so crudely and without any preparation. It has been noted before that the best preparation is to be found in the c on s i stent attac k on Black's e5-pawn, i.e., in the Ruy Lopez, in order to induce Black to make the

Masters of the Chessboard

defensive move d6. Only then can d4 be played with telling effect. The move in the text gives Black the initiative and an attack against White's e-pawn, after the exchange of pawns and it will then be easy for him to force d5, and obtain an even if not a better game. 2 ...exd4 3. � xd4

order to disengage his game. In short, White ' s task has bec ome more c omplic ated while the c ontinuation indicated above would have made it easier because of the greater c larity of Black's plan. To confront his opponent with difficult problems is one of the most characteristic qualities ofLasker's psychological style.

If Black now had to be content with 3 . . . d6, White would have obtained the frequently discussed advantage of the pawn formation e4 as against d6. Black however now arrives without difficulty at d5 which fr ees his game.

Blackburne was apparently afraid of 5 . . . �b4 after 5.�c3. s ...itg7 6 ..£lc3 .£lf6 7.0-0-0 0-0

White is now unable to prevent d5 after § e8 and is therefore preparing an attacking continuation in combinative style.

3 ... .£lc6 4.�e3

The best square suited to retard d5 . 4 ...g6

8.f3

The simplest continuation would be the consistent preparation of d5, namely 4 . . . �f6 5 .�c3 Ab4, with 6 . . . 0-0 and 7 . . § e8, after which White could no longer prevent d5. The continuation chosen by Lasker, while in accordance w ith h i s sty l e , i s l e s s c lear, but particularly less easy for the opponent to survey, though at the same time good enough. As far as the development is c onc erned, B lack c an no plac e his king's bishop on the nice long diagonal, which has become unobstructed after 2 . . . exd4.

This added protection of the e4-pawn i s nec es s ary for the c ontinuation planned after 8 . . . d5 as we shall see directly.

.

8 ...d5

Lasker has probably foreseen Blackbume's plan, but also recognizes its weakness. 9.�c5 dxe4 10.itg5 �e8

This seems forc e d and so far B l ac kburne ' s attac k looks good enough.

Since Black is obviously losing some time in this maneuver, White at this point would have a better chance of preventing d5. H e has to c onsi der however that B l ac k , after some preparation, may choose to play f5 in

l l .itx f6 itx f6 1 2 . .£l x e4 itg7 13.iib5

74

Emanuel Lasker

of White's position. From his strong position on e5, the knight moves to d4 and the decision is brought about by invading e3 . Again we draw attention to Lasker's complicated style, to the connection between his pieces to his exploitation of the advantage ofthe two bishops and of White's weak bishop and finally to his direct attack on the king. 21 . .§ xd8+ .§ xd8 22 . .§dl .§e8!

T h i s i s as far as B l ac kburne has probably thought, assuming that he would now have a nice open game, overlooking however that Black on the fo llowin g move c ou l d forc e the exchange of the queens and maintain the advantage of two bishops.

In order to make the most of the advantage of the two bishops or more generally speaking, in order to make the most of any lasting advantage which necessitates a dec ision by means of a pawn attack and penetration of one of the flanks, it is better not to exchange both rooks but to keep at least one of them. The rook posted behind the advanc ing p awns is s ometimes essential to the dec isive attack.

13...'�e5 14.�xe5 4) xe5 15.4Je2 a6

Black begins with the typic al pawn moves, restricting knight and bishop. It should be noted that White has posted his f-pawn on the white f3 -square which is the color of his own bishop, thereby weakening the black e3 -square.

23.Aft

B lac k threatened accompanied b y 2 4 . . . g5 .

t6.Ad3 f5

23 . . . Jl x c 3

23 ...b5

Depriving the knight of the farthest adv�nced square protected by one of his own pawns, namely the e4-square and c ompleting the f5 -g6-h7 pawn formation, rendering White 's bishop quite ineffective in the direction of the kings ide. 1 7 . 4) 4c3 Ae6 1 8 .� b l .§ fd8 19.4)f4 Af7 20.Ae2 4Jc6

Continuing the advance of the pawns with a view to restricting the knights and the bishop and in preparation ofthe attack on the king. Incidentally White threatens to gain some ground with 24A.Jfd5, although this would give B lac k the upper han d as fol lows: 24 . . . b4 25 .