11,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: Batsford
- Kategorie: Lebensstil
- Sprache: Englisch
'Alekhine's games and writings inspired me from an early age...I fell inlove with the rich complexity of his ideas at the chessboard... I hope readers of this book will feel similarly inspired by Alekhine's masterpieces.' From the foreword by Garry Kasparov Alexahnder Alekhine captivated the chess world with his dazzling combatitive play. His genius has been a strong influence on every great player since, none more so than Garry Kasparov. This book contains a selection of the very best of Alekhine's annotation of his own games, converted to algebraic by John Nunn. These games span his career from the early encounters with Lasker, Tarrasch and Rubenstein, through his world title battles, to his meetings with the new generation of players who were to dominate chess in the 1950s.
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Seitenzahl: 603
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011
Ähnliche
The material in this book was first published in three volumes by G. Bell and Sons:My Best Games of Chess 1908-1923 (1927)My Best Games of Chess 1924-1937 (1939)Alekhine’s Best Games of Chess 1938-45 (1949) First Batsford Edition 1989
This selection of algebraicised games © B. T. Batsford 1996 Additional material © John Nunn 1996
First eBook publication 2012 eBook ISBN: 978-1-84994-051-1
Reprinted 1997, 2002
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, by any means, without prior permission of the publisher.
A BATSFORD CHESS BOOK
Contents
1 Vygodchikov-Alekhine, Corr., Russia 1908-9
2 Alekhine-Levenfish, St. Petersburg Chess Society Winter Tournament 1912
3 Nimzowitsch-Alekhine, All-Russian Masters, Vilna 1912
4 Alekhine-Duras, Masters’ Quadrangular, St. Petersburg 1913
5 Znosko-Borovsky-Alekhine, Masters’ Quadrangular, St. Petersburg 1913
6 De Roszynski-Alekhine, Paris 1913
7 Mieses-Alekhine, Scheveningen 1913
8 Alekhine-Nimzowitsch, All-Russian Masters, St. Petersburg 1914
9 Alekhine-Marshall, St. Petersburg International 1914
10 Alekhine-Tarrasch, St. Petersburg International 1914
11 Alekhine-Fahrni, Mannheim 1914
12 Alekhine-Isakov, Moscow Championship 1919
13 Rabinovich-Alekhine, All-Russian Masters’, Moscow 1920
14 Alekhine-Teichmann, Match (2) Berlin 1921
15 Selezniev-Alekhine, Triberg 1921
16 Alekhine-Bogoljubow, Triberg 1921
17 Alekhine-Sterk, Budapest 1921
18 Alekhine-Bogoljubow, Budapest 1921
19 Steiner-Alekhine, Budapest 1921
20 Alekhine-Rubinstein, The Hague 1921
21 Tarrasch-Alekhine, Pistyan 1922
22 Johner-Alekhine, Pistyan 1922
23 Alekhine-Wolf, Pistyan 1922
24 Torres-Alekhine, Exhibition Game, Seville 1922
25 Alekhine-Yates, London 1922
26 Bogoljubow-Alekhine, Hastings 1922
27 Alekhine-Réti, Vienna 1922
28 Alekhine-Sämisch, Exhibition Game, Berlin 1923
29 Grünfeld-Alekhine, Karlsbad 1923
30 Alekhine-Rubinstein, Karlsbad 1923
31 Alekhine-Maroczy, Karlsbad 1923
32 Alekhine-Chajes, Karlsbad 1923
33 Alekhine-Réti, New York 1924
34 Alekhine-Janowski, New York 1924
35 Alekhine-Opočensky, Paris 1925
36 Tarrasch-Alekhine, Baden-Baden 1925
37 Réti-Alekhine, Baden-Baden 1925
38 Alekhine-Treybal, Baden-Baden 1925
39 Sir G. Thomas-Alekhine, Baden-Baden 1925
40 Alekhine-Marshall, Baden-Baden 1925
41 Alekhine-Schwartz, Blindfold Exhibition, London 1926
42 Rubinstein-Alekhine, Semmering 1926
43 Rubinstein-Alekhine, Dresden 1926
44 Euwe-Alekhine, Second Exhibition Game, Amsterdam, 1926
45 Alekhine-Euwe, Third Exhibition Game, Amsterdam 1926
46 Alekhine-Nimzowitsch, New York 1927
47 Alekhine-Marshall, New York, 1927
48 Alekhine-Tartakower, Kecskemet 1927
49 Kmoch-Alekhine, Kecskemet 1927
50 Capablanca-Alekhine, Buenos Aires Wch (1) 1927
51 Capablanca-Alekhine, Buenos Aires Wch (11) 1927
52 Capablanca-Alekhine, Buenos Aires Wch (21) 1927
53 Alekhine-Capablanca, Buenos Aires Wch (32) 1927
54 Alekhine-Capablanca, Buenos Aires Wch (34) 1927
55 Marshall-Alekhine, Exhibition Game, New York 1929
56 Alekhine-Steiner, Bradley-Beach 1929
57 Alekhine-Bogoljubow, Wiesbaden Wch (1) 1929
58 Alekhine-Bogoljubow, Wiesbaden Wch (5) 1929
59 Bogoljubow-Alekhine, Wiesbaden Wch (8) 1929
60 Bogoljubow-Alekhine, Amsterdam Wch (22) 1929
61 Alekhine-Nimzowitsch, San Remo 1930
62 Alekhine-Maroczy, San Remo 1930
63 Alekhine-Tartakower, San Remo 1930
64 Ahues-Alekhine, San Remo 1930
65 Alekhine-Kmoch, San Remo 1930
66 Ståhlberg-Alekhine, Hamburg tt 1930
67 Alekhine-Andersen, Prague tt 1931
68 Alekhine-Nimzowitsch, Bled 1931
69 Pirc-Alekhine, Bled 1931
70 Alekhine-Flohr, Bled, 1931
71 Alekhine-Maroczy, Bled 1931
72 Alekhine-Winter, London 1932
73 Alekhine-Koltanowski, London 1932
74 Alekhine-Tartakower, London 1932
75 Alekhine-Sultan Khan, Berne 1932
76 Alekhine-Flohr, Berne 1932
77 Alekhine-Steiner, Pasadena 1932
78 Alekhine-Kimura, Blindfold Exhibition on 15 boards, Tokyo 1933
79 Alekhine-Mikenas, Folkestone tt 1933.
80 Znosko-Borovsky-Alekhine, Paris 1933
81 Alekhine-Bogoljubow, Baden-Baden Wch (2) 1934
82 Bogoljubow-Alekhine, Pforzheim Wch (9) 1934
83 Alekhine-Bogoljubow, Bayreuth Wch (16) 1934
84 Bogoljubow-Alekhine, Kissingen Wch (17) 1934
85 Bogoljubow-Alekhine, Berlin Wch (25) 1934
86 Alekhine-Em. Lasker, Zurich 1934
87 Alekhine-Euwe, Amsterdam Wch (1) 1935
88 Alekhine-Euwe, Amsterdam Wch (3) 1935
89 Euwe-Alekhine, The Hague Wch (4) 1935
90 Alekhine-Euwe, Utrecht Wch (7) 1935
91 Ahues-Alekhine, Bad Nauheim 1936
92 Alekhine-Bogoljubow, Dresden 1936
93 Alekhine-Frydman, Podebrad 1936
94 Alekhine-Foltys, Podebrad 1936
95 Winter-Alekhine, Nottingham 1936
96 Alekhine-Alexander, Nottingham 1936
97 Alekhine-Bogoljubow, Nottingham 1936
98 Alekhine-Fine, Hastings, 1937
99 Alekhine-Reshevsky, Kemeri 1937
100 Alekhine-Fine, Kemeri 1937
101 Alekhine-Bogoljubow, Quadrangular Tournament, Bad Nauheim 1937
102 Alekhine-Sämisch, Quadrangular Tournament, Bad Nauheim 1937
103 Alekhine-Euwe, Rotterdam Wch (2) 1937
104 Alekhine-Euwe, Haarlem Wch (6) 1937
105 Alekhine-Euwe, Leiden Wch (8) 1937
106 Alekhine-Euwe, Zwolle Wch (14) 1937
107 Alekhine-Euwe, Delft Wch (22) 1937
108 Alekhine-Euwe, Rotterdam Wch (24) 1937
109 Euwe-Alekhine, The Hague Wch (25) 1937
110 Alekhine-Böök, Margate 1938
111 Alekhine-Euwe, AVRO 1938
112 Alekhine-Flohr, AVRO 1938
113 Alekhine-Capablanca, AVRO 1938
114 Alekhine-Keres, Salzburg 1942
115 Keres-Alekhine, Salzburg 1942
116 Alekhine-Keres, Munich 1942
117 Alekhine-Junge, Krakow 1942
118 Alekhine-Junge, Prague 1942
Foreword by Garry Kasparov
Ask any chess fan to give a short list of his favourite games and it is sure to include games by Alekhine. Perhaps Réti-Alekhine, form Baden-Baden 1925, or Bogoljubow-Alekhine, Hastings 1922. These two games are generally reckoned to be amongst the most brilliant on record. But Alekhine’s reputation was not built solely on the wonderful quality of his games, nor, simply, on his longevity as World Champion (he held the title from 1927-1935 and again from 1937-46, when he died as World Champion, sadly destitute, in Portugal). It was also Alekhine’s outstanding diligence as an annotator of his own masterpieces which has helped to establish his place in the history of chess. No serious student of chess can afford to ignore Alekhine’s notes to his games, and the most important of these are assembled here in this volume.
Alekhine’s games and writings exerted a great influence on me form a very early age. I wished to emulate the dynamic style of the first, great, Russian-born champion, who wrested the crown from Capablanca in 1927. I fell in love with the rich complexity of his ideas at the chessboard. Alekhine’s attacks came suddenly, like destructive thunderstorms that erupted from a clear sky. Max Euwe, who briefly took the world title from Alekhine between 1935 and 1937 wrote of him:
Alekhine is a poet, who creates a work of art out of something which would hardly inspire another man to send a picture postcard. The wilder and more involved a position the more beautiful the conception he can evolve.
A similar view was expressed by Dr. Emanuel Lasker:
Alekhine loves making experiments … delighted to think that his own skill and his own imagination are the cause of all that happens on the board.
This style of Alekhine’s was what I admired and wanted to develop in my own games. I had a natural feeling for it. I hope readers of this book will feel similarly inspired by Alekhine’s masterpieces.
Garry KasparovBaku 1989
Preface by Alexander Alekhine Junior
Some 75 years ago, this book was published for the first time in Germany. Since then it has been translated into many languages. I am very pleased that it is published in English. In this book, my father has described the beginnings of his work in chess with the help of instructive matches.
Initially, when he was only eight years old, it was his four-year-old brother Alexei, whom he absolutely wanted to beat. What is surprising nowadays is the fact that they wanted to copy the great players, and thus noted their games down. I guess that the loser did not always ask for a return match, and Alexander often preferred to retreat to his room and analyse the lost game. At this youthful age he was not allowed to become a member of the Moscow Chess Circle, so in the meantime he indulged in correspondence chess. This kind of game, allowing more time for reflection, very much suited his analytic skills. At the early age of fourteen he gained the first prize in a Moscow correspondence chess tournament. The outcome of this early analytic activity is reflected in his books, which are among the classics of the art of chess.
Introduction by John Nunn
I first came across Alekhine’s collection of games when I was about 11 years old. Up to that point, I had been quite successful in junior events and I had the feeling that chess wasn’t really a very difficult game. After playing over all 220 games in the first two volumes (covering the periods 1908-23 and 1924-37), I thought “How can anyone play like this? It’s just impossible to see so much during a game”. I was particularly struck by his game against Rubinstein from Semmering, 1926 (game 42 in this book), and the move 18…xf2! in particular. It seemed incredible that there might be a stronger move than the obvious recapture on c3, but after having checked the analysis several times, I had to admit that taking on f2 was a forced win. But how did this move even enter Alekhine’s head? Today, finding this combination doesn’t seem so totally impossible as it did then, but it remains an enormously impressive game. In my opinion Alekhine’s special genius lay in his ability to discover unexpected twists in positions where a lesser player would have made an automatic, conventional move. Other examples of such twists, in addition to the 18…xf2 mentioned above, are the move 19 c7! in game 31 and the idea of 18 dxe5 and 19 f4! in game 47.
In view of my early acquaintance with Alekhine’s books, I was excited when the idea arose of producing an algebraic edition of the cream of Alekhine’s games. This gradually became a major project. Apart from the conversion to algebraic, I have corrected a surprisingly large number of notational errors in the original books, rearranged the games in chronological order, edited the text and checked the analysis. I have not commented on minor flaws in the analysis, but major errors and omissions are pointed out in footnotes (except for game 118, where the new analysis was so extensive that it had to be embedded in the text). These terse footnotes should be studied carefully, as in many cases they indicate fundamental reassessments of famous games, for example Réti-Alekhine, Baden-Baden 1925 and Alekhine-Bogoljubow, Nottingham 1936. Some readers may find it surprising that so many major analytical errors exist in Alekhine’s notes—after having worked on this book, my respect for Alekhine’s games has increased, but I have come to recognise that his annotations are influenced by the “I won the game, so I must have been winning all the way through” syndrome (which, it must be said, afflicts many annotators).
A few additional points: games 1-109 were originally annotated by Alekhine himself—the remaining games were annotated by C.H.O’D. Alexander. All footnotes are mine, except where they are marked (GB), in which case they were written by Graham Burgess. Alekhine uses the symbols ‘’ and ‘’ to mean ‘clear advantage for White’ and ‘clear advantage for Black’ respectively.
The games in this book represent the digtillation of the life work of one of the greatest chess geniuses of all time. As I discovered myself, it is possible to learn a great deal from them.
Game 1Vygodchikov – AlekhineCorr., Russia 1908-9
Ruy Lopez
This move, suggested in 1908 by the Danish master Møller, is in my opinion much better than its reputation as, up to the present, it has in no way been refuted and the few games in which it has been adopted rather tend to militate in its favour.
White could also play 6 c3 to which the best reply is 6…a7 as in a game Yates-Alekhine (Hastings 1922), which continued as follows: 7 d4 (interesting would be 7 e1 g4! 8 d4 exd4 9 cxd4 xd4! 10 xd4 h4! with a winning attack) 7…xe4 8 e2 f5 9 dxe5 0-0 10 bd2 d5 11 exd6 xd6 12 b3+ h8 13 c4 f4 14 ce5 xe5 15 xe5 g5 16 d2 h3 17 d5 ae8 18 fe1 e6! 19 d3, and now Black, who played the surprise move 19…e3!?, finally obtained only a draw, whereas he could have won a pawn simply by 19…xg2 followed by 20…xe5.
After 8 dxc5 xc5 9 d4 (9 d5 is similar) 9…e7! 10 f4 f6 (Dr. Groen-Alekhine, Portsmouth 1923) White has insufficient compensation for his pawn.
If 8 e2 (as in Takacs-Alekhine, Vienna 1922), then 8…xe4 g6 10 c4 0-0 11 c3 f5 with good attacking chances. The continuation of this interesting game was 12 f3 h4 13 d3 b5 14 b3 h8 15 f4 g6 16 d2 b7 17 fe1 bxc4 18 xc4 d5 19 b3 c5! 20 dxc5 d4 21 a4 e4 22 c4 g5 23 c1 xd2 24 xd2 h4 25 f3 xf3 26 g3, and now Black could have won at once by the sacrificial combination 26…f4 27 gxh4 xh4, for if 28 c2, then 28…d3! 29 xd3 ad8 is decisive.
It was most important to preserve this bishop. Now that Black has overcome most of the opening difficulties, he must in the sequel obtain at least an equal game.
To 12 c4 Black had the powerful reply 12…f5 13 el c5!1.
But here this advance is premature. White gains an important tempoby playing his light-squared bishop to b3 and Black loses the chance of …c5. The correct plan was 12…b5 13 b3 b7, with very good chances for Black.
Evidently the rook could not be captured because of mate in four: 14 e7+ h8 15 xg6+ hxg6 16 h3+ h4 17 xh4#.
In preparation for 15…c6. If Black plays 14…h4, then 15 h3 xd4 16 c3 c5 17 e3 c6 18 d4, with a strong attack1.
Aiming for the rook sacrifice on move 17. 15…c5 would be met by 16 c2, a move which is threatened in any event, and 15…g5 16 c5 h4 would be insufficient because of 17 g3!.
This rook sacrifice is absolutely sound, and White would have been better advised not to accept it and to play instead 18 xc8! (not 18 c2 immediately because of 18…g5!) 18…xc8 19 c2! with a slight advantage.
It is easy to understand that White was tempted to capture the rook, considering that the strong black attack which follows was not obvious.
Naturally not 19 h5 because of 19…g6 20 h6 f5 followed by 21…xd4. If 19 d3! there would have been interesting complications. The probable line of play would have been: 19…f5 20 c3 (if 20 d1, then Black replies 20…g5!) 20…f3 21 e3! (if 21 gxf3, then 21…f6 22 f4 g4) 21…fxg2 22 f3! g5! (threatening …xh2+) 23 e5 xe5! 24 xg5 xd4+ 25 xd4 xf3+ 26 xg2 xd4 27 b6 e4+ 28 g3 f3+ 29 h4 f5! and mate in a few moves.
The text move in some ways facilitates Black’s attack, as he now has a serious threat based on a queen sacrifice.
Compulsory. After the plausible reply 20 97e3 the continuation would be 20…g5! 21 g3 xg3! 22 hxg3 xg3+ 23 fxg3 f2+ 24 f1 h3+ and Black wins.
Threatening …h4-h3.
Black could also win by 22…f4! 23 xf4 h4!, but the variation adopted is equally decisive.
A desperate move, but after 23 h1 h3 White would have no defence against 24…e1!.
Stronger than 24…h3 25 c3 g8 26 e5 f4 27 g5, and Black cannot play 27…g4 because of 28 xg7+! with perpetual checks1.
Black wins after 25 h1 e1 or 25 f1 h3.
The only resource.
This manoeuvre, prepared by Black’s last few moves, is immediately decisive, for after the queen exchange White’s game remains absolutely without resource.
0-1
1 However, at the end of this line 14 dxc5 xc5 15 b4 a7 16 h5, threatening the deadly 17 g5, gives White a near-decisive advantage, since Black must also take into account the possibility of b3 followed by c5. Therefore 12 c4 should be met by 12…b5, with approximate equality.
1 In this line Black’s queen doesn’t need to be banished to the queenside; 16…h4 is a big improvement, when White must prove that he has enough compensation for the pawn.
1 In this line …h6 forces instant resignation.
Game 2Alekhine – LevenfishSt. Petersburg Chess SocietyWinter Tournament 1912
Queen’s Pawn Game
The advance of this pawn is rightly considered inferior even when prepared by 1…f6 2 f3. On the first move it constitutes, in my opinion, a grave positional error, for White at once obtains a great positional advantage by simply advancing the centre pawns.
If instead of the text move Black replies with 4…e6 White’s answer would be 5 c4, and the sequel would not be satisfactory for Black because of the weakness at d6.
Already threatening 6 e5.
If now 6…g7 then 7 e5 dxe5 8 fxe5 g4 9 e6 de5 10 b5+. This is why Black plays:
This move demolishes Black’s variation.
Or 10…g7 11 e2 xf3+ 12 gxf3 f6 13 exf7+ xf7 14 0-0-0, with an overwhelming advantage for White1.
After the text move Black probably hopes for the reply 11 xf3 upon which he would obtain a playable game by 11…fxe6!.
This is preferable to the immediate capture of the f7-pawn, a capture which the text move renders much more threatening.
The alternative was 13…xd1+ 14 xd1 g7 15 c7 0-0 16 b6 and White wins a pawn, at the same time maintaining all his pressure. 13… b6, threatening two pawns at the same time, is shown to be insufficient by an unexpected sacrificial combination.
The initial move.
At first sight there appears to be little danger in this capture, for the reply 15 d2 would be frustrated by 15…h5 16 e5 h6+ 17 d3 xe6 18 xe6 d8+, but White had a different scheme in mind.
This attack by the knight (which cannot be captured due to 15…axb5 16 xb5+ d8 17 d1+) decides the issue in a few moves. Black has nothing better than to accept the sacrifice and to capture both rooks.
The threat is 20 e6#, and if 19…e5 (19…xd7 20 e6), then White replies 20 e6+ e7 21 d8 + xd8 22 xd8+ f7 23 xf8+ g7 24 e7#.
1 In this line 12…xc3+ 13 bxc3 xd5 is more testing, although 14 fxg4! xh1 15 0-0-0 c6 16 exf7+ xf7 17 g2 gives White an enormous attack. White could also play 11 h3 xf3+ 12 xf3 f6 13 exf7+ xf7 14 c4, which gives him a clear advantage at no risk.
Game 3Nimzowitsch – AlekhineAll-Russian Masters, Vilna 1912
Queen’s Pawn Game
Here 4…b6 would be premature on account of 5 c3.
Now, however, this move is out of place. The usual line of play, 5 c3 followed by 6 d3, is certainly better.
Equally satisfactory would be 5…a6 followed by 6…g4.
This move gives White the chance to weaken the enemy position on both wings. Black had two ways of obtaining a good game, 7…xf3 8 xf3 a6 9 xc6+ bxc6 and 7…cxd4 8 exd4 h5 9 g4 g6 10 e5 b6 11 a4 b4.
Of course not 9…c8, because of 10 xc6 followed by 11 a6. However, 9…c8 would have been more prudent.
Very strong, as Black has no time to continue 10…cxd4 followed by 11…b4, because of 11 a5. Therefore he is compelled to yield the b5-square to his opponent.
This move is relatively better than 11…h6, as it forces White to make an immediate decision on the kingside.
The variation 13 g5 g8 14 d3 f7 15 h3 looks stronger than it really is, as Black can resist the attack by bringing his g8-knight to e7 and then f5. The text move makes things easy for Black. His g7-pawn, it is true, is weakened, but, on the other hand, he obtains excellent prospects in the centre.
The king’s position on the queenside will be quite safe as the white bishop can easily be eliminated.
A very pretty trap.
Black discovers in time the opponent’s subtle plan: 15…cxd4 16 exd4 xd4 17 xd4 xd4 18 xe6+ d7 19 c6+!! bxc6 20 a6#. The text move eliminates all danger.
White has insufficiently weighed the consequences of this move; in particular, he has not realised that the knight will have no time to settle down at b5, and consequently Black will obtain an important advantage. Better would be 17 xc6 bxc6 18 hg 1 d7, but in this case also Black’s game is superior1.
Both dislodging the bishop and initiating a combined attack on both wings.
Naturally not 18 b5 cxd3 19 xd6+ d7, followed by …xd6.
An amusing reply to White’s trap on the 15th move. Black in his turn threatens mate by a queen sacrifice, a Roland for an Oliver! 21…xg6 22 xg6 xb2 23 b1 xc3+ 24 xc3 e4#. In addition the text move allows the queen to co-operate in a decisive action against the exposed g6-bishop.
Evading the threat.
Hapless bishop, with only one square on which to shelter!
A desperate move. After 24 g6 Black would win immediately by 24…xh4 since 25 xh4 loses the queen after 25…e4+. In giving up the bishop, White has a vague hope of complications resulting from the queen reaching b8.
Black could have continued with the simple 26…e8. But his objective, which he indeed succeeds in achieving, is the capture of the white queen.
Not, of course, 28…xf3 because of 29 xg7+.
Taking advantage of the fact that White cannot capture the black g6-pawn because of the resulting pin by 33…h7.
If now 37 xg6 xb5 38 g7+ c6 39 xa5 a6, and the queen is exchanged.
0-1
1 17 d3 is a really awful move, which not only allows Black to attack b2, but also results in the almost immediate trapping of the bishop!
Game 4Alekhine – DurasMasters’ Quadrangular,St. Petersburg 1913
Ruy Lopez
This move, in conjunction with the next one, affords Black the simplest method of equalising.
The opening of the a-file is of great significance in this variation. Black cannot prevent it, for if 7…b4, then 8 xf7+ xf7 9 c4+ d5 10 xc5 d6 11 xc6!.
After 9 c3 Black could simply play 9…0-0, for after 10 xb5 d5! he obtains an attack fully equivalent to the pawn sacrificed. After the text move White can eventually play c3 and bring his knight to e3 or g3 via d2 and f1.
Here Black could have obtained an even game by forcing the exchange of White’s only well-posted piece, the bishop on b3, by 10…e6. It is clear that White would not have reaped any advantage by exchanging at e6 and c5, as Black would have had command of the centre, thanks to his pawn structure and the two open files.
Consistent but not best. 11…e6 was even now preferable and would have brought about variations similar to those resulting from the immediate development of the bishop at e6.
This offer to exchange is premature and, as will be seen, gives White a distinct positional advantage. Relatively better would have been 13…e7 followed by …d8-e6, although in this case too Black has the inferior game.
Forced, for otherwise the black bishop would have been in jeopardy, e.g. 14…xd4 15 g4 g6 16 xd4 exd4 17 f4, or 14…exd4 15 g4 g6 16 h4 followed by f4, with advantage to White in either variation.
The beginning of a strong attack against f7, weakened as it is by the premature exchange of Black’s light-squared bishop. Furthermore, it is interesting to observe how important the open a-file is for White’s attack.
Besides this move and the sequel it implies, Black had a further choice of two lines of play:
1) 16…dxe5 17 xe5 d6 18 xd6 cxd6 19 fe1 with advantage to White.
2) 16…e8 17 e6! fxe6 18 xe6+ f8 (or 18…h8 19 g5) 19 b4! xb4 (19…b6 20 fe1) 20 xd4 b6! 21 f3! c3 22 c6! xc6 23 xc6 xa1 24 xa1, and White has the better game as the e6-bishop is invulnerable.
Forced, as 19 e6 was threatened.
Forcing a further exchange which brings the knight into action.
It is clear that 20…h6 would have achieved nothing after 21 f5.
Already threatening to win by 22 xf7.
Relatively best. 21…d7 would not be sufficient, e.g. 22 xf7!1xf7 23 a8+ f8 24 f5! e7 25 xf7+ xf7 26 xc5 and wins.
The move in the text removes the immediate threat, for now 22 f5 would be insufficient as a preliminary to the knight sacrifice, since Black could prepare a fresh defensive position by 22…g6, followed by …g7.
But this somewhat hidden preparation of the knight sacrifice wins at once, as Black is compelled to make a reply which will render his position still more precarious.
If 22…g6 then 23 h6, threatening both 24 xf7 and 24 a8; and if 22…e7, 23 d7! xd7 24 xe7 d6 25 xd6 cxd6 26 a5 b8 27 a7 d8 28 b7 and wins.
The point of the manoeuvre initiated with 22 g4: against the double threat of 25 e6 and 25 xf7+ xf7 26 g5, Black has no defence.
If 24… c6, 25 g5 d7 26 xf7+ xf7 (26… xf7 27 gxf6) 27 f3 and White wins.
1 Unnecessary, as 22 xd7 wins a piece at once.
Game 5Znosko-Borovsky – AlekhineMasters’ Quadrangular,St. Petersburg 1913
Ruy Lopez
5…d7 is better. The variation in the text, favoured by Marshall, is unfavourable to Black should White adopt the continuation 6 d5 b5 7 dxc6 bxa4 8 c4!, as in the game Réti-Spielmann, Berlin 1920.
White also obtains a good game by this move, but allows Black some counter-chances.
It is clear that after 8 xd8+ Black would protect his e-pawn by 8…xd8, mating on d1 if White plays 9 xe5.
Black could equally play 11…f6 in order to withdraw his bishop to f7 in case of need. But he considered that White would not find the time necessary to increase his pressure on the kingside due to Black’s counter-attack on the opposite wing and in the centre.
If 13 h4 then Black replies 13…d5! 14 xg6 xe3 15 xe3 fxg6 with good prospects.
The black queen enters into the game very effectively through this outlet.
The opening of the g-file would here be without effect: 17 f5 xf5 18 gxf5 c3! and White cannot avoid losing his c-pawn without any compensation, since 19 0-0-0 allows mate in two by 19…a3+.
Stronger than 17…c3, whereupon White would obtain positional compensation adequate for the pawn sacrificed after 18 f2! xc2 19 hc1 b2 20 c4! xe2+ 21 xe2.
After 18 0-0 the ensuing reply, 18…c5, would be still stronger.
Undoubling the c-pawns by force, and in this way removing the only weakness in Black’s position.
If 23 f1 Black would reply simply 23…a5 and White could only defer the exchange of rooks, which must be made sooner or later.
The most energetic. In exchange for the a-pawn Black obtains a dangerous passed pawn in the centre and besides, White’s own a-pawn is a ready object of attack.
As this knight can no longer be assisted by White’s other pieces, its inroad on f5 loses much of its efficacy.
29 d2! would be a little better, with the double threat of 30 c1 followed by 31 xc6 and 32 e7+, and 30 g5. But in this case also Black would secure a positional advantage by 29…f8!.
In order to be able to dislodge the knight, at need, by …g6, but White prefers to withdraw it himself to maintain the defence of his seriously weakened queenside.
This temporary pawn sacrifice will allow the black pieces to break through into the hostile camp, and to co-operate in a direct attack against White’s king, an attack which will become irresistible thanks to the passed c-pawn, which fixes the white pieces far away on the other wing.
After 36 g2 xc4 Black would be threatening to capture the knight with check.
Directed against the threatened …g1+.
Else Black would win easily with his passed pawn.
In conjunction with the following move this is the shortest road to victory.
This pawn now shares in the attack and settles the result outright. White is helpless against the threat 44…h1+ 45 g3 h4+ 46 f2 h2+. On the other hand, 43…hxg6 would not have been so strong, for White could have still defended himself by playing 44 e2! g7 45 h3!.
0-1
Game 6De Roszynski – AlekhineParis 1913
King’s Knight’s Opening
Although seldom played, this move is not inferior to 3…e7 (the Hungarian Defence). The present game affords a typical example of the dangers to which White is exposed if he attempts to refute this move forthwith.
Anticipating the gain of two pawns. If at once 6 xf7+ xf7 7 xb7, then 7…d7! 8 xa8 xf3 9 gxf3 xf3 10 g1 xe4+ 11 d1 f3+ and Black has at least a draw, as White cannot play 12 c2 on account of 12…b4+1.
After 7 xb7 b8 8 a6 b6 9 a4 e7 followed by …0-0, Black’s lead in development would be sufficient compensation for the pawn sacrificed.
The sacrifice of the exchange is entirely sound and yields Black a strong counter-attack.
Evidently forced.
By this unexpected combination Black secures the advantage. Incorrect would be, however, 11…d4 owing to 12 d3 xd3 13 cxd4 xf3 14 c3!.
This move loses at once. White’s only chance was perhaps 13 cxd4, leading to the following variation: 13…xc1+ 14 e2 xh 1 15 d5 xh2+ 16 d3 g1! 17 c6+ d8, but Black’s position is manifestly superior.
On this move White has the sad choice between the loss of the queen or mate. He prefers the latter.
1 Indeed, 12 e1 d4 13 xf3 xf3+ 14 f1 xg1 15 xg1 e4 gives Black a clear advantage.
Game 7Mieses – AlekhineScheveningen 1913
Centre Game
It is quite evident that such displacements of the queen at an early stage in the opening are not likely to reap any advantage. However, Black is compelled to play with precision, in order to give his opponent no time to start an attack against the kingside or even in the centre. For, no doubt, the white queen installed at g3 (via e3) would exercise pressure on Black’s kingside if he eventually castles on that side.
Black could also have played 4…f6 for the following variation is mere bluff and eventually turns to Black’s advantage: 5 e5 g4 6 e4 d5! 7 exd6+ e6 8 a6 (or 8 dxc7 d1+!) 8…xd6 9 xb7 b4+! 10 xb4 xb4.
This advance, which at first sight appears somewhat risky in view of the position of White’s dl-rook, will on the contrary allow Black to extract the maximum return from his advanced development. 7…d6 would result in almost a closed game and White would find time to complete his neglected development.
Providing without loss of time against the threat 10 h6. Black’s advantage is now evident.
The sacrifice initiated by this move is both full of promise and devoid of risk, for Black will have an equivalent in material for his queen. It would, however, have been more logical to adopt the following variation: 10…xc3 11 xc3 g5 12 d2 (else 12…g4) 12…c5! 13 e3 a5, which would have given Black a dominating position without such complications as defy exact calculation.
Calling for the subsequent combination, for 11…ce7 would be bad because of 12 xd5 xd5 13 h5 and 14 c4.
Black obtains rook, knight and pawn for his queen while maintaining the superior position. The sacrifice is therefore fully justified. Much less strong would be 11…cb4 12 a3 xc3 13 xd8 ba2+ 14 d2 b1+ 15 e1, and the two black knights would find themselves in a tragicomic situation.
Essential as a basis for all the subsequent combinations.
16 d1 d5 17h5 f6 was no better, as Black threatens 18…e4.
Black is preparing the combination …xc2 followed by …b4, which at present would not be sufficient, e.g. 17…xc2 18 xc2 b4 19 d3 e4 20 xb4!.
In order to exchange the dangerous black bishop.
Now White seems to be able to disentangle his forces, but nevertheless Black’s position still remains very strong, even after the unavoidable exchange.
It is clear that 22 xb7 b8 would entail a rapid disintegration through the combined action of the rook and the f6-bishop.
A very important move which puts renewed vigour into Black’s attack. White in particular threatened to force further simplifications by 23 c3 bd3 24 xd3 xd3 25 d1. By his last move Black frustrates this plan, and, if necessary, aims at posting a knight at d3, supported by …c4. As White cannot reply 23 xc5, because of 23…ed3 24 xe8+ xe8 25 xd3 c6, weakening his right wing1, he has to try a counter-attack which Black allows him no time to develop.
The renewed complications resulting from this move required the most exact calculations.
26 g5 g7 27 d1 b5 28 d4 e6 is also to Black’s advantage1.
Black takes immediate advantage of the weakening of the white bishop resulting from 26 f4.
If White had played 27 cxd3 the sequel would have been 27…xd3 28 g3 d4! 29 c2 (not 29 xd3 cxd3 30 xd4 e1+ 31 a2 d2! and wins) 29…xe3 30 xc4 ed8 with the better game. However, this variation is more favourable than the one chosen by White, after which Black can force the win by a fresh sacrifice.
Decisive! Now White has to take the knight, for after 28 b3 a5 29 cxd3 Black could force the win by means of 29…cxd32 30 c1 c3 31 d1 a1+. A curious position, for although Black has only a rook for the queen, White is defenceless3.
30 g2 c8+ 31 d1 is merely an inversion of moves.
Against the threat of 31…8c2, White’s only defence was 31 g24. But it was in no way sufficient for a draw, despite the opinion of all the critics who annotated the game at the time it was played, and in this case Black would have won as follows: 31…b1+ 32 d2 b3 33 d1 (33 e1 c1+ wins after 34 f2 xh4+ or 34 xc1 d2+) 33…c3! 34 c1 b4! and White is helpless against 35…d2 and 35…b1.
This analysis shows the correctness of the sacrifice initiated on move 11, and the soundness of the final combination.
0-1
1 I am not sure what Alekhine means here. The ending seems to be dead drawn after 26 d1, for example.
1 This is very optimistic. After 29 f1, Black can hardly prevent 30 f4 leading to further simplification and a clear advantage for White.
2 Note that in the original English edition of Alekhine’s Best Games, this move is incorrectly given as 29…cxb3, which loses out of hand to 30 d4.
3 The line given by Alekhine wins beautifully after 32 c1 e1+! 33 xe1 xc1+ 34 xc1 d2+ 35 c2 dxe1 +!. It is puzzling that, if this line was indeed Alekhine’s intention, he did not give it to its conclusion.
4 However, after 31 e4! I see no win for Black, as the queen is ready to take the d3-pawn after 31…c3 or 31…8c2, while 31…d2 may be met by 32 e2.
Game 8Alekhine – NimzowitschAll-Russian Masters,St. Petersburg 1914
Ruy Lopez
The most analysed variation of the Ruy Lopez. In the latest practical tests the results are somewhat in White’s favour, and it occurs less and less in master play.
After 10 e3 0-0 11 bd2 xd2 12 xd2 a5 Black has a satisfactory game. Less recommendable, however, are 11…f5 12 exf6 xf6 13 g5! and 11…g4 12 xe4 dxe4 13 d5!.
Better would have been 10…0-0 11 c2 f5 12 exf6 xf6, although in this case also White’s game is somewhat preferable after 13 b3 (not 13 g5 because of 13…g4 14 f3 c8!).
11…0-0 would be insufficient because of Bogoljubow’s ingenious innovation in his game against Réti (Stockholm 1920): 12 d4! xe5 13 f4 g4 14 e1 h4 15 xe5 e8 16 c6 d7 17 f5! and White must win.
If 13…e6 (Janowski-Lasker, Paris 1913) White obtains a fine attacking game after 14 d3. The text move is an innovation which is refuted in the present game.
Not 14 xe4 dxe4 15 xd8 axd8 16 xe4 d1+ 17 e1 f5 18 e2 d3 19 e3 g5, with advantage to Black, whereas with the text move White threatens to win a pawn.
This pawn offer will ultimately prove to be insufficient, but Black’s position was already beset with difficulties. If, for instance, 16…h5 then 17 h4! with a great positional superiority.
Obviously Black cannot afford 17…xc7 because of 18 xd5+.
It is clear that Black cannot play 19…xf2 because of 20 xe4.
At first sight this move seems to create difficulties for White, for instance after 22 e2, the manoeuvre 22…g4 would force the white queen back to d3.
This definitely ensures an advantage, since the threat of …xg3 by Black is illusory, e.g. 22…xg3 23 c5 d6 24 b3! and wins. Consequently Black is now forced to look after his weak point at d5.
22…ad8 would have been a little better, but the game was lost in any event.
Renewing the threat of …xg3.
To this move Black cannot reply with 24…xg3 because of 25 b3; nor is 24…xd2 feasible, on account of the following variation: 25 xf5 c4 26 e6+ h8 27 xd5! xb2 28 b1 c4 29 xa8! and wins.
A desperate sacrifice. But similarly, after 24…g6 25 b3 f6 26 f3 the win was only a question of technique.
More straightforward would have been 31 xc6! xd4 32 cxd4 and the passed pawn would have quickly become irresistible. But once the queens are exchanged the ending cannot present any difficulties for White.
Evidently forced.
Winning the exchange as well, for after 40…c8 41 d7+ h6 42 d5 Black cannot prevent 43 d6, or if 40…xd2+ 41 xd2 followed by 42 c7 and Black loses at once.
Or 43…c2 44 f4 xa2 45 g5 and the mate cannot be avoided.
If 44…a4 45 g4+ h5 46 d5+ g5 47 d6 and mate to follow. Or 44…g5 45 g4+, followed by 46 e5+ and White wins.
Game 9Alekhine – MarshallSt. Petersburg International 1914
Petroff’s Defence
This variation of the Petroff does not cause Black any difficulty. White could secure better chances by 3 d4 (Steinitz), 5 e2 (Lasker), or even 5 c3.
This exchange, which permits White quite an appreciable advantage in development, hardly appears justified. The correct line of play was 8…0-0 9 0-0 xd2! 10 xd2 g4 with at least an equal game.
It is interesting to notice that this plausible queen exchange is later on shown up as a decisive mistake. Black must first play 10…xd2+ 11 xd2 xe2+ 12 xe2 dxc4 13 xc4 0-0 after which White would have maintained a slight positional superiority, but Black’s game would still remain fully defensible.
If now 12…dxc4, then 13 he1+! with still greater effect than in the actual game, White having preserved his bishop for the attack against his opponent’s undeveloped position.
Forced, for if 15…c6 White would win a pawn at once by 16 xd5 cxd5 17 e5.
This move was absolutely necessary to prevent the threatened doubling of White’s rooks on the open e-file.
The winning manoeuvre. On the other hand, 19 g5 was insufficient, on account of 19…d7!. Now Black is going to lose a pawn by force.
Best in the circumstances, for after 20…h5 21 g4 followed by 22 gxh5 White would establish a passed pawn.
Forcing the retreat of Black’s king, for after 23…f6 24 c3, the threat of 25 e8 would have been very dangerous for the opponent.
Contemplating …e7-d5+ in order to cause White the maximum technical difficulties.
If 25…e7 White would have replied 26 e5 and the continuation of the game would scarcely be modified.
After the exchange of rooks, Black could no longer save the position.
Preparing 29 c5, which Black prevents by his reply, but at the cost of a new weakness at c7 which White will proceed to exploit without delay.
White, as we see from the sequel, proposes to sacrifice a pawn in order to occupy the 7th rank with his rook and thus to obtain a dangerous passed pawn. This manoeuvre is the shortest and surest means of securing victory.
Or 30…e6+ 31 e5 f6+ 32 f3 and White dominates the whole board.
Not at once 32 xc7 on account of 32…f4+ followed by 33…xf3, whereas now, since White threatens 33 d7+, Black cannot save his c-pawn.
A very important move. The white knight is going to be posted on b7, where it will support the advance of the passed d-pawn by covering d6 and d8.
The coup de grâce. White’s rook cannot be captured on account of 40…xc7 41 dxc7 c2 42 c5!.
Similarly, after 40…e2 White would win easily by 41 c6 d4+ 42 b6 so, as a last resource, Black tries to exploit his kingside pawns after the sacrifice of the rook for the passed pawn. But this manoeuvre is foredoomed to failure.
Preventing the sacrifice of Black’s knight for the pawn, and winning a whole rook.
1 Here Black missed a much better defence: 34…f6, intending either …b5 or …e6+. After the natural reply 35 d5, it isn’t easy for White to evade the checks, for example 35…f4+ 36 d3 (36 e5 f5+ 37 d6 f6+) 36…f3+ 37 d4 (37 e2 f6) 37 …f4+ 38 c3 f3+ 39 b4 f4, threatening either …b5 or …e3.
Game 10Alekhine – TarraschSt. Petersburg International 1914
Falkbeer Counter-Gambit
From’s Gambit Accepted (2 fxe5 d6 3 exd6) offers White only an equal game at best.
At the time the present game was played, the variations springing from this move were considered advantageous for White, thanks especially to analyses by the late Simon Alapin. Recently, however, Dr. Tarrasch succeeded in invalidating this opinion, introducing in his game against Spielmann at Mährisch-Ostrau 1924, an improvement of great importance (see note to Black’s 6th move).
An innovation which the sequel shows to be insufficient. The correct line of play, demonstrated by Dr. Tarrasch in the game mentioned above, is 6…c5 7 e2 f5! and if 8 g4? then 8…0-0!, with a winning sacrificial attack.
This move deprives Black of his best chance on the diagonal a7-g1, and leaves him without compensation for the pawn he has given up.
Trying to keep his opponent busy lest he definitely secure his position by castling.
White could equally well play 9 e2 a6 10 a4! b4 11 dxc6 xd1+ 12 xd1 xc6, but the combination based on the text move offers better prospects.
Bringing about a simplification which is advantageous in view of White’s extra pawn. Black cannot reply 10…xd6 because of 11 xd6 followed by 12 d5.
Just in time, for White threatened 17 xb5.
White’s advantage in material is in no way diminished by his having a doubled pawn, for he will always be in a position to obtain a passed pawn by advancing his c-pawn.
White still has a slight weakness in the centre, which he will subsequently eliminate by holding and strengthening d4.
Intending to play c3 once the black rooks are doubled on the d-file.
After this move White’s position is invulnerable. Black is forced to adopt a waiting policy, which is all the more distressing as he is minus a pawn. White’s next moves aim at unpinning the knight, which will take a decisive part in the final onslaught when the white rooks are doubled on the e-file.
