Queen sacrifice [1st English ed.] 9780080371375, 008037137X, 9780080371580, 0080371582

Citation preview

ΙΑκον

NEISHTADT

n Sacri PERGAMON CHESS

PERGAMON RUSSIAN CHESS SERIES

Queen Sacrifice

PERGAMON RUSSIAN CHESS SERIES Editor: Paul Lamford Technical Editor: Tony Dempsey Russian Series Editor: Kenneth Neat Executive

Some other books in this series: AVERBAKH, Y. Chess Endings: Essential Knowledge Comprehensive Chess Endings Volume 1: Bishop Endings, Knight Endings Volume 2: Bishop against Knight Endings, Rook against Minor Piece Endings Volume 3: Queen and Pawn Endings, Queen against Rook Endings, Queen against Minor Piece Endings Volume 4: Pawn Endings Volume 5: Rook Endings BOTVINNIK, M. M. Achieving the Aim Anatoly Karpov: His Road to the World Championship Selected Games 1967-70 GELL ER, E. P. The Application of Chess Theory KARPOV, A. Chess at the Top 1979-1984 KARPOV, A. & GI K, Y. Chess Kaleidoscope KARPOV, A. & ROSHAL, A. Anatoly Karpov: Chess is My Life KASPAROV, G. London-Leningrad Championship Games New World Chess Champion The Test of Time LlVSHITZ, A. Test Your Chess IQ, Books 1 & 2 NEISHTADT, I. Paul Keres Chess Master Class POLUGAYEVSKY, L. Grandmaster Preparation Grandmaster Performance POLUGAYEVSKY, L. & DAMSKY, I. The Art of Defence in Chess SHERESHEVSKY, M. I. Endgame Strategy SMYSLOV, V. 125 Selected Games SUETIN, A. S. Modern Chess Opening Theory Three Steps to Chess Mastery TAL, M., CHEPIZHNY, Y. & ROSHAL, A. Montreal 1 979: Tournament of Stars VA INSTEIN, B. S. David Bronstein: Chess Improviser A full catalogue of Pergamon Chess books is available from:

Pergamon Cheu, Rellway Road, Sutton CoIdfieId

873

8AZ, U.K.

Queen Sacrifice by

lakov Neishtadt Translated by

Ken Neat

PERGAMON CHESS Member of Maxwell Macmillan Pergamon Publishing Corporation

OXFORD . NEW YORK· BEIJING

.

FRANKFURT

SAO PAU LO . SYDNEY . TOKYO . TORONTO

U.K.

Pergamon Press plc, Headington Hill Hall, Oxford OX3 OBW, England

U.S.A.

Pergamon Press, Inc., Maxwell House, Fairview Park, Elmsford. New York 10623. U.S.A.

PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Pergamon Press. Room 4037. Qianmen Hotel, Beijing, People's Republic of China

FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

Pergamon Press GmbH. Hammerweg 6, 0-6242 Kronberg. Federal Republic of Germany

BRAZIL

Pergamon Editora Ltda. Rua E"a de Queiros, 346, CEP 04011. Paraiso, Sio Paulo, Brazil

AUSTRALIA

Pergamon Press Australia Pty. Ltd, P.O. Box Potts Point, N.S.W. 2011, Australia

JAPAN

Pergamon Press. 6th Floor, Matsuoka Central Building, 1-7-1 Nishishinjuku, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160. Japan

CANADA

Pergamon Press Canada Ltd, Suite No. 271. 253 College Street. Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5T

English Translation copyright © 1991

All

644.

1 R6

K. P. Neat

Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be

reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic. magnetic tape, mechanical. photocopying. recording or otherwise. without permission in writing from the publisher

First English Edition 1991 Library of Congr_ Cataloging-in-Publication Data

NeTshtadt, lA. I. (IAkov lseevich) Queen Sacrifice I by I. Neishtadt: translated by K. P. Neat. p. cm. - (Pergamon Russian chess serias) 1. Queen (Chess) I. Title. 11. Series. GV1 451 .5.Q43N45 1990 794.1 - -dc20 90-40805 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Neishtadt, lakov Queen Sacrifice. - (Pergamon Russian chess series). 1. Chass I. Title 794.1

ISBN 0-08-037137 -X Hardcover ISBN 0-08-037168-2 Flexicover

Printed in Great Britain by BPCC Whfllltons Ltd, Exeter

Contents How this Book is Arranged 1.

From the Past

2.

The Aim of the Sacrifice

vii

6

Mating Finish Decisive Material Advantage Transition into a Won Ending Stalemate Perpetual Check The Erection of a 'Fortress' Chances of a Win, and Chances of a Draw

6 10 16 19 24 28 30

3.

In the Opening, Middlegame and Endgame

33

4.

Not just a Queen

50

5.

The Path to the Goal

58

Diversion Decoy Defence-Elimination Releasing a Pin on a Knight Blocking Square- or Line-Freeing Composite Methods

v

58 74 92 99 1 13 1 17 120

vi

CONTENTS

6.

Reference Points

7.

Logical Outcome or

8.

Calculation and Evaluation

154

9.

Positional Sacrifice

173

136

Chance

Happening?

Continuation of the Attack Development of the Initiative Retaining the Initiative Seizing the Initiative Creation of an Attacking Position Launching a Counteroffensive In Search of Counterplay Changing the Character of Play

Heritage

145

175 177 181 1 82 1 84 190 202 204

10.

Classical

11.

It's your Move

232

Answers to the Tests

24 1

Index of Players and Analysts

248

210

How this Book is Arranged sacrifices, to which the author also at­ taches equivalent exchanges (queen for three minor pieces or two rooks) .

From time to time the argument sur­ faces as to whether a sacrifice should be considered an essential feature ofa combination. We will define a combi­ nation as a forcing variation with a sacrifice, pursuing a positive aim and leading to a qualitative transform­ ation of the position. And a sacrifice - a voluntary granting to the op­ ponent of a material advantage for the sake of other gains - is an invariable component of a combination. Attempts have been made to sys­ temize sacrifices, by dividing them into temporary (or pseudo-) and real (or true)*, and in turn by breaking down each of these into sub-groupst. In the mid 1950s an article specifically about the queen sacrifice was pub­ lished by Konstantinopolsky:j:, in which sacrifices were divided into (a) opening, (b) involving a direct attack on the king, ( c) forcing the queening of a pawn, (d) sudden, (e) undertaken in defence or counter­ attack, and finally (0 positional

t Those assigned by Spielmann to temporary sacrifices are 'positional' (the material is regained, and the aim is to improve the position), 'for gain' (the aim is a material advantage) and 'mating'. To real sacrifices he assigns 'for develop­ ment' (of one's own forces), 'obstructive' (of the opponent's mobilization), 'preven­ tive' (anti-castling), 'clearance' (opening lines for a rook), 'vacating' (an important square for a piece), 'deflecting or decoy' (one or several of the opponent's pieces from the main part of the battlefield), 'king's field sacrifice', and 'king-hunt'. Shamkovich gives a different sub­ division. Pseudo-sacrifices are 'mating' or 'result-producing'. True sacrifices are also divided into two groups: 'dynamic' and 'positional', the first including 'pursuit', 'developing', preventive', and 'retarding', and the second including sacrifices which are mainly based on positional evaluation. It should be remembered that both classifications cover all sacrifices, whereas the sacrifice of the strongest piece has features peculiar only to itself.

'" Cf. Spielmann's The Art of Sacrifice in Chess (1935) and Shamkovich's The Modern Chess Sacrifice (1978 ) .

+

1955

214-234.

vii

USSR

Chess Yearbook,

pp.

viii

HOW THIS BOOK IS ARRANGED

The terms 'temporary' (when the material is given up only for a definite time) and 'real' (when it is not poss­ ible to calculate all the consequences of the sacrifice, and one has to part with the material for an indefinite time) are used in chess literature, but in general not one of the proposed systemizations has become estab­ lished. When writing on the theme of 'combinations and sacrifices', authors follow their own concep­ tions, sometimes ranking together ideas of quite different origin. There are many striking aspects to the queen sacrifice, and we see this as also applying in the theoretical sense. We propose to consider from various viewpoints the gallery of combi­ nations presented in this book. Using formal indicators, we differentiate queen sacrifices : ( 1) by the aims which they pursue (winning of the game, avoiding defeat, improving the position without a clear-cut final result - from obtaining winning chances in an equal or slightly superior position, to seeking ways of resisting in a clearly unfavourable situation); (2) by the stages of the game; (3) by the additional material which is sacrificed and the order in which the sacrifices are made; But it is much more important to differentiate sacrifices by their content: ( 1 ) by the theme* of the combination: (a) diversion of an

enemy piece or pawn ; (b) decoy (attraction) of an enemy piece or pawn onto a certain square ; (c) direct elimination of an enemy piece or pawn fulfilling an important function; (d) breaking the pin on a knight by an enemy bishop; (e) block­ ing the escape path of the enemy king; (0 vacating a square by the queen so that a knight can occupy it. (2) by typical final positions and typical combination mechanisms by which these positions are achieved; (3) by motifs, or, to put it another way, pointers features of the pos­ ition which as though suggest to us the existence of a combination (or sacrifice) : insufficient defence of the back rank, cramped position of the enemy king or, on the contrary, remoteness of the pieces from its defence, overloading of enemy pieces carrying out two or more functions, 'geometric' features of the position, and so on; (4) by the connection of the combination and sacrifice with the preceding play. We differentiate here between (a) logical sacrifices and (b) sacrifices suddenly arising by a chance opportunity; (5) by the degree of complexity of the combination (difficulty in discovering the idea, in calculat­ ing variations, or in evaluating the -

The term 'idea' is also used with the same meaning.

*

QUEEN SACRIFICE

final position). The chapters arranged by formal features are 'The aim of the sacrifice', 'In the opening, middlegame and endgame ', and 'Not just a queen'. Those reflecting the content of the

ix

sacrifice are 'The path to the goal', 'Reference points', 'Logical outcome or chance happening?', and 'Calcu­ lation and evaluation'. A special chapter is devoted to the positional sacrifice.

1 From the Past

Five centuries have passed since the rules of chess basically acqui red their present-day form. In Shatranj, the forerunner of modern chess, the queen was a weak piece, moving only one square diagonally, and the bishop was only a little more active, so that the greater part of the game took the form of slow manoeuvring. But with the reform ofShatranj, the queen and the long-range bishops became active combinational pieces, and this opened in chess a truly inexhaustible supply of creative ideas and gave the game exceptional dynamism. In hand-written and printed books from the late 15th and early 16th centuries, based on the new rules, we already encounter positions in which, for the sake of the highest aim mating the enemy king - the strongest piece is sacrificed. 1. This is a problem from the treatise by the Spaniard Lucena (a manuscript written in the late 15th century). Its solution:

1

W

Mate in five moves 1 2 3 4

"'e6+ lLln+ lLlh6+ + WgS+!

�hS �gS �hS

A sacrifice to block in the king, after which mate by the knight follows. A special section will be devoted to this ancient tactical operation.

4

•

•

•

5 lLln mate

l hgS

2

QUEEN SACRIFICE

From Damiano's book (15 12)

From a manuscript by Greco (early 17th century)

2 W

3 B

1

2. After 1 'ilt'xa7+ 2 .J:ta2+

�xa7

White gives a linear mate.

2 ';;' e l 3 �dl 4 lbxel

lbf2+ lb d3++ 'ilt'el + ! lbf2 mate

In Stamma's book (1737) the idea of 'smothering' the king is cleverly camouflaged by introductory play.

In those distant times the aesthetic criteria in chess were very primitive. The brilliance of a sacrifice was determined by the formal value ofthe material given up (it should be mentioned that a beginner today has the same criteria) . Continuing our brief excursion through the chess monuments of the past, we give some extracts from the works of 17th and 18th century masters.

3. On this occasion the famous mate is constructed not in the corner of the board, but with the white king at d l :

4 W

4. Mate is threatened at h I and 81, but by sacrificing his queen and then his rook, White gets there first : 1 i.e4+

.J:tb7

FROM THE PAST

2 "' b8+ ! 3 1:t xa7+ ! 4 fiJc7 mate

1:xb8 ,t,xa7

3

3 fiJe7+ Making way for the rook to go to c8.

3 . . . � h8 4 fiJf7+ 1:xf7 51:cS+ 1:1'8 6 l:l xf8 mate

Even by present-day aesthetic standards, Stamma's combinations make a great impression.

And now another example from the same book, this time on a more original theme.

6 W

5. This is perhaps Stamma's most famous composition. White, who is threatened with mate at h I , appears in a desperate position, but catas­ trophe awaits Black on the back rank: 1 1:h4 !

Note that the combination does not begin with a check. As will be seen from the further play. the black Queen must be diverted from the defence of the back rank. At the same time the diagonal is opened for the white queen.

6. Mate by . . . It'le2 is threatened, and in addition the white queen is attacked . The impulsive 1 "'c4+ loses after I . . 'Oti'b6. The solution is .

1 : a5+ ! 1

.

�xa5

. . �b6 2 'ifxc5 mate.

2 'if x cS + ! 3 fiJc4+

dxcS and

4 ll b6 mate 2 ... 2 "'g8+ !

'ifxh4 �xg8

2 . . . 1:xg8 3 fiJf7 mate.

And in conclusion - some com­ positions by the 18th century Italian masters.

QUEEN SACRIFICE

4

From the book by Del Rio (1750)

From the book by LolIi (1763)

7 W

9 W

7. 1

1 "'a6 ! .

.

.

J:[ b8

bxa6 2 .i.c6 mate.

2 .i. c6 3 "'xa7+ ! 4 J:[ al mate

.. cS �xa7

9. Here there is a different assign­ ment: White must try to save the game. As in the problems by Stamma, he is threatened with mate . He is rescued by 1 2 3 4

From the book by Del Rio ( 1 750) 8 W

J:[ f8+ J:[a8+ ! 'ili'f8+ " cS+ !

�a7 �xa8 r:i;;a7 "xcS stalemate

A similar 'miraculous escape' was devised by Ponziani (1769).

10. By sacrificing one after another all his men, White gains a draw: 1 .i.f2 2 i.xe3 ! 3 'ili'f2!

8.

1 " d6+ 2 'ili'c6! 3 J:[d8!

�a8 .. cS

with inevitable mate .

3 .

.

.

e3 'ili'xe3 'ili'xa

"c5? 4 a5+ .

4 &5+

-

stalemate

The perfecting of playing stan­ dards - greater diversity of attacking

FROM THE PAST

10 W

methods,

and

improvements

in

5

defence - made for more compli­ cated combinations, including com­ binations with queen sacrifices. A great number of new ideas appeared. Queen sacrifices began occurring not only in compositions, but more and more frequently in actual play. How the masters from the last and the present centuries sacrificed and sacrifice their queens will be described in the following thematic chapters of the book.

2 The Aim of the Sacrifice

Riemann-Anderssen Breslau, 1876

First of all, we give combinations leading to a win.

12 W

MATING FINISH Eckart-Tarrasch Nuremberg, 1887 11 B

12. White decided that he could safely take the f7 pawn (and then the rook . . . ), and he played

1 .txf7 Black retaliated with a forced mate :

11. White was mated in three moves : 1 ... 2 �xfl

3 .te3

1rfl+! l:I. dl+ .txe3 mate

1 ...

2 gxf3 3 �gl 6

1fxO + ! .th3+

7

THE AIM OF THE SACRIFICE

Or in the reverse order 3 �f2 .i h4+ 4 �gl 1%e l + and mates. -

3 . . . 4 �f2

1%el + .ih4 mate

Tal-Vooremaa Riga, 197 1

14. White concluded his attack with 1 1i'xh7+! 1 . . . �xh7 2 1%h5+ �g7 3 .i h6+ � h7 4 .ifS mate.

Plaskett-Velimirovic Banja Luka, 1985

13 W

15 W

13. 1 1fxf8+ ! and Black resigned ( 1 . . . �xfS 2 .ih6+ �e8 3 1%a8+, and mates).

Santasiere-Adams U SA, 1926 14 W

15. Mate at e l is threatened, but it is White to move, and he is the first to announce mate : 1 1i'xh4+! 2 1%h7+ 3 h4 mate

�xh4 �g5

16. Black has just played . . . 1%fS­ g8. In reply Spielmann announced mate to the Allies in six moves : 1 2 3 4 5

1fxh7+ ! 1%h4+ 1%h6+ h4+ ll:le3+

�xh7 �g6 �g5 �g4 �g3

QUEEN SACRIFICE

8

Spieimann-Allies Agram, 1913

(2 "ti'xf3 .l:. xe l mate, and otherwise 2 . . . "iWg2 mate).

16 W

Pares-Benko O1ot, 197 1 18 B

6 .l:. f3 mate

Lederman-Pytei Le Havre, 1977

18. The game lasted just two more moves:

17 1 2 ll'lxf4

B

"ti'f4+ !

2 � h3 "ifxf3 mate.

2

.

. .

exf4 mate

Podtserob-Kuntsevich Correspondence, 197 1 17. The offer to exchange rooks (in the event of 1 .I:. xe 1 + 2 "iWxe 1 "iff3 White was intending 3 "ii"e 4, defend­ ing against the mate and remaining a pawn up) was declined by Black, who played .

1

.

.

"iWf3!

after which the game concluded

19 W

THE AIM OF THE SACRIFICE

1 9. Black received 'mate by post' : 1 'tIt'gS+ ! If 1

.

.

As will be seen from the following move, the double check must be given in this way, and not by 2 lDf6++?

2

.

.

.

•

•

•

�xg7

The pawn, obstructing the attack, vacates the file.

2 3 : 15+ 4 : xhS+ •

2 lLle7++

2

1 'tIt'xg7+ ! 2 hB='tIt'+ !

c;1;>xgS

: xg8 2 lDf7 mate.

.

9

•

•

l hhS �f8

and mate next move.

Reiner-Steinitz Vienna, 1860

c;1;>f8

21

c;1;>h8 3 lLlf7 mate.

3 lDSg6+ 4 lDxg6 mate

B

hxg6

Ekstrom-N.N. Sweden, 1929 20 W 2 1 . Were the white rook not on the g-file, Black would give mate at g l , and so 1

•

.

.

'tIt'h4!

2 : g2

20. By sacrificing two minor pieces, White has burned his boats, and is now obliged to conclude his offensive. This aim is achieved by

The h2 square has to be defended, but after Black's next move his rook nevertheless penetrates to g 1 .

2 ••• 3 :xh2

'tIt'xh2+ ! :gl mate

QUEEN SA CRIFICE

10

Clarke-Johansson Amsterdam, 19S4

Syversen-Podgomy Correspondence, 1933

23 W

22 B

22. The direct 1 . as+ 2 �a3 b4+ does not succeed: 3 cxb4 axb4+ 4 c;i;lxb4 'it'b6+ S 'ito>c3, 4 . . . 'it'xd4+ (or 4 . . . l hd4+) S .l:l. c4. But if the black rook were at a2, there would be a mate not only by . . . 'it'aS, but also by . . . as . By sacrificing his queen, Black achieves the required position without loss of time : .

1 . . .

2 'ito>xa5 3 c;i;lb4

.

"a5+ !! .l:l.xa2+ as mate

DECISIVE MATERIAL ADVANTAGE Combinations under this heading show clearly the temporary nature of the sacrifice - since the final goal is directly aimed at winning material.

23. Black has just played his rook to d8, intending after the withdrawal of

the queen to exchange rooks. But the queen did not withdraw. After

1 'it' xdS+ ! 2 .l:l. xdS+

lLIxdS

the further move

2

•

•

•

.l:l.gS

was made 'through inertia', but then Black resigned without waiting for his opponent's reply: 3 .1:1. xg8+ c;i;lxg8 4 lLIe7+ and S lLIxc6. A m iddlegame with Black the exchange ahead was transformed into an endgame where he was two knights down !

24. There followed 1 2 "xg5 3 'ito>gl 3 •

.

.

•

.

•

.. xg5! lLIa+ and by 1LI2h3+

11

THE AIM OF THE SACRIFICE

Antonov-Donchev Bulgarian Championship, 1979 24 B

account of mate, and 4 �gl iOe4+ 5 � h l iOxd6 gives Black an extra piece.

Amold-Fuchs Correspondence, 1970 26 B

Black regained the queen, remain­ ing as a result with an extra piece.

Brinck-Claussen J. Littlewood Varna Olympiad, 1962 -

25 B

26. After giving up his queen with 1 . . . Black uses knight forks to elimin­ ate four( !) of the opponent's pieces :

2 3 4 5 6 25. After 1 ... 2 .xd6 3 �hl

.xd6 ! .*.d4+ iOfl+

White was obliged to resign the game. The knight cannot be taken on

l hn �h2 �hl � hl �hl

iOg3+ lbxn + + lbg3+ iOxe2+ .: n

For the queen Black already has two rooks and a bishop, and, using the same mechanism, he also picks up the queen. It would have been simpler, however, to give mate by 6 . . . iOg3+ 7 � h2 lb e4+ 8 g3 ': f2+ 9 � h l lbxg3 .

7 .xn

12

QUEEN SACRIFICE

and

8

.

.

•

iDxO +

Sandler-Serebrennikov US SR, 1980 27 W

S l:.g7+ 6 1.xhS 7 1.17

�h8 "c4 1We4

Or 7 . .. "f4+ 8 r;tb l "it' xf5 9 l:. g8+ r;th7 1 0 l:. h l + .

8 1.g8 B. Toth-Veresz Hungary, 1970 28 W

27. White finds a way to breach the defensive wall, by opening the g-file. 1 " 17 + !

iDxf7

If 1 . . . l hf7, then 2 gxf7+ �h7 3 f8=iD+! � h8 4 l:. g8 mate.

2 gxf7+ 3 l:.hg3

�h7 l:.x17

Forced, since 4 l:. g7+ and 5 l:. g8+ was threatened.

28. Black assumed that his strong knight at e5 would safeguard him against any difficulties, but there followed 1 1Wf6+ 2 11t'xeS!

�g8

The knight was controlling c4.

4 1.x17

l:.xhS

In defending against the mate, Black has had to give up too much material, and here he could well have resigned. The game concluded after

2 . .. 3 1.c4+

1It'xeS

and he was obliged to resign (3 . .. � h8 4 iDf7+ and 5 iDxe5, or 3 . . . �g7 4 l:. f7+).

THE AIM OF THE SACRIFICE

Peterson-Skuya Riga, 1950

30. The game continued only 'half a move'. Mter 1 ...

29

13

11ha2!

B

White resigned in view of the loss of a rook (2 : xe2 bxa2 and then . . . al='if).

Padevsky-Asmundsson Reykj avik, 1957 31 W 29. 1

.

•

•

'if xf3 !

was played, and White stopped the clocks. After 2 gxf3 exd5 ! , simul ­ taneously two threats are created : mate a t h 3 and the capture o f the queen. This means that White loses a knight. In the following examples a queen sacrifi ce ensures the promotion of a pawn.

Juarez-Schweber Mar del Plata, 197 1 30 B

31. There followed 1 1Ir xgS! 2 h7

tl)xg8

and the game concluded.

32. The black e-pawn appears very threatening, but after 1 1Ire7! it transpires that the white f6 pawn is mu ch more dangerous.

1 ... 2 he7

A xe7 resigns

14

QUEEN SACRIFICE

Najdorf-Seidler Argentina, 1977 32 W

2 lLlxf7+ 3 ph7+ and before obtaining a new queen, White pi cks up the opponent's with

4 :. n + 5 i.g5+ 6 i.xd8

� e7 and

Dubinin-Aronin 15th USSR Championship Leningrad, 1947 34 W

Richter-Ahues Berlin, 1928 33 W

34. After

33. White crowned his attack with l .m Mate at g8 is threatened, the knight is immune, and so the sacrifice has to be accepted -

1 . . . Then comes

1 1Wxf8+ 2 :' xfS the advance of the rook's pawn de cided the out come. The black queen is essentially immobilized.

2 3 4 5 6

. . . h4 h5 :. m h6

�b8 b5 �c7 as b4

THE AIM OF THE SACRIFICE

7 a4 8 h7 9 A e1 + !

�d7 rt;e7

after which Black will be a knight up. White resigned.

F. Silva-Carrion Cienfuegos, 1977

If 9 A h l 'ifh8.

9 10 A hl .

•

•

15

�d7

36 W

One of the pawns reaches the prize square, and so Black resigned.

Khasanova-L. Zaitseva Moscow, 1982 35 B

36. The combination began with a pawn breakthrough and the creation of a passed pawn axb5

1 b5!!

After this White proposed an ex­ change of three pieces for two . . .

35. White's queen is trapped. In an attempt to free it, she has just played her bishop to d4, expecting one of three possible replies - 1 . . . 1V g6, 1 . . . 1Ifh6 or 1 . . . lLle6. There followed, however, the unanticipated 1 ... 2 cxd4

1Vxd4! ! b4

The queen remains imprisoned, while the b-pawn cannot be pre­ vented from reaching the first rank,

2 1Vxt7+ ! 3 l ht7

A xt7

In the event 00 . 'ifxf7 4 ixf7+ Q;xf7 5 a6 the pawn cannot be stopped. Any move by the queen leads to its loss after a discovered check (e.g. 3 . . 1If c6 4 A c7+). In the game .

.

.

3

•

.

•

lLltl+

was played, and after

16

QUEEN SACRIFICE

4 �gl

(If 3 . . "it'xa6, then 4 l:I. e8+ and 5 a8='if) but then .

Black resigned.

4 l:I.bl 5 l:I.b8 Smyslov-Rossetto Mar del Plata, 1962 37 W

�h7

concluded the battle.

TRANSITION INTO A WON ENDING Monostori-Florian Hungarian Championship, 1950 38 W

37. After

1 cxb6 came the instant reply

1

l:I.e 1+ 38. White played

Had Smyslov really blundered away his queen?

2 l:I.xe 1 3 bxa7

"it'xbS

It was not a blunder, but a sacrifice. Black cannot prevent the promotion of the pawn. Rossetto continued

3

.

•

•

'ifc6

1 lLI gS having in mind the favourable variation 1 . . . 'ifxg5 2 'ifxg5 ll'lxg5 3 ixb7 with two threats : 4 ixa6 and 4 h4. But the temporary queen sacrifice

1 . . . 2 ixdS 3 �g2

lLIxg3 ! lLIxe2+ ixdS+

THE AIM OF THE SACRIFICE

4 13 5 :' xc1

.!Dxc1

.!Dxf4

1 . . . 1Ig l + ! would have led to the same finish.

led after

5 . . . 6 .!Dh3 7 J:t al

4 xhS

the game ended in stalemate.

Gurgenidze-Suetin Moscow, 1961

Black had terminated his calcu­ lations at this point - the checks seem to be at an end . . .

4 l:I.xh7+! No, they are not!

4 5 'ffhS+ ! •

•

•

�xh7 ct>xhS

Stalemate.

Bykov-Timofeyev Odessa, 1962

45 B

46 W

45. White's position is dismal. On his last move he retreated his rook from f6 to fI, leaving his g5 pawn undefended. Black decided to take the pawn. He was not worried about the two checks (at e8 and f7) - his king would hide at h6 . . . There followed 1 2 1W eS+ 3 l:I.f7+ •

•

•

'ffxg5 ct>g7 �h6

46. After 1 lL)h6 White thought that he was win­ ning. If! . . . 'ffxf6, then 2 lL)xf7+'ffxf7 3 1W d4+ and mates, while on 1 . . l:I. ffi there is an even more entertaining mate, by 2 l:I. g8+ l:I. xg8 3 lL)xf7. But instead of defending against the mate, Black . . . gave up all his pieces .

22

QUEEN SACRIFICE

1 2 ih:e4 3 �xh2 .

.

•

.i.xe4+ ! .h2+ l: a2+

and gained a draw. After both 4 � h l l: h2+ and 4 'iVg2 (or 4 l: g2) 4 . . . l: xg2+ 5 � h l l: xg l + the result is stalemate .

the board, and all that was required was to get rid of the 'superfluous' pieces.

Spassky-Keres 19th USSR Championship Moscow, 1962

Romanovsky-Levenfish Leningrad, 1924 (variation from the game) 47 B

48. Black's rook and his g-pawn are attacked. After weighing up a number of possible continuations I . . . l: xaS, 1 . . 1VxaS, 1 . . . 'iVe2, 1 . l: e2 and I . . l: al, Keres chose the last one. When the move -

.

47. Black is threatened with mate at h6 or n, and in addition he is a rook down. But the sacrifice of his remaining pieces saves the gam e : 1 2 3 4 5

.

.

•

1 he3 �f2 �el �xdl

"ii' e3+ ! l: d1+ l: d2+ l: d1+

If White does not take the rook, it will perpetually place itself en prise. But now Black is stalemated. In the last five examples there was already a stalemate construction on

. .

.

1 . . .

l: al

was reproduced, most of the spec­ tators decided that Keres had blundered . . .

2 "ii'xg6+ 3 l: xal 4 �h2 (49)

� h4 'iVxal+

Two mates are threatened 5 g3 and 5 'iVg3 . "It's all over", said someone in the -

THE AIM OF THE SACRIFICE

stalls. And at that moment t wo players shook hands. word 'Draw' appeared on demonstration board, together Black's move

the The the with

49 B

23

extremely restricted, with only one free square, and the f4 pawn is immobile. So what if

1 h4 ! blocking in the king? Black does not have a single check, whereas White threatens to sacrifice his queen at f1 or gS. Stalemate cannot be prevented. Here the aim was achieved by a 'quiet' move using so-called self­ blocking.

4

.

.

•

Henneberger-N.N. Simultaneous display East Germany, 1957

"ifhl + !

SI W

explaining the result.

Biglova-Strandstrom Rostov-on-Don, 1953 so w

SI. Black is a rook up, and the white king is in a desperate position (mate is threatened in three ways 1 . . 'ifh7, 1 . . 'ifh6 and 1 J:t h6). But the paradoxical

-

.

SO. The queen has no way of oppos­ ing the passed pawn supported by the rooks, and so White turned his attention to the K-side. His king is

.

.

.

.

1 'ifr6!! saves the game. Either capture of

24

QUEEN SACRIFICE

the queen gives stalemate, while after I . . . � h7 (there is no other way of defending the rook) the exchange of queens again leads to stalemate 2 'it'xg7+ : xg7 (or 2 . . . �xg7).

1

•

•

•

"' e2

and after the exchange of queens win without difficulty . . . Then, leaving his queen en prise, Blackburne would have replied

2 .lfS!! PERPETUAL CHECK Blackbume-Steinitz Match, London, 1863

Note that the less spectacular 2 .lc l is equally as good. After the forced

2

52 W

.

•

•

"'xd3

2 . . . hS 3 :xhS+.

3 4 5 6

52. The advantage is with Black, all of whose pieces are ideally placed. Blackburne played

1 : h4 setting the opponent two traps, one simple, and the other more subtle. On I . . . 'it'xc6? White had prepared 2 .lc l hS 3 :xhS+ gxhS 4 "'xf5+, when the denuded black king is mated. This, of course, is elementary. But an experienced player with Black would also think: why not play actively -

:xh6+ : gxg6+ :C6+ :e6+

..t g8 �xfS � e7

White gives perpetual check. It remains to add that Steinitz did not fall into the trap. He replied

1 ...

h5

(there was also another way to parry White's threat - 1 . . . "'/6), and after 2 .lb2 : dS 3 "'c2 ... e2 he deprived his opponent of any counterchances.

53. Black's heavy pieces are actively placed, while White's king is exposed and his rook attacked. With the help of a queen sacrifice, Ragozin finds a way to save the game.

THE AIM OF THE SACRIFICE

Ragozin-Levenfish Moscow, 1935

25

Chistyakov-Peyko Moscow, 1963

53 W

54 W

1 2 3 4

1i'xh6+! l hh6+ :h7+ :h8+

lLl xh6 fj;g7 �f8 fj;e7

(4 . . fj;g7 5 : h7+). If now the queen is taken, Black will remain the exchange ahead. This means that, when he worked out the sacrifice, White must have seen .

5 lLl g8+!

.

.

1 'irxe7+! After

1 2 :f7+ 3 lLlb7+ 4 lLl d6+ .

after which Black can escape the pursuit only at the cost of losing material: after 5 . . . 'ir xgS 6 : xgS he is a pawn down in the endgame. In the event of 5 . . . � d7 6 lLl f6+ the king has to return to e7 (6 . fj;c7? 7 :xc8+ and 8 fj;xc1). The game went

5 . . 6 lLlf6+

54. In an apparently hopeless pos­ ition (White is material down, mate is threatened, and the black rooks control the second rank) Chistyakov could have avoided defeat by playing

fj;f8

when a draw was agreed.

.

•

•

fj;xe7 fj;d8 fj;c8

the game would have ended with a repetition of moves. The point is that Black cannot avoid the perpetual check by playing his king to bS, since this allows mate in four moves: 4 . . �bS? 5 : f8+ ! fj;c7 6 : cS+ fj;d7 7 .t.xc6+ fj;e7 S : eS mate. Instead of the queen sacrifice, White defended his bishop with 1 fj;d l ?, after which he himself could .

26

QUEEN SACRIFICE

have been mated in four moves (1 . . . :'xcJ+ 2 rl;xcJ flxa3+ etc .).

Thomas-Davidson Spa, 1926 ss w

5 rl;xgl 6 c;t>g3

1IrcZ+ 1Ird3+

when a draw was agreed. Black can either give perpetual check himself, or, by taking the f5 pawn, allow his opponent to do this.

Petrosian-Ivanovic Bar, 1980 56 W

ss. Black has taken the initiative, but White found a pretty way to force a draw: 1 lta8+ 2 Wxe4!! 3 J.f6

rl;h7 fxe4 g5

Black has opened a way for his king to fS (4 :. h8+ rl;g6 S :. g8+ rl;fS). This means that, when he sacrificed his queen, White must have seen the subtle blocking move

56. Black is a piece down, but the white queen is attacked, and it is not apparent where it can move to (on 1 W c7 there follows 1 . . . :' xe3 2 rl;h l d4). Ivanovic considered his position to be more than favourable, and was not at all expecting 1 1Irxf6 ! !

4 f5 ! after which the king cannot avoid perpetual check (4 . . . exfS S .: h8+ rl;g6 6 :. g8+ and 7 :. h8+ etc.). The game went

4

•

•

•

:' :lg2+

Black h a s t o take t h e queen, since if he interposes 1 . . . :' xe3 it again places itself en prise - 2 .xg7+ ! (of course, not 2 "ild8+? :' e8+) 2 . . . rl;xg7 3 lLlxdS+. Ifnow 3 . . . rl;f8, then 4 lLlxb4 l:t xe2+ S .td4 .txd4+ 6 l:txd4 axb4 7 :' xb4 with a material advan-

THE AIM OF THE SACRIFICE

tage for White in the ending. In the event of 3 . . J:. eS+ (instead of 3 . b3, lOc3, c;t> a4 and lD a2-c l -b3 .

62. The c4 pawn is attacked, but Tarrasch played 1 .i.f4! completing his mobilization and deploying his bishop on an important diagonal . After working out the variations, Tartakower declined the gift and with 1 .i. d6 blocked .

.

.

THE AIM OF THE SACRIFICE

the diagonal. What would have happened in the event of Black taking the pawn -

2 3 4 5

31

'ifxc4 .i.f5+ l:t xe6 .i.xe6+

.i.xc4 .i.e6 fxe6

.i.xc4?

I...

63 W

Then Tarrasch would have sacri­ ficed his queen -

2 jfxc4! 3 .i.f5+

jfxc4

If now 3 . . l:t d7, then 4 l:t eS+ lLIdS 5 lLIe5, and Black must surrender. The lesser evil for Black is .

3

•

.

.

jfe6

(instead of 3 . l:t d7), in turn giving up his queen. White would have answered

63. White has a knight for three pawns, but his knight at c3 and rook at d l are attacked (on 1 jfxe3 there follows 1 . . .i.g5). What is he to do? .

I 'ifxe3!

4 5 6 7

l:t xe6 .i.xe6+ lLIe5 .i.xe5

fxe6 l:t d7 lLIxe5

I

After regaining the exchange, he then picks up the d4 pawn (7 . . . �dS S .i.xd7 � xd7 9 .i.xd4; 7 . . . .i.c5? S l:t cl), remaining a pawn up in the endgame. It should be added that taking the pawn with the queen -

I

•

•

.

White allows the pin. •

•

•

2 �c2 ! 3 a3

.i.g5 .i.xe3

Black has to give up his queen, so that the sacrifice was only temporary. In effect an exchange has occurred, resulting in the position simplifying, and White has obtained chances of realizing his advantage.

jfxc4

transposes into the above variation after

64. This game is from a j unior tour­ nament in the Moscow Pioneers' Palace. White is a knight down, and

QUEEN SACRIFICE

32

his h2 pawn is attacked. Given the logical development of events, his position will be untenable. Exploiting his opponent's time trouble, Fridman made a clever saving attempt.

Fridman-Dasbevsky Moscow, 1954 64 W

2 3 4 5 6

.tg7+ fT+ 18= ... + lt gl + 'ilfT+

�g8 �xg7 �g6 �b5

Black was fortunate that there was no mate ! He played his king to h6 and the game ended with perpetual check. Meanwhile, by continuing 1 . . . l:l xh2+ 2 "'xh2 .txh2 Black would have gained a win . . . in a pawn ending ! (3 .tg7+ �g8 4 ./7+ 'fix./7 5 l:l x./7 � xj7 6 .txd4 cxd4 7 �xh2 d3). The quiet 1 . . . lLle6 (instead of 1 . . 'it' xh3 or 1 . l:l xh2+), with the aim of keeping the extra piece 'without any difficulties', would not have been successful : 2 .tg7+ � g8 3 f7+ �xg7 (if 3 . . . 'fixj7? 4 l:l xj7 l:l xh2 + then 5 'fixh2 .txh2 6 l:l xb 7, leaving White the exchange up) 4 'fig4+, although after 4 � h6 ! White does not have more than perpetual check 5 'fih4+ � g7 6 'fig4+. And the naive 1 . . 'it'f7? would have been simply bad in view of 2 .t g7+ �g8 3 'fi c8+. .

. .

,

1 f6! ? There was no time t o think, and Black played

1

.

•

.

There followed

1bhJ

.

.

.

-

.

3 In the Opening, Middlegame and Endgame A combination with a queen sacrifice, leading by force to a win, does not often occur at the start of the game. It normally follows as retribution for a blunder, or at least a very serious error. This can occur in a game between an experienced player and ill-informed amateur, or in a simul­ taneous display. In miniature games with a queen sacrifice, widely known typical combinations are repeated in a variety of ways. * But the nature of chess is such that knowledge and experience do not guarantee one against mistakes. Even in the opening, with development as yet incomplete, there are uncharted pitfalls, and this means that the possibility of 'original mistakes' and original combinations, including combinations with a queen sacrifice, are not ruled out. In short, this can

occur not only in games between opponents of different class. In this section and the following sections, the reader will find examples of both one type and the other.

65 B

65. On glancing at the position, one can say for certain that the two players were not weighed down with opening knowledge. In reply to the pawn capture (1 fxe5) Black gave mate in two moves -

1 2 .*.xO .

... We examine them in the thematic sections of the book. 33

•

.

"'xO + tLlB mate

QUEEN SACRIFICE

34

essential) 7 .!Llg5 lDc6 8 .i.t7+ c;t>e7. By sacrificing his queen -

66 B

9 1i'xf6+! White forced the enemy king into the centre :

9

•

•

•

c;t>xf6

If 9 . . . gxf6 10 lDd5 mate.

66. The pattern of the position indicates that it almost certainly resulted from a King's Gambit or Vienna Game. For the white king to end up in a mating net, only one move is required.

1 ... 2 c;t>xf3

'ifxf3+! lDh4 mate

Blake-Hooke London, 1923

10 lD dS+

c;t>eS

Ahead of its own troops, the king meets its end. It is curious that the white knights checkmate it by with­ drawing from their active positions!

1 1 lDf3+ 12 lDc3 mate

�xe4

Knuszinski-Bielczyk Poland, 1970

67 W

68 W

67. Black's preceding play was 'far from perfect' : 1 e4 e5 2 lDfJ d6 3 .i.c4 f5 4 d4 lD f6 5 lDc3 (5 lDg5 !) 5 . . exd4 6 "ihd4 .i. d7?? (6 . . . lD c6 was .

68. If the d6 pawn were not defended, White would give mate by lD xd6. And so -

IN THE OPENING, MIDDLEGAME AND ENDGAME

1 'it'xd6! The queen cannot be taken, and after

1 . . . 2 'it'xe5+

tDxfS

Black resigned.

Troianescu-Lbagva Ulan-Bator, 1956

3 1.b5 4 c3 5 d4 6 O�

35

tD ge7 d6 1.d7 tDg6

6 . . . g6.

7 8 9 10

tDg5 tDxrT! 1.c4+ 1ll b5

b6? /4 1W/3 mate). It is easy to see that passive defence does not help White. But .

.

.

1 1WgS+ ! ! concludes the game victoriously. The diversion of the f6 pawn opens the diagonal for the 'dozing' bishop :

1 2 .!Oh6+ 3 .i.b2+ •

128. Black has just taken a knight on D. Even after the simple 1 gxD his position would be unenviable, but 1 1Wh6! was played, immediately terminat­ ing the game ( 1 . . . .i.xh6 2 liJ e7 mate).

.

.

fxgS ..t>h8

and mates. Let us remove the 'superfluous' pieces from the board. The finale of the game may come in useful to you ! (130).

130

s. Urusov-Kalinski Correspondence, 1880

129 W

13 1 . The Swedish master had played the opening extremely badly. With the aim of completing his devel­ opment, he played

THE PA TH TO THE GOAL

Ed. Lasker-Englund Scheveningen, 19 1 3

67

important diagonal and prevents castling, was not considered by Black to be dangerous, and he replied

131 B

I .. .

He thought that the exchange of the powerful bishop was inevitable, but there followed

2 'it'xe6+ ! 3 �g6 mate

Kofman-Filatov Kiev, 1962

0-0-0

1 ...

fxe6

and was mated by

2 'it'xc6+ ! 3 � a6

133 W bxc6

A classic example on this theme is the game Canal-N .N. (p. 228).

132 W 133. Right from the opening Black has ended up in a hopeless position. There followed I lLIxc6!

bxc6

After queen moves the finish would have been the same.

132. 1 �a3 by

which

White

occupies

an

2 'it'xe6+ ! 3 �g6 mate

fxe6

68

QUEEN SACRIFICE

Here are the main participants in this final scene (131) :

11

h5

Black drove away the queen, assuming that it would retreat to g3 or e2 . There followed, however,

134

12 1Fh3 and Krutikhin decided that, by playing

12

And now, some more complicated modifications of the same sacrifice.

N. Gusev-Krutikhin Moscow, 1963 135 B

•

•

•

g5

he would push back the bishop and win the eS pawn. Great was his sur­ prise when his opponent replied

13 14 15 16 17

'irxe6+ ! i.g6+ i.xgS+ i.xf6+ i.xd8

he6 ri;e7 iQf6 f8. .

16 17 lLIe5 mate .

8 9 10 11 12

lLIfJ dxcS b4 lLIb5 ! .t. d3

•

� d7

•

Griinfeld-Tarrasch Baden Baden, 1925

The point of this bishop retreat is to avoid the weakening of the dark squares (after 7 . .t.xc3). But Black's Q-side counterplay is held up, whereas on the K-side White has a serious initiative. .

69

137 W

.

cS lLIxcS lLIcd7 g6 h5? (136)

1 2 . . . l:t g8 would have averted the combination.

136 W

137. The white queen is attacked, but a threat of mate is more import­ ant, and Griinfeld played I .t.h4 ! The queen is immune o n account of mate, and on 1 . . .t. g6 there follows 2 .t. f6+ and 3 lLlh6 mate. Since the f6 square could not be covered, that only left .

I ..

13 14 15 16

1Ifxe6+! .t.xg6+ .t.g5+ exf6+ !

he6 �e7 1LIf6

16 .t.xf6+ � d7 17 .t.xd8 with two extra pawns was good enough to win, but this is both simpler and prettier.

.

h6

giving the king the h7 square. But then White announced mate with

2 "'18+ ! Diverting the knight from the defence of g7.

2

•

•

•

70

QUEEN SACRIFICE

3 4 5 6

.t.f6+ J:t g7+ J:t xf7+ lhxh6 mate

Tsemsh-N.N. Kiev, 1902

h7 h8 g8

139 W

. Bohm-Hernandez Amsterdam, 1979 138 B

1 'irill!

ph S

1 . . .t.xe5 2 h7+ h8 3 .t.xe5+ f6 4 i.. xf6+ J:t xf6 5 'ireS. .

138. White is a piece up, but after 1

.

•

•

2 J:t gS+ ! 3 h7 mate

.t.xgS

'it'xgS!

he was obliged to resign. The queen cannot be taken in view of2 . . . lh e2 mate, and 2 1IH3 does not help on account of another diverting blow - 2 . . . 'irxg2 + ! 3 'irxg2 lh e2 mate . And if White defends his queen with 2 0, simultaneously vacating the a square for his king, then Black wins by 2 . . . lh h3 + ! 3 gxh3 (3 h2 is quite adequately met by 3 . . . 'irxe3) 3 . . . 'irxe3+, and if 4 J:t a i.. c 5.

139. Two diversions - of the g6 pawn and the bishop at f6 - enabled White to exploit the power of his long-range bishops:

Spona-Miglans Riga, 1964 140 B

140. White's feeble play has led to a dismal position. The game lasted only two more moves:

THE PA TH TO THE GOAL

1 2 I h2 .

•

.

"'d3+

71

Pillsbury-Lee London, 1899 (variation from the game)

If 2 �e2 "'xO .

2

.

•

•

142 W

"'xO !

White resigns, since on 3 gxO there follows 3 . . . .i.h3+ 4 � e l %:[ g l mate.

Witkowski-Blaszak Poland, 1953 142. The black queen, which at first sight appears threatening, is in fact obliged to guard the g-file to prevent a deadly check. This means that it can be diverted. At any price. The problem is solved by

141 W

1 2 3 4 141. Were it not for the knight at g6, White would have a crushing dis­ covered (and in fact double) check. Therefore 1 "'xe5+ ! 2 .i.f6++ 2

.

.

.

�xe5 �h6

�f8 3 %:[ d8 mate.

'it'O! %:[ gl + .i.g7+ .i.xf6+

'it'xO xf6 comes 2 .i.xg5 mate. In desperation Black retreated his king to e8, after which

2 "'xf6+ ! and Black resigned (2 . . . q" xf6 3 .i.b2 mate; 2 . c;t>h6 3 5+; 2 . . . c;t>g8 3 .i.b2). .

.

.

2 A xe5+ terminated the game.

1 60. After 1 "'xf6+ ! 2 .i.e5+

c;t>xf6 q"g5

White cut off the king's retreat

QUEEN SACRIFICE

78

Petrosian-Pachman Bled, 196 1

161. There followed I 2 3 4

160 W

. . . �xf3 �g4 �gS

'ifxO+ ! .Ihf2+ h5+

4 �h4 J.f6+.

4

•

•

•

�g7 !

A 'quiet' move. 5 . . . .t f6+ as well as 5 . . . f6+ is threatened. with the 'quiet' move

3 .tg7! Against the threat of 4 h4+ �f5 S .t h3 mate or 4 . . . � h5 S .to mate there is no defence. If 3 . . . lD f5 , then all the same 4 h4+ tt:'!xh4 S gxh4+ with the same mate at h3 or O . Black resigns.

5 It)dS 6 �b4

f6+ �b6!

A further 'quiet' move, after which White resigned. On 7 g4 there follows 7 . . . gS+ 8 �g3 h4 mate.

Letelier-Fiscber Leipzig Olympiad, 1960 162 B

Scbneider-Pirisi Budapest, 1986 161 B

1 62. Fischer exploited the open position of the white king by 1

•

.

•

l he3 !

THE PA TH TO THE GOAL

2 J:t xe3 3 �xe3

J:t xe3 'tIrxf4+!

If the king takes the queen, it ends up in a mating net (4 . . . .i.h6 mate). After 4 � f2 there is no mate, it is true, but 4 . . . lb g4+ 5 �g2 lb e3 + 6 �f2 lbd4 7 . h l tbg4+ is convincing enough. White resigns.

79

white king fell was made of the minimal 'available material'.

Rossolimo-Leizerman Moscow, 1927 1 64 W

Sugar-Vegh Hungary, 1979 163 B 164. The black king is horribly placed. Nevertheless Rossolimo's combination, which is the quickest way to win, is instructive : 1 'tIrh5+ ! 2 .i.n+ 163. White thought that he had tricked his opponent - when the queen moves he will take the knight and then the bishop . . . But Black had gone into this position, after working out before­ hand the pretty variation

�xh5 .i.g6

Or 2 . . . � h4 3 .i. e l mate.

3 g4+ 4 .i.el mate

�h4

165. Black threatens . . . J:t d2+, but after 1 'tIrxg6+ !

1 2 3 4

. . . �xf4 � g3 �h3

.xf4+ ! g5+ f4+ tbfl mate

Here the mating net into which the

he resigned: I . �xg6 2 :. I f6+ 'itg5 (or 2 . . 'it h5) 3 J:t f5 + 'itg6 (or 3 . . . �h6) 4 J:t 7f6+ �h7 (4 . . . 'itg7 5 J:t g5+) 5 :' h5+ �g7 6 J:t g5+ �h7 7 .i.f5 mate. .

.

.

QUEEN SACRIFICE

80

Nezhmetdinov-Kasparian Riga, 1955 165 W

2 i.hS+ 3 i.f7+

�h7

The discovered check is given this way, so that the king should not escape to gS.

3 . . . 4 g6+ !

.tb6 Resigns.

4 . . . �g7 5 .txh6+ and 6 i.xfS mate, or 4 . . . � hS 5 l hh6+ and 6 A h7 mate.

Smolny-Asafov Leningrad, 1956

In the following examples the decoy sacrifice makes possible a double check, with the help of which a mating net is constructed.

166 W

Krystev-Tringov Skopje, 196 1 1 67 B

166. White has given up a rook, and now he must find some strong measure. He wins by 1 'it'xg6+ !

�xg6

If 1 . . . � e6, then 2 i.g4+ and 3 i.c3 mate. 1 . . . �gS also fails in view of 2 'fi' h7+ �f7 3 i.h5+ and 4 . f5 mate.

167. After 1

•

.

.

'if'hl+

White resigned (2 �xh l 1:txh3++ 3 'Ot>gl .: h I mate).

81

THE PA TH TO THE GOAL

Schulten-Honvitz London, 1846

1 69. After 1

168 B

•

•

•

'irxO +

White resigned. In contrast to the Schulten­ Horwitz game, the queen check decoying the king is here accom­ panied by the rook capture, which makes it more obvious.

Utyuganov-Konovalov Krasnodar, 1950 170 B

168. With his previous move White simple-mindedly offered the ex­ change of queens, on which there followed 1 . . . 2 xO 3 el

'ir 0 + ! i.d3+ + : 0 mate

This ancient mechanism is still in good working order.

Kondrakov-Glukhovsky Tashkent, 1965 169 B

170. White has j ust played i.f7-h5, to which the reply was 1 . . . 2 xg2 3 gl

'irg2+ ! It)f4++ It)h3 mate

We give the characters in this fre­ quently repeated final scene ( 1 71).

172. There came 1 'it'xh7+ ! 2 hxg6++

xh7

QUEEN SACRIFICE

82

3 4 5 6

171

. . . l:[ ghl g6 exfS

tLlxg7 16 tLl xfS

The mate threat can be parried only by sacrificing the queen -

6 7 xc2 S � d3 •

Abrosimov-Krupenko Daugavpils, 1974 172 W

.

•

11hc2+ tLl e3+ tLl xfS

The mating threat broken, but after

9 l:l hS+ 10 l:[ Sh7+

has

been

g7

Black had to resign, since he was losing a rook.

Wahl-Bjamason Malmo, 1987 173 W

On 2 . . . xg6, of course, there follows 3 l:[ h6 mate. But there is also

2

.

•

•

gS

How then does White continue the pursuit?

3 g7 ! The deciding move of the combi· nation, which White was obliged to foresee. Catastrophe strikes on the h-file.

173. White mated his opponent with the help of two diverting sacrifices. First he gave up a rook 1 l:[ as+ !

xaS

THE PATH TO THE GOAL

3 "'xe4 4 "'a4 (175)

and after

2 "'al+

83

i.d5

�b8

175 B

his queen :

3 "'a7+ 4 lLl c6+ + ! 5 :l. al +

�xa7 and mating.

Tarrasch-Alekhine Pistyan, 1922 174 B

4 5 6 7 8

174. Alekhine offensive with 1

.

•

.

developed

his

i.e6!

having worked out the following variation :

White tries to cover the g2 square. •

•

•

•

•

�xg2 ""h2 ""hI ""gl

"'xg2+ ! : g3++ J:[ g2++ J:[ h2++ J:[ hl mate

The rook descended on a 'stair­ case' from f3 to h I ! In the game this pretty finish remained 'off-stage'. Instead of2 "'c6 Tarrasch defended against the threat of . . . i.xh3 with 2 � h l . Alekhine nevertheless took the pawn, thus sacrificing his bishop - 2 . . . i.xh3 3 gxh3 J:[ f3 4 lLlg3 h4, and after 5 i.f6 "'xf6 6 lLl xe4 J:[ xh3+ White resigned.

176. There followed

2 "'c6

2

•

1 "'xg7+! 2 J:[ g5++

�xg7

J:[ O

If 2 . . . i.xh3, then 3 "'xe4.

The double check set in motion the 'windmill' :

QUEEN SACRIFICE

84

Krantz-Dahlin Sweden, 1974 176 W

But Black defended against the threat of 12 ': h7++ �g8 13 ': eg7 mate by sacrificing his queen -

11 12 .i.xf6 .

.

•

'iff6 ! J: xf6

and after

13 .i.xfS

.: xfS

it was White who had to force a draw:

2 3 ': g7+ 4 J:t xf7+ 5 J:t g7+ 6 ': xc7+ 7 J: g7+ •

•

•

� h7 � h8 � g8 �h8 � g8 �h8 ( 1 77)

177 W

14 J:t h7+ 15 ': eg7+

� g8 �f8

16 J:t d7 ! The threat o f mate a t h8 forces a repetition of moves. Let us return to the position in the last diagram. Instead of8 J:t g3+ White could have won by 8 .: ee7 ! (with the same threat of 9 ': h 7+ + and 10 .: eg7 mate). Now sacrificing the queen no longer helps Black: 8 . . . . xe7 9 J: xe7+ �g8 1 0 d6+ or 8 • f6 9 ': h7+ �g8 10 d6+, while i f 8 . . . J:t f6 then 9 ': gf7 �g8 1 0 ': xf6. And one last point. The question mark is attached to White's ninth move, because it is this one (rather than 8 ': g3+) which throws away the win, which could have been achieved by 9 ': g7+ �h8 10 ': ee7. .

.

.

,

Here White deviated from the correct path. He played

8 9 10 11

J:t g3+ .i.bl+? ': g7+ ': ee7

�h7 .i.fS �h8

THE PA TH TO THE GOAL

Tarrasch-Romberg Nuremberg, 1893 Tarrasch played this game without his Queen's rook, and so a com­ mentary on the opening stage is of no interest. After

1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

e4 it) t3 d4 .ic4 it)gS 'irhS f4 0-0 �hl it) c3 fS it) d5 f6 fxg7+

eS it) c6 exd4 .tc5 it) h6 0-0 'ire8 d3+ dxc2 d6 it)eS �h8 .ig4 �xg7

the following position was reached (1 78) .

85

16 it) e6+ The king must not be allowed to return to g7.

16

.

•

.,phS

•

If l 6 . . . .,pg6, then 1 7 1:tf6+ .,phS 1 8 ': h6 mate.

17 it)df4+

.,ph6

1 7 . . . .,p h4 1 8 g3 mate.

18 it) e2+ !

.,pg6 (1 79)

The game also concludes enter­ tainingly after 18 . . . .,p hS 19 l:tfS+ .ixf.5 (if 19 �g6, then, as in the game, the rook sacrifice 20 ':/6+1 leads to mate, while in the event of 19 . . . � h4, mate follows after 20 g3 + or 20 .ig5+) 20 it)g3+ .,pg6 (or 20 . . . .,pg4 21 .i e2+ and 22 .ig5 mate) 2 1 exf.5+ �f6 2 2 .igS mate. .

.

.

179 W

178 W

The pursuit of the king began with

IS 'irxh6+ !

�xh6

19 ': f6+!! 20 .igS+ 21 it)2f4 mate

QUEEN SACRIFICE

86

A very attractive type of combi­ nation is that where the king is drawn out of his shelter by a queen sacrifice, and then delivered under e s cort into enemy territory.

Lisitsyn-Panov 10th USSR Championship Tbilisi, 1937 181 W

�ackenzie-�ason USA, 1878 180 W

The result is the same after 2 . . . �g5 3 .i.e3+ � h5 4 g4+ � h4 (4 . . . lL)xg4 5 l:t h3 mate) 5 .i.f2+ c;t g5 6 h4 mate.

180. By placing his queen en prise, White lures the enemy king to h6, and then, after cutting off its retreat, leads it into his territory : I 2 3 4 5

'Wh6+ ! lL)hfS+ lL)xf5+ l:t h3+ lL)e3 mate

�xh6 .i.xfS �h5 �g4

3 g4+ 4 l:t h3+ 5 lL)e4 mate

lL) xg4 � g5

�atsukevich-Bodisko Moscow, 195 8 182 W

181. With his last move . . . c5 Black attacked the bishop, which retreated to e3. But both players overlooked a typical sacrifice, drawing the king out of its shelter I 'Wxg6+ ! 2 .i.fS+

�xg6 �h5

182. There followed

THE PA TH TO THE GOAL

1 'ifxe6+ ! and the black king, reeling under the blows of the enemy pieces, ended up in the centre of the board.

1 . . . 2 .i c4+ 3 ll'lh4+

xn

:' bl +

The final moves, 7 'it;> e2 :. c2 mate, were not made - White resigned.

4 1Irxf6+ ! 5 .i.xf6+ 6 �h6 mate

.i. xf6 'it;> g8

Let us invite onto the stage the participants in the final scene (205).

Mamayev-Oreshkin Moscow, 1968

205

204 W

204. What is the best way to conduct the attack? 1 lLIf5 suggests itself, as well as 1 lLIgS . In the game 1 lLI hS was played, and Black repelled the onslaught. Meanwhile, the most effective continuation was 1 lLIxe5 2 :' xf6!

206. White is the exchange up with an excellent position. He can of course realize his advantage by technique alone, but in the given instance a combinational solution is the most effective. The g7 square, which is twice attacked, is three times defended. By sacrifices White eliminates two of the defenders :

-*.xe5 I :' xe6!

1Irxe6

99

THE PATH TO THE GOAL

Vasyukov-DurBsevic Belgrade, 196 1 206 W

1 1Ifxh7+ 2 Il xh7+

Il xh7 �xf6

If 2 . . �f8, then 3 ll'lxe6+ and 4 f7+. But now comes the double check .

3 ll'l dS++ forcing the king into White's territory :

3 4 1l h5+ 5 i. e3+ 6 b3 mate .

2 3 4 5

1hf8! l hg7+ l hg6+ Il xf6

l hf8 �h8 lU6

A picturesque position. On 5 . . . 1If e l + White defends with check - 6 Il fl +. Wherever it moves, the queen cannot be saved. Black resigns.

Panov-Grechkin Odessa, 1949 207 W

207. There followed

.

.

� e5 �d4 �c4

A combination which occurs rela­ tively often is where the queen is sacrificed to release the pin on a knight. There are two typical types of these combinations - in open and closed opening positions. The first type originally occurred in a game by the French player Legall, Philidor's teacher:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

e4 i. c4 ll'l f3 ll'lc3 ll'lxe5? i.xf7+ ll'l dS mate

eS d6 ll'l c6 i.g4 i.xdl?? �e7

5 ll'lxe5 is a trap in the bad sense, since it is based on the opponent's greed. Had Black replied 5 . . . ll'lxe5, he would simply have been a knight up.

QUEEN SACRIFICE

1 00

The combination can be improved by first playing

S h3 after which Black must either exchange on f.3 or withdraw his bishop. Only not to hS. Mter

S

•

•

•

.ihS? (208)

the 'Legall mechanism' operates smoothly.

208 W

Since distant times Legall's mate has become widely known. In 1882 in Moscow the operetta 'The Sea Cadet' was staged in the 'Ermitazh' garden theatre. In the course of it a game was played with 'live' chess players, the corps de ballet performing a ten­ move miniature on the Legall theme :

1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10

e4 tLlf3 d4 .ic4 c3 tLlxc3 0-0 tLlxeS .ixf7+ tLldS mate

eS tLl c6 exd4 d6 dxc3 .ig4 tLleS .ixdl e7

No better is 12 . . . 'it>f8 13 .i.xc5+ 'ild6 14 .i.xd6+ cxd6 15 .I:I xd l lb f6 16 lbc4 0r 1 6 lbg6+, with a great material advantage for White.

13 .i.xcS+

�f6

As in a battle, a king in front of its troops is in mortal danger. However, 13 . . . 'il d6 was equally hopeless.

14 0-0+

�xe5

White mates slightly later after 14

lb xe4

will not seem original. Calculating the consequences of accepting the sacrifice (especially in a corres­ pondence game) did not present any difficulty : by constant checking the white king is escorted into the centre of the board, where it is mated. It was necessary, however, to anticipate other possible replies by White, namely 2 'il e2, 2 'il h5, 2 lbxb6 and 2 lbxc7+. And so: 2 'il e2 'ilxh4 3 g3 'ilg4 4 f3 'il e6 5 fxe4 0-0 6 0-0-0 f5 with advantage to Black. 2 'il h5 g5 ! 3 .i.g3 lb f6, with an extra pawn.

1 04

QUEEN SACRIFICE

2 lLlxb6 'ilfxh4 3 g3 'ilff6 4 'ilf e2 axb6 5 'ilxe4+ .i.e6, again with an extra pawn and ideal development. 2 lLlxc7+ 'fIxc7 (of course, after 2 . . . .i.xc7? White can safely take the queen) 3 'ilf e2 d5 4 0 0-0 5 fxe4. White has regained his piece, but at a high price - 5 . . . l:t e8 (6 lLl d2 lLl d4) gives Black a clear advantage. Even so, any of these fou r moves would have been better than taking the queen.

2 .i.xd8? 3 'ito>e2 4 'ito>d3 (213) 213 B

Sbilov-Razdobarln Krasnoyarsk, 1959 1 2 3 4 5

e4 lLltJ cl exelS d4

cS a6 eIS 'ilfxelS cxd4

In positions with an isolated pawn, the queen is normally a poor blockader. In driving it away, White gains a tempo. It should be borne in mind that Black has already lost time on playing . . . a6. In such situations the opening of the c-file favours White, who also acquires the c3 square for his knight. 5 . . . e6 was preferable.

6 cxd4

.i. g4

This seemingly active move allows White to achieve by force a won position.

7 lLl c3 4 5 'ito>xe4 6 'ito>f4 •

•

•

lLleS+ ! fS+ lLl g6 mate

7 . . . .i.xO fails to 8 lLlxd5 .i.xd l 9 lLlc7+.

8 .i.c4 One can only wonder how White failed to foresee such a prosaic variation in a correspondence game.

'fI d8

e6

9 .i.xf7+ was threatened, as well as 9 lLle5.

9 eIS ! In full accordance with the rule,

1 05

THE PA TH TO THE GOAL

Potter-Matthews London, 1868

according to which the side ahead in development should aim to open up the game.

9 10 d6 ! •

•

•

1 e4 2 d4 3 �c4

e5 �h5 (214)

If l O . . . �xd6, then 1 1 �xf7+�xf7 12 lLIxe5+.

3

.

. . lLIc6, 3 .

4 lLIt3 5 0-0 6 J:[ el

214 W

e5 exd4 cS? .

.

lLIf6. d6 lLIc6 �g4?

6 . . . �e7.

7 e5!

lLIxe5? (215) 215 W

1 1 lLIxe5 The Legall theme ( 1 1 . . . �xd l 1 2 �xf7 mate), but i n a ditTerent adap­ tation - the e7 square is attacked by a pawn.

11 1 2 1fdS •

•

•

� g6 lLIf6

This shortens Black's sutTering. He is mated in the same way as after the capture of the queen at d 1 .

1 3 1fxf7+ 14 �xf7 mate

�xf7

Black's naively played opening and his last, totally simple-minded move are severely punished.

8 lLI xe5 9 �b5+ !

�xdl

A small detail : nothing is given by 9 �xf7+ �e7 10 �g5+ lLIf6, when after 1 1 lLI c6++ �xf7 12 lLIxd8+ J:[ xd8 1 3 J:[ xd l White is a pawn down.

QUEEN SACRIFICE

1 06

However, 9 � c6 + J.e7 1 0 �xd8 J:[ xd8 1 1 .: xd 1 was good e nough to win. In this variation White is two pawns down, but on the other hand he has an extra piece ! Even so, the move in the game must be considered the strongest.

9 .

.

•

xgl �O � e2 � e3 �d2 'it' e3

12+ .t h3+ O= 'iH .1:%. 13+ .1:%. 12+ . e2 mate

Instead of the hasty reply 2 .l:%. g5?, 2 ..txf4 was good enough to win 2 . . . .l:%. xf4 3 ii e8+ (on 3 I! g5 Black can reply 3 . . . .1:%.17) 3 . . .I:%. f8 4 'irxc6 ..tf5 5 iixd5+ with a decisive material advantage. .

290. This is a well known position. With his last move Schlechter gave check, to which Chigorin replied 1 'ifb6+ forcing, as it seemed to him, the exchange of queens, transposing into a won pawn ending. But instead of the expected capitulation, Black . . . modestly played

1

.

.

.

�a8!

leaving his queen en prise. If it is taken, it will be stalemate . And after

2 �a6 (there is no other possibility) 2 . . . .c8+ forces the king to return, when both 3 . . . 'if c3+ and 3 . . . 'if c7 1ead to a draw.

1 47

LOGICAL OUTCOME OR CHANCE HAPPENING ?

Perlasca-Grassi Como, 190 1

Troianescu-Jovanovic Oberhausen, 1966

291 B

292 W

291 . After picking up five (!) sacri­ ficed pawns in the opening, Black is dreadfully behind in development. Only his queen is in . play, and his remaining pieces are still in their initial positions. His very first active move

292. White naively took the knight : 1 .i.xc6 and walked into an 'X-ray' mate:

1 . . . 2 .i.xhl

'irhl + ! J:t xhl mate

J:t e8

1

(the only way to try and resist was by 1 . . . 1Ir e5) was met by sacrifices of queen and rook:

Svenn-Kinmark Sweden, 197 1 293 B

2 11rxe8+ ! Eliminating the sole defender of the king, White gains a tempo for playing his knight to f5 .

2 3 4 5 6

•

•

•

lDd4+ J:t e8+ ! J:t g8+ lDfS mate

xe8 f8 xe8 q;e7

293. Instead of making the natural move 1 . . . lDf6, defending fT, Black

QUEEN SACRIFICE

1 48

decided to drive away the knight and played

f6?

1

but after the 'quiet' move

2 'iUS! he had to resign If 2 . . . ifxfS, then 3 &i'Jfl mate. In view of the mate threat at h7 Black loses his queen.

After 3 . . . g6 4 :. xd7 White already has two rooks for the queen, and besides, the attacked bishop has no move. If 4 . �a6, then simply 5 �xc6, and the bishop cannot be taken on account of 6 :. xfl mate . Black resigned. Instead of 1 . . . :. cd8? Black should have played 1 . . . :. d6. .

.

.

Kasparov-Karpov World Championship Match ( 1 1 ) Moscow, 1985

The next example illustrates the successful provocation of a mistake.

From a book by J. Mendheim ( 1 832) 295 W

294 B

295. In a desperate position White tries his last chance :

294. By 1 . . .

:' cd8

Karpov attacked the enemy bishop, but he overlooked a tactical blow -

2 1Wxd7 ! 3 :' e8+ 4 � e4+

:' xd7 �h7

ifxf6?

1 ill xc8

Not sensing the danger, Black falls into the trap. After 1 . ifxc8 2 :. xe6 White has only two pawns for a knight. .

2 ifxa7+! 3 &i'Jb6+

.

&i'Jxa7 �b8

1 49

LOGICAL OUTCOME OR CHANCE HAPPENING ?

4 � xd7+ 5 �xf6 6 �xh5

q;c7 and

with three extra pawns in the endgame. We should also mention mistakes of another type: a player, who is threatened with a queen sacrifice, simply does not see it and therefore takes no defensive measures. We give an instance of a threat being overlooked in the calculation of a variation.

Sokolov-Ruzhnikov Correspondence, 1966-1967 296 B

White's queen, rook and knight are all attacked, and in addition . b l='iH with mate is threatened.

4 'ifg5 Black expected this move, and pre­ pared, as it seemed to him, a strong reply.

4

h6

Again . . . b l='if+ is threatened, the queen and knight are attacked, and on 5 'ifh4 there follows 5 . . . g5 6 'ife4 b l='if+. There is no good double check . . . But a double check is not in fact needed! Black overlooked a queen sacrifice and a problem-like mate, rare for an actual game: 5 .I:l xb7+ !

hxg5

5 . . . .I:l f6 6 �c6+, 7 .I:l e7+ and 8 'ifxg7 mate .

6 �c6+ 7 .I:l e7 mate 296. After sending his opponent the move 1

.

.

.

q;c7

Ruzhnikov worked out a variation with a queen sacrifice -

2 .I:l xe7+ 3 .I:l xe7+

q;e8

But not every combination with a queen sacrifice is the direct result of an oversight.

�stol-ft{orozova USSR, 1969 l e4 2 exd5

dS 'ifxdS

QUEEN SACRIFICE

1 50

3 4 5 6

tLl c3 d4 �e4 tLle2

1IraS tLlf6 e6 .ifS

attack, whereas Black, after wasting time with her queen, has not managed to develop her forces.

This apparently active move allows White to gain a substantial lead in development.

7 0-0 8 tLlgl

e6 .ig6

It was time to mobilize the K-side by playing 8 . . . .i b4 .

9 1Ir e2 10 f4 Castling was not account of 1 1 fS .

11 fS! 12 tL1xfS 13 ': xfS

.ie7 'ifd8 possible

on

exfS .ixfS 1Irxd4+

16 17 ': xcS 18 A e5 •

•

•

Not 1 8

.

.

19 20 21 22 23

.

A el A e7! �hl 'ifxc4 tOxd5

.ixcS+ "fiIe7 tLla6 lLlbd7 19 A e7.

b5 1Irb6+ bxc4 tOdS

The piece sacrifice was not a real one. The knight cannot be taken, since after 24 1Ifxd5 there is a simul­ taneous attack on f7 and the rook.

23

•

•

•

1Irb5 (197) 297 W

Of course, the pawn sacrifice should not have been accepted. Castling was essential. Now the king is obliged to remain in the centre .

14 .ie3

1Ird7

On 1 4 . 1Irg4 there would have followed 15 .ixf7+ ! .

.

15 .icS ! 16 A dl All White's pieces have j oined the

White left her queen en prise and concluded the attack with the pretty 'quiet' move

24 tOf6!

LOGICAL OUTCOME OR CHANCE HAPPENING ?

The two threats of 25 1Ixfl mate and 25 .I: e8+ cannot both be parried, and so Black resigned. It is easy to establish that the concluding sacrifice was the logical outcome of the way the attack developed. Black's crushing defeat was not due to some specific over­ sight - it was her planning of the game which was incorrect. In foot­ balling terms, the play was 'all at one end'. White's combination was merely a way of realizing the pos­ itional advantage achieved earlier.

Ivanov-Makov U SSR, 1973 298 B

1 51

4 gxh4 After 5 1Ig2 .l: xg2+ 6 �f1 .t h2, mate is unavoidable. White did not go wrong with 3 h4, nor on his previous move, but earlier. The bishop at g4 had no opponent, his Q-side counterplay was too late, and the weakness of the light squares became the chief cause of his crush­ ing defeat. Black's little combination with a queen sacrifice merely con­ cluded matters. Can such 'one-way' play be con­ sidered an unavoidable consequence of the loser being a weak player? The answer is no, as can be shown by numerous examples.

Chigorin v. Levitsky & Nenarokov Moscow, 1899 299 W

298. On glancing at this position, one can say for certain that it resulted from the sharp Marshall Attack in the Ruy Lopez. Exploiting the weakening of White's K-side, Black created decisive threats: 1 2 110 3 h4 •

f\ ct5 !

•

•

299. In reply to l a3 Black left his bishop en prise with

1 52

QUEEN SACRIFICE

1 . . .

o-()-O !

and after

2 axb4

Geller-Karpov 44th USSR Championship Moscow, 1976 301 W

.i.d5

he created threats along the e-file.

3 4 5 6 7

'ii' e2 .i.e3 'ii' xC3 'ii' a �dl

I Ue8 .i.xf3 ! lLl d4 l he3+

Black has regained the sacrificed piece, and now concludes his attack with a queen sacrifice.

7 . 8 �c1 (300) •

.

'if g4+

300 B

his passed a-pawn, or else to mount an offensive, exploiting the poor position of Black's king and his undefended K-side. Geller chose the energetic alterna­ tive. First he sacrificed the exchange :

1 .l: xbS+ ! 2 'ii' xc6+ 3 o!Df4

'ii' xbS 'Ot f8

White brings u p h i s reserves .

3 . . . 4 o!Dh4! 5 'ii' x e6! S . . .

'ii' f4!

Diverting the defender of the back rank. White resigns.

301 . White faces a choice : whether to exchange queens and try to realize

.l: a7 'ii' eS (302)

The knight check at g6 will regain with interest the sacrificed material.

5 . . .

fxe6

Things would have been no different after 5 . 'ifxe6 6 o!Dxe6+ fxe6 .

.

1 53

LOGICAL OUTCOME OR CHANCE HAPPENING ?

302 W

10 11 12 13 14

�xe7 tLlg6+ tLl f4 dxe5 l:. cl !

�xe7 �rT �xe5 l:. xf4

The rook belongs behind the passed pawn.

14 15 c6 16 c7 + 17 g3 .

7 tLlg6+ and 8 tLlxh8, while 6 . . . �e8 (instead of 6 . . fxe6) would have led to the same result - for the exchange White has several pawns, and Black's K-side is still frozen. .

6 tLlfg6+

'irxg6

If 6 . . . �f7, then 7 tLlxh8+ �f8 8 tLl4g6+.

7 tLlxg6+ 8 tLl xh8

� e8

and White easily realized his ma­ terial advantage :

8 . . . 9 l:. dl

l:. a4 tLle7

.

•

� e8 �d8 �c8 l:. a4

White has an amusing win after 1 7 . . . l:. f5 . He plays 1 8 f4 g 5 1 9 a4!, giving up has K-side pawns in order to promote his a- or c-pawn: 19 . . . gxf4 20 a5 fxg3 2 1 a6 gxh2+ 22 � h l l:. f2 23 l:. al .

18 19 20 21 22

l:. c6 l:. xe6 l:. d6 e6 e7

l:. xa2 g5 l:. d2 �xc7 resigns

"I saw White's combination when I played . . . 'ir e8", said Karpov after the game, "but I was unable to avoid it . . . "

8 Calcu lation and Evaluation Novotelnov-Chistyakov Tbilisi, 1949

The combinations which w e have analyzed have differed from one another not only by their content and certain formal indicators, but also by their degree of complexity. Some have been elementary, repeating already familiar patterns, while others have contained an original idea or solution. A feature of a third type is that they demanded effort in calculation. The chapters 'The Path to the Goal' and 'Reference Points' were devoted to understanding the ideas of combinations and the methods of implementing them. We will now look at the queen sacrifice from a new starting point. When considering a tactical oper­ ation, we try to guess the opponent's probable replies - we calculate variations and evaluate them.

303. In this combination the calculation is extremely simple. It is sufficient to find the decoy sacrifice 1 .. 2 r;txg3 .

303 B

and the piquant mate by

2

.

•

•

i.eS

Check, mate, and not a single alternative !

304. How can White penetrate to d8? To do this he must divert either the knight or the f6 pawn. Here too the calculation of the combination does not present any difficulty :

"ii xg3+ ! 1 l::t xeS+! 1 54

fxeS

1 55

CALCULATION AND EVALUATION

Chigorin-N.N. Simultaneous display St Petersburg, 1880 304 W

A hackneyed decoy sacrifice and a standard discovered check, after which the black king is escorted deep into enemy territory.

2 3 15+ 4 f4+ 5 ll'If2+ •

•

'ito>g6 'ito>g5 cjjl g4 cjjl fJ

•

Or 5 . . . 'ito> g3

.

6 A h3+ 7 ..txd5+ S A hl mate 1

.

. ll'I xe5 2 1Wd8 mate.

.

2 1W dS+ 3 A xd8 mate

ll'IxdS

From the book by I. Kreichik "13 Children of Caissa" (1924)

'ito>g2 'ito>gl

Mate and the introductory sacri­ fice are separated by seven moves. Nevertheless, the calculation of the combination did not require any effort. White constantly checked, and Black was unable to defend with any of his pieces, but was forced to move only his king. Besides, each time it had only one move (5 cjjl f3 or 5 . . . 'ito> g3 does not count). .

305 W

.

.

Andreyev-Csema Budapest, 1983 306 W

305. 1 1Ixh7+! 2 ..txe6+

'ito>xh7

QUEEN SACRIFICE

1 56

306. Not wishing to be mated, Black declined the knight sacrifice 1 �b6+ ! 1 . . . 2 'it'xg7+ !

but after q;b8

he was unable to avoid it. On 2 . . . q;xg7 there follows 3 �d4+. Black has three possible replies, but the finish in each case is identical : 3 . . . �f6 (it is the same after 3 . tQf6 or 3 . f6) 4 gxf6+ � h8 (4 . . . Q;xh6 5 � e3 mate) 5 ': g8+! .: xg8 6 �xf7 mate. In this combination too all the moves were with check. However, it should be pointed out that, when he gave up his queen, White was obliged to foresee the final diverting sacrifice. .

.

.

.

Of course, with constant checks the most 'severe' means of compul­ sion - the calculation is made easier. Difficulties which can arise depend on (a) the 'distance of the pursuit', (b) the existence in the main variation of alternatives (to each check there may be several defences), (c) the need to include new sacrifices in the combination, and (d) the standard or unusual nature of the pursuit, and also of the final position itself. An example of overcoming certain difficulties in calculating a 'king hunt' is provided by the game Tarrasch­ Romberg (cf. p.85). If the sacrifice is not accompanied by check, one normally has to reckon

with a greater number of replies, and this means calculating not one or two, but several variations, which in turn may have branches. A serious danger is presented by so-called intermediate moves by the opponent. If they are not foreseen in the calculation, they are capable of changing the planned course and of destroying the combinational i dea. We will first clarify this with an opening example.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

d4 c4 �c3 �f3 �xd4 �db5 � d5 •• 4

d5 e6 cS cxd4 e5 d4 � .6 � d7 (307) 307 W

Should White now play

9 'it'xa6 temporarily giving up his queen, so as after 9 . . bxa6 10 �bc7+ 'it'xc7 1 1 �xc7+ and 12 �xa8 to gain a .

1 57

CALCULA TION AND EVALUATION

material advantage? White's calculation would be justi­ fied, if Black were obliged to take the queen. But he is not in check, and before playing . . . bxa6 he interposes

white queen is immune on account of 2 : xf8+. But White had not taken into account the counter queen sacrifice

1 9

.

.

•

.

.

.

"'xh4+ !

-*.b4+

vacating the f8 square for his king, and only then takes the queen. White no longer obtains sufficient compen­ sation for it. And now - an instance from an actual game.

Lazard-Menchik Paris, 1929

which completely refutes his com­ bination. After

2 -*.xh4

: xh4+

he had to play

3 ... h2 4 �xh2

: xh2+ : xf7

which left Black a bishop up.

308 W

308. Black has just offered the exchange of queens, which the French master resolutely answered with 1 l hf7 The idea of the sacrifice is to divert the rook from the defence of the back rank (1 . . . : xf7 2 "'h8+). And the

At whichever stage of the combi­ nation they occur, moves without check normally make the calculation more complicated (especially if the position is an open one). The opponent has greater freedom - a wider choice of moves. And among them, as we have seen, it may be possible to discover a latent resource - defensive or counterattacking. In the example below, White was in­ tending to conclude the combination with a 'quiet' move . . .

309. Using the idea of interference, White played 1 -*.f6! On 1 . . gxf6 there follows 2 -*.xf5+ .

QUEEN SACRIFICE

1 58

Djindjihashvili-Kuzmin Odessa, 1968

310 W

309 W

decided . . . The reply to the 'quiet' move was

c;i;l h6 3 .: g6+, mating, and so the reply was forced 1

•

•

•

g6

But now the bishop goes to f5 with the help of a diverting queen sacrifice:

2 3 4 5 6

·tlhhS+ ! �xfS+ l:l g6+ l:l xg6+ l:l g7++

gxhS �b6 "'xg6 �b7 �b8 (3UJ)

6 . . . � h6 7 l:l h7 mate. How can White exploit the 'windmill' mechanism? The search for a mating finish led him to play

7 l:l b7++ 8 �g6

�g8

"The check at c2 does not matter, mate is inevitable", White evidently

8 ...

l:l xc2+

Not a 'spite' check, but the prelude to a saving sacrifice !

9 �g3

l:l g2+ !

This enables Black to eliminate the bishop at g6, after which the mating construction is destroyed.

1 0 �xg2 1 1 �g3 12 l:l g7+

lOxf4+ lOxg6

White is fortunate that he can even save the game. After

12 13 l:l xg6 14 l:l g7 .

•

.

c;i;lfB �xd3

the ending finished in a draw. Let us return to the position in the last diagram . Any retreat by the rook

1 59

CALCULAnON AND EVALUATION

along the g-file would have quickly decided the game: 7 J:t g l + t£Jg7 8 .i.xc8 .i.xc8 (or . . . J:t xc8) 9 J:t xg7 J:t xc2+ 10 J:t g2+. These unsuccessful examples clearly show the responsibility imposed by the inclusion in a combi­ nation of a 'quiet' move or a capture without check. Let us now turn to some successful instances, where these 'difficult moves' were well thought out.

Shein-Vaisman Kharkov, 1962 311 B

4 g5 (312) 312 B

4

•

•

•

A quiet move, by which Black vacates the h6 square for a deadly check.

h6+

5 l:. f3

But not 5 . . . J:t xf3 ? in view of 6 'it'xf3 ! �xf3 + 7 �g4, with a simul­ taneous attack on two pieces. Simi­ larly, White answers 5 . �xf3+ with 6 g4. . .

6 g6 3 1 1 . There followed 1 . . . 2 �xh3 3 � g4

1i'xh3+ ! l:. h6+

White has to advance towards his opponent, since on 3 g2 there follows 3 . . J:t h2 mate. .

3

.

•

.

� h2+

�xf3

Now mate is unavoidable, and White resigned. This was a successful 'quiet' move in the middle of a combination. Now here is one where it occurs at the end.

313. Black happily played 1 ... threatening

d5 mate

at

h2

and

1 60

QUEEN SACRIFICE

Schwicker-Boudre France, 198 1

the calculation includes several 'quiet' moves and captures without check.

313 B

Masic-Adorjan Sombor, 1972 314 B

simultaneously attacking the bishop . In reply White eliminated the de­ fender of the g6 square by

2 'it'xh6+ ! "What sort of sacrifice is this? White can only give one more check"

314. Against the natural plan of doubling heavy pieces on the open file 1 .

2 3 l:t xg6+ .

•

•

h7

.

.

l:t h8

White replied

2 l:t g4+ There are indeed no more checks, but there is a 'quiet' move of exceptional strength -

The queen sacrifice made by Black followed by the invasion of his rooks demanded several 'quiet' moves.

4 :t a3! This unobtrusive concluding ma­ noeuvre (which had to be seen beforehand) concludes the con­ struction of a typical linear mate position. And now some examples where

2 . . . 3 fxg4 4 f8, and then not 5 'iVxh4 or 5 tbxb7 in view of the same reply 5 . . . 'iVxe5 (it is important for Black to eliminate this pawn), but 5 l:r. ae l !, maintaining the threats to all three minor pieces.

1 65

5 l:r. ae l !, for example : 5 . . . 'iVxe l (5 . bxa4 6 l:r. xe6) 6 l:r. xe l bxa4 7 .i.xg6 fxg6 8 l:r. e7, and Black does not have 8 . .I:t f7 in view of 9 tb d6 . 5 . . . 1If d5 6 " c 2 tbxh4 7 tb e 5 ! with a strong attacking position. In all variations the play is in White's favour . .

.

.

5 fxg7

.

l:r. gS (322)

322 W

321 W

6 .i.f5!

4 exf6!! This queen sacrifice - the logical consequence of e4-e5 - demanded very deep and precise calculation. The variations took Tal a very long way ahead.

4 . ..

bxa4

Apart from the capture of the queen, Tal also had to reckon with 4 . . . 0-0, on which he was intending

White has only a bishop for the queen, and all three of his minor pieces are en prise. But which of them should Black take? 6 . . . 'iVxfS 7 tb d6+ ..t>d7 8 tbxfS tbxh4 (there is nothing else) 9 l:r. ad l + ..t> c7 1 0 tb xh4 l:r. xg7 1 1 l:r. fe l leads to an ending in which Black is still a pawn up, but his position is quite hopeless. Black is elegantly mated after 6 . . . 1Ifxc4 7 l:r. fe l + 'iVe6 8 l:r. xe6+ fxe6 9 .i.xg6+ � d7 1 0 l:r. d l + �c7 1 1 .i.g3+ �b6 12 l:r. b l + �a6 1 3 .i.d3+ �a5 14

1 66

QUEEN SACRIFICE

i c7 mate . There only remains the third possi­ bility, which Hecht in fact chose.

6 7 i.xe6 .

.

•

.!LIxh4 ia6

Forced, since on 7 . . . fxe6 White plays 8 .!LI d6+ and 9 .!LIxb7 with a winning position. But the inter­ mediate move by the bishop had also not escaped Tal's attention.

8 �d6+ 9 ic4!

xg5 !i:if1+) 1 6 . . . A h6 ! Here too White cannot parry the threats. .

15

.

•

•

:U7!

B

A second 'quiet' move. 1 6 . . . : g7+ and 1 7 . . . :' f6 mate is threatened. The only defence is

16 1.h4 preventing the check at f6.

16 17 ..t>h5 .

The time control was reached three moves ago. Straightforward adjourn­ ment analysis confirmed the correct­ ness of Black's intuitive evaluation. On the resumption there followe d :

14 15 ..t>xg5 •

•

•

.i.xg5

•

•

.!:l g6+ : fg7

A third 'quiet ' move.

18 .i.g5 There is nothing else, since 1 8 . . . : h6 mate was threatened.

CALCULATION AND EVALUA TION

18 . . . 1 9 �h4

1 69

'Filipowicz-Gabrisz Poland, 1960

.l:l. xgS+ lLIf6

325 8

White again has to defend against a linear mate.

20 lLI g3 This saves White from the mate, but not from defeat.

20 . . . 21 1Wxd6 22 1Wb8+

.l:l. xg3 .l:l. 3g6 .l:l. g8 1

White resigns. Let us now turn to positions in which there are no preconditions for a queen sacrifice. The play is tactical, and both players are considering the same variations. Do their calculations and evaluations always coincide? In chess it is as in life : "if two people do one and the same thing, it is not the same thing". Thus one of the players considers a position arising during calculation to be determined and favourable. The other thinks that the tactical possibilities are not exhausted, and, continuing his search, he discovers a combination which decides the game. We now give some examples of mistakes in calculation and evalu­ ation, which are punished by combi­ nations with a queen sacrifice.

325. In this sharp position, result­ ing from a King's Gambit, Black played

.

•

.

.ig4

and on

2 'irxg2 3 1Wxf3

J.. xf3 dxeS

When he calculated the variations, Gabrisz assumed that his K-side was invulnerable. He would have been correct in his evaluation, had it not been for . . . a queen sacrifice.

4 'irxhS !

gxh5

Black could have avoided being crushed, by playing 4 . . . exd4+ 5 'ire2 lLId7. For the piece he has three pawns, but White has the advantage in view of the active placing of his pieces. But now events develop by force.

5 .if6 6 .ixg7

lLId7

1 70

QUEEN SACRIFICE

This way, since after 6 l: xg7+ �h8 the bishop at f6 is attacked, and the rook has no favourable discovery. But after the move played Black is threatened with mate.

6

•

.

•

h6

There is nothing else.

7 lLIf6+ 8 1.xf6+ 9 J:. g7+

lLIxf6 �h7 �h8

It only remained to set the 'wind­ mill' in motion -

10 l: xt7+ 1 1 l: e7+

�g8

and Black resigned, since after 1 1 . . 'ilf7 1 2 J:. xf7 A xf7 1 3 i.. x e5 or 1 3 1.xf7+ � x f7 1 4 1.xe5 h e is a piece down. .

with a temporary piece sacrifice :

1 2 3 4 5

. . . l:t xe4 l: xe8 l: b l lLlh6+

lLIxe4 ... d2 l he8 'if cl �h8

Black could not take the knight on account of 5 . . . gxh6 6 ",f6 ! 'ifxb l + 7 1. fl . After the forced sacrifice o f his queen 7 . . 'ifxb2 8 'ifxb2 - he would not have obtained sufficient compensation. On 8 . . . A e l (with the threat of . . 1.d3) White would have replied 9 'ifd2 and then f2-f3 . -

.

.

6 lLIxt7+ �g8 7 lLIh6+ (327) 327 B

Rashkovsky-Anikayev Yalta, 1966 326 8

326. Black carried out a combination

What has changed now that White has picked up the f7 pawn? In contrast to the variation analyzed in the previous note, after . . . gxh6 the move ", f6 is no longer so terrible, since the king has acquired an escape square. After working out this variation beforehand, Anikayev

1 71

CALCULATION AND EVALUA TION

boldly captured the knight -

7 .. .

gxb6

The reply was the unanticipated

8 'ii' d5+ ! and an elegant mate by the two bishops after 8 . . . cxd5 9 1.xd5+ . Instead of 7 . . . gxh6 Black should, as before, have moved his king. True, after 7 . . . c;th8 8 l:I. fl 'W'xb2 9 c!Of7+ c;t>g8 10 'iVxh5 White would have been a pawn up. On 10 . . . 'iVe2 he replies 1 1 1.0 followed by �g5, while after 1 0 . . . g6 1 1 'iV0 the bishop a t h 7 i s shut in (J 1 . . . 'fIxa2 is bad in view of 12 �g5 l:1. e7 13 1. h3, and if 13 . 'fI e2 14 1. e6+l) In general, the combination initiated by Black proved not to be in his favour. . .

White's attacking hopes are associated, is bound to fall . With the aim of bringing his knight into play, he worked out a variation with an exchange sacrifice, leading, as he thought, to favourable tactical complications. There followed

1 c!O e3 2 'fIb6 3 'fIxb7

c!O c6 'iVxf4 l:I. ae8

Black threatens . . d4, and on 4 l:I. xc6 there follows 4 . . . l:I. xe3 .

4 g3 5 �xd5 6 c;t> g2 (329)

'ii' xf6 l:t el +

.

329 B

Kugenek-Romanovsky St Petersburg, 19 1 2 328 W

328. The pawn at f6, with which

Black's queen and knight are attacked. White cut short his calcu­ lation at this point, mentally evaluat­ ing the position in his favour. The only thing he overlooked was . . . a queen sacrifice with a forced mate in seven moves ! The game concluded as follows:

1 72

QUEEN SACRIFICE

6 7 S 9 10 11

•

•

•

�xf2 �f3 � f4 �gS �xh6

'Wxf2+ ! ': Se2+ lLl eS+ ': 0 +

h6+

1 1 � h4 .: xh2 mate.

11 12 � gS •

•

•

': xh2+ ': hS mate

Pyotr Romanovsky, a future USSR Champion, was then in his twentieth year. Many years later, when chairing a qualification commission, after examining the games of a young player seeking the grade of candidate master, he asked him : "How many times have you sacrificed your queen?". And he added: "A genuine chess player must have sacrificed it not less than ten times . . . "

9 Positional Sacrifice This term signifies the exchange of the queen for material ofIesser value: rook and minor piece (usually a bishop), more rarely two minor pieces, occasionally a rook, and, as can even happen, one minor piece (with or without pawns). If the queen is given up for three minor pieces or two rooks, this is no longer a sacrifice, but an equivalent exchange - here the boundary is clear-cut. But what if for the queen one obtains rook, bishop and pawn? Then this is a sacrifice. And if rook, bishop and two pawns? This is a small material acquisition . . . Thus in order to make a clear-cut boundary between loss and gain, a pawn has to be cut in two ­ since in the 'ranking table' a queen is equated to a rook, bishop and one and a half pawns . . . Some authors combine all in­ stances of a queen exchange under the single heading of 'Positional Sacrifice' (cf. the afore-mentioned article by Konstantinopolsky in the 1955 USSR Yearbook). And although the name does not altogether corres-

pond to the content, there is some sense in doing this, since the method of playing with pieces against the queen is a general one. The word 'positional' is also widely used. Under the advantages gained by the side giving up the queen are to be understood any favourable coordi­ nation of the pieces - provided only that the consequences of the sacrifice are disclosed not by a forcing vari­ ation (this is the distinction with a combination), but in the subsequent play. The erection of a 'fortress', for example (the aim of the sacrifice is here purely positional), does not relate to this chapter. We will define a positional queen sacrifice as a non-equivalent (or not quite equivalent) exchange, opening up the possibility of exploiting the dynamic properties of one's pieces. We must emphasise that it does not lead by force to its goal, but merely creates favourable conditions for subsequent actions. The soundness of the sacrifice still has to be demon­ strated. We should also mention that,

1 73

1 74

QUEEN SACRIFICE

as a result of a positional sacrifice, the character of the play itself changes significantly. A positional sacrifice always in­ volves a certain degree of risk. If the 'coordination effect' of the pieces cannot be exploited, or in other words, if the positional compensation is lost, play has to proceed in materially unfavourable conditions. When making a positional sacrifice, a player takes on additional responsi­ bilities. And this, of course, demands courage. In contrast to combinations, with positional sacrifices the calculation of forcing continuations is restricted to the initial stage of the operation. A very important role is played by the evaluation of the position arising soon after the sacrifice - the starting point for the subsequent non-forcing play. The aims of positional sacrifices are varied. The elimination of the opponent's active pieces and the activation of one's own pieces are used to seize the initiative and mount an offensive, in particular to attack points which can be defended only by pieces (for example, the base of a pawn chain, or isolated pawns). The success of such attacks may be ensured by the numerical superiority in/orce (a greater number of attacking pieces may be directed at the target) . It stands to reason that account must also be taken of the advantages which the queen possesses - its mobility

and striking power, in particular its 'inclination' towards simultaneous attacks on two (or even three) targets. When considering the sacrifice, one must therefore consider both the attacking possibilities of the pieces, and their ability to defend each other against attacks by the queen. And one more point. With an open (or insecure) king position, a positional queen sacrifice is especially risky. With no opponent, the queen can seriously harrass the king, and may also simultaneously give check and attack one of the pieces. In roughly equal positions (positions of so-called dynamic balance) a positional queen sacrifice may be made with the aim of compli­ cating the play. This decision may be dictated either by the player's tournament position, or by features in the playing style of the opponent, who may, for example, have a preference for quiet positions and will feel less sure when there is a sharp turn of events. In dubious or unfavourable situ­ ations, a 'non-equivalent exchange' may be employed to parry an attack, relieve unbearable positional press­ ure, and even to create 'complications for the sake of complications', since play with mixed material demands particular care, and normally abounds in tactical possibilities. By acting in this way in an unfavourable situation, we force the scales to oscillate more strongly, thus

1 75

POSITIONAL SACRIFICE

increasing the degree of risk for both sides, which gives certain practical chances. Among the psychological and competitive 'indicators' of the employment of the positional queen sacrifice, we should also mention the opponent's time trouble. Thus a sacrifice may be tactically justified, although from the objective view­ point it is incorrect. Without exaggeration, it can be said that positional sacrifices are among the most difficult. Especially queen sacrifices. The reader will probably have noticed that the authors of many pretty combinations with a queen sacrifice are little­ known or even altogether unknown players. But complicated positional sacrifices, demanding subtle intuitive evaluation and a deep understanding of the game, require players of high standard. Like an extra-sensor, a great master senses a position with the tips of his fingers. In general, the ability to play with mixed material can serve, to some extent, as an indicator of playing strength. But let us now turn to some illustrations. We will arrange the positional sac­ rifices by the aims which they pursue.

CONTINUATION OF THE ATTACK Duz-Khotimirsky v. Romanovsky Moscow, 1925 330 W

330. By 1 ie4 White parried the threatened check at g2. In reply Romanovsky gave up his queen for rook and bishop :

1 2 l:t xe4

1fxe4 ! ixe4

White's c-pawn is weak, his queen has been drawn away by the prospect of an attack, and his king is badly placed. The concrete continuation which Black had to calculate was equal to two (at the maximum three) moves.

3 A d7 4 (xg6

g6! ixg6

On 5 'ii' n there follows 5 . . . e4, and

1 76

QUEEN SACRIFICE

the queen cannot defend the c3 pawn (6 'il e3 ? i./'5+).

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1Vg4 l ha7 : a8 1Vg5 1Vg4 11h2 1Vg4

AIatortsev-Boleslavsky 18th USSR Championship Moscow, 1950

: xel : e6 �g7 ! J.. e7 f5 C4 f3 � f1 + ! 20 �g2 (20 ..to>g4 Il g3 mate) 20 . . . :' xc2+ 21 ..to> h l (or 21 ..to>xgl) 2 1 . . . � g3 mate. Malyutin exploits his last chance to put up a resistance.

18 19 20 21 22 23

.u. xh7+ ..to>h5 fxe5 'irg6+ .tb3+ axb3

..to>xh7 � xd6 .u. xe5 ..to>g8 .u. xb3! .u. x5+

The game is decided, since for the queen Black has too much material. After

22 ..to>g4 23 ..to> h3

.t e3 .u. 0+

24 25 26 27 28

191

..to>h2 ..to>hl h5 1i'g4 b4

.u. f2+ .u. f4 .u. 5 .tf4 � e4

any further resistance was point­ less.

Capablanca v. I1yin-Genevsky Moscow, 1925 348 W

348. Here Black's K-side came under a pawn storm 1 g5 2 5

� d7

In reply Ilyin-Genevsky began counterplay on the Q-side. Numerous commentaries have been made of this game. It used to be thought that the World Champion, playing in un­ customary style, had exceeded the bounds of acceptable risk, and that the queen sacrifice was therefore retribution for a positionally unjustified plan. But, as modern

QUEEN SA CRIFICE

1 92

analyses have shown, things are by no means so simple.

2 3 lO f4 4 f6 •

•

.

bS b4 i.f8

4 . . . exf6 is strongly met by S lOdS.

S lOa A few moves later the knight returns to d l , so as not to hinder the switching of the heavy pieces to the h-file and to prevent the invasion of the enemy rooks. Therefore the commentators unanimously gave the knight manoeuvre a question mark. Of course, it was not essential for White to waste time. The immediate S h4 came into consideration. In contrast to the commentators, who strongly condemned White's game, play throughout the Capablanca was convinced that his offensive should have succeeded.

S 6 bxc3 •

•

•

bxc3

The play develops according to the principle of "who will be quicker" : White - in opening the h-file, switching his heavy pieces to it, and 'getting to' the enemy king, or Black ­ in gaining a decisive advantage by breaking through on the Q-side. The following defensive move, however, is necessary.

6 7 8 9 10

•

•

•

h4 hS hxg6 lOdl

e6 .l:. b8 .l:t b6 hxg6

The knight makes way for the queen to go to h4. In addition, in anticipation of the doubling of the enemy rooks, it covers the b2 square. But a few moves ago the knight was already standing at d 1 . . .

10 11 'ifa •

•

•

lOdeS

After the game Capablanca pointed out two other continuations: 1 1 i. h3 (depriving the knight of the g4 square) and 1 1 c4 (rejecting i deas of an attack, so as after exchanging queens to try and exploit the cramped position of Black's bishops and king) . In the first case Black would probably have continued his plan with 1 1 . .I:. db8, and in the second case, after 1 1 . . . 'irxd2 12 i.xd2 lOd4 he would have built his hopes on the . . . dS break. .

11 12 'irh4 •

•

•

.

�g4 lOceS (349)

Black, understandably, is not tempted by the win of a pawn : 12 . . . lOxe3 1 3 lOxe3 'irxc3 1 4 lO g4 and lO h6+.

13 d4

1 93

PosmONAL SACRIFICE

349 W

White's plan is straightforward : to drive away the knight, so as then to switch his rook to h3 . After the game 1 3 � d2 was analyzed. As shown by Romanovsky, Black would have gained counterplay by 1 3 . . . J:. db8 1 4 � h3 l:t b2 ! 1 5 lLlxb2 l:t xb2, and if 16 � c l lLl h2 ! Quite recently the Leningrad player B. Baskov suggested the surprising move 13 �f3 ! !, which had not occurred to any of the commen­ tators. Without going into all the details of the lengthy analysis, which has been amplified by A. Chistyakov, we give the main continuations: 13 . . . lLlxe3 14 lLlxe3

I 1 4 . . . 1fxc3 1 5 'Otg2 ! I n this and other branches o f the analysis, this king move allows the rook access to h I . White is not concerned about loss of material. Paradoxically enough, although lacking any pawn cover, the white king proves invulnerable. 1 5 . . . l:t b2+ (15 . . . 1f d2+ 16 J:t.f2

1fxe3 1 7 l:t hl) 1 6 lLle2 lLlxf3 ( 1 6 . . . l:t xe2+ 1 7 J.. xe2 1f d2 18 l:t12 iixe3 1 9 l:t hl, or 1 6 . . . 'fIxd3 1 7 l:t hl l:t xe2+ 18 �g3) 1 7 �xf3 A xe2 1 8 l:. h l l:t xe3+ 1 9 �xe3 1Wd4+ 2 0 'Ote2 1fb2+ 21 'Otf3, and Black is mated.

11 1 4 . . . l:t b2 15 lLle2. Here the following branches are possibl e : A . 1 5 . . . lLlxd3 1 6 l:. fl lLlxfl 17 'Otxfl with the irresistible threat of l:. h I . B . 1 5 . . . J.. b 5 1 6 'Otg2 lLlxf3 1 7 ,.pxf3 �xd3 18 lLlg3 1fb5 19 c4 ! (the immediate 19 l:. hl ? is a mistake in view of 19 . . . � e2+ 20 �f4 e5 mate) 19 . . . ..txc4 20 lLlxc4 1W xc4 2 1 l:. h l 1f d3+ 2 2 �g4, and here too Black cannot avoid mate. c. 15 . . d5 16 'Otg2 lLlxf3 17 'Otxf3 dxe4+ 18 dxe4 ..tb5 1 9 lLl f4 ! . Black has two replies: 19 . . . ..txfl and 1 9 . . . l:. d3 . a . 1 9 . . . ..txfl 2 0 l:. xfl l:. dd2 2 1 l:. h l l:. h2 2 2 l:. xh2 l:. xh2 2 3 1Wxh2 1fxc3 - B lack can hardly hope to save the game. b. 19 . . . l:. d3 20 lLlxd3 �xd3 2 1 l:. ae l ! (preventing the blocking of the h-file by . . �e2-h5) 2 1 . . . 1fxa2 (if 21 . . . ii b5, then 22 c4! i.xc4 23 lLlxc4 1fxc4 24 l:t h l 1f d3+ 25 l:. e3, while if 21 . . . i.xfl 22 l:. Jifl 1f b5, then 23 c4 followed by l:. hl) 22 l:t h l l:t fl+ 2 3 iixfl ..txe4+ 2 4 'Ot xe4 1fxfl . I f Capablanca had been shown this position, he would not have recog­ nized his game ! Here the rooks are .

.

1 94

QUEEN SACRIFICE

stronger than the queen. In the opinion of Chistyakov, who analyzed 15 . . . d5, White should win after the possible continuation 25 l:I. d l ! .b2 26 l:I. b l ! .xc3 27 l:I. b8 . d4+ (28 l:I. xj8+ was threatened) 28 �f3 "it'd6 29 l:I. c8 ! c4 30 l:t d I 1!i'a3 31 l:I. dd8. But let us return to the famous game itself.

13 14 .!Dxe3 15 dxe5 •

•

.

�xe3 .xc3 .xe3+ ( 350)

350 W

White can continue his attack", wrote Bogoljubow. How White should continue his attack was revealed 60 years later by Igor Zaitsev. He suggested playing not 17 l:I. ae l , but 17 l:I. ad l !, with the threat of l:I. d3. Here are some possible variations: A. 1 7 . . . l:I. d2 1 8 l:I. O .xO 19 l:I. xd2 . c3 20 l:I. d3 and then l:I. h3 . B . 1 7 . . . c 4 (preventing l:I. d3) 1 8 rot h l (threatening l:I.fi) 1 8 . . . l:I. d2 1 9 l:I. de l . d4 20 l:I. O l:I. d l 2 1 l:I. xd l .xd 1 + 2 2 � h2 1!i'xO (otherwise l:I. h3) 23 i.xO dxe5 24 .!D e2. With accurate play White should be able to realize his advantage. C. 17 . . . 1!i'xe4 18 �g3 ! The quintessence of Zaitsev's analysis. The bold king does not fear anyone! On 18 . . . 1!i'xe5 (if 1 8 . . ': xg2+ 1 9 �xg2 .xe5+, then 20 l:I.'pl) there follows 1 9 l:I. O ! (but not im­ mediately 1 9 l:I. h 1, after which Black is saved by 1 9 . . i. h 6! 20 1!i'xh6 l:I. xg2+ 21 �xg2 i. c6+ with perpetual check) 19 . . . i. c6 20 l:I. h l l:I. xg2+ 2 1 �xg2 i.xO + 22 �xO 1!i'c3+ 2 3 c;t>g4. The white king is safe, and Black is mated. True, Black is not obliged to play 16 . . . l:I. b2, but can continue, as in the game, 16 . . . dxe5. Then Zaitsev gives 17 �xg6 ! fxg6 18 l:I. O, and after the possible 18 . . . 1!i' e2 19 l:I. e l 1!i'd2 20 l:I. eft l:I. b2 2 1 l:I. If2 "it' xf2 (there is nothing else) 22 l:I. xf2 l:I. dd2 23 l:I. xd2 l:I. xd2 24 . h3 ! White has real winning chances. .

.

16 �hl After the game Capablanca re­ marked that, had he moved his king not to hI but to h2, he would have won. The combination with a queen sacrifice, carried out by Ilyin­ Genevsky, would no longer have worked. Even so, the commentators did not agree with the World Champion. The active 16 . l:I. b2 (preventing l:I.fi) and if 17 l:I. ael 1!i' c3 parries White's threats - this was their conclusion. "I do not see how .

.

1 95

POSITIONAL SACRIFICE

Thus Capablanca's positional sense did not deceive him. The correct king move could have reversed the result of the game.

16 . . 17 :1. 13 (351) •

dxe5

With the king at h i , Zaitsev's sacrifice 17 �xg6 fxg6 18 l:t f3 does not work - 18 . . . "'e2 19 l:t e l :1 d l .

351 B

with the threat of l:t h l .

1 9 'ir e l Things would have been n o dif­ ferent after 1 9 l:t e l l:t b2 20 l:t xe3 l:. d l + 21 h2 J:l. dd2 .

19 20 "'xe3 21 �13 22 a3 .

.

•

l:t b2 l:t dd2 c4

Desperation.

22 23 "'a7 .

•

•

�d6

23 e5 A.c7.

23

If the queen moves, then 1 8 l:t h3 wins. But by sacrificing his strongest piece, Ilyin-Genevsky launches a counterattack.

17 1 8 l:t xe3 .

.

•

exf4! fxe3

In an instant the situation has changed. The black king is no longer threatened, and the black rooks, intruding onto the 2nd rank, decide the game. Here it should be said that, if the white king had been at h2, Capablanca would have had 19 'itg3

.

.

.

c3

White resigns. Our detailed description of the struggle in this sensational game once again illustrates the inexhaustible nature of chess. At least a dozen masters and grandmasters - and not at the board, but in their commen­ taries - have repeatedly made mis­ takes in their evaluations. And it is quite possible that the latest analyses too will not become 'the whole truth'.

352. Tal played 1

•

•

•

l:t xe3

intending to sacrifice his queen for two minor pieces.

QUEEN SACRIFICE

1 96

353

Toran-Tal Oberhausen, 196 1

B

352 B

If now 2 .txc6 (the rook cannot be taken, of course, on account of 2 . . .txd4), then 2 . . . ': d3 ! (this inter­ position leads to a position in which Black gives up the exchange, but obtains in return two pawns and a pair of powerful bishops) 3 .tdS+ �h8 4 'irxd3 .txd3 5 tLlf7+ 'irxf7 6 .txf7 .txd4+ and 7 . i.xb2 - Black has an undisputed advantage. Of course, Toran saw 1 . . ': xe3, but assumed that after this the game would end in perpetual check . . . .

. .

.

2 i. d5+ 3 tLl t7+ (353)

.

.

4 i.xt7 5 W e2 6 � g2

A d3 i.xd4+ lLIe5!

The bishop cannot return to dS in view of 7 . c6 8 i. e4 .: e3 . .

.

7 ': dl 8 'ir 0 9 �h3 10 'ir e2

': e3 i. e4+ ': 13 i.f5+

�h8

After 3 . . . �g8 4 tLl h6++ and 5 lLlf7+ White cut short his calcu­ lations: surely Black cannot give up his queen? . . .

3 .

obtains only bishop, knight and pawn. But his positional gains are very signi­ ficant - powerful centralization of all the pieces, with the enemy king exposed .

'ir xt7!

As material compensation, Black

White resigns ( 1 1 �g2 ': f2+ 1 2 Wxfl i.xfl, o r 1 1 �h4 ': fl, with a material advantage sufficient to win). In the chapter 'The Path to the Goal' we gave examples of combi­ nations with the release of a knight from a pin (the 'Legall theme' and its modifications) . It will be recalled that, after the queen sacrifice, either the king was given short shrift, or else

1 97

POSITIONAL SACRIFICE

a material advantage was gained by force. The method ofreleasing a knight from a pin is also employed in positional sacrifices, although here the conse­ quences of the tactical operation are much more difficult to foresee.

his chances. But in any event, McDonnell did not allow lLI dS in order to retreat his queen . .

2

.

•

•

354 W

3 i.xe7 4 �el 354. In order to vacate dS for his knight, the French master played 1 d6

He considered the position after .

.

•

.

lLI e3+

This is the result of an incorrect evaluation of the position. Had La Bourdonnais known what was await­ ing him, he would probably have returned the queen by 4 'ifxe3 i.xe3 5 i.xd6, and battled on a pawn down.

cxd6 4 5 'ifd3

to be favourable. In the event of 2 'Wd8 Black has to reckon with a knight sacrifice - 3 lLIxf4 exf4 4 eS. And it was not easy to decide on 2 . . 'iff8, although it is possible that Black, with two extra pawns, is not in such a dangerous position, and that La Bourdonnais had overrated .

lLIxdS!

Not a standard release from a pin, but a positional sacrifice ! The queen is given up for two minor pieces. All the consequences of the combi­ nation could not be calculated, and McDonnell must have based his de­ cision on arguments of a general nature. These are, primarily, the powerful placing of Black's minor pieces, the poor position of the white king, and the sad fate of the rook at h I .

La Bourdonnais-McDonnell Match, London, 1834

1 2 lLIdS

.

.

h8 "iVxeS

and Black resigned. The knight cannot be taken on account of mate, and otherwise he loses a piece.

Teichmann-N.N. Zurich, 1920 390 W

.i.e4

* Alekhine was giving a blindfold simul­ taneous display in a military hospital during the First World War.

390. By the sacrifice of a rook, and

226

QUEEN SACRIFICE

then his queen, White set his h-pawns in motion:

g-

1 l:lxh6 !

and

iLlxh6

If 1 . . . l'hh6, then 2 .txf7+ and 3 g8=1! H ; or 1 . bxc4 2 lt h8+. .

.

White has promoted two queens, but in the preceding play he gave up too much material, and by now con­ tinuing 7 . . . � d6 ! , after 8 .txe6 iLldxe6 Black can hide his king on the Q-side. For the queen he has three minor pieces. In the complicated battle to come, he has at least equal chances.

Both 3 Wfd8+ and 3 1Ifxh6 were threatened.

3 WfdS+ ! ! 4 h 6 (391)

Adams-Torre New Orleans, 1920

iLlxdS

392 W

Against h6-h7+ there appears to be no defence, and so Black resigned. Teichmann's elegant combination was thought to be irreproachably correct. But in 1982 M. Dvoretsky found that in the final position Black can successfully defend !

391 B

392. The classic and, without exaggeration, the best illustration of the theme of diverting pieces from the defence of the back rank. The queen repeatedly places itself en prise, but each time its capture is punished by mate.

4 . 1Ifd4! In anticipation of h6-h7+ and g7-g8=1!V+, the queen clears a flight path for the king. 5 h7 + r:;f7 6 g8=1H r:;e7 7 h8=W .

1 "'g4! 2 "' c4! 3 "'c7 ! !

.

Wb5 ",d7 ... b5

If 3 ... a4, then 4 lt e4 ! g6 (4 ... b5 5 "'xb 7) 5 ... xc8 ... xe4 6 W xe8+ . .

.

.

.

.

.

227

CLASSICAL HERITAGE

7 lt gS+

4 a4! By decoying the queen onto the fourth rank, White transposes into a variation from the previous comment.

4 S l:I. e4 6 'ifxb7! •

.

.

'ifxa4 'ifbS

The queen no longer has anywhere to go. Black resigns.

Torre-Em.Lasker Moscow, 1925

White leaves the a7 pawn alone, to avoid opening the a-file.

7 8 l:I. xhS •

•

•

�h7 �g6

Black regains his piece, but there is no point in playing on two pawns down, and Lasker soon resigned. Since then 'Torre's windmill' has appeared in virtually every chess primer.

Alekhine-Colle Paris, 1925

393 W

394 W

393. After sacrificing his queen, the young Mexican master used the 'windmill' to 'pulverise' several enemy pieces and pawns. 1 2 3 4 S 6

l.. f6! l:I. xg7+ l:I. xf7+ l:I. g7+ l hb7+ l:I. g7+

'ifxhS �h8 �g8 �h8 �g8 �h8

394. By exploiting the fact that the g6 pawn and queen are blocking the black king's escape to the g-file, Alekhine sacrificed his queen and invaded the back rank with his rooks: 1 "'xd7! 2 lt e8+ 2 l:1. cc8

l:I. xd7 �h7

After the 'desperation move'

228

QUEEN SACRIFICE

3 . .. 4 J:t exd8

l:U8

Colle resigned.

Janowski-Simisch Marienbad, 1925

5 6 7 8 9 10

lOfJ J.f4 h3 "'xfJ J.e2 a3 (396)

J. g4 e6 .txfJ J.b4 lOd7

396 B

395 W

395. There followed

White is not threatening to take the bishop, and so Black decided to castle . . .

1 "'h6! 10 and Black resigned. On the capture of the queen there follows 2 J:t g3 mate, while if 1 . . f6, then 2 J:t g3 (with the threat if 3 J. c4+) is again decisive. "Siimisch was caught by the remaining tooth of an ageing lion", one of the commentators remarked. .

Canal-N.N. Budapest, 1934 1 2 3 4

e4 exd5 lO c3 d4

d5 "'xd5 ",as c6

•

.

•

O-O-O?

The bishop would indeed have been immune, if, say, Black had continued his development with 1 0 . . . lOgf6. But now with a familiar (although slightly more complicated) combination White forces a win.

11 12 13 14

axb4 ! �d2 "'xc6+ ! .ta6 mate

"'xa1+ ",xhl bxc6

397. Exploiting Black's delay in castling, White went onto the offensive -

229

CLASSICAL HERITAGE

I n the second case (with 2 . . . ll)xe5) Black avoids the direct opening of lines, but 3 ll) f4 ll)fd7 4 l:t ad l 0-0 5 ll) d5, with the threats of 6 ll)e7+ and 6 f6, gives White a strong initiative.

Lilienthal-Capablanca Hastings, 1934/35 397 W

398 W

1 rs Lilienthal recalls that, when he made this move, he had already worked out the combination which occurred in the game, and he anxiously awaited the Ex-World Champion's reply.

1 . . . 2 dxeS

eS Wxe4 (398)

It was on this move that Capablanca had based his defence. Had the great Cuban known what was awaiting him, he would undoubtedly have preferred 2 . . . 'ii c5+ or 2 . . . ll)xe5 . True, in the first case 3 .i. f2 ! 'ii xe5 4 .i. d4 gives White excellent possibilities, e .g. 4 . . . 'ii x e4 5 'ii x e4 ll)xe4 6 .i.xg7 l:t h 7 7 f6, or 4 . 'WI e 7 (4 . . 'fI d6 5 l:t adl) 5 e5 ! (a pawn sacrifice to open the e-file) 5 . . . ll)xe5 6 ll)g3 0-0 (6 . . . Wd7 7 /6.') 7 l:t ae l ll)fd7 8 f6 ! gxf6 9 ll) h5 ! .

.

.

The starting position of a combi­ nation which appeared in all the world's chess press. Lilienthal left his queen en prise by playing

3 exf6!! In his resulting attack, which is initially mounted without any checks, White not only restores the material balance, but gains a decisive advantage.

3 4 fxg7 5 ll) d4 .

.

•

'WIxc2 l:t g8 'WIe4

Black has a depressing choice. If 5 . . . 'fIxc3, then 6 l:t ae l + ll)e5 7 l:t xe5+ 'itd7 8 l:t e7+ 'it d6 9 ll)b5+, while on 5 . . . W d2 there follows 6 l:t ae 1 + ll)e5 7 l:t xe5+ 'it d7 8 : d5+

230

QUEEN SACRIFICE

�e8 9 l:t e l +, with sufficient material for a win.

6 7 8 9

l:t ael l:t xe4+ l:t el l:t xe4+

l2:\cS Q)xe4 l:t xg7 �d7

3