Chess Strategy by Edward Lasker (ebook reader with highlight function .TXT) 📖

of the “Stonewall” in the formation of the centre pawns. White develops his Queen’s side just as Black did in the opening shown in connection with Diagram

38.

 

2. Kt-KB3 P-QB4

3. P-K3 Kt-QB3

4. B-Q3 Kt-B3

5. P-QKt3 P-K3

6. B-Kt2 B-Q3

7. QKt-Q2 PxP

8. PxP Castles

–––––––––––––

8 | #R | | #B | #Q | | #R | #K | |

|–––––––––––––|

7 | #P | #P | | | | #P | #P | #P |

|–––––––––––––|

6 | | | #Kt| #B | #P | #Kt| | |

|–––––––––––––|

5 | | | | #P | | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

4 | | | | ^P | | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

3 | | ^P | | ^B | | ^Kt| | |

|–––––––––––––|

2 | ^P | ^B | ^P | ^Kt| | ^P | ^P | ^P |

|–––––––––––––|

1 | ^R | | | ^Q | ^K | | | ^R |

–––––––––––––

A B C D E F G H

 

Diag. 41

White can now settle his Knight at K5, and initiate a violent King’s side attack after castling, by P-KB4, Q-B3, which could be continued with P-KKt4, K-R1, R-KKt1, and so on. Once the position in Diagram 41 has been reached, Black’s resources against the dangerous onslaught of the White forces are scanty. Yet he can retaliate, not by making the simplest and most obvious developing moves, as mentioned before, but in the following way:

If White plays 5. P-QKt3 before castling, Black exchanges pawns and checks with the Queen. Now White has the disagreeable choice between B-Q2 and P-B3. The former must be bad, being contrary to the plan of development as intended by P-QKt3. The latter blocks the very diagonal on which the Bishop was meant to operate. White can open up the diagonal by playing P-QB4 after castling, nor would it really imply the loss of a move to have played the BP twice, since Black must move his Queen again from R4, where she has no future. But in any case there remains the disadvantage that White was forced to play the BP, whilst before he had the option of withholding its advance until a more opportune moment.

Another possible subtlety in Black’s sequence of developing moves would be to withhold the advance of his KP until White has played P-QKt3, and then to play the QB to Kt5. For, as I have already remarked, the objection to developing Black’s Queen’s Bishop lies in White’s threat to attack Black’s QKtP with Q-Kt3. That possibility disappears after P-QKt3.

Before bringing the discussion of the Queen’s Pawn opening to a close, I may remark that in tournaments it has become usual for White not to play P-QB4 at once, but to play Kt-KB3 as a preliminary, in order to avoid the complications of the Queen’s counter gambit: 2. P-QB4, P-K4.

If White plays 3. PxKP, Black’s reply is P-Q5, and the obvious move 4. P-K3 fails on account of the following pretty combination: B—Kt5ch; 5. B—Q2, PxP; 6. BxB, PxPch; 7. K-K2, PxKtch!!; 8. RxKt, B-Kt5ch, etc.

Instead of 4. P-K3, White should play P-KKt3 and develop his KB at Kt2. Black could now try to regain his pawn with Kt-K2-Kt3, but he can also sacrifice a pawn by P-KB3, with a view to rapid development.

It now only remains for us to discover whether Black has any other answer to P-Q4 which would necessitate close analysis on White’s part.

Here must be mentioned: 1. … Kt-KB3, 1. … P-QB4, and 1. … P-KB4. The former move prepares P-Q3, followed by P-K4. In this opening there is no reason why White should play P-QB4, as there is no prospect of opening the QB file for the Rooks. Furthermore, Black has relinquished the square Q4 and made K4 the basis of operations. It will be more advisable to prevent Black from playing P-K4 as far as this can be achieved in conformity with a logical development, e.g. 1. P-Q4, Kt-KB3; 2. Kt-KB3. Not 2. Kt-QB3, because Black could then lead into the Queen’s gambit by playing P-Q4 and P-QB4, after which White has the disadvantage of not being able to open the QB file. 2. … P-Q3; 3. B-B4, QKt-Q2; 4. P-K3. Now Black can only enforce P-K4 after P-B3 and QB2. Meanwhile White mobilises all his pieces, whilst Black’s QB remains blocked and the Kt must remain at Q2 to cover the KP. If, on the other hand, Black exchanges pawns in order to free the Knight, there is no Black centre left.

With regard to the second irregular reply to 1. P-Q4, namely, 1. … P-QB4, two ways are open to White. One is to turn the opening into an ordinary Queen’s gambit by playing P-K3, on which Black can play P-Q4. The second is to play 2. P-Q5. Black will then develop his King’s side with P-KKt3 and B-Kt2. The Bishop is well posted here, and can frequently take up an attacking position at K4 or Q5. (See Game No. 45, Rubinstein v. Spielmann.)

If White plays 2. PxP, we have after 2. … P-K3 a Queen’s gambit accepted by White, and, as pointed out before, this line of play is not commendable.

The last of the three irregular answers mentioned above: 1. … P-KB4 leads to two entirely different plans, according to the second move chosen by White.

White can confine himself to a simple development such as: Kt-KB3, B-Kt5, P-K3, QKt-Q2 (Kt-B3 would only be good if preceded by P-B4, because Black would again lead into a Queen’s gambit with P-Q4 and P-QB4). The other possibility is the following: in view of the fact that 1. … P-KB4 does absolutely nothing to aid development, White can initiate a violent attack by giving up his King’s Pawn (P-K4) and thus accelerate his own development. The play might be as follows: 2. … PxP; 3. Kt-QB3, Kt-KB3; 4. B-KKt5, P-B3 (P-Q4? 5. BxKt followed by Q-R5ch); 5. P-B3. If Black takes the pawn he lays himself open to an attack hard to meet. It seems best to play 5. … P-K6, which calls back the White QB and leaves White’s BP as a hindrance to the development of the KKt.

IRREGULAR OPENINGS

Many openings in which neither P-K4 nor P-Q4 is the first move lead to well-known positions by a simple transposition of moves. For instance, a Queen’s gambit may well have the following opening moves: 1. P-QB4, Kt-KB3; 2. Kt-KB3, P-K3; 3. Kt-B3, P-B4; 4. P-K3, P-Q4; 5. P-Q4, or a French defence these: 1. Kt-QB3, P-Q4; 2. P-Q4, Kt-KB3; 3. B-Kt5, P-K3; 4. P-K4.

There are, of course, systems of opening which deviate absolutely from those which have been proved sound and are in general use, and it is those openings that puzzle the beginner most of all. He says: What is the good of learning correct openings, if my opponent plays incorrectly and wins all the same? This line of thought is wrong from its inception. The student is not supposed to “learn” openings by heart, but to UNDERSTAND how the general principles of Chess Strategy are applied to any opening. Such knowledge can never be obtained from a tabulated analysis, but can only be arrived at by the application of common sense. If a player succeeds in winning in spite of an inferior opening, it only proves that subsequently he has played a stronger game than his opponent, who, after playing the opening according to the book, did not know how to proceed further. And herein lies the weakness, and not in the absence of knowledge of the analysis of openings. The latter is rated far too highly. Any player will hold his own in the opening, as soon as he has grasped the real meaning of those principles which I cannot repeat often enough, viz.: 1st, quick development of pieces and avoidance of lost moves; 2nd, the maintenance of a pawn centre, hampering the development of the opposing forces, and the avoidance of pawn moves that do not contribute to the development of pieces.

How to conduct the middle game and end-game is not entirely a matter of deduction from such general rules. In order to play the end-game correctly, one must know certain things and positions which arise from and may be said to be peculiar to the purely arbitrary rules of chess. The same applies to the middle game, as in most cases it must be played with a view to the end-game which ensues, unless there be a chance of mating the opponent before. The student should have, therefore, a knowledge of the end-game before he can hope to be able to conduct the middle game efficiently. For this reason I have decided to treat of the end-game first.