The Hypermodern Game of Chess

pioneers.

Part I

Open Games

The Spanish Torture

The Spanish bishop Ruy Lopez de Segura played certainly no role in the Inquisition. He played chess merely and – as the results of the Madrid Tournament in the year 1575 prove – rather poorly at that. How is it then, that precisely his move, tame-looking as it is, which really threatens a mistake only – namely 4.Bxc6 dxc6 5.Nxe5? Qd4 – evinces such crushing power, that it has for decennia downright inundated the tournament repertory, instilling fear in every player of the black pieces, whereas the valiant attack in the Italian Game (upon the f7-square) or the apparently lively piece-play of the Scotch Game or even the delicate maneuvering in the Vienna Game – to not even speak of the unsound gambits! – is greeted with the chess expert’s sardonic smile?

The response to this query is well-known: The Spanish primarily distinguishes itself from other open games by its concealment of strategic aims and, in connection with this, its maintaining the tension between the opposing forces: be the once favorite method (with d2-d3 followed by c2-c3, h2-h3 and Nb1-d2-f1 etc.) employed, or the modern advance d2-d4. The Italian onslaught fizzles out, the Scottish skirmish dissolves, the Spanish pressure yet remains… and White wins! This had been the customary opening formula until only recently.

Of course also here the inquisitive chess spirit succeeded gradually to deliver itself from the specter of The Exchange Variation, and then to forge a perfectly adequate weapon out of the Steinitz Defense (3…d6) and even in the classical attack variation (after 3…Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4) to obtain an albeit makeshift equality with the Brazilian System. Cf. Dr. Tarrasch’s splendid pamphlet Der gegenwärtige Stand der wichtigsten Eröffnungen 1919.

All of these theoretical achievements, however, had been regarded as but initial attempts to extinguish the aura surrounding the aggressive chess of the Spanish until the most logical conception was found, namely the making use of the gifted pawn-moves (after 3…a6! 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 b5) for the purpose of erecting a fortress on the queenside and so afford the second player fine prospects of a counter-initiative.

The main line of the Spanish Defense has evolved accordingly:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6! (D)

3…d6 or the more accurate 3…Nf6 4.0-0 d6 leads to the Steinitz defense (cf. Game 17).

The self-assertive 3…Nf6, with the Pillsbury continuation 4.0-0 Nxe4, has been all but discarded of late, since the optimal defense (the so-called Brazilian Defense) leads to a meager equality at best: 3…Nf6 4.0-0 Nxe4 5.d4 Be7 6.Qe2! Nd6 7.Bxc6 bxc6 8.dxe5 Nb7 (or 8…Nf5 9.Qe4! g6 10.Nd4) 9.Nc3 0-0 10.Re1! Pillsbury’s move in his play-off game against Dr. Tarrasch, Vienna 1898 (on 10.Nd4, then 10…Bc5!) 10…Nc5! (or 10…Re8 11.Qc4! Nc5 12.Ng5) 11.Nd4 Ne6 12.Be3 Nxd4 13.Bxd4 c5! (this is the Rio de Janeiro variation, which was put to the test by the world champion in the Lasker-Tarrasch match 1908, whereby an essential tempo is gained for defense. If at once 13…d5, then 14.Na4! with a clearly better position for White) 14.Be3 d5 15.exd6 Bxd6 16.Ne4 (on 16.Rad1, best is 16…Re8, or, as in the exhibition game Capablanca-Réti, Vienna 1914, 16…Qf6 17.Qh5 Rb8! 18.Bc1 Qf5 19.Qxf5 Bxf5 with approximate equality) 16…Bb7 17.Nxd6 cxd6 18.Rad1 Qf6 19.c4! Rfe8 20.Qg4 Re6! with equal chances.

Concerning the fianchetto defense 3…g6, cf. Game 18.

On Bird’s sortie 3…Nd4:

(a) Best is 4.Bc4, e.g., 4…Nxf3+ 5.Qxf3 Qf6 6.Qg3 etc.; or 4…Qf6 5.c3! Nxf3+ 6.Qxf3 Qxf3 7.gxf3 etc.; or 4…Bc5 5.0-0 (5.Nxe5? Qg5) 5…Nxf3+ 6.Qxf3 Qe7 (6…Qf6 7.Qg3) 7.d3 etc. with a superior position.

(b) Although the most common continuation is 4.Nxd4 exd4, and now 5.d3 or 5.0-0, e.g., 5.d3 Bc5 (in the game Tarrasch-Blackburne, St. Petersburg 1914, 5…g6 6.c3! Bg7 7.0-0 Ne7 8.cxd4 Bxd4 9.Nc3 occurred and White stands better) 6.Qh5 (on 6.0-0 we recommend 6…Qh4!, lodging the queen in the enemy camp, e.g., 7.f4 c6 8.Bc4 Ne7 9.Nd2 0-0 10.Nf3 Qh5 etc. On the immediate 6…c6, White for his part can play 7.Qh5 with considerable effect) 6…Bb6 (sharper than 6…Qe7 7.Bg5 Nf6! 8.Qh4! c6 9.Ba4 and White has a freer game) 7.Qe5+ Kf8! 8.Bc4 d6 9.Qh5 Be6 10.Bb3! Nf6 11.Qh4 with approximately equal chances.

The proper prescription for 3…Bc5 would seem to be 4.c3, whereas:

(a) 4.0-0 was answered ingeniously by 4…Nge7 5.c3 Bb6 6.d4 exd4 7.cxd4 d5 8.exd5 Nxd5 9.Re1+ Be6 10.Bg5 Qd6 etc. in the game Chajes-Bogoljubow, Karlsbad 1923. According to Strategie 1921, the credit of having discovered the profound preventive move 5…Bb6 (in place of the hitherto customary 5…0-0, whereupon the stifling 6.d4 exd4 7.cxd4 Bb6 8.d5! Nb8 9.d6 etc. ensues), would seem to go to the French amateur Victor Place, who, incidentally, also has stood by the archaic defense 3…Bc5 against:

(b) Lasker’s continuation 4.c3 Nge7 5.d4 (instead of 5.0-0 Bb6!), cf. N.N.-Place, Paris 1923: 5.d4 exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+ 7.Bd2 (7.Nc3 was played to no success in the exhibition game Aurbach-Capablanca, Paris 1913) 7…Bxd2+ 8.Qxd2 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Bxc6+ bxc6 11.0-0 0-0 12.Ne5 (this looks much more vigorous than Dr. Lasker’s maneuver Nb1-c3-a4-c5 against Steinitz in the second game of their return match) 12…Bb7 13.Rc1 (13.Re1 is more appropriate) 13…Re8! 14.Nxc6 Qf6 15.Na5 Nf4!! 16.Nxb7 Re2 17.Qc3 Nh3+!! 18.Kh1 Nxf2+ 19.Kg1 Nd3! (the death blow) 20.Rf1 Qg5 21.Qc6 Qe3+ and the poor first player has only the choice between death by suffocation or drowning.

So, is 3…Bc5 really that strong? The following club game Romich-Dr.Goubeau, Paris 1923, assumed an audacious character: 4.0-0 Nge7 5.Nxe5 (in lieu of 5.c3 Bb6!) 5…Nxe5 6.d4 c6 7.dxc5 (going all out) 7…cxb5 8.f4 N5c6 9.f5 f6 (better is 9…0-0 10.Nc3 b6 or 10.f6 gxf6 11.Rxf6 Ng6 etc.) 10.Nc3 a6 11.Qh5+ Kf8 12.Bf4 Qe8 13.Qd1 g5 14.Bxg5! (now White is even operating with a two-piece deficit!) 14…fxg5 15.Qd6 Kf7 16.e5 Nxe5 17.Qxe5 Nc6 18.Qd5+ Kf8 19.Rae1 Qf7 20.Qd6+ Kg8 21.Nd5 h5 22.Ne7+ Nxe7 23.Rxe7 Rh6 24.f6 Qf8 25.f7+ (25.Rg7+ Qxg7!) 25…Kh7 26.Re8 Rxd6 27.Rxf8 Black resigned.

On 3…f5, 4.Nc3! suggests itself. (D)

(a) If then 4…Nf6, White proceeds 5.exf5 (5.Qe2 Nd4!) 5…e4 6.Ng5! d5 7.d3 with advantage for White.

(b) We prefer 4…fxe4 (based on the August 22, 1575 missive of Philipp II to his half-brother Don Juan d’Austria – cf. Z. Bachman, Das Schachspiel und seine historische Entwicklung, p.18) 5.Nxe4 Nf6 6.Nxf6+ gxf6, e.g., 7.d4 e4 8.Nh4 Qe7 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.Nf5 Qf7 followed by …d5, with a secured center.

(c) The novelty 4…Nd4 suffered a pitiful fiasco in Bogoljubow-Réti at the Six Masters Tournament at Stockholm: 5.Bc4 c6 6.0-0 Nxf3+ (better is 6…d6) 7.Qxf3 Qf6 8.d4! exd4 9.e5 Qh4 10.Ne2 Bc5 11.b4! Bb6 12.g3 Qe4 (necessary was 12…Qe7) 13.Qb3 Ne7 14.Bg5 h6 15.Bf7+ Kd8 16.Bxe7+ Kxe7 17.Nf4 Black resigned

However, should Black be afforded time by 4.d3, for instance, then his will to attack often prevails in brilliant fashion, as the local tournament game Balla-Réti, Budapest 1918, shows: 3…f5 4.d3 Nf6 5.0-0 Bc5 6.Bc4 d6 7.Ng5 (now a position from the King’s Gambit Declined has been reached with reversed colors: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nf3 d6 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.Nc3 0-0 6.d3 Ng4?, whereupon Bilguer offers 7.Rf1! as a refutation. Réti, however, finds a brilliant alternative solution to the positional problem.) 7…f4!! 8.Nf7 Qe7 9.Nxh8 Bg4 10.Qd2 Nd4 (threatening …Nf3+!) 11.Kh1 Nf3!! 12.Qa5 Nxe4 13.g3 (compulsory in the face of 13…Qh4 14.h3 Bxh3) 13…Nxf2+ 14.Rxf2 Bxf2 15.Kg2 (15.Nd2? Nxd2 16.Bxd2 Bf3# would be cute) 15…fxg3 16.hxg3 Bxg3! 17.Qb5+ c6 18.Qb4 Qh4 19.Bf7+ Ke7 20.Qxb7+ Kf6 White resigns.

The remaining nine of the sixteen defenses each have their own distinctive character: 3…Nge7; 3…Nce7; 3…Bb4 (Alapin); 3…Be7; 3…g5 (Brentano); 3…Qe7; 3…Qf6; 3…f6; and last but not least 3…Na5 (Alekhine’s idea to drive away the b5-bishop).

It is worth noting, after all, that the text move 3…a6 is referred to in the American press as the Morphy Defense.

4.Ba4

Concerning the Exchange Variation 4.Bxc6, see Game 16. We point aficionados of the never-before-seen to the Italo-Spanish move 4.Bc4 (2nd ed. Although as Grünfeld emphasizes in his critique of our 1st edition [Wiener Schachzeitung, January 1924] this move had been played as early as Ferenczy-Charousek, 1897!) with the idea that after 4…Bc5 (or 4…Nf6 5.d3 [5.d4!] 5…d5 6.exd5 Nxd5 7.0-0 [7.h3!] 7…Bg4 [or 7…Be7] 8.Re1!, with pressure on the e5-pawn) 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.d3 d6 7.Be3, the comfortable retreat square b6 for the king’s bishop is no longer available.

4…Nf6

On 4…d6 simple and good is 5.Bxc6+ (on 5.d3, we refer to Bogoljubow’s bid 5…f5) 5…bxc6 6.d4, e.g., 6…Nf6 7.Nc3 exd4 8.Nxd4 Bd7 9.0-0 Be7 10.Nde2 0-0 11.Ng3 Kh8 12.b3 d5 13.Bb2 Be6 14.Qe2, or 6…f6! 7.Be3! Rb8 8.b3 g6! 9.Qd2! Bg7 10.Nc3 Ne7 11.0-0-0 with attacking chances.

On the other hand, the following archaic continuations in connection to the preliminary 3…a6 come strongly into consideration. Firstly 4…Bc5 (e.g., 5.c3 b5 [5…f5?!] 6.Bb3 Ba7 7.d4 Qe7) and secondly, 4…Nge7, with the following improvement: 5.Nc3! g6 6.d4 Bg7 (not 6…exd4 because of 7.Nd5!) 7.dxe5 Nxe5 8.Nxe5 Bxe5. In the game Marco-Alekhine, The Hague 1921, there followed: 9.Bh6, and now instead of 9…c5 10.Bb3 b5 11.Bd5! Ra7 12.Qf3 etc., quite playable would be 9…Nc6 (e.g., 10.Bb3 Qh4 11.Qd5 Qxh6 or 10.Qd5 Qf6 and Black has all kinds of threats).

The belated counter-gambit 4…f5 is considered insufficient in view of 5.d4! (all other continuations allow Black to pursue the game in fine gambit-style, e.g., Marco-Hromádka, Bad Pistyan 1922: 5.Qe2 Nf6 [5…fxe4!] 6.exf5 Be7! 7.Bxc6 dxc6 8.Nxe5 Bxf5 9.d3 0-0 etc., or Euwe-Hromádka, Bad Pistyan 1922: 5.Nc3? Nf6 [a dilettantish intermezzo by both sides. With 5…b5 6.Bb3 b4 followed by …fxe4, Black could immediately obtain a decisive advantage) 6.Qe2 b5 7.Bb3 fxe4 8.Nxe4 d5 9.Nxf6+ gxf6 10.d4 e4 11.Ne5 Nxe5 12.dxe5 Be6! etc.) 5…fxe4 6.Nxe5 Nf6 and now 7.Bg5! is even more accurate than 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bb3+! d5 10.Bg5 Kh8 11.f4 etc., as ensued in a match game between Teichmann and Spielmann, Leipzig 1914.

5.0-0

On the once quite popular 5.d3 (Anderssen – this move might still retain some popularity), by which White aims only for long-term pressure rather than immediate complications as it were, not 5…Bc5 in view of 6.Be3! (and likewise not initially 5…b5 6.Bb3 Bc5 on account of 7.Be3!), but instead 5…d6! with a subsequent …g6 (or with …Be7) is considered best. For example:

(a) Treybal-Grünfeld, Teplitz-Schönau 1922: 5.d3 d6! 6.c3! (Duras’ move 6.c4 is effectively met by 6…g6!, e.g., 7.d4 exd4 8.Nxd4 Bd7 followed by …Bg7; if, however, 6.Bxc6+ bxc6 7.Bg5, Black plays 7…c5!; finally if 6.Nc3, Black plays 6…b5 7.Bb3 Na5 followed by …Nxb3) 6…g6 7.Nbd2 (more profound than 7.0-0 Bg7 8.d4 0-0 9.dxe5 Nxe5 10.Nxe5 dxe5 11.Qxd8 Rxd8, Treybal-Kostić, Teplitz-Schönau 1922) 7…Bg7 8.Nf1! 0-0 9.Ng3! (on 9.h3 the game Treybal-Spielmann, Bad Pistyan 1922, continued 9…d5! 10.Qe2 and now not 10…b5 11.Bb3! Na5 12.Bc2 Qd6 etc., as had been recommended by theory, but rather at once 10…Qd6! 11.g4 dxe4 12.dxe4 Nb4!, with advantage for Black) 9…b5 10.Bc2! d5 11.Qe2 and now instead of 11…Re8 12.0-0 Bb7 13.Bg5! d4 etc., Black should have played the much more appropriate 11…h6, e.g., 12.0-0 Be6 followed by …Nd7 or 12.Be3 Qd6 13.b4 d4 etc.

However, the Spanish correspondence game Rey-Laforet 1924, demonstrates that Black must still contend with some difficulties after 11…h6 12.0-0 Be6 13.Be3 Nd7 14.Qd2!, which suggests that the continuation 6…Be7 (see variation (b)) may in fact be preferable to the fianchetto development. On the other hand, the obstructive system 11.Bd2 (in place of 11.Qe2), turns out unfavorably for White, e.g., L.Steiner-Michell, Hastings 1924: 11…dxe4 12.dxe4 Qe7 13.Qc1 Nd7 14.h4 h5 15.Bh6 Rd8 16.Rh3 Nc5 17.Nf5 Bxf5 18.exf5 e4! 19.Kf1 exf3 20.Rxf3 Qxh4 21.Kg1 Ne5 22.Rh3 Bxh6 23.Qxh6 Qxf2+ 24.Kxf2 Ng4+ followed by 25…Nxh6, with an easy win for Black.

(b) First developing the bishop to e7, e.g., Treybal-Wolf, Teplitz-Schönau 1922: 5.d3 d6! 6.c3! Be7 7.Nbd2! (more routine is 7.0-0 0-0 8.Re1. Best for Black is now 8…b5 9.Bb3 Na5 10.Bc2 c5 with a Chigorinesque set-up [see below]; or 9.Bc2 d5 10.exd5 Qxd5 11.d4 e4 etc. Contrarily, weaker is Wolf-Spielmann, Teplitz-Schönau 1922 [by transposition: 5.0-0 Be7 6.d3 d6 7.c3 0-0 8.Re1] 8…Bg4? 9.h3 Bh5 10.Nbd2 b5 11.Bc2 d5 12.Qe2 Bd6 13.Nf1 Qd7 14.Ng3 Bg6 15.Nh4, with advantage for White) 7…0-0 8.Nf1! (here as well, Balla-Johner, Bad Pistyan 1922, saw the more stereotypical 8.0-0 b5 9.Bb3 [9.Bc2!] 9…d5! 10.Re1 dxe4 11.dxe4 h6 12.Qe2 Re8 13.Nf1 Bf8 14.Ng3 Na5 15.Bc2 g6 16.b3 c5 and Black has an easy game) 8…Be6 (more natural would be 8…b5 9.Bc2 d5 [guileful is the local tournament game Busvine-Svensson, London 1924: 9…Nh5 10.Nxe5? Nxe5 11.Qxh5 Bg4 and White resigned] 10.Qe2 Be6 11.Ne3 etc. Incidentally, 8…Ne8 is best according to Steinitz) 9.Ng3 h6 (after all, a weakening) 10.d4 exd4 11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.Nxd4 Qd7 13.0-0 Rfe8 (13…Rfb8!) 14.Qd3 Bf8 15.f3 whereupon instead of …Rfb8, the consistent 15…g6 should be played.

On 5.d4 it is well known that 5…exd4! (5…Nxe4 6.Qe2 f5 7.d5) 6.0-0 Be7 7.e5 Ne4 8.Nxd4 Nc5 etc. equalizes.

For 5.Nc3 and 5.Qe2, see games 14 and 15 respectively.

5…Be7 (D)

This, and no longer striking out by 5…Nxe4 (Games 9-11), is considered to be the most advisable continuation, because nowadays the bishop’s defensive mission on e7 is the determining factor in the assessment of the position, and not, as before, the standpoint of the bishop’s restriction (Tarrasch!).

Black can also play 5…b5 straightaway, transposing into the text continuation after 6.Bb3 Be7, if White does not forgo 7.Re1 and instead takes the opportunity to unroll the queenside by 7.a4. In this case, best is 7…Rb8 8.axb5 axb5 9.c3 d6 10.d4 exd4 etc.; less cautious is Nyholm-Svensson, Copenhagen 1916: 7…Bb7 8.Qe2, or the brilliancy Johner-Teichmann, Berlin 1924: 7…b4 8.Qe2! 0-0 9.a5! etc.

For Rubinstein’s preference, 5…d6, cf. Game 8.

Clever is Möller’s (1903) move 5…Bc5:

(a) in order after 6.Nxe5 to continue with 6…Nxe4! (less good is Takács-Alekhine, Vienna 1922: 6…Nxe5 7.d4 Nxe4 8.Qe2 Be7 9.Qxe4 Ng6 10.c4 0-0 11.Nc3 f5 12.Qf3 Nh4 13.Qd3) 7.Qe2 (or 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.Qh5+ g6 9.Qd5+ Kg7 10.Qxe4 d5! with the intense pressure fully countervailing the lost pion) 7…Nxe5 8.Qxe4 Qe7 9.d4 Nc6!! and Black stands well, (e.g., 10.Qg4 f5 11.Qxf5 Nxd4 12.Qh5+ g6 13.Qd1 0-0, or 10.Bxc6 dxc6 11.Re1 Qxe4 12.Rxe4+ Be7 13.Bf4 Bf5 14.Re2 Kd7 etc.;

(b) and on 6.c3 to continue 6…Ba7!, when Yates-Alekhine, Hastings 1922, continued: 7.d4 Nxe4 8.Qe2 f5 9.dxe5 0-0 10.Nbd2 d5 11.exd6! Nxd6 12.Bb3+ Kh8 13.Nc4 f4! 14.Nce5 Nxe5 15.Nxe5 Qg5 with a fine attacking game for Black. Nevertheless, we recommend 6.c3 as the simplest continuation and after 6…Ba7, 7.Bxc6 dxc6 8.Nxe5 Nxe4 (8…Qe7 9.d4 Nxe4 10.Re1 and White wins) 9.d4 0-0 10.Qf3, and White is in control of the game, especially considering that Black’s king’s bishop remains inactive for a long time.

6.Re1

The most popular method of defending the (in actuality, perhaps, perfectly safe) e4-pawn. Attention should also be paid to 6.Qe2 with the provisional idea of making way for the king’s rook. Schlechter recommends thereupon 6…b5 (on 6…0-0, advantageous is 7.Bxc6 dxc6 8.Nxe5 Qd4? 9.Nf3! etc., while on 6…d6, 7.Rd1! Bg4 8.c3 0-0 9.d4) 7.Bb3 0-0! 8.c3 d5! 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nf4! with an attack. Quieter is 7…d6 8.c3 Na5 (faint would here be 8…0-0 9.d4!, e.g., 9…exd4? 10.cxd4 Bg4 11.Rd1, Lasker-Teichmann, St. Petersburg 1909; or 9…Bg4 10.d5 Na5 11.Bc2 c5 12.h3 Bd7 13.Nh2! Réti-Kmoch, Vienna 1922; or also 11…c6 12.dxc6 Nxc6 13.a4 b4 14.Nbd2 Qc7 15.Bd3 a5! 16.Nc4 bxc3 17.bxc3 Nd8 etc., Réti-Rubinstein, Vienna 1922) 9.Bc2 c5 10.d4 Qc7! (rather than adhering completely to the Chigorin conception, other masters prefer here instead 10…Nc6) 11.h3 (in a consultation game Réti and Dr. Steiner-Dr. Lasker and Dr. Szavay, Timişoara 1917, there followed at once 11.d5, with the continuation 11…0-0 12.h3 Kh8! [on 12…Ne8, White had planned 13.g4 g6 14.Kh2 f5 15.gxf5 gxf5 16.Rg1+ Kh8 17.Bh6 Rf7 18.exf5 Bxf5 19.Bxf5 Rxf5 20.Qe4 followed by Qg4 with advantage] 13.Nh2 Ng8 14.f4 f6 15.f5 etc. and White is in control) 11…Nd7! (this move, with the purpose of maintaining the center, also stems from Chigorin) 12.d5 Nb6 13.Nh2 0-0 14.g4 Re8 as ensued in the game Réti-Grünfeld, Teplitz-Schönau 1922.

Furthermore, the temporary pawn sacrifice 6.c3 is clever, as played in the game Wegemund-Becker, Frankfurt am Main 1923: 6…Nxe4 7.Qe2 (7.Re1 is also playable) 7…Nf6 (easier than 7…Nc5) 8.Bxc6 dxc6 9.Nxe5 0-0 10.d4 c5! 11.Be3 Bd6 12.Nd2 cxd4 13.cxd4 (13.Bxd4? c5) 13…Re8 although now White, instead of 14.Ndf3, should have played 14.Ndc4 with good play in the center. However, the main idea of 6.c3, namely the immediate withdrawal of the bishop to c2 on 6…b5 (rather than 7.Bb3), is itself of dubious value, since Black can extricate himself in the center by 7…d5! (Wegemund-Emmrich, Frankfurt am Main 1923).

Concerning the drawbacks of the trendy 6.Nc3, cf. Game 13. For 6.d3 d6 7.Re1 (Spanish pianissimo), cf. comment to White’s 5th move.

6…b5! (D)

This is without question a logical idea, on which Black should customize his entire subsequent system of defense. This pawn advance, with the purpose of constructing a fortress on the queenside (a6, b5, c5) etc., is the only means of refuting the Spanish Opening! For timid souls the text move represents nothing but a certain loosening; for intrepid spirits, however, the begin of a victorious march on the queenside. Furthermore, the architectural merits of the advance are the marginalized position of the b3-bishop and the complications imposed on White’s offensive strike d2-d4.

6…d6 can again be well met with 7.Bxc6+ bxc6 8.d4 exd4 (it is known that here and in similar situations Chigorin recommended maintaining the center by means of 8…Nd7) 9.Nxd4 Bd7 10.Nc3, or with steering toward an endgame by 7.d4 b5 (7…exd4 would be dangerous) 8.dxe5 dxe5 9.Qxd8+ Nxd8 10.Bb3 Nd7 11.a4 Bb7 12.axb5 axb5 13.Rxa8 Bxa8 14.Nc3 c6 (14…Bb4 15.Bd2) 15.Rd1 f6 16.Be3 Nc5 17.Nfd2 etc.; or also 7.c3 with the aforementioned idea of effecting the bishop’s immediate retreat to c2 in the event of …b5. 7…0-0 and now:

(a) Good, if only a bit insipid, is 8.d4, e.g., 8…Bg4 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.dxe5 Bxf3 11.Qxf3 dxe5 12.Nd2 followed by Nc4. Black is not compelled to involve himself with this exchange though, and can play 8…b5, e.g., Tarrasch-Selezniev, Mährisch-Ostrau 1923: 9.Bc2 Bg4 10.d5 (easier is 10.Be3 followed by Nb1-d2) 10…Na5 11.Nbd2 c5! 12.dxc6 (simpler is 12.Nf1 followed by h2-h3) 12…Nxc6 13.Nf1 Qc7 14.Ne3 Be6 with chances for both sides.

(b) 8.h3 b5 (this is now necessary. Too ponderous would be 8…Nd7 9.d4 Bf6) 9.Bc2 (in his 1916 return match against Lasker, Tarrasch preferred to play in the first instance 9.Bb3, after all, so as after 9…Na5 10.Bc2, to frustrate as much as possible the counter-thrust …d6-d5. There followed a completely closed, routine treatment: 10…c5 11.d4 Qc7 12.Nbd2 Nd7 13.Nf1 Nb6 14.b3 Nc6, cordoning off of the center 15.d5 Nd8, and then of the kingside 16.g4 f6 17.Ng3 Nf7 18.Kh2 g6 etc.) 9…d5! (Schlechter’s idea) 10.exd5 Qxd5 11.Qe2 Re8 12.d3 Bb7 13.Nbd2 a5 with proactive play for both sides, Muffang-Bogoljubow, Hastings 1923.

7.Bb3 d6

7…0-0 could be met with the break 8.a4; whereas now this move could not only be very well met by 8…b4, but also 8…Bg4 9.c3 0-0 10.h3 Bh5.

8.c3

The most profound continuation as it gives the bishop an outlet and facilitates the construction of a center by d2-d4.

That the quiet continuation 8.d3 (owing to 8…Na5 and …Nxb3) and similarly the preventive move 8.h3 yield White little, as they permit the exchange of the important b3-bishop, can plainly be seen.

Insufficient is the pawn sacrifice 8.d4 Nxd4! 9.Nxd4 exd4 10.a4 (of course not 10.Qxd4? in view of …c7-c5-c4, winning the bishop) 10…Bb7 11.c3 dxc3 12.Nxc3 0-0.

8…Na5! (D)

In connection with the next two moves, a rigorous system introduced by the great Chigorin, whereby Black sets up a mighty position on the queenside, while of course White retains hopes of its destruction.

Another system, and one which is even the druthers of many, consists in 8…0-0, preferring to operate in the center, e.g., 9.h3 Be6!; or 9.d3 Bb7; or, as a main line: 9.d4 Bg4! (concerning the surrender of the center 9…exd4, see Games 4 and 5) 10.Be3 (Black stands excellently after 10.d5 Na5 11.Bc2 c6 12.dxc6 Nxc6):

(a) 10…exd4 11.cxd4 Na5 etc. can transpose into Bogoljubow’s favorite variation, cf. game 4.

(b) A brilliant, yet inadequate idea would be 10…Nxe4 11.Bd5 Qd7 in view of 12.dxe5! Ng5 13.Bxg5 Nxg5 14.e6!! (but not immediately 14.Nxg5!?, as played by Capablanca against Eduard Lasker in an exhibition game at London 1913, and which is in fact, as exposed by Spielmann ten years later, a poor move in view of 14…Bxd1 15.e6 Qd8!!) 14…fxe6 15.Nxg5! Bxd1 16.Bxe6+ Qxe6 17.Nxe6 Rfe8 18.Nd2 Bg4 19.Nxc7 Rxe1+ 20.Rxe1 and White enjoys a pawn advantage in a superior position.

(c) 10…Re8 11.Nbd2 d5! and Black manages to clarify the undetermined status of the center.

9.Bc2

The main point of White’s Spanish positional maneuvering consists precisely in preserving this celebrated attacking bishop, though the following local tournament game Portela-Villegas, Buenos Aires 1915, took a sharp course: 9.d4 Nxb3 10.Qxb3 Be6 11.Qc2 Nd7 12.h3 c6 (more appropriate is 12…f6) 13.Nbd2 0-0 14.Nf1 Qc7 15.Ng3 g6 16.Bh6 Rfe8 17.Rad1 (threatening 18.d5) 17…f6 18.Nh4 Bf7 (on 18…f5, comes the decisive 19.Nxg6!) 19.f4 exf4 20.Bxf4 g5 21.Ngf5! Bf8 (best, at any rate, was 21…gxh4. Now explosions abound) 22.Bxd6! Bxd6 23.Nh6+ Kf8 24.e5 Bg8 25.Ng6+! hxg6 26.Qxg6 Nxe5 27.Qxg8+ Ke7 28.Qf7+ Kd8 29.dxe5 fxe5 30.Qf6+ Kd7 31.Nf5 Black resigned.

9…c5 10.d4 (D)

Rigorous, but whether this move also be good?! The white center is hanging, which most often induces White to d4-d5, in which case Black’s position will admittedly be cramped, whereby, on the other hand, a blocked off game arises in which the potentiality for the black counter-thrust …f7-f5 has been created.

Rather than the energy-dispersive text move which became popular particularly during the time of the Lasker-Tarrasch match (1908), the energy-accumulating 10.d3, with the purpose of first completing development (Nb1-d2-f1-g3 or -e3), came strongly into consideration. Black can of course obtain what must be considered adequate counterplay by 10…0-0 (better than 10…Nc6 as ensued in the brilliancy game of the St. Petersburg tournament 1909, Schlechter-Salwe) followed by …Ne8 with the thrust …f7-f5 on the table. According to the research of Teichmann and Malkin, another good objective consists in achieving the central blow …d6-d5 as early as possible; for example, Wolf-Réti, Karlsbad 1923, continued (by transposition): 10.d3 0-0! 11.Nbd2 Re8 (11…Qc7! also came into consideration, followed potentially by …Rfd8) 12.Nf1 Bf8 13.h3 g6 14.Be3 (perhaps 14.Bd2 followed by Qc1 is more suitable) 14…Bg7 15.Qd2 Qc7 16.Bh6 Bh8 17.Ne3 Bb7 18.Nh2 d5 (accomplished!) 19.Nhg4 Nxg4 20.hxg4 and now by playing 20…d4!, instead of 20…dxe4?, Black could have attained a strong game.

10…Qc7

Black’s closed opening treatment, made under no duress whatsoever, culminates in this queen move. While White continues to firmly assert his prerogative in the Spanish Game, namely the latent attacking opportunities in the center, Black’s counter-pressure on the queenside begins to take form.

Fainthearted would be 10…Nc6, out of fear that White, by the eventuality of 11.d5, could preempt this fine retreat of the knight; in that case, however, Black would initiate immediate counteraction on the queenside with 11…Bd7 followed by …b4.

11.Nbd2

In response to the ultimatory 11.a4, forcing Black to declare his intentions (namely vis-à-vis the opening of the a- or c-files), best is 11…b4 (also interesting is 11…Rb8 12.axb5 axb5 and if White strikes too soon: 13.dxe5 dxe5 14.Nxe5 [or cf. Schröder-Kupchik, New York 1923: 14.h3 Nc6 15.Be3 0-0 16.Nbd2 Rd8 17.Qe2 Nh5 18.Nh4 Nf4 19.Bxf4 exf4 20.Nf5 Bf8 21.Rad1 g6 22.Nh4 Be6 etc., favoring Black], then 14…Qxe5 15.Rxa5 Ng4 16.f4 Qc7 17.Ra1 c4! with advantage for Black.

Incidentally, Teichmann considers 11…Ra7 to be best) 12.cxb4 (after 12.Nbd2, Capablanca obtained a good position against Alekhine in an informal game played at St. Petersburg 1913 with 12…0-0 13.Nf1 cxd4 14.cxd4 Be6 15.Ne3 Rfc8! 16.Bd2 Nc4 17.Nxc4 Qxc4 etc.) 12…cxb4 (D)

Black’s pawn chain has been loosened somewhat, but in return his counter-pressure is obvious:

(a) 13.b3 (Balla) 13…Bg4, e.g., following the analytical game N.N.-Romich, Paris 1925: 14.d5 0-0 15.Bd3 (if 15.Nbd2, then 15…Rfc8 forcing the protective 16.Ra2, given that 16.Bd3? fails to 16…Qc3) 15…Nd7! 16.h3 (16.Be3 f5!) 16…Bh5! 17.Be3 (17.g4 would be risky) 17…Nc5! 18.Bxc5 Qxc5 19.Nbd2 Qc3 20.Bc4 Bxf3! 21.gxf3 (forced) 21…f5! 22.Rc1 Qd4 23.Nf1 Qb6!, and the black storm surge can no longer be held at bay.

(b) Or as occurred in the first game of the return match between Tarrasch and Lasker (1916), 13.h3 0-0 (or Emmrich-Grünfeld, Frankfurt am Main 1923: 13…Nd7 [prophylaxis against the Bg5-pin] 14.b3 Bb7 15.Bb2 Rc8 [routine. Preferable is at once 15…Bf6 or 15…0-0] 16.Bd3 Bf6 17.Nbd2 with the occupation of c4 in the offing) 14.Bg5 Re8 15.Nbd2 Nd7 16.Bxe7 Rxe7 17.Rc1 Qb6 18.Nf1 Bb7 19.Ne3 g6 20.dxe5! and now instead of the routine response 20…dxe5, Black could have roughly equalized with 20…Nxe5.

For 11.d5, see the preceding comment.

Furthermore, another attempt here was 11.h3 Nc6 (easier is 11…0-0, e.g., the first match game Bogoljubow-Romanovsky, Leningrad 1923: 12.Nbd2 Nc6 13.dxc5 [unclear is 13.Nf1 cxd4 14.cxd4 exd4, while 13.d5 Nd8 14.Nf1 Ne6 followed by …f6 and …Nf7 is insipid] 13…dxc5 14.Nf1 Rd8 15.Qe2 Be6 16.Ne3 h6 17.Nf5 Bf8 etc., with a good defensive position. However, according to Leonhardt’s unpublished monograph, the most accurate response to 11.h3 is 11…Bd7! 12.Nbd2 Rc8!, threatening …cxd4) 12.d5 Nd8 13.Nbd2 h6 (a drastic attempt to forgo castling) 14.a4 Rb8 15.axb5 axb5 16.Nf1 g5 17.N3h2 etc. and White is well-positioned, at any rate. Wagner’s sortie 11.Bg5 is, after all, interesting, cf. the first match game Wagner-Becker, Hamburg 1924: 11…0-0 12.Nbd2 Be6 13.dxe5 dxe5 14.Nxe5 (an unexpected turn!) 14…Qxe5 15.f4 Qc7 16.f5 Bd6! 17.Bxf6 Bxh2+ 18.Kh1 gxf6 19.fxe6! and the excitement soon subsided. [NB: ChessBase indicates 19.e5 was played, with a draw after White’s 44th move.]

The text move 11.Nbd2 introduces the popular strategical plan of following up the contingent cordoning off of the center by d4-d5 with orchestrating a kingside attack with h3, Nf1, g4, Ng3, Kh2, Rg1 etc., which is, however, of protracted nature and hardly realizable in face of proper counterplay. Things turn out differently:

11…Bg4

This is much more resolute than 11…Nc6, as occurred in said match Lasker-Tarrasch 1908 (cf. Game 6).

In order to counteract the two-fold threat (the tactical: capturing on d4; the strategical: converting the c-file into a base for operations after …cxd4 and …Rac8), White must either unravel the center (by 12.dxe5 dxe5) or cordon it off (12.d5), whereafter Black can then proceed on both sides of the board (after …0-0 followed by …Ne8, …g6, …Ng7, …f5 or …Rac8 then …Nd7, …Nb6 and …b4). Let us have a look at the diagram after 11…Bg4: (D)

The diagnosis might well read: White stands well, Black stands better. For example, the source game of this variation, te Kolsté-Swiderski, Scheveningen 1905, continued: 12.Nf1 Nc6 (the immediate 12…cxd4 is even more rigorous) 13.Be3? cxd4 14.cxd4 exd4 15.Bg5 h6 etc., shaking off the pressure of the white pin.

12.h3, which may appear to be the most natural move to many, is not met by 12…Bxf3 13.Nxf3 0-0 14.Bg5, with initiative for White, but simply 12…Bh5, transferring the bishop to the imperiled kingside, stripping in advance the strength of the white assault thereon.

The age-old question whether 3.Bb5 be a move born of a genius or merely a… patzer, has begun to gradually lean in favor of the latter. Of course, there yet remains some obstacles along the way for Black to safely negotiate. We will now examine some practical examples of this venerable variation, whereby extra attention will be dedicated to its opening analysis on account of its still tremendous prevalence as well as its enigmatic chameleon-like diversity of strategic objectives.

Spanish

The following two games are especially noteworthy in the extent that they represent the first competitive encounters between two world champions and one of the most brilliant representatives of the new chess. Although in both cases Bogoljubow succumbed to the precision work of his opponents, after deeper study of the games one cannot help but feel they were nothing more than Pyrrhic victories of the scientific method over hot-tempered chess!

(4) Capablanca – Bogoljubow

London 1922

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6! 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5! 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0

In recent times, 8…Na5! is usually played, understanding that Black’s chief aim in this variation is capitalization on the gratis moves …a7-a6 and …b7-b5 and get his queenside rolling as swiftly as possible. Cf. the introductory essay and Game 6.

9.d4

Many authorities recommend here 9.h3:

(a) Perfectly playable is 9…Na5. This led to a positional battle of the highest caliber in the game Bogoljubow-Rubinstein, Mährisch-Ostrau 1923: 10.Bc2 c5 11.d4 (much more vigorous than Maróczy’s 11.d3 against Capablanca, New York 1924: 11…Nc6 12.Nbd2 d5! with counter-pressure) 11…Qc7 12.Nbd2 (12.Bg5 is also strong: Smorodsky-Bogoljubow, Moscow 1924) 12…Nc6 (12…Bd7 Maróczy-Réti, New York 1924, and especially 12…Nd7 Ed.Lasker-Réti, ibid., are more ponderous) 13.a4 (13.d5 Nd8 is more powerful) 13…cxd4 (13…b4 is more expedient) 14.cxd4 Nb4 15.Bb1 bxa4 16.Rxa4 a5 17.Nf1 Nd7 18.Ne3 Re8 19.Bd2 Nb6 20.Ra3 Be6 21.Bc3 f6 22.d5 Bd7 23.Qe2 Rec8 24.g4 etc. and White won on the 50th move as a result of the unwavering pursuit of his attack upon the castled position.

(b) The sequence 9…Be6 10.d4 (10.Bc2? d5!) 10…Bxb3 11.Qxb3 exd4 12.cxd4 Na5 13.Qd3 c5 14.Nc3 Nc6 seems the most appropriate.

Other masters, in turn, prefer the quiet continuation 9.d3, whereupon 9…Na5 (also 9…Bg4 or 9…Bb7 comes into consideration. In the game Oskam-Réti, Scheveningen 1923, the biding 9…h6 10.Nbd2 Re8 11.Nf1 Bf8 12.Ne3 g6 13.h3 Bg7 14.Nh2 Na5 15.Bc2 c6 etc. occurred) 10.Bc2 c5 11.Nbd2 Nc6 12.Nf1 Qc7 13.Ne3 Be6! could follow, with a reliable game for Black.

The question does now arise: Has White’s text move a refutation?

9…exd4 (D)

Old, yet hypermodern all the same; it also occurs in some closed openings and, at any rate, it announces a tremendous spirit for the initiative.

Black aims to expose both of White’s central pawns, although he increases their penetrating power to a substantial degree as well.

Capablanca succeeds in the following to cover his pawn weaknesses in artificial fashion, however, he thereby suits the drawback of Black’s pawn exchange (to be precise, relinquishing his hold on e5) to his own ends (cf. White’s 27th move).

In the following course of the game Capablanca manages to skillfully protect his pawn weaknesses and to make use of the downside of Black’s exchange, namely giving up the strongpost on e5.

The is why the immediate 9…Bg4 is both more solid and customary, whereupon 10.d5 Na5 11.Bc2 c6 12.dxc6 Nxc6 (or first …Qc7 13.Bg5 Nxc6) or 10.Be3 Re8 (or at this point reverting to the text variation by 10…exd4 11.cxd4 Na5 etc. For 10…Nxe4 11.Bd5 Qd7 cf. the introductory essay, comment to Black’s 8th move.) 11.Nbd2 d5! is possible.

10.cxd4 Bg4 11.Be3

11.Nc3 seems even more comfortable, as Lasker played against the same opponent the following year (cf. the next game).

11…Na5

A bold try here consists in 11…d5 12.e5 Ne4 13.Nc3, e.g., 13…Bb4 14.Rc1 Ne7 15.h3 Bh5 16.Bc2 Bxc3 17.bxc3 f5 (better is 17…Bg6) 18.exf6 Rxf6 19.g4 Bg6 20.Ne5! Nxc3 21.Qd2 Ne4 22.Bxe4 dxe4 23.Bg5! etc. (Yates-Bogoljubow, London 1922); or weaker: 13…Nxc3 14.bxc3 Na5 15.Bc2 Nc4 16.Bc1 Re8 17.h3 Be6 18.Nh2 etc. (Yates-Dr. Asztalos, Trieste 1923).

12.Bc2

The innocent developing move 12.Nc3 would seem better, e.g., 12…Nxb3 13.Qxb3 Bxf3 14.gxf3 and White stands quite well.

Following the text move, the black queen’s knight extends its mission of harassment another five moves long!

12…Nc4 13.Bc1

Something hypermodern: The unpleasant eviction of his pieces does not upset White, since nowadays losing tempi is of no concern, provided the game configuration remain unscathed.

The game Yates-Capablanca, New York 1924, adopted an audacious tack: 13.Nbd2? Nxe3! 14.Rxe3 c5 15.Qe1 Nd7 (Black is already exerting pressure) 16.h3 Bh5 17.dxc5 Nxc5 18.Rd1 Rc8 19.e5 Bg5! 20.Rc3 b4 21.Rc4 d5 22.Rxb4 Qe7 (better seems 22…Be7, threatening …Nd3. Now comes redemptory sacrificial play for White) 23.Nxg5! Bxd1 24.Bxh7+ Kh8 25.Rh4! Qxg5 26.f4 Qe7 27.Bc2+ Kg8 28.Bh7+ Kh8 29.Bc2+, with a draw by perpetual check.

Simplest is Bogoljubow-Romanovsky, Leningrad 1924, 10th match game: 13.b3 Nxe3 14.Rxe3 c5 15.Nc3 b4 16.Ne2 etc.

13…c5! (D)

First Phase (transition into the middlegame): White in control of the center in an wait-and-see position; the black queen’s flank rolling hither.

14.b3 Na5

Instead, 14…Nb6 was tried in Yates-Ed.Lasker, New York 1924.

15.Bb2

On 15.d5, Black would continue 15…Nd7 followed by …Bf6, with a comfortable set-up, his displaced knight notwithstanding.

White failed to achieve anything in Yates-Bogoljubow, New York 1924: 15.Nbd2 Nc6 16.h3 Bh5 17.e5 (17.g4 Bg6 18.d5 Na5 etc. is even more unclear) 17…Nd5 18.Bb2 Nxd4 19.exd6 etc. with double-edged play.

Unsuccessful, at any rate, is Kupchik-Bogoljubow, New York 1924, seventh match game: 15.e5? dxe5 16.dxe5 Qxd1 17.Rxd1 Nd7 etc., with a positional edge for Black.

15…Nc6 16.d5 Nb4

With his multi-move knight maneuver, Black has achieved:

(1) the blockading move d4-d5, thereby exposing the e4-pawn;

(2) the elimination of White’s bishop-pair; and finally

(3) the definitive pawn majority on the queenside.

White has in return:

(1) the said center, which also exerts solid pressure despite being exposed;

(2) fine bishop effect on the b2-g7 diagonal; and

(3) the prospect of blasting the black pawn mass by a2-a4.

The humiliating secret of the Open Games lies bare: As a consequence of the chosen opening both sides possess sundry weaknesses, which they must anxiously disguise if not eradicate. Can that be the true aim of the chess struggle, burdening oneself voluntarily with such weaknesses…?

17.Nbd2 Nxc2 18.Qxc2 Re8 19.Qd3

It is well-known that also multiple moves of the queen in the opening stage are much more common today; this owes to positional judgement having become more unbiased. The text move is designed to relieve the d2-knight, so it may proceed with its journey (d2-f1-g3). Therefore, one may put it this way: The text move is in accordance with the position.

19…h6

A wait-and-see precautionary move, as the immediate 19…Nd7 appears dubious on account of 20.e5, e.g., 20…Bxf3! 21.Nxf3 dxe5 22.Nxe5 Nxe5 23.Bxe5 Bd6 24.Bxd6 Qxd6 25.Rad1, with a strong passed pawn giving White solid practical chances, at any rate.

20.Nf1 Nd7 21.h3

Here 21.e5 would fail, as after 21…Bxf3 22.Qxf3 dxe5 23.Bxe5 Nxe5 24.Rxe5 Bd6, the passed pawn would be blocked and the e-file wrested from White’s control. This induces White to reconnoiter for other tactical avenues.

21…Bh5?

The toxic allure of the bishop pair! By 21…Bxf3 22.Qxf3 Bf6 a rather simplified position could be induced, which would sooner afford the black party the prospects, in view of the exposed e4-pawn.

Capablanca now introduces an original – for now yet indiscernible – tactical idea into the as yet uneventful game. It consists in the isolation of the black queen’s bishop, so that Black is soon forced to contend with a quasi-piece deficit. This makes all the more admirable the manner in which Bogoljubow gains all sorts of counter-chances on the opposite wing.

22.N3d2! Bf6 23.Bxf6 Qxf6 24.a4

It is White’s desire as well as necessity to operate vigorously on both wings before Black is able to take counter-action (e.g., …g7-g5). The text move constitutes a well-known attempt to unroll the hostile pawn mass, which Black, on this occasion however, quite resourcefully counteracts.

24…c4

This parry also serves to attack. Following this problem-like vacating maneuver for the d7-knight, the game assumes an acute character.

25.bxc4 Nc5 26.Qe3 bxa4

It is psychologically understandable that Black should desire something definite (the protected passed a4-pawn!) in hand; however, it is possible that 26…bxc4 was preferable. For although the passed pawn on c4 is but artificially protected, it has more mobility.

27.f4! Qe7

Since on the one hand 28.e5, imperiling the c5-knight, while on the other, 28.f5, winning the bishop, was threatened.

The isolation of the bishop now takes actual shape.

28.g4 Bg6 29.f5 Bh7 (D)

Second phase (outcome of the middlegame): Black’s bishop is shut out on the kingside; as counter-balance, his passed pawn(s) exert powerful pressure on the queenside.

Both sides are heading for the endgame (cf. Black’s 36th move).

30.Ng3 Qe5 31.Kg2

Somewhat mechanical (in face of a potential knight-check at d3). However, 31.Kf2, with greater presence in the center of the battle (cf. the comment on Black’s 36th move), was perhaps still more efficacious.

31…Rab8 32.Rab1 f6

Here and subsequently (cf. Black’s 38th move) Black’s frantic and pathologically explicable endeavor to initiate the liberation of the incarcerated h7-bishop becomes manifest.

Much more profound was the immediate 32…Rb2 33.Rxb2 Qxb2, however, given that the inviting (and, in light of the impending advance a4-a3, also compulsory) rook move 34.Rb1 would produce a rather awkward position for White by 34…Qc2 35.Kf3 Nb3 36.Ngf1 f6.

Above all, Capablanca must demonstrate perfect finesse throughout, if he is to vanquish his neo-romantic foe.

33.Nf3 Rb2+ 34.Rxb2 Qxb2+ 35.Re2 Qb3 36.Nd4

The play of kings. This pawn offer is without question more aggressive than situating the knight humbly at d2; now it occupies a commanding position at d4.

36…Qxe3

Both sides heading readily for the true endgame (without queens), it is Capablanca who proves to be the more prescient strategist.

Whether Bogoljubow should have gone in for complications with 36…Qxc4? Embarrassing for White would then be the suggestive move 37.Rc2 Qxd5! (now the expedience of 31.Kf2 becomes evident) 38.Ne6 Rxe6, with two pawns for the exchange and a resurrected bishop. However, White would have undoubtedly continued 37.Ne6, e.g., 37…Rb8(!) 38.Nxc5 dxc5 39.Rd2 Rb3 40.Qf2! (and if now 40…Kf8, then 41.Qf4), in which event the passed d5-pawn should force a quick decision. We shall observe how Capablanca is prepared for tactical lunges with his every move.

Incidentally, as Thomas indicates in British Chess Magazine 1922, 36…Qxc4 could also be met by 37.h4 – but whether the assault on the castled position would be decisive?

Third phase (without queens): Delicate precision work for White! Forced clearance of the d5-pawn. Race between the opposing passed pawns (with obstacles!). Dashed hopes! – Mating finish.

38.Rc3 Kf7

Cf. the comment to Black’s 32nd move. More appropriate was the immediate 38…Rb2+ 39.Kf3 Nb3, e.g., 40.Nxb3 axb3 41.Ne2 a5 42.Nd4 a4 etc. or 40.Nge2 Nd2+ 41.Ke3 Nb1 or 40.Ke3 Nd2 with counter-chances.

39.Kf3 Rb2 40.Nge2 Bg8 41.Ne6!

Black was but one move short of obtaining a virtually superior position. The text move, however, immobilizes the black king (on account of the g7-pawn) and evicts the black knight (since 41…Nxe6 42.dxe6 would wall in the black bishop for good).

41…Nb3

The seeming win of a pawn by 41…Nxe4 would produces a downright lost endgame: 42.Kxe4 Rxe2+ 43.Kd4! (and if now 43…Rd2+, then 44.Rd3!).

42.c5! (D)

Final phase: White seizes a counter-chance (clearance of the d5-pawn) that decides swiftly.

42…dxc5

Not 42…a3 immediately, in view of 43.cxd6 a2 44.Rc7+ Ke8 45.Re7#.

43.Nxc5 Nd2+ 44.Kf2

Of course not 44.Ke3 because of …a4-a3!.

44…Ke7

The immediate 44…Nb1 should be tried, e.g., 45.Nxa4(?) Nxc3 etc., or arguably the most precise: 45.Rc4! a3 46.Ne6! (46.d6 is met by 46…Rd2) 46…Ke7! (not 46…a2 because of 47.Rc7+ Ke8 48.d6! with the threat of mate on e7) 47.Rc7+ Kd6 48.Rc6+ Ke7 and Black can hold.

45.Ke1 Nb1 46.Rd3 a3

And now 46…Kd6 offered one last, and very real, saving chance despite the surrender of the passed pawn, e.g., 47.Nxa4 Rb4 48.Nac3 Nxc3 49.Nxc3 Bf7 50.Kd2 g6 etc.

One can see how difficult it often proves to extract that win from a won position.

47.d6+ Kd8 48.Nd4!

The coup de grâce, threatening mate by Nc6+ followed by d6-d7, thereby forcing the withdrawal of the black rook.

48…Rb6 49.Nde6+ Bxe6 50.fxe6 Rb8 51.e7+ Ke8 52.Nxa6 Black resigns.

On 52…a2, then simply 53.Nxb8 a1Q 54.d7+, mating quickly; while on 52…Ra8 as well as 52…Rb7 comes the decisive 53.Nc7+.

A wild finish!

José Raúl Capablanca

In 1921 a new World Champion entered the black-white checkered demesne of the Goddess Caissa. Youth and good fortune, vigor and success are on his side. Everything about him so romantic! Even the name adorned in Creole custom: José Raúl Capablanca y Graupera, a child of the sun, born in the Cuban capital Havana on the 18th of November, 1888.

His precocity in chess: At four-and-a-half years of age, still unable to read or write, he happens to spectate his father’s game against a Spanish army captain and following the second séance he was already in full command of the game’s rules, appreciative of its depth and superior to the opponent! His father rejoiced, yet was also unsettled and so for many years kept his son away from the seductive game.

His education and career: At the age of eight he graduated the preliminary school at Matanzas, at fifteen the high school at Havana. While political unrest raged throughout the island, outside, the magnificent tropical sun shined, constantly penetrating into the boy’s soul visions of his beloved game of chess. Following two years of diligent study of private study under the guidance of a college professor, he visited Columbia College where he successfully dedicated himself to studying chemistry. Soon thereafter he was able to pursue a career in diplomacy, such that the Cuban state, proud of its illustrious son, showered him with a diversity of assignments.

His personality: fascinating. Young and fiery. Handsome and elegant. Adroit and versatile. Fully cognizant of his chess prowess and therefore unassuming. Not exaggerating in anyway the importance of chess and therefore eager to learn. He was, besides which, a sophisticated cosmopolitan fluent in five languages. A gentleman through and through.

His chess career: staggering. Like Corneille’s Le Cid, no experimental shenanigans but strictly masterful performances! At the age of twelve he is already the undisputed champion of the island of Cuba, having defeated each in his turn the glorious veterans Golmayo, Vasquez and Corzo. At sixteen he visited the strongest chess club in America, the world famous Manhattan Chess Club in New York, where his victories created buzz. Long since a full-fledged master, at a tour through America he transfixes the general chess public by achieving results, which no other master, Lasker and Pillsbury included, even came close to obtaining: of 590 simultaneous games he won 560, drew eighteen and lost only twelve. Of 130 individual games against the strongest regional players, he won 126, drew 2 and lost but 2. These triumphs deserve even higher estimation considering the swiftness by which Capablanca played and in this regard emerges as the perfect simultaneous player without equal.

José Raúl Capablanca y Graupera

Soon thereafter, in the summer of 1909, comes the memorable match against the American chess pioneer Frank J. Marshall. The 21-year-old Cuban won in superb style (with eight wins for one loss with 14 draws) for which he may henceforth assume the title of grandmaster.

"Morphy redivivus!" cheers the land of records and dollars while the seasoned masters of the old continent, however, are still shaking their heads incredulously. But they will soon be set straight: in 1911 the grandmaster tournament at San Sebastian gave the 22-year-old hero the opportunity, with some luck and much talent, to outstrip his European rivals, capturing first prize ahead of Rubinstein, Vidmar, Nimzowitsch, Spielmann, Dr. Tarrasch et al. He came, played and conquered. His very first game made a great impression, in which he defeated the famous Russian chess artist Dr. Bernstein with a series of beautiful sacrificial maneuvers, for which he was also awarded the brilliancy prize. As for the intrinsic value of his games, one could admire even then the sound basis as well as the inexhaustible wealth of his resources; as for his technique: his swift and keen positional eye.

His subsequent tournament achievements (that is, after the World War, at New York 1918, Hastings 1919 and, in particular, London 1922) as well as his exhibition games are well-known. Still worthy of mention: During the champions tournament at St. Petersburg in the spring of 1914, where he had led the field until the very conclusion of this marathon event, when, as a consequence of a physical indisposition, he waned, such that the iron Lasker managed to defeat and thus surpass him, after all. The battle for supremacy between these distinguished experts had long since (1911) been the most obvious postulate of the entire chess world. Many obstacles of political, financial and other nature needed to be surmounted before the match could at last take place towards the end of March 1921 at Havana, ending with the clear – the climate being admittedly to Capablanca’s advantage – victory over his legendary opponent (four wins without loss with ten draws!). A fateful debacle for Lasker. World fame, endowment of an excellent pension from the state, and the acquisition of a young and beautiful wife for Capablanca!

The games of the match took the known channels of the modern positional style, an indication that Lasker, armed with his own weapons forged of logic and strength, would be defeated: Capablanca has advanced chess mathematics nec plus ad ultra, perfectly applied the sound principles of the scientific school, dulled the sharp edges of intimidatory openings (Spanish, Queen’s Gambit) and disarmed the labyrinthal image of chess by means of the simplicity of its purpose. Our age of mechanization simply had to spawn a Capablanca even in chess… the chess demystifier, whose hot Cuban blood infused by pragmatic Americanism rendered him a technological chess wonder. Impeccability in the game’s conduction! Efficient process of thought! Cold, precisive fantasy! A swift and keen eye, which unveils the secret of the most complicated position and finds moves which reduces the romantic image of chess into one of cold, hard fact.

His system of self-refinement: He, to whom chess-fantasy reveals all of her romantic secrets, resorts instead to the finely crafted chess prose, preferring the role of the ruthless seeker of truth. A self-imposed exile, from which he might just guide us to undreamt-of heights…

According to an oriental saying: There are players who play weakly and don’t know that they play weakly: They are ignorami – avoid them! There are players who play weakly and know that they play weakly: they are the sensible – help them! There are players who play strongly yet do not know that they play strongly: they are the modest – respect them! There are players, who play strongly and know that they play strongly: Those are the wise in chess – follow them!

Capablanca knows, and he knows that he knows… Shall we let him be our guide?

The Accumulation of Small Advantages!

In the following game the drawbacks of relinquishing control of the center (9…exd4) are exposed in even more blatant and logical manner than in the preceding game. Lasker employs the simplification method (13.dxc5), seizes terrain, weakens the enemy pawns on the left and right until they perish, and, following harsh precision work, achieves victory.

(5) Em.Lasker – Bogoljubow

Mährisch-Ostrau 1923

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 0-0 9.d4 exd4

Laying the groundwork for the loss (cf. comment in Game 4).

10.cxd4 Bg4 11.Nc3

This first deviation from the preceding game also seems quite recommendable. Since the actual riposte 11…Bxf3 12.gxf3 would clearly only bolster the white center, the text move conjoins supporting the center with the benefit of a free disposition of pieces.

Incidentally, as has already been mentioned in two places above (cf. pages 33-35), Bogoljubow came up with a clever transposition at New York 1924, which enabled him to employ his pet idea while precluding the Lasker retort: 9…Bg4 10.Be3 and only now 10…exd4 11.cxd4 Na5 etc.

11…Na5

11…Re8 comes into consideration.

12.Bc2 c5 13.dxc5

Lasker is famous for being among those who fear no simplification, given his knack for extracting mysterious advantages from even the most reduced of positions.

This move, which in analogous positions is made only grudgingly, secures White pressure on the d-file in connection with the succeeding piece blows (17.Nd5! and 20.Bg5!). Pressure, which becomes steadily more perceptible.

13…dxc5 14.e5! (D)

Constricting Black’s game. The second player hardly obtains another chance to breathe.

14…Qxd1 15.Rxd1 Nd7 16.h3!

Compelling the bishop’s retreat, given that 16…Bxf3 17.Rxd7 wins a piece.

16…Be6 17.Nd5!

Divesting the opponent of the bishop pair.

17…Bxd5 18.Rxd5 Nb6

Or 18…Rad8 19.Bg5! Bxg5 20.Nxg5 followed by e5-e6, with a realized positional advantage for White.

19.Rd1 Rad8

It was probably better to precede this with 19…h6.

20.Bg5! f6

Forced, since on 20…Bxg5, 21.Nxg5 h6 22.Bh7+ Kh8 23.Rxd8 Rxd8 24.Nxf7+ would be decisive and 20…Rxd1+ 21.Rxd1 Bxg5 22.Nxg5 h6 23.Nf3 (double-edged would be 23.Ne4 in view of 23…Nac4) would definitively cede White the sole open file, or perhaps what is even more resolute: 23.e6! fxe6 (23…hxg5? 24.e7 followed by Rd8) 24.Bh7+ Kh8 25.Nxe6 Rf6 26.Be4! (26.Bg6 Nb7!) 26…Kg8 (or …Nb7) 27.Nxc5, with a sound pawn to the good.

21.exf6 Bxf6 22.Bxf6 gxf6 (D)

The first tangible fruit: the black kingside pawns are in shreds!

23.Rac1 Nbc4

What is more, Black must contend with his knights’ dislocation for some time to come.

24.b3 Nd6 25.Rd5 Nab7

Also after 25…Ndb7 26.Rh5 Rd7 27.Re1, White controls every important square.

26.Rcd1

This may safely be considered as tantamount to seizing the d-file, regardless as to its complete extent.

26…b4

With a chronic malady on the kingside and tangle of pieces in the center, Black feels obliged to set about utilizing his counter-chance (pawn mass on the queenside!). Moving means loosening – but always!

27.Bd3

It is now plainly evident that the black pawn-mass, stripped of its natural support, had in fact been quite weak all along, a mere scarecrow.

27…Ra8 28.Re1

White is operating already on both central files.

28…a5 29.Re7 Rf7 30.Rxf7 Nxf7

After this momentary slackening of defensive rigor, Black will no longer be able to extricate himself from his predicament. The white rook penetrates; one little pawn, then another fall by force.

The strong, albeit overwrought, position of the d6-knight must under no circumstances be surrendered. Therefore: 30…Kxf7 and if now 31.Bxh7, then 31…a4! with counter chances for Black, e.g., 32.Bc2 Ke6 (not 32…axb3 33.Bxb3 c4 because of 34.Bxc4 Nxc4 35.Rd7+ etc.) 33.Rd2 axb3 34.axb3 Ra1+ followed by …Na5 and Black’s counter-action should not be discounted.

31.Rd7 Nbd6 32.Rc7 (D)

The quantitative conversion of White’s advantage commences: One of Black’s pawns (a5 or c5) will fall by force within the next seven moves.

32…Rd8 33.Ba6!

Of course not at once 33.Rxc5 in view of 33…Nb7 34.Rc7 Rxd3 35.Rxb7 Rd1+, with equality.

33…Ra8 34.Be2 Rc8

Hopeless would also be 34…a4 35.Rxc5 axb3 36.axb3 Ra2 37.Nd4.

35.Ra7 Ne5 36.Nxe5 fxe5 37.Bg4

White does not relent: the first pawn (a5) has yet to fall, and already a second pawn (c5), getting stripped of the rook’s support, must await the same fate.

37…Rc6 38.Bd7 Rb6 39.Rxa5 Ne4

On 39…Nb7, 40.Ra8+ followed by Ra8-b8 and Bg4-c8 would win immediately.

40.Bf5 Nc3 41.Rxc5 Rb5

Still one last vague attempt at salvation, but White has no interest in negotiations. The rest is silence.

42.Rc8+ Kg7 43.Rc7+ Kf6 44.Bxh7 Rd5 45.Rc4 Nxa2 46.f4 exf4

The final toll of the bell.

47.Rxf4+ Kg7 48.Bc2 Rd2 49.Rf2 Rd4 50.Bf5 Nc3 51.Be6 Kg6 52.Kh2 Kg5 53.Rf5+ Kg6 54.Rc5 Kf6 55.Bc4 Kg7 56.Rc7+ Kf6 57.Rb7 Na2 58.Kg3 Black resigns. Taylorism in chess, whereby White’s bitter resolve also commands admiration.

Emanuel Lasker

Struggle is Beauty (Plato) Lasker is indisputably a piece of chess history. If it can be said that the first historically recognized world champion, Greco, signifies fantasy in chess, Philidor strength, Staunton solidity, Anderssen might, Morphy splendor, Steinitz profundity, Tarrasch methodology, Capablanca clarity, then Lasker, more than any of the rest, represents the philosophical element of chess. Whether it be sport or art, game or science – chess contains the integral element of a struggle, more precisely, one of a duel, a circumstance which often denies him the beauty inherent to the search for absolute truth, but for this he is awarded a different beauty, the flush of