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

| | #R |

|–––––––––––––|

7 | #P | #Kt| #P | #P | #B | #P | #P | #P |

|–––––––––––––|

6 | | | #P | | | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

5 | | | | | ^P | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

4 | | | | | | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

3 | | | | | | ^Kt| | |

|–––––––––––––|

2 | ^P | ^P | ^P | | ^Q | ^P | ^P | ^P |

|–––––––––––––|

1 | ^R | ^Kt| ^B | | | ^R | ^K | |

–––––––––––––

A B C D E F G H

 

Diag. 25

The whole of the manoeuvres now centre round Black’s endeavours to force his P-Q4, and White’s attempt to prevent it. Black ultimately gains his point, as will be seen, but at the expense of such disadvantages in the pawn position that it is questionable whether the whole variation (called the Rio de Janeiro Defence) is playable.

9. Kt-B3, Castles; 10. R-K1, Kt-B4 (the Knight is to be posted at K3 to bring the White KKt away from his Q4, whence he prevents the advance of Black’s QP by attacking QB6); 11. Kt-Q4, Kt-K3; 12. B-K3, KtxKt; 13. BxKt, P-B4; 14. B-K3, P-Q4; 15. PxP e.p., BxP. This is the critical position in the Rio de Janeiro defence. Black has succeeded in eliminating the White centre pawn, and sweeps long diagonals with his Bishops, but the advantage cannot be maintained. White exchanges the Bishop at Q6, and there remains a backward pawn, which Black will hardly be able to hold permanently. In practice it has been shown that the end-game should be won by White in spite of Bishops of opposite colours, as Black’s pawn at his QB4 is difficult to defend.

16. Kt-K4, B-Kt2; 17. KtxB (not BxP because of BxB; 18. KtxB, BxP followed by Q-Kt4ch), PxKt; 18. Q R-Q1 and P-QB4.

The game is much more favourable for Black if he first plays 3. … P-QR3, and retains the option of driving the White KB away by P-QKt4, after which P-Q4 can be enforced very soon. 3. B-Kt5, P-QR3; 4. B-R4, Kt-B3; 5. Castles, KtxP; 6. P-Q4, P-QKt4; 7. B-Kt3, P-Q4; 8. PxP, B-K3, 9. P-B3.

Now Black’s pieces are more mobile, and that is the reason why this system of defence is becoming more popular than any other.

On the other hand, it cannot be denied that Black’s pawn formation on the Q side is weak, and that his centre is less secure. Whilst White has a pawn firmly posted in the centre, Black has a Knight there which will soon be driven away. White’s Q4, the basis of his centre, is entirely in his hands, whilst Black’s Q4 is exposed to a steady pressure by the White pieces. Finally Black’s QKt is unfavourably placed, obstructing as it does the QBP and preventing its falling into line with its fellows.

Diagram 26 shows the position after 9. P-B3. The latter move prevents the exchange of the B after Black’s Kt-R4, an exchange which would allow Black to round up his pawn formation with P-QB4. The experts are not yet agreed as to the best continuation for Black in this critical position. To be considered are the moves B-QB4, B-K2 and Kt-B4. B-K2 is preferred nowadays to B-QB4, as QB4 should be kept free for the KKt in case the latter is driven from his dominating position, e.g. 10. R-K1 and 11. Q Kt-Q2. For if in that case Black exchanges the Knights, he only furthers White’s development without doing anything towards strengthening his Q4.

If Black covers the Knight with P-B4, White plays PxP e.p. and Kt-Kt5, rids himself of Black’s QB, and thereby weakens Black’s QP still more.

Kt-B4 would therefore seem to be the best choice, as the QB becomes mobile again after White’s B-B2, nor can White

–––––––––––––

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

4 | | | | |#Kt | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

2 | ^P | ^P | | | | ^P | ^P | ^P |

|–––––––––––––|

1 | ^R |^Kt | ^B | ^Q | | ^R | ^K | |

–––––––––––––

A B C D E F G H

 

Diag. 26.

play P-Q4 as yet. The position in the diagram therefore leads to the following variations:

A. 9. … B-K2; 10. R-K1, Castles; 11. QKt-Q2, Kt-B4; 12. B-B2, B-KKt5. This manoeuvre was introduced by Em. Lasker (Petrograd, 1909. For further particulars see Game No. 15).

B. 9. … Kt-B4; 10. QKt-Q2, P-Q5 (Capablanca-Em. Lasker, Petrograd, 1914); or 9. … B-K2; 10. R-K1, Castles; 11. QKt-Q2, Kt-B4; 12. B-B2, P-Q5 (Em. Lasker-Tarrasch, Petrograd, 1914).

Capablanca believes that the early advance of P-Q5 can be refuted by Kt-K4, e.g. 9. … B-K2; 10. QKt-Q2, Kt-B4; 11. B-B2, P-Q5; 12. Kt-K4, PxP; 13. KtxKt, BxKt; 14. B-K4, Q-Q2; 15. Q-B2 or PxP.

The openings as sketched out up to this point give a sufficiently clear idea of the possibilities of combining sound development with an attempt to capture the centre after the opening moves 1. P-K4, P-K4. In most cases, Black’s centre pawn being open to attack by White’s P-Q4, we find an early break-up of the centre, and concurrently the opening of the Ks or Qs file for the Rooks. That is why games opened in this fashion have been classed very generally as “open,” whilst all the other openings are called “close games.” Lately the distinction has been abandoned, and very rightly, since in the latter openings, too, the centre can be cleared occasionally. We attain typical close positions when Black does not play 1. … P-K4 in answer to 1. P-K4, but relinquishes all claim on his K4 and takes possession of his Q4 instead, leaving White the option of interlocking the pawns in the centre with P-K5.

On principle it does not seem advisable for Black to play P-Q4 on the first move in reply to 1. P-K4. Although White’s centre pawn disappears after 2. PxP, QxP, Black loses a move through 3. Kt-QB3, and his Queen has no place from which it cannot be driven away very soon, unless it be at Q1. This, however, would amount to an admission of the inferiority of the whole of Black’s plan.

There are two moves which deserve consideration as a preliminary to P-Q4, namely, 1. … P-K3 (French Defence)

–––––––––––––

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

6 | | | | | #P | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

3 | | | | | | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

2 | ^P | ^P | ^P | | | ^P | ^P |^P |

|–––––––––––––|

1 | ^R |^Kt | ^B | ^Q | ^K | ^B |^Kt |^R |

–––––––––––––

A B C D E F G H

 

Diag. 27

and P-QB3 (Caro-Kann defence). After 2. P-Q4, P-Q4, we attain the positions set out in the Diagrams 27 and 28, to which we must devote a good deal of attention.

These openings are worthy of study as being especially interesting examples of the struggle for the centre.

As early as the third move, White has to take an important decision. Is he to play P-K5 and prevent the opening of

–––––––––––––

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

6 | | | #P | | | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

3 | | | | | | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

2 | ^P | ^P | ^P | | | ^P | ^P | ^P |

|–––––––––––––|

1 | ^R | ^Kt| ^B | ^Q | ^K | ^B | ^Kt| ^R |

–––––––––––––

A B C D E F G H

 

Diag. 28

the K or Q file for a long time to come, or should he proceed to develop his pieces, and leave Black the option of anticipating the blocking of the centre by playing PxP himself?

I shall first turn my attention to those games in which White plays P-K5, starting with the French Defence, after which the Caro-Kann Defence will be easily understood.

The position which ensues in the centre after 1. P-K4, P-K3; 2. P-Q4, P-Q4; 3. P-K5, divides the board diagonally, and it is easy to recognise roughly the main lines of play which will govern the game. White has more scope on the King’s side, where his pieces will have greater mobility, and prospects of attack. Black’s chances are on the Queen’s side. Both sides will have to advance more pawns in order to obtain openings for their Rooks, and use them for the attack, since they have no future on the K and Q files, as was the case in the openings mentioned hitherto.

The obvious moves to this end are: for White the advance of the KBP, for Black that of the QBP and sometimes even of the QKtP, that is when the QBP has not been exchanged for the opposing QP, but has pushed on to B5.

In Diagrams 29 and 30 we see the chains of pawns formed by these manoeuvres.

White’s pawn attack is more dangerous than Black’s,

–––––––––––––

8 | | | | | | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

6 | | | | | #P | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

3 | | | | | | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

2 | ^P | ^P | ^P | | | | ^P | ^P |

|–––––––––––––|

1 | | | | | | | | |

–––––––––––––

A B C D E F G H

 

Diag. 29

because it involves a direct assault on the King. And we shall see that Black will usually be compelled to suspend operations on the Queen’s side temporarily, to ward off the storm by the

–––––––––––––

8 | | | | | | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

6 | | | | | #P | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

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

|–––––––––––––|

3 | | | ^P | | | | | |

|–––––––––––––|

2 | ^P | ^P | | | | | ^P | ^P |

|–––––––––––––|

1 | | | | | | | | |

–––––––––––––

A B C D E F G H

 

Diag. 30

White Pawns on the King’s side. He will attempt this either by P-KB3 attacking White’s centre or by P-KB4 preventing White from playing P-B5. In the latter case White can only make a