39 ... Kh8
After 39 ... fxg5 40 Qxg5, 40 ... Nf6 is no longer feasible, and accordingly the breakthrough by f6 wins in all variations.
40 gxf6 gxf6?!
This loses quickly. A better resistance and even some chances of a draw were offered by the continuation 40 ... Nxf6 41 Ne5 Qe8 42 Nxb3 Rxb3 43 Ng6+ Kg8 44 Nxe7+ Qxe7 45 Qg3.
41 Nxb3 Rxb3
42 Nh6! Rg7 43 Rxg7 Kxg7 44 Qg3+! Kxh6 45 Kh1 Qd5
45 ... c2 would also be met by 46 Rg1.
46 Rg1 Qxf5 47 Qh4+ Qh5 48 Qf4+ Qg5 49 Rxg5 fxg5 50 Qd6+ Kh5 51 Qxd7 c2
Black allows himself to be mated, but after 51 ... Rb1+ 52 Kg2 Rb2+ 53 Kg3 Kg6 Black must lose eventually.
52 Qxh7#
This famous game has its place in chess literature as a classic example of an attack on the castled king which is stronger than the counterattack on the queenside. But in the light of my annotations, which differ fundamentally from all annotations hitherto, from Tarrasch to Réti, this game takes on a new appearance. Black’s numerous opportunities to strengthen his game at various stages point rather to the equal balance between the attack and the indirect defence, and it was only the decisive mistake on the thirty-eighth move which swung the balance in White’s favour. This view of the game also qualifies it as a good example of the importance of indirect defence against an attack on the castled king, and of the part played by operations with wing pawns in particular.
Indirect defence by means of advancing a pawn majority on the queenside was at one time held in high esteem and was more often practised than nowadays; the real reason for this is that we have acquired a better understanding of the centre and the technique of centralization, thanks to the hypermodern school. It is clear that the player who has a majority on the wing, when the material is equally balanced, will usually not have the greater influence or pressure in the centre, nor will he have the necessary conditions for a central action. A majority on the wing is created at the expense of the centre and means giving up lateral pressure on the centre, and that is the sort of strategy which the masters of today are reluctant to adopt. The struggle for the centre is a characteristic feature of all present-day openings, and the centralization of the pieces is an important theme of modern positional play; as a result, a majority on the wing appears nowadays more as a by-product of a particular strategy than its primary aim (for example, in the Exchange Variation of the Grünfeld Defence).
Thus, concern for the centre is driving majority actions out of use, and it should be added that an indirect defence against an attack on the castled king is more effective and holds better prospects of success in the form of a central action than one using wing pawns. This is shown by the following general considerations.
1) Advancing pawns on the opposite wing is a slow process, since, as a rule, the whole pawn chain must move forward for a passed pawn to be created.
2) The attacker knows which pawn is going to be dangerous and so can arrange to contain it economically, either by preparing to block the pawn with a piece or by planning ahead to sacrifice a piece for the passed pawn, which in fact means surrendering the piece in return for a considerable number of tempi.
3) Advancing pawns on the opposite wing is an action which is furthest in distance from the threatened castled position and which is the hardest to combine with, or transform into, direct defence.
These are the general deficiencies of indirect defence using the wing pawns, and they limit its use mainly to the following cases:
a) The attack on the castled king develops slowly, demanding a regrouping or perhaps a series of pawn moves; it does not lead to a forced mate, for a defence can be bought at the price of material;
b) Direct defence is on the whole sufficient but it may be usefully combined with something else; in other words, the defender has some tempi left over which he can devote to alternative actions, including those using the wing pawns.
These, then, are the general factors which speak for, or against, indirect defence by means of the wing pawns, but in this case too the reader must overcome any inclination to think merely in terms of formulae, since the essence of a formula often consists of ‘exceptions which prove the rule’.
Defence by counterattack
Venturing further into the broad field of indirect defence, we next concern ourselves with a series of cases in which methods other than a pawn thrust in the centre are used. We shall examine five examples from the point of view of the following factors:
1) The area of the counterattack and the conditions underlying it.
2) The part played by the material situation in relation to positional considerations.
3) The interweaving of indirect defence with direct and the switching from one to the other.
4) The dependence of timing and the form of defence on the state of the attacker’s commitments.
The following position is from the game K.Treybal-H.Wolf, Teplitz-Schönau 1922.
Black, to move, has the task of organizing a defence against an attack on his king position. A single glance is enough to show that he has no move to make in the way of direct defence. The only move in keeping with that would be 1 ... Kh7, but that would simply make White’s attack easier. For example. White will in any case play Rf4-h4 and then (with the king on h7) the square g5 will be available for his queen, besides which there is a threat of Bc1 followed by Rxh6 with check. Therefore, indirect defence must be used to obstruct White’s plan to gain control of h6. With that aim, only an action on the queenside can be considered, for Black cannot achieve anything in the centre.
1 ... a5 2 Rf4 a4 3 Raf1 axb3 4 axb3 Ra2!
Very well played! Black first of all makes it difficult for White to redeploy his queen and bishop, a course which is necessary for an attack on h6; moreover, there is an eventual threat of ... Rxb2 followed by ... Nd3.
5 Rh4 Rb8
Suddenly Black threatens 6 ... Nxc4; he has worked up a definite counterattack, and White is still quite a long way from having any serious threats on the kingside.
6 Qc3
Black has succeeded in persuading White’s queen to leave the attacking diagonal. 6 Rxh6 would not have worked because of 6 ... Rxb2 7 Qg5 Qg4 and White has nothing. An interesting possibility was 6 Nf5, which probably leads to a draw; objectively, this would not have been at all bad, for Black could have gained some advantage after White’s actual move. The analysis runs 6 ... gxf5 (6 ... Rxb2 fails against 7 Nxh6+ Bxh6 8 Qxh6) 7 Rxh6 Rxb2 8 Qg5+ Ng6 9 Rxg6+ fxg6 10 Qxg6+ Kh8 11 Rf4 (this attempt does not give more than perpetual check, which White would also obtain by 11 Qh5+) 11 ... Rb1+ 12 Kf2 Rb2+ 13 Ke1 Rb1+ (if 13 ... Qxe4+ 14 Rxe4 fxe4, White wins by 15 f7!) 14 Kd2 Rb2+ 15 Kc1 Rb1+! 16 Kxb1 Rxb3+ 17 Ka2 Rb2+ 18 Ka3 (or 18 Kxb2 Qe5+ and 19 ... Qxf4) 18 ... Ra2+, and White’s king cannot escape from perpetual check.
JN: Black can play for a win by 17 ... Rh3! since after 18 gxh3 Qxc4+ he can win the rook on f4 with a series of checks.
6 ... Nxc4?
The wrong turning, since White now plays Bc1 with gain of tempo, placing the bishop on the diagonal where it really belongs. The correct continuation of the defence consisted in giving, not taking, material, e.g. 6 ... Rxb2! 7 Qxb2 Nxc4 8 Qc3 (or 8 Qc1 Ne5 9 Rxh6 Rxb3, after which both 10 Qg5 Qg4 and 10 Rf5 Ng4 are in Black’s favour) 8 ... Ne5 9 Rb1 c4 10 b4 Qxf6 11 Rh3 Bg7 and Black has the better prospects. Wolf, of course, was not the master to decide on ‘giving’ when he could ‘take’. His saying was: ‘Why should I sacrifice when nobody sacrifices for me!?’ But the consistent implementation of a plan with a sound positional basis often demands sacrificial conceptions, as in the analysis above, which is both typical and instructive. We can see here how an element of direct defence is also involved – the elimination of White’s bishop, which plays an essential part in his mating plans. White’s attack then flags, whereupon Black takes some pawns, centralizes his position, and brands White’s rook on h4 as misplaced; the defence welds the various elements of the position into a single whole.
7 Bc1
7 ... Ne5
In sharp positions like this everything should be considered, including moves like 7 ... g5. The latter represents a simultaneous combination of direct and indirect defence: Black drives back the rook, blocks the diagonal of the enemy bishop, and frees the square g6 for the knight – all direct elements – while the indirect appears in certain continuations where Black’s g-pawn takes part in a counterattack. Let us look at some ways in which White can go astray after 7 ... g5. First of all, the ‘natural’ move 8 Rh5? is unsatisfactory because of 8 ... Ne5 9 Bxg5 (after 9 Nf5 Ng4! the attack on the e-pawn gains a tempo) 9 ... Rxb3 10 Qc1 Rxg3 11 hxg3 Qg4.
Nor is 8 Nf5? gxh4 9 Qf3 Ne5 10 Qh5 good, e.g. 10 ... Rxb3 11 Nxh6+ (or 11 Bxh6 Rbb2!) 11 ... Bxh6 12 Qxh6 Qg4 when the clearing of the g-file enables Black to cover the focal-point at g7. The g-pawn takes an active role in the continuation 8 Rh3 g4 9 bxc4 gxh3, when the threat of ... Rxg2+ costs White a decisive tempo.
The correct response to 7 ... g5 is 8 Rh3! g4 (if 8 ... Ne5 then 9 Nf5, after which the b-pawn is protected) and now 9 Rh5! (instead of 9 bxc4 as above) 9 ... Ne5 10 Bxh6 Bxh6 (if 10 ... Rxb3 then 11 Qc1 wins) 11 Rxh6 Rxb3 12 Qc1 Ng6 13 Rh8+ Nxh8 14 Qh6 and White wins. Here White’s play against the focal-point g7 is unhindered, since g4 is blocked by Black’s own pawn.
8 Bxh6 Bxh6?
At the very least, this is a tactical mistake; for, by 8 ... Rxb3 Black could have presented White with an exceptionally difficult problem and involved him in considerable risk if he persisted in playing for a win. The text move, however, gives White no difficulties and allows him to win easily.
Grünfeld and Becker, the authors of the tournament book – one of the best in the literature of the game – rightly censure Black’s move, but their analysis of the continuation 8 ... Rxb3! is not correct. In the variation which they conclude with a drawn ending Black can eventually win, while in that which they consider won for Black the position can be resolved in White’s favour. These lines together with my analysis will interest the reader as general studies of the middlegame. Here is a diagram after the alternative 8 ... Rxb3!.
Grünfeld and Becker reach a draw as follows: 9 Bxf8 g5! (otherwise 10 Bg7 and mate) 10 Rh5 Rxc3 11 Bg7 Ng6 12 Nf5. In their opinion Black now has no defence against perpetual check by Nh6+. In fact, Black still has something to say and can play 12 ... Rxg2+! 13 Kh1 (if 13 Kxg2 then 13 ... Qxe4+ and Black has no trouble picking up the rook on h5) 13 ... Rxh2+ 14 Kxh2 (or 14 Rxh2 Qxe4+ followed by ... Nh4) 14 ... Qe5+ 15 Kg1 Rg3+ 16 Kh2 (16 Nxg3 Qxg3+ 17 Kh1 Qg4 followed by ... Qxe4+, ... c4, etc) 16 ... Rf3+ 17 Kg1 (or 17 Kg2 Rxf5 18 exf5 Qe2+ 19 Rf2 Nf4+) 17 ... Rxf1+ 18 Kxf1 Qf4+ and White loses either his rook or his knight.
The second line given by the same commentators aims to show that 8 ... Rxb3! cannot be answered by 9 Qc1 because of 9 ... Ng4 10 Bxf8 Rbb2 11 Bg7 Rxg2+ 12 Kh1 Rxh2+ 13 Rxh2 Rxh2+ 14 Kg1 Qa2 and Black wins. But if White, instead of 11 Bg7?, plays 11 Qxb2! Rxb2 12 Bg7 then Black loses. Correct after 9 Qc1 is at once 9 ... Rbb2, whereupon 10 Bxf8 does not work because of 10 ... Rxg2+ 11 Kh1 Ng4!.
Now here is my analysis. First of all, let me explain why 9 Bxf8? g5! 10 Qc1, not mentioned by the commentators, does not work. Black replies 10 ... gxh4 and then 11 Qh6 is useless on account of 11 ... Qg4, while 11 Qg5+ fails against 11 ... Kxf8 12 Nf5 Rbb2! when White’s attack is halted – he cannot get any further than Qh6+ and Ng7+ because of the threat of mate that faces him on g2 and h2. A third possibility is 11 Nf5 Rbb2! 12 Ne7+ Qxe7 13 Qg5+ (if 13 Qxb2 then 13 ... Qe6) 13 ... Kxf8 14 fxe7+ Ke8, when it can be seen that White has achieved nothing. In return for his rooks Black will win the queen and the pawns on g2 and e7, thus obtaining an advantage in the ending.
The above diagram is a hard nut to crack, and the way to attempt it is as follows: 9 Qc1! Rbb2! 10 Qxb2! Rxb2 11 Bxf8 g5 12 Rh5 Ng6 13 Bg7.
Now White has the same position as in the first line above but with a tempo less and a rook more. He wins in the following variations:
1) 13 ... c4 14 Nf5 Rxg2+ (otherwise 15 Ne7+ wins) 15 Kxg2 Qxe4+ 16 Kg3 Qe5+ 17 Kh3 g4+ (if 17 ... Qc3+ the king escapes from the checks on g1) 18 Kg2 Qb2+ 19 Kg1 Qb6+ 20 Rf2! Qb1+ 21 Kg2 Qe4+ 22 Kg3 Qd3+ 23 Kxg4 Qd1+ (or 23 ... Ne5+ 24 Kg5 Nf3+ 25 Kh6) 24 Rf3! Ne5+ 25 Kg5 Nxf3+ 26 Kf4 Qd2+ 27 Ne3 Qd4+ 28 Kxf3 and White wins.
JN: 15 Kh1! wins straight away.
2) 13 ... Qg4 14 Rh6 Rb8 (parrying the threat of 15 Rxg6) 15 Re1 Re8 16 Nf5 Rxe4 (otherwise 17 Rxg6) 17 Ne7+ Rxe7 18 fxe7 Nxe7 19 Bf6 and White wins.
3) 13 ... Rb8 14 Nf5 Re8 (if 14 ... Qxe4 then a round of checks by the knight – Nh6+, Nxf7+, Nh6+, Nf5+ – and finally f7+ leads to the win of the queen) 15 Nh6+ Kh7 16 Nxf7+ Kg8 17 Nxg5 Qe5 18 h4 Ra8 (or 18 ... Rf8 19 f7+ Kxg7 20 Rh7#) 19 Rh6 Ra1 20 f7+ Kxg7 21 Rxg6+ Kxg6 22 f8Q and again White wins.
Of Black’s other moves the most difficult to deal with is 13 ... Qc4, threatening 14 ... Qc2. White is then able to draw by 14 Ra1 Ra2 15 Rb1 Rb2 16 Ra1 etc, but can he also win? This may be left to the reader to examine.
JN: In this line 15 ... Qd4+ 16 Kh1 Ra1 wins for Black – indeed, White seems to be struggling after 13 ... Qc4.
We shall return to the game, where Black played 8 ... Bxh6?.
9 Rxh6 Qxb3
Black also loses after 9 ... Rxb3 10 Qc1 Ng4 11 Qg5! Rbb2 12 Rxg6+.
10 Qc1 Ng4
Now the main defect in Black’s eighth move can be seen: White is at once threatening 11 Rh8+.
11 Nf5! Re8 12 Rh4 Rxe4 13 Ne7+ Rxe7 14 fxe7 Re2 15 Rxg4 Qe3+ 16 Qxe3 Rxe3 17 Rxg6+! Kh7 18 Rgf6 1-0
This position, from the game Yates-Marco, The Hague 1921, arose after the moves 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 Nd7 4 Bc4 c6 5 Nc3 Be7 6 0-0 h6 7 Be3 Ngf6 8 Bb3 Qc7 9 Nd2 g5 10 a4 Nf8 11 a5 Ng6 12 Re1 Nf4 13 f3 Rg8 14 Nf1 Be6 15 Ng3
Black has played his favourite Hanham Variation of the Philidor, obtaining the advantage and an attack on the white king; this is the natural result of White’s extravagant treatment of the opening (unmotivated moves a5 and f3 at an earlier stage of the game). Marco (Black), to move, spoils his position by provoking d5 which he does in order to continue with a sacrifice in the old ‘paprika style’.
15 ... Qd7?
Black had excellent prospects of carrying out an attack using his pawns (15 ... g4 or 15 ... h5) without any material risk, but he has seen the chance of a bishop sacrifice on h3 with play against the focal-point g2 and cannot resist it.
16 d5
White rightly falls in with Black’s intentions and forces him to continue with ... Bh3.
16 ... Bh3 17 gxh3?
White decides to accept the sacrifice and to employ direct defence against the attack on his king. With good play he could certainly have come through by this method, but the right way to refute the offer is not by accepting it but by applying indirect defence in the shape of a counterattack on the queenside. After d5 there is also some point to the earlier advance a5, since an attack can now be made on Black’s pawn chain at b7 and c6, as a result of which White obtains the better pawn structure and an advantage in space on the queenside and also frees the square d5 for a centralized piece.
The analysis runs 17 a6! Nxg2 (if 17 ... Bxg2 then 18 axb7 Qxb7 19 Ba4, when White wins the exchange and gains space, while if Black advances his b-pawn, then 18 dxc6 Qc8 represents a strengthening of White’s position, after which the conditions for accepting the sacrifice are extremely good) 18 axb7 Qxb7 19 dxc6 (if 19 Ba4, as mentioned by Tartakower in The Hypermodern Game, Black would reply 19 ... Nxe3 20 Rxe3 Bd7) 19 ... Qc8 20 Nd5! (a typical example of play on the principle that the most important feature of the position, in this case White’s pressure on the queenside, takes priority; it should be observed that in pursuing this policy White must also be prepared to lose the exchange) 20 ... Nxe1 (it might seem more consistent for Black not to make this capture but to press on with his assault; in fact, the chief attacking moves do not work, e.g. 20 ... h5 21 Nxf6+ and 22 Nxh5, 20 ... g4 21 Nxe7 Kxe7 22 Nf5+ and White stands better, and finally 20 ... Nxd5 21 Bxd5 after which 21 ... Qc7, to prevent the advance of the c
-pawn, is strongly answered by 22 b4) 21 Qxe1 Be6 (Black must abandon his attack on the king and defend himself in the centre and on the queenside; the decisive factor is that 21 ... g4 is useless because of 22 f4) 22 Qa5 Bxd5 23 Bxd5 Nxd5 24 Qxd5 Qe6 (otherwise 25 c7!) 25 b4! and White has an overwhelming game.
The chief feature of this line is the complete absence of direct defence. White gives up the pawn on g2 and the exchange, which effectively blunts Black’s attack, while his excellently-founded action on the queenside gains in power with every move.
17 ... Qxh3
18 Qd2?
After this excessively passive move Black has the better chances. In such positions it is often important to oppose the attacker’s queen with one’s own – in this case on f1. It was with this aim that Maróczy proposed 18 Re2! g4 19 Qf1. Naturally, White gladly offers the exchange in order to weaken the attack by giving back some material while at the same time still retaining some material advantage. Thus after 19 ... gxf3 20 Qxf3 Nxe2+ 21 Ncxe2 Black’s only move to prevent White from consolidating completely is 21 ... Ng4, but then White immediately gets the chance to counterattack. i.e. 22 dxc6! Qxh2+ 23 Kf1 Nxe3+ 24 Qxe3. The further sharpening of the attack by 24 ... Bh4 would be dangerous because of 25 cxb7.
We shall examine two more variations arising out of 18 Re2! g4 19 Qf1 gxf3 20 Qxf3:
1) 20 ... N6h5 21 Bxf4! exf4 22 dxc6. Black cannot win a piece now, since 22 ... fxg3? permits the white queen to capture on 23 Qxf7+, while 22 ... Nxg3 can be met by 23 Rg2.
Black must be modest and play 22 ... bxc6, allowing White to consolidate by 23 Rg2. The risk involved in 22 ... 0-0-0 is illustrated by the continuation 23 Nd5! Nxg3 (23 ... fxg3 24 Qf5+ Qxf5 25 Nxe7+ Kb8 26 exf5 favours White) 24 Nxe7+ Kb8 25 Rg2 Ne2+ 26 Qxe2 f3 27 c7+ Kxc7 28 Nd5+ Kb8 29 Nf4!, with a characteristic switch from indirect to direct defence; after 29 ... Rxg2+ 30 Qxg2 White captures the pawn on f3 and remains the better placed.
Art of Attack in Chess Page 23