Chess Lessons from a Champion Coach E-Book

Thomas Engqvist

• Herausgeber: Batsford
• Kategorie: Lebensstil
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 549

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023

Beschreibung

Lessons, motivation and coaching to make you a better chess player. In an ideal world, any aspiring chess player, at almost any level, would get better with a coach. If that's not possible, having chess champion coach Thomas Engqvist's book at your side is the next best thing.  In his series of lessons, Engqvist guides you through not only the most important elements of chess to master but also the psychology, how to marry knowledge with imagination, and how to stay motivated. Suitable for older children through to adults, the lessons are drawn from chess games through history, from the 16th century to Magnus Carlsen and latest Alpha Zero computer chess. It features a range of key players, including Steinitz, Lasker, Nimzowistch, Botvinnik (Soviet chess school), and Fischer. With clear and accessible annotations to give clarity, the games highlight the most important lessons to learn and, just as importantly, how to 'practise' chess. International Master Thomas Engqvist has travelled the world teaching and coaching chess to a very high level for decades – and with this book, he can be your coach too.

Leseprobe

First published in the United Kingdom in 2023 by

Batsford, an imprint of B.T. Batsford Limited

43 Great Ormond Street

London

WC1N 3HZ

Copyright © B.T. Batsford Ltd. 2023

Text copyright © Thomas Engqvist 2023

The moral right of the author has been asserted.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN 9781849948630

A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

This book can be ordered direct from the publisher at www.batsfordbooks.com, or try your local bookshop.

Contents

Introduction

The Dawn of Modern Chess

Ruy Lopez: The Father of Chess Theory

Gioacchino Greco: The First Tactical Player

François-André Danican Philidor: The First Positional Player

del Rio, Lolli and Ponziani: The Modenese School

Louis de la Bourdonnais: The Father of the Soundest Plan

Howard Staunton: The Father of the English School

Early Chess History: Questions

Adolf Anderssen: The Romantic Player

Paul Morphy: The Dynamic Player

Wilhelm Steinitz: The Scientific Player

Emanuel Lasker: Pragmatism and Psychology

Siegbert Tarrasch: The Chess Teacher

Carl Schlechter: The Viennese Artist

Akiba Rubinstein: The Deep Positional Player

Aron Nimzowitsch: The Prophylactic Player

Important Principles and Concepts: Questions

José Raúl Capablanca: The Chess Machine

Richard Réti: The Hypermodern Player

Efim Bogoljubow: The Optimistic Player

Alexander Alekhine: The Complete Chess Artist

Max Euwe: The Methodical Player

Mikhail Botvinnik: The Prepared Player

David Bronstein: The Artistic Player

Vasily Smyslov: The Technical and Intuitive Virtuoso

Mikhail Tal: “The Wizard of Riga”

Tigran Petrosian: The Deep Prophylactic Player

Boris Spassky: The Universal Player

Bobby Fischer: The Aggressive Classical Player

Viktor Korchnoi: The Heroic Defender

Anatoly Karpov: The Practical and Intuitive Player

Garry Kasparov: The Deep Dynamic Player

Vladimir Kramnik: The Deep Classical Player

Viswanathan Anand: The Classical/Dynamic Player

Magnus Carlsen: The Versatile and Classical Player

Early Chess History: Answers

Important Principles and Concepts: Answers

Introduction

“History is the record of human behaviour, the most fascinating subject of all, but illogical and so crammed with an unlimited number of variables that it is not susceptible of the scientific method nor of systematising.” – Barbara Tuchman (American historian and author, 1912-1989)

“Only a fool learns from his own mistakes. The wise man learns from the mistakes of others.” – Otto von Bismarck (German statesman and diplomat, 1815-1898)

“Chess books should be used as we use glasses: to assist the sight, although some players make use of them as if they thought they conferred sight.” – José Raúl Capablanca (World Champion 1921-1927)

“In striving to absorb the entire ‘aroma of the times’, I did not seek individual moves, even though they might be beautiful or unexpected, but ideas and conceptions; I wanted to get to the heart of the matter, to grasp the logic of the development of events on the board, both in games by players from the past and in the games of contemporary masters. Under the influence of these events, arguments, diametrically opposed opinions and theoretical discoveries, my playing style was formed, a style which many consider universal. The combination of opposing influences made it such, or, at any rate, saved it from being too one-sided.” – Vasily Smyslov (World Champion 1957-58)

“If one does not play dynamically, one fails to obtain the best of the deep dialectics of chess art which inseparably unites the elements of logic and fantasy. The modern game has inherited the best of such opposed schools as the romantic and the positional. This did not happen in any artifical way, but came as a consequence of the development of chess processes through the centuries.” – Aleksei Suetin (World Senior Chess Champion 1996-97.)

It may be useful to explain to the reader my first steps in the chess world so as to gain a clearer picture of the motivation for writing this book. My overall experiences as a practising chess player have led me to clarify fundamental mistakes I made in my youth – and the main reason for these was the absence of a coach. If it was indeed possible to teach myself 45 years ago, everything would be fine because now I know exactly how to proceed. But such is the irony of time that unfortunately we cannot go back and correct our past mistakes. We can only learn from these, which is the reason I have written this book so that students (hopefully) will not repeat the same mistakes I made in my vain approach to learning about chess more efficiently.

When you are young, it is easy to think that motivation and time spent are enough, but they are not. A well-thought-out study plan is also necessary to make the training more effective. An aspiring player will benefit from competing with other aspiring players but will make even more progress by being part of structured teaching from an organised club or a competent coach. The competition can be extremely tough, so it is necessary to adapt to this reality by following a study plan which contains the most valuable wisdom and knowledge about the game.

Ever since I was nearly 13 years old, in the autumn of 1976, I have been involved in the chess world. It was then I became a member of the small chess club SK-33. It was a friendly club, and I have many happy memories and several lasting friendships. However it was located in a small town called Enköping (40,000-50,000 inhabitants), which was situated about one hour by car from Stockholm. Obviously, this was not to a young chess player’s advantage in the long run, especially from the perspective of effective chess development. I practiced chess by reading books in my own language, mainly by the Swedish GM Gideon Ståhlberg (1908-1967), which I borrowed from the local library. I am happy many of his books were readily available because he wrote about openings and endgames and other great players, such as Bobby Fischer.

I combined reading these chess books and others with playing in the local championships of which there were two every year. In 1978-1980 I managed to win the local championship in Enköping three times in a row, despite the fact that I was neither the highest-rated nor the most experienced player – although probably the most aspiring. The best and most experienced player in our club was Anders Lundqvist. On one occasion he travelled to the Netherlands, where he played in the Wijk aan Zee tournament and performed splendidly. He gained a rating of 2150 after this tournament and we, the members of SK-33, were very impressed by his achievement. My rating was around 2000, but since I was a developing player, I had good prospects of catching up with him due to my serious study and curiosity about chess. Lundqvist was very generous and let me borrow some of his Informants. This was one of the milestones in my chess training, and I even remember that the issues were 7, 12, and 13. These books contained the most important games, combinations, and endgames that had been played during six months of their designated period and were very dear to me, to the extent that I even held on to them for a couple of years. I could look up theoretical novelties in the variations I was playing, for example, the sharp Polugaevsky variation of the Sicilian defence, which was a hot opening when I was a junior. The first Informant I bought was number 25, and I have never missed obtaining an issue since then. In fact this approach to chess study was why aspiring players of that time were called the Informant children or the Informant generation, and it was Lundqvist who introduced me to this new world. I remember playing through all the games from one of the Informants. This could not be regarded as serious training due to the fact that I didn’t have any coach to tell me how to practice more efficiently. Lundqvist was not my coach, rather he was more like a mentor and someone to look up to and be inspired by, especially for us, the young and aspiring players in the club.

Another important person who had a positive effect on my chess development was my peer friend Peter Fransson who joined the chess club at least one year earlier than me. Nevertheless I managed to catch up with him and eventually we were of about equal strength. We often played friendly games at his place and analysed together. He had a big chess library for one so young, and I remember borrowing the Yugoslav Encyclopaedias of Chess Openings and other chess literature from him. One day he told me he had a new and revolutionary book called My System by Aron Nimzowitsch. He told me it was regarded as the best training book in the world. I tried to understand it, but it was written in Danish, and I didn’t appreciate its finer points, so I abandoned the project to assimilate the important knowledge regarding, for example, prophylactic play, that was contained in this milestone of chess literature. This is naturally something I regret, but the book was too difficult for me to take it all in. I wasn’t lucky enough to be associated with a coach who could tell me the finer points of Nimzowitsch’s ideas and why this book would be worth the effort to assimilate thoroughly. This is something I realised only later as an adult. I don’t think my friend realised its true value either, but he nevertheless went on to win the Swedish junior championship in 1980 while I was fifth.

Now we come to one of the main ideas behind the title of this book. My mission is to help aspiring chessplayers, young players as well as adults, who want to improve their understanding of chess by not making the same mistakes as I did, i.e. reading the wrong books and ineffectively at that. In the best of worlds a chess coach, who has studied the important classics by the greatest chess writers, knows what knowledge is the most relevant and can break it down into meaningful lessons. I am referring to timeless knowledge (and wisdom) that no computer can refute and is the core of genuine human understanding of the game.

The conclusion I came to from my experiences as a young, ambitious chess player was that I was at a clear disadvantage not having any coach, or at least a coach on a relatively regular basis. My development as a chess player also suffered from the drawback of living in a small town compared to a capital city like Stockholm where there would have been more opportunities for aspiring chess players like my peer friend and me. Nevertheless, on the positive side, I was able to compete and share important knowledge with some of the players in my club and be motivated to learn and play more. I also had the opportunity to meet a real coach, Robert Danielsson, on a few occasions in Stockholm, and he helped me structure my training so that I remained focused and practiced five important positions, from the middlegame and the endgame, every week. This scheme of training focuses on positions I have already described in depth in my 300-trilogy.

To be a reasonably high standard chess player or chess coach is not necessarily the same thing. A chess player needs knowledge but also motivation and skill to be successful, but for a coach, apart from relevant knowledge, it is more about good pedagogy and an ability to inspire their students and lead them in the right direction. Of course, one should have a good education in chess and be very familiar with different ways of playing and understanding chess. Above all it is important to understand chess psychology, especially when dealing with older children and adults, I think many coaches underestimate this topic, and this might be because one must be careful with psychology when dealing with young children, as they need first and foremost to focus on the technical aspects of chess.

My first experience as a chess coach started early when I was around 15 years old. I remember that I was responsible for a course at my club where I was teaching young people during a vacation period. A couple of years later, I was indirectly a coach when I, relatively regularly, worked as a chess journalist and wrote in chess magazines and local newspapers. My focus was mainly on annotating games from a pedagogical perspective because I have always been fond of the teaching aspects in chess. I guess this has to do with the fact that I read many books between 14-16 years of age, especially by Max Euwe, one of the most outstanding chess teachers in history. Many of his books, about all phases of the game, were fortunately translated into Swedish. My thirst for knowledge probably surpassed my skill, especially the ability to fight and be creative during a game. If I had had a coach during this time, the coach would probably have taught me not to rely solely on knowledge but also how to use this knowledge in terms of practical performance and development of imagination.

As I matured, my experiences as a chess coach developed and became greater, especially at the end of the 80s and the early 90s. At this time, the Internet made its breakthrough, and I gave many lessons online. ICC (Internet Chess Club) was the first online chess club in the world during these pioneering days. I played official matches and blitz games and gave many lessons to hungry and generous American players who wanted to improve their game on this unique and profitable site. This coincided with the period when I was a professional for two years, from 1989 to 1990, and reached the goal of becoming the highest-rated blitz player on ICC. However, eventually, ICC started to attract some outstanding players, and I slowly fell off the pinnacle. I remember playing many blitz games against exceptionally strong players like Shirov and Dlugy, which was an excellent experience. Those golden days at ICC are gone now and many other homepages have taken over as the main chess sites. I played more than 10,000 blitz games on ICC, enough for me to eventually lose interest in this kind of chess which took place online. I think that its didactic value is limited and that it is more a matter of entertainment than any serious chess training. For me, real competitive play will ideally be classical chess, where you can feel, smell and watch your opponent on the opposite side of the board. I also like to prepare thoroughly against my opponents. The good thing with the development of the Internet and ICC was the possibility of teaching players abroad, especially in the U.S.A, where they understood the value of a good coach and were willing to pay for it.

My other credentials as a chess coach, outside online chess, are that I have organised many private chess courses for adults, but apart from that, I have also taught young people in my former club SK Rockaden as well as the national ladies’ team. The Stockholm Chess Federation and several clubs have invited me to organise courses or give lectures. In such environments, I have taught a wide variety of topics, such as chess history from a female perspective – from Rudenko to Judith Polgar, chess history from a male perspective – from Greco to Kasparov, pawn structures, chess training, chess defence, chess calculation, chess psychology, endgames, Nimzowitsch’s My System and so on. I have held many private courses and delivered many lectures on great players such as Anand, Carlsen, Capablanca, and Fischer, which have been published on Youtube. However these are mainly in the Swedish language since my courses were originally designed for Swedish chess players.

I have been to China several times and helped talented players to improve their play. I was a coach at the Peng Cheng Chess Club in Shenzhen, southern China. I played several training and simultaneous games, which were discussed afterwards and sometimes analysed with the help of Chessbase on a big screen by another coach in the Chinese language. The most talented opponent I played was presumably Zhu Yi. Soon after our meeting, he finished runner-up in the world under-12 championship in 2012. A fun event I remember from my time in China was a simultaneous clock exhibition I gave against a bunch of eight-year-old girls, who managed to beat me on time. They were very strong for such a young age with I guess an individual estimated strength of around 2000 Elo. China has schools that specialise in helping young people improve their abilities in a particular activity such as chess, piano, table tennis, etc. Highly competent coaches continuously drilled the youngsters. An equivalent strategy in Sweden would be if Ulf Andersson taught the most talented young people chess, but that doesn’t work in a consistent manner in Sweden nor in the West – except in Norway. That country managed to produce the reigning World Champion Magnus Carlsen with GM Simen Agdestein as his coach.

In another form of chess, I supported Stefan Winge when he competed in the World Correspondence Chess Championship. In fact he was very close to winning this prestigious event in 2012. My main task was to be part of his team and prepare his next moves by consulting Junior and Shredder, which were regarded as the best programs at the time. This was before Rybka became the standard program, so it was imperative not to blindly trust the variations Junior and Shredder calculated, primarily due to the “horizon effect.” Because of my pedagogical perspective, I always communicated in words (by mail) to Winge why a suggested move should be played and supported it with concrete variations. We, the team, also met regularly to discuss his games. Unfortunately, he narrowly missed out on winning the title after failing to convert a clear advantage in his final and crucial game. This was a heavy blow to him and all of us who were part of his team. His planned project to write a book about his achievement never happened since his own requirement was that he became World Champion, but unfortunately this was never to be. Nevertheless it was still a good experience to be part of this analytical work before computers became too strong.

In the course of many years as a coach and practising chess player, I have accumulated a huge amount of educational material and stored it in my computers as well as in two thick files of written papers. So I thought it would be worthwhile to share the important knowledge I have gained from my teaching experience and make the most valuable lessons available to an English-speaking audience. Originally my thought was to continue in the 300-spirit, whereupon the title would have been 300 Most Important Chess Lessons, but that would amount to an awful lot of pages and make it impossible to contain everything in one book. Moreover, it would not have been easy to structure the course in this format. So I thought the best way to present the material would be in chronological order, following in the footsteps of some of the greatest players of the last 500 years, starting with Ruy Lopez and finishing with Magnus Carlsen. Their most important discoveries, fundamental strategies, and ideas will be presented and discussed in a text which follows a red thread illustrated by key games. The main idea is to make use of the most significant knowledge that I have gathered during my life, both as a chess coach and as a chess player, but with a focus on important players, theories and key games rather than important positions which I have already elaborated upon in my 300-trilogy 2018-2022. If that work may be called position-oriented, the present book is game-oriented with the emphasis on strategic ideas.

Kasparov used to say that he stood on the shoulders of all the previous World Champions in chess history, without whom he would never have become the great player he eventually proved to be. So the main idea behind these lessons is to build on this fundamental premise, because after every lesson you will have something new and important to add to your armoury, thereby increasing your overall understanding of chess. This additional knowledge will enable you to control your opponents’ play more easily and also give you a clearer overview of what is going on in your games thanks to the teachings of past masters. Max Euwe has written that historic development parallels individual development, and I am a convinced supporter of this premise too. It is very logical because for every new shred of significant knowledge or key model game you assimilate, you will increase your chess strength. Suppose you have already acquired a particular fragment of knowledge, for example an understanding of the essence of Philidor’s important maxim that “pawns are the soul of chess”. In that case, you can continue with the following lessons and as these become more and more advanced, you will find yourself climbing the ladder from the 16th century to the present day and the greater your comprehension of chess will be.

Most of the time you will be aware of your progress from one lesson to the next, so my recommendation for a sensible approach and to get the most out of the book is that you slowly and thoughtfully read it from the first page to the last. Remember that knowledge is only a key tool, a compass, to assist your calculation of variations, natural ability, and creativity. When you have finally familiarised yourself with the development of chess ideas, perhaps up to Alekhine’s time, it will be easier for you to go back and revise what had been new knowledge for you. One shortcut to revision is to check whether you can remember the answers to the key questions which are posed in the chapters containing important theories you really must understand, especially those associated with Steinitz, Lasker and Nimzowitsch. If you don’t remember the answers, I recommend that you re-read the relevant chapter rather than look up the answers to the questions. This is because if you have forgotten the answers, it probably means that you hadn’t assimilated the essential knowledge in the first place. If everything in this book is new to you, you should just concentrate on one lesson at a time and absorb it slowly.

My wish is that you will go through all the lessons conscientiously, one by one, because if you do that I can guarantee it will improve your understanding of chess. This in turn will help you to develop both your practical skill and imagination. Armed with your newly acquired knowledge, you will increase your chances of gaining rating points regardless of your present level, especially when you meet opponents who, unlike you, are not familiar with the important lessons presented in this book and which are the sum total of 45 years experience.

If you have any comments or enquiries or discover some mistakes, feel free to contact me at [email protected] and thereby help to improve on any possible future editions of this instructional book.

The Dawn of Modern Chess

Ruy Lopez

The Father of Chess Theory

“No move should be made without an aim.” – Pedro Damiano

“You should not play quickly.” – Pedro Damiano

“When you have a good move in mind, look to see if there isn’t a better one.” – Pedro Damiano

“Sit your opponent with the sun in his eyes.” – Ruy Lopez

The most famous and strongest player of the 16th century was the Spanish Catholic priest Ruy Lopez de Segura (1530-1580). He wrote Libro de la invencion liberal y arte del juego del Axedrez (Alcala 1561). It was one of the first fundamental chess books in Europe and made a strong impact for over 50 years.

His impulse to write the book came during a visit to Rome in 1560. Here he found a small chess treatise entitled Questo libro e da imparare giocare a scachi et de le partite (1512) by the Portuguise master Pedro Damiano (1480-1544). However, he didn’t like it and so decided to write his own book. In this way, coincidentally or not, he started a tradition that a chess book should serve as a response and a living document on an actual chess topic.

The first part of the book contains the rules and the origin of chess. The second part introduces the word “gambit” and has a systematic survey of chess openings. One of these is the Ruy Lopez (Spanish) 1 e4 e5 2 ♘f3 ♘c6 3 ♗b5, which he regarded as an improvement on Damiano’s 3 ♗c4. According to Damiano, 2...♘c6 was the strongest reply, but according to Lopez it was not – due to 3 ♗b5.

Interestingly, it is still unclear today whether 3 ♗b5 is stronger than 3 ♗c4, particularly because of 3...♘f6 (the Berlin Wall), but Lopez does not mention this reply. He only suggests 3...d6 (Steinitz’s Defence as it was later called) as an alternative to 3...♗c5, which is the main variation. Lopez’s survey of many openings, especially the King’s Gambit, led to chess history regarding him as the father of chess theory. In the final two parts of the book he analyses the games published by Damiano.

Ruy Lopez was ahead of his time because he understood the value of the centre. He advocated 3 ♗b5, with the idea of exerting pressure on the e5-pawn and playing it in a game in Madrid 1566. This made him 300 years ahead of his time, as his move only became popular around 1870 when Steinitz’s classical period began. He also liked placing the c2-pawn on c3 and suggested 1 e4 e5 2 c3 ♘f6 3 ♕c2, preferring to move the d2-pawn to d3 rather than to d4, thereby producing a slower game than those seen in the old Italian school, which advocated a classical centre with pawns on e4 and d4 followed by a swift attack. It was Wilhelm Steinitz who, more than 300 years after this ingenious idea by Lopez, fully understood the latent attacking potential of a pawn centre consisting of pawns on e4, d3, and c3.

Lopez was very successful at the beginning of his career and remained the strongest player in the world for 20 years. He defeated the young law student Giovanni Leonardo di Bona (di Cutra) (1542-1587) in Rome in 1560. Leonardo was a talented, strong blindfold player and a representative master of the more aggressive Italian school. Here is a fragment of their meeting:

Ruy Lopez de Segura – Leonardo di Bona

Rome 1560

1 e4 e5 2 ♘f3 f6?

The Damiano defence is incorrect because of the many weaknesses it creates on the kingside, especially along the a2-g8 and h5-e8 diagonals. In fact White can exploit these weaknesses immediately.

3 ♘xe5!

3...fxe5?

3...♕e7 4 ♘f3 d5 was necessary, although after the sequence 5 d3 dxe4 6 dxe4 ♕xe4+ 7 ♗e2 ♘c6 8 0-0 ♗d7 9 ♘c3 ♕g6? (9...♕f5 was better but would lose the c7-pawn by force after 10 ♘b5! 0-0-0 11 ♗d3 ♕h5 12 ♗f4.) 10 ♘e5! White won the queen for two minor pieces in Schiffers – Chigorin, St. Petersburg 1897, even if surprisingly the game ended in a draw after 34 moves.

4 ♕h5+ g6

4...♔e7 would lose to 5 ♕xe5+ ♔f7 6 ♗c4+ d5 7 ♗xd5+ ♔g6 8 h4 h6 9 ♗xb7! as 9...♗xb7? can be answered by 10 ♕f5 mate.

5 ♕xe5+ ♕e7 6 ♕xh8 ♘f6

This move was an improvement on Damiano’s analysis. The idea is to keep the queen out of play, but Lopez proved it to be incorrect.

7 d4 ♔f7

Black prepares 8...♘c6 and 9...♗g7 to trap the queen in the corner, but this is easily prevented.

8 ♗c4+ d5 9 ♗xd5+ ♘xd5

The queen is now able to capture on h7 with an attack, which according to a note by Lopez actually occurred in a game he eventually won.

In Madrid during 1574-1575 his strength declined since he lost two matches against the above mentioned Leonardo di Bona and Paolo Boi (1528-1598). The last named also played strong blindfold chess, at which it is said that he could take on three players simultaneously while chatting to bystanders.

In a match against Leonardo di Bona two game fragments have been preserved and one can clearly see that Ruy Lopez was a precursor of Philidor’s slower play. Here is one of these fragments:

Leonardo di Bona – Ruy Lopez de Segura

Madrid 1575

1 e4 e5 2 ♘f3 d6

Lopez avoids his own pet variation 2...♘c6 3 ♗b5. This alternative defence of the e5-pawn was later called the Philidor Defence. The drawback is that the f8-bishop remains passive behind its pawn chain. However the main idea is to strike at the e4-pawn with 3...f5.

3 ♗c4 f5 4 d3 ♗e7 5 ♕e2 c6 6 h3

6...f4

Black creates a pawn chain with 6...f4, which Philidor might well have played as he liked such pawn formations. However, the main idea for Philidor was to exchange on e4 and gain a pawn majority in the centre as well as pressure on the f-file.

7 g3 fxg3 8 fxg3 ♕c7 9 ♘c3 ♘f6 10 b4

And White eventually won.

Gioacchino Greco

The First Tactical Player

During the 17th century, the chess community was mainly focused on the tactical possibilities and basic combinations of the pieces. The most famous chess player from this period was the Italian genius Gioacchino Greco (1600-1634).

Greco analysed combinations such as the Greek gift sacrifice (the bishop sacrifice on h7) and the smothered mate. The pawns had been mainly looked upon as a factor in the endgame, whereas now they were often being used as cannon fodder in the opening. So for this generation of chess players, the pieces were the soul of the game. A typical example is the following, presumably an analysis by Greco.

NN – Gioacchino Greco

1620

1 e4 e5 2 ♘f3 ♘c6 3 ♗c4 ♗c5

The Italian Game was the key opening in those days so Ruy Lopez’s ingenious idea to exert pressure on the strong point e5 and then try to overrun it was not properly understood at this time, when it was regarded as more important to focus on the king early in the game.

4 0-0 ♘f6 5 ♖e1 0-0 6 c3?

6 d3 should have been played before c2-c3.

6...♕e7?

The pseudo sacrifice 6...♘xe4!, with the idea 7 ♖xe4 d5, was correct with a clear advantage to Black.

7 d4 exd4?

Normal was 7...♗b6 to avoid unnecessarily yielding space in the centre. Now Black’s defensive position will be easier to crack.

8 e5 ♘g4

9 cxd4?

It was best to play 9 b4 ♗b6 10 ♗g5 with winning chances but not at once 9 ♗g5? due to 9...dxc3 with the idea 10 ♗xe7 ♗xf2+ 11 ♔h1 cxb2 12 ♘c3 ♗xe1 13 ♕xe1 bxa1♕ 14 ♕xa1 ♘xe7 and Black would win by material superiority.

9...♘xd4!

A combination based on a double threat.

10 ♘xd4 ♕h4

And now it is not possible to simultaneously defend both h2 and f2.

11 ♘f3

Greco gives the variations 11 ♗e3 ♕xh2+ 12 ♔f1 ♕h1+ 13 ♔e2 ♕xg2 14 ♖g1 ♘xe3 15 ♔xe3 ♗xd4+ 16 ♔xd4 ♕xf2+ 17 ♔c3 ♕e3+ 18 ♗d3 ♕xe5+ and 11 h3 ♘xf2 12 ♕f3 ♗xd4 which both lose for White.

But now it is mate in three.

11...♕xf2+ 12 ♔h1

12...♕g1+!

The smothered mate was described as early as 1497 in Luis Ramirez Lucena’s text on chess Repetición de Amores e Arte de Axedrez.

13 ♘xg1

Or 13 ♖xg1 ♘f2 mate.

13...♘f2 mate

A beautiful mate where the king is trapped by three of its own defending pieces. It is easier to trap a king in the corner than a queen, as Damiano’s defence failed to do, and the smothered mate is one of the basic tricks to know when the queen and knight are involved in an orchestrated attack against the opponent’s king.

François-André Danican Philidor

The First Positional Player

The French composer and chess player François-André Danican Philidor (1726-1795) was the first positional player in chess history. He was the first to realise and demonstrate the actual value of the pawns in all phases of the game, and thus the mobility of the pawn formation was his most important strategic idea.

Philidor was born on 7 September 1726 in Dreux outside Paris. He was raised in a musical family and was himself a professional composer and musician. Because of policital uncertainties in France he migrated to England which became a second home to him. He died in London on 31 August 1795.

It was in England that he started to write his famous book L’Analyze des Echecs. It was published in England in 1749 and explained his fundamental strategic principles. The book contains nine annotated games and a couple of endgames with Philidor’s principles running like a red thread through his commentaries. Because of this revolutionary book Philidor laid the first stone in the construction of modern positional play, and from this time chess experienced a systematic development of positional ideas.

“The pawns are the soul of chess.”

Philidor’s most famous theoretical pronouncement is generally accepted today and not at all exaggerated, and on top of that it was a reflection of French society at the time. But what does it mean?

The pawns are more stationary than the other pieces. The placement of the pawns decides the character of the position and therefore the plan as well. Philidor showed this by careful manoeuvreing behind the pawn chain and with the ultimate purpose of opening files and diagonals. The pawns might also be useful as blocking units on files or diagonals that the opponent dominated. Philidor’s classic statement laid the foundation for pawn structures in the opening.

Philidor showed that it was possible to attack a seemingly safe position by advancing the pawns while keeping the other pieces behind them in support. It was, in his opinion, advisable to keep a pawn chain intact and avoid isolated, separated, backward and doubled pawns. The main goal was to create a pawn majority, promote one of the passed pawns to a queen and win by a preponderance of material.

Philidor illustrated his theses more in his games than in words or writing. His contemporaries understood none of this. However, they did understand some of Philidor’s concrete analyses of endgames. His most advanced one is a pawnless endgame with rook + bishop versus rook. Even today many professional players have problems winning or drawing this endgame correctly.

Philidor formulated several insightful and important rules how to conduct the planning of the game, for example these two:

– “It is always advantageous to exchange the f-pawn for the adverse e-pawn, for in this way one gains control of the centre and at the same time places the f-file at the disposal of the rooks.”

– “It is frequently dangerous to attack too soon; one should not start an attack until the pawns which have to sustain it are properly supported. Without this precaution the attack will be quite useless.”

Philidor often exaggerated his theses due to the fact that his opinion was that the minor and major pieces were only servants to the pawns and he underestimated the true strength of the pieces. In his opening analyses he focused on constructing strong pawn chains which in some cases was to the detriment of development. For example after 1 e4 e5 he explained that 2 ♘f3 was a mistake because it blocked the path of the f-pawn. He recommended instead 2 ♗c4 which, according to him, was the best move because White could prepare the important pawn push f2-f4 by first playing d2-d3 followed by f2-f4 and only then ♘g1-f3. If Philidor played the black pieces in the position arising after 1 e4 e5 2 ♘f3 he replied 2...d6 followed by 3...f5. This is a line that has nowadays been refuted, although it still exists under the name Philidor’s variation. However, in general, Philidor’s Defence arising after 2...d6 is a fully playable opening.

François Philidor – Henry Conway

London 1788

On a number of occasions Philidor sacrificed the exchange or even a minor piece for the sole purpose of keeping his pawn chain intact. A typical example of this idea is the above position:

31 ♖xe4?

Typical Philidor, everything is subordinated to the pawn chain. Correct was 31 dxc5 ♖d3+ 32 ♔g2 ♖xc3 33 ♖xe4 ♖xc5 34 f5 with equal play.

31...♗e7 32 ♖a1 ♖a8 33 h4 ♖fc8 34 ♖e3 a4 35 f5 a3?

Stronger was 35...exf5 36 gxf5 a3 37 d5 ♖c4 and Black would win due to his material advantage.

36 fxe6 a2?

Black must stop the d-pawn from marching forward, so correct was 36...♖d8.

37 d5 ♗c5?

37...♖a5, with the tactical point 38 d6 ♖xe5!, should have been played. After the further 39 ♖d3 ♖d8 40 ♖xa2 ♖xe6 41 dxe7 ♖xd3+ 42 ♔f2 h5 43 ♖a8+ ♔h7 44 e8♕♖xe8 45 ♖xe8 the endgame would be drawn.

38 ♖f3

38 ♖e2!, putting immediate pressure on the a2-pawn, was the most convincing win.

38...♔g8?

A better defensive resource was 38...♗f8 39 d6 ♔g8 40 e7 ♗xe7 41 dxe7 ♖a7 with good drawing chances. Now the bishop can no longer control the dangerous e-pawn.

39 d6 ♖f8 40 e7?

40 ♖d3!, followed by e7, would have secured the win.

40...♖xf3+ 41 ♔xf3 ♔f7 42 ♔e4 ♔e8?

42...♗f2, with the idea 43 ♔d5 ♖a5+ 44 ♔c6 ♖a6+, would have led to a draw.

43 ♔d5 ♗xd6

43...♖a5 can be answered by 44 ♔e6.

44 exd6 ♖a5+

On 44...♔d7 follows 45 c4 and the third musketeer decides the game.

45 ♔e6 ♖a6 46 ♖f1 Black resigns.

This example, together with others, proves that Philidor was the first player in chess history to understand the relative values of the pieces, in this case the positional sacrifice.

Philidor realised the difference between the good and the bad bishop but he held the opinion that the bad bishop was to be preferred. According to Euwe this is an incorrect opinion. Today it is more correct to call the bad bishop “double-edged” since this means in practice that sometimes the bishop is bad and sometimes it is good. So Philidor was partly right as it can be very important for the attacker to exchange off the defensive bishop in order to be able to break through.

Philidor’s most erroneous opinion was that he thought the starting position was a theoretical win with the white pieces. The Russian player Alexander Petroff (1794-1867), the inventor of the defence 1 e4 e5 2 ♘f3 ♘f6, objected strongly to this assertion.

Indeed such a controversial pronouncement harmed Philidor’s reputation. However, the English school, as well as Steinitz and Lasker, realised the true value of his theories and Philidor’s soundest concept “the pawns are the soul of chess” became one of the cornerstones in the history of chess and is still valid today.

Here follows a typical game played by Philidor without sight of the board. One should keep in mind that Philidor was superior to his contemporaries during the 18th century and regarded as the unofficial World Champion.

Sheldon – François Philidor

London 1790

1 e4 e5 2 ♗c4 c6 3 ♘f3 d5 4 exd5 cxd5 5 ♗b3

5 ♗b5+ doesn’t win the e5-pawn due to 5...♗d7.

5...♘c6 6 d4 e4 7 ♘e5 ♗e6 8 0-0 f6 9 ♘xc6 bxc6

This exchange improves Black’s pawn chain in the middle of the board.

10 f3 f5 11 ♗e3?

Too slow.

Correct was to exploit a lead in development by following Morphy’s principle that one should then open the centre. White would have secured a clear advantage after 11 fxe4 fxe4 12 c4 but Morphy’s principle had not yet been discovered.

11...♘f6 12 ♘d2 ♗d6 13 c4

13...0-0

It was not Philidor’s cup of tea to destroy the pawn chain and enter complications such as 13...f4 14 cxd5 cxd5 15 ♘xe4 fxe3 16 ♗a4+ etc., despite the fact that Black would be a piece up.

14 ♗a4 ♕c7 15 f4 ♘g4 16 ♕e2 ♘xe3

Philidor exchanges the bishop to gain control of the dark squares in White’s position and thereby make it easier for the central pawns to expand.

17 ♕xe3 c5 18 ♘b3 dxc4 19 ♘xc5 ♗xc5 20 dxc5 ♖ac8

More precise was 20...♖ab8.

21 c6?

White misses 21 b4 cxb3 22 ♗xb3 ♗xb3 23 ♕xb3+ ♔h8 24 ♖ac1 with approximately equal play.

21...♖fd8

21...♕a5! 22 ♕a3 ♖fd8 was more convincing.

22 ♖fd1

A better chance would have been 22 ♕c5.

22...♖d3!

This method was often used by Philidor; the function of the pieces is to help the pawns form a chain and improve the overall pawn structure. A clever positional concept indeed which is part of every modern player’s arsenal today.

23 ♖xd3 cxd3 24 ♗b3?

24 b4 was a much better try.

24...♗xb3 25 axb3 ♕b6 26 ♔f2 ♕xe3+ 27 ♔xe3 ♖xc6 28 ♖xa7 ♖d6 29 ♔d2 e3+ 30 ♔xe3

30 ♔d1 was a better defence but if Black finds 30...g5! (30...♖c6? 31 ♖e7!) 31 fxg5 ♖c6 32 ♖e7 f4 the game would nevertheless be over.

30...d2 31 ♖a1 d1♕ White resigns.

del Rio, Lolli and Ponziani

The Modenese School

The most famous representatives of the Modenese school in Italy, which shared the same opinion regarding correct strategy, were Domenico Ercole del Rio (1718-1802), Giambattista Lolli (1698-1769) and Domenico Lorenzo Ponziani (1719-1796), all of whom lived in Modena.

According to the Modenese school, the most important principle was rapid development of the pieces followed by a swift attack on the enemy king. The Modenese school of play exerted its influence until 1840, when the English school began to dominate, and maintained a high profile until the end of the 1860s when Steinitz’s theories began to take hold.

del Rio wrote a 110 page book titled Sopra il giuoco degli scacchi ozzervazioni pratishe d’anonimo autore Modenese (1750). This book was enlarged by Lolli thirteen years later. He recommended the Italian Opening and to play according to the older Italian style, represented by Greco. del Rio overlooked or underestimated the importance of control of the centre and failed to give due consideration to the pawn formation.

Lolli is famous for his chess book Osservazioni teorico-pratiche sopra il qiuoco degli scacchi (1763). It has 632 large pages, in the form of a letter. The first part contains the openings given in del Rio’s book, while the second part provides new variations by del Rio and with added annotations by Lolli.

It analyses openings such as the Lolli Attack in the Two Knights Defence (1 e4 e5 2 ♘f3 ♘c6 3 ♗c4 ♘f6 4 ♘g5 d5 5 exd5 ♘xd5 6 d4) and the Lolli Gambit in the King’s Gambit (1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 ♘f3 g5 4 ♗c4 g4 5 ♗xf7+). The third part is still interesting for modern players as it contains 100 endgames, several of which are advanced, as for example the pawnless rook and bishop versus rook and queen versus two bishops.

Ponziani is most famous for his opening...

1 e4 e5 2 ♘f3 ♘c6 3 c3

It is still called the Ponziani Opening. Howard Staunton, a representative of the English school, took an interest in it and wrote in The Chess-Player’s Handbook (1847) the following:

“This is an offshoot of the King’s Knight’s Opening, so full of interest and variety, that its omission in many of the leading works on the game is truly unaccountable. Ponziani has briefly touched on it, and proposed an ingenious sort of counter-gambit in Black’s reply of 3...f5 and major Jaenisch has given some attention to its salient features, but it deserves, and, if we mistake not, will yet attain a higher place in the category of legitimate openings than has hitherto been assigned to it.”

Ponziani wrote the important chess treatise Il giuoco incomparabile degli scacchi (1769) which takes a broader view of chess strategy and is considered the best work by the Modenese masters. He was of the opinion that the Modenese school of play was more suitable in the open game, while play with pawns according to Philidor’s methods was more suitable in closed positions. One has to adapt to the circumstances on the board.

Louis Charles de la Bourdonnais

The Father of the Soundest Plan

“Never miss an opportunity to play a move which has more than one aim.” – de la Bourdonnais

“A knight posted in the opponent’s position and supported by a pawn is extremely effective when it cannot be driven away by pawns or pieces” – de la Bourdonnais (13♘e5 in the following game is an excellent example of this idea).

Louis Charles de la Bourdonnais (1795-1840) was the greatest French player after Philidor and, symbolically, he was born the same year Philidor died. In 1820 he was a disciple of another great French player, Alexandre Louis Honoré Lebreton Deschapelles (1780-1847), who two years later defeated the two strongest English players John Cochrane (1798-1878), and William Lewis (1787-1870).

de la Bourdonnais is mostly famous for the long match he played against the Irish master Alexander McDonnell (1798-1835) who was a disciple of the earlier mentioned Lewis in 1825. The match, which is regarded as an unofficial World Championship, was in progress June-October 1834. It was played at the Westminster Chess Club in London and consisted of six matches, with the grand total of 85 games. de la Bourdonnais won four matches and McDonnell one, while the last match was unfinished.

After defeating McDonnell by the score of 51½-33½ (+45 =13 –27) de la Bourdonnais was considered the unofficial World Champion.

The first chess magazine Le Palamède was founded by de la Bourdonnais in Paris in 1836. The magazine was terminated in 1839 but revived in December 1841 by Saint-Amant, another great French player, who continued to publish it until the end of 1847.

Louis Charles de la Bourdonnais – Alexander McDonnell

Game 17, Match, London 1834

1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4

The Queen’s Gambit Accepted was adopted fifteen times by McDonnell in the match. de la Bourdonnais won eleven games, lost three and drew one. One of the losses was the immortal fiftieth game.

3 e3

3 e4 e5 4 d5 was the continuation in games 50 and 78. 3 ♘c3 was played in the eighth game but it was met by the anti-positional move 3...f5?. The standard 3 ♘f3 was introduced in the game Blackburne – Fleissig, Vienna 1873, where the continuation was 3...b5 4 a4 c6 5 e3 ♗d7 6 ♘e5 e6 7 axb5 cxb5 8 ♕f3 1-0.

3...e5

4 ♗xc4

In the tenth game, de la Bourdonnais played the much worse 4 dxe5? ♕xd1+ 5 ♔xd1 ♘c6!

(Note that Taimanov’s suggestion in the Yugoslav Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings (second edition 1987) 5...♗e6 is met by 6 ♘d2 ♘c6 (worse is 6...b5 7 a4 c6 8 ♘gf3 ♘d7 9 axb5 cxb5 10 ♘d4! and Black’s position collapses.) 7 ♗xc4 ♘xe5 8 ♗xe6 fxe6 9 ♔e2 and White’s position is preferable due to his better pawn structure.)

6 f4? (6 ♘f3 was necessary with only a slightly worse position.) 6...♗e6 and Black was clearly better. However, McDonnell lost the game after 45 moves.

4...exd4 5 exd4 ♘f6 6 ♘c3

Another important branch is 6 ♕b3, for example 6...♕e7+ 7 ♘e2 ♕b4+ 8 ♘bc3 ♕xb3 9 ♗xb3 with a slight advantage to White due to his strong pressure on the a2-g8-diagonal.

6 ♘f3 ♗d6 7 0-0 0-0 8 ♗g5 h6 9 ♗h4 g5?! 10 ♗g3 was the continuation in the twelfth game which was won by de la Bourdonnais after 34 moves.

6...♗e7

Better was 6...♗d6 according to de la Bourdonnais and this continuation was played in game 12 and later adopted in games 41, 43, 44 and 48. McDonnell normally lost when he played the Queen’s Gambit Accepted with the bishop on e7 but when he placed the bishop on d6 he scored two wins and a draw in the three last games. In fact de la Bourdonnais actually had to turn to 1 e4 to be able to win games again.

7 ♘f3 0-0 8 ♗e3

More precise was the more flexible 8 h3 as in the 15th game.

8...c6 9 h3

It is useful to prevent Black from using the g4-square, either for his bishop or knight, especially with the bishop placed on e3.

9...♘bd7

An improvement to the 15th game where McDonnell played 9...♗f5.

10 ♗b3 ♘b6 11 0-0 ♘fd5

White has the advantage in the centre, according to Lasker. In other words, the isolated pawn on d4 is more beneficial than the pawn on c6 because its outposts on e5 and c5 are not only more useful than d5, and especially b5, but are also located deeper inside enemy territory.

12 a4

de la Bourdonnais played 12 ♕e2 in games 31, 33, 37 and 39 and won them all.

12...a5 13 ♘e5

According to Lasker, de la Bourdonnais “[...] became the father of the soundest plan known to the history of chess: to combat every developed unit of the enemy in the centre with a force at least equal to it and to follow the enemy, after having thrown him back in the centre, with a well-supported advance post in the heart of his position.” This passage can be read on page 184 in the Dover edition (1960) of Lasker’s Manual of Chess by Dr Emanuel Lasker.

13...♗e6 14 ♗c2

White’s target is the kingside.

14...f5?

Black blocks the b1-h7 diagonal but now he can never play ...f6. 14...♖e8 was more useful.

15 ♕e2 f4?

Black opens the b1-h7 diagonal and that is serious. Better was 15...♘b4.

16 ♗d2 ♕e8

Black prevents White from playing 17 ♘xc6 as well as 17 ♕h5 but a better approach to counter both threats was 16...♗f5.

17 ♖ae1 ♗f7?

17...♗f5 should have been played.

18 ♕e4!

White is now fully prepared for the final offensive.

18...g6 19 ♗xf4 ♘xf4 20 ♕xf4 ♗c4?

The bishop is needed on f7 to defend g6. A better defence was 20...♕d8.

21 ♕h6 ♗xf1

de la Bourdonnais’ suggestion 21...♗f7 would not help due to 22 h4 and h5 as White would nevertheless break through.

22 ♗xg6! hxg6 23 ♘xg6 ♘c8

Now it is a forced mate in six. 23...♗f6 24 ♖xe8 ♖fxe8 25 ♔xf1 ♗xd4 was better according to Morphy but 26 ♕g5! would still win easily from this position. White could manoeuvre the queen and knight to light squares and advance the h-pawn to secure the win.

24 ♕h8+ ♔f7 25 ♕h7+ ♔f6 26 ♘f4

de la Bourdonnais plans 27 ♘e4 mate!

26...♗d3 27 ♖e6+ ♔g5 28 ♕h6+ ♔f5 29 ♖e5 mate.

Howard Staunton

Father of the English School

“His powers as an analyst were of the very highest order.” – Paul Morphy

“Above all he was a pioneer in the scientific arrangement of chess knowledge and all subsequent manuals have tended to follow the pattern he first laid down.” – Richard Nevil Coles (English author of biographies of Atkins, Burn, Sultan Khan and (with Keene) Staunton, 1907-1982)

“He was the first great exponent of the close game, preceding Wilhelm Steinitz by more than a quarter of a century.” – Richard Nevil Coles

“His games ... are completely modern. Where Morphy and Steinitz rejected the fianchetto, Staunton embraced it. In addition he understood all of the positional concepts which modern players hold so dear.” – Bobby Fischer

Howard Staunton (1810-1874) was regarded as the best player in the world from 1843-1851. Staunton played Pierre Charles Fournier de Saint-Amant (1800-1872) at the famous Café de la Régence in the unofficial World Championship from 14 November to 20 December 1843 and won with the score of 13-8 (+11 =4 -6). In 1847 he published the Chess-Player’s Handbook and in 1849 The Chess Player’s Companion. However he failed as the favourite in the first international chess tournament, held in London 1851, after losing against the eventual winner Adolf Anderssen. It was probably not to his advantage to be a competitor while being the principal organiser of the tournament. In 1858 he turned down an offer by Morphy to play a match against him as he was busy writing a book on Shakespeare.

In the match against Saint-Amant he invented the so-called English Opening with 1 c4. He also founded the English school which embraced Philidor’s ideas and expanded on them. Unlike the Modenese school, the players representative of the English school did not play for an attack on the king in the opening. They were of the opinion that an attack should be prepared by central control, especially important being by occupation of these key points. Only after a strategic advance had been achieved should an attack begin. Staunton used flank openings, the fianchetto and the little centre. He introduced the Staunton system where the pieces, in the spirit of Philidor, were developed behind the pawns to support their later advance. Typical representatives of the English school, apart from Staunton, were Bernhard Horwitz, (1807-1885), Elijah Williams (1809-1854) and Marmaduke Wyvill (1815-1896). Sometimes Adolf Anderssen (1818-1879) and Daniel Harrwitz (1821-1884) played in accordance with the ideas of the English chess school as well.

In the book Howard Staunton – the English world chess champion, by Keene and Coles, Keene wrote: “I must admit that this admirable game, which I first played over in my early teens, was a major contributory factor towards the adoption of Flank Openings in my own games.”

Howard Staunton – Bernhard Horwitz

Game 7, Match, London 1851

This was the last game in the match between Staunton and Horwitz.

1 c4

In those days this opening move was labelled “Irregular Opening” and later on the “Staunton Opening” but nowadays it is called the “English Opening.”

1...e6

In the tournament book Staunton made the following comment: “The monotony which characterises the majority of openings in these matches is a source of regret to me, as it certainly detracts from its interest; but unless by previous understanding between the players, the same fault will always prevail when victory is dependent on so small a number of games.”

2 ♘c3 f5

Today many would consider Black’s play enterprising and White players would think that Black is planning a long-term attack on the kingside. The problem, if you are the first player, is only if you are afraid of getting mated early in the game, just like when you are Black in the Sicilian Defence. In this context I remember a verbal comment by David Bronstein, who said that when Black gets a position with pawns on e5 and f5 early in the opening, they are just pawns and there is no need to be concerned.

3 g3 ♘f6 4 ♗g2 c6 5 d3 ♘a6 6 a3 ♗e7 7 e3

Staunton has completed his favourite restricted centre.

7...0-0 8 ♘ge2

The Staunton system is set in motion.

8...♘c7 9 0-0 d5

Black plays the Stonewall Defence which obviously is less effective with the white pawn placed on d3. In the spirit of de la Bourdonnais/Pillsbury, the key for Black in the pure Stonewall is to place a knight on e4 as preparation for a kingside attack.

10 b3

This move was typical of the English school which put weight on a closed game and slow manoeuvring play. The restricted centre and double fianchetto is part of the Staunton system. More active, but not necessarily better approaches to deal with the immediate threat of 10...dxc4 were 10 ♕b3 or 10 cxd5. It is a matter of style how one plays at this particular juncture.

10...♕e8

The critical and most active response was to expand in the centre with 10...e5, which Staunton might have answered with 11 ♕c2 enjoying a harmonious position. White could then continue ♗b2 and strike with f2-f4 at an appropriate moment.

11 ♗b2 ♕f7

Better options were to advance in the centre either by 11...dxc4 12 bxc4 e5 or 11...e5 at once. However the famous study composer Horwitz, who was also a representative of the English school, plays too cautious a game which is not in harmony with the energetic 2...f5.

12 ♖c1

This slightly mysterious rook move is part of the Staunton system. Due to the glaring weakness on e5, White should have initiated the knight manoeuvre 12 ♘b1 followed by ♘d2-f3-e5.

12...♗d7

Black develops without giving the centre any attention. He should have played 12...e5 or 12...dxc4 13.bxc4 e5 even though it would have lost a tempo with the e-pawn. Even 12...♗d6 was more relevant than the text move. It seems that Horwitz was not aware of the fact that other considerations such as manoeuvring and influence in the centre might be more important than pure development, since the position is of a closed nature.

13 e4?

This natural move is actually a positional mistake. It seems that Staunton is exploiting the drawback of playing the Stonewall Defence against a pawn on d3, but on this particular occasion this move is in Black’s interest. The above mentioned manoeuvre ♘b1-d2-f3-e5 was still the strongest option.

13...fxe4?