Morphy To Botwinnik

CHESS
FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK
CHESS
FROM
MORPHY
BOTWINNIK
TO
A CENTURY OF CHESS EVOLUTION

by
IMRE KONIG
LONDON
G.
BELL & SONS, LTD

1951
Printed in Great Britain by

Cheltenham Press Ltd., Cheltenham
PREFACE
THE idea of dealing historically with the development of Chess occurred
to me some time ago, but the difficulty of writing a book of this nature
soon became apparent. After several unsuccessful attempts the solution
to this problem suddenly came upon me: to show how the masters of
the past and present have tried to take up the fight for the centre, which
is the fundamental idea of Chess.
As there is no Public Chess Library I should have found difficulty in

obtaining the necessary material for this book but for the help of E. G. R.
Cordingley' s unique library and for the generous loan of books by Messrs.
F. W. Alien, B ruce Hayden and Robin J. R. Hayward.
I was fortunate in finding a number of excellent helpers: first the late
A. N. Booth, later D. Castello, Robin J. R. Hayward D. B. Pritchard
and Miss Anne Sunnucks to all of whom I am most grateful for help in
remodelling the original manuscript and Mr. Hayward for reading and
correcting the proofs.
,
September, 1950
I.K.
CONTENTS
page xiii
INTRODUCTION
PART I
Game
Page
THE RUY LOPEZ
Chapter I
WHITE ATTEMPTS IMI\fEDIATE CONQUEST OF THE CENTRE
Morphy's treatment (as White)

Morphy's treatment (as Black)
Alekhine's attempt to revive the
classical attack
1. Morphy-Lowenthal
2. Barnes-Morphy
3. Alekhine-Keres
Chapter 11
WHITE KEEPS THE CENTRE CLOSED
Anderssen's treatment . .
Steinitz' treatment (as White)White holds the centre and
advances on the King's side .
4. Anderssen-Max Lange
5. Steinitz-Lasker
Chapter Ill
THE BERLIN DEFENCE
Early Beginnings
The Modern Continuation Schlechter's Treatment
8
10
12
13
7. Schlechter-Reti
14
8. Lasker-Steinitz
9. Bernstein-Lasker
10. Pillsbury-Bardeleben
11. Euwe-Capablanca . .
Chapter V
THE STEINITZ DEFENCE DEFERRED
Blackburne's Treatment
Black establishes a stronghold in
the centre-Schlechter's Treatment
6. Winawer-Lasker
Chapter IV
THE STEINITZ DEFENCE
Steinitz' Treatment
Lasker's Contribution
White chooses an attacking for
mation-The Showalter Con
tinuation
Capablanca's Contribution
16
17
18
20
21
23
12. Mackenzie-Blackburne
23
13. Teichmann-Schlechter
25
vii
CONTENTS
White tries to restrict Black's
development on the King's
side-Capablanca's Defensive
Method
Black foils White's attempt at
simplification - Alekhine's
Treatment
Bogoljubov's Contribution
The Modern Continuation White defers the Fight for the
Centre . .
Steinitz' Defence System
Alekhine's Continuation
The Siesta Variation
The Duras Variation
Black holds the centre-Alek
hine's Defensive Method
Black Eases the Tension in the
Centre-Capablanca's Defen
sive Method
Black Holds the Centre-The
Modern Continuation
Conclusions
Game
14. Romanovsky-Capablanca
27
15. Stoltz-Alekhine
16. Yates-Bogoljubov . .
29
30
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
32
32
34
35
36
37
Marco-Steinitz
Sergeant-Alekhine
Reti-Capablanca
Euwe-Keres
Book-Andersen
22. Keres-Alekhine
38
23. Keres-Capablanca . .
40
24. Keres-Reshevsky
41
42
Chapter VI
THE TcHIGORIN DEFENCE
Early Beginnings
The Modern Form of the Tchigo
rin Defence
White Keeps the Centre Open
Lasker's Treatment . .
Rubinstein Improves the Defence
White Plays for a King's Side
Attack-Rubinstein's Defence
White Maintains the Tension in
the Centre-Keres' Contribu
tion
Black Chooses an Active Defen
sive System - Tchigorin's
Continuation . .
Later Trends in the Tchigorin
Defence - The Bogoljubov
Variation
The Modern Continuation of the
Tchigorin Defence
The Modern Continuation (for
White)-The Rauser System
White Resumes the Fight for the
Centre-The Worrall Attack
Page
43
25. Lasker-Tchigorin
43
26. Duras-Tchigorin
45
27. Lasker-Tarrasch
28. Leonhardt-Rubinstein
47
49
29. Bogoljubov-Rubinstein
50
30. Keres-Reshevsky . .
52
31. Schlechter-Tchigorin
32. Luckis-Najdorf
54
56
33. Euwe-Keres
57
34. Alexander-Keres
59
35. Rauser-Rumin
61
36. Lasker-Teichmann
63
viii
CONTENTS
Game
37. Fine-Keres . .
38. Alekhine-Keres
Keres' Continuation
Alekhine's Treatment
Conclusions
Page
64
67
70
PART 11
THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT
73
Chapter VII
THE ORTHODOX DEFENCE
The Orthodox Defence of the
19th Century
Steinitz' Treatment
Pillsbury's Treatment
The Modern Continuation against
the Fianchetto in the Orthodox
Defence
The Modern Form of the Ortho
dox Defence-Lasker's Treat
ment
Showalter's Continuation
Rubinstein's Continuation-The
Tempo Struggle System
Capablanca's Freeing Manceuvre
Capablanca's Contribution (with
White)
Bogoljubov's Contribution
Alekhine's Preventive System
Lasker's Defensive System
Conclusions
74
39. Steinitz-Anderssen
40. Pillsbury-Schiffers
74
74
75
41 . Alekhine-Cuckiermann
77
42. Steinitz-Lasker
43. Pillsbury-Showalter
44. Pillsbury-Showalter
78
81
83
45. Rubinstein-Maroczy
46. Marshall-Capablanca
84
85
47.
48.
49.
50.
87
89
91
94
95
Capablanca-Steiner
Bogoljubov-Thomas
Alekhine-Capablanca
Alekhine-Lasker
Chapter VIll
THE EXCHANGE VARIATION OF THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT
The Minority Attack in the Exchange Variation-Early Beginnings
Capablanca Revives the Minority
Attack
Alekhine Chooses a Better Defensive Formation
Flohr's Treatment
The Defence System to the
Minority Attack-Capablanca's
Defensive System
The Modified Capablanca Defence
System . .
Heterogeneous Castling in the Ex
change Variation-Reshevsky's
Treatment
96
51. Steinitz-Lee
96
52. Capablanca-Alekhine
98
53. Capablanca-Alekhine
54. Flohr-Euwe
100
101
55. Alekhine-Capablanca
103
56. Najdorf-Eliskases
104
57. Reshevsky-Stahlberg
ix
. . 106
CONTENTS
Game
Page
Chapter IX
THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED
The Queen's Gambit Accepted in 58. de la BourdonnaisMcDonnell . .
the Last Century
59. de la BourdonnaisWhite Plays for a King's Side
Attack
McDonnell ..
Staunton's Treatment . .
60. Saint-Amant-Staunton
Morphy Defends the Queen's
61. Harrwitz-Morphy . .
Gambit
The Steinitz Variation-Steinitz
62. Zukertort-Steinitz
Establishes his System
Steinitz Improves his System . 63. Pillsbury-Steinitz
White Builds up an Attacking
Formation-Schlechter's Continuation
64. Schlechter-Tchigorin
.
109
109
111
113
115
118
120
.. 122
Chapter X
THE 8TEINITZ VARIATION IN MODERN TIMES
The Steinitz Variation by Transposition from the Caro-Kann
Defence
Lasker's Treatment
By Transposition from the Ortho
dox Defence - Botwinnik's
Continuation . .
Capablanca's Treatment
124
65. Botwinnik-Euwe . .
66. Lasker-Reshevsky
124
126
67. Botwinnik-Vidmar
68. Flohr-Capablanca
128
129
Chapter XI
THE Q uEEN's GAMBIT AccEPTED IN MoDERN TIMES
Alekhine's Defence System
Euwc's Continuation
Botwinnik's Treatment . .
Conclusions
69. Euwe-Alekhine
70. Euwe-Alekhine
71. Botwinnik-Keres
131
131
133
134
136
PART Ill
THE ENGLISH OPENING
137
Chapter XII
THE ENGLISH OPENING IN THE LAST CENTURY
The English Opening in the Last
Century
The English Opening as Played
in the London Tournament,
1851
72. Staunton-Saint-Amant
73. Staunton-Horwitz
X
138
138
. . 140
CONTENTS
Game
74. Wyvill-Lowe
75. Wyvill-Kennedy
76. Anderssen-Morphy
Wyvill's Treatment
Anderssen's Continuation
Conclusions
Page
142
144
146
148
Chapter XIII
THE ENGLISH OPENING IN MODERN TIMES
Nimzovitch's Contribution
Flohr's Treatment
The Four Knights' System in the
English Opening-White Aims
at Immediate Conquest of the
Centre-Reti's Contributions
The Modern Continuation
The Modern Form of the English
Opening-Mason's Continuation
Alekhine's Continuation
Golombek's Continuation
Black Adopts a Safer Defensive
System . .
Rubinstein's Defensive System
Conclusions
149
77. Nimzovitch-Spielmann
78. Flohr-Landau
149
151
79. Reti-Przepiorka
80. Reti-Griinfeld
81. Botwinnik-Levenfish
153
155
156
82. Mason-Mieses
83. Alekhine-Tarrasch
84. Golombek-Cruz
157
159
161
85. Flohr-Kashdan
86 . Nimzovitch-Rubinstein
163
164
166
PART IV
THE KING'S GAMBIT
167
Chapter XIV
THE KING's GAMBIT AccEPTED
The Kieseritzky Gambit
The Berlin Defence
Morphy Strengthens the Attack
The Paulsen Defence
Blackburne's Contribution
The Modern Continuation of the
Kieseritzky Gambit . .
The Classical Defence .
.
The Cunningham Gambit (re

vived)
The Bishop's Gambit
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
Anderssen-Kieseritzky
Rosanes-Anderssen
Morphy-Medley
Steinitz-Zukertort
Steinitz-Schlechter
168
168
170
171
172
174
92. Stoltz-Samisch
93. The Gambit of Greco
94. Spielmann-Griinfeld
175
177
178
95. Kramer-Euwe
96. Spielmann-Bogoljubov
179
181
xi
CONTENTS
Game
Page
Chapter XV
THE KING's GAMBIT AccEPTED IN MoDERN TIMES
The Modern Defence to the
King's Gambit
97.
Rubinstein's Continuation
98.
The Latest Trend in the King's
Gambit
99.
Bronstein's Treatment . .
100.
182
Schallop-Paulsen
Hubinstein-Yates
182
184
Santasiere-Levin
Bronstein-Ragosin
186
187
Chapter XVI
THE KING's GAMBIT DECLINED
Morphy's Continuation
Spielmann's Contribution
Reti's Continuation
101. Morphy-Boden
102. Spielmann-Tarrasch
lOB. Stoltz-Spielmann
189
189
191
193
Chapter XVII
THE KING'S GAMBIT DECLINED (CONTD.)
The Falkbeer Counter Gambit . .
Morphy's Continuation
104. Schulten-Morphy
White Adopts a Safer Line
105. Schulten-Morphy
Tarrasch's Contribution
106. Spielmann-Tarrasch
Keres' Continuation
107. Castaldi-Trifunovic
Conclusions
194
194
195
196
197
198
200
201
SuMMING UP
xii
INTR ODUCTION
WHAT is chess technique? Does it really exist or are we merely playing
with words when we refer to it?
Many an experienced player will profess a disbelief in the conception
and then, almost in the same breath, will go on to discuss whether the
great Paul Morphy would have been able to hold his own in a modern
tournament; thereby admitting the existence of fundamental differences
between past and present standards and methods of play.
What kind of changes has, in fact, taken place? The object of this
book is to trace the evolution of technique through the course of the last
hundred years within the framework of the major openings.
Capablanca writes in his Primer of Chess . . . Fundamental strategic
principles never change, though their mode of application may not always
be the same . . . . ' Here is the key to all that we mean when we speak
of technique. In chess we deal with the elements of force, space and
time, represented respectively by the varying powers of the pieces, the
chess-board with its arbitrary dimensions and inherent attributes and
limitations, and the movements of the pieces on this board.
'
These are fundamentals of chess; unchanging, unchangeable.

As our study of the game progresses we learn more of its many strengths
and weaknesses, examples of which are doubled pawns, open lines, etc.
Here we have the strategic principles of the game. They cannot be altered;
we merely strive to learn more about them. But how do we apply our
knowledge? Here time brings changes. As we come to know more about
fundamental principles, our practical methods become transformed.
Masters study and absorb the knowledge of their forerunners, and out of
the experience of the past forge their own practical tournament weapons.
How to attack-how to defend-how to win a won game-all this is
technique. We shall define technique, then, as 'the practical application
of known strategic principles.' Clearly, as more becomes known of the
unchanging principles of strategy, technique will progress.
Tarrasch pointed out that de la Bourdonnais failed at least once to win
simple ending of Rook and two pawns against Rook, through lack of
technique. Evidence of how technique has progressed is given by the
fact that, nowadays, such endings are won by the most ordinary players
as a matter of routine. Only if we correctly interpret the principles of
strategy, can we devise a sound technique. Mistakes have been made in
the past; there has been many a deviation into a blind alley, many a false
step, but the sum movement of the technique of the game has been
perceptibly forward.
A considerable time may elapse before the discoveries of a pioneer
become common property. As we look back we realize that de la Bour
donnais and Morphy have exerted a great influence on the progress of the
game; yet Lasker speaks of an era after their time as a sort of "dark age,'
a period of relapse.
And, indeed, surprising as it may seem, for a long
a
xiii
INTRODUCTION
time their successors not only did not progress beyond the ideas of these
masters, but failed even to understand and assimilate their contributions
to the game.
When we speak of absorbing previous la;lowledge we, as ordinary
players, should not, in the first place, expect to be able to do this for
ourselves. The ridicule accorded Steinitz and Nimzovitcb during the
greater part of the ir careers shows that not even the greatest contempo
raries of the truly inventive masters are always able to grasp the ideas
at once. What happens is that, slowly but surely, the less-inventive
masters, playing regularly in tournaments, experiment with the new ideas.
When these ideas have withstood the searching test of tournament play,
they become better understood, and finally, common knowledge.
This process was surprisingly slow in the last century and in the early
years of this one. The fact is, that the tiuly inventive masters did not
surpass the other masters as players, so that the importance of their ideas
was not quickly realized. An example is the case of Lasker and Steinitz.
Lasker was the great player par excellence; Steinitz the great thinker.
Distinctly superior to Steinitz as a player, Lasker himself has explained
how he learned from Steinitz, and was able to put the latter's ideas into
practice in tournament play. This the more temperamental Steinitz was
never able to do with any measure of success. It is not surprising, there
fore, that the lesser contemporaries of Steinitz were slow in appreciating
his ideas, particularly as the competitive nature of the game serves to
obscure the evolutionary tendencies.
To illustrate the different approach of the older masters to the game,
we have selected characteristic examples from the past as well as the
present. They are considered together so that they can be readily com
pared. As we are to deal with the evolution of opening and middle game
technique, we have tried to analyze the games of the earlier masters from
two points of view:
( 1 ) Embracing the ideas underlying their moves, with regard to the
concepts prevalent at the time.
(2 ) Studying the games from the present-day standpoint, we have

endeavoured to determine how modern masters would deal with the
positions that arise.
The games selected have been chosen for the similarity of their strategy,
so that we can observe the two generations of masters wrestling with the
same ideas.
xiv
PART I
THE R UY LOPEZ
IN the last century there was much controversy as to the merits of this
remarkable opening. Although it has been established that the opening
was known in 1490, in the English-speaking world it bears to-day the
name of the Spanish priest who published an analysis of it in 1561.
It was the research of Ruy Lopez which first drew attention to the
opening. His bold assertion that the opening moves of a game could be
decisive roused the critics. Although one of the greatest players of his
time, he was declared to be a poor analyst.
Even in the last century leading masters frequently adopted unsatis
factory opening variations purely out of convention, believing the initial
stages of the game to be of only incidental importance, the final outcome
being decided at a later stage through some romantic combinations.
Two nineteenth century authorities had definite views on the subject.
Blackburne called it 'an opening for the safe and cautious player'; whilst
Steinitz was of the opinion that White could obtain only equality against
the best defence, which he 1hought hinged on the move 3 . . . . . P-Q3;
now known as the Steinitz Defence.
Despite these weighty condemnations, however, the Ruy Lopez not
only continued to flourish, but increased in popularity. Differences arose
as to what, in fact, was the best defence-a sure sign of strength in an
opening. All this controversy indicated what we know to-day: that the
Ruy Lopez is an elastic opening, affording several good lines to both
attacker and defender, a factor which has made it indisputably the most
popular of the King's side debuts.
I
"rHITE ATTEMPTS
IMMEDIATE CONQUEST OF THE CENTRE
MORPHY'S TREATMENT (AS WHITE )
THE earlier great masters of the game-de la Bourdonnais, McDonnell,
Staunton, Saint-Amant-did not adopt this opening, an interesting fact
that requires some explanation.
It is not difficult to conclude that the Evans and the Scotch Gambit
afforded more opportunities of open, tactical struggle coupled with central
control than the Ruy Lopez. Even when this opening was introduced
as a tournament weapon by Bird against Horwitz in London, 1851, it
was in a form where White played for early control of the centre by
P-Q4. On the rare occasions that Morphy adopted the Ruy Lopez he
played this line, which was at that time considered to give White the
initiative.
Morphy was not a theoretician in the modern sense of the word. Tar
rasch compared him with Capablanca, maintaining that Morphy was not
an opening expert, preferring to employ the best continuations conceived
by Max Lange. According to Steinitz and Staunton on the other hand,
Morphy was the leading exponent of the openings in his day. These
conflicting views may be reconciled. Morphy accepted what he considered
sound and recast it to suit his style, retaining a critical perspective of
any contradiction of general principles; an approach later accepted by
other great masters, as Lasker and Capablanca.
In this light, it will be interesting to observe how Morphy embarks on
the main problem of the opening-which is the main problem of all
openings-the struggle for control in the centre.
It is rarely seen nowadays, for
reasons which we shall discuss later.
1
White
P. Morphy
J.
Black
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Lowenthal
Played in London, 21st August,

1858
14th Match Game
P-K5
Castles
B x Kt
Kt x P
PxP
Kt-K5
Kt-B4
QP x B
Kt-K3
This move is certainly not bad

itself, but it commits Black to a
narrow choice of defensive lines.
For the more elastic 9 . . . . . B-K2;
see the game Barnes-Morphy (No.
2, page 5).
P-K4
1 . P-K4
Kt-QB3
2. Kt-KB3
P-QR3
3. B-Kt5
Kt-B3
4. B-R4
5. P-Q4
A straightforward move, which
aims at securing the superiority in
the centre by the most direct means.
10. Kt x Kt
1 1 . Q-K2
2
B x Kt
B-QB4
VIHITE ATTEMPT IMMEDIATE CONQUEST OF THE CENTRE
of the accumulated knowledge of

ahnost a century since this game
was played.
Q-K2
12. Kt-B3
13. Kt-K4
P-R3
BxB
14. B-K3
15. Q x B
B-B4
Black's whole defensive strategy
was based on this move. If now
16. Q-B4, B X Kt; 17. Q X B,R-Q1;
and with only heavy pieces left on
the board, White would have had
difficulty in making anything of his
advantage.
According to Maroczy, this
Bishop should have gone to K2.
But even after this move, the con
tinuation 12. Kt-B3, Castles; 13.
B-K3, followed by QR-Q1 would
have restricted the activity of the
Black Queen. Furthermore, Black
would have to face two positional
threats: the exchange of one of the
Bishops after Kt-K4 followed by
B-Kt5, leaving him with a vir
tually lost ending; and the march
of the King's Bishop's Pawn to
KB4 and KB5. It is understandable
therefore that Lowenthal wished to
keep the square K2 for his Queen,
although the course of the game
shows that this move is not
satisfactory.
The right move was 11 . . . . .
Q-R5; with the threat of B-B5,
which would have compelled White
to play either 12. Kt-Q2-in
which case 12. . . . . Castles Q;
would have followed, with a game
offering chances to both sides--or
12. R-Q1, B-K2; when Black
would no longer have to meet the
threat of P-KB4-B5, owing to
the absence of the White King's
Rook from the KB file.
The
strategic
considerations
which make the move 11 . . .. .
Q-R5; so much better than its
alternatives may seem simple and
clear to us, but it should be re
membered that we have the benefit
16. Kt-Kt31
But Morphy finds the right reply.
BxP
16. . .. . . .
P-KKt3
17. P-B4
The reply to the tempting 17.
. . . . Q-Kt5; would have been 18.
R-B2; and the Black Bishop
would have got into trouble, for
instance 18. .. . . Q x KtP?; 19.
QR-QB1, or 18 . . . .. B-R5; 19.
P-Kt3.
18. P-K6! !
The combination of this move
with the previous one reveals
Morphy's genius in open positions.
The Pawn cannot be taken, because
of 19. Q-QB3; and if 18. . . . .
.
Castles QR; 19. Q-R7, would
follow.
CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK
18.
B-B4
19. Kt x B
P x Kt
20. P x P eh.
KxP
21. Q-KR3
Q-B3
22. QR-K1
QR-K1
23. R-K5!
Now that the skirmish is over,
we can sit back and admire Mor
phy's fine judgment of position,
which guided him in making his
Pawn sacrifice. Superficially Black's
game appears defendable, for his
King's side is only partially broken
up, and there are only heavy pieces
left on the board. But this move
shows what a strong grip White has
on the game.
Morphy-perhaps
quite unconsciously-had a very
good idea of the modern theory of
strong points. Black now cannot
exchange the Rook, because this
would bring White's King's Rook
into play, with great effect, so he
must allow White to build up an
attacking formation.
23. . . . . . .
K-Kt3
RxR
24. KR-K1
25. R x R
R-Q1
26. Q-Kt3 eh.
K-R2
R-Q2
27. P-KR3
P-Kt3
28. Q-K3
29. K-R2
P-B4
30. Q-K2
Q-Kt3
Q-Kt2
31. R-K6
This part of the game is con
ducted by both sides in a manner
which could not be surpassed even
to-day. With our modern technical
knowledge, we should express it as
the struggle for the vital squares at
K5 and KR5. The Black Queen
cannot hold both of these squares,
as 31. . . . . Q-B2; would be
answered by 32. Q-K5, threatening
both 33. R-KB6 and 33. R-K8.
Position after 31.
Q- Kt2
32. Q-R5
R-Q4
Not 32 . . . . . R-B2; 33. R X P eh.
P-Kt4
33. P-QKt3
Black is reduced to making only
Pawn moves. If 33 . . . . . Q-B1;
34. Q-Kt6 eh., K-Rl ; 35. R-K8.
R-Q3
34. R x P
35. Q X BP eh.
Q-Kt3
36. Q x Q eh.
KxQ
The foJlowing ending is not diffi
cult, and is handled irreproachably
by Morphy.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41 .
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
R-R5
P-KKt4
K-Kt3
R-R7
PxP
P-B5
R-K7 eh.
P-B6
P-Kt5
K-B4
PxP
K-B5
R-K3
R-Kt3
P-B3
P-R4
PxP
K-B3
K-K4
K-Q3
R-Ktl
R-KB1
P-B5
PxP
P-B6
Resigns.
At the time this game was played, it was probably not so highly appre
ciated as it is to-day. When we consider Morphy's fine Pawn sacrifice
with its tactical points (shutting out the Bishop), his transition into a
seemingly insignificant advantage in the middle game, and the simple
looking way in which he demolishes the defence, we are reminded of the
same masterly ease of technique displayed by Capablanca on so many
occasions.
WHITE ATTEMPTS IMMEDIATE CONQUEST OF THE CENTRE
We may ask, 'Would Morphy be able to obtain such positions against

a modern master?' Some light will be thrown on this question by the
following game and also by the notes to the game Alekhine-Keres, Kemeri,
1937 (No. 3, page 7).
MORPHY'S TREATMENT (AS BLACK)

In the last game we witnessed Morphy endeavouring to gain ground
in the centre, relying on an early advance of the Queen's Pawn; and his
opponent failed to counter this attempt. We have remarked, however,
that the variation is not quite satisfactory, and here Morphy, with the
Black pieces, is faced with his own line. His treatment of it, however,
cannot be termed definitive.
2
T.
White
P. W. Barnes
Black
P. Morphy
London, July, 1858

1 . P-K4
P-K4
2. Kt-KB3
Kt-QB3
Kt-B3
3. B-Kt5
4. P-Q4
PxP
5. P-K5
Kt-K5
6. Castles
P-QR3
Kt-B4
7. B-R4
With a clarity of purpose the
more remarkable considering the
state of chess knowledge at that
time, Morphy simplifies in the
centre, and avoids the possible
dangers of, for instance, 7. . . . .
B-K2; 8. Kt x P, Castles; 9 .
Kt-B5, a n attack which was later
played with success by Zukertort.
It was eventually demonstrated in
Collijn's Liirobok i Schack that even
in this line Black can get a level
game after 9. . . . . Kt-B4; 10.
Q-Kt4, P-KKt3; 11. B X Kt,
QP x B; 12. Kt x B eh ., Q x Kt;
13. Q-Kt5.
8. B x Kt
QP x B
9 . Kt x P
B-K2
10. Kt-QB3
Castles
P--B3
1 1 . B-K3
Max Lange comments: 'With this
move Black turns the attack in his
favour.' This was the contemporary
view shared by Lowenthal. The
Position after 1 1 . . . . . P-B3

aggressive nature of the move is
only to be expected from a player
of Morphy's reputation.
By ex
changing the Pawn on K5, he gains
the initiative, but the permanent
characteristics of the position are
equally important. White remains
with a Pawn majority on the
King's side, and as his position is
quite solid he should be able to
repel the attack and remain with a
very favourable end game. Morphy's
move is therefore not good, indicat
ing that although his plan was
correct he did not possess the
necessary technical knowledge to
implement it. Eighty years later
in the game Alekhine - Keres,
Kemeri, 1937, the young Esthonian
treated the same position in the
following way: 1 1 .
R-K1!
. . . .
12. R-K1 , B-B1; 13. P-B4,

P-B3! The position is now very
different.
White has to weaken
himself and Black can exert pres
sure on the central lines instead of
embarking on an uncompromising
attack on the King's side.
(See
Game 3, page 7.)
A fine trap, and at the same time

Morphy's only chance, for other
wise the strong Knight position at
Kt6, in conjunction with the mating
threat at KR8, would quickly
decide the game in White's favour.
RxP
12. P x P
R-Kt3
13. Q-K2
B-Q3
14. K-R1
15. QR-Q1
Q-R5
16. P-B4
B-Kt5
If 16 . . . . . R-R3; 17. Kt-B3,
with the threat of B X Kt followed
by Q-K8 eh. and R-Q8.
Q-R4
17. Kt-B3
BxB
18. B x Kt
B-Kt3
19. Kt-K4
The defensive move 19.
B-K2; also leads to a favourable
position for White after 20. Kt
Kt3, B X Kt; 21. Q X QB.
20. Kt(K4)-Kt5 P-R3
K-R1
21. Q-B4 eh.
K-R2
22. Kt-B7 eh.
R-B3
23. Kt(7)-K5
Q x Kt
24. Kt x B
Q-K3
25. Kt-K5
26. Q-K4 eh.
Barnes has played these combined defensive and attacking
manreuvres with great skill.
Q-B4
26 . . . . . . .
RxQ
27. Q x Q
28. P-KKt4
This and the following two moves
were considered weak by Max
Lange and according to him were
the cause of the loss of the game.
To-day it is natural in such a
position to post a Knight at KKt6.
It only shows what a hypnotic
influence Morphy had on his con
temporaries.
28
. . . . .
29. P-B5
80. Kt-Kt61
R-B3
R-K1
R-K7!
31. R-Q8?
The position looks fairly simple,
but when faced with the inventive
genius of Morphy, great care is
needed. Maroczy has pointed out
that the correct move was 31.
KR-K1 ! If then 31 . . . . . R X
QBP; 32. R-K8, R X Kt; 33.
R(Q1 )-Q8, R-B8 eh.; 34. K
Kt2, R X KtP eh.; 35. K-R3 and
White wins. After the best move,
31. . . . . R-B7; 32. R-K8, R X Kt;
33. P X R eh., K X P; the White
Rook is on the King's file-not
subject to attack by the Black
King-and this renders impossible
the fine defensive manreuvre of
Morphy's 34th move.
R x Kt! !
31. . . . . . .
KxP
32. P x R eh.
R X BP
33. R-Q7
B-Q5!
34. R(1 )-B7
Here is the point of the ambush
sprung on Black's 30th move. The
text move would be useless if the
White King's Rook now stood on
K7.
35. R x BP
R x KtP
R x QRP
36. R x QKtP
P-QH4
37. P-R4
WHITE ATTEMPTS IMMEDIATE CONQUEST OF THE CENTRE 7

38. P-H5 eh.?
This merely drives the King to
a better square. Better was 38.
R(B7)-Q7, P-B4; with the idea
of playing 39. R-Q6 eh., K-R2;
40. P-Kt5, or 38. R(B7)-Q7,
B-B3; 39. R-Kt6, P-B4; 40.
R-Q5, threatening P-Kt5.
Position after 34. . . . . B-Q5!
38. . . . . . .
K-Kt4
K-R5!
39. Rx KtP eh.
40. R(KKt7)-K7 P-R5!
This move bars the White Rook
from coming to the 3rd rank which
would prevent the Black King from
penetrating with mating threats.
Black won.
Morphy was unsuccessful in solving the problem of the opening and

for 40 years this variation was in the forefront until Tchigorin demonstrated
how to meet it.
ALEKHINE'S ATTEMPT TO REVIVE THE CLASSICAL ATTACK

The following game is of particular interest as it shows an attempt by
Alekhine to revive the old Morphy continuation, namely, the early con
quest of the centre exemplified in the two previous games.
This
game also answers those who ask how Morphy would have fared in our
times.
It also shows how Alekhine, one of the most inventive aggressive players,
is prevented from developing an attack in spite of his resourceful play
and his numerous threats, one of which is to arrive at a favourable end
game.
In addition White aimed at attaining the basic attacking position
already known. As, however, he was unsuccessful in achieving his aim,
he was never able to instigate a real attack. The way in which certain
positions were mastered by Morphy remains unsurpassed even to-day;
but would he have reached such positions without learning the present
day technique ?
3
White
A. Alekhine
Black
P. Keres
Kemeri, 1937
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
P-K4
Kt-KB3
B-Kt5
B-R4
Castles
P-Q4
P-K4
Kt-QB3
P-QR3
Kt-B3
B-K2
PxP
Kt-K5
7. P-K5
Kt-B4
8. R-K1
QPxB
9. BxKt
Castles
10. KtxP
R-K1
1 1 . Kt-QB3
This move is not new and was
played in the game Lasker-Tchi
gorin, St. Petersburg, 1895, which
continued 12. B-B4, Kt-K3;
13. KtxKt, QxQ; 14. QR x Q,
B x Kt; 15. P-QR3, QR-Q1;
16. P-R3, R x R; 17. Kt x R,
R-Q1 ; 18. Kt-K3, R-Q5! and
CHESS :FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK
Lasker,
who
previously
in
his
the two Bishops. Yet he is ready

to exchange one in order to get rid
of the centralized Kt on Q4.
Common Sense in Chess, considered
the variation strong for White, got

nothing out of it.
12. B-K3
13. P-B4
1 6. B-B2
Protecting the K4 square.
16. . . . . . .
QR-Q1
17. R-K3!
A very ingenious way of doubling
the Rooks, since 17 . . . . . RxKt?
would be answered by 18. RxR.
B-B1
P-B3!
B-Kt3
17.
18. QR-K1
B--Q3
19. RxR eh.
RxR
20. RxR eh.
BxR
21. P-KKt3
B-B2
22. P-QKt4!
A last attempt to force the Black
pieces out of the centre and to
make use of the superior Pawn
position on the King-side.
With this move Black liquidates
White's centre instead of playing
for a King's side attack. Certainly
a more objective treatment of the
position than shown in the previous
game.
Kt-K3
22.
Q-Kt3
23. Kt-K4
Kt X Kt
24. P-B5
Q-R4!
25. B X Kt
The best 25. .
Q-R3; 26.
B-K3, Q-R6; 27. B-B5, would
leave White the initiative.
. .
14. PxP
QxP
15. Q-B3
B-B4!
Again demonstrating unprejudiced judgment. One would at first
think that Black's strength lies in
26.
27.
28.
29.
QxQ
P-B3
KtxB
P-B6
BxQ
B-B6
PxKt
Drawn.
Though the game, compared with the two of Morphy's, looks uneventful,
this is because both players mastered the positions which arose and took
account of the limitations imposed. But it has its fine points, and even
to-day only outstanding players could as effectively execute the general
plan.
11
WHITE KEEPS THE CENTRE CLO SED

ANDERSSEN'S TREATMENT
IN contrast to Morphy's treatment of this opening, Anderssen preferred
to keep his Queen's Pawn at Q3, exchanging his KB against the Black
Knight on his QB6, and retaining his two Knights for manreuvring. The
whole idea shows that, unlike his two great near-contemporaries, de la

Bourdonnais and Morphy, Anderssen did not realize that attack in the
centre is superior to attack on the wings. However, his method did
produce a solid position, with the centre well held, in which White is
at no disadvantage.
4
White
Black
A. Anderssen
Max Lange
Aachen, 1868
1 . P-K4
P-K4
2. Kt-KB3
Kt-QB3
3. B-Kt5
P-QR3
4. B-R4
Kt-B3
5. P-Q3
P-Q3
6. BxKt eh.
PxB
7. P-KR3
P-Kt3
8. Kt-B3
B-KKt2
9. B-K3
Castles
10. P-KKt4
R-K1
1 1 . Kt-K2
P-Q4
12. Kt-Kt3?
A mistake which must, as the
annotator says, be recognized. But
even the recommended move 12.
Kt-Q2, would have left Black
with the initiative.
KtxKtP
12. . . . . . .
An original sacrifice.
If now
13. P X Kt, B X P; (with the threat
. . . . Q-B3) 14. K-B 1 , P X P;
15. QKt X P, P---KB4; winning back
Or 14. R-KKtl,
the piece.
Q-B3; 15. Kt-B5, P X Kt; 16.
PxBP, BxP! (not 16 . . . . . Q x P;

17. Kt-R4).
Kt-B3
13. B-Kt5
14. Q----'K2
Q-Q3
R-Ktl
15. Q-Q2
P-B4
16. P-Kt3
PxKP
17. P-B4
18. P X P
B-Kt2
Kt X P!
19. Q-K3
to open lines for the two Bishops.
20. Kt X Kt
Q-QB3
21. Kt(B3)-Q2
The beauty of Black's sacrifice is
shown by the following variation:
21 . Kt(K4)-Q2, P-K5! opening
the diagonal for the King's Bishop.
P-B4
21. . . . . . .
22. P-B3
P X Kt
23. PxP
If 23. KtxP, Q-Kt3; is strong,
24. QxP (24. KtxP, P-K5!),
QxQ; 25. KtxQ, BxP.
23. . . . . . .
R-K3
P-QR4
24. Castles Q
25. P-QR4
Q-Kt3
26. Q-QB3
Q-Kt5
The safest, but not the quickest
way to win. By 26. . . . . R-Q3;
with the idea of going to Q5,
followed by . . . . Q-Q3; tying
down the Knight on Q2, a decision
could be forced in the middle game.
27. QxQ
BPxQ
28. QR-K1
P-R3
29. B-R4
P-Kt4
P-R4
30. B-Kt3
A clever move; Max Lange
knew how to make best use of the
two Bishops. The text-move not
only prevents 31 . P-R4, but also
opens up a square at KR3 for the
Bishop.
31. R-K2
R-Q1
10
32. R-Ktl
R-KKt3
33. B-R4
R-Q6
34. B x P
R x RP
35. R(2)-Kt2
K-R2
36. K-Ql
A recommended continuation
here was 36. B-Q8, R x R; 37.
R x R, B-KR3; 38. K-Ql, B x
Kt(? ) with good drawing chances
for White, as the Bishops are of
opposite colours. But Black could
play 37 . . . . . R-Q6;! 38. B x P,
B X P; and the two Bishops are very
strong on their open diagonals.
36. .. . . . .
B-QBI
37. B-Q8
B-Kt5 eh.
38. K-B2
R-QB3
39. Kt-Bl
R-B6 eh.
40. K-Kt2
B-Ra
41. R-Kt3
If 41 . Kt-Kta, the reply
B-K6; with the threat
B-Q5; is too strong.
R-B8
41. . . . . . .
42. R-Q31
A very subtle trap. If now 42.
. . . . B-K7; 43. R-Q7 eh., K-Rl;
44. B x P, R x B; 45. R x R, R x Kt;
46. R x R, B X R; 47. P-B5, P-R5;
48. P-B6, P-R6; (or 48 . . . . .
B-R6; 49. R-B7, B-Kt5; 50.
R-B5, or here 49. . . . . B-K3;
50. R-B6) 49. R-B8 eh., K-R2;
50. P-B7, B-R3; 51. R-R8,
B-QKt2; 52. R-QKt8, with a
draw.
Position after 42. R-Q3!

This analysis, given by a contem
porary annotator, demonstrates the
type of finesse peculiar to the age.
R-K8!
42 . . . . . . .
Keeping watch on the Q2 square
with the Bishop.
43. R-Q5
44. K-Rl
45. Kt-Kt3
46. R x R
47. Kt-K4
48. K-Ktl
49. K-Bl
50. K-Kt2
51. Kt-B6 eh.
52. B x R
53. R x Q
54. B-Q8
Resigns.
R-K7 ch.
R x KP
R-Q5
PxR
B-Kt2
P-Q6
B-Ra eh.
P-Q7
RxKt
P-Q8(Q)
BxR
B-B5
Max Lange's conduct of this most beautiful game is impressive even

by present-day standards. Important elements to be noticed are: the
strategic opening of the centre; the manner in which the two Bishops
take control of the position; the fine end-game technique displayed by
both sides. In this decisive game (the first prize depended upon it) Max
Lange proves himself as great a practical player as he was an analyst.
STEINITZ' TREATMENT (AS WHITE)-WHITE HOLDS THE CENTRE
AND ADVANCES ON THE KING'S SIDE
With Wilhelm Steinitz, an important epoch opens in the development
of the Ruy Lopez. In the previous chapter we saw that Anderssen
failed to appreciate the essential point of the Ruy Lopez, namely the
control of the centre. Steinitz, with his positional judgment, realized
11
that an attack on the wing could only be successful if the centre was
secured. In contrast to Morphy, he did not seek to gain command of
the centre, but contented himself with consolidating his position in this
theatre. When, and only when, his centre was secure, Steinitz com
menced his attack against the opposing King. The following game,
played in a World Championship match with Lasker, is a typical example
of his profound strategy.
more normal-looking move Kt-B I .
The text intensifies Black's task of
carrying out .. . . P-Q4;
5
W.
White
Steinitz
Black
Em. Lasker
Second match-game, 1 894

I . P-K4
P-K4
2. Kt-KB3
Kt-QB3
3. B-Kt5
Kt-B3
4. P-Q3
P-Q3
5. P-QB3
B-Q2
Lasker, perhaps, wrongly, often
gave the impression of not caring
very much about the opening.
Here, at any rate, he failed to rise
to the occasion.
A satisfactory
method of treating this variation
for Black had already been demon
strated some years before: I . P-K4,
P-K4; 2. Kt-KB3, Kt-QB3;
3. B-Kt5, P-QR3; 4. B-R4,
Kt-B3; 5. P-Q3, P-Q3; 6.
P-B3. We now have a similar
position to that in the present
game, with the interpolation of the
moves, . . . . P-QR3 and B-R4;
6. . . . . P-KKt3; 7. QKt-Q2,
B-Kt2; 8. Kt-B1, Castles; 9.
P-KR3, P-Q4; 10. Q-K2, P
QKt4; U. B-B2, P-Q5; 12.
P-KKt4, Q-Q3; and Black has
a good game. (Gunsberg-Tchigorin
Match, 1890.)
Lasker's move involves a loss of
time as White will in any case take
steps to preserve his Bishop.
6. B-R4
Avoiding the anticipated
change of Bishops.
ex
6.
P-KKt3
7. QKt-Q2
B-Kt2
8. Kt-B4
An important deviation from the
Castles
8.
Kt-K2
9. Kt-K3
10. B-Kt3
P-B3
Here 10. . . . . Kt-Kt5; was
worth considering, with the idea of
exchanging the strong Knight on
K3 and preparing for the advance
of the King's Bishop's Pawn.
U. P-KR4
Q-B2
12. Kt-Kt5
Very fine. Superficially it looks
like a simple attacking move, but
its chief aim is the defence of the
centre as is subsequently apparent.
P-Q4
12.
QR-Q1
13. P-B3
14. P-Kt4
Comparison with the previous
game will show how carefully
Steinitz has prepared his attack.
PxP
14. . . . . . .
Another slight inaccuracy. Black
releases the tension in the centre
too early.
P-KR3
15. BP X P
16. Q-B3!
B-K1
If 16 . . . . . PxKt; 17. PxP,
Kt-R2; 18. Kt-B5! defending the
Kt5P and threatening Q-R3; with
tremendous effect.
Kt-Q2
17. B-B2
18. Kt-R3
And now the Knight is taken
back for defensive purposes.
18.
19. Kt-B2
Kt-QB4
P-QKt4
12
CHESS FROM MORPHY '1' 0 BOTWINNIK
This counter-attack is premature.

Lasker stated that 19 . . . . . P-B3;
would have stopped White's attack.
However, White could then have
continued with 20. P-R5, P
KKt4; 21 . Kt-B5, and with the
King's side secured, operate in the
centre with B-K3; followed, after
due preparation, by P-Q4. The
truth is that Black's several inac
curate moves have added up to a
bad game for him.
20. P-Kt5
21. Kt-B5
P-KR4
P x Kt
Kt x Kt; 23. B-K3, making use of

his strength on the black squares.
P-B3
22. P x P
23. P-Kt6
Kt x KtP
There is no other defence. If 23.
. . . . B-Q2; 24. Q x RP, KR-Kl ;
25. Q-R7 eh., K-BI ; and White
simply advances the KRP.
BxP
24. P x Kt
25. R-KKtl
P-K5
Lasker later pointed out that the
best defensive line here was 25 . . . . .
K-R2; 26. R x B, K x R; 27.
P-Q4 eh. , with some fighting
chances for Black.
Here 21. . . . . Kt-K3; gave a

better defence. In this case White
would have continued 22. Kt x B,
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31 .
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
PxP
RxB
Q-B5 eh.
Q x RP eh.
Q x Kt
B-K3
P-R4
PxP
QxQ
R-R6
Kt-Kt4
B-B5
Kt-K3
B-Q4
P-R5
B-Kt3 eh.
Kt-B5
K-R2
KxR
K-B2
K-Ktl
Q-K4
P-R3
KR-Kl
RP x P
RxQ
R-QBI
R-K2
R(2)-Kl
B-Bl
K-B2
B-K2
K-Bl
Resigns.
Ill
THE BERLIN DEFENCE
THE two previous chapters have shown that neither Morphy's early
opening of the centre, nor Anderssen's retention of the closed centre,
brought White any lasting initiative.
It has been found that after 1. P-K4, P-K4; 2. Kt-KB3, Kt-QB3;
3. B-Kt5, Kt-B3; White can safely castle since his King's Pawn is
only seemingly threatened; this continuation, recommended by Max Lange,
gave White new scope. Black has now to decide whether to accept or
decline the pseudo-sacrifice of the Pawn. Acceptance constitutes the
Berlin Defence, 4. . . . . P-Q3; the Steinitz Defence.
THE BERLIN DEFENCE
13
When Black plays the Berlin Defence, he does not expect to hold the
Pawn on his K4 (White, if he wishes, can recover it at once by 5. R-K1,)
but by exchanging the centre Pawns, he aims at a less restricted develop
ment for his pieces than he would achieve in the Steinitz Defence.
EARLY BEGINNINGS
6
White
S. Winawer
Black
Em. Lasker
Nuremberg, 1896
I. P-K4
P-K4
2. Kt-KB3
Kt-QB3
3. B-Kt5
Kt-B3
4. Castles
Kt x P
5. P-Q4!
This move, rather than the for
merly popular 5 . R-K1, is to-day
recognized to be strongest, as is
shown by Max Lange's fine but
almost forgotten analysis. Black
cannot hold the Knight on his J\..5
square (see following note).
B-K2
5. . . . . . .
6. Q-K2
Kt-Q3
If 6 . . . . . P-Q4; 7. Kt x P,
B-Q2; 8. B X Kt, P X B; 9. R-K1,
Kt-B3; 10. B-Kt5, Kt-Ktl;
11. Kt x B,
7. B x Kt
KtP x B
8. P x P
Kt-Kt2
9. Kt-Q4
Castles
10. Kt-QB3
B-B4
1 1 . Kt-B5
This old-style attacking move is
not justified by the position. For
the correct continuation see next
game.
1 1. . . . . . .
P-Q4
12. Q-Kt4
B x Kt
13. Q x B
R-K1
14. B-B4
B-Q5
15. KR-K1
Necessary because of the threat
. . . . P-Kt3; winning a Pawn.
15 . . . . . . .
Kt-B4
16. QR-Q1
Ifl 6. B-Q2,R-Ktl; threatening
. . . . P-Kt3, and . . . . R-Kt5.
B x Kt
16. . . . . . .
Q-B1
17. P x B
18. Q-R5
Q-R3
19. R-K3
QxP
20. R--QB1
Q-B5
21. R-B3
If 21 . R-R3, Q x B; and the
Black King can escape.
21 . . . . . . .
Kt-K3
22. B-Q2
R-K2
23. R-R3
Q-K5
24. P-B3
On 24. P-KB4, Kt-B1; and
the pressure on "\-Vhite's King's
Pawn prevents his playing P-B5.
24. . . . . . .
Q-Kt3
25. Q-R4
R-Q2
26. P-KB4
Q-K5
27. P-Kt4
Kt-B1
White was threatening P-B5,
28. Q-B2
P-QR4
29. R-K3
Q-B5
P-R5
30. P-B5
30. . . . . Q X P eh.; 31. R-Kt3,
and the open file would strengthen
White's attack.
P-R6
3 1 . R-B1
32. R(3)-K1
32. P-K6, is not good because
of 32.
P x P; 33. P x P,
Kt x P; 34. R x Kt?, Q x P eh.
32 . . . . . . .
P-R7
33. P-R3
P-QB4
34. K-R2
34. P-K6, is again prevented by
34 . . . . . P x P; 35. P x P, Kt x P;
36. R X Kt?, P-R8(Q);
14
34.
35. Q-B3
P-Q5
P-QB3!
tens to play 36. . . . . R(2)-R2;

forcing the QR Pawn.
BPxP
36. P-K6
KtxP
37. Px KP
R(2)-R2
38. Q X P
This move and the following
show Lasker's unique power in
combining attack with defence. If
39. R X Kt, then Q X R(8); 40.
R-K8 eh. , R X R; 41. Q X R eh. ,
Q-Bl;
Another of Lasker's characteristic

defensive manreuvres. The Pawn
cannot be taken because of 36.
QxP, P-R8(Q)! 37. RxQ, RxR;
38. R X R, P X P. Black now threa-
R-KBl
39. R-QR1
Kt-Q1
40. KR-Kl
R(2)-KB2
41 . Q-QKt6
R-R7 eh.
42. B-Kt5
43. K-Kt3
or 43. K-Ktl , Q-Q4.
QxP eh.
43. . . . . . .
Resigns. 44. K-R4, QxP eh.
and Mate in two follows.
Surveying the game from a modern viewpoint we realize that Black

solved his opening problems by the 1 1th move, when he was able to play
. . . . P-Q4; without any interference from White. That White was
able to initiate an attack was due to the fact that Black captured a Pawn,
and lost time in consequence. The middle game is very lively and con
ducted with much ingenuity. We cannot help admiring Lasker's tactical
genius; the way he seemingly permits White chances only to counter them.
We can clearly understand from this game why the Berlin Defence became
popular between the years 1890-1910. It created positions where attack
on the King's side, and counter-attack in the centre by Black, brought
about lively games full of scope for tactical players. True, there were
some attempts to refute the defence by keeping back the centre Pawns,
but they were later abandoned.
THE MODERN CONTINUATION-SCHLECHTER'S TREATMENT

The above game proved that once Black can firmly establish a Pawn in
the centre his opening problem is solved. In the last century players
like Pillsbury and Tarrasch, recognizing that this is Black's aim, tried
to prevent it, but they were only partly successful, and the games in the
match Em. Lasker-Tarrasch, 1 908, showed that Black, by adopting
the so-called "Rio de Janeiro' variation, was able to obtain a playable game.
In the following game, however, Schlechter demonstrates how White's
pressure can be maintained.
White
K. Schlechter
Black
R. Reti
Vienna, 1914
1 . P-K4
P-K4
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Kt-KB3
B-Kt5
Castles
P-Q4
Q-K2
7. Bxl{t
Kt-QB3
Kt-B3
KtxP
B-K2
Kt-Q3
KtPxB
THE BERLIN DEFENCE

8. P X P
Kt-Kt2
9. Kt-B3
Castles
10. Kt-Q4
10. R-Kl, Kt-B4; 1 1 . Kt-Q4,
Kt-K3; 12. B-K3, Ktx Kt; 13.
Bx Kt, P-QB4; 14. B-K3, P
Q4; 15. P X P e.p. B X P;l6. QR-Ql,
Q-R5;-the 'Rio de Janeiro' varia
tion-gives Black a playable game
as shown in the 14th match game,
Tarrasch-Lasker, 1908.
B-B4
10 . . . . . . .
BxKt
1 1 . R-Ql
P-Q4
12. RxB
PxP
13. PxP e.p.
14. P-QKt41
Preventing 14 . . . . . P-Q4; by
the threat of 1 5 . P-Kt5.
14 .
15.
16.
17.
......
B-K3
QR-Ql
P-Kt4!
Q-B3
B-B4
P-QR3
15
would then be embarrassing, there

fore he tries a dangerous counter
attack.
Q-B2
20. Q-Q3
21. R-KB4
Q-K3
22. P-KKt5
KR-K1
23. P-R3
R-K2
24. K-R2
Q-Kt3
25. P-KR4
B-K3
25 . . . . . P-Q4; would weaken
the black squares; and furthermore
White would play 26. Kt-R4,
with the threat Kt-Kt6. It would,
however, have been useless to play
Kt-R4 before the QP had moved
because of the reply . . . . P-QB4;
26. Kt-K2
P-B4
27. P-B4
PxP
28. PxP
R-QB2
29. Kt-B3
Q-B2
30. Kt-Q5
"\Vhite's manreuvres to expose his
opponent's Pawn weaknesses, while
covering those of his own, are
admirable.
30. . . . . . .
BxKt
At the expense of a Pawn Black
at last obtains some counter-play.
31 . R X P!
Q-K3
31. . . . . Bx P?, loses the ex
change.
32. R X B
R-KBI
Though it appears to weaken

White's King's position, this excel
lent move drives the Black Bishop
away from its strong position.
Q-Kt3
17. . . . . . .
18. K-Rl
B-Q2
Not 18. . . . . B xBP?; 19. R
QBI , and the Bishop is lost.
19. P-KR3
P-KB4
Black has no time to play 19.
. . . . P-Q4; since 20. Kt-R41
If 32 . . . . . Q-Kt5; 33. R-Q4,

but now Black threatens 33. . . . .
R-B6; and on 33. Q-K2, R(2)
B2; 34. P-B4, RxP; wins.
33. K-Kt3 ! !
Very accurate!
Now 33.
R(2)-B2; is met by 34. P-B4,
and the King guards the important
square K-Kt4.
P-KR4
33. . . . . . .
34. PxP e.p.
White must play this dangerous
looking move otherwise his KKt4
square would become too weak.
16

Kt5 eh.; 38. K-BI, Q-R6 eh.,
leads to nothing.
37. R x R eh.
RxR
38. Q-B5!
By this move White beats back
Black's attack.
QxQ
38.
R-Kt5
39. R X Q
40. R-B4
RxR
41. B x R
P-QR4
42. P x P?
42. P-Kt5, would have won.
The Rook's Pawn was not dan
gerous.
Position after 32.
R-KBI
34.
PxP
R-Kt2
35. K-R2
36. R-KKtl !
R( I )-B2
36 . . . . . R x R; 37. K x R, Q-
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
B x RP
K-Kt3
B-B4
K-B3
K-K2
Draw.
Kt x P
Kt x P
K-R2
P-Q4
KKt3
Kt-R4!
In this harmonious game Schlechter was able to carry out White's

strategic aim of holding back Black's centre Pawns. The way in which,
for positional gain, he deliberately exposed his King, and his subsequent
brilliant defence against Black's desperate counter-attack, are truly
admirable. It is no wonder that after this game the Berlin Defence
virtually disappeared from tournament practice. In this game Schlechter
not only makes a contribution to opening knowledge but also effects an
advance in middle game technique.
IV
WHEN the Berlin Defence was at the height of its popularity and seemed
to solve the problem of a valid defence to the Ruy Lopez, Steinitz, in
stinctively distrusting the loose Pawn formation, had gone his own way.
He was firmly convinced that a player who has a strong hold on the
centre need have little fear of being overrun by an attack on the flanks,
and therefore sought an adequate defence based on this theory.
Unfortunately he was temperamentally unfit as a player to prove the
soundness of his theory. To maintain his grip, on the centre he often
made bizarre moves which brought both his play and his theory into
disrepute. Nowadays his theory is accepted without reserve. The pro
gress we have made in technique enables us to use his basic theory in a
practical and successful manner. Further examples of this progress will
appear later when we examine the 'Steinitz Defence Deferred.'
17
STEINITZ' TREATMENT
The following game is an excellent illustration of Steinitz' theory of
the centre.
8
White
Black
Em. Lasker
W. Steinitz
Seventh game of the first match,

1 894
P-K4
1. P-K4
Kt-QB3
2. Kt-KB3
P-Q3
3. B-Kt5
B-Q2
4. P-Q4
KKt-K2
5. Kt-B3
Steinitz regularly played this
move, which his contemporaries,
preferring the 'natural' KKt-B3,
condemned. We shall see later that
although his idea of holding the
centre by this move was right, his
manner of execution was at fault.
6. B-K3
In the previous game Lasker
played 6. B-QB4, and because of
the threat 7. Kt-KKt5, Steinitz
gave up his attempt to hold the
centre (though still possible with
6 . . . . . P-KR3; as he tried against
Schlechter in London, 1899) but
gained a few tempi after 6. . . . .
P x P; 7. Kt x P, Kt x Kt; 8. Q x Kt,
Kt-B3; 9. Q-K3.
Kt-Kt3
6.
B-K2
7. Q-Q2
8. Castles Q
P-QR3
9. B-K2
PxP
10. Kt x P
Kt x Kt
1 1 . Q X Kt
B-KB3
B-B3
12. Q-Q2
13. Kt-Q5
Castles
We have now reached a position
where White is in control of the
centre. His contemporaries might
well have questioned Steinitz' ap
parent inconsistency;-why had he
chosen an artificial manreuvre
(KKt-K2) to hold the centre, only
to surrender it a few moves later?
In this instance, as will be seen, he

wanted to have open lines to
counteract possible attack on the
King's wing, which usually occurs
when players castle on opposite
sides.
14. P-KKt4
This advance is premature, and

shows that in his younger days
Lasker did not fully appreciate
Steinitz' theory of the centre.
R-K1
14 . . . . . . .
15. P-Kt5
Necessary was 15. P-KB3,
B x Kt
15. . . . . . .
16. Q x B
16. P x QB, was better, but even
then Black would have had suffi
cient counter-play in the centre
against a King's side attack.
R-K4!
16. . . . . . .
The beginning of a deep defensive
combination.
BxP
17. Q-Q2
R x PI
18. P-KB4
This is the key to the combina
tion. The move is not difficult to
18
see at this stage, but . for Steinitz

to envisage such a possibility re
quired a firm faith in his own
theory.
Q-K2
19. P x B
RxB
20. QR-B1
21. B-B4
Kt-R1
Contemporary critics recommended 21. . . . . R-KB1 , instead. How
ever Steinitz probably wished to
avoid the opening of the KR file
after 22. P-KR4, Q-K4; 23.
P-R5, Kt-B5; 24. P-Kt6, P X P;
25. P X P, Kt X P; and Black must
be careful of surprises.
P-B3
22. P-KR4
23. P-Kt6!
The only move to create com
plications.
Q-R4, Kt-B2; 34. P-R8(Q) eh. ,

R x Q; 3 5 . R x Kt eh., K x R.'
32. . . . . . .
P-B3
'On Steinitz' thirty-second move
I expected . . . . K-B 1 ; whereupon
B-B5 would have left me with
good chances for a draw, as the
Bishop could not well be taken on
account of KR-KKtl,' is Lasker's
comment.
K-B2
3a. B-B5!
34. KR-Ktl
PxB
This move is too risky, and leads
to the same position as if the Pawn
had been taken a move earlier.
K-K2
35. Q-R5 eh.
36. R-Kt8
K-Q3
36 . . . . . K-Q1; is answered by
37. K-R2, (threatening QR
KKtl ,) 37
R-K8; 38. Q X
R eh. ! Q x Q; 39 R x R!
.
P-Q4
23. . . . . . .
The alternative was 23.
P x P; 24. P-R5, P-KKt.4; 25.
P-R6, P x P; 26. KR x P, R-K1;
and Black should be able to repel
White's attack.
KxP
24. P x RP eh.
K-Ktl
25. B-Q3 eh.
R-K1
26. P-R5
P-KKt3
27. P-R6
K-Kt2
28. P-R7 eh.
Q-K4
29. K-Ktl
P-QB4
30. P-R3
P-B5
31. Q-B2
32. Q-R4!
Steinitz writes: 'At first glance it
would seem that White could win
by B X KtP.
But this does not
realize 32. B X KtP, P X B; 33.
. . .
Q-K3
37. R x P
QxR
38. R x R
K-B4
39. R x BP eh.
R-K2
40. Q-R6
41. Q-R2!
Not 41 . R-B8? because of 41
. . . . R x P!
Q-Q2
41 .
41. . . . . Q-Q1; was suggested
as a better defence, but White
could play 42. Q-B2 eh. , K-Kt.4;
43. P-R4 eh., K X P; 44. Q-QB5.
42. Q-Ktl eh.
43. Q-Kt5 eh.
44. R-B5
45. Q x Q eh.
46. Q-B6 eh.
P-Q5
Q-Q4
QxR
K-Q3
Resigns.
This game provides an excellent example of Steinitz' theory of the centre;

and incidentally, of Lasker's tactical genius. It is interesting to note
that the critics were unanimous in condemning Steinitz' method of deve
loping his KKt at K2, which aims at holding the centre, but in practice
rarely succeeds in doing so. To-day we know that Steinitz was right,
but his idea can be fulfilled only in the 'Steinitz Defence Deferred.'
LASKER'S CONTRIBUTION
In the last years of his life, in the Vienna 1 898 and the London 1899
Tournaments, Steinitz resorted to the more natural
. . . KKt-B3
.
19
(instead of . . . . KKt-K2; ) which implied that he recognized that his

own attempt to hold the centre was tactically not feasible. With one
exception-a memorable draw with Lasker-he was singularly unsuccess
ful, losing to Tarrasch, Pillsbury and Showalter.
It was left to his successor, Lasker, to introduce this system effect
ively into practical play.
Lasker's keen perception soon fathomed
the limitations of the Steinitz Defence. The World Champion realized
that Black's problem was the development of his King's Knight, and, in
common with Steinitz, he perceived that KB3 was not a good post for
the piece owing to its exposure to attack by P-K5. He therefore moved
it to KB1 via R2, a simple looking but really deep defensive manreuvre.
9
0.
White
Bernstein
Black
Em. Lasker
Exhibition Game, Moscow, 1914.

P-K4
I. P-K4
Kt-QB3
2. Kt-KB3
Kt-B3
3. B-Kt5
P-Q3
4. Castles
B-Q2
5. P-Q4
B-K2
6. Kt-B3
PxP
7. R-K1
8. Kt x P
Castles
PxB
9. B x Kt
P-KR3
10. B-Kt5
11. B-R4
Kt-R2
In the third match game against
Capablanca, 1921 , Lasker played
the more solid l l . . . . . R-10;
12. Q-Q3, Kt-R2; 13. B X B,
R x B; 14. R-K3, Q-Ktl; 15.
P-QKt3, Q-Kt3. Here we see
the same ideas prevail as in the
present game: Black seeks to bring
pressure on White's Queen's wing
while at the same time maintaining
a firm control of his own K4. But
White's strategic plan can best be
seen in the following continuation:
11
R-Kl; 12. P-K5, Kt
R2; 13. B-Kt3, P-QR4; - 14.
Q-Q3, B-KB1; 15. P x P, P x P;
16.R X R, Q x R; (Bernstein-Lasker,
St. PetersbuTf, 1914) and White
could not break up Black's central
Pawn position.
.
. . .
12. B x B
13. Q-Q3
14. R-K3
3
QxB
KR-K1
Kt-B1
P-QB4
15. Q-B4
16. Kt-Q5
This looks very menacing, but
simpler was 16. Kt-B3, B-K3;
17. Q-R6, with the intention of
exploiting Black's weakened Pawn
position.
16. . . . . . .
Q-K4
B-K3!
17. Kt-Kt3
Threatening . . . . P-QB3; and
leading to interesting complications
in which Lasker is able to display
his tactical skill.
18. Q-K2?
18. Q-R4 was better in order to
answer 18 . . . . . Q X KtP; with 19.
Kt X P(B7), P-B5; 20. Kt X KR,
P X Kt; 21. RP X P, B-Q2; 22.
Q-R3, Q x Q; 23. R x Q, B x Kt;
24. R-Q3, with about equal
chances.
18.
19. P-QB4
Q x KtP!
20
CHESS FHOM MOHPHY TO BOTWINNIK
19. Kt X P(B7) is now not good

because after 19 . . . . . B x Kt; the
QR is loose, while with the vYhite
Queen on R4, White could have
countered the threat with RP x B
defending the Rook.
QxQ
19.
B x Kt
20. R x Q
21. BP x B
P-QR4!
22. P-QR4
Kt-Q2
23. P-B3
KR-Ktl
Other players might have hesitated to commit themselves to 2 1 .
. . . . P-QR4; binding the Q R to
the defence of its Pawn, but Lasker
saw that White's QR Pawn would
become even weaker than his own.

This part of the game is a good
example of Lasker's masterly tech
nique.
24. R-K3
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
Kt-B1
R(3)-R3
Kt-Q3
Kt x R
R-K3
RxP
R-K7
RxP
R-KB1
Resigns.
R-Kt5
Kt-Kt3
P-B4!
P x P!
RP x Kt
Kt x QP
Kt-B6
P-Kt6
P-Kt7
RxP
The variation we have just seen was frequently adopted by leading

masters such as Lasker, Capablanca, Schlechter. Whilst having the
appearance of rigidity the defence provides plenty of scope for individual
enterprise, as may be seen by comparing Lasker's treatment of this game
with his later game against Capablanca referred to in the notes.
WHITE CHOOSES AN ATTACKING FORMATION

THE SHOWALTER CONTINUATION
In the more positional treatment of the Steinitz Defence, as in the last
game, White's aim was to carry through P-K5, and break up Black's
Queen's side formation leaving Black's double Pawns weak for the end
game. Black, however, was able to meet this threat by overprotecting
his square K4.
White had little hope of generating a successful King's side attack,
for Black's sound Pawn structure and the open QKt file would have
outweighed White's attacking chances.
It is not surprising that attacking players like Showalter tried to deprive
Black of this compensation by an early exchange of the QKt, forcing
Black to retake with the Bishop instead of the Pawn.
Even to-day this continuation is considered the strongest, and was
successfully adopted by Pillsbury. His game against Bardeleben is a
good example of this system.
10
White
H. N. Pillsbury
Black
C. von Bardeleben
Mun ich, 1 900
1. P-K4
2. Kt-KB3
3. B-Kt5
4. Castles
P-K4
Kt-QB3
Kt-B3
B-K2
P-Q3
5. Kt-B3
6. P-Q4
B-Q2
7. B x Kt
BxB
PxP
8 . Q-Q3
Black gives up the centre one
move too early. Correct is 8 . . . . .
Kt-Q2; 9 . B -K3, ( 0 . P-Q5,
Kt-B4; and . . . . B- c, 2) 9. . . . .
P X P; 10. B X P, Cas';
1 1 . Kt
Q5, B X Kt; 1 2 . P X D, .i. -B3; 13.
KR-Kl, B X B; 14. Q X B, (Mar-
THE S'l'EINITZ DEFENCE
21
oczy-Capablanca, London, 1922).

Here Black succeeds in properly
controlling his K4 square (the key
of the defence) by Kt-Q2 and
B-B3 (the same idea as in
Steinitz' treatment).
9. Kt x P
B-Q2
10. P-QKt3
The 14th match game Lasker
Capablanca continued 10. B-Kt5,
Castles; 1 1 . QR-Kl , P-KR3;
12. B-R4, Kt-R2; 13. B x B,
Q X B; 14. Kt-Q5, Q-Ql; 15.
P-QB4, with advantage for White.
However, the text-move appears to
give an even more lasting initiative.
10. . . . . . .
Castles
1 1 . B-Kt2
R-Kl
A better line of defence is shown
in the game Pillsbury-Steinitz,
Vienna, 1898.
1 1 . . . . . P-B3;
12. QR-QI , Q-B2; 13. KR-K1 ,
KR-K1 ; 1 4 . KKt-K2, QR-QI ;
1 5 . Kt-B4, B-KB1; 1 6. Q-Kt3,
K-Rl; 17. P-B3, Q-R4; 18.
QKt-K2, Kt-Ktl ; 19. P-QR3,
Kt-K2.
12. QR-K1
B-KBI
13. P-B4
Q-K2
14. P-KR3
P-B4
This appears weakening but there
is no other way of development;
besides, Black has a plan.
15. Kt-B3
B-B3
By forcing White to pJay 16.
Kt-Q5, the weakness on Q6
disappears.
B X Kt
16. Kt-Q5
17. P x B
Q-Q2
An interesting continuation would
have resulted from the semingly

stronger 17 . . . . . Q-Ql; 18. Kt
Kt5, P-KKt3; 19. P-B5, R x R;
20. R x R, B-Kt2; 21. P x P,
RP x P; 22. R-KB I , followed by
Q-KB3 with a winning attack.
This variation shows how well the
Queen is placed on Q3 to exert
pressure on the remote King's side.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
B x Kt
Kt-R4
Q-B5
Kt x Q
P-KR4
P-R5
R-B3
K-R2
RP x P
R-K2
PxP
R-B3
R-K8
PxB
P-Kt4
QxQ
KR-Ktl
P-QR4
P-R3
P-R5
PxP
R-R7
P-B5
PxP
R-Kt5?
R(Kt5)
-Kt7
3 1 . R-Kt3 eh.
Resigns.
An impressive demonstration of
the Showalter attack. It is difficult
to detect any major mistake on
Black's part prior to his 29th move.
CAPABLANCA's CoNTRIBUTION
Capablanca was the third world master to accept the Steinitz Defence.
He did not employ it exclusively, but his faith in its soundness is proved
by his adopting it regularly against his great rival, Lasker, after his loss
to him at St. Petersburg, 1914.
Though the games between them do not constitute the last word on
this defence, they do reveal many new possibilities in its mode of conduct.
22
11
\Vhite
M. Euwe
Black
J. R. Cap ablanca
London, 1922
I. P-K4
P-K4
Kt-QB3
2. Kt-KB3
Kt-B3
3. B-Kt5
P-Q3
4. Castles
B-Q2
5. P-Q4
PxP
6. Kt-B3
Capablanca gives up the centre
a move before 7. R-K1 (or 7.
B Kt, B x B; 8. Q-Q3, ) forces
him to do so but thereby avoids
Showalter's variation (see previous
game). A good example of Capa
blanca's preventive technique.
B-K2
7. Kt x P
8. R-K1
A more useful move appears to
be 8. P-QKt3, but it only gives
White equality after 8. . . . . Kt x
Kt; 9. Q x Kt, B x B; 10. Kt x B,
Kt---,-Q2; 1 1 . B-R3, P-QR3; 12.
Kt-B3,B-B3; 13. Q-K3,Castles;
14. QR-Q1, B X Kt!
Lasker
Capablanca, New York, 1924.
Castles
8
R-K1
9. B-B1
10. P-B3
Tarrasch recommends 10. P
QKt3, and B-Kt2.
.
Kt x Kt!
10. . . . . . .
One of Capablanca's characteristic
moves by which he evades the dan
ger arising after 10 . . . . . B-KB1;
11. B-KKt5, P-KR3; 12. B-R4,
P-KKt3; 13. Kt-Q5, B-Kt2;
14. Kt-Kt5, -KKt4; 15. KKt X
P, P x B; 16. Kt x QR, Q x Kt;
17. Kt-B7, (better Q X P) (Lasker
Capablanca, 1921, 1 2th match
game).
11. Q x Kt
B-K3
To meet 12. P-QKt3 with 12.
. . . . Kt-Q2 and . . . . B-B3,
besides preparing . . . . P-Q4.
12. Q-B2
P-B3
13. B-Q2
If 13. B-K3, Q-R4.
Q-Kt3
13. . . . . . .
14. Kt-R4
This puts the Knight out of play
but 14. P-QKt3, P-Q4; is also
good for Black.
Q x Q eh.
14 . . . . . .
15. K x Q
P-Q4
16. P-K5
If 16. P x P, Kt x P; and Black
threatens P-QKt4 followed by
. . . . B-B4 eh. and Kt-Kt5.
.
. . . .
Kt-Q2
16. . . . . . .
17. P-KKt3
Better, but not quite satisfactory,
is 17. P-KB4, P-QKt4; 18. Kt
B3, B-B4 eh.; 19. K-B3, P-B3;
20. P X P, Kt X P; with the threat
of . . . . P-Q5.
17. . . . . . .
B-KB4
P-QKt4
18. QR-B1
19. Kt-B3
B-B4 eh.
20. K-Kt2
Kt x P
The liquidation of White's centre
is carried out in Capablanca's con
vincing style.
21.
22.
23.
24.
P-KKt4
K-Kt3
B-KB4
B x Kt
B-KKt3
P-KR4
P-B3
PxB

25. B-Q3
B-B2
Black naturally wishes to retain
the two Bishops.
23
33. P-QB4
RXP
34. P x QP
PxP
35. B-Ktl
B-B3
36. R-Q1
R(B6)-B5
37. B-K4
B-B4
38. Kt-Q3
P X B!
Resigns. 3 9 . K t x B, R-Kt5 eh.
leads to mate.
Truly a Capablanca game. Chiefly
impressive is that even within the
strict limitations of the Steinitz
Defence Capablanca is able to
demonstrate his smooth and ap
parently effortless style.
26. P-Kt5
P-Kt3
B-Q3
27. R-K2
28. K-Kt2
K-Kt2
29. QR-K1
R-K2
R-KB1
30. Kt-Q1
31. Kt-B2
B-K1
32. P-Kt3
R(2)-KB2
The game is won for Black; it is
nevertheless interesting to observe
the ruthless way in which Capa
blanca exhibits his opponent's
weaknesses.
V
THIS most modern defence was played during the nineteenth century;
for instance, we know an example of its adoption by Louis Paulsen in
1871. However, since his mode of treatment was quite different from
present-day methods, we begin our study with a game played by Black
burne in 1 877, in which we see our modern strategical ideas beginning to
assume a definite shape.
At a later date, Steinitz himself revived this defence (which came to
be known as the 'Steinitz Defence Preceded') when, according to his
contemporaries, he had become disillusioned in his old defence. He
vigorously denied this saying, 'Some critics remarked that I had lost
faith in my usual favourite 3 . . . . . P-Q3; but it will be seen the same
idea is carried out after the move (3 . . . . . P-QR3; ) which secures a draw
at least against the most formidable attack, which according to the theory
and practice of first-class masters White has at his disposal.'
(As we
shall see in the notes to game No. 16 Yates-Bogoljubov, San Remo, 1930,
it has since been proved that White cannot force the draw.) Steinitz
adopted it consistently during the Hastings Tournament of 1895, and at
last it seemed as if he achieved his objective of maintaining the centre
albeit at the expense of a cramped position.
The ultimate judgment on the Steinitz Defence Deferred has yet to
be given, but we can say in general that Black can maintain the centre,
and if he should have to give it up, he can do so safely in the knowledge
that he can secure a free development for his pieces.
BLACKBURNE'S TREATMENT
In the following interesting game Blackburne, a player of individual
outlook, adopting the defence for the first time, demonstrates his sound
appreciation of its principles.
24
12
White
Black
G. H. Mackenzie J. H. Blackburne
Played in a short match of
3 games after the Bradford
Tournament, 1877
P-K4
I. P-K4
2. Kt-KB3
Kt-QB3
P-QR3
3. B-Kt5
P-Q3
4. B-R4
B-Q2
5. P-B3
P-KKt3
6. Castles
7. P-Q4
B-Kt2
Black has now reached the ideal
position in this variation.
It is
certain that this was not deliber
ately planned, nevertheless it is
remarkable that Blackburne treats
it quite in the modern spirit.
Blackburne knows how to make

use of the centralized pieces.
13. QR-Q1
KP x P
14. B x B
KxB
15. BP x P
P-B4!
16. P-K5
P-B5
17. K-R1
Q-B1
18. B x Kt
PxB
19. K-Kt2
The alternative was 19. RKKt1 , Q-R6; 20. Q-K2, R-B4;
21. R-Kt2, R-R4; with the threat
of Kt-B4-R5.
8. B-K3
KKt-K2
9. Q-Q2
The usual move played to-day is
9. P x P, with the idea of bringing
the QB to B5.
9. . . . . . .
Castles
B-Kt5
10. B-R6
Black avoids the trap!
If (a)
10 . . . . . Kt x P; 1 1 . P x Kt, B x
KB; 12. B x B, K x B; 13. P x P,
P x P; 14. Kt x P, regaining the
Pawn with the better position; (b)
10 . . . . . Kt x P; 11. P x Kt, B x
QB; 12. Q X B, B X B; 13. Kt-Kt5,
wins.
1 1 . Kt-R3
Contemporary critics here recom
mended 1 1 . B X B, K X B; 12. Kt
K1 , with attacking chances for
White, but this shows that they
misjudged the position.
By ex
changing the Bishops White has not
unduly weakened Black's King
position and furthermore he has no
minor pieces left on the King's side
with which he can attack.
u.
12. P x B
B x Kt
P-Q4!
Kt-B4!
19. . . . . . .
A fine, and by no means obvious
Pawn sacrifice.
Q-Q1
20. Q x P
Kt-R5
21. K-R1
P-KR4!
22. Q-Kt4
Kt x P
23. Q-Ktl
Q-Q2
24. Q-Kt3
Takes control of the important
Kt5 square.
25. Kt-B2
P-R5
26. Q-Kt2
It is interesting to see how Black
has succeeded in controlling all the
important squares thus restricting
the movements of the White Queen.
26 .
27.
28.
29.
......
Kt-K3
Q-Kt3
R-Q3
R-B5
P-R6
QR-KB1
P-B4!
25
THE STRINITZ DEFENCE DEFERRED
breaks up the centre. If instead of

29. . . . . P-B4; 29. . . . . R X P;
30. R X R, Kt X R; then 31. Kt
Kt4! would follow with the threat
of Q x RP, also Q-R4! or 29.
Kt X QP; 30. R-KKtl ,
30. R-B1
Not 30. P x P, P-Q5; with the
threat Q-Q4, or R-Kt5.
30.
PxP
31. P-K6
QxP
32. R x P eh.
The last desperate attempt. If
now 32. . . . . QR-B2; 33. Q X R,
Position after 29 . . . . . P-B4!

After Black has reduced \-Vhite
to passivity on the King's side he
32.
33. Kt-B1
Resigns.
KR-B2
Q-K7
That this game has aroused no particular interest is evident by its

omission from Blackburne's best games, whereas with to-day's knowledge
we cannot help admiring how well Blackburne mastered all elements of
the game, when we consider that it was played in 1887 when the strategic
implications were not fully appreciated. It is true Black achieved this
ideal formation as the result of White's indifferent handling of the opening.
Nevertheless, once Black had attained a firm hold on the centre, he proved
that he was able to carry out a combined attack in the centre and on the
King's side. It is surprising that this contest was dismissed as just a
good attacking game without regard to the genesis of the attack.
BLACK ESTABLISHES A STRONGHOLD IN THE CENTRE

SCHLECHTER'S TREATMENT
As soon as the fundamental differences between the 'Steinitz' and the
'Steinitz Deferred' had taken shape, the question arose: 'Can White force
Black into the "Steinitz" when Black intends to play the "Deferred"?'
If so, the latter would become meaningless, since from the first decade
of the new century Chess began to assume scientific form, and in master
play Black would long ago have abandoned a defence dictated by the
wishes of White. The following game is a good answer to this question.
13
White
R. Teichmann
Black
K. Schlechter
Monte Carlo, 1902

1. P-K4
2. Kt-KB3
3. B-Kt5
4. B-R4
P-K4
Kt-QB3
P-QR3
P-Q3
PxB
5. B x Kt eh.
6. P-Q4
White's aim is to force Black to
play 6. . . . . P x P; which would
lead to an ordinary Steinitz De
fence.
6. . . . . . .
P-B3
But this move, played by Alapin
against Tarrasch in Nuremberg,
1 892, foils White's attempt.
26
7. Kt-B3
With regard to the currently
popular 7. B-K3, see the following
game.
7. . . . . . .
P-Kt3
Kt-R3
8. B-K3
Kt-B2
9. P-KR3
B-KKt2
10. Q-Q2
Black's method of developing
his King's side pieces is even to-day
considered best-an ideal which can
be realized only by indifferent
handling of the opening on the part
of White.
1 1 . R-Q1
Q-K2
12. Castles
Castles
P-R3
13. KR-K1
14. Kt-K2
K-R2
P-QR4
15. Kt-Kt3
Kt-Q1
16. P-QR4
17. Kt-R2
Kt-K3!
With this well-timed Knight
manreuvre Black not only prevents
18. P-KB4, on which 18. . . . .
P X QP; 19. B X QP, Kt X B; could
follow, but clarifies the tension in
the centre, since 18. P-Q5, P X P;
19. Q x QP, B-Q2; followed by
P-KB4; would be too strong.
18. P-QB3
P-QB4
19. Kt-K2
If 19. P x BP, Kt x P; 20. B x Kt,
P x B; and the position is in favour
of Black, who can now play 21.
. . . . B-K3; with the threat B
Kt6 and . . . . KR-Ql .
19. . . . . . .
B-Kt2
By superlative manreuvring Black
at last induces White to close the
centre, since he was threatening 20.
. . . . P-KB4; in which case the
two Bishops would have enhanced
powers.
20.
21 .
22.
23.
24.
P-Q5
P-B3
Q-B2
B-B1
Kt-Kt4
Kt-Kt4
P-B4!
P-KB5
B-B1
B-Q2
Position after 19.
B-Kt2
25. P-QKt3
More precise was at once 25.
P-B4, for now Black had the alter
native break-through with 25 . . . . .
P-B5; 26. P x P, Q-Kl.
P-R4
25. . . . . . .
Kt-B2
26. Kt-B2
27. P-B4
P-Kt4
All this is superbly played. The
Queen's side and the centre being
blocked, Black can prepare the
break-through on the King's side at
his leisure.
28. K-B1
Kt-R3
P-Kt5
29. Kt-B3
30. RP x P
PxP
31 . K-K2
B-KB3
32. R-R1
B-R5
33. QR-Ktl
R-KKtl
34. K-Q1
R-Kt3
35. Q-K2
QR-KKtl
PxP
36. R-B1
This break-through proves to be
too early and, as will be seen, it
should have been prepared by
QR-Kt2 and K-Ktl since the
Black King on R2 is exposed.
37. P x P
R-Kt7
38. K-B2
Q-Kt4
Q-Kt6
39. B-Q2
B-R6
40. Kt(B3)-Q1
41. K-Q3
Loses the Queen for Rook and
27
48. B X RP, R-Kt7; 49. B-Kl

was a good alternative for White.
48. . . . . . .
K-Kt2
49. B-Kl
Not 49. R X Kt?, R-Kt7 eh.,
winning the Rook.
Position after 36. R-Bl

Knight, but affording
chance for White.
the
best
41 .
B-Kt5
42. Kt x B
RxQ
43. K x R
Q-Kt7 eh.
44. K-Q3
Kt x Kt
45. R x B eh.
Owing to the disadvantageous
position of the Black King, White
has now this defensive resource at
his disposal.
45 .
46.
47.
48.
......
R-B2
K-K2
R(2)-R2
Kt-R3
Q-Kt8
R-Kt6
Kt-Kt5
49 . . . . . . .
50. B x R
Kt x R
Q-Q5
51. B x Kt
K-B2
52. R-Kt4 eh.
53. R-Kt2
Q-RS
54. K-Kl
Q-Kt8
55. R-KB2
QxP
56. Kt-Kt2!
As a result of the manreuvre
initiated by the 52nd move, White
was able to defend aU the weak
points of his position.
56 .
57.
58.
59.
60.
61 .
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
K-Kl
......
K-Bl
K-Q2
K-Kt2
K-Bl
R-K2
K-Kt2
B-Ktl
K-R3
K-R2
B-B2
B-Kl
K-R3
K-R2
B-R4
Q-Ktl
B-QS
B-R4
Q-Kt6
B-Kl
K-R3
K-B2
K-Kt3
K-R3
B-Q2
Drawn.
Black's strategy in this game is almost perfect. The way in which he

uses his forces by diverting them from the centre to the flanks is most
impressive, as is his economy in using only as many pieces in the centre
or flank as necessary. If ever a proof were needed of Steinitz' theory
of the centre, this game provides one, and it is unsurpassed even to-day,
as a model of how such a position should be treated.
WHITE TRIES TO RESTRICT BLACK'S DEVELOPMENT ON THE KING'S SIDE
CAPABLANCA'S DEFENSIVE METHOD
As soon as Black is able to develop his Knight to KB2, he has not only ,
established a real stronghold, but he has solved the problem created by
playing 6 . . . . . P-KB3, which deprives the Knight of its natural square.
In the following game, White's strategy is directed against Black's
harmonious development of the King's side. That this creates a difficult
problem for Black can be seen from the games referred to in the anno
tations in which Black has often to face a dangerous King's side attack.
28
White
14
Black
P. Romanovsky J. R. Capablanca
Moscow, 1935
I. P-K4
P-K4
Kt-QB3
2. Kt-KB3
P-QR3
3. B-Kt5
P-Q3
4. B-R4
PxB
5. B x Kt ch .
P-B3
6. P-Q4
7. B-K3!
P-KKt3
Another line of development is
7 . . . . . Kt-K2; 8. Kt-B3, Kt
Kt3; 9. Q-Q2, B-K2; 10. P
KR4, P-KR4; l l . Castles Q,
B-Kt5; 12. Q-Q3, P X P; 13.
B X P, Kt-B5; 14. Q-B4, Q-Q2;
Bogoljubov - Alekhine, Exhibition
game, Baden-Baden, 1934.
8. Q-Q2
9. Kt-B3
B-KKt2
B-Q2!
attack as shown in the previous

note, but with the advantage that
his King is safer in the middle,
retaining the option of castling on
the Queen's side if White tries to
open the central files.
Kt-K2
10. . . . . . .
1 1 . P-KR3
To be able to play QR-Q1
without the interference of B-Kt5.
ll.
Castles
1 2 . QR-Q1
Q-Ktl
13. P-QKt3
Q-Kt2
14. B-R6
Threatening 15. B x B, K x B;
16. P x P, BP x P; 17. Kt x P.
QR-Q1
14 . . . . . .
KxB
15. B x B
16. Kt-R2
White wants to undertake an
action in the middle, but 15. Q-B1
with the idea of playing Q-Kt2 is
a more promising plan.
.
Q-Kt5!
16. . . . . . .
One of Capablanca's typical "pre
ventive" moves. Now he eliminates
White's attacking chances before
they become dangerous.
If now
17. P-B4, Q x P eh.; 18. Q x Q,
P x Q; and in the end game White's
centre is weak.
A simple-looking, but important

waiting move to see which side
White is going to castle. The alter
native is 9. . . . . Kt-K2; 10
B-R6, Castles K; ll. Castles Q,
B-K3; 12. P-KR3, Q-Ktl; 13.
P-KKt4, Q-Kt5; 14. B X B, K X
B; 15. P-R3, Q-Kt3; '\-\ith chances
for both sides. (Bogoljubov-Sir G.
Thomas, Hastings, 1922.)
10. Castles KR
If White castles on the Queen's
side Black can carry out the same
17. Q-K3
QR-K 1 !
Preventing again 18. P-KB4,
on which could follow 18.
P x QP; 19. R x P, Q-Kt3; with
the threat . . . . Kt-B4;
PxP
18. QKt-K2
Q-Kt3
19. R x P
P-QB4
20. Q-Q2
Q-Kt5!
21 . R-Q3
22. P-QB4
White cannot avoid exchange of
Queens, for if 22. Q-B4, Kt-QB3!
is too strong.
QxQ
22.
B-B3
23. R x Q
P-B4
24. Kt-B3
25. Kt-Q5
Kt x Kt
29
THE STEINITZ DEFECE DEFERRED

B-Q2
R-K5
P-KR3
26. KP x Kt
27. P-KB4
28. R-B3
29. Kt-B1
Drawn, for if 29. . . . . P-Kt4;
30. Kt-Kt3 would follow.
Though this game looks superficially like a 'Grandmaster draw,' after

following the difficulties Black had to face in the two games given in the
notes, one recognizes that Capablanca's treatment, with its crystal clear
strategy, must, for the present at any rate, constitute the last word in
this variation. How, after holding the centre for twenty moves, he gives
it up to transpose into an advantageous line of the Steinitz Defence, is
a real masterpiece of strategy.
BLACK FOILS WHITE'S ATTEMPT AT SIMPLIFICATION

ALEKIIINE 's TREATMENT
While the previous game has shown that White cannot forcibly trans
pose from the Steinitz Defence Deferred into the Steinitz Defence, a
second equally important question has to be solved, namely, whether
White by simplification can remove the sting of Black's play-rendering
the variation useless as an aggressive weapon.
15
White
Black
G. Stoltz
A. Alekhine
Bled, 1931
P-K4
I. P-K4
Kt-QB3
2. Kt-KB3
P-QR3
3. B-Kt5
P-Q3
4. B-R4
5. P-Q4
P-QKt4
Kt x P
6. B-Kt3
7. Kt x Kt
P x Kt
8. B-Q5
R-Ktl
9. B-B6 eh.
Alekhine remarks, if White
thought that by simplification he
could easily obtain a draw, he was
certainly ill advised.
9.
B-Q2
10. B x B eh.
QxB
u. Q x P
Kt-B3
12. Kt-B3
B-K2
13. Castles
Castles
14. B-Q2
14. B-Kt5 is not good because
of 14. . . . . P-Kt5; 15. Kt-Q1 ,
(15. Kt-Q5, Kt X Kt; 16. Q X Kt,
R--Kt4;) 15. . . . . Q-Kt5;
KR-K1
14.
P-Kt5
15. Q-Q3
16. Kt-K2
16. Kt-Q5, Kt x Kt; 17. Q x Kt,
(or 17. P x Kt, Q-Kt4;) increases
White's drawing chances, in har
mony with the policy of simplifi
cation.
16.
17.
On
lowed
Q-B3
......
P-KB3
17. Kt-Kt3, Kt-Kt5; fol
by . . . . Kt-K4; is strong.
P-Q4
17.
Kt x P
18. P x P
B-B3
19. QR-K1
Q-B4 eh.
20. P-QB4
21. R-B2
Kt-K6
22. P-QKt3
QR-Q1
23. B x Kt
RxB
B-R5
24. Q-B2
After breaking up White's centre,
Black is able to win a Pawn, but
not without allowing White some
counterplay.
25. P-Kt3
26. R-KB1
27. K-Kt2
28. R x R
R x BP
B-Kt4
R x R eh.
Q-B3 eh.
30
29. K-R3
30. R-BI
B-K6
R-Q4!
31. Q-B5, with counter-attack.

Q-Q2 eh.
31. Kt-B4
R-Q5
32. P-Kt4
33. Q-KKt2!
An ingenious defence. By the
Mate-threat on R8 White wins a
tempo to defend his Kt Pawn.
33.
34. Kt-R5
35. Q-K2
36. Kt-Kt3
37. Kt-K4
Seemingly allows
plify, but the move
Characteristic of Alekhine. Even

in a won position he plays the
precise move.
30 . . . . R-Q3
would have allowed White to play
P-QB3
B-Kt4
P-KKt3
P-KR4
Q X P eh.
White to simhas a point!
P x Q eh.
38. Q x Q
R x Kt eh.
39. K x P
40. K x B
K-Kt21
Resigns.
There is no defence
against 41. . . . . P-B3 eh. 42.
R X P, R-K4 eh. winning the
Rook.
This game is important not only from the opening point of view but
for its contribution to middle game strategy, in demonstrating the dif
ference between the strong and weak centre. As White is backward in
his development, Alekhine is able to break up the position and to use the
lines gained for manceuvring his pieces, transforming this again into a
material win. As soon as this is realized, a direct attack is launched to
conclude matters.
BoGoLJUBov's CoNTRIBUTION
Although in the previous game Alekhine demonstrated that Black can
undermine White's attempts at simplification, it was left to Bogoljubov
to expound that, contrary to popular opinion, White cannot force a draw
by a Pawn sacrifice. Even Steinitz was unaware of this, as he observed
that this refinement constituted a possible blemish of the pefence Deferred.
White
F. D. Yates
16
Black
E. D. Bogoljubov
San Remo, 1930

1. P-K4
2. Kt-KB3
3. B-Kt5
4. B-R4
5. P-Q4
6. B-Kt3
7. Kt x Kt
P-K4
Kt-QB3
P-QR3
P-Q3
P-QKt4
Kt x P
P x Kt
8. P-QB3
Up to here the game is identical
with Hymes-Steinitz, New YoTk,
1894, which was drawn by repeti
tion of moves after 8. . . . . P X P;
9. Q-Q5, B-K3; 10. Q-B6 eh.
B-Q2. It is interesting to note
that in his attempts to find a line
to avoid a draw, Steinitz analyses
10 . . . . . K-K2; coming to the
conclusion that it is too dangerous
for Black-and yet fails to find
Bogoljubov's simple reply.

8. . . . . . .
B-Kt2!
Kt-Ba
9. P x P
If 9. . . . . B x P; 10. Castles,
B-Kt2; 1 1 . R-K1 eh., B-K2;
12. B-Kt5, gives White a strong
attack.
10. P-B3
B-K2
1 1 . Castles
Castles
12. Kt-B3
P-B4
With this move Bogoljubov shows
that White' s seemingly strong
centre is merely an illusion, since
he is totally unable to profit from
it. Better than White's next move
was 13. B-K3.
13. P-Q5
R-K1
B-KB1
14. Kt-K2
15. Kt-Kt3
P-Kt3
16. B-B2
H-Kt2
17. P-QR4
R-QB1
P-Kt5
18. B-Q2
Kt-Q2
19. P-R5
20. R-R2
Kt-K4
21. P-Kt3
P-R4
22. Kt-K2
R-B2
23. P-B4
This move appears to weaken
White's centre still further, but he
has no choice since he must find
some counterplay against Black's
impending B-QBI , Q2, Kt4,
strengthening his position still
further.
23 . . . . . . .
24. B-Q3
25. P-B5
Kt-Kt5
QR-K2
31
25. . . . . . .
RxP
Bogoljubov's direct method of
breaking up White's centre by
sacrificing the exchange is most
impressive. White was threatening
Kt-B4, followed by P x P and
Kt-K6.
PxP
26. P x P
27. B x R
RxB
P-Kt4
28. B-B4
28. . . . . Kt-K6; 29. B x Kt,
R X Kt; is worth considering.
29. B-Bl
R-K4
30. Q-Q3
Q-Kl
If 30 . . . . . B X P; 31. B-Kt2 is
too strong whilst if 30. . . . . R x P;
31. Q-Kt6 gives White a strong
attack.
31. Kt-Kt3
RxP
32. R-K2!
A clever tactical stroke to pro
mote complications.
If 32. . . . .
B-K4; 33. Q-B5, B-Q5 eh.; 34.
K-Rl, R X Q; 35. R X Q eh.,
K-B2; 36. R X R eh., K X R; 37.
P-R3, wins.
R-K4
32. . . . . . .
R xR
33. B x P
34. Kt X R
Q-K5
35. Q x Q
BxQ
36. P-R3
Kt-K4
37. B-K7
Kt-B2
37 . . . . . B-Q6! would win an
important tempo since if 38. R-B2,
Kt-B2; White cannot play 39.
Kt-Kt3 because of B-Q5.
38. Kt-Kt3
B-Q5 eh.
39. K-Rl
B-QB7
40. Kt-B5!
B-K4
41 . Kt x QP
The only chance. White must try
to break up Black's Pawn position.
41. R-B3 is met by P-B5!
41. . . . . . .
Kt x Kt
Not 41. . . . . B x Kt; 42. R x Kt
with Bishops of opposite colours.
42. R-Bl
BxP
CHESS FROM MOHPHY TO BOTWINNIK
32
43. R x P
B-KB5
If 43 . . . . . Kt-B5; 44. R--B8
eh., K-B2; 45. B x P,
44. R-B6
Not 44. R X P, B-B7;
44. . . . . .
Kt-B4
45.
46.
47.
48.
4.9.
50.
BxP
B-Q4
RxP
Kt-R5
B-Kl
B x P eh.
K-Ktl
B-Kt2
R-KB6
B-Kt4
B x Kt
BxR
Drawn.
THE MoDERN CoNTINUATION

WHITE DEFERS THE FIGHT FOR THE CENTRE
As soon as it was realized that "Thite could achieve no tangible result
by an attempt at early conquest of the centre, attention was directed to
building up a strong position by 5. P-QB3, a not uncommon move in
the Ruy Lopez.
For the defence it was a long step forward, as Black was now able to
hold the centre and even to fianchetto his King's Bishop.
STEINITZ' DEFENCE SYSTEM

The following game is of particular interest, as it shows how Steinitz
attempted to solve the problem of holding the centre, this time with the
Steinitz Defence Deferred. He succeeded in his endeavour, but failed
to obtain a good position. At that time his treatment of the opening
was considered one of his many experiments. However, by comparing
it with a game played by Alekhine we can easily discern where and why
he failed.
White
G. Marco
17
Black
W. Steinitz
Hastings, 1895
I. P-K4
P-K4
Kt-QB3
2. Kt-KB3
3. B-Kt5
P-QR3
P-Q3
4. B-R4
Kt-K2
5. Castles
P-KKt3
6. P-B3
B-Q2
7. P-Q4
B---:-Kt2
8. B-K3
9. P x P
PxP
10. QKt-Q2
Castles
Kt-B1
1 1 . R-K1
As usual in this variation the
development of the King's Knight
is Black's opening problem. Steinitz
developed the piece early to K2
instead of at a later stage and
retaining the option of going to
KB3, leaving the K2 square for the
Position after 11 . . . . . Kt-B1

Queen. He could then have trans
ferred his KKt to Q3 via K1 , which
is Black's aim in this variation. He
is unable to prevent White's fol
lowing move by 1 1 . . . . . P-Kt3;
since 12. Kt-B l , Kt-Bl ; 13.
T HE STEINITZ DEFENCE DEFERRED

B-KKt5 !,
Q-K1;
(13.
P-B3? 14. Q-Q5 eh. ) 14. Kt-K3,
followed by Kt-Q5 would prove
embarrassing.
R-K1
12. B-B5!
P-Kt3
13. Kt-B1
KKt-R2
14. B-R3
Black is now forced to undertake
this artificial manreuvre.
QB-B1
15. Q-Q3
16. Q-K2
B-Kt2
P-QKt4
17. Kt-K3
P-Kt5
18. B-B2
Black has no time for . . . .
P-QR4, and . . . . P--Kt5, since
after QR-Q1 and Kt-Q5 White
would exert too much pressure.
But the following Pawn sacrifice is
not quite correct.
19. B x P
20. P x Kt
21. Q-B4?
Kt x B
Kt-Kt4
sufficient
Pawn.
33
compensation
for
the
21.
Kt-Q3
22. Q-Kt3
Kt x P
23. QR-Q1
Kt-Q3
24. Kt-Q5
Better was at once 24. Kt-Q2.
24 . . . . . . .
25. Kt-Q2
26. Q x B
Better than
27. Kt-B4.
26.
P-K5
B x Kt
P-K6!
B x P;
27. R x P
RxR
28. P X R
R-Ktl
Not 28 . . . . . B X P; 29. Kt-B4.
29. Kt-B4
RxP
30. B-Kt3
This involved manreuvre endan
gers White's game. 30. Kt x Kt,
P X Kt; 31. Q X P, would have
drawn.
30.
R-Kt4
31 . Q-B6
B-B l !
32. Q x RP
Q-Kt4
33. R-KBl
Kt x Kt
34. B x Kt
Q x KP eh.
35 . K-R1
R-KB4
36. R-Rl
Or 36. R x R, P x R; 37. P-KR3,
B-B4; 38. K-R2, K-Kt2; (to be
able to play . . . . P-B5 without
interference of Q-B8 eh. and
Q-Kt4) and Black's attack is
decisive.
A mistake.
Correct was 21.
Kt-B4, with the threat Kt-R5.
21.
Q-K2; 22. P-QR3,
B-QB 1 ; 23. Kt-K3! prevents 23.
. . . . B-Kt5; and Black has no
36. . . . . . .
B-Q3
37. B-B1
If 37. P-KR3, Q-Kt6;
37. . . . . . .
B xP
Resigns. There is no defence to
. . . . R-KR4.
This is not one of Steinitz' great games, but one in which we can per
ceive the Steinitz Defence Deferred coming into being; and for this reason
it is of great interest. As the following game will show, the strategical
rql!irements of the position were well recognized by Steinitz, only the
.
t1mmg of the moves bemg wrong; but complete accuracy on the very
first occasion would be too much to expect.
34
ALEKHINE's CoNTINUATION
Forty-two years later Alekhine was faced with the same problem
that Steinitz failed to solve. And his continuation is a good answer to
those critics who have condemned Steinitz for his unfruitful endeavours.
18
White
E. G. Sergeant
Black
A. Alekhine
Margate, 1937
P-K4
1. P-K4
Kt-QB3
2. Kt-KB3
P-QR3
3. B-Kt5
P-Q3
4. B-R4
5. Castles
More exact is 5. P-B3, since the
text-move allows Black to exchange
the KB with Kt-QR4.
B-Q2
5. . . . . . .
P-KKt3
6. P-QB3
B-Kt2
7. P-Q4
8. P x P
8. B-KKt5would only help Black
after 8. . . . . P-B3; 9. B-K3,
Kt-R3; followed by . . . . Kt-B2;
and the Knight has reached its
ideal post in this variation. (Bogol
jubov-Alekhine Match, 22nd game,
1929).
P x P!
8. . . . . . .
8. . . . . Kt X P; gives White more
chances after 9. Kt X Kt, P X Kt;
10. P-KB4, B X B; 1 1 . Q X B eh.,
Q-Q2; 12. Q X Q eh., K X Q; 13.
P X P, K-K3; 14. B-B4, R-KB1 ;
15. Kt-Q2, B X P ; 1 6 . Kt-Kt3,
B x B; 17. R x B, P-Kt3; 18.
P-QR4, (Fine-Alekhine, Avro,
1938.)
Kt-B3!
9. B-K3
The most important move in this
variation; the Knight goes to B3
instead of to K2, as in the previous
game.
Q-K2
10. QKt-Q2
1 1 . P-QKt4
This manreuvre was com;idered
Position after 9 . . . . . Kt-B3!

too arbitrary, but it is difficult to
see what other plan White can
conceive.
11. . . . . .
P-QKt3
1 2. P-KR3
Castles KR
13. B-Kt3
P-QR4
14. P-Kt5
A better alternative is 14. PQR3 to maintain the tension on the
Queen's side. Even then, White has
little chance to improve his position,
whereas Black can play 14 . . . . .
Kt-KR4; . . . . B5 with advantage.
.
14 . . . . . . .
Kt-Q1
15. P-QR4
Kt-Kt2
16. B-Kt5
Kt-B4
17. B-Q5
QR-Q1
18. Kt-B4
P-R3
19. B x Kt
B xB
20. Q-B1
White plays for a trap.
20.
Q-B2, still gives him a playable
game: 20. . . . . B-Kt2; 21. Kt-K3,
B-K3; 22. B x B, P x B!
20. . . . . . .
Not 20. . . . .
K-Kt2
Kt-Kt6? ;
21 .

Q x P, Kt x R; 22. Q x KtP eh. with
draw.
Kt x RP!
21. Q-K3
The decisive combination, quite
in Alekhine's style : a seemingly
sound position is quickly broken up.
BxP
RxB
22. R x Kt
23. QR-R1
35
B x Kt
24. P x R
R-Q1
25. KR-Q1
B-Kt6
26. Q-K4
27. R-Q2
Q-B4
28. Kt x P?
An oversight, but White's posi
tion is naturally hopeless.
28. . . . . . .
Q x BP!
Resigns. White has three pieces
attacked.
Alekhine's handling of the game is certainly convincing. He does not

attempt the impossible, but exploits in full the potentialities of the opening.
THE SIESTA VARIATION

Though this variation appears more in the nature of an experiment,
it plays an important role in the development of the Steinitz Defence
Deferred. It throws light on a pertinent query: Can Black undertake
counter-action in the centre if White postpones his attack, as shown in
the previous game?
Short and fierce games resulted from 5. P-QB3, P-B4; reminiscent
of the old gambits. Once declared bad, the Siesta reappeared in the
short win of Keres against Euwe, Moscow, 1948.
That one single game can bring into disrepute a whole system, or revive
it, as in this case, proves that in scientific analysis we have made no
considerable progress compared with the older masters; while in accuracy
we may have retrogressed, as Alekhine once observed when comparing
a contemporary analysis with one made by Tchigorin in the last century.
It is interesting to note that Steinitz published an analysis in his Modern
Chess Instructor in which he tried to prove that Black can safely play
this 'Gambit' continuation, and Capablanca's conclusions, it will be seen,
are the same.
The following game is in his characteristic style.
19
White
R. Reti
J.
Black
R. Capablanca
Berlin, 1928
I. P-K4
2. Kt-KB3
3. B-Kt5
4. B-R4
5. P-B3
6. P-Q4
For the superior
following game.
6.
4
P-K4
Kt-QB3
P-QR3
P-Q3
P-B4
6. P x P, see
P x KP
7. Kt-Kt5
If 7. Kt x P, P x Kt; 8. Q-R5
eh., K-K2; 9. B-Kt5 eh., Kt
B3; 10. B x QKt, P x B; l l . P x P,
Q-Q4! 12. B-R4, K-Q21 Up to
this point both Steinitz' and Capa
blanca's analyses are identical.
Capablanca gives here 13. Q-Kt5,
P-R3; 14. Q-B5 eh., K-K1; 15.
Q-Kt6 eh., Q-B2; 16. Q X Q eh.,
K x Q; 17. P x Kt, P x P; with an
equal game.
7.
8 . Kt x KP
9. B-KKt5
10. Q x P
PxP '
Kt-B3
B-K2
36
13. Q X Kt eh. , B-Q2; 14. Q

B3, P X B; 15. Q-R5 eh. , K-B1;
16. Q-R6 eh. , K-Ktl; would not
yield White the draw, but he now
threatens Q-R5 eh. and Q-B5 eh.
drawing, as well as B-Kt7.
13. . . . . . .
Q-Q2!
Meets both threats.
14. Castles
If 14. B-Kt7, Q-K3 eh.; 15.
Q x Q, B x Q; 16. B x R, K-B2;
winning two minor pieces for the
Rook.
This move turns out to be
hazardous. Material loss could have
been avoided, without advantage to
Black by 10. B x Kt, B x B; l l .
Q-R5 eh. , P-Kt3; 1 2 . Q-Q5,
B-Q2; (Kmoch-E. Steiner, Buda
pest, 1928.)
10 .
II.
12.
13.
......
Kt x Kt ch.
Q-Q5
B-R6
P-QKt4
P x Kt
P x KB
14. . . . . . .
B-Kt2
15. B-Kt7
Castles Q
16. B x R
Kt-K4
B-B6!
17. Q-Q1
Hastening the end.
18. P x B
There is no defence against 18 .
. . . . Q-R6;
18
Resigns.
.
. . . . .
Q-R6
The following game shows the latest tendency of the Siesta Variation,
and it is particularly interesting since one of our greatest opening experts,
Euwe, is caught unprepared by a new variation.
White
M. Euwe
20
Black
l l . Q-B3
P. Keres
World Championship Tournament,

Moscow, 1948
I. P-K4
P-K4
Kt--QB3
2. Kt-KB3
3. B-Kt5
P-QR3
P-Q3
4. B-R4
5. P-B3
P-B4
6. P x P
BxP
7. P-Q4
P-K5
8. Kt-Kt5
P-Q4
9. P-B3
P-K6!
Not 9 . . . . . P x P; 10. Castles,
and White obtains a strong attack.
10. P-KB4
B-Q3
This move created considerable

controversy. It was called over-
37

elaborate' and the simple 1 1 . B x P,
was recommended. But after 1 1 .
B x P, Q-K2; 12. Q-K2, the
position is by no means as simple
as it looks. True 12 . . . . . B-Q6?;
13. Q x B, B x P; is refuted by 14.
Kt-B7 ! I but 12. . . . . Castles Q;
13. B x Kt, P x B; 14. Q x P eh.,
K-Q2; 15. K-B2, R-Kl; 16.
R-Kl, B X P; wins.
Analysts demonstrated 1 1 . Castles
to be the clearest line for White.
11 . . . . . P-R3; (not 1 1 . . . . . B x P;
12. R x B, Q x Kt; 13. B x P, ) 12.
Kt-B3, B x P; 13. P-KKt3, B
Q3; ( . . . B-Kt4; 14. Kt X B,
Q x Kt; 15. Q-B3, ) 14. Kt-K5,
(analysis by Kmoch).
The artificial-looking move 1 1 .
Q-R5 eh. ! gave better chances for
White than the text. If 1 1 . . . . .
P-KKt3; 12. Q-B3, and the KKt
cannot get to Kt3, and if 11 . . . . .
B-Kt3; the Bishop has to give up
the control of the K3 square, the
importance of which is shown by
the 13th move.
.
Q-B3
11.
12. Q x P eh.
After 12. B x P, Kt-K2; the
White pieces are scattered and
disunited.
. . . . .
12. . . . . . .
Kt-K2
13. B x Kt eh.
If 13. Castles, Castles KR; 14.
Kt-B3, B X Kt; 15. R X B, Q-Kt3!
followed by 16 . . . . . B X P; But had
he interposed on the 11th move

Q-R5 eh. B-Kt3; with Q-K6! he
could have forced the exchange of
Queens.
PxB
13.
14. Castles
14. Kt-B3, was still not feasible
because of 14. . . . . B x Kt; 15.
R X B, Q-Kt3; . This variation
shows the importance of the KKt3
square for Black.
14.
Castles KR
15. Kt-Q2
Kt-Kt3
16. P-KKt3
QR-K1
17. Q-B2
If 17. Q-B3, P-R3!
17.
B-Q6
18. R-K1
R x R eh.
19. Q x R
B x P!
20. P x B
There is no help. On 20. Q-K6
eh., Q x Q; 21. Kt x Q, B-K6 eh.;
22. K-Rl, R-BS eh.; 23. K-Kt2,
R-B7 eh. wins a piece.
20.
Kt x P
21. QKt-B3
Kt-K7 eh.
22. K-Kt2
P-R3
23. Q-Q2
Q-B4
24. Q-K3
P x Kt
25. B-Q2
If 25. Kt X P, Q-B8 Mate.
25 . . . .
Resigns.
0 0 0
B-K5
Euwe came in for considerable criticism over this game, and annotators
suggested various moves to improve the defence; yet with unlimited time
they overlooked more than Euwe did under the strict time limit. The
only point on which censure is justified is that he went into an extensively
analysed variation unprepared. Which just shows the pains that must
be taken in this technical age if, avoiding over-solid lines, one wants to give
the game a more dynamic character.
THE DURAS VARIATION
This modern line is named after the Czechoslovakian master who
adopted this formation, though he treated it as a kind of Steinitz system,
by first playing 5. P-Q3, then 6. P-B4, and ultimately P-Q4: therefore
with the loss of a tempo compared with the modern continuation.

To-day it is mainly used with the idea of first restricting Black chances
on the Queen's side, and then resuming the fight for the centre. It has
the merit of eliminating the Siesta variation, which is bad against the
Duras, as will be seen from the following short game.
21
White
Black
E. E. Book
E. Andersen
International Team Tournament

Warsaw, 1935
I. P-K4
P-K4
2. Kt-KB3
Kt-QB3
3. B-Kt5
P-QR3
P-Q3
4. B-R4
P-B4
5. P-B4
Black does not realise the dif
ference made by White playing 5.
P-B4, (instead of 5. P-B3).
6. P-Q4!
BP X P
7. Kt x P!
Now this acrifice is correct.
7. . . . . . .
P x Kt
8. Q-R5 eh.
K-K2
9. B x Kt
QxP
At last Black realises that after
9. . . . . P X B; 10. B-Kt5 eh.,
Kt-B3; 1 1 . P x P, he cannot play
Steinitz' fine defensive move 1 1 .
. . . . Q-Q4; since the B P controls
that square.
Position after 9. B x Kt
Better was 9. . . . . Kt-B3; 10.
Q x KP eh. , K-B2; 11. B-Q5 eh. ,
Kt x B; 1 2 . Q x Kt eh., Q x Q; 1 3 .
P x Q, B-KB4; 1 4 . B-B4, R-B 1 ;
and Black can still fight on.
10. Q-K8 eh.
K-Q3
1 1 . B-K3
Q x BP
1 2. Kt-B3
B-Kt5
13. R-Q1 eh!
Resigns
13 . . . . . B x R; 14. Q-Q7 Mate
would follow.
"\\7hile this game may impress many by its brilliancy and brevity its
importance lies in its theoretical value, for it shows that Black cannot
counteract White's move 6. P-Q4, by playing 5 . . . . . P-KB4.
BLACK HOLDS THE CENTRE-ALEKHINE'S DEFENSIVE METHOD

This section deals with the important problem of whether Black can
hold the centre when he has not the important move . . . . P-QKt4, at
his disposal. Alekhine, a most enterprising player, was the first to make
the attempt. Though, like Steinitz, he pays heavily for his pioneering
work, his idea is sound.
White
P. Keres
22
Black
A. Alekhine
Margate, 1937
I. P-K4
P-K4
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Kt-KB3
B-Kt5
B-R4
P-B4
Kt-B3
7. P--Q4
Kt-QB3
P-QR3
P-Q3
B-Q2
P-KKt3
B-Kt2

Alekhine's aim is to hold the
centre at all costs. For 7.
P X P, see following game.
8. B-K3
Kt-B3
This move has been much criti
cized and either 8 . . . . . P x P; or
8 . . . . . KKt-K2; recommended.
But after 8. . . . . KKt-K2; 9.
P x P, Kt x P; (9 . . . . . P x P; 10.
B-B5) 10. Kt X Kt, P X Kt; 1 1 .
B x B eh., Q x B; 1 2 . Q x Q eh.,
K x Q; 13. Castles Q eh., K-K1;
14. B-B5! would be too strong.
PxP
9. P x P
This is a mistake! Better is 9 .
. . . . QKt x P; 10. Kt x Kt, P x Kt;
as 1 1 . B-B5 could have been met
by 1 1 . . . . . B x B; 12. Q x B eh.,
Q-Q2; retaining the option of
castJing on the Queen's side, with
good chances for Black.
89
Castles, would have given a clear

advantage after 13. . . . . Kt-K2;
(13 . . . . . B X P; 14. QR-Ktl ) 14.
B X B eh. , Q X B; 15. Q-Kt3.
13. . . . . . .
P-KKt4
In this complicated position,
Alekhine misses his chance. Analy
sis by Keres and Alekhine has
proved that 13. . . . . Kt x P; is
playable. 14. Q-K2, P-KB3; 15.
Castles Q, P-B3; 16. B-Q6, Q
R4; 17. Kt x Kt, P x Kt; 18. B x
KP! Q x QB; 19. Q x Q eh., B x Q;
20. KR-K1, Castles Q; with suffi
cient defensive resources for Black.
14. Q-Q5!
Meets Black's intended move 14.
. . . . P-KKt.5 ; by 15. P-K61
B X KP; (15 . . . . . P X P; 16. Q-R5
Mate) 16. B X Kt eh., P X B; 17.
Q X P eh. , B-Q2; 18. Q-K4 eh.
followed by 19. R-QI .
14. . . . . . .
B-KB1
15. B x B
RxB
16. Castles Q
Q-K2
There is no good direct defence
for the KKt Pawn after 16. . . . .
R-KKtl ; 17. P-KR41
17. B x Ktl
Avoids the trap! If 17. Kt x P,
Castles Q; with the double threat
of 18. . . . . B-Kt5; also 18.
Q x Kt;
10. B-B5!
With this move, characteristic of
the opening, White gets the upper
hand.
10. . . . . . .
Kt-KR4
To bring the Knight to Q5 via
B5-K3.
1 1 . Kt-Q5
Kt-B5
12. Kt x Kt
P x Kt
13. P-K5
White's superiority is obvious.
As subsequent analysis showed, 13.
BxB
17. . . . . . .
B-Q2
18. Q-Q3
Black gives up a Pawn in order
to castle, otherwise Kt-Q4 would
follow.
Castles Q
19. Kt x P
20. Kt-B3
P-KB3
21. P x P
RxP
22. KR-K1
Q-Kt5?
An oversight, but even 22 . . . . .
R-K3; 23. Q-Q4, with the threat
Q-R7 and also Q x BP, leads to
a loss.
23. Q x B eh.
Resigns.
Mate in two follows.
CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNII(
40
A complex game, especially in the opening which had not been previously
essayed, and was therefore untrodden ground. This game brought the
defence into discredit as is usual when a great player loses while adopting
a new system. As this variation has been rarely seen, the final word has
not yet been said. Black's counter-chances are very limited and for this
reason it has not found favour in modern tournament practice, more
elastic variations being preferred.
BLACK EASES THE TENSION IN THE CENTRE

CAPABLANCA'S DEFENSIVE METHOD
This game is an interesting counterpart to the previous one, in which
Alekhine attempted to solve the problem of holding the centre under
difficult circumstances. Here Capablanca elects to give up the centre
in order to relax the tension.
23
White
P. Keres
Black
J. R. Capablanca
Buenos Aires, 1939

1. P-K4
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Kt-KB3
B-Kt5
B-R4
P-B4
Kt-B3
P-Q4
Kt x P
P-K4
Kt-QB3
P-QR3
P-Q3
B-Q2
P-KKt3
PxP
B-Kt2
discredit. It continued: 9. Kt x Kt,

P X Kt? 10. Castles, Kt-K2; 1 1 .
P-B5! with strong pressure since
11 . . . . . P-Q4? is refuted by 12.
P x P, P x P; 13. Kt x P, Kt x Kt;
14. Q X Kt, B X B; 15. Q-K4 eh. ,
and Q X B . But with 9 .. . . . . B X Kt;
10. B x B eh. , P x B; 1 1 . B-K3,
Black with 11 . . . . . P-QB4; could
meet the threat 12. B-Q4.
KKt-K2
9.
Castles
10. Castles
1 1 . P-KR3
Kt X Kt!
Kt-K7 eh!
12. B x B
One of Capablanca's simplifying
moves, reducing White's pressure.
13. Kt x Kt
If 13. Q x Kt, Q x B; and the
threat 14. B-Q4, is prevented,
while 14. Kt-Q5, is met by
P-KB4.
13. . . . . . .
QxB
14. B-Q4
B xB
Black must not play 14.
P-KB4; because of 15. B x B,
K X B; 16. Q-Q4 eh., K-Ktl;
17. P-K5, Kt-B3; 18. Q-Q5 eh.
9. B-K3
Another important line is shown
in the game Boleslavsky-Fine,
Radio-match, U.S.S.R.-U.S.A. 1945
which brought the variation into
15. Q x B
Kt-B3
16. Q-Q5
QR-Kl
17. Kt-B3
Through his 12th move Black has
gained a useful tempo.
17
. . . . .
Q-K3
41
THE S'fEINITZ DEFENCE DEFERRED

18. QR-Q1
P-B4!
At last Black is able to eliminate
White's Pawn centre, but the move,
though it looks simple, required
exact calculation.
19. P x P
20. QR-K1
21. R x Q
RxP
RxQ
R-K4!
21. . . . . . .
The key of the defensive man
reuvre. It is not difficult to see at
this stage; but Black based his
defensive system on this move.
Naturally 21. . . . . R X R? 22. P X R,
would lose a piece.
RxR
22. R x R eh.
23. R-Q1
If 23. Kt-Q5, R-K7;
23 .
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31 .
32.
33.
......
K-B1
P-QKt3
Kt-Q5
Kt-B4
P-Kt3
Kt-K2
P-B3
K-B2
RxR
K-K3
K-B2
Kt-K4
Kt-Q2
P-B3
R-K5
K-K2
Kt-B4
R-K6
R-Q6
Kt x R eh.
Kt-K4
Drawn.
A game in Capablanca's convincing style. It is instructive to observe
how he defeats White's intentions to make use of the hole at KB6 by
B-Q4 and Kt-Q5.
BLACK HOLDS THE CENTRE-THE MODERN CONTINUATION

The last two games have shown that Black has the choice of holding
the centre, as Alekhine did against Keres, or giving it up and simplifying
by exchanges, as played by Capablanca. These are purely defensive
systems in neither of which had Black any chance of counter-play.
It is therefore not surprising that later a more aggressive system was
introduced, of which the following game is a good example.
24
White
Black
P. Keres
S. Reshev8ky
World Championship Tournament,

Moscow, 1948
1. P-K4
P-K4
2. Kt-KB3
Kt-QB3
3. B-Kt5
P-QR3
4. B___:R4
P-Q3
5. P-B4
B-Kt5
This is the current favourite;
essentially logical, as White has

weakened his Q4 square.
6. Kt-B3
White can force Black to give up
the centre with 6. P-Q4, P X P;
7. B x Kt eh., P x B; 8. Q x P,
B x Kt; 9. P x B, but with 9 . . . . .
P-QB4; followed by Kt-K2-B3
Black can make use of White's
weakness at Q4.
6
7. P-KR3
.
. . . . .
Kt-K2
B x Kt
42
CHES FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK
Kt-Kt3
8. Q x B
9. Kt-Q5
R-QKtl
10. Kt-Kt4
Kt-K2
10. . . . . Q-Q2; would be too
rigid, though possible. 1 1 . B x Kt,
P X B; 12. Kt X P? R-Kt3;
20. P-Kt4
21. B-K3
Kt-K3
Kt-B5!
1 1 . Kt-B2
Q-Q2
12. P-Q3
White has no better prospects
after 14. P-Q4, P x P; (not 14 .
. . . . P-QKt4; 15. P X KtP, Kt X
P; 16. Kt x Kt, P x Kt; 17. B-Kt3)
15. Kt x P, P-QKt4; 16. Kt X Kt,
Kt X Kt; 17. B-Q1, Kt-Q5; and
the White Bishops have no freedom
to manreuvre.
Kt-B1
12. . . . . . .
13. B-Q2
Preventing the exchange of the
Bishop by 13. . . . . Kt-Kt3; and
. . . . Kt-R4; but more aggressive
was 13. P-QKt4.
13.
B-K2
B-B3
14. Q-Kt3
15. R-QB1
Kt-Kt3
1 6. B-Kt3
Q-Q1
Kt-Q2
17. Castles
18. P-QR3
Kt-B4
19. B-R2
Castles
The superiority of the Knights
over the Bishops is apparent in
such closed positions.
22. Q-B3
On 22. B X Kt, P X B; 23. Q-B3,
(23. Q X P? B-Kt4; ) 23 . . . . . Kt
K4; 24. Q-Q1, P-B4; Black
would secure a strong post for his
Knight.
Kt x QP
22. . . . . . .
23. R-Ktl
Kt-B5
White threatened to trap the
Knight with 24. P-Kt3.
24. P-Kt5
Drawn.
If 24. B x Kt, P x B ; 25. Q x P,
and Bishops of opposite colours
foreshadow the draw.
Although the game is cumbersome, and the early draw might suggest
that both players avoided battle, the contrary is true. The structure of
the defence demanded both caution and patience, and it is not surprising
that both players got into time trouble seeking a solution to their diffi
culties-but it should be realized that this is one of the first-known
examples of the opening in tournament play.
CONCLUSIONS
This concludes the chapters on the Steinitz and Steinitz Defence Deferred.
While the former is crystallized and very unlikely to undergo radical
changes, the latter has reached only a transitory state in its development.
We have dealt with its primary form, where the fight for the centre can
clearly be demonstrated.
These chapters show how great masters like Lasker, Capablanca,
Alekhine have put Steinitz' ideas into practice. It is interesting to see
how easily a player like Capablanca expresses Steinitz' fundamental
concepts. In his three games as Black, Capablanca displays perfect
43
THE TCHIGORIN DEFENCE
timing in surrendering the centre only on completion of development,

or when he was able to ease the position by forced exchanges. To-day,
we accept these principles as inherent, proving that we can speak of a
technique in chess.
VI
THE other great pioneer in the Ruy Lopez was Tchigorin, who, like Steinitz,
distrusted the then fashionable Berlin and 'Open' defences.
Whilst trying to evolve a solid defensive system against the Ruy Lopez,
he seems to have passed through a period of mental conflict, and two
well defined phases in his approach can be clearly recognized.
In 1893, according to Tarrasch, his ideas on the defence were still
influenced by Steinitz. Indeed, in his match against Tarrasch in that
year and in the Hastings Tournament of 1895, he adopted a passive
defence similar to Steinitz', developing his KKt at Q2 via KB3 instead
of KKt3 via K2.
Later, he conceived a bolder plan, namely, advancing the Queen's side
Pawns, to drive back White's KB, gaining manceuvring space behind
the Pawn chain.
EARLY BEGINNINGS
The following game was the first in which he introduced his new system
into tournament play.
25
White
Em. Lasker
Black
M. I. Tchigorin
London, 1899
1. P-K4
P-K4
2. Kt-KB3
Kt-QB3
3. B-Kt5
P-QR3
4. B-R4
Kt-B3
5. Castles
The 15th game of the Tarrasch
Tchigorin match in 1893 went 5.
Kt-QB3, P-Q3; 6. P-Q4, Kt
Q2? !; 7. Kt-K2, B-K2; 8. P-B3,
Castles; 9. Kt-Kt3, B-B3; 10.
P-KR3, Kt-K2; 1 1 . Castles,
Kt-KKt3; 12. B-Kt3, R-Kl; 13.
Q-Q3, Kt(Q2)--Bl ; 14. Kt-K2,
Q-K2; 15. B-Q2.
This was
Tchigorin's original system, and it
is remarkable that, although he had

good practical success with it
against Tarrasch, he changed to
the more aggressive system in the
text. The successful fusion of these
two variations by the Russian
masters Keres and Smyslov will be
shown later.
B-K2
5. . . . . . .
6. Kt-B3
This move is quite in accordance
with the then current dictum of
developing the minor pieces first.
To-day the more dynamic 6. R-Kl
is preferred, since it aJlows White to
build up a Pawn chain by P-QB3
and P-Q4.
6.
7. B-Kt3
8. P-Q3
P-QKt4
Castles
P-Q3
44
9. B-K3
Lasker must have realised that
9. P-QR4, (a move that he should
have played in place of 8. P-Q3),
is easily met by 9 . . . . . B-Kt5;
10. P X P, Kt-Q5;
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
......
Kt-K2
P-B3
P x Kt
Kt-Kt3
Kt-QR4
P-B4
Kt x B
Q-B2
P-Q41
P-QR4
19. Kt-Ktl
20. P-B31
This fine defensive move is
typical of Lasker. First, he secures
the centre and then he manreuvres
with his Kts; his handling of such
tasks has always been admired.
P-Kt5
20. . . . . . .
Preferable is 20. . . . . P-B5;
21 . KtP x P, KtP x P; 22. P-Q4,
QR-Ql. Black should try to open
diagonals for his Bishops.
21 . Kt-B5
Q-Kt2
22. Kt-R3
B-B3
23. P-QB41
Now White gets the upper hand,
since 23. . . . . P-Q5; is met by
24. P-B4, and White will be able
to break through on the King's side.
Moreover, Knights are stronger than
Bishops in closed position of this
nature.
The position is clearly in Black's

favour. He has the two Bishops,
an attack in the centre and a
superiority on the Queen's side.
It is interesting to note that little
curiosity was aroused by the fact
that the world master had got into
such a difficult position after a
dozen moves in one of the strongest
openings.
14. Q-B2
B-Kt2
15. KR-K1
P-R3
16. QR-Q1
KR-K1
17. B-B1
B-KB1
18. K-R1
Q-B3
He tries to force White to give
up the centre, but the text man
reuvre does not have the desired
effect. White's defence would have
been made very difficult had Tchi
gorin played 18. . . . . QR-Q1;
19. Kt-Ktl , R-Q2; doubling
Rooks on the Q file with the pos
sible threats of P x P and of P-Q5.
23 .
24.
25.
26.
27.
......
QP x P
PxP
Q-B3
Kt-K3 1
P x KP
P-R5
P-Kt6
RxP
A move that shows Lasker's

superb skill in using his Knight not
only for defence of the QBP but
also for securing the square Q5.
27 . . . . . . .
28. Kt-KB2
29. Kt-Q3
R-Ktl
Kt-K1
P-B3

30. B-Q2
Q-B1
Better is 30.
Q-Q2, as will
be seen on the 34th move.
Kt-B2
31. R-R1
B xR
32. R x R
PxP
33. P-B4
Q-K1
34. Kt x KBP
Now Black is unable to play 34.
. . . . R-K1;-a consequence of his
mistaken 30th move.
R-Q1
35. Kt-B5
B-Q2
36. Q-K3
Whether this is a sacrifice or an
oversight, there is no doubt that
Black has a difficult position. White
threatens both 37. B-R5 and
45
Q-Kt3 with an attack against

Black's King's side.
37. Q x KtP
B x Kt
38. P x B
Q-Q2
39. B-R5
R-K1
40. R-Q1
Q-B1
41 . Q-Q3
R-K4
42. Kt-Kt6
R-K1
Not 42 . . . . . R x P; 43. B x Kt,
43. P-R3
Kt-R3
44. Q-Q5 eh.
K-R2
45. Q-B7
Kt-Kt5
46. R-Q7
R-K8 eh.
47. K-R2
B-Q3 eh.
48. R x B
QxP
49. R-Q8
Resigns.
If 49 . . . . . Q X Kt; 50. Q-Kt8,
Mate.
Though the game aroused interest and Black's treatment of the opening
was highly praised a few years later as one of the best of the London 1899
Tournament, it took a long time for the chess world to appreciate that a
new vista had opened for Black in the Ruy Lopez. To-day the Tchigorin
is the most widely played defence in this opening.
THE MODERN FORM OF THE TCHIGORIN DEFENCE

The foregoing game exemplified the early form of the Tchigorin Defence.
The revolutionary character of Tchigorin' s idea was not immediate1y
realized; indeed, both Pillsbury and Tarrasch played the same in
different continuation as Lasker.
The following game shows the variation in a form approximating to
that of the present day.
26
White
0.
Duras
Black
M. I. Tchigorin
Nuremberg, 1906
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
P-K4
Kt-KB3
B-Kt5
B-R4
Castles
R-K1
B-Kt3
P-B3
P-KR3
B-B2
P-Q4
P-K4
Kt-QB3
P-QR3
Kt-KB3
B-K2
P-QKt4
P-Q3
Castles
Kt-QR4
P-B4
Q-B2
12. QKt-Q2
K-R1
The idea of this move is to secure
the King's side.
To-day this is
carried out in other ways and at a
later stage, but it wil1 be seen that
the fundamental principles are the
same.
13. Kt-Bl
Kt-Ktl
14. Kt-K3
B-K3
15. Kt-B5
Better was 15. P x BP, P x P; 16.
Kt-Q5,
15. . . . . . .
B-B3
16. P-Q5
White closes the centre, as Black
threatens 16 . . . . . BP x P; 17.
46
P x P, B x Kt; 18.
winning a Pawn.
P x B, P x P;
16 . . . . . . .
B-Q2
17. P-KKt4
P-Kt3
1 8. Kt-Kt3
B-Kt2
19. K-R2
Kt-B5
20. Kt-Q2
If 20. P-Kt3, Kt-Kt3; and
Black can pursue his attack with
. . . . P-QR4 and . . . . P-B5!
20 . . . . . . .
Kt-Kt3
21. P-KR4
Q- Q1
22. K-Kt2
Not 22. P-Kt5, P-B3; 23.
Kt-B3, P x P; 24. P x P, B-Kt5;
with a strong position for Black.
Whether the 21st move was a
sacrifice or oversight is difficult to
decide.
22. . . . . . .
QxP
23. P-B3
B-R3
24. R-Rl
The open KR file gives White
good attacking chances, and Tchi
gorin 's defence of the position is
very instructive.
24 . . . . . . .
Q-B3
25. R-R3!
It looks as if 25. R X B, Kt X R;
26. P-Kt5, would win, but Duras
avoids the trap 26. . . . . Q x KtP;
27. Kt-B4, Q-R5; 28. Kt x Kt,
Q-R6 eh.; 29. K-B2, Q-R7 eh.;
30. K-K3, Q X Kt; 31. Kt x B ,

KR-Q1; 32. Kt-B6, Q-B5 eh.;
33. K-K2, Q X Kt; 34. B X Kt,
P-Kt4; followed by . . . . R
KKtl and . . . . R-Kt3 winning
the exchange. This variation, given
by Tchigorin, shows that masters
of the last century were capable of
accurately calculating deep com
binations.
25.
Q-Kt2
26. K-B2
B-B5
27. Kt(Q2)-B1
QR-K1
28. Kt-K3
If 28. B X B, P X B; 29. Kt-K2,
P-B4; breaking up White's posi
tion.
R-K2
28.
P-B3
29. Q-R1
30. Kt-Kt2
B-Kt4
31. P-Kt3
R{2)-B2
. 32. B-K3
Kt-K 2
B x B eh.
33. Kt-R4
34. K x B
P-B4!
35. KtP x P
KtP x P
36. KP x P
Q-Kt4 eh.
37. K-K2
Kt(3) x QP
This move discloses the other
function of the QKt, and also
Tchigorin's skill in preparing the
decisive break-through.
38. K-K1
Q-K6 eh.
Kt-B5
39. Kt-K2
40. R-R2
Kt X Kt
41 . R x Kt
Q x P eh.
Q-Q5 eh.
42. K-B2 .
43. K-Kt2
R-Kt2 eh.
44. Kt-Kt6 eh.
Kt x Kt
45. P X Kt
B-B3
46. R-B2
RxP
47. R x R
B x R eh.
Q-B6 eh.
48. K X B
Q X B eh.
49. K-K4
50. K-Q5
Q-Q6 eh.
51. K-B6
Q x KKtP
52. K-Kt6
P-Q4 eh.
R-B2 eh.
53. K X P
54. K X QP
R-Q2 eh.
55. K x P
Q-K1 eh.
Played in the good old Romantic

style.
To-day, we rarely see the
King being driven over the whole
board.
56. K-B4
57. K-Kt3
Resigns.
47
R-B2 eh.
Q-K6 eh.
Tchigorin played this game when he was fifty-six years old during the
twilight of his chess career, when except for the Gambit tournament at
Vienna in 1903, success eluded him. This was the only defeat inflicted
upon Duras (who won the tournament), and Tchigorin had the satisfaction
of seeing his system triumphant.
WHITE KEEPS THE CENTRE OPEN-LASKER'S TREATMENT

The previous game was an interesting example of the conduct of the
defence by its inventor against the Modern continuation, but the first
real test was to come in the I asker-Tarrasch match of 1908.
Although Lasker was never a scientific explorer of the openings (it has
been said that he did not care to. gain advantages achieved by study),
his approach was really deeper and philosophical. He treated the openings
by applying the general principles of chess to them. Thus, although he
deprived himself of the advantages of prepared analysis, he achieved
more by an unbiased approach to the opening problems in practical play.
The following game shows a lively encounter between Lasker and the
scientific Tarrasch.
..
27
White
Black
Em. Lasker
S. Tarrasch
Fifth Match Game, 1908

P-K4
I. P-K4
Kt-QB3
2. Kt-KB3
P-QR3
3. B-Kt5
Kt-B3
4. B-R4
B-K2
5. Castles
P-QKt4
6. R-K1
P-Q3
7. B-Kt3
Kt-QR4
8. P-B3
P-B4
9. B-B2
Q-B2
10. P-Q4
Kt-B3
1 1 . QKt-Q2
Castles
12. P-KR3
13. Kt-B1
The alternative is 13. P-Q5,
which gives White a safe game but
few winning chances; Lasker there
fore sacrifices a Pawn in order to
keep the game fluid. Though this
is the first time he tried it, it
cannot be considered merely a
momentary impulse, or an experi
ment, but part of Lasker's outlook
on chess. Thirty years later he still

recommends this move in his
Manual of Chess in spite of the
weight of analytical evidence against
him.
13.
BP x P
14. P x P
QKt x P
15. Kt x Kt
P x Kt
16. B-Kt5
In the third match game Lasker
continued here with 16. Kt-Kt3,
Kt-Q2; 17. B-Kt3, Q-.Kt3; 18.
Kt-B5, B-B3; 19. B-KB4, Kt
K4; 20. B-Q5, R-R2; and could
not get sufficient attack for the
Pawn, and lost. Euwe recommends
16. Kt-Kt3, Kt-Q2; 17. Kt-B5,
B-B3; 18. R-K2, Q-Kt3; 19.
R-Q2, regaining the Pawn, but
Pachman has shown that after 19.
. . . . Kt-K4! Black has a good
game, as 20. Kt x P (20. R x P?
B X Kt; 21. P X B, Kt-B6 eh.)
Kt-B5; 21. R-Q3, B-Kt2!
P-R3?
16. . . . . . .
Tarrasch writes: 'If 16.
Kt-Q4; 17. B x B, Kt x B;
18.
48
Kt-Kt3, B-K3; 19. Kt-K2,

Kt-B3; 20. R-Bl, Q-Kt3; 21.
Q-Q2, and White will ultimately
capture the Pawn at Q4 leaving
Black with an isolated Pawn at
Q3. . . . ' But Black can play 21.
. . . . P-Q4; 22. P x P, B x RP; 23.
QR-Ql , QR-Ql; with a good
game.
This merely proves that
16. B-Kt5 is not the strongest
move. White may fare better with
Alapin's suggestion 16. P-QKt3
and B-Kt2.
Q-Kt3
17. B-KR4
P-Kt4?
18. Q-Q3
18. . . . . R-Kl; gives better
chances of defence, since if 19.
P-K5, P x P; 20. B x Kt, B x B;
and the King can escape to K2 if
necessary.
B-K3
19. B-KKt3
KR-Bl
20. QR-QI
Kt-Q2
21. B-Ktl
Kt-Bl
22. P-K5
23. Q-KB3
Naturally Lasker is not satisfied
to regain the Pawn, but wishes to
exploit the weakness of Black's
King's position.
P-Q4
23. . . . . . .
K-Kt2
24. Q-R5
25. P-B4!
This weakens Black's position
still further. Tarrasch recommends
25. . . . . Kt-Kt3; 26. P-B5,
P-Q6 eh.; 27. B-B2, B:__B4; 28.
Kt-K3, Kt-B5! but White can
interpose 28. P-B6 eh., K-R2;
29. Kt-K3, Kt-B5; 30. B X QP
eh., Kt X B; 31. R X Kt, with a far
superior game.
Position after 25. P-B4!

25. . . . . . .
P-B4
26. P x P e.p. eh. B x P
PxP
27. P x P
28. B-K5!
With this move White is able to
eliminate Black's remaining King's
side Pawn, after which his attack
becomes irresistible.
P-Q6 eh.
28.
Kt-Kt3
29. K-Rl
B-B2
30. Q x P
31. Kt-Kt3
Preventing 31 . . . . . B x B; 32.
R x B, Q-KB3?; 33. Kt-R5 eh.
31 . . . . . . .
32. R x B
33. B x P
Not 33.
Kt-B5 eh.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
QR-Kl
B x Kt
Q-K3
Kt-B5
Q-Kt5
B xB
R-Rl
R-QR2
Q-KB3?
34.
K-Bl
QxB
R-B2
Q-QB3
Resigns.
This game is important as it is here we see for the first time the fight
for the centre, Black forcing White either to lock the centre (by advancing
the QP) or to allow Black to break it up (as in this game) and initiate a
counter-attack (cf. the 3rd match game in the note to White's 16th move).
How is one to explain Tarrasch's demoralization and his condemnation
of the defence? He was never fond of passive resistance and believing
Black's pressure in the centre insufficient compensation for White's King's
side superiority, he dogmatically considered the defence inadequate.
49

RUBINSTEIN IMPROVES THE DEFENCE
Tarrasch's defeat in the previous game brought the Tchigorin Defence

into disrepute. His avoidance of it and his great influence as a writer
enabled him to convince others of its 'inferiority,' especially as he was
able to show a 'better' defence, namely the 'Open' variation, revived in
the Lasker-Schlechter match of 1910.
However, Rubinstein, who was at the height of his power, was able
to improve the defence, as is apparent in the following game.
28
White
P. S. Leonhardt
Black
A. Rubinstein
San Sebastian, 1911

P-K4
1 . P-K4
2. Kt-KB3
Kt-QB3
3. B-Kt5
P-QR3
Kt-B3
4. B-R4
B-K2
5. Castles
6. R-K1
P-QKt4
P-Q3
7. B-Kt3
Castles
8. P-QB3
9. P-KR3
Kt-QR4
P-B4
10. B-B2
Q-B2
1 1 . P-Q4
Kt-B3
12. QKt-Q2
BP X P
13. Kt-B1
14. P x P
P x P!
Tarrasch played 14. . . . . Kt X
QP; here; a similar position arising
but with the two Knights exchang
ed. He was mistaken in thinking
that fewer pieces make the defence
easier.
P-R3
15. B-Kt5
R-K1
16. B-KR4
Q-Kt3
17. R-B1
B-K3
18. Q-Q2
Kt-K4!
19. B-Ktl
Here the distinction is manifest!
The Knight enters the fray with
decisive effect at the moment when
VVhite is about to play QR-Q1 to
attack and capture the Pawn at
his Q4. Now if20. Kt X P, B x KRP;
21. P-B4, (21. P X B?, Q X Kt!;
22. Q X Q, Kt-B6 eh. ) 21. . . . .
B-Q2; 22. B-B2, Kt(4)-Kt5 !
20. Kt(1)-R2
Kt-B5
Position after 19 . . . .
Kt--K4!
21. Q x QP
If 21. Q-K2, Kt-KR4; would
follow with the threat of
Kt-B5.
21.
QxQ
2 2 . Kt x Q
Kt x KtP
23. Kt-B6
P-Kt4!
24. Kt x B eh.
R x Kt
25. B-KKt3
Kt-B5
26. Kt-B3
QR-K1
27. QR-Q1
lf 27. B x P, Kt x B; 28. P-K5,
Kt(Q3)-K5.
P-Q4
27. . . . . . .
28. P-K5
Kt-KR4
Kt-Kt2
29. B-R2
30. P-Kt4
B-B 1 !
Rubinstein handles the technical
part of the game with his usual
artistry.
31. R x P
32. R-Q3
33. R x B
B-Kt2
B x Kt
Kt x P
50
34. B x Kt
Forced, since if 34. R(3)-K3?
there follows Kt-B6 eh.
RxB
34.
35. R x R
R xR
36. K-B1
Kt-K3
Kt-B5
37. R-R3
Not the simplest.
37.
Kt-B4; was better since after 38.
R-QB3, K-B1;
39. R-B1,
K-K2; 40. R-Q1, P-Kt5; the
White Rook is bottled up and a
speedy decision can be forced on
the Queen's side.
38.
39.
40.
41 .
42.
43.
R x P!
R-R8 eh.
R-K8
K-Kt2
K-B3
R-QKt8
R-QB4
K-Kt2
Kt x P
Kt-B5 eh.
Kt-K3
R-B6 eh.
44. K-Kt2
R-B5
45. B-B5
Kt-B5 eh.
46. K-R2
P-Kt5
47. R-Kt7
Kt-K7
48. K-Kt2
If 48. B-K6, R-B5; 49. KKt2, Kt-Q5.
48.
R-B5
49. P-B3
P-R4!
50. K-B2
Kt-B6
51. R-R7
P x P!
52. B x P
K-B3
53. P-R3?
A mistake. With 53. K-Kt3,
White could have made Black's
task very difficult.
53 . . . . . .
54. R-Kt7
Resigns.
.
P-Kt6
P-Kt71
Though this game may have restored the confidence of many, it did
not popularize the defence, for in the great St. Petersburg Tournament
of 1914, we do not see this line played at all.
WHITE PLAYS FOR A KING's SIDE ATTACK-RuBINSTEIN's DEFENCE
In the previous games, the fight was mainly for predominance in the
centre. This was really a preliminary stage, to enable White to carry
out his King's side attack, and Black to start a counter-attack on the
Queen's side.
It was shown that White cannot keep up the tension in the centre
without a rather dubious Pawn sacrifice. This might have suited Lasker's
philosophical style which induced him to play doubtful variations, but
it was theoretically unsound.
The logical course, therefore, was for White to close the centre, which
seemed the more justified as he was able to close the Queen's side as well,
and have undisputed command on the King's side.
The following game is a good example of this system.
29
White
E. D. Bogoljubov
Black
A. Rubinstein
Baden-Baden, 1925
1.
2.
3.
4.
P-K4
Kt-KB3
B-Kt5
B-R4
P-K4
Kt-QB3
P-QR3
Kt-B3
5. Castles
B-K2
6. R-K1
P-QKt4
7. B-Kt3
P-Q3
8. P-B3
Castles
9. P-KR3
Kt-QR4
10. B-B2
P-B4
1 1 . P-Q4
Q-B2
12. QKt-Q2
It is important to note that after
the interpolation of the moves 8.
. . . . Castles and 9. P-KR3 the
51

move P-QR4 does not constitute
a threat, since with 12 . . . . . B-Q2
the Black Rooks are connected.
Black is able to avoid the move
. . P-Kt5, and can choose the
right moment for counter-action on
the Queen's side.
The centre and the Queen's side

are completely blocked and now he
can safely turn his attention to the
King's side.
Kt-B3
12. . . . . . .
13. P-Q5
This move appears to be a simple
solution of the problem set in the
opening, but there is another equally
important problem to be solved.
White has to close the Queen's side
as well as the centre, otherwise he
could not attack on the King's side
without the risk of a dangerous
counter-attack by Black on the
other wing.
Kt-Q1
13. . . . . . .
The alternative is 13. . . . . Kt-
QR4; 14. P-QKt3, B-Q2; 1 5.
Kt-B1 , Kt-Kt2; 16. P-B4,
KR-Ktl; 17. Kt-K3, P x P; 18.
Kt x BP, B-KB1; 19. P-QR4,
Kt-QR4; 20. KKt-Q2, (C. H.
O'D Alexander-Keres, Hastings,
1937-8). Although Black has suc
ceeded in preventing the blockade
of the Queen's side, White has the
superiority there.
14. P-QR4
R-Ktl
14 . . . . . P-Kt5; is no better, as
White can either play 15. P-B4,
transposing to the actual game, or
15. Kt-B4, P--QR4?; 16. KKt x P,
B-R3; 17. B-Kt3, P x Kt; 18.
P-Q6, B x P; 19. Q x B, Q x Q; 20.
Kt x Q, Kt-Kt2; with the better
end game for White ( Capablanca
Vidmar, New York, 1927).
15. P-B4
P-Kt5
If 15 . . . . . B-Q2; to keep the
Queen's side open, 16. Kt-B1,
P x BP; 17. Kt-K3!, R-Kt5; 18.
Kt-Q2, regaining the important
QB4 square for the Knight.
16. P-QKt3
White'& first task is completed.
5
16.
17. P-KKt4
18. K-R1
19. R-KKtl
Kt-K1
P-Kt3
Kt-KKt2
19. . . . . . .
P-KR41
This looks like an attacking move
and appears to violate the principles
of defence; i.e., not to move Pawns
where your opponent has the
superiority and is preparing for
attack. However, the strength of
this move lies in the fact that
Black, by exchanging the Rooks'
Pawns, reduces White's chances to
break through with Pawn ex
changes to two files. The opening
of the Rook's file is not dangerous
for Black.
20. Kt-B1
20. P-Kt5 is bad because the
R3 Pawn is undefended. But, even
- if White had developed the King
previously to R2, on 20. P-Kt5,
P-B3; 21. P x P, R x P; would
have followed, with pressure on the
King's Bishop file.
20. . . . . . .
PxP
21. P X P
P-B3t
Now 22. P-Kt5, can be an
&wered by 22. . . . . P -B4.
CHESS FROM MORPHY T O BOTWINNIK
52
22. Kt-K3
Kt-B2
Kt-Rl
23. Kt-R4
Black's timing of the defensive
moves is perfect.
24. P-B4
PxP
25. Kt(K3)-B5
This sacrifice of a piece was
planned before White's previous
move.
Kt x Kt!
25. . . . . . .
Acceptance of this sacrifice would
have led to ruin for Black: 25 . . . . .
P x Kt; 26. KtP x P, B-QI; (lf 26.
. . . . R-B2; 27. Q-R5!) 27. Q
R5, R-B2; 28. B x P, and the
Black King cannot escape, since he
would lose his Knight on R8. White
again could build up his position
with R-Kt2, QR-Ktl , R-R2,
Q-R6 followed by Kt-B3 or
Kt-Kt6.
P---Kt4
26. KtP x Kt
R-B2
27. B x P
28. B-R2
R-R2
Kt-B2
29. Kt-Kt2
30. Kt-K3
B-Q2
31. K-Kt2
K-Kt2
R(Kt)-KRI
32. R-Rl
33. Q-K2
Q-Bl
34. B-Kt3
Q-KKtl
RxR
35. Kt-Kt4
36. R x R
RxR
37. K X R
Q-R2 eh.
38. K-Kt2
Q-R4
Kt-R3
39. B-Ql
This leads to a dead draw. After
the exchange of Rooks there is
nothing in it.
Kt X Kt
40. Q-Kl
41 . B-B3
And the Knight cannot escape.
41.
P-R4
42. Q-K2
B-Kl
Q-R3
43. B x Kt
44. K-Ktl
B-B2
Drawn.
This, and two other encounters between these two players, threw some
light on the attack and defence of the Tchigorin variation. But while
White's attack is along usual lines and is easy to carry out, Black's
defence requires real mastership, and in this respect Rubinstein with his
unprejudiced preventive action ( 19th move) has certainly brought a new
idea into the game, and enriched the technique of the defence.
WHITE MAINTAINS THE TENSION IN THE CENTRE
ERES' CONTRIBUTION
Among contemporary masters, the greatest contribution to the Ruy
Lopez has been made by Keres. His combinative style urged him to create
positions with attacking possibilities. The problem was how to vitalize
the game without resorting to doubtful variations. He therefore made
an extensive study of the opening and discovered hidden tactical possi
bilities which he merged into a cohesive system that opened new per
spectives.
The following game is a good example of his system.
White
P. Keres
30
Black
S. Reshevsky
Stockholm, 1937
1 . P-K4
2. Kt-KB3
P-K4
Kt-QB3
P-QR3
3. B-Kt5
Kt-B3
4. B-R4
5 . Castles
B-K2
6. R-Kl
P-QKt4
P-Q3
7. B-Kt3
8. P-B3
Kt-QR4
According to Keres, this move is
Castles.
not as accurate as 8
.

9. B-B2
10. P-Q4
1 1 . P-QR4!
P-B4
Q-B2
This move disorganises Black's

defensive system. If now 1 1 . . . . .
R-QKtl; 12. RP x P, RP x P; 13.
P-R3! (not P X KP immediately,
because 13 . . . . . P X P; 14. Kt X P?
Q X Kt; 1 5 . R X Kt, Kt-Kt5 !; 16.
P-KB4, Q-B2; 17. R-R1, P
B5! threatening to win the ex
change) 13. . . . . Kt-B3; (Kt x P
was threatened as Kt-Kt5 is no
longer feasible for Black) 14. B
K3 ! and White is able to keep up
the tension in the centre, as Kt-R4
-B5 no longer constitutes a threat.
P-Kt5
1 1. . . . . . .
P x KtP
12. P x KtP
1 3. P-R3
Castles
14. QKt-Q2
In the first match game between
Tarrasch and Lasker in 1916, White
continued with 14. B-Kt5, R-K1;
1 5 . QKt-Q2, Kt-Q2; 16. B X B,
R x B; 17. QR-B1, Q-Kt3; 18.
Kt-B1, B-Kt2; 19. Kt-Kt3,
P-Kt3; 20. P x P! and now instead
of 20. . . . . P x P; Black could have
equalised with 20. . . . . Kt x P;
according to Lasker.
B-K3
14. . . . . . .
Black wants to stabilise the
centre, and tries to induce White
to play P-Q5. This move also
prepares for a counter-attack along
the QB file.
15. Kt-B1
KR-B1
16. Kt-K3!
With this well-timed manreuvre,
White is not only able to defend
his Bishop, but also to centralise
the Knight, which will soon have
important attacking possibilities.
lowed by QR-B 1 would have

given Black better chances.
17. P-QKt3
18. B-Kt2
19. QR-B1
Kt-R4
B-B3
19. . . . . . .
PxP
It was certainly not an easy
decision to give up the centre after
holding it so tenaciously, but on
19. . . . . Q-Ktl ; 20. Kt-Kt4,
B X Kt; 21 . P X B, Kt-B5; (the
only move, as 21. . . . . Kt-Kt2;
22. P-Kt5, wins a Pawn) 22.
P-Q5, P-Kt4; (White was threat
ening 23. Q-Q2 and P-Kt3 win
ning the Knight) 23. P-Kt3, Kt
Kt3; 24. K-Kt2, followed by
R-KRI-R5 with a decisive
advantage.
20. Kt x P
Not 20. B X P?, Kt X P; winning
a Pawn.
20.
Q-Q2
R-B4
21. R-Ktl
22. Kt(Q4)-B5!
This forces the exchange of the
Black Bishops, with resulting weak
nesses on the black squares.
. . . . .
22
B x Kt
23. P x B
BxB
24. R x B
R-K1
25. B-Q3
25. Q-Kt4 with the double
.
16. . . . . . .
P-KKt3
It is doubtful whether the alter
native move 16 . . . . . Kt-B5; 17.
Kt X Kt, B X Kt; 18. B-Kt5, fol-
53
. . . . .
54
threat of P x P and Q x QKtP

would have been more direct.
25.
Q-B3
26. Q-Kt4
Q-Kt3
27. QR-K2
R(B4)-K4
BP x P
28. P x P
29. B x KtP
PxB
30. Q X P eh.
K-Rl
If 30. . . . . Kt-Kt2; 31. Kt-B5,
Q-B2; 32. Kt x Kt, Q X Kt; 33.
Q x R eh. A better defence would
be 30. .
K-B1; 31. Kt-Q5,
Q-B4; 32. R X R, R X R; 33. R X R,
P X R; 34. Q-B5 eh. , K-Ktl;
35. Q x P, Q-B8 eh.; 36. K-R2,
Q-Q8; 37. Q-Kt8 eh., winning
the QKt.
. .
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
Kt-B5
Q x Kt eh.
Q-Kt5 eh.
Q-Kt7 eh.
Kt x P eh.
R{Kl )-K3
K-Ktl
K-Bl
K-K1
Resigns.
This game proves that White is able to maintain the tension in the
centre if Black plays inaccurately (8 . . . . . Kt-QR4; instead of 8 . . . . .
Castles; see game 33, page 57, note to move 9). The idea was tried some
time ago by Tarrasch, who in his game against Lasker (shown in the
notes) almost succeeded in demonstrating White's superiority; but Keres'
method of combining the defence of the Queen's side with an attack on
the centre is more convincing. However, this is not the final word, as
Keres has found a better defensive system for Black.
BLACK CHOOSES AN ACTIVE DEFENSIVE SYSTEM

TCHIGORIN'S CONTINUATION
It does not seem to be generally known that at the end of his career
Tchigorin evolved a still more aggressive defensive system, opening the
Queen's Bishop file by . . . . BP x QP and using this to keep White
occupied on the Queen's side thereby foiling any attempt on the part
of his opponent to build up a King's side attack. With this system
Tchigorin introduced an extremely controversial line which has been
regularly adopted since his death, and which only recently seems to show
signs of reaching finality, if indeed any opening system can be said to
reach this stage.
31
White
Black
K. Schlechter
M. I. Tchigorin
Ostend, 1907
1. P-K4
P-K4
2. Kt-KB3
Kt-QB3
3. B-Kt5
P-QR3
4. B-R4
Kt-B3
B-K2
5. Castles
6. R-K1
P-QKt4
P-Q3
7. B-Kt3
8. P-B3
Castles
9. P-KR3
Kt-QR4
The simplifying move 9. . . . .
B-K3 was revived recently by
Botwinnik, who, against Bole

slavsky in the Tchigorin Memorial
tournament at Moscow in 1947,
played 9. . . . . B-K3; 10. B x B,
P x B; 1 1 . P-Q4, Q-Q2; 12. P x P,
P x P; 13. Q x Q, Kt x Q; 14. B-K3,
Kt-B4; 15. B x Kt, B x B; 16.
QKt-Q2, B-Kt3; and the game
ended in a draw. It is of interest
to note that this line had already
been adopted in the game Schlechter
-Tchigorin at Cambridge Springs,
1904, which continued, after 9 . . . . .
B-K3; 10. P-Q4, P X P; 1 1 . P X P,
B X B; 12. Q X B, Kt-R4; 13.
Q-R3, P-B4.
10. B-B2
P-B4
55

l l . P-Q4
Q-B2
BP x P
12. QKt-Q2
This is Tchigorin's new system.
Some idea of its merits will be seen
when we come to game 32, page 56.
13. P x P
B-Q2
14. Kt-B1
Kt-B3
Even 14 . . . . . QR-B1 does not
give Black full equality after 15.
B-Q3, Kt-B3; 16. B-K3, (Chris
toffel-Bernstein, Groningen, 1946).
He contests the centre a move too
late.
22. Kt(K4)-Kt5 Kt-B3

22. . . . . B X Kt; 23. Kt X B, also
loses a Pawn, since Black's Knight
is attacked.
23. B X P eh.
K-B1
R-Q1
24. QR-Q1
25. Kt x P!
B-KB4
There is nothing better. After
25. . . . . K X Kt; 26. Q-Q5 eh. ,
K-B3; 27. Kt-Kt5, leaves Black
without defence.
26. Kt x R
R x Kt
QKt-Kt5
15. B-K3
16. B-Ktl
KR-B1
17. Q-Q2!
A fine move which foils Black's
plan to play 17 . . . . . Kt-B7; and
exchange White's King's Bishop
the 'dreaded' Lopez bishop.
P-Q4
17. . . . . . .
There is nothing better than this
opening of the centre, which is
advantageous to White on account
of his superior development for if
17 . . . . . Kt-B7; 18. R-B1, fol
lows winning the Queen for two
Rooks and leaving Black's Knight
on QR8 out of play.
18. Kt-Kt3
KP x P
After 18
QP X P; 19. Kt X P
(K5), Black's Pawn at K5 would
prove very weak.
.
. .
19. B x P
PxP
20. B x Ktl
This splendid and by no means
obvious move is the right continua
tion of White's attack.
20. . . . . .
2 1 . Kt x P
.
BxB
B-K2
27. Q x R eh.
This sacrifice of the Queen for
two Rooks is not difficult to see, but
it is noteworthy in that it is the
logical sequel of White's superb
strategy.
Kt x Q
27. . . . . . .
Q-Kt3
28. B X B
29. Kt-K5
K-Ktl
Q-R3
30. Kt-Q7
Q-Kt4
31. R X B
32. Kt-B6 eh.
Resigns.
A worthy conclusion !
Though Tchigorin was unsuccessful in this game, his idea of preventing

White from closing the Queen's side and forgoing his King's side attack
gave inspiration to later players who have consistently employed his system
during the last forty years. It has been established that Black has
an easier game than in the passive defensive system shown in the game
Bogoljubov-Rubinstein (Game 29, page 50), even if modern theory has
established that White can counter Black's initiative on the QB file.
CHESS FR OM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK
56
From the previous game we can see that Black's defeat was due to the
faulty timing of his moves (see the following game) and Schlechter's skill
in taking advantage of his redoubtable opponent's lapses in such masterly
fashion.
32
White
Black
M. Luckis
M. Najdorf
Mar del Plata, 1945
(b) 16 . . . . . P-R6; 17. P x RP,

R X P; 18. R-B 1 , Q-Ktl; 1 9 .
B-Kt3, Kt-QR4; 20. P X P, P X
P; 21. B-B5, B x B; 22. R X B,
Kt X B; 23. P X Kt, R-K1; with a
roughly equal game, Boleslavsky
Grigorienko, 1 938.
(c) 16
B-Q2; 17. QR-B 1 ,
KR-B1 ; 1 8 . B-Ktl , Q-Ktl ; 19.
Kt-B1 , Kt-QR4; 20. R X R eh. ,
B x R; 21. B-Kt5, with the better
game, Smyslov-Reshevsky, The
Hague, 1948.
.
I. P-K4
P-K4
2. Kt-KB3
Kt-QB3
P-QR3
3. B-Kt5
Kt-B3
4. B-R4
5. Castles
B-K2
6. R-K1
P-QKt4
P-Q3
7. B-Kt3
8. P-QB3
Kt-QR4
9. B-B2
P-QB4
10. P-KR3
Castles
1 1 . P-Q4
Q-B2
12. QKt-Q2
BP X P
This exchange, which opens the
QB file, changes the whole course
White has to forgo
of the game.
any idea of a King's side attack
and turn his attention to the
Queen's side where Black possesses
temporary superiority in develop
ment.
13. P X P
Kt-B3
P-QR4
14. Kt-Kt3
P-R5
15. B-K3
16. QKt-Q2
B-R3
Apart from this move, which
seems safest for Black in a cramped
position, he has the choice of :
(a) A counter-attack by 16 . . . . .
QKt-Kt5; 17. B--Ktl , P-R6; 18.
Q-Kt3, Q-R4; 19. P X KP, P X
KP; 20. Kt x P, B-K3; 21. Q x P,
Q x Q; 22. P x Q, R x P; 23. QKt
B3! winning a pawn (23. . . . .
B x P? 24. B x B, R x B; 25. Kt
B6! R-K1 ; 26. Kt x B eh. , R X Kt;
27. B--B5! R x R; 28 R x R, Kt
B7; 29. R-R2! winning a piece)
Boleslavsky - Hagosin, Leningrad,
1947.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
. . .
QR-B1
Kt-Bl
B-Ktl
Kt-Kt3
B-Kt5
Q-Kt2
B-Q1
R-K1
P-KKt3
QKt-R4
22. P-Q5
White at last decides to accede
to Black's desire and close the
centre. White seems to have had
nothing better since Black is threat
ening to initiate a strong attack on
the Queen's side with Kt-B5.
Q-Q2
22. . . . . . .
Not at once 22 . . . . . Kt-B5;
because of 23. P-QKt3, Kt-R6;

(23. . . . . P X P; 24. Q X PI) 24.
P x P, P x P; 25. R-B6! (25. Q x P?
B-Q6).
K-Kt2
23. B-Q3
Kt-B5
24. Q-Q2
25. B-R6 eh.
K-Ktl
PxB
26. B x Kt
27. Kt-KR4
K-R1
Kt-Ktl
28. B-Kt5
29. B x B
QxB
57
30. Kt-B3
R-Ktl
31. R-B3
R-Kt2
32. R-R3
B-Kt4
33. P-QKt4!
Draw agreed.
This move secures the draw since
33. . . . . RP X P e.p.; 34. P X P,
P x P; leads to the liquidation of the
Queen's side Pawns, and on other
moves Black is unable to break
through on the Queen's side.
LATER TRENDS IN THE TCHIGORIN DEFENCE

THE BOGOLJUBOV VARIATION
This line was for a long time considered a sub-variation as White is
able to transpose into an ordinary Tchigorin. Eventually, Keres adapted
it to his defensive system, proving what an important link it is.
White
M. Euwe
33
Black
P. Keres
7th Match Game, 1940

1. P-K4
P-K4
2. Kt-KB3
Kt-QB3
3. B-Kt5
P-QR3
4. B-R4
Kt-B3
5. Castles
B-K2
6. R-K1
P-QKt4
7. B-Kt3
P-Q3
8. P-B3
Castles
9. P-Q4
Instead of this move White could
play 9. PKR3, and seemingly
transpose into the ordinary Tchi
gorin Defence. That is the reason
why the above variation was not
considered important. But after 9.
. . . . Kt-QR4; 10. B-B2, P-B4;
1 1 . P-Q4, Q-B2; 12. P-QR4?
can be answered by 12 . . . . . B-Q2;
now the Rooks are connected and
Black can choose the right moment
to strike on the Queen's side. After
13. QKt-Q2? BP x P; 14. BP x P,
KR-B1; 15. B-Q3, P X RP; 16.
Q-K2, Kt---QR4; Black has the
better game (Fine - Reshevsky,
Avro, 1 938).
9. . . . . . .
10. P-Q5
B-Kt5
Alekhine preferred 10. B-K3,

but Black could play 10 . . . . . P X P;
1 1 . P x P, Kt-QR4; 1 2. B-B2,
Kt-B5; 13. B-Bl, P-B4; 14.
P-QKt3, Kt-Kt3; and blockade
the White centre Pawns with . . . .
Kt-Q2 and . . . . B-B3 (Yates
Ed. I asker, New York , 1 924).
..
10. . . . . . .
Kt---QR4
P-B3
1 1 . B--B2
12. P x P
QKt x P
This and the following move do
not seem to help Black's preparation
of . . . . P-Q4, without which the
Black Q3 Pawn might later become
a weakness.
The Kashdan-Res
hevsky, Hollywood, 1945, game con
tinued 12 . . . . . Q-B2; 13. P-KR3,
B-K3; 14. Kt-Kt5, B-B1; 15.
Kt-Q2, Q x P; 16. Kt-B1, P-R3;
17. Kt(5)-B3, B-K3; 18. Kt
Kt3, Kt-R2; 19. Kt-B5, KR
K1; 20. Kt X B eh., with the better
game for White.
But Keres' idea
will become clear later.
13. QKt-Q2
P-Kt5
14. B-R4
H-B1
15. B x Kt
P x P!
P x Kt!
16. B-Kt7
Not 16 . . . . . R-Ktl; 17. B x P,
P x P; 18. B x P, R x B; 19. Kt-B4,
R-Ktl; 20. Kt-K3, preventing
. . . . P-Q4.
58

1 7. B x QP
18. B x P
R-Ktl
chances.
20. B X B, P X P; 2 1 .
B x P, Kt x B; 2 2 . R x Kt, R x P;
23. B-B3, R X RP; would lead to
an equal game.
20. . . . . . .
B-B4!
Creating complications.
If 20.
. . . . P x P; 21. B-B3,
2 1 . R-Ktl
Simpler was 2 1 .
PxP
Q-Kt3.
2 2 . B-K3
Avoids the trap!
22. P X P,
B x P eh.; 23. K x B, Kt x P eh.
P-Q41 !
18.
Not 19. . . . . R x P; 20. B-B3,
and White would force on his QRP.
With the text-move Black not only
carries through his strategic idea,
but begins an attack against White's
King's side.
B-Q5?
22. . . . . . .
Keres recommended 22.
B x B; 23. P x B, {23. Q x Q, KR x
Q; 24. P x B, R-Q7; with advan
tage for Black) 23. . . . . Q-Kt3 !
PxB
Q-Q4
25. P x P
Kt x P
26. Q-B3
P-B4
Q-R1
27. P-Kt3
Simpler was 27. . . . . K-R1; to
meet the threat 28. B-B4.
23. B x B
24. B-B1
19. B-K2
(a) 19. P x P, P-K5; 20. P
KR3, B-R4; 21 . P-KKt4, P X Kt;
22. P x B, Q x P; 23. R x B, KR
Q1; would give Black a strong
attack while (b) 19. B-Q3, P x P;
20. B X P, Kt X B; 21. R X Kt,
B x Kt; 22. P x B, R x P; 23. B-B3,
Q x Q eh.; 24. R x Q, R x RP; would
lead to a draw.
R-Kt3
28. P-QR4
Q-R4? ?
29. QR-Q1
A blunder under time pressure.
First 29. . . . . R-Kt3 eh.; 30.
B-Kt2,
(30.
K-R1?
Kt x P
Mate) 30 . . . . Q-R4! would have
led to an interesting fight.
B x Kt
19. . . . . . .
20. P x B
The only move offering winning
30. B-B4 eh.

Resigns.
If 30. . . . . K-R1 ; 31. R X Kt,
wins a piece.
One of Keres' characteristic games; full of combinations, and if it had

not been for his annotations one would think he played for complications.
Only on deeper introspection one can see the strategic aim of the game
namely, the break through in the centre-which is carried out in a masterly
fashion. Although this game cannot be considered as the final word,
because of its involved character and the possibility that there may be
a more effective line for White which would enable him to hold back
Black's Queen's Pawn, it is an important link in Black's defence, since it
allows him to transpose into another line of the Tchigorin Defence. This
is shown in the following game.

oF
59
THE TcBIGORIN DEFENCE
The following game shows how Tchigorin's two systems are merged
into one very effective defence.
34
White
C. H. 0'D.
Alexander
Black
P. Keres
Anglo-Soviet Match, 1947

1. P-K4
P-K4
2. Kt-KB3
Kt-QB3
3. B-Kt5
P-QR3
4. B-R4
Kt-B3
5. Castles
B-K2
6. R-K1
P-QKt4
7. B-Kt3
Castles
8. P-B3
P-Q3
Kt-Q2
9. P-KR3
This is the alternative answer to
White's move 9. P-KR3 (instead
of 9 . . . . . Kt-QR4;). It is worth
while remarking that Tchigorin used
to play this move against Tarrasch
(Match 1893), but without the man
ceuvre . . . . P-QR3 and . . . .
P-QKt4.
10. P-Q4
B-B3
1 1 . P-Q5
This move, by which White tries
to transpose the game into an
ordinary Tchigorin, is too commit
ting at this stage; but that it is not
easy for White to keep up the
tension in the centre without allow
ing simplification is shown in the
game Boleslavsky-Flohr, Groningen,
1946. 1 1 . B-K3, Kt-Kt3; 12.
QKt-Q2, Kt-R4; 13. B-B2,
Kt(R4)-B5; 14. Kt X Kt, Kt X Kt;
15. B-B1, R-K1; 16. P-QKt3,
Kt-Kt3; 17. P x P, P x P; 18.
Q x Q, R x Q; with equality. Nor
is 1 1 . P X P, QKt X P; 12. Kt-Q4,
Kt-QKt3; dangerous for Black.
11.
1 2 . B-B2
13. QKt--Q2
Kt-R4
P-B4!
Kt-Kt3
Superficially the position looks

like an ordinary Tchigorin Defence,
but closer study will reveal some
important differences.
Black in
duced White to play P-Q5 without
losing a tempo (by . . . . Kt-B3)
as is usual in this variation. The
Knight on Kt3 has an important
function as it prevents White closing
the Queen's side.
P-Kt3
14. Kt-Bl
15. P-KKt4
KB-Kt2
16. Kt-Kt3
This move, which is usually
played with the intention of build
ing up an attacking formation on
the King's side, is here a necessary
defensive precaution against 16.
. . . . P-B4; clearly demonstrating
what a difference a few tempi make
in the opening.
16. . . . . . .
B-Q2
17. P-Kt3
Another bitter necessity, to be
able to develop the QB without the
interference of . . . . Kt-B5. But
the text-move allows Black to open
the QR file.
17.
Kt-Kt2
18. K-R2
P-QR4
P-R5
19. B-K3
20. Q-Q2
P-B3
2 1 . Kt-Ktl
Q-B2
22. Kt(Ktl)-K2 Kt-Q1
23. P-B3
Kt-B2
This classical Knights' manreuvre,
bringing over the Queen's Knight
to KB2 for defence and the KKt to
QKt3 for attack, was introduced
by Lasker in his 5th match-game
against Tarrasch in 1916, and is still
considered best.
24. P-R4
60

move frees Kt(Kt3) to interpose on
the KB file.
Kt-Kt4
dis. eh.
Better was 37 . . . . . Q x R! 38.
Kt-B5, Kt-R7; 39. Kt-Ktl ,
Kt-Kt5 eh.; 40. K-Kl, Q-Kt7;
with the threat of . . . . Kt x B; also
R-Rl;
37. . . . . . .
Too committing. White has no

real attacking chances, and besides,
he is engaged on the Queen's side.
24. . . . . . .
R-R2
25. R-KKtl
PxP
26. P x P
KR-Rl
27. R x R
RxR
28. P-Kt5
A mistake. It was necessary to
play 28. R-Ktl , R-R7; 29. Q-Ql
to take up a defensive position on
the Queen's side.
28. . . . . . .
PxP
29. B x P
If 29. P x P, B-QBI; followed
by . . . . Q-Q2 and Black would
have chances on both flanks.
P-R3
29 . . . . . . .
30. B-K3
Q-Ql !
31. P-R5
Q-R5 eh.
Kt-Kt4
32. K-Kt2
33. R-KRI
B-R6 eh.
34. K-B2
Kt x BP
35. Q-Q3
All other moves lose quickly, e.g.
35. K x Kt, R-B2 eh.; 36. Kt-B4,
P x Kt; 37. B x KBP, P-Kt4; 38.
Kt-B5, Q-Kt5 eh. wins.
R-KB2
35. . . . . . .
R-Bl
36. P x P
37. R x B
The only way to meet the threat
37 . . . . . Kt-Q5 dis. eh. 38. K-Kl,
Kt X Kt; winning a piece. The text-
38. K-Kl
QxR
39. B x Kt
PxB
40. Q x P
Kt-Bl
41 . P-Kt4
Alexander gives here 41. Kt-B5,
Q-R4; 42. Kt(2)-Kt3, Q x P; 43.
B-Ql, as a better line of defence.
PxP
41. . . . . . .
Kt-K2
42. P X P
Kt x KtP
43. Q-Kt7
R-B2
44. Kt-B5
45. Q-B8 eh.
K-R2
If 45 . . . . R-Bl? 46. Kt-K7
eh.
R-B2
46. Q-K6
47. Kt x B
QxQ
RxB
48. Kt x Q
49. Kt X P eh.
K-Ktl
R-Kt7
50. K-QI
RXP
5 1 . Kt-QB3
52. K-B2
Kt-Bl
53. Kt-B3
Kt-Q2
54. Kt-KR4
Kt-B4
55. Kt-B5
R-Kt3
55. . . . . Kt X P; 56. Kt X Kt,
R x Kt; 57. Kt x P, R-Q5; 58.
Kt-B5, R-KB5; was also suffi
cient to win, but exchanging Pawns
would be an unnecessary risk.
56. Kt-K3
K-B2
57. Kt-B4
R-R3
58. K-Q2
K-K2
R-R8
59. K-K3
60. K-K2
R-QB8
61. K-Q2
R-KR8
62. K-K3
R-R7
The first phase of the interesting
end-game is over. Black's aim was
to separate the two Knights which
he was able to force by "zugzwang"
manreuvre. (63. K-B3?, R-R6
61
And now the other Knight has
to move since 66 . . . . . Kt-Q5 eh.;
was threatening. '
R-Kt6
66. . . . . . .
67. K-B2
The only move. Neither of the
Knights can move because of . . . .
Kt-Q5 eh. But now the King is
forced away leaving the other side
unprotected.
Position after 6 2. . . . . R-R7

eh. or 63. Kt-Kt5?, R-R6 eh.).
63.
64.
65.
66.
Kt-Q2
Kt-B3
K-K2
Kt-QKt5
R-R6 eh.
K-Q2
Kt-Kt6
R-Ktl
67. . . . . . .
68. K-K8
R-QB1
69. K-Q8
69. . . . . R-B4; 70. Kt-R3,
R-B6 eh.; 71. K-K2, Kt-B8 eh.
was threatened.
69 .
70.
71.
72.
......
K-K8
Kt-B3
K-Q2
Resigns.
Kt-B4 ch.
R-QKtl
R-Kt6
Kt x P eh.
A clear demonstration that in this modern form of the Tchigorin

Defence Black retains considerable play whether or not White maintains
or curtails the central tension.
THE MoDERN CoNTINUATION (FOR WBITE)-TnE RAUSER SYSTEM
The Bogoljubov-Rubinstein game (Game 29, page 50) was a good
example of White's attempt to force a decision on the King's side while
closing the centre. But this attempt deprived the game of its dynamic
character. White must therefore seek a better use of the centre.
The following game is a good example of this idea.
35
White
Black
V. Rauser
N. Rumin
Leningrad, 1936
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
P-K4
Kt-KB3
B-Kt5
B-R4
Castles
R-K1
B-Kt3
P-B3
P-K4
Kt-QB3
P-QR3
Kt-B3
B-K2
P-QKt4
P-Q3
Kt-QR4
9. B-B2
P-B4
10. P-Q4
Q-B2
1 1 . QKt-Q2
Kt-B3
1 1 . . . . . Castles; is less direct
since it does not exert pressure on
Q5, and can be answered by 12.
Kt-B1 , B-Kt5; 13. P x KPI,
P x P; 14. Kt-K3, B-K3; 15.
Q-K2, KR-K1; 16. Kt-Kt5,
P-B5; 17. P-QKt41, P x P e.p.
18. Kt x B, P x Kt; 1 9. P x P,
P-Kt5; 20. P X P, B X P; 21.
B-Q2, B X B; 22. Q x B, Kt-B3;
(Alekhine-Flohr, Avro, 1938). Al
though Black was able to control
the important squares on his Q4
62
and KB4, by allowing the doubling

of his centre Pawns, the resulting
weaknesses proved to be fatal.
1948. White's last move was 26.

Kt-Q5 !)
1 2. P-QR4
R-QKtl
If 12 . . . . . P-Kt5; 13. P x KtP,
P x KtP; 14. Kt-B4, foUowed by
Kt-K3.
RP x P
13. P x KtP
PxP
14. P x BP
B-K3
15. Kt-B1
On 15 . . . . . Castles; 16. Kt-K3,
R-Q1 ; 17. Kt-Q5, Kt x Kt; 18.
P X Kt, B-K3; 19. Kt-Kt5, fol
lows with strong attack.
16. Kt-K3
Castles
KR-Q1
17. Kt-Kt5
R-Q3
18. Q-B3
If 18. . . . . P-R3; 19. Kt x B,
P X Kt; 20. Kt-Kt4, R-KB1 ; 21.
Kt X Kt eh., R X Kt; 22. Q-Kt4,
with advantage for White.
19. Kt-B5 1
B x Kt
19 . . . . . . .
20. P x B
P-R3
Kt x Kt
21. Kt-K4
22. B x Kt
B-B3
23. B-K3
Black's King's side is secure for
a while, but now White turns to the
Queen's side again.
Kt-K2
23 . . . . . . .
P-B5
24. P-QKt4
R--Q2
25. P-Kt3
Q-Q1
26. R-R7
27. R x R
QxR
28. P-R4
K-R1
29. P-Kt4
And now White is able to transfer
the fight to the King's side. This
shows how much more vitality can
be achieved in the game when the
centre is not closed.
This is the key-move in the

Rauser variation. When White is
prevented from occupying the Q5
square he is able to put the Knight
on this correspondingly important
square. To illustrate how White is
able to occupy the Q5 square when
he cannot place a piece to his KB5
square the following position is of
interest (Euwe-Smyslov,The Hague,
Kt-Ktl
29. . . . . . .
If 29. . . . . B x P? 30. Q-R3,
B-B3; 31. P-Kt5, wins.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
P-Kt5
R-Q1
P-B6
PxB
B-B2
BxP
B xR
B-B4
Q-K2
B-K2
Q-B2
B x BP
Kt x P
R--Q1
R x R eh.
P-K5
Q-Ql
Resigns.
ft3
This system, introduced by Rauser, is completely revolutionary; breaking

away from the old established axiom that White cannot attack on the
King's side while his centre is open. Although such an authority as
Alekhine recommended it, it has gained ground only slowly. It had to
be proved that in spite of the simplification in the centre it gave White's
game increased dynamic power, since White has to gain control of the
vital squares (Q5 or KB5) by combinative means.
WHITE RESUMES THE FIGHT FOR THE CENTRE

THE WORRALL ATTACK
The previous sections have, in the main, dealt with the classical form
of the Tchigorin Defence, and although new ideas were introduced, they
were incorporated in the old framework.
We call this form 'classical' since it centres round White's King's side
attack, as in the game Bogoljubov-Rubinstein (Game 29, page 50). The
only - new ideas embraced were associated with the preparation of this
attack by first closing the Queen's side and the centre. The weakness
of this plan was that the centre became hopelessly blocked and the game
lost its dynamic character. Therefore, it is understandable that aggressive
masters like Alekhine or Keres sought new ways of revitalizing the centre.
The Worrall attack (and the Rauser system) seemed to fit these ideas.
The basis of this system is to play Q-K2 (instead of R-K1) and follow
up with KR-Q1 giving greater support, and therefore more force, to
the central push P-Q4. It is interesting to note how White has con
tinually tried to enliven the game, replacing 6. Kt-QB3 by 6. R-K1
and then replacing this by 6. Q-K2.
36
White
Em. Lasker
Black
R. Teichmann
St. Petersburg, 1909

P-K4
I. P-K4
Kt-QB3
2. Kt-KB3
P-QR3
3. B-Kt5
Kt-B3
4. B-R4
B-K2
5. Castles
6. Q-K2
Lasker remarks that this move
did not appear to have been played
before.
P-QKt4
6.
P-Q3
7. B-Kt3
8. P-B3
Castles
PxP
9. P-Q4
On 9. . . . . B-Kt5; White has
the alternatives of either 10. R-Q1
leading to variations similar to that
in the game or 10. P-Q5, Kt

QR4; 1 1 . B-B2, P-B3; 12. P x P,
QKt X P; 13. P-KR3, B-R4; 14.
B-K3, ( Spielmann - Rubinstein,
Berlin, 1928).
10. P X P
B-Kt5
P-Q4
1 1 . R-Q1
Kt-K5
12. P-K5
Kt x Kt
13. Kt-B3
14. P X Kt
P-B3
A mistake after which it appears
that Black cannot recover. Lasker
recommends 14.
Kt-R4;
whilst in a game Reti-Stoltz,
Stockholm, 1928, after the interpo
lation of P-KR3 and . . . . B-R4
there followed 15 . . . . . Q-Q2; with
a roughly equal game.
15. P-KR3
B-R4
The Bishop has no good square
for if 15 . . . . . B-KB4 also 16
64
P-Kt4! and if 15. . . . . B-K3;

16. P x P, R x P; 17. B-Kt5,
R Kt3; 1 8 . B--B2.
-
16. P--KKt4
B-B2
B-Kt3
17. P-K6!
Kt-R4
18. Kt-R4
P x Kt
19. Kt x B
P-KB4
20. B-B2
B-Q3
21. K-Rl
Q-R5
22. P x P
23. Q-B3
PxP
24. R-KKtl
White threatens 25. B X P, Q-B3;
26. Q-Kt2.
P-B5
24 . . . . . . .
Q-R3
25. R-Kt4
26. P-K7!
A fine move bringing about a
quick decision. If 26. . . . . R-B2;
Position after 26. P-K7!

27. B-Kt6, R x P; 28. Q x P eh.
and the QR is captured with check.
26. . . . . . .
Resigns.
This game is one of the very earliest examples of the adoption of the
Worrall Attack, and it is a good example of the potentialities of White' s
push i n the centre. Even to-day Black's defensive system i s considered
sound, but it has not the solidity of the Tchigorin Defence; and as Lasker
so forcibly demonstrated, even a slight inaccuracy can seriously endanger
Black's position.
But can White prevent Black from adopting the Tchigorin defensive
system? This is the problem with which we deal in the two following
games.
KERES' CONTINUATION
37
White
R. Fine
Black
P. Keres
Avro Tournament, 1938

P-K4
I. P-K4
Kt-QB3
2. Kt-KB3
P-QR3
3. B-Kt5
Kt-B3
4. B-R4
B-K2
5. Castles
P-QKt4
6. Q-K2
P-Q3
7. B-Kt3
8. P-QR4
This move has greater significance
here than in the R-Kl variation,
since the Black QKt Pawn is ex
posed to attack, and the natural
reply 8 . . . . . P-Kt5? is refuted by

9. Q-B4!
8. . . . . . .
B-Kt5
The only move to give Black
adequate counterplay. The older
move 8 . . . . . R-QKtl ; 9. P x P,
P x P; 10. P-B3, B-Kt5; l l .
R-Ql , Castles; 1 2. P-Q4, P x P;
(Black is forced to surrender the
centre as 13. P-Q5 is threatened)
13. P x P, P-Q4; 14. P-K5,
Kt-K5; 15. Kt-B3, Kt x Kt; 16.
P x Kt, Q-Q2; 17. P-R3, B-R4;
18. R-R6, Kt-Ql; 19. P-Kt4,
a.:;; in the game Alekhine-Asztalos,
J.:ccskcmrt, 1 927, and in others,
has proved unsatisfactory for Black.
9. P-B3
Castles

This Pawn sacrifice,
simple
though it may appear, had to be
accurately ca]culated.
10. P x P
PxP
ll. R x R
QxR
12. Q x P
Black now demonstrates this to
be a mistake. Necessary was 12.
P-R3, B-R4; 13. R-QI.
Kt-R21
12. . . . . . .
It seems astonishing that this
natural move passed unnoticed for
so long. The other seemingly strong
move 12 . . . . . Kt-QR4? is met by
13. B-B2, Kt X P; 14. Kt X P!
R-Ktl (if 14. . . . . P X Kt; 15.
Q x P wins) 15. B x Kt, R x Q; 16.
B x Q, winning a Pawn (Book C.
H. O'D. Alexander, Margate, 1938).
-
13. Q-K2
This withdrawal involved a diffi
cult decision, for it is clear that the
best White can hope for is a hard
fought draw. The alternative is 13.
Q-R5, Q X PI; ( 13. . . . . Kt X P;
14. B-Q5!) 14. Q X Kt, B X Kt; 15.
P x B, Q x Kt; 16. Q x P, (16. Q
K3, Kt-R4!) Q-Kt3 eh.; 17.
K-R1, Q-Q6; 18. K-Kt2, Kt
R41 with a winning attack. Wheher
Keres had prepared this variation
or relied upon his intuition is
difficult to say, but it is an apt
illustration of his willingness to
submit to a long and complicated
variation, simply to meet the strate
gical requirements of the position,
rather than to fight a difficult defen
sive game.
13 . . .
QxP
Kt x Q
14. Q x Q
15. P-Q4
It is difficult to avoid the
doubling of the Pawns for if 15.
B-Q1, Kt-B4; 1 6. B-K2, P-K5
and White has a serious weakness
at his Q3.
65
17. K-Kt2
Preferable is the simplifying 17.
B x Kt, B x B; 18. P x P, P x P; 19.
R-K1 , B -B5; 20. R-QI ! stop
ping 20 . . . . . R-Ktl on account
of the threat of mate.
17.
R-Ktl
18. B-QB4
PxP
19. P x P
Kt-K3
20. P-Q5
A sad necessity. If 20. R-K1,
B-B3; 21. B x Kt, P x B; 22. R x P,
K-B2; with advantage to Black.
0 0 0
20.
Kt-B4
Kt-B1
21 . Kt-B3
22. R-K1
K-Bl
23. R-K2
P-B4
More exact is 23. . . . . R-Kt5
and the Bishop has to surrender one
of its diagonals for if 24. B-R2,
Kt-Q6; or 24. B-QKt5, Kt-R2.
Kt-Kt3
24. Kt-Kt5
25. P-Kt3
Kt X QPI
A well-calculated move, as will
be seen from the next move.
0 . 0 .
15.
16. P x B
B x Kt
Kt-KKt4
26. Kt-Q4
This looks very strong, since not
only is the BP attacked, but R x B
and Kt-B6 eh. are threatened in
certain lines.
Kt-Kt5!
26. . . . . . .
The only good move.
66
27. B-Q2?
White persists in his original plan.
Had he foreseen Keres' fine com
bination, he would have played 27.
Kt x P.
27. . . . . . .
P4! !
28. B x Kt
RxB
29. Kt-B6
If 29. R X B, K X R; 30. Kt-B6
eh., K-B3; 31. Kt x R, P x B; 32.
P x P, and White has a lost end
game on account of his weak QBP.
P x B!
29. . . . . . .
30. Kt x R
PxP
31. Kt-Q5
To prevent 31. . . . . B-B3 and
P-Kt7.
38. Kt-B2
Kt-KS ! r
If in reply 39. Kt X Kt, B X Kt;
40. K-Q3, B-Q7; wins.
B-B4
39. Kt-R3
Good enough, but 39 . . . . . B-R5,
40. Kl, Kt X P; is quicker.
40. K x Kt
B x Kt
41. K-Ql
B-Q3
42. K-B2
White must give up the Pawn
and
B-B8
otherwise B-B5
is decisive.
BxP
42. . . . . . .
43. R-KRl
If 43. K x P, B-K4 eh. wins
easily.
K6!
81.
The right reply, for if 32. Kt x B,
Kt-B5 eh. wins, or if 32. R x B,
P-Kt7!
B-K4
43.
More precise is 43
B-B5;
44. R x P, B-Q7; as will be seen
on the 49th move.
82. R2
P-Kt7
33. R-Ql
If 33. Kt--B3, B-Kt5; 34.
R X Kt, B x Kt; 35. R8 eh.,
K-K2; 36. RKt8, P-B4 wins.
K-B2
45. R-Rl
P-Kt4
K-B3
46. R-Kl
K-Kt3
47. R-KKtl
B-B3
48. R-Kl
49. R-KKtl
P-Kt5!
The only way to make progress,
since the Black King is unable to
penetrate. This shows the disad
vantageous position of Black's
Bishop at K4.
. . .
P--B4
33. . . . . . .
Inexact; 33. . . . . Kt-BS (keep
ing the Rook out) 34. Kt-B3,
B-Kt5; 35. Kt-Ktl , P-B4; and
PB5 wins quickly.
PB5
34. RKtl
B-B4
85. K-Bl
36. K-K2
If 36. Kt-K3? B X Kt; 37. P X B,
P-B6 wins.
36.
BxP
37. Kt-K3!
A fine move making Black's task
difficult, for if 37. . . . . B X Kt; 38.
K x B, and Black loses his Queen's
side Pawns.
. .
37. . . . . . .
P-B6!
A very subtle move, for if 38.
K x Kt, B x Kt; 39. K x P, B-B8;
and the White Rook is incarcerated.
. . . . .
. .
44. R x P
50. P x P
P-B5
5 1 . P-Kt5l
Otherwise 51. . . . . K-Kt4 fol
lowed by P-B6 decides.
51.
51.
B5
B X P? only draws.
. . . . .
. .
B-K6!
R-Ql
B--B8
KxP
KxP
R-Q6 eh.
P-B6
R-Kt6
K-B5
K-Q3
K-Kt6
R-Kt8
Resigns.
If 58. R-Kt8 eh., K-B7; 59.
K-B2, K-K7; 60. R-KS eh. ,
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.

K-B8; 61. R K7, P-B7; 62.
---:R-K8, K-Kt7, 63. R-Kt8 eh. ,
67
K_-B6; 64. R-B8 eh., B-B5; and

wms.
This game, between the winners of perhaps the greatest tournament

of all time, presents, at first glance, a rather old-fashioned aspect especially
in the opening stages where White indulges in the ancient practice of
pawn-grabbing at the expense of development. The explanation seems
to lie in the remarkable variations given in the notes to White's 13. Q-K2,
the Queen's agile leap from QRI-K5 threatening the Knight at QKtl
and also Q-Kt3 eh. with mating threats. It is a good illustration of
the trend of modern play where strategical concepts are carried out by
tactical threats and where the most important points are more often
implied than implemented. The importance of this game from the point
of view of the opening we are studying, lies in showing that Black need
not spend time defending his QKtP but can continue his development.
The middle and end game are here inseparable, for in spite of the reduced
material the ending is rich in combinative strokes-a contrast to the
19th-century style of retaining Queens simply to provide such tactical
opportunities.
AI.EKHINE'S TREATMENT
Alekhine often adopted the Worrall attack when he played the Ruy
Lopez, since being less analysed it gave his combinative powers far greater
scope and allowed him to introduce that element of surprise so charac
teristic of his dynamic style.
In the next game we see the two greatest attacking players of modern
times engaged in a variation favoured by both. From the start Alekhine
introduces surprises by inverting the order of moves, although the greatest
surprise comes when he introduces the Rauser system (exchange of the
centre Pawns instead of blockading the centre by P-Q5), infusing new
life into the Worrall attack.
38
White
Black
A. Alekhine
P. Keres
Salzburg, 1942
P-K4
1. P-K4
Kt-QB3
2. Kt-KB3
3. B-Kt5
P-QR3
Kt-B3
4. B-R4
5. Castles
B-K2
P-QKt4
6. Q-K2
P-Q3
7. B-Kt3
The other line is 7. . . . . Castles;
8. P-B3, P-Q4; where Black
offers a Pawn for a vigorous
counter-attack.
Though the line
has been much analysed, it is so rich
in possibilities that it may be a long
time before an ultimate conclu:aion
6
is reached. The simplest answer is 9.

P-Q3, P-Q5; 10. P X P, QKt X P;
ll. Kt X Kt, Q X Kt; 12. B-K3,
Q-Q3; (Keres-Euwe, The Hague,
1948) and with 13. R-B l l (instead
of the move actually played 13. Kt
-B3), White could have obtained
a better game.
8. P-B3
Castles
If at once 8. . . . . Kt-QR4 in
order to adopt a Tchigorin defence
system then there would follow 9.
P-Q41 Kt X B; 10. P X Kt, Kt-Q2;
l l . R-Ql, B-B3; 12. P X P, P X P;
13. Kt-R3 (Alekhine-Rey Ardid,
2nd match game, 1944) with a
slight advantage to White. Alek
hine's free and alert approach to
the openings is well illustrated by
this variation.
CHESS FHOM MORPHY 'fO BOTWINNIK
68
9. R-Q1
Instead of playing 9. P-Q4 at
once which would allow B-Kt5,
White waits to see what system
Black will adopt.
9. . . . . . .
Kt-QR4
If 9
B-Kt5; 10. P-KR3,
B-R4; 1 1 . P-Kt4, B-Kt3; 12.
P-Q3! and the Bishop is out of
play as Alekhine played against
Samisch at Bad Nauheim, 1937. A
striking illustration of the use of
transposition of moves.
.
. . .
18. Q-Kt4 does not help Black to

overcome the weakness on his Q4,
after the !{night has been driven
off by P-KKt3.
15. Kt-B1
Kt-R4
16. P-KR3
B-K3
16 . . . . . B x Kt; 17. Q x B, B x B;
18. Q x Kt, is preferable, since the
Bishop would prevent the White
Kight from reaching K3, although
Black's weakness at his Q4 will still
prove a handicap.
17. Kt-K31
P-B3
P-B4
10. B-B2
Q-B2
1 1 . P-Q4
Superficially it appears that Black
has achieved a normal Tchigorin
defence formation and, indeed, this
has often been recommended as the
safest defence for Black to adopt
against the Worrall attack, since
White cannot play 12. QKt-Q2 as
12. . . . . BP x P wins a Pawn (the
Bishop at B2 is now unprotected).
12. B-Kt5
To all appearances a developing
or waiting move, but Alekhine has
other aims.
12.
13. P x KP!
14. QKt-Q2
B-Kt5
PxP
Now Alekhine's idea becomes

clear. He is able to set up a Rauser
formation (see game 35), with
the added advantage that he has
gained time, since he has been able
to play his KR to Q1 at once
instead of to K1 first, and he has
also dispensed with P-KR3, a
move of little or no advantage in
this system. This gain of two tempi
enables Alekhine to give the game
a more dynamic character.
J{R- Q1
14. . . . . . .
The simplifying move 14. . . . .
Kt-R4; 15. P-KR3, B X Kt; 16.
Kt x B, B x B; 17. Kt x B, Kt-KB5;
Now it seems that Black will be

able to play Kt-KB5, but he had
not reckoned with Alekhine's reply.
18. Kt-R2! I
A superb move, the introduction
to a splendid example of the modern
system of furthering strategical
aims (here the occupation and
utilisation of White's Q5) by tac
tical threats. Naturally, not 18.
B-KR4, Kt-KB5!
P-Kt3
18. . . . . . .
Against the alternative move 18.
. . . . B-B2 White has two lines,
(a) the immediate occupation of Q5
by the Knight; 19. Kt-Q5 when
there follows R X Kt; 20. P x R,
P X B; 21. P-Q6, B X QP; 22.
Q-Q3, R-Q1 (22. . . . . B-Kt3;
23. Q-Q5 eh.) 23. Q x P eh., with

a nebulous position, or the stronger
line (b) 19. P-KKt4, P X B; 20.
P x Kt, and White has control of
Q5 and KB5 .
B-KB1
19. B-R6
KxB
20. B x B
lf 20 . . . . . Kt-KB5; 2 1 . Q-B3,
R X B; 22. P-KR4!, Kt-B5; 23.
B-Kt3, Kt X Kt; 24. P X Kt, B X B;
25. P X B, Kt-K3; 26. R-Q5!
2 1 . P-KKt3
R x R eh.
Black avoids the trap 21. . . . .
B x KRP? 22. Kt--Q5! Q-B2; 23.
P-KKt4, Kt-KB5; 24. Kt X Kt,
P x Kt; 25. Q-B3, and the Bishop
is lost.
22. B x RI
White declares his intention of
opening the QR file for his Rook in
exchange for the Queen's file, which
is of no use to Black, since White
guards every square upon it.
22 . . . . . . .
23. P-QR4!
24. P x P
R-Q1
Kt-QB5
PxP
69
P x B, R x P; 27. Q-K4, Q-Q2;

(27 . . . . . R-Q1? 28. B X Kt, P X B;
29. Q-B3, Q-B2; 30. Q-B6, or
27. . . . . Kt-Kt3; 28. B X Kt,
P X B; 29. Q-K2!) 28. B-B3,
R-Q3; 29. Q-R8 eh., Q-Q1; 30.
Q--Kt7, regaining the Pawn with
a won game. The complications of
these lines are not so significant as
the realisation that the position
holds such opportunities for White
on account of his positional super
iority. Since Black is unable to
accept the Pawn, White has at last
achieved the positional goal of the
Rauser variation-absolute control
of his Q5. The rest of the game is
given to turning this advantage to
effect.
25. . . . . . .
Q--QKt2
Kt--Q3
26. P-Kt3
PxP
27. P--QB4
B x Kt
28. P x P
29. KP x B
Kt-Kt2
30. Kt-Kt4
Q-K2
If 30. . . . . Kt(Kt2)-K1; 31.
Q-K3, Kt X P; 32. Q X P eh.,
Kt(B4)--Q3; 33. R-R7, Q-Kt8;
34. Kt-R6, Q X B eh.; 35. K-R2,
Kt-Kt2; 36. Q-B7, followed by
mate in a few moves.
Kt(Kt2)-Kl
31. B-B2
32. P-R4
P-K5
The drawback to this move is
that it surrenders KB5 to White.
33. Kt-K3
Threatening Kt-Kt2-B4--K6.
25. Kt--Q5!
Just at the moment when Black
thought that he had successfully
overprotected his Q4, Alekhine
plays the thematic move in the
Rauser system, Kt-Q5 offering a
Pawn sacrifice which Black dare
not accept. If 25 . . . . . B x Kt; 26.
Q-K4
33 . . . . , . .
A better defence is given by 33 .
. . . . R-Ktl; 34. Kt-Kt2, P-B4;
35. Kt-B4, Kt-KKt2; and Black
can either oppose his Rook on
QKt7 or use it aggressively at QKt5.
K-Ktl
34. R-R7!
Q-Q5
35. Kt-Kt4
36. B x PI
Decisive! If 36.
Kt x B; 37.
Kt-R6 eh. , K-R1; (37. . . . .
K-B1? 38. R-B7 mate} 38.
70
Q-B3
38. B-B2
Q-K7 was threatened.
39.
40.
41 .
42.
43.
Or
Q-K6
QxQ
R-Bl
PxQ
Kt x Kt
Kt-B7 eh.
P X Kt
Kt-Q3
B-Q3
K-Kt2
43. . . . . R-Bl; 44. R-B7.
-M. P-B8(Q) eh.
Position after 35 . . . . . Q-Q5

Kt-B7 eh. wins the exchange, or
36 . . . . . Q x B; 37. Kt-R6 eh.,
K-Rl; 38. Q X Q, Kt X Q; 39.
Kt-B7 eh., a combination not
difficult to foresee but impressive
in the active co-operation of White's
pieces.
36. . . . . . .
37. Kt-R6 eh.
P-B4
K-Rl
KXQ
K-Ktl
45. R x P
46. R-Q7
Kt-Kl
47. P-R5!
Now 47 . . . . . Kt-B3 is met by
48. R-Q6!
47 .
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
......
BxP
B-K6 eh.
R-Q5
RxP
K-Kt2
B-B5
R-B7 eh.
R-B7
P-B4
P-Kt4
PxP
R-Rl
K-Rl
Kt-B3
K-Kt2
R-R7
R-R6
K-R3
R-R3
P-R5
Resigns.
Logically we conclude our study of the Ruy Lopez with an example

of the modem form of attack in marked contrast to the classical attack
demonstrated by Morphy in the first game. And what greater exponent
than Alekhine? He demonstrates convincingly that although the require
ments of modern technique are exigent, it is possible to graft onto this
'solid' opening as many ideas as his romantic predecessor. But how
complex the game has become! 'Whilst for Morphy it was sufficient
to open the centre to obtain the superiority, Alekhine had to use all the
finesses known to modem opening theory, from transposing moves to
changing the field of action, first in the centre, then to the Queen's side
and back to the centre again, to force a decision. If a proof is needed
that time alone permits new ideas to become common property, it will
be found here. While the quality of this game has been recognized, the
fact that it combines the two modem systems in the Ruy Lopez-the
Worrall attack and the Rauser system-seems to have passed unnoticed.
CoNCLUSIONS
Our survey of the central struggle in the Ruy Lopez discloses three
principal conceptions, which may be classified according to the precepts
enacted by the three great players whose ideas dominate the founda tions
of these lines.
71
First Morphy, who attempted an early conquest of the centre, but

succeeded in achieving little in the way of establishing a lasting initiative
for White.
His greatest contribution is the defence named after him, characterized
by the move P-QR3 for Black. which releases the tension in the centre
and is the basis of all the modern defences to the Ruy Lopez.
Secondly Steinitz, who emphasized the importance of control of the
centre. We can distinguish three periods in Steinitz' later years. In
the first he attempted to hold the centre by the artificial 4 . . . KKt
K2 with unfavourable results. In the second period he attempted to
revive the 'Steinitz Preceded,' now known as the Steinitz Defence
Deferred, and failed only because of the faulty timing of the moves.
The last period found Steinitz adopting his own defence in the modern
form (developing the KKt at B3), a variation he played in the London
and Vienna Tournaments at the close of the century. His lack of success
was due to his tactical inabilities and not to any endemic failing in the
variation. It was left to Lasker to demonstrate its inherent soundness.
Thirdly Tchigorin, who was more fortunate. He introduced his original
system against the formidable Tarrasch in 1893 with considerable success.
He was not, however, content with the line and evolved a more aggressive
system in the form that it is used to-day.
The latest trend in the Ruy Lopez, a blending of these two systems,
is the highest tribute that can be accorded his memory.
.
PART
11
T H E Q U E E N ' S GA M B I T
IF any opening has experienced marked changes in its treatment during
the last hundred years it is certainly the Queen's Gambit-the modem
opening. Despite its modernity, it is one of the earliest of recorded
openings (circa 1500 according to von der Lasa), and it appears to ante
date the King's Gambit.
Comparisons have been drawn with the King's Pawn Openings, and
for a long time the Queen's Gambit was considered dull and unenter
prising, a debut for the cautious player, whereas King's side Openings
remained the choice of the venturesome. To-day we know that this
classification is artificial, since many games in the Q.G. Orthodox Defence
illustrate brief and brilliant combinations (see Alekhine-Lasker, Game 50,
page 94), while even in the King's Gambit Accepted, games of a lifeless
and mechanical character have been played (see Santasiere-Levin, Game
99, page 186). In fact, by mastering the closed game and perfecting the
transition from the closed to the open formation, one can give the game
that liveliness applauded by the connoisseurs, whereas 'pure' open games
tend to lead to draws by rapid exchanges.
73
VII
WE commence with the Orthodox Defence. It derives its title from
Tarrasch who ridiculed those players who religiously adhered to this
old variation, electing to have a cramped. position without organic weak
nesses rather than accept the lasting weakness (isolated Pawn on Q5)
of the Tarrasch Defence (3 . . . . . P-QB4) with a free and open game.
This defence attained its peak of popularity during the latter part of
the last century, although this can be attributed rather to the paucity
of good defensive systems than to its inherent solidity ; for the 'Slav'
Defence had not been developed, nor had the Tarrasch Defence come
into favour.
The Orthodox Defence is characterised by White's ability to develop
his Queen's Bishop (after 1. P-Q4, P-Q4; 2. P-QB4, P-K3;
3. Kt-QB3, Kt-KB3; 4. B-Kt5 ) whilst Black's Queen's Bishop is
shut in, the satisfactory development of this piece being Black's main
problem.
,
THE ORTHOD OX DEFENCE OF THE 19TH CENTURY
'\Ve begin our study of the historical development of the Orthodox

Defence with an example of Steinitz' play, as it was he who introduced
into tournament play the development of the QB at KKt5. This line
had already been played by Saint-Amant in his 1 5th match-game against
Staunton, but only after making the move P-QB5. His motive there
fore was completely different from Steinitz' idea of exerting pressure on
Black's Q4 Pawn and of trying later by waiting moves to force him to
play . . . . QP x P, and thus to surrender the centre.
STEINITZ' TREATMENT
many years; as Gunsberg expressed
a similar opinion when Pillsbury
adopted this line consistently in the
Hastings Tournament of 1895.
39
W.
White
Steinitz
Black
A. Anderssen
4.
B-K2
Castles
5. P-K3
6. Kt-B3
P-QKt3
This plausible move appears the
simplest method of solving the
development of the Queen's Bishop.
Vienna, 1873
1. P-Q4
P-Q4
2. P-QB4
P-K3
3. Kt--QB3
Kt-KB3
4. B-Kt5
This move, considered strongest
even to-day, was adj u dged danger
ous by Staunton who thought that
White's QKt Pawn might become
weak, a view that persisted for
7.
8.
9.
10.
74
B-Q3
Castles
PxP
R-Bl
B-Kt2
QKt- Q2
PxP
P-B4
75

U. P x P
A move showing Steinitz as the
pioneer of modern positional play.
He creates permanent weaknesses
in Black's position instead of trying,
like Pillsbury, to build up a King's
side attack (see the next game) .
PxP
Kt-K5?
11.
12. Q-R4
A mistake which precipitates a

collapse. With 12 . . . . . Q-Kt3,
preserving the Queen's Bishop,
Black has a defensible position as
long as he can avoid exchanging the
minor pieces which are needed to
support the Pawns.
13. B x Kt
PxB
14. KR-Q1 1
BxB
15. Kt x BI
Precise! If at once 15. R X Kt,
Q-B1; 1 6. Kt X B, B-B3! winning
the Rook.
15.
16.
17.
18.
1 9.
20.
21 .
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
R x Kt
Q-Kt3
Q x P eh.
P-KR4
RxP
QxR
QxP
R-Q1
R-Q6
Kt-Q1
K-B1
Q x Kt
KR-Ktl
B-B3
K-R1
Q-Kt5
R xR
RxP
Q-K3
P-R3
Q-B2
R-K7
Resigns.
This game between the foremost representatives of the 'classical' and

the 'modern' school is really the beginning of modern positional play.
It was not recognized as such in 1873, for the tournament book mentions
nothing extraordinary about the game.
Steinitz' idea of isolating the Black Pawns and trying to exploit the
Pawn weaknesses was fundamentally a far better plan than that of
Pillsbury who, twenty-three years later in the same position conceived
another idea for initiating an attack against the Black King. This will
be shown in the following game.
PILLSBURY'S TREATMENT
At the close of the century the opening gained popularity after Pillsbury's
successful adoption of his system of basing a King's side attack on the
strong position of White's Knight at K5. To-day we cannot fail to
admire the vigour that he was able to infuse into this opening, previously
considered monotonous.
This was one of the games played with the system after it had become
more widely known.
White
40
H. N. Pillsbury
Black
E. Schiffers
Vienna, 1898
I . P-Q4
2. P-QB4
P-Q4
P-K3
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Kt-QB3
B-Kt5
P-K3
Kt--KB3
PxP
B-Q3
Kt-K5
Kt-KB3
B-K2
Castles
P-QKt3
PxP
B-Kt2
76
It is interesting to note how

Pillsbury improved his system as a
reaction to the ever improved de
fence of his opponents. Here he
plays Kt-K5 before castling and
saves the move QR-B1 which does
nothing to further his King's side
attack.
9. . . . . . .
QKt-Q2
Kt-K5
10. P-B4
QxB
ll. B x B
12. B x Kt
PxB
P-KB4
13. Castles
Too committal, since it leaves
White in possession of his K5.
13 . . . . . KR-K1 followed by . . . .
Kt-B1 and . . . . P-KB3 drives
off the White Knight.
23. R X R, Q-R5 eh., leading to

draw by perpetual check.
Q-K2
20. . . . . . .
P-Kt3
21 . Q-Q1
22. P-R5
1{-Kt2
23. Q-Q4
QR-Q1 ?
Black overestimates his chances.
With 23. . . . . P-QB4; 24. P X P
e.p., B X P; 25. P-K6 eh. , K-R3;
he could win a Pawn and leave
White with only few attacking
chances for it.
24. P-K6 eh.
25. P x P
26. Q-K5 !
K-R3
KxP
Q-R2
14. P-KKt4
An aggressive move in keeping
with Pillsbury's style. In later years
Pillsbury recognized that Black's
weaknesses lie on the Queen's side
(as demonstrated by Steinitz in the
previous game) and in fact against
Barry in his last tournament at
Cambridge Springs, 1904, he played
14. Q-Kt3 eh., K-R1; 15. KR
Q1, Kt-B3; 16. QR-B 1 , P-B3;
17. Kt-K2, and won in a convin
cing style.
Kt x Kt
14. . . . . . .
15. BP x Kt
Not 15. QP x Kt, because of 15.
. . . . QR-Q1 ; followed by
R-Q6.
Q-Kt4
15. . . . . . .
P-KR4
16. R-B4
17. Q-Kt3 eh.
K-R2
18. QR-KB1
RP X P
P-Kt6
19. P-Q5!
White threatened 20. Kt x P, but
this could have been met by 19.
B-R3; 20. R-B2, (20.
Kt x P, Q-K2!) 20 . . . . . B-Q6.
20. P-KR4!
20. Kt X P? P X P; dbl. eh. 21.
K x P, P x Kt; 22. R x R, R x R;
27. R{4)-B2! !
This move must have been a
complete surprise to Black. Whilst
admiring the beauty of the Rook
sacrifice we recognize that the
strong centralized position of the
'Vhite pieces indicates the possi
bility of such a combination.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
0 . 0 0 0 0
RxP
R-Kt2 eh.
Q X QBP eh.
R-R2
K-B2
Q x Q eh.
Q-B7 eh.
QxB
Q-R6
Kt-K2
P x R eh.
Q-R3
K-R2
K-R1
R-Ktl eh.
Q x R eh.
K-Kt2
K-R3
R-Kt2
K-Kt3
K-B3
77
THE OR THODOX DEFENCE

as. Q-B4
39. Kt-B4
40. Q-B3 eh.
41. P-Q6
QR-KKtl
R--R2
K-Kt4
R-R7 eh.
42.
43.
44.
45.
K-K1
K-Q1
Q-K1
Kt-K2
K-Kt5
K-B6
RxP
Resigns.
THE MODERN CONTINUATION AGAINST

THE FIANCHETTO IN THE ORTHODOX DEFENCE
The previous two games have shown how two great masters of the
past played against the fianchetto in the Orthodox Defence. It will be
of interest to see how modern masters have treated the same opening.
And it will explain how our outlook on chess has changed especially in
respect of rational thinking.
41
White
A. Alekhine
Black
J. Cuckiermann
Paris, 1 933
1. P-Q4
P-Q4
2. P-QB4
P-K3
3. Kt-QB3
Kt-KB3
4. B-Kt5
B-K2
5. P-K3
QKt-Q2
6. Kt-B3
Castles
7. R-B1
P-QKt3
8. P x P
PxP
9. B-Kt5
A move previously made by
Capablanca, who explained that he
made it on a momentary impulse.
It gives Black difficult tactical pro
blems to solve, since on the one
hand the driving off of White's
King's Bishop creates further weak
nesses, and on the other hand White
threatens to exchange off Black's
minor pieces and to exploit the
weakness of Black's Pawns.
9. . . . . . .
B-Kt2
10. Castles
P-QR3
P-B4?
1 1 . B-QR4
The position now reached is iden
tical with that in the Steinitz
Anderssen (Game 39, page 74)
where this same weakening move
was made except that White's
King's Bishop is on R4 instead of
Q3.
12. KB x Kt!
Alekhine remarks that this move

is more forceful than 12. P X P,
Kt X P; (as in the game Capablanca
Teichmann, Berlin, 1913).
If in
reply 12. . . . . Q X D; 13. P X P,
P x P; 14. Kt-QR4! v. ith great
advantage.
12.
Kt x B
13. B x B
QxB
14. P x P
Q x BP
Necessary, in order to defend
the QP.
QR-B1
15. Kt-Q4
K-R1t
16. Kt-B5
Meeting the threat 17. Kt X QP,
and setting a clever trap, for if now
17. Kt x KtP, P-Q5! (not 17 . . . . .
K X Kt; 18. Q-Kt4 eh.) 18. Q X P,
Q X Q; 19. P X Q, R-KKtl; with
the threat 20 . . . . . R x P eh.
17. Kt--K2
Q-Kt5
18. Q-Q4
QxQ
RxR
19. Kt(2) x Q
Kt-B4
20. R X R
Not 20. . . . . R-B1? 21 . R X R
eh., B x R; 22. Kt-Q6, winning a
piece.
21. Kt-Q6
B-R1
22. P-QKt4
Kt-Q6
23. R-B7
K-Ktl
24. Kt-B8!
Alekhine observes that after 24.
P-QR3, Kt-K4; followed by . . . .
Kt-B5, saves the Bishop which
now cannot escape its fate.
7R

Kt x KtP
24. . . . . . .
25. Kt x KtP!
Threatening to win a piece by
R-R7.
25. . . . . . .
R-Ktl
The last fling. If now 26. R-R7,
B-Kt2; 27. Kt-Q7, R-QB I ; 28.
P-Kt3, B-B3; saving the piece.
Position after 23 . . . . . K-Ktl
26. Kt-,---Q
- 7
27. P-QR3
28. R-R7
29. K-B1
There is no
Kt-Kt6.
R-Ql
Kt-Q6
R-QBI
Resigns.
defence to
30.
This system, originated by Capablanca and improved by Alekhine, clearly

shows how greatly our approach to the problems of the position differs
from that of the majority of the earlier masters, and it justifies Steinitz
who followed the same positional idea as did Capablanca 40 years later.
THE MODERN FORM OF THE ORTHODOX DEFENCE

This, which is even to-day considered the most solid defence, came into
fashion at the end of the last century when it was frequently adopted by
Lasker and Mason. Black's aim in this defence is to postpone the develop
ment of his Queen's Bishop and to ease his position by an exchange of
pieces. Since it entails the surrendering of the centre ( . . . . P x BP), it
remained unpopular until the end of the first World War when new
concepts on the centre were beginning to take shape.
LASKER'S TREATMENT
42
White
W.
Steinitz
Black
Em. Lasker
18th match game, 1894

I. P-Q4
P-Q4
2. P-QB4
P-K3
3. Kt-QB3
Kt-KB3
4. B-Kt5
B-K2
5. Kt-KB3
Castles
6. P-K3
QKt-Q2
7. R-B1
In the 12th and 16th match
games Steinitz unsuccessfully tried
7. P-B5, but, as Lasker remarked,
the text move is superior. To-day

it has become so established that it.
is played as a kinci of routine move.
It is not, as thought by many, just
a waiting move. It prevents the
freeing move 7 .
. . . P-B4; on
which 8. B x Kt, Kt x B; 9. P x BP,
B x P (9 . . . . . P x BP; 10. Q x Q,
R X Q; 1 1 . P-B6!, P X P; 12. B X P),
10. P x P, P x P; 1 1 . Kt x P!, Q-R4
eh.; 12. Q-Q2, would follow.
.
P-B3
7. . . . . . .
This is characteristic of the
modern defensive system, preparing
for the following simplification.
8. B-Q3
PxP
79

9. B x P
Kt-Q4
10. B x B
QxB
1 1 . P-K4
It appears that White has achieved
his aim-the occupation of the
centre-but his last move is too
committal. The question of how
White is to make use of his com
mand of the centre has still to be
answered. Direct attack on Black's
King is not advisable, since his
position is too solid. White's stra
tegy is therefore directed towards
preventing Black from breaking up
the centre by . . . . P-K4, or . . . .
P-QB4.
Black's Queen's Bishop, sinceWhite's

only way of gaining the advantage
is to stop Black's P-QB4.
15. B--Kt3
B-Kt2
16. Q-K3
P-QR3
QR-B1
17. Kt-K2
18. KR-Q1
R-K1
In order to be able to play . . . .
P-QB4 the Black Rook must leave
the Queen's file.
19. Kt-K1
P-QB4
Kt-B5
11.
.
'Exchanging followed by
P-K4, was feasible; but then
White's centre might be strong, and
troublesome,' writes Mason, with the
typical contemporary view. How
ever, after 11 . . . . . Kt X Kt; 12.
R X Kt, P-K4; 13. Castles, P X P;
14. Q x P, P-QKt4, as in the fol
lowing game, Black has solved his
opening problems.
.
12. P-KKt3
Lasker considered this weakened
\Vhite's position and recommended
instead 12. Castles, followed by
Q-Q2.
Still after 12. Castles,
P-K4; 13. P X P, Kt X KP; 14. Kt X
Kt, Q x Kt; 15. P-KKt3, Kt-R6
eh.; 16. K-Kt2, Kt-Kt4; 17.
P-B4? B-R6 eh. ; and Q-QB4
Black has solved his opening pro
blems by the satisfactory develop
ment of the Queen's Bishop.
Kt-I{Kt3
12. . . . . . .
13. Castles
R-Q1
14. . . . . P-K4 is not so strong,
since after 14. P- Q5, P x QP; White
is always able to recapture with a
piece on Q5, therefore Black con
centrates on developing his Queen's
Bishop at QKt2.
14. Q-K2
P-QKt4
We see that both players are fully
aware of the problems posed by the
position, namely, the development of
Just as White was about to

blockade the QBP with Kt-Q3,
Black is able to force his important
freeing move . . . . P-QB4. Lasker
remarks that this move seems to
give Black the better game.
20. P x P
Kt x BP
21 . B-B2
R-B2
22. P-B3
KR-QB1
23. B-Ktl
Kt-K4
24. P-Kt3
P-B3
25. R-B2
This move allows Black to break
up the centre, but the apparently
stronger 25. R-Q2 does not prevent
25 . . . . . P-B4, since there follows
26. P x P, P x P; 27. B x P? Kt x P
eh. ; 28. K-B2, Kt x R; 29. Q x Q,
R X Q; 30. B X R, Kt(7)-K5 eh.,
winning a piece.
25.
26. P x P
P-B4
PxP
80
CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINN IK
27. Q-B2
In view of the threat 27.
Kt x P eh.
P-Kt3
27. . . . . . .
Kt(B4)-Q2
28. Kt-B4
Q-Q3
29. Kt-Q5
R-BS
30. R(B)-Q2
31 . Kt-K3
RXR
By offering the Queen for two
Rooks which White dare not accept,
Lasker is able to force the exchange
of one pair of Rooks, thus greatly
diminishing White's defensive re
sources.
Q-K3
32. Kt x R
33. K-Bl
Black threatened 33 . . . . . Kt X P
eh.; 34. Kt X Kt, B X Kt; 35. Q X B,
Q-KS eh.
R-B4
33. . . . . . .
R-Q4
34. Q-K3
QxR
35. R x R
Q-B3
36. Kt-B3
37. K-B2
K-Kt2
Q-Q3
38. Kt-K2
Q-KB3
39. Kt-Q4
40. Kt-Kt2?
Kt-B3
'An extraordinary oversight ac
countable for only by the pressure
of the time limit. 40. . . . . B x KBP
instead obviously gains a clear Pawn
and leaves Black with a winning
advantage' (Lasker) .
K-Ktl
41 . Kt-K6 eh.
Q--K4?
42. B-B2
Lasker writes, 'Again the chance
to win at once is overlooked. 42.
. . . . Kt(3)-K4; 43. Kt-Q4, B x
KBP wins without much difficulty.'
43. Kt(Kt2)-B4 Q x Q eh.

44. K x Q
Kt-Kt5
45. B-Ktl
Kt-K4
46. Kt-Q4
K-B2
47. P-QR3
Kt-Q4 eh.
48. Kt x Kt
B x Kt
49. B-Q3
K-K2
50. B-K2
K-Q3
51. P-B4
Kt-Q2
52. P-KKt4
White must take action before
Black's superiority on the Queen's
side becomes active.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61 .
...... .
PxP
B x KKtP
Kt-Kt3
P-KR4
B-Kt2
B-K6
Kt-Q4 eh.
B x Kt
KxB
Kt-B3
B-Bl
Kt-Kt5
P-KR4
Kt-K4
B-B4
K-B4
Kt-B3 eh.
K-Q4
Kt-K4 eh.
Drawn.
This game, considered one of the best in the first Steinitz-Lasker match
for the world championship, shows clearly the characteristics of the new
defence system. Black gives up the centre but tries to maintain equili
brium in an attempt to break White's centre by means of a vigorous
counter-attack. Lasker's execution of this plan is admirable, though he
is helped to some extent by White's weak handling of the opening.
Far more important from our point of view is the beautifully conducted
middle-game. Here we see White in complete possession of the centre,
but unable to do anything with it. 'Ve cannot blame Steinitz overmuch,
for he was unaware that the centre is not an end in itself but only a means
to an end, since even the great teacher Tarrasch failed to realize this.
THE OHTHODOX DEFENCE
81
Unless White is able either to transform his central preponderance into

a tangible advantage, e.g., a King's side attack, before Black has com
pleted his development, or to prevent Black from developing harmoniously,
his centre may suddenly change from an asset to a serious liability. This
dynamic conception of the centre (shown clearly in the Griinfeld Defence)
was imperfectly understood until quite recently, and proves how even
an accepted fundamental principle may have to be considerably modified
as a result of prolonged experience.
SHOWALTER'S CONTINUATION
Whilst Lasker had done much to place
the Queen's Gambit on a sound footing, it
the defensive system which even to-day is
to adopt. Showalter's frequent adoption
was more than a fortuitous experiment.
43
White
H. N.
Pillsbury
Black
J. Showalter
Match game, 1897

1. P-Q4
P-Q4
P-K3
Kt-KB3
B-K2
QKt-Q2
Castles
P--B3
PxP
Kt-Q4
QxB
Kt x Kt
P-K4
2. P-QB4
3. Kt-QB3
4. B-Kt5
5. P-K3
6. R-B1
7. Kt-B3
8. B-Q3
9. B x BP
1 0. B x B
1 1 . Castles
12. R x Kt
13. P-K4
The logical move, according to
the nineteenth century tenets, pre
venting 13. . . . . P-K5; and gain
ing the advantage in the centre.
PxP
13. . . . . . .
P-QKt4
14. Q X P
A bold manceuvre. Modern theory
recommends 14. . . . . Kt--Kt3; 15.
B-Kt3, B-K3; with equality.
15.
16.
17.
18.
B-K2
Q-Q5
R-Q1
R-K3
P-QB4
R-Ktl
P-B5
the new Orthodox Defence to

was left to Showalter to create
considered the safest for Black
of this system proves that it
This defensive move is not in

keeping with Pillsbury's previous
strategy. Better was 18. P-K5,
Kt-B4; 19. Kt-Q4, B-Kt2; 20.
Kt-B5!
Kt-B3
18.
19. Q-Kt5
P-KR3
20. Q-R4
Q-Kt5
A well - timed counter - attack,
threatening 21. . . . . Kt-Kt5.
21. Kt-Q4
R-Kt3
21 . . . . . . .
If 21 . . . . . Q x KtP; 22. Kt-B6,
R-Kt2; 23. P-K5, Kt-Q2; (23.
Kt-R2; 24. Kt-K7 eh.,
K-R1; 25. Kt X B, R X Kt; 26.
82
R-QS eh. ) 24. Kt-K7 eh., K-Rl;

25. P-K6, gives White a strong
attack.
A clever manreuvre. Against the

passive defence 43. P-B3, R-B6
and R X QRP soon decides.
R-Kl
22. P-QKt3
23. Kt-B2
Q-B4
24. P-QKt4
Q-Kt4
By exchanging Queens Black gets
the better game, since White cannot
make much use of the open Queen's
file, whereas Black's passed Pawn
is a potential asset for the end-game.
25. Q x Q
PxQ
26. P-K5
Kt-Kt5
27. B x Kt
B xB
28. R-Q5
28. R-Q2 threatening 29. RKKt3 is better.
43.
R x KKtP
If 43. . . . . R-B6; 44. Kt-B5,
R X P; 45. Kt-K6 follows.
. . . . .
B-K3
28 . . . . . . .
B-B4
29. R-Q4
R-QB3
30. Kt-Kl
B-KtS
31. P-KKt4
P-B6
32. P-QR3
B-Kt3
33. R-Ql
KR-QBI
34. K-Bl
35. R-QBI
Forced since Black threatens 35.
. . . . R-R3 winning the QRP.
R-B5
35. . . . . . .
35 . . . . . K-Bl looks much more
promising. If 36. Kt-Q3, B x Kt;
37. R x B, K-K2; could follow and
White's KP is weak.
P-B3
36. P-K6
P-B7
37. P-K7
38. R x P
BxR
39. P-KS(Q) eh. R X Q
40. R x R eh.
K-B2
B-R5
41. R-QRS
White has eliminated the dan
gerous passed Pawn, but Black still
has the superior game since his
Rook and Bishop co-operate better
than White's Rook and Knight.
42. R x P eh.
43. Kt-Q3
K-Kt3
B-QS
45. R-Q7
If White plays 45. Kt-K6,
B-B6; 46. R x P eh., K-B4; 47.
Kt-B5, R-QB5; gives Black a
strong attack.
44. Kt-B5
45 . . . . . . .
B-B6
46. R-Q3
B-Kt7 eh.
47. K-K2
R-R5
48. R-Q7
R x RP
49. Kt-K6
R-R5
50. P-KB3
R-QB5
51. R X KtP eh.
K-B4
52. Kt-B7
R-B7 eh.
53. K K3
B-BS
54. K-Q4
' . R-B5 eh.
55. K-K3
R-B6 eh.
56. K-B2
B-B5
57. R-K7
R x RP
58. Kt-KS
R-R7 eh.
59. K-Kt3
If 59. K-Kl, K-B5; is too
strong.
-
59 . . . . . . .
60. Kt-Q6 eh.
61. Kt-K4
B-BS
K-Kt3
R-Kt7 eh.

P-B4
62. K-R3
K-Kt2!
63. R-K6 eh.
Not 63 . . . . . K-B2; 64. R-B6
eh.
83
64. Kt-B5
R-Kt7
dis. eh.
65. K-Kt3
RXP
and Black won on the 91st move.
In spite of Showalter's masterly exposition of the principles of his new

system, contemporary players failed to appreciate its importance, and it
lay neglected for many years.
However, Pillsbury himself must have realized that this 'simplifying'
system had more in it than was at first apparent, since in a later game
we notice that he tried to avoid an early exchange of his King's Bishop.
White
Black
H. N. Pillsbury
J. Showalter
Match game, New York, 1897

P-Q4
1. P-Q4
P-K3
2. P-QB4
Kt-KB3
3. Kt-QB3
4. B-Kt5
B-K2
QKt-Q2
5. P-K3
Castles
6. R-B1
P-B3
7. Kt-B3
PxP
8. B-Q3
P-QKt4
9. B X P
This move introduces the second
important line in the Orthodox
Defence in which Black develops
his Queen's Bishop at Kt2. Showal
ter's handling of the opening is lucid
and distinctive in his clear - cut
adherence to one system, not mixing
the two as did Lasker in Game 42.
The importance of this system will
be seen later on.
P-QR3
10. B-Q3
P-B4
1 1 . Castles
P-B5
12. Kt-K4
Kt x Kt
13. Kt x Kt eh.
B-Kt2
14. B-Ktl
Kt-K5
15. Kt-K5
QxB
16. B x B
Kt-Q3
17. P-B3
P-Kt3
18. Q-B2
P-B3
19. Q-Q2
20. Kt-Kt4
Kt-B2
21. P-K4
QR-Q1
PKR4
22. Q-K3
Pillsbury has cleverly evolved an
attacking formation on the King's
side and Showalter is only able to
hold the balance by weakening his
7
Pawn position. His last move, al

though risky, is necessary to prevent
23. P-K5 and Kt-B6 which
would win for White.
K-Kt2
23. Kt-B2
24. Kt-R3
Q-Q3
25. QR-Q1
Q-Kt3
26. KR-K1
R-Q2
Black, by exerting pressure on
White's centre, finds the right
answer to White's impending attack.
27.
28.
29.
30.
P-K5
Kt-Kt5
Q x Kt
Q x KP
PxP
Kt x Kt
R-B3
R-Q4
This is the turning point of the

game. 31. Q-Kt8 has been sug
gested as a good continuation,
after which 31. . . . . R x QP; 32.
K-R1, R X R; 33. R X R, gives
Black a difficult position. However,
Black has a better line in 31. . . . .
R-Q3; 32. B-K4, B-Q4; 33.
Q x Q, R x Q; 34. B x B, P x B; and
84
CHESS FR OM MORPHY TO BOTWINNII{
his Queen's side majority gives him

the superior game.
P-K41
31. Q-K4
PxP
32. K-R1
R-Q1
33. Q-K8
34. Q-K7 eh.
If 34. R-K7 eh., K-R3 and
White has nothing better than to
give up the exchange with 35. R x B.
R-B2
34.
Q-B3
35. Q-K5 eh.
P-Q6
36. P-QR4
PxP
37. P x P
38. K-Ktl
38. Q X KtP is met by 38.
B X P; 39. R-KB1 (39. P X B,
Q x P eh.; 40. K-Ktl, R-B4)
0 0 0 0
39. . . . . B-B3; 40. R X Q, B X Q;

with a won end-game.
38.
39.
40.
41 .
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
0 0 0 0
RxQ
R-K3
K-B2
R(Q1)-K1
P-R4
R-QB1
B-R2
B-Ktl
PxP
BxP
RxR
K-K3
K-Q4
K-K3
P-Kt4
Resigns.
QxQ
R-Q4
R(B2)-Q2
K-B3
R(Q4)-Q3
P-Kt5
B-R3
R-QB2
P-B6
PxP
RxB
BxR
B-B4
P-B7
R-Q2
R-Q8
RUBINSTEIN's CoNTINUATION-THE TEMPO STRUGGLE SYSTEM

Rubinstein's name is closely connected with the Orthodox Defence,
mainly from White's point of view. He achieved great success at a time
when there was no clear-cut defensive system worked out. To-day his
contribution is considered as merely transitory, because against his
'tempo struggle' (8. Q-B2,) system several equalizing lines have been
found.
Rubinstein's handling of the opening left the path open for Capablanca
to perfect a workable defence, and it is still important, since it proved that
great accuracy and tactical skill are necessary to equalize in the Orthodox
Defence.
45
Black
White
A.
Rubinstein
G. Maroczy
Goteborg, 1920
Kt-KB3
1 . P-Q4
P-Q4
2. Kt-KB3
P-K3
3. P-B4
4. B-Kt5
B-K2
QKt-Q2
5. P-K3
6. Kt-QB3
Castles
7. R-B1
R-K1
This defence, preferred to 7. . . . .
P-B3 (as played previously by
Showalter), reflects the dogma then
prevailing: namely, time must not
be lost by playing 7 . . . . . P-B3 as
ultimately . . . . P-B4 will be
,
necessary.
To-day this move is
thought to give Black a difficult
defence.
8. Q-B2
PxP
If 8. . . . . P-B3; 9. B-Q3,
P x P; 10. B x P, Kt-Q4; 1 1 . B x B,
Q x B; 12. Kt-K4! KKt-B3; 13.
Kt-Kt3, would make it difficult
for Black to carry through the
freeing move . . . . P-K4, since
White would threaten both Kt-B5
and Kt-Kt5. These threats show
the weakness of 7. . . . . R-K1;
leaving Black's KB2 exposed to
attack.
9. B x P
10. Castles
P--ll-t
PxP
85

P-QR3
1 1 . Kt x P
In those days to restore equili
brium in the centre by 9 . . . . P-B4
and . . . . P x QP, was considered
more important than developing
the Queen's Bishop. The latter line
had already been proved by Showal
ter to give Black full equality (see
Games 43-44, pages 81-83).
22.
23.
24.
25.
B x Kt
Q-K4!
RxB
QR-Q1
B-K3
BxB
QR-B1
Q-R4
12. KR-Q1
13. B-R4
Kt-K4
Kt-Kt3
14. B-K2
P-K4
15. B-Kt3
Black has seemingly freed his
position and he was able even to
develop his Queen's Bishop along
the QB1-R3 diagonal, which is
still considered the soundest plan.
But Rubinstein calculated deeper.
Q-B2
16. Kt-Kt3
17. Q-Ktl !
Q-Ktl
Necessary.
18. Kt-Kt5, was
threatening winning the exchange.
18. B-B3
Q-R2
A remarkable position. At the
moment when Black hoped to bring
his Queen's Bishop into play White
prevents this development by tac
tical threats. On 18 . . . . . B-KKt5;
19. B x B, Kt X B; 20. Kt-Q5, with
the double threats Kt-B7 and
Kt-Kt6 would decide. If 18 . . . . .
B-K3; 19. Kt-Q41 and finally if
18.
B-Q2; 19. Kt-Q5!
Kt x Kt; 20. B x Kt is too strong.
19. Kt-R5!
Preventing Black from playing
19. . . . . R-Ktl ; and 20. . . . .
P-QKt4; by the threat Kt-B6.
19.
20. Kt-B4
21 . Kt-Q5
B-QKt5
B-Q2
Kt x Kt
The only advantage Rubinstein

gained from the opening is the
control of the Queen's file but it is
sufficient. Now on 25 . . . . . P-B4?
26. Q x BP, R x Kt; 27. R-Q7
would be decisive.
B-B1
25. . . . . . .
26. P-QKt3
Here the above variation was
threatened, since the mate on KKt2
is prevented.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31 .
32.
33.
34.
35.
On
wins.
P-QKt4
Kt-Q6
B x Kt
RxB
R-B2
P-KR4
P-B3
Q-Q5 eh. !
K-R1
P-R5
Kt-B1
P-R6
Kt-Kt3
Q-K6!
R-KB1
R-Q7
PxP
B-R4!
Resigns.
35.
Kt x B; 36. Q-K7,
CAPABLANCA's FREEING MANCEUVRE

It was left to Capablanca to perfect a system which combined the
solidity of the games of his predecessors with the convincing clarity of
form that characterized his style. To-day his 'methods are so widely
known that it is difficult to appreciate how slow his contemporaries were
CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWIIK
86
to realize the value of his defensive svstem. It is well to remember that

before this was perfected, great ma:sters struggled in vain to find an
adequate defence to the Queen's Gambit and Rubinstein had li ttle difliculty
in obtaining a superior game with the White pieces.
When Capablanca's system became known and was adopted by other
masters, such as Vidmar in London, 1922, and Tarrasch in Hastings, 1922
(see notes to the following game), they found that a deviation from it,
however slight, resulted in a positive decline of position.
The following game shows Capablanca playing his defence against a
line introduced by Rubinstein, and at the time considered strong.
46
F.
White
Marshall
Black
J. R. Capablanca
New York, 1918

P-Q4
1 . P-Q4
2. Kt-KB3
Kt--KB3
3. P-B4
P-K3
QKt-Q2
4. Kt-B3
5. B-Kt5
B-K2
Castles
6. P-K3
P-B8
7. R-B1
PxP
8. Q-B2
Against Rubinstein in St. Peters
burgh, 1914, Capablanca continued
8 . . . . . R-K1;9. B-Q3, P x P; 10.
B x P, P-QKt4; 1 1 . B-Q3, P
QR3? and after 12. Kt-K5, he lost
a Pawn. We might assume that he
evolved this more solid system on
the basis of 'trial and error.'
9. B x P
Kt-Q4
QxB
10. B x B
Kt X Kt
1 1 . Castles
The game Capablanca-Vidmar,
London, 1922, continued 11
P-QKt3? 1 2. Kt X Kt, BP X Kt;
13. B-Q3, P-KR3; 14. Q-B7,
Q-Kt5; 15. P-QR3! and White
soon obtained a winning position.
This proves that even his great
contemporaries did not at once
appreciate the finer p oints of his
defensive system.
.
P-QKt3
12. Q X Kt
13. P-K4
The game Alekhine-Capablanca,
London, 1922, continued 13. Q-Q3,
P-QB4! 14. B-R6, B X B; 15.

Q x B, P x P; 16. Kt x P, Kt-B4;
17. Q-Kt5, draw. Soon after this
game the great Chess teacher of his
day-Tarrasch-tried to improve
Capablanca's system by interposing
the move (after 13. Q-Q3,) 13.
. . . . R-Q1? 14. Q-K2, P-QB4;
15. B-Kt5, P x P; 16. Kt x P,
B-Kt2; 17. R-B7, QR-Ktl ;
1 8 . R-Q1, B-Q4; 1 9 . Kt-B6,
(Bogoljubov-Tarrasch,
Resigns.
Hastings, 1922.) It emphasises that
this position cannot be assessed by
old conceptions. (On this occasion a
gain of a tempo proved fatal. )
13.
B-Kt2
14. KR-K1
KR-Q1
Kt-B4!
15. P-Q5
This move is stronger than 15.
. . . . Kt-B1; which Capablanca
played against Kostic in an earlier
round of the same tournament.
Now Black threatens 16.
Kt x P; also BP x P.
16. P x KP
Kt x P(K3)
17. B x Kt
QxB
18. Kt-Q4!
Capablanca explains that he
hoped to win a tempo by attacking
the QRP but that the text-move
took him by surprise.
18. . . . .
Q X HP? 19. R-R1, wins the Queen.
,
18. . . . . . .
Q-K4!
An excellent
The only move!
example of Capablanca's intuition,
as the only visible compensation for
the sacrificed Pawn is a slight
initiative.
18. . . . . Q-Q2; 19.
87

24. R-IG
Marshall prefers to stake every

thing on a counter-attack rather
than to remain with his pieces tied
up.
R-K3
24.
K-Kt2
25. R( 1)-QB1
P-Kt4
26. P-QKt4
R-Kt3
27. P-R3
R-R7
28. K-B1
29. K-Ktl
Better was 29. P-K6.
0 0
Kt-B5, P-B3; 20. Q-KKt3,

K-R1; 21. QR-Q1, Q-KB2; 22.
P-KR4, would give White an
overwhelming position.
19. Kt x P
QxQ
20. R x Q
R-Q7
21. R-Ktl
A mistake. Capablanca gives 21 .
Kt-K7 eh., K-B1 ; 22. R-B7,
R-K1; (22 . . . . . B x P? 23. P-B31)
23. R X B, R X Kt; 24. R-Kt8 eh.,
R-K1; 25. R x R eh., K x R; with
a probable draw.
R-K1
21. . . . . . .
22. P-K5
On 22. P-B3, P-B4; 23. P X P,
R(1)-K7; would follow.
22. . . . . . .
23. P-KR4
P-KKt41
PxP
P-R6
29.
P-QR3
30. P-Kt3
R x KP
31. P-K6
32. P-Kt4
If the Knight moves 32. . . . .
P-R7 eh. ; 33. K x P, R-R3 eh.;
34. K-Ktl, R-R8 Mate would
follow.
0
Position after 17 . . . . Q x B
0 . 0 . 0
32. . . . . . .
R-R3
33. P-B3
On 33. P-Kt5, P-R7 eh.; 34.
K-R1, R x Kt; 35. R x R, R x BP;
wins.
33. . . . . . .
R-Q3
Better than the obvious 33.
P-R7 eh.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
Kt-K7
Kt-B5 eh.
Kt-R4
Kt-B5
K-B1
P-B4 eh.
Resigns.
R(Q3)-Q7
K-B3
K-Kt4
R-Kt7 eh.
P-R7
K x BP
This game shows that in order to carry through the idea of the defence
(the development of the Queen's Bishop), tactics as masterly as those used
by Capablanca are necessary. By his fine Pawn sacrifice Black, according
to Capablanca, obtains an easy game.
CAPABLANCA'S CONTRIBUTION (WITH WHITE)

Showalter has already shown (see Games 43-44, pages 81-83) that
Black can develop his Queen's Bishop either on the diagonal QB1-R6
by playing . . . . P-K4, or on the QKt2-R8 diagonal by playing . . . .
P-QB4 (after . . . . P-QKt4). Black thus appears to have plenty of
latitude, but CapabJanca proved that in actual fact BJack is forced to
adopt the particular line dictated by '\\'bite's play. The following game
is a good example of this.
CHESS FROM MOR PHY TO BOTWINNIK
88
47
White
Black
J. R. Capablanca
H. Steiner
Budapest, 1928
Kt-KB3
P-Q4
P-K3
P-QB4
P-Q4
Kt-QB3
QKt-Q2
B-Kt5
B-K2
P-K3
Castles
Kt-B3
P-B3
R-B1
8. B-Q3
PxP
9. B x P
Kt-Q4
10. B x B
QxB
Kt x Kt
1 1 . Castles
P-QKt3
12. R X Kt
As this game demonstrates, Black
has only one adequate move: . . . .
P-K4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
P-QB4
13. Q-B2!
13. . . . . B-Kt2; is not satis
factory, since after 14. B-Q3,
Black must play the weakening
move . . . . P-KB4; for after 14.
. . . . P-Kt3; 15. B-K4, he would
lose the QB Pawn. This variation
would not be available for White if
his Queen were standing before his
Rook. (The reason for this is that
Black could pin White's Bishop
after 16. B X BP.)
Kt x P
14. P x P
15. P-QKt4
Kt-R3
Black hopes to win a tempo by
attack on the QKtP. On 15 . . . . .
Kt-Q2; 16. B-Q3, P-Kt3; 17.
R-B7, with the threat 18. B-K4
is too strong.
B-Kt2
16. P-QR3
P-Kt3
17. B-Q3
18. R-B1!
Preventing Black from opposing
the Rook. After 18 . . . . . QR-B1;
19. R x R, R x R; 20. Q x R eh. ,
B X Q ; 21 . R X B eh., K-Kt2; 22.
B X Kt, White gains Rook and two
minor pieces for the Queen.
18 . . . . . . .
QR-Q1
19. Kt-K5
Q-Q3
20. P-B4
Kt-Kt l
21. R-B7
B-Rl
22. R x RP
Kt-B3
23. R x B!
Far stronger than 23. Kt x Kt,
B x Kt; 24. Q x B, Q x B; with some
attacking chances for Black.
Kt x Kt
23. . . . . . .
RxR
24. R x R
25. B-K2!
Q-Q7
A desperate counter-attack. On
25.
Kt-Q2; 26. R-Q1,
Q-K2; 27. Q-B7, K-B1; 28.
B-Kt5, is decisive.
26. Q x Q!
Typical of Capablanca to choose
a simple and conclusive line instead
of the gain of a piece for after 26.
P x Kt, Q x P eh.; 27. K-R1,
R-Q7; Black can still hold out
a while.
RxQ
26. . . . . . .
K-Kt2
27. R-B8 eh.
Kt-Q2
28. K-B1
Black cannot avoid the pin, the
point of White's 26th move.
K-B3
29. R-Q8
30. B-Kt5
R-Q4
31. P-QR4!
Stronger than 31. B x Kt, K-K2;
32. R-QKt8, R x B; 33. R x P,
89

R-H2; and resistance is still
possible.
RxB
31. . . . . .
The Pawn ending after 31.
K-K2; 32. R X Kt eh. , R X R; 33.
B x R, K x B; 34. K K2 is hope
less for Black.
.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
PxR
H -QB 8
R-B6
K-K2
K-Q2
K B3
-
K-K2
P-K4
P-K5
P-B4
K-B2
Resigns.
From this game we discover that when the White Rook is on the Queen's
Bishop file with the Queen behind it, Black cannot develop his Bishop
on the QKt2-R8 diagonal without fatally weakening his Queen's side.
(See Game 46, page 86, for an example when he can do it safely!)
BoooLJunov's CoNTRIBUTION
In this game, an interesting counterpart to the previous one, Bogoljubov
shows that White can prevent Black playing the liberating move . . . .
P-K4; thereby restricting Black's methods of development to one line
only (see note to move 11 ).
White
48
Black
E. D. Bogoljubov Sir G. A. Thomas

Carlsbad, 1929
P-Q4
1. P-Q4
P-K3
2. P-QB4
3. Kt-QB3
Kt-KB3
QKt-Q2
4. B-Kt5
B-K2
5. P-K3
6. Kt-B3
Castles
7. R-B1
P-B3
Kt-K5
8. P-QR3
The best move. 8. . . . . P x P;
9. B x P, Kt-Q4; would lead to a
position in which White gained the
important move 8. P-QR3 (see
Game 46, page 86).
R-Q8 Mate would follow. How

insignificant looking moves can
prove decisive is shown by com
paring this game with Yates-Gilg
in the same tournament, in which
from a similar position White con
tinued 12. B-K2, P X P; 13. B X P,
P-K4; 14. Castles, P-K5; and
Black has equalized.
Q-B3
12. . . . . . .
P-QKt3
13. B-K2
Black changes his plan of playing
. . . . P-K4, since even if he pre
pared this move with 13. . . . .
P-KKt3; 14. Castles, P X P; 15.
B x P, P-K4; 16. P x P, Kt x P;
17. Kt X Kt, Q X Kt; ( 17.
R X Kt; 18. P-B4!) 18. Q X Q,
R X Q; 19. R-Q8 eh. , K-Kt2; 20.
KR-Q1, the pin on the last rank
would be ruinous.
9. B x B
QxB
Kt X Kt
10. Q-B2
R-K1
1 1 . Q x Kt
Black is trying for . . . . P-K4;
but this game shows that it is not
feasible. Capablanca's continuation
is best: 1 1 . . . . . P X P; 12. B X P,
P-QKt3; and . . . . P-QB4.
14. Castles
B-Ra
QR-B1
15. P-QKt4
16. R-B1
P-K4
On 16 . . . . . P-B4; 17. KtP x P,
P x P; 18. Q-R5 would follow.
1 2. R-Q1
With this move White prevents
12 . . . . . P x P; 13. B x P, P-K4;
since after the exchanges on K5,
P x QP
17. KR-Q1
17 . . . . . P-K5; 18. Kt-Q2, and
ultimately
White will break up
B lack s position by P-B3.
'
90
Kt-K4
18. Q X P!
On 18 . . . . . Q x Q; 19. Kt x Q,
P-QB4; 20. B-Kt4! is decisive.
19. Kt x Kt
20. Q x Q
Q x Kt
RxQ
33. K-K3
R-R7
34. P-Kt3
K-Bl
35. B-K8
With this move White conceives
a plan of giving up his QR Pawn
for Black's B Pawn. This would
give him a two Pawn superiority
on the King's side.
K-Ktl
35. . . . . . .
36. R-Q7
K-Bl
On (a) 36 . . . . . B-R5; 37. B x PI
R x P eh.; 38. R-Q31 wins; and on
(b) 36 . . . . . R x RP; 37. R-Q3,
wins.
_
K-Ktl
R-R7
R x RP
R-K71
K-Q4!
K-Bl
K-Q1
K-K5
B-B5
K-B6
P-B4
P-QKt4
R-R3 eh.
B X BP
P-Kt5
44. B-K6!
The Queen's ending is interesting
after 44 . . . . . R X B eh.; 45. R X R,
B x .R; 46. K x B, P-Kt5; 47.
K-B71, P-Kt6; 48. P-K5, P
Kt7; 49. P-K6, P-Kt8(Q); 50.
P-K7 eh., K-B2; 51. P-K8(Q),
Q-Kt6 eh.; 52. K-Kt7, Q x P;
53. Q-K7 eh., followed by Q
Kt5 and White would win both
Black Pawns.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
21. P-Kt51
Forcing the issue, since after 21.
. . . . P X KtP; 22. P X KtP, B-Kt2;
23. R x R eh., B x R; 24. R-QBI,
followed by R-B7 would lead to a
winning position.
21. . . . . . .
B-Kt2
Black decides to sacrifice a Pawn
to obtain some play.
22. P x BP
R x BP
Better than 22. . . . . B x P; 23.
P x P, B-Kt2.
RxR
23. P x P
24. R x R
K-B1
If 24. . . . . R x QP?; 25. B-B3
wins.
25. R-B7
BxP
26. R x RP
B-Kt6
27. K-Bl
R-QB4
28. B-Q3
ll-B8 eh.
29. K-K2
R-QR8
30. P-K4
P-Kt3
3 1 . P-KR4
K-10
32. B-Kt5 eh.
K-QI
45. P-B5
PxP
B xB
46. P x P
46 . . . . . R-Kt3; 47. R-Q7 eh.,
K-Kl; 48. R x P, K-Q1; 49.
R-R8 eh., K-B2; 50. R-B8 eh.,
followed by R X B wins.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51 .
52.
53.
54.
55.
PxB
R-Q7 eh.
P-Kt4
K-Kt5
RxP
R-QKt7
P-R5
P-H6
K-R5
R-R6
K-Kl
R-B6 eh.
R-K 6
RxP
R-K5
K-Bl
K-Ktl
Resigns.
Th is game confirms that B l ack can develop his QB on the QKt2-R8

diagonal only when White's Queen is on the QB file with the Rook behind
it, and further establishes that Black has to adopt the line White forces
91
upon him. Here is expressed the essence of the Orthodox Defence ; but
though it appears simple, its development was protracted and complex.
( See also Game 47, page 88.)
ALEKHINE's PREVENTIVE SvsTEM
The previous game demonstrated that Black can secure equality if he

masters the tactical points of the defence and adapts his defensive plan
to the line that White forces on him. Then he will be able to secure a
free development for his Queen's Bishop after either P-K4 or P-QB4.
After his game against Capablanca at London in 1922, Alekhine realized
this and evolved a new system aimed at preventing, at least temporarily,
Black's freeing moves, and at utilizing the time gained to consolidate the
slight advantage in space that White obtains after Black's surrender of
the centre by QP x BP. At first he was eminently successful with his
new system and even Capablanca, in their match, had considerable
difficulty in maintaining equilibrium.
49
White
Black
A. Alekhine
J. R. Capablanca
22nd Game, World Championship,

1927, Buenos Aires
Kt-KB3
I. P-Q4
P-K3
2. P-QB4
P-Q4
3. Kt-QB3
QKt-Q2
4. B-Kt5
B-K2
5. P-K3
Castles
6. Kt-B3
P-B3
7. R-QBI
PxP
8. B-Q3
Kt-Q4
9. B x P
10. B x B
Previously Alekhine had tried the
more aggressive move 10. Kt-K4,
but this proved to be too risky on
account of 10 . . . . . P-B3; 1 1 .
B-R4, Q-R4 eh.; 1 2. K-K2,
QKt-Kt3; with good counterplay
for Black.
QxB
10. . . . . . .
1 1 . Kt-K4
Kt(Q4)-B3
This is the correct order of the
moves and not 1 1 . . . . . Q-Kt5 eh.;
12. Q-Q2, Q X Q eh. ; 13. K X Q,
R-QI; 14. KR-QI , QKt-B3; 15.
Kt X Kt eh. , Kt X Kt; 16. B-Kt3!
(preventing 16 . . . . . P-QKt3 and
also 16. . . . . P-B4; when 17.
K-Kl l P x P; 18. R x P, R x R;
19. Kt x R, gives White the advan
tage), as Capablanca played in the
6th match game in which he was
unable to play either of the freeing
moves P-B4 and P-K4.
Q-Kt5 eh.
12. Kt-Kt3
13. Q-Q2
Q x Q eh.
R-QI
14. K x Q
P-QKt3
15. KR-QI
16. P-K4
B-Kt2
Kt-Kl
17. P-K5
18. K-K3
K-B1
In the 16th match game Capa
blanca played 18. . . . . P-QB4 at
once, but drifted into an inferior
position after 19. P-Q5, P x P; 20.
B x P, B x B; 21. R x B.
19. Kt-Kt5
In the 28th match game Alekhine
continued with 19. P-KR4, but he
considers the text-move far superior.
P-KR3
19.
K-K2
20. Kt(5)-K4
21. P-B4
P-KB4
22. Kt-B3
After 22. P x P e.p. eh., Kt(2) x
P; Black gains command of his Q4
with sufficient counter chances.
22.
Kt-B2
23. Kt(Kt3)-K2 P-KKt4
92
CHESS FROM MOR PHY TO BOT,VINNIK
24. P-KR4
P-Kt5
Playable was 24. . . . . P x RP;
25. R-KRI, KR-Ktl ; 26. R x P,
R x P.
25. Kt-Kt3
P-QR4
26. B-Kt3
QR-Bl
In the 24th mate game Capa
blanca played the stronger 26. . . . .
P-Kt4; and soon equalised.
27. P-QR3
R-Bl
28. R-Q2
B-Rl
To free the QKt file for the Rook.
QI far better and gives 34. R x Kt,

Kt X R; 3:3. R X Kt, R-QKtl ; 36.
Kt-R4 (36. Kt x B, R-Kt6 eh. )
KR-Bl; 37. R x R, R x R; 38.
P-Kt4, P X P; 39. P X P, with only
a very slight advantage to White.
34. Kt X B
R-Kt6 eh.
On 34 . . . . . R x Kt; 35. Kt-K2!
with the threats of Kt-Q4 eh. and
also P-Kt4 and R x Kt,
35. R-B3
R x R eh.
29. R(2)-QB2
P-B4
After 29(! !) moves Black is at
last able to play this important
move which ought to give him
equality.
30. P x P
Kt x BP
Alekhine considers this the deci
sive mistake, suggesting that with
30. . . . . P x P; followed by occupy
ing the QKt file and his Q4 square,
Black would have obtained suffi
cient counter-play.
31. Kt-R4
Kt(2)-R3
36. P x R! !
A surprise for Capablanca who
probably expected 36. R x R, when
36 . . . . . R x Kt; 37. P-Kt4, P X P;
38. P x P, Kt x P! 39. R x Kt,
R-R6 eh. followed by Kt-Q6 eh.
would have given him the advan
tage.
36. . . . . . .
R x Kt
37. R-Ql
R-KBI
Necessary, for if 37 . . . . . KtKt2; 38. R-QKtl .
32. B x P!
A most difficult type of sacrifice,
White obtaining two Pawns and an
attack for his Bishop.
KxB
32. . . . . . .
R-QKtl
33. Kt X KtP
Alekhine considers 33. . . . . QR-
K-K2
38. R-Q6 eh.
Kt-B2
39. R x P
K-Ql
40. R-R7 eh.
Kt(2)-K3
41 . P-B4
42. R-QR7?
A mistake: Alekhine points out
that he had an easy win by Kt
K2-B3-Q5, preventing Black's
counter of Kt x P (on account of
T HE ORTHODOX DEFENCE
46. K x Kt
47. K-K3
48. K-B2
49. K x P
50. R-Q5 eh.
5 1 . P-B5
52. P-B6
53. R-B5
54. K x P
55. K-B3
93
Kt-K3 eh.
P -B5 eh.
P x Kt eh.
R-KRl
K-K2
RxP
Kt-Bl
K-Ql
R-Kt3 eh.
K-B2
Position ajteT 41 . . . . . Kt(2)-K3

the dominating
Knight at Q5).
position
of the
42. . . . . . .
Kt-B2
Kt(4)-K3
43. R x P
44. P-R5
Stronger was 44. Kt-K2, but
Black is still able to hold the posi
tion by 44. . . . . K-Q2; 45. Kt
Q4, Kt x Kt; 46. K x Kt, R-QKti !
47. R-R7, K-B3; 48. P-K6,
K-KKt3; 49. R-R4, Kt x P eh. ;
50. K-K5, R-Kl; 5 1 . K x P ,
P-Kt6! a variation given by
Alekhine.
44. . . . . . .
45. P-R6
K-Q2
A highly instructive position.

Though White has four Pawns for
the piece and Black dare not allow
an exchange of Rooks, he still
cannot win.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
45. . . . . . .
Kt x P!
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
P-Kt4
R-Q5
R-B5
R-Q5
R-R5
K-K4
R___.:.R7 eh.
R-R6 eh.
R-R7 eh.
R-R6 eh.
P-R4
R-R6
K-Q4
P-R5
R-R7 eh.
P-R6
P-R7
R-QKt7
R-Kt2
R-Q2
Kt-K3
Kt-Bl
Kt-K3
Kt-Bl
R x BP
R-B8
K-K3
K-Q2
K-K3
K-K2
Kt-Q2
R-K8 ch.
Kt x P
Kt x P
K-Q3
R-QR8
Kt-B3
Kt-Q2
RxP
Kt-B4
CHESS FROM MORPHY TO .BOTWI"'NIK
94
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
K-B4 dis. eh.

R-I\R2
K-B3
K-Q2
R-R5
K-K2
K-B3
R-R5 eh.
R-KKt5
R-Kt6
K-Kt4
K-B5
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
R-R4 eh.
K-B2
R-KB4
K-Kt2
K-B3
Draw.
K--B6
R-Q6
K-Q7
R-Q4
K-Q6
A truly titanic struggle and an extremely difficult type of game to follow.

Indeed it would be almost impossible but for Alekhine's comments. There
are two important points to be observed. Firstly, that a pure tactical
struggle does not take place until the 2_6th move, at which point the game
diverges from the 24th match game. Secondly, that Black was eventually
able to free his game with . . . . P-QB4, although he required 29 moves
to prepare for this key-move.
LASKER'S DEFENSIVE SYSTEM
The following game shows a different defensive system. Lasker here
adopts a more energetic but also a riskier line than that played by Capa
blanca (see Game 49, page 91). Although he succeeds in forcing through
the liberating move
P-K4, at an early stage, nevertheless he loses
very quickly.
50
White
Black
A. Alekhine
Em. Lasker
Ziirich, 1934
P-Q4
1. P-Q4
2. P-QB4
P-K3
Kt-KB3
3. Kt-QB3
B-K2
4. Kt-B3
QKt-Q2
5. B-Kt5
6. P-K3
Castles
P-B3
7. R-B1
8. B-Q3
PxP
9. B x BP
Kt-Q4
QxB
10. B x B
KKt-B3
1 1 . Kt-K4
P-K4
12. Kt-Kt3
An enterprising and rather dan
gerous attempt to solve the pro
blems presented by the defence, at
the expense of some insecurity of
position.
PXP
13. Castles
14. Kt-B5
The simple 14. P x P gives White
more chances. Alekhine suggests
the Pawn sacrifice 14. P X P, Kt
Kt3; 15. R-K1, Q-Q3; 16. B-
Kt3, B-Kt5; 17. P-KR3, offering

the QP when White has a strong
attack on account of the open
King's file. But even 14. Kt x P,
Kt-Kt3; 15. B-Kt3, gives White
a strong game without any need to
sacrifice.
14.
15. KKt x P
1 6. B-Kt3
17. Kt x B
Q-Q1
Kt-K4
B x Kt
Q-Kt3?
Position after 26. Q X PI /

An insignificant move but the
Sufficient for
decisive mistake.
equality is 1 7 .
. . . PKKt3.
(Euwe-Flohr, Nottingham, 1936.)
.
QKt-Q2
18. Q-Q6!
If 18 . . . . . Kt-Kt3; 19. Kt-R6
eh.
19. KR-Q1
20. Q-Kt3
QR-QI
P-Kt3
95
KR1
2 1 . Q-Kt5
White threatened 22. RQ6 ,
Kt-K5; 23. R x KtP eh., K-Rl ;
24. Q-R6.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Kt-Q6
P-K4!
R-Q3
Kt-B5 eh.
Q x P! !
K-Kt2
Kt-KKtl
P-B3
K-RI
Resigns.
As Alekhine remarks, the final attack could hardly have been more
efficiently directed after Black's wasted 17th move. Examining Alek
hine's conduct of the final attack, we cannot help noticing the enormous
strides that attacking technique has made since the age of the HEvergreen"
and the "Immortal" and also the technique of changing a closed position
into an open one.
Whether Lasker's system is an improvement on Capablanca's is difficult
to say since it has rarely been played, and the other lines suggested for
White have never been subjected to the rigorous test of tournament play.
However, Alekhine himself says that his move (Kt-K4) is no better than
the normal l l . Castles, which seems to show that Black can achieve
approximate equality.
CoNCLUSIONS
The problem of the Orthodox Defence is this: how is Black to develop
his Queen's Bishop? In the preceding games we have endeavoured to
show how masters of the past and present tried to solve this problem.
In the first example Anderssen attempts a straightforward solution
by playing . . . . P-QKt3, and though Steinitz refutes it on the first
occasion, the defence is to be found in the tournament repertoire for the
next 50 years. In this period Pillsbury adopted a system based on his
famous Kt-K5 position, yielding victory through a King's side attack.
But the defence technique progressed, and even Pillsbury in his last
tournament at Cambridge Springs, 1904, changed his strategy and sought
to exploit Black's concrete weakness on the Queen's side instead of the
illusory weakness on the other wing. Capablanca introduced a more
convincing line strengthened by the addition of some refinements by
Alekhine (see Game 41, page 77).
This leads us to the modern defence illustrated by Lasker's treatment,
which avoids the Pawn weaknesses and deliberately surrenders the centre
( . . . . P x BP;) to prepare for the freeing moves . . . . P-K4; or . . . .
P-QB4; with the dual purpose of restoring the equilibrium in the centre
and gaining an outlet for the Queen's Bishop. This object we see carried
out ideally by Showalter, but it failed to be appreciated or universally
adopted.
The next milestone occurs between the years 1907-1920, when Rubin
stein achieved singular victories with the Queen's Gambit, attributed at
that time to his superb positional play ; whereas we now know that the
explanation of his success lies not only in his technique but also because
no clear-cut defensi \-e systems had been evolved. To-day, against his
"tempo struggle" system (Q-B2) not less than five adequate defences
have been form ulated. A definite line for Black was introduced by
CHESS FR OM l\IOHPHY TO BO'l'W IN NIK
96
Capablanca who, in the war years, revived the old Showalter continuation
and by enriching the defence tactically introduced what we call 'Capa
blanca's Freeing Mamcuvre.'
Alekhine's attack (Kt-K4) offered White
chances, chiefly dependent on the su rprise elemen t, but these were
overcome.
VIII
THE EXCHANGE VARIATION OF
THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT
THIS is one of the most important variations of the Queen's Gambit, as
White can usually force some line of it upon his opponent, and because it
also provides a means of avoiding the many and varied tactical complica
tions of the Cambridge Springs and allied defences.
By exchanging in the centre (BP x P, KP x P), White sets up a rigid
formation and transfe.rs the fight to the wings. It might seem that such
a policy would deprive the game of its dynamics, reducing it to a mere
djsplay of technique. This is fortunately not the case. Many great
masters manage, as we shall see, to infuse into this system many novel
ideas and personal refinements, despite the reduced material resources.
We divide the Exchange variation into two main lines:
1. The Minority Attack, where \Vhite (and in some cases Black) attacks
the opposing Pawn majority with a view to isolating and weakening the
Pawns.
2. Heterogeneous Castling, where the players castle on opposite sides
and attack the enemy King's position.
THE MINORITY ATI'ACK IN THE EXCHANGE VABlATION
EARLY BEGINNINGS
This modem variation of the Queen's Gambit Declined poses a middle
game problem: Can White succeed in attacking Black's seemingly solid
Queen's side Pawns with his minority? The attempt opposes a dogma
which was generally accepted in the period between Steinitz' death and
the First World War: that a Pawn minority should not advance a{!,ainst
a majority.
Thus we find no examples of this system from the time when the theory
of Tarrasch held sway until Capablanca's revival of the system in 1921 .
We have to return to the nineteenth century to find examples from
tournament play.
Here we discover that it was played by Pillsbury against Showalter,
and by Steinitz against Lee. Since Pillsbury's treatment has little in
common with modern methods, we start our study with Steinitz v. Lee
in the London Tournament 1R99.
,
THE EXCHANGE VARIATION OF THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT

51
White
W.
Steinitz
Black
F. J. Lee
London, 1899
P-Q4
1. P-Q4
P-K3
2. P-QB4
Kt-KB3
3. Kt-QB3
B-K2
4. B-Kt5
Castles
5. P-K3
6. B x Kt
BxB
PxP
7. P x P
8. Q-Kt3
Steinitz' manreuvre in the last
three moves indicates that he was
deliberately aiming at 1eaching this
position. With the experience of
modern theory as support, we now
know that it is possible to arrive
at this type of position without the
committing 6. B x Kt, and the
tempo-losing Q-Kt3.
97
RP X P
15. P-Kt5
16. P x P
R xR
17. R x R
P-KB4
Kt-Q2
18. R-R8
There is nothing better.
19. Kt-R4
Kt-Kt3
20. Kt x Kt
Q x Kt
B-Q2
21. Kt-B3
22. Q-R2
RxR
23. Q X R eh.
B-Q1
If the suggested line 23.
K-Kt2; 24. Kt-R4, Q-B2; 25.
P-Kt6, Q-Bl; 26. Q-R7, B-Q3;
threatening to dislodge the Queen
after B-Ktl is played, there fol
lows 27. Kt-B5, B x Kt; 28. P x B,
with the threat 29. B-R6.
24. Kt-R4
25. P-Kt6
Q-B2
Q-B1
8. . . . . . .
P-B3
9. B-Q3
R-Kl
10. KKt-K2
This move, adopted thirty years
later by Alekhine and Flohr, is
much more elastic than the usual
Kt-B3.
Kt-Q2
10.
1 1 . Q-B2
Kt-Bl
P-KKt3
12. Castles KR
P-QR3
13. P-QKt4
B-K2
14. P-QR4
Now we have reached the critical
position, and it is interesting to note
what one contemporary critic said:
'The plan of attacking on the left
wing practically four Pawns with
two should not succeed.
Black
might have played 14. . . . . P
QKt3;
stopping
15.
P-Kt5,
because of 15.
P-QB4;
threatening . . . . P-B5, and estab
lishing a passed Pawn.' Though
this remark is correct, it proves only
that White should have gained
control of the Queen's Bishop file
first and omitted the premature
6. B x Kt.
26. Q-R7
Safer was first 26. Q-R5, and
if 26 . . . . . P-B5; 27. P x P, B
KB3; 28. Q-Kt4. Against other
moves, White can secure his King's
side and eventually break through
on the Queen's side with Kt---,.B5,
followed by Q-R7 and B-R6.
P-B5
26 . . . . . . .
The only move, but an ingenious
resource.
27. Kt-B5
A tempting alternative is 27.
B-R6, but Black simply replies
98
27.
P x P; and if 28. B x P,
then 28.
P-K7 wins.
27. . . . . . .
28. Kt x P
If 28. P x P,
B-Kt4.
PxP
then
28.
P x P eh.
28.
B-B4
29. K-Bl
30. B x B
If 30. B-K2, B-Kt5; or if 30.
B-R6, Q-K3 follows.

30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
QxB
Q-Q6 eh.
Kt X B
Q-Q7 eh.
KXP
Q-Q6 eh.
K-B3
Q-B4 eh.
K-Kt4
Q-Q6 eh.
K-Kt3
Q X P eh.
K-R4
Q-B3 eh.
P-Kt4
Q-K4 eh.
K-Kt3
Drawn.
Except for a slight transposition of the opening moves, this game has
quite a modern appearance.
Its clear-cut strategy and purposefulness might well have given new
life to the 19th century Queen's Gambit Declined, but contemporary
players passed it by unnoticed.
Unfortunately, we do not know Steinitz'
own views on this line as he played it in this, his last tournament, only
a few months before his death.
CAPABLANCA REVIVES THE MINORITY ATTACK

Capablanca revived the Minority Attack as Black in the tenth game
of the World Championship Match against Lasker, in 1921. He demon
strated with great ski11 that, contrary to accepted theory, a majority of
Pawns can be successfully assailed, provided the attacker has an advantage
in space for the mobility of the supporting pieces. In his later match
against Alekhine in 1927, Capablanca purposely sets up an 'exchange
variation' formation, carrying through the 'Minority Attack.'
J. R.
White
52
Capablanca
Black
A. Alekhine

P-Q4
1 . P-Q4
P-K3
2. P-QB4
Kt-KB3
3. Kt-QB3
QKt-Q2
4. B-Kt5
B-K2
5. P-K3
Castles
6. Kt-B3
P-QR3
7. R-Bl
PxP
8. P x P
P-B3
9. B-Q3
10. Q-B2
In the 23rd match game Capa
blanca played the less exact move
10. Castles, which allowed Black to
reply 10 . . . . Kt-Kl; 1 1 . B X B,
Q x B; freeing his game and enabling

him to manreuvre his Knight to the
key position, Q3.
10.
R-Kl
Kt-Bl
1 1 . Castles
1 2. KR-Kl
A seemingly insignificant move,
but in reality a typical conception
of Capablanca, who thus retains the
option of attacking in the centre,
should Black initiate any attack on
the King's wing.
12. . . . . . .
B-K3
To-day, in such a position as this,
we would prefer 12 . . . . . B-KKt5;
in order to follow with B-R4-Kt3,
a manreuvre which can now only
THR EXCHANGE VARIATION OF THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT
99
be played with much difficulty. If

White replies 13. Kt-K5, B-R4;
14. Kt-R4, Kt-Kt5 ! can follow.
KKt-Q2
13. Kt-QR4
14. B x B
QxB
15. Kt-B5
Kt x Kt
Q-B2
16. Q X Kt
17. P-QKt4
Kt-Q2
We have now arrived at a typical
position in the Minority Attack.
White threatens to break up Black's
Queen's side by P-QR4 and
P-Kt5, whilst Black's counter
attacking chances on the King's side
are unsubstantial. Even so, the text
move is a slight inaccuracy, as
Alekhine points out, recommending
17. . . . . QR-Q1; and on 18.
Kt-Q2, B-Kt5; followed by . . . .
B-R4 and
B-Kt3.
. . .
18. Q-B2
P-R3
19. P-QR4
Q-Q3
20. R-Ktl
KR-QBI
B-Kt5
21. KR-QB1
22. Kt-Q2
R-B2
23. Kt-Kt3
B-R4
If 23. . . . . Q X P? 24. Kt-B5.
Kt X Kt
24. Kt-B5
25. Q X Kt
Q-B3
Naturally Black keeps the Queen
since his whole defensive chances
lie in a possible counter-attack on
the King's side.
26. P-Kt5
Premature. He must play 26.
R-Rl l B-Kt3; 27. B-B1 first,
retaining his advantage by keeping
the Bishop for the defence of the
Position after 25 . . . . Q-B8

.
King's side and for attacking the

Queen's side Pawns.
26
RP x P
27. P x P
B-Kt3
28. B x B
QxB
29. R-Rl
QR-QBI
30. P--Kt6
White has nothing better. He
cannot force Black to play P x P
breaking up the Pawn position.
.
30 .
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
. . . . .
......
R-R7
KR-Rl
Q-B2
P-Kt3
R-R8
R xR
R-R7
P-R4
K-Kt2
Q-Q3
K-R2
R-Q2
K-R2
P-B4
R-K2
R(l )-Kl
R-K5
RxR
R-QKtl
P-R4
Q-K3
K-Kta
Drawn.
A most pleasing and harmonious game, in which Capablanca carries

out the minority attack in a masterly fashion. Very impressive is his
'preventive technique,' the manner in which, by not weakening his Pawn
position, he prevents Black from counter-attacking on the King's side,
thus avoiding any mark of attack which Black might use later as a means
of providing counter-play in a difficult position. We know to-day that
\\Thite was able to do this only because Black omitted to execute the
manreuvre B-KKt5-KR4-KKt3.
8
100
CHESS FROM 1\IORPHY
TO BOT,VINNIK
ALEKHINE CH OOSES A BETTER DEFENSIVE FORMATION
53
White
J.
R. Capablanca
Black
A. Alekhine

P-Q4
1. P-Q4
P-K3
2. P-QB4
3. Kt-QB3
Kt-KB3
4. B-Kt5
QKt-Q2
5. P-K3
B-K2
6. Kt-B3
Castles
7. R-B1
P-QR3
8. PxP
PxP
9. B-Q3
P-B3
10. Q-B2
P-R3
1 1. B-R4
Kt-K1
B-Q3
12. B-Kt3
BxB
13. Castles
Kt-Q3
14. RP X B
This Knight manreuvre was in
troduced by Capablanca in the 14th
match game and it is considered
best even to-day.
15. Kt-QR4
R-K1
16. KR-K1
Kt-B3
Better is 16. .. . . Kt-B1; in
order to be able to drive off the
Knight from K5 with P-B3.
17. Kt-K5
18. Q-Kt3
19. Kt-B5
Kt(B3)-K5
B-K3
Kt X Kt
The ideal position of White's
Knights prompts Alekhine to adopt
a simplifying manceuvre which
hinges on his 21st move. Better was
his
recommendation 19.
Q-B3; when White plays 20.
B x Kt, P x B; (20 . . . . . Kt x B;
21. Kt x Kt, P x Kt; 22. Q x P,
QR- Ktl ; 23. Q x BP!) 21. Q-B2,
B-Q4; and after preparation P
B3, obtaining the superiority in the
centre.
20. P X Kt
21. P-R4
22. B-Ktl
Kt-Kt4
Kt-B2
Not 22. QxKtP? B-Bl; win-
ning the Knight. Black has based

his defence on this trap.
22. . . . . . .
23. Kt-B3
B-Bl
Kt-K3
24. P-K4
The position is now clarified. By
means of his complicated Bishop
and Knight manreuvre, Black has
been able to prevent White from
carrying out his minority attack,
but not without allowing him
chances in the centre.
24. . . . . . .
PxP
25. RxP
R-K2
26. QR-Kl
B-Q2
If 26 . .. . . KtxP? 27. RxR,
B-K3; (R-K8 is threatened) 28.
Q-B2.
27. Q-B2
P-KKt3
28. B-R2
Q-KBl
Q-Kt2
29. Kt-K5
If 29. .... B-B1; 30. KtxKtP,
P X Kt; 31. B X Kt eh., K-Kt2;
(31. . .. . K-R2? 32. B-Kt8 eh.)
32. BxB, RxR; 33. QxR, RxB;
34. Q-Q4 eh. wins.
30.
31.
32.
33.
KtxB
BxKt
R-KKt4!
RxP
34. Q-K4
35. P-B4
RxKt
PxB
K-R2
R-KKtl
R-KB2
Q- Bl
THE EXCHANGE VARIATION OF THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 101

36. R(Kt4) X P
Simpler is 36. R(6) X KtP, Q X P
eh.; 37. K-B l , Q-B8 eh.; 38.
K-B2, Q-Q7 eh.; 39. K-Ktl ,
Q-Q8 eh.; 40. K-R2, and wins,
since the Black Queen cannot check
on KR4.
Q x P eh.
Q-B8 eh.
36.
37. K-Bl
38. K-B2?
White can still win by 38. K-K2,

Q x P eh.; 39. K-B3, Q-Kt6 eh.;
(preventing 40. K-Kt4? because
of Q x R eh.) 40. K-B2, Q-Kt7
eh.; (40. . . . . Q-Kt3 eh. 41.
K-B l ) 41 . K-Ktl, and wins,
since the White King escapes to
R2 without having to fear Q-R4
eh.
38. . . . . . .
Q-Q7 eh!
Drawn.
This game shows that Black is able to prevent White from carrying
out the Minority Attack, but he is unable to solve satisfactorily the
other problems of the opening.
Herein lies the importance of the game from our point of view. We
see that by merely threatening to play the Minority Attack White can tie
down Black's pieces and force a decisive break-through in the centre.
Alekhine himself was full of praise for his opponent's fine play.
FLOHR'B TREATMENT
Another great 'technician' to adopt the Minority Attack was Salo Flohr.
He used this system mainly to prevent his opponents from adopting the
Cambridge Springs and Manhattan defences, with all their attendant
tactical complexities.
Especially instructive is the way in which he neutralises Black's King's
side counter-chances, so that his eventual action on the Queen's side
may proceed unhindered, and with the greatest effect.
54
White
S. Flohr
Black
M. Euwe
1st Match Game, 1932

P-Q4
1. P-Q4
P-QB3
2. P-QB4
Kt-KB3
3. Kt-KB3
P-K3
4. Kt-B3
5. B-Kt5
QKt-Q2
6. P x P
KP x P
7. P-K3
B-K2
8. B-Q3
More precise is 8. Q-B2 since
after the text Black can free his
position with 8. . . . . Kt-K5.
8.
9. Q-B2
10. Castles KR
1 1 . Kt-K5
Castles
R-Kl
Kt-Bl
Kt-Kt5
12. B x B
QxB
13. Kt x Kt
B x Kt
14. KR-Kl
In the 5th match game against
Showalter, Pillsbury played 14.
QR-Kl, Q-B3; 15. P-QR4,
R-K2; 16. P-QKt4, QR-Kl ; 17.
P-Kt5, Q-Kt4; and in order to
meet the dangerous attack, played
the weakening move 18. P-B4,
after which his minority attack
should not have been successful.
The idea of the text-move is to free
KBl for a minor piece, where it
would be well placed for defensive
purposes.
14. . . . . . .
QR-Ql
15. Kt-K2
R-Q3
An easier defence is given by 15.
. . . . B x Kt; after 16. R x B, P
KKt3; 17. R-Ktl, Kt-K3; 18.
P-QKt4, P-QR3; 19. P-QR4,
102
CHES FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK
R-QBl; 20. Q-Kt3, Q-Kt4;

when Black can meet 21. P-Kt5
with RP X P; 22. P x P, P-QB4.
16. Kt-Kt3
R-R3
Position after 23 . . . . . R-K2

24. Kt-R21 !
complete surprise! One would
expect White to play the Knight
to Q2 and thence to the Queen's side
in order to assist in the decisive
break-through, but the piece returns
to the King's side, since White
intends to reply to 24
Kt-K1
with 25. Kt-Kt4, R-K3; 26.
Kt-K5, and follow later with
P-Kt5.
A
17. B-B5!
In a similar
Very important!
position (the White QKtP was at
Kt4) against Keres at Semmering
Baden, 1937, Flohr allowed Black
to play Q-R5 and after 18. Kt
B1, Kt-K3; 19. P-Kt5, Black
obtained a very dangerous attack
with B-B6! ! (20. P X B, Kt-Kt4;
21. K-Kt2, Q-R4; 22. B-B5,
followed).
Q-Kt4
17. .. ... .
QxB
18. B x B
19. P-KR3
Q-Q2
20. P-QKt4
Kt-K3
21 . QR-Ktl
Kt-B2
22. P-QR4
P-QR3
23. Kt-B1
R-K2
Black probably expected 24.
Kt-Q2, when 24. . . . . Kt-K1;
25. Kt-Kt3, Kt-Q3; gives him a
good defensive position. Had he
comprehended White's deep stra
tegy he would have played 23 . . . . .
R-QB1; (intending 24 . . . . . Kt
K1; when the Rook prevents
White's break - through by 24.
P-Kt5) 24. Q-Kt3, R-Kt3; 25.
K-R1, Q-B4; 26. R-K2, Kt
K1; 27. P-Kt5, RP x P; 28. P x
P, Kt-Q3; with sufficient counter
play.
. . .
R(R3)-K3
24. . . . . . .
25. Kt-B3
P-KB3
White has, by subt1e play, completely secured his King's side,
since the Black Rook cannot be
transferred to this wing without the
intermediary P-KB4, after which
the White Knight could be estab
lished at K5 with great effect.
26. Kt-Q2
R-K1
27. Kt-Kt3
R(K3)-K2
Q-B1
28. Kt-B5
29. KR-QB1
R-Q1
Q-Ktl
30. Kt-Q3!
White threatened 31. P-Kt5. If
30. . .. . Q-B4; 31. Q-B5, R-B2;
32. R-Kt3, follows with the threat
Q-Kt6.
31 . Kt-B4
Kt-K3
In the long run Black cannot
avoid the exchange of Knights and
White was also threatening 32.
Q-QB5, followed by Q-Kt6.
THE EXCHANGE VARIATION OF
R x Kt
32. Kt x Kt
33. P-Kt5
RP x P
34. P x P
PxP
A dubious move, but if 34.
Q-Q3 (35. P x P, R x BP; 36. Q x R!
must be prevented) 35 . Q-R2!,
with threats on both the Rook's file
and the diagonal, makes Black's
position very difficult.
P-QKt3
35. R X P
If 35 . . . . . R-B3? 36. Q X R.
36. Q-Kt3
Q3
THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT 103
Not 36 . . . . . Q-Kt2; when 37.

R(l )-B5, R(3)-Q3; 38. P-K4! is
decisive.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41 .
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
R-QKti
R x KtP
QxQ
RxR
K-R2
K-Kt3
K B4
P-Kt4
R-Kt7 eh.
K-B3
-
R-Q2
QxR
RxQ
K-B2
K-K2
R-R2
P-KKt3
R-R7
K-K3
Resigns.
Flohr's clear-cut play makes this game a strategical masterpiece.

His defensive technique is of special interest. Unlike Capablanca in
the last game he was unable to avoid making a weakening Pawn move
on the King's side, but by skilful manreuvring with his Knight and by
employing his latent threats on the Queen's side, he managed to drive off
Black's pieces and break through on the Queen's side, just at the moment
when his opponent's pieces were most disorganised.
This game and Capablanca's method of handling the Minority Attack
in the previous one show how the problems of the opening extend deep
into the middle-game: an apt illustration of how involved and intricate
are the problems posed by modern theory.
THE DEFENCE SYSTEM TO THE MINORITY ATTACK
CAPABLANCA'S DEFENSIVE SYSTEM
Since all the previous games have featured the Minority Attack from
White's point of view, it may seem as if White has almost a 'walk over.'
However, it must be remembered that it always takes some considerable
time for a sufficient counter to be found to any attack. In the following
games we shall examine this problem of finding an adequate defensive
system by showing its gradual evolution at the hands of the great masters.
We commence our study with the original system played by Capablanca
in his World Championship match against Alekhine.
8. Q-B2
55
White
A. Alekhine
Black
J. R.
Capablanca

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
P-Q4
P-QB4
Kt-KB3
Kt-B3
B-IH5
P-K3
R-Bl
P-Q4
P-K3
Kt-KB3
QKt-Q2
B-K2
Castles
P-QB3
P-QR3
P-R3
9. P-QR3
In the second match game, Capa
blanca played the more exact 9.
. . . . R-Kl and avoided being
forced into the exchange variation
as 10. P x P, is answered by Kt X PI
10. B-R4
R-K1
11. P x P
KP x P
Now 11 . . . . KtxP is answered
by 12. B-Kt3.
.
12. B-Q3
104
CHESS

14. Castles
KKt-B3
15. P-KR3
Too slow. 15. P-QKt4, Kt-K1 ;
16. P-QR4, Kt-Q3; 1 7 . P-Kt5,
gives White a strong initiative,
showing that Capablanca's man
ceuvre to place the Knight at Q3
requires exact timing, and is satis
factory only when Black is suffi
ciently developed and able to play
-QKt4 before White can play
P-QKt5.
Position after 12. B-Q3

The usual continuation in posi
tions of this type is 12 . . . . . Kt-B1;
13. Kt-K5, Kt-Kt5; 14. Kt x Kt,
B x Kt; which, though perfectly
playable, allows White to adopt a
line in which he can dictate the
future trend of the play for some
time. This passive defence does not
suit Capablanca's style of play, and
he therefore chooses a simplifying
continuation.
12.
Kt-R4
RxB
13. B x B
To make room for the Knight
at Kl .
Kt-K1
15. . . . . . .
16. Kt-K2
If White now plays 16. P-QKt4,
Black replies 16 . . . . . Kt-Q3; 17.
P-QR4, P-QKt4; 18. Kt-K2,
Kt-B5; and he can block the QB
file without having to put his
Queen's Bishop out of play at Kt2.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21 .
22.
23.
24.
25.
Kt-Q3
Kt-Kt3
Kt-B1
Kt-K5
P-KB3
Kt X Kt
Kt-Kt6
B x Kt
B-K3
Kt-K2
Q-Q2
Kt-B4
B-B4
QxB
BxB
QxQ
Kt x Q
Kt-Q3
Kt-Q3
Drawn.
The importance of this game lies in Capablanca's introduction of the

Knight manceuvre to Q3 which has since become an important defensive
resource.
THE MODIFIED CAPABLANCA DEFENCE SYSTEM
As we have seen from the preceding game, Capablanca's defence
system, though positionally sound, involves a loss of time, which White
is able to turn to good use in building up an attacking position on the
Queen's side and in the centre (see, for example, Alekhine's game against
Tylor at Nottingham in 1936).
Attempts have consequently been made to carry out the defensive
manceuvre without undue preparation.
The following game is a good
example of modern trends in the treatment of this problem.
56
2. P-QB4
P-K3
3. Kt-QB3
P-Q4
Black
White
4. B-Kt5
QKt-Q2
M. Najdorf
E. Eliskases
B-K2
5. P-K3
Mar del Plata, 1947
6. Kt-B3
Castles
1. P-Q4
Kt-KB3
7. R-B1
P-QR3

8. P x P
PxP
P-B3
9. B-Q3
10. Q-B2
R-K1
1 1 . Castles
Kt-B1
12. P-KR3
If this move is considered neces
sary in order to prevent B-KKt5R4-Kt3, it means that Black gains
a move besides creating a possible
point of attack at KKt5.
This attempt to counter-attack is

too early. With 22 . . . . . Q-K3;
23. Q-Kt6, R-K2; 24. P-Kt5,
RPxP; 25. P x P, R-QB1 ; 26.
R-B5 (26. R-R1, P-Kt4!) R(2)
-B2 Black is able to satisfactorily
defend his Queen's side and keep
his Pawn chain intact and could
then start a counter-attack by
P-KR4 and P-KKt4-KKt5.
P-KKt3
12. . . . . . .
With the idea of playing the usual
manreuvre Kt-K3-Kt2 and B
KB4, which may be called the
modified Capablanca system.
23. Q-Kt6 !
R-K2
If 23. . . . . Q-Q2; 24. P-Kt5,
RP x P; 25. RP x P, R-K3; 26.
R-R1, R-QB1; 27. R-R7 would
follow and White has considerable
pressure.
13. Kt-K5
Kt(B3)-Q2
14. B-KB4
Kt x Kt
1 5. B x Kt
B-Q3
16. B x B
QxB
17. Kt-R4
If 17. P-R3, Kt-K3; 18. PQKt4, Kt-Kt2; 19. R-Ktl , B84; 20. P-QR4, B X B; 21. Q x B,
P-QKt4 follows and Black will
eventually be able to secure the
strong square QB5 for his Knight
via Kt-B4-Q3.
17 .
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
......
Kt-B5
Q x Kt
P-QKt4
BxB
P-QR4
Kt-K3
Kt x Kt
Q-B3
B-B4
QxB
RP x P
24. P-Kt5!
25. P x P
PxP
Now Black must allow his Pawn
position to be broken up, since 25.
. . . . R-QB1; 26. P X P, Q-K3; is
refuted by 27. P X P! !
K-Kt2
26. R-B5
R-Q1
27. Q X P(Kt5)
R(2)--Q2
28. Q-R5
P-Kt5
29. R(1 )-B1
QxP
30. P x P
31. R-Kt5
K-R1
32. Q-Kt6
Avoiding the trap 32. R X KtP?
R-KKtl .
R-Q3
32. . . . . . .
33. Q-B7!
Not 33. Q x P, R-KKtl ; 34.
P-Kt3, Q-R6l with the threat
R x P eh.
R-KKtl
33. . . . . . .
Now if 33.
R-KR3; 34.
Q-K5 eh., P-B3; 35. Q X QP!
repulses the attack.
Q-K3
34. P-Kt3
35. R-K1
In view of the threat 35.
R x P eh.
22 . . . . . . .
P-KKt4
P-Kt3
35. . . . . . .
36. P-K4!
Just when it looks as if Black
has set up a defensible position,
106
White institutes a decisive break

through in the centre.
38. P-Q5
P-R4
38 . . . . . Q-R8 eh.; 39. K-Kt2,
R-R3; 40. Q-K5 eh., Q X Q; 41.
R x Q, gives Black better drawing
chances.
39. K-Kt2
Q-Kt3
40. R-KB4
R-Kt2
41. R-KR41
The threat of 42. R x P eh. forces
the Black Rook to an inactive post
on R2, a weakness which later
proves to be decisive.
41 . . . . . .
R-R2
42. R(5)-Kt41
Q-B3
43. R(R4)-KB4 Q-QI
44. Q-B3 eh.
K-Ktl
45. R(Kt4)-B41 Q-KB1
46. R-B8
R-Q1
47. R(4)-QB41
This is the key of White's skilful
manreuvre. The opposing Rooks
are driven away, whilst his own
pieces are established at their most
effective posts. A masterpiece of
strategy.
.
Position after 36. P-K4!

If Black replies 36 . . . . . P-B4;
White plays 37. R(l )-Ktl, (not
37. P-K5? R-B3; 38. Q-R7,
P-B5!) 37 . . . . . BP X P; 38. R x
KtP, R x R; (not 38 . . . . . R(I)-QI;
39. Q X R eh !) 39. R X R, Q-B4;
40. Q-K7! with decisive advantage.
.
47
48. R x R
49. R-B8
36 . . . . . .
37. R x KP
.
PxP
Q-B3
. . . . . .
R-R3
QxR
Resigns.
The first part of the game demonstrates how Black should handle this
defence; that is by the exchange of the Queen's Bishop for White's King's
Bishop and the deploying of the Knight via KKt2 to Q3, keeping it
always in close proximity to the centre, so that he can readily deal with
any possible change of plan by White.
The second phase of the game is remarkable for the middle-game play
by Najdorf, the foremost tactician of our time, who correctly exploits
with his heavy pieces Black's Pawn weaknesses.
HETEROGENEOUS CASTLING IN THE EXCHANGE VARIATION

RESHEVSKY'S TREATMENT
In the other main line of the Exchange Variation, after the early
exchange of the centre Pawns, instead of developing the Queen's Rook,
White tries to give the game a sharper note by Castling Q'side.
Fifteen years ago, this line used to be looked upon as an independent
system in which the Minority Attack had no place. However, the following
game shows its introduction as an effective counter to the defensive
system illustrated in the last game.

57
White
S. Reshevsky
G.
Black
Stahlberg
Kemeri, 1937
Kt-KB3
I. P-Q4
2. P-QB4
P-K3
P-Q4
3. Kt-KB3
4. Kt-B3
B-K2
QKt-Q2
5. B-Kt5
6. PxP
PxP
Better is 6 . . . . . Ktx P; 7. B X B,
Q X B; ( Alatortsev - Capablanca,
Moscow, 1935), and Black has eased
his position by the exchange of
Bishops.
P-QB3
7. P-K3
8. Q-B2
With this move White chooses a
more elastic system than we have
seen hitherto. Not only does he
save the move QR-B1 (the Rook
usually has to return to QKtl to
support P-QKt4) but he retains
the possibility of castling on the
Queen's side.
Kt-B1
8. . . . . . .
But Stahlberg is also on his guard
and likewise selects a non-commit
tal move, which according to
White's play can either transpose
into regular lines or, as in the game,
can be the prelude to a modified
defensive system.
Kt-K3
9. B-Q3
P-KKt31
10. B-R4
Now Black's plan becomes ap
parent. He wants to exchange the
opposing King's Bishop by playing
the usual manreuvre Kt-Kt2 and
B-KB4, but wishes to save a move
by dispensing with R-K1, which
in order to make room for the
Knight, is necessary after castling.
1 1 . Castles QR
Reshevsky changes his plans
since he realizes that to adopt the
minority attack leads to nothing
after 1 1 . Castles KR, Kt-Kt2; 12.
QR-Ktl , P-QR4; 13. P-QR3,
B-KB4; 14. P-QKt4, P x P; 15.

P X P, R-R6; when Black stands
well.
This system of heterogeneous
castling introrluces a new system
which was fashionable in the 1930's,
until it was realized that Black's
counter-chances on the Queen's side
are more easily realized than White's
attack on the King's side. Reshev
sky, who fears none of the dangers
attendant upon lines such as this,
has adopted the system several
times in order to inject more life
into the game.
Castles
11. . . . . . .
12. K-Ktl
With 12. P-KR3 White can
prevent Black's impending man
reuvre, remaining more in harmony
with the strategy. Still, even after
12. P-KR3, P-B4; (12. . . . .
Kt-Kt2; 13. P-KKt4,) 13. P X P,
Kt x P; 14. P-KKt4, B-K3; 15.
K......: Ku, R-Bl; Black obtains
good counter-chances on the Queen's
side.
Kt-Kt2
1 2.
B-KB4
13. P-KR3
14. B x Kt
Better than 14. P-KKt4, B X B;
15. Q X B, Kt-K5.
KB x B
14.
B xB
15. P-KKt4
Kt-K3
16. Q X B
The object of Reshevsky's stra
tegy becomes plain. He is able to
advance his King's side Pawns
whilst Black's usual response, a
similar Queen's side Pawn advancE-,
is purposeless here since White has
not moved any of his Queen's side
Pawns and so has an ideal defensive
position.
P-B41
17. P-KR4
A Pawn sacrifice ( Black s only
counter-chance), the consequences
of which are not easy to assess.
'
18. P x P
B x Kt
108
R-B l
19. Q x B
20. P-K4!
RxP
21. Q-R3
Now White is threatening Q X P,
and on 21 . . . . . P-QR4; 22.
Kt-Kt5, Q-Q3; 23. P x P, wins
a Pawn, as after 23. . . . . Kt x Kt;
24. P X Kt, R-Q1; 25. Q-R3
follows.
Q-Q3!
21. . . . . . .
22. P x P
If 22. Q x P, Q-B51
White has kept the Pawn and has

consolidated his position, but Black
has a surprise in hand.
P-R4!
25. . . . . . .
26. R-K1 !
The only move. If (a) 26. P X P?
Q-B4 eh.; 27. K-R1 , R-Q6; wins
a piece; if (b) 26. R-Ktl? P x P;
27. R x P, Q-Q8 eh. winning the
Knight.
PxP
26. . . . . . .
Kt-Kt2!
27. Kt-K5
28. Q-K4!
Avoiding the trap 28. Kt x P (4) ?
Q-B4 eh.; 29. Q-K4, R-Q8 eh.;
30. K-B2, R x R; wins.
QxQ
28 . . . . . .
P-B4
29. R x Q
K-R2
30. R-QB4
31 . K-B2
R-K1
Kt-K3
32. Kt-Q3
33. P-R4
K-R3
R-K2
34. R-Kt4
35. R-Kt6!
A fine move that indirectly defends the KRP for if 35. . . . .
K-R4? 36. R x Kt, R x R; 37.
Kt-B4 eh. follows, and if 35 . . . . .
Kt-Q5 eh. ; 36. K-B3, Kt-B6;
37. Kt-B4.
.
R-Q1 !
22. . . . . . .
The key to Black's play, which
enables him to win the QP and
open up the centre files.
23. Q x P
24. R x R
25. Q-K3
RxP
QxR
35. . . . . . .
P-B5
P-KKt4
36. R-Kt4!
KxP
37. P x P eh.
K-R5
38. R-Kt5 eh.
39. R-K5!
Forcing a Knight ending in which
chances are roughly equal.
Kt-Q5 eh.
39. . . . . . .
RxR
40. K-B3
Kt-K3
41 . Kt x R
42. Kt-Q3
P-B6
P-Kt6
43. P-Kt4
KxP
44. P x P eh.
Kt-B5
45. P-R5
46. Kt-B5!
K-Kt7
On 46 . . . . . P-B7; 47. Kt-K4
eh. , K-Kt7; 48. Kt X P, K x Kt;
49. K-Q4 follows.
109

47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
Kt-K4
K-Kt3
K-B4
P-Kt5
Kt-Q2
Kt-Q4 eh.
Kt-B2
Kt-K3!
Kt-Kt4
P-B7
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
P-R6
P x P!
K-B3
P-Kt8(Q)
K-Q3
Kt-K5
Kt x Kt eh.
P-B8 (Q)
Q-B8 eh.
Drawn.
The system adopted by Reshevsky was no mere improvisation, but

the logical development of a system which he had engineered successfully
against Monticelli at Syracuse in 1934.
This system, and others closely allied to it notably Alekhine's method
of playing his KKt to K2 and keeping the King in the middle as long as
possible, proves that the seemingly rigid structure of the exchange variation
gives plenty of scope to a player of fertile imagination.
,
IX
THE Queen's Gambit Accepted occupied the minds of the analysts of the
past, and we are indebted to them for some interesting variations which
are analysed in the 'Gottinger Manuscript' in 1500, and later (1536) by
Ruy Lopez.
They show that after the moves I. P-Q4, P-Q4; 2.
P-QB4, P x P; 3. P-K4, P-QKt4; 4. P-QR4, P-QB3; 5. P-QKt31
(an important improvement given by Ruy Lopez instead of first taking
the Pawn 5. P x P, P x P; 6. P-QKt3, B-Kt21), White regains the sacrificed
Pawn. More important by far was Damiano's (1512) assertion that Black
would remain with the inferior game, a contention that Philidor tried to
confirm by a fine analysis, claiming that after the continuation 5 . . . . .
P x KtP; 6. P x KtP, P x P; 7. B x P eh., B-Q2; 8. Q x P, B x B; 9. Q x B
eh., Q-Q2; 10. Q x Q eh., Black's isolated Pawn is weak and might get
lost. A very advanced statement that conforms with present-day views.
This was the analytical background to the games between de la Bour
donnais-McDonnell, and is the starting point of our historical study.
Thus we can understand why McDonnell never attempted to hold the
Pawn, but tried to free his position by playing early 3. . . . . P-K4.
Even in this form the acceptance of the gambit was considered a risk,
and it is said that although McDonnell realized this, nevertheless nothing
could induce him to decline the gambit. (For the present-day view, see
notes at the end of Game 59, page 1 12.)
THE QUEEN'S
GAM BIT ACCEPTED IN THE LAST CENTURY

-
58
White
C. M. de la
Bourdonnais
L.
Black
A. McDonnell
50th Match Game, London, 1 834
I. P-Q4
P-Q4
2. P-QB4
PxP
3. P-K4
P-K4
It is difficult to form an opinion
on the opening moves as this line
has been so rarely played. Euwe
suggests that 3. . . . . P-QB4; 4.
P-Q5, P-K3; is better since 4.
P x P, Q x Q eh.; 5. K x Q! and
110
White's King's side Pawns may

become dangerous.
4. P-Q5
This move gives a too rigid Pawn
formation.
4.
P-KB4
Steinitz-Blackburne,London, 1 899
continued 4. . . . . Kt-KB3; 5.
Kt-QB3, B-QB4l 6. B x P, Kt
Kt5; 7. Kt-R3, P-B4l
. . . . .
5. Kt-QB3
Kt-KB3
6. B x P
B-B4
7. Kt-B3
Q-K2
8. B-KKt5
A mistake. Necessary is 8. Castles
when Black must play 8. . . . .
P-KB5; followed by . . . . B-Q3;
closing the position so that he can
castle.
8.
B x P eh.
9. K-Bl
Lasker pointed out that a modern
player would have preferred 9.
K xB, Q-B4 eh.; 10. K-Kl ,
QxB; 11. Kt x P, and White has
eliminated the dangerous Bishop
and regained his Pawn.
. .
9. . . . . . .
B-Kt3
With the threat 10 . . . . Q-B4.
This move looks very strong and,
indeed, enables Black to prod uce
one uf the most beautiful combina
tions seen on the chess- board.
Nevertheless, a logical modernist
would have played 9 . . . . . B-B4;
followed by 1 0 . . . . B-Q3, not
onl y defending the King's Pawn but
circumventing the thre at of P-Q6.
After castling, Black with a Pawn
plus and attack along the King's
Bishop file, would ha v e a greatly
su peri or game.
10.
11.
12.
13.
P-B5
Q-K2
R-QI
B-Kt5
P-Q6
PxP
K t Q5
It a ppear s as if White has
obtained counterplay in the centre
--
Position after 13. Kt-Q5

for if 1 3 . . . . . Q-Q 1; 14. QKt x P,
P x Kt; 15. P-K5, or 13. . . . .
Q-B1; 14. B-Kt5 eh., and Black's
position is insecure, but McDonnell
finds a remarkable answer, the
sacrifice of the Queen for two minor
pieces and attack.
Kt x Ktl l
13.
Kt-K6 eh.
14. B x Q
15. K-K1
KxB
16. Q-Q3
White realizes that the Black
Knight is too strong and offers to
exchange it for the Rook. Black
declines to oblige. A better defence
is 16. B-Q5, Kt-B3; 17. B x Kt,
P x B; 18. R-Q3, followed by
R x Kt; but even then Black, with
Rook, Bishop and two Pawns for
the Queen, has the superior game.
R-Q1
16.
Kt-B3
17. R-Q2
B-QR4
18. P-QKt3
QR-B1
19. P-QR3
20. R-Ktl
After 20. P-QKt4, Kt x QP; 21.
P x Kt, B x P; 22. B-Kt3, R-B8
eh. wins. An impressive variation,
considering Black's material in
feriority.
20.
21. B x P
22. P x B
P-QKt4
B x Kt

2 2 . B x Kt, does not save the
game for there follows 22. . . . .
R X B; 23. P-QKt4, (2a. P X B,
R-B8 eh. ; 24. K-B2, B x R; 25.
Q X B, R-B7; ) 2B . . . . . B-Kt3;
24. P x B, R-B8 eh.; 25. K-B2,
Kt-Q4 dis. eh.
22.
23. B-B4
24. K-B2
25. R x P eh.
26. R-B7 eh.
27. R-K7
and Black won.
111
Kt-Q5
Kt x P eh.
Kt x QR
K-B3
K-Kt3
QKt x B
Playing through this beautiful game, we can see why lovers of romantic
chess speak so appraisingly of such games and the era in which they were
played. Nevertheless, whilst we share their admiration for the abundance
of original ideas displayed and the ilaring play involved, wc cannot shut
our eyes to the fact that these combinations should never have been
allowed to come into being.
In an opening in which both players r'eientlessly pursue their respective
aims-without acknowledging the requirement8 of the position-rapidly
changing situations are produced culminating in McDonnell's masterly
Queen sacrifice. Our judgment is that whilst some phases were beauti
fully played, too much was left to the element of chance in situations
where to-day pure technique would decide the game. Also, the phases
of the game are too disconnected and do not form a co-ordinated whole.
WHITE
PLAYS FOR A KING's SIDE ArrAcx
Whilst the previous game bears little resemblance to the modem form
of the Queen's Gambit Accepted, the following game is a definite step
forward, displaying some of the familiar features which we associate with
this debut. White is left with an isolated Queen's Pawn, but gains control
of the vital central squares and is able to carry out a successful King's
side attack.
59
White
Black
L. C. M. de la
Bourdonnais
A. McDonnell

P-Q4
2. P-QB4
PxP
P-K4
3. P-K3
4. B x P
PxP
5. P X P
Kt-KB3
This move was consistently played
during the match, though neither
player foWld White's strongest
reply, 6. Q-Kt3, Q-K2 eh.; 7.
K-Bl, and Black has many dis
agreeable threats to attend to.
I. P-Q4
6. Kt-QB3
7. 1\t-B3
B-K2
Castles
8. B-K3
P-B3
Stronger is 8. . . . . B-KKt5; 9.
Castles (9. Q-Kt3, B x Kt; 10.
P X B, Kt-B3!) 9. . . . . Kt-B3;
with a good game.
QKt-Q2
9. P-KR3
Kt-Kt3
1 0. B-Kt3
KKt-Q4
1 1 . Castles
The position is similar to the
modem Queen's Gambit Accepted
set-up with the important differ
ence that Black's Queen's Bishop
is not shut in and so Black has no
worries about the development of
this piece.
12. P-QR4
This move is not only unnecessary
but it gives Black undisputed
control of his QKt5.
112
P-QR4
12.
B-K3
13. Kt-K5
P-KB4
14. B-B2
Too committal, since it allows
the Knight at K5 to dominate the
game.
With 14. . . . . Kt-Kt5;
followed by Kt(3)-Q4 Black would
have a strong position, and White
has few attacking chances to com
pensate for his isolated Queen's
Pawn.
15. Q-K2
P-B5
16. B-Q2
Q-Kl
White threatened Kt x P.
B-B2
17. QR-K1
Black sets a trap.
17.
B-KB4; 18. B X B , R x B; 19.
Q-Q3, still gives White the superior
game, but Black has fighting chances
18. Q-K4
19. B x P
20. Q x Kt
P-Kt3
Kt x B
B-B5
Black was relying on this move,

but de la Bourdonnais has seen
further.
21. Q-R6
B xR
22. B x PI
An attractive sacrifice not diffi
cult to see but noteworthy as the
logical outcome of White's previous
strategy.
22. . . . . . .
PxB
Kt-Bl
23. Kt x KtP
Black has other defences but
none avails him, e.g. 23. . . . .
B-KKt4; 24. Q-R8 ch.,K-B2; 25.
Q-R7 eh., K-B3; 26. R x Q,
KR x R; 27. Kt-K5, and wins, or
23 . . . . . B-Q3; 24. Q-R8 eh.,
K-B2; 25. Q-R7 eh., K-B3; 26.
Kt-K4 eh. wins.
24. Q-RS eh.
Even without analysis it is clear
that the attack is decisive since all
White's pieces are centralized and
can be deployed at will. At the
time this game was played such
assessment of a position was non
existent, native intuition guiding
the players. De la Bourdonnais was
reputed to have often said, 'All I
need is a little position.'
24.
K-B2
25. Q-R7 eh.
K-B3
26. Kt-B4
Threatening Kt-K4 mate.
26.
27. R-K6 eh.
28. Q-R6 eh.
29. R-K5 Mate.
B-Q6
K-Kt4
K-B4
It is interesting to note that contemporary critics considered Black's

difficulties were caused by his acceptance of the gambit, whilst we know
that in fact his position was better than it would be in the modern lines
of the Q.G. Accepted. The P-KB4-B5 manreuvre was the cause of his
difficulties, a stratagem that McDonnell thought to be strong, as evinced by
his repeated adoption of this line. De la Bourdonnais' not dissimilar
mistake, 12. P-QR4, indicates that square weaknesses had not been
recognized as a decisive handicap.
113

STAUNTON'S TREATMENT
The previous games indicate the struggles that are liable to result from
the acceptance of the gambit Pawn; and we can see why our forebears
considered it risky to accept the gambit.
Our next example introduces a new defensive system adopted by
Staunton. At the time that this game was played the practice of White
playing first had not come into general usage and Saint-Amant was
actually Black. However, to avoid confusion the colours have been
reversed.
White
60
P. C. F.
de Saint-Amant
Black
11.
Staunton

1. P-Q4
P-Q4
2. P-QB4
PxP
3. P-K3
P-K4
4. B x P
PxP
B-Q3
5. P x P
Better is 5. . . . . B-Kt5 eh.;
6. Kt-QB3, Kt-KB3; 7. Kt-B3,
Castles; 8. Castles, B-Kt5; (Stahl
berg-Gligoric Match, 1949) but best
is Golombek's suggestion 5. . . . .
Kt-QB3! 6. Kt-KB3, (6. Q-Kt3,
Q-K2 eh.) 6. . . . . Kt-B3; 7.
Q-Kt3, B-Kt5 eh.; followed by
. . . . Castles.
6. Kt-KB3
Kt-KB3
7. P-KR3
Castles
8. Castles
Kt-QB3
Staunton remarked that he should
have played 8 . . . . . P-KR3; here,
a move that he considered indis
pensable for both players in this
opening.
B-K2
9. B-KKt5
Better first 9 . . . . . P-KR3; 10.
B-R4, B-K2.
10. Kt-B3
B-KB4
1 1 . P-R3
Kt-K5
12. B-K3
White is now able to avoid sim
plification, whereas if Black had
interposed 9 . . . . . P-KR3; White
would be forced to exchange
Bishops.
B-B3
1 2.
Kt-Q3
13. R-K1
14. B-R2
P-KR3
Staunton, imbued with the attitude of 'wait and see' prevalent at
that period, fails to profit from the
position. Here, for instance, Black
can exploit White's isolated Pawn
by 14 . . . . . B-Kt3; followed by
Kt-B4,
B-R4 or
according to White's play.
15. Q-R4
Staunton comments: 'The object
of this sally of the Queen is not at
all clear to us.'
Kt-K2
15.
16. QR-Q1
Kt-Kta
17. B-B1
As Saint-Amant observes: 'To be
able to play Kt-K5,' proving that
White's 15th move was not devoid
of purpose.
17.
18. Kt-K5
P-B3
1 14
18.
Q-B2
Staunton remarks: '18. . . . . K
R2; would have been stronger play,'
indicating that he considered his
subsequent difficulties arose out of
this oversight. But on 18. . . . .
K-R2; 19. P-KKt4! appears
strong, e.g. 19 . . . . . B-B 1 ; 20.
B x BP, Kt x B; 21. Kt x Kt(6),
K X Kt; 22. Q-B2 eh! or 19. . . . .
B-Q2; 20. B X BP, Kt x Kt; 21.
P x Kt, Kt x B; 22. P x B. To us it
seems obvious that with the strong
Bishop at R2, the Knight at K5
and the centralization of all White's
pieces, he should have some way of
demonstrating his superiority.
P-Kt4
19. P-KKt4!
The only move to avoid losing a
piece.
20. Q-Kt4
21. R-Q2
22. Q-B5
23. P x B
Black has played
B-B7
P-QR4
B x Kt
Kt-Kt2
very cleverly.
24. Kt x KtP!
The best. If 24. Q-K3, P-Kt5;
saves the piece.
Kt x Q
24.
Kt-Q6
25. Kt X Q
B xR
26. R x Kt
R x Kt
27. Kt x R
The way Staunton created com
plications is admirable as is also
Saint-Amant's ingenuity in meeting
them. However, whilst the game
seemed in the balance to last cen
tury's onlookers, we with our accu
mulated knowledge, would never
hesitate to assert. that White will
ultimately emerge with the superior
game, simply because he entered
into complications with all the
advantages one can hope to have
in such a position.
28. P-B4
Too slow. 28. P-K6, P x P; 29.
R x P, wins a second Pawn, and
with two Bishops White has a very
quick win.
28.
R-K1
29. R-Q1
B-K5
30. R-Q4
B-Q4
31. B x B
PxB
32. K-B2
Better is 32. R X P, R-QB1 ; 33.
B-K3, and Black has no counter
chances whatsoever.
32.
R-QB1
Kt-K2
33. B-K3
R-Ktl
34. K-K2
K-B1
35. B-B1
R-Kt4
36. P-Kt4
Staunton remarks that this is
Black's best move. Probably he had
in mind the avoidance of the trap
36 . . . . . P x P; 37. R x KtP, R x R;
38. P x R, Kt-B3; 39. B-K3! with
the threat P-QKt5.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41 .
42.
43.
PxP
Kt-B3
R-R4
Kt x RP
B-Q2
Kt-B3
B-Kt4 eh.
K-K1
P-R4
P-Kt4!
BP x P
PxP
R-R8 eh.
K-Q2
44. P-R5
Kt x B
45. P-R6
White's best chance.
45.
Kt-B3
R-Kt7 eh.
46. P-R7
R-IH6 eh.
47. K-Q3
According to Staunton 47. . . .
Kt X P eh.; 48. K-B3, R-KR7;
49. P-R8(Q), R X Q; 50. R X R,
Kt x P; would lead to the same
position as in the game.
.
48. K-B2
R-KR6
49. P-R8(Q)
RxQ
50. R x R
Kt x P
5 1 . K-B3
The previous part of the game
was played in the true 'romantic'
style, but whilst Staunton makes
use of his chances in a praiseworthy
manner, Saint-Amant's play de
serves censure, since he had many
simpler and more convincing ways
of demonstrating his superiority.
115
51.
Kt x P
5 2 . K-Q4
Kt-B3
53. K-K5
K-K2
54. P-R4
Kt-Q2 eh.
55. K-B5
If 55. K x P? Kt-Kt3 eh.
55.
P-Q5
Kt-B4
56. P-QR5
P-Q6
57. K x P
P-Q7
58. K-B4
K-Q2
59. R-Rl
60. K-K3
K-B3
61. R-QKtl
Not only cutting off the Black
King, but threatening 62. K x P.
P-QS(Q)
61. . . . . . .
K-Kt4
62. R X Q
63. R-Q5
With this move White at last
assures himself of victory.
K-B3
63.
Kt-K3 eh.
64. K-Q4
K-Kt2
65. K-B4
K-R3
66. R-Q7 eh.
67. R x P!
A fine move. If now 67.
K x P; 68. R-B5 eh., K-R5; 69.
R-B6, Kt-B2; 70. R-B6, wins
the Knight.
Position after 66 . . . . . K-R3

67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
R-B5
R-B6
K-Kt5
K-B5
R-KR6
P-R6 eh.
R-R7
R-Kt7 eh.
K-B6
K-B7
K-Kt6
R-Q7
Kt-QI
Kt-B3
K-Kt2
Kt-R2 eh.
Kt-Bl
Kt-R2
K-Ktl
Kt-Bl
K-Rl
Kt-R2 eh.
Kt-B3
Kt-Kt5
Resigns.
An interesting game, played in an admirably aggressive spirit. But on

reflection we see that Staunton's troubles arose from his inability to
recognize the strength of the Bishop on QR2-KKt8 diagonal and from
failing to take steps to neutralize it by placing a Knight on his Q4 (as did
McDonnell in the previous game)-a new technique that later became
very common and is still considered best to-day.
Again White failed to utilize his great superiority through not recognizing
where his advantage lay. For this reason the game became long and
drawn out, a sign that his technique must have been inferior.
MORPHY DEFENDS THE QUEN'S GAMBIT
This game is of particular interest as it is one of the very few in which
we see Morphy, the master of the 'open' game, defending with the Queen's
Gambit Accepted (by transposition). On the authority of Morphy him
self, we know that he was fully aware of the fundamental differences
between the 'open' and 'closed' game. He did not like the 'closed' game,
the principles of which had not in his time been laid down by Steinitz.
His treatment of the opening is creditable in one respect, that he
recognized the limitation of the defence and therefore did not force risky
combinations. On the other hand he fails to gain the initiative, being
9
116
misled by a pseudo-threat of attack on the part of his opponent (see

note to Black's 12th move).
61
White
Black
D. Harrwitz
P. Morphy
1st Match Game, 1858

P-Q4
1 . P-Q4
P-K3
2. P-QB4
Kt-KB3
3. Kt-QB3
4. B-B4
Lowenthal comments: 'Mr. Mor
phy agrees with us in the opinion
that, at this stage of the game the
text-move is the most forcible one
that can be selected, indeed he says
he found it so strong that in his
subsequent games with Mr. Harr
witz he preferred meeting 1. P-Q4
with 1. P-KB4, in place of expos
ing himself to this attack.' Present
opinion considers that 4. B-B4,
allows Black to equalize easily.
4. . . . . . .
P-QR3
This move was considered neces
sary to prevent 5. Kt-Kt5, but
to-day we would not waste time,
as 4. . . . . P-B4; 5. Kt-Kt5,
BP X P; 6. Kt-B7 eh., Q x Kt; 7.
B x Q, B-Kt5 eh.; follows with the
better game for Black.
P-B4
5. P-K3
Kt-B3
6. Kt-B3
P x QP
7. P-QR3
PxP
8. KP x P
P-QKt4
9. B x P
10. B-Q3
The position now reached shows
the familiar characteristics of the
Queen's Gambit Accepted.
The
text-move was thought to be good
at that period because the Bihop
attacks Black's KR2, a weak square
in the castled position. To-day we
consider it preferable to keep the
Bishop on the QR2-KKt8 diagonal
with possibilities of playing P-Q5
and also bringing pressure to bear
on Black's KB2 after Kt-K5.
10.
B-Kt2
1 1 . Castles
B-K2
12. B-K5
Though this move looks logicaldefending the QP and preparing
Q-K2 and QR-QI-the usual
method of development in this
variation, it is out of place here.
Better is 12. B-K3, or 12. B-B2,
followed by Q-Q3 and QR-Ql .
12 . . . .
Castles
Here Morphy misses his chancel

He assumes that after 12. . . . .
Kt X B; 13. P X Kt, (or 13. Kt X Kt,
Q-Q3; and 14. . . . . QR-QI) the
Pawn at K5 will exert considerable
pressure and White will be able to
use it as pivot for a King's side
attack.
However, after 13. . . . .
Kt-Q4; White has to meet the
threat of 14 . . . . . Kt-B5; with 14.
B-K4, and after 14 . . . . . Kt x Kt;
15. Q x Q eh. , K x Q; 16. B x B,
R-R2; Black has the advantage.
Kt-Q4
13. Q-K2
K-Rl
14. B-Kt3
Morphy considered this the losing
move and recommended 14.
B-B3; with equality.
B-B3
15. KR-Kl
Lowenthal comments that Mor
phy's idea behind 14. . . . . K-Rl ;
ll7

was t o follow with 1 5 . . . . . P-B4;
but this is met by 16. Q X P,
Kt X l(t; 17. P X Kt, P-B5; 18.
Q-K4, P-Kt3; 19. B x BP.
P-Kt3
16. Q-K4
Q x Kt
17. Kt x Kt
PxQ
18. Q x Q
19. Kt-K5 !
Now this move is very strong, not
only threatening Kt-Q7, but also
tying down the King's Rook to the
defence of KB2.
19. . . . . . .
QR-Q1
B x Kt
20. Kt x Kt
21 . QR-B1
R-B1
KR-Ktl
22. B-Q6
Not 22 . . . . . KR-Ql; 23. BK7, B X B; 24. KR X B, R-Q2?
25. R x B !
K-Kt2
23. B-K5
A contemporary annotator points
out that 23 . . . . . B x B; draws, but
this appears doubtful in view of
Black's weakness on the dark
coloured squares.
24. P-B4
In the position reached, White
has control of his QB5 and K5 and
we would nowadays say that White
has almost a won game, but Harr
witz's recognition of the fact ninety
years ago reflects much credit on
him.
B-Q2
24.
P-R3
25. K-B2
RxR
26. K-K3
R-QB1
27. R x R
28. R-B5!
Although to-day this creation of
a 'strong-point' is merely technique,
it shows clearly Harrwitz's ma?tery
of the position.
BxB
28. . . . . . .
29. BP x B
Decisive, as after the exchange of
Rooks White wins. 29 . . . . . R x R;
30. P x R, B-B3; (necessary to
prevent 31. P-B6,) 31. K-Q4,
P-B5; 32. P-K6, K-B3; 33.
Position after 29. BP X B

P-K7, K x P; 34. K-K5, P-Q5;
35. P-KKt3, followed by K x P
and playing the Bishop to Q5.
29. . . . . . .
30. P-QR4!
31. B X RP
32. R-Kt5
Loss of time. 32 .
at once is better.
B-K3
PXP
R-QKti
R-Ql
. . . . R-QR1;
R-QR1
33. R-Kt6!
Necessary, otherwise 34. B-Kt7
ties down the Black pieces and
K-Q2-B3-Kt4 decides.
34. K-Q2
B-Bl
RxB
35. B x B
36. R-Kt5
R-QRI
If 36 . . . . . R-Ql ; 37. K-B3,
R-B1 eh. ; 38. R-B5, R-Ql; 39.
K-Kt4, R-Ktl eh.; 40. K-R3 ,
winning a Pawn.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
RxP
PxP
R-B5
K-K2
P-Q5
R-B6
R-B6
P-Q6 eh.
P-K6
R x P eh.
P-Q7
P-R6
RxP
K-Bl
K-K2
K-Q2
P-R4
K-K2
K-Kl
PxP
K-B2
R-Rl
118
48. R-Q6
K-K2
If 48.
R-QI; 49. K-K3,
and the White King enters deci
sively.
KxP
49. R x P
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
R-Kt5
K-B3
K-Kt3
K-Kt4
P-Kt3
R-KR5
R-RI
K-K3
P-R5 eh.
P-R6
K-B3
Resigns.
A masterly game by Harrwitz, who prevented his great opponent from

displaying his combinative ability. The importance of the game lies in
the growth of the idea of differentiating between the 'open' and 'closed'
games. Lowenthal says of Harrwitz, 'Mr. Harrwitz, when first player,
almost invariably adopts this mode of opening his game. It is one with
every variation of which he is thoroughly familiar, and in no match of
importance has he ever failed to avail himself of it.' The remark suggests
that our predecessors had very different ideas about the openings from
ourselves. To-day, when the variations of even one opening cannot be
thoroughly explored, we should hesitate to say that anybody knows
every variation of an opening.
THE STEINITZ
VARIATION-STEINITZ ESTABLISHES HIS SYSTEM
We have seen that a century ago the technique of attack excelled the
technique of defence. This is the more remarkable, since in the Queen's
Gambit Accepted Black had an easier task than he has to-day, as he was
able to play the freeing move 3 . . . . . P-K4; and did not need to shut in
his QB, by . . . . P-K3. It was an innovation of Blackburne' s (I . P-Q4,
P-Q4; 2. P-QB4, P x P; 3. Kt-KB3!) which forcibly transposed the
game into a closed formation. That the defence had a far more difficult
task to solve soon became apparent.
It was left to Steinitz to work out a system that McDonnell had already
tried against de la Bourdonnais (see Game 59, page Ill). His idea con
sisted of placing a Knight on his Q4 square blocking White's isolated
Queen's Pawn, thus erecting a barrier behind which he could safely
develop his pieces to meet White's attack. How far he was ahead of his
time can only to-day be appreciated. His system is considered the best
method of playing against an isolated Pawn (instead of attempting
conquest by direct attack).
62
White
J.
H. ZukeTtort
Black
the tension by . . . . Kt-B3 as

played to-day) is called the 'Steinitz
Variation.'
W. Steinitz
9th Match Game, I886

P-Q4
1. P-Q4
P-K3
2. P-QB4
Kt-KB3
3. Kt-QB3
PxP
4. Kt-B3
P-B4
5. P-K3
6. B x P
PxP
This early exchange of Pawns
(instead of continuing keeping up
7. P x P
8. Castles
Better is 8.
next game).
B-K2
Castles
Kt-B3! (see
9. Q-K2!
Even to-day this is considered to
be most forceful, but it is playable
only if Black adopts an indifferent
continuation like 8 . . . . . Castles.

9.
QKt-Q2
10. B-Kt3
Kt-Kt3
1 1 . B-KB4
This normal-looking developing
move is quite out of place here.
Best is 1 1 . R-Q1, QKt-Q4; 12.
B-Kt5, Q-R4; 13. QR-B1 , R
Q1; 14. Kt-K5, and Black is un
able to attain the Steinitz formation
since 14. . . . . B-Q2; 15. Kt X Kt,
Kt x Kt; ( . . . . P x Kt; 16. B x Kt,
B x B ; 17. R-B5!) 16. B x B,
Kt x B; 17. Q-B3 wins a Pawn. A
very important variation showing
the difficulties Black has to face
after the inaccurate move 8 . . . . .
Castles.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
B-Kt3
QR-B1
Kt-K5
Q-B3
KR-K1
B-KR4
QKt-Q4
Q-R4
B-Q2
KR-Q1
B-K1
QR-B1
119
Steinitz' plan as White's position

is still insecure, due to the 'hanging
pawns' in the centre.
18. P X Kt
Q-B2
19. Q-Q3
White is losing too much time by
moving his Queen aimlessly instead
of adopting a positive idea such as
19. B-Kt3, B-Q3; 20. P-B4,
(recommended by Lasker). In this
case the centre Pawns might become
strong.
Kt-Q4
19 . .
QxB
20. B x B
21. B x Kt
This surrender of the Bishop for
the inferior Knight, which can
always be driven away by P-QB4,
is incomprehensible to the reasoning
of to-day. Moreover, the Bishop
secures the Knight at K5, since to
drive it away by . . . . P-KB3;
weakens Black along the KKtl
QR7 diagonal.
0
21.
RxB
22. P-QB4
This only weakens the Pawns still
further, since White cannot now
support their advance with minor
pieces.
o
17. . . . . . .
Kt x Kt
Appearing to give up the idea of
playing against White's isolated
Queen's Pawn, but it is part of
KR-Ql
22.
23. R-K3
This move shows that when
White played 21 . B x Kt, he had an
idea of bringing over the Rook to
the King's side for attack. To us
it seems a doubtful enterprise, since
the Knight can always be driven
away by . . . . P-B3 (there is no
fear that White will be able to
obtain counter-chances along the
QKt3-KKt8 diagonal).
0
White at last has attained an

attacking position but at the cost
of losing time with his Queen's
Bishop.
Now he threatens 18.
B x QKt, P x B; ( . . . . Kt x B; 19.
B x B, Kt x B; 20. Q x KtP) 19.
Kt-Kt4!
0 0
Q-Q3
23. . . . . . .
P-B3
24. R-Q1
P-KR3
25. R-R3
On 25 . . . . . P X Kt; 26. Q X P eh. ,
K-B1; 27. R-B3 e h . , B-B2; 28.
Q-R5, Q-Q2; 29. Q-R8 eh.,
K-K2; 30. Q-R4 eh. , draws.
120
26. Kt-Kt4
27. Kt-K3
Q-B5
rank. If now 28. R-Q2, P-QKt4;

29. R-B3, Q-Ktl ; 30. P x P,
R-B8 eh. ; 3 1 . Kt-Ql , P-K4
(Steinitz).
Q-Q3
28. R-B3
B-B3
29. R-Q2
P-B4
30. R-Kt3
B-K5
31. R-Kt6
32. Q-Kt3
Superficially it appears that
White has good attacking chances.
B-R5!
7. . . . . . .
Forcing the Rook off the first
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
K-R2
RxP
R-B8 eh.
Q-B5
R-Kt8
R-QB1
Q x R(5)
P-B5
R x KP
Kt-Q1
Q-Kt2
Q-B3
RxB
Resigns.
This game marked a great advance in the treatment of the Queen's

Gambit Accepted. Steinitz claimed, 'For it will be remembered that the
capture of the QBP by the second player was formerly held disadvanta
geous for the defence.' Here we see that a system, imperfect though it
may be, is preferable to mere move to move improvisation such as
Zukertort resorted to in this game.
Next we will follow the development of Steinitz' system through the
later modifications of Steinitz himself.
STEINITZ IMPROVES HIS SYSTEM
Steinitz' Defence System had to stand a much more severe test eight
years later against Pillsbury, at that time the most feared attacking
player. In this game Steinitz plays a variation that he formerly thought
inferior to his original line (see previous game), an opinion which he may
have later revised.
63
White
Black
H. N. Pillsbury
W. Steinitz
St. Petersburg, 1 896

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
P-Q4
P-QB4
Kt-QB3
Kt-B3
P-K3
BxP
P-Q4
P-K3
Kt-KB3
PxP
P-B4
Kt-B3!
By putting pressure on White's

Queen's Pawn Black prevents him
from adopting the favourable line
of Q-K2, and KR-Q1 (see pre
vious game).
7. Castles
The modern
P-QR3.
line
PXP
is 7.
B-K2
8. P x P
9. B-B4
An indifferent move often adopt
ed by Pillsbury, without success.

At that time it was not recognized
that 9. B-K3, enabling him to play
Q-K2, etc., is better. The text
move loses the initiative.
Castles
9
Q-Kt3
10. R-B1
1 1 . Q-Q2
In an earlier game Pillsbury tried
1 1 . QKt-Kt5, Kt-Kl; 12. KR
K1, Kt-R4; 13. B-Q3, B-Q2;
14. Kt-B7, R-Bl; 15. Kt-Q5,
P X Kt; 16. R X B, Kt-B3; and
Black stands well.
.
R-Ql
11 . . . . . . .
B-Q2
12. KR-Q1
13. Q-K2
The strength of Black's system
lies in the fact that White has to
lose time with the Queen to attain
his most favourable formation.
13.
14. B-Q3
B-K1
121
QKt-Kt5
15. P-KR3
QKt-Q4
16. B-Ktl
B-B3!
17. B-K5
By his 14th move Black has
gained time in which to deploy his
Bishop on this diagonal, a man
reuvre characteristic of the varia
tion, as will be seen later.
18. KKt-Kt5
P-KR3
19. KKt-K4
QKt x Kt
Kt x Kt
20. P x Kt
21 . B x Kt
BxB
Q-B3
22. Q x B
Black has beaten back \\'bite's
attack and has left him with weak
hanging Pawns.
B-Bl
23. Q-Kt4
24. P-QB4
Though weakening, this move is
necessary, otherwise Black can
blockade the Pawns with
Q-Q4 and . . . . R-B5.
24.
P-B4
Q-Kl
25. Q-Kt6
26. Q-Kt3
P-QKt3
Q-B3
27. Q-Kt3
28. P-QR4
P-QR4
Black's decision to play this move
must have been a difficult one since
it leaves the QKtP backward,
and it might become weak after the
exchange of the Bishops.
14. . . . . . .
QR-Bl !
A fine manreuvre which can best
be appreciated by comparison with
a later game Pillsbury-Tarrasch,
Nuremberg, 1896, where Black play
ed 14 . . . . . QKt-Kt5; 15. B-Ktl,
QKt-Q4; 16. B-K5, QR-Bl ; 17,
KKt-Kt5, P-KR3; 18. KKt-K4,
QKt x Kt; 19. R x Kt, R x R; 20.
Kt x Kt eh., B x Kt; 21 . B x B,
P X B; 22. P X R, and White was
able to break up Black's King's side.
B-Q3
29. R-B3
Q-B2
30. P-Q5
QxB
31. B x B
32. R-K3
If 32. R-KB3, to prevent
P-K4; 32. . . . . R-B4; follows.
32.
P-K4
33. R-Ktl
P-K5
34. R-QB3
If 34. Q x P, Q x Q; 35. R x Q,
R x BP; 36. R-R3, R-B4; wins
a Pawn.
Q-K4
34. . . . . . .
Threatening 35 . . . . . R X QP.
122
CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOT\VINNIK
R-Q3
35. R-B2
36. R(1 )-QB1
Better is 36. R-K1, Q-Q5.
36.
37. P-B5
38. R x P
P-B5
PxP
RxR
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
RxR
Q-Q1
P-Kt4
Q-K1
R-B1
44. Q-B3
Resigns.
P-B6
R-KKt3
P-K6
P-K7
QxP
R-QB3!
This game was played during Steinitz' declining years, and it is a tribute
to the strength of his system that Pillsbury had no success in his games
against him in this line of the Queen's Gambit Accepted. That Pillsbury
was unable to find any means of initiating an attack shows that he had
not sufficiently understood his former failings.
WHITE BUILDS UP AN ATTACKING FORMATION
SCHLECHTER'S CONTINUATION
In the previous games we have seen that White's attacking formation

was not sufficiently powerful to overcome Steinitz' Defensive System.
Although great attacking players like Pillsbury and Zukertort had
tried in other games to employ better tactics in the early middle game,
they were unsuccessful in these attempts.
In the following game
Schlechter improves White's opening strategy.
64
White
Black
K. Schlechter
M. I. Tchigorin
London, 1 899
P-Q4
I. p_:_Q4
PxP
2. P-QB4
P-QB4
3. Kt-KB3
Kt-KB3
4. P-K3
P-K3
5. B x P
QKt-Q2
6. Castles
B-K2
7. Kt-B3
Castles
8. Q-K2
P-QR3
9. R-Q1
10. P-QR4
The game runs on lines similar to
the modern variations, and by
delaying the exchange of Pawns by
. . . . BP x P; Tc.higorin shows much
more insight into the requirements
of the position than his contempo
raries.
Still, his inaccuracy in
developing his QKt at Q2 early on,
and later playing . . . . P-QR3;
brings him into difficulties. Had he
played . . . . QKt-B3; a possible
development is 10 . . . . . Q-B2; 1 1 .
P-R3, R-Q1; 1 2 . P-Q5, P x P;

13. B x P, QKt-Kt5; 14. P-K4,
KKt x B; 15. P x Kt, B-B4; 16.
B-B4, Q x B; 17. Q x B, with an
equal game (Reshevsky-Fine, Sem
mering-Baden, 1937).
10.
PxP
11. P X P
Kt-Kt3
12. B-Q3
QKt-Q4
13. Kt-K5
Kt x Kt
A doubtful move, but if 13 . . . . .
Q-R4; 14. B-Q2, with the threat
Kt-B4, and the Black Queen's
mobility is very limited.
14. P x Kt
Q-B2
15. P-QB4
Kt-Q2
16. Kt-Kt4
Very fine, avoiding simplification.
R-Q1
16. . . . . . .
17. B-B2!
This seemingly insignificant wait
ing move is much better than the
routine development of the Queen's
Bishop, the function of which has
not yet been determined.
123
Kt-B1
17 . . . . . . .
B-Q2
18. R-Ktl
19. Kt-K5
A very strong move, with the
intention of playing Q-K4, threat
ening Q x KtP also B-B4.
26. Q-K4
P-Kt4
This looks very risky, but he has
no choice; if 26 . . . . . Kt-Kt3; 27.
B-Q2, B-B3; 28. B X P, R-KB1 ;
29. B-B6, followed b y B-Kt7
and P-B6.
B-Q3
1 9. . . . . . .
20. Kt x B
R x Kt
21. P-Kt3
P-QKt3
A mistake, but White's reply was
not easy to foresee, and White was
threatening P-B5.
27. B-K3
P-B4
Kt-Kt3
28. Q-Kt7
29. B-Kt31
White now turns to the weakened
King's side.
K-B2
29.
30. Q-B3
K-Kt2
P-B5
31. B-QB4
P-K4
32. B-Q2
If 32 . . . . . R X P? 33. B-B3.
33. B-B3
R-B1
34. Q--K4
R-R2
P x KtP
35. R-Kt6
Q-R6
36. RP X P
Q-R4
37. B-B1
38. B-K2
Q-R3
39. K-Kt2
P-Kt5
There is no other way to extricate
the Queen, for if 39. . . . . K-R 1 ;
40. R-KR1, Q-Kt2; 41 . R x Kt.
22. P-R51
A fine Pawn sacrifice creating a
passed Pawn.
PxP
22.
R(2)-Q1
23. B-R4
B-K2
24. P-B5
25. B-B41
The first move by White's Queen's
Bishop, which, however, comes into
action with decisive effect. Com
paring White's strategy with that
of Pillsbury in the last game, we
cannot but admire Schlechter's
economical and purposeful devlop
ment, enabling him to advance his
QB Pawn successfully, instead of
having to allow it to be blockaded.
25 . . . . . . .
Q-B1
40. Q X KtP
B-Q1
Preparing the following desperate
sacrifice.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
B-Q2
KxR
K--K3
PxB
P-Q5
R-KB1
BxR
K-K2
Q-Q7 eh.
B-R3
B-K6 eh.
P x Kt
QxQ
BxP
B-Kt4
R x P eh.
Q-R7 eh.
BxR
R-K2
R-KB2
RxR
Q-Kt8 eh.
Q x QKtP
K-Ktl
Kt-B1
Kt x B
Q-Kt4 eh.
PxQ
K-Kt2
Resigns.
A fine example of White's modern strategy in the Queen's Gambit

Accepted. Though this game was played only three years after the
previous one, it represents a great advance in technique. Here Black
124
delays . . . . BP x QP, keeping White's Queen's Bishop locked in. Schlech

ter's solution of the opening problem-actually leaving his Queen's
Bishop undeveloped, but using it still as a latent force, able to be developed
on either diagonal as the position may demand-is truly masterly. This
technique has since become a new and important feature of the chess
master's repertoire, and indeed Alekhine has frequently adopted it (see
his game against Davidson, Semmering, 1926).
X
THE
STEINITZ VARIATION IN MODE RN TIME S
To-DAY the Stcinitz Variation, characterized by White's isolated Pawn

at Q4, is rarely played in its original form. Rubinstein tried to revive
it by introducing minor improvements, but it still remained a difficult
defence to play. Moreover, a much more elastic and promising defensive
system had been introduced (see Games 69 and 70, pages 131 -133). Even
Steinitz did not claim that his system gave Black a definite advantage,
merely pointing out that Black can blockade the Pawn at Q4 and, by
cautious manceuvring behind this barrier, he can hope to reach an
advantageous end-game.
The following games deal with the Steinitz Variation in its modern
guise, the result of a favourable transposition from the Caro-Kann and
Orthodox Defence.
THE STEINITZ VARIATION BY TRANSPOSITION
FROM THE CARO-KANN DEFENCE
KKt5 and its retreat to K3 would

lose time.
65
White
Black
M. M. Botwinnik
M. Euwe
Hastings, 1934-5
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
P-QB4
P-QB3
P-Q4
P-K4
KP x P
PxP
P-Q4
Kt-KB3
Kt-QB3
Kt-B3
B-Kt5
P-K3
Kt-B3
PxP
BxP
B-K2
9. Castles
Castles
Now White has no chance of
playing Q-K2 without prepara
tion, since his QB is already at
10. R-B1
P-QR3
1 1 . B-Q3
Aimed at preventing P-QKt4,
which is now met by 1 2. Kt-K4!
B-Kt2; 13. B X Kt, B X B; 14.
Kt-B5.
P-R3!
11. . . . . . .
An important move, the object
of which is to gain control of his
KB5 .
12. B-K3
Preferable to the text-move is 12.
B-R4, Kt-QKt5; 13. B-Ktl,
P-QKt4; 14. P-QR3, QKt-Q4;
THE STEINITZ VARIATION IN MODERN TIMES
1 25
R-K7! (26. R-KB2, R x R; 27.

K X R, Kt-Kt5 eh!)
Kt x Q
24 . . . . . .
R(R1 )-Kl
25. B-Q2
R-K7
26. P-QKt3
Kt-B3
27. R-KB2
RxR
28. B-R5
Kt-K5 eh.
29. K x R
Kt-Kt4
30. K-Bl
31. B-Q7
Better is 31 . B-KKt4.
.
Position after 12. B-K3

15. Q-B2 forcing Black to play
either P-KKt4 or P-KKt3.
Kt-QKt5
12. . . . . . .
P-QKt4
13. B-Ktl
14. Kt-K5
B-Kt2
R-K1
1 5 . Q-Q2
Preventing the sacrifice on R6,
for if 16. B x P, P x B; 17. Q x P,
B-KB 1 .
1 6 . P-B4
QKt-Q4
17. Kt x Kt
17. B-KB2, is no better, for
there follows 17. . . . . Kt x Kt! 18.
P X Kt, Kt-K5!
Q x Kt
17. . . . . . .
B-Q3
18. P-B5
RxP
19. P x P
Preventing White from moving
his Knight, for if 20. Kt-B3, Kt
Kt5! 21 . B-KB2, B x P eh. ; or
20. Kt-Q3, R x B! On 20. B-B4,
B X Kt; 21. P X B, Q X Q; follows,
winning a Pawn.
R-K2
31 . . . . . . .
R-K4
32. B-B5
B-K5
33. B-Ktl
Kt x B
34. B x B
35. R-B6
Better is 35. R-B8 eh., K-R2;
36. B-Kl .
R-B4 eh.
35. . . . . . .
36. K-K1
If 36. K-Ktl , R-B7; 37. P
QR4, R-Kt71 or if 36. K-K2,
R-B7 eh. ; 37. K-K3, R x RP.
36 .
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
......
P-QR4
R x QRP
PxP
R-R8 eh.
B-Kt6
P-R5
P-R6
44. P-R7
R-B7
RxP
PxP
RxP
K-R2
R-QR7
P-R4
P-R5
P-R6
R-K2
20. B-B5
B x Kt
2 1 . B-R3
Q x KP
22. P x B
23. B-B4
If 23. B-Q4, R-QI.
Q-Q4
23. . . . . . .
24. Q x Q
Not 24. B x P, P x B; 25. Q x P,
Position after 47. R-K8
12
Kt-B3
45. B-Ktl
46. K-Q1 !
Necessary, for if 46. R-Q8,
R x P; 47. B x R, P-R7 wins.
Kt-Kt5
46. . . . . . .
P-R7
47. R-K8
Not 47 . . . . R x P? 48. B x R,
P-R7; 49. R-K1 (the idea behind
White's 46th move) but 47. . . . .
Kt-B7 eh! 48. K-K1, Kt-Q6 eh.;
49. K-Q1, R X P! 50. B x R, P-R7;
wins, since White's K1 is no longer
.
available to the Rook. This varia

tion was pointed out by Botwinnik
after the game.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
BxP
B-Kt8
R-Q8
B-B7
BxR
K-K2
K-K3
B-B7
K-B2
Resigns.
RxP
R-R1
Kt-K4
RxR
K-Kt3
K-B4
K-Kt5
Kt-B6
P-B4
LASKER'S TREATMENT
The following game is of some interest since it gives us a clue to an

important question: With chess knowledge in its advanced state, can a
player now apply only the general principles to the openings, treating
them like other phases of the game, thereby ignoring modern analysis?
It is well known that Lasker was an exponent of this theory and in the
following game he deliberately avoids 'book' variations, for it was common
knowledge that in the Queen's Gambit Accepted the development of
White's Queen's Knight is best when delayed.
66
White
Black
Em. Lasker
S. Reshevsky
Nottingham, 1936
1. P-Q4
P-Q4
2. P-QB4
PxP
3. Kt-KB3
Kt-KB3
P-K3
4. P-K3
P-B4
5. B x P
6. Kt-B3
According to modern theory, this
move is best deferred until later.
P-QR3
6. . . . . . .
7. Castles
Or 7. P-QR4, Kt-B3; 8. Castles
B-K2; 9. Q-K2, P x P; 10. R-Q1,
P-K4; 1 1 . P x P, P x P; 12. Kt x P,
Kt X Kt; 13. Q-K5, Q-Q3; with
equality.
7. . . . . . .
P-QKt4
8. B-Q3
8. B-Kt3 is better, but even so
Black is able to play 8. . . . .

B-Kt2; retaining control of the
squares Q4 and K5.
P x PI
8. . . . . . .
This is an important move, the
object of which is to fix White's
Pawns.
9. P x P
B-Kt2
10. B-Kt5
B-K2
1 1 . Q-K2
White has handled the opening
in an indifferent manner and does
not seem to realize that he is
drifting into an inferior position.
Alekhine recommends here 1 1 . B X
Kt, B x B; 12. B-K4, in order to
diminish the strength of Black's
Queen's Bishop.
Castles
11.
QKt-Q2
1 2 . QR-Q1
13. Kt-K5
This move, characteristic of the
variation, is entirely out of place
here, since White has no attacking

chances whatsoever.
He should
have avoided simplification by play
ing 13. B-B1, Kt-Q4; 14. Kt-K4.
13. . . . . . .
Kt-Q4
14. B-B1
It seems that Lasker still hoped
to obtain the initiative, for other
wise he would have chosen the
continuation 14. B x B, Kt X B; (14.
. . . . KKt X Kt; 15. B X P eh! or 14.
. . . . Q x B; 15. QKt x Kt, B x Kt;
1 6. B-K4!) 15. B-K4, B x B; 16.
Kt x B and White has in the strong
position of his Knights compensa
tion for the weakness of his Pawn.
14. . . . . . .
KKt x Kt
Kt-B3
15. P X Kt
16. P-QR4
A Pawn sacrifice with the idea of
pushing forward his centre Pawns
(P-QB4), but the position does not
contain such a tactical chance;
besides, Lasker faces a tactician of
equal calibre, who from now on finds
the very best moves.
127
19. P x P, P x P; 20. B x Kt,

Q X B; 21 . Q X P, B-R3; wins the
exchange.
1 9. . . . . . .
Kt-Kt4
20. P x P
If 20. Kt-Kl, P x P.
PxP
20. . . . . . .
Better than 20 . . . . . Kt x Kt eh.;
2 1 . Q x Kt, with counter-chances for
Black.
21 . B x P
If 21 . Kt-K1, Kt-R6 eh.; 22.
K-R1, Kt-B5.
21 .
22. P x Kt
Kt x Kt eh.
Q-Kt4 eh.
Q-Q4!
16. . . . . . .
17. Kt-B3
If 17. P-KB4, P-Kt5.
17.
18.
18.
is no
......
KR-B1
B-Kt2
P x P, P x P; 19. B x P, R x P;
better.
18 . . . . . . .
19. R-B1
Kt-K5
White resigns, for if 23. K-R1 ,

Q-Kt5 wins.
Lasker was unsuccessful in his treatment of the opening because he

rejected certain important findings of the analysts, and allowed his
opponent to obtain an ideal formation in the Queen's Gambit Accepted.
The fact that he could have achieved at one stage approximate equality
does not confirm his theory, since White can always keep the balance
of the position without complicated opening analysis.
Even a great tactician when facing an opponent of equal skill will find
it difficult to regain terrain lost in the early stages. When he has to fight
against modern opening theory as well, his task will be practically
impossible.
The last two games have shown us the modern development of the
Steinitz system, from which emerge two salient points. First, White
must use care in the development of his Queen's Bishop, which is strong
128
at KKt5 if he can force Black to weaken his King's side (e.g. by forcing
P-KR3, giving White a point of attack at KKt5), but is weak if Dlack
can simplify by KKt-Q4. Secondly, Black can often develop his
Queen's Bishop at QKt2, using it aggressively along the long diagonal
instead of following Steinitz' passive deployment of the piece for defence
of his King's position via Q2 to Kl.
BY TRANSPOSITION FROM THE ORTHODOX DE FENCE
BOTWINNIK'S CONTINUATION
The question has often been posed whether our attacking technique
has advanced at all. On the other hand it is debatable whether this
age of scientific play encourages attack.
For providing an answer to this problem our study of the Queen's
Gambit Accepted with its numerous transposition possibilities is most
useful. In the following game Botwinnik, who is considered a 'strategist'
rather than 'tactician,' challenges his opponent to create a position
characteristic of the Steinitz Variation, by avoiding the 'tempo struggle'
continuation which results after 7. R-Bl. The game itself has some
resemblance to the Zukertort-Steinitz game (see Game 62, page 1 18) and
Botwinnik's handling of the attack gives a clear answer to the question
whether attacking technique can be acquired.
67
White
M. M. Botwinnik
Black
M. Vidmar
Nottingham, 1 936
P-K3
1. P-QB4
P-Q4
2. Kt-KB3
Kt-KB3
3. P-Q4
B-K2
4. B-Kt5
Castles
5. Kt-B3
QKt-Q2
6. P-K3
7. B-Q3
This move in place of the more
normal 7. R-QBl , allows Black to
play 7 . . . . . P-QB4 with impunity.
P-B4
7.
8. Castles
BP x P
QP x P
9. KP x P
Kt-Kt3
10. B X P
1 1 . B-Kt3
B-Q2
QKt-Q4
12. Q-Q3
By an inversion of moves we have
reached a Queen's Gambit Accepted
formation.
Better was 12 . . . . . KKt-Q4;
and if 13. B-B2, P-Kt3; with the
double threat of Kt-Kt5 and also
B X B. If instead (a) 13. B-K3,

Kt X Kt; 14. P X Kt, B-QR5; or
(b) 13. Kt-K4, B-QR5; and in
both cases Black, by exchanging
White's powerful King's Bishop,
has good prospects of simplification.
This analysis given by Botwinnik
is highly instructive since he moves
his King's Knight to Q4 ( instead of
the usual . . . . QKt-Q4). By fol
lowing his idea Black is able to
force an exchange of minor pieces
and to ease his position.
13. Kt-K5
B-B3
14. QR-Q1
Now Black's position is becoming
uncomfortable, for if (a) 14. . . . .
Kt-R4; 15. Kt X B, P X B; 16.
B-B 1 , with a very good game, or
(b) 1 4. . . . . Q-,-R4; 1 5. B-B 1 ,
Kt x Kt; 16. Kt x B, P x Kt; 17.
P X Kt, with the better game.
14. . . . . . .
Kt-QKt5
15. Q-R3
The Queen is able without loss
of time to reach this strong position,
from which she can threaten Black's
vulnerable squares at K6 and KR7.
129
B-Q4
15.
QKt x B
16. Kt x B
Better is 16 . . . . . KKt X B; 17.
B-B1, R-B1; and Black has some
defensive chances, though White
still has the better game.
17. P-B4
QR-B1
Not 17 . . . . . P-KKt3; 18. B
R6, R-1{1 ; 19. B-R4, winning the
exchange. If 17 . . . . . Kt-K5; 18.
Kt x P! K x Kt; (R x Kt, Q x KP!)
19. QR-K1!
18. P-B5
PxP
No better is 18 . . . . . Q-Q3; 19.
P x P, P x P; (19 . . . . . Q x P; 20.
Q-B3,) 20. QR-K1 !
19. R x P
Q-Q3?
This loses immediately; but even
after the best move 19 . . . . . R-B2;
20. QR-KB1, retains the strong
pressure.
R x Kt
20. Kt x PI
Not 20 . . . . . K x Kt; 2 1. B x Kt
eh.
21. B x KKt
BxB
CAPABLANCA'S
Position after 19 . . . . . Q-Q3?

If 21. . . . . Kt X B; 22. R X Kt,
B x R; 23. Q x R eh.
22. R x Ktl
Much stronger than 22. B x Kt.
Q-B3
22. . . . . . .
23. R-Q6
Avoiding the trap 23. R-QB5?
B x P eh.
23.
24. R-Q7
Q-K1
Resigns.
T REATMENT
Capablanca has very rarely accepted the Queen's Gambit and the
following game is one of the few occasions on which he did so. It is a
curious fact that his opponent should have been Salo Flohr, who very
often chose to accept the gambit.
It is indeed fortunate that Capablanca had very little knowledge
of previous theory, for in his unbiassed approach to the opening problems
he succeeds in evolving a system which is, in effect, a compromise between
the old and the new. He isolates White's Queen's Pawn and is able still
to retain mobility for his pieces.
68
White
Black
S. FlohT
J. R. Capablanca
Semmering-Baden, 1937
I. P-Q4
P-Q4
2. P-QB4
3. Kt-KB3
4. P-K3
5. B x P
6. 0-0
7. Q-K2
8. R-Q1
9. Kt-B3
PxP
Kt-KB3
P-K3
P-n4
P-QR3
Kt-B3
Q-B2
B-K2
130
CHESS FR Ol\1 MOR PHY TO BOT\VINNIK
A move chara cteri sti c of Capa

b1 an ca' s sty1e. He avoids the com
mittal line 9. . . . . P-QKt4; 10.
P-Q5 ,
11.
B-Kt2;
B-Kt3,
P x P; 12. Kt x P, Kt x Kt; 13.
B x Kt, B-K2; 14. P-QKt3, Cast
les KR; 14. B-Kt2, preferring to
maintain the tension in the centre
without weakening his Pawn posi
tion, and to advance on the Queen's
side only when he is in a position
to do so with the greatest effect.
10. P-QR3
Now 10. P-Q5, P X P; 1 1 . Kt X P,
Kt X Kt; 12. B x Kt, can be met by
Castles; 13. P-K4,
12.
B-Kt5.
P-QKt4
10. . . . . . .
P-Kt5
1 1 . B-R2
P x QP
12. Kt-QR4
B-Q2
13. KP x P
Kt x KtP
14. P x P
The manner in which Capablanca
has secured freedom to manreuvre
for his pieces on the Queen's side
and has isolated White's Queen's
Pawn is quite remarkable and re
presents a great advance upon
B1ack's treatment in the game

Pillsbury-Steinitz (Game 63, page
1 20). Now 1 4 . . . . . Kt x QP is not
good because of 1 5. R x Kt, B x Kt;
16. B-QB4 winning the QR Pawn.
B-Kt4!
15. Kt-B3
A typical Capablanca simplifying
combination.
16. Q-K5
If 16. Kt x B, P x Kt; 17. Q x P
eh., Kt-Q2; and wins a piece.
16. . . . . . .
Q-Kt2
Kt-Q6
17. B-Kt3
1R. Q-Kt3
Kt x R
1 9. QR x Kt
B-Q2
20. B-QB4
QR-B1
21 . P-QKt3
Castles
B-Kt4
22. Kt-K5
B xB
23. Q-Q3
23. . . . . B-R6; 24. R-B2,
B-l{t5; would have maintained
the tension on the Queen's side (25.
KtB x B, P x B; 26. Kt x KtP? R
x R).
24. P x B
KR-Q1
Q-R2
25. Q-K2
26. P-B5
Simpler than 26. Q-Q3, when
he might have experienced some
difficulty in safeguarding his Pawns
after 26. . . . . B-Q3.
Kt-Q4
26 . . . . . . .
R x Kt
27. Kt x Kt
P-QR4
28. R-R1
B xP
29. Q-Kt5
30. P x B
30. R x P, B x P; 31. R x Q,
R X Q; is good for Black.
R x Kt
Q-K2
30.
31. R x P
Position after 1 5 . . . . . B-Kt4!
Draw.
Capablanca's free and easy style is well manifested in an opening in

'Which analysis apparently confined the players to a narrow choice of moves.'
XI
IN MODERN TIMES
Queen's Gambit Accepted is a good example of the manner in which
the chess thought of a period is often reflected in the contemporary
handling of the opening. During the nineteenth century this opening
invariably led to a rigid Pawn formation, with an isolated Queen's Pawn
at White's Q4, with compensation for White in the free development of
his pieces (his Queen's Bishop not being shut in). To-day Black avoids
playing . . . . P X QP, but by putting pressure on White's Q4, prevents
his bringing out his Queen's Bishop.
Tension, and the maintenance of tension, is Black's aim until he is able
to complete his development on the Queen's side. This White tries to
counter by a break-through in the centre, often by Pawn sacrifices.
THE
ALEKHINE'S DEFENCE SYSTEM
The next game is a fine example of the intricacies of modern opening

theory. Whilst we are accustomed to long and far reaching combinations
for definite objects which are immediately decisive, e.g. material gain or
mate, here we see Alekhine introducing surprising and remarkable com
binations in the opening solely to maintain the tension and to prevent
his Queen's side Pawns from being broken up.
QKt-Q2; though after 9. P-QR4,
P-Kt5; 10. QKt-Q2, B-Kt2; 1 1 .
Kt-B4, Black's Pawns are fixed
and may become weak.
69
White
Black
M. Euwe
A. Alekhine
8. . . . . . .
B-Kt2
9. P-QR4
QKt-Q2! !
A surprising move that keeps
Black's Pawns position intact. If
now 10. P X KtP, P X KtP; 1 1 .
R x R, Q x R; 12. Q x P, B x Kt.
Bad Nauheim, 1937

P-Q4
1. P-Q4
PxP
2. P-QB4
Kt-KB3
3. Kt-KB3
P-K3
4. P-K3
P-B4
5. B x P
P-QR3
6. Castles
P-QKt4
7. Q-K2
8. B-Kt3
This move is good only when
Black's Queen's Knight is deve
Correct is 8.
loped at QB3.
B-Q3, after which 8
B-Kt2?
is bad, being met by 9. P X P,
B X P?; 1 0. B X P eh. , winning a
Pawn. Black has to play 8.
.
10
. .
B-K2
10. R-Q1
Castles
1 1 . QP X P
This Pawn sacrifice enables Black
to maintain the tension.
1 2. B-B2
Threatening 1 3. P-QKt4, this
move forces Black to play 1 2 . . . . .
B X P; Euwe recommenrls 12. P
B6, B X P; 13. Kt-K5, Q-B2; 14.
181
132

19.
20.
21 .
21 .
Kt-Ktl
B-Q3
Kt-B3
B-B4
R-Q2
R-Q1? B x B; wins a piece.
21 . . . . . . .
Q-Kt3
The best chance. Black obtains
some compensation for the sacrificed
Pawn.
22. B x B
23. R x P
24. R-Ql
PxB
Kt-Kt5
Position after 1 1 . . . . . Castles

Kt X B, Q X Kt; 15. B-B2, with
the two Bishops and a better Pawn
position. Still it appears that Black
has a promising line in 13. . . . .
B-Kt2! ; 14. P x P, Q-B2!; 15.
Kt x Kt, Kt x Kt; 16. P x P, Kt
B4; and he has good compensation
for the sacrificed Pawn.
BxP
12. . . . . . .
13. Kt-K5
Preferable is the solid move 13.
QKt-Q2.
P-Kt5
13. . . . . . .
Although at last White has forced
Black to make this characteristic
move in the Queen's Gambit Ac
cepted, he has lost too much time.
Kt-B7?
24. . . . . . .
The decisive mistake. With 24.
. . . . QR-B1; 25. B-Q2, R-B7;
26. Q-B1, Kt-R7; Black's strong
position is adequate compensation
for the lost Pawn.
14. Kt x Kt
Kt x Kt
15. Kt-Q2
15. B X P eh. , K X B; 16. Q-Q3
eh . , P-B4; 17. Q x Kt, Q x Q; 18.
R X Q, QR-Ql ; is in favour of
Black, but 15. P-K4 is better than
the text-move.
Q--QB3
25. R-Ktl
QxP
26. B-Q2
27. B-B3
Now the position is clarified. The
Black Knight has nothing to say
jn the following play, whilst White's
Bishop threatens Black's most vul
nerable spot.
15. . . . . . .
P-B4
B-Q4l
Kt-Kt3
B x Kt
b 17. Kt-Q4
P-Kt6?
: 18. R X B
The right move is 1 8. . . . .
Q-Kt3; {9. B-Q2, P-QR4; lock
ing in the White Queen's Bishop.
27.
Q-Kt4
QR-Q1
28. Q-B3
29. Q-Kt3
R-Q2
R(B1 )-B2
30. R-Q6
P-B5
31 . QR-Q1
Alekhine sacrifices a Pawn to
meet the threat of 32. R x R , R x R ;
. 16.
. . . . .
THE QUEEN'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED IN MODERN TIMES

33. R X R, Q X R; 34. Q-Kt8 eh . ,
K B 2 ; 35 . Q X P eh.
-
32. P X P
34. P-B 6
35. P-R4
P Kt3
RxR
36. Q x R
P-R4
If 36 . . . . . Q-K1; 37. Q
P-QR4
33. P-B5
P-R5
Protecting the QKt Pawn and
preventing the line mentioned in
the last note.
133
Kt6
Resigns.
37. Q-K6
If 37 . . . . . Q-Ktl ; 38. R-Q7,
Q-KB1 ; 39. R-K7, decides.
EuwE'S CONTINUATION
The following game is an interesting counterpart to the last, and is a

further illustration of the tactical complexities to be faced when playing
the Queen's Gambit Accepted.
White
M. Euwe
70
10. P x P
BxP
P-Kt5
l l . P-K4
Now ll . . . . . B-Kt2, is mean
ingless, but 1 1
Kt-Q2; comes
into consideration.
Black
A. Alekhine

P-Q4
1. P-Q4
PxP
2. P-QB4
P-QR3
3. Kt-KB3
Kt-KB3
4. P-K3
P-K3
5. B x P
P-B4
6. Castles
7. Q-K2
Kt-B3
8. Kt-B3
Superficially, this looks an ob
vious developing move, but it was
a long time before it was generally
recognized that this is stronger than
the old move 8. R-Q1, since after
8. . . . . Q-B2; 9. Kt-B3, P
QKt4; 10. B-Kt3, B-K2; 1 1 .
P x P, B x P; 12. P-K4, KKt
Kt5; gains a tempo (White's KB
Pawn is unprotected) and prevents
White from paying 13. P-K5.
8. . . . . . .
P-QKt4
9. B-Kt3 .
B-K2
At the time this game was plyed,
9 . . . . . B-K2; though it involves
the loss of a tempo, was considered
safer than 9 . . . . . B-Kt.2. To-day
the latter move has been rehabili
tated, since after 10. R-Q1, Q-B2;
l l . P-Q5, P X P; 12. P-K4,
P-Q5! Black is ahle to maintain
the tension, although this is not
without its dangers.
12. P-K5
P X Kt
If 12 . . . . . Kt-Q2; 13. Kt-K4,
is too strong.
13. P x Kt
P x BP
The alternatives are (a) 13.
Q X P; 14. Q-B4! Q-K2; 15.
B-K3, or (b) 13. . . . . Q x P; 14.
Q-B41 P X P; 15. Q X B, P X B ( Q),
(15 . . . . . P X R(Q); 1 0. Q X Kt eh.,
K-Ql; 17. R-Q1 eh., K-K2; 18.
B-R3 Mate) 16. QR x Q, B-Q2;
17. B-R4, R-QB1; 1 8. KR-Q1,
with a strong attack.
14. Q-B4
Q-Kt3
Kt-Q5
15. Q X BP
On 15 . . . . . B-K2; 16. B-K3,
Q-Kt4; 17. QR-Bl, B-Kt2; 18.
Q-B2, gives White the better
game.
16. Kt x Kt
B x Kt
17. B-R4 eh.
K-K2
18. B-K31 1
A surprising move which enables
White to keep up his attack.
18. . . . . . .
B x Q?
A better defence is given by 18.
R-Ql; 19. QR-Q1, P-K4;
20. B x B, R x B; 21 . R x R, P x R;
.
134
K x R; 22. R-Q1 eh. , K-K4; 23.

B-B6, wins a piece .
B X KtP
2 1 . P-B4
22. R-B3
This quiet move is decisive. If
now 22 . . . . . P-B4; 23. R-QKt3,
B-B3; 24. B-B6, wins a piece.
B-Kt2
22. . . . . . .
23. R-KKt3
B-R6
There is no other way of meeting
the threat of mate. If 23. . . . .
R-B1; 24. R-Q8 eh., R x R; 25.
B-B5 eh.
Position afte:r 17 . . . . . K-K2

(21. . . . . Q X R; 22. Q-B6,) 22.
Q-B3, and, although White main
tains his attack, Black has defensive
chances.
B-K4
19. B x Q
Black must do something about
the threat of 20. B-B5 eh. If 19.
. . . . B-Kt5; 20. KR-Q1 , (threat
ening 2 1 . P-QR3, B-Q3; 22.
R x B,) 20. . . . . QR-Ktl ; 2 1 .
B-B7, R-Kt2; 2 2 . QR-B1, with
the threat 23. P-QR3.
20. QR-Q1
K-B1
If 20. .
. B-Q3; 21. R X B,
.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41 .
RxB
R-KKt3
PxR
B-Kt3
PxB
P-QKt4
B-B5
R-R1
K-B2
K-K3
K-Q4
K-B4
R-Q1
R-Q6
BxR
B-K7
BxP
K-B5
R-KKtl
R xR
B-Q4
BxB
K-K1
R-Ktl
R-B1
R-B3
P-B4
P-B3
K-B2
K-Kt3
K-R4
R xR
K-Kt5
KxP
K x BP
Resigns.
An extremely instructive game showing how a seemingly slight in

accuracy such as Black's 9th move, enabling White to gain a tempo for
his central advance, can prove fatal. White was able to maintain this
advantage in spite of the exchange of Queens and direct his attack to
its logical conclusion. A masterpiece of strategy.
BoTWINNIK's
TREATMENT
Another important line arises when White endeavours to prevent

Black's Pawn advance on the Queen's side by an early P-QR4. This
old continuation received new life when Botwinnik demonstrated that
White has nothing to fear from weakening his QKt4. He has adopted
it several times on many important occasions and his fine tactical sense
1 well illustrated in the many finesses which he has introduced into
this line.
THE QUEEN' S GAMBIT ACCEPTED IN MODERN TIMES
1 35
threat Q-B-i, gives White a strong

attack.
71
White
Black
M. M. Botwinnik
P. Keres
Moscow, 1 941
I. P-Q4
P-Q4
2. P-QB4
PxP
3. Kt-KB3
P-QR3
Kt-KB3
4. P-K3
P-K3
5. B x P
6. P-QR4
P-B4
7. Castles
Kt-B3
8. Q-K2
B-K2
9. R-Q1
Q-B2
10. P-R3
Here we reach the crucial point
of the variation. Can White save
a tempo by dispensing with this
move and give the game a more
dynamic nature by the substitution
of a developing move?
Against
Euwe at Groningen, 1946, Botwin
nik played 10. Kt-B3, (instead of
10. P-R3,) 10. . . . . Castles; 1 1 .
P-QKt3, B-Q2; 1 2 . B-Kt2,
QR-B1; 13. P-Q5, with the better
position, but analysis has shown
that with 10. . . . . Castles; 1 1 .
P-QKt3, P x P ; 1 2 . P X P , Kt
QR4; 13. P-Q5, Kt X B; 14. P X Kt,
P x P; 15. Kt x P, Kt x Kt; 16.
P X Kt, B-KKt5! Black obtains
an easy game.
10 . . . . . . .
Castles
1 1 . Kt-B3
R-Q1
12. P-QKt3
Botwinnik maintains the tension
in the centre. The alternative is
12. P-Q5, P X P; 13. B X QP, Kt
QKt5; 14. P-K4, KKt x B; 15.
P X Kt, B-B4; 16. B-B4, Q x B ;
17. Q X B, (Reshevsky-Fine, Sem
mering-Baden, 1 937), which leads to
interesting complications, but gives
White no advantage.
12. . . . . . .
B-Q2
Keres chooses Steinitz' method of
developing the Queen's Bishop
since if 12. . . . . P-QKt3; 13.
P-Q5, P X P; l 4. B x QP, with the
13. B-Kt2
B-Kl
14. P-Q5
At last White is able to carry out
this characteristic break-through.
14. . . . . . .
15. B x QP
PxP
Kt-Q5!
Black must try to simplify; other

wise White will soon achieve super
iority in the centre by P-K4-K5.
Kt x B
16. Kt x Kt
Kt x Kt
17. Kt-B5
P-B3
18. B X Kt
On 1 8 . . . . . B-Bl; 19. Q-Kt4,
P-KKt3; (19 . . . . . B-Q2; 20. Kt-R6 eh. ) 20. Q-Kt5, with the threat
21. Q-B6, follows.
19. Q-Kt4
B-Kt3
20. B-R5!
R x R eh.
On 20 . . . . . Q X B; 21. Kt X B eh.,
K-B2; 22. Kt X B, P X Kt; 23.
R-Q7 eh., follows with good win
ning chances for White.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
RxR
Kt x B eh.
R-Q7
Q-Kt3
Q-B7
RxQ
B-Ktft
28. P-R5
Q-K4
Q x Kt
Q-K5
Q-B3
QxQ
R-Ktl
B-B7
BxP
136
29. B x P
ao. P-Ba
31. B-Kt6
B2. B-B5
Preventing 31. . .
B-Q4
B-BB
R-KB1
. . R-B2.
32.
R-Q1
33. P-K4
R-Q2
K-B2
34. R-BS eh.
R-Q7
35. K-R2
36. K-Kt3
B-Kt4
37. P-B4
P-KKt3
Necessary otherwise 38. R-B7
eh. and P-B5 eh. be come very

dangerous.
38. P-B5
PxP
39. P x P
B-B3
40. K-B4
R-Q4
If 40. . . . . R x P; White regains
the Pawn with 41 . R-B7 eh., or
secures perpetual check.
41 . R-B7 eh.
R-Q2
Drawn\
Though this line is not as popular as that shown in the previous two
games, it is still a good illustration of the maintenance of the tension
and of White's striving for a central break-through by P-Q5.
Black's defensive system is characterized by not striving to establish
a Knight on Q4 as in the Steinitz System (even though here it seems
even stronger, since Black can occupy the 'hole' QKt5 with his Queen' s
Knight). Experience has shown that White can obtain more than
sufficient compensation by playing Kt-K5.
CONCLUSIONS
In these chapters on the Queen's Gambit Accepted we witness a cavalcade

of the great masters, both past and present facing the problem of White's
isolated Pawn on Q4. Is it strong or weak? If weak, can White obtain
sufficient attack to compensate him for this potential end-game handicap?
From the time of de la Bourdonnais the technique of attack was superior
to the technique of defence, and the pendulum of advantage swung
heavily to White until the great defensive player William Steinitz estab
lished in his match against Zukertort in 1886, a system which remains
classic; namely, the blockade of the isolated Pawn rather than direct
assault. At the end of the century Schlechter strengthened White's play
(see Game 64, page 122), which led to the practical disappearance of the
Steinitz variation (early exchange of Pawns in the centre).
Let us follow the modern method employed in this variation arising
mainly from transpositions from the Q.G. Orthodox Defence and from
the Caro-Kann (Panov-Botwinnik attack). An improvement on the
Steinitz line is Black's attempt to develop his Queen's Bishop more
effectively on Kt2 (instead of Stcinitz' B-Q2-K1), which is tactically
not an easy task, but when successful gives Black a good game.
Chapter XI deals with the Q.G. Accepted of to day . The isolated White
QP is not in evidence, Black avoiding the exchange at Q4 in order to
restrict the White Queen's Bishop. White on the other hand endeavours
to free the Bishop preparatory to a centre thrust which usually leads to
a very tense struggle where even a slight inaccuracy brings disaster to
either side. This underlines the modern tendency to harness study and
tactics to one purpose: to maintain the tension in the centre.
-
PART Ill
THE ENGLISH OPENING
THIS debut, which was often practised by the English players during the
middle of the nineteenth century, disappeared for a time but was revived
by the 'hypermoderns' in their quest, after the First World War, for an
opening capable of giving expression to their original ideas.
Even at its inception, it did not meet with much favour and Staunton,
in his Chess Players' Handbook, makes this lament: 'The move recom
mended by modern (sic 1847) authors for Black's reply is 1 . P to K's 4th,
and we have then of course the same position as if Black had commenced
the game with I. P to K's 4th, and you have replied with I. P to QB's 4th,
with this difference, that in the present instance you have the advantage
of the move, a circumstance which seems to have escaped the notice of
some writers, since, with a strange inconsistency, they carry on the game
from this position, and decide it in favour of the defending player, who
is a move behind; while in the 'Sicilian game' I. P to K's 4th, P to QB's
4th; }Vhen the position is reversed and you have Black's position, and in
addition the advantage of the move, you can barely make an even game.'
137
XII
THE ENGLISH OPENING IN THE LAST CENTURY
We commence our survey with a game of the Staunton-Saint-Amant
match, in which Staunton uses the English Opening for the first time.
Although we know that most of the modern openings owe their origin
to a chance adoption in an important game, and to their being gradually
worked out by succeeding generations, we here see Staunton deliberately
setting up a formation which even to-day is considered difficult to handle.
To defend oneself against the fierce King's side attacks to which one is
sometimes subjected in this line, still requires great independence of
outlook and much confidence in one's own ability.
72
the long diagonal by

P-KKt3
in place of . . . . Kt-KKt5. After
1 1 . QKt-Q5, Kt X Kt; 12. Kt X Kt,
B-K3; 13. Kt X B eh., Q X Kt; 14.
Q-K2, White obtained the better
game on account of the strong
position of his Bishop on QKt2.
. .
Black*
White
H. Staunton P.C. F. de Saint-Amant

1 2th Match Game, 1 843
1. P-QB4
Staunton remarked: 'This way of
opening the game, although not
usual, is perfectly safe.'
P-QB4
Kt-QB3
P-B4
P-Q3
P-K4
P-K3
B-Q3
Kt-KB3
Kt-R3
PxP
PxP
Castles
B-K2
Kt-B3
P-QKt3
9. B-Kt2
Castles
Kt-KKt5
10. Kt-B4
So far the game is identical with
the famous 6th match game in
which Staunton first introduced his
new English Opening. There Saint
Amant had played 7. . . . . P
KKt3; 8. P-QKt3, B-K2; . B
Kt2, Castles; 10. Kt-B4, Kt-B3;
leading to a position identical "ith
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
the one in the present game, except

that he had weakened himself on
*
1 1 . KKt-Q5
Stronger than 1 1 . QKt-Q5,
since it prepares for P-KB4.
11.
B-B3
Kt x Kt
12. Kt x B eh.
13. Kt-K2
Kt-KKt5
P-QKt3
14. P-B4!
Kt-R3
15. P-KR3
Q-R5
16. R-B3
17. R-Kt3
P-Kt3
White has at last forced Black to
weaken his King's position, for if
he plays 17. . . . . R-B2; 18.
R-Kt5, threatening Q-KB1 and
P-Kt3, would follow.
18. Q-K1
As Staunton remarks, this har
rowing of the Queen is not as force
ful as 18. Q-KB1 , (threatening
R-Kt5 and P-Kt3, winning the
Queen) Q-K2; 1 9. Q-Ba, followed
by
. Q--R5, with an irresistible
.
The game was played with colours reversed.

1 38
13Q
THE ENGLISH OPENING
followed by Kt-K5 eh., or (b) 29 .

. . . . P x P; (29 . . . . . Q x BP; 30.
P x P,) 30. Kt x P, B x Kt; 31 .
Q x B.
Q-R5
29.
P-KR3
30. Kt-R2
Q-Kt6
31. Kt-B3
32. Kt-K1
This move loses a Pawn. It was
necessary to play 32. Kt-R2.
32. . . . . . .
R-K1
33. Q-KB2
Or 33. R x P, R X P; and wins.
Position after 17 . . . . . P-Kt3

attack. However, in 18 . . . . . Kt
B2; Black has a better defence.
Here we see the superb positional
player Staunton led astray by a
tempting tactical diversion instead
of pursuing the positional line, 18.
Q-B2! B-Kt2; (18 . . . . . Kt-Q5;
19. Q-B3) 19. Q-B3, Kt-Q5;
20. Kt x Kt, Q X R; 2 1 . Kt-B6,
with a won game; an illustration of
the strength of the open diagonal
(QR1-KR8) occupied by the QB.
18.
Q-K2
1 9. Q-B2
Kt-QKt5
B-Kt2
20. R-K1
QR-K1
21. B-Ktl
22. R-K3
Q-Q1
K-B2
23. Kt-Kt3
R xR
24. Q-K2
25. P x R
Objectively much better than the
drawish line 25. Q x R, R-K1 ; etc.
since if in reply 25. . . . . P-Q4;
26. P-R3, and R-Ql can follow.
25.
Q-R5
Kt-Kt!
26. Kt-B1
R-Q1
27. R-Ql
Q-Kt6
28. Kt-Q2
29. Kt-B1
Much too slow! 29. P-K4! was
the correct move, and gives White
a strong attack, e.g., if (a) 29 . . . . .
R-Kl; 30. Kt-B3! P-KR3; (30.
. . . . Q x BP? 31 . B-B l ! ) 31 . R x P,
Q x KP
33. . . . . . .
34. P-R3
Staunton remarks, 'From this
point to the end, the game abounds
with rare and critical situations.'
Kt-QB3
34. . . . . . .
35. Kt-B3
Q X Q eh.
Not 35 . . . . . Q x BP? 36. B-B1 ,
winning the Queen.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41 .
42.
KxQ
P-KKt4
Kt-R4
B xB
RxP
PxP
K-Kt3
R-K3
QKt-K2
B-K5
RxB
PxP
R x P eh.
P-KKt4?
42. . . . . . .
A weak move. Not only does it
render Black's King's side Pawn
140
majority valueless, but it drives

White's Knight to a far better
square. Black could have retained
his advantage with 42 . . . . . R-BS;
43. Kt-B3, R-QKt8.
43. Kt-B3
R-K5?
Falling into the trap, but even
after the better move 43. . . . .
Kt-KB3; then 44. B X Kt, R X B;
45. Kt-K5 eh., K-Kt2; 46. R
Q7, gives White a good game.
44. R x RP
R-K6
44. . . . . R x P eh.; 45. K x R,
Kt x R eh. draws.
K-K1
45. R-R7 eh.
46. B-B1
RxP
47. B x P
RxP
48. K-B4
P-R4
This move endangers Black's
position. He should play 48. . . . .
R-R8 in order to bring back his
Rook for defensive purposes. After
49. Kt-K5, R-B8 eh.; 50. K-K4,
it is doubtful whether Black can
play for a win with 50. . . . . Kt
B3 eh.; 5 1 . B X Kt, R X B; 52.
P-Kt5, since the KtP is too strong,

but he can force a draw by 50.
R-K8 eh.
49. Kt-K5
R-R8
The only defence to the threat
of 50. B X Kt, and R-R8 eh.
50. B x Kt
51. K-K4
52. R-R8 eh.
- 53. R-R6
Staunton remarks
eh. only draws.
R-B8 eh.
Kt x B
R-B1
that 53. R x R
53. . . . . . .
Kt-Ktl
On 53 . . . . . Kt-B1; 54. P-Kt5,
is too strong.
54. R x P
Kt-B3 eh.
Kt-Q2
55. K-K3
K-Q1
56. R-K6 eh.
57. R-Q6
K-K2
58. R x Kt eh.
K-K3
59. R-Q5
R-B8
60. Kt-Q3
R-KKt8
61 . Kt x P eh.
K-B3
62. P-Kt5 eh.
K-Kt3
63. Kt-K4
and White won on the 89th move.
In this, one of the first examples of he 'English Opening,' two important

characteristic features make their appearance.
The first is Staunton's well conceived plan to break up his opponent's
central Pawn position. But let Staunton speak for himself. In his notes
to his 3rd move (P-K4, in reply to Saint-Amant's 2. P-KB4), he
remarks: 'A forcible reply to White's Jast move; since if he now takes the
KP, the Black Kt comes into excellent play on his K's side, and, if he
does not take the P, his own centre Pawns are sure to be broken up and
displaced.' (Staunton opened the game with the Black pieces.)
The second important contribution is the introduction of the Queen's
Fianchetto, of which Staunton says: 'Playing this P forward to afford
an outlet for the Q's Bishop, was first brought into vogue by the present
games, in which the advantage of this mode of play over the old ( I I )
system i s eminently conspicuous.' From this we see that even a s early
as 1843 one could speak of an 'old system.'
1851
The fact that the English Opening was played by the English partici
pants in the Tournament of 1851, shows that one eminent player can
create a 'school.' The following game should be considered a step forward
in this opening. For Staunton, though retaining the essential features
of his earlier system, here introduced some distinctly new ideas.
THE ENGLISH OPENING AS PLAYED IN THE LONDON TOURNAMENT,
141
THE ENGLISH OPENING

73
White
Black
H. Staunton
B. Horwitz
London, 1851
1 . P-QB4
P-K3
2. Kt-QB3
P-KB4
Kt-KB3
3. P-KKt3
4. B-Kt2
P-B3
5. P-Q3
Kt-R3
6. P-QR3
This sequence of moves would be
incompatible with modern opening
analysis, but it is not our purpose
to examine it . from that angle. We
aim at seeing how this position was
treated according to the theory of
that period. Here to-day one would
play 6. P-K4.
6. . . . . . .
B-K2
Castles
7. P-K3
8. KKt-K2
Kt-B2
Horwitz regularly played this
move. \Ve see that 'overprotection'
is not just an invention of
Nimzovitch.
P-Q4
9. Castles
Q-K1
10. P-Kt3
Q-B2
1 1 . B-Kt2
The game, characterized by the
cautious manreuvres in the centre,
has quite a modern appearance.
But while White still has moves
with which he can strengthen his
position, Black has not, and he
should, therefore, have started an
action in the centre by 1 1 . . . . .
P-K4; since 12. P-Q4, or 12.
P-B4, could have been answered
by 12 . . . . . P-K5. On other moves
by White, Black could have played
. . . . Q-R4, with an attack similar
to that arising from the Dutch
Defence.
12. R-B1
B-Q2
13. P-K41
Staunton realizes that it is time
to take action in the centre before
Black can play 13. . . . . QR-QI .
Position after 12 . . . . . B
Q2
13. . . . . . .
BP x P
On 13 . . . . . P-K4; 14. P x QP,
P X QP; 15. P X QP, Kt(2) X P; 16.
Kt x Kt, Kt x Kt; 17. B x P, wins a
Pawn.
14. QP X P
QR-Q1
15. P-K5
KKt-K1
On 15. . . . . Kt-Kt5; 16. Kt
B4, Kt x KP; 17. P x P, KP x P; 18.
QKt x P, is the simplest.
16. P-B4
PxP
This looks like a mistake, but
even 16 . . . . . B-B1; 17. P x P,
Kt X P; 18. Kt X Kt, BP X Kt; 19.
Kt-Q4, gives White the superior
game.
17. P x P
B-B4 eh.
B-K6
18. K-R1
1 9. QR-Ktl
P-KKt3
The decisive mistake. This move
weakens his KB3 square, which, in
conjunction with the weakness on
Q3, must prove fatal.
B-B1
20. Q-Kt3
21. Kt-K4
B-Kt3
22. QR-Q1
Kt-R3
RXR
23. Q-QB3
24. R x R
Kt-B4
Q-B2
25. Kt-Q6
A better defence was 25.
Kt-R5; 26. Q-B2, Kt x Kt; 27.
142
Q X Kt Kt-B4; in order to case

the position by exchanges.
,
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
Q-B2
P-Kt4
B-Q4
P-QR4
P-QB5
Q-Kt3
Kt-K4
Kt-B6 eh.
Kt-Kt2
Q-K2
Q-QB2
Kt-R3
B-R4
P-Kt3
PxP
nates Black's counter-chances on the

Queen's side, which he had achieved
by sacrificing his QB Pawn.
K-R1
33. . . . . . .
34. Q-KR3!
The speed with which the Queen
and the Knight are switched over
is really remarkable.
Kt-K1
. 34. . . . . . .
35. B-R1
Black's Pawns on the Queen's
wing are broken up, and his chances
are reduced to a minimum.
Kt x Kt
35.
36. P X Kt
KKtl
Q-QKt2
37. B-K5
38. B-K4
Q-KB2
B-Q1
39. Kt-Ktl
40. P-Kt5
B-Kt2
R-K1
41 . Kt-B3
BxP
42. B-Q6
Staunton remarks, 'It is indifferent what he plays, the game being
past all surgery.'
This part of the game shows

Staunton's advanced technique.
Before attacking on the King's side,
where his advantage lies, he elimi-
43. P x B
44. Kt-Kt5
45. B-K5
46. B x KtP
QxP
Q-Kt2
Q-K2
Resigns.
In this logical game, a new element of modern positional play-the

double fianchetto-makes its appearance. That this was not merely an
improvisation is clear to us after setting up the Pawn formation that
usually follows this development of the White Bishops.
The technique displayed by Staunton in the middle-game is equally
remarkable. On examining the way in which he reduces his opponent's
counter-chances on one wing before going over to the other, one is reminded
of the strategy so characteristically demonstrated by Capablanca seventy
years later.
WYVILL'S TREATMENT
The other great exponent of the English Opening in the last century
was Wyvill, the winner of the second prize in the London 1851 Tourna
ment. Staunton called him 'One of the finest players in England.' He
adopted only this opening (for with the Black pieces he played the Sicilian
Defence) and he can be considered a forerunner of those great masters
who to-day specialize in certain openings. His games show that he
understood the spirit of the opening, and they therefore supply very
useful material from which we draw our conclusions concerning the finer
strategical points of this debut.
THE ENGLISH OPENING

74
White
Black
M. Wyvill
E. Lowe
London, 1 851
l. P QB4
P-K4
2. P-K:l
P-QB4
3. Kt-QB3
Kt-QB3
4. P-KKt3
B-K2
5. B-Kt2
P-Q3
6. P-Q3
Kt-KB3
7. P-QR3
B-K3
8. KKt-K2
With minor deviations and trans
positions the opening is the same
as played to-day, when Black aims
atblockadingWhite's Queen's Pawn,
whilst White, purposely acquiescent
to his opponent's plan, hopes later
to break up Black's centre with
P-Q4. To-day we would play 8.
Kt-Q5, with which move White
retains all his chances in the centre,
whilst those of Black's are non
existent.
143
On 14 . . . . . P-B4; 15. QR-Ktl !

would manifest the strength of
\Vhite's King's Bishop. But after
the text-move White is able to
demonstrate how a centre can be
effectively broken up.
P-Q4
8. . . . . . .
9. P x P
Kt x P
10. Castles
Castles
1 1 . Q-B2
On 1 1 . P-Q4, BP x P; 12. P x P,
P x P; 13. Kt x P, QKt x Kt; 14.
Q x Kt, B-B3; would follow with
advantage for Black. This shows
White's strategy was faulty in
allowing himself to be blockaded.
Kt x Kt
11. . . . . . .
The right move was 1 1 .
R-B 1 ; with the latent threat . . . .
Kt-Q5.
B-Q4 ,
12. P x Kt
13. P-K4
B-K3
14. B-K3!
A very important move. Now
14 . . . . -. P-B5; can be answered
by 15. P-Q4.
14 . . . . . .
Q--Q2
15. P-KB4!
P-B4
On 15. . . . . B-R6; 16. B X B
Q x B; 17. P x P, Kt x P; 18. Kt
B4, with advantage for White would
follow.
16. P x KP
On 16.
is strong.
Kt x P
P X P; 17. P-Q4,
17. Kt.:_B4
Kt-Kt5
18. B-Q2
P-B5
19. P-Q4
B-B2
20. P-K5
QR-Ktl
21. P-R3
Kt-R3
22. P-Q5
Staunton remarks, 'Now are these
Pawns quite irresistible.'
B-B4 eh.
22. . . . . . .
23. K-R1
Q-K2
24. QR-Kl
Q-Kt4
A mistake, but Black is lost in
any case.
25. Kt-K6
Q-K2
26. B-Kt5
Q-K1
27. Kt x R
and won on the ,n st move.

In this game we see the power of the advance P-KB4, by White,
to-day common knowledge, but unknown at that time, and not appreciated
until many years later. An equally important motive is the pressure
of White's King's Bishop against the weak square at Black's QKt2, a
stratagem still considered to be of a most promising nature.
The following game shows a further development of the English Opening,
but on this occasion it is from the point of view of Black, who here adopts
a more solid line by answering 1. P---QB4, with 1 .
P-K3; a move
which was considered by Steinitz to be safer than the committing 1 .
P-K4.
.
75
White
M. Wyvill
Black
Capt. G. Kennedy
London, 1 851
(Played with reversed colours)
P-K3
1. P---QB4
2. P-K3
P---Q4
3. P-KKt3
P---QB 4
4. B-Kt2
Kt---QB3
Staunton remarks, 'Taking the
Pawn would have been imprudent,
since it would have disjointed the
centre and Black (here first player)
would win a Pawn in return at once
by checking with his Queen.'
Modern theory tells us that 4
P x P; 5. Q-R4 eh. , B---Q 2 ; 6.
Q x BP, B-B3; 7. KKt-B3, leads
to a variati0n of the Catalan
system, where \Vhite's P-K3 is a
weak move (weakening him on the
light coloured squares on the King's
side).
.
Kt-B3
5. Kt-K2
B---Q3
6. P---Q3
B-B2
7. QKt-B3
P-KR4
8. Castles
This attack is premature,
Staunton observes.
. . .
as
Kt-R4
9. Q-Kt3
An ingenious reply. On 9 .
P-Q5; 1 0 . P x P, P x P; 1 1 . Kt
Kt5, B-Kt3; 1 2. B-B4, gives
White a strong position.
10. Q -Kt5 eh.
Kt-B3
ll. P x P
PxP
12. P-K4!
This push in the centre and the
preparation for it by Q-Kt3, to
bring out the strength of White's
King's Bishop, shows Wyvill's in
sight as a fine strategist.
Even
to-day this is the basis of the
English Opening.
12.
P---Q5
13. Kt-Q5
Kt-Q2
14. B-Kt5
P-B3
15. B-B4
Staunton observed that Wyvill
had now a great superiority of
position.
15. . . . . . .
B-K4
16. B-R3
It looks as if Black cannot now
defend his QB Pawn, but Kennedy
finds a very ingenious reply.
145
THE ENGLISH OPENING

Q-R4!
16. . . . . . .
17. Q- Kt3
On 17. Q x Q, Kt x Q; 18. B x B ,
Kt x B; 19. Kt-B7 eh., K-QI ;
20. Kt X R, B X B; 2 1 . R-Ql,
White's Knight on R8 is trapped
and Black would remain with two
minor pieces against the Rook.
J{t-l{t3
17. . . . . . .
RxB
1 8 . KB x B
19. KR-QI
Up to this point Wyvill's strategy
has been really impressive, but now
he misses his chance.
With 19.
QR-B1, preventing Black from
exchanging Queens, he would have
left his opponent without a good
move.
19. . . . . . .
Q-R5
20. Q x Q
Kt x Q
2 1 . B-B1
Kt-Kt3
Here Staunton writes, 'Captain
Kennedy has fought manfully
through his difficulties, and at this
point there appears no serious dis
parity between the two sides.' This
comment is interesting since it
throws valuable light on the con
temporary positional judgment. It
is evident that Staunton must have
thought that Black was able to
equalize the game between his 1 5th
and 21st moves. From the modem
viewpoint we have no hesitation in
asserting that had White not com
mitted the serious positional mis
take on his 19th move, Black would
have been unable to recover.
P-Kt4?
22. KKt-B4
A mistake. Correct was B x Kt.
RP x Kt 23. Kt x Kt
24. Kt-Q5
P-Kt5
Black cannot save the Pawn. On
24. . . . . P-QKt4; 25. P-B4 wins
the KB Pawn.
25. Kt x P
R-B2
26. B-B4
P-R5
27. QR-B1
Much simpler was 27. Kt-Q5,
which would have prevented 27.

. . . . R(2)-R2; because of the
threat 28. B x B, P X B; 29. Kt-B6
eh.
27.
PxP
R(2)-R2
28. BP X P
BxB
29. R-Q2
P-Kt6
30. P X B
P X P eh.
31 . R X P
Black suddenly obtains excellent
counter-chances.
32. K-R1
K-Q1
33. Kt-Q5
R-R6
34. R-B1
P-B4
35. R-B1
Better was 35. P-K5.
PxP
35. . . . . . .
P-Q6
36. P x P
37. R(1 )-B2
Kt-Q5
38. Kt-Kt4
R-K6
Staunton gives here 38.
R-Ktl; with a win for Black. (a)
39. R x RP, R x R eh.; 40. R x R,
Kt-B6; or (b) 39. R-Kt2, R x R;
40. R X R, R-K6; 41 . Kt x QP,
Kt-B6; 42. R-Kt8 eh., K-B2;
43. Kt-B2, R-K8 eh.; 44. K
Kt2, R-Kt8 eh.; 45. K x Kt,
R x R; and wins. (c) 39 .. R-Q1,
Kt-B6; 40. R-Kt2, (40. R x Kt,
R-Kt8 eh.! 41 . R X R, P X R (Q) ;
double eh. wins.) 40. . . . . R x R;
41. K X R, P-R8(Q) eh.; 42. R X Q,
R X R; 43. K X R, P-Q7; and wins.
(d) 39. R-B1, Kt-K7; 40. R x QP
eh., R X R; 41 . Kt X R, Kt-Kt6 eh.;
42. K X P, Kt X R eh.; wins. These
variations show Staunton's remark
able ability as analyst.
RxP
39. Kt x P
40. R x P
R x R eh.
41, R x R
Kt-K7
42. R-B2
K-K2
43. K-Kt2
K-B3
A mistake in a lost position.
44. K-B3
45. R x Kt
46. R-K5
47. R-QKt5
R-R5
RxP
R-R3
R-Q3
CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOT\\riNNIK
1 46
48.
49.
50.
51 .
52.
53.
54.
55.
Kt-K5
Kt-B4
K-K4
R x P eh.
P-B5
P-B6 eh.
Kt-K5 eh.
P-B7 eh.
P-Kt3
R-Q6 eh.
R-QB
K-K2
R-QBB
K-B2
K-Ktl
K-R2
56. R-R6 eh.

Now we notice why Black has
played on.
He hoped for 56.
P-BS(Q), and then to play for a
stalemate by checking with the
Rook.
KxR
56. . . . . . .
57. P-BS(Q) eh. and wins.
This game has two outstanding features, first Wyvill's excellent strategy
in undermining Black's centre and, ater, Capt. Kennedy's tactical skill.
ANDERSSEN' S CONTINUATION
Although Anderssen played this opening very rarely, his system is
extremely important in relation to our modern theory. Here we see him
adopting (with the White pieces) the 'Sicilian Defence,' in order to avoid
the openings of a regular character in which, as pointed out by Lowenthal,
he was usually outplayed by Morphy.
Anderssen made use of the true ' Classical Sicilian style,' omitting the
Fianchetto of the King's Bishop, and for this reason his method of treat
ment is very different from that of the English School under Staunton.
76
White
Black
A. AndeTssen
P. Morphy
6th Match Game, 1 858

P-K4
1. P-QR3
2. P-QB4
By a transposition of moves we
have now come to an English
opening.
Kt-KB3
2.
P-Q4
3. Kt-QB3
Kt x P
4. P x P
5. P-K3
B-K3
6. Kt-B3
B-Q3
Castles
7. B-K2
8. P-Q4
Kt X Kt
Although this exchange is often
played even to-day, it is inexact.
Black should play 8. . . . . P X P;
first clarifying the position in the
centre, since 9. P x P, Kt-B5; is
clearly bad for White on account
of his weak isolated Pawn.
On 9 .
K t X P , K t X Kt! 1 0 . P X Kt, ( 10.
Kt x B, Q-B3! 1 1 . P x Kt, P x Kt; )
10 . . . . B-Q4! would have given
Black an easy and free game.
P-K5
9. P x Kt
10. Kt-Q2
P-KB4
1 1 . P-KB4
P-KKt4
A sharp attacking move that one
might expect from Morphy. But
even he could not have been satis
fied with the effect of this move,
since in the 8th game of the match
he continued with 11 . . . . . Q-R5
eh.; 12. P-Kt3, Q-R6; 13. B-B 1 ,
Q-R3; without, however, achieving
more than in the present game.
12. B-B4
BxB
13. Kt x B
PxP
14. P x P
Q-K1
White has the superiority in the
centre, which Black should try to
break up by 14. . . . . P-B4; 15.
Kt x B, Q x Kt; 16. P-QR4, Q
KKt3. If here 15. P-QR4, ( 1 5.
P-Q5, P-Kt4;) P X P; 16. Kt X B ,
Q x Kt; 17. B-R3, Q x P; 18.
B X R, Q-K6 eh. ; 1 9. Q-K2, ( 1 9 .
K-B 1 , Q-B5 eh. ; ) Q X P eh. ; 20.
K-B2, P-K6 eh. ; 21 . K-Kt3,
Q-B2 eh. ; 22. K-R3, K X B; with
a good game for Black would follow.
15. Castles
Q-B3
1 47
THE ENGLISH OPENING

Q-Q4
16. Q-Kt3
17. R-Ktl
P-Kt3
1 8 . Q-R2
P-B3
Owing to the threat 19. R-Kt5.
19. Q-K2
Kt-Q2
Q-K3
20. Kt-K3
Kt-B3
21. P-B4
K-B2
22. R-Kt3
White threatens to open the files
with 23. P-Q5, and after 23. . . . .
P x P; 24. P x P, Kt x P; 25. Kt x
Kt, Q X Kt; 26. R Kt3 eh. , would
win. Though the Kin g s move tem
porarily meets the threat, the King's
position in the middle remains in
secure. Even after 22 . . . . . R-B2;
23. B-Kt2, B-B 1 ; 24. R-Q1,
R-Q 1 ; 25. P-Q5, P x P; 26.
B x Kt, R x B; 27. Kt x QP, White
would have broken through in the
centre.
-
'
23. B-Kt2
24. K-Rl
25. P-Q5
26. P x P
If 26 . . . . . Kt X P?
QR-B1
R-KKtl
PxP
Q-Q2
27. Q-R5 eh.
27. Kt-B41
K-K2
27. . . . . Kt x P; 28. R-R31 is
decisive.
to the mind of a master of our time

and to his approach to the above
position by giving Lasker's analysis
in which he says that 28. R--R3,
previously considered decisive, leaves
Black the reply 28 . . . . . Q-Kt4!
while the right continuation he gives
is 28 . B K5, B X B; 29. P x B,
Kt X P; 30. Kt-Q6, QR-KB1 ; 31.
R-R3, R-Kt2; 32. R-R5.
-
KxB
28. . . . . .
29. Q-Kt2 eh.
K-B2
30. R-R3
Here Anderssen misses his chancel
First 30. Q-Q4! R-B4; (31 . Kt-K5
eh., B X Kt; 32. P x B, is threatened)
31. R-R3, R-Kt2; 32. R-R6,
B-B2; 33. P-Q6, K- Ktl; 34.
R-Ql, B-Q1; 35. Kt-K5, Q
Kt4; 36. R-K6, P-KR3; 37. P
Q7, Q-K7; 38. Q-Ktl, R-B7;
39. R-K8 eh., K-R2; 40. R x B,
R x KtP; 41. R-R8 eh., K x R; 42.
P-Q8(Q) eh., followed by Mate in
a few moves would have followed.
This fine analysis by Maroczy gives
us an idea how an attack should
be directed.
.
R-Kt2
30. . . . . . .
K-Ktl !
31. Q-Q4
Now we notice that owing to
transposition of moves (by White)
Black escaped immediate danger
(Kt-K5 eh. ).
32. R-R6
B-Bl
33. P-Q6
R-KB2
This part of the defence is well
conducted by Morphy. Now 34.
Kt-K5? is met by 34.
Q-Kt4.
34. R-R3
Q-R5!
35. R-Bl
R-B4!
Preventing Q-K5; and QP-Kt4? would be a
K6, 35.
mistake because of 36. P-Q7,
R-Ql; 37. R-Kt3 eh., B-Kt2;
38. R X B eh., R X R; 39. Q-Q5 eh.,
K-Rl; 40. Kt-K5.
.
28. B x Kt eh.
This move is good enough, but
White should be able to decide the
game by direct attack, keeping his
strong Bishop. We provide a clue
II
36. R-Kt3 eh.
B-Kt2
148
K-R1
37. P-R3
38. R x B
This sacrifice should lead only to
a draw; while 38. Q-Q2, would still
have given White by far the better
game. Anderssen might have feared
the pin from 38 . . . . . Q-B3; still,

39. R-Ql , was a good enough
reply.
RxR
38. . . . . . .
39. R-B3
P-K6!
Anderssen must have overlooked
As Morphy
this saving move.
points out, 39. . . . . K-Ktl; is of
no use because of 40. R-KKt3!
. Q-Q2; (40. . . . R X R? 41 . P
Q71) 41 . Kt-K5, R x Kt; 42 R X R
eh., followed by P x R wins.
.
40. R x P
A mistake. 40. Q-B6 still drew.
40. . . . . . .
R x Kt
41 . Q-B6
Better was 41 . Q-K5.
Position after 39. R-B3
41 .
42. K-R2
Resigns.
R-B8 eh.
Q x P eh.
It is interesting to see how Morphy was outplayed throughout this

game, except during the concluding moves; and that in the other two
games against Anderssen in which this opening occurred, he was at no
less disadvantage.
Lowenthal certainly over-praises Morphy's treatment of the opening
when he writes: 'It seems to make no difference' (what opening he plays)
'nor should we expect it would, to one so well versed in the principle of
the game as he is.' On the contrary, these games prove, in our opinion,
that the great chess genius was unable, without previous study, to master
this opening.
CONCLUSIONS
These five selected games give a clear picture of the English Opening
as it was played in the second half of the last century. The standard of
these compares favourably with that reached by contemporary games
with other openings: which is not surprising since, in addition to Staunton
and Wyvill, a number of English players including Horwitz and Williams
frequently made use of this opening. Thus we can with truth speak of
an 'English School.'
In the first game of this chapter, we see Staunton adopting the original
line of developing his King's Knight at R3-B4-Q5 (later claimed by the
'hypermoderns' as their own invention) and also clearly controlling all
the central squares with his pieces and Pawns. The succeeding game was
a step forward; for in it, by means of the double fianchetto and by keeping
back his central Pawns, he establishes a kind of Reti system.
Wyvill's treatment in the following games was slightly different. He
clearly demonstrates how the control of the centre should be carried out.
149
Anderssen again introduces quite another system, perhaps with the

idea of avoiding regular lines against Morphy, without adopting the
fianchetto. His method became popular eighty years later, and was then
revived by Nimzovitch and Flohr.
XIII
IN the latter half of last century the English Opening was seldom played.
Steinitz made a few attempts to bring it to life again, as did Zukertort,
and still later Mason. The latter players, however, used it as a means of
transposing into a favourable line of the Queen's Gambit.
In the early years of this century further attempts at revival were made,
particularly in Bremen where it was often played. Indeed, in Gennany
it became known as the 'Bremer Partie.' Later Rubinstein played it
occasionally, although he did not adopt any definite system.
When, after the First World War, Nimzovitch and Reti evolved some
kind of system, the real re-birth of the English Opening took place.
NIMZOVITCH's CoNTRIBUTION
In company with the other 'hypermoderns,' Nimzovitch helped to

revive the English Opening. He really continued from the point where
Anderssen left it: namely, to play the Sicilian Defence with a tempo more.
He was successful with this opening, mainly because his opponents (in
the same way as Morphy against Anderssen, see previous game) fai1ed
to realize that they were running their heads against the wall. His
encounters with Spielmann, the greatest gambit player of this century,
were interesting, and in the following game he confirmed Staunton's
theory that the Sicilian Opening with the White pieces is of distinct
advantage to the first player, owing to the extra tempo.
77
White
Black
A. Nimzovitch
R. Spielmann
Carlsbad, 1929
P-K4
1. P-K3
Kt-KB3
2. P-QB4
P-K5
3. Kt-KB3
Nimzovitch remarked that Black
should have been aware of the
missing tempo and be sufficiently
'modest' to play 3. . . . . P-Q3;
4. P-Q4, QKt-Q2; followed by
the fianchetto of his King's Bishop.
Kt-B3
4. Kt-Q4
5. Kt-Kt5
P-Q4
This move is the cause of later
troubles. Black should have kept
the position closed. 5. . . . . P
QR3; 6. KKt-B3, was the right
continuation.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
1 2.
PxP
QKt-B3
Q-R4
Kt-Q4
Kt x Kt
B-Kt5
BxB
1 3 . Q x Q eh.
Kt x P
Kt-B3
B-KB4
B-Q2
B x Kt
Q-Q2
QxB
PxQ
150
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

P-QKt3
B-Kt2
P-QR3
BxB
Castles KR
Castles
B-Kt5
B x Kt
R-Q6
KR-Q1
30. R-B2, and forces Black's next

move.
R(6)-Kt7
29. . . . . . .
K-Kt2
30. R-Kt7
R(Kt)-B7
31 . P-R3
K-Kt3
32. R-Kt5
P-B4
33. R-KB1
Spielmann hopes at last to get
rid of the weakness of his QB Pawn
that was due to his faulty concep
tion of the opening, but new dis
appointments are waiting for him.
34.
35.
36.
37.
R-B4
P-KR4
R-B6 eh!
R-Kt5 eh.
P-B5
R-R7
K-Kt2
'Mechanical development,' says

Nimzovitch, who recommended in
stead 18 . . . . . R-Ktl l; 19. P-B3,
Kt-Q4; 20. P x P, Kt x B; 21 .
P x Kt, R-B1 . Nimzovitch causti
cally remarked that such discreet
use of the energies of a Rook (18 .
. . . . R-Ktl l) is not usual in a
gambit, but very necessary when
one wants to win first prizes.
Kt-Q4
19. P-B3
20. B x PI
White is now able to demonstrate
the superiority of the Bishop over
the Knight, proving that the Black
Rook would have been much better
placed on KKtl .
Nimzovitch uses his Rooks very

cleverly. The aim of this move is
both offensive and defensive. It
enables the Rook on the 6th rank
to defend his KKt Pawn while the
QR can be switched over to attack
the Black Pawns on KR4 and QB2.
,
R x QP
20 . . . . . . .
P-KB4
21 . B-Q4
PxP
22. P x P
R-Q6
23. B x P
Kt x KP
24. P-QKt4
RxB
25. B x Kt
R-QKt6
26. KR-K1
R-Q7
27. R x P
P-R4
28. R-K7
29. R-B7
Black was threatening 29.
P-R5; 30. P-R3, R-Kt6. The
text-move aims at simplifying with
K-B1
......
R-K7
R-KKt6
R(R7)-B7
R-QB5
R-Kt7
K-Ktl
R(5) X BP(7) R x P eh.
R-B8 eh.
RxR
KxR
K-B2
P-B6
44. R-Kt5
R-KR8
-'5. R x P
On 5 . . . . . P-B7; 46. R-B5
37 .
38.
39.
40.
41 .
42.
43.
l 51

eh., K-Kt3; 47. K-K2, would
follow.
46. R-B5 eh.
K-Kt3
47. K-Kt3
R-QB8
48. K-B2
R-KR8
49. K-K3!
Much better than 49. R x P, R x P;
50. K- K3, K-Kt4.
49 . . . . . . .
R-R6 eh .
If 49. . . . . R x P; 50. K-Q3,

R-R6 eh. ; 5 1 . K-B2, followed by
R x P, would give White an easy
win.
P-B7
50. K-Q4
51. R x P
R x P eh.
K-Kt4
52. K-B3
53. K-Kt3
and White won on the 70th move.
In this game we actually witness two fundamentally different views

of theory of the opening. Nimzovitch even made the ironical remark
that Spielmann's method of developing was the result of his playing
gambits all the time and of his inability to change this style of play.
FLOHR'S TREATMENT
With the exception of Nimzovitch, Flohr has contributed more than

any other master to our understanding of the English Opening.
In order to employ his pieces more effectively, in support of the central
thrust, he has often successfully assumed positions hitherto thought very
difficult to defend.
The following game is a fine example of the many notable victories
won by him in this opening.
78
White
s.
FlohT
Black
S. Landau
8. KtP x P
Castles
B-Q3
9. P-Q4
Q-K2
10. B-K2
B-Kt5
l l . CastJes
ll .
. . P-K5; 12. Kt-Q2,
P-B4; 1 3. Kt-B4, at once leads
to a position similar to that of the
Anderssen-Morphy game (Game
76). But now Black threatens 12.
. . . . P-K5; with counterplay.
.
Kemeri, 1937
1. P-QB4
Kt-KB3
2. Kt-QB3
P-K4
3. Kt-B3
Kt-B3
4. P-K3
P-Q4
5. P x P
Kt x P
6. Q-B2
The alternative is 6. B-Kt5,
Kt X Kt; 7. KtP X Kt, B-Q3; (7.
. . . . P-K5; 8. Kt-K51) 8. P-Q4,
B-Q2; 9. P-K4, P x P; 10. BP_x
P, B-Kt5 eh.; l l . B-Q2, B x B
eh.; 12. Q X B, Castles; (Nimzovitch
Spielmann, Berlin, 1928) with the
better game for White.
Flohr's
move aims at avoiding exchanges.
. . . . . . .
B-K2
Kt x Kt
A strateical mistake.
7. P-QRS
12. P-R31
A fine parry! Now on 12. . . .
B-R4; 13. Kt x P, B X B; 14.
Kt x Kt, wins a Pawn. Black there
fore cannot keep up the pin.
.
B-Q2
12. . . . . . .
13. P-B4
P-QKt3
QR-K1
14. B-Kt2
Black tries to maintain the tension in the centre. It was better to
simplify with 14. . . . . P X P; 15.
P X P, B-KB4; 16. Q-QI .
1 5 . P-B51
With this Pawn 1acriftce, White
152

This move is much clearer than
23. Q X P, R-KKt4.
23.
RxR
R-Bl
24. Q x R
25. P-R4
P-R4
26. P-R5
P-R5
27. Q-Q5 !
Meets Black's threat of 27.
B x P; 28. B X B , P-R6; 29. Q-Q5,
Q x B eh.; 30. Q x Q, P x Q.
Position after 14 . . . . . QR-K1

breaks up Black's Pawn position.
15 . . . . . . .
P x BP
16 . .P x KP
Kt x P
17. Kt x Kt
B x Kt
18. B x B
QxB
19. KR-B 1 !
This self-confident move is characteristic of Flohr's style. The Rook
has to make room for the Bishop,
which is needed at KBI for defen
sive purposes on the King's wing.
19.
Q-Kt4
20. Q x P
R-K4
BxP
21. Q x RP
22. B-B I !
The key move of \Vhite's precise
defensive manceuvre starting on the
19th move.
22.
23. R-B5!
Q-Kt3
B-B4
27.
B-K5
28 . P-R6
B-B4
29. Q-Q7
30. Q-K7
P-R6
B-K5
3 1 . P-R7
On 3 1 . . . . . P x P; 32. B x P,
B-R6; 33. P-R8(Q), R x Q; 34.
R x R eh. , K-R2; 35. Q-R4 eh.
wins.
R-Rl
32. Q-Q7!
33. Q x RP
The way in which Flohr has
beaten back Black's attack is very
impressive.
P-QB4
33.
Q-QB3
34. Q-Q7
BxQ
35. Q x Q
36. R-R5
B-K5
The Bishop must retain the con
trol of the diagonal, otherwise on
36. . . . . B-Q2; 37. B-K2, wins.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41 .
P-B3
B-Kt2
RxP
RxP
R-B7
P-B3
K-R2
K-Rl
B-Kt5
R-R6
and Black resigned.
This game in its clarity of purpose and straightforward strategy is a

masterpiece of technique. On comparing it with Anderssen-Morphy
(Game 76, page 146), we notice with how much greater coolness Flohr
defends his King's wing against an attack which in the nineteenth century
would have been thought decisive.
Although great defensive players are still rare, his play in this game
emphasizes that during the last fifty years the technique of defence has
developed considerably.
1 53
THE FOUR KNIGHTS' SYSTEM IN THE ENGLISH OPENING--WHITE AIMS AT

IMMEDIATE CONQUEST OF THE CENTRE-RETI'S CONTRIBUTIONS
Until now we have dealt with a system in which White takes up a

defensive position, allowing Black temporarily to occupy the centre, in
order later to reap the benefit of the latent power in his position and
overwhelm Black by force. The principal success of this 'lying in wait'
system was due to players failing to recognize the enormous potentialities
possessed by this opening which is, in effect, a Sicilian defence with a
move in hand.'
The next stage in the evolution of the opening was the investigation
of whether this 'lying in wait' stage could be dispensed with, and an
immediate thrust made to gain control of the centre.
Soon after the First World War, the 'hypermoderns' evolved our next
system, where White tries this direct approach by means of an early
P-Q4, a perfectly logical idea reminiscent of the Scotch Game (1. P-K4,
P-K4; 2. Kt-KB3, Kt-QB3; 3. P-Q4, etc.). Though he most
certainly was not the inventor of this system, we associate with it the
name of the Viennese grandmaster, Richard Reti, who contributed so
much to its theory. His profound and clear demonstrations added a
great deal to our modern dynamic . concepts of the centre. A typical
example of his incisive style and the brilliance of his strategical conceptions
is the following game against Przepiorka.
White
R. Reti
79
Black
For the better move 5.

B-Kt5 see Game 81.
....
D. Przepiorka
Marienbad, 1925
Kt-KB3
P-K4
2. Kt-QB3
3. Kt-B3
Kt-B3
4. P-Q4
PxP
The alternative is 4 . . . . . P-K5;
5. Kt-Q2, Kt x P; 6. KKt x P,
Kt-K3; 7. P-KKt3, Kt x Kt; 8.
Kt X Kt, B-Kt5 eh.; 9. B-Q2,
B X B eh.; 10. Q x B, Castles; 1 1 .
B-Kt2, P-Q3; 12. Castles K , B
Q2; 1 3 . Kt-B3, B-B3; 14. Kt-Q5,
P-QR4; 15. P-K4, Kt-B4;
Flohr-Botwinnik, 5th match game,
1933, and though Black has a firm
position he has not yet obtained
full equality.
I . P-QB4 .
5. Kt x P
B-B4
This was the fashionable move at
the time the game was played, con
forming to the current conception
of developing a piece, which forces
White to declare his intentions in
the centre.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Kt x Kt
P-KKt3
B-Kt2
Castles
Q-R4
KtP x Kt
P-Q4
B-K3
Castles
The first phase of the opening is

over, and we have reached a posi
tion where, according to the tenets
of the Tarrasch school, Black has
secure possession of the centre.
154-
However, the early 'hypermoderns'

would maintain that Black is lost
owing to his weak Pawn position.
To-day we would prefer to say
that Black has committed himself
to a central Pawn formation which
is under immediate pressure, al
though it has the advantage of
providing a pivot for building up
an attack if the central structure
can be maintained.
10. . . . . . .
B-Q2
This move manages to afford
Black only temporary relief. He
could have tried 10 . . . . . Q-K1;
and after 11. R-Q1 , (if 1 1 . B-Kt5,
B-Q5; 12. QR-Q1, B x Kt; 13.
P X B, Kt-K5 !) B-Kt3; 12. P X P,
(if 12. B-Kt5, Kt-Kt5! ) P X P;
13. Q x Q, QR x Q; 14. Kt x P,
Kt x Kt; 15. B x Kt, B x B; 16.
R X B, R X P; Black has fair defen
sive chances.
1 1 . B-Kt5
B-K2
He might have tried 1 1 .
B-Kl .
P-KR3
1 2. KR-Q1
13. B x Kt
BxB
14. Q-R6
R-Ktl
Now his defensive plan is appar
ent. He has hopes of obtaining
adequate counter-chances by exert
ing pressure on White's QKt2, but
White, by means of his more force
ful threats on the Queen's file,
thwarts this, demonstrating the bad

position of Black's Queen.
15. P x P
PxP
Not 1 5 . . . . . R x P; 16. P x P!
1 6. Kt x P
BxP
If 16 . . . . . R x P; 17. Kt x B eh. ,
P X Kt; 18. B-R3, B-B1; 1 9 .
B x B, Q x B; 20. Q x BP i s good
enough.
P-QB3
17. QR-Ktl
Not 17. . . . . B-K4; at once
since 18. R X R, Q X R; 19. Kt-K7
eh. , wins a piece.
18. Q x RP!
Though this move allows Black
to obtain Bishops of opposite
colours, it proves to be the most
expeditious way of winning. Over
whelming pressure is exerted on
Black's KB2.
P x Kt
18.
Q-K1
19. R x P
20. R x QB
QxP
21. R x P
B-K4
RxR
22. R x R
23. R x P eh.
BxR
24. Q x R eh.
K-R2
K-R1
25. Q-Ktl eh.
26. B-K4
B-K4
If 26 . . . . . B-Q5; 27. Q-Kt8
eh. , K-Kt2; 28. Q-B7 eh. , K
Ktl ; (not 28 . . . . . K-B3? 29. Q
Q6 eh. ) 29. Q-Q8 eh. , wins a piece.
27. Q-Kt7
Resigns
From this game we see that Reti's main contribution to our modern
theory was his illustration that control of the centre does not imply
occupation with Pawns or even with pieces. This concept of 'remote
control' formed the underlying idea of the brilliant and profound 'Reti
Opening' which he adopted so successfully in these years.
Reti's method of allowing his opponent to occupy the centre temporarily
so as to demonstrate the weaknesses of his Pawn skeleton has extended
our knowledge of the implications of strong and weak centres.
Another important contribution to the theory of the centre was provided
by Reti in the following game.
Black here avoided committing himself to a Pawn-centre, but held
back his Pawns, and continued the development of his pieces-a line of
play setting this problem: Can White prove that his control of the central
squares gives an advantage sufficient to be transformed into material gain?

80
White
Black
R. Reti
E. Griinfeld
Baden Baden, 1 925

P-K4
1. P-KKt3
2. B-Kt2
Kt-KB3
Kt-B3
3. Kt-KB3
4. P-Q4
PxP
5. Kt x P
B-B4
6. Kt x Kt
KtP x Kt
7. P-QB4
With a transposition of moves we
have arrived at a typical position
of the English Opening where Reti
has cleverly prevented Black from
playing . . . . B-QKt5 and from
pinning the Knight, a man<:Euvre
which constitutes Black's best
counter-chance.
7.
Castles
8. Castles
R-K1
9. Kt-B3
B-B1
10. B-B4
10. B-Kt5 at once is useless,
since Black would get rid of the
pin at once by 10 . . . . P-KR3.
R-Ktl
10.
1 1 . Q-B2
B-Kt2
12. KR-Q1
P-QR3
12 . . . . . P-B4; at once is weak
because of 13. Kt-Kt5.
13. R-Q2
155
P-B4
1 3. . . . . . .
At last Black decides to make a
Pawn move in the centre, but
instead of 13 . . . . . P-Q4; which
would leave him with hanging
Pawns, he tries to erect a solid Pawn
formation akin to the Steinitz Var
iation of the Ruy Lopez. Still, this
move gives White the control of
his Q5 square, a characteristic
feature of this variation.
On the alternative 13. . . . . P
Q3; 14. Q-R4, Q-Q2; 15. B-Kt5,
B-K2; 16. B x Kt, B x B; 17.
Kt-Q5, with the threat of Kt-Kt4
could follow.
14. B x B
RxB
1 5 . B-Kt5
This move is now very strong,
since the square Q5 is weakened.
15. . . . . . .
B-K2
P-R3
1 6 . Q-R4
A Pawn is lost in any case, but
Black hopes at least to obtain some
counter-chances by exerting pressure
on White's QKt2 square.
B xB
17. B x Kt
Q-Ktl
18. R x P
19. R-Q2
The simplest way to secure an
advantage, though it appears that
White could have tried for more
with 1 9. Kt-Q5, B x P; 20. R--Q1 ,
and he has then many threats (e.g.
21. Kt-K7 eh. , followed by Kt
B6, or 2 1 . Kt X P).
19.
B x Kt
20. P X B
R-Kt8 eh.
21. R x R
Q x R eh.
R-K3
22. K-Kt2
23. Q-B2
QxQ
24. R x Q
R-K5
Though Black regains his Pawn,
White still has a sound Pawn more
on the King's side.
25.
26.
27.
28.
P-B3
P-K4
K-B2
K-K3
RxP
K-B1
K-K2
R-R5
156
CHESS
K-Q3
29. K-Q3
30. R-QKt2
P-B5 eh.
K-B4
31. K-K3
R-R6
32. P-B4
33. R-QB2
P-Kt3
Black suffers in the end-game
from his inability to bring his Rook
into action.
Therefore 33. . . . .
R-R4; with the idea of playing 34.
. . . . R-Kt4; gave him some saving
chances. He could have then con
tinued with . . . . R-Kt8; or P
QR4, P-R5, P-R6 threatening
R-Kt7.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
K-B3
K-K3
P-R4
P-B5
PxP
K-B4
P-Kt4
KxP
P-R5
K-Q3
K-B4
P-KR4
PxP
K-Q3
P-KB3
PxP
K-K2
K-B2
K-Ktl
43. P-R6
44. K-R5
K-R2
45. R-Q2
Now the Rook comes decisively
into play.
45.
R x BP
K-R1
46. R-Q7 eh.
R-Kt6 eh .
47. K-Kt6
P-B4
48. K x P
48. . . . . R-KR6; would have
given White a more difficult task.
49. K-Kt5, R-Kt6 eh. ; 50. K
R4, R-KB6; 51 . K-Kt4 followed
by 52. R x P.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
R-QB7
RxP
K-B7
P-B6
P-R4
P-R5
R-B6
K-Kt7
P-B6
K-R2
KxP
R-B6
R-Q6
R-B6
K-Kt4
Resigns.
Black, although suffering defeat, made no major mistake in this har

monious game; the decisive factor was superior strategy on the part of
White.
Though Reti was successful in his adoption of a King's fianchetto in

the Four Knights' system, he showed later in a match game against
Landau that this is not tactically feasible-yet another example of a
sound strategical idea having to be modified by tactical considerations.
Therefore an alternative method was sought for gaining control of the
centre, and in particular White's Q5 square, and this was found in pinning
the King's Knight by B-KKt5. This pin poses difficult problems for
Black. The following is an example.
81
White
Black
M. M. Botwinnik
G. Levenfish
P-K4
1 . P-QB4
Kt-KB3
2. Kt-QB3
3. Kt-B3
Kt-B3
4. P-Q4
PxP
5. Kt x P
B-Kt5
6. B-Kt5
P-KR3
Interesting is the newest line fl.
..
Castles; 7. R-B 1 , P-Q4!; 8.
Kt x Kt, (if 8. P x P, Q x P; 9.
. .
B x Kt, P x B; ) 8 . . . . . P x Kt; 9 .
P-QR3, ( o n 9. B X Kt, Q X B; 10.
P x P, P x P; ll. Q x P, B-K3;) 9.
. . . . B-K2; 10. P-K3, B-K3;
1 1 . P X P, P X P; 12. B-K2, P-B4;
(Samarian-Balogh, Brasov, 1 947).
B x Kt eh.
7. B-R4
8. P x B
Kt-K4
8. . . . . P-Q3 is also playable
but after 9. P-B3, Castles; 10.
P-K4, Kt-K4; 1 1 . B-K2, Kt
Kt3; 1 2. B-B2, Kt-Q2; 1 3. Q
Q2, Kt-Kt3; 14. Kt-Kt3, B-K3;

(Botwinnik-Pirc, Moscow, 1935),
White has a slightly better game.
9. P-K3
Stronger is 9. P-B4, Kt-Kt3;
(If 9 . . . . . Kt x P; 10. P-K4, Kt
K6; l l . Q-K2, Kt x B; 12. P-K5,
Castles; 13. Kt-B5!) 10. B X Kt,
Q X B; l l . P-Kt3, P-B4; 12.
Kt-Kt5!
9.
10. B-Kt3
n . Q-B2
12. RP x Kt
13. P-B4!
Kt-Kt3
Kt-K5
Kt x B
P-Q3
Q-K2
In an earlier game against the

same opponent Botwinnik had
played 13. B-K2, but the text
move is more forceful.
157
Better was 13. . . . . Kt-Bl.

14. K-B2
Kt-B1
If 14. . . . . B-Q2; 15. B-Q3,
Kt-B1 ; 16. B-K4, P-QB3; 17.
QR-QKtl , follows, with pressure
along the open file.
15. P-QB5
PXP
Kt_:_Q2
16. B-Ins eh.
If 16 . . . . . B-Q2; 17. Kt-B5,
Q-B3; 18. Q-K4 eh., is decisive.
Q-B3
17. Kt-B5
18. QR-Q1
P-KKt3
This looks like an oversight, but
Black has no satisfactory move; for
if 18. . . . . P-B3; (or 18. . . . .
P-R3; 19. Q-K4 eh.) 19. R-Q6,
Q-Q1 ; 20. Q-K4 eh. , K-B1; 21.
B-B4, R-KKtl ; 22. B X P, K X B;
23. Q-K6 eh., K-B1; 24. Kt-R4,
wins.
R-B1
19. Kt x P
P-R3
20. P-Kt4
Q-K3
21 . P-Kt5
22. B-K2
Kt-Kt3
Q-QB3
23. Kt-Kt4
K-K2
24. Kt-B6 eh.
B-B4
25. R-R7
B-K3
26. P-K4
27. P-B5
Resigns.
If 27. . . . . P x P; 28. P x P,
B-B5; 29. B X B, Kt X B; 30. Q
K4 eh. , Q X Q; 31 . R-Q7 Mate, or
if 27 . . . . . B-B5; 28. B x B, Kt x B;
29. Kt-Q5 eh. , K-Q2; 30. Kt
Kt4 dis. eh., winning the Queen.
A fine example of White's control of the central squares, countered by

Black's attempts at simplification in order to neutralize White's pressure.
Whether 'Vhite can overcome Black's efforts is still in the balance (see
note to move 6), and this system might easily share the fate of the Scotch
Four Knights' Game (to which it bears a remarkable similarity) and be
condemned as too drawish.
THE MODERN FORM OF THE ENGLISH OPENING
MASON'S CONTINUATION
Although Staunton realized the strength of White's King's Fianchetto,

a long period elapsed before this development was generally followed.
The Dragon Variation of the Sicilian Defence was played during the late
nineteenth century, but the inverted 'Dragon' had to wait until 1902,
in which year it was introduced by James Mason.
158
It was a revolutionary step to make an innovation of this nature in

the 'Tarrasch Era' when to give Black command of the centre as early
as the third move was considered 'audacious.' Mason, however, proved
that by playing an early P-Q4, White could eliminate Black's centre.
His ideas did not win much favour until after the first World War, when
the Hypermodern School began to propound its new theories.
82
White
Black
J. Mason
J. Mieses
Monte Carlo, 1902

P-K4
I. P-QB4
Kt-KB3
2. Kt-QB3
3. P-KKt3
This introduces the fianchetto in
the English Opening at an early
stage of the game.
P-Q4
3. . . . . . .
Kt x P
4. P x P
5. B-Kt2
B-K3
That such a natural developing
move could be a mistake would
have hardly been believed at that
time. To-day 5 . . . . . Kt-Kt3; 6.
Kt-B3, Kt-B3; 7. Castles, B-K2;
8. P-Q3, B-K3; 9. B-K3, Castles;
is considered good enough for Black,
since 1 0. P-Q4, P x P; 1 1 . Kt x P,
Kt x Kt; 12. B x Kt, P-QB3; 13.
Q-Q3, B-B3; 14. QR-Q1 , B x B;
(Szabo-Landau, Hastings, 1938-39)
leads only to an equal game.
Kt-QB3
6. Kt-B3
If 6 . . . . . P-KB3; 7. Castles,
Kt-QB3; 8. P-Q4, P x P; 9. Kt
QKt5, B-QB4; 10. KKt x P, Kt x
Kt; 1 1 . Kt x Kt, B-B2; 1 2. Q-R4
eh., K-B1; 13. R-Q1 , (Alekhine
Dus-Chotimirsky, Carlsbad, 1 91 1 ),
with a superior game for White
would follow.
B-K2
7. Castles
8. P-Q4
PxP
QKt x Kt
9. Kt x P
Slightly better is 9. . . . . Kt X
QKt;
10. P x Kt, Kt x Kt; 1 1 .
P X Kt, P-QB3; though White's
advantage is clear.
B-B3
10. Q x Kt
P-B3
1 1 . Q-R4 eh.
B x Kt
12. " Kt x Kt
13. R-Q1
White's strategy, starting from
the 8th move, is clearcut; and after
a few moves Black has a hopeless
position, which to-day, when this
type of manreuvre is common know
ledge, might not appear surprising.
In 1902, however, such treatment of
the position was unknown, showing
how far Mason was ahead of his con
temporaries in his positional con
ceptions.
13.
14. Q-B2
P-QKt4
Q-B1
15. P-K4!
More convincing than 15. B x B,
P x B; 1 6. Q x Q eh., R x Q; 17.
R X P, P-QR3; 18. R-Q6, K-K2;
19. R x P, KR-Q1 ; 20. B-K3,
B x P; 21. R-Ktl, R-B7; and
Black has a strong position for the
lost Pawn.
15.
1. P-K5
17. P-Kt3
B-B5
B-K2
B-Q4
159
18. B x B
PxB
19. Q x Q ch.
RxQ
20. R x P
It is obvious that White has
gained three moves by his man
reuvre which started on the 1 6th
move, and has forced the Black
Bishop off its strong diagonal.
20 . . . . . . .
21. R x R
22. B-Kt2
23. R-QBI
24. K-Bl
25. K-K2
26. P-B3
Stronger than 26 .
R-B4
BxR
K-K2
B-Kt3
R-QI
K-K3
. . . . P-B4.
R-Q2
26. . . . . . .
27. R-B6 eh.
K-B4
28. P-Kt4 eh.
K-B5
R-K2
29. P-K6
30. B x P
PxP
R-Kl
31. B-B8
32. B-Q6 eh.
P-K4
On 32 . . . . . K-Kt4; 33. B-Kt3,
and 34. P-KR4 eh. , would follow.
33. B-B5!
Now White threatens 34. R X B,
P x R; 35. B-K3 Mate, and forces
a favourable Rook ending, in which
Mason shows his mastery of the
end-game.
Position after 32. . . . P-K4

.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41 .
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
......
B xB
P-QR3
RXB
P-R3
R-B7!
R-B6
P-K5
R-B6 eh.
K-Kt4
R-QBI
R x QRP
P-R4 eh.
KXP
R X P eh.
K-Kt6
PxP
R-B7 eh.
RxP
K-Q3
KXP
R-QKt6
RxP
R-R8
R-Q5
R-Q8 eh.
K-B4
R-B8 eh.
K-Kt5
K-B5
P-K5 and White won.
Mason shows with crystal clearness how an attack in the centre should
be carried out. His idea of exchanging the centre Pawns in order to
make way for his own, judiciously held back until the right moment, is
masterly.
The importance of the game lies in this strategy, and not in its opening
theory. The latter, indeed, has been superseded, for (as shown in note
to move 5) White can be prevented from making an early break-through
in the centre, and a later one will bring him no advantage.
ALEKHINE's CoNTINUATION
From the preceding game we have learned that Black, while able to
delay White's central thrust, is powerless to prevent it. However,
although Black in the Sicilian Defence obtains an equal position as soon
as he has played . . . . P-Q4, and has eliminated the hostile King's Pawn,
White, on the contrary, if he were to attempt the same policy, would find
it insufficient, since it leads only to a drawish game. It is, therefore,
easy to understand why players have sought more forceful methods of
160
exchanging Black's King's Pawn, and for this purpose an early P-KB4
by White has been found most effective.
This is by no means a new idea, as it was adopted by Wyvill (see game
74, page 143), but he played as a preliminary, P-K3 and KKt-K2, a
manreuvre undoubtedly too slow and elaborate for modern praxis.
83
White
Black
A. Alekhine
S. Tarrasch
Vienna, 1922
1. P-QB4
P-K4
2. Kt-QB3
Kt-QB3
3. P-KKt3
P-KKt3
4. B-Kt2
B-Kt2
5. P-Q3
KKt-K2
6. P-B4
To-day this method of breaking
up Black's centre is considered to
be stronger than the central push
P-Q4.
P-Q3
6. . . . . . .
7. Kt-B3
For the newer method 7. Kt-R3,
see the following game.
7.
Castles
8. Castles
P-KR3
9. P-K4
P-B4
10. Kt-Q5
The key-move in this variation
which had been already adopted by
Staunton (see Game 72). The only
difference is that Alekhine estab
lishes his Knight on Q5 before ex
changing Pawns, while Staunton
eliminated the tension in the centre
before carrying out the same idea.
Alekhine's method gives the game
a more dynamic character.
10.
Kt x Kt
l l . KP x Kt
Kt-Q5
12. P x P
Kt x Kt eh.
13. B x Kt
PxP
14. B-K3
B-Q2
1 5 . Q-Kt3
This is the second characteristic
manreuvre which had been adopted
in the nineteenth century, exerting
pressure against Blsck'8 QKt2
square with the Queen and the

Bishop.
Q-B1
15.
K-R2
1 6. P-B5
P-KKt4
17. Q-B4
18. P-Q4
Q-K1
After 18 . . . . . P-K5; 19. B
Kt2, Black's Pawns would become
immobile and White, after prepara
tion could break them up with
P-KKt4.
KtP X P
19. P-B6
B-K3
20. P x BP
21. P-Q5
B-Ktl
K-R1
22. B-Kt2
On 22 . . . . . P-K5; 23. P-KKt4
would follow.
Q-Kt3
23. QR-K1
KR-Q1
24. P-QKt4
P-B5
25. R-Q1
26. B-B2
B-R2
Q-B7
27. KR-K1
The exchange of the Queens
only helps White.
If 27. . . . .
Q-R4; 28. P-Q6, P-B6; 29.
P-Kt4, could follow. Probably 27.
. . . . Q-B2; preventing 28. P-Q6,
and threatening 28. . . . . P-B6;
is the best.
BxQ
28. Q x Q
B-R5
29. R-Q2
30. P-Q6!
The decisive break - through,
which leads to interesting cornplications.
RxP
30.
PxR
31. R x R
R-QB1
32. P-B7
B-Q2
33. R-QB1
P-K5
34. B-Kt7
35. B x KP!
Simpler than 35. B X R, B X B;
36. R-Q1 , B-B 1 ; 37. B-B5,
Position after 30. P-Q6!

P-K6! with great complications
to follow.
35 . . . . . . .
P-Q41
36. B x QP
B-K4
37. R-Kl
PxP
38. R x B
P x B eh.
39. K x P
RxP
40. R-K7
R-B7 eh.
41 . K-K3
B-Kt4
42. R x P
R x KRP
43. P-R4
B-B8
Not 43 . . . . . R-R6 eh.; 44.
K-Q4, R-R6; 45. R-R8 eh.,
and 46. P x B.
44. P-Kt5
45. K-Q4
R-QKt7
P-Kt5
161
Tarrasch's intending sacrifice of

the piece for White's two Pawns
does not work. After 45 . . . . . B x P;
46. K-B3, R-Kt8; 47. R
QKt7, R-B8 eh.; 48. K-Q2, wins.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
K-B3
B-K4
K-Q2
P-Kt6
P-Kt7
K-K3
R-R8 eh.
P-Kt8(Q)
RxR
R-Kt4
P-R5
P-R6
R-Kt8
R-B8 eh.
R-B5
RxB
R-Kt5
B-B5
K-Kt2
RxQ
P-R4
B-Q4
P-Kt6
Resigns.
In this instructive game Alekhine proves not only that the control of
more space can by itself be decisive, but also that the style of a modern
master must be very elastic. For after many complications and exchanges,
he arrives at a position (see diagram after the 45th move) where he holds
an advantage, which although very slight is nevertheless sufficient for
victory.
GoLOMBEK's CoNTINUATION
That the push P-KB4 is more powerful than the break-through by

P-Q4, which leads only to exchanges, has been shown in the previous
game, where, however, Alekhine's development of the KKt at KB3 had
the disadvantage of blocking the King's Bishop. In the following game,
Golombek brought out the KKt at KR3, thereby introducing a more
elastic system.
CHESS FHOM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK
162
White
H. Go lombek
84
Black
0. Cruz
Buenos Aires Team

Tournament, 1939
1. P-QB4
P-K4
2. Kt-QB3
Kt-KB3
3. P-KKt3
P-Q4
4. P x P
Kt x P
5. B-Kt2
Kt-Kt3
6. Kt-R3
With this move Golombek intro
duces a system invented by himself.
It aims at giving the Knight more
mobility and keeping the diagonal
free for the KB.
19. . . . . . .
Q-R3
20. Q-B2
Kt-B1
A necessary Pawn sacrifice. On
20. . . . . P-Kt3; 21 . B-Q3, Q
R4; 22. Kt-Kt5, would follow.
21. B X P eh.
K-R1
22. B-Q3
Q-Kt3
22 . . . . . Q-R4; was the only
move to continue the game, though
wih a Pawn down and a bad posi
tion, there was little hope. The
text-move leads to an interesting
combination.
23. Kt-R4
Kt x P
Kt-B3
6.
7. Castles
B-K2
8. P-B4
Castles
9. P-Q3
B-KKt5?
This move involves loss of time.
Better was 9 . . . . . P-B3; to keep
a firm hold on the centre.
10. Kt-B2
B-K3
Q-Q5
ll. P x P
Black rejects the better move l l .
. . . . R-Ktl; since 1 2 . B-B4,
P-Kt4; 13. B-Q2, Kt x P; would
have seriously weakened his King's
side. But it was still the lesser of
the two evils, since now his Queen
gets into trouble.
12. P-K3
Q x P(K4)
Q-QR4
13. P-Q4
This is the only square to avoid
immediate loss of material. On 13.
. . . . Q-KKt4; or . . . . Q-KB4;
14. P-K4, followed by P-Q5 wins.
B-B5
14. P-QR3
QR-Q1
15. R-K1
16. B-Q2
Threatening 17. Kt-Q5, followed
by 18. Kt x P.
Q-R3
16 . . . . . . .
B-Q6
17. P-Kt3
Q x Kt
18. Kt x B
19. B-K4
Forcing the Queen back.
Hoping for 24. P X Kt, Q X P eh.;

followed by Q X B, but White has
prepared a surprise!
24. Q-Q1 !
A fine quiet move.
Kt x P
24. . . . . . .
There is no saving move. On 24.
. . . . Q-Q3; 25. Q-R5 eh., Q-R3;
26. Q x Q eh., P x Q; 27. P x Kt,
R x P; 28. B-B3, wins.
25. Kt x Q
26. Kt x Kt
On 26 . . . . . R x B;
K-Ktl ; 2 8 . K t X B
27. R-R2
28. R-Kt2
29. R x Kt
RxB
R x Kt
27. Q-R5 ch. ,
Mate, follows.
K-Ktl
QR-Q1
Resigns.
163
At present this system can be considered as a definite advance in the

English Opening. The game well illustrates how the central squares
should be controlled by the co-operation of the pieces and Pawns.
BLACK ADOPTS A SAFER DEFENSIVE SYSTEM
The following two games deal with other defensive systems in which
Black avoids the committing 1 . . . . . P-K4; but tries to contest the Q5
square with 3. . . . . P-Q4.
Although its value has not yet been established, it is considered to give
a better defence for Black than the previous systems, since the omission
of an early . . . . P-K4; deprives White of a target for attack (by means
of P-Q4 or P-KB4).
85
White
Black
S. Flohr
I. Kashdan
Folkestone, 1933
1. P-QB4
Kt-KB3
2. Kt-QB3
P-K3
P-Q4
3. P-K4
With this move Black tries to
clarify the tension in the centre,
but 3. . . . . P-B4; is more solid.
If 4. P-K5, Kt-Ktl; 5. Kt-B3,
Kt-QB3; 6. P-KKt3, KKt-K2;
7. P-QKt3, Kt-Kt3; 8. Q-K2,
P-Q3; 9. P X P, B X P; and Black
has a good game (Landau-Euwe,
7th match game, 1939); while 4.
Kt-B3, Kt-B3; 5. P-Q4, P X P;
6. Kt x P, B-Kt5; transposes into
a Sicilian Defence, leading to
equality.
P-Q5
4. P-K5
P x Kt
5. P x Kt
QxP
6. KtP x P
7. P-Q4
P-QKt3
8. Kt-B3
B-Kt2
9. B-K2
Kt-Q2
10. Castles
B-Q3
This move is the cause of later
troubles. 1 0.
P-KR3, was
necessary.
Q-B4
1 1 . B-Kt5
P-QB3
12. Q-R4
13. P-B51
White opens up the lines at just
12
the moment when Black is preparing

to castle.
PxP
13. . . . . . .
14. P x P
QxP
On 14. . . . . B X P; (14.
Kt X P; 15. Q-Q4!) 15. QR-Q1 ,
Kt-K4; 1 6. Kt x Kt, Q x Kt; 17.
KB-R6, Q-B2; though it looks
dangerous for Black was a playable
alternative.
15. KR-Q1
B-K2
Black cannot castle because of
1 6. B-K3.
1 6. R x Kt
A fine sacrifice, which gives White
a lasting initiative, and is the more
praiseworthy, since White gains no
material advantage immediately.
16
. . .
KxR
164
17. B-K3
Q-R6
If 17 . . . . . Q-B4; 18. P-Kt4!
Q-B3; 19. R-Ktl , KR-QKtl;
20. B-Q4, Q-B5; 21 . Kt-K5 eh.,
K-B1; (21. . . . . K-K1; 22. R x B,
R x R; 23. Q x P eh., K-Q1; 24.
Q x R, ) 22. R x B, R x R; 23. Q x P
eh., K-Ktl ; 24. Q-K8 eh., wins.
These variations illustrate the
strength of the minor pieces on the
board.
18. Q-Q4 eh.
K-K1
19. Q x KtP
R-KB1
20. Kt-Kt5
R-Q1
21. B-R5
White avoids the trap. On 2 1 .
Kt x RP, Q-Kt7!; 2 2 . R-K1, Q x
B; wins.
21 . . . . . . .
B x Kt
R-Q4
22. B x B
RXB
23. P-QB4
Black is forced to give the ex
change back. Otherwise after 23.
. . . . R-Q2; 24. Q-B6, Q-Q3; 25.
R-K1, White threatens R x P
eh., which would soon decide the
game.
K-Q2
24. Q x R
24. . . . . Q-Kt7; 25. R-Q1 ,
Q.:...K
._ t3; gave Black some defensive
chances.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
R-Q1 eh.
B x PI
BxP
R-Q8 eh.
Q-K7 eh.
P-B5 eh.
K-B1
K-Ktl
QxP
K-B2
K-Kt3
Resigns.
RUBINSTEIN'S DEFENSIVE SYSTEM
86
Black
White
A. Nimzovitch
himself of his weakness and opening

up the game-always an advantage
to the better-developed player.
A. Rubinstein
Dresden, 1926
I. P-QB4
P-QB4
Kt-KB3
2. Kt-KB3
P-Q4
3. Kt-B3
Rubinstein regularly played this
move. The idea is to try to gain
the advantage in the centre by
forceful methods before White can
secure an iron grip on the position.
4. P x P
Kt x P
5. P-K4
An idea of Nimzovitch, where
White allows his Queen's Pawn to
be backward, but obtains adequate
compensation in the better develop
ment of his pieces.
5. . . . . . .
Kt-Kt5
P-K3
6. B-B4
After 6 . . . . . Kt-Q6 eh. ; 7.
K-K2, Kt-B5 eh.; 8. K-B 1 ,
leaves White with the powerful
threat of 9. P-Q4, at once ridding
7. Castles
QKt-B3
Preferable is 7 . . . . . KKt-B3.
8. P-Q3
Kt-Q5
Now Black must play this in
order to secure a retreat for his
Knight at Kt5.
P x Kt
9. Kt x Kt
10. Kt-K2
P-QR3
White threatened 1 1 . B-Kt5 eh.
1 1 . Kt-Kt3
B-Q3
1 2. P-B4
12. Q-Kt4, Q-B3; (12.
Castles; 13. B-KKt5, B-K2; 14.
B-R6,) 13. P-B4, (not 13. Kt
R5, Q-Kt3!) is stronger.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Q-B3
B-Q2
QR-Kl
R-K2
PxP
Castles
K-R1
P-B4
Kt-B3
Q-B2
PxP
15
his attack. We see that even in

middle game technique the game
has progressed, a new, more con
structive and comprehensive stra
tegy having replaced the static
manceuvring of the earlier players.
White has achieved his aim and
now proceeds with his King's side
attack, by establishing his Knight
on KKt5. He forces Black to weak
en his King's side, and to denude
the King of his scant defence, after
which Black's position crumbles to
pieces under a few forceful thrusts.
18. Kt-R1
The idea of this seemingly bizarre
move is to manceuvre the Knight
via KB2 and KR3 to KKt5, where
it will be most effectively placed for
the impending attack on the Black
King. It is a good illustration of
Nimzovitch's original and unpre
judiced approach to a position as
opposed to the dogmatic exploita
tion of the open King's file by 18.
KR-K1, B-Q2; 19. B-K6, QR
K1 ; 20. B x B, R x R; (forced) 21.
Q x R. Although it must not be
thought that this line is without
promise, Nimzovitch's method is
more likely to give the best results.
B-Q2
18.
19. Kt-B2
QR-K1
RxR
20. KR-K1
Kt-Q1
21. R X R
2 1 . . . . . R-K1; is not feasible
because of 22. Q-Q5, showing that
White has gained control of the
King's file as well as building up
his attack
B-B3
22. Kt-R3
22.
R-K1; is useless.
Now it is answered by 23. Q-R5,
R x R; 24. Kt-Kt5, P-KR3; 25.
Q-Kt6.
This, and the previous note, show
that by simple combinative meth
ods White can prevent Black from
obtaining any sort of counterplay
on the King's file, and ca.n further
23. Q-R5
P-KKt3
24. Q-R4
Having compelled Black to weak
en the dark-coloured squares around
his King, White now aggravates
this weakness by forcing the King's
Bishop to leave the King's side.
K-Kt2
24. . . . . . .
B-B4
25. Q-B2
If 25. . . . . Q-Kt3; 26. P
QKt4! threatening 27. B-B3,
follows.
26. P-QKt4
B-Kt3
27. Q-R4!
Having driven away the Bishop,
the Queen returns to the attack,
with additional threats on K7.
R-K1
27. . . . . . .
28. R-K5!
Kt-B2
If 28 . . . . . R x R; 29. P x R,
Q x P; 30. Q-R6 eh., followed by
mate, or if 28. . . . . P-R3; 29.
P-Kt4, P X P; 30. P-B5, Q X R;
31 . P-B6 eh., Q X P; 32. Q X P
mate.
QxB
29. B x Kt
30. Kt-Kt5
Q-Ktl
BxR
31 . R x R
32. Q-K1
B-B3
In spite of the reduced material,
White's attack is irresistible. If 32.
. . . . K-B1; 33. Q-K5, B-Q1;
34. Kt-K6 eh. , K-K2; 35. Q-B5
eh. , K-Q2; 36. Kt-B8 eh., an im
pressive variation given by Nimzo
vitch.
166
K-R1
33. Q-K7 eh.
34. P-Kt5
To bring the Bishop into action.
Q-Kt2
34. . . . . . .
If 34. . . . . P X P; 35. Kt-K6,
P-KR4; 36. Q-B6 eh., K-R2;

37. Kt-Kt5 eh. , K-R3; 38. B
Kt4, leads to mate.
35. Q x Q eh.
KxQ
36. P x B and wins.
CONCLUSIOS
In this section, dealing with the English Opening of last century and
with its modern form, our object has been to show the development
during the past hundred years of this complicated type of opening. As
played from 1840 to 1860, it is difficult to classify, but when viewed with
the eyes of to-day, it seems a mixture of the English and Reti Openings
and of the Catalan System. To transpose from one system to a favourable
line of the other is still the most important feature of the opening. As,
however, the examination of the systems and transpositions would go far
beyond the scope of this book, we have discussed, therefore, the 'pure'
English Opening only.
We have classified the English Opening by dividing it into four systems.
I. White, by waiting moves and by developing his pieces quietly
(without the fianchetto), tries to induce Black to occupy the centre.
This system is illustrated by the games of Nimzovitch and Flohr (see
Games 77-78, pages 149-151). They were successful because Black did not
realize that aggressiveness in the centre was bound to fail on account
of the missing tempo.
2. The Four Knights' variation. White plays 5. P-Q4, and by the
fianchetto (as shown in the games of Reti, Games 79-80, pages 1 53-155)
or by playing B-KKt5 (shown by the game of Botwinnik, Game 81,
page 156), tries to gain control of key square Q5.
3 . The modern form of the English Opening. The early fianchetto
(3. P-KKt3, and 4. B-Kt2) with the same idea of controlling the vital
Q5 square, but without playing an early P-Q4, a move which often
leads to simplification.
4. An attempt by Black not to play I . . . . . P-K4; but by playing
I. . . . . P-QB4; or 1.
P-K3; to avoid committing himself to such
weaknesses and to keep control of the Q5 square. The two games by
Nimzovitch and Flohr ( Games 85-86, pages 163-1 64) show, that even in
these Black has plenty of difficulties in solving his opening problems
satisfactorily.
.
PART IV
T H E K I N G ' S GAM B IT
TIIIS most controversial opening has undergone, in the march of time,
a metamorphosis which is a particularly good illustration of our change
in outlook during the last hundred years.
Even in the last century we find a diversity of views. The sober
thinking Staunton called it an 'admirable opening which gives birth to
the most intricate and beautiful combinations,' while Mason, in his Art
of Chess, writes that, 'In the main these Gambits are regarded as unsound,
and in consequence they occupy no very conspicuous place in present-day
play.'
To-day many are inclined to take Mason's view, although the more
discerning will agree with Blackburne who wrote, 'At the present time
the King's Gambit is rarely played in important contests because when
there is a great deal at stake few players dare venture into the shoal of
intricate and hazardous positions to which it gives rise. Accordingly if
anyone more venturesome than his fellows ventures to offer it, the usual
plan is to resort to one or other of the numerous methods of declining.'
Many prominent players, indeed, discounted the gambit in the belief
that it may be easily met. But can it? That is where complacency has
assisted the inherent torpitude of the human mind that likes to avoid
problems which cannot be easily resolved. This question was investigated
by a few masters who concluded that Black cannot solve the opening
problems as easily as it was thought. To emerge from the opening with
a sound position, Black must either adopt a complicated and venturesome
defence, or he must cede the first player a lasting initiative in return for
one of the safer defence structures.
There has been much prejudice in the approach to the King's Gambit.
In 1 920, however, Rubinstein and Tartakower, followed by Stoltz
in 1 930 and Keres and Bronstein in 1 940, tried to prove that the King's
Gambit is a solid positional opening. Their several endeavours are only
now slowly lifting the veil of glamour and mystery that enshrouded the
opening in the last century and which still obscures the real issues to-day.
167
XIV
THE
KING'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED

THE KIESERITZKY GAMBIT
87
White
Black
A. Anderssen
L. Kieseritzky
London, 1851
I. P-K4
P-K4
2. P-KB4
PxP
P-KKt4
3. Kt-KB3
4. P-KR4
P-Kt5
5. Kt-K5
P-KR4
This move, recommended by
Kieseritzky, is aimed at retaining
the Pawn at KKt5, essential to the
maintenance of Black's position.
Its value was certainly appreciated
at that period.
R-R2
6. B-B4
7. P-Q4
P-Q3
In the game Bronstein-Dubinin,
U.S.S.R.
Championship,
1 947,
Black played 7. . . . . B-R3; 8.
Kt-QB3, Kt-QB3; 9. Kt x BP!
R x Kt; 1 0. B x R eh. , K x B; 1 1 .
B X P , B X B ; 1 2. Castles, Q X P ; 13.
R x B eh. , K-Kt2; 14. Q-Q2,
P-Q3; 15. QR-KBI , Kt-QI ; 1 6.
Kt-Q5, B-Q2; 17. P-K5! P x P;
18. P X P, B-B3; 19. P-K6!
B X Kt; 20. R-B7 eh. , Kt x R; 21.
R X Kt eh., K-Rl ; 22. Q-B3 eh.,
Kt-B3; 23. R x Kt, and Black
resigned on the 27th move. A more
energetic attack than Anderssen's,
the German master missing the
strongest continuation (see next
note).
8. Kt-Q3
A timid move ! The sacrifice on
KB7 was still decisive according to
Schlechter.
P-B6
8. . . . . . .
9. P-KKt3
Also recommended by Kieser
itzky, but to-day considered weaker
than 9. P X P, B-K2; 10. B-K3,
B X P eh.; 1 1 . K-Q2, P X P; 1 2.
Q x P, a suggestion of Staunton,
endorsed by the modern Liiro bo k i
Schack.
9. . . . . . .
B-K3
A fine defensive move later
adopted in the Philidor Defence of
the King's Gambit. \'Vhite is com
mitted to a rigid Pawn formation
in the centre.
10. P,.-Q5
B-Q2
1 1 . P-K5
PxP
B-Q3
1 2. Kt X P
13. B-B4
Kt-K2
14. Castles
B-KB4
15. Kt-B3
Kt-Q2
16. Kt x Kt
Q x Kt
17. B-QKt5
P-QB3
18. P X P
B-B4 eh.
The defence is cleverly conducted
by Kieseritzky, who has eliminated
all White's attacking chances on
the centre files. It is interesting to
note the contemporary view ex
pressed by Staunton who annotates
Black's 18th move 'Fortunate
enough for White (the game was
played with colours reversed) that
he had this check in store.'
Evidently Staunton did not con
sider this move part of Kieseritzky's
defensive plan. To-day this check,
as part of a combinative defence,
would evoke no special mention.
168
19. K-R2
20. B-Q3
PxP
BxB
169
THE KING'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED

P-B4
21. P x B
R-Ql
22. R-Kl
P-KB7
23. Q-R4
Staunton- considers 23. . . . . QKt2; better, but then 24. Q-B2,
threatening R-K6 or Kt-R4,
poses Black some difficult problems.
Kieseritzky's move, aimed at the
exchange of Queens, is therefore
much more in harmony with our
modern treatment.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
R--K2
B-K3
RxB
QxQ
QR-KBI
RxP
K-Bl
BxB
Q-Q5
RxQ
P-B5
Kt-B4!
A fine manreuvrel Black reduces

White's attacking potential by giv
ing back the extra Pawn to assert
his Pawn majority-truly remini
scent of Lasker's style.
30. Kt-K2! !
Anderssen meets guile with guile.
This fine move at least averts im
mediate loss. It is interesting to
note how all the pieces, including
both Kings, are brought into the
fray after Black's next move. The
position is almost problem-like in
structure.
30. . . . . . .
R-KB2
This move leads to an advanta
geous Rook ending. The alternative
is 30. . . . . Kt x R; but after 3 1 .

Kt x R, P-B6; 3 2 . Kt x QBP, R
QB2; 33. Kt--K5, R-B8; 34.
Kt x BP! Kt-Q8; 35. R-B l , P x Kt;
36. R x P eh. , K-Kt2; 37. R-B5,
and though Black is a piece up, he
has no winning chances.
3 1 . R-K5
White avoids the trap! If 31.
Kt x R, P x R; 32. R x Kt, R x R;
33. Kt x R, P-K7; wins.
P x P eh.
31.
32. Kt x P
Kt x Kt
K xR
33. R x R eh.
34. K x Kt
R x P eh.
R-Q5 eh.
35. K-B4
R-Q4
36. K-Kt3
37. R-K3
K-B3
38. R-QB3
P-QB4
39. R-R3
K-B4!
The Rook ending is ably con
ducted by Black, who conforms to
modern technique in bringing his
King into action rather than sub
mitting to the passive defence line
39 . . . . . R-Q2.
R-Q6 eh.
40. R x P
41. K-B2
R-Q7 eh.
RxP
42. K-Kt3
43. R-KKt71
The only chance! 43. R-QB7,
R-QB7; 44. P-R4, R-B6 eh. ;
i s hopeless for White.
43 . . . . . . .
44. R-Kt5 eh.
45. R x RP
46. R-QB5
47. K x P
A doubtful move.
P-R5, at once.
PQB5
K-K5
P-B6
K-Q6
Better is 47.
R-Kt5 eh.
47. . . . . . .
48. K-Kt5
R-QB5
K-K7
49. R-Q5 eh.
50. R-K5 eh.
K-B7
On 50. . . . . K-B8; 5 1 . R-B5
eh. , K-Ktl; 52. R-K5, and 53.
R-Kl, holds the Black Pawn.
5 1 . R-Kt5
K-Kt6
171
Or 5 1 . . . . . P-B7; 52. R-Kt2,

followed by R x P and P-R5.
52. R-Ktl
R-B4 eh.
A mistake! 52 . . . . . R x P; would
have won.
53. K-B6
If 53.
draws.
K-B5
K x P; 54. K-K6
54. R-QB1
55. R x P
K-K5
Drawn.
T HE BERLIN DEFENCE
88
White
Black
J. Rosanes
A. Anderssen
Breslau, 1863
I. P-K4
P-K4
2. P-KB4
PxP
P-KKt4
3. Kt-KB3
4. P-KR4
P-Kt5
5. Kt-K5
Kt-KB3
This so-called 'Berlin Defence'
has superseded the original Kieser
itzky variation as it has been
demonstrated that Black can in
directly protect the Pawn at KKt5
(or obtain sufficient compensation
if it should be lost) as well as being
able to exert pressure on White's
centre. It is an important link in
the chain of development of Black's
defence.
less a tangible advantage is obtained.

To-day the move is quite in accord
with modern ideas, which hold that
the long-range objective of a favour
able end-game position overrides
the demands of premature assault.
It is worth while noting that
Black's KtP is indirectly defended
since 9. Kt x KtP, is refuted by 9.
. . . . Kt-Kt6!; 10. R-R2, Q-K2
eh.; 1 1 . K-B2, R-Ktl ; and wins.
P-B3
9. . . . . . .
PxP
10. P x P
Anderssen's fine judgment is ap
parent. Previously, against Harr
witz in 1 858, Morphy played 10.
. . . . Castles; 1 1 . P X P, P X P; 12.
Q x KtP eh., Kt-Kt2; 13. B X P,
with the far better game for White.
1 1 . Kt x QBP
1 2. B x Kt eh.
Kt x Kt
K-B1 !
6. B-B4
This instinctive reply was accept
ed for nearly seventy years, until
Rubinstein recommended the im
proved 6. P-Q4 (see Game 92,
page 176).
6.
P-Q4
7. P x P
B-Q3
8. P-Q4
Kt R4
9. B-Kt5 eh.
This move is not good, but it
requires Anclerssen's genius to de
monstrate its inferiority. We can
not, however, condemn it for the
same reason put forward by nine
teenth century commentators-the
old axiom that a piece should not
be moved twice in an opening when
other pieces are undeveloped, un-
A very fine continuation! Not

12. . . . . B-Q2; 13. B X B eh. ,
Q x B ; 1 4 . Castles, with a playable
game for White.
THE KING' GAMBIT ACCEPTED
13. B X R
Kt-Kt6
14. R-R2
On 14. K-B2, Kt x R eh.; 15.
Q x Kt, P-Kt6 eh. ; 16. K-K1,
Q-K2 eh.; 17. K-Q1, B-Kt5 eh.;
1 8 . B-B3, B X B eh. ; 19. P X B,
R-Ktl; 20. Q-Kt2, R-Kt3! 21 .
Kt-B3, R-R3; 22. Kt-K2, R X
P; 23. B-Q2, R-R7; wins.
14.
1 5 . B-Q5
1 6. Kt-B3
17. K-B2
Threatening 17. .
B-KB4
K-Kt2!
R-K1 eh.
Q-Kt3
. . . B-K4.
18. Kt-R4
Q-R3
With the threat 19 . . . . . Q-K7
chl
1 9 . Kt-B3
On 1 9 . P-B4, Q X Kt; 20. Q X Q,
R-K7 eh. ; 2 1 . K-Ktl , R-K8 eh.;
22. K-B2, R-B8 Mate follows.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
P-R4
QxQ
B-K3
K-Ktl
1\IORPHY STRENGTHENS THE
White
P. Morphy
89
Black
G. W. Medley
London, 1858
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
P-K4
P-KB4
Kt-KB3
P-KR4
Kt-K5
B-B4
PxP
P-Q4
Kt-QB3!
P-K4
PxP
P-KKt4
P-Kt5
Kt-KB3
P-Q4
B-Q3
Kt-R4
Morphy played this simple de

veloping move instead of 9. B-Kt5
eh . , which had been consistently
171
B-K4
Q-B8 eh.
B x P eh.
RxB
R-K8 Mate.
ATTACK
adopted and analysed during the

years 1850-1860. One would hardly
believe that such a quiet move
could be an innovation, but we have
it on the authority of Bilguer's
Handbuch des Schachspiels that it
was so. In its apparent simplicity
the move obscures its attacking
possibilities. For instance Lowen
thal's recommended reply 9 . . . . .
Kt-Kt6; is met by 1 0. B x P,
Kt x R; 1 1 . P-KKt3, Q-K2; 1 2.
Q-Q2, P-KB3; 13. Castles QR,
P X Kt; 14. P X P, B-Kt5; 15.
P-Q6.
9. . . . . . .
B-KB4
Later analysis
A weak move.
proved that Black had two p1ayable
continuations: (a) 9 . . . . . Q-K2;
(preventing White from castling10. Castles? B X Kt; 1 1 . P X B, Q
B4 eh.;) 10. B-Kt5 eh. , P-QB3;
1 1 . P X P, P X P; 12. Kt-Q5, Q
K3; 13. Kt-B7 eh. , B x Kt; 14.
B-B4, Q-B4; 15. B X P eh., Q X B!
( 1 5 . . . . . K-B1; 16. B X Kt, B X
Kt; 17. P x B, Q x P ch.; 1 8 . Q-K2,
Q X B; 19. B X P, B-B4; 20. Castles
K, with a good game for White) 16.
Kt X Q, K X Kt; and Black with
three minor pieces for the Queen
has the better game; or (b) 9 . . . . .
Castles (analysed by Anderssen) 10.
Kt-K2, R-K1; 1 1 . QKt X P! (re-
172
commended by Blackburne) B x Kt;

(better 1 1 . . . . . Kt X Kt; 1 2. B X Kt,
Kt-Q2 !) 12. Kt x Kt, B-Kt6 eh.;
13. K-Bl, R-K8 eh.; 14. Q x R,
B X Q; 15. B-KKt5, Q-Q3; 1 6 .
R x B, B-Q2; 1 7 . R-K5, P
KR3; 18. B-K7, Q-QKt3; 1 9 .
Kt-B6 eh., K-Kt2; (19. . . . .
K-Rl; 20. R-Kt5, ) 20. B-Q3,
Q X QP; 21. R-Kt5 eh., P X R; 22.
P x P, Q-B5 eh.; 23. K-K2,
Q-K4 eh. ; 24. K-Q1, Q X B; 25.
R-R7 eh., followed by Mate.
Two fascinating but somewhat
intricate variations. No wonder that
Morphy's move 9. Kt-QB3, was
later replaced by the more rational
but less dynamic 9. Castles, Q X P;
10. Q-K1 , Q x Q; 1 1 . R x Q,
Castles; 12. B-Q3! which leads to
equality.
10. Kt-K2
Q-B3
1 1 . QKt X BP
Kt-Kt6
1 2. Kt-R5!
An ingenious continuation of the
attack. The move is not difficult to
discover, but it is noteworthy as the
key to Morphy's fine manreuvre
Kt-QB3, Kt-K2, Kt x P(B4),
which was later to be universally
adopted in similar positions in the
King's Gambit.
Kt x Kt
1 2. . . . . . .
1 3. B-Kt5
B-Kt5 eh.
Better was 13 . . . . . Q-Kt2; 14.
Castles, Kt-Kt6; 15. R X B, Kt X
Position after 1 1 . . . . Kt-Kt6

.
R; 1 6. Q x P, and according to
Maroezy the attack would not have
been as easy to continue as in the
game.
14. P-B3
1 5 . Castles
16. R x B
17. Q x P
18. R-K1
A weak move.
Q-Q3
Kt-Kt2
Kt x R
Kt-K2
P-KR4
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
R-R2
P-QB3
PxP
QKt x Kt
K-B1
QxB
BxR
Resigns.
Q-B3
B-Kt5 eh .
PxP
Kt x QBP
B x Kt eh.
B x Kt eh.
RxQ
BxR
Here we have a fine example of Morphy's unprejudiced treatment of

the opening, at a time when the fashionable move 9. B-Kt5 eh. was at
its zenith. While Morphy did study contemporary theory (from which
he adopted the best), he retained an objective independence, a trait that
has characterized such great players as Lasker and Capablanca.
THE
PAULSEN DEFENCE
It was Louis Paulsen, the 'Master of Defence,' who evolved a system

which was to dominate the second half of the 19th century. To him is
attributed the saying that every gambit can be defended; to decline a
gambit he considered a weakness.
While Staunton was first to recognize the power of a fianchettoed
Bishop as an offensive weapon, it was L. Paulsen who introduced it as a
defensive unit capable of exerting pressure on White's centre.
173
It is not easy to grasp the novelty of his idea to-day when our theoretical
knowledge is so far advanced, since these variations are now taken for
granted. By way of i1lustration, here is a brevity, to-day classed as an
opening trap and widely known, which is one of the earliest practical
examples of the new system.
White N.N. Black L. Paulsen. 1. P-K4, P-K4; 2. P-KB4, P X P;
3. Kt-KB3, P-KKt4; 4. P-KR4, P-Kt5; 5. Kt-K5, B-Kt2! At
first sight this move appears unsound as it allows White to break up
Black's King's-side Pawns which it is normal to endeavour to retain
intact. 6. Kt X KtP (the correct move is 6. P-Q4), 6 . . . . . P--Q4!;
7. P x P? (7. P-Q4 is still the right move) 7 . . . . . Q-K2 eh. ; 8. K-B2,
B-Q5 eh. ; 9. K-B3, B X Kt eh. ; 10. K x B, Kt-B3 eh. ; 1 1 . K-R3,
Q-Q2 eh. ; 12. K-R2, Kt-Kt5 eh. ; 1 3. K-R3, Kt-B7 double eh.
and wins.
90
White
W. Steinitz
Black
J. J.
Zukertort
Vienna, 1882
1. P-K4
P-K4
PxP
2. P-KB4
P-KKt4
3 . Kt-KB3
P-Kt5
4. P-KR4
Kt-KB3
5. Kt-K5
P-Q4
6. B-B4
7. P x P
B-Kt2
Castles
8. Kt-QB3
9. P-Q4
Kt-R4
10. Kt-K2
P-QB4
This is the key-move to Paulsen's
defensive system. Black starts an
immediate counter-attack against
White's centre. Thus we see, even
in the romantic King's Gambit, the
same principles obtaining as in all
other openings.
Kt; 1 5 . B X Kt, P-B3; 16.Kt X KtP,

Q x KtP; 17. Kt-:-B2, R-K1 eh.;
18. B-K5, B-Kt5!
Kt-Q2
1 2. P X P
13. Kt x Kt
White has no better move. If
13. Kt X P(B4), Kt-Kt6; 14. Kt
K6, P x Kt; 15. P x P, K-R1; and
Black has a winning position.
B x Kt
13.
R-B1
1 4 . Q-Q3
R-K1 eh.
15. Kt x P
1 6. K-Q1
If 16. K-B1 , Q-B3; is too
strong.
16 . . . . . . .
P-Kt4!
1 1 . P-B3
For the more complicated coun
ter-attack, 1 1 . Kt x P, see following
game.
PxP
11. . . . . . .
This is the simplest answer. 1 1 .
. . . . P-QKt4; recommended by
L. Paulsen is also good but leads
to a very complicated game. The
game Spielmann-Leonhardt (Match
Munich, 1906) continued 1 1 . . . . .
P-QKt4; 12. B-Kt3, P-B5; 13.
B-B2, Q X QP; 14. QKt X P, Kt X
The deciding move, since if 17.

B x P, R x B eh. ; l S . R x B, Kt x Kt;
wins.
174
CHESS
17. Kt x Kt
18. Q-QR3
19. B-Q2
20. B-B3
21. R-K1
22. R x R
23. P x B
If 23. Q x B,
decisive.
23.

PxB
BxP
Q-Kt3
R-K6
BxB
QxR
B-R5
eh.;
is
Q-Kt8 eh.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
K-Q2
K-K3
K-Q4
K-B5
P-Q6
KxP
K-Kt3
Q-Kt4
PxR
K-Kt2
Resigns.
Q x P eh.
R-K1 eh.
Q-K5 eh.
Q-K2 eh.
Q-K4 eh.
Q-K5 eh.
R-Ktl eh.
R x Q eh.
Q-Q 6 eh.
Q-Q5 eh.
BLACKBURNE'S CONTRIBUTION
Zukertort demonstrated (see previous game) that Black can success

fully attack and break up White's centre, clearly endorsing Paulsen's fine
defensive idea. Zukertort's victory over Steinitz had a lasting effect.
It was considered by Gunsberg and others to be the refutation of the
Kieseritzky Gambit.
BJackburne then introduced a new idea of great importance for "Vhite,
which is best illustrated in the following game.
91
White
W. Steinitz
Black
K.
Schlechter
Q x Q, P x Q; 17. B-B4, Kt-B3;

and now White with 1 8. Kt x Kt,
(instead of the actually played 16.
Kt-Q7?) could have obtained a
good game.
Vienna, 1897
P-K4
1. P-K4
PxP
2. P-KB4
P-KKt4
3. Kt-KB3
P-Kt5
4. P-KR4
B-Kt2
5. Kt-K5
Kt-KB3
6. P-Q4
P-Q4
7. B-B4
Castles
8. P x P
Kt-R4
9. Kt-QB3
P-QB4
1 0. Kt-K2
1 1 . QKt x BP
This is Blackburne's innovation.
White makes no attempt to hold
the centre but tries to disrupt
Black's somewhat loose Pawn posi
tion, which is the thematic idea in
this variation.
11. . . . . . .
Kt-Kt6
P X Kt
1 2. Kt-K6
The game Blackburne-L. Paulsen,
Vienna, 1873, continued 12. . . . .
B x Kt; 13. P x B, Kt x R; 14. Q x P,
Q x QP; 15. P x P eh. , K-R1; 16.
BxP
13. P x P
K-R1
14. B x B eh.
Kt x R
15. Q x P
PxP
16. B-K3
Simpler is 16 . . . . . Kt-B3; 17.
Kt X Kt, P X Kt; 18. R-Q1, Q-B2.
17. B x P

Q x B!
17. .
...
A spectacular sacrifice on which
Black's defence strategy was based,
but it should only lead to a roughly
equal game.
.
Kt-B3
18. Q X Q
19. Kt x Kt
There is nothing better. On 19.
Q-Ktl , B X Kt; 20. Q X Kt, B
Kt6 eh.; 2 1 . K-Q2, QR-Q1 eh.
Black's attack is stronger than in
the game since the White Queen is
out of play.
P x Kt
19. . . . . . .
The decisive mistake. Black over
estimates his position. With 19.
. . . . B x Q; 20. Kt x B, Kt-Kt6;
2 1 . Castles QR, he could have
obtained an even game.
QR-Ktl
20. Q-QB4
On 20 . . . . . Kt-B7; 2 1 . K-K2,
would follow.
175
21. Castles
The best move. If 21. P-B3,
Kt-B7; is too strong.
21.
B x P eh.
22. K-Q2
Kt-B7
23. R-QKU
QR Q1 eh.
24. K-K2
B-Kt2
25. R-Kt7!
A very important defensive move,
as will be seen.
-
25.
26. Q x P
27. K-Q2
28. K-K3
Not 28 . . . . .
Q x R.
R-Q5
R-K5 eh.
R-Q5 eh.
Kt-Q8 eh.
R-K5 eh.; 29.
29. K-K2
B-R3
30. B-B7!
Defends both mating threats on
Q2 and KB2.
30.
31. Q x B
KR-Q1
Resigns.
A fascinating game, and because of its surprising twists, quite foreign

to present-day play. In passing judgment, we must remember that part
of the game has been evolved from variations included in the playing
repertoire of the masters of the last century. Because of the existing
fashion for tactical complexities, evinced by analysis and games of the
period, we can appreciate the ability of the old-time masters to assess
far quicker than we are able to-day, a sound valuation of intricate positions
of this nature.
THE MoDERN CONTINUATION OF THE KIESERITZKY GAMBIT
It is difficult to speak of a modern way of treating the Kieseritzky
Gambit since to-day the variation is hardly ever played. In the last
Gambit tournament in Baden bei Wien, 1 914, it was not played at all,
probably because it was considered that Black has no difficulty in
obtaining a good game.
The change in outlook-th unprejudiced approach-to the openings
after the first World War had its influence also on the King's Gambit.
Spielmann once said that when, together with Reti and Rubinstein, he
was asked to bring the Liirobok i Schack up to date and they came to the
King's Gambit, they expected just to add some new lines, but they soon
found that many of the older variations given in the books were incom
patible with modern outlook, thereby necessitating an analysis of the
openings from quite a new angle. Thus Rubinstein considered that
White' s 6. B-B4, in order to exploit Black's imagined weakness on
KB7, was incorrect since 6 . . P-Q4; abruptly terminated the attack.
.
176
Instead he recommended White to break up Black's Pawn position on

the King's side at once, an idea based on an old analysis by Philidor.
His recommendation, revolutionary as it was, had little effect, attributable,
perhaps, to the fact that the book was published only in Swedish and also
to the general unpopularity of the opening.
The following game is really the only one to illustrate Rubinstein's
recommendation.
92
White
Black
G. Stoltz
F. Siimisch
Swinemiinde, 1932
I. P-K4
P-K4
2. P-KB4
PxP
3. Kt-KB3
P-KKt4
4. P-KR4
P-Kt5
5. Kt-K5
Kt-KB3
6. P-Q4
This simple move explains Rubin
stein' s idea. White tries to eliminate
Black's BP even at the price of a
centre Pawn.
P3
6.
7. Kt-Q3
Kt x P
8. B x P
Q-K2
Black follows an analysis of
Philidor. Rubinstein gives here the
other possible continuation 8 . . . . .
B-Kt2; 9. P-B3, Castles; 10.
Kt-Q2, R-K1 ; 11. Kt x Kt, R x
Kt eh.; 12. K-B2, Q-B3; 13.
P-KKt3, B-R3; 14. B-K2, with
the better game for White.
B-Kt2
9. Q-K2
P-KR4
10. P-B3
Black does not realize the danger.
He thinks he is safe with a Pawn up
and hopes to refute White's im
pending attack by the exchange of
Queens which he can always force.
Safer was 10 . . . . . B-B4; with the
idea of preparing Castles Q.
1 1 . Kt-Q2!
This move must have come as a
complete surprise to Black who did
not expect White to force the
Queen exchange with a Pawn down.
Philidor recommended here 1 1 . P
KKt3, P-Q4; 12. B-Kt2, P-
Position after 10.
P-KR4
QB4; 13. Kt-Q2, B-K3; with

advantage to Black.
Kt x Kt
11.
1 2. K x Kt
Q x Q eh.
1 3. B x Q
B-B4
If 13. . . . . Castles; 14. B-K3!
B-B4; 15. Kt-B4, B-Kt3; 16.
Kt-Q5!
14. KR-KB1
Kt-Q2
Position after 18. . . . . B x B
177

On 14 . . . . . Kt-B3; 15. B-Kt5!
B--Kt3; 1 6 . Kt-B4, Castles K;
17. B-Q3! B x B; 18. Kt x B, P
BB; 1 9 . B-KB, K-B2; 20. Kt
B4, R-R1 ; 2 1 . Kt-Q5, QR
QB1 ; 22. B-Kt5, with the attack.
(Becker's analysis) .
Kt-B3
15. Kt-Kt4
16. B-Kt5 eh. !
B-Q2
No better is 16 . . . . . P-B3; 17.
Kt x P, P x Kt; 18. B x P eh. , K
K2; 19. B x R, R x B; 20. B-Kt5,
B-K3; 21. R-B2 followed by
QR-KBI .
1 7. QR-K1 eh.
K-Q1
Or 17. . . . . K-B 1 ; 18. B X B,
Kt X B; 19. Kt-Q5, R-Q1; 20.
Kt x P, Kt-B3 (20 . . . . Kt-Kt3;
21. B-Kt5, } 21. B-Kt5, winning.
.
18. B-Kt5 !
BxB
19. R x Kt!
Resigns.
If 19 . . . . . B x R; 20. B x B eh.,
K-Q2; 21 . R-K7 eh., K-Q1; 22.
R x KBP dis. eh., K-K1 ; 23. R
K7 eh. , K-B1; 24. R x P, wins.
The attack with such reduced
material could hardly have been
conducted more energetically.
THE CLASSICAL DEFENCE
This is one of the oldest defences to the King's Gambit and is considered
more solid than the above defences, since Black is able to keep his Pawn
chain intact on the King's side which White can break up only by the
sacrifice of a piece. To-day it is considered one of the most important
defences to the King's Gambit. Once it was thought that Black could
forcibly transpose into this defence from the King's Gambit Accepted
and avoid the Kieseritzky Gambit and the Bishop's Gambit. It was
therefore universally adopted. However, it will be shown that this
transposition is not altogether feasible, since after 1 . P-K4, P-K4;
2. P-KB4, P X P; 3. Kt-KB3, P-KR3; 4. P-QKt3, White can prevent
Black from playing 4. . . . . P-KKt4.
Every opening variation has its history, and in the King's Gambit
almost every move. In order to trace the historical development of this
variation, an example of one of the earliest games, followed by one of
the more recent, is given.
93
THE GAMBIT OF GRECO
I. P-K4
P-K4
PxP
2. P-KB4
3. Kt-KB3
P-KKt4
4. B-B4
B-Kt2
5. P-KR4
P-KR3
6. P-Q4
P-Q3
7. Kt-QB3
P-QB3
Recommended by Philidor but
to-day 7 . . . . . Kt-QB3; 8. Kt
K2, Q-K2; 9. Q-Q3, B-Q2; 10.
B-Q2, Castles Q; is considered
better.
8. P x P
PxP
9. R x R
BxR
10. Kt-K5
A very interesting but incorrect
sacrifice. It was supposed to have
been invented by Greco ( 1600-1634},
but in fact it was published first in
a book by Polerio which appeared
between the years 1 585 and 1590.
10.
P x Kt
Q-B3
Q-Kt2
Kt-KB3
13. P-K6
Still simpler is 13. . . . . B X P;
14. B X B, Kt-KB3; 15. B X P eh.,
K-K2; 16. Q-Kt6, Q X B; with
decisive advantage for Black.
l l . Q-R5
1 2. P X P
14. P x P eh.
K-B1?
CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINN IK
178
A mistake, after which the follow

ing splendid combination turns the
tables in favour of White. 14 . . . . .
K-K2; is the right move and after
15. Q-K2, B-Kt5; 1 6. Q-Q3,
QKt-Q2; Black wins easily.
94
White
Black
R. Spielmann
E. Griinfeld
Vienna, 1 922
P-K4
1. P-K4
PxP
2. P-KB4
Kt-QB3
3. B-B4
A waiting move by which Black
tries to transpose into the Classical
Defence.
15. B x P! 1
A beautiful sacrifice. Now on 15.
. . . . Kt x Q; 16. B-Q6, mates
while on 15 . . . . . P X B; 16. Q-B5
mate.
K-K2
15. . . . . . .
16. B-Q6 eh.
Schlechter . recommended
B x P.
1 6.
KxB
16. . . . . . .
Not 16.
K-Q2; 17. Q x B,
Q X Q; 18. P-BS(Q) .
17. P-K5 eh. !
KxP
Or 17
K-K2; 18. P X Kt eh.,
Q x P; 19. Castles.
. .
QXQ
1 8 . P-B8(Q)!
On 18 . . . . . Kt X Q; 19. Q-B5
eh., wins.
K-Q3
19. Q x P eh.
K-K2
20. Q-B4 eh.
21. Castles QR and wins.
4. Kt-KB3
With 4. P-Q4, White could have
avoided the transposition into the
Classical variation, but after 4 . . . . .
Kt-B3; 5. P-K5, P-Q4; 6. B
Kt5, Kt-K5; 7. B x P, P-B3; 8.
Kt-KB3, P X P; 9. Kt x P, B-Kt5
eh.; 10. P-B3, Castles; 1 1 . Castles,
the game is about even according
to the Liirobolc i Schack.
P-KKt4
4.
P-Q3
5. Castles
B-Kt2
6. P-Q4
7. P-B3
On 7. Kt-B3, Schlechter recom
mends 7 . . . . . B-K3.
P-KR3
7.
P-Kt5
8. P-KKt3
P-B6
9. Kt-R4
10. Q-Kt3
The other line is 10. Kt-Q2,
B-B3; 1 1 . QKt x P, P x Kt; 12.
Q X P, R-R2?; (best is 1 2 . . . . .
Q-K2! ) 13. Kt-Kt6! Spielmann
Griinfeld, Teplitz-Schonau, 1 922, in
which game Spielmann was success
ful. Analysis proved, however, that
the sacrifice of the piece is not
correct. The strategy adopted in
this game is considered the most
promising line of attack in this
variation.
10 . . . . . . .
1 1 . Kt-B5
12. P x B
Q-K2
B x Kt

12. Q x P, would lead to great
complications. 12 . . . . . Q X P; 13.
B-QKt5, Kt-K2; 14. Q x R eh. ,
K-Q2; 1 5 . Q-Kt7, B X P eh. ; 16.
P X B , Q X P eh. ; 17. R-B2, Q-Q8
eh. ; 18. R-B1 , and Black can force
the draw since on 17. K-R1 ,
P-B7; would be too strong.
Kt-Q1
12. . . . . . .
Safer was 12 . . . . . Castles Q; 13.
B x BP, Q-K7; 14. Q-K6 eh. , R
Q2; and White has nothing better
than to force the draw with 15. R
B2, Q-Q8 eh.
13.
14.
15.
1 6.
17.
18.
19.
B-B4
Kt-Q2
P-KR3!
B-Q3
PxP
K-B2
R-R1
Kt-KB3
Castles
P-KR4
Q-Q2
PxP
Kt-B3
KR-K1
179
with 20 . . . . . P-Q4; and . . . . Kt

K5 eh. , as in the game, because the
KKt would be tied down to the
defence of the KKtP and after
QR-R1; White's pressure would
have become too strong.
If 20.
R-R4, P-Q4; 21 . QR-Rl , Kt
K2; 22. B-K5, Kt X P; 23. QB x Kt,
B X B; 24. R X P eh., with a decisive
attack.
20. B-KKt5?
2 1 . R-R4
Too late.
P-Q4
Kt-K5 eh.
21. . . . . . .
PxB
22. B x Kt
P-K6 eh. !
23. P-B6
The only satisfactory answer.
BxP
24. B x P
RxB
25. R-R5
Now the fortunes have changed
and Black is the attacker.
26. K x R
27. K-Q3
28. K-B2
29. Q--'-B4
Against the
Q-Q6 eh.
B x P eh.
R-Q1 !
B-K6
threat
29.
29 . . . . . . .
Q x Kt eh.
30. K-Kt3
Q-Q2
31. R-Kl
P-B7
32. QR-KR1
If 32. R X B, Q-Q8 eh.; and PB S ( Q) .
Spielmann has built up a strong

position, but here he misses his
chance. First 20. R-R4, would
have given him a decisive attack,
as Black could not have continued
32 .
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
......
QxQ
KR-R4
R x P eh.
R-K4
R-KB1
Resigns.
Q-K3
PxQ
R-KBl
K-B2
K-K2
R-B6
THE CUNNINGHAM GAMBIT (REVIVED)
This formerly popular defence invented by the Scottish master, A.

Cunningham ( 1650-1730), was often played in the last century, but it
went out of fashion after it was found that after the moves 1. P-K4,
P-K4; 2. P-KB4, P x P; 3. Kt-KB3, B-K2; 4. B-B4, B--R5 eh.;
White does not need to sacrifice the Pawns (5. P-KKt3, P x P; 6. Castles)
iince with 5. K-Bl ! he can lilecure the better 2'ame .
IJ
CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOT\VINNIK
1 80
Since the Second World War, the Defence has been revived by Kmoch,
who, following the suggestion of Bilguer' s Handbuch des Schachspiels,
recommends 4.
Kt-KB3; (instead of 4 . . . . . B-R5 eh. ).
95
White
H. Kramer
6
P-Q4
7. B-Kt3
Safer was 7. B-Q3, while 7.
P x P e.p., B x P; would have been
bad for White.
.
Black
M. Euwe
Match, 1941
1. P-K4
P-K4
2. P-KB4
PxP
3. Kt-KB3
B-K2
Kt-KB3!
4. B-B4
That this simple developing move
has escaped attention for the last
hundred years is further proof of
how the evolution of chess is hind
ered by prejudice. Formerly, the
move 4 . . . . . B-R5 eh. was ex
clusively played, and the following
complicated line based on a Rook
sacrifice extensively analysed: 4.
. . . . B-R5 eh.; 5. K-B1 , P-Q4;
6. B x P, Kt-KB3; 7. Kt-B3,
Kt X B; 8. Kt X Kt, P-KB4; 9 .
Kt x B, Q x KKt; 1 0 . Kt x P eh.,
K-Q1 ; 1 1 . Kt X R, P X P; 1 2. Q
K1, Q-K2; 13. Q-B2, Kt-B3.
This was considered favourable for
Black, but later analysis has shown
that White, with 14. P-QKt4,
(threatening 15. P-Kt5, also 15.
Q-B5) 14. . . . . Q X P; 15. Q-R4
eh., K-Q2; (15 . . . . . Kt-K2; 16.
Q x BP,) 1 6 . Q-Kt4 eh. , K-Q1;
17. Q x KtP, would obtain the
better game.
B-R5 eh.
7. . . . . . .
P-QKt3!
8. K-B1
Naturally not 8. . . . . Kt-B7;
9. Q-K1, Kt x R; 10. Q x B, and
the Knight is locked in.
B-R8 eh.
9. B X BP
10. P-B4
There is nothing better (10. K:
Ktl ? B-B7 Mate).
10 .
11.
12.
Or
1 2.
13.
14.
15.
On
QKt,
15 .
16.
17.
18.
......
PxP
B-R4 eh.
P--QKt4
Kt-B3
12. B-B2, P-Kt5.
PxB
Q x P eh.
P-B3
P-KR3
Kt-R3
P-Q5
15. P-K6, Castles; 16. B x
B-QKt4! iiaves the piece.
.....
R-Q1
P-KKt4
Q-B2
.
Kt-B4
Castles
Q-Kt3
5. P-K5
Or 5. Kt-B3, Kt x P; 6. B x P
eh., K x B; 7. Kt x Kt, R-B l .
Kt-Kt5
5. . . . . . .
This move is now strong, since
the Knight cannot be driven off at
once because of 6. . . . . B-R5 eh.
6. P-Q4
If 6. Castles, Kt-QB3; 7. P-Q4,
P-Q4; 8. P x P e.p., B x P; 9.
R-K1 eh., Kt-K2; and Black
stands welL
18
. . . . .
Q-K6! !

A surprising move, i n the spirit
of the old King's Gambit. Black
retains his material advantage.
Kt x B eh.
Kt x Q
19. B x Q
20. K-K2
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
181
PxP
B-Kt2
BxR
Kt-Q5 eh.
Kt-K3
Kt x B
RxP
R-QB1
Kt x B
K-K3
Resigns.
Although this defence is not yet explored, it is considered sound and

proves the inexhaustible qualities of the game. If one considers that
much time has been spent analysing the artificial 4 . . . . B-R5 eh. ,
while the natural move 4 . . . . . Kt-KB3, has passed unnoticed, it will
be realized that our modern approach to certain old fashioned openings
is likely to create more new lines, especially in the King's Gambit.
.
THE BISHOP'S GAMBIT

The Bishop's Gambit, once considered sounder than the King's Knight
Gambit, has gone out of favour since it has been found that Black can
either avoid it by playing 3 . . . . . Kt-QB3; (see Game 94, page 178 ) or
with 3. . . . . Kt-KB3; obtain sufficient play in the centre without much
risk and dispense with the artificial Queen check on the third move.
96
White
Black
R. Spielmann
E. D. Bogoljubov
Carlsbad, 1 923
1. P-K4
P-K4
2. P-KB4
PxP
3. B-B4
Dr. Tartakower considers the
Lesser Bishop's Gambit to be better,
but the old continuation 3. B-K2,
P-KB4! ; 4. P-K5, P-Q3; 5.
P-Q4, P x P; 6. P x P, Q x Q eh.;
7. B X Q, Kt-QB3; gives Black a
good game.
3. . . . . . .
Kt-KB3
P-B3
4. Kt-QB3
This line is far more energetic
than 4. . . . . Kt-B3; 5. Kt-B3,
B-Kt5; 6. Kt-Q5, Kt x P; 7.
Castles, Castles; 8. P-Q4, Kt-B3;
9. Kt x B, Kt x Kt; 10. B x P,
(Spielmann-Bogoljubov,
Triberg,
1921) with the better game for
White.
5. P-Q4
A weak move. Better was 5 .

Q-B3, P-Q4; 6 . P x P, B-Q3;
7. P-Q3, B-KKt5; 8. Q-B2,
Castles; 9. B X P, R-K1 eh.; 10.
K-B 1 , P-QKt4; 1 1 . B-QKt3,
P-Kt5; 12. QKt-K2, Kt x P; 13.
B x Kt, P x B; 14. Q-Kt3, B x Kt
eh.; 1 5 . Kt X B, Q-B3; with
equality.
B-Kt5 !
5. . . . . . .
P-Q4!
6. Q-B3
The Bilguer Handbuch des Schach
spiels here recommends 6. . . . .
Castles; 7. B X P, Kt X P. The text
move is far more energetic.
7. P x P
8. Kt-K2
9. B-Q3
A fine move which
initiative for Black.
Castles
PxP
B-Kt5!
maintains the
B x Kt!
10. Q x BP
ll. K x B
After 1 1 . B X B, R-K1 would
prevent White from castling, while
Spielmann hopes to move his King
into safety by this move.
CHESS FROM MORPHY T O BOTWINNIK
1 2
ll.
Kt-B3
R-Kl
12. B-K3
13. KR-KBI
Preparing for R-B3 and K-B l .
Q-K2
13. . . . . . .
14. R-B3
QR-Q1 !
Avoids White's clever trap. On
14. . . . . Kt x P eh.; 1 5 . Q x Kt,
B-B4; 16. Kt x P, would follow.
15. K-B1
R-Q3
16. Q-R4
The passive defence with 16.
K-Ktl , B x Kt; 17. P x B, Kt
K5 ! would leave White with the
inferior position, therefore Spiel
mann initiates an attack.
16 . . . . . . .
B x Kt
17. B-KKt5
Now it seems as if White has
turned the game in his favour, but
Bogoljubov finds the right reply.
17 . . . . . . .
Position after 17. B-KKt5

Spielmann might have expected
17 . . . . . P-KR3; 18. B x P, Kt
KKt5; 19. B-R7 eh. ! with compli
cations in favour of White.
B x QP! !
18. B x Kt
19. Q x P eh.
Resigns.
Q x B!
K-B1
XV
IN MOD E RN TIMES
THE MODERN DEFENCE TO THE KING'S GAMBIT
THIS modern line was introduced by Louis Paulsen in 1884 at a time when
his idea in the Kieseritzky Gambit was considered to give Black a good
defence. However, the latter is very involved, while this modern line
looks simple and straightforward. It is based on the same idea as the
Paulsen Defence, the relief of tension in the centre. It has the advantage
over the older defences that it does not commit Black to weakening his
King's wing at an early stage of the game. The value of this defence
is not yet established, since the problems of the opening have not been
exhaustively analysed, nor has it undergone the searching test of tourna
ment play. The following game is one of the earliest occasions on which
it was played.
2. P-KB4
97
PxP
3. Kt-KB3
White
Black
Kt-KB3
4. Kt-B3
L. Paulsen
E. Schallop
P-Q4
5. P x P
Kt x P
Nassengrund, 1884
6. Kt x Kt
Q x Kt
P-K4
I. P-K4
7. P-Q4
B-Q3
THE KING'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED IN MODERN TIMES

This is the position normally
reached in the modern defence to
the King's Gambit. Black attempts
to resolve the position in the centre
and to hold his Pawn, without
playing the committing . . . . P
KKt4.
The Bishop move which
was constantly played in the Baden
bei Wien Gambit Tournament, 1 9 14,
exposes the piece to attack.
183
PXP
20. P-Kt6!
B-Ktl
21. P X P
K-Kt2
22. R-B1
Paulsen must have had great
confidence in his powers in playing
four pieces onto the diagonal of his
opponent's Bishop.
8. P-B4
Q-K3 eh.
9. K-B2
P-QB4
Q-B3
10. B-Q3
1 1 . R-K1 eh.
K-B1
12. P-QKt4
This Pawn sacrifice is White's
most promising continuation.
12.
P x QP
13. P-B5
B-B2
Kt-B3
1 4. B-Kt2
Kt-K4
1 5 . P-Kt5
B-Kt5
16. B x QP
In this difficult position, Paulsen
found the only move to secure the
defence. The combinations with pin
and counter pin give the game a
very interesting character.
17. B-K4
White avoids the trap. 17. Kt x
Kt?, Q-R5 eh.; wins.
17.
B x Kt
18. B x B
R-Q1
1 9 . K-B1
19 . . . . . R x B; 20. Q x R, KtKt5 eh. was threatened.
19. . . . . . .
P-Kt4
It seems rather rash to allow a
third piece to be pinned by the
Bishop, but Black has no other
course, and the move is an inge
nious way of meeting the threat
20. B X P, on which would follow
20. . . . . P-B6; 21. P X P, (21 .
B X P? , P-Kt5!; which was the idea
ofthemove 1 9 . . . . . P-Kt4; ) 21 . . . . .
Q-K3! with the double threat of
22. . . . . Q-B5 eh. and 22. . . . .
Q-R6 eh. A very fine defensive
combination.
23. R-B7
A picturesque position. Black's
chances appear rather doubtful, but
it is hard to see how White can
increase the pressure on the Knight
at K5. If 23. R-B5, Q X P; 24.
R{K1 ) X Kt, {24. R(B5) X Kt, Q X
B ! ) 24 . . . . . B x R; 25. B x B eh.,
P-B3; 26. R-B7 eh., K-R3;
leads to complications which are
not unfavourable for Black.
23. . . . . . .
R x B!
Paulsen was clearly prepared for
White's 23rd move.
BxR
24. Q x R
Kt x B
25. P x B
KxQ
26. Q x Q eh.
R-QB1
27. P x Kt
28. R-B1
K-K3
P-B3
29. R-B5
After this masterly defensive
play, Black was able to hold the
gambit Pawn. The irony lies in the
fact that he was unable to make use
of it. If 29. . . . . P-B4; 30. P
KR4, P-Kt5 ; (30 . . . . . P-R3; 31.
P-R5,) 31 . K-Kt2, P-Kt3; 32.
R---B4, K-K4; 33. P-R4, and
184
Black is unable to improve his

position without sacrificing the
Pawn on B5, and his chances of a
win are slight.
PxP
30. P-KR4
This move leads to a draw at
once. Black could have tried 30.
. . . . P-Kt3; 31. R-B6 eh., K
K4; 32. P-R5, P-B4; 33. K-Kt2,
K-Q5.
31 . K-Kt2
32. R-B5
33. R x P
34. R-QKt4
The best move.
K-Q3
RxP
K-K4
R-B7 eh.
34.
35. K-R3
RxP
K-B5
36. R x KtP
37. R x P
KxP
38. R-KB7
R-R3
K-B5
39. K x P
P-B4
40. K-R3
41 . K-Kt2
R-R7 eh.
K-K5
42. K-B1
K-B6
43. R-QKt7
K-Kt5
44. R-Kt3 eh.
P-B5
45. R-QB3
R-KR7
46. R-QKt3
47. R-QR3
and on the 59th move a draw was
agreed.
A masterly performance by Paulsen, who was able to hold the gambit

Pawn without compromising his King's side. Most impressive was the
brilliant combinative play with which he checked White's Pawn's advance
in the centre. Nowadays, we cannot help feeling that White's attack
should have been successful, but we must not forget that this game was
one of the first of a new system, and for that reason perfection could not
be expected.
RUBINSTEIN'S CONTINUATION
The end of the first "\Vorld War saw the emergence of the Hypermodern
School of chess. Rubinstein also introduced some new ideas and tried
to revive the King's Gambit by asserting that it could be treated posi
tionally; and that White, by sacrificing a Pawn, could gain control of the
centre, with prospects of breaking up Black's Pawn position on the King's
side. He did not confine his opinion to the fine analysis in the Liirobok
i Schack but adopted the precepts he outlined in tournament play. We
owe to him brilliancies equal to those of Anderssen. The following game
was his second attempt to combat by new methods the sound formation
of the Defence.
98
White
A. Rubinstein
Black
F. D. Yates
Hastings, 1 922
I. P-K4
P-K4
PxP
2. P-KB4
Kt-KB3
3. Kt-KB3
P-Q4
4. Kt-B3
Kt x P
5. P x P
6. Kt x Kt
Q x Kt
7. P-Q4
B-K2
This move, recommended by Tar-
rasch in 1 893, is far better than

7. . . . . B-Q3; which was played
in the previous game, since the
KB5 Pawn is defended indirectly
(by . . . . Q-K5 eh.) and the Bishop
is not exposed to attack.
P-KKt4
8. B-Q3
B-KB4
9. Q-K2
QxB
10. B x B
1 1 . P-KKt4
An interesting move which ex
plains Rubinstein's idea. He tries
to block Black's Pawns in order to
break them up, if necessary at the
THE KING' S GAMBIT ACCEPTED IN MODERN TIMES
185
cost of a Pawn.
However, the
slower method 1 1 . B-Q2, (if 1 1 .
. . . . Q X P; 1 2 . R-QB1,) followed
by 12. Castles QR, comes into
considcration.
11. . . . . . .
Q-Q2!
A much better move than 1 1 .
. . . . Q-K3; 12. Q x Q, P x Q; 13.
P-KR4, P X P; 14. P-Kt5, Castles;
1 5 . R x P, B-Q3; 16. B-Q2, Kt
B3; 17. P-B4, (Rubinstein-Kostic,
The Hague, 1921 ) when Black main
tained a satisfactory game. The
fact that Rubinstein adopted the
variation in this game suggests that
he might have found a stronger line
for White. However, Yates gave
him no chance and the text-move,
sacrificing a Pawn, is more in keep
ing with the spirit of the opening,
since 12. Kt x P, would be bad for
White after 12. . . . . Kt-B3; 13.
P-B3, Castles QR; 14. Kt-B3,
KR-K1 ; or 1 2. . . . . Kt-B3; 13.
B X P, Kt X P; 14. Q-K4, Castles
QR; 1 5 . Castles QR, Q x P; 16.
R X Kt, B X Kt; and Black keeps
his extra Pawn.
Kt-B3
12. B-Q2
13. Castles QR
Castles QR
P-B3
14. P-KR4
1 5 . P-B4
Q X KtP
The beginning of a rather adven
turous combination which gives
White some chances, while the purely
defensive move 15 . . . . . QR-K1 ;
1 6. P x P, P x P; 17. P-Q5, Kt
Q1; 18. Q-B2, K-Ktl ; would have
been entirely in Black's favour.
1 6. P x P
PxP
17. P-Q5
Kt-Kt5
If 17 . . . . . Kt-Ktl ; 1 8 . QR
Ktl , Q-Q2; 19. B-B3, KR-K1 ;
20. R x RP.
18.
19.
20.
21.
QxB
K-B2
Q-K6 eh.
R-R3
Kt-Q6 eh.
Q x Kt
K-Ktl
21 . . . . . . .
Q x R eh.!
The sacrifice of the Queen is the
only move which gives Black a
chance. Giving up a piece after 21.
. . . . Kt-B4; 22. R X Q, Kt X Q;
23. P X Kt, QR-K1 ; 24. R-K1 ,
P-QR4; would have left him with
a lost game.
Kt-B7 eh.
22. K x Q
Kt X R
23. K-K1
P-KR4
24. Q X Kt
P-Kt5
25. B-B3
KR-Ktl
26. Q-R4
Better than 26 . . . . . QR-K1 eh.;
27. K-B 1 , R-R2; holding the
Rook's Pawn, in which case White
would have pushed on his Queen's
Pawn quickly, while blockading
Black's Pawns.
P-Kt6
27. Q x RP
QR-K1 eh.
28. B-Q4
29. K-Q2
29. K-B1, loses on account of
29 . . . . P-B6.
QR-KB1
29. . . . . . .
30. P-Q6
If 30. Q-B3, P-Kt7; 31 . B
Ktl , R-Kt6; 32. Q-B2, P-Kt3;
and Black threatens . . . . R-Kt5
and . . . . P-B6.
30.
31. Q-R6
32. Q x QP
33. Q-B5
PxP
K-R1
R-Q1
R x B eh.!
1 6
34.
35.
36.
37.
QxR
Q-Ktl
P-Kt4
K-K2
P-Kt7
R-Kt6
P-R3
P-B6 eh.
This forces a draw. On 38. K-B2,

R-R6; 39. Q-Q1, R-R8; 40.
Q-QB eh., and draw by perpetual
check.
This game is characterized by its clear-cut strategy. On comparing it

with the previous game we notice the more rapid movement which
demonstrates that the general technique had developed in the period of
38 years between the two games. Although Black went astray in the
middle-game, he proved the strength of the system and the need for
White to play more aggressively in the early stages.
THE LATEST TREND IN THE KING'S GAMBIT
In the following game White aims at controlling the centre before Black
has time to consolidate and support the KB5 Pawn. This line was just
becoming popular before the Second World War, but progress was slow
because the opening was not in favour.
White
A. Santasiere
99
Black
J.
Levin
U.S.A. Championship, 1946

1. P-K4
P-K4
2. P-KB4
PxP
3. Kt-KB3
Kt-KB3
4. Kt-B3
An interesting alternative is 4.
P-K5. The older continuation is
( a) 4. P-K5, Kt-R4; 5. P-Q4,
P-Q4; 6. P-B4, Kt-QB3; 7.
P X P, Q X P; 8. Kt-B3, B-QKt5;
9. K-B2, B x Kt; 10. P X B, B
Kt5; 1 1 . B-K2, Castles KR; (Reti
Nyholm, Abbazia, 1912) in favour
of Black. Keres' continuation is
(b) 4. P-K5, Kt-R4; 5. Q-K2,
B-K2; 6. P-Q4, Castles; 7. P
KKt4, P x P e.p.; 8. Q-Kt2, P
Q3; 9. RP x P, B-Kt5; 10. B-K3,
(Spielmann recommended 10. Kt
R2, which however is answered by
10 . . . . . Kt x P; 1 1 . Kt x B, Kt x R;
1 2. Q X Kt, B-R5 eh. ) 10. . . . .
QKt-B3; 1 1 . Kt-B3, P X P; 1 2.
P-Q5, Kt-Kt5; 13. Kt x P, Q
B 1 ; (Randvir-Tolush) with advan
tage to Black.
4.
5. P x P
P-Q4
Kt x P
Q x Kt
6. Kt x Kt
B-K2
7. P-Q4
8. P-B4
A more vigorous continuation than
the established 8. B-Q3.
Q-K5 eh.
8.
9. K-B2
B-KB4
1 0. P-B5
QKt-Q2
10. . . . . Kt-B3; is considered
better, and the continuation 1 1 .
B-Kt5, Q-Q4; 1 2 . B x P, Castles
QR; 13. B-K3, B-B3; 14. Q-R4,
B-K51 leads to equality. (Kienin
ger-Eliskases, Stuttgart, 1 939).
1 1 . B-Kt5
1 2. R-K1
13. Q x Q
14. B x KBP!
15. B-B4
16. R-K2
17. QR-K1
18. K-Ktl
1 9 . B-K6
Necessary, for
threatened.
P-QB3
Q-B7 eh.
BxQ
Kt-B3
R-Q1
B-K5
Kt-Kt5 eh.
P-B4
P-KKt3
20. B x P, is
P-KR4
20. Kt-Kt5
There is no answer to the double
threat of Kt x B, and Kt-B7.
21. Kt x B !
This move is much stronger than
THE KING' S GAMBIT ACCEPTED IN MODERN TIMES
187
2 1 . Kt-B7, B-B3; and Black can

put up some resistance. The sim
plification leading to a won end
game is very instructive.
Position after 20 . . . . . P-KR4
21 .
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
B x Kt
RxP
B-Q6
K-B2
B x B eh .
RxR
RxR
K-Kt3
KxP
K-Kt5
KxP
P x Kt
PxB
R-R2
R-Q2
K-Q1
QR x B
RxR
K xR
K-K3
K-Q4
KxP
Resigns.
This game is devoid of those picturesque combinations with which the

public still likes to associate the opening, but it is both clear and logical,
and, judged by present standards, most impressive.
BRONSTEIN'S TREATMENT
Of the younger generation of masters not only Keres but also Hronstein
often adopts the King's Gambit. The latter has expressed a definite
opinion to the effect that the King's Gambit is neither incorrect nor
hazardous. By playing it on the most important occasions he has shown
his confidence in the opening.
The following game well illustrates how the King's Gambit can be
duller than the most Orthodox Queen's Gambit.
White
D. Bronstein
100
Black
V. Ragosin
Saltsjobaden, 1948
1. P-K4
P-K4
P-Q4
2. P-KB4
3. P x QP
PxP
4. KKB3
KKB3
QKt-Q2
5. B-Kt5 eh.
5. . . . . P-B3; is supposed lo be
better, but 6. P X P, Kt X P;
7. P-Q4, Q-R4 eh. ; 8. Kt-B3,
B-QKt5; 9. Q-K2 eh., B-K3;
10. Castles, Castles K; 1 1 . B-Q2,
Q-Kt3; 12. B X Kt, P X B; 1 3 .
B x P, ( A . R. B . Thomas-E. G .
Sergeant, Felixstowe, 1 949), does
As
not seem to confirm this.
this line hai been iO little played,
a definite judgment on it cannot be

given. Many players (e.g. Ragosin
in this game) avoid the variation,
since their attacking chances are
somewhat ephemeral, whilst White's
end-game prospects are excellent.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Castles
Kt X P
Kt-B3
P-B4
B-K2
P-Q4
BxP
Castles
Kt-QKt3
B-R4
B-KKt5
l l . B-QKt3
P-B3
12. Kt-B3
P-QR4
13. Q-Q2
By this move Black weakens his
Pawn position; but he has very
little choice, since White's Pawn
centre restricts his mobility.
14. P-QR3
P-R5
188
1 5 . B-R2
QKt-Q2
1 6 . QR-K1
KR-K1
17. Kt-KKt5
B-R4
18. K-R1
B-Kt3
19. Kt-B3
Kt-R4
20. B-K3
Q-B2
Q-R4
21. Q-Ql
22. B-Q2
Q-R2
P-Kt3
23. P-B5!
If 23. . . . . P-Kt4; to keep the
QRP defended 24. P x P e.p.
BXB
24. B-Kt5
25. Kt x B
Kt(4)-B3
This Pawn sacrifice is probably
Black's best chance.
RxR
26. R x R eh.
QxQ
27. Q x P
PxP
28. Kt x Q
R-K7
29. P x P
30. B-B4
R-QB7
31 . B-Kt3
R-K7
32. Kt-KB3
Kt-K5
33. B-Ql
R-K6
If 33. . . . . Kt-B7 eh.;
K-Ktl, Kt X B; 35. R X Kt.
34.
35.
36.
37.
K-Ktl
Kt x Kt
R-Kl
Kt x R
341.
Kt(lS) x P
Kt x Kt
R x R eh.
his game is sti1l difficult, since

"Vhite's passed Pawn is very strong
and Black has to lose too much
time in creating one.
37. . . . . . .
K-Bl
If 37. . . . . Kt-Q6; 38. Kt X Kt,
B x Kt; 39. K-B2, K-B l ; 40.
K-K3, and the White King comes
into powerful action.
38. K-B2
K-K2
K-Q3
39. K-K3
40. P-QKt4
Kt-R3
41. B-K2
Kt-B2
Kt-Q4 eh.
42. Kt-B3
Kt-B5
43. K-Q4
44. B-Bl
P-B3
45. Kt-Q2
Kt-K3 eh.
46. K-B3
Kt-B2
47. Kt-B4 eh.
K-K2
48. Kt-Kt6
Kt-Kt4 eh.
49. K-Kt2
B-B4
50. P-QR4
Kt-R2
5 1 . K-B3
P-R4
52. K-Q4
K-Q3
53. Kt-B4 eh.
K-B2
54. K-B5
B-Q2
55. Kt-Q6
P-R5
5ft. B-K2
P-B4
57. P-Kt3
PXP
58. P X P
Kt-Bl
59. Kt x Kt
B x Kt
60. B-B3
B-Kt2
On 60. . . . . B-Q2; 61. P-R5,
P-Kt4; 62. P-R6, B-B l ; 63.
P-Kt5, P x P; 64. P-R7, and
wins.
P-R5
P-Kt4
62. B-Kt2
P-B5
63. P x P
PxP
64. B-B3
B-R3
65. B x P
B-K7
66. P-Kt5
P-B6
67. P-R6
Resigns.
If 67 . . . . . P-B7; 68. P-Kt6 ch. ,
K-QI ; 69. P-R7, P-B8(Q); 70.
P-R8(Q) eh. , K-K2; 71 . Q-K8
eh. , followed by Q-B8 eh., Q x Q
and P-Kt7.
61.
Black has regained the Pawn, but
These two games represent the modern style in the King's Gambit
Accepted. They do not answer the question whether this variation has
THE KING'S GAMBIT DECLINED
189
any future, since Black has eschewed the main problem of the opening
(see note to Black's 5th move). It is therefore unlikely to be revived
in tournament play until masters are found who, like Steinitz, are willing
to embark on hazardous variations or to cope with complicated defensive
lines in the manner of Louis Paulsen.
XVI
THE KING'S GAMBIT D ECLINED
THE King's Gambit Declined is as old as the King's Gambit Accepted,
but it never achieved the popularity of the latter and was considered
inferior. As the acceptance of the King's Gambit led to complicated
variations which grew in numbers, declining the proffered Pawn seemed
to offer the simplest solution. Although the possibilities have not been
exhausted, it is generally recognized that the defence is far from being
simple.
MORPHY'S CONTINUATION
Morphy regularly adopted the following line, in which White aims at

neutralising the strong Black Bishop on QB4, and later initiating an
attack on the KB file.
In order to block the King's Bishop it was considered necessary for
White to play P-Q4, which created 'hanging Pawns.' Whether these
Pawns are strong or weak is the thematic question of the resulting struggle.
1 01
White
Black
P. Morphy
S. Boden
London, 1 858
P-K4
I. P-K4
B-B4
2. P-KB4
3. Kt-KB3
P-Q3
4. P-B3
This is one of the oldest continua
tions, in which White attempts to
establish a Pawn centre. To-day
this line is considered the only one
that maintains the initiative for
'Vhite.
Here 4. B-B4, Kt-KB3; 5.
Kt-B3, Kt-B3; 6. P-Q3, B
K3; 7. B-Kt5, P-QR3; 8. B x Kt
eh., P X B; 9. Q-K2, P X P; 10.
B x P, Q-Kt1 ! ; 1 1 . Kt-Q1 , Castles;
12. P-B3, R-K1; 13. B-K3,

B x B ; 14. Kt X B, Kt-Kt5; (Spiel
mann - Tarrasch, Pistyan, 1922)
leads to simplification.
B-KKt5
4
5. B-K2
Stronger is 5. Q-R4 eh. (see
next game).
. .
5. . . . . . .
Kt-QB3
6. P-Kt4
On 6. Kt x P, B x B; 7. Kt x Kt,
B x Q; 8. Kt x Q, B-B7; 9. Kt x
KtP, B-Kt3; 10. P-QKt4, B X P;
would follow with the better game
for Black.
B-Kt3
6
Kt-R4
7. P-Kt5
Lowenthal, in his 4th match game
against Morphy, played 7. . . .
.
190
QKt-K2; . The text-move is more

in the spirit of the opening.
B x Kt
8. P-Q4
P x QP
9. B x B
Q-B3
10. P x P
Kt-B5
1 1 . B-K3
12. B-B2
Q x BP
Kt-B3
13. Castles
Up to this move Boden's strategic
exposition of White's Pawn weak
nesses was masterly, and Morphy
was only able to hold the position
by a Pawn sacrifice. The text-move
is too slow and allows White to
recover.
The right continuation,
13 . . . . . Kt-K6; 14. Q-BI, (14.
Q-Q2? Q x P eh. ! 15. K x Q, Kt x
R eh.;) 14 . . . . . B x P; 15. Kt-B3,
Q-K4; 16. B X Kt, B X Kt; would
have retained Black's advantage.
P-Q4
21. B-Q2
Q-R2
22. Kt-B4
23. P-K5
QxQ
Kt-B5
24. Kt x Q
Not at once 24. . . . . Kt-K5;
25. B X Kt(K4), P X B; 26. B X Kt,
P x Kt; 27. B x B, RP x B; 28.
R-QI .
Kt-K5
25. B-QKt4
RxB
26. B x R
Black's defensive strategy was
based on this sacrifice. But now
comes the surprise!
Kt-QR4
14. Q-Q3
Castles KR
15. Kt-B3
Now 15 . . . . . Kt-Kt5; 16. KtQ5, Kt x B; R X B; is in White's
favour, who is compensated for the
loss of the Pawn by his strong
Knight on Q5.
Q-R3
16. P--Kt3
QR-KI
17. K-Kt2
K-RI
18. QR-KI
Q-Kt3
19. B-K3
20. Kt-K2
Morphy's play is characterized by
the almost perfect interco-operation
of the pieces, a factor which some
times tends to obscure the implica
tion of the individual moves. Com
paring this position with that on
the 13th move, we see that all
\Vhite's pieces are now centralised,
whereas Black's have been forced
to the flanks. The text-move is a
positional trap. It aims at driving
the Black Queen to an insignificant
post at R2, and at controlling the
Q5 square, to restrict Black's
mobility.
P-KR3
20. . . . . . .
ot 20 . . . . . Kt X P? 21. Kt-B4!
Q-B4; 22. P-Kt4!
27. Kt-B4!
More decisive than 27. B X Kt,
P X B; 28. Kt-B4, (28. R X P?,
Kt-Q7; ) K-Ktl; and Black is
threatening to win a second Pawn
for the exchange.
Kt(K5)-Q7
27. . . . . . .
Now 27 . . . . . P-QB3; 28. B x
Kt, P x B; 29. Kt-Kt6 eh. , wins
the exchange, which again shows
that the thematic idea of the King's
Gambit Declined, the open KB file,
is the deciding factor.
28. B x P!
White gives back the exchange,
which is the quickest way to win.
Morphy's end-game play recalls
Capablanca's easy, elegant styJe.

28.
Kt x R
29. B x Kt
Kt-Q7
30. B-Q5
BxP
31. P-K6!
An interesting position. Black
has retained the Pawn he won in
the opening, yet despite the reduc-
191
tion of material, there is no defence.

31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
P-Kt4
P-K7
R-K1
P x Kt
B x BP
PxP
RxP
R x R and wins.
Morphy enjoyed considerable success with this opening, though his

strategy of engaging on both flanks as well as in the centre was un
doubtedly hazardous. In those days the difference between a strong and
a weak centre had not been discovered, and Morphy relied on his tactical
ability to determine the issue.
SPIELMANN'S CONTRIBUTION
It is generally accepted that great progress has been made in our

knowledge of the principles of the game, yet it is held that the old romantic
masters were superior to us in attack. No lesser authority than Steinitz
expressed this belief. Therefore, it is interesting to see how the greatest
aggressive player of this century conducts the attack in the same opening
as the one played by Morphy in the previous game. It was noted that
White's strategy in driving back the KB with his Pawns is too committal
since they might become weak. Now we observe how a modern master
tackles the same problem in a less compromising but equally effective
manner.
102
White
Black
R. Spielmann
S. Tarrasch
Carlsbad, 1923
P-K4
I. P-K4
2. P-KB4
B-B4
P-Q3
3. Kt-KB3
B-KKt5
4. P-QB3
An interesting line is 4. . . . .
B-Kt3; 5. P-Q4, (safer is 5.
B-Q3 and B-B2) Kt-KB3; 6.
BP x P, P x P; 7. Kt x P, P-B4;
8. B-Kt5 eh., QKt-Q2; 9. B
Kt5, P-KR3; (better first 9 . . . . .
P x P;) and Black has compensation
for the sacrificed Pawn (Spielmann
Karlin, Lundt, 1939).
PxP
5. P x P
6. Q-R4 eh. !
This manreuvre introduced in
the game F. Marshall-E. Cohn,
Carlsbad, 1907, refutes Black's play
which is based on the pin of the

Knight.
6. . . . . . .
B-Q2
On 6 . . . . . Kt-B3; (6.
Q-Q2; 7. B-Kt5, P-B3; 8. Kt x
PI) 7. Kt x P, Q-R5 eh.; 8. P-Kt3,
B-B7 eh.; 9. K X B, Q-B3 eh.;
10. K-Ktl , Q x Kt; 1 1 . B-Kt2,
would follow with advantage to
White.
7. Q-B2
Kt-QB3
lf 7 . . . . . Q-K2; 8. P-Q4, P x
P; 9. P X P, B-Kt5 eh.; 10. Kt
B3, B-B3; 1 1 . B-Q3, with advan
tage to White (Euwe-Maroczy, 4th
match game, Bad Ausse, 1921).
B-Q3
8. P-QKt4
After 8 . . . . B-Kt3; 9. P-Kt5,
and Kt x P, would win a Pawn.
Black, therefore, is forced to with
draw his Bishop from the diagonal
on which his strategy is based.
.
192
Kt-B3
9. B-B4
10. P-Q3
White has now achieved his stra
tegic aim. He has control of the
open KB file and a sound centre.
26. QR x Kt
Kt-K2
10. . . . . . .
1 1 . Castles
If 1 1 . P-QR4, to deprive Black
of counter-play 11 . . . . . P-QR3;
12. B-Kt3, P-B4; would follow.
Kt-Kt3
11. . . . . . .
P-QKt4
12. B-K3
P-QR4
13. B-Kt3
PXP
14. P-QR3
15. BP x P
Castles
15. . . . . B x P?; 16. Kt-Kt5,
Castles; 17. Kt X BP, R X Kt; 18.
B X R eh., K X B; 1 9. Q-Kt3 eh.,
and Q x B winning the exchange.
P-B3
16. Kt-B3
Q-K2
17. P-R3
B-Ktl
18. Kt-K2
A rather cumbersome manreuvre,
with the idea of exchanging the
White QB. Better was 18. . . .
QR-B1 ; to be able to play . . . .
B-K3; also threatening P-B4.
.
19. K-R2
B-R2
P-R3
20. B-Kt5
QxB
21. B x Kt
Q-Q3
22. KKt-Q4!
23. Kt-B5
B x Kt
Kt--B5
24. R X B
The pressure against KB2 is
becoming embarrassing, and Black
tries to close the file, hoping to trap
the KR.
P-Kt3
25. QR-KB1
25 . . . . . Q x QP?; 26. Q x Q,
Kt x Q; 27. R x BP, R x R; 28. R x
R, is too strong.
KP x R
26. . . . . . .
26 . . . . . KtP x R; 27. R X P, fol
lowed by Kt-Kt3 would give
White an irresistible attack. The
sacrifice of the exchange, though
not difficult to conceive, is remark
able as a logical conclusion to
White's earlier strategy.
27. P-K5
Q-K2
28. R-B6
K-Kt2
Slightly better was 28. . . . . KR1; 29. Q-B3, K-R2; 30. P-Q4,
QR-Q1 ; 31. Q-B2, with the threat
of B x P, and Q x P eh.
29. P-Q4
BxP
30. B x P!
Not 30. Kt x B, Q x KP.
30. . . . . . .
B x P?
Loses at once, but after 30.
R X B; 31. Q X P eh., K-B 1 ; 32.
Kt x B, R x R; 33. P x R, Q-KB2;
34. Q X P eh., K-K1; 35. Kt X BP,
with the threat Kt-K5 is decisive.
31. Q X P eh.
32. Q x P Mate.
K-R1
Again White's pressure on the open KB file proved decisive. How,

then, can we speak of a different method of attack to-day? Have any
improvements in fact been made?
This game supplies the answer. The
difference is not in the formation of attack but in the preparation for it.
Spielmann did not commit himself in the centre. Instead, he stabilized
the Queen's wing to reduce his opponent's counter-chances in order to be
able to operate on the King's side at leisure.
193
'fhe small margin of initiative with which Spielmann was able to force
the win proves that the defence has been considerably improved since
the days of Morphy.
RETI'B CONTINUATION
This is the latest line in the King's Gambit Declined in which Black
allows White to set up a centre in the hope of breaking it up by . . . .
P-KB4. The following game is one of the best examples of this variation,
which ha& not been clarified because of its complicated character.
103
White
G. Stolts
Black
B. Spielmann
4th match game, 1982

1. P-K4
2. P-KB-4.
8. Kt-KBS
4. P-B3
P-K4
B-B4
P-Q3
P-B4
This move was recommended by
Cordel and has the advantage of
forcing White to disclose his inten
tions. The game now takes a very
complicated turn, and if White
intends to proceed energeticalJy he
must be prepared to sacrifice.
5. P x KP
QP x P
6. P-Q41
The only continuation that pro
mises to give White the initiative.
On 6. P x BP, B x P; 7. P-Q4,
P X P; 8. P X P, B-QKt3! Black has
a good game.
6. . . . . . .
P x QP
7. B-QB4!
Recommended by Reti. White
endeavours to capitalise the weak
ness of the diagonal (the theme of
the variation) in a tactical fashion.
7. . . . . . .
P x KP
This continuation, analysed by
Svenonius, is based on a very in
volved sacrifice of a Rook. The
alternative, no less complicated, is
given by Reti in the Liirobok i
Schack: 7 . . . . . Kt-QB3; 8. P
QKt4, B-Kt3; 9. Q-Kt3, Kt-R3;
(9 . . . . . Kt-B3; 10. P-Kt5, Kt-
K2; 1 1 . Kt-K5,) 10. Castles,

P X KP; 1 1 . Kt X QP!, Q-K2; 12.
B X Kt, P X B; 13. B-B7 eh., K
Q1 ; 14. K-R1, with the attack.
This variation is very complex, but
to solid responses like 7. . . . .
Kt-KB3; 8. P-K5, Kt-K5; 9.
P X P, B-Kt3; (9 . . . . . B-Kt5 eh.,
10. K-K2;) 10. Kt-B3, Kt-QB3;
1 1 . B-K3, Kt-K2; 1 2. Q-Kt3,
P-B3; 13. B-B7 eh., K-B l ; 14.
Kt X Kt, P X Kt; 15. Castles KR,
P x Kt; 16. R X P, White gains the
upper hand (Reti-Loman, Scheven
ingen, 1919).
Kt-KB3
8. Kt-K5
9. Kt-B7
Q-K2
P-Q6
1 0. Kt x R
Apparently Spielmann set great
hopes on this move which was
recommended by Olland. He pos
sibly considered it an improvement
on Svenonius's line 10. . . . . Kt
B3; after which 1 1 . B-KKt5!
Kt-K4; 1 2. B. X Kt, P X B; 13.
Q-R5 eh., K-Q2; 14. P x P, and
White appears to retain the advan
tage (Tartakower).
B-B7 eh.
1 1 . B-KKt5
Q-B4 eh.
12. K x B
13. B-K3!
White naturally wants to retain
the Bishop which blockades Black's
central Pawns.
1 3.
QxB
14. P-KR3
B-K3
15. Kt-Q2
Q-Q4
After the smoke of the mock
battle (most of which was analysis)
has cleared away, we see the
194

18. P-Kt5
B-Kt5
19. Q-KB1 !
A fine defensive move. I t appears
illogical, as it allows the Bishop to
escape with attack on the Queen,
but 19. Q-KKtl, Q-B4 eh. ; 20.
K-K1 , Kt-Kt5; 21. P x B, Kt
B7 eh. ; 22. K-Q1, Kt x P; is in
Black's favour.
B-K7
1 9. . . . . . .
20. Q-Kt2
Q-B4 eh.
Kt-Q2
21 . K-Ktl
If 21 . . . . . B-B6; 22. R-KB 1 !
Position after 15 . . . . . Q-Q4

situation clarified. Materially, the
position is about even. Black will
have two Pawns for the exchange,
since the Kt on R8 cannot escape.
With the following move Stoltz
shows that he is not bound by old
fashioned principles concerning the
movement of Pawns in front of the
King.
22. Q x P eh.
QxQ
K-K2
23. Kt x Q
24. Kt-Kt3
R X Kt
The Knight is captured at last,
but in the meantime Black has lost
one of his central Pawns: the game
is now decided by White's material
advantage.
16. P-KKt4!
Kt-B3
17. P-B4
Driving off the Queen.
17 . . . . . . .
Q-Q2
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
Kt x B
R-R2!
RxP
R-Ql
B-B4
K-B1
R-Q5
B-Kt3
P-Kt4
P x Kt
K-B2
R-K1
KKt-K4
R-K3
K-Kt3
K-B4
R-K2
Resigns.
A struggle of theoretical importance. The first part of the game is

given an old-fashioned touch by the Rook-sacrifice and by the consequent
disparity of forces, but all this is 'analysis,' for modern theory often
prescribes complications. An opening of this nature is suited only to
a particular style which Stoltz possesses, as evidenced by his 16th move
P -KKt4).
XVII
THE KING'S GAMBIT D ECLINED
(coNTn .)
THE FALKBEER COUNTER GAMBIT
THIS is an opening of which the opinion of the experts has been constantly
changing during the last hundred years. Attacking players, like Morphy
and Pillsbury, have successfully adopted it; but real gambit players, such
as Tcbigorin, and later Reti and Keres, considered that Black could ill
afford to sacrifice a Pawn on the 3rd move for the liake of temporary
195
initiative. The latest theory in this variation is that, if White tries to

keep the sacrificed Pawn, he will have to face difficulties, but by giving
it back he may retain a slight advantage.
MoRPHY's CoNTINUATION
An early example of the Falkbeer, embracing the basic ideas of the

counter-gambit.
White
J. W. Schulten
104
Black
P. Morphy
New York, 1 857

1. P-K4
P-K4
P-Q4
2. P-KB4
3. P x QP
P-K5
4. Kt-QB3
Kt-KB3
5. P-Q3
B-QKt5
This move remained unchallenged
until recent years.
Claparede
suggested 5 . . . . . B-KB4; with
the continuation 6. Q-K2, Q-K2;
7. P x P, Kt x KP; 8. Kt x Kt,
Q x Kt; 9. Q x Q, B x Q; 10. P-B4,
B-QB4; 1 1 . B-Q2, P-QB3; and
the better game for Black.
1 1 . P-B4
On 1 1 . P-KR3, Q x P; 12. P x B,
Q x KtP; would follow.
P-B3
11. . . . . . .
12. P x P
If 12. P-KR3, B X B; 13. Kt X B,
Q-K2; would prevent White
castling.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
K-B1
Kt x R
Q-Ktl
K-B2
K-Ktl
Kt x P
RxB
Kt-Q5
B x Kt eh.
Kt-Kt5 eh.
6. B-Q2
P-K61
Theory still considers this move
the best, emphasising Morphy's in
sight into the position. The struggle
is concentrated on White's K4
square; but as Black can no longer
maintain his hold, he seeks counter
chances by opening the King's file.
7. B X P
Castles
Again the best. Many would have
been tempted to win the Pawn back
with 7. . . . . Kt X P; 8. B-Q2,
B X Kt; 9. P x B, Castles; (9. . . . .
Q-B3; 10. Kt-K2, B-Kt5; 1 1 .
P-KR3,) 1 0 . Q-B3! with a ten
able position for White.
8. B-Q2
9. P x B
10. B-K2
B x Kt
R-K1 eh.
B-Kt5
17.
Kt-B6 eh.!
18. P X Kt
Q-Q5 eh.
1 9. K-Kt2
Q-B7 eh.
20. K-R3
Q X BP eh.
21. K-R4
Kt-R3
and Black forces Mate with Kt-B4
eh. and Q-R4.
This game has become a classic. It is one of the few early examples
in which no improvement, either of opening theory or execution of attack,
has been advanced.
14
CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BO'l'WINNIK
196
WHITE ADOPTS A SAFER LINE
The little known game that follows deals with one of the most important
lines against the Falkbeer Counter Gambit. It was played late by
Tchigorin, who adopted it after he had made many unsuccessful attempts
to refute the Falkbeer. It was declared by Marco and contemporary
theoreticians the best available to the first player.
105
White
Black
J. W. Schulten
P. Morphy
New York, 1 857

P-K4
I. P-K4
2. P-KB4
P-Q4
P-K5
3. P x QP
4. Kt-QB3
Kt-KB3
5. B-B4
Schulten gained experience from
his previous defeat, and now adopts
a line which is considered by ex
perts like Tchigorin, Marco, and
Tartakower the best for White.
Kt x KP
7. P x KP
Morphy might have expected
White to play here 8. Kt-K2, when
8. . . . . B-Kt5; with an attack
could follow; however, he meets
with a surprise.
8. B-Q2!
Very fine! Now 8 . . . . . Q-R5
eh. ; 9. P-Kt3, Kt x P; 10. P X Kt!
Q x R; 1 1 . Q-K2 eh. , followed by
Castles QR, and White would
obtain a decisive attack.
8
9. B x B
10. Q-R5
1 1 . Castles I !
B x Kt
Castles
R-Kl
P-B3!
5. . . . . . .
But Morphy is no less alert!
This move is certainly better than
5. . . . . B-QB4; 6. KKt-K2,
Castles; 7. P-Q4, P x P e.p.; 8.
Q X P, R-Kl; 9. P-KR3, Kt-R4;
10. Q-B3, Q-R5 eh.; 1 1 . K-QI ,
(Tchigorin-Marshall, Carlsbad, 1907)
when White can safely keep the
Pawn.
6. P-Q3
Whether the text-move is superior
to 6. P-Q6, B x P; 7. P-Q3, with
an about equal game, is doubtful.
6. P x P, Kt x P; 7. KKt-K2,
B-QB4; 8. Kt-Kt3, Q-Q5; 9.
Q-K2, B-KKt5; 10. Q-B l , Kt
Kt5; (Heyersmans-Blackburne) is
favourable to Black.
6. . . . . . .
B-QKt5
Morphy continues in his aggres
sive style, but the simplifying 6.
. . . . BP x P; 7. B-Kt5 eh., B-Q2;
8. P x P, P x P; 9. B-K3, was
preferable.
Schulten continues in brilliant

style. 1 1 . . . . . Kt-B7; is met by
12. Kt-R3! , B-Kt5; (12. . . . .
Kt x QR; 13. Kt-Kt5, ) 13. Q x BP
eh., K X Q; 14. P X P eh., K-Kt3;
15. R x Q, R x R; 1 6. P x P, Kt-B3;
( 1 6 . . . . . Kt x R; 17. B-Q3 eh. )
17. P x R(Q), R x Q; 18. Kt x Kt,
wins. A fascinating variation given
by Maroczy.
11. . . . . .
'- Kt x B

12. P X Kt
Q-R4
13. K-Kt2
P-KKt3
14. Q-R6
B-Kt5
15. Kt-B3
B x Kt
For 16. Kt-Kt5 was threatened.
P-QKt4
16. P x B
17. P-B5
P x B?
An oversight foreign to Morphy.
Though White has in any case the
better game, with 17 . . . . . Kt-Q2;
18. B-Q3! , P-Kt5; (18. . . . .
Kt-B4; 19. P-B6!) 19. P x KKtP,
197
Q-R6 eh.; 20. K-Ktl, KBP x P;

21. B x P, R-K2; 22. KR-Ktl ,
Black could have put u p some
resistance.
Indeed, according to
contemporary records, both players
claimed to have the better game.
Morphy, however, demonstrated
over the board his advantage,
though this might be attributed to
his superior play rather than to the
actual position.
18. P-B6
Resigns.
Schulten proves himse)f worthy of his great opponent, and the game
is a very valuable contribution to opening knowledge.
TARRASCH'S
CONTRIBUTION
Tarrasch's contribution to the Falkbeer Counter Gambit is very im

portant. At a time when analysis rejected this continuation, Tarrasch
obstinately kept his faith in it. He had the satisfaction of proving his
case, to the confusion of the theorist, in the following game against
Spielmann.
106
White
Black
R. Spielmann
S. Tarrasch
Marisch Ostrau, 1923

I. P-K4
P-K4
2. P-KB4
P-Q4
3. P x QP
P-K5
4. P-Q3
Kt-KB3
5. P x P
At this point the experts differ.
Reti recommended 5. Q-K2, but
Keres thinks 5 . . . . . B-KKt5;
would give Black a strong attack.
5. . . . . . .
Kt x KP
6. Kt-KB3
Alapin's continuation, the idea of
which is not only to meet Black's
threat . . . . Q-R5 eh. but to pre
pare an attack against the Kt at
K4 with Q-K2 and KKt-Q2.
6.
7. Q-K2
B-QB4
B-B4!
An innovation by Tarrasch, which

injects the variation, hitherto con
sidered bad, with new life. Consider
7. . . . . B-B7 eh.; 8. K-Q1,
Q X P eh .; 9. KKt-Q2! P-KB4;
10. Kt-B3, Q-Q5; l l . Kt x Kt,
P X Kt; 12. P-B3, Q-K6; 13.
Q-R5 eh. ! K-B1; 14. B-B4!
Q X KBP; 15. Q-Q5 ! B-Kt5 eh.;
16. K-B2, K-K1 ; 17. Kt x P,
Q-B4; 18. R-B 1 , P-B3; 19.
Q-Q3, Resigns ( Reti - Breyer,
Budapest, 1917).
8. P-KKt4?
Recommended by no lesser autho
rity than the Bilguer Handbuch des
Schachspiels, this move is neverthe
less a mistake, as Black demon
strates. The right continuation is
8. Kt-B3, Q-K2; 9. B-K3!
B X B; (9 . . . . . Kt X Kt; 10. B X B!
Kt x Q; ll. B x Q, Kt x P; 12. B
R3, ) 10. Q x B, Kt x Kt; l l . Q x Q
eh., K x Q; 12. P x Kt, B x P; 13.
K-Q2, B-R5! (13 . . . . . B-Kt3?
14. R-K1 eh . , K-Ql; 15. Kt-Q4,
P-QB4; 16. Kt-Kt5, Kt-Q2; 17.
198
P-Kt4, P-B3;
18. B-Kt2,
Wheatcroft-Keres, Mar!!.ate, 1 938,
and White stands better) . 14. R
QKtl ! P-QKt3; 15. Kt-Q4, fol
lowed by 1 6. B-Kt5, with advan
tage to White.
8. . . . . . .
Castles!
A surprise!
Spielmann's blind
adherence to the book is soon
punished.
9. P x B
R-K1
10. B-Kt2
After the game it was thought
that 10. Q-Kt2, would have
afforded better drawing chances,
but 10 . . . . . Q x P; 1 1 . B-K2,
Kt-QB3; would still have given
Black an overwhelming attack.
10.
11. Kt-K5
12. B x Kt
Kt-B7
Kt x R
(13 . . . . . P x P; 14. B-Q5 eh. ,

K-B1; 15. Q-R5,} 14. Q-B4 eh. ,
and Q x B.
13. Kt-QB3
P-KB3
14. Kt-K4
If here 14. B--Q2, P x Kt; is too
strong.
14.
P x Kt
15. Kt x B
Kt x Kt
1 6. P x P
Q-R5 eh.
1 7. K-B1
If 17. K-Q1, Q-Q5 eh.
R-KB1
17. . . . . . .
It looks as if White has recovered,
but the insecurity of his King leaves
him with a difficult defence. Spiel
mann's analysis shows that he must
lose one of the advanced Pawns,
since after 18. Q-B3, Q-B5 eh.;
19. K-Ktl , Q x BP; with the threat
of . . . . R x P; would follow, and
on 18. P-B6, QR-K1 ; 19. P-K6,
R X P eh.; 20. K-Ktl, Q-Q5 eh.;
21. B-K3, R-Kt3 eh.
Q-Q5 eh.
18. K-Ktl
19. B-K3
Q x KP
20. QR-K1
Kt-Q2
Not 20 . . . . . QR-K1; 21. Q-B4.
K-R1
21. Q-B4
QR-K1
22. B-K4
23. B-Q4
Q-B5
24. R-K2
Kt-BS
24 . . . . . R X B?; 25. R X R, Q X R;
26. B x P eh.
12. . . . . . .
Kt-Q2!
A well-considered move. If 12.
. . . . P-KB3; 1 3. P-Q6, P X Kt;
25. B x Kt
PxB
26. P-KR3
R-Ktl eh.
Resigns. For 27. B-Kt2 loses the
Queen.
This is the historic encounter which encouraged Spielmann to write his

famous article, 'From the sickbed of the King's Gambit.' Tartakower
suggested that, judging by the content and the conclusions, the title is
a gross misnomer.
KERES' CONTINUATION
Keres' contribution to the Falkbeer is important from White's view

point. The young Estonian evolved a system based on the idea that
199
White can avoid the Morphy continuation (pinning the QKt by

B--Kt5) by playing Kt-Q2 instead of Kt-QB3. This line is more
concrete than Alapin's (adopted in the previous game) in which White
plays KKt-B3, and KKt-Q2, a manceuvre which may allow Black to
turn the tables.
A good illustration of this idea, in which, however, there is room for
improvement in "\Vhite's strategy, is afforded by the following game.
Whether or not this line is superior to its predecessors time alone will tell.
White
V. Castaldi
107
Black
P. Trifunovic
Hilversum, 1947
P-K4
I. P-K4
P-Q4
2. P-KB4
3. KP x P
If 3. Kt-KB3, QP x P; 4. Kt x P,
Kt-Q2; 5. P-Q4! P X P e.p . ; 6.
Kt x QP, KKt-B3; White lacks
harmonious development.
P-K5
3. . . . . . .
4. P-Q3
Kt-KB3
5. Kt-Q2
Keres' move, which strikes at
the K4 square at once without
interference by . . . . B-QKt5. Now
on the natural 5. . . . . Q x P; 6.
P x P, Kt x P; 7. B-B4, Q-QB4;
8. Q-K2, P-B4; 9. Kt x Kt, leads
to advantage for White.
5. . . . . . .
PxP
6. B x P
Kt x P
7. Kt-K4
This move endangers White. 7.
Q-K2 eh., would have been better,
although after 7 . . . . . B-K2; 8.
Kt-K4, Castles; White's advan
tage would be very slight.
Black with two strong Bishops

would have had a definite advantage.
10. . . . . . .
B-KB4
1 1 . Kt-Kt5
K-K1
12. K-Q1
There is nothing better. On 12.
P-B3, B-B7l; 13. P-QKt3, Kt
Q4; 14. P-B4, Kt-B2; the threat
. . . . P-QKt4 is decisive.
12 . . . . . . .
P-B3
13. QKt-B3
QKt-R3!
14. P-QR3
-Black was threatening 14. . . . .
Kt-B4.
14 .
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
......
B-Q2
K-K2
B-Kt3
P x Kt
P-Kt3
R-QB1
K-B2
K-Kt2
P-R3
R-Q1 eh.
Kt-Q4
Kt-B4
Kt x B
B-Q3
K-B2
B-B2
B-Kt3 eh.
KR-Kl
Kt--K6 eh.
Kt-Kt5!
7. . . . . . .
P-QB3!
8. B-Kt5 eh.
A disagreeable surprise for Cas
taldi who might have expected the
'theoretically correct' 8. . . . . B
Q2; 9. B X B eh. , Kt X B; which
would still only have given equality
for White.
KxQ
9. Q x Q eh.
10. B-R4
If 10. B-Q3, Kt x B eh. ; and
If 24. B x Kt, R x B; 25. P-
200
QKt4, B-K5; with the threat . . . .

R-Q7 eh. would be decisive.
24. K-R2
25. P-QKt4
26. B-B3
R-Q6
KR-Ql
Kt-Q8
27. P-Kt4
B-K5
28. Kt-Kl
R-Q7 eh.
Resigns.
For 29. B x R, R x B eh.; 30.
K-Kt3, B-B7 eh.; 3 1 . K-R2,
B X Kt(K8) dis. eh. wins.
CONCLUSIONS
The games in this part, dealing with the King's Gambit of the last
century and the 'modern' King's Gambit, give us a clear picture of how
the older generation conducted this romantic opening, and how it is handled
to-day.
We have not investigated the Muzio and Salvio Gambits and other lines
which may be classed as mainly tactical variations. They do not occur
in modern tournament games, and as they cannot be forced, it is not
considered a practical proposition to spend time studying them. They
are the products of a past age in which players were willing both to adopt
and defend them.
Is the King's Gambit an opening of the past or of the future? This
is a vexed question, but the few games played nowadays indicate that it
probably belongs to the future, for the problems arising are chiefly Black's
problems, a fact which has influenced young players like Keres and
Bronstein to support Tartakower in his contention that the Gambit is
correct, since it permits White to retain the initiative.
SUMMING UP
ON playing over these games, we realize that our ideas have developed
considerably with the passage of time; in other words, there has been an
evolution in the technique of chess. Steinitz recognized this as far back
as 1 886, when he defended himself and his contemporaries against their
critics, who compared the games of the world championship match between
himself and Zukertort unfavourably with those of Morphy, saying the
former were lacking in brilliancy, full of blunders and inferior in every
way. Steinitz replied by showing not only the blunders, but the strate
gical errors Morphy had made. While paying tribute to Morphy's genius,
he emphasized the progress which had been made by stating that 'Morphy
of 1886, if he had been alive, would undoubtedly have beaten the Morphy
of 1859.'
In what way is this progress apparent? Here again we may hear
Steinitz answering the critics. 'When it is so freely asserted that Morphy's
style was all genius and inspiration throughout, while the play of modern
masters is all book and study, I would take leave to answer frankly that
just the very reverse can be proved in the only part of the game in which
knowledge and study can be of much use, and in which a test of the
assertion can be applied, namely, in the openings. For Morphy possessed
the most profound book knowledge of any master of his time, and he
never in his practice introduced a single novelty, whereas since his day
the books have had to study the players.'
But did this progress in the 25 years between Morphy and Steinitz
apply only to the openings? Once more Steinitz gives us the answer
'We may all learn from Morphy and Anderssen how to conduct a King's
side attack and perhaps I myself may not have learnt enough. But if
you want to learn how to avoid such an attack, how to keep the balance
of the position on the whole board and how to expose the King and invite
a complicated attack which cannot be sustained in the long run, you must
go to the modern school for information.' The years between the death
of Steinitz and the first World War-the so-called 'golden age' of chess
saw a great deal of detailed work based on the principles laid down by
Steinitz. Progress was slow, since chess had become ridden with dogma.
When new players such as Rubinstein, Nimzovitch, Capablanca and
Alekhine appeared, whose inventive ideas promised to give new life to
the game, the first World War intervened. After the war there emerged
the so-called Hypermodern School. At first its opening methods-the
fianchetto and keeping back the centre Pawns-met with success against
the older generation of masters, but when it came to the real test in the
New York Tournament of 1924, to quote contemporary critics, 'They
came, they saw, and they lost.' Capablanca writes in his Primer o.f Chess,
'A great deal has been written in the
past few years about the Hypermodern
School. In the openings, he tactics o f some ? the so-called hyper

.
modermsts are somewhat different from the tactics formerly used. The
statgic principles, however, are the same.
Fundamental strategic
.
prmCiples never change, though their mode of application may not always
be the same.'
201
202
We now know that the Hypermodern School was really victorious,

although this was not apparent until many years later. By their un
biased approach to the openings and exhaustive analysis they opened quite
unexpected new possibilities where the dogmatism of their predecessors
had feared to penetrate, and gave the game a new dynamic chara<'ter.
Lasker, after his match with Capablanca, predicted that Capablanca's
detailed analysis of the openings would lead to the death of chess by
draws. Capablanca expressed similar views after his defeat by Alekhine .
Alekhine, however, took the opposite view, saying that imperfection
of technique was the cause of the great number of draws. As to the
over-analysis of the openings, he considered. that we knew very little about
them. The ever-growing chess literature will prove that he was right.
.
Lasker soon found that certain opening problems could not be solved
by applying common sense and general chess principles alone, and even
Capablanca's wonderful intuition failed to regain lost ground against
players of the younger generation who outplayed him in the openings.
After all, chess is not only logic.
Botwinnik, the present world champion, has been reproached for having
a very limited range of openings, and for playing on the same lines all
the time. This goes to prove that the modern age is the age of the special
ist, and that specialisation is the only way to attain perfection.
But has the progress of time enriched opening technique alone? Far
from that. If we use an academical and artificial classification of the
game--opening, middle game and end game-the extensive analysis of
the opening has made some changes : namely, that phase which formerly
was thought to belong to the middle game has become part of the opening.
In addition to the study of certain systems, creating weaknesses on the
black or white squares, Nimzovitch's doctrine of overprotection is certainly
an addition to the previous theory of the middle game.
As to the end game, we will omit this, since Alekhine said, 'We cannot
define when the middle game ends and the end game starts.' The study
of purely technical end games certainly increases our knowledge of them.
To conclude we repeat Steinitz' famous words: 'The progress of age can
no more be disputed than Morphy's extraordinary genius.'
BELL
BELL
CHE S S B O O KS
'THE MOST BEAUTIFULLY PRODUCED
CHESS BOOKS OF MODERN TIMES'
says the magazine ' CHESS'
MY BEST GAME S OF CHE S S , 1 908- 1 923

By Dr A. Alekhine, the late World Champion. The selection includes
one hundred of his best games of the period. Field : '\:Vithout doubt
one of the finest chess books ever written. . . . Perusal of the contents
of the book has made us greedy for more.'
1 0s. 6d. net.
MY BEST GAMES OF CHE S S , 1 924- 1 937

By D r A. Alekhine, the late World Champion. Covers his brilliant rise
to world mastery, the anti-climax of his dramatic defeat in 1 935 and his
ascent to greater heights than ever two years later. This book has already
1 2s. 6d. net.
taken its place among the greatest chess books.
ALEKH INE 'S BEST GAMES OF CHE S S , 1 938- 1 945

By C. H. O ' D . Alexander with an Appreciation of Alekhine as a chess
player. Manchester Guardian : ' . . . will be welcomed by the fortunate
possessors of the first two volumes. Mr C. H. O'D. Alexander has done
his work admirably. . . . '
9s. net.
CHE S S FUNDAMENTAL S .
By J. R. Capablanca. Sunday Times : 'Beyond question this book is a
valuable addition to chess literature. A book that will live and be sought
for by chess students throughout the world for many years to come.'
1 0s. net.
THE NEXT MOVE I S . . .

By E. G. R. Cordingley. A book of studies in chess combinations. Field :
'A very fine selection. . . . This book can be recommended as one
certain to provide many hours of instruction and entertainment.'
3s. 6d. net.
JUD GMENT AND P LANN ING IN CHE S S

B y D r M . Euwe, former Chess Champion o f the World, translated from
the Dutch and edited by J. du Mont. The basis of this book is an entirely
new idea. The author studies a number of orthodox openings from the
point where the opening stage has come to an end, describes the charac
teristics of the position reached, shows why one side stands better and
gives a thoroughly practical demonstration of the means by which the
game can be brought to its logical conclusion.
In preparation.
IDEA S BEHIND THE CHE S S OPENINGS

B y Reuben Fine. The Times (Weekly Edition) : 'One o f the most impor
tant additions to chess literature . . . a most valuable book . . . even
strong players will study this book with profit.'
1 0s. 6d. net.
FIFTY GREAT GAMES OF MODERN C HE S S

By H. Golombek. Here is a careful selection o f the best games o f the
present century, played by such masters as Alekhine, Lasker, Keres,
Capablanca, Nimzowitsch, Euwe, Rubinstein, Flohr, Spielmann, Bot
vinnik, etc. Observer : 'An attractive book of famous games . . . . Mr
Golombek makes them all interesting and exciting. '
3s. 6d. net.
CAPABLAN CA 'S
CHESS
HUNDRED
BEST
GAMES
OF
B y H . Golombek. Capablanca's matches against Marshall, Janowsky,

Lasker, Alekhine, Euwe, and other tournaments too numerous to cata
logue here, have produced a glorious colJection of games very fully
annotated by Mr Golombek.
1 5s . net.
WORLD CHE S S C HAMP I O N SHIP, 1 948

By H. Golombek. Field : '. . . will eventually find its way to the shelves
of every lover of chess . . . almost all the games are of outstanding
value and interest . . . Mr Golombek . . . has annotated these with
great accuracy and care, and the author's literary ability is here shown
on a par with his technical skill.'
1 2s. 6d. net.
CHESS
B y R . F . Green. The most famous o f all chess books for beginners ; in
its original form it was printed no less than eighteen times, and this
new edition has been completely revised and brought up to date by
Mr J. du Mont.
Ss. net.
A PO CKET GUIDE TO THE CHE S S OPEN I N G S

B y R . C . Griffith and H . Golombek. Chess : ' . . . will b e welcomed by
all students of the game. Nothing in current chess literature is likely
to prove itself quite so indispensable as this sturdy little vade mecum . . . .
'
6s. net.
CHE S S FOR THE FUN OF IT

By Brian Harley. Observer : 'Mr Brian Harley has performed a public
service in writing Chess for the Fun of It. It fulfils a long-felt want. . . .
The author of this work has endeavoured, and with marked success, to
shatter the fallacy that chess is a difficult game to learn.'
6s. net.
MATE IN TWO MOVES

By Brian Harley. Glasgow Herald : 'This is a book that solvers and lovers
of problems . . . will find invaluable. . . . should make an enthusiast
6s. net.
of every reader.'
MODERN C HE S S STRATEGY
By Edward Lasker. A new book, successor to Lasker's famous Chess
Strategy of which many impressions were sold before the war.
1 7s. 6d. net.
IN STRU CTIVE
CHE S S
P O S ITIONS
FRO M
MASTER
B y J. Mieses. Times Literary Supplement : 'An excellent little collection. '

Star : 'A notable addition to lighter chess literature.'
3s. net.
MANUAL OF THE END - GAME
.
By J. M ieses. The end-game in chess clinches the victory. The beginner
very soon finds that lack of knowledge of it will lose him many a victory.
Here is just the guide he needs.
4s. 6d. net.
KERE S ' BEST GAME S OF C HE S S , 1 93 1 - 1 948

By Fred Reinfeld. Tablet : 'A delightful surprise in these days of pub
lishers' difficulties . . . well worthy of its place amidst the splendid
collections of chess books issued by the House of Bell. What higher
praise is possible ?'
1 2s. 6d. net.
BRIT I SH CHE S S MASTERS

By Fred Reinfeld. An anthology of about fifty great games by British
masters from 1 821 - 1 946, with full annotations. Mr Reinfeld is eminent
as a player as well as an author, and is recognized as one of the very
best annotators of the games of the great masters.
Ss. net.
MY SYSTEl\1
By Aron Nimzowitsch. One of the most important expositions of modern
ideas in chess. British Chess Magazine : '. . . a desideratum for all chess
players, for he delves into practically all the difficulties that are likely to
beset a player. We have been frequently asked what book to recommend
to a student who wishes to become proficient in the game, and we can
imagine no book more suited for such a recommendation than this.'
1 5s. net.
MODERN I DEAS IN CHE S S

B y Richard Reti. ' A reissue o f this, the most important contribution
to the literature of chess since Tarrasch's 300 Games of Chess, has long
been wanted . . . . Reti's faculty of fixing the reader's interest is un
1 0s . net.
surpassed.' From Mr Golombek's Foreword.
500 MASTER GAME S OF CHE S S

B y D r S. Tartakower
two centuries of chess.
sive generation. They
and match games and
discrimination.
and J. d u
The games
have been
have been
Mont. A unique book which covers

are the best produced by each succes
sifted from some 8,000 tournament
annotated with the utmost care and
In preparation.
THE M I DD LE GAME IN CHE S S

B y E . Znosko-Borovsky. Observer : 'His analysis o f the mental processes
of experts in position-value, attack, defence and so on, is admirable and
justifies his claim to be a pioneer of systematizing middle-game strategy. '
1 0s. 6d. net.

*
MESSRS BELL will be very pleased to keep chess

players informed from time to time of their new
publications on chess, if they will kindly
forward their names and addresses
...
LONDON : G. BELL AND SONS, LTD

YoRK HousE, PoRTUGAL STREET, W.C.z

Morphy To Botwinnik

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Morphy To Botwinnik

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Morphy To Botwinnik

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHESS

FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

A CENTURY OF CHESS EVOLUTION

BELL & SONS, LTD

Printed in Great Britain by

As there is no Public Chess Library I should have found difficulty in

THE RUY LOPEZ

Morphy's treatment (as White)

The Cunningham Gambit (re

These are fundamentals of chess; unchanging, unchangeable.

(2 ) Studying the games from the present-day standpoint, we have

Played in London, 21st August,

This move is certainly not bad

VIHITE ATTEMPT IMMEDIATE CONQUEST OF THE CENTRE

of the accumulated knowledge of

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

Position after 31.

WHITE ATTEMPTS IMMEDIATE CONQUEST OF THE CENTRE

We may ask, 'Would Morphy be able to obtain such positions against

MORPHY'S TREATMENT (AS BLACK)

London, July, 1858

Position after 1 1 . . . . . P-B3

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

12. R-K1 , B-B1; 13. P-B4,

A fine trap, and at the same time

WHITE ATTEMPTS IMMEDIATE CONQUEST OF THE CENTRE 7

Position after 34. . . . . B-Q5!

Morphy was unsuccessful in solving the problem of the opening and

ALEKHINE'S ATTEMPT TO REVIVE THE CLASSICAL ATTACK

CHESS :FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

the two Bishops. Yet he is ready

Common Sense in Chess, considered

the variation strong for White, got

WHITE KEEPS THE CENTRE CLO SED

WHITE KEEPS THE CENTRE CLOSED

whole idea shows that, unlike his two great near-contemporaries, de la

PxBP, BxP! (not 16 . . . . . Q x P;

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

Position after 42. R-Q3!

Max Lange's conduct of this most beautiful game is impressive even

WHITE KEEPS THE CENTRE CLOSED

Second match-game, 1 894

CHESS FROM MORPHY '1' 0 BOTWINNIK

This counter-attack is premature.

Kt x Kt; 23. B-K3, making use of

Here 21. . . . . Kt-K3; gave a

THE BERLIN DEFENCE

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

tens to play 36. . . . . R(2)-R2;

Another of Lasker's characteristic

Surveying the game from a modern viewpoint we realize that Black

THE MODERN CONTINUATION-SCHLECHTER'S TREATMENT

THE BERLIN DEFENCE

would then be embarrassing, there

Though it appears to weaken

If 32 . . . . . Q-Kt5; 33. R-Q4,

CHESS FROM MORPHY TO BOTWINNIK

Position after 32.